ML19344A084

Responds to ASLB 760921 Orders Re Remanded Hearing.Request to Dow Chemical Co Counsel for Discussion Re Document Production Encl.Forwards Motion Requesting Extension of Time

ML19344A084
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	09/27/1976
From:	Cherry M CHERRY, M.M./CHERRY, FLYNN & KANTER
To:	Head D Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML19344A085	List: ML19344A084 ML19344A090 ML19344A091
References
NUDOCS 8007290964
Download: ML19344A084 (5)

Text

'4 o .

=w _ -

-

• law CFrtCES ,

MYRO N M. CH ER RY f W, \

. o e. c s e 4 ptara M' ^ 'N CHICAGO. it.LINols Got il y $Y c 3 am , . . . . . , ,

1[.f g>-

27 76 2 4 27, oCT

\ , ,

Septembe 1976

.C 4:A v e "5Y,," /

% b/'

y's.- '!/ i Daniel M.. Head, Esq., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing .

Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

' Washington, D. C.' 20555 Re: Consumers Power Company (Midl ant, Units 1 & 2)

Nos. nd 50-330

Dear Chairman Head:

I have attempted to resolve the extension request amicably but have been unable to' do so.

I might add that in my telephone conversation Friday with Mr. Reis and.Mr. Brown, Mr.-Reis stated that he believed that' a hearing on the Midland' suspension issue- could take .as -

long as three to four days just for presentation of Consumers' direct case. I find such an estimate by Mr. Reis to be wholly out of line with the issues placed before the Board and it suggests to me that Mr. Reis is' perhaps contemplating 'a hearing procedure which is somewhat different than I believe is necessary under the circumstances. .

I enclose a motion requesting a-medest extension.of time with the. reasons therefor. The extension request must be

~ taken in the light of the fact that November 15 is the earliest date upon which;I can be available #or hearing in Midland and no other lawyer is prepared (or willing in light of the fact that

Intervenors have -little funds and their requests for fees have been continually ignored by the Nuclear Re,gulatory Commission),

to represent Intervenors.

l

-In response to-the Licensinp, Board's orders of September 4 121,^I confirm the following:

.l. Intervenors stand _onetheir brief filed by messenger  ;

1 on September 10 and do not intend to supplement any of the issues

~

~

L i argueditherein since we believe we have filed a brief adequate to comply _withLthe Board's desire to have legal matters briefed by, 80072goggg, .

- , .. =

--n - . ~

bc :

- +

~

m 3 ,] .. .}

t ' n. . ,

i h'" . ,

. Daniel M.. Head,'Esq., Chdirmani

. ~

i

, _l h September?27,J1976- -

P

- Page 2i e . .

p ~

. September 29, 1976._. Since'the.other. parties have the1 benefit of n Jour brief forisome: time,..we'would hope that they would deal with-

[

the ! issues as 'we view them, thus assisting the : Board in its delib-l

'eration. :t

.2. It is extremely impossible for me to. determine how long any remanded hearings may1take. Ton give you an idea of the 4

L

! complexity of the remanded' hearings, I enclose a copy of a letter: l i 'which I-sent to Director.Rusche which I adopt herein as a short-In addition, I point out

~

l summary:of what'I-think the issues are.

, that-weiwill need information fromLDow Chemical on it s revised .

Eviews about a; nuclear: power plant inLMidland. Since major. issues-

~

~

{-

involve energy. conservation'and the effects on the environment of -

.the end-use of' energy,.we will need discovery to.-. determine Consumers'

[t major-customers'(such as~Dow and. Genera 1' Motors) to' determine whether the'NEPA oughtcto:-encourage or-discourage those uses. Moreover,:I~

cannot contemplate what discovery we will need.in_ connection with a-

~ ,

3 revised ACRS; letter untilable? toodiscus's in (some~ depth what yI believe the time limits are ibecause presumablyjat thattpoint Consumerst Dow;and!the Staff:will'

, , jhave madeDknown;theiriintentions with' respect to coop'eration in-dis- ~

~

ccovery.. ' #

7

, o

- a w ,

7 T

• 'fr- 4 4 ,.w, M,4 :-? , ma , gu . _ , .

i

.~.

Daniel M. Head, Esq., Chairman September 27,;1976 Page-3

5. Since the function of.a remanded hearing Lis a function of the issues and~the length of time it takes to conclude discovery, it is beyond my present abaility to guess how long the remanded hear-ings will take. I cannot conceive that the process will take less than six months, and it is entirely possible that.it could take~sig-nificantly longer;-given the history of these proceedings and the constant refusal of.the Staff and the other parties to produce infor-mation and Intervenors'. financial problems, remanded hearings could take as long as two years.

This above statement represents my best good-faith effort at trying to respond at this juncture to the Board's requests with respect to a remanded hearing. .

Because of Intervenors' views as to the absolute necessity

.to suspend Midland construction during remanded hearings, I must respectfully make known my intentions to take an immediate appeal to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (or alternatively, show-cause contempt proceedings or mandamus proceedings) in the event

.that the'NRC declines to obey the Aeschliman decision to halt construc-tion pending remanded hearings, and I continu'e to suggestEt-o all con-cerned that Consumers Power Company and the Regulatory Staff are presently permitting work to be done pursuant:to an illegally obtained construction permit. I'say this. not out of any disrespect to the up-coming proceedings, but merely to-reaffirm to the Licensing Board and others our views. e i

Resp ctfully, l

4y f

i ,

D, b/f-- h

- Myron/M. Cherry ,

Attorney'for Saginaw an,d MagetonIntervenors' t

MMC / ldh.

Enclosure-Rec : All Counsel,. Members of the.LicensingLBoard and -

' Secretary .

9

'w.

LAW OFFICES MYR O N M. CH E R RY onteau ruasA CHICAGO. lLLINoIS Go611 N '

wn M.,,n /'

/

. ?S?P 3 September 27, 1976 Ci OC7 I-2 U o&"Atk!"197 Milton R. Wessel, Esq. q, (}9 ,~J5' 4 Little Lane- "I ~

White Plains, New York 10605 -

James N. O'Connor, Esq.

The Dow Chemical Company 2030 Dow Center Midland, Michigan 48640 Re: Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 & 2)

Nos. 50-329 and 50-330 Gentlemen:

My latest information is that each of you are still representing or will be involved on behalf of Dow Chemical Company in connection with the suspension proceedings and re-manded hearings. I enclose a copy of a motion which I just filed in connection with an extension of time request. I did not solicit either of your views in connection with an adjourned hearing, primarily because after Consumers Pouer Company had ob-jected, it became necessary for me to file a motion in any event.

Because I uish any suspension hearings (and remanded hearings thereafter) to take place on a timely basis, I mn ask-ing if one of you will contact me to discuss the production of documents-in the possession of Dow Chemical,,which are relevant to the suspension and remanded proceedings.

I can generally > state that the documents which I will ultimately want will include Dow's plans.for processed. steam (including whether it is no longer economic for Dow to rely upon processed steam-for-a nuclear facility) and documents concerning Dow's contract with Consumers Power Company, including corres-pondence and memorandums on these issues for the past several

. years.

I hereby make request that in the event the Board schedules _ a . suspension hearing . (I have also asked for the hear-ingsLto-be_ adjourned since_they involve purely legal questions, but apparently the Board has different views), Dow be prepared

.to' have available at said hearings the following: i f

Milton R. k'essel, Esq.

~

James N. O'Connor, Esq.'

September 27, 1976 Page 2

1. Joe Temple to.be available for questioning by Intervenors on the status of Dow's contractual relationships with Consumers Power on the Midland facility, and Dow's cur-rent views as to its ability to rely upon processed steam, in the economic nature, for that facility. I do not want to get into a lot of detail but only to confirm my belief that Dow no longer relies upon the Midland nuclear facility for procesced steam in its immediate and near-term plans;

2. Dow contracts with Consumers regarding the Midland o

facility and any amendments thereto;

3. Correspondence, memos and other. documents, initi-ated by, received by or in the' possession of Dow Chemical Company concerning implementation of the Dou-Consumers contract and Dow's beliefs, opinions or views concerning processed , steam to be gen-erated by the nuclear p.ower plant in addition to, as alternatives to or as standby reserve to processed steam from other sources including.Dow's fossil fuel facilities.. In this connection, I would also briefly ask questions about the necessity for Dow to comply, Ant a timely basis, with Michigan's Air Quality Standards, a compliance.which I believe Dow must meet in advance of any build-

'ing of the Midland nuclear facility on'any basis.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

Sin erely,

~

\

Ch '

rll .x

> -t L1 d9 E. Cherry l G V -

At,6r ey for-Saginaw and Ihnleton Intervenors N7 MMC / ldh cc: :Mr. C. R. Stephens -

Richard Brown, Esq. -

Howard J.:.Vogel,- Esq.

Hon. Curt T..Schneider Daniel:M. Head,;Esq.

Dr. Emmeth'A. Luebke-Dr..J. Venn Leeds, Jr.

. Harold:F.JReis, Esq.

9 f