ML19241B633
| ML19241B633 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 06/15/1979 |
| From: | Olmstead W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7907190682 | |
| Download: ML19241B633 (5) | |
Text
'
f 6/15/79 EO PUhLIC Dncgg gy.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA h
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
mco g
USNEO BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAPD 2
JUN131970# $
e~ %;
/,)Q In the Matter of y,
3
_ t./
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-329
%rf G/
)
R-330 O
(Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
(Remand Proceeding)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO CONSUMEfT, MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION On March 30, 1979, Consumers Power Company filed a Motion for Summary Dispositior concerning the matters set forth in Part II of the Licensing Board's Order Concerning Remanded Issues, dated January 4,1979. That portion of the Board's Order concerned the charges relating to the conduct of Consumers and its counsel in the construction permit suspension proceeding which the Board was directed by the Conmission and Appeal Board to air and remlve whether or not the parties were themselves interested in pursuing the matter.
(Unpublished Order dated November 6,1978). On April 19, 1979, the NRC Staff filed a response opposing that Motion as premature.
In its Order dated May 3,1979, this Board deferred ruling on Cons mers Mation until after completion of 9
discovery and allowed the Staff and other parties until June 15, 1979 to file wnatever response they deemed appropriate.
The NRC Staff continues to oppose the motion.
The Commission's Rules of Practice (10 C.F.R. s2.749) permit the filing of mctions for summary disposition concarning material facts as to which there 515 318 a
g g@ N
.,, is no genuine issue to be heard. This Licensing Board has repeatedly stated (most recently during today's 11 A.M. conference t.all) that it had not, as yet, preferred any chcrges.
Rather, the forthcoming hearings are for the purpose of conducting an in-depth on-the-record hearing ir to the issues identified in the Board's May 3 and June 12 Orders.
Since no charges ce as yet identified and placed in issae, it is most difficult to determine wn:ther the facts, as identified by Consumers, are disputed, much less material.
For this reason alone, ruling on Consumers' motion at this point would be premature.
With the foregoing caveat in mind, the NRC Staff has no w'odantial disagreement wit'1 the facts stated by Consumers in paragraphs 1 -10,13-15,18, 20-22. and 25-27.
The NRC Staff does take issue, however, with certain aspects of the remainder of Consumers' statement of bcts as to which it contends there is no r ter'.a1 issue.
In paragraphs 11,12 and 19, Consumers indicates That Ccnsumers' attorneys at no time suggested tendering witnesses at the suspension hearings who did not have knowledge of Dow's Michigan Division po',ition on the Dow-Consumers steam contract.
The depositions of Mr. Nute (Tr.132) and Mr. Hanes (Tr.15, 44 and 64) put this statement in issue.
In paragraph 17, t.he decision of the Dow U.S. A. board is characterized as contrary to the Michigan Division position and as
" authoritative".
The NRC Staff believes'this is a conclusion rather than a statement of fact and must await completion of this proceeding for final d@t)f inat}o 3
4 Paragraphs 23 and 24 concern whether Dow representatives wanted nere information in the Temple testinony and whether Mr. Temple disclosed all relevant information in his direct testimony. Mr. Wessel's deposition, among others, raises factual matters which may be construed to dispute this conclusion.
See Wessel Tr. 203.
Further, while Consumers does not allege otherwise, it should be noted for the record that the NRC Staff did not state in its December 30, l'176 aemorandum that Mr. Temple's direct testinony fully revealed the reasons "why" the Dow corporate decision was made, if Mr. Temple knew.
For the foregoing reascas, the NRC Staff opposes Consumers' motion for summary disposition.
Respectfully s bmitted,
, UnY William J.
mstead Counsel for NRC Staff Dr.ted at Bethesda, Maryland this 15th day of June, 1979.
515 320
4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE Ti1E ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD r
In the Matter of
}
}
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-329
)
50-330 i
(Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
(Remand Proceeding)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO CONSUMERS' MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION" dated June 15,19/9 in the above-captioned proceeding, have been served on the following, by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 15th day of June,1979.
- Marshall E. Miller, Esq.
Ms. Mary Sinclair Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 5711 Summerset Street U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Midland, Michigan 48640 Washington, D. C.
20555 Harold F. Reis, Esq.
Dr. J. Venn Leeds Jr.
~.soert Lowenstein, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Lowenstein, Newman, Reis and 10807 Atweil Axel rad Houston, Texas 77096 1025 Connecticut Avenue Washington, D. C.
20036
- Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Gerald Charnoff, Esq.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Washington, D. C.
20555 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 Juod L. Bacon, Esq.
Legal Department Mr. Steve Gadler Consumers Power Company 2120 Carter Avenue 212 West Michigan Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 Jackson, Michigan 49201 Grant J. Merritt, Esq.
- Docketing and Service Section Thompson, Nielsen, Klaverkamp Office of the Secretary
& James U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Contission 80 S. Eighth Street Washington, D. C.
20555 Minneapolis, Minn.
55402 515 321 b
. Michael I. Miller, Esq.
R. L. Davis, Esq.
Ronald G. Zamarin, Esq.
J. E. Dicks, Esq.
i Martha E. Gibbs, Esq.
L. F. flute, Esq.
Caryl A. Bartelman, Esq.
The Dow Chemical Company Isham, Lincoln & Beale Legal Dept., 47 Bldg.
One First National Plaza Midland, Michigan 48640 42nd Floor i
i Chicago, Illinois 60603
- Atomic Safety and Licensing i
Board Panel U.S. fluclear Regulatory Conmission Washington, D. C.
20555
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal 'onel U.S. Nuc. ear Regulatory Conmission Washinc.on, D. C.
20555 William C. Potter, Jr.
Fisciler, Franklin, Ford, Sin'an a Hogg 1700 Guardian Building betroit, Michiga, 18226 Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
1 IBM Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60611
//;.,
..hN
/
ITiiliam J. Olmstead Counsel for NRC Staff 515 322