ML19343D246
| ML19343D246 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 05/01/1981 |
| From: | Brown H NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, ISSUANCES-OM, NUDOCS 8105040037 | |
| Download: ML19343D246 (5) | |
Text
n,
g LII 9
Al h
1/g 7 UNITED STATES OF N1 ERICA g
.flVCLEAR REGULATORY C0ll!111SSI0ll, Q
%g BEFORE THE AT0f11C SAFETY AND LICENSIllG BOARD
'g
~
In the flatter-of CONSUf1ERS POWER C0!1 patly
)
Docket flos. 50-329 Oil & OL 1
50-330 Olt & OL (flidland Plant,- Units 1 and 2)
$ /
l-ilRC STAFF RESP 0tlSE Ill 0PPOSITI0tl TO INTERVEN0R liOTI0fl FOR Sultl1ARY DISP 0SITI0tl Oil APPLICAllT STATEt1ENTS OF IllTENT AS A BASIS FOR REASONABLE ASSURANCE JUDGl1ENTS ON QUALITY ASSURANCE 7
INTRODUCTION On April 14, 1981, Intervenor Barbara Stamiris moved the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Licensing Board) for summary disposition on the issue of Consumer Power Company's (CPC) statements of intent as'a basis for reasonable assurance judgments on quality assurance.1/
In accordance with 10 CFR & 2.749(a), Stamiris attached to her motion the following statement of material fact as to which she alleges there is no genuine issue to be heard:
I submit that applicant's promises, commitme.its, intentions, and plans for the future regarding Quality Assurance, do not constitute genuine issues to be heard in this soil settlement proceeding.
Pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.749(a), the !!RC staff hereby opposes Inter-venor's motion for summary disposition for the following reasons.
If "Intervenor !!otion For Summary Disposition On Applicant Statenents Of Intent As A Basis For Reasonable Assurance Judgnents On Quality Assurance" da ted April 14, 1981.
- 8105040 @
co
2-ARGUl1Ef1T Intervencr's motien for summary disposition essentially contends that the Licensing Board should not consider CPC's current or future plans regarding quality assurance in the instant OM-OL proceeding.
Although the motion is couched in terms of summary disposition, the staff interprets the motion as one which requests the exclusion of or objects to the possible introductionofcertainevidence.E In this regard, the staff submits that the substance, not the procedural posture or title, of Intervenor's motion should control.
Indeed, the stated impetus for the motion is Stamiris' con-cern that " Consumers intends to enter these new plans for Quality Assurance Improvement into the soll settlement proceeding"3] and, thus, the apparent purpose of the motion is to exclude from the hearing any evidence of CPC's new quality assurance plans.
In short, Intervenor's motion does not seek summary disposition on the issue of CPC's quality assurance implementation af ter the Order,U ut rather moves the Licensing Board to not (,onsider b
certain information when deciding that issue.
Accordingly, Intervenor's argument is not the proper subject of a notion for summary disposition.
The staff considers it more cppropriately as a motion for the exclusion of certain evidence and will respond to it as such.
2]
This interpretation is based in part on the motion's concluding state-ment that "pronises, good intentions, and plans for the future...do not constitute genuine issues...and therefore should not be heard in this proceeding."
3f Intervenor's Itotion for Summary Disposition at 1.
4/
" Order 11odifying Construction Pernits" dated December 6,1979.
.c Q-L.
' r. ~
TreatingLthe motion:as an evidentiary objection, the staff submits Ethat the' objection. isimade. prematurely.
flo testimonial Lor documentary evidence has been _ offered at-this point.._The record will be.' developed during the-hearing and it-is at that-point that evidentiary objections s
-must be made.
In accordance with the Commission's regulations only. rele-vant, material and reliable evidence which is not unduly repetitious is -
-admissible.at' tho' hearing.E I hus, if Intervenor Stamiris contends that T
CPC's quality-assurance plans are irrelevant, immaterial or unreliabic, she should raisef that objection if and when CPC introduces those plans
'into the. record and ~ not before.
C0l1CLUSI0tl For the reasons stated above, the staff urges that Intervenor's motion be' dismissed without prejudice to her raising at the appropriate time during~ the hearing any evidentiary _ objections to the admission of evidence-of CPC's intent and plans with respect to quality assurance implementation.
Respectfully submitted, EIL-n ll. 8nw Ellen 11. Brown Counsel for llRC Staff
- Dated in Bethesd'a, liaryland thisint day of 11ay,1981.
y
-10_CFR Q 2.743(c)
~,
L.m
~~
^
UNI 1LD STALES OF AMdRICA flUCLI:AR Hl;CULATORY COXAISSION Bl. TORE T!!E. ATOMIC SAFETY _A"D LICENSING BOARD _
- In the Matter of -
' CONSUMERS' POWER COMPANY..
Docket Hos. 50-329-0M & OL 50-330-0M & OL
((Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIF_ICATE OF SERVICE
. I certify that copies of flRC STAFF RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO IflTERVEll0R P0TInti
-F0R
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION ON APPLICANT-STATEliEtliS OF INTENT AS A BASIS FOR P.EA50flABLE ASSURAllCE JUDGPEllTS ON. QUALITY ASSURAtlCE 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 1st day of.itay,1981.
- Charles Bechhoefer, Esq.-
Ms. Mary Sinclair Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 5711 Sumnerset Street U. S. !!uclear Regulatory Commission Midland, Michigan 48610
-Washington, D.C.
20555 Philip P. Steptoe, Esq.
Administrative Judge Ralph S. Decker l'ichael I. Miller, Esq.
Route !4, Box 190D Ronald G. Zamarin, Esq.
Cambridge,i1D 21613 Alan S. Farnell, Esq.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale Cne First National Plaza Dr. Frederick P. Cowan 42nd Floor 6152 N. Verde Trail Chicago, Illinois 60603 Apt. B-125 Boca Raton, Florida 33433
- Atomic-Safety and Licensing Board Panel Frank J. Kelley U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attorney General of the State Washington, D.C.
20555
'of Michigan Steward H. Freeman
- Atomic Safety and-Licensing Assistant Attorney General Appeal Board Panel Gregory T. Taylor U. S. Iluclear Regulatory Commission Assistant Attorney General Washington, D.C.
20555
. Environmental Protection Division 720 Law. Building
- 0ccketing and Service Section Lansing, Michigan 4S913 Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
Washington, 0 C.
20555 1 1BM Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60611 e
s
,w
e
- Jaw s E. Brunner, Esq.
Je. inn I.insley Consumers Power Company Bay City Times 212 !! cst Michigan Avenue 311 Fifth Street Jackson, Michigan 49201 Bay City, Michigan 48706 Ms. Barbara Stamiris S795 fl. River freeland, Michigan 48623 Mr. Steve Gadler 2120 Carter Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 1.'endell H. Marshall, Vice President Midwest Environmental Protection Associates RFD 10 Midland, Michigan 48640 James R. Kates 203 S. Washington Avenue Saginaw, Michigan 48605 e
L 8(MW Ellen Brown Counsel for flRC Staff
,