ML19347A624

Requests That 761214 Transcript of Prehearing Conference in Chicago,Il Be Corrected Due to Missing Segment of Colloguy. Corrected Colloguy Encl

ML19347A624
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	12/20/1976
From:	Nute L DOW CHEMICAL CO.
To:	Head D Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8007300634
Download: ML19347A624 (4)

Text

" -

, ./ .

Q DOW CHEMICAL U.S.A. 44KT 530 M6CHtGAN OMSION December 20, 1976' " *" "C"'G^" **

/

Daniel M. Head, Esquire, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel /d eg5E U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission

-f~ Ng 7 -

Washington, D.C. 20555 f Og2,7  :

, ,y.g -

3,c s.s.a 6 <

Dear Mr. Chairman:

4

, s I am writing to request that the transcript of the December 14,1, co pre-hearing conference in Chicago, Ill,inois be corrected, and that

• the-corrected page or pages be retyped and physically inserted in the record itself.

The transcript of the December 14 hearing has not yet.been received-by Dow, although ordered on an expedited basis. However, questions asked by the Staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Comission, and con-versations thereafter (including with the hearing reporter), indicate that.an important segment of the colloquy is missing.

At one point in the colloquy, counsel for Consumers made the state-ment, in substance, that "Dow has said they believe they have a valid contractual comitment." It is our recollection that Mr.

Wessel imediately rose, approached the railing behind the section in which the primary parties and the Hearing Board were seated, and made a statement similar to that set forth on the annexed sheet.

Although the foregoing was not during a bench conference, I am informed-that it does not appear anywhere in the transcript. The reporter advises that it is not recorded on any of the tapes.

It is further Mr. Wessel's and my recollection at at some later point during the pre-hearing conference, the Board made reference to what appeared to be the "glimer" of a dispute between the parties regarding the nature of _the Dow contractual obligation. We both nierstood this to.be a reference back to the missing colloquy.

Apparently, this possible dispute is one source of the concern which has led to the questions posed by the' NRC Staff in their letter dated December 17, 1976. 1

~

YY 8007800 b 3 y AN OPE 7 TAT 1NQ UNIT OF THE DOW CFACAt. COMPANY ---

--.__..-_-_--______-.Z-___.-_._. - -- , _.

s.

' ' iDaniel M. Head. Esq.-

r Decembir 20,.1976

.Page Two EThe' reporter questions that: any such on-the-record statement was made.

and will:not correct the record without direction from the. Board. Dow considers such a' direction important, because thi3 ' transcript may be relevant:a long' time hence, when different counsel are involved and-recollections'may be dim or missing entirely.

Attached is;a. copy of.Mr. Wessel's handwritten notes regarding this

• matter. of Dow's contractual commitments, made while counsel for Consumers.was speaking.

4 Even 'the' doubly Lunderscored word "SAVE" was written at.the hearing because of. concern for error in _ the transcript. This precise issue

. ~ f the Dow position also had been the subject of an exchange between o

, Dow and Consumers counsel'only.a few days before. The. issue had been most carefully defined and there was 1,ittle' likelihood of recollections being . vague or confused.

i Should'the Board, or any of the parties, have any question as to 3 this matter.nwe. request that an appropriate inquiry be made.

.'.ydspectfully, L. F. Nute h ..

Attorney

[ c cc: Service List 4

attachment 1

l l

l' l

l I

._. - . . , . _ . .. . . - - . ~ . . .

.;c _,,____

.,.., ___.s__

,.__U-__

v. .

. ~ .

m SERVICE LIST /-

/

eh '

s .

~

yr6e.

Cl4.y p,;. .

Mr. C. R. Stephens -

2[~.

p N >;# -

Chief, Docketing and S'ervice Section

,: , j- .

Office of the Secretary of the Commfasion T .. .

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission- -

./ \\ .

gg[i,/l[. T/.; D, 2 , .

' ' Washington, D.C. 20555 .,

1,. .

[ # . :".: . /

/ .,

m

' ';. ,_' hQ'.. .

Lawrence Brenner, Esquire , .. .'

4

.. ~

Counsel for NRC Staff <

, . .. . . .fly .J U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiasion . ,- '

^ '

." ,. .'.i'C.1-<:' .

i .-

Washington, D.C. 20555 ' . ,

[. . ' .' . .

l[.

.t ... .- .- -

~ Myron M. Cherry, Esquire

. . . '. . e / .o r

. .<r..r .

s. Suite 4501 .

- -.- - '.. K..'.".+

...s -P." . '

One IBM Plaza .

,. . t.

Chicago, Illinois ,

60611 -

4 David J. Ros'so, Esquire -

Isham, Lincoln & Beale -

. I One First National Plaza .

Suite 4200 ,

Chicago, T114nois ;60603

~ - '

Daniel M. Head, Esquire, Chairman .,. .

Atomic . Safety and Licensing Board Panel . -

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.. 20555

.- I' Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel ,

_3-Washington, D.C. 20555 ,

l. . . ' . ..' . sw r ..' 6

~ *: - --

Dr. J. Venn" Leeds

• Jr., Member '

. ~.-^ '_ .:} '<- . t - r.i 2o . ..'> ' .

10807 Atwell

. s .. .

1 .'

Houston, Texas 77096 . f. . .f. ~ ~-. . . I _

' - F.':

.e -

. .... .,..

1.  :.-.. ..cr.- 4'

.x..< -

>z . .,... . . . , ,.

- q . * .

. .  ;- . g * -

..r.. -

• e , , *, -

e . - .

i *

,9-

-(

- . - . e - * '

' g _.

, , - y * * *. .

• f .

=

-

• O ..-Q-

9

, .~

.* e The following is the substance of the colloquy on December 14, 1976, immediately following the conclusion of remarks by Consumers' counsel regarding the nature of.the Dow contractual connitment. The precise words themselves were undoubtedly different.

MR. WESSEL: I apologize for interrupting, but I must correct Mr. Rosso's statement, "Dow has said they believe they have a valid contractual commitment." Not to respond .

to an inaccurate comment when one is present, might well

. constitute an admission by silence in some future proceeding in which the nature of the Dow-Consumers contractual obliga-

, tion is an. issue.

Dow has never taken the position .that it has a valid contractual commitment with Consumers. What I said

earlier, which has been Dow's position throughout, is that Dow will continue to honor our contractual obligations as

we see them. There 'is, of course, a substantial difference between these two positions.

i MR. ROSSO: I apologize for inadvertently misquoting Mr.

Wessel's. position. i l

l

. I e

J l