ML20008G164

Response to Applicant 810609 Response Re 810529 Notice of Ex Parte Communication.Qa Stipulation Assurance Was Not Requested by Bechhoeffer.Related Correspondence

ML20008G164
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	06/16/1981
From:	Stamiris B AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20008G165	List: ML20008G164 ML20008G167
References
ISSUANCES-OL, ISSUANCES-OM, NUDOCS 8107020378
Download: ML20008G164 (3)

Text

-

W--- --

..l

- 77 U.S. NUCLEAR 1pT Ch SSIOff UUdI h Docket N'os. 50-329 In the matter of ,O

' g () 1198Wpress , {il 50-330 Midland P lant,. CPCo. OM & OL

, cv ts 1&Z .\ k

• 5 D55**

r g .. c

'% g BEFORE THE ATOMIC avdY & LICENSING BOARD g g 6 \98IP 6 / 16 / 8 1

]

l m e, a the,S 3 jf v -fe'M f ', , k' . M $

yp 4 INTERVENOR RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS 6/9/81 RESPONSE

.CONCERNING NCrrICE OF EX PARTE CO!aiUNICATIGN DATED MAY 29, 1981 As a pro ge intervenor, I was uncertain of the correct proceedure to follow concerning what I considered an improper conclusory statement to Judge Bechhoefer made by ,Mr. Miller on behalf of the Apolicant, during the.May 27th conference call. ,

In reading section Z.780 of 10 CFR and boking up the definition of " ex parte", I decaed it appropriate to notice a violation'of the rules. The. definition I found of ex parte said "on or from one side only- used of legal proceedings ; from l a ong sided or partisan' point of view" (Websters 7th New Collegiate Dic..

In the Applicants 6/9/81 Response, is the statement that a number of statements in my filing are incorrect, as i s my -

stated conclusion. Other than references to my' lat:k: of a defin-itlon of "ex parte: " ' sufficient to satisfy the simplist mind",

there is no specific reference to which of my statements or " stated '

conclus ion"( s ) is incorrect. I did not even make a conclusion in my 5/29/8I submittal', but was deliberately open ended in " setting forth my initial concerns promptly,in some fashion" as so stated.

p$#

s b .810i O 2 63'"/8'. '"

ga j '."a t -

I

In the 6/9/81 Response, th: Applicant states that " During _

the 5/k7[81 conference call, it was related that, based upon the 5/22/61 Region III exit inte rview it appeared almost certain that Mr. Keppler would have " reasonable assurance" and that there-fore confidence that the OA stipulation would be finalized, thus obviating the need for the Board to invest substantial time and effort in considering and ruling upon the Motion for Summary Dis-position with regard to GA."

I distinctly remember that no such qualifications as "almost certain" o'r "would"have" were9made by Mr; Mille.r in relsting that

. as a resulthhis recen,t,sinspection,gMr,. Heppler.rnow hade. reasonable assurance regarding OA so that remediation co,uld go forward.

I assume that tape recordings, or other records beyond the personal notes of participants , have not been made of conference- ,

calls in this proceeding. If that assumption is incorrect, I ask that the.existance of such records be acknowledged now.

The second statement to which I must respond is , " As even Mrs. Stamiris must know, the purpose and substance of the conference call was to advise the Licensing Board of the status with regard to the need to study and decide the Motion for Summary Disposition."

Contrary to this assumption, my conversation with Ellen Brown of the NRC.on 5/h6/81, indicated otherwise. I was told that the purpose -of the call was to discuss other potential stipulations (regarding the NRC position on the additional borings and acceptance criteria) and their effects on the hearing schedule. In response b 6 9 '3eqfs

1. , . I l 7, g y, 4 A

• l g * '> 0 9 $ 'S

• 1 9 E b*

to my question,.she indicated that the call was not to discuss the QA stipulation. Whether this misunderstanding was between -

Ms. Brown and myself or Ms. Brown and the Applicant, is not important.

The important point regarding the explanation offered concern-Ing CA reasonable assurance by Mr. Miller,is that it was not requested or sought by Judge Bechhoefer, as implied in the statement (p'.2 of 6/9 response) that

• Second, Section 2.780 clearly states that it does not apply to communications requested concerning the status of proceedings. " (Unless such a request was made prior to the phone call unbeknownst to me.) Ard furthermore, Mr. Keppler indicated to-me (5/18/81) that he had not yet made his " reasonable assurance"

. Judgement.

Respectfully submitted, cc: ASI.B members Wm. Paton, NRC M. Miller, CPCo.

2. Brunn*r, C?Ca, Secretary NRC Attorney Gen.Kelley

, c ',, n v '. . ., ~ c ~-

, , . . . r, , ;. , , . ,

1