ML20054J970

Memorandum & Order Memorializing 820625 Telcon.B Stamiris & M Sinclair Permitted to Suppl Earlier Filings of New Contentions to Incorporate Good Cause Showing for ASLB to Consider.Addl Info to Be Filed by 820709

ML20054J970
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	06/28/1982
From:	Bechhoefer C Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
References
ISSUANCES-OL, ISSUANCES-OM, NUDOCS 8206300250
Download: ML20054J970 (4)

Text

+

e UNITED STATES OF AMERICA r.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:

Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman Dr. Frederick P. Cowan SERVED JUN 291982 Dr. Jerry R. Harbour

) Docket Nos. 50-329 OM In the Matter of ) 50-330 OM CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-329 OL

) 50-330 OL (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) -

June 28, 1982 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Telephone Conference Call of June 25,1982) -

1. At 10:00 a.m. (E.D.T.) on June 25, 1982, the NRC Staff initiated a telephone conference call to discuss new contentions for the operating license proceeding submitted by Ms. Barbara Stamiris. Participating were the following:

Judges Bechhoefer, Cowan, Decker and Harbour Mr. Michael Miller, for the Applicant Mr. William Paton, for the NRC Staff Ms. Barbara Stamiris, pro se Ms. Mary Sinclair, pro se ---

Mr. Wendell H. MarsliiT17 pro se, l Mr. Paton stated that the new contentions for the OL proceeding submitted by Ms. Stamiris did not include any discussion of " good cause" for their late filing. He suggested that, in the interest of orderly procedure, and prior to the responses of other parties, Ms. Stamiris be permitted to 8206300250 820628 PDR ADOCK 05000329 0 PDR j

f d1

9

- supplement her earlier filing to discuss the reasons why the contentions were not filed earlier.

Ms. Stamiris stated that her reasons for late filing were set forth in her letter of March 28, 1982. That letter referred to why Ms. Stamiris was late in seeking to participate in the OL proceeding (other than with respect to soils-related issues), but it preceded the filing of any contentions and hence could not seek to justify the late filing of any particular contention. During the conference call, Ms. Stamiris added that she was motivated to participate by what she regarded as the less than adequate treatment of certain subjects in the Staff's DES and/or SER. The Board advised that any " good cause" ruling we made would of necessity have to consider timdliness in the context of particular contentions, as required by 10 C.F.R. 2.714(a)(1)(1-v). We indicated that the sane timeliness standards would likewise govern the new contentions submitted by Ms. Mary Sinclair, which also did not explicitly include a " good cause" showing.

(The Staff had not yet received these contentions. We were advised that, if it had, it would make the same suggestion for an opportunity for Ms.

Sinclair to provide a statement of " good cause" for the particular contentions.) Ms. Sinclair indicated that information concerning the timeliness of her new contentions was to some extent incorporated into the contentions, and she raised a question about whether intervenors should be required to justify a late filing. The Board advised Ms. Sinclair ".at NRC rules required such a showing, and she agreed that she would supplement her earlier filing if the Board accepted the Staff's suggestion.

e The Applicant opposed the Staff's suggestion. Its counsel asserted that each of the intervenors was aware that good cause for late filing must be demonstrated for the contentions in question, and that the Applicant was prepared to file its responses based on the material heretofore filed.

The Board did not rule on these matters during the conference call but advised the parties that it would do so later that day.

2. Our Memorandum and Order of May 7, 1982, which established schedules for the filing of new contentions, did not explicitly provide for the filing of " good cause" statements with respect to each new contention, even though during the conference call which gave rise to that Memorandum and Order the subject was extensively discussed. Recognizing that our lack of discussion of the " good cause" question in our May 7, 1982 Memorandum and Order may have created misunderstanding as to whether such a statement was required in connection with the filings discussed therein, we i

have determined to grant the Staff's request and to permit Ms. Stamiris and Ms. Sinclair to supplement their earlier filings of new contentions to incorporate whatever " good cause" showing with respect to each contention which they wish the Board to consider, in accordance with the requirements i of 10 C.F.R. 2.714(a)(1)(1-v). The Board will also permit Ms. Stamiris and Ms. Sinclair to supplement their earlier filings to incorporate any more j specific information which they wish the Board to consider in ruling upon their new contentions, but they must do so in the same time frame as for the

" good cause" showing.

The additional information described above must be filed (mailed) by Friday, July 9, 1982. Our scheduling Order of May 7, 1982 is modified to

e

_4_

that extent. Following receipt of responses from other parties, the Board intends to hold a prehearing conference if the material filed indicates any significant outstanding questions concerning timeliness or admissibility of contentions. As a target date, the conference will likely be held during the week of August 16-20, 1982.

The parties were orally informed of the substance of this ruling on the afternoon of June 25, 1982.

3. Because of certain possible inconsistencies between the Special Prehearing Conference Order of Februry 23, 1979, and the Board's May 7, 1982 scheduling Order, we permitted Ms. Sinclair to file restated contentions following the completion of discovery on contentions previously accepted for purposes of discovery. The May 7, 1982 Order is further modified to accomodate that ruling.

FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

../, belL.el-

• Charles Bechhoefer, Chairma7 ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE June 28, 1982 l