ML19319C668
| ML19319C668 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse, Perry  |
| Issue date: | 11/18/1975 |
| From: | Frysiak J, Rigler D, Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002200782 | |
| Download: ML19319C668 (3) | |
Text
hg
~
.N e
-.A.TEDccaREspoNCE%E RfJ DOCx.?to USNSC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA k
NOV l91975 > :_.1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.x
._.. s..
. s.
s=
In the Matter of
)
g 9
)
mi o
THE TOLEDO EDISON CCM?ANY AND
)
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING )
Docket No. 50-346A
/
COMPANY
)
(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, )
N _.
s Unit 1)
)
)
)
C.c-,F_. r.,.D
.:.. : v-m3.C
.. L,v., Am..a,.-
._.. J u
- m. u
~aa
__m 4.
)
Iccket Nos. 50 ue0A (Perry Nuclear Pcwer Plant,
)
50-441A Units 1 and 2)
)
)
THE TOLEDO EDISON CCMPANY, ET AL.
)
Docket Nos. 50-500A (Davis-3 esse Nuclear Power Station, )
50-501A Units 2 and 3)
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF THE 3 CARD GRANT NG MOTION OF CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY TO QUASE SU3?OENA Sy Motion of November 15, 1975, Applicant Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (CEI) =cved to cuash subpoenas of October 31, 1975 to CII issued by this scard at the behest of the Department of Justice (Justice).
In paragraph five of its moving papers, CEI called to the attention of this Board the decision of the Appeal Scard in Censumers ?cwer Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2, ALA3-35, 4 AEC 711, 713, September 21, 1971).*
In that opinion, the Appeal Scard indicated that the production of documents frc a barty by an intervencr is better sought under Section 2.741: 0? the
- Date miscited as 1970 in CEI's scving papers.
O bD D
~
s 8002 200 ?U
" ~o)
? 9
' T o
Ju J1 4
2 g
s se
/.
. Co==ission's Rules of Practice than under Section 2.720.
Without further examination of our authority to require cc=pliance with the subpoena solely in reliance on Section 2.720, we have decided to grant the Motion to quash, but to permit Justice to file for i==ediate alternative relief by inco"porating its subpoena request within a Section 2.741 Motion for the Production of Documents.**
t With respect to the underlying merits of the Justice attempt to obtain use of documents cc=ing to its attention through use of a civil investigative demand filed by Justice, we believe that the issue is fully joined.
3cth sides have submitted briefs addressing what becomes the fundamental legal issue involved in this prcduction request -
i.e.,
the use in an NRC proceeding of documents first obtained by Justice by application of the Antitrust Civil Process Act.
- The Scard is aware of the argument made in paragraphs six and seven of CEI's =cving papers with respect to the untimely nature of any request which may be filed under Section 2.741 of the Cc==ission's Rules and this argument need not be repeated.
Likewise, Justice's =cving papers have made the:3 card aware of its position with respect to its "sced cause" contentions relating to production s.tse-quent to the termination date of discovery.
The question c.f good cause for additional discovery is pending bef.cre this Board with respect to motions fro: Justice, the City, the NRC Staff and Applicants, and the Board has had the benefit of these parties' extensive cc= cents with respect to the good cause requirement.
I Cd '
D O
4 i
LR LL I
q mgm}
a L,
. G] u
_a
~
_. 3 -
Accordingly, the Board will consider the issue on the merits immediately upon receipt of the alternate Section 2.741 request we are permitting Justice in this ruling.***
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING 3 CARD N f*& p /t.s t Cohn M.
Trysiaf, Member V
- 1 van W.
Smi'h,' Member
%e Dougl V.
Rig:
r, Chairman Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 13th day of November 1975
- Should either party tc this controversy desire to supply any response or supplemental brief cr memordanum addressed sclely to the legal merits of the cuestion as set forth abcVe, the Scard will receive such pleacings.
- However, we will not defer our decision in anticipation of receipt of any additional pleading.
D D
oa p
]
.g 5 }n 9
o JU
- 53. L J
,