ML19329E461
| ML19329E461 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 01/07/1974 |
| From: | Joseph E Pollock DAVERMAN ASSOCIATES, INC., MICHIGAN MUNICIPAL COOPERATIVE POWER POOL, SPIEGEL & MCDIARMID |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8006160265 | |
| Download: ML19329E461 (10) | |
Text
had UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
/
In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-329A
)
50-330A Consumers Power Company
)
)
Midland Plant (Units 1 e.nd 2)
)
THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS POOR QUALITY PAGES MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME, MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM ISSUED AGAINST ROBERT J.
DAVERMAN To:
Jerome Garfinkel, Esquire, Chairman, Atomic Safety Licensing Bo ard Pursuant to Sections 2. 711', 2. 72 0 ( f) and 2.740 of the Atomic Energy Coamission's Rule s of Practice, 10 C. F. R., Part 2, M
Intervenors and Robert J. Daverman, through their counsel, respectfully request the Chairman, or the Commission, to grant an extension of tima until January 14, 1973 to.further respond to the subpoena issued against Robert J. Daverman.
In addition, the documents sought by this subpoena should be either placed under a strict protective order of confidentiality, if f6rnished, or the subpoena should be quashed.
In support of these requests, petitioners state as follows:
1/ Coldwater, Grand Haven, Holland, Traverse City, and Zeeland, Michigan, the Michigan Municipal Electric Association, the Northern Michigan Electric Cooperative and the Wolverine Electric Cooperative.
- *
- 616 0 2GE A
QRn-ruus7
~
1.
MOTIO?T FOR AN EXTENSION Or' TIME
~
Counsel for Intervenors and Mr. Daverman was informed late on December 31, 1973, that the subject subpoena had been issued with a return of service on January 2, 1974.
This was the first time we had been informed of this action by Consumers Power Company.
On January 2, 1974, counsel for Consumers Power Company agreed to withdraw the subpoena until Monday, January 7, 1974.
In the meantime he would ascertain whether or not Consumers Power Company would agree to treating these documents as confidential, in accordance with ALAB-122 and the Board's earlier ruling on similar documents.
During this time we were to examine the docu-ments, requested and determine the degree of sensitivity involvea.
Counsel for Consumers Power Company also agreed to ascertain if the Company would be willing to produce all power supply studies prepared for the Consumers Power Company subsequent to July 1, 1972, and also the Company files relating to the negotiations with the MMCPP and its member systems subsequent to July 1, 1972.
We agreed to not object to the subpoena if confidentially and full recipro-city by consumers Power would be afforded.
As of this time, we have not received a copy of the
' files ~ requested.
Therefore, we must' seek an extension of~ time until January 14, 1974, in order to examine the documents requested.
Counsel. for Consumers Power advised today that while the Company might agree as to confidentially, they would not voluntarily
+
reciprocate with current power supply studies.
Accordingly, we
~
are forced to respond preliminarily, requesting, inter alia, an extension of time to January 14, 1974, to further respond if we deem it necessary.
~
2.
MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER If the documents requested are to be furnished, they should be placed under a strict protective order as sensitive con-fidential material.
A brief discussion with Mr. Daverman concerning five of the requests indicates the following:
(a)
Document 7207-3 This is a joint power supply study prepared on behalf of Northern Michigan and Wolverine Electric Cooperative and de-livered in 1973.
It was prepared specifically because these two G&T cooperatives had been in extended negotiations with Consumers Power Company for an interchange agreement.
It is our understanding that it contains alternative proposals and nrojections relative to these sy. tem's generation requirements.
(b)
Document '6912-6 This is a file containing memoranda and reports con-corning the negotiations carried on with consumers Power Company, and meetings concerning those negotiations held between the member systems of the Michigan Municipal Cooperative Power Pool.
Counsel
for Consumers Power Company has amended the subpoena to request only documents up to July 26, 1972, and has stated that the Com-pany has furnished comparable documents up to that date.
We would agree, after an examination, to furnish such documents so long as they are under a protective order of confidentiality.
(c)
Docament 7204-17 This document is an incompleted wholesale rate study whicn was begun on behalf of the Northern Michigan Electric Cooper-atives.
Mr. Daverman informs us that the information in this file is so incomplete that it iould be relatively meaningless.
It is, however, information which Northern Michigan.would consider con-fidential and thus it should be protected since it may relate directly to Northern's cooperative members current ability to com-
' pete with Consumer Power Company for specific customers.
(d)
Document 7209-22
-This is a system plan prepared for O&A Electric Coop-erative delivered to this system in 1973.
Its intent and purpose is to project system construction in accordance with cost require-ments.
Without an examination'we cannot state the degree of con-fidential information contained therein, but since it is obviously a current working plan it should be protected.
e.
(e)
- Document 7309-9 '
This document is a Power Supply Study prepared on be-half of Traverse City.
It was delivered to the systems during the last week of 1973.
It should be noted that Traverse City, in ad-dition to being a mcmber of the MMCPP, is involved in house-to-The i
house competition for customers with Consumers Power Company.
document specifically states the alternative power supply available to the City and should be protected from Consumers Power Company.
(Compare the confidentiality granted the Lansing Power Supply Study).
9
3.
MOTION TO QUASH Consumers Power Company has established July 1, 1972 as a cut-off date for discovery against Company documents.
It has consistently refused to produce documents beyond that date.
During the depositions of Intervenors and non-party municipal personnel, counsel for intervonors offered to exchange current documents with Consumers Power Company.
This offer was refused.
We again renew our offer to negotiate a fair exhcange of documents with Consumers Power Company.
If Intervenors are forced to reveal documents which pertain directly to current power supply studies, Consumers Power Company should likewise furnish Intervenors, the Department of Justice and the Regulatory Staff with all of the Consumers Power power supply studies dated subsequent to July 1, 1972.
The Company should also furnish all correspondence, memoranda, reports, studies, minutes or other documents relating to 'the negotia-tions with the MMCPP or to any of its member systems. ~Unless Con-sumers Power Company is willing to reciprocate, this subpoena should be-quashed.
4.
THE OUESTION OF RELEVANCE While pre-trial discovery has been granted under a
. lesser standard of relevance than would be required as a evi-dentiary' matter, discovery sought after trial has_ begun should
-6~-
be permitted only upon a showing that the requested material is relevant to the trial issues.
We have serious doubts concerning the, latest request by Consumers Power Company.
It should also be noted that Intervenors have objected to the deferral of rulings on relevancy for trial purposes in order 'to prevent the protracted trial that is now taking place.$!
However, assuming that the Trial Board adheres to its decision not to rule on issues of re-levance before completion of the trial, at the least the Trial Board should not allow further discovery without a strong showing of relevancy.
For these reasons, we believe Consumers Power Com-pany should be forced to demonstrate the relevancy of these docu-ments they have requested.
If the Board should grant this dis-covery, Intervenors should receive full reciprocity.
CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Intervonors and 1
through their attorneys, respectfully request Robert J. Daverman, the Chairman, or the Commission, to grant the following motions :
1.
An extension of time to further respond'to the merits of'the subpoena duces tecum until. January 14, 1974.
- / See, -e.g., Opening S tatement of Robert Jablon, Esq. (Tr.
840-851).
We respectfully,suggest that the Trial in session could be limited by the Board's ruling on issues of relevancy at the _ present time-.
J e
_7_
t:
2.
If the documents are to be furnished, the Board should order that they be protected in accordance with ALAB-122 and the Board's ruling at R-650-652.
3.
The Board should order full reciprocity with respect to the documents produced, or the subpena should be quashed.
We again note that after examination of the documents and discussion among counsel, we may find that we do not object to supplying all or part of the subpenaed documents, but due to t
the failure of Consumers Power Company to consult with us before obtaining the subpena and the short return date, we cannot deter-mine that to be the case at the present time.
Respectfully submitted, C.
M m
James Carl Pollock Attorney for Robert J. Daverman and Joint Intervenors.
January 7, 1974 Law Offices Of:'
' Spiegel & McDiarmid 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20037 e
4,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION In th'e Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-329A Consumers Power Company
)
50-330A Midland Plant, (Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I
I hereby certify that the foregoing document in the above-captioned matter was served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid, this 7th day of January, 1974.
Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq., Chairman Joseph Rutberg, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Energy Commission Panel 7920 Norfolk Avenue j
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Bethesda, Maryland Washington, D. C. 20545 Abraham Braitman, Chief Jerome Garfinkel, Esq., Chairman Office of Antitrust and Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Indemnity U.S. Atomic Energy Commission U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 Washington, D. C. 20545 Joseph J. Saunders, Esq.
Mr. Frank W. Karas, Chief Department of Justice Public Proceedings Branch Antitrust Division Office of the Secretary Washington, D. C. 20530 Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D..C. 20545 Harold P. Graves, Esq.
V.P. and General Counsel Wallace Edward' Brand, Esq.
Consumers Power Company Antitrust'Public Counsel 212 West Michigan Avenue Department of Justice Jackson, Michigan 49201 P. O. Box 7513 Washington, D.
C. 20044 William Warfield Ross, Esq.
Dr. J. Venn Leeds, Jr.
Wald, Harkrader & Ross 1320 19th Street, N.W.
P. O. Box 941 Washington, D. C._20036 Houston, Texas 77001 C P""
Law Offices Of:
/-a ---
~ Spiegel & McDiarmid-Jameh Carl Pollock 2600_ Virginia Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20037
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE ATOMIC ENERGY COID1ISS1 T In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-329A
)
50-330A Consumers Power Company
)
)
Midland Plant, { Units 1 and '2)
)
AFFIDAVIT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, SS:
James Carl Pollock, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the attorney.for Robert J.
Daverman and the Cities of Coldwater, Grand Haven, Holland, Traverse City, and Zeeland Michigan, the Michigan Municipal Electric Association, the Northern Michigan Electric Cooperative and the Wolverine Electric Cooperative and tha'. as such he has signed the foregoing Motion for Extension of Time, Motion"for a Protective Order, or, in the Alternative, Motion
}
to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum Issued Against Robert J. Daverman for 4
and on behalf of said parties; that he is authorized so to do; that he has read said Motion and is familiar with the contents thereof; and that the matters and things therein sed:.forth are true and correct to the.best of his knowledge, information or belief.
C. 9.,.u., ~
James" Carl Pollcsck Subscribc'd and sworn to before me this)2nd day of January, 1974.
47
- LC^ra L'.L ? ?).
-)
g
/.?,, b.uu.,
Notary P,ubl'ic
~
L My commission expires September 30, 1974.
A e
AFC DT '1IBUTION FOR PART 50 DOCKET MA
'IAL
~
(TaiPORARY F0FJt)
CONTROL NO:
323 FILE:
FROM:
DATE OF DOC DATE REC'D LTR MD'O RPT OTHER Secretary, AEC Washington, D. C.
1-8-74 1 11 74 TO:
ORIG CC OTIER SENT AEC PDR SDIT LOCAL PDR AEC CLASS UNCLASS PROP INFO INPUT NO CYS REC'D DOCFIT 130:
XXXX A
50-330A V
DESCRIPTION:
ENCLCSURES:
No Ltr of trans rec'd with Hearing Transcrip ts HEARING TRANSCRIPTS for the Midland Units 1 & 2 PAGES: 3134 thru 3344, dtd 1-8-74
( 2 cys rec'd) M, PLANT NA!s:
Midland Units 1 & 2
- 0t Remove FOR ACTIO:i/INFOPEATION 1-11-74 AB BUTLER (L)
SClfdENCER(L)
ZIl2'J.NN(L)
REGAN(E)
W/ Copica W/ Copies W/ Copics W/ Copics CLARK (L)
STOLZ(L)
DICKER (E)
- BRAITMAN W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/l Copies COLLER(L)
VASSALLO(L)
KNIGHION(E)
W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies KNIEL(L)
SCHDEL(L)
YCUNGBLCCD(E)
W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copics
~
INTEPJ:AL DISTRIEUTION REG FI (M/C-330) TECH REVI"'4 DENTON A/T TND LIC ASST R
IENDRIE GRIMES BRAITMAN OGC, RMAM P-506A SCHROEDER GAntILL DIGGS (L)
SALTZMAN MUNIZING/ STAFF MACCARY KASTNER GEARIN (L)
B. HURT CASE KNIGHT BALLARD GOULEOURNE (L) pg333 GIAMBUSSO PAWLICKI SPANGLER LEE (L)
MCDONALD LOYD SHA0 MAIGRET (L)
DUBE w/ Input
!!00RE (L)(EWR)
STELLO ENVIRO SERVICE (L)
DEYOUNG(L)(PWR)
HOUSTON MULLER SIEPPARD (E)
INFO SKOVHOLT (L)
NOVAK DICKER SMITH (L)
C. MILES P. COLLINS ROSS KNIGHTON TEETS (L)'
B. KING DENISE IPPOLITO YOUNGBLOOD WADE (E)
REG OPR TEDESCO REGAN WILLIAMS (E)
FILE & REGION (3)
LONG PROJECT LDR WILSON (L)
MORRIS LAINAS STEELE BENAROYA HARLESS VOLIlER
,i EXTERNAL DISTRIETITION kP 1 - LOCAL PDR 1 - DTIE(A3EFliATHY)
(1)(2)(10)-NATIONAL LAB'S 1-PDR-SAN /LA/NY 1 - NSIC(3UCHANAN).
1-ASLEP(E/W Bld;;,R= 329) 1-GERALD LELLOUCIE 1 - ASLB(YORE /SAYRE/
l-W. PENNINGTON, in E-201 GT BROOKHAVEN NAT. I.A3 WOODARD/"H" ST.
1-CONSULTANT' S 1-AGMED(Ruth Guss=an) 16 - CYY ACRS HOLDING NEWMARK/ELUME/AGBA3IAN EM-B-12 7. GT.
1-GERALD ULRIKSON...ORNL l-RD.. MULLER..F-309 G' e
-..