ML19329E960
| ML19329E960 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 04/24/1973 |
| From: | Duflo M NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ALAB-118, NUDOCS 8006190723 | |
| Download: ML19329E960 (4) | |
Text
%.
A..
EXIIIBI 3
s 3m - -
f
~~~.o
- l'--
'd.
'gr.i.
- e. goo. & UItt,, F1.c,58-111A.Ho4 00~tET NUICQ
, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3. re r.
, Uf 4/ ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION s
c ATbkC AF Y AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD Alan S.
Rosenthal, Chairman William C. Parler, Member 4>[h,)
Michael C. Parrar, Member D c y,a,q I c O
)
- c.,Y In the liatter of
)
)
CONSUMERS POWER COfiPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-329A
)
50-330A (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
Mr. Robert A. Jablon, Washington, D.C.
for the non-party municipalities,
<...,k/
- y,' ],_ _
W" Bay City, Michigan, et al.
./
Mr. Mm. Warfield Ross, Washington, D.C.
I D, /. ' ' k - 8 2 ' h(g U3 (with whom Mr. Keith S.
Watson and
.1 APR241973 a b_ Ms. Toni K. Goldean were on the brief) 57 \\
e,y..
for the applicant, Consumers Power Company
?\\
L [.A; g#
57 MEMORANDUM f
(ALAB-ll8)
Following a recess at the conclusion of the oral argument of the appeal in this proceeding (see ALAB-lll, April 4 1973), this Bcard issued from the bench an oral ruling.
The text of that ruling is:
Based upon its consideration of the record, the bricfs cubr.iitted by the parties and the oral argument this morning, this Board has datormined that the applicant is 8 0 0 6 1 9.0 22 3
A entitled to the discovery _which the Licensing Board has allowed.
Contrary to the assertions of the appellants, we are satisfied that the information ordered disclosed is possibly relevant to the issues which have been raised by the parties before the Licensing Board and that appellants have not established that the purpose of the discovery is harassment.
We are further satisfied that much of the sought information is not readily available to the applicant from other sources.
At the same time, however, this Board is concerned with respect to the burden which may be imposed upon the appellants in complying.with the discovery orders -- an issue which was properly raised by appellants before the Licensing Board.
In this connection, we have particular reference to the depositions on written interrogatories.
i Additionally, we are not in entire agreement with the disposition made by the Licensing Board of appellants' claim respecting the disclosure of the assertedly confiden-tial information sought by two of the document requests' and s'ix of the interrogatories.
While we concur in the Licensing Board's. conclusion that the applicant's need for the information is manifest, we do not agree with that Board's view that the statutory and/or common law of the
-s n
-s State of Michigan foreclosed any consideration of a pro.tective order designed to assure the maintenance of its confidentiality.
Our concerns in these respects do not 1ead us to the conclusion that discovery should be denied.
But, as counsel are undoubtedly aware, we are authorized by Section 2.740(c) of our Rules of Practice to take various
' kinds of action -- short of an outright denial of discovery
-- to protect against undue burden or expense or to pre-serve confidentiality.
If it becomes necessary, we are prepared ourselves to consider whether, and if'so in what manner, Section 2.740(c) should be invoked.
We think it appropriate, however, for the parties first to make a good faith endeavor to reach an agreement between themselves.
Accordingly, we are hore-by requesting that negotiations be commenced promptly and that any agreement reached be submitted to this Board in writing no later than the close of business on Friday, May 4.
Failing such agreement, counsel for each party is to-submit a written report by the same date.
That report shall contain a detailed statement of the areas of agree-mont and disagreement, together with the reasons for the disagreement.
f
, It must be reiterated that what the parties are to discuss is not whether the applicant should obtain the discovery which the Licensing Board has allowed.
As has been indicated, we are answering that question in the affirmative.
Rather, the discussion is to center upon (1) possible alternative means of accomplishing the discovery; and (2) possible feasible measures for handling the informa-
' tion claimed by the appellants to be confidential.
- And, as should need not be stressed, it will be to the mutual advantage of the parties if an agreement is reached.
This would obviate the need for this Board to enter its own
- order, the terms of which may prove less suitable than those which the parties might work out between themselves.
The separate appeal of the Village of Paw Paw is denied on the ground that the allegedly improper service made upon the officials of that village was not raised before the Licensing Board.
~
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD
}.e ~ Q4u f Y
/h'h,j Q J!argcret E.
DuPlo Secretary to the Appeal Board Dated:
April 24, 1973 l
,l, m.
, ~. -
^
I
~
[
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i
'}
ATOMIC EIERGY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
CONSJJMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos f50-329V 1
)
50-330A (Midland Plant, Units 1 & 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of MEMORANDUM dated April 24, 1973 in the captioned matter have been served per the attached Service List by deposit in the United States mail, first class or air mail, this i
24th day of April 1973.
M Offic( of khe Secretary of the CommiFsion
Attachment:
Service List cc:
Mr. Garfinkel Mr. Rutberg Mr. Braitman ASLBP Reg. Files ASLAB
$8
, ~. -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
CONSUNERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-329A
)
50-330A (Midland Flant, Units 1 & 2)
)
SERVICE LIST Jerome Garfinkel, Esq., Chairman George Spiegel, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board James Carl Pollock, Esq.
U. S. Atomic Energy Commission 2600 Virginia Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20545 Washington, D. C.
20037 Hugh K. Clark, Esq.
Mr. Abraham Braitman, Chief P. O. Box 127A Office of Antitrust and Indemnity Kennedyville, Maryland 21645 Directorate of Licensing U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Wallace E. Brand, Esq.
Washington, D C.
20545 U.S. Department of Justice P. O. Box 7513 Harold P. Graves, Esq.
Washington, D. C.
20044 Vice President and General Counsel Consumers Power Company David A. Leckie, Esq.
212 West Michigan Avenue Public Counsel Section Jackson, Michigan 49201 Antitrust Division Department of Justice Washington, D. C.
20530 Dr. J. V. Leeds, Jr.
P. O. Box 941 Houston, Tezas 77001 Joseph J. Saunders, Esq., Chief Public Counsel and Legislative Joseph Rutberg, Esq.
Section Benjamin H. Vogler, Esq.
Antitrust Division Antitrust Counsel U. S. Department of Justice Office of the General Counsel Washington, D. C.
20530 U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C.
20545 William T. Clabault, Esq.
Antitrust Division William Warfield Ross, Esq.
P. O. Box 7513 Keith S. Watson, Esq.
Washington, D. C.
20044 Toni K. Golden, Esq.
Wald, Harkrader, Nicholson & Ross 1320 19th Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20036
.