ML19330A192

Objects to Saginaw Intervenors' 710513 Ltr Re Communication Between Parties.W/O Prior Notice,Eccs Tests & Continued Saginaw Impertinence

ML19330A192
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	05/20/1971
From:	Wessel M KAYE, SCHOLER, FIERMAN, HAYS & HANDLER
To:	Murphy A Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8007150961
Download: ML19330A192 (2)

Text

4 DCCI'U (". . ill

') PROD. & UHL. LAC. okW,Q .

KAYE, SCHOLER. FIERI.1 AN. HAYS E HA ND LER '

425 PARK AV EN U C NEW Yo RK , N. Y.10022 (2t2) PLAZA 9 0400

7.r.A:::::"

=.'.~?:.m..

n::.  ::.::n. ,,", " :nn:',=:"..a m.'.::v:: .. ., q::;',v...,:,c,~

.::::m::: May 20, 1971 coo

= .s.'c: = . =.;. ;;;=r. M .- m ,,,,;;; o,,,c, I.N$b  !!.!!Y$Y.t""' //

'b

, UTv'ONd'c'e'

"?;i!'.*.7.'JO" it" f !!!/a., ,,,V 3'~ :3

"it. 'll.u'  ?;n?/fu'.L. c.. , no. css,.

1:a ?ie':,7**"  ::::nl:':.i", Ob LGa ** "

'3 ;'isClte"c"al2s"e f t'%'I. *""' S" Mt'aP ' -

CA'". o??la?" i?r? ' i."n'i

~'

M,2 3 d, 7} N C .

e'MIOUL

,a,': :.:m.. =.. .w. . e..n.=::

e-- w. .. , a,,, m,..

-.- " * ' " = ~

...t. ,u .

i 4

\

Arthur W. Murphy, Esq., Chairman

% CQ #

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board f'V G Columbia University School of Law THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS 435 West ll6th Street New York, N.Y. 10027 POOR QUALITY PAGES In the Matter of Consumers Power Company Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-329 and 50-330

Dear Chairman Murphy:

The second full paragraph on page two of the Saginaw May 13, 1971 letter reads:

"Mr. Chairman, this is a contested case, and we will not normit communications with respect to the issues to be heard between the vendor of the Applicant and the Atomic Energy Commission without our having knowledge and indeed without a representative of Intervenors oeing present at any meetings." (underlining -

added)

No rule precludes parties to a proceeding from communicating with each other, or requir,es that any other party be permitted to be present or even have knowledge of the event. Disclosure alone may be appropriate to the ex-  ;

tent that " good cause" is shown for discovery or inquiry on l cross-examination at a Hearing is proper. l The second full paragraph on page 2 of the Saginau letter is far broader in scope than the original document request made by Saginau. Consumers Power's responsive tele-gram states only that it'"nas no objection to [the] motion

• • oviso qg ,

C um,

c

. l. ~

KA' SCHoLER, FIERMAN, HAYS & HANDL -

t'

/

Arthur W. Murphy, Esq. May 20, 1971 for* production of reports of emergency core cooling systems tests at Idaho reactor test facility."

We object again to continued Saginaw impertinences, such as "We trust that this means the Board is in earnest,"

or "why the Board only saw fit to require answers to a miniscule percentage," or "we are requiring production,"

or "we will not permit communications."

On April 14, 1971, Dow furnished the responsive in-formation referred to in the Board's May 13, 1971 order sustaining its objections to Saginaw Interrogatories 243, 245, 246 and 251, and 311 (See Dow Memorandum served April 14, 1971, Item 1, especially subparagraph [b].) Indeed, Saginaw has had the Dow document list since December 1, 1970, and has paid no more attention to it than it did for one-third year until April 5, 1971, with respect to Applicant's documents also produced on that date.

Respectfully, t ,r & .t + d Milton R. Wessel MRW: ski cc: Dr. Clark Goodman Dr. David B. Hall Myron M. Cherry, Esq.

• Thomas F. Engelhardt, Esq.

William J. Ginster, Esq.

Jagds A. Kendall, Esq. '

A thony Z. Roisman, Esq.

ichard G. Smith, Esq. .. '

Secretary, AEC e

I ..

l 2