ML19331A375
| ML19331A375 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 11/01/1974 |
| From: | Jenny Murray, Olmstead W US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007160936 | |
| Download: ML19331A375 (4) | |
Text
,
d2.d i-THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS U'!ITEE STATES OF Af! ERICA ATOMIC ENERGY C0l71ISSIOil BEFORE THE ATO:1IC SAFETY Atl0 LICE:lSI!!G BOARD In the flatter of
-)
)
Construction Permit
,- ^'
C0!iSUMERS POWER COMPA!lY
)
Nos. 81 and 82
)
(ShowCause)
(Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
STAFF'S RESP 0:lSE TO SAGIllA!!'S MOTIO:1 FOR DISCOVERY Ill AID OF ORAL AR'iU::ENT On October 22, 1974 Intervenor (Caginr.t) moved this Board to order discovery of certain Consumers Po er Company and Cecht;el documents so that Saginaw will be able to present adequate oral argument on
!!ovember 13, 1974 on its motion for reconsideration or to reopen the record.
This new notion apparently represents an admission by Saginav that t.he motion to reopen or reconsider is subject to summary denial withouttheaidofdiscovery.E Sagintw nust demonstrate with some particularity that discovery is likely to develop the basis for avoiding summary disposition of its motion to reopen.E At this time Saginaw has failed to show that the itens it seeks to discovef will develop such a basis.
The show cause hearing is limited to the issues specified in the show cause order.
In this proceeding the issues are:
If In the Matter of Vermont Yankee fluclear Power Corporation, ALAB-133, RAI-73-7 at 524 (July 31,1973).
,\\
yt,{
2/ Id.
,/
8007160k3(
C
(1) Whether the licensee is implementing its quality assurance program in ccmpliance with Comnission regulations; and (2).Uhether there is a reasonable assurance that such.imple-nentation will continue throughout the construction process.
s These issues relate to the Midland facility and not to the Palisades facility. Saginaw has already been denied discovery of matters in-volving the ?alisadas facility during'the _ course of this proceeding and no showing has been made in the instant motion to uarrant granting the request *cr documents relating to ths Palisades facility.
However, Saginaw not only seeks to. discover the contracts and corre-spondence which are the subject of the complaint involving Falisades but also seeks to discover contracts bet *.; ea Cechtel and Consumers regarding Midland.
Saginaw does not explain why such contracts could not have been requested earlier in 'the course of this proceeding while -
the record was open.
A request Saginau makes which could have merit is one for " correspondence if any, between Consumers and Bechtel (or'any Bechtel-affiliate)' con-cerning the application to the Midland facility, if any, of any of the allegations or underlying facts alleged or asserted.in the complaint dealing with the Palisades care..." '(emphasis added) But, by use of such terms as "if any" Saginaw fails to establish with-particularity' grounds for believing the quality assurance program at Midland is not continuing to comply wit'n Commission regulations.
a 7
6
... Finally it 'should be noted that, as.the Commission stated in connection
~
with another of Saginaw's requests for reopening "It is almost. inevitable that particular facts may change... between the close of administrative hearings,-final agency-action, and judicial review.
If such' changes were to trigger rehearings, 'there would be little hope that the admin-istrative process could ever be consum;ated 4in an order that would not be subject t'o reopening'." N 4
Respectfully submitted,
[! / i d.d d.v ~.f.t[ ( M C I llilliam J. Oi/nstead.
Counsel' for AEC Regulatory Staff m.,
- Jr.mes P. Ihrray, Jr.
Chief Rulemaking and Enforcemnt Counsel
' Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 1st day of ilovember,.1974.
I I
i i
i h
~ In the Matter cf Consumers Power Company, Memorandum and Order, 3/
' CLI-74-7, RAI-74-2 at 148 (February 5,~ 1974) citing ICC v. ' Jersey
. City, 322 U.S. 503, 514 (1944).
>+y e,
e---.-
,- - +
UtiITED STATES OF-A!! ERICA ATOMIC EflERGY.C0!iMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICEi! SING BOARD
'In 'the flatter of
)
)
CCUSUMZP,5 F0:!ER COMPNtY
)
Ccnstructicn Permit
)
flos. 81 and 82
_(Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
_-(ShowCause)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of '" Staff's Response to Saginaw's.lbtion -
for Discovery in Aid of Oral Argunent". dated Movech'er 1,1974 in the captioned matter have been served on'the follcuing by hand delivery.
or by deposit in the United States mail, first class orLair nail, this 1s t day or'. Mover;ter,1974.
Michael Glaser, Esq., Chairman -
Michael I'. Miller, Esq.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Isham, Lincoln & Bcale 1150 - 17tn St., J!.U.
One First National-Plaza Washington,'D.C. 120036-Chicago, Illinois 60670
- Mr. LesterJKornblith, Jr.
Laurence (1.. Scoville, Jr.
Atomic Safety and Licensing
- Clark, Klein, Uinter,. Parsons T.
Doard Panel Prewitt U.S. Ator.ic Energy Commission 1600 First Federal Building Washington, D.C.
20545 1001 Uoodward Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226 Dr. Emmeth A.-Luebke-
. Atomic Safety and Licensing Myron M. ' Cherry, Esq.
. Board Panel Suite 4501 U.S. Atcmic Energy Commission
.0ne ICl1 Plaza Washington,_D.C. 20545 Chicago, Illinois :60630 Docketing.and Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Secretary Appeal Board U.S. Atomic Energy Commission U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D.C.
20545-Washington, D.C.
20545 John G. Gleeson, Esq.
The Dow Chemical Co.-
2030.Dow Center Midland, Michigan 48640
/
- /i a a
William J. 0lmstead Counsel for AEC Regulatory Staff
_