ML19331A840
| ML19331A840 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 11/14/1974 |
| From: | Glaser M Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | Saginaw Intervenor |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-CP, NUDOCS 8007230872 | |
| Download: ML19331A840 (7) | |
Text
- -
)
J
/
p.-} ' ' " ' ' '
e HOV.? f ;py UNITED STATES OF AMERICA r
Uf C' e r -
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION t ;:1:
- )
.i..
fe g, ~,
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ifs 0)
In the Matter of
)
)
e CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
) Construction Permit
) Nos. 81 and 82 (Midland Pla..t, Units 1 and 2),
)
ho ORDER The Saginaw Intervenora (Saginaw) have requested the Eonrd te issue an order requiring certain documents be produced for inspection or copying in order to aid Saginaw's oral argument en its petition to reopen the record and/or for reponsideration of Initial Decision in the show cause proceeding.
For the reasons that follow, we decline to grant Saginaw's request.
Saginaw's Motion for Discovery On September 30, 1974, Saginaw filed its petition cccking a reopeni.';
.'f the record and/or reconsideration of our S:ptember 25, 1974, Initial Decision in this proceeding.
Saginaw-secks to h' ave the Board consider the effects of the Complaint filed by Consumers Power Company (Consumers) in the U.S. Dise trict Court for,the Western District of Michigan, Southern Divi-Cicn, against five defendants, including Bechtel Corporation and Bechtel Company, consumers' architect-engineer for the Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2.
The Complaint concerns Consuiners' Pali-cades Plant.
Because of the importance of the proceeding, and in view of the matters raised in Saginaw's petition, we scheduled oral argument on the matter for November 18, 1974.
800723077c2 G
o o
j Saginaw now seeks to have the following documents, which,Saginaw claims form part of the res gestae to Consumers and Bechtel dealings, produced in order to aid Saginaw in its presentation at oral argument:
A.
The contracts which are the subject of Consumers' Complaint against the five defendants, including the Bechtel companies; B.
Correspondence between Consumers and Bechtel (or any Bechtel af.filiate) between the dates.of January 1974 and August 1974, relating to any and all allegations set forth in the complaint; C.
Contracts between Consumers and Bechtel concerning Bechtel's obligations in respect to the Midland Plant; and D.
Correspondance, if any, between Consumers and Bechtel (or any Bechtel affiliate) concerning the application to the Midland Plant of any of the allegations or underlying facts alleged or ass.<ted in the Complaint.
Saginaw claims that without the. foregoing documents, it will b6 unable to adequately present oral argument on its petition.
Saginaw also states that without such documents, the Board will not have~ sufficient information to render a deci-cion on Saginaw's petition.
Consumers, Bechtel and the Staff object to Saginaw's motion for discovery'in aid of oral argument.
Although Consumers points out that the grant.or denial of Saginaw's motion is dis-cretionary, Consumers urges the Board to deny the motion for Civeral. reasons.
First, Consumers states there are no grounds O
t I
e
e 0-
~
which warrcnt c rcopening of tha record and/or reconsideration cf our Initial Decision.
Hence, there exist no reasons to per-mit discovery'in aid of oral argument on Saginaw's petition.
Secondly,. Consumers points out it has~already made availabl,c c vast amount of documentary material to Saginaw in connection with the show cause hearing; that such material deals directly with Consumers' working relationship with Bechtel at Midland; cnd that the same was introduced in evidence at hearing.
Con-cumers notes that Saginaw did not participate in such hearing, and chose not to review the material furnished.
Finally, Con-cumers represents that it has reviewed its files to determine whether it has in its possession any of the documents sought by Saginaw.
Consumers states that the results of its review dis-close the following:
A.
The contracts sought by Saginaw were attached cc exhibits to the Complaint.
In any event, to insure that Sag-inaw has received correct copies of the contracts, Consumers is canding copied to Saginaw.
B.
There is no correspondence between Consumers and Bechtel (or any Bechtel affiliate) in the period January 1974 cnd August 1974 dealing with the allegations in the Complaint.
C.
On April 6, 1971, Saginaw was furnished Consumers' contract with Bechtel for Saginaw's use in the evidentiary hear-ings on issuance of construction permits to Consumers for the Midland facilities pursuant to a protective order.
D.
There is no correspondence be' tween Consumers and Bechtel (or any Bechtel affiliate) concerning application to the
\\
O- '
Midland facility of any of the allegations or underlying facts contained in the Complaint.
In light of its review of its files, and the results thereof, which we summarized above, consumers argues that Saginaw's motion is moot.
Bechtel and the Staff essentially argue that the dis-c very sought is irrelevant and immaterial to the issues in this proceeding.
Based upon Consumers' representations that Saginaw has the contracts sought, and that the correspondence sought does not exist, we have determined Saginaw's motion is moot.
- Hence, wa decline to issue an order requiring production of the documents cought.
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 2'.
- I E-By:
/
Michael L.
Glaser Chairman ~
Washington, D.C.
Ncvember 14, 1974 O
S
.