ML19331B366
| ML19331B366 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 09/29/1977 |
| From: | Bartelman C, Bartleman C, Mark Miller CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.), ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19331B340 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007280921 | |
| Download: ML19331B366 (7) | |
Text
.~
(~T atember 29, 1977 gm,Kir.D CUU T
E UNITED STATES OF AMERICA g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
(
q%,#'
7 3
gib 12 g
[
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board {
gp v( #*,.
dh>h 4
Q 3
c
)
A g
In the Matter of
)
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Nos. 50-329
)
50-330 (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO BOARD'S REQUEST REGARDING DISCOVERY RULINGS AND REMAND HEARING SCHEDULES In accordance with this Board's September 12, 1977 order, Consumers Power Company (Licensee) advises the Board regarding discovery requests presently awaiting a ruling and submits a proposed schedule for the " remanded proceedings" to be cond'2cted pursuant to the decision of the Court of Appeals in Aeschliman v. NRC, 547 F.2d 622 (D.C. Cir. 1976).
I.
DISCOVERY REQUESTS AWAITING A RULING Licensee, by letter of its in-house counsel, submitted a discovery request to The Dow Chemicalt Company (Dow) on January 18, 1977, pertaining to documents indicated to be available by Dow's December 17, 1976 communication to the parties regarding " Priority 5 Documents".
Copies of the request were previously sent to the Board and the parties; the request is a.1so attached to this filing as Exhibit A.
Dow, by L. F. Nute's January 25, 1977 letter to David J.
8007280 M /
, ~.
Rosso, objected to the request as burdensome and oppressive
~'
and as requesting documents irrelevant to the subject matter of the proceeding, referencing the reasons set forth'at Tr.
.. e 238-240, 718-719 which include Dow's desire to receive only specific document requests.
Licensee was unable to make more specific requests based on the general nature of Dow's
" Priority 5 Documents" listing.
Licensee has requested documents which it considered relevant to the matters of costs of and schedule for Dow's alternatives to the supply of steam and electricity by the Midland plant, including auxiliary or back-up systems.
Specifically, Licensee would require those documents pertaining to the alternatives indicated in the document marked (and admitted into evidence) as Midland Intervenors Exhibit 26 and to any alternatives being considered at the present time.
This information is clearly relevant to Licensee's cost-benefit analysis of the Midland project.
Licensee also recognizes that this Board has not yet ruled regarding certain documents which Licensee has claimed to be proprietary.
The doccments weregtransmitted to the Board by letter of February 22, 1977, accompanied by a Charles E.
Bayless supporting affidavit of February 18, 1977. The bases for the claims were asserted at the hearing on February if, 1977 (e.g., Tr. 4333-39).
In addition, there has been no ruling with regard to several documents also claimed to be proprietary which Licensee transe'tted to
.n L
[N s
g the Board by letter of March 14, 1977; the transmittal 77 referenced the aforementioned Bayless affidavit and counsel's argument.
II.
PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR THE REMANDED PROCEEDINGS October 14, 1977 Prehearing Conference, Agenda to include:
(a) final determination
- of schedule for the remanded proceedings (b) ruling
- on all pending discovery matters (c) resolution
- of Board's concern regarding Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) question **
s (d) issue clarification
- regarding ACRS question ***
Rulings by the Board to Ima preceded by oral argument, if permitted.
This Board has questioned the adequacy of the response of the ACRS to the Board's October 14, 1976 request for clarification of the original Midland ACRS report in connection with the court's decision in Aeschliman, supra.
(Tr. 1434-38).
By letter of January 28, 1977, the Board requested additional clarification of the ACRS.
The adequacy of the ACRS' March 16, 1977 response has not yet been determined.
(See also, Consumers Power Company's letter to Board of April 20, 1977; NRC Staff's letter to Board of April 85 1977; Intervenors' letter to Board of March 29, 1977.)
Licensee believes it is necessary for this Board to resolve the question of the report's adequacy and determine any measures necessary to remedy an inadequacy (including providing for argument on the subject) well in advance of the submission of testimony in the: remanded proceeding.
There has been disagreement between the parties regarding the scope of the ACRS issue, which Licensee considers unresolved by the Board's September 23, 1977 Order.
Specifically, there remain the questions of whether the parties must make evidentiary presentations regarding the cleven ACRS items set forth in the clarification letters and whether evidence must be presented regarding ACRS topics not raised by those letters.
~
November 1, 1977 Amendment No. 4 to Licensee's Environmental Report Supplement filed November 15, 1977 Motions for Summary Disposition filed November 28, 1977 Responses to Motions for Summary Disposition filed "R"*
Board's ruling on Motions for (Decembur 7, 1977)
Summary Disposition "R"
plus 1 week Additional prehearing conference, (December 14, 1977) if necessary "R" plus 2 weeks Filing of prepared testimony (December 21, 1977) by all parties
~
"R" plus 4 weeks Hearing commences to run con-(January 4, 1978) tinuously, except for Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, until completed Licensee hereby requests the Board to consider the above discovery matters awaiting ruling, ans to adopt its proposed schedule, including the requested agenda for the pre-hearing conference.
Respectfully Submitted, l
/ k s z t. % d w a Michael I.
Miller
/
Awf [
Caryl'- A. sBartelman Counsel for Consumers Power September 29,.1977 Company Isham, Lincoln & Beale One First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60603 l
~
i Because it is impossible to schedule a ruling on the Motions for Summary Disposition and because Licensee believes that the subsequent scheduled items should be keyed to that ruling, Licensee proposes indefinite-dates for the remainder of the schedule.
- However, l~
Licensee shows possible dates in parentheses in order to provide a framework for decisionmaking.
~
~
Exhibit A (3 pages) l
(}
January 10, 1977 4)
Ts g
2:
ggg77 7 :.
Mr. Lee Nute OCI Wg Dew Chemical Company 9
opt-Legal Department Building No. 47 7
Midland Division
' chi l l4 Midland, Michigan 48640
Dear Lee:
At today's session of the Midland suspension hearing, I advised you that I would like to have someone from our office look at Dow's " Priority 5 Documents".
These are docun'ents in-dexed in your December 17, 1976 communication to the parties under the headings " Listing of Documents in Vault" and " Nuclear Project Files".
You stated that, after I have identified the documents desired, you will have someone review them for claims of privilege and then make the rest available for inspection at Midland.
That arrangement is suitable, and I trust you vill make your review for privilege promptly.
(g)
Without waiving any right to later request the review of the remainder, or any other documents, I hereby request the opportunity to review the following files, referenced in accor-dance with the drawer and item numbers listed in your December 17 index:
I.
Documents in Vault A.
Drawer No. 1 1.
List of Files (no dividers) :5 Items 32, 35, 37 through 41.
2.
Divider:
" Reserved Steam Demands":
Items 1 and 3 B.
Drawer No. 2 1.
Divider:
"1974 Nuclear Project Evaluation":
binder file and Item No. 2 2.
Divider:
"1975 Cost Data and Studies:
all 14 items 3.
Divider:
"1975 Steam Power Costs Demand":
all 24 items pe C.
Drawer No. 3:
all items
%.g 1
(
~
s Mr. Ltc Nuts January 18, 1977 Page 2
, )
D.
Drawer No. 4:
1.
Divider:
Miscellaneous Information 2.
Divider':
Miscellaneous Information on Consumers Power Company 3.
Divider.:
Miscellaneous Studies E.
' Drawer No. 5:
1.
Items 3 and 4 2.
Divider:
" Nuclear Authorization, Fall 1974" F.
Drawer No. 11:
all items G.
Drawer No. 12:
all items H.
Eoxes:
Item No. 4 I.
Notebooks:
1.
Notebook 12-1:
all 2.
Notebook 12-2: 'all 3.
Notebook 12-3:
all 4.
Notebook 12-4:
all 5.
Notebook 12-5:
all
- 1 6.
Notebook 2:
all 7.
Notebook 6:
all l) 8.
Notebook 7:
all 9.
Notebook 10:
all 10.
Notebook 13:
Item 16 11.
Notebook 16:
Item 7:
" Internal Dow Correspondence",
Item 9:
" Internal Dow Meetings",
Item 11:
" Consumers-Dow Meetings",
Item 28:
"Miscl. Meetings-Others",.
Item 30:
" Misc 1. Correspondence-Others".
12.
Notebook 17:
Item 7:
" Internal Dow Meetings",
Item 9:
" Consumers-Dow Meetings",
Item 28:
"Misci. Meetings-Others",
l Item 30:
"Miscl. Correspondencc-Others".
13.
Nctobook 35:
Item 26:
" June 12 1974 Dow-CPCo Meeting" 14.
Notebook 36:
all 15.
Notebook 37:
all 16.
Notebook 38:
all 3
17.
Notebook 39:
all y---
w 9
w-
,,,y
Mr. Lee Nute January 18, 1977 Page 3.
n 10.
Notebook 40:
all II.
Nuclear Project Files A.
Dow Corporate Headquarters:
Items 3 and 4 Your prompt attention to this matter will be apprec-iated.
Ycurs,yer.truly, Y
.t.
..i- -'
i
' l Judd L.-Bacon JLB:mkc
'w' cc:
F. J. Coufal, Esq.
E. A. Luebke, Esq.
J. V. Leeds, Esq.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Eoard Fanel Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Eoard 4
-C.
R.
Stephens f)
Lawrence Brenner, Esq.
../
D. J. Rosso, Esq.
F.. M. Cherry, Esq.
g i
i k
l 4
4 y-
-g..m.-
n.--
,,ne.
,,,.,.-m
.,.n-..
,,,,,,,.,,.