ML19338C113
| ML19338C113 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 03/31/1978 |
| From: | Mark Miller Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.), DOW CHEMICAL CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8008050565 | |
| Download: ML19338C113 (8) | |
Text
.
gm \\EOs r
3 g%%
e-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA g YiB NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of g
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-329
)
50-330 (Midland Plant,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
ORDER CONCERNING OBJECTIONS TO SECOND REQUEST FOR LISCOVERY OF SAGINAW INTERVEtTORS (March 31, 1978)
Saginaw Intervenors (Intervenors) filed a Second Request For Discovery dated January 5,1978 and an amendment thereto dated January 9, 1978.
On February 6, 1978, both Consumers Power Company (Licensee) and Dow Chemical Company (Dow) filed Responses consisting of general. obj ectiors to the request and a number of specific objections.
These objections will be considered seriatim.
The-discovery requests are for the production of documents for inspection and-copying pursuant to 10 CFR 2.741.
Licensee states that it will make no documents available to Intervenors until a' prior charge for copying documents
($314.42) is paid ~.
The Board has previously held that it does not have the power to assess costa (Order of September 23, l
1977).
The rights of parties to inspection and copying of
. documents cannot be abridged by alleged unpaid balances on
~
. prior extensions of credit, so this objection is overrule.d.
gI 8008050 g g g
l
c.
.2-J3 However, parties producing documents'for' inspection cannot be required' to furnish or, pay for copies thereof in-the' absence
=of' agreement, and so~the requesting party (Intervenors) shall
- arrange and pay. for. the copying of any documents it. desires to.have reproduced.
All. parties shall have a duty to supplement responses to
[
requests for discovery to include after-acquired information, j
in'accordance with the. provisions of 10 CFR $2.740(e)(3).
i-j The-Intervenors are not ent1tled to demand-that documents be produced at. the ' office of their attorney.
Accordingly, the. requested documents may be produced either
-I at the Licensee's offices in' Jackson, Michigan or at the Chicago, Illinoic offices of Licensee's, attorneys, at the choice of the Intervenors.
.The Intervesors' request for an affidavit concerning
~$
the production of documents is not requ. ired under the Commission's Rules of. Practice nor the analogous Rule 34 of the Federal Rules 'of Civil Procedure, and such request is denied.
j iThe Licensee contends that under present circumstances
-(whatever that means)',! "Intervenors musti meet a stricter -
b than normal standaid-- of-importance and' relevance for the J
?
z
.. z
.w
1
(_
3-
<1
- discovery requested."
- (p. 4 of' Response. )-
We disagree.
'This'is the'first'evidentisry hearing on the merits of the remanded and' other issues identified in our Order of-March 9,.1978.. Prior time constraints will be. deemed to have been applicable only-to earlier proceedings related to the-issue of suspension of construction pending a hearing on the
. merits.
All parties are directed to commence and conclude
[
discoveryLon'the. remanded and other issues as expeditiously i-as is reasonably.possible.
'[
. Request 1(a). to Licensee calls for documents relating l
to meetings between Licensee and Dow, the subject matter of meetings, or other meetings to discuss the subject matter.
This, request will be.. construed to relate to contracts or contract negotiations between the parties dealing with the 3
Midland facility.
As such, the objection that it is over-2
- broad-or~otherwise oppressive-is overruled.
The confidenti-
~
l ality objection is denied, as these documents and the l underlying relationship-between the parties have been put in issue-- by Items -3.and '5 of the Board's identification of issues in.the Order-of March 9, 1978.
For the same reasons, obj ections co = Request 1(b) are denied.
In addition, general
-obj ections ~ on' the. grounds of attorney-client privilege or:
4the ' work product doctrine will not be entertained. - Counsel 4
a f
e
'a,e v-
>w,.
m-w,s-
+%
s w.'
me y
e-ser rw'p-
-wn
' will<be-required to list and sufficiently describe such
-documents, without revealing-assertedly privileged matter, to
. enable tha_: Board to rule: on the validity of the claims of
. privilege when--properly'as.serted in a motion for a protective order under 10 CFR 52.740(c).
Such determinations will be made. by the Board, not unilaterally by counsel 'for -any of the parties.
The. objections are sustained as. to Request 1(c), which
~
relates-to the impact en the Dow-Licensee relationship of antitrust conduct of the Licensee described in ALAB-452.
These matters do not appear to be within even broad subj ect-matter relevance of this proceeding, and.the contractual and negotiating relationship of the parties will be fully producible under Requests 1(a) and (b), supra.
Request 1(d) relates to documents concerning energy conservation, energy sales, peak demand and the like.
bbjections that it is overbroad, burden'some and irrelevant are overruled.
Request?l(e)shall be responded to.
Any claims of privilege ~or. work product doctrine must be itemized and.
described.in an appropriate motionJas discussed supra.
W l..
-5'-
3 Request 1(f) ' concerns the financing.of the construction or.operatien of the' Midland facility.
Such issues are irrelevant to-this hearing:on remanded issues, and the objections are sustained.
~
Request 1(g) pertains to documents relating to forecast-'
ing.of peak derand or energy sales.
The obj ections on the grounds of being vague, irrelevant and burdensome are -
overruled..
Requests 1(h) and, (i) are not obj ected-to.
Any claims of confidential commercial information shall.be the aubj ect of an appropriate motion for a protective. order.
j J
.A Substantially the same document requests were addressed
)
to Dow-and' the same rulings will be made. ' Accordingly, the objections are overruled as to Dow -Requests 1(a),1(b) and 1(d).
Obj ection to 1(c) is allowed.
~
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD GYfuff $ !fN h Marshall E. Miller, Chairman
- Dated at Bethesda,. Maryland this 31st. day,of March 1978.
~
l 9
m-'
s
--rg.--
w n - - -.y
=
. G?
y.%
u
..+y y<
p.
- -~
~'
' >J 2
. j UNITED STATES (OF AMERICA-NUCLEAR PJ.GULATORY C0FJ41SSION '
~
5
.In the-Matter ofa
)-
~
- )
' 'CO::SUMERS POWER COMPANY;
,)-
Docket No. (s).50-329 -
. )
50-330-
-(Midland: Plant, Unit Nos..I and 2)
)
. )~
)
'-)
CERTIFICATE OF'SEE"TCE I.hereby certify-that'1 have this day served the foregoing document (s)..
, upon ench person designated on the. official service' list co= piled by
-the Of fice ' of the_ Secretary of. the Comission in this ipreceeding' in -
accordance with the require =ents of Section 2.712 of 10 CFR Part 2 -
-Rules of Practice, of-th'e Nuc1 car Regulatory Corraissionf s Rules. and ~
' Regulations.
' ' - i
.DatedapWashington,p[C.'this'-[/ b 197 Qay-of './-/
/ '.
u 1
/-
t.!&%'AG H
.uMU:
7 l
- Of fic( df/the Steretary of the~ Co p61ssion
.?'
e 6,
er 1
6 u.
8 4
~
D**}D
" 79[lY @
~
4 o Ju o Ju. J U A ln L.,_
2 L'_.
x.
r g'
2:
+
W T
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA y
. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION' i
}l In the Matter of -
')
c)-
CONSUMLRS. POWER COMPANY
.)~
Docliet No.(s) 50-329
')
50-330
'(Midland Plant,~ Units;l and 2)
_)
)
- SERVICE = LIST.
Marshall E. ; Miller,' Esq.,. Chairman Atomic Safety and: Licensing Board (
U.S. Nuclear Reguh tory. Commission],
Washington, D.C.
.20555 iDr.' Emmeth A. Luebke James A. Kendall, Esq.
Atomic Safety' and : Licensing Board' Currie and Kendall
. U.S. - Nuclear Regulatory Commission 135 North Saginaw Road Washington,1D.C. ~ 20555?
. Midland, Michigan 48640
.Dr. s J..Venn. Leeds, Jr.
Judd L. Bacon,i Esq.
10807'Atwell; Consumers Power Company Houston, Texas -77096 212 West Michigan-Avenue Jackson,. Michigan 49201-office of the Executive' Legal ~ Director Counsel for NRC Staff William J. Ginster, Esq.
. U.S;' Nuclear Regulatory Commission Merrill Building, Suite 4 washington,-D.C.. 20555 Saginaw, Michigan 48602-Louis W. Pribila, Esq.
.Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
Michigan Division Legal Dept.
- One -IBM : Plaza
- Midland, Michigan 48640 HaroldTFi;Reis,.Esq.
Lowens3ein, Newman,- Reis'& Axelrad
. Honorable Curtis G.-Beck.
'1025 Connecticut. Avenue,'N.W.
Assistant Attorney General 4
Washington,~ D.C..20036
. State of Michigan-Seven Story Office Building Honorable Charles A'. Briscoe
-525 West Ottawa Assistant" Attorney. Generali Lansing, Michigan 48913
. State of. Kansas cTopeka } Kansas' 1666121 Lee Nute, Esq.
~
Michigan Divis' ion \\
- w.
Irving~Like,1Esq.
The Dow. Chemical Company -
Reilly,sLike and Schneider 47 Building
~"
200 Weat Main. Street' Midland; Michigan 48640-
{
. Babylon,;N w York-11702 1
Y
' [ p I_'
y
)
+ -.
p
~-
v ---
r? -
c h'"...'A
~.
. 1
^
~
s
^
'=-
L_ g, c
P b ). f'; '
~.,
c fi.
f.
[-
50-329,1-330 -
- Page 2-K Anth'ony. Z.' Roisman,- Esa '.
.Natdral[ Resources". Defense Council i 917 -l - 15th Street, N.W
.4
' Washington,'D.C.. 20005
~
LJoseph:Gallo, Esq.
"..Isham,1 Lincoln & Beale:
~ '
1050 -~17th Street,cN.W..
- Wa sh ington", --: D. C.
20036
'Micliae1~ I. Miller,(Esq.
iCaryl--A. Eartelman, Esq.
L 7 Isham, Lincoln & Beale-One First: National' Bank Plaza Chicago;. Illinois ~ 60603 Ms. Mary Sinclai_r-5711-Summerset Street.
-Midland,-Michigan 48640 Mr. Steve.Gadler, P.E.
2120 Carter. Avenue
- St.' Paul, Minnesota' 5510'8.
. Grace Dow Memorial Library 1710.-West St. Andrew Road
-Midland, MichiganJ48640-i :-
n 1
C"
s.
, i 4
I 4
c.
, -f l:sq L
y o
'e
/ *
's I
y
{t
?,
~
?
- _:n*
a gf 4;}( _,
, v:- -
+
i
_gw:.
W Le
-ue
__i.
x.
'