ML19338C159

Brief Submitted in Reply to Saginaw Intervenors' 710515 Brief Re Objections to Interrogatories to AEC & Acrs.Acrs Was Never Participant in Licensing Proceedings.Applicant Objections Should Be Sustained.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19338C159
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	05/21/1971
From:	Sharfman J, Sharfman J CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.), LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL
To:
References
NUDOCS 8008050611
Download: ML19338C159 (7)

Text

= - -

fW -

, ,g.. 3 w

UNITED' STATES'OF-AMERICA -

ATOMIC' ENERGY COMMISSION.

p

_______________________________'_x In.the~ Matter of-  :

~CONSUMEBS-POWER COMPANY. Docket Nos. 50-329 &'50-330

!  : Midland ~. Plant' nits 1.and 2 J'A/-7/,

________________________________x APPLICANT'S REPLY-BRIEF IN SUPPORT -

OF ITS OBJECTIONS TO INTERRO-

_G1. TORIES ADDRESSED TO AEC-AND ACRS .

4_

Applicant: submits this brief in-reply to the Saginaw-intervenors' brief. dated May'15, 1971 concerning objections

. to their. interrogatories to the staff and ACRS. We believe that most of the. arguments.made in the Saginaw brief are

~

adequately; dealt.with in Applicant's initial brief. We shall

! -merely add.a'few comments.

, I.

+ .

The Saginaw-intervenors seek to reverse the Board's pre-liminary ruling of May 1 (Tr.1126) sustaining the objection

~

to(all.of the-in+arrogatories insofar as they are addressed

-to-the ACRS. Fa believe that the Board'.s preliminary ruling k

The ACRS has never become a participant in

~

-wasicorrect..

15. censing proceedings.. The integrity of its deliberations ishould 1:s protected so ~as ito- encourage 'the free and uninhibited

~ exchange of ideas in its yi, tally important' work'. Moreover, as ,

b inoted t below - (infra - at p. 3 ) , the ACRS ' report ?is' not received as-evidence of.the matters asserted'therein and interv'enors who

~

7

~

E

-$008'0lso g g

,s + -

.m

.-- r

-2 :

are dissatisfied;withLitare,nin any event, free to attack- '

the.underlping merite of the issues as-to safety and health within the framework of the hearing process.

II.

The:Saginaw intervenors: argue (Brief, pp . 24-25)- that -

~

they:need-to have these extensive interrogatories answered

,by the staf f- and. the ACRS--in order to be , able to prepare for the hearing and even to decide what-issues tu contest. We believe that the-Sagigaw.intervenors'should have known what

-issues they wanted .to contest when 'they - petitioned ~ to inter ~

vene. Be-that as it may, however, we think there can be no doubt that.the Saginaw intervenors have had the opportunity to obtain sufficient information from Applicant and Dow, in addition to that contained in the PSAR,.ccher documents of l

record and' documents supplied to them by the Staff,.to i

finally define the contested issues and prepare for-hearing.

III.-

The Saginaw intervenors seem to imply (Brief, pp. 2, 5 l l

and 6) that, because'10LCJF.R. 5 2. 720 (h) (2) (ii) provides for the service'of interrogatories on.the staff,~the staff must

be-required:to answer any,and all interrogatories that anyone

serves uponfit.3 ThisLis, patently. absurd. Section 2.720(h)

J(2)-(ii) 'is .only a procedural rule, as its. inclusion in Part 2 oft 10 C.F.R. indicates.: .Thp. rule explicitly'provides for ,

tobjections to interrogatories. ~Innthis case, such objections-i have beenomade and;the' question; before:the Board is how to

? T rule : oni them. -- -

i:

L . .

, y _ ,

r

}

_ ,_ u- ---

,,w-IV;

'The Saginawtintervenorstargue (Brief, . pp .14-15) that general l objections.to interrogatories'may.not b'e entertained.

-We therefore,wish to reiterate that Applicant has made-c

. specific objections to designated interrogatoriac. ~

See Part IV of Applicant's initial.Brief.

V.

The Saginaw intervenors argue (Brief. p.24) ' that they are entitled.to discovery probing into the basis.for the

, ACRS report and staff safety evaluation because.these documents

-will be offered into evidence-and they need discovery in

order to be in a position to challenge their probative value.

.It has been held that the ACRS report is " received'into evidence to'show compliance by the Commission with the direction of Con;ress that an ACRS-report be prepared and be i

~ submitted-as a part of the. application," but that "no eviden-h ltiary value" is given to it and that, therefore,. an intervenor-may not.. cross-examine with respect to it. In re Florida Power

& Light Co. (Turkey Point Plants 3 and 4), CCH Atomic Energy Law' Reporter. 111,259 . (Atomic Safety andL Licensing Board 1967) .

.The staff safety; evaluation is not required by statute (see

= footnote 3, at p.8 of .the Saginaw intervenors' Brief) . and is notJitself of significance-with respect to: contested-issues .

- (see ' Point II .of Lour initial Brief) . Since the staff will.

be represented'at the hearing by. technical' personnel who may 1 furnish-testimony.'with respect to. contested mathers and be L

g7 .

_= ~+ . . o. __;

. $~

i

-available for cross-examination, the Saginaw intervenors

~

have^no.need for discovery into-the mental' processes underlyingfthe: staff safety. evaluation. l VI.

In Point-I of.our~ initial Brief, we took the position that the interrogatories in question are improper under the Morgan' doctrine, applied in a long series of court and administrative agency cases. The Saginaw intervenors reply

.to this with the argument (Brief,1pp. 6-7, 11-12, 15-18) that the cases we cited applying the Morgan doctrine all involved discovery into-the mental processes underlying. administrative findings which constituted an agency decision made ir "an f

p adjudicatory or quasi-judic ial proceeding' (id. at 17) and that, because the ACRS report and staff safety evaluation are not agency' decisions made in an adjudicatory or quasi- i judicial-proceeding, the Morgan doctrine is inapplicable.

-here. This is. simply not so. -l Of.the' cases"we cited in our initial Brief, the following

' ~

.did:not involve discovery into the mental processes underlying ,

an' agency ,decisionLmade in an -adjudicatory _ or quasi-judicial-

. proceeding: Freeman.v. Seligson, 405 F.2d 1326, 1339'(D.C.

cia. 196 8) (disclost re of:" intra- and 4.nter-agency. advisory I

~

opi,nions and' recommendations submitted for consideration in 4 . ,

'the performance of-decision .and policy-making functions" in

. 1

-_thelDepartment of Agriculture held improper) ; Davis v. Braswell

. Motor Freight Lines,.-363-F.2d 600,-603-05 (5th Cir. 1966)

, ----,- . _ . ,4 __. .__ __ . 2 i .i .

.E .

,e e

'(held:L subpoen~a~requiringiNLRBcregional director to: testify _

lin"an action not. involving-the NLRB and'to produce communi-catione between.himLand the general counsel's. office discussing' the actions they wouldLtake'concerning a labor-dispute and-revealing the[ Board's? tentative' opinions _as the validity of various-charges made;bylthe employer and the unions should have- been quashed)'; North American ' Airlines v. CAB, 240 F.2d-

.. . .1

-867, _874 _ (D.C. Cir. 19,56) (discovery of staff studies, internal

memoranda and recommendations of Board'srexperts to its  !

members leading up t'o adoption of regulations by' CAB, in order to show,-in.a subsequent' adjudicatory proceeding, that the

' regulations were arbitrarily designed'and_ improper was held-to. have been properly denied) ; Carl' Zeiss Stiftung v. V.E.B.

Carl Zeiss, Jena, 40-F.R.'D. 318, 325-26 (D.D.C. 1966), aff'd .

l per curiam on_the opinion'below.sub nom. V.E.B. Carl Zeiss. Jena

v. Clark, 384 F.2d ' 979 -(D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 952

~ (196 7) (subpoena requiring Attorney General to produce documents bearing on~the. Government's relationship with and attitude toward plaintiff. foreign corporation before and

during prior litigation to. which the Government .was a party-

quashed);; Kaiser Aluminum & L Chemicals Corp. v. United States,

157EF.Supp. . 939, .945- 47 (Ct. Claims l 1958)-_ (Government, . de fendant in suit;for? breach-of contract', not required to produc'e a .

memorandumiwritten to the War. Assets : Liquidator by his '

"special assistantLadvis'ing him on the question of entering into s

theLeontract at issue)-;-Graber1 Mfg. Co., 18 Ad'L~2d 579, 586

~6-E(F.T.C.z l965)

'(request for production of documents evidenci ng F.T.C.'s knowledge of and attitude toward the activities of respondent's customer denied) .

The argument (Saginaw Brief, p.25) that the Morgan doctrine should not bar. discovery where the inf

, ormation sought is needed by the party seeking it in order to p

- repare for the hearing has been made~and rejected . See, e.g., Indiana

& Michigan Electric Co.,

180 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 30 F.P.C. 391 (1963), aff'd, 365 F.2d 385 U.S.

Broadcasting Co., 972 (1966) ; Mid-South Besides, 12 Radio Reg. 1447, 1450 (F.C.C. 1955).

in view of the extensive discovery already hadof i Applicant and Dow,-the Saginaw intervenors' .I totally without foundation. claim of need is Finally, as shown at pp. I-16 to I-27 of ou \

Brief, r initial the pclicies underlying the Morgan doctrine apply '

equally to the interrogatories at bar.

- CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, Applicant's obj ections to the interrogatories addressed to the staff and ACR S by the Saginaw intervenors should be sustained .

1 Respectfully submitted, LOWENSTEIN AND NEWMAN Dated: May 21, 1971 B_

x.6)Y 0 Connecticut Avenue,6N.W.

Of Counsel: ' shington, D.C. 20036 Robert Lowenstein '* .

Jack-R. Newman Attorneys for Applicant

• Harold P. Graves Consumers Power Company ,

l John K. Restrick lI Jerome E. Sharfman '

bi Richard G. Smith 'I 4

l e

6 . =,w+

... 7 b ,

~~

y j

.f., C ,; _

l

w ,

~

[ ,

fUNITED1 STATES OF.LAMERICA ,

. ATOMIC l ENERGY COMMISSION i/ -

s In'the Matter of: '

)

)

' CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY! ) Docket Nos. 50-329

-) 330

(Midland Plant, Unit. l'and 2) . )'

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE-

• a:

I hereby certify?that= copies-of the Applicant's Reply Brief In Support of Its_ Objections To Interrogatories Addressed To AEC And : ACRS, f dated .May~21, c1971,- in ' the above--captioned . matter i .

F b

have beeniserved on the'following in. person or by deposit in -

the United. States mail, first class or airmail,_this.21st day-E 'of May, 1971.-.

(

, _ Arthur W. Murphy, Esq., Chairman -

Milton R. Wessel, Esq.-

. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board' Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays Columbia ~ University. School of Law and Handler.

Box'38,.435' West 116th Street 1' New' York,--New York 10027 425 Park ~ Avenue j New-York, New York

. 10022

'Dr.< Clark Goodman James N. O'Connor,'_Esq.

Professor of' Physics The=Dow Chemical Company University of; Houston? 2030 Dow Center

!, -3801'Cullen. Boulevard Midland, Michige.n 48640

Houston,. Texas

177004'

. Dr. David' B. Hall Myron M. Cherry,-Esq..

.' s ' .

'McDermott, Will & Emery Los Alamos Scientific, Laboratory 111LWest Monroe Street-P.O.; Box-1SG3 Chicago, Ill. 60603 i'

LLos: Alamos ~,.'New Mexico .

87544 Algie A. Wells, Esq., Chairman 7

William J. Ginster,1Esq..

~

. Atomic Safety'and Licensing

' Suite:4 .

Board' Panel' Merrill Building U.S.. Atomic' Energy Cummission  :

s Saginaw, Michigan L48602 Washington,-D.C. .20545 1

James'A. Ke_ndall', Esq., Stanley.T. Robinson, Esq..

?l35 N. Saginaw' Road? .. Chief, Public Proceedings ' Branch

. ;Midlandk Michigan ~ 48640 _. ; . Office of the Secretary of the

~

LCommission, JAnthony1Z. Roisman,JEsq.

i is (Berlin ,4.Roismanf and ,Kesslei" ' .U.S.-Atomic Energy, Commission]  !

20545

~

o Washington, D.C. '

-1910 L N: S treet,cN.W.

Washington,:; D.C. -20036 s

Thomas F.JEngelhardt, Esq. .

LU.S_.JAtomic Energy Commission 7 r -

Washington',J D. C. ~20545 Jerome E.:Sharfman _

Q h- 9*-- "

, _.% y . , . , . , , , . ,,.,p. y . , , eg 9fr> T 'T'-W TF'T M