ML19344A118
| ML19344A118 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 06/24/1974 |
| From: | Jenny Murray US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007310620 | |
| Download: ML19344A118 (7) | |
Text
,,
(
x 4 t,LLoa)
~
L June 24, 1974 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENER'iY COMMISSION-BEFORE-Tile ' ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD '
In the Matter of-CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY.
-Construction Permit Nos. 81 and 82 i
f"'
,v i' '
(MidlandPlant, Units 1
$ ) -I ' j
- and 2)-
l AEC REGULATORY STAFF'S OPPOSITION TO
" MOTION TO COMPEL ANSUERS TO INTERROGATORIES" On June 19,1974 the Regulatory Staff (" Staff") received a copy of an unsigned document antitled, " Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories," which was accompanied by an unsigned certification to the effect that the document was served by mail on June 14, 1974.
Y The document apparently originated with the Saginaw Group ("Saginaw").
Insofar as ~it affects the Staff, the Saginaw motion asks the Board's assistance in alleviating generalized and specified dissatisfactions Saginaw finds with the Staff's responses to.Saginaw's interrogatories.
i Before setting forth the specific bases for our various objections to Saginaw's requests,'it should be noted that the Staff is fully j
prepared to respond to all reasonable requests. for information we
- may possess which is relevant to thi.s. proceeding.
It was with this
. spirit that the: Staff sought to respond to all interrogatories put -
to it_ in this pro ~ceeding. !We will continue to do so. However, we i
object'.tosthe carping criticism of answers developed in good faith.- --
h-
.,-Alp t c
y.
- 8007 sin & D;1 G
~
p/
E
+
2-
. Beyoad,thet, rather than engaging in legalized arguments over perceived inadequacy _of answers based upon some standard known only to the. mind.
of. the questioner, as the present motion does, any further appropriate ^
questionsshould simply have been asked. We would have answered -them, if time'ly filed ~.
Saginaw's objection 1.a) is objectionably vague.
Moreover, it proceeds from an' erroneous factual premise. Contrary to the objection, the Staff did provide factual bases where applicable.
With respect to o.bjection 1(b), it, too, is wholly unintelligible as it relates tc' answer 1(a). As it relates to answers 10,14(b),14(c) ~
and 16, it is disingenous inasmuch as copies of all documents referred to have previously been -furnished or made available to counsel for Saginaw.-
The ~ objections put forward to 'the Staff's answers to Saginaw's inter-rogatory No.1 amount-to.nothing more than a request for further
~ elaboration. 'In effect, this objection berates the Staff.for failing m.
- to answer. questions which were never asked.
Answering these newly formulated _ questions now would amount.to 'anot'her round of discovery,'
+
.which,- iniview of: the-lack of-substan'tive merit in the questions
- themselves would 'be unwarranted.
w 2
t
^
1
[
._:x ij
_ -i 1_ _
T____.-
_ _ _, ' f.____ _ _2. '
..> { J
~
1 I
3-.
t
~
Saginaw's. motion Tomments on the Staff's answer
- .,0errogatory
. No. 2,- but criticism of the Staff's response, if intended, -(and we presume it was)'is only inferential.
.In all events, the implied criticism is in' the nature of a-complaint that an answer was not given to a question which was never asked.
The objection to Staff's ~ answer 3(b)'is ' patently argumentative.. More-
' over, it seeks to go beyond the Boa'ed's rulings on scope by injecting "the Palisade matter currently being investigated" into this proceeding.
The St* 'f explicitly defined the term involved in interrogatory flo. 4 during the course.of its answer to interrogatory No. 23. We saw no reason to repeat that answer, but simply incorporated it 'by reference'.
- Also, whether Mr. Vetter participated in the report involved is unrelated to the Staff's definition of " assurance". Moreover, the.
. standard by which Saginaw regards the Staff's answer "hardly
>I acceptable"., is purely subjective and unrevealed.
H The Staff flatly: disagrees that its answer to interrogatory No. 5 is q
meaningless",2 as charged by-Saginaw. Merely referring to' that
. answer shows on its face' that it' fully' responds,to the qu'estion.
With respect to interrogatory flo.11,.the clear basis fc-the Staff's
- responseTto this -question was the ruling by the~ Board on the proper scope of $ interrogatories '
I i
)
j g
u.;.
lu
Ji f
- 4 '-
/
' Saginaw's' stated difficulty with the Staff's answer to interrogatory
~
No..16 begins with a mischaracterization.of what interrogatory No.16.
- really asked for. ' As written, interrogatory. No.16 was fully answered with respect to the Midland plant. The same two conclusions also apply. to the answer to interrogatory'No.17. Although Saginaw contends that the question " sought information with respect to the underlying work actually done at Palisades", reference'to the actual question itself demonstrates the clairvoyance which would be required to perceive that this was what the question so' ght. Moreover, even if u
the real-intention of the question were known," it is so vague and broad that any ar.swer attempted could be met with a claim of "in-suffi:ient".
Saginaw's primary attention and adjectival condemnation is devoted to the Staff's response to interrogatory No.18. At one and the same time,- the Staff's answer' is charged with not being " straight forward" or " honest" and as being " misleading", " incomplete" and bordering on
" obstructionism" and " absolute nonsense". However, Saginaw is unable to. set forth in what respect the Staff's an:wer is not directly.
responsive to. the -question. Of course, the answer does, indeed, directly respond to the question asked.
Saginaw may not like the
~
answer, but that is what it is.
9
- g i
1 The ansser to1 question 22(c)-was deemed to have been clearly covered i
I in 'the answers tcr interrogatories 22, 22(a),fand 22(b). -Nevertheless, c
s I *
,A, e
<r 4
z I
s u
F
y g ~
~
.and 'for the rec'ord,. the answer' to 22(c) is:.See fourth sentence in answer to interrogatory No. 22.
In charging that -the Staff "has = failed to'be specific" in answering Linterrogatory No. 24, what Saginaw is saying is that as of May 22, 1974,' the Stiff was not certain just what responses to interrogatories-it might offer for the evidentiary record. That is as " specific" as-we could be at-that time.
Indeed, we are not even-now' decided as to.
what, if any,1 answers we may offer into evidence.
The Staff regards as essentially frivolous Saginaw's objection to our response-to interrogatory No. 26. There are obviously many valid l
bases for avoiding the " answer-yes-or-no" syndrome, one of which was l
employed 'n response to interrogatory No. 26.
Interrogatory No.127 was answered-directly and' succinctly in some 50 words, contrary to the erroneous assertion in Saginaw's motion.
.The statement in.Saginaw's motion. concerning interrogatory No.129
-isf another example of complaining'over the failure of the Staff to answer a question fwhich was not asked.
(In light cf Saginaw's Lunfounded. charges with respect.to the answer to interrogatory No. 30,.the Staff again searched for. additional documents which might,be listed in: response. And, although Saginaw may regard 1.the situation " inconceivable", we found none.
l
(
CL
OY
'E m,
+
-..t
- o..
v' '
- 4. -t
-- 'n t.i. :-
w,'
+
a
=
g.
s
.< ~
- s. e,,
~
.4 6 :~ - S, s
-In view of.ttie(. foregoing'.. considerations, Saginaw's motion, insofar as s
'itlisidirec'ted-to -the Regulatory Staff, should be. denied.
~
4 y
' Respectfull'y-submitted, s
Q' '.71 4/., <
,L.
JJames P. Murray, Jr.
. Counsel.for AEC' Regulatory Staff Dated at Bethesda,- Maryland -
this.24th day of'-June,1974.
4
. L.
i 9
4 s
j n
h--
u-T c
6 g
s i
r
- t e-a J
)
v3 1,
, v v.;.;.n x
s x
- UNITED' STATES'0F AMERICA-V ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
- BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In;the' Matter of CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Construction Permit:
.(Midland: Plant, Units 1 1
Nos.~81 and 82
~and2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE t-I'hereby certify that copies of "AEC Regulatory Staff's Opposition
' to'" Motion to Compel Answers to-Interrogatories" dated June 24, 1974
~
in the captioned matter, have been served on the following by hand delivery or by deposit in the United States mail, first class or air mail, this 24th day of Junc,-1974:
Michael Glaser, Esq., Chairman Michael I. Miller, Esq.
Atomic Safetyand Licensing-Board Isham, Lincoln & Beale 1150.- 17th Street, NW One First National Plaza-Washington, D.C. l20036-Chicago, Iliicois 60670 L
Mr. 'Lester Kornblith, Jr.
Laurence M. Scoville, Jr.
l 1 Atomic Safety and Licensing Clark, Klein, Winter, Parsons &
Board Panel Prewitt U.S. Atomic Energy Comission 1600 First Federal Building l
Washingto'n, D.C.
20545.
-1001 Woodward. Avenue L
Detroit, Michigan 48226 l:
Dr. Emeth' A. Luebke Atomic Safety and Licensing Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
Board Panel' denner and Block
~
U.S. Atomic Energy Comission.
One IBM Plaza
- Washington ~, D.C.
20545 Chicago, Illinois 60603 H
Secretary-
' Atomic Safety and Licensing l
U.iS.: Atomi.c Energy Comission -
Appeal Board ATTN:.Mr. Frank-W; Karas-U.S. Atomic Energy Commission
~ Chief, Public Proceedings -Staff Washington, D.C.
20545-Washington,_D.C. -20545
~ James-N.E0' Conner
~
The:Dow' Chemical Co'.
2030JDow Center:
F
. Midland, Michigan E48640
. Ar -
-J s-
. Murray, Jr. -
./-
ounsel for AEC Regulatory Staff.
,W 1
4 1
6 t
9
-t r