ML19345F393
| ML19345F393 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Bailly |
| Issue date: | 02/12/1981 |
| From: | Grossman H Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | PORTER COUNTY CHAPTER INTERVENORS |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-CPA, NUDOCS 8102170391 | |
| Download: ML19345F393 (3) | |
Text
~
l 4
g UNITED STATES OF AVERICA
/
% r-j C
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[%
(n. "
u FEB C=\\
~
[ og3',[,QNee, I981 A 'f ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD occi 8' A w Before Administrative Judges:
3 Herbert Grossman, Chairman c/
Glenn O. Bright lt Richard F. Cole gg40 E Ee' Matter or
)
E8 1g Z y8g
)
NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC SERVICE
)
Docket No. 50-367-CPA COMPANY
)
)
(Construction Permit Extension)
(Bailly Generating Station,
)
Nuclear 1)
)
yebruary 12,. 1981 MEMORANDUM AhT ORDER (Permitting PCCI' Limited Reply to NIPSCO's Response and Objections)
The Board has before it various filings pertaining to Porter County Chapter Intervenors' (PCCI') request for the production of certain contracta under which the General Electric Company (0.E.)
agreed to supM y the nuclear steam supply system and turbine generator for the Bail!y Nuclear Facility, including G.E. 's Motion for Protective Order (October 14, 1980), PCCI' Notice of Deposition of O'Rorke (October 24, 1980), PCCI' Partial Answer to Motion for Protective Order (October 24, 1980), PCCI' Second Motion to Compel Production (October 24, 1980), G.E.'s Motion for Protective Order with Respect to 0 'Rorke 's Deposition (November 7, 1980), G.E. 's Answer to PCCI' Second Motion to Compel Production (November 7,1980),
and NIPSCO's Response to the Board's November-20, 1980 Order (December 3, 1980).
)
S
/
8102 no39/
jj
2-The gist of these documents is that PCCI demand production from NIPSCO of these contracts between G.E. and MIPSCO, and that NIPSCO and G.E. oppose unrestricted production on grounds of lack of relevancy and confidentiality.
The Staff professes neutrality in this entire dispute.
Staff's letter to Board, dated October 23, 1980.
Due, perhaps, to the sequence of discovery on this item in which NIPSCO adopted G.E.'s defenses only in the final pleading on this matter (NIPSCO Response, December 3,1980), and PCCI' choosing to oppose G.E.'s lack of relevance defense primarily upon the basis that a non-party lacks capacity to raise that defense (PCCI' Partial Answer, October 24, 1980, p. 4),
PCCI has failed to establish the elements of relevancy necessary to permit the Board's ordering production of the documents, with or without i
protective order.
The Board does not consider PCCI' statements (Id.) that "there are contentions which hcve been admitted to which the requested documents are relevant," to constitute PCCI' com-plete position on the merits of the lack of relevance defense,.in light of NIPSCO's not yet having adopted that defense and PCCI' having asserted the ground of lack of capacity agains. G.E.
2 a
,~
e
.,,w.
~,., - -,,.... -..
n,
t
,1 i
)
ORDER j
For all the foregoing reasons, and pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.730(c), it is this 12th day of February 1981 O?3E?lD That PCCI may have until seven days after service of this Order to reply to NIPSCO's adoption of the response and obj ections of G.E. to the extent that they relate to the grounds of lack of
}
relevance to admitted contentions.
FOR TFI ATOMIC SAFETY AND-LICENSING 30AFD i.
P~-c ~-
Heroert Grossman, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE i
f I
f r
a f
-- =
g y,
e--
w y
w-w e r e-,,,-
,my-v, grw-o
---,-m-
-+1,,,we,-
eer,-
,w.e ouw w<s n--ww w vr v -
ew r.-,
r e-n --e, w,
p = g w e, - s-w -
e