ML20004E171
| ML20004E171 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 06/03/1981 |
| From: | Farnell A CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, ISSUANCES-OM, NUDOCS 8106110296 | |
| Download: ML20004E171 (8) | |
Text
r W3l8l l
_e
'$2dhs dDr b
JUll101981mh' k
!YE9 b
%,gl,t; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA L
Jrfore the Atomic Safety and Licensing BoardA.
'..u.I
- ~
u,5 m swimms NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
m
.,, ~
Q
/7 g
^
trut
i,
/
)
In the Matter of
)
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-329-OM
)
10-330-OM (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
50-329-OL
)
50-330-OL
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY RESPONSE TO INTERVENOR RESPONSE TO 5/8/81 MEMORANDUM & ORDER OF THE BOARD, AND APPLICANT'S 5/6/81 RESPONSE AND MOTIONS FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER On reading Ms. Stamiris' latest pleading captioned "Intervenor Responsa to 5/.8/81 Memorandum and Order of the Board, and Applicant's*5/6/81 Response and Motions for Protective Order" one cannot escape a feeling of deja vu:
l l
present, once again, is the same unusual and highly confusing mixture of comments on previous discovery interspersed with l
l apparent motions to compel.
A new twist is the addition of comments on the Board's ruling.
Ms. Stamiris' comments on Consumers Power's responses to her " discovery questions" about which she accurately and candidly states "the quality of my discovery questions has been lacking at times" (page 5) appear to be little more than mere gratuitous shiping which hardly warrants response.
The two items she has requested the Board to rule on are:
O rg 10 g ; y gjg(,
J G
0 1.
A " direct ruling" on Request #10 of Ms. Stamiris' 3/27/81 Request which she claims was never mentioned in the Board Order, and 2.
A motion to compel Consumers Power to supplement its response to #5 document request of the 1/14/81 Follow-up series page 3 of the 4/28/81 summary", pursuant to 2.740(e).
1 An analysis of these requests demonstrates why 1
Consumers Power deemed it necessary to apply for a protective order.
I.
Factual Background The long and tortuous history of Ms. Stamirls' discovery requests is well known to the Board.'
This latest request is merely the latest and most flagrant example of I
the seemingly unending su'ccession of Stamiris filings.
In order to clear up all discovery disputes the Board issued an order on 5/8/81 dealing with all pending discovery requests.
The only issue left. pen by the Board was the motion with regard to a protective order on future discovery.
r II, The Board's Order Permitted Ms. Stamiris to Respond to the Motion Concerning Future Discovery but not to Rehash Old Discovery Requests The Board stated on page 5 of the order that Ms.
Stamiris had until May 21st to respond to the motion with respect to future discovery.
In doing so it noted at page six that "we consider discovery to be essentially. closed and that we will be most. reluctant to permit any further discovery, except as specifically required by this ruling or by 10 CFR.
. S2.740(e)."
At page 2 of the order the Board noted the reasons for this reluctance towards any future discovery:
that discovery had been in progress for nearly six months, that Consumers Power had supplied a large snount of discovery to Ms. Stamiris, that prepared testimony is due to be filed soon, and that the hearing was about to begin.
It should be emphasized that the Board ruled on all of Ms. Stamiris' then pending discovery requests.
Therefore any discovery request submitted prior to that time was denied to the extent it was not specifically granted in the order.
III. The Alleged Future Discovery Requests are Merely Old Requests Which Ms. Stamiris Seeks to Relicigate Not Future Discovery or Supplementation of Past Responses A.
Request #5 to Ms. Stamiris' 1/14/81 " Followup Requests" Ms. Stamiris seeks a supplementation to Consumers Power's response to the first paragraph of her Request #5 which reads:
5.
The reports provided were numbered SB 13752-SB 13956 although not in that sequence and with many pages missing.
It appears that these Bechtel reports stemming from the Administration Building settlement problem have to do with plant area fill soils and as such are important to this proceeding.
Please provide these file pages:
SB 13770, 13771, 13790-13794, 13816, 13817, 13818, 13829-13854, 13867-13912, 13920-13953, 13955 and any beyond SB 13956 in this series on soils.
"This request was dealt with at pages 16-17 of " Consumers Power Company Respo".se to 4/28/81 Summary of Intervenor Outstanding Discovery Requests and to Ms. Stamiris' Motions to Compel; Consumers Power Company Motion for Protective
_~
. Order on Certain Pending and All Future Discovery by Stamiris" and Appendix B, Question 3.
The Board ruled on this request at page 4 of #5 Order.
In seeking to relitigate this issue Ms. Stamiris has conveniently sought through procrustean logic to torture her attempted relitigation of an issue she lost into the category of 10 CFR S 2.740(e) " Supplementation of Responses".
It is interesting to note that this is the only regulation mentioned by the Board and the only one Ms. Stamaris uses.
The only new ground for this purported duty to supplement is the alleged statement by Mr. James Brunner, Consumers Power attorney, that she had been given Bechtel's "whole file" on the Administration Building.
Mr. Brunner's recollection pf the phone call is that he never told her that every single document having reference to the Administra-tion Building had been provided in response to her discovery Indeed, had she made such a broad discovery request, request.
Consumers Power would not have responded as it would not have satisfied tt., " reasonable particularity" standard required by 10 CFR S2.741.
Consumers Power is aware of 10 CFR 2.740 (e) (2) and submits that it has complied with this regulation. At the top of page 10 of her May 20, 1981 pleading,-
Ms. Stamaris sets forth a new request which is, as usual, much broader than the original request.
Now she is seeking any documents referring or relating to a certain SB numbered
- The substance of this phone call was documented in a letter from Mr. Brunner to Ms. Stamiris.
Ms. Stamiris later confirmed ite accuracy.
l
document.
This is not a request for supplementation of a past response but rather a purported clarification of a past discovery request which is in fact a new, broader discovery request.
The most egregious portion of her pleading are her "new requests" which are set forth at the bottom of page 10.
These requests are "new" and arc clearly not a supplementation of a past document production as no document production was made on this subject since the Board determined that the request was improper.
Moreover, the requests, even if filed timely and not already denied by the Board are objectionable on the grounds of being overbroad.
B.
Recuest #10 of Stamiris' 3/27/81 Recuest This r'equest was included in Ms. Stamiris' 4/28/81 Summary, was dealt with in paragraph 10 to Appendix B of Consumers Power response and was denied by the Board at page 6 when it stated that "... Applicant's motions for protective orders with respect to outstanding discovery are granted
" (emphasis in original).
Ms. Stamiris motion is really for reconsideration of a Board decision and hence had to be made
~
within the ten day period.
Therefore it is untimely.
Furthermore no additional information is set forth which was not before the Board earlier.
IV.
Conclusion For the reasons set forth in this response, the Board then must deny Ms. Stamiris' latest discovery request and enter and enforce the Protective Order.
Respectfully submitted, By
- ' Alan fr. Far~nell g,
Attorney for Consumers Power Company ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE i
One First National Plaza Suite 4200 Chicago, Illinois 60603 (312) 558-7500 DATED:
June 3, 1981 W
4 S
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
)
In the Matter of
)
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
)
50-330 OM & OL (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, JoAnne G. Bloom, hereby certify that a copy of Consumers Power Company Response to Intervenor Response to 5/8/81 Memorandum & Order of the Board, and Applicant's 5/6/81 Response and Motions for Protective Order was served upon all persons shown in the attached service list by deposit in the United States mail, first class, this 3rd day of June, 198.1.
In addition, a copy was sent by Federal Express to Judge Bechhoefer.
fi
'}i h 'M U
l JoAnnd G.
loofn i
i 4
1
.-..._g..
.w.-
w
... ~
SERVICE LIST Frank J. Kelley, Esq.
Steve Galdier, Esq.
Attorney General of the 2120 Carter Avenue State of Michigan St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 Stewart H. Freeman, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Pnl.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Gregory T. Taylor, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Washington, D.C.
20555 Environmental Protection Div.
720 Law Building Mr. C. R. Stephens Lansing, Michigan 48913 Chief, Docketing & Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
One IBM Plaza Washington, D.C.
20555 Suite 4501 Chicago, Illinois 60611 Ms. Mary Sinclair 5711 Summerset Street Mr. Wendell H. Marshall Midland, Michigan 48640 RFD 10 Midland, Michigan 48640 William D. Paton, Esq.
Counsel for the NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Charles Bechhoefer, Esq.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Bd. Pnl. Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Atdmic Safety & Licensing Bd. Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. Frederick P. Cowan Washington, D.C.
20535 6152 N. Verde Trail Barba a Stamiris Apt. B-125 Boca Raton, Florida 33433 5795 North River Read Route 3 Admin. Judge Ralph S. Decker Freeland, Michigan 48623 Route No.
4, box 190D Cambridge, Maryland 21613 Carroll E. Mahaney Babcock & Wilcox P. O. Box 1260 Lynchburg, Virginia 24505 James E.
Brunner, Esq.
Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Jacks.on, Michigan 49201
__ -_.