ML20033A951
| ML20033A951 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/18/1981 |
| From: | Gallo J CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.), ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OLA, NUDOCS 8111300202 | |
| Download: ML20033A951 (7) | |
Text
11/18/81 00LKETED U3NRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD s
. ggggggy i mG & SERVICE HMCH In the Matter of
)
)
Docket No. 50-155 OLA CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
(Spent Fuel Pool
)
Modificat'
-)-b (Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant)
)
/ /,
f!?!
/\\
N0 l ' f 'lflr
~'
vi f,
'c Q
POWER COMPANY'S REPLY RENEWAL OF MOTION TO D E'ER4s.,[p' > r, CONSUMERS TO INTERVENORS' g
cc c s,,
\\
rece' Vdd2 JU~T' h Consumers Power Company (" Licensee")
today a motion from Intervenors Christa-Maria, et a1.,
("Intervenors") which renewed their motion of October 20, 1981, to defer responses to the motions for summary disposi-tion filed by Licensee and the NRC Staff until twenty days after receipt by Intervenors of the replies to certain interrogatories.
Intervenors' new motion is predicated on the Licensing Board's Order of November 13, 1981, which, among other things, ordered the Licensee and Intervenors to meet for the purpose of reconciling differences concerning certain pending interrogatories filed by Intervenors.
I)So3 Intervenors suggest that before they can respond to the 3
motions for summary disposition, they need answers to what-I ever interrogatories are ultimately decided require answering either by the agreement of the Licensee and Intervenors or
$DO O
G
O e by Order of this Licensing Board.
For reasons stated below, Intervenors' motion to defer should be denied.
Licensee, in response to Intervenors' original motion to defer, carefully analyzed the various bases.of-fered by Intervenors as justification for the deferral (See Consumers Power Company's Reply in Opposition to Motion to Defer, dated November 4, 1981, hereinafter referred to as
" Reply in Opposition.")
The Reply in Opposition pointed out that Intervenors were seeking a deferral of Christa-Maria Contentions 2 and 3, Licensing Board Question 2, and O'Neill Contentions IB-5, IIA, IIB, IIG(b), and IIIE-2, despite their inability to identify a single interrogatory which might provide information concerning these contentions.
Instead, Intervenors opined that answers to the various interrogatories "may" reveal relevant information.
The inability of Intervenors to relate any of the interroga-tories to these contentions is the best evidence of the insufficiency of this argument.
As stated in Licensee's Reply in Opposition, the whimsical hope that answers to interrogatories "may" reveal relevant information cannot serve to defer responses to summary disposition motions on these contentions.
Intervenors were able to predicate their October 20 motion to defer with respect to Christa-Maria Contention
lf w
/'
8, Licensing. Board Question 1, and O'Neill Contentions IIC,[.
s IID, IIE-3, and IIF on the need to obtain'first answers,$o,
certain interrogatories identified in their motion.
Li-
/
censee's Reply in Opposition carefully demonstrates the ' lack p
of any relationship between the interrogatories identified by the Intervenors and the foregoing contentions and Board s
Question.
Accordingly, Intervenors' new motion should be denied with respect to these contentions.
The Board's Order of November 13, 1981, should not serve as a basis for deferring replies to the motions for summary disposition.
The Board refusal to rule on the merits of Licensee's objections and Intervenors' motion to compel does confuse the procedural posture of this case.
Intervenors and Licensee will meet as ordered by the Licensing Board in an effort to determine which interrogatories should be answered and which interrogatories should be dropped.
In these circumstances, it will be a matter of pure chance whether any of the interrogatories that might be answered might also relate to the various contentions that are the subject of the motions for summary disposition.
Consequently, in the circumstances of this case, the unsettled posture of
~
discovery should not be used as an excuse to del y this proceeding further.
Equity clearly favors Licensee.
Moreover, means are available to protect the interest of
- /
- ' ' ),
~
Intervenors., First, as indicated in Licensee's Reply in Opposition,' Intervenors nay, if they truly believe they need the answers to certain interrogatories before they can respond to rations for summary disposition on certain of the contentions, advance this argument in their response and, if valid, such,an. argument may well serve as a basis for deny-ing the motion in whole or in part.
Second, should any future discovery disclose new information or facts that might, buttress Interve'nors' position in their response to s.
e the motions for summary disposition, they, of course, would g
,be free to supplement their response, or to move for recon-sideration of any adverse ruling in the unlikely event
,1 discovery were not codp'leted prior to a ruling on the summary disposition motions.
In summaryf the motion to defer on Christa-Maria Contentions.2 and.3,' Licensing Board Question 2, and O'Neill Contentions, IB-5, ;IA, IIB, IIG(b), and IIIE-2 should be denied becaus.e"Interver_ rs failed to show a plausible link N
between the.p'ending interrogatories and these contentions.
The motien should be, denied as to Christa-Maria Contention 8,
Licensing Board-Question 1, and O 'Neill Contentions IIC,
IID, IIE-3, and IIF because, as analyzed and demonstrated in Licensee's Reply in Opposition no reasonable relationship exists between these contentions and the interrogatories e
?
-wr
-r bw y-g
+w-w w
w
+-m
^
-'s--
s-v+w
i identified in Intervenors' October 20 motion to defer.
Finally, Intervenors may not be able to meet the November 20 1
deadline for filing their response to the motions for sum-mary disposition due to a possible assumption of a favorable ruling from this Licensing Board.
If this is the case, Licensee has no objection to a further time exten. ion of reasonable length, e.g.,
ten days.
]
Respectfully submitted, 0mA
~
Jo,peph Gdllo One of the Attorneys for Consumers Power Company ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE Suite 325 1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 (202) 833-9730 Dated:
November 18, 1981 4.
w - - _ _
-i,m,t w.
w.__,--,w,.
\\
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATCMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
Docket No. 50-155-OLA CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
(Spent Fuel Pool
)
Modification)
(Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant))
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY'S REPLY TO INTERVENORS' RENEWAL OF MOTION TO DEFER in the above-captioned proceeding will be hand-deliverad to Administrative Judges Grossman, Paris, and Shon on the morning of November 19, 1981, and were served on the other persons listed below by deposit in the United States n. ail, first-class postage prepaid, this 18th day O'
- November, 1981.
Herbert Grossman, Esquire Atomic Safety"and Licensing Administrative Judge Eoard Parel Atomic Safety and Licensing U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Board Panel Commission U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.
C.
20555 Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel Dr. Oscar H.
Paris U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Administrative Judge Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.
C.
20555 Board Panel U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Docket;.ng and Service Section Commission Office of the Secretc-:-
Washington, D.
C.
20555 U.
S.
Nuclear Regulat Commission Mr. Frederick J.
Shon Washington, D. C.
20555 Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555
-=
- = s s
. Janice E.
Moore, Esquire Judd Bacon, Esquire Counsel for NRC Staff Consumers Power Company U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory 212 West Michigan Avenue Commission Jackson, Michigan 49201 Washington, D.C.
20555 Ms. Christa-Maria Herbert Semmel, Esquire Route 2, Box 108C Urban Law Institute Charlevoix, Michigan 49720 Antioch School of Law 2633 16th Street, N.W.
Ms. JoAnne Bier Washington, D.C.
20009 204 Clinton Charlevoix, Michigan 49720 Mr. John O'Neill, II Route 2, Box 44 Mr. James Mills i
Maple City, Michigan 49664 Route 2, Box 108 Charlevoix, Michigan 49720 Q-,--ljd
!b se]pli Gallo
-,n,__.,...
-,,,.,,,,_,-c,_,.,,,,,, _ - - _ _ _,,,,, _, _, _, _, _, _ _ _, _,__,____,_, _, _ _ _, _ _, _ _ _ _
-