ML19330A215
| ML19330A215 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 08/18/1972 |
| From: | Karfalia D US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007150986 | |
| Download: ML19330A215 (2) | |
Text
._ _ _ - _ _ _ -
UNITED STATES OF A> ERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING EOARD In the. Matter of
)
)
.c CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos.,5,0-3).9/
)
'50-330 (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
AEC REGULATORY STAFF'S ANSWER TO MOTION BY
)
MAPLETON INTERVENORS TO DENY INTRODUCTION INTO EVIDENCE OF STATE}ENT OF DR. GYSEL OR ALTERNATIVELY TO PERMIT INTRODUCTION INTO EVIDENCE OF A STATEMENT BY DR. HOLCOMB IN RESPONSE TO THE STATEMENT OF DR. GYSEL
- 1. On July 10, 1972, pursuant to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's Post Hearing Order dated June 28, 1972, the applicant served written rebuttal testimony to the testimony of Dr. Larry C. Holcomb given on June 14, 1972. This rebuttal testimony consisted of two affidavits, one by Dexter James Seeburger and one by Dr. Leslie Gysel.
- 2. By letter dated August 8, 1972, the Mapleton Intervenors moved, in e ffect, for the exclusion from evidence of Dr. Gysel's affidavit and, alternatively, offered into evidence a statement of Dr. Holcomb dated July 17, 1972, in response to the Gysel affidavit.
- 3. The apparent nub of the Mapleton Intervenors' complaint is their lack of opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Gysel. We have reviewed the testi-mony offered by both parties and do not believe that the intervenors THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS POOR QUALITY PAGES
~v500713o pgg
2-would in fact be prejudiced if Dr. Holcomb's statement were received into evidence as an alternative to cross-examination of Dr. Gysel.
However, we believe that the intervenors should be given the opportu-nity to demonstrate in writing the prejudice they believe would result from this procedura. Should they demonstrate actual prejudice to the Board, we would have no objection to a one-day hearing (which might be held in New York City) to give Mapleton the opportunity to conduct its cross-examination of Dr. Gysel.
- 4. As indicated above, in the event the Board ultimately denies an opportu-nity for cross-examination of Dr. Gysel, we would have no objection to the receipt of Dr. Holcomb's statement into evidence.
Respectfully submitted, Ll(
h, K bE$
I David Kartalia Counsel for AEC Regulatory Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 18th day of August, 1972.
j l
O e
e