ML19331A388
| ML19331A388 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 07/27/1977 |
| From: | Gibbs M, Renfrow R, Rosso D CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.), ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007160951 | |
| Download: ML19331A388 (8) | |
Text
_
i 8/
N'.
v N
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA t'.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION JSC"3 c C'
- c. s.
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
/.'
b
-7/29/ 2
)
In the Matter of
)
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos._50-329
)
50-330 Midland Plant Units 1 and 2
)
)
)
RESPONSE OF CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY TO BOARD ORDER OF JULY, 1977 By Order docketed on July 18, 1977 this Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Board"), noting that some of the parties had stated that their pleadings were somewhat restricted by the time limits imposed by the Board, gave the parties until July 27, 1977 to file additional pleadings.
The only point which the time limits imposed by the Board restricted Licensee's pleadings, as noted by Licensee in its responsive findings, was with regard to its examination of the propriety of the record cites used by Intervenors to support their proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (" Findings").
Accordingly, this filing will set forth Intervenors' record cites to which Consumers Power Company
(" Licensee") objects and the reasons therefore:*
- his filing will not set forth those citations T
previously noted (See, e.g., p. 22 of Licensee's Findings),
nor will it discuss the Licensee's disagreement with the cenclusions drawn from the record by Intervenors or the appropriateness of Intervenors' arguments.
That discussion is set forth in other pleadings filed by Licensee.
This discussion is limited to incorrect record citations.
800716.0 9 f/
(
.La.
Intervenors' Cites:
Licensco's Objections:
8 Page Lino Cites 1.
4 15 Tr. 2342-4G Record docs not support proposition cited for:
Dow was required to purchase a minimum of 2,000,000 lbs/hr.
of steam under 1974 contract; under previous contract, there was no minimum. See Tr. 2342.
2.
4 15 Tr. 2384-85 Record does not support proposition cited for:
The only change in the contract was to reduce Dou's " demand rate" from 400 MW to 300 MW.
See Tr. 2383.-
3.
28 33 Tr. 407 Record does not support proposition cited for:
The only "self induced" delay occurred in 1974 when Licensee reduced construction due to financial. considerations.
4.
31 18 M.I. Ex. 25 Exhibit does not support proposition cited for:
Document is dated prior to Dow corporato decision.
S.
31 21-22 Tr. 414-17 Record does not support proposition cited for:
First two pages are lawyer's argument and last page only states a personal opinion concerning the present contract.
6.
31 22 Tr. 2320 22 Record does not support proposition cited for:
4 Opinion and judgment were personal, not corporate.
7.
31 22 Tr. 2707 Record does'not support proposition cited for:
Witness stated it was his
" opinion, a speculation".
8.
31 25 Tr. 2379-82 Record does not support proposition cited for:
At best, cite only supports that testimony "did not reflect all of the under-lying fact; concerning the
'Dow corporate position'",
not that material facts werc deliberately ~ concealed from the Board.
L
Intervenors' Cites:
Licensee's Objection:
Page Line Cites 9.
32 24 M.I. Ex. 25 Exhibit does not support proposition cited for:
Dow had not made corporate decision on date this meeting occurred.
10.
32 27 Tr. 2307 Record does not support proposition cited for:
At best, cite only. supports that testimony did not "tell
'in complete detail, or reasonably complete detail everything that was going on at that point in time",
not that it was misleading or did not state Dow's corporate position.
11.
32 27 Tr. 2379-82 See 8 above.
12.
35 23 Tr. 2572 Record cite is to a question posed by Intervenors' counsel.
13.
40 8
Tr. 5175-76 These pages are questioning of Dr. Feld, not Mr. Gundersen.
14.
40 12 Tr. 4370-71 Record cite is to argument by Intervenors' counsel.
15.. 40 15 Tr. 2572 See 12 above.
16.
40 25 Tr. 4231-32 Record does not support proposition cited for:
See romainder of Tr. 4232, wherein witness refers to an operating limit imposed by the NRC.
17.
41 17 Tr. 4472-73 Record cite is limited to probability encoding, not to Licensee's entire electrical forecast.
18.
41 17 Tr. 4480-82 Record does not support proposition cited for:
Only Board question is on Tr. 4480, wherein witness i
states he didn't use Licensee's assumptions; at Tr. 4481-82, the only dis-cussion of underlying data is in argument by Inter-venors' counsel.
Intervenorr' Cites:
Licensee's Objection:
Page Line Cites 19.
44 15 Tr. 2690 Pertinent portion of quoted question deleted in Findings and entire answer not referred to.
20.
52 12-13 Tr. 409-10 Record cite is only to opinion 2299-2301, of witness; see Tr. 2657-61-and 2309, 2311-12, Tr. 2663-67.
2494-95, 2699, 2707-09 21.
54 25 Tr. 2710-14 Record does not support and 2723-24 proposition cited for:
The witness characterized Licensee's negotiating position as a no-interest loan.
Licensee has never so characterized its negotiating position.
See Tr. 2710.
22.
55 13-14 M.I. Exs.
Record does not support 29 and 67 proposition cited for:
Neither of these documents indicate that a sale of a portion of Midland is
" essential" for Licensee to finance construction of the project.
23.
58 19 Tr. 2408 Record does not support proposition cited:
Tr. 2408 states nuclear has a $4.3 million per year advantage over a fossil alternative --
not vice-versa.
24.
61 6
Tr. 2323 Record does not support i
proposition cited:
Nothing on this page refers to a two-year period.
25.
61.
8 Tr. 2405-06, Record does not support 2732 and proposition cited:
Nothing 2737-39 therein refers to a two-year period.
26.
67 23 Tr. 3711-12, Record does not support 3718-19, and proposition cited:
None 3756-58 of these cites in any way indicate that Licensee cannot tell the cost or schedule-implications of the resolution of ACRS items.
-p-
3 Intervenors' Cites:
Licensee's Objection:
Page Line Cites 27.
75 18 Tr. 3414-16 Record does not support proposition cited:
Testimony does not indicate that growth may be lower during 1978-82.
28.
75 25 M.I. Ex. 11 This Exhibit is not the short-term " Budget" Forecast.
29.
Paragraphs 61-64 Record does not support proposition cited for:
There was no testimony in the record with regard to the short-term forecast; thus, any record cites regarding that forecast are inappropriate.
30.
79 22 Tr. 1918-20, Record does not support 3293-94, proposition cited for:
3299, 3363 References on these pages are to probability encoding, not the underlying data or the confirmatory study which used a traditional methodology.
31.
82 8
M.I. Ex. 11 Exhibit does not state that there is only a 33%
likelihood of the 5.2%
growth rate.
32.
83 2
Tr. 4468 Record does not support cite because Intervenors confuse energy conservation per se with energy conservation as it relates to reduction of electrical demand.
33, 84 15 Tr. 1935 See Tr. 1933, which shows price elasticity was con-sidered in forecast.
34.
84 21 Tr. 2020 Record does not support proposition cited for:
Record will only support that price elasticity was not "specifically quantified".
Intervenors' Cites:
Licensee's Objection:
Page Line Cites 35.
85 12 Tr. 2007 Record does not support pro osition cited for:
r See Tr. 2008, lines 3-8, which shows that the impact of price was considered.
36.
91 3
Tr. 1848-49 Record does not support proposition cited for:
Record states Ontario Hydro may have excess capacity in 1978-80, but not in 1981-84.
37.
99 27 Tr. 3730-31 Record does not support proposition cited for:
The witness specifically states that " sunk costs" were not used.
38.
102 21 Tr. 1848 Record does not support proposition cited for:
Lines 15-18 of Tr. 1848 do not relate to the economics of purchase power or the programming of the cost production model.
Respectfully submitted, N
W.*d L /%8 DavidJ.fosso
' g/
(A9 R. Rex Renfrow III i
~
AA Av. [M Martha E. Gibbs
/~
Dated:
July 27, 1977 f
Carylf/A. Bartelman ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE One First National Plaza f
Suite 4200-Chicago, Illinois 60603 (312) 786-7500...
t@$g UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 9'O NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
$YL" 5
e Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board k
w
)
In the Matter Of
)
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-329
)
50-330 (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
)
i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the enclosed
" Response of Consumers Power Company to Board Order of' July, 1977", dated July 27, 1977 in the above-captioned proceeding, have been served on the following by hand delivery this 27th day of July:
Frederic J. Coufal, Esquire Dr. J. Venn Leeds, Jr., Esq.
Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Washington, D.C 20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 i
Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Washington, D.C.
20555 The following have been served by deposit in the United States mail, first-class, postage prepaid, this 27th day of July, 1977:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory Comm.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555
9 Page 2,
Mr. C. R. Stephens Richard K. Hoefling, Esquire Chief Counsel for NRC Staff Docketing and Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Office of the Secretary Washington, D.C.
20555 of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Myron M. Cherry, Esquire Washington, D.C.
20555 One IBM Plaza Suite 4501 L. F. Nute, Esquire Chicago, IL 60611 Legal Department Dow Chemical U.S.A.
Michigan Division Midland, MI 48640 t
Q@g R.
Rex Renfrow, III One of the Attorneys for Consumers Power Company Isham, Lincoln & Beale One First National Plaza Suite 4200 Chicago, Illinois 60603 312/786-7500 July 27, 1977 i
.