ML19331A770
| ML19331A770 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 06/15/1977 |
| From: | Hoefling R NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007230782 | |
| Download: ML19331A770 (7) | |
Text
.
' June 15, 1977 s,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA b./-3V
\\
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM:1ISSION
/
N 'N BEFORE THE ATCMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-329
)
50-330 p
(Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
d 4
d eglE NRC STAFF ANSWER T0 " MOTION OF CONSUMERS JNg7\\NIy'I ~
POWER COMPANY FOR ADMISSION INTO JT
~
g ti EVIDENCE OF INTERR0GATORY ANSWERS"
,.,.g
.. s*
PJ Introduction On June 1,1977, Consumers Power Company (Consumers) filed a motion before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) seeking admission into evidence of certain interrogatory responses.
The NRC Staff (Staff) opposes in part and supports in part the Consumers' motion.
Discussion Consumers seeks to have various interrogatory responses admitted into evidence in this proceeding.
In its motion, Consumers ide ntifies the specific responses it seeks to have admitted.
The responses of the Dow i
Chemical Company (Dow) to Intervenors' interrogatories are identified as l
paragraphs 1.a through 1.c.
The responses of Dow to Staff interrogatories are identified as paragraphs 2.a through 2.e..
The responses of the Staff I
to Intervenors' interrogatories are identified as paragraphs 3.a through 3.c.
The Staff will refer to the interrogatory responses using the 800723.07 6
~~
~m o -
N.'
a N
" 2-
.\\
N identification employed by Consumers and will address only those interrogatory responses to which it objects.1/
The Staff objects to the admission of the. interrogatory responses iden-tified in paragraph 1.a on the grounds that those responses do not provide the best evidence.
The responses deal with the Dow-Consumers relation-ship and the question of Dow's intent to take process steam from the Midland 'Juclear Facility.. Witnesses from Dow testified at the hearing at length on these issues.
Extensive testimony and cross-examination of Messrs. Temple and Orrefice provide the best evidence in this proceeding as to the Dow-Consumers relationship and the intent on the part of Dow to take process steam from the Midland Nuclear Plant.
The interrogatory responses are secondary evidence which, in hvo instances, predate the final testimony of Messrs. Temple and Orrefice.2/ The record should not be burdened with these additional documents.
The Staff objects to the admission of the interrogatory response iden-tified in paragraph 1.b as it does not offer the best evidence.
That 1/
The Staff has no objection to the admission of interrogatory responses identified in paragraphs 2.a and 2.b and notes that in its " Staff Objections to Intervenor's Exhibits and Motion to Admf Evidence" dated June 2,1977, the Staff moved these interrogatory responses with their associated attachments into evidence.
2/
Although Mr. Temple testified in this proceeding on November 30, 1976 and December 1,1976, the final appearance of Mr. Temple occurred on February 1 and 2, 1977.
Mr. Orrefice appeared and testified on February 2, 1977.
m m
interrogatory response addresses plans cn the part of Dow with regard to the purchase of steam and electricity under various scenarios.
Dow witnasses, specifically Messrs. Temple and Orrefice,. testified at length as to Dow's position with regard to process steam requirements and the options available to Dow to acquire such steam.
This interrogatory response predates the final testimony of Messrs. Temple and Orrefice and so forms secondary evidence which should not burden the record at this point.
The Staff objects,to the admission of the interrogatory response iden-tified in paragraph 1.c as it again is not the best evidence.
This interrogatory response deals with the present status of Dow's current facilities for generating steam and electricity in light of certain factors.
Both Messrs. Temple and Orrefice testified at this proceeding on this subject. The interrogatory response predates their testimony and is secondary evidence which should not burden the record.
The Staff objects to the admission of the interrogatory response iden-tified as paragraph 2.c as it does not provide the best evidence. Again the Orrefice and Temple testimony dealt with.the question of Dow's formal i
efforts to develop its own steam generating facilities and this testimony privides the best evidence.
This interrogatory response is secondary evidence and should not burden the record.
9
s s
_4_
The Staff objects to the admission of the interrogatory response iden-tified in paragraph 2.d for lack of probative value.
See, Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 403.
The intr ;ogatory response deals with a hypothetical question based on facts not in evidence by in effect not answering that question.
The other information, which is supplied in the response is not the best evidence as Messrs. Temple and Orrefice testified to these points.
This secondary evidence should not burden
~ ~
the record.
l The Staff objects to the admission of interrogatory response identified in' paragraph 2.e as this is not the best evidence. Again Messrs. Temple and Orrefice testified on the subjects raised so the interrogatory response is secondary evidence and should not burden the record.
Conclusion The Staff objects to the admission into evidence of certain interrogatory
' responses all of which deal with issues surrounding the Dow-Consumers dispute and the issue of whether or not Dow intends to take process steam from the Midland Nuclear Facility.
Based on the fact that an abundant record has been developed on these issues by Dow witnesses, and that this record forms the best evidence in this proceeding, the Staff objects to 4
.,.7
.-r-n--
.,----e w
,r,v----
-e--
--er--
~
6
~
\\
' s s, '
the admission of those responses into evidence.
As to those other responses
~
to which the Staff did not specifically address, the Staff has no objection.
Respec.tfully subaitted, J[
1 Richard K. Hoefling Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 15th day of June, 1977.
==
M=
O 4
e e--
e y
~,,-.,
y--,,
- -, - - - -,, - - - - - *-+,w--
UtlITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMiISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSIfiG BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket ~Nos. 50-329
)
50-330 (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF ANSWER TO ' MOTION OF CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY FOR ADMISSION INTO EVIDENCE OF INTERROGATORY ANSWERS'"
dated June 15, 1977 in the above-captioned proceeding, have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or air mail, this 15th day of June,1977:
Frederic J. Coufal, Esq., Cnairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Dr. J. Venn Leeds, Jr.
Ms. Mary Sinclair Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 5711 Summerset Street 10807 Atwell Midland, Michigan 48640 Houston, Texas 77096 Harold F. Reis, Esq.
Dr. E neth A. Luebke Robert Lowenstein, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Lowenstein, Newman, Reis &
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Axelrad
. Washington, D. C.
20555 1025 Connecticut Avenue Washington, D. C.
20036 ityron M. Cherry, Esq.
1 154 Plaza L. F. Nute, Esq.
Chicago, Illinois 60611 Dow Chemical, U.S.A.
Michigan Division '
Judd L. Bacon, Esq.
Midland, Michigan 48640 Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Mr. Steve Gadler Jackson, Michigan 49201 2120 Carter Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55108
s 1 x
R. Rex Renfrow, III, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing David J..Rosso, Esq.
Appeal Panel Isham, Lincoln & Beale U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One First flational Plaza Washington, D. C.
20555 Suite 4200 Chicago, Illinois 60603 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary Atomic Safety and Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Board Panel Washington, D. C.
20555 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Norton Hatlie, Esq.
Attorney-at-Law P. O. Box 103 Navarre, Minnesota 55392 bjf
~
R'ichard K. Hoefling f y
Counsel for URC Staft
.~