ML19331A889
| ML19331A889 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 06/17/1977 |
| From: | Hoefling R NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007230920 | |
| Download: ML19331A889 (7) | |
Text
,
June 17, 1977 x~
~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REEULATCRY COMMISSION p
m,
-s.
N N
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING SOARD p p,,
s o
k,,0,*ccil '
1 In the Matter of
)
-f 7
,1
,.. T,9.-
/
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-329 9
(pija p
)
/
9 (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
L j
g NRC STAFF ANSWER T0 " CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY'S MOTIDN FOR THE ADMISSION INTO EVIDENCE OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED AS EXHIBIT!"
Introduction On June 7,1977, Consumers Power Ccmpany (Consumers) requested that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) admit into evidence certain documents.
The NRC Staff (Staff) objects, in part, to Consumers' motion.
Discussion
~
The Staff objects to the admission of Consumers' Exhibit No. 29 cn the grcunds that it is not the best evidence.
This exhibit consists of notes taken by Mr. Temple at a meeting between the Dew Chemical Ccmpany (Dew) and Con-sumers.
Mr. Temple was a witness in th'is proceed'ing and te3tified as to the contents of these notes.
(Tr. 2660-62).
As such, the notes constitute secondary, evidence and their proper role is as a tool for use in cross-examination which was the use to which the document was put by Consurers' counsel.
The record should not be burdened by the admission of this exhibit.
-l The Staff has no objection to the admission of Consumers' Exhibits Nos. 28, 33, 35, 54, 55, 56, 57 and 53.
8007230 ' ;9c2O THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS 6
P00R QUAUTY PAGES
N i
N he'itaff objects to the admission of Consumers' Exhibit No. 59 consisting of 3 pages each entitled "Econcmic Variables - Historical and Projected Values" dated October 27, 1976, prepared by E. Denton on the grcund that the document's crobative value is limited and that it tends to confuse, the record.
The document is offered to supplement Intervenors' Exhibit No.
22.
The Staff has already objected to the admission of Intervencrs' Exhibit No. 222/ on hearsay groun'ds.
Consumers' Exhibit No. 59, while identified at the hearing by Mr. Bickle (Tr. 2007), was never the subject of any subs' live cross-examination.
An adequate foundation for the document has not been laid.
Therefore, the document has little probative value and will confuse the record.
See, Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 403.
The Staff objects to the admission of Consumers' Exhibit No. 60 on the grounds of relevance.
Consumers offers Exhibit No. 60 to clarify, in its view, Intervenors' Exhibit No.11.
The Staff has objected to the admission of Intervenors' Exhibit No.11 on grcunds of relevance.3/ Since the relevance of Intervenors' Exhibit No.11 has never been established, clarification of ; hat Exhibit by Consumers' Exhibit No. 60 would be unnecessary and irrelevant.
2/ See " Staff Objections to Intervenors' Exhibits and Motion to Admit Evidence" filed in this proceeding on June 2,1977.
(Staff objections)
--3/ Staff objecticns p. 4.
e
~
y
. Consumers offers the remaining documents, namely Consumers' Exhibits Nos. 24-27 and 34 and additional documents identified by Consumers at pages 10-12 of their motion on a conditional basis.$/
The Staff objects to Consumers' Exhibits 25 through 27 on the grounds that The Exhibits are they are cumulative and would confuse the record.
presumably offered as evidence of the economic evaluations performed by Dow when comparing the Midland Nuclear Plant to other options available Mr. Temple has testified at le'ngth on to Ocw to generate process steam.
These economic the eco'nomic comparisons conducted and their results.
comparisons are s maarized in other documents which have been identified and moved into evidence in this proceeding and more clearly present the relevant information.
See especially, Midland Intervenors' Exhibit No.
The additional documents offered by Consumers are cumulati've, 26.
See Federal Rules of Evidence, repetitive and can only confuse the record.
Rule 403.
~
Exhibit No. 34 on hearsay grounds.
This The Staff objects to Consumers exhibit is a letter frem R. Taylor to W. Neesee purporting to indicate that Ontario Hydro wou.ld not be in a positien to supplement the electrical energy needs of Consumers in the absence of the Midland plant generating The document does not fall within any of the hearsay exceptions capacity.
S/
onsumers would move the identified exhibits and documents into evi only if the Board overruled objections raised by Consumers to varicus C
Intervenors' Exhibits which Consumers identifies en page 10 of its moti cn.
N
. s
'ss, recog'hized under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
See Rule 803, There N
has been no opportunity to challenge the substantive conclusions reached by the author. While hearsay is admissible in administrative proceedings under the Administrative Procedure Act at the discretion of the presid,ing officer. the Staff does not feel that this document has the requisite credibility and accuracy to warrant its admission.
The Staff objects to Consumers' Exhibit No. 24, a memorandum frcm M. Wessel to L. Nute, dated September 27, 1976 and to the 17 additional doc'uments This-identified by Consumers in their motion on grounds of relevance.
is the same ground on which the Staff objected to Intervenors' Exhibits 50,61,73,75and77.5/ Those exhibits and the ones conditionally-tlos:
offered b'y Consumers deal with the preparation of the Temple testimony, an issue which does not bear on the suspension question before the Board.
That issue has been briefed separately in this proceeding by all parties on December 30, 1976.
The Board has before it all documents it requires.
to rule on that question.
The record should not be cluttered with documents which d,o not bear on the suspension issue.
5/ Staff Objections, pp.10-11.
._y
.x a
Conclusion
~
For the foregoing reasons, the Staff objects to the following documents
.either offered or. conditionally offered by Consumers in its Motion:
Consumers Exhibit Nos. 29, 59, 60, 24 through 27, 34, and the 17 additional documents identified by Consumers at pages 10-12 of its motion.
~
Respectfully submitted, 0
t h
l [l v.< h t) 4 '
Richard K. Hoefling Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 17th day of May, 1976 e
e S
O o
N UNITED STATES OF #1EP.ICA
' NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCM.*IISSIGN BEFORE THE ATCMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD N
In the Matter of
)
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-329
)
50-330 (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
C'ERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF ANSWER TO ' CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY'S f'0 TION FOR THE ADMISSION INTO EVIDE.NCE OF CE 17, 1977 in the above-PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED AS EXHIBITS'" dated June captioned proceeding, have been served on the following by June, 1977:
Frederic J. Coufal, Esq., Chairman Atc=ic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Ms. Mary Sinclair Dr. J. Venn Leeds, Jr.
5711 Summerset Street Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Midland, Michigan 48640 10807 Atwell Houston, Texas 77096 Harold F. Reis, Esq.
Robert Lowenstein, Esq.
Dr. E aeth A. Luebke Lowenstein, Newman, Reis &
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Axelrad U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1025 Connecticut Avenue Washington, D. C.
20555 Washington, D. C.
20036 Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
L. F. Nute, Esq.
Dow Chemical, U.S.A.
hic 9o' linois 60611 Michigan Division Midland, Michigan 48540 j
Judd L. Ba. con, Esq.
Consumers Pcwer Company Mr Steve Gadler 212 West Micnigan Avenue 2150 i arter Avenue l
-Jackson, Michigan 49201 St.PEJ1, Minnesota 55105
~
l
N
-2 t.
7
~.
\\
R. Rex Renfrow, III, Esq.
-Atomic' Safety and Licensing David J. Rosso,_Esq.
Appe.G Panel-Isham, Lincoln & Beale U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One First National 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 Co==ission Board Panel Washington, D. C.,20555; U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washingten, D. C.'
20555 Norton Hatlie, Esq.
Attorney-at-Law P. O. Box 103 Navarre, Minnesota 55392 b
kV Richard K.- Hoefling - p, hjf
~
Counsel for URC Staff e
%