ML20004F695
| ML20004F695 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 06/15/1981 |
| From: | Farnell A CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20004F696 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, ISSUANCES-OM, U-6360, NUDOCS 8106220195 | |
| Download: ML20004F695 (3) | |
Text
ull5}TL WI 119s Y
N (g
L D
(/
h jgR$
~
8
.r.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA g g gg }
gg,,i 1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION getig & Senice o andl s
6 IO8/
fore the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
%n.
4%g,
=
a e
^/7 M \\ fr*
)
he Matter of
)
)
CONSUMERS POhTR COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-329-OM
)
50-330-OM (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
50-329-OL
)
50-330-OL
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO MARY SINCLAIR'S PLEADING CAPTIONED " TESTIMONY BASED ON THE BRIEF OF PATRICK J.
DEVLIN OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE OF MICHIGAN, AND ALAN J.
BARAK, ATTORNEY FOR MICHIGAN CITIZENS' LOBBY ON THE COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF THE MIDLAND N-PLANTS THAT IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO DATA DEVELOPED THUS FAR IN THE OM-OL PROCEEDINGS ON THE SOIL REMEDIATION ISSUES."
Pursuant to 10 CFR 52. 7 4 3 (c),..(d), (f) and 10 CFR S2.730(c) Consumers Power Company
(" Consumers Power") objects to Ms. Sinclair's apparent motion to have the pleading entitled "Brief of Attorney General and Michigan Citizens' Lobby" ("Brief") (dated March 12, 1981) filed in Michigan Public Service Commission Case no. U-6360, In the Matter of the Application of Consumers Power Company Authority to Issue Securities incorporated by reference into the Midland OM/OL proceeding and moves to strike the alleged evidence.
The grounds for this objection anc motion to strike are the following:
1.
The Lrief itself is not evidence.
Statements and conclusions, even if purportedly based on testimony, by 810eeso RB 0585 G
6#1
the writers of the Brief are not competent evidence.
2.
- Ms. Sinclair has not, as she must, designated a sponsor for the portions of testimony contained in the Brief.
The issues of cost-benefit analysis and need for 3.
the Midland Plants which appear to be the gravaman of the Michigan Public Service Commission proceeding are not issues-in the OM/OL hearing and hence any evidence relating to theA is not relevant.
Any evidence regarding alleged financial and 4.
time schedule pressure is relevant to' the contentions admiuted in this proceeding only if it "directly and adversely affe:ts resolution of soll settlement issues" (Stamiris Contention 2).
Consumers Power has not been able to locate any testimony in the Brief dealing with alleged financial and time schedule Even if such testimony existed the linkage to pressures.
adversely affecting resolution of soil settlement issues
.must be made.
No such linkage is made.
5.
Even assuming that the testimony contained in the Brief is admissible it must comply with 10 CFR S2.743(c) which states that " immaterial or irrelevant parts of an admissible document must be scgregated and excluded so far as is practicable."
This means that the specific portions of the testimony must Sinclair be segregated from the rest of the Brief and Ms.
has not done so.
In order for testimony taken in one proceeding 6.
to_be used in another proceeding certain requirements must be 1
i e
includina identity of subject matter and parties in-
- Emet, It -is obvious that neither of. these requirements are
' interest.
present here.
For the aforementioned reasons Consumers Power objects to Ms. Sinclair's apparent motion and moves to strike. the alleged evidence.-
Respectfully submitted, A
Alan S. Farnell Attorney for Consumers Power Company ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE Suite 4200 One First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60603 312/558-7500
.