ML20065H694: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot change)
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 17: Line 17:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:}}
{{#Wiki_filter:pa                                                              ,
                            . ELATED COHRESPONDh
* 9/2      TEO C
o                                                                              . . . . .
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA          82 001 -4 M M NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CN E OF SECBtIAW$
ChETmG & SER'T -
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAkb        E M'FU In the Matter of:              )    Docket Nos. 50-329 OM
                                            )                50-330 OM CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY          )    Docket Nos. 50-329 OL (Midland Plant, Units 1 & 2)    )                50-330 OL CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY'S MOTION TO COMPEL A RESPONSE OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO DEEM MATTERS OF FACT ADMITTED On August 30, 1982, Consumers Power Company ("Ap-plicant"), pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S2.742, filed a " Request for Admission of the Truth of Relevant Matters of Fact from Intervenor Mary Sinclair."    On September 14, 1982, Ms.
Sinclair filed a " Response" to that Request in which she did not deny the requested admissions nor did she state reasons why she could not admit or deny them.      Ms. Sinclair did raise relevance objections to the requested admissions.
Section 2.742(b) of 10 C.F.R. contemplates that objections to rJguested admissions will be determined.        There is apparently no specific provision in the regulations for presenting a motion to have such objections determined.
Therefore, Applicant presents this motion, by analogy, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S2.740(f). Applicant hereby moves for entry of an order requiring Ms. Sinclair to file a sworn 8210050223 820928 PDR ADOCK 050003g
                                                                                *~9 s 03
 
statement within 10 days admitting or denying the requested admissions or stating why she cannot truthfully admit or deny them, silbject to the condition that the requested
        ' admissions shall be deemed admitted if she does not so respond within the 10 days. In the alternative, Applicant hereby moves for entry of an order deeming the matters of fact in the Request admitted.
Ms. Sinclair's " Response" to the Request for Ad-mission is evasive. She avoids making admissions about the thermal performance analysis referred to in her contention by attempting to raise a different issue, that being an-alyses relating to fog and ice generation.                                    In addition, she refuses to acknowledge the truthfulness of unambiguous statements in the FES indicating that conclusions concerning fog and ice generation were made using primarily Dresden studies and giving consideration to the Curgjer and Hicks models.    (FES at pages 5-6, 5-7, 9-18, 9-19, 9-35, 9-36).
Ms. Sinclair's evasiveness is most clearly il-lustrated by her attempts throughout the " Response" to redefine Contention 5. Contention 5 is not a generalized allegation concerning the broad issues of thermal perfor-                                        f mance and fog and ice generation.      The allegations set forth in Contention 5 more specifically assert (1) that the DES analyses of thermal discharge and of fog and ice generation are based on a study of cooling pond performance in a cli-t
 
73,;
'y matic region different from the Midwest and (2) that the Staff should have used Dresden data in the DES analyses Ioth of thermal discharge and of fogging and icing.                          The re-quested admissions directly address these allegations by attempting to establish what sources served as the Staff's bases for each of these analyses.                        Accordingly, the re-quested admissions are clearly relevant to Ms. Sinclair's Contention 5 as it was admitted by this Board.
Under 10 C.F.R. 52.740(f), evasive responses are to be treated as a failure to respond.                          Under 10 C.F.R.
S2.742(b), a failure to respond to a request for admissions should result in a determination that the requested ad-missions are deemed made.
Therefore, Applicant requests that'the Licensing Board enter an order requiring Ms. Sinclair to properly respond to the Request for Admission within 10 days or the matters of fact will be deemed admitted. In the alter-native, Applicant requests that this Licensing Board enter an order deeming the matters of fact admitted effective the date of the order.
Res  ct u    yEsub ' ted,;
                                                                        'A  rt  idD    _shkk.;
Consumers Power { Company'One'of.tME Attd ISHAM,-LINCOLN & BEALE                                    '
* Three First National Plaza Suite 5200 Chicago, Illinois            60602
      .(312). 558-7500 DATED:        . September' 28, 1982                                                                                      '
 
A b
,e-i 5
w UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of:              )    Docket Nos. 50-329 OM
                                          )                  50-330 OM CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY        )    Docket Nos. 50-329 OL (Midland Plant, Units 1 & 2)  )                    50-330 OL CERTIFICA?E OF SERVICE I, Philip P. Steptoe, hereby certify that copies of Consumers Power Company's Motion To Compel A Response Or, In The Alternative, To Deem Matters Of Fact Admitted in the above-captioned proceeding have been served upon all persons shown in the attached service list by deposit in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, this 28th day of September, 1982.                                      -
                                                        ,3 J        j      ~
_j
                                                ' Philip P.
Steptoe{'
s Isham, Lincoln & Beale Three First National Plaza Suite 5200 Chicago, Illinois 60602 (312) 558-7500 4
M
 
s:
1 SERVICE LIST Frank J. Kelley, Esq.                      Steve Gadler Attorney General of the                    2120 Carter Avenue, i State of Michigan                        St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 Carole Steinberg, Esq.
          , Assistant Attorney General              Atomic Safety & Licensing Environmental Protection Div.                Appeal Panel 720 Law Building                          U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Lansing, Michigan 48913                  Washington, D.C. 20555 Myron M. Cherry,-Esq.                    Mr. C. R. Stephens One IBM Plaza                            Chief, Docketing & Services Suite 4501                                U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Chicago, Illinois 60611                  Office of the Secretary Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Wendell H. Marshall 4625 S. Saginaw Road                      Ms. Mary Sinclair Midland, Michigan 48640                  5711 Summerset Street Midland, Michigan 48640 Charles Bechhoefer, Esq.                  William D. Paton, Esq.
Atomic Safety & Licensing                Counsel for the NRC Staff Board Panel                            U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comn.            Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Frederick P. Cowan                    Atomic Safety & Licensing 6152 N. Verde Trail                          Board Panel Apt. B-125                                U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Boca Raton, Florida 33433                Washington, D.C. 20555 James E. Brunner, Esq.                    Jerry Harbour Consumers Power Company                  Atomic Safety & Licensing 212 West Michigan Avenue                    Board Panel Jackson, Michigan 49201                  U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
  ;                                                Washington, D.C. 20555
  ,      Mr. D. F. Judd                            Lee L. Bishop
  =
Babcock & Wi!.mx                          Harmon & Weiss P. O. Box 1200                            1725 "I" Street, N.W. #506 Lynchburg, Virginia 24505                Washington, D.C. 20006 I      Barbara Stamiris 5795 North River Road l      ' Route 3                                                                *
    . Freeland, Michigan 48623
  \1}}

Latest revision as of 07:17, 6 January 2021

Motion to Compel M Sinclair to Respond to Applicant 820830 Request for Admission of Truth of Relevant Matters of Fact or Alternatively,To Deem Matters of Fact Admitted. Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence
ML20065H694
Person / Time
Site: Midland
Issue date: 09/28/1982
From: Steptoe P
CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.), ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20065H697 List:
References
ISSUANCES-OL, ISSUANCES-OM, NUDOCS 8210050223
Download: ML20065H694 (5)
v • d • e


Text

pa ,

. ELATED COHRESPONDh

  • 9/2 TEO C

o . . . . .

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 82 001 -4 M M NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CN E OF SECBtIAW$

ChETmG & SER'T -

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAkb E M'FU In the Matter of: ) Docket Nos. 50-329 OM

) 50-330 OM CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-329 OL (Midland Plant, Units 1 & 2) ) 50-330 OL CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY'S MOTION TO COMPEL A RESPONSE OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO DEEM MATTERS OF FACT ADMITTED On August 30, 1982, Consumers Power Company ("Ap-plicant"), pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S2.742, filed a " Request for Admission of the Truth of Relevant Matters of Fact from Intervenor Mary Sinclair." On September 14, 1982, Ms.

Sinclair filed a " Response" to that Request in which she did not deny the requested admissions nor did she state reasons why she could not admit or deny them. Ms. Sinclair did raise relevance objections to the requested admissions.

Section 2.742(b) of 10 C.F.R. contemplates that objections to rJguested admissions will be determined. There is apparently no specific provision in the regulations for presenting a motion to have such objections determined.

Therefore, Applicant presents this motion, by analogy, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S2.740(f). Applicant hereby moves for entry of an order requiring Ms. Sinclair to file a sworn 8210050223 820928 PDR ADOCK 050003g

  • ~9 s 03

statement within 10 days admitting or denying the requested admissions or stating why she cannot truthfully admit or deny them, silbject to the condition that the requested

' admissions shall be deemed admitted if she does not so respond within the 10 days. In the alternative, Applicant hereby moves for entry of an order deeming the matters of fact in the Request admitted.

Ms. Sinclair's " Response" to the Request for Ad-mission is evasive. She avoids making admissions about the thermal performance analysis referred to in her contention by attempting to raise a different issue, that being an-alyses relating to fog and ice generation. In addition, she refuses to acknowledge the truthfulness of unambiguous statements in the FES indicating that conclusions concerning fog and ice generation were made using primarily Dresden studies and giving consideration to the Curgjer and Hicks models. (FES at pages 5-6, 5-7, 9-18, 9-19, 9-35, 9-36).

Ms. Sinclair's evasiveness is most clearly il-lustrated by her attempts throughout the " Response" to redefine Contention 5. Contention 5 is not a generalized allegation concerning the broad issues of thermal perfor- f mance and fog and ice generation. The allegations set forth in Contention 5 more specifically assert (1) that the DES analyses of thermal discharge and of fog and ice generation are based on a study of cooling pond performance in a cli-t

73,;

'y matic region different from the Midwest and (2) that the Staff should have used Dresden data in the DES analyses Ioth of thermal discharge and of fogging and icing. The re-quested admissions directly address these allegations by attempting to establish what sources served as the Staff's bases for each of these analyses. Accordingly, the re-quested admissions are clearly relevant to Ms. Sinclair's Contention 5 as it was admitted by this Board.

Under 10 C.F.R. 52.740(f), evasive responses are to be treated as a failure to respond. Under 10 C.F.R.

S2.742(b), a failure to respond to a request for admissions should result in a determination that the requested ad-missions are deemed made.

Therefore, Applicant requests that'the Licensing Board enter an order requiring Ms. Sinclair to properly respond to the Request for Admission within 10 days or the matters of fact will be deemed admitted. In the alter-native, Applicant requests that this Licensing Board enter an order deeming the matters of fact admitted effective the date of the order.

Res ct u yEsub ' ted,;

'A rt idD _shkk.;

Consumers Power { Company'One'of.tME Attd ISHAM,-LINCOLN & BEALE '

  • Three First National Plaza Suite 5200 Chicago, Illinois 60602

.(312). 558-7500 DATED: . September' 28, 1982 '

A b

,e-i 5

w UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of: ) Docket Nos. 50-329 OM

) 50-330 OM CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-329 OL (Midland Plant, Units 1 & 2) ) 50-330 OL CERTIFICA?E OF SERVICE I, Philip P. Steptoe, hereby certify that copies of Consumers Power Company's Motion To Compel A Response Or, In The Alternative, To Deem Matters Of Fact Admitted in the above-captioned proceeding have been served upon all persons shown in the attached service list by deposit in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, this 28th day of September, 1982. -

,3 J j ~

_j

' Philip P.

Steptoe{'

s Isham, Lincoln & Beale Three First National Plaza Suite 5200 Chicago, Illinois 60602 (312) 558-7500 4

M

s:

1 SERVICE LIST Frank J. Kelley, Esq. Steve Gadler Attorney General of the 2120 Carter Avenue, i State of Michigan St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 Carole Steinberg, Esq.

, Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety & Licensing Environmental Protection Div. Appeal Panel 720 Law Building U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.

Lansing, Michigan 48913 Washington, D.C. 20555 Myron M. Cherry,-Esq. Mr. C. R. Stephens One IBM Plaza Chief, Docketing & Services Suite 4501 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.

Chicago, Illinois 60611 Office of the Secretary Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Wendell H. Marshall 4625 S. Saginaw Road Ms. Mary Sinclair Midland, Michigan 48640 5711 Summerset Street Midland, Michigan 48640 Charles Bechhoefer, Esq. William D. Paton, Esq.

Atomic Safety & Licensing Counsel for the NRC Staff Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comn. Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Frederick P. Cowan Atomic Safety & Licensing 6152 N. Verde Trail Board Panel Apt. B-125 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.

Boca Raton, Florida 33433 Washington, D.C. 20555 James E. Brunner, Esq. Jerry Harbour Consumers Power Company Atomic Safety & Licensing 212 West Michigan Avenue Board Panel Jackson, Michigan 49201 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.

Washington, D.C. 20555

, Mr. D. F. Judd Lee L. Bishop

=

Babcock & Wi!.mx Harmon & Weiss P. O. Box 1200 1725 "I" Street, N.W. #506 Lynchburg, Virginia 24505 Washington, D.C. 20006 I Barbara Stamiris 5795 North River Road l ' Route 3 *

. Freeland, Michigan 48623

\1

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20065H694&oldid=3075507"