ML19331B300

Objections to & Motion to Strike Dow Chemical Co 770124 & 0301 Proposed Transcript Corrections.Insertion of Entire Sentences Is Highly Inappropriate & Verges on Testimony Revision.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19331B300
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	07/27/1977
From:	Bartelman C, Mark Miller CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.), ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML19331B297	List: ML19331B296 ML19331B300
References
NUDOCS 8007280903
Download: ML19331B300 (6)

Text

.

W

.I f

(yh.ac h UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g

_ %C * \gq] 7

,J L:

~ 3Db -

Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boa co g,T ,,'y,: ' -

4 to

)

In the Matter of )

}

CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY } Docket Nos. 50-329

) 50-330 (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) )

)

)

CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS TO AND MOTION TO STRIKE PROPOSED TRANSCRIPT CORRECTIONS OF THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY Consumers Power Company (Licensee) has reviewed the Proposed Transcript Corrections of The Dow Chemical Company (Dow) submitted on January 24, 1977 and March 1, 1977 and hereby objects to certain of these corrections.

Because the January 24, 1977 transcript corrections have l l

already been admitted into evidence, these objections also 1

serve as a Motion to Strike those corrections. (Tr. 2939)

The purpose of transcript coErections is the correction of errors in transcription and the clarification of the syntax and grammar of recorded testimony in order to provide an intelligible record. While Licensee concedes that transcript corrections may also result in the written record of the proceeding comporting with the meaning intended

, by a witness at the time of his oral testimony, Licensee believes it improper to revise testimony actually intended 8007280 700

.- -s by the witness when made under the guise of transcript corr;cction. Transcript corrections should not be used to permit the wholesale rewriting of testimony after the fact.

In particular, Licensee believes it to be highly inappropriate for parties.to request the insertion of entire sentences.

See, Proposed Corrections Numbers 7 and 24 of January 24, 1977 filing.

Licensee therefore objects to the following Proposed Corrections to the transcript as falling outside the proper purpose of such corrections:

1. Proposed Correction No. 7 of January 24, 1977 Filing This " correction" is a request for insertion of an entire sentence into the record.

2. Proposed Correction No. 24 of January 24, 1977 Filing See Objection No. 1, supra

3. Proposed Correction No. 3 of March 1, 1977 Filing This " correction" is a substantive change of the cross-examiner's question 'and not the witness' statement.

4. Proposed Correction No. 9 of March 1, 1977 Filing This " correction" changes the apparent meaning of the witness ' testimony.

5. Proposed Correction No. 17 of March 1, 1977 Filing Licensee believes this " correction" to be an after-the-fact addition to the record.

.6. Proposed Correction No. 27 of March 1, 1977 Filing See Objection No. 5, supra

7. Proposed Correction No. 28 of March 1, 1977 Filing This " correction" does not comport with Licersee's recollection of the testimony. (See, line 9 on same transcript page) Licensee would note that this proposed correction also confirms Licensee's statement at the time of the oral testimony that it should come in subject to the understanding that the witness was not present at the meeting about which he testified.

8. Proposed Correction No. 30 cf March 1, 1977 Filing This " correction" changes the apparent meaning of the witness' testimony and does not comport with Licensee's recollection of it.

9. Proposed Correction No. 34 of March 1, 1977 Filing See Objection No. 5, supra

10. Proposed Correction No. 73 of March 1, 1977 Filidg See Objection No. 3, supra

11. Proposed Correction No. 78 of March 1, 1977 Filing Licensee does not object to this correction but believes that it should be read "is" rather than "eas"

12. Proposed Correction No. 82 of March 1, 1977 Filing See Objection No. 4, supra For the foregoing reasons, Licensee hereby objects to the admission into evidence and moves to strike Dow's t

._ s 4_

- Proposed Transcript Corrections as noted.

Respectfully submitted,

[

kM Michael I. Miller

[/Caryl A. Bartelman Attorneys for Consumers Power Company Isham, Lincoln & Beale One First National Plaza Suite 4200 Chicago, Illinois 60603 (312) 786-7500 July 27, 1977 1

, n,

• $N n-  ? +$

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 21 1 933 7 g N f NUCLEAR RECULATORY COMMISSION

,9, 'M 6

.P.efore the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boar "",.e

)

In the Matter of )

)

CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-329

) 50-330 (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) )

)

I I

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the attached CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY'S PROPOSED TRANSCRIPT CORRECTIONS DATED JULY 27, 1977 and CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS TO AND MOTION TO STRIKE PROPOSED TRANSCRIPT CORRECTIONS OF THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY DATED JULY 27, 1977 " in the i

above-captioned proceeding, have been served on the  ;

following by hand delivery thia 27th day of July, 1977:

Frederic J. Coufal, Esq. Dr.(Emmeth A. Luebke 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 Dr. J. Venn Leeds, Jr., Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.

Washington, D.C. 20555

I hereby certify that the following have been served by deposit in the United States Mail, firs t-clas s ,

postage prepaid, this 27th day of July, 1977:

Myron M. Cherry, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing One IBM Plaza Appeal Board Suite 4501 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.

Chicago, Illinois 60611 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. J. Venn Leeds, Jr., Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing 1080' Atwell Board Panel Houston, Texas 77096 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. C. R. Stephens Chief, Docketing Richard Hoefling, Esq.

& Service Section Counsel for NRC Staff Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.

of the Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.

Washington, D.C. 20555 L. F. Nute, Esq.

Legal Department Dow Chemical U.S.A.

Michigan Division Midland, Michigan 48640

)

{ h, _ .. -a -,

/ Caryl A. Bartelman i Counsel for Consumers Power Company Isham, Lincoln & Beale o One First National Plaza Suite 4200 Chicago, Illinois 60603 (312) 786-7500 July 27, 1977

_ - - _ - - - _ _._ _ _ _ . _1.