ML19319D365

Answer of Util in Opposition to Gainesville,Fl Motion to Admit Exhibit.Motion Should Be Denied.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19319D365
Person / Time
Site:	Crystal River
Issue date:	08/01/1968
From:	Dunn E, Evertz H, Snapp R FLORIDA POWER CORP.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8003160200
Download: ML19319D365 (4)

Text

.. . - .. - - --

l .

- s

% -# \

a- _ - ,

(;41 ? '

.& UNITED STATES OF- AMERICA -

ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION

-s In the Matter of )

)

FLORIDA' POWER CORPORATION ) DOCKET NO. 50-302

) -

_ (Cryst'al River Unit -3 .

)

' Nuclear Generating Plant) )

ANSWER OF FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION IN OPPOSITION TO GAINESVILLE'S MOTION TO ADMIT EXHIBIT Florida Power Corporation, Applicant in the above-styled matter, by_ and through its undersigned attorneys, files th's Answer in opposition to Gainesville's Motion to Admit Exhibit, pursuant to Section 2.730(c) ' of the! Commission's " Rules of Practice",10 CFR Part 2.

1. The evidentiary hearing was ' concluded on July 17, 1968, and all parties, including Gainesville, stated that they had no more evidence to' present - (T.p. 507) . Gainesville's proffer cf A. P. Perez' unsworn state-ment'asfan Exhibit is an attempt to reopen the evidentiary hearing and would serve no- useful purpose other than to delay the procedure.

2. In paragraph 1 of its Motion to Admit Exhibit, Gainesville L has erroneously assumed that the " Statement of Mr. A. P. Perez (For Public

~

Use)" attached to the' Motion is the same unsworn statement of Mr. Perez

' which Counsel,for the Applicant alluded to at the prehearing conference

(T.p. 51) . . As the record reflects (T.pp 299 & 300), Mr. Perez was unable to ~ attend the public hearing and to make the unsworn statement referred to t at the. prehearing . conference. The unsworn statement attached to Gaines-ville's- Motion is not the statement Mr. Perez had intended to make at the 8003160 0 N ,

m - -

m -J'

.  :% n p +. ' ~

~

public hearing. . As Counsel for Applicant stated,' the unsworn statement of

~

(- -Mr. Perez is .nothing' more than a public relations type of press release 7

i intended to inform the public regarding background matters, and it-is in nowise related to any issue before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.

3. - Copies of the unsworn statement of Mr. A. P. Perez, proffered as-an'Exhib'it at this late date by Gainesville, were made availabla to.the public as well as Gainesville prior to the commencement of the public hear-

. ing on the morning of July _ 16, 1968. If Gainesville desired to adduce evidence on any matter suggested in Mr. Perez' unsworn statement it should have done so in its cross-examination of Applicant's witnesses. The un-aworn statement of Mr. A. P. Perez is not the best eyidence of any matter which Gainesville is now belatedly attempting to inject _into the record of

-the proceedings. Gainesville admits in paragraph 4 of its Motion that it could have sought to produce the same evidence from Messrs. Rodgers and Loader.

4. Contrary to Gainesville's belief (paragraph 3 of its Motion),

the admission into evidence of the unsworn statement of Mr. A. P. Perez would be' highly prejudicial to the Applicant. The evidentiary hearing has been closed'and'Gainesville announced it had nothing further to offer. It had two _ full days (July 16 and 17,1968) while the hearing was in progress to study-the unsworn statement and use-its contents as an aid in cross-s examining any of Applicant's sworn witnesses. Gainesville has'had its

- turn at -bat and now that this phase of the' contest has been concluded, it seeks one more turn at the' bat because of something its hindsight suggests zit could .have or;might _ have done if only it had thought about it while at bat. The Applicant would be greatly prejudiced by the admission into evidence of the unsworn statem' ent of Mr. Ferez unless the evidentiary k

3-

^-

~

~ ^ J

?=. _ ,

w , m g . . ,

. hearing .were to Lbe:r' opened ;in order. for the Applicant to offer rebuttal:

~

f+- ~

e

.fevidence; or' to explain any improper inferene-s Gainesville might make-with

~

~ regard to the unsworn statement. It-has been evident since Gainesville was permitted to intervene in this proceeding that -its primary objective has been: to convert the proceeding into one for determining whe't her or not this particular reactor (Crystal River Unit No. 3) has any " practical value",

a.

To receive ~ this unsworn statement of Mr. Perez into the record of this pro-ceeding will- serve no useful purpose. It will only serve Gainesville's ob'jective of converting the proceeding into one for determining whether or not the Crystal River Nuclear Unit has any " practical value" as defined by Gainesville.

5. . The reasons why, or the business judgment exercised by, Appli-cant's Management in choosing to build a nuclear facility, as opposed to a conventional generating plant, are immaterial and irrelevant. Such informa-

. tion has no bearing upon any issue over which the AEC has jurisdiction.

~

The AEC has repeatedly stated that the mere fact that a utility company is willing'to accept the business risks involved in building.a nuclear reactor does not amount'to " practical value" within the meaning of Section 102 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as at nded. (Duke Proceedings - Dockets No's.

269, 50-270, and 50-287.)

This 1st ' day ~of August, 1968.

Respectfully submitted,

./s/ -- Harry - A. Evertz, III /c/ Edgar H. Dunn, Jr.

_ HARRY A. EVERIZ, III . EDGAR- H. DUNN, JR.

Florida Power ~ Building. Flori'da Power Building 101f- 5th Street South 101 - 'S th Street South

.P. O. Bov'14042L-P. O. Bo:: 14042.

St.. Pet'ersburg, Florida 33733 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 Roy.B. Snapp1 1725 "K" S treet , N.W.

, j -

Washington, D. C. 20006 m

' Counsel for Flosida Power Corporation

.3-- -

g -

y g ?p: 3 ,

~ -

f.1-' , ,

,l,; ~

~

, @~

s n

f ,g [' - '

w ', -

1 iUNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3 a: <

~ ~

ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION

-In the Ma'tter ofi )

3-~. . .

~

) i L

1 FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION ) Docket No. 50-302

. . . . ) '

l (Crystal River Unit 3 - ')

t Nuclear' Generating Plant)

') s m

, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby! certify that copies of the " Answer of Florida Power '

' *1

- , c Corporation in Opposition to Gainesville's Motion to Admit Exhibit", in

the captioned matter' and dated August 1st , 1968, were served upon the

'following by. deposit in the United States mail, first class or air mail,

+

'this-_ 1st day: of August, 1968:

2 y 'A. ' A. ' Wells, ' Esq.~,1 Chairman Dr. Rolf Eliassen

, Atomic Safety"and Licensing Board Department of Civil Engineering Panel. Stanford University

'~

-U.1S.' Atomic Energy. Commission ~ Palo Alto, California 94305 Washington,]D.'C.-20545

= Gerald F. Hadlock, Esq.

R ' Samuel W. Jensch, Esq. Trial Counsel, Regulatory Staff Chairman, Atomic Safety and U. S. Atomic Yaergy Commission-s Licensing" Board. Washington, 5. C. 20545

?U. S. Atomic Energy-Commission

~

. Washington,-~ D.~ : C. ~20545 T. T. Turnbull, Esq.

~

?#

Assistant Attorney General Dr. Eugene Greuling The Capitol Professo'r of Physics Tallahassee, riorida 32304 Duke ). University.

.. , , - Durham,' North Carolina 27706 Mr. Stanley. T. Robinson, Jr. (2 copies)

Office.of the Secretary.

c. Hugh Paxton.. . U. S.' Atomic Energy Commission

- Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Washington, D. C. 20545'

.Los' Alamos, New Mexico 87544 4

,l ' George' Spiegel,,Esq.

', 2

.2600_ Virginia Avenue,'N.W.' ;i 4 "-

L. Washington, D.=C.- 20037' f

• ^'

, /s/. Harry A. Evertz, III l

,A HARRY A.-EVERIZ,-III 'l

• J

~

' Assistant Counsel Florida Power Corporation

y. -

a

• x

. ;. s n M7'

, g.j

, jg 9 q <

,, x l 'd - O 4 _

fo , ' * , , -

_