ML19319D601
| ML19319D601 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 08/22/1968 |
| From: | Evertz H FLORIDA POWER CORP. |
| To: | Jensch S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003170770 | |
| Download: ML19319D601 (2) | |
Text
..
~
3
-FLORIDA POWIH C O R P O R ATI U X ST. PERE 25DcRG -*,3 \\ FLoHIDA Augus t 2?, 1968 gc3' Q9\\
/A g
b 30tccTib 6
a-Saccel W. Jensch, Esquire ggI; Chair:an, Acccic Safety and Licensing Zoard y
p'G3 ; ggD'.j-9, 7
United States Acc=ic Energy Co==ission y
Washington, D. C.
20545 g,Wi _((f geg 4
g q;..a s0,
Dear Mr. Chair =an:
.'f. 4,4 g
53 i g i f-In re: Florida Power Corporation (Crystal River Unit 3)
Docket No. 50-302 Florida Power Corporation is in receipt of a copy of Gaines-ville's letter of August 20, 1963, responding to the three questions contained in your letter of August 12, 1963, addressed :o Counsel for Gainesville.
In response to the Chairman's first questica relating to Gainesville's purpose in offering Mr. A. P. Perez ' unadorn s tatement into evidence, Gainesville candidly states that the sole purpose of the offer is to shou that the chief executive officer of Florida Power has concluded that tae Application does not fall within the intent and pur-pose of Section 104b. of the Ato ic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
Had Mr. Pere: been on the witness stand under oath, any such question attempting to elicit his opinion or conclusion as to the intent and purpose of a lau would have been objectioncble as incompetent and in-
=aterial since it vould not have been shown that Mr. Perez is competent to express a legal opinion or conclusion.
Pa. Pere ' 2d9cational and professional qualifications are set forth in Exhibi 6.under Tab 3 of the Application, which is in evidence as Iten No. 1 of Joint Exhibit "A ", As shown in this evidence, Mr. Pere: is an Electrical Engineer.
Any opinica or conclusion Mr. Pere: may have as to the intent and pur-pose of Section 104b. is not co=petent or relevant and cust be ruled to be inadmissible and improper.
Such evidence or incompetent con-clusion of law would have been clearly inadmissible
..d improper cross-exanination if Gainesville had atte=pted to inject it into the record at the hearing, had Mr. Pere: been a witness under oath. The unsworn statement ennnot neu be logi ally ruled admissible when belatedly of-fered for the sa=a improper purpose.
Gainesville's response to the second que s: ion, asking to what issue does }2. Peres' unsworn statement relate, beg. s by narrowly in-terprecing,Section 104b. as only authorizing the lice. ting of nuclear facilities that lead :o najor advances in the application of atomic
\\
8%31 r e9 y
e
- =.
,m s
a v.
- Sc uci U. Jensch, Isquire August 22, 1963
-? ce 2 energy for industrial or concercial purposes. This interpretation cca-veniently ignores the language of the first two sentences and takes the last sentence of Sectica 104b. cut of cente:.:. This sentence merely vests dhe Cennission with discreciencry pcuers in determining priorities between applicctions Oc construct nuclear fs-ilities, if circunstances do no: perait the construct en of both facilitics. This last sentence in no ~way pcsses upon dhe jurisdictional licensability under Section 104b. of the application deemed by the Cc :issica to have the lower priority.
The retainder of Gainesville's response to the second question relates to the business judg=cnt exercised by Florida ?cwer in choosing to construct a nuclear power plant in lieu of a conventional plant. Such considera: ion are clearly beyond the jurisdictional issues being con-sidered.
Gaines.il).e's response to the third question cerely sets forth Gainesville's interpretation of what is or is not research and develop-cent as dalined in the Atomic Inergy Act.
This type 'of argument should mere properly be left for exceptions and briefs addressed to the full Cc ission.
Florida ?cwcr renews its objections to the admissibility into evidence of the unsworn statement of Mr. A. P. Perez. In addition to the grounds set forth in its Answer in Opposition served en all parties August 1,1963, Gainesville has now acknowladged in its response to the dhree questions that the purpose cf the ~ offer is to inject into tha ' rec-ord an incompetent and irrelevant legal conclucica. The docucent would not have been properly admitted into evidence for this purpose had the offer been cade during the cvidentiary hearing.
Florida ?cwer, therefore, respectfully renews its objections and urges the Chair an of the Ato:ic Safety and Licensing Scard to den;- Gainesville's....ica.
Respectfully submitted, FLORIEA PCNER CORPORATION
- 1. 6 f--
37 e%vq q10._
Ecrry'A. Evert:, III(
EAE:t
- 1. sistant Ccunsel cc: Garcld 7. Hadlock, Esquire
'. T. Turnbull, Esquira Janas F. Fairnen, Jr., Esquire A..*.. Wells, Is quire Secretary, Accric Energy Cennissica m
s.-..-.