ML20091K138
| ML20091K138 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 06/05/1984 |
| From: | Baxter T CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20091K140 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8406060433 | |
| Download: ML20091K138 (4) | |
Text
' '
/
l\\
quJED CORRESN" i
00tKEigune 5,1984 USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERI@ JUN-6 N0:06 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Off 7 CF SEf.ta : e 00CdilNGASEFyn BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSIN6 M ARD In the Matter of
)
)
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-400 OL and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN
)
50-401 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY
)
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power
)
Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR EXPEDITED RULING ON APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR A DETERMINATION THAT JOINT INTERVENORS' PROPOSED TESTIMONY OF DR. CARL J. JOHNSON IS INADMISSIBLE Applicants today filed with the Board " Applicants' Motion for a Determination that Joint Intervenors' Proposed Testimony of Dr. Carl J. Johnson is Inadmissible."M The principal basis for the motion is that Dr. Johnson's proposed testimony is not relevant to the issues specified by the Board for the hearing on environmental matters to begin on June 14, 1964.M Appli-cants hereby move that the motion on admissibility be given ex-pedited treatment and decided in advance-of the hearing.
1/
Both motions are being hand-delivered today to the Board, counsel'for the NRC Staff, Mr.'Payne and'Mr. Read (counsel'for Jcint Intervenors) and Mr. Eddleman (lead intervenor on these issues).
i g
Applicants also argue that the proposed testimony lacks probative!value because-it is incomplete and because the wit-j ness lacks credibility.
A
Particularly, Applicants request that Joint Intervenors be directed to file any written answer to the admissibility motion by Monday, June 11, 1984.
The Staff has agreed to file its an-swer by that date.1/ If Joint Intervenors make available copies of their answer to Applicants in Raleigh or Durham prior to 11:00 a.m. on June 11, Applicants will undertake to deliver copies to the Board and Staff counsel on June 11.
Similarly, Applicants will attempt to deliver a copy of the Staff's answer to Mr. Eddleman (or another designated intervenor) on June 11.
Applicants then propose a telephone conference be conducted by the Board on June 12 to announce its ruling.
This motion for expedition seeks to avoid unnecessary ef-fort and expense for the parties, without sacrifice to the full presentation of the parties' views to the Board on the admissi-bility motion.
Applicants could have reserved their objections to admis-sion of the Johnson testimony until it is offered at the hear-ing.
By then, however, Applicants will have expended poten-
' tially needless effort preparing cross-examination and/or L
rebuttal testimony to cover the eventuality that their objec-i tions are overruled and the testimony is received.
The Staff no doubt would have incurred a similar expenditure of effort.
E From their standpoint, Joint Intervenors would have sustained the needless expense of bringing Dr. Johnson from Colorado to l
j3 At the time this-motion was filed, Joint Intervenors were in~the process of'considering whether or not to agree to.this request for. expedition.
. t.
w r.
,L
^l b
North COrOlin3 if hio"tcotimony 10 rulcd incdaicciblo ot tha
(
hearing itself.4/
c
,... t W ither, there is no weason_to delay, until hearing, a de-
'r cision on the admissibility of the proposed Johnson testimony.
f.
s 1 I'-Writtendirecttesti{.onyfiledinadvancewasrequiredbythe
/[.
Board.
Dr. Johnson cannot cure the defects in his direct by i
/
,7 p* '
oral expansion, and the presence of the witness is not needed e
/ \\'
t y for,, the, Board to rule 'upon,the relevance and/or probative value t
sof the written testimony.
Finally, Applica.s have lodged their admissibilty motion without delay.
While the notion sets forth the background of 7.
the si'tu,a. tion with some care and is therefore not brief, the fundamental argument on relevance is a simple one which Joint
~Intervenors should be able to address in the time period pec-e posed.1/
f
- s Respectfully submitted,
/
t
' l>
u
.m l
Thomas A. Baxter, P.C.
Dobcrah H. Bauser r/
6 PAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE r
't 1800 M Street, N.W.
t t
i' Washington, D.C.
20036
/
(202) 822-1000
.d t
hWh(lethesecontingenciesalwaysexist,Applicantssubmit that their objections to the proposed testimony are so compelling that a prompt ruling is warranted in this instance i
tc avMd ' needless of fort. ;
Y-
,f 1/
f,Tf~Applh ants had raised their objections at hearing for the f)g1stiO hi, Joint.Intervenors would have been required to answeifjthe)bujections"onthespot."'
J g
i 'f:
,[ ' '
~
e 9f
f 9.'
t g
/<
- o.,
k<
.p,
/.
Y.
s.
s -
. = -
O
.s-
'\\;
Richard E. Jonce Samantha Francis Flynn CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY P.O. Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 (919) 836-6517 Counsel for Applicants Dated:
June 5, 1984 o
O t
4 g
~..
a
-f i
~
6/-(
7 s
^
'