ML18230B313
| ML18230B313 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 09/16/1977 |
| From: | Trowbridge G Carolina Power & Light Co, Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| Download: ML18230B313 (10) | |
Text
0 September 16, 1977 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of CAROLINA POWER 6 LIGHT COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-400 50-401 (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power 50-402 Plant, Units 1, 2, 3 and 4} 50-403 APPLICANT' PROPOSED AGENDA FOR RESUMPTION OF EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS The- Board's Memorandum and Order'ated August 30, 1977, requested the parties to agree on an order for the-pre-sentation of evidence at 'the hearing session scheduled to recommence on September 27, 1977, and instructed Applicant, if agreement is not possible, to submit its own recommenda-tion for an order of procedure.
Applicant has reached agreement with NRC Staff counsel and with counsel for the State of North Carolina on the attached proposed agenda but has been unable to reach full agreement with Intervenors'ounsel. Accordingly, in accordance with the Board's order, Applicant submits the attached proposed agenda as its own recommendation.
Applicant understands that'ntervenors propose two principal revisions in the proposed agenda:
- l. Intervenors desire to schedule the testimony of Mr. Amory Lovins in support of Contention
17 on September 27, 1977, the first day of the resumed hearing. Intervenors'ounsel explains that Mr. Lovins will be in Raleigh on other bus-iness just prior to the hearing and has agreed to stay over for the first day of hearing. His availability for a portion of the second day is uncertain. Applicant fully recognizes the need for reasonable accommodation of .the evidentiary sequence to the availability of witnesses. Ap-plicant's concern with Intervenors'roposal is solely that there may not be adequate opportunity for cross-examination by the Applicant, the Staff and the State of North Carolina. Not having seen Mr. Lovins'estimony, not knowing how much time will be taken up on the first day of hearing with preliminary matters, not knowing whether the Board would be willing to defer limited appear-ances, and not knowing with certainty the period of Mr. Lovins'vailability, Applicant cannot either gauge the amount of cross-examination which will be necessary or the time which. will be available for cross-examination. Consequently, Applicant cannot at this time agree that Mr.
Lovins be called as a witness on the first day.
(Obviously, Applicant would have no objection to a limited appearance by Mr. Lovins.) Applicant
will, however, be prepared on the first day of hearing, after reviewing Mr. Lovins'repared testimony to advise the Board as to the approx-imate length of cross-examination which Appli-cant considers necessary. The Board can then decide, taking into account the cross-examin-ation considered necessary by Applicant, the NRC Staff and the State of North Carolina and the availability of Mr. Lovins for cross-exam-ination, whether Mr. Lovins should be permitted to present his prepared statement as testimony.
I
- 2. Intervenors propose that Applicant proceed with its direct testimony on all contentions before the taking of any testimony by the Staff or Xn-tervenors. Applicant is agreeable to combining its testimony on Contention 18 (need for power) and Contention 17 (effect of conservation, al-ternative energy sources and rate increases on rate of growth of demand) since these contentions are closely related. Under Applicant's proposed agenda, Applicant's witnesses on these two con-tentions would then be available to listen to the presentation of testimony by the NRC Staff and Xntervenors on these contentions and to assist Applicant's counsel in the preparation of cross-examination of that testimony. They could then
be dismissed to return to their other .duties.
They would not be required to stand by during the presentation and cross-examination of Ap-plicant's financial witnesses on Contention 19 (Applicant's ability to generate funds for construction). Similarly, Applicant's finan-cial experts, who are not involved in testimony on need for power and demand growth, could be available at the hearing during the testimony of other parties on Contention 19 and should not be required to stand by during the testi-mony and cross-examination on Contentions 17 and 18. Applicant's proposal to proceed con-tention by contention would make sense even if only Company officials were involved. It makes even more sense in that Applicant plans with respect to each of the contentions to use out side experts residing at considerable distance from Raleigh.
Respectfully submitted, I
SHAW ~ P TTMAN~ POTTS 6 TROWBRI DGE G 6rg P. Tr ridge J'>>
Dated: September 16, 1977
APPLICANT'S PROPOSED AGENDA FOR RESUMPTION OF HARRIS CONSTRUCTION PERMIT HEARING
- l. Opening Statement by Chairman of ASLB,
- 2. Appearances of Counsel.
- 3. Limited Appearances.
- 4. Introduction of Exhibits by Stipulation of Counsel.
A. General Application, PSAR and ER as amended to date (to replace Applicant's Exhibits Q, R and S, previously admitted in evidence on October 8, 1974).
B. Supplement No. 3 to SER (to supplement SER and Supplements Nos. 1 and 2, previously admitted in evidence as AEC Exhibit No. 7 on October 8, 1974).
C. Supplement No. 4 to SER.
D. ACRS Report dated August 19, 1977 (unless already incorporated in Supplement No. 4 to SER}.
Note 1: Revi'sed Final FES, dated March, 1974, already admitted as AEC Exhibit No. 6 on October 8, 1974.
Note 2: Applicant and NRC Staff to be subject to cross-examination on above documents insofar as they relate to 17, 18 and 19 at the same Intervenors'ontentions time they are subject to cross-examination on their prepared testimony with respect to such contentions.
- 5. Testimony on Intervenors'ontentions 17 and 18.
A. Applicant's prepared testimony on Contentions 17 and 18.
Cross-examination by NRC Staff.
Cross-examination by Intervenors.
Cross-examination by State.
Redirect examination by Applicant.
Note: Cross-examination and redirect examination to follow each separate piece of testimony.
B. NRC Staff's prepared testimony on Contentions 17 and 18.
Cross-examination by Applicant.
Cross-examination by Intervenors.
Cross-examination by State Redirect examination by NRC Staff, Note: In the event, the Staff's prepared testi-mony has not, been pre-filed, any other party may. request that cross-examination by such party be deferred until the second week of hearing.
C. Intervenors'repared testimony on Contentions 17 and 18.
Cross-examination by Applicant.
Cross-examination by NRC Staff.
Cross-examination by State.
Redirect examination by Intervenors.
D. Rebuttal testimony, if any, by Applicant, and Intervenors, in that order.
NRC Staff
- 6. Testimony on lntervenors'ontention 19.
A. Applicant's prepared testimony on Contention 19.
Cross-examination by NRC Staff.
Cross-examination by Intervenors.
Cross-examination by State.
Redirect examination by Applicant.
Note: Cross-examination and redirect examination to follow each separate piece of testimony.
B. NRC Staff's prepared testimony on Contention 19.
Cross-examination by Applicant.
Cross-examination by Intervenors.
Cross-examination by State.
Redirect examination by NRC Staff.
C. Intervenors'prepared testimony on Contention 19.
Cross-examination by Applicant.
Cross-examination by NRC Staff.
Cross-examination by State.
Redirect examination by Intervenors.
D. Rebuttal testimony, if any, by Applicant, and Intervenors, in that order.
NRC Staff
- 7. Answers to ASLB Questions.
A. Applicant's Answers to ASLB Questions.
Cross-examination by NRC Staff.
Cross-examination by Intervenors.
Cross-examination by State.
Redirect examination by Applicant.
B. NRC Staff Answers to ASLB Questions.
Cross-examination by Applicant.
Cross-examination by Intervenors.
Cross-examination by State.
Redirect examination by NRC Staff.
Note: Board examination of witnesses on this or any other testimony to occur at any time in the discretion of the Board.
- 8. Testimony by NRC Staff'pdating Revised FES in areas not covered by testimony on Contentions 17 and 18.
Cross-examination by Applicant.
Cross-examination by Intervenors.
Cross-examination by State.
9 ~ Concluding Statements, and if desired, Applicant, in that order.
by Intervenors, NRC Staff,
- 10. Closing procedural matters, including schedule for proposed findings and transcript corrections.
UNITED STATES OF AMERXCA NUCLEAR REGULATORY'OMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
CAROLINA POWER 6 LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket Nos,-50-400
) 50-401
). 50-402
) 50-403 CERTXFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "Applicant's Proposed Agenda for Resumption of Evidentiary Hearings," dated September 16, 1977, were served upon those persons on the attached Service List, by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, this 16th day of September, 1977.
Geor F. Trowbridge
UNITED STATES OF At&RICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of CAROLINA POWER 6 LIGHT COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-400 50-401 (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power 50-402 Plant, Units 1, 2, 3 and 4) 50-403 SERVICE LIST Ivan W. Smith, Esquire Charles A. Barth, Esquire Chairman Office of the Executive Legal Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Glenn O. Bright, James M. Cutchin, IV, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the Executive Legal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Director Washington, D.C. 20555 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. J. V. Leeds, Jr.
10807 Atwell Docketing and Service Section Houston, Texas 77096 Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Jesse C. Brake, Esquire Washington, D.C. 20555 Associate Attorney General State of North Carolina Thomas S. Erwin, Esquire P. O. Box 629 P. O. Box 928 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 115 West Morgan Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27602