ML19338B969

Submits Proposed Schedule for Witnesses' Direct Testimony & cross-examination.Licensee Unable to Reach Agreement W/Counsel for Intervernors Re Witness Scheduling

ML19338B969
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	01/03/1977
From:	Renfrow R ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE
To:	Coufal F, Leeds J, Luebke E Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8007291107
Download: ML19338B969 (2)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _

..  :- .^

= .

=

r 4 ISHAM.COUNSELOR LINCOLN & BEALE fD-3 22J 37o

,< $ Ar LAW .

, , .?  %

75 ~5 b

==

ONC FtMST NATIONAL PLAZA FORTY =SECONO FLCCM h CHICAGO.0LLINots 60603

f. . $s#*

W pa TELEPMON C 313-786 7500 TELEX:2-5288

- .% wasNeNoToM orrect C

'y*@g }

ICSO I?2' STRECT, N W.

REvtNTN vroon

/ WASNINGTON,0. C. 2OO3 6 -

202-633 97;3 CV i ,

January 3, 1977 l Dr. J. Vann Leeds, Jr. Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke 10807 Atwell Atomic Safety & Licensing Board l Houston, Texas 77096 Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1 Washington, D.C. 20555' l Fradetic J. Coufal, Esq. j Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board  !

Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: Midland Proceedine - Schedule for Presentation of Evidence Gentlemen:

Pursuant to this Board's order of December 23, 1976 r'egarding the schedule for present.ation of evidence beginning on January 18, 1977, Counsel for Consumer Power Company contacted Counsel for the NRC Regulatory Staff and Counsel for'all Intervenors except Dow on December 29, 1976. Counsel for Licensee was able to reach agree-ment on the schedule for witnesses with Counsel for the Staff but was not able to reach-agreement with Counsel for all Intervenors

-except Dow.

Licensee proposes to present the followd.ng witnesses' direct testimony and have their cross examination completed in the following order: -

1. Gilbert S. Keeley, parts 1 and 2 (status of construction and ACRS);

2. Steven H. Howell (Licensee's contract with the Dow Chemical Comp any) ;

3. Joseph G. Temple. (Remainder of cross-examination on the' Dow Chemical Company's contract with Licensee);

4. Roy A'. Wells (Environmental Impacts);

5. Gordon L. Heins -(Need for Power); and 6.. Gilbert S. Keeley, parts 3 and 4 (Cost of Delay and Cost-of 3M Abandonment).-

800720110 C o n t d . / .". .

4 m- -.

"M6coro. S Venn Loodo',' ' r. , -' Coufal

-4 ,

a +1:: Luob ko (Janucry.3, 1976 ,

PageL 2/

Infaddition, Licensee would not object.to testimony ~by and completionxofz cross-examination'of any further 3ow witnesses which the Board wishes to be called at'the' conclusion of Mr'. Temple's_ testimony.- : Licensee believes that by proceeding in this-manner,-its. direct: case-and pertinent cross-examination will.

F be presented to-the Board'in-the'most logical fashion. R l

Counsel for Intervenors.has stated that while he would stipulate o i

Licensee's'~ testimony into'the record, he wishes to cross-examine 1 A.H. .Aymond, Chairman 1of-the~ Board of Licensee, R'. C. ' Youn gdahl, l Executive.Vice-President _.of1 Licensee, and the remainder of the Dow.

, employees he has requested.during the first week of the resumed l

' hearings. -Licensee cannot_ agree. to this schedule'for two' reasons.

(.

i-First,- as-reflected in pages 755' and 756 of the . transcript, it is  !

l the~ Licensee's position that Mr. Howell will be~able to answer any -

• questions off the parties: or the_ Board concern'ing negotiations .with

.Dow and, as reflected by the Board's order at those pages, the Board ~will entertain, following-Mr. Howell's testimony, a motion to' exclude Mr. Aymond and Mr. Youngdahl from testifying. Second, i'

as.this Board has'previously stated, Licensee has the burden'of

p. roof'in this matter. The; order of presentation of its witnesses ~

to meet,that burden must therefore be left to. Licensee. Once'this burden 1s met,_the burden of going forward then shifts to parties-opposing Licensee's position. Logically, it.would be at that time that those parties' cas'a should be presented.- This is true even -

thoughfthe opposing parties' case will consist of examination-of-

! Licensee's employees. Counsel'for-the Regulatory Staff have no obj ection~ to - proceeding in the manner requested by Licensee.

I Sincerely yours

/ .

s

,!./f a Rex' nfr RRR:dm i

.c.c.. Service. List .

t i

9 s

f-t

,m.-- -e,u .,nfm .,..,r- -,, e