ML19220C891
| ML19220C891 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 04/03/1979 |
| From: | Olmstead W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Christenbury E NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7905160033 | |
| Download: ML19220C891 (2) | |
Text
f.
~-s ?V
^~
- c April 3, 1979 Note to Edward S. Christenbury Director and Chief Counsel Hearing Division EFFECTS OF TMI 0li PENDING BRANCH IV HEARINGS You requested a short-term evaluation of the potential effect that events.
at Three Mile Island may have upon the hearing workload of this Branch.
For purposes of evaluation, it has been assumed that motions to reopen and motions to add contentions would be successful regardless of the facility or license type.
No effect is anticipated concerning the following cases where such motions would be untimely.
(See Public Service of Indiana (Marble nill, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-530, ___3Pr (Marcn 19, 1979).
Inis conclusion assumes, of course, that tr.e Commission does not order some otner approach which results in reopening the proceedings.
Cases in this category are:
1.
Bellefonte 6.
Oconee 2.
Catawba 7.
Nine Mile Point 1 & 2 3.
Duane Arnold 8.
WPPS 1 & 4 4.
Grand Gulf 9.
WPPS 2 5.
Kewaunee 10.
Watts Bar (noticed but intervention period has passed)
The following cases currently before a licensing board for decision are susceptible to a successful motion to reopen before the licensing board:
1.
Diablo Canyon 2.
McGuire (OL) 3.
B!ack Fox Some cases in which initial decisions are pending before the Appeal Board for review are also susceptible to motions to reopen.
They are:
1.
Jamesport 2.
Hartsville 3.
St. Lucie 790516003 3 g
h
e s!
. The following cases have only the radon issue pending and are not as likely to be impacted.
1.
Midland (CP remand) 2.
WPPS-4 (no intervention) 3.
Yellow Creek The following cases
- currently before a licensing board for evidentiary hearings are susceptible to a successful motion to add contentions:
1.
Midland (OL) 2.
Shoreham (OL) 3.
McGuire/Oconee (spent fuel) 4.
Pebble Springs 5.
Ginna 6.
Montague (cormant)
In those cases where further hearings-are required, the nonavailability of appropriate technical supcort is expected to be the most critical factor.
Mioland and Shorenam safety review schedules, already slipping, should be expectec to slip even further.
Midland is already on its critical path since failure to obtain a license prior to 1982 could result in Dow Chemical's withcrawal from the project under the revised contract.
Draf t testimony in "cGuire/Oconee originally scheculed to be ccmpleted
.\\pril 15, 1979 is slipping indefinitely due to witnesses being assigned to Harrisburg.
Montague nas been dormant for some time and TMI will not be likely to impact it adversely.
To a lesser extent, Pebble Springs is proceeding sicwly and will not be impacted harshly.
Ginna has a temporary operating license and delays in full-term hearings would not have a severe impact.
_.L ij cY. < G '
William J. Olmstead Attorney, OELD
/O
) ) l
'b U /
.