ML19340F170
| ML19340F170 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 01/16/1981 |
| From: | Gray J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Jordan W, Little L, Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8101210204 | |
| Download: ML19340F170 (2) | |
Text
a
/ M MCg%
UN!TED STATES t
p '~
',7, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
]
J'
.1 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 e
c R:
g Janur 16, 1981 5,[j
?,
s N.
=
15
!3 3
N Ivan W. Smith, Esq.
Dr. Walter H. Jordan Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 881 W. Outer Drive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Linda W. Little Administrative Judge 5000 Hermitage Drive Raleigh, NC 27612 In the Matter of Metropolitan Edison Company, et al.
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1)
Dochat No. 50-289 (Restart)
Dear Board Members:
At the hearing session on emergency planning held on October 30 and 31, 1980, a schedule for undertaking emergency planning matters was proposed.
Purs'uant to that schedule, the parties proposed to file written testimony on the adequacy of, and contentions related to, onsite emergency planning on January 19, 1981.
Counsel for the Licensee has informed Staff Counsel that the Licensee believes it will need an additional three weeks, until February 9,1981, to prepare and file its testimony on onsite emergency preparedness and will so inform the Licensing Board by letter.
In view of the delay by the Licensee in the filing of its testimony, the NRC Staff believes that an additional three weeks would be useful for completing prepara-tion and finalization of its own written testimony on onsite emergency preparedness and would propose to file such testimony on the same date as the Licensee. Since the scheduling of consideration of issues at hearing has been modified so that management issues will be considered beginning February 2, the Staff anticipates that the additional three weeks for the filing of onsite emergency preparedness testimony will not result in a delay or hiatus in the hearing.
Each party with emergency planning conte-
,s r well as a representative for the State of Pennsylvania was informe gry 15,1981 of the delay in the filing of the onsite emergency
. ass testimony either
'MO I 2 7 opf G
2-t through direct telephone calls from the Staff cr by a statement of Staff counsel on the record of the hearing session.
Sincerely, n
n W
/)
!' Joskh R. Gra
- [tc
'4
/ Couhsel for N C Staff cc:
Service List a
i f
4 i
l 1
1 h
I i
i i
d
..n..w,,
,-,w
-..- ~, - ~,,-- ee
-