ML19343A304
| ML19343A304 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 09/12/1980 |
| From: | Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD), UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8009170182 | |
| Download: ML19343A304 (2) | |
Text
-
i s
Bd 9/12/80 e
UNITED STATES OF~ AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
tCCXETED
\\
usNac ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Sj SEP 12 580 > G u Ivan W. Smith, Chairman k
Office oithe Secetart Dr. Walter H. Jordan Tc L
Dec6*4 A!ama d Id '
Dr. Linda W. Little f
- S,
O p
O In the Matter of
)
r;
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289 (Three Mile Island Nuclear
( estart)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Sep tember 12, 1980)
In a telephone conference call on September li,1980 among _
counsel for licensee, counsel for the staff, counsel for UCS and the chairman, UCS' September 10 motion for an extension of time to file testimony on UCS Contention 5 was discussed.
This oppor-tunity was also taken to discuss licensee's September 11 request for relief from the board's September 8 order scheduling written testimony in response to certain board questions.
Neither the licensee nor the staff now obj ect to UCS' request to file its Contention 5 written testimony later than previously scheduled provided that there be an opportunity to respond to any 1/
" surprises" in UCS' testimony.-
The board grants UCS' motion.
UCS aay file its written testimony on UCS' Contention 5 no later than ten days following the service of the later of the staff's 1/
The practice at NRC is to file one document containing both written direct testimony and anticipatory rebuttal testimony.
t However, ucon a showing of good cause and need, an opportunity gO to supplement estimony to address genuine sup rises will be Qg provided.
8009170
E\\
.\\
w
. written testimony or the licensee's written testimony on UCS' Contention 5.
I The NRC staff requested the same relief requested by the licensee in its September 11' motion.
The relief is appropriate.
The licensee, the staff, and any other party filing written testimony responding to the board's questions to be heard in the first segment of the hearing (see September 8 memorandum and order) may serve such testimony on or before October 15.
The board will consider requests for additional extensions if necessary.
THE ATOMIC. SAFETY A'ID LICENSING BOARD Pbl$'
- dY A
/ Ivan W Smi~th, Chairman Bethesda, Maryland September 12, 1980 h