ML20009E732
| ML20009E732 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 07/24/1981 |
| From: | Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8107280397 | |
| Download: ML20009E732 (2) | |
Text
.
e s
4 L (tg S,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA E
iLU NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
9SB S W '--
j ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD E ' '^ n
- #[
Before Administrative Judges:
N q
Ivan W. Smith, Chairman v
Dr. Walter H. Jordan s
d Dr. Linda W. -Little j
In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY Docket No. 50-289 (Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
(Restart)
Station, Unit 1)
)
July 24, 1981
.'E-?.'ti.!lDI MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The Board has learned from counsel for the Commonweaith of Pennsylvania that some of the parties could use additional time to prepare their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on emergency planning issues, now due on July 30, 1981 for parties other than inter'!erors and on August 6 for intervenors.
We are now occupied full time with preparing the initial decision on management, separation and plant design issues and we will not be able to use emergency planning proposed findings on the dates now set for their filing.
The Boerd would prefer that the parties use the additional time if needed to improve the quality of the findings.
Therefore the time for the filing of emergency planning proposed findings is extended to August 13, and reply findings are due on August 28, 1981.
i Any party that does not need the additional time should file its proposed findings when ready (no later than scheduled of course) but may defer service on other parties until the scheduled filing date.'
h, 6'N j amuzow7
~ '
s_.
s.
i' a
' f The Board reminds the parties that reply findings must be limited to actual replies to initial proposed findings and that parties cannot make their initial case-in-chief in reply findings.
Some parties, notably TMIA, have not always followed this practice.
Therefore we require for each paragraph of reply findings a specific designation of the initial proposed finding replied to.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4
D Tvan W. Smidi' ~
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Bethesda, Maryland July 24, 1981 f
O e
1 l
I i
.k
-