ML20039C241
| ML20039C241 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 12/24/1981 |
| From: | Brenner L Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8112290105 | |
| Download: ML20039C241 (5) | |
Text
~
r' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA cetgr7gp NUCLEAR REGUL ATORY COMMISSION l'e ATOMICSAFETYANDLICENSIN^30K Before Administrative Ju sst 28 A10:03 Lawrence Brenner, Chairman Dr. Richard F. Colerny,
Dr. Peter A. MorriOC"c.O n < < c u /,', -;
1,%IAYCUCC>0iS0l
)
In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-352 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
50-353
)
(Limerick Generating' Station,
)
December 24, 1981 Units 1 and 2)
)
.cr'$U g
2 GW' AGENDA FOR SPECIAL PREHEARING CONFER MEMORANDUM AND ORDER SPECIFYING n
~
\\-
/
\\
,/
The Notice of Special Prehearing Conference, issued on December 4, 1981~,
set forth the general matters which will be considered at the conference.
The purpose of this Fhmorandum and Order is to further specify items for the conference agenda so that the participants will be prepared, as follows:
1.
Preliminary matters, including introduction by the Board and appearances for the parties.
l 2.
Clarification of the bases for standing advanced by some of the petitioners, particularly:
l Dso9 s
I6 i
i ofjjgj4 C
PDk
2 a.
Del-Aware.
The Board believes its need to better understand how the interests of Del-Aware's affiants, Colleen Wells and Val Sigstedt, may be affected can most efficiently be addressed by Ms. Wells and Mr. Sigstedt being present to answer the Board's questions on the record of the prehearing conference.
In particular, we cannot confidently ascertain from the written affidavits where the affiants reside or what the specific nature of their contacts are with the surrounding area in relation to the Limerick plant and the water projects which they believe will adversely affect them.
b.
Samuel and Clarissa Cooper.
The Coopers have filed a series of letters, both before and after our Order of November 9, 1981 in which we concluded that their filings were limited appearance statements.
However, we will give the Coopers an opportunity l
at the conference to explain whether they intend to seek formal status as intervenors, and if so to explain why they apoarently have ignored the Board's previous orders.
l l
l i
I c.
The Board also has some clarifying questions to ask of the National Lawyers Guild-Philadelphia Chapter and Dr. Lochstet.
3.
Clarification of the relationship between the Pennsylvania Consumer Advocate and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in the context of representing Pennsylvania in this proceeding pursuant to 10 CFR @ 2.715(c).
4.
Discussion of the contentions, except for the contentions raising water issues.
The contentions will be discussed in approximately seriatim order, except where the similarity of contentions will make it efficient to vary this approach.
The proponent of the contention will be given a brief opportunity to support the admissibility of the contention in light of the written objections.
The Applicant and Staff will then be permitted to respond briefly. The Board will be familiar with the written filings on the contentions.
Therefore, oral discussions hopefully will be used to better focus and clarify positions and not to repeat the filings. The Connonwealth of Pennsylvania may request the opportunity to comment on proposed contentions in which it has an interest.
l
5.
Oral argument in supplementation of the briefs filed on the issue of admissibility of the water issues.
Del-Aware, the Applicant and the NRC Staff, in that order, will each be permitted up to thirty minutes for oral argument.
Each participant may reserve up to five minutes of its time for rebuttal.
In planning their oral comments, the participants should assume that some oortions of their time will be taken up by questions from the Board.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania if it wishes, will be permitted to express its views on the subject, including the status of any relevant permitting processes vhich the Commonwealth conducts or participates in.
6.
Discussion of the admissibility of the individual water issue contentions in light of the overall legal arguments.
7.
Discussion of the coordination or consolidation of parties.
8.
Discussion of the schedule for further actions in this proceeding, including discovery and the possibility of trying sone issues earlier than the currently estimated completion of the entire NRC Staff review.
.--~
For the information of the participants, the Board expects to proceed at a pace which will permit us to conduct the oral argument on the water issues, item 5 of the agenda, on the second day of the prehearing conference --
January 7, 1982.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 6
w
, Chairman Lawrence Brenner ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Bethesda, Maryland December 24, 1981 4
~_,
-