ML20054L983
| ML20054L983 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 07/07/1982 |
| From: | Hodgdon A NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Brenner L, Cole R, Morris P Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8207090123 | |
| Download: ML20054L983 (4) | |
Text
N p%,,
UNITED STATES y ) ') v. ( '4.
4
- gg.
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-
- Q j 2
- !
E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 o,g, NL
.....f
'v July 7, 1982 Lawrence Brenner, Esq., Chairman Dr. Richard F. Cole Administrative Judge Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washiigton, D.C.
20555 Dr. Peter A. Morris Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 In the Matter of PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2)
Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353
Dear Administrative Judges:
At pages 88-89 of its Special Prehearing Conference Order of June 1, 1982, the Board directed the Staff, the Applicant and Del-Aware jointly to submit a schedule for the filing of testimony and litightion of those contentions which relate to operational impacts of the Point Pleasant Diversion due to changes in circumstances since issuance of the Limerick construction permits. The Applicant was also directed to advise the Board and parties of the proposed schedule for commencement of construction of the Point Pleasant Diversion and the litigation schedule submitted by the three parties was to reflect the goal of reaching a decision on these contentions prior to commencement of construction. On June 30, 1982, the Applicant advised the Board that construction of the Point Pleasant Intake and Pumping Station is scheduled to commence on December 15, 1982.
On that same day, under cover of a letter to Staff counsel and Del-Aware's counsel (with copies to the Service List), the Applicant submitted a proposed schedule for litigation of these issues. That schedule is as follows:
July 7 Comencement of discovery July 14 Last day for submission of any
[,
J}
written interrogatories and notices of depositions
,F fx l
i 9
g s4 Q
e' 8207090123 820707 PDR ADOCK 05000352 gg PDR
4 August 6 Completion of any responses to written discovery, requests for production of documents and depositions August 13 Filing of motions for summary disposition August 24 Answers to motions for summary disposition September 7 ASLB rulings on motions for summary disposition September 13 Submission of written testimony September 20-24 Hearing on contentions October 18 Applicant's proposed findings October 25 Intervenors' proposed findings November 1 Staff's proposed findings November 5 Applicant's reply findings November 26-30 ASLB Partial Initial Decision on Water issues The Staff has consulted with counsel for Applicant and for Del-Aware in an attempt to reach a mutually agreeable schedule. The Applicant stands by its proposed schedule. With one reservation, Del-Aware agrees with the following alternative schedule. That reservation relates to whether the December 9 decision date would afford an opportunity to seek a stay of a decision unfavorable to Del-Aware. The Staff does not, however, believe it is possible to build into this very tight schedule allowances.
for possible appeals.
July 7 Commencement of discovery July 21 Last day for submission of any interrogatories, requests for production of documents and l
notices of deposition.
August 20 Completion of any responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents and taking of any depositions.
August 27 Filing of motions for summary disposition.
l t
e September 8 Answers to motions for summary disposition September 16 ASLB rulings on motions for summary disposition September 20 Submission of written testimony October 4_8 Hearing on designated contentions October 22 Applicant's proposed findings October 29 Intervenors' proposed findings November 5 Staff's proposed findings November 12 Applicant's reply findings December 9 ASLB decision on designated contentions The Staff's proposed schedule is based upon an understanding that the Board contemplates making findings of fact and conclusions of law on the designated contentions.
If, however, the Board contemplates a more summary form of decision, the schedule could be made more flexible (e.g.,
by elimination of motions for summary disposition and proposed findings).
The filing of this propcaed schedule is without prejudice to the Staff's request for reconsideration of the Board's order that an expedited hearing be held on the designated contentions.
Del-Aware has asked the Staff to state that its concurrence with Staff's proposed schedule assumes that construction staging is such that it is necessary to go into the river this winter (1982-83), but that Del _ Aware would like to see evidence that going into the river in the winter of 1982-83 is necessary in order to hold to the scheduled completion date.
Del-Aware and Applicant have authorized Staff to file this joint response.
i Sincerely, l
l Ann P. Hodgdon Counsel for NRC Staff cc: see page 4 0FC :
iL)
- 0 i
r_
NAME Wodg on/kt :JRut rg
' DATE :7/7/82
- //7 2
_4_-
cc: Lawrence Brenner, Esq.
Walter W. Cohen i
Dr. Richard F. Cole Robert W. Adler Dr. Peter A. Morris Steven P. Hershey, Esq.
Mr. Frank R. Romano Donald S. Bronstein, Esq.
i Judith A. Dorsey, Esq.
Mr. Edward G. Bauer, Jr.
Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq.
Mark J. Wetterhahn, Esq.
2 Mr. Marvin I. Lewis James M. Neill, Esq.
Joseph H. White III Dr. Judith H. Johnsrud Thomas Gerusky Dir. Pa. Emer._ Mgmt Agncy John Shniper Robert L. Anthony Alan J. Nogee W. Wilson Goode William A. Lochstet Charles W. Elliott, Esq.
Sugarman and Denworth Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Panel NRC Docket 3
i l
l l
l I
t
.