ML20064D245
| ML20064D245 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 02/28/1994 |
| From: | Rudebusch T CAJUN ELECTRIC POWER COOPERATIVE, INC., DUNCAN, WEINBERG, MILLER & PEMBROKE, P.C. (FORMERLY |
| To: | Cole R, Cotter B, Lam P Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#194-14723 OLA-3, NUDOCS 9403110100 | |
| Download: ML20064D245 (3) | |
Text
-.
/q'72 3 A%
% m % A w/% p % A & 9'd WoLL AC C L. DUN C A N g
' [" *"*'"[g SUITE 800 ouncA=.wriNetna.MitLrm a erweacar 3 o,g
,o QcsMONo 1615 M S T R E ET, N. W.
AL N g
g,
3eAs rar cim c 4
JnNict L. LowtR WAS HINGTON, D. C. 2O036 JcrrRev c.GcNzcR O
y A.A.cAurom lA..o..
< ei
....AoA THOM AS L. R U DC BUSC H MIC H A E L R. POST AR (202)467-6370 J
TnNJA M-SHONEWILER b
T E L ECO PY (2 02) 46 7-6379 2700 vytAvCNUC C H AR L E S A. BR AUN o STRACU w YORK i3219 g. 2 19911 "f or couNscL
"-' >l a FR E D E RIC K L. M I L LE R. J R.
TM M A $i J. LY NC H Rics ARo n. Retz '
DOCKET'NG &
,c v.ct saROto n. MccoMas, sR.
SERVICE ERAN0H g
February 28, 1994 c)
SECY-NRC t ADMITTED IN WA$HINGTON ON LY o aoMiTTtD IN VIRGINIA ONLY B.
Paul Cotter, Jr.
Dr. Richard F.
Cole Chairman, Atomic Safety Atomic Safety and Licensing and Licensing Board Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
Washington, D.C.
Dr. Peter S.
Lam i
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Re:
In the Matter of Gulf States Utilities Comoany (River Bend Station, Unit 1)
Docket No. 5 0- 4 5 8 -OLA
.3 Gentlemen:
With reference to the letter you received earlier today representing the views of the parties to the above-referenced proceeding on a trial schedule, Cajun Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.
(" Cajun"), generally concurs in the descriptions contained therein and, with one exception, in the proposed trial schedule.
Cajun writes to the Board separately to address the need for filed written rebuttal testimony in this unique proceeding.
As the attached proposed trial schedule reflects, Cajun requests a date for the filing of written rebuttal testimony two weeks after the date each party files its case-in-chief testimony.
The hearing would commence two weeks later.
9403110100 940228 PDR ADOCK 05000458 PDR p
G
P.
Paul Cotter, Jr.
Dr. Richard F.
Cole Dr. Peter S.
Lam February 28, 1994 Page 2 Written rebuttal testimony will clarify the issues for the Board.
In the experience of counsel for Cajun, written rebuttal testimony will provide the Board with a clearer view of the matters in dispute, as well as the factual support each party l
relies upon in its presentation.
Written rebuttal testimony will shorten the time required for the hearing.
It will eliminLte the need for oral i
rebuttal testimony.
Written rebuttal testimony should also shorten the time required for cross-examination, since witnesses would have the opportunity to address the opposing party's case in their written rebuttal testimony.
Moreover, because each witness will be available for cross-examination, the Board will have the opportunity to assess each witness' demeanor and credibility at the hearing.
Written rebuttal testimony will lengthen the schedule by only two weeks.
This is a small price to pay in exchange for the benefits outlined above.
Given the small number of parties, written rebuttal testimony will not unduly burden the record.
Additionally, the Commission's Regulations do not preclude the use of written rebuttal testimony before the Board.
Written rebuttal testimony in this case is consistent with 10 C.F.R. 5 2.752, since it will expedite the presentation of evidence by clarifying the issues and shortening the time required for a hearing.
Provision for written rebuttal testimony is within the authority of the Board, pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
g 2.757.
If the Board desires, Cajun is available at the Board's convenience to discuss this matter further.
Sincerely, M Lb James D.
Pembroke Thomas L.
Rudebusch Counsel for Cajun Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.
cc:
Service List
j l
CAJUN'S PROPOSED TRIAL SCHEDULE Discovery opens January 27, 1994 Period for oral deposition begins May 30, 1994
)
End of discovery (all responses June 30, 1994 l
in hand)
Motions for summary disposition served July 18, 1994 Answers to motions for summary August 15, 1994 disposition served Response by opposing parties to any August 30.,
1994 answer in support of motion Filing of testimony (in hand) 3 weeks after Board ruling on motions for
)
summary disposition Filing of rebuttal testimony
.' weeks after filing (in hand) of case-in-chief Hearing begins 15 days after filing
)
rebuttal testimony i
t-
_...... _, _...,. _.... _. _.