ML20064D306
| ML20064D306 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 02/28/1994 |
| From: | Wetterhahn M GULF STATES UTILITIES CO., WINSTON & STRAWN |
| To: | Cole R, Cotter B, Lam P Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#194-14718 OLA, NUDOCS 9403110138 | |
| Download: ML20064D306 (3) | |
Text
' /47/7 WINSTON & STRAW ;
ihl' FREDERICK H WINS 1DN (18531886) 1400 L STREET. N W CluCAGO OFFICE SILAS H STRAWN (18911946)
WASHINGTON. OC. 20005 3502 q p A 5 E"'C '"O" 4
(202) 371 5700 NEW YORK OFFICE F ACSIMILE (202) 3715950
/
173 WATER STREET W ALTER S DI AECT Di AL NUMBER
.lEF NEW YORK. NY 10036-4981 (2125 269 2500 202/371-5703 February 28, 1994 VIA FACSIMILE and U.S. MAIL 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.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Peter S.
Lam Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 In the Matter of Gulf States Utilities Company (River Bend Station, Unit 1)
Docket No. 50-458-OLA Gentlemen:
The parties to the captioned proceeding have spoken several times in order to respond to the requirement contained in VII of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's January 27, 1994 Memorandum and Order that the parties negotiate an appropriate trial schedule and file a report with suggested scheduling by March 1,
1994.
This letter presents the views of each of the parties.
Gulf States Utilities ("GSU"), having filed an appeal of the admission of Cajun Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.
(" Cajun")
as an intervenor pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 2.714a, believes that, for purposes of economy and minimization of disruption and costs to each of the parties, the discovery schedule be delayed until after the Commission rules on the pending appeal and that each of the milestones contained in the attachment, Trial Schedule, be adjusted 9403110138 940229 PDR ADOCK 05000458
? 56 3 0
WINSTON & STRAWN i
B.
Paul Cotter, Jr.
Dr. Richard F.
Cole Dr. Peter S.
Lam February 28, 1994 Page 2 1
accordingly.
Cajun and the NRC Staff would proceed with discovery without waiting for Commission action.
The Staff would set the period for discovery at approximately 60 days, instead of the approximate 120 day schedule upon which Cajun and GSU have agreed.
Cajun would add an additional milestone in the Trial Schedule by allowing for the i
filing of written rebuttal testimony two weeks after each party filed its case-in-chief, with the hearing beginning two weeks
)
thereafter.
Cajun has stated it will submit a separate letter on or before March 1,
1994, to the Board justifying this proposal.
GSU and the NRC Staff note that this is contrary to customary NRC i
practice and unnecessary in this proceeding.
Other than those differences, there is no disagreement as to the relative milestone dates for a hearing.
If the Board desires, the parties are available at the Board's convenience to discuss this matter further.
Sincerely, l
v Mark J. Wetterhahn Counsel for Gulf States Utilities Company MJW:sdd cc:
Docketing and Services Branch Ann P.
Hodgdon, Esq.*
James D.
Pembroke, Esq.*
Victor J.
Elmer Donald W.
Clements Robert B. McGehee, Esq.
Via facsimile and U.S. Mail
WINSTON & STRAWN i
I TRIAL SCHEDULE
- Discovery opens e
Period for oral depositions begins May 30, 1994 End of discovery (all responses in June 30, 1994 hand)
Motions for summary disposition served July 18, 1994 l
Answers to motions for summary August 15, 1994 disposition served Response by opposing parties to any August 30, 1994 answer in support of motion i
Filing of testimony (in hand) 3 weeks after Board ruling on motions for summary disposition Hearing begins 15 days after filing testimony i
i i
l Subject to the discussion in this letter and in a separate letter to be submitted by Cajun.
1
, - - -,