ML20065U028
| ML20065U028 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinch River |
| Issue date: | 10/29/1982 |
| From: | Bergholz W, Edgar G ENERGY, DEPT. OF, PROJECT MANAGEMENT CORP. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20065U023 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8211030352 | |
| Download: ML20065U028 (2) | |
Text
m-10/29/82 py r %.-.... __ Q E m w%
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 00p*r7cn
' RC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE 29 P2:46 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD CNb){EkcfRwc M RUARY BR In the Matter of
)
)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
)
)
PROJECT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
) Docket No. 50-537
)
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
)
)
(Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant) )
)
APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO INTERVENORS' REQUEST FOR SCHEDULING OF EXPERT WITNESS TESTIMONY DURING WEEK OF DECEMBER 13-17, 1982 The United States Department of Energy and Project Management Corporation, for themselves and on behalf of the Tennessee Valley Authority, (the Applicants) hereby respond to Intervenors' Request For Scheduling Of Expert Witness l
Testimony During Week Of December 13-17, 1982, dated October 20, 1982 as follows:
l Applicants have no obj ection to scheduling Dr. Johnson's l
appearance as requested, provided, of course, that Intervenors will not be allowed to name additional witnesses in an untimely manner.
Applicants note, however, that this matter, along with other scheduling matters for the forthcoming hearings, should have been the subject of consultation amongst counsel without recourse to the Board.
At the present time the Staff l
C211030352 821029 PDR ADOCK C5000537 0
PDR u
has undertaken consultation with the Applicants and NRDC in an attempt to develop an overall agreement concerning the order and schedule of witnesses for both hearing sessions.
Applicants also feel compelled to note for the record an inaccurate statement in Intervenors' Motion; namely, "that despite requests by Intervenors, Applicants have not identified any of the witnesses they intend to have testify during the next phase of the hearing."
Applicants identified their witnesses for all NRDC Contentions in their August 6, 1982 discovery supplement.
In addition, on October 18, 1982, the Applicants amended this response to delete two witnesses and to substitute another (one witness identified on August 6, 1982, has left the employ of DOE and thus the substitution was necessary).
Accordingly, subj ect to the foregoing, Applicants have no obj ection to the grant of NRDC's Motion.
Respectfully submitted,
/
/ / n/
or g Edgar Attorney for Proj ect Management Corporation M
e Whrren E.
Bergholz,fJp< /
Attorney for the V.S. /
Department of Energy DATED:
October 29, 1982