ML19259B037

Response by Petitioners to Intervene Citizens to Preserve the Hudson Valley,Columbia County Survival Committee & Mid-Hudson Nuclear Opponents to 781201 Motion by Applicant for Summary Disposition of Petitioners' Contentions

ML19259B037
Person / Time
Site:	Green County
Issue date:	12/15/1978
From:	Kafin R KAFIN, R.J.
To:
References
NUDOCS 7901160001
Download: ML19259B037 (2)

Text

.

ja. -

MtC PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) j % ff fifb

)

POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE ) 1 OF NEW YORK ) g ,

, e (Greene County Nuclear Power ) k- [

Plant) )

4 ~

% ,^

OPPOSITION TO DECEMBER 1, 1978 APPLICANT MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION Citizens to Preserve the Hudson Valley, Columbia County Survival Committee and Mid-Hudson Nuclear Opponents oppose the L icember 1,1978 motion made by the Applicant for summary disposition of a number of contentions.

The Applicant does not deny that the various contentions when made raised genuine issues. The Applicant's position now seems to be that following negotiations between the Applicant and the NRC Staff, each issue has been addressed by design modifications which will mitigate the adverse health and safety consequences described by the contentions.

Because of this, the App 3icant claims that the various contentiens should be disposed of by summary disposition in favor of the Applicant without any hearing on them.

90116ooot So-S{76-

9 2

I However, the Applicant's position is based upon hundreds of pages of proposed testimony, affidavits and proposed exhibits, all of which are self-serving, and none of which have been subject to cross-examination or tested in the crucible of the hearing process.

Furthermore, the mere fact that the Applicant and the NRC Staff have agreed upon an approach to the problem does not make the problem disappear. Otherwise, there would never be a need for a hearing since the entire construction permit could be negotiated between the Applicant and the NRC Staff without any public scrutiny or without the exercise of the independent judgment of the ASLB.

Finally, a close reading of the materials furnished in support of Applicant's motion shows that in many instances the NRC Staff has merely accepted a "committment" from the Applicant '

to solve a problem. No specificity as to how the problem will be solved has been furnished. This leaves open important questions as to whether or not the standards of 10CFR Sections 50.35 and 50.40 can be met by this proposed facility.

For the reasons set forth, the Applicant's December 1, 1978 motion for summary disposition should be denied.

Dated: December 15, 1978 Respectfully submitted, c8 ROBERT J. KAFIN, ESQ.

Attorney for CPHV, CCSC and MHNO 11 Chester St., P.O. Box 765 Glens Falls, N.Y. 12801 Tel . (518) 79 3-6611

. . .