ML19323H324

Motion to Defer Ruling on Hydrogen Control Contentions by Suspending Effectiveness of ASLB 800530 Memorandum & Order Pending NRC Review of Ucs Motion for Reconsideration of CLI-80-16.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19323H324
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	06/06/1980
From:	Weiss E SHELDON, HARMON & WEISS, UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8006120381
Download: ML19323H324 (4)

Text

.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

In the Matter of ) .

)

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY , ) Docket No. 50-289 , . _ ,

e_t_ al_ . , ) (Restart) ,(( LIQ

) , .v - s,-

(Three Mile Island Nuclear ) 'sy'r 7

"'.,.,3 Station, Unit No. 1) )

1 a n33 >

UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS MOTION TO DEFER RULING ON

{:$ . . . ,,.. .. ;r!

k 'A '6:$.qq ~ DrE; ,.

\, :N- ,C HYDROGEN CONTROL CONTENTIONS A 6O \*

BY SUSPENDING THE EFFECTIVENESS ' "'

OF THE BOARD'S MEMORANDUM ll14 AND ORDER OF MAY 30, 1980 On May 16, 1980, the Commission issued CLI-80-16, responding l

to the questions certified to it by this Boa.-d on the manner in which hydrogen control should be considered in the TMI Restart proceeding. On May 30, the Board issued a Memorandum and Order on Hydrogen Control Contentions, applying the Commission decision to the contencions at issue and giving the parties ten days to comment and/or file motions.

As the Board is now aware, UCS filed a motion for reconsi-deration of CLI-80-18 on June 4, 1980. Therefore, we hereby request this Board to defer giving finality to its Memorandum and Order by temporarily suspending its ef fectiveness until the Ccamission has indicated whether it will reconsider its decision UCS will not here repeat the arguments made in the motion for reconsideration, it will suffice to say that the motion go b raises subitantial issues of fact, policy and law. What we OI believe to be the errors of the Commission decision are obviously 800612.O))/ . Y

equally present in the Board's order applying that decison. A favorable Commission decision on reconsideration would obviate the need to sort out some very troubling logical dif ficulties with the treatment of the contentions.

In view of the possibility that the Board may deny the instant motion, UCS would offer a few brief comments and make one request. The comments are as follows: we do not understand the basis for the Board's statement that, while the Sholly Conten-tio n , as redrafted, is clearly litigable, the UCS Contention is "only marginally within the scope, if at all." We do not perceive the operative distinction which the Board sees between the two contentions that would account for this difference in the Board's view of their respective admissibility. Moreover, we also do no t fully understand the reasons why the Sholly Contention has been reworded in the precise manner it has by the Board.

Even if the CLI-80-16 s t. ands as written, UCS would wisn to specifically raise a contention challenging the legal applica-bility of the Part 100 limits to the review of the hydrogen control issues. We would also wish the opportunity to make a legal and technical argument in support of our position, which is generally outlined in the UCS Motion for Reconsideration of CLI-80-16, on pages 4-5.

Finally. UCS requests that, in the event tnat the Board denies the ins tant motion, UCS be permitted until July 7 to file interrogatories and/or to notice depositions on the newly-phrased contention. Counsel for UCS will be out of town from

a June 9 - 27 on a long planned trip scheduled particularly so as to avoid the summer months when the work scheoule for this pr oceeding 111 require a consistent and heavy committment of time. It is hard to see any disadvantage that would result to the other parties from a July 7 deadline, since the delay would affect only UCS's ability to get prompt answers.

For the reasons stated, UCS moves the Board to temporarily suspend the effectiveness of its Memorandum and Order on Hydro-gen control Contentions (May 30, 1980) until such time as the Commission has disposed of the Union of Concerned Scientists' Motion for Reconsideration of CLI-80-16.

Respectfully submitted,

'j,(

i ,% ,y o[j b 'w -

Ellyn R.' Weiss HARMON & WEISS 1725 I Street, N.W. -

Suite 506 Washington, D.C. 20006 (20 2) 833-9070 DATED: June 6, 1980 ,

i I

4

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

In the Matter of )

) ~

METROPOLITAN EDISCN )

COMPANY, et al.,

~~ -

) Docket No. 50-289

) (Restart)

(Three Mile Island )

Nuclear Station, Unit )

No. 1) )

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1

I hereby certify that copies of the " Union of Concerned Scientists Motion to Defer Ruling on Hydrogen Control Contentions by Suspending the Effectiveness of the Board's Memorandum and Order of May 30, 1980" was mailed first class ,

postage pre-paid this 6th day of June 1980 to the following: i Secretary of the Commission j ATTN: Chief, Docketing and Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ,

Washington, D.C. 20555 Ivan W. Smith, Esquire l Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel .

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ^

., M',N 27 ,as s,

Dr. Walter H. Jordan 00 5 881 W. Outer Drive ll - C3

(.

Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 m  : 91930 > E-Dr. Linda W. Little N '/

U9.3 N."c, N,5f- A 5000 Hermitage Drive 'I;i ~.1 Raleiegh, North Carolina 27612 O/

I 600 < ' '

f '

George F. Trowbridge, Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 "M" Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006 l James Tourtellotte, Esquire Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

,% / r 7

,,v. !;;~ ,- / ?. O ., iz -

Ellyn R. Weiss