ML19340D125
| ML19340D125 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 12/10/1980 |
| From: | Weiss E UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS |
| To: | Jordan W, Little L, Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8012290134 | |
| Download: ML19340D125 (2) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:~ s }l \\ I $b .~ - a g fil Oil Of. e I 4 .w LaGEdCEREdED, "*3% 1 e c2n'u r ~ O Lit o !., k > 1., &[ C r ~ fU U 2 0 "Y ' ~ > n-- ~ ~ l ~k 04lcm khf g F' d Ivan Smith, Esq.
- g I
Chairman EE Dr. Walter Jordan Dr. Linda Little Atcmic Safety and Licensing Board Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 h-U.S. 50-289 L TMI-l Restart Hearings, Dccket No. f Re: E
Dear Members of the Scard:
i the Cc= mission held e 7 On Friday, November 14, 1980, ming hearings public meeting to discuss matters related to upcoIn connection with dis e i Units 2 and 3. d for those on Indian Point concerning the procedures that should be use he had had the General Counsel disclosed that hy the discussions with this Board concerning the reasons whearin
- hearings, d
TMI-l restart by the Commission. inter _ aliai The General Counsel stated, d that ...The TMI-1 Board has been concerne tions under the laws applicable to it on conten ( hile they have to admit contentions which, wthey are clear are not fluence marginally relevant, going anywhere and are not going to in l their ultimate decision."Tr. of Commission Meeting, (A copy is attached.) November 14, 1980, p. 86. l l troubled The Union of Concerned Scientists is deep yOur primary concern by the implication of these remarks.suggest on their face that the words of Mr. Bickwit i ion that certain con-4 this Board has already come to a dec sWe note, of course, that we have no is that inion has basis upon which to judge'whether the Board s op tentions lack merit. However, if this been accurately conveyed by Mr. Bickwit.the Board identify those UCS requests that fluence is clear are not going to inif any are UCS contentio is the case, contentions which it the ultimate decision so that, h$0$. 3'I n sens c2235 Tere none isin 547 55 l 1384 Massac,usetts Avenue Cam ria;c Massac u h Wasmn=te, O c 20Z6
- Te'e: cae (202,296-560 N W Sude 601 U25 i Street 290 M
i e v: = _2_ f .~ t b. we may assess whether it serves any purpose to continue i pursuing those cententions. UCS has dedicated an enormous effort and commitment of resource to this proceeding which [ may need to be re-evaluated in ' jnt of this information. In addition, Mr. Bickwit's remarks raise the general question of the nature of the Board's contacts with the General Counsel's office, which will provide the legal work for the Commission when it reviews this record. UCS requests that the Board inform the parties of the nature and extent of its discussions with the Office of General Counsel or other Ccmmission-level staff. I regret the necessity of raising these questions and do not mean to impute any prejudgment of the propriety of the contacts indicated by Mr. Bickwit's statements. I do believe, however, that conscientious representation of my client, UCS, requires me to seek the actions requested. t Very truly yours, l i. ,s L~ p u, Ellyn R. h'eiss cc: TMI-l service list. This letter has been hand-delivered to the Board and parties present at the hearing session on December 9, 1980. . ~ -
i A 1 ,l 1 UN!!ED STATES OF A%IEICA s .a. K g e ' _?.*..O.
- r_ u *v* t n* =. 0 c.. y u w.w..w...e.q,2 0 N
) a ea w-s 3 I i f
- U D T.
- C
- w. p p a=
- h* c 4
r l 5 BEIIFING SY II 05 CURRINT STATUS OF INDIAN PCINT-2 6 INVES!!GA!!CN OF THE CONTAIN!Iy; FLOODING IVIyT, Asp 7 3 ASIS FCE ALLC'*ING RISTART OF INDIAN POINT-3 8 n 59 ag e l s DISCUSSION OF !$573UCTIONS TO 3 CARD l 10 vN. N '.' a' N t *s
- h* *.
- *
- C ' 9 h' w-c r. w 33
.~ 13 Nuclear Eequlatory Cce ission Commissioner's Cc . ence Ecc= 14 17.17 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 15 Friday, November 10, 1980 16 The C:::ission met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.:. 17 e.r -, ;.v._. 18 JCHN F. AHEARNI, Chairman of the Cc==ission 19 VICTOR GILINSKY, Com:issioner 20 . Ccamissioner JOSEPH 5.
- HENDEII, PETER A.
EEADFORD, Cc==issioner ".t _ C S... 3B S:J. : .nt: 23 LEONAED SICKWIT, General Counsel 24 ,;II.Ma.,-- J - ^# *% Q scati>c.ar+ m - Q*0: d 40ns ,5 N l 'y[$v&YW A: 0ERScN REPCRTING OCMPANY,INO. 400 V.RGINIA AVE 5.W. W ASHINGTcN,0.0. 20C:4 (202) 554 2345 _ _.. _ _.. - _ - - _. _. _ _ - -... - - _ -, - -..... _ -.. _.. _. ~, _. _ - _.. _. _., _ _. _ _ _.......
l 86 a 3and d e signe:! to avoid the results that you have. .a 2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Could you cive =e an 3 illustrative exa=ple? ER. EICK7II: Yeah. The !!! 1 Board has been 4 gconcerned that under the laws applicable to it on ' h 6 conten tions .t they have to admit contentions which, while 7 :ar71nally relevant, they are clear are not going anywhere sand are not going to influence their ultimate decision. Our ~ gfe'eling is tha t you don't vant that kind of hearing. You 10 vant a kind of hearinc where the Board vill ce directly to 33 the contentions that it feels are going to influence its 3 reco==endations to the,Co:nission and will not belabor the 13 others. 14 CHAIEZAN AHEAENEL Under Part 2 the Board,would 1 Snot have the authority to do that? 16 ME. EICKWII: No. Under Part 2 and accompanying 37 case lav, we believe would not 18 CHAIRMAN AHEA3NE: I didn't ask the question that 19 VE7* 20 MR. EICKWIT Well, but I think yo u have to 21 interpret it according to case lav. COK!!55IONER HENDEII: He can't avoid the. case lav 22 hand we've recently had an A Lab and a Com=ission affirnation of it that run in just that direction. s 24 ER. BICX b That's right. And.v believe. that 25 All:EASCN REPcRTING COMPANY,INC. 400 VIRGINLA AVE. S.W. WA.SHINGTcN. D.C. 20024 (202) $54 2345
'O IlIl01I Cf .e f JOECCERFt'ED C_'e C [,C:ft, c, C.=.. t t t: t w December 8, 1980 N John Ahearne, Chairman p N.g\\ Peter Bradford (,9 8 Victor Gilinsky U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission \\ -M ~ ' - Washington, D.C. 20555 .I: / Re: TMI-l Restart Hearings, Docket No. 50-289 s..th A "3 +< * ^3 \\ Uto. ~ ' ' */.~r e Gentlemen: - s i vh \\ It is my understanding that the president of the / a-Metropolitan Edison Ccmpany has sent a letter to you requesting that the Commission reconsider the provisions of its August 9, 1979 order and allow TMI-l to restart before the Ccmmission has reviewed the record of the ongoing hearings and determined that the plant is safe to cperate. We have not yet received a copy of the letter, although I have been told that one is in the mail. I also understand from discussions with the General Counsel that the Commission has decided to treat the letter as a motion for reconsideration and to require responses from the parties within 10 days. UCS requests an extension of time until December 18 to respond to the Met Ed letter. Under the circumstances, we believe it to be fully justified. First, Met Ed has filed its reconsideration motion approximately 15 months late, which hardly entitles it to complain of lack of expedition. Second, we are presently occupied on a daily basis in Harrisburg at the restart hearings, which leaves very little time tc consider the letter and prepare a response. Third, as noted above, we have not yet received the letter. Since I will be in Harrisburg, I request that you indicate your response to this request by telephoning my associate, William Jordan, who will relay the information to me. Very truly yours, c t f t jdb. 'Ellyn R. Weiss g4 Q o pdl'g)r (" cc: TMI service list .m . m mm...u. s m m. m u.. '723,t L" :+' *
- Ea'ti,9 * !. a',"' _' ~. " C ;.. '_9 T + +-l" %' e :,,,. 15-{ % '.
- }}