ML19343B973
| ML19343B973 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 02/17/1981 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19343B971 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8102180408 | |
| Download: ML19343B973 (6) | |
Text
pr-TFJuNSCRIPT OF HEARING JANUARY 27, 1981 Met Edison (IMI-1, Restart) 30-2S9 11,023 1
- 55. BRADFORD:
It is Contention 7 of the hd Anti-Nuclear Group Representing York.
It is on emergency 2
3 planning.
CH AIRM AN SMITH:
It is a r.ev contestien?
(
4 MS. BRADFORD:
Tes, sir.
5 CH AIRM AN SEITH:
Ali right.
We vill adjourn until 6
7 about 3:30, I guess, or until we are sumnoned.
MR. TOURTEL10TTE:
I =ight succest 3:00, and 8
9 perhaps we can take up ANGEY 's :atters and then this list, 10 because it seems like this list is long enough that it might take at least 30 minutes.
11 CHAIRMAN SHITH:
All right.
l 12 (EeceC8-)
13 f$
CHAIRMAN SMITH:
Having been prodded by the list g
15 of issues pending provided before the break, the Ecard is 16 prepared to rule on, as a ma tter of f act, all of them; and 17 ve can get those out of the way.
First, we vill deal with ANGRY's motion to adopt 18 Sholly 's contentions, emergency planning contentions, the 19 Sholly Contention C on radiation monitoring.
We crant the 20 motion with respect to Sholly Centention 9.
21 l
We deny the motion with respect to the emergency l
22 planning contentions except for Sholly Contention 3,
Roman 23 numeral B and A Roman numeral I.
The reasons fcr the denial 24 are substantially set forth in Yr. Zahler 's memorandum on 25 1
1 191021sG9@
ALDER $CN REPORTING COMPANY. INC, l
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (2CD 554 2345
(
l
11,024 t
i 1 the subject.
"e pointed out in a rather parallel 2 circumstance in the October 3rd emergency planning session
\\['
3 when we would not allow Er. Cunningham to reinstate all of his earlier conten tions when it was known that some were g3 4
5 duplicates, without an analysis and without a direct 6 statement that there was a difference and explaining why.
The motion simply did not contain any.
7 8 justification.
It would have placed the burden upon the g Board to weed out duplicates.
It did not address the 39 factors that should have been addressed.
And independently 31 reviewing the contentions, we, on our own initiative, do not l
l 12 believe that they are necessary to a complete record in the 13 proceeding.
So the ruling is you may adopt Sholly Contention 14 8 (I)B and 8 (I)! and 15 8, Roman numeral B -- I mean 8 16 Sholly Contention 9.
The Board will rule, for reasons which we vill set 17 forth in a memorandum when se ha ve opportunity, that we vill 18 19 not permit the testimony of Dr. Beyea.
This is not the ruling.
I am just telling you that we vill issue a 20 memorandum explaining it.
21 The reason I am making the statement now is to 22 give the parties as much notice as possible so that for 23 f
whatever plans had to be made.
24 Dr. Little pointed out to me it might be helpful 25 D
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
W "3
i 91,025 1
j 1 if you would refer to the transcript on the October 30 to Mr.
2 session following 4421 for cur statements that 3 Cunningham about the probic:s of just trying to reinstate a large group of contentions without analysis and without fI 4
5 asserting a need for it.
That explains some of cur 6 reasoning on your motion to adopt the large number of Sholly 7 contentions.
8 Y. r. Shelly's withdrawal of Contention 17 is okay g with the Board.
We are not going to retain any of those --
10 th a t contention.
We are ruling that ECNP 's motion -- ECFP 's motion, which is styled as a response, ve are ruling on the 11 motions contained in that.
This is " Response of the 12 i
Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Pover to Board Memoranda 13 PJ and Orders" of November 25, Cecember 4 a n d -11, 19 9 0.
34 First we rule that ECNP is in def a ult wi th respect 15 16 to its Contentions 4B and 4C because of a failure to respond 17 to the Board's order to state its intentions with respect to its remaining -- to state its intentions with respect to its 18 19 ' remaining con tentions.
The Board 's order of November 25, 1960, required 20 ECNP to address its intentiens with respect to all cf its 21 contentions, remaining contentiens.
ECNP responded sith 22 23 respect to only its emergency planning contentionr,.
So our ruling is that they are in default on those concentions.
We 24 have examined those con tentions, and we do not believe that 25 N
v ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W, WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
V I
i 1
11,026 1
i i
1 they are necessary to a complete record in this case, so tk' 2 those contentions are dismissed.
3 We are denying ECNP's request for discovery, 4 because ECNP has not explained the nature of its discovery
{
5 that it seeks, nor has it explained why the Board-mandated 6 informal discovery meetings were not adequate for its 7 purposes, nor whether they were -- nor why they, as seems to 8 he the casa, they did not take f ull advantage of those 9 disCCVery o pportunities.
HCvever, our ruling does not 10 depend upon the later factor.
We are denying the motion by ECNP to disqualify 11 12 this Board because it takes the wrono impression from the 13 statement that they refer to; that when I stated tha t the Board was not competent to rule on emergency planning 4
14 3
15 conten tions, I was not referring to our abilities.
I was 16 ref e rrino to, in somewhat sloppy end imprecise language, to the problems of having so many contentions and having them 17 18 at such an early stage tha t we did not feel it was 19 appropriate f or us to get into -- unnecessarily and prematurely -- into the many, nany details of emergency 20 21 planning.
As has been noted by the response of the licensee 22 to that motion, there is no statutory requirement or 23 regulatory requirement that there be any special expertise
)
24 in Nuclear Regulatory Commission proce'edings for presiding 25 I
l l
ALDERSON REPCRTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W, WASH 4NGToN, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
~
..p..
.,-9
--n
1 11,027 1 officers.
g 2
I think that disposes of all -- yes.
Mr. Basdekas 3 stated in his memorandum of Cetober 10, 19 8 0 t o M r.
I
]
4 Tourtellotte, referring to the safety implications of 5 control systems and plant dynamics and their relevance to 6 th e THI-1 hea ring, that the issue, although it has been 7 trea ted as a generic issue, applies directly to THI-1.
8 We have read his papers, and although we g understand the points he is making, we do not know if he to means any special application, and we do not know what he 11 means by tha t s ta tem en t.
And we would like to have him come 12 to the hearing and explain it.
l 13 The statement is made some place else, too, and at I
the moment I cannot locate it.
But he makes the statement O
14 t
15 that the views presented by him have application to TMI-1.
16 I just cannot find it, but it is made more than once in the 17 papers he submitted; but it was made at least once in the 18 second full paragraph of his letter to Mr. Tourtellette of October 10, 1980.
l gg oh, Ms. Bradford, you served I
- t. Link that l
20 l
21 you provided the Board vi*th a copy of your Contention Roman
~
l numeral VII.
Have you served that?
22 MS. BRADFORD:
Yes, sir.
23 CHAIRMAN SMITH:
You served it on the other 24 parties?
25
\\
i U
ALDERSoN AEPCRTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINI A A VE,5.W, WASHINGTON, o.C. 20024(202) 554 2345 n
-n
%[
~
e 11,029 l
i 1
MS. BRADFORDa Yes, sir.
h 2
CHAIEMAN SM i'T H :
Okay.
Thank you.
3 g.)
I 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13
~
4 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 S
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINtA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) S54 2345
.