ML19344D876

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Confirms Ucs Position Stated at 800812 Prehearing Conference,Urging Issuance of Order Directing NRC & Licensee to Respond to Ucs Motions for Summary Judgment of Contentions 5 & 13
ML19344D876
Person / Time
Site: Three Mile Island Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 08/19/1980
From: Weiss E
SHELDON, HARMON & WEISS
To: Jordan W, Little L, Smith I
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8008260223
Download: ML19344D876 (2)


Text

g e

~

oe HARMON 8e WEISS 1725I STAtcT,N.W.

SulTC 506 Oit .N.A-oM C LLY N R. WCIS S wisumo rox, n. C. aooo. ,,Jp;;;,~c ,0 WlLLI A- S.JOADAN,Ill LCC L SISMOP August 19, 1980 , pn

% stro 4 Ivan W. Smith, Esquira j,,, Osw e ,

Atomic Safety & Licensing fSH 'o 2 S Board Panel C IS@

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Cfr[ef$h I, Ig Washington, D.C. 20555 Erang We Dr. Walter H. Jordan

<. , IY 881 W.. Outer Drive Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Dr. Linda W. Little 5000 Hermitage Drive Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 RE: TMI Restart, Docket 50-289 i

Dear Members of the Board:

I ~mn writing to reiterate UCS's position, stated at the pre-hearing conference on August 12, that this Board should order the staff and licensee to respond to UCS's summary judgment motions.

Although we understand the Board to have decided at the prehearing conference that it will not rule on the merits of UCS's motion, it is our view that the rules do not permit what amounts to a waiver of our right to an answer.

10 CFR S2.749(b) provides:

l i When a motion for senmary judgment is made l and supported as provided in this section, a party opposing the motion may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his answer; his answer by affidavits or as other- {)3c3 g wise provided in this section must set forth 1

specific facts showing that there is a genu-ine issue of fact. If no such answer is //C) filed, the decision sought, if appropriate, i shall be rendered.

l UCS followed the deadline established by this Board and filed what we believe to be compelling summary judgment motions.

In this connection, it should be noted that the fact that the particular statements quoted were primarily from staff documents does not weaken their force vis-a-vis the licensee. We cite and I

    • 8ve o A*3 .
  • - ' - ~ - - - - - . ~ . . . . _

HAIRMON & WEISS August 19, 1980 Page 2 quote these docurents as support for assertions of fact contained therein and assertions of fact derived therefrom. These facts, if true (and note is as yet denied by either the staff or licensees) entitle UCS, in our view, to judgment with respect to the issues raised by UCS contentions Nos. 13 and 5. The same underlying assertions of fact could have been made with no accompanying citations whatsoever; the effect would still have been to shift the obligation to both opposing parties to deny them under 10 CFR S2.749(b).

UCS is entitled to answers from the licensee and staff. We respectfully submit that it is both unfair and inconsistent with the regulations to provide us with an opportunity to file such motions and then, while conceding their logical force, to deny them without even requiring the opposing parties to come forward with a response. Even if the Board will not decide these motions as the merits, UCS has at least earned the right to notice of the manner in which thc licensee and staff will meet its facts and arguments at trial.

Ve truly yours, Sf

}wl W

^

Ellyn R. Weiss ERW/le' -

cc: TMI service list t

l

\

l 1

l l

- , - - .- ._