ML19347D992
| ML19347D992 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 04/06/1981 |
| From: | Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | Aamodt AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8104140588 | |
| Download: ML19347D992 (2) | |
Text
0
- 5 g
3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
[
tCO'4ED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION lU g [g 108)
\\g og/.g s
m
.\\
[
[ ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING E0ARD
?g
~/
"~
Before Administrative Judges:
g
( o p g g j e [a [7 M
pgR 1 Ivan W.
Smith, Chairman d
c 7
M8 Dr. Walter H. Jordan SggC0 Dr. Linda W. Little 4pg Ud/
\\dpM M(Q' s
In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289
( estart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
April 6, 1981 CONFIRMATORY MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON AAMODT MOTIONS On the record of the April 2, 1981 hearing session, the board discussed three motions filed by the Aamodt Family and ruled on two of them.
The transcript pages containing the rulings are Tr. 17,256-267.
The board's actions are summarized below.
As a result of a motion to strike part of testimony proffered by the Aamodt Family on operator fatigue, the board allowed the Aamodts an opportunity to provide in writing a possible evidentiary basis for the proposition that operator fatigue had a nexus to the TMI-2 accident or the handling of the accident.
The board ruled that the Aamodes' filings of March 19 and 23, 1981 have failed to do this.
The testimony relating to operator fatigue is therefore stricken, h
hO 810.41405gg
$a
/
q
1
)
~
,6 2-The board ruled it would issue subpoenas for the agricul-tural (county extension) agents of York County (Mr. John Smith) and of Dauphin County (Mr. Harold E. Stewart), for the purpose of testifying that they are unaware of their responsibilities under the emergency plans.
The board cautioned that the appearance of the two agents at the hearing could not be used for general discovery purposes.
The Aamodts, working with
~
counsel for Newberry Township, were to work out the mechanics for service and the schedule for the appearance of the witnesses and were to then come back to the board with a specific request for subpoenas.
As we have in other instances, the board cautions that sufficient time has to be allowed for a possible motion to quash a subpoena (unless of course the witness waives this right).
The board also discussed the Aamodts' motion of March 18, 1981 for clarification of the record on the results of examina-tions given to licensee's personnel.
The motion was taken under advisement.
Subsequently, following an inquiry from the board, the licensee indicated it would file information in clarification of this point.
Tr. 17,293.
The board will await the anticipated filing.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
, Chairman l
Ivan W.
Jalth l
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Harrisburg, Pennsylvania April 6, 1981