ML20030B895
| ML20030B895 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 08/20/1981 |
| From: | Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | Aamodt AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8108250135 | |
| Download: ML20030B895 (2) | |
Text
Bd 8/20/81 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SEEVED /d.it. ;$ 153[
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-~
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD N
Before Administrative Judges:
5, c;/
1 Ivan W. Smith, Chairman f
/s Dr. Walter H. Jordan r-
.C Dr. Linda W. Little
'\\
l~
-\\
In the Matter of 3
C.'-' ' N E=":7 I
Docket No. 50-289
~!:
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY (Restart)
'p b:
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
' k,
Station, Unit 1)
)
August 20, 1981 ORDER DENYING AAMODT MOTION TO TAKE OFFICIAL NOTICE OF TWO NRC STAFF LETTERS By motion of July 20, 1981, Mrs. Aamodt requests that we take official notice of the two generic letters from the NRC Staff. One letter, dated June 1, 1981, is addressed to b8W licensees and identifies subjet.., which are not addressed, but which in the Staff's view should be addressed, in the Abnormal Transient Operator Guidelines (AT0G) pro-gram submitted for the Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1, facility. The second Staff letter, dated July 1,1981, is addressed to all licensees and perm;ttees.
It requests that identified information on overfilling of steam generators be factored into licensee training programs.
For the well-stated reasons set forth in the opposing answers of the licensee and the Staff, dated August 4 and 10, respectively, *ie t
deny summarily the Aamodt motion. The two letters do not contain j W B.x I:
[b e,,t h'uShi l
8108250135 810820
~
t 4
/
{DRADDCKOSOOOg N
i ' undisputed facts of the type which we may officially notice pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.74S(i). Our ruling here is based on the same grounds ex-pressed in our previous denial of other motions to take official notice at Tr. 21, 838-41. As further noted in the responses, even if the letters could be officially noticed, the Aamodt motion does not set forth with any reasonable precision how the letters would affect the record or proposed findings in this proceeding, let alone justify a reopening of i
the record.
We add a note of caution. Although we cannot take official notice of it for the truth of the matter asserted, we may deem it appropriate in our decision on Board Question 11, which has been categorized as a design issue, to note the existence of the Staff's ATOG 1etter as illustrative of the Staff's view of the proper scope of an ATOG program --
a subject on which record evidence was adduced.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
, Chairman Ivan W. Sdith
- ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE l
Bethesda, Maryland August 20, 1981 I
l
~
.--