ML20040G593
| ML20040G593 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 02/11/1982 |
| From: | Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8202160282 | |
| Download: ML20040G593 (6) | |
Text
4 e
Bd 2/11/82 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,MI@-,Y '
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
'82 FEB 11 P2:22 Before Administrative Judges:
Ivan W. Smith, Chairman
{%gy g.,
Dr. Walter H. Jordan L,,
Dr. Linda W. Little
- cti In the Matter of
~)
SERVED FEB 111982
~
)
METROPOLITAN EDIS0N COMPANY )
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Three Mile Island -Nuclear
)
(Restart)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
(Reopened Proceeding) 4.A February.<ll,11982M/ t' in MEMORANDUM 0F FEBRUARY 9, 1982
[
.v.
9 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE REGARDING INTERVENORS' J N/;.
MOTIONS TO RE0 PEN EVIDENTIARY RECORD D#A,If3 'D y
4, On September 10, 1981 intervenors Steven C. Sholly and f'
fCog M
cerned Scientists (UCS) filed motions to reopen the evidentiary rec on plant design issues.
Each requested that the BcflFrd receive additional evidence with respect to a document entitled Recommendations of TMI-2 IE Investigation Team (Operational Aspects), dated September 1979 (the Martin Report), and each requests the appearance of the members of the IE Opera-tions Team which prepared the Martin Report.
l l
The essence of the motions is that certain conclusions of the Martin Report were consistent with the intervenors' contentions and were contrary to the positions of the Staff in this proceeding, but that intervenors had been unable timely to identify the report among public documents and were not informed about the report in response to relevant discovery.
g 1
I O 8202160282'820211 PDR ADOCK 05000289 O
k The Board expressed the view that, although no party was to be f aulted, particularly the Licensee, information to which the intervenors were entitled was not made practically available to them; but that, with respect to the pertinent-issues, the intervenors nevertheless had a fair if not perfect hearing. We stated that it would be very difficult to re-
. solve this tripartite matter as a due process issue, and that the publi,c interest would be served better by addressing the dispute as a factual safety issue. The standard that should be applied is whether the ramifi-cations of the Martin Report would materially affect the Board's decision.
The decision, incidentally, can now be directly addressed because it has since issued.
The Board observed that it cannot determine whether the information underlying the Martin Report would materially aff~ect our decision on the respective issues because relevant portions of the report itself were only' unexplained conclusions and because the affidavits of the report authors (attached to the Staff's answer to the motion) did not reveal the techni-cal bases for their reported differing conclusions.
We stressed that it was the technical bases underlying the Martin Re-port conclusions that would determine whether the record should be reo-pened in that it would be virtually impossible that the authors' conclu-sions alone could justify reopening.
We stated that we were interested in material facts and analyses that were not included in the facts and analy-ses underlying the Staff positions on the respective issues presented dur-ing the hearing.
d I analyses underlying the Staff positions on the respective issues during the hearing did not include the facts and analyses underlying the Martin Report conclusions.
Implicit but unstated in this step was the requirement that it be demonstrated that any excluded material facts and analyses would materially affect the Board's decision.
Counsel for (JCS requested that the opportunity be presersed for additional inquiry of the NRC Staff witnesses who presented the Staff testimony because it may be that all of the technical bases upon which the Staff witnesses relied are not in the evidentiary record.
Following a discussion we ruled that additional inquiries of Staff member: other than the report authors would probably not be sponsored by the Board, but we would not now absolutely foreclose such additions inquiries out of the context of an asserted need.
The Board elected not to adopt a suggestion by counsel for Licensee that the Board itself inake the inquiry of the report authors.
Counsel for the NRC Staff pointed out that he had not yet discussed possible privileges under 10 CFR 2.720(h)(2)(i) with his clients, but that he expected that they would agree to cooperate despite the rule and that he would promptly inform the Board of any Staff objections to producing Staff cooperation.
No objections have been received, but counsel reported to the Chairman that the NRC Staff was concerned about its authority to spend funds in furtherance of the Board's proposal.
.......