ML20049J668

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Status Rept of Applicant Views of Areas of Agreement & Disagreement Between Applicants & Intervenors Re Admissibility of Intervenors Revised Statement of Contentions.Certificate of Svc Encl
ML20049J668
Person / Time
Site: Clinch River
Issue date: 03/10/1982
From: Bergholz W
ENERGY, DEPT. OF
To: Hand C, Linenberger G, Mark Miller
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8203190112
Download: ML20049J668 (8)
v • d • e


Text

- ~

3 .

'" s .

d,[{('

I Department of Energy Co'$'M Washington, D.C. 20585 ,

'82 l'AR 10 P2 53 MAR 101982 Marshall E. Miller, Esquire Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr.

Chairman Director Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Bodega Marine Laboratory U.S. fluclear Regulatory Commission University of California Washington,.D.C. 20555 .P. O. Box 24 h Bode [ Bay rCalifornia 94923

W '

Mr. Gustave'A. Linenberger R' Atomic Stfety & Licensing ~ Board

" - ' ,~ 3 4

37 -

U.S. fluclear Regulatory Comission N j I Washington D.C. 20555 ' s a,MR m1819325 mmm -1 9 :z:mwgarm n Gentlemen: 4 a t0 Enclosed is a status report which provides Applicants' y ews of the areas of agreement and disagreement between Applicants and Intervenors regarding admissibility of Intervenors' Revised Statement of Contentions.

Respectfully submitted, r.

Warren E. Bergholz, Attorney g/ .

Enclosure:

As stated I

i I cc: EService List 9s503 i/

0203190112 820310 PDR ADOCK 05000537 PDR Q

}

ATTACHMENT STATUS REP 0r.T CONCERNING NRDC REVISED CONTENTIONS This report provides an identification of the areas of agreement and disagreement between Applicants and Inter-venors regarding admissibility of Intervenors' Revised Statement of Contentions.1/ Applicants will file pleadings setting forth in detail tee bases for disagreement and objection on or before March 19, 1982, as provided in the Board's Order of February 11, 1982.2/

Contention 1(a) Withdrawn; Applicants concur.

1(e) Agree.

2 Agree. Applicants also reserve their right to argue that certain elements of Contention 2 need not be litigated prior to the issuance of a Limited Work Authorization (LWA).

3 Agree; except that the phrase " performing the NEPA cost benefit analysis" was not in Intervenors original Contention, and is not supported by any

~

1/ The Applicants received Intervenors revised Contentions after the close of business on March 5,1982.

2/ As used throughout this report, " agreement" means only that Applicants do not intend to object to the admissi-bility of the cited Contention. In addition, in indica-ting agreement herein, the Applicants reserve and do not waive those arguments previously advanced in their plead-ings which were filed in connection with the Board's admis-sion of all previous Contentions.

Contention new information. In addition, subpart 3(e) appears merely to duplicate Contention 8(d). If 3(e) raises new, unstated issues not covered in 8(d),  ;

it lacks specificity and basis.. Likewise, if 3(d) and 3(h) are not duplicative, then one or the other lacks specificity and basis. Appli-cants agree as to admissibility of the remain-ing portions of Contention.3, and raserve their right to argue that certain elements of Conten-tion 3 need not be litigated prior to the issuance of an LWA.3_/

4 Agree; except that the term " human error" in 4(d) lacks specificity and basis. Applicants reserve the right, however, to argue that cer-tain elements of the Contention need not be litigated prior to the issuance of an LWA.

5 Agree; provided the Contention is subject to the qualifications set forth in the Board's  ;

Order of April 6,1976 admitting this Contention.

6 Agree; p'rovided the phrase "for the following reasons is inserted at the end of the first ,

full paragraph of Contention 6.

6 (b) Agree; except that the new allegations regard-ing " population density" and " population characteristics" appearing in 6(b), 6(b)(2) and 6(b)(3) lack basis.

6 (c) Agree; except that no new information supports the inclusion of the Y-12 plant in the list of facilities.

8(a)(b) Agree; provided the Contention, including all (c) subparts, is subject to (1) the qualifications contained in the Board's Orders of A August 27, 1976 and (2) Applicants' objection pril 6,-andto Contention 22. .

3/ Intervenors refer to 10 CFR 5100.l(a), fn. 1 in Conten-tion 3. Applicants assume that Intervenors intended to re-fer to 10 CFR $100.ll(a), fn. 1.

1 I

.1

Contention 8(d)(1) Agree; except that the Contention lacks speci-ficity and basis to the extent that it fails to specifically agprise Applicants of the "important organs which allegedly are not considered in the guideline values. Similarly, the Contention fails to specifically apprise Applicants of the "new knowledge" allegedly not considered by Applicants or Staff. Applicants would agree if the examples provided in 8(d)(1) were limitations on the bases for the Contention.

9 Agree; subject to the qualifications in the Board's Order of April 6, 1976.

10 Agree.

14 Agree, except that the Contention in (c) lacks specificity and basis to the extent that it fails to apprise Applicants of the neutron activation products which allegedly are not adequately analyzed. Applicants would agree if the examples provided in 14(c) (i.e.,

nickel-59 and niobium 94) were limitations on the bases for the Contention.

15 Withdrawn; Applicants concur.

16 -

Disagree on the basis that Intervenors have failed to establish that any new information supports this Contention.

17 Disagree. The Contention raises programmatic and planning issues which are outside the scope of this proceeding.

18 Disagree to the extent that the Contention is not based on any new information, and lacks specificity and basis. Even if admissible, the Contention raises issues which need not be litigated prior to the issuance of an LWA.

19 Disagree to the extent that the Contention lacks specificity and basis and implies the

Contention need for examination beyond preliminary plans.

(See 19 g). Applicants reserve the right to argue that the Contention raises issues which need not be litigated prior to the issu-ance of an LWA.

20 Disagree to the extent that the Contention raises matters already addressed in Contentions 2, 3 and 4. To the extent the Contention alleges the existence of new matters, it lacks specificity and basis and is not supported by any new information.

21 Disagree on the basis that Intervenors have failed to establish any new information sup-porting the Contention. In addition, the matters raised are already addressed in Con-tentions 2 and 4. Finally, even if admissible, the Contention raises matters which need not be litigated prior to the issuance of an LWA.

22 Disagree on the basis that Intervenors have failed to establish any basis for the Conten-tion, or any new information.

23 Disagree on the b. sis that the matters raised by this Contention duplicate the matters raised in Contentions 2, 3 and 4. In addition, as in Contentions 2, 3 and 4, Applicants reserve the right to argue that the matters raised in the Contention need not be litigated prior to the issuance of an LWA.

24 Disagree on the basis that the Contention is a legal conclusion, is not based on any new information, and lacks any basis.

I The Applicants note that the parties have met for two i sets of discussions, each of which have extended for i

several hours. The agreements and disagreements to date reflect the results of those discussions. The parties in-tend to continue these discussions in an effort to resolve I and/or narrow the remaining areas of disagreement, and l will communicate to the Board the results of those discus-sions.

l

e t

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

)

In the Matter of )

)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY )

)

PROJECT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION )- Docket No. 50-537

)

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY )

)

(Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant) )

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Service has been effected on this date by personal delivery */ or first-class mail to the following:

  • Marshall E. Miller, Esquire Chairman Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr.

Director Bodega Marine Laboratory University of California P. O. Box 247 Bodega Bay, California 94923

  • Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission .

Washington, D. C. 20545

  • Daniel Swanson, Esquire
  • Stuart Treby, Esquire Office of Executive Legal Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 (2 copies)

2-

  • Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20545
  • Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20545
  • Docketing & Service Section Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 (3 copies)

William B. Hubbard, Esquire Assistant Attorney General State of Tennessee Office of the Attorney General 422 Supreme Court Building Nashville, Tennessee 37219 Oak Ridge Public Library Civic Center Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37820 Herbert S. Sanger, Jr., Esquire Lewis E. Wallace, Esquire W. Walter LaRoche, Esquire James F. Burger, Esquire i Edward J. Vigluicci, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Tennessee Valley Authority 400 Commerce Avenue Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 (2 copies)

Mr. Joe H. Walker 401 Roane Street Harriman, Tennessee 37748 Ellyn R. Weiss Harmon & Weiss 1725 Eye Street, N. W., Suite 506 Washington, D. C. 20006

Lawson McGhee Public Library 500 West Church Street Knoxville, tennessee 37902 William E. Lantrip, Esq.

Attorney for the City of Oak Ridge Municipal Building P. O. Box 1 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Leon Silverstrom, Esq.

Warren E. Bergholz, Jr., Esq.

U. S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave., S. W.

Room 6-B-256, Forrestal Building Washington, D. C. 20585 (2 copies)

    • Eldon V. C. Greenberg Tuttle & Taylor 1901 L Street, N. W., Suite 805 Washington, D. C. 20036 Commissioner James Cotham Tennessee Department of Economic and Community Development Andrew Jackson Building, Suite 1007 Nashville, Tennessee 37219 i

t /M l Ge Wge L. Edgar V[

l Attorney for

(

Project Management Corporation DATED: March 10, 1982 i

i

  • / Denotes hand delivery to 1717 "H" Street, N.W.
    • / Denotes hand delivery to indicated address.
Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20049J668&oldid=2548869"