ML20052B612
| ML20052B612 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 04/27/1982 |
| From: | Paris O, Shon F Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8205030372 | |
| Download: ML20052B612 (3) | |
Text
.-
1 s
e 4
4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
[
RECEWER
.g.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
MAY 3 1982* [' ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
~
is gu, Before Administrative Judges:
i n
Louis J. Carter, Chairman t
p N
Dr. Oscar H. Paris Frederick J. Shon N
/
SERVED APR 2 81982 In the Matter of
)
)
CONSOLIDATED EDIS0N COMPANY )
Docket Nos. 50-247-SP 0F NEW YORK 50-286-SP (Indian Point, Unit No. 2)
POWER AUTHORITY OF THE
)
STATE OF NEW YORK
)
April 27, 1982
)
(Indian Point, Unit No. 3
)
MEMORANDUM (To Clarify the Record)
In a filing dated April 23, 1982, entitled "UCS/NYPIRG Submission in Support of Board Contention Asserting the Need for Expansion of the Present Plume EPZ", UCS/NYPIRG quoted Jud'ge Paris and characterized the quotation in the following terms:
Judge Paris explicitly ruled during the pre-hearing conference of December 14, 1982:
(T)he Commission had in mind that the Board could admit contentions that did challenge the Commis-sion's regulations.
Transcript p. 269.
Only a portion of Judge Paris's sentence is quoted, as a result of which the full meaning of his statement is not imparted in the UCS/NYPIRG filing.
Further, the transcript page cited by UCS/NYPIRG is incorrect,. making it difficult for parties to find the passage from which the quotation is taken.
0F DG l
6o i' 8205030372.
r s
. Finally, Judge Paris's statement should not have been characterized as a ruling.
It was a re-statement of a Board decision set forth in an earlier pre-hearing conference and in an earlier order.
The quoted statement by Judge Paris occurs on transcript page 769, beginning at line 14, and reads in full as follows:
As the Board indicated in the first prehearing conference, we believe that when the Comission said that the Board will not be bound by the provisions of 10 CFR Part 2 with regard to the admission and formulation of other contentions (and there, by "other contentions", they meant contentions directed at the Commission Questions), the Commission had in mind that the Board could admit contentions that challenge the Comission's regulations.
(Transcript punctuation corrected).
Perhaps UCS/NYPIRG quoted only what it considered to be the more relevant part of the statement, in the interest of saving space. But we believe that it is important to make clear that the unusual authorization referred to relates only to contentions that may help resolve the Comis-sion's six Questions.E This is the second time in this proceeding that the Board has become concerned because only a portion of a statement was quoted in a filing, giv-ing an impression different from that intended by the original statement.2/
-1/ Our belief in this regard was restated in our April 23, 1982 Memorandum and Order on p. 12, fn. 2, as follows:
(W)e reconfirm our conviction that we are authorized by fn. 4, as revised, in the Comission's Orders of January 8 and Septem-ber 18, 1981 to accept contentions addressed to the Commission's Questions', if those contentions seem likely to be important in resolving the Comission's Questions, even though the contentions may urge requirements for Indian Point beyond the regulations.
y See our Memorandum and Order dated April 2, 1982.
?
J e
We therefore again caution all parties to exercise care and diligence when quoting from the record to assure that all pertinent portions of the statement are included in the quotation. As the Appeal Board has stated, "[W]e should be free to assume that in a brief or other submis-
.sion, nothing will be excised from a quoted passage unless its lack of relevance to the question under discussion is beyond substantial dispute."
Tennessee Valley Authority ( Hartsville Nuclear Plant, Units 1A, 2A,1B, and 2B), ALAB 409, 5 NRC 1391, 1395 (1977).
Judge Carter participated in the issuance of this Memoranac;n. but was unavailable to sign it.
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD N
M\\ )
Oscar H. Paris ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Q[
l Frederick J. S
/
ADMINIST I
DGE Bethesda, Maryland e