ML20079P424
| ML20079P424 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 01/27/1984 |
| From: | Churchill B METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| 83-491-04-OLA, 83-491-4-OLA, ISSUANCES-OLA, NUDOCS 8401310218 | |
| Download: ML20079P424 (7) | |
Text
,
n 00CHETED UDRC January 27, 1984 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BeforetheAtomicSafetyandLicensingBoard[0 Y
I G BRANCH In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, ET Al. ) Docket No. 50-289-OLA
) ASLBP 83-491-04-OLA (Three Mile Island Nuclear
) (Steam Generator Repair)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
LICENSEE'S REPLY TO TMIA RESPONSE TO LICENSEE MOTION TO DISMISS TMIA CONTENTIONS 1.a, 1.b, 1.c and 2.b.1 On January 9, 1984, Licensee filad a motion to dismiss TMIA's Contentions 1.a, 1.b, 1.c and 2.b.1 on the grounds that TMIA had admitted in its January 4, 1984 responses to Licensee's December 15, 1983 interrogatories that it was unable to provide a basis for those contentions as required by 10 C.F.R.
S 2. 714 (b).
TMIA answered the motion on January 20, 1984 and the Staff answered on January 24.
Be-cause TMIA relies in its answer on accompanying supplemental responses to Licensee's December 15 interrogatories, and because the answer contains erroneous statements of both fact and law, Licensee, pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
S 2.730 (c), seeks leave of the Board to make the following brief points in reply:
1.
TMIA asserts that it need do nothing more than allege, in general, that the Licensee and the Staff have failed to provide " sufficient data" to demonstrate the safety 8401310218 840127 PDR ADOCK 05000289 g
)
(
~
')
- of the repairs.
This, asserts TMIA, is because Licensee has the burden of demonstrating that the repairs are adequate.
By such an argument, TMIA misperceives both the law and Licensee's motion.
Certainly Licensee has the ultimate burden of demonstating the adequacy of the steam generator tube re-pair.
But that is not the issue raised by Licensee's motion.
To have an allegation litigated before the Board, an intervenor must first meet the burden, minimal as it may be, to identify the specific issue and provide some basis for it.
10 C.F.R-S 2.714(b).
PMIA has admitted that, at this point in time, it is unable to do either.
2.
TMIA states repeatedly that the basis for its contentions is simply that the information in the publicly available licensing documents does not adequately support the application.
TMIA does not, however, explain how or why or in what respects the application is deficient.
TMIA's entire argument seems to be that it has the right to demand a hearing for the purpose of obtaining underlying data and analyses so that it can conduct its own independent evaluation of the repair process.
That is not the law.
A party may have an issue litigated if, and only if, it can provide a reasonably specific basis for a specific allegation, 10 C.F.R.
S 2.714, and he is not allowed to enter a hearing for the purpose of searching for that basis by discovery.
10 C.F.R. S 2.740 (b) (1).
Duke Power Company, et al. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 y,.
O
't and 2), ALAB-687, 16 N.R.C.
460, 467-68 (1982); Wisconsin Electric Power Co.,
et al. (Koshkonong Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and ),
CLI-74-45, 8 A.E.C. 928, 929 (1974); Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-107, 6 A.E.C. 188, 192, reconsid. denied *, ALAB-110, 6 A.E.C. 247, affirmed, CLI-73-12, 6 A.E.C. 241 (1973); see also Duke Power Company et al. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-83-19, 17 N.R.C.
1041, 1048 (1983).
Thus, TMIA's allegation that it has to date been unable to obtain certain information on discovery is not germane to the motion.
3.
TMIA's brief answer does not address the main point of Licensee's motion, that in its responses to Licensee's interrogatories on Contentions 1.a, 1.b, 1.c and 2.b.1 TMIA admitted that it could provide no technical bases for the allegations in those contentions.
Indeed, in TMIA's supple-mental responses to Licensee's interrogatories, TMIA has not amended or supplemented those interrogatory responses, identi-fied in Licensee's motion, in which it made its admissions.
4.
The interrogatory responses which TMIA provided with its answer provide no bases whatsoever for the contentions.
TMIA did nothing more than reference section after section of various documents, with no identification or explanation of the facts in those sections which would provide bases for its contentions.
5.
The foregoing comments are applicable to all four R
's
_4_
of the contentions Licensee seeks to have dismissed.
An addi-tional comment is warranted with respect to Contention 1.b.
TMIA states simply in its answer that it will rely on the Board's January 9, 1984 Memorandum and Order, and offers no further argument on that contention.
Licensee's motion, however, presents a new issue, based upon the receipt of TMIA's answers to interrogatories, which was not before the Board at that time.
In its interrogatory answers, TMIA admitted that it was unable to provide either an explanation or a basis for the allegation that there is somehow a nexus between the kinetic expansion repair process and the need to consider a situation which goes beyond the NRC's required design basis accident considerations.
TMIA has done nothing more than rest on its reliance on the Shewmon memorandum, a reliance which the Commission itself has shown to be unfounded.
See Licensee's motion at 8, n.l.
But that point no longer needs to be addressed.
The issue to be litigated at a hearing would be the existance of such a nexus, not the subjective intent of Dr. Shewmon when he wrote the memorandum.
At the time of the January 9 Memorandum and Order, the Board did not have before it TMIA's admission that it had no technical basis for an allegation that the repair process was in any way related to the increased likelihood of a simultaneous tube rupture in each steam generator, or that the repair process in any way failed to satisfy the primary
't
- pressure boundary criteria in General Design Criteria 14, 10 C.F.R. Part 50, App. A.
6.
TMIA's characterization of the statements of Commissioner Asselstine is misleading at best, and the statements are unrelated to the issues to be heard in this hearing.
The issue at that Commission meeting was whether Licensee's application should be classifi'ad as involving a "significant hazards consideration" for purposes of determin-ing the procedural effects of the hearing.
That determination is not before this Board and has no bearing on the conduct of the hearing; it bears only on the question of whether the Staff is required to await the completion of the hearing pro-cess before issuing the requested amendment.
See 10 C.F.R.
SS 2.105, 50.58, 50.91 and 50.92.
For the foregoing reasons, and those set forth in Licensee's January 9, 1984 motion, Licensee respectfully requests that the Board dismiss TMIA Contentions 1.a, 1.b, 1.c and 2.b.l.
Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE By
/
GeorgeV7. Trowbridge, P.C.
Bruce W.
Chruchill, P.C.
Diane E.
Burkley Wilbert Washington, II i
Couneel for Licensee 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
200036 l
(202) 822-1000 Dated:
January 27, 1984 1
"a UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, ET AL. )
Docket No. 50-289-OLA
)
ASLAB 83-491-04-OLA (Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
(Steam Generator Repair)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that copies of " Licensee's Reply to TMIA Response to Licensee Motion to Dismiss TMIA Contentions 1.a, 1.b, 1.c and 2.b.1" are being served to all those on the attached Service List by deposit in the United States mail, first cicss, postage prepaid, this 27th day of January, 1984.
'/
R!/r LW Bruce M urchill, P.C.
Dated:
January 27, 1984 n
't Q
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of
)
)
21ETROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, ET AL. )
Docket No. 5 0-2 8 9 -OI-A
)
ASLBP 83-191-04-OLA (Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
(Steam Generator Repair)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
SERVICE LIST Sheldon J. Wolfe Atomic Safety and Licensing Administrative Judge Board Panel Chairman, Atomic Safety and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Licensing Board Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Section (3)
Washington, D.C.
20555 office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. David L. Hetrick Washington, D.C.
20555 Administrative Judge
' Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Joanne Doroshow, Esq.
Professor of Nuclear Engineering Louise Bradford University of Arizona Three Mile Island Alert, Inc.
Tucson, Arizona 85271 315 Peffer Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17102 Dr. James C. Lamb, III Administrative Judge Jane Lee Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 183 Valley Road 313 Woodhaven Road Etters, Pennsylvania 17319 Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Norman Aamodt Richard J.
Rawson, Esq.
R. D.
5, Box 428 Mary E. Wagner, Esq.
Coatesville, Pennsylvania 19320 Office of Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washingten, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.
20555 k
k