ML20148S825

Memorandum & Order (Denying in Part Susquehanna Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion Served on 880330;scheduling Summary Disposition).* Served on 880415

ML20148S825
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	04/15/1988
From:	Wolfe S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power, TMI-2 & PEACH BOTTOM INTERVENORS
References
CON-#288-6076 87-554-04-OLA, 87-554-4-OLA, OLA, NUDOCS 8804200035
Download: ML20148S825 (5)

Text

,

4676 i

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMi!SSION D E 15 P1.57 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD -

HO.: u

Before Administrative Judges:

Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chaiman ff[$$c39V4 e

Oscar H. Paris

'Glenn 0. Bright TERVED APR 151988

)

In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-320-OLA (Disposal of Accident-GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR Generated Water)

CORPORATION, et --al .

(ASLBPNo. 87-554-04-OLA)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2) April 15, 1988 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying In Part SVA/TMIA's Motion Served On March 30, 1988; Scheduling Sumary Disposition)

MEMORANDUM I. Background In a motion served on March 30, 1988, the Joint Intervenors requested that the Board order that GPU Nuclear (Licensee) provide additional information and clarify its intentions to install, test and conduct experiments with the evaporator prior to hearings. Citing a local newspaper article of March 22 and the Licensee's press release received on that date, the Joint Intervenors assert that, because GPU ,

intends to instail and to test the evaporator either prior to the hea.v,gs or prior to receiving a change to the Technical Specifications, L 8804200035 000415 DR ADOCK 050 0 u 4/

't)SO

F-e

\

2-they request that the Presiding Judge order GPU to provide the following infonnation:

1) a schedule for the installation and testing of the evaporator,

2) prior identification and scheduling of all changes to be made as a result of installation of the evaporator at the site,

3) the objectives of any tests to be undertaken, and

4) the results and data which contributed to those results of any tests undertaken prior to purchase and which will be undertaken in the future.

On April 7, the Licensee filed an answer opposing the granting of the instant motion.' The Staff did not file a response -- hereafter, if the Staff decides not to respond to another parties' submission, it shall promptly notify the Board.

II. Discussion The Joint Intervenors assert that the installation and testing of this equipment, undisclosed to them until after the final date for requesting discovery, is related to issues under review in the hearing, and that information developed as a result of the installation and testing of the equipment could be used as a basis for requesting sunnary disposition.I They, in effect, request that sunnary disposition procedures not be invoked until this infonnation is furnished.

1 We note that, in the Memorandum and Order of January 5,1988 (unpublished), we had ordered that each party should advise the (Footnote Continued) l

F s

Cutting through the various arguments and counterarguments, it is clear that information currently available to the Licenseo has been provided previously and that the Joint Intervenors have not shown any good reason why sunnary disposition procedures should not be invoked at this time. The Licensee states that, in its answers to the Joint Intervenors' interrogatories, it has responded to requests for information 1)2 and3)3 , supra. The Licensee also states that it cannot respond to request for information 2) because any infonnation gained as a result of installation clearly will not be available until installation occurs, and that it cannot respond to request for information 4) beca'use no tests were conducted prior to the purchase of the evaporator system and because the results of future tests obviously are not available.4 Further, the Joint Intervenors do not tell us why (Footnote Continued)

Board on or before February 8 whether it would file a motion for summary disposition. Only the Staff and the Licensee responded on January 22 and January 29, respectively, that they would file motions for sumary disposition.

2 See Licensee's Answers to SVA/TMIA Second Set of Interrogatories To GPU Nuclear of March 30, 1988. The Licensee's answer to Interrogatory 17 indicates that there is no finn schedule for installation and testing but that such installation and testing would take place some time after the completion of the final design and fabrication which is expected in the fourth quarter of 1988.

3 See Attachment A to Licensee's Answers to SVA/TMIA's Interrogatories to GPU Nuclear Corporation of February 19, 1988, which sets forth the purposes of the various tests.

4 However, good cause having been shown, we direct that the Licensee must seasonably provide the requested information when it becomes available.

the infonnation not yet available is necessary for the adjudication of the seven contentions admitted in whole or in part as issues in controversy -- i.e., they do not identify those contentions whose resolution turns on the results of future installation and testing. We, of course, will not speculate whether all or which ones of the contentions are ripe for summary dispositio's -- this selection is for the movants to make and the Board will render the t itimate decision after its review of all the sumary disposition submissions.

Accordingly, we agree with the Licensee that we should schedule the filing of motions for sumary disposition. In their answers opposing the motions for suninary disposition, the Joint Intervenors are free to set forth specific facts showing that there are genuine issues of material fact which warrant denial of the motions in whole or in part and require a hearing.

ORDER

1. The Joint Intervenors' instant motion is denied to the extent that it requests that sumary disposition procedures not be invoked.

However, as reflected in footnote 4, supra, the Licensee shall provide in a timely manner the requested infonnation when it becomes available.

2. Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.749, the Licensee and the Staff shall file their motions for sumary disposition by no inter than May 16, 1988, and the Joint Intervenors shall file their opposing answers (and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, as an Interested State, may file, if it so desires, an answer supporting or opposing the motions) by no later

\

than thirty-five (35) days after service of the Licensee's and the Staff's motions for sunenary disposition.

FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD AQAAS .U>on Sheldon J.'dolff; Chainnan ADMINISTRATIVE VJ0GE Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 15th day of April,1988.

I b