ML20151W577
| ML20151W577 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 08/23/1988 |
| From: | Lewis S NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Bloch P, Bright G, Paris O Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#388-6957 87-554-OLA, OLA, NUDOCS 8808250035 | |
| Download: ML20151W577 (3) | |
Text
(,f57 pa rso o,,
UNITED STATES
+
[
yr g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g.7 l
WASHING TON. D. C. 20666 5
'g' y
'r
\\ * *v /
AUS 2 31984
'88 AlG 23 P3 :44 Peter B. Bloch, Chairman Dr. Oscar H. Paris Administrative Judge Administrative Judge pf%
Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licen5% f f!('i " I Board Panel Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Glenn O. Bright Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.
20555 In the Matter of GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR CORPORATION, ET AL.
(ThreeMileIslandNuclearStation, Unit 2)
Docket No. 50-320 OLA, ASLBP No. 87-554-OLA
Dear Administrative Judges:
At the request of Chairman Bloch, the Staff prepared the enclosed sumary of the telephone conference conducted on August 15, 1988 in this proceeding among the Licensing Board, NRC staff counsel, licensee's counsel and the representative of the Joint Intervenors (JI).
The Staff has discussed with its likely witnesses their availability for a hearing on the dates indicated by the Licensing Board, and has determined that tho.se dates are acceptable to the Staff.
Sincerely, h
t1 Mk Stephen H. Lewis Senior Supervisory Trial Attorney Enc 1: Sumary of August 15, 1988 conference call cc w/ encl: Service List 80002%$$$SSO$0 PDR
SUMMARY
OF AUGUST 15, 1988 CONFERENCE CALL At 3:30 p.m. on August 15, 1988, a conference call was held among the Licensing Board and the parties to this proceeding to discuss the status of the proceeding, in particular the status of the Board's consideration of the Licensee's motions for summary disposition.
Representing the NRC staff were Stephen Lewis and Ms. Colleen Woodhead, representing the Licensee was Thomas Baxter.
and representing the Joint Intervenors (JI) was Ms. Frances Skolnick.
The Board indicated that it would be issuing a ruling on the motions for summary disposition within seven to ten days.
In the interest of giving the parties as much notice as possible of the Board's current thinking with regard to the hearing, the Board outlined its likely ruling on the motions for summary disposition.
The Board stated that it would be granting the Licensee's motions for sumary disposition, except as to two issues.
Those two issues were:
l The adequacy of the Staff's and Licensee's comparisons of the proposed evaporation process to the "no action" alternative.
The Board indicated that testimony on the admitted contention should also focus on the length of time assumed in the "no action" alternative for onsite storage of the accident-generated water (AGW); and The health effects of tritium. The Board indicated that the testimony on the admitted contention should also focus on the concentration of tritium in the AGW, In this regard, the Board requested the Staff to consider whether it may wish to have further samples taken of the AGW to verify the reasonableness of the estimates of representative concentrations of tritium in post-processing ACW (see Table
?.2 of PEIS, Suppl. No. 2),
f The Board also noted that Exhibits A and B to "SVA/TMIA's Response to Licensee's Motion for Sumary Disposition on Contentions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5d, 6 and 8," dated June 20, 1988 were not in affidavit form and asked the Staff and Licensee whether they would be willing to waive any objections to the Board's consideration of the material submitted by Dr. Morgan based upon the lack of properly executed affidavits from Dr. Morgan. The Staff and Licensee both indicated that they would waive any objections based upon the above-identified deficiency. The Board then stated that it would accept the statements of Dr. Morgan, as if they were sworn.
The Board indicated that in ruling on the motions for sumary disposition it would take into consideration that the statements by Dr. Morgan attached to JI's response were dated prior to the motions for sumary disposition.
Tt.a Board next discussed with the parties the schedule for submittal of testimony and for the evidentiary hearing. Subject to any objection from the parties based upon the unavailability of
2 Witnesses (which was to be promptly sent to the Board), the Board indicated that it would adopt the following schedule:
Filing of testimony and exhibits.. 0ctober 11, 1988.
Filing of any additional rebuttal testimony and exhibits............ 0ctober 24, 1988.
Evidentiary Fearings............... Commencing October 31, 1988 and continuing through November 4, 1988, as necessary.
Service of testimony and exhibits is to be by some form of express mail.
/