ML20195F114
| ML20195F114 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 06/02/1986 |
| From: | Bradford L THREE MILE ISLAND ALERT |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#286-423 OLA, OLA-2, NUDOCS 8606090369 | |
| Download: ML20195F114 (4) | |
Text
!
wits OF AMERICA m
GUI.ATORY COMMISSION s'1%
NO.
.V e
N ATOMIC
'i'Y AND 1,1 CENSING BOAHD
(\\
t In the Matter of
)
4YYb r-l
)
g!'!
GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION, et al.
)
Docket No. 50 289-OLA-1"~'sc3 m
)
50 89-OLA-2 (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, )
(Steam Generato Plug'ging,y Unit No. 1)
)
Criteria) i TMIA's RESPONSE TO LICENSEE's MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MAY 19, 1986, MEMROANDUM AND ORDER I.
Introduction On May 23, 1986, General Public Utilities Nuclear (Liern x t) filed a motion requesting "reconsideratioin of portions of the discovery and hearing schedule" and for " reconsideration of certain aspects of the Board's rulings with respect to TMIA's opportunity for additional hearingc."
For the reasons stated below, TMIA opposes Licensco's motion for reconsideration.
A party moving for reconsideration of a Board Order bears a heavy burden of demonstrating that the Board erroneously decided the issuos oefore it.
In the alternative,a motion for reconsideration of a Foot a Order must present significant new evidence which would contrcvert the evidence already be~ ore the Board and upon which the Board based its decision.
Licensee has not met that burden.
II.
Hearing Schedule At the May 7, 1986 conference Licensee proposed a July 1,
1986 date for the start of discovery.
In its May 23, 1986 motion, Licensee has rodified its position slightly and now reqursts that discovery corr.mence on July 7, 1986.
Licensee refers to '.uis w.dification as 8606070369 860602 ADOCK05000g89 PDR G
" splitting the difference" between the schedule established by-the
" Board's May 19, 1986 Memorandum and Order and Licensee's init,ial proposal of July 1, 1986.
Licensee has presented no new facts which-would justify reconsideration of th'e Board's Order.
Licensee has
~
1 simply repeated the arguments it made during the May 7, 1986 conference.
III.
Additional Hearings
, In its May 19, 1986 Order, the Board recognized the importance of the results of the confirmatory testing,' scheduled to commence in November 1986, to a fair decision of the issues before it.
That recog-nition prompted the Board's ruling that, "within ten days after service of the Staff's Supplement to the SER, TMIA may file a notice requesting an additional hearing" (Memorandum and Order dated May 19, 1986, P.11.) The Board further ordered Licensee to provide the relevant test data to TMIA in a timely fashion.
Licensee now asks that the time in which TMIA may request additional hearing run from the provision of test data and not from the service of the Supplement to the SER.
Although Licensee has not committed in advance what form its provision of data will take, TMIA has anticipated that the data will be provided in serial form, as the various tests are completed.
The significance of the' issues require an adequate analysis of all the data, which is expected to be technical, complex and possibly inconclusive.
TMIA cannot form an opinion as to the significance of
- 1. At the May 7, 1986 conference, TMIA explained that the earliest time at which its representative would be free of her responsibilities in another NRC hearing (Husted) would be August 15, 1986.
This date did not' antic'ipate TMIA's participation in the appeal process in that other hearing nor slippage of that hearing schedule.
Since the May 7 confer-ence, the hearing dates have.been extended for at least several days at the request of a party bther than TMIA.
At this time, TMIA does not anticipate requesting c.dditional. time from this Board in which to complete discovery.
However, should the Husted hearing be further delayed, it will d.efinitely impact TMIA's ability to adequately prepare for the instanthearing..
the test results until'all pertinent data is available and the Staff's bSER is submitte'd.
TMIA believes that the ten days allowed for in the Board's May 19, 1986 Order is minimally adequate for it to determine whether it should seek additional hearings based on the test data and the.
i SSER.
Any prejudice which might issue from the Board's Order results
'from,the Staff's inability to evaluate the data and issue its SSER berare January 1987._
TMIA is not responsible fo r.
nor can it control the schedule of the issuance of test data.
The Board has termed the test results as " relevant and material to the very issues being controverted in this proceeding." (Memorandum and Order, Pg. 8.)
IV.
Conclusion For the above stated reasons, Licensee's Motion for Reconsideration of May 19, 1986 Memorandum and Order should be denied.
Respectfull submitted, vvY t-Louise Bradford for Three Mile Island Alert, Inc.
June 2, 1986 l
\\
4 D
NCULEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, In the Matter of l
)
Docket No. 50-289-OLA-1 GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION, et al.
50-289-OLA-2
)
)
(Steam Generator Plugging (Three Mile Island Nuclear T
Criteria)
Station, Unit No. 1)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "TMIA's RESPONSE TO LICENSEE's Motion for Reconsideration of May 19, 1986, Memorandum and Order" was served on the persons listed by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, this 2nd day of June 1986.
kg C#
Louise Bradford Sheldon J. Wolf e, Chairman Docketing and Service Section (3)
Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Rcquiatory Commissior Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C.
20555 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Three Mile Icicnd Alert, Inc.
Washington, D.C.
20555 315 Peffor Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 Oscar H. Paris Administrative Judge Thomas Y. Au Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Counsel Commonwealth Board Panel of Pennsylvania U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Datpt. of Environmental Resources Washington, D.C.
20555 Bureau of Environmental Rescurces Room 505 Executive House Frederick J.
Shon P. O. Box 2357 Administrative Judge Harrisburg, Pl.
17120 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atemic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-Washington, D.C.
20555 Mary E. Wagner, Esq. (2)
Office of Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wachington, D.C.
20555 Bruce W.
Churchill, P.C.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbr idge Atomic Safety and Licensing 1800 M Street N.W.
Appeal Panel Washington, D.
C.
20036 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 e
.