ML19220A421
| ML19220A421 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 06/12/1978 |
| From: | Kepford C CITIZENS FOR SAFE ENVIRONMENT |
| To: | Bradford P, Gilinsky V, Hendrie J, William Kennedy NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19220A422 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7904170575 | |
| Download: ML19220A421 (4) | |
Text
.
A ! rre
@g 6
g; June 12,1978 d "@e I f ~#g C
'oseph Hendrie, Chair.an Walter <ennedy, Ccmissioner g
Victor G111nsky, Ccmissioner g
,L;.
Peter Bradford, Ccmmissioner
/.
9 s.
wqg To the Ccmissioners of the U.S.N.R.C.:
Tne Intervenors in the Three Mile Island Unit 2 ("TMI-2") Operating License Proceeding heraby respectfully move that the Ccmission raview the recent A; peal Board decision of ALAB-480, as i t applies to the TMI-2 pro-ceeding. We note that ALAS-480 applies also to sixteen other licensing preceecings, but we seek only a review of its application by the Appeal Board to the TMI-2 prcceeding.
This appeal of ALAB-480 is presented by the TMI-2 Intervenors before the Comission under the authority of 10 CFR Section 2.786 (TWral Register, May 2,1977, at 22129-22120).
Cur appeal brief (attached) is lengthy and far in excess of the ten page limitation specified in 10 CFR Section 2.786. We believe that this brief is concisely written and presents important questions on complex issues, relating to the role of radon-222 releases in the TMI-2 proceeding.
We have tried to be respectful of the spirit of the ten page limitation, which we have assumed is not a rule that is hardened in concrete, and which is designed more for the usual rather than the unusual case. We believe, in short, that cur brief--which we have attached to this cover letter--is sorthy of review by the Comissinn pursuant to 10 CFR Section 2.786.
Subsecticn 2.786(b)(2) states that parties who seek to have the Ccmission review an Appeal Board decision shall present a petition for review which includes a concise summary of the decision appealed fmm, and which addresses three other areas of inte die Cccmissioners uno mast cecide whether to review tne AU.
Such a sumary of issues follows.
1 st 4 -
11
.. a 730417o575~
G s
First, ALAB-430, as it applies to the TMI-2 proceeding, requires that the record in the Perkins Licensing Scard case be incorporated into the THI-2 record, wMch must be reopened in order to receive the Perkins, m terial. ALAT-RO also by implication allows the continued operation of the TMI-2 reactor, and forces the TMI-2 Intervenors to assume the substantial burden of responding to the introduction of the Pervins material into tne TMI-2 proceeding.
Second, most of the matters raised in our appeal brief have been raised before the Appeal Board, by submission of a January 30, 1978, Brief in support of our exceptions to the TMI-2 Initial Cecision of December 19, 1977. Some of the matters not raised previously in the January 30th 3rief are merely citations to prior Acceal Board decisions, which are contrary to the holding of ALAB-430 (and for the sa=e reasons are also contrary to the holding of ALA3 465, the pnedecessor decision to AL)B-480 insofar as TMI-2 is concerned).
All such citations to prior Appeal Board decisiens should, in cur opinion, be assu~ed to have been factored into the ALAB-430 and ALAB-465 decisions.
Furthernore, the Appeal Board was acting sua sponte in reversing the rules of its prior ALAB decisions. All remaining matters not presented in our January 30th Brief relate to our claim that the Ccmission ccmitted fraud in the licensing of THI-2 and that for this reason the operating license should be imediately withdrawn. We note that our January 30th 3rief argued that fraud was cemitted in the licensing of THI-2.
The only novelte on the issue of fraud was uncovered by research which Intervenors have just recently completed, frem public documents that have been available to the Appeal Board, Staff, and Applicant througnat the TMI-2 precerding.
The novelty concerns only the new detail which Intervenors have been able to asser:cle in support of their prior claim of fraud.
a v;n Af y 4
/
Insofar as it has been possible to indicate in our acceal brief i
the actual transcript pages frem the THI-2 record hich substant ate our claims, we have done so.
Mcwever, the fif teen day limitation for filing this appeal has placed scme limitations on our ability to document our claims frcm the record. A more extensive level of documentation from the record itself was used in our January 30th Brief.
Third, the decision in ALAB-430 and its predecessor decision ALAS-_465 are basically erroneous because they illegally shift evidentiary, procedural, and financial burdens, which the Staff and Applicant are legally ooliged to assume, onto the TMI-2 Intervenors, and because they allcw by implication the continued operation of TMI-2.
TMI-2 should not be allcwed to operate, because the Comission granted the operating license througn fraud and because the TMI-2 record demonstrates that the license should not have been grantad.
Four. n, Ccmission review of ALA3-480--insofar as ALA3 480 applias to the TMI-2 proceeding--should be exercised because the attached appeal brief raises important issues of public policy and of law.
Finally, we wish to add a note concerning the possibility of oral argument before the Comission itself on the issues raised by this appeal.
Recently, on February 28, 1978, we witnessed counsel for the Staff presenting a supposedly balanced view of our request for a stay frem the Comissica of the TMI-2 Licensing Board's Initial Decision granting the operating license. Had counsel for the Staff not completely misrepre-sented our arguments at that time, the present appeal may not have been necessary.
In view of this experience, and in view of our argument that the Staff itself is a party to fraud with regard to various of its decisions in the TMI-2 proceeding, we strongly urge that the Staff is not to be entrusted with presenting our case before the Ccmission in oral y.
,,,m.
_a_
argu:nent. Therefore, we move that we, the Intervenors, be granted a full and co-equal role in any oral argu ent before the Ccanission which may be scheduled to resolve the matter of the attached appeal.
Respectfully subtni tted.
~f
/
' r
'^
f :'"L.re t y / t j a
/
Chauncey R. Kepford Representa tive of tne Intervenors 433 Orlando Avenue State College, Pa.16801 (314) 237-3900
/.i /2 /(75 cate y
, f I ~i
- a
'J L;