ML19309H520
| ML19309H520 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 05/08/1980 |
| From: | Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | Aamodt M, Lewis M AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, ANTI-NUCLEAR GROUP REPRESENTING YORK, METROPOLITAN EDISON CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8005130447 | |
| Download: ML19309H520 (11) | |
Text
.
8 00513 0't4 7
~
Bd 5/8/80 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Y
aj.
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
//
t0CKM3 USNRC Ivan W. Smith, Chairman 2
Dr. Walter H. Jordan Ot-MAY 8 $80 >
41 Dr. Linda W. Little Otlke et ce SecM DockW4 & S'd'8 8/
6 Bra,nch
/
In the Matter of
)
4
,I
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ANGRY, LEWIS AND AAMODT (May 8, 1980)
This order rules on three separate and unrelated motions for reconsideration which are pending before the board.
ANGRY By motion dated March 10, 1980, the Anti-Nuclear Group Representing York (ANGRY) objects to our " disposition" of its contention II(C) in the Fourth Special Prehearing Conference Order, dated February 29,1980 (at pp. 27-32).
That contention, and ANGRY contentions III(A)(a) and III(B)(a), challenge the failure of the licensee to consider local conditions in adopting the 10-mile plume emergency planning zone (EPZ) in its emergency plans.
Our lengthy discussion of these contentions in the Feb-ruary 29, 1980 order was itself a ruling on ANGRY's earlier l
request for reconsideration of our denial of contention II(C),
III(A)(a) and III(B)(a) in the Third Special Prehearing Confer-ence Order of January 25, 1980 (at pp. 12-14).
\\
a 2-No party has responded to ANGRY's obj ections of March 10.
We agree that further response is unnecessary, and stand by our discussion and rulings in the prior special prehearing conference orders referenced above.
ANGRY's motion implies, incorrectly, that it ha,s been cut off from its right to demonstrate the merits of its allegation that there are local conditions which,would require a different EPZ.
This is the allegation which is the gravamen of contention II(C), III(A)(a) and III(B)(a).
ANGRY has selectively ignored the point that our prior ruling of Febru-ary 29, 1980 gave it the opportunity, in consolidation with Mr. Sho11y's contention 8(C), to jointly advance a final conten-tion (at the appropriate future time in the schedule for final contentions) setting forth the specific local conditions which must be taken into account.
See the February 29, 1980 order at
- p. 29, n. 12.
In short, our " disposition" was nc4t an outright denial of the contention although we had grounds to do ao as discussed in the prior order.
Mr. Lewis
' By a filing of April 11, 1980, Mr. Lewis objects to and asks us to clarify and reconsider our statement in the course of l
1/
l ruling on discovery matters,-
that the Lewis contention is limited to the example presented of the need for new filters 1/
Memorandum and Order on March 19, 1980 Lewis Motion to Compel NRC Staff to Answer Interrogatories (April 3,1980),
l at pp. 1-2
similar to those of Unit 2 and filter preheaters on the Unit 1 2/
auxiliary building.-
We decline to do so.
All of our many rulings on the scope of Mr. Lewis' limited participation in the proceeding have either explicitly or implicitly so limited his contention.
He was admitted on that one contention, despite his lack of standing as of right, because the board was indepen-dently interested in pursuing the matter of auxiliary building filters and filter preheaters.
First Special Prehearing Con-ference Order, LBP-79-34, 10 NRC 828, 853 (December 18, 1979).
See also Second Special Prehearing Conference Order (January 11, 1980), at pp. 13-15; Memorandum and Order of April 3, 1980, suora, at note 1; and Memorandum and Order Denying Addition of New Contention by Mr. Lewis (April 23, 1980).
We could not, of course,have been independently interested in unspecified "many design err'ers" and a " larger problem".
Such a contention would have been i= permissibly vague, and also therefore without articu-laced bases or nexus to the TMI-2 accident.
Accordingly, the contention is confined to the example presented, without the inclusion of the last two sentences.
2/
The Lewis contention states:
Filters:
There are New filters on the auxiliary building of TMI#2.
There are no similar structures on the auxiliary building of TMI#1.
Further, preheaters must be placed on the filters of the auxiliary building because they got wet during the accident on 3/28/79 in TMI#2.
To miti-gate a similar accident in TMI#1, preheaters en the filters in the auxiliary building of TMI#1 are necessary.
There are many design errors in the filter system and design of same.
I'am presenting the above as examples of a larger problem.
l
. Aamodt Familv By motion filed on April 24, 1980, the Aamodt family seeks reconsideration of the portions of the board's order of April 9, 1980 (pp.7-8) denying the Aamodes' motion to compel licensee to respond to its interrogatories 22 through 26 and 36.
These interrogatories'were contained in the Aamodes' Contention 2 - Fourth (Sic; Fifth) Set dated
- t February 25, 1980.
Licensee filed a response on May 5, l
1980 in opposition to the Aamodt motion for reconsideration. /
3 Contention 2 states:
2.
It is contended that TMI-1 should not open until the performance of licensee technicians and management can be demon-strated to be upgraded as certified by an independent engineering firm.
This upgrading should include 100% test performance of job description with provision for retraining and retest, or discharge of those who cannot con-sistently and confidently master all necessary infortation for safe conduct of their job description under all anti-cipated critical situations as well as routine situations.
3/
Because it is not clear that a response to the recon-sideration request is required under the Rules of Practice, on May 1, counsel for the board contacted counsel for the licensee to inquire if licensee planned i
to respond to the Aamodt motion.
Licensee stated it would unless the board believed no response to be necessary.
Counsel for the board stated that, to the-centrary, the board was interested in a response from licensee which addressed the argument that the Aamodts are entitled to inquire into the actual working con-l ditions to test the validity of the testing program.
. The essence of Aamodt Contention 2 as we view it is that the competence of licensee " technicians and management" must be demonstrated by an independent firm, with such demonstration to include a 100% test performance on a test of " anticipated critical situations as well as routine situations."
We believe it permissible for the Aamodts to pursue information which will bear on the validity of 'the testing program.
This view was demonstrated when we re-quired an answer in the April 9, 1980 order (p.5) to Aamodt interrogatory 16 which asks whether the licensee plans to introduce stress into simulator training and/or operator performance testing.
In our April 9, 1980 order we agreed with the licensee's view (expressed again in its response of May 5, 1980), that interrogatories 22 through 26 as a package were directed rather abstractly to plant operation itself, without any expressed connection to or focus on the independent testing or certification which is the subject of contention 2.
As licensee properly recognizes in its response of May 5, obviously plant operations can be related to technical training and testing of plant operators.
But the drafting of these interrogatories is overly broad and of no assistance in making the connection between the information sought and Contention 2.
l l
1
. However, we have now reconsidered our ruling on interrogatories 22 through 26.
We do not believe our prior ruling to be incorrect, but we now believe it to be a closer question than our previous ruling indicated.
It is a matter of judgment.
We are not solely guided by the Aamodes' con-cention, although as stated above we are interested in permitting the Aamodes latitude in developing information on the validity of the testing program.
We are also being very liberal in allowing portions of the disputed interroga-tories to be answered, as specified below, because the in-formation also bears on the overall subject of licensee's competence to safely operate the facility, an issue in which the board and the Commission have previously expressed strong interest.
Interrogatories which seek information on actual con-ditions for personnel involved in operation of the plant (as supervisors or directly) are permitted.
Interrogatories which dispute the wisdom of the operating conditions (22, 22a, 23), or are overly broad in seeking information about non-operating personnel (part of 22b), or are hopelessly vague (26), are not permitted.
Interrogatory 25 (longest shift worked by any one person) is unlikely to shed any light on the adequacy of a training and testing program, and is of no interest to the board with respect to manage-ment capability.
l
. Accordingly, within ten days of service of this order, the following interrogatories should be answered by the licensee:
Interrogatory 22(b) limited to operating a.
personnel (which as indicated above includes supervisors of such personnel).
b.
Laterrogatory 24 and 24(a).
1 We decline to reconsider our ruling on Aamodt
" interrogatory" 36.
We need not repeat the reasons stated in our order of April 9, 1980 for refusing to compel dis-l covery on this item.
" Interrogatory" 36 asked no question It was a vague request to take depositions of unidentifiabia employees of licensee, and therefore simply could not be 4/
responded to or otherwise acted upon by licensee.-
l The Aamodes have now set out a new proposed procedure which is still quite unclear.
The best we can understand it is that it is not within permissible discovery, and certainly not within the discovery schedule of the proceeding.
4/
Our prior misunderstanding that the Aamodts intended
~
first to send written questionnaires to all licensee employees, as opposed to a sample of employees to be later selected, is not material to the fact that the Aamodts failed to timely identify (by name or description) those employees it seeks to depose.
. The Aamodts still are no closer to identifying by name or otherwise the individuals they would depose.
In fact, it now appears they do not wish to take oral depositions at all, but rather wish to serve written questions, well beyond the deadline for interrogatories, to be answered directly by licensee personnel without benefit of objections by or consultation with counsel.
In short, the Aamodts' original request on February 25, even when liberally construed as a notice for deposition, could not have been complied with.
The subsequent permutations proposed by the Aamodts are no more comprehensible, are totally irregular and impermissible (if we have correctly understood their most recent proposal), and are too late.
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD kV Ivan W.
Smith, Chairman Bethesda, Maryland May 8, 1980 l
rsa
==
i=5
'::=.::
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION jiip s ZiEi In the Matter of
)
EM-
)
??.?
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, ET AL. )
Docket No. 50-289
- 5,!
=
b 5.4:::
(Thtee Mile Island Unit No. 1
)
.':b7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE l:4...
I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document (s)
!s --
upcn each person designated en the efficial service list ce= piled by the Of fice of the Secretary of the Cc ission* in this preceeding in accordance with the require =ents of Section 2.712 of 10 CFR Part 2 -
Rules of Practice, of the Nuclear Regulatery Ce=nissien's Rules and Regulations.
i-i:i fhh-
=y; Dated at. Washington, D. C. this CD day of J Tc P 19 fd L4
/
..?*.*'
(
1 b?l/?ll l-kil??l( ?
Office Af/ the Secretary of the Cd==ission
=E' t
E4?.
'!!f..
qg
=n
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter cf
)
)
HETROPCLITAN EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.
)
Dechet No. (s) 50-289
)
(Three Mile Island, Unit 1)
)
)
)
)
)
SERVICE LIST Ivan W. Smith, Esq., Chairman Ellyn Weiss, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Sheldon, Har on, Roiscan and ifeiss U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cocmission 1725 I Street, N.W., Suite 506 Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20006 Dr. Ualter H. Jordan 881 West Outer Drive Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Dr. Linda W. Little 5000 Hermitage Drive Mr. Thocas Geruskv aleiga,.sorth Carolina 27612
~
Bureau of Radiation Protection Counsel for NRC Staff Department of Environmental Resources P.O. Box 2063 Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co==ission Harrisburg, Pennsylvanis 17120 Washington, D.C.
20555 Honorable Mark Cohen Metropolitan Edison Conpany 512 E-3 Main Capital Building ATTN:
Mr. J.G. Herbein Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Vice President P.O. Box 542 Peading, Pennsylvania 19603 George F. Trowbridge, Esq.
Shaw, Pitt=an, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.
Mr. John E. M'.nnich, Chair =an Washington, D.C.
20036 Dauphin County Board of Conmissioncrs Dauphin County Courthouse Karin W. Carter, Esq.
Front and Market Streets Assistant Attorney General 505 Executive House Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 P.O. Box 2357 Walter W. Cohen, Esq.
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Consumer Advocate Office of Consumer Advocate Strawberry Square, 14th Floor Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17127
o 555 15 5 EE E5 50-289 (2) 25 u srd and parties continued:
g MM ES 5.
!??
=*+
337 Kcrin P. Sheldon, Esq.
Mr. Marvin I. Lewis Sheldon, Harnon, Roiscan and Weiss 2.;
6504 Bradford Terrace 1725 I Street, N.W., Suite 506 T
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19149 Washington, D.C.
20006 g:
J Robert Q. Pollard, Esq.
Ms. Marjorie M. Annodt
=
R.D. !5
=
609 Montpelier Street Coatesville, Pennsylvania 19320 3altinore, Maryland 21218
~
Theodore A. Adler, Esq.
Jordan D. Cunninghan, Esq.
Widoff, Reager, Selkowitz Fox Parr and Cunninghan and Adler, PC 2320 North Second Street P.O. Box 1547 IIarrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 Earrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105 E.
=
Dr. Chauncey Kepford Dr. Judith H. Johnsrud Environnental Coalition on Nuclear Power 433 Orlando Avenue State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Ms. Holly S. Keck Legislation Chairnan ANGRY 245 West Philadelphia Street York, Pennsylvania 17404 Mr. Steven C. Sholly 304 South Market Street Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055 1
John A. Levin, Esq.
Pennsylvania Public Utility Comnission P.O. Box 3265 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
.