ML20010J301
| ML20010J301 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 09/25/1981 |
| From: | Trowbridge G METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8109300281 | |
| Download: ML20010J301 (9) | |
Text
Lic S ptember 25, 1981 r
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NULCEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
=
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD gg f4 In the Matter of
)
)
sgp2 3196f
- 2 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289 9-
-2 f((
)
(Restart) 3 (Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
rf g
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
\\
7
\\o) la LICENSEE'S RESPONSE TO BOARD ORDER DATED SEPTEMBER 14, 1981 IN THE MATTER OF CONFIDENTIALITY ov In its September 14, 1981 Memorandum and Order, the Sg S
e Board directed the Staff to serve on the Board and Judge ;e %
g /g s.;;'
Milhollin a number of documents, including unexpurgated 4
N copies of documents previously served on the parties, rela Say
./
to operating cheating.
The Board also asked any party who believes that the requested information ought to be subject to corfidentiality to present its arguments, supported by a written brief, so as to be received by the Board and Judge Milhollin by September 25, 1981.
The Staff was advised that, pending the Board's ruling on confidentiality, the Staff could either withhold or disclose the documents to the parties under interim negotiated protective arrangements.
l By letter dated September 18, 1981, the Staff provided the l
Board and Judge Milhollin with the requested documents.
The Staff did not serve the documents on the parties, choosing instead to accept the option accorded to it of delaying service until the matter of confidentiality of the names of individuals l
0 0109300201 010925
- 4) p g gDR ADOCK 05000g.
c-y
++-
1 w
D-*--
m
-e-.
+
,e-
involved in the cheating incidents is resolved.
In its letter, the Staff also proposed that the Board consider adoption of a protective order, a draft of which was attached to the Staff's letter.
The proposed protective order essentially limits access to " private information" to individuals who pheticipate in the reopened hearing on operator cheating.
" Private information" is defined by the Staff as the names or other identifying characteristics of the.two senior reactor operators who were involved in the NRC examin tion cheating incident.
By Memorandum and Order dated September 22, 1981, the Board indicated that, among other reasons, in the absence of a negotiated protective arrangement, it would not adopt the Staff's recommended protective order but would await the briefs on the question of confidentiality.
Licensee is not at this time claiming on behalf of the Licensee a legal entitlement to the nondisclosure of the identity of any of its present or past employees whose names may arise in the context of operator cheating incidents or rumors.
Nor, in the short time available, has Licensee's research led it to j
believe there are solid grounds, under which individual employees would be legally entitled, in the context of this proceeding, to protection from public disclosure of their own identities or the names of other employees involved in or who have information
pertaining to operator cheating.1[
However, consistent with the Commission and the parties' interest in conducting a fair and complete hearing, Licensee believes that the Board and parties should try to avoid unnecessary distress and embarrass-ment to individual operators, as well as potential injury to individuals' reputations.
With this goal in nind, Licensee has considered the possible methods available to the Board and 1
Judge Milhollin which would both facilitate full disclosure of information which the Board and the parties are entitled to know while, at the same time, protect to the fullest extent possible the privacy and the reputations of Licensee's employees.
The protective order proposed by the Staff seeks to accomplish a degree of protection, but in its present forn only to the two operators who cheated on the NRC examinations.
The Staff's proposal does not address the more difficult problem of protecting individuals who may ne named in the NRC documents as the subject of rumors or as alleged participants in other possible cheating incidents, such as the TMI-2 operator involved in the 1979 incident.
Moreover, it does not deal at all with the problem of individuals identified in connection with 1/
Licensee and its employees may have a legal right pursuant to 10 CFR 2.790 and FOIA to insist that the NRC not disclose the identity of at least certain individuals named in the investigative r' ports furnished by the NRC Staff to the Board on September 18, 1981.
.is explained below, this would not solve the problem of individuals identified in Licensee documene.s or the need to find some mechanism by which individual operator examinations and related events can be discussed in open hearing without naming the individuals..
en--~
,,wm,
,wo--.--
-~.
+a,, -
en w
Company administered exams.
In addition, full implementation of the Staff's proposed protective order would appear to require that all hearing sessions in which so-called private information may be discussed would have to be held in camera, with the associated awkwardness of such a procedure.
- Finally, Licensee understands that with respect at least to Company administered examinations, the Aamodts intend in discovery to review a large n"nber of exams and to utilize outside volunteer services in this review -- a situation which does not lend itself easily to the drafting or enforcement of a protective order.
For these reasons, Licensee does not believe that the Staff's recommended approach to protecting the identities of Licensee's employees is the best alternative available to the Board.
Licensee proposes therefore that litigation of operator cheating proceed, at least for the present, with the use of letter designations su'astituted for the names of individual TMI-l operators keyed to the chart previously introduced in the hearing (ff. Tr. 20,577) summarizing operator examination results.
The use of letter designations in lieu of operator names effLJtively allowed the parties and the Board members I
to question witnesses on a particular individual's performance in the examinations, without unnecessarily disclosing the names of individuals who, in that instance, failed certain examinations.
l That experience suggests that continuing this procedure in the t
reopened proceeding on operator cheating is a practicable and l
effective means of protecting individuals' privacy.
More-1 i
over, by using the previously-assigned letter designations, I
~
the Board and the parties will be able to relate the new information in the record to the evidence already received on individual operators' examination results.
While Licensee recognizes that there may come a time during the reopened proceeding when it may become necessary to reveal the name or names of individuals involved in or who have information pertaining to operator cheating, we do not believe " hat it is necessary to do so at this juncture.
Moreover, we are confident that for some individuals, public disclosure of their identity in the hearing, e.g.,
through their appearance as a witness, will pose no problem, either for the individual or for Licensee.
Licensee therefore proposes that the Board utilize the letter designation method now, and resolve the issue of public disclosure of individuals' identity, including the need for protective orders or in camera sessions, in tne specific context in which it arises when it is appnrent that disclosure of identities to the parties j
is necessary.2,/
Finally, in response to matters discussed by the l
Board in footnote three of its September 22 Memorendum and Order, Licensee has advised the TMI-1 operators, as well as the individual employed at TMI-2 who was involved in the 1979 cheating incident, of our intention to request that the Board 2/
In order to expedite this process, Licensee offers to t
l distribute promptly to the Board and interested parties copies of the material provided by the Staff to the Board l
on September 18, 1981, substituting letter designations for the names of individuals contained in these documents.
and' parties use letter designations, rather than individuals' names, in considering the evidence on operator cheating, at least until it becomes apparent that disclosure of an individual's identity is necessary.
Licensee has not discussed this matter with either of the two terminated employees who cheated on the NRC examinations.
Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 2R/2
./
orge/F. Trowbtidge j/
rnest L. Blake, Jr.
Deborah B.
Bauser Counsel for Applicants 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Telephone: (202) 822-1000 Dated:
September 25, 1981
,e
LIC September 25, 1981 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289 SP
)
(Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
CERT!FICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that five (5) copies of the foregoing
" LICENSEE'S RESPONSE TO BOARD ORDER DATED SEPTEMBER 14, 1981 IN THE MATTER OF CONFIDENTIALITY" were hand delivered this 25th day of September, 1981, to Administrative Judge Ivan W.
Smith, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Bethesda, Maryland and were mailed by United States Mail, postage prepaid, to those persons listed on the attached Service List and to Prof. Gary L. Milhollin.
l l
l b 4'
/1,4 91)
A gorge /F. 'Trowbridge
/
Counsel for Licensee j
l
.,,3 m
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
{
I Before the Atomic Safety and Licensinc Board In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289 SP l
)
(Restart) l (Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
l Station, Unit No. 1)
)
l l
SERVICE LIST Administrative Judge Ivan W. Smith Robert Adler, Esquire Chairman, Atomic Safety and Karin W. Carter, Esquire Licensing Board Assistant Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 505 Executive House Washington, D.C.
20555 Post Office Box 2357 Harrisburg, PA 17120-Administrative Judge Walter H. Jordan Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Attorney General of New Jerseg 881 West Outer Drive Attn: Thomas J. Germine, Esq.
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Deputy Attorney General Division of Law - Room 316 Administrative Judge Linda W. Little 1100 Raymond Boulevard Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Newark, New Jersey 07102 5000 Hermitage Drive Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 John A.
Levin, Esquire Assistant Counsel Administrative Judge Gary L. Milhollin Pennsylvania Public Utility Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Commission 1815 Jefferson ~ Street Post Office Box 3265 Madison, Wisconsin 53711 Harrisburg, PA 17120 James R. Tourtellotte, Esquire (4)
John E. Minnich Office of Executive Legal Director Chairman, Dauphin County Boar @
U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory Commission of Commissioners Washing' ton, D.C.
20555 Dauphin County Courthouse Front and Market Streets Docketing and Service Section (3)
Harrisburg, PA 17101 office of the Secretary -
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Walter W.
Cohen, Esquire Washington, D.C.
20555 Consumer Advocate Office of Consumer Advocate Alan S.
Rosenthal, Chairman 1425 Strawberry Square l
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Harrisburg, PA 17127 I
Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Robert Q. Pollard Washington, D.C.
20555 609 Montpelier Street Baltimore, MD 21213
i
~
i i
Jordan D.
Cunningham, Esquire William S.
Jordan, III, Esquire Fox, Farr & Cunningham Harmon & Weiss 2320 North Second Street 1725 Eye Street, N.W.,
Suite 506 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Washington, D.C.
20006 Ms. Louise Bradford Chauncey Kepford TMI ALERT Judith H. Johnsrud 315 Peffer Street Environmental Coalition on Harrisburg, PA 17102 Nuclear Power 433 Orlando Avenue Ellyn R. Weiss, Esquire State College, PA 16801 Harmon & Weiss 1725 Eye Street, N.W.,
Suite 506 Marvin I. Lewis Washington, D.C.
20006 6504 Bradford Terrace Philadelphia, PA 19149 Steven C.
Sholly Union of Concerned Scientists Marjorie M. Aamodt 1725 Eye Street, N.W.,
Suite 601 R.
D.
5 Washington, D.C.
20006 Coatesville, PA 19320 Ms. Gail Phelps ANGRY 245 West Philadelphia Street i
York, PA 17404
-,.-en-
-