ML20038A704
| ML20038A704 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 11/10/1981 |
| From: | Shoemaker C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | AAMODTS, METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., THREE MILE ISLAND ALERT |
| References | |
| CON-NRC NUDOCS 8111160192 | |
| Download: ML20038A704 (3) | |
Text
.
J UNITED STATES OF AMERICA JtKETED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 9 3C~
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL.gOSE@ 12 P3 31 Administrative Judges:
. a r E T,W G J. SERV:CE Gary J.
Edles, Chairman AMCH Dr. John H. Buck g g D E, fl01/747g37 Christine N.
Kohl
)'
In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Restart - Management y ~ l,
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Issues)
O'
'N Station, Unit 1)
)
'8,1' 9/ -
, fI t? Gh[li. iJ -
)
b NOV13 sn- - '
E*4'uad@Tdids:a< JU ORDER November 10, 1981 G
Ax/-
%^/
3-
/.
'Q'TC(J":i\\ \\
Certain individuals have requested confidential treatment of their identities in connection with the reopened phase of this proceeding, which involves alle-gations of cheating on NRC examinations.
Administrative Judge Gary Milhollin, serving as a Special Master, issued a decision denying the request.
On November 6, 1981, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board affirmed that decision.
In order to provide time for appeal and to protect our jurisdiction, however, the Licensing Board stayed the effectiveness of its decision until the close of business g503 s
Ii 8111160192Og[O89 PDR ADOCK PDR O
on Tuesday, November 10, 1981.
On November 10, the three involved individuals filed an appeal from the Licensing Board's decision, accompanied by a request for oral argument and stay of the Licensing Board's decision.
The Licensee also filed an appeal and request for stay. The staff filed a letter indicating that it would 1/
not appeal the Licensing Board's decision.
We have decided to stay the Licensing Board's decision, entertain briefs from all parties, and hear oral argument on the issues presented.
Although all is. sues raised before the Special Master and the Licensing Board will be before us for decision, we wish the parties to address the following matters, in particular:
1.
Why would the preservation of confidentiality through the use of (a) a protective order, (b) an in camera hearing, or (c) an in camera hearing employing the lettering system adopted as an interim measure, either impair the ability to obtain all necessary information, or result in any unnecessary invasion of privacy?
2.
Will the involved individuals give testimony before the Special Master if their names are not disclosed or if they receive other protections?
--1/
The Aamodts and TMIA filed a joint brief in support of the Specidl Master's order, pursuant to an earlier Licensing Board order directing the filing of such briefs even after it rendered its decision.
% 3.
Are the reporte of the NRC Office of Inspecticn and Enforcement indexed by names of individuals so as to constitute a " system of records" within the meaning of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C.
552a?
Briefs shall be in our hands and personally delivered to all parties no later than close of business, Monday, November 16, 1981.
Oral argument before us will be at 2 p.m.,
Tuesday, November 17, 1981, in the NRC Public Hearing Room, Fifth Floor, East-West Towers Building, 4350 East-West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland.
A total of 90 minutes will be-allotted for oral argument.
The licensee and the involved individuals will share 30 minutes, TMIA and the Aamodts will share 30 minutes, and the staff will have 30 minutes.
The memorandum and order issued by the Licensing Board on November 6, 1981 is stayed until further order.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPFAL BOARD O-. O,@ b,oeN C. Jc(in Shbemsker Secretary to the Appeal Board