ML20039F798

Comments on Immediate Effectiveness of ASLB 811214 Decision. Commission Should Postpone Decision on TMI-1 Restart Until Commission Receives ASLB Opinions on Implications of Operator Exams

ML20039F798
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	01/09/1982
From:	Aamodt M AAMODTS
To:
References
NUDOCS 8201130387
Download: ML20039F798 (4)

Text

I' p 91 UNITED STATESo0F AMERfCA '

a p . - AR REGULATORY-COMMISSION -

/

~

E B6CE _B RE THE COMMISSIONERS g,,

5 JAN1E1982U _

I 6 hP M M kf 82 JAN 12 P12:09 MET '

ON COMPANY }

Docker 50-289 Restart (Thre o and Nuclear } OTO:< e k i,Rt'

}

Station, Unit 1)

) E'M.a f a3E:

l i

AAMODT COMMENTS THAT SUPPORT POSTPONEMENT OF THE COMMISSION DECISION ON RESTART TO RECEIVE THE OPINIONS OF THE BOARD AND PARTIES

CONCERNING THE ISSUES OF THE REOPENED HEARING ON CHEATING _ _ _ _ ,

By an Order dated November 30, 1981, the Secretary of the Commission invited the parties to file comments with the Commission on whether the Licensing Board's decision o f ~ s e r- r:

December 14, 1981 whould be made immediately effective. The order further stated that the parties should include in their

- . comments whetbar the Commission's decision on restart- should be -

} deferred for an additional reason

to consider the Licensing

}je Board's opinions developed from the reopened hearing on the 4.".lE

){ 4 _: chea ting' in cid ent at TMI-Unit 1. Comments concerning the .

ML 2LJ immediate effectiveness of the December 14,1 19811 decision , -

R .

(j s.

have-been postponed until January 28, 1982 by an. Order of .: -

13 the Commission, hcwever the comments concerning the Commission ~'s.  :-

9

); consideration of the Board's opinions on the cheating issue are- -

't due by January 13, 1982 and are included herein.

b The Aamodts request that the Commission postpone.- their _

f decision on THI-Unit 1 Restart until the Commission has received _

55

the Licensing Board's opinions on the implications of'the d

- cheating hearing and until the Commission has r e ceived and .-'

considered the comments of the parties on the Board's opinions.-

The reasons for requesting' postponement are set-forth-in the numbered paragraphs which follow. Sp$

D 6F I 8201130387 820109 /

PDR ADOCK 05000289 -

O PDR .

7 .

1. Before the Board issued their August 27, 1981 decision I

on management issues, the Board and the parties were informed that two senior reactor operators at TMI-Unit 1 had cheated ch the April, 1981 NRC licensing examination. The Board considered that'this cheating incident raised considerable doubt that the evidence developed during the TMI-Unit 1 restart proceeding"w.as sufficient concerning the matters of management integrity, its.

training and testing program, and the numbers, competency and integrity of TMI-Unit 1 licensed operators. (Memorandum and Order, August 20, 1981, p. 2, ASLB). In issuing their decision on management issues, the Board stated that the infor-mation on the cheating issue could alter their findings and -

conclusions set forth in the decision. (PID, August 27, 1981, paragraphs 43-45, 548 (c).) After consideration of pleadings:

by the parties, the Board reopened the hearing, noting that

==- no party opposed the reopening and that the Board would have

~

=@ n

{ _

reopened sua sponte. (Memorand um' and Ord er ,- Sep t ember- 14, 1981,-

kkk[ ASLB,'p. 1 and-2). The Board allo'ed w that' thetinformation on ,

the cheating incident that was before them presented significant '

E.

]{ new and relevant information which could alter their findings and conclusions in the PID, depending upon the facts developed

]'

in the reopened proceeding.

._ Therefore, the Commission use of the conclusions of .

the Board as stated in the PID of August 27, 1981 is invalid until the Board has had the opportunity to modify these. conclusions depending upon the .

a. .

-_- f acts d eveloped in the reopened hearing on c h e a t i n g'.

r

< 2. Although the' cheating hearing was procedurally inadequate to develop a complete record on the cheating incident, evidence was developed that management of TMI-UnitIwas woefully inadequate and' deliberately negligent in testing and certifying their oper- ,

ators. The Licensee has admitted these glaring inadequacies in their findings from the reopened hearing, served on January 5, 1982.

(Licensee's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Issues Raised in Reopened TMI-1 Restart Proceeding, paragraph 413, a thro' ugh d). Other areas of serious concern to the issues of the Board's decision on management were clearly implied by the ,,

evidence; they are that cheating was extensive and that training was inadequate for the operators to confidently pass the NRC licensing examination. These issues, although of vital importance.

to the subject of-the TMI-1 Restart. proceeding,.were not adequately b 1' litigated. The Board did not allow the~ parties to participate in J developing any testimony concerning th.e adequacy of training, and L

55 @ 3 - Licensee's" counsel prepared witnesses called by~thelintervenorsi -

%-W-TN~ ~ - to establish the~ extent, mode'and reasons-for. cheating.- In'the--

g.:

' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

case of training, the B,o a r d , itself, developed some record ofm'-

je7- . _.

??,- inadequacy, which controverts conclusions in the PID.- On the issue a j7[j . of cheating,-.the Commission and the' parties have been denied by.

Licensee's counsel and by~the conduct of the hearing, an integral record. The Special Master discussed the Licensee's violation of .

the sequestration order off the record at Licensee's request. ,

~

These facts, which were developed in the reopened hearing, are

. . .1_ significant and need to be brought -to the attention of the-Commission by the Board and the parties.

v t#'

s e

g g p + *a me e 9 +-m

• e wh a svs , Suk_,,f 9 * **,fy+*8"#'

, _4 _

Therefore, the' facts developed in the reopened hearing

( on cheating are important and' contrary to the safe operation of TM1- Unit 1 by the present management. ~ : '

3. The Special Master whc presided over the reopened hearing expects to submit his findings to the Board at the end of January.

.It would be expected that the Board would issue t h e ir opi'nion and modify any findings and conclusions in the PID shortly thereafter.

much The Board's opinion would not be expected to be issued /later than the deadline that the Commission has set for the, parties to file comments concerning the immediate effectivenesh'of'.thb. Board's decision of December 14, 1981 (concerning hardware / plant design, emergency planning and the separation of TMI-l and 2); that i:

deadline is.nowcJanuary 28, 1982'with reply comments by Ivr--

~ ~

~

tj February 4, 1982.

Therefore, the Commission's postponement of their decision concerning the restart of TMI-l until the-Thc *

'# ~ '

-issuance of the Board's' opinions of.the implications.e .

hli -

_ of t-he findings and conclusions of the reopened hearing: _

q '

~

on cheating would~not cause a substantial delay intthe.

$[" .2. .

p?; -

Commission's'deciaion!r

.a

_ Respectfully submitted,. -

L-.

~

=:. .

[~ ,

t khYt. '

. J".4 (Lk4 g=- Marj or()e M. Aamodt g January 9, 1982 ,

Q 7 .

b-s,.

1 O ^

• A

-m _