ML20040A911
| ML20040A911 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 01/13/1982 |
| From: | Blake E METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8201220298 | |
| Download: ML20040A911 (10) | |
Text
..
4 unun:o c:mm 7:wsc LIC 1/13/82 ca sru r, i
n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
'82 JMI 15 P4 :27 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFn O E:; :
DOC 3LimG & tE6i-ERANCH Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of
)
Docket No. 50-289 SP
)
.x \\ t n i,
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
(Restart) 7 x' %
(ReopenedProcee[ ding)
/,
)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
- 7 m,
'i.
\\1
, _N,,
LICENSEE'S RESPONSE TO TMIA MOTION
\\
./
V TO DIRECT EXECUTION OF AFFIDAVIT AND TO ENTER. DOCUMENTS INTO EVIDENCE
/,
s By motion dated January 1 (served by hand on Licensee after normal business hours on January 4), 1982, TMIA moves that two letters from Licensee to the NRC Staff, dated December 4 and December 18, 1981, should be admitted into evidence in this re-opened hearing and that, if the December 18 letter is admitted, Licensee should generate a third document that, too, should be admitted into evidence.
Licensee opposes TMIA's motion.
By letter of December 1, 1981, the NRC Staff requested Licensee to provide its plans for staf fing the TMI-l plant with licensed operators in the light of the results released in late November, 1981, on NRC's licensed operator reexaminations given to all TMI-l operators in October.
NRC's letter asked that Licensee respond within 10 days as to its immediate staffing plans 95c3 i
/ /
O201220298 920113 PDR ADOCh 05000289 0
?
l !
l while the plant continued shutdown, and within 20 days as to its j
staffing plans for the restart of TMI-1.
Licensee responded by letters of December 4, 1981 (the so-called 10-day letter), and December 18, 1981 (the so-called 20-day letterJ.
On December 1, 1981, during the reopened hearings, the par-ties including TMIA were provided with a copy of -NRC's December 1 letter to Licensee.
No one requested that the letter be made a part of the record.
During the December 4 session of the hearings, the parties were provided information copies of Licensee's Decem-ber 4 response (the 10-day letter) which outlined immediate staffing plans for TMI-l until restart.
No one sought to make this letter a part of the record.
The reopened hearings were com-pleted on December 10, 1981. /
During a conference call with the -
l l
Special Master on December 14, 1981, TMIA's representative inquired l
l whether Licensee's December 4 letter was' going to become part of the record.
Following the Special Master's observation that that letter dealt with staffing only prior to and not following restart of the unit, the subject was dropped.
On December 22, 1981, Licensee provided to all parties information copies.of its December
- /
The hearings were adjourned but the record left open for the possible receipt of additional evidence.
The sole reason the record was left open was to accommodate the possible receipt of additional evidence dealing with operator responses to an NRC licensed operator exam question concerning termination or throttling of HPI.
TMIA's request at this juncture to admit three documents should be treated j
as a motion to reopen the record and subject to the high threshold showing which ordinarily obtains to a request to reopen.
See Kansas Gas and Electric Company, et al. (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No. 1) ALAB-462, 7 N.R.C.
320, 338 (1978) and cases cited there-in.
This is so, even though the record remains open for the possible receipt of other evidence which is unrelated to the, documents which are the subject of TMIA's request.
l I.
i 18 letter to the Staff outlining shift staffing plans for the restart of TMI-l based on anticipated available personnel.
Licensee first opposes TMIA's motibn to admit the December 4 letter as untimely.
TMIA has had that letter for a month.
The reasons cited by TMIA for its relevance to this proceeding have existed and should have been apparent to TMIA for that entire period; no recent event prompts the motion now.
TMIA refers to no recent event which now occasions their request.
In the interim, the hearing has been completed and the findings based on the record have been filed in the case of Licensee (January 5), and are about to be filed in the case of other parties (January 15).
Licensee additionally opposes admission into evidence of the December 4 letter on grounds that it is beyond the scope of this proceeding and its admission would not lead to probative evidence.
The December 4 letter deals exclusively with staffing plans for e
TMI-l in its present shutdown condition.
It is silent on staffing plans for restart of the unit, which is the subject of this pro-ceeding.
This letter was available to TMIA while the hearing was still underway and the time for moving its admission was then, not a month later. /
- /
Nor is TMIA's position bolstered by its assertions that the December 4 letter raises serious questions about certification of operators, competence of operators, and candor with the NRC Staff.
TMIA apparently feels competent to judge, for example, Mr. G's substantive abilities as an operator based on a couple of hours of cross-examination of Mr. G on his past examination-taking techniques i
and prefers that judgment over Licensee's daily observation of Mr. G as an operator over some seven years.
This is silly, particularly since TMIA's justification stems from a misreading of the tran-script concerning Mr. G's knowledge of mechanisme for hydrogen gene-ration; the record demonstrates Mr. G understood the mechanisms for
6 Licensee opposes admission of the December 18 letter, as well, on grounds that it is dnnecessary and immaterial to the record in this proceeding, and will pro'mpt further undue record reopenings in this proceeding.
The question of adequacy of licensed personnel staffing for the restart of TMI-1 consumed considerable hearing time and was the subject of lengthy detailed findings and explicit conditions by the Licensing Board in its Management PID (at, e.g., 11 556-582 and conditions 9 (a) to 9 (g) ).
During the reopened hearing on cheating and in response to the staffing facet of the broad issue addressed in this hearing, Licensee reconfirmed its commitment to meet the staffing conditions for restart imposed by the Licensing Board in the Management PID.
Indeed, if the conditions are not met, the unit will not restart.
In Licensee's view, given the explicit detailed conditions to be met, compliance with those con-
[
ditions is a matter for Staff review and inspection.
Although it involves people rather than machinery, this situation is analagous i
to the routine situations which exist in all NRC hearings and as well on other subjects in this hearing in particular.
Through the hearing process, a licensing board hears evidence which leads to acceptance or rejection of standards, usually design standards.
Once the approach is settled by the licensing board, and provided the parameters are suf ficiently proscribed, it falls to the NRC (continued) hydrogen generation, TMIA's contrary implication notwithstanding.
Further, to assert Licensee was not candid (in view of the hearing record) with the NRC Staff in a letter which it prov.ided to the Staff at the hearing, is ridiculous.
--o,.
s o
i,
1
]
Staff to ensure compliance with the board's decision.
Here, we
^'
have precise conditions which prescribe in detail what constitutes adeguate staffing of licensed personnel to operate TMI-1.
It is
.the Staff in its normal inspecting and approving role, which assures compliance with those conditions.
r
~
The Licensing Board appropriately included adequacy of staff-
,ing as a consideration in this reopened hearing.
At the time the
)
Board ordered the hearing reopened and as of the time the issues were set, the Board had no way of predicting the extent of cheating 6
which the evidence might disclose, nor did the Board know what the
,t outcome of the then-scheduled complete reexaminations of the TMI-l operators might be, nor whether faced with these developments l
Licensee would seek relief or modification of the prior imposed conditions on manning.
Had Licensee attempted to back away from its earlier commitments, any one of these developments could have riquired Board involvement.
But this is not the case.
The December 18 letter addresses the specifics of Licensee's a
intended approach to satisfying the license conditions on staffing.
it was a snapshot on that date and in response to an appropriate
'ng'uiry from the Staff whose responsibility it is to track i
, Licensee's progress toward compliance with the Board's conditions, I
just as the Staff is doing on a number of other conditions in the Management PID as well as in the Design and Emergency Planning PID.
It i'a another thing, however, to view the letter as prompting a reopening of the record and discussion in findings of that Decemb'er J
3
l s
i t
H
. l 18 perspective.
To do so will presumably set the precedent for again reopening the record and submitting additional findings i
following the scheduled reexamination of some operators early in February or, indeed, if another operator leaves Licensee's employ for any reason, or as additional operators are licensed.
This is unnecessary and an abuse of the administrative process.
I The record will never be finalized if such a mechanism is employed.
In Licensee's opinion, such detail which is constantly evolving must be left to the normally utilized vehicle of Staff review, particularly where such clear standards for compliance have been established by the Board.
Finally, TMIA cites the December 18 letter as important because "it bears upon the validity of Licensee's certification criteria and procedures, and may also bear upon the likelihood of individual cheating on earlier examinations that were not fully proctored."
TMIA Motion, at 2-3.
We are left to speculate as to bases for these claims of importance.
If the December 18 letter were to be admitted, and the related third document as well which TMIA requests, for the first time in their findings we would see TMIA's asserted bases for their motion to admit the documents now.
This puts the cart before the horse.
Moreover, at most, admission of the December 18 letter into evidence would merely enable TMIA to speculate in its findings as to the bases for Licensee's not recommending four individuals for prompt reexamina-tion in February (there being no evidence in the record) and based on that speculation, what TMIA gleans from its speculation.
This
..a e
y
,=
r 1-'r-'=n'
b
. approach cannot be productive nor useful for the Special Master or the Board in reaching a d6 cision.
For all the above reasons, Licensee opposes TMIA's motion.
Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAF, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 822-1000 bse((. kd /,
By:
Ernest L.
Blake, Jr.
Counsel for Licensee
b D
LIC 1/13/82 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of
)
)
Docket No. 50-289 SP
.iETROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
(Restart)~
)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
(Reopened Proceeding)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
l CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE l
The undersigned hereby certifies that u true and correct copy of the foregoing LICENSEE'S RESPONSE TO TMIA MOTION TO DIRECT EXECUTION OF AFFIDAVIT AND TO ENTER DOCUMENTS INTO EVIDENCE was served this 13th day of January, 1982, by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to those persons on the attached Service List.
l i
&WW sh.
Ernest L.
Blake, Jr.
l
l*
UNITED STATT.S OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
l l
In the Matter of
- )
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Do'cket No. 50-289 SP
)
( estart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
SERVICE LIST Administrative Judge Robert Adler, Esquire Ivan W. Smith (2)
Karin W.
Carter, Esquire Chairman, Atomic Safety and Assistant Attorney General Licensing Board 505 Executive House U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Post Office Box 2357 Washington, D.C.
20555 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Administrative Judge Attorney General of New Jersey Walter H.
Jordan Attn: Thomas J. Germine, Esquire Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Deputy Attorney General 881 West Outer Drive Division of Law - Room 316 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 1100 Raymond Boulevard Newark, New Jersey 07102 Administrative Judge Linda W.
Little John A.
Levin, Esquire Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Assistant Counsel 5000 Hermitage Drive Pennsylvania Public Utility
- Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 Commission Post Office Box 3265 Administrative Judge Harrisburg, PA 17120 Gary L.
Milhollin Atomic Safety & Licensing Board John E. Minnich 1815 Jefferson Street Chairman, Dauphin County Board Madison, Wisconsin 53711 of Commissioners Dauphin County Courthouse James R.
Tourtellotte, Esq. (4)
Front and Market Streets-Office of Executive Legal Harrisburg, PA 17101 Director 5
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Walter W.
Cohen, Esquire Washingtor.,
D.C.
20555 Consumer Advocate Office of Consumer Advocate Docketing & Service Section (3) 1425 Strawberry Square Office of the Secretary Harrisburg, PA 17127 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Chairman, Atomic Safety &
Licensing Board Panel L
Rcbert Q, Pollard U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 609 Montpelier Street Washington, D.C.
20555 i
l Ealtimore, MD 21218 Chairman, Atomic Safety & Licensing A.ppeal Board Panel
" S.
Nuclear Regulatcry Cc--issi:r Usshingten, D.C.
205E5
S 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 1011 Green 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 Ms. Gail Phelps ANGRY Mr. Norman Aamodt 245 West Philadelphia Street R.
D.
5 York, PA 17404 Coatesville, PA 19320 Mr. Steven C.
Sholly Union of Concerned Scientists 1725 Eye Street, N.W.,
Suite 601 Washington, D.C.
20006 y
-,.-4..,
.y
~
- -,,