ML20040D781
| ML20040D781 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 01/28/1982 |
| From: | Pollard R, Weiss E HARMON & WEISS, UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS |
| To: | Bradford P, Gilinsky V, Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20040D782 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8202020246 | |
| Download: ML20040D781 (3) | |
Text
p --,
a
. a.
w "F
i
' HARMoN & weiss 4
1725iSTREET.N.W.
SUITE SOS E sHINoToN,D.C aooos
'82 JT.j @ c 9 W 2
' ^ ' ' " " ^ " " "
833-9070 E6 LYN R. WEISS WIL LI A M S. JORDAN, Ill LEE L. BISHOP OF COUNSEL
/.
L. T HOM A s-G A LLOWAY January 28, 19 82 "" j'y'j,"
~
p\\ S I' A N
N Eg.jI/$f)
Nunzio J. Palladino,. Chairman 2
7}
Victor Gilinsky, Commissioner O
Peter A. Bradford, Commissioner
{
88 4
- John F. Ahearne, Commissioner
(
Thomas M. Roberts, Commissioner 1
1717 H Street, N.W.
/f lith Floor Washing ton,
D.C. 20005 iG Subject :
Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island, Unit No.1 ) Docket No. 5 0-289 (Restar t )
Gentlemen :
I have enclosed the comments of the Union of Concerned Scientists on the issue of whether the Commission.should allow the Partial Initial Decision of December 14,-1981, to become immediately effective.
For the reasons set out below, as a result of the ' Commission's denial of our requests for an extension to February 15, 1982, we have not been able to complete these comments despite a maximum and utterly draining effort by UCS' Staff and counsel.
We also decline
.to file comments that are complete, but inadequate.
Since complete comments are essential to protect the public interest and to assure that the Commission makes ' a reasoned and balanced decision concerning the immediate effectiveness issue, we, are continuing to prepare comments on the areas we have been unable to cover, and we will file them as soon as possible.
In order to allow the Commission to begin,its review, however, we have included here UCS ' proposed findings and reply findings, which we urge you to compare and contrast to the Board 's findings.
The Partial Initial Decision, an astounding 806 pages in length, was issued on December 14, 1981, just six weeks That date triggered the time periods for both the ag o.
immediate effectiveness comments and the development' of exceptions to the Partial Initial Decision.
Since then we have been practically overwhelmed by the requirement to proceed on very tight schedules before all possible forums, the Licensing Boar d, the Appeal Board, and the Commission 'itself.
D5o?
8202020246 820128
~'
y PDR ADOCK 05000289 Q
PDR jj
4..)
At the suggestion of.the Licensing Boar d, UCS. moved that 'the deadline' for filing exceptions be extended to a date ' 10 days af ter the filing of reply comments on immediate ef f ectiveness.
On December 23, 1981, the Appeal Board granted the extension, but only to February 1, 1982.
In the meanwhile, the Commission. decided to hold ex par te and closed meetings with the Staff on disputed issues in the Restart proceeding, which UCS was forced first to protes t and then to attend, to the extent that. the meetings were open, on December 21, 1981.
We were then given the opportunity to comment on the substance of those meetings by January 13, 1982.
The Commission then chose to request comments from the parties on the water level indication issue, also to be filed by January 13, 1981, after a Commission meeting on the issue on January 11, 1982.
These burdens were added to a preexisting reqpirement to comment by January 13 on whether res t ar t should be prohibited pending resolution of the reopened cheating issues.
While all of this was going on, UCS was required to de-velop and file with the Licensing Board our comments on the relevance to UCS Contention 10 of matters developed in the reopened cheating proceeding.
This consumed the week before Chris tmas and the week before New Years.
We came into the New Year f aced with a January 13 deadline for immediate effectiveness co mments, comments on the Commission 's ex parte meetings, water level indicator comments, and cheating-commen ts, and a February 1 deadline for filing exceptions.
However, the various demands of the proceeding and the Commis-sion had effectively precluded our ability to complete a substantial review of the PID.
On Janu ary 11, 1982, the Co'mmission finally extended the deadline for immediate effectiveness comments from January 13 to January 28, although UCS had requested an extension to February 15.
This allowed us some time to prepare the o ther January 13 comments, although the lateness of the Commission 's decision to grant an exten-sion disr upted those efforts.
On January 21, 1982, we renewed our request that the immediate effectiveness comments be due Febr uary 15,1982, and asked the Appeal Board to extend the February 1, 1982, deadline for filing extensions.
We pointed out that the recent D.C.
Circuit decision in People Against Nuclear Energv v.
N.R.C.,
C. A,. No. 81-1131 ( filed J anu ar y 7.,
1982), requiring the preparation of an Environmental Assessment on the psychological impacts of restart, would probably delay restart by several.
mon th s, so that an unduly restrictive timetable on immediate effectiveness comments and exceptions was not justified.
These requests were denied.
4,3 a
3 t
~ On January 2 6, 1982, the Washington Post reported that leaking steam generator tubes would probably delay rest art by at least six months, and we renewed our motions on that bas is.
There is simply no questi'on that a reasonable deadline in February for the 'immediate ef fectiveness comments and a
- somewhat later deadline for filing exceptions - would prejudice no one.
Again, the Commission denied the motion.
The Appeal Board has not yet ruled, but even if an extension is granted for the exceptions, it will be of no use for the immediate effectiveness comments.
We are completely at a loss to - understand why the Commission insists on this rush to judgment.
The Board 's PID is not even complete because the Board has not yet ruled on precisely what actions are required before restart.
More importantly, this-case involves the worst accident in the history of commercial nuclear power in this country, and it will stand as a symbol of the Commission 's willingness to consider public concerns and to take into account the full range of technical issues.
We urge you to recognize that rest art is being delayed for - other reasons,. so that there is no justification for preventing effective participation by UCS, which was the only party to provide extensive technical expertise and information that took issue with the positions of the Staff and the Licensee.
We will provide our complete comments as soon as possible so that you may consider a balanced record.
Sincerely, Ellyn/R. Weiss
[
Harmon & Weiss 1725 I Street, N.W., Suite 506 Washing ton, D.C. 20006 Counsel for UCS
$A' Rober t D. Pollard j
Nuclear Safety Engineer Union of Concerned Scientists l
l l
l l
l
.