ML20040H593
| ML20040H593 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 02/11/1982 |
| From: | Cunningham G NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Denton A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8202180420 | |
| Download: ML20040H593 (2) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:, x ,d' y vm m r-m 4 w, rwe j Q, &? Q U-W. 4$ g. f Q February 11, 1982 (,t' t s 9 0 1i1' 5 0 j% gglT198N Note to: Harold R. Denton, Director 7 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation From: Guy H. Cunningham, III Executive Legal Director / g
Subject:
TMI-1: BOARD ORDER DENYING STAFF'S NOTION FOR REVIEW 0F SPECIAL MASTER'S RULING WITH RESPECT T0 " STAFF A7TITUDE" At a prehearing conference prior to the reopened proceeding on " cheating" issues in TMI-1, Special Master Milhollin stated that he would require a special evidentiary presentation at the hearing on the possible relation-ship between the Staff's " attitude" and its administration of NRC operator license examinations. Specifically, it was stated: The Kemeny Commission found that operator training was greatly deficient; that the depth of understanding was far too shallow. It also found that the branch of NRC that monitored operator training was " weak and understaffed", and that NRC limited itself to "giving routine exams". It concluded that no quan-tity of " fixes" would cure the basic problem, which it found to be the attitude of the people who were involved. Because the cheating incident occurred after the Staff has responded to the Kemeny Commission and promised to improve, what does the possibility of laxity in the Staff's procedures indicate about the Staff's attitude? The Staff objected to that evidentiary requirement and requested the Special Master to modify or delete it. Special Master Milhollin declined to make the deletions requested by the Staff. The Staff then filed a written request that the Special Master reconsider that ruling and stated its position that such an evidentiary presentation as to the " attitude of the NRC Staff" would be nutside of the scope of the reopened proceeding. In the alternative, the Staff moved that the question of the presentation of evidence on the Staff's attitude be certified to the Licensing Board. The Special Master denied in its entirety the NRC Staff's motion for reconsideration or directed certification. The Staff then asked the Licensing Board to review and reverse the Special Master's ruling. By tienorandum and Order of February 5,1982, the Board denied the 9507 Staff's motion for two independent reasons. First, the Board dismissed 5 the Staff's position that its attitude is not relevant by stating that the Staff seemingly misunderstood Judge Milhollin's definition of Staff /D " attitude". The Board endorsed Judge Milhollin's explanation that the Staff's attitude would be considered only as evidence of how the Staff's l 8202:00420 920211 sua = PDR ADOCg 05000 O ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,q,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, NRCFORM 318110/80n NRCM C240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY "' " '*8o-2 =
~, v e-o. o p- - a p. _2 testing procedures might be administered. The Board noted that the question of Staff attitude is " relevant, perhaps even necessary" to resolve Issue 10, relating to the " adequacy of the administration of NRC licensing examinations" for Till-1 personnel. Second, the Board found that the standard for interlocutory review had not been met. The Board rejected the Staff's assertion in its motion for review of Judge !!ilhollin's ruling that there was a threat of imediate, serious and irreparable impact in that the Staff had been required to prepare " attitude" testimony and would be required to present the testimony at the hearing. It noted that by the time the motion was ripe for ruling, some of the Staff witnesses had already testified on the subject and thus in the view of the Board the motion was moot or "perishingly moot" by the time it was filed. Although ELD does not necessarily agree with the Board's analysis, we also do not believe any further interlocutory appeal on this natter would be productive at this time. The Staff has preserved its rights of appeal on the " attitude of the Staff" issue and may await the Board's decision on the merits in the reopened proceeding before determining whether any appeal would be warranted. Thus, we recommend no further interlocutory appeal with regard tc the rulings on the Staff " attitude" question at this time. Original signed by Guy H.Cunningham,Ill Guy H. Cunningham, III Executive Legal Director cc W. Dircks Distribution: I J. Goldberg Gray GC/TFE/ ESC ESC File OELD Reading File NRC Central File SEE SREXMf@@RREMEEG5ITEET 3Dd a-> .a me.. ..d.bb.a. kjg. .a - er.9.:.O.. b. ..EShr.inenbr3..G.Cunninghg. => ms.2 ..,2.au.82,,, .. 2n! /sa, ,,,, /fys2 2 NRC FORM 318 HO 80l NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
- e
=-3=}}