ML20041B534
| ML20041B534 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 02/22/1982 |
| From: | Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | THREE MILE ISLAND ALERT |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8202240201 | |
| Download: ML20041B534 (4) | |
Text
_..
Bd 2/22/82 m<~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'82 FEB 22 P Af0$IC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Dr. Walter H. Jordan m
A Dr. Linda
/
m SElD&D FEB ~9 no9 0
In the Matter of gD 19 N 75 METROPOLITAN EDIS0N COMPANY )
g5 g(3 Docket No. 50-289 (Three Mile Island Nuclear 5* [*
(Restart)
Station, Unit No.1)
)
'}
b (Reopened Proceeding)
<\\
ETE February 22, 1982 MEMORANDUM lND ORDER DENYING TMIA'S MOTION TO DIRECT EXECUTION OF AFFIDAVIT AND TO ENTER DOCUMENTS INTO EVIDENCE By motion dated January 1,1982 TMIA requested either the Board or the Special Master in the reopened proceeding to receive into-evidence'two documents and to require the execution of an affidavit by a Licensee offi-cial.
As a matter of expediency, and with the agreement of the Special Master, the Board takes jurisdiction over the motion.
Judge Milhollin agrees with our disposition.of the motion.
For the reasons set out in the respective answers of the Licensee (January 13) and the NRC Staff (January 25), the Board denies all aspects of TMIA's motion.
The motion centers around two letters.
The first, dated Dccember 4, 1981 from the Director of TMI-l to the NRC Division of Licensing explains Licensee's immediate staffing plans for the unit prior to restart.
The 3 03 s
!, b G202240201 820222 PDR ADOCK 05000209 G
1
-2_
subject of pre-restart staffing as such is not directly relevant to either the main or reopened proceeding.
TMI A's argument that the letter reflects the company's evaluation of the abilities of various~ individuals who ap-peared as witnesses -- an evaluation to be compared with their demeanor and testimony -- is too obscure to demonstrate any indirect relevance.
The notion as it relates to the December 4 letter is also untimely.
Copies of the letter were provided to the parties on December 4 at the hearing.
No party moved its admission until TMIA's instant motion.
Proposed findings would have been due before the motion would have been ripe for consideration.
Receiving the letter into evidence would require reopening the record with all of the attendant opportunities to the other parties to address the ramifications of the letter.
Given its irrelevance, TMIA has made no showing whatever that the record should be reopened with respect to the first letter.
The second letter, dated December 18, 1981, also from the TMI-l Director to the Division of Licensing, explains how the Licensee intends to comply with the staffing conditions of the Partial Initial Decision of August 27, 1981.
PID i 583, Condition 9.
TMIA asserts that this letter is relevant to Issue 11 of the reopened proceeding which inquires into the
" potential impact of NRC examinations, including retest and operator ter-minations on the adequacy of staffing of TMI-1 operations."
Issue 11 was submitted to the Board as an issue stipulated by the parties.
Although, in its nanagement PID, the Board intended to keep
0 3 jurisdiction over the adequacy of the TMI-1 operating staff, it might not on its own have placed Issue 11 into_ contention in the reopened proceeding on cheating.
The sufficiency of the staffing conditions in the mana_gement PID was thoroughly litigated and argued by the parties.
We did not intend to,re-open that issue as such because it is not related to the reasons for re-opening the evidentiary record, i.e., allegations of cheating and the pos-sible defeatability of company and NRC-administered operator examinations.
However, anticipating that resignations from_ the TMI-l operating staff and -
possible failures on the NRC reexamination could bring into question Licensee's ability to meet the PID staffing conditions, the Board did not foreclose inquiry into the adequacy of' Licensee's control-room staffing,.
Now that it is apparent that the Licensee does not intend to seek relief
- f. rom the PID conditions, Issue 11 itself is only remotely relevant, if at all, to the reopened proceeding.
There certainly is no basis to reopen the evidentiary record to receive nothing but a confirmation that the pre-viously adjudicated conditions will remain in place.
TMIA's further argument that the December 18 letter is relevant to Licensee's certification criteria is not persuasive -- the letter itself would have no ~ probative value respecting certification criteria.
More-over, the identity of those persons whom Licensee does not intend to certify to the NRC examinations, the subject of the proposed affidavit,
. C would tell us nothing about the certification criteria which could not have uten litigated during the evidentiary hearing.
TMIA's motion is denied.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
, Chairman Ivan W. Smith ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE Bethesda, Maryland February 22, 1982 l
l l
7 I