ML20041E424

Motion for Reconsideration of Aamodt 820120 Motion for Admissibility of Suppl to Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law & Motion for Admissibility of Findings

ML20041E424
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	03/01/1982
From:	Aamodt N AAMODTS
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20041E426	List: ML20041E424 ML20041E429
References
ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8203100511
Download: ML20041E424 (3)

Text

- - .- . _ . .-- .. .

.4 j<*~

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA c v ;g y NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE SPECIAL MASTER OF THE ATOMIC LICENSING BOARD SAFET.YAql' ~0 [t!O MO REOPENED HEARING ON CHEATING U

k if :

In the Matter of ) 4#\

METROPOLITAN EDISON CO. )

)

Docket 50 g289 SP (-

(Three Mile Island Nuclear ) pg;gggg ,

! Generating Station, Unit 1) ) - P2 i r MAR 9 19823- 1 gi r: rat tworm;rs s mamen ~)3 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF AAMODT >

MOTION FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF FINDINGS 0F JANUARY 20, 1982 AND ADMISSIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL ' 'D QS #

The Special Master made a gross error in his order of February 11, denying our motion to receive additional findings. We would call attention to the following circum-r stances:

I 1. Eleven of the eighteen transcripts comprising the record of the reopened hearing were not available at public reading rooms until January 4, 1982, allowing enly fourteen days to make findings within the prescribed schedule.

2. Failure to allow additional time to develop complete and cogent findings is in conflict with .the expressed intent of the Special Master:

"So I guess what I am asking you is simply to keep us l informed of any developments which may make our schedule such that we could be more flexible in time, in the time constraints we are operating under. So if something should develop a week from now or two weeks from now extraneous to the proceeding which would cause the unit not to be started up, 1 assume you will let us know.

..It is a request for your continuing surveillance of this subject so that you can keep us informed."

Tr. 25477 (Milhollin)

3. Such a development did occur in the form of the discovery i of Icaks in the steam generator tubes. Licensee's counsel was derelict in failing to call this matter to the attention of the D563 s

8203100511 820301 /[

PDR ADOCK 05000289 i G PDR I

Special Master prior to the close of testimony causing an unnecessary and . unwarranted b~urden o6 the parties to maintain a schedule which was from the outset severely accelerated.

Nevertheless, the Board was cognizant of the extended delay attendant to this problem at the time of our motion and the obviated need for adherence to the schedule as a factor affecting restart.

4. In the course of the hearing the Special Master ex-pressed dissappointment in the quality and character of the testimony of several witnesses.

5. The Special Master spoke of his goal as "getting to the truth".

6. The frequent disparities in the testimony of witnesses exacerbated the difficulty of developing meaningful findings of fact which would lead to the " truth" in a timely fashion.

To sort out eighteen days of conflicting, deceptive and disparate testimony in fourteen days to the point where the

" truth" became evident was an impossible task.

7. Not one of the intervenors provided findings on all of the issues of the proceeding. Contrary to the assertion of Licensee, this void does not in any way reflect support of Licensees' positions. Rather, it reflects the abject inadequacy of the schedule

8. The outcome of this proceeding swings on the adjudged perception of Licensees culpability in the cheating incident.

Failure to adequa tely consider the testimony of witnesses in this regard jeopardizes any decision on restart as well as particularized conditions for restart. Similarly, failure to diligently consider the adequacy of the NRC investigation jeopardizes the outcome of the proceeding.

Footnote 1 - For instance, DD-P; OIA and OIE investigations;

• O and W; Kelly and"Neoton-Long; Brown and 00, U and T; and among the operators.

i

9. Following filing of exceptions to and comments re-garding immediate affectiveness on the Proposal Initial Decision on Emergency Issues and Plant Design, Feb. 7, we have resumed construction of findings on issue 2, the Adequacy of NRC Investigations of Cheating at TMI, completing the enclosed. set.

The twenty-two days which have elapsed, added to the fourteen days in January where we had all transcripts available, provided

) us thirty-six days to make findings.

l On the basis of the above, the Aamodts move'for j- _ reconsideration of their motion of January 20, 1982 and further move that the enclosed findings on issue 2,3,5,6,7,9,11 & 12 accepted-for consideration by the Special Master.

g l In the event of denial of this motion, the Aamodts request the Special Master to direct certification to the Appeal Board. The basis for certification resides in the g

fact that:

The ruling would have affected the basic structure of the proceeding in a pervasive and unusual manner.

The structure of the proceeding was, in part, characterized by

. an usuallv accelerated pace. Maintenance of this pace was 1

both undesirable (2 supra) and avoidable (3 supra). The poor quality and character of much of the testimony rendered the 4

agreed upon schedule for findings hazardous with regards to "getting to the truth" (4,5,6 supra), a requisite for a fair

and meaningful decision.

• i Respec#tfully ubmitted,

, ,/

March 1, 1982 A ' '1 AM Norman O. Aamodt J

l j Footnote 2 - Board Order 9/14/81, Page 4, Footnote 3 (2) i 4

i i

.,r .- , , . -- . _ . _ _ . . , . . . . - . . - - . , . - - - , , , - - - - . . ,,--, m - . - _ _ , _ , _ . - - - , - , . _ . , _ . , - . - - - - -