ML20042A485
| ML20042A485 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 03/19/1982 |
| From: | Blake E METROPOLITAN EDISON CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8203230482 | |
| Download: ML20042A485 (11) | |
Text
.
0 LIC 3/19/82 U@7!UFn UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 02 l'f 7 pp gq,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
Docket No. 50-289 SP f,%
3, METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
c' ',>^X/
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
'x,, '
-(
)
(Restart)
/
(ReopenedProceeding[)..,.] $ 1933..,
L Station, Unit No. 1)
)
.a l
, g,, x - p8 LICENSEE'S ANSWER TO AAMODTS' MOTION h
f@ 3 [" s FOR RECONSIDERATION OF AAMODT MOTION FOR
'q,^
ADMISSIBILITY OF FINDINGS OF JANUARY 20, 198 h/'
. \\&
AND ADMISSIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL FINDINGS
'I.
BACKGROUND On December 8, 1981, all parties, including the Aamodts, agreed to a schedule for the submission of proposed findings to the Special Master.
Tr. 26,549-52.
Under this schedule, approved by Judge Milhollin (Tr. 26,630), Licensee was to file its proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on January 5, 1982, and all other parties were to file proposed findings on January 15, 1982.
Licensee and the NRC Staff were afforded an opportunity to file reply findings by January 22, 1982.
All parties except the Aamodts complied with this agreed-upon schedule.
On January 11, 1982, the Aamodts requested from the Licensing Board their first extension of time.
Counsel for Licensee and the NRC Staff agreed to an extension provided that 3
g50 s-
/ /
8203230482 820319 PDR ADOCK 05000289 G
pon
the Aamodts hand-delivered their findings to the Washington, D.C.
office of Licensee's counsel no later than noon on January 18, 1982.
This agreement was reported in a Licensing Board Memorandum and Order dated January 13, 1982, which Order granted the Aamodts' request and granted the Licensee and the Staff until January 26, 1982 to reply to the Aamodts' findings.
By noon on January 18, 1982, counsel for Licensee had not received the findings, and neither counsel for Licensee nor the NRC Staff had received an explanatory telephone call.
A conference call ensued with Judge Smith, Mr. Aamodt and Licensee's counsel.
Mr. Aamodt,from his offices in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, asserted
.that because of travel conditions, the Aamodts could not deliver their findings as they had agreed.
Licensee offered and had a messenger pick up the findings from the Aamodts at 5:00 p.m. that afternoon.
During the same call, Mr. Aamodt requested a further extension of time to file additional findings.
Judge Smith denied i
the request.
The Aamodts filed on January 20, 1982 a Motion for the Admissibility of Findings ("Aamodt Motion of January 20").
This motion which made no mention of Judge Smith's earlier denial of an extension of time, was opposed by Licensee ~1/
2/
and by the Staff,-
1/
See Letter dated January 22, 1982 from Ernest L.
- Blake, Jr.,
Counsel for Licensee, to Administrative Judge Gary L. Milhollin; Licensee's Reply to Findings Proposed by Other Parties to Reopened TMI-l Restart Proceeding, dated January 22, 1982, t 3,
at 2-3.
2/
See NRC Staff's Answer to Aamodts' Motion for Admissibility of Findings, dated January 26, 1982.
and was denied by Judge Milhollin in his February 11, 1982 Memorandum and Order Denying Aamodts Motion for Admissibility of Findings.
On March 5, 1982, two montr.s after the originally agreed upon date to file their findings and some five weeks after all findings and replies were filed, the Aamodts have now requested reconsideration of their Motion of January 20 and have requested the admissibility of 73 pages of additional findings.
("Aamodt Motion of March 5").
Licensee opposes this two-part motion for the reasons set forth below.
II.
DISCUSSION The Aamodts now claim prejudice, stating eleven of the eighteen transcripts of the reopened proceeding were unavailable at public reading rooms until January 4, 1982, thereby allowing only fourteen days to prepare findings.
Aamodt Motion of March 5, t 1.
This claim differs somewhat from the Aamodts' own previous statement-3/
that
. availability of transcripts in Harrisburg and Philadelphia was checked:
the transcripts were all available at those places on December 31, 1981."
(Emphasis added).-4/
More importantly, on or about December 8, 1981, during the time the findings schedule was being discussed,'there was specific discussion of a set of transcripts in addition to those in public reading rooms 3/
Aainodt Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Issues Raised in Reopened TMI-l Restart Proceedings, dated January 18, 1982, t 3 3, at 20 ("Aamodt Proposed Findings").
4/
Licensee has not independently checked distribution of the transcripts to NRC public document rooms in Washington or elsewhere. --
which was available for joint use by the Aamodts and TMIA.
TMIA was to use these additional transcripts as soon as they became available and to give them to the Aamodts by January 4, 1982.
See Aamcdt Motion for Admissibility of Findings, dated January 20, 1982 (through arrangement with other parties, Aamodts were to receive transcripts after January 1, 1982).
The Aamodts accepted this proposal, stating that they did not plan to begin work on their proposed findings prior to January 4.
Thus, the Aamodts cannot justifiably complain now that they lacked transcripts at a time when they needed or wanted to use them.
Neither can they complain that they had insufficient time to prepare their findings
.when they did not plan to utilize the 3-1/2 weeks between the close of testimony on December 10, 1981 and January 4, 1982, to work on the findings in any event.
The Aamodts correctly note that the Special Master requested Licensee to keep him informed of any occurrence extraneous to the reopened proceeding that might cause a delay in the start-up of TMI-1.
Tr. 25,447 (Milhollin).
Although it is unclear how this supports their motion, the Aamodts claim that Licensee was derelict in.failing to inform the Special Master prior to the December 10, 1981 close of testimony that restart would be delayed due to the repair of leaks in steam generator tubes at TMI-1.
This charge cannot go unanswered.
The short answer to the Aamodts' bald assertion is that in early December, 1981, Licensee had no such knowledge.
More specifically, inspections and tests of the TMI-1 reactor during l
the 2-1/2 years after the TMI-2 accident revealed no abnormal conditions, but in November, 1981, small leaks were discovered in the tubes in both Unit 1 steam generators.-5/
Extensive inspections were begun immediately, but until sufficient technical data could be collected and analyzed, Licensee had no basis for concluding that the leakage problem would impact on the TMI-1 restart.
By early January, 1982, Licensee still was not sure that the leakage problem would cause a restart delay.
See Licensee's Reply to USC Motion to Extend Deadline for Immediate Effectiveness Comments, dated January 5, 1982 (target date for restart was February 1, 1932 with possible slippage of 2 to 4 weeks due to several reasons including steam generator tube 1'
repair).
It was not until January 25, 1982 that Licensee had sufficient i
information to report that repairs to the steam generator tubes at TMI-1 would result in at least a six-month delay in the reactor's readiness for restart.
That very same day, Counsel for Licensee 6/
l sent to Judge Milhollin-a copy of a press release with a cover letter noting the delay.
Licensee thus informed Judge Milhollin and all parties immediately upon learning of a definite restart delay due to the steam generator problem.
The Aamodts claim generally in paragraphs 4-6 of their 5/
See News Release dated January 25, 1982 enclosed with Letter dated January 25, 1982 from Ernest L.
- Blaxe, Jr., Counsel for Licensee, to Administrative Judge Gary L.
Milhollin.
6/
The Commission and the entire TMI-1 Service List received copies, s
March 5 Motion that the quality of the testimony of several witnesses was disappointing and that this poor quality made it difficult to set forth "the truth" in proposed findings within l
the time limits originally agreed upon.
The quality of the testimony was or should have been apparent to the Aamodts at the time they agreed to the original findings schedule on December 8, 1981, at the time they originally requested an extension of time on January 18, 1982 to file additional findings, and at the time they filed their Motion on January 20.
Nothing in the testimony has changed.
Thus, these arguments provide neither new infor-mation nor good cause to justifiy reconsideration of their Motion
.of January 20 or a grant of their Motion of March 5.
- Moreover, a grant of the Aamodts' pending motion would require granting additional time to Licensee and the NRC Staff now to reply to the new findings.
At this time, just days before the March 31, 1982 target date for issuance of the Special Master's report in this reopened proceeding (see Board Memorandum dated March 4, 1982),
and in view of the fact that the Commission has decided it will not make a decision regarding immediate effectiveness of the Licensing Board's Partial Initial Decisions of August 27 and December 14, 1981 until the Board has rendered its decision in this proceeding (see Commission Order dated March 10, 1982), the l
Aamodts would have to set forth compelling new information and make a particularly strong showing of good cause to support a j
delay in the proceeding.
They make no such case.
I L
Finally, the Aamodts request that if their Motion of March 5 I
' [
is denied, the Special Master direct certification directly to the Appeal Board.
This extraordinary request to bypass the Licensing Board's consideration of an adverse ruling on their latest motion must be rejected for two reasons.
First, denial of their Motion would not constitute " exceptional circumstances" justifying a grant of a request for directed certification.
See Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-382, 5 NRC 603, 606 (1977), citing Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB 271, 1 NRC 478, 486 (1975);
Public Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-405, 5 NRC 1190, 1192 (1977).
.Second, even if their request for directed certification were justified, the Licensing Board has stated in this proceeding that a party must request the Special Master to certify a question or refer a ruling to the Licensing Board pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
S 2.718(1) or S 2.730 (f) prior to the Board's request for directed certification to the Appeal Board.
Memorandum and Order Reopening Record on Matters Related to Cheating, Appointing a Special Assistant, and Scheduling a Conference of the Parties, dated September 14, 1981, at 3-4.
While the Aamodts cite the Licensing Board's Memorandum, they apparently would have the Special Master ignore the Licensing Board's ground rules.
Licensee opposes this aspect of the Aamodt Motion as well.
III. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the Licensee opposes the
,1 7-l
Aamodts' Motion of March 5.
Respectfully submitted,
?
/,,
/ l il er s.. /..
Ernest L.
Blake, Jr.,
P.C.
Bonnie S. Gottlieb Counsel for Licensee 1
l l
_g_
LIC 3/19/82 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
Docket No. 50-289 SP METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
)
(Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
(Reopened Proceeding)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing " Licensee's Answer to Aamodt's Motion for Reconsideration of Aamodt Motion for Admissibility of Findings of January 20, 1982 and Admissibility of Additional Findings" was served th's 19th day of March, 1982, by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to all other persons on the attached Service List.
C~
4. /,(/ c *, f,
i.
cru /
^
l Ernest L.
- Blake, Jr.,
P.C.
l l
c l
l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
Docket No. 50-289 SP METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
)
(Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
S ta tion, Unit No. 1)
)
SERVICE LIST Administrative Judge Robert Adler, Esq.
Ivan W. Smith (2)
Karin W. Carter, Esq.
Chairman, Atomic Safety and Assistant Attorney General Licensing Board 505 Executive House U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Post Office Box 2357 Washington, DC 20555 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Administrative Judge Attorney General of New Jersey Walter H. Jordan Attn: Thomas J. Germine, Esq.
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, Esq.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Assistant Counsel 5000 Hermitage Drive Pennsylvania Public Utility Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 Commission Post Office Box 3265 Administrative Judge Harrisburgh, PA 17120 Gary L. Milhollin Atomic Safety & Licensing Board John E. Minnich 1815 Jefferson Street Chairman, Dauphin County Board Madison, Wisconsin 53711 of Commissioners Dauphine County Courthouse James R.
Tourtellotte, Esq. (4)
Front and Market Streets Office of Executive Legal Harrisburg, PA 17101 Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Walter W. Cohen, Esq.
Washington, DC 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, DC 20555
Robert O. Pollard Ms. Gail Phelps 609 Monteplier Street ANGRY Baltimore, MD 21218 245 West Philadelphia Street York, PA 17404 Chairman, Atomic Safety &
Licensing Board Panel Mr. Steven C.
Sholly U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Union of Concerned Scientists Washington, DC 20555 1725 Eye Street, NW, Suite 601 Washington, DC 20006 Chairman, Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Panel William S. Jordan III, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Harmon & Weiss Washington, DC 20555 1725 Eye Street, NW, Suite 506 Washington, DC 20006 Jordan D. Cunningham, Esq.
Fox, Farr & Cunningham Chauncey Kepford 2320 North Second Street Judith H. Johnsrud Harrisburg, PA 17110 Environmental Csalition on i
Nuclear Power I
Ms. Louise Bradford 433 Orlando Avenue TMI ALERT State College, PA 16801 1011 Green Street
.Harrisburg, PA 17102 Marvin I. Lewis 6504 Bradford Terrace Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq.
Philadelphia, PA 19149 4
l Harmon & Weiss 1725 Eye Street, NW, Suite 506 Washington, DC 20006 Mr. Norman Aamodt R.D.
5 Coatesville, PA 19320 i
i I
1 e
,..c-e.
r,