|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20210B8491999-07-21021 July 1999 Exemption from Certain Requirements of 10CFR50.54(w),for Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 2 to Reduce Amount of Insurance for Unit to $50 Million for Onsite Property Damage Coverage ML20206D4141999-04-20020 April 1999 Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR50,App R,Section III.G.2 Re Enclosure of Cable & Equipment & Associated non-safety Related Circuits of One Redundant Train in Fire Barrier Having 1-hour Rating ML20206T7211999-02-11011 February 1999 Memorandum & Order (CLI-99-02).* Denies C George Request for Intervention & Dismisses Subpart M License Transfer Proceeding.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990211 ML20198A5111998-12-11011 December 1998 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50.65 Re Requirements for Monitoring Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants.Proposed Rulemaking Details Collaborative Efforts in That Rule Interjects Change ML20154G2941998-09-17017 September 1998 Transcript of 980917 Public Meeting in Rockville,Md Re License Transfer of TMI-1 from Gpu Nuclear,Inc to Amergen. Pp 1-41 ML20199J0121997-11-20020 November 1997 Comment on Pr 10CFR50 Re Financial Assurance Requirements for Decommisioning Nuclear Power Reactors.Three Mile Island Alert Invokes Comments of P Bradford,Former NRC Member ML20148R7581997-06-30030 June 1997 Comment on NRC Proposed Bulletin 96-001,suppl 1, Control Rod Insertion Problems. Licensee References Proposed Generic Communication, Control Rod Insertion, & Ltrs & 961022 from B&W Owners Group ML20078H0431995-02-0101 February 1995 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Shutdown & Lowpower Operations for Nuclear Reactors ML20077E8231994-12-0808 December 1994 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR2,51 & 54 Re Rev to NRC NPP License Renewal Rule ML20149E2021994-04-20020 April 1994 R Gary Statement Re 10 Mile Rule Under Director'S Decision DD-94-03,dtd 940331 for Tmi.Urges Commissioners to Engage in Reconsideration of Author Petition ML20065Q0671994-04-0707 April 1994 Principal Deficiencies in Director'S Decision 94-03 Re Pica Request Under 10CFR2.206 ML20058A5491993-11-17017 November 1993 Exemption from Requirements in 10CFR50.120 to Establish, Implement & Maintain Training Programs,Using Sys Approach to Training,For Catorgories of Personnel Listed in 10CFR50.120 ML20059J5171993-09-30030 September 1993 Transcript of 930923 Meeting of Advisory Panel for Decontamination of TMI-2 in Harrisburg,Pa.Pp 1-130.Related Documentation Encl ML20065J3461992-12-30030 December 1992 Responds to Petition of R Gary Alleging Discrepancies in RERP for Dauphin County,Pa ML20065J3731992-12-18018 December 1992 Affidavit of Gj Giangi Responding to of R Gary Requesting Action by NRC Per 10CFR2.206 ML20198E5581992-12-0101 December 1992 Transcript of Briefing by TMI-2 Advisory Panel on 921201 in Rockville,Md ML20210D7291992-06-15015 June 1992 Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR70.24 Re Criticality Accident Requirements for SNM Storage Areas at Facility Containing U Enriched to Less than 3% in U-235 Isotope ML20079E2181991-09-30030 September 1991 Submits Comments on NRC Proposed Resolution of Generic Issue 23, Reactor Coolant Pump Seal Failure. Informs That Util Endorses Comments Submitted by NUMARC ML20066J3031991-01-28028 January 1991 Comment Supporting SECY-90-347, Regulatory Impact Survey Rept ML20059P0531990-10-15015 October 1990 Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR2,50 & 54 Re Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal ML20059N5941990-10-0404 October 1990 Transcript of 900928 Public Meeting in Rockville,Md Re Studies of Cancer in Populations Near Nuclear Facilities, Including TMI ML20055F4411990-06-28028 June 1990 Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-55 Re Revs to FSAR ML20248J1891989-10-0606 October 1989 Order.* Grants Intervenors 891004 Motion for Permission for Opportunity to Respond to Staff Correspondence.Response Requested No Later That 891020.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 891006 ML20248J1881989-10-0303 October 1989 Motion for Permission for Opportunity to Respond to Staff Correspondence in Response to Board Order of 890913.* Svc List Encl ML20248J0301989-09-29029 September 1989 NRC Staff Response to Appeal Board Order.* Matters Evaluated in Environ Assessment Involved Subjs Known by Parties During Proceeding & Appear in Hearing Record & Reflect Board Final Initial Decision LBP-89-7.W/Certificate of Svc ML20247E9181989-09-13013 September 1989 Order.* Requests NRC to Explain Purpose of 890911 Fr Notice on Proposed Amend to Applicant License,Revising Tech Specs Re Disposal of Accident Generated Water & Effects on ASLB Findings,By 890929.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890913 ML20247G0361989-07-26026 July 1989 Transcript of Oral Argument on 890726 in Bethesda,Md Re Disposal of accident-generated Water.Pp 1-65.Supporting Info Encl ML20247B7781989-07-18018 July 1989 Certificate of Svc.* Certifies Svc of Encl Gpu 890607 & 0628 Ltrs to NRC & Commonwealth of Pa,Respectively.W/Svc List ML20245D3651989-06-20020 June 1989 Notice of Oral Argument.* Oral Argument on Appeal of Susquehanna Valley Alliance & TMI Alert from ASLB 890202 Initial Decision Authorizing OL Amend,Will Be Heard on 890726 in Bethesda,Md.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890620 ML20245A5621989-06-14014 June 1989 Order.* Advises That Oral Argument on Appeal of Susquehanna Valley Alliance & TMI Alert from Board 890202 Initial Decision LBP-89-07 Authorizing OL Amend Will Be Heard on 890726 in Bethesda,Md.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890614 ML20247F3151989-05-22022 May 1989 NRC Staff Response to Appeal by Joint Intervenors Susquehanna Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert.* Appeal Should Be Denied Based on Failure to Identify Errors in Fact & Law Subj to Appeal.W/Certificate of Svc ML20246Q2971989-05-15015 May 1989 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Ensuring Effectiveness of Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants ML20246J6081989-05-12012 May 1989 Licensee Brief in Reply to Joint Intervenors Appeal from Final Initial Decision.* ASLB 890203 Final Initial Decision LBP-89-07 Re Deleting Prohibition on Disposal of accident- Generated Water Should Be Affirmed.W/Certificate of Svc ML20247D2761989-04-20020 April 1989 Transcript of 890420 Briefing in Rockville,Md on Status of TMI-2 Cleanup Activities.Pp 1-51.Related Info Encl ML20244C0361989-04-13013 April 1989 Order.* Commission Finds That ASLB Decision Resolving All Relevant Matters in Favor of Licensee & Granting Application for OL Amend,Should Become Effective Immediately.Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890413 ML20245A8381989-04-13013 April 1989 Transcript of Advisory Panel for Decontamination of TMI-2 890413 Meeting in Harrisburg,Pa.Pp 1-79.Supporting Info Encl ML20245A2961989-04-13013 April 1989 Transcript of 890413 Meeting in Rockville,Md Re Affirmation/Discussion & Vote ML20248H1811989-04-0606 April 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Leave to File Appeal Brief out-of-time.* W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890411.Granted for Aslab on 890410 ML20248G0151989-04-0606 April 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Leave to File Appeal Brief out-of-time.* Requests to File Appeal Brief 1 Day Late Due to Person Typing Document Having Schedule Problems ML20248G0261989-04-0606 April 1989 Susguehanna Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Brief in Support of Notification to File Appeal & Request for Oral Argument Re Appeal.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20248D7211989-04-0404 April 1989 Memorandum & Order.* Intervenors Application for Stay Denied Due to Failure to Lack of Demonstrated Irreparable Injury & Any Showing of Certainty That Intervenors Will Prevail on Merits of Appeal.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890404 ML20247A4671989-03-23023 March 1989 Correction Notice.* Advises That Date of 891203 Appearing in Text of Commission 890322 Order Incorrect.Date Should Be 871203.Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890323 ML20246M2611989-03-22022 March 1989 Order.* Advises That Commission Currently Considering Question of Effectiveness,Pending Appellate Review of Final Initial Decision in Case Issued by ASLB in LBP-89-07. Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890322 ML20236D3821989-03-16016 March 1989 Valley Alliance & TMI Alert Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief in Support of Request for Appeal in Matter of 2.3 Million Gallons Of....* Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890316.Granted for Aslab on 890316 ML20236D3121989-03-15015 March 1989 Licensee Answer to Joint Intervenors Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief on Appeal.* Motion Opposed Based on Failure to Demonstrate Good Cause.W/Certificate of Svc ML20236D2901989-03-11011 March 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief in Support of Request for Appeal in Matter of Disposal of 2.3 Million Gallons of Radioactive Water at Tmi,Unit 2.* Svc List Encl ML20236A3761989-03-0808 March 1989 Licensee Answer Opposing Joint Intervenors Motion for Stay.* Stay of Licensing Board Decision Pending Appeal Unwarranted Under NRC Stds.Stay Could Delay Safe,Expeditious Cleanup of Facility.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236C2441989-03-0808 March 1989 NRC Staff Response in Opposition to Application for Stay Filed by Joint Intervenors.* Application for Stay of Effectiveness of Final Initial Decision LBP-89-07,dtd 890202 Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20235V2641989-03-0202 March 1989 Notice of Aslab Reconstitution.* TS Moore,Chairman,Cn Kohl & Ha Wilber,Members.Served on 890303.W/Certificate of Svc ML20235V2161989-02-25025 February 1989 Changes & Corrections to Susquehanna Valley Alliance/Three Mile Island Alert Documents Submitted on 890221.* Certificate of Svc Encl 1999-07-21
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20065J3461992-12-30030 December 1992 Responds to Petition of R Gary Alleging Discrepancies in RERP for Dauphin County,Pa ML20248J1881989-10-0303 October 1989 Motion for Permission for Opportunity to Respond to Staff Correspondence in Response to Board Order of 890913.* Svc List Encl ML20248J0301989-09-29029 September 1989 NRC Staff Response to Appeal Board Order.* Matters Evaluated in Environ Assessment Involved Subjs Known by Parties During Proceeding & Appear in Hearing Record & Reflect Board Final Initial Decision LBP-89-7.W/Certificate of Svc ML20248H1811989-04-0606 April 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Leave to File Appeal Brief out-of-time.* W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890411.Granted for Aslab on 890410 ML20248G0261989-04-0606 April 1989 Susguehanna Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Brief in Support of Notification to File Appeal & Request for Oral Argument Re Appeal.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20248G0151989-04-0606 April 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Leave to File Appeal Brief out-of-time.* Requests to File Appeal Brief 1 Day Late Due to Person Typing Document Having Schedule Problems ML20236D3821989-03-16016 March 1989 Valley Alliance & TMI Alert Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief in Support of Request for Appeal in Matter of 2.3 Million Gallons Of....* Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890316.Granted for Aslab on 890316 ML20236D3121989-03-15015 March 1989 Licensee Answer to Joint Intervenors Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief on Appeal.* Motion Opposed Based on Failure to Demonstrate Good Cause.W/Certificate of Svc ML20236D2901989-03-11011 March 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief in Support of Request for Appeal in Matter of Disposal of 2.3 Million Gallons of Radioactive Water at Tmi,Unit 2.* Svc List Encl ML20236A3761989-03-0808 March 1989 Licensee Answer Opposing Joint Intervenors Motion for Stay.* Stay of Licensing Board Decision Pending Appeal Unwarranted Under NRC Stds.Stay Could Delay Safe,Expeditious Cleanup of Facility.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236C2441989-03-0808 March 1989 NRC Staff Response in Opposition to Application for Stay Filed by Joint Intervenors.* Application for Stay of Effectiveness of Final Initial Decision LBP-89-07,dtd 890202 Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20235N1621989-02-20020 February 1989 Application for Stay of Effectiveness of Final Initial Decision LBP-89-07 Dtd 890202.* Licensee Would Not Be Harmed by Granting of Stay ML20205D8451988-10-24024 October 1988 Licensee Motion to Strike Portions of Proposed Testimony of Kz Morgan.* Proposed Testimony Should Be Ruled to Be Not Admissible as Evidence in Upcoming Hearing.Supporting Info & Certificate of Svc Encl.W/Copyrighted Matl ML20205D6801988-10-20020 October 1988 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Notification to Parties That Kz Morgan Apps to Testimony Should Be Accepted as Exhibits.* Apps Listed.Svc List Encl.Related Correspondence ML20155G9981988-10-0404 October 1988 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Reconsideration of Part of Judge Order (880927) Re Limited Appearance Statements by Public.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20155G9921988-10-0404 October 1988 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion to Submit Witness Testimony as Evidence W/O cross-exam at Hearing in Lancaster.* Requests That Cw Huver Testimony Be Accepted as Evidence ML20151S0261988-07-28028 July 1988 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Response to Licensee Notification of Typo in Bid Procurement Document.* Explanation for Change in Document Inadequate.W/Svc List ML20196G7801988-06-23023 June 1988 Motion of NRC Staff for Leave to File Response Out of Time.* Encl NRC Response in Support of Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition Delayed Due to Equipment Problems ML20196G9051988-06-23023 June 1988 NRC Staff Response in Support of Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition.* Motion Should Be Granted on Basis That No Genuine Issue Before ASLB or to Be Litigated.Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20196B5091988-06-20020 June 1988 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Response to Licensee Motion or Summary Disposition on Contentions 1-4,5d,6 & 8.* Affidavits of Kz Morgan,R Piccioni,L Kosarek & C Huver & Supporting Documentation Encl ML20154E2301988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Statement of Matl Facts as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue to Be Heard (Contentions 1,2,3 & 8).* ML20154E2081988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition on Alternatives (Contentions 1,2,3 & 8).* Motion Should Be Granted Based on Licensee Meeting Burden of Showing That Alternatives Not Superior to Licensee Proposal ML20154E3491988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Statement of Matl Facts as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue to Be Heard (Contention 5d).* ML20154E2851988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Statement of Matl Facts as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue to Be Heard (Contentions 4b in Part & 6 on Chemicals).* ML20154E3251988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 5d.* Motion Should Be Granted in Licensee Favor ML20154E2681988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition of Contentions 4b in Part & 6 (Chemicals).* Licensee Entitled to Decision in Favor on Contentions & Motion Should Be Granted ML20154E1631988-05-0909 May 1988 Licensee Statement of Matl Facts as to Which No Genuine Issue to Be Heard (Contentions 4b in part,4c & 4d).* Lists Matl Facts for Which No Genuine Issue Exists ML20154E1281988-05-0909 May 1988 Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition of Contentions 4b (in part),4c & 4d.* Requests That Motion for Summary Disposition Be Granted on Basis That No Genuine Issue of Matl Fact Exists to Be Heard Re Contentions ML20154E1761988-05-0909 May 1988 Licensee Memorandum of Law in Support of Motions for Summary Disposition.* Requests Ample Notice Should Board Decide to Deny Summary in Part or in Whole ML20151E9491988-04-0707 April 1988 Licensee Answer to Intervenor Motion for Order on Production of Info on Disposal Sys Installation & Testing.* Intervenor 880330 Motion Should Be Denied Due to Insufficient Legal Basis.W/Certificate of Svc ML20150F9821988-04-0101 April 1988 Licensee Answer to Intervenors Motion to Compel Discovery.* Motion Should Be Denied on Basis That Licensee Responded Fully to Discovery Request.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20148P3931988-03-30030 March 1988 Valley Alliance & TMI Alert Motion to Request That Presiding Judge Order Gpu Nuclear to Provide Addl Info & Clarify Intentions to Install Test & Conduct Experiments W/Evaporator Prior to Hearings.* ML20196D2801988-02-12012 February 1988 NRC Staff Response to Motion by TMI Alert/Susquehanna Valley Alliance for Extension of Discovery.* Motion Should Be Denied.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20196D3541988-02-10010 February 1988 Licensee Response Opposing Susquehanna Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Intervenor Motion for Extension of Time for Discovery.* Joint Intervenors Failed to Show Good Cause for Extension of Time for Discovery.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20148D4661988-01-19019 January 1988 Licensee Objection to Special Prehearing Conference Order.* Board Requested to Clarify 880105 Order Consistent W/ Discussed Description of Board Jurisdiction & Scope of Proceeding.W/Certificate of Svc ML20236N9081987-11-0505 November 1987 Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement Agreement & for Termination of Proceeding.* Termination of Proceeding Should Be Granted ML20235F3651987-09-23023 September 1987 Util Response Opposing NRC Staff Motion to Rescind Protective Order.* Response Opposing Protective Order Guarding Confidentiality of Document Re Methodology of Bechtel Internal Audit Group ML20235B3911987-09-18018 September 1987 NRC Staff Motion for Extension of Time.* Staff Requests Short Extension of Time Until 870925 to File Responses to Pending Petitions.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20235F4401987-09-18018 September 1987 Util Supplemental Response to NRC Staff First Request for Admissions.* Util Objects to Request as Vague in Not Specifying Time Frame or Defining Proprietary, Pecuniary.... W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20238E6001987-09-0404 September 1987 NRC Staff Motion to Rescind Protective Order.* Protective Order Should Be Rescinded & Presiding Officer Should Take Further Action as Deemed Appropriate.W/ Certificate of Svc ML20238E6391987-09-0303 September 1987 Commonwealth of PA Statement in Support of Request for Hearing & Petition to Participate as Interested State.* Susquehanna Valley Alliance 870728 Request for Hearing, Notice of Appearance & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20237J9931987-08-12012 August 1987 Joint Gpu & NRC Staff Motion for Protective Order.* Order Will Resolve Discovery Dispute ML20237K0431987-08-11011 August 1987 Gpu Response Opposing Parks Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum.* Exhibits & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236P1871987-08-0505 August 1987 Formal Response of Rd Parks to Subpoena Duces Tecum of Gpu &/Or,In Alternative,Motion to Quash/Modify Subpoena Due to Privileged Info.* Documents Are Communications Protected by Atty/Client Privilege.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236E7101987-07-28028 July 1987 Joint General Public Utils Nuclear Corp & NRC Staff Motion for Protective Order.* Adoption & Signature of Encl Proposed Order Requested ML20216J7871987-06-29029 June 1987 Opposition of Gpu Nuclear Corp to Aamodt Motion for Reconsideration.* Motion Asserts Board Did Not Consider Important Evidence on Leakage at TMI-2.W/Certificate of Svc ML20216D2311987-06-23023 June 1987 Response of Jg Herbein to Aamodt Request for Review & Motion for Reconsideration.* Opportunity for Comment Should Come After NRC Has Made Recommendations to Commission.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20215J8981987-06-19019 June 1987 Response of Numerous Employees to Aamodt Request to File Comments on Recommended Decision.* Numerous Employees Do Not Agree W/Aamodt That Recommended Decision Is Greatly in Error.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20215K2121987-06-17017 June 1987 (Motion for reconsideration,870610).* Corrections to Pages 3 & 4 Listed ML20215J7551987-06-15015 June 1987 Gpu Response to Motion to Quash Subpoena.* Dept of Labor 870601 Motion to Quash Subpoena Served on D Feinberg Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc 1992-12-30
[Table view] |
Text
x.
4 p rj v r.T" LIC 4/2/82 l
.g p -5 fM M UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289 '
) (Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear )
Station, Unit No. 1) )
LICENSEE'S REPLY TO INTERVENOR SHOLLY'S RESPONSE TO ORAL BOARD ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO REOPEN THE RECORD I. Introduction Pursuant to its Memorandum and Order of March 2, 1982, the Board presided over a preliminary hearing on March 18, 1982, the purpose of which was to determine whether the evidentiary record in this proceeding should be reopened. The need for this preliminary hearing grew out of motions filed by intervenors UCS and Sholly on September 10, 1981, which requested that the record on plant design and procedures issues be reopened to receive additional information regarding a memorandum entitled
" Recommendations of TMI-2 IE Investigation Team (Operational Aspects)" (the " Martin Report"). Intervenors assert that several of the recommendations set forth in the Martin Report are sub-stantively the same as the positions adopted by the intervenors during the litigation of several contentions in this proceeding, and contrary to those put forward by the Staff.
8204080451
{DRADOCKo!hh0hs9 PDR
. Licenseeb ! and the Staff ! filed responses opposing the intervenors' motions, arguing that the motions were not timely (given the notice of the Martin Report in the May, 1980 Action Plan, NUREG-0660) and did not raise such significant new safety issues to warrant reopening the record. The Board took the matter under advisement, and on February 9, 1982, following the issuance of its. Partial Initial Decision on plant design and procedures issues, initiated a telephone conference call in order to establish a procedure for resolution of the motions. During the conference call, tne Board set forth its findings as follows:
(1) The discovery process in this case failed, through no fault of the Staff or intervenors, re-sulting in the late discovery of the Martin Report.
The Board, therefore, found that the motions were timely made.
(2) The affidav.ts submitted by the authors of the Martin Report Jn support of the Staff's Response of September 30, 1981, did not reveal the technical bases for the Martin Report recommendations and the Board therefore could not determine whether the information underlying the Martin Report would materially affect its Partial Initial Decision.
See February 11, 1982 Memorandum of February 9, 1982 Telephone 1/ Licensee's Answer to Motions by Intervenors Sholly and UCS to Reopen the Record and for Further Relief, dated October 5, 1981.
2/ NRC Response in Opposition to Sholly and UCS Motions to Reopen the Record and for Further Relief, dated September 30, 1981.
, Conference Regarding Intervenors' Motions to Reopen Evidentiary Record (" Memorandum of February 9, 1982 Telephone Conference"),
at 2, 3. The Board further suggested several procedures for resolving the second issue set forth above, and at the close of the conference call the parties agreed to attempt to proceed informally in order to bring this matter to a conclusion. Mem-orandum of February 9, 1982 Telephone Conference at 4-6.
For reasons which need not be set forth here, informal procedures could not be agr.eed upon, and therefore the Board ordered that a preliminary hearing be held on March 18, 1982, at which time the Martin Report authors would be made available for examination by the parties.3/ See, generally, Memorandum and Order Setting Preliminary Hearing, dated March 2, 1982.
In accordance with this Order, the preliminary hearing was convened on March 18, 1982 and fiv.e of the Martin Report authors 4/ were subjected to extensive examination by the parties as to the bases for their recommendations. At.the close of the examination of the witnesses,. the Board requested that the intervenors submit briefs directed particularly at how the testimony given at the preliminary hearing developed technical bases (i.e., facts and analyses) not included in the positions presented by the Staff at the hearing-in-chief or, with reasonable diligence by parties adverse to the Staff, 3/ Informal interviews of two of the Martin Report authors were conducted on March 17, 1982 by the intervenors. The Board was not in attendance.
4/ Messrs. T. T. Martin, D. R. Hunter, A. N. Fasano, D. C.
Kirkpatrick and R. D. Martin (the I&E Operations Team leader).
Two additional members of the Operations Team are no longer employed by the Staff. Tr. 27,060 (R. D. Martin).
could not have been produced.EI Tr. 27,185-27,187 (Smith). The Board additionally provided a schedule for submitting responses
,- to the intervenors' brief.
II. STANDARDS FOR REOPENING In order for the moving party to prevail in reopening an evidentiary record, the motion must be both timely presented 6/
and addressed to a significant safety or environmental issue.
Further, where, as here,,the initial decision has already been rendered, the proponent of the motion must establish that a different result would have been reached if the material submitted in support of the. motion had been initially considered. Kansas Gas and Electric Company, et al. (Wolf Creek Generating Statior.,
Unit No. 1), ALAB-462, 7 N.R.C. 320, 328 (1978); see also, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units _1 and 2), CLI-81-05, 13 N.R.C. 361, 362-363 (1981).
In order to' meet the standards set forth above, the Board
, has mandated that 4
[t]he burden would be upon the intervenors to demonstrate in detail that-the facts and analyses underlying the Staff positions on 5/ Intervenors.were given the opportunity at the preliminary Eearing to present oral argument outlining any-non-technical bases.
in support of their motion. See Tr. 27,186-28,187 ..(Smith) .
6/- Licensee maintains that the'intervenors' motions to reopen were not timely made. See " Licensee's Answer to Motions...",
' dated October 5, 1981 at 4-11. However, in view of the Board's holding that the motions were timely under the facts of this case (Memorandum of February 9,1982 Telephone Conference at 2) ,
Licensee will not repeat those arguments here.
l
, the respective issues during the hearing did i not include the facts and analyses underlying the Martin Report conclusions. Implicit but unstated in this step was the requirement that it be demonstrated.that any excluded material facts and analyses would materially affect the Board's decision.
Memorandum of February 9, 1982 Telephone Conference at 4-5, see also Tr. 27,187 (Smith).
In addition to the general standards of law for reopening an evidentiary record and the specific demonstration required by the Board, Licensee believes that the Board's consideration of Mr. Sholly's motion must also be guided by the scope of the hearing as set forth in the Commission's Order and Notice of Hearing, that is, whether the short-term and long-term actions recommended by the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation are necessary and sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that the facility can be operated without endangering the health and safety of the public. Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1), CLI 79-8, 10 N.R.C. 141, 148 (1979).
III. ARGUMENT Pursuant to the Board's order announced at the March 18, 1982 preliminary hearing, intervenor Sholly submitted his
... Response to Oral Board Order Regarding Motion to Reopen the Record" on March '26, 1982 '("Sholly Response"). In accordance with the Board's request that the intervenors identify any portions of their original motions which have been withdrawn as a result of information developed during the preliminary hearing (Tr. 27,188)
. Mr. Sholly completely withdrew those portions of his original motion which dealt with Martin Report recommendation C.l.a.15 (Instrumentation Failure Modes) and recommendation C.1.b.3 (ICS).
Sholly Response at 4, 9.
Mr. Sholly's initial "... Motion to Reopen the Record...",
dated September 10, 1981 ("Sholly Motion") also sought to reopen the record with respect to Martin Report recommendation C.l.a.16, Multipoint Recorders. Sholly Motion at 7. Mr. Sholly now with-draws his motion with respect to this issue, but suggests that the Board consider requesting the Staff to examine the use of multipoint recorders in the TMI-1 control room and that this issue be reported to the Commission in connection with its immediate effectiveness review. Sholly Response at 5. With respect to the present TMI-l control room recorders, Licensee calls the Board's attention to Licensee Ex. 23, "A Review of the Three Mile Island Unit 1 Control Room from a Human Factors View-point." The review team which prepared that report specifically recommended that Licensee initiate a long-term program of recorder replacement following appropriate testing of new designs.2/
Lic. Ex. 23 at 14-15 and App. B at 26-27. Licensee has committed to undertake detailed engineering studies in response to the review team recommendations. Lic. Ex. 33 at 3. In view of this commit-7/ Mr. Sholly asserts that had he been aware of criticisms of the control room recording systems, such as that set forth in Martin
~
Report recommendation C.1.a.16, he would have raised this issue on cross-examination. Sholly Motion at 7; see'also Sholly Response at'5. As discussed above, Licensee's human factors review of the control room did note a number of shortcomings with the present recorders which parallel the Martin Report recommendation, yet Mr.
Sholly did not pursue this issue on cross-examination with Licensee's witnesses. See, generally, Tr. 10,239-10,310.
. ment, Licensee sees no point in requiring further Staff review or Commission action.
The sole remaining item for which Mr. Sholly has renewed his motion to reopen relates to Martin Report recommendation C.l.a.4, Control Room Sound Recording System, which Mr. Sholly contends provides support for the audio / video taping system proposed in Sholly proposed finding 160. Sholly Response at 5, passim. Intervenor Sholly asserts that the testimony presented at the preliminary hearing establishes that the lack of such a recording system co,nstitutes a significant safety issue.8/ Id.
at 7. Licensee maintains the positions set forth in its reply findings 155-158 and contends that the testimony presented at the preliminary hearing failed to establish this as a significant safety issue.
In explaining the basis for the recording system recommendation, Mr. R. D. Martin testified that one of the difficulties encountered by the IE team was establishing when actions occurred which were not automatically recorded. Mr.
Martin further testified that "[t]his recommendation falls in the general category of, given that amount of inconvenience, 8/ Licensee notes that intervenor Sholly's response did not explicitly address one of the points requested by the Board --
whether the bases for the Martin Report recommendation differ from the bases underlying the positions adopted by the Staff during the hearing. Licensee submits that there are no such differences; rather, both groups of witnesses considered the advantages, for post-accident evaluation and investigation, of a recording system. Compare Tr. 10,498-10,501 (Ramirez, Price) and Tr. 27,158-27,160 (R. D. Martin)-. The two groups merely reached different conclusions, based no doubt on the different viewpoints of the two -- human factors considerations.vs. ease of investigation.
o !
_.8-wouldn't it have been nice if there was a recording system" that the investigators could use to reconstruct events. Tr.
27,158 (R. D. Martin) (emphasis added); see also Tr. 27,163 (R. D. Martin).' Licensee does not dispute that a control room
-recording system may be helpful in conducting an after-the-fact investigation or in analyzing operator response to a transient and other human factors considerations.2/ See Sholly Response at 8. A helpful investigative tool does not, however, rise to the level of a significant safety issue.1S/ A control room recording system, by itself, will do nothing to prevent an acci-dent from occurring at TMI-1 nor will it mitigate the consequences of an accident at TMI-1. Intervenor Sholly acknowledges this when he characterizes the system as one which could " assist in the evaluation of future accidents -(should there by any) and transient events." Sholly Response at 8 (emphasis added).
In that the proposed system would not provide any real-time capability to protect the public health and safety, Licensee fails to see how this type of recording system could be deemed "significant" or "necessary", within the scope of this proceeding.
Here guidance may be taken from the Board's Partial Initial Decision, holding that necessary modifications, within the terms of the Commission's hearing order, are those "which would produce 9/ The_ potential uses of-various recording systems in evaluating operator action are being studied-by Licensee. See Licensee RF 158.
10/ -Indeed, while the Martin Report authors stated that a recording system would be nice and would have made the TMI-2 investigation easier, at no point did they characterize such a system as required or.necessary to conduct a-proper investigation.
See, generally, Tr. 27,158-27,163.
d
hE : ,
t j
9 , _9_
tiL TQ
!5 1 ,f a? substantial and additional protection to the public health and n' O>
' safety...". PID 1689. There has been no showing made that a control room recording system would provide even an incremental addition to the level of protection afforded the public during
.TMI-l operations.
Intervenor Sholly has also attempted to overcome the concerns expressed by the Board, the Staff and Licensee regarding the inhibiting factor that recording would have. See PID 1920, Licensee RF 156, 158. Mr. Sholly cites Mr. R. D. Martin's testimony that these potential chilling effects were considered, but the recommendation as written was reached nonetheless. .Sholly Response at 7. Licensee here believes that the Board must weigh the respective qualifications of the earlier Staff witnesses with
- the Martin Report authors -- and must conclude, based on the human factors considerations inherent in such a system, that the i opinion of those with expertise in this field must hold sway.
In sum, then, Licensee does r^4 balieve that intervenor
, Sholly has made the requisite showi ti th t the proposed control room recording system is of suffit.ient alety significance to-warrant reopening the evidentiary record on this issue or that-
.a'different result would have been reached initially if this
?
2 4
,--r -va e - r, - r + .-,n- ,- - , . ,. ,
additional evidence had been considered. Accordingly, the Board should deny Mr. Sholly's motion.
Respectfully submitted SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE w <
Thomas A. Baxter, P.C.
Counsel for Licensee 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 822-1090 Dated: April 2, 1982 5
! LIC 4/2/82 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In 'the Matter of )
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289
) (Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear )
Stat.'on, Unit No. 1) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Licensee's Reply to UCS' Comments. Subsequent to Preliminary Hearing Concerning the Martin Report" and " Licensee's Reply to Intervenor Sholly's Response to Oral Board Order Regarding Motion to Reopen the Record" were served this 2nd day of April, 1982, by hand delivery upon the parties identified by an asterisk and by deposit in the U.S. mail, first class, postage prepaid, to the other parties on the attached Service List.
Thomas A. Baxter, P.C.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Dccket No. 50-289
) (Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear ) -
Station, Unit No. 1) )
SERVICE LIST
- Ivan W. Smith, Esquire John A. Ievin, Esquire Chai=ran Assistant Counsel AtcInic Safety and Licensing Pennsylvania Public Utility ,Ccmnission Board P,0. Box 3265 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory C = iasion Fa M ahurg, Pennsylvania 17120 Washington, D.C. 20555 Karin W. Carter, Esquire Dr. Walter H. Jordan Rcbert Adler, Esquire AtcInic Safety and Licensing Assistant Attorney General ,
Board Panel 505 Executive House 881 West Outer Drive P.O. Box 2357 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Dr. Linda W. Little John E. Minnich Atcmic Safety and Licensing Chaiman, Dauphin 03unty Board Board Panel of Ccmnissioners 5000 Hermitage Drive Dauphin County Courthouse Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 Front and Parket Streets Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 James M. Cutchin, IV, Esquire Office of the Executive Legal Director Walter W. Cohen, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmnission Consumer Advocate Washington, D.C. 20555 Office of Consener Advocate 1425 Straterry Square Docketing and Service Section Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17127 Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission Dr. John H. Buck Washington, D.C. 20555 Atcznic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel Gary J. Edles, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Pagulatory Ccmrission Chairman Washington, D.C. 20555 Atcm1 Safety and Licensing Appeal Dr. Reginald L. Gotchy U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission AtcInic Safety and Licersing Acceal pg Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory C - insion Washington, D.C. 20555
. Jordan D. Cunningham, Esquire Pcbert Q. Pollard 2320 North Second Street 609 M:ntpelier Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 Baltinere, Maryland 21218 Ms. Iouise Bradford Chauncey Kepford 2II ALERr Judith H. Johrsrud 1011 Green Street Environmental Coalition on N M aar Power Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17102 433 Orlando Avenue State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Ellyn R. Weiss, Esqtu.re Harnon & Wai=s Marvin I. Iewis 1725 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 506 6504 Bradford Terrace Washington, D.C. 20006 Philadelphia, Pennsylvadia 19149 Steven C. Sholly Marjorie M. Aanodt Union of Concerned Scientists R. D. 5 1346 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 1101 Coatesville, Pennsylvania 19320 Washington, D.C. 20036 Thorras J. Germine, Esquire Ga.11 B. Phelps Deputy At'wrney General ANGRY Division of Iaw - Rcam 316 245 West Philadelphia Street 1100 Raynend Boulevard
. York, Pennsylvania 17404 Newark, New Jersey ~07102 William S. Jordan, III, Esquire Harnen & Weiss 1725 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 506 Washingten, D.C. 20006
.