ML20057B792
| ML20057B792 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 12/01/1983 |
| From: | Plaine H NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20049A457 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-92-436 SECY-83-489, NUDOCS 9309240015 | |
| Download: ML20057B792 (43) | |
Text
- - - - - -
l~
s pH #f D h
E Yz!
1
- 3 e
o.\\.v/
ADJUDICATORY ISSUE (Notation Vote) sycy_33_43, December 1, 1983 For:
The Commission From:
Herzel H.
E. Plaine General Counsel
Subject:
UCS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PARTICIPATE IN DECEMBER 5 COMMISSION MEETING ON TMI Discussion:
The Commission in the November 9, 1983 Notice to the Parties stated that it wished to hear from GPU at an open meeting "on GPU's June 10, 1983 management organization proposal and any subsequent changes."
In an order dated November 18, 1983, the Commission stated that it would " provide the other parties to the management phase of the restart proceeding --
TMIA, the Aamodts and the NRC staff -- an opportunity to make oral presentations on GPU's organizational proposal" at a meeting tentatively scheduled for December 5.
On November 25, 1983 the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) moved for permission }o December 5 meetiAq.
As.--
participate in t %we recommEnT tKat explained below,;
~
s-au=
1UCS in its November 25 motion also objected to the scheduled Commission meeting with GPU as violating the ex parte rules.
UCS noted that the disagreement between the NRC and UCS on the legality of such meetings "will be settled only in the context of judicial review."
UCS has consistently argued that the Commission's handling of its immediate effectiveness review violates the ex parte rules, and the Commission has consistently rejected that argument.
We see no need to readdress this issue in responding to UCS' motion.
,, o 4,,)<
rn.. J,u.
J
,f
Contact:
m 3: rec.c,, m ne in -
a g,,
y
/f//
Rick Levi, OGC, 41465 f:t, ee.n;A m
~ ~ ~ ~ -
I /
9309240015 930428 f 0p". - -7.2 //34- - - - - - -
r l
C 2
The Parties' Positions UCS argues that its participation in the proceeding shows that it has a direct interest in the management issues, that it has demon-strated its capability to contribute substan-tially to the record, and that it therefore should be allowed to participate.2 UCS in arguing that it has participated in the management phase of the proceeding states that it has consistently raised and pursued the inter-connection between management issues and hardware issues, and that it has commented on management issues at every opportunity since its May 24, 1983 discovery "that the NRC Staff had found the Hartman allegations to'be substantiated as early as the winter of 1980 Finally, UCS notes that it intended to participate in cooperation with other parties in the reopened proceeding on the Hartman allegations.
Although neither the staff nor GPU has yet commented on UCS' request to participate in the December 5 meeting, both the staff and GPU opposed UCS' motion to comment on the review of ALAB-738.
See Note 2, supra.
We will briefly summarize this earlier opposition because we believe i
l' / l_
L UCS sets forth these reasons in its October 25 Motion for Leave to File Response to Commission Order of October 7, 1983 [the order taking review of ALAB-738, the Appeal Board decision to reopen the evidentiary record on the Hartman allegations].
The Commission in the order taking review of ALAB-738 provided that GPU, the NRC staff, TMIA, the Aamodts and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania could submit comments.
UCS also submitted comments and requested the Commission to consider them.
We will deal with that request in our paper on ALAB-738.
4
3 The staff, noting that UCS chose not to participate in either the original hearings on management or the reopened hearing on cheating, stated it "does not favor permitting UCS to ' step into and out of the consideration of a particular issue at will.'
Prairie Island [ALAB-288, 2 NRC 390, 393 (1975)]."
GPU argues that UCS chose not to participate in the management hearings, and that its motion should therefore be denied.
Both staff and GPU also note that the Licensing Board told the parties that failure to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law would be deemed a default, and that UCS filed no findings on the management issues.
Analysis. _ _. _ _ _
1
\\
v7)r Li m
v i
4 could simply find that s _'.
's
~
On the other hand, one could reasonably conclude that
('
,. -.j Thus we believe 1
I i
i t
i
(
i i
we may'Wish~to argue in court that This irgument would be consid-
~
erably weakened f
In r'esponse'to this argument, Isu '-
5 I
g The major an nent c
1 On balance, g
1 In addition, we note that
\\
i,
_,,,W'"
One can also arque that i
\\
1 1
1
6 Recommendation:
ff 79N Nfhcq Herzel H., E.
Plaine Genteral Counsel Attachments:
1.
Draft order 2.
11/25/83 UCS motion to participate 3.
10/25/83 UCS motion to respond to ALAB-738 4.
Staff response to 10/25 UCS motion 5.
GPU response to 10/25 UCS motion Commissioners' comments or consent should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b. Friday, December 2, 1983.
j DISTRIBUTION:
1 Commissioners OGC OPE SECY
{
i
\\
1 1
1 i
I l
l I
I i
r f
3
[ Tb/.
l
/
f I
l N,
e e
d 1
f e
I b
r B
00CKETE0 USHRC UCS 11/23/83 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
'83 NOV 25 P12:03 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFi:E OF SECRE'As
- 00CKETf'JG & SEfivr BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BRANCH In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No.1)
)
UCS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PARTICIPATE IN COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 5. 1983 f
On October 24, 1983, UCS filed a " Motion for Leave to File Response to Commission Order of October 7,1983".
In that motion, we detailed UCS's participation in the issue of GPU management competence and integrity and asked the Commission to reverse its exclusion of UCS from the parties permitted to participate in the Commission's consideration of these issues.
There has been no Commission response to that motion.
On November 21, 1983, the Commission issued an order permitting GPU to address the Commission on November 28 on its June 10, 1983 management organization proposal and any subsequent changes. The other parties.
TMI-Alert, the Aamodts and the NRC Staff, are to be given an opportunity a l
week later, on December 5, to make oral presentations to the Commission in response. UCS was again excluded, although there is no ruling on our motion.
UCS therefore moves for permission to participate in that presentation, as well as any future Comission consideration of these issues for the same 4
reasons stated in our October 24, 1983, motion.
i It ill behooves the Staff, which kept the evidence of leak rate falsification from the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and the public record, failed to conduct its own investigation for three years and now urges that hearings be put off for six more months while it investigates, to object to the participation of UCS in the resolution of ti ese matters. UCS will i
certainly cause no delay in resolution and can reasonably be expected to assist in developing the record.
We note that UCS only learned on May 24, 1983 that the Staff had confirmed the leak rate falsification years earlier.
Any attempt to pursue the issue earlier would certainly have been forestalled by the ongoing D2partment of Justice investigation and the Staff's position that it could not complete its investigation or make its evidence known until the Department of Justice was finished.
Since May 24, 1983, UCS has participated in every opportunity provided to analyze and comment upon these issues.
Finally, we wish to register an objection to the Comission's unprecedented handling of these presentations. We have previously noted on several occasions that the course of conduct upon which the Comission is embarked, and of which this is the latest example, amounts to taking evidence on disputed factual issues directly relevant to an adjudication from one party on an ex parte basis, without the opportunity for questioning or effective rebuttal from the other parties.
It is apparent, however, that this disagreement between us as to the applicable principles of law will be settled only in the context of judicial review.
Putting that fundamental issue aside, however, if the Comission wished to hear the views of the parties on some particular questions, we suggest that
. l it should have posed the questions to all parties, requested written responses from all (on an expedited schedule, if it wished) and then scheduled an ' oral, presentation where all parties could have simultaneously responded. That is the practig,e in virtually every other oral argument and is nothing more than basic procedural fairness. The parties have a right to know the facts and arguments to be put forward by other parties and an opportunity to meet them on an equal basis.
Conclusion UCS moves the Comission to pemit it to participate in the oral presentations of December 5,1983, and any future Comission consideration of GPU manacement competence and integrity.
(
([eine tfully submitted, R
q i
J
\\ )
)
t D iyn R. /e is' -
i General Counsel, Union of Concerned Scientists j
DATED: November 23, 1983
DOCKETED USHRC
~83 NW 25 R2:03 UNITED STATES of AMEalCA OffCE CF $h;g.
00CKETPG & SEiiv:f.-
NUCLEAR REGULATORi COMrt 15510 N cRANC8f DEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Ma t t e r of.
)
)
MET R OPOL I T A N EDISON COMPANT
)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Restart)
(Three. Mile Island Nuclear
)
S ta tion. Unit No. 1)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PARTICIPATE IN COM!1lSSION MEETING OF-DECEMBER 5, 1983" have been served on the following persons by deposit in the United States mail, first class postage, this 23rd day of November, 1983.
Huntio Palladino, Chairman Dr. Linda V.
Little U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comsission Atocic Safety and Licensing Va%1n g to n, D.C. 20555 Board Panel 5000 Hermitage Drive Frederick M. B'e rnthal Commissioner Raleigh. North Carolina 27612 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Co,mmission Vashington, D.C. 20555 Professor Gary L. M11bollin 4412 Creenwich Parkway James Asselstine. Commissioner Va shin g to n,
D. C.
20007 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coavnission Vashington, D.C.
20555 Judge Cary J. Edles. Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Victor Gilinsky. Comi s s ion e'r Appeal Bosed U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington. 0.C. 20555 Vashington, D.C. 20555 Th ore a s Roberts. Commissioner Judge John H.
Duck U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atcrnic Sa f ety and Licensing Vashington.
D. C.
20555 Appesl Bo ard Panel U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comcni s s io n Ivan V. Smith. Chairinan Vashington D.C.
20555 Atomic Sa fety and Licensing Board Panel Judge Reginald L. Cotchy U.S.
Nuclear R:gulatory Commission Atomic Sa rcty and Licensing
a s hi n g to n.
O.C.
20555 Appeal Doard Panel U.S.
Huc1 car Regulatory Commission
' f a s h i n a. t o n D.C.
20555 De ualter H.
Jordan A l '" I c Sa fet y and Licenstnr.
Goard Panet Jusge thr 1 st in e H.
Kohl 881 ue st Guter Octve Atomic Sa fe t y and Li c e n s.i n t
') 3 L Widre_ Tennessee 37830 appeal Doard Panet wu r i r.i r Regutatory Commtsalon ts. 5,
- ,r yn,qs e
l 4
/
rir 3 ttar jor4 r Aamodt M :. CJs1 U.
I'h e l D 'e 245 uest Phi l ad el pn t a Street R. D.
75 Coatsvtile,rennsylvania 19320 fork. Pennsylvania 17404 Steven C. Sholly Robert Adler. Es q.
Assistant Attorney General Union or Concerned Scientists 505 Erecutive abuse i346 Connecticut Ave..
N.V.
Suite 1101 P.O.
Do r 2357 Herrisburg. Pennsylvania 17120 Washington.
D. C.
20036 Joseph R.
Cray Loui s e Bradford Orrice of Executive Legal Director Three Mile Island Alert u.s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 325 Perrer Street Harrisburg. Pennsylvania 17102 washington, D. C.
20555 Es Jordan D. Cunningham. Esq.
Tho mas EaxteePolts 2 Troubridge For. Farr & Cunninghsm Shaw. Pi ttm an.
1800 n street.
N.V.
2320 North second street Harrisburg. Pennsylvania 17110 Va-hington. D.C.
20036 Docketing and Service Section Dr. Judith H.
Johnsrud Orrice of the Sc.cretary Dr. Chaunecy Kepford U.S. Nucicar Redulatory Commission Environmental Coalition on Vashington, D.C. 20555 Nucicar Power 433 Oriendo Avenue State Coll eg e. PA 16601 V1111am S. Jordan. III Harmon & Veiss
((
g(,
1725 I street.
N.V.
Suite 506
/
washington. D.C.
20006 John A.
Levin. Es q.
Assistant Coun s e l Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission P.O.
Bo r 3265 Harrisburg. Pennsylvania 17120
1 i
i l
l l
i l
l l
r J
1 A..tt..achment 3
\\
I l
f%
l
/
)
,n
\\
/
J,
~
\\
/fNs v
/
\\
i i
i l
i J
l 1
i l
l
I cuEm u. ';n
- 83 00I 25 All:19 Of(
. Q?, 9_;
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
- Q' '["[ U NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULAMRY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket tb. 50-289
)
(Restart)
(tree Mile Island tbclear
)
Station, Unit !b.1)
)
)
UNION OF COtCERNED SCIENTISTS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE RESPONSE TO COMMISSION ORDER OF OC'IOBER 7,1983 On October 7,1983, the Comission filed an Order in the above captioned proceeding. Se Order temporarily stayed the Atmic Safety and Licensing Board remanded hearing on the so-called "Fbrtman allegations" and their relationship to General Public Utilities' managenent canpetence and integrity and sotxght certain parties' views on continuing the stay pending completion of the investigation of this and other matters by NRC's Office of Investigations.
%e Commission sotrJ t the views of the Aamodts, Wree Mile Island Alert, h
General Public Utilities, the NRC Staff ard the Conmonwealth because "no other party participated in the litigation of management issues before the Licensing Ibard. "
While it is true that UCS did not participate in the original litigation on managenent empetence before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, we have
W
. consistently raised arx3 pursued the inter-connection betwen issues arising out of the management phase of the hearings and the issues b?ing treated in the design and operational safety phase of the hearings. Na first explained this interrelationship in a pleading with the Commission prior to the hearings before the Special Master on Operator Cheating. See Union of Concerned Scientists' Coments on Relationship Between Reopened Proceeding on Cheating and Innediate Ef fectiveness, January 13, 1982.
Af ter the Special Master found that many instances of cheating and misconduct had occurred in connection with operator examinations administered at M I, that General Public Utilities' response had been inadegaate and that the training and testing program was poorly related to the skills needed to operate a nuclear plant, LCS pointed out to the Atcznic Safety and Licensing Board a nunber of specific instances where the original conclusions of the Partial Initial Ibcision on design and operational safety, Decenber 14, 1981 were thereby undermined and required reconsideration. Union of Concerned Scientists' Comnents on Report of the Special Master, my 18, 1982.
(A copy of that pleading is attached for the Ccxtmissioners.)
In brief, this pleading denonstrates that the Atcznic Safety arx3 Licensing Board's resolution of many design and operational safety issues raised by UCS was based explicitly or implicitly upon findings of an extraordinarily high degree of operator competence and managenent competence and integrity on the part of GPU. We believe that these findings were called profoundly into question by the disclosure of cheating and of a managanent attitu3e that allowed it to occur.
'Ihe Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, in its decision, accepted many of the factual findings of the Special Master while rejecting others and rejecting the overall thrust of the Special mster's Report, which fourx3 a pervasive lack of integrity as well as widespread deficiencies in the content
b
. of both the Licensee's training and testing program and NRC's testing program (Report of We Special Master, Paragraphs 251, 285-287, 15 NRC 918, 1020, 1034).
We Atcznic Safety and Licensing Board rejected LCS's call for it to assess the relationship between the findings of the Special Master on i
cmpetence and integrity ard the design and operational safety issues.
Partial Initial Decision (Reopened Proceeding), LBP-82-56,16 NRC 281, Paragraphs 2410, p.38-s82.
(CS therefore appealed. Wat appeal is now perding before the Appeal Board alorx3 with all of the other managment issues.
See Union of Concerned Scientists' Brief on Exception to Partial Initial Decision (Reopened Proceeding), Septaber 30, 1982. A copy is attached for the Canitissioners. Wat brief generally argues that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board overlooked or gave insufficient weight to three points:
1.
Ethics cannot be separated frm ecznpetence.
2.
Many of the persons directly involved in miscondtx:t were at the level of GPU managment; new procedures implemented by this manag m ent will not ensure against future deception, j
3.
Bath the content of the training as well as the integrity of persons was found deficient.
Wus, UCS has a direct, docunented and continuing interest in the j
l remanded proceeding, which raises campetence and integrity issues which cannot be artifically separated from the NRC's consideration of design and operational questions.
In addition, since our discovery on May 24, 1983 of the fact that the NRC Staff had found the Hart 2 nan allegations to be substantiated as early as the winter of 1980, (a discovery which we made at the same time that the disclosure was made to the Comission), UCS has reviewed the relationship of these charges to the Restart proceeding and has fully participated in every opportunity to carment before the Comission ard the Appeal Board. See e.g.
b
_4_
LCS Coninents on Appeal Board Order of June 16,1983, July 1,1983; LCS Coments on Comission Briefing of May 24,1983 (Leak Rate Falsification) and objection to Ex Parte Ccmnunication, June 3,1983; (CS Support of AamMts' tbtion for Provision of Information, June 27, 1983; UCS Comments on Dircks' MemoraMun "Canpletion of MI-l Restart Review", June 7,1983, June 14,1983.
Indeed, in some cases, UCS has been the only Intervenor with the resources to provide alternative analysis of the Staff and GPU positions.
In AIAB - 738, the Appeal Board decision which reopened this proceeding to take evidence on the charges of systanatic leak rate falsification, the Appeal Board found as follows: "We believe the most fruitful way to achieve this (move forward on the Hartman allegations and discharge its independent responsibility to protect public health and safety] is within the adjudicatory setting and with the active participation of all parties."
(ALAB - 738, Sl.op. at 25, Aug. 31, 1983) We believe that these words were used advisedly.
It is UCS's intention to participate in the Reopened P':oceeding in cooperation with the other parties, particularly 'Ihree Mile Island Alert.
(bunsel for LCS and mI Alert have had extensive discussions to coordinate our participation and were, before the proceeding was stayed, in the process of preparing a joint filing to the Atanic Safety and Licensing Board in response to its Itnorandun and Order of September 14, 1983. 'Ihis filing sets out, inter alia, the two parties' joint understanding of the scope of the issues and i
preliminary discovery requests.
'Ihus, in sunnary,1) UCS is already a participant in the managenent phase of these proceedirgs at the appellate level and has raised in that context the relationship between management competence and integrity and public health and safety, 2) has participated fully Wor; the Contnission and Appeal Board on these matters at each opportunity since the disclosure that
k
< the Staff believed in 1980 that the Hartman allegations were true, and 3) intends to participate in the Reopened Proceeding ordered by the ALAB - 738 in cooperation with other parties, notably 'IMI Alert. 'Iberefore, LCS has a direct interest in this proceeding, has deuonstrated its capability to contribute substantially to the record, and is entitled to file a response to the Comission's Order of 0-tober 7,1983.
The exclusion of UCS would not only be an abuse of discretion, it would indicate that the Comission wishes to excitde frcm participa' tion the only Intervenor with even a modest amount of financial resources.
Respectfully submitted, 0)lf
.\\,
Ellyd i. Weiss General
- unsel, Union of Concerned Scientists Enclosures Dated: 0-tober 24, 1983 I
I.
s l
r I
s-I I
UNITED STATES OF AftERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION i
In the Matter of
)
)
METRCPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,)
Unit No. 1)
)
NRC STAFF'S REPLY TO THE PARTIES' RESPONSES TO THE COMf11SSION'S OCTOBER 7, 1983 ORDER At'D NRC STAFF'S ANSWER T0 tlCS'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE RESPONSE TO COMt:ISS10t!'S ORDER OF OCTOBEP 7, 1983 Jack R. Goldberg Counsel for NRC Staff Mary E. Wagner Counsel for NRC Staff November 14, 1983 b
r 4
_i-a i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
-f
~
i t
Pace I. INTRODtlCTION..............................................
1 l
t II.
DISCUSSION.................................................
2 4.
A.
Licensee's Response...................................
2 B.
TF11A's Response.......................................
6 C.
Aamodts' Response..............................
7 t
D.
UCS' Response.........................................
10 III.
CONCLUSI0M.................................................
12 l
i i
h i
l I
i I
e
?
i I
h a
b
(
f
{
s
}
\\
r
i
- ii -
TABLE OF CITATIONS Pace NRC CASES:
Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nucleer Statien, Un'it 1), CLI-81-34, 14 NRC 1097 (1981)............
3 Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), ALAB-738, NRC (August 31, 1983).......................................................
7 Morthern States Power Company (Prairie Island Nuclear C-enerating(Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-288, 2 NRC 390 1975)...........................................
11 Public Service Company of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-493,
~
8 NRC 253 (1978)...........................................
11 Tennessee Valley Authority (Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1-3), ALAB-677, 15 NRC 1387 (1982)...................
A Virginia Electric and Power Comp jan (North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and ?), CLI-76-22, 4 NRC 480 (1976), aff'd, 571 F.2d 1289 (4th Ci r. 1978)...............
5 l
COURT CASES:
Weinstock v. United States, 3'>1 F.2d 699 (D.C. Cir.
1956)...........................................
5 OTHER _ AUTHORITIES:
Statement of Policy on Investigations and Adjudicatory Proceedings, 48 Fed. R_epq.
e 36,358 (August 10,1983)...................................
7 10 CFR $ 2.754(a),(b)...........................................
10
i P.
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, rT AL.)
Docket No. 50-289
)
IThree Mile Island Nuclear Station,)
Unit No. 1)
)
t NPC STAFF'S REPLY TO THE PARTIES' RESPONSES TO THE COMMISSION'S OCTOBER 7, 1983 ORDER AND NRC STAFF'S ANSWEP. TO UCS'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE RESPONSE TO COMMISSION'S ORDER OF GCTOBER 7, 1983 I.
INTRODUCTION By Order dated October 7,1983, the Commission reouested the views of the parties on whether the Licensing Board's hearing on the Hartnan allegations should be stayed until after the Commission's Office of Investigations (01) completes its investigation of that matter and on whether 01 also should complete its pending investigations of the Parks / King, THI-1 leak rate, and RHR/ BETA reportability matters, and of the GPU management competence and integrity issuas identified in NUREG-1020, before any action by the Board on those issues.
Responses were filed by TMIA, the Aanodts, the Licensee, the NRC Staff, and by UCS.1 The Staff hereby provides its reply to the other parties' views on these matters and its answer to UC3's motion for leave to file its views.
-1/
The Commission's October 7th Order limited the filing of briefs on the stay issue to the Aamodts, TMIA, the Licensee, the NRC Staff, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, since "no other party participated in the litigation of nanagement issues before the Licensing Board." Order at 2.
Notwithstanding this order, UCS, on October 24, 1983, filed a response with an accompanying motion for leave to file a response.
I
~.
II. DISCl!SSION a
A.
Licensee's Resonnse Licen'see's position on the stay issue can be briefly stated as follows: Licensee opposes a stay if the Comission views the l
Hartman allegations or any other open issue as a basis for the continued suspension of the WI-1 operating license; if, however, the Commission does not view the open issues as a basis for the continued suspension nf the M1-1 operating license, then the stay should be extended to allow OI to complete its related investigations.
Licensee's i
Response to Comission Order of October 7,1983 (Licensee's Responsel at 10-11. Licensee does not believe that any of the open " concerns" or
" allegations" identified by the Comission in its October 7th Order provide a basis for the continued suspension of the THI-1 operating license.
Id_. at 3-10.
Licensee argues that the concerns which formed the basis for the Comission's irraediately effective shutdown order have been resolved in favor of restart and, therefore, the Comission is t
obligated as a matter of law to lift the suspension of the W I-1 i
operating license.
Id. at 2-3, 10.
l The crux of Licensee's argument is that the bases for the Comission's immediately effeive suspension of the WI-I operating license have been removed by the Licensing Board's three partial initial -
decisions in favor of restart.
It is the Comission, however, which has to decide whether the concerns which provided the basis for the shutdown order have been satisfactorily resolved to find reasonable assurance that WI-1 can be restarted and operated safely. As the Comission has i
held:
j 4
i
).
3-j The Comission is the exclusive administrative body with' the power
~
to determine whether Unit One may restart....
t
.!j 2 Here, a decision by the Comission rather than granting
~
effectiveness to a Licensing Board decision, would be determining, j
based on that decision and other factors, whether the concerns
)
which prompted its original imediate suspension order of August, 1979,,iustify a continuation of that suspension. - If they do not, and the Comission therefore can no longer find that the "public health, safety and interest" manda' s the suspension, then the Corcission is required by law -- whatever the nature of the Licensing Board's decision -- to lift'that suspension imediately.
This is a matter peculiarly within the Comission's knowledge and involving the most discra+ionary aspects of its enforcement
-l authority.
CLI-81-34, 14 NRC 1097, 1098 (1981).
It follows, therefore, that if the i
Commission believes that the open issues do not permit it to find that the concerns which were the basis for the shutdown order have been l
i resolved, then the suspension of the THI-1 operating license need not be j
i lifted. Licensee's argument that the continued suspension of the TMI-1 i
operating license cannot legally be,iustified on the basis of the open i
~
}
" concerns" and " allegations" is simply wrong, since those matters bear on the original bases for suspending the THI-1 operating license and i
may raise doubts for the Comission about whether certain of those bases are fully and sufficiently resolved.E Licensee argues that the j
Licensing Board's partial initial decisions resolved all of the Commission's i
l concerns, but Licensee ignores the fact that the Commission nay find that the open issues cast doubt on whether the Licensing Board's decisions q
4
]
~~2/
The Staff has identified how each one of the open issues raises questions regarding the soundness of the restart record on the management issues which were, in part, the basis for the
_1 imediately effective suspension of the TMI-I operating license.
j See NRC Staff's Answer to Three Mile Island Alert Motion to Reopen the Record and Staff Motion to Defer Ruling on TMIA's Motion to Recpen, June 13, 1983, at 7-8.
m y
-g w
~-,m_
g F
4-fully and sufficiently resolve.those concerns. The Staff, for its part, is unable.tn say that all of the Comission's concerns regarding managemenicompetenceandintegrityhavebeenresolved. The Staff consequently disagrees with Licensee that the suspension must be lifted j
now as a matter of law.
As the Staff stated in NRC Staff's Response to the Comission's e
October 7, 1983 Order, October 27, 1983 (Staff's Response), the Staff supports a stay of the Licensing Board hearing on the Hartman allecations and of action on +% other open issues _/ until 01 completes 3
-3/
One line of argument by Licensee concerning the importance of the "open issues" warrants special coment because of Licensee's clear misinterpretation of the Staff's analysis of the matter.
Specifically, Licensee states that "the Staff has wrongly applied Comission law to view Licensee's failure to have imediately provided (the BETA and RHR] reports as a material false statement by omission." Licensee's Response at 8.
Licensee argues that the Staff incorrectly applied a 1
i
" relevancy" standard rather than a " materiality" standard, as the law requires, in determining whether Licensee's failure to report the contents of the BETA and RHR reports was a material false statement by omission.
Licensee's Response, Attachment (10) at 4-22.
Licensee is wrong in both respects.
By Memorandum to the Comissioners from William J. Dircks dated l'ay 19,1983, the Staff identified open issue (5), regarding the reportability of the BETA and RHR reports and other documents, as follows:
The issue of whether the Licensee failed to promptly notify the Comission or Appeal Board of relevant and material information contained in the BETA or RHR reports or any other documents, which failure may reflect on the Licensee's management integrity.
May 19, 1983 Memorandum at 2 (emphasis added). Thus the first time the Staff identified the issue of reportability it was clear that infomation had to be both relevant and material before an obligation arises to report it.
In the Staff memorandum which is the subject of Licensee's criticism, it is stated that the three primary sources of reporting i
requirements are (1) specific license conditions, (2) "the obligation to alert the Conmission's adjudicatory bodies to 'new information that is relevant and material to the matters being adjudicated,'"
quoting Tennessee Valley Authority (Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1-3), ALAB-677, 15 NRC 1387, 1394 (1982), and (3) the " full (F00TN0TE CONTIt!UED ON NEXT PAGE)
N
- ~
its inves+.igations. The Staff does not agree with Licensee's opposition to a stay in the case where the Comission views the open issues as a basis'for the continued suspension of the TMIA operating license. As l
~
stated in Staff's Response, a hearing on the Hartman allegations or action on the other open issues must, as a practical matter, await the results of 01's investigations on these matters.
See Staff's i
Response at 2-4.
Continuation of footnote 3/ from previous page
-3/
disclosure" doctrine tha+ has developed under section 186 of the Atomic Energy Act. Memorandum for Harold R. Denton from Guy H.
Cunninoham, III, June 17, 1983 (Legal Memorandum), at 1.
The Legal Menorandum then proceeds to reiterate the correct requirement that
'i infernation must be material to give rise to a reporting requirement:
"new information that is relevant and material" (Legal Memorandum at
?; emphasis added); " failures to report material infomation," (id.
at 3; enphasis added); " materiality of an omission or statement,"
(id. at 4; emphasis added); "a material matter o' such ma,ior importance,"
(Td. at 5; emphasis added). There can be no doubt that the Staff aliplied the correct standard for parties' reporting obligations.
Neither can there be any reasonable doubt that the Staff applied the "nateriality" requirenent to the BETA and RHR reports. The entire analysis on pages 4 and 5 of the Legal Memorandum con: erns "the question of the reports' ' tendency' or ' capability' to influence the staff."
Legal Menorandum at 5.
Such an analysis is one of " materiality" not merely " relevancy," using Licensee's own definition of " material" that a " document is not ' material' unless it has probative weight, that is, it is likely to influence the decisionmaker in making a determinatiori required to be made." Licensee's Response. Attachment (10) at 6, citing Weinstock v. United States, 321 F.2d 599, 701 (D.C. Cir. 1956). There should be little doubt that when infomation is capable of influencing the Staff in taking a position on issues in controversy, the information is material. As the Comission has stated, " materiality should be iudged by whether a reaso'nable staff member should consider the information in question in doing his job." Virginia Electric and Power Company (North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-76-22,'4 NRC 480, 486 (1976), aff'd, 571 F.2d 1289 (4th Cir.1978) (quoted in Legal Memorandum at 4).
In summary, the record is clear that the Staff used the correct legal standard in determining that Licensee failed in its J
obligation to promptly report the contents of the BETA and RHR reports to the Comission and the Appeal Board.
1
- s
- 8.
THIA's Response THIA favors proceeding with discovery on the Hartman allegations before 01: completes its investigation into that matter provided that discovery not proceed at an expedited pace and that discovery be scheduled such that the " full cooperation of those who might be involved in or who might have knowledge of the relevant leak rate falsification issues" is available. THIA Connents on Licensing Board Hearing Stay, October 23, 1983 (TPIA's Response) at 2-3.
For the reasons stated in the Staff's Response, the Staff believes that a stay of the entire Licensing Board proceeding (including discovery and hearing) is warranted and, as a practical matter, necessary.
As TMT/ recognizes (TMIA's Response at 3), it is likely that the testimony o# some of the knowledgeable individuals will not be available until after the statute of limitations runs on any potential crines arising out the Hartman allegations. But, at least as far as the Staff is concerned, neither can the relevant documents be made available until after 01 completes its investigation, since the Director of OI has determined that the release of such documents which have not been already made available to the parties could jeopardize the ongoing investigation.
See NRC Staff's Answer to Aamodt Motions for Provision of Information and to Lift Order of Confidentiality from Proceeding on Cheating, June 27, 1983, at 5, 8.
It appears, therefore, that there is little that can be discovered until I
after 01 completes its investigation.
With respect to the other open issues, TMIA states that there "is no reason to wait for OI to connlete its investigation into these i
matters." TMIA's Response at 6.
THIA seems to be referring to the 1
i t
absence of any reason to wait "before reopening the record on the'.
f nanagement competence and integrity issues...." See id. at 4-5.
The only issue on which the record has been reopened, however, i: the Hartman allegations.
ALA9-738. Motions to reopen the record on the basis of the other open issues were denied.
Id. Therefore, absent the granting by the Appeal Board or Commission of any new motion to reopen the record, there is no basis for a hearing on any of the other open issues either be' ore or a#ter 01 completes its investigations into those matters.di t
Ir. conclusion, the Staff disagrees with TMIA that discovery on the Hartman allegations and any action on the other open issues should proceed withcut waiting for 0I to complete its investigations into the i
open issues.
i C.
Aamodts' Response The Aamodts oppose any continued stay of the Licensing Board's f
reopened hearing on Hartman allegations. Aamodt Response To Commission l
Order of October 7, 1983 Concerning Resolution of Management Issues, i
-4/
TMIA claims that the Staff's submission to the Commission of the unexpurgated version of NUREG-1020 is a prohibited ex parte communication. TMIA's Response at 6.
The Staff's submission to the Commission and Boards of the complete version of NUREG-1020 was in accordance with the Commission's August 5, 1983 Statement of Policy on Investigations and Adjudicatory Proceedings, 48 Fed. Rec. 36,358, and served the legitimate purposes stated in that policy statement.
p b
' October 27, 1983 (Aamedts' Response) at 2.
They would have the 01-investigation proceed in parallel with the hearing. Aamodts' Response at 3.
In support of this position, they argue that the Hartman allega-tions already have been investigated, and that a public hearing will develop any additional evidence which might be needed to resolve the matter.
The Aamodts cite three ratters which they claim have elicited
" sufficient evidence" so that an immediate hearing is warranted:
- 1) the preliminary Staff investigation in 1980 (which was never completed);
- 2) the "Faegre & Benson" Report (which did not include a single interview with operatnrs); and 3) the position taken by Babcox & Wilcox in their legal defense of the civil lawsuit brought against them by GPU, 1_d. at 9-10.
In contrast to the Aamodts' view, the Staff believes that completion of the 0; investigation is a necessary prerequisite to any hearing aimed at fully explering and resolving the implications of the Hartmar allegations.
(See Staff's Response at 2-3).
The fact remains i
that a thorough NRC investigation of the Hartman allegations into leak rate falsification, which would allow a full and complete hearing on the matter, has never been completed. The Staff views the ongoing OI investigation as a key, and the first, ingredient in arriving at a Staff position on the inplications of Hartman's allegations for restart.
l The Aamodts also allege that a separate hearing should be ordered to consider two matNr.s "which are highly relevant to the issue of manage-ment integrity and were not fully litigated in the restart proceeding":
- 1) TMI management's " misleading" comunications with the Comonwealth of j
Pennsylvania during the accident and 2) management's withdrawal of the projections of initial high radiation releases over Goldsborough and the related loss of in-plant radiation records. Aamodts' Response at 4, 11-12.
1
i*
_9 The Aamodts make only the most cursory attempt at explaining why these matters are raised at this time, by alluding to "other instances o' withholdino of information."
Id. at Without further explanation of the Aamodt assertions, the Staff is unable to respond to them, other than to note that the only matter that is before the Licensing Board for hearing is the Hartman allegations of falsification of leak rate data, and no motion to consider other natters is currently before the Appeal I
Roard.
Finally, the Aamodts state that the members of the licensing Board who presided over the restart hearing "have disqualified themselves" from further participation, and their objectivity has been discredited.
Aanodts' Response at 12. The Aamodts' attack on the Licensing Board's objectivity is unjustified and unfair. There is nothing in the record of the restart proceeding or in the Licensing Board's conduct of the proceeding that provides any support for even the suggestion that the Licensing Board was not fully ob.iective. While the Staff disagrees with the Aamodts' criticism of the Licensing Board, the Staff would point out that, due to caseload demands, the Board has been reconstituted for the purpose of the hearing into the Hartman matter, with only one of the three original Board members remaining.
In conclusion, the Staff opposes Aamodts' position that hearings on the Hartman allegations and other matters proceed in parallel with OI's investigations because the Staff believes that completion of the 01 I
l
3 l.
frvestigations is a prereouisite to a Staff position on the open issues l
and a thor,ough hearing on the Hartman allegations.E D.
UCS' Response On October 24, 1983, UCS filed the Union of Concerned Scientists' Response to Commission Order of October 7,1983 (UCS' Response) with an accompanying Union of Concerned Scientists' 110 tion for Leave to File Response to Connission Order of October 7,1983, (UCS' Motion).
The Comission's October 7th Order, however, did not grant to UCS the right to file its views on the stay issue since UCS did not participate in the managenent hearing before the Licensing Board. October 7th Order at 2.
See note 1, supra. Neither does UCS have a right to file its views independent of the Conmission's October 7th Order. Since UCS chose not to participate in either the original hearing on management issues or the reopened managerrent hearing on cheating, and did not file proposed findings of fact or conclusions of law as the Licensing Board required of the parties (see "a mgement PID 1 35, 14 NRC 381, 399), UCS 10 CFR may be deemed to be in default on all management issues.
i 2.754(a),(b). The Cecraission also would be fully justified in excluding See UCS from all further hearings, if any, on the management issues.
The Aamodts moved the Commission to "make an immediately effective 5/
decision to permanently deny GPUN their licenses at Unit 1."
Aamodts' The Aamodts do not discuss the legal or factual basis Response at 21.
for " permanently" denying GPU Nuclear Corporation a license to operate Although there are "open issues," the Aamodts have not THI-1.
presented a factual or legal basis for such a drastic action as The Staff permanent revocation of the THI-1 operating license.
therefore opposes that Aamodt motion.
11 _
fublic Service Compary of Indiana (ftarble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, l' nits 1 and ?), ALAB 493, 8 N9C 253, 269 (1978); Northern States Power Company ((rairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-288, 2 NRC 390, 393 (19751.
The Comission therefore has the discretion to consider or to disregard UCS's views on the stay issue. The Staff, for its part, does not favor permitting UCS to " step into and out of the crnsideration of a particular issue at will." Prairie Island, sutra, at 393.
In the event that the Comission does wish to consider t?CS' views, however, the Staff provides the following response to those views.
UCS supports a partial stay of the Licensing Board proceeding but suggests that (1) discovery proceed to the extent practicable ext. apt for the decositions of pertinent operators and management, (2) the OI reports l
of investigation be provided to the parties after the 01 investigations are completed, and (3) the parties be permitted to complete discovery 1
after the Of reports are made available.
l As noted above, the only issue on which the record has been reopened and on which there can be any discovery, before or after 01's investigations are completed, is the Hartman allegations.
With that in mind, the Staff reiterates its view that, as a practical matter, no meaninaful discovery can take place until after 01's investigations are completed.
Consequently, the Staff believes that the entire Licensing
- q. *
?
' ~
Board proceeding on the Hartman allegations should be stayed unti1 after 01 complet,es its investigations.5I III.
C0flCLUSION For the reasons stated above and in Staff's Response to the i
Comission's October 7th Order, the Staff supports a stay of the 1.icensing Board proceeding, including discovery, on the Hartman allegations. The Staff also believes that 01 should complete all the relevant investigations before actions are taken on the other open issues.
Respectfully submitted.
Q,
,,k L-ack R. Gold erg Counsel for NRC Staf /
I f b's 1
Mary Wagner Couns for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 14th day of November, 1983
-6/
In addition, UCS expresses its view that an ultinate decision on nanagement competence and integrity cannot be reached until all of the "open issues" have been resolved. To the extent that UCS intends to imply by this that further proceedings should await the l'
completion of the OI investigations, the Staff agrees with such implication for the reasons previously expressed.
i l
v.*
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0tVIISSION n
PEFORE THE COMMISSION In the !!atter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,)
Unit No. 1)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
{
I hereby cartify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S REPLY TO THE PAP. TIES' RESPONSES TO THE C0fv41SSION'S OCTOBER 7, 1983 ORDER AND NRC STAFF'S l
ANSWED TO UCS'S tiOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE RESPONSE TO C0ft11SSION'S ORDER OF OCTOBER 7,1983" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Comissinn's internal mail system, this 14th day of November, 1983:
- Samuel J. Chilk
- Christine N. Kohl Secretary of the Comission Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal
(
Washington, DC 20555 Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission
- Herzel H. E. Plaine, General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555
- John H. Buck Administrative Judge
- Ivan W. Smith Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Administrative Judge Board i
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board ll.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555 l
Washington, DC 20555 George F. Trowbridge, Esq.
- Sheldon J. Wolfe Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Administrative Judge 1800 M Street, NW Atomic. Safety & Licensing Board Washington, DC 20036 U.S. Nuclear Reculatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Douglas R. Blazey, Esq.
- !1r. Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.
Chief Counsel Administrative Judge Department of Environmental Resources Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 514 Executive House, P.O. Box 2357 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Harrisburg, PA 17120 Washington, DC 20555 Mr. Thomas Gerusky
- Gary J. Edles, Chairman Bureau of Radiation Protection Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Dept. of Environmental Resources U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission P. O. Box 2063 Washington, DC 20555 Harrisburg, PA 17120
l y>
a Gary L. Milhollin, Esq.
Honorable Mark Cohen i
1815 Jefferson Street 512 D-3 Main Capital Building Madison, WI 53711 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Mr. Marvin I. Lewis William S. Jordan, III, Esq.
6504 Bradford Terrace Harmon & Weiss Philadelphia, PA 19149 1725 I Street, NW Suite 506 i
Mr. C. W. Snyth, Supervisor Washington, DC 20006 Licensing TMI-1 Three Mile Island Nuclear Station John Levin, Esq.
P. O. Box 480 Pennsylvania Public Utilities Comm.
Middletown, PA 17057 Box 3265 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Ms. Mar.#orie Aamodt R.D. #5 Jordan D. Cunningham, Esq.
Coatesville, PA 19320 Fox, Farr and Cunningham 2320 North 2nd Street Gail Phelps Harrisburg. PA 17110 ANGRY /TM1 PIRC 1037 Maclay Street Louise Bradford Harrisburg, PA 17103 Three Mile Island Alert 1011 Green Street Allen R. Carter, Chairman Harrisburg, PA 17102 Jcint Legislative Committee on Energy Pcst Office Box 14?
Ms. Ellyn R. Weiss Suite 513 Harmon & Weiss Senate Gressette Building 1725 I Street, NW Columbia, South Carolina 29202 Suite 506 Washington, DC 20006 Chauncey Kepford Judith Johnsrud Mr. Steven C. Sholly Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power Union of Concerned Scientists a33 Orlando Avenue 1346 Connecticut Avenue, NW State College, PA 16801 Dupont Circle Building, Suite 1101 Washington, DC 20036 Ms. Frieda Berryhill, Chairman Coalition for Nuclear Power Plant
- Dr. Lawrence R. Quarles Postponement Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal 2610 Grendon Drive Board Wilmington, Delaware 19808 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Mr. Henry D. Hukill Vice President
- Judge Reginald L. Gotchy GPU Nuclear Corporation Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Post Office Box 480 Board Middletown, PA 17057 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Michael McBride, Esq.
LeBoeuf. Lamb, Leiby & McRae Ms. Jane Lee Suite 1100 R.D. 3; Box 3521 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, NW Etters, PA 17319 Washington, DC 20036
A" t
David E. Cole
- Atomic Safety & Licensing Smith & Smith, P.L.
Board Panel Riverside Law Center U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2931 N. Front Street Washington, DC 20555 Harrisbur'g, PA 17110
- Atomic Safety and' Licensing Appeal Michael W. Maupin, Esquire Board Panel Hunton & Williams U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 707 East liain Street Washington, DC 20555 P. O. Box 1535 Richmond, VA 23212
- Docketina & Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 i
n
,e i
VO
)
fack R. Goldberg Counsel for NRC Staff 4
J
h 5
i t
i i
t t
?
P i
' i i
j' 1
P i
k
+
.e,s-eg.
- s.
4 00CKETED USNRC-LIC 11/14/Q ym-l14 P4 56 93 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOkC V i 5G I ih,k, '
BRANCH BEFORE THE COMMISSION
)
In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289-SP
)
(Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
LICENSEE'S REPLY TO RESPONSES OF OTHER PARTIES TO COMMISSION ORDER OF OCTOBER 7, 1983 Licensee submits this reply to the responses of other par-ties to the Commission Order of October 7, 1983.
Responses were filed by TMIA (TMIA Comments on Licensing Board Hearing Stay
("TMIA Comments")), the Aamodts (Aamod't Response to Commission Order of October 7, 1983 Concerning Resolution of Management Issues ("Aamodt Response")), and the Staff (NRC Staff's Response to the Commission's October 7, 1983 prder (" Staff Response")).
1/
UCS has also filed an unsolicited response to the October 7 Order, accompanied by a motion for leave to file the response.
See Union of Concerned Scientists' Response to Commission Order of October 7, 1983; Union of Concerned Scientists' Motion for Leave to File Response to Commission Order of October 7, 1983
("UCS Motion").
The motion should be denied.
The Commission's Order explicitly invited comments only from those parties that participated in _ the management phase of the restart hearings.
UCS admits at the outset of its motion that it "did not partici-pate in the original litigation on management competence before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board," UCS Motion at 1, which admission alone should foreclose it from filing comments here.
UCS argues, however, that it has a " continuing interest" in the (Continued Next Page)
- .s * !. '.
e 1
2/
In Licensee's response to the Commission Order, we took the position that neither the Hartman allegations nor any of the other subject areas listed in the Commission's October 7 Order provides a basis for questioning the integrity of current GPUN management sufficient to warrant an immediately ef fective shut-down, and therefore the suspension should be lifted now.
Provid-ed that the suspension is promptly lif ted and TMI-1 permitted to restart, we recommended (a) that the temporary stay of the reopened hearing to consider the Hartman allegations be continued pending completion of OI's investigation into that matter, and (b) that OI complete its investigations into the other areas referred to in the October 7 Order before any determinations regarding the l
need, if any, for further hearings or other licensing action are made.
On the other hand, we urged that the Bartman alle-gations, as well as the other areas, be resolved with dispatch (Continued) remanded proceeding, arising from its participation in the design and operational safety phase of the restart hearings.
UCS exaggerates its role in the hearings.
See Licensee's Reply to Comments of Other Parties on the Special Master's Report and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's Tentative Final Draft, at 3-4 ("[N]ot only did UCS play no role in the reopened phase of the management portion of this proceeding, it also did not participate at all in the earlier hearing of the management issues which included extended testimony on Licensee's training programs.") Nor did UCS file any proposed findings in the initial management phase or reopened management hearing, although the Board directed the parties to do so or be subjected.to default under S 2.754 of the Commission's Rules of Practice.
ASLB Orders dated May 22, 1980, and April 22, 1981.
UCS has thus demonstra-ted no entitlement-to submit a response to the Commission's l
October 7 Order.
2/
" Licensee's Response to Commission Order of October 7, nn~-se-
- 1o0,
,oc,"
rnrannnene s e one-n-ean%
ct,na n,
',y g
. P if the Commission views the allegations contained in any of these subject areas as a basis for continued suspension.
The responses of TMIA and the Aamodts apparently assume that lifting the suspension is predicated on resolution of the re-cently voiced concerns and allegations regarding management integrity.
We disagree, for reasons stated in our October 27 response.
TMIA and the Aamodts further assume that resolution of these issues requires complete and full adjudicatory hearings on all of the concerns and allegations.
We disagree with this. view as well.
There c'urrently are no pending motions to reopen.
With the exception of the Hartman matter, the Appeal Board to date has denied all motions to reopen the record on other asserted grounds.
TMIA and the Aamodts agree that neither a Hartman reopened hearing nor determinations on the other. issues should be stayed pending completion of OI's investigations, and appar-ently differ only as to the suggested pace of the proceedings.
The Staff takes the position that the Hartman hearings should be stayed, and all of the other concerns put on hold, pending com-pletion of the OI investigations.
As stated in Licensee's Re-sponse, we believe that if restart is to be dependent upon re-solution of any of these matters by OI or a licensing board, then those matters must be assigned the highest priority and resolved as promptly as possible, not merely at TMIA's convenience.
The 3/
TMIA urges that discovery "not proceed at an expedited pace," TMIA Comments, at 2, while the Aamodts believe the matters "should be heard expeditiously," Aamodt Response, at 20.
,'J. %
_4_
4/
Aamodts apparently concur.
The Staff's view is that the most
~
effective and ef ficient approach is to allow OI to complete its investigations and then to determine which matters, if any, should be aired at hearings.
Licensee agrees with this view, except as to the already reopened Hartman matter so long as the Commission concurs in the Appeal Board's view.that the Hartman matter must be resolved in a hearing and the Commission further bases continued suspension on resolution of the Hartman allegations.
Respectfully submitted, hy.,g1 }. 8 Ib*,.]r.
~~~
Ernest L.
Blake, Jr., @ C.
SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 822-1000 Counsel for Licensee 4/
The Aamodts also agree with Licensee that the Commission has sufficient information before it now to make a determination on restart, although we clearly part company as to what that determination should be.
In Licensee's Response we demonstrated in detail why the suspension ought to be lifted now.
The Aamodt Response, in contrast, deals in unsupported generalities or, where they do cite authority, they cite the Special Master's Report (but of ten ignore the Licensing Board's PID) or their own comments and proposed findings of fact.
A particularly remark-able example of such argument is the Aamodts' assertion that the Faegre & Benson report " concluded that the operators' reports of f alsified leak rates to NRC and f ailure to report numerous other leak rates measured in excess of technical specifications were deliberate actions in violation of the license to operate TMI-2 and NRC regulations."
Aamodt Response, at 10.
This is simply nonsense--the Faegre & Benson report contains no such conclusion.
- 4? b*i, t
- 55?c'"
$3 ggy 74 P4s7 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 00$$f[d[ch fan BEFORE THE COMMISSION BffA C._ _: -
- - - ~
In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Licensee's Reply to Responses of Other Parties to Commission Order of October 7, 1983," dated November 14, 1983, were served on those persons on the attached Service List by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, or where indicated by an asterisk (*) by hand delivery, this 14th day of November, 1983.
/HWb*h Atm 6dorg/ F. Trowbridge, P/C.
Dated:
November 14, 1983 e
- d t *'.
t UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Commission In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289 SP
)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
(Restart - Management Phase)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
SERVICE LIST
- Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman Administrative Judge l
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission John B. Buck Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board
- Victor Gilin' sky, Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Administrative Judge
- Thomas M. Roberts, Commissioner Christine N. Kohl U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety & Licensing Appehl Washington, D.C.
20555 Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission !
- James K. Asselstine, Commissioner Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Administrative Judge Ivan W. Smith, Chairman
- Frederick Bernthal, Commissioner Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissior' Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Gary J. Edles, Chairman Sheldon J. Wolfe Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissior!
Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555
-W. d.
Administrative Judge Mr. Henry D. Bukill Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.
Vice President Atomic Safety & Licensing Board GPU Nuclear Corporation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 480 Washing ton, D.C. 20555 Middletown, PA 17057 Administrative Judge
___Mr. and Mrs. Norman Aamodt Gary L. Milhollin R.D. F-~
~
~
l Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Coatesville, PA 19320 l
1815 Jefferson Street Madison, Wisconsin 53711 Ms. Louise Bradford TMI ALERT Docketing and Service Section (3) 1011 Green Street Office of the Secretary Harrisburg, PA 17102 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 John Clewett, Esq.
The Christic Institute Atomic Safety & Licensing Board 1324 North Capitol Street Panel Washington, D.C.
20002 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Ms. Gail Phelps ANGRY /TMI PIRC Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal 1037 Maclay Street Board Panel Harrisburg, PA 17103 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq.
Harmon & Weiss Jack R. Goldberg, Esq. (4) 1725 Eye Street, N.W.,
Suite 506 Office of the Executive Legal Washington, D.C.
20006 Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Michael F. McBride, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20555 LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & Me.cRae 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Douglas R. Blazey, Esq.
Suite 1100 Chief Counsel Washington, D.C.
20036 Department of Environmental Michael W. Maupin, Esq.
Resources 514 Executive House Hunton & Williams P.O. Box 2357 707 East Main Street Harrisburg, PA 17120 P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, VA 23212 John A. Levin, Esq.
Assistant Counsel David E.
Cole, Esq.
Pennsylvania Public Utility Smith & Smith Commission 2931 Front Street P.O. Box 3265 Harrisburg, PA 17110 H,arrisburg, PA 17120