ML20064N916
| ML20064N916 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 09/09/1982 |
| From: | Bradford L THREE MILE ISLAND ALERT |
| To: | Buck J, Edles G, Kohl C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8209130029 | |
| Download: ML20064N916 (4) | |
Text
o A
s TunEE MILE ISLAPD Ainsgr; suc.
m 315 Peffor St Harrishwy, Penna.17102 (717)233-7897 Septembe r 9,k2969 -9 R2 :07 Judge Gary J.
Edles GFFIC N EECRt.iAi Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board DOCKfTI4G & SERVIC' U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission ERANCH Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. John 11. Buck Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Christine N.
Kohl Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board U.S.
Nuclear Regultory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Appeal Board Judges:
Re: In the Matter of METROPOLITAN EDISION COMPANY, (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1)
Docket No. 50-289 REPORT OF CONFERENCE CALL By Motion dated September 1, 1982, TMIA requested an ex-tension of time until October 15, 1982 and a waiver of the 70-page limitation to 140 pages on its brief supporting TMIA's exceptions to the partial initial decisions on manage-ment issues.
Pursuant to the Appeal Board's suggestion, TMIA initiated a telephone conference call on Tuesday, Sep-tomber 7, 1982, in an attempt to obtain an agreenent among the parties as to TMIA's requests.
Participating parties were: TMIA, the Aamodts, Licensee, NRC Staff, the Common-wealth of Pennsylvania, and, on Licensee's suggestion, UCS.
TMIA now reports to the Appeal Board that not only was no agreement reached by the parties on TMIA's notion, but that the Licensee refused to support any extension of time or waiver of page limitation whatsoever.
The Staff supports no more than one week extension of time, and no waiver of the page limitiation.
The other parties do not oppose TMIA's motion.
Since the Appeal Board will now have to rule on the motion, TMIA wants to make clear its position so that there is no misunderstanding by the Appeal Board.
Unless TMIA is granted an extension until October 15, 1982, and unless the page limitation is waived, it will not be able to physi-cally produce a responsible brief which will be of aid to this Board.
TMIA will be forced to drop a number of extreme-ly important issues with direct relevance to this company's ability to safely restart Unit 1.
It is difficult to believe that after completion of one of the longest and most grueling Licensing Board hearings in history, and develop-ment of a massive record and two equally massive AS LB
(
9 h B209130029 820909
- om ---
N l
decisions on a wide range of very diverse "ma nage me nt l
issues," this Appeal Board would be content to now remove critical management issues by ef fectively denying TMI A's right to raise them.
The Board must realize that TMIA has not one full-time individual to work on this brief.
All work must be done x
af ter normal working hours.
The same individual who.
researches and writes the document must type it, produce it, and serve it.
The process is extrenely burdensome and time-consuming, as one can imagine.
The naard should also realize that the reopened hearings, which lasted a full month, and the preceeding discovery per-iod, proceeded at an exhaustingly expedited pace. But des-pite this fact, TMIA never requested that the hearings pro-coed at a slower pace, or that witnesses be delayed or post-7 poned.
TMIA has always done its best to keep up, and has only requested extensions of time when absolutely neces-sary.
In TMIA's opinion, the Licensee's and'the Staff's posi-tions are totally unreat nable.
The only explanation pro-vided by Licensee's countel to support its obstinance is that the Appeal Board prosess is on the " critical path to restart."
This is hardly legitimate.
First of all, it is not at all apparent why the Appeal Board process suddenly differs so from the rest of the restart hearing process, which so far escaped such a characterization.
But even more, Licensee's attempt to restrict a fair presentation of the hearing issues because it is suddenly afraid that re-start may be jeopardized, is~ incredibly presumptuous consi-dering that it was Licensee's and the Staff's own culpabil-ity which precipitated the need for these hearings in the first place.
It was the Licensee which caused the Commis-sion to find no reasonable assurance that it could operate the plant safely and which caused suspension of its oper-ating license.
And it was cheating by Licensee's own opera-tors which caused the need to reopen the hearings. That TMI 1 is not now operating is their responsibility, alone.
Thus, TMIA again urges the Appeal Board to grant its' motion for an extension of time until October 15, 1982, and a waiver of the page limitation to 140 pages, as requested in its Septmeber 1, 1982 motion.
TMIA hopes the-Board under-standings TMI A's sincerity in making this request, and grants it with due deliberate speed.
Respectfully,
' OcuSC v
t p
Louise Bradford, TMIA
O
~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUC LE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE Ti!E ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the attached leth. r to the Appeal Board Judges, Re: REPORT OF CONFERENCE CAL'.,
were served on the above parties either in hand or by first class mail, postage prepaid, this 9st day of September, 1982.
i' C c LV4.L
)v1Cuy bw/(
Louise Bradford /
.4
UITI'IED STA'1ES OF N!IRICA NUCLEAR REUUIEIORY 00tMISSION BEFORE 'lHE A'IGIIC SAFETY AND LICENSItG BOARD In the thtter of:
MEIROPOLITAN EDISON 00tIPAIN,
)
)
Docket Ib. 50-289
('Ihree Mile Island Ibclear
)
(Res tart)
Station, Unit Ib.1)
)
SERVICE LIST Docketing and Service Section Ms. Fhrjorie M. Arodt Office of the Secretary R.D. #5 U.S. Ibclear Regulatory Conmission Coatesville, Pennsylvania 19320 Washirgton, D.C.
20555 Chauncey Kepford Judith Johnsrud Ivan W. Smith, Esquire, Chairann Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power Atomic Safety arvi Licensing Board Panel 433 Orlando Avenue U.S. Ibclear Regulatory Cunnission State College, PA 16801 Washington, D.C.
20555 David E. Cole, Esquire Mr. Steven C. Sholly Smith & Satith, P.C.
Union of Concerned Scientists 2931 tbrth Front Street 1346 Connecticut Avenue, NW llarrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 Dupont Circle Building, Suite 1101 Washington, DC 20036 llenry D. Ilukill Vice-President GPU Ibclear Corporation Post Office Box 450 Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 Judge Gary J. Edles Atomic sa ety & Licensing George F. Trowbridge, Esquire Pe 0ar Siwa, Pittmin, Potts & Trowbridge U
t r
1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20555 Washington, D.C. 20006 Judge Reginald L. Gotchy James A. Tourtellott.e, Esquire Atomic Safety & Licensing Office of the Executive legal Director Appeal Board U.S.1bclear Regulatory Conmission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washu, gton, D.C.
20555 Washington, DC 20555 Ellyn R. Weiss llarnon & Weiss Dr. John H. Buck 1725 Eye Street, N.W., suite 506 Atcmic Safety & Licensing Appeal Washington, D.C.
20006 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555 Robert Adler, Esq.
505 Executive House Christine N. Kohl P. O. Box 2357 Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Harrisburg, PA 17120 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission WashinMon, DC 20555 Micluel F. McBride, Esquire 7
1rBoeuf, lamb, Iriby & thcRae Jordan D. Cunningham, Esq.
1333 New lbmpshire Avenue, N.W., Suite 1100 Fox, Farr and Cunningham Washtngton, D.C.
20036 2320 North 2nd Street Harrisburg, PA 17110
-