ML20077E149
| ML20077E149 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 07/27/1983 |
| From: | Trowbridge G METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8307280155 | |
| Download: ML20077E149 (10) | |
Text
.
-July 27, 1983
/. \\ ta UNITED STATES OF AMERICA y> '
O NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION riy jQ i[,? Ri f
}
qS c\\L hq>< #x {uV e
BEFORE THE COMMISyION
'\\'
,4
\\ t) / '
b(N
/
. f'\\'Wh' Y
)
i In the Matter of
)
)
1 MLTROFOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Restart)
(Three Mila Island Nuclear
)
Station, U71t No. 1)
)
LICENSES 'S COMMEN"'S ON 5,DO M1:MORAUD"M DATED JULY 15, 19P3 On July 15, 1983, the Executive Director for Opera-tions transmitted to the Commission a memorandum describing the Staff's proposals to implentent the Commission's guidance of June 28, 1983, on the Staff's completion of the TMI-l re-start review.
The memorandum informs the Commission that completion of the Staff review, including an ultimate Staff position on management integrity " realistically appears to i
the staff to be many months away" and that "a Commission de-l cision on restart in September does not appear realistic to l
the staff if the Commission intends to have a staff position on management integrity prior to that Commission decision".
'The memorandum further includes a Staff proposal "that the 8307280155 830727 gDRADOCK 05000289 m
=
3 sos
f 4
i i
i Commission should give serious consideration to whether an evidentiary hearing on management competence and integrity l
j should be held prior to the restart'of TMI-1."
We discuss i
below both the matter of the Staff's review schedule and i -
l proposal for further hearings.
t I
i i
Staff Review Schedule i
It is clear from the July 15 memorandum that ths I
critical path item in the Staff's schedule is the Staff's review of the B&W litigation documante.
That is the cnly f
item for which the Staff even attempts an explanation of I
the "many months" required for completion of its review.
The Staff gave no reason why the Staff review of other l
"open items" cannot be completed prior to September con-sistent with the Commission's JuneC28 instruction that the
{
Commission " continues to place a high priority on complet-ing its TMI-l immediate effectiveness restart review as early as practicable."
Further, except for noting with re-I t
l spect to the Hartman allegations that the grand jury pro-l ceeding " conceivably" may place constraints and cause~ delay in OI's investigation, the Staff gave no indication that its review of the other open items might be delayed by on-i going OI investigations which will serve as inputs to the Staff review.
Shortly after the July 15 memorandum, however, -.
l Staff c_mnsel forwarded to the Appeal Board a report, dated July 21, 1983, on the status of its TMI-l restart review.
In that report the staff has provided estimated dates for the ;ompletion of OI investigations relating to several Staff open items which arc totally inconsistent with the re-j view schedule presented by the Staff at its meeting with the Commission on June 21, 1953, and which would ladeed account for many mor.ths of delay in enmpietion of the Staff's review.
'2he states report gives no explanation or justification of the new OI investigation achedulea, and in Licensee's viev the schedules are wnolly incor;sistent with the priority placed by the Commission on acapleting its TMI-l immcdiate effectiveness restart review.
As to the B&W litigation documents, the Staff has e
to date identified only a single item (the so-called Book memorandum) which it thought might have a bearing on manage-ment integrity and with respect to which it requested an OI investigation.
That investigation is complete and the matter in question turned out to be of no consequence.1/
The Staff estimate of "many months" to complete its review simply assumes, without explanation, that there will be other items requiring investigation and evaluation.
No basis for this assumption is stated.
In fact the July 15 memorandum simply refers loosely and without definition to 1/ See Board Notification 83-71A, dated June 27, 1983, and its attachments..
i "possible integrity issues" raised by the document review and to an evaluation of their impact "if any" on the integrity of TMI-l individuals.
It ignores the fact that a previous review of the B&W litigation documents, includ-ing exhibits and depositions intrcduced in the trial, by the Stello team produced no new infarmation of cubstance.
i Even if the Staff assumption proves tc he correct, l
however, and there are other items in the B&W litigation documents which require Staff atte'ntion, it does not follow that a restart decision need await completion of the Staff's ir.vestigations and evaluations.
The July 15 memorandum pronises that "the integrity issues resulting from the GPU l
- v. B&W record review can be identified by September, 1983."
The Commission has already directed the Staff in its June 28 memorandum to report to the Commission any significant in-formation identified during the review as soon as it is identified.
The Commission should insist that the Staff comply with its instruction in order that the Commission itself may judge whether the matter is of sufficient import-ance to justify a delay in restart pending further Staff investigation.
i In Licensee's view the Commission has already been i
remiss in not insisting on more information frcm the Staff about the Staff's "open items" and the basis for the Staff's conclusion that it has now become necessary for the Staff to'.
~
revalidate its position on the issue of management integrity.
As matters now stand, not only is Licensee left in the dark as to any new material facts which in the Staff's view may 6
justify a delay in the restart decision, but so is the Com-mission.
'2he Commission should no longer tolerate the per-petuation of a situaticn in which the Staff has as a practical matter stymied a Commission decision on restart without iden-tifying to the Commission or to the parties any factual basis for this result.
i k
Proposed Hearing 9
The July 15 memorandum concludes with a gratuitous suggestion, unrelated to Staff implementation of the Commis-sion's June 28 memorandum, that "the Staff believes that the Commission should give serious consideration to whether an evidentiary hearing on management competence and integrity should be held prior to the restart of TMI-1."
The sole reasons given by the Staff for its proposal are:
1.
The Staff's ultimate position on management integrity will be the subject of substantial criticism by one or more of the parties to the restart proceeding and that a request for a hearing on management integrity is likely; - _
2.
There are already pending before the Appeal Board three motions to reopen the manage-ment / cheating record; 3.
"he controversial nature of the subject of management integrity and the lack of any precise standards for Judging the integrity of individuals and institutions; 4.
A decision now to hold a further evidentiary hearing on management competence and integ-rity "may well expedite the inevitable."
As to the Staff's first two reasons, the fact that one or more parties to the restart proceeding may request or have requested a further hearing is hardly dispositive of the question as to whether such a hearing is necessary or even appropriate.
As to the Staff's third reason, the inherently controversial nature of the subject of manage-ment integrity and the lack of precise standards for judging integrity are not a sound reason for holding additional hearings.
Hearings can be appropriate in circumstances where complicated factual questions are in dispute (which the Staff does not assert to be the case here), but they are not a proper mechanism to enable the Commission to formulate its standards on management integrity.
The Staff's final -- _
l suggestion that a decision now to hold a hearing may "expe-dite the inevitable" would simply have the Commission prejudge the question of further hearings without establishing any need for the hearing, at the coct of extensive delay in the restart of TMI-1.
Again, the Staff has failed to identify
.any material information which would justify either reopening the restart hearing or delaying a restart decision.
The Staff is well aware of the severe burden which NRC case law places on any party desiring to reopen a hearing and the established criteria on which decisions to reopen should be based.
The Staff has in fact in its responses before the Appeal Board to motions to reopen the record urged these criteria upon the Appeal Board.
It offers no explana-tion of why different criteria should be applied by the Com-mission.
Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE NN
' /NW
/A orge F. Trowbridge, P.d Ernest L. Blake, Jr., P.C.
Dated: July 27, 1983 _ _.
si July 27, 1983 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION
+
In the Matter.of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Doci:et No. 50-389
)
(Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Licensee's Comments on EDO Memorandum Dated July 15, 1983," dated July 27, 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 27th day of July, 1983.
sn ma Geor[ F. Trowbridge, P(C.
Dated: July 27, 1983
CNIT!D STMES CF AMERICA NOCLEAR REGCLEMY COMISSICN BEEGE TEE CCM4ISSICN In the Matter of
)
)
mm EDISCN CmPANY
)
Dockat No. 50-289
)
(Bestart)
' ' (Shree Mile T=1=nd 9"1="
)
5tatiCn, Unit NO. 1)
)
SERVICE IL,T 9:nzic J. Palbciino, Niman
- Ad'"4"i=trative Judge Gary J. Edles U.5. Pela=- Fagulatcry resion cui man, Atcraic Safety and Licensing t h a.gt n, D.C.
20555 A = =1 Ecard U.S. Nuclear 14rgulaterf Ccnntission Victor Gilinsky, remaic=ierler Wastungton, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Begulatory Cam"'evi N==h % t.cn, D.C.
20553
- ;Mnist:ative Judge Jchn H. Buck i
Atcmic Safety and Licensing A p 1 Scard U.S. Nuclear Regulatcry Ccumission 1hcmas M. acberts, c'""4 "4 ""
Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. N ela=" Begulatcry Ccmnissist Wanlungtcn, D.C.
20555
- 7dmini=trative Judge Cira.stine N. Kohl Atcnn.c Safety and Licensing Ag a=1 Board James K. Asselstine, Femni*aien"*
U.S. Pela=* Begulatorf Camission U.S. Nela=" Begulatory re=ni anim Wah4_ngtcn, D.C.
20555 Wahietcn, D.C.
20555
- 7Aerin4 uor,ive Jbdge R= gin =1ri L. Gotchy l
l 7Arnini=trative Judge Ivan W. Snith Atcmic Safety and r. ice =ig Agn=1 Board C1 airman, Atcmic Safety and U.S. Me1==v angulatorf ec=ni =im Licensing Board W =h4 = ten, D.C.
20555 U.S. Mel=" Pagn1=+my remni nnim Wahieten, D.C.
20555
- Jack R. Goldberg, Esquire M*ica of the Executive Iagal Director 7Arain4=trative Judge Walter H. Jordan U.S. Pela=" Begulatorf F - 4 " irri Aermic Safety and M-aim Board Wahimton, D.C.
20555 881 West Guter Drive 4
Cak Ridge,ahnnessee 37830 E6 k ring and Serrice Secticn (3) office of the S r.ary Admini-u.i.ive Judge Linda W. Little U.S. Mv-l a=* angulatory re="i =sion Atemic Safety and M-aing Board N==hington, D.C.
20555 5000 Bormitage Drive Palmigh, North Carolina 27612 A W e Safety and Licensing Apoeal Beard Panel U.S. Nuclear Begulatorf remni=sicn Washs.ngton, D.C.
20555
Arr'n,c Safety arxi Licensing Board Panel Ellyn R. Weiss, 74m U.S. Nuclear Begulatory Ccurnismien Hazman & Weiss W==hinet::n, D.C.
20555 1725 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 506 Wa=him ten, D.C.
20006 Dcuglas R. Blazey, Esqu2re Steven C. Shclly Chief Counsel Chian of Concerned Scient:Lsts Departnient of Envirt.am-lial Rescurces 1346 Ctzinacticut Avenua, N.W. 41101 Cc m 1th of Pennsylvania W==him3tcm, D.C.
20036 514 Executive House, P. O. Box 2357 Esrrisburg, PA 17120 AMRl/M PIBC 1037 Maclay Street John A. Iavin, Esqc. ire Ha m.Maurg, PA 17103 Assistant Co m==1 Punnsylvania Public Uti2.ity Ccynimaien P. O. Box 3265 Mr. arri Mrs. Naz: nan Aamodt Ma M al wy, PA 17120 R.D. 5 Coatesvi lla, PA 19320 JcIdan D. Cth'1ingham, We"pii M Fcx, Fa:= & Ndncham Iculse Bradfcrd 2120 Ncrth Se:::md Street M ATJpBT Harrisburg, PA 17110 1011 Green Street Harrisburg, PA UIO2 Wi 14 = S. Jordan, m, g=, sin Har::cn & Weiss Cauncey Keptord 1725 Eye Street, N.W., Suita 506 Judith J. Johnsred Washingtcn, D.C.
20006 Enmu.um d.41 cm17r.icn en Nuclear Pcwsr 433 Orlando Avenue Adatinistrative Judge Gary L. Milhollin Stata en1 1 ='=, PA 16801 Atatic Safety & Licensing Board 4412 Greenwich Parkway, N.W.
John Clewett, Esquire Waslungton, D.C.
20007 The Christic Institute 1324 North Capitol Street Michael F. McBride, Esquire Washington, D.C.
20002 IeBoeuf, Lamb, Iaiby & MacRae 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Suite 1100 Washington, D.C.
20036 David E. Cole, Esquire Smith & Smith, P.C.
2931 Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Michael W. Maupin, Esquire Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P. O. Box 1535 Richannd, VA 23212