ML20079M363
| ML20079M363 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 01/25/1984 |
| From: | Doroshow J THREE MILE ISLAND ALERT |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8401270288 | |
| Download: ML20079M363 (5) | |
Text
.
s UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 00CKETED NRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boar %4 JMl26 P254 In the Matter of
)
UFFICE OF SECEfiAs '
)
00CHETING & $[Pyr,'
UANCH METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
. Docket No. 50-289
)
(Steam Generator Repair)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit 1)
)
TMIA MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL PANEL TMIA herein submits to the Board a somewhat unusual motion, but one which TMIA believes is appropriate and indeed necessary if there it to be any hope of seeing this hearing process reach an accurate and efficient result.
As the Board is aware, TMIA is currently responsible for litiga-ting a number of contentions in this proceeding. The subject matter of these contentions covers the broad range of issues which, by any reasonable standard, must be resolved before a conclusion regarding the safety of operation with these steam generators can be reached.
i TMIA takes these contentions quite seriously.
But the Board and the parties should understand precisely why TMIA has chosen to get involved in these proceedings to pursue these contentions, particu-larly in light of its lack of expertise in technical matters.
t The TMI community which has followed the restart hearing process for the last five years, of which these " steam tube" hearings are now part, have an extraordinarily high level of distrust for both the i
l Licensee and the NRC.
Those of us who have intervened in the restart hearing process on " management competence and integrity" issues have 8401270288 840125 l
PDR ADOCK 05000289 s
a
@so
. perhaps more well-grounded reasons for maintaining this level of distrust than anyone.
But concern over the efficacy of the TMI-l steam generator repairs extends beyond the intervenors.
These repairs have troubled local officials, including members of Congress, and even NRC Commis-sioners.
(See TMIA Response to Motion to Dismiss Contentions, dated January 20, 1984).
These concerns are genuine.
They are based in substantial.part on.the failure of the Licensee and the NRC Staff to provide adequate' assurance that the repairs and clean up process will.
insure safe operation.
As representatives of TMIA, the intervenors, we feel we have a responsibility not simply to members of the public at large who are very concerned about the safety of TMI-1, but to public officials as well.
But we have come to believe that the process as carrently established is simply not condusive to allowing TMIA to meaningfully participate.
The on-going discovery process, soon scheduled to end, is' pointed illustration.
The combined expedited pace of discovery, our own lack of expertise and difficulty in obtaining the cooperation of experts on a volutary basis within these time conctraints, compounded by the fact that most documents Licensee will even permit us to see have been
_placed in a room 10 miles from TMIA and far from any expert consultant I
we have been yet able to speak to, virtually guarentees that little will be accomplished during discovery.
In addition, Louise Bradford, who is supervising the technical
[
l research, does not drive.
It is extremely difficult for her to get to l
this room, and anyone else who might be able to assist her may not do
. so unless they have given the Licensee advance notice.
- Further, Licensee's copying fee is 10 cents a page. (Twice the NRC's rate).
Even if TMIA could afford'this expense in order to get documents to an expert, it simply makes no sense to even attempt to copy documents
-without an expert to explain the relative importance of the thousands of documents in the room.
There is also the problem of alleged " proprietary" information which has been withheld from TMIA, as yet without any justification.
If such documents are ordered " proprietary" by the Board, any protec-tive order will only further hinder TMIA's ability to freely research and contribute to this case.
Moreover, the problems now facing us will not end with the close of discovery.
We will be forced to enter hearings with a fatally flawed case, and working with within the same time and resource contraints without expertise, there will be no possibility of resurrecting it.
In sum, the normal discovery and hearing procedure is not going to provide a mechanism to "get at the truth" in any manner, let alone in an an expeditious, thorough, and nonburdensome way.
Each party as well as the Board should have every motive to see that this not occur.
Thus, TMIA-proposes that the following procedure be adopted:
Each of the four parties in this proceeding appoint an expert representative.
As representatives of the parties, the chosen experts constitute a panel.
If the Board should order, each would sign a " proprietary agreement" and any
" proprietary" information would be disclosed to them.
The panel would be paid by the NRC, and would act as quasi-
~.
v..
investigators, quasi-Special Masters, to investigate, take evidence informally.in.the form of oral or written presenta-tions by other. experts in this field. _Each may also submit their own papers, or other form of evidence.
Once their investigation is complete,.they each report to the Board with their recommendations.
The parties would have an opportunity to comment on the recommendation of their.own appointed expert.
Based on these reports and the evidence examined by the. experts, the Board would make its decision.
l Such a procedure would insure an competent and expeditious evaluation of the safety of these* repairs, to everyone's benefit.
While the procedure may not be explicitly provided for within NRC regulations, and while we emphasize that we in no way endorse the extension of such a-procedure to any other licensing situation, particularly the TMI-l restart hearings where we have not endorsed any departure from the strict due process requirements of the adjudi-l catory process, if in the instant case all parties agree to such a change in process it should be possible.
NRC adjudicatory flexibility 1
(
has already been. sanctioned by the Supreme Court in Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.
v.
NRDC, 435 U.S.
519 (1978) where the court held, " administrative agencies 'should be free to fashion their own rules of procedure and to pursue methods of inquiry capable of permitting them to discharge their multitudinous duties,' (quoting from] FCC v. Schreiber, 381 US, at 290, quoting from FCC v.
Pottsville Broadcasting Company, 309 US, at 143." 435 US at 543-544.
,e e
g
-s-we-w w
y-,
--t-
,pww-'-my--,,-g--r+s
---we+-c-,-+
w--- -, + - -,,--,g-ge---s
'-www v
-rw
, 4
.TMIA requests the Board to consider this motion carefully and
. cxpeditiously.
-Respec tf ully,
Three Mile Island Alert, Inc.
By
\\1W _
j /\\CL\\ jh6W oanne Doroshow January.25, 1984 Louise Bradford k
(
I a
l t
J I
I i
l t
, ~. -.
. -