ML20079R254
| ML20079R254 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 06/18/1983 |
| From: | Aamodt M AAMODTS |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8306220147 | |
| Download: ML20079R254 (6) | |
Text
AAM - 6/18/83 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSIONERS:
c.E. '
m fg 4::i
\\
J[jff (d
Nunzio Palladino, Chairman 20
~
John Ahearne 7
i Victor Gilinsky 9'
Oh I
Thomas Roberts ff,tN James Asselstine
'c>
h %~
p In the Matter of A
od j
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ocket 50-289
(
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1)
)
l AAMODT COMMENTS CONCERNING SINGLE PARTY BRIEPING OF COMMISSION The Commission scheduled a meeting for June 15, 1983 to be briefed concerning the state of Licensee's compliance with a number of open items.
We were informed of the scheduling of this meeting by sources other than the Commission, and we contacted counsel to the Commission on June 13 to learn that only a single party to the Restart Proceeding, the NRC Staff, would be l
permitted to address the Commission.
We have received no transcript of this meeting or notice from the Commission that written comments of the parties are invited.
To this date, we have no information from the Commission concerning the scope of issues discussed.
On June 17, 1983, we received a call from Mr. Stuckey of the Docketing and Service Branch who informed us of another Commission briefing to take place on June 21.
The focus of this meeting is to be the June 7 letter of William J. Dircks which addresses the staffing of the Unit 1 plant to avoid employment of personnel who may have been involved in the falsification of leak rates at Unit 2.
Staffing sof Unit 1 plant is an issue in which the Aamodts have interest.
We litigated the issue of staffing in the main and 8306220147 830618 PDR ADOCK 05000289 G
l'
. reopened hearings.I Then, we raised the Hartman issue as it impacted on the present management and staff.2 However, according to Mr. Stuckey's present knowledge, only one party, the NRC Staff, will be permitted to brief the Commission on this issue on June 21.
There is uncertainty whether the Commission will provide a time l
other foy parties to comment in writing.
{
Verbal access to the Commissioners on the eve of their decision will expose them to the unique influence of the Staff.
This is not the first time that the Commission has provided this advantage to the Staff, however the circumstances of those occasions did not jeopardize the interests of the parties to the degree that the proposed meeting does.
Presently, (a)
There may not be sufficient time for the parties to l
prepare written comments before the Commission renders its decision.
(b)
Verbal communication of the Staff will have added advantage over written communication as it allows immediate clarification.
The Commission's schedule may not permit replies to comments even if is adjusted to allow written comments.
(c)
Verbal communication can have greater impact than written or no comment due to the imminence of the Commission's decision.
(d)
Writtencommunicationisburdenacaeatthistime)and the parties may not be able to comment fully in writing, or at all.
1/ Aamodt Findings, May 15, 1981 #41-54; Reply #57-82; Findings, Findings, June 29, 1981 #27, 70-76; Reply findings, July 20, 1981 March 4, 1982 #328-348-Aamodt Comments Immed. Effect., August 20, 1982'#57-60; August 2Y,1981 PID #558, 572-575 2/ Aamodt Comments, April 16, 1983 at pages 5-8; 19-26 3/
Written comments are to be filed with Appeal Board concerning new information impacting on motions to reopen the Restart Hearing.
These comments are due July 1
. (e)
While record evidence was explained on previous 4
occasions of Staff briefings, during the presently-scheduled meeting for June 21, new information (never litigated) -- the taint of the Hartman allegations -- will be discussed as it impacts on staffing.
This new information will not be subjected to the test of cross-examination by the parties according to the Commission's present plans.
(f)
There is new significant evidence that the Staff's word lacks integrity.5 l
l Therefore, the Commission's meeting on June 21 could i
effectively defeat our interests,which are great.
The l
Commission should provide time to hear all parties in. order to I
i evaluate any information provided.
The parties are the Commission's access to complete information.
The parties should i
l be allowed to question the Staff, and the Staff should be under j
oath.
We have been involved in the Restart Proceeding since September of 1979.
Development of the record of training of licensed operators fell on us.6 The Idcensing Board acknowledged that our absence from discussion of the Condition 9 staffing l
[
f/ Exception known to us is May 24, 1983 briefing.
5/ Dircks' memorandum and attachments, June 10, 1983 to Commissioner Gilinsky l
I s/
See Aamodt memo, January 14, 1980; Board Order following pre-hearing conference, August, 1980.
1 I
i
_4 position adopted by the Board caused an error to remain in it.7 We were drawn into the reopened proceeding as the party with the knowledge of the record on training.
We are acquainted with the number of compromises in behavior of Unit 1 management and operators revealed in that reopened hearing.
Our views are grounded in the record evidence which provides the only legal basis for the Commission's decision.
The Commission has the obligation to adhere to the appellate 0
process into which it invited us We agree that the hearing of I
l TMI restart issues has been a cumbersome process. However, the failure of the NRC Staff to come to grips with the issues in a credible fashion has increased the burden of other parties and caused significant delays, i Present delay in the Commission's decision is directly the result of the S.taff's deliberate deception of the Ideensing Board and the parties concerning the Hartman matter.
It is ' salt in the wound' when the Commission now turns to this Staff for briefing prior to the immediatee effectiveness decision.
Such a decision can only be severely faulted and subject to legal challenge.
1 2/ August 27 Partial Initial Decision at #573:
It did not occur to us or any party to inquire at the explanatory session (ff. Tr. 23,303), and Mrs. Aamodt declined to participate in that session.
The notice requestion my participation was a telephone call at l
approximately 7 an on the day of the session.
The document to be examined had not been provided to me.
g/
The Commission invited members of the public in notices placed in the Intelligencer Journal, Lancaster, EA.
Extension of the deadline made us believe that the Commission needed additional applicants.
-v,.-.,...w_..
-.-.-esm_,.-_,,
,.._.--y-,,,,-,n.,
m
-.,._.,7---
1 L We request the Commission to provide adequate time on June 21, or if necessary on subsequent days, to allow each party to fully brief the Commission on the issues of interest to the Commission in making their immediate effectiveness decision.
Respectfully submitted,
. Yby L
uc
~
/
Marjobe M. Aamodt June 18, 1983 Addendum:
The NRC Staff has arranged a meeting with licensee to discuss the Dieetcamp letter of June 10 concerning changes in management in view of the verification of Har.tman's allegations.
The meeting is open to the public, and the intervenors were notified, however the intervenors, parties to the proceeding, will not be allowed to seek any clarifications of the Dieckamp letter.
Not only is the exclusion of the intervenors totally improper, as a practical matter we need.
- a number of clarifications in order to respond fully to the Appeal Board order of June 16, 1983.
We intend to attend the meeting., Relevant information may be provided; perchance our questions may be asked and answered.
It is unfortunate that the Staff has acted to deny the intervenors the privilege of participating as a party.
- Today, June 20 in Bethesda
l Thic is to cartify that tha documsnt AAMODT COMMENTS CONCERNING SYHGLE PARTY BRIEFING OF COMMISSION wco carv&d on the parties marked (0) by deposit in the internal NRC mail service at Bethesda,on June 20, 1983 or/ y; harid and to the remainder by deposit in U. S. Ma 1 first e ass.
/bO June 20, 1983 Norman O. Aamodt Service List
- Service & Docketing Branch
- TMIA U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1037 Maclay Street Washington, D. C. 20555 Harrisburg, PA 17103 Chairman Nunzio Palladino
- Union of Concerned Scientists U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission c/o Harmon & Weiss Washington, D. C. 20555 1725 I Street, N. W.
Weshington, D. C. 20006
, Commissioner John Ahearne U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Robert Adler, Esq.
Wa shington, D. C. 20555 505 Executive House P. O. Box 2357
- Commissioner Victor Gilinsky Harrisburg, PA 17120 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wa shington, D. C. 20555 Judge Gary L. Milhollin 4412 Greenwich Parkway, N. W.
, Commissioner Shomas Roberts Washington, D. C. 20007 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wa shington, D. C. 20555 Jane Iee 183 Valley Road Commissioner James Asselstine Etters, PA 17319 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Marvin I. Iewis 6504 Bradford Terrace
- Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Philadelphia PA 19149 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 James Hurst Att:
Chairman Administrative Judge PANE Gary J. Edles 617 Briarcliff Road Middletown, PA 17057
- Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nucleer Regulatory Commission John E. Minnich Wa shington, D. C. 20555 Chairman, Dauphin County Att:
Chairman Administrative Judge Board of Commissioners Ivan W. Smith Dauphin County Courthouse Front & Market Streets
- Jack Goldberg, Esq.
Harrisburg, PA 17101 Iegal Offices U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 G. F. Trowbridge, Esq.
Shew, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20036
_ _ _ _ _