ML20081A447
| ML20081A447 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/23/1983 |
| From: | Doroshow J THREE MILE ISLAND ALERT |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8310260274 | |
| Download: ML20081A447 (6) | |
Text
~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 00gETED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOg gC BEFORE THE COMMISSION 13 00T 24 P4 :23 In the Matter of
)
0FFICE OF SECETM
)
00CXETiriG & SE9via.
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-2b
)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit 1)
)
TMI A COMMENTS ON LICENSING BOARD HEARING STAY By Order dated October 7, 1983, the Commission requested the views of the parties in the TMI restart proceeding on whether the Licensing Board hearings examining issues related to the "Hartman" allegations on TMI-2 leak rate falsifications should be stayed until OI has completed its investigation into those allegations.
The Commission further requested the views of the parties on whether OI should complete its investigations into other management 1
issues before the Board acts on those issues.
Before the Commission placed a temporary stay on the Licensing Board proceedings, TMI A moved the Board to stay the hearing process.
TMI A was concerned that its participation in the management case would be significantly curtailed if concurrent prehearing conferences, likely followed by discovery periods, were held on the management and steam generator tube repair cases.
TMI A was aware that no danger existed that actual hearing dates for the two cases would coincide, since one ASLB judge, Judge Sheldon 8310260274 831023 PDR ADOCK 05000289 C
h PDR
' Wolfe, sits on both Boards.
However, TMI A did have great concern that, as had been its past experience in the reopened " cheating" hearings, the discovery period and the time for hearing preparation would not be adequate to permit meaningful participation by TMI A in either hearing.
Although TMI A's motion was denied, the Commission 's October 7 Order temporarily staying the management proceeding has for the time being afforded TMI A the relief it requested.
However, the Commission should not infer that TMIA would favor staying the entire management hearing process, including all discovery, until af ter OI completes its investigation.
Indeed, TMI A would support proceeding with discovery in this case before OI completes its investigation, provided, two things can be assured.
First, it is essential that discovery not proceed at an expedited pace.
TMI A forsees that there may be a need to depose a number of people in this case.
In order for these depositions to be an effective use of time and resources by all individuals, there must be sufficient time for the parties to engage in other types of discovery beforehand so that possibly unnecesssary depositions can be avoided, and so that the depositions themselves can be as productive as possible.
As long as the discovery process proceeds at a reasonable pace in light of the attendant demands of the steam generator tube hearing and pre-hearing process, TMI A expects that it could handle the ordinary burdens of
- discovery and prepare adequately for hearings.
Since OI 's report will ultimately contain only one part of a much larger body of evidence which the parties must eventually obtain and examine through discovery before productive hearings can be conducted, delaying discovery entirely would be a wasteful use of time.
Second, aside from general concerns regarding the pace of discovery, it is essential that all individuals who may have important information regarding the subject of the reopened hearing feel free to present full testimony during depositions and during the hearings.
I t is TMI A 's understanding that certain individuals are not speaking fully and openly to OI investigators regarding the "Hartman" allegations because of the ongoing grand jury investigation,
-and will not do so until the threat of indictments passes.
It is unclear exactly when their cooperation can be expected, i.e., whether it would happen at the time the grand jury dissolves, or at the time the statute of limitations runs on indictments for the leak rate falsification.
In any event, the usefulness of a completed OI investigation is of minor importance compared to the necessity of having full cooperation of those who might be involved in or who might have knowledge of relevant leak rate falisfication issues.
The timing of this cooperation should be the determinitive factor at least in scheduling depositions and subsequent hearings, not the timing of the completed OI report.
~
- Regarding the other management competence and integrity issues on which the Commission has requested comment, the Commission should first note that these issues, along with the Hartman matter, were also the subject of TMI A's Motion to Reopen the Record dated May 24 (except for the TMI-l leak rate issue which was only recently brought to the Commi ssion 's attention ).
The Appeal Board found that the motion regarding these other management issues was
" premature", concluding that after staff review of these issues, including OI's investigation, TMI A could again seek reopening of the record on them.
See, Appeal Board decision at pp. 37-38.
OI's investigation of the Parks / King allegations concerning violations of clean-up safety procedures, retalitation against and harassment of the "whistleblowers" for reporting safety violations, and the " mystery man" issue, is partially complete.
The completed aspect deals only with the procedure violation issue, yet that report alone contains significant findings implicating GPU management in serious wrongdoing or at least raising considerable management competence and integrity issues.
TMI A has not yet moved the Appeal Board to reopen the record in light of this OI report, primarily because of time and resource constraints.
But in light of the seriousness of OI's findings, there is no reason why the Board need wait until OI concludes its investigation into the other two l
Parks / King issues before reopening the record on the l
- management competence and integrity issues raised by the procedural violation issue.
Regarding the TMI-l leak rate falsification issue, common sense dictates that this issue should be made part of the the "Hartman" hearings particularly in addressing the issue of nexus between the Hartman allegations and Unit 1.
Just as the hearing process should not be stayed in their entirety regarding the Hartman issue, they should not be stayed pending OI's completion of the TMI-l leak rate falsification issue.
RHR/ BETA reportability matters require no additional investigation by OI.
The facts are simple and the issue is well framed.
The two reports were issued in February and March of this year, but not turned over to the NRC or the parties until May.
Licensee's actions in knowingly withholding these material documents evidences a significant management competence / integrity problem which clearly should be examined in the hearing process.
Since the parties have a right to engage in their own discovery without having to rely exclusively on the OI report, there is no reason why this process should depend on issuance of the OI report.
Finally, regarding allegations identified in NUREG 1020 relating to the B&W review, it is virtually impossible for TMIA to provide the Commission with useful comments on this NUREG bacause most relevant information on the managment competence and integrity issue has been withheld from all parties except the NRC Staff.
Clearly, submittal of the
6
"% "undeleted" version to the Commissioners by the Staff amounts to a plain violation of the rule prohibiting ex parte communications.
However, TMI A also reviewed a substantial chunk of that record, its review ' summarized in TMI A' c July 1, 1983 comments to the Commissioners.
These comments, which the NRC Staf f utilized in conducting its own review of the B&W record, see NUREG 1020 at 10-2, contains s
well-documented and extremely significant management competence and integrity findings which need to be addressed in hearings.
TMIA stands by those comments., There,is no reason to wait for OI to complete its inveptigation into these matters.
s N
w Respectf ully submitted,
/
s UUChN oanne Doroshow
~
Louise Bradford October 23, 1983 TMI A
'x s
s e
--