ML20086A837
| ML20086A837 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 11/14/1983 |
| From: | Blake E METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8311160125 | |
| Download: ML20086A837 (7) | |
Text
.
DOCKETED USNRC LIC 11/1U83-13 NW 14 P4 56 UNITED STATES OF AMERIC4fELFE OF SECRETAF" NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSMMETING & SERylm.
BRANCH BEFORE THE COMMISSION
)
In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289-SP
)
(Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
LICENSEE'S REPLY TO RESPONSES OF OTHER PARTIES TO COMMISSION ORDER OF OCTOBER 7, 1983 Licensee submits this reply to the responses of other par-ties to the Commission Order of October 7, 1983.
Responses were filed by TMIA (TMIA Comments on Licensing Board Hearing Stay
("TMIA Comments")), the Aamodts (Aamodt Response to Commission Order of October 7, 1983 Concerning Resolution of Management Issues ("Aamodt Response")), and the Staff (NRC Staff's Response to the Commission's October 7, 1983 Order (" Staff Response")).
1/
UCS has also filed an unsolicited-response to the October 7 Order, accompanied by a motion for leave to file the ' response.
See Union of Concerned Scientists' Response to Commission Order of October 7, 1983; Union of Concerned Scientists' Motion for Leave to Pile Response to Commission Order of October 7, 1983
("UCS Motion").
The motion should be denied.
The Commission's Order explicitly invited comments only from those. parties that participated in the management phase of the restart hearings.
UCS admits at the outset of its motion that it "did not partici-pate in the original litigation on management competence before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board," UCS Motion at 1, which admission alone should foreclose it from filing comments here.
UCS argues, however, that it has a " continuing interest" in the h$R DOC O
00 89 (Continued Next-Page)
} g D. O PDR J
I 2/ l In Licensee's response to the Commission Order, we took the position that neither the Hartman allegations nor any of the other subject areas listed in the Commission's October 7 Order provides a basis for questioning the integrity of current GPUN management sufficient to warrant an immediately effective shut-down, and therefore the suspension should be lif ted now. Provid-ed that the suspension is promptly lif ted and TMI-1 permitted to restart, we recommended (a) that the temporary stay of the reopened hearing to consider the Hartman allegations be continued pending completion of OI's investigation into that matter, and (b) that OI complete its investigations into the other areas referred to in the October 7 Order before any determinations regarding the need, if any, for further hearings or other licensing action are made. On the other hand, we urged that the Hartman alle-gations, as well as the other areas, be resolved with dispatch (Continued) i remanded proceeding, arising from its participation in the design and operational safety phase of the restart hearings. UCS l exaggerates its role in the hearings. See Licensee's Reply to Comments of Other Parties on the Special Master's Report and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's Tentative Final Draf t, at-3-4 ("[N]ot only did UCS play no role in the reopened phase of the management portion of this proceeding, it also did not participate at all in the earlier hearing of the management issues which included extended testimony on Licensee's training programs.") Nor did UCS file any proposed findings in the initial management phase or reopened management hearing, although the Board directed the parties to do so or be subjected to default under S 2.754 of the Commission's Rules of Practice. ASLB Orders dated May 22, 1980, and April 22, 1981. UCS has thus demonstra-ted no entitlement-to' submit a response to the Commission's i October 7 Order. 2/ '" Licensee's Response to Commission Order of October 7, i 1983" (" Licensee's Response"), filed:on October 27,-1983.
if the Commission views the allegations contained in any of these subject areas as a basis for continued suspension. The responses of TMIA and the Aamodts apparently assume that lif ting the suspension is predicated on resolution of the re-cently voiced concerns and allegations regarding management integrity. We disagree, for reasons stated in our October 27 response. TMIA and the Aamodts further assume that resolution of these issues requires complete and full adjudicatory hearings on all of the concerns and allegations. We disagree with this view as well. There currently are no pending motions to reopen. With the exception of the Hartman matter, the Appeal Board to date has denied all motions to reopen the record on other asserted grounds. TMIA and the Aamodts agree that neither a Hartman reopened hearing nor determinations on the other issues should be stayed pending completion of OI's investigations, and appar- / 3 ently differ only as to the suggested pace of the proceedings. The Staf f takes the position that the Hartman hearings should be stayed, and all of the other concerns put on hold, pending com-pletion of the OI investigations. As stated in Licensee's Re-sponse, we believe that if restart is to be dependent upon re-solution of any of these matters by OI or a licensing board, then those matters must be assigned the highest priority and resolved as promptly as possible, not merely at TMIA's convenience. The 3/ TMIA urges that discovery "not. proceed at an expedited pace," TMIA Comments, at 2, while the Aamodts believe the matters "should be heard expeditiously," Aamodt Response, at 20. l l t
,. Aamodts apparently concur. The Staff's view is that the most ef fective and ef ficient approach is to allow OI to complete its investigations and then to determine which matters, if any, should be aired at hearings. Licensee agrees with this view, except as to the already reopened Hartman matter so long as the Commission concurs in the Appeal Board's view that the Hartman matter must be resolved in a hearing and the Commission further bases continued suspension on resolution of the Hartman allegations. Respectfully submitted, hws1 L. $ Ib*okh Ernest L. Blake, Jr., @.C. i SHAW, PITTHAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 1800 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 822-1000 Counsel for Licensee 4/ The Aamodts also agree with Licensee that the Commission has sufficient information before it now to make a determination on restart, although we clearly part company as to what that determination should be. In Licensee's Response we demonstrated in detail why the suspension ought to be lifted now. The Aamodt Response, in contrast, deals in unsupported generalities or, where they do cite authority, they cite the Special Master's Report (but of ten ignore the Licensing Board's PID) or their own comments and proposed findings of fact. A particularly remark-able example of such argument is the Aamodts' assertion that the Faegre & Benson report " concluded that the operators' reports of f alsified leak rates to NRC and f ailure to report numerous other leak rates measured in excess of' technical specifications were deliberate actions in violation of the license to operate TMI-2 and NRC regulations." Aamodt Response, at 10. This is simply nonsense--the Faegre & Benson report contains-no such conclusion. l ) 1 w- -a m, w-
,e
U RC 14 P4:57 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE 0:3ECRg (As v l 00CKETING & SERVIC'r SRANCH BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of ) ) METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Doc).at No. 50-289 ) (Restart) (Three Mile Island Nuclear ) Station, Unit No. 1) ) ( CERTIFICATE Ol' SERVICE I hereby certify that copies af " Licensee's Reply to Responses of Other Parties to ComF ission Order of October 7, 1983," dated November 14, 1983, usare 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 14th day of November, 1983. / ky W kJ iseforg/ F. frowbridge, P/C. Dated: November 14, 1983
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Commission In the Matter of ) ) METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289 SP ) (Three Mile Island Nuclear ) (Restart - Management Phase) Station, Unit No. 1) ) SERVICE LIST
- Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission John H. Buck Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board
- Victor Gilinsky, Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Administrative Judge
- Thomas M. Roberts, Commissioner Christine N.
Kohl. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Washington, D.C. 20555 . U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- James K. Asselstine, Commissioner Washington, D.C.
20555 I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-Washington, D.C. 20555 Administrative Judge Ivan W. Smith, Chairman
- Frederick Bernthal, Commissioner Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 . Washington, D.C.'20555 Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Gary J. Edles, Chairman Sheldon J.:Wolfe Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Atomic Safety &: Licensing Board ' Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commisdion Washington, D.C. 20555. Washington, D.C. 20555-l' G , W;
J Administrative Judge Mr. Henry D. Hukill Gustave A. Linenoerger, Jr. Vice President Atomic Safety & Licensing Board GPU Nuclear Corporation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 480 Washington, D.C. 20555 Middletown, PA 17057 Administrative Judge Mr.' and Mrs. Norman Aamodt Gary L. Milhollin R.D. 5 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Coatesville, PA 19320 1815 Jefferson Street Madison, Wisconsin 53711 Ms. Louise Bradford TMI ALERT docketing and Service Section (3) 1011 Green Street i Office of the Secretary Harrisburg, PA 17102 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 John Clewett, Esq. The Christic Institute 4 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board 1324 North Capitol Street Panel Washington, D.C. 20002 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Ms. Gail Phelps ANGRY /TMI PIRC Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal 1037 Maclay Street Board Panel Harrisburg, PA 17103 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq. Harmon & Weiss Jack R. Goldberg, Esq. (4) 1725 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 506 Office of the Executive Legal Washington, D.C. 20006 Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Michael F. McBride, Esq. Washington, D.C. 20555 LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Douglas R. Blazey, Esq. Suite 1100 Chief Counsel Washington, D.C. 20036 Department of Environmental Resources Michael W. Maupin, Esq. 514 Executive House Hunton & Williams P.O. Box 2357 707 East Main Street Harrisburg, PA 17120 P.O._ Box 1535 Richmond, VA 23212 John A. Levin, Esq. Assistant Counsel David E. Cole, Esq. Pennsylvania Public Utility Smith & Smith 2931 Front Street Commission-o, P.O. Box 3265 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Harrisburg, PA 17120 .'t,4 I fe M e}}