ML20090C376
| ML20090C376 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 07/12/1984 |
| From: | Weiss E HARMON & WEISS, UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ALAB-772, NUDOCS 8407130277 | |
| Download: ML20090C376 (7) | |
Text
,
DOCKEWCS 7/12/84 USNRC UNITED STATES OF MEDICA NUCLEAR REGULATCRY COMISSIc@4 JUL 12 P2:32 l
t BEFORE THE COMMISSICN In the Matter of
)
)
METR 0f0LI'IAN EDISCN C04FANY
)
Docket No. 50-2pc
)
(Resta r t.)
(%ree Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No.1)
)
UNION OF CCNCERNED SCIENTISTS' OPPOSITION TO GPU PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ALAB-772 l
%e rule governing Connission review of Appeal foerd decisions, 10 CFR 2.785, requires, inter clia: 1) a concise stat (ment why the decision or action i
is erroneous and 2) a concise ste tenent. why Comnission reiview should be exetcised.
With respect to the criteria for Comission acceptence of review, the rule contains the followin) restrictions:
- 1. A petition for r(view of matters of law or policy will not I
ordinarily be grtnted unless it cppears the case involves en important matter thot could significantly affect the environment, the Iublic health and safety... or otherwise raises importtnt questions of public policy.
- 11. A petition for review of mrtters of fcct will not be granted unless it tppears that the Atomic Safety and Licensin) tppeal ibard has resolvcd a fectual issue necessary for decision in a c1cerly erroneous manner contrary to the resolution of that same issue by the Atomic Safety and Licensin) Boerd.
8407130277 840712
\\d PDR ADOCK OS000289 9
pop t
r GPU's petition for revie8 makes no serious attempt to conform with the requirenents of the rule.
It fails to clearly enunerate the errors it believes were made by the Appeal Board, to categorize these as legel, factual or policy errors, or to make a case that the errors are so important and far-reechin3 in their implications as to warrent commission review under the appliccble rule.
i on the first issue, the question of whether trainin) is "rdecua te to urepare the operators to operate the plant sa fel y,"
(A LAB-772, at 63), CPU asserts no factual inconsistencies betwen the AFLB and the Appeal roerd, nor eny legal or policy errors whatever, as clearly required by 10 CTR ?.786.2/
i It simply quarrels with the Appeal Board's "julgm(nt" regrrdin) the adectuacy of the record. ILicenser's Petition at 4) and csks the Corinission to reinstate the ASLB decision.
Such generalized argunent menifestly falls to meet the l
requirunents for Comission review.
Morcover, GPU mischaracterizes the Appeal Ebard decision es quibbling ever the " perfection" of the record. M.
'Ihe following passege gives sone indication of the nature of the unresolved questions:
Indeed, the record in the reopened proceeding perheps hr.s reised more questions than it hcs tnswered satisfactorily.
For exmple, does the training progrem actually enhance the op2rators' knowledge or sinply encourage mmorization for tcst-taking purposes? Are the licensee end NRC exminations an effective way to ceasure en ornretor's ability to run the l
plant? Do the fomat and content of the exminations I
encourege cheatin)?
AIAB-772 at 63, footnote anitted.
-1/ Licensee's retition for Peview of AIAB-772, June 22,1084, (Licensee's Petition).
l 2/ Indeed, GPU asserts in its request to the O)mmission for a stay AIAH-772 that "(tlhe decisions of the Appeal Board and Licensiry feard do not
~
differ on ony findin) of fact or law...."
Licensee's Fequest for Stay (AIAB-772), June 13,1984, et 2.
o.
i te omnission is not in a position to answer these questions favorably to GPU on the basis of this record, any more than the Appeal Board could affirmatively answer them, and should allow the reopened hearings to go P
forward.
We second substantive issue decided adverse to GPU in AIAB-772 concerns reopenirg the record regardiry whether the Dieckamp mailgran constitutes a misrepresentation indicating lack of integrity.
AJain, GPU asserts no factual inconsistency or legal or policy error warrantirg Comission review.
It simply asserts that Mr. Dieckamp was " questioned" and asks the mmmission to
" reverse the Appeal Board's reopening on this matter.
Licensee's Petition at 6 Unfortunately, Mr. Dieckamp was never questioned by an adverse party under oath be fore an independent tribunal.
His questionirg by Mr.
Ste11o's I& E g rotp is scarcely a substitute, particularly considering the pettifoggirg incomprehensibility of Ste11o's conclusions on the subject.1/
r Mr. Dieckamp is President, dief Operatiry Officer and a Director of GPU, as well as a Director of virtually all of the subsidiary boards.
His integrity is key to the integrity of the entire corprate organization.
See AIAB-772 at 133.
We Comission has no record basis upon which to reverse the Appeal Board.
As to the third issue, possible T4I-1 leak rate falsification, GPU essentially asks for factual issues not yet addressed on the record to be stenarily resolved in its favor, by reference to the OI reports, without ever givirq the other side a hearirq.
As we discuss below, the OI reprt on thit I leak rate is not vindication for GPU.
Moreover, since GPU has already stated that it considers the Unit i leak rate issues to be stbsuned within the 1/ Cbmmissioner Ahearne called the Stello conclusions " specious." Gairman Palladino judged than "confusirg." Ranscript of closed cannission meeting, Novenber 6,1981 at 54.
In commissioner Gilinsky's view they were a " joke." Transcipt of closed Ctsnission meetirn, Jme 21,1983 at 20.
_4_
-(
reopened proceedirns on Unit 2 leak - rate falsification,4/ and since it never appealed AIAB-738 which reopened the record concerning the Unit 2 leak rate falsification, it is not harmed in any conceivable way by the reopentry of the-record as to the Unit 1 leak rate question.
Its position in seeking reversal of this portion of MAB-772 is therefore logically inconsistent.
GPU professes to be unable to identify the new allegations concerning T4I-1 leak. rate tests.
As the Appeal board noted, the OI reports on their free disclose:
- 1) a lack of understcnding concerniry record keepiry requiroments;
- 2) ignorance (over a period of several pars) by tuth operating staff and mantgunent of the existence and significance for leak rate calculations of a ' loop scal' in the instrtment system; and
- 3) Inattention duriry the pre-accident period to work requests that muld hcVe highlighted the loop seal problem.
AIAB-772 at 153.
Moreover, the now-released interviews and doctmentation behind the OI reports show more.
It is docunented over end over igain that T4I-1 opcrators routinely discarded unfavorable test results, contrary to requircments, yet accepted as valid tests showirv) a negative leak rate, althotgh they were well aware that a negative leak rate is physically impossible and such tests could not te representative of ectual plant corditions, Whether or not this practice constitutes criminal cond mt, it obviously demonstreites a thorotgh disdain for the most basic safety-related surveillance requir(ments and a company-wide ottitude elevatirn forn over substance.
Fuch questions bear directly on both intcgrity and competence.
4/ Licensco's Petition, n.11 at 7.
\\
CONCLUSION GPU claims that hearings to resolve these issues will have no benefit except to "those who ' mt want a decision reached."
Implicit in this assertion is the ~asstaption that a " decision" could only conceivably be an approval of restart.
In fact, we have a decision and it is against restart.
We Appeal Board has given GPU another chance to establish that it meets the requirments to operate T41-1.
In our view, a favorable result is scarcely a foregone concitsion. tese hearings do not deal with technicalities, but with central safety issues, prime amorg than:
"is the instrtx: tion adequate to prepare the operators to operate the plant safely?" AIAB-772 at 63.
GPU has not statal a case for Comnission review and it should not be accepted.
f Respectfully submitted, i
l} Y
)
v i
I Ellyn R. Weiss General Cbtmsel Union of (bncerned Scientists Harmon, Weiss & Jordan 2001 S Street, N.W., Suite 430 Washirgton, D.C. 20009 Dited: July 12,1984
c-A DOCKETEC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA U'iNE NIELEAR REGULATORY C094ISSION
'84 JUL 12 P2:32 In the Matter of
)
LFF M di m :-
)
GOCKfilte & dEicz,
Ekt4idt No. 50-289 i
ME.ROPOLITAN EDISON C04PANY
)
T
)
(Pestar t)
('Ihree Mile Island Nuclect
)
Station, Unit No.1)
)
CERTIFICATE OF GERVICE I hereby certify that cupies of " UNION CF CONCERNED SCIENTISE' OPPOSITICN TO CPU PETITION FCR 14EVIEW OF ALAB-772" have been serval on the followin) persons by deposit in the United Etates mail, first citss rostrge prepcid, this 12th dey of July 1084, except as irrlicated by en asterisk.
Nunzio Palladino, Chairnen Dr. Fujinald L. Cotchy U.S. Ric1 car Regulttory Commission Atomic Safety r.nd Licensinr 'ppeal Poerd Wt.shirg ton, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washiry ton D.C. 20555 James Asselstine, Cbmmissioner U.S. Nuclear Fcquietory Comission Judge Christine N. Vohl Washiry ton, D.C. 20555 Atonic Safety and Licensiry Appeal Poerd U.S. Nuclear ikgulatory Comission Frederick Pernthal,Comissioner Washirg ton, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuc1 err Reguletory Commission Washirgton, D.C. 20555 Ivan W. !bith, Gairman Atomic Fe fety c.nd Licensity Eoard
'Ihomes roberts, commissioner U.S. Nuclet r R<gulatory Cemission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory comission Washiryton, D.C. 20555 Washirgton, D.C. 20555
!Leldon J. Wolfe, Alternate Cheltman IAndo Zech, comissioner Atomic rt foty crv? Licensiry Borrd U.S. teclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Argulatory Comission Wr.shirgton, D.C. 20555 Washirrj ton, D.C. 20555 Cary J. Edles, mairmen Custr.ve A. Linenterger, Jr.
Atcmic Sefoty end Licensiry Appeal Ectrd Atomic safety arvt Licenairn toard U.S. Nuclear IWJulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Reguletory Comission heshirgton, D.C. 20555 hashinjton, D.C. 20555 Dr. John 11. Buck Mrs. Marjorie Nmodt Atomic Fafety and Licensity Appeol Borrd R.D. 45 U.S. Nuclear Fugulstory Ccanission Coctsville, PA 19320 hashinrjton D.C. 20555
s Maxine vbelflirg, Esguire
- Steven C. fholly Of fice of Chief (bunsel' Union of Concerned Scientists Department of Divirorsnental Resources 1346 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 1101 505 Executive Ibuse Washing ton, D.C. 2003G P.O. Box 2357 Herrisburg, PA 17120 Docketirq and Service Section Office of the Secretary Ms. touise Erad ford U.S. Nuclear Fo3ulatory Comission
'Ihree Mile Island Alert Washirg ton, D.C. 20555 1011 Green Street Harrisburg, FA 17102 Jack Coldberg Of fice of LNecutive [ajel Direcror Joanne Doroshow U.S. Nuclear Iwgulatory Cornission
'Ihe Christic Institute Washirg ton, D.C. 20555 1324 North Cipitol Etreet Weshirgton, D.C. 20002 Ernest L. Blake, Jr.
Shav,, Pittmtn, Ebtts & 'Irov. bridge Dr. Judith H. Johnsttri 1800 M Street, N.W.
Dr. Chauncey Fepford Washirgton, D.C. 20036 Envirorinental Coalition on Nuclear Power Michael F. McBride 433 Orlando tvcnte LcEocuf, tamb, Iniby & McFae State Collcge, FA 16801 1333 New Ikepshire tve., N.W.
Suite 1100
- Willlam S. Jordan, III Wasreiryton, D.C. 20036 Prtmon, Weiss & Jordan 2001 S Street, N.W.
Euite #30 Washing ton, D.C. 20009 MA John A. Levin, tssistant (bunsel 1
Pennsylvenin Public Ut11ity Commission P.O. Box 3265 I
Harricburg, Pennsylvrnia 17120 l
- Harr! rielivtred.
________