ML20091P593
| ML20091P593 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 06/11/1984 |
| From: | Trowbridge G METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| ALAB-772, SP, NUDOCS 8406130109 | |
| Download: ML20091P593 (10) | |
Text
h June 11, 1984 i r UNITFD STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS 03UN 12 P4:25 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD D.ly ir In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
. Docket No. 50-289 SP
)
(Restart-Management (Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Phase)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
LICENSEE'S REQUEST FOR STAY (ALAB-772)
Licensee has today filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission notice of its intent to file a petition for review of ALAB-772, together with a request for extension of. time within which to file the petition for review.
The petition will request review of ALAB-772 insofar as it reopens and re-mands the management phase of this proceeding for further hear-ings by the Licensing Board on training, the Dieckamp mailgram and leak rate testing at TMI-1.
Consistent with_this notice, Licensee seeks a ' stay of the remand directed by the Appeal: Board pending Commission action on the petition for review and such further stay as the Commission may order pending review.
As required by 10 CFR~2.788, Licensee sets)forth be--
low a concise statement of the grounds for stay, with reference; to the factors-specified Jin 10 CFR 2.788 (e) :
..[ -
PDR ADOCK 05000289 8406130109 840611 x
j 9_ _
_PDR
9 f
1.
Likelihood of prevailing on the merits.
(a)
Training.
The decisions of the Appeal Board and Licensing Board do not differ on any find-ings of fact or law but only in the judgments derived from the record of this proceeding.
In particular, the Licensing Board fully acknowledged the same weak-nesses which the Appeal Board found in Licensee's training program as reflected in the reopened hearing on cheating.
Contrary to the Appeal Board, however, the Licensing Board concluded that the commitments made by Licensee to correct those weaknesses and the additional conditions imposed by the Board (including an independent audit of Licensee's training program) were a sufficient response to those weaknesses.
The Appeal Board's decision contains no suggestion that these commitments and conditions I;r.ve not been fully implemented by Licensee.
The differenceEin judgments between the Licensing Board and-Appeal Board should be settled by the Commission and are likely, in Li-censee's view, to be resolved in favor-of.the Licensing:
Board's decision.
. (b)
The Dieckamp Mailgram.
The Licensing.
U Board's' decision reflects <it,was' aware that Mr. DieckamN{.
's mailgram to Congressman Udall in May,l1979,.had.been
. explored by1 investigators following.the TMI-27 accident,.
it heard directly1from the head of;an,IE team.that
~
4 a
e e
w
o delved into this matter at Commission direction, it i
acknowledged that no party sought to question Mr.
Dieckamp on this subject, and it determined that 4
the matter was not worth any additional investigative efforts in the hearing context.
LBP-81-32, 14 N.R.C.
381, 555-56 (1981).
The Appeal Board on the other hand, while recognizing that it "may not be partic-ularly fruitful," ALAB-772, slip. op. at 133, "be-lieve[s] it may be worth some additional effort,"
Id. at 134, particularly since it is remanding anyway on training issues, Id.
L Licensee does not believe, as stated above that a remand on training issues is called for,'and even if: training were remanded, the threshold test for reopening and remanding on the mailgram issue should not be lessened for that reason.
The Licens-ing Board's decision was reasonable in 1981 and makes even more sense now with the passage of time.. The very IE' investigative report, NUREG-0760, referred tx) by the Licensing Board.(and flayed by the Appeal Board)
~
' :was done-at theLCommission's request and was reviewed in public meetings withLthe Commission years ago.
1k) 'further investigative effort'wasfordered by?the Commission..Furthermore, the Appeall Board pointsito' no evidence : overlooked by the Licensing! Board (";..we :,
~
do'not'suggest^any wrongdoing by Dieckamp. 4" Id, atL J
3-
.L
i 133) and the available evidence on this subject was l
all known to the Commission in January, 1984, when i
the Commission specifically endorsed Mr. Dieckamp's continued participation in nuclear operations.
Memo-randum from the Secretary, dated January 27, 1984.
Under these circumstances Licensee believes the Licens-ing Board's decision was reasonable and prudent, and additional resources and time to be expended on a re-mand of the mailgram matter ordered by the Appeal Board would be unnecessary, fruitless and inconsistent with prior Commission related actions.
(c)
TMI-l Leak Rate Testing.
Licensee has been prepared to discuss current TMI-l leak rate testing.
procedures in connection with the hearing reopened by the Appeal Board on leak rate testing at TMI-2.
When and if the Commission lifts the stay it imposed on that reopened hearing, Licensee plans to introduce testimony which will show that the deficiencies in the TMI-2 practices and procedures have been. addressed and cor-rected for TMI-1.
The Appeal Board's decision, however, would reopen not just the question of current TMI-l procedures but the procedures in.effect over five years ago.
'The Appeal' Board's decision to reopen rests.
principally on Board Notifications by the NRC. Staff to the~effect that.there.were unspecified indications of theTsame leak rate testing practices-at.TMI-l as' 4
7
1 i
at TMI-2.
Since then, however, the specifien of the TMI-l pre-accident testing procedures have become known through an OI investigation report which, as acknowledged by the Appeal Board, is favorable in its overall conclusions to Licensee.
The OI report removes the serious implications which could have been read into the earlier Board Notifications.
The Appeal Board's decision does indicate that the Board remains disturbed by some aspects of the TMI-l leak rate testing.
However, the Board did not find, nor do we believe the Board could reasonably have found, that these rose to the level of new information justifying in themselves a re-opening of the hearing.
2.
Irreparable Injury.
If, as remains to be seen, the Commission decides that the decision on the restart of TMI-l must await completion of the entire adjudicatory restart proceeding, Licensee will be irreparably injured by the delay in completion of the proceed-ing and consequent delay in restart occasioned by a reopened hearing and further appeals, rurther delay for reopened hearings will result in three
' adverse consequences to GPU and to its customerst 5~
e
s promised rate relief to the citizens and businesses that it serves will be further postponed; the owners of GPU's facilities will be required to wait for an additional indefinite period before receiving a re-turn on their investment; and, most important, the i
schedule for defueling and clean-up of TMI-2 will almost certainly be further delayed.
Licensee will also suffer irreparable injury, in the form of the l
effort and expense of preparing for and conducting l
further hearings, if the Commission grants Licensee's motion for review and reverses the Appeal Board's l
decision.
l l
3.
Harm to Other Parties.
No other party will be injured by staying the reopening of the hearing pending Commission action I
on Licensee's petition for review.
i 4.
Public Interest.
The public interest will best be served by j
avoiding any commitment of resources by the NRC, the Licensee and Intervenors to a reopened hearing
~
pending a determination by the Commission as to whether that commitment of resources is necessary.
p h
p i
a t
i a
ns
d l
On balance the foregoing factors strongly argue in i
l.
favor of Licensee's request for a stay.
i i
Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE AuA' 'fu n,
GMorg[F.Trowbridge,[P.C.
.C.
Ernest L. Blake, Jr.,
Counsel for Licensee i
Dated: June 11, 1984 0-it-
),
l 1
- 7' M
- A
'M M
A
= _. -
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD l
In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit 1!o.1)
)
l L
l CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE i
I hereby certify that copies of " Licensee's Request for Stay (ALAB-772)," dated June. 11, 1984, were served on those persons on the attached Service List by deposit in the United i
States mail, postage prepaid, this lith day of June, 1984.
Additionally, courtesy copies will be served by hand on June 12, 1984, on those indicated by an asterisk (*).
l G 1. Ma ?.
Ernest L. Blake, Jr., P.C.
i i
~
i Dated:
June 11, 1984 l
t l
k i
g.
j
i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA n0UETED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'84 JUN 12 P4 :25 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL. BOARD uuGn ineu 4 3rp, BRANCH In the Matter of
)
)
METADPOLITAN EDISCN COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289 SP
)
(Restart Management (Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Phase)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
SERVICE LIST
- Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connaission John E. Buck Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board
- Victor Gilinsky, commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cosuaission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 i
Administrative Judge
- Thomas M. Roberts, commissioner Christine N. Kohl U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cossaission Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Washington, D.C.
20555 Board i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comunission oJames K. Asselstine, Commissioner Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Administrative Judge Ivan W. Smith, Chairman oFrederick Sarathal, Comunissioner Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comunission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cosumission l
Washington, D.C.
2055$
Washington, D.C.
20555
- Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Gary J. Edles, Chairman Sheldon J. Wolfo Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comunission -
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20$55 Washington, D.C.
20555 9
1
2 l
Administrative Judge Mr. Henry D. Hukill Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.
Vice President Atomic Safety & Licensing Board GPU Nuclear Corporation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cosmission P.O. Box 480 Washington, D.C.
20555 Middletown, PA 17057
- Docketing and Service.Section (3)
Mr. and Mrs. Norman Aamodt.
Office of the Secretary R.D.
5 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory cosmaission Coatesville, PA 19320 l
Washington, D.C.
20555 Ms. Louise Bradford Atomic Safety a Licensing Board TMI ALERT Panel 1011 Green Street U.S. Nuclear msgulatory Commission Harrisburg,,PA 17102 washington, D.C.
20555
- Joanne Doroshow, Esquire Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal The Christic Institute Board Panel 1324 North Capitol street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comunission Washington, D.C.
20002 Washington, D.C.
20555 Ms. Gail Phelps
- Jack R. Goldberg, Esq. (4)
ANGRY /TMZ PIRC i
Office of the Executivo Legal 1037 Maclay Street Director Harrisburg, PA 17103 l
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
- Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq.
Harmon, Weiss & Jordan Maxine Woolfling, Esq.
2001 S Street, N.W.. Suite 430 Office of Chief Counsel Washington, D.C.
20009 Department of Environmental Resources Michael P. McBride, Esq.
505 Executive House LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & NacRae P.O. Box 2357 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Harrisburg, PA 17120 Suite 1100 Washington, D.C.
20036 John A. Levin, Esq.
Assistant Counsel Michael W. Maupir., Esq.
Pennsylvania Public Utility Hunton & Williams Commission 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 3265 P.O. Box 1535 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Richmond, VA 23212 David E. Cole, Esq.
Smith & Smith, P.C.
2931 Pront Street Earrisburg, PA 17110 4
6
.....