ML20091Q786
| ML20091Q786 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 06/13/1984 |
| From: | Trowbridge G METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20091Q789 | List: |
| References | |
| ALAB-772, SP, NUDOCS 8406140160 | |
| Download: ML20091Q786 (7) | |
Text
- '
. Juno 13, 1984 CCCKETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 84 JUN 13 p4:33 BEFORE THE COMMISSION
{'~
e :g;.
5 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)
On June 11, 1984, Licensee filed with the 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 remands the management phase of this proceeding for further hearings by the Licensing Board on training, the Dieckamp mailgram and leak rate testing at TMI-1.
Consistent with this notice and pursuant to 10 CFR 2.788, Licensee sought the same date from the Appeal Board a stay of the remand directed by the Appeal Board in ALAB-772 pending Commission action on the* petition for review and such further stay as the Commission may order pending review.
By Order of June 13, 1984, the Appeal Board dismissed Licensee's June 11 Request For Stay.
(A copy of the Appeal Board Order, dated June 13, 1984, is attached.)
The Appeal Board dismissed 84061gOO 9
2 Licensee's' stay. request on grounds that any request for stay of
- ALAB-772.s more properly addressed to the Commission.1!
I" i
accordance'with 10 CFR 2.788, Licensee requests that the Commis-sion stay the. remand. directed-in ALAB-772 pending action on the l petition for review and such further stay as the Commission may order pending. review.
As require /. by 10 CFR 2.788, Licensee sets forth be-low a concise state.nent of the grounds for stay, with reference
~
'to the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.788(e):
- 1.. Likelihood of~ prevailing on the merits.
(a)
Training.
The decisions ofi he Appeal t
Board and Licensing Board do not differ on any find-ingsoffachorlawbutonly.inthejudgmentsderived f
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 i.
an-independent audit of Licensee's training program) 1/ Licensee's request was first sought from the Appeal Board, taking account of Section 2.788(f) of the Rules of Practice.
L
'2/' Prompt. Commission action is requested on Licensee's stay l
request.
By Order of' June 11, 1984, the Licensing Board has scheduled a prehearing conference on the remanded issues for June 28, 1984.
On June 12, Licensee requested the Licensing Board to delay' scheduling the prehearing conference pending the outcome of its request for s tay.
L
k 6.
3 were a sufficient response to those weaknesses.
The
- Appeal Board's decision contains no' suggestion that these' commitments and conditions have not been fully.
implemented by Licensee.
The difference in judgments between the Licensing Board and Appeal Board ~should-be settled by the Commission and are likely, in Licensee's view,.to be. resolved in favor of the Licens-ing Board's decision.
(b)
The Dieckamp Mailgram.
The Licensing Board's decision reflects that it was aware that Mr. Dieckamp's mailgram to Congressman Udall in May, 1979, had been-explored by investigators following the TMI-2 adcident, that it heard-directly from the
~ head of:an IE team-that delved into this matter at
~
i, Commission direction,- that.no party. sought to question-Mr.-Dieckamp on this subject, and that it determined the matter was not-worth'any additional investigative
-efforts in the-1.?aring 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 -
1 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.
2 Licensee'does not believe, as stated above
.that a remand.on training issues is called for, and.
'A..
y --
1 V
4 even if training were remanded, the threshold test g
.for reopening and remanding on the mailgram issue 1
~ hould not be lessened for.that reason.- The Licens-s 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, re-ferred to by the Licensing Board-(and flayed by the Appeal Board) was done at the Commission's' request and was reviewed in public' meetings with the Commis-sion years ago.
No further investigative effort was ordered by:the~ Commission.
Furthermore, the
' Appeal Board points to no evidence overlooked by the Licensing B6ard (".
. we'do not suggest any wrong-doing by Dieckamp.
" Id, at 133) and the available evidence on this subject was all known to the Commis-
-\\ -
sion-in January, 1984, when the Commission specif-
~ically endorsed Mr. Dieckamp's continued participa-tion'in' nuclear operations.
Memorandum from the Secretary,.date'd January 27, 1984.
Under these cir-cumstances Licensee' believes the Licensing Board's decision was reasonable and prudent, and additional
~
resources and' time'to be expended on a remand of the
.mailgram matter ordered by the-Appeal Board would be
_ unnecessary, fruitless and inconsistent with prior
' Coramission related actions.
f
m 5
(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 s
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 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 l
to the effectithat'there were unspecified indications.
~
4,.
of the.same leak rate testing practices at TMI-l as
, at TMI-2._
Since then, however, theispecifics.of the TMI-l pre-accident-testing procedures'have bec'ome known through an OI'inv.estigation report l
.which, as acknowledged by the' Appeal Board, is L~
' favorable in its overall conclusions to Licensee.
l-The 0I report removes,the serious-implications which could have been read-into the earlier-Board i
Notifications.
b The Appeal Board's decision does indicate that the Board remains disturbed by some aspects I
7
.-V w,,-
-m, J
La.
.~
6 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 lof new information justifying _in themselves a re-opening of th'e hearing.
- 2.
Irreparable Injury.
If, as remains to be seen, the Commission decides that the decision on'the restart of TMI.
must await completion of'the entire adjudicatory
. restart proceeding, Licensee will-be-irreparably injured by the delay in completion of the proceed-O
' ng_and consequent delay in restart occasioned by-i a reopene'd_ hearing and further' appeals.. Further-
~
~
delay for-reopened-hearings will result.in.three f
OU adverse' consequences.to GPU_and to its customers:
promised rate relief 'to the citizens and businesses 1
y
- 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-I turn on their investment; and, most imp'rtant, the o
schedule for defueling and clean-up of TMI-2 will l-lalmost'certainly be further delayed.
Licensee will l-also suffer irreparable injury, in the form of the L
effort and. expense of preparing'for-and conducting L
L further-hearings, if the Commission grants Licensee's
7 motion for review and reverses the Appeal Board's decision.
3.
Harm to-Other Parties..
No other party will be injured by staying the reopening of the hearing pending Commission ac-
. tion on Licensee's' petition for review.
4.
Public Interest.
The public interest will best be served by
. avoiding any-commitment of resources'by the NRC, the Licensee and'Intervenors to a reopened hearing pendingad$terminationby.theCommicsionasto
.whether'that' commitment of resources is necessary.
s On balance thefforegoing factors strongly argue in favor of Licensee's: request for a' stay.
Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
. Arks
. AterA *br
~Morg F.' Trow 6 ridge, P.
G Erne t L.
Blake, Jr., P.C.
' Counsel for Licensee
+
Dated: June:13, 1984
'b