ML20099E709
| ML20099E709 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Three Mile Island  |
| Issue date: | 11/19/1984 |
| From: | Bernabei L, Doroshow J CHRISTIC INSTITUTE, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT, THREE MILE ISLAND ALERT |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20099E700 | List: |
| References | |
| SP, NUDOCS 8411260034 | |
| Download: ML20099E709 (35) | |
Text
- ;. ;
t i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR-REGULATORY COMMISSION' GDtK=rg
.Sefore the Atomic Safety andiLicensing' Appeal-Board E4 ll0V 23 p;7 ;7g In the Matter of ) gcg
((fjg~assur"'
) c METROPOLITAN LDISON COMPANY -) Docket No. 5 0-28 9 "A A NCH .
) (Restart Remand on Management)
("hree Mile Island, Nuclear )
Stttien, Unit No. 1) )
)
)
THREE MILE' ISLAND ALERT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUP. ORT OF MOTION FOR-CERTIFICATION OF ORDER BARRING GIL_INSKY AND BRADFORD TESTIMONY Three Mile Island Alert ("TMIA" ) , pursuant to'10 CFR 2.771, petitions this Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board (" Appeal Eoard") to consider and reverse a November 9, 1984 order of the Atomic Safuty and Licensing Board (" Licensing Board") which bars TMIA's introduction into evidence of testimony of former Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC" or " Commission") Comr.issioners Peter Bradford and Victor Gilinsky on the Dieckamp Mailgram issue.
At the same time, the Board has permitted licensee General Public Utilities Nuclear (" GPU" ) to present opinion and factual testimony on the same matters, including the testimony of Herman i
Dieckamp, William Lowe and Edwin Zebroski.
This ruling of the Licensing Board affecta the structure of the proceeding in a pervasive and unusual manner and presents novel questions of policy and law whose resolution will protect I the public interes t and avoid undue prejadice to TMIA's interest in thic proceeding. .
L. ,
0411260034 841119 PDR ADOCK 05000289 8
'As set forth.below, TMIA requests that the Appeal Board consider and reverse the Board's-rulings which bar the intro-duction of former Commissioners Bradford and Gilinsky's
' testimony-on relevant issues before the Board.
.I. BACKGROUND.
On May 24, 1984, the Appeal Board remanded for considera-tion by the Board the circumstances under which on May 9, 1984 GPU President Herman Dieckamp sent a mailgram to Congressman Morris Udall in which he stated that "(t)here is no evidence -
that anyone interpreted the pressure spike and initiation of-containment sprays in terms of core damage" at _ the time of their occurrence, and.that there is no evidence that anyone withheld information.
The Appeal Board's concern was whether the statements in the mailgram were accurate, and if not, who or what was the source of the inforr . ton which Mr. Dieckarp conveyed in the mailgram. The Appeal Board criticized the Licensing Board for its reliance on the NRC Otaff's report on GPU reporting failure $ NUREG-0760, which the Appeal Board characterized as " wholly conclusory." ALAB-772 at 131-133.
The Appeal Board also stated explicitly that it remanded the mailgram issue to the Board for further hearing on the
" significance of Dieckamp's mailgram vis-a-vis licensee's competence to manage TMI-l safely." Id . at 13 3.
The Licensing Board, after a prehearing conference on the scope of the remanded and reopened issues, stated that the issues befoco it were whether Mr. Dieckamp knew or should have have known that the statements in the mailgram were false or 1
l
e '
~
.ina curate; and whether he should have corrected the statements-once heiknew'that'the statements were false or inaccurate. In additioni the BoardLaccepted the issue of whether Mr. Dieckamp "madeLany effort to discover-the facts . . . ; Memorandum and
~
Order-Following Prehearing Conference at 8 (July 9, 1984).
TMIA= proposed to present the testimony of former Commissioner Peter Bradford, currently Chairman of the Maine Public Utilities Commission,.on.the following; (1) The operating structure of the Commission and the NRC Staff' Emergency Response Center at the time of the TMI-2 accident; 4
(2) Mr. Dieckamp.and GPU's obligation at the-time of the accident to' report information about the pressure spike, the containmant sprays,Jgeneration or combustion of hydrogen, core damage and in-core thermocouple temperatures in excess of 2500 degrees which would indicate core damage and hydrogen generation /
burn and their obligation to do an investigation or inquiry to ensure the accuracy and completeness of all information
~
communicated to the Commission and NRC Staff about these- mattars;
^
(3) Whether the information available to Mr. Dieckamp and GPU at the time of sending the mailgram was sufficient evidence that licensee personnel understood the significance of the pressure spike at the time it occurred so that it should have been acknowledged as "some evidence" in Mr. Pieckamp's mailgram;
-(4) Whether Mr. Diechamp should have obtained the informa-tion now available on the public record by May 9, 1979 so that he would have known on that date that the statements made in his I
7 mailgram were false at the time he made them; (5) the adequacy of NUREG-0760, the NRC Staff's report on GPU reporting failures, insofar as the report addresses licensee's understanding and appreciation of the pressure spike at the time it occurred and the withholding of infor-mation about the pressure spike and evidence of core damage.
(6) Mr. Bradford's opinion of Mr. Dieckamp's integrity and licensee's corporate integrity and competence in light of licensee and Mr. Dieckamp's consistent position over the last five and one-half years that there is no evidence that anyone interpreted the pressure spike in terms of core damage or that anyone withheld any information.
On October 23, 1984, upon adequate notice to all parties, TMIA took the deposition of Peter Bradford. Attorneys for both the licensee and NRC Staff cross-examined former Commissioner Bradford at the deposition. On November 1, 1984, TMIA moved to introduce the deposition testimony of Peter Bradford as the testimony of an unavailable witness insofar as his business responsibilities as Chariman of the Main Public Utilities Com-mission prevents his attendance during the scheduled time for hearing of the Dieckamp Mailgram issue.
During the deposition TMIA established the following foun-dation for the opinion testimony it requested from Mr. Bradford:
1 See Schedule for hearings before the Maine Public Utilities Com,- tssion on " Investigation of Seabrook Involvements by Maine Utilities," Docket No.84-113, attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit 1. (continued)
o..
- (1) Mr. Bradford~was an NRC Commissioner at.the time of-the TMI-2 accident, isLa graduate of law school, has knowledge of NRC regulations on reporting of.information to the NRC at the time of the accident, and has specific knowledge of the NRC requirements for . reporting. of information during and af ter tdie accident; (2) Mr. Bradford's. explanation of how.the Commission and the NRC Staff operated to respond to the TMI-2 accident and-the information which they needed and required to perform their duties; (3)- Mr. Bradford's specific knowledge of the facts of the TMI-2 accident and reporting of information on the-accident, a portion of which is evident from his questioning of Mr.
Dieckamp at an October 14, 1981, Commission meeting which addressed specifically Mr. Dieckamp's mailgram; and (4) Mr. Bradford's cpecific knowledge and analysis of NUREG-0760, including his analysis at the time he was.commis-sioner and his current analysis given newly-discovered evidence, on licensee's understanding and appreciation of the pressure spike at the time it occ2rred.
Mr. Bradford in his deposition testified to the following:
(1) Licensee officials, including Mr. Dieckamp, were required to provide the NRC with detailed information about specific plant conditions in order to permit the Commission and the NRC Staff to make informed decisiors concerning the accident, (contir.ued)
TMIA requesta that the Appeal Board take. official notice of the hearing schedule of the Maine Public Utilities :cmmission of which Mr. Bradford is currently Chairman.
, ~
-6'-.
- including anyLdecision'tb recommend levacuatio.r to the Common-w ealthLof' Pennsylvania; (2) His opinion was that if'the licensee had'provided to
.the,NRC information about site and GPU' Service Corporation-
~
personnel's? knowledge about the pressure spike,.the. generation and. combustion of hydrogen,-and-in-core temperature readings-in excess'of 2200' degrees F, the Commission and'NRC Staff would'have ordered a precautionary evacuation given .*-
that'they took' steps to do-so on much~-less dramatic-~informatio'n-on' Friday, March'30, 1979;
.(3) Mr. Dieckamp,-as GPU President,-should have had available to him evidence, including additional evidence uncovered during the discovery portion of this proceeding, which indicated that site personnel did interpret .the pressure spike in terms of core damage and that there was. withholding
~
of information about the pressure spike and associated conclusions; (4) Mr. Dieckamp, if he did not have available to him this information, should have done an inquiry to discover this evidence prior to sending the mailgram; (5) The fact that Mr. Dieckamp would write a mailgram which contained false-statements, apparently without doing an adequate investigation to ensure its accuracy, does not reflect well on Mr. Dieckamp's integrity.
This last opinion was based, in addition, on the fact that j Mr. Dieckamp maintained this position at an October 14, 1981 meeting under questioning about the mailgram from then- ;
Commissioner Bradford. During an exchange with Mr. Dieckamp at
this meeting _on.the "mailgram," Mr. Bradford was able to maka a l l
first-hand evaluation'of'Mr. Dieckamp's credibility.
Moreover, Mr.,Bradford testified as to the inadquacy of the:IE investigation and report on-GPU reporting failures.
The NRC Staff is again presenting the testimony of the director of that investigaticn, Norman Moseley, to testify about the investigation and a portion of the report. Mr. Bradford's testimony.is relevant-to' rebut.the testimony of Mr. Moseley as to-the soundness of-~the report and its-conclusions.2 On November 1, 1984, TMIA filed a motion for leave to present both factual and opinion-testimony of former NRC Commissioner Victor Gilinsky onithe Dieckamp Mailgram issue.
TMIA represented to the Board and the parties the general.
outline of its intended questioning.of Dr. Gilinsky,and that although it believed he.had relevant testimony TMIA did not have the authority to represent Dr. Gilinsky or present pre-filed testimony on his behalf. TMIA furthe. stated that it wished to present the testimony of Dr. Gilinsky on the following matters relevant to the Dieckamp Mailgram issue before the Board:
(1) On May 7, 1971, Dr. Gilinsky attended a site tour by the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment of the Commit-tee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the U.S. House of Repre-sentatives, whose chairman is Representative Morris Udall.
During that tour, Dr. Gilinsky spoke to Mr. Dieckamp about the 2
TMIA also proposed to introduce two memoranda Mr. Bradford 1; rote during the time he was Commissioner in which he analyzed the evi-donce presented in NUREG-0760 concerning licensee's knowledge and understanding of the pressure spike at the time it occurred.
These two memoranda,as Mr. Bradford's testimony about the inade-quacy of NUREG-0760, were presented to rebut the NRC Staff and licensee's argumant that the conclusions of NUREG-0760 support a finding for licensee on this issue. See Moseley Prefiled 4.
Written Testimony.
I i
pressure spike, reporting of the pressure spike to.the Commis- ;
sion and reporting of information generally-to the-Commission.
The site visit and representation made on the site tour that site and NRC personnel observed the' pressure spike at the time it occurred, became the subject of the New York Times article of May 8, 1979, to which Mr. Dieckamp responded by means of his May 9, 1979 mailgram.- Dr. Gilinsky's testimony as to a conversation with Mr. Dieckamp about the subject of the mailgram, only two days before the mailgram was.sent, is relevant'to Mr. Dicckamp's state of mind at the time he sent
~
the mailgram. It is ' also relevant to Mr. Dieckamp's motive for sending the mailgram to Dr. Gilinsky, the sole NRC Commissioner to whom the mailgram was sent.
(2) Dr. Gilinsky's interpretation and understanding of the relevant "no evidence . . . " portion of the mailgram is probative of Mr. Dieckamp's intent in sending the mailgram.
An individual who sends an official document in the nature of the mailgram does so with an expectation as to how the document will be understood by the recipient. Therefore, Dr. Gilinsky's understanding of the meaning and purpose of the mailgram is relevant to the issue of Mr. Dieckamp's state of mind at the time he sent the mailgram.
(3) After the accident, Dr. Gilinsky had dicussions with Mr. Dieckamp and discussions with other licensee officials of which Mr.-Dieckamp was aware, at Commission meetings, concerning licensee's appreciation of the pressure spike; i
reporting el the pressure spike, hydrogen burn and core damage to the NRC, and the Dieckamp mailgram. Dr. Gilinsky's observa-
_9-tion of Mr. Dieckamp at these meetings and his analysis of the facts before Mr. Dieckamp and the accuracy of.nis mailgram is probative of whether the statements in the mailgram are
'f also and whether Mr. Dieckamp knew or should have known they were falso at the time he sent the mailgram.
(4) Ihr. Gilinsky, as senior Commissioner at the time of the TMI accident, can testify as to the licensee and Mr.
Dieckamp's obligation to report to the Commission the specific conditions of the reactor during the accident; the materiality of this information to the Commission's decisions about the accident; and his and other Commissioner's probable response to information about the pressure spike, hydrogen burn, in-core thermocouple temperatures in excess of 250 ) degrees F and core damage if this information had-been reported to the NRC in a timely fashion.
This testimony defines Mr. Dieckamp's obligation to ensure that any information he reported to the Commission about the accident or licensee's reporting failures was fully accurate and complete. It also will demonstrate that the evidence Mr.
Dieckamp now contends was not material or of sufficient reliability to acknowledge in nis mailgram was in fact "some evidence" which demonstrated that licensee personnel understood the significance of the pressure spike, which should have been reported to the Commission.
At the November 9 Prehearing Conference the Licensing Board denied TMIA's motion to admit the deposition testimony of Mr. Bradford or his testimony at the hearing on matters to which he testified in his deposition. The grounds stated by
s' _ Lthe Board'for;. denial of his deposition and hearing' testimony.
were:-
(1)- Mr. Bradfor'd is in fact available and can be
- subpoenaed to appearLin~this' proceeding. Tr. at 27852.
(2) .Mr..Bradford's testimony, both factual an'd opinion,
.is unreliable because Mr. Bradford in his_ deposition inaicated that he.did not know the issue to which he-was~ speaking and the-use to which his testimony _would be put.- Tr. at 27850.-
In addition, TMIA did not establish an adequate foundation- ,
for this opinion testimony. ' Ibid.
(3) Mr. Bradford has no expertise to offer the Board in
~
its determination of this. issue so his testimony is irrelevant.
Id. at'27851.
(4) The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 has a fairness and reliability aspect within the Board's jurisdiction. The Act therefore provides that admission of Commissioner'Bradford's testimony would be unfair to other parties and would be unreliable testimony. The Board based this determination on its judgment that the "only purpose we can see for offering former Commissioner Bradford's testimony is to " lend his status to your[ TMIA's,)' views" and that using his " status" was not fair to the other parties. Ibid.
The Licensing Board ruled that it would not permit the oral testimony of Dr. Gilinsky on the grounds: )
(1) His opinion testimony was not relavant to any
.i matter before the Board. Id. at 27855. 1 (2) Presentation and introduction of Dr. Gilinsky's opinion testimony is "against the intent of the Ethics in
\:
._ 11 _
r Government Act" and implementing regulations. Id. at 27855, 27866.
(3) Presentation'and introduction of Dr. Gilinsky's factual testimony:without profiling testimony would violate licensee's right to notice of this testimony. Further,-
precantation of Dr. Gilinsky's testimony for the first' time
.at the time of the hearing " flies in the face of any regulated organized hearing." Id. at 27856.
(4). TMIA has failed to establish with specificity' the substance'of Dr. Gilinsky's proposed testimony or to establish that he has relevant and material evidence to offer on the issue before the Board. Id. at 27856, 27863-64.
(5) TMIA has refused to disclose to the Licensing Board all information it possesses about Dr. Gilinsky's proposed tastimony. Id. at 27864.
The Board denied an oral request for directed certifica-tion to the Appeal Board of the Licensing Board's rulings barring the introduction of the Gilinsky and Bradford testimony.
Id. at 27874-75.
Over TMIA's objections, the Licensing Board admitted into evidence at the hearing the following testimony of licensee witnesses; (1) Mr. Lowe's opinion testimony that site personnel would not have deliberately concealed information about the pressure spike from their management and his opinion of Mr. Dieckamp's integrity. Tr. at 28146-28151.
1 (2) Mr. Dieckamp's testimony about the meaning of the mailgram. Tr. at 28303-28305; (3) Mr. Dieckamp's testimony about his statements before i
,,9
.e :n ..
the-Commission on October 114, 1981.
~~
abr. at.28306-28307;.
(4)- .Mr._Dieckamp's opinion testimony about his.own
. 'in tegrity . . Tr. at 28308-28310;
-(5) ~Mr.'Dieckamp's_ analysis _of the various investigativo
- reports and of the~inverviews conducted in the~ course of those investigations. Tr. at.28308-28310.
The Board based its ruling to accept. admission of-Mr.-Dieckamp's analysis of the various investigative reports -
and ' interviews on the fact that '" latitude should' be given : tio I Mr. Dieckamp to state in his own words why he:belicves what he does. We see no_ evidentiary prejudice to you ((TMIA_[.
We'see it as a sense of fairness." Tr..at 28313.
In all cases TMIA objected to introduction of.the testimony cited above on the ground that if it were foreclosed from prosenting testimony from the NRC perspective on what.
Mr. Dieckamp knew or should have known about the accuracy of statements in his mailgram, similarly, the licensee should be foreclosed from offering opinion testimony on the ulti-mate issue before the Board.
Through this motion, TMIA requests this Appeal Board to consider and reverse the Licensing Board's ruling which bars introduction of the two forcer Commissioners' factual and i opinion tes timony.
II. TMIA HAS MET T!!E STANDARD FOR DIRECTED CERTIFICATION TO THIS APPEAL BOARD.
The. standard to determine whether the Appeal Board should undertake discretionary interlocutory revias is whether the Licensing Board ruling: either (1) threatens
' L '%
- - , , i l
.- m.
1
- 131-:_
-) .
l
- s. .
lthe party.ad'versely affected by it withimmediate l an'd serious.
~
~
' irreparable harm, which,7as a; practical matter,=could-not be - alleviated' byLlater : appeal, - or L (2);affects the : basic
.structureJofrthe proceedingpinia pervasive or unusual' manner. -
Public Service-Company of Indiana,"Inc.i(Marble Hill Nuclear
- Generating Station, Units .1 'and 2) ,' ALAB-405, 5 N.R.C. 1190, 1192.(1977).3-Section V(f) (4)1of-: Appendix Acto 10 C.F.R.'Part:2 pro-vides the'following standard for1 directed certification:-
A question may be certifiedito the Commission
- of-the Appeal.-Board,-as appropriate, for~ deter-
- mination when.a majorior novel question of policy, law or procedure is involved which
- cannot be resolved except'by the1 Commission or -
the Appeal Board and when a. prompt and' final dacision.is_important for the protection of:
. the public interest,-or:to avoid undue delay- ~
- or serious prajudice to.the interests of a party.-
The questions'which TMIA requests the Appeal Board 1to
- determine are the folldwing
. (1) Whether the proposed testimony of former Commis- .
- - sioners Bradford and Gilinsky is rolevant to the Dieckamp 4 Mailgram issue before the Licensing Board and-should be
! . permitted:
(2) Whether the opinion testimony of.former Commis-
! sioners Bradford and Gilinsky is; barred.by the Ethics in I
-Government Act; (3) Whether the testimony of former Commissioner L Gilinsky may be presented without profiling written testi- ,
'- mony; and See also Puget Sound' Power and Light Co. (Skagit Nuclear.
! Power Project, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-572, 10 NRC 693,694 (1979);
!' Publii Service Electric and Gas Co.- (Salem Nuclear Generating l-. Station,_ Unit 1), ALAB-588, 11 NEC 533,534-(1980); Houston
. Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Generating Station,
_ Unit No . 1) , ALAB-635, 13 NRC 309,310 -(1981) .
i:
I' I<
._ _ - _a__.,_._ - - - - __ _
0 (4) Whether former Commissioner Bradford is an unavail-able witness such that his deposition testimony may be intro-duced in lieu of his live testimony at the hearing.
The. Board's foreclosure of the testimony.of the two-
'former Commissioners'. testimony effectively serves to. permit only the licensee to present evidence, from the company's perspective, on Mr'. Dieckamp's obligation to report informa-tion to the Commission and the accuracy of his mailgram.
Similarly,-it effectivelyfpermits only the licensee's testi- .
mony as'to-the ultimate issue before the Board, that is Mr. Dieckamp's integrity and the significance of the mailgram in terms of corporate integrity.
The Board's rulings thereby affect the basic structure of the proceeding in a pervasive manner. .The Board acknow-ledged this in stating that its rulings seriously affected TMIA's presentation of its case. Tr. at 27874.
Moreover the. Board's application of the Ethics in Govern-ment Act to bar the testimony of two former NRC officials is a legal question of first impression for the agency. As such this issue involves a novel'and important issue whose resolution is required to protect the public interest and to l
l -avoid undue and serious prejudice to TMIA's interest. Cer-tainly the Appeal Board should rule on whether or not the i
l Act, which TMIA contends on its face does not apply to testi-l t many under oath of former NRC Commissioners, should be applied l
in this case.
Y
- +
j
~
- 15'-
Therefore, the second basis.for the Board's rulings should be. decided on appeal as a novel.questionEof law which-requires-interpretation:by the Appeal. Board'..
III. TIIE PROPOSED TESTIMONY OF FORMER NRC COMMISSIONERS GILINSKY AND BRADFORD IS RELEVANT AND PROBATIVE EVIDENCE.
The' issues before this Atomic. Safety and Licensing Board.
(" Licensing Board") are:
(1) whether Mr. Dieckamp knew'or should have known that his mailgram contained false er inaccurate statements at the time he wrote it; and (2) - whether he should have corrected false and inaccu-rate statements in the mailgram at any time after he sent it.
j A. -Mr. Dieckamp's obligation in sending the m&ilgram.
One can determine the issue of whether Mr. Dieckamp "should have known" of the false statements in the mailgram only by first defining Mr. Dieckamp's obligation to ensure the accuracy of the statementahe made in his mailgram.
Mr. Dieckamp's obligation can only be defined in terms of his responsibility as GPU President to ensure all statements he made to the NRC were complete, accuract and truthfu; and in accordance with licensee's reporting responsibilities.
See, e.g., Section 206 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, 10 CFR 50.10, 55.31, 20.403, and 6.8.1 of TMI-2 Tsch. Specs.
Two statements in Mr. Dieckamp's mailgram are under
- . scrutiny, One is " [~t_7here is no evidence that anyone
, w . - . . , ,-,p , -
.-(
interpreted the ' pressure spikc' or the spray initiation in terms of reactor core damage at the time of the spike . .. . .
~
.-that anyone The second is "/ t_/here is no evidence . .
-withheld any information. " Withhold" is defined as "to desist or refrain'from granting, giving or allowing: keep in one's possession or control: keep back." Webster's Third International Dictionary (1961 ed.). In the context-of the mailgram th'e second statement means licensee did not withhold information within its possession which it was obligated to provide ~to the NRC.
In order to determine whether or not this second state-ment in Mr. Dieckamp's mailgram is factually accurate licen-see's obligation to provide information to the NRC during and after the accident must be defined. Mr. Dieckamp's statement in the mailgram about licensee's compliance with its obligation to provide the NRC with information is accurate only if it has complied with all reporting obligations. Similarly, one cannot determine whether Mr. Dieckamp fully complied with his obligation in sending the mailgram, that is whether he "should have known" statements in the mailgram were inaccurate without defining what investigation or inquiry Mr. Dieckamp should have done to ensure its accuracy.
Former Commissioner Bradford testified that he believed Mr. Dieckamp and licensee should have done an adequate inves-tigation to ensure the accuracy of the mailgram. Further, he
1 l
17 -
testified that Mr. Dieckamp (and licensee) should have had available the exhibits which he reviewed in the course of his-testimony, which indicated statements in the mailgram were incorrect and that licensee personnel did interpret the pressure spike in terms of core damage at the time of the spike.
TMIA's theory of Mr. Dieckamp's obligation in writing the mailgram considering the.mailgram would be received and considered by the Commission, is that :
(1) He had a responsibility to do an adequate inves-tigation of the facts concerning licensee's understanding of the pressure spike and containment sprays in terms of core damage prior to sending the mailgram; and (2) He had a responsibility to correct the misstate-ment that there was "no evidence" upon learning of the various interviews and documents constituting "some evidence" of licensee personnel's understanding of the pressure spike on March 28.
Therefore, both Mr. Bradford's testimony and Dr. Gilinsky's proposed testimony is relevant to defining licensee's report-t ing obligation to the Commission.
The Board has stated that neither Commissioner has any special expertise regarding the reporting obligations of the licensee during the accident since the NRC regulations are clear as to these obligations. The entire thrust of the Dieckamp Mailgram issue before the Board is the
'~:
~
hi - .j
.18. :
l
~~
-is alleging clear reporting responsibility of licensee.
/Further licensee's compliance or failure ~to comply'with this clear reporting: duty has been investigated in at least-two different NRC investigations and one Congressional investigation.-
Further,'the NRC regulations are not' clear as to the-precise information.which must'be reported or the quality of information which_must be reported. Insofar as the i
Dieckamp Mailgram itself has'itself bee'n studied as a possi-ble reporting failure there have been conflicting interpre-tations of whether or not the'information contained in the.
mailgram can constitute a reporting violation insofar as it was not required in the license application. NUREG-0760 at 45.
The NRC Commissioners who needed and required inform-ation to respond to the accident are clearly the best inter-preters of the NRC regulations and best judges of what information
- was material information-to the Commission which should have been reported.
, B. The evidence of appreciation of the pressure spike is of the type which should have been reported to the NRC and is of a quality to constitute "some evidence" which Mr. Dieckamp should have acknowledged in his ma.lgram.
The tastimony of licensee witnesses is offered to demon--
strate that the information possessed by licensee at the time of the accident, and shortly thereafter, was not evidence of sufficient quality or accuracy that it needed to be reported to tne NRC or acknowledged by Mr. Dieckamp in the mailgram.
. . _ _ _ . - _ -. . . _ . _ _ , ~ . - _ . _ _ . - . _ _ -.
e- -
- 3. p
, :l? . ,- e j ' 27 -
_ 19 _
w-Dr. Edwin Zebrosk'O s-testimony admitted into evidence. ,
- e. ._ s j ,.
explained -,
'N A ..c ,
1.
The-extentto-whichtherewasarapi["afterthe learnini..J
curve evident in the. days immediase}y ,
accident, in~ respect to':ongiqizingsand integre.3 ~
ing the large volume of '51 anti data 'and in sorting .
out different views and speculation.as to the extent and nature of the damage of the reactor .
. . . and ie :
- -r t
- 2. The extent to. wRich . . . +. -unchrtainti es remained . '
for months afterthe accident, rpfle8 ting the
~
limited general state of knowledge' of 'sevege core accidents at'.that time.
_ c' .
~-
Zebroski, ff. Tr. (November ,- ~ 19 8 4 ) at.,2. ,_ -
. p. ,
.~
Thomas. Van Witbeck?2 testimony' admitted into evidence was offered to indicate that.his " appreciation for the sigh
, q q\
nificance of the pressure spiku~as j measure of core damhge g
~
. . . was not gained until [ hd_7 was exposed to calculations-4%
of the volume of H2 involved which,was . . . sin thE per,iod c
~
April 2nd through April 4th." - "
s 3 s:
. . ,., sn r Van Witbeck, ff. Tr. 28261 at'3.' -
.' , . L-The purpose of their testigony is to demonstrate even
~
s %
experts did not understand the ext'ent,.of core damage at TMI-2
~
- .: ? -s .,
until extensive research had been completed on the accident. ,
3 The implication is that site personnel, whotwerd not, accident experts, could not have understood the significance of the pressure spike. The purpose of this testimony is also to .
demonstrate that whatever understanding site personnel haq .of ,-
y the pressure spike in terms- of core damage were vague, unsup- ._
ported and undocumented understandings which do not rise to s
the level of "some understanding." .
_w_ m
- & c- c_
s-i
' d' ;-1201-:
E _
Mr. D'ieckamp's.:te'stimony,[ admitted into evidence,is that
~
Mehler,f chwastyk and. Il1jes
- Etestimony does not: rise to the
.leveliof, "some- evidence"- required to be acknowledged :in .his mailgram:
-I continue:to:believe-'that the evidence and iindependent-analysis 1therefore; support'the
. thrust'offthe mailgram statement. LIn making
'this statement.ILrealize:that the mailgram:
' phrase;"no evidence" can if.taken literally -
indicate-a: measure of absolute. knowledge
'that.goes beyond the reasonable: basis that:I -
possess.for smy' judgment and my belief..fBy the same-token,.they donnot rise to the'1evel-of substance necessary to justify a responsible questioning of'my-integrity. ,
-Dieckamp,.ff. Tr. 28316, at 19-20.-
Licensee has permitted to introduce testimony from licensee and-consultant witnesses as'to wheth,er-the'infor- ,
mation concerning site' personnel's understanding of the pressure spike is sufficient to rise to the level of "some evidence" of understanding of the pressure spike required to be acknowledged in Mr. Dieckamp's mailgram and required to be reported.to,the NRC.
TMIA proposes,-through the testimony.of former Commis-sioners Bradford and Gilinsky to demonstrate that the Mehler, Chwastyk.and Illjes' interviews, as well as other evidence uncovered during the discovery portion of this proceeding, risesLto the level of "some evidence" which was material to-i the Commission in responding to the accident. As such material:information, Mr. Dieckamp was required to acknowledge I
Lit in his:mailgram and the licensee was required'to report 3
~
'it to the' Commission.- .
" )
' I~ i C. The?Bradford.and Gilinsky opinions on Mr. Dieckamp#'s-integrity.and the Licensee's integrity in light of
-the evidence onEthe public rccord 2s probative evi-dence which the Board must consider.
-The Board has barred fir. Bradford 'nd a Df. Gilinsky's.
opinions on the ultimate issue before L it ---how the inaccura-Jcies: contained'in the Dieckamp mailgram reflect on his'and
~
licensee's integrity. Yet.it has-permitted licensee witnesses'
\
to testify on this issue, including Mr.-Dieckamp himself.
Certainly Mr.'Bradford and Dr..Gilinsky's opinions do
~
not in any way bind the Board but they do.provida probative evidence'that the Board should consider,.3 D. Foracr[Cora.issioners Bradford and Gilinsky have relevant analyses to offer,the' Board of the evi-der.ce before it, including the adequacy of the NRC's investigation into licensee's knowledge of the. pressure spike and analyses of whether the interviews and documentary evidence uncovered during discovery indicate the inaccuracy of the statements in Mr. Dieckamp's mailgram.
The Board foreclosed admission.into evidence of Mr. Bradford's and Dr. Gilinsky's analyses of the relevant evidence on"the ground that they offered no evidence but only analysis which TMIA counsel could make themselves. However, the Board did admit into evidence Mr. Dieckamp's analysis of the record evidence because he stood as the corporate official accused or inisconduct. I
~
.A 4-
~
l Clearly it is a violation ofLTMIA's due process rights
(" .tolpermit licensee testimony on'an. issue but bar TMIA's pre-sentationiof relevant evidence. More importantly, however,
.the analyses of two former Commissioners.*as to whether or-not'there was evidence'whi'ch indicated site personnel under-stood the significance of the pressure spike at the time it occurred is' relevant opinion-testimony, given their depth of understanding of NRC requirements and the facts of the.TMI-2 accident. Further, their. evaluation of NUREG-0760 is probative of what weight.this Board.should give Mr. Moseley's proferred testimony.
IV. THE ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT ACT'DOES NOT BAR THE' TESTIMONY OF FORMER COMMISSIONERS BRADFORD AND GILINSKY.
Section 207(a) provides in relevant purt:
Disqualification of former officers'and employees; disqualification of partners of current officers and employees.
(a) Choever, having been an officer or employee of'the executive branch of the United States Government, of any independent agency of the United States . . . after his employment has ceased, knowingly . . . with the intent to influence, makes any oral ~or written communication on behalf of any other person (except the United . States) to (1) any department, agency, . . . and (2) in connection with any judicial or other proceeding . . . in which the United States is a party, and (3) in which he participated personally and substantially as an officer or employee through decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation, the
en '
_.23 - u 4
~
rendering of advice,Jinvestigation.
.or.otherw.'.se, while so' employed . = . .
shall be fined notamore than $10,000
~or-imprisoned for not more than two-years or both.
18:U.S.C. g ;207 (a) .
The" implementing-regulations:to-which the Board refers in its rulings are those of the Government-Ethics. Office which t
_ provide as'follows:
Testimony and statements under oath or.subj.ectito
. penalty ofLpe'rjury..
.(a) , Statutory basis. Section 207(h)-provides:
"Nothing in this sectionLshall prevent a former officer or employee from giving testimony;under oath, or from making. statements required to be' made.under penalty of perjury.
(b) Applicability. A former. Government' employee may testify before any court, board, commission, or legislative body with respect.to matters of fact within the personal knowledge of the former Government: employee. This provision does not, however, allow a former Government employee, otherwise barred under 18 U.S.C. 207(a), (b) or 2
(c) to testify on behalf of another as an expert witness except: (1) to the extent that the for-mer employee may testify from personal knowledge as to the occurrences which are relevant to the issues in the proceeding . . .
5 CFR 737.19.
The Ethics in Government Act on its face does not apply to
, the testimony under oath of these witnesses in this NRC proceeding.
First, neither former Commissioner falls within the prohibi-tion of 18 U.S.C. g 207 (a) . Neither through his testimony
" intends to influence [~the NRC_/ by oral or written communi-
. cation on behalf of TMIA. This provision of the Act applies
-tolattorneys or-agents for parties in adjudicatory proceedings, but'not mere witnesses.".See In re Asbestos Cases, 514 F. Supp.
914, 917 n.2 ( D .Va'. - 19 81) '.
The purpose of the statute has been clearly stated in the Act's legislative history. .The Act's objective is that "former officers shall not be permitted to exercise undue
' influence over former colleagues, still'in office in matters pending before the. agencies . . ." S. Rep. No.95-170, 95th Cong., 2nd Sess., reprinted in'1978 U.S. Code.Cong.&Ad. News 4248. Former government officials are not permitted to
( " utilize information on specific cases gained during govern-ment service for their own benefit or that of private clients."
Id. at 4247.
The Act strengthened the provisions of the pre-existing ethics legislation in order to resolve the " revolving door" problem, that is, officials, "who become advocates for and advisors to the outside interests they previously. supervised as government employees." Id. at 4248.
The Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee on Conference states that this provision includes " appearances in any professional capacity, whether as attorney, consultant, expert witness, or otherwise." H. Con.R. No. 95-1756, 95th Cong., 2nd Sess., reprinted in 1978 U.S. Code Cong.&Ad. News 4390. The Act addresses those former employees and officials
vc
'- 2 5 - -
l who. appear as agents, attorneys or professional representa- i
~t'ivesfof private entities they formerly regulated.
Neither Mr. Bradford nor Dr. Gilinsky is testifying in any such capacity.- Mr. Bradford made clear in.his deposition that he_was testifying pursuant to a request by TMIA counsel but that he had little. idea'how his testimony fit in TMIA's case and'that he would honor a similar. request by any other
. party. Similarly, Dr. Gilinsky is expected to testify as to
' matters within~his personal knowledge as a former NRC Commis-sioner. _Obviously, TMIA has not retained or otherwise hired either so as to trigger the application of the Act. In fact, TMIA has not prefiled written testimony on behalf of either former Commissioner because of the nature of.its relationship with both. TMIA has simply requested their testimony in areas relevant to the issues before the Licensing Board.
Further, even if section 207 (a) were found to apply to former Commissioners' Gilinsky and Bradford's testimony, section 207(h) excepts testimony under oath from the prohibi-tion of section 207(a).4 The legislative history states that this section was 4
intended to list " exceptions" to sections . 207 (a) , (b) and (c).
Id. at 4392.
4 Section 207(h) provides in relevant part:
(h) Nothing in this section shall prevent a former officer or employee from giving testimony under oath, or making statements required to be made
< under penalty of perjury.
l
p:
- i- , y 3..
. 8 ;.
4 "L-.
~' '
W
..t:
(
., : . i26 - 4 6 ,
' < .GPUJcites(regulations-'. promulgate'd by the Government Ethics
- Office 1 tof argue
- tha tsopinions_ of fered by ' Commissioner' Bradford i.
- in his: testimony may notThef iatroduced. (First,Linsofar as (this regulation contravenes!the' clear? meaning ofise'ction.207(h)
~
'it must fail-since11t cannot contradict"its authorizing 1sta--
s tute, whichLspecifically excepts " testimony under oath" from' 2 .
. sec' tion 207 (a). prohibitions.
Second, theLregulation on its face,does not: apply;to the -
former Commissioners'J testimony in that they are not- testifying i on TMIA's'behalffas expert witnesnes. They are: testifying.only.
insofar as..they are qualified to offer. opinions from their-experience-and knowledge as NRC Commissioners; Third, the opinions which-TMIA proposes to elicit are j based on the Commissioners' personal. knowledge, as'that term is generally construed. The Board's novel' interpretation of.
. " personal knowledge" to exclude all knowledge gained from i
speaking to individuals with relevant information or from
! reading reports and documents has no basis in. law. Both J-
! Mr. Bradford and Dr. Gilinsky have personal knowledge of the accident; licensee's reporting of information during.the acci-r dent; the manner of operation of the agency during the accident;
.I licensee's obligations to the Commission; and the actions the Commission and NRC Staff took in response to the information
- they received from licensee about the TMI-2 accident. They i
have also spoken to and personally observed Mr. Dieckamp in connection with these hearing issues. Therefore, all opinions i
w- -e v - - , - , _ , . . . , _ _ , , , , ,
+
s.
w s . - ,
}
theyLwould? offer are based on their. personal' knowledge and i admissible even iE th.is_ regulation is found to apply.
~ Four th ,' 7the regulations' promulgated by the Government
~
Ethics Office ar& merely' guidance'to theragencies.- 5.CFR:
-737.l(a). LOnly.theLNRC's specific regulations implementingL the Act are binding. These regulations.do not restrict'the
- application of -section 207 (h) ' as 'does 5 CFR 737.19, and therefore supersedes the Government Ethics Office-regulations.. -
See 10 CFR g 0.735-26-27.. Given the specific NRC. regulations-which are silent 'as to any restrictions on the broad g L207 (h) exception of " testimony under oath" from-coverage of-the.
Act, and this interpretation ~ conforms to the plain meaning-of 5207;h) and the Act's legislative hisotry, the bettar
- interpretation is that 5 CFR S737.19 'does not apply to testimony of former NRC officials in adjudicatory proceedings..
Finally,.the Licensing Board does not have the authority to bar the former Commissioners' testimeny on the ground.that they, through their testimony, violate the " spirit" or " intent" of a criminal statute. The Act and implementing. regulations provide that either criminal prosecution or administrative-sanctions may be taken against individuals who violate the Act. However, outside of the administ. .cive sanctions which the OPM regulations; outline, there is no authority for the
~ Licensing Board to bar such testimony. See generally 5 CFR 737.27. Further, insofar as the Licensing Board has
, , -z., ,
e ', 4 J '
.; w f- _
_.28.-
.x ,
--e: ..
,'.--l'
. ) . . -. , .
g .
g -authority"to:barfsuch testimony it:canido so.onlylafter providinglan opport' unity 7for!the witness oripartyjto pro
~
~
- test!the' action. Ibid ,
- V.L LFORMER COMMISSIONER ~BRADFORD"IS UNAVAILABLE TO' TESTIFY AND. THEREFORE- HIS : DEPOSITION TESTIMONY < SHOULD BE
~
EADMITTED'IN' LIEU OF HIS. LIVE' TESTIMONY AT THE: HEARING..
e TMIA' refers the AppealoBoard to its:argumentiin its Motion;to-AdmitE.the Deposition of' Peter-'Bradford'as.anf 4 Unavailable Witness. TMIA' Motion at:1-5.- .TMIA alsol refers .
- the.' Appeal Board to Exhibit 1 which~confirmsxMr.' Bradford's >
~
representations at-his deposition.-
VI;. TMIA- HAS DEMONSTRATED THE; RELEVANCE -OF FORMER . ,
-j
- COMMISSIONER" GILINSKY'S FACTUAL TESTIMONY'SUCH THAT-IT MAY BE HEARD WITHOUT: REQUIREMENT.THAT.TMIA FILE-
- PREFILED WRITTEN 1 TESTIMONY.
Dr.nGilinsky's-testimony'is. sought.on three factual
. issues:
(1). His conversation with/Mr. Dieckamp about.the sub-ject of tne mailgram during the. site tour:on May 7, 1979; (2) His interpretation of the mailgram; (3) His observation of Mr. Dieckamp at Commission-meetings.
The Board ruled that TMIA had not demonstrated'the rele-vancy of Dr. Gilinsky's testimony on the Dieckamp Mailgram Issue and that TMIA had defaulted by-failing to present-pre-filed, written testimony with the Board. ,
First,- the relevance and materiality of the factual mat-ters listed above dictate that the Board should-permit.the 5 I The criminal provisions of the Ethics in Government Act must be
-strictly construed. 'Therefore the Licensing Board's interpretation !
- of the " spirit" of the Act is impermissible and warrants reversal i Jon~that basis.
l j .
I
. s
~
._.29._
if , testimony;of Dr. Gilinsky_without prefiled writtenLtestimony..
Licencee has had adequateLopportunity.to depose Dr. Gilinsky
~
to.dete'rmine the basisiforihis factual testimony. Further,.
licensee has other means'to determine the substance of Dr. Gilinsky'sLtestimony, including l questioning of its offi-
~cials'and employees.. <
~ Finally, TMIA does not represent Dr.=Gilinsky and is not Jauthorized to state - more Lthan _ the' specific areas in which1 he -
has relevant testimony. Dr. Gilinsky has stated his unwilling-ness to'prefile written testimony-on behalf of any party but did state that he would honor _a subpoena to testify about those matters on which he held 1 relevant information. TMIA's:
prof fer of the relevant. areas of his testinony is _ a su ificient showing of relevance to dictate that the' Board permit his testimony at this hearing.
VII. CONCLUSION In consideration of the above arguments TMIA requests that the Appeal Board reverse the rulings of.the Licensing Board.barring the introduction into evidence at the testimony of former Commissioners Bradford and Gilinsky on the grounds stated in the Board's November 9, 1984 Prehearing Order.
Respectfully submitted, O [ttimR._ v b
/f /Joanne The Doroshow Christic Institute 1324 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20002 (202) 797-8106
E y.' ,
_-30'-
ii
' WAA A % b
-Lynne Bernabei Government Accountability Project' 1555 Connecticut Avenue,.N.W.
Suite.202 Washington, D.C. 20036
-(202) 463-8600 Dated: November 19, 1984 Attorneys for'Three Mile Island Alert.
4 I
4 3
1
- ~ - - - . - , - - - - , ,, -- --- -r --,--,-,n. -,,p.. -e--, g- - , e-, e
" ;*' . Exhibit 1 I .. . a, .OJ tl? p I *
. COMMI95 TONERS
~
Cheryl Hamnston .
. David H. Moskovita STATE OF MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 242 State Street State liouse Station 18
- Augusta. Maine - 04333 (207)289-3831 October. 31, 1984 Re: PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Investigation of Seabrook Involvements by Maine Utilities, Docket-No.84-113 TO ALL PARTIES-AND INTERESTED PERSONS:
Attached is the most recent schedule governing this proceeding. The schedule was attached to the Procedural Order
-issued on October 1, 1984 in the Central Maine Power rate case, Docket No.84-120 and, I believe, was distributed to the participants present at the hearings in 84-113 at that time.
The parties should submit a suggested order of witnesses for the first two weeks of hearings on the Seabrook 2 issues no later than Friday, November 9, 1984.
Sincerely,
%.% A Joseph G. Donahue JGD/sn General Counsel Enclosure
, - m .-- ~- . _ _
.e;n, . y
/* NS'I *
}:
se.e,.e.
^ ' se....em m.e-c.ee
- i Usat t
- e. . . e , t , .
' Um s t 2 -
. 4-ee, i e.t t .
NFS ' M u/L/n
"*" m emmt 133
. Jet,14 .' I 7/20 Cemeen, files .
' Jety 2>21
' July 30-Ame. 2 s-
w Ave. 4-10 8/7 laterventions Ave. Ibtf 8/10 Preheersee Ceegerence .
A e. 20-24 Ave. 27-38 8/35 Ceepasses file Direct Sept. 4 f 8/31 Co*eest filee 9/7 Se* gf fitee Direct Seet.10-14 : 9/13 later,ewee file Direct **
9/14 Data Regweets ese Sept- 17-28 UAntuCS (9/IP-11) 9/14 Data Reg.eets eme" lept. 24-28 9/28 Intervention MEAS tNCS (9/24-28) g/28 ttititLs (Lle ces.1 9/21 Preneettes (8:30 a.m.)
utARINGS (10/l-1) .. 10/S Date aesponsee Dee Oct. 9*lt 10/S Date seguesta Due ** It '$ Data aesponsee ih,, .
utAstucs (10/9-12)
Ot t . Ibl9 NEAstNCS (10/15-10) ces. 22-26 10/26 Briefe 10/22 Date teaw-ete NEARINCs (10/22-26) 10/26 Date acepensee Due Dee*" '
Oct. 29-4ew. 2 11/2 'eply trief.
Nov. $*9 KantsCs *10/29-31/2) 11/7 Date Responeee Due ne,. Ibto NEAAINCS (11/7-9) 11/13 set File Dareet HEAAINC$ (11/13-16) uw.19-21 II/IO 84I file Direet utAalscs (11/19-28) 11/21 Date Retweete Due Wev. 24-30 11/30 Data Reseeen's Due Dee. 3-7 11/28 Date segueste t e**
. atAatsCs (l?/2-7)
~ Dee.10-14 -
12/14 $48 File Direct frEAtINCS (12/10-14)
De *s. 8 7-21 12/11 set File Direct 12/14 Date Respeeses Du, 12/19 Data Reguente Due Dee. 24-19 12/21 Date tegneste Due ,
12/28 Date Respeases due Des. 3t* Joe. 4 1/2 Data peeseene Due Jat. f-t te*** MEARIMCS (1/?-11)
Jet.14*18 MARIMCS (t/7-tg)
NEARINC$ (1/14-18) t/te Ceeeeny files Retettet Joe. 21-21 1/t4 Bebuttet filed
.1/2n $48 file sortetettet utAatecs (t/21*21)
Je2. 29-Feb.1 1/28 Reb,ettet filed t/21 overesettet filed f;n. 4-4 MARINC$ (1/23-3/g) 2/4 $wrtebetten filed HEAAtNCS (2/4-8) pag. It-15 2/4 Co. files febuttet NEAstsCS (2/11-45)
F;t. 10-2 2 2/1$ $4I file Secretettet F;4. IS-Met. I 2/22 Stiefe Met. 4-4 MEARINGS (2/25-3/t) 3/8 Brief s 3/8 triefe mer. 11-15 3/8 seply griefe sier. Ib23 3/22 Rept, ariefs 3/22 Reply triefs 1/22 telete p e t. 29-19 Ae r. 1-9 Aje. 0-12 4/S Reelt Brief e 4/9 teseneere Report 4/12 teseteere Report Aer.15+lt 4/12 tseesttene 4/19 Essepanese Ape. 23-26 Aer. 29-ney 3 not e-10 5/3 teemisere ee,eet 4/30 D,ession
$/10 Deessies 5/10 tecesttene he, ll-lF nep 26 24 Ney 20-14 June FJune ? 1/15 Deciesen.
Jene 10-14 This testise et the scheevne le peetteelerly tig%t.
- heariaes et deleteret tee. All porttee should be evere that it may met be met if the leewee tevolved requite estensive *
- Anw este retweet eue stted befect the de# date swet be enevered withme three weens.
eeee As, esc e ,ee.e.t e,ee, t t,e 6,te,e et, este e et me see.,,e4 ..te ne t,e .,,es. . en ,,e t.eiene beOb to ser}eetiene te one data pequest anset be made withie sewee doye.
date request Note centlist to heestege sets wees. esse .itnin sevee 44,..
c-..
"$4t"
- Staf f 6 latervenere Z
3 3
ms. 3 .-
- 1/ : ..,
jf.
yjg _ , -: UNITED -. STATES ' OF AMERICA ' .
NUCLEAR REGULATORY ~ COMMISSION 00c;e 7g',.
O* :
UStagt-i l
Before the ' Atomic Safety' and: Licensing Appeal Board
- B4 my 23 97I I8 In-the Matter off :)-
-)- bE!
- Docket No. : 50-2h9'^%DF S[rhhj, .
METROP,OLITAN -EDISON = CO'MPANY .) El,!y:1 .
. . :) > (Restart -Remand on Man %gemen,t )
(Three Mile : Island. Nuclear )
e LStation,, Unit No. 1) ). :
)'
2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby-certify.that a copy of the foregoing Three! Mile Island Alert's' Motion for Directed Certification and Memorandum' of' Points'and Authorities in Support of Motion'for Directed Certification-has been served on the parties to this proceeding, I by mailing a-copy, first class, postage prepaid this 19th day L of November 1984, to the following. Service by hand-delivery on this date has been made on all persons beside whose name an
! +
asterisk appears.
f( M ea - -
LYnne Bernabei
! /
/
l l
I-L i..
r - --
l g :o I " '
E '
UNITED' STATES OF' AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
._BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY'AND LICENSING APPEAL' BOARD
~
In the Matter- )'
I METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY Docket No. 50-289 (Restart Remand oa- Management)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear )
Station, Unit No. 1) )
)
SERVICE LIST Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman
- Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Christine N. Kohl Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Thomas M.' Roberts, Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555
- Administrative Judge James K. Asselstine, Commissioner Ivan W. Smith, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Frederick Bernthal, Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- Administrative Judge Washington, D.C. 20555 Sheldon W. Wolfe Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Lando W. Zech, Jr., Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555
- Administrative Judge
- Administrative Judge Gustave A..Linenberger, Jr.
Gary J. Edles, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Board Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section (3)
Office of the Secretary Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission John II. Buck Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nucicar Regulatory Commission Panel Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
r ..
C 4 Atomic ~ Safety and- Licensing Appeal Michael W. Maupin,.Esq.
Board Panel -Hunton'& Willihms U.S. Nuclear-Regulatory Commission 707 East Main Street Washington, D.C. 20555 P.O. Box 1535' Richmond, VA 23212 a
- . Jack R. .Goldberg, Esq.
Office of the Executive Legal Director
'U.S.-Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ,
Thomas Y. Au, Esq. -
Office of Chief Counsel Department of Environmental Resources 505 Executive House P.O. Box 2357.
Harrisburg, PA 17120 _
- Ernest L. Blake, Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M S t. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 Mr. Henry D.'Hukill Vice President GPU Nuclear Corporation P.O. Box 480 Middletown, PA 17057 Mr. and Mrs. Norman Aamodt R.D. 5 Coatesville, PA 19320 Ms. Louise Bradford TMI Alert 1011 Green Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 Joanne Doroshow, Esquire The Christic Institute 1324 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20002 Ellyn R. Uciss, Esq.
Harmon, Weiss & Jordan 2001 S Street, N.W., Suite 430
-Washington, D.C. 20009 Michael F. McBride, Esq.
LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Suite 1100 Washington, D.C. 20036 Hand-Delivered
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _