ML20137U448

Memorandum & Order Establishing 860219 as Date for Initial Prehearing Conference in Harrisburg,Pa & Requiring Petitioners to File Contentions by 860113 & Staff Answers by 860203.Served on 851206

ML20137U448
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	12/06/1985
From:	Margulies M Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP., NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD), THREE MILE ISLAND ALERT
References
CON-#485-409 CH, NUDOCS 8512090308
Download: ML20137U448 (6)

Text

~ ~

[doj?

-; SERVED DEC a1985 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Nuclear Regulatory Commission 0%@e@,

Before Administrative Law Judge Morton B. Margulies

'o5 DE -6 R2:25

'v.. :..~ . ,_

In the Matter of

)

General Public Utilities Nuclear ) Docket No. 50-289(CH)

)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear )

Station, Unit No. 1) ) December 6, 1985

)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This proceeding pertains to Charles Husted, who was a licensed operator training instructor at Three Mile Island Nuclear Station', Unit No. 1, and to alleged cheating and other matters relating to the April 1981 reactor operator examinations that the Commission had ordered for the facility.

By Notice of Hearing, issued September 5,1985, the Commission ordered that a hearing be instituted to determine: (a) whether'the Appeal Board's condition barring Charles Husted from supervisory responsibilities insofar as the training of non-licensed personnel is concerned should be vacated, ALAB-772, 19 NRC 1193, 1224 (1984); and (b) whether he is barred by concerns about his. attitude or integrity from

~

' serving as an NRC licensed operator, or a licensed opera, tor instructor.

or training supervisor.

epqgan Bitty D5o2 G

l.(

?

I 2

The hearing is to focus on whether the following four concerns regarding Mr. Husted are true, and if so, whether they require that he not be employed in the jobs in question:

(1) the alleged solicitation of an answer to an exam question

- from another operator during the April 1981 NRC written examination; (2) the lack of forthrightness of his testimony before the Special Master; (3) his poor attitude toward the hearing on the cheating incidents; and (4) his lack of cooperation with NRC investigators.

It was further. ordered that the hearing is to be held before an

. Administrative Law Judge pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and 10 CFR Part 2 ar.d be conducted pursuant tio the procedures contained in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart G. The Administrative Law Judge is to set the time and place of hearing and shall' hold prehearing a conferences as necessary. ' Petitions to intervene by any interested party were to be filed in accordance with 10 CFR 2.714, within 45 days of the date of tre Notice. The NRC Staff was directed to participate as a full party, and to ensure that the record is fully developed.

The Comission referred.to the Administrative Law Judge for resolution a motion by the Comonwealth of Pennsylvania, of May 28, 1985, to disqualify the law finn of Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge,

.of Washington, D.C. ,from representing both Mr. Husted and General Public Utilities Nuclear Corporation (GPU).

s On September 12, 1985 the Chief Administrative Judge designated this. Administrative Law Judge to preside at the proceeding.

P

f, w.

, .s Shaw, Pittman. Potts; & Trowbridge withdrew its appearance on behalf of Charles Husted effective October 15, 1985. The Coninonwealth of

- Pennsylvania,'on October 21, 1985 filed a notice that'it did not intend to participate in. the hearing. The matter of the law firm representing

' ~

7 Mr.iHusted and GPU'is no longer at issue. The motion as been rendered moot and shall.be dismissed.

, Pursuant to the Notice of Hearing, Three Mile Island Alert, Inc.

1

-(TMIA). filed a: timely request-for leave to intervene. Petitioner had

~ established its standing to intervene in the TMI-1 Restart proceeding e from which tha subject. proceeding evolved. Its current interest

pertains to whether the public (including TMIA members residing in the-vicinity.of the plant) will' have reasonable assurance'of safety if

Mr. Husted'is. returned to his former position within the training

department and is' allowed to resume his responsibilities as a licensed operator at TMI. TMIA additionally seeks to bar any result in the .

Lsubject proceeding'that would be inconsistent with the findings before the_ Licensing' Board (inLBP-82-56)andAppeal. Board-(in-ALAB-772)to (which Petitioner was a party, on.the issue of Mr. Husted's attitude and integrity. Further, it wants to participate in any other related issue that continues in controversy,~i.e., whether or not Mr. Husted made an

~

i-

- unsuccessful attempt to cheat on a NRC licensing examination.

GPU-also filed a timely petition to intervene in the proceeding.

i

-Its interest is that the outcome'of.the' proceeding will affect Petitioner's perspective as an employer and may affect individuals in-l

!' its' employ in addition to Mr. Husted. GPU expects that employees may be I

-u

4 4

identified as witnesses, or may otherwise become involved in the

. proceeding.

Charles Husted, in answers filed November 1,1985, concluded that

-TMIA has an interest-in the proceeding and adequately set forth how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. He further

. concluded Petitioner had adequately-set forth the specific aspects of -

the' proceeding as~to which it seeks to intervene. As to GPU, Mr. Husted

- found it had adequately set forth its interest in the proceeding and how that interest may be affected. He also found that.the specific aspects of.the proceeding as to which Petitioner seeks to-intervene'were adequately set forth.

In responses if11ed November 12, 1985, NRC Staff did not oppose TMIA's and GPU's petitions to intervene subject to petitioners satihfying the further requirements of 10 CFR 2.714(b), which requires the filing of a-litigable contention in order for one to participate as a party.

Petitioners, TMIA and GPU, have made the necessary showing as to standing and interest to' participate as parties in the proceeding, as is prescribed by 10 CFR 2.714(a) and (d). 'Each has yet-to file a contention and have it accepted as provided for in 10 CFR 2.714(b).

Petitioners shall be afforded a specific opportunity to make such filings. Sufficient time will be given for TMIA and GPU to file contentions, and for the filing of answers, all in advance of the holding of.an'. initial prehearing conference. This will permit everyone I , to be fully prepared to participate at the conference and to enable

~ ,

p -

-j g :e-5 4

mean'ingful consideration of the issues on the agenda. The matters to be-l reviewed willigo beyond those nonnally addressed at an initial

< prehearing conference because this is not typical of the proceedings

-that are generally heard before the agency.' It does not fit a usual format. Participants in the proceeding will be given the opportunity.to

.present-their views, prior to. holding the hearing, on such matters as

the nature of the proceeding, the issues encompassed, the expected

. extent of their participation and what: shall . constitute the record..

Where possible, the participants should be prepared to support their positions ~with authorities, preferably in writing. In implementing the '

-foregoing', the following procedure shall be adhered to.

Petitioners shall file contentions which they seek to have litigated w-by January 13,:1986 Answers, from other _than Staff, are due January y

J 27,l1986. l Staff's answers- shall . be , filed by February 3,1986. Filings O ' ape _to be made so-that the documents are received by recipients _on the dates given.

TheLinitial prehearing conference will be held at Harrisburg,

. Pennsylvania on February 19, 1986, and_on the following day if necessary.- The time and place will be. set by(subsequent notice.

Participants in the' proceeding or their counsel are directed to appear at the initial _prehearing conference.

y

_ Matters to be considered shall include:

(1) the litigability of the proposed contentions;

_2): the identification of the key factual and legal issues; 7

(

(3) determining the parties to the proceeding; a.

\

)

6 i

(4) defining the nature of the proceeding and the relief that can be granted; (5) establishing who has the burdens of proof and of going forward; (6) establishing the extent of participation of each of the parties and the remedy sought;'

(7) determining what the record shall consist of;

-(8) determining whether discovery is necessary; and (9) establishing a schedule for further actions in the proceeding.

The conference will be reported verbatim.

Petitioners, Staff and Mr. Husted are encouraged to meet and confer prior to the conference in order to attempt to narrow and simplify the issues.

It is so Ordered.

Morton B. Margulies Administrative Law Judge Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 6th day'of December,1985.

. _ _ _ _ ___ __