Motion to Dismiss & for Stay of 850911 Order Awarding Hearing to Determine Whether Aslab Condition Imposed on Facility Restart Affecting C Husted Should Be Vacated.Order Should Be Dismissed.Certificate of Svc EnclML20137X072 |
Person / Time |
---|
Site: |
Three Mile Island |
---|
Issue date: |
02/28/1986 |
---|
From: |
Bradford L THREE MILE ISLAND ALERT |
---|
To: |
NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
---|
References |
---|
CON-#186-286 CH, NUDOCS 8603050197 |
Download: ML20137X072 (13) |
|
|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20210B8491999-07-21021 July 1999 Exemption from Certain Requirements of 10CFR50.54(w),for Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 2 to Reduce Amount of Insurance for Unit to $50 Million for Onsite Property Damage Coverage ML20206D4141999-04-20020 April 1999 Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR50,App R,Section III.G.2 Re Enclosure of Cable & Equipment & Associated non-safety Related Circuits of One Redundant Train in Fire Barrier Having 1-hour Rating ML20206T7211999-02-11011 February 1999 Memorandum & Order (CLI-99-02).* Denies C George Request for Intervention & Dismisses Subpart M License Transfer Proceeding.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990211 ML20198A5111998-12-11011 December 1998 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50.65 Re Requirements for Monitoring Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants.Proposed Rulemaking Details Collaborative Efforts in That Rule Interjects Change ML20154G2941998-09-17017 September 1998 Transcript of 980917 Public Meeting in Rockville,Md Re License Transfer of TMI-1 from Gpu Nuclear,Inc to Amergen. Pp 1-41 ML20199J0121997-11-20020 November 1997 Comment on Pr 10CFR50 Re Financial Assurance Requirements for Decommisioning Nuclear Power Reactors.Three Mile Island Alert Invokes Comments of P Bradford,Former NRC Member ML20148R7581997-06-30030 June 1997 Comment on NRC Proposed Bulletin 96-001,suppl 1, Control Rod Insertion Problems. Licensee References Proposed Generic Communication, Control Rod Insertion, & Ltrs & 961022 from B&W Owners Group ML20078H0431995-02-0101 February 1995 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Shutdown & Lowpower Operations for Nuclear Reactors ML20077E8231994-12-0808 December 1994 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR2,51 & 54 Re Rev to NRC NPP License Renewal Rule ML20149E2021994-04-20020 April 1994 R Gary Statement Re 10 Mile Rule Under Director'S Decision DD-94-03,dtd 940331 for Tmi.Urges Commissioners to Engage in Reconsideration of Author Petition ML20065Q0671994-04-0707 April 1994 Principal Deficiencies in Director'S Decision 94-03 Re Pica Request Under 10CFR2.206 ML20058A5491993-11-17017 November 1993 Exemption from Requirements in 10CFR50.120 to Establish, Implement & Maintain Training Programs,Using Sys Approach to Training,For Catorgories of Personnel Listed in 10CFR50.120 ML20059J5171993-09-30030 September 1993 Transcript of 930923 Meeting of Advisory Panel for Decontamination of TMI-2 in Harrisburg,Pa.Pp 1-130.Related Documentation Encl ML20065J3461992-12-30030 December 1992 Responds to Petition of R Gary Alleging Discrepancies in RERP for Dauphin County,Pa ML20065J3731992-12-18018 December 1992 Affidavit of Gj Giangi Responding to of R Gary Requesting Action by NRC Per 10CFR2.206 ML20198E5581992-12-0101 December 1992 Transcript of Briefing by TMI-2 Advisory Panel on 921201 in Rockville,Md ML20210D7291992-06-15015 June 1992 Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR70.24 Re Criticality Accident Requirements for SNM Storage Areas at Facility Containing U Enriched to Less than 3% in U-235 Isotope ML20079E2181991-09-30030 September 1991 Submits Comments on NRC Proposed Resolution of Generic Issue 23, Reactor Coolant Pump Seal Failure. Informs That Util Endorses Comments Submitted by NUMARC ML20066J3031991-01-28028 January 1991 Comment Supporting SECY-90-347, Regulatory Impact Survey Rept ML20059P0531990-10-15015 October 1990 Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR2,50 & 54 Re Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal ML20059N5941990-10-0404 October 1990 Transcript of 900928 Public Meeting in Rockville,Md Re Studies of Cancer in Populations Near Nuclear Facilities, Including TMI ML20055F4411990-06-28028 June 1990 Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-55 Re Revs to FSAR ML20248J1891989-10-0606 October 1989 Order.* Grants Intervenors 891004 Motion for Permission for Opportunity to Respond to Staff Correspondence.Response Requested No Later That 891020.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 891006 ML20248J1881989-10-0303 October 1989 Motion for Permission for Opportunity to Respond to Staff Correspondence in Response to Board Order of 890913.* Svc List Encl ML20248J0301989-09-29029 September 1989 NRC Staff Response to Appeal Board Order.* Matters Evaluated in Environ Assessment Involved Subjs Known by Parties During Proceeding & Appear in Hearing Record & Reflect Board Final Initial Decision LBP-89-7.W/Certificate of Svc ML20247E9181989-09-13013 September 1989 Order.* Requests NRC to Explain Purpose of 890911 Fr Notice on Proposed Amend to Applicant License,Revising Tech Specs Re Disposal of Accident Generated Water & Effects on ASLB Findings,By 890929.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890913 ML20247G0361989-07-26026 July 1989 Transcript of Oral Argument on 890726 in Bethesda,Md Re Disposal of accident-generated Water.Pp 1-65.Supporting Info Encl ML20247B7781989-07-18018 July 1989 Certificate of Svc.* Certifies Svc of Encl Gpu 890607 & 0628 Ltrs to NRC & Commonwealth of Pa,Respectively.W/Svc List ML20245D3651989-06-20020 June 1989 Notice of Oral Argument.* Oral Argument on Appeal of Susquehanna Valley Alliance & TMI Alert from ASLB 890202 Initial Decision Authorizing OL Amend,Will Be Heard on 890726 in Bethesda,Md.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890620 ML20245A5621989-06-14014 June 1989 Order.* Advises That Oral Argument on Appeal of Susquehanna Valley Alliance & TMI Alert from Board 890202 Initial Decision LBP-89-07 Authorizing OL Amend Will Be Heard on 890726 in Bethesda,Md.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890614 ML20247F3151989-05-22022 May 1989 NRC Staff Response to Appeal by Joint Intervenors Susquehanna Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert.* Appeal Should Be Denied Based on Failure to Identify Errors in Fact & Law Subj to Appeal.W/Certificate of Svc ML20246Q2971989-05-15015 May 1989 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Ensuring Effectiveness of Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants ML20246J6081989-05-12012 May 1989 Licensee Brief in Reply to Joint Intervenors Appeal from Final Initial Decision.* ASLB 890203 Final Initial Decision LBP-89-07 Re Deleting Prohibition on Disposal of accident- Generated Water Should Be Affirmed.W/Certificate of Svc ML20247D2761989-04-20020 April 1989 Transcript of 890420 Briefing in Rockville,Md on Status of TMI-2 Cleanup Activities.Pp 1-51.Related Info Encl ML20244C0361989-04-13013 April 1989 Order.* Commission Finds That ASLB Decision Resolving All Relevant Matters in Favor of Licensee & Granting Application for OL Amend,Should Become Effective Immediately.Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890413 ML20245A8381989-04-13013 April 1989 Transcript of Advisory Panel for Decontamination of TMI-2 890413 Meeting in Harrisburg,Pa.Pp 1-79.Supporting Info Encl ML20245A2961989-04-13013 April 1989 Transcript of 890413 Meeting in Rockville,Md Re Affirmation/Discussion & Vote ML20248H1811989-04-0606 April 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Leave to File Appeal Brief out-of-time.* W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890411.Granted for Aslab on 890410 ML20248G0151989-04-0606 April 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Leave to File Appeal Brief out-of-time.* Requests to File Appeal Brief 1 Day Late Due to Person Typing Document Having Schedule Problems ML20248G0261989-04-0606 April 1989 Susguehanna Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Brief in Support of Notification to File Appeal & Request for Oral Argument Re Appeal.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20248D7211989-04-0404 April 1989 Memorandum & Order.* Intervenors Application for Stay Denied Due to Failure to Lack of Demonstrated Irreparable Injury & Any Showing of Certainty That Intervenors Will Prevail on Merits of Appeal.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890404 ML20247A4671989-03-23023 March 1989 Correction Notice.* Advises That Date of 891203 Appearing in Text of Commission 890322 Order Incorrect.Date Should Be 871203.Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890323 ML20246M2611989-03-22022 March 1989 Order.* Advises That Commission Currently Considering Question of Effectiveness,Pending Appellate Review of Final Initial Decision in Case Issued by ASLB in LBP-89-07. Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890322 ML20236D3821989-03-16016 March 1989 Valley Alliance & TMI Alert Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief in Support of Request for Appeal in Matter of 2.3 Million Gallons Of....* Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890316.Granted for Aslab on 890316 ML20236D3121989-03-15015 March 1989 Licensee Answer to Joint Intervenors Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief on Appeal.* Motion Opposed Based on Failure to Demonstrate Good Cause.W/Certificate of Svc ML20236D2901989-03-11011 March 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief in Support of Request for Appeal in Matter of Disposal of 2.3 Million Gallons of Radioactive Water at Tmi,Unit 2.* Svc List Encl ML20236A3761989-03-0808 March 1989 Licensee Answer Opposing Joint Intervenors Motion for Stay.* Stay of Licensing Board Decision Pending Appeal Unwarranted Under NRC Stds.Stay Could Delay Safe,Expeditious Cleanup of Facility.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236C2441989-03-0808 March 1989 NRC Staff Response in Opposition to Application for Stay Filed by Joint Intervenors.* Application for Stay of Effectiveness of Final Initial Decision LBP-89-07,dtd 890202 Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20235V2641989-03-0202 March 1989 Notice of Aslab Reconstitution.* TS Moore,Chairman,Cn Kohl & Ha Wilber,Members.Served on 890303.W/Certificate of Svc ML20235V2161989-02-25025 February 1989 Changes & Corrections to Susquehanna Valley Alliance/Three Mile Island Alert Documents Submitted on 890221.* Certificate of Svc Encl 1999-07-21
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20065J3461992-12-30030 December 1992 Responds to Petition of R Gary Alleging Discrepancies in RERP for Dauphin County,Pa ML20248J1881989-10-0303 October 1989 Motion for Permission for Opportunity to Respond to Staff Correspondence in Response to Board Order of 890913.* Svc List Encl ML20248J0301989-09-29029 September 1989 NRC Staff Response to Appeal Board Order.* Matters Evaluated in Environ Assessment Involved Subjs Known by Parties During Proceeding & Appear in Hearing Record & Reflect Board Final Initial Decision LBP-89-7.W/Certificate of Svc ML20248H1811989-04-0606 April 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Leave to File Appeal Brief out-of-time.* W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890411.Granted for Aslab on 890410 ML20248G0261989-04-0606 April 1989 Susguehanna Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Brief in Support of Notification to File Appeal & Request for Oral Argument Re Appeal.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20248G0151989-04-0606 April 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Leave to File Appeal Brief out-of-time.* Requests to File Appeal Brief 1 Day Late Due to Person Typing Document Having Schedule Problems ML20236D3821989-03-16016 March 1989 Valley Alliance & TMI Alert Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief in Support of Request for Appeal in Matter of 2.3 Million Gallons Of....* Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890316.Granted for Aslab on 890316 ML20236D3121989-03-15015 March 1989 Licensee Answer to Joint Intervenors Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief on Appeal.* Motion Opposed Based on Failure to Demonstrate Good Cause.W/Certificate of Svc ML20236D2901989-03-11011 March 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief in Support of Request for Appeal in Matter of Disposal of 2.3 Million Gallons of Radioactive Water at Tmi,Unit 2.* Svc List Encl ML20236A3761989-03-0808 March 1989 Licensee Answer Opposing Joint Intervenors Motion for Stay.* Stay of Licensing Board Decision Pending Appeal Unwarranted Under NRC Stds.Stay Could Delay Safe,Expeditious Cleanup of Facility.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236C2441989-03-0808 March 1989 NRC Staff Response in Opposition to Application for Stay Filed by Joint Intervenors.* Application for Stay of Effectiveness of Final Initial Decision LBP-89-07,dtd 890202 Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20235N1621989-02-20020 February 1989 Application for Stay of Effectiveness of Final Initial Decision LBP-89-07 Dtd 890202.* Licensee Would Not Be Harmed by Granting of Stay ML20205D8451988-10-24024 October 1988 Licensee Motion to Strike Portions of Proposed Testimony of Kz Morgan.* Proposed Testimony Should Be Ruled to Be Not Admissible as Evidence in Upcoming Hearing.Supporting Info & Certificate of Svc Encl.W/Copyrighted Matl ML20205D6801988-10-20020 October 1988 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Notification to Parties That Kz Morgan Apps to Testimony Should Be Accepted as Exhibits.* Apps Listed.Svc List Encl.Related Correspondence ML20155G9981988-10-0404 October 1988 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Reconsideration of Part of Judge Order (880927) Re Limited Appearance Statements by Public.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20155G9921988-10-0404 October 1988 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion to Submit Witness Testimony as Evidence W/O cross-exam at Hearing in Lancaster.* Requests That Cw Huver Testimony Be Accepted as Evidence ML20151S0261988-07-28028 July 1988 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Response to Licensee Notification of Typo in Bid Procurement Document.* Explanation for Change in Document Inadequate.W/Svc List ML20196G7801988-06-23023 June 1988 Motion of NRC Staff for Leave to File Response Out of Time.* Encl NRC Response in Support of Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition Delayed Due to Equipment Problems ML20196G9051988-06-23023 June 1988 NRC Staff Response in Support of Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition.* Motion Should Be Granted on Basis That No Genuine Issue Before ASLB or to Be Litigated.Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20196B5091988-06-20020 June 1988 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Response to Licensee Motion or Summary Disposition on Contentions 1-4,5d,6 & 8.* Affidavits of Kz Morgan,R Piccioni,L Kosarek & C Huver & Supporting Documentation Encl ML20154E2301988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Statement of Matl Facts as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue to Be Heard (Contentions 1,2,3 & 8).* ML20154E2081988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition on Alternatives (Contentions 1,2,3 & 8).* Motion Should Be Granted Based on Licensee Meeting Burden of Showing That Alternatives Not Superior to Licensee Proposal ML20154E3491988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Statement of Matl Facts as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue to Be Heard (Contention 5d).* ML20154E2851988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Statement of Matl Facts as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue to Be Heard (Contentions 4b in Part & 6 on Chemicals).* ML20154E3251988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 5d.* Motion Should Be Granted in Licensee Favor ML20154E2681988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition of Contentions 4b in Part & 6 (Chemicals).* Licensee Entitled to Decision in Favor on Contentions & Motion Should Be Granted ML20154E1631988-05-0909 May 1988 Licensee Statement of Matl Facts as to Which No Genuine Issue to Be Heard (Contentions 4b in part,4c & 4d).* Lists Matl Facts for Which No Genuine Issue Exists ML20154E1281988-05-0909 May 1988 Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition of Contentions 4b (in part),4c & 4d.* Requests That Motion for Summary Disposition Be Granted on Basis That No Genuine Issue of Matl Fact Exists to Be Heard Re Contentions ML20154E1761988-05-0909 May 1988 Licensee Memorandum of Law in Support of Motions for Summary Disposition.* Requests Ample Notice Should Board Decide to Deny Summary in Part or in Whole ML20151E9491988-04-0707 April 1988 Licensee Answer to Intervenor Motion for Order on Production of Info on Disposal Sys Installation & Testing.* Intervenor 880330 Motion Should Be Denied Due to Insufficient Legal Basis.W/Certificate of Svc ML20150F9821988-04-0101 April 1988 Licensee Answer to Intervenors Motion to Compel Discovery.* Motion Should Be Denied on Basis That Licensee Responded Fully to Discovery Request.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20148P3931988-03-30030 March 1988 Valley Alliance & TMI Alert Motion to Request That Presiding Judge Order Gpu Nuclear to Provide Addl Info & Clarify Intentions to Install Test & Conduct Experiments W/Evaporator Prior to Hearings.* ML20196D2801988-02-12012 February 1988 NRC Staff Response to Motion by TMI Alert/Susquehanna Valley Alliance for Extension of Discovery.* Motion Should Be Denied.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20196D3541988-02-10010 February 1988 Licensee Response Opposing Susquehanna Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Intervenor Motion for Extension of Time for Discovery.* Joint Intervenors Failed to Show Good Cause for Extension of Time for Discovery.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20148D4661988-01-19019 January 1988 Licensee Objection to Special Prehearing Conference Order.* Board Requested to Clarify 880105 Order Consistent W/ Discussed Description of Board Jurisdiction & Scope of Proceeding.W/Certificate of Svc ML20236N9081987-11-0505 November 1987 Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement Agreement & for Termination of Proceeding.* Termination of Proceeding Should Be Granted ML20235F3651987-09-23023 September 1987 Util Response Opposing NRC Staff Motion to Rescind Protective Order.* Response Opposing Protective Order Guarding Confidentiality of Document Re Methodology of Bechtel Internal Audit Group ML20235B3911987-09-18018 September 1987 NRC Staff Motion for Extension of Time.* Staff Requests Short Extension of Time Until 870925 to File Responses to Pending Petitions.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20235F4401987-09-18018 September 1987 Util Supplemental Response to NRC Staff First Request for Admissions.* Util Objects to Request as Vague in Not Specifying Time Frame or Defining Proprietary, Pecuniary.... W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20238E6001987-09-0404 September 1987 NRC Staff Motion to Rescind Protective Order.* Protective Order Should Be Rescinded & Presiding Officer Should Take Further Action as Deemed Appropriate.W/ Certificate of Svc ML20238E6391987-09-0303 September 1987 Commonwealth of PA Statement in Support of Request for Hearing & Petition to Participate as Interested State.* Susquehanna Valley Alliance 870728 Request for Hearing, Notice of Appearance & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20237J9931987-08-12012 August 1987 Joint Gpu & NRC Staff Motion for Protective Order.* Order Will Resolve Discovery Dispute ML20237K0431987-08-11011 August 1987 Gpu Response Opposing Parks Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum.* Exhibits & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236P1871987-08-0505 August 1987 Formal Response of Rd Parks to Subpoena Duces Tecum of Gpu &/Or,In Alternative,Motion to Quash/Modify Subpoena Due to Privileged Info.* Documents Are Communications Protected by Atty/Client Privilege.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236E7101987-07-28028 July 1987 Joint General Public Utils Nuclear Corp & NRC Staff Motion for Protective Order.* Adoption & Signature of Encl Proposed Order Requested ML20216J7871987-06-29029 June 1987 Opposition of Gpu Nuclear Corp to Aamodt Motion for Reconsideration.* Motion Asserts Board Did Not Consider Important Evidence on Leakage at TMI-2.W/Certificate of Svc ML20216D2311987-06-23023 June 1987 Response of Jg Herbein to Aamodt Request for Review & Motion for Reconsideration.* Opportunity for Comment Should Come After NRC Has Made Recommendations to Commission.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20215J8981987-06-19019 June 1987 Response of Numerous Employees to Aamodt Request to File Comments on Recommended Decision.* Numerous Employees Do Not Agree W/Aamodt That Recommended Decision Is Greatly in Error.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20215K2121987-06-17017 June 1987 (Motion for reconsideration,870610).* Corrections to Pages 3 & 4 Listed ML20215J7551987-06-15015 June 1987 Gpu Response to Motion to Quash Subpoena.* Dept of Labor 870601 Motion to Quash Subpoena Served on D Feinberg Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc 1992-12-30
[Table view] |
Text
. -)
ffb
<~ 00CKETED
(_)' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION USNRC BEFORE THE COMMISSION 6 MR -4 A10:47 In the Matter of: ) 0FFict ur .
GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR DOCKET NO. 50-289 kbb$NC$
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,)
Unit No. 1) )
TMIA'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND FOR STA_Y TMIA moves the Commission to dismiss the Order of September 11, 1985 for the reasons stated as follows:
- 1. After completion of all hearings in which all nersons had an opportunity to be heard, the Commission, on February 25, 1985, entered an Order in which it afforded Charles Husted an opnortunity for a hearing. The hearina was to determine x whether the condition the Aopeal Board imoosed on restart which affected Husted should be vacated. The Order directed Husted to respond within 20 davs of the date of the Order.
- 2. Husted failed to resoond within the 20 days allotted by the Commission.
- 3. Desoite Husted's failure to resoond timelv, the Commission issued an Order on September 11, 1985 awarding a hearing and grantina Husted's netition to expand the scone of the hearing.
B603050197 860229 PDR ADOCK 05000289 G PDR ,
4.Said Order awarding a hearing must be dismissed
/N
\-) for the following reasons:
- a. The issue to be resolved is leaal, not factual, Ob
4 and therefore. a factual hearina is unnecessary and unjust.
O b. Husted waived his ooportunitv for a discretionary hearina in failina to rescond timely to the Commission's Order.
! c. The award of a special hearing is uniust as Husted had an ooportunity to be heard in the orevious hearings
[ but failed to exercise that opnortunity.
- 5. The hearina has been tentativelv scheduled for June 1. 1986, and discovery has been scheduled to commence March 1, 1986.
- 6. Failure to stay the proceedings pending a resolu-1 tion of TMIA's Motion to Dismiss will result in substantial harm in the expenditure of unnecessary " costs in pursuit of discoverv, and the additional burden of proceeding with discov-ery which mav ultimately be invalid if TMIA's Motion is aranted.
TMIA requests the Commission to dismiss the Order of Seotember 11. 1985, and to terminate discovery in this matter.
and further requests that all oroceedinas be stayed pending resolution of its Motion to Dismiss.
Respectfully submitted, s/ s (T
% u a_ w}) we/ -
E aise Bradford for Three Mile Island Alert, Inc.
i O February 28, 1986
. ~
f 5
(~N MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF TMIA'S ,
.V MOTION TO DISMISS AND FOR STAY The Commission had exceeded its jurisdiction in granting a special hearing to Charles Husted. Additionally, the hearing
- awarded by the Commission to Husted is unnecessary, invalid and.
unjust and must be dismissed. It :is unnecessary -as the issues 1
have been finally determined following the previous hearing before the Commission. It is further unnecessary because Husted has i
i waived any right to be heard in failing to' exercise his right to 7
be heard under Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act and i
! 10 CFR 2.714; 2.715, though the opportunity was available to him 4 at the time of the previous hearing. The hearing is invalid as Husted failed to timely request the hearing, as directed by
! ( the Commission's Order of February 25, 1985, thus waiving his right to the discretionary grant of hearing.
i The hearing is unjust as the issues have been resolved-following the hearing on restart, and no new evidence has been I offered to justify opening new hearings on dead issues. Addi-tionally, it is unconscionable abuse of taxpayers' funds to accommodate Husted, who has repeatedly failed to timely present I his arguments before the Commission. Expansion on the hearing is likewise unconscionable in light of the limited legal issue upon which the opportunity for hearing was initially offered.
BACKGROUND i
In July of 1981, it was alleged that two individuals
! (
i had cheated extensively on the April 1981 licensed operator 4
i 4 L . . - - a: n - ,
[) examinations administered ~by the NRC at TMI. Restart proceeding Staff Exh. 24. The Office of Inspection and Enforcement (OIE)
~
investigated the allegations and issued a report on August 11, i 1981. Staff Exh. 26. In the course of its investigation, OIE interviewed numerous licensed operators and members of the TMI training department. Charles Husted, who was at that time a licensed operator instructor at TMI, refused to cooperate with the NRC investigators during their investigation of the cheating, according to the OIE report. I_d, , at 39.
Subsequently, the Atoric Safety and Licensing Board-1 (ASLB) reopened the evidentiary record and appointed Administrat-ive Judge Gary Milhollin Special Master to preside over the hearing. Husted appeared as a witness at the hearing, and the
( testimony which he gave concerning his knowledge of cheating at TMI .as found by both the Special Master and the ASLB to be j " incredible" Special Master's Report (SMR) at Para. 316; July 27, 1982 Partial Initial Decision (PID) at' Para. 2165.
Additionally, during the hearing, a Staff witness revealed for the first time allegations of Husted's unsucc ,s-ful attempt to cheat during the April 1981 NRC exam. Tr.
25,462-463 (Ward).
The Special Master, in his report, proposed a sanction
- less than loss of license for Husted. SMR at Para. 317.
j The SMR issued April 28, 1982. The report concluded i ,
l that ten individuals in addition to Husted were guilty of some J
form of wrongdoing. SMR at Para. 304. On April 30, 1982,
. Licensee filed a petition to repoen'the record in order that Micnael Ross, Manager of Operations TMI-1, whom the Special ;
~l J
() Master had concluded was guilty of wrongdoing, could present additional testimony directly to the ASLB. Licensee made no such ,
request with regard to Husted. On May 5, 1982, the ASLB denied l
Licensee's petition, and instead, directed the parties to submit additional comments on the issues surrounding Ross. The ASLB also directed Licensee to inform any of its employees promptly of their right to comment on the SMR. Subsequently, five TMI employees who were referred to in the SMR submitted comments to the Licensee. Husted did not file comments.
The ASLB issued its Partial Initial Decision (PID) on July 27, 1982. The Board disagreed with the Special Master a
recerding Husted's attempted cheating. The Board found the evidence did not support a conclusion that Husted had made sa
) attempt to cheat during the NRC exam. However, the Board was in agreement with the Special Master regarding Husted's refusal to cooperate with an NRC investigation, his incredible testimony during the hearing and his general poor attitude toward the NRC examination process. PID at Para. 2165-2167.
"His testimony on the matter was not only unbe-lievable, but it gave the sense that he didn't 5
care whether he was believed or not."
"if Mr. Husted is representative of the TMI-l ,
training department, his attitude may be a partial '
4 explanation of why there was disrespect for the training program and the examinations." l l
- -1 *** l "we question whether he is able, or if able, willing to impart a sense of seriousness and
()
responsibility to the TMI-l operators."
Id-i i
() Despite their findings, the Board imposed no sanction against Husted directly, but instead required that Licensee estab-lish an audit of its training program, and that that audit give particular attention to Husted. PID at Para. 2168.
The parties filed exceptions to the July 27 PID. TMIA and the Commonwealth took exception to the Board's lack of sanction against Husted. The Commonwealth's exception number two stated:
"The Licensing Board erred as a matter of law and abused its discretion by permitting the Licensee to utilize senior reactor operator DD (Mr. Husted), who is also a training instructor at TMI, as an operator of TMI-1, pending a hearing pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
Part 2, Subpart B, and 10 C.F.R. 55.40."
Commonwealth Exceptions at 1.
{} In its brief in support of its exceptions, and in its Comments on the Immediate Effectiveness of the ASLB Partial Initial Decision (Reopened Proceeding), the Commonwealth con-tinued to maintain its position that Husted should not be per-mitted to operate TMI-l or to teach licensed operators or trainees "pending a hearing" on Husted's ethical and attitudinal qualifications to do so.
In August 1983, counsel for indiviauals O and VV, who were found guilty of wrongdoing by both the Special Master and the ASLB, petitioned the Appeal Board for leave to intervene in the appellate process. Husted made no request to participate.
On July 6, 1983, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and GPUN entered into a stipulated agreement whereby GPU agreed f~/)
s_
not to use Husted to operate TMI-l or to train Ifuensed operators or trainees. Husted understood and agreed to the need for the stipulation at the time it was made. May 14, 1985, Husted Reply to NRC Staff Response Concerning Charles Husted's Request for Hearing, at 4. The Commonwealth withdrew its appeal on the same day.
Shortly prior to the signing of the agreement, GPU promoted Husted to the position of Supervisor Non-Licensed Operator Training.
The Appeal Board reviewed the record and the events which had occurred following the close of the evidentiary hear-ing, including the stipulated agreement and the promotion of Husted.
In ALAB-772 which issued in May of 1984, the Appeal
() Board imposed as a condition of the restart of TMI-l that Husted "have no supervisory responsibilities insof ar as the training of non-licensed personnel is concerned." ALAB-772 at 46.
The Commission took review of ALBL-772 and questioned the Appeal Board's authority to impose the condition without providing Husted notice and an opportunity to request a hearing.
CLI-84-18 at 1-2. The Commission requested comments from the.
the parties on the legal question it had posed, specifically stating that it was concerned with the factual issues which underlay the Appeal Board's decision to impose the condition.
Id. at 4. The Commission further stated that should it deter-mine "that the Appeal Board erred will then decide whether to take euforcement action against Mr. Husted separate from the
() restart proceeding. Id. at 5. In CLI-85-2, the Commission,
-s-
= _ ..
~
without having resolved the question of the Appeal Board's authority, posed a different question: should the Appeal Board's condition be vacated. CLI-85-2 at 54. The Commission gave considerable attention to Husted's right to a hearing on the issue of whether the condition imposed by the Appeal Board should be vacated. The Commission reviewed Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act and relavant sections of federal due process for affirmative authority to grant Husted a hearing.
The Commission was unable to cite affirmative authority, but nevertheless granted a hearing in " fairness" to Husted. The Commission granted the hearing, in part, because in the Commis-sion's view, Husted had not been asked for his views nor had an opportunity to comment. The Commission gave Husted twenty 1
() days from the date of the Order to request a hearing. Id. at 54-55.
On March 25, 1985, twenty-nine days after the Com-mission's Order, Husted filed a request for hearing, and, in addition, requested that the scope of the hearing be expanded I
to consider the factual issues which underlay the Appeal Board's condition. See Letter from Deborah B. Bauser. Counsel for Husted, dated March 25, 1985. Husted argued that expansion of the scope of the hearing would require no additional Agency resources. On September 11, 1985,'the coneission granted l
Husted's request for an expanded hearing. l l
O 1
DISCUSSION O In CLI-84-18, the Commission questioned the Appeal Board's authority to impose as a condition of restart that Charles Husted not be allowed supervisory responsibilities insofar as the training of non-licensed personnel is concerned. Although the Commission did not answer that question explicitly, it implicitly affirmed the Appeal Board's authority to impose such a condition when in CLI-85-2 it posed another question: should the Appeal Board's condition be vacated? A determination that the Appeal Board lacked the legal authority to impose the con-dition would have nullified the question.
Resolution of the issue of whether or not to vacate the Appeal Board's condition does not require a hearing. The
- facts which underlay the condition are fully developed in the record. The commission has not questioned the validity of those facts. Husted has presented no new evidence which would contra-dict those facts. The parties can adequately brief the issue based on the facts in the record. Granting a hearing on the legal question of the appropriateness of the Appeal Board's condition, where the facts underlying that condition are not in controversy, is an abuse of Agency-resources and an abuse of the Commission's discretion.
The hearing process to examine the facts surrounding the cheating incident commenced on October 2, 1981, it concluded in May of 1984, when the Appeal Board issued its decision. The hearing consumed 18 hearing days. All of this at the expense of the taxpayer. Furthermore, although participation in-the
_ hearing on cheating was a severe drain on its meager resources,
\'J TMIA participated actively. It did so in good faith and in accordance with the Commission's regulations. TMIA has every right to expect that the final decisions which favored its posi-tion will remain undisturbed and that it will not have to repeatedly defend those decisions.
In CLI-85-2, the Commission stated that Husted had had no notice of the Appeal Board's condition and no opportunity to comment. This was the basis of the Commission's decision to offer Husted a special hearing. The Commission's statement is inaccurate and is not supportcd by the facts. The procedural protection afforded by Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act was available to Husted. Additionally, 10 CFR 2.714 gives per-sons affected by a proceeding the opportunity to request a g-)g hearing or to intervene; 10 CFR 2.715a allows for a person who is not a party to make a statement of his position on the issues at any session of the hearing. Furthermore, 10 CLR 2.715d allows for persons who are not parties to the hearing to file briefs,
" amicus curiae." Husted did not take advantage of these oppor-tunities timely, and has waived his rights to comment or to request a hearing.
Even assuming for the sake of argument that a hearing were necessary to resolve the issue of whether or not the Appeal Board's condition should be vacated; and further, assuming that )
the Commission's view that Husted's due process rights were harmed is accurate, Husted is not entitled to a hearing. He j
/^s
(_) was in default when he filed his petition for hearing nine days beyond the time allotted by the Commission.
The Commission exceeded its authority when it granted Husted's request to broaden the scope of the hearing to encompass issues which were the subject of previous final decisions. The Commission is barred from broadening the scope of the hearing as a result of the final decisions previously reached on these same issued. Those issues are res judicata. The Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Utah Construction & Mining Co., 384 U.S. 394, 86 S.Ct. 1545, 16 L.Ed2d 642 (1966), that: "When an administrative agency is acting in a judicial capacity and resolves disputed issues of fact properly before it which the parties have had an adequate opportunity to litigate, the courts
,~
(_ have not hesitated to apply res judicata to enforce repose."
(emphasis added).
As demonstrated in the background above, Husted had adequate opportunity to confront the issues. He failed to use those opportunities.
Husted was found culpable prior to the stipulation by the Special Master and the ASLB. The ASLB had not recom-mended sanction against Husted. Nevertheless, GPU, with Husted's knowledge and assent, entered into the stipulated agreement with the Commonwealth. It was this action which resulted in the removal of Husted's license.
^
(a)
Husted-had the opportunity to use the appellate process.
(~)')
He chose not to use that process and agreed with the stipulation.
The Commission can grant no relief with regard to j Husted's license. He voluntarily relinquished it when he agreed to the need for the stipulation. He has waived.his right to appeal that action.
.i In the September 6, 1985 Notice of Hearing, the Com-i mission did not consider the fact that the issues were res .
judicata, nor that they did not have the authority to grant relief in the matter of the stipulated agreement. The Commis-sion considered only the fact that an expanded hearing would not require additional Agency resources.
- It was not necessary to convene a hearing in order to
() determine whether the Appeal Board's condition should be vacated Since no hearing is necessary, it cannot be necessary to expand the hearing.
{
The Commission has an obligation to the public to administer its resources in a responsible manner. This obliga-
- tion outweighs any obligation the Commission might feel it has '
to Husted, who has forfeited any rights he might have had to hearing.
In conclusion, the hearing awarded by the Commission to Husted is unnecessary, invalid and unjust-and must be I dismissed.
t.
1 !
J
"* 00CKETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 16 MM1 -4 #0 :47
/ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
(
BEFORE THE COMMISSION OFFICE F .- . Y 00CHETihti a 5tkVH .r.
3 In the Matter of: )
)
GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR ) DOCKET NO. 50-289 (CH)
)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, )
Unit No. 1) )
TMIA'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND FORSTAY,
- I hereby certify that copies of "TMIA'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND FORSTAY" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, this 28th day of February, 1986:
Secretary Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555
, Morton B. Margulies Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Bd.
Administrative Iaw Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, D.C. 20555
()
7 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nwashington, D.C. 20555 George E. Johnson Office of the Executive Legal Dir.
Michael W. Maupin, Esq. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Maria C. Hensley, Esq. Washington, D.C. 20555 Hunton & Williams P. O. Box 1535 Docketing and Service Section (3)
Richmond, VA 23212 Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Deborah B. Bauser, Esq. Washington, D.C. 20555 Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 4
f
. * / .
Louise Bradford for Three Mile Island Alert, Inc.
, (
,