ML20148B745
| ML20148B745 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 11/23/1979 |
| From: | Bickwit L NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Gilinsky V, Hendrie J, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19291C158 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8001230052 | |
| Download: ML20148B745 (2) | |
Text
_ - - -
s' UNITED STATES 3
[r f
' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMtsSION 3
f l g WASHINcToN. D. C. 20$$$
- e( im)p;,#
t
. taz e
1 N 'i,,..
- cyV '
November 23, 1979 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Chairman Hendrie
~
_.Co=missioner Gilinsky F
Commissioner Kennedy 1
Commissioner Bradford
~
Commissione: Ahearne
,h'LeonardBickwit, FROM:
7 Jr., General Counsel h
SUBJECT:
TMI UNIT ONE PROCEEDING -- MANAGEMENT COMPETENCE This responds to the request for our views on whether the Co==is-sion should serve as the hearing board on the =anagement competence issues that will arise in the TMI Uni One proceeding.
We have reviewed the Ad=inistrative ?:ocedure Act and determined that there is no legal bar to the Co==ission serving as the hearing board on those issues.
Houever, we recommend against that course for a j
number of reasens.
First, the conduct of the hearing will entail numerous rulings on
~
admissibility of written and oral testimony, scope of examination and cross-examination, and permissible types cf c: css-examination.
It is our view tha: the Cc =issien is not well suited to preside in i.
such adjudicatory hearings.
The Commissioners are not well versed in the rules of evidence, and generally have had little, if any, experience in conducting adjudicatory hearints.
Second, serving as
~
presiding officers would require an inc: din amoun cf Commis-siener time.
The Consission would undoub:ec' be recuired to rule upon several prehearing motions, and the hea.
itself could run on fer several weeks.
Third, it is unlikely
- the hearing itself will serve as the foru: fc: any signift n
policy debate over.:he level of technical or management co:p inte required to operate a nuclear power plant.
The utility wil. =ake the best case that it can that it is qualified to operate 'ven under the i
most strict standards and those opposed to operatica vill make the bes: case that they can that the utili:y is ince:Peten: even under minical standards.
The policy debate will ccre later when the record is examined and a decision has :c be made.
In light of the tire tha: would be recuired te prepare fe: and to condue: the hearing, we do not believe this.culd be the ecs: efficien: utili-a:icn of Cornission resources.
Finally, the Cc :issien has already split the p:cceeding, since special procedures already 90028030 Cv..
.C.:
n
- i: Re:hschild, III
.:..1:5 8001230 0 D
b
~ }f mw n
.O d
g D
esj 1,
vl
- 5...
,The-Commissioners 2
- % l
- s ;
- v ;
P,:s '
apply to resolution of safety issues prior to plant startup, and
- .I to consideration of psychological impacts.
Lifting out other issues EP for special consideration will complicate matters further.
EE' There are alternative means of ensuring a co prehensive hearing
$[
record is developed while also affording the Co==ission the opper-is tunity to address the management ce=petence issue at an early'date.
E' The Commission could issue an order delineating competency related di issues which the parties would be recuested to address during the 9F Licensing Board hearing.
This could focus the hearing and accocmo-5I date specific concerns of individual Cocsissioners.
'.s '
- E The Commission could also use such an order to establich expedited
[.! ;
procedures which would ensure that the canagemen co=petence issue J' '
would reach the Co==ission at an early date.
The Coc=ission could direct the Board to receive testimony on the corpetence issue
=
before it heard testimony on other issues.
Uoon completion of 5% !
this testimony, the parties would submit proo'osed findings of fact SE to the Board.
The Board would then issue a bartial initial deci-50 sien lizited to that issue.
That opinion would then be reviewed 51 by the Cor=ission.
This option does, however, further fragmen
.TI the proceeding and would cause some delay.
2_."
A present the Board has received the contentions of the parties,
heard oral argument on contentions, and scheduled written briefs on some contentions in dispute.
However, there seems to be no legal dispute regarding the admissibility of the contentions 2.
dealing with canagement competence, and a special crehearing conference order ruling on contentions is exoected'to be issued by the Eoard in about two weeks.
Hearines are anticipated to 1
begin in February, lo80.
A Commission order delineating com-petency related issues to be addressed should no: delav this
.- l course of events, althoush it is possible that a furth'er round cf cententions and so=e ninc: delays would result if the issues
~
raised by the Cc==ission did not fall within the Board's and parties' original cencept of canagement cocpetence.
On the other hand, an early partial initial decision on canatement cenpetence would.likely delay initial decision on start-to.-b.v about 30-45 cays, cecause tne nearings woule. procably neec. to oe recessed in order for parties' counsel to prepare proposed findings and fo:
the Board to u:ite a decisien.
.~1 We believe the approaches discussed above are responsive to Cc=:is.
~
sione: Gilinsky's cencerns but would eliminate the need fo: the Cornission itself to spend endless hcurs listening to testineny.
D D"E cc:
ope l
Dhhj JAudS k OCA a
SECY 90028034i e