ML20210S936
| ML20210S936 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Three Mile Island  |
| Issue date: | 10/03/1986 |
| From: | Wagner M NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| CON-#486-0981, CON-#486-981 RA-EW, NUDOCS 8610080262 | |
| Download: ML20210S936 (19) | |
Text
00tKETEC USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 86 DCT -6 P5 31 OFFICE v tt BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEALYokitolirefl""
In the Matter of )
) Docket No. 50-289 EW
. EDWARD WALLACE ) (Special Proceeding)
)
(GPU Nuclear, Three Mile Island )
Nuclear Station, Unit No.1) )
NRC STAFF BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPEAL BY THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA l
l Mary E. Wagner
- Counsel for NRC Staff October 3,1986 l
8610080262 861003 PDR ADOCK 05000289 G PDR 607
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of )
) Docket No. 50-289 EW EDWARD WALLACE ) (Special Proceeding)
)
(GPU Nuclear, Three Mile Island )
Nuclear Station, Unit No.1) )
NRC STAFF BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPEAL BY THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Mary E. Wagner
. Counsel for NRC Staff October 3,1986
O
. TABLE OF CONTENTS y
P I. IN T ROD U CTIO N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE ,................. 2 III. ISSUES PRESENTED ON APPEAL . . . ............. 6 IV. ARGUMENT .......................... 6
- 1. The Administrative Law Judge's Actions in Terminating the Proceeding and Lifting the Notification Requirement Were Proper and Required By the Terms of CLI-86-9 ........... 6
- a. The Commission's Prior Statements .................. 8
- b. The Commission's Finding that Mr. Wallace's Name Cannot Be Cleared without Additional Evidence ...................... 9
- c. Earlier Staff Documents Commenting on Mr. Wallace's Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
- 2. The Commonwealth's Arguments as to Procedural Flaws in the Proceeding Established by the Commission in CLI-86-9 are Not Properly Before the Appeal Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 V. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1
i t
. TABLE OF CITATIONS
- ADMINISTRATIVE CASES y P
Commonwealth Edison Co. (Zion Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-616,12 NRC 419, 426 (1980). ........... 7 Duquesne Light Company, et al. (Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2), LBP-HT 6,19 NRC 393, 426 (1984).
.. 8 Edward Wallace (GPU Nuclear, Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No.1) 23 NRC (1986) (slip, op.
August 19, 1986) Memorandum and Order Terminating 3 and Removing Notification Requirements As to Edward Wallace , ALJ-86-3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 5, 9, 11 General Public Utilities Nuclear Corporation (Three l Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLI-86-9, 23 NRC 465 (1986). . . . ................. 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 General Public Utilities Nuclear Corporation (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLI-85-19, 22 NRC 886, 889 (1985) . .. . ................. 3, 10 Metropolitan Edison Company, et. al. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLI-85-2, 21 NRC 282, 323 (1985) . . . . . .. . .................. 3 Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Staiton,
'Jnit No.1), CLI-82-31,16 NRC 1236,1238-39 (1982) . .. 7
- Niagara Mohawk Power Corp, et. al (Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2), LBP-83-45,18 NRC 213, 216
, . (1983) . .. . . .. . ................. 8 Northern States Power Company (Tyrone Energy Park, Unit 1),
CLI-80-36,12 NRC 523, 527 (1980) ............ 8 Public Service Company of Indiana, Inc. (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-316, 3 NRC 167,170-171 (1976) . ............... 7 f
, -. - .-- --- - - . _ - , . . . - , , - . . - - , . - . . , - - , , - - , , - . . . .- , , , , - , - - - - - - - - - - - - - , - ,-,.,_-m...-,..
.- . .. - ._ .. .. _ _ = - _ --___.
l l
l
(
f REGULATIONS @
10 C . F . R . I 2 . 714 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(a)(1) . . . . . . ............. 4 10 C.F.R. I 2.715(c) . . . . . . . . ............. 4 10 C . F . R . I 2 . 7 6 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 MISCELLANEOUS NUREG-0680, Supplement No. 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4
t 1
i l
I i
4 I
I f
f i
! I
i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of )
) Docket No. 50-289 EW EDWARD WALLACE ) (Special Proceeding)
)
(GPU Nuclear, Three Mile Island )
Nuclear Station, Unit No.1) )
NRC STAFF BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPEAL BY THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA I. INTRODUCTION On August 19, 1986, Judge Ivan Smith, the Administrative Law Judge i appointed to preside over any proceeding brought concerning GPU official Edward Wallace , terminated the proceeding because no one petitioned to intervene against Mr. Wallace and the Staff did not advocate a position against him. II ALJ-86-3, 23 NRC . Judge Smith also removed the Commission-imposed notification requirement as to Mr. Wallace, under which Licensee was obligated to notify the Commission before returning Mr. Wal-lace to a responsible position at TMI-1.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Commonwealth) filed a Notice of Appeal from Judge Smith's Memorandum and Order, with supporting brief, on September 4, 1986. 2/ Because the Commonwealth clearly has ignored the i
~1/
Memorandum and Order Terminating Proceeding and Removing Notifi-cation Requirement As To Edward Wallace, August 19, 1986 (Memo-randum and Order).
-2/ Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Brief in Support of Appeal,
! September 4,1986 (Commonwealth Brief).
l
unambiguous ground rules set forth in the Commission Notice of Hearing, as explained below, the NRC Staff opposes the Commonwealth's appeal and be-lieves Judge Smith's Memorandum and Order should be affirmed in all respects. 3,/
1 II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE In NUREG-0680, Supplement No. 5 (Supplement No. 5), the NRC Staff concluded that Metropolitan Edison Co. (Met-Ed) , the former licensee at Three Mile Island, Units 1 and 2, submitted inaccurate and incomplete in-formation in its December 5, 1979 response (Response) to the NRC's Octo-ber 25, 1979 Notice of Violation (NOV) arising from the TMI-2 accident.
By letter dated March 27, 1985 and accompanying Memorandum ,
Robert Arnold and Edward Wallace submitted to the Commission a request for a hearing to determine whether the adverse implications about their integrity provided by the Staff and OI in connection with the TMI-1 restart proceeding were factually substantiated. These adverse implications arise from the Staff's conclusions in Supplement No. 5 that Met-Ed's Response to the NOV s was " inaccurate and incomplete" and the conclusions drawn by the Office of Investigations in OI Report No. 1-83-012 (May 18,1984) .
In Supplement No. 5, the Staff did not reach conclusions regarding certain individuals who were responsible for, or involved in, events that called into question the management integrity of Met-Ed where such individ-1
-3/ It is the Staff view that 10 C.F.R. I 2.762, which generally governs appeals to the Appeal Board, is applicable to this appeal and has followed 5 2.762 in filing this brief. See letter from Mary E. Wagner to the Appeal Board, September 26,19ET.
uals no longer held management positions within GPUN related to the opera-tion of TMI-1. - Arnold and Wallace are two such individuals. Instead, the Staff took the position that, should the Licensee decide to assign any such
. Individuals to responsible management positions associated with the supervision of operations or maintenance of Three Mile Island Unit 1, the Licensee should be required to first obtain Staff review and approval. The Commission , in fact, imposed a requirement that the Licensee notify the Commission before returning Arnold or Wallace to responsible positions at TMI-1. CLI-85-2, 21 NRC 282, 323 (1985).
i In response to the Arnold /Wallace requests for hearing, the Commis-sion, in CLI-85-19, 22 NRC 886, 889 (1985) issued December 19,1985, indi-cated that it would consider lifting the condition for prior Commission notification, and that its determination in that regard would be based in part on the information submitted in response to several Commission ques-tions. It asked the Staff, and other interested parties, to submit comments addressing three questions related to the requirement in CLI-85-2 that Li-censee notify the Commission before returning either Robert Arnold or Ed-ward Wallace to responsible positions at TMI-1.
Comments were submitted by some of the intervenors in the TMI-1 Re-start proceeding, the NRC Staff, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
On May 15,1985, the Commission issued an Advisory Opinion and Notice of Hearing denying Mr. Arnold's hearing request and granting Mr. Wallace's hearing request. CLI-86-9, 23 NRC 465 (1986) (Notice of Hearing). The Notice of Hearing provided for an adjudication before an administrative law judge under 10 C.F.R. Part 2, and set forth the guidelines for any such hearing:
Any petitions to intervene by persons who responded by filing comments in response to CLI-85-19 shall be filed in
i accordance with 10 CFR 5 2.714 and, to be timely, shall be filed within 45 days of the date of this Notice. No other interventions shall be permitted except upon a balancing of the factors in 10 CFR 5 2.714(a)(1). NRC Staff shall participate as a party. Any party who advocates that Wallace made a knowing, willful, or reckless material false statement in the NOV response shall have the burden of going forward and persuasion. If no person intervenes against Wallace and NRC Staff does not advocate a position
, against Wallace, then the proceeding shall be terminated and the TMI-1 notification requirement as to Wallace shall be removed.
23 NRC at 472 (emphasis added).
No petition to intervene under 9 2.714 was filed. However, on June 30, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania filed a timely petition seeking inter-ested state status under 10 C.F.R. I 2.715(c). By letter to Judge Smith dated July 17, 1986, the Staff reported that it did not advocate a position against Mr. Wallace, b The Staff opposed the Commonwealth's Petition. b The Staff argued that since no one petitioned to intervene against Mr. Wallace under 5 2.714 and the Staff was not advocating a position against Mr. Wallace, the Com-mission's Notice of Hearing required Judge Smith to terminate the proceed-ing. The Staff also argued that under Commission case law , where a hearing is not mandatory, the filing of a petition under 5 2.715 permits the petitioning state or local jurisdiction to participate in the adjudicatory hear-ing only if a hearing is held upon the granting of a 5 2.714 petition.
In terminating the proceeding, Judge Smith rejected the argument of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that under the terms of the Commission's 4/ Letter from Mary E. Wagner, Counsel for NRC Staff, to Ivan W.
Smith, July 17, 1986.
5/ "NRC Staff Answer to Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Petition to Participate as an Interested State", July 17, 1986
Notice of Hearing, a hearing was mandatory. Judge Smith found that it was clear from the Notice of Hearing that the Commission intended for the Staff to participate only if there was a hearing initiated by someone advo-cating a position against Mr. Wallace. Memorandum and Order at 4-5.
Judge Smith also removed the Commission-imposed notification requirement as to Mr. Wallace. Id. at 6.
The Commonwealth has appealed from Judge Smith's Memorandum and Order. The arguments raised by the Commonwealth appear to fall into two categories. First, the Commonwealth asserts that a hearing should be held, notwithstanding the Commission's requirement that if no party intervenes under 5 2.714 against Mr. Wallace and the Staff does not advocate a posi-tion against him, no hearing will be held. The Commonwealth puts forth three specific arguments in support of this position: (1) a hearing is nee-essary in light of the Commission's prior statements on management integri-ty; (2) a hearing is necessary because the Commission has stated (CLI-86-9, at 9) that it cannot clear Mr. Wallace's name without additional evidence; and (3) a hearing must be held because the adverse implications about Mr. Wallace's integrity were derived from NRC Staff reports. Com-monwealth Brief at 5-15. Second, the Commonwealth argues that the present proceeding is procedurally flawed and not authorized by the Com-mission's rules, and that a petition under 10 C.F.R. I 2.206 might be an alternative method of addressing the issue of Mr. Wallace's integrity. Id.
at 15-19. Only the Commonwealth's first argument is properly before this Board, as set forth below.
j III. ISSUES PRESENTED ON APPEAL The issue raised by the Commonwealth's appeal is:
Whether the Administrative Law Judge properly terminated the proceeding.
IV. ARGUMENT
, 1. - The Administrative Law Judge's Actions in Terminating the Proceed-ing and Lifting the Notification Requirement Were Proper and Required by the Terms of CLI-86-9.
The Commonwealth argues that a hearing should now be held, notwith-standing the explicit specification in the Commission's May 15, 1986 Adviso-ry Opinion and Notice of Hearing, that if no party advocates a position against Mr. Wallace then no hearing would be held and the notitication re-quirement lifted. The Commonwealth sets forth three specific arguments in support of this unusual proposition: (1) a hearing is necessary in light of the Commission's prior statements on management integrity; (2) a hearing is necessary because the Commission has stated that it cannot clear Mr. Wallace's name without additional evidence; and (3) that a hearing must be held because the adverse implications about Mr. Wallace's integrity were derived from NRC reports. (Commonwealth Brief at 5-15). These argu-ments are without merit, as discussed below. 0-
-6/ It is not clear from the Commonwealth's Brief whether it is arguing that Judge Smith should have commenced an adjudicatory hearing even though the conditions established by the Commission as a pre-requisite have not been met, or that the Commission itself should have required a hearing. Rather, the Commonwealth asserts only that "the hearing should be held. . . " Commonwealth's Brief at ' 5.
However, it is clear that the jurisdiction of a Board is " limited by the Commission's notice of hearing." Commonwealth Edison Co. (Zion Station, Units 1 and 2) ALAB-616, 12 NRC 419, 426 (1980), citing Public Service Company of Indiana, Inc. (Marble Hill Nuclear Gener-nting Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-316, 3 NRC 167,170-71 (1976);
Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station , Unit No. 1) , CLI-82-31, 16 NRC 1236,1238-39 (1982). The Administra-tive Law Judge was bound by the terms of the Notice of Hearing to (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) l L.
As even the Commonwealth concedes (Commonwealth Brief at 3-5), the Commission's May 15, 1986 Advisory Opinion and Notice of Hearing provides for an adjudicatory hearing only if an interested party intervened or if the
. Staff advocated a position against Mr. Wallace: "if no person intervenes against Wallace and the NRC Staff does not advocate a position against Wal-lace, then the proceeding shall be terminated and the TMI-1 notification requirement as to Wallace shall be removed." 23 NRC at 472. The facts are that neither criteria for the hearing has been satisfied. No person sought intervention under 5 2.714. The Staff did not advocate a position against Mr. Wallace. The Commonwealth, the only entity to file a petition in response to the Notice of IIearing, filed a petition under section 2.715 seek-ing interested state status and stated that it was not advocating a position against Mr. Wallace. Commonwealth Petition at 4. Accordingly, Judge Smith had no choice, under the authcrity granted to him in the Notice of Hearing , but to dismiss the proceeding. O Some brief comments in
! (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE) i apply the prerequisites established by the Commission before a hear-ing could proceed, and had no authority to ignore the terms set forth by the Commission. Similarly, it follows that the jurisdiction of the Appeal Board also is defined by the scope of the Notice of IIcaring.
If the Commonwealth is arguing that the Commission itself should order a hearing despite the failure to meet the CLI-86-9 criteria,
, then its argument is misdirected in this Appeal Board Brief. In effect, the Commonwealth would be asking that the Commission modi-fy or vacate CLI-86-9. Such an argument could have been made to the Commission at the time of issuance of CLI-86-9; to advance such an argument now is woefully out of time and misplaced.
-7/ The same result would obtain in this case even if the Commission's
- Notice of Hearing did not explicitly provide for terminating the pro-ceeding as it did. It is clear under Commission case law that in a (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) a ._ _
response to the three reasons cited by the Commonwealth as to why a hear-ing must be held are set forth below,
- a. The Commission's Prior Statements
. Before Judge Smith, the Commonwealth argued that the Commission's prior statements in the TMI-1 restart proceeding regarding Mr. Wallace ne-cessitated a hearing. $ On appeal, the Commonwealth expands somewhat on this argument. Commonwealth Brief at 5 - 10. As Judge Smith ob-served, the Commonwealth's argument in this regard is " directed to the Commission's policy determination to place the burden of going forward and persuasion on any party who advocates a position against Mr. Wallace. "
Memorandum and Order at 5. Specifically, the Commission's Notice of Hear-
! ing clearly states that "[a]ny party who advocates [a position against Mr. Wallace] shall have the burden of going forward and persuasion." 23 NRC at 477. Judge Smith correctly ruled, therefore, that the Commission's determination was binding on him as the presiding officer, and that he did (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE)'
situation such as that presented here, where a hearing is not man-datory, the filing (or acceptance) of a petition to participate under 5 2.715(c) permits the petitioning state or local jurisdiction to par- -
ticipate in the adjudicatory hearing only if one is held. Duquesne Light Company, - et al. (Beaver Valley Power Station , Unit 2),
LDP-84-6, 19 NRC 39% 426 (1984) (no hearing is required in an operating license proceeding when no litigable contention has been 4 submitted in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714); Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. -et al. (Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station , Unit 2),
LBP-83-45, 18 NRF 213, 216 (1983) (no hearing is required on an operating license application without a request for a hearing in ac-cordance with 5 2.714), see Northern States Power Company (Tyrone Energy Park, Unit 1), CLT-80-36,12 NRC 523, 527 (1980) (separate views of Chairman Ahearne and Commissioner Hendrie). The Com-
- monwealth has never asserted that its petition under I 2.715 triggers the hearing process.
-8/ Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Reply to NRC Staff Answer, August 1,1986, at 7-9.
_~ . - , - . . - , - - - -.- . - - - . , , - - .. , , - . .--.-__n--,-- ,-.-..-, ,,,, , - ,-- ,--.n-,,--,7.-
1 not have the authority to consider the Commonwealth's argument in this l l
regard. Memorandum and Order at 6. There can be no error attributed to Judge Smith's adherence to the clear terms of the Commission's Order.
- b. The Commission's Finding that Mr. Wallace's Name Cannot Be Cleared without Additional Evidence The Commonwealth further asserts that in CLI-86-9, the Commission stated that it could not clear Mr. Wallace's name without additional evi-dence. 23 NRC at 471. As with the Commonwealth's argument concerning l prior Commission statements regarding Mr. Wallace, this argument challenges the preconditions set forth in the Commission's Notice of Hearing, and Judge Smith rightfully determined he was not authorized to consider it.
Memorandum and Order at 5-6.
Moreover, the Staff does not interpret Judge Smith's action in terminating the proceeding and lifting the notification requirement as " clear-ing" Mr. Wallace in view of the Commission's statement that additional evi-dence .would be needed to " clear" Mr. Wallace. In light of the fact that no one has intervened or advocated a position against Mr. Wallace, Judge Smith I
had no alternative under the authority conferred by the Notice of Hearing
, but to terminate the proceeding and lift the notification requirement.
Judge Smith's Memorandum and Order made no finding as to Mr. Wallace's
! actions with respect to the NOV response, nor did he " clear" Mr. Wallace, f Judge Smith simply carried out the Commission's directive to terminate the proceeding under the specified conditions. No error can be attributed to Judge Smith for doing so.
- c. Earlier Staff Documents Commenting on Mr. Wallace's Integrity Finally, the Commonwealth argues that a hearing is necessary because i of adverse implications in earlier Staff reports concerning Mr. Wallace's in-tegrity , and charges that the Staff is now attempting to input some
---,-,n.- -,..-,,-,-m,-,,vm--w.,-----,-,-----,-w-, +-mawv.w.a,-ew ,,.e ,am_m,,.,,,,---,v- -,v,v,,, ,-~ ~ -,--- r---,-----,-=----m,
1
" ambiguity" into its earlier findings. Commonwealth's Brief at 13-15. In j fact, no such ambiguity exists, and the Commission itself has determined in CLI-86-9 that the NRC Staff's prior statements do not, in and of them-selves , or in conjunction with the Staff's comments in response to CLI-85-19, necessitate a hearing.
In NUREG-0680, Supplement 5, the Staff did not reach conclusions regarding the integrity of Mr. Wallace, or of any other individual no longer holding a management position in GPUN related to the operation of TMI-1.
In CLI-85-19, 22 NRC at 889, the Commission asked the Staff to respond, for the first time, to the following question:
If Arnold or Wallace knew of or were involved in making a ma-terial false statement, does that knowledge or involvement indi-cate willful or reckless conduct by either of them.
The Staff responded that, on the basis of available information, the evidence is circumstantial and insufficient for the Staff to conclude that Mr. Arnold or Mr. Wallace acted willfully or recklessly; however, neither can the Staff conclude that Messrs. Arnold or Wallace did not so act. E In short, the Staff is unable to resolve the question of whether there was willful or reckless conduct by either Arnold or Wallace. The Staff's com-l ments are consistent with, and do not cast ambiguity on, prior Staff state-l ments , which do not address the question of willfulness. Moreover, the l
Commission has taken into consideration the Staff's comments in response to CLI-85-19 in framing its Notice of Hearing and the preconditions it has im-posed for the holding of a hearing. As with the Commonwealth's other ar-l guments , this argument is really addressed to the terms of CLI-86-9.
I
-9/ NRC Staff Comments in Response to CLI-85-19, January 24, 1986, at 11-13.
Judge Smith properly determined that he could not consider this- argument.
Memorandum and Order at 6.
In summary, Judge Smith's termination of this proceeding was strictly
, in accordance with the clear and unambiguous terms of the Commission's Notice of Hearing. Judge Smith was bound by that Notice of Hearing to terminate the proceeding as he did. No error can be attributed to Judge Smith.
- 2. The Commonwealth's Arguments as to Procedural Flaws in the Proceeding Established by the Commission in CLI-86-9 are Not Properly Before the Appeal Board In Section IV of its brief, the Commonwealth sets forth several argu-monts as to why it believes the proceeding established by the Commission in CLI-86-9 is procedurally flawed. The Commonnwealth asserts that: the Commission should have addressed the timeliness of Mr. Wallace's request; the proceeding appears to be unauthorized by Commission regulations; a petition filed under 10 C.F.R. I 2.206 "might be" an alternative method of dealing with the issues; and under the process established by the Commis-sion, "no outside party would be able to obtain all of the evidence in pos-session of the NRC." Commonwealth Brief at 15-19. Each of these assertions is directed at Commission action, and not at any determination
, made by Judge Smith. The Staff believes none of these arguments has any merit. Moreover, any arguments with the proceeding established by the Commission should have been made to the Commission, at earlier stages of this proceeding, and are not properly before the Appeal Board in the con-text of an appeal from Judge Smith's rulings. The only issue before the Appeal Board is whether Judge Smith correctly interpreted and applied CLI-86-9. Therefore, regardless of the merits of any of the various argu-
ments raised -- and the Staff believes there are none -- the arguments are not properly before the Appeal Board for decision.
V. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, Judge Smith's termination of the pro-cceding was strictly in accordance with the clear and unambiguous terms of CLI-86-9. That decision should, therefore, be affirmed in all respects.
Respectfully submitted, hr
- b Mary E. N'agner Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 3rd day of October,1986 e
DOCdETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g T,T -6 P5 31 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY LICENSING APPEAL BO E hjfy BRANCH In the Matter of )
)
. EDWARD WALLACE ) Docket No. 50-289 EW
) (Special Proceeding)
(GPU Nuclear, Three Mile Island )
Nuclear Station, Unit 1) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPEAL BY THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 3rd day of October,1986:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Alain Leibman, Esq.
Board
- Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith, Ravin, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Da'ris a Bergstein Washington, DC 20555 P.O. Box 5600 Woodbridge, NJ 07095 Ivan W. Smith
- Henry D. Hukill Administrative Law Judge Vice President and Director, TMI-1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatocy Commission GPU Nuclear Corporation Washington, DC 20555 P.O. Box 480 Middletown, PA 17057 Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.
Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell & Lynne Bernabel, Esq.
, Reynolds General Counsel 120017th Street, NW, Suite 700 Government Accountability Project Washington, DC 20036 1555 Connecticut Avenue, NW
, Washington, DC 20036 Michael W. Maupin, Esq.
Hunton & Williams Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq.
P.O. Box 1535 Harmon & Weiss Richmond, VA 23212 2001 S Street, NW Washington, DC 20009 Ernest L. Blake, Jr. Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Michael F. McBride, Esq.
2300 N Street, NW LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae Washington, DC 20037 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036
J. R. Thorpe 8' Docketing & Service Section Director of Licensing Office of the Secretary GPU Nuclear Corporation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 100 Interpace Parkway Washington, DC 20555 Parsippany, NJ 07054 Thomas Y. Au, Esq. Marjorie M. Aamodt Assistant Counsel 200 North Church Street
. Department of Environmental Resources Parkesburg, PA 19365 P.O. Box 2357 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Marjorie M. Aamodt Committee on Health Aspects and Marvin I. Lewis Nuclear Power 6504 Bradford Terrace Box 652 Philadelphia, PA 19149 Lake Placid, NY 12946 Joanne Doroshow, Esq. Louise Bradford The Christic Institute 1011 Green Street 1324 North Capitol Street, NW Harrisburg, PA 17102 Washington, DC 20002 Three Mile Island Alert Martha Lester 315 Peffer Street Associate Director Harrisburg, PA 17102 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Washington Office Susquehanna Valley Alliance 400 North Capitol Street, Suite 285 P.O. Box 1012 Washington, DC 20001 Lancaster, PA 17604
[ ..
l%/ - y W'( w
.4eorge E. ) 'ohnso6/
Attorney Office of the General Counsel l
_ . , . . _._ _