ML20128N889

Motion for Emergency Stay of 850529 NRC Decision Authorizing Restart of Facility.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20128N889
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	05/31/1985
From:	Woelfling M PENNSYLVANIA, COMMONWEALTH OF
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20128N865	List: ML20128N861 ML20128N889
References
SP, NUDOCS 8506030409
Download: ML20128N889 (11)

Text

-. .____- _ -_

(,; ; -

':.a, y '

I s UNITED' STATES OF AMERICA' 4

? NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION iBEFORE'THE COMMISSION-DOC KETEC.

~

USNRC j ~ In thetMatter of:

LMETROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY,  :- 15 KAY 31 P4 :26 -

Docket No. 50-289

_(Three Mile 1 Island / Nuclear'

-' GH K~EG~SECRU M0

. Station Unit N o .~ 1)  : 00CnETING & SERVici; BRANCH.

C COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA'S MOTION FOR EMERGENCY.sSTAY OF

. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DECISION

4. . ' AUTHORIZING RESTART 4_

On May/29, 1985, the-United States Nuclear Regulatory

. , ,, LCommission (hereinafterL" Commission") ruled-that'Three Mile f  : Island Nuclear- Station, Unit No. 1.(hereinafter "TMI-1")- '

could restart (hereinafter the "May 29. 19851 0rder"). The

. MayJ29,-1985 Order provides that restart of.TMI-l' will be immediately. effective in the' absence.of' a' request for a

~

judicial' stay of-this proceeding by June 3 at 5:00 p.m. .If a

judicial stay is sought by. June 3,;then the effectivenessDof

.m the May'29, 1985 Order.is postponed until June 11, 1985.

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania hereby moves for aEstay o f.;the May 2 9, 1985 Order until such time as the Court.of

~

. . i. .. . .

a.

Appeals for:the Third' Circuit has ruled on the merits of the

'appealcfiled by the: Commonwealth. .If the Commonwealth re-

./

'ceivescno: decision on this Motion by 12:00 noon on June 3 or 8506030409 850531 t

PDR ADOCK 05000289 ,

O . .

PDR;;

~

bi s'u$6a sde i1a nam sness sair i- Api mis rrr i n ,

7, if the Commission denies this Motion by th~at time, the

' Commonwealth will th'en seek a judicial stay of-this Order with the Third Circuit.

The May ,9, 2 1985 Order rescinds the Order of the Commis-sionlon. August 9, 1979 (hereinafter the " August 9, 1979 Order"), requiring TMI-1 to remain in a cold shutdown condi-tion ~ pending the resolution of questions about the management

, capaba.ities and technical' resources ~of the operator of

'TMI-1. In the August 9, 1979 Order, the Commission stated

..that it would-not authorize restartlof TMI-1 until the satisfactory completion of "short term". actions required o

provide adequate protection of public hecith and safety.

August 9, 1979 Order at'12-14.

The requisite grounds for a stay under 10 C.F.R.-52.788

^

~are.~ clearly met in this case. The factors in deciding whether to stay an administrative agency order.are set forth in-~ Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Association v.-FPC, 259 F.2d 921L(D.C..Cir. 1958):

(1) Has the petitioner made a strong showing that it is likely to prevail on the merits of its appeal? Without such a substantial indication of probable success, there would be no justification for the court's intrusion into the ordinary. processes of administration and

-judicial review. (2) Has the petition-er shown that without such relief, it will be irreparably injured? . . . (3)

Would the issuance of a stay substan-tially harm-other parties interested in

.._wm. ........w . .. ..

T .

, W- .

t .~

t 3-Jthe. proceedings? .. . (4) Where lies

/', the-public interest? . . .. Id. at-925.

J

.-r 6 1

In; Washington Metropolitan Area Transit 1 Commission v. Holiday T o u r's , ' I n c . , 559 F.2dL841, 844 (D.C. Cir. 1977), the United-

~ States Court offAppeals for the. District of Columbia Circuit y held .that ~ an applicant f or a stay .need not. show , a s trict -

mathematical probability of success.on.the merits; a showing tof a; substantial-possibility of success on the merits is:

, Jenough,tparticularly;where i as here, the tribunal whose order-is9 stayed ~has. ruled on an " admittedly difficult. legal ques-w '

n '

.-  : tion"Landiwhen~."the equities of-the' case suggestlthatLthe

' status quo' should be maintained". .

.Id_. at 844-45.

'Il THERE'IS'A SUBSTANTIAL POSSIBILITY THAT-THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA WILL-PREVAIL ON-THE MERI'fS OF ITS

.' APPEAL.

m

, ;g . On May-29, 1985, immediately following the Commission's-

g. -

, Order,-:the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania-(hereinafter the I . " Commonwealth"); filed a Petition for' Review of the May 29',

h;r;

{~ .1985 Order with the United States Courtfof Appeals'for the IThird' Circuit. The' Commonwealth is likely'to succeed on the

,j, meritsJot its appeal; the: Third Circuit is likely to rule-

.thatEtheJCommission's decision: authorizing restart must be H ~

vacated,=and to-direct the Commission to-hold further hear-p -

U+:. .

" (,. , .ings:on'the subject of management integrity,

• y, * -

)

t

+

^

. w

+. -

W s S In.this' case, the Commission on February 25, 1985 specifically refused to hold hearings before restart on two separate management integrity issues of vital importance.to

~Lhe' Commonwealth: (1) whether any member of current manage-

) ment or operating personnel at TMI-1 directed or condoned the~

Lintentional and systematic. falsification of leak rate results '

at'Three: Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2 (hereinafterf "TMI-2"), or.was responsible for possible irregularities in=

leak rate testing at TMI-1; and (2) whether anyone in current  !

' General Public Utilities: Corporation (hereinafter."GPU")

management was involved in manipulation of an internal GPU report (hereinafter the "Keaten Report") on the accident at TMI-2 in order to avoid an adverse result in litigation, or

,- acted'to avoid statutory liability.in response to an NRC

. Notice of Violat' ion on the accident issued October'25, 1979.

'The leak rate falsification at TMI-2 led to a criminal indictment and conviction of Metropolitan Edison' Company.

.The extent of-leak rate falsification, and the presence'in

.TMI-1 management of-those who falsified test data, have never

-been resolved in an adjudicatory hearing lor the Commission.

The material false statements and concealments in response-to the Commission's Notice of Violation, which paralleled the alteratio'n of she Keaten Report to shift the responsibility for the TMI-2. accident away from the licensee, also raise

. issues that need toEbe heard by the Commission; the Com-ff mission's refusal to hear these issues is surprising since p.

!" E.

E.___

L the. Commission'sfFebruary 25,-1985 Order repeatedly states that the licenseeJdeviated from proper procedures in handling -

this issue.

F

~

LThe J Commission. stated, in its-August 9, 197910rder that

, it would not authorize restart until hearings 1 on the "short term" conditions-establishe'd by the Commission, including

, management. capability issues, were completed. Management integrity is an important element of managerial capability; the7 unresolved issues'of responsibility for leak' rate falsi-fication ~ and concealment of information about'the accident'at

'TMI-2 are essentfalfto any assessment of management integri-ty.. ~These are issues that go to the' heart of a licensee's character'and ability to operate a nuclear power plant.

Houston Lighting-and Power Company (South Texas Units 1 and

21, ASLBP 79-421-07 OL (1984), Slip Opinion at 8;2RKO Gener al, Inc. v.'FCC, 670 F.2d 215 (D.C. Cir.;1981); FCC v. WOKO, ~

329.U.S. 223 (1946).

This action by the Commission is contrary to proper administrative _ procedure articulated in~the-case of Minneapolis Gas Co. v. Fed.eral Power Commission, 294 F.2d'212

- +-

E- '

(D.C. Cir.11961). In that case, the Court of Appeals held that the Federal Power' Commission could not initiate a discretionary hearing'to' determine the appropriateness of a

= rate .and then terminate the proceeding without isvuing a:

p 4 decision on the merita. The Minneapolis Gas. case is directly x

Y.

~ . . ..

. applicable-here_because-the Commission in 1979 ordered 'that hearings be held on managerial capability ef the TMI-1 operator, .and has now issued a decision on restart, which

-terminated its investigation on the TMI-1 operator's capabil-ityJto operate TMI, without.having issued a complete decision on management integrity.

- II. THE COMMONWEALTH WILL~ SUFFER IRREPARABLE INJURY IF THE STAY IS-DENIED.

The Commission's denial of hearings has deprived the Commonwealth'of a right to a. hearing recognized in the Atomic

- Energy Act. See'42 U.S.C. 52289(b). This denial of due ,

process constitutes _ irreparable harm per se. United Church-of the Medical Center v.' Medical Center Commission, 689 F.2d

~

. 693 (7th Cir. 1982); Lewis v. Kugler, 446 F.2d 1343 (3rd Cir.

1971); Henry v. Greenville Airport Comm., 284 F.2d 631 (4th Cir.J1960); 0' Conner v. Mowbray, 504 F. Supp. 139 (D. Nev.

1980). 'No further showing of harm is required to support an immediate stay. On an issue that.affects-the health and

- safety ~of the citizens of central Pennsylvania, and the integrity of their environment, it is essentia] that required hearings take place before the anticipated restart of TMI-1.

An immediate stay is important to preserve the stetra guo.

If-not' stayed..the Commission's Order will change the status quo and authdrize restart.as early as June 3, 1985.

r Lw ,, ,

I s~ x. s .A

.a =

~x ; ,

-n

w. <

. .c

.g,*

Ib ~ ' III'.1.THE GRANT-'0FIA STAY 1WILL NOT HARM THE LICENSEE OR THE

'.  : COMMISSION..- m Th'e1 requested-stay of restart will;take1 place until'the.

~

~

Cou'rt o f.- ppeals'for.the~ Third Circuit'can issue a" decision on:theicommohweal'th'sfand other parties'! petitions for review 1

of the Commission's-order. This' stay, contrasts with the 35 .

j' 37 '

isix'-year suspension of ; operations = at' TMI-1,. much ofiwhich has ;

m; resulted from the lengthy Commission. review of the. restart"

issue. A stay;will-'.not be particularly harmful, in contrast

to: a decision _ authorizing' restart withcut resolving manage -

$ ' ment integrity issues.. ' Additionally,'if~the May 29, 1985'

'Orderiis overturned.by the Court ~of, Appeals', without a: stay.

, ~havingibeen granted.--it is likely thatLthcLlicensee will:be harmed $1n:having to shut'down its operation of TMI-1 after Jhaving?resdarted?TMI-1..

The-Commission.shouldLhold no. stake either in restart z

~or inicontinuingethe shutdown'conditionL-of;TMI-1, and 'ther~efore 0~ 2will not.'be harmed;by the-issuance-of a stay.

+- .

J_ IV. . THE.PUBLIC INTEREST FAV RS'THE ISSUAECE OF A= STAY.

s

, In1this case, the public interest mandates the issuance 1(;

-:of.a stay. First,;the p_ublic interest cannot poss'ibly favor;

} a change in the-status 7 quo of the past six years,'partic-r ~

- ularly before all1 management integrity issues have been Jre' solved. .Second, the Commonwealth has a recognized ~ vital

?g ' -

E , ,

.c;_.

e <

u

!* T ;~_ ~ t~ , ,

1 h~.

. .  :? : '

.- - o I

~

d >

h-S,  !

p _

l d, _

Ointerest in-nuclear. power issues. The Commission should give '

Mv- .

. great weightito the views.of. chief elected representatives of l

~ - . , -

"=',- thi? Commonwealth:.of Pennsylvania that.a rush to. restart'would- i p . .

g:not be:.ini the~publicfinterest.and that.the Commission should

, , { resolve: crucial management-. integrity. issues within the

, ,- 3; ,

jforeseeable? future through Commission hearings.

> i ;;  ;

?Alth'ough granting lthe-stay 1would-harm no one, denying-the. stay.wil'11have a direct impact upon the Commonwealth.

.. m ._

~

-The Commonwealth and:its1 citizens have a particularly strong

~

-interestoin~ attaining the resolution of crucial questions .

concerning:theirl safety in the' light of public hearings,'and-ancadditionalcinterest'in having the Commission's decision'  ;

!stayedtbecause it authorizes restart of TMI-1 without these.

,thearings.

UV . CONCLUSIONJ

e. 1 in

~

.The' Commonwealth.has met the fouri standards for,a stay.

.The' Commonwealth has-proven thatuit is likely to prevail ~on o_,r- _ ,

[" _ 'the merits of'itsLappeal', that it will .suf f er irreparable '

injurylif - the -stay.is' denied,qthat the grant of a stay-will

' ~

. , if ' ^

notiharm-the.. licensee:or the Commiss' ion, and that.the public l LP

, interest 1favorsJthelissuance of a stay. Therefore, the

' Commonwealth 1 requests that the Commission grant to the

.'Commonwealthl'an emergency' stay'of the May 29, 1985' Order

~

? authorizing restart'until suchi timeEas the United States

, x ,

"I r '&

4

', .hl"

.,,.,~:,

8 -

• 8 Court ef Appesis fcr th,e bhird Circuit has issued a decision on the serits cf the Cc rrenwealth's pending appeal, ,

5

. Eespectfci ~.v . sets.inted, I FOR CHE C':.vaiO2rnT3.I.TH OF ' PEIGSYLV.MiIA ,-

I bc,M OIObs '

.v X (.I N 1. h'O E L F L I N G -

, WII r r.z v. 3.

- M'.D="r,.. s'.D .

505 Executive Ecuse, P.G. Scy. 2357 I, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17:20 $

(717) 787-706C i w .v.<.S

m. .u.e ~u . R.e...S Deputy General Ccunsel '

Office of General Counsel i.... e. .t <.. _. , n,,3 .v. ,_..v.. _ S . e e ._

Harrisbura: Pennsy'.vania 1712C-  ;

Dated:'!iay 31, 1935-e I

O t

b' 9

e e

r I

L r

I t

t i O t.

b l ,

e 4

I 6

6 e

h r

I l

i i e, M

. e L

e 0

(IM STILES CE MEPICA SUCEAR REG IIlCRY COtESSIQi  :

Before tM c W asion A

In tie Matter cf-1 2Erc0 POLIT 33 EDISQ; CCEPRTY, )  !

) Docket No. 50-289 (2iree tile Island relear

) (3 estar:T,fEjCEi-Stacian, Lhit 23o.1) . )

yg y ggg,q,, '85 NAY 31 P4:26 CFF!LE OF SE(,H:. t r ,

I hereby certify that copies of the Cerevi.ch gppggggg,,  !

Motim for Stay brie been served cn the pers.cr:s listed on the a:tached Service list by First C'e s U.S. FtL.* t*is 31st day cf Fay, 1965.

i

/i/MM/h ymt aeram - a .

Msistant Cotr.sel  !

• . Addresses indicated by "*" are being hand delivered. .

• • . Addresses indicated by "**" are being delivemi by Federal E:gress. -

e t

8 1

e S

6 b

e 9

4 D

t t

t t

n I

1 e

t

INITED STATES OF MERICA NUCEAR REGULATORT COMISSION Before the Canission In the Matter of:

a METROPOLITAN EDISW CWPANY, )

) Docket No. 50-289 (Three Mile Island Nuclear ) (Fastart)

Station, thit No.1) )

SERVICE LIST

• Docketing and Service Secticn ANGRY /IMI PIRC Office of the Secretary 1037 Maclay Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Carmission Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17103 Washington, D.C. 20555 Hs, Imise Bradford, TMI Alert

• Ivan W. Smith 1011 Green Street Administrative Im Judge Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17102 Atanic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cnmdnsion Michael F. McBride, Esquire Washington, D.C. 20555 InBoeuf, Lamb, leiby & MacRae 133 New Hampshire Ave., N.W.

• :Sheldon J. Wolfe Suite 1100 Administrative Judge Washington, D.C. 20036 Atcctic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cmnission David E. Cole, Esquire Washington, D.C. 20555 Smith & Smith, P.C.

2931 N. Front Street

• Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Michael W. Maupin, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cmmission Hunton & Willians Washington, D.C. 20555 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535

• George F. Trowbridge, Esquire Richmond, Virginia 23212 Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W. .Joanne Doroshow Washington, D.C. 20036 The Christic Institute 1324 North Capitol Street

• Jack Goldberg/Iois Finkelstein Washington, D.C. 20002 Office of the Executive legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cccmission *Nunzio L. Palladino, Chairman Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cmmission Washington, D.C. 20555

• • Ellyn R. Weiss Harmon, Weiss & Jordan **Lynne Bernabei, Esquire 2001 S Street, N.W., Suite 430 Government Accountability Project Washington, D.C. 20009 1555 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Henry D. Hukill, Vice-President GPU Nuclear Corporaticn *:Atcmic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board P. O. Box 480 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccumission Middletown, Pennsylvania 17507 Washingtcn, D.C. 20555

• • Ms. Marjorie M. Aamodt R.D. #5 Coatesville, Pennsylvania 19320

_. .