ML022980100
| ML022980100 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry, Watts Bar, Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 10/18/2002 |
| From: | Marquand B Tennessee Valley Authority |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Byrdsong A T | |
| References | |
| +adjud/rulemjr200506, 50-259-CIVP, 50-260-CIVP, 50-296-CIVP, 50-327-CIVP, 50-328-CIVP, 50-390-CIVP, ASLBP 01-791-01-CIVP, EA 99-234, RAS 4952, SIP Test Sample upto2-6-04 | |
| Download: ML022980100 (4) | |
Text
-~&;
~A-s C qg p UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD DOCKETED USNRC October 23, 2002 (1:31 PM)
OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF IN THE MATTER OF TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1; Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 & 2; Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2 & 3)
)
Docket Nos. 50-390-CivP;
)
50-327-CivP; 50-328-CivP;
)
50-259-CivP; 50-260-CivP;
)
50-296-CivP
)
)
)
)
)
ASLBP No. 01-791-01-CivP EA 99-234 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY'S RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF THE ADMISSION OF TVA EXHIBIT NO. 75 On September 30, 2002, respondent Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) tendered into evidence TVA Exhibit 75, a copy of the written evaluation by the Institute of Nuclear Power Operation (INPO) of TVA's Sequoyah Nuclear Plant performed during the weeks of September 28 and October 5, 1992. The NRC Staff has now filed an objection to that exhibit asserting that it "did not have the opportunity to cross examine Beecken or question any other witnesses about the exhibit" and "because it is an extract... [t]he Staff is unwilling to accept what TVA deems to be the relevant excerpts without review of the entire report and the opportunity to question Beecken about any of the relevant areas of the complete report" (Staff Obj. at 2, 3). The Staff's excuses are without merit and the exhibit should be received into evidence.
The Staff's argument that the exhibit is an extract is based on a flawed premise. TVA Exhibit 75 is a copy of the entire INPO report, not an extract.
Although TVA's submission mistakenly referred to TVA Exhibit 75 as an "extract" instead of calling it a "copy," an examination of the document shows that it is, in fact, 1
complete. (We apologize for the Staff's confusion on this matter.) Second, an extract of the chemistry-related portion of the document has already been received into evidence as a part of TVA Exhibit 48, marked as Bates Nos. AJ320-335 (See tr. 607,
- 1. 19-25, tr. 611, 1. 6 - tr. 612, 1. 8, tr. 613, 1. 3-7). If the Staff felt they needed to question Beecken about those matters they should have done so when he was on the stand. There are only two matters of note in TVA Exhibit 75 that are not included in TVA Exhibit 48, both of which are in the Executive Summary (Bates Nos. AA254-55):
(1) the statement that the evaluation was conducted "during the weeks of September 28 and October 5, 1992," prior to the tape-recorded Beecken-Fiser conversation on December 9, 1992, and (2) the fact that one of the "most significant" findings by INPO was the "long-standing chemistry equipment and instrumentation problems." Neither matter is subject to any dispute or requires an explanation by any witness.
Finally, the Staff argues that TVA is "attempting to mislead the Board" (Obj. at 3) and that TVA Exhibit 75 "does not 'correct any false impression' made during the Staff's cross examination" (id.). The Staff is wrong on both counts.
TVA's September 30 submission pointed out (at 2) that Beecken testified that he became critical of Fiser's management skills, in part, due to findings by INPO.
The submission also pointed out that on Beecken's cross-examination, counsel for the NRC Staff tried to show that INPO had not made any Chemistry findings at Sequoyah.1 However, the INPO report, TVA Exhibit 75, clearly refutes the false impression the Staff was trying to create. The Staff simply argues that because the INPO evaluation was written after the performance appraisal, it does not "'correct any false impression"' (Obj. at 3). They are incorrect. The INPO report shows that, 1
Staff counsel pointed out that Joint Exhibit 32, Fiser's Fiscal Year 1991 performance appraisal, did not indicate that Fiser was responsibility for any INPO-identified chemistry problems (tr. 4825, 1. 18-22; tr. 4826, 1. 15-18). Staff counsel then asked Beecken whether Joint Exhibit 33, Fiser's Fiscal Year 1992 performance appraisal, said anything about the 1992 INPO visit (tr. 4827, 1. 15-20).
2
contrary to the implication of the Staff's questions, INPO did make findings about Sequoyah chemistry prior to the Beecken-Fiser December 9, 1992, conversation. If the Staff was not trying to show that Beecken's testimony about INPO making Sequoyah chemistry findings was false, why did they challenge whether "one of the problems that
[Beecken] had with Mr. Fiser's performance was that INPO had raised repeated problems" (tr. 4825, 1. 18-20).
TVA Exhibit 75 is relevant, material, and self-authenticating. The substance of the exhibit is already in the record as part of TVA Exhibit 48 and there is no need for either party to offer any evidence to further explain or authenticate it. The exhibit should be admitted into evidence.
October 18, 2002 Office of the General Counsel Tennessee Valley Authority 400 West Summit Hill Drive Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1401 Facsimile 865-632-6718 Of Counsel:
David A. Repka, Esq.
Winston & Strawn 1400 L Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20005 003699222 Respectfully submitted, Maureen H. Dunn General Counsel Thomas F. Fine Assistant General Counsel John E. Slater Senior Litigation Attorney Brent R-. Mariuan/l Senior Litigation Attorney Telephone 865-632-4251 Attorneys for Tennessee Valley Authority 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing response have been served on the persons listed below by regular mail. Copies of the response have also been sent by e-mail to those persons listed below with e-mail addresses.
Administrative Judge Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Two White Flint North 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852-2738 e-mail address: cxb2@nrc.gov Administrative Judge Ann Marshall Young U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Two White Flint North 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852-2738 e-mail address: amy~nrc.gov Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852-2738 Office of the Secretary Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852-2738 This 18th day of October, 2002.
Administrative Judge Richard F. Cole U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Two White Flint North 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852-2738 e-mail address: rfcl@nrc.gov Dennis C. Dambly, Esq.
Jennifer M. Euchner, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852-2738 e-mail address: dcdinrc.gov e-mail address: jme~nrc.gov Mr. William D. Travers Executive Director of Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852-2738 attorney~T Vo nnessee 6 alley Authority 4