ML19310A344
| ML19310A344 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 06/04/1980 |
| From: | Blake E METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19310A337 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8006110117 | |
| Download: ML19310A344 (7) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:LIC 6/4/80 ~ {; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) O METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY R st t) (Three Mile Island Nuclear ) Station, Unit No. 1) ) LICENSEE'S RESPONSE TO TMIA'S MOTION TO COMPEL FOLLOW-ON DISCOVERY OF LICENSEE By motion dated May 29, 1980, TMIA has moved to compel responses by Licensee to ten follow-on interrogatories filed by TMIA on May 13, 1980. In its May 15, 1980 response to TMIA's follow-on discovery request, Licensee objected to the request on two grounds -- untimeliness and irrelevancy. Licensee now opposes TMIA's Motion to Compel. Licensee's position on the untimeliness of TMIA's interrogatories, which were filed more than six weeks af ter TMIA had knowledge of the subject-matter upon which the interrogatories were based, remains as stated in its earlier objection: " Licensee first objects to the untimeliness of TMIA's Follow-Up Interrogatories. In its Fourth Special Pre-hearing Conference Order of February 29, 1980, the Board noted that in the case of discovery responses filed after February 25, 1980, follow-on discovery should be served not later than ten days from the date of service of the discovery response occasioning the need for follow-on discovery. The response date for depositions is not explicitly set out in the 80 061'1h //7 ;
Commission's Rules but has been established for other purposes in this proceeding as the date scheduled for the deposition to be taken. TMIA's counsel took the deposition of Diane Kay Gee on March 31, 1980. Counsel for TMIA have acknowledged receipt of the reporter's transcript of that deposition in early April 1980, at the same time the transcript was provided to the deponent for corrections and verification. TMIA was in receipt of the information upon which it bases its Follow- ~ Up Interrogatories, then, in late March at the time of the deposition and, again, in early April 1980. To have waited to file the follow-on interro-gatories -- not following the deposition, and not following the receipt of the transcript of the deposition -- until receiving the typographical corrections and signature page of that transcript on May 6, 1980, is contrary to the discovery schedules established in this proceeding." Licensee notes, in addition, that TMIA's regard for the discovery schedules established by the Board and the parties in this proceeding is also manifest in its late filing of the instant Motion to Compel. The Board has specified that motions to compel responses to follow-on discovery requests must be filed within five days of service of objections. See Board Memorandum and Order of May 5, 1980. Licensee's objections to TMIA's follow-on discovery request were filed on May 15, 1980. TMIA's Motion to Compel was therefore due by May 25, 1980. TMIA's Motion to Compel is dated May 29, 1980 and is filed without explanation or request of the Board for leave to file late. Licensee opposes the Motion to Compel as itself vr. timely. Licensee's second objection to TMIA's follow-on interrogatories was on the grounds of irrelevancy. All of the follow-on interrogatories were prompted by the deposition of Ms. Diane Gee which was conducted l l l l w by TMIA on the subject-matter of its Contention 5. TMIA's Contention 5 is concerned with Licensee's alleged improper and unsafe deferral of necessary maintenance during periods of routine plant operations to periods of scheduled reactor outages. Since there have been no periods of routine plant operations since the TMI-2 accident, Contention 5 is obviously concerned with Licensee's maintenance practices prior ~ to Merch 28, 1979. The information which TMIA now seeks is related to post-accident matters. TMIA's follow-on interrogatories inquire about post-accident reorganization and " cracking of pipes in the borated water system." As Ms. Gee states in her deposition, the organizational changes to which she refers occurred " subsequent to the accident." See Gee deposition at page 10. TMIA admits this is the case when it states at page two of its Motion to Compel: "The thrust of TMIA's interro-gatories is that Licensee neglected critical quality assurance staffing and subsequent reorganizations after the accident occurred." Nor i does Licensee see the relevance of potential intergranular stress corrosion cracks in stainless steel piping of the TMI-l spent fuel cooling system identified after the accident at a period in time during which neither reactor at TMI was operational, to the issue of improper and unsafe deferral of necessary maintenance during periods of routine plant operations prior to the TMI-2 accident. See attached Licensee Event Report (LER) 79-Oll/03X-1, dated May 16, 1979, that r:psrts the discovery of leaking during a routine inspection on April 5, 1979, which led to recognition of the
. " cracking" problem.* Finally, TMIA claims that Licensee is somehow estopped from arguing relevancy because no such objection was raised at the time of the deposition. Licensee does not disagree with TMIA that this objection was not raised during the Gee deposition. TMIA's argument that Licensee therefore has waived relevancy of the subject matter, however, is baseless. Licensee would simply refer TMIA to 10 CFR S 2.740a(d), which countenances this practice. Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE A By Ernest L. Blake, Jr. Counsel for Licensee Dated: June 4, 1980. TMIA's position (Motion to Compel, at 2) is: "Furthermore, despite Licensee's assertion that the cracking of pipes at TMI-l is a ' post-TMI-2 accident matter,' Ms. Gee's deposition indicates that the problems were identified 'before the accident. (citing page 9 of Ms. Gee's deposition). In its entirety, Ms. Gee's statement at page 9 was: "I believe it was before the accident when the problem was iden-tified. I am not certain of that." Her complete statement taken in context with the description of her qualifications (no technical background) and her responsibilities (reviewing documents for grammatical accuracy and readability as an ' administrative assistant) 'is hardly compelling. See Gee Deposi: tion at pages 5 and 6.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING ?OARD In the Matter of ) ) METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289 estart) (Three Mile Island Nuclear ) Station, Unit No. 1) ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Licensee's Response to TMIA's Motion to Compel Follow-On Discovery of Licensee" were served upon those persons on the attached Service List by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, this 4th 1 day of June 1980. Tw/4. 7%Afe Ernest L. Blake, Jr. Dated: June 4, 1980. v
g-I l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR RIGUI.ATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of' ) ) METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289 ) (Restart) (Three Mile Island Nuclear ) Station, Unit No. 1) ) SERVICE LIST Ivan W. Smith, Esquire John A. Levin, Esqtiire Chairman Assistant Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Pennsylvania Public Utility Comm. Board Panel Post Office Box 3265 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Washington, D. C. 20555 Karin W. Carter, Esquire ~ Dr. Walter H. Jordan Assistant Attorney. General Atomic Safety and Licensing 505 Executive House Board Panel 101 South Second Street '881 West Outer Ridge Harrisburg, Pennsylvania -17120 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37839 John E. Minnich Dr. Little W. Little Chairman, Dauphin County Board Atomic Safety and Licensing of Commissioners Board Panel Dauphin County Courthouse - 5000 Hermitage Drive Front and Market Streets Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 James R. Tourtellotte, Esquire Walter W. Cohen, Esquire Office of the Executive Legal Consumer Advocate Office of Consumer Advocate Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 14th Floor, Strawberry Square Washin'gton, D. C. 20555 Harri'sburg, Pennsylvania "17127 Docketing and Service Section Jordan D. Cunningham, Esquire Office of the Secretary Attorney for Newberry Township U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission T.M.I. Steering Committee Washington, D. C. 20555 2320 North Second Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 . Theodore A. Adler, Esquire Widoff Reager Selkowitz & Adler Ellyn R. Weiss, Esquire Post Office Box 1547, Attorney for the Union of Concern Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105 Scientists Sheldon, Harmon & Weiss 1725 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 506 Washingron, D. C. 20006
Steven C. Sholly 304 South Market Street Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055 Gail Bradford Holly S. Keck Legislation Chairman Anti-Nuclear Group Representing York 245 West Philadelphia Street York, Pennsylvania 17404 Karin P. Sheldon, Esquire Attorney for People Against Nuclear Energy Sheldon, Harmon &. Weiss 1725 Eye Street, N. W., Suite 506 Washington, D.C. 20006 Robert Q. Pollard Chesapeake Energy Alliance 609 Montpelier Street Baltimore, Maryland 21218 Chaunccy Kepford Judith H. Johnrud Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power 433 Orlando Avenue. State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Marvin I. Lewis 6504 Bradford Terrace Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19149 Majorie M. Aamodt R. D. 5 Coatesville, Pennsylvania 19320 4
~ LICENSEE EVENT REPORT . coNinotstoCiu l l l 1 l I.l@ totsA$s revist on tyre Att psousaeo woessatiosse i 1, Pj A*lT }M l 1l 1lg.0l 0l -{ 0l 0l 0l 0l 0l -l g=%l1l1l1l1l g i uc.... coo. .. i . oc un ucauim e a ',',',,"coQl.o. i s l of ol of gl gl nG10 lb l 0151719 @l ol 5 ! 1161 T l 91@ GD 00Ca s t.eLasse n en W Syst.T saft M 79 PEPORf Dav8 90 ave.rt oescasatioN ANo rmosasLt Cosett0UtNCES h. EI During a routine tour of the Auxiliary Buildina. Spent Fuel Fool coolina SFstem I gg piping was discovered to be leaking. Subsetrsent inspections identified an f .g g additional five Isaks in the system piping..*:his event, reportable per i 3l TS 6.9.2.B.(h), posed no threat to the health and safety of the publie. ~ g @l 1 EI I Ef I ~ @ @@ [,,CJQ lF lI l P l E l X l Il@ 2%@ 'Ha" 'FJ' .e's. co coo.
- c"
.E =i '"d*'
== e =,,, a'.,. h=1 !.* ' ' ' ') l# !f-4l l# h=1 @J p =@l@9:JG VJO 9JO !,o I d o i o ' W@ 7 PO p@ Io la I;I-m .::: m,. x w e aw ~ w w=. CAU$f DeSCRIPttost AND CoAMECTIVt Actions 23 j gg Preliminary metallurgical analysis indicates the cause to be an intergranular g ,g g stress corrositm cracking. The areas of leakage were iso 1'ated withcut affecting i system ope-ation. The highly stressed areas of the system. piping vill be gg gg radiographed, and stress analyses to verify proper pipe supporting vill be performed.g f A follevup to this report vill be submitted hr June 30, 1979. The follevup report _ i gg scoriunveu on separase sneess,, 's#**"" 'oponen oriesn Tatus h Necow a5 cascoven,pescairfic.r h v 1 g g l0l0[0Igl NA [ @ Operator Observation l l va n
- =. as e,
egy g;,,,,, mouervoe activin h l ' toCAfto4 o8 PG L8As4 waraseo os metsass l W/A l 3 Q@ gl N/A ' g t.. q,.. _ g - ] [0 l fil 0 II/A l isc E lo lo lo l@1 N/A l ]g * 'ossos ena" ca'Ioemaung h N/A 5 / l l a g ,,,,e u, <,,,, Q Veekly News Release l IIIIIllIIIIfl J D. G. Mitchell ,,,,,,,. 215-921-6579 will inelate the rseults of the radiography and stress acelyses. end the schedule for repairing or repiscing the piping y necessary. The effected, wiping is 8", schedule 40, 30hss at 55 psig/1007 borated yster conditidas. ~ - - -,:,..,}}