ML19320C983
| ML19320C983 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 07/16/1980 |
| From: | Blake E METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007180394 | |
| Download: ML19320C983 (32) | |
Text
LIC: 7/16/80 t-y UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION SL 9
zI p/94** w ria b
vz p.
BEFORE THE MIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
\\F
[$ $
In the Matter of
)
A f\\ M
)
~^
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
LICENSEE'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST TMIA On June 30, 1990, Three Mile Island Alert, Inc. (TMIA) filed its Second Installment of Information in response to Interrogatories of Licensee.
The information provided by TMIA in this document and in TMIA's First Installment of Inform &tio.1 in Response to Interrogatories of Licensee, dated June 13, 1980, as well as in TMIA's several earlier answers, is not responsive to the interrogatories filed by Licensee relating to TMIA Con-tention 5 and to the Board's orders compelling TMIA to respond.
aicensee therefore moves for sanctions against TMIA.
' Background TMIA Contention 5 is made up of a series of distinct allegations concerning Licensee's past maintenance practices at Three Mile Island Units 1 and 2.
The contention alleges that:
Met Ed has negligently, and on occasion, willfully violated NRC regulations concerning the safe operation of both Units 1 and 2, in that it has deferred necessary maintenance and 00718013n dg&j L
i
v repairs in order to minimize reactor downtime, to the detriment of the integrity of the nuclear facility itself.
The Licensee has, in the past, allowed work orders to go undone in order to avoid shutting Unit 1 down to perform necessary maintenance.
The licensee would allow work orders to pile up until refueling, at which time the licensee would attempt to do all the work required.
Just to complete essential maintenance in the short time available, employees were worked to a point where they were no longer effective because of fatigue.
These actions, and actions of this type, reflect negatively upon the ability of the licensee to safely operate a nuclear facility.
Consequently, it is contended that Met-Ed is incapable of safely operating TMI-1 and that its operating license should be suspended permanently.
On January 14, 1980, Licensee served on TMIA its first and only set of interrogatories related to Contention 5.
Included in this filing are the following interrogatories to
~
which Licensee has still not received an adequate response:
Interrogatory 5-1:
Identify every occasion on which TMIA contends that Met-Ed " negligently... [or] wil-fully violated NRC regulations concerning the safe operation of... Unit #1... in that it deferred necessary maintenance and repairs in order to minimize reactor downtime, to the detriment of the integrity of the nuclear facility itself."
a.
Define "necessary maintenance and repairs" as that term is used in the allegation.
b.
Set forth each and every fact and the source of each and every/ fact relating to or bearing upon the allegation.
- c.
Identify all documents containing any evidence or information relating to or bearing upon the allegation. */
d.
Identify all persons having any information or knowledge supporting or relating to the allegation. */
Interrogatory 5-2:
Identify every occasion on which TMIA contends that Met-Ed " negligently... [or] wil-fully violated NRC regulations concerning the safe 1
operation of... Unit #2... in that it deferred necessary maintenance and repairs in order to minimize reactor downtime, to the detriment of the integrity of the nuclear facility itself."
~
- /
The characterization " relating to or bearing upon" in each of the interrogatories was subsequently limited by the Board to "sup-porting."
Sec related Board memoranda and orders of April 11 and May 1, infra.
. a.
Define "necessary maintenance and repairs" as that term is used in the allegation.
b.
Set forth each and every fact and the source of each and every fact relating to or bearing upon the allegation.
c.
Identify all documents containing any evidence or information relating to or bearing upon the allegation.
d.
Identify all persons having any information or knowledge supporting or relating to the allegation.
Interrogatory 5-3:
Identify every occasion on which TMIA contends that Met-Ed " allowed work orders to go undone in order to avoid shutting Unit #1 down to perform necessary maintenance. "
a.
Define "necessary maintenance" as that term is used in the allegation.
b.
Set forth each and every fact and the source of each and every fact upon which the allegation is based.
c.
Identify all documents, including Generation Corrective Maintenance System Job Tickets (Work Requests) -
Three Mile Island [" Job Tickets"), containing any evidence or information bearing upon or relating to the allegation.
d.
Identify all persons having any information or knowledge supporting or relating to the allegation.
Interrogatory 5-4:
Identify every occasion on which TMIA contends that Met-Ed " allow [ed] work orders to pile up until refueling, at which time the licensee would attempt to do all the work required."
a.
Set forth each and every fact and the source i
of each and every fact which the allegation is based.
b.
Identify all documents, including sob Tickets, l
containing any evidence or information bearing upon or relating to the allegation.
c.
Identify all persons having any information or knowledge supporting or relating to the allegation.
Interrogatory 5-6:
Identify every occasion on which TMIA contends that, "[j] ust to complete essential maintenance in the short time available, employees were worked to a point where they were no longer effective because of fatigue. "
b$
Set forth each and every fact and the source of each and every fact relating to or bearing upon the allegation.
c.
Identify all documents, including Job Tickets, containing any evidence or information relating to or bearing upon the allegation.
d.
Identify all persons having any information or knowledge supporting or relating to the allegation. 7
- /
Interrogatories 5-5 and 5-6 (a) were answered by TMIA in its April 14, 1980 Answers to Interrogatories of Licensee.
. Since January 14, 1980, when thesa interrogatories were filed, a paper war has ensued between Licensee and TMIA, in which the Board has frequently had to participate as referee, concerning TMIA's refusal to answer straightforward interrogatories which seek the specific information upon which TMIA's Contention 5 allegations are based.
A brief summary follows.
On March 24, 1980, upon TMIA's failure to acknowledge in any manner Licensee's interrogatories on Contention 5, responses to which were due by a March 17, 1980 deadline specified by the Board,~*/Licensee filed a Motion to Compel Discovery of Intervenor Three Mile Island Alert,- Inc.
On April 11, 1980, the Board granted Licensee's motion.
In its Memorandum and Order, the Board stated that Licensee's interrogatories are relevant to the proceeding and are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
10 C.F.R.
- 2. 740 (a), (b) (1).
If licensee is to prepare carefully to litigate the allegations contained in TMIA's contentions, responses to the interrogatories are very desirable, perhaps essential.
The Board also noted that TMIA had not only failed to respond to Licensee's interrogatories, but it was in default in answering Licensee's motion to compel discovery.
On April 14, 1980, Licensee and the Board received an j
l answer, dated April 3, 1980, to Licensee's Contention 5 interroga-l tories.
The only specific information provided to Licensee in
- /
Responses to these interrogatories were originally due on February 4, 1980.
However, the Board extended the response time until March 17, 1980, while urging the parties to use diligence in responding as soon as possible.
)
. TMIA's response to Interrogatory 5-1 was TMIA's statement that Contention 5 was based primarily on information provided in an April 16, 1979 article published in the Philadelphia Inquirer.
TMIA also stated that " hundreds" of TMI work orders, summaries of depositions and interviews conducted by the NRC and the President's Commission, and the depositions of Licensee's employees conducted by TMIA, contained information -- unspecified --
with which TMIA was concerned.
TMIA was of the opinion, however, that "[s]ince all the information is already in Licensee's pos-session, it would appear to be unnecessary, burdensome and improper to require TMIA to attempt to describe in writing and in advance of hearing all of the many dozens of areas of concern where deferral of necessary or required maintenance has taken place."
TMIA did not respond to interrogatories 5-2, 5-3, 5-4, or 5-6, except by reference to its answer to Interro-gatory 5-1.
On April 22, 1980, Licensee filed a Second Motion to compel Discovery of Three Mile Islan, Alert, asserting that
"[w]ith very limited exceptions, TMIA's responses fail to supply the information sought by Licensee."
On May 1, 1980, the Board, by Memorandum and Order, granted Licensee's Second Motion to Compel Discovery of TMIA.
The Board explicitly rejected TMIA's rationale for not specifying the information upon which Contention 5 was based.
"[Elven if it has exactly the same mass of information from which TMIA has gleaned specific facts it will rely upon licensee is
. entitled to know the specific facts upon which TMIA is relying for its broad contention, in order for licensee to be expected fairly to prepare to meet its evidentiarir burdens as to any such specifics at the hearing."
May 1, 1980 Memorandum and Order at 2 and 3.
The Board also noted that, in accordance with the commitment made by TMIA in a conference call that had occurred that day among counsel for TMIA, counsel for Licensee, and the Board, TMIA was to respond to Licensee's interrogatories by May 8, 1980.
TMIA was instructed that included in this response should be the specifics requested by Licensee's interrogatories, the source of the specifics, whether TMIA is still developing specific facts to support its contention and identification of the documents under review and, if the answers "will require" supplementation, when the supplemental answars can be expected.
Id. at 4.
On May 6, 1980, TMIA filed a document entitled, "TMIA's Response to Interrogatories of Licensee."
TMIA's answer to Interrogatory 5-1 was cursory, and consisted almost entirely of references to attachments of long lists of work orders, account numbers and names of Licensee employees earlier supplied to TMIA by Licensee it. response to TMIA's interroga-tories.
TMIA's answers to Interrogatories 5-3, 5-4 and 5-6 were merely references to its response to Interrogatory 5-1.
With respect to Interrogatory 5-2 concerning TMIA's allegation about Unit 2, TMIA stated:
"Because of time constraints, TMIA has, at present, limited the scope of its search to Unit 1.
If
- any information is discovered in the future, Liconsee will be notified."
On May 13, 1980, during the prehearing conference held in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, "the Board expressed in strong language its displeasure with the responses provided to date by TMIA to Licensee's interrogatories 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 5-4 and 5-6 (except 5-6 (a) ). "
Memorandum of TMIA in Support of The Responses to Interrogatories Provided to Licensee, May 20, 1980 at 1.
As a result, on May 20, 1980, TMIA filed a Supplemental Response to Interrogatories of Licensee and Memorandum of TMIA in Support of the Responses to Interroga-tories provided to Licensee.
In this Supplemental Response, TMIA was generally unable to respond to Licensee's interroga-
- /
- tories, stating, for example, that it " presently does not know which ones of those work orders [ listed in TMIA's May G response]
. will provide the basis for "each and every fact" bearing upon the allegations contained in Contention 5."
However, TM1A promised that complete answers would be provided by June 30, 1980.--**/ This cormitment was reaffirmed in TMIA's supporting memorandum.
Thus, based on TMIA's explicit assurances, as of May 20, 1980, Licensee anticipated receiving from TMIA by
- /
At the May 13 prehearing conference, and in its May 1 Memorandum and Order, the Board had reminded TMIA that the l
NRC Regulations, 10 C.F.R.
- 2. 740 (e) (2) (ii) and (e) (3), provide that if a party does not know the answer to an interrogatory, j
it can simply respond by saying, "I don't know," provided that the answer is supplied as soon as the information becomes known.
- / TM1A also orally promised Licensee that partial " installment" responses would be received prior to June 30, 1980.
See Licensee's letter to Mark P. Widoff, Esquire, Counsel for TMIA, dated June 4, 1980.
. June 30, 1980, a complete response to the Contention 5 interroga-tories filed in January, 1980.
In order to assure that its expectations were known and understood by TMIA, Licensee wrote to TM1A on June 4, 1980.
Not only did Licensee identify the interrogatory responses which remained outstanding, but Licensee also informed TMIA of its intention to seek appropriate relief from the Board, up to and including the possibility of moving to dismiss TMIA's Contention 5 from the proceeding, to the extent TMIA's responses were perceived as inadequate.
TMIA's responses were filed in two installments, on June 13, 1580, and on June 30, 1980.
Because Licensee believes that these responses fail to provide Licensee with the general, much less the specific facts upon which TMIA is relying in its various allegations which make up Contention 5, Licensee is now seeking from the Board the only relief which appears appropriate after some five months of dilatory, insufficient and generally nonresponsive answers by TMIA -- Licensee requests that the Board dismiss TMIA Contention 5 from the TMI-l restart proceeding.
Argument Over a five month period, Licensee has attempted, unsuccessfully, to obtain answers to a very limited number of interrogatories it filed in this proceeding in order to learn the factual bases for TMIA's multi-faceted contention on Licensee's past maintenance practices.
The Board instructed
. TMIA over two months ago that Licensee is entitled, by funda-mental fairness and due process, to know the specifics upon which TMIA will rely in prosecuting its case.
See May 1, 1980 Memorandum and Order at 2.
Nevertheless, either through errors of omission or commission, TMIA has not come forward with this information.
At first TMIA completely ignored the requests.
The Board ordered them to answer.
TMIA now insists merely on referring to documents which it vaguely states may be relied upon to prove its case.
It is inconceivable to Licensee that TMIA does not yet understand that it is obli-gated in responding to the interrogatories to specify facts, i.e.,
by stating to Licensee the particular facts contained in the documents cited by TMIA, which in TMIA's view support its distinct, numerous and serious allegations.
To date after months of discovery, motions to compel and responses, and orders granting motions to compel, TMIA has not cited even one specific instance supporting its allegations which Licensee's interrogatories seek.
Licensee can only conclude that either THIA has no such information, or TMIA is inten-tionally failing to produce the information requested by Licensee last January.
At this late juncture, it is no longer reasonable, and certainly not fair, to require Licensee to wait patiently until TMIA is ready to come forward with this information if, indeed, TMIA has any intention of ever doing so.
Motions to compel answers, even granted by the Board, seem to have had little effect.
i 1
4
)
. The first glaring error of omission applicable to all of TMIA's responses to Licensee's interrogatories is TMIA's failure to provide any information which sheds light on TMIA's allegation that as a result of its maintenance activities, Licensee has somehow been negligent in its operation of TMI Unit 2.
Licensee 's Interrogatory 5-2, including all of its subparts, was drafted to ascertain the basis for this assertion.
TMIA has never specifically answered these questions; instead, reference is made to the information provided in response to Interrogatory 5-1.
But Interrogatory 5-1 relates to TMIA's first allegation of improper maintenance activities at Unit 1, not Unit 2.
Thus, TMIA's responses to 5-1, however responsive they may or may not be to that interrogatory, could not possibly be responsive to Interrogatory 5-2.
Furthermore, TMIA has explicitly stated in both its May 6 and June 30 responses that it has limited the scope of its search to Unit 1.
TMIA also indicated in its May 6 Response that if TMIA " discovered" any information on Unit 2, it would notify Licensee.
No such notification has occurred.
Thus, at present, TMIA apparently has no information upon which to rely in support of its TMI-2-related allegations.
TMIA has also never distinguished the basis for two other allegations included within Contention 5.
From its first tardy filing of April 14 through its latest June 30, 1980 response, TMIA has failed to specifically answer not only Interrogatory 5-2, which relates to TMI-2, but Interrogatories 1
. 5-3 and 5-4.
These interrogatories correlate with the allega-tions that Met-Ed " allowed work orders to go undone in order to avoid shutting Unit #1 down to perform necessary maintenance,"
and that Met-Ed " allowed work orders to pile up until refueling, at which time the licensee would attempt to do all the work required."
In each and every c..e of TMIA's responses, no information is provided that is unique to these two allega-tions.
Rather, TMIA continually cites the documents it references in connection with Interrogatory 5-1.
It appears that TMIA is contending that every document it has identified as providing factual support for Intertogatory 5-1 also provides a specific factual basis for the allegations ref-erenced in Interrogatories 5-3 and 5-4.
It seems incon-ceivable to Licensee that every one of the hundreds of work orders identified by TMIA provides specific factual support for each of these distinct allegations.
Even if Licensee could sort through these work orders and conclude which work orders, in its calculation, relate to each particular allega-tion, Licensee has no obligation to do so.
This is the specific obligation of TMIA.
Even more important, it would serve no purpose.
Licensee is interested in what TMIA, not Licensee, perceives to be the specific bases for Contention 5.
After five months, Licensee still does not know the answer to this question.
TMIA has never answered the initial and direct questions propounded by Licensee in connection with each of f
e TMIA's Contention 5 allegations.
In its January interrogatories, Licensee asks TMIA for the heart of each allegation included in Contention 5, and then requests TMIA to provide specific data supporting these events and circumstances.
Thus, if one examines Interi gatories 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 5-4 and 5-6, in each case, TMIA must lirst identify the occasions on which particular actitities took place, such as when Met-Ed negligently or wil-fully violated NRC regulations concerning the safe operation of Unit 1 by deferring necessary maintenance and repairs in order to minimize reactor downtime, or when Met-Ed allowed work orders to pile up until refueling.
After identification of the occasions on which the alleged activity took place, Licensee then goes on to ask TMIA to indicate those docu-ments and persons supporting the allegation.
TMIA has never answered the initial identification question con-tained in Interrogatories 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 5-4, and 5-6.-*/
Not one single instance has been described by Intervenors which supports the allegations quoted in Licensee's interrogatories from Intervenors' contention.
Consequently, none of the docu-cents and persons which TMIA has referenced in responding to some of Licensee's interrogatories can be related to parti-s cular occasions, and Licensee is left guessing as to which e
incidents are of concern to TMIA.
- /
In its June 4, 1980 letcer to TMIA, Licensee specifically pointed out this initial part of Interrogatories 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 5-4 and 5-6 in order to avoid any confusion over Licensee's numbering system.
. Licensee is cognizant of TMIA's assertion of good faith set forth in its May 20, 1920 Memorandum in support of its interrogatory responses, filed on that same day.
However, when Licensee examines more closely the information provided in the last two installments of responses to Licensee's interrogatories and finds much of the material either irrelevant on its face, or nonresponsive to the question, Licensee cannot help but question TMIA's commitment to it and to the Board.
For example, in its June 13 and June 30 supplemental responses to Interrogatories 5-1(b) and (c), TMIA set forth as its definition of " deferred" maintenance, "[t]ime lags of approximately one year or more for Priority 1 and 2 items."
In both filings, TMIA ther. refers Licensee to a rather lengthy list of work requests, Atta ment A, which TMIA states " meet [s]
the above criteria."
In its June 30 response, TMIA also refers to another group of work requests, Attachment D, which "contain relevant information."
The information provided in these three Attachments consists of work order numbers, the priority assigned to each work order, the date originated, and the date completed.
Upon further examination, however, it is clear that about 250 out of the approximate total of s
1100 work requests listed in these Attachments were either not deferred for one year or more, or were not Priority 1 or 2 items.
See Attachment No. One to this Motion.
- Thus, nearly one-fourth of the work requests identified by TMIA fail on their face to neet TMIA's own definition of deferred
O O
~14-maintenance, which is a necessary component of the allegation to which Interrogatory 5-1 refers.
Similarly, in its response to the same question, 5-1 (b) and (c), THIA references Attachment B, which consists of summaries of 113 grievances and 3 disciplinary actions.
TMIA cites this list in the context of the first allegation contained in Contention 5, namely, that " Met-Ed negligently or wilfully violated NRC regulations concerning the safe operation of Unit #1 in that it deferred necessary maintenance and repairs in order to minimize reactor downtime, to the detriment of the integrity of the nuclear facility itself."
In its most generous analysis, Licensee finds that onl, 14 of these 116 summaries are at all responsive to this allega-tion.
The rest of the grievance and disciplinary action summaries deal primarily with complaints about the job classification assigned to particular work.
Some of the grievances and disciplinary actions have nothing at all to i
do with the carrying out of maintenance.
E.g., " [t] his related to susp3nsion of Joseph Stupak for climbing over a fence--details were sketchy.
Incident Report 151-78 was not to be placed in Mr. Stupak's files," see Attachment B s
at page 3, Year 1978, #901, March 30, 1978; "Sgt. Behnen did knowingly allow an SPO to watch television while on post thereby distracting said SPO from his assigned duties,"
see Attachment B at page 26, Records of Disciplinary Action.
While it is true that TMIA and Licensee may not agree precisely
. on the scope of material relevant to Contention 5, Licensee finds it incredible that TMIA, represented by experienced counsel, will ascert during the hearing that each one of the grievances and disciplinary actions summarized in Attach-ment B to TMIA's June 30 response contain facts which provide a specific basis for Contention 5.
Licensee therefore must conclude that TMIA is either throwing miscellaneous materials at Licensee without properly assessing the relevance of the material to the questions asked, or is deliberately providing Licensee with significant amounts of obviously useless infor-mation.
Neither of these explanations is satisfactory.
In addition to Licensee's basic complaint about TMIA's failure to individually respond to each of Licensee's interrogatories and their supbarts, Licensee finds that many of the referenced responses, in which TMIA incorporates by reference its answer to Interrogatory 5-1(b) and (c), are logically impossible answers.
For example, Interrogatory 5-4 asks questions about TMIA's allegation that Met-Ed allowed work orders to pile up until refueling, at which time the licensee would attempt to do all the work required.
Large numbers of the job tickets included in Attachment A to TMIA's June 13 "first installment" response, and in Attachments A and D to TMIA's June 30 "second installment" response consist of maintenance work that was not completed during an outage period.
See Attachment No. Two to this Motion.
Such work orders could not possibly apply to TMIA's allegation about i
. piling up work "until refueling."
A g r.. n, the obfuscation of whatever material might be relevant to TMIA's allegations by masses of unquestionably irrelevant material is improper, and places upon Licensee the unreasonable burden of separating the wheat from the chaff.
Furthermore, even if Licensee does this work, its interrogatories of TMIA remain unanswered and its capability with any confidence of preparing to meet TMIA's unspecified concerns is severely hampered.
In like manner, TMIA has obscured,with useless infor-mation,information which otherwise might be responsive to Interrogatory 5-6.
This interrogatory concerns TMIA's asser-tion that "[j]ust to complete essential maintenance in the short time available, employees were worked to a point where they were no longer effective because of fatigue."
Obviously, TMIA is concerned here with the potential impacts of what it would regard as excessive overtime work performed by maintenance personnel.*
In its June 30 response, TMIA incorporated a list of overtime hours worked by various employees.
See Attachment G to TMIA's Second Installment 1
of Information in Response to Interrogatories of Licensee.
TMIA does not state whether it regards everyone in that attach-i ment as an employee who has worked excessive overtime for each
-of the periods tabulated.
Their tabulated overtime figures vary widely.
Moreover, out of the 155 employees listed whose job classification could be determined, Licensee identified at least 43 individuals who worked in areas which almost
. certainly do not involve maintenance activities, e.g., typists and stockkeepers.
Finally, TMIA's frequent use of broad answers to very specific questions is careless, vague, inappropriate, and unacceptable.
It is not sufficient for TMIA to simply state that it "will rely on the Quality Control Surveillance Reports given in response to TMIA Interrogatory 5-2 (f)," and that certain contracts, such as the NSSS contract, will be relied upon by TMIA.
See TMIA Response to 5-1(b) and (c) contained in TMIA's Second Installment of Information in Response to Interrogatories of Licensee at 2-3.
TMIA was asked very precise questions by Licensee as narrowed by the Board:
identify each and every fact supporting the allegation, and the documents containing evidence or infor-mation to be relied upon by TMIA in support thereof.
Incor-porating by reference entire documents does not in any way answer Licensee's perfectly legitimate questions.
The time has passed for allowing TMIA a third, fourth or fifth oppor-tunity to describe even one specific inatance which TMIA believes supports av of their allegations in Contention 5.
TMIA either can cite no supporting instances for its allega-tions or refuses to do so.
Conclusions TMIA has had every opportunity to provide Licensee with the facts which form the basis for the serious allegations i
O I contained in TMIA Contention 5.
Nevertheless, TMIA is still either unable or unwilling to answer Licansee's questions.
To the extent that TMIA is unable to answer Licensee's ques-tions, TMIA would appear to have no basis for its contention.
At this late date, to the extent that TMIA has no basis for its allegations, the allegation should not remain in the proceeding.
Thus, TMIA's suggestion in the introductory paragraphs of its latest response, dated June 30, 1980, that Licensee can expect to receive additional responses to this question, is unacceptable. ~*/
TMIA's right and obli-gation to supplement its answers is strictly limited by 10 C.F.R. 2.740(e) to supplementing or changing responses which are no longer accurate.
The regulation does not grant parties license to give vague, incorrect and generally nonresponsive answers.
On the other hand, if TMIA has facts to support its assertions, it has repeatedly refused to give Licensee any indication of the nature of these facts.
Licensee cannot possibly prepare its case without specifica-tion by TMIA of the bases for Contention 5.
On the basis of TMIA's either deliberate refusal to answer Licensee's interrogatcries, or because of TMIA's inability to do so despite orders by the Board compelling
- /
We note that the June 30 filing corresponds to the date Ey which TMIA stated it would complete its answer to Licensee's interrogatories and that no further schedule or specific adjustment to that schedule is specified by TMIA.
t
- TMIA to respond, Licensee respectfully moves that the Board dismiss TMIA Crntention 5 from the TMI-l ;estart proceeding.
Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
%ff.MA4 Ernest L.
Blake, Jr.
Counsel for Licensee 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 331-4100 Dated:
July 16, 1980 i
)
I l
l l-
f 8
Attachment No. One Licensee has determined that, based upon information contained in Attachment A to TMIA's First Installment of Infor-mation in Response to Interrogatories of Licensee and upon Attachments A and D to TMIA's Second Installment of Information in Response to Interrogatories of Licensee, the following Job Tickets do not meet TMIA's definition of " deferred maintenance"
( i. e._, "[tlime lags of approximately one year or more for Priority 1 and 2 items").
Date Date Job Ticket Priority Originated Completed 17741 1
11/9/76 5/2/77 18032 1
12/6/76 5/11/77 18033 1
12/6/76 5/11/77 19418 3
3/19/77 2/15/79 19865 2
5/9/77 7/20/77 20040 1
5/18/77 5/22/77 20267 3
6/7/77 4/11/78 20304 1
6/10/77 4/3/78 20811 2
7/25/77 4/11/78 20837 2
7/26/77 5/1/78 20960 1
8/8/77 5/3/78 21384 2
9/22/77 4/10/78 21432 2
9/28/77 4/10/78 21440 2
9/27,'77 4/19/78 21482(B) 2 9/30/77 1/22/78 21493 1
10/3/77 10/3/77 21677 1
10/17/77 5/4/78 21835 1
11/2/77 10/20/78 21865 2
11/5/77 11/9/77 22157 2
12/11/77 10/16/78 22305 1
12/28/77 11/6/78 23199 1
3/18/78 4/18/78 23203 1
3/18/78 4/10/78 23206 1
3/18/78 4/18/78 23208 1
3/18/78 4/18/78 23652 1
4/28/78 5/3/78 24436 2
7/5/78 7/6/78 25194 1
9/11/78 (sic) 9/9/78 25553 1
10/8/78 12/13/78 C0070 2
12/14/78 3/22/79 i
. Date Date Job Ticket Priority Originated Completed C0135 2
12/26/78 1/18/79 17075 1
9/30/76 6/10/77 17198 2
10/4/77 6/21/78 C0426 1
1/30/79 3/17/79 25673 not shown 10/17/78 5/24/79 20423 2
6/21/77 2/2/78 22203 2
12/16/77 12/20/77 20550 3
7/4/77 12/17/79 15275 3
5/6/76 9/12/77 25563 1
10/8/78 5/26/79 20949 2
8/4/77 4/22/78 20423 2
6/21/77 2/2/78 21532 1
10/4/77 4/14/78 19394 2
3/10/77 5/13/77 23148 1
1/28/78 3/18/78 22181 2
12/13/77 4/8/78 21677 1
10/17/77 5/4/78 20616 2
7/7/77 6/16/78 23014 1
3/3/78 2/20/79 21923 1
12/7/77 12/1/78 19647 2
4/14/77 4/3/78 20100 3
5/20/77 7/31/78 25869 2
11/8/78 4/11/79 25236 1
9/15/78 10/2/78 25651 1
10/16/78 3/14/79 20856 2
7/28/77 6/29/78 21480 2
9/30/77 4/11/78 15349 1
5/11/76 (sic) 5/8/76 L5360 1
5/9/76 5/10/76 22494 1
1/17/78 1/18/78 C0689 2
3/12/79 6/22/79 23897 1
5/16/78 5/30/78 23799 1A 5/11/78 5/24/78 19831 3A 5/5/77 5/7/77 23769 1
3/9/78 5/11/78 23840 2
5/15/78 5/15/78 23960 2
5/22/78 6/20/78 19845 2A 5/6/77 5/9/77 24687 2
7/27/78 1/29/79 21060 2
8/15/77 (sic) 1/9/77 17998 1A 12/6/76 6/6/77 24319 2
6/22/78 9/14/78 20365 2A 6/14/77 6/25/77 11080 1D 10/22/75 4/26/76 16493 1
8/17/76 8/1/77 22844 1
2/14/78 2/23/78 21335 2
9/16/77 4/4/78 16914 3A 9/16/76 5/1/78 17172 2A 10/6/76 8/27/77 l
20423 2
6/21/77 2/2/78 l
. Date Date Job Ticket Priority Originated Completed 11346 2D 9/4/75 4/21/76 19138 2
3/2/77 3/23/77 25869 2A 11/8/78 4/11/79 25236 1A 9/15/78 10/2/78 17075 1A 9/30/76 6/10/77 25651 1
10/16/78 3/14/79 23825 1A 5/14/78 5/27/78 23845 1
5/14/78 5/31/78 C0050 1
12/7/78 12/14/78 21995 3
11/22/77 8/28/78 21992 3
11/22/77 10/3/78 25340 1A 9/25/78 9/28/78 25225 2A 9/14/70 9/25/78 C0151 2D 1/3/79 2/27/79 19431 2
3/21/77 4/22/77 24357 2
6/23/78 1/9/79 22745 2D 12/27/77 4/28/78 22841 1A 2/14/78 2/28/78 19093 1
3/1/77 3/7/77 24772 1
8/1/78 2/27/79 23786 1
5/9/78-5/17/78 C0965 1
5/4/79 1/15/80 C0797 1
3/24/79 5/24/79 25112 1A 9/4/78 5/23/79 25453 1
9/30/78 10/22/78 24371 2
1/26/78 9/16/73 21132 2
8/24/77 4/8/78 03248 3
7/29/74 6/12/78 23109 1
3/10/78 5/15/78 24882 1
8/14/78 8/2/79 24198 2A 6/13/78 5/29/79 25634 1A 11/15/78 11/6/79 C0773 1
3/21/79 3/22/79 19535 1A 4/4/77 4/15/77 2S509 1
10/25/78 10/27/78 22602 2A.
1/23/78 1/16/79 C0516 1
2/17/79 3/1/79 17928 1A 11/30/76 7/3/77 20547 2A 7/1/77 9/13/77 24917 1A 8/14/78 5/24/79 25053 1
8/25/73 1/25/79 C0138 1A 12/28/78 12/4/79 23031 2A 2/27/78 3/15/78 23236 1A 3/20/78 4/1/78 C0622 1D 3/2/79 3/15/79 18911 1
3/13/77 5/10/77 19938 1A 5/12/77 2/10/78
. Date Date Job Ticket Priority Originated Completed 2107.4 1A 8/12/77 1/3/78 22144 2A 12/7/77 4/13/78 1D 8/25/78 1/25/79 25053 1971?
3A 4/22/77 7/20/79 C0372 1
1/22/79 9/17/79 16837 3
9/10/76 10/12/77 20042 3
5/20/77 12/12/79 19418 3
3/19/77 2/15/79 20574 2A 10/4/77 6/22/78 C0178 1
1/7/79 8/10/79 18252 4
12/22/76 3/26/79 22183 2
12/14/77 1/9/78 24248 1
S/16/78 9/22/78 C2163 2
12/17/79 12/21/79 22854 1
2/14/78 2/18/78 20371 3
6/15/77 12/17/79 25261 1
9/18/78 6/3/79 21636 2
10/13/77 11/2/77 13165 3
12/31/75 7/30/77 C0858 2
4/12/79 11/20/79 3269 2
7/25/74 8/26/74 3790 2
8/19/74 2/11/75 4320 1A 9/12/74 11/11/74 4826 2A 10/5/74 10/8/74 5474 1A 11/10/74 11/20/74 5564 2A 11/13/74 11/16/74 5944 1A 12/3/74 12/3/74 7549B LA 2/25/75 2/28/75 7875 2A 3/14/75 6/24/75 11267 2A 9/10/75 11/11/75 11540 3A 9/25/75 N
11795 2A 10/12/75 10/13/75 12435 3A 3/1/78 N
13549 3D 1/19/76 N
14215 1D 2/29/76 4/22/76 15272 3A 5/5/76 N
15382 1A 5/13/76 5/13/76 15543 2A 5/23/76 6/9/76 15672 2A 6/2/76 12/17/76 15725 3A 5/26/76 N
l 16146 3A 7/9/76 N
16216 3D 7/18/76 N
16639 3A 9/2/76 CA 17028 1A 9/24/76 8/8/77 l
17453 2A 10/22/76 10/28/76 l
17439 2A 10/20/76 11/3/76 17927 3A 11/30/76 12/5/76 18538 1D 1/6/77 4/26/77 18744 2A 1/29/77 2/8/77 18950-3A 1/24/77 2/18/77
e Date Date Job Ticket Priority Originated Completed 19281 2A 3/14/77 3/17/77 19506 1D 3/30/77 4/25/77 19576 1D 4/6/77 4/22/77 19989 3A 5/14/77 7/2/77 20118 3A 5/19/77 6/28/77 20376 1D 6/15/77 8/21/77 20404 2A 6/18/77 10/11/77 2G461-2A 6/24/77 7/3/77 i
20472 2A 6/24/77 7/2/77 20487 2A 6/28/77 7/2/77 20521 2A 6/30/77 7/2/77 20687 2A 7/14/77 3/16/78 20770 3A 7/20/77 N
20803 2A 7/15/77 8/16/77 20970 3A 8/8/77 8/15/77 20972 3A 8/18/77 8/18/77 21001 2A 8/10/77 8/26/77 21240 2A 9/7/77 9/27/77 21263 2A 9/10/77 9/13/77 21635 2A 10/13/77 10/26/77 21651 2A 10/13/77 3/1/78 20210 1A 6/1/77 6/15/ 77 20376 1D 6/15/77 8/21/77 20521 2A 6/30/77 7/2/77 20631 2A 7/8/77 8/10/77 21197 1A 9/2/77 9/5/77 22038 2A 11/29/77 6/7/78 22202 3A 12/15/77 2/28/78 22298 1A 12/28/77 12/29/77 22404 1A 1/10/78 2/14/78 22729 2A 2/7/78 2/8/78 22799 1A 2/11/78 2/25/78 22995 1A 1/31/78 3/2/78 23051 2A 2/24/78 6/21/78 73138 1D 3/13/78
- /20/78 23514 2A 4/17/78 5/22/78 23636 1A 4/28/78 5/1/78 23637 1D 4/28/78 5/2/78 23638 1A 4/28/78 4/28/78 23693 2A 5/2/78 3/22/79 23701 1A 5/3/78 3/12/79 23720 2A 5/3/78 5/10/78 23805 12.
5/11/78 3/13/79 23809 2A 5/11/78 3/7/79 23812 1D 5/11/78 2/28/79 23867 2A 5/12/78 5/21/78 24087 2A 5/26/78 6/2/78 24729 1A 7/30/78 8/7/78 24838 2A 8/5/78 8/11/78
. Date Date Job Ticket Priority Originated Completed 24859 2A 8/9/78 8/10/78 24902
- A 8/8/78 8/19/78 25499 1D 10/5/78 2/28/79
'25646 lJ.
10/15/78 3/13/79 25655 1A 10/16/78 3/13/79 25737 1D 10/23/78 3/1/79 25738 1D 10/23/78 3/5/79 25739 1D 10/23/78 3/5/79 25881 1D 11/8/78 3/4/79
-25883 1D 11/8/78 3/4/79 25884 1D 11/8/78 3/3/79 25929 1D 11/14/78 3/5/79 25975 1A 11/16/78 8/24/79 25979 2A 11/16/78 3/8/79 26005 2A 11/18/78 3/16/79 22120 3A 12/16/77 N
22305 1A 12/21/77 11/6/78 24189 2A 6/12/78 6/14/78 24492 2A 7/9/78 3/8/79 24483 2D 7/6/78 3/11/79 24836 2A 8/5/78 8/11/78 25658 1A 10/16/78 3/11/79 25792 1D 10/26/78 3/13/79 i
Attachment No. Two Three Mile Island Unit One was shutdown for refueling during the following periods:
February 21, 1976 - May 26, 1976 March 19, 1977 - May 1, 1977 March 18, 1978 - May S., 1978 February 17, 1979 - Jresent*/
Based upon its review of Attachment A to TMIA's First Install-ment of Information in Response to Interrogatories and of Attachments A and D to TMIA's Second Installment of Information in Response to Interrogatories of Licensee, Licensee has identified the following Job Tickets as not having been com-pleted during an outage:
Job Ticket Date Completed Job Ticket Date Completed 13572 12/15/78 21482 2/15/79 16670 10/10/78 214 82 (B) 1/22/78 17741 5/2/77 21486 2/15/79 17775 1/6/78 21493 10/3/77 18032 5/11/77 21523 12/9/78 18033 5/11/77 21677 5/4/78
~
18626 1/10/79 21785 12/1/78 19418 2/15/79 21835 10/20/78 19484 10/4/78 21865 11/9/77 19590 2/12/79 21910 11/27/78 19616 12/5/78 22002 11/22/78 19753 2/9/79 22100 2/15/79 19758 2/15/79 22157 10/16/78 19865 7/20/77
'2223 12/15/78 19969 10/3/78 22305 11/6/78 20040 5/22/77 23652 5/3/78 20439 11/2/78 24436 7/6/78 20615 10/3/78 25194 9/9/78 20960 5/3/78 25553 12/13/78 20981 2/8/79 C0135 1/18/79 20989 12/4/78 9806 8/11/78 21119 10/10/78 9993 2/13/79 e
21155 1/24/79 10830 9/27/78 21182 2/15/79 e
16090 10/3/78 21214 2/15/79 16259 10/3/78 21446 12/4/78 16212 2/5/79
- /
It should be noted that the great majority of work requests completed during any of these outages were completed during the i
continuing shutdown ordered by the Commission following the TMI-2 accident, which is not a refueling outage within the meaning of Contention 5.
In fact,. of the more than 1100 job tickets identified by TMIA as related to their claims that maintenance was deferred to refueling outages, only 129 or so appear to have been completed during refueling periods.
, Job Ticket Date Completed Job Ticket Date Completed 1
17075 6/10/77 22494 1/18/78 17198 6/21/78 11226 6/1/77 10472 3/9/77 21061 11/6/78 22383 10/3/78 18191 12/20/77 20294 12/7/78 18837 2/9/78 21216 12/9/78 23897 5/30/78 20423 2/2/78 23799 5/24/78 22203 12/20/77 19831 5/7/77 15191 5/3/78 18741 2/8/78 19450 5/3/78 23769 5/11/78 lib 50 11/10/77 23840 5/15/78 12399 9/12/77 23780 11/2/79 20220 6/5/78 23960 6/20/78 15275 9/12/77 22002 2/15/79 22460 2/15/79 19845 5/9/77 22729 2/8/79 24687 1/29/79 21216 12/9/78 21060 8/9/77 20423 2/2/78 17998 6/6/77 19984 5/22/78 18184 5/4/78 7789 8/30/77 15742 6/1/78 19394 5/13/77 20717 9/18/78 20801 8/3/78 24319 9/14/78 15176 6/1/77 21187 9/18/78 11228 6/1/77 20365 6/25/77 11219 6/1/77 20615 12/15/78 11218 6/1/77 18751 2/13/78 21677 5/4/78 16493 8/1/77 20794 8/3/78 18935 5/24/78 20616 6/16/78 22844 2/23/78 9883 2/15/78 05019 5/13/77 10711 9/20/77 21523 12/21/78 21923 12/1/78 15125 12/11/77 1250 12/22/77 17172 8/27/77 20100 7/3/78 20423 2/2/78 12656 2/10/78 10680 3/7/78 7552 5/11/77 25236 10/2/78 25236 10/2/78 17075 6/10/77 13344 3/14/78 23825 5/27/78 21086 10/3/78 23845 5/31/78 15350 2/4/78 C0050 A2/14/78 16879 2/9/78 21995 8/28/78 15374 2/11/78 21992 10/3/78 15304 5/12/77 19616 12/14/78 15713 8/15/77 13781 6/22/77 16450 8/15/77 25340 9/28/78 20856 6/29/78 25225 9/25/78 21447 12/1/78 24357 1/9/79 10004 2/10/78 22841 2/28/78 20688 8/9/78 19084 5/5/78
e a
, Job Ticket Date Completed Job Ticket Date Completed 19093 3/7/77 18936 7/14/78 16811 2/15/78 20481 8/3/78 11927 2/15/78 12787 8/28/77 23786 5/17/78 20669 9/7/78 20373 6/28/78 16553 11/17/77 19979 6/22/78 9123 6/22/77 22652 1/31/79 24248 9/22/78 25453 10/22/78 22854 2/18/78 24371 9/16/78 20124 9/15/78 20577 8/9/78 17915 2/5/78 17741 2/5/79 22331 2/15/79 20304 12/4/78 12825 11/2/77 18033 1/2/79 21636 11/2/77 18032 1/2/79 13165 7/30/77 19865 12/15/78 19767 9/18/78 15176 6/1/77 3269 8/26/74 11227 6/1/77 3790 2/11/75 3248 6/12/78 4320 11/11/74 20792 8/3/,78 4826 10/8/74 15375 8/15/77 5474 11/20/74 23109 5/15/78 5564 11/16/74 12840 8/15/77 5944 12/3/74 15683 8/15/77 7549B 2/28/75 19837 2/13/79 787S 6/24/75 22454 1/13/78 11163 11/28/78 22558 1/25/78 11267 11/11/75 24522 2/9/79 11795 10/13/75 10711-9/20/77 15543 6/9/76 21923 12/1/78 15672 12/17/76 19484 10/4/78 16094 7/13/76 25509 10/27/78 17028 8/8/77 22602 1/16/79 17453 10/28/76 15814 12/2/77 17439 11/3/76 17418 11/4/77 17927 12/5/76 17928 7/3/77 18744 2/8/77 7358 5/12/77 18950 2/18/77 20547 9/13/77 19281 3/17/77 19938 2/10/78 19989 7/2/77 21024 1/3/78 20'18 6/28/77 25053 1/25/79 20376 8/21/77 16950 8/9/78 20404 10/11/77 16837 10/12/77 20461 7/3/77 20171 12/15/78 20472 7/2/77 19418 2/15/79 20487 7/2/77 20574 6/22/78 20521 7/2/77 27279 11/27/78 20687 3/16/78 22183 1/9/78 20803 8/16/77 16212 2/5/79 20970 8/15/77 19985 8/16/78 20972 8/18/77 l
.. s
, Job Tickgt Date Completed 20981 2/8/79 21001 8/26/77 21240 9/27/77 21263 9/13/77 21635 10/26/77 21651 3/1/78 20210 6/15/77 20376 8/21/77 20521 7/2/77 20631 8/10/77 21197 9/5/77 22038 6/7/78 22202 2/28/78 22298 12/29/77 22404 2/18/78 22729 2/18/78 22799 2/25/78 22995 3/2/78 23051 6/21/78 23514 5/22/78 23720 5/10/78 23867 5/21/78 24087 6/2/78 24729 8/7/78 24838 8/11/78 24859 8/10/78 24902 8/19/78 22305 11/6/78 24189 6/14/78 s
i 4
t y
r-r-
.4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISCN COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing
" Licensee's Motion for Sanctions Against TMIA" were served this 16th day of July, 1930 by deposit in the U.S. mail, i
first class, postage prepaid, to the parties identified on the attached Service List.
$ $r h.
Ernest L.
Blake, Jr.
i 9
N
w s 4)
'O N ETED UMmc h
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA C
k 1 7 f9g, C 0
f
-11 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1rece I g
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOA _
p Na 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, Esquire Chairman Assistant Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Pennsylvania Public Utility Comm Board Panel Post Office Ecx 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 He se Board Panel Post Office Box 2357 881 West Outer Drive Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 John E.
Minnich Dr. Linda 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, Ncrth Carolina 27612 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 James R.
Tourtellotte, Esquire (4)
Walter W.
Cohen, Esquire Office of the Executive Legal Director Consumer Advocate U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Consumer Advocaue Washington, D.C.
20555 14th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17127 Docketing and Service Section (21)
Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington,,
D.C.
20555 w
a
,p-
a
.e s Jordan D. Cunningham, Esquire Karin P.
Sheldon, Esquire Attorney for Newberry Township Attorney for People Against Nuclet T.M.I. Steering Committee Energy 2320 North Second Street Sheldon, Harmon & Weiss Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 1725 Eye Street, N.W.,
Suite 506 Washington, D.C.
20006 Theodore A. Adler, Esquire Widoff Reager Selkowitz & Adler Robert Q. Pollard Post Office Box 1547 609 Montpelier Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105 Baltimore, Maryland 21218 Ellyn R. Weiss, Esquire Chauncey Kepford Attorney for the Union of Concerned Judith H. Johnsrud Scientists Environmental Coalition on Nucleai Sheldon, Harmon & Weiss Power 1725 Eye Street, N.W.,
Suite 506 433 Orlando Avenue Washingtca, D.C.
20006 State College, Pennsylvania 1680 Steven C. Sholly Marvin I. Lewis 304 South Market Street 6504 Bradford Terrace Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19140 Gail Bradford Marjorie M. Aamodt Holly S. Keck R.
D.
5 Le'gislation Chairman Coatesville, Pennsylvania 19320 Anti-Nuclear Group Representing York 245' West Philadelphia Street York, Pennsylvania 17404 e
e G
--