ML19321B110
| ML19321B110 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 07/07/1980 |
| From: | Adler T THREE MILE ISLAND ALERT, WIDOFF, REAGER, SELKOWITZ & ADLER |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007250689 | |
| Download: ML19321B110 (6) | |
Text
.
+
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD g' \\ '
W In the Matter cf
)
)
t METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289. ff occKETED
)
(Res tart) usspc (Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
g 2 21980
- Station, Unit No.1)
)
B-Ori.ca of the satsef g
ccchetig:),semet e
o TMIA'S MOTION TO COMPEL
' I ' -i DISCOVERY OF LICENSEE On June 18, 1980, TMIA served upon Licensee follow-on interrogatories based on new information discovered in documents previously provided. Particu-larly, these follow-up interrogatories are based on the evaluation cf Licensee's response to TMIA Interrogatory 5-6 (a 904 page computer " summary"), 5-7 (1137
- page computer summary representing the regular and overtime hours for each r
hourly employee for the 18 month pericd before the ntI-2 accident) and 7-9 (the actual maintenance log consisting cf 7 volumes, each approximately 500 pages long).
Licensee objected to these interrogateries on June 27,1980 "on the grounds of untimeliness and, as to Interrogatory No. 2, as irrelevant."
Pursuant to the Board's Order of May 5,1980, n!!A now moves the Board for an Order compelling Licensee to respend to "TMIA's Follow-Up Interromtories To Licensee (Second Set)."
/
'~
A00725068'C 3*(
The Board Order cf May 5,1980, provides a " schedule for' discovery requests... based upon new information." TMIA believes that the information which forms the basis for these follow-up interrogatories is "new information."
It is first important to note that Licensee's responses to n!IA Interroga-tories 5-6, 5-7 and 7-9 are not typical responses _in either quantity er quality.
n!IA has spent 590 man-hours at the discovery rcom dissecting the 1727 cdd pages of computer " summaries" and 3500 pages of Icg entries for relevant data. Tc11ow-up discovery could not be done until this evaluation process was completed.
Likewise, BilA had no idea of what was contained in the log books, ccm-puter summaries or the other documents to which the computer summary would refer.
For instance, Interrogatcries 1 and 3 are based on the evaluation cf Work Requests 25166, 24159, 24218, 21857, 25110 and 24511 on June 11,12 and 16,1980.
n!IA did not leisurely pull these work requests cut en the above dates for evalu-ation. Rather, n!IA was unindated with 40,000 work requests in January. n!IA requested the computer " summaries" in March to aid its search efforts. An evalu-ation cf the 590 page " summary" resulted in the identificatien of ever 1,000 work requests. In the process of evaluating these 1,000 work requests, the questions concerning " purging" and "M. Ross's leak list" arose. That was June 10,11 and 16, 1980.
Using Licensee's interpretation cf the Febniary 29,1980 Order, follow-on discovery would have been due March 14,1980 (see February 29,1980 Order. pg.
-2
.23) because the original 40,000 work requests were "provided" in January. How-ever, such a conclusion would be manifestly unfair, violate the realities of the
- discovery process and amount to a denial of TMIA's due process rights.
TMIA confronted a similar task in evaluating Licensee's "respense" to Interrogatory 5-7. The 1137 page computer summary summarized the requiar and overti:ne hours for each heurly employee en the Island. After chcosing the 190 odd employees mostlikely to have worked excessive overtime, TMIA examined each eenployee for the one and a half (11/2) year pericd before the accident.
At this poin in the evaluation process, TMIA had no way cf knowing what 4
wculd result from its search. On June 9,1980, TMIA finished this time-consuming process and telephoned the results to Dr. Robert Coleman, Psychelegy Professor i
at Penn State Capital Campus.
r It is at this time, June 9,1980, that Dr. Coleman suggested evaluating the d
sick call reports, accident reports and infirmary reports to further confirm the results obtained from the computer summary search. This reccmmendaticn by Dr. Coleman and the results of the computer summary are the "new information"
- on which TMIA based Interrogatory 2.
4 Interrogatory 2 is relevant in thn 1: will be used to further prove that "just to complete essential maintenance in the short time available, employees were I
worked to a point where they were no longer effective because ci fatigue (see TMIA revised Contention 5). TMIA has uncovered significan: evidence en :his contention by evaluating the computer summaries (see second installment of
~ _,,
4
information in respense to Licensee's interrogatories dated June'30,1980). The documents requested in Interrogatory 2 will correborate this evidence. Also, by exposing the adverse effects cf excessive overtime, TMIA will further prove management's incompetency in requiring Licensee's hourly empicyees to work excessive overtime.
TMIA requested in Interrogatory 7-9 Licensee's actual maintenance icgs.
Upon five days notice, TMIA was allcwed to inspect :hese icgs. On June 14, 1980, TMIA received Vclume 4 and 5 for further evaluation (Volume 4 and 5 had been evaluated previcusly). As a result, TMIA discovered a significant number of recently completed work requests. Work Request 19507 (initiated March 3,1980) was completed on May 27, 1980. Likewise, Work Request 22589 was completed on the same date. TMIA could not have submitted follow-up discovery requests by April 15,1980 when the entries were not made in the log bcoks until May 27, 1980.
This data, which forms the basis for Interrogatory 4, is "new information" witin the purview cf the May 5,1980 Order: " Specific discovery requests based ucon new information, whether in the SER, staff's Class 9 response or elsewhere, must be made directly to the party being discovered no later than ten days after the availability cf such information."
TMIA believes that the date cf " availability" can only be defined to mean the ti.~.e the discovering party actually gains knowledge cf the new information upon which it bases its request. As evident by the abcVe discussien, any other interpretation would effectively eliminate any additional discovery by TMIA.
Licensee recommends " availability" shculd mean date of service. First,
.if the Beard had intended to use date cf service, it could have done so expressly.
Secondly, the time period for follow-up would have lapsed long before TMIA cculd have possibly completed its initial evaluation cf Licensee's responses. In the case cf Interrogatory 4, the time would have lapsed six weeks before the entries were made in the log book. Such an interpretation is funda:nentally unfair and an effective denial cf TMIA's due process rights.,,
Therefore, TMIA requests that the Scard recognhe that these interroga-tories are subject to the !!ay 5,1980 Order and compel Licensee to respend to TMIA's interrogatories.
Respectfully submitted, WIDOFF, REAGER, SELKOMTZ & ADLER, P.C.
By:
C 6
Theodore A. Adler F. O. Box 1547 Harrisburg, PA 17105 (717) 763-1383 Dated: July 7,.1980 l
1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that~I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing
_ document, TMIA's Motion To Compel Discovery Of Licensee, to be placed in the United States mail, first-class, postage prepaid, addressed to the persons listed below:
. Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Atomic Safety & Licensing Scard Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Walter H. Jordan
\\ '-
n, a"
881 West Guter Drive 3
Oak Ridge, TN 37830 fj
- eegg733 h
U:n?.C s
Dr. Linda W. Little
~
.g 2 2 $@ >
5000 Hermitage Drive y
j)[{Sl,j{27 J,
Raieigh, NC 27612 o
Ex,
George F. Trowbridge, Esquire i
c Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge
/Is 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006 4
Docketing and Service Section U.S. Nucicar Regulatory Commission Washingten, EC 20555 Exsutive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
/
/
Theodore A. Adler-Dated: July 7,1980
-. - -