ML19330C124
| ML19330C124 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Three Mile Island  |
| Issue date: | 07/31/1980 |
| From: | Widoff M THREE MILE ISLAND ALERT, WIDOFF, REAGER, SELKOWITZ & ADLER |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19330C125 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8008070596 | |
| Download: ML19330C124 (17) | |
Text
.
@ A 9
$ usno -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 5 4 L NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
(
~
Off',cscf t!BW BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAR UM y,,
g n
-. 9/
In the Matter of )
) .
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289 ,
) (Restart) _;
(Three Mile Island Nuclear ) ]
Station, Unit No.1) ) 2 i
.i 5
5 TMIA'S RESPONSE TO LICENSEE'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS On July 16, 1980, Licensee filed its Motion For Sanctions Against TMIA.
This Mction alleges that TMIA has not responded to Licensee's interrogatories.
However, after icoking past Licensee's sweeping allegations and analysing its basis, it becomes evident that Licensee's Motion is without merit and was sub-mitted only to harass TMIA.
The "first glaring error of emission" that Licensee cites involves TMIA's failure to answer interrogatories concerning TMI-2. TMIA has responded repeatedly
~ _ _ _ _ _
that because of temporal and financial restraints, it has had to limit the scope cf its search to Unit 1. This was a truthful response en May 6 and June 30 and remains truthful today . *
- TMIA filed a supplement response on July 26, 1980, stating that it will rely, I for illustrative purposes, upon NRC's Office of Inspection and Enforcement Report 50-320/79-10, 8 o o 8 o 7,0
$ SS# 'l l
S */
.N.
ThEA will not rely on negligent conduct at TMI-2 in presenting its case on the TMI-l restart. However, it is manifestly unreasonable to conclude a,fiori that the entire contention should be dismissed. Also, to clear up any confusion, TMIA's revision of Contention 5 deletes any specific reference to Unit 2.
Licensee next alleges that TMIA has not provided Licensee with information
" unique" to TMIA's allegations cf avoiding shutting Unit No.1 down to perform necessary maintenance and piling work orders up until refueling. Here, if a o problem exists, it is not in TMIA's responses to Licensee's interrogatories but, rather, it is in the specificity of Contention 5. The " heart" of Contention 5 is not i
as Licensee characterizes it, "a series of distinct allegations concerning Licensee's maintenance practices" (Licensee's Motion, pg.1) . The " heart" cf Contention 5 is that Licensee has pursued a course cf maintenance conduct inimical to the health and safety of the public.
Of foremost importance is Licensee's practice cf deferring maintenance and repair beyond the point established by its own precedures. To this end, TMIA's responses have provided adequate notice to Licensee of what it will rely upon; namely, the work requests that were deferred, regardless of the reason why, beyond th, point established by its own precedures. Once again, TMIA's revisien and further specification cf Contention 5 clarifies TMIA's pcsition en this point.
Likewise, Licensee contends _that "'DAIMa_s not cited even one specific instance supporting its allegations" (Licensee's Motion, pg. 9) . Licensee later clarifies this allegation by drawing an untenable distinction between " instances"
s and "decuments." Quite simply, each work request cited by TMIA is a document that represents an " instance" where Licensee deferred maintenance and repair beyond the point established by its own procedures. It is wholly unreasonable to l dismiss Contention 5 because Licensee has drawn an unrealistic distinction between
" Instances" and " documents ." ~
TMIA has put Licensee on notice er to what TMIA will rely upon in proving Contention 5. TMIA shculd not be punished for Licensee's distorted analysis cf Contention 5. It should be obvious to the Licensee that the " instances" are reflected in the "decuments" and the " documents" represent and describe the " instances."
TMIA, furthermore, has identified (in Attachment A to installments 1 and 2) the specific information contained in the documents which support its contention.
Licensee additionally accuses TMIA of submitting " irrelevant" information in response to its interrogatories. Licensee states that 250 of the 1100 work requests (W.R.) submitted by TMIA failed to meet TMIA's own criteria.
First, it was made abundantly clear in TMIA's responses that TMIA was relying on Licensee's definition of " essential" maintenance in the form cf its "Pricrity System." The " Priority System" incorpcrates a time frame for when maintenance should be performed. For example, in a letter from Daniel Shev11n dated November 30, 1979, concerning a Priority 1 stated "(m)aintenance personnel will be expected to work immeciately and the procedure (if necessary) will be '
hand carried or telephoned through the approval circuit." By the Ccmpany's own criterien, immediate attention to these maintenance problems is required. Because i
I - , - - . . _ . . .. , - _ . - ._- -_ _--.
TMIA has (for practical r04 sons) primarily limited its search to items deferred "approximately one year" is no reason to preclude other obvious examples of deferred maintenance from consideration.
However,'TMIA has analysed the "250" work requests cited by Licensee as obviously irrelevant and found that the vast majority of the "250" are in fact' relevant and do meet the approximately one year criteria.
102 of the 250 work requests cited by Licensee were provided by TMIA in Attachment D of its second installment of information. In this response, TMIA gave no indication that the work requests provided in Attachment D should be analysed in the same way as the other work requests. TMIA explicitly stated that these work requests resulted from its search of the actual maintenance log. All work requests listed in Attachment D represent work requests that were neither can-celed nor completed according to the maintenance log. In other words, these work requests were still "open" in the maintenance log.
Alt'.ough
- TMIA evaluated as many work requests as possible in the extremely short period of time allowed by Licensee,
- TMIA still doesn't know if the work requests or the maintenance log are correct. If the work requests are correct, many will not represent " deferred maintenance," bt.- if the maintenance log is
~
correct, all will have been "deferree maintenance." However, one thing is abundantly clear, Licensee was put on notice that there are serious inconsistencies
- TMIA requested 541 work requests on May 23, 1980. Licensee provided only 126 by June 27, 1980.
l
6 between the actual maintenance log and the work requests. (Attachment A-1 con-tains the list of these 102 work request numbers.)
Attachment A-2 represents other work requests cited by Licensee as being irrelevant. At first glance, these work requests appear to have been completed within one year. However, the work had not been completed within one year from the time the problem was first identified. For example, Licensee cited W.R. 25453.
Although TMIA readily admits that 25453 was originated on 9/30/78 and work per-formed on 10/22/78, TMIA believes 25453 represents " deferred maintenance." The problem was first identified on 9/26/77 in W.R. 21362. Vi.R. 21362 was canceled because of W.R. 25453. Therefore, one must " tack" W.R. 21362 and W.R. 25453 to determine how long it took to correct this particular problem. In this case, the problem was identified on 9/26/77 and work was not performed until 10/22/78.
Attachment A-3 lists other work requests cited by Licensee as extranecus.
This list contains those work requests that although work may have. been pedormed within one year, the Quality Control Department did not sign the work request until a year after the date cf origination. For example, W.R.17741 w'as a Priority 1 item originated on 11/9/76, and work was pedormed on 5/2/77. However, Quality Control did not sign off until 2/1/79.
Attachment A-4 represents still other work requests that were never tested, returned to normal use or signed cff within one year frem the date cf originatien.
Attachment A-5 represents the remaining work requests that TMIA will rely upon which are not irrelevant. The attachment contains an explanatien cf why they were included in TMIA's answer.
.~ .
TMIA acknowledges that the following work requests have been erronecusly included in its responses: col 78, 23825,19431, 20423, 21335, 24248, 24687, C0070, 25552, 21132, C0426 and 20574'.
It is evident that niIA has, in good faith, responded to Licensee's interroga-tories, that they were complete as of the date they were submitted, and that Licensee has failed to attempt a good faith analysis of TMIA's responses.
TMIA's responses have put Licensee on notice as to each fact supporting its allegations. This is even more clearly true now that Contentien 5 has been revised to reflect specific evidence obtained through discovery -- all cf which Licensae has had identified and described in LIIA's responses. To the extent Licensee finds a particular item to be irrelevant or lacking in probative value, it has a vehicle for objecting to its introduction into the record. But it would be manifestly unfair and inappropriate to require TMIA, at this stage cf the proceedings, to analyze and defend each piece cf evidence identificd as supportive of its contention, or face dismissal cf its contention. The Board, through its Orders, did not place such an unreasonable burden on TMIA. The Board has ordered that TMIA provide "information relied upon by niIA in support of" its allegaticns (Board Order cf April 11,1980, pg. 2) . TMIA submits that it has, through Installments 1 and 2, fulfilled this requirement.
-_ ni!A fully intends to rely on the large numbers cf dccuments identified and on the information contained therein. While Licensee apparently finds it difficult
- to believe that TMIA has such an intention, it must be remembered that anything 6-
short of such a massive presentation might be inadequate to sustain nIIA's contention -- given the enormous number of maintenance tasks that are necessary to be performed at a nuclear power plant and the large number cf people required to perform them.
If Licensee finds it difficult to deal with the large number cf documents iden-tified, it should be cognizant cf how correspondingly more difficult it has been for niiA to organize, review and identify the material. Nevertheless, TMIA believes the vast majority of the material will be found by the Board to be highly relevant to Contention 5, and that the Board will find that the documents speak eloquently --
in and of themselves - to the inadequate, inconsistent and improper maintenance program at 31I.
Licensee's complaints about TMIA's response to Interrogatory 5-6 are like-wise unjustified. Licensee states that 43 cf the 155 empicyees listed " worked in areas which almost certainly do not involve maintenance activities, e.g. typists and stockkeepers" (emphasis added, pg.16 and 17) .
In James Bowman's deposition cf February 22, 1980, he admitted, on page 58, that the warehouse did not always have supplies for maintenance. Stockkeepers worxing excessive hours may have contributed to this problem. Overworked typists may not route maintenance paperwork as promptly as they shculd. However, this is not the time or place to argue the quality of n!IA's evidence -- only as to whether it has been adequately noticed to Licensee.
n1IA has laboricusly traced the overtims~cf each cf the 155 hcurly empicyees for 78 weeks. Attachment G cf D1IA's second installment cf information represents 1
)
what TMIA believes to be a complete answer to Licensee's interregatory. If Licensee does not believe that 43 people named on the list have worked excessive overtime, it may express that opinion at the hearing. It is wholly unreasonable, however, to dismiss TMIA's Contention 5 because the Licensee does not agree with TMIA's proof of its allegations.
Finally., TMIA cannot help but question Licensee's efforts in analysing TMIA's responses. Licensee states at page 19 of Motion that TMIA has " incorporated by reference entire documents." Licensee cites as an example TMIA's response that it "will rely on Quality Control Surveillance Reports." However, Licensee failed to quote the next sentence: " A summary is included in Attachment E." Attachment E contains a precise summary cf each Quality Control Surveillance Report that TMIA will rely upon. A copy of one page is included at Attachment B. Likewise, TMIA did not even mention a "NSSS contract."
In the final analysis, Licensee's Motion is devoid cf merit. Licensee's only purpose in submitting this Motion was to harass TMIA so as to divert its precious few rescurces from preparing for trial. Therefore, TMIA reques*as that the Board deny Licensee's motion. . . _ _
Respectfully submitted, WIDO, , REAGER, SELKOWITZ & ADLER, P.C.
By: / } [ /
Mark P . Widoff // b
. . O . B ox 1547 Harrisburg, PA 17105 (717) 763-1383 Dated: July 31,1980
-8' .__
l CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing document, TMIA's Response To Licensee's Motion For Sanctions, 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 Board Panel U.S . Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Walter H. Jordan 881 West Outer Drive Cak Ridge, TN 37830 Dr. Linda W. Little 5000 Hermitage Drive Raleigh, NC 27612 George F . Trowbridge, Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006 Docketing and Service Section U .S . Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Executive Legal Director U.S . Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 i \ b~
J A ('
Nfark P . Widoff' V L Dated: July 31,1980
ATTACHMENT A-1 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 5/14/77 7/2/77 199891 3A 20118- 3A 5/19/77 6/28/77 20376 1D 6/15/77 8/21/77 20404 2A 6/18/77 10/11/77 20461 2A 6/24/77 7/3/77
, 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 8/16/7, 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 40531 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 02729 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 23138 1D 3/13/78 4/20/78 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 LA 4/28/78 4/29/78 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 2A 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 Oricinated Completed 24859 2A 8/9/78 8/10/78 24902 1A 8/8/78 8/19/78 25499 1D 10/5/78 2/28/79 3/13/79 25646 1A 10/15/78 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 2575 1A 11/16/78 8/24/79 25S79 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 24838 2A 8/5/78 8/11/78 25658 1A 10/16/78 3/11/79 25792 1D 10/26/78 3/13/79 T269 2 '
3790 2 7/25/74 -
8/26[74 4320 8/19/74 2/11/75 1A 9/12/74 4826 2A 11/11/74 5474 10/5/74 10/8/74 1A 11/10/74 5564 2A 11/20/74 5944 11/13/74 11/16/74 1A 12/3/74 75493 1A 12/3/74 7875 2/25/75 2/28/75 2A 3/14/75 11267 2A 6/24/75 11540 9/10/75 11/11/75 3A 9/25/75 11795 N 2A 10/12/75 12435 3A 10/L3/75 13549 3/1/78 N 3D 1/19/76 14215 N 1D 2/29/76 15272 3A 4/22/76 15382 5/5/76 N 1A 5/13/76 15543 2A 5/13/76 15672 5/23/76 6/9/76 2A 6/2/76 15725 3A 12/17/76 16146 5/26/76 N 3A 7/9/76 16216 N 30 7/18/76 16639 N 3A 9/2/76 17028 CA 1A 9/24/76
,17453 2A 8/8/77 17439 10/22/76 10/28/76 2A 10/20/76 179271 3A 11/3/76 18538 11/30/76 ,
12/5/76 ID 1/6/77 18744 2A 4/26/77 18950 1/29/77 2/8/77 3A 1/24/77 2/18/77
Attachment A-2 19138 24357 24371 21024 25869 25236 19093 23109 22144 25236 25651 24772 25509 C0372 C0689 23786 C0516 25261 23897 C0050 25340 C0797 17928 21636 23799 25225 25112 24917 C0773 24319 C0151 25453 25053 25651 20365 ,
- TMIA realizes that not all work requests in this grcup exceed one year even when
" tacked" to other work requests. However, all of the work requests listed above represent instances where Licensee " tacked" work requests. TMIA believes that this precedure, in and of itself, endangers the health and safety of the public.
e-- .... --- _.. .
ee a-e--ww=- e- - --
S
W N.
Attachment A-3 17741 21440 23148 23199*
18032 21493 20856 23203*
18033 21677 22494 23206*
20960 21835 17998 23208*
21384 25563 22181 23652*
21432
- Although these work requests have not exceeded "one year", the QC was deferred approximately six to eight months. ,
1
Attachment A-4 23031 11346 21532 21865 20304 23236 22844 15300 20837 20267 22841 19394 20949 20811 I
ATTACHMENT A-5 The folicwing work request's completion date exceeded one year from origination on the , Corrective Maintenance Component History computer summary: 22183 23845 20547 19845 19535 23960 22745 23840
.. 23769 21480.
The following work requests were deferred "approximately" one year:
19938 C0138 22602 25634
= 24198 24882 17075 17172 16493 11080 20856 19647 21923 23014 20616 17198 17075 22305 22157.
The following work recuests, although are number 3 priority items, TMIA still believes represent " deferred maintenance":
13165 20371 19418 20042 16837 19719 20550 15275 19418
. 03248 21995 21992 16914 19831 20100.
The following work requests are extraordinary items which TMIA Believes are relevant for the reasons given:
C0858- was cancelled on 7/5/79 and the work was performed 11/20/79.
22854- does not correspond in any way to the ccmputer, summary.
C2163- was "old mistreated" and rarely received maintence.
C0622 e 18911 ~3955ptk8@@ NEE 5n"?5kn#8EN$gt!tgggtreceivedmore C0965- there was no explanation for why it was cancelled 21482(b) 21060 15349- were completed before origination.
20040 18252- was labeled as a 4 oriority on the computer summary but is a 2 priority item that is " deferred".
25673- was tested and returned to service before the work was cerformed.
1 19865- was a 2 priority item completed within 2 months 20423 C0135- represents inconsistent application in fixing 22203 telephones; to wit, it took longer to fix one emergency reactor building telephone than it did to fix numerous phones throughout the plant.
9
- w. .. .
=-4se---. ,,
i t
(
1
- . , ~ . . _ . . . . . . ~ .
u m i act or durveillance Coment s .
79 Catalytic 2/16/79 to '
tillification of Feahater Illock Valves Operators. Puquse 3/20/79 of work request ".. . to do all necessary urxlifications to nake . g
. valves shut within 30' seconds of main stean line /
rupture detecticxi." " Backup feedwater isolation capability nust le providal."
~19-63 Catalytic 2/20/79 to IC-I'l(C) tbtor ins [ections. '
3/09M9 79-60 Catalytic 2/18M 9 to IC-P-1 (D) Instect 1,2,3 seals.
3/12/79 79-36 Catalytic 3/07/79 leactor Coolant; reinstallation of vent valve (CO 444) .
Under the direction of B & W's itxymr IIollendes. Very hazardous and technical.
79-34 } Catalytic 2/26/79 ,
Ftel llandling; replacenent of ten coaxluctor cables (24889) .
Work done by Catalytic under Sterns-Ib9ers representative.78-224 ' Catalytic ll/16M8 .
NI-E-1 A air test per work request 25279. >
78-211 Catalytic H 11/13/78 Tested valves in 'Ibrbine Steam Chest. H 70-210 Catalytic O
11/14M 8 to IC-V-6B Snubber seal for IC-P-1(8) replaced uitler the 11/15/18 supervision of Paul ebnroe representative. h 78-117 Catalytic S/lSM 8 to H IC-P-2A Diergency sitisation manually tripped results in w S/16/78 (1) oil drain line pltxjged; (2) psips, rotating in wrong direction; and, (3) flow detectors wired incorrectly.
78-79 Catalytic 4/03/78 to IC-P-1(C) Replacenent of connectors. "...only job 4/07/78 cbserved by this inspector during 1978 outage where a (neat) notebook was naintained, a coupliment to these craftsmen."
78-53 Catalytic 3/29M 8 to 4/10/78 IC-P-1 (C) notor inspection; work done without holding at 0 C holdpoints. "tbt satisfied with Allis-cialner's representative."
.