ML19347A673
| ML19347A673 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 09/24/1980 |
| From: | Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | THREE MILE ISLAND ALERT |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8009300003 | |
| Download: ML19347A673 (4) | |
Text
/'
Bd 9/24/80 to A
O UNITED STATES OF AMERICA g
NUCLEAR REGULA'IORY COMMISSION b
USNFC 9
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD N>
c Ivan W. Smith, Chairman fram's b
f, Dr. Walter H. Jordan N
Dr. Linda W.
Little In the Matter of
)
)
Docket No. 50-289 SP METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
(Restart)
)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON TMIA CONTENTION 5 (September 24, 1980)
On September 23, 1980 counsel for Three Mile Island Alert (TMIA), counsel for the licensee, counsel for the NRC staff and the chairman participated in a telephone conference call to consider TMIA's filings of September 19 /
1 relating to its affirmative case on TMIA Contention 5 (deferral of safety-related maintenance at TMI-1).
The board rules that TMIA's stated plan to offer into
~
evidence all 1100 work orders underlying the work order summaries (TMIA Exhibits 1-7) is not realistic because the
'-1/
Trial.Brief; TMIA Exhibits 1 through 7 (summaries of work orders); Direct Testimony of Dennis J. Bonnetti (in outline form); and letter Adler to Smith requesting subpoenas, September 19, 1930.
DGoh So/
8000300 o o y C
,. board would not and could not on its own review the 1100 work orders on TMI-l maintenance and determine without explanatory testimony if a pattern of deferred maintenance inconsistent with safety prevails.
The chairman explained that, even if the board were to undertake such a task, the evidence upon which any conclusion would be based could not be clearly known to the litigants, and such a conclusion would not be reviewable by the Commission and the courts.
Even if all 1100 work orders were to be literally accepted as exhibits and made a part of the evidentiary record, those specific work orders upon which a conclusion as to the existence of a pattern, and the reasons for the conclusion, would not easily be identified for confrontation by parties and for review.
The effect of TMIA's plan would be to place the board in the role of serving as its own expert witness.
but without any opportunity for the parties to explore.
thoroughly the bases for the board's conclusions..
.The work ordors supporting TMIA's summaries are not in TMIA's possession; they were examined but not copied at licensee's reading room.
TMIA's plan to offer the summaries into evidence upon proper qualification by TMIA's witness Bonnetti is satisfactory.
It is licensee's responsibility eitume to concede the accuracy of the summaries based upon a comparison with the work orders or a statistically significant
a. sampling of them, or to inform TMIA, the board and other parties as soon as possible why licensee challenges the accuracy of the summaries.
The NRC staff will follow a similar course or depend upon licensee's appraisal of TMIA's summaries.
All affected parties agreed to this procedure.
The parties agree with the board's order that by October 3 TMIA will designate fifty work orders, five each relating to 2/
ten Metropolitan Edison employees.-
These employees will be examined by the parties on the subject matter of the work orders.
If, at the completion of the examinations. the board determines that additional work orders and similar evidence on the issue of a pattern of deferred safety-related maintenance is necessary for a reliable record, an appropriate expansion of TMIA's affirmative case will be permitted.
In addition, TMIA will designate, by October 3, specific work orders to be produced by licensee, which in TMIA's view, directly prove (as compared to demonstrating a pattern) deferred safety-related maintenance at TMI-1 detrimental to the public health and safety.
Based upon TMIA's trial brief and other infor-mation made available to the board by TMIA, we expect that there not be many of the latter category work orders.
Licensee 1
-2/
Messrs. McGarry, Leakway, Meck, Donahey, Eisenhour, Kintner, Knoche, Ross, Reismiller and Good,
l i
.. will serve upon the board and the parties, on behalf of TMIA, the work orders designated by TMIA.
Also by October 3, TMIA will serve the verbatim written direct testimony of Dennis J.
Bonnetti.
TMIA will designate as soon as possible to licensee the sequence in which it intends to examine licensee's employees.
The parties are directed to cooperate so that licensee's employees may appear for testimony without unnecessary disruptions in their work.
Counsel for licensee agreed to accept service of subpoenas of licensee's employees at the office of counsel's law firm.
Parties are not required to file cross-examination plans or further trial briefs on this phase of the hearing on TMIA's Contention 5.
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD M
Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Bethesda, Maryland September 24, 1980