ML20073J138

Comments on Gpu Vs B&W Trial Record.Two Addl Months Required to Complete Review.Cursory Review Reveals New & Significant Items in Record Which Could Impact Restart.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20073J138
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	04/18/1983
From:	Doroshow J THREE MILE ISLAND ALERT
To:
References
NUDOCS 8304190202
Download: ML20073J138 (12)

Text

- n ., . .

-m.

p 't UNIT 8D STATES OF AMERICA N

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISg'X 00,hh:

BEFORE THE COMMISSION .tg

• g {\99 \

n In the Matter of ) ,

)

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289

)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear )

-Station, Unit 1). )

TMIA'S COMMENTS ON B&W TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS In mid-March, 1983, TMIA received notification that the Commission had " decided to permit" the parties to comment on the staff's analysis of the B&W trial record, "not later than 15 days af ter service of the staf f's analysis." TMIA can not at this time' provide the Commission with substantive comments on _ the staf f 's analysis of the trial record. The comments submitted herein are merely meant to notify the Commission of TMIA's strenuous objections to the process by which the Commission is handling the B&W trial record review, including its reliance on the staff report to deter-mine the record's impact on restart issues, and the' failure to provide the parties with sufficient time to review the record and comment, or even provide them with access to the complete trial record and other relevant evidence developed in the course of litigation. TMIA hereby requests at least another two months to complete its re view, and requests that all trial exhibits and depositions b2 made available to the intervenors, m

A KOO 89 C PDR x

9 I. The Review Process TMIA objects to the prohibitive conditions which the Commission has imposed on the intervenors in their attempt

-to exercise their legal right to provide ~ comments to the

-Commission on the B&W trial record,.after a party to the restart-proceedings has already done so. The_-intervenors have:been-denied access to'the entire trial record which the NRC staf f has already' reviewed. No exhibits have been provided to the intervening parties, or to the public docu-

~

ment rooms containing the trial transcripts. . Obvio us ly , the trial exhibits are independently significant and an integral part of the record. Moreover, it is practically impossible to extract anything substantive from the trial transcript without an ability to read and reference the exhibits being discussed.

In addition, given that the trial was settled before B&W could present most of its direct case, it is simply unreasonable to conclude, as did the staff at the April 6 staff briefing, (Transcript at pp. 32-33), that the record as it stands contains all the significant evidence developed

'during the course of litigation which could support B&W's position at trial, let alone as such evidence could impact

on-restart issues with which the Commission is concerned.

! If the Commissioners are sincerely interested in obtaining i

full knowledge of all relevant evidence which could impact on either the NRC's understanding of the accident or restart

, issues, it is incumbent upon the Commissioners to insure A

.t.

that all parties have access to at least the additional B&W

+

exhibits and depositions which are not part of the record.

Further, intervenors are under a tremendous handicap in accomplishing this review task by not having any of these materials in their possession, forced to rely upon the limited access provided by theLpublic document room, located in Harrisburg in the State Library, open only on weekdays from 9 to 5. Even in those instances where an intervenor can arrange to get to the PDR at those inconve nie nt times, the transcripts themselves must be shared with other indivi-duals reading the same mater ial. Clearly, if the Commission ref uses to provide the parties with copies of these docu-

. ments, it nas a responsibilityoto alleviate the burden by providing them with a' reasonable period of time to review to .

f record.

The Staff.has testified that it took them at least 10 weeks to read the record. Therefore, the intervenors should be granted . at least that amount of time, plus an additional several weeks to adjust for the limited access they have to it. TMIA is quite certain that if given sufficient time and access to the materials, the interve-nors' comments with regard to restart issues will be signifi-cantly more usef ul to the Commissioners than the Staff's comments.

With regard to the staf f review itself and the April 6, 1983 staf f briefing, TMIA can only wonder whether the Commis-sion has any real desire to learn the true impact of the trial record. As appropriately put by Congressman Morris K.

w,

n_ , -,.

. .d -

'Udall, in his April 13, 1983 letter to the Chairman, "[n]ot.

only . was the staf f a par ty to the- proceeding, but the indivi-duals who conducted the review had themselves participated in previous' investigations. Prior to the review, the staff

~ had a ' well-established. position on TMI-l restart and the

- reviewers had in the course of previous investigations assumed positions on certain of the key issues addressed at the trial." Moreover, the staff testimony to the Commis-sioners during the April 6 meeting violated the most f unda-mental precepts of administrative due process, i.e., that testimony be presented only in the context of a f ull adjudi-catory hearing with an opportunity for cross examination by all parties. TMIA reiterates:the identical due process objections made in January 13, 1982 comments on a similar December 21, 1981 s'.aff briefing concerning information flow problems during the accident.

During this most recent April 6 meeting, however, the Commission went a step further and took testimony from licensee's. President, Robert'C. Arnold, who made substantive comments on" issues such as the accident's sequence of event L

report. (Transcript pp. 67-68). This is a clear violation l- of the intervenors' due process rights, and has left TMIA with serious doubts as to whether the Commission or the e

General Counsel is even cognizant of the fact that there are other parties in the restart proceedings besides the licensee and the NRC staf f.

t-i i

b -N

- '" m,_ , _.

II. Substantive Matters .

A mere cursory review of the the_ staf f report and a

' limited' amount of trial transcript reveals that the staff has no appreciation of the restart issues or of the vast -

amount'of evidence gathered during the restart hearings on.a myriad of issues, or an ability to detect conflicts in testi-mony between the trial and " restart" records. In its brief

, review so far, TMIA has already spotted what appears to be significant new information. in the trial transcripts with regard to maintenance issues, which TMIA litigated during the hearings. However, most of this new information relates to exhibits which TMIA does not have.

For example, Exhibit 360, identifed on p.1657 of the trial transcript as "a transcript ... of an interview by Mr.

Keaton ' [ who headed an internal GPU. accident inves tigation ]

... with Gary Miller, station superintendent at Unit-2,"

contains statements by Miller concerning inadequate mainten-ance staffing, and discussions of maintenance budget cuts which impact on safety. Miller states in this interview,

"[ w]e just can't do it with the size of this plant. Y$u were' just kidding yourself. You were going to develop more

, work requests than' you were going to do and at the same time 1

we were cutting the contractor out and we were trying to cut some of the budget down," and, "[t]he thing was really squeezing us before the accident. Squeezing me in the elimination of the contract." (Transcript at 1658, 1662-3).

The safety consequences of the proposed 1979 mainten-x

a _u _m_, -

ance budget cut-was a significant aspect of TMIA Contention

5. At the restart hearings, testimony was elicited from GPU witnesses on dramatic cuts proposed in the maintenance budget, including cuts for outside contractors, correcti ve maintenance work, and preventive maintenance work, (See, Tr. at 4052 et seq.). While Gary Miller as Station Super-intendent was in a unique position to' appreciate the safety implications of maintenance budget cuts and inadequate maintenance staffing, which the licensee has always maintained did not impact on safety, he never testified at -

the restart hearings on this issue. Also, the trial deposi-tion'of Daniel Shovlir, Manager of Maiot.enance, which T.VIA has never seen but is discussed at p. 1660 of the trial transcript, reveals plans for maintenance budget cuts from late 1977 through 1979. Cleatly, this is atl significan'.

new iaformation.

Also, highly significant to TMIA's issues ~is Exhibit 32, which TMIA has never seen but is described at p. 1666 as an organizational' study done in the summer and fall of 1979 by a Mr. Glickman, submitted to GPU President Herman Dieckamp. This study apparently contains a section called

" Station Maintenance Effectiveness," which reports that

" maintenance is lacking in advance planning, is done on an ad hoc basis. No preventive maintenance done by Met Ed, not enough people to do it, therefore all maintenance is done as

' cor rec t i ng wo r k . ' . . . Maintenance is the weakest area on site. " "Only repetetive comments [were] reflected (in this

-.. . - . - . - a

. . . . . . ~ . - , .

.~ - -

study)." (Transcript at p. 1673). It is obvious that this document could be - highly probative not only of the company's actual maintenance performance, but of whether management

-responded-with proper steps to correct these recognized problems .

Similarly, at p. 1688 et seg of the trial transcripts is a discussion of a 1978 " management audit," Exhibit 843.

TMIA has been able to briefly. review a copy of this audit, and among the findings bearing directly on management competence and integrity issees are the following:

"[S ]tatements were made to the effect that an audit like this is perfomed to give the personnel at TMI the feeling.

that " manage me nt is concerned", only to eventually

" whitewash" the report in the end;" "Most supervisors feel we do not hold our peole accountable, which in turn creates a " buck-passing" atmosphere and allows weak supervision to continue to perform in such a fashion." The study contains a number of significant findings charging management with unsatisfactory and demoralizing performance, and since neither this study nor any prior management audit was revealed during the restart hearings, no findings were made i

by the Licensing Board as to whether performance has improved.

Further, the study dealt with maintenance and overtime issues, both of which were litigated by TMIA during the

' restart hearings and virtually dismissed by the Licensing l

Board as important issues. The study reveals that "ove r time l

. - _ - _ ~ _-

J compensation policy _and the extended hours, by far, have the greatest negative impact on morale. It is becoming an increasingly ~ serious problem, especially with the upcoming refueling and start-up activities." To someone familiar with the restart record, these findings are' highly significant, in light of the fact that the Licensing Board specifically ordered the Licensee and the Staf f to submit additional testimony _during the-hearings on the auditabiltiy-of safety-related maintenance practices.during the year 1978, witt. which they found little fault. Yet this managenent study never came to light until the trial.

In addition, with regard to the 1979 cheating episode invciving VV and 0, Judge Richard Owen's comments at p. 1742 are themselves quite revealing, where he states, "the trier of fact . . could draw the conclusion that there was a coverup of incompetence at the supervisory level here which might very well have had an ef fect upon the quality of operations in the control room on the day of the accident, III. Conclusion Th us , it takes very little in-depth review of this record to see that there are a number of new and significant items in the trial record which could impact on restart iss ues . It serves no ones purpose other than the licensee's to prevent the intervenors from making proper analysis of

c. :k

_. 9 _

this record. TMIA will continue its review of the record available to it, and whether or not an appropriate time extenstion is granted, will attempt to provide the Commission with additional comments when its review is complete.

Respectf ully submitted, April 18, 1983 bj ' crwryv?- CAU'- M L Wise Bradford J anne Doroshow Tf4 f A

1 O ,

liNITlD STATES OF AMF.RICA NUCl. EAR REGIII.ATORY C03DilSS ION p ri.n,E li ~

In the Matter of )

) .g3 reR 18 P259 METROPI,ITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289

) , . . .

(Three Mile Island Nuclear ) a< ai a ELP "

Station, Unit 1) "' W' H

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I lereby certify that c opies of the attached Comments on BW trial transcript dated April 18, 1983 were served this 18th day of Aorti, 1983, by deposit in the U.S. Mai1, first class, postage prepaid, or hand delivered. to those on the attached malling list.

}

}

'fXR r eanne n. , r o.d . ~

C

r-4 0 .

VAILING LIST e

George F. Trowbridge, Esq. Judge Christine Kohl Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge ASLAB 1800 M Street, N.N. U.S. Nuclea r Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20036 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Counsel for NRC Staff Of fice of Executive Legal Director Jordan D. Cunningham, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Fox, Farr & Cunningham Washington, D.C. 20555 2320 North Second Street Harrisburg. PA 17110 Ms. Mar jorin M. Aamod t R.D. 5 Administ rative Judge Coatesville, PA 19320 Walter H. Jordan Atomic Safety & Licensing Administrative Judge Board Ivan W. Smith 881 West Guter Drive Chairman, Atomic Safety and Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Administrative Juage Washington, D.C. ?0555 Linda W. Little Atomic Safety & Licensing Gail Phelps Board TMI PIRc 5000 Hermit ano Drive 1017 Macla y St. . Haleigh, N.C. 27612 Harrisburg, PA 17102 Michael F. McBride, Esq.

Ellyn P. Weiss, Esq. LeBoeuf , Lamb. Leiby & MacRae Harmon & Weiss suite 1100 1725 Eye St., N .W . Suite 506 1333 New Hampshire Ave., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006 Washington, D.C. 20036 Mr. Steven C. Sholly David E. Cole, Esq.

Union of Concerned Scientists Smith & Smith, P.C.

1725 Eye St., N.W. Suite 601 2931 North Front St.

Washington, D.C. 20006 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Dr. Judy H. Johnsrud Judge John Buck Dr. Chauncey Kepford ASLAB Environmental Coalition on U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Power Commission 433 Orlando Ave. Washington, D.C. 20555 State College, PA 16801 Administrative Judge Docketing and Service Branch Gary L. Milho11in U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4412 Greenwich Parkway, NF Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, DC 20007 Judge Ga ry Edles , Chairman At omic Safet y & Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclea r Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 x

r a

r Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman U.S. Nucicar Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Victor Gilinsky, Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 John F. Ahearne, Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Corranission Washington, D.C. 20555 Thomas M. Roberts, Coramissione r U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20i35 Jamen K. Asselstine, Comaissioacr 1).S. Nuclear Re ;ulatary Connis sion Wa ;hiunt ac D.C. 20555 s . . .