ML20093L415
| ML20093L415 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/17/1984 |
| From: | Bernabei L, Doroshow J CHRISTIC INSTITUTE, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT, THREE MILE ISLAND ALERT |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#484-569 SP, NUDOCS 8410180571 | |
| Download: ML20093L415 (7) | |
Text
-
.)
TL ATED CORRECP0:iDENCI UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 0
~ USNRL
'84 00118 M N In the Matter of
)
)
OF'EU C#XI METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
'd'5 0- 2 8 9' S P' F imG A S f
)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Docket No.
Station, Unit No. 1)
(Restart - Management Phase)
)
)
THREE MILE ISLAND ALERT'S RESPONSE TO LICENSEE'S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA OF WILLIAM LOWE On October 12, 1984, Chairman Ivan Smith of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Licensing Board") signed a subpoena and sub-poena duces tecum for William Lowe whom licensee has proposed as a witness. Mr. Lowe was served on the afternoon of Friday, October 12, 1984 for a deposition to begin on October 19, 1984.
Three Mile Island Alert ("TMI A"), at the time.of applying for a subpoena for Mr. Lowe, stated that it proposed to depose Mr. Lowe concerning matters related to the Dieckamp mailgram issue.
Licensee in its announcement of Mr. Lowe as a witness stated no more than Mr. Lowe would testify that he, as a licensee was the person who recognized the significance of consultant, 1979.
the pressure spike in the late evening of March 29, Those of Mr. Lowe's documents made available in the Document Room relate largely to his calculations and analysis on the 1979 to determine whether the spike indicated evening of March 29, the production or combustion of hydrogen at 1:50 p.m. on March Licensee has made no further supplementation of its l
28, 1979.
)
response to indicate the nature and substance of Mr. Lowe's 8410180571 841017 g3d3 PDR ADOCK 05000289 testimony.
G PDR
'i 42-TMIA,~through its examination of Mr. Lowe's documents
~and'through depositions of Richard Bensel-and James Moore largely discovered the outlines' of itc. Lowe's testimony regarding his
-analysis of the spike on the' evening of March'29, 1979.
<0n October 11, 1984, for'the first time,.TMIA learned that i
licensee intended to call two additional witnesses, Dr. Zebrowski
.and Mr. VanWhitbeck. Both proposed witnesses worked separately.
from Mr. Lowe on different projects during the period beginning on March 29.
Dr.-Zebrowski worked on.the National Safety Analysis Center DNSAC")~ analysis of the accident.
Mr. VanWhitbeck worked, according to depo'sition testimony taken in the course of this proceeding, on the Task Force set up by'Mr. Dieckamp l
the early morning of March 29, 1979,- to investigate the accident.
Neither, to TMIA's knowledge, worked with Mr. Lowe on his cal-culations 'and analysis on the evening of March 29.-
Both wit -
nesses are alleged to know something about the technical personnel's state of knowledge and Mr. Dieckamp's state of mind.
TMIA therefore seeks to depose Mr. Lowe'concerning his analysis and his relationship or communication with these two additional witnesses.
Certainly if it is not Mr. Lowe but others who realized the significance of the pressure spike, or if others have information -different from Mr. Lowe's about the state of knowledge of Mr. Dieckamp and licensee, TMIA is entitled to test Mr. Lowe's relationohip with these other witnesses and determine how and why his knowledge or information differs from theirs.
Similarly, TMIA is entitled to learn what communications existed between Mr. Lowe and the two additional witnesses.
Moreover, newly-discovered evidence requires'the deposition of Mr. Lowe. Mr. Abramovici, one of the group of five GPU Service Corporation engineers sent to the TMI site on March 28,
~
g 3
f,.
3 4 '.
6
!1979 was-deposed on Monday, October 15, 1984'at:Harrisburg..
t..
.He testified that he was present at a meeting on the afternoon-
~
of? Thursday, March' 29,'1979,+at which George Kunder discussed
~
his concern that the reactor building contained' hydrogen above,
- the design-limit.
Present at the meeting was Richard Wilson, the GPUSC. official who headed.the Task Force set up by Mr.
'Dieckamp on the morning.of March 29,.1979 based on information-given Mr. Dieckamp by.Mr. Arnold.on March 28..Also'present at the_ meeting was Mr. Lowe, who was retained:by licensee as,
'a consultant the previous day..Mr.,Dieckam.
1so was present at the site in order to. assist in a s'te tour for a' Congressional i
delegation.
Apparently site personnel, as well as Mr. Lowe, discussed at that meeting the production of hydrogen and the option of putting into operation the hydrogen recombiner.
In addition, Mr. Wilson is' reported to have said at this meeting ~that licensee assumed that-the core was seriously damaged.
TMIA believes it has the right to depose Mr.: Lowe to determine his knowledge. about this meeting and therefore the credibility of the licensee's position that no site personnel-on March 28, 1979, interpreted the pressure spike to indicate the generation or combustion of hydrogen or to indicate core damage.
It appears from Mr. Abramovici's testimony that -
licensee had determined that hydrogen had been produced in quantities above the design basis of four percent and that licensee was taking steps to reduce the hydrogen.
Certainly the bases for licensee'sz conclusion and whether the pressure spike was a factor leading licensee to reach this conclusion is relevant evidence.
In addition, TMIA believes that if. licensee did in fact
i r4-
.~
. learn'at"an' earlier time of the_ production of' hydrogen and
. yet maintains at this hearing that it did not learn of the production of hydrogen until-the late' evening of Marche 29 or March 30,'its and its consultant's credibility'is damaged.
Evidence concerning'licenseeJand Mr. Lowe's credibility is relevant and critical to thes Board's decision in this matter.
Therefore, TMIA requests that this Board deny licensee's.
i motion-to' quash on die ground that -the information sought from Mr. Lowe is relevant information of which TMIA has only recently 4
learned Mr..Lowe'has knowledge.
TMIA cannot further specify'the areas of its inquiry other that in accordance with licensee's brief. description'of.Mr.
Lowe's intended testimony.
Only if licensee further specifies Mr. Lowe's expected area of testimony can TMIA more particularly describe the subject matter of Mr. Lowe's deposition.
In addition, TMIA believes the record reflects thatiit acted expeditiously to take Mr. Lowe's testimony in deposition 4
once it learned that Mr. Lowe had information beyond that '
originally represented by licensee as relevant to this pro-ceeding.
In particular Mr. Iowe has information regarding his relationship to and communication with the two new proposed-licensee witnesses and information about the Thursday, March 29, 1979 afternoon meeting at which the production of hydrogen beyond design limits was discussed.
TMIA requests this~ Licensing Board deny licensee's motion 1
l to quash and order that Mr. Lowe's deposition and production of l
documents proceed in accordance with the subpoena and subpoena i
l duces tecum issued.
w+
+emi-^
p.g-p.-
g
,-~
_<---y 3m g
- V.
'e y
, 9y 7
49
^ *-
t+*N"
V*-T+
x 5->
~Respecfully submitted, 3cre.n.__e o s l o -r (1
Joanne Doroshow The Christic Institute 1234 North Capital Street Washington, D.C.
20002 Telephone:
202/797-8106 f ( sc ca t.._, $ 54 ~
Lynne Bernabei Government Accountability Project l
I5_55 Connecticut Avenue,. Northwest Suite 202
. Washington, D.C.-
20036 Telephone:
202/232-8550 Attorneys for Three Mile Island Alert DATED:
October 17, 1984 l
l s
. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA a
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
)
In the Matter-of
)
Docket No. 50-289 SP
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY (Restart - Management Phase)
)
)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit Nos 1)
)
i copy of the foregoing Three Mile Island vasee's Motion to Quash Subpoena of I hereby certify.that e 1984, by William Lowe has been served this 17th day of October Alert's Response to L; following:
mailing a copy, first class postage prepaid to the Thomas Au, Esq.
Administrative Judge Office of Chief Counsel Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Department of Environmental Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Resources U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 505 Executive House Washington, D.C.
20555 P.O. Box 2357 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Administrative Judge John A. Levin, Esq.
Sheldon J. WolfeLicensing Board Assistant Counsel Atomic Safety &
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Pennsylvania Public Utility Washington, D.C.
20555 Commission P.O. Box 3265 Administrative Judge Harrisburg, PA 17120 Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.
Atomic Safety & Licensing BoardU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm 20555 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 (3)
Washington, D.C.
Docketing and Service Section Mr. Henry D. Hukill Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Vice President 20555 GPU Nuclear Corporation Washington, D.C.
P.O. Box 480 Licensing Board Middletown, PA 17057 Atomic Safety &
Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. and Mrs. Norman Aamodt Washington, D.C.
20555 R.D. 5 Coatesville, PA 19320 Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Panel Ms. Louise Bradford U.S.' Nuclear Regulatory Commission TMI ALERT 20555 Washington, D.C.
1011 Green Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Jack R. Goldberg, Esq.
Of fice of the Executive Legal Joanne Doroshow, Esq.
Director The Christic Institute U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1324 North Capitol Street 20002 Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C.
.~.
- ~...
~
I,..
i 1
Michael F. McBride, Esq.
Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq.
'LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae William S. Jordan, III, Tsq.
1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Harmon, Weiss & Jordan Suite 1100 2001 S Street, Northwest Washington, D.C.
20036 Suite 430 Washington, D.C.
20009 Michael W.'Maupin, Esq.
Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street Post Office Box 1535 TMI-PIRC Legal Fund 1037 Maclay Richmond, VA 23212 Harrisburg, Penn.
17103 Hand Delivered ffif&
A Lyhn Bernabei s'
l
,