ML20094A310
| ML20094A310 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 11/01/1984 |
| From: | Bernabei L, Doroshow J CHRISTIC INSTITUTE, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT, THREE MILE ISLAND ALERT |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20094A275 | List: |
| References | |
| SP, NUDOCS 8411060366 | |
| Download: ML20094A310 (10) | |
Text
,--
REUTIC CC.7T t
AFCNDENCE i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
],QD
~.
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
'84 NOV -5 All :39 In the patter of
)
)
<( X METROPOi,ITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289 SP'
""3
.[W
)
m,
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)-
(Restart-Management Phase)
~ Station, Unit No. 1)
)
)
THREE MILE ISLAND ALERT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PRESENT TESTIMONY OF VICTOR GILINSKY ON DIECKAMP MAILGRAM ISSUE WITHOUT PREFILING WRITTEN TESTIMONY Three Mile Island Alert (" TMIA" ) moves this Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for leave, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.743, to present the testimony of former Nuclear Regulatory Commissioner Victor Gilinsky without prefiling written testimony.
TMIA proffers that Dr. Gilinsky's testimony is material to the Dieckamp Mailgram issue and outlines below the intended areas of questioning of Dr. Gilinsky.
I.
AGENCY RULES GRANT ALL PARTIES THE RIGHT TO PRESENT ORAL AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE REQUIRED FOR FULL AND TRUE DISCLOSURE OF THE FACTS.
Every party to an adjudicatory proceeding before the NRC has "the right to present such oral or documentary evidence i
as may be required for full and true disclosure of the facts."
As explained in Section II, infra, Dr. Gilinsky's testimony is sought as relevant and material to the Dieckamp Mailgram issue before this Board, specifically Mr. Dieckamp's state of mind at the time he sent the mailgram; whether Mr.
Dieckamp knew or should have known that the mailgram contained g4 10 foh I
0
{-
~
s.
misstatements; and the meaning of Mr. Dieckamp's statement in l
the mailgram that "(t)here is no evidence that anyone inter-preted the ' pressure spike' and the spray initiation in terms N
of reactor core damage at the time of the spike nor that anyone withheld any information."
Upon being contacted by TMIA counsel to determine whether he would be willing to testify in these proceedings, Dr.
Gilinsky stated that he would testify pursuant to a-legally-valid subpoena.
He also stated that because he only recently left his term as a member of the Commission and in this role participated in decisions on the TMI-l restart proceedings, he did not believe that it was appropriate for him to file testimony for any party in the proceeding.
He indicated, however, that he would honor a legally-valid subpoena to appear and testify in the TMI-restart hearings in those areas the Licensing Board deemed relevant to the issue before it.
TMIA requests therefore that it be granted leave to call Dr. Gilinsky to testify on the Dieckamp Mailgram issue without prefiling written testimony.
The Commission's regulations provide that the Licensing Board uay permit parties to present oral direct testimony with-out prefiling testimony on the basis of a party's objections.
The rules thereby envision a situation in which for good cause a party may present the oral testimony of a witness without prefiling written testimony.
In fact it is frequently the case that a party will subpoena and present the oral testiomny of witnesses who have material evidence but have not been retained as experts by that party and do not prepare
s 5 i JwrittenLtestimony for.the proceeding.
1k) party willbe prejudiced by the presentation of Dr.
Gilins
's oral direct testimony since TMIA has put all partief on notice of the areas in which it intends to question Dr. Gilinsky, in Section II, infra.
Most important is the fact that Dr. Gilinsky's testimony j
is required for a full development of the relevant facts on the Dieckamp Mailgram issue.. He spoke to Mr. Dieckamp during the congressional site tour on May 7, 1979, about licensee's knowledge of the pressure spike and reporting of 4
the pressure spike to the NRC.
Dr. Gilinsky also spoke to i
Mr. Dieckamp in a more general sense about what he believed licensee's reporting responsibilities to the NRC were at the time of the accident.
Mr. Dieckamp addressed the mailgram to j
Congressman Udall, and sent a carbon copy to then-Commissioner Gilinsky.
Therefore, Dr. Gilinsky can provide critical information about Mr. Dieckamp's state of mind in the days preceding the mailgram, and about the meaning of the mailgram i
i apparent to him, one of the two specified addressees of the j.
mailgram.
Further, Dr. Gilinsky spoke to Mr. Dieckamp on May 7, i
1979, and communicated with licensee including Mr. Dieckamp on numerous other occasions after the accident about the Dieckamp i
l Mailgram and related reporting failures.
Dr. Gilinsky there-l fore can present important testimony about whether Mr. Dieckamp l
should have known that his mailgram contained misstatements at the time he sent it and whether he should have made inquiries i
_._ _.s m _
.e__m_,
c.u _:..m.
_:4-to ensure the accuracy of all statements in the mailgram.
- II'.
-OUTLINE OF TMIA'S QUESTIONING OF FORMER COMMISSIONER
~
GILINSKY..
TMIA' proffers that it intends.to question former Commissioner Gilinsky in the following areas:-
1.- On May 7, 1979, Dr. Gilinsky attended a site tour by A-the Subcommittee on Energy.and the Environment ^of the committee on Interior'and Insular Affairs of;the House of Representatives.
During that tour, Dr. Gilinsky spoke to Mr..Dieckamp about the pressure spike, reporting of the' pressure spike to the Commission and reporting of information to the Commission.
The site visit became the subject of the New York' Times article of May 8, - 1979 to which Mr. Dieckamp responded by means of his May 9, 1979 mailgram.
2.
Mr. Dieckamp mailed a copy of the mailgram to Dr.
Gilinsky.
He was the sole Commissioner sent such a copy.
Dr.
Gilinsky's understanding and interpretation of the relevant portion of the mailgram is probative of Mr. Dieckamp's intent in sending the mailgram and state of mind at the time of sending:
the mailgram.
3.
After the accident, Dr. Gilinsky had discussions with Mr. Dieckamp, and discussions with other licensee officials of which Mr. Dieckamp was aware, concerning the reporting of the pressure spike, the hydrogen burn, and core damage to the NRC.
Testimony about these conversations, is probative of whether Mr. Dieckamp "should have known" at the time he sent the mailgram that it contained false statements and of Mr.
m -
.Dieckamp's state of mind at the time he sent the mailgram.
.4.
Dr. Gilinsky, as the senior Commissioner at the time of the TMI accident, can testify as to the information the licensee was obligated to report to the Commission and had been forewarned it had an obligation to report to the Commission.
Further, he can testify as to the information the Commission relied on in making decisions about the accident.
- Moreover, he can testify as to how he, as Commissioner, and the full Commission would have reacted to information about key para-meters of the reactor's condition if they were promptly reported to the Commission, including the pressure spike, the hydrogen burn, in-core thermocouple temperatures in excess of 2500 degrees F, and core damage.
This testimony is relevant to Mr.
Dieckamp's understanding of his responsibility to provide full and complete information to the Commission about important reactor parameters at the time of the accident.
It is also relevant to his understanding of his obligation to provide complete information to the commission after the accident regarding licensee's knowledge of important reactor parameters during the accident.
Mr. Dieckamp's under-a standing of his duties, during the accident and its aftermath, is probative of whether he should have known at the time of sending the mailgram that it contained misstatements and whether he should have inquired adequately to ensure the accuracy of the mailgram.
It is also probative of whether Mr. Dieckamp should have corrected the mailgram when he learned it contained false statements.
i l
y
6-
+
III.
CONCLUSION.
In consideration of the above arguments and the outline of intepded questioning of Dr. Gilinsky, TMIA requests leave of this' Board to present the testimony of Dr. Gilinsky in the areas outlined above without prefiling written testimony.
Respectfully submitted, dhekvml.ww Joanne Doroshow The Christic Institute 1324 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C.
20002 (202) 797-8106 4Yf_:LL tse L'
e Bernabei v rnment Accountability Project 5
Connecticut Ave. N.W.
)
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 232-8550 Dated:
November 1, 1984 Attorneys for Three Mile Island Alert t
w-v
,,,r-,
,---a
--w---- - - --,-
,ggtgg3ccnRELPONDENQ%
j UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
.g tel-5 All 4 f-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[h h
0 C
' yNICH Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of
.- )
)
METROPOLITAN EDISION COMPANY
. )
(Restart-Management
)
Docket No. 50-289 i
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Phase)
Station, Unit 1)
)
AFFIDAVIT OF_ JOANNE DOROSHOW I, Joanne Doroshow, being first duly sworn, depose and say l
that ~ I am a member of Three Mile Island Alert, Inc., and repre-l sent that organization in the above-captioned proceedings, and that:
TMIA's Response to Licensee's First Set of Interrogatories, TMIA's Response to Licensee's Second Set of Interrogatories, TMIA's Response to Licensee's Third Set of Interrogatories, TMIA's Supplemental Response to Licensee's Second Set of l
Interrogatories, TMIA's Second Supplemental Response to Licensee's Second Set l
of Interrogatories,
- TMIA's Supplemental Response to Licensee's First Set of Interrogatories, TMIA's Response to Licensee's Fourth Set of Interrogatories, l
- and, TMIA's Response t6 NRC Staf f's Interrogatories and Document Request to TMIA.
t-1
p:
1
' ~
~
7 4
~
.;, : ?
~
are true arid correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
m
' v%d
_h h Joanne Doroshow Sworn to and subscribed before me this 3/ 4 day of October 1984.
s
& /te-uw
- i (
Notary Public gg My Commission Expires:
Y
n gy J D m.uw Li UNITED STATES CF AMERICA i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DM KETEC l
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U3" In the Matter of
)
)
'84 NOV -3 N1 :39 METROPOLIT4*N EDISCN COMPANY)
Docket No. 50-289 SP-
)
e li
__ a 4 (Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
(Restart - ManagemenE"Phash)"
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
~
I hereby certify that a. copy of the foregoing THIks Motion to File Deposition of Peter Bradford as Testimony; TMIA's Motion i
for Leave to Present Gilinsky Testimony Without Prefiling
}
Written Testimony; Prefiled Testimony of David Gamble; Affidavit of David Gamble; Affidavit of Joanne Doroshow have been served this lat day of November,1984, by mailing a._copEfirst class, postage prepaid, to the following:
SERVICE LIST I
i Administrative Judge Thomas Au, Esq.
Ivan W Smith, Chairman Office of Chief Counsel Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Department of Environmental i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Resources Washington, D.C. 20555 505 Executive House i
P.O. Box 2357 i
j' Administrative Judge Harrisburg, PA 17120 Sheldon J. Wolfe Atomic Safety & Licensing Board John A. Levin, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Assistant Counsel Washington, D.C.
20555 Pennsylvania Public Utility commission Administrative Judge P.O. Box 3265 j
Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.
Harrisburg, PA 17120 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board 4
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ernest L. Blake, Jr.
Washington, D.C. 20555 Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.
i Docketing and Service Section (3)
Washington, D.C.
20036 Office of the Secretary i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Henry D. Nukill Washington, D.C. 20555 Vice President i
l GPU Nuclear Corporation Atomic Safety & Licensing Board P.O. Box 480 i
Panel Middletown, PA 17057 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. and Mrs. Norman Aamodt R.D. 5 Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Coatesville, PA 19320 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ms. Louise Bradford Washington, D.C.
20555 TMI ALERT 1011 Green Street Jack R. Goldberg, Esq.
Harrisburg, PA 17102 Office of the Executive Legal Director Joanne Doroshow, Esq.
i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission The Christic Institute Washington, D.C.
20555 1324 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C.
20002
~
a
? !
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 Richmond, VA 23212 1037 Maclay Harrisburg, Penn.
17103
)
Ly5rl Bernabei
/
l h
-