ML20106F377
| ML20106F377 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/25/1984 |
| From: | Blake E GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#484-775 SP, NUDOCS 8410300218 | |
| Download: ML20106F377 (12) | |
Text
.
October 25, 1984 Cy DCLKETED
]
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety'and Licensing Board 1
m--
~
In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289 --8 D
)
(Restart-Management Phase)
'(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
LICENSEE'S RESPONSE TO TMIA'S MOTION TO PERMIT TMIA PARTICIPATION IN INTERVIEWS ON UNIT 2 LEAK RATE FALSIFICATION On October 22, 1984, Intervenor Three Mile Island Alert
("TMIA") filed a Motion to Permit TMIA Participation in Licensee Interviews on Unit 2 Leak Rate Falsification.
Licensee respectfully urges that TMIA's Motion be denied.
In its Memorandum and Order of September 19, 1984, this
-Licensing Board requested that the parties participate in in-formal voluntary discovery on the leak rate issues pending a formal discovery period to commence immediately following the proposed findings on the Dieckamp Mailgram and training issues.
By letter of October 8, 1984, TMIA requested that Licensee pro-duce documents relating to leak rate testing at both TMI-1 and TMI-2.
TMIA also requested that it be kept apprised of all in-terviews intended to be conducted by Edwin Stier as part of his TMI-2 leak rate investigation and that TMIA "be permitted to f
^
participate and ask questions at the interviews."
In its let-ter, TMIA properly characterized the Licensing Board's Order as 8410300218 841025 PDR ADOCK 05000209 g
PDR 7W V
n 1
"encourag[ing] [the parties] to begin informal discovery."
By letter of October 11, 1984, Licensee, through counsel, responded to TMIA's requests, stating that a large number of documents responsive to TMIA's informal request were being col-lected and wculd be made available for TMIA's review.1/
Li-censee further stated that TMIA's request to participate in the Stier interviews must be denied since Mr. Stier felt strongly that to allow outside participation would compromise the inde-pendence ano effectiveness of his investigation.
As this Licensing Board is well aware, GPU Nuclear re-tained Edwin H. Stierd/ to conduct investigations into leak rate testing at TMI-1 and TMI-2.
Mr. Stier was given complete independence to conduct these investigations as he saw fit.
He was given " full access to all company records and personnel" and all " decisions on methods, approach and structure of the investigation and findings thereof [were to be his] own."
See
- d. Clark'to E. Stier letter of February 1, 1984, attached.2/
1/
Thousands of documents responsive to the TMIA informal re-quest are now being gathered and Licensee expects these to be made available to TMIA for its review in early November.
2/
Mr. Stier left his former law firm, Kirsten, Friedman &
Cherin, on October 1, 1984.
He is now in practice by him-self, but Mr. Stier has retained the same staff to contin-ue the leak rate investigation.
n tion, TMIA has improperly character-3/
In the title to its a
ized the TMI-2 interviews as " Licensee Interviews."
The interviews are clearly "Stier Interviews," conducted as part of an independent investigation commissioned by GPU Nuclear.
4.
i Mr. Stier has completed his investigation of TMI-1 leak rate testing practices and is in the midst of the Unit 2 investiga-tion.
As part of either the TMI-l or TMI-2 investigation, there has been no participation by outsiders or company person-nel or their counsel in any interview conducted to date and no such participation is expected in the future.
However, TMIA now seeks to participate in Mr. Stier's remaining TMI-2 interviews, thereby disrupting the method and pattern already established by the completed interviews.
The Stier Unit 2 investigation has been proceeding for some time.
He has hired engineering consultants to assist with the techni-cal analysis.
Stier and his associates have devoted many hours of study of thousands of relevant documents and other back-ground material concerning a very complex and difficult topic.
It is only after acquiring this detailed knowledge that they are now deciding whom to interview, what questions to ask, how to conduct the interviews, in what order to conduct interviews, what format the interviews are to take, and other related issues.
Mr. Stier assures us that this process must continue unhampered and unburdened by the potential presence of out-siders at interviews in order for his TMI-2 investigation to remain completely independent and thorough.
See E.
Stier to E.
Blake letter of October 25, 1984, attached.
i l
l Mr. Stier also feels strongly that the presence and par-ticipation of third parties at any interviews could certainly - - _ -
e-l affect the cooperation or those witnesses.
Any participation
_by witnesses with the Stier effort is, of course, completely voluntary on their part and it is imperative that nothing occur to discourage that cooperation.
Were that cooperative spirit disturbed, the independence and thoroughness of the Stier in-vestigation into TMI-2 leak rate testing might well suffer.1/
For all of the aforementioned reasons, Licensee felt com-pelled in its letter of_ October 11, 1984, to deny TMIA's infor-mal request for participation in the Stier interviews.
For the 4/
TMIA suggests that to allow its participation today in the Stier interviews might obviate the need later for-addi-tional depositions.
One should note, however, that TMIA states in its Motion only that this need to take further depositions "may be eliminated" (emphasis added).
Since TMIA up until this time has not had at its disposal the detailed background information available to the Stier group (including the documents now voluntarily being made available to TMIA), one would surely expect later requests for additional depositions by a better educated TMIA.
Furthermore, one would hope that the Stier interviews, when made publicly available, would serve as a basis for deciding who, if anyone, needed to be further deposed, thus saving TMIA and Licensee valuable time and effort.
Licensee thus would suggest that TMIA's notion that al-lowing it to participate in the Stier interviews now would sava time is wishful thinking at best.
k same reasons, Licensee now feels that TMIA's Motion to the Li-censing Board to compel TMIA participation in the interviews must be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
& A, Waft Ernest L.
Blake, Jr.,
P.C.
Thomas C. Hill Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street NW Washington, D.C.
20036 (202)822-1000 Counsel for Licensee -.
9 m.
A,.
m.
24 00129 M N opu mme,cm f
100 lnterpace Parkway m.
~
Parsippany, New Jetwy oToS4 201 263 6500 e
TELEX 136 482 Writer's Direct Dial Number:
February 1,1984 (201) 263-6797 Edwin H. Stier, Esquire Kirsten, Friedman a Cherin 17 Academy Street Newark, New Jersey 07102
Dear Mr. Stier:
1 I am pleased that you have agreed to undertake an investigation for GPU Nuclear into the conduct of reactor coolant inventory balance measurements and responses thereto at TMI-1 and TMI-2.
i
)
With respect to TMI-2, the allegations made by Mr. Harold M. Hartman, Jr.,
i a former employee of Metropolitan Edison Company, have been the subject of investigation by the United States Justice Department, which resulted in a Grand Jur Company. y returning an eleven-count indictment of Metropolitar. Edison The NRC also is investigatilig those allegations although it has temporarily suspended its investigation as a result of a request from the Department of Justice.
Thl-1 reactor coolant inventory balance measurements are the subject matter of a current NRC investigation.
GPU Nuclear is commissioning your investigation because of its desire to:
>c 1.
Complete its understanding of what was being oone relating to conduct M
of reactor coolant inventory balance tests and th. reasons for those actions so it can assure that corrective action taken to date to preclude inadequate testing is sufficient, and 2.
Fully understand the cause of any deficiencies in such activities u
including specifically whether they were the result of improper O
attitudes or inadequate performance by any of the staff.
The purpose of your investigation is to develop the fact basis to pemit l
GPU. Nuclear management to assess these two issues.
In conducting your work, priority is to be given to determining and reporting first the facts i
applicable to equipment, procedures, and people involved in assuring safe operation of TMI-1.
(t o
- a '..
,a...
Edwin H. Stier, Esquire Page 2 l
February 1, 1984 I
While prior efforts by the company (such as the Faegre 4 Benson investiga-tion) have provided infomation which has been useful, I believe that the a3 effort you are undertaking is appropriate at this time to include con-sideration of information and possible sources beyond those included before.
l In conducting your inquiry, you shall have full access to all company records and personnel.
Within the scope defined herein, decisions on methods, approach, and structure of the investigation and findings thereof g
are to be your own. You are free and encouraged to contact others, in-cluding former GPU System employees no longer with GPU Nuclear, to developE your understanding, y
To help assure that the results of your investigation are fully available to the NRC and the public, you should advise those you contact that no a
attorney-client privilege attaches to your efforts and our communication.
5 Your investigation should be completed as expeditiously as possible con-me by February 28, ping the necessary facts, and I request you provide to l
sistent with develo 1984 a status report and written schedule for comple-tion of your effort (which must include a comprehensive written report).
g This report will be previded to the NRC and to the Atomic Safety &
Licensing Board to whom the Hartman allegations have been referred for Hearing.
You will be reporting directly to me for this assignment.
The company will be notifying the NRC that it has arrar.ged to have you l
proceed with this investigation.
very truiy yours, g
fb-s P. R. Clark President Pfk cc: E. Blake, Esquire M. M. Dieckamp J. 8. Libermen Esquire l
J. F. Wilson, Esquire I
I I
g; : :,
._: 12 cru
=cc--..:
.._r.-
nc,01; eg; __ _
- g.FI?9 CSN~
Edwin H. Stier Attorney-at-Law 333 Littleton Road
.g g 29 N159 Suite 102 Parsippany, N. J. 07054
' :4 L (l :?.
e. L1 October 25, 1984 Ernest Blake, Jr., Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 'M' Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20036 Re: TMI-2 Leak Rete Investination Dear Mr. Blake You have requested that I advise you of my views on the effect of other parties participating in 2.;terviews presently being conducted by my staff. In my judgement, of my staff, the witnesses and their counsel is likely to seriouslyt undermine our investigation.
investigation in a manner independent of company involvem I am an attorney, I have r.ot bean retained to represent GPU NuclearAlthough Corporation.
My role is similar in many ways to that of a special prosecutor conducting a grand jury investigation.
In practical terms, that means I must have the final authority to determine the methods of investigation, to identify and deal with witnesses, to develop a record of the evidence, and to analyze the evidence and report on my conclusions free of external influence or intorference.
Our approach has been to apply many of the same procedures and techniques that are traditionally used by law enforcement to conduct such investigations.
From my experience, I know that it is critical to the witnesses be confident that cooperation is not being sought to for or against GPU Nuclear Corporation.
witnesses to recall information from the distant past which may be detriIn o mental to their professional futures.
Therefore, reconstructing the behavior and motivations of those who were involved in the performanco and supervision of leak rate tests at TMI-2 is a sensitive and difficult task.
m
.v =- -
se. = c.-
..=
..e-
.u..
.c-2-
The presence of representatives of the company or other parties to litigation involving the company will be a distracting influence end will disecurage full cooperation on the part of witnesses.
view, it may make the difference between success and failure in In my developing a complete and objective record.
Very truly yours.
1 s
Edwin H, tier EHS:cr l
I-
o a.
ECy Eif 3 v>n r UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'84 OCT 29 mt :58 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U f.'C E.
CO W.%g&SEayJ; In the Matter of
)
S R A tiCH
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Restart-Management Phase)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Licensee's Response to TMIA's Motion to Permit TMIA Participation in Interviews on Unit 2 Leak Rate Falsification" were served upon those persons on the attached Service List by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, this 25th day of October, 1984, and by hand delivery upon those persons on the Service List marked by asterisks on this 25th day of October, 1984.
%/ f.da4.
Ernest L.
Blake, Jr.,
P.C.
i
D1 3
n, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Decket No. 50-299 SP
)
(Restart Romand on Management)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
i SERVICE LIST Nunzic J.
Palladino, Chairman Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cc= mission Jchn H.
Suck Washington, D.C.
20555 Atemic Safety'& Licensing Ap;ea Scard Thomas M.
Rcherts, Cc=missioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmis s U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 v.
Administrative Judge James X.
Asselstine, Ccamissioner Christine N.
Kohl U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety & *icensing Appea Washington,
D. C.
20555 Scard U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiss Erederick Sernthal, Commissioner Washingten, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washingten, D.C.
20555
- Administrative Judge Ivan W.
Smith, Chairman Lande W.
Zeck, Jr., Commissioner Atomic Safety & Licensing Beari U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissicn U.S. Nuclear Regulaccry Octmass.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Administrative Judge
- Administrative Judge Gary J. Edles, Chairman Shelden J. Wolfe Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Atomic Safety & Licensing Scard' Board.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmiss:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cc= mission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 e
r-e.
iw--
..m-w-e--e,r-eme---we--+,---w--,----,m
-w - w -w we.
s, w +-
,w-.,m-wv---v,---.-
.m--miwe~,,,.m+,
2-o
- Administrative Judge Mr. Henry D.
Hukill Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.
Vice President Atomic Safety r. Licensing Scard GPU Nuclear Corpcration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 480 Washington, D.C.
20555 Middletown, PA 17057 Docketing and Service Section (3)
Mr. and Mrs. Norman Aa=cdt Office of the Secretary R.D.
5 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commissicn Coatesville, PA 19320 Washington,
D. C.
20555 Ms. Louise Bradford Atemic Safety & Licensing Board TMI ALERT Panel 1011 Green Street U.S. Nucicar Regulatery Cc= mission Harrisburg, PA 17102 Washington, D.C.
20555
- Joanne Dcroshcw, Esquire Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal The Cnristic Institute Board Panel 1324 North Capitol Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20002 Washingten, D.C.
20555
- Lynne Bernabel, ssq.
Government Acccuntability
- Jack R.
Go.,aw-erg, tsc.
4)
Of fice of the Executive (Legal l.{goject D rector aam Connecticut Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20036 Washington, D.C.
20555 Ellyn R.
Weiss, Esq.
Harren, Weiss & Jcrdan Thc=as Y.
Au, Esq.
2001 S 5treet, N.N.,
su;:e ;;;
Office of Chief' Counsel Washington, D.C.
200C9 Department o f Environmental 3escurces Michael F.
McBride, Esq.
,03 Executive House LeSceuf, La=b, Leiby & hacRae 3
P.O. Scx 2357 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Harrisburg, PA 17120 Suite 1100 Washington, D.C.
20036 William T.
Russell Deputy Director, Division Michael W.
Maupin, Esq.
of Human Factors safety Hunten & Williams Of fice of NRR 707 East Main Street Mail Stop AR5200 P.O.
Sox 1535 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Richmend, */A 23212 CC= mission Washington, D.C.
20555 l
l
-.. - - -