ML20136H154

Intervenor Exhibit I-32-B,consisting of marked-up Pages 43 & 44 of Licensee 840904 Response to TMI Alert 840731 First Set of Interrogatories & First Request for Production of Documents

ML20136H154
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	12/13/1984
From:	AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:
References
SP-I-032-B, SP-I-32-B, NUDOCS 8508200204
Download: ML20136H154 (7)

Text

-. . - .- - - - .

.. - -- _ . . - ~ _ _ - . . . . . . _ _

31) W7 September-4, 1984 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board i

i 1 In the Matter of )

l ) DOPETED 4

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) DocketeNo; 50-289 SP J ) (Restart-Remand on Management)

(Three Mile-Island Nuclear )

Station, Unit No. 1) )

l

, LICENSEE'S-RESPONSE TO THREE MILE ISLAND L ALERT'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

{ --

i I. INTIlODUCTION -

f On July 31, 1984, Intervenor Three ~ Mile Is' land' Alert

/ / -

I. / / N j (TMIA) / filed its First, Set' of Interrogatorie to CPU Nu' clear 1

/

Q i.;

Corporation and its First Request for Production. Shortly ' / i i

j

. /- ,.

thereafter, Licensee i formed'TMIA that it intended to request l s

/ '/ x /

a protective order with respect to'a. number of the:discov ry i / / .

x/  ;

requests as exceeding the scope of thel Restart proceeding /To

{/

/ 'R . ; .'

facilitate discussion of Licensee's-objections,,Licen'see pro-videdTMIAwithja draft of the prot etive order it' intended to-

! x . p. -

,(

\request. On August 13, 1984, Lie

[ _

t.

}e see and'TMIA met to'tdi.sc'uss i \ f.

+,

/ j Licdnsee's objections, but were nable to: reconcile their-posi~-

tions \as.to/'scope. However, Lt ensee and TMIAl didt agree i

/ , . -.

to ." -,

j j/ 'x ' p .; ,

j._ - - t .

i severalclarificationstothemutualbenefitofbothparties.1k'f i

1 /

/ \ N 1 c!t

'; j

,.i a, License \ _ drew an~ intended sco eJobjdction o-1/. /In fact, e wit Interrogatory'No. 9 in lig'ht of the agreed upo changss;- 'O?

l.  : L.,  :* 1 "

Lr y=mn G

saalirI 4 i

\

c- t ,

/

containment was performed in response to,the pressure spike or actuationofthere/ \

C actor building spray. Licensee is unaware

/ sybsequently x

of any specific / plant parameters being monitored in respons

/o the pressure spike /or contain\ ~

ments spray actuation ( \'

See/Statement of Leland Rogers (June 12, 1979 s

j a t 22; NRC

/ N InterviewofsBrianMehle'/(Sept. /

r 3, 1980) at 15; NRC Interview'N l  % / /

of Joseph Chwastyk s (Sept. 4, 1980) at 11-12/ NRC Interview of William Zewe t 4K1980) at 44; NRC In erview of Gary Mill-(Sep/ s er (Sept. 5, 1980) at 123;'qRC Intervi,e/ w of Michael J. Ross

! \

(Sept. 24, 1980) at 48-49; NRC Depo ition of Edward Frederick (Oct. 9, 80) at 6; NRC Deposit %n f Craig Faust (Oct.

1980) at,8-9; NRC Deposition o Joseph heimann (Oct. , 1980) at 5;

/

NRC Deposition of Josep/ h Logan (Oct.

N 16, N198 at 55; NRC C \ /

DepositionofAdamMille/r'/(Oct.

/ N 28, 1980) at 9-  ; WREG-0760 at 27-28; Staff of the Committeeon/ \

Interior and

/

Insular Affairs,and Majority /'N" Reports / of Information c-Conce l l dent at Three Mile' Island '(March 1981) at 73-75, 97.

Interrogatory 43 Answer the following with respect to Leland Rogers' -Memo-randum er Statement of 3/28/79 Unit II Transient, dated June 12, 1979, at page 22: '

~ . - - _ .

(a) Describe al / checks made of pl' ant conditions,a'nd/or the contai '..ent in response /to the pressure / spike and/or ac ivation of the reactor building spray pumps; e -

,f (b) Identi'fy all persons w o made any such checks and all persons mund'cated; to whom the,results of suc Vchecks were/com-j/ [

b ,

. .l-p (c) Ident'ify all documents, wh recorded, memorialized, met (tioned, referred to or otherwise concerned such c' hecks, and their current locations /

.C /

'( ) Identifythe/operatorcited,in/ the sixth,sedtence of

-- the secon'd paragraph o,n_pAge. 22;-

/ -

(e) Identify all members of the monitoring teams men-tiened in the seventh sentence of the second para-

_ graph on page 22; and (f) Expl$in the. basis for the conclusiod noted in the fifth sentence of th'e second paraefaph on page 22 thst, "The transient conditions ,w'ere a result of a apid reaction between the H

. ,/ 2sor O 2 in the ,/

/containmentandoccurredcoin,cidentwithac long period oi system venting to the containment."

/ 7 '

/ >

Response (43)

For the,,<r/ /

esponse to (a), (b), and (c), s,ee the res;ionse to

/

Interrogjtory 42. /

,(8) L. O. Wright

,_ /

(e) Licensee has a record of results of site radiological monitoring which reflect at 1405 on March 28, 1979, that a mea-surement was made "around Unit-2 Rx bldg," but no record was made as to the individuals that performed the measurement and reported same.

~ ~ ~ . [d e d (f)' Licensee is unable to state what Mr. Rogers inten t

, j ~. j ,i to convey in-that~ sentence with respect to his awareness at any

/ / / N / to be particular point in jtime. Mr. Rogers' Statement' app, ears an/overv~iew of the/ events at TMI-2//prepared for purl poses other

/

than to identify,/ s-hicontemporaneous / knowledge of/events.

/

\ '

\

Inte.rrogatory 44 l

, State PU's position,as to ghether any misstatements, in-accur4te statements or falsexstatements were made in the DiecNamp mailgram to Congressmhn s Morris Udall. Identify l- l l'

r

.--cy y g % 'W W '

- i .-

t i- '

,. 4 . .

g.j_. zi -: sh A

. ,.i'.. . / xf. :

.. . ', a, '- 'H l-l  %;fyJ.: n

, g

. b. /

• c' ' f f". " ' ' l '. , . .

/

y/Cy -

,,e. , .. s ,p (f.y'ItI-ll,,,.sy.n.<.u- Q ah l *. x

.: . s. . .

L , .u .11. . .

r 0$10

. i C. . aw' .*' s.*s... f ,'..{e' .nw

i. +: / s. a.

l a

f ,Y , ,

1 /

u'i' . v'a.. '.m

- 4 t . .-n

. f, ... ,u.-

'l

../gd by?U E0~ ,l ',' . h. $f( ,*. tc e ,,.no y; f,9.z ,.,. s, ,.

• . 9 :n :

4.-

. o . . :n o Q...,.:

c ..e ,

US

.p ;fj -

- // -

. .n ,,c...;,.

• n1

, _  ; .. a ... t. .. .,,c i, . i

.i -, .r, .) .

.. &C ; hi?{%u.-

. . ,. ;.u.

/a5t.1

~

g.s/ e-  ;

.t,

, os- . ccv. .r . 'y ;c.t

.jyJ..g~~%.g%ij.:.~'ho/cc .,  :: ~ ~~

i t

.[hp.,hMn,

.~...xm -UtM.?_'

.' ).' )

\ . . . . .

&, T'\

gu m.~;+',/j'.\a. !r,,

,. ;;r w.

.-,1-- . _ . , .-8. ;

t ):ilf.y 4t.* +'A{.;g i -

_i'-

f..l)(4/.. . .' .' a. T *I Lt.._".: /,~_ L _ _L_ _ _ y y m -O

___;rg g g f__ g eggf. yrs s q u. se,,,j_f.':

~,W0'E $?

___ i.

l g

, ' U.'

-l *. '

V

)f '

&$ .- Yli :0 a[ffk

.;'t ---

5. . '

.,_ .$*.? l' f' ff./\sfp &l hArA' i,:..- A.s M, 'k. O ..

1.-3

&..- f. -

- -t ,

%.i '

Mu'> } / hw &. -Q. Y,

- . v.

11. .t 13% 29.1% %l%d MM: a ik . wh . g* ) &

, [t, WrH t MMt #

Wit;W s % d61q'd.6W

Ea 14 @t M uu@a n Q4 ME jW& ME ? CQ%pi

/ $- Q$DFM. $ teasummx  :.9.

4 .W ..

w st M

M$7)5 Mi 4.H %. ff$j#fd@M gt<hgi*

1

G.G W..-.$..dfofif.A

% Bldin-Wg..:. L. '

c.29N t))%

!Afif.p@ WA 6MJM is E411 1 .'; Ge_-d....A .

3M  ; MiL4; p(

W, J3s%.t&WM W~n(_; wc# M l v:. .~-

okt. 4. 5.u w.&

fFA*. f r... 5pDi.w:.;i.a.% W j1 .

ar.u k.6??

, WY {

a r

$64/$n$aa k%-h.

RN%~~a,upf2l'.

~ .

B di .l

..t.

Y.l.. ." &.. .g

!.D.N.~.f6_Q T..2 . *.

5.- I f.1"' ,

p2nm. y .w,fis w< a=n.=

C

4. h [jp p 4 n.. x,f kpi=:sm

' . . .w,s

3 .'

, ( .

SHAW, PITTMAN, PoTTs & TROWBRIDGE A mastTHEstamp osr pesortes40esAL Compostaticos.

l isoo M sTnEcT, N. W.

)

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20034 TELacopean '

tacei .ario a eas-is TELEX

..s u. . I

' ^ * ' ' " "

October 12, 1984 -

l c n N rsr i e w c. s n.. p.e. i E*.*"* "c' Lynne Bernabei, Esq.

Government Accountability Project 1555 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 In the Matter of Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1)

Docket No. 50-289 t

Dear Lynne:

) 'This responds to your letter of October 8, 1984, regarding

production or identification of documents.

You first reque etion of any n es take -by Mr.

Moore on March 28 a 9, in addition to tho e ch have been produced in respo e to IA's discovery re ts. I am in- ,

l formed that all f Mr. M re's notes of tho(e ys which were appropriate f production era produce Vearlie Nevertheless to avoid fu her exchanges this subfect, I am ranging to have any ditional Moore not pr uced for your spection and cop ng, if desired. I wi lert you when the terial is av lable in our offices.

Your second request s for a c plate set of phone tecords, especially fo reh 28. I informed that a -

re-check indicates t t the materials ready produced, whic includes phone bi for long distance 11s from TMI'for the period spanning rch 28, is as complete record as the Compa-ny has and ar the same as Licensee produc to.NRC in 1979.

These recor do not, of course, reflect loc calls nor as I understand it, tia-line calls within the GPU s stem.

Your third request relates to a document produced by Li-consee "which contains a radiation check identified in response to TMIA Interrogatory No. 43." This will confirm, as Mr. Lewis previously has stated to you, that the document upon 1

- l I

__ __ _- _ _ . - _ _ - - - ~ - _ .

1, *

(

l SHAW, PITTMAN, PoTTs & TROWBRIDGE A P&mTNCmSMGP OF pmOFESSIONAL CommonATIONS Letter to Lynne Bernabei, Esq.

! October 12, 1984 L Page 2 which Licensee relied in part to respond to TMIA Interrogatory

+

No. 43 is the document shown to Mr. Mulleavy during his deposi-l tion that includes in an entry the words "around Unit 2 Rx.

l Blg.". This document I understand to be an excerpt from a log

, maintained at TMI of radiation readings taken on March 28,

! 1979. The author of this entry, as Licensee previously has ad-vised TMIA in Licensee's Third Supplemental Response to TMIA's

. First Set of Interrogatories, of October 9, 1984, was Beverly Goode.

Your fourth requ s -seeks Licensee's position on the ad-missibility of a nu of documents "which appear to be offi-i cial GPU documents d Qich we [TMIA] have marked for identi-fication during t depot tions." Specifically, you seek Licensee's views ow as to the authenticity and busipess

, rh ords positio a Licensee 411 take at the heari (if these doc ents are ought to be ad itted. As I hav id you on two occas ons, annot anticipate icensee'r que oning the au- ,

thenti ty f the documents, par icularly a ce I expect these

are larg documents which we ha prod ed to TMIA during l discove . As to whether the docum nt fall within the de-I scriptip o " business records" as t t term is conventionally appli d , I wo d expect some do an o ers do not. In any

! even , so long a they are relev t and aterial, I would not l exp t generally o object to eir admi ibility; their proba-

ti e value or wel t, howeve , will be le to the Licensing i B ard based on our spect e arguments. I stating this, I am l mindful of the Board ad nition to the part es in approving i the earlier stipulatio n documents. I do no see any need at i

this juncture to burd ou, me or anyone else th additional i depositions for thi reas . I suggest you simpi provide me  !

! (and the other par les) wit a list of the documen as soon as you can and I wi provide y with our position. W th an agreement as t what specific cuments you are talking about i which agreem t I believe we can readily reach in advance of

, the hearing, sit seems to me hearing time will be minimal for

! their introduction into evidence. *

! Your fifth reques is to revi e originals of Keaten,

Broughton and Moore notes, copi of which were deposition ex-l hibits, and to review as we he original strip charts which recorded the pressure a e. M ntention is to take steps, if possible, to have t requested or inal documents available for your inspec on at the location o the depositions on l

Monday in H isburg. If that does not rk out, some other arrangem s will have to be made.

i

,,-me-,--,.-- ,- .------ee,ce----mw,g-,7,,#,--,y