ML20136H154
| ML20136H154 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| 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 Corporation and its First Request for Production.
Shortly '
/
i i.
j
. /-
i 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-videdTMIAwithj x
. p.
a draft of the prot etive order it' intended to-
\\
,(
[
}e t.
request.
On August 13, 1984, Lie see and'TMIA met to'tdi.sc'uss i
\\
f.
+,
/
j Licdnsee's objections, but were nable to: reconcile their-posi~-
i
/'
tions \\as.to scope.
/
l However, Lt ensee and TMIA didt agree to j
j/ 'x '
p.;
j._ -
severalclarificationstothemutualbenefitofbothparties.1k'f t
i i
/
\\
1 c!
1
/
N t
1/. /In fact, License \\ _
,.i a,
j e wit drew an~ intended sco eJobjdction o-Interrogatory'No. 9 in lig'ht of the agreed upo changss;- O?
l.
L.,
- 1 L
y=mn saalirI G
4 r
i
\\
c-t
/
containment was performed in response to,the pressure spike or C
actuationofthere/
\\
actor building spray.
Licensee is unaware of any specific / plant parameters sybsequently being monitored
/
x
/
in respons o the pressure spike /or contain\\
~
ment spray s
actuation (
\\'
See/Statement of Leland Rogers (June 12, 1979 a t 22;
NRC s
j InterviewofsBrianMehle'/(Sept.
/
N
/
r 3, 1980) at 15; NRC Interview'N l
/
/
of Joseph Chwastyk (Sept. 4, 1980) at 11-12/ NRC Interview of s
t 4K1980) at 44; NRC In erview of Gary Mill-William Zewe (Sep/
123;'qRC Intervi,e/
s er (Sept.
5, 1980) at 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)
/
NRC Deposition of Josep/
N at 5; h Logan (Oct. 16, N198 at 55; NRC C
DepositionofAdamMille/r'/(Oct.
\\
/
28, 1980) at 9-
- WREG-0760
/ N Staff of the Committee /
\\
at 27-28; and Majority /'N" Reports of Information Conce on Interior and
/
/
Insular Affairs, c-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 to whom the,results of suc Vchecks were/com-mund'cated; j/
[
b
.l-p (c)
Ident'ify all documents, wh recorded, memorialized, met (tioned, referred to or otherwise concerned such
.C c' hecks, and their current locations /
/
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 or O in the
,/
/containmentandoccurredcoin,cidentwithac
.,/
2s 2
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
/
particular point in time.
Mr. Rogers' Statement' app, ears to be j
/
/
an/overv~iew of the/ events at TMI-2/ prepared for purl poses other than to identify,/ s contemporaneous knowledge of events.
/
/
-hi
/
\\
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 Morris Udall.
Identify s
l-l l'.
r
.--cy y g %
'W W
i 4
g.j_.
t i-
.,.i'... / xf. :
', a, '- 'H zi
-: sh A l-g l %;fyJ.:
n
. b.
y/Cy
/
- c' ' f f". " ' ' l '.
(f.y'ItI-ll,,,.sy.n.<.u-
/
Q ah l *. x
,,e.,
L
,.u.11..
. i C.. aw'.*' s.* f,'..{e'.nw
.. s
,p
. s..
i.
0$10
+: /
u'i'. v'a. '.m 4 .-n u.-
r s...
- s. a.
l f,Y,
t.. f,...,
1
/
a
'l E0~ ,l
','. h. $f(,*.
../gd by?U tc e,,.no y 9 :n :
4
..e. o.. :n o Q...,.:
f,9.z,.,.
s, c
.p ;f US
.n,,c...;,.
//
.,,c i,.
i
,..)..
&C ; hi?{%u.- n j
1
.. a...
t.
.t,
..,. ;.u.
.i -
r,
/a5t.1 g.s/ e-
- v. r.
.jyJ..g~~%.g%ij.:.~'ho/cc
- , os-. cc. 'y ; t
~
c.
t
~
~~
.~...xm -UtM.?_'
i
&, T'
.[hp.,hMn,
\\
.' ).'
)
\\
m.~;+',/j'.\\a.
.-,1--. _.,.-8. ;
f..l)(4/....'.' a. !r,,
,. ;;r w.
t
):ilf.y 4t.* +'A{. gu i
l y y m -O f.'
T
- I
_i'-
- g Lt.._".
- /,~_ L _ _L_ _ _
___ i
___;rg g g f__g eggf. yrs sq u.
~,W g
0'E $?
-l *.
' U.')f ' 5..
-t se,,,j_ :
a[ffk
? l' V
&$ Yli :0.;'t f' ff./\\sf &l h i,:..-
A.s M, 'k. O 1.-3&..-
f.
. v.
Ar %.i p
A' Mu'>} / hw &. -Q. Y,
- 11..t 13% 29.1%%l%dMM: a ik. w
, [t,
)
h
. g*
d61q'd.6WME
- 14 @t t MMt #
WrH Wit;Ws %
Q4 Ea Muu@a nteasummx jW&
ME? CQ%pi$ :.9.4
' / $- Q$DFM.
M$7)5 Mi 4.H %.
gt<hgi*
w st ff$j#fd@M
.W 1
M W..-.$..dfofif.A
t))%
29N
- G.G % Bldin-Wg..
- . L.
.'; Ge_-d....A ; M 4; 3 M iL p(
!Afif.p@
c.
WA6MJM is E411 1 wc# M W, J3s%.t&WM W~n(_;
l okt. 4. 5.u w.&
v:.
.~-
fFA*. f r... 5 j1 Di RN%~~a,upf2l'. B k.6??
p
.w:.;i.a.% $.W
, WY
{
$64/$n$aa k%-h. ~
.l ar.u
..t. di
!.D.N.~.f6_Q Y.l..." &...g.2 *.
r T..
a 5.- I f.1"'
p2nm. y.w,fis w< a=n.= 4. h [jp p 4 x,f C
k n.. - pi=: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.
' ^ * ' ' " "
October 12, 1984 E*.*"* "c' c n N rsr i e w c. s n.. p.e.
i 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
Dear Lynne:
t
)
'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 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-cial GPU documents d
Qich we [TMIA] have marked for identi-i 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 the earlier stipulatio n documents.
I do no see any need at i
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
--.--,-m-,.--.----.-.-s.,
--,-,,--r,.
,,-me-,--,.--
.------ee,ce----mw,g-,7,,#,--,y