ML20155F567

Comments on Proposed Technical Witnesses & Documents,Per Commission 860326 Memorandum & Order.Listed Individuals & Documents 1,3,4,5 & 6 Acceptable.Documents 2,7 & 8 Irrelevant.W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence

ML20155F567
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	04/18/1986
From:	Blake E GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:
References
CON-#286-846 86-519-02-SP, 86-519-2-SP, LRP, NUDOCS 8604220260
Download: ML20155F567 (5)

Text

-

• r

-o-my 1986 April g.hfD us UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ~@ App g Ail :10 BEFORE THE PRESIDING BOARD 7 03 {

)

In the Matter of )

) Docket No. LRP INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE )

ISLAND UNIT 2 LEAK RATE ) ASLBP No. 86-519-02 SP DATA FALSIFICATION )

)

GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION'S COMMENTS ON PROPOSED TECHNICAL WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS In the Memorandum and Order of March 26, 1986, the Presid-ing Board (" Board") requested all parties to file by April 18 any objections or additions to the list of proposed Board tech-nical witnesses and the list of documents proposed for the ini-tial record. GPU Nuclear Corporation ("GPU Nuclear") accord-ingly offers the following comments.

I. GPU Nuclear's Views on Proposed Board Technical Witnesses GPU Nuclear presently has no objections or suggested addi-tions to the appearance of Jared S. Wermiel, Donald C.

Kirkpatrick, Winthrop A. Rockwell, or Edwin H. Stier as techni-cal witnesses in this proceeding.

8604220260 860418 '

PDR ADOCK 05000320 Q PDR.

. SC3 i

II. GPU Nuclear's Views on Documents Proposed for the Initial Record GPU Nuclear presently has no objection nor comment on items 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the Board's List of Documents Pro-posed for the Initial Record. Our positions on items 2, 7, and 8 follow, and we presently have no suggested additions.

Concerning the second document proposed by the Board for inclusion in the record -- the Faegre & Benson Report -- the Board should note that Volume one,Section IV (" Summary and Findings Concerning April 23, 1978 Reactor Startup Incident"),

and Volume Two, Chapter Nine (" Analysis of Hartman's Allega-tions Concerning Estimated Critical Position During a Reactor Startup at TMI Unit 2 on April 23, 1978, by J. Luoma"), and as-sociated exhibits (Nos. 50-66), deal with a different subject matter, not within the scope of this proceeding. Although we do not believe there is a need physically to carve up the Faegre & Benson Report for purposes of admission, it should be clearly understood by the Board and all parties that these identified portions of the Report are irrelevant and are not to be considered in this proceeding.

Concerning the seventh document proposed by the Board --

the Report of the GPU Assessment Panel (" Panel Report") -- GPU Nuclear opposes the inclusion of that document in the record.

First, insofar as the Panel Report includes factual statements or determinations pertinent to this proceeding, it contains no information that is not more fully covered in the Stier Report on which the Panel relied. See Panel Report at 1-6. Second, 1

i the content of the Panel Report concerns the Panel's conclu-sions and recommendations about what disciplinary actions, if any, to take against those individuals involved in improper TMI-2 leak rate practices and currently employed by the GPU System, and this subject is clearly outside the scope of the instant proceeding whose purpose is "to develop the facts sur-rounding the leak rate falsifications that occurred at TMI-2 from February 2, 1978 . . . until March 28, 1979, in sufficient detail to determine the involvement of any individual who may now work, or in the future work, at a nuclear facility licensed by the Commission." Crder and Notice of Hearing, CLI-85-18 at 4.

Concerning the eighth document proposed-by the Board -- .

the "Chung Report" -- Volume IV (L),Section X, of the Stier Report contains material by J. W. Chung. Assuming that the Stier Report, the first document proposed by the Board for in-clusion in the record, is approved, inclusion of the eighth -

document would appear to be duplicative and redundant.

Dated: April 18, 1986 Respectfully submitted,

& / f, O d ,/.

Ernest L. Blake, Jr.

J. Patrick Hickey SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 822-1084 Counsel for GPU Nuclear Corporation I

t UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE PRESIDING BOARD

)

In the Matter of )

) Docket No. LRP INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE )

ISLAND UNIT 2 LEAK RATE ) ASLBP No. 86-519-02 SP DATA FALSIFICATION )

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on April 18, 1986, I served the fore-going "GPU Nuclear Corporation's Comments on Proposed Technical Witnesses and Documents" by mailing, first class, postage pre-paid, a copy thereof to the following persons:

Administrative Judge James L. Kelley, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Administrative Judge Glenn O. Bright Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Administrative Judge Jerry R. Kline Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comrission Washington, D.C. 20555 Jack R. Goldberg, Esq.

Office of Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 4

Docketing and Service Branch (3)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Harry H. Voigt, Esq.

James W. Moeller, Esq.

LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.

Suite 1100 Washington, D.C. 20036 Smith B. Gephart, Esq.

Jane G. Penny, Esq.

Killian & Gephart 216-218 Pine Street l Box 886 i

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 l James B. Burns, Esq.

Isham, Lincoln & Beale Three First National Plaza Suite 5200 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Michael W. Maupin, Esq.

Hunton & Williams -

P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 Mrs. Marjorie M. Aamodt Box 652

( Lake Placid, Ncw York 12946 J+ / 5 //dd)

Ernest L. Blake, Jr.