ML20198R550
| ML20198R550 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 06/06/1986 |
| From: | Voight H LEBOEUF, LAMB, LEIBY & MACRAE, METROPOLITAN EDISON CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#286-474 LRP, NUDOCS 8606100109 | |
| Download: ML20198R550 (9) | |
Text
_
,1 bk W
f%-! /
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
\\'p, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Q
c.
d M g;g86h l
BEFORE THE PRESIDING BOARD
,[-
O In the Matter of
)
)
INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND
)
Docket No. LRP UNIT 2 LEAK RATE DATA
)
FALSIFICATION
)
)
l RESPONSE OF EMPLOYEES TO MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF MAY 22, 1986 In its Memorandum and Order of May 22, 1986,
(" Order"), as modified by an Order issued on June 6, 1986, the Presiding Board requested comments from the parties by June 6.
On behalf of the Numerous Employees, we are providing a response.
Objections to NRR Report We have previously objected to the admission of those portions of the Stier Report that draw conclusions with respect to the veracity or culpability of individuals and to the appearance of Mr. Stier as a witness to testify to his conclusions.
We make precisely the same objections to the NRR Report and to Mr. Russell as a witness.
The Presiding Board has been appointed by tne Commission to prepare findings and conclusions concerning possible individual misconduct.
It is simply not appropriate for the Board to receive evidence of the 8606100109 860606
.O)R)
PDR ADOCK 05000320 G
PDR L-.
s
?)
conclusions of third parties concerning the very matters that it is charged to decide.
In addition, admitting the conclusions from any written reports and testimony of Stier and Russell (and Christopher) will needlessly complicate the hearing process.
There are potentially significant differences among the evaluations of certain individuals by the three investigators.
If those evaluations become part of the record, we will be faced with the task of presenting proposed findings concerning not only the facts concerning a number of individuals, but the credibility of the evaluation of those facts by others.
Given the number of individuals that we represent, the task of preparing proposed findings is large enough to begin with.
Further, the Board should not be distracted from its important role in making recommendations to the Commission by the necessity of evaluating conflicting conclusions drawn by others from essentially the same evidence.
Proposal for Additional Witnesses or Documents Our review of the NRR Report does not lead us to propose any additional witnesses or documents.
New Proposed Schedule We have no objection to the schedule proposed by the Board.
Our only comment is that the commencement of the hearing on September 3 closely follows a weekend that includes a Federal holiday on Monday and constitutes the end of the traditional vacation season.
For those reasons, the Board may wish to consider starting the hearing on September 9, rather than September 3.
However, we shall be prepared to begin on September 3.
A Additional Witnesses The Board proposes to defer ruling on our requests for witnesses Chung, Wenzinger, Bettenhausen, and Keimig until after " Phase I" of the hearing.
We think this is a mistake.
Reconsideration of our requests for those witnesses should immediately follow the testimony of the other technical witnesses.
The witnesses we have requested are background witnesses.
They should appear prior to any testimony by the individual participants.
Additional Documents The Board has determined to exclude OI Report 1-23-010 and portions of NUREG-0680 Supp. No.
5.
We urge the Board to reconsider those rulings.
As we have previously pointed out, it is important to know the history of leak rate testing at TMI-1 in order to evaluate allegations of misconduct in connection with leak rate testing at TMI-2.
For example, the practice of conducting a e
leak rate test on every shift (even though the Technical Specifications did not require it), the practice of not recording unsatisfactory leak rate tests in one or more logs, the practice of routinely / discarding unsatisfactory results, and the common understanding that it was unnecessary or inappropriate to prepare and file exceptions or deficiencies for leak rate tests all originated at TMI-1.
All of the Shift Supervisors in 1978 and '79 were cross-licensed on both units and supervised the operation of both units.
Practices in connection with leak rate testing therefore carried over from TMI-l to TMI-2.
Control Room Operators and Shift Foremen at TMI-2 are now being criticized for following practices that had become routine because they originated at TMI-1, yet the Board proposes to exclude evidence concerning the historical development of those practices.
Prior Statements The Board has noted the proposal by GPUN to use prior statements to avoid unnecessary appearances of witnesses.
GPUN has also designated 15 individuals whom it contends should be excluded from further examination.
GPUN proposes that the prior statements of those individuals be admitted into evidence for the purpose of demonstrating that they should be excluded.
We agree with the GPUN proposal that prior statements be relied upon, as appropriate, to demonstrate that certain individuals need not be called as witnesses.
We have reviewed
-4
e h
the list of 15 individuals submitted by GPUN, and we agree that they should be excluded.
Howevet, we object to the admission of prior statements of those individuals, or those of other persons, whom the Board determines should not be called as witnesses.
The Board should simply peruse the statements and then order that both the statement and the person should be excluded from the hearing.
We do not wish to find ourselves in the position of dealing with proposed findings 'ased upon the o
statements of witnesses that we have agreed need not be called.
Initial Questions for Witnesses The Board has now determined "that questions going primarily to the weight or credibility of a witness' testimony" will not be submitted to the witness in advance.
We wish to point out that, with few exceptions, all questions on cross-examination are directed to the weight or credibility of the witness' testimony.
Without ruling out the possibility that some questions may be proposed simply for clarification, we anticipate that all of our questions will be directed to the credibility or sufficiency of the witnesses' reports or pre-filed testimony.
Access to Expert Witnesses The Board has now adopted the "no access" rule that it proposed in its Memorandum and Order of April 3, 1986.
The i e
.c, s
' 7 e
p d
i sole basis given is the Doap,d's obselvation thai,;" orders to restrict access t9 yitnesses
- e.g'..
protectiye order, l
sequestgation orders -- are also common." 'We respectfully
- r -
3 disagree. 2. Orders restricting access to witnesses in NRC a
j
/
proceed w.q are the-e>iception, not the rule, and are rarely The basis.fer a sequestration order, to prevent imposed.
y
/
collusion.ghas not bgen shown' to eicist here, and indeed, normally'.has no application;,to expert witnesses.
There are no
" unusual cijcumstanceu" of which we;are aware that militate against ouritalking,to t.echnical wi$nesses, if they are willing to meet with us.
The "no access" rule simply frustrates our ability to pursue either a. stipulation or.an informal agreement among the experts to limit the issues.
We had thought that the Board wished to' foster limitation of the issues, not to impede i
i - - _ _ _ _
4 I
it.
See Tr. 151-54.
We urge the Board to reconsider its ruling on the "no access" rule.
Respectfully submitted, LeBOEUF, LAMB, LEIBY & MacRAE By hp A'
('[ Partner Of Counsel:
1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Suite 1100 William G.
Primps Washington, D.C.
20036 Michael F. McBride (202) 457-7500 Molly S. Boast James W. Moeller Marlene L.
Stein Smith B. Gephart KILLIAN & GEPHART Jane G.
Penny 216-218 Pine Street Terrence J. McGowan Box 886 Harrisburg,.PA 17108 (717) 232-1851 Attorneys for Numerous 1978-79 Employees of Metropolitan Edison Company June 6, 1986 l _
1
(_____
r?u l
t l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE PRESIDING BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
)
INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND
)
Docket No. LRP UNIT 2 LEAK RATE DATA
)
FALSIFICATION
)
)
l CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have served copies of " Response of Employees To Memorandum and Order of May 22, 1986" by deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid or, as indicated by an asterik, by hand delivery, to the following persons this 6th day of June, 1986:
(
- Administrative Judge James L. Kelley, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel i
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 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 1
t
'n
- Jack R. Goldberg, Esq.
Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
- Docketing and Service Branch (3)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
- Ernest L. Blake, Jr., Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 James B.
Burns, Esq.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale Three First National Plaza Suite 5200 Chicago, IL 60602 Michael W. Maupin, Esq.
Hunton & Williams P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, VA 23212 Ms. Marjorie M. Aamodt 200 Nortn Church Street Parkesburg, PA 19365 and P.O.
Box 652 Lake Placid, NY 12946 79 A z'Ik.
Marlene L.
Stein
.-