ML20198T054
| ML20198T054 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 06/06/1986 |
| From: | Aamodt M AAMODTS |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#286-478 86-519-02-SP, 86-519-2-SP, LRP, NUDOCS 8606110266 | |
| Download: ML20198T054 (7) | |
Text
4-
,f b Q
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Presiding Board 0\\
)
)
Docket No. LRP
[
L P In the Matter of q,A 0'
)
)
ASLBP No. 86-519-02 SP IllQUIRY INTO TilREE MILE. ISLAND UNIT 2 )
LEAK RATE DATA FALSIFICATION
)
June 6, 1986
)
)
AAMODT RESPONSE TO BOARD ORDER OF MAY 22, 1986 We write today in response to the Board's Order requesting comments on its proposed new schedule for the instant inquiry and on GPU's proposal to eliminate 15 employees from the instant 1/
investigation.
In addition, we make objection to GPU's comments on the definition of leak rate reports that are the subject of this inquiry. We also motion for the return of deleted sections of the NRR (NRC) report for the purpose of making a response to the Board's order of May 21, 1986 and the comments of the Numerous Employees' supporting the deletion. We also motion the Board to reconsider its decision to call Mr. Edwin 11. Stier as its witness on the basis of new information that GPU intends to again use Fk. Stier in this inquiry.
The Board?s Schedule We find that the Board's Order has not addressed a significant matter which potentially could affect the schedule for the hearing. That matter is the Aamodts' motion for the dismissal of the attorneys of the employees. We believe that projections of a date for commencement of the
- 1) The Board granted the Aamodts an extension until June 13, 1986 to provide their response to the NRR report. The Board extended the deadline for all parties until June 23, 1996 for response to the r%V 01 report.
(Board Order, June 6, 1986).
8606110266 860606 PDR ADOCK 05000320 s
, hearing cannot be realistically made prior to resolution of the matter of the employees' representation.~2/
Setting asidE the above matter, we find the Board's proposed schedule for interim deadlines to be unworkabic. A delay in the service of the OI report (until yesterday) has affected the deadline by the parties.
for response./ (Sec Footnote 1 supra.) This has in turn affected the Board's schedule for its reinted order, since the Board cannot have roccived the parties comments by June 24, 1986 (the proposed schedule.of its order).
In turn, the Staff's testimony duc July 1,1986 and the related questions of the parties due July 21, 1986 would need to be moved forward.
The above changes may not affect the deadlines for the submittal of testimony of coployee parties and other witnesses nor the submittal of questions for these witnesses, depending on the resources of the Ilowever the extension of the preceding schedule could'make parties.
the pre-hearing schedule for the witnesses of the second phase too It would appear reasonable, therefore, to move the entire burdcasome.
schedule forward to allow for the delay of three weeks introduced by the late service of the 01 report.
If the Board decides to continue with a schedule of September 3, 1986 as the commenccment of the hearing, we would suggest a delay of
~
but two hearing days,.until September 8, 1986. We have prior cormnitments for September 3-5 which would preclude our appearance on those days.
}/ The withdrawal of two of the Numerous Employees (Kenneth P. Bryan and John !!.1;idwell) on May 7, L986 may be relevant to this matter.
t 6
,,y
s
. We are concerned about the length of.the hearing in view of the Board's statement that the " bulk" of the record will be compiled in Phase I (May 22, 1986 Order, p.5).
Since Phase I has been designated as the development of technical issues of leak rate falsi-fication, it will not address the purpose of the hearing which is to develop evidence of culpability of individuals. Since a large number of individuals are under investigation and this Borrd is charged with making its own determination concerning their culpability,~we are seriously question whether the bulk of the record should consist of perfunctory technical information, l'.e., definitions of leak rate testing, regulations, etc. We would suggest that these technical matters could be resolved in an expedigious fashion. The hearing should focus on the investigation.ol individual responsibility.
GPU's Proposal for Elimination of 15 Employees from Investigation In couanents filed May 9,1986, GPU proposed that 15 employees
/
be eliminated from investigation for leak' rate falsification on the basis of prior statenents (pp.3-4). We find GPU's proposal premature.
c, The Board stated in its February 14, 1986 Order (p.5) and reiterated in its May 22, 1986 Order (p.5) that "following Phase I, based on Board review of the record,and suggestions of the parties, the Board will determine what; if any, additional uitnesses are needed in order to resolve the issues."
two of i
Further,'GPU's ar,sessment of the culpability,of/these employees does not appear valid.
Ps. Zechman was a supervisor of training prior to the accident; Mr. Dubiel was manager of radiological controls. These responsibilities would indicate involvement and/or knowledge of leak rate falsification.
~
. GPU claims that its interest in excluding these individuals from further investigation is bases "on a desire to avoid unnecesary (sic. unnecessary) sppearances of witnesses and the attendant icngthen ing of this proceeding, and in order appropriately to focus hearin g time on important issues."
Since there are by GPU's admission 120 potentially-involved individuals, the elimination of 15 would not be a significant step toward expediting the proceeding.
Further, there is no more important issue -- or, in fact, any other issue -- than which employees were responsible for the leak rate falsifications.
Therefore, the blanket climination of fifteen employees, presently under suspicion, on the basis of prior statements -- many of which are alleged untruthful and conflicting -- is wholly inappropriate.
~
The matter of which employees will be called to testify has not been addressed by the parties. The Board as set a deadline of August 15, 1986 In addition, information in the NRC reports, one of which has not yet been received, also bears on this matter.
GPU's Proposed Definition of a False Leak Rate Report GPU's proposal (May 9,1986) that "a leak rate test be deemed ' valid'... if experts agree that recorded leak rate reflects the state of dnidentified leakage at TMI-2 at the time" flies in the face of the Commission's stated purpose for this hearing.
The Commission clearly stated that this hearing was of individuals for to determine culpability /
failure to adhere to an NRC procedure to determine whether that procedure was valid. The matter not of whether or not the Icak rate test reflected Icakage is not at issue. The issue is whether the operators failed to record excessive Icak rate reports, failed to report such to the NRC, deliberately discarded leak rate test reports, deliberately failed to record water additions during Icak rate tests and knowingly manipulated hydrogen additions to influence the leak rate reports.
Motion for Return of Sections of URR Report The Board ordered (May 21, 1986, two orders) that the parties return sections of the URR report in response to twc This objections of the attorneys of the Numerous Employees.
withdrawai is pendant on the final ruling of the Board following receipt of comments by the attorneys of the Numerous Employees and the responses of the parties.
Since we no longer have the sections which are in dispute, we believe that we will be hindered in making our response to the comments of the Numerous We would motion, therefore, that the deleted sections Employees.
be returned, under a confidentiality agreement, and an extension for our replies be granted until 10 days after service of the replaced sections.
The Board's[Use of Stier as Its Expert The Board ruicd that Mr. Edwin H. Stier would be called as i
22, 1986, pp.5-7) and has certified a quest on the Board's witness (May concerning the Board's payment of to the Commission (May 30, 1986)
We have previously opposed Stier as its expert consultant and witncos.
However, new information makes the Board's the Board's use of Mr. Stier.
GPU, on May 29, 1986, in apparent use of Stier even more inappropriate.
1986, pp.12-13) that parties definnce of the Board's order (May 22,
refrain from contact with the Doard's witnesses, notified the Board of its arrangement to have !!r. Stier review the NRC reports as GPU's consultant.
Cica,rly, CPU's use of Stier conflicts with the Board's use of him.by the Board's expressed sentiments in adopting the "no access" ruling.
We, therefore, find the Board's decisions to use Stier and to seek payment of Stier from the Conraission to be in gross error.
We, therefore, motion the Board to reconsider its decision to retain Mr. Stier.
We are at a total loss to understand why the 3oard would not prefer to depend on expert witnesses from the NRC Staff. The NRC Staff has scientists who are more qualified than Mr. Stier relative to leak rate procedures.
Mr. Stier is a lawyer. The NRC scientists, for instance Dr. Chung, have as much, if not more familiarity, with the issue of TMI-2 leak rate falsification. The Board appears to taking an extra-ordinary route in calling a lawyer-consultant of GPU as its expert concerning the technical aspects of leak rate testing and falsification at TMI. The matter of renameration would be moot in the use of NRC Staff.
Re pectfully submit ed, bLtDL /tA-1-
MarjoripM.Aamodt June 6, 1986
Ull1TED STATES OF A11 ERICA 11UCLEAR REGULATORY COMt!1SS10!I Defore the Presiding Board
)
In the Matter of
)
Docket 110 LRP
)
)
ASLDP Ilo. 86-519-02 SP I!!QUIRY IIITO Ti!REE IIILE..ISLAtID UIIIT 2 )
LEAK RATE DATA FALSIFICAT10Il
)
)
)
I certify that copies of the Aamodt Response to Board Order of g
!!ay 22,1986 was served on the followingiparties by deposit in U.S.
I! ail, first class, postage prepaid.
% u<
& duan __
Marj9'rie M. Aamodt June 6, 1986 Chief, Docketing & Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. fluclear Regulatory Commission Washing tor.,
D.C.
20555 James B.' Burns, Esq.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale Presiding Board, the !!onorables 3 First flational Plaza James L. Kelley, Chairman Suite 5200 Glenn O.
Oright Chicago, IL 60602 Jerry 11. Kline Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Pane)
Plichael W. Plaupin U.S. tiuclear Regulatory Conunission ilunton & Williams Washington, D.C. 20555 707 E. Plain St.
P. O.
Box 1535 Jack R.
Goldberg, Esq.
Richmond, VA 23212 Plary Wagner, Eso.
Smith D. Gephart, Esq.
Office of the Executive Legal Director.
KIIIl " E Geph et U.S.
fluclcar Regulatory Commission 216-210 Pine Street Washington, D.C.
20S55 Oox 006 Harrisburg, l' A 17100 Ernest L.
Blake, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1000 P1 Street, fi. W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 f(arry 11. Voigt, Esq.
LeBoeuf, Lamb. Leiby & PlacRae l'333 ties llampshire Ave., fl. / W.
Suite 1100 nnny
_