ML20202F900
| ML20202F900 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 07/11/1986 |
| From: | Blake E GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Bright G, Kelley J, Kline J Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#386-957 LRP, NUDOCS 8607150259 | |
| Download: ML20202F900 (5) | |
Text
N
' ' {h 1
auATED COMRf.YOtWENCA SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS NNNOWBRIDGE a paningasnia asetuoi=G poorEssioN A6 commoaations 1
i ieoo m srp_C. g. 4 N0 :58
.~
W ASHINGTON,.
3 TELECoP'ER TELgx 8 9-26 93 (SMAWL AW wSMI 420218224oes & S22 ties CASLE'smAwkA*~
OFFICE OF SU r IM Y
. A.irAx ioo TELE.~o E July 11l10C19863 A sim.
ao21 224o72 (202) e224ooo T@ A S', a weiTER'S DimECT DEAL NUMBER (202)822-1084 O
ggg.iAC..{..i.****-***
-m Administrative Judge Administrative Judge James L. Kelley, Chairman Glenn O. Bright Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing l
Board Panel Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Administrative Judge Jerry R.
Kline Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Chairman Kelley and Judges Bright and Kline:
Enclosed for the information of the Presiding Board and Par-ties is a copy of a letter from Philip R. Clark, President of GPU Nuclear Corporation to Edwin L.
Stier, dated July 7, 1986, re-questing Mr. Stier to review the recently released OI and NRR re-ports.
Respectfully, G
a_ -. q s-(VM, t
~ ~
- y/
Ernest L.
Blake, Jr.
Counsel for GPU Nuclear Corporation 8607150259 860711 PDR ADOCK 05000320 Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge G
PDR 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 cc:
Jack R. Goldberg, Esq.
Harry H. Voigt, Esq.
Smith B. Gephart, Esq.
James B.
Burns, Esq.
Michael W. Maupin, Esq.
Mrs. Marjorie M. Aamodt Docketing and Service Section(3)
t a
GPU Nuclear Corporation a s pp y.New Je sey 07054 201 263 6500 TELEX 136 482 Writer's Direct Dial Number.
July 7, 1986 (201) 263-6797 Edwin H. Stier, Esquire 11 East Cliff Street Somerville, NJ 08876
Dear Mr. Stier:
Subject:
Leak Rate Testing at TMI-2 in 1973-79 The NRR Report on ten individuals (seven of whom are currently employed by GPU and hold NRC licenses) involved in TMI-2 preaccident leak rate testing has now been issued albeit in redacted form.
In addition, the related Office of Investigations Report, " Report of Invastigation, Three Mile Island-2, Investigation of Individual Operator Actions Concerning the Falsification of Leak Rate Test Data", has been released, also in a redacted version.
In its Order of May 30, 1986, the Presiding Board in the Leak Rate Proceeding asked GPU Nuclear to refrain from retaining you to provide your comments on the NRR and 01 Reports.
By letter dated July 3, 1986 to Ernest L. Blake, Jr. (copy attached), the Presiding Board has withdrawn its earlier request.
Therefore, I request that, as a followup to your previous investigation of TMI-2 leak rate testing, you r eview the NRR and 01 Reports to determine, based on the conclusions or other information therein, whether, and if so, how, you would modify the conclusions in your report or your assessments of the involvement in leak rate testing of individuals currently employed by GPU Nuclear.
I also ask you to assess the differences between the technical evaluations underlying your report and NRR's sufficiently to address the validity of the evaluations to support the conclusions drawn.
The results of your review and any modified conclusions or j
assessments should be provided to me in writing.
They will be made available to the Presiding Board and the parties to the Leak Rate Proceeding.
To make the results available in advance of the Hearings now scheduled to start in early September, I request that you proceed as quickly as practical.
Sincerely, P. R. Clark President pfk Attachment GPU Nuclear Corporation is a subsidiary of the General Pubhc Uhhties Corporation j
i I
cc:
E. Blake, Esquire, Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge F. D. Hafer, GPU Assessment Panel I. Jolles, Esquire, Bishop, Liberman & Cook J. R. Leva, GPU Assessment Panel F. R. Standerfer, Director, TMI-2 W. A. Verrochi, GPU Assessment Panel J. F. Wilson, Esquire, Bishop, Liberman & Cook 1
~
[.po-wq UNITS 0 STATss i
C NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
vI i4f ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENslNG eoARD PANEL
(( q/
uswiwovou. a.c. mss July 3, 1986 Ernest L. Blake, Jr., Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Re: Leak Rate Inquiry Docket No. LRP
Dear Mr. Blake:
This is to confirm our telephone conversation of yesterday. As discussed in the Memorandum and Order of May 30, 1986, the Presiding Board in the Leak Rate Inquiry was interested in hiring Mr. Edwin Stier (and such technical assistants as he may require) t) review the NRR and 01 Reports and to provide coments for the record. When we certified to the Comission a questior. concerning our authority to hire experts, we expected that we would receive answers to that and perhaps related questions in late June. However, informal discussions with the Comission's Office of General Counsel indicate that such answers may not be forthcoming until later this sumer.
The evidentiary hearing is scheduled to begin on September 8, 1986.
The Board believes that Mr. Stier's reviet nd comments should be completed and distributed to the Board anc parties before the hearing begins. Mr. Stier advises that, in order to coordinate his efforts with his technical consultants, develop his coments, and still meet the September schedule, he would have to begin work in early July, He does not believe, and we agree, that the beginning of work on the project could be safely put over until August and still be completed before September 8.
In Mr. Hickey's letter of May 29, 1986 to the Board, he reiterated j
your earlier statements at the April 24, 1986 prehearing conference that GPUN was interested in obtaining Mr. Stier's coments on the NRR and OI Reports.
In the Memorandum and Order of May 30, 1986, we asked you "to refrain from seeking the services of Mr. Stier... until the Board has had an opportunity to seek Mr. Stier's services for the same
>urpose."
It now appears, however, that if Mr. Stier's coments are to w obtained in a timely manner. the contractor for his services must be GPUN, not this Board. Accordingly, we withdraw our earlier request that you 1
refrain from retaining Mr. Stier. You indicated that, with the Board's objection withdrawn, GPUN would proceed as pre 91ously planned.
n i x., j n L-, a
% Wiflf"Vl
+
A 2
The scope of Mr. Stier's work will, of course, be for GPUN and Mr.
Stier to detemine. We will take the liberty,*however, of indicating our general interest in Mr. Stier's consnents on any significant differences, both in technical analysis and issues of individual responsibility, between his Report and the NRR and 01 Reports. Mr.
Stier might wish to focus )articularly on any matters on which the NRR or 01 Reports have caused 11m to change his earlier conclusions.
The Board appreciates your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely, Ar=-
/4ples L. Keriley, Chaf rMn, Y6r the Presiding Board cc: All Parties on Service List l
l