ML20204F584
| ML20204F584 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 07/29/1986 |
| From: | Blake E GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#386-166, RTR-NUREG-0680, RTR-NUREG-680 86-519-02-SP, 86-519-2-SP, LRP, NUDOCS 8608040240 | |
| Download: ML20204F584 (9) | |
Text
I QD July 29, 1986 O '1 A10:16 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSI
((f[f (/g ;4j. y E,y;,3f.':? f; 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
)
)
GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION'S COMMENTS ON RESPONSE OF EMPLOYEES TO MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF JUNE 24, 1986 In its Memorandum and Order of June 24, 1986, the Presiding Board requested that the Numerous Employees state the precise portions of OI Report 1-83-0281/ and NUREG-0680, Supp. No. 5 that related to TMI-l leak rate testing and that they sought to be admitted.
The Numerous Employees responded on July 14, 1986, by urging inclusion in the initial record of the entire OI Report 1-83-028 and Sections 4.0 and 13.2 of NUREG-0680, Supp. No.
5.
l l
1/
Although the Order refers to OI Report 1-23-011, it is as-sumed that the reference was intended to be to OI Report l
l-83-028 (related to TMI-l leak rate practices).
The Numer-ous Employees note in their July 14 Response that they erro-neously referred to OI Report 1-23-010 in ;their June 6 Re-sponse to Memorandum and Order of May 22,_ 1986, and that they actually meant OI Report 1-83-028. 'Thus, the Numerous Employees in their July 14 Response focus appropriately on l
OI Report 1-83-028, not 1-83-010.
(There is no report
_ 011 to Licensee's knowledge.)
See Response of l
Employees to Memorandum and Order of June 24, 1986
(" Employees' Response"), filed July 14, 1986, at 2 n.2.
88881888!Bt8?jigo o
6 e
GPU Nuclear is opposed to the admission of these documents and offers the following comments in support of its opposition.2/
i I.
OI Report 1-83-028 The Numerous Employees inconsistently argue for the inclu-sion of OI Report 1-83-028 because of its usefulness as "an his-torical background document" but for the exclusion of OI Report 1-83-010 "because it draws conclusions as to the culpability of individuals or characterizes the testimony of witnesses."
Employees' Response at 3-4.
The Numerous Employees ignore the fact that OI Report 1-83-028, like OI Report 1-83-010, contains 1
conclusions about the involvement and culpability of individuals in alleged leak rate falsifications.
Moreover, unlike OI Report i
1-83-028 that deals with individuals at Unit 2 which is the issue in this proceeding, OI Report 1-83-010 deals with Unit 1 individ-uals which are not at issue here.
I Even if the Board agrees that TMI-l historical background is necessary in this proceeding, GPU Nuclear submits that the Numer-j ous Employees have recommended the inclusion of inappropriate background.
OI Report 1-83-028 concerns the actions from 2/
The Board's Memorandum and Order of June 24',
1986, while setting July 14, 1986, as the deadline for;the Employees' Response, does not set a due date for objections or comments i
of other parties to the Numerous Employees' Response.
GPU Nuclear, therefore, respectfully requests leave to file this pleading. _ -. _ - _
m I
1 April 1978 through March 1979, of all individuals involved in leak rate testing at TMI-1, the vast majority of whom were not licensed at Unit 2 during the same period.
While the Shift Supervisors were cross-licensed, these few individuals are a small number of the total number of licensed individuals at Unit 1 whose actions are not issue in this proceeding.
To the extent individual Unit 2 operators such as Shift Supervisors re-gard their individual experiences at Unit 1 as relevant, presuma-bly they will recount that in their prepared testimony.
This does not mean, however, that Unit 1 individuals and practices need wholesaledly to be drawn into this Unit 2 proceeding.
GPU Nuclear thus believes that admission of OI Report 1-83-028 would be both unnecessary and inappropriate, in addition to being in-consistent with the very arguments and objections advanced by the Numerous Employees themselves.
II.
NUREG-0680, Supp. No. 5 The Numerous Employees also propose the addition of Sections 4.0 and 13.2 of NUREG-0680, Supp. No. 5.
GPU Nuclear opposes the admission of these sections for many of the same reasons it op-poses the admission of OI Report 1-83-028.
In a proceeding that already promises to prpduce a lengthy record, the admission of Section 4.0, which draws largely on OI Report 1-83-028 and itself contains a detailed discussion leak rate testing and conclusions about personnel actions at TMI-1, is __
also unnecessary and contrary to the often repeated position of the Numerous Employees against admission of documents that evalu-ate the culpability of individuals.
Numerous Employees' position seems particularly fitting insofar as it relates to individuals' involvement and culpability at TMI-1, which is not at issue in this proceeding.
We oppose admission of all of Section 4 advo-cated by Numerous Employees because we regard it as portending an unnecessary expansion of this fact-finding proceeding on activi-ties by individuals at Unit 2 into the involvements and cul-pabilities of individuals at Unit 1 beyond the purposes of this proceeding.
Section 4.0 goes far beyond need for an historical perspective of practices at Unit 1 which Numerous Employees ap-parently believe is necessary.
No such argument of historical need may be made for admis-sion of Section 13.2, which, unlike Section 4.0, does not even focus on TMI-l leak rate testing.3/
Section 13.2 presents a Staff position on the managerial integrity of certain individuals as revealed by their involvement or lack thereof in six events, none of which is TMI-l leak rate testing.
See NUREG-0680, Supp.
No. 5, Tables 13.1 and 13.2.
In addition to presenting the very sort of conclusions about individuals that t'ne Numerous Employees 3/
Infact, the sole reference to TMI-l leak rate testing in the entire Section 13.2 is with respect to an individual whom the Commission has explicitly excluded from considera-tion in this proceeding.
See NUREG-0680, Supp. No.
5.,
P.
13-16. l
=
-v
---a
s have consistently found objectionable in other documents, Section 13.2 addresses the involvement and integrity of six individuals whom the Commission has specifically named as outside the scope of this proceeding.
See Order and Notice of Hearing, CLI-85-18 at 3 n.1, 6; see also LRP Tr. 139.
Despite the specific Board instruction that Employees specify the portions of NUREG-0680, Supp. No. 5 that should be included, no attempt has been made to carve out even those portions (which constitute the vast majority of Section 13.2) that are clearly outside the explicit scope of this proceeding.
Further, we question the Numerous Employees reasoning that Section 13.2 should be admitted because it " con-stitutes a relevant admission by the NRC staff that the adherence to certain leak rate testing practices at TMI-2 that originated at TMI-l does not constitute misconduct.
Employees' Response at 4-5.
The Numerous Employees' argument that NRC staff has made an
" admission" regarding TMI-l leak rate testing practices in Section 13.2 would appear not to relate to the instant TMI-2 fact finding hearing, but rather more appropriately to the next stage of the process, i.e.,
the recommendations required of the staff to be provided "to the Commission regarding what action, if any, should be taken" based on "the Presiding Board's recommended de-cision and taking into account any other information which it believes is appropriate for Commission consideration." Order and Notice of Hearing CLI-85-18, at 10 (Emphasis ddded).
l.. _
e GPU Nuclear thus opposes the admission of Section 13.2 as irrelevant, unnecessary, inconsistent with the Numerous Employees' own position against documents containing conclusions about individual culpability, and, in terms of the individuals addressed, substantially outside the scope of this proceeding.
Dated:
July 29, 1986 Respectfully submitted, G/fM4$.
Ernest L.
Blake, Jr.
John N. Nassikas III SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 822-1084 Counsel for GPU Nuclear Corporation O
e.
e s
July 29, 1986 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
)
)
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.713, the undersigned attorney enters his appearance in the above-captioned proceeding.
Name:
John N. Nassikas III Address:
SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 1800 M Street, N.W.
l Washington, D.C.
20036 Telephone Number:
(202) 955-3256 Party Represented:
GPU Nuclear Corporation 100 Interpace Parkway Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 Basis of Eligibility:
Admitted to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals Dated:
July 29, 1986 a
gohn N. Nassikas,.I W
..n-,-
,-~-, -. - - -.
n
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 July 29, 1986, I caused to be served the foregoing "GPU Nuclear Corporation's Comments on Re-sponse of Employees to Memorandum and Order of June 24, 1986" and
" Notice of Appearance" of John N. Nassikas III by mail, copies 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 i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Jack R. Goldberg, Esq.
Office of Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 l
e 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 Box 886 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 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, New York 12946 and Mrs. Marjorie M. Aamodt 200 N. Church Street Parkesburg, Pennsylvania 19356 j
j/ John N. Nassiksk TTL/
l
/
\\
l
. __._ ___ _ _ - - _ _ -