ML20206D739
| ML20206D739 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 06/16/1986 |
| From: | Jim Hickey GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#286-626 86-519-02-SP, 86-519-2-SP, LRP, NUDOCS 8606200178 | |
| Download: ML20206D739 (7) | |
Text
.326l
\\;
/
June g
U
-n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA o7 1g%
v, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSI v
BEFORE THE PRESIDING BOARIkhjgyNeu $s
,$[
% }&'
/
sf
)
q is 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 RESPONSIVE COMMENTS ON OTHER PARTIES' JUNE 6 FILINGS The Board's Memorandum and Order of May 22, 1986, established June 16 for responsive cc.nents on the comments and objections of other parties filed on June 6.
GPU Nuclear offers the following responsive comments on the other parties' June 6 filings.
l The Proposed Schedule I*,
[
Counsel for Mr. Herbein has advised the Board of an j'
apparently unalterable,nchedule conflict and provided detailed understandable reasons,for requesting an adjustment in the l
-Board's proposed hearing schedule.
GPU Nuclear does not object l
to the request, and has no preference between the alternatives he has provided.
~
L>
..,,3
{j 0$0IOb20 78 e6062gODOCW Gg POR 1
A1 I
\\
Qj O
i r
i
"No Access" Ruling Several parties take issue with the Board's "no access" ruling.
GPU Nuclear previously has stated it would abide by the ruling, but in the event unforeseen problems arise with it, would advise the Board (TR.196-97).
We maintain that position.
Additional Documents The Numerous Employees seek reconsideration of the Board's ruling on OI Report 1-83-010 and portions of NUREG-0680 Supp. No.
5.
GPU Nuclear is unpersuaded by the arguments reiterated by Numerous Employees and maintains its position previously stated on these two documents.
In the event the Board were to reconsider and to admit these documents, however, GPU Nuclear would propose additional documents be admitted as well on this subject.
GPU Nuclear Proposal on Prior Statements The Aamodts are the one party to oppose GPU Nuclear's May 9 proposal regarding prior statements.
They express the view that GPU Nuclear's proposal is premature and should await completion of Phase I of the hearing.
Since the very Board Order which they j
cite as support contemplates that there may be no hearing beyond l
Phase I and since GPU Nuclear's proposal was intended to reduce unnecessary hearing time, resolution of the matter prior to the completion of Phase I is necessary, to avoid making a " Phase II" hearing necessary to deal with these statements.
Moreover, we strongly disagree with the gratuitous and unsupported Aamodt assertion that "GPU's assessment of the culpability of two of l
_.. ~ _., - -. -.. _,
4 these employees does not appear valid."
GPU Nuclear's proposal was that prior statements of certain individuals could be used to eliminate them as witnesses in this proceeding " absent a documented reason, beyond speculation" (emphasis in original) why they need appear.
As we pointed out in making the proposal, some individuals identified as potentially involved or knowledgeable witnesses were included simply because of their job titles in 1978-1979.
The Aamodts' observation that two individuals' job titles " indicate involvement and/or knowledge of leak rate falsification" is precisely the type of speculation GPU Nuclear had in mind when it made its proposal.
Moreover, the further Aamodt position that " blanket elimination of fifteen employees, presently under suspicion, on the basis of prior statements --
many of which are alleged untruthful and conflicting -- is wholly inappropriate" is not only speculation of the very type we do not believe sufficient to require attendance of an individral as a witness, but as well, in itself, is " wholly inappropriate."
The Aamodts offer nothing of a factual basis to support their claim, l
I and their reckless and derogatory assertions in this regard emphasize the need for a rule that unsupported speculation should not be sufficient to keep individuals involved in this proceeding.
As we note below in our comments on Numerous Employees' views regarding use of prior statements, we believe this proceeding does and should have as one of its objectives to exculpate individuals whose names have arisen in connection with the subject matter of falsified leak rate testing at TMI-2.
In the meantime, as we proceed through what now appears will be an l
t extended proceeding to reach that objective, we request that the Board admonish the parties (and particularly the Aamodts based on their performance to date) not to misperceive their obligation to argue their positions in this proceeding as a license to abuse f
the rights of individuals or assault their character absent a sound basis in fact.
The Numerous Employees agree with the GPU Nuclear proposal that prior statements be relied upon, as appropriate, to demonstrate that certain individuals need not be called as witnesses, but object to the use of such prior statements as evidence.
This proceeding is to determine the potential involvement or knowledge, if any, of a large number of identified individuals concerning leak rate testing at TMI-2 in 1978 and 1979.
We believe it is important that the Board as a result of this proceeding not only identify and specify those who are involved or knowledgeable and in what respects, but also that the Board affirmatively clear once and for all where no eviderce exists to the contrary those whose names have nevertheless arisen in this context.
GPU Nuclear's May 9 proposal for use of prior i
statements which included admission of certain limited and l
l specified prior statements into evidence without need for the individuals to appear as witnesses, was simply intended to provide record evidence to allow the Board to explicitly clear specified employees of any perceived blemish in this regard by virtue of their having been previously identified as potentially involved in, or knowledgeable of, the subject matter of this proceeding.
_4_
t Initial Questions For Witnesses The Numerous Employees in their comments express the expectation that since all their questions (with the possible exception of some clarifying questions) will be directed to the credibility or sufficiency of witnesses' reports or pre-filed testimony, their questions will not be submitted to the witnesses in advance.
GPU Nuclear understands the Board's ruling, however, to reserve totally to the Board's discretion those questions submitted by any party which the Board will not submit in advance to a witness.
Moreover, we note that the entire discussion on advance witness notice of questions has occurred in the context of the technical witnesses in a purely technical phase of the hearing.
Since there will no longer be a separate technical phase, and in view of Numerous Employees' understanding of'the Board ruling which would result in a vastly different practice than GPU Nuclear has supported with regard explicitly to technical witnesses (TR.164-65), we ask the Board to clarify its ruling.
Dated:
June 16, 1986 Respectfully submitted, i
%kMo Err est L.
Bljke, Jr.
g J.l Patrick Hickey
}
SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 822-1084 Counsel for GPU Nuclear Corporation,
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 June 16, 1986, I served the foregoing "GPU Nuclear Corporation's Responsive Comments on Other Parties' June 6 Filings" by mailing, first class, postage prepaid, 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 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Jack R. Goldberg, Esq.
Office of Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555.
b a
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 Chicngo, 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
\\910k 0 J. Pytrick Hipkey 3 -
.