ML20206M211
| ML20206M211 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 04/13/1987 |
| From: | Blake E GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3109 86-519-02-SP, 86-519-2-SP, LRP, NUDOCS 8704200055 | |
| Download: ML20206M211 (6) | |
Text
__
' aid 1
- q April 13, 1987 00LKETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 17 art 15 21:37 BEFORE THE PRESIDING BOARD OFFICE CT E';idiAs 00CKE f thG 4 Si1Vlf.f.
BRANCH In the Matter of
)
)
INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE
)
Docket No. LRP ISLAND UNIT 2 LEAK RATE
)
DATA FALSIFICATION
)
ASLBP NO. 86-519-02 SP GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION'S RESPONSE TO AAMODT REQUEST FOR RELIEF On March 27, 1987, the Aamodts filed with the Presiding Board a Request for Relief.
They complain that four months ago during the hearing in'this proceeding a question they proposed for a witness was not asked, and they request now, despite the intervening four months, close of record, and submission of all findings, that a restated question be asked, answered and taken into account by the Board, and that costs for their expense in making the instant request be assessed against counsel for Numer-ous Employees.
GPU Nuclear Corporation ("GPU Nuclear") opposes l
the Aamodt request.
1 The Aamodt Request for Relief is in essence a motion to re-
^
open the record.
They neither acknowledge this nor the standards i
which apply, much less address the standards and demonstrate how 0704200055 870413 PDR ADOCK 05000320 O
PDR 63
Q they are met.
In fact, the request is untimely, seeks margin-ally, if at all, relevant and material information, and is mooted in any event by counsel for Numerous Employees' letter of April 3, 1987.
It should be denied summarily.
Counsel for GPU Nuclear has foregone responding to a number of Aamodt pleadings.
We are, however, responding to this one largely because of their suggestion that somehow all counsel in the proceeding intentionally led the Presiding Board astray.
The charge is poppycock.
When the Aamodts in November 1986, long distance from Lake Placid proposed the question at issue, GPU Nuclear counsel advised the Presiding Board that it should not read into the record Aamodt Question 24 as proposed for the witness Mr. Floyd because of a prior stipulation on confidentiality.
Egg Tr. 5008, 5030.
The question as proposed would have divulged the name of an individual which GPU Nuclear, the Aamodts, NRC Staff and others had agreed during the TMI 1 Restart proceeding to maintain confidential.
The Aamodts now argue that disclosing Mr. Floyd's name was not a problem because his confidentiality had been waived subse-quent to entering into the stipulation.
GPU Nuclear agrees.
Mr.
Floyd was not the problem when the question was posed in November and is not now.
The Aamodts argue that the Protective Order issued by the Hearing Examiner in conjunction with the confidentiality Stipula-tion states "for the duration of (the Restart] proceedings.".
O Q
Again, GPU Nuclear agrees.
It is sensible that an order of this type by a Hearing Examiner would refer to the length of the pro-ceeding in which he was involved.
The Aamodts go on to infer the rights and responsibilities of the signatories to the Stipulation on confidentiality termi-nated at the end of the Restart proceeding.
GPU Nuclear does not agree.
As one of the signatories to the Stipulation, undersigned counsel did not understand when he signed that Stipulation that as soon as the proceeding was over, he was free to publish the names of all those to whom he was then agreeing to refer only by letter designation; he does not believe today he is free to do so either by the words or spirit of the agreement.
The reasons for entering into the Stipulation in March 1981 remain valid today.
All parties to the Stipulation, to counsel's knowledge, have hon-ored this agreement.
On information and belief, the individual named in Aamodt proposed Question 24 has never valved his request for confidentiality.
The Aamodts now propose that a restated question be asked of Mr. Floyd.
The question as restated removes the objectionable disclosure.
It is possible that the same cure could have been offered during the hearing, in November, four months ago.
How-ever, the Aamodts did not attend the hearing and made.no such offer.
We believe that they must live with their choice not to attend the hearings.
While no duty existed on others to cure the problem, the Presiding Board tried and in fact, did pose restated questions to Mr. Floyd.
See Tr. 5029-32.
The Board should not - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _
O kj' be faulted by the Aamodts for not restating the question in the same way the Aamodts now do -- four months later.
Dated:
April 13, 1987 Respectfully submitted, ld W & > 8 /W Er' nest L. Blake, Jr.'
SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20037 (202) 663-8000 Counsel for GPU Nuclear Corporation o-
?)
i 00LKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USNRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE PRESIDING BOARD MN ng Aav f0C T h[5'iEPvlCL f
)
BRANCH In the Matter of
)
)
Docket No. LRP INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE
)
ISLAND UNIT 2 LEAK RATE
)
ASLBP No. 86-519-02 SP DATA FALSIFICATION
)
)
y CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on April 13, 1987 I served the fore-going "GPU Nuclear Corporation's Response to Aamodt Request for Relief" by hand-delivering a copy thereof to the following per-sons marked with an asterisk and by mailing, first class, postage prepaid, a copy thereof to the remaining individuals and office on the following list:
- 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 James H. Carpenter Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 5
6 9
Mary E. Wagner, Esq.
Office of General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 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 t;
Mrs. Marjorie M. Aamodt Box 652 Lake Placid, New York"12946 fohn N. Nassikas C
-r-
, - - -., -