ML20209H723

Request & Order (Concerning Briefing on Certain Issues in Proceeding).* Requests Comments & Briefing on Parts V & VI of Numerous Employees 870123 Memorandum of Law. Listed Concerns Should Be Addressed.Served on 870203

ML20209H723
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	02/02/1987
From:	Bright G, Carpenter J, Kelley J Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	AAMODTS, GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP., NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
References
CON-#187-2400 86-519-02-SP, 86-519-2-SP, LRP, NUDOCS 8702060123
Download: ML20209H723 (3)

Text

. . . _ _ . _

, 2 f66 eW

>n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Idb NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Presiding Board: '87 FEB -3 A10 :47 James L. Kelley, Chairman .

Glenn 0. Bright [rfc L: t Dr. James H. Carpenter M .

SEWED FEB 031987 In the Matter of Docket No. LRP

) ASLBP No. 86-519-02 SP INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 )

LEAK RATE DATA FALSIFICATION ) February 2, 1987

}

6 REQUEST AND ORDER (Concerning Briefing of Certain Issues in this Proceeding)

The Numerous Employees have submitted a Memorandum of Law dated January 23, 1987 concerning certain issues in this proceeding. The Board believes that it would benefit from briefing by the parties and the NRC Staff on Parts V and VI of the Employees' Memorandum, pp. 14-23.

Coments on the arguments developed in these pages would be appreciated, with respect to both legal analysis and the state of the record in this case. Without intending to limit the coments, the following specific concerns should be addressed:

1. Whether violation of Met Ed procedural requirements relating to leak rates may form the basis for punitive action by the NRC against an employee.

2. Assuming that the answer to question 1 is negative, whether this Board should nevertheless make findings in this legislative inquiry DOhko$$$$20 l)D PDR

b concerning violations of relevant Met Ed administrative procedures because, in fact if not in law, such violations are relevant to the issues posed to us and because the Commission should be informed of significant gaps in the existing regulatory scheme.

3. Whether the distinction at page 17 between procedures being

" established, implemented and maintained" versus their being " adhered to" is sound.

4. Whether it is correct that the TMI-2 Tech Specs do not require satisfactory leak rate test results measuring unidentified leakage as a condition of continued operation. In that connection, discuss whether any of the other three surveillance methods listed in Section 4.4.6.2 could demonstrate compliance with the 1 gpm limit on unidentified leakage as it is defined in the TMI-2 Tech Specs (not as the subject of leakage and surveillance is more generally discussed in Peg. Guide 1.45). See Employee Memorandum, pp. 21-22.

5. Whether it is correct that entry into the action statement was not necessarily required when a leak rate test showed unidentified leakage in excess of 1 gpm and there was no clear basis for invalidating that test -- e.g. because of an obvious operator error. The basis for this proposition by the Employees appears to be that one of the other surveillance methods might show compliance with the 1 gpm limit.

Memorandum, p. 22. Do you agree?

6. Whether the last sentence of the Employees' Memorandum on page 23 is consistent with ragulatory requirements. On the record of this proceeding, this sentence appears to the Board to suggest that an

6-employee may certify as accurate and retain records he has reason to believe are not accurate (i.e., any leak rate test result under 1 gpm) while systematically discarding records he has no better reason to believe are accurate (i.e., any leak rate test over 1 gpm).

i The NRC Staff is not a party to this proceeding. However, the Board may call upon the Staff for assistance. Accordingly, the Board requests the Staff to provide comments on the concerns listed in this Order, and generally on the issues discussed at pp. 14-23 of the Numerous Employees' Memorandum.

GPU Nuclear Corporation is a party to this proceeding and the issues discussed at pp. 14-23 of the Memorandum are important to its responsibilities as the licensee. Accordingly, GPU is directed to address those issues and the specific concerns listed in this Order.

The other parties to the proceeding may conwent on those issues and concerns if they choose to do so.

Conanents in response to this Order shall be filed with reply connents by February 17, 1987.

THE PRESIDING BOARD l  % 0. f>>r

~Glenn O. Bright g7 ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE im w Drf James H. Carpe 6ter t A)DlINISTRATIVEJUDGE 1

I h"""

l Jamet L. Kelley, C)rdinnan ADMINISTRATIVE JU9GE l

l Bethesda, Maryland I

i

. _ _ _ . _ . __ _ ,_ . __. _ _ .. _ __._ _., .__ . . . _ _ _ . . . _ , . . _ . . . _ _ _ _ . . . . . . _ . . . . _ . _. - - -