ML20141D810

Memorandum & Order Scheduling 860411 Telcon W/All Parties to Hear Comments/Objections to Listed Board Proposals.Partial Mod to Schedule in 860326 Memorandum & Order Re Proposed Witnesses & Documents May Be Required.Served on 860403

ML20141D810
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	04/03/1986
From:	Bright G, Kelley J, Kline J Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power, GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP., NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
References
CON-#286-656 86-519-02-SP, LRP, NUDOCS 8604080280
Download: ML20141D810 (4)

Text

e h 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 000KETED USNRC Before the Presiding Board:

James L. Kelley, Chaiman M APR -3 P3 :59 Glenn 0. Bright Jerry R. Kline OFFICE 00CMETINGOFA n ae.. . J, .1 BRANCw .

)

ggv10 APR 3 M In the Matter of ) Docket No. LRP

)

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

LEAK RATE DATA FALSIFICATION ) April 3, 1986

)

Memorandum and Order (Arrangements for Hearing on Technical Issues)

The Board believes that it would be desirable to move this inquiry forward in the near future by hearing evidence on technical matters, notwithstanding the present unavailability of Staff and 01 Reports directed primarily toward issues of individual responsibility. With a view toward holding a hearing session in late May on technical issues, the Board is scheduling a telephone conference with the parties for 10 a.m. on April 11, 1986 to hear their comments on and/or objections to the following Board proposals:

1. Subject of Initial Hearing Session: Technical background on leak rates, including TMI test records and whether particular leak rate tests were valid, but not including issues of individual responsibility for invalid tests.

06040%h$

PDR p

G D50L

r i

2. Documents: Staff testimony, as outlined in item 1 Board List of Proposed Witnesses; Faegre & Benson Report, all volumes; Stier Report, Volumes IV (A) through IV (L).

3. Witnesses: Staff -- Jared S. Wermiel and Donald C.

Kirkpatrick Board -- Winthrop A. Rockwell, Edwin H. Stier, and ,

possibly othe*s associated with them, depending upc.i the issues raised by questions (see 5, below).

4. Prefiled Testimony. In a departure from discussion at the prehearing conference (Tr. 26), only the Staff would prefile testimony in this initial phase. The existing reports of Faegre & Benson and Stier would serve as their prefiled testimony. (We expect.that prefiled testimony would be required of witnesses in later phases of the inquiry.)

5. Questions for Witnesses. The parties' proposed questions for the witnesses would be reviewed by the Board and, if found to be within the scope of the issues framed by the Commission, sent to the witnesses in advance of the hearing, along with the Board's questions. Objections by the proponent to any Board exclusion of a proposed question and any objections to questions by the other parties could be raised at the hearing. This will enable the witnesses to focus in advance on the principal concerns.

r n

(

6. Status of Witnesses. The status of a witness can become significant in this inquiry in various ways, including payment, informal access, counseling and preparation of testimony. In one sense, all of the witnesses are " Board" witnesses, since only the Board can call a witness. Commission Order, paragraph C 5(c). In the Board's view, its exclusive authority to call witnesses does not carry with it Board responsibility to pay (other than statutory amounts), counsel or regulate access to all witnesses in the inquiry. On the contrary, we expect that, as a general rule, counsel for the parties (most of whom will also be witnesses) will perform those functions. However, Messrs.

Rockwell and Stier (and any of their associates) are in a rather unusual I

position. They prepared their reports as paid consultants to GPUN and,-

if this were a conventional licensing case, they might be expected to appear as " witnesses for GPUN," with the counselfunctions normally associated with that designation. However, they are independent professionals; their work on leak rates is completed and in the public domain as a major body of information on the subject. Under these circumstances, and considering the need for public confidence in the openness of this inquiry, we think it appropriate that Messrs. Rockwell and Stier (and any of their associates) be paid exclusively by the NRC for their work associated directly with this hearing. They will not be writing advance testimony, nor do we see any need for counseling since Rockwell and Stier are both attorneys. As to informal access prior to the hearing, we believe that either all narties or no party should have it. The Board proposes a "no access" rule becsuse (1) as we understand

e 1

('  :

0 ,

1 1

it, these witnesses are not under any obligation to speak to any party, (2) an equal access rule is difficult to monitor and (3) with the reports in the public domain, informal access prior to the hearing is unnecessary and may be burdensome on the witnesses if they agreed to grant access.

Schedule. The Board proposes the following schedule:

Telephone Conference, April 11, 1986 all parties 10 a.m.

Parties questions April 25, 1986 in Board's hands Questions submitted May 2, 1986 to witnesses Commencement of hearing May 19, 1986 on technical issues If this proposed schedule is adopted, it may require partial nodification of the schedule we set in our March 26, 1986 Memorandum and Order concerning objections to proposed witnesses and documents. We advance the proposed schedule because we do not expect numerous objections to the materials and witnesses we are proposing in this Order. If that expectation proves to be incorrect, we can discuss its t impact in the telephone conference.

THE PRESIDING B0 RD

%. j y f(arfies L. Kelley, DMINISTRATIVE Chafman JUDGE b _ WNM Glenn l. Bright .7 AEMINISTRATIVE JUDGE 2,/h rry R. Klit)(

Bethesda, Maryland MINISTRATItE JUDGE

- - _ .