ML20093L063

Response to TMI Alert 841001 Fifth Set of Interrogatories Re Dieckamp Mailgram.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20093L063
Person / Time
Site:	Crane
Issue date:	10/15/1984
From:	Blake E GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	THREE MILE ISLAND ALERT
Shared Package
ML20093L059	List: ML20093L055 ML20093L063
References
SP, NUDOCS 8410180287
Download: ML20093L063 (25)

Text

m-

o.

RELATED CCRRESPONDENQk October it, j

00II7 AJJ 3g UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r.

Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

~

'In the Matter of

.)

)

Docket No. 50-289

' METROPOLITAN. EDISON COMPANY

.)

(Restart Remand

)

on Management)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear-

)

Station, Unit No. 1)

)

LICENSEE'S RESPONSE.TO INTERVENOR THREE MILE ISLAND ALERT'S FIFTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES

'On October'1, 1984, the last day 1on which. interrogatories

-could be filed, Intervenor Th'ree Mile' Island Alert ("TMIA")

filed its Fifth Set of Interrcgatories to Licensee.

These In-

/terrogatories~. purportedly relate to the remanded proceeding on the;Dieckamp=mailgram.

However, to a great extent they not only ignore-the scope of this proceeding, but also flaunt the

-Licensing Board's Memorandum and Order Ruling on First GPU-TMIA Discovery' Dispute ~ (August 31, 1984), which established the per-missible~ scope of inquiry during discovery.

As.the Appeal Board stated in remanding the Restart pro-ceeding-for further hearings on the Dieckamp mailgram, "the scope,of.the Board'sfinquiry is relatively limited."

x m

841018g287841015K 0500028 DR A r

N.

r-,

,,,n.

--.-..~,.n D

w Metropolitan Edison Cc. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 1), ALAB-772, 19 N.R.C.

slip op. at 134 (May 24, 1984).

The inquiry merely addresses the accuracy of the.Dieckamp mailgram and Mr. Dieckamp's knowledge of wheth-er anyone interpreted the pressure spike in-terms of core dam-c=z age.

It does not address the withholding of information in general.

Tr. 27,363..Nevertheless, TMIA persists in filirig unfocused interrogatories on topics totally unrelated to this remanded proceeding.

Licensee objects to TMIA's flagrant at-tempt.to. expand this' proceeding to relitigate in its entirety the accident at Three Mile Island.

Licensee's answers and objections are as follows:

Interrogatory No. 1 With respect to Three Mile Island Alert's (TMIA)

First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for Produc-tion; TMIA's Second Set of Interrogatories and Second Re-quest for Production; and TMIA's Third Set of Interrogato-ries and Third Request for Production, supplement any

-response that is no longer complete, current or accurate.

-Response:

Licensee has reviewed its responses to TMIA's First, Sec-

ond and Third sets of discovery requests to Licensee.

Exclu-sive of any new information which may have been revealed as.a result of depositions of Licensee witnesses by TMIA and addi-tional responses to Questionnaires which have been placed in the Discovery-Room and which are available to TMIA, Licensee provides the following supplemental responses: a

9~

+

FirstiSet No.

12.

Licensee.has today learned.that.its supplemental-response to Interrogatory No. 12, in Licensee's

. Third: Supplemental Response to Three Mile Island

. Alert's First Set of Interrogatories (Oct.

9, 1984), contained some inaccuracy.

Licensee is l preparing a' supplemental response and will file it tomorrow.

No. -

14.

GPU. Interview of C.

Faust (March 30, 1979) men-L tioned the pressure pulse.

.No.

16.

Herman Dieckamp was driven from Harrisburg, PA to Mountain Lakes, N.J.

in the late afternoon and evening of March 28, 1979.

Mr. Dieckamp had dinner at'a restaurant.in Trexlertown, PA.

Mr.

Dieckamp was accompanied to New Jersey by Mr.

Jim McConnell and Mr. Ken McKee, both GPUSC per-

~

sodnel, who were in Harrisburg, PA on March 28, c

1979,-to meet with Lt. Governor-Scranton on a matter unrelated to the TMI-2 accident.

.Mr.

McKee and Mr. McConnell think that they were

~

-present when Mr. Dieckamp ran into Mr. Herbein,

'Mr. Miller and Mr.- Kunder on the Capitol steps, but neither recalls'any details of the conversa-tion that ensued. ii.

~

n Lc

\\

~ Third-Set

-No.

4.

' Additional addresses:

1.

Gary Capadonno - GPUNC, Cherry Hill Building

~ 2'.

William Hirst - Pennsylvania Electric Company, Johnstown, PA 3.

-Richard K.'L'entz - 7826 Richland Road

Pulaski, N.Y.

18142 Interrogatory No.'2 With respect to the time period from at or about 2:00 p.m. to at or about 8:00 p.m. on March 28, 1979, state the following regarding Mr. Dieckamp's actions or activities on that date:

___(a)'

describe all Mr. Dieckamp's-actions or ac-tivities.from the time he met with Mr. Herbein, Mr.

-Miller and'Mr. Kunder on; steps'of the State Capitol in Harrisburg,. Pennsylvania until he returned to his home in New Jersey.

With. respect to all such actions or activities identify the following:

(i) the precise time he arrived at each

~

location; (ii) the precise method of transportation he used to move fro' one location to another, i.e.,

by company car, airplane, private car, taxi, etc.

(iii) the person (s) who accompanied him fer any portion of the trip or time he moved from one location to the next; (iv) any communications between or among

'the persons who accompanied Mr. Dieckamp, wheth-er-or not Mr. Dieckamp participated in any such communications; (v) any communications between Mr.

Dieckamp.and Mr. Arnold during this period of time;

_4 n

y

~..

(vi) any. communications between Mr.

Dieckamp and Mr. Creitz during this period of

~

time;-

(vii) the precise method of any communica-tion identified in subparts (v):and (vi) above,

-that is, whether by telephone,. radio, g

walkie-talkie, wire, or other means of communi-cation;.

(viii) any documents which record.or other-wise refer to or mention Mr. Dieckamp's activi-ties or travel, including but not limited to airplane logs; telephone or itinerary records; calendars; travel arrangement;. chauffeur logs; and telephoneLrecords. This interrogatory is to be answered by all individuals within GPU with relevant information about Mr. Dieckamp's ac-tions or activities on' March 28, 1979.

' Response:

Licensee objects to this interrogatory.

The inter-

.rogatory is. irrelevant to the issue in the remanded proceeding on the Dieckamp mailgram 'in'that it does not purport to address the pressure spike, spray actuation, or generation and subse-quent combustion.of hydrogen,-or any other topic of communica-tion. reasonably related.to the pressure spike or the-Dieckamp

.mailgram.

Licensee has already provided copies of the results of

. questionnaires of Licensee's employees and ex-employees regard-cing their knowledge of and communications about the pressure spike,--spray actuation, hydrogen, and instructions not to oper-ate electrical equipment on March 28.

Licensee has previously provided response to interrogatories on these topics, including Lidentification of specific communications wich Mr. Dieckamp. e

[..

J

,_.---m.

G

.The interrogatory is also oppressive, unduly burdensome,

'and_ unduly expensive.

In effect, at the last possible moment

'TMIA asks Licensee to canvass all its employees to attempt to

' ascertain the exact movements of and precise substance of any

' communication with Mr. Dieckamp, however irrelevant.

Such an

' unfocused and_farreaching request _is beyond the pale.

TMIA has already received Mr. Dieckamp's written responses to interroga-tories, which provide.TMIA information on Mr. Dieckamp's activ-ities and communications.

See Licensee's' Response to TMIA's

.First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for Production (Sept. 4,'1984), Interrogatory Nos. 16 and 34; Licensee's Sup-plementalLResponse to TMIA's First Set of Interrogatories and

~

First' Request for Production (Sept. 11, 1984), Interrogatory No. 16.

Additionally, Messrs. Dieckamp, Herbein, Miller,

'Ihnide r, and Arnold have been deposed at length by TMIA on these very subjects.1/

There is simply no justification for the fur-ther,-unbridled, and extremely onerous inquiry-that this inter-rogatory now asks Licensee to undertake.

~

. Interrogatory No. 3 Identify all communications between Mr. Arnold and Mr.'Dieckamp on March 28,'1979 and between Mr. Creitz and Mr. Dieckamp on March-28,.1979.

The basis for this ques-tion is that Mr. Herbein testified in his deposition on September 28, 1979, that he believes that both Mr. Arnold and Mr. Creitz communicated with Mr. Dieckamp on March 28, 1979 about the TMI-2' Accident, although he could not

]/

TMIA is as well-seeking to depose Mr. Creitz. s-,a

. a

. e:

remember or did not know the specific issues or items dis-cussed.during those conversations.

Response

Licensee objects to this interrogatory as irrelevant in that it does not inquire:into and is not limited to communi-cations addressing the pressure spike, spray actuation, or gen-eration and subsequent combustion of hydrogen, or any other

' topic reasonably related to the pressure spike or the Dieckamp mailgram.

This interrogatory is also oppressive, unduly burdensome, and unduly expensive and unnecessary.

Mr. Dieckamp has already provided a written response to interrogatories addressing his communications; and TMIA has deposed Mr. Arnold, Mr. Dieckamp,

.and Mr. Herbein at length in these areas.

There is no justifi-cation for having Licensee duplicate the' responses of these

' individuals.2/

Interrogatory No. 4 Identify.all communications between Mr. Arnold and

-any of the following individuals on March 28, 1979:

(a)

T.

Gary Broughton (b)

J.

P.-Moore-I (c)

J.-Abramovici 2/

Even if it were reasonable to reiterate deposition testi-mony -- and it is not -- Licensee has not yet received the dep-osition transcripts that would permit such an exercise.

Also, because Licensee does not yet have copies of the deposition transcripts,. Licensee is unable to assess the accuracy of TMIA's characterization in the interrogatory of Mr. Herbein's testimony. - -

-%'^

s

T' N

y

?

T,--r_vaamu-*

• +

e

=

.n

--e-e --

s

' f ',

(d)

G.

Lehmann (e)

R. Lentz

-Response: - Licensee objects.to this interrogatory.

TMIA has the results of. questionnaires from each of these individuals i

regarding their knowledge and communications on March 28, 1979,

- about the pressure spike, spray actuation, general and subse-quent' combustion of hydrogen, and instruction not to use elec-

- tricalEequipment.

To the extent this interrogatory now seeks the-substar.ce of communications that do not address these top-

' ics;and-that are not limited to any other topic reasonably re-

- lated to the Dieckamp mailgram, the interrogatory exceeds the scope of this proceeding.

Licensee also objects to this interrogatory as oppressive, unduly burdensome,, and unduly expensive.

Messrs. Arnold, Broughton, Moore,.Abramovici, and Lentz have already been de-posed'by TMIA in this area; no-request has been made to depose Mr..Lehmann.

There-is no justification for requiring Licensee to reiterate their testimony.

Interrogatory No. 5 Identify all communications on March 28, 1979, be-tween the TMI-1 Control Room, the TMI-2 Control Room, or the Observation-Center, on the one hand,'and General Pub-lic Utilities Service Corporation offices or GPUSC's Moun-tain Lakes office,.on the other hand.

Include in your identification communications between or among the follow-ing individuals:

(a)

R. Arnold; (b)

R. Wilson; _

G m

. v.

(c)

E. G. Wallace;:

(d)

William.Hirts; (e)

Richard Lentz;

-(f)

T.

Gary Broughton; (g).

D.

Cronenberger; (h)

Mr. Capodanno; (i).J.-Moere; (j)

R..Keaton; L

J (k)'

G.

Lehmann; (1)

J..Abramovici; (m)

'L.

Rogers;

. (n),

S.

Maingi;-

(o)

G.

Schaedel; (p)

I~.

Porter; (q)

J.

Flint; (r)

U. Putman; (s)'

R. W. Winks;-

(t).

J.

J.

Kelly; (u)

T.

Twilley;

-(v)

E. Yuchrein;.

(w)

.D.

Uhl.

Response: Licensee objects to this interrogatory as irrelevant.

- The. interrogatory does not address the pressure-spike, spray

- actuation, or. generation and subsequent combustion of hydrogen,

'or any'other-topic of communication reasonably related to the pressure spike or-the Dieckamp mailgram.

.g.

n

Licensee.also objects to this interrogatory as oppressive, unduly ~ burdensome, and unduly expensive.

The interrogatory

. asks Licensee at the last possible moment not only to canvass

-23 individuals, a number of whom are former B&W employees not within' Licensee's control, in order to identify'every communi-

. cation among these individuals, regardless of relevance, but also to identify every other. communication between TMI-l Con-

-trol Room, TMI-2 Control Room, and the Observation Center and presumably _all GPU Service Corporation offices.

Finally, a number of the 23 individuals identified in the interrogatory have.already been deposed by TMIA and questioned with regard to communications.

Licensee also objects to this interrogatory as oppressive, unduly burdensome, and unduly ex-pensive to'the extent-it asks Licensee to reiterate their.

te stimo'ly.

-Interrogatory No. 6 Identify all persons who provided Mr. Moore with the information which he wrote in his notes for-March 28, 1979, at 5:00 p.m.

Response: Licensee objects to this interrogatory as irrelevant.

The interrogatory does not address the pressure spike, spray actuation, or the generation and subsequent combustion of hy-drogen, or any other topic reasonably related to the pressure spike or the Dieckamp mailgram..

t?

n

-Licensee.alsol objects to this interrogatory as oppressive,

-un u y burdensome, and unduly expensive.

Mr. Moore has already dl been fully.deposedion~this issue by TMIA.

~

Interrogatory No. 7 Identify all means, methods or lines of communication

_ hich existed between TMI-1, TMI-2 or the observation Cen-w ter.and Mountain Lakes, GPU Service Corporation ("GPUSC"),

on March 28, 1979.

Identify the function of all persons who at.any time from March 28, 1979 to March 30, 1979 were. located at GPUSC, Parsippany, or GPUSC at Mountain Lakes, with regard-

to the ongoing TMI Accident._ Specifically establish the function, duties and responsibilities, and_ actions and ac-tivities of the following persons on March 28, 1979:

(a)

D. Cronenberger; (b)

R. Keaten;-

(c)

N. Trikouros;-

(d)

D.

Slear; (e)

T. Dempsey; (f)

'R.

Heward; 1

(g)

~B.

McCutcheon;.

(h)

'J. Barton; (i)

M. Kostrey; (j)

B.

Reinmann;.

_(k)

L. Rochino; (1)

T.

Lu; (m)

L. Garibian;-

(n)

T. Golian; (o)

L.

Zanis;.

w m'

-~r.,*

o-a r:-

-w

,-rs,--

e w --s-mm-e 2

ve--e

-m--*ww-w,w w

-vse,

~

M

, t

. 5t

-(p)

.~J.

Langenbach; (q)

L.

Lanese:

,(r)

J. DeVine; (s):

W.

Schmauss; E

(t)

G.

Staudt;

(u)

R. Chisholm;.

-(v)

S.

Levin;

-(w)

B.

Elan; (x)

~R.' Cutler;

.(y)

-G.

Braulke; (z)

F..G.

Maus; (aa)

I.

Feinberg; (bb)

.S.

Deshmukh; (cc)-

J. Daniel; (dd) b.Steuerwald;

~

~(ee)

J. Thorpe;

-(ff)

~R.. Arnold; (gg)'

R. Wilson; (hh)

E..G.

Wallace;-

(ii)-

W..Lowe;-

n

.(j j )-

T.

Fischer;

-(kk)

M. Morrell; (11)

D.

Reppert; (mm)

R..McGoey.

Response

Lines, means and methods of communication between 12-

.g 5

p

?

=..

.n TMI-1, TMI-2, or the Observation Center and Mountain Lakes, GPU

. Service Corporation as they existed on March 28, 1979 included l telephonic communications.

Licensee is unaware of any direct or open' communication line-between TMI-1, TMI-2, or the Obser-

.vation' Center and Mountain Lakes, GPU Service Corporation on March'28,.1979, although T.G. Broughton in his June 11, 1979

-interview at page 23 suggests there was an open line between the site.and GPU Service Corporation in New Jersey in the af-

_ ternoon of March 28,'1979.

Licensee is unable to substantiate

'that testimony.

E With' respect to the request to identify the function of

.all persons who were located at Mountain Lakes or Parsippany on

- March 28, 29, or 30,~1979, and to establish the " function, du-ties and responsibilities, actions and activities" of the 39 named individuals, Licensee objects.

The-information requested is' irrelevant and unnecessary to the remanded proceeding.

Moreover,-this last minute' request is extremely oppressive and burdensome.

It would1 require a significant investigative ef-fort t'o gather and complete this information -- information

- that is of no worth whatsoever.

Interrogatory No. 8 Identify all communications between Mr. Arnold and B&W on March 28, 1979, concerning the TMI-2 Accident.

Response:. Licensee objects to this interrogatory as irrelevant.

The interrogatory does not address the pressure spike, spray..

b

s u i

-l l 9{

i actuation, Eor the' generation and subsequent combustion of hy-I(

^

.drogan, or1any-other. topic reasonably;related to the pressure spike or Dieckamp mailgram.

Licensee alsolobjects to.this interrogatory as oppressive,

' unduly burdensome,. and_ unduly expensive.

Mr. Arnold has al-Lready been-fully deposed by TMIA with1 respect to his communica-tions, and it'is unreasonable to require Licensee to reiterate his responses.

Interrogatory No. 9 Identify all information available to Mr. Arnold at theLtime he suggested, recommended, urged, ordered and/or directed.that, site personnel take the following actions

-during the afternoon of March-28, 1979.

(a) repressurize. the TMI-2 reactor; (b) -_ start HPI or' increase HPI;

.(c) start a. reactor' coolant pump.

Identify all. persons with.whom Mr. Arnold consulted

.in making these suggestions, recommendations,' orders or

' directions identified above.

Specifically state whether he consulted with the following individuals in making such recommendations,-order or directions; (a)

J.~Herbein; (b)

H.!Dieckamp; (c)

W. Creitz; (d).any B&W' personnel.

'With respect to any person identified above with whom Phc.-Arnold consulted state the.following:

(a) the information he/she possessed concerning the conditions of~the reactor and/or the strategies being used or. considered to bring the reactor to a stable condition;..

sv

1..

l e

(b) the persons he/she has previously consulted s

regarding the condition of the reactor; (c) all data he/she had reviewed or of which he/she had been informed prior to consultation with Mr.. Arnold.

Re'sponse': Licensee objects to this interrogatory as irrelevant.

The~in'terrogatory does not address the pressure spike, spray actuation, or'the generation and~ subsequent combustion of hy-

.drogen, or any_other-topic reasonably related to the pressure spike or Dieckamp mailgram.

Licensee also objects to this interrogatory as oppressive, unduly burdensome, and unduly expensive.

Mr. Arnold has al-ready been fully deposed by TMIA with respect to his communica-tions, an'd it is unreasonable to require Licensee to reiterate his. responses.

. Interrogatory No. 10 Mr. Chwastyk testified that awareness of the pressure spike and its implications led Mr. Miller to change to a repressurization strategy shortly after 1:50 p.m. on March 28, 1979.

.With regard to the repressurisation strategy imple-mented in the afternoon of March 28, 1979, identify the

=following:

(a) all actions taken in the course of this re-pressurization. strategy and the reason for taking

-each such action; (b) the precise time each such action was taken and the reason for taking each such action at that time; (c) the person (s) who ordered or. directed each such action be-taken, and the person (s) who imple-mented each such action; n

..(d) Lthe person (s) consulted in the course of determining to implement-thisEstrategy and/or the particular_. actions.taken in the course of imple-menting the strategy.

Response: Licensee objects to this interrogatory as-irrelevant.

JThe: interrogatory does not address the pressure spike, spray actuation ~, orLthe. generation or subsequent combustion of hydro-

~ gen, or_any other topic reasonably related_to the pressure-fspike or Dieckamp mailgram.

Licensee also objects to this' interrogatory as oppressive,

unduly burdensome, and. unduly expensive.

TMIA has already de-posed Messrs. Chwastyk'and_ Miller (and other individuals) with respect-to repressurization despite its irrelevance.

It would

- be' unreasonable to require Licensee to reiterate these individ-uals' responses.3/

Interrogatory No. 11 Several witnesses during depositions taken during the week of September 24,- 1984 have testified that operators and other licensee personnel located in the Unit 2 Control

Room _during.the first day of the Accident were debriefed

~during March,28,.1979 and March 29, 1979.

f With respect to such debriefings and/or interviews with operat' ors or other licensee personnel from the TMI-2 Control Room during March 28, 1979, identify the-follow-ing:

(a) all persons-who conducted the interviews or debriefings;

. 3/L

-In addition, because Licensee has not yet received a tran-script of Mr. Chwastyk's deposition, Licensee ~is unable to as-sess the accuracy of TMIA's characterization of Mr. Chwastyk's testimony-in the interrogatory...-

?

U g-m 8

4 m

, ;m E"~

-(b): all' persons who authorized or directed the-interviews lor-debriefings; 1

--(c) the'purposeLfor the-debriefings and/or in--

terviews;z f(d) all persons:who were debriefed or' inter-

^

viewed:on March 28,.-1979: or? March 29, 1979, (e)..Jall persons to whom.the information obtained during these debriefings and/or interviews zwas transmitted;1

)

'(f): the exact time and-date the information

q obtained during'these debriefings ~and/or interviews J

uwere transmitted to the persons. identified above and the precise ~information' transferred at these times;

-(g) all:inte'rviews o'r debriefings which could

- have'ledJto the'notesLtaken:by J. Moorelat.or'about 5:00 p.m. on March 28; 1979, which-had been previous-ly entered into the deposition record as Moore

~ '

l Exhibit 1;

~

'(h) zall documents which record,. memorialize, 1

mention;?or otherwise' refer.to these. debriefings or

~

interviews.

..~

1 Response: ^ Licensee objects to this interrogatory ascirrelevant.

lThe interrogatory'does.not address 1the pressure spike, spray

actuation,-ior-the generation and subsequent combustion of hy-drogen,ior any.other topic reasonably relatedLto the pressure s

spike'orlDieckamp,mailgram, or Licensee also objects to thisiinterrogatory as oppre'ssive, 5;:

s.

unduly. burdensome, and unduly expensive.

As'it notes, TMIA'has-already' questioned-a number of. individuals on debriefings dur-T Ling the recent depositions.

.It would be unreasonable to re-quire Licensee'to reiterate-their.reuponses, particularly when Licensee has not:yet' received the. transcripts of their

. +

-.e

-v

yg ;

s:

. depositions.

In addition, Licensee would have to undertake a major investigative effort to attempt to ascertain the informa-tion asked in this interrogatory (e.g.,

to identify every per-

' son to whom irrelevant information obtained during interviews

.or debriefings.was transmitted).

Such a last minute and con-siderable. effort'is certainly not justified by TMIA's request for such useless information.

. Interrogatory No. 12 Identify all' persons who directed that Mr. Moore be prevented access to Three Mile Island-(TMI-1 and TMI-2) on

. March 28, 1979, when he originally arrived at the TMI site.

Identify all persons who directed that any other

.GPU~ Service Corporation personnel be denied-access to the

-TMI-2 Control Room.on March 28, 1979, including but not limited to any-of the group of GPUSC engineers Mr. Herbein has testified Mr. Arnold sent to the TMI site on March 28, 1979.

Response: Licensee objects to this interrogatory as irrelevant.

The interrogatory does not address the pressure spike, spray actuation, or the generation and subsequent combustion of hy-

'drogen, or any other topic reasonably related to the pressure spike and Dieckamp mailgram.

TMIA had in' depositions specifi-

-cally inquired not only of engineers regarding their access to

.TMI on' March 28, but also of at least Mr. Miller and Mr.

Herbein regarding access to the plant on March 28.

Licensee therefore also objects.to this interrogatory as burdensome and unnecessary.

. n

'f J

i i Interrogat'ory No.*13' y.n 2

State 1 Licensee's position as to the following

T (a)

Should the pressure spike indicating'a real finerease,in pressure to at least 28 psi have been re-

..portedito licensee management,-GPUSC management,,the tNRC orithe Commonwealth of-Pennsylvania on-March 28, 1979?'

. r 1

(b). Should.the' initiation of. containment sprays

-h' ave'been reported'to licensee management, GPUSC man-M4 agement, the-NRC or the< Commonwealth.of Pennsylvania Jon March 28, 1979?

-z (c)- Should the fact.of in-core thermocouple readingslin excess of 2200-degrees ~have been reported to licensee; management, GPUSC management, the NRC or the: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on' March':28, 1979?

'Answerithe above questions considering two

. alternate. theories:

(a)I Control room personnel with knowledge of the condition and/or fact believed the reading or indicators to be accurate and reliable;

..(b) -Control, room personnel with knowledge g

ofothe condition and/or-fact did not believe the reading or indicator.to be accurate and reli-

~

T able;.

' Response: Licensee objectsito this interrogatory as irrelevant.

! The issue _in this; proceeding is the, accuracy of the Dieck' amp

~

imailgram -- whether there"was evidence.that anyone had inter-preted~the' pressure spike in; terms of core damages on the day 1

of th'e' accident andLhad withheld such~information.

Tr. 27,363.

'Reportability is simply not at issue, but rather simply whether

the;: significance of the pressure spike was' appreciated on the c28th. <Licenseeshas already. referred TMIA to testimony that two Licensee ~ employees informed the NRC on the 28th of the t

1,

r r-t cn.

c

7-

. occurrence of.the pressure spike, and to Licensee's having in-

-formed the NRC of the significance of the pressure spike in the labe evening oflthe.29th or early morning of~the 30th.

See Licensee's Response to TMIA's First Set of Interrogatories (Sept.

4, 1984), Interrogatory No. 40.

Licensee also objects to this interrogatory as' calling for

'-a legal conclusion.

TMIA is equally capable of. analyzing these facts and NRC law and of making such'a legal determination.

Interrogatory No. 14 Identify all. person (s) who briefed Mr. Herbein and Mr. Dieckamp on TMI-2 conditions on March 28 through March 29, 1979, and on the Accident sequence of events prior to'the presentations made by Mr. Herbein and

^

Mr. Dieckamp.to the Congressional delegation led by Sena-tor' Gary Hart to the TMI site on March 29, 1979.

Identify the.information,. data or materials prepared and/or provided to Mr. Dieckamp and Mr. Herbein to aid

-them-in their presentations made on March 29, 1979.

State whether Mr. Herbein or Mr. Dieckamp were in-

-formed of the following in preparation for their presenta-tions to the Congressional delegation on March 29, 1979:

(a) in-core temperatures in excess of 2200 de-

.grees had been recorded at TMI-2 on March 28, 1979; (b) a pressure spike had been recorded at ap-proximately 1:50 p.m. on March 28, 1979; (c) containment sprays had been' actuated at ap-proximately 1:50 p.m. on March 28, 1979, incidating a real increase in pressure to at least 28 psi; (d) an explosion, hydrogen generation, hydrogen burn or hydrogen explosion had occurred or was sus-pected to have occurred on March 28, 1979.

Response: Licensee objects to this interrogatory as oppressive, a

w-I unduly _ burdensome and expensive.

Both Mr. Herbein and Mr.

Dieckamp have been deposed by TMIA in this area; and'Mr.

1

-Dieckamp has answered written' interrogatories with respect to

'his communications ~on and knowledge of the topics referred to

-in this interrogatory.

It would be unreasonable to require

-Licensee to' reiterate their responses.

Interrogatory No. 15' State all' reasons that Mr. Herbein was not directed to-station himself at TMI-2 during March 28, 1979, given the-fact that-he was the highest ranking Met-Ed official

'at the TMI site on'that date.

State all reasons that Mr. Herbein chose not to locate-and/or station himself--at TMI-2 during March 28, 1979,-and instead chose to work from the observation Cen-ter.

g Response: -Licensee objects.to the interrogatory as irrelevant' and beyond the scope of the remanded proceeding.

The interrog-atory does not address the pressure spike,_ spray actuation, generation and combustion of hydrogen, or any other topic rea-sonably0related.to the pressure spike or Dieckamp mailgram.

-Licensee-;also objects.to this interrogatory as oppressive,

. unduly burdensome, and unduly expensive.

Mr. Herbein has al-

. ready been deposed by TMIA.

-It would be unreasonable to re-quire Licensee'-to reiterate his testimony.

I 1 el-n

-cr -

j

.a fInterrogaor'1 No. 16 Identify all home and' business phone numbers for the following licensee personnel'on March-28, 1979:

(a) -Herman Dieckamp; c

(b)

Robert. Arnold;

.(c)

Walter Creitz; (d)

Richard Wilson; (e)

E. Wallace; (f). Robert-Keaton;

.(g)

D. Cronenberger.

-Response:

Home.

Business Mr. H'rman Dieckamp (201) 334-4064-(201) 263-4900 e

Mr. Robert Arnold (201) 625-5044 (201) 263-4900 RMr. Walter Creitz' (215).372-9519 (215) 921-6170 EMr. Richard Wilson (201) 334-6597 (201) 263-4900

Mr. E. Wallace (201) 729-2530 (231) 263-4900 Mr.

Robert Keaten (201) 455-0173 (201) 263-4900 M r. D.^ Cronenberger (201).455-1496 (201) 263-4900 Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE Gw4 t'. k d G.

Ernest L.

Blake, Jr.,

P.C.

David R.

Lewis Counsel for Licensee

' Dated: ' October 15, 1984 g

.,,,..e

--,,-----.-n

.--.,,e-..

,,,n.

4 October 15, 1984 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.

Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the. Matter of

)

)

METROPOLITAN-EDISON COMPANY

)

Docket No. 50-289 SP

)

(Restart Remand on

.(Three Mile Island Nuclear

)

Management)

', Station, Unit-No. 1),

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Licensee's Response to Three Mile Island Alert's-Fifth Set of Interrogatories to Gen-eral.Public-Utilities," dated October 15, 1984, were served on those persons on.the attached Service List by deposit in the

. United States mail, postage prepaid, this-15th day.of October,

--1984.

G/r. 44 Ernest L. Blake, Jr.,

P.C.

~ Dated:

October 15, 1984 4

V a

m

E V

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING SOAED In the Matter

)

)

METROPOLITAN EDISON CCMPANY

)

Docket No. 50-289 SP

)

(Restart Romand on Management)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear

)

-Station, Unit No. 1)'

)

'?

SERVICE LIST Nunzio J..Palladino,-Chairman Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission John H.

Buck Washington, D.C.

20555 Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Thomas M. Roberts, Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com=iss;8 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Washington,,

D.C.

20555 Administrative Judge James K. Asselstine, Commissioner Christine N.

Kohl U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Washington,

D.C.

20555' Board U.S. Nuclear-Regulatory Commissig Frederick Bernehal, Commissioner Washington, D.C.

20555 U.S. Nuclea - Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Administrative Judge Ivan W.

Smith, Chairman

~Lando W.

Zeck, Jr., Commissioner

~

Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissie Washington, D.C.

20555 Washington, D.C.

20555

' Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Gary J. Edles, Chaimman Sh61 don J. Wolfe Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Atomic Safety & Licensing Scard

'3 card U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissie U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Washington, D.C.

20555 9

,,~,,.n.....

n,.,,.,..--

,,_,.,,..,n.

wen,,_,n.-_,.,,,,.n__

.n,...

4-2-

Administrative Judge Mr. Henry D.

Mukill Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.

Vice President Atomic Safety & Licensing Board GPU Nuclear Corporation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 480 Washington, D.C.

20555 Middletown, PA 17057 Occketing and Service Section (3)

Mr. and Mrs. Norman Aamodt Of fice of the Secretary R.D.

5 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Coatesville, PA 19320 Washington, D. C.

20555 Ms. Louise Bradford Atomic Safety &-Licensing Board TMI ALERT Panel 1011 Green Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Harrisburg, PA 17102 Washington, D.C.

20555 Joanne Coroshow, Esquire Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal The Cnristic Institute Board Panel 1324 North Capitol Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20002 Washington, D.C.

20555 Lynne Bernabei, Esq.

Jack R.

Goldberg, Esq. (4)

G vernment Accountability Office of the Executive Legal 1555 Connecticut Avenue U.S c ear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington, D.C.

20555 Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq.

Harmon, Weiss & Jordan Thomas Y.

Au, Esq.

2001 5 Street, N.W.,

suite 43a Office of Chief Counsel Washington, D.C.

20009 Oepartment of Environmwntal Resources Michael F. McBride, Esq.

505 Executive House LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae

-P.O.

Box 2357 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.

Harrisburg, PA 17120 Suite 1100 Washington, D.C.

20036 William T.

Russell Deputy Director, Division Michael W. Maupin, Esq.

o f Human - Factors Safety Hunton & Williams Of fice of NRR 707 East Main Street i

Mail Stop AR5200 P.O. Box 1535 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Richmond, VA 23212 Commission Nashington, D.C.

20555 l

I t

-,--er--

.-----.w-.

--m_.,m,

,,---..-.-.,---y---,-,,-------,----w--

-,,----_--w----,-.e.---, - -.,..,. - - - - -.. -.

.