ML19301C488
| ML19301C488 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/10/1983 |
| From: | Cunningham G NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19301A041 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-86-234 NUDOCS 8306290132 | |
| Download: ML19301C488 (2) | |
Text
'e, UNITED STATES
[
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s E W ASHINGTO N, D. C. 20EE5
- 4 m p, p
5"*
June 10, 1983 MU G Af;DUM FOR: William J. D1 cks Executive Dire: tor for Operations FROM:
Guy H. Cunning'iam, III Executive Legal Director
SUBJECT:
HARTPAN ALLEGATIONS AND RELATED PATTERS By memorandum dated May 31, 1983, Comissioner Gilinsky re, quested certain information concerning Tim Martin's statement at the May 24, 1983 Comission briefing that, with regard to the Hartman allegations, records were falsified.
This memorandum transmits OELD's response to questions 1, 2(a), and 2(b).
1.
The staff documents presently identified bearing en how the Hartman allegations were to be handled by the staff in the TMI-I restart proceeding are attached.
The staff is not aware of any other documents responsive to your request.
If any additional responsive documents are identified, they will be provided to you promptly.
2.
(a)
Both staff attorneys of record who have responsibilities related to management issues in the restart proceeding, as well as their supervisors, were at the Comission's May 24th briefing.
All of these attorneys state that they first became aware of Tim Martin's views, on leak rate data had been falsified, at the May 24th briefing.yyhether With respect to the staff attorneys who presented the staff's original case on management competence, one is no lenger with the NRC staff and the other is presently on detail outside OELD and has no current responsibilities regarding TMI-I restart.
Hcwever, both were contacted and asked to respond to Comissioner Gilinsky's question 2(a).
Both stated that they were not aware of Tim Martin's views, en whether leak rate deta had been falsified, when the staff's case on management ccmpetence was presented to the Licensing Board.
Both further stated that they first became _ aware of Tiri Martin's views after the May 24th briefing.
1/
Heither of the staff's present attorneys of record en management issues presented the staff's original case on GPU's management ccmpetence.
Both of the attorneys first became involved in the restart preceeding immediately before the comencement of the recpened hearing on cheating in November,1981.
,m
(( 3 c4 29c; I3 a F
Having said that,-it perhaps should be added that senior OELD attorneys were present at meetings curing April and May 1950 with Mr.
Stello and other senior staff at which the Hartman allegations were discussed.
Such meetings included a meeting called for the purpose of referring the Hartman allegaticns to the Cepartment of Justice.
This meeting with two DOJ attorneys and other NRC staff tcok place in April 1980 and presented a summary of NRC's investigation findings develbped to that point. The summary findings indicated that the leak rate allegation appeared from NRC's investigatien to have substance.
(b) Tim Martin's conclusiens about leak rate falsification were
~ never reported to the Licensing Board.
To the best of my staff's knowledne, the only evidence in the record regarding the Hartman allegations are the brief descriptions of the investigatier by the NRC and Department of Justice which are contained in NUREG-0580, Supp. No.
1, at 37 (November 1930) and NUREG-0580, Supp. No. 2, at 9-10 (March 1981).
This is confirmed by the Licensing Ecard in its management PID, where it stated that the "only information on the matter we possess" is the brief description in NUREG-0ESO, Supp. Nos. I and 2.
LBP-81-32, 14 NRC 381, 557 (1981).
f
)"/
f ?~-
Guy H. Cunningham, III
~~I Executive Legal Director
/
Attachments:
As stated k
..