ML20063B199
| ML20063B199 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Three Mile Island  |
| Issue date: | 08/20/1982 |
| From: | Aamodt M AAMODTS |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8208250270 | |
| Download: ML20063B199 (19) | |
Text
.--...:-.... g; ,
n AAM -
.8/20/82 -
- \
1
~~ w 00CETED
- i w RC 1
UNI'IED STATES OF AMERICA -
NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION ; q o * '!?
CL BEFORE THE A TOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEA L BOARD -
~.
In the Matter of METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY Docket No.'50-289 -
(Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear } -
Station, Unit No. 1) ) -
AAMODT EXCEPTIONS TO THE BOARD'S PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION (REOPENED PROCEEDING) . JULY 27. 1982 Pursuant to 10 CPR 2.762 and 2.785 and the Appeal Board's Order, August 6,1982, we file the exceptions follpwing. These exceptions are in addition to those filed October 24, 1981 The numbering is continued.
Exceptions to July 27. 1982 Decision
- 84. The Board erred in its conclusions in P.2040.
~
- 85. The Board is in error in its assertion in P 2041 that .
almost all important relevant cheating has been identified.
- 86. The Board's bases (P 2042) for their assertion in P 2041 are incorrect.concerning the participation of the NRC Staff and the Licensee. The Board erred in depending on the method of identifica151on' of parallelisms as depositive.
- 87. The' Board erred in attributing the quality of thoroughness to the testimony of the operators; this assertion in P 2043 is contrary to the evidence.
.-m, 8208250270 820820 PDR ADOCK 05000289 G PDR
- a. _ -
.g - _ , .
18 8 .
The Board provides no basis in P 2043 for their reference i
to thirty to forty licensed members of the TMI-1 operating i
~
staff, or that these unidentified-operators did not cheat.
- 89. The Board erred in P 2043 by disputing Judge Milho111n's !
j finding that the overall integrity of the operations staff is !
inadequate. !
90.
The Board argument in P 2044 fails on its' assertion that the operators were less inclined to cheat on company-administered exams; the evidence clearly disputes this assertion.
91.
' The. 36ard errs in P 2045 in failing to see the safety ,
consequences related to operators who have . cheated or are -
inclined to cheat. '
- 92. The Board erra in failing to analyze licensee present plans to staff the plant bhchuse. they did not proride_for :
de,velopment of the record. The abi1Ity of Licensee to staff '
' the plant was an issue of the proceeding. The Board 's finding of sufficiency in P 2045 is not based on record evidence.
i 93.' The Board erra in P 2045 in asserting that condition 9 .
~
i of their first decision provides for sufficiency in. staffing.
- 94. . The Board errs in P 2046 in rejecting Judge hilhollin's 4 conclusion concerning the cheating, behavior of Michael Ross, -
TMI-1 Manager of Operations. "
~
s
- 95. The Board erra "
in P 2046 in rejecting Judge Milhollins' findings concerning the culpability of Michael Ross, TMI-1 Manager of Operations; the. Board 's error is based on their '
preference for earlier and unrelated evidence developed in '
n the main hearing and prejudice cgainst the informant. t
.--. ._--- n
- 96. The Board grossly misrepresents in'P 2047 Jbdge 'hilho111n's conclusions concerning Mr. Shipman.
97.
The Board's argument in P 2047 concerning management involvement is internally contradictory..
- 98. The Board erra in their interpreta. tion of Licensee's disclosure of the VV episode; in P 2050, the Board omitted svidence concerning the delay in disclosure and the relation-ship of the time of disclosure to the NRC investigation of an individual connected to the VV episode.
- 99. The Board errs in P 2050 in overlooking evidence that Licensee's response to the VV episode was totally inappropriate .
100. The Board errs in concludinC cdntrary to the facts 'and its' own findings that the reopened proceeding produced nd '
other evidence of management involvement in cheating other than that discussed in PP 2046 - 2051. ~
101. The Board asserts without basis that the Licensee has ;
made major changes in its training and testing program. P'2052.
h B
102. The Board errs in P 2053 in its belief that Lic'ensee h conducted an adequate investigation; the belief is contradicted by evidence.
.E 103. The Board's conclusion. in P 2054 that Licensea's "
investigation was well-designed and had sufficient resources _
7 is contradicted by their own findings. m
'I s
n
, _4_
I e
104. The Board's assertion that the sequestration order ,
prevented further investigation by the Licensee is without basis. P. 2055.
105.TheeBoardismisguidedinP2b56inassessingthe i
thoroughness of the Ideensee's investigation by the success of Licensee's consultants in identiffing parallelisms, t 106.TheBoard'sconclusioninP2057thatLicenseetook appropriate' personnel action toward cheaters is arbitrary and capricious.
107. The Board in P 2058 incorrectly implies that the Licensee addressed the matter of the operators' attitudes prior to the cheating discovery.
108. The Board erred in not properly developing the record concerning operators' attitudes as acknowledged in P 2058.
109. The Board is arbitrary in concluding ~that licensee's .
new. certification procedures would be carefully followed..,
j 110. The Board ignores the evidence in concluding that Licensee has cooperated fully in the reopened proceed'ing.and with the
. 1 NRC investigators, as it asserts in P 2060.
111. ~ The Board's conclusion concerning the legitimacy of of Licensee's interference in the NRC investigations lacks i evidentary basis and is arbitrary. P 2060.
~
- 112. The Board' has made a gross error in asserting in P 2061 that the reopened proceeding did elicit evidence wh'ich questions the adequacy of Licensee's training program.
. _ . , _ . . , . . - _ . . . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ , - , . _ _ . . . _ _ ____.e
4 4
. 113. The Board errs in P 2061 in supporting a position contrary to developing the ecord concerning the relationship between cheating and the adequacy of licensee 's training program.
114. The Board misrepresents incP.2062 the issues of the proceeding.
115. The Board misrepresents in P 2063 the forthrightness of licensee's admissions.
116. The Board erra in their conclusion in P 2066 that upper-level management did not exhibit bad faith and incompetence; this conclusion is inconsistent with the evidence and ' the Board's own arguments.
117. The Board errs in P 2073 in arbitrarily accepting the NRC examination as a measure of operator competency despi-te the Board's serious reseyrations and gecord evidence from .both the main and reopened proceedings to' the contrary.
118. The Board is negligent in relinquishing jurisdiction over 'an issue which bears on the public health and safety,
. . as noted in P 2074.
119. T'he Board errs in P 2074 in fa'iling to adopt the Special Master's conc 1'usions concerning the inadequacy of the NRC dxaminations to measure operator competency.
120. The Board errs in P 2074 in failing to arrive, at any factual conclusions concerning the substantive adequacy of the operator licensing exams.
r-
\ .
_- 121. The Board is capricious and arbitrary in finding in P 2078 that the NRC Staff's investigating response was thorough and adequate. -
122. The Board is arbitrary in excusing in P 2080 the Staff's failure to make a full investigation.
123. The Board errs in P 2081 by remaining convinced that Licensee's operator requalification program was well-conceived contrary to the evidence of the record.
124. The Board's conclusion in P 2082 is arbitrary and not supported by evidence.
125. The Board's conclusion in P 2064 is arbitrary and without record basis that cognizant officials in the Nuclear Assurance Division failed to recognize t'.eir responsibility X ' .. .
fo" '
126.,
The Board improperly supports iks arguments in P 20~8'5 by reliance on a lack of evidence.
127. The Board arbitrarily presumes in P 2086 that Licensee is capable of correcting problems revealed in the reopened proceeding. .
128. The Board arbitrarily presumes in P 2086 that Licensee intends to correct the problems revealed.
129. The Board has no evidence for asserting ine? 2088 that
~
the large majority of the operators is honest. .
130. The Board fails to uphold the public interest in failing. to assure by affirmative evidence that the large majority of operators is honest. P 2.o?5. _ _ , _ , _ , _
l
. l 131. .The.: Board severely errs in concluding that the issues of the reopened proceeding have been' resolved in favor of restarting TMI-1, as stated in P 2689.
132. The Board severh.ly terrs in concluding in:R. 2089 thst the coidlusions ofetheir first partial initial decision remain undisturbed by their findings from the reopened proceeding.
133. The Board erra in P 2094 in failing to attempt to arrive at a recommendation with regard to the prosecution of Eessrs. .
O and W.
134. The Board fails in P 2116 to uphold the public interest in that the Board does not recommend the license revocation of Messrs. G and H.as indicated in the findings of Judge Milho111n.
135. The Board errs in interpreting the evidence and finding in P 2115 that G and H do not have a poor understanding of the training course material contrary to Judge Milhollin'a finding.
in P 2120 136. The Board's remedv/of a two week suspension for Messrs.
G and H is inappropriite-in view of the Board 's charge with the public health and safety.
137. The Board errs in exculpating STA MM on the weak argument that a single and short episode was the only evidence. P 2132.
138. The Board errs in failing in P 2138 to sanction STA MM despite of evidence of cheating and incredible explanations.
-- '^
....:.~.--- . ;,*:.
l
. i The Board errs in failing in P 2138 to sanction GG
~
_- 139.
despite the evidence of cheating.
140. The Board errs in P.2140 in characterizing the Licensee's inquiry of Mr. Shipman as intense. contrary to the evidence.
141. . The Board ignores in P 2141 the inculpatory evidence that the NRC investigators were convinced that Mr. Shipman lied.
142. The Board erra in P 2147 in failing to impose the sanction recommended by Judge Eilhollin and clearly indicated by the evidence.
143. The Board errs in P 2153 in failing to obtain corroborative testimony of the.-two other investigators who were present with Mr. Ward.and depending instead on specu,lation.
144.
The Board arbitratily assumes i,n P 2g{4 that the NR.C.
withheld information for reasons that were not relevant to the issue. . . . . ._
145. The Board errs in P 2156 in asserting that Mr. Ward's testimony was unreliable where the evidence is strongly contrary.
146. The Board is contiadictory in asserting in P 2157 and'.
" n.the.
i Footnote, 233 referenced that Mr. Husted was not and was
~
informed of Mr. Ward's testimony.
147. The Board fails in Footnote 233 to find that the Sequestration Order was broken.
e
, , , - - - - , , , - .,,, - ,n- ---- - , , - - , ,--
-9 148. The Board's weak arguments in P 2159 are not 6upported by the evidence of the record.
149. The Board errs in P 2160 in finding Mr. P truthful regarding the administration of weekly tests despite the clear evidence of the record.
150. The Board errs in P 2162 in failing to find Mr. P untruthful in his statements made under oath.
151. The Board feils to acknowledge in P 2168 the public health and safety implications that arise from Mr. Husted's licensed status.
152. The Board errs in P 2173 in failing to properly weight the rumor against U in view of the other inculpating evidence.
153. The Board errs in P 2179 in interpreting the record evidence that 'the subject'of the question'was not definitive or reliably corroborated. , .
154. The Board errs in P 2185 in allowing the matters which swirl about U to go unresolved in view of health and safety implications.
. 155. The Board errs in P 2188 in incorrectly identifying the exam and the significance of that particular exam in the Board's first decision.
156. The Board errs in failing to recommend a sanction for someone in WW's position to delay in reporting cheating behavior.
157. The Board errs in their conclusion P 2199 that Michael Ross did not act to prevent proctoring contrary to the evidence of the hearing.
- 158. The Board errs in P 2225 in findin5 Mr. YY's testimony
.- incredible contrary to the record evidence.
159. The Board errs in finding all.. charges made against.
Mr..,Ross to be unfounded contrary .to the evidence. ,P 2225 160. The Board errs in failing to develop evidence of the record concerning " looseness" in licensee's administration of the Radiation Worker Permit tests and resolving this issue in P 2226 in favor of the Licensee on the basis of "no evidence" contrary:.to the facts.
161. The Board erra in supporting in P 2226 Judge Milho111n's failure to hear a former Licensee employee's testimony becadse of its; apparent ~.incr6dibility, a standard not uniformly applied.
162. The Board mislesds.in_P.2229 concerning the extent of management presence during NRC interviews.
163. The Board errs in P 2230 in asserting that management was ' excluded from NRC interviews at the time of the second investigation.
164. The Board arguments in P 2230 concerning the effect of management's presence are internally contradictory and biased in favor of Licensee.
165. The Board view in P 2231 that the presence of management during the NRC interviews was . unimportant does not purport with the evidence.
166. The Board naively accepts _in P 2232 Licensee's explanation for management's insistence on being present during the NRC interviews.
l
- - 167. The Board misrepresents in P 2234. the NRC investi Fators' knowledge as " intuition".
168. The Board mischaracterizes in 'P 2236 Licensee's failure to question 0 and W concerning their reasons for cheating as one of many judgements that had to be made.
169. The Board omits a record reference from the main
, hearing in P 2239 which reference indicated that management knew about tne operators' attitude. 2 170. The Board fails to assess:thee effect of a sizeable bonus just prior to the Reopened Proceeding had on the operators' testimonies.
171. The Board fails to address Judge Milho111n's finding
-t' hat the operators testimony was poor in quality.
172. The Board's conclusion P 2242 i~s unreasonable and e'xhibits
' ~
. bias. .'
, 173. The 3oard errs in supporting Mr. Arnold in P. 2245 for stated reasons completely contradictory to the record evidence.
174. The Board exhibits naivete in failing to conclude in P 2246 that management was " knowing" in the direction of its investigation.
175. The Board fails to note in P 2247 that licensee's objection was sustained to prevent the scrutiny of
'l weekly quizzes administered by the TMI training department ,
I whose administration of . tests was described as " loose". ;
l 6
i
~
176. The Board's attitude in -P 2247 exhibits an uncritical bias toward the licensee.
177. The Board boasts in P 2248 about the work of Licensee's consultant does not fit with the facts.
r 178. The Board erred in P 2255 in concluding that Judge kilhollin did not reach any conclusion adverse to EN. t 179. The Board failed to note in their . findings concerning licensee's attorney John Wilson that he improperly and knowingly sat in on the NRC interview of Mr. KK concerning a ' system' of cheating.
180. The 3 card exceeds the evidence in characterizing licensee's oversights in their investigation as the result of good intentions, as stated in P 2269. ,
181. The Board errs in P 2271 by sta' ting that little evidence
, of cheating was identified by the hearing. -
182. The 3'oard 's conclusion in P 2271 is unsupported.
183. The Board errs in omitting in P 2274 the factor of fatigue which contributed to VV's desperation and decisions. i 184. The Board is naive in coming to their conclusion in
~
P 2276 that Gary E111er, then TMI Station Manager, was not able to properly assess the role of Shift Supervisor 0 in i
~
the VV episode.' .
185. The Board errs in P 2278 in the facts of the matter.
, con,cer_ning. ?V;'y eteted- explana tion. !
l 186. The Board errs in P 2279 in the facts of the matter concerning VV's statement.
i
.. - 187. The Board errs in not developing the record concerning VV's selection and promotion to the position of supervisor of Unit 2 at the time of the accident.
188. The Board errs in P:2283 in preferring exculpatory .
presumpti6ns.to the inculpatory evidence of the record in assessing Mr. Arnold's actions.
I 189. The Board errs in P 2320 in failing to assign responsi-
~
bility for the improper certification of VV and the with-holding of information to Mr.. Arnold.
1 90. The Board fails to draw the appropriate conclusions in P 2326 concerning the integrity of Licensee's management.
191. The Board errs in accepting in P 2328 Licensee's finding that there was a complete restructuring of the training program and department following the TMI-2 accident.
192. The Board argument 2in;P,2337 in defense of the instrQction
.' of the operators is challenged by evidence and is internally incon sis tent.'
193. The Board errs. in adopting Idcensee's Pindings in P 2340 concerning the training department'i resolution of the Lessons Learned (Category T) training as Licensee's account is con-tradicted by the record.
1 94. The Board is naive in accepting the Licensee's inaccurate account of the Category T testing as reassuring. P 2341.
195. The Board errs in failing to develop the record concerning the quality of instruction discussed in P 2341.
196. The Board errs in failing to develop evidence to answer its question in P 2343.
I
l
. 197. The 3oard errs ~ in P 234 7 in failin,g to require '. assurance
, _ of operator competency prior to a recommendation to restart the plant.
198. The Board errsiin pres ming: that the conditions it would impose can assure the health and safety of the public. P 2347.
199. The Board errs in P 2351 in overlooking the issue of management integrity in ceftifying candidates.
200. The Board errs in P 2359 in overlooking the attitude of the NRC. ,
201. The Board erra in failing to exercis,e their jurisdiction l concerning the adequacy of the NRC examination as is noted in
'P 2362. I 202. The Board errs in failing to litigate the substantive '
content of the NRC examination ss n6ted in P 2363 in efiew of the :.
evidence of the reopened proceeding. - ' -
203. The '3oard errs in P 2364 in mischaracterizing: the ev'idence l
1 concerning the validity of the oral exam.
204. The Board errs in failing to note in P 2380 that we disagreed that the Staff.'s investigation of 0 and .W was effective.
205. The Board Arrkfin+considering the" Staff investigation of ac ' system' of cheating to have been adequets as~ sisted in- .e. i P: 2385, failing to consider ful'ly the record evidence. )
206. The Board errs in P 2391 in failing to pursue the basis for the attitude of the Staff concerning the instructors' alleged solicita J on of another licensing candidate.
207. The Board errs in failing to address the OIE management failure to enforce their rig'ht to exclude Licensee-'s mansgement during their investigations. -
l -
208. The Board errs in P 2396 in failing to find the characteristic of naivete in Mr rHukill,cGPU.Nuedear Vice President, inappropriate and hazardous to the public ' health and safety.
209. The Board's need to consider ih:P.2396~.whether they were naive tryers .of 'the fact brings the bbjectiv'ity i'n their .
'decis, ions in_t.o question.
210. The Boayd errs'in:.P 2397 in failing to. discern the se'1f-interes t of Licensee 's consultants.
211. The Board errs in P 2398 in depending on the resumes of I
Licensee 's training managers and ignoring the job performance of these; individuals on the record of the hearing.
212. The Board errs in their conclusion in P 2399 concerning the training program in that their decision contains findings that are inconsistent and any probative supportive evidence is
, lacking.
213.
The Board errs in their assertion in P 2400 that the Licensee devoted unstinting resources to the training program.
214. The Board's conclusion in P 2400 concerning the. competence, intentions and efforts of upper-management are not' supported by evidence.
215. The Board errs in P 2401 in providing an excuse for upper-level management.in the void of evidence.concerning the p st function of Quality assurance programs.
216. The Board erred in failing to promote the appearance of
/
Mr. Herbein at the reopened hearing although the Board notes
- in P 2402 the failure of the past vice; president of th6 Division of Nuclear Assurance, to.. fulfill his responsibilities.,
217. The Board errs in failing to determine whether Dr.
Long, who would head Nuclear Assurance, understands .his past failure in responsibility in_ managing the training department, as., stated in P 2407.
218. The Board errs in placing confidence- in e quality assurance program headed by Dr. Long as notedain.P_2406-in view of_the record evidence.
219. : The Board's sanction of a conetary penalty of $100,000 as a " symbol" to effectuate responsible management as averred e
in P 2412 is contrary to the evidence of management's failure to assure training after the TMI-2 accident lessons.
220. The Board's condition allowing the licensee to retain
- Operators G and H, P 2414, does not protect the public health and safety.
221. The Board errs in P 2415 in its attitude toward the .
evidence of cheating behavior, and is . internally inconsist.ent.
within the decision for criticizing the Staff for a similar attitude.
222. The Board does not support its assertion in P 2416 that the operators have been the subject of community derision with any citation to the record,. nor is there.
223. Th'e Board assertion. that the operators have good cause to be unhappy with their treatment in P 2417 is inconsistent with an attitud'e of responsibility toward the public health
~
and safety and a finding by the Board in their first decision that the operators' attitudes are appropriate.
224. The Board's conclusions of law, P 2423, which supports the conclusions of their first decision, sre grossly in error.
225. The Board's conclusions of law, P-2423, irr nini .
resolving:the issues of the reopened proceeding in favor of restart of the plant and are inconsistent with the Board's findings within the decision.
~
August 20, 1982 / Ji c . . '< , '
Marjo e M. Aamodt ,
l o
b h
e P
(
9 a
e i
t
~
UNITED STA TES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGUIA TORY COMMISSION. . -
- , 000
'",E0 In the Matter of ) . u
!GTROPOLITAN ELISON COMPANY ) Docket 50-289 u 7:
~
' /5' (Three Mile Island Nuclear '
i Generating Station, Unit 1 ) cerim ccM _ vlcc
. }~ k. A, Service Document Tnis is to certify that two documents, Aamodt Comments Concernir.g the licensing Board's Third Partial Initial Iecision (Reopened Proceeding) Served July 27, 1982 and Aamodt Exceptions to the' Partial Initial Decision (Reopened Proceeding)., July 27, 1982, have been served on the parties of the attached Service List. Service was by hand-delivery
.~
to the parties marked (*); the remainder were serired by deposit in the U. S. Mail, first-class delivery. All services were cade on Monday, August 23, 1982 as arranged with the Offices of the Commission and Appeal Board.
. r N f. W August 20, 1982 Marjori M. Aamodt 1
e E.
A
~
_ SERVICE LIST
- Gary J. Edles, Chairman' Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal *Dr. John H. Buck Board Panel l Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission
. Board Panel Washington, DC -20555 -U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555 i
- Christine N. Kohl .
Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal
- George F. Trowbridge, Esq.
Board Panel Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, NW U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20036 Washington, DC 20555 t Administrative Judge ' Michael F.' McBride, Esquire Ivan W. Smith LeBouef, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae Chairman, Atomic Safety and 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Licensing Board suite 1100 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20036 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Robe &t Adler, Esquire -
Karin W. Carter, Esquire
. Administrative Judge Asia,i.stant Attorneys Gemital Walter H. Jordan 505 Executive House At7mic Safety & Licensing Board Post Office Box 2357 881 West Outer Drive Harrisburg, PA 17120 Oak Ridge, TN 27830 Docketing & Service Section .
Administrative Judge Office of the Secretary Linda'W. Little U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ato:ic Safetv ~ & Licensing Board Commission
. 5000 Hermitage Drive Washington, D.C. 20555 Raleigh, NC 27612 Administrative Judge Ms. Louise Bradford Gary L. Milhollin TMI ALERT Atonic Safety & Licensing Board 1011 Green Street 1815 Jefferson Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 Madison, WI 53711 :-- - .
4 Jack R. Goldberg, Esquire Ellyn R. Weiss, Esquire Office of Executive Legal William S. Jordan, III, Esquire Director
~
Harmon & Weiss 1725. Eye Street, N.W.,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 2.0006 Suite 506 Commission -- .
Washington, D.C. 20555 ' . . . - . . ..
Mr. Henry D.[Hukill David E. Cole, Esch2 ire Vice President .
Smith & Smith, P.C. GPU puclear Corporation.,,
2931 N. Front Street Post Office Box 480 Harrisburg, PA 17110 .
Mip,dletown, PA 17057
\ .;
, , , , ,