|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20210B8491999-07-21021 July 1999 Exemption from Certain Requirements of 10CFR50.54(w),for Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 2 to Reduce Amount of Insurance for Unit to $50 Million for Onsite Property Damage Coverage ML20206D4141999-04-20020 April 1999 Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR50,App R,Section III.G.2 Re Enclosure of Cable & Equipment & Associated non-safety Related Circuits of One Redundant Train in Fire Barrier Having 1-hour Rating ML20206T7211999-02-11011 February 1999 Memorandum & Order (CLI-99-02).* Denies C George Request for Intervention & Dismisses Subpart M License Transfer Proceeding.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990211 ML20198A5111998-12-11011 December 1998 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50.65 Re Requirements for Monitoring Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants.Proposed Rulemaking Details Collaborative Efforts in That Rule Interjects Change ML20154G2941998-09-17017 September 1998 Transcript of 980917 Public Meeting in Rockville,Md Re License Transfer of TMI-1 from Gpu Nuclear,Inc to Amergen. Pp 1-41 ML20199J0121997-11-20020 November 1997 Comment on Pr 10CFR50 Re Financial Assurance Requirements for Decommisioning Nuclear Power Reactors.Three Mile Island Alert Invokes Comments of P Bradford,Former NRC Member ML20148R7581997-06-30030 June 1997 Comment on NRC Proposed Bulletin 96-001,suppl 1, Control Rod Insertion Problems. Licensee References Proposed Generic Communication, Control Rod Insertion, & Ltrs & 961022 from B&W Owners Group ML20078H0431995-02-0101 February 1995 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Shutdown & Lowpower Operations for Nuclear Reactors ML20077E8231994-12-0808 December 1994 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR2,51 & 54 Re Rev to NRC NPP License Renewal Rule ML20149E2021994-04-20020 April 1994 R Gary Statement Re 10 Mile Rule Under Director'S Decision DD-94-03,dtd 940331 for Tmi.Urges Commissioners to Engage in Reconsideration of Author Petition ML20065Q0671994-04-0707 April 1994 Principal Deficiencies in Director'S Decision 94-03 Re Pica Request Under 10CFR2.206 ML20058A5491993-11-17017 November 1993 Exemption from Requirements in 10CFR50.120 to Establish, Implement & Maintain Training Programs,Using Sys Approach to Training,For Catorgories of Personnel Listed in 10CFR50.120 ML20059J5171993-09-30030 September 1993 Transcript of 930923 Meeting of Advisory Panel for Decontamination of TMI-2 in Harrisburg,Pa.Pp 1-130.Related Documentation Encl ML20065J3461992-12-30030 December 1992 Responds to Petition of R Gary Alleging Discrepancies in RERP for Dauphin County,Pa ML20065J3731992-12-18018 December 1992 Affidavit of Gj Giangi Responding to of R Gary Requesting Action by NRC Per 10CFR2.206 ML20198E5581992-12-0101 December 1992 Transcript of Briefing by TMI-2 Advisory Panel on 921201 in Rockville,Md ML20210D7291992-06-15015 June 1992 Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR70.24 Re Criticality Accident Requirements for SNM Storage Areas at Facility Containing U Enriched to Less than 3% in U-235 Isotope ML20079E2181991-09-30030 September 1991 Submits Comments on NRC Proposed Resolution of Generic Issue 23, Reactor Coolant Pump Seal Failure. Informs That Util Endorses Comments Submitted by NUMARC ML20066J3031991-01-28028 January 1991 Comment Supporting SECY-90-347, Regulatory Impact Survey Rept ML20059P0531990-10-15015 October 1990 Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR2,50 & 54 Re Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal ML20059N5941990-10-0404 October 1990 Transcript of 900928 Public Meeting in Rockville,Md Re Studies of Cancer in Populations Near Nuclear Facilities, Including TMI ML20055F4411990-06-28028 June 1990 Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-55 Re Revs to FSAR ML20248J1891989-10-0606 October 1989 Order.* Grants Intervenors 891004 Motion for Permission for Opportunity to Respond to Staff Correspondence.Response Requested No Later That 891020.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 891006 ML20248J1881989-10-0303 October 1989 Motion for Permission for Opportunity to Respond to Staff Correspondence in Response to Board Order of 890913.* Svc List Encl ML20248J0301989-09-29029 September 1989 NRC Staff Response to Appeal Board Order.* Matters Evaluated in Environ Assessment Involved Subjs Known by Parties During Proceeding & Appear in Hearing Record & Reflect Board Final Initial Decision LBP-89-7.W/Certificate of Svc ML20247E9181989-09-13013 September 1989 Order.* Requests NRC to Explain Purpose of 890911 Fr Notice on Proposed Amend to Applicant License,Revising Tech Specs Re Disposal of Accident Generated Water & Effects on ASLB Findings,By 890929.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890913 ML20247G0361989-07-26026 July 1989 Transcript of Oral Argument on 890726 in Bethesda,Md Re Disposal of accident-generated Water.Pp 1-65.Supporting Info Encl ML20247B7781989-07-18018 July 1989 Certificate of Svc.* Certifies Svc of Encl Gpu 890607 & 0628 Ltrs to NRC & Commonwealth of Pa,Respectively.W/Svc List ML20245D3651989-06-20020 June 1989 Notice of Oral Argument.* Oral Argument on Appeal of Susquehanna Valley Alliance & TMI Alert from ASLB 890202 Initial Decision Authorizing OL Amend,Will Be Heard on 890726 in Bethesda,Md.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890620 ML20245A5621989-06-14014 June 1989 Order.* Advises That Oral Argument on Appeal of Susquehanna Valley Alliance & TMI Alert from Board 890202 Initial Decision LBP-89-07 Authorizing OL Amend Will Be Heard on 890726 in Bethesda,Md.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890614 ML20247F3151989-05-22022 May 1989 NRC Staff Response to Appeal by Joint Intervenors Susquehanna Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert.* Appeal Should Be Denied Based on Failure to Identify Errors in Fact & Law Subj to Appeal.W/Certificate of Svc ML20246Q2971989-05-15015 May 1989 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Ensuring Effectiveness of Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants ML20246J6081989-05-12012 May 1989 Licensee Brief in Reply to Joint Intervenors Appeal from Final Initial Decision.* ASLB 890203 Final Initial Decision LBP-89-07 Re Deleting Prohibition on Disposal of accident- Generated Water Should Be Affirmed.W/Certificate of Svc ML20247D2761989-04-20020 April 1989 Transcript of 890420 Briefing in Rockville,Md on Status of TMI-2 Cleanup Activities.Pp 1-51.Related Info Encl ML20244C0361989-04-13013 April 1989 Order.* Commission Finds That ASLB Decision Resolving All Relevant Matters in Favor of Licensee & Granting Application for OL Amend,Should Become Effective Immediately.Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890413 ML20245A8381989-04-13013 April 1989 Transcript of Advisory Panel for Decontamination of TMI-2 890413 Meeting in Harrisburg,Pa.Pp 1-79.Supporting Info Encl ML20245A2961989-04-13013 April 1989 Transcript of 890413 Meeting in Rockville,Md Re Affirmation/Discussion & Vote ML20248H1811989-04-0606 April 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Leave to File Appeal Brief out-of-time.* W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890411.Granted for Aslab on 890410 ML20248G0151989-04-0606 April 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Leave to File Appeal Brief out-of-time.* Requests to File Appeal Brief 1 Day Late Due to Person Typing Document Having Schedule Problems ML20248G0261989-04-0606 April 1989 Susguehanna Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Brief in Support of Notification to File Appeal & Request for Oral Argument Re Appeal.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20248D7211989-04-0404 April 1989 Memorandum & Order.* Intervenors Application for Stay Denied Due to Failure to Lack of Demonstrated Irreparable Injury & Any Showing of Certainty That Intervenors Will Prevail on Merits of Appeal.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890404 ML20247A4671989-03-23023 March 1989 Correction Notice.* Advises That Date of 891203 Appearing in Text of Commission 890322 Order Incorrect.Date Should Be 871203.Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890323 ML20246M2611989-03-22022 March 1989 Order.* Advises That Commission Currently Considering Question of Effectiveness,Pending Appellate Review of Final Initial Decision in Case Issued by ASLB in LBP-89-07. Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890322 ML20236D3821989-03-16016 March 1989 Valley Alliance & TMI Alert Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief in Support of Request for Appeal in Matter of 2.3 Million Gallons Of....* Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890316.Granted for Aslab on 890316 ML20236D3121989-03-15015 March 1989 Licensee Answer to Joint Intervenors Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief on Appeal.* Motion Opposed Based on Failure to Demonstrate Good Cause.W/Certificate of Svc ML20236D2901989-03-11011 March 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief in Support of Request for Appeal in Matter of Disposal of 2.3 Million Gallons of Radioactive Water at Tmi,Unit 2.* Svc List Encl ML20236A3761989-03-0808 March 1989 Licensee Answer Opposing Joint Intervenors Motion for Stay.* Stay of Licensing Board Decision Pending Appeal Unwarranted Under NRC Stds.Stay Could Delay Safe,Expeditious Cleanup of Facility.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236C2441989-03-0808 March 1989 NRC Staff Response in Opposition to Application for Stay Filed by Joint Intervenors.* Application for Stay of Effectiveness of Final Initial Decision LBP-89-07,dtd 890202 Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20235V2641989-03-0202 March 1989 Notice of Aslab Reconstitution.* TS Moore,Chairman,Cn Kohl & Ha Wilber,Members.Served on 890303.W/Certificate of Svc ML20235V2161989-02-25025 February 1989 Changes & Corrections to Susquehanna Valley Alliance/Three Mile Island Alert Documents Submitted on 890221.* Certificate of Svc Encl 1999-07-21
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20065J3461992-12-30030 December 1992 Responds to Petition of R Gary Alleging Discrepancies in RERP for Dauphin County,Pa ML20248J1881989-10-0303 October 1989 Motion for Permission for Opportunity to Respond to Staff Correspondence in Response to Board Order of 890913.* Svc List Encl ML20248J0301989-09-29029 September 1989 NRC Staff Response to Appeal Board Order.* Matters Evaluated in Environ Assessment Involved Subjs Known by Parties During Proceeding & Appear in Hearing Record & Reflect Board Final Initial Decision LBP-89-7.W/Certificate of Svc ML20248H1811989-04-0606 April 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Leave to File Appeal Brief out-of-time.* W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 890411.Granted for Aslab on 890410 ML20248G0261989-04-0606 April 1989 Susguehanna Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Brief in Support of Notification to File Appeal & Request for Oral Argument Re Appeal.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20248G0151989-04-0606 April 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Leave to File Appeal Brief out-of-time.* Requests to File Appeal Brief 1 Day Late Due to Person Typing Document Having Schedule Problems ML20236D3821989-03-16016 March 1989 Valley Alliance & TMI Alert Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief in Support of Request for Appeal in Matter of 2.3 Million Gallons Of....* Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 890316.Granted for Aslab on 890316 ML20236D3121989-03-15015 March 1989 Licensee Answer to Joint Intervenors Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief on Appeal.* Motion Opposed Based on Failure to Demonstrate Good Cause.W/Certificate of Svc ML20236D2901989-03-11011 March 1989 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief in Support of Request for Appeal in Matter of Disposal of 2.3 Million Gallons of Radioactive Water at Tmi,Unit 2.* Svc List Encl ML20236A3761989-03-0808 March 1989 Licensee Answer Opposing Joint Intervenors Motion for Stay.* Stay of Licensing Board Decision Pending Appeal Unwarranted Under NRC Stds.Stay Could Delay Safe,Expeditious Cleanup of Facility.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236C2441989-03-0808 March 1989 NRC Staff Response in Opposition to Application for Stay Filed by Joint Intervenors.* Application for Stay of Effectiveness of Final Initial Decision LBP-89-07,dtd 890202 Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20235N1621989-02-20020 February 1989 Application for Stay of Effectiveness of Final Initial Decision LBP-89-07 Dtd 890202.* Licensee Would Not Be Harmed by Granting of Stay ML20205D8451988-10-24024 October 1988 Licensee Motion to Strike Portions of Proposed Testimony of Kz Morgan.* Proposed Testimony Should Be Ruled to Be Not Admissible as Evidence in Upcoming Hearing.Supporting Info & Certificate of Svc Encl.W/Copyrighted Matl ML20205D6801988-10-20020 October 1988 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Notification to Parties That Kz Morgan Apps to Testimony Should Be Accepted as Exhibits.* Apps Listed.Svc List Encl.Related Correspondence ML20155G9981988-10-0404 October 1988 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion for Reconsideration of Part of Judge Order (880927) Re Limited Appearance Statements by Public.* Certificate of Svc Encl ML20155G9921988-10-0404 October 1988 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Motion to Submit Witness Testimony as Evidence W/O cross-exam at Hearing in Lancaster.* Requests That Cw Huver Testimony Be Accepted as Evidence ML20151S0261988-07-28028 July 1988 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Response to Licensee Notification of Typo in Bid Procurement Document.* Explanation for Change in Document Inadequate.W/Svc List ML20196G7801988-06-23023 June 1988 Motion of NRC Staff for Leave to File Response Out of Time.* Encl NRC Response in Support of Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition Delayed Due to Equipment Problems ML20196G9051988-06-23023 June 1988 NRC Staff Response in Support of Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition.* Motion Should Be Granted on Basis That No Genuine Issue Before ASLB or to Be Litigated.Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20196B5091988-06-20020 June 1988 Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Response to Licensee Motion or Summary Disposition on Contentions 1-4,5d,6 & 8.* Affidavits of Kz Morgan,R Piccioni,L Kosarek & C Huver & Supporting Documentation Encl ML20154E2301988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Statement of Matl Facts as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue to Be Heard (Contentions 1,2,3 & 8).* ML20154E2081988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition on Alternatives (Contentions 1,2,3 & 8).* Motion Should Be Granted Based on Licensee Meeting Burden of Showing That Alternatives Not Superior to Licensee Proposal ML20154E3491988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Statement of Matl Facts as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue to Be Heard (Contention 5d).* ML20154E2851988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Statement of Matl Facts as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue to Be Heard (Contentions 4b in Part & 6 on Chemicals).* ML20154E3251988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 5d.* Motion Should Be Granted in Licensee Favor ML20154E2681988-05-16016 May 1988 Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition of Contentions 4b in Part & 6 (Chemicals).* Licensee Entitled to Decision in Favor on Contentions & Motion Should Be Granted ML20154E1631988-05-0909 May 1988 Licensee Statement of Matl Facts as to Which No Genuine Issue to Be Heard (Contentions 4b in part,4c & 4d).* Lists Matl Facts for Which No Genuine Issue Exists ML20154E1281988-05-0909 May 1988 Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition of Contentions 4b (in part),4c & 4d.* Requests That Motion for Summary Disposition Be Granted on Basis That No Genuine Issue of Matl Fact Exists to Be Heard Re Contentions ML20154E1761988-05-0909 May 1988 Licensee Memorandum of Law in Support of Motions for Summary Disposition.* Requests Ample Notice Should Board Decide to Deny Summary in Part or in Whole ML20151E9491988-04-0707 April 1988 Licensee Answer to Intervenor Motion for Order on Production of Info on Disposal Sys Installation & Testing.* Intervenor 880330 Motion Should Be Denied Due to Insufficient Legal Basis.W/Certificate of Svc ML20150F9821988-04-0101 April 1988 Licensee Answer to Intervenors Motion to Compel Discovery.* Motion Should Be Denied on Basis That Licensee Responded Fully to Discovery Request.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20148P3931988-03-30030 March 1988 Valley Alliance & TMI Alert Motion to Request That Presiding Judge Order Gpu Nuclear to Provide Addl Info & Clarify Intentions to Install Test & Conduct Experiments W/Evaporator Prior to Hearings.* ML20196D2801988-02-12012 February 1988 NRC Staff Response to Motion by TMI Alert/Susquehanna Valley Alliance for Extension of Discovery.* Motion Should Be Denied.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20196D3541988-02-10010 February 1988 Licensee Response Opposing Susquehanna Valley Alliance/Tmi Alert Intervenor Motion for Extension of Time for Discovery.* Joint Intervenors Failed to Show Good Cause for Extension of Time for Discovery.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20148D4661988-01-19019 January 1988 Licensee Objection to Special Prehearing Conference Order.* Board Requested to Clarify 880105 Order Consistent W/ Discussed Description of Board Jurisdiction & Scope of Proceeding.W/Certificate of Svc ML20236N9081987-11-0505 November 1987 Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement Agreement & for Termination of Proceeding.* Termination of Proceeding Should Be Granted ML20235F3651987-09-23023 September 1987 Util Response Opposing NRC Staff Motion to Rescind Protective Order.* Response Opposing Protective Order Guarding Confidentiality of Document Re Methodology of Bechtel Internal Audit Group ML20235B3911987-09-18018 September 1987 NRC Staff Motion for Extension of Time.* Staff Requests Short Extension of Time Until 870925 to File Responses to Pending Petitions.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20235F4401987-09-18018 September 1987 Util Supplemental Response to NRC Staff First Request for Admissions.* Util Objects to Request as Vague in Not Specifying Time Frame or Defining Proprietary, Pecuniary.... W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20238E6001987-09-0404 September 1987 NRC Staff Motion to Rescind Protective Order.* Protective Order Should Be Rescinded & Presiding Officer Should Take Further Action as Deemed Appropriate.W/ Certificate of Svc ML20238E6391987-09-0303 September 1987 Commonwealth of PA Statement in Support of Request for Hearing & Petition to Participate as Interested State.* Susquehanna Valley Alliance 870728 Request for Hearing, Notice of Appearance & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20237J9931987-08-12012 August 1987 Joint Gpu & NRC Staff Motion for Protective Order.* Order Will Resolve Discovery Dispute ML20237K0431987-08-11011 August 1987 Gpu Response Opposing Parks Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum.* Exhibits & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236P1871987-08-0505 August 1987 Formal Response of Rd Parks to Subpoena Duces Tecum of Gpu &/Or,In Alternative,Motion to Quash/Modify Subpoena Due to Privileged Info.* Documents Are Communications Protected by Atty/Client Privilege.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236E7101987-07-28028 July 1987 Joint General Public Utils Nuclear Corp & NRC Staff Motion for Protective Order.* Adoption & Signature of Encl Proposed Order Requested ML20216J7871987-06-29029 June 1987 Opposition of Gpu Nuclear Corp to Aamodt Motion for Reconsideration.* Motion Asserts Board Did Not Consider Important Evidence on Leakage at TMI-2.W/Certificate of Svc ML20216D2311987-06-23023 June 1987 Response of Jg Herbein to Aamodt Request for Review & Motion for Reconsideration.* Opportunity for Comment Should Come After NRC Has Made Recommendations to Commission.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20215J8981987-06-19019 June 1987 Response of Numerous Employees to Aamodt Request to File Comments on Recommended Decision.* Numerous Employees Do Not Agree W/Aamodt That Recommended Decision Is Greatly in Error.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20215K2121987-06-17017 June 1987 (Motion for reconsideration,870610).* Corrections to Pages 3 & 4 Listed ML20215J7551987-06-15015 June 1987 Gpu Response to Motion to Quash Subpoena.* Dept of Labor 870601 Motion to Quash Subpoena Served on D Feinberg Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc 1992-12-30
[Table view] |
Text
. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ~ ~
.- NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION
' ' ^
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of ) 00CKETED
) USNRC HETROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, ET AL. ) Docket 50-289
)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear ) '84 5125 P12:i5 Generating Station, Unit 1) )
<p,c-- , ,
1 AAMODI MOTION FOR REOPENING TO EXAMINE LEAK RATE FALSIFICATION AT UNIT-1 Introduction on January 11, 1984, in appearing before the Appeal Board, we motioned for a reopening of the record to examine the matter of alleged leak rate falsification at Unit 1, a significant safety-related matter, misrepresented by the NRC. Staff in the Restart Proceeding.
Chairman Edles declined to entertain an oral motion, but he expressed no prejudice toward a written motion.
, Background The NRC Staff provided the following testimony in the Restart 1
Proceeding (Exhibit 13) as part of a discussion of alleged falsification of leak rate reports at Unit 2:
Further, although the NRC investigation is not complete, and the examination of Unit I records was limited, no indication of practices at Unit 1 similar to those alleged at Unit 2 were identified.
The Staff did not pursue the Unit 1 matter until shortly before September 1983, possibly because this matter was likely to have been raised in the hearing of Unit 2 practices scheduled to begin in the fall of
_1/ Safety Evaluation Report (SER), NUREG-0680, Supplement No. 2.
8401260208 840123 gDRADOCK 05000289 PDR 0
D)
. 2
, ~1983 During cn NRC inspecticn, th3 Stoff Evidently ccme upsn r: cards which caused it to question its testimony in the Restart Proceeding.
(See Memorandum, Eisenhut to Commissioners, September 2,1983.) The Staff stated its intent to further* investigate the matter. Provided with this communication to the Commissioners was the data on which the testimony in the Restart Proceeding had been based. From examination of this data and the investigator's notes, it can be readily concluded that the Staff withheld information which indicared leak rate falsification at Unit I similar to 3
practices alleged by Harold Wayne Hartman, Jr. at Unit 2 and provided misleading information instead.
The NRC investigator, Keith Christopher, summarized his data, gathered from a " limited" examination of THI-1 records in 1980, as follows:
four (4) incidents were discovered in which water was added to the Makeup tank without a corresponding input --------- to the computer identifying the addition. In addition an examination of the Makeup tank Step Chart confirms that water was in 4 fact added during the leak rate test time interval.
By September 23, 1983, the Staff came to the conclusion that leak rate reports had been falsified at Unit 1 by practices similar to those used at Unit 2 prior to the accident. (See Memorandum Eisenhut to Commissioners, September 23, 1983, Board Notification 83-138.) The Staff provided its report, in camera, to the Commissioners and the Boards. (See Memorandu' m ,'Eisenhut to Cormissioners, October 6,1983, Board Notification 83 -138B.) The Commission's Office of Investigations (OI) was requested to investigate the circumstances surrounditg the matter.
2/ This hearing was stayed by Commission Order, October 7, 1983.
3/ These practices were verified by the NRC Staff in 1980 according to the principal investigator Tim Martin. (See Commission Meeting, May 24, 1983, Tr. 14.- 16.) .
4/ Our best interpretation of Christopher's handwriting.
]
The Licensee had been given the opportunity to explain 33 ;
identified irregularities in leak rate reports and 25 missing calculations by discussions between Dr. Chung of the Staff and THI plant personnel, specifically Henry Shipman, an engineer who writes procedures and reports to Michael Ross, supervisor of operations.
(See Memorandum Murley to Denton, October 7,1983 and Letter, Thorpe to Starostecki, August 18, 1983.) Subsequent written explanations provided by Licensee were considered redundant. (See Id.) The conclusion is that Licensee's extemporaneous and considered explanations were
~
identical and insufficient.
The Staff indicated that it interpreted Lice..see's provision of written explanations to be an attempt to influence. Murley's memorandum expressed Staff resistance: "we have neither replied to their letter nor sent them a copy of the inspection report." (See Memorandum, Hurley to Denton, October 7,1983.)
" After the report issued. , the Staff appeared to bend over backwards to explain the leak rate irregularities and falsified reports. The Staff initiated a study to determine whether problecs with leakage in excess of technical specifications were common to Babcock and Wilcox reactors.
(See Memorandum, DeYoung to Dircks , November 7,1983.) Folleving a comprehensive study of two B&W plants, randomly selected, the Staff concluded that leak rate problems were not inherent to B&W plants.
(See Id., Enclosures 1 and 2.)
OI has not concluded its investigation of the Unit 1 leak rate reports. However, the parties need not wait the conclusion of the investigation to move for a reopening of the record. To delay would be contrary to Commission's guidance in the order of August 9,1979 which initiated the Restart Proceeding.
.ts.
Any dairy may precluda o h20 ring of ths 1cck rato falsificaticn matter. The Staff would oppose the investigation of the operators if the plant is operating, viewing the stress of an investigation as detrimental to the operation of the plant. ( d Commission Meeting, December 5, 1983, Tr. 141. )
The Motion The Aamodts motion the Appeal Board to reopen the record of the
. Restart Proceeding to provide for the correction of the record ,
concerning the leak rate falsification at Unit 1 and to examine the circumstances surrounding the matter.
Standards for Reopening A motion to reopen a hearing can be filed by any party to the
- proceeding. The motion need not be supported by an affidavit, and the w vant is free to rely on, for example, Staff-applicant correspondence to establish the existence of a. newly discovered issue. Vermont Yankee Nudlear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), AIAB-124, 6 AEC 358 (1973). The hearing must be reopened whenever a "significant" unresolved safety question is involved. Id. , Vermont Yankee, AIAB-138, 6 AEC'523 (1973), Vermont Yankee, AIAB-124, 6 AEC 358, 365 at n. 10 (1973).
The motion must satisfy the tripartitie test (1) Is it timely?,
(2) Does it addressaa significant safety (or environmental) issue?, and (3) liight a different result have been reached had the newly proffered material beeri considered initially? Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo I
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), AIAB -598,11 NRC 876, 879 (1980).
l
The Motion Meets the Standards (1) It is Timely.
The first report of falsification of leak rate reports at Unit I was provided by the NRC Staff by service of September 2,1983. We did not move at that time for a reopening since it appeared appropriate to move for a hearing of Unit 1 practices in the pechearing conference scheduled for October 1983 concerning the Unit 2 practices. That conference dia nce take place since the Commission stayed the hearing of Unit 2 falsification of leak rates. (See Commission Order, October 7,1983.)
When the Commission acted to stay the Unit 2 hearing, we became uncertain whether a motion for reop'ening on Unit 1 practices was appropriate.
Any motion to reopen on management issues appeared awkward since the Commission had directed the parties to propose * ' a way in place of the reopening (on the Unit 2 falsification matter) to resolve the management 5
integrity / competency issue. (See Id.)
The responses to the Commission diverted our resources and attention from the present action of motioning for a reopening, until January 14, 1984 when we received an invitation from the Commission to comment on a single proposal, that of the NRC Staff. (See Memorandum, Clerents to Parties, served January 10, 1984.) We do n'ot see that our proposals, that would have obviated the need for a motion to reopen on the Unit 1 leak rate report falsifications, are being taken seriously by the Commission, t
l l
i 5/ We motioned the Commission to resolve the management issues by denial of the license at Unit 1 or to lift the stay on the hearing of the Unit 2 leak rate report falsifications. (See Aamodt to Commissioners, October 27, 1983 and November 11, 1983.)
l r
, Our motion is not premature. To await the conclusion of the OI investigation would be delaying the Restart Proceeding unnecessarily.
The ERC frowns on the Staff's resolution of significant safety-related issues, therefore, even if we could expect a full and fair resolution by the Staff, a reopening is appropriate. Since we do not expect a 6
full and fair resolution by the Staff and since we have been warned.by the Staff that it will seek to prevent our access to the operators if the plant is restarted, our motion is not premature.
Our motion is, therefore, neither late nor premature.
(2) It Addresses Several Significant Safety Issues.
The operation of a nuclear plant with leak rates of radioactive water in excess of technical specifications is a significant safety issue.
(The measure of leak rate provided the indication of boundary leakage of
' radioactivity. The leak rate irregularities may, therefore be an environmental 6
issue as well ) At a minimum, such operation is an indication of perscanal incompetency, and . fifty-eight.' of these personnel remain. (See Commission Meeting, December 5,1983, Tr.140.) of greater importance is the evidence
- of lack of integrity across the entire organization,. including the present l
organization, which ordered, permitted and covered-up the entire matter despite the extended opportunity to bring the matter forth. Of most importance toward public health and safety is the evidence of the attitude /of the THI-1 organization and its personnel who did not oppose operating a plant in violation of its technical specifications.
In addition, there is the significant matter of falsification of reports required by NRC, which is material false witness and for which revocation of the license is a stated penalty.
6/ We cannot help but remember the testimony of Dr. Weber, a veterinarian on .
the west shore of TFE who related animal problems to the startup of Unit 1 in 1973 and noted that these problems deminished following shutdown in 1979.
7 The NRC Staff considers the leak rate report falsification a significant metter. The Staff reconsidered its position concerning management integrity /
competency, held throughout the Restart Proceeding, on April 19, 1983 following our comments and motion to the commission which laid out the significance of the matter at Unit 2 as alleged by Harold Hartman, an operator. <
(See Aamodt Comments, served April 16, 1983, docketed April 18, 1983; Staff Comments, docketed April 19, 1983, dated April 18, 1983,) Although the Staff then found that it could " decouple" the Unit 2 leak rate report falsification from restart of Unit 1 b'y removal of potentially involved personnel, the Staff recognized that such a position was untenable concerning Unit 1 leak rate falsification. (See Commission Meeting, December 5,1983, Tr. 98; Memorandum, Dircks to Commissioners, January 3,1984, pages 3, 7, 8.)
The Unit i leak rate report falsifications are, by the Staff's admission, significant and related to the restart of Unit 1.
(3) A Different Result Would Have Been Reached by the Licensing Board Concerning thnagenent Intecrity/Comoetenev had It Considcted the i
Unit 1 Leak Rate IrreRularicies during the Restart Proceeding.
The evidence of leak rate report falsifications at Unit 1 invalidates l
l' all findings and conclusigns of the Licencing Board concerning Licensee's management and personnel competency, integrity and attitude. All THI-1 personne1' are potentially involved. The number who may have participated in the crimes is large -- one-half of the operators,r for instance.
(See Commission Meeting, December 5,1983, Tr. 139.) This estimate does
! not cover those in management, technical functions and maintenance who l
7 l may have participated in or covered up the matter.
2/ There is evidence of a deliberate attempt to cover-up provided by the Thorpe communication of August 18, 1983 to Starostecki and the Murley memorandum of October 7,1983 to Denton. (See page 3, para. 3, supra.)
l l
8-Michael Ross, supervisor of operations since April 1978 and before that a_ shift supervisor at Unit:1, is most likely involved. The Board predicated its findings relative to the safe operation of the plant on the impression Ross made in his appearances before the Board. This impression was Ross's capability to buoy-up the testimony of management officials who had no plant knowledge or experience. (See August 27, 1981, Partial Initial Decision, pages 89-90, para.155.) The Board's judgment of Ross's competency assumed Ross's integrity. Noone could judge whether Ross's responses were correct, only that. they seemed correct. Since the Staff has determined that B&W plante are not so defective in design that they cannot be operated within technical specifications for leakage, Ross's compe'tency is now an open issue as well. (See p' age 3, para. 3, supra.)
Other personnel in key management and technical positions are i
j* potentially involved. The Licensee describes an interface between Henry Shipman, an engineer who writes procedures, and the investigators which reveals knowledge on Shipman's part of the falsifications. Shipman I
i had ample opportunity to provide such information during the Restart t
l Proceeding, having been called as a witness. (See Letter, Thorpe to Starostecki, August 18, 1983; page 3 supra.)
The Board's decision concerning specific individuals, such as Shipman (who provided a candidate for licensing with an answer during the examination),
l could be significantly changed.as well as its conclusion that there was no evidence of a system of cheating. Clearly, the falsification of leak rates and report of these false calculations to NRC involved an elaborate system of cheating. The Licensing Board's prirary interest in reopening sua sponte concerning the cheating on examinations was to determine if a system of cheating was in place. The logical inference is that if such a system was found, the Board would have altered its conclusions concerning
managhmentcndcouldnothavarcacamendedrstartcfUnit.l.
Conclusions The Aamodt motion for a reopening to examine the evidence concerning the leak rate report irregularities and falsifier.tions at Unit 1 meets all applicable standards for a reopening of the record of a proceeding.
Respe tfully submitted
,)ki ikv' b' ' l'Ah!? A t
f l* .
Norman O. Aamodt ld! /E - hadl -
Mar ie M. Aamodt January 23, 1984 I J
. . . .