ML20087B524
| ML20087B524 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Three Mile Island  |
| Issue date: | 03/07/1984 |
| From: | Blake E METROPOLITAN EDISON CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| SP, NUDOCS 8403090129 | |
| Download: ML20087B524 (89) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:,
. RELATED CORRESPONDENCE March 7, 1984 DCLKETED
'MMRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 84 MAR-8 A10:11 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Ji r;E CF SELiitiiA*
- rgei!NG A SEi<VICI.
BRANC!i Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board In the Matter of )
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) DOCKET NO. 50-289 SP
) (Restart-Management (Three Mile Island Nuclear ) Phase)
Station, Unit No. 1) ) NOTICE TO THE COMMISSION, APPEAL BOARD, LICENSING BOARD AND PARTIES On March 2, 1984, Licensee provided documents relating to the recent resolution of the leak rate test criminal pro-ceeding involving Metropolitan Edison Company. We indicated that we expected shortly to receive a transcript of that pro-ceeding which we would distribute. Enclosed-is the transcript of the February 28 and 29, 1984 proceeding as well as a related Order filed by the Court on March 1, 1984. The Court has not acted on Meted's request that the grand jury materials be released. Respectfully submitted, few/4 sVc44 Ernest L. Blake, Jr., P.C. Counsel for Licensee Enclosures cc: Attached Service List 8403090129 040307 PDR ADOCK 05000289 0 PDR L
'>so3
.c- --
i
, l I
l e UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Defore the Commission In the Matter of )
)
- METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289 SP
) (Restart Management (Three Mile Island Nuclear ) Phase)
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
' Victor Gilinsky, Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 , Washington, D.C. 20555. Administrative Judge
, - Thomas M. Roberts, Commissioner - Christine N. Kohl i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Washington, D.C. 20555 Board i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
-James K. Asselstine, Commissioner Washington, D.C. 20555
- i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission' '
Washington, D.C. 20555 Administrative Judge fd Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Frederick Bernthal, Commissioner Atomic Safety & Licensing Board
'U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Gary J. Edles, Chcirman Sheldon J. Wolfe
,. Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Atomic Safety & Licensing Board
' Board' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.'S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 J
4
Administrative Judge Mr. Henry D. Hukill 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 Docketing and Service.Section (3) Mr. and Mrs. Norman Aamodt Office of the Secretary R.D. 5 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Coatesville, PA 19320 washington, 0.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 Doroshow, Esquire Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal The Christic Institute Board Panel 1324 North Capitol Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20002 Washington, D.C. 20555 Ms. Gail Phelps Jack R. Goldberg, Esq. (4) ANGRY /TMI PIRC Office of the Executive Legal 1037 Maclay Street Director Harrisburg, PA 17103 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq. Harmon & Weiss Maxine Woelfling, Esq. 1725 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 506 Office of Chief Counsel Washington, D.C. 20006 Department of Environmental 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 John A. Levin, Esq. Assistant Counsel Michael W. Maupin, Esq. Pennsylvania Public Utility Hunton & Williams Commission 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 3265 P.O. Box 1535 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Richmond, VA 23212 David E. Cole, Esq. Smith & Smith, P.C. 2931 Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 O b k
Uli1TED ETATEE DIETRICT COURT FOE T'iE F3DDLE DISTRICT OF PElil:SYLVAI;I A Ul!ITED STATES OF AMERICA : vr. : CRIMII;AL FILE I;0. 83-00188 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY . FILED runsw,qn ,,, ORDER FOR DISH 3SSA'. MAR 1 1984
- n. n.
' ~ Fortuant to Bule 45(a) of the Federal Rules of Crininal . . . . o. Procedure and by leave of court endorsed hereon, the United f tater Attorney for the l'iddle ~Dirtrict cf I ennsylvanit hereby distirret MtQ: Counts 1, 3 u 6 and 11 of the Indictment EEEiDEt (indictment, XX.XXm n xXxxy,xxxxxxh h kk Metropolitan Edison comoany , defeDdEnt. The reEs on for the dirtirsal is pursuant to the terms of the Plea Agreement.
/
FIL E D DAVID DART QUEEN Y HARRISBURG, PA. United States Attorney W.R 5 1984 RY, CLERK DONALD.R. EJ ; PER...li . C ......... l 3EPUTY CLERK Leave of court ir granted for the filing of the foreEoin;; d ' s ti c s a l . I
-= _- ,
. SYfVIA H. RAMBO l Wiited Stater Dittrict Judgc DATE : J [ l J
j o 3 , 1 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : 4 : 5 v. : Criminal No. 83-00188 . 6 METROPOLITAN . EDISON . COMPANY, : Defendant : 7 8 9 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
~ CHANGE OF PLEA AND SENTENCING 10 BEFORE: HON. SYLVIA H. RAMBO, J.
11 DATE : February 28 and 29, 1984 12 PLACE : Courtroom Number Two 13 Federal Building Harrisburg, Pennsylvania . 14 15 COUNSEL PRESENT: 16 DAVID DART QUEEN, United States Attorney JAMES WEST, Assistant United States Attorney 17 SALLY A. LIED, Assistant United States Attorney L STANLEY ROTHSTEIN, Assistant United States Attorney 18 For - United States of America 19 PAUL J. CURRAN, Esquire i DAVID KLINGSBERG , Esquire ! 20 PAUL H. RHOADS, Esquire For - Defendant Metropolitan Edison Company l 21 22 23' Vicki L. Fox, RPR Official Reporter 24 25 l VICKI L FOX. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. 80X 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. HARRISBURG. PA 17108
. . - . - u_ . - _ - - ~ _ _ . _ _ _ , _ . . - . . . . . . . _ . ~ . . . .
e n .
- 2
[]. 1 THE COURT: Good af terncon, everyone. 2 tiR. QUEEN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. 3 MR. CURRAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. 4 Tile COURT: Mr. Queen and Mr. Curran, it is my ! 5 understanding that the Def.endant appears through fir. Curran
.6 -pursuant to a resolution of the Board of Governors of the 7 Defendant Corporation; is that correct?
8 11R. CURRAII: That is correct, Your Honor. 9 THE COURT: Please see that that resolution is 10 made a part of the recorc 11 IIR. CURRAN: Yes, Your Honor. !:ay I hand up both? 12 THE COURT: I have copy. If that is the original, 13 'please give it to the Clerk.
.. .14 !!R. CURRAN: There are three originals in effect, 15 Your Honor. This is one of them. I believe you have 16 another. I would be glad to hand this up.
17 THE COURT: Mr. Curran, it will be necessary for 18 me to put a colloquy on the record. It is my understanding ' 19 you will be responding on behalf of the Corporation; is that 20 correct? 21 !!R. CURRAM: That is correct, Your Honor. 22 THE COURT: Hr. Curran, have you so advised the
-23 Board of Directors and their respective officers of the right 24 of the Corporation to a trial in this matter in which they 25 would through:you select a jury of twelve persons; and at t
VICKI L. FOX. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. HARRISBURG. PA 17108 e
'r w ag -
.,r,,,. 4 ,, ., ,,,,,,,,y,. . , _ _ _ , , _ ,
.o n .
. ,. 3
' ~
'l that trial the government would be required to prove each and 2 every element of the charges beyond a reasonable Goubt, and
'3 that any verdict of guilty by any jury must be unanimous; 4 have you so advised the Corporation?
5 .MR. CURRAN: I have, Your Honor. 6 THE COURT: Have you further advised the 7 Corporation that at that trial, the government would produce 8 testimony through uitnesses and other evidence, and that you 9 would have the opportunity to cross-examinate those witnesses 110 and the opportunity to subpoena witnesses on your own ochalf; 11 although in a criminal trial, a Defendant is not required to 12_ produce any evidence on his behalf? 13 MR. CURRAN: I have, Your Honor. l 14 THE COURT: Have you further advised the , 15 Corporation that at that trial its corporate officers could 16 not be required to take the stand and testify against 17 themselves? 18 HR. CURRAN: I have not done that precisely, Your 19 Honor. 20 THE COURT: I am sorry, not the corporata 21 officers. 22' MR. CURRAN: Because'we only have a Corporate 23 Dcfendant, Your Honor. 24 THE COURT: Have you advised the Corporation that 25 if they valved the right to trial and tendered a plea, that I
. \ -
VKKI L FOX, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. HARRISBURG. PA 17108 e t_. O *. .
n .- 1 '. , 4 Y I Lj 1 they vaive any defenses that they coula present on their own 2 behalf, and they further waive the right to appeal any 3 pretrial notions that cay have been filed in this matter? 4 UR. CURRAM: I have, Your Honor. 5 THE COURT: Is it the desire of the Corporation to
- 6. waive its right to a speedy trial?
7 HR. CURRAM: Yes, Your Honor. 3 -THE COURT: Nou it is my understanding that there 9 is a plea agreement between the Defendant Corporation and the
~ 10 government?
11 UR. QUEEU: That's correct. 12 THE COURT: Prior to my asking !!r. Queen to place the essence of the plea agreement on the record, I would ask { '13 whether br not you knou, Mr. Curran, whether there have been 14 15 any threats or promises made to any members of the Board of 16 Directors or its corporate officers except what appears in 17 the plea agreement? 18 IIR. CURRAU: None, Your Honor. There have been 19 none. 20 THE COURT: Have you fully explained and gone over 21 with the Daard of Directors or the corporate officers the 22 contents of the plea agreement? 23 MR. CURRAN: I have, Your Honor. 24 THE COURT: Are there any additions you wish to 25 make or correct, or do you wish to reserve that until Mr. L L_ VICKI L. FOX. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. BOX 983. FEDEPAL BUILDING. HARRISBURG. PA 17108 1 4 6 *. e
i: , ' .' .. 5 s b d. ~ 1- Queen places the plea agreement on the record? 2 .RR. CURRAU: I have a cestement, Your Honor, but I 3 would like to wait until Mr. Cueen's statement. 4' THE COURT: I will ask Mr. Cueen to place the 5 e sence of the plea. agreement on the record. 6 MR. QUEEU: Thank you, Your Honor. The original
'7 of.this agreement, the resolution of the Board required by 0 the agreement and a letter ref ncec in the agreement have 9 all been turned over.to the Cle. prior to the proceedings.
-10 The original was executed and dated today and 11 signed by Ur. Curran on behalf of'the Corporation and by 12 myself on behalf of the United States of America.
The agreement in its entirety has been reduced to { L 13' the Defendant agrees to 14 writing and? calls for the1fo11ouing: plead guilty to Count 2 of che-indictment which charges the, 16 ' Defendant uith a' violation of Title 42 of the United States. l'7 Code, Section 2273 and Title.10 of the Code of Federal L18 Regulations, Part 50, Appendix B. The maximum penalty as set 19 out in the agreement is a fine of $5,000.00. 20- Tha agreement requires that at the time the plea 21: of guilty is entered, the Defendant shall admit to the Court 22 that-the. Defendant is in fact guilty of the offense charged 23 in that count. f24 ' Paragraph two requires the Defendant to enter 25 pleas of nolo contendere to Counts 4, 7, 9 and 10 of the L , q. OCKl L. FOX. OFFICIAL COURT PEPORTER. BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. HARRISBURG. PA 17108 e g
o n . 6 , lJ 1 1-
-indictment which charge the Defendant with violations of 2 Title 42, United. States Code, Section 2273 and Title 10, Code 3 of Federal Regulations, Part 50, Appendix B and Section 4 50.71; that is operating a utilization facility in violation
.5 of' regulations promulgated by the Nuclear Regulatory 6 Commission. The maximum penalty for each offense is a fine 7 of $5,000.00.
8 The Defendant also agrees to enter pleas of nolo 9 contendere to Counts 5 and 8 of the indictment ubich charge 10 the Defendant with violations of Title 42, United States 11 Code, Sections 2272 and 2131; that is operating a utilization 12 facility in violation of the conditions of its license issued 13 by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The maximum penalty ( 14 for each offense is a fine of $10,000.00.
;15 Pursuant to paragraph.four, the government agrees 16 to bring no other criminal charges against the Defendant 17 arising out of its operation of the Three Mile Island nuclear 18 Power Station, Unit 2 which may have occurred up to and 19 including March 28, 1979.
l20 Also at the time that the pleas are described in 21 paragraphs one, two and three are' entered, the Defendant-22 .shall admit that Counts 2, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the 23 indictment charge offenses, the violations of which 24 constitute crimes. 25 GR. CURRAN: Your Eor.Or, I think Mr. Queen omitted I
.L; .
VICKI L. FOX. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. HARRISBURG. PA 17108
- _., __ __, . - , . .-_ ._.-___~- _._, -~ __
v , n 7 9.
'~
l 1 Count 4. 2' UR. CUC2U: I apologise. Dic I ship it? 3 THE COURT: You said 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, and I am not 4 too sure you -- 5 MR. QUEEN: It waa a misreading on my part, Your 6 Honor. L 7 THE COURT: What about 10? 8 llR. OUCEN: I will clarify it for the record, 9 Paragraph five of the plea agreement requires that the 10 Defendant shall admit Counts 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the 11 indictment charge offenses, the violations of which 12 -constitute crimes. By paragraph si::, the Defendant acknowledges that ^ ( 13 the maximum penaltics described thus far are fines totaling 14 15 S45,000.00 together with the cost of the prosecution. 16 Paragraph seven, the Defendant acknowledges that 17 for the purpose of sentencing only a plea of nolo contendere 18 is the same as and equivalent to a plea of guilty, subjecting 19 the Defendant to the same criminal penalties as the plea of 20 guilty. 21 Paragraph eight, if the Court accepts the plea 22 agreement, the parties agree that the appropriate sentence 23 shall be the maximum sentence of fines totaling $45,000.00. 24 After completion of the sentencing, the government 25 agrees to move for dismissal of Counts 1, 3, 6 and 11 of the
.I
(.- VICKl L. FOX. OFFICIAL CCURT REPORTER, 80X 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. HARRISBURG. PA 17108
~ 3 R
- l; , .
1 inoictment. 3 2 Pursuant to paragraph ten, the Defendant agrees 3 that as a material condition of this agreement, the Defendant 4 shall place the sum of one million dollars within five 5 business days after imposition of the sentence in an 6 interest-bearing escrou account where it shall be maintained 7 until final transfer is arranged pursuant to the agreement. 8 The money paid by the Defendant shall pass absolutely and 9 without cond.ition for the use of and by the Pennsylvania 10 Emergency Management Agency,1; noun by the acronym PEMA, 11 consistent with its enabling legislation to assist in 12 emergency preparedness and planning in the emergency preparedness zone specified by the nuclear Regulatory {} 13 14 Commission regulations. That is a tuenty-mile zone arounu 15 TMI nuclear station. 16 The paragraph goes on to point out if PEUA is 17 unable or unuilling to accept the payment, then there is a 18 procedure established for finding a like or similar 19 organization to accept the one million dollar payment. In 20 the event such procedure cannot be established, the Court 21 would have the authority to direct payment to an appropriate 22 organization. 23 Paragraph eleven, the Defendant acknowledges and 24 understands that any fines paid as a consequence of the plea 25 of guilty or to the pleas of nolo contendere are not ta:: I VICKI L. FOX, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. BOX 993. FEDERAL BUILDING. H ARRISBURG. PA 17108
. 4 9
1 deductible from the Defendant's corporate tax return, and 2 that any fines must be paid out of aftar tan profits, anc 3 that such fines do not constitute a cost of doing business. 4 Paragraph tuelve, the Defendant acknowledges that 5 for the purpose of its corporate tax liability, any costs of G the prosecution and the one million dollar payment described 7 in paragraph ten shall not be treated by the Defendant as a 8 cost of doing business nor as an unavoidable e:: pense and 9 acknowledges that such costs of prosecution are reasonably 10 avoidable expenses, and as such shall not constitute a 11 deduction from the cor por. ate -- the Def endant's corporate
. 12 pre-tax income.
Paragraph 13, the Defendant agrees that any fines (_ 13 14 and costs described above shall be absorbed wholly and
- 15 exclusively by the Corporation and its stockholders. The 16 Defendant agrees that it shall in no way ask for, seek or 17 attempt to treat such fines, costs of prosecution or payments 18 as an expense to be passed through to its ratepayers or users 19 of utility services.
20 Paragraph fourteen requires that the fines, 21 payments and the like that were descri'ced above shall be paid 22 through certified check payable to the United States Treasury 23 within five business days of the imposition of any sentence. 24 Paragraph fifteen requires that the government 25 provide to the United States Attorney an affidavit signed by 1 VICKI L. FOX. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. 80X 983. FEDERAL BUILDING H ARRISBURG. PA 17108 [ .
t 10 i
.I
~
1 the responsible incivi6uals chargeo with the coligation of 2 preparing the corporate income tax returns and the can 3 returns of its affiliated corporations certilying that on 4 those tax returns, no deductions, credits, losses or the like
.5 were claimed or uill be claimed by !!etropolitan Edison 6 arising out of any of the monies paid pursuant to this plea 7 agreement.
8 Paragraph sinteen, the parties will be permitted 9 to bring to the Court's attention and the Court will be 10 permitted to consider all relevant information with respect 11 to the Defendant's conduct. 12 Paragraph seventeen, che Defendant agrees to 13 pursue -- not to pursue or initiate any civil claims or suits { 14' against the United States of America, its agencies or
.15 employos uhether or not presently known.
16 Paragraph eighteen touches on what Your Honor 17 mentioned before; namely that a plea of guilty or nolo 18 contendere waives any defenses legal or factual in this case. 19 Paragraph nineteen makes clear and it is 20 understood by the parties that the status of any licenses 21 held by the Defendant is not affected by this agreement and 22 is a matter solely within the discretion of the appropriate 23 licensing authority. The Defendant agrees that the
-24 government may at its discretion consistent with law provide 25 to any such licensing authority any documents or information -l.
VICKI L. FOX. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. H ARRISBURG. PA 17108
O ** 11
+
(. 1 in its possession. 2 Paragraph tuenty, the Defendant specifically 3 understands that the granting, rencual or denial of any 4 license to operate a nuclear power plant rests exclusively 5 and entirely with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which is 6 not a party to this agreement. 7 Paragraph twenty-one merely requires that the 8 Board of Directors pass a resolution authoricing counsel for 9 the Defendant to make such factual admissions and statements 10 on the Corporation's behalf for the purpose of those 11 proceedings and requires that the Board certify that they
.12 have read this agreement in its entirety and approve it.
13 Paragraph tuenty-two simply notes that this {_ 14 agreement is not binding on any other state or local lau 15 enforcement agency. 16 Paragraph tuenty-three is standard language 17- indicating that there are no other understandings, uritten or 18 oral, encept those contained in the agreement with the 19 specified exception of a letter which I have made part of the 20 record and which indicates certain language that uould be 21 contained in a statement of facts and vill be read by the 22 government shortly hereafter. And then it is very typical
-23 language near the end of the agreement.
24 THE COURT: 11r. Curran, did you wish to make any 25 comment on the plea agreement at this time that needs to-be t-
's -
VICKI L. FOX. O.eFICIAL COURT REPORTER. BOX 983. FEDERAL DUILDING. HARRISBURG. PA 17108
.-Q - . . . - .-, ,
, t. 12 I 'h J 1 corrected or additions? 2 MR. CURRAN: Not at this time, Your Honor. 3 UIE COURT: Cave you advised the corporate 4 officers that on Count 2 the manicum penalty is SS,000.00? 5 MR. CURRAM: I have, Your Honor. 6 THE COURT: And that on Counts 4, 7, 9 and 10 the 7 naximum penalty is $5,000.00 each or a total of S20,000.00? 8 !!R. CURRAM: I have, Your Honor. 9 THE COURT: And that on Counts 5 and 8 the ma::imum 10 penalty is $10,000.00 on each count or a total on those two 11 . counts of $20,000.00 for a total maximum fine of S45,000.00? 12 MR. CURRAN: I have, Your Honor. 13 THE COURT: Further, Mr. Curran, have you advised { 14 the corporate officers that a plea of nolo contendere means 15 that judgment of guilty would be entered against the 16 Defendant and dealt with by this Court in all respects as if 17 the Defendant had been found guilty or had admitted its
- 18 guilt?
19 IIR. CURRAM: I have advised the Directors, Your 20 Honor, that if this Court accepts the pleas of nolo 21 contendere mentioned in the plea agreement that judgment of 22 conviction will be entered just as if there had been a guilty 23 finding. Eut I have also advised them that that is for 24 sentencing purposes only as the plea agreement says, and it
~ 25 .is limited to this case.
VICK1 L. FOX. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. H ARRISBURG. PA 17108
.Q. , - - - - , _ , , . :. - - _ _ . _ , - , _ . . _
13 1 THE COURT: That is correct. 2 MR. CURRI.N: I have done that, Ycur I:onor. 3 TUC COUNT: I do have some cucstions of counsel. 4 In paragraph fourteen, it states all finco and court ceste 5 and costs of prosecution imposed by the Court, atectora shall 6 Hbe payable. However in paragraph eight, it stateu that if 7 the Court accepts the plea cgreement, etcetera that the 8 ma::imum sentonce will be fines totaling S45,000.00. 9 I an assuming that it is anticipated that if this 10 Court accepts the pica agreement that the government is also 11 asking that the costs of prosecution be imposed in addition 12 to the finos? 13 CR CUECU: Ubat uo are indicating la that they (] 14 cxpose themselves to costs of prosecution. Mr. Curran and I 15 have discusced the matter. Since virtually all the costs of 16 prosecution that arc icgitimately taxable under the Criminal 17 Code are those that occur as a result of an actual trial, at 18 this juncture they are extremely nominal. 19 He have not prepared a bill of costs. If the 20 Court choosou to impoce costs, we would obviously have to 21 preparo a bill of costs. It is virtually a nominal or 22 nonexistent cost at this juncture. 23 THE COURT: Cr. Curran? 24 En. CURRAU: That is my unoorstanding, Your Honor. 25 I inquired about this of the. government, anc my understanding l k-VICKI L. FOX, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. HARRISBURG. PA 17108
14 y- a! 1 is that ue are talking about costs in the approximate amount 2 of $150.00. 3 THE COURT: Dut the Corporation at least knous c 4 that it is exposing itself? 5 HR. CURRAN: Yes, Your Honor. 6 THE COURT: Has the Corporation been advised thct 7 this plea agreement is not binding on this Court? 8 MR. CURRAN: It certainly has, Your Hcnor. 9 THE COURT: And if I do not accept it, that they 10 are faced with a trial on the indictment as it stands? 11 !;R. CURRAN: I have told them specifically that if 12 this Court did not accept the agreement, we would go to the 13 ~ motions and go to trial, yes. Absent some other dicposition { 14 down the road, yes, ma'am. 15 THE COURT: I have one further question with 16 regard to the agrecment. On paragraph thirteen, the last 17 sentence, with respect to the fact that these fines and 18 costs, etcetera will not be passed through to the ratepayers, 19 does the government know how they would be able to ensure 20 that that part of the bargain uas maintained? 21 MR. QUEEM: Of course, Your Honor, insofar ac the 22 request for rate changes and the basis used by a utility, the 23 Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission obviously vill be 24 apprised of the contents of the agreement, and any requests 25 for a change in rate is a matter of public record, i k-V:CKI L. FOX. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. H ARRIS8URG. PA 17108 s
- I[
Jo - 15
- >I ..
1 As I am sure Nr. Curran is well avare and I am 2 sure the Court is uell aware these have to be documentec. 3 The basis for the rate changes must be mace kno.cn to the 4 Public Utility Commission. In some respects, we vould be 5 trusting the Public Utility Commission to pay careful 6 attention to that fact. 7 THE COURT: Mr. Curran, is the Corporarion 8 acceptable to the plea agreement as presente'd by the 9 government? 10 HR. CURRAU: Yes, Your Honor. 11 THE COURT: Mr. Queen, since the Defendcnt has 12 tendered or_is consioering tendering a plea of guilty to 13 Count 2 only, vould the government place on the record thar {] 14 evidence'that you vould present at a trial in the prosecution 15 of that particular count in the indictment? 16 MR. QUEEU: Your Honor, it is not possible for the
-17 government to segregate out a particular piece of evidence to 18 apply to Count 2 only. Given the nature of the factual 19 scheme that would be laid out by the government and because 20 of the nolo contendere pleas, we are prepared to outline for 21 the Court the evidence in condensed form as the government 22 would present it were the case to proceed to trial.
23 THE COURT: Do you understand that, Mr. Curran? 24 HR. CURRAU: I do, Your Honor. 25 THE COURT: Would you proceed then? I would ask I L - VICK1 L. FOX. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. HARRISBURG. PA 17108 e - . . . - ,. . - - -
1 1G L ! LJ 1 that ycu try and slow doun so the court reporter can tr.kc it. 2 ER. OUDEM:. Knowing that I creak fast, ! have 3 given her a copy so chat she can read along uith r.;e. I uill 4 be reading from a prepared statement verbatim. 5 (reading) At a trial 6 of this case, the government woulo produce credible evidence 7 to establish the facts containe6 in this statement. This 8 statement does not describe all of the evidence the United 9 States would introduce at trial, but contains essential 10 portions thereof which it would offer in support of the 11 charges to which the Defendant is entering pleas. 12 Under clearly established case law, a Corporation 13 can be criminally liable for the acts and omissions of its { 14 employes. The evidence would establish that a number of the 15 employes of the Metropolitan Edison Company engaged in the 16 criminal activities charged in the indictment. However,.the 17 evidence presented to the Grand Jury and developed by the , 18 United States Attorney does not indicate that any of the 19 following persons participated in, directed, condoned or was 20 aware of the~ acts or omissions that are the subject of the 21 indictment. And they are Uilliam G. Kuhns, Herman M. 22 Dieckamp, Robert C. Arnold, James S. Bartman, Shepard 23 Bartnoff, Frederick D. Hafer, Richard Heward, Henry D. 24 Hukill, Edwin D. ."intner, James R. Leva, Bernard H. Cherry, 25 Phillip R. Clark, Verner n. Condon, Walter M. Creit: Robert k + VICKI L FOX. OFFICIAL CCURT REPORTER. BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. H ARRISBURG. PA 17108
i ,e 17 1 Fasulo, Ivan R. Finf rock, U1111am L. Gifford, Robert L. Long, 2 Frank Canganaro, Erneut M. Schleicher, Floyd J. Smith, 3 Uilliam A. Verrochi, Raymond Uerts and Richard F. Uilson. 4 The list of individuala I just read incluoes all 5 of the Directors and Officers of GPU Uuclear Corporation from 6 its organization in 1982 to the date of the indictment and 7 all the Directors of the Defendant company during the period 8 covered by the indictment.
'9 The indictment does not charge a legal nexus to 10 the events of March 28, 1979 unich have become commonly knoun 11 as the Three Mile Island Unit 2 accident, and the pleas do 12 not constitute an admission of such a nexus.
13 For the sake of clarity, a discussion of the {_ 14 evidence will be divided in four separate sections as 15 follows: the first will be the Regulatory and Operation 16 Requirement; the second Review of Plant Operations from 17 Licensure up until October 18, 1973; the third are the Events 18 of October 18, 1978; and the fourth are those Events after 19 October 18, 1978. 20 The first section - the Nuclear Regulatory 21 Commission, known as the URC, uns the federal agency 22 responsible for administering and enforcing the Atomic Energy 23 Act. The Atomic Energy Act authorized the URC to issue 24 licences to operate nuclear pouer plants and to prohibit the
~25 operation of any such plant except under and in accordance I
(- VICKI L. FOX. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. HARRISBURG. PA 17108 m 7
18 r, - l L 1 ^ with a valid license. 2 To obtain an operating license from the UnC, 3 Metropolitan Edison Company uas required to develop a set of 4 rules and procedures by which it agreed to operate Three Mile 5 Island nuclear Station, Unit 2. Metropolitan Cdison was also 6 subject to established standards for operation known as 7 technical specifications. The technical specificacions were
'O made part of Metropolitan Edison's license to operate the TMI 9 Unit 2 and became conditions of that license.
10 The operation of TMI Unit 2 required reactor 11 coolant, which is essentially domineralised uater, to (a) 12 keep the facility at a safe temperature; and (b) transfer {j 13 heat generated by the nuclear reaction. 14 To avoid the loss of reactor coolant, the 15 technical specifications limited the amount of Icakage to one 16 gallon per minute from unidentified sources. Such strict 17 limits were established to enable company employes to monitor 10 even slight increases in unidentified leakage which possibly 19 consisted of dangerous pressure boundary leakage and to take 20 appropriate precautionary action to avoid challenges to the 21 integrity of the containment of reactor coolant. 22 If unidentified leakage er.cceded the established 23 limits, the technical specifications required Metropolitan 24 Edison to take certain acticns set forth in an action 25 statement. The action ;;atement required the company to i VICKI L. FOX. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. HARRISBURG. PA 17106 - g - - - - - - , - - - - - - , , . , -
- e. .~. -
19 V j. 1 reduce the lockage te within allcuabl~e limits uithin rour 2 hours of ciscovery.(end of reaaing) 3' TEC COUNT: You omitted a word, Hr. Cueen. The 4 action statement required the company to reouce the leakage 5 rate. MR. QUEEN: I apologize, Your Honor. I skipped 6 7 that word. (reading-) -- to reduce the leakage rate to a within allouable' limits uithin four hours of discovery. 9 If that could not be accomplished, the action 10 statement requireo Metropolitan Edison to commence a pouer 11 reduction so that the facility voulc be in hot standoy within
'the following si:: hours and completely shut doun within the 12 13' follouing thirty hours.
(' _ 14 netropolitan Edison's license also required it to 15 establish, implement and maintain appropriate procedures for 16~ surveillance tests. Among such. tests was the reactor coolant 17 -system unter inventory balance, commonly referred to by 18 Metropolitan Edison employes as the leak rate test. 19 The Company's license required it to demonstrate 20 by performance of the leak rato test that reactor coolant 21 system leakage was within allouable limits at least once 22 every 72 hours during steady' state operation of the facility. 23 netropolitan Edison Company understood that.the 24' leah rate test was a primary maans of detecting reactor
-25 -coolant system leakage. 'f the leak rate cost indicated that .L- -( .
VICKI L. FOX, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. BOX 983. FEDER=L BUILDING. HAkklSBURG. PA 17108 a L e ..
20
]. allouable limits of leakage were exceeded, Metropolitan was 2 required either to invoke the action atarement as doccribed 3 above or disqualify the test by filing a uritten e::ception or 4 deficiency as required by the company's procedures.
5 In addition, Metropolitan Edison was required to G retain for at least five years its records surveillance 7 activities to be conducted including the leak rate test and 8 ' to make entries in its operating logs relating to the conduct 9 of surveillance testing. 10 The United States voula establish that 11 Metropolitan Edison Company represented to the Unc that in 12 would operate THI Unit 2 in accordance with the license 13 requirements described above. It also represented to the UnC { that it had established a leak rate test that was capable of 14 15 measuring in a meaningful way unidentified reactor coolant 16 system leakage within the technical specification limits -- 17 that is, one gallon per. minute. 18 Part two -- Review of Plant Operations from 19 Licensure of the Plant up to October 18, 1978. netropolitan 20 Edison Voapany owned fifty percent of the Three Mile Icland 21 Nuclear Station. On February 8, 1970 the URC incued facility 22 operating license number DPR-73 to Metropolitan Edison to 23 possess, use and operate TMI Unit 2. 24 During the time period after the license to 25 operato uas issued and prior to October 18, 1978, lx_ - VICKI L. FOX. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILDING, H ARRISBURG. PA 17108
1
- o- 1L_ m 21
'r T _
1 Metropolitan Ecinen unc engagcc in operating 7::I Unit 2 '.a n 2 a viau to bringing the iacility into contorcial cperation. l 3 The:1cak rate tect was recuited to be performed during a al cubctantial part of thic period of time. Operations 5 Department employcu of Metropolitan Ecicon concluded that 6 ~during cuch period of tino, the Icak rate test uac faulty 7 .becauce it cid not accurately measure uniden:1fied reacter a coolant systou leakage. Moverthc1ccc, the ceployec 9 responciolo for cupervicing the perfornaccc of the leak rate 10 test, acquiccccc in its continued ucc. 11 The United States vould catablich thrcush e:: pert 12 testimony that the leak rate tect at TMI Unit 2 vac faulcy u -
~(j 13 because,.acong othor.rcaconc, the company-prepared 14 calculation octablished in the curveillance procedure Jor 15 ccacuring-unidantifico 1catacc wac not correct. The only 16 cignificant chango in-che calculation maco by I:ccropolitan
.17 Edicon occurred on March 16, 1979, conc tucive..dayc bef ore 18 the co-called accident. Houover, tnat change did not correct 19 all of the errorn in the calculation. Aaditional cerorc verc 20 discovered by the Mnc dusing its invectigation following the 21 TMI Unit- 2 accident.
22 The Icak race tcut at TUI Unit 2 yielded uidely 23 varying resulta not confirmed by the state of the plant. 24 Thuc resulta uithin the technical upocificacion limita coulo
'25 often be achieved if the tect were perforned frequently }.
Q ~) VICKl L FOX. OFFICIAL 00URT REPORTER BOX 983. FEDERAL F JiLDING. HARRIS 8JRG.~ PA 17108
- o . _ , _ . ,- a - _ _ _ _
22 t
\-
YI i f) 1 enough. 2 The company acopted a practice that c leds rdus 3 test wasEto be performed each eight-hour shift. Because of 4 the varying results obtained, the test was frequently 5 ' performed more often. If the test showed leakage in excess 6 of the limits established in the technical specification, the 7 documentation'was discarded. Test results indicating 8 unidentified leakage within allouable limits were retained 9 and filed as evidence of compliance with the leak rate 10 surveillance testing requirements. 1ievertheless, Operations 11 Department employes had littic faith in the reliability of 12 such test results including the results filed for NRC review. 13 An exception and deficiency procedure was 14 instituted by the company to comply uith its quality 15 assurance requirements, including the conduct of surveillance 16 testing. A Metropolitan'Eoison systems engineer would 17 testify that the co=pany was required to apply the exception 18 and deficiency procedure to any leak rate test result company 19 employes decided to disqualify for whatever reason. Contrary 20 to such requirement, however, no exception or deficiency was 21 ever filed for any of the numerous leak rate test discarded. 22 Moreover, Metropolitan Edison had represented to 23 the NRC again to comply with its quality assurance 24 requirements that it vould keep operating logs regarding
'25 plant operations that would include the starting and i
VICKI L. FOX. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. HARRISBURG. PA 17108 5
F"
.. *' 23 1.l 1 completion times and the results of all surveillanca testing.
2 No cuch logs vere kept with respect to the leak race testm 3- which exceeded allovable limits. Thus virtually ever record x 4 _concerning the leak rate test, which the company was recuired 5 to create for the purpose of documenting compliance with the 6 leak' rate testing requirements showing unidentified leakage 7 'in excess of the allowable limits, was either discarded or 8 not created in the first instance. Hor did the company 9 inform the URC of the problems it uas expericacing with the 10 leak rate test. 11 The highest fetropolitan Edison employo in the 12 Operatione Department of T!!I Unit 2, the Supervisor of 13 Operations, would testify that the leak rate procedure was (_ 14 " functionally unusabic to tell you uhat your leak rate in the 15 plant really vas," but as long as the operators "got a piece 16 of-paper-that caid less than one gallon a minute, they could 17 file it." 18 In fact, he would also testify that the leak rate 19 tests that were uithin acceptable limits and being filed for 20- NRC reviou were as " worthless as the ones being thrown away." 21 In addition, the Superviscr of Operations required
- 22. no change in the practice of discarding unacceptable leak 23 rate-test results because he had no faith in the reliability
~ 24 of the test.- 'Instead, he relied upon the operators to
-25 visually scan the instrumentation on the console to actually I
v . VICKI L. FOX. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. HARRISBURG. PA 17108
24 1 determine the leak rate of the plant and felt tha such a 2 procedure was adequate to meet the cafety requireuento. 3 Eowever, the Supervisor of Operations vould admit -- 4 and I quote -- that kind of scanning does not meet the legal 5 requirement of the technical specification. The technical 6 specification is a legal document, and as an engineer I am 7 imposed upon to make legal interpretation of those words, 8 although they can be second-guessed by lawyers at any time. 9 So.I hesitate to say this is a legalistic reading of it, but 10 this goes the way I read it. And what I was doing'vith my 11- own eyes and my oun mind did not satisfy the legal 12 requirement. Question: And you knew that? 13 Answer: And I knew that -- close quote. {j 14 Thus the Supervisor of Operations permituod the 15 operators to determine the leak rate by visually scanning 16 plant parameters despite his knouledge that such a procedure 17 was not authorized by netropolitan Edison's license for
~
18 compliance with surveillance requirements. Indeed, a number 19 of operations employes described the scanning procedure as a 20 " quick and-dirty" way of measuring the leak rate. At no time 21 was the URC informed of such practices concerning the leak 22 rate test. 23 The control room operators at THI Unit 2 who were 24 responsibic for perforcing the leak rate test would testify 25 -that the practice of discarding unacceptable leak rate test t 1 vicKI L. FOX OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. HARRISBURG. PA 17108 i e
F-
. 25 7-~ .
( - 1 results and filing acceptchle ones uns carried out uith the 2 express knouledge of supervisory personnel within the i 3 -operations Department including the Supervisor of Operacioas,
~4- shift supervisors and shift foremen.
5 One control room operator would testify that uhen 6 he first began running the leak rate test in early 1978 and 7 obtained a result for unidentified leakage greater than one 8 gallon per minute, he gave the test to his shift foreman who showed it to the shift supervisor. Shortly therefore, the 9 10 control room operator was approached by three supervisory 11 employes in the Operations Departuent and uas told by one of 12 them in the presence of the others "uc do not want to see 13 this shit." {_ none of the Operations Department employes could 14 15 identify any other surveillance test conducted at TUI Unit 2 16 .that was treated in the same manner; that is, acceptable test 17 results filed, unacceptable ones discarded, without other 18 documentation created or notification to the URC supplied. 19 Dor could any employe point to any surveillance test that uas 20 functionally inoperable uithout corrective action being 21 taken. 22 In early October, 1978, TMI Unit 2's 23 Superintendent of Technical Support first learned that there 24 was a divergence of opinion as to the interpretation of the 25 requirements of the leak rate technical specification. VICKl L FOX. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. H ARRISBURG. PA 17108
26 L-4 1N 1 Comtany personnel within the operations Department took the 2 position that an acceptable-leak rate test once every 72 3 -hours met the intent.of the requirements of the tecnnical 4 : specifications. , 5~ .Thus, if intermediate leak rate tests results were 6 conducted and unacceptable results obtained, it was not
~7 'necessary t'o invoke the. action statement. The Superintendent 4 S of Technical Support was advised by at least one shift 9 supervisor.that an interpretation requiring invocation of the ,
10 action statement every time an unacceptable leak rate test 11 result _was obtained would cause shutdown problems.
.12 The_ Superintendent of Technical Support was not g-] 13 -satisfied with the interpretation of the leak rate technical s 14 . specifications as advanced by the operations staff and 15 decided to look into'the matter further. Houever, his 16 consideration of the matter was brought to a head as a result 17 of an URC inspection of THI Unit 2 on October 18, 1970.
18 Section-three will address itself to the events of
.19 ' October 18. While conducting a routine inspecton of'TnI Unit 20 2 on October 18, 1978 an URC inspector interrupted a 21' conversation among Operations Department employes concerning 22 " bad" leak-rate tests. A bad leak rate test was the
-23 shorthand description used by Operations Department staff to ,
1 24 refer to a calculated unidentified leak rate of more than one 25 gallon per minute. A good leak rate test conversely referred p VICKl L. FOX. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. EOX 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. H ARRISBURG. PA 17108
^
I _ , - _ .~, _ . - - _ _ _ - _ . - _ - - - - .. - - . - - - . . _ _ - .
27 1 to a calculated unidentified leak rate equal to or less than 2 one gallon per minute. 3 Present were the Supervisor of Operations, tuo 4 shift supervisors and a shift foreman. The inspector saw at 5 least three leak rate printoutc uhich shoved excessive 6 leakage. He asked why the plant had not entered the action 7 statement as a result of such tests and was informed that the 8 prevailing interpretation was that all unacceptable leak rate 9 tests conducted uithin 72 hourc of an acceptable one could be 10 ignored. 11 The URC inspector indicated to ::etropolitan Edison 12 . personnel that he found such an interpretation " chocking" and j{ [ 13 a fundamental misinterpretation of the safety requirement. 14 He then confronted the Superintendent of Technical support
.15 with his findings and received specific ascurances that 16 'whenever the leak rate test showed that the unidentified 17 leakage limit was exceeded, the plant vould enter the action 18 statement.
19 The NRC inspector was not told of the problems 20 Metropolitan Edison had been having with the leak rate test, 21 nor with the conclucion of the operations staff that the test 22 as performed at TMI Unit 2 did not accurately measure 23 unidentified leakage. 24 The URC inspector vould testify that the 25 Superintendent of Technical Support agreed to implement the I VICKI L. FOX OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. HARRISBURG. PA 17108
TE
+
gav T- ~
~
, I l
k.:d 1 interpretation of the leak race technical cpecificatienc as I: 21 'statec by the URC incpector. The Superinconcent cf Technical 3 Support would testify thatc he agreed uith the URC inspector's
.4- interpretation and promised to instruct the operations staff 5 accordingly.
6- , The Superintendent of Technical Support requested 7 the Supervisor of Operations and-certain shift supervisors to
- S assist in assuring:that the Ope:ations Department of TUI Unit 9 -2, received-appropriate instructions. The Superintendent of 10 Technical-Support would testify that shortly after che
.11 confrontation uith the' inspector on October 18,197 8 he uas 12 advised'by a.chift supervisor that "we know how to get a good g} 13- one,"~ referring to-the leak rate test.
14 Before concluding his inspection on October 18, 15 1978, theinRC inspector was chown at least tuo leak rate 16 l tests run on-October 18, 1978.after his discovery of the L17 unacceptable ones which showed that the plant was within the 18 .one gallon per minute limit for unidentified leakage. 19 Expert testimony based upon scientific analysis of 20 . plant records would' indicate that' unrecorded uater additionc
- 21. were made to the reactor coolant.cystem during the course of 22 three leak 1 rate tests conducted on October 18, 1978.
'23 A shift supervisor would testify that as a result 24 :ofithe' October 18, 1978'NRC inspection, a conference 25 telephone call was made from the shift cupervisor's office in IL
(. VICKI L. FOX. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. H ARRISBURG. PA 17108 O
.,m-' svn-
L 29
]
1 che Unit 2 control rocm. Present in the snift supervisor's 2 offico and parties to the conversation vore the 3 Superintendent of Technical Support, the Supervisor of 4 Operations and two shift supervisors. The call uns cado to 5 either TMI's Station Superintendent or Metropolitan Ecison's 6~ Vice-President for Generation or both. 7 The Station Superintendent and/or the 3 Vice-President for Generation were briefed on the situation 9 at T!u: Unit 2 concerning the leah rate test. During the 10 conversation, the operacions personnel cierted tne Station 11 Superintendent and/or Vice-President for Generation that 12 because of the numerous bad leak rate tests obtained at Unit ( 13 2, the NRC's interpretation of the leak race technical
'14 specifications vould result in repeated shutdown of the 15 facility.
1G The company never advised the NRC that its 17- interpretation of the technical specifications would 10 repeatedly shut down TMI Unit 2. Uor vould the URC otherwise 19 c=pect such consequences since it was not informed that the 20 leak rate test did not function properly. 21 Section four - Events Fo11 cuing October 10, 1D73, 22 As a result of the' events of October 18, 1978, Metropolitan 23 Edison Company represented to the URC that it would change 24 its interpretation of leak rate technical specifications and 25 assure that its operators would invoke the action statomont i Y-VICKi L. FOX. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILOING. HARRISBURG. PA 17108
30
'{.
1 each time a leak rate test result indicated leakage above 2 allowable limits. 3 The evidence at trial would shou, however, that no 4 such changes occurred with respect to the performance of the 5 leak rate tost. The measures taken by the company 6 . purportedly to instruct the operations staff on the proper 7 interpretation of the leak rate technical specifications were 8 wholly inadequate and ineffective. 9 In fact, the only instruction the control room , -10 operators recall as a result of the October 18,197 3 NRC 11- inspection was a direction from a number of the shift 12 supervisors and shift foremen to make sure that the bad leak
>(cj
's 13 rate' tests were thrown away and not left lying around the
.. .s 14 control room.
15 Furthermore, it was during this period of time 16 from October 18, 1978 until TMI Unit 2 was shut down on March 17 28, 1979 that numerous leak rate tests results were
.10 . intentionally manipulated by the unrecorded addition of water
= 19 . or hydrogen to the reactor coolant system during the course 20~ of theLtests to obtain acceptable results. A summary of the 21- measures taken by Metropolitan Edison in response to the 22 events.of October 18, 1978 follows.
23 Oral. instructions - the Superintendent of 24 Technical' Support would testify that he met with some members 25 of the operations staff on October 18 or 19,1978 to advise
, i S. .
f. VICKl.L. FOX. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. HARRISBURG. PA 17108
31 - (s os-; 1 .them of the correct interpretation of the leak rate technicc1 2: specifications. However, not one Operations Department 3 employe remembers any such instruction. As noteo, the only 4 oral instruction the operations staff recall was a warning 5 not to leave bad leak rate tests lying around the control 6 room. 7 Licensee Event neport 78 On October 19, 1973 8 the superintendent of Technical Support advised the MRC 9 inspector that Detropolitan Edison was going to submit to the 10 URC a licensee event report dealing with the technical'
-11 specification violations discovered by the NRC inspector on 12 October 18, 1970.
13 Metropolitan Edison submitted a licensee event (' _ 14 report to the URC which purportedly described the events 15 giving rise to the technical specification violation and 16l explained what corrective action would be taken by the 17 company to assure no reoccurrence of the reported violation. 18 The report, however, incorrectly described the 19 events of October 10, 1978. It also failed to inform the URC
-20 of the substantial longstanding problems the company was
'21 experiencing with the leak rate test.
22- The licensee event report represented that the 23 following corrective action would be taken by the company: the 24 appropriate personnel will be instructed on the requirements 25 of the applicable sections of the T.S., meaning technical i VICKl L. FOX. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. HARRISBURG. PA 17108 e
32 r,- t
- 1 J 1 specification, and the requirenents to immediately invoke 2 applicable action statements unen the provisicnc of limiting 3 conditions for operation are not mot."
4 IIowever, only a few of the Operations Department 5 employes recall either reading or seeing the licensee event 6 report evenLthough virtually all initialed the sign-off sheet 7 accompanying.the report. Hone of the employes remembers any
~8 training, formal or informal, on the proper interpretation of 9 the leak rate technical specifications. Not one member of 10 the operations staff changed his understanding of the leal:
11 rate survcillance requirements or the method of operating the 12 leak rate test as a result of the licensee event report. 13 Operations Memo - On October 20,197 8, the { 14 Supervisor of Operations issued a memorandum to the Unit 2 15 shift supervisors and shift foremen purportedly advising then 16 of the proper interpretation of the leak rate technic'1 17 specifications. Similarly with respect to the oral 10 instruction and the licensee event report, all Operations 19 Department employes with the exception of one shift foreman 20 would testify that they do not recall ever reading the 21 memorandum.- Not one member of the operations staff changed
- 22 his interpretation or method of operation of the leak rate
~23 test requirements as a result of the October 20, 1978 24 memorandum.
25 In addition, the Supervisor of Operations would VICKl L. FOX. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. HARRISDURG. PA 17108
o -
~
33 testify that after he issued the memorandum, he never again 1 2 conferred with any of hic shift supervisors cr shift foremen 3 to determine that the leak rate technical specifications uore
.4 being followed correctly.
5 Notwithstanding the failure of the company's 6 measures to bring performance of the leak rate test into 7 compliance with the technical specifications, on March 5, 8 1979 Metropolitan Edison represented to the URC that the 9 corrective action promised in the licensee event report had 10 been<taken. 11 Intentional Manipulation of Leak Rate Tests - The 12 vast majority of the control room operators and four of the j ]- 13 six foremen would' testify thac following the January, 1979 14 shutdown it became extremely difficult to get good leak rate
.1'5 tests within the one gallon spm limit for unidentified
-16 leakage even though the tests were being run repeatedly.
17 During this period of time, many leak rate tests that were 18 filed were intentionally manipulated by the addition of' 19 hydrogen or water. 20 Four control room operators would testify that 21 they added hydrogen to the make-up tank during the 22 performance.of leak rate tests to " influence" the results of
-23 -the test. According to them and to other Operations 24 Department employes, including a shift supervisor, the 25 addition of hydrogen during the test made the level in the VICKl L. FOX. OFFICIAL COURT REPOR rER. BOX 983. FEOERAL BUILCING. H ARRISBURG. PA 17108 il .
jf. , s ~n 34
- Y
- p'
-tyJ - .
1- make-up tank appear higher, thus making the unidentified
- 2 leakage seem. lower.
~D'espite'the fact that much of the accumentation y
13 V 4 'concerningLleak rate testing at THI Unit ? as systemically
-5 destroyed, NRC experts e::perienced in analyzing data
;6 generated-by nuclear power plants have been able to (1) 7 recompure the leak rate test, and (2) determine the frequency 8 .with which unreported water' additions vere made during leak 9 rate tests conducted at TMI Unit 2.
ih 10 They' concluded that the recomputed leak rate tect 11 showed that uniden,tified ' leakage. at THI Unit 2 e::ceeded the 12 technical-specification limit for unidentified leakage of one
. gallon per minute' during the period f rom January 8,1979
{ 14 through January 15, 1979. 15 After a forced chutdoun of approximately two a 16 weeks, January 15 to 3 0,197 9 for reasons unrelated to the
' ~
17 leakage in the primary system, unidentified leakage as
;18 -recomputed by the experts under the leak rate test exceeded
- 19' the technical specification limit a substantial number of 4 .20 times from mid lMarch' of 1979. until March 28, 1979.
21; The URC' experts'also concluded that approximately
~22 . thirty unreported water additions occurred during officially
~
23 ' filed leak rate tests in the period after the NRC inspector'c
-24 visit on October, 18, 1978 until March 28, 1979.
f25 ,Pinally, with regard to October 18, 1978, the NRC I-k. VICKl L. FOX. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. 80X 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. HARRISBURG. PA 17108
-> ~ .,,
.. s.
35 1 experts concluded that on the basis of available 2 : documentation, water uas added during three leak rate tests 3 run on the morning of October 18, 1978, and that this uacer 4 was not recorded or accounted for in the leak rate 5 computation. At least two tests were thereafter shown to the 6 MRC' inspector on that date to satisfy him that the company 7 had complied with the leak rate technical specifications. 8 Summary - In summary, Metropolitan Edison provided 9 no effective instructions or training to the operations staff 10 on the requirements of the leak rate technical 11 specifications. No supervisory personnel followed up on the
- 12 events of October 18, 1978 to assure that the maj or changes 13 agreed to were implemented.
(_ 14 As a result, numerous leak rate tests indicating 15 that unidentified leakage was above allouable limits 16 continued to be destroyed. Many control room operators and 17 several shift foremen would testify that for the time period 18 -following October 18, 1978 until March 28, 1979 many more bad 19- test results were obtained than good results. Yet, not a 20 single bad leak rate test was filed in the company's official 21 surveillance files. 22 No entry into the cction statement was made for 23 leak rate tests showing unidentified leakage above allowable 24 limits. Mot a single exception or deficiency was filed for 25 the leak rate test. No entry was made in any log reporcing t. 1-VICKl L. FOX. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. HARRISBURG. PA 17108
.,. ,;,8 3g_
~
1 Ethe: starting and completion times and results of leak rate 2 tests showing' unidentified leakage greater than one sc11on 3 per minute. Uumerous leak rate tests were manipulated by the 4 roperators to obtain' acceptable results. . -5 Had the company followed the requirements of the G 1eak1 rate. technical specifications as it had represented to 7 .the NRC that~ it. would, TMI Unit 2 would have entered the 8 action statement on numerous occasions. 29 That completes the formal reading of the statement 10 'of' facts, Your Honor. , 'll . THE COURT: Mr. Curran?
'12 MR. CURRAM: Your Honor, the parties-have executed 13 a plea agreement which is before the' Court for review, and
{]
- 14 the parties hope the Court's appr' oval. I would like to make
~
15 ; a statement first joining the government .in urging that the 16 Court approve the plea agreement in accord with Rule 17 11(e)1(A) ands (C) of~the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. 18 I would like if'I could now to present in support
.19 - of.the plea agreement the-Defendant's statement having heard
~
~
20 from the covernment and to present the facts dealing with the 21 plea of. guilty to Count 2 and the policy considerations in
;-22 connection with the offer of nolo contendere pleas to the six 23 .ot'her counts; that is Counts 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10.
724 .'THE COURT: Are you going to address yourself as 25 to why this Court should accept the nolo contendere pleas?
=t L: .
VICKI L. FOX, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. HARRISBURG. PA 17108
*- =, 37 (. MR. CURRAU: Yes, Your Honor.
2 THE COURT: As you both know, those pleas cannot 3 be accepted except upon approval of the Court, and I am bound 4 under the rule.to consider the views of the Defendant, to 5 consider:the views of the government, but I am also bound to 6- consider the larger' interest of the public in the 7 administration of justice. So I am going to want to hear 0- from you when you get to that part just what compelling 9 teasons you feel-are there for the acceptance of such pleas. 10 I would like you also to address yourself as to 11 uhether or not the acceptance-of this plea agreement would 12 . offer the same deterrence as perhaps a conviction on the ( _, -13 . charges. And I'uould be interested also in knowing -- and 14 . presumably this is Mr. Queen's area -- uhy Count 2 is the 15 count'en which the guilty plea is entered. And you may 16 address it, too. Those are some areas that I respectfully 17 request that you cover. 18 tiR. CURRAN: Yes, Your Honor. I intend to deal 19- -withfthose and also with the facts surrounding Count 2 to 20 which we are pleading guilty. 21 THE COURT: Right because I vill have to place
- 22 that on the record.
23 HR. CURRAU: Your Honor, in connection with the 24 _ plea agreement and with tcday's proceeding, the record must
- H5 be clear on tuo very important points. The first is that the I
Q '. VICK! L. FOX. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. HARRISBURG. PA 17108
~ , ..n, - - - , . ,
+
33
'h plea agreement provides that the Defendant will plead guilty 1
.2 to Count 2, ano only to Count 2. And when I present to the
.3 Court the fact basis for that plea, that statement will set
-4 forth the only matters which constitute an acknowledgment of 5 guilt'in this case.
6 Now with respect to the nolo contendere pleas that 7 are discussed ir. paragraphs two and three of the plea 8 agreement, the plea agreement itself acknowledges consistent 9 with the case law'that acceptance of these pleas authorises 10 only the same sentence as a guilty plea. 11 In offering the nolo contendere pleas, the
-12 ' Defendant does not however admit any facts at all as to them
;{ JL3 land certainly admits no facts to support any findings of 14 guilt as to them. Under paragraph nine of the plea 15- agreement, the government is not pursuing the other four 16 ' counts, including Count 11, the only one that charges a 17 violation of the Criminal Code of Title 18.
18 Second, Yc ar Honor, the government's fact 19 statement is just a statement of what the prosecution 20 contends it would prove if this case were tried. We have not , 21 had production of the testimony before the Grand Jury, even 22 though we. requested it and filed a motion for it. We are i 23 no position to try to refute that fact statement 24 line-by-line, point-by-point. That is what trials are all 25 about, and obviously there will be no trial if this Court 4
.(-
VICK1 L. FOX OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. HARRISBURG. PA 17108 2, .-
nr 1
.= ^ 3D k 1 accepts this plea agreement. I note, hcuever, that in 2 offering these pleas, the Defendant cannot and doec not admit 3 to all of the facts set forth in nr. Queen's fact statement.
4 The indictment, Your Honor, relates only to the 5 TMI-2 plant and to matters occurring during roughly the lacc t= 6 three months of 1978 and the first three months of 1979 in 7 connection.with a so-called reactor coolanc inventory balance 3 or: leak rate test for measurement of unidentified leakage. 9 As indicated in official URC documents, a limited 10 amount of leakage is expected from equipment that cannot be 11 made airtight, and.it maybe impractical to eliminate such 12 leakage. Accordingly, " Tech-Specs" at THI-2 and other plants 13 provided for certain limitations on different types of (_ 14 leakage such as identified and unidentified leakage and 15 provided for tests to determine such leakage. 16 The limitation relevant here, as Mr. Queen has
-17 stated, is one gallon per minute for unidentified leakage.
18 Although as Your. Honor knows it has been the company's legal 19 position in this case that the inventory balance test which 20 is.tho' subject of the indictment was not a test prescribed 21 for unidentified leakage by the THI-2 " Tech-Specs" or 22 technical specifications nevertheless it was one of the tests 23 in a company procedure and was used by company employes for 24 this purpose. 25 It also appears now, Your Honor, that this test as
.I VICKl L FOX. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. HARRISBURG PA 17108 9-
40 t
] 1 used back then under the circumstances at THI-2 and at soue 2 other nuclear plants was not sufficiently accurate and 3 meaningful to measure with precision actual unidentified 4 leakage within a one gallon per minute limitation.
5 Nonetheless, the evidence indicates as the prosecutor has 6 stated that Met-Ed. emp1' oyes continued to employe it in 7 their efforts to measure unidentified leakage. 8 Relying on the federal criminal rule doctrine that 9 employes -- even fairly low level ones can bind the 10 Corporation which employes them, the indictment charges only 11 letropolitan Edison Company, the Corporation. The indictment 12 does not name any of the employes who committed the acts or 13 omissions which are the subject of the indictment. 14 At any rate, Your Honor, when the indictment came 15- down, the company had to deal with it in the best interests 16 of its shareholders, ratepayers and the public. The company 17 determined that given this standard and under all the L18 circumstances peculiar to this situation, the best course was 19 to seek to dispose of this criminal case as quickly as 20 possible. 21 Such a disposition would let all the facts be 22 known promptly to the 11RC and to the public uhile, at the 23 same time, this approach would enabic the company and its 24 officers and employes to' concentrate on the restart of THI-1, 25 on the clean-up of THI-2 and on the company's businens of P
=
VICK1 L. FOX. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILDING HARRiSBURG. PA 17108
. s
41
.v l .( J supplying electric energy to its ratepayers as efficiently 1.
2 and cheaply as possible. 3 Your Honor, this matter has been pending in one 4 form or another for a long time. 5' THE COURT: Mostly here. G' HR. CURRAN: Well, prior to the indictment there 7 -had been an URC inquiry in the Spring of 1980 followed by 3 some three and a half years of procee' dings before three Grand 9 Juries in this District. After the indictment was returned, 10 tuo months appro:timately were spent by both sides briefing 11 our motions to dismiss the indictment on legal grounds. Such
'12 motions would, of course, be dropped under the disposition (j 13 proposed to the Ccurt today. Further litigation of all these 14 charges would be long and costly, and a trial could delay the 15 progress of the resolution of the issues that could impact 16 the THI-l restart. administrative proceedings pending before 17 the NRC.
18 Given these obvious detriments and given the fact 19 that the prosecution. has indicated to us that it has Grand 20 Jury testimony to shou that company employes at THI-2 had 21 indeed failed to treat the inventory balance test as not 22 accurate and meaningful, the company agre.ed with the 23 -government that disposition of this case by this plea 24 agreement was in order. 25 The plea agreement, of course, speaks for itself. t (, - VICKl L. FOX. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. HARRISBURG. PA 17108
6- % 42 ,
. if F LJ I would like now, Your Honor, to set-forth on behalf of the 1
~2 Defendant the facts which it: admits and which provide in 33 accordance with Rule 11(f) the basis for the company's plea 4 of guilty to' Count 2 of the indictment as set forth in 5 paragraph one of the plea agreement that is before the Court.
6 ,
. Count 2 of the indictment charges the company with 7 a violation of Title.42, United States Code, Section 2273 8 which in' turn incorporates URC regulations. The violation 9 relates to the company's establishment, implementation and 10 - maintenance of a reactor coolant system water inventory
-11 . balance ~ procedure.
12 - The company pleads guilt to Count 2 on the basis 13 of.its admission of the following facts: Count 2 of the { 14 indictment charges a violation Title 10, Code of Federal 15 Regulation, Chapter I, Part 50, Appendix B. The government 16' has identified specifically paragraph XI of these. regulations -- 17 that is Roman eleven -- of these regulations as the provision 18 allegedly-violated. 19 Paragraph XI of those regulations required the 20 ' company to establish "a test program" -- and I-am skipping -- 21' "to~ assure.that all-testing recuired to demonstrate that
$22 structures, systems and components will perform 23 ' satisfactorily in service is identified and performed in 24 accordance with written test procedur,9 which incorporate the 25 requirements and acceptance limits contained in applicable
.,I. (_. VICK1 L. FOX OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. HARRISBURG. PA 17108 i e
. ,- - ,.m -
,-,,,,n ., -
--r-y - - - - , -- ,,., ,,, ,.-.~, ~ ~ ,-,-- ,,,-----,.w, ,,-,,.c - . , - - , - - , .
43 rJ 1 design cocuments." 2 Paragraph.XI further re'uired q that -- and I quote -- 3 test results shall include provisions for assuring that all 4 prerequisites for the given test have been met -- end quece -- 5 and that -- quote -- test results shall be documented and 6 evaluated to assure that test requirements have been 7 satisfied -- end quote. 8 Prior to the period covered in the indictment,
-9 Your Honor, the company issued pursuant to that regulation 10 that I have just quoted f rom a written test procedure which 11 according to the uritten procedure -- to the procedure was to 12 ensure compliance with certain legal limitations incorporated
{_ 13 therein by performance of a reactor coolant system water 14 inventory balance test at least once per 72 hours during 15 steady state operation. 16 Employes of the company stationed at THI Unit 2 17 and conducting _such tests were on notice that its procedure 18 for performance of such test as applied under the conditions 19 and circumstances then existing at the Three nile Island 20 uucicar Station Unit 2 did not accurately and meaningfully 1 21- ; measure the amount of unidentified reactor coolant leakage 22 within.a one gallon per minute limitation, which was one of 23 the limitations listed in the precedure. Despite such
-24 notice, such ouployes of the company continued to use the 25 procedure.
F-- VICKI L. FOX. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. HARRISBURG. PA 17108
44 4I iJ 1 Accordingly, based on these facts, the company 2 admits that beginning sometime prior to October 13, 1978 and 3 continuing up to and including March 28, 1979 in the niddle 4 District of Pennsylvania, the Defendant Company knowing of 5 the above cited regulation possessed and used a utilisation 6 facility, to wit, the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 7 2 in violation of a regulation promulgated by the nuclear 8 Regulatory Commission. 9 In pleading guilty to Count 2 on the above stated 10 basis, the company specifically does not admit the remaining 11 allegations contained or incorporated in Count 2 of the 12 indictment. Such allegations which are not essential to the 13 aforesaid offense including the following: The company does { 14 not admit the allegation of paragraph tuo of Count 2 that NRC 15 regulations required it to establish, implement and maintain 16 a reactor coolant system water inventory balance procedure to 17 demonstrate that unidentified leakage was within allouable 18 limits. The company's legal position in this regard, Your 19 Honor, has been set forth in detail in papers previously 20 submitted to the Court. 21 The company also does not admit the allegation 22 that its continued use of the inventory balance procedure was -- 23 and we quote -- in an effort to generate results which 24 appeared to establish that reactor coolant leakage was within 25 allowable limits. In any event, as I have noted, this I (. VICKl L. FOX. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. HARRISBURG. PA 17108
, .. 45
(- allegation is plainly not an essential element of the offense 1 2 charged. 3 Finally, Your Honor, paragraph one of Count 2 4 realleges and incorporates 23 earlier paragraphs, many of 5 which are not relevant to and none of which is essential to G the charges in Count 2. Eo without going into detail on 7 each, we simply state that the company does not admit to 8 those allegations. 9 Your Honor, the Board of Directors of Metropolitan 10 Edison Company has adopted a resolution authorising the plea 11 agreement, the making of this plea and giving me authority to 12 make this fact statement which we submit is sufficient to
- 13. support its acceptance by this Court.
(_ I would like Your Honor, to address Counts 4, 5, 14 15 7, 8, 9 and 10 consistent with Your Honor's direction -- 16 request and direction in that regard. These are the sir. 17 counts to which as paragraphs two and three of the plea 18 agreement provide the company has agreed to plead nolo 19 contendere. The government has recommended acceptance of
'20 these nolo contendere pleas. For reasons which are now 21 outlined, this Court should-accept such pleas to these six 22 counts as authorized by Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of 23 Criminal Procedure.
24 Acceptance ~of nolo contendere pleas in these 25 unique circumstances is plainly in the public interest -- the J \. - VICKl L. FOX. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. BOX 983. FFDERAL BUILDING. HARRISBURG. PA 17108 i -
46 Zr 1, l-
'J 1 .public's interest in the effective administration of justice.
2 That, of course, as Your Honor indicated earlier is the test 3 set forth in the rule. 4 Humber one, unlike most criminal cases, the 5 disposition of these criminal charges by thic ples agreement
-6 will not put the matter to rest. To the contrary, it will 7 only be after this case concludes that the issues presented 8 by this indictment will be addressed in depth.
9 As Your Honor knows very well from other recent E10 proceedings before this Court, the URC is committed to 11 investigate the facts surrounding these charges. As a 12 practical matter, that investigaticn cannot and will not { 13 proceed until this criminal case is concluded. It is also 14 plain that the NR'C investigation is a far superior vehicle to
~
15 a criminal trial in getting at all of the facts -- 16 documentary, testimonial and scientific -- and in assessing 17 by expert and other testimony all of the ramifications of
-10 these events which took place five years ago or more.
19 In sum, Your Honor, the company's goal that this 20 matter be aired as fully and as promptly as possible accords 21 . completely uith the public's interest that this occur. 22 Acceptance of these nolo contendere pleas will enable the 23 NRC's investigation to move ahead nov, and after a 24 comprehensive inquiry conclude with appropriate findings. 25 on the issue of deterrence, which Your Honor
-l.
(. VICKI L. FOX. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. H ARRISBURG. PA 17108 P
47 1
- (. .~
1 raised a few raoments ago, the URC can take further- action if-2 they find it warranted in this indepth investigation against 3- either the company.or individuals. 3he NRC, Your Honor, has i that power. I think that point with respect to the 5 deterrence applies to this first point in connection with the 6 nolo plea. 7 In the same vein, Your Honor, the company, too, 8 has long been committed to conducting a thorough 9 investigation of its own of these charges. To this end, the 10 company has commissioned the conduct of an independent
. 11- investigation. And just as with the URC's investigation, 12 that inquiry cannot get off the ground until this criminal 13 case ends. - (.. -
14 In the interests of getting:all of the facts, we 15 have sought discovery in this case of the Grand Jury 16 testimony of the forty or so present and former company
- 17 employes and of others who testified in secret before Grand 18 Juries over the past almost four years. The prosecution has 19 resisted strongly our efforts at discovery of this testimony.
20 The. conclusion of this case which this plea 21 agreement contemplates will leave the company free to pursue 22 vigorously its own inquiry and also to cooperate with the 23 NRC's investigation. In this regard, we note that paragraph
- 24 nineteen of the plea agreement provides that the prosecution 25 may turn over to the NRC, consistent with law, all of its .I C -
VICKl L. FOX. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. H ARRISBURG. PA 17108
.. . 40 -[] 1 ovidence. Uc hope that the government vill make come of this 2 material availabic to the company. Luc we are pleased at the 3 very least, the Enc vill receive it. I want the record to 4 shou that Metropolitan 2dicon has encorned incquivocably that 5 provision in the plea agreeuent.
6 In addition, in the interunt of making the 7 completo investigative record availaole to the URC and to the 8 company, ue intend chould the Court accept this plea 9 agreement to move immediately for release of the Grand Jury 10 minutes to the URC and to us. Although we recognize, Your 11 Honor, the limitationc which recent Supreme Court cases 12 impoco on auch Rule 6(e) applications, we feel strongly that due to the unique nature of thic case and the intercata of { 13 both the NRC, the company and the public, this motion 14 15 constitutes a censible appeal to this Court's discretion. 1G Another basis for acceptance of theco ncio 17 contendero pleas is the fact that the pica agreement provides 18 in paragraph ten for the company to make a substantial 19 financial contribution touard the improvement of emergency 20 nuc1 car planning in the area of the Three Mile Island plant. 21 The Poderal Emergency !!anagement Agency has reported recently 1 22 that local government's recources for such improved planning 23 are not all that they might be. It is therefore the 24 company'c hope that its contribution of one million dollars -- 25 its payment of one million dollars which will net be tax t
.(.
VICKI L. FOX. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. H ARRISBURG. PA 17108
' ~
49 1 deductibio and which will not be borne in any respect by its 2 customers will be a really meanir.gful one. The coppany 3 belioves earnestly that the public interest is better cerv 2d 4 by this payment than "v spending large sums to finance a 5 lengthy trial where the maximum possible fine even if there 6 were a conviction on all counts could not exceed 5bE,000.00 7 and probably could not as a matter of law exceed $55,000.00. 8 I stress here, Your Honor, that the concept of 9 this substantial contribution uas Met-Ed's propocal in the 10 first_ instance. Again, Your Honor, on the question of 11 deterrence, I believe and I submit that that consideration 12 fits into that crea as well. The one million dollar payment 13 to which the company is committed with the United States (} _ 14 Attorney by this plea agreement could not be obtained on , 15 conviction after trial as I understand the lau under any 16 circumstances. 17 We are gratified that Mr. Gueen accepted this 18 approach, and ue and the government are committed to its 19 implementation. 20 Another consideration, Your Honor, Metropolitan 21 Edison Company has since 1981 had no resp *131bility 22 whatsoever for operating the Three Mile Island Plant. GPU 23 Nuclear Corporation has had that responsibility since January 24 1, 1982. To the fullest extent possible, given the 25 restraints created by the pendency of the Grand Jury OKI L. FOX. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. HARRl3 BURG. PA 17t08 9
I 50
<r 4 . ~ ~
1 proceedings and this case, on their abiliry to ascertain the 2 facts top management has addressed the proclems of five years 3 ago fu71y and effectively. Uhen this case ends, it intends 4 to do more. S Specifically as I have statec earlier, management 6 is determined to pursue its own investigation. Thar inquiry 7 if unfettered by lingering criminal charges will, we hope, 8 lead to a full understanding of these events. The company 9 uill then take appropriate action against those responsible 10 for any willful violation of the company's procedure. 11 Another significant itom for this Court's 12 consideration of these nolo contendere pleas is the company's 13 and its top management's attitude toward and reactions to {j 14 this matter. I present now this compelling evidence: 15 Several lessons have been learned from this matter. (A) 16 There must be stringent adherence to the use of procedures, 17 and the results must be meticulously de:rmented. The company 18 is absolutely committed to that. 19 Two, if a procedure does not produce meaningful 20 and accurate results, the reasons for that fact must be 21 promptly determined and the procedure corrected or a new 22 procedure developed. And both the reasons for the corrective 23 action taken and the technical basis for those actions must 24 be carefully documented. 25 Three, there must be continuous overview and audit i VICKl L. Fox, OrriCIAL COURT REPORTER. BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. HARRISBURG. PA 17108
* ~
51 (- 1 of operational matters'vith the overview and audit functions 2 reporting to senior management so that problems are not 3 submerged. 4 Four, there must be multiple reporting paths to 5 assure that problems are flushed out into the open and G resolved. [ 7 GPU Nuclear Corporation has coveloped a O reorganised structure and staffing which it has presented to 9 the URC to achieve these results, and I am advised these 10 changes have been made. In addition, GPU Uuclear advised the 11 URC in November of 1983 that it intended to add three outside 12 Directors to its Board of Directors who will serve as a 13 nuclear safety and compliance committee and who will have {] 14 outside operational audit services reporting directly to 15 them. These three outside Directors have been elected to the 16 GPU Uuclear Board, and they held their initial meeting as a 17 Huclear Safety and Compliance Committee jd'st last Friday, 18 In addition, Mr. John F. O' Leary, formerly Deputy 19- Secretary of Energy and prior to that Director of Licensing 20 of the AEC and now an independent energy consultant, has boon 21 elected as Chairman of the GPU Uuclear Board, and he will 22 . bring additional oversight and insight to the management of 23 GPU's nuclear affairs. 24 A further reason for accepting the nolo pleas, 25 Your Honor, is the fact that the operator's omissions in F (- VICKI L. FOX. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILOlNG. HARRISBURG. PA 17I08 e ._A___.__
52 f] 1 regard to one of the many tests, including other tests for l l 2 leakage in place of the company, were not reflective of any 3 widespread inadequacy. 4 Thus, as the government advised the court, top of 5 page ten of the fact statement, none of the Operations 6 Department employes could identify any other surveillance 7 test conducted ac TMI Unit 2 that was treated in the same 8 manner or that was functionly inoperable without corrective 9 action being taken. 10 Another consideration, Your Honor, in support of 11 the nolo pleau, juaicial and prosecutorial economy are surelyl 12 factors to be weighed particularly where, as here, these 13 considerations stand along with the other significant reasons { 14 I have cutlined. 15 Another consideration in favor of acceptance, ve 16 submit, Your Honor, is that acceptance the plea agreement 17 will also permit the company and ics management to devote all 18 of their efforts to matters that effect the public interest, 19 including seeking the contributions o finance the clean-up 20 efforts in accordance with Governor Thornburgh's plan. 21 The indictment itself and the prosecution's 22 statement of facts it believes it could establish in this 23 case furnish yet, we submit, another and important basis for 24 the acceptance of these nolo contendere pleas. 25 Specifically, the indictment on its face soggests -- t k-VICKI L. FOX, OFFICIAL COURT REPO"tTER. BOX 983. FEDERAL SUILClNG. HARRISBURG. PA 17108 -
I, . 53 (J 1 and Mr. Queen's statetent on the record -- fully acknowledges 2 that the indiviuuals who constitutec top management five 3 yearc ago and who constitute top canagement now had no 4 involvement whatsoever in the matters alleged in the 5 indictment. 6 nr. Queen has told this Court -- and I quote -- 7 the evidence presented to the Grand Jury and developed by the 0 United States Attorney does not indicate that any of the 9 following -- and there are 24 names, Your Honor -- persons 10 participated in, directed, condoned or uns aware of the acts 11 or omissions that are the subj ect of the indictment -- end 12 yaote. ( 13 Mr. Queen alco noted in his statement that this 14 . list of 24 individuals includes all Directors and Officers of 15 GPU.Uuclear Corporation from its organization in 1982 to the 16 date of the indictment and all Directors of Met-Ed during the 17' period covered by the indictment. 18 This forthright statement, we submit, weighs 19 heavily in favor of acceptance of the nolo contendere pleas. 20 This clear statement establishes that in this case top 21 management, including most notably Mr. Kuhns and Mr. 22 Dieckamp, who are respectively Chairman and President of GPU 23 Corporation, are innocent of any wrongdoing. This fact, Your 24 Honor, distinguishes this case from most criminal cases 25 involving a corporate Defendant, and we submit presents an I (m - VICKI L. FOX OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. HARRISBURG. PA 17108 c.
.. r.
54 1 additional basis for the acceptance of the pleas. 2 Finally, Your Honor, candor requires that I inform 3 this court that the company and the prosecution have ucco
, 4 fundamental disagreements which in the company's vieu bear 5 upon the. issue of nolo contendere pleas.
6 We do not and we cannot comment at this time upon 7 the government's statement insofar as it purports to be based 8 upon the Grand Jury testimony which we have not seen and 9 which the government has resisted proceeding to us. He must, 10 however, comment briefly on what the government cays their
.11 e::perts have determined based upon plant data alone.
12 In this regard, I can infortu the court that in the
- 13 spirit.'of cooperation to get the true facts, our independent
-{
14 nuclear engineering experts and the government experts have 15 . conferred'and resolved come, but not all, of our differences. 16 If.we-had the-opportunity to confer further, perhaps further 17 differences might have been eli:ainated. But neither Ilr. 18 LQueen nor I felt:that it was in the pu'olic interest to delay
-19 ~the final-disposition of this matter subject, of course, to M20 this Court 's approval.
21 These scientific controversies to the extent they 22 fare of importance will be dealt with better in other forums -
.23 more-suitable to the resolution of scientific issues.
24 In-its statement, the government asserts that-its
~25 expert has.recomputed the results contained in company files k..
VICKl L. FOX. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. HARRISBURG. PA 17tOS F'
.-- - , , . . . ,e,,-.y , , , r y--.,,-m.,.. ,. -w, m,g -m. -,
m..,, 9 4 .w,y~., , .
'~
- 55 of inventory balance or leak rate tests conducted by the 1
2 operators. And such recomputed results show unidentificd 3 leakage for certain days in January and March of 1979 of over 4 one gallon per minute. 5 For the period January eight through fifteen, our 6 export's independent evaluation revealed that plant records 7 indicate that this. leakage was identified as being largely 8 from small valves for the pressuriner level instrumentation 9 and was not therefore unidentified leakage; that the leakage 10 was being monitored by entries into the reactor building for 11 inspection; and chat the sources of the leakage were targoted 12 for repair at the first opportunity. The plant was shut doun (~ 13 on January, 15, 1979 as the government stated, and the leaky 14 valves were replaced before the plant was restarted. 15 As for March, 1979, our experts have independently 16 evaluated the plant data by several different methods, all of 17 which support the conclusion that the daily average of the la . unidentified leakage did not exceed the one gallon per limit 19 in this regard. 20 Our experts also concluded that the government's 21 recomputations of the inventory balance test are inadequate 22 to reflect the actual unidentified leakage for several 23 technical reasons. In addition, the government recomputed 24 results suffer from wide variationn from day to day and even 25 during the same day -- the same failing that rendered the L N-VICKl L. FOX. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. H ARRISBURG. PA 17108
= "
56 p
$' 1 I company'c original inventory calance tect resuitc -- to cae 2 che government uorda -- inaccurate and meaningleuc :o dogin 3 with. In contraat, the reculen of our export'u ecmpucations 4 of unidentified 1cahage do not vary crratically and only 5 change in accord with the physical reality.
6 Since the indictment, Your Honor, doca not allege 7 that the actual inidentified leak rate was over one gallon 8 per minute at any ti=c during the period under revicu, thic D controversy need not be resolved in thic proccouing. 10 The government also acserta that ite onpert 11 ctudica also uculu chou approximately thirty unrecorded uater 12 additions during leak rate tecto, two or three of uhich ucro 13 allegedly made on the morning of October, 10, 1973. I { 14 believe the statement caya threc. 15 This allegation relates eccentially to Count 4 of 16 the indictment to uhich the company in offering to pleau nolo 17 concondere. It should be noted that under certain 18 circumstances, uator additions are nececcary to the operation 19 of the plant. The government has never contended to my 20 knowledge that the addition of unter to the make-up tank 21 during a leak rate tect is in and of itcc1f a violation of 22 the regulations. In fact, the computer program at TMI Unit 2 23 which carried out the inventory balance test calculations 24 accounted for cuch uster additionc uhen the amount of the 25 unter added during the tent was entered into the computer ac k-VICKl L. FOX. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. H ARRISBURG. PA 17108
. 'e
- 57
] '
1 input data. 2 There were approximately 1300 water additions made , 3 over the period of 12G operating days from late Septe=ber, 4 1978 through March 28, 1979. In this time period, there were 5 approximately 175 reactor coolant inventory balance tests 6 recorded. 7 Our independent experts have studied the 3 government's experts' data and concluded that out of the 9 large number of water additions in this period, they found 10 only four clear instances where water additions uere made and 11 not included in the inventory balance calculations, none of 12 .uhich was on October 18. Moreover, three of these four were
.( j 13 recorded in the operator's log, but not included in the 14 inventory test calculations.
15 Our experts have identified a number of errors in 16 the reports of the studies furnished to us by the government 17 in this regard, and we have so informed the government. And la as I said, Your Honor, we have had a disagreement about this. 19 We have also informed the government that its 20 experts purport to discern such water additions by reliance 21 on certain patterns in plant data, uhich according to our 22 experts, do not permit the identification of small water 23- . additions with any' degree of certainty, but rather may well 24 be due.to such expected system dynamics and fluctuations in 25 plant conditionc as reactor power changes and changes in t -. (- VICKl L. FOX, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. 80X 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. H ARRISBURG. PA 17108
... . 58 E
l ~; l~ let-down flow. ,
'2 For this and other technical reasons, cur cnports 3 have concluded that there is an inadequate scientific basis 4 for the government's enperts' assertions regarding unter 5 -additions.
6 I reiterate, Your Honor, that these outstanding 7 ' scientific issues will not wither away as a result of th-8 pleas we propose today, but rather the pleas will clear the 9 way for -the NRC, the corapany, ' nuclear engineers and 10 consultants to address and resolve the issues in a prompt and 11 raeaningful uay free of the restraints of a criminal 12 . proceeding. 13 Finally, Your Honor, acceptance of the nolo pleas, {] 14 in response to Your Honor's question, also will clear the way
.15 for the NRC to proceed with its inquiries which we hope will
- 16 advance the cause of technically improving leakage detection 17, and. measurement methods which have been a industrywide
'18 concern for some. time.
19 .Thus in the NRC's of ficial 1973 Regulatory Guide 20 dealing with this raatter, .and on which the standard technical
- 21 . specifications in use at T!!I Unit 2 and oisewhere were based, 22 the inventory balance test in issue here was not recommended by the URC.for the censurement of unidentified leakage. The 24 .NRC's standard revieu plan issued in 1975 is to the same 25 -effect.
w-
.VICKI L. FOX OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. 80X 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. HARRIS 8URG. PA 17108 r I ,,
59 7~ (- In January, 1979, a high URC official urote to the 1 2 reactor safety branch in an internal URC memorandua that the 3 Regulatory Guido chould be replaced, and that the standard 4 reviou plan -- and I quote -- compounds the problems and in 5 conjunction with inconsistent definitions in most technical 6 specifications has led to confusion among reviewers and 7 others concerning RCPB leak detection requirements -- end 8 quote. 9 In its' reports on investigation of plants operated 10 by other utilities, the NRC has recogni:ed the e::istence of 11 problems with the inventory balance test used at such plants 12 at least as early as 1980. It is time, we submit, Your 13 Honor, for the government and the industry to put these
'(. _
14 criminal. charges behind us, deal effectively with the 15 technical issues and clarify any remaining confusion in the 16 regulations and in the industry. 17 In connection with the plea agreement between the 18 parties and the nolo contendere pleas offered to Counts 4, 5, 19 7, 8, 9 and 10 I am authorized by resolution of the Board of 20 Directors of Metropolitan Edison Company to make statements 21 in accordance with Rule 11, Rule 11(c)1 and Rule 11(c)3.
'22 Your Honor questioned me on this, but I am 23 prepared to say this for the record. One, the company 24 understands the charges to which these nolo contendere pleas 25 are offered and understands the maximum penalty provided by t
(1-VICKl L. FOX. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. BOX 983. FEDERAL BUIL0 LNG. HARRISCURG. PA 17108 L i
r. 60 [!
^~
1 law is a $5,000.00 fine on each of Counts 4, 7, 9, and 10 and 2 a maximum fine of S10,000.00 on both Counts 5 anu a, for a 3 total maximum fine on all six counts of $40,000.00. Those 4 fines are embodied in paragraphs tuo and three of the plea 5 agreement. 6 Two, the company understands that it has a right 7 to persist in its plea of not guilty made in November of 8 1933, and it has the right to be tried by a jury; and at that 9 trial has the right to assistance of counsel, and the right 10 to confront and cross-examine uitnesses against it. 11 Three, the company understands and the plea 12 agreement acknowledges that if these nolo contendere pleas are accepted by the Court, there will not be a further trial {'] 13 t i 14 of any kind, so that by pleading nolo contendere the company 15 expressly vaives the right to a trial. 16 These nolo contendere pleas are offered 17 voluntarily and are not the result of force or threats or 18 promises apart from the plea agreement which the parties have 19 executed and which is before the Court. 20 This plea agreement and the company's offer of 21 nolo contendere pleas resulted from discussions betueen the 22 United States Attorney and representatives of the Department l 23 of Justice and me and others in my firm. i 24 Your Honor, there is one final point that must be 25 stressed here today. I make it in order to try as best as I f ii k-VICKI L. FOX. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. HARRISBURG. PA 17108 I r
~
a '. , i' 61 1 can to keep the recora straight. It is important to the 2 company, but it is' equally if not more important to the 3 public.
.4 I refer to the so-called TMI Unit 2 accident of l 5 March, 28,1979 and the suggestions raised in some quarters
- l. 6 that this indictment and that accident have some legal l
7 connection. -Any such suggestions are baseless. 8 The government has told this court that this is 9 not the case, and I repeat that for the record. In doing so 10 I quote Mr. Queen's exact words'. "The indictmenc dces not 11 charge a legal nexus to the events of Carch 28, 1979 uhich 12 have become commonly known as the THI-2 accident, and the (_ 13 . pleas do not constitute an admission of such a nexus." 14 That wholly accurate statement made by the 15 . government refers, of course, to all of the company's pleas -- 16 both the one guilty plea and the six nolo contendere pleas 17 which have been offered. 18 For all of the reasons I have set forth, Your 19 Honor, we join with the United States in urging this Court to 20 accept this plea agreement uhich includes the imposition of 21 sentence. I have nothing further to say unless Your Honor 22 has questions of me. 23 THE COURT: Not at this time. Mr. Cueen? 24 MR. QUEEU: I won't belabor what I said earlier, 25 Your Honor. I think a couple of observations should be made. l (- VICKI L. FOX. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. 80X 983 FEDERAL BUILDING. HARRISBURG. 17108 PA n- _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _
1 62 l J 1 1 was not privy to unat ic apparently a uctailed, 2 vernacia reouttal of a.y remarac cnat uac just Gelivorcu by 3 councc1 for the Cefendant. It contains certain obcervationa 4 in there I fool I must addrecs. S THE COURT: I do want you to addecas, houever, 6 your vicus with regard to the court's acceptanco or 7 nonacceptance of thic pica. O !*n. CUEEU: I chall. Tnc fact of the matter ic
-9 that the statement of facts read by the government in the 10 indictment ascert certain that the uator inventory balance 11 test, unoun as the Icak rate tect, uns the primary r..cchod for!
12 iaanti.f"'nc or,at least measuring unidentified leakage or 13 leakago from unidentified cources. That is what the { 14 indictment allegos, and that is uhat ic ctatou in Count 2, 15 and that ic uhat the Ocfendant must be pleading suilty to. 16 I want to emphasis that uhen the Defendant cays it 17 -- quote-- nou appears -- cloco quote -- that the uster la inventory balance test did not work, it is not what the 19 government alleges in the indictment. It is not what we 20 alleged in the statement of facts, and it is cingly not the 21 cace. It appeared and was painfully obvious to cverybody 22 associated with Unit 2 at the time the evencs ucro taking 23 place. 24 The plea agreement requires that the Defendant 25 admit its guilt to Count 2 and specifically and c::prossly I k-VICKI L. FOX. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. HARRISBURG. PA 17108
*o..
g -- 63 I. 1 requires the Defendant to admit that Count 2 states a crime. i 2 To the extent that that is uhat the Defendant is coing, so be 3 it. 4 This notion that the NRC investigation -- whataver 5 on earth that is -- is "a far superior vehicle to these 6 proceedings today" is utter poppycock. I had not intended to 7 address this issue, but I cannot stand silent and allow the 8 charade that has been carried on by the MRC to be treated as 9 anything but that. 20 He are the only institution since this accident 11 occurred that has made the slightest damn effort to see this 12 thing through to a conclusion. The NRC has not conducted any ( 13 meaningful investigation; to this day has used as a pretext 14 that fact that the Grand Jury was conducting an investigation 15 as a vehicle to avoid addressing its responsibilities. 16 As recently as six weeks ago, the URC voted three 17 to two to ignore what we are doing here today. Uhen the 18 United States Department of Justice brought this indictment, 19 when I got cuorn into office, this investigation uns 20 virtually dormant and had been for some tima. 21 I didn't see the URC bustling to clean up the
- 22 loose ends and to make it knoun to the public j ust what went 23 on in 1970 or 1979. We after the change of administration 24 made a Herculian effort to get to the bottom of the facts, 25_ something that was not done by the Nuclear Regulatory t
VICKI L. FOX. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, 80X 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. HARRISBURG. PA 17108
*n
m 64 p l' iJ 1 Commission. 2 As recently as si:: weeks ago, as I was about to 3 .say, they voted basically to proceen with a Unit-1 licence 4 restart application irrespective of the outcome of these 5 criminal proceedings. . 6 Now, I realize this is of secondary significance 7 to whether the Court ought to take a plea, but Mr. Curran 8 seems to raise the issue that ue are not to vorry if there 9 are any loose ends here today because the NRC will take care 10 of it. It is utterly delusional. 11 The UnC doesn't care uhat is in the indictment; 12 they have said so. They don't care what the outcome of this { 13 case is; they have said so. They are going to proceed and do 14 whatever they want to do, and that is fine because I have no 15 control over the NRC, nor does the Attorney General or anyone 16 else in the Department of Justice. But the statement of 17 facts as read by me a short time ago are precisely the 18 correct statement of what took place. 19 I recognize that there is a dispute between the 20 experts on both sides as to the actual and recomputed 21 leakage. I agree with Mr. Curran that whether or not the 22 experts can come to an agreement on the rate of leakage as i.t
-23 occurred in 1979 is not materiai or-dispositive of whether or 24 not this Court should accept the plea of guilty and the pleas 25 of nolo. contendere.
i i < VICKl L. FOX, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. HARRISBURG. PA 17108
~
65
]
1 There was observation -- and I think if I 2 understood Mr. Curran correctly he made the assertion thar 3 the one million dollar payment was the enthusiastic and 4 heartfelt offering of the company and hadn't a thing to do 5 with these proceedings. That was as a result of a negotiated 6 settlement when the United States Attorney's office -- I am 7 the United States Attorney -- when I told him that under no 8 circumstances would ue accept nolo pleas across the board; 9 there had to be a guilty plea to a significant count. That 10 is what we demanded. Count 2 is such a count. 11 If one looks at the language contained in it, it 12 goes to the very heart of the leak rate test, the primary 13 method of measuring leakage from unidentified cources. And ([ 14 what it says in there and what I believe through all of the 15 remarks made through Mr. Curran still nevertheless remains 16 undenied is that that leak rate test didn't work; it was the 17 -primary method of measuring leakage from unidentified 18 sources; supervisory and louer level employes at Unit 2 knew 19 it, and in the face of that they continued to do really in 20 essence all else that follows in the indictment. 21 I believe that a plea of guilty to Count 2 -- 22 which is the really pivotal issue, far more so than the nolo 23 contenderes -- really sets the stage for all of the conduct 24 that is contained in the counts that follou. 25 Specifically, whether one is jogging water, adding I l( VICKl L. FOX. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. 80E 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. HARRISBURG. PA 17108
c 66 1 hydrogen, destroying leak rate tests, all of that becomes 2 ' relevant and necessary for the Defendant to perform only if 3 shore is a leak rate test that doesn't vork. Eecause if that 4 leak rate test did work, then all of the chenanigans 5 contained in the balance of the indictment would have been 6 utterly unnecessary. To that extent, I think accepting the 7 plea of guilty to Count 2 is accepting a plea to a meaningful 8 count -- an entremely meaningful count. 9 I want to address one additional observation. 10 There were a number of self-serving observations made in the 11 Defendant's rebponse. One is basically a fairly grand 12 promise to do in the future what in my judgement the company 13 should have been doing the whole time it was operational in {_ 14 1978 and 1979; that is to follou the technical 15 specifications, follou the regulations and operate the plant 16 the way Mr. Curran now says in the light of all that has been
- 17. learned they promise to operate it in the future.
18 Ironically what Mr. Curran is really saying I 19 guess for public consumption is no more than uhat those 20 Unit-2 employes said to the NRC inspector on the 18th of 21 October -- we promise to be doing Jur job properly. And for 22 all the weeks and months that folloued, they didn't. That is 23 an undeniable and undisputed fact; that they persisted in the 24 destruction of leak rate tests only if those tests showed 25 excess leakage. I k-VICKI L. FOX. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. BOX 983. FEOERAL BUILDING. H ARRISBURG PA 17108 h
[_ 1~ The question of whether or not this agreement as a f2 whole is in the public interest, I think I would have to say 7 3- as follous: one, it does pecvide one hopes a certain degree
~4 of finality to the issue of what took place. The United 5 States Department of Justice stands behind the. fact statement 6 that I made, and I believe it correctly reflects what took 7 place.
8 Secondly, it avoids a very costly trial for all 9 .the parties and all the attendant nnd time-consuming appeals 10 that could be dragging on for months and months and months
-11 boyond~any conviction -- a conviction I am confident we 12 would secure. We obtained an acknowledgment of guilt on a
(, 13 meaningful count and the nolo pleas on subsequent counts of [ 14 s1ightly less perhaps significance. . 11 5 As configured, the indictment through penalties 16 ' set by Congress, and not-obviously by the United States 17- Department of Justice, set a maximum penalty of only 5 ~ 18 $85,000.00. It is obviously a comparatively insignificant 19 sum. - We are not unaware of that. Through the negotiation of
~
20 the one'million dollar figure and the payment to what I would submit is a -laudable public obj ective as agreed to by the 21 22 parties provides for the public at nominal expense thus far a 23 substantial-infusion of capital in an area where they l
- 24. v ob'iously need it.
25 It avoids a concomitant e::penditure of Treasury (1-
'\ -
VICKI L.' FOX. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. BOX 983. FEDERAL BUlf. DING. HARRISBURG. PA 17108
63 1 funds to prosecute and convict the company. It also I think -- 2 it is'self-evident that it provides a punishnent to 3 I!etropolitan Edilon througn after tan payments that vould not 4 have been there had the Court only had at its disposal the 5 S85,000.00 in fines. 6 Taking all of that collectively, it is 7 self-evident that the company is paying more than it could
.0 have paid under the terms and conditions of the original 9 indictment, and I would hope serves as a substantial 10 deterrent to other nuclear-licencees.
11 The conpany was obviously indicted for a reason. 12 It was to serve notice on this and all other licencoes that 13 you can't sluff off the responsibility for corporate activity {
-14 on a handful of scapegoat employes.
15 Ue could have indicted a number of the peopic 16 whose titles were mentioned in my statement of facts, and ue 17 would have obviously convicted them. It would not have la served the public interest because every other licensee 19 around the country would be on notice that the United States 20 of America is glad to take a handful of control room " operators and throw them to the dogs and let the company go 21 22 unscathed. 23 I.think under-all of the considerations, the kind 24 of penalty that we have been able to entract is the best 25 -available to us and ultimately in the best public's interest t. VICKl L. FOX. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. HARRISBURG. PA 17108
.a
o. gg 1 to have this company pay that sum of money. 2 One last observation. This notion that the only 3 criminal violation is being dismisse6, Title 42 carries jail 4 and prison terms where appropriate. It is as much a criminal 5 violation of the United States Code as any Title 18 6 violation. 7 This case represents the first time Title 42, The 8 Atomic Energy Act, has resulted in a criminal indictment. 9 There have been on numerous occasions violations of 18 U.S.C. 10 1001 which is contained in Count 11 used with nuclear 11 facilities. There has been one nonindictment so-called 12 information filed by the United States Attorney's Office (_ 13 elsewhere using a regulatory vio1Ccion. 14 So both the return of the indictment on the Title
.15 42 charges and the nolo pleas and most significant of all the 1G- plea of guilty to Count 2 also sets a precedent that I think 17 will put other licensees on notice that the Atomic Energy Act 18 can and will be used by the Department to force the companies 19 to police its employes and supervise them in such a vay that 20 they don't get themselves in trouble criminally.
21 I think at the risk of debating back and forth,
- 22. the proposition that this company be held responsible for ito 23 conduct is unavoidable. Notuithstanding some of the 24 disingenuous remarks of defense counsel, I think in all of 25 the self-serving remarks there is I believe an admission of i
N; - VICKI L. FOX, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. HARRISBURG. PA 17108
70 [d- 1 guilt to Count 2. So long as that is in fact clear on the 2 record -- 3 MR. CURDAU: Your Honor -- 4 THE COURT: Are you finished? 5 ~MR.-QUEEN: I think so. 6 MR. CURRAM: I am a little bit surprised at Mr. 7 Queen's statement with respect to Count 2. I am more than 8 surprised at his calling my statement disingenuous. 9 Your-Honor quite properly pointed out that before 10 a Court can accept nolo pleas, the public interest and the
'll administration of justice must be considered. I cuand by
'12 feverything I said. I tried to advance reasons -- I think 13 there were-about eleven of them -- I thought these were
{~ 14 factors in the public interest which this Court should 15 consider. 16 I told !!r. Queen yesterday by telephone that I 17 intended to outline-to the Court the factors as I sau them
~18 why the nolo pleas were in the public interest. And, Your
.-19 Honor, I outlined to Mr. Queen with total specificity twice
- 20. yesterday in the same telephone conversation the plea to 21 Count 2 which I just gave to Your Honor.
22 So I don't think there is any question about it, 23 we have. admitted the guilt to Count 2 as we have described. 24 I stated it to Mr. Queen yesterday verbatim as I did to Your 25- Honor here today. l VICKI L. FOX. OFFICIAL COURY REPORTER. 80X 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. HARRISBURG. PA 17108 O
c.. 33 1- I just have one or tuo other points. All I tried 2 to do, Your Honor -- 3 TUC COURT: Before we leave that point, woulc you
-4 like once more for the record a determination of exactly what 5 he is pleading to on Count 2?
6, UR. QUEEN: Yes. I want to correct the record. 7 That statement read by Mr. Curran was not ruad to me verbatim 8 on_the telephone yesterday. 9 THE COURT: Lets not argue. Let's have for the 10 record precisely what the company is pleading to in Count 2. 11 MR. CURRAN: The plea-statement, Your Honor, is 12 Count 2 of the indictment charges the company with a f, - 13 - violation .of Title 42, Unit 9d States Code, section 2273 uhich 14 in turn incorporates HRC regulations, and the indictment 15 reflects those regulations at the bcttom of it. 16- The violation relates to the company's 17 establishment, implementation and maintenance of a reactor
'10 coolant system water inventory. balance procedure, and the
- 19. company pleads guilty to Count 2 on the basis of its 20 admission of the following facts: Count 2 of the indictment 21 ' charges a violation of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations,
'22 Chapter I, Part 50, Appendix B.
23 The government has identified specifically 24 paragraph cloven of these regulations as the provision 125 allegedly violated. That is at page 37 of its brief in q (- VICKl L. FOX. OFf'CIAL COURT REPORTER. BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. HARRISBURG. PA 17108 m 4 -- - . - . e -.P u,. e o m - , ---t-e-- y%y., - - -= a1--*
. o 72 R()
1 opposition to the motion to dismiss. 2 That paragraph eleven, which is in the Coco of 3 Federal Regulations, required the company to establish a -- 4 quote -- test program -- and I am skipping -- to assure that 5 all testing required to demonstrate the structures, systems 6 and components will perform satisfactorily in service is 7 identified ard performed in acccrdance with written test 3 procedures uhich incorporate the requirements and acceptance
- . 9 limits contained in applicable design documents.
10 That parag aph further required that -- quote -- 11 test results shall include provisions for assuring that all 12 prerequisites for the given test have been met and -- end 13 quote -- and that -- quote -- test results shall be {] 14 documented and evaluated to assure that test requirements 15 have been satisfied -- end qucto. That, Your Honor, is the 16 regulation. 17 Now before the period covered in the indictment, 18 the company issued pursuant to that regulation a written test 19 procedure which according to the procedure was to ensure 20 compliance with certain leakage limitations incorporated 21 therein by performance of a reactor coolant- system water 22 inventory balance test at least once per 72 hours during 23 steady state operation. 24 Employes of the company station had at TMI Unit 2 25 and conducting such test were on notice that its procedure I~1 (J VICKl L. For. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. HARRISBURG, PA 17108
73 [\ - 1 for performance of such tout an applied under the conditions 2 and circumstances then e::isting at Three Mile Island nuclear 3- Station Unit 2 cid not accurately r.nd meaningfully measure 4 the amount of unidentified reactor coolant leakage within a 5 one gpm limitation which was one of the limitations listed in 6 the procedure. Despite such notice, such employes of the 7 company continued to use the peacedure. 8 Accordingly, Your Honor, based on those f: cts, the 9 company admits that beginning sometime prior to October 13, 10 1970 and continuing up to and including March 20, 1979 in the 11 Hiddle District of Pennsylvania, the Defendant Company 12 knowing of the above cited regulation possessed and used a ( 13 utili:stion facility, to wit, the Three Mile Island Nuc1 car 14 Station Unit 2, in violation of a'resulation promulgated by 15 the NRC. That is the statement. 16 THE COURT: Mr. Queen, is that satisfactory? 17 MR. QUEEM: Yes. 18 THE COURT: The Court would like to take a recess 19 to decide whether or not I will make the decision today or 20 later with regard to this plea agreement.
-21 ( A recess was taken by 3 :45 PM to 4 :20 PM.)
22 23 24 25 e _l VICKI L. FOX. OFFICIAL CCURT REPORTER. BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. HARRISBURG. PA17108
y l.. --* 74 1 AFTER RECESS 2 030 COURT: Mr. Cucen and Er. Curran, I regree the 3 fact that the decision I make may create soma difficultics 4 ror councel. This Court did not roccivo any of the documents 5 in this case until after five o' clock last night co I una not 6 aware of what the contents of this hearing una going to be. 7 Uo have just nou had the oral arguments, cnd I do 0 feel it would not be in the bect interosto of justico to take 9 a decicion prcmptly at thic time. I would like coveral core 10 hours, and I therefore vill hopefully determine the ourcone 11 on this tomorreu at nine-thirty. 12 !!R. QUEEU: If you don't mind seeing me in the 13 same suit, I will be here. { 14 UR. CURRAU: Ucre, Your Honor? 15 THE COURT: This courtroca. Court is adjourned. 16 (Uhcroupon, the prococdings were concluded.) 17 10 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 u-VICKI L FOX OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. HARRISBURG. PA 17108 t .
75 w
't
~( _ PC2nUARY 29, 1984 1 2 THE COURT: Good corning, overyone. 3 ilR. CUECU: Good morning. 4 MR. CUCRt.::: Good morning. 5 TI!S COURT: I have come questions that necu 6 clarification. Uith regard to paragraph ton of the propocou 7 agrcoment, it appears that the caergency preparcGness ecnc 8 .cpecified by !;nC which FCCA uculd be r.cnitoring really D Ccpunda upon thu contiiuoc cnictence and operation et the T"I 10 facility; is that correct? 11 Cy inquiry ic for s.crpcces ci argunent aucuuicy 12 that the plant never opened for cparation or did not continue i- to oxict, uhat uculd happen to the aillion dollars? 13 .(_ Your Honor, it is ny understancing 14 CR. CUSEN: 15 that there uculd continue an a result of the uncompleted 1G clean-up activity of the damaged reactor Unit-2 to be a 17 viabic need for emergency preparcone:s anc evacuation within 10 the tuoney-mile zone. If Unit-1 is not licensed for rectart 19 by the nuc1 car negu'latory Commission, it becomes soccuhat 20 probicmatic as to whether or not there in a tillion dollars 21 vorth of evacuation' planning currounding the clean-up 22 situation. 23 It is very difficult to precict hcu uuch it uould 24 cost, but I think the Court coulu safely conclude that 25 uhether or not Unit-1 ic restarted, there doce continue to ce
\._ -
VICKl L. FOX. OFF!CIAL COURT REPORTER. BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. HARRiSBURG. PA 17108
7 1 .
- 76 3(~
I a viabic purpose for PE:iA to function within the tuenty-mile
.2 zone of the damaged reactor.
3 THE COURT: Uhy cannot this million dollars be 4 paid, and in the event that it appears that it may not be 5 useful at least in this area, that this Court then have the L 6 ability to apply those funds in any other nuclear facility 7 area? 8 MR. CURRAN: Your 3cnor, Mr. Queen and I have 9 discussed this very subject before this paragraph became part 10 of the agreement. I think you could. 11 If hypothetically the monies could not be used 12 here as the agreement says, if the payment cannot be used for 13 { the purpose set forth above, then the company first is 14 committed to a million dollars. There is no question about 15 that. The government and the company would try to agree on 16 similar purposes elsewhere,.if necessary. The agreement 17 provides that if we could not agree, then the matter would be 18 decided by Your Honor. 19 THE COURT: Do I interpret this agreement to mean 20 that once this money is tendered, it will not be withdrawn? 21 UR. CURRAN: That is absolutely correct, Your 22 Honor. 23 THE COURT: I have another question. You have 24 indicated here that in the event PCMA is unable or unwilling 25 to accept payment, then it would be sent to another ,-)- x-VICKl L. FOX. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. HARRISBURG. PA 17108'
0 9-77 7 (- 1- organisation for purposes which are mutually agreeable to the 2 parties. I think it might be wise that this Court also knou 3 for what other use it might be expended. 4 IIR. QUEEII: Your Honor, we certainly have no-5 problem with that at all. Obviously in the context of the 6 language,.we vere speaking of a like or similar purpose 7 which, of course, is emergency evacuation. 3 THE COURT: It is juct that this Court is 9 administering other funds relating to -- or possibly relating 10 to these areas. I certainly would not unnt to see 11 duplication of efforts. 12 HR. QUEEti: I have no problem uith that at all, 13 Your Honor. That certainly is implicit, if not expressly
'('
14 stated.in that paragraph of the agreement. 15 MR. CURRAM: I make the same statemenc, Your 16 Honor.- 17 THE COURT: Ilr. Curran, it has been brought to my 18 attention there has been circulating in the hallways of this 19 building a document entitled " Statement of Metropolitan 20 Edison Company.with Respect to Plea Agreement." An initial 21 glance at the document gives every indication tha'. it uns a 22 . document tendered to the Court or filed of record, uhich it 2:3 is not. 24 Uhat is your intent ibn regard to this document? 25 liR . CURRAII: Y" h r, I believe the docuuent i i
-( J VICKI L FOX. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. HARRISBURG. PA 17108
L-
. .n.
78
- E i
.l 14) you arefreferring to -- I don't have a copy of it -- ic a 2 document which the' company prepared uhich sets forth what I 3 'put into the record yesterday before the Court.
4 !!y distinct- understanding is that that document u.
- ' .5 was not circulated anyplace-until.after yesterday's 6 . proceedings. concluded.
7 iTHE COURT: But.I understand you do not wanc to S mal:e the document, per se, a document of record? 9 MR. CURRAN: I hadn't planned to, Your Honor.
"10 'ThatIis not'my document. I put my statement on the record.
11 =I have no objection to doing that, Your Honor. 12 THE-COURT: ilho circulated it? En. CURRAN: The company did, Your Honor.
;{
13 THE COURT: It is not signed. 14 15 -
'tiR. CURRAN:- I have no objection to its going into
- 16. the> record.
-17 THE COURT: I am curious about it because it gives 10 every indication'-- it says Your Honor, in connection with 19 the plea agreement, etcetera as if it were addressing the 20 Court. I want it clear that this document was not presented 4~ -21 to the Court, and if any are in existence it is not a matter 22 of record..
'23- I R. CURRAM: Your Honor, what is a catter of 24 record is the statement I made to the Court. As I understand i
25 it, the company prepared that document from the statemenc 4 j. QL
' VICKI L. FOX. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, 80X 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. HARRISBURG. PA 17808 4
-Y t
. * ., ,, - _ . , , . , . - - , --a .m,, -. ., .+-,.,-, ,- -. , _ . _ . _ . . . , , _ . -
e-
- 79
(] 1 which_I had and which I used yesterday. Tne facts'or the 2 statements that it contains were made a matter of record by 3 me yesterday. 4 I have absolutely no objection to the document 5 itself being a matter of record. I do not have a copy of it. 6 MR. QUEEN: Your Honor, I realise this doesn't 7 Sirectly address your point, but I do think the record should S reflect- that until you just mentioned this document 9 circulating in the hallway, I was completely unaware of it 10 both in terms of the nature of.the contents or the fact it 11 was going to be circulated. 12 Obviously from the standpoint of the government, (_ 13 we did not yesterday and do not now embrace the accuracy of
' l .4 everything said in whatever might be circulating through the 15 halluays of this Courthouse.
16 THE COURT: I just want it clear that this Court 17 has not had a copy of it, and that whatever it contains, I 18 don't know. I only read the first part -- the first sheet. 19 It was obtained by one of my staff from one of the guards 20 -downstairs. 21 For the record, I would like to state the 22 -following: In-reaching a decision on this matter, this Court 23 has been required to determine what better result in the
.24 overall administration - of justice could be achieved by an 25 adjudication of guilt on all eleven counts af ter a trial as
'F_
A-VICKI L FOL OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. HARRISBURG, PA 17108
=
.;[:.: i 99 1 opposed-to accepting the pleas as tendered.
2 The public is under the misconception that a 3 finding of guilt on these eleven charges would empouer this 4 Court to determine issues affecting management and the 5 continued operation of the TMI facility. It must be made 6 clear that the province of this Court is to ensure the proper 7 conduct of a trial, and it is the function of the jury to 8 determine if there have been violations of the United States 9 Criminal Code and nuclear license requirements. 10 It is not the function of this Court or any jury 11 to draw conclusions as to the integrity and competence of 12 management. Even after a trial and conviction on the issues 13 in the indictment, this Court could only assess penalties {]_ 14 . provided by lau, that is the ma::icum $85,000.00 penalty.
-15 Issues affecting management and/or the continued operation of 16 Tt1I remain with the regulating agency.
17 There are many who believe that a full trial in 18 this case will establish once and for all what the facts were 19 surrounding the incident of !! arch 28, 1979. In just this 20 case alone, this Court has before it numerous motions and 21 briefs consisting of more than one thousand pages. With the 22 knowledge gleaned from these, the Court is of the opinion 23 that the facts. surrounding the issues in this indictment uill 24 ~in all likelihood continue to be clouded by the contradictory 25 assertions-of the. scientific experts. Even after a trial in p t-VICKI L FOX. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. HARRISBURG. PA 17108 1
o- # 81 Y s._ 1 'this matter, it is highly doubtful that the issues will be 2 much c1 carer or that convincing conclusions will be reached. 3 I believe that the count on which the Defendant
-4 has tendered a plea of guilty -- Count 2 of the indictment --
- ;5 is botha meaningful and significant admission. In fact, I 6- ' agree.with the-government'that count'2 is one-of the pivotal 2
7 counts in the~ indictment. EL Furthermore, the 01,045,000.00 non-deductible
~
9 . penalty payment agreed to by the Defendant should act as a lof substantial deterrent. !! ore' importantly, one million of 11 those dollars will benefit the public, especially those 12 1 persons residing in the impacted area. By way of contrast, .i(j 13 ~the maximum penalty which could be imposed on the Defendant 14- af ter. an adjudication of guilt on all eleven counts following 15 a trial.would be $85,000.00 -- none of which would go to the 16 ~ direct benefit ofLthe citisens negatively impacted by-the 17 Defendant's.ccnduct. I 18 Still another consideration incmy determination of 19 whether-or.not to accept this plea is the cost in time and 20: money that this highly complex and sure to be protracted 21 trial.would exact. It is my opinion that those costs of time
- 22. Land money are not likely to be counterbalanced by the 23 penalties which would follow conviction after trial.
f24 Various other arguments and assertions have been 25- ~mAde'by. counsel-in support.of their request that I accept
- l. .
k. VICKI L. FOX. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. BOX 983. FEDERAL SUILDING. HARRISBURG. PA 17108 i --. ..
02
'I ~
1 this plea. I reject many of those arguments. Houever, I 2 believe that the three reasons cited by the Court, taken 3 together, are compelling enough for this Court to accept the
~4 plea agreement.
5 'Accordingly, the Court will enter the following 6 order: AND HOU,_this 29th_ day _of February, 1984, I find that 7- -the' Defendant Corporation is acting-voluntarily and not as a O result of force or threats or promises apart from the plea 9 agreement. The Court rurther finds that the Defendant 10 understands its rights and the concequences of its plea and 11 voluntarily waives its right to trial.
- 12 The Court is satisfied that the plea of guilty to 13l Count 2 has a basis in fact and contains all of the elements ))
14 of the crime charged. The Court, therefore, permits the 15 revocation of the not guilty pleas and accepts a plea of 16- guilty to Count 2 and pleas of nolo contendere to Counts 4, 17 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10. 18 I do hereby direct the entry of a judgment of 19 guilty on the plea on Count 2 and judgment of conviction on 2,0 Counts 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and.10. 21 It is customary on individual Defendant cases for 22 the Court to order a presentence investigation. However, the 23 -same may be waived by the Defendant. 24 Uhat is the intention of the Defendant? 25 MR. CURRAN: It is waived, Your Honor. We intend 1 VICKl L. FOL OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. HARRISBURG. PA 1710B
l 83 l 1 to waive it.
- 2 THE COURT
- Uould you sign this?
3 MR. CURRAN: Sign this now, Your Honor? 4 THE COURT: Yes, please. 5- MR. CURRAH: Your Honor, I signed where it said 6 signaturu of Defendant. Because I represent the Defendant, 7 should I also sign where it says signature of attorney? 8= THE COURT: Yes, do both. 9 THE COURT: Does counsel have anything further for 10 the record? 11 MR. CURRAU: I do not, Your Honor. 12 THE COURT: Mr. Queen? {_ 13 MR. QUEEN: I take it, Your Honor, plans to 14 proceed to sentence? 15 THE COURT: I do. 1G MR. QUEEN: I have nothing further at this time. 17 THE COURT: Mr. Curran, would you please stand for 18 the Corporation?
'19 (Mr.. Curran complies.)
20 THE COURT: AND Noti, this 29th day of February, 21 1984, it is adj udged on Count 2 that the Defendant shall pay 22 a fine to the United States in the sum of $5,000.00. It is 23 -adjudged on each of Counts 4, 7, 9 and 10 that the Defendant
~
24 shall pay a fine to the United States in the sum of 25 $5,000.00. It is adjudged on each of Counts 5 and 8 that the El (- VICKI L. FOX. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. HARRISBURG. PA 37308
4 'g' E h , 04 r,,t_ kJ Defendant pay a fine to the United States in the sum of l 2 $10,000.50. The total fine to be paid on all counts is 3 045,000.00 and shall be. paid within thirty days. 4 .It is the further order of this court that the dYi 5 Defendant shall' comply with all of the terms of the plea 6_ agreement filed in this_ case. The Defendant shall pay the costs of prosecution. 8 Court ~ is adj ourned. , 9 (Whereupon, the proceedings were concluded.)
'10 11 I hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence are 12 contained fully and accurately in the notes taken by me on 13 ~the trial of the above f cause, and that this copy is a
.] _
14 correct: transcript of the same.
- 15 16 Vicki-L. Fox, RPR 17 official Reporter 18 19 The foregoing certification of this transcript does 20 not apply to any reproduction by any means unless under 21 the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying
.22 reporter.
23
-24 25
- t. .
k?- VICKI L. FOX. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER. BOX 983. FEDERAL BUILDING. H ARRISBURG. PA 17tFS
.+
4 *C L A W Y E R'S N OT E S Page { Line l' (~ t I I I I I I i i l l l l. I l l l ( l i
-}}