ML20093L521

Addl Response to Commission Order for Parties Comments Re Restart

ML20093L521
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	07/26/1984
From:	Aamodt M, Aamodt N AAMODTS
To:
Shared Package
ML20093L507	List: ML20093L503 ML20093L521
References
SP, NUDOCS 8407310436
Download: ML20093L521 (22)

Text

. . .

1 I

UNITED STATES OF A$. ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .

BEFORE THE COMMISSION .

00l?ETED U' ' ur In the Matter of METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY DOCKET 50-289 'd)' e r-

'u 30 en , ,

(Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1)

ADDITIONAL RESPONSE OF AAMOLTS TO CO>D!ISSION' S ORDER FOR PARTIES' CO:!MENTS CONCERNING RESTART OF THI-UNIT 1 G*

s o.

W e

G e 8 m ee k-

.g. - - . - .

o t

TABLE OF CdNTENTS PaSe' Introduction .......................... 1 COMMENTS .............................. 1 An Objective Standard ............ 2 The Inadequacy of a Subjective Standard ....................... 4 4

Should the Commission Await the

!! earing of the Remanded Issues .. 6 -

r The Commission Stay of the Hearing of the Matter of Falsification of .

Leak Rates at Unit 2 ............ 11 NRC Policing of Restart .......... 16 I

Disclaimer ....................... 17 Conclusion ............................. 19 6 4

e 4

A e .

)

1 I

e e

On' July 5, 1984 the Commission extended the time until noon of July 26, 1984 for comments of the parties concerning restart of TMI-Init 1. On that day, prior to our knowledge of the extension of j time, we had served our comments. These comments essentially said chat the matter of serious health effects, notably cancer deaths six times greater than would be expected in the five year period since the accident in areas of plume direction during the initial days of the TMI-2 accident, was new relevant information of major signific-ance which required resolution prior to any restart decision. The fact that the Licensee, alone, monitored the radiological releases I

l for the first three days of the accident and claimed to have. lost the in-plant records, from which high off-site releases were extrapolated and then dening now places th;ese matters, previously considered benign, with the management inte,grity/ competency issues which remain the single most significant bar to a restart decision.

We maintain our positon as stated in our comments served July 5, 1984. The present comments are additional, partly philosophical and the remainder concerning Office of Investigations reports served

] since July 5, for which the extension of time for comments was

provided.

coMMr*fTS We recently received a copy of Congressman Bevill's letter of 1 I

May 31, 1984 to Chairman Palladino with regard to a timely decision , , .

concerning restart of THI-Unit 1.

(Attachment 1)

, p.

e e

l 0

-- - - . ~ . - .. _. _,.-~m- - - ~- - , v -- - -... , - -~ - ,.. - - - 1. ,_ - - - - . - . . , , . . _ , - , ,

1 4

i We were particularly struck by Congressman Bevill's quote that the " inability of the NRC to reach a dec,ision on this-facility jeopardizes public confidence in the NRC ability to make credible, independent decisions." .

We would note that our participation in the the TMI-1 Restart Proceeding has resulted in our coming to a similar conclusion to that

~

of Congressman Bevill. - .. .

In addition to concurring with this : criticism, we profer our perception of how the Commission can come expeditiously to a

" credible" decision and restore public confidence in the NRC's ability to make " credible, independent" decisions.

The basis for our perception is twofold ,

1. The Commission has not articulated an objective standard by which to judge the integrity of GPU management and [

2. The NRCStaff has, from the outset of this proceeding, failed in its responsibility to bring information which impugned the integrity of GPU management into the proceeding in a timely manner.

Q,0_bjective Stand _a_rg!

First, the Commission appears to lacP a definition of

" integrity". Webster can solve this problem. Integrity is quite simply " moral soundness, honesty, uprightness." This definition provides a standard which defies equivocation.

The Commission must apply this simple standard in its poci: ion

of responsibility to tha public. The Commissita must simply csk whether or not GPU'manpgement, as evidenced in the operati.on of the TMI plants. haa hann mera11y sound, honest and upright. 'Any negative Einding would cause the Commission to deny the CPU license to operate any nuclear facility. The most elemental assumption on which a license to use nuclear m'aterials is granted is the trustworthiness of

, . ~ .

the applicant. For the Commission to grant a license . to operate with Any evidence of untrustworthiness of a licensee is a serious breach of the Commission's duties.

We submit that the record of the Restart Proceeding and the extra-record evidence examined by the Office of Investigations are I

i replete with examples of the untrustworthiness of GPU management of

] .

i the T!!I facilities. We provided ten items in our filings of October i

27 and November 11, 1983 which have been verified and whi'ch '

j .

demonstrate the untrustworthiness of GPU management. The matters .

~

investigated since that time by OI support our position that there is ,

j .,

j abundant evidence of the untrustworthiness of GPU management . The  :

i Consnission has been on notice since June of 1983 (when it received i

the memorandum of Tim !!artin to the Commission concerning the Hartman allegations, i.e.,

the falsification of leak rates at Unit 2) that

)! there was ,,gigg definitive and sufficient evidence for the Commission i i

1 to come to a credible decision to deny the'GPU license to operate any l nuclear facility. .'G l

• 1

{ The second aspect of the issue is the definition of i l l " management". Licensee has argued that " management integrity" 6

I

! applies only to individual management personnel. We would remind the '

Commission that the license to operate THI-l would be given to the l) i u

ll

_ =w W

. Dishonesty and corporate entity, not any handful of individuals.

disception on the part ofkey management personnel is pure and simple That the evidence that the corporate entity lack. integrity.

corporateentitypurgeditselfofsomeindividualsandshiftedothe;rs to coal plants or THI-2 cleanup activities, oniv after these individuals' activities became a matter of public record, is further .

evidence of GPU's own lack of integrity. The retention of these -

demonstrably dishonest personnel, including the instructor HUsted, l ,

Chairman Dieckamp and Vica-president of Nuclear Assurance Robert Long (who the Licensing Board asserted did not re:ognize his own failures) is additional compelling evidence of 'a. corporate entity which notl7 ,

onlylacksintegritybutexhibitsaph'aracter,thatis]rmealcitrant. .

l ,

The Inadequacy of a Subiective Standard To this point the proceeding has floundered on the question of

'how much lack of integrity is too much? The Commission has offered e

. t i no definitive guidance. Rather, by denying the relevhnce of the leak rate falsification conspiracy at Unit 2', wh'ich was the direct cause of the escalation of the TMI-2 accident ang met the Commis'sion's own 1

j i

unique standard for litigation (nexus to the accident), the i i

Commission has demonstrated an unwillingness to decide the issue of restart on the basis of management integrity and the most relevant ,

e i

information concerning GPU's lack of it.

4

-..-,__.r., _-.#-.,_ _ _ . _ - . , _ _ _ - . _ . , - . , _ , __--_.,-,._.______..,-.-._m_ . , _ . . , _

.g . - - _

Na matter h:w the Ccmmissicn slicas th3 cxtensiva, d311 berate and significant TMI-7 leak rate falsifications, it wili not be able i

to successfully support any decision to separate the misoperation of Unit 2 (the cause of the accident and the untold suffering of..._:, the' .- ( - .; <

, . 1

public in the area) from the management of TMI..or the restart '

decision. (We discuss this further below.)

Nor can the Commission's failure to provide an objective standard excuse management for the widespread cheating on cospany ,-

exams -- collaboration which the Comnission ordered to end in .

November 1980 (Memorandum to Collir n Collins to Hukill) and which Robert Long, supposedly Director of Training, assured tihe Licensing Board in February 1981 had ceased, but which continued until the '

Licensee was compelled in 1982 to fac! the testimony of operators.

What was then,and later,.evealed was a historv of deliberate- ~

i deception concerning the training and certification of operators fot-licensing. The Commission and Staff have not faced this history.

The Comnission lept on a sinRle instance (the cheating and i

i miscertification of Jim Floyd). This is but another example of the Commission's uneven regulation and fuzzy standards.

NRC's investi6 ators have identified the cause of Jim Floyd's and other individuals' compromises: Licensee "

management failed to.

establish an environment where everyone knew that compliance with -

l procedures and license conditions was a condition of employment."

(Martin, Hartman Allegation Investigation Summary, June 3, 1983, page

!. 9) Although this conclusion regarded the leak rate falsifications, l it applies universally to the TMI operation. Remember Operator l 00"'s statement that cheating was commonplace and accepted at TMI and Hukill's lack of surprise or followup! The Staff investigators found that it was operators who protested the leak rate 8

--r -,.....--.~-n m-- ,n-,e _ e- e,r-,.- , ,---. ,,,-.,,,,.,,n..,r,-n,,,,.,.,-,,nn,, ,...,,,,.-,,,,,,,,.-,,w,,,,-,,,-,,.m,,-,..--, -

,,m--e,,,--nm

veu ,

falsificntitns -- d spito tho cnvir:no:nt -- but vero requir:d to participate in the deception and misoperation of the faulty TMI-2 .

plant. (Id., page 6: "At least three interviewed Operators believed shift supervision expected'them to continue trying to get acceptable computer le'ak rate test results until one was received," Page 7, ,

'" . 'it least four; held 'some opinion that 'as a last resdre, it was expected.") .

- . c_ . 4; . , ?-

The Commission should halt the witch-hunt among the comparatively ~

innocent which is an uncleverly designed ruse to protect the criminal GPU and its corporate officers and managers. The Commission is in businessofRrantinga'nddenyinglicensestoborporations. It is G2) '

the role of the Commission to provide mechanisms for the citigatiot'.

of corporate deficiencies. ,

Should the Commission Await the Hearing of the Renanded Issues?

The Appeal Board remanded three issues (operator training,the Unit 1 leak rate falsifications and the Dieckamp mailgram) to the Licensing Board by Order ALAB 772. ,

The failure to have fully resolved these issues, at this late date, must be shared by the NRC Staff and the Licensee. Despite these dismal failures to provide credible record evidence in the five ,

years devoted to the Restart Proceeding, the Appeal Board has graciously provided these parties the additional opportunity 'to meet their burden within the lenient NRC system before the sympathetic l Licensing Boar'd.' We have little faith in the likelihood of a f'a ir decision by the Licensing Board. Ilowever, it will afford the ' #

Commission an opportunity to decide for itself,'from the record of

cross-examination by the intervenors, whether the Licensee and Staff l

l l

l

evidence is solid enough to support a Comraission decision for

. restart. .

' Tor the Commission to conclude, on the basis of. extra-record material, that the training of operators is now adequate, would be '

short-sighted. From our extensive acquaintance over the past five years with the issue of operator trai~ning, we can assure the Commission that the recent report of the raconsitituted CARP ,

committee is mere pap. The loophole' this distinguished conusittee has left, in now giving unanimous approval of Licensee's training

~

program, is that their observ4tions were limited by the time they presently had available to examine the training program! , ,

The Licensing Board, in a recent order, has, without adequate explanation, deferred the hearing of the Unit 1 leak rate falsification matter despite the Appeal Board order and ,

recognition by all parties of the importance of'this matter to the  !

Commission's restart decision. Perhaps, in light of the evidence.

already developed by 01, it is no wonder that the Licensing Board would want to delay in view of the board's strongly evident past  ;

sympathies for nearly all Licensee's inadequacies and deceptions. .

We found, from a limited readin6 of the OI depositions that significance evidence that seriously cuestions the integrity of key plant and corporate management personnel jumps from the pages. With little effort, we found the following responses of Dieckamp, Hukill, '

Ross and Shipman that were clearly incredible.

• r s

j

Dieckamp, after suggesting in 1980 (following Hartman's ,

allegationsonStationNOR)thatthecompanyc$ntract'toinvestigate the alleged falsification of leak rates at Unit 2, claimed that he ',

never bothered to read the Faegre-Benson report of September 1980 ,

until March of 1983 (when he provided it to the Department of Justice). , Incredible! (OI Investigation, Volume

~

9 Exhibit 101, pages 168-170) ,

Hukill, who claimed during the " Cheating Hearinr," that he ,

interviewed the operators about any and all knowledge or involvement in any kind of cheating, stated to OI that when the operators tended "to bring ..up" the topic of falsification of leak rates, he told .

them not to do so. Hukill stated, "I intentionally tell them that I '*

• think that is' private business and not something that I should be into." (Id., Exhibit 103, page 8) Incredible!!. ,

Mike Ross, supervisor of operations at Unit 1, credited by the ,

t Licensing Board and corporate management as having the most comprehensive knowledge of the Unit 1 plant, disclaimed any knowledge of the loop seal which facilitated falsification of leak rates at

Unit i until it was discovered by NRC's Dr. Chung in 1983. Rosa claimed ignorance despite (1) the identification of the identical-i -

physical compromise at Unit 2 by Taegre-Benson in 1980, (2) an inspection at Unit 1 subsequently for a loop seal and (3) mainten.a.s..ce , .

)

work request documents which indicated relevant problems and awareness of other plant staff. (Id. Exhibit 107, pages 81-85 Exhibits 11-15; Volume 1, page 24) Incredible! A mere former operator was aware of the existence of the, loop 's"eal in the pre-accident period and knew of its significance for _

O A

102k ::to surveillanca tcsts (Id., Exhibit 33, paso 53).

noss claimed no knowledge whatsoever of leak rate fa,1sification at Unit 2 prior to the accident, however Shipman, Ross's,right -hand man, declared, "but even 6ack ther. when you violated the Tech Specs that's a big deal, and everybody knows about it. Everybodyin the management train would know about it, and there would be discussions on whether the unit should be shut down..." (Id... Exhibit 109, page.

... .. ,f.

25) Isn't it incredible that Ross as the supervisor of Unit 1, co-licensed on Unit 2, standing watch on a regular basis ut Unit 2 to retain his license, in daily contact with the supervisor of Unit 2 and sharing shif t supervisors with Unit 2, denied,any knowledge of leak rate falsifications at Unit prior,to the accident?

Ross and Shipman both claimed that they were unaware in the pr'e- ,

accident period that an addition of hydrogen in the make-up tank would[.

affect leak rate tests (Exhibit 107, page 61; Exhibit 1D7, page 47) although seven of twelve pre-accident licensed operators and one of the six pre-accident unlicensed operators interviewed were aware of ,

the hydrogen addition effect (Volume 1, page 19).

l l

Obviously, Ross and Shipman provided 01 with incredible l

I testimony under oath and are unfit, because of this fact by itself, to hold their positions of Creat responsibility at Unit 1.

l .

9

. O

A If the Commission does not wish to await a dolayed h0sring cf the Unit i leak rate falsification matter, it can examine the direct evidence in the nine volumes developed by OI. (The OI presentation to to the Commission in April of this year did not fairly represent the evidence deduced.) OI accepted the exculpating evidence of i

incredible denials and failed t'o" code fully to grips with clearly  !

inculpating evidence of company documents, *opbrators testimony and Dr. Chung's investigation.

f Without awaiting the Licensing Board's hearing, the Commission could support OI's reinterview of Ross and others with polygraph 1

I tests. The Licensing Board considered Ross the most important i management person in terms of public health and safety, and the ,

I i

Commission cannot make a decision in favor of restart with the matter l of Ross's integrity clearly challenseable.

i In conclusion, the Commission should await the hearing of the I training issue, however the matter of Ross's and others culpability

~

concerning leak rate falsification could be settled from the evidence i

already available and polygraph tests.

i l

l l

e i

1

- _ _ .___,.,,___._,.__.,_.,_l_.,__,___ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ , , . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ - . - -

The Ca= issien Stny rf th7 H vring cf th t, tty cf Falsification of ,.

4 Lank Rates at Unit _2 j '

On October 7,1983 the Comission stayed the hearing ordered by the Appeal Board (ALAB 738) in response to our motion of April 16, i ,

On January 27, 1984 the Commission tentatively voted to l 1983.

excise this matter from its restarr decision. The interv'enor -

l organization TMIA motioned for a lift of the stay, however' the .

Commission has issued no response. ,

i As we have stated in our filings before the Commission from April 16, 1983 forward, the Leak rate falsification at Unit 2 was directly related to the escalation of the incident on the non-nuclear

side of the plant to a lost-of-coolant accident with over 60% core I damage. The Restart Proceeding ordered by the Commission was,to hear ,

i .

l all issues with a nexus to the TMI-2 accident. The Commission is on -

. thin ice in proceeding toward a restart decision without a hearing of, l the leak rate falsifications at Unit 2.

I i!

l The Commission should note that although the Staff has continued .

j to deny that the falsifications of leak rates was causal to the

^

~

accident, their investigators concur with our analysis (April 16, 1983) hatNhe .

a

operators were desensitized to the high' temperatures and volumes of l water pouring into the sump at the time of the accident -- which were i

t due to the loss of core inventory -- because these conditions, due to a leaking PORV, had existed throughout the entire operating history

)

of Unit 2. See Investigation Evaluation of Remaining Allegations ,

i Relating to Harold Hartman, June 2,2, 1984, page 9:

1 .

Interviews with a TMI-2 shift supervisor and operating personnel disclosed that the operators had become " desensitized" to plant operating procedures related to block valve closure because of actual plant operations with' higher l

talipipe temperatures, i

e - - - - - - - - . - n- + ---,,------,-,v,,--,,_e, .-,,-.---n,,,-.--.----n,,-rw ,-w-m,-.wm,--, --_----,-e 4,v---_w--,-,.w ~.--m.,v,-m-

. This ccaditica was alsa id:ntificd during tha WREG 0600 '

inve:tigatien which conslud:d that this c:nditicn was a significant factor contributing to the severity of the accident.

Acceptance of this condition by operating personnel resulted in ,

their not being able to recall the requirement.to close the block valve to the pressurizer (" desensitized") and to terminate' the loss of coolant. . ,

The NRC Staff would also attempt to contine the' deception concerning the responsibility for the falsification of leak rates at Unit 2 desp'ite the conclusions of their investigators. The

" investigators clearly find management responsible. See Id., pages 9 and 10:

The Keaton investigation disclosed that closure of the block -

valve would have assisted in identifying where leakage was occurring by the process of elimination. However, Ahs.

mananomens decided to continue operations and not close the block valve.

01 believes that the issue concerning an alleged request to ,

shutdown Unit.2 to address problems with leakage had been ,

explored sufficiently for the purpose of arriving at an , ,

informed assessment. . .Despite. ..the fact that no determina .

tion was made as to the specific leak location, it does not appear unreasonable that inquiries or contacts would have .

been made with other off site personnb1 concerned with (emphasis added)

The interview of Chuck Mell by the United States Senate t Subcommittee Staff on the T.MI accident described the procedure used -

to get permission to shutdown the plant. A call is made to the dispatcher at MET ED corporate offices to obtain permission. The consideration is how the outage can be scheduled so that other plants can carry the extra load. Robert Long had ultimate responsibility for generation at the time of the accident. That Robert Long was the person responsible for not shutting down Unit 2 despite evidence that plant personnel requested shutdown is a matter that should be of prime consideration by the Commission.

l h

• on August 27,1979 (included at the end of the Investigative Evaluation, June 22,195 a

. . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . m __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ .

The Cecaissin must cxhibit a gg curicsity c:nc:rning Long whohao bees in the pcsitica cf r:sponsibility in threo matters which have raised the question of management integrity (Keeping THI-2,on f

!' Line, the Keaton Report of the Sequence of Accident Events, Training  !

.. t i of operators after the accident) . j 1

j Since 1931, af ter questioning Long extensively in the' Restar't - [

i  !

Hearing, we have publicly stated our sincere doubts concerning the i

)

i authenticity of the assignment of 14ag to sensitive issues'. We believe that Long g3v3y.furmtioned as Direct 3r of Training, but merely provided Licensee with a slib witness for the hea ins. Why j would lang have been removed fron his directorship of tra'.1Lnt at the i time when the Board identified deficiencies that needed to oo

}

addressed, leaving that porition unfilled for some time. If Long was , i i *  !

really responsible for the deficiencies in training, as the 59ard l l }

j stated, why would Licensee have promoted Long to director of nuclear {

! assurance? Die Licerising Board vondered why Long apparently did ne j recognize that he had failed in his responsibilities to assure an ,

adequate training program. Long'J actitude is only understandable by 4 i j accepting our assertion that Long had no real responsibility for .

l f

training, being simply LIESAIJag -- a position that he may have -

j been willing to take to try to prevent discovery of his culpability , l concerning the Unit 2 accident. 8 .

[

In our April 16, 1983 filing, we discussed the problems we i experienced with the testimony of operators in the " cheating hearing" f and the parallel problem alleged to have caused the Department of  ;

4 * ,

}

1 Justice to seek dismissal of Licensee's attorneys. WE assert that it '

t t

l is the influence and interfernce of Licensee's attorneys that have i i i j and would make further investigation of the !!artman matter difficult.

j We heartily disagree with OI's assertion that further investigation  ;

i -

I j of the TMI-2 leak rate falsifications and other Hartman allegations i

would be fruitless. (Investigative Evaluation, June 22, 1984, page ,

10) We als3 taka cx r ption 'o the staff's assertion that "Without I the benefit of the grand jury matarial, ther's is little likelihood of achieving'more investigative results than the Department of Justice

(

effort." 01 implies that NRC would have to do a better job thaa D0J  !

for an NRC investigation to be worth the effort. Such an implication  !

is an outrage. Hasn't 01 read the statement of David Dart Queen, the federal attorney, to Judge Ranho upon settlement of the case? We i

cannot cite references because our copy is aisplaced, however we I clearly recall Queen's vigorous objection to any implications (forwarded by Licensee's attorr.ey) that D0J did not have the goods e.o i f prove all indictments. Queen explained that D0J's settlement was a

{ reasonable settlement of the criminal aspect of the leak rate .

falsification -- D0J having excerpted a gigantic fine (to be used to i

benefit the public in emergency 3,lanning) in relation to what would j$ have been levied by the court -- and giving earlier aco' ess of the NRC ' '

i to the operators for NRC's own investigation. Queen expressed his  !

strong opinion that the NRC investigation and responsibilities in the j natter far exceeded those of D0Je NRC having the responsibility for  !

] public health and safety in relation to the THI operation.

1 The 0I assertiun also implies that NRC was denied the DCJ materials.

While we are aware of Licensee's request through the j court, we have no knowledge that IIRC made a genuit.e effort to obtain i

j for itself the D0J natorials.  !

NRC cannot, however, use the the inasined or actual lack of +

i

! cooperation of another agency as la excuse for not doing its own '

l 7

work. That a full resolution of the Hartman allegations are an j obligation of the NRC within the framework of the Restart Proceeding

, t

15 ,

i was clearly stated in a letter from Chairrun Palladino to Attorney i

General William French Smit'h (April 14, 1983)

• Falladino stated  ;

f The Hartman allegations touch upon the competence and , ,, l integrity of TH1 management, perhaps ths.Jl leas -

I

alanifinant inaua the Commission ='a' add = = la  !

t d==Ldina wLathat to allow reatmet af P4f.1, We are .

, {

' rapadly approaching the point where failure to resolve . .

these allegations may delay that decision. . l (emphasis added) .

l The NRC must have considerable materials of its own conestning

. t the Hartman allegations than those provided in the scant file served i i,

on us last week. We find that this withholding and the Commission  !

performance and attitude concerning the Hartman allegations to be f matters of g agg concern. If the Commission should continue in its I

tentative position (of January 27, 1984) to exclude the Hartman -

i i

allegations from the restart decision, we would consider lessi j challenge. We consider tra NRC's history of hiding the Hartman j

matter from public scrutiny to in a regulatory disgrace and an

obstacle to public assurance of safe operation of Unit 1.

s 3

4 f-1 i

i I

?

i

[

] I l '

l

'. l 1

! i i

i i

. NRC Policina of Restart The NRC Staff proposed restart prior to the resolution of all manasement integrity / competency issues with NRC inspectors on all ,

, shif ts(November / December i983). This proposal'is doubly faulted.

i .

(1) What assurance is there that the NRC inspectors have any more competency or integrity than the Licensee or its personnel? (2)-

Where, as a practical matter and legally, would responsibi.11ty lie?

Would continual surviellance be a condition of the license or would 4

the license be granted jointly to the NRC Staff and GPU?

How does the public have assurance from the history of NRC inspection at TMI? Why were the high temperatures and leaking PORV at TMI-2 missed thou6hout its operation?How did the NRC Staff fail to enforce the strict refurbishing of the polar crane in the cleanup .

operation at Unit 2 last year until after whistleblowers, at great

. personal sacrifice, brought the matter to publicenttention? Why did ,

i the NRC fail to followup on what corrective actions were taken by the Licensee concerning leak rate measurements after NRC inspectors i

discovered procedural violations in October 19787 Why did the NRC

, Staff deliberately lie, under oath, in their Safety Evaulation Report in 1981 which was entered into the record of the Restart Proceeding?

- (The lie was the misrepresentation of evidence NRC had concerning l Unit 1 leak rate falsification.) Did the NRC collaborate with GPU personnel in " losing" filters and other inplant radiation data from l - the initial days of the accident? A former employee has claimed, in documents in our possession, that the NRC was a party to deception of the public concerning radiation releases.

Any attempt by the Commission in their restart decision to lean oh NRC policing of Unit 1 is surely subject to successful challenge.

- . . . - , , - , - - - - - , - . - , - + , , - , . , - ., - -.,_-,,--4 -- , - , - - - - - . . - + . - - - - ,%--, ,- ,

Disclaimer We have not had sufficient time to discuss all material provided by the NRC concerning the' OI investigations of management issues..

The Commission's rehedule for the parties was unrealistic and illegal. We do not have all relevant information nor do we have any-

~*

way to pursue questions which have developed in examining the material we do have. The NRC rules of' practice and procedure state that the NRC make available all materials of matters of interest, to a party (with the exception of possible security violations) and that the NRC Staff not be allowed the resolution of matters of safety even after a hearing has ended. .

We put the Commission on notice that it is the Co:maission which, if it makes a decision to. proceed without a full hearing of all open issues, has the grave responsibilitytofullyreviewandfulkyface up to all the material that has been generated concerning GPU..

The NRC has failed, to the point of nearly total disgrace in its obligations to the public and to us as parties. The NRC has caused unnecessary expenditure of public and private resources by failing to act openly and forthrightly to pursue the most significant issue known to the Commission since 1979 -- the leak rate falsifications at Unit 2. It was left up to us to pull this issue out into the open by our motion of April 16, 1933 (and when we did, the NRC Staff practiced further deception to make it appear that they did).

i l .

l

,a e - , - - - - ~ - , , e - - - - - , , - - . - - -

a t ..

He have learned. When, on June 21,1.984, ,we raised the issue of cancer deaths six to eight times in exces's of those expe'cted in areas

- of plume direction in the early days of the accident, we identified our concern publicly to avoid the manipulation accorded the !!artman matter. As we expected, the Staff, with its position of " low releases" and "no harm to the public", has asked the Commission to deny our motion for an investigation of the " lost" radiation records from the initial days of the accident, when only the Licensee was monitoring. Will the Commission follow suit and thumb i'ts nose at a fatally injured public living on ground contaminated by radioac'tive particulates from the core of Unit 2, with far=ers unable tio pursue the livelihood of growing clover seed, swathed in krypton gas and -

whose health is further threaten by the restart- of a deteriorated

(

plant by inexperienced operators and incompetent and corrupt ,

management? If the Commission seeks to cover the Staff's past, by denying our motions, we warn the Commission that it will have made a fatal mistake.

The Commission has supreme responsibility -- not to see how the parties and public can be hood-winked or cajoled -- but to be just .

and forthright.

We aad that we view our participation in the Restart Proceeding at the invitation of the Commission as a deliberate abuse of citizens by a federal agency in view of the recently released transcripts of closed Commission meetin6s. Can the Commission provide a credible explanation for its solicitation of our participation, including e'xtensive comments invited concerning the Hartman allegations.in 1983? We hope to find it in the Commission's decision concerning restart, j

Cenclusiens We find, as we did prior' to the OI -ihvestigations', 'that the only.

valid Commission decision:is a DENIAL of the GPU l'icense'to operate 4

THI-1. We believe that there exists sufficient evidence on the record of the Restart Proceeding, notably from the hearing of.

cheating'of operators on tests, to support a Commission decision that GPU lacks the managerial ' trustworthiness to operate a nuc1 ear plant.

Any evidence of untrustworthiness is too much in the operation of a

' nuclear facility where the public heath and safety is clearly at jeopardy. The Commission can find more than ample extra-record evloence from the OI investigations which would support any challenge by the Licensee of a denial.

The only alternative to a denial of the license is for the Commission to. allow the full and fair hearing of all open issues,

most notably the matter of health effects which have been rest .

reasonably caused by Licensee's deception concerning radioactive releases, prior to its decision.

Immediate denial of the license would better serve the public's interest since denial can be the only final result from a full resolution of all issues.

Respectfully submitted, .

- _ _'% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _t___ ___ _ _m_ _ _ _ _i_/

Marjorie M. Aamodt .

/

j' "

h_f_'S_61__k:.[ _?_?_' 8 . d _________

Norman 0. Aamodt July 26, 1984 -

g e..

=~ qir tilP Ei?;'M t n ... . . ..

=:-= ..

N.AME w;.s CDilgrE55 0" tit Tiinul. $ tete 5 mm*:

J.re T. -

• ==p L. - h011st of 'Rtprtsuuuets . .

a

.~~ -m..

p;.; CommittCt on appep.acons . tenh QQ N,h7.

Eashington, B.C. 20515 l ((

EOEi MR

• May 31,1984 . * * * * " -

"2'L7

.N". ,** "Jlll,*"""".

ige .

em p scazas.atts "Lu. -

k*L%

wtT. h lll%.um.

Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino 1.

- " Chairman -

Nuclear Regulatory Comission - -

Washington, DC 20555 Daar Mr. Chairman: -

c During our recent hearings, we made clea* cur interest in a timely - -

decision by the NRC on restart of the undamaged TMI-l plant. -

As stated in the Comittee Report: .

"Over five years have passed since the accident at Three Mile Islands., '

and yet the NRC has not been able to rea:h a decision on the restart of , ,.

the ur.affected TMI-1 plant. The inability of the NRC to reach a decision on this facility jeopardizes public confidence in the NRC ability to make -

credible independent decisions. The NRC he.s indicated that all litiga-tion and decisions on the restart of TMI-1 will be completed by June 1984. The Comittee expects the NRC to caintain this schedule."

[ am aware of the recent Atomic Safety end Licensing Appeal Board deci-sfon remanding several issues to the ASt.B to cor:plete the hearing record.

, However, it is my understanding that the Coccission itself is not limited to the hearing record in the Restart proceeding and that the Comission already has information on each of the issues remanded by the Appeal Board adequate to e$able the Commission to reach a restart decision without awaiting those h2arings.

l .'; Please advise promptly whether the Comission still intends to pursue its I innediate effecti.veness determination regardi:g the THI-1 Restart and the related steam generator issue on the tentative s:hedule announced last month.

Sincerely,

^

• .,-h J. ,.%?

Tom Bevill, Chairinan -

Guceav;sttaentraffrarrxw l