ML20113J010
| ML20113J010 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 01/22/1985 |
| From: | Beverly Smith PENNSYLVANIA, COMMONWEALTH OF |
| To: | Asselstine J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20113H998 | List: |
| References | |
| SP, NUDOCS 8501250404 | |
| Download: ML20113J010 (2) | |
Text
F d
smucE surTH uEumen coMM TTErs ETTEM PENN2YLYAN4A 173t3 GAME AND FISHEDES HARRiSEHjag NN 17120 m = =.crivi1373
=-
=Annis.uaa HOUSE OF RDESMMWWS COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA HARRISBURG January 22, 1985 James Asselstine, Comissioner Nu'elear Regulatory Comission 1717H Street, Northwest Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Comissioner Asselstine:
Two weeks ago I wrote to you regarding the dismissal or replace-ment of Administrative Law Judge Ivan Smith.
I have not yet received the courtesy of an ack'nowledgement of my letter. In addition, I have learned from newspaper accounts that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission may be addressing Three Mile Island issues at scheduled meetings on January 28 and 31,1985.
I have attached a copy of Ivan Smith's letter to Judge Sylvia H.
Rambo. I am quite puzzled by the notations, acknowledgements and dates j
that I have circled in red. Quite obviously, Ivan Sm;th filed a copy of his letter with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Quite obviously, Ivan Smith believed that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would have no problem with his letter. Quite obviously, Ivan Smith was wrong in writing to Judge Rambo. Because the attached letter has become so controversial in Pennsylvania, I certainly hope that you have already read it. The letter was filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Comission; I therefore assume it to be public knowledge.
I again strongly protest Ivan Smith ' serving as Administrative Law Judge any longer. His authorship of this controversial letter and sitting as an impartial judge is best illustrated in the contradiction of two consecutive sentences within his own letter:
"It is adequate to assure that the operators of Three Mile Island are persons of competence and integrity. Many weeks of public NRC hearings have been devoted to the issue of TMI manageme'nt integrity and operator competence and, in fact, hearings on that very issue are still in progress." How can Ivan Smith possibly assure Judge Rambo of the competence and integrity of the operators of Three Mile Island while the public hearings on management integrity were still in progress? It is impossible!
8501250404 850124 PDR ADOCK 05000289 0
Commissioner Asselstine January 22, 1985 Page 2 According to NRC regulations, Ivan Smith will be the first person to judge whether or not he should be dismissed or removed from office.
Ivan Smith was so certain that his attached letter was within the law that he provided a carbon copy to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
He, above all, should not be the one to judge himself. Even President Nixon was not permitted to judge himself.
You as a Nuclear Regulatory Comission member are the last hope for justice in the case of Ivan Smith.
Regardless of how he decides, he must answer to someone higher. Hopefully, you - in your position of responsibility - will see that justice is done.
Sincerely, p,
/
/
k JWW h,JA Bruce Smit BS:ht Attachment i
e 9
9 o
D n
~
q,...
r t
11125 Powder Horn Drive
-,gi n
'ilsn Potomac, Maryland 20854 Q ember 27, 1984 oc::::.n.... _
":= u m..e.,.:..$.e.. 3 g 9 T 85 Jg -2 P1 :27 Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo
- g. : :,: :...g j U.S. District Judge CMf GGTSE.- cf..
% Robert Ruth, Probation Officer BRANCH U.S. Probation Office Federal Building SERVED JAN 2g 3rd and Walnut j
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108
?
Re:
United States v. James R. Floyd Crim. No. 84-00099 (M.D. Pa.)
Dear Judge Rambo:
I hope that the Court will be lenient with James R.- Floyd.
As an I
administrative law judge with the Nuclear Regulatory Comission, I have served since August 1979 as the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board presiding over the proceeding considering the proposed restart of Three Mile Island Unit No.1.
Much of this proceeding has involved issues of the integrity and competence of the managers and operators of Three Mile Island Nuclear Station.
I have been infomed that the recommendation contained in the Board's decision of July 27, 1982 (16 NRC 281, 344-55) brought about the investigation and subsequent indictment of Mr. Floyd.
While serving as Chairman of the Three Mile Island Licensing hard I have had an. excellent opportunity to gain some insight into the vents and the affected persons following the 1979 accident at the station.
I i
hasten to add, however, that I know nothing about Mr. Floyd except the information produced on the public hearings most of whic.h is set out in -
our July 1982 decision. Also, my comments are personal and I do not
'or the Nuclear Regulatory Comission or for any other person.
r I h.
sasically two grounds for believing that leniency is appropriate.
The tirst pertains to the background against which Mr. Floyd's actions should.be judged. Mr. Floyd worked very hard in the months following the accident. He ' possesses excellent technical skills.
Management depended very heavily upon him in addressing the'many problems needing solution on the island.
I have always felt that Mr. Floyd's deception was an impulsive act and that it was not motivated by personal ambition.
He'could have sought relief from his other duties in order to train properly for the requalification examination, to his personal benefit.
He could have passed easily wii.hout deception.
One senses he neglected his examination responsibilities out of a misguided but altruistic effort to attend to matters of perceived greater urgency.
In addition, he apparently felt that he was well qualified notwithstanding his licensing status.
'D uf t.
2 E= : 0 5a gJ7
^
P
~
f My second reason for hoping for lenient treatment for Mr. Floyd is that severe punishment is not necessary as a deterrent.
I recognize that, whatever his motive, cheating on the requalification examination was a very serious matter and cannot be condoned or appear to be condoned.
However, Mr. Floyd's damaged career and public humiliation will be seen by others as too high a risk and price for any gain from cheating.
More important, however, a severe criminal penalty against Mr. Floyd, is in my pc sanal view, not needed to insure the integrity of the NRC operato: s' licensing process at Three Mile Island, nor would it be
, useful.
The civil regulatory scheme presently administered by the NRC is exceedingly thorough.
It is adequate to assure that the operators of Three Mile Island are persons of competence and integrity.
Many weeks of public NRC hearings have been devoted to the issue of TMI management integrity and operator competence and, in fact, hearings on that very issue are still in progress.
I have confidence that the NRC administrative regulatory process, with extensive public participation, will provide an orderly and reliable mechanism for assuring that any problems caused by deception respecting Three Mile Island will have been identified and resolved. Deception in the future is very unlikely. A severe sentence for Mr. Floyd would add nothing.
Sincerely, t
1 g, r14 < (. q-%+O Ivan W. Smith cc: William J. Fulton, Esq.
Herzel E. Plaine, General Counsel, NRC Parties to TMI-1 proceeding 4
4 e
e S
e D
m.
m
. _.-.