ML20137X054
| ML20137X054 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 03/03/1986 |
| From: | Aamodt M AAMODTS |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#186-285 86-519-02-SP, 86-519-2-SP, LRP, NUDOCS 8603050185 | |
| Download: ML20137X054 (8) | |
Text
r
'-~~
~
~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA GUCLEAR RECULATORY COMfilSSJON DOCKETED USHRC Defore Lbc Presidiric Board:
James
.L, Y.e l l oy, Chairman
,g g q g2 Glenn O. Bright Jerry R. Kline GFFtW ti :l.
DOCHE1l%~
OR/;i.
)
In the Matter of Dochet No, LRP INQUIRV INTO TilREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 ASL8P No. 86-519-02 GP LEAK RATE DATA FA1.SIFICATION
) March 3, 1986
)
A1WOOT RESPONSE TO BOARD MEMOR/lNDUM AND ORDQt By mea,orandum and order of February 14, 1986, the Presiding Board requested the Aamodts t.o respond by t%rch 3, 1986 (or to appear in person in Bethesda, Maryland on March 7, 1906) to support their petition for a.llowance to intervenc in the above-captioned proceeding.
The Board requested the Aamodts to address the Board 's concerna that; the Aamodts' interest and planned participation in the hearlog may not meet tbo requirements for participat. ion.
The Commission in an order of Decetaber 18, 1985 defined the purpose of the hearing as "t.o determine the ultimate status of those likely involved (in leal; rate data falsifications at Three Mile Island, Unit 2),
which includes those cegregated from TM1-1 and those now working at other facillt,ler.. "
(Order, pp.4,9).
9603090195 D60303 ADOCK ODOOg9 PCR G
e-g
. _. ~. -
. _. - _... ~. _
The hearing is to consider the intGority of lodlviduals who may, as a result of the Board's order, be Poinutated to operate TMI-1, or who presently may function as operators or manager's at other nuclear raci1ities.
Therefore, L
the Aamodts found that "anyone who resides, works or visits near any nuclear facility has interest in the bearing."
Aamodt petition.
j I
'n Iouponding In its memorandum and order, the Board, to the Aamodt petition, equivocated concerning 9hother residency near TMI or any other' nuclear facility would constitute evidenco of interest in the proceeding.
'the Board stated that, "F,ven assuming that a person working or residing near Tlil might have a sufficient P
interest for interventjon, Ms. Aamodt does not al1000 that that in her situation.
The floard has made a gross error in referring to the interent of a person residing, working or visiting near a nuclear facility as an asstsced interest or possibly I
insufficient interest, The NHC rulen acknowledge the right of the public residing its the vielnity of a nuclear power plant to part,1cipate in litigation concerning that plant.
See 10 CFil The N}{C Stoff and the Licensing Board extended the itsterest aspect t o workers and visitors in the vicinity I
of nuclear power plants, The Licensing Board ruled that the workplace should be considered in ruling on the 4
e se aus J
Aamodts' pcLition to intervene.In the Restart Proceeding.
The NRC Starf, foilowing the TM1-2~ accident, supported ini.erest of visitors in the area of a plant by requiring that the visitors' interests be protected in-the event of an emergency through prior planning.
Can the Board question the significance of its findings concerning the integri ty of the individuals it will examine in the hearing as unrelated to the safe operation of TMI and other nuclear-facilities?
1 The issues of the above-captioned proceeding are of public interest.
The public residing, working and i
j visiting in the vicinity of TMI and other nuclear power plants have great interest in the conduct of a proceeding which may allow individuals, likely-involved in falsifications of data, to operate TMI-l or any other nuclear power plant.
i In the Aamodts' case, they have a residence in Parkesburg, Pennsylvania, within 40 miles of TMI and 25 miles from the nuclear power plants at Peach nottom, i
Salem and Limerick. (1)
Close relatives of the Aamodts reside in the area.
Further, many members of the j.
organization, Susquehanna Valley Alliance of Lancaster Pennsylvania, and other members of the public who reside 1
within 10 and 70 miles of TMI and other nuclear power 1
plants are represented by the Aamodts.
i 4
~ -
m-Further, although-not asserted in their petition, the Aamodts have a great interest in' the litigation.of-the issues of the above-captioned proceeding as a party in the TMI-l Restart Proceeding.
The Aamodts have a certiorari petition before the U.S. Supreme Court-to obtain a full hearing of the issue of leak rato data falsification at TMI-2.
(Petition filed December 18, 1985.)
In the event that the high court should order a full hearing of the leak rate matter, the above-captioned proceeding may be made a post-hoc part of the full hearing.
Thus, if the Board rules to exclude the Aamodts from the above-captioned proceeding, either the issues of that proceeding would need to be relitigated (an enormous imposition on the participants) or the Aamodts would suffer prejudice.
The Board's other concern, that the Aamodts may'not contribute substantially to the development of the record of the above-captioned proceeding, is unfounded.
The Commission has ruled to limit the participation of the parties.
The parties may merely make -suggestions to the Board concerning the appearance of witnesses and suggest to the Board what questions the Board should ask of witnesses.
The parties may not be permitted to file findings of fact unless the. Board invites them.
(Commission Order, pp.7-10.)
i:
-t
. ~.,
..,a..
j r
If admitted as a party, the Aamodts can be expected to make as significant a contribution as the Commission's order and Lia Board's ruling will allow.
The Aamodts' record of significant participation in the TMI-1 Restart Proceeding is a matter of record.
(2)
Since 1983, the Aamodts have been ready to participate in a hearing of all aspects of the leak rate data falsification issue.
When, on September 14, 1983, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, in response to the Appeal Board's order for a reopening, requested the parties to provide their plans for participation, the Aamodts were ready to provide theirs.
Ilowever, the day before the Aamodts planned to serve their plans, the Commission stayed the reopening.
The reopening never took place, a matter which the Aamodts are now petitioning to for a hearing by the Supreme Court.
Noone ever questioned the Aamodts right to participate in a reopening on the TMI-2 leak rate falsification issue if a reopening had taken place in the TMI-1 Restart Proceeding.
While the issue has been lifted out of the Restart Proceeding, nevertheless, the Aamodts continue their interest in the issue since its resolution wili affect the continuance of a condition imposed by the commission in recommending restart of TMI-1, i.e.,
that no individual who could likely have.
been involved in TMI-2 leak rate falsifications (with the exception of the supervisor of TMI-1, Michael Ross, and CPil Service and corporation officials) would be permitted to operate TMI-i.
See Commission Order, CLI-S-85,
. hile the l'itigation of the TMI-2 leak rate W
falsification issue is severely limited in the above-captioned proceeding, the Aamodts, nevertheless, are willing to participate in the limited manner provided by the Commission and ordered by the Board.
The Aamodts are prepared to suggest the names j
of appropriate witnesses and appropriate questions to be asked of those witnesses.
Any further specificity concerning witnesses and questions ~would be inappropriate i
at the time of application for standing in the hearing.
1 In fact, the Board has only now invited the parties to suggest to the Board the names of any wi tnesses _ they believe would be appropriate to include in Phase I of the hearing.
Board Memo and Order, p.6.
A matter which is of importance to the Aamodts, i f they are permitted to participate, is whether the Board is already prejudiced against their appearance.
The Board expressed its opinion that the Aamodt application suffered deficieneies tha'c were similar to those found in another application, that of Marvin 1.
Lewis. Id.
p.3.
The Board did not provide evidence r.o support Its opinion.
I f
~6-u
Without expressing any opinion for or against the Lewis petition, the Aamodts are at a loss to find any similiarity between the Lewis and Aamodt petitions.
The only similiarity is between the petitioners, and the 1
similiarity is limited to two attributes:
They are members of the public and without counsel.
The Aamodts request assurance from the Board that their participation, if allowed, would not be prejudiced from the beginning.
The Aamodts respectfully request that the Board provide some assurance by offering an explanation for its finding that the Aamodt and Lewis petitions are "similarly deficient".
THEREFORE, in consideration of all of the above, the Aamodts request the Presiding Board's granting of the Aamodts' petition for leave to intervene in the above-captioned proceeding.
Respectfully submitted, r-TM W l
DbDf4L()
/
Marjorie M.
Aamodt Served on the Presiding Board by deposit in U.S. Mail, Express Delivery, March 3, 1986.
Provided to Service & Docketing Branch, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555 by deposit-in U.S.
Mail First Class, March 3, 1986.
t FOOTNOTES (1)
The Aamodts also have a residence in Lake-Placid, 1
N.Y.
Their postal address should be there (P.O. Box 652, Lake Placid, N.Y. 12946) should be used for service of documents until further notice.
(2)
The Aamodts prescrited the only credible expert witnesses concerning
'ae important litigation of emergency plans for the exten.e s.re agricultural community surrounding TMI.
~In the r.copened hearing concerning operators' cheating on qualifying examinations, the Aamodts dcnosed 26 operators and managers, which evidence the Special j
Master used in his findings and report.
In 1983, af ter the NRC Staff had relegated the TMI-2 Icak rate I
falsification issue to " history", (NUREG-0860, Supp.1,2; Staff Report.to the Commission re GPU v.
B&W), the Aamodts'successfully raised the is:,ue as one of greatest significance to the Commission's TMI-l restart decisien.
The Aamodts prevailed in their arguments on the TMI-2 j
leak rate falsifications before the Atomic Safety and Iicensing Appeal Board, despite the opposition of the NRC Staf f.
See ALAB-726.
i A
(3)
The intervention is made in behalf of Norman O.
Aamodt also.
"The Aamodts" refers to Norman O.
Aamodt and Marjorie M. Aamodt.
t 4
4 l
1
-.x.- -
- - - ~. -.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE Tile PRESIDING BOARD:
James L. Kelly, Chairman i DOCMErcp USNRC Glenn O. Bright Jerry R. Kline N W ~4 A10 M2 Cffftf 00CHEli*ius$""
In the Matter of
)
Docket No. LRP
'?
BRANC
)
AStBP No. 86-519-02 SI' INQUIRY INTO TilREE Mile ISLAND UNIT 2 LEAK RATE DAI A FALSIFICAllON January 2 7, 1 9116 AAMODI eEllllON FGR LEAVE 10 INTERVENE The Commission has defined die purpose of the hearing as "to determine the ultimate status of those likely involved, which includes those negregated from TMI-1 and those now working at other facilities." Hence, anyone who resides, works or visits near any nuclear facility has interest in the hearing.
Since the Commission has limited the participation of parties to submittals of suggestions of witnesses, suggestions of questions to witnesses and submittal of findings of fact, this would constitute the extent of our participation. tdo have considerable familiarity with the issue having raised it in the It'll-Unit I restart. proceeding by e.
our motion served April 16, l'183, AAMODT COMMENIS CONCERNING NRC ST AFF REVIEld OF GPU v. BF,ld COURT IRIAL 1RANSCRIPT AND MOTIONS TO REOPEN RECORD OF RESTART pHOCEEDING, attached.
tJe would anticinate that the Board would assume the responsibility for the development of a complete record.
THEREFORE, w > petition for leave to intervene.
Respectfully submitt.ed, m%d G. /wnb i
(f l /.
Marjorie M. Aamodt.
/
Mc : Ena 4 - Asa x annmed sp;/A nr3, w e6ek Are /s4/e -4 B.wd asLontkn/ %d