ML20138B234

Affidavit of Mm Aamodt Re Coaching of Sequestered Witnesses Prior to Hearing Concerning Cheating on Operator License Exams.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20138B234
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	03/14/1986
From:	Aamodt M AAMODTS
To:
Shared Package
ML20138B219	List: ML20138B212 ML20138B234
References
LRP, NUDOCS 8603200307
Download: ML20138B234 (5)

Text

.--

Attachment 2 AFFIDAVIT OF MARJORIE M. AAMODT In the fall of 1981, I participated as'an intervenor in the NRC's hearing on the TMI operators' cheating on NRC licensing examinations. I attended the hearing every day that it was held except for November 13. In December, near the end of the hearing which ended on December 10, 1981, I had occasion to speak informally while in the bathroom near the hearing room with one of General Public Utilities Nuclear's attorneys, Bonnie Gottlieb. During that conversation, Ms. Gottlieb told me that she had the responsibility for coaching the operators to prepare them to testify in the hearing.-

She said that this job often lasted ~until the early hours of the morning prior to an operator making an appearance.

In the " cheating hearing, the operators were called as the witnesses of the intervenors (the Aamodts and Three Mile Island Alert (TMIA)). The judge ordered the witnesses to be sequestered at the request of the intervenors. Further, the judge ordered a confidentiality agreement whereby the identity of the employees were protected in exchange for forthright testimony.

An attorney, Mr. McBride of LeBEOUF et al., appeared in behalf of his client, operator "O", who had been identified by the NRC as having cheated extensively on a NRC 1icensing examination. An attorney from KILLIAN & GEPIIART appeared in behalf of his client, operator "I' at a deposition.

Ilowever, the judge discouraged the participation of the attorneys in the conduct of the hearing.

8603200307 860314 PDR G ADOCK 05000320 PDR

_2-I was, therefore, surprised by Ms. Gottlieb's description of her interface with the employees. We had been told in the hearing that Ms. Gottlieb's job was to transport the employees from TMI to the hearing. room when they were called to appear as witnesses.

On December 9, 1981, an operator, "P", answered a question in a way which caused'me to bel {cve that I could show that the sequestration Order had been broken. I asked "P" whether he had been informed of another witness's testimony, that of William Ward, an NRC investigator.

"P" answered that he had been informed. I then asked who had informed him. He indicated that Ms. Gottlieb had.

GPUN's senior attorney, Ernest Blake, immediately motioned to have a discussion of this matter off the record.

The motion was granted.

4 Mr. Blake provided an explanation. The judge was satisfied that GPUN's attorneys needed to inform "P" and another witness "DD" in order to question Mr. Ward.

The judge then asked Ms. Gottlieb whether she had prepared any other operators. The judge specifically nEmed two operators "G" and "H" whom the judge found difficult to question. Ms. Gottlieb hesitated. Mr. Blake leaned toward her and whispered "No". Ms. Gottlieb then replied "No". I was shocked.

Mr. Blake stated that he would object to further questioning of "P" concerning his preparation to testify.

The judge stated that he would have to overrule. Then the i l

l l

l t

Judge asked me to refrain from this line of questioning since it would. result in delay.

I felt compelled to follow the judge's recommendation.

Ilowever, af ter consulting an attorney that evening, I

, returned the next day with Norman O. Aamodt who made a motion for a stay of the hearing to examine the integrity 4

of the hearing. We anticipated that the judge would grant the motion and question the operators in his chamber. We-

' believed that the judge would then learn about the extensive coaching Ms. Gottlieb had revealed to me. We anticipated that any other way would have led to vigorous denials by Ms. Gottlieb and Mr. Blake, embarrassment to us, and the end of the issue.

The judge denied our motion. Mr. Blake indicated that he would object to any questioning of the witness "DD" during his appearance that day concerning what preparation GPUN attorneys had given him. "DD" was the other witness l

Mr. Blake admitted had been informed of Mr. Ward's testimony.

The judge. stated that he would overrule Mr. Blake's objection. The judge then asked that.we not pursue the attorneys' preparation of the witness.

Since it was the last planned day of the hearing, and

- the judge had plans to leave immediately for France, we

! did not pursue the attorneys' preparation of "DD". witness.

Some weeks later, after struggling with the difficult l record of the proceeding, I made a motion for reconsideration of our motion for an examination of the integrity of the 4

hearing. That motion was also denied.

l

! l' i

{

l - -, . - . . . . _ _ - - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ ,_ _ ___ , ,, _

~~.' .

. . _4-I feit that I had.done all that I could do in the

" cheating hearing" to bring the matter of interference by GPUN's attorneys to the attention of the judge.

I am reluctant to bring the matter forward because of possible implications for Ms. Gottlieb. She.was, I believe, on her first professional assignment at the time of the

" cheating hearing". I do not believe that she felt that she was acting unethically by " coaching" the operators.

I believe that she was overwhelmed when she repeated Mr. Blake's "No" to the judge. Mr. Blake was her supervisor and the senior attorney on the assignment. Ms. Got tl ieb appeared extremely uncomfortable and remorseful: I believe that she is no longer with the firm she was then representing, SifAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE.

However, I feel compelled at this time to provide this 4

affidavit in view of Mr. Blake's participation in the leak rate inquiry where the purpose is similar to that of the " cheating hearing" and where the attorneys for the employees claim that the GPU companies make no attempt to influence the employees' testimony.

I attest that all of the above is my most accurate recollection of the related events. -

% <L #1 .

/

Marjorie M. Aamodt Dat /

1

l.'

. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 00LMETE0 Before the Presiding Board W MAR 18 P1 :26 In the Matter of )

E OFFici uu . ~

INQUIRY INTO ) Docket No DOCM11mG 4 51 - [~t.;

TilREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 ) BRANCW LEAK RATE FALSIFICATION )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify.that copics of MOTION FOR DISMISSAL 0F EMPLOYEES' ATTORNEYS, dated March 14, 1986, were served upon the following persons by deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid, today:

Chief, Docketing & Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Washington, D.C. 20555 James 13. Burns, Esq.

Isham, Lincoln & Beale Presiding Board, the lionorables 3 First National Plaza i James L. Kelley, Chairman Suite S200 Glenn O. Bright Chicago, IL 60602 Jerry R. Kline Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Michael W. Maupin U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission llunton & Williams Washington, D.C. 20555 707 E. Main St.

P.O. Box 1535 Jack R. Goldberg, Esq. Richmond, VA 23212 Mary Wagner, Esa.

Office of the Executive Legal Director- Marvin I, Lewis U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 6504 Bradford Terrace Washington, D.C. 20555 Philadelphia, PA 19149

/

Ernest L. Blake, Esq.

Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge -

a jilrie M. Amdt 11 g n DC bO36 March 14, 1986 liarry II. Voigt, Esq.

LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae i 1333 New llampshire Ave. , N. / W.

Suite 1100 Washington, D.C. 20036 Smith B. Gephart, Esq.

Killian & Gephart 216-218 Pine Street I

Box 886 liarrisburg, PA 17108

_ ,,. _- _ - .. . . . . _ _ , _ - - . . - . . . . _ . , - . .