ML20140E496
| ML20140E496 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 03/26/1986 |
| From: | Bright G, Kelley J, Kline J Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | AAMODTS, LEWIS, M. |
| References | |
| CON-#186-526, CON-#186-576 86-519-02-SP, 86-519-2-SP, LRP, NUDOCS 8603280012 | |
| Download: ML20140E496 (20) | |
Text
.
9 4 6%
/
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Dggf NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Presiding Board.W MAR 27 P12:04 James L. -Kelley, Chaiman Glenn 0. Bright
[0bO'b'I. d'A"u Jerry R. Kline BRANCH M MAR 27 ;99g
)
In the Matter of Docket No. LRP INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2
)
ASLBP No. 86-519-02 SP LEAK RATE DATA FALSIFICATION
)
)
March 26, 1986 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruling on Petitions to Intervene, Confirming Certain Procedural Matters and Addressing Motion for Dismissal of Employees' Attorneys)
I.
Petitions to Intervene.
A.
Introduction. Petitions to Intervene from Marjorie M. and Noman 0. Aamodt ("the Aamodts") and from Marvin I. Lewis are pending before the Board. The Numerous Employees filed oppositions to these petitions. We initially questioned whether these petitions met the standards for intervention in this proceeding and we called for further information in our Memorandum and Order of February 14, 1986. Written responses were subsequently received from the Aamodts and Mr. Lewis.
In addition, Mrs. Aamodt attended the prehearing conference on March 7, 1986 and spoke to her entitlement to intervention.
k[
Do$
0 G
o
. B. " Interest in the Proceeding. Under the Commission's Order of December 18,1985,. p. 7, a person seeking party status must demonstrate an " interest" in this proceeding and show how that interest may be affected. As we understand it, this interest requirement is akin to.the traditional " standing" requirement applicable to intervention in licensing proceedings.
See Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station), 18 NRC 327, 332 (1983). Thus, it is not sufficient -
that a petitioner for intervention has an intellectual ~ interest in the subject matter of this inquiry. Something more is required -- a personal stake in the. outcome, a. realistic prospect of actual injury --
that sets the petitioner apart from any other citizen of the United States. The personal stakes of the parties we have admitted are clear and substantial. See Memorandum and O'rder of February 14, 1980, p. 2.
The " interests" asserted by the Aamodts and Mr. Lewis are comparatively tenuous.
The Aamodts initially claimed that "anyone who resides, works or visits near any nuclear facility" has an interest sufficient to intervene in the proceeding. Aamodt Petition dated January 27, 1986, p.1. -The' apparent premise underlying this claim is that persons l
involved in leak rate falsification may survive scrutiny in this inquiry (without the petitioner's participation), eventually end up operating a reactor somewhere in the United States, and endanger the petitioner. We reject this premise because it effectively reads the interest requirement out of the Commission's Order.
l l
.=-
. Mr. Lewis and the Aamodts (in the alternative) claim residence in Pennsylvania and proximity to operating reactors at TMI, Peach Bottom and Limerick.
In this regard, the following colloquy occurred at the prehearing conference between the Chairman and Mrs. Aamodt:
Judge Kelley: Some of the parties involved here... are currently employees of GPU and some, I believe, work at TMI.
But they can't work on TMI-1, at least as operators, until this is resolved.
i
' Are you expressing a concern ~ that if you don't participate, this proceeding might not arrive at the.right result? 'And then someone who really did falsify leak rates would go back to work at TMI?
Ns. Aamodt: At TMI, Limerick, Peachbottom or any of'the other nuclear power plants in the vicinity of our interest. And I think there's a very good chance of that.
I don't see where my interests could.be represented. Tr. 47-48.
=
Under this theory of " interest" there' is at least some geographical nexus between the petitioners and the subject of this inquiry.- It is not unlikely that operators who participate or appear in this hearing, most of whom now live in Pennsylvania, may later wish to work as operators at TMI-1 or other Pennsylvania reactors.
The Board concludes that Mr. Lewis and the Aamodts.have made a minimally acceptable showing on the_" interest" standard. We adopt a low threshold-for that standard in this legislative inquiry because we think it less significant than the " contribution" standard, to which we now turn.
c
. C.
Contribution to the Record. Under the Commission's Order (p. 7), a petitioner for intervention must show how he or she " expects to contribute to the development of an adequate record" and the Board must determine that the petitioner "will likely contribute to development of the record." Neither the Aamodts or Mr. Lewis claim any direct personal knowledge about leak rate falsification. Presumably only the employees have such knowledge. Apart from that factor, for the reasons that follow we believe that the Aamodts have demonstrated a sufficient ability to contribute to the record and that Mr. Lewis has-not.
The Aamodts were active participants in various aspects of. the TMI Restart proceeding. -Among other matters, they have urged consideration of the leak rate falsification questioh.
In addition to supplementing their initial petition to intervene, Mrs. Aamodt attended the prehearing conference and demonstrated an understanding of what this inquiry is (and is not) about. She is familiar with the technical background on leak rates, including the Faegre & Benson report, and with some of the interview material. See Tr. 49-52.
In short, the Aamodts' combination of background on leak rate matters and experience with NRC proceedings-make it likely that they can contribute to this proceeding. Their showing on the contribution standard compensates for their marginal l
l l
l l
l
\\
c e showing on the relatively less important " interest" standard. Mr. and Mrs. Aamodt are admitted as parties.
Mr. Lewis did not demonstrate in his original petition or in his response to our initial questions that he "will likely contribute to development of an adequate record." His participation in the TMI Restart proceeding was not extensive. Mr. Lewis' papers are somewhat convoluted and difficult to understand. However, his principal stress is on current safety issues, such as his claim that "much of 'the methods used to provide leak rate falsification is still in use' and endangers TMI-1 with another major accident." Response, p. 4.
He states that the " subject" of this proceeding is " danger from hydrogen" which he views as a " presently unanalyzed danger to the containment integrity." - Petition, p. 2.
This inquiry is retrospective; it will not address any current safety issues at TMI-I or anywhere else. As the Comission stated:
On March 19, 1986, the Aamodts filed a Response to the Numerous Employees' objections to their intervention. We have decided that the balance of those objections and responses favors admission of the Aamodts as parties. The Aamondts' Response includes a groundless and intemperate attack on Counsel for the Numerous Employees, culminating.in a request that they be excluded from the proceeding "on grounds of contempt." Aamodt Response, p. 9.
See Aamodt Response at p. 2, line 8; p. 5, lines 1-3 and note 5, line 1.
See also Tr. 48, lines 6-11. There is no basis in the present record for any claim that Counsel for the. Numerous Employees or any other counsel or party has shown contempt for the Board or, with the exception of the Aamodts' unnecessarily strident language in their March 19, 1936 Response, acted in anything but a i
(Footnote Continued) i I
t
o The purpose of this hearing is to develop the facts surrounding the leak rate falsifications that occurred at TMI-2 from February 2, 1978 (the date TMI-2 received its operating license) until March 28, 1979, in sufficient detail to determine the involvement of any individual who may now work, or in the future work, at a nuclear facility licensed by the Consnission.
Although Mr. Lewis expresses concern that perpetrators of leak rate falsification be exposed, he does not indicate how he would assist the Board in that principal' purpose of the hearing. Response, p. 3.
To be sure, Mr. Lewis' papers indicate some knowledge of technical aspects of leak rate testing. However, technical issues will be secondary in this case and we expect to develop an adequate technical record from the NRC
~
Staff Report, the Stier Report, the Faegre & Benson Report, and qualified witnesses. Were' we to admit Mr. Lewis, we expect that his apparent interest in matters either marginal to or outside.the scope of this inquiry would subtract more from his ability to contribute than his technical information would add. Mr. Lewis' petition to intervene as a party is denied.
We ask Mr. Lewis to provide the Board with information he has concerning leak rates, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 9 2.715(a), so that the NRC Staff can determine whether it indicates current safety concerns.
l l
\\
(FootnoteContinued) professional manner.
In the future, we expect the Aamodts to refrain from intemperate attacks on other counsel or parties.
1
, D.
Other Organizations Referred to by the Aamodts. The original.
Aamodt petition dated January 27,1985(butmailedout-of-timeon February 8, 1986 -- which we were willing to overlook) was captioned as the "Aamodt Petition" and used the pronoun "we", but was signed only by Marjorie M. Aamodt. The "Aamodt Response" of March 3, 1986 was filed on behalf of both Nonnan 0. Aamodt and Marjorie M. Aamodt and we have admitted both as' parties. We note that both Aamodts participated as party-intervenors in the TMI Restart proceeding.
The Aamodt Response of March 3,1986 states that "[m]any members of the organization, Susquehanna Valley Alliance of Lancaster Pennsylvania, and other members of the public who reside within 10 and 20 miles of TMI and other nuclear power plants are represented by the Aamodts." Aamodt Response, p. 3.
This statement was made in the context of the Aamodts'
" interest" in the proceeding. We did not understand it as-a separate petition for intervention for the Susquehanna Valley organization ~or anyone else.
If it was so intended, it is denied for untimeliness and for failure to show ability to contribute to this proceeding by anyone but the'Aamodts.
On March 13, 1986, the Aamodts filed an " Amendment for Petition for Leave to Intervene" to show that they represent the Comittee on Health Aspects and Management of Nuclear Power" of Lake Placid, N.Y.
As in the case of the Susquehanna Valley organization, it is unclear to us whether this pleading seeks separate party status for the Lake Placid committee.
If so, it must be denied for untimeliness (for which no excuse is 1
. proffered) and for failure to demonstrate ability to contribute.
If the Aamodts merely wish to reflect that certain organizations and individuals are supporting them, the Board has no objection to that.
It must be clearly understood, however, that such other organizations and individuals do not have party status'or any' separate right to participate in this proceeding.
II. Procedural Matters Introduction. Consensus was reached at the March 7 prehearing conference on a number of procedural matters which need not be repeated here. Pursuant to paragraph C 5(a) of the Commission's Order, the Board has the initial responsibility to provide a list of proposed witnesses, subject to objections and additional suggestions by the parties. The Board also indicated that it would propose a list of documents for inclusion in the record, again subject to party objections or proposed supplementaticn. Tr. 26-31. Finally, the parties (except for the Aamodts) indicated their willingness to compile a master list of prior statements of persons involved in leak rate matters and to assemble copies of statements they propose to offer in the inquiry. Tr. 26-31.
Further details on these matters follow.
e
-g-A.
Proposed Witnesses. Attachment A hereto is a " List of Proposed Board Witnesses," with an' indication of each witness' area or areas of testimony. At the Board's request, the Staff will contact each proposed witness (except the employee parties) and determine their general willingness and availability to testify.
B.
Proposed Documentary Record. Attachment B hereto is a " List of Documents Proposed for the Initial Record." Except as noted, the Board believes that~ these documents, or at least major portions of them, are particularly significant to the inquiry. We think it important to specify these documents at this stage so that the parties can be on notice of the materials we intend to consider and to prepare any comments or rebuttals they may wish to'make.
In the course of the hearing, the Board or the parties may propose other documents for inclusion in the record.
On the one hand, in the Board's judgment this list is relatively broad and inclusive; we do not expect to focus in depth on all this voluminous material. On the other hand, we wish to make clear that this list does not include all available documents having anything to do with leak rates. Specifically, we have not listed some NRC Staff documents which we believe are cumulative or only marginally relevant to tne issues in this inquiry. Many of these documents are available in the public record of the TMI Restart proceeding, i
f
g
. C.
Objections or Additions to Proposed Witnesses or Documents.
The timing for such objections or additions is necessarily affected by the availability of the NRC Staff and Office of Investigations Reports on leak rates. As the Board indicated at the prehearing conference, those reports appear to be central to this inquiry. Tr. 14-17. -As this Memorandum and Order issues, we are advised that thost reports are still in the NRC internal review process.
Final lists of wits sses and documents cannot be developed until the Staff /0I Reports are available.
Nevertheless, some progress can be made in the meantime.
The unavailability of the Staff /0I Reports should not affect designation of technical witnesses. Therefore,-any objections or suggested additions the parties may.have to the proposed technical
~
witnesses (numbers 1 through 3) shall 'be served by Apri1 18,1986. A subsequent deadline will be set for objections or additions to the list of non-technical witnesses after the Staff /01 Reports are.available.
As to documents for the record, the parties should be in a position to make most or-all of their objections or. suggested additions at this time. Therefore, all such objections or additions that are apparent on I
l the basis of presently available information shall be filed by April 18, 1986. After the Staff /0I Reports are available, there will be a further brief opportunity for objections or proposed additions that could not have been advanced earlier.
1 Any objections to the Board's proposed witnesses or documents may i
be brief and need not include extended legal discussion.
(
~.
~.
3
U
'4
.e D.
Prior Statements. Discussion at the prehearing conferenc'e.
~
produced general agreement (except from the A'amodts) on a. procedure for producing a master list of prior statements of participants in. leak rate testing and designations of statements one or more parties propose to offer. The steps in this procedure would be:
1.
Lead Counsel would produce a master list, starting perhaps.with the Stier list in Volume 6 and including their files. _ Judgments would be made as to whether a statement primarily concerned leak rates or other matters. List compilation would be on a "best efforts" basis.-
2.
Lead counsel would designate a smaller list of statements they propose to offer (for evidence, impeachment or any other purpose) in the proceeding and provide copies and the master list to other parties.
3.
The other parties would (a) stipulate or object to the lead counsel's master list and desigria.ted statements and/or (b) add to the master list and/or designate other statements.
4.
The parties would first attempt to negotiate any disagreements and then bring any unresolved matters to the Board for resolution.
5.
The Board may then rule on disagreements over proposed use of prior statements or it may defer such rulings until the hearing on a case-by-case basis. On notice and prior opportunity for comments by the parties, the Board may consider prior statements other than those proposed by the' parties or included on the master list.
It appears that Counsel for the Numerous Employees are.in the best position to serve as lead counsel. We ask them to do so, and to attempt to complete steps 1 and 2 by April 18, 1986. We expect that. steps 3 and 4 could be completed by April 30. The Board is prepared to arrange a telephone conference on request of any party to facilitate this process..
. In their " Motion for Dismissal of Employees Attorneys" (discussed below) the Aamodts urge that " guarantees of immunity from prior testimony should be provided to all non-supervisory employees." In the same motion, the Aamodts state that:
Some of the employees to be investigated are executives in the indicted company or sister companies. Others are intermediate supervisors, and others are operators or auxiliary operators. Some of these employees are more expendable to the company than are others. The executives are in the best position to have their interests placed before those of other employees with the companies in control of the attorneys.
We remind the Aamodts that the Comission has excluded a number of executive level personnel of Met Ed and GPUN (as successor) from the scope of this inquiry. Order at pp. 3-4.
At the present time, Mr. John Herbein is the only former Met Ed exec'utive level person participating-1 as a party in this inquiry. This proceeding is to focus primarily, not on executive involvement, but on leak rate falsifications made by f
operating level employees. We suggest that the Aamodts reconsider their position on prior statements in light of these observations and their stated desire to determine individual responsibility for leak rate l
falsifications.-
(
l E.
Grand Jury Records. Mrs. Aamodt expressed the view that our l
consideration of prior statements would be a waste of time. Tr. 35.
I She thought that we should be pursuing information from the Department i
e
-.M
w
.. of Justice and from the records of.the Grand Jury proceedings in United States v. Metropolitan Edison Co., Crim. No. 83-00188. Tr. 35-36, 51-52.
It seems unlikely to us that the Justice Department would have relevant infonnation apart from that which it presented to the Grand l
Jury. Nevertheless', we will determine whether that is the case and i
advise the parties. As to.the Grand Jury records, as we read Judge Rambo's Memorandum of June 25, 1984, a new motion by the NRC to seek access to those records before attempting to complete this inquiry on the basis of available information would be denied as premature. Judge Rambo stated that:
In the interest of protecting both the integrity of the grand jury c
system and responding to the purported needs of the public (although this court is not admit. ting that disclosure is the most productive and fitting way to meeting these needs), this court suggests that the Nuclear Regulatory Comission initiate its own investigation of these employees pursuant to its own investigative and subpoena powers. We further suggest that the Nuclear Regulatory Comission analyze, collate and evaluate the documents and records already in its possession or obtainable from j
Metropolitan Edison Company. When and if, as a. result of the knowledge gained in this investigation, the NRC is able to j
formulate and compose a carefully tailored request for disclosure i
of the records which is supported by a particularized showing of j
the kind of extraordinary and compelling need discussed throughout this memorandum, the Nuclear Regulatory Comission should i
l re-petition this' court. Memorandum, p. 6.
l l
The prior investigative process Judge Rambo suggested is now underway in j
i this inquiry.
It remains to b.e seen whether, at the conclusion of hearings in this inquiry, there will be significant gaps in the record and reason to believe that they could be filled by selective access to j
the Grand Jury's records. Should that happen, the Board may ask the I
i
-. Commission to present a " carefully tailored request for disclosure of the records."
l F.
Time Limits, Service and Motions.
It was pointed out at the prehearing conference (Tr. 73-74) that certain generally applicable time limits and procedures prescribed in theNRCRulesofPracticearetechnicallyinapplicableinthisiNquiry by virtue of paragraph C5 of the Consission's December 18 Order.
It appears to the Board that selective adoption of certain of those rules would provide helpful guidance to the parties. Accordingly, the parties are directed to follow ~the procedures prescribed by 10 C.F.R. 1 2.710 (computation of time), i 2.711 (extension and reduction of time limits),
9 2.712 (service of papers, methods, p' roof) and 5 2.730(a)-(e)
(motions), unless some different procedure or time limit is prescribed by the Board in a particular instance.
{
III. Representation Arrangements of Counsel i
t In our Memorandum and Order of February 14, 1986, pp. 10-13, we posed'a series of questions to counsel representing the numerous l
employees concerning.their arrangements for representation to avoid potential ~ conflicts of interest. Counsel for those employees as well as counsel for two separately represented employees responded by describing
4 15 such arrangements in detail. 1 The Board reviewed those submissions and stated on the record at the prehearing conference that they "are appropriate to the circumstances of this case and meet generally applicable standards...."
Tr. 8-9.
Mrs. Aamodt stated at the conference that she had not received copies of these submissions and sought leave to file connents on them, which was granted.
l On March 14, 1986, the Aamodts filed a " Motion for Dismissal of Employees' Attorneys" alleging on various' grounds that the arrangements for employee representation are not acceptable and requesting that the 1
Board " order the attorneys for the employees dismissed and the employees i
advised to seek their own attorneys." Our preliminary review of this
[
motion indicates that the Aamodts have misconceived the standards applicable to questions of representa't' ion and payment of counsel.
In I
our Memorandum and Order of February 14, 1986, we stated that:
The proceeding should be conducted in confonnity with widely recognized principles governing such representation.
See,e.g_.,
American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct 1.7(b) i and 5.4(c).
i The cited rules provide that:
I
~
Numerous Employees Response of March 3, 1986, pp. 10-15 and attachments; Comments of Gary P. Miller dated March 3, 1986, pp.
6-7 and attached affidavit of Michael W. Maupin; Letter to the l
Board dated March 3, 1986 from James B. Burns.
t
't c,,,., -
--y,,-----,-.9-,-w-,,,--...,.,,,
, _ _ ~, -.,,
em..,.-ev
.,,-.,.r--,,.7,y..-,,-,,.--,,,~
-,,w.,,.-
-,w,,
,-+~wr-,,.
g
, RULE 1.7 CONFLICT OF INTEREST: GENERAL RULE (b) A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client may be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client or to a third person, or by the lawyer's own interests, unless:
(1) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not be adversely affected; and (2) the client consents after consultation. When representation of multiple clients in a single matter is undertaken, the consultation shall include explanation of the implications of the common representation and the advantages and risks involved.
The comment to this rule states that:
"If such a conflict arises after representation has been undertaken, the lawyer should withdraw from the representation."
RULE 5.4 PROFESSIONAL INDEP.ENDENCE OF A LAWYER-(c) A lawyer shall not permit a person who recommends, employs, or pays the lawyer to render legal services for another to direct or regulate the lawyer's professional judgment in rendering such legal services.
These rules make it clear that there is.nothing inherently wrong with one lawyer representing several clients in one proceeding, or with a lawyer's fees being paid by someone other than the c.lient, so long as the specifics are disclosed to the Presiding Board and appropriate steps are taken to ensure independent representation. The Board continues to believe that the arrangements in this inquiry, as specifically described by counsel, comply with these rules and that, in the absence of some unusual factual circumstance, that should be the end of the matter.
While those arrangements may not be ideal, it seems likely to us that in
.s t their absence many of the employees with important interests at stake in this inquiry would not be represented by counsel at all.
The Aamodt motion does not cite the quoted rules or any other recognized principles governing representation by counsel. 2 Indeed, their only citation of judicial authority is to Judge Rambo's Memorandum of April 8,1981 which rejected an attempt to disqualify Counsel for the Numerous Employees in the grand jury proceeding, presumably under the same representation arrangements. We must accept or reject the arrangements for counsel involved here on the basis of fair and ascertainable standards, not merely one party's personal ideas of
~
propriety. Should the Aamodts' wish to press this motion, they are to supplement it with an explanation of how, in their view, the present arrangements for counsel conflict with' the Rules of Professional Conduct cited above (or other principles generally accepted by the courts),
including specific reference to particulars of those strangements. We would be particularly interestied in any judicial decisions (we know of none) indicating that the counsel arrangements in this inquiry are not acceptable, or an opinion of counsel experienced in questions of this nature. Such an explanation shall be served by April 11, 1986.
If not 2
The ABA Model Rules do not have the force of law but they are widely followed in the Codes of Professional conduct of various jurisdictions. See, e.g., Code of Maryland, Rules, Appendix F.
Judicial decisions, such as those cited in our February 14 Order, tend to rely on the same principles.
.~
O
, so served, the " Motion for Dismissal of Employees' Attorneys" will be dismissed.
Should the Aamodts timely file the explanation required by the preceding paragraph, counsel for the other parties shall serve responses to it and, as applicable to them, other aspects of the motion by April 25, 1986.
In that regard, the Board does not consider it practical or necessary to delve in depth into matters that may have occurred in the past in other cases unrelated to leak rate falsification, such as the f
matters related in Mrs. Aamodt's affidavit, Attachment 2 of the motion.
If those matters were addressed on the record at that time, a copy of the relevant portion of the record may suffice.
THE PRESIDING BOARD C-w DQ Jags L. Kelley, Chairman p' l
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE l
A, b W
Glenn O. Bright
/
l ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE A'/L i
- rry R. Klin'e
- DMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
?
March 26,1986, Bethesda, Maryland.
Attachments:
Proposed Witness List Proposed Document List i
1
u a
Attachment A LIST OF PROPOSED BOARD WITNESSES 1.
Jared S. Wermiel, Donald C. Kirkpatrick (NRC Staff witnesses on the technical aspects of leak rate testing, including the licensing basis for leak rate testing technical specifications, leak rate testing procedures, phenomena which can affect the results of a leak rate test (e.g., water additions, hydrogen additions, unstable plant conditions), the TMI-2 leak rate testing technical specifications and related requirements during the relevant time period, and the errors associated with the TMI-2 leak rate test itself.)
2.
Winthrop A. Rockwell (Faegre & Benson Report)
- 3.
Edwin H. Stier (Stier Report)
- 4.
William T. Russell, Robert A. Capra, (Staff /01 Reports) 5.
Individual Parties:
Charles D. Adams Gregory R. Hitz, Sr.
Raymond R. Booher Kenneth R. Hoyt John A. Brumer Theodore F. Illjes Kenneth P. Bryan
' John.J. Kidwell Joseph J. Chwastyk George A. Kunder Mark S. Coleman Walter J. Marshall Williair T. Conaway Hugh A. McGovern Joseph 3. Congdon Brian A. Mehler Craig C. Faust Charles F. Mell James R. Floyd Adam W. Miller Edward R. Frederick.
Gary P. Miller Leonard P. Germer Frederick J. Scheimann Carl L. Guthrie Bernard G. Smith John G. Herbein William H. Zewe 6.
Other individuals interviewed by Staff /01 may be added after release of the Staff /01 Reports.
Witnesses Rockwell and Stier may wish to be accompanied by others having more specialized knowledge of these reports.
If so, we will promptly advise the parties of their names and areas of expertise.
i e
Attachment B LIST OF DOCUMENTS PROPOSED FOR THE INITIAL RECORD
- 1. TMI-2 Reactor Coolant Inventory Balance Testing, Prepared for GPU Nuclear Corp. by Edwin H. Stier, September 5,1985, all volumes.
- 2. Results of Faegre & Benson Investigation of Allegations of Harold W. Hartman, Jr. Concerning Three Mile Island Unit 2, September 17, 1980, all volumes.
- 3. Memorandum from Victor Stello, Jr., Acting Executive Director of Operations, to Commissioners, March
, 1986: Results of NRR's Investigation and Evaluation of Ten ETcensed operators involved in TMI-2 Preaccident Leak Rate Testing Irregularities, including attachments and supporting documents.
- 4. Office of Investigations Report of Investigation Leak Rate Falsifications, ir.cluding all attachments.
- 5. Memorandum from William T. Russell to Harold R. Denton, September 20, 1985: Stier Report on TMI-2 Leak Rate Testing.
- 6. Board Notification (BN-84-143) TMI-1 Restart Hearing: Release of 01 Investigation Report on Alleged Falsification of TMI-2 Leak Rate Surveillance Test Data (OI Report 1-83-010).
- 7. Report of GPU Assessment Panel for Individuals Involved in TMI-2 Leak Rate Testing (in 1978-1979), January 6, 1986, including Appendices 1-5.
- 8. Memorandum from Robert A. Capra to James Van Vliet October 18, 1984: TMI-2 Leak Rate Analyses Data "Chung Report".
- ~
i Indicates documents which the Board does not believe are of primary
. significance for the resolution of the issues, but which may be relevant in limited aspects.
Indicates documents which have not yet been released to the public.
t I
- --