ML20155G582
| ML20155G582 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 05/03/1986 |
| From: | Aamodt M AAMODTS |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#286-064, CON-#286-64 LRP, NUDOCS 8605070023 | |
| Download: ML20155G582 (6) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
UNITED STATCS OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Presiding Board DOCKETED USNRC In the Matter of 3
- 86 Mfy.6 A10:57 INQUIRY INTO
)
Doc g No. LRP THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2
)
00CKDik,[ ' ' '
LEAK RATE FALSIFICATION
)
ggpf s
May 3, 1986 ERRATA, AAPODT SUPPLEMENT, APRIL 17, 1986 Herewith, Attachment 2, consisting of Transcript pages (26,910, 26,948 and 26,949),is provided.
The transcript is of the December 10, 1981 hearing day, the last day of the hearing of operators' cheating on examinations.
As can be seen on page 26,910, Mr. Blake objected to any questions concerning the employee's preparation for testifying. On pages 26,948-9, Mr. Aamodt engaged in some limited questioning concerning the employee's preparation by counsel. There it was established that Ms. Gottlieb had contacted this eQEoyee about another witnesses' testimony despite a sequestration order in effect and the judge's order that the employees appear without counsel as witnesses of the intervenors.
Although the judge accepted Mr. -
Blake's explanation that he needed to get information from the employee to question a prior witness, I know for a fact that GPU's lawyers prepared all the employees who testified, unbeknown to the judge and in defiance of the judge's order and by deceiving the judge. I believe that this matter is relevant to the instant proceeding where geS?NRP#ods T
3
1 2
the attorneys of the employees have assured the Board that GPU does not, nor never has, tried to influence the testimony of the employees.
These attorneys were representing employees at the time they appeared I
in the cheating hearing.
It seems unlikely that these attorneys were unaware that CPU lawyers were coaching the employees at that time..
Further a number of these employees were, quite clearly, coached to testify that their identical answers were the result of memorization rather than that the company allowed the employees to use each other's work during tests. As a result these employees' interests were severely jeopardized. One testified that cooperation on tests was his own idea. He was referred to a federal court for prosecution; others (whose explanation of memorization was too incredible) were reprimanded or forced, by public pressure, out of their jobs. The attorneys for the Numerous Employees in this hearing allowed clients to be victimized by the company. Having witnessed the sacrifice of their clients in the " cheating hearing", we find present assurances of no interference by CPU and no conflict of interest of the attorneys to be hallow and retf serving.
Re ectfully submitted,
\\
M al A..
~
i Marjorie M, Aamodt l
l May 3, 1986 l
l l
4 ama Opp) 26,910 I
1 CROSS EXAMINATION 2
BY 3R. ADLERs 3
Q Good af ternoon, M r. Husted.
Er name is Robert 4 Adler, and I represent the Commonwealth in this proceedino.
5 BR. BLAKEa Judge Hilhollin, there is one thing 4 that I might do bef ore we engage in cross examination, and 7 that is to, in view of Mr. Husted 's anticipated testimony, 1
l 8 shat I anticipate in the way of cross examination, and based l
9 on yesterday's testimony by a witness on a similar -- what to any be in a similar area, I as willing to stipulate that 11 with respect to Mr. Husted following Er. Ward's tentimony 12 when he appeared here, counsel informed Mr. Husted, like the
'J other individual, of the testimony of Er. Ward, and I will 14 stipelate that that was done.
15 It has already been referred to.
In any event, it 14 was referred to in the bench conference yesterday, and the 17 inference was to that today, but I as willing to stipulate 18 that to clear the air on it, and would object to further 19 inquiries or geestions into that area.
But I wast to make 20 that stipulation now to try to clear the air, and get ooing, 21 and I would ask for comments by the other parties to the 22 ext ent that that is not agreeable.
as J5DGE IILNOLLIN:
I did not hear the last few to words yes said, Nr. Blake.
28 NR. BLAKEs I said, to the extent it is not
26,948 1 tektes ses111ery -- shoe I see se teatracter la the 2 ace 11 cessed operator troisine groep, I administered a weet1T 3 essa.
I specificalir reca11 sereine secesse, het met derise 4 er fonetteeine as a 11eeeeed operater and lastracter.
I de 5 set rece11 over hevies sereed aerose of chestime er the e eesibilities of it.
s 7
JWDGE WI15 E LISs 914 vee seer see sayees eheettee 5 es se RSC eens?
9
?SE WITWESSs So, sir.
18 ST 99. &&BOWTa (Samant me 3 11 C
Did the ItE eeer diocess Ward's percepties of F*e tt aliepetien that yee seiteited infoseatise during the ter11 SSSBS emmef to 8
Be.
18 C
Did espees la the WBC ever dieseos We. Esse's to esseosts eith poef 17 8
The first I based of St. Seed's seassets see stee se I called and taited to Se. Settliet.
to 0
tes son pee es11449 3
I reteseed het esta.
h enlied se eed I see est se of er effteo, so I roteemed her es11.
m 0
When see thest 3
A I de est remester the speettia date.
as 0
Wes that ecoy roceett I de set rees11 the se st.1pelaties ser1y.
26,949 1
- 58. B&&EEs The etapelaties ses set with record to 3 time, tot it see the eventes shee Dr. Ward med othere, as I s resell it -- it see to the toterseales time betweee ehes Br.
4 Seed left the stead med one carried over os e sitsees estii S the most ear.
Red I se infereed by Es. estt11et it ses te e the sessaae bessee he noterese es e attoose.
7 FM WITWEN s It see esM As the enessee.
I eremester see.
It see Ss N to the esentes, aos writtee se etes pheme esseeps.
(
)
)
11 0
That see the faret time yee heard of it?
18 A
Yes.
. _... l SS 0
ene the Treastee Desmetoest ever seesesseese that se a emessante fee the taasesses esos est to sortainee to est 1
e for that ease, to peer base 3eepet
- 4 se A
Net orter to the Goteger one that I seesh.
- .a i
17 0
fe smet escues ese pose oestattestems essene se f
. t.e inteesse. teessee. set.e en. e,es e
, no.cose the me g
g e eene med the set esset
- ?
m a
ey poresse4 eartsegestaaet e
ee.neo. ese
.se..ee.
e t.et o.e,
.. eesset e
a I es est seessehens one essettee.
[
as 9
411 et the coe4&detes est fee the STTE eene.
Some
?y a feited sono setooeetes.
sofee, they seeld to eettified to J-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY qOMMISSION llef' ore the Presiding Iloa rd In the Matter of
)
)
INQUIRY INTO
)
Docket No. LRP l
THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2
)
l LEAK RATE FALSIFICATION
)
l 1
l CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that copies of ERRATA, AAMODT SUPPLEMENT, APRIL 17, 1986 and Attachment 2 (3 pages) were served on the following parties by U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid, today, May 3,1986 Chief, Docketing & Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
)
Washington, D.C.
20555
. James B.
Burns, Esq.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale Presiding Board, the Honorables 3 First National Plaza James L. Kelley, Chairman Suite 5200 5
Glenn O.
Bright
(.,
Chicago, IL 60602 s
Jerry R. Kline
' i,'
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel. Michael W.
Maupin U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ilunton & Williams Washington, D.C. 20555 707 E. Main St.
P.O.
Box 1535 l
Jack R. Goldberg, Esq.
Richmond, VA 23212 Nary Wagner, Esc.
Office of the Executive Legal Director-U.S. Nucicar Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Ernest L.
Blake, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge s
1800 M Street, N. W.
('gg 7,[
5 Washington, D.C. 20036 Miirjoi-ie M. Aamodt Harry H.,Voigt, Esq.
i
)
LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae my J. 1986 1333 New Hampshire Ave., N. / W.
Suite 1100 Washington, D.C.
20036 Smith B. Gephart, Esq.
Killian & Gephart 216-218 Pine Street Box 806 Ila rr i stm rg. l'A 17108
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _