ML20205H990
| ML20205H990 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 01/23/1986 |
| From: | SUSQUEHANNA VALLEY ALLIANCE, LANCASTER, PA |
| To: | NRC |
| References | |
| CON-#186-879 RA-EW, NUDOCS 8601300065 | |
| Download: ML20205H990 (3) | |
Text
,n9gh yf -
N@
Sus channa\\)alloj Alliance g gg[mm $
J.0.
ox tol2.~fancasta,'R11604 (71 JAfl20
'/
)
(110 39f-2782
~~
Ja:d*
January 23th.1986.
e. q,./ s f
'/
'I U U' Dear Sir' E'a y &.pWNb (?A E W.
1 This is a response to the Commission's invitation for submissions from interested parties concerning the possible reinstatement of Robert Arnold and Edward Wallace to responsible positions at Three Mile Island, Unit I.
The Susquehanna Valley Alliance objects to any act which may lead to the reinstatement of Robert Arnolei and Edward Wallace, and therefore the issuance of an order lifting the notification requirement imposed in CLi-85-2.
The Commissioners' order, CLI-85-19 states that the issue of intentional data falsification primarily by Robert Arnold and Edward Wallace is not significant to TMI restart because these two individuals are no longer associated with TMI activities.
If these two individuals are reinstated ~ and resume activities at TMI it would fellow that any knowledge of falsification of information in the December.5th.I979 response to the NRC's October 25th.1979 Notice of Violation would be significant again.
On December 13th. Frances Skolnick and Doris Robb visited the NRC office at which time Chairman Palladino assured them beyond 8601300065gpha9 PDR ADOCK PDR
E *l.* 5
/
pO.quhannWalh Alliance Sus 3
6ox 1012. fancasterl)Al%04 UU) 39t-2782 a doubt that the management at TM1 I was different from the management during previous operations at Unit II.
A new management, we were assured meant a safer plant.
If old management is reinstated, our fears of an 1asafe plant are only further confirmed.
In the order CLI-85-19, the Commission stated that it is not aware of any information implicatins Arnold in the TMI II leak rate falsifications and that the US Attorney specifically cleared Acnold.
We fully agree with Commissiorier's Asselstine's statement,
" Relying solely on a statement by the US Attorney at a court hearing on a bargained plea agreement is not valid justification for ignoring management responsibilities for the leak rate falsification".
Arncid's alleged dishonesty has never been fully investigated by the Commission which is precisely why it lacks the awareness of information implicating him.
The problem is compounded with the institution of another hearing to develop facts about the falsification issue and from which Arnold, because of his dubious and premature exemption by US Attorney David Queen,-dor not have to appear.
Furthermore how can the, Commission fear du cation of the work of the Grand Jury, when the issue was dismiss.
before it could be full:.
explored.
w p0.quhann2Nah Alliana Sus 3
oox 10ll Lancasterl)A11604 On) 3H-2782 The Commission has no idea upon which information the-US Attorney based his conclusions.
How can it be assumed that a result has been reached when the Commission is not aware of the information as it has never conducted its own investigation of the Harold Hartman allegations?
Even if Arnold could be absolved of blame in the false statement to the NRC, he is responsible for actions on the part of all subordinates.
The reponsibility for the damage caused to their names, reputation and professional work lies not with the NRC but with the two individuals involved.
Lastly, we agree with Commissioner Bernthal's view on CL1-85-19, in which he places emphasis on Arnold's past implications
'his matter should also'be T
in-the harrassment of Richard Parks.
given further attention before possible reinstatement-of Arnold or pr' ion to a lifting of the notification order.
If the NRC allows the reinstatement of Arnold and Wallace without the appropriate investigations, public confidence in the NRC's ability to regulate the nuclear power industry, will~be further eroded.
Yours Sincerely,
__.