ML20205L948
| ML20205L948 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 03/24/1987 |
| From: | Aamodt M, Aamodt N AAMODTS |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#287-2945 LRP, NUDOCS 8704020231 | |
| Download: ML20205L948 (30) | |
Text
-
.N
^
LNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGUIKIORY COPNISSION 90CNETED USNRC
_BEFORE 'INE PRESIDING BOARD
)
In t'.m Matter of
)
'87 MAR 30 Pl2 55
)
Docket No.
IJtP' INQUIRY Ilf!O 'IHREE MILE ISIAND IMIT 2
)
LEAK RA'!T DATA FALSIFICATIONS
}
March 24,198k-}[,._,,
AAMDIyr REQUEST FOR'.RELIE,F, his is concerning the matter of a question which the Aamodts proposed to the Board to be asked of James Floyd, a witness in the hearing. Se question, number 24 on a list of questions for Mr. Floyd, was not asked because the Board ruled in favor of objections of counsel for the Numerous Employees. Mr. McBride claimed that the question " violated an outstanding order of this Comission" and "would constitute a violation by her (Marjorie Aamodt) of a stipulation that she signed that led to the issuance of that order". Mr. McBride went so far as to request that all copies of the question be destroyed. 'Ihe Board resisted that request. Tr. 5008-9; 5034-5.
W e Aamodts were not at the hearing and could not oppose Mr. McBride's objection. Had they been present, they would have been unprepared to argue against him. They depended on their memory.that the stipulation of confident-iality, extended in the 'INI-Unit I restart hearing on cheating of operators on tests and examinations to protect the identity of the employees during the investigation, had expired.
Documentation has finally been located which establishes that the stipulation was only in effect for the duration of the 'IMI-1 restart proceedings. W e restart proceeding was formally concluded by the Ccamission in February 1986. A copy of the order of the Special Master, provided as, establishes the period the stipulation was in effect:
"for the duration of these proceedings".
8704020231 870324
-3 PDR ADOCK 05000320
])So7 G,
, Prior to the conclusion of the restart proceeding, the stipulation was modified, at the request of Messrs. McBride and Blake, to waiver the provision of confidentiality to James Floyd. R ese documents are provided at Attachment 2.
Then, on September 13, 1984, Mr. Blake moved to remove confidentiality of all operators with the exceptions of "0",
"W" and "YY".
D e Board granted the motion. Documentation is provided as Attachment 3.
Evidently, in the course of the publicity accorded Mr. Floyd's trial in Harrisburg, PA, two media stories identified "O" prior to lapse of his protection under the stipulation. Wese news articles are copied as Attachment 4 At the time our question was provided to the Board in this proceeding in November 1986, the stipulation was no longer in effect,and the confidentiality of the two persons named in the question had been valvered or stripped prior to the lapse of the stipulation.
We bring this matter to the Board for three reasons:
1.
The Board needs to correct the record of this proceeding to show that the Aamodts were not in violation of a Comission order or an agreement which they made. Mr. McBride's insinuations and accusations on the transcript of this proceeding (Tr. 5008-9; 5034-5) are untrue and denigrating to the Aamodts.
2.
Mr. McBride's fraud needs to be addressed as well as the implicit defrauding of this Board by Mr. Blake and other counsel present who were aware of the lapse of the stipulation and the waivers. See Attachment 3 (Service List). McBride deceitfully claimed that the stipulation was in effect; he withheld his knodedge of waivers he had initiated and agreed to and sought a Board ruling based on his fraudulent actions.
If McBride felt that he had any justification for protecting the identity of "0"
O O e
_y
,__-..._---__--.r-..
-_,______._,-,m
,y-
(for instance, if he was unsure about the period during which the stipulation was in effect - which is unlikely), he could have asked that "O's" name be deleted from the question. %is modification could have been made without
~
disturbing the thrust of the question. McBride had no justifica~ti'on for objecting to the question. In fact, the question was entirely appropriate.
Mr. McBride's objection on the basis of the protection of confidentiality of his clients and a Consission order in effect' that protected their confident-iality was merely a ruse to move this Board to reject question 24.
3.
We Board needs to cc treet its error in rejecting question 24.
Mr. Floyd's answer is relevant to the issue raised by the Numerous Employees (Memorandum of Law, January 23, 1987) concerning whether employees were legally bound to adhere to company procedures put in place to satisfy regula-tory requirements. The Board asked GPU to provide its opinion of the employees' position. GPU filed a response but avoided answering the Board's question by claiming that discussion of the employees' attitude was prematuro.
(GPU response, filed February 16, 1987, served on the Aamodts, March 13, 1987).
Absent an answer from GPU, Floyd's answer to question 24 would show GPU's attitude. Question 24 asked whether GPU continued to pay Floyd's legal expenses after he had been found guilty of violation company procedures for complying with NRC regulations. GPU is required by PA business codes to underwrite an employee's defense in a work-related issuo until such time as the employee is found quilty; then, the employee is obligated, if required, to repay the company.
If Floyd testified, as we believo he would have, that GPU continued to pay for his legal defense, GPU believed that Floyd's actions were not illegal. Cceuld GPU justify (with its Board of Directors) the expenditure of funds to defend illegal actions of an employee? Obviously, no.
6
_4_
4 Floyd's answer to question 24 should be sought and ir.corporated into the record of this proceeding. The question is restated with the deletion of the name of the shift supervisor to avoid any objection, no matter how inumaterial and because the identification of "O" was not needed to ask the question.
24.
IsittruethattheNRCfoundyouguiltyofrepresentingthework
~
of a shift supervisor as your responses on a requalification test for NRC licensing? Did GPU or any of its-subsidiaries pay for your legal representation in connection with your appearance before.the NRC on this matter or before the Federal court? Were you ever asked to repay GPU or any of its subsidiaries for their expenditures?
4.
We request that the Board order Mr. McBride to compensate the Aamodts for their expenses involved in this filing since the filing was necessitated by McBride's fraudulent conduct. If the board believes that it does not have the authority to do so, the Aamodts request certification of this matter to the Comission.
We move the Board to take the actions requested above.
Respectfully subnitted, F
i f
' Marjori6 M. Aamodt 0*
Ncrman O. Aamodt 1
March 24, 1987 e
-s nn_--,w-_--..,--.-.-_-----.--...---,,,--e-,-w---
o ATrAQ9ENT 1 (7 pages)
\\
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COW (ISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
DOCKET NO. 50-289
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
('Ihree Mile Island Nuclear
)
(Rastart)
Station, Unit 1)
)
(Raopened Proceeding)
ORDER It is hergby ordered by Gary L. Milhollin, Administrative Judge and Special Master that for the duration of these proceedings all parties signatory to the attached Stipulation will be bound thereby and subject thereto.
Any violatione of said Stipulation should be reported to Judge Milhollin, and may be dealt with in any manner by Judge Milhollin pursuant to the enforcement powers invested in him by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
Gary L. MLlhollin Administrative Judge and Special Master
e
. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA N,UCLEAR REGULATORY COMNISSION BEFORE Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Hatter of
)
DOCKET No. 50-289
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
)
(Restart)
(Three Mile island Nucicar
)
(Raopened Proceeding)
Station, Unit I)
)
}
STIPULATION The parties to this reopened proceeding, on their own behalf or by counsel, as indicated below, stipulate that 1.
With the additional information provided pursua9c to paragraph 3 below, it appears that the lettering system adopted by Licenses and used by the parties to date is s
capable of permitting an adequate evidentiary hearing on the issues in this proceeding and should be retained and used throughout this proceeding, including any appeals, except that the stipulation shall not pertain to the identity of j
any individual who has voluntarily agreed or hereafter agrees to make his/her identity known in this proceedin5 2.
A Protective Order should be issued requiring non-l disclosure of any namo of any person who is identified by letter rather than by name, should that person's name be disclosed during this proccoding, including any appeals.
3.
Subject to the Protective Order reforred to in
)
paragraph 2 above, Licenses shall provide to the Special
)
-n
-~vw-w--_.-,_y---
e
.me-ye.y-,w.m.m.ve--w_w-,-w.we.-
.r
-- - -m
Master, counsel for the NRC staff, counsel for the Commonwealth, Mrs. Aamodt and counsel for the Aamodes and the two undersigned representatives of THIA, a key which identifies by name and job titio all Licensee employees and ex-employees (excepting "YY") which heretofore have been designated by letter or number.
This key shall be provided exclusively for use by participants in this captioned proceeding before the Special Master and appeals therefrom.
The key provided shall be retained by the undersigned representatives quud counsel for their use and the use of those assisting them in the course of this proceeding.
In order to assure the effectiveness of this stipulation, no copies of the keys shall be made and their use by those other than the undersigned shall be restricted to the absolute minimum necessary for hearing preparation and for subsequent appeals.
Licensee further agrees to' drop the lettering system throughout the proceeding for all employees other than its past and present control room operators, shift foresen, shift
, supervisors, shif t technical advisors, and individual. "VV" and
' wit,h respect to these ' individuals, each individual's job classification will be identified.
Licensee further agrees I
to review all documents it has provided in the course of discovery and to provido as soon as possible to all participants in the proceedings, subject to the Protective Order referred to in paragraph 2 above, material (other than names and job classifications) which has been deleted, such as dates, in furtherance of the lettering system.
2 e
4.
If th:so parsens identificd in tho Licens 3's Icttering sys tem as "0", "W" and "W" (and such other.....,
persons as may be subsequently determined by the Special Master to merit an h camera proceeding for their testimony) are called to testify in this reopened proceeding, their testimony will be taken in, camera, without public notice, n
and at a place to be agreed on by the parties and the Special Master, so as to minimize risk of disclosure of their identities.
5.
When in, camera sessions of this proceeding are scheduled, the parties shall not disclose the fact, time and place of such sessions to anyone, before or during the -
session.
6.
Such h camera sessions will be conducted before Special Master M11ho111n.
7.
The testimony in the h camera sessions would
continue the use of the lettered system and the transcripts of in, camera sessions would be made available to the public without restriction.
8.
Should the name of any person who is identified by letter or by number in the Licensee's lettering system be disclosed during testimony of any j
witness, that person's name will be excised from the record and will not be disclosed by any party or the NRC staff.
l 9.
The NRC staff or any of its employees or j
subordinate bodies will not' disclose the name of any person i
l l
3
.....c.
identified by lottar in tho Lic nsco's lottoring system in use iri this proceedint; without the consent of that person.
10.
The individuals designated a s "0 ", "W" and "W" hereby waive any objections previously stated in this proceeding to further testimony in this proceeding by each of them, subject to the other provisions of this s tipula tion.
The involved individuals and the Licensee agree that they will withdraw their appeal of the Licensing Board's November 6,1981 decision, except for those portions of the opinion characterizing conduct of counsel.
Respectfully submitted, l
MGM M.chael F. McBride LeBOEUF, LAMB, LEIBY, & MacRAE 1333 New Hampshire Ave., N.W.
Suite 1100 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 457-7500 Attorney for Two of Three i
_ Involved Individuals
[.
(~w David E. Cole SMITH & SMITH, P.C.
Riverside Law Center 2931 North Front Street Harrisburg,506 PA, 17110 (717) 232-0 Attorney for One of Three Involved Individuals i
4
~
~=.__..--
^**
I
__ =
l SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS &
TROWBRIDGE By M Y. M e/,
Partne r l
1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 822-1000 i
Attorneys for Metropolitan Edison Company
>Y, //b e'.i
.W~'
l Lucinda Low SwartE Office of the Executive Lega Director 1
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connaission Washington, D.C.
20555 (301) 492-7519 l
Counsel for the NRC Staff itLW CNe bw j
/
Joanne Doroshow
/rreiw bseAbd Louise Bradford TMI Alert Inc.
314 Pfeffer Street PA 17102 Harrisburg,070 (717) 232-3
(
7 ohn _ clawett The Christic Institute i
1324 North Capitol Street t
Washington, D.C.
(202) 797-8106 Co sel for the Aamodt Family k it.f t tr < t q i. M a t.u y (' /
l Mrs.j Marjorie M. Aamodt I
i f
i i
r
}
S l
3
--,-.--.-~.,.--_,,,.n,n,.,
,,...,,,,w..,,.,,nw-
.n-_,n,
.--w
d'O,-
Fabert W. Adler Assistant Counsel 505 Executive House P.O. Box 2357 Harrisburg, PA 17120 (717) 787-7060 Attorney for the comonwealth of Pennsylvania Approved:
Date Approved:
Gary L. Milho111n Administrative Judge and Special Master ll i
I i
6
L ATTAONINP 2 (14 pages)
June 19, 1984 UNITED STATE 8 0F AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Restart-Management Phase)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,
)
Unit No. 1)
)
Notice to the Commission, Appeal Board, Licensing Board and Parties I enclose for the information of the Commission, Appeal Board, Licensing Board and parties copies of a waiver of confi-dentiality by counsel on behalf of James R. Floyd (previously referred to as Mr. VV in this proceeding) and of documents re-lated to a recent indictment of Mr. Floyd.
Mr. Floyd was Su-pervisor cf Operations for Three Mile Island Station Unit II at the time of the 1979 accident.
He has played no role in the restart of TMI-l and is not presently employed by CPU Nuclear or any other CPU company.
Respectfully submitted, h Y. M,gr, Ernest L. Blake, Jr.,
Counsel for Licensee Enclosure cci Attached Service List I
w-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289 SP
)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
(Restart - Management Phase)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
SERVICE LIST Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission John H. Buck Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Victor Gilinsky, Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissii U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Administrative Judge Thomas M. Roberts, Commissioner Christine N. Kohl U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Washington, D.C.
20555 Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissit James K. Asselstine, Commissioner Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Administrative Judge a
Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Frederick Bernthal, Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissic Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Administrative Judge Gary J. Edles, Chairman Administrative Judge Sheldon J. Wolfe Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commisnic U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555
. Administrative Judge Mr. Henry D. Hukill Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.
Vice President Atomic Safe,ty & Licensing Board GPU Nuclear Corporation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 480 Washington, D.C.
20555 Middletown, PA 17057 Docketing and Service Section (3)
Mr. and Mrs. Norman Aamodt Office of the Secretary R.D. 5 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Coatesville, PA 19320 Washington, D.C.
20555 Ms. Louise Bradford Atomic Safety & Licensing Board TMI ALERT Panel 1011 Green Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Harrisburg, PA 17102 Washington, D.C.
20555 Joanne Doroshow, Esquire Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal The Cnristic Institute Board Panel 1324 North Capitol Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20002 Washington, D.C.
20555
- ~ ~
Ms. Gail Phelps Jack R. Goldberg, Esq. (4)
ANGRY /TMI PIRC Office of the Executive Legal h
1037 Maclay Street Director Harrisburg, PA 17103 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissio,ne was % D.C.
20555 Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq.
Harmon, Weiss & Jordan Maxine Woolfling, Esq.
2001 S Street, N.W., Suite 430 Office of Chief Counsel Washington, D.C.
20009 Department of Environmental Resources Michael F. McBride, Esq.
505 Executive House LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae P.O. Box 2357 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Harrisburg, PA 17120 suite 1100 Washington, D.C.
20036 John A. Levin, Esq.
Assistant Counsel Michael W. Maupin, Esq. s Pennsylvania Public Utility Hunton & Williams i
Commission 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 3265 P.O. Box 1535 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Richmond, VA__13212 David E. Cole, Esq.
Smith & Smith, P.C.
2931 Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110
LEBOEU F, LAM s, LEisY & M AcR AE 1333 NEw HAMPsMimE AVENUE, N.W.
.e............
WAsHINOToN,DC 20036
.... 6... u,
a."",'r,6g;;.u,-m n u.....
nse...-..........
..,' *?..*.*,", "';".....
" "'a
" aa
..a.,
.......a..
.;..,.,,..g,.;.....;s,
................s...
........c.,c...."
June 19, 1984
- "^"'"."do'
t Chairman Nunzio J. Palladino United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Re Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 1)
Docket No.50-289SP (Restart)
Dear Mr. Chairman:
As counsel for James R. Floyd, who has previously been identified in the TMI-l restart proceedings as "VV",
we hereby waive any further confidentiality of Mr. Floyd, in light of the indictment of him returned yesterday in Harrisburg.
As the indictment does not identify any other individual, confidentiality of the individual denominated "O" should be maintained.
Mr. Blake has kindly agreed to distribute this letter with a Board notification of the indictment.
Very truly yours, Michael F. McBride Attorney for O and James R.
Floyd MFMay1 cci All Commissioners All Persons on THI-1 Service List
~
~
~
r JJW:nm 1
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
)
)
v.$.
1 CALMINAL NO.
)-
JAMES R.
FLOYD
)'
VIO: 18 U.S.C. 5 1001 I'N D I C,,T M E N T THE GRAND JURY CHARGES:
l At all times relevant tc this Indictinent:
1.
The Noelcar 1tegulatory Commission (hereinafter NRC) was an agency of the United States of America and was responsible for regulation of nuclear power plants in the United Statws of l
America.
2.
The NRC administered and enforced the Atemic Energy Act, Title 42, United States Codn, 55 2011 et grj., and regulations, l
established thereunder,' contained in Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 1.
3.
The Atomic Energy Act, Title 42, United States Code, l
5 2133, authorized the NRC t.o issue licenses, to build, possess'and use a commercial nuclear pow 4r plant and to prohibit the e.4eration l
l e
c
/
of(any such plant excIp.t under?and in accordance with a valid 8
license.
e i
4.
The Atomic Energy Act, Title 42, United States Code, 5 2137, r'ahuired ' the NRC to " prescribe uniform conditions for licensing individuals as operato'rs of any of the various classes of production and utilization facilities" and "to determine the qualifications of such individuals."
5.
Under the Code of Federal Regulations,10 C.F.R., Part
,50.54, as a condition of maintaining a license to operate'a
<commercial utilization facility (such as a nuclear power station) a licensee must have "in effect an operator requalification program which shall, et a minimun, meet the requirements of Appendix A of Part 55."
The express stated purpose of this requalification program is to ensure that operators m'aintain competence, particularly to respond to abnormal and emergency
~
situations.
6.
The operator requalification program required by 10 C.F.R., Part 55, Appendix A requires, in pertinent part, that the program contain a continuous series of pre-planned lectures on the safe operation of a nuclear reactor; that annual and periodic written examinations be administered to the operators to determine their knowledge of the subjects covered by the requalification and program and their need for retraining in particular areas records of the written examinations administered and the that i
0
)
i a
4 answers given by the operators be maintained for review and audit by the NRC.
7.
An NRC operator license. is: issued for a period of two
.( 2 ) years and can only be renewed if the operator in. question has satisfactorily comple'ted a requalification program, such as outlined above, for that particular facility.
See, 10 C.F.R.,
Part 55.32 and 55.33.
8.
The commercial licensee for the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Metropolitan < Edison Company, complied with the NRC requirement that its Three Mile Island Nuclear Station have an operator requalification program by promulgating, with NRC approval, Th'ree Mile Island Nuclear Station Administrative Procedure 1006.
9.
The defendant, JAMES R.
FLOYD, was Supervisor of Operations for Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit II and held a Senior Reactor Operators license for both units at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station entitling him to manipulate the l
controls of the reactors and to supervise ot.her individuals manipulating the controls of. the reactors.
10.
The defendant, JAMES R.
FLOYD, was subject to the terms, conditions and requirements of tne statutory and regulatory scheme l
outlined above dealing with the satisfactory completion of an opera tor requal i fica tion prog ram.
3
11.
The defendant, JAMES R.
FLOYD, engaged in a. pattern of criminal conduct whereby he would cheat on written examinations administere'd as part of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station requalification program by having another senior reactor operator take and provide the answers to questions contained on requalifi-cation examinations and quizzes which the defendant, JAMES R.
FLOYD, would then submit to the training department and represent as his own.
\\
e
COUNT I THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES:
1.
Paragraphs 1 through 11 of this Indictment are hereby realleged and incorporated as though restated in full herein.
2.
On or about the 2nd day of July, 1979, in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, the defendant, JAMES R.
FLOYD in a matter within the jurisdiction of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, an agency of the United States, did knowingly and vilfully make and use a false writing knowing the same to contain material false, fictitious and fraudulent statements and entries, that is, as part of the operator requalification program the defendant submitted as his own work an examination on principles of reactor theory, when in truth and fact, such examinat. ion did not r epres erat the defendant's own work, but rather had beu. substantially done and prepared by another.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1001 and 2.
COUNT II l
THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES:
1.
Paragraphs 1 through 11 of this Indictment are hereby realleged an,d incorporated as though restated in full herein.
2.
On or about the 2nd day of July, 1979, in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, the defendant, JAMES R.
FLOYD in a matter within the jurisdiction of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, an agency of the United States, did knowingly and wilfully make and use a false writing knowing the same to contain material false, fictitious and fraudulent statements and entries, that is, as part of the operator requalification program the defendant submitted as his own work an examination on fuel handling an core perimeters, when in truth and fact, such examination did not represent the defendant's own work, knother.
but rather had been substantially done and prepared b3 All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1001 and 2.
d a
s COUNT III THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES:
1.
Paragraphs 1 through 11 of this Indictment are hereby realleged and incorporated as though restated in. full herein.
2.
On.or. about the 3rd day of August, 1979, in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, the defendant, JAMES R.
FLOYD in a matter within the jurisdiction of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, an agency of the United States, did knowingly and wilfully make and cause to be made a false, fictitious and fraudulent statement and representation of a material fact, that is, the defendant caused a letter to be sent to the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commision, Office of l
Nuclear Reactor Regulation, which stated that the defendant had achieved a score of 89.1% on a requalification program test dealing with principles of reactor theory, when in truth and f act the defendant had cheated on this particular examination and submitted the work of another as his own and, accordingly, had not legitimately obtained the stated grade.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1001 and 2 i
l
(
l e
em-e--w-w-a w---ww-w-- - -, - -
-w--we re--
ee w.,,,-
-,,-iv.
--.n-
--,e
--m.,-
.,,,,n,--
.-,m---
m,--,wm v
w
COUNT IV
(
THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES:
1.
Paragraphs 1 through 11 of this Indictment are hereby 4
realleged and incorporated as though restated in full herein.
l 2.
On or'about the 15th day of November,1979, Jin 'the Middle District of Pennsylvania, the defendant, JAMES R.
FLOYD in a matter within the jurisdiction of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, an agency of the United States, did knowingly and wilfully make and cause to be made a false, l
fictitious and fraudulent statement and representation of a material fact, that is, the defendant represented to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, tha t during the previous term of his Senior Reactor Operators license he had satisfactorily completed the Metropolitan Edison Company operator requalification program, when in truth and f act he had cheated during portions of said program by submitting as his own work written examinations in the areas of emergency procedures, principles of reactor theory and fuel handling and core perimeters which, in truth and fact, had been done by another.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1001 and 2.
A TRUE BILL FOREPERSON l
DATE:
W UNITED STATES ATTORitY me
-y r--==-m---
m t'7-'*--ew w-s'-~-
--7 m-vw--
'"v--
s'r--m-e--e-
w=v-w w we i---'--'---w-
- ' - ~ ' - - - --
y
United States Attorney Middle District of Pennsylvania Federal Buulding. ::8 Weinut street 717/78:ats Post Offsce Bos 793 FTs/390448.
Herrusburg. Pennsvlunnan 17108 June 18, 1984 PRESS RELEASE David Dart Queen, United States Attorney for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, announced today (June 18, 1984) that a federal grand jury sitting in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, had approved a four count indictment charging James Floyd, the former Supervisor of Operations at Unit 2 of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station with four counts of making false statements arising out of Nuclear Regulatory Commission Operator Requalification Examinations submitted in July of 1979.
The indictment was handed up by the Grand Jury on June 15, 1984, but ordered sealed by the court until today.
James Floyd, age 47, of P.O.
Box 268, Elizabethtown, Pennsylvania, was Supervisor of Operations at Unit 2 from unit start up through August of 1979 and remained in the employee of.
Metropolitan Edison Company until April, 1983.
As Supervisor of Operations Floyd was the superior of all reactor operators assigned to Unit 2 including all shift supervisors working on tha t Unit.
Queen indicated that the indictment is based upon Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations that require individuals who are t
i
.-.c
licensed to manipulate the controls of nuclear reactors to participate in a by-yearly requalification program and'take a series of written requalificatior. examinations which are maintained for inspection and audit by the Nuclear' Regulatory Commission Licensing Division.
The indictment charges that James Floyd, during the course of attempting to requalify as a Senior Reactor Operator in 1979, had another licensed-operator complete portions of the required written examinations in three specific areas -- (1) emergency procedures, (2) principles of reactor theory and (3) fuel handling.
The indictment further charges that these examinations were then submitted by Floyd as his own work and that Floyd's grade of 89.1% on the reactor theory examination was eventually reported to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in August of 1979.
In November of 1979 Floyd applied for reissuance of his Senior Reactor Operator License and specifically stated l
that he had successfully completed the requalification program.
The indictment charges that these representations were also false statements submitted to the NRC.
Queen indicated that if convicted Floyd was subject to l
imprisonment of not more than five (5) years and fines of not more l
~
than $10,000.00, or both, as to each of the four charged counts.
The case is assigned to First Assistant United States Attorney l
James J.
West.
1 l
.N-
-~,-..--
..auwu 6 Y [_ p. r n
Ssptcaber 13, 1984 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 34 ffP 14.o? pj BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
$k?_'?.204 In the Matter of
)
c;,,,
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
~
)
)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Restart-Management Phase)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,
)
Unit No. 1)
)
1 g_.;, q.q'
,,,,3 REQUEST FOR
' 2 '" -
PARTIAL WAIVER OF IC3I.'2.M l.'OEid CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
/
Ivan W. Smiih, Chsman In November, 1981, parties to this proceed'ing at the time entered into a stipulation regarding confidentiality of indi-viduals.
That stipulation was accepted by the Special Master, who by Order served on November 13, 1981, directed that the stipulation be followed by the signatories "for the duration of these proceedings." Licensee, NRC Staff, TMIA, Aamodts, Com-monwealth of Pennsylvania, and identified counsel for several individuals were signatories.
The parties to the present remanded proceeding all agree that the confidentiality Order should now be waived, except for individuals O and W.
Licensee counsel is authorized to repre-sent this agreement by the parties, having discussed the matter with Ms. Weiss for UCS, Ms. Doroshow for TMIA, Mr. Goldberg for NRC Staff, Ms. Woolfling for the Commonwealth, Mr. McBride and Marjorie Aamodt.
Additionally, Mr. YY whose name has not been 1
1 i
I L
disclosed even to signatories to the stipulation (other then
-NRC Staff counsel) should retain his confidentiality.
The Board chairman has sought certain assurances from Li-consee with. respect to a number of individuals who have been referenced by letter in this proceeding.
Counsel represents that Mr. Hukill, Director of TMI-1, has specifically. discussed the waiver with Messrs. P, U, MM, and 00 who are current 11-consee employees and who previously have been referred to only by letter designation in this proceeding. These individuals have agreed to waive confidentiality.
Other individuals (G, H, GG, KK, VV and WW) waived confidentiality at the time they testified, or more recently in the case of VV.
Licensee fur-ther agrees to screen documents it provides in the course of discovery in this proceeding to avoid disclosure of the identities of O, W and YY.
Specifically, where a document to be produced refers by name to these three individuals, the name will be replaced by the individual's letter designation.
Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS AND TROWBRIDGE i Wok,(/'
Ernest L. Blake, Jr., P.C.
Counsel for Licensee
s K1'rACHMErff 4 (2 uged l
I e
A22-Elpc Evenins Nems, amiert.Pa ftwider.ne, ii. ins N-nrn liliesK M
"O and W both engaged in a man $'Wse pattern of cheating over a period I
in August. Markey charged of time," the report said. "They that General Physics had coached i
also conspired to cheat, by agree-employeesof thOystaCreeknu-OM IMI Ing to do so, beton exarninstions clear plant la New Jerssy on vart-t i
were nivea-ous ploys designed to help them Cheating. incident l
The report said Hitz "still falls "put one over on the federai gov-ernment."He said a two< lay tra ta aasnin um charuter of his i,,,o,,e.i no,,,w, i 83 acts.
prompted dismissol. q Reached at General Physics appeated to advise the workers on Witz decHned to com.
generalmethods ef evedtag thein-By Jeff Barker meat. saying. "It may just compil-tent of NRC regulation (._
s Associated Press cate the matter.
Oyster Creek is operated by Last year, former TMI opera-General Public Utilities Corp.,
WASHINGTON - More than,
tions Supervisor James Floyd was which also owns Three Mile Is-four years after his dismissal at Three Mlle Island because of a indicted on charges of cheating on land a licensing test. He was convicted, diter an investigation, Palladi-cheating incident, a nuclear indus-then sentenced in March to 2 no told Markey that the objection-try instructor is doing an "out-years' probation sad ordered to able course material was nolonger standing" job la Maryland.
pay a $2.000 fine.
W by WI Physics.
A Nuclear ilegulatory Com-General Physics was aware of mission special master found in the accusations about Hitz whenit April 1982 that Gregory Hitz of hired him in March 1982, but had Elizabethtown, Pa., engaged in "a pattern of cheating" on opemtor not yet seen the special master's licenslag examinations required rcport, said Jay Whitney, vice by the NRC.The reportsaidhe had president and. chief administrative..
officer.
been firedin August 1981.
Today, Httz, who was never "We obviously believe that it criminally prosecuted, heads a de-was not improper for us to hire partment of 20 people at General him and it was not improper for Physics Corp. of Columbts, Md.
him to continue to work in the nu-The firm provides training and en.
clear industry," Whitney said.
"I mean, the man was never gineering services to the power t
i
. _and. defense industries. Mttz in-indicted for what he did; he was never convicted for what he did.
structs operators and technicians on pressurized water reactors,and To say that he is going to be pun-develops course training material.
lahed by not being permitted to Hitz's continued employment work la an area that he is trained la the nuclear industry was the to work in, based upon some sort subject of a letter last week by of proceeding which we were not Rep. Edward Markey. D. Mass., to a party to, that would in fact be NRC Chairman Nunzio Palladino.
improper." '
Markey asked that Palladino con-Whitney said Hitz's record in sider the propriety of Hitz's work
- the industry is " outstanding." He ing for General Physics. He asked said Hitz" admitted to us when we the commission whe'ther it had hired him thst he made a mistake.
management lategrity standards He believed he had learned hisles-son."
for firms doing work for the NRC orits licensed stilities.
The integrity of the manage-The NRC is preparing a re*
ment of Three Mlle Island was an sponse, spokeswoman Susan lasue during hearingsinto whether Gagner said-the undamaged Unit I reactor at Hitz wasidentified only as"O" the plant near Middletown, Pa.,
)
in the special master's report, would be permitted by the NRC to j
which said he allowed an unidentl*
restart.
fled co. worker, referred to as Unit 1, which began operating "W " to copy examination an*
agalb last month, had been closed swers on-several occasions.
for refueling at the time of the March 1979 accident that crippled Speaking on condition that their names not be used,sa official its twin, Unit 2.
of General Physics and an attorney-Opponents of the restart had who cooperated with the special argued that Floyd's conviction and l
master's investigation confirmed accusations of cheating by other that Hitz was "O." They declined operators raised questions about to identify "W."
the operator training procedure at the plant n,,
7-,,,-.7,,,,--+
-,-,.,---y,,.---,
,,,,-,9,
bent : are L r.ws r wrr <:., :. : in e,
h 5'g;4
~
ding its cSpacity 30 it will soon' 4,
6s I
hold c total of 2600.
The big ? re-A h
h,,,53 <
Q
)
g mains whare will the rods bestored in g 9, y( _
I the future----safely ???? or is that 4 w
=
a problem for our children to solve??
g 4
PANE
^
BUIX RATE P. O. BOX 268 U.S. POSTAGE MIDDLETOWN. PA 17037 PAID NIDDI.ETOWN. PA 17057 FERMIT NO. 43 N 8/4T M#M4 /$ fwd 7
A*o r Ax Y2r Co* S h,/?4 /93z0 oI.LU U ml.L d S.
IN THE COURTS James Floyd n.'orr.w ';upervisor cf otwr.st'er.a att TMI.42 was found quilty of 2 counts 01 cheati.ir, whi.le trying ta reque.lity a.i a n'ulear reactor operator in 197?.-
He had comoore else ans ve. qtte.~tiona.
Frosecutors wondered why Floyd did not ask fcr a:: es:t ension :o ciudy for the exams.
The prcsecutor
.dapicted Floyd as a man uito had little rene.ro fer TM1's trainin6 process, ye we.s concerned P.bcut his ability te pass the require.1 usts.
The prosecittor i
said. "Mr. Ployd scya his intent was to get ca:tght
. he intended to get cau,tht."
"He also says. I thought it would lack good if I cheated then if I handed in nothing at all "Does that have i;he ring of truth?" asked I
thr prosecutor.
Gre6ory liit::. a reactor one.ator, was asked to answer the questions by Floyd.
Hitz was considered "the brainc of the island, he teste real good."
Hitt testified he "unknowine.ly" provided Floyd with take-home
'est answers.
Floyd hacn't werked at TMI ulnce April 1983 and is currently emp'.oyed with ElEctroni.o Associates Inc. Of West Long Branch, NJ and is tem-I pararily assigned as a consultant to. nuclear plant in Arkansas.
c Also a Lewisberry, York County familj has sued GPU for more than 300,000 M ars due to chiluren auffering physical and emotional problems as a resul of exposure to radiation, parents have suffered erotional distress and come of the children have st fered lass of hair, internal bleeding. rib tumors, cysts on ovaries and blood discases.
The father and children regularly took walks along the river and on March 28 and 29 were unaware of the radiation l
threat.
Wethceghtyou should know!
UNITED STATES OF ' AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Presiding Board In the Matter of
)
Docket LRP
)
ASLBP No. 86-5L9-02 SP INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2
)
LEAK BATE DATA FALSIFICATION
)
)
'this is to certify that copies of the document AAMODP REQUEST FOR RELIEF were served on the following Service List on March 2E, 1987 by deposit in U.S. Mail, prepaid, first cla elivery.
27 n--
hak LL.L.(
1.
EErjorie M. Aamodt March DE, 1987 di ng SERVICE LIST Chief, Docketing & Service Section Harry H. Voigt. Esq.
Office of the Secretary James W. Meo11er, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae Washington, D C. 20555 Suite 1100 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, NW Presiding Board, the Honorables Washington, D.C. 20036 James L. Kelley, Chairman Glenn O. Bright James B. Burns, Esq.
James H. Carpenter Isham, Lincoln & Beale U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 5200 Washington, D.C. 20555 Three First National Plaza Chicago, IL 60002 Ernest L. Blake, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Michael W. Maupin, Esq.
2300 N Street, N.W.
Hunton & Williams Washington, D.C. 20037 P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, VA 23212 Smith B. Gephart, Esq.
Jane G. Penny, Esq.
. Jack R. Goldberg, Esq.
Killian & Gephart Mary Wagner, Esq.
Box 886 General Counsel Legal Of fices 216-218 Fine Street U.S. Nucelar Regulatory Commission Harrisburg, PA 17108 Washington, D.C. 20555 4