ML20206D371
| ML20206D371 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 04/03/1987 |
| From: | Voigt H GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP., LEBOEUF, LAMB, LEIBY & MACRAE |
| To: | Bright G, Carpenter J, Kelley J Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3012 LRP, NUDOCS 8704130315 | |
| Download: ML20206D371 (2) | |
Text
W 30/2-e LEBOEUF, LAMB, LElBY & MACRAE A PARTNER $Mtp INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION b
1333 N EW HAM PSHIRE AVEN U E WASHINGTON, DC 20036
~87 APR -6 P3 :17 (zoa 4s7-7soo TELEX 440274 FACSIMILE: 202 457 7546 BOSTON,MA N EW YOR K, NY
'<* t u r. '^ " 8, 'ti e v M
a^t 'u FFICE JF ' EUt iAr Y souTN PORT, CT CAL.T LAKE CITY, UT LONDON, ENG LAND 00CKEimG & 'avir,f.
"E*^"">""
CALEIGN, NC BRANCH EDISON, NJ cAN FRANCISCO, CA 7
J ACKSONVILLE, FL LQ3 ANGELES, CA Judge James L. Kelley Judge Glenn O. Bright Chairman Atomic Safety and Atomic Safety and Licensing Licensing Board Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Judge James H. Carpenter Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Re:
Inquiry Into Three Mile Island Unit 2 Leak Rate Data Falsification, Docket No. LRP
Dear Sirs:
On March 31, I received a copy of the "Aamodt Request for Relief" dated March 24, 1987, and served on March 27.
I would normally be inclined to disregard such an untimely and unauthorized filing and not dignify it with a response, unless requested by the Presiding Board to do so.
In this case, I am constrained to respond due to the threatened harm to one of our clients.
The Aamodts have deliberately attempted to prejudice the interests of "O" in this proceeding by identifying him on the public record in violation of a stipulation they signed in another Commission proceeding and in violation of common decency.
The Aamodts' conduct is reprehensible, particularly since they admit in their own pleading that there is no need to identify "O" in order to ask the question, previously rejected by this Board, that they belatedly seek to resurrect in the record.
The Board should forthwith terminate the Aamodts' disruptive participation in this proceeding.
More importantly, the Board should immediately order the return of all copies of to the Aamodts' pleading and order that Attachment 4 be removed from the public document room and expunged from the record.
8704130315 870403 PDR ADOCK 05000289 G
b k 1.
The Aamodt's strained argument that the stipulation that they signed not to disclose the identity of "O"
is no longer in effect is wrong.
The order signed by Judge Milhollin states tuat the stipulation is binding for the duration of the proceedings; it does not say that the stipulation is not binding after the proceedings have been completed.
In addition, the Aamodts themselves repeatedly urged that an inquiry into leak rate practices be conducted prior to the restart of TMI-1.
While rejecting that position, the Commission instituted this proceeding as a collateral follow-on to the restart proceedings and included herein the question of whether certain individuals should continue to be barred from holding positions at TMI-1.
The Aamodts are estopped to argue that the stipulation no longer applies.
If there were any doubt concerning this, they should have applied to Judge Smith for an order granting a partial waiver, as Mr..Blake did.
See to the Aamodt pleading.
Judge Smith's order expressly continues protection of the: identity of "O".
The Aamodts have a continuing legal and moral obligation not to disclose that identity.
2.
It follows that the objections made by Mr. McBride during the hearing were correct.
The scurrilous _ attack by the Aamodts on him must be rejected.
3.
Finally, we think that question 24 from the Aamodts to Mr. Floyd seeks information that is irrelevant to any issue in this proceeding, and that the Board considered the question to be irrelevant when it refused to ask it in the first place.
To preclude any further discussion of this matter as it pertains to Mr. Floyd, we offer the following response:
Mr. Floyd was not found guilty of anything by the NRC.
Certain findings concerning his conduct, which speak for themselves, were made in the NRC proceedings.
During those proceedings, Mr. Floyd was represented by Killian & Gephart and LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby &
MacRae; neither firm was paid for that representation by GPU or any of its subsidiaries.
During the Federal court proceedings, Mr. Floyd was represented by court-appointed counsel; to the best of our knowledge, GPU or any of its subsidiaries did not reimburse the court-appointed counsel.
Since GPU or any of.its subsidiaries did not pay any of Mr. Floyd's legal expenses in this regard, he has not been asked to repay them.
If the Presiding Board requires any further information in response to Aamodts' March 24 pleading, please let me know.
Respectfully submitted, I
cc:
Service List