ML20215J655

Motion for Reconsideration of Recommended decision,870521.* Requests Board Correction of Highly Prejudicial Statements in Footnote 40 on Page 250 That Could Be Inurious to Aamodt Reputation.Svc List Encl

ML20215J655
Person / Time
Site:	Crane
Issue date:	06/10/1987
From:	Aamodt M AAMODTS
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20215J573	List: ML20215J572 ML20215J655
References
86-519-02-SP, 86-519-2-SP, LRP, NUDOCS 8706250070
Download: ML20215J655 (12)

Text

_ _ _.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ~

00 ED BjFcaE THR PRESIDING BOARD

'87 Jay 17 A11 :15

)

In.the Matter of

)

• Docket-No. LRP

)

Cuv INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2

)

.ASLBP No. 86-519-o LEAK RATE DATA FALSIFCATION

)

02 SP

)

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION RECOMMENDED DECISION,, MAY 21, 1987 on pages.17 - 19 of your decision of May 21, 1987, you rejected attachments to the Aamodts findings of

~ February 2, 1987.

In quoting a response of General Public Utilities to our findings, you stated that these attachments were not record evidence and did not meet the standards to receive official notice by you.

The Board has greatly erred.

The attachments 2 and 3 to our findings are record evidence and findinas based on record, respectively.

The frontispage of Attachment 2 was amended, as the attached page shows, to cite the record exhibit of the control room 4

logs which comprised the. entire attachment.

~

is an Aamodt finding, a graphic and tabular finding,. based on the record evidence of Attachment 2.

Contrary to the Board's quotation of GPUN, the attachments were perfectly proper and not a " guise" to

)

l introduce evidence after the close of the hearing.

We would note our surprise that neither GPUN nor the Board was aware of r.he existence of the control' room logs as part of an exhibit of the NRR study on the record.

We.axpress our dismay that credible evidence, whether 8706250070 870610 ADOCK 05000ggO PDR

i

-g ~

early or late is viewed as a aguise".

Since Attachment 2 and 3 should have been considered by the Board, and the Board did not do so, the Board must now consider this evidence and adjust its decision accordingly.

The control room logs and the evidence.of

-I gross and accelerating identified leakage during the last six weeks of TMI-2's operation-are extremely relevant to the Boardts findings about upper management.

These individuals, John Herbein and Gary Miller, who received the daily report of plant status and who discussed the condition of the plant with operations management could I

not have been unaware o.f the' gross and accelerating leakage.

j l

Both Herbein and Miller were very familiar with the process of leak rate testing (for unidentified leakage) and had to haVe known that leakage of the level at Unit 2 and accelerating in the manner shown in Attachment 3 would have precluded the valid measurement of the leak rate.

They had to know that the reports of unidentified leakage that were made to the NRC during that period were falsified.

The Board cannot choose to overlook that evidence and place the guilt for the leak rate practices at Unit 2 on 7 operators including the whistleblower, his forthright shiftmate and several others who could easily be blamed.

During the six week period before the accident, l

approximately 270,000 gallons of water leaked, since, as the control room logs (on the record) showed, this amount of water had to be added to the Reactor Coolant System.

Just prior to the accident, gross leakage of the RCS exceeded 5 gallons per minute.

The Board's discussion

[

__. ~.

Q

+ - of' gross leakage at pagg 91 (#13) is misleading and irrelevant.

The. Board. describes identified leakage during the period mid-February 1979 to March 16,.1979 as exceeding 2 gallons per minute.

The BQard's, concern, about a procedural error (failure to adjuat leaked water density for temperature), when compared to the Boardis choice to overlook the grossly accelerating leakage graphed in. Attachment 3, is analogous to seeing the tree but missing the forest. is "provided herewith for the Board's easy reference.

Can the operators have reliably measured identified leakage that occurred in the manner graphod?

Would the plantamanagers have forgottendto discuss this catastrophic leakage in their daily conference calls

-with top management?

Was the management of the billion dollar TMI' investment left to operators with limited educations and who now allege no understanding of'the purpose of the leak rate test?

These arguments were made in Aauodt findings, 2/2/87, #23 - 27.

The Board also failed to address the clear testimony on the record that intersystem leakage through the steam generator was not measured by the operators.

This record evidence was presented in Aamodt finding, 2/2/87, #14.

The Board did not pursue on the record why this essential step in perCorming the leak rate test was not taken.

Was it because.the leakage to the B steam generator was beyond tne allowable limit for operation?

This generator was found to be leaking excest,1vely March 28, 1979.-

2,ee Aamodt Response, 3/2/87.

m

i,t '

-4 The Board's discussion on pp. 103 - 4 (a.) about intersystem leakage (i.e., steam tube leakage) does not acknowledge that the Tech Spec called for a measurement of steam generator leakage, indeppadent of boundary leakage (unidentified leakage). The Board's di,scussion.of inconsistency between tho Regulatory Guides and Technical Specifications is pura irrelevancy, as the Board later admits at pp. 105 - 6(d).

We cry for the two employees who gave you the very.

important lead :-- that steam generator leakage was not being measured (Tr.4825; 4156)

-- and the Board did not hear them!

Thyse amployees were showing the Board why the leak rate tests were falsified for the entire operating leak rate tests had to be falsified over the entire operating life of Unit 2.

The employees will probably be harrassed for no good.

We cry.for the public.

j Nuclear employees will know better than to blow the whistle.

They cannot be certain that the NRC will care.

The testimony of Harold Wayne Hartman', Jr.,

the whistle blower on the leak rate falsifications, that i

~

f the Board quoted on page 218 (#214),that he hid his i

manipulations of the leak rate test from his' shift, supervision is not consistent with the bulk of his I

~

many interviews wherein Hartman made it eminently i

clear that his shift foreman and shift supervicor were aware and pressured him to get a " good"ilcak rp.te.

See, for instance, the I&E interview cf Hartman on May 22, 1979 (discussed in Aamodt finding,~2/2/87 #7).

t

_- =

c.,

4 '

Hartman stated that he was instructed by his shift suoervision to hide taliitithat were not "cood" from the NRC' inspector.

Hartman went along with the practices to produce good tests because ho was pressured and because he felt that manager.ent, including top manageme'nt, were aware. - H.rtman would never have brought the practices to the attention of the NRC if he believed that he was respon-sible for there.

The Employees filed a memorandum Vith this Beard which stated that they did the whib..the company wanted without regard for NRC regulation.

(Memo., 1/23/87)

The Employeesi Sleborated' on their position as " employees" in

)

1 (2/27/87 ) which-further clarified.their loyalty to the company not the NRC (see Aamodt Response, '3/11/87).

The Deparj;,nent of Justice indicted the company for'a practice 1

of iniproper leak rate testing -- not for the practices of I-individual operators.

(Nove.mber 4, 1983)

The company pleaded guilty'to an improper procedure.

The.L S. Attorney said that operators who could be found involved in the practices could be made the " scapegoats"! Plea Baegain,

'N February, 1984) 1 n.

s ~

=r The Board decided it "need not reach the legal concerning the employees' opinion as to what question a their jobs were (pp. 26 -7).

Unless the Board reconsiders and deals with the reality of nuclear power plant operation, t,here were vill no more whistleblowers.

)

o

. s On_pages 90 - 108, the Board considers a number of' errors in the leak rate procedure, instrument errors and plant conditions which the-Board concludes (p. 108)

" fully' justified" the operators disrespect for the leak rate test.

The Board notes the existence of a " loop l

seal" in the dry reference leg of the Make-UpuThak level 1

sensor, "a leak rate test defect", which Met Ed "should have discovered and corrected....well in advance of its I

discovery by the NRC in 1980." (pp. 98 - 9)

The Board

)

notes that the " difference in density between additions to the MUT and in the reactor was not discovered and i

1 corrected.unttL 1" cunt 2J4 1979, after the.TMI-1 accident" and that "No technical witness could explain why this defect was ndt discovered when the RCDT temperature compensation arror was corrected by the March 16, 1979 TCN".

(p. 93)

Wny didn't you decide who was responsible for these errors in procedure, instrument and plant conditions?

Why didn't the Board call the engineer who made the l

density / temperature adjustment for the water leaked (which favored the computation of a lower leak rate) l and " forgot" te adjust the inputted water?

The Board decided not to call Mr. Morck; GPUN's attorney said 1

Morck was out-of-town.

j Gary Miller, the TMI Superintendent developed the 1

i i

leak rate test procedure for Unit 2.

Aamodt Reply, Findings, 2/17/87, #14 (p. 8); Miller ff. Tr. 5039 at 15.

How'could

the Board find the test procedure to have 13(procedura; errors (p. 90) and find that "Mr. Millar exhibited neither i

dereliction not culpable negliect in the performance of his duties."

(p. 119) l l

1 We also request the Board's correction of highly prejudicial statemente in Footnote 40 on page 250 that could be inurious to our reputations.

The Board's use of the words " disruptive", " baseless" and " personal" to describe our participation in the hearing and our arguments is disproportionate to the facts.

The Board admits that the stipulation supports our claimthatc$unselfortheemployees,aMr.McBride,was fraudulent \\ "The literal language of the stipulation favors the Aamodts.."

Why, then, was cur position

" baseless"?

Why was our description of McBride's pro-fossional conduct " personal"?

Why is our motion, in clear language and with adequate documentation, " disruptive"?

Why is it all right'for McBride to claim over four pages of record transcript that vc have violated a Commissionmorder because the Board which had nothing whatsoever to do with the stipulation, believes that the judge wh9 signed it did not mean what he wrcte?

Can it be, as the Board ntates, I

l that an attorney can answer for a witness?

t

p There were two instances in the proceeding when the interests of the attorneys for the employees were the j

subject of the Aamodts' concern.

The Board introduced 1

the issue of the conflict of interest of the attorneys into the proceeding _by its order of February 14, 1986.

The Aamodts commented on the attorneys' responses (3/14/86)

)

Evidently, the Board found the Aamodt comments credible since it requested additional evidence and requested the 1

Aamodts to provide supporting legal citations (Order, 3/26/84).

The Aamodts followed the Board's order.

However, they were stunned when the Board went out of its way I

to mischaracterize the Aamodts' intentions and behavior 1

1 (Order, 3/26/86).

]

In deference to turning their attention to the

]

1 issues of the hearing, the Aamodts did not protest the 1

Board's prejudicial treatment.

Obviously, the Aamodts made a mistake in not requesting relief from some higher authority.

Although the Leak Rate Proceeding is a j

decretionary hearing, does the Board have license to abuse parties?

The board's denigration of the Aamodts in their deci'aion served no purpose of this proceeding.

Its l

incivaion serves only as t mar.k of the Board's prejudice touard their participation,

We reapectfully request the Board's reconsideration of the Aamodts' contribution to;the proceeding.

The Board is aware that the Aamodts filed over 20 researched documents and provided hundreds of questions which the Board used to j

question witne:sses.

The Aamodts filed findir.gs, reply findings and responded to the Board's Order to review the Employees'-

Memorandum of Law, which the Board finally rejected in its entirety.

The Aamodts' tabulation of the water additions to the RCS from the record evidence of the control room logs was a time-consuming task.

The: Chairman of the Board expressed his interest,in the leakiness of the plant on the record of the proceeding; however noone but the Asmodts acted to provide that telling information -- not even the NRC Staff which had the responsibility to inform and advise the Board.

i We ask for your consideration.

Respectfully submitted, I

f C

}

k.

vuu.rfE Mirj orie M. Aamodt June 10, 1987

)

J I

I i

Attachment l2 e

e t

CONTROL ROOM LOGS, DtI-2 l

x.

1 February 15 - March 28 (4 a.m.) 1979 Refer to Ex. 5-A, NRR Test Evaluation Worksheets:

February 1979 (Testa 97-133)

March 1979 (Tests 134-156)

(for Control Room Logs beginning at p.120) t

- +,r, I.<...

L _j

... _. }

.. p. ~.~.

'~)i I

.L-y,fg.,{....p.;..,

1I If1 I

1II

_ j

- jL 4 jy I

Q LL_L 1 _JJq 1

JJ._FJ.,g I

A k, _ -,

iV i f !

3 3 8 pggg.4n'.'.

_ _t,_

y_

g t___

__3 i

.].

~.

$W f_..

_L

1. j.-

. _q_.

..p-

_ ___., q.} i _-.....

1 g

___.4

__,..j_1_ p 64-

-H-1-- -H r.r't.,

rr--

t-y-3 y

,r.

_J

~

L_

_.s__h,_.

%~~'"'

• e l

1 l {.}

~l 7

'4 i

k}

I 4 LJ

.I

)I

~

1 i

h i !

M..i J.

I t

f

. I~.h i

d e

h__h,- p

,g 7 -g

-%,h

-g:

C LI II C.

_I

.D i~

N

.k.

.1 hui.'M.. 4 l.J 1

4

..y q {

4, 4;

I-r T*

T-7 w

~~-

-N

.y q;T-[

'I r

N i

i,f]

~ g g4_

g.__g g.

u.j.

1I A

T l

i

.A

'a

. 3~'~~h

.. t..22[

\\

v

+

m.

,_-..Y

.Y e.4Q-

.-p K

.qh..

_.'a

,,u s

i "i

i

'i 1 6

i I

iip,.1 6'

I i

I q.

'i p -p 2[.

[

1 t

m-p__

~_~~S I

O__.

~

I

! t

-j 4.w_

.L

!_ 4

.-fI-

_L.

%.)'.)...J.N...

t--

d. f~. 4 '

.t-+ p__-

y. i,, +4.<>r m

._ a,.

. t-t.

1,- ;

0 M -+L.f..4. L.+f ' - 4 y

.- 7:

L

.i: '

i g!

,1 g

l I

I Q'.

1 I e

I I

i J,.3 It I

i

%.L.L i '

_LLLI.

i J

I I

I

-J i

l.h N

e.s__

. 1Q ;Q. 3 ).Tia if

..j

._ _L repd -,g L., '

_t

.m L,-.

d i i!..

J.J. '..

4. 4.i !,. '

t '

[

.! I '

Me.d.,

, J.Jg;.J.J..# -....q. -

--+

44_

L 4

__g_

H.

_...* 4 )' 3

-]

O s 4 L.

N,.' i... ', ' ',.

q

! I a. i

1. ' _,__ NM.h,

t..

=

i '..

..... L. ( ]-.. j

~I~

0 T

-' 't :,

p

,M..'- r N~. q{.thN ff'T i

_ -j.

-Ha.

.A.

i I

'~~

3..

e l

j_

7';

i

%'l T -

I l

i i

j j

j 4-T-'," *{jT' r

P--

-P t -

.t..i '..t

~r m

p.

_.i.J.' )., i :

t.t J. L.i..!. L J. '

,u.w u

J i

m

.{_{

M A

__2'~

M-3-

. C' i

_44 j.. L[Z '..:f.

r r

m 3

4 i

1 7

E jJ g; g

i w

a I

i i 4,.,. _.. i...:_u.. ;

I i

d

~

t

~~~

m m

1 UNITES STAi'ES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n:,

BEFORE THE PRESIDING BOARD,

'87 JJ! 17 All :15

~

)

In the Matter of

)

h.

)

Docket No. LRP g,,,,,,t

~

INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2

)

p a,j LEAK RATE DATA FALSIFICATION

)

ASLBP No. 86-519-02 SP

)

This'is to certify that copies of REQUEST FOR REVIEW HITH PARTIES OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGES RECOMMENDED DECISION OF MAY 21, 1987 and MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, RECOMMENDED DECISION, MAY 21, 1987 were se ved on the Commission and

{

the following Service List une 12, 1987 by deposit in U.S. MAIL, First Ca&ss, os age Prepaid.

~

I bf D I

__ Marjorie M. Aamodt June 12, 1987 l

Service List The Honorables Judges James L. Kelley (Chairman)

Harry H. Voigt, Esq.

Mii:hael F. McBride, Esq.

j James H. Carpenter Clenn O. Bright Robert St. John Roper, Esq.

j Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Holly S. Boast, Esq.

j James W. Moeller, Esq.

}

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Marlene L. Stein, Esq.

Washington, D. C. 20555 C. Christopher Sprague,~Esq.

LeBeeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae Docketing & Service Branch Suite 1100 l

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1333 New Hampshire Ave., N.W.

]

Washington, D.C. 20555 i

Washington, D.C. 20036 j

Jack Goldberg, Esq.

Smith B. Gephart, Esq.

Mary Wagner Esq.

J== c o y, n;.

Of fice.of Legal Staff Terrence G. McGowan, Esq.

]

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Killian & cephart j

Washington, D.C. 20555 216-18 iine Street

)

Harrisburg, PA 17108 Ernest L. Blake, Jr., Esq.

John N. Missikas e III, Esq, Michael W., Maupin, Esq.

Shaw, Pittrian, Pot.ts & Trowbridge Maria C. Hensley, Esq.

2300 N Street, N.W.

Hunten L WL111stos Washington, D.C. 20037 P.O. Bex 1535 Richmend, VA 23212 Isham, Lincoln & Beale Three First National Plaza Suite 5200 Chicago, IL 60602

.