ML20101M512

Comments in Support of Leniency Re Indictment of Jr Floyd. Served on 850102

ML20101M512
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	12/27/1984
From:	Smith I AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Rambo S U.S. DISTRICT COURT, MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSLYVANIA
References
CON-#185-896 SP, NUDOCS 8501030127
Download: ML20101M512 (2)

Text

% <

11125 Powder Horn Drive mg Potomac, Maryland 20854 ussRc December 27, 1984

'85 JS -2 P1:27 E.S..$.C. .3R9Tp ~

Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo _ . . . -

U.S. District Judge 'cM;.N.d'sy, d.

% Robert Ruth, Probation Officer BRANCH U.S. Probation Office Federal Building 3rd and Walnut SERVED JAN '2 gr3 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 Re: United States v. James R. Floyd Crim. No. 84-00099 (M.D. Pa.)

Dear Judge Rambo:

I hope that the Court will be lenient with James R. Floyd. As an administrative law judge with the Nuclear Regulatory Comission, I have served since August 1979 as the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board presiding over the proceeding considering the proposed restart of Three Mile Island Unit No.1. Much of this proceeding has involved issues of the integrity and competence of the managers and operators of Three Mile Island Nuclear Station. I have been informed that the recommendation contained in the Board's decision of July 27, 1982 (16 NRC 281, 344-55) brought about the investigation and subsequent indictment of Mr. Floyd.

While serving as Chairman of the Three Mile Island Licensing Board I have had an excellent opportunity to gain some insight into the events and the affected persons following the 1979 accident at the station. I hasten to add, however, that I know nothing about Mr. Floyd except the information produced on the public hearings most of which is set out in our July 1982 decision. Also, my comments are personal and I do not speak for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or for any other person.

I have basically two grounds for believing that leniency is appropriate.

The first pertains to the background against which Mr. Floyd's actions should be judged. Mr. Floyd worked very hard in the months following the accident. He possesses excellent technical skills. Management depended very heavily upon him in addressing the many problems needing solution on the island. I have always felt that Mr. Floyd's deception was an impulsive act and that it was not motivated by personal ambition.

He could have sought relief from his other duties in order to train properly for the requalification examination, to his personal benefit.

He could have passed easily without deception. One senses he neglected his examination responsibilities out of a misguided but altruistic effort to attend to matters of perceived greater urgency. In addition, he apparently felt that he was well qualified notwithstanding his licensing status.

topfo$ p G

e

_2 My second reason for hoping for lenient treatment for Mr. Floyd is that severe punishment is not necessary as a deterrent. I recognize that, whatever his motive, cheating on the requalification examination was a very serious matter and cannot be condoned or appear to be condoned.

However, Mr. Floyd's damaged career and public humiliation will be seen by others as too high a risk and price for any gain from cheating.

More important, however, a severe criminal penalty against Mr. Floyd, is in my personal view, not needed to insure the integrity of the NRC operators' licensing process at Three Mile Island, nor would it be

.useful. The civil regulatory scheme presently administered by the NRC is exceedingly thorough. It is adequate to assure that the operators of Three Mile Island are persons of competence and integrity. Many weeks of public NRC hearings have been devoted to the issue of TMI management integrity and operator competence and, in fact, hearings on that very issue are still in progress. I have confidence that the NRC administrative regulatory process, with extensive public participation, will provide an orderly and reliable mechanism for assuring that any problems caused by deception respecting Three Mile Island will have been identified and resolved. Deception in the future is very unlikely. A severe sentence for Mr. Floyd would add nothing.

Sincerely, t

4%' hjg wnO1-Ivan W. Smith l

cc: Willic J. Fulton, Esq.

Herzel E. Plaine, General Counsel, NRC Parties to TMI-1 proceeding i

___ - , -