ML20207R787

Aamodt Motions in Response to Numerous Employees New Position.* Resolution of Listed Matters Requires Addl Investigation by Board.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20207R787
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	03/11/1987
From:	Aamodt M, Aamodt N AAMODTS
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#187-2809 86-519-02-SP, 86-519-2-SP, LRP, NUDOCS 8703180136
Download: ML20207R787 (5)

Text

I o

2 709 Y UhITED STATES OF AMERICA 00',KETEC NDCLEAR REUUIATURY COMMISSION UWDC BEFORE THE PRESIDING BOARD

'87 MAR 16 P2 :36 In the Matter of ) Docket No. LRP

) 0FPC -

ui INQUIRY INTO 'HIREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 ) ASLBP No. 86-519002h W*M " -

LEAK RATE DATA FALSIFICATIONS )

) March 11, 1987

_AAMOIyr MOTIONS IN RESPONSE TO NUMEROUS EMPIDYEES' NEW POSITION In a Memorandum of Law, filed January 23, 1987, the Numerous Employees

- w ad that the administrative and surveillance procedures established by Metropolitan Edison at 7MI-2 to fulfill the technical specifications for licensing and operation of the facility were not binding legal requirements on the employees. (Id., pp. 14-20). The NRC Staff responded that this position of the Numerous Employees would cause the Staff to initiate en-forcement action to remove these employees from NRC regulated activities.

(February 17, 1987, p. 12). The Numerous Employees then agreed to attempt to satisfy the concerns of the Staff to avoid enforcement action. The Employees filed a " Clarification" of their position as follows:

The licensed operators who are parties to the Memorandum of Law intend to adhere to all facility operating procedures, including administrative procedures, and the legal position taken by Numerous Employees at pages 14-18 of the Memorandum of Law does not conflict with the individual written and oral statements concerning adherence to procedures made by those licensed ocrators to the NRC during its investigation of leak rate testing at TMI-2. (February 27, 1987, pp.2-3).

The Numerous Employees' clarification raises three matters of public health and safety concern and of significance to the Board's pending decision on individual involvement in leak rate falsifications. The resolution of theselmatters requires additional investigation by the Board.

W O3180136 870311 PDR ADOCK 05000320 U PDR-

, e*

y

1. The statement of the licensed operators, cited above, does not f

materially change the position the Numerous Employees advanced in their Memorandum of Law, which caused the NRC to threaten inmediate enforcement action in order to protect the public's health and safety. The statement simply repeats, in essence, the shocking position set out in their Memoran-dum of Law which made it eminently clear that the employees do not consider themselves bound by the laws governing the nuclear facility's license to operate. hhile the operators " clarify" that they would adhere to the procedures the company has in place as responsive to the NRC regulations, the operators state that they do not feel legally constrained to do so.

The operators' statement, that asserts that there is no conflict between their testimony to the NRC (that they will adhere to procedures) and the position of the Numerous Employees in their Memorandum of Law (that they are not legally required to do so), makes it eminently clear that the operators did and would continue to flaunt the NRC's authority -- according to their attorneys. This position is not only outrageous, it is preposterous as a position offered in defense of employees who stated in this hearing their intent to return to NRC licensed duty in a nuclear facility. The Board needs to investigate, by interviewing each individual, whether each of the Numerous Employees was faith-fully represented by their attorneya' filings of the Memorandum of Law and the subsequent clarification. We so move.

2. The Numerous Employees' position, if faithfully stated, raises numerous new questions not considered by the Board. The following are some that are raised and are responsive to the Comnission's order establishing this proceeding.

e (1) Did the employees' attitude toward NRC regulation influence their performance of the leak rate surveillances of 1978-9 at M I-2? (2) How

[

did the employees' attitude toward NRC regulation develop? (3) 'Did WI management foster the employees' unique loyalty to the company and/or

~d isregard for the legitimate interest of the NRC?W (4) How far up in management did the responsibility for fostering the employees' attitude go? .

(5) . Does 'IMI management presently foster an attitude of disrespect for NRC authority? (6) If not,'why would this attitude have remained with the 2

employees? (7) If so, why?- (8) Is the employees' attitude generic in the nuclear industry? (The most active firm in representing the employees i has other nuclear accounts. If the Numerous Employees' attitude is unique, i it was incumbent on the employees to show that and the circumstances.) (9)

Were the testimonies of the operators and other Numerous Employees in this proceeding and before other investigators whose work is on the record of this proceeding influenced by the employees' (or attorneys') disrespect for the NRC's authority in the matter of leak rate surveillance? (10) How does the Numerous Employees' attitude toward NRC regulation effect their present performance in nuclear assignments? The Board needs to seek answers to these open questions. We request that relief.

?

3. The Numerous Employees' position, if not subject to the investigations proposed in numbers 1 and 2, above, stadds as evidence that should be plac.ed on the record of this proceeding. From the employees' position, the Board can y The NRC investigations stated that " Operations Department Management clearly fostered" an attitude which caused leak rate falsifications 7 and that the practice of discarding tests of excessive leakage and

! that "..a conscious decision was made by Shift Supervisors, and I possibly management personnel, to disregard the requirements of the technical specifications.." How'ever, these references are not to be regarded as on the record of this hearing by a Board ruling. Tr. 389-90, i 569-71. See Board Ex. 5-A at p. 3 and Ex. 6 (Synopsia).

i i.

i

- , _ _ . . _ - . _ . . . , _ . . . , . - , - , . . _ , _ . , _ _ - . . _ _ _ _ . - _ _ . ~ - - _ _ _ _

deduce that management was responsible for the operators' falsification of leak rate reports at Unit 2. The employees, who are in the best position to know, have placed the responsibility for leak rate falsification squarely on management. According to the " Clarification", the operators performed the leak rate tests as if they were only accountable to the licensee. According to the Memorandum of Law, the other employees supervised the operators' per-formance of leak rate tests as if they were only accountable to licensee.

It follows that the operators and other employees perceived their performance of the tests and supervision of the tests as acceptable to the licensee.

The employees' actions in throwing away tests in excess of technical speci-fications, hiding tests in excess of technical specifications, manipulating tests to make them appear within technical specifications, approving false tests and reporting false tests were responsive to the employees' account-ability to licensee, a sole accountability which the employees' profess they always had and continue to have. We move the Board to make the t

Numerous Employees' Memorandum of Law and clarification a part of the record of the proceeding for the evidence of the Numerous Employees' sole accountability to the licensee.

In conclusion, the above motions are timely, significant and would have a potential effect on the Board's decision, thus meeting the tri-partite test governing the reopening of a record. Further, the Board has never closed the record of this proceeding by stating its willingness to accept additione.1 evidence after the close of the hearing.

R pectfully submitted, __.-

f

f' Marjorie

!be M. ,;.

/', '/'* t r.c:/ l

/,

A'ot - -

. hts ((ltt Jkht' l l

Norman O. Aamodt March 11, 1987 i

l l

[

6

' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Presiding Board y,4.; g .

) Docket LRP In the Matter of

) ASLBP No. 86@9M R'

)

Of P2 36 INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 LEAK-RATE DATA FALSIFICATION )

) 0FFR :- .

00CKE ' d.i .. ~. a BnANCu This is to certify that copies of AAM0170 M(yrIONS IN RESPONSE TO NUMEROUS EMPIDYEES' NEW POSITION, dated March 11, 1987, were served by deposit in U.S. Mail, first class, po t ge prepaid, on the following __,

Service List. AL ( t.1 a t t .N3 N'X u n' . {

1 Marjorid M. Aamodt bbrch 12, 1987 SERVICE LIST Chief, Docketing & Service Section Harry H. Voigt, Esq.

Office of the Secretary James W. Meoller, 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.

3 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.

Michael W. Maupin, Esq.

Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 2300 N Street, N.W. Hunton & Williams Washington, D.C. 20037 P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, VA 73212 Smith B. Gephart, Esq.

Jane G. Penny, Esq. Jack R. Goldberg, Esq.

Killian & Gephart Mary Wagner, Esq.

General Counsel Legal Of fices Box 886 216-218 Pine Street U.S, Nucelar Regulatory Commission Harrisburg, PA 17108 Washington, D.C. 20555

-- ., . - . , - . . - - , - . - . - - . - . . _ -