ML20024B741

Comments on Aslab 830616 Order Re Motions to Reopen Record on Issues of Mgt Competence & Integrity,Nrc Knowledge of Leak Rate Testing Falsification & Temporary Reassignment of Individuals

ML20024B741
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	07/01/1983
From:	Weiss E UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
To:
References
NUDOCS 8307110300
Download: ML20024B741 (6)

Text

A v' \

,, a 9\

2 S

pen *e4 cec Cp j

[ JOU O (

geedt* /'

y. DQjy i

b t0 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Nt. CLEAR REGULA'IORY COPHISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of )

)

MET. ROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289

) (Restart)

('Ihree Mile Island Nuclear )

Station, Unit No.1) )

UCS COMMENTS ON APPEAL BOARD ORDER OF JUNE 16, 1983 In an order dated June 16, 1983, the Appeal Board described three pending motions to reopen the record on issues relating to management competence and integrity and established an oral argunent date. 'Ihe Board also invited the comments of the parties on three more recent matters not expressly raised in the motions but which may have a bearing on their disposition: . NRC Staff Member Martin's disclosure to the Comnission on May 24, 1983, that the Staff has been aware since 1980 that leak rates for 'IMI-2 were falsified, the NRC Executive Director's proposal to allow restart without fully resolving the implications of the leak rate falsification by reassigning certain potentially involved individuals and, last, GPU's proposal to make 8307110300 830701 PDR ADOCK 05000289 Q PDR

temporary reassignment of a number of individuals prior to restart.

As the Board is aware, UCS did not make filings in response to the motions to reopen the record. We have, howver, filed comments directly with the Comission on the implicatios of Martin's disclosure and on the Staff proposal for restart. Union of Cbncerned Scientists' Coments on Commission Briefing of May 24,1983 (Ieak Rate Falsification) and Objection to Ex Parte Comunication, June 3,1983; thion of Concerned Scientists' Comments on Dircks' Memorandum, " Completion of MI-l Restart Review", June 7, 1983, June 14, 1983. Copies of these submissions are attached and incorporated herein.

With respect to the leak rate falsification issue, so much has transpired at the Comission level after the expiration of the period for coment on the mIA motion that UCS believes that we should not be excluded from oral argunent. In addition, UCS expressly objected in our attached June 3 coments to the Comission to the continuous pattern of ex parte comunication between the Staff, GFU and the Cbunission which has characterized this proceeding for the past year at least. We stated that the parties are entitled to a reasonable opportunity to confront the evidence. Under the circunstances, our filings to the Comnission can be construed as support for the motions to l

reopen, at lease insofar as they relate to the leak rate falsification. Due to the Comission's misguided (arri, we believe, unlawful) practice of l

accepting on an ex parte basis what can only be characterized as new evidence bearing directly on issues pending before the Appeal Board, this proceeding

'has become a procedural nightmare. No lec,311stic distinction between the so-called "imnediate effectiveness" review and the appeal of the substantive issues can obscure the plain fact that, at this point, the fundamental principle that decision-making must be on the record subject to reasonable confrontation by adverse parties is being systenatically flouted.

[

4 4

UCS believes that the Appeal Board must order the record reopened on

-management competence and integrity to consider the full implications of the 4

. new material related to leak rate falsification, the BETA and RHR reports, the

. Paris, King and Gischel allegations and the failure of GPU to promptly inform the Boards about the BETA and RHR reports.

As to the latter, it should be noted that the Executive Iagal Director has now concluied that the reports contain-information relevant to the issues in the restart proceeding, raising questions about the soundness of the record on a nunber of issues, including training, maintenance, waste managment and health physics. Memoraniun from Guy W. Cunningham to Harold R. Denton, "'IMI-l Board Notification -- BETA and RHR ReDorts," June 14,,19R3, p.2. In

! addition, ELD concluded that GPU violated its duty to promptly transmit this material to the Appeal Board and its obligations under Section 186 of the Atomic.Ehergy Act. ELD concluded that this "may" be "a material false l statement by omission." Id. at n.7, p.4.

! We attached submissions to the Cbunission discuss the implications of the Martin disclosure of M'ay 24, 1983, that leak rates had, in fact, been i

falsified, and the Staff proposal to proceed with restart nonetheless. %e points made therein will not be reiterated. It should be sphasized that the

- fundamental prenise of both the Staff proposal and GPU's variation is that the l ' specific misdeeds of individuals can be decoupled from the integrity of the I organization as a whole -- that there is virtually no point at.which cheating 1.

and falsification reach a level where one must conclude that the corporate organization ultimately responsible for the actions of the individual is disqualified from holding a license. Indeed, these proposals implicitly

. assune that. there is no requirenent for corporate integrity. If restart can be justified in the face of these allegations by tenporarily reassigning

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

l individuals, the concept of corporate and management accountability has '

l effectively been nullified. We have little doubt that adoption of this l transparent expedient would be seen by GPU employees for what it is:

confirmation of the fact that the NRC recuirements are extremely flexible when enforcement might jeopardize plant operation. Such a message is precisely the wrong one to send.

As the Board will note, the Staff's proposal also begins with the predetermined conclusion that no managenent-level personnel are involved in or responsible for the systematic falsification of leak rate calculations.

Dircks' Memorandan, June 7, .1983, p.4. %us, Staff begins its inquiry with a predetermined conclusion as to what may be the crucial issue in the proceeding. We Appeal Board must keep in mind that 1) the leak rate falsification occurred continuously over a period of months and must have involved a .large number of people either directly or undirectly; 2) the underlying issue was whether the plant would have to shut down because it was in violation of its license. It strains credulity to believe that a matter of such grave consequences and long duration would not have come to the attention of management; 3) if management were unaware of this situation, they had lost control of their own operation; 4) upper level managenent still insists, as Mr. Diekamp stated to the Comnission on May 24, 1983, that leak rates were not falsified, despite the 1980 report of its own consultants, Faegre and Benson, which supported Hartman's allegations in pertinent part. Managenent has made no attenpt to find out who is implicated and has taken no steps to discipline anyone. Indeed, it did not permit its own consultants to interview any GPU employees. Under these circunstances, no reasonably unbiased investigator would exclude managenent from consideration at the threshold.

GPU's proposal, insofar as it is clear at this point, suffers fron the

same pervasive underlying flaw as NRC's; it asstnes that the corporate entity can in some metaphysical way be separated from the misdeeds of the people who constitute the corporation. No such separation can be made. 1he Staff appeared to concede as much when it briefed the Comission on June 21. Mr.

Dircks said:

Again, the difficulty of this integrity issue is so conplex, the responsibility for the accident back in 1979, the corporation essentially, as it exists today, I guess has had no inclination to come forward with any adnission of responsibiility for their .

activities in that accident. Does their refusal to say anything in that regard bear back on the integrity of the institution?

i Well, I think that's why in the interest of getting all this on the table, I would like to mention that because when we talk about treating this integrity issue on an individual basis versus the institutional basis, I want to enphasize that you just do not make a clean-cut split.

Conm. Tr. , June 21,1983, p.ll Indeed, the Staff was unable despite receated ouestioning to provide a rational basis for the corporate / individual separation or for exonerating managavent. Fach time they were pressed, they either changed the subject or suggested to the Conmission that, unless their proposal were adopted,

[ extensive investigations would be required before restart. Id. at 11, 13, ,

16-22. This " logic" makes it apparent that the overriding goal of the proposal is to provide an excuse for restart, not a rational plan for addressing these serious questions.

I Conclusion UCS believes that the Aopeal Board has 1ittle choice but to reonen the  ;

record. It can hardly be expected to rule on management competence and I integrity on the basis of a record which does not incitr3e consideration of the systematic falsification of leak rate calculations prior to the WI-2 accident and GPU's response thereafter, the PETA and RHR reports which contain evidence that the poor training and management practices prior to the accident still persist, and the evidence that workers at the 'INI-2 cleanup have been subjected to retaliation and removal for insisting upon compliance with procedures. 'Ibese issues have been raised in a timely fashion, are directed to a significant safety-related issue (management comoetence and integrity) and would dictate a different result from that reached by the AELB. 'Ihe standards for reopening are met. Kansas City Gas and Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No.1) , AIAB-462, 7 NRC 320, 328 (1978).

Respectfully submitted, f'

Ellyn R. Weiss (

To,. . ha. fs. O Ceneral Counsel Union of Concerned Scientists Dated: July 1, 1983

_ _ _ _ .__ .._