ML20140D561

Response to 860225 Objection to Petition for Leave to Intervene.Addl Evidence of Unfitness of Law Firm to Participate Listed.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20140D561
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	03/19/1986
From:	Aamodt M AAMODTS
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#186-522 86-519-02-SP, 86-519-2-SP, LRP, NUDOCS 8603260351
Download: ML20140D561 (14)

Text

r r I

o T .

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DCL Before the Presiding Board: 5' O James L. Kelley, Chairman Glenn O. Bright -.g Agg 24 Jerry R. Kline , p ,f ,,

. r,

)

In the Matter of

)

) Docket No. LRP INQUIRY INTO ) ASLBP No. 86-519-02 SP THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2

}

-LEAK RATE DATA FALSIFICATION March 19, 1986

}

)

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION TO AAMODT PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE On March 14, 1986, we received the LeBEOUF et al.

objection to the Aamodt petition for leave to intervene.

LeBEOUF served its objections on February 25, 1986. (1)-

The Aamodts request the opportunity to address the LeBEOUF objections more fully than they were able during the pre-hearing conference, prior to receipt of 3

the document.

(1) LeBEOUF explained in a letter of March 10,1986 (Moeller to Aamodt) that service of a copy of the document, Response of Numerous 1978-79 Employees of Metropolitan Edison Company to Aamodt Petit.'on for Leave to Intervene, was attempted by Federal Express. According to Le BEOUF, the Federal Express driver found that the Aamodts had " moved away" from their Parkesburg apartment.

In fact, Mr. Aan'odt ,was at the apartment from February 27th through gtp. The driver failed to leave notico as would have been 8603260351 860319 PDR ADOCK 05000320 1So 3 G PDR

o -

-) , ,

While the Aamodts believe that their comments before the Board on March 7, 1986 and filings of March 3, 1986 and March 13, 1986 are sufficiently comprehensive to support their petition of January 26, 1986, they request

~

the addition of this rebuttal of the LeBEOUF's written objections. In addition, the-Aamodts find that the LeBEOUF objections have provided significant evidence of LeBEOUF's contempt for the NRC and the instant inquiry.

The Aamodts have already asked this Board to dismiss the attorneys of the employees on the basis of their conflicts of interest. Aamodt Response.

March 14, 1985. The evidence presented herewith, is additional evidence of the unfitness of the LeBEOUF  :

firm to participate in the instant inquiry.

1. LeBEOUF is in error in asserting that the Aamodts' interest is "merely that of an intervenor in the TMI-l Restart Proceeding." LeBEOUF Response, p.3. (2)

The Aamodts defined their interest as that of theirs and others health and safety. The public residing, working and/or visiting near any nuclear power plant [

has real interest in this Board's disposition of the future right of the employees under suspicion to operate any nuclear power plant. Clearly, an individual who (2h The legitimate interest of the Aamodts as parties to the TM1-1 Restart Proceeding is discussed in their response of March 3,1986 at p.4.

i.. '

1 , ,

d is found by this Board to have willfully compromised his integrity in his duties operating TMI-2 should not be permitted access to anothert nuclear power plant. (3),

The NRC has acknowledged the public's right to participate in hearings related-to health and safety issues where the public can contribute to the development of the record. 10 CFR 2.

As the Aamodts explained in their Response of March 3, 1986 and during the pre-hearing conference of March 7, 1986, they are part of the public that

. will ultimately be affected by this Board's decision.

On March 13, 1986, the Aamodts amended their petition to reveal the formal organization of their represent-ation of the public residing in the vicinity of TMI

.and other nuclear power plants.

(3) Unknown amounts of radioactive water leaked from TMI-2 during its entire operation. Documents available to us make that fact abundantly clear. The leak rate test was the only valid test to determine unidentified boundary leakage.

Further, the leak rate falsifications caused the TMI-2 accident by conditioning the operators to ignore important signals of loss of water from 'the reactor core. This causal relationship was presented for the first time to the public and Commission by the Aamodt motion of April 16,1983 at pp.14-16. "New Unders*wnding of the TMI-2 Accident". Documents later released by the NRC confirmed the Aamodts' deduction.

These consequences of the leak rate falsifications are only examples of the public health and safety risks attendant to the lack of integrity of employees at nuclear facilities.

ed

2. The LeBEOUF assertion that the Aamodts cannot contribute to the record because the instant inquiry is nothing more than of " historical nature" and the Aamodts do not have " personal" knowledge of falsifying leak rates is disturbing. Either LeBEOUF does not understand the purpose of the instant inquiry or .

LeBEOUF refuses to understand.

LeBEOUF has had ample opportunity to understand the Commission's purpose in providing the instant inquiry. Nearly three months ago, the Commission (4) clearly stated the purpose of the hearing, "to determina the involvement of any individual who may now work, or in the future work, at a nuclear facility licensed by the Commission." Commission Order, December 18, 1986 (CLI-85-18), pp.4,9, emphasis added.

Then, in response to the LeBEOUF motion for reconsideration, the Commission wrote.on February 13, 1986, "The proceeding will be used as an information base for decisions on whether enforcement or other licensing action should be initiated." See CLI-86-03, p.1, emphasis added.

However, on February 26, 1986, in objecting to the Aamodts, LeBEOUF defiantly stated, "None of the issues set for hearing in this inquiry address a currently signiflcant safety concern." (pp.2-3)

(4) The Commission's orders of February 25,1%5 and May 29, 1985 made similar statements.

n .., ..

LeBEOUF's continued disregard of the Commission's purpose for the instant inquiry is evidence of either incompetence oh contempt.

The evidence points to a conclusion of contempt.

LeBEOUF is attempting to restructure the instant inquiry to its liking. (S) ! First, LeBEOUF opposed the Commission's acknowledgement that leak rate reports were falsified.as the basis for the instant inquiry.

.LeBEOUF Motio'n, January 14, 1986. The Come.ission denied that motion. CLI-86-03, February 13, 1986.

However, LeBEOUF then proposed to distract this Board by suggesting tours of the TMI plant to " help...put...

alleged individual involvement in the proper factual context." See LeBEOUF Response, March 3, 1986, pp.2-3,' emphasis added.

Now, in opposing the Aamodts, LeBEOUF is attempting to recharacterize the important purpose of the inquiry from that intended by the Commission. LeBEOUF has signaled its intant to thwart the purpose of the -

instant inquiry. LeBEOUF's actions are reminiscent of those in 1981 before the Grand Jury investigating the Hartman allegations of leak rate falsification and

t. (5) The Board should also note Le000UF's misrepresentations during the pre-hearing conference where LeBEOUF claimed, contrary to fact, that Judge Rambo's order prevented any further NRC's requests for Grand Jury records and where, contrary to fact. LeBEOUF j claimed that Faegre and Benson did not interview ernployees as a

! matter of choice. See Transcript, pre-hearing conference where LeBEOUF's misrepresentations were rebutted (Aamodt. reading from Judge Rambo's order). See " Summary", Attachment 1, for reference to Faegre & Benson or Faegre & Benson Report, Vol. I at pp.9.13.

, .- -= .. . -

, a <,;

d identification of culpable employees. (6)' The Grand J

Jury was dismissed when the judge failed to uphold the

.U.S.-Attorney's motion for dismissal-of LeBEOUF. The

. Department of Justice investigation was delayed for two' years. LeBEOUF's participation can be expected

. to have a similar effect on the instant inquiry.

l LeBEOUF's other assumption' that a party must ,

have " personal" knowledge of leak rate falsifications, can only have been a gross error. Since LeBEOUF filed a petition for 26 employees to participate, is LeBEOUF admitting that all 26 have " personal" knowledge of i li j leak rate falsifications? Since LeBEOUF did not 4

oppose the petition of General Public Utilities Nuclear

! (GPUN), does LeBEOUF have information of GPUN's r

personal knowledge of leak rate falsifications? LeBEOUF i

is either inconsistent in applying its ' requirements' for participation or LeBEOUF has important information f

e contrary to its position in its motion of January 14, 1986 and signific' ant to the NRC's decision to allow GPUN to

, operate TMI-1!

l (6)l This is self-evident from the face of the Court order provided as Attachment 1 Response of Employees to Memorandtzn and Order of February 14,1986, March 3,1966, filed by LeBEOUF.

Charles Babcock reported in the klashington Post, May 1980:

" Sources said that prosecutors felt so stymied by uncooperative TMI witnesses that they once asked the judge to dismiss the TMI employees' attorneys." IeBEOUF was then representing the bulk l of the employees.

i i  !

Although LeBEOUF can be expected to deny knowledge of GPUN's " personal" knowledge or attorney-client privilege concerning the employees' " personal" knowledge, LeBEOUF's error may be a " Freudian slip". In any event, it is remarkable. (7)-

3. The LeBdOUF ' standards' for participation cannot be taken se'fiously with the exception of " technical expertise". (8) Here, the Aamodts easily meet this

' requirement'. As was explained during the pre-hearing conference, the Aamodts are well-acquainted with the -

technical aspects of leak rate measurement' and report. (9)

(7) The Aamodts' " personal" involvement was as victims of those who falsified the leak rate reports. The Aamodts evacuated during the TMI accident as did other members of the public whom they represent. In addition, many members have suffered grevious physical injury from radiation exposure. See Aamodt Motion, January 15, 1985, subject of an appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court, filed December 18, 1985. This historical involvement is the basis for the public interest in the future operation of nuclear power plants and the instant inquiry. See p.2-3 supra. .

(8) The level of expertise is only that needed to detennine whet.her Metropoliton Edison Company employees followed requirements, not whether the requirements were properly imposed. See CLI-66 -03, February 13,1966, p.2(3.).

(9) A " Summary" of 1.he verification of leak rate falsifications by Faegre and Benson is provided herewith as Attachment 1. The Aamodts provided this surranary to the Commission to refute t.he claim of the GPU Chairman'of the Board, Hennan Dieckamp, that he did not find that Faegre and Benson had verified the Harten allegations.

(Dieckamp later claimed that he had never read the report he commissioned!)

s

/

LeBEOUF acknowledged the Aamodts' accuracy in reporting the Hartman allegations to the Commission (see LeBEOUF Response, p.4), a report which the Appeal Board found worthy of upholding. ALAB-738, August 31, 1983.

Mr. Aamodt is a graduate engineer.(M.E.),' studied nuclear physics at New York University, and has extensive experience in research and development, working for AT&T and other corporations for over 35 years.

4. LeBEOUF's objection concerning the timeliness of the.Aamodts petition, even if valid, would fail.

See NRC test for overcoming lack of timeliness. 10 CFR 2.

For instance, the Aamodts would have no opportunity to have their interests represented, therefore timeliness is moot.

THEREFORE, the Aamodts humbly request this honorable Board to consider the above-presented positions, in addition to those already presented, in considering -

their petition for leave to intervene.

f~ .. ..

! _9 7_

If the Board has not already acted favorably on the Aamodts' request for a dismissal of the employees'

' attorneys on grounds of conflict of interest, the Aamodts

! motion this honorable Board for dismissal of LeBEOUF et al.

on grounds of contempt.

l l

Respectfully submitted, I

ffh0- 4'Ob /f i

i Marjorie M. Aamodt Norman O. Aamodt COMMITTEE ON HEALTH ASPECTS & MANAGEMENT OF NUCLEAR POWER

! Box 652, Lake Placid, N.Y. 12946

.Te. l . 518-523-2370

-March 19, 1986 f

1 i

i:

I I

I

Attcchment 1

)

SUYFLRY Faegre & Benson Investigation of Allegations by Harold W. Hartman, Jr.

9 Marjorie M. Aamodt

2.

R7sults by haroldof 'w.

Peogra & Benson Investigation of Allegations

_ Unit 2, Volumes 1-4, Hartman, Jr. Concerning Inree hile Island

.. sentember 17, 1980 -

This independent investigation instigated by GPU came to the following conclusions (page 36):

-2.1 Based on Hartman 's statement, their corroboration in I&E interviews and upon our review of the effect of the -

omissions, errore and oscillations, we have little doubt that leak rate tests were run frequently, producing an unknown-number cf unidentified leak rates in excess of lgpm.

2.2 To the extent that " bad" leak rate results occurred, they were regular file.

all thrown away because none have survived in the The deliberateness of the failure to report tests in excess of technical specifications was drawn (page 28):

2.3 In view of the underlying policy rationale establishing a 1'gpa limit on unidentified leakage, namely, plant safety, it would be difficult .to justify a conclusion that when the test is run core frequently than required results outside of the 1 gpm limit can be ignored, unless they are rejected as invalid ^ indications of leakage.

The extent of the failure to report leak rate calculations 4

in excess of technical specifications was indicated by notes cf I&E interviews provided to the investigators. It appears that from one to five tests were performed per shif t(page 10) over '

a period exceeding six conths.

The evidence (2.1, 2.2, 2.3) forces a conclusien tha t '

. the failur,e of the opera tions sta ff to record " bad " tests, to validate these tests and report any valid " bad" tests to the NRC was deliberate and so extensive to involve the entire opera tions staff. ,,

'f Concerning the ca tter of " fudging" the calcula tions, the consultants were denied a ccess to tho best source of this information -- the operators. Iagal b rriers were~crevided

- , - . . , - . - - . ,--,,_,__._-.-_-_r. - - . - - _ - . _ . , - .- - --- .

by Eotropoliten Edicen man 2gtment to prsvent full access to

, . tha operatoro. (pegso 9, 13) Howaver, notes frea I&E int 2rviews provided corroboration of Hartman's allegations of addition- of water ahd' hydrogen to give e low false reading ipehes 10, 11)..

The consultants also verified that all the methods Eartman

' alleged were used to " fudge" the calculation were effective.

(pages 37-4 9) ,

e. . == -

t

'h y 4

9 4  %

)

i b

i I e

?

e 4 I k

k 4

k --_- _.- - _ __ , , - _ . _,

\

e UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Presiding Board In the Matter of )

)

INQUIRY INTO ) Docket No. LRP

-THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 )

LEAK RATE FALSIFICATION )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that copies of RESPONSE TO OBJECTION TO AAMODT PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE, dated March 19, 1986, were served upon the following persons by deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid, today:

Chief, Docketing & Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 James B. Burns, Esq.

Isham, Lincoln & Beale Prusiding_ Board, the Honorables 3 First National Plaza James L.'Kelley, Chairman Suite 5200 Glenn O. Bright Chicago, IL 60602 Jerry R. Kline Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel ~ Michael W. Maupin U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hunton & Williams Washington, D.C. 20555 707 E. Main St.

P.O. Box 1535 Jack.R. Goldberg, Esq. Richmond, VA 23212 Mary Wagner, Esa.

Office of the Executive Legal Director- Marvin I, Lewis U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 6504 Bradford Terrace Washington, D.C. 20555 Philadelphia, PA 19149 Ernest L. Blake, Esq. '

Shaw, Pittman,' Potts & Trowbridge e 1800 M Street, N .'W .

Washington, D.C. 20036 I

j 4

g'

?'- j ., l Aamodt g

MarJofie M.

Harry H. Voigt, Esq. F rch 19, 1986 LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & PbcRae 1333 New Hampshire Ave. , N. / W.

Suite.1100 Washington, D.C. 20036 Smith B. Gephart, Esq.

Killian & Gephart 216-218 Pine Street Box 886 Harrisburg, PA 17108

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COPMISSION Before the, Presiding Board

> CCVEU*-

U A9c In the Matter of )

INQUIRY INTo E dde % 53LRP THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 )

LEAK RATE FALSIFICATION u OFJ,NErig ij..._.'

OW BRANck CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that copies of AMENDMENT FOR PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE, dated March 13, 1986, were served upon the following persons by deposit in t.he U.S. Mail first class, postage prepaid, on March 14, 1986:

Chief, Docketing & Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 James B. Burns, Esq.

Isham, Lincoln & Beale Presiding Board, the Honorables 3 First Nacional Plaza James L. Kelley, Chairman Suite 5200 Glenn O. Bright Chicago, IL 60602 Jerry R. Kline Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Michael W. Maupin U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hunton & Williams Washington, D.C. 20555 707 E. Main St.

P.O. Box 1535 Jack R. Goldberg, Esq. Richmond, VA 23212 Mary Wagner, Esa.

Office of the Executive Legal Director- Marvin I, Lewis U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 6504 Bradford Terrace Washington, D.C. 20555 P.hiladelphia. PA 19149-Ernest L. Blake, Esq. ' '

Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W. f qQ ,

p Washington, D.C. 20036 Marjdrie M. Aamodt Harry H. Voigt, Esq. March 19, 1986 LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae 1333 New Hampshire Ave., N. / W.

Suite 1100 Washington, D.C. 20036 Smith B. Gephart, Esq.

Killian & Gephart j i

216-218 Pine Street Box 886 l Harrisburg, PA 17108 .

l