ML19260C772
| ML19260C772 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 01/07/1980 |
| From: | Rogovin M ROGOVIN, HUGE & LENZNER |
| To: | Ahearne J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001240244 | |
| Download: ML19260C772 (5) | |
Text
RocoVIN, STERN & HuoE wrTCMC' L RCCOVlw 173o R H oD E ISLAND AVENUE, N. W.
JamtS F.NEAL
.c W L3 w. STERN or cou-sh WAs HINGTo N, c. C. 2co 3 6 MARRY huge GEORGC ?.rRAMPTON,JR.
Jesu. nain January 7, 1980
,cuc,uo,e JCN AT MAN 0. 5CMtLLER (2C2) 466-6464 CarlD R.8070 RONNA LCC BC:n
'C
.ANC C. BER3NCR NEC2h'00*0'20 CUGL%L J. couti N.Da sT0w FARR 2
- viCn:C.JA:nsow*
nR:STA u.resLguAN
- mot ao=rvvts to c.c. o..
Chairman John F. Ahearne D
Nuclear Regulatory Co= mission D
1717 E Street, N.W.
O tJ Washington, D..C.
Dear Chairman Ahearne:
I have read a transcript of the Cc= mission's January 4, 1980 meeting entitled " Discussion of Receipt and Release of Special Inquiry Report," and believe I nay be of assistance to you and your fellow Cc==issioners with respect to the issues considered by the Co==ission.
First, let me bring you up-to-date as to the current status of Volumes I and II f sc r ^, ^-t.
The first volume of the report, entitled "T.-
e Mile Islanc.
' Report to the Co==1ssioners of the NRC an
-. 6 Pub' x,
was turned over to John F.
Holman & Co.,
Inc. on January 2, 1980.
We have been assured by them that they will be able to word-process the 375 page double-spacec =anuscript in book-quality, camera-ready, for=, for delivery to the printer by January 9.
The printer has co==itted to provide us with 1,000 printed and bound copies by January 16, with the re=aining 6,000 copies delivered approximately one week later.
Upon receipt of the first printing, we should also be able to provide 500
- additional photocopies for NRC internal use.
As for Volume II, it will consist of three spearately bound parts.
It presently consists of sone 3,000 =anuscript pages.
The Holman Co. advised us on January 2 tha: they can begin final preparation of that vclume as soon as the firs:
volume is cc=pleted.
This means that although half of the manuscrip: has been put throuch their werd processing system, the remainder, much cf which has been word processed en the 8001240 M N f
F&
Chairman John F. Ahearne M.
January 7, 198'O W
Page Two
$+'
v2 NRC's System Six which is substantially cc=patible with Holman's
&Q system, cannot proceed until Hol-*n's word processing work on si Volume I is completed -- probably on January 7.
@=
=...r In analyzing the scope of the work it faces on Volume II, f[
the Holman Company pointed out on January 2 that:
l~d (It) is approximately ten times greater in
%5 size that Volume I (and]
contains numerous references and has been drafted bv a team of El authors, each exhibiting divergin'g degrees of consistent style.
Therefore, significant effort f(
will be needed to conform the manuscript into ip acceptable publishing standards.
For example, Sr more than 500 hours0.00579 days <br />0.139 hours <br />8.267196e-4 weeks <br />1.9025e-4 months <br /> of onsite editorial services
-l have been spent thus far to verify and standardize
@?
reference citations alone.
25-
==
=-
-=-
The Holman Co=pany estimates that some ten days will
- [
be required to put the remaining manuscript pages into their lg-word processing system and to proofread and correct the tr~
3,000 pages.
After that, according to the Holman Company, p{
the organizing, for=atting, paging and palcement of figures
- l and tables on the camera-ready pages, plus a final check, R
will take another fifteen days.
Bas'ed upon this, the Holman g'
Company says the earliest estimated delivery date to the a
printer of camera-ready copy of Volume II is five weeks after completion of Volume I.
Printing of the first 1,000 p_
copies would be finished in 2 1/2 weeks (around the 15th of E_
February) with the remaining 4,000 copies completed by the 5;
first of March, cE
.c The delay in the publication date for Volume II is
- 3 dramatically different from what we had been led to believe by the Holman Company in earlier discussions.
While part of the problem is properly ours for not having all 3,000 pages available to the contractor as originally projected on Dece=ber 21, the bulk of the proble= appears to be that
.~3 the contractor was not capable of handling such a large it manuscript over as short a time span as was called for.
.U.
Although we are seeking to accelerate the Holman Co.
time schedule in order to reduce as much as possible the 25-day period for getting camers ready copy, we do not know whether er to what extent t' hat ill be possible.
Further-
= ore, we do not know on what date it would be f easible to have in hand a final copy of Volume II in typescript form.
~
O M
OW %W
.rl RoGOVIN, STERN & Huot b
a ll Chairman John F. Ahearne January 7, 1980 Page Three h
+..
In this connection, it would appear appropriate to say a few words about the content of each volume in order
'{-
that you might under..tand their relationship to each other.
Volume I is intended to interest and to be read by not e
only the Com=ission but also mamkers of the public with no 4
background in nuclear power or its regulation.
The first
~
part of Volume I consists of a 175 page narrative of the
{
accident that is written in an open non-technical style, a
but nonetheless remains an extre=ely accurate reflection, 3r both from a technical and human point.of view, of what was
[
going on at THI-2, Harrisburg and Washington duri.49 the week of the accident.
The narrative is followed by approxi-
}
mately 200 pages devoted to our principal conclusions and r-recommendations which are set forth under twelve broad y
headings.
This is followed by an epilogue, intended to r
review and assess the post-accident actions taken by the utility, the industry and the NRC.
The conclusions and reco==endations in Volume I in the main are responsive to the requirement in our contract to " assess the possible i=plications of the accident at TMI-2 for other existing and future nuclear power
[
plants" (Article I(B1 ).
The three parts of Volume II contain:
1.
A detailed description of the preaccident licensing and regulation as backdrop against which the TMI-2 accident is played.
2.
A technical analysis of the accident; radiological releases; plant behavior and core damage; core damage and recovery; alternative accident sequences; hr-=n factors; enviornmental and socioeconomic i= pacts.
3.
The response to the accident by the utility, the NRC and other Federal agencies, and the State.
1 Obviously, there are some factual areas in which the conclusions we have reached in our investigation are only discussed and su=marized in Volume I.
A few of the areas that come to mind are the severity of the accident, possible alternative seguences, precursor events, whether
id
~ RoGOVIN, STERN & HUGE F
g.
2.-
T:4 :
Chairman John F. Ahearne 3['f January 7, 1980 Page Fou*
E!
E.v E
there was a rush to ec==ercial opera ~ tion, and whether there g
was a willful withholding o'f critical information by the
((
utility to cover up the seriousness of the accident.
M
=.?
- e In each one of these and other discrete areas, Volume i
II contains expanded, detailed technical back-up or extensive i[
discussion and analysis of deposition testimony.
y e-However, with respect to those issues that we have J
identified as the major implications of the accident and hs with respect to the major findings and recommendations of lF the inquiry, discussion of those matters in Volume I stands E) alone.
Thus, in what we regard as the most important areas, F
Volume II should not be construed as a pre-condition to a full understanding of volume I nor as a back-up for it.
[
u With this, then, as background, I would like to co==ent I
upon the issues raised at your January 4 meeting.
The first question, posed by Mr. Bickwit, concerned "what kind of P
advance notice" the Cc==ission wanted as to Volume I.
On June 2, 1979, when the Cc=missioners interviewed
=e (save for Commissioner Kennedy, who spoke with me on June 27) about heading up the inquiry, one of the significant
(
issues that I raised concerned the independence that the ji director would have.
I was concerned with the possibility v:
that our report might be censored by the Commission or not made public, and wished some assurances as to these possibili-
~
ties.
It was in this context that Chairman Hendrie and 3,-
Cc==issioner Gilinsky assured =e that the Special Inquiry's report would be made public 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> after it was turned over to the Cc==ission.
During the contract negotiations that followed with Messrs. Bickwit and Fitzgerald this assurance was reiterated.
Eaving stated this concern, I want to take i
clear that the Co==ission has remained f aithful to its pledge of independence.
Indeed, in underscoring the independence of d
the Special Inquiry, I have pointed out this understanding
[
with a great deal of pride to the press, to our consultants and to others.
Accordingly, I see ne reason to vary frc=
this understandin=.
2 As to the second issued raised by Mr. Eickwit concerning the availability of Volume II, it would be my desire to
~i=
~ 80GOVIN, STERN & HUGE m.
=-
l Chair m John F. Ahearne January 7, 1980 7
Page Five
-jE
=
=.:
provide the Com=ission with our work complete in every Eec respect.
All of us who have worked on the Special Inquiry si have been involved in a tension-ridden seven month inves-
- E tigation of enormous scope and gravity.
As professionals, II.
we all share a co= mon pride in the work and wish it pre-sented to the Commission ar.d the public in its.most accurate fashion.
To that end we are reluctant to see it made p'ublic R
@h in drafu form.
Nevertheless, we certainly recognize the merits of the argument made by the Cc=missioners to the end that Volume I ought not be released without substantive
[b backup if our conclusions and reev_aendations are based upon such materials.
This, however, is not a correct premise.
I.@
As pointed out earlier, in large part Volume I stands alone h
and, I believe, could be released prior to Volume II.
+{
I hope this letter is of some assistance to you and your fellow Co==issioners in sorting out the two questions
[#:
raised at your January 4 meeting.
I would be happy to meet it-with the appropriate NRC officials to pursue possible varia-14..
tions of the solutions I have suggested above.
ii:+
Sincerely, E$
E 2i'
-t' l d=::S~4~2 RitchellL Ryhovin 2:
cc:
Co==issioner Hendrie
~'
Cc==issioner Gilinsky E?
Co==issioner Kennedy Co==issioner Bradford General Counscl Leonard Bickwit G
H..
e e
e V