ML19301C499
| ML19301C499 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/29/1983 |
| From: | Gilinsky V NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19301A041 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-86-234 NUDOCS 8307290260 | |
| Download: ML19301C499 (2) | |
Text
..s t
/
- e UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM#1:iSION
' 3 "D e i,,e w Assm cioN. o.c. 2:sss 5
e
- A n..,.
c >
a
- Y
[
,T,'.
~ '
.,,.4 N.
s
'f" \\.
CF Ft0E OF THE P!
June 29, 19F2 y 'L 3 gg., Q, C Ot.a.M ts3IO N E R Qml-c'. > t t e.
- }A
'T 'te' a k ll tt n% /i t\\g>
.Nn*
- -.: ->.,,..r3 a ;\\..
- - u... e,
..-,., r,. u
..-... r:.,. a J e,,-,,.,., : O m.
,,, r p
.). :~
n s a.
D~F.ECTOR 70R OFIF.ATIONS EU37:CT:
HART!G.S AI. LIGATIONS s
Since senior NRC staff mer.bers apparencly belie'.e my March or April cf 1980, that leak rate test results had likely been falsified pricr to the March 28, 1979 accident at TMI-2, and that this was a pctentially serious natter, why was,this belief not cer.runica,ted to the Licensing Board or the Cer=ission?
/
<A
/
Ys Litter Gil.askv..
cc:
Chairr.an Palladino Cor=Lssicner khearne Cor=issioner Ecberts Cornissioner Asselstine SECY OGC OPE
\\
C t Whit 9 %.r.o'7 A 9 0 2 6 9
s
- e
e ENCLOSURE 6
- j... %'e, Ut'lTE D STATES 6
- e.
f,'UC L E AR R EG UL ATORY CO*i...lSSION
! N-
~ *
,i v.2s.we. es. o e. :ats
[
- l
-u. /
a, JUL 191533 MEMOPANDUM FOR:
Ccmissioner Gilins.y FFOM:
William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
HARTPAN ALLErATIONS In a memorandum dated June 29, 1933 you asked the following question:
Since senior NF.C staff members apparently believed by March or April of 1980, that leak ate test results had likely been falsified prior to the March 28, 1979 accident at THI-2, and that this was a potentially sericus matter, why was this belief not corrunicated to the Licensing Board or the Comission?
Maybe I am missing something.
I would have thought that our recent exchange of memos on this subject made it clear that the agency would not have referred the matter to Justice if it had not considered the matter serious.
I also would have thought that the extent of Commission involvement in this matter would have indicated that the Commissioners shared this sense of the seriousness of the matter.
But maybe the histcry should be reviewed again.
The fact that the Hartman allegaticns concerning falsification of leak rate data had been referred to the Department of Justice (DOJ) was not withhe'd from the public or the Comissioners.
In April of 1980, contemporaneously with the referral, the Comission publicly announced that +he allegations had been brought to the ettention of the DOJ.1/
Moreove*, as set forth in the enclosures to my memorandum to you oT June 10, 1953, the Comission (including yourself) was aware, no later than May 28, 1930,2/ that the Hart:..an allegations had been referred to DOJ and that DOJ had convened a grand jury to investigate the allegations.
It is reasonable and logical to infer, from the fact that the Comission referred the matter to DOJ for possible criminal prosecution, that senier NRC staff aware of the Hart-hn allegations believed that " leak rate results had likely been falsified" and that this was "a potentielly
-1/
See NRC press release No. S0-73, April 17, 1950, a copy of which is attached.
-2/
See the Comissien's ~ Memorandum and Order of May 28, 1980 (unpublished) in Metropolitan Edisen Company (Three 11ile Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2), at 5-5.
Presunably, the Comission already had been infor ed of the DOJ referral at or before the time that referral was made in April 1950.
=G %n 7 R O]L-]
s C:.issicr.er Giiinsky sericus matter."
Inceed, had the staff rambers telieved that it was unlikely that leak ra'te data had been falsified, they would not have referred the matter to DOJ.
In addition, the existence of the Hartman allegations concerning falsification of leak rate data and the fact that those allegations had been referred to DDJ for possible criminal prosecution specifically were discussed in Lapplement 1 of NUREG-0520, issued November 1980, and Supplement 2 of NUREG-OSSO, issued March 1981.
Both these docurents were made part of the record in the TMI-1 Restart Proceeding, and were widely distributed throughout the agency.
N (3
William J. Dircks Executive Directcr for Operations
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
Chairman Palladino Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine SECY PE GC TM1-1 service list 9
9
=e y
4
, _......~. _-= r__. -mq_ w__
1
'J--
~.
- ~ - -.......
=
" ' N.,
((%..g/e/
g UNITED STATES
.i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
s s 'r4J3 s' v Office of Public Affairs Washington, D.C. 20555 No.
80-78
Contact:
Frank Ingram TOR I!?.EDIATE RELEASE Tel.
301/492-7715 (Mailed - April 17, 1980)
NRC STAFF CCNTIN NS THREE MILE ISLAND INQUIRIES Victor Stello, the Nuclear Regula tory Cornission's Director of Inspection and Enforcement, confirmed today that his office has been actively pursuing incuiries into allegations made by Harold Hartman, a forn;er Three Mile Island control room operator.
The allegations relate to calculations of primary coolant leak rate measurements that were made during the year prior'to the TMI Unit 2 accident.
Mr. Hartman's allegations have been brought,to the attention of the Justice Department by the NRC.
Mr.
into the issues raised in the October,Stello alsc said that'the inquiry 1979 enforcement action regarding reporting of certain information during the accident is continuing.
Mr. Stello noted that, in view of g
the ongoing nature of these inquiries, it would be inappropriate to discuss them further at this time.
f 4
9 e
o e
- e
=*
e
ENCLOSURE 7
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFET" AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,)
Unit No. 1)
)
NRC STAFF'S MEMORANDUM ON THE STATUS OF ITS TMI-I RESTART REVIEW g
Jack R. Goldberg Counsel for NRC Staff July 21, 1983
~;.
_ k @ "i O 'i O 3 E)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matts e of
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Restart)
(ThreeMileIslandNuclearStation,)
Unit No. 1)
)
NRC STAFF'S MEMORANDUM ON THE STATUS OF ITS TMI-1 RESTART REVIEW I.
INTRODUCTION By Orders dated June 16, 1983 and July 6, 1983, the Appeal Board directed the Staff to file with it and the parties no later than July 21, 1983, a memorandum outlining the progress of the Staff's " revalidation."
In accordance with those Orders, the Staff hereby outlines the status of its review of the five open issues identified in the Staff's May 19, 1983 memorandum to the Comission (" Revalidation Memorandum").
II.
STATUS OF STAFF'S REVIEW Cn June 28, 1983, the Comission provided the Staff with guidance for completing the TMI-1 restart review.
By Memorandum from William J.
Dircks, Executive Director for Operations, to the Comission dated July 15,1983 (" Implementation Memorandum," sent to the Appeal Board and parties on that date), the Staff described its proposals to complete its review of the open issues in accordance with the Comission's June 28th guidance. The Staff infomed the Comission that " completion of the entire review, including an ultimate position on manacement integrity, realistically appears to the staff to be many months away."
Implementa-tionMemorandumat5.1/
The status of the Stt.ff's review of the five open issues in accordance with the Comission's guidance and the Staff's implementation plan follows.
A.
The Veracity of the Hartman Alleaations As noted in the Revalidation Memorandum (at 2), the matter of the Hartman allegations is still pending with the Department of Justice. A grand jury is in session on this issue and the Staff does not know when its consideration of the matter will be completed.
In addition, the Comission's Office of Investigations (01) also is conducting an investi-gation into the veracity of the Hartman allegations.
Because the grand
-1/
The Staff also stated that it " believes that the Commission should give serious consideration to whether an evidentiary hearing on management competence and integrity should be held prior to the restart of THI-1."
Implementation Memorandum at 4 (footnote omitted).
The Staff's suggestion that the Comission consider whether a hearing on management competence and integrity should be held prior to restart is not inconsistent with the Staff's position that the Appeal Board should defer ruling on reopening the record until the significance of the open issues can be determined. The Comission, of course, has the discretion to order further hearings before restart if it believes it is in the public interest to do so, and the Comission is free to define the scope of such a hearing as it believes appropriate. The Appeal Board, however, can reopen the record only if, as a matter of law, the Comission's standards for reopening a record are satisfied, and the reopened proceeding necessarily would be limited to those issues on which the standards for reopening were satisfied.
At this time, in this proceeding, the Staff has asked the Appeal Board to defer-ruling on reopening the record on the basis of the five open issues because their significance, and whether they likely would affect the resolution of any of the issues, two of the elements of the reopening standards, have not yet been determined.
b jury proceeding conceivably may place constraints on 01's investigation, it is not certain that OI's investigation can be completed without delay.
01's present estimate for submitting to the Comission a report of investigation is December 30, 1983. The NRC Staff has not undertaken any investigations or other actions regarding the veracity of the Hartman allegations independent of the 01 investigation.
B.
Review of the GPU v. B&W Record The Staff has underway an extensive effort to review the GPU v. B&W record documents which were described to the Comission at a June 21, 1983 briefing.2/
Further details of the review are provided in the attached Memorandum from William T. Russell to Jack Goldberg dated July 20, 1983. As stated therein, the Staff will review the GPU v. B&W documents vis a vis the Staff's Restart SER (NUREG-0680) and its supplements, the Comission Orders, and the Licensing Board and Appeal Board decisions in this proceeding. The results of the review will be published as a NUREG document which will identify and sumarize the relevant material reviewed and provide a basis for the conclusions reached by the Staff.-
The NUREG document also will identify possible integrity issues which require further review (i.e., rtep 1(a) of Implementation Memorandum at 3). Although completion of the review of the documents themselves and issaante of the NUREG document may be possible by September,1983, an
-2/
The transcript of the June 21st briefing was distributed t'o the parties by the Office of the Secretary on June 24, 1983.
N.
evaluation of their impact, if any, on the integrity of individuals is not feasible by September,1983.
Considerable additional time will be required to complete the othEr steps in the GPU v. B&W record review (Implementation Memorandum at 3) and complete the other open issues (Implementation Memorandum at 3-4) needed to reach a Staff position on management integrity.
C.
The Parks and King Allegations 01 has been investigating these allegations and expects to submit to the Comission a report on th6 technical issues involved by August 1, 1983, and estimates that it will issue a report on the harassment aspect of the allegations by October 1,1983. The Staff will consider those reports in fomulating an overall position on management integrity.
D.
The BETA and RHR Reports The Staff expects to complete its review of the impact of the BETA and RHR reports on the restart proceeding issues and contentions, except for management competence / integrity, on a parallel schedule: with the GPU v. B&W record review, and to address the impacts of the BETA and RHR reports in all issue areas other than management competence / integrity in a report to be issued in September,1983. With respect to management competence / integrity, the results of the Staff's review of the BETA and RHR reports will be incorporated with the other open issues and possible integrity issues raised by the GPU v. B&W record review into an, overall position on management 'ntegrity.
E.
Licensee'sJ_ailure to Provide P-cmpt Notification of Documents By memoranda dated June 22, 1983 and June 29, 1983, the Staff advised the Comission of its conclusions regarding Licensee's obliga-tions to notify the Comission and/or adjudicatory boards of the BETA a.id RHR reports and the Licensee's report on the Hartman allegations.E The Staff concluded in its June 22nd memorandum that Licensee can be considered to have failed to meet its duty to make a board _ notification and its obligations under section 186 of the Atomic Energy Act by failing to provide the BETA and RHR reports more promptly.
In the June 29th memorandum, the Staff concluded that the Licensee should have made a more prompt board notification of its report on the Hartman allegations.O The Staff has requested OI to determine the circumstances and reasons why the BETA and RHR reports were not provided to the NRC earlier.
(The Staff is not aware of an OI estimate for completing its investigation into this matter.) The Staff will considtr the effect of those conclusions and circumstances on management integrity when it fannulates its overall position on management integrity after completing its review of the other open issues described above.
3/
The memoranda of June 22nc and June 29th were served on the Appeal Board and parties on June 22, 1983, and July 12, 1983, respectively.
4/
The Staff has acknowledged that "it might also be subject to criticism for not providing additional information on the -Hartman matter.
The Staff did not do so in order to avoid any possible interference with the DOJ investigation."
June 29th memorandum at 7-8.
III.
CONCLUSION This memorandum describes the status of the Staff's THI-1 restart review. The completion of the Staff's review of the open issues and fomulation of a Staff position on management integrity realistically appear to be many months away.
Respectfully submitted, ack
. Goldberg Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 21st day of July, 1983 O
[pos:o
'o UNITED STATES
! }
s.,7 ~,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
r WASHING TON,0. C. 20555 t
%,.....f July 20,1983 Memorandum for:
Jack Goldberg Office of the Executive Legal Director From:
William T. Russell, Project Director GPU v. B&W Lawsuit Document Review
SUBJECT:
GPU V. B&W LAWSUIT DOCUMENT REVIEW You have asked that I provide infomation for transmission to the TMI-1 Restart Appeal Board regarding the nature and current status of the staff's Comission-directed review of the GPU v. B&W lawsuit occuments.
This memorandum responds to your request.
The nature of the review we are conducting was recently described in a July 11, 1983 memorandum from Harold R. Denton to several Division Di rectors. This memorandum is attached.
It should be read in conjunction with the July 15, 1983, memorandum from William J. Dircks to the Comission on " Completion of TMI-1 Restart Review in Response to the Comission's Guidance of June 28, 1983," a copy of which you sent to the Appeal Board and parties on July 15, 1983.
With respect to current status of the review project, as of July 20, 1983, the screening review (the initial stage discussed in the July 11, 1983 Denton memorandum) was approximately 75% complete. Approximately 1900 professional staff-hours had been expended in the screening review to that date.
I expect the screening review to be completed during the week of July 25.
M h 0 N 'i.
tR A.
=
William T. Russell, Project Director GPU v. B&W Lawsuit Document Review cc:
H. Denton D. Ef<enhut f
L
\\
s"'
s
, a nc9
- 'o UNITED STATES f
t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,E w AsmNoTow, o. c. mss
/
July 11,1983 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing Themis P. Speis, Director nivision of Safety Technology P
Richard H. Vollmer. Director Division of Engineering Roger J. Mattson, Director Division of Systems int:gration Hugh L. Thompson, Directer Division of Human Factors Safety FROM:
Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
NRR REVIEW OF GPU VS. B&W LMSUIT DOCUMENTS The purpose of this memo is to defin'e the purpose, scope, and approach to the subject review.
This approach outlined below is consistent with the Commission's directions contained in the Staff Requirements memorandtrn of June 28,1983 (Enclosure 1).
1.
Purpose:
To issue a staff report that dccuments whuther any of the staf f conclusions, or their principal bases, supporting our THI-1 Certification process need to be amended in light of the information contained in the GPU vs. B&W lawsuit documents in our possession.
For the purpose of this review, lawsuit documents shall mean:
(1) the trial transcripts and exhibit admitted into evidence, (2) exhibits used during the trial or identified by either party for possible use during the trial but not admitted into evidence, an_d (3) the depositions taken in preparation for the trial as well as the exhibits used in taking the depositions.-
2.
Scoce:
The review will encompass all safety issues being evaluated in connection with restart of TMI-1.
The staff will review the GPU vs.
B&W 1awsuit documents against the overall safety evaluation hearing framework ccnpostJ of the Staff's SERs (NUREG-0580) and its Supplements, Commission Orders and ASLB and ALAB decisions.
The staff report, to be published as a NUREG document by September 1,1983, will (a) identify the portion of the record reviewed, (b) provide summary of the material reviewed, (c) state our conclusions, and (d) provide our bases for the conclusions.
Except for any specific requests for additional documents frcn the licensee that may be necessary, the reviewisolimited to the documentation presently in our possession.
Q QsC YQ n
3.
Limitations:
The review will have three basic constraints:
A.
The review will be an audit review timilar in concept to the nomal staff safety review.
B.
The review will be based on the existing lawsuit documents plus "Keaten Tapes."
C.
The review will not be designed with a specific objective of dis-covering new technical / safety lessons learned from the TMI-2 accident.
However, if new technical / safety lessons learned from the TMI-2 accident are identified, they will be referred to the appropriate NRR divisions for review.
Any signf ficant infomation identified which is material and relevant to the restart proceedings, will be prompt'y reported to the Commission.
- 4. Acoroach:
The general approach to this task is to utilize the line organization of NRR with DL providing the overall management and technical divisions prosiding appropriate technical evaluation.
The step-wise approach will ee:
A.
The lawsuit documents will be divided into " bins" as follows:
(DL Action).
Operator Training Procedures Operating Experience Licensee Qualifications and Management Competence Quality Assurance and Maintenance Equipment and System Design end Functions Accident Analysis Radiation Protecion Emergency Planning Management Competence / Integrity B.
The documents will be screened to assure all infomation relevant to one or mere of the aeove " bins"is sent to the technical review divisions.
Infomation related to Management Competence / Integrity will be sent to the Office of Investigations.
To assist with transition of t<.is task from the Executive Director's staff to NRR, the DL staff will be assisted by R. Hoefling, ELD and J. Craig, DL will contact GPU to obtain information concerning ctaloging IE.
and indexing of these documents, which were all provided oy GPU.
Screening (i.e., reading of each document to determine content) will be perfomed by personnel not previously involved with review of the GPU vs. B&W 1awsuit documents.
Infomation which is related to litigation issues (GPU vs. NRC lawsuit) will be identified and provided by ELD to OGC.
.- C.
In parallel with the document screening, DL will identify within each review area the safety issues being. evaluated in connection with restart of T141-1.
This will include all TMI-1 certification items (botn long and short tem), safety issues which are not hearing related and the related sections of the Staff's SER (NUREG-0680) and it's supplements.
Commission Orders and ASLB/ALAB Decisions are included in certification items.
DL will contact and, if appropriate will meet with outside D.
organizations (e.g., Congressional 5taff and hearing intervenors) to obtain their cements on the GPU vs. B&W 1awsuit documents.
The objective is to iden';ify documents which are perceived by others to be relevant and important.
E.
NRR technical review divisions will review the information sent to them by the Director, DL, and provide, under Division Df rc< tor's signature, SER-type inputs, with no open issues, that:
(1)
Identify and synopsize the infomation reviewed with appropriate citations to the record, (2)
Compare (relate) this infomation to pertinent restart certification issues for which they are responsible, (3)
Conclude whether any of their technical conclusions should be modified, presenting the basis therefore, and, if nodification is needed, providing the necessary input for a future supplement SER.
Infomation which requires retiew by other Offices or Region I will be forwarded by the Director, Division of Licensing to the appropriate manager for action or a schedule consistent with task ccrnpletion by September 1,1983.
In parallel with technical review, the Lead Project Manager for each area will review relevant lawsuit documents (frcrn item B above) and related safety issues being evaluated in connection with restart of THI-1 (item C above).
He will also closely follow the progress of the technical review and will coordinate SER inputs.
If necessary, the Lead Project Manager assignments will be modified to ensure an equitable distribution of work and timely completion of this task.
F.
Should the only way to resolve an open issue be through additional infomation supplied from the licensee, technical divisions will prepare the Requests for Additional Infomation (RAI),~'as necessary, in the same manner as is done for a nomal safet/ review, except that they would be transmitted under Division Director's signature 2
Early and aggressive technicei division management attention to any such requests will be necessary to preclude unnecessary inquiries and to ensure that all issues are closed prior to August 8.
G.
DL will prepare and issue a report on the results of our review.
The B&W plant Project Managers will prepare their respective sections (i.e., bins) of the report using inputs from the technical divisions.
DL will provide an outline of the final report by July 15, 1983.
H.
The DL organization framework for accomplishing this effort is attached.
ELD will provide a representative to coordinate information related to litigation issues (GP'J vs. NRC lawsuit) and will provide a representative to act as Lead Project Manager for the " bin" on Management Competence / Integrity.
5.
Schedule:
Completion by September should be scheduled.
Technical civisions will receive review material from the Division of Licensing by July 8,1983, and should provide SER inputs by August 8,1983.
Overtime can be RAI's, if needed, must be provided to DL by July 14.
directtd, if necessary to meet this schedule.
/
A Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nucics< "?sctor Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ enclosure:
W. Dircks G. Cunningham R. DeYoung R. Pbriey, Region I
.e 3...
g.,,
,p ase g'o UNITED STATES RCe
, g",g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Rehm W ASHIN GTON C.C. 20155
$t.ellO e
f, i
-e e
DeYounn
. Noryf j Aw Davis
- [***.#
June 28, 1983 Minocue GCunninnham n:5 or Txt gMyr]gy, RJ ECRETARY Eisenhut, NRR
', Rus s ell, MR MEMORANDUM FOR:
William J.
Dircks, Executive Director for Operations Herzel E. E.
Plaine, General Counsel e
John E.
Zerbe, Director, FROM:
Sa=uel J. Chilk, Secreta v
SUBJECT:
STAFF RIQUIREMENTS - DISCUSSION OF TMI-l RESTART, 10:30 A.M.,
TUESDAY, JUNE 21, 1983, COMMISSIONERS' CONFERENCE ROCH, DC OFFICE (CLOSED-EX. 10)
This =emorandum has been prepared'to serve the dual function of previding guidance to the NRC staf f per the staff's request and to notify the parties to the TMI-1 restart ~
proceeding of the status of the. Cer=nission s pending i.: mediate effectiveness decision on restart.*
Tne.Cc= mission at the June 21 meeting discussed the overall status of the TMI-l restart proceeding and reviewed issues which may require further clarification er action befera a decision en restart.
In light of staf f's withdrawal of its cverall endersement of management and the possibility that ongoing staff reviews and OI investigations may develep significant information bearing en management, the Cc= issien cencluded that it is unable to decide the manage. ment issues fer restart purposes at this time.
Given the Cc==issien's present understanding of the schedules for these staff reviews and OI investigations, no such decis on appears pcssible before Septer3er 1983.
F.owever, the Cc= mission will continue to revise its decision-making schedule as informatien frem the ongoing reviews and investigations becc=es available'and can be assessed.
The Cc= mission continues to place a high pricrity en ecmpleting its TMI-l i==ecilate ef f ectiveness restart review as early as practicable and in a, =anner which includes a ec=plete and carefu.. review of the important management issues.
? N M Th % &~
of this memorandum the i:=ned,iate ef f ectiveness In-the context
=
decision on " restart" refers to the Commission aecision whether TMI-1 may operate pending completion of the full merits decision in the TMI-1 restart adjudicatory proceeding.
Sething in this em a ndum is intended to affect the =erits of the adjudicatory
I
- e Cc==ission recuested that the transcript and handouts
-Je= the open session be served on the parties to the TMI-l istar: proceeding.
Any party may submi:====ents en this incrandum er the documents related to it within twenty days frem the date of this remorandum.
(SECY)
(SECY SUSPESSE: 6/30/S3)
- 1.;
R GPU v.
B&W Record Review a.
The Cc= mission, by a vote of J-2 (Cc=missioners
=
Gilinsky and Asselstine dissenting) decided that it was net bound to wait for completion of a further review of the GPU v. B&W trial record prior to an i=meditte eIIectiveness decisien on TMI-l restart.
=d b.
The Oc= mission determined that although it was not bound to wait for a rev#ew of the GPU v.
B&W trial
==
record prior to a restart decision, tIhe review was
=
gem important and it directed the EDO to initiate the
=*
review by NRR as recommended in his memoranfum to
=
the Co= mission, subject:
"Cempletion of TMI-l Restart Review" dated June 10, 1983.
The Co= mission
=.
~~~
provided the f ol16 wing ad.ditional guidance :
(1)
The review should constitute a " reasonable effort."
Citations to the record should be included where appropriate and judgement should be exercised to focus efforts on the z._.-
est i=portant issues.
=
~
(2)
An additional review area pertaining to
=
5g "manag ement ecmpetence/ integrity" should be added to the list of review areas identified on page 3~of the GPU v. B&W lawsuit review handout.
ELD should be asked to assis: NRR
=,
in this area.
...=
J55 (3)
Any'significant information identified during the review, particularly that pertinent to
?H~]
he,alth and safety, should be reported to the 5{
Cc= mission as soon as it is identified.
"=2 (4)
The review should be ecmpleted in accordance J5 with the schedule presented to the Cc==ission in the meeting (including issuance of a final 7"
evaluation report by 9/1/83).
]
(5)
Although the review is directed at 2etermining 75 whether any of the staff conclusions in the
~~~
restart proceeding need to be amended in light of the inford.ation contained in the lawsuit
3 m
documents, litigation issues (the GPU v.
NRC lawsuit) should not be ignored if identified.
To assist in the identification of th~se, OGC e
will provide guidance and ELD should be asked to assist NRR in this endeavor.
2.
Partial Initial Decision The Commissioners expressed views that a partial restart decision was not possible for at least a couple of months but that there appeared to be individual issues such as hardware, emergency planning, design basis and perhaps others (but not management competence and integrity issues) which could be resolved in the near future for restart purposes.
OPE was directed to prepare a new schedule identifying target dates for resolution of those issues.
(OPE) (SECY SUSPENsI:
7/8/83) 3.
EDO Recommendation for Completion of TMI-l Review The Commission decided to await the completion of the relevant portions of the current investigations prior D
to resolving the management competence / integrity issues.
The Commission did not approve the EDO recommendation to separate individuals from organizational structure for the purpose of deciding management competence and integrity issues f or restart.
J.
GPU Proposal The Commission took no action on the GPU proposal contained in their June 10, 1983 letter and dete= mined that staff should review the 2..:posal to the extent.
that it affects the staff position on revalidation.
The results of any staff reciew will be served on the parties.
(EDO)
(SECY SUSPENSE:
9/1/83) cc:
Chairman Palladino Commissioner,Gilinsky Commissioner Ahearne Ccamissionei Roberts Commissioner Asselstine Commission Staff Offices PDR 0
e g
E o
= =,
se pi
==
4.
~
e h
a=
3
- "a
.h O
,=
'e O
e N es
=
eW
C e
hwC
==
es Ce
- 5 e C E 'e eso smin b GJ
- O e 3 e* b e
$ em C M
w
@4R en as=
O T.
E
.O O
w es ed N
O W
== M GA M eh b
C u es N AO es en us vC e===
g C au" E C"*
09 b es aeb C==
w Ut * -d ed C E eC b Oh
& b ans ClR C
- W D
e ed w
- 6. e & O 1;
)
C C
as==
us g
ese gb
=
e EW has eC ""J
>e en n=
E'
- = = * * * *
=
Q e C s=
a==
8
==
W eW 8"9 Un
>=
===*e I
tD C
et C em 4 e4 M
==
C was 4== v w en==*
b C
N e en E O
c e* e N OM C
e
=
==
>= eC en e== C u o
C e-
=h ta C%
k e
e ed C **=
00, se e C
W y
C en e sa E===
===== E e R e
em
==
e4
=
- * =as es es O On g
w 3
W g' eC 3 g
O== O e b h.
m "O.
f"5 h.
Q.,eq CO CE
- O E
W es= eb==
== GJ e
O 3
"e O U ed
='8
C E e
e#
=
C one C
==
N e
h.
(
f e== 5 O h
w 3n an=
C an e
q, eKW E
h.
M e
b 4E O
5.sk es=
8
=
o.,
a=
g es b e "U
bd
<e E
Cm o cm o O en b ca ea
==
a=
e me en O e3 ' 3 **
O C
e C
=
==
- =9 u 3 O We ** Q w
C C
Q Oem W
Fe
==
C
- e has 5
ed
=
A 6 to y
ful a=
EE w ew NM tas W
=D 3
h==..
eC Q3 e
Cn 6 A
a=
a W
- e W I N
=
n CR e==
C e
.g C
3C CW C
=8 44
== C eum b
4
= C. 4 C
- ea **
O O
."It o
o en Z en C u
ar en e E.'e e==
- O h * = = = = =
C C
no u
o e
en p=
b h &.C
==== b an and O
O O
==
ed
==
ee >=
Ue e
o es es y g e
3 a4 a
eC eC ta d e
M e
p b
Qm J
w K g
~
=
~~
=
U U
- =
m*
==
- =
.=
M C
g C
eS On ed es t
== C M
C C
C b = CP'C p=
em
- um O N C
3 3
3 e
- n= 0
""3 0
Ce*
e?
eJ h
Q ms E. es en 4"' I. as C
v c-6 g
i ab3e O
E C b ====
== *
=
4d 3 E3 ed b
- =
v M 36 9
3 ed ha.
6
's.
e e
=
==
n.
CF" a e.
- 3 t=
bas A at M 8"J
.=
pe
=
to 3
O 3
n.
een he.
==
es m
m N
en C==
bo e3 C.C O C *
=** E 6 C e ee
- e. =C= b = ed n
9e O
h e-
- b Q >=
E b*l W
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In tbc Matter of MET;'0POLITAN EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.)
Docket No.50-28f
)
(Pestart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,)
Unit No. 1)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S MEMORANDUM ON THE STATUS OF ITS THI-1 RESTART REVIEW" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal rail system, this 21st day of July,1983:
- Gary J. Edles, Chairman Dr. Linda W. Little Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Administrative Judge Board 5000 Hermitage Drive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissicn Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 Washington. DC 20555 George F. Trowbridge, Esq.
- Christine N. Kohl Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal 1800 M Street, NW Board Washington, DC 20036 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Douglas R. Blazey, Esq.
Chief Counsel
- Dr. Job: H. Buck Department of Environment ~al Resources Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal 514 Executive House, P.O. Box 2357 Board Harrisburg, PA 17120 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Honorable Mark Cohen 512 D-3 Main Capital Building Harrisburg, PA 17120
- Ivan W. Smith Administrative Judge Mr. Marjorie Aamodt Atomic Safety & Licensing Board P.u. #5 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Coatesville, PA 19320 Washington, DC 20555 Mr. Thomas Gerusky Dr. Walter H. Jordan Bureau of Radiation Frotection Administrative Judge Dept. of Environmental Resources 881 W. Outer Drive P. O. Box 2063 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Harrisburg, PA 17120
Mr. Marvin I. Lewis Wil1 4 m S. Jordan, III, Esq.
6504 Bradford Terrace Hamon & Weiss Philadelphia, PA 19149 1725 I Street, NW Suite 506 Mr. C. W. Smyth, Supervisor Washington, DC 20006 Licensing TMI-1 Three Mile Island Nuclear Stat. ion John Levin, Esq.
P. O. Bcx 480 Pennsylvania Public Utilities Com.
Middletown, PA 17057 Box 3265 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Ms. Jane Lee R.D. 3; Box 3521 Jordan D. Cunningham, Esq.
Etters, PA 17319 Fox, Farr and Cunningham 2320 North 2nd Street Gail Phelps Harrisburg, PA 17110 ANGRY /TMI PIRC 1037 Maclay Street Louise Bradford Harrisburg, PA 17103 Three Mile Island Alert 1011 Green Street Allen R. Carter, Chaiman Harrisburg, PA 17102 Joint Legislative Comittee on Energy Post Office Box 142 Ms. Ellyn R. Weiss Suite 513 Hamon & Weiss Senate Gressette Building 1725 I Street, NW Columbia, South Carolina 29202 Suite 506 Washington, DC 20006 Chauncey Kepford
.idith Johnsrud Mr. Sceven C. Sholly Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power Union of Concerned Scientists 433 Orlando Avenue 1346 fonnecticut Avenue, NW State College, PA 16801 Dupont Circle Building, Suite 1101 Wr.shington, DC 20036 Gary L. Milhollin, Esq.
4412 Greenwich Parkway, NW Ms. Frieda Berryhill, Chaiman Washington, DC 20007 Coalition for Nuclear Power Plant Postponement Mr. Henry D. Hukill 2610 Grendon Drive Vice President Wilmington, Delaware 19808 GPU Nuclear Corporation Post Office Box 480
- Judge Reginald L. Gotchy Middletown, PA 17057 Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Michael McBride, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & McRae Washington, DC 20555 Suite 1100 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, NW
- Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Washington, DC 20036 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission David E. Cole, Esq.
Washington, DC 20555 Smith & Smith, P.L.
Riverside Law Center
- Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel 2931 N. Front Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Harrisburg, PA 17110 Washingtgg,DC 20555
- Docketing & Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
- Dr. Lawrence R. Quarles Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Michael W. Maupin, Esquire Hunton & Williams
~
707 East Main Street P. O. Box 1535 Richmond, VA 23212 A
bf ck R. Goldberg g
founselforNRCStaff oO
-4%