ML19340D553
| ML19340D553 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 12/24/1980 |
| From: | Swanson D NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Jordan W, Little L, Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19340D550 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8012310228 | |
| Download: ML19340D553 (2) | |
Text
0
[gf
'4 UNITED STATES 1
g I V' l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e '.
WASHING 7 JN, D. C. 20555 e
\\..../
December 24, 1980 Ivan W. Smith, Esq.
Dr. Walter H. Jordan Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 881 West Guter Drive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Linda W. Little 5000 Hermitage Drive Raleigh, NC 27612 In the Matter of Metropolitan Edison Company, et al.
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1)
Docket No. 50-289
Dear Members of the Board:
Enclosed is a copy of the following NRC Staff proposed testimony for this proceeding related to the issue of the licensee's management capability:
1.
" Testimony of Lawrence P. Crocker and Frederick R. Allenspach Relating to Contention Aamodt #2," which deals with the training of non-NRC-licensed operation personnel; 2.
"NRC Staff Testimony of Bruce A. Boger Regarding Licensed Operator Training (Aamodt Contention #2)," which deals with NRC-licensed operators; 3.
" Testimony of Richard R. Keimig, NRC Staff, Relative to Management Capability To Operate a Nuclear Generating Station (ANGRY Conten-tion 4);" and 4.
"NRC Staff Testimony of Bruce A. Boger Regarding Licensed Operator Training - CEA Contention No.13."
Attached to each piece of testimony is a copy of the professional qualifica-tions of the author (s) of that document.
The Staff's responses to Sholly Contention 14 a, b, and d are contained in the Staff's Restart Evaluation Report, Supplement 1 (NUREG-0680), dated November 1980 (ER). Since the issues raised by Sholly 14 a, b, and d are the same as those raised by the Commission in certain items contained in its March 6,1980 Order, the Staff does not intend to duplicate the responses to those Order items. Sholly 14 a is addressed in response to Order items 1 and 80123102 4
e at 11 (ER pages 23 and 37-38); Sholly 14 b is essentially identical to Order item 2 (ER pages 23-24); and Sholly 14 d is a rephrasing of Order item 7 (ER page 27). Since Sholly 14 c and e deal with matters which are still under consideration by the Staff (health physics and maintenance, respec-tively), the ER responses to the Order items which address these matters (Order items 4 and 2, respectively) will likely be expanded upon. Further, there exists a pcssibility that the issue raised by Sholly 14 e may overlap some of the issues raised by TMIA in its contention 5.
Consequently, there may be some common Staff testimony for these issues.
Sincerely,
/0 A /5 h W Daniel T. Swanson Counsel for NRC Staff Enclosures : As stated cc w/ enclosures:
Service List e
p-