ML19341D538
| ML19341D538 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 02/13/1981 |
| From: | Ahearne J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Udall M HOUSE OF REP., INTERIOR & INSULAR AFFAIRS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19341D532 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8103050775 | |
| Download: ML19341D538 (1) | |
Text
. _.
/(pa nny o
UNITED STATES
[' e"g g,,.g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMM'.SSION g
.,t W ASHINGT ON. D. C. 2055E gd.j//
~
.[(.-
February 13, 1981 cHllRMAN i
The Honorable Morris K. Udall Chairman Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs U. S. house of Representatives Wasnington, D. C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This is in response to your letter of January 30, 1981.
The investigators who prepared the recent NRC investigation report concluded that information was not intentionally withheld from the State of Pennsylvania or +he NRC on the day of the accident.
This was based upon their personal review of existing information and interviews which they conducted to supplement that information.
In addition, based upon his staff's participation in the investigation and his personal review of the report, the Director of the Office of Inspector anc Auditor concluded there was no direct evidence to substantiate inter.tional withholding of information frcm the NRC.
In light of the information developed from tnat investigation, the Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement proposed the enforcement action he found to be appropriate.
As the Commission's cover letter indicates, the enforcement action which was issued reflects-the position of the majority of the Comission.
In my opinion the important lesson to be learned from this issue is that the licensee must be responsible for evaluating and responding to an accident.
The licensee is the entity with detailed operational knowledge of a particular reactor.
Although the NRC has a role to play and it needs adequate infomation in order to fulfill that role, the licensee must bear primary responsibility for evaluating and controlling plant conditions.
I supported the enforcement action because I believed it properly emphasized this aspect of the information. flow issue.
With regard to intentional withholding of information and truthfulness of statements made to the TMI investigators, I have found nothing which would cause me to disagree with the findings and conclusions of the NRC staff.
The investigators are more familiar with the technical details of the issues and have personally interviewed nany of the key individuals i nvol ved.
Based upon their expertise, their personal knowledge, and my lack of any basis for disagreeing, I personally endorse their conclusions.
4 Sincerely,
'/
./
j
(.L rwG B10 sons 774
,aohn 7. n3earne
/
l
_ - - -