ML19347D466

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Requests Info Re Investigator Conclusion That Contradictions in Testimony Re Facility Info Flow During Accident Were in No Case Result of Lying
ML19347D466
Person / Time
Site: Crane Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 01/28/1981
From: Bradford P
NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To: Dircks W
NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
Shared Package
ML19347D463 List:
References
NUDOCS 8103170746
Download: ML19347D466 (1)


Text

Wh'o UNITED STATES

==

vUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e> ~

2

  • c i

., c.

e o

.S E

WASHIN GTON. D.C. N555 s

ayE

%..... /

January 28, 1981

-4FFgat OF THE COMMISSION ER i.eri a, :..a y.,

n....

... w.

3

.. 4.

. t. e Exe:u-ive ~' e:

r f r Opera-i:r.s

':2. 6.

FROM:

Peter A. Bradford As par: cf your response to my memorandum of January 23 regarding the I&E investiga::rs '. :Or.:iusion that :ne contradi::i:ns in testimony o n i!..

..ni: ma ;on sow were ir. no case :ne rest.: ? iy:ng, :.iease provide :ne inves-i;ator's explanation of the followin; Ocncern:

nwas cc.as tes-ified that he chan;ed ne s ra:e;y for :coling ne

' sia; -he pressure s:'ve and as a -esult Of :iscussi:ns rea:::

wi:n '"I's- ::raf

'0:se Report, :. 131-122'.,

s i
ne inves-tigators' cen:iusion that Cnwas yc ini-iate:

r.is change on nis own?

Wo.icn' this have been an ex raorcinary :ning for someone in his position o do in the conci. ions prevailing a TMI on the af ternoon of t', arch 2S?

Isn't it m0re likely that he did have Miller's aportvai?

If not, whose a: proval did he have? If so, why would !' iller have approved such a :nange if he was unaware cf possible core uncovery and was not concerned about initiating a second hydrogen burn through the operation of the EMOV?

l cc:

Chairman Ahearne Com.issiene: Gi1insky Co r.issioner Hendrie V. Stelic, I&E L. Bickwit, OGC l

E. Hanrahan, OPE S. Chilk, SECY P00R ORIGINAL

'