ML20010G109
| ML20010G109 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 09/11/1981 |
| From: | Trowbridge G METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| CLI-81-19, NUDOCS 8109150334 | |
| Download: ML20010G109 (7) | |
Text
,.
o LIC 9/11/81 Q
b-9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p.
usygg g
SEP141981 s s-oma ef e,S':re%-c r*
Dnicw.I E Seni:e
\\
Before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission g18g
//
f 4
~
In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289
)
j@ \\ ' ' ' '
4, estart (Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit 1)
)
j
= mB5 h
- 7 8-LICENSEE'S COMMENTS ON N J '=
L-d IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVENESS OF j;- [v /J,j PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION k'
co g-S N/
9
\\P w
The Commission's Order of August 20, 1981 (CLI requested the parties to this proceeding to file comments on whether the Licensing Board's partial initial decision on management competence, dated August 27, 1981, should be made immediately effective.
In Licensee's view, the Board's deci-l l
sion is fully supported by the record on management issues and should be made immediately effective.
In the Partial Initial Decision at paragraphs 461-506, the Licensing Board provides its opinion on the subject of Licensee's management response to the TMI-2 accident.
In this section the l
Board focuses on the issue of deficiencies in the flow of infor-mation regarding plant conditions from the Licensee to NRC and State authorities particularly on the first day of the accident.
D 8109150334 810911 PDR ADOCK 05000289 0
s See Partial Initial Decision, 15 469-503.
Much of the Board's discussion is devoted to providing the reasons why it chose not to pursue this isste in more detail, including the fact that individual commissioners have addressed this issue before.
Because the Board admittedly (and necessarily) has relied on extra-record materials to provide its views, Licensee believes it is appropriate to provide for the Commission's consideration some amplifications to this aspect of the Board's decision. /
First, the Licensing Board refers ($ 499) to statements by two operators who were present in the TMI-2 control room on the day of the accident concerning their awareness and apprecia-tion of what is now commonly known as the hydrogen spike.
These statements are referred to in the context of judging the accuracy of Mr. Dieckamp's mailgram to Representative Udall on May 9, 1979, in which it was stated:
There is no evidence that anyone interpreted the " pressure spike" and the spray initiation in terms of reactor core damage at the time of the spike nor that anyone withheld any information.
The Commissioners should note that the earliest of the interviews of these two individuals through which their appreciation on March 28th of the hydrogen spike came later to be known was con-ducted by URC I&E investigators almost two weeks after Mr. Dieckamp's mailgram, that the Company did not receive a transcript of this interview until months later, and, further,
- /
One clarification has already been made by the Licensing Board.
See Licensing Board Memorandum and Order Modifying Partial Initial Decision Finding No. 479, dated September 2, 1981.
s
. that in the only interview of either of these individuals which took place prior to May 9, 1979 (conducted by GPU personnel on April 25th), no appreciation on the day of the accident, of the pressure spike was reported.
Second, it is instructive in this regard to note that the I&E investigative team which authored NUREG-0760 (Staff Ex. 5) specifically concluded that there was on March 28th no acknow-ledged cause for the pressure spike.
See,Le.g., Staff Ex. 5 (NUREG-0760), at 28, and Tr. 13061-62 (Moseley).
NRC's investi-gative report states:
The investigators conclude that hydrogen was not believed to be the cause of the pressure spike.
The testimony reviewed leads the investigators to further conclude that hydrogen was not dis-cussed on March 28, 1979.
This conclusion con-cerning hydrogen not being identified as the cause of the pressure spike on March 28, 1979, is based on the testimony of operators and a review of the engineered safety systems.
Staff Ex. 5 (NUREG-0760), at 24.
Finally, the Licensing Board reflects some pause over the question whether Mr. Dieckamp himself believed his May 9th mail-gram statement to be true at the time he sent it (Partial l
Initial Decision, 1 501) and discloses that they were unable to determine whether Mr. Dieckamp was even questioned in this regard.
Mr. Dieckamp was in fact questioned on this precise subject by the head of the I&E investigation team, Mr. Moseley, in a depo-sition which took place on September 12, 1980.
At pages 2 to 6 i
,w
,e w
g
_4_
of the transcript of that deposition, Mr. Dieckamp confirms that he believed the statement to be true when he sent the mailgram on May 9th, and that the statement was made based on his considerable degree of awareness of the available informa-tion at that time by virtue of his personal reviews of inter-views conducted of personnel following the accident, his per-sonal involvement in review sessions with GPU's team which was trying to recreate the conditions that followed the accident and trying to seek explanations of what had happened, and his detailed preparations for the presentation of testimony before the Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on April 23, 1979.
Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 82 -1000 I
BY:
}////
ha
/
r
/
eo3 ge 'F. T'rowbridge /
f Ernest L.
Blake, Jr.
Counsel for Licensee Metropolitan Edison Company
[f 4 LIC 9/11/8 9
Do:grrg3
<\\
US'N C
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA f
4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
C Difb cf th 334 T
D00sU::: & Ler;h kNk) g Before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission I N In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289 (Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that true and correct copies of the fore-going LICENSEE'S COMMENTS ON IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVENESS OF PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION were served by hand on Chairman Palladino, Commissioners Gilinsky, Ahearne, Bradford and Roberts, and the Secretary of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, by delivery to the offices of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.; and were served by deposit in the United States mail, pastage prepaid, on those persons listed on the attached Service List, this lith day of September, 1981.
Q 4.4449 Ernest L.
Blake, Jr.
e
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLI' FAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289 SP (Restart)
)
(Three Mi.'.e Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
SERVICE LIST Administrative Judge Ivan W.
Smith Walter W.
Cohen, Esquire U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Consumer Advocate Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel Office of Consumer Advocate Washington, D.C.
20555 1425 Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17127 Administrative Judge Walter H.
Jordan Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Jordan D. Cunningham, Esquire 881 West Outer Drive Fox, Farr & Cunningham Oak Ridge, Tennessee ~37830 2320 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Administrative Judge Linda W.
Little Atcmic Safety and Licensing Board Ms. Louise Bradford 5000 Hermitage Drive TMI ALERT Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 315 Peffer Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 James R.
Tourtellotte, Esquire (4)
Office of Executive Legal Director Ellyn R. Weiss, Esqeire U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Harmon & Weiss Washington, D.C.
20555 1725 Eye Street, N.W.,
Suite 506 Washington, D.C.
20006 Docketing and Service Section (3)
Office of the Secretary Steven C.
Sholly U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Union of Concerned Scientists Washington, D.C.
20555 1725 Eye Street, N.W., S uite 6 01 Washington, D.C.
20006 John A.
Levin, Esquire Assistant Counsel Gail Bradford Pennsylvania Public Utility ANGRY Commission 245 West Philadelphia Street P.
O.
Box 3265 York, PA 17404 Harrisburg, PA 17120 William S.
Jordan, III, Esquire i
Robert Q. Pollard Harmon & Weiss 609 Montpelier Street 1725 Eye Street, N.W.,
Suite 506 Baltimore, MD 21218 Washington, D.C.
20006
- Robert Adler, Esquire Chauncey Kepford Karin W.
Carter, Esquire Judith H.
Johnsrud Assistant Attcrney General Environmental Coalition on 505 Executive House Nuclear Power P. O.
Box 2357 433 Orlando Avenue Harrisburg, PA 17120 State College, PA 16801 John E. Minnich Marvin I.
Lewis Chairman, Dauphin County Board 6504 Bradford Terrace of Commissioners Philadelphia, PA 19149 Dauphin County Courthouse Front and Market Streets Attorney General of New Jersey Harrisburg, PA 17101 Attn: Thomas J.
Germine, Esquire Deputy Attorney Genoral Marjorie M.
Aamodt Division of Law - Room 316 R. D.
5 1100 Raymond Boulevard Coatesville, PA 19320 Newark, New Jersey 07102 Alan S.
Rosenthal, Chairman Prof. Gary L.
Milhollin Atomic Safety and Licensing 1815 Jefferson Street Appeal Board Panel Madison, Wisconsin 53711 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 4
i l
l L
-