ML20024A497
| ML20024A497 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 06/14/1983 |
| From: | Goldberg S NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Callihan A, Cole R, Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20024A498 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8306170378 | |
| Download: ML20024A497 (2) | |
Text
.
June 14, 1983 Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Union Carbide Corporation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box Y Washington, D. C.
20555 Oak Ridge,. Tennessee 37830 Dr. Richard F. Cole Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 In the Matter of COMMONWEALTH EDIS0N COMPANY (Byron Station, Units 1 and 2)
Docket Nos. 50-454 and 50-455
Dear Administrative Judges:
This is to advise the Board that the Staff does not intend to avail itself of the opportunity afforded by the Board to reply to the other parties' June 7,1983 supplemental briefs regarding the Intervenors' April 27, 1983 motion to reopen the record.
(Tr. 7225). The Staff position on the motion is already a matter of record (Tr. 7224-25) and the Staff.does not wish to delay a timely ruling on the motion. The Staff has elected this course despite its discomfort with the Intervenor's June 7 supplemental brief which it received yesterday. That brief is replete with unjustified attempts to impugn the motives and integrity of the Staff in its inspection of the allegations which underly the present motion to reopen and its position on the merits thereof. Any suggestion that the Staff would somehow subordinate its safety and regulatory responsibilities for some unspecified litigative position is patently false (See, for example, Intervenors' brief at 9,18). One accusation in the Intervenors' brief, however, does require a direct response.
Specifically, Intervenors' intimate that the Staff " willfully witheld" Mr. Hughes' failed certification test (Brief at 11) because it would substantiate Mr. Hughes' testimony on that issue (Brief at 4). This comment is false.
As the May 9,1983 Staff affidavit notes, Mr. Hughes' retest allegation has been referred to the NRC Office of Investigation (01) for disposition.
01 is a Commission, not Staff, office. That office has apparently been provided a copy of the allegedly failed test in question by a former co-worker of Mr. Hughes.
h$fk 0
G Qsd O
Intervenors' counsel requested a copy of that test, among other items, in separate, letters of April 28, 1983 to the NRC Region III counsel and to the 01 Region III Director. The 01 Region III Director responded by letter of May 13, 1983 declining to provide the document in question during the pendency of OI's investigation of the matter. Copies of these s
correspondence are enclosed.
The Staff has no control over the activities of OI nor does Staff counsel represent that office. The Staff did not and does not have possession of the test in question. Moreover, the Staff would have no cause to withold the document even assuming it were in its possession. The Staff has not taken the position that there had never been a failed and corrected test or that Mr. Hughes' retesting allegation is untrue (See May 9 Staff Affidavit at 4_6).
Rather, the Staff took the position that, even assuming the 01 investigation substantiates Mr. Hughes' retesting allegation, the matter is non-safety significant to the as_ built plant because of the limited scope of Mr. Hughes' responsibilities at Byron and the reinspection of Hatfield work on site.
(Staff Affidavit at 6).
Therefore, Intervenors' insinuation that the Staff witheid Mr. Hughes' test is untrue.
Sincerely, Steven C. Goldberg Counsel for NRC Staff
Enclosures:
Letter, Whicher to Lewis, dated April 28, 1983 Letter, Whicher to Pawlick, dated April 28, 1983 Letter, Pawlick to Whicher, dated May 13, 1983 cc w/ encl.: service list
.j l
0FC :0 ELD /
- 0 ELD NAME':SGoldbe'/g:pl:JGray$15'i DATE :6/ /3 /83 :6/
/83 : . - - -}}