ML20032C186
| ML20032C186 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/30/1981 |
| From: | Pollard R UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20032C185 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8111090383 | |
| Download: ML20032C186 (4) | |
Text
illf-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
~
DOCKETED USNF.C NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING Bd8hD fl0'l -4 P4 :68
,,~.s.
)
l In the Matter of
)
l METROPOLIT AN EDISON COMPANY, ET al,
)
Docket No. 50-289
)
Rest ar t (T hre e Mile Island Nuclear Station, )
Unit No. 1)
)
)
AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT D. POLLARD, I,
Robert D. Pollard being duly sworn, depose and state:
1.
I was misled by the staff's March 31, 1980 responses to UCS' Interrogatories numbers 28, 42, 94 and 152 into not seeking a copy of the IE Oper ations Team Recommenda tions wnich the staff now refers to as "the Martin Report. "
2.
On sever al occasions during the course of the TMI-l restart proceeding, I ask ed UCS' counsel whether the staff was under an obligation to notify UCS if earlier responses to interrogatories wer e in co rr ec t.
I was told that the staff had such an obligation.
3.
I also observed that, in response to UCS' Interrogatory No. 4 2 concerning UCS' Contention 5, the staff referred to Mr.
Basad ek as ' dissent on the matter of con tr ol system response and malfunction during accidents.
Since that dissent was not directly related to UCS' Contention 5 that the PORV and i ts block valve should be classified as sa f e t y-g r ad e compon en ts, I was misled into believing that the staff would disclose any other dissen ting view that was directly related to UCS' Conten tions.
8111090393 811030 gDRADOCK 05000289 PDR
,I O
---4.
I reviewed Draft 1 of the TMI Action Plan-when it became available.
I believed it was a comprehensive list of the j
recommendations from all of the investigations that had been completed by December 1979.
5.
I do not recall whether I noted the statement in Draft 1 of the Action Pl an that "the designations IE:
TMI-OPS,IE:
TMI-HP, and similar entries, refer to NUREG-0 60 0. "
(Draft 1,
" Key to References, " at 3 ) However, I was under the impression that all of the result,s of the IE investigations were reported in NUREG-0600 and NUREG-0616.
u 6.
When I reviewed the initial May 1980 version of the Action Plan (NUREG -066 0 ), I noted the section quoted. at page 8 of the staff's response to UCS' motion to' reopen.
I considered particularly the following statements:
a) "the various recommen-dations and possible actions of all the prir.cipal investigations were assessed and either rej ected, adopted or modified,"
b) "the decisions on whether to include specific items in the plan were based primarily on whether they were necessary to respond'
~
to the recommendations of the principal investigations, " and there has also been general agreement as to the areas where c) f improvements should be made.
Where differences of opinion have occ ur r ed, they most of ten relate to the degree of improvement required and the best ways of achieving improvement."
Since these statements applied to all of the investigations, j
l I'was not surprised that some recommendations had been rejected.
the President's Commission was extremely critical For example, of many aspects of NRC 's regulation.
I did not doubt that NRC l
l would reject many of those conclusions and the related-recom-l l
mendations.
In fact, I reviewed the tables in Volume 2 of the i
j
\\
. - - ~
~.
e Action Plan-that indicate which recommendations had.been rejected.
- 8
]
I found no indication that the.IE Operations Team Recommendations had-been rejected.
Second, since inclusion of tasks in.the Action Plan was.
stated to be based primarily on whether they were needed to respond to recommendations, I had-no reason to believe that the.
IE recoraendations were-different than the short-term lessons learned recommendations for which tasks had'been included:in the-Action Plan.
Third, tbie statements that there was general agreement as to areas where improvements should be made andfdisagreement only.
about the degree of improvement or the~ method of achieving it, did not lead me to believe or even suspect that major ~ disagree-ments like those between the IE recommendations and the short-term lessons learned reconme;dations existed.
7.
In response to the Board 's direction (Memorandum and Order Directing Intervenor Responses Regarding Sholly and UCS Motions to Reopen Record, October 13, 1981, at 2) that any affidavit "must be specific as to issue and interrogatory.
response" which misled UCS "into not. searching timely - for the Martin Report," my reply is as follows:
'a)'
The staff 's response to UCS. interrogatory 28 misled me into believing that no member-of the staff disagreed with the staff 's position on UCS Contention 3 as set forth in the staff 's responses to 'JCS interregatories 26, 31 and 32.
b)
The staf f 's response to UCS interrogatory 42 misled-me into believing that no member of the staff other than Mr. Basdekas disagreed with the staff 's position on UCS Contention 5 as set-
.7
P forth in the staff responses to UCS interrogatories 40, 45,
~
and 47.
c)
The staff 's response to UCS interrogatory 94 misled me into believing that no member.of th staff disagreed with the staff's position on UCS Contention 10L as' set-forth in the staff's responses to UCS interrogatories 92, 97 and 98.
d)
The Staff 's response to UCS interrogatory.152. misled me into believing that no member of the staff other than Mr. Basdekas disagreed with the staf f 's position on. UCS Contention 14 ' as set forth in the itaf f 's response to UCS interrogatory 150.-
The above statements are_true and correct to the best of' my personal knowledge and belief.
h Robert:D. Pollard Subscribed and sworn before me this Ro $k
. day of October, 1981.
/
sk a
h O
e s.0 -,
q-n.--..
,e r s w-=+v-v
,m~
e e-m-w,-*
-wmn--+.