ML20039F876

Comments on Commission 811221 Meetings W/Nrc Staff to Discuss TMI Restart Issues.Distinction Drawn Between Intentionally Misleading & Knowingly Misleading Unbelievable

ML20039F876
Person / Time
Site:	Crane
Issue date:	01/09/1982
From:	Aamodt M AAMODTS
To:
References
NUDOCS 8201130505
Download: ML20039F876 (4)

Text

'

~

U N 1'1 L U biA1Lb UP AMP.KICA

/

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSIONERS DCLKETEr v w.-

In the Matter of

)

)

12 JAN 12 Pl2

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY

)'

Do h. 50-289 Restart

)

9 JN (Three Mile Island Nuclear

)

n CFFiCE GF 3ECRE :

//

4 D E i."R A NCH G /= SEic/

Station, Unit-1)

)

c FIECEWED

-3 Q.

2

'inu r21982* 1 AAMODT COMMENTS CONCERNING THE DECEMBER 21,

%hls 4

M MEETING WITH THE STA

.\\

TO DISCUSS TMI - UNIT 1-RES M.J S S U E S t

The Commission invited the parties to the.TMI-Unit 1 Restart i

proceeding to submit comments by January 13, 1982 concerning the Commission discussion with the Staff on December 21,'1981 of several issues con te s ted a in'.the hear in g:2 Th'e - Co~mmis sion. -

7.,

invited the parties to-two of the..three meeting scheduled ford -

h.

that day and provided-transcripts to'the parties of those two '

3_,.. _.

.mee t in gs '.

~'

ggx:- -

s..

-J ?pe " '

Comments sre. submitted herintconcerning two ofs t h'e m an a g e m e n t n th i.-

.18 issues that were dis c us sed. a t.. t he. fir st; two. mee t ings;;. The'se,. is s ue s.m

._,.m,

_EGU._ _

are Information Flow During-thenTMI Ac cid en t: and I M'adningvo f s theh -.

qqd.

r-g'-rr{,,

.TMINUniti1 Reactor With Licensed, Operators;.-

yv 32

• DISCUSSION ~-OF~INFORMATION1 FLOW'DUR'ING..THE TMI-@ ACCIDENTm-

~

=~

5M

'g l.~~~.." '

The; Commission entertained the' comments and replies.ofi w..

~

[.~ [

Victor Stello, who was Director of Inspector and Enforcement at;.

~

-~.-.i,,.-

1; _

the-time of.the TMI-2 accident.

h ~.

-7.j ;[_.I s

y. '-

e2 l 22..

40

'3

~

ge

=

9 c

8201130505 0201'o9 gDRADOCK030eo

-2

?'

~

l

.s 1.

The distinction that Mr. Stello attempts to draw between " intentionally misleading" and "knowlingly misleading",

as descriptive of the information supplied by TMI-2 management to state officials, is too finely drawn to be believeable.

2.

Mr. Stello does make the point, although rather obtusely, that the Licensee simply did not have everything together. He states that Licensee had all the information, but failed to put it together in one place.

Tr. 28, (Stello).

4 3.

Mr.iStellorexhibits a bias toward the Licensee in stating that if the Licensee had a system to put all the information together, that "the information flow would have come naturally".

Tr. 28-9, (Stello).

4.

--M r. Stello subscribes to the House-Report statement:that ex the. sta tement s. o f -the TMI manager s conveyed. thecimpression: th a t'd :n-b'., 4

.i n the' accident was substantially less severe and the' situation ~"

n.

C~

more under. control than the ' manager s' theniselves bel'ieved. and whatw a s_

%@t- : 2, w a s..in 'f a c t the c a s e.r.Tr.n10-11, (S t e llo)'. '.This' 'c on f li~ct's tt.'.

1 P

s& :.. - :

fE

• J.._

^

~'

~Mr.

Stello-hakes u n d e r i < ( 2. )"..T.

w i t h'. : 't h e 'p o in t

~.

h :a ~.

5. tRepre.sentative'(of'..the' state.of Arizona)' Morris:K. Udall,13['.

__2 _ _ =. -

y

.c

- -- ~. z _._,.

_n._

m.

Z7_^'" -~ ;_

C'ia irman i.o f the House

• Committee on Interioriand I n s'u l a r' A f f a ii s',t i, ' ' -

-e.t.

c.-

((

in f'o rine d - t h e Cha~irman of the'N'uclear RegulatorynCommiss'ionibvilette N g

[_' ' '

of ovember 42, 1981 that investigation of the informa'tiond low by.-

m..

a..See" N j

NRC was restricted by the' instructions of Mr.' Norman Moseley'of L.?,,.. ~i.-___,

1 E--

the NRC Office of Inspection and En f or cemen t. - R e p". - Ud all-- ob t ain e d a-L '

wy.y-e-=

YN.,=.,i.*... 2 'this.information from a memorandum ~Mr.

David Gamble of the Office

.2.

y.

r.

Inspector and A'ditor to Mr.'Moseley,.dat'ed Jan~uary-2.6,' 19 812.' : ! -

-I

%;-5-t + ~

of u

.:l Q.

Neither the Commission"or the Board in presiding'o.ver t h e. TMI-l' -1 : -

h

--+

.y.q7.

L m.,. - -

.: =. - ~

Restart.p;coceeding have soughtnto examine this alleg~ation..w -

\\

,u. -

He

,1

~

e

^^

-===^"yw..ed>e-.

,.*,1,

_ -' w napqw

• -+me*=emoy mR n o" e. mm.-

r !..

)

6.

M r,. Stollo stetes thet tha I&E conclusione cro concietont with the conclusionc of the House report (Tr. 5), however takes exception from the most r e l e van t-statement of the House report that "The preponderance of the evidence indicates-that such information was intentionall'y withheld by TMI management from state and federal officials".

'Tr.

7, (Stello).

7.

Mr. Stello indicates,that after substantial discussion with the principal author of the House report Dr. Henry Meyers, that Dr. Meyers' view is that information was intentionally withheld.

Tr.

6, 8,

(Stello).

8.

Neither the Commission nor the Board have facilitated i

any appearance of Dr. Meyers," or any other m6mber of the House Committee concerned with this issue, before them.

DISCUSSION OF MANNING OF THE TMI-UNIT 1 REACTOR WITH OP ER ATO R S:-f.:n..

,2.I_

The Commission question ~ed the Staff relative to'the number.e.

~

P_:

kh o.f operators who passed the October licen sin g' examinations,. -

5_. -

'2-the staffing requirements at TMI-l', the merits o f a' s t a f fin g.:.

29 G. -

Pequirement..that allows an. Operator. who t r ain ed..t o be'an SRO ?O,- -

2

.9--

555.7- -

., Q ~e~ : ^._~

lk:3.;~7..,

but who.'has' failed the SRO' examination', to be'a Shift'Forbman, -

=.m a ED' ~

the request-o f Licensee to use operators on line. who :ha' e-f ailed..

v cx.

an d.r d-

~

th2N r-the. ~0c t ober. examin at ioni/ t.he 'n umber's-o f shi f t rotations.,All~of

-m. ~...

ffE~

these issues a r e.. c on t e s t e d ; in :. t h e lhain he a'r in g',

the' reopened k

hearing or both.

Staff counsel stated that t he 'in t en t of the

- 1.

~..

-I.

discussion was to set out the current status of the Licensee in D..

those matters..

From the information available in the transcript,-

T*: - r -

'Z ~ ~ ' '

that appears to be the case, however it should be noted that

~ }. 2.

fu.57 " ~ ~

slides viewed at the meeting where not available to the parties

'-~.3.f n o:t present, including the A a m o d t s'.

27 7E f 1.

-5ZM a

Exception is taken with a discussion about - the number of 4

24 -

M. F ~

licensed operators required in the future for presently. operating _n G

plants.

.-...4

j l'

The Staff indicates that'the requirement will bn'dpgraded to two SROs and two R0s on each shift after July 1, 1982.. This appears to be an erroneous representation if the dependence is on rulemaking of NUREG-0737 criteria.

The Commission published in Federal Register Vol. 46, No. 211, dated November 2,

1981, p.

54378, under TMI,-Related Requirements for Operating License Applications, that the Commission had decided dn August 6, 1981

~

against any rulemaking of NUREG-0737 items for' operating reactors.

Respectfully submitted, Q /4 Marj or e M.

Aamodt Jznuary 9, 1982.

.o a s. -

5...2."..-

. -.g..

p-

..:~

, ; 7...

.,e 4

eg M-:

=DY5.-... -

QM~~ c: =n' hw4. ":..

e W? ?({ 5.~ -

&;=. _. ~.%

.h T

+ >.

g

~.= - ~.

b f

r.., ~ y-.~.~,

a...

q-e.: s :: +.:2 Ee % ;

52 7

5

'y*. s.,.. ~$ _ ' U-'N

-~

e 3.G. --..- ~ ? -

v.

c

. ee *.

2 *,.y. -

.,. -. _.h.

e.

2.

f

...*9 e

-e--7*"*_'.

.2-y f Q. ).'u gygt^= * ~ -.,

mu,-.. /

A -

,e. ~

f'sc ?$5., T..

d

-.. ~ - ~.

w.:

.==. =

v:

e.

'T~

~

.m.

cymq

-* E~h, -. _..

q.

e.g.

a e

'W e

6

.,pn

.e a

.ai.

e e%e

.*a e.4 6_.m i q.y

.--e e.-+.. -

.e

.ine g

e

'