ML20041E609
| ML20041E609 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 03/03/1982 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Gilinsky V NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8203110153 | |
| Download: ML20041E609 (2) | |
Text
,
/-
4 UNITED STATES
- '![
~ ?)
' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION up,
.s
?,.
-l WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 DOCKET
/
PROD.
L Ff C..........
g*-
MAR 3 1982 o
'82 (R MEMORANDUM FOR:
Commissioner Gilinsky g
FROM:
Victor Stello, Jr., Ceputy Executive Direc "l F*)
L.
Regional Operations and Generic Requirements
~ '
SUBJECT:
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY'S SEPARATE REMARKS ATTACHED TO
~
THE MARCH 2, 1982 LETTER TO CONGRESSMAN UDALL The discussion concerning my conclusions about withholding of information during the TMI-2 accident in your separate remarks attached to the March 2,1982, letter to Congressman Udall are incorrect and therefore I feel obliged to provide a response for the record.-
The sec~ond paragraph in your separate remarks states:
Recently, at long last, the Staff, in the peison of Mr. Stello, finally conceded that significant information about the severity of the accident had been withheld " knowingly" by the. Company on the day of the accident.
But, Mr. Stello added, in what can only be described as an Alice-in-Wonderland departure from the dictionary meaning of the words,. this involved no " intent" or " willfulness" on the Company's part.
The first sentence says that my views regarding information flow regarding
~
the severity of the accident has recently changed. This is incorrect.
My views now an'd at the conclusion of our investigation, as reported in NUREG-0760, " Investigation Into Information Flow During the Accident at Three Mile Island," dated January 1981, remain unchanged.
I have recently reiterated my. conclusions to you in a memorandum dated January 28, 1982, which stated:
...the real issue is the conclusion I draw as to intentional withholding of information by the licensee.
You will recall one of l
the issues to be examined in the IE investigation of the information i
flow during the accident (NUREG-0760) was whether or not information l
was intentionally withheld.
Conclusions Number 5 and 6 state clearly that information was not intentionally withheld; i.e.,
5.
Information was not intentionally withiteld from the State on the day of the accident.
6.
Information was not intentionally withheld from the NRC on the day of the accident.
I remain convinced that those are the proper conclusions....
/
o 8203110153 820303
/\\9 9
PDR ADOCK 05000320 C
s Commissioner Gilinsky 2,.
MAR 3 1982 The second sentence in the excerpt from your separate remarks which attributes to me a departure from the dictionary definition of words in
'my conclusions is equally objectionable.
The departure from the usual meaning of words in the transcript of the December 21, 1981 meeting, which is the source of your comment, arose from your request to me to Teave aside certain concepts in our discussion. My memorandum of-January 28,.1982 points out the unusual context in which.certain words-were used in your questioning of me.
You began a line of questioning for which you asked me to " forget about the word intent."
I tried to be responsive to your questioning using that assumption. Thus, I believe the Alice-in-Wonderland departure from the dictionary meaning of words was taken at your. initiative not mine.
You are, of course, free to reach any conclusion you choose regarding the flow of information during the TMI-2 accident.
I assume you want me to reach independently my conclusions based on my understanding the facts.
I have done so.
Until such time as'new facts arise, I am not prepared to change my conclusions.
~
-L Victor Stello Jr.
Deputy Executive Director Regional Operations and Generic Requir'ements cc:
Chairman Pall-adino Commissioner Bradford Commissioner"Ahearne Commissioner Roberts EDO SECY JGC ELD OCA e
e e
e
/