ML20042B742
| ML20042B742 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 03/13/1982 |
| From: | Jun Lee AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20042B726 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8203250605 | |
| Download: ML20042B742 (1) | |
Text
-
Re Nuclear Fegulatory Commission Victor Stello, Jr.
- / d /fM j
Deputy Executive Dir.
Region Operations &
Generic Requirements Washington, D.C.
20555 Dear Mr. Stello Your most recent memo of March 3, 82, responding to Mr. Gilinsky's remarks about Met Ed. employee's " knowingly" withholding vital information on the day of the accident ()pr. 28, 79, 4:00 a.m.)onlystrengthensour l
suspicions about the veracity of certain personnel within the NBC.
I Lowering the investigations of the TMI failures i.e. cheating,1ying, etc., to dictionary interpretation, is moving from the ambiguous to the l
ludicrous leaving truth an orphan.
De threat of legal retribution, made by Met Ed. tc obtain permission for restart, does not escape those who live in this area and whose memories have not been diminished by time.
After all the evasiveness and trickery by the NEC Licensing Board that filtered through the hearings on the restar.t of Unit I, nothing has been resolved but rather raises more questions about the submerged motives of the NRC.
i.e. What role did the NEC play in bringing about the accident?
ne premise that TMI employees "did not " knowingly" withhold vital
^
information" leads us to raise more serious questions: If the information was not " knowingly" withheld, should we then assume that Met. Ed. isas totally ignorant about the function of Unit 27 Was the cheating a contributing factor to their ignorance? Does this not preclude further consideration of.
licensing for a company so inept that it is unable to operate such a cogicated piece of technology and resorts to dictionary interpretation to plead / innocence?
2e hearings on the restart of Unit I and the b2.iefs submitted by Mr. &
l Mrs. Norman Aamodt, clearly reveal an obdurate and intransigent attitude by the Nuclear Regulatory I'a==ission on behalf of the utilities.
Your conclusions " based on your unders+mnding of the facts" has been clouded by your choice and so you too are; "like a blind man stumbling about in the dark".
Sincerely, Jane Lae.
C/E 8203250605 820313 5
183 7 alley Ed.
PDR ADOCK 05000289 Jane e
--