ML20049J081
| ML20049J081 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 03/10/1982 |
| From: | Goldberg J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Buck J, Edles G, Kohl C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8203120011 | |
| Download: ML20049J081 (1) | |
Text
ff UNITED STATES g)W,s,( [ g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 6
y 5.%
/, E WASHINGTcN D. C. 20555 l
March 10, 1982 Judge Gary J. Edles, Chainnan Judge Christine N. Kohl Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D. C.
20555 Washington, D. C.
20555 Judge John H. Buck Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission
(
4 Washington, D. C.
20555 9
in the Matter of MAR 11m> 3 METROPOLITAN EDIS0N COMPANY, ET AL S
8mmenemens
/
(Three Mile Island, Unit 1)
Sc""
Docket No. 50-289 f
co to
Dear Members of the Board:
Enclosed for your information is a memorandum from Victor Stello, Jr.,
Deputy Executive Director, Regional Operations and Generic Requirements, to Comissioner Victor Gilinsky dated March 3,1982. The memorandum sets forth Mr. Stello's response to Comissioner Gilinsky's separate remarks attached to the March 2, 1982 letter to Congressman Udall. The memorandum concerns the question of whether information was withheld during the March,1979 THI-2 accident, which was addressed in the TMI-1 restart proceeding as part of the issue of Licensee's management response to the TMI-2 accident.
Sincerely, Jack R. Goldberg Counsel for NRC Staff Enclosure as stated cc (w/ encl.): Service List i
l D: 7 r o m.3 c,1c 7 n, Corttrica py _ Q (})
8203120011 B20310 h
DR ADOCK 05000
9
'o UNITED STATES
- g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
(
g
{<
p WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 o
.,, /
MAR 3 882 MEMORANDUM FOR: Commissioner Gilinsky FROM:
Victor Stello, Jr., Deputy Executive Director 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 THI-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 second paragraph in your separate remarks states:
Recently, at long last, the Staff, in the person of Mr. Stello, finally conceded that significant information about the severity of l
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 "wi11 fulness" on the Company's part.
The first sentence says that my views regarding information flow regardng '
the severity of the accident has recently changed. Thls is incorrect.
My views now and 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 the issues to be examined in the IE investigation of the information flow during the accident (NUREG-0760) was whether or not information was intentionally withheld. Conclusions Number 5 and 6 state clearly that information was not intentionally withheld; i.e.,
5.
Information was not intentionally withheld 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....
h :$l lC]l3
~
Commissioner Gilins,ky MAR 3 E62 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 leave 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 "foroet 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.
~
.i Victor Stello r.
Deputy Execut ve Director Regional Operations and Generic Requir'ements cc: Chairman Palladino Commissioner Bradford Commissioner Ahearne Commissioner Roberts EDO SECY OGC ELD /'
OCA e
6 8
9 e-