ML20113G599
| ML20113G599 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Three Mile Island  |
| Issue date: | 03/12/1984 |
| From: | Valentine T HOUSE OF REP. |
| To: | Pallidino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20113F513 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-84-341 NUDOCS 8501240429 | |
| Download: ML20113G599 (1) | |
Text
--
e, e og WA5*h004 0F81CL
% i1 L DA=-
A>-,D,A~, A E..~-
, ;;.c?:s5 .
w, g fa 11C7 LO%.3.w,o_#7,w, , mM_outt,cesiCt.,tur. Dang
..r ._. , ,: e, .s.
t v.gt;tt A7:3%
6.gngbMr V lb e e Dr t,B-bar n . jutwe, 3 +6 err t~rra 4 kW
>- ~ a:m ~ a, 4 00* .' :I L.C VE%:
6 ^* 04 DUE Df R E G N d FJ Z7E3 0;$TfpCT ADuim:!TRATO4 1
i 9:.ga.'01g;;' IDashington, B.C. 20515 , , , , , , , , , , , , . , , ,
Dumuu. NORTM CAC;n eA 17701 f.10:vw" Ell "Mgst?" **;*,"ff"' March 12, 1984 )
E11RP RESE4ACp AND PP.CDUCT30er til SOUTM FRANKUN $TRETT
$*:th:L &E11ARCm A%3 TECn43 LOGY L 16 se 47 1
1 l
+
)
Mr. Nunzio J. Pallidino, Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission j 1717 H Street, N.W. l Washington, D. C. 20555 i 1
l Dear Mr. Chairman- 1 Enclosed is a copy of a postcard from my constituent, Wells Eddleman, expressing his concerns about the operation of the Three Mile Island (#1) nuclear plant.
Please provide me with the necessary information 5 upon which to base a reply.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Cordially,
.dn _,
Tim Valentine TV:la Enclosure B501240429 540629 PDR FOIA WEISS84-341 PDR l
_j
- 'e UNITED STATES E{g@ g 3 ,,
REGo NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
- g' g WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 O,b f
4 9. f
%,f...
7 April 19,1984 CHAIRMAN J
The Honorable John Heinz ,
United States Senate Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Heinz:
1 to your letter of February 14, 1984 regarding Three Mile IIsland, am responding Unit 1 (TMI-1).
On February 28, 1984, the Metropolitan Edison Company pled guilty to one count of a criminal indictment, and nolo contendere to six others. The court accepted that plea on February 29.
The Commission appreciates the concerns expressed in your letter regarding the criminal trial. However, it would not be appropriate to provide further elaboration on the Commission's January 27, 1984 decision at this time because of the pending adjudication. The Comi'ssion's memorandum of January 27 (including the statements attached thereto) must speak for itself. The Commission intends to issue a full explanation when it makes a restart decision.
However, I believe that the following observations are pertinent to your concerns. The approach outlined in the Comissi.on's January 27 notice is an attempt to cope with the management integrity issues of a TMI-1 restart decision. It is not an attempt to separate them from that decision. The criminal trial involved the conduct of the Metropolitan Edison Company. The Comission's January 27 notice indicates the tentative view that the temporary separation from Unit 1 of individuals involved in that conduct would be a way to address that conduct in a Unit I restart decision.
With regard to FEMA's findings, the NRC is still evaluating the significance of those findings. The NRC will address this matter fur?.her after it has completed that evaluation.
The FEMA Region III findings and the State's response and schedule of corrective action are being reviewed by FEMA Headquarters in order to provide NRC with an evaluation of significance. Subsequent NRC actions are contingent upon receipt of that evaluation-l Discussion with FEMA management indicates that they expect to have a schedul'e for resolution of the TMI offsite deficiencies before the proposed June 1984 Comission review date for Unit i restart.
Q5l5y3
' GAk0A Nunzio J. Palladino 10
e# ,
.[ . Jchn Heinz T[nif.cb Mf.a.fcs Mcna
. Pei$*3bacia
.h .
Finar.:e
[
hankinc. Housing anc
- Urban Affairs
, % E.nergy and Natsral R6ourert Washington. D.C. 20510 .
February 14, 1984 Chairman Nunzio J. Palladino
. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 20510
'Uashington, D.C.
Dear Chairman Palladino:
A ac ,in receipt of your letter of January 31, 1984, which essentially reaffirmed the included decision of
, the Commission reached on January 27, 1984. By letters of December 9,1983 and January 27, 1984, I raised serious concerns felt by. the residents of Pennsylvania and their. elected officials regarding the Commission's actions. I am particularly troubled by the apparent .
separation of the issues concerning the restart of Unit 1 from the problems whinh plague Unit 2, and the on-
, going criminal trial naring General Public Utilities in .
an eleven-count indictment concerning the falsification of leak rate data. .
of more serious immediate concern are the recently--
released findings of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) which document grave deficiencies in the ability of the local communities to respond to a life-threatening emergency should that arise at the Three i Mile Island facility. The results of the study are of critical ir.portance to the restart issue, as no single issue is trore important than the ' safety of local residents 4
and their children. Until we 'can be sure that the adequately protected in the event of an emergency,yrestart are is-out of the question. In its decision of January 27, 1984, the NRC specifically conditioned its restart agenda on l the status ouo and stated that' "important new information" -
[ would require a reevaluation of the agenda.
Because the criminal trial concerns the conduct l of the corporation and no't named individuals , it seems in-appropriate to separate the responsibility of General Public Utilities f .om the actions of its employees.
I would therefore , quest further elaboration of the basis 6f the Commissi .4s decision of January 27, 1984 in this
+
regard; I thits such elaboration is essential to'the t
credibility of the Commission's actions in this matter.
Sin rely, s1 .
&OiOy,4 W
~
jy 9
Jo neinz U i ed States Senau r Jh/dfk' l
E- Rtc
., - UNITED STATES
% NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,hg WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%l .g, 4 lMarch 15, 1984 "
CHAIRMAN *
{
The Honorable Morris K. Udall Chairman, Committee on Interior and
-Insular Aff airs United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am writing in response to your letter of December 6, 1983 in which you raised several questions related to the Commission's consideration of the General Public Utilities (GPU) request that the Commission approve the restart of Three Mile Island Unit 1.
You asked first whether the NRC staff's December 5, 1983 comments to the Commission concerning the conditional restart of TMI.-1 meant that there had been a change in the Commission's policy, stated in my July 14, 1983 letter to you,
! that we do not intend to make a decision on TMI-1 management competency until the completion of the relevant portions of the investigation into possible leak rate falsification.
The Commission has given careful consideration.to the j relevance of possible leak rate falsification at TMI-l and TMI-2. With regard to the TMI-2 leak rate falsification, we
,l find this no longer relevant because the GPUN organization which I would envision operating THI-1 is a new and different
! organization that has replaced Met-Ed; it contains a new,-
- expanded Board of Directors, a new President and Vice President and would not include individua.ls in the TMI-1 operating staff who were involved in the operation of TMI-2 at or before the time of the accident, with one possible e'xception on whom we will seek more-information.
i' With regard to possible TMI-1 leak rate f alsification, we have taken the view that we need further information on this matter. Our Office of Investigations will present us with its
, findings, which will be fully. considered in our decision.
[ The Commission's current views and. plans regarding TMI-1 restart are set forth in the attached Notice to the Parties, i which was issued on January 27, 1984. The Notice to the i
Parties is not intended to be a full explanation of the-Commission's position on restart. As stated in the Notice, it was issued only to keep the parties informed, and the current views and plans discussed in the Notice are subject to change, based on consideration of parties' comments on the list of integrity issues and other matters, and on any other important new.information. The Commission agrees that-a-decision on ,
I' O.movs w
. pr wr y~
'2 restart, when it is finally made, should be accompanied by a full explanation of the manner in whicP the Commission took account of the issues of integrity, corpetence and hardware.
Finally, your . letter expresses concern that the Commission may make a determination.that a license amendment which would authorize operation of TMI-1 with repaired steam generators does not involve a significant hazards. consideration within .
the meaning of the recent "Sholly amendment" to the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. 2239(a)(2)(A), and the related NRC regulation, 10 CFR 5 50.92. As you know, we have been trying to reach a Commission decision on whether to cor. cur in a proposal by the NRC staff that the THI-I steam gererator repair license amendment meets the criteria of the regulation, involves no significant hazards considerations under those criteria, and should be made immediately effective. Two Commissioners agree with. the staff's finding, two Commissioners disagree with the staff's interpretation of the Sholly Amendment and one Commissioner believes that such a vote is premature and has therefore not yet voted. The views of each Commissioner are attached. The Commission expects to make a final decision in the near future. '
Commissioners Gilinsky and Asselstine add:
"The answer to your first question is yes: the NRC staff's December 5, 1983 comments on the conditional restart of TMI-1, and the majority's January 27, 1984 statement of the Commission's current views and plans regarding TMI-1 restart, represent a change in the Commission's previously stated policy that the. Commission does not intend to make a decision on TMI-1 management competency until the completion of the relevant portions of the leak rate falsification investigation. Ironically, even the Company, as evidenced by the management changes it has recently made -- including the appointment of a new ,
Chairman of the GPUN Board and the reassignment of the responsibilities of Chief Executive Officer -- now recognizes that the restart plan approved by the-Commission on January 27 was not an acceptable approach."'
We trust that this has been responsive to your letter.
S i n c e r,el y ,
y i2g.lG A Nunzio J. Palladino
Enclosure:
As stated
{
'.6W4 .c#
.p+ - UNITED STATES- ,
.J'.h4.,g,j 'UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS' 'J DDWEUD UML%
j W ASHIN GTos. D.C. 20ss 3
- g%N/~-
\l i
%"' January 27, 1984 W N!27, Pj:g
- QFFIC E OF THE SECRETARY e .
'=:
..:.. .:..:.:@ .Q@ Cp
" ~
SERVED JAli271994 MEMORANDUM FOR: Parties to the TMI-1 Resta Proceeding FROM: ,- -Samuel J. Chilk, Secreta Q
SUBJECT:
TENTATIVE COMMISSION VI S I*D PLAN FOR RESOLUTION . OF MANAGEMENT IN'iEGPlTY ISSUES PRIOR TO RESTART
('
On October 7, 1983, the Commission issued a Notice to the Parties setting forth "the Commission's current estimate for completing reviews of the various issues that might possibly affect the decision whether to restart TMI Unit 1." The Commis-sion stated in the Notice that, given the estimated time'neces-sary to resolve those issues, it was " prepared to consider alternative approaches for dealing with the management competence and integrity issues."
The Commis'sion subsequently had an open meeting on November 28, 1983 to hear from GPU on such an alternative approach, i.e.,
GPU's June 10, 1983 management organization proposal,.as modified. The Commission heard from the other parties on December 5, 1983 on GPU's proposal.
The Commission has also provided the~ parties an opportunity to comment on staff's response to the GPU proposal, and as a separate matter, an opportunity to comme;nt on a , list of k' integrity issues in the TMI-1 restart p$oceeding.
The Commission has decided to inform the parties to the restart proceeding of its current views on certain critical management integrity issues and the Commission's plans for reaching:a' final restart decision. These views and plan are those of a Commission majority. The additional views of Chairman Palladino
- and Commissioner Bernthal and the separate views ;of Commissioners Gilinsky and Asselstine are attached.
The Commission emphasizes that thi( memorandum is provided only to keep the parties informed. It is not a restart decision and
! does not authorize restart. As explained further below, these current views and plans are subject to change, based on -
consideration of parties' comments on the list'of integrity issues and other matters, and on any other important new
~~'information. '
8 4 1 s I(p '4 1 9 ^ , . .
1
.( .
2 Curren: Views T he Commission has tentatively concluded that, in principle, temporary separation from nuclear operation of some GPU employees and other actions, including those proposed by the licensee, can serve as an interim solution to the management '
integrity issues raised by the "open items," pending resolution of those items.' In this regard, the Commission presently believes that the only ongoing investigation which may require 1 further resolution before a decision on the management issues is !
the Unit 1 leak rate investigation. The Commission intends to obtain additional information regarding that matter before l i making a restart decision.
( With regard to specific individuals, the Commission's view, based on currently available information, is that neither Chairman of the Board William Kuhns nor President of GPU Berman Dieckamp will have to be temporarily or permanently separated i I
frem nuclear operations prior to restart. The Commission may, however, require restrictions beyond those proposed by the licensee. This may include requiring that certain additional individuals be separated from nuclear operations pending completion of the ongoing NRC investigations of integrity issues or of the TMI-2 leak rate criminal trial.
Plan for Restart Decision After reviewing further information concerning the TMI-1 leak rate matter and the parties' comments both on the list of integrity issues and on staff's response to the GPU proposal,
(. the Commission will issue a tentative draft decision on the management issues for comment by the parties. After reviewing the parties' comments on the draf t decision, the Commission will then issue a final decision on management issues. The Commission believes that this process provides the possibility for reaching a decision on whether to lift the immediate effectiveness of the original shutdown orders.
The Commission's process for making a decision on the management issues will not affect _the ongoing, Appeal Board' merits review of th'ose issues, or affect _the other-~ ongoing investigations. Those investigations will continue and any individuals involved in wrongdoing will be subject to possible enforcement proceedings, as appropriate. The Commissien's decision will prescribe the conditions that will apply for any individuals who are to be
,, separated from nuclear operations.
. 3 .
The Commission still has under consideration resolution of th'e hardware issues in the TMI-1 restart proceeding, and whether or
- not the license amendment concerning the steam generator recair i involves a "significant hazards consideration." Those issu'es
- are being addressed separately.
Given present' planning, the Commission intends to follow this approach and hopes to issue a decision on whether to lift the immediate effectiveness of the 1979 shutdown orders by June, 1984.
Attachments: 1 As stated 9
9 e
1 6
.., x 4 4
/
6
\
i 4
. ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF CHAIP, MAN PALLADINO 1 VOTED FOR TODAY'S ACTION BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT OFFERS A REASONABLE APPROACH TO MAKING THAT LONG-DELAYED DECISION ON WHETHER OR NOT TO ALLOW RESTART, ,
WHEN THE COMMISSION MAKES THAT DECISION, WHICH I HOPE WILL BE BY JUNE 1984, IT WILL BE CALLED UPON TO JUDGE THE COMPETENCE AND INTEGRITY OF THE MANAGEMENT OF TMI, UNIT 1.
1 A QUESTION WE ADDRESSED IN TODAY'S ACTION IS WHETHER OR NOT IT IS NECESSARY TO AWAIT THE COMPLETION OF THE CRIMINAL TRIAL AGAINST METROPOLITAN EDISON BEFORE WE ATTEMPT TO REACH A JUDGMENT ON COMPETENCY AND INTEGRITY. .I BELIEVE ..
THAT A JUDGMENT CAN BE REACHED BEFORE COMPLETION OF THE TRIAL IF CERTAIN GPU EMPLOYEES ARE TEMPORARILY SEPARATED FROM NUCLEAR OPERATIONS AT TMI-1 DURING THE TRIAL. WE WILL DESIGNATE THOSE PEOPLE, oAS WELL AS THE CONDITIONS FOR THEIR
{
SEPARATION, IF WE' MAKE A DECISION TO ALLOW RESTART.
WE ALSO ADDRESSED .TODAY WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS NECESSARY TO SEPARATE THE MOST SENIOR MANAGEMENT OF GPU, THE CHAIRMAN l AND THE PRESIDENT OF GPU, IN ORDER TO MAKE A DECISION ON WHETHER OR.NOT TO ALLOW RESTART. MY VIEW IS THAT THE PENDENCY OF THE OPEN ITEMS INCLUDING THE CRIMINAL TRI AL j.0ES NOT PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE JUSTIFICATION TO REQUIRE THEhR
= ,
I 2 .
l SEPARATION FROM NUCLEAR OPERATIONS. THE DECISION IS YET TO '
BE MADE ON WHETHER OR NOT THE TMI-1 ORGANIZATION POSSESSES THE REQUISITE MANAGEMENT COMPETENCE AND INTEGRITY TO OPERATE THE PLANT.
e e
O I
O G 9 e e o me 4
e
- - e
(, *g a O e e e G
D 4
I
[ .
~' e i . s.*
l
~
i r
l -
r -
e
. 1 COMMISSIONER SERr HAL'S ADDITIONAL VIEWS It is evident from the Comission's memorandum to the parties, and I am sure from public representations of several Members of the Comis-sion, that the central question addressed in this memorandum is the .
fitness for further duty, so to speak, of certain high-level management individuals, who have been in their positions of responsibility through-out the troubled history of the Tnree Mile Island facility. I should add that, beyond these two individuals, no clear difference between my H,-
position and that of any of my colleagues on the Comission has yet been defined.
While one may question the judgment of the governing board of licensee in permitting such an issue to distract for so long from the real questions of licensee preparedness and competence to resume opera-tion of t'he undamaged TMI-1 reactor, the responsibility of the NRC must go beyond opinions and perceptions. The NRC must not lose sight of its fundamental responsibilities and obligations. It must provide first and foremost for the public health and safety by evaluating competence and, 4'
to the extent that it touches on public health and safety, integrity of licensee management. Second, it must consider the rights of the licenscc and the public that licensee serves. E the atter of Messrs.
Kuhns and Dieckamp, there is currently no evidence, bearing adversely on
,their integrity or competence which .would dictate their removal from their present positions. Should any such new evidence come to light, as a result of ongoing investigations and proceedings, however, the
-j Com'ssion always has remedies at its disposal.
1 i
s, . -
2 ,
~
Indeed, at'least half of my dissenting colleagues have clearly stated many times for the public record their judgment en Mr. Kuhns cnd Diackamp even before the criminal indictments now lyinc against licensee (not against Mr. 'Kuhns and Dieckamp), had ever been handed down by the 1
Department of Justice. Therefore, the question of the outstanding ,
indictment against licensee, was and is apparently not the underlying issue.
Rather, the issue has frequently been represented as :c.eponsibility 7 of the coninander for the actions' of his subordinates. I do not believe that it is the province of the NRC to make such judgments, in the absence of reasonable evidence and based only on such facile metaphors, inap'propriately presented in the conte),t of martial discipline and analogy.
The responsibility of the Commission is simple and straightforward.
It is to ask and answer the single question: Can the current personnel of the reorganized General Public Utilities nuclear division be expected to operate TMI-1 consistent with the NRC's standards and regulations providing for the public health and safety.!!
Indeed, it would be highly inconsistent and incongruous if the Conriission now, in considering this single question, were to require l' remcyal of Mr. Kuhns and Dieckamp on the grounds of the NRC's public health and safety responsibilities, while it has, to my knowledge, never i
even seriously considered such action.with respect to the continued operation of the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant, a plant -that is
~ presently licensed to generate electricity, under the same senior management personnel in question here today, and under the same NRC that is responsible for meeting the requirements of law and judgments in l.
o
3 protection of public healtn and safety for TMI-1. I, for one, would be hard pressed to argue that high-level GPU management, should be removed n or-quarantined from the TMI-I operations, but not from those at Oyster Creek. Moreover, I believe that the Comission has, by its very inaction over the last several years in respect to the operation at .
Oyster Creek, already agreed with the premise of my decision today.
Integrity is the most important and valuable personal trait any of us possesses. It is, in my judgment, unwiss and unjust for anyone, especially those who are in position.t of public trust, to impugn the integrity of any individual without substantial evidence that his or her integrity has been compromised. Nor is there any evidence that these two individuals are incompetent or otherwise unfit to perfom their responsibilities as executives of General Public Utilities, without
} somehow rendering the operation of either Oyster Creek or Three Mile Island Unit-1 unsafe.
In sumary, the Comission has a duty to the public served by licensee, and to licensee to determine whether the hardware and person-nel of GPU and specifically of TMI-1 are qualified, competent, and prepared to allow the plant to resume operations, consistent with the Comission's responsibility to protect public health and safety. With respect to the top-level management of GPU, it is hign time that the Comission spoke to that issue. This action today does so. It does not address in detail, nor have I yet reached a conclusion o.n any of the other outstanding personnel, hardware, and procedural issues related to TMI-1 restart.
C e
i
~ w -yn % m
1/27/64 SEPARATE VIEWS OF COli?i1SSIONER GILINSKY TIE-1 RESTAP.T - EANAGDiDC INTEGRITY ISSUES It goes without saying that I do not agree with the three Ccr.missioners who have embraced GPU's proposal for dealing l
with the management integrity issue--the critical issue in 4
-this case in view of the numerous instances of wrongdoing by
,. the Company. The Commission majority has, in effect, i'
brushed aside this central question. The majority's approach would leave in place the Chairman of the Board of Direc~ tors and the President of the Company, the two chief executive officers who have been in direct control of the operations of GPU and its subordinate companies since before the accident. The three Commissioners have argued that these individuals were and are removed from day-to-day operations and that they have not been shown to be involved personally and directly in the wrongdding committed by GPU.
{
Nor would the majority hold them accountable for GPU's grudging response to instances of cheating and lying by its ,
i staff. This is sharply at odds with NRC's tenet that the 1
actions and example o# the top utility managers are key to safe plant operati,pn." - -
~
~
There is an altogether unseemly contrast between the -
7" Commission's solicitude for the persons at the top of the corporate pyramid and its microscopic examination of, and O
e 9
-x-handwringing over, the lapses of minor actorr in the TMI accident. (It is impossible to adequately conv.ey this
. upside down view without quoting from the transcripts of closed Commission meetings. I can only hope they will be released before long.) In reality, persons at the working-level by and 'large do what is expected of them. The climate for rightdoing or wrongdoing is set by those at the top.
lj The Ccsmission majority has also brushed aside the criminal 4
indictment of the Company that operated the TMI plant and which is still headed by the same chief executive officer.
The majority argues that that Company, Metropolitan Edison, has been replaced as licensee by GPU Nuclear, but this is little more than a paper change. The majority also argues that since no criminal indictments have been brought against individuals, there is nothing for the Commission to take
! into account in its restart decision. While the possibility has been raised that several GPU employees may be
('s
" quarantined" pending the outcome of the criminal trial, it is clear that the Commission majority has decided that no
> outcome of the trial can affect their decision since no individual verdicts will be rendered. This ignores the fact i that the criminal indictment of the entire Company is a far more serious matter than would be individual indictments of operators or supervisors, and that such an indictment weighs 1
- pore heavily aga nst i the Company's management .
e 4
.._ 3 g.
The Commissioners' split over this decision involves f ar more than a different interpretation of the facts; it -
amounts to a vastly different view of the responsibilities of this agency in' assuring that nuclear power plants are operated by competent and trustworthy organizations. The majority has adopted the narrowest interpretation of those l responsibilities. What the NRC should have learned from its experience with Three Mile Island and other problem plants j
is that +imid regulation is'to no one's advantage; in the i
long run, not even that of the utilities.
~
\
9 9
e
...,../*
e e
- - ._ ev. , c. ...-.., .. , , . -... , . _ , _ _ . _ _
. 1-DISSENTING VIEWS OF COMMISSIONEF. ASSELSTINE 3
I' do not agree with the majority's decision to proceed with a plan that would allow the restart of TMI Unit 1 prior to the completion of five NRC investiga-tions relating to the integrity-of the licensee's management. Stripped to its essentials, the majoiity's decision amounts to an acceptance with few, if any, modifications of the GPU proposal for restarting TMI-1 before completion of the managementintegrityinves$igations. As the NRC staff has recognized, this
- approach will permit the restart of TMI-1 before the Connission has the infor-
- mation needed to reach a final conclusion on whether the present management of the GPU Nuclear Corporation has the proper character to operate the plant safely. Although there are conditions under which I could approve restart of TMI-1 in edvance of the completion of the management integrity investigations,
' those corditions are not met by the majority's plan.
i Last year, the NRC renewed or began five investigations bearing directly on the l integrity of GPU management. These investigations covered: (1) the Hartman allegations that leak rate tests for TMI Unit 2 were falsified; (2) infonn'a tion on possible leek rate test falsification for TMI Unit 1; (3) the Parks, Gischel, King allegations that GPU management or others attempted to intimidate or harass individuals who questioned whether procedural requirements relating to the clean-up of THI-2 were being followed; (4) GPU involvement.in a material false statement violation for failure to provide copies of internal GPU reports, including the RHR and BETA reports, to the NRC; and (5) GPU management involvement in modifications to the draft Keaten report. The first !
ofjfese items--the falsification of leak rate tests at TMI Unit 2--is also the i
. , . __ _ . . _ . ~ _ . ~ . . . _ _ . . . . - - . .. -
T, .. 2 subject of the first criminal indictment of a utility for violating NRC safety requirements in the history of the commercial nuclear power program.
In the case of the TMI-2 leak rate falsification issue, the agency already possesses sufficient information to lead senior members of the NRC staff to conclude that such test falsifications likely did occur, but we do not have access to the information developed by the Department of Justice investigation 1
that served as the basis for the criminal indictment of the utility._ As the
, Department of Justice has recognized,'the information supporting the indictment
( -
may well be of value to the NRC in evaluating the significance of the leak rate test falsification issue for present TMI-1 management. Given the Justice Departmenti's request that we not interview some 43 individuals who were involved with the operation of TMI-2 at the time of the suspect leak rate tests, it is clear that our investigation of the TMI-2 leak rate falsification issue cannot be completed until after the conclusion of the criminal trial. It also appears likely that this Department of Justice request will limit our ability to complete the TMI-1 leak rate investigation, the Parks, Gischel, King i
.( investigation and the investigation of the Keaterf t e, port as well. In the case i
of the TMI-1 leak rate investigation, in' particular, the NRC Office of Investigations staff responsible for conducting the investigation have.
concluded that the TMI-1 leak rate falsification issue cannot be resolved without interviewing a number of individuals on the Justice Department list.
This means that investigations of the TMI-1.4perators will likely continue beyond the June 1984 date targeted by the majority for restart of TMI-1. Quite apart from the management integrity issue,~the NRC staff has expressed safety
,, concerns about the operation of TMI-1 with operators who are under the stress of a continuing NRC investigation.
e e-, ,,. - , ,g~ ~
wc , - -r -r-r-e--- .e . , -
ine GPU plan embraced by the majority attempts to deal with the problem cf -he incomplete investigatior.s :y: (1) preventing those who were assigned c
' regular duty as TMI-2 licensed operators at the time of the accident from serving on TMI-1 licensed operators; (2) providing some additional internal GPU oversight of THI-1 operations; and (3) requiring the resignation of Robert Arnold as President and a Director of the GPU Nuclear Corporation. However,
. even the NRC staff acknowledges that the GPU plan lea'.es in place at least seven or eight individuals ~in the GPU-TMI-1 organization who are potentially involved in the areas under investigation, including persons in responsible k As the staff notes in its high-level management positions in the Company.
comments on the GPU plan:
If restart is approved prior to completion of the various inves-tigations, the possibility exists that subsequent investigations or court proceedings will produce negative information bearing direct-ly on persons in responsible management positions. This might require further reorganization [of the licensee's organization] or shutdown [of the plant] . . .
The majority's endorsement of the GPU plan amounts to an assumption either that the investigations when eventually completed will find no wrongdoing by the TMI-1 organization other than the former TMI-2 operators, or that any wrong-doing will reflect only on a few individuals and will not call into question l l
the overall management integrity of the TMI-1 organization. At the present time, the information available to the Commission simply does not support such !
i an optimistic assumption. Indeed, as the NRC staff notes, there is every possibility that the investigations will le[d to the opposite result. Given this state of affairs, I cannot support the majority's restart plan or the wishful thinking that underlies it.
C 6
y - , - - - - ,e,--, +w.- . - , - , - .,-er , - - - . - - - ,,, -
-c-
'As I mentioned at the outset there are conditions under which I coulc support restart of TM*-1 prior to the completion of the criminal proceedings and the - j NRC investiga-ions. One acceptable option would be to bring in an outside organization, with an established record of competence and integrity in the l operation of commercial nuclear power plants, to manage the operation of TMI-1.
A second option ~would be the removal, until the completion of the NRC inves-tigatjons and any subsequent hearings that may be required, of the remaining individuals in the GPU TMI-1 organization who are potentially involved in the matters under investigation. Like Commissioner Gilinsky, I would pay particular attention to those individuals in responsible management positions.
In the years since the Three Mile Island accident, the Commission has repeatedly stressed the critical role of management -in the safe operation of nuclear power plants. It is most unfortunate that, when put to the test, the Commission has failed to sustain this principle with its actions.
s .
4
.:S L__ . - -- --e e,. -= y ~. - , -
.f , ~'c, UNITED svAYL63 8 p.7 ' 'e NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION , , . , ,
.j ],
E WASHINGTON. D.C. 20555 ' ,
%., ' c# February 15, 1984 l
- * " ' *B4 FE 13 P4:19 OFFidE OF THE SECRETARY CIE..; . . .: $. '
K..i?? ??.?*l+? R. ..g..= .,r=SeY'SN 55 $
P .. s v r . . .u..
SERVED FEB 1.41994 MEMORANDUM FOR: Parties to the TMI-I Restart Proceeding FROM: William L. Clements ng Chief, Docketing and Service Branch
SUBJECT:
REVISED VIEWS OF CO.411SSIONER BERNTHAL ON MANAGEMENT INTEGRITY On January 27, 1984, the Secretary to the Comission issued a Memorandum
(- . entitled " TENTATIVE C01911SSION VIEWS AND PLAN FOR RESOLUTION OF MANAGEMENT INTEGRITY ISSUES PRIOR TO RESTART". Attached to that Memorandum were the views of Chairman Palladino and Comissioners Gilinsky, Asselstine and Bernthal. Commissioner Bernthal has since revised his Additional Views; they are attached for your infomation.
C I,
@it An n+ AaoQ4 r eyw .-
e/ e 6
4
.. r. .
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL'S ADDITIONAL VIEWS It is evident from the Comission's memorandum to the parties, and I am sure from public representations of : everal Members of the Comis-sion, that the central question addressed in this memorandum is the fitness for further duty, so to speak, of certain high-level management individuals, who have been in their positions of responsibility through-
'out the troubled history of the Three Mile Island facility. I should add that, beyond these two individuals, no clear difference between my
'( - position and that of any of my colleagues on the Comission has yet been defined.
'While one may question the judgment of the governing board of licensee in permitting such an issue to distract for so long from the real questions of licensee preparedness and competence to resume opera-tion of the undamaged TMI-1 reactor, the responsibility of the NRC must .
go beyond opinions and perceptions. The NRC must not lose sight of its fundamental responsibilities and obligations. It must provide first and foremost for the public health and safety by evaluating competence and,
/ ,
. to the extent that it touches on p'ublic health and safety, integrity of '
licensee management. Second,'it must consider the rights of the licensee and the public that licensee serves. In the matter of Messrs.
Kuhns and Dieckamp, there is currently no evidence bearing adversely on their ' integrity or competence, which yould dictate their removal from their present positions. Should any such new evidence come to light as a result of further investigations and proceedings, however, the 7 Comission always has remedies at its disposal.
At least half of my dissenting colleagues have clearly stated many times for the public record their judgment on Mr. Kuhns and Dieckamp,
, even before the indictment now lying against licensee (not against Mr.
'Kuhns and Dieckamp), had ever been handed down by the Department of Justice. Therefore, the question of the outstanding indictment agains,t licensee was and is apparently not the underlying issue.
Rather, the issue has frequently been represented as responsibility of the commander for.the actions of his subordinates. I do not believe that it'is the province of the NRC to make such judgments in the absence
(- of reasonable evidence, and based only on such facile metaphors and represent'ations, as though the analogy and language of martial discipline were appropriate to this matter.
The responsibility of the Comission in this case is simple and straightforward. It is to ask and answer the single question: Can the current personnel of the reorganized General Public Utilities nuclear division be expected to operate TMI-1 consistent with the NRC's standards and regulations providing for the public health and safety.
Indeed, it would be highly inconsistent and incongruous if the Qommission now, in considering this single question, were to require removal of Mr. Kuhns and Dieckamp on the grounds of the NRC's public health and safety responsibilities, while it has, te my knowledge, never even seriously considered such actioi) with respect to the continued operation of the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant, a plant that is permittedtogenerateelectricitytoday)underthesamesenior management personnel in question here today, and under the same NRC that t
,.is responsible here today for meeting the requirements of law and judgments in protection of public health and safety for TMI-1. I, for
[ .. .
one, would be hard pressed to argue that high-level GPU management should be removed or quarantined from the TMI-1 operations, but not from-those at Oyster Creek. Indeed, I _ believe that the entire Comission has, by their very inaction over the last several years in respect to the operation at Oyster Creek, already agreed with the premise of my decision today.
Integrity is the most important and valuable personal trait any of
,.us possesses. It is, in my judgment, unwise and unjust for anyone, especially those who are in posi.tions of public trust, to impugn the
( integrity of any individual without substantial evidence that*nis or her integrity has been compromised. Nor is there any evidence that these two . individuals are incompetent or- otherwise unfit to perform their responsibilities as executives of General Public Utilities, or that their continuing to do so would somehow render the operation of either Oyster Creek or Three Mile Island Unit-1 unsafe.
In sumary, the Commission has a duty to the public served by licensee, and to licensee to detennine whether the hardware and person-
- { nel of GPU and specifically of TMI-1 are quajified, competent, and
~
prepared to allow the plant to resume operatio'ns, consistent with the Commission's responsibility to protect public health and safety. With respect to the top-level management of GPU, it is high time that'the Comission spoke to that issue. This action today does so. It does not address in detail, nor have I yet reached a conclusion on any of the other outstanding personnel, hardware, 'and procedural issues related to l TMI-1 restart. -
. s .-
e ee e
I l
. . . - .. , . - . . - ._ _ _ . - _ . . - - . = _ _ ..
- warrTv-ese.rn. comentSt STANLEY Smil.LI
- STAFF DIAi TOR MORT.'S X. DDALL. A8G., CMACMAN AND COUNSEL
.681 Ana a49g Je.. TU. aanduut. LuJan. Ja . e MO.
ft0Y of0NES
~
^**"'"*"**"
6'$59'b 3'$iMI_*~* **^ COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR r?>t u ".'.*# :Ta'Pe".h AND INSULAR AFFAIRS 'U E^E"*'
- n. w .
.7
= e. U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES "NuNNE:.
- f
- 31. s /T*- WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515 O*'".C"n
O.T'a.'L
,#..c.a.tL..
"3 .
, a,x,,ggy December 6, 1983 .
Te?TM154.
4 O' "*o*u"'d w.
- O!:"L*T.".i It'fJr.'.'"J" .'
The Honorable Nunzio Palladino -
Chairman
. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This regards several issues related-to consideration of
! General Public Utilities' request that the Commission approve
, restart of Three Mile Island Unit 1.
1 The first issue relates to the Commission's current thinking on the need for holding and completing public hearings on management competence and integrity issues prior to any I
decision authorizing the restart of Unit 1. On this subject, you said in your July 14, 1983 letter to me that:
i I would note that by memorandum dated May 27, i
1983 the Commission requested the NRC's Office of Investigations to conduct an investigation i into the allegations of leak rate falsifica-l tion. The Commission does not intend to make l '
a decision on TMI-l management competer.cy
! until-the relevant portions of that l investigation are complete. (emphasis added)
- In light of NRC staff's recommendation yesterday that TMI-l be allowed to operate at 25% power prior to completion of the i Of fice of Investigations reviews 'of competence and integrity
! of GPU, should I infer that the Commission policy has changed l from that which was expressed to me in your July 14 letter?
N On a related matter, I am aware of, 'and sympathetic with, sentiments expressed by Senator Specter and others to the effect that restart should not be allowed until the hearings are complete. As Chairman of the Committee having primary i jurisdiction in the House over nuclear regulation, I do not
- EA M A l_k jd k ,
W [ V f W T ' ' f t
,y - , , - . -., , , . . . . . , . - - . . . ~ . ., . --- , ,- ,_.- .,--. - n .-,e.e,
..- l
-2 -
The Honorable Nunzio Palladino December 6', 1983 believe'it appropriate tc express a personal view as to when restart should: occur. It is, however, appropriate and vital
~
whenfquestions of integrity and competence are involved (es is the case here) that the Commission take account of the views of_the elected representatives of Pennsylvania.
- Whatever the Commission decides in this matter should be accompanied by a full explanation of the manner in which the Commission took account of the integrity, competence and
, . hardware issues'which'have been enumerated in the NRC staff studies and by intervenor groups. Among such issues are the falsification of leak rate calculations, and the November 7, 1983 federal grand jury indictment of Metropolitan Edison. Of particular concern is how the Commission weighed the implications offthis indictment with respect to management '
participation in, or awareness of, the leak rate falsification activities..
Finally, I am concerned about the Commision's potential use of the so-called "Sholly Provision" to grant an immediately effective approval of Unit 1 steam generator repairs prior to the. completion of. requested public hearings on the health and safety significance of those repairs. As you know, I had qualms about the Sholly provision when it was proposed; I supported it with the understanding that it would be used carefully, and only for those license amendments which clearly pose.no significant hazards consideration. As the Commission is aware, both the extent of the damage to Unit l's steam generators, and the means of repairing that damage'is unprecedented. Moreover, there is no serious question that the safe operation of steam generators ,is integral to the safe operation of a nuclear plant. I cannot' understand,_ therefore, i how TMI's steam generators can be recommissioned.without.a i
public accounting of why their use. poses no significant hazard
- to the health and safety of the public.
J l ' I am somewhat surprised to find that the staff has made a "no significant hazards" determination,in the case of the TMI-l
[ steam generators. The facts available to me do not present the' sort of circumstances I had in mind to trigger the Sholly provision when I supported that legislation (i . e. non-safety L related, routine, license amendments so that the agency resources could be devoted to significant matters of public concern). I'm certain, members of the Subcommittee and the public would~ appreciate a full explanation by.the Commission as to why the steam generator questions do not constitute "slonificant hazard" and thus can be considered under the Sholly provision if.it is invoked.
l 6
\
t
d~
The Honorable Nunzio Palladino Decembe r 6, 1933 I appreciate your prompt attention to this matter, and look forward to the' Commission's response.. As always, in addition to the. collegial view of the.. Commission on each of these cues
- ions, I welcome separate and dif fering views cf individual. commissioners.- ,
Sincerel, 8 M MORRIS g._UDALL Chairman 1
4 0
4
. ~~
s e
4 e
an-,