ML20136H241

Staff Mailgram Exhibit S-3,consisting of 810202 Memo Disputing 810126 Implication That Sufficient Opportunity Not Provided for Comment on Draft Investigative Rept Re TMI-2 Accident

ML20136H241
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	12/07/1984
From:	Moseley N NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
To:	Gamble D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTOR & AUDITOR (OIA)
References
SP-S-003, SP-S-3, NUDOCS 8508200237
Download: ML20136H241 (2)

Text

h 3t h k d U t W r 4 k . 3 ganus 1,

[.p ,

8 4 UNITED STATES y s a NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

. 5-  : -wAsmNGTON, D. C. 20566 $$}33 ggnn o,, N

\ ,, February 2,1981 ,

iS # 9 l

I$

f e$

(,

D-

\= @ t q,

f, 5 '

MEMORA!iDUM FOR: David H. Gamble, Investigator, Office of Inspec and Auditor 4 ,p FR0ft: Nonnan C. Moseley, Director, Division of Program Development and Appraisal, Office of Inspection and Enforcement -

SUBJECT:

IE INVESTIGATION INTO INFORt% TION FLOW CONCERNING THE TMI ACCIDENT .

This responds to your gratuitous comments on the subject report. These coments were mailed on January 26, 1981 and received by me on January 27, 1981, when the report was already finalized and in the printing process.

Your memorandum implies that the draft.upon which you commented was the only opportunity you had to review the report. This, we both know, is not true.

You have been supplied copies.of each of the numerous drafts of the report, in each case with an understanding that your coments were solicited. . In most cases no response was received from you. Let the record be straight that the coments which you gave me on January 21 were verbally given and to the best of my recollection were related .to Items 1, 4, 17, 18, and 21C. My reaction to '

all of the comments in your January 26 memorandum is that even if they had been accorrnodated there would have been no significant affect on the conclusions and recomendations made in our report.

Finally, it is incomprehensible to me that you waited until now to bring up

> the numerous issues you now raise. You not only received copies of previous drafts, as was stated above, you also sat in on a number of discussions where the report, its conclusions and recomendations were discussed. In neither case did you avail yourself of the opportunity to raise the issues you now express.

> /

~

g a, ]f n' ~

==nm 8

nau.T PDR >

D::"J "*

Division of Program Development and Appraisal Office of Inspection and Enforcement cc: V. Stello, Jr. , IE J._J. Cummings,-IA R. Fortuna, IA M. E. Moe, GC R. K. Hoefling, ELD

,  ?

L. __.______& _.___________..._.__.__.._a.______...__._a-_ m .___- - _ _ . - - _ _ _ _ . . - _ _ _.____-_------_+>_mam___. __-aM

uu.. . ...:.:. . : .c. ca..utmen

.e

• • ' at ?'e.8M_*_N[ddelin!2f rc:. I's.8M(( /3

.1 t.: mui;r el.sM6 f_ d -- -

if . + . v il-'

.. .W

• !!:.ui __ - G. T ^ :t _. V i :tr c.sr E1.' :T. C _ _ .

1g Crft t:2.44r L.12.___ [ 2'l.2? I

.vtr Ylitaa:t _ AM _[^

. , , . . G- .

2dd