ML20138A202

Provides Comments Submitted to Commission in Response to 851219 CLI-85-19 on Alleged Matl False Statement in Met Ed 791205 Response to Notice of Violation

ML20138A202
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	03/07/1986
From:	Wallace E AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Asselstine J, Palladino N, Roberts T NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20138A180	List: ML20138A178 ML20138A202
References
CLI-85-02, CLI-85-19, CLI-85-2, RA-EW, NUDOCS 8603140109
Download: ML20138A202 (4)

Text

.

~

kN Edward G. Wallace gl

'7 Q

4'2 235 West Mountain Road i

~

1019866- ~

Sparta, New Jersey 07871 og g swi j g ?' Q F cit f March 7, 1986 4 t3 4 to I Hon. Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman Hon. Thomas M. Roberts, Commissioner Hon. James K. Asselstine, Commissioner Hon. Frederick M. Bernthal, Commissioner Hon. Lando W. Zech, Jr., Commissioner United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: In the Matter of GPU Nuclear (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1) 50-289 RA 50-289 EW (Special Proceeding)

Dear Commissioners:

In its Order of December 19, 1985 (CLI-85-19), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the " Commission") sought comments from the Staff and interested parties related to certain statements in Metropolitan Edison Company's December 5, 1979 response to Notice of Violation ("NOV"). The comments would be considered in connection with the requirement imposed in CLI-85-2 that the licensee notify the Commission before returning me, or Robert Arnold, to responsible positions at TMI-1. Specifically, the Commission invited written submissions on the following three questions: (1) Does any part of the statements made in four sentences of the response to the NOV quoted from the Order constitute a material false statement, (2) What knowledge and involvement did I have in making that statement, and (3) Does that knowledge or involvement indicate willful or reckless conduct on my part. Absent information which could form a reasonable basis for concluding that I willfully, knowingly or with a reckless disregard for the truth made a material false statement to it, the Commission stated that it intended to issue an order lifting the notification requirement (CLI-85-19, at 6).

B603140109 307 DR ADOCK O g .

i Page 2 The NRC's December 9, 1979 order inviting the submission of comments on these questions was in response to the March 27, 1985 letter and lengthy accompanying March 27, 1985 memorandum of Mr. Arnold and me requesting a hearing to provide us with an opportunity to establish that the statements made in various NRC documents that had damaged our good name and repiatation and opportunity to work and obtain professional advancement were not supported by the weight of the evidence. I have reviewed the comments submitted in response to that Order. Many of those comments address matters other than the NOV response which do i not relate to me. While, for the reasons stated in our March 27, 1985 memorandum, I disagree with those comments that are adverse to me, I do not intend, by this letter, to prolong the debate. Instead, I offer these brief comments in the hope that they may assist the Commission and in the desire to express my individual views and objectives to the Commission.

I The Commission, in CLI-85-19, expressed particular interest in whether the statements in the NOV response regarding the I operating history of the pilot operated relief value and the applicability of Emergency Procedure 2202-1.5 were made with a 7 willful, knowing or reckless disregard for the truth.

Resolution of this issue should be and is separable from the question whether a material false statement was contained in the NOV response.

As we all know, the TMI-2 accident was an extraordinarily complex event. Many people have spent innumerable hours studying and analyzing the circumstances surrounding the accident. We have, as an industry, learned from these analyses and will continue to do so at least until TMI-2 is fully cleaned up. Quite often in the aftermath of such significant events, differing professional opinions are developed by reasonable people regarding the relevant facts and the importance of those facts. The open and candid debate ensuing from these differing opinions leads, hopefully, to insights into such events and eventually to a better understanding of the probable causes and effects of the events.

In this instance, the 95 page NOV response to the October 25, 1979 NOV had to be filed by December 5, 1979. Some positions taken in the NOV response that were drafted, reviewed and ultimately adopted were contrary to positions that had been taken by the NRC Staff in the NOV response and its forwarding letter. The rationales of these contrary positions were outlined in the response and in some respects the NRC Staff accepted or acknowledged the response and altered the final NOV citations.

1 1

i t

Page 3 t

l The NOV response represented the best effort of myself and other individuals under extremely difficult circumstances and time constraints to honestly and accurately marshal the available factual information and data. Today, in light of available facts not previously known to me, I feel less certain than I once did about the positions taken in the response. As stated in the March 27, 1985 memorandum, I agree in retrospect i that the "no indication" phrase 'in the small portion of the

response relating to the effects of the history of the tail-pipe temperature was ill-chosen and unnecessary for the purpose of the response. However, as the Staff acknowledges, reasonable persons could disagree on the interpretations of testimony provided almost 6 years ago (Staff Review at 27).

Even if one accepts the. Staff's conclusion (as with all due

! respect I do not) that the portion of the NOV response was i

inaccurate and incomplete, the Staff has determined that the evidence falls short of that necessary to conclude that, in making that statement, I engaged in willful or reckless conduct (Staff Comments at 13; Russell /Capra Affidavit at 14). My belief is, and the Staff acknowledges, that my actions during the course of the Office of Investigations inquiry were candid

! and cooperative and my explanations credible (Staff Comments,

at 13).

l Should the C smission determine that the weight of the evidence prr'sentee thus far is insufficient to establish a knowing, willful or reckless disregard for the truth in I preparing the NOV response, the Staff (in consultation with the office of Investigations) has concluded that it is unlikely that further investigation would produce significant additional information (Staff Comments, at 15) and that, on balance, a hearing is net warranted (Ibid.) The Staff also stated that, if the Commission determines not to initiate an adjudicatory hearing,- it would be appropriate to lift the notification requirement. (Ibid., including Note 3) I believe that the NOV Response das not drafted with a knowing, willful or reckless disregard of the truth and that the notification requirement should be lifted. Lifting the notification requirement would as a practical matter remove any constraints to my full '

utilization in TMI-l activities regulated by the Commission.

But the lifting of the notification requiremant is not my principal objective. It is, instead, to remove the cloud on my reputation and the resulting constraints on my professional employment which stem from the statements in NRC documents concerning me that I believe are not supported by the weight of

I Page 4 the evidence. I hope that the Commission in reviewing those statements considers my long standing history of open, candid, and cooperative efforts in working with the NRC. If the Commission does remove the cloud on my reputation, there will not, in my view, be a near-term need to lift the Commission's notification requirements in CLI-85-2.

I appreciate your consideration of these few remarks. I

, have not addressed here specifically the comments directed to the Commission by various interested parties, but would be i willing to do so in the event you deemed it appropriate.

Respectfully yours, a

l Edward G. Wallace i

l l

{

t 1

I 0