ML20153D983

Submits Observations Re Comments Submitted to Commission,Per 851219 Order CLI-85-12 on Author Alleged Involvement in Matl False Statement Made in 791205 Response to Notice of Violation.Author Not Involved in Procedure Violations

ML20153D983
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	02/21/1986
From:	Arnold R AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, ARNOLD, R.C.
To:	Asselstine J, Palladino N, Roberts T NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20153D978	List: ML20153D975 ML20153D983
References
CLI-85-19, RA-EW, NUDOCS 8602240331
Download: ML20153D983 (7)

Text

- . . -. . . - . - . . ._ . -. -

o , '

accere c. - l

-1 7 Fernwood Tr mil Mountain Lakes, New Jersey - 07046 t

e February 21, 1986 ~ ,

Hon. Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman Hon. Thomas M. Roberts, Commissioner Hon. James K. Asselstine, Commissioner I'

~

. Eon. Frederick M. Bernthal, Commissioner

' Hon. Lando W. Zech, Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

.j .-- Washington, D.C. 20555 Subj: GPU Nuclear l Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1

. 50-289RA; 50-289EW (Special Proceeding) i

Dear Commissioners:

Your order dated December 19, 1985 in the captioned proceeding, CLI-85-19, invited written submissions from interested persons as to facts that would assist you in assessing whether Ed Wallace or I was aware of or involved in I making a material false statement to the NRC. The material false statement was allegedly made in a response filed by 1 1

Metropolitan Edison Company on December 5, 1979 to a Notice of l Violation ("NOV"). Your Order further' requested commentors i 1

i to address, if Mr.'Wallace or I knew of or was involved in ,

) making a material false statement, whether this knowledge or i

involvement indicates willful or reckless conduct by.either of j us. The Order was in response to a March 27, 1985 request i 1 l i

I O > . t b

- , ,n, - +, ,.,w .,n ..e'n6 a -,g ,s . ~ s.,-. -c w ,*, , , -

r m,+. n .av,-- n. - --m4.,,m-.

f Hon. Nunzio J.'Palladino, Chairman Hon. Thomas M. Roberts, Commissioner Hon. James K. Asselstine, Commissioner Hon. Frederick M.~Bernthal, commissioner EHon. Lando W. Zech, commissioner February-21, 1986 ,

Page 2.

from Mr. Wallace.and me for a hearing to establish-that statements made in various NRC documents that have damaged our reputations are not suppor'ted by the weight o' the evidence.

I have reviewed the comments submitted in response.to your i

order and disagree with the conclusions reflecting adversely

- on me. However, my purpose in writing this letter is not to 4 ,

further burden the record at this time, but rather simply to request your consideration of three brief observations that I hope will facilitate your deliberations on this matter..

• First, most of the submittals indicate:that t'he commentors i

are concerned with the possible lifting of the notification requirement governing my future employment at TMI, Unit 1.

i See CLI-85-2, 21 NRC 282, 323 (1985). However, my hearing request was not addressing the notification requirement per l se. I do not object to a continuation of the notification requirement. Nor do I know of any plans by GPU to offer.me a f position involving TMI-1. Rather, my concern is soldly with 4 what I believe are incorrect inferences drawn from NRC i documents that have damaged my good name and reputation and that have the practical effect of impairing my ability to be I

considered for employment opportunities in the nuclear industry and elsewhere for which I believe that I am qualified. The objective of my hearing request is a statement h

5 8

Hon. Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman Hon. Thomas'M.. Roberts, Commissioner F ' Hon.' James K. Asselstine, Commissioner Hon. Frederick M. Bernthal, commissioner Hon. Lando W. Zech, commissioner 1

February 21, 1986 Page 3

-from the commission that it does not have a basis for constraining my utilization in activities regulated by the l NRC. This would, as a practical matter, enable me to pursue my professional. career. Thus, the relief I seek can be granted without lifting the notification requirement.

Second, I believe that the memorandum in support of my j hearing request and the Staf f's Jt ly,1985 analysis of tne memorandum, appended to the staff's comments filed in recponse

to your Order, when considered together identify the central issue concerning the alleged submittal of a materi.al false

statement in connection with the denial on December 5, 1979 by Met-Ed of an alleged violation. That issue is as follows. I claim that Met-Ed properly denied the alleged violation as

, specifically worded because the claim in the NOV (i.e., that i~

the existence of a PORV tailpipe temperature greater than

130 F required the closing of the PORV block valve) did not i

accurately reflect the requirement of the referenced procedure. The Staff claims, at least with respect to pre-

! accident operations, that Met-Ed improperly denied the alleged violation by incorrectly implying that there had been a preaccident determination that the PORV was not leaking and that, therefore, the procedure for a leaking PORV did not apply.- I believe that the record, including the NRC letter of i

- - - _ . . , . . . _ , . , - . ., _,,...,,.~-_,.o. , , . . . , -- , . _

s Hon. Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman Hon. Thomas M. Roberts, Commissioner Hon. James K. Asselstine, Commissioner Hon. Frederick M. Bernthal, Commissioner Hon. Lando W. Zech, Commissioner February 21, 1986 Page 4 January 23, 1980, shows that the response to the NOV was based upon, and was initially interpreted by NRC as being based upon, the specific words o'f the alleged-violation. In my view the corrective action sections of the response to the NOV also demonstrate a villingness to acknowledge deficiencies and to

- take actions necessary to develop and assure compliance with improved procedures.

Even if the response to the NOV is to be reau now in the manner suggested by the Staff (i.e., that the basis for the denial was an incorrect implication that there had been a preaccident determination that the PORV was not leaking and that, therefore, the procedures for a leaking PORV did not apply), the fact remains that at the time Met-Ed prepared its response, I was not (nor, I believe, was the Staff) conscious 1 of the possibility that prior to the accident plant management may have made a deliberate decision to' violate either Emergency Procedure 2202-1.5, as the Staff believes, or other procedures that required the resolution of issues raised by the PORV tailpipe temperature being in the range of 180 r to 0

190 F. Therefore, I did not consider that issue when responding to the NOV.

Third, the July, 1985 Staff analysis of my hearing request perhaps suggests at page 24 that I regard the "no indication"

u Hon.1 Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman Hon.' Thomas M. Roberts, Commissioner-

- Hon. James K. Asselstine, Commissioner  ;

• Hon. Frederick M. Bernthal, Commissioner Hon..Lando W. Zech, Commissioner February 21, 1986 t

, Page 5 alleged material false statement issue as " trivial". This simplyfis not the case. I believe that allegations involving material false statements are never trivial. The point of my memorandum was simply that the' staff did not read that i

statement in the total context of all of the investigations  ;

and discussions within which the NOV and its response were j developed. I now recognize that a better choice of words .

t J would have avoided the current dispute. However, it would not J

have changed the consensus that the accident was the result of l varied, fundamental and generic deficiencies in ce,rtain  ;

! aspects of plant equipment, procedures, training and related j safety analyses. See, for example, the Forward to NUREG 0600.

i In contrast to the description of the causes of the accident l 7 '

set forth in the Forward to NUREG 0600, the October 25, IS'79 t

l letter transmitting the NOV states, as follows:

j Furthermore, this elevated temperature condition had been in existence for several months and.apparently l conditioned your operating staff such that the abnormality on March 28 was obscured or rationalized  !

away resulting in delayed closure of the isolation.

i i valve. . .[ emphasis added).

\

j I believe that the intent of our position taken in response to the october 25 transmittal letter (i.e., that the i

delayed recognition was the result of factors other than the 4-

! plant staff's lack of response prior to'the' accident to the r elevated tailpipe temperatures, primarily an expectation that  ;

=

Hon. Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman'

- Hon. Thomas.M. Roberts,. Commissioner Hon. James K. Asselstinei Commissioner

4. Hon. Frederick M. Bernthal, commissioner Hon. Lando W. zech, commissioner February 21, 1986 Page.6 the tailpipe temperature would have been in. excess lof 300 F if

the PORV had failed'open) was and is.more supportable

than-the

- position taken by the staff in that, transmittal. letter (i.e., ,

that reccgnition of the failure.of~the PORV was delayed as a i result of the plant staff's failure to respond to the elevated i

i temperatures prior to the accident). .While it did not appear-necessary to address this point in responding to the violation F

alleged by the Staff in the NOV, I thought it was important.

and appropriate to express my belief that-the staff reached an erroneous conclusion as to what caused the accident.

)

Moreover, even assuming for the sake of argument that the December 5, 1979 response to the NOV did include a material-false statement, I believe that given the then on-going i

investigations, the continuing development and evolution of

~

insights into the accident, and the other significant matters in which we were engaged at the time, my activities regarding

{

the preparation of that response were reasonable. Indeed, I f am confident that a correct analysis of all of the evidence on; this issue demonstrates that I was diligent in assuring that activities under my authority were conducted properly and-i .

safely.. I urge that you consider.the reasonableness of my activities and my diligence when focussing on what in my view >

9 l

should be the central issue before you: whether my activities

! l h

,_,-~.u._. , . , , . . - . , , - . . . - - . . . . . . . . - - , _ . - - _ , . . . - - , - - , . . . - , .- . -- , , . . -

o 0

Hon. Nunzio J.'Palladino, Chairman  :

Hon. Thomas M. Roberts, Commissioner Hon. James K. Asselstine, Commissioner Hon. Frederick M. Bernthal, Commissioner Hon. Lando W. Zech, Commissioner February 21, 1986 Page 7 in connection with the December 5, 1979 response justify the NRC taking positions that adversely affect my reputation and future employment.

I am willing to provide any additional information or detailed comments on each of the submittals if the commission so desires. I appreciate this opportunity to provide you with these brief observations. I hope that they assist you in your -

further deliberations.

Sincerely, 1

Robert C. rnold O

4 ,.r,.- - - - - -=.