ML20057B592

Partially Withheld Commission Paper Identifying & Evaluating Info of Possible Significance for Restart Decision & Providing Evaluation of Trial Transcript for Litigation Purposes

ML20057B592
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	06/22/1983
From:	Plaine H, Zerbe J NRC OFFICE OF POLICY EVALUATIONS (OPE), NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:
Shared Package
ML20049A457	List: ML20054K065 ML20055C161 ML20055C162 ML20055C164 ML20055C168 ML20055C169 ML20055C170 ML20055C171 ML20055C172 ML20057B502 ML20057B511 ML20057B512 ML20057B515 ML20057B516 ML20057B520 ML20057B537 ML20057B538 ML20057B545 ML20057B547 ML20057B549 ML20057B552 ML20057B554 ML20057B555 ML20057B560 ML20057B561 ML20057B563 ML20057B565 ML20057B566 ML20057B568 ML20057B571 ML20057B573 ML20057B574 ML20057B576 ML20057B577 ML20057B579 ML20057B583 ML20057B586 ML20057B590 ML20057B592 ML20057B593 ML20057B594 ML20057B596 ML20057B597 ML20057B782 ML20057B783 ML20057B784 ML20057B785 ML20057B786 ML20057B788 ML20057B789 ... further results
References
FOIA-92-436 SECY-83-245, NUDOCS 9309220284
Download: ML20057B592 (13)

Text

__

s 1

\\

O

.01 i

v I

[r m,3%

o

[b( 's N eI l

\\s.; elf ADJUDICAkbRY ISSUE (Inf0rIT18 tion)

SECY-83-245 June 22, 1983 DISTRIBUTION LIMITED TO COMMISSIONERS, OGC, OPS

~

For:

I.

rajssioners N

K From:

/ obn'. Z

'e, Director Of' ce of Policy Evaluation Herzel H. E. Plaine

/

General Counsel REVIEW 0F GPU v. B&W TRIAL TRANSCRIPT, OF STAFF REPORT

Subject:

ON TRIAL R E6RD, AND OF COMMENTS OF PARTIES TO THE TMI-1 RESTART PROCEEDING ON THAT REPORT To identify and evaluate information of possible Pu rpose:

significance for the TMI-1 (Restart) decision and to provide an evaluation of the trial transcript for litigation purposes Discussion:

Introduction Pursuant to Commission direction of February 25 and March 25, 1983, OPE and OGC have reviewed the ED0 staff's March 28, 1983 report on the GPU v. B&W trial record and the comments by parties to thTIMI-1 Restart proceeding on that report.

OGC has also reviewed the GPU v. B&W trial transcript.

An analysis of the implications of these reviews to the Commission's immediate effectiveness decision for TMI-1 restart is in Attachment A, which was prepared by OPE.

J Attachment B is OGC's analysis of the staff report in light of OGC's.re. view _of._1he transcript. Attachment B J as preparefi.

~, p

{

y.-

s-Informatian in this reccid t dektEd in ::ddrim ' P the Fedm of intermation

Contact:

M U: "

Dan Berkovitz, 0GC, X 43224 Michael Blume, OGC, X a1493 Fr

~~ ~~ 43295

/

9309220284 930428 PDR FOIA GILINSK92-436 PDR m

^^

, r.

n The Commissioners 2

I f

,I t

[)'

I i

i u k

)

w i

l

\\.

OPE's conclusions in Attachment A are based on:

(1) the parties' comments; (2) the staff report.on the GPU v. B&W trial record; (3) the record in the TMI-1 restart proceeding; and (4) the OGC trial transcript review and analysis found in SECY-83-136 and Attachment B to this paper.

s i

l 3,

F L

p N

f l

1

. +..

9

.The Comissioners 3

u I

..1

Background

p~'.-

~

. l.

t

'a 1

t

)

k I

I a

+

1 h

o i

I m

d

?

'I a

i I

i General Comments i

?

w e

t F

e l

,j

• "#"*-F

• • meaw.

The Comissioners 4

I l

r i

i i

1 i

/

r 1

I

'10 I

e j

1 ~,

J

+

t k

I Attachments:

A.

OPE Evaluation of the Implications of i

the GPU v. B&W Trial Reviews and Parties' Coments for a TMI-1 Imediate Effectiveness Decision B.

0GC Analysis of GPU v. B&W Transcript and of Staff Report on GPU v. B&W Trial Record l

i DISTRIBUTION:

Commissioners OGC 4

OPE SECY i

.i

[

1

..4,.

s r

?

r

. ?

r

' T

- i

- t t

i i

t i

t, L

ATTACHMENT A m

/

)

5 i

/, ! /.

L',i 1

r e

$~ %.

. 9.

h. '

..I l

I b

I t

- i 1

l i

I F

P 7

i s

a

+

,e

ATTACHMENT A GPU v. BABC0CK & WILC0X:

IMPLICATIONS OF STAFF REVIEW AND PARTIES' COMMENTS FOR A TMI-1 IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVENESS DECISION We have evaluated the staff review team's report on the GPU v. B&W trial record and the parties' coaments on that staff report. tee following discussion summarizes party comments and outlines our view of the implications of the staff report and the parties' comments to the THI-1 immediate effectiveness decision. We have made the following assumptions in conducting this analysis.

1 Additionally we believe We will inoivicually discuss the significance of those issues we feel are important to an immediate effectiveness decision.

Adequacy of the Staff Report Several parties commented that the staff's report reviewing the GPU v. B&W trial record was inadequate.

In particular they alleged that it represents no more than a protection of the staff's vested interest, supporting its earlier conclusion that GPU management is adequate and that TMI-1 should be restarted.

1/

This review has not evaluated These two items will be reviewed separately by us.

i

m oi 2

We believe This issue will be further discussed in our review of i

1 i

i I

J

---a

~

3 w=m, We believe We thbrefoFE i

L b

Thus,bPEdoesnotbelieve t

t r

~

4

~ _ _ _ _ _ _.... _ _.. _. _ _ _.. - - -

First, our review of the. trial record indicates..that t

we have seen However, OPE does not

[

i

r F

5 t

T i

~

OPE does not believe that OPE believes OGC believes that i

i t

4

.h

gb 7,/

sg>o A>

f 0

o': A, ea.

S.

Q.

t 0, g"*yp IMAGE EVAL.UATION A @,

L Q

////p (,,

th*

/

,;W'g,

^

TEST TARGET (MT-3)

+

s s

h/

l e>kl g,

C (2Q (t 2 5 l.0

=

r

~ 33 l"l12.2 1-I 20 l:kS0 l,l im

!] l.8L l.25 1.4 l

1.6

+

150mm d

6"

[g/s 9 %3e

////7oks gje.

.>, 1

[%g/

&.y) 4 d,og g,//

~

w ',

g'&\\'*

+

O

^a je

).

ll r ((

~

~

-x; 4{b & h, L

~~

(

of i

4p <r

/

l ep

)

x 4

7 4

/

/

o.-

0

2. n s

i.

[j/j///

,Y IMAGE EVALUATION N,

\\ //g g[6 8b*

TEST TARGET (MT-3)

[,)[W["/g

/

49

}

l.0

~32 e 2.2 tass g

1.1 G=29 o

l'

! l.8 wa l

I.25 li 1.4 lq 1.6 ll===

p=

4.---------

150mm 4_.____.__._._______

_. - 6 "

s p

' Mgr sp,,ox 4

+

y g

,, > y g, a //Ax n

x.

o x

7

.<3

.A

'e,, o, Cf

' f b 1

/

ce 4

s

..9 i,13.[f2,s e,44b

. d I ON

/

p[Q,',h

/.o O

O~ ';'

r.

%0 IMAGE EVALUATION

,O, %

/o//

'D

'(h*

TEST TARGET (MT-3) b

/g, c/'[j[(q,fg 4

4j qy kr%M M

1.0

"?"

~"

~-

,Y L= =

1.1 l[l!=22

!j l.8 l

as=

1.25 1.4 tll 1.6

.I lIl 4 - -- - -

150mm 4_____

6" h

A ' 4)ht Q~6 xzzz,*>gx e

s / y, y[j/,, 7 q;f4[

J 4 Oy vy, s

qq/(D;'

,p y

5

. _3t'r____

l l0 d ?;

afp 4,

\\o/

, W..

4 IMAGE EVALUATION 7

,p 4, X

f

. N J ///

4j 9 TEST TdNDET (MT-3)

/

b 4f 4,

<g fgr fj 4tg%j

x

'\\$s@gy 4

t t#

l.0 L:' f " W t;; f3?

!lt 2.2 b riz l,l i

l!I l.8 i

ljj l.25 1.4 jil I.6 l

,[===

150mm 4

4 g"

p A~9 %rN.m,T /#

/

&.+,

,;,, s/.yx

~e A,

%g

,/

g n,

• g& s ^,,

D

(~ ; ~

<;g

~4,4 op i

ep &

I

[

<tb c.

_a r1 e.

3"N 'hj.,.,

+., afdl;d*,hkdhh '

..,j

-4

r K

ana c'

4 e

6 t

In our view, k'e i

believe that On the basis of the record,wecontinuetoEeiievethat

~

We have independently noted

~

1 l

j

=~

~

7 OPE does not believe t

I i

Our review OPE will b'e prepared to, discuss thiTs~in~atter 1

i l

a

~

j 4

8 l

Our revidw I

I f

OPE will be prepared to discuss this matter further e

i i

i I

e 7

9 6

i