ML16340E101
| ML16340E101 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 01/09/1984 |
| From: | Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Markey E HOUSE OF REP., INTERIOR & INSULAR AFFAIRS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16340E102 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8401310168 | |
| Download: ML16340E101 (14) | |
Text
1
'~PS R80I
~4 0
'~ ~c o~
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 CHAIRMAN January 9,
1984 The Honorable Edward J.
Markey, Chairman Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515
Dear t1r. Chairman:
Enclosed is a report to me from the Executive Director for Operations which addresses the issues raised in your November 1, 1983 letter regarding the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff's handling of drafts of quality assurance case studies, in particular the Diablo Canyon case study.
Based on this report, the Commission has concluded that (a) the enclosure adequately addresses the issues you raised; and (b) no investigation is necessary beyond the extensive review conducted by The staff.
Sincerely, Nunzio J.. Palladino
Enclosure:
EDO Report dtd.
12/22/83 S'c:
Rep.
Ron Marlenee
~;
REPORT ON REVIEW OF ISSUES RAISED BY CONGRESSMAN
- MARKEY, LETTER OF NOVEMBER 1, 1983 This report is responsive to a r est from the Commission that EDO review the issues raised in the subject lett The report, therefore, supplements the Commission's letter of October 7, 1983 to Congressman Markey on this subject.
That letter discussed in detail the reasons for the staff's not conducting the quality assurance case studies as part of our normal regulatory programs such as licensing, inspection and enforcement.
It also provided some information regarding the staff's. handling of drafts of the case studies which is the subject of concern in Congressman Markey's latest letter to Chairman Palladino.
A.
BACKGROUND l,t The Commission's October 7 letter to Congressman Markey noted that the staff initiated its review and study efforts on the premise that Congress recognizes that success in the endeavor necessitates the full cooperation of the nuclear industry.
Section 13 -of P.L.97-415 explicitly directs that "in conducting the study, the Commission shall obtain the comments of the public, licensees of
.'uclear powerplants, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, and organi-zations comprised of professionals having expertise in appropriate fields."
The staff has undertaken a number of activities to meet this requirement, including the publication of a Federal Register notice asking for public
- comments, and staff briefings for various professional groups and the ACRS.
The staff also formed a review group of distinguished outside professionals with appropriate expertise to provide individual comments on the methodology and findings of NRC's quality assurance studies.
This review group contains representatives from the nuclear and non-nuclear indu'~try as well as from a
l C
v public interest group, the Natural Resources Defense Council.
No commercial power plant licensees or applicants are represented in the review group.
- Further, the staff regards licensees and professional groups such as INPO as having valuable perspectives as to why certain quality assurance programs
- have, or have not, succeeded.
The staff has interpreted the language in the Authorization Act to mean that in conducting the 'study, we should consult such groups regarding the study, solicit their experiences and insight and confirm our understanding of their experiences.
We have done this throughout the study in a number of activities in addition to the case studies and plan to continue to do so.
Enclosure 1 to this letter provides information on these activities and supplements information in Enclosure 1 of the October 7, 1983 letter to Congressman Markey.
It is based on further staff review, and it illustrates the extent of our consultation and interaction with licensees and other groups in conducting this study.
The Case C working paper was never intended to be part of the final report
/
to Congress but rather one data point among a number of studies and substudies based on which the Report to Congress on guality Assurance would be prepared.
In this light and in view of the fact that the Congress and the NRC both want a
'eport based on the best information possible, it would have been reasonable for the staff to solicit comments from the Case Study C licensee on the case study working paper and use them to correct errors of fact and misinterpreta-tions in the Case C working paper.
In fact, as explained in enclosure 1, early in the study. senior IE management had seriously considered providing material such as draft case study reports to participating licensees for review and comment.
However, during the course of the study, IE management responsible for the Congressional study activities decided not to follow this course of
action because of concern over the appearance of impropriety, even though this was a special, non-regulatory, program development effort.
Consequently, no licensee comnents were requested for or utilized in revising any of the case study working papers.
B.
SPECIFIC CONCERNS l.
In response to the first concern of Congressman Narkey as to whether licensee comments on the July 19 draft of the Case Study C Report (Diablo Canyon) were used in preparation of the final working paper dated September 19, the answer is no.
The licensee comments were
.dated September 21, two days after the date of the revised case study.
Each person involved. in revising the draft has been contacted P
and.each has stated that they were not aware of the contents of the PG&E comments while they were revising the draft, nor were the licensee comments communicated to them during the revision process.
(The members of the case study team are listed in Enclosure 2.)
Each of the, team members is prepared to affirm this fact under oath.
Enclosure 2 also provides further details on the case study process and how draft and final working papers are prepared.
2.
Congressman Narkey's second concern was that "the final report contains few of the draft report's strongly negative conclusions and those which remain are couched in less critical language."
Certainly much of the.draft language has been recast in a more professional
- manner, but the substance of the findings, conclusions, and overall
~
~
~
~
content remains the same.
The staff has prepared a comparison of the major findings (root causes) and major conclusions (generic impli-cations) from the two versions of the case study working papers, which is provided as Enclosure 3 to this letter.
As this enclosure shows, there were no changes to any of the major findings and only two minor changes to the major conclusions.
The changes cited in the enclosure to Congressman Markey's letter, which was prepared by a
party to the Diablo Canyon proceeding, dealt not with these findings and conclusions, but with text material in the body of the report.
The analysis in that enclosure fails to note that a number of the apparently deleted points appear elsewhere in the final report, or that the substance of a particular paragraph may not have been altered by the revision.
The team's editorial process of peer review was such that points'hat could not be substantiated or stand the test of questioning by team members were either modified or deleted.
The fact that many of the changes dealt with material critical to the licensee is not surprising; little in either version was compli-mentary.
Similarly, it is not surprising that both PGKE and the Case Study Team, while independently addressing the July draft, would identify many of the same areas in which there was concern for the validity of some of the draft statements.
3.
Congressman Markey also asked for edited or marked up copies of the July 19 draft used in the revision.
Enclosure 4 contains the team's markups together with a point by point discussion of each change cited in your letter, and the identity of the team members who
suggested the change.
As the discussion
- shows, the substance of much of the apparently deleted material was retained in the report.
Attachment B to Enclosure 4 is the master markup of the team editor.
It is color coded and reflects the comments of the various team members.
C.
CON CLUS ION I am satisfied that the staff and contractors acted responsibly in this matter and that there was no impropriety'in handling the revision of Case C.
I also believe the September 19 final working paper is the product of an unbiased cd'.tor',
-',-process and that the.findings, conclusions and overall thrust of the reports are similar, with the September 19 version representing a more pro-fessional and useful product for consideration in preparing our final report to Congress.
In view of the above, I do not believe'n investigation is warranted or appropriate.
I agree that the staff must be assiduous in preventing even the appearance of impropriety in all aspects of its work.
I have already requested staff to develop specific direction on handling draft regulatory papers covering licensing, inspection, and enforcement matters.
Enclosures:
See next page Willia
. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
1.
Chronological Listing of NRC Staff Consultation and Interaction with the Public, Licensees, The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, Associations of Professionals,
.and Others 2.
Case Study Purpose and Process 3.
tlajor Findings and Conclusions 4.
Revision of July 19 Draft Case Study C Working Paper
V
'