ML19320D737
| ML19320D737 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 07/03/1980 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | White T AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19320D738 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-SSINS-3330 NUDOCS 8007220140 | |
| Download: ML19320D737 (3) | |
Text
.=
-,. k ~~ ~
s _,,
,3
( 6-W- [w
-)
o areg[o
,g
/[phr& g UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/,: c e
{QMfi i
WAS HINGTo N, D. C. 20555
+...'
JyL 3 1380 Mr. Tony White 1127 State Er.poria, Kansas 66801
Dear Mr. White:
This is in final response to your letter dated November 2,1979 to former Chairman Hendrie relating to your concerns on the Wolf Creek facility.
This response addresses the remaining issues not previously provided to you in our letters dated December 20, 1979 and January 31, 1980.
The points which you raised in your letter are addressed in the enclosure in the order listed in your letter.
Thank you for your interest in these matters.
Sincerely, Y
"f VictorSteIo,Jg Director}
Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Enclosures:
1.
Response to Ltr.
o.' 11/2/79 2.
Appendix A, Meco, Crilk to Bickwit, 3/31/80 3.
Appendix B, IE Investigation Report 50-482/79-14 4.
Appendix C, IE Investigation Report 50-482/79-19 5.
Appendix 0, IE Investigation Report 50-a82/79-21 6.
Appendix E, IE Investigation Report 50-432/80-05 THis DOCUMENT CONTAINS POOR QUAUTY PAGES 80 07220/9D y
3 Resoonse to Letter of 11/2/79 1.
Extended Tice Period for Commission Decirion:
The basic reason for the extensions of time for the Commission decision on'the Director's Denial was related to the fact that the staff was preparing a supplement to the decision issued on July 12, 1979 and one of the issues, that dealing with seismicity, required several months of staff effort. The January 31, 1980 letter sent to you contained a docu-cent entitled " Revised Director's Denial of Requests Under 10 CFR 2.206."
Appendix A notes the final decision by the Commission regarding the Director's Denial on this issue.
2.
Consideration of a New Eoicenter for Seismic Events:
The seismicity question was specifically addressed in Appendix F of the l
Revised Denial sent to you by letter dated January 31, I80.
3.
Location and Condition of local Public Document Room in Burlinoton. Kansas:
The policy for the location of the local public document rooms calls for
-the local POR's generally being located in libraries in cities and towns
- near the site.
In this case, the Coffey County Courthouse was the facility chosan because of location.
These local repositories of docu-ments are maintained without NRC funding, by local officials, for the local population.
We recognize that in some cases not all local agencies /
officials are able, due to personnel and budget limitations, to maintain tha records in the same manner as in the NRC public d-cument room in Washington.
We believe the use of the Coffey County Courthouse in the case of Wolf Creek is appropriate because of its proximity to the site.
4.
Testing'of the Base Mat:
The' details related to this issue were thoroughly discussed in Item #3 of Enclosure A to my letter of December 20, 1979.
5.
Use of 90-day Test Results:
The details on this issue were thoroughly discussed in Item #2 of Enclesure A to my letter of Dece ber 20, 1979.
~
6.
Corruotion and Poor Workmanshic:
.Youprovider)nospecificdetailsinyourallegationsrelatedto
" scandalous stories of corrupticn and poor quality of work abound from workers".
Enclosed for your information as Appe.dicas B, C, D, and E are four investigation reports that address allegations received during the period of June 1979 through December 1979.
These a' legations generally 4
4 a+..
. address the areas in which you expressed concern. We have no other informatica related to your concerns and all of the specific allegations known to us have been investigated.
Our investigations have disclosed no items of safety significance associated with allegations of corruption and wcrkmanship.
7.
Worker Intimidation and Greed:
During the course of our normal inspection activities workers have been contacted.
Additionally, several workers were interviewed during the investigations referenced in Item 6.
These activities failed to disclose informaticn whica indicated workers had oeentintimidated at the Wolf Creek site.
Within the last several weeks the licensee, Kansas Gas and Electric Company, reported a situation to the NRC that could be categorized as a case cf harrassme.t.
Verbal threats of bodily harm were made to a Level II QC welcing (mechanical) inspector.
This situation was revealed after charges of harrass,aent were made and Daniel International Corporation completed an investigation.
As a result of the invc.tigation five crafts-can were terminated and the QC inspector was reassigned to the New York area.
Daniel's investigation indicated the actions against the inspector were of the nature of per:onality conflicts as opposed to attempts to keep the inspector f rom completing his assigned tasks.
The NRC has not completed an evaluation of this incident at this time.
Your reference to worker greed does not apcaar to have relevant meaning in the cor. text of construction of a s fa nuclear facility.
One could speculate or hypothesire many things from your statement, but specific
- acts or allegations are necessary if we are to act.
8.
':RC 3hilosochy of Iicensee's Recortino on Themselves:
Although you do not agree with the philosophy of regulation used by the NRC to assure the safety of nuclear power plants, the Congress aas authorized an NRC regulatory program based on licensee self-reporting and an hRC cverview and audit typ inspection. We believe this approach is an aopropriate and effective means for protecting the public health and safety.
Fowever we do recogni e that improvements and adjustments can always be..ide and we continually do so as experience and resources ci: tate.
l s
1