ML19325E000

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Responds to to Nl Kassebaum Re Concerns About NRC Denial of Sierra Club 10CFR2.206 Petition Alleging Safety Deficiencies in Quality First Program.Petition Did Not Raise Any New Issues.W/O Directors Decision 89-04
ML19325E000
Person / Time
Site: Wolf Creek 
Issue date: 10/23/1989
From: Murley T
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To: Schwabauer A
AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
References
2.206, DD-88-14, DD-89-04, DD-89-4, NUDOCS 8910310162
Download: ML19325E000 (31)
v • d • e


Text

e t

u

' ; a poZeg\\

UNITEJ STATts n

[

>w g

NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION WA5Hifv0 TON, D C. 70666 4

k,,,,..

OCT 2 31989 r

Ms. Arlys L. Schwabauer Route 2,' Box 189 Newton, Kansas 67114

Dear Ms. Schwabauer:

Your letter of August 24, 1989, to Senator Nancy L. Kassebaum citing your concerns regarding the 1) S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) denial of the Kansas Chapter of the Sierra Club's petition pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 has been forwarded to me for response.

Enclosed with your letter was a copy of a recent Sierra Club publication that discusses its petition regarding the Wolf Creek Generating Station along with a brief summary of the NRC's decision to deny the request.

Included in your letter was a statement relating your belief

(

that concerns raised in the petition were "' swept under the rug' and ignored."

The NRC staff has expended considerable effort over the years in res)onding to allegations of safety ceficiencies relating to the Quality First 3rogram (Q1)attheWolfCreekGeneratingStation.

Petitions pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 i.

relating to Q1 have been received from both the Government Accountability Project (GAP) in May 1985 and the Kansas Chapter of the Sierra Club in January g

1989. We responded to these petitions in Director's Decisions 0D-88-14. dated August 22, 1988, and DD 89 4, dated June 26, 1989.

In addition, the NRC has revie wd Q1 on a nunber of occasions through the normal inspection process and i

in a special investigation performed separately by our Office of Investigations (01).

As areviously noted, your letter included a brief discussion of the Sierra Clus's petition along with the NRC's decision to deny the request.

I believe I

that it would be beneficial for you to have access to the entire Director's Decision DD-89 4 that was forwarded to the Kansas Chapter of the Sierra Club.

Therefore, I am enclosing a copy of this decision, which provides a complete exp16n6 tion of (1) the role and function of Q1 at the Wolf Creek Generating Station, (2) the regulations relied upon by the NRC staff in making licensing decisions regarding the Wolf Creek Quality Assurance Program, (3) the role of NRC's review of Q1, and (4) the basis used by NRC in denying the petition. The following items highlight the major topics in the enclosed decision.

NkC's licensing decisions to approve the Wolf Creek Quality Assurance Program were based upon the regulations found in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, " Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and fuel Reprocessing Plants." This program was completely independent of and separate from the licensee's Q1 program.

Q1 was a voluntary program established by the licensee to provide an independent route for Wolf Creek employees to bring quality concerns l

to the attention of Wolf Creek management.

Employees continued to

[.

have the opportunity to voice their concerns directly to the NRC l

Resident inspectors on site.

1

~

DFe(

8910310162 691023 ADOCK0500g2 PDR L

H l

l'

k l;

'Ms, Arlys L', Schwabauer

-2o Q1 was not tiended to meet the NRC's qcality assura'nce requirenents of.10 CFR rart 50, Appendix B, as implied by the Sierra Club.

0

,(

In response to the GAP petition, a special NRC team e'xamined all Q1 files (271 case files containing a total of 752 concerns) and concluded

. that although a nunber of programmatic aspects of Q1 were deficient, there were no indications that Q1 failed to properly assess and resolve any significant safety issue.

The NRC review team did not identify any. violations of or deviations from NRC requirements.

Moreover, the NRC team found that the Q1 program adequately resolved all the technical safety issues that were reported by employees through the program.

The 01 investigation of Q1 (01 Case No. 4-86-004) identified a number of shortcomings that were itemized in the Sierra Club publication (e.g., an incident of document shredding and the. blackballing of a former inspector by Q1 management; removal of aggressive Q1 investiga-tors from the Q1 program).

However the 01' investigation concluded thatdespitetheshortcomingsidentIfiedintheQ1 program,the evidence did not establish wrongdoing on the part of Kansas Gas and Electric management furthermore, the 01 investigation found that some of the most si nificant technical issues received extensive Q1 attention and multi evel management review and that the NRC was independently involved in closure on many of these important technical' issues. The 01 report concluded that in those instances, the Q1 program was highly successful in communicating important problems to the affected organizations for corrective action.

The Sierra Club petition did not provide any new information that had not been available to the staff.

Therefore, the staff did not find any basis to take additional action regarding this subject.

'In conclusion, I hope that the enclosed material will help alleviate your concerns that safety deficiencies have been ignored at the Wolf Creek Generating Station.

htNaYsab James H. Snimk k Thomas E. Hurley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

+

Enclosure:

Director's Decision DD-89-4 DISTRIBUTION w/o enclosure:

Docket file NRC PDR w/ incoming Local PDR w/ incoming cc w/ enclosure:

J. Partlow G. Holahan OGC-Rockville j

See next page J. Taylor F. Hebdon D.Mossburg,PMAS(ED0f4801)w/incom.

P. Noonan G. Holler, RIV D. Pickett w/ incoming EDO Reading 94801 PD4 Green T et File.

r D. Crutchfield F. Gillespie pf'/t '

i

  • SEE PREVIOUS CONCVRRENCES:

I u

/W-4'

Tefh l

~

C:TMEXF-~:TM7Ph*

P97D*
0W 4
(

k

/^ Jditor eM NAME :PNgonan
DPickett:bj :THebdon
RWeisman ahan ahan DATE 110/11/89
10/11/89
10/11/89
10/17/89
10/f/89
10/p/89
10//f/89

\\

, NAME Nt

DI\\W
D k

~

DTC :A

JS zek
TM y

DATE A/. 9

10/ V89
10

/89

~

~ ~ ~ -

,~

I)TF CTEREEDWCDPT-i 7

Document Name:

GT 0004801 WW

y w~, w@g g m 9 9 5. W, nM,?., *,. w: ggx +aA SWgm mC~Y,-

m o 4,n WyqW

. y sg a m s 4

s yn,, ; g n w

- ea av,

e n g; p_ I Sel%.. ' "w a,h, c" u c p,. olf @T (. 2 7 l4 c @;e c e'

-6.J N '

I f

,h w [',..If NYp; Q L, p M[+ H QM d. ed a m m}~ i ),' ' D.g

[",c sJd J J D '

,4

, n-hk 1, q t.,nby >]c,,n

.O,'

I J

- r g

. ) -.

i?

YW y

o q,,

h Wvac[d-,

M, '.)+

,U < gb,t

.. r m,,

t Li mt c,, bh- '

'e

~.9 l

yhYN. S [w', ; n' 'o* u$

' s

a. o

,c' q'

,A,' bhc a"9 f

s 3, f 4'

?

5 a

r ' '

a M,,, w a.,f vt-4 w

o

.m 3 :. o e

g A+ a.w.b'I,.

,. g '. m, i s,

/ $

-s. a..

4:,l. ~ $. v' g ; n,4*l',,

_ b. i ',) ) :

, s, '3.(.

.m;

.b4e,

, L m

e;.,

.5,

..., s.

o

i.,,

r 2

+o

  • k f

='k,,

c g s.c.i., g

,5 f3.t,g' ii b,.

,r,,.,;

.i,")

j

(,f f

p

/,

,c.,> - A q

2.g g

-a 4

H'.,N,.v* d -

yn, i,. e, oc-8 t-

' g 's 4

i i,

4:r k-a s

y

'i 4

(

$P.I 'i'

.t_.

c$ m s

,_7

.rt,,

u,.

f~ c. j f e, I.

q 4

p-

,p, s,6 -.

3 i

.p

~<A ri).

M tk 4 ' $.p'k sc }.g u,

1,,,",.

I '

'l' 4

j s

if' I 1y g, L

g 3,,,,

@ h, M[.D,'f i

,. l 'J.

o I,

r a

f

, 't. g b'.,,

1

,'t 3

x.

^

' i s' Ah-i g-i d'

'i

., - 8

'1,1

-'t hh h 39 i /, e

>s

, 4 'i

't

'<Qt< diV 8'

,f

$h bh N

I

.. 'h I'

/f, v-3TTNp K Mike,' orak '

t

^

O

~

^

' L J

nN

@MKg # a 3 Russe 11 Senate Office 8v0dng:,, y C.

y w J1 1

4l h

e Room 3085 i'.

s O

$wlk.W. 4 iJn! WasMagton's' O!C..i, 20510'.

s aN p4 4

(P

$ :;.t.

' ~,.

l ' i,s.W i

%, >v/ M, M,a t

b

~

643

~

1,

..,y

,.ty c 3 A,

+

.r.+e h,

p

-L 9,e i

p? jg,p8

} p, f, )-

,4,,

,q 1, =, ! y.

g.

i g,,

t,..

s,

.j ('

l_,.

j l

g i

J e i,,,, y d, u.'

s O.: /

g j., k(, f; l' 'l $

')d, i

' (: * '

f..,

?

. (,.

i s

i

' g :, m, l,h

., b-t e

,Ft h1

. f ) ? 5f ) '4

'\\'

i',!

," { - ? '. '

t o-

,s s'

f, a

?

h'

?i

,'"I

' l' Sh j,

I t

,, i

6 H,,<- S; a F f.;$ t 4-

)

L t..;

p,

.nV s

/

,o s

p.

s 3

y

+

).

1

-.m a

t

'E3 I I ' <i [ '

7s I ?

s f. C.'

d( w,.,

.i,.

. 2. - -,

%x%

i 4

c 4

4 1

s y.,

,q A't gg-j6 a.

. 1 -

sc w,

t' p

-: t.s,

,,i u

i a..

.. e 1 4

s q '.. e <

66{

,g %,. p..y g k. 4,.j ty:

gI ^-' gp 8

6 J

lfs 31 I r,ie p

4 p,

=

4

.N-i g

+ g 3.1'.,

)

(,..

<)'

y

{

.7: t $p 1

-i 1

. i i :.

s

.;. s, '

g. /

.y Ni}7 i I, N, i

N S,' e f

t i

4 i t s w

<g

., t. q,. i i

' i

,y,

.)..-

i -[,. ' ', g.*j4' 4

/

6

,<s.

g

. a 'l

,y i

-$1

>=

3 4

a.

n yg,i ' i,,

M. t. g (.

.t*=

, +i-i. ' s 6

r e

t * " -

,-9 fft 't Nh [ p.3 t%'

(if l'

i 3

?

1 J f,

.b

  • 1 l ' i

,7 6

(

A. ; a q & v p,,

~

o i

.1,,

t: \\'

v.

p ];

b

.h y

gg ;

e

'g 33 t,' t :

(.

{

-,: K',, f

,"n ti jp 4

. }

f

I. T

'I

  • fn It

<s o

.A.

to -

..ya J

,g J;,,n.,5,

D. g. h :- 'y 'V,, z J

.'P s

- c-i

'.s:

b t : (

,p g

i

'~,<

i),

f s

mv i

n %, ) :. <,.s,,

d i.. -.

sy s.

4 d

'.g,34 ' 1' f 3

Ue I

I 4

5 4

)

,,-a a

d'9, h', j ', ',j a ' ',

q

, c

  • f, g

s

'{'doh'g t

ya

'w.y,- > i g),

( c' ' I ra t

h

?

.,5' i

g

. i I,

.., i,i,, !. ),,

g ;,

, i

^ )

fk'i I

e.

gt 4 j'

i s, a

. v :n

..i s

. ut a. \\

).-,1,,.

6

.a'..

,2 .'-

'[

'..,,..g Y

E D ts r,* { g

.y'.

t,

't.,.

.-t L

t. iPs p,.

f, sb a

,g5 K ; ] $.- - <

r

.i-

',,t

'4 i

s 4

--st-}.-

, [.. ' e ' 4,'

> i

,4, 8 7

. s

(

i 1

s s

,,V',

f, a

.t 4,'.

y'

.f.;

4 i

e f

i o

3 f.4 y,; 2 i M

',k,{ j: f li;'.

I

,y-Y.

k

t.

^, ~ s r

~,, -

.I g I k.

(

j'g < '_/ -

F

,I

'c r c,i.t. l.

i.

e 'e' t

'4" rq l

.y 7 m,j,, y

,i.6l t

,1

i w j

..b--. {

I,S 0

3

-M t.

W.,,a ; #.- t L i,,

s

. r :%,.~. : >

'w.

- e

, qi, y, y( %

o f.,

',1 i. : PQ

,'g,.

.',k,'s.

,b y

e J

i I

1

\\

3ylp

-. "; ' { " y y

,)

A V.

' Y.}

l r>

j

\\

b

, v'.i' L Y

,3,-,a

-\\',

k Ig s

- a s

ok,-hn..VL 5

n f'.r' a

^

L Ii g

p4.M

^

rpn%' }' e N-L c

d w,

p; < 'l '3 '_ n.g g),-.1 7

-' I ),

9 y.p-

,d.,?

'F,','

g' 6

i

...Jt6)

V 4

4-z v

..,y g r

'-1 s

St.

.9,,

.t J,,) '.

i

,t h...f..',, fi g jl'J'r

. r s

r e

at, ye "3

s s-s

,A A,'h.b.

t

,,y g&i s

('N). t t Q'.

s,-

r v +

t js

'. s

.w,

vy t T,.

,c._:j jr.W w a

'A

',1 ;

cy:

u r +

s'

  • i

,(.

5

. 't.

y <' ? n.y.t. y4'.y

)

r

\\V6 ie i

1

'}y x 3 'l.J :' y 1% >

1 3(

.i.

y f

I' s

i a

s fyg(U.

m..,..,

q y, a: q i

.h.,

i C.-,*I gg,*

Y h ; t ' [,'. ' I' I

[

f. y.'
s..

s y a'Op,.

J,..

,,/4

'M M-y(

g. t.

r d'.u ' 3/ L l n:,

n 4'y 7;(1 f9 f

si7 E

Vg4, '

.s

'! ' I, /,,),e, ' Yc j,s'd,y. T

.1,-

f.

L.'

at d%

, y:4 ;.,,.. >'

jg p+

4 n.

,, e r

, :gx L:

ir e

j'

' I Ms? Arlys L. Si:hwabauer

-2*

e L p,

" g-Q1 was not ittended to meet the CRC's' quality csstrance requirements

.y.,'

u~

/

U,.

of,10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B as implied by the Sierra Club.

'i, y

,'i In response to the GAP Petition, a special NRC team examined all.Q1

/

files (271 case files containing a total of 752 concerns) and concluded

/

that while a number of programmatic aspects of Q1 were deficient ~

L-there were no indications that Q1 failed to properly assess and.

L resolve any significant. safety issue.

The NRC review team'did not identify any violations of, or deviations from, NRC requirements /

b Moreover. the NRC team found that the Q1 program adequately repo ved l

l:

all the. technical safety issues that were reported to it by employees, j

h.

The O! investigation of Q1 (01 Case No,'4-86-004) identJfiedanumber m

of shortcomings that were. itemized in the Sierra Club, publication i

4

. ' (e.g., an incident of document shredding and blackb.pfling of a former g

inspector by Q1 management; removal of aggressiveA l investigators F

from<the Q1 program).

However, the 01 investigption concluded that 3

O despite the shortcomings identified in,the Q1 p rogram, the evidence did not establish wrongdoing on the'part of Kansas Gas & Electric l

' ^

. management.

Furthermore,the01investiga)fonfoundthat~someofthe most significant technical issues receive 6 extensive Q1 attention and j

' multi-level management review and that the NRC was independently involved in closure on many of these $portanttechnicalissues.

The 01 report concluded that in th instances, the Q1 program was,

highly successful.in communicating mportant problems to the affected organizations for corre:tive act on.

4 The Sierra Club Petition did t provide any new information that has not been available to t staff.

Therefore, the staff did not

' find any basis to take add ional action regarding this subject.

[

In conclusion, it is my hope that he enclosed material'will help alleviate your concerns that safety defici cies have been ignored at the Wolf Creek i

Generating Station, a

Sincerely,

' Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

1 Director's Decision DD-9-4 DISTRIBUTION w/o enclosure:

f Dock File NRC PDR w/ incoming -Local PDR w/in.oming i

d cc w/ enclosure:

J.

artlow G. Holahan OGC-Rockville See next page J.

aylor.

F. Hebdon D. Mossburg, PHAS(ED0#4801) w/incom.

i P Noonan G.' Holler, RIV

0. Pickett w/ incoming 00 Reading #4803 PD4 Green Ticket File 0.5Crutchfield F. Gillespie L

- SEE PREVIOUS NCURRENCES:

OFC :PD4/LA*f

P 4/PM"
PD4/D"
0GC^
(A)ADR4
(A)DRSP/D : Tech Editor

. NAME :PNoonan i ni :

ickett:bj :FHebdon

RWeisman
GHolahan
GHolahan i

DATE :10/11/89 10/11/89

10/11/89
10/17/89

'10/ /89

10/ /89
10/ /89

/

20FC :ADP-

/ :DDONRR

00NRR NAME :JPartlow/
JSniezek
TMurley DATE.:10/ /8p
10/ /89
10/ /89 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 00cument Name:

GT 0004801 g [,?

l.

LL

s

.c I

Ms. Arlys L.; Schwabsuer,-

sl Q1 was not intended to meet the NRC's quality assurance requirements

[] g, tj.

of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B as implied by the Sierra Club.

in response to the GAP Petition..a special NRC team examined all Q1 t

and concluded i

files (271casefilescontainingatotalof752 concerns)ficient, that while a number of programmatic aspects of Q1 were de

. L'

,9

?,

  1. 1

' ! /,

a there were no. indications that Q1 failed to propeply assess;and l

t y

resolve any significant safety issue.

,/

a,,

1

.s,;

/

s

  • q y The 01 investigation of Q1 (01 Case No. 4-86.004) identifted'a number

}.

"L of shortccmings that were' itemized in the Sierra Club publication 4 6 i

(e.g., document shredding, blackballing, tr'ansfer and termination of -

'l n

(

aggressive Q1 investigators).

that apart from the problems within Q1,/,the O! investigation concluded

However, evidence did not establish' N_ ?

wrongdoing on the part of Kansas Gas F Electric management.

8 The Sierra Cinb Petition did not pro / vide any new information that.

t 4

t s

b. n.,

has not been available to the staff. Therefore, the staff.did not

' find any basis to take additional action regarding this subject.,

t

/

t

~

In conclusion, it is my hopo that the poclosed material will help alleviate o

your concerns that safety deficiencies have been ignored at the Wolf Creek i

Generating Station, j

Sincerely, 1

/

Thomas E. Murley Director i

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

{

i

Enclosure:

Director'sDecisionDD-89-(

cc w/ enclosure:

l See next page DISTRIBUTION w/o enc /losure:

Docket File

/

NRC PDR w/cy of incoming Local PDR w/cy f incoming EDO #0004801 EDO Reading T. Murley/J. Sniezek J. Partlow PD4 Reading (w/cy of incoming)

G. Holahan F. Hebdon

- OGC-Rockville V. Stello D.Mossburg,PMAS(ED0f0004801) w/cy of incoming D. Pickett w/cy of incoming P. Noonan PD4 Gr4en Ticket File G. Holler, RIV j

/

L FC :PD4/L ' Q PD4/P g

Tech Editor :FHebdonQ
0GC 9cWM :(AJADR4 O
lA)DR5P/D

+

1 NAME :PNoon DPick t:bj :

FHebdon
(MAW
GHolahan
GHolahan
10/ u /89.
10/ /89
10/II/89
10/IT/89
10/ /89
10/ /89 l DATE :10/ H/89 i

j

~

jOFC :ADP

DDOHRR
DONRR

, NAME JPartlow

JSniczek
THurley l

' DATE 310/ /89

10/ /89
10/ /89

,t t,

O (Y g g# guwegg-j OFF.CIAL RECORD COPY 4

i F

1 i

Document Name: GT 0004801

~

p y

e

p; [* ' 3

, j1i;,q;.y;h n 1

c yv '. :' '

A

,' i

, ;.g'f' y l'!,* ;i, UltiTED STATtt bt l

NUCLEAR REOULATORY COMM2SSION

. }] ) ~

, 5840MIIs0 Told, D. C. 30006 -

a

[

k s

o s

EDO Principal Correspondence Control,

i f

s,

1 j

s g 2.t FROM:

DUEi ' 10AtV/ 9 EDO CONTROL's' 0004801 i

,y

\\

DOC DT: 09/25/B9

[

FINAL REPLYp u

ry Cen. Nancy Landon Kaasebaum

{

y E

.-[h f

John ' Bradburne, CA

/

BW FOR SIGNATURE OF

    • GRN CRC NO: 89-1088

, - {

t

),

e J

Hurley DECC:

ROUTING:

.i.

s ENCLOSES LETTER FROM ARLYS L. SCHWABAUER Scinto, OGC'

.1:

CONCERNING DENIAL Ol' PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE RMartin, RIV l

i KANSAS CHAPTER OF'THE SIERRA CLUB REGARDING THE i

?![

WOLF: CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION

. s.,

DATE: 10/04/89

.i }

ASSIGNED TO:

CONTACT:

J.;

'NRR Mur_ ley.

l i

'GPECIAL-INSTRUCTIONS'OR REMARKS:

3 REF. fido 4245.

REPLY DIRECT TO CONSTITUENT.

... SEND CC TO SEN. KASSEBAUM & MARK ENVELOPE

'l CTTN: MIKE HORAK.

f, l

1

~

'NRR RECEIVED: OCT, 4, 1989

~ ACTION:

4DRSP:NOLAMAN "t w;

i

'NRR ROUTING:

MURLEY/SNIEZEK PARTLOW

., {

MIR.%LIA r

CRUTCHFIELD 1

'/G' ON 1i GILLESPIE ll l

MOSSBURG N!. (0 NRR DIRECTOR'S 1 3:

L b

l u)

I l

dy 16 gh

)

L _. _...

i l-l

+

1:.

.m e

i.

)

t i

( ;.

Q "

'8 Ly y p.g >-

I

..._...-....-__._,._--..~.~me~..._~_.~.

l w~.

.I j

'.. * (.*. a '

Date: September 25, 1989 j:

]*.

a 1

1klCnifeb States Amals

.,. g b

l{

l.

j Re: Ms. Arlys L. Schwabauer j{

Route 2, Box 189 O

Newton, Kansas 67114 i

I (4 j l

Respectfully referred to:

Mr. John C, Bradburne Director. Congressional Affairs Office of Government and Public Affairs

- i

.i 1

U.S. Nucitar Regulatory Commission 1

Washington, D.C. 20555 l

4 1

Because of the desire of this office to be responsive I

to all tnquiries and connunications, your consideration i

ot' the attached is requested.

Please respond directly i

to the constituent with a copy to my office.

Your i

j) findings and views will be appreciated by

.I e

5 1

l-1 Nancy t.andon Kassebaum

.{

United States Senator i

)

d.

Attention: Mike Horak 1

3 I

i 1

?

t L

1 4

r l

1.

4-1 I

l

+

_f

y, m. +p.,.,.: ><,.. g

..s a

't' ' r

('u.e. : s M, +..,.;i. : ' ',' [ '., Q '. i % 'I ;

M,e. : y.

e
y i u,.. 1
4....e n.

c.

f 6.0 +j,14h.. ('. }.. ;, ' 0 '"fm l

J

,}

~,

3a OFFICE'OF:THE SECRETARY:

e d

vn

.CORRESPONDENCT. CONTROL' TICKET:

y&....

l

\\

. a.

N.

.sn y:;,. ', ' PAPER NUMBER:7 '

CRC-89-1088-SLOGGING DATE: Oct

'4 89-

,r.

ET;Y.,.l [ ACTION ' OFFICE:

' EDol i

r, b.l,,

t t:

t

-1 i

", iAUTHOR:

. Nancy Kassebaum--Cont'Ref' 1

G UNITED STATES SENATE'.

t'&.%,' AFFILIATION:-

i

~

Nt 'LETTERiDATE:1' Sep 25 89-FILE CODE: ID&R-5. Wolf ~

<,s h,

3 '., ', "

SUBJECT:

1 Concerned about the:Comm's denial of the petition submitted by the Kansas Chapter of the Sierra' Club' c. c:

4 f

s~

j'n '

re req for: suspension.of,the Wolf Creek operating M:

license gr.

. 2:-

. Direct' Reply..

~

r j

33,pjACTIC:Ni 4.e i

d:

OCA-to Ack, DSB:

.4g}.

DISTRIBUTION:1 l

7' iSPECIAL' HANDLING: None' O

J

NOTES:'

(

u,.

e.n:c 2'DATE:DUE:-

Oct 19-89 g..

,e M;,'

.t

, SIGNATURE'

.DATE SIGNED:'

1

, ' P; W AFFILIATION:

y

..y ll i

5.8

.I u;

.1 1

4q s

,M.

x p

y

<y i'.

y i.,, 't 'i i t..

l1 4

1.

9

]

s o

M.[.

>a L ;n.

a w.-..

L l.-,. /. n.

t go _.- 0 0 '4 6 01 RWd Off. EDO

/6 4-P1

[

Date.

=

N' Time.

Us

~n

.i.

i

me-~ v.

y

{. -. *-

G, l'[,u NOU '/T()

. d..

.i

f.
.g 'g,.-

I 1

P:

A u g u s t,' 2 4, 1909-Rt. 2,-Dox 109 Newton.1 Kansas.67114-

+

Senator Nancy t..

Kassebaum i

Room 302 Russel Senate Difice Dldg..

Washi ngton, D. C. '20510 g

Dear,

Genator Kassebaum, I'am gresttly concerned by the NRC's cenial of the petition C

submitted'by the Kansas Chapter of the Sierra Club regarding the Wo1f Creek nuclear generating station at Burlington,.

Fensas. (Case 44 4-86-004).

I do not understand how these

' concerns can be ' swept under the rug' a'na ignored.

The consequences are much to grave 'o ignore.

Thousands of dollars are spent on much less urgent causes than this.

1 urge you.to.look into this matter.

' Enclosed'is a cop) of an article that raised my concerns.

I l

know'your reading t.ime is limited, but please take time to I

scan this article and the concerns it raises.

Sincerely,'

n Arly L.

Schwabauer I

tt i

b 1

4 1

a

?

h v

j o

j p.

n; 3

[*

[j.-

, y, -

.+

  • n+-wwig 'j l; d i
4 % t.'

n M

~

l n

V ' '.'titj y

3 gg (.

r

J s

.r.

a l

Wolf Creek nuclear generating staden at Busheten, Kansas

..I On January 30th the Kansas that they could be addressed. Em-Chapter filed a petition with the ployees were encouraged to report Nuclear Regulatory Commission ~

their concerns to KG&E rather (NRC) in their Office of Inspec-than to the NRC or to other inter.

tions enti Enforcement demand-ested groups. When they conclud-

i ing suspension of the operating 11-egl that KQ&E.was hM'adegestely L

cense for Wolf Creek Generating lAveellgatidd54.TerresNqgittee Station in -Burlington until the-problems 'employess who hadjirst Commission explains why it be.

workedhthin'the-Q1 program lieves the plant is operating safely

. subsequently _ reported their con-in spite of NRC's everwhelmitig cerns directly to the NRC. The Of-evidence to the contraryJOur peti-fice of Investigations of NRC in-l tion wasn't based on any new in-terviewed those who had filed

' i formation or new p:ebloms. at the complaints. It is a report of those plant, but was beoed en a'oerles pf interviews that the Chapter has re-published reports, mostly fkm the viewed. That report is now avail-1 i-NRC itself relating to uncorrected '

able to the public;it is on file in the problems at the plant.;

Wolf Creek Public Document Through a Freedom of informa.

Room at Emporia State Universi-tion Act request, the Chapter re-ty.

ceived documents from NRC's Of-r Specifically. NRC's ' investiga-

. fice of Investigations' that tor H. Brooks Griffin laterviewed i

um.... o s. 4 confirmed a large number of alle-witnesses who substantiated alle.

u, gations made by former employees gations of document shredding; of Wolf Creek concerning operat-blackballing;' transfer;and termi-ing safety. There have been so nation of aggressive Q1 investi-j many complaints that in June of gators; file " streamlining"; con.

1 1986 NRC opened its third investi,-

fiscation of : tape ~ recorders e

t gation of operating safety since the' formerly used to record' employee plant went on line. Many of the al.

allegations about possible safety negations regarding safety prob-problems; management changing lems have come from former em-the conclusions cf investigators; playees of Kansas ' Gas and management. restricting the scope Electric Company whp participated of Q1 assurance investigations; In the Quality First Program (Q1).

management-falling 'to.investi-The Q1 program encouraged em-grite allegations of drug use, ha-ployees to report potantial quality rassment, intimidation, falsifi-assurance problems to KG&E so

  • NRC Petition ' page 2', col. a.

l L

1 L

U 1:

s 9

fh 6

, ~,. -. -,,.... - ~.,

y --

hD -

mJn

~ /-

]

/.

4

-..,,--. 6 i i um v m 1;

J

,?

emersminauen for po-c'ted aboso,the Quarter had asked,

. emmeneenegeoeres egesto en setssy;, - that: -

L

. s

  • ~'

had esmAlste etinterest.

  • Ja tim report triffin himself.

(1) ihe oper: ting license for

)

ii

/*

eeneladed;thet/ *verifloation of Colf Creek Generating Station be suspended.

eerrestive action by 41 was met -

7

' it) that prior to reinstating the seantagfull and%6 bat <*sicalfl.

operating license:

{

sent membero* ef eenployee alle.

. a; the NRC should reopen ite

I r estety;problesse - ease 4#444 004)- and provide s

p

.espeseelal in-sound technlent reasone for ite

?

had transpessee-ooach.eLon that the plant le sede W Itsesteessiseent& tion, all of which esserted by Gl eepervi-enough te operste in spite of all of

. elen,

'elee 9eend that em-

,its innstigative conclusione re-h

- j playee.elmeerns were summarised " garding stuality assurance prob..

lems; -

W"uneeninglese. investigatione.in gegr see asedoodse eshleh lead ' <

  • I 3

and petonature elesarse of leseos Its information on quality eseu-1

' I whleh'seestead flertherlavestigs-tance at. Wolf Crnk developed tasa.tlPurther, he Aeond that in-subnequent to case #446004 being g

seen"et wreegdoing were. net in, issued and eentim operatione 4

j

,. h

)

Air potentialimpeen en through 1969 to provide sound tech-6 1ssit.tefoegGestW 'eseireet ' nical reasono for its concluelea,

that the plant is safe to operate; i

' terudned that the closure rate for 'haph==d "7inallyf Drimn' de- ' e, all.correcti t

e sosse levestigatore Jumped from mined by NRC to be necensery to an svarece of four per month to the othien a level of operating safety i j

point where some investigatore that complies with federal regula-were clot.ng cases at a rate of one tiene she :td be incorporated se per day as the fuel load date ap - conditione ei 'he operating license -

proached and he concluded that and if they are ut met, the operet-

.i nearly 005 et the sonalusions need' ing license should be revoked.

to eloso el esoplainte about al-The petitLon also asked that four leged wrongdoing sould seestk individuale ented in'Mr. Grimn's report be barred from any and all sepperted 47 geste,eg involvement or participation in tE P "

These and numerous other find '. station..any activities at the generating

\\

ings are included in Grima's re-port, which incidentally, had fully Recondy the Chapter received a reopense from Thomas E. Murley, I

one third of each of ten pages on-Director of the Dmee of Nuclear purgeted tout of the 16 page report)

Reactor Regulaties of the NRC.

prior to.being released for public ' In:hls letter,Marley states that he viewe And yet, Ostmn stated that - hasideelined te.lesse an order to~

despite.*eubstantial shorteossinge idemelted la te1R1(program,it le ; ing statles,for a isumher of ree+ suspend operati i.

eenstuded that the evidense gath-e eseCAmong.these seaseos: NRC ered dose metsubstantiate wreag 4 does not require.liconesee to im-doing as the port'pfAG&E man, pleweemet programe.like Q1 and 1

I agueno'et ls thall sondest af this voluntary progrem * ~ The Chap- 'does not rely on results from such ter however, believen that the evi-programs in its lleoneing deel-dence draws the oppenits semenu.

siene.' With regard to our request elen and that enAity eencarne have to reopen the OtBee of lovestige!

1 not been adeguatakaddressed.

tion's case (4 86 004) and to re-Besondly, the Chapter believes that view all information on quality

.the NRC's swa regulattens make assurance, Murley's letter liste uality assuraaes -- ' a and the conduelone of the 01 report

}

q and states that estaff review sup-ot voluntaryJ

\\

n We are not alone in our criti wentan te esy,tJesethe Sierra Clubports the concluaione r ism of safety at Wolf Creek. On c

petitlen,'does not offer any new June 36,180s ehe Kaasse QtyStar information er additional in-eported that'Welf Creek had re-r eighta into the available data esived the.lowept mark possible for (therefore) the etsff sees no beela its qua!!tyiientiMp'regrama in the annualNRC. report The Star nr.

for reopening

  • the case. And n-bele eleo soldi-*The report also nelly regarding our request that i

criticises the plant's Quality As.

certain individuale cited in Grif-ourance program for falltag to fin's report be barred from In-ideathly safety renstad probleme volvement er.eetivity at Wolf Creek, Murley supports the con-on a timely beste. Fet instance, dveien of the 01 come that ?the evi-

! managere faGod to ersure the re-palt of defarthe, equipment de 3. dance gathered does not substan-signed to maket sure high levels of tjele wnnsdoingisn the part of chlorine dent seeplato the eentrol KO&E. management la their con-duct *. and considering that Sier-room.*J Ahd on July 21,1988, Joe l

Callen, Director of the division of en's petition does not provide any reactor projects for NRC Region new in ormation, 'the staff does r

TV, wee quoted in the Kunsos City not nnd a beels to prohibit the Star / Dmes' as saying that it ap.

named individuale from heensed peered that Wolf Creek manage-

. activities

  • st Wolf Creek.

ment had " improperly sought One of the reasons for our peti-

'short termFoolutlone to safety tion was to bringeur perception of problems of continuing safety de-

. problerne without determining the ficienci*e at Wolf Creek to the at-He told the reo spaper that correc-underlying eename of peoblems.., + 4ention of th Live actione "were often superfl-that you can raise this leeue by cial and didn't get to the root cause writing letters to the editor ofyour ofliv9riddses

  • hmnetswm swwrpoper er 6y other Ba sed na ***--a sneene = a - -

i 1.'

____,-_A"-

,ye'.-ev"4O'

__,,,,,,mrwe

- "' '" * ~ ' '*

V"

(( " ;.

J c

~

ek&1/ j?D k a>/jrutnw}e:

L p.g f< W g(, en y.

7

'%'g UNITED STATES h.e 3,jQ

= NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

~!

s waswiwarou.o.c.nosss.,

A,4,s.),

DCT231999 i

m. ~-

.g n

i Ms. Arlys L. Schwabauer Route. 2, Box :189 i

g3

' Newton, Kansas 67114~

i'

Dear Ms. Schwabsuer:

q*q

'Your letter of August-24, 1989, to Senator Nancy L. Kassebaum citing your concerns. regarding -the U.S. Nucicar Regulatory Comission'se (NRC's) denial of vn.

i*

, the Kansas Chapter of the Sierra. Club's petition pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 has-been' forwarded to me for response.. Enclosed with your letter was a copy of a recent Sierra Club publication that discusses its petition regarding the Wolf H

Creek Generating' Station ~ along with a brief sumary of the NRC's decision to t

deny the request.

Included in your letter was a statement relating your belief that concerns raised in the. petition were "' swept under the rug' and ignored."

^

+

.The NRC staff has expended considerab_le effort over the years in res)onding to: allegations of safety. deficiencies relating to the Quality First

)rogram 1

E f(Q1) at the Wolf Creek. Generating. Station. Petitions pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 relating to'Q1 have been. received'from both the Government Accountability

Project (GAP) in May 1985 and the Kansas Chapter of the Sierra Club in January L

'1989.- We responded to these petitions in Director's Decisions DD-88-14, dated l;

August 22, 1988, and DD-89-4, dated June'26, 1989.

In addition, the NRC has l

y".

revieved Q1 onLa nunber of occasions through the normal inspection process and L

in a special investigation performed separately by our Office of Investigations J

~

E (01).

As previously noted, your letter included a brief discussion of. the Sierra

?

Club's petition along with the NRC's decision to deny the request.

I believe that it would be beneficial for you to have access to the entire Director's l-l Decision DD-89-4 that was forwarded to the Kansas Chapter of the Sierra Club.

Therefore, I am enclosing a copy of this decision, which provides a complete explanation of (1) the role and function of Q1 at the Wolf Creek Generating Station, (2) the regulations relied upon by the NRC staff in making licensing r

decisions regarding the Wolf Creek Quality Assurance Program, (3) the role of n'p NRC's review of Q1, and (4) the basis used by NRC in denying the petition. The t

following items highlight the major topics in the enclosed decision.

NRC's licensing decisions to approve the Wolf Creek Quality Assurance P

Program were based upon the regulations found in 10 CFR Part 50, L.,

Appendix B, " Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and L,+

Fuel Reprocessing Plants." This program was completely independent

?

of and separate from the licensee's Q1 program.

g j'

Q1 was a voluntary program established by the licensee to provide an independent route for Wolf Creek employees to bring quality concerns

?>

to the attention of Wolf Creek management.

Employees continued to L

have the opportunity to voice their concerns directly to the NRC Resident Inspectors on site.

Sc.

y t

r,

h.py7[Ms.ArlhsL.Schwabauer -

ms

[..,g Q1. was not intended to meet the NRC's quality' assurance requirements of 10 CFR Part 50,' Appendix'B, as implied by the Sierra Club.

E-;

1 nu InLresponse to the GAP petition, a special NRC team examined all Q1 F,...

files (271 case, files containing a total of 752 concerns) and concluded P

that although a'numbeF of programmatic aspects of Q1 were deficient, N

there were no indications that Q1 failed to properly assess and -

resolve any, significant safety issue. The NRC review team did not:

[

identify any violations of or deviations from NRC requirements.

~

Moreover, the NRC team found that the Q1 program adequately reso.lved al1 the technical safety issues that were reported by employees through the program..

The'01 investigation of Q1 (01 Case No. 4-86-004) identified a number t

of shortcomings that were itemized in the Sierra Club publication 4

-(e.g., an incident of document shredding and the blackballing of a former inspector by Q1 management;' removal of, aggressive Q1 investiga-

[

tors from the Q1-program).

However, the 01 investigation concluded 1

that despite the shortcomings identified in the Q1 program, the evidence did not establish wrongdoing on the part'of Kansas Gas and Electric management.

Furthermore, the 01 investigation found that some of the most significant technical issues received extensive Q1 attention and multilevel. management review and that the NRC was independently involved in-closure on many of these important technical 1

issues. The 01 report concluded that in those instances, the Q1 program was highly successful in communicating important problems to L

the affected organizations for corrective action.

The Sierra Club petition did not provide any new information that

(

had not been available to the staff. Therefore, the staff did not find any basis to take additional action-regarding this subject.

.l m

In' conclusion, I hope that the enclosed material will help alleviate your I

concerns that safety deficiencies have been ignored at the Wolf Creek Generating Station.

L Siocerely, UHginal sik l

l, James 11. Sniezek

/1"ThomasE.Murley, Director i,:

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l'

Enclosure:

D Director's Decision DD-89-4 DISTRIBUTION w/o enchsure:

Docket File NRC PDR w/ incoming Local PDR w/ incoming l'

cc w/ enclosure:

J. Partlow G. Holahan 0GC-Rockville

?

See next page J. Taylor F. Hebdon D. Mossburg, PMAS(ED0f4801) w/incom.

P. Noonan G. Holler, RIV D. Pickett w/ incoming EDO Reading #4801 PD4 Green T et File D. Crutchfield F. Gillespie

  • SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCES:

1 T

0GP

~~~l 4

(X) k /D :T

' tor 0FC :PD4/LA*

M47 W
PD4/D l NAME :PNqonan
DPickett:bj :FHebdon
RWeisman ahan
Q ahan
6-(

DATE.:10/{1/89

10/11/89
10/11/89
10/17/89 310/f/89
10/t /89
10/ 4/89 t

kkk~~iD

' [( " " T " ' " ~ ~ l" ~~ " ~ T " " " ~~ ~ i" " ~" "

.DTC iAl NAME.

ti

J5 ezek
TM

'y DATE A/

9

10/.V89
1 L4 /89 DFF CUC kEtDW tDPT-" ~~ " -" " " " " -" ~ " " " " "' " " " " " " " ~"

~ ~ " ' " "

I,7 Document Name:

GT 0004801

y k

~

( f jj e

l. ;, $ l I

['

u.,a

. l Ms. Arlys L. Schwabauer-l

~Q1 was not intended to meet the NRC's quality assurance requirements of 10. CFR Part 50, Appendix B, as. implied by the Sierra Club.

l In response'to the GAP petition, a special-NRC team examined all Q1

[

files (271 case files containing a total of 752 concerns) and' concluded e

that although a. number'of programmatic aspects of.Q1 were deficient,.

f there were,no indications that Q1 failed to properly assess and l

resolve any significant safety issue. The NRC review team did not l

y

. identify any violations of or deviations from NRC requirements..

t Moreover, the NRC team found that the Q1 program adequately resolved

,all the technical safety issues that were reported by employees E

through the program.'

The 01 investigation of Q1 (01. Case No. 4-86-004) identified a number i

of shortcomings that were itemized in the Sierra Club publication (e.g., an. incident of document shredding and the blackbslling of a t

former inspector by Q1 management; removal of aggressive Q1 investiga-tors from the Q1 program). However, the 01 investigation concluded that despite the shortcomings identified in the Q1 program, the

-evidence did not establish wrongdoing.on the part of Kansas Gas and Electric management.

Furthermore, the 01 investigation found that some of the most significant technical issues-received extensive Q1 attention and multilevel management review and that the NRC was independently involved in closure on many of these important technical issues. The 01 report concluded that in those instances, the Q1 program was highly successful in consunicating important problems to the affected organizations for corrective action.

The Sierra Club petition did not provide any new information that had not been.available to the staff.

Therefore, the staff did not find any basis to take additional action regtrding this subject.

In conclusion, I hope that the enclosed material will help alleviate your

. concerns that safety deficiencies have been ignored at the Wolf Creek Generating Station.

l Sincerely,

[

l p,h

~

Wi i

L:

homas E. Murley, Director ffice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

Director's Decision DD-89-4 cc w/ enclosure:

See next page

m.y. g. g,:j 1; q,,.

.a

,+. -,

n.

c 1

s

.i{,

in i.+ y i

. n., c,,. >

.m 9 :

i :.. -

u y

_1 h: ' l. s':

a, v.?

g4. v

,,...x i

,y:

c

.,.s cci, SenatoriNancy l.. 'Kassebaum 1

u N,' e l, ATTN:..Mr. Mi ke. Hora k,

~ S. -

Russell Senate Office Building.

Room 308" go U,1_,

Washington, D.C.

20510 m

g..

k

, R:

i.,

I

.qt '

}'.

4 e

i s'

t 1

J i

k b

,e

').

,+

'. h 'y

., i T

t "l^

o i.

  1. 2 kI f, ']'

j J

i i ' i

.']'t t

' f,. g, s.',, '

o d

j

'}'l

s',

_t P

m, n

(.

%n.

o i

t t 4

,i;.

L,.y i"

t d a _1

_. 3..

.]

?

s

.g

~

+

o.

c..

, N, UNitsesTATas

?(d *

]

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I

amenmestoss.o.c.seues l

  • ese*

CDD Principal Correspondence.Contro j

2 49

/

EDO CONTROLa 0004801

'FROM:

DUE: 10 DOC DTa 09/25/89 FINAL REPLYs

.t 5:n. Nancy Landon Kassebaum iTO:'

John Bradburne, CA

/

FOR SIGNATURE OF:

~** GRN CRC NO: 89-1088 Murley.

DESC:

ROUTING

  • I ENCLOSES LETTER FROM ARLYS L. SCHWABAUER Scinto, DGC

.CONCERNING DENIAL OF PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE RMartin, RIV

~ KANSAS CHAPTER OF THE SIERRA CLUB REGARDING THE

,f "

WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR' GENERATING STATION DATES 10/04/89-i ASSIGNED TO:

CONTACTS.

NRR Murlev:

l.

.SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:

'REF. EDO'4245.

REPLY DIRECT TO CONSTITUENT.

SEND CC.TO SEN. KASSEBAUM & MARK ENVELOPE t

ATTN: MIKE HORAK.

~

[

NRR RECEIVED:. OCT. 4, 1989 l

ACTION:.

.DRSP:NOLAMAN 7 NRR ROUTING:

MURLEY/SNIEZEK PARTLOW

~

MIRAGLIA L

cRUTcw!Eto

.ACT10i4 I

GILLESPIE l.

MOSS 8URG f

CJE TO NRR DIR-ECTOR'S v l

I4 D

BY lo a l

l I

U

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

. ~....

'f..,.

t, y

0

g k' -

c:

.a

- o j

, i.. p;;

?,,

j f.',Q j;

T l '. 4 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

?'

CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET P' PER HUMBER:.

CRC-89-1088:

LOGGING ~DATE: Oct 4 89-al A

- ACTION OFFICE:

EDO e

J.

AUTHOR:

Nancy Kassebaum--Cont Ref l

AFFILIATION:

UNITED STATES SENATE c;

- LETTER DATE:

Sep 25 89-FILE CODE: ID&R-5 Wolf

SUBJECT:

Concerned about the Comm's denial of the petition

' submitted by the Kansas chapter of the Sierra Club re. req for. suspension of the Wolf Creek operating j

license

. ACTION:

- Direct Reply

]

DISTRIBUTION:

OCA to Ack, DSB SPECIAL HANDLING: None

. NOTES:

' DATE DUE:

Oct 19 89 i

- SIGNATURE:

DATE SIGNED:

AFFILIATION:

5 1

9 e

1l e

100---004601 Mrd 011. EDO

/6 4 fi g

N I y

Time

kg
( j.

.a

' o ty : ': ; <.,,

e' t

'[

.b:

4u t

c Date:. September 25, 1989.

't

' \\ ':

e SilCniteh. States Amale

> f1;.

rh,

ji

.Re: Ms. Arlys L.. Schwabauer

o..

. Route 2 Box 189 7,,

Newton Kansas 67114 l

1, Respectfully referred to:

Mr. John C. Bradburne Director.' Congressional. Affairs Office of Government and Public Affairs U.S.' Nuclear' Regulatory Commission I

Washington,~.D.C. 20555-

't Becausetof the desire of.this office to be responsive to all inquiries and communications,' your consideration of the attached.is requested.

Please respond directly f

to the constituent with a copy to my office.

Your findings and views will be appreciated by j.

t L

Nancy Landon Kassebaum j

l Unit.ed States Senator n<

l' Attention: Mike Horak i

1 i

d'

/

L ll l

1 i

l<

l

}

1

?!:.. y.,

N06 '/V.$

c, t

n f

'i -

L August,S '19G9 A t'. !;, bov 109 t'

. Nw t on, Kansas'G7114 q.

g SenatoriNancy L.

Lesset.aum Poom 302:.

Russel Senate Oi'. ice Bldg.

Washangton, D.C.

0510 Deer Senator Kessebaum,.

I an.; great 1V coris erned by the NRC's cenial o1 the petitson submitted by'the Kenses Chapter of the Sier r e Cl ub. vega rca n!.

+

+

the.Woli'Creer nu : l er. y generating stetier at Bu r l a nnt on.

Eenses..

  • C es e # 4 '~ 6C -M4 8 I do not u nd e r y t e nt; how trieet

, p*. n c o. n g.cem t c,

'I. Opt.

.r. o '

  • t. a ug' c, ;;,;:,:ec.

c

  • .i consecuencer are much &c.greve to ignore.

Thouwenes a

v j.

collars a~re spent o n n w.'. iest u r ore nt c ab s te, s tr 8f t ril y.

ur ge you to ;ool ini c. t t a s matter

,q' Enclosed 1:a a copy' of an article that reinec mv conce'ns.

know your reading time is limited, but ple650 tDke timF t C-scah thiE evticle and the concE r nt it r a i ? (c 9..

Si n c e r e *n y.

1 Arly L.

Schwat+ver

^

t '_

e er 9

I

9 A

i r

i i 8

l L

j

.i 1

l

,'. p 1,., "

j

4, g

I W

h

.t _

1

(

On January 30th the Kansas that they could be addroceed. Em.

i Chapter filed a petition with the ployees were encouraged to report' Nuclear Regulatory Commission their concerns to KG&E rather (NRC) ' in their Omce of Inspec-than to the NRC or to other inter-tions and Enforcement demand-ested grcups. When they eccelud.

j ing suspension of the operating li-egl that KO&E was not' adequately cense for Wolf Creek Generating lavestigating 'and eerrectigg the Station in Burlington until the problems, employees who had pret Ccmmission explains why it be-worked sithin the Q1 program.

lieves the plant is operating safely subsequently reported their een-in spite of NRC's overwhelming eems directly to the NRC. The Of-evidence to the contrary Our peti-fice of investigations of NRC in-tion wasn't based on any new in-terviewed those who had filed formation or new problems at the complaints. It is a report of those l

P ant, but was based en a series of interviews that the Chapter has re-l published reports, mostly fkm the viewed. That report is now avail-NRC iteelf relating to uncorrected able to the public; itis on file in the i

problems at the plant.'

Wolf Creek Public Document l

Through a Freedom'of Informa.

Room at Emporia State Univeral-tion Act request, the Chapter re-ty...

ceived documents from NRC's Of-Specifically, NRC's investiga.

fice-of Investigations that tor H. Brooks Grifnn interviewed r

' ' ' ". confirmed a large number of alle-

'witneseos who substantiated alle-gations made by former employees gotions of document shredding; t

of Wolf Creek concerning operat.

blackballing; transfer and termi-ing safety. There have been so nation of aggressive Q1 investi-many complaints that in June of gators; file " streamlining"; con-1986 NRC opened its third investi-fiscation of tape recordera gation of operating safety since the ** formerly used to record

  • employee r

plant went on line. Many of the al-allegations about possible safety legations regarding safety, prob-problems; management changing lems have come from former em.

the conclusions of investigators; ployees of Kansan Gas and management. restricting the scope Electric Company who participated of Q1 assurance investigations; in the Quality First Program (Q1).

management

  • falling 'to.investi-3 The Q1 program encouraged em-gate allegations of drug use, ha.

ployees to report potential quality rassment, intimidation, falsifi-assurance problems to KG&E so

  • NRC Petition p.g. 2, col. s.

s

~,

>w-e

..e+

---w,

,-,--.,,...,-,a..-~

. -, - - - -... - - - - -. ~, -

-~~-.,--.wr

..--e.---

---.n.e, e

--.~~e-ve.

r rm -,-

.l A', y l

. m.,,,.-,. s : 3 y t..

maarlaination for po-ented above, tbs,P.t had asked testiaDy deverse effects on safety; that:

Med amenists ofinterwt.

  • In tho' report Grimn himself (1) the ' operating license for o

eencluded that,7 verification of Wolf Crmk Generating Station be suspended, corrective action by Q1 was not meaningfuli and.that "signm-(t) that prior to reinstating the i

eent numbers' af employee alle-operating license:

testety: problems a; the NRC should reopen its ease.(#4 86 004)- and provide

/

j in-transpissent-sound technicpl reasons for its D.Wiseshetst& tion, all of oonclusion that the plant is safe by 41.supervi-enough to operate in spite of all of w

" ales fbund thgt em-its investigative conclusions re-ployee.elmeerns

' garding quality assurance prob-N is amasserised lems; Mi'h which lead ngloodTisivostigations

b. 'he NRC should review all of t

and pudsmatswo olosures of issues its information on quality assu.

whieb/morited flerther ineestigs-rance at. Wolf Creek developed tien."; Further, he $sund that is-subsequent to case #4 86 004 being issued and covering eperations

. sues' of wrongdoing were.not in.

for.

tiallapacta en through 1989 to provide sound tech-

' 5Were'not nical reasons for its conclusion

'" Finally "Grima de.

that the plantis safe to operate; termined that the closure rate forA e all. corrective actions deter.

some investigators jumped from mined by NRC to be necessary to an average of four per month to the achieve a level of operating safety point.where some investigators that complies with federal regula-were closing cases at a rate of one tions should be incorporated as per day as the fuel load date ap-conditions of the operating license proached and he concluded that and if they are not met, the operat-nearly 965 of the conclusions used' ing license should be revoked.

to eloce Q1 complaints about al-The petition also asked that four leged wrongdoing. esuld not: bis individuals cited in ~Mr. Grimn's supported b report be barred from any and all tion.

' ~ y,0 sets or'doemmeya-involvement or participation in These and numerous other find-any activities at the generating 3

i station.

ings are included in Grimn's re-port, which incidentally, had fully Recently the Chapter received a one third of each of ten pages ex-response from Thomas E. Murley, purgated(out of the 16 page report)

Director of.the Omee of Nuclear prior to being released for public Reactor Regulation of the NRC.

viewe And yet,-Oremn stated that - hantdeclined.to.4ssee an order toIn:

despite.* substantial chorteomings

-N-----

iseelo$od in1he 91' program, it is - suspend operstlio of the generat-dent i

ded.thst'the weidenevgath-ing staties $sr a"nurrber o a

red does.hotfenbelantiate wrong p eenaJiAssopg.theosmasons:f res*

e NRC does not regalte licensees to im-geme'at%HidlFoseduct.ef thisoing ae4hetprtKEQ&E man., plewraen d

4

..a The Chap- does not rely on resulta from such oluntary program?

v r however, believes that the evt.

programs in its licensing deci.

te elona..With rosard tw~ -- '

dence drawa +b M*-

.... ~.

.. -. - -. - - -. - -... - - - - - -. -.. -..... - -. - -. -. ~.-....-..,-,....-..-...~, -...

./ 4 -

jy'f% %-

,f, ll d.h Nneof(;'

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION defh16twj' W?

-1" UNITED STATES X*

'I'

' WASHWQTON. D C. 20666 r

1 I

%..... 'f 1

N 00T 23 BB9 1

1

. Ms. Arlys L. Schwabauer j

" Route:2, Box 189 i

Newton, Kansas 67114

Dear Ms. Schwabauer:

Your. letter of August 24, 1989, to Senator Nancy L. Kassebaum citing your Econcerns regarding the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consnission's (NRC's) denial of t

the Kansas Chapter of the Sierra Club's petition pursuant to-10 CFR 2.206 has t

'been forwarded to me for. response.

Enclosed with your letter was a copy of a recent Sierra Club publication that discusses its petition regarding the Wolf Creek Generating Station along with a brief summary of the NRC's decision to deny the request.

Included in your letter was a statement relating your belief that concerns raised in the petition were "' swept under the rug' and 1 nored."

j 0

The NRC staff has expended considerable effort over the years in responding to allegations of safety' deficiencies relating to the Quality First Program i

(Q1) at, the Wolf Creek Generating Station.

Petitions pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 to Q1 have been received from both the Government Accountability

. relating (GAP) in May 1985 and the Kansas Chapter of the Sierra Club in January Project 1989. We responded to these petitions in Director's Decisions DD-88-14, dated L

August 22, 1988, and DD-89-4, dated June 26, 1989.

In addition, the NRC has i

reviewed Q1 on a number of occasions through the normal inspection process and in a special investigation performed separately by our Office of Investigations p

(01).

L

'As previously,noted, your letter included a brief discussion of the Sierra Clu)'s petition along with the NRC's decision to deny the request.

I believe that it would be beneficial for you to have access to the entire Director's s

Decision DD-89-4 that was forwarded to the Kansas Chapter of the Sierra Club.

Therefore, I am enclosing a copy of this decision, which provides a complete l

explanation of (1) the role and function of Q1 at the Wdif Creek Geaerating Station, (2) the regulations relied upon by the NRC staf f in making licensing decisions regarding the Wolf Creek Quality Assurance Prcgram, (3) the role of NRC's review of Q1, and (4) the basis used by NRC in denying the petition. The following items highlight the major topics in the enclosed decision.

NRC's licensing decisions to approve the Wolf Creek Quality Assurance Program were based upon the regulations found in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, " Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants." This program was completely independent of and separate from the licensee's Q1 program.

c Q1 was a voluntary program established by the licensee to provide an independent route for Wolf Creek employees to bring quality concerns to the attention of Wolf Creek management.

Employees continued to have the opportunity to voice their concerns directly to the NRC Resident Inspectors on site.

b

y. s 1 -

a g,

Q Ms.: Arlys L. Schwabauer -

a-1 Y,.

Q1 was not intended to meet the NRC's quality assurance requirenients l

h,)4' of.10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, as implied by the Sierra Club.

f onse to the' GAP petition, a special NRC team examined'all Q1'

,In resp (271 case files containing a total,of 752 concerns) and concluded

(

files Wi L

that although a number'of programmatic aspects of Q1 were deficient, there were no indications that Q1 failed to properly assess and resolve any significant. safety issue. The NRC review team did not' identify any violations of or deviations from NRC. requirements.

l

- Moreover, the NRC team' found that the Q1 program adequately resolved' all-the technical safety issues-that were reported by employees through the program.

j The 01 investigation of Q1 (01 Case No. 4-86-004). identified a number '

.1 of shortcomings that were itemized in the Sierra Club publication (e.g., an incident of document' shredding-and the blackballing of a former inspector by Q1 management; removal of aggressive Q1 investiga-L J. _

tors from the Q1 program).

However, the'01 investigation concluded '

that'despite the shortcomings. identified in the Q1 program, the evidence did not establish wrongdoing on the part of Kansas Gas and Electric management. 'Furthermore, the Ol' investigation found that some of the most significant technical issues received extensive Q1 attention and multilevel management review and that the NRC was.

independently involved in closure on many of these important technical issues. The OI report concluded that in those instances, the Q1 program was highly successful in connunicating important problems to L

the affected organizations for corrective action.

The Sierra Club petitiort did not provide any new information that had not been available to the staff. 'Therefore, the staff did not find'any basis to take additional actio: *egarding this subject.

t In conclusion, I hope that the enclosed material will help alleviate your concerns that safety deficiencies have been ignored at the Wolf Creek Generating Station.

hrfENaYsh James H. Snletek

/7 Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

Director's Decision DD-89-4 DISTRIBUTION w/o enclosure:

Docket File NRCPDR w/ incoming Local PDR w/ incoming cc w/ enclosure:

J. Partlow G. Holahan OGC-Rockville i

See next page J. Taylor F. Hebdon D.Mossburg,PMAS(ED0#4801)w/incom.

P. Noonan G. Holler, RIV D. Pickett w/ incoming EDC Reading #4801 PD4 Green T et File D. Crutchfield F. Gillespie

  • SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCES:

d

/W 4

'0FC : PDT/EA4~~~~":W4'/PTP

PDT/P*~
0DF

-(

h /D :Techdifftor

~

'NAME :PN onan

DPickett:bj :FHebdon
RWeisman ahan ahan
6 M "
DATE :10/ 1/89
10/11/89
10/11/89
10/17/89
10/f/89
10/g/89
10/ 4/89 i

.g _

g

'NAME t

J5 ezek
T DATE X/ 9
10/.V89
1

/89

~~ " ". "~ DFF tlM' kEtDRD~ tDPT-" ~~" ~ ~" "" ~~ " ' " " " " ~" " " - " " " " ~

Document Name: GT 0004801

[Q

7 se L,

c o

.7,.

6

,I s

Ms.- Arlys,L. Schwabauer '

t Q1 was not intended to meet the NRC's quality assurance requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, as implied by the Sierra Club.

In resp (onse to the GAP petition, a special NRC team examined all Q127 files that.although a number of programmatic aspects of Q1 were deficient, there:were no indications that Q1 failed to properly assess and 5

resolve any significant safety issue. The NRC review team did not.

' identify any violations of or deviations from NRC requirements.

1 Moreover, the NRC team found,that the Q1 program adequately resolved all. the technical safety issues that were reported by employees t.'

through the' program.

,j The 01 investigation of Q1 (01 Case No. 4-86-004) identified a number of shortcomings that were itemized in the Sierra Club publication (e.g., an incident of document shredding and the blackballing of a former inspector by Q1 management; removal of aggressive Q1 investiga-tors from the Q1 program).

However, the 01 investigation concluded that despite the shortcomings identified in the Q1 program, the evidence did not establish wrongdoing on the part of Kansas Gas and Electric management.

Furthermore, the 01 investigation found that some of the most significant technical issues received extensive Q1

+

attention and multilevel management review and that the NRC was independently involved in closure on many of these important technical issues. The OI report concluded that in those instances, the Q1 l

program was highly successful in communicating important problems to i

J the affected organizations for corrective action.

The Sierra Club petition did not provide any new information that i

had not been available to the staff. Therefore, the staff did not q

find any basis to take additional action regarding this subject.

c In conclusion, I hope that the enclosed material will help alleviate your concerns that safety deficiencies have been ignored at the Wolf Creek Generating Station.

Sincerely,

{

ph

~

ntL homas E. Murley, Director ffice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

Director's Decision DD-89-4 cc w/ enclosure:

See next page

~

i

s 44N h @W _$W.M M N@w u %s? Pn.MM M. ~,6C$N,t *% p W M Q WRW W%qhf W3dWW fWM MWW NM9%W jgQ g; M A Q:tm?Wswsm un W

w,m, t., s:

w nw &+. s.tw.Qusww6t s w p v..

nm nw m. e.f. s. abs. h m.;A m_;L r.n m. yo

,<.+<r p a w %s wJ w n

ws A.

v3,.. ).m< i n n s.\\:s + r o t

,o.

w#

t 4

a,s p a m a,<

s an ycp4 a.vo g g.

y. + <
  • e \\
a

.t s.-.u.

W1 'i,W u t.p %.m u.y wq, :

n.

$--,m, + s y.s s

y 4

v.,,.-

scr.

., ' p; c l)c

<. q e 6 3. %

+

9 m e a.g y;4gp p m.3 o w g' a, M pi.e m o,4 p

a m-m s,-

3. p g.v r

.n pm i

.,,.4 t.~ 4 J

  • ty 11e e n y t. i. '

,.t.,

t

{

p a y 3. @a w;71 g sc, a.A.

3p,ia M,a;a g f wisa >7 g%

o

.t Q " ]j: 'N.1,.,p.

.,,. iggy

s-te ) A, ? y.. W, -i i. c,y3,,;,f e m,

(+, g.. o mj %.

  1. ; q, g.

4.k -g".t y; 2

, 7

6
3;% m ;x MMp

.; py

(

,, ' e' f. s +p".

y Fs

. 3

,, Q gs\\ c%g, (4

< v m.3w u, q:o s.

A,mw r e.. i + 9 a.

...u.s.. a

.,. m.

nu. m i

c

, lc 4

' @A j j.[q' ',j{ /dp -( )%A.fj.f., ff gg.,,p.:$. a r us.c

..s s

s i p 7 g y,{ {:} $, @y.

ey,,

g"ttj g Q, -, m

. 0 i

w.g s q <. A,, y%r,y q7, 4 7, c, %. 3fg%{!

wm -

y - 4L,i 3 ]%,s g <7, u a 4r g

g y uAq. c 4

.,,%. m,.g#u.. m p

a t,4 p

.W t -m e,,

a a,

s e,. t. - i_ n y4 t

.s..

3. p,i 3

.c i.. o. q.,..

,q s o.

L. u

, m m..g g.p. Mo g y

v cs y

m

,4 y

ww A,.a,

3

-3p

- y M. 4.g -....

g 4. r g.

s.m i 9<t n 4

o 4. - ;

9 -

..q..

tqv v t "~,. ',

L, ne w' t v;J A,,.. +a, ;L N m '

br;y a %w'ep%, ' : y1%y n'::, ;..

m.,'

i

,i.,-

4v N a 2'

2 ip p.

o?

y,~,

+, 7 &.

1jf<>

&. y&m p.. I

.g T a%v w

n yt y N :c 3 t n x n,,= l 4,c.

M w n n,;.D, P

'ys N+zs w "

L a

n..

t

,e Q z -

~r - m, ~. 9 v n%, \\.

f, v., x ; 4, ; h,.

y, :

s<t-y..

sor. m m, vm mm.y..,

w vys,-

sp c;

.c a \\

,-,'i*s'

+-

,J.:a -

>: c q m: q, m

.t v ). v >, $ b. m; J*m.r,f h #blI

".:- 94.pi

/e

- o,.

. h w {o. 3-,

.,4 tn.w p,

m L

s..

9YCC Q ',nat0K M y.<.~L.EKalstbaums N W @,shff~..C, f Pv %&

s s

m c

c:

~., a.c o n

w

>n.

s-.:

,ys' t p' p', 's

.t,r

s. c s ta'I u

h h.'.) 'w e\\, m...,

,r 9

n u

3

-ma

- 3

+ '. y"f l-8 I ' ;1 e,T.

[ i

'9

~

.-3a

  • 4.+!=3-,>-

V

' f + iI e. !,. ' E' "s

,h

> )i

.'2 h.,;p.} 'j 'lO h, %. t'g. v[.9 P'

O.

u g.

a 5

P w

tr,

y i

'f M sr 4

(

5 ';. i VUR R, ; Mm,' ' $sk W'N

,4

  • g g

ma 2% 'T S w$" C ' n PW n

W@y@$$hWA1TNCMrdNike:g g.%* nusselv s n ate,P w" Ws,u,i k.ing;

WMZ, Horak WR1L ' F b

W W.

. office B A's E#y,, %. s

~

., _n., y, v

m w w' ' M'.

%y v.s

'g' M* G, 4 a.wr'.

^

'. c" ~ '

WOSn"e x *v. % e" e w' ' r.w e

~'

Aty%mWi@_s

,m hin.4 3 Was. e,gt.onn 0. nCh.,20510 n.gdam. Up<

i hq".l W

m c_ w#;

w&

a.gemaypm # a,,. -

ww: g 4 9 p,A i e.

1 -.. c.

->23,

. s

-m ge sid'm,a t,v; p ',n.y

,1., ; p%,

9a-c,3(...,,J. r., -9.c -

8 w m

4

,e i

, v s n q..,i s. 3 q.%y n,

..m'. y9 a

- e g-.

, cW.

s 1

- hg sm

g... yj 6; p....,4

. g,,n

, 2...q t.

,4 7,

o 3

J 0'

. u^ ',' (,.

s..4

.s n

.a

.Uki 1

4 r

.g.

W :.. y. +. p q r;p

.<3

,s,~

aP t@P,,w.,;9.psMMM u

. g' o-S m

s

-o c q

,3_,..

  • j w d,%.w A.,,s f.M 7t. e,,

W W. 7 W,....; b tV'J D W,m W =

4;WN. ;3,Se 1

.D o 4 4 g

i e

a.

C4> 7 o<

1 G y% V V L L i", '

g 4, Fl w mp@De& q.Wb 3.w a mA u V M.< W @.

p w.

o m m'.a? N.

1 MpiN,

w.

e m-g

' W.#,3 7-lx #u Sau v --..d y 1 U n @m d h fi g i N 4 % M g 'W ise "m' W., t ? '- 4' Y> a%,E,

i h '"

'N Wy

/W 4

W MW'

,i$y M

.c n ', x ',.o

.,d y..

s j, M<.M.w., ' '

e R. 4' b yp%y,4 1

W.

A y.:

q 9 '-A,a'i o

J,,

  • i -@~ %v.y.m m/. ;# N,4S,,t

.u.

j,E.

?f..

m y s. ?mw4 &'; i ' ' "

m

1

,J d. 3 k

_w y,.; Y v,;

.L 1.-

,LP,. m ;,~ m Lu.3

,o;..

's

    • r M

1,

,4 t

,3,.,, * ;a. Gs.

L J

.ybg;j n p 94 0.K' W. w' ;

,,s.,,vy' r%.f w +.'s..,-.."e;

$ x qa o! /* ; F 'c n

? w.1

, 3

..y.. ~, r.. w. m ~

t

- s a,qn%,4 vnm+.

v4 2_

x'-',

Nl(,,

ip o '

, 2 t.

.t e

eb.<i.,'p9 W N %u.mq t.-9.y..w.

3.W N,s L * *

'M-W 3,, 3.A\\ '

a d

r. m,: qv

>e

.,1,\\ 1 :W,,,

n.

e.q.

c. a;.M.MM.fA kv - o V;i0.,,.

Ngi'-

i, Q.

J 'W

-An'y ? d,+

<4-Q,..pM,g e.e

J 4.

.s as W.

f 3

1 n

h w

.4..

O

[

m t,

s'

. 3 %,%y'W.C d

y 4_,

..,pW:mg%:@~, M...

4. >.

. m.

..?:+,0' n:a,;

Q n,

v?, q., ". 4.y,,

.p

'L.

, lr. -f Y

a

?

u e

, 6.Mh x. W.mhp.+ W~Sc m,. i;p q.wq n'

v y-sp

_ 1

,,v :

~ m.h A,, c.. a ct

. m c

n o,;...9 e L '.

Gy.

ee t'

i

, u r f. y" m &_ p. C i

,+

e ;- ; 9 ( " y;

,,. r.yn>b.pf W,

e 1

FBI y';' N,0.lM 2' t t o.

y F Tf Q [ *'. p r;y m

a g,o r s, r, s' lI:' ' '..

O; X,

q.; +

~

t.,. i. ', @r,.Q. ~a. i, N

"f 1

.4N" N,M,'

g

ps

- ' o. y; p. p].s' j

q j p

.t,

+a,g.q h 's'i.. cc.4 p '.c.,i f

/r f s

'd

d bg

.. y4

.s c,

...^1

.,i " '

4

- (s

  • w i x w.ca' ',.
t. a4 i

t n

i,f4+

y. t.a g

-5 7 < +

t 3,.:

-Q:

t w

x o,

9

.,f, <

1

.. -Qt } U :g_p &;;^a g q y):k Wy.

w w 3{ r,,;p,

.,, 4;; A w y:

n

', s. i;

? a -,.,,,

Wh

~

't 0~.:

kk.?,y' N h.$h f

,.._..,'e<f $ S C, u'y l

,, ;r b *

?

w p&pny. adn;,., +, /

. ?

g,

~ mn.

t y

' Nc. u...

4 A.g 4o e "!'

r ia c-q a-

'.V.

a k:d 6 '

4.7:

<o

.. o4 slf'

,.I" f".1

.; p b e. l w w %' @..t t.'.;n;,F4,

, a. ;

idp E.

h

'o, e

1 n

. ~ i es, x,.-

,5

., io 1/;'

4{,

,My5

<v s

,m,'w p *)* I. 'l 3y 'm:. 3b' 3 g $ g'l m

i,-

-,s i

g ;.

g

,,y,.,

0o t

. v',.j

'dl.,

I

."+, h,(i

i. y. ' ( \\.

i

{,

i 6 c4 i

  • j,:. n, y' g glM 19

. yh i$' 4.e i

s 5

. i s 3p =.,, p;..

i it;..@. n.h4, a 4p e

a+g r

, gh e (o.

y.'; 4 N Y;# f,M 3*

y

.Dt@M@%biF p @W @@

1 5

W

' j v. a

(

o,. /, Q;

=p

% \\, g h h., \\

t

-i

, i on s

~i

!f,

?y ;

sM n:. A ~ w WP

,W" n

'yc e

.M M.:

,D K.W

= Y! L.W'i.

M"

.n

'TM '@S

)M fA hfSNf-d y&v.

? bW f,

k\\l N'

{ Ul hhh.h <6;Wyg.

gh.s. ]w.,i,,L g.y(.j '

7,,

.t.,_

' ' @'6eq, w

pu o.

o2 Ji

, ~ y a.

w',,r a

.-i ~

-a y: 7.0,x i.

P is h.u,()s.)g ;. +

J M. :i, i, *

, 1 /y.

q g.3 ru

fuiqq, l,

i,

,3 g

! V W n.

&4.

b t1e..i J h %., d' h. y,/

l y.. t h

c e,.'.)M Q,Q'tmny,ra jf (y

, \\r e

j&

r..

n.,.

s

.s,

~.

.~.>y, m

. f s m.:

.x r

--)

L a

-g, I

(phMYO N ;

w,

, +

,\\

[$

/[ I I

4

m,, %.?1 ",

g h

d' p,

N.!,'

^ 1 v

L qG

'11 M ':

'y

'W, l

WWW,6.w ;+c'h,:

nN

, CI) %m, s.

p pr..%e m

g nv u-

.. m y

m....v i.M,t p.i !,b~h % k,, h a

MN~,,.f'J Q ' ; - m m,.

i.

.~ g,

,(b

' 31.1' ' 6}

b idt i ;1 r '

^-b<'

a w) 3, J t

'Y l'

Y Q i

',s

. i(

,Jgl y p gt 3

+9 M

f,,.

p.h y'c.w y.

w 6

@a:f @w'f b

.M t, i Sg d y, ' M,

^

A MN,.

o

~

,4 u

A(),,2.0 jM. p m.,; C I" ' '

.'. r ?

.yA i

- i O2

, /n%.q M.m m$.s -

-s t-'

'I

'a' n ? ' / h, [-,s

.O % A'h. h '..:r[,, i, P -

1 e

4 1

+

4 c

cx 5

s i

i 3,

d, V

oa9 h.h f y -h [w'[

[ k, "

g.

,,m., dt e.-. c..,

i.,,, s,,'I 6-o!p;n t:

p;3

,t ti

,o

,,uv ws,..

y s. <

._,a b

/

k,(',%.

t., $ 6.' t:

g @f-(( gl{.v " - Q, ; g ' s'

, Q.g

, n t

e g ~ y * # ' 4 l..

k'Q

~

4.

.,1 1^

6 C, y n.(ygf h. %. Q,,,,c.m., '-

J 7

,A.

l 1

x.

T$~tg v!;;}

q;p~p.y y = 8 w

,;$wyh,

MM iM::

60r 1W,

"pf-M N<

p3,, *,W d,.

!p-

  • V g,4 9? Q c,,' (?:.,k'C m

f )fi.y @M.s.

s: cv a

p.,k( l < * ',4,E '

y

w. V'..

Ja.

, w /4 +

ns4 e

.s'h..;,,3, f.e k

b d. j.,

f

> A ?,f g h,.l

+)

,7, s c d-v J. ' l

[:& r-e. ?,, 0 t

r w..,i,,

e. y ? u i a :
n I

(.

Pyl31 Q{ 4

,s y ig 4.,

t

[ [$.D I,,f

' 3,'

m-..

- [$ ',

h.,:hy -e. s: Q3 <:f.l=

w

,%^

.g.

y v.A c.)nq: y s.l g.

l -.,.?

s.

0, T wJ' n

@e y e,.,

a. ;A t

i pj s

s..;

e d.n' M [4 gIi. eg!:.s.,; M'.

W U;.r,M:,

t ft -

4 y.i.4 '

[ c _ i dy;MWhtQLdiGwM,

v..

[

L

3

-[

. / (~ *..

1 4

UNITED STATBS E

V' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION amaneesstoss.o.c.ssess j

' k L

4 EDO Principal Correspondence Control

]

,.c..

c

~2. Lf l

/

E

- FROM:

DUE: 10

/B9 EDO CONTROLS 0004801 DOC DT 09/25/B9

[

FINAL REPLY 1

{

C n. Nancy Landon Kassebaum

[M//)'g Lt ic Jchn Bradburne,'CA FOR SIGNATURE OF:

    • GRN CRC NO: 89-1088 l

Murley i

DESC:

ROUTING:

ENCLOSES LETTER FROM ARLYS L. SCHWABAUER Scinto, DGC CONCERNING DENIAL OF PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE RMartin, RIV KANSAS CHAPTER OF THE SIERRA CLUB REGARDING THE WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION i

DATE: 10/04/89 4

ASSIGNED TO:

CONTACT:

NRR Mui-I nv.

i l

CPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR. REMARKS:

REF.'EDO 4245.

REPLY DIRECT TO CONSTITUENT.

l CEND CC TO SEN. KASSEBAUM & MARK ENVELOPE l

~ ATTN: MIKE HORAK.

t l

- NR't RECEIVED: OCT. 4. 1989

~ ACTION:

- DRSP:NOLAMAN '"

i NRR ROUTING:

MURLEY/SNIEZEK l'

PARTLOW l

MIRAGLIA CRuTCwlEto I

l:'

ACTION GILLESPIE MOSSBURG rJE TO NRR DIRECTOR'S e 19 By m a

\\

1' i

s 4

1

-c_.._-__,_.----

..m.__.,_-_--._..-

p:

c,.> & > "

1 L

og l

' c, ;.'

s

",3 e :

]

,s M: f '

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY f

d" u

CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET t;

i PAPER' NUMBER:.

CRC-89-1088 IDGGING DATE: Oct 4 89.

IACTION OFFICE:

EDO 1

-AUTHOR:

Nancy Kassebaus--Cont Ref

[

AFFILIATION:

' UNITED STATES SENATE, LETTER DATE:.

Sep 25 89

. FILE CODE: IDER-5 Wolf 2

)

SUBJECT:

Concerned about the Comm's denial of the petition submitted by the Kansas Chapter of the Sierra Club i.,

e

['

re' req for suspension of the Wolf Creek operating license

.. i h

ACTION:

Direct Reply.

DISTRIBUTION:

OCA to Ack, DSB SPECIAL HANDLING: None NOTES:

DATE DUE:

Oct 19 89

,7 SIGNATURE:

DATE SIGNED:

AFFILIATION:

l

{

1 l

l 1.

l.

l:

1 i

l l

1,'

l-k 1EO---004601 l

l.

1; i

Refd 011. EDOlC^**I

~

Dete_

H.' Y' L

Time 1

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

'?

. }

3 l

P..' s kg;y:;/y

l HllEoi..

[lh4 l

ph,

i Nl :

{j{ * >

Date: ' September 25, 1989 j

r-

['

- TCnifeb Sfales Sem Is t

o.,

{ c. '

Re: Ms. Arlys L. Schwabauer f

js Route 2. Box-189 p,

Newton, Kansas 67114-a i.

Respectfully referred to:

Mr. John C. Bradburne Director,' Congressional Affairs Office of Government and Public Affairs t

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 i

P Because',of the desire of this office to be responsive'.

l to all tnquiries and connunications, your consideration; of-the attached is requested.

Please respond directly.

to the constituent with a copy to my office. Your-findings and views will be appreciated by L

Nancy Landon Kassebaum United States Senator Attention: Mike Horak l

'{

l '.

r I

f I:

L 1;

.. ~. -.

g f..

1 i

9,.

N0D '!NQ

~...:

lt:

r

.: {

I; w' t

' P August 2-e. 1939 Rt.

2, b o.v 209, Newton, Lenvas 67114 Senator.Ne'ncy L.

Fessobaum 6

.N

' F e.o m ;3 0 2 Russel Senate 01 rice'. Bldg.

Washangton, D.C.

20510

,0 '. s Deer 4 Senator-ris s e be um,-

s..i I amL areatlw coric erned by the'NRC's denial oi the petition o

submi'tted by the Fensas Chapte r of the Sierra Club r ega r d a ne,.

the Wolf Creen nu: leer generating stettorEat Bvr11onton.

E e ns a t,. (Cese # 4 (n4 i.

I do not understi.nc how ' t hen.

':en cc *n: c e v.

t n ' v. c p

.;r.h c-

~. W ' u 3, '

t.,. :

3: ~.m' a c.

c

.u

'consecuencer ere much'tc greve to ig:nere.

Thouwenes.. -

collars.are spent c.n nw ti. l ers b u r pre n t causts thn

+h.F.

urge you to

  • col i n t c t b.i tt, matter.

. Enclosed is e copy. of an arti cle that raisee my concerns.

i know your reading time is limited, but pleeso t o.'e t iw tc.

sC6h this artjcle end the concerni it r a i s e F.,

1.'

Li n C G r e l'y.

?

e t,

Ar1y L.

Schwaceier i

h y

ti i

e

- q s, ;.

co'.

o

.g 3

D f'

^

~

v.

7 yaw.y!

t y-

? m. a..

  1. t. e f', -

'y.!

}

  • ~

ail l'

L

.[

i Wolf Creek auelear generating station at Burungton, Eamses

.I 1

On January 30th the Kansas.

that they could be addressed. Em.

.e Chapter filed a petition with the-ployees were encouraged to report Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

their concerns to KG&E rather gf (NRC) in their Omco of Inspec.

than to the NRC or to other inter.

tions and Enforcement demand.

ested groups. When they eenelud.

'i ing suspension of the operating li.

egl that KO&E was not'edequately lavestigating ' nd eemestigg time cense' for Wolf Cieek Generating a

W Station in: Burlington until the problems, employees who had prst Ccmmission exp! sine why. It be.

worked sithin the 91 program lieves the plant is operating safely' subsequently reported their een.

L I

in spite of NRC's everwhelming cerne directly to the NRC. The Of.

l.

evidence to the contrary.'Our peti.

fice of Investigations of NRC in.

tion wasn't based on any new in.

terviewed those who had filed l

o

. formation or new problems at the complaints. It is a report of those L"

plant, but was based on a series of interviews that the Chapter has re-published reporta, mostly from the viewed. That report b now avail.

j l

l NRC itself relating to uncorrected able to the public;it 5 on file in the problems at the plant.'

Wolf Creek Publ" Document s

Through a Freedom of informa.

Room at Emporia 8. ate Universi.

l tion Act request, the Chapter re.

ty..

ceived documents from NRC's Of.

Specifically, NRC's investiga.

5 fice of Investigations 'that tor H. Brooks GrifRn interviewed confirmed a large number of alle.

witnesses who substantiated alle-gations made by former employees gations of document shredding; of Wolf Creek concerning opernt.

blackballing; transfer and termi.

ing safety. There have been so nation of aggressive Q1 investi-many complaints that in June of gators; file

  • streamlining"; con.

1986 NRC opened its third investi.

fiscation of tape recorders gation of operating safety ainee the # formerly used to record' employee plant went on line Many of the al.

allegations about possible safety i

legations regarding safety prob.

problems; management changing lems have come from formir om.

the conclusions of investigators; oloyees of Kansan Gas and management. restricting the scope Electric Company whp participated of Q1 assurance investigations; in the Quality First Program (Q1).

management falling'to.investi.

The Q1 program encouraged em.

gate allegations of drug use, ha-ployees to report potential quality rassment, intimidation, falsifi.

assurance problems to KO&E so

.NRC Petition. pere 2 col.a.

m,

,k'

+.

r

.-e-..

,..e-.w--en

.,m,-

,.-.%-..........e

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

.---.---....-m

= - - -

73 -.

g

&-n S

^ '

1 q.

f-einertalnation for po-

.w,,,-..,;3 v.t.

E

,8, testielW'48 verse effects en safety; cited above, the Chaptar had asked V

&nd tenfilets oflaterest..

that:

i

  • In the : report Grimn himnif.

(1) the operating license for concluded, that,' ' verification of -

Wolf Creek Generating Stat. ion be corrective action by Q1 was not suspended.

meaningful

  • and' that<*signifi-

- (3) that prior to reinstating the cent suanboro* of employee alle-operating license:

. entity.;problesne a; the NRC abould reopt.

t its I

case -(#4-86 004) and. provide in

/

i 5,

treampa' reet-sound technicpl reasons for its ties.' all of eenclusion that the plant la safe l

enough to operate in spite of all of w

ty 41,supervi.

-its invwtigative conclusions re-

'{)

"also Ibund that em-

'gardin playe..s.elmeerne lems; g quality assurance prob-summarised is 4W obish lead M%

'alaglees!!avestigations b, the NRC should nyiew all of and petumature elontres of issues -

its informatinn on quality assu-whleb uner6ted flerther investiga.

rance at Wolf Creek developed Lion *;further, he found that is.

subsequent to case #4 86-004 being

. issued suas of wreagdoing were. net in.

and covering operations

. n y

for.

tialimpacts on

. through 1989 to provide sound tech-nical' reasons for its conclusion l

? Ware'not de "Tinally 'Orimn de-thatthe plant is safe to operate:

termined that the closure rate fort c. all. corrective actions deter-1 some invatigators jumped from mined by NRC to be necessary to an average offour per month to the achieve a level of operating safety point where some investigators that complies with federal regula-were closing cases at a rate of one -

tions'ahould be incorporated as per day as the fuel load date ap-conditions of the operating license proached and he concluded that and if they are not met, the operab nearly 865 of the eenelusione used' ing license should be revoked, to alone Q1 complainta about al.

The petition also asked that four leged wrongdoing. esuld not:bie individuals cited in Mr. Grimn's e

nport be barred from any and all supported b tion, i ~' K fbets.or'decumsspa-invol vement or participation in These and numerous other find.any activities at. the generating ings are included in Grimn's re.

station.

port, which incidentally, had fully Recently the Chapter received a one third of each of ten pages ex.

reponse from Thomas E. Murley, purgated (out of the 15.page report)

Director of the.Omce of Nuclur prior to being released for public Reactor Regulation of the NRC.

view,. And yet, Orimn stated that - hastdoelined.to.lssue an order tin:hls despite.* substantial chortoosaings o-identipad tirthe q1' program, it is y suspend opere@a 'of the generat-ing staties fist number o seeladed.thst'the evidence.gath-e red doesinetioobetantiate wrong. ~,p sonaX:Amops.thasareasons:f rea*

e NRC oing on the pSrt pf

'does not require licensees to im-d gesneint%'progra>m: con,Iffi,46E man,

"-plewment progrunne.like Q1 and 4

..a thei duet of this The Chap-does not rely on resulta from such luntary vo ter however, believes that the evi-programe in its licenalng deci.

tions..With sesed t-

~'

dence draws A ~~-h-

,,ggw"*"'"

,,,e,,e#**

,,,,... - " * ~

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML19325E000&oldid=4763934"