ML20011E459
| ML20011E459 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 10/26/1989 |
| From: | Burris S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20011D121 | List:
|
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9002140096 | |
| Download: ML20011E459 (2) | |
Text
'f 4..
[ptso UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N
-3' REGION 11
~j.
101 MARIETTA STREET.N.W.
,a ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323 October 26, 1989 MEMORANOUM FOR:
Dennis M.
Crutchfield, Associete Director for Special Projects-Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
Stephen P.
Burris, Senior Resident Inspector, WBNP, ADSP Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
PERSONAL COMMENTS REGARDING THE RECENTLY
~
RECEIVED COMANCHE PEAK UNSIGNED MEMORANDUM-Since my former position as Senior Resident Inspector at.the s
Comanche Peak facility was so prominently mentioned within the referenced memorandum. I felt compelled to respond to certain comments made in that memorandum.
First. I am not one of.the referenced "NRC inspectors" mentioned in the memo, which felt that the SALP report was "neither accurate nor a complete reflection of TU Electric's performance during this SALP period."
Should this have been the case, you may be assured, based on prior experience, g~
that I would be the first person to stand against.any report 1
which could jeopardize the "Public Health and Safety."
Secondly, it the comment concerning a "2"
rating in every area an;1 no adverse performance trends "is incorrect and invaltd" was a truism, then I'did not hear this concern expressed or amplified by any one of the Gnsite inspectors, both tefore, during or after the SALP process and board.
I believe the comments concerning the SALP Board members were totally unwarranted, unfounded and without substantiation from any quarter.
This statement is-based on my experience in other.SALP participations, knowing that the' senior managers are made fully aware of all activities and the results of those activities performed by their inspection staffs.
During the actual SALP Board meeting, I maintained a physical count of the actual board votes for the chairman, and to chis day I can not honestly say that one individual wishing to recommend a "below average" performance was squelched, either directly or indirectly.
In addition I did not hear any comments in which the board outright forbade the inclusion of any information which would have been detrimental to the outcome of any board member vote, thereby giving a false impression of the plant.
Lastly I have tried to ignore the various rumors which are
~~~circulDa,lnq concerning the author of the memorandum.
d Udl / '/ o'd M
W k
n -
~!
S, 4
i i
F
.t ja However, I take exception to the rumor that I was the author, and some petty individual is"even saying that I wrote the memo.and had my wife type'it.-
These types of statements go beyond the bounds of rumors and speculation, l
almost to the point of becoming an accusation.-
The reason I am so upset by these irresponsible accusations is that I have worked hard to achieve a good reputation in this industry and innuendos of this nature-could dam 6ge my career.
y?
I find this whole memorandum reprehensible, if the person or 6
persons who authored this memorandum were in fact an NRC inspectors or contractors, then they either. submitted it for
]
personal gain or they failed to live up-to'their oath-of office, if.in fact they truly believe-that the* health and safety of the public is in jeopardy.
Based on numerous issues iden tified by the Procedures Review Team I led, we took the position that the applicant was not ready to operate at'that time.
However, I personally did' not feel that.the applicant would not be ready to operate a
within a short period of time, provided they corrected.the outstanding concerns.
In addition, the applicant personnel with whom 1 dealt, were always responsive and eager t o.
i ensure that problems were completely and correctly resolved.
Both the positive anc negative aspects, were discussed during the exit for the Procedures Review Team Inspection.
During my tenures as both the Resident inspector -
Preoperation Test and subsequently as the Senior Resident inspector, I never had the impression that anyone Onsite.or in any of.the headquarters offices was out to "give" -the applicant a license.
Therefore, as I have stated several times before, l believe that'the applicant is a "2"
or an
" average" facility for where they currently are in the licensing process.
I honestly believe that the SALP Board was not directed to "give" TU Electric and all clear rating, conversely a SALP Board rating does not guarantee the issuance of an operating license.
I would like to thank you for taking the time to read this and for the opportunity allow me to " blow off some steam."
Should you wish to discuss any of this information with me please feel to cantact me at 615-365-5488.
l
-I Ste en P.
Burris, Senior Resident Inspector, WBNP, ASDP Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation f
.m
.