ML20043E593
| ML20043E593 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/17/1987 |
| From: | Joseph Kelly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Gejdenson S HOUSE OF REP., INTERIOR & INSULAR AFFAIRS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20043E518 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-89-540 NUDOCS 9006130177 | |
| Download: ML20043E593 (3) | |
Text
._
s,,w
.~.,e-__
j es-
.. ~, Y.
i wurves states 1
nuctsAn neoutAtony consemesen j
g assoon tv ~
t eti avam nmaa onevs.eumisse anumeron.tsmaa ismi M L1 m l:
a The Honorable San Gejdenson, Chairman
?
Subcommitte on General Oversight and Investigations
~ Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs United States House of Representatives j
' Washington,D.C. 20515
Dear Chairman Gejdenson:
Subject:
Testimony Before the Subcommittee on General Oversight and l
Investigations, Comunittee on Interior and Insular Affair %
U.S. House of Representatives, on June 11, 1987 The printed statement, issued by the Subcomittee at the hearing c c: rafted by the Committee staff with input from me, was the naistiated prode. c? a 2-day, 20-hour interview session conducted by the Subcoser ttee staff. Af ter reviewing the final product, I am not satisfied that the principles that I wished to convey were highlighted. The background for the Committee staff's questioning was-a collection of reports and documents drawn from a variety of outside agencies and internal units of the NRC. I had two options. -The first was to work through>the series of points, that were pressed by the congressional staff, and attempt to explain the circumstances and educate the staff about the i
L inspection processes and its limitations. My second option was to be subpoenaed, and thus be required to respond to-random questioning by congressmen during the 1
hearing.- Given the nature of some of the situations and actions that I was' called upon to explain and defend, and compounded by what I believe to be the absence of logical policy in matters apparently so clear in the minds of the public, the task was very difficult. I elected to contain the unpredictability of the line of questioning by reducing the volume of the material at issue and addressing it during the lengthy interview process. In retrospect, I still believe tist the course that I took was correct-and that my professional behavior was a credit to the region. However, the scenario approach did not highlight the principles of an' effective program.
l
!iy statement reflects the facts, as I remembered them, concerning several examples of my inspection findings as contrasted with external materials possessed by the staff. The perspective offered by me is that of one who is on the ground and who' admittedly is not privy to all of the relevant decisionmaking processes that follow such findings. However, infomed or.
not, I must attempt to complete the inspection process within that clouded intended to provide insight into the difficulties that a security inspector j
. environment. The main theme of the scenarios that I presented was one U
-0 9006130177 900416 gCT DN N b
[
$DE
- 40 PDRl I
a n
{,'
, ;i;. The Monorable las W)donson y
t.' L 4-ggy aust face as it related to issues not covered by r are real emotionally charged and physically threat are also, security principles Involved.egulations.
Th entag issues.ese events are dangerous to the site, its personnel operatios But there community.
The eocial pr y senifest traits that population of the sites. oblems of the co,munity are, reflected in thns
- focal point of the Neal comunities in question Because the nuclear sites, which tend to b comprehensive and inte11? gent procedura11ae e
, are licensed by the NRC doese the major personnel through background inveti,igation fin ng courgnities. It takes tests, and polygraph and psycholog m 1 exa,i ogram efforts to prescreen effort requires the use of the same disciplines pl gerpri m nations. nt checks, toxicology behavioral observation skills and employee The post employment such effective programs are absent in the regulat dassistance reso us incident in declination of MRC leadership in this area creates a void.e nuclear industry and theStand The nature of the rural communities which h tends not t tends to be in the field of engineering a dconditio The professicaal expert h at the management level of the sites to me that they don't understand the iss':e social n
many of these managers have stated such human behavior amas to be both distasteful a d interest.
. s and find the pressure to address It is e construction and at certain licensed sites when th These conditions are even worse at those sit Ibelievethatthosecategories(constructio s
Experience reflects that a san 11, but very disr es un n and outage)in outage. derIn~ fact ey are temporary forces, contains the primary risk uptive se are the main concer,n.
paralle
. categories., the industry directs its limited That risk,gment of the large Yet I believe is management in Region IV.My explanation to the Committee was not i Instead, it was an effort to clarifyntended to be critica to deal with these real situations in the aband justify the rationalize my point of view or philosophical position alwaymean sence of regulations.urity inspec, tor who has ha I do not views are heard and considered.
agerial decision, nor does s prevail. However those Further my statement was intended to be an eBut when the regional managers. They sust, in their decisionmakixpression o authority guidance.., concerning obviously threatening situations,, balance regulatory ng in the absence of In summary security inspector, on the ground. Commission,to conside in ny mind, the real eyes of a professionalegulatory for debate is These wide gro,unds exist, I believe, issue and not the fact tha a
because of the absence nf an aggressive e ebate.
\\
A
....a.
E "h
j... -
4 HmorableSaasejdenson 3
M1? W hitive, comprehensive NRC repletica w vior reliability estimates for those personnel ent sites.
In addition the capability to effectively investiering upon violations of such a, subject is also required.
i testimony provided before your subcommitte gate those apparent j:
V e made a suppl une 11, 1987 ement to the Espy 0b s A. F Senior Secu. Kelly rity inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissi Region IV cc: -Rep. Denny Smith on Chairman Lando W. Zeca, Jr.
i Cosmissiotar Thomas M. Aabem Commisstor.er James K.. Asselstine Commisstoner Frederict M.'Berstral Commissioner Kenneth M. krr Ytetor Stello, Jr., EDO dobert D. Martis, AIV
~i
-(
i b '
l
, i e
5a s
~..,..