ML20044F931
| ML20044F931 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/04/1993 |
| From: | Sniezek J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20044F925 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9306010214 | |
| Download: ML20044F931 (4) | |
Text
r
- U
[c N,$$
d UNITED STATES j
,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'E WASHINGTON, D.C. 20566-0001 May 4, 1993 MEMORANDUM FOR:
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations FROM:
James H. Sniezek Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Regional Operations and Research
SUBJECT:
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT (Memorandum from the Chairman to Taylor and Fouchard dated 4-22-93)
On April 23, 1993 you assigned me to conduct an independent review of the subject matter.
In conducting this review I examined the contents of the agency's directives pertaining to the subject matter to determine whether the involved staff and management followed the agency's procedures.
The applicable directives are Management Directive 10.160 (previously 6.3) regarding the OPEN DOOR POLICY and Management Directive 10.159 (previously 6.2) regarding DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL VIEWS OR OPINIONS.
On April 23, I sent individual memorandum to Messrs. Speis, Bird, Kokajko, Virgilio, and Kunihiro asking them specific questions regarding their role in the subject matter and to clarify their actions in the handling of the Hopenfeld correspondence of December 23, 1991.
The memoranda focused on the internal handling of the Hopenfeld views, the briefing of Congressman DeFazio in February 1992, and the response to questions raised by the Oregon Energy Facilities Siting Council (OEFSC) during the January 23, 1993 meeting.
Enclosed are copies of the April 23 memoranda and the replies to the questions (Encl 1).
I also reviewed the April 6, 1993 letter from Dean Kunihiro, State Liaison Officer, Region V to Mel Ferguson, Chairman, Energy Facilities Siting Council, State of Oregon.
The letter was in response to questions which were asked of Mr. Kunihiro during his January 23, 1993 meeting with the OEFSC.
In reviewing the letter for responsiveness I was fortunate to have a transcript of a tape recording of the meeting which was provided to the NRC Project Manager by Adam Bless of the Oregon Department of Energy on April 12.
A copy is enclosed (Encl 2).
Mr. Kunihiro did not have the benefit of this transcript when he responded to Mr. Ferguson.
9306010214 930510 PDR ADOCK 05000344 p
e James M. Taylor May 4. 1993 From my review of the April 21, 1993 article in the OREGONIAN and the April 12 correspondence from Mr. Bless, it appears that the major thrust of Mr. Ferguson's concerns centered around the issue of why the State was not told about the differing views within-the NRC and whether an NRC employee can go public with his or her concerns if the employee disagrees with the NRC position on a matter.
Based upon my review of this matter, I have arrived at the following conclusions and recommendations:
1.
The briefers of Congressman DeFazio in February 1992 were aware of the Hopenfeld December 23, 1991 differing l
view at the time of the briefing but did not believe it I
rose to the level of significance to be mentioned during the briefing.
I did not detect any intent on the part of the briefers to be less than candid with
~
the Congressman.
2.
The April 6, 1993 letter from Mr. Kunihiro to Mr.
Ferguson was neither timely nor did it address Mr.
Ferguson's concerns raised at the January 23 meeting.
Accordingly, I recommend sending the enclosed letter to Mr. Ferguson (Encl 3).
3.
The April 6 response to Mr. Ferguson was not coordinated with the appropriate headquarters managers to ensure the policy issues were adequately addressed.
Guidance on thi matter is included in the April 23, 1992 memorandum from the EDO to all SES Managers.
To ensure this guidance is available to all levels of the staff, it is recommended that this guidance be incorporated in NRC Management Directive 3.57 regarding CORRESPONDENCE MANAGEMENT.
It is my understanding that the staff intends to do this by August 1993.
4.
Correspondence to organizations external to the NRC should be signed out by more senior members of the staff when they deal with substantive technical and public interest matters.
Recommend appropriate guidance be included in Management Directive 3.57.
5.
The staff followed the procedures set forth in Management Directives 10.159 and 10.160 in all significant respects.
l 1
.4
i James M. Taylor May 4, 1993 6.
Recommend Management Directive 10.159 be revised to specify that the initial memorandum instituting either the DPV or the DPO process be placed in the PDR unless the originator requests in writing that the memorandum not be placed in the PDR or the Office Director determines that due to Privacy Act, investigative, security or other appropriate reasons the memorandum' t
should not be placed in the PDR.
i i
The contents of this review have been discussed with Joe Fouchard and he agrees with the recommendations and conclusions.
/
l y mtest Mw ames H. Sniezek eputy Executive Director i
for Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Regional Operations and Research j
Enclosures:
1 1.
Questions and Replies 2.
Oregon DOE 4-12-93 Correspondencs 3.
Proposed letter to Mr. Ferguson cc:
J. Fouchard i
r i
?
i
t
'l P
i t
3 I
r t
L i.
h I
?
1
..t Questions and Replies l
': t
?
?
I i
t e
I t
a 4
l i
W t
t t
I i
i
,