ML20055C593
| ML20055C593 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 04/02/1990 |
| From: | Kostmayer P HOUSE OF REP., INTERIOR & INSULAR AFFAIRS |
| To: | Carr K NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19332H552 | List: |
| References | |
| CCS, NUDOCS 9005250172 | |
| Download: ML20055C593 (2) | |
Text
.
w.
s.
o.S.o,A um h -
$ffI$2" N.b"~
COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR
'$b Yi
- afi '#
T~
= =0%
AND INSULAR AFFAIR 8 "lel.',i s,.. o=eroa
'4 '.7,7."..""73 t". *tJ" #"""" ""'"
- ==cova5n
=
6gygg gags,m a U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 171!,!!*.'Ca%!""
!Nf*J.fc="' o.
WASH 1' iTON, DC 20515 m we'ovastL s
clainat c IM W.E"l"1.
O., 2 3..$
"'c 7 $ M ycopusu
=gg
,o
....~. u I
"t.N %'#,,'W.. m
- '. 37,*.".** KJ
%"T",= '# ""*"'"
',L'a n.n.,"".,.,;s",,.* M....
J"*
--o April 2, 1990 The Honorable Kenneth M. Carr, Chairman United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Chairman:
While I appreciate your prompt attention to my original information requests, I find it necessary to write again seeking details about the NRC's handling of reports prepared by the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) regarding the Seabrook plant.
Your March 30, 1990 letter, written in response to my letters of March 13 and March 16, does not include several pieces of information which I think are critical to the investigation being conducted by the Subcommittee on General oversight and Investigations.
First, your letter states that NRC staff reviewed INPO documents discussed at the March 14 hearing prior to issuance of the Seabrook full power Operating License on March 15.
Your letter indicates that, in less than a
. day, the NRC was able to review all the relevant INPO docua...s.s and conclude tiat they contained no information that would affccc the issuaisii of the OL. Given the complicated nature of the analysin in the INPO reports, I have no choice but to queFtion the thoroughness of your review. Moreover, your letter contains no information regarding the detalis of the analysis completed by your staff which might put my mind at e se regarding this matter.
Second, your March 30 letter indicates that NRC staff had reviewed INPO report.s based on evaluations conducted in 1983 and 1984.
This was a critical time in the Seabrook history and I believe it important that we know the specifics of these evaluations.
Unfortunately, your letter did not include a detailed summary of the NRC staff reviews of these earlier INPO documents.
Third, your March 30 letter indicates that as part of the total inspection effort at Seabrook, "the senior resident inspector revie nd some, but not all, of the INPO evaluation reports."
The enclosure to your March 30 letter indicates that prior to our March l
14 earing J Pc staff had reviewed only two INPO reports, one in l
l o
1
' 1983 and one "Before 1985."
It was, it appears, review of these two INPO reports that led NRC staff to conclude that there das reasonable assurance that more recent INPO findings "did not reveal unreported violations of NRC requirements." However, you failed to include in your letter any detail of the NRC's assessment of the 1983 and 1984 INPO evaluations.
Please provide the following:
I.
An enumeration of total staff-hours expended on March 15, 1990 upon the review of INPO reports.
II.
A listing of NRC inspection findings which correlate with the INPO findings contained in the reports reviewed on March 15.
III. Documents describing the nature and conclusions of the NRC staff review of Items A-1 through A-6 of the enclosure to your March 30 letter.
IV.
The INPO Evaluation of Construction and Design Controls, 11/17-28/83 and the INPO Evaluation of Construction, Design Controls, & Testing, 12/3-14/34, Items A-1 and A-2, respectively in the enclosure to your March 30 letter.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
b neerely, h'!
v4 Peter Kostmayor l
!