ML20058E375

Responses to Commission 820721 Order Posing Questions Re NRDC 820714 Petition for Investigation.Commission Should Attempt to Discover Whether Memoranda Represent Isolated Incidents or Reflect Broader Practice.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20058E375
Person / Time
Site:	Clinch River
Issue date:	07/21/1982
From:	Finamore B, Weiss E HARMON & WEISS, National Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club
To:
References
NUDOCS 8207280194
Download: ML20058E375 (10)

Text

,

~,

00CKETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER 982 5 26 'P5 56 OFFl:E OF SECF.ET@.'

i

)U%

h[C Yn the Matter of

').

UNITED STATES DEP ARTMENT OF ENERGY

)~

PROJECT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

)

Docket No. 50-537 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

)

.;,,,j.c..w..a.-

(Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant )

)

)

RESPONSE OF NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., AND SIERRA CLUB TO COMMISSION ORDER OF JULY 21, 1982.

On July 14, 19 82, NRDC filed with the Commission a " petition for investigation" which contained internal memoranda of the CRBR Applicants evidencing intent to downplay and/or withhold technical inf ormation reg arding the safety of the CRBR.

On July 21, 1982, the Commission issued aS order posing certain questions to DOE and to the NRC staff.

The questions the Commission formulated indicate that the Commission is acting on the premise that these matters are isolated incidents without the slightest inquiry to determine whether that is the case.

Serious as the matters raised in the Petition for Investigation are, they may just represent the tip of an iceberg of dissembling and obfuscation.

If Applicants have attempted to' or succeeded in covering up uncertainties concerning LOF/EOC accidents or " margins " to accomodate core melt as the memoranda noted in the Petition for Investi-acciden ts,

gation suggest, the Commission must be concerned whether Ap-plicants have also withheld unf avorable information concerning 8207280194 820721 PDR ADOCK 05000537 PDR Q

safety component test results, meteorology, seismicity, or any of scores of other safety-related issues.

It must be emphasized that the documents noted in the Petition for Investigation were discovered fortuitiously by'NRDC in the context of quite limited discovery.

To discharge its duty to determine whether Applicants are fit to hold a license for the CRBR the Commission must attempt to discover whether these memoranda represent isolated incidents or reflect a broader practice.

Besides limiting the inquiry to the specific matters revealed and individuals directly involved in the Petition for Investigation, the Commission seems to view the matter as significant only with regard to the exemption request under 10 C.F.R. S50.12(a).

The continued presence, or not, of particular individuals referred to in the Petition in Applicants ' organization does not begin to resolve the important issue:

Have Applican ts systema-tically withheld or watered down unf avorable information?

Even if the authors of the memoranda attached to Intervenors ' Petition for Investigation have long since lef t Applican ts ' org anization,

that is no cause for confidence in the candor of Applicants generally in their dealings with the Commission in this proceeding.

Involvement of those individuals in preparation of the Applicants' exemption request is certainly a valid area of immediate concern, but to limit the inquiry to the exemption request completely misses the larger. point.

The'se indiviudals held positions of the highest responsibility within the CRBR project.

The l

memoranda therefore call into question the attitude and integrity of the CRBR management and its policy.

These issues go f ar beyond the actions of a few individuals.

i i

L

m.

.9 The documents which formed the basis for the Petition for Investigation raise the possibility that Applicants routinely tailor their submissions to the Commission to extract or minimize information which might inter fere with Applicants ' ultimate obj ective :

licensing of CRBR.

As Intervenors' Petition for Investigation pointed out in some detail, the Commission relies in a fundamental and pervasive way on the honesty and candor of applicants and licensees before it to obtain the information it needs to make vital decisions with grave implications for public health and safety.

The Commission 's dependence on information from Applicants is certainly not limited to the exemption request; it pervades every aspect of the Commission 's regulation of nuclear power.

If there is a concerted or even a sporadic effort to present the Commission with a distorted picture of Applicants ' knowledge concerning CRBR, the implications go to the validity of all Ap-plic ants ' submissions for its construction permit and limited work authorization, including particularly the two primary documents in the application--the Environmental Report and Preliminary Safety Analysis Report.

Clearly this matter bears heavily on whether Applicants should receive an exemption under 10 C.F.R. 6 5 0.12 ( a ), but in more than the exceedingly limited way suggested by the Cornissions questions.

The Commission has asked 'whether any of the individuals involved had participated in the preparation of the exemption request.

A negative answer to the question would not be suf ficient to justify

granting the exemption request in the f ace of the broad questions which have been raised.

A thorough investigation is called for now -- before deciding on the exemption request -- particularly considering that the Applicants are seeking highly extraordinary permission from the NRC to begin work at Clinch River without going through the licensing process.

If such a thorough inves-tigation shows that Applicants consciously withheld unf avorable information from the Commission, Applicants should be ordered to show cause why they should not be summarily denied both an LhA and a CP under section 186 of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C.

52236, and 10 C.F.R. 550.100.

Virainia Electric and Power Co.

(North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2 ) L3P-75-54, 2 NRC 498 (1975).

In order that the full implications of this matter for the CRBR licensing proceeding may be considered, Intervenors propose that the following questions be posed to Applicants and Staff in addition to those already presented by the Commission:

Additional Questions for Applicants 4.

Have any of the individuals referred to in the petition taken any part in preparation of any submissions to the Commission concerning the application for a CP or LWA?

If so, explain their participation in detail.

5.

Do Applicants have a formal or informal procedure or policy r'egarding prior screening of submissions to the Com-mission for their f avorable or uhfavorable content ?

If so, describe that policy or procedure in detail, and explain in detail each instance in which it has resulted in the withholding of information from NRC.

1 6.-

Produce for inspection all memoranda or documents responding to or in any other respect pertaining,

to the memoranda in the Petition for Investigation, including all communications among members or sections of Applicants ' organization or between Applicants and any contractors or governmental bodies.

7.

Produce f or inspection any other memoranda, documents,

or other evidence of communications withing Applicants '

organizations or between them and outside contractors including but not limited to General Electric, Scientific Applicatioits, Inc., Westing house, Argonne Naticnal Laboratory, Atomics International, Burns & Roe, Rockwell International, Stone & Webster Engineering Corp., or other ~ persons which bear on issues related to CRBR safety and site suitability.

See contractors listed on page 21 of the 1982 Progress Report for CRBRP.

Additional Questions for Staff

~4.

Is the Staff aware of (a) any other instances in which elements within Applicants ' organizations have recommended withholding pertinent information form NRC, or (b) instances in which such information has in fact been withheld or modified to minimize unfavorable impact?

If so, please explain in detail and produce for inspection any agencymemoranda or reports con-cerning such instances.

5.

Have there been instances when members of NRC Staff, I

in their review of submis sions by Applicants, h ave sus-s

pected that pertinent information was being ' withheld or downplayed by Applicants ?

If so, explain -in detail and produce for inspection any agency documents, memo-randa or reports concerning such instar.ces.

6.

Has the Staff dealt with any of the individusis named in the Petition for Investigation in its review of the application for a CP or LWA for CRBR7 If so, i

please give all details and produce for inspection all memoranda, documents, or any other communications among or concerning those individuals.

7.

Produce for inspection all requests for information and questions from the Staf f to the CRBR Applicants and Con tractors related to safety and site suitability, and all responses thereto.

8.

Have all questions and requests for information from NRC to the CRBR Applicants been answered?

Identify and that have not been answered or for which answers have been insufficient.

9.

For any requests for information and questions which have not been fully answered, what was the NRC staf f 's response? How did it resolve these questions.

10.

What is 'the staff 's policy and practice for ensuring that the submissions it receives form' Applicants are fully forthcoming ?

~

i i

Submitted by:-

4

>A A

Weiss" Harmon & Weiss 1725 I Street N.W.

Suite 506 Washing ton,

D.C. 20006 (202) 833-9070 Marbara A. Finamore Natural Resources Defense Council 1725 I Street N.W.

Suite #600 Washington, D.C. 20006

\\

4 1

et i

i 9

I l

d I

i '.'.

00 METED USHF.C CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

• 82 JE. 26 P5 :46 I hereby certify that copies of the RESPONSE OF NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., AND SIEBRACCCKJBECR3! COMMISSION ORDER OF JULY 21, 1982 were delivered by0SMidjigEitTdh day of July 1982 to:

The Honorable Nunzio J.- Palladino Chairman U. S. N u c le a r Reg u la to ry,,Co ggi,s.q.t o,n.

Washington, D.C.

20555 The Honorable James K. Asselstine Ccmmissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 The Honorable Victor Gilinsky Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 The Honorable John F. Ahearne Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Tne Honorable Thomas F. Roberts Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Daniel Swanson, Esquire Stuart Treby, Esquire Bradley W. Jones, Esquire Office Of Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 R. Tenney Johnson, Esquire Leon Silverstrom, Esquire l

' Warren ~E.

Bergoholz, Jr., Esquire Michael D. Oldak, Esquire L. Dow Davis, Esquire Office of General Counsel U.S. Department of Energy l

1000 Independence Ave., S.W.

l I

Washington, D.C.

20585 l

George L. Edgar, Esquire Irvin N.

Shapell, Esquire Thomas A.

Schmutz, Esquire Gregg A.

Day, Esquire Frank K. Peterson, Esquire Morgan, Lewis & 'Bockius 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20036 Docketing & Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 (3 copies)

Leonard Bickwit, Esq.

Office of General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 And by mail, postage prepaid, to the following:

Marshall E. Miller, Esquire Chairman Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, Maryland 120814 (2 copies)

Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr.

Director Bodega Marine Laboratory University of California P.O.

Box 247 Bodega Bay, California 94923 Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

" Washington, D.C.

20555 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555

.)

e Herbert S. Sanger, Jr., Esquire Lewis E. Wallace, Esquire James F. Bu rg er, Esquire W. Walker LaRoche, Esquire Edward J. Vigluicci Office of the General Counsel Tennessee Valley Authority 400 Commerce Avenue Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 William M.

Leech, Jr., Esquire Attorney General William B.

Hubbard, Esquire Chief Deputy Attorney General Lee Breckenridge, Esquire Assistant Attorney General State of Tennessee Office of the Attorney General 450 James Robertson Parkway Nashville, Tennessee 37219 Lawson McGhee Public Library 500 West Church Street Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 William E.

Lantrip, Esquire City Attorney Municipal Building P.O.

Box 1 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Oak Ridge Public Library Civic Center Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37820 Mr. Joe H. Walker 401 Roane Street Harriman, Tennessee 37748 Commissioner James Cotham Tennessee Department of Economic and Community Development Andrew Jackson Building, Suite 1007 Nashville, Tennessee 32219 i

A q'

A w)A b, % +ts w

,/ Barbara A.

Finamore

_