ML20062H767
| ML20062H767 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/10/1980 |
| From: | Chong L AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | Strickler J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTOR & AUDITOR (OIA) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19344E167 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8008270560 | |
| Download: ML20062H767 (4) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
LEIG. WON K. CHONG I
i a i. _ -c At Law 464. WEST BROADWAY NEW YORK. N.Y.10012 ax=== r== uzwT.
u.s. PATxwT & Ta.astwaan omcz July 10,19'30 r
ex
+
L Mr. Jerry Strickler Office of Inspe= tor and Auditor, LA-1200 U.S. N---1==~ Regulatory Ccn=sission Wych %gtca, D.C.
20555
Dear Sir:
?crther to our discussion by telephone regarding NRC investigation of alleged deficient construction practices at the Shoreham 50-322/79-24 I a=1 writing in response to your request for a summary of
,, nuclear plant,the gro nds for our criticism cf the investigation as being a " whitewash".
~
20, 1980 to James Allan, Deputy doing so I refer you to my letter of May Di. rector, Region 1, ce=menting on the scope, methodology, and findings of I:
m l
the i=vestigation conducted by,Dr Charles Gallina and other. tC personne.
Since you have indicated that your office is not prepared to review the I confine the itemization below to the te M r='
issues of the report, of the report rather than its contents.
circ.r: stances
- Although we provided Dr. Callina with all of the starting material for the investigation, we were excluded frem participation in or knowledge We therefore have no direct evidence that Dr. Gallina de-of its progress.
liberately u=de_ ined the investigation in order to produce a sanitized re-However, the following circu= stances indi-port fave_able to the licensee.
frustrated care that be, either deliberately or as a matter of agency mindset, and candid investigation of the allegations:
a f-a-2, Dr. Gallina did not take effective steps to develop contacts vith at least half a dozen other witnesses whom he was advised =ight provide infor-1.
By refusing to provide adequate assur-
=atic= on ecastruction deficiencies.
ances er to create an atmosphere of protectiveness for workers to feel en-couraged to r.zhe disclosures, he effectively cut off any possibility of ob-
?>%%g info =aticn from these and other potential witnesses.
He breached his agreement to preserve in confidence the identity of Jock MrCrystal, a former worker who provided leads on persons likely to be 2.
knowledgeable cf defects, from the persons whom P.r. McCrystal named.
Dr.
atte=pred to excuse this breach by noting that Mr. McCrystal received
< = 11 Nm l
L8 0o811o560
. July 10, 195D Mr. :. Strickler substantial publicity for his testimony on ccnstructica defects in a pricr there is no necessary connecticn between the cc=rt proceeding.
- Eowever, testimony and the identification of persons fcr the inve stigatien.
pric:
During the i=vestigatien, Dr. Gallina stated to me tnat a majcrity 3.
of the allegatio=s could be confirmed as having occurred, although many cf
~
He th'e deficiencies did not,in his opinion, have a safety significance.
also stated to Mr. McCrystal that 62 imprcper welds cf the ty Mr. McCrystal Dr. Gallina's repcrt on the in-identified had been found.
In contrast, ve'stigation concludes that no basis to substantiate any of t}ie allegations was found, and it cites as infractions only two of the welding defects Mr.
McCrystal idenWied.
Some of the allegations, notably welding defects and the failure to 4.
follow pres =ribed concrete curing procedures, were in fact confirmed by thei 21, Sa avoided crediting the allegations in h s inWes'tigation.
However, Dr. r:
report by the artifice of explaining that the deficient parts or practices l
could meet applicable design standards.
The overall thrust of the allegations is that sloppy practices and work deficiencies are com on occurrences at the construction site. By focusing en the sufficiency of individual problem areas which were located, Dr. Gallina sidestepped the question of overall construction practices and the catcld deficiencies which may exist but were not located.
I Dr. gam 6's findings on allegation No. 30, regarding intimidation 5.
and pressure en w=rkers not to disclose information, is totally at odds with Dr. Gallina was aware of the the circu= stances as they exist at Shoreham.
threats and unlawful actions directed at Jock McCrystal and John Everett, the He two ccustruction wcrkers who came forward with internation to the NEC.
alio knew that " 7 of the other witnesses who were contacted insisted that they remain anonymcus and not meet with him because their jchs and physical Furthermore, given the acknowledged reality of practices safety were at stake.
at nuclear c=nstruction sites, the fact that Dr. Gallina received not a single call in response to his invitatien for worker disclosures shows that, the con-Dr..Gallina's spiracy of silence through intimidation at shoreham is absolute.
suggestion that the lack of response means that the project is defect-free makes a mockery of his role and the NRC's function in the investigation.
In additien to the above circumstances, the shallowness of the investigation l
methodology =akes it clearly evident that less than diligent effort was applied to resolve he issues raised by the allegations.
In many cases Dr. Gallina relied for the =ost part upon the licensee's paperwork and the glib statements of its==ployees and subcontractors to rebut the allegations without actually To the extent the methodology
~
testing the subject areas of the allegations.
of the investigation requires technical analysis, these areas n'ust be more carefully considered by review of the office of Inspection and Enforcement.
e
3-
. 22y 10, 1980
..r. J. Strickler w
Please let re know if you have any cuestiens en the above er if there is any further infer =ation I can provide.
Sincerely yc=rs,
~
u Lefchten K. Chong I.1C:mir Bonorable Den Ebcua, U.S. House of Representatives cc:
Cc==ittee on Science and Technology John Ahearn, & = 4 mmn U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cam 4sion 9
e G
'e.e o
e d
e e
5=[.~. QQQ_~
K'M CIT *
- '~ O. T." ' '.
COMM13 4 :.:. ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOl.OGY EE
~~~.~
C ' y-_ t _ g,=gQ,
13.5. HOUSE OF R.EPRISENTATIVIS
"". " ";.C~
^-'*fX,-
- LT_Q ~
su: z=n nasunn Hous or72 2m.trsius C7 C
P.X
, Q~ O '""*-
WAsHIN GToN. D.C.
2.T.s m - --
-June 12,1980
~
.j g.
--g g -
.a.
- =,"- ~ "."..,
~
llll:: L* *-
" **r.: L Tr r.L.'."w".;f. "
~.
.j-4 Leighton K Chang. Esquire 464 West Broadway New York, New York 10012 year Mr. Chon2 Thank you for your letter of May 27, 1980 advising me of your assessment of the
. Nuclear Regulatory Comission's investigation into the alleged construction defects at the Shore:.am Nuclear Power Plant.
In essence, I understand your assessment to mean that the NRC has investigated your claims in a circumspect manner and, as'a result, did not substantiate your charges.
.2-We have contacted the Nuclear Regulatory Comission to seek their response to your criticis=s. They have advised me that they are reviewing the appropri-
. ateness of the scope, methodology and findings of their report pursuant to your
..- rer. arks in your letter to Mr. Allan dated May 20, 1980.
I would hope that their
-review adeg:ately responds to your comments.
Your criticis=s'of the NRC investigation an'd report often involve presumotions, wfiich may or rzy not be correct, as to the methodology used in evaluating your claims.
If correct, I do believe that further investigative action by NRC is necessary to a.ssure that a thorough inquiry will have been'made into.this matter.
I will be looking for the NRC response to your May 20, 1980 l etter, which I am re-questing fros the ERC with a copy of this 1etter to the Chairman of the Consission.
Thank you again for providing me with this follow-up information.
~
S~carth, DON FUQUA
~
Chairman DF/Vm cc: John Ahearre, Chairman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Honorable John Wydler He=ber of Cons ess i
t I
=
1
f.
~
LEIGi TON K. CHONG A: ro=,<sv Av uw 454 WEST F,RCADWAY
,NENV YORK. N.Y. toot 2
-=,==e.
L'5 "' * * * ~ * ***
May 27, 1980 RECEIVED
-:- 2,onorable von Fuqua Co:=ittee en Science and Technology t U.S. House of Hepresentatives UN-3 @
Suite 2321 Raybuni House Office 3u11 dins
.J /.<J 6 -e
- aashington, D. C. ~ 20515 cogyMTEE ON SCIEN,
- ~
AND TECHNOLOGY Dea-Sir:
This is to advise you of developments subsequent to ry letter of January 10, 1980 regarding a' legations of defective
... construction at the Shorehan Nuclear Power Station in Long Island,
- New Xork'.
As you say know, the Nuclear Regulato y Co-4 ssion hais
~
recently issued its investigation report which concluded that it could find no basis to substantiate any of the thirty alleg-ations.
A careful rev4 ew of the report shows that the investig-ation was se-iously deficient and biased towa-d absolvins LILCO.
For your information, I enclose,a copy of our response to the EEC repo-t detailing the failures of the investigation in its
- so.cpe, nethodolc57, and substance.
At the risk 'of seening repetitious, I state once as;ain that the history of shoddy construction practices at Shorehan, which the a7 7 e =ations only highlight, casts a doubt whether the reacter s%en can be operated without a major accident.
7ne NEO resocnse to these early warning signs has been and in
=11 ' Welihood will continue to be lackadaisica.1 in the absence of a ste n nessage of Cons essional oversight.
I stronsly urse you a=d the nenbers of your Co--*ttee to review this situation and to take cor ective action while it is still possible.
I would app sciate your making copies of this letter and the enclosed document available particularly to those senbers of your Cc-4 ttee from New York.
Sincerely yours, 2
Y
%, /%
un 1