ML20064K168

Comments on Scope,Methodology & Findings of IE Insp Rept 50-322/79-24 Re Allegations of Const Defects at Facility. NRC Should Correct Deficiencies & Consider Larger Implications of Labor Practices & Qa/Qc Deficiencies

ML20064K168
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	05/20/1980
From:	Chong L AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Allan J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
Shared Package
ML20064K144	List: ML20064K165 ML20064K168
References
NUDOCS 8010090124
Download: ML20064K168 (11)

Text

-

v=.- immoca.ccov

~~

LEIGHTON K. CHONG

. m.._ m ar s ,

g 4e4 west BROADWmY N EW YOR K. N.Y. HXM 2 m .rs. u ,r.

u.a. mar =wr a vaan=aaaa o'==

, May 20, 1980 James M. Allan, Deputy Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission .

631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406

Dear Sir:

Thank you for forwarding a copy of NRC Investigation

~

Report No. 50-322/79-24 concerning the allegations of construc-tion defects at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.- I have revie.wed the report an6 would like to cc= ment on its scope, methodology, and findings.

From our earliest contacts in providing information on the defects to Dr. Charles Gallina and other NRC investigators, j we have tried to impress upon the NRC our belief that the prob- '

lems at Shoreham reflect more generally the failure of LILCO's _

project management to implement the stringent labor practices and exercise the supervisory control required for defect-free construction of the nuclear reactor system. This failure is implicitly acknowledged by LILCO in explanation for the soaring cost overruns and delays to completion of the reactor, was noted in the Booz-Allen study done for LILCO in 1978, is docu-mented in monthly contractor summaries and trend analysis reports showing repeated deficiencies and low worker productivity,.is the subject'of investigation by the Public Service Commission of New York,.can be inferred from the variety and depth of the defects alleged, and appears to be common knowledge among the workers themselves when speaking privately or anonymously.

However, the point seems to be lost with the NRC which, according

, to Dr. Gallina, "does not get involved with labor problems."

l The myopia of the present investigation report, which looks only l

to s'pecific pieces of hardware without regard to the context of the allegations, underscores ever more clearly the urgent need for a complete physical inspection of the construction thus far and a review of quality control procedures and documents by an independent and objective consultant, in order to determine whether the Shoreham reactor has been constructed or can be com-pleted in a condition which ensures the public safety.

Moreover, the methodology of this investigation shows that the NRC is unwilling or irrapable of taking the action l

8010090MY .

~*

.%... -,. , ,~ee-~ =*w ==e=-- * * * " ' " - ' ""

Me em8*

' ~

- T- n: saias ces.csev LEIGHTON K. CHofG Y' ATTOsteesv AT LJh5.

464 WEST BROADWAY

,NEW YORK. N.Y.10o12 n ..v 4. n.

E**"'*"****"*"""'** May 27, 1980 Honorable Don Fuqua RECEIVED Committee on Science and Technology U.S. House of Representatives N-3 E Suite 2321 Rayburn House Office Building s 6g Washington, D.C. 20515 COMMITTEE ON SCI AND TECHNOLOGY

Dear Sir:

This is to advise you of developments subsequent to my letter of January 10, 1980 regarding allegations of defective construc_ tion at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station in Long Island, New York.

As you may know, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has recently issued 1:;s investigation report which concluded that it could find no basis to substantiate any of the thirty alleg-ations. A careful review of the report shows that the investig-ation was seriously deficient and biased toward absolving LILCO.

For your information, I enclose a copy of our response to the URC report detailing the failures of the investigation in its scope, methodology, and substance.

At the risk of seeming repetitious, I state once again that the history of shoddy construction practices at Shoreham, which the alleptions only highlight, casts a doubt whether the reactor sy$em can be operated without a majcr accident.

The NRC response to these early warning signs has been and in all likelihood will continue to be lackadaisical in the absence

. of a stern message of Congressional oversight. I strongly urge you and the members of your Committee to review this situation and to take corrective action while it is still possible.

I would appreciate your making copies of this letter and the enclosed document available particularly to those members of your Committee from New York.

Sincerely yours,

/A- Lin.

l l

l .

1

. g . .._;. ,

L.-

~ ' O. -

".#.:=1:L  ::::':'::::'c::'

"2.::=l:.O.'""-

"OL '"" -r *""- '=l:.'.=

A" -

'I.S. COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY a = 7u- =

d~ Mh,,,,,, EEg( U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES "'"

lllll" '_7 ""

l",." " ", :".",,7, ,, surrs zm mynuM HOUSE OmCIBUR.ZNh4 E' a" "ll! ".

.""".T" , , .i *:".'.' "'"

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20515 r a. C vv.=

~~~

CO

,g _. C ,

lEE "'"

.m -

June 12,1980 ll:::tW -

--i."""'""

a r.u e Ja.a

" ~l,,7 "'- .

a-m Leighton K. Chong, Esquire 464 West Broadway New York, New York 10012

Dear Mr. Chong:

Thank you for your letter of May 27, 1980 advising me of your assessment of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's investigation into the alleged construction defects at the Shoreham 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.

We have contacted the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to seek their response to your criticisms. They have advised me that they are reviewing the appropri-ateness of the scope, methodology and findings of their report pursuant to your remarks in your letter to Mr. Allan dated May 20, 1980. I would hope that their review adequately responds to your comments.

Your criticisms of the NRC investigation and report often involve presumptions, which may or may 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 assure that a thorough inquiry will have been made into this matter.

I will be looking for the NRC response to your May 20, 1980 letter, which I am re-questing from the NRC with a copy of this letter to the Chairman of the Commission.

Thank you again for providing me with this follow-up information.

I S cer ,

DON FUQUA }

l' Chairman DF/Vwm cc: John Ahearne, Chairman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Honorable John Wydler Member of Congress w , e *-

e

~ ' 23y 10, 1980

y. . J. Strick1cr Please let ::e kno

• if you have any questions en the above or if there is any fu:ther infor=ation I can provide. .

Sincerely yours, Leighton K. Chong IJC:mir cc Bonorable Don naqua, U.S. House of Representatives Co:cittee on Science and Technology John Ahearn, rh=4 m m U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Commission

.e an>

' 1,t e

a 9

,l l

• t I

(

1

July 20, 1980 2-

'Mr. J. S:richict substantial publicity for his testimony on constructicn defects in a prior court proceeding. However, there is no necessary connection between the prior testimony and the identification of persons for the investigation.

3. During the investigation, Dr. Gallina stated to me that a majority of the allegations could be confirmed as having occurred, although many ~

He of the deficiencies did not,in his opinion, have a safety significance.

also stated to Mr. McCrystal that 62 improper welds of the type Mr. McCrystal In contrast, Dr. Gallina's report on the in-identified had been found.

vestigation concludes that no basis to substantiate any of tlie allegations was found, and it cites as infractions only two of the welding defects Mr.

McCrystal identified.

4. Scae of the allegations, notably welding defects and the failure to 4

follow prescribed concrete curing procedures, avoided were in fact crediting theconfirmed allegations by inthehis i' nWes'tigation. However, Dr. cm114n=

l report by the artifice of exp1=4n4ng thatThe theoverall deficient partsoforthe thrust practices allegations

' could, meet applicable design standards.is that sloppy practices and work defi

~

l construction site. By focusing on the sufficiency of individual problem areas which were located, Dr. Gallina sidestepped the question of overall construction l

i practices and the untold deficiencies which may exist but were not located. ..

5. Dr. Gallina's findings on allegation No. 30, regarding intimidation and pressure on workers not to disclose information, is totally at odds with the circumstances as they exist at shorehim. Dr. Gallina was aware of the threats and unlawful actions directed at Jock McCrystal and John Everett, He the two construction workers who came forward with information to the NRC.

aliio knew that many of the other witnesses who were contacted insisted that they remain ar.onymous and not meet with him because their jobs and physical safety were at stake. Furthermore, given the acknowledged reality of practices at nuclear construction sites, the fact that Dr. Gallina received not a single call in response 'to his invitation for worker disclosures shows that,the con-Dr..,Gallina's spiracy of silence through intimidation at Shoreham is absolute.the lack of re suggestion that a mockery of his role and the NRC's function in the investigation.

In additien to the above circumstances, the shallowness of the investigation methodology makes it clearly evident that less than diligent effort was applied to resolve the issues raised by the allegations. In many cases Dr. Gallina relied for the most part upon the licensee's paperwork and the glib statements I

of its e=ployees and subcontractors to rebut the Toall6gations the extent the without actually methodology testing the subject areas of the allegations.

of the investication requires technical analysis, these areas must be more

' carefully considered by review of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement.

4 9

, . - - ,,, ---