ML20079H690

Petition Per 10CFR2.206 to Defer Judgment or Decision on Proposed Course of Action for Completion of Facility Until Suppl Created for Record of J Keppler 831215 Briefing.W/O Encls

ML20079H690
Person / Time
Site:	05000000, Zimmer
Issue date:	12/14/1983
From:	Devine T GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT, MIAMI VALLEY POWER PROJECT
To:	Asselstine J, Gilinsky V, Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20079H682	List: ML20079H680 ML20079H690
References
NUDOCS 8401230600
Download: ML20079H690 (3)

Text

. _

f 1E=e fer Ociin Sr.:ciier

• itO' 00e kree:. N.W,. Wesr: gren. D.C. 20009 (202)234 9052 December 14, 1923 .

Hencrable Nurrio PElladino, ' Chairman .'

H:ncrable Victor Gilinsky H:norable James Asselstine Honorable Themas Roberts . .

Honorable Fred.erick Bernthal United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission tashington, D.C. 20555 .

Dear Commissioners- . .

Pursuant to 13 C.F.R. 2.205, the Miami Valley Power P~roject (MVPP) petitions the Nucicar Regulatory Commission (NRC) to defer any judgment or decision on the preposed Ccurse of Action (CA) for completion of the Zimmer Nuclear Power Station until the reccrd created by Region III Acministrater James Keppler's. December 15, 1983 Cc= mission briefing is supplemented by--

1 a Ccmmission briefing by whistleblowers nominated by MV?P from Bechtei Cer;: ration nuclear projects such as the Three Mile Island (TMI) cleanup and Diabic Canyon, where 5echtel has assumed major remedial responsib-  :

ilities; public release of the pending report by the Office of Investigations on

. 2.

the Zimmer Nuclear Station; and 3.- public ccaments by all inte'ested r parties en the record created by Steps

1. and 2. above. ,

In support of this petition, MVPP attaches and in:orporates as Exhibits 1 and 2, its 0:tober 31,1983 and December 5,1983 public comments and related sttachments on the proposed Course of Action. The catalyst for MVPP's petition is widespread =

reports that the ' Commission will determine the edequacy of the Course of Action'en the basis cf. a seriously incomplete public record.

Five re:ent events mancafe' full deveic; ment of the record to avoid losing any remain-ine cubiic lecitimacy, both for Zimmer's ccmpletion as a nuclear project, and for the NRC's credibiiity as an. effective regulator on behalf'of public health and safety.

p I. MAJOR CHANGES IN ASSLHPTIONS TO EVALUATE THE COURSE OF ACTION Mr. Keepler's decision rostponing approval of the Cour'se of Action 'if the Kaiser Cer; oration were retained as constructor confi?med the seriousness of MVPP's related allegations. Inexplicably, however, Region I!! has voiced ne. objection to' Cincinnati. Gas and Electric's (CGLE) retentien of Kaiser for one of the most ser.sitive assi:nments at Zimmer--cuality verification of werk covered by the

1. e-icar .5::isiy cf v.e:hanical Engineers ( ASME) c:de. As a resuit, acc':un a b-

. y 3y' te sacrifice: where it is needec mest.

8401230600 840110 PDR ADDCK 05000358 Q PDR

.w , w ,, ,e, -,-..g y -e..- . . . - - - - - - - - ,--,-.,n.-- -+-a, m,,,,,..,,-, -

,,,,-,,,.-r,

,,-,--,-m ,,e,,, ,-,-,,

w

ecenc, and even more significant, 3cchtti's nc=ination as constructor creates a

retter ccnflic

cf interest in the project than existed in February when the Cc :ission rejected, on the same grounds, 5echtel's nomination-is man,acement aviewer. The Ccmmissien should not censicer sudh a tajor brEtk frca precedent si ncu a ff.ly developed reccrd on the relevant issues.

1 II. 5!GNIFICANT EVIDENTIARY DISCt05URES FROM;THE PUBLIC On December 5,1983, MVF? presented a majer disclosure indicating that the same 5echtel abuses it has predicted for the Course of Action may have occurred this year in a similar remedial verification program at Diablo Canyon. MVPP alleged tha.t Bechtel p' articipated in a massi.ve effort to manipulate engineering conclusions in that plant's design verification program--through personnel transfers an.d ratal-iation, destruction of engineering calculations that rejected hardware, and falsification of calculations logs to erase all references to engineering revisions that did net produce the desired result--approval . The result was to transform engineering reviews that had been failing pipe supports at a 50 percent rate into justification for accepting "nearly all" of the , disputed hardware.

Further, MV?? released.an analysis of Bechtel's ecs: estimate for completion of the lic er project. The sechtel study highlights. the effects that may occur from Bech el's conflict of interest and confirmed :ne wors fears of Zimmer critics--that it represents an atte=pt est~entially to accept the plant "as is." The study

. assures tha there will be no hardware imsact or repairs generated by widespread viciations of NRC regulations for design centrol, controi cf vendors, welder cualifica:icns, welding precedures, and anythina connected with inaccessible or, buried harcware. The effect .would be to cecimate the significance of 10 C.F.R. 50, A;;end.ix 3, the NRC's own cuality assurance regulations. Cdmmission approval of

ne Course of Action would endorse the effective surrender of quality assurance, unless seme ex raordinary basis for Bechtel's assumptions is identified after the' record is fully developed and thoroughly evaluated.

II. CG&E'S ABDICATION FROM.PUBLIC DISCUSSION ON SAFETY ISSUES RELEVANT TO i .E ATORIC ENERGY ACT .

CG&E's oft-announced intent to shave the 5echtei cost estimate further confirms

-hat the util.ity is even more compromised by financial. conflict of interest *.than 3echtel. ,

Escent ;ubite anncuncemenks . raise even grea er cuestions about CG&E's jucement. To i".ustrate, ir a November 10, 1953, le- er (Exhibi- 3), Mr. Williams deciIned to carticica e i . a community forum on Zimmer's future. He justified the decision, in part, because of his belief that, "I think it .appa rent to ai) discerning interested parties tha: the issue of safety is no longer a valid one." That amazing statement sacrifices any remaining credibility for CG&E's judgment. It also defines cut the relevance of any public discussion of ' matters covered by the Atomic Energy Act. In licht of Mr. William's position, the rationality of CGLE's position,. and its .

ccree:ence as stewcrd of the Course of Action, could cnly be restored by unexpected

1. f. cine.s in :ne epcc=ino. re"ecr of the Office of Investigations.

• l. 5:EsKCOWN IN p23LIC ACCOUNTABILITY

." s :ece.:e- E, 1533, cublic :0 ment, "'/:: recuestec a -itei) rescense sc 3;

• * : ~ .' c " f e ~ ' "i w h e* P e r : er '.ega.I ir :a:"ces **'I IE .ecessiry c previ..

s;gn-i t .

l l

L

• . M practices from being sacrificed to CG&E's tims and cest-cuttina pricrities" (Exnibit 2, at 12). Mr. Ke;pler did not reply at all, _nct even t5 ackn5wledoe

. receipt of the letter. J Indeed, there has be:n a total absence of'NRC-sponsored ,

u public' participatien

-itted by CG&E. since Kaiser was removed and the Course c'f Action was resub ,

K??? firmly believes that "5echtel's" Course of Action is even more eminous than the " Kaiser" version. Under these. circumstances, the Commission should ,not permit already token public participation to be replaced with n_c, o public partici.pation on tha revamped preposal .

MVP? petitions to fill this voic through publicly briefing the Cc=ission en the lessons learned at other Bechtel projects, such as TMI and Diablo Canyon. Whis.tleblowers from those plants,' who are represented by MVpP's counsel, have agreed to participate in such a forum.

V. SIGNIFICANT UNRESdLVED OUESTIONS ABOUT MR. KEpPLER'S IMPARTIALITY The absence of ongoing public participation was Mr. Keppler's decision. It is particularly ominous in view of his own previously demonstrated bias in favor of 5echtel's involvement at Zim er. Last Fall , Mr. Keppler reccmmended to the Ccmmission acainst a s_hDtdewn, partially on grounds that it wculd not be necessary if 5echtel arrived. The Ccamission wisely rejected his position. Last Fall, he also held ex carte meetines with CG&E and Bechtel te co0nsel them how to obtain Bechtel's approval as manage ent reviewer of Zimmer. The Comission wisely rejected Mr. Keppler's eventual recomendations for such approval . This Fall, there have been new unresolved allegations against Mr. Xeppler by James McCarten, his former lead investigater at Zimer. The charges were so serious that en November 15, 1983, the City of Mentor, Kentucky, moved the At mic Safety and Licensing Board to or.-der an investigation of, inter alia, material false statements by the NRC staff (Exhibit 4 ). On November 22, 1983, MVPp recomended that Mr. Keppler be removed from.

acproving the Course of Action (Exhiliit 5).

Under these conditions, it would be untenable if Mr. Xeppler monopolized the

. factual record on which the Ccmmission's decision would be based. Even Bechtel should not disagree with this premise. As Bechtel's Vice president, Howard ',,'ahl ,

stated in its December 8,1953, press conference, "Certainly Sechtel, Zimmer's Owners and the Nuclear Regulatory Comission want to know where there ray be -

problems so that they can be promptly addressed. The " whistle-biower" has every possible avenue available to bring concerns to management and the NRC. All.~of these concerns will be promptly and completely evaluated and corrected." '

Ur.fertur.ately, the whistlebicwers have not had any avenue available with the Cc .-ission since 3echtel replacec Kaiser at Zimmer. MVPp urges that the Ccmmission listen te the public anc tne whistleblewers,as .well as the staff, before making any i final judements. The decision on Sechtel and Zimmer's Course of Action is extremely serious., Ecth for pub' Tic sa fety and for the Cc= mission's legitimacy: It should not be based on 7 public record that ignores the most significant, relevant facts for the decision. -

. Respectfully submitted,

/?'A //)V*

Themai Devine Ccuns ei ic- Miaf VEU sy %-er Prcject u.ac- s. s 7_ _.-._ m_ _ . . , _ _ , . _ _ _ _, _ - _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ . . - . , . _ , _ _ - .