ML20085K512

Expresses Concern Re Release of Draft Repts Concerning QA at Nuclear Power Plants to Licensees

ML20085K512
Person / Time
Site:	05000000
Issue date:	09/22/1983
From:	William Ford SENATE
To:	Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20085K448	List: ML20085K488 ML20085K512 ML20085K515
References
NUDOCS 8310200467
Download: ML20085K512 (2)

Text

,

n ~

WENDELL H. FORD cowurrrass.

. MEN'UCKY COM MERCE. SCIENCE

, AND TRAN!PORTATION ENERGY Abs 0 9)Cnifeb 21afes Senafe "-a ^' ""*u ac" RULES AND WASHINGTON D.C. 20510 ADM INIST RATION September 22, 1983

Dear Mr. Chairman:

As you well know, yesterday Representative Markey, Chairman of the House Interior Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation, released three Nuclear Regulatory Commission. draft reports on case studies concerning quality 4 assurance at nuclear power plants under construction (Marble Hill, Vogtle and Diablo Canyon) . These reports were required by Section 13 of the NRC Authorization Act (P.L.97-415),

otherwise known as the Ford Amendment, and were specifically requested by the House Subcommittee. The reports were handed over by the NRC with the caveat that they were confidential and were not to be distributed to other parties.

Despite this particular warning, however, the licensees of the three plants involved had already received from the Commission a copy of the draf t report of their respective facilities.

I would like to make two points concerning the release of these documents and would like your comments on each.

First, regardless of the f act that the Markey Sub-committee made a special request for them, I would think that as a matter of course the NRC would send copies of any draf t reports released for any reason whatsoever to the authorizing committees and to me as author of the amendment.

None of the just mentioned parties has received the three drafts, l

l Second, and more important, I find exceedingly question-able the practice of issuing to licensees for reviou and comment the draft of any document that examines their performance. While it is clearly not forbidden by NRC rules and regulations, such action suggests extremely poor judge-ment on the part of the Commission and gives the appearance of compromised objectivity. We will, of course, never know if the NRC would have changed its comments in response to industry criticism, but the suspicion arises.

1 1

l l '8310200467 831007 PDR COMMS NRCC l CORRESPONDENCE PDR I

DISTRICT OFFICES: 305 procnaL Bostoiws 172-C Nrw FEDrn*L Burtoiwe 19 U.S. PocT OwCE awo CounTwoust 343 WALLan Avenus Owt=ssono. KEnru wv 41301 LouisviLLs KENTuca? AC102 CoVINGTON. KENTUCAT 41011 Lamwevow. KrN"UCMT 40504 (606) 491 7919 (502) 685-51$4 (634) 133-4484 (502) $82-42$1

d  %

t e

The Honorable Nunzio J., Palladino September 22, 1983 Page 2.

Given the serious and f ar-reaching problems of quality assurance and quality control in the nuclear indus try , and the lack of public confidence in nuclear power in general, I find this entire incident to be intolerable.

The purpose of the Ford Amendment was to upgrade QA/QC at nuclear f acilities under construction and to encourage more ef fective use laf inspections and audits by. independent industry and institutional organizations. My ultimate aim was to make nuclear energy safe. How can anyone be assured that these goals are being reached when the process leading to them could appear to have been compromised?

I look forward to your full and complete answer at the earliest possible date.

Sincerely yours, J Y The Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555

.