ML20085K515

Expresses Disappointment Re Release of Draft Study on QA Programs at Diablo Canyon to Licensee.Full Explanation Requested

ML20085K515
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon, 05000000
Issue date:	09/21/1983
From:	Markey E HOUSE OF REP., INTERIOR & INSULAR AFFAIRS
To:	Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20085K448	List: ML20085K488 ML20085K512 ML20085K515
References
NUDOCS 8310200469
Download: ML20085K515 (2)

Text

.

N 4 IssetTY come c0NGA58 ' STANLEY SCOVlLLE 4

$TAFF DIRECTOR MORRIS K. UDAEERIZ CHAIRMAN AND COUNSEL Pmtup suntoN. cAu asAqutt tuJam. A u. antx. ROY JONES E.m'#1b c.u,. ^" ^ " * ' ^ " ' " ' " "

'A"". 3 = to.':F ANTokiO BoIUA woM PAT. GuA .4 Das eaAnasoTT. UTAM COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR ggg gg g(yAgg

= na "'t ='!?"#4";;vo. AND INSULAR AFFAIRS ceasRA' causa IoniIo1YihEuass. TIMOTHY W. GUDDEN satrasan coanaoa. e.n. E4== saan "

coto.==v"EE'IYa'$ * **" OF REPRESENTATIVES U.S. HOUSE RgpusucAN couwsEL

^$*.sclnEi.'wIv4. E v"nu$i. uTan WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515 E[nE,.TTr E E.

x-u = cau E=.Evoc mN.uiv.

7.',"". gl,',,"c " September 21, 1983 l'm"" ANTE.'#^uo.

• "aT*o.'40=

. co EEa^oITOvEra.

'a'ta= A uatin'dw.vt 2 EJ' IITv"In'^5i

- - c,u The Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Dear Mr. Chairman:

On August 9, 1983, the Subcommittee received from NRC copies of three completed case studies concerning quality assurance at nuclear power plants under construction (Marble Hill, Vogtle and Diablo Canyon). These reports, along with three others still in preparation (St. Lucie, Palo Verde and South Texas) are required by Section 13 of the NRC Authorization Act (Public Law 97-415).

This law requires the NRC to provide a report to Congress by April, 1984, on the results of its study of representative quality assurance programs, good and bad.

I was extremely disappointed to learn that theldraft study of quality assurance programs at Diablo Canyon was provided to Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) on August 2, 1983, for " review" purposes. According to a September 2, 1983 letter from NRC's Licensing Division Director, Darrell G. Eisenhut, to PG&E's Executive Vice President, G.A. Maneatis, the utilities comments on the report were to be considered "...in connection with their '

(NRC's) finalizing of the Case Study." Furthermore, your staff has informed the Subcommittee that the licensees of Marble Hill and Vogtle have also been provided with draft reports of their plants.

This matter raises serious questions for the following reasons:

1. The Subcommittee was asked to keep these documents s$ confidential when it was already known by members of your 8L acw staff that a copy of the draft had been supplied to the licensees; nuu gz n, $ 2. Licensees were provided with draft reports -- reports gZ required by an act of Congress -- prior to their being ora provided to Congress; OC' n now oE 3. Comments were solicited on at least one of the draft 5$$

mau reports from a licensee, who was informed that any comments would be considered in preparing the final report to Congress;

.

• Th3 Honorable Nunzio J. Pallcdino Sdptember 21, 1983 Page 2

4. In the case of the study of problems at Diablo Canyon, the NRC's own licensing boards engaged in on-going hearings were not provided with a draft report, which has direct bearing on current proceedings, until one month after the utility had been provided a copy of the draft report;

5. The intervenors in the Diablo proceeding, who have raised the issue of the competence of design and construction quality assurance, were not provided with a copy of the report until one month after the utility received a copy and only after a copy was formally requested from the utility and the NRC under discovery procedures.

As you are aware, the Subcommittee is engaged in an on-going investigation of the NRC's " relationship" to licensees. As I have indicated in numerous correspondence in the Hayward Tyler matter and at the Subcommittee's recent June 20, 1983 hearing on NRC investigative practices, I believe that NRC's continuing pattern of sharing draft material with licensees under scrutiny is improper and has the potential of compromising agency objectivity. I therefore request a full explanation of the circumstances which led to each of the issues detailed above. Additionally, I would like to be provided with a detailed listing of all comments on these draft reports received from licensees and what changes NRC made in response to these criticisms.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely, EDWARD J. MARKEY Chairman, Subcommit ee on Oversight & Investigation EJM:jwd