ML20091G803

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Responds to Re Region III 830929 Approval of S&W to Conduct third-party Const Implementation Overview of Const Completion Program.Nrc Intends to Monitor Effectiveness of S&W
ML20091G803
Person / Time
Site: Midland
Issue date: 11/15/1983
From: Rehm T
NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To: Garde B
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT
Shared Package
ML17198A223 List: ... further results
References
CON-BOX-09, CON-BOX-9, FOIA-84-96 NUDOCS 8406040364
Download: ML20091G803 (2)


Text

7 hp N.

k DISTRIBUTION Dircks j

I Roe Rehm (2)

Hbf OM GCunningham NOV 151993 RDeYoung, IE PP I T ! PM iTf 7 HDenton, NRR 4^ M9F ED0 13676 Ms. Billie Pirner Garde O,[^.

Government Accountability Project

?/t EDO R/F

\\.

Keppler, Region III Institute for Policy Studies 7

l 1901 Que Street, N.W.

.7 n

Liebermann, ELD h)

[

VStello Washington, DC 20009

Dear Ms. Garde:

This is in response to your letter to James Keppler, Administrator of Region III, October 14, 1983 regarding NRC Region III's September 29, 1983 approval of Stone and Webster (S&W) to conduct the third-party Construction Implementation Overview (CIO) of Consumers Power Company's (CPCo) Construction Completion Program. Your letter expressed disap-pointment with the nomination of S&W by CPCo and the NRC acceptance of S&W.

Your concerns related to the independence and competency of S&W have been 7

previously addressed in Mr. Keppler's September 29, 1983 letter to CPCo and in the October 6,1983 decision of the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, on your 2.206 petition (00-83-16). While you apparently dis-agree with our approval, I see no purpose to be gained by restating here the basis for our approval.

However, your statements concerning public participation require a response.

The nomination of a fim to conduct the CIO was the responsibility of CPCo.

In carrying out our regulatory responsibility of determining whether the nominee had the requisite competency and independence there was public particip. tion. You are well aware of the meetings GAP and others attended i

prior to our acceptance of S&W.

In our view the meetings held on August 11, 1983 were particularly effective in obtaining public input. The comments made at these meetings and in your June 13, 1983 petition were considered l

by the staff in reaching our favorable determination.

The fact that you might disagree with our decision on S&W does not mean there was inadequate public input. To suggest, as you do, that there was not a " scintilla of public participation" in the process by which we accepted S&W, appears somewhat disingenuoos and in conflict with Mr. Thomas Devine's Oe.tober 31, 1983 letterwherehestatedthat"[a]tMidland, Region III took a major step toward restoring the NRC's credibility with a public that had been misled for years" (page 11).

I j

g 6 g 64 840517 NOV 211983 i

RICE 84-96 PDR t

t,. 6 -'

<N s

We intend to monitor the effectiveness of S&W. The monthly meetings between S&W, CPCo and the staff to discuss the progress of the CIO will be open to public observation and should permit you to assess the performance of S&W. Any comments you provide will be fully considered.

l i

Sincerely, L

(Signed) 7. A,Behe T. A. Rehm Assistant for Operatiors Office of the Executive Director for Operations bec:

J. Stone, IE t

D. Eisenhut NRR D. Hood, DL/NRR J

1 t

i 1

l i

j j

  • SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE SHEET l

l REVISEDINEDOOFFICE11/8/83(PAV) 4 OFC :0 ELD *

EDO i

NAME :Lieberman Rehm f.....:........./cb:

l l

i DATE :11/4/83

11/14/83 il

)

i l

4

.