ML20091G968

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Responds to Re Allegations Concerning Facility. Ofc of Special Cases Formed in mid-Jul 1982.Allegations Referred to Ofc of Investigations
ML20091G968
Person / Time
Site: Midland
Issue date: 10/12/1982
From: James Keppler
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To: Garde B
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT
Shared Package
ML17198A223 List: ... further results
References
CON-BOX-09, CON-BOX-9, FOIA-84-96 NUDOCS 8406050008
Download: ML20091G968 (4)
v • d • e


Text

_ _.

Mjn=r==*v

.4 up.9 UNITED STATES s

.i -

.\\,

, NL EAR CECULATORY COMMISSION 8

o mEGION 818

. l-vos moossvsLT moAo i

(

l otsN sLLYN,ILUNo18 s01D OCT 12 882 3

Government Accountability Project l

Institute for Policy Studies AITN Ms. Billie P. Garde Director Citizens Clinic for Accountable Government 1901 Que Street, NW Washington, D.C.

20009

Dear Ms. Garde:

I have reviewed your September 6,1982 letter to me and appreciate the opportunity to respond to your concerns.

The Midland allegations submitted by the Government Accountability Project earlier this year have been forwarded to the NRC's Office of Investigations for review and investigation. Region III will provide technical assistance for the investigators on the case.

Your consnent that the special inspection team "has not arrived" is simply not true. The Office of Special Cases was formed in mid-July 1982

.and the selection of personnel was made at that time. Robert Warnick is director of the new office and Wayne Shafer is chief of the Midland Section. They have been actively involved since then. I understand from Mr. Shafer of my staff that you would like to meet with the Midland Section personnel. I certainly encourage thase types of meetings and urge you to schedule a meeting when it is convenient for both you and my staff.

One point needs to be clarified. I did not organize the Midland Section to perform investigations. They are performed by the NRC's Office of Investigations, and all investigators formerly assigned to me now work for James A. Fitzgerald, Acting Director, Office of Investigations. Region III continues to perform technical inspections and provides technical support for OI as requested. Inquiries about investigation policies should be addressed to Mr. Fitzgerald at the NRC in Washington, D.C.

Regarding the Zack Corporation problems, you are esite correct that the i

LaSalle plant has had priority over Midland. Many of the problems, however, have generic applicability to all the sites where the Zack Corporation is involved. As the investigatics at the LaSalle plant and Zack corporate l

j office continues, many of the generic problems that could apply equally to the Midland site are being reviewed. specific Zack problems at the j

Midland site will be investigated as manpower availability permits. The l

Consumera Power Company investigation of the Zack allegations will not be a substitute for the NRC inquiry; we intend to both assess the adequacy of the Ccusumers Power investigation and continue our own investigation of the allegations relating to Midland. We have set January 1983 as a i

l tentativt date for completion of the Zack investigation. Until the l

investigation is complete, we will not be able to discuss the findings.

8406050008 840517 PDR FOIA RICE 84-96 PDR

(

/

h..

covernment Accountability Project 2-OCT 1 2 E2

!j As I am sure you know, the Systematic Appraisal of Licensee Performance

/

(SALP) Program is an assessment of licensee performance based on input from all the inspectors involved in inspections with the licensee.

The SALP rating in Support Systems, 71, applied only to Consumers Power Company's quality effort, not to the Zack Corporation.

j You may wish to discuss this with the Midland Section when you meet with them.

NRC procedures require that the licensee be provided the opportunity to i

respond to the SALP findings, and the meetings we have held with Consumers Power are to fulfill that requirement.

Regarding the question of why Consumers Power Company did not report the Zack QA breakdown to the NRC in the fall of 1981, the documents provided by another alleger revealed that Consumers Power and Bechtel concluded that the problems would not have adversely impacted the safety of operations at the Midland plant.

The basis for this decision will be reviewed during our site specific inspection at the Midland site.

i t

The NRC became aware of the Zack Corporation problems in October 1981 when i

l the Commonwealth Edison Company submitted a 50.55(e) report.

I have made no decision as to whether an independent audit of Zack work will need to be conducted at the Midland plant.

is presently selecting one or more independent contractors to perform anConsume independent third party review of a critical plant system or subsystem.

In addition, Consumers Power plans to have an independent contractor conduct an INPO type construction project evaluation.

My decision regarding an independent audit of Zack work at Midland will be based on the findings of our investigation and special inspections and the scope and Yindings of the licensee's third party independent assessments.

Regarding the interview with one of the allegers whose affidavit was presented to NRC by GAP, as you stated, the interview was taped.

My staff has reviewad the transcript of this interview and noted no discussion regarding whether or not this person could 30 to' the site to assist the NRC.

Some of the alleger's concerns have been looked at by our Region III welding specialist.

The balance of the allegers concerns will be addressed i

either by investigation or special inspection.

1 i

{

Our policy for taking personnel to the site is well known.

i

)

The information provided by this individual is being reviewed by my staff. When our review

)

is completed he will be contacted by the NRC and requested to accompany l

us on site.

)

i I

t I

f 9.

e'

-w

,,,w,-

,c- - - - - - - - - - --- - --

a

,-v--o-

---a

,----w-+

4

~-

Government Accountability Project OCT 1 2 E3f Regarding the Bechtel Employee Inventions and Secrecy Agreement, form 3002, we view this document as a standard form used by companies to protect the company's proprietary information and inventions. I have no knowledge of anyone being fired for *= mas to the MRC, with this document used as a i

basis for dismissal.

Effective later this month, new regulations will ba in effect requiring licensees, including nuclear construction mites, to post notices informing employees of their protection against discriminatics for providing information to the NRC. We will review the Bechtal form and its use further to determine if the workers' perception is that it prohibits discussions with MEC personnel. Certainly, the new posting requirement may help alleviate any perceived intimidation for workers desiring to provide information to the NRC. A copy of the required posting, NRC Form 3 j

is enclosed.

l In closing I want to personally assure you that the NRC is diligently working on the allegations that have been presented to us by CAP. I am sure that GAP wants our office to do a complete and thorough inves-tigation and that is exactly our intent, but this is tir.c consuming. We must assign our priorities to the most safety significant issues and I consider the Midland Remedial Soils Rffort the most safety significant issue at the site. As priorities dictate, all relevent safety issues will be investigated.

Further, we sincerely do perceive our role as representatives of the public interest and certainly do not feel constrained by the utilities' tinhtables. Similarly, we should not feel bound by timetables called for by other interested individuals or organisations. This region has taken and will continue to take, appropriate and decisive action when problems are identified at nuclear plants.

I' 1

Sincerely.

l 4

i James G. Imppler Regional Administrator Enclosure As stated I

i bec w/ enclosure H. R. Denton i

l D. C. Eisenhut i

l W. D. Paton R. C. DeYoung

.,,, m n. a w..

~>

n

~

~

1 gfd).............k.........

.......a;.am

=ams).,g ri..s....

...W..a..r.ni.ck.......D..evi

.. 7. 0.r E. 4 "...... W M.........

~~

ggg;;g g iirj

!!!il {ii'ni!! !!

3]

i I

liW!h{lih4!ena mi

!!nli l

Q2M-=

l n~

m!!Id,ili

  • ,.f~lik'!!I,,1 4n h

L m s th !

i!3!

s l 9 li I

T1!Inl!!il!

lillu,lial!sd !! 'la :!!!.

Ol!!!Fibi b

iiti !

i..

n j

.e-I"u,!il!]"11qpN}ip jill iLi! jir I'd ! I8 h Ihfll"l!l!

!jIjW iliti!!!!!illh}""t {

ll!'h!!f i &

L9 ili

%'r4

,,1al v.

n a.

GE l

( ",'

"llIIl}II!

5j/

!!l!!!!((llill!,!:!!l'jN.eal I,, E

!i" v

=

s.

II

!!O 1l.

u,6 e-3:ir i

i r!!!$

l

!N l* !

im I

)

i g

L(M)l$!Nlil!$ll!'

, iW$1 H I' '

l L

n{

~

Bi

~

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTADILITY PROJECT Institute for Polic9 Studies 10"' Que Street. N.W., Washington. D.C. 20000 (202)234 9382 f-----~~'......_.

l September 6, 1982 c,

m3 Y m:...

[

Mr. James Kerpler Director, Region III

[

l-U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

{

.. i~

799 Rooseveit Road

'. ~ ~ ( * - - -

F

- - - - - - - - =

Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137

. ~~ ~5'; f c -,b l.'/t. )

Dear Mr. Keppler:

As you know, the Citizens Clinic for Accountable Government of the Government Accountability Project (" GAP"), the Institute for Policy Studies, has adopted j

the Midland case. GAP investigators have completed an intensive two-part i

investigation into worker allegations on the Midland site. Further, Citizens Clinic staff have worked closely with citizens, local and state leaders, and organizations to determine the level of anxiety and public opinion about the Midland plant. Our findings have confirmed that the plant qualifies for its position as one of the five worst in the nation.

In June of this year I was impressed by your announcement of plans to begin a special investigation team to deal with Midland's intense problems. In a conversation with Mr. Norelius in May 1982 concerning our Midland investigation I requested the opportunity to provide input into the planning of that special investigation team. Much has happened since June 29 when GAP submitted the original set of six allegations to your office. Unfortunately, the arrival of the promised special investigation team has not been one of

'those happenings.

l Admittedly, both GAP and Region III have had an intense workload in the past two months. However, a number of developments recently are of great concern to our clients and the Project. I am taking the liberty of addressing these in this letter, as well as a number of administrative matters. I look forward to your clarification and/or response.

I.

The Zack Corporation as regards the Midland Nuclear Power Station Although your office has expended a great deal of time on the problems identified in the Heating, Venti 11ating and Air Conditioning ("HVAC") system at the LaSalle

. plant, I am not aware of any ongoing efforts at the Midland site. I am aware that Commonwealth Edison's situation at LaSalle has been a priority item in the three-plant examination. It is, however, no longer justifiable to delay an investigation into the actions by Consumers Power Company's Midland Project i

Quality Assurance Department ("MPQAD").

The facts in the Midland case reiterate the lessons of our experiences at i

Zinsner and LaSalle. MPQAD is not an effective substitute for a strong NRC inspection programs instead, as Mr. Terry Howard and the Zack QA Department l-g 1328,

4

.o.-

1 i A A

~ d "2,s-s y'c*- v' *' r T u-3

m

_ =

Mr. James Keppler September 6, 1982 4

discovered, MPQAD is worthless in protecting workers.

If there had ever been a second thought in your mind as to the Consumers Power Company drive to have Midland meet its Dow Chemical deadline, regardless of the bigger price tag it may have for public health and safety, the Zack incident

'should have sealed your conclusions. Not only was Consumers Power painfully i

aware of the Zack QA breakdown after Mr. Dean Dartey exposed the Zack deficiencies in 1980, they were the first. utility of the three affected to be contacted, having an entire month longer than Commonwealth Edison and Illinois Power and Light.

Consumers Power also participated directly in the manipulation of the QA breakdown by supply;ng an employee, Mr. Howard McGrane, to perform an intensive audit. This is a Jickening example of manipulating the regulatory process to serve the utility. I am deeply disappointed that you have not taken the initiative to take appropriate action at the Midland site.

i j

At a recent meeting with Commonwealth Edison over their future handling or the l

Zack allegations, you imposed a third-party audit because you indicated that the i

public has lost confidence in Comed's ability to give open unbiased information to either the NRC or the public about problems. Consumers Power's credibility was destroyed long before the latest Zack incident. This latest event only I

confirms the public's mistrust of a utility caught in a " Catch 22" contract.

(Attachment 1, at 9.)

If the situation at Midland was historical in nature, I would defer this letter to a later date. Unfortunately, the luxury of extra time at Midland has run out. According to our sources, conditions at Midland deteriorate daily.

4 II.

The Systematic Appraisal of Licensee Performance ("SALP") rating debate Consumers Power Company has been quite demonstrative toward your office in regards to the 1981 SALP ratings they received. 'It appears that Consumers' intent is to keep both regulators and public interest groups as busy as possible in defensive positions. Although I have a deep appreciation for their need to I

do so, nevertheless it does nothing toward either improving or guaranteeing i

the construction quality at Midland.

The recent meeting held on the SALP rating debate certainly did nothing to improve the construction quality at Midland, nor encourage utility spokespersons to cease their bantering about the deserved low SALP ratings. Even the local 1

i paper took exception to the NRC's focus on the SALP debate.

(Attachment 2.)

It is our position that the SALP rating in support systems, VI, was totally inaccurate and far too generous. Zack never improved their QA program. They merely agreed to transfer the paperwork responsibility to the utility, which has an even greater vested interest in the outcome of the monitoring of Zack's work. In fact, the bottomline in the zack incident on the Midland site comes down to questions that Region III has not yet asked:

s l

l Mr. James Keppler Setpember 6, 1982 l

1) Why didn't Consumers Power report the Zack QA breakdown to the NRC in the fall of 19817
2) When did the Zack problems become apparent to the NRC (Regional or on-site) following the Dartey investigations? Under what circumstances?

I

3) Will the independent audit apply to Midland also? If not, why?

If it does, under what arrangements?

III. The recent meeting between Mr. Earl Kent, former Midland worker, and Mr. James Foster, NRC Investigator Mr. Earl Kent recently contacted me with concerns about the status of the j

investigation into his allegations about the Midland Nuclear Power Station.

l His concerns are well founded and I have agreed to contact you directly con-i cerning the Midland investigation. This letter represents the joint comments of Mr. Kent and myself.

e Mr. Kent has an impressive and credible background. He has been a welder for almost two decades, rising to a position of respect and confidence among his professional peers. His information is iron-clad. Two months ago, he and

)

l three other workers submitted affidavits on Midland. Last week Mr. Kent made a personal trip to the Glen Ellyn office to check on the status of the investi-l gation into his allegations. What he discovered shocked him. It does not shock me -- I wish it did.

J t

Mr. Kent met with Mr. James Foster. The meeting was taped. During the l\\-hour meeting, Mr. Kent detailed the inherent welding problems at Midland. He detailed I

with diagrams extensive problems with fillet welds and described the inspection l

errors. He explained that his affidavit to GAP was only an overview of the l

problems at Midland and that he was anxious to give explicit details -- about l

Midland, Palisades and the San Onofre plants he had worked on.

However, he l

was told that it would be months before he was recontacted, and only to answer j

specific questior.c that might arise. It is intolerable and inexcusable for Region III to continue to deal with nuclear witnesses as distant observers.

l Mr. Kent volunteered to point out to the NRC on the site the areas where the welding problems were most extensive. Yet, he was told that nuclear witnesses l

can't go on the construction site to identify the problemsl An incredulous statement in the light of the LaSalle worker tours and the invelvement of Mr. Howard and Ms. Marello in the Zack investigation. Finally he was told that Region III would get to Midland when it had time.

Mr. Keppler, if Region III doesn't have time for Midland now, it will be necessary to have enough time for another Zimmer later. I am not challenging your priorities for the past two months. But Midland's problems have to be addressed, promptly and effectively, and I was deeply distressed at the comments I learned from Mr. Kent.

i e

i 4

I I

Mr. James Keppler September 6, 1982 e

I urge you to personally listen to the tapes of the conversation between i

Mr. Foster and Mr. Kent at your earliest convenience. It appears to both Mr. Devine and myself, as well as to Mr. Kent, that an independent audit of the welding problems will be mandatory.

l l

Mr. Kent, as you know, has remained relatively discreet in his public allegations.

He is one of those protected by your confidentiality agreement. In keeping with that, we request you consider this information under his file, or remove his name and any identifying information from it before releasing it.

Further, I have included a copy of Mr. Kent's amended notarized affidavit which he said Mr. Foster did not have.

(Attachment 3.)

l IV.

Bechtel's secrecy agreement As I have indicated to you previously, we have encountered a larger amount of l

intimidation on the part of nuclear workers at the Midland site. This "intimi-l dation," unlike that encountered at Zimmer, is apparently a result of a serious misunderstanding between Bechtel's employees and outside interests in the safety l

of the Midland Nuclear Power Plant.

In researching the problem of workers being fearful of talking to any outsider, whether your agency representatives, GAP, or the press, we discovered that they overwhelmingly believed they could be sued by Bechtel on " breads of contract."

This situation has extreme ramifications for the premise of 10 C.F.R.19 that guarantees protection for and, in f act, requires workers to report safety j

defects.

I understand that you are clarifying this situation. Please address the NRC's position on this Bechtel document.

(Attachment 4.)

l l

V.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Investigators and the Gcvernment Accountability Project For the past two years members of the GAP staf f and your own staff have worked on several nuclear cases. Recently our efforts at Zimmer and LaSalle have l

taken the majority of our Project's time.

Understandably we are often in conflicting positions, representing those internal nuclear witnesses who did not find an effective avenue for their concerns and/or dissents. We believe this is a natural part of the " checks and balances" system of our government.

The Government Accountability Project has attempted to be cooperative and to assist your own investigators, while maintaining a commitment to the ber,t interests of our clients. We do place the public health and safety as our highest priority. Of ten we must ensure confidentiality and protection for GAP's clients and other witnesset, in order to convince them to deal with the government at all. I am convinced that you understand our position, and l

regard it professionally with the best intentions.

1 1

1 m.-

?.

Mr. James Keppler September 6, 1982 i

However, it appears your best intentions may be seriously compromised if your staff fails to perceive their role as defenders of the lublic interes, not the utilities' timetables.

You have been anxious for us to work toward a better attitude on your of forts to improve the quality of investigations. I believe they have improved. The Zack situation was a costly, embarrassing lesson. It has placed us in a difficult position in our dealings with members of your staff. We must protect the witnesses, from poor judgments of your investigators, as well as from the utilities' vested interest.

It's a position we would rather not be in.

Unfortunately, the recent reorganization of the NRC investigators has not yet been clarified. Until it has been I am unsure of where to address specific concerns raised by our clients over individual investigators.

I I anticipate that the administrative reorganization will be explained shortly, and thank you ahead of time for your explanation.

In conclusion, I reiterate both GAP's two-month old plea to get the investigative effort going on the Midland site, as well as my request for the opportunity to make input into the structure. I believe that now, more than ever, new investi-gators from the office of Investigations be appointed to de Midland case.

4 Sincerely,

'O 9 M ' ' br M BILLIE P. GARDE Director Citi. ens Clinic'for Accountable Government BPG/mcy Attachments - 4 i

n m eem a

r

.' j 4

4 d

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20091G968&oldid=4336608"