ML20125B422
| ML20125B422 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 04/21/1970 |
| From: | Deale V US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20125B391 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9212090351 | |
| Download: ML20125B422 (10) | |
Text
- '**'.'9**
48% e.ee * '.. e w e w.
, wu...u, u.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
. - - =. ~
s 6
i g
- ^
....A**
{.. h..
1_ a
...... $..j
.s so 4...
w..
s......... d. s.. e N..
..J
+, N.... g.. g.
a n. Ja.,,s aes
- c... s..
.u.
~
In the h!atter of
)
i
)
NOP.Ti!3RN STATES POWE3 COh'.PANY )
Octket No.
f>0-2 53 i
)
.i Gio:. !ccilo St:'.ct.r Generating Ph.n:,
)
)
o....
.i
..y NOTICE CF 130ARD INTERES'I IN CEftTAIN INSPECTIONS DY DIVJRON OF ('O.\\1?LIANCE t
b l
In keeping with arrcngements nt the preher. ring conference, the 4
6 board is ider.tified the fohwing inspections made by the Divit!on of Cor..p'.:ance for spech'!c covertge in the Regulatory StMI's testimor.y at I
f.
4 the h t. ring: inspections made on Februt ry D.-10,1958,,on Mr.y 27-29, lie.,
nd c r. h* arch 2-3 t.nd 12-13,1970 (ccc Appendix A, Supplement
'. s'...o A10 Regulatory Staff Safety Evalua:!on). The foregoing in-f.
...; ion scc.s t.v.ncmitted orally yesterday to counsel for the Rep:atory 9
l I
j S;s.!!.
ATOMIC SAFrTY AXD 1.'.CEN3!NG E7ARD
/
./
Dy:
/
. $5.k$' ?f /.'.',, a
%'<g,n,$
Vt.Jer.:!nc B. Dea'c, Cht!rtr.aa D :.t e d :. '.":- s '
- t c... D. C.
....,.., 5,:.
r 9212090351 700426 hDR ADOCK 05000263 PDR
9,,.,
m R
Q l
UNITED STATES 013 AMERICA i
ATOMIC EllE110Y dOMMISS10N In the Matter of
)
4 4
)
i NORTi!EP,N S"'ATES POWER COMPANY )
EUDPOENA i
i
)
50-263 (Monticello Nuclear Generating) l i
Plant, Unit 1)
)
The United States'of America to:
' l W. B. McCool, Secretary of the United Sta.tes Atomic Energy l
]
Co'mmission or such representativo as he may appoint.
You are hereby commanded to appear at the hearing to be hold on the application of Ngl.'thern States Power C.ompany for a provisiona3 oporating license for Monticello Nuc1 car Generating
}
t M.
.t Unit 1 at Minneapolis, Minnesota on the 28th day of April, s
j 19'/0 at'10 o' clock in the forenoon and to bring with you to produce as evidence at said hearing the original inspection documents relating to the Atomic Energy Commissjon, Division of Ilcactor Licensing Inspection of Construction of the Monticello Nuclear Ocnerating Plant, t
Unit 3 and quality assurance program of applicants plant.
b l
WITNESS, the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Doa.rd designated by the United States Atomic Energy Commission to hold this hear $ng.
f Dated this
_ day of _
, 1970.
l 4
i II!) O nt 3 De ' B. DealO ~
~
Cm b n, Ano:c.ic~ Safety and 1,1 censing Board 1(cquested by:
William J. llennessy Attorney - for Intoryt-ner Minnosotn' Env.i ronmental-Cont,ro) C3tizens Assoc $ation m._,_.
-n
-.n.-.~.-
tr. r. 3... ),. n... g,.........,,.l3 3
- s..
1
/a.,...,.,. 6, )..
0,.,.,. n n.,,'
e... 2 c.....
Xn the !!: t,00/ of j
3.'0 Man'.I 8% yid 3 P01!!3.00;iMill Dochet No. 50-iT>3 (l':.ntico13o lhteker 0 aerotins j
PlcutUait1)
O_D..F_.Y.T.. 7.0M....H. O...F C...O..N10D i
i I herchy certify (Set ecgica of ):07/0!: OF TMpD IUT.0E:211101't.TNCI i
)%3Pl;0TIO:3 )Ti i:fv1GIU.i 07 005/TFJ'0;' auted !,*pil 21,1:/70 in tha c:Ottenoa 1.etter 1r;vo bara rcry:0. en the folly: Int; by G.reait in th9 Ur.ited St.tes 4
i mil, first c.loca os (1r 1.n11, thin M.ut day of / ril 1970:
G Yaicatina D. Detna, )?c%, Chir.'m1 Corol/l 0"nt.rnoff,12q.
I
/.te:da.Onfaty on3. Lictec;b)O Toara ChW, Plihtml, Pottu, 'baWrlCCO 1031 Oc:cnacticut.'.vM6, ii. U.
cud 1buden Wito SM 910 Davtaite.?N.h Strpebg !!. it.
r l
Dathh'steu, D. C. 20335 Ucchin3tm, D. C. 233D>
Jrno P. 01esco:1, Mag., Altomti.tu Donn10 P. M'.'hca, Ftq., Vice Presid Chat:v.a r.nd 0:.wava Co.':.nel
/.te:11t! DuMy raa Id.cchblut; )b :ra liarth*;m Ctntes Power Oc.g my
).ru h a,1ln ~?,t.rc.uh 6 OM:sen hih Ute:a M's Hall Y
a
.ul.Os );cetr11.1o P.P.:o Ul.imcapv110, Mhmneta 5'101 I
llethvine, !!r::y!'.e.o k'.032
!!r. D. F. )M1.roy, Vico Prenf 6:nt -
i l
Dr. Je% 0, 0:yce, U:minena ragJn'.wir :
Ik;t.trt: mt c.? Opp;;nyhy r.nd Hovlhwa Str.teo Pote? Cu.. pay Divj.re:n.mt: 1 T".r lu:.r.rin ;
blh Eleoll. t Un n
'ihe Mr.a 117,nhina laiv::.faity 1;bmceplig !!inuedote. Wh01 T/Atinvc, ISeyle'd FDMit l
Dr. n. H.. rr, Cecyctr;ty (M n
R.'. Epsma 0:vt.dinn
)Macntive ef.01e m '
l Proforcer er l'/y.iico Gtc.to .vprLroat of )te:dth ruha l'alvavoity U aive n icty or,,u:3 Duct.1, Ucrth 0:elollua 07p$ -
Mirm;q. air:, U:r:.:::ote. WhhD Dr. Ho*Lf P?ic :ra Chici, yr.irM /.1 u Om.mincie,t i
Eqnrhant of 01111 Imrb a? ring 137 M:.to Offlev luil<2iur, t
Utvfev2 M.v.'mMy Ut. Itu?.,1;h: caota 53101 Gt:nIcra, OnM.n..M r f E,0 cm.W.t.cyr ell Cru:;nyvatica
'i'.V/ JJ.*J P. Tr.O.';YY.J!dtj 7':h Otht'.! Of Uhn. Tate, DD30*vt*'::DD DeG&.:t:::;; Dbt:C Or?... :1 of Oxacinti:n U. S. /M.nis ) Mar;y Cer.t. calc.)
Db. Pun; U%u. :30ta 5,'D')1 WQD :Jea, D. C. E0Jhs 1
., m m.
,-._.n.-
.u...
4 p,
.-3 p-i.<.13 ymo e
.h.
)!onur:Glo )M tom l'. TrXen.'. r 1:enero.1'em;.th )W.c.'n, T.v.oCwo Govcunt *, U^.:'.19 of IR:m notn l'e p h t se ra 0 : c e.a )'veir.c t t St. Nul, liittr.captn W101 D:p.'xte. nt of Ti';'alen Un!.voraity cf 111r..ic*.otn 1!onorthlo 7, J. T4trthel, Chairen litt.ne: solu,1:it.nasotn MbM Uricht Co'.mty }): ara cf Cec.tionie: ara 3x.frelo, l.:hmconta $313
- 0. IVhert Jehmen, Ect!.
Special Annittent Lttwncy Cencral
.}
Rw. Pad.11. ntutren, Proc.Wct Str.to of liinaccota Iti.un:cota ).'nyktorc.rcotal Ccabrol 717 Iniwaro Strc:.t, G. U.
~ '
Citi/. tao At:nocle.tica IMit:ecolin, !! inn:cota Zbb0 25 Ex.t b:d mn:c Utreet q
8t. Pmtl, liinnecota $101 11r. !!!ho D:ctr.huc I
- 11. H. 3 Elh )llvci*, lit,tnenot.2 3330 4
a i
J
/,,
/..s -
r,
,. /f/W
t: ** C 0 ll.1%:~f o
. r. -
bbf Co,DI I-)IU e3CDsdh8M[
cc: 1v. D:nle l'. }la;;oDmvat x
IN. Yovo 1
II. )f.9mt lt. C:Lth f
h i
i i
1 (3
O i
j Innediate Problems Associated with Providing F8nticello Inspection Reports i
~7 t
1.
Danino Effect a.
Each Cmpliance report makes copious reference to other in-tornal reports of the AEC (as well as reports frca the appli-cant and its contractors) relating to this reactor. Because these are referred to in the Cappliance nports that would be released, these too would inve to be released.
i b.
Inspection reports contain many references to specific AEC i
internal documents and meetings which describe significant 1
l problems at a ntniber of other facilities and are relevant to this facility.
i 1
4 i
c.
Sane of the documents in these flies make reference to dis-cussions with the ACRS and in at least one instance a par-ticular member is identified with the question asked by the ACRS. These discussions identify problem arcas and related ACES questions. It should be anticipated that as a minimum the referenced ACRS documents will be demanded.
i i
~
d.
If the Compliance records are released in this case, can a request for all ACRS records be far behind?
2.
Changing Regulatory Requirements l
Reports make specific references to recently developed Canp11ance internal manual instructions for conduct of inspections. 'Ihe in-structions did not exist _for earlier inspections for this plant 4
and open up questions as to adequacy of earlier inspections.
For example, some of the QA criteria may not have been met (by this plant) during the earlier periods of construction.
\\
3 Sources of Infonration l
Reports identify names of sources of information. This may subject each such individual to examination during the hearing; and he may be in trouble with his supervisor because he furnished cer-tain infonnation.
4.
Subjective Evaluations j
Reports contain subjective co::rnents and opinions of inspectors (e.g., one inspector identified " startling" deficiencies). Sub-jective evaluations of named individuals and organisations are-made with respect to their perfonrance and capabilities.
3 i-w e
(3 Q
5.
Infonration out-of-Context _
a.
Reports identify and describe many technical problems related to safety. The evaluation and significance of this informa-tion is set out in other internal documents prepared in the review and decision inking process of regulatory divisions.
}
Without tre latter infonration, the adverse and negative infonnation in the report is incctnplete.
b.
Ccrupliance reports, by definition, deal with and emphasize deficiencies and problem areas related to safety. The net effect of exposing these reports to public scrutiny could alann the uninformed.
6.
Code Variances Reports refer to infonrol internal criteria used by the regulatory staff to evaluate tho acceptability of certain ccarponents within the pressure boundary which do not meet applicable current in-dustrial ccdes (%ble "A").
7 Delay of Monticello Hearing a.
It is estimated that about two weeks time and about 40 to 50 man-days (CO, DRL, and CGC) will be required for the AEC 4
to review the reports and to prepare the 15 AEC witnesses for cross examination.
.j b.
Many of these AEC people are already heavily involved in.
other pending cases.. To the extent their time is taken up in this proceeding, other urgent work will have to slip.
7hus, there is a direct effect in delaying other cases, t
c.
These reports and the reference documents will undoubtedly furnish the intervonor the basis for extensive cross exami-nation.
If the cross examination, by the intervenor, is i
thorough, it will take many weeks; further delaying the ASID
-proceeding.
(
8.
Proprietary Information Uk)e reports contain some infonintion identified as proprietary N
by the licensees or his contractors. On the other hand, some infonnation obtained by inepectors might not have been identi-fled as proprietary to the inspector but might be considered as-such by'the licensee or his contractors. A complete review of the reports by the AEC staff and by representatives of the f
N <
w=*mem s
o 3-applicant and his contractors m uld be necescary to identify and delete this kird of infonnation frcm the reports. 7his also would contribute to a delay.
9.
Vendor Inspections Scne of the reports contain the results of inspections of vendor shops where reactor components are fabricated. Results of these inspections are censitive in that the identified deficiencies have wide applicability to other facilities. Since the results i
of these inspections often reflect adversely on the vendor's per-fonnance, public digelosure of these reports could be damaging to the vendor's competitive position.
'\\'
e 4
4 4
g 't,1%41 9
j t
G to j-
. u e. w n. w-
. ~, ~.. e u
..n--,
l f~,
O
~
}
F1fects of Public Disclocure of Cornpliance 1
Inspection Reports on Future Operations of the Ocmpliance Program 1
1.
Sources of Infonction Public disclosure of the sources of infonction contained in re-
- j ports would likely result in the drying up of these non al sources
.,j of infonction in future inspections, particularly when the in-J formation is adverse or negative. Licensees, contractors, vendors, i
etc. now furnish infonstion essentially on a relatively open i
and candid basis.
4
}
'l
2.
Inhibiting Effects _
Public disclosure of adverse infonction contained in reports and other internal documnts would tend to limit the content and value of inspection reports prepared in the future. Inspec-j tors would be inclined to be less candid and to overly qualify
]
matters in their reports.-
3' j
3 Inspection Techniques I
Revelation of Compliance inspection techniques and field instruc-i tions could detract from the effectiveness of future inspections, j
11.
A_ ccess to Vendor Infonction Access to reactor component vendor shops and to infonnation from vendors would be severely diminished.
At the present time, the i
success of the program for inspection of the applicant's quality assurance program and fabrication records depends largely on the cooperation of the vendors.
Public disclosure of deficiencies j'
found in vendor shops may affect his cooperation and candid dis-closures in the future because such disclosures may affect his ability to get.other business.
5.
Access to Applicant's Internal Audits I
_ The success of the quality assurance inspection program depends, in part, on getting the applicant to make independent inspections and assessments of construction practices of his contractors and vendors.- Results of these audits have been available to Canpli-i.
ance inspectors. Candid disclosure of the results of_these re-l Views-and appra.isals would undoubtedly be inhibited in the ibture because they point up mistakes, errors,-and deficiencies on the part of the company involved.
p l
l 3
i
_ _. ~.
..... ~.. -....... -.. -. -......
(y O
2 6.
Program F.frectiveness l
'Ihe Otrapliance inspection program has been operated on the as-sumption that the inspection reports and other internal documents are not made public (Part 9). A decision to change this policy would require substantial restructuring of the Ccrapliance pro-I gram and would probably result in a decrease in the effective-ness of the methods of obtaining and reporting and evaluating information.
The effectiveness of the inspection program depends on the ability of the inspector to obtain accurate and full infonnation. 7his is now accomplished in large part by the inspectors establishing a rapport with certain key individuals to get full and required infonnation for AEC evaluation and decision making. Once a public disclosure precedent is made, new methods will have to be estab-lished to get access to information, more fortnal requests and formal replies will result, and the overall effect will be the use of more inspection manpower and effort.
i i
1 1
4 b*
4-+A9e<w=
a
p.-.2-
~.
- ---- =
1 c.
7 Reasons 7b Comply With Tbc Subpoena 1
4 1.
AEC public relat$ons - consistent with the gold fish bowl -
j enchances AEC credibility.
2 s
1 i
2.
She possibility that under the Freedom of Information Act a court micht order these records released.
i 3
Possible alternatives to the disclosure of the reports:
l Sunmary statencnts of each inspection and AEC witnesses to a.
testify with respect to each statement. Ubis would have to I
be acceptable to the $ntervenor and the applicant.
l b.
In camera disclosure of all the reports. The intervenor, once having seen something he thinks is helpful to his case, will want to.use it at the hearing. Thus, it is unlikely j
that public disclosure will be avoided.
N 4
i I
i 1
I i
f J
2 i
y,
.. - -