ML20133C600
| ML20133C600 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 10/28/1983 |
| From: | Garde B GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT |
| To: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20132B649 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-84-722 NUDOCS 8507200536 | |
| Download: ML20133C600 (6) | |
Text
\\
.' GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT Institute for Policy Studies '
1901 Que Street..N.W., Woshington. D.C. 20009 (202)234-9362 October 28, 1983
- Mr. William J. Dircks beecutive Director for Operations United States Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 7.-
Dear Mr. Dircks:
~
On October 24 you responded to an October 6 letter which the Government Accosntability Proj ect (CAP) wrote to the Chairman of the Comission on behalf of current and former workers at the Catauba nuclear facility $n South Carolina. Your response indicates a number of misperceptions which hopefully vill be clarified by this letter.
My request to Chairman Pall dino was for an Office of Investigations investigator to conduct or supervise the investigation of allegations about and evidence of violations of the Atomic Energy Reorganization Act, including but not limited to deliberate subversion of 10 CFR Appendix B by Duke Mtnagement harassment and intimidation of quality control inspectors,.an institutionalized practice of construction and Quality Control supervision verbally overriding reported non-conforming conditions (NCI's),
a breakdown in the design control syste=, a'nd vurker information about falsification of records, destruction of documents, cheating on qualification tests, direct inter-ference with verkers' contacts to the Commission, substitution of unauthorized proce-dures for correct construction corrective actions in order to meet cost and constructioq deadlines, and numerous specific hardware concerns which impugn the overall integrity of the construction of the Catawba facility.
Ihese concerns are not =ine, as you indicated throughout your letter, but rather the concerns of dozens of nuclear workers from the Catavba facility.
Some of these workers have agreed to provide information to the NRC for an investi ation and/or 5
inspection at the urging of GA?; however, the greatest majority of workers we have t'alked to are not interested in providing information to the NRC. The'ir perception,
~
as indicated in my letters, is that 'hll roads lead back to Duke" Tour letter indicates, somewhat argumentatively, that you have "no comparable hesi--
tancy in vouching for the integrity of Region II with regard to their pursuit of safety-related issues or in taking proper and appropriate steps to provide confiden-j tiality." That position vac fortified recentiv bv tha merit bonus given to the Region II director.
8507200536 850524 l
PDR FOIA DELLB4-72D PDR Mr. Dircks, I understand that my request to the c)c=ission for a special investigator I
placed you in a difficult position. As the responsible supervisor for Mr. O'Reilly I
and his staff I e=pathize with your need to be loyal to your employees when their integrity and credibility is under attack, as Region II clearly is in this matter.
That is precisely one of the reasons that I initially pursued an informal series of neetings with the NRC since the spring of last year.
Unfortunately the rapidly deteriorating state of af fairs at Catawba and the failure of the NRC to take ans action until co pletion of an Of fice of Inspector and gd or
(01A) investigation lef t t:e no options but to formally Howevor, clearly undcretand that thtre is nothing in the 2.206 request which was aquest specific reliof.
4 i
mant, or CIA investigators.not either explained to or historically available to me
}
Your staff those to put the burden of proof of construc-tion flaws, a QA breakdown, and deliberate Duke violations on SAF - an organisation with technical and investigative resources incomparable to the NLC's.
, chose to ignore or postpone dealing with company infotsation which became available Your staff through discovery in the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board hearings.
those to ignore the informal communications about the worsening situation at Catawb Your staff in favor of the " ostrich syndrome" which caused these problems in the first place.
i I hope that the briefing you requested on the background of the 2.206 request and 0
the October 6 letter included the fact that the first meeting I requested with the Commission was with you - personally, and that that request was made at the urging of a Congressional aide who believed that your office would recognize the need for
[
i=sediate appropriate action.
l Your,.lgter imples that CAP has become a bottleneck to information about Catawba 9
i getting to the NRC from Duke, and I am deeply distressed by that perception.
j j
CAP has always and will always urge workers who have concerns they wish to be
(
investigated to go to the NRC.
Two weeks ago, in fact, CAP mailed a letter to over 300 l
QC/QA inspectors to insure that they knev (1) their rights for protection from re-prisals and harassment, (2) their avenues of redress, and (3) the importance of giving information to the NRC.
I have included a copy of that letter for you. As you can see I encourage workers to go to the NRC first - as I do in all of my investi-gations.
Ironically, the focus of your letter seems to be my responsibility to pass on information to workers in contact with me about the A:omic Energy Act and
[
the DOL provisions and to urge them to come forward so their information "can be promptly evaluated and... corrective action initiated."
These statements' reveal either a total misunderstanding of the Catauba situation, or hopeless naivete about the agency inspection / investigation process.
To summarize, the workers at the Catauba site have been trying since at least Dececher 1980 to get the NRC to investigate substantive charges of harassment. and intimidation, violations of co=pany construction and quality assurance procedures, 4
and f aulty work =anship.
The NRC has consistently turned those charges back to Duke
[
and lef t the workers to fare the best they could.
To exp et or even imply that I can or should somehow convince them to now trust the same inspectors or investigators p
)
that have let them down consistently is ludicrous.
That is why I requested the Chairman to take unusual and exceptional action to provide an investigation team which I can honestly represent to these workers as credible and sincerely interested j
in.the pursuit of the real Catauba proble=s.
\\
Ycur language to defend your staff is understandable, but the issues of concern to f
n2 are (1) the as-built condition of the Catawba plant, and (2)the removal of an M
ctuosphere of fear and harassment from the site.
I am interested in moving as quickly as possible through our own investigation and then on to cooperate with yours.
Havever, let there be no misunderstanding that (1) the bottleneck for the information ycu wish me to provide has been Region II, (2) that this information could have and chould hate" been investigated by the NRC years ago, and (3) as a result of the agency's etntinuous foot-drsgging the workers have lost total confidence in the agency as oither capable or villing to investigate Duke Power Company.
1 I suggest that you personally review the docu=entation available to the NRC in 'etail before you are so quick to defend your staff and ignore the substantial problem f acing your agency, dB E b
(
Cattvba is 85% complete and Duke is rushing toward a license in a few
,7 The plant has a prima facie quality assurance breaMovn, and the as built months.
/
is indeterminata, condition q
i
.\\
i
's e
. Respectfully, Billie Pirner Carde Director, Citizens Clinic e
Encl.
e I
t f
l 1
3 e
ll
//of//
t
/ GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT 4
institute for Policy Studies '
1901 Que Street..N.W.. Woshington. D.C. 20009 (202)234 9382 October 28, 1983
- Hr. WiIliam J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations United States Nuclea'r Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 t
1.-
Dear Mr. Dircks:
On October 24 you responded to an October 6 letter which the Government A$cosntability Project (CAP) wrote to the Chaiman of the Commission on behalf of current and former workers at the Catawba nuclear facility $n South Carolina. Your response indicates a number of misperceptions which hopefully vill be clarified by this letter.
My request to Chaiman Pall dino was for an Office of Investigations investigator to i
conduct or supervise the investigation of allegations about and evidence of violations of the Atomic Energy Reorganization Act, including but not limited to deliberate subversion of 10 CFR Appendi.x B by Duke Management, harassment and intimidation of quality control inspectors,.an institutionalized praccice of construction and Quality Control supervision verbally overriding reported non-conforming conditions (NCI's),
a breakdown in the design control system, a'nd worker information about falsification of records, destruction of documents, cheating on qualification tests, direct inter-ference with workers' contacts to the Commission, substitution of unauthorized proce-dures for correct construction corrective actions in order to meet cost and construction'
- deadlines, and numerous specific hardware concerns which impugn the overall integrity of the construction of the Catawba facility.
These concuns are not eine, as you indicated throughout your letter, but rather the concerns of dozens of nuclear workers from the Catawba facility.
Some of these workers have agreed to provide inforr.ation to the NRC for an investigation and/or inspection at the urgina of GAP; however, the greatest majority of workers we have t'alked to are not interested in providing information to the NRC. The'ir perception, as indicated in my letters, is that 'h11 roads lead back to Duke" Your letter indicates, somewhat argumentative 1y, that you have "no comparable hesi--
tancy in vouching for the integrity of Region II with regard to their pursuit of safety-related issues or in taking proper and appropriate steps to provide confiden-tiality." That position was fortified recently by the merit bonus given to the Region II director.
Mr. Dircks, I understand that my request to the Cnm=ission for a special investigator placed you in a difficult position.
As the responsible supervisor for Mr. O'Reilly and his staff I e=pathize with your need to be loyal to your employees when their integrity and credibility is under attack, as Region II clearly is in this matter.
That is precisely one of the reasons thet I initially pursued an informal series of neerings with the NRC since the spring of last year.
W Unfortunately the rapidly deteriorating state of af fairs at Catauba and the failure of the NRC to take anv action until completion of an Of fice of Inspector and gd yr
~ l i
(OIA) invcstigction lof t te no options but to formally roquest spocific reli f M:vever, clearly undcratand that th:re is nothing in the 2.206 request vbich wa a.
not either explained to or historically available to members of your staff, ment, or CIA investigators.
tion flaws, a QA breakdown, and deliberate Duke violations on S with technical and investigative resources incomparable to the NRC's.
zation
, chose to ignore or postpone dealing with company information which became Your staff through discovery in the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board hearings chose to ignore the informal communications about the worsening situat Your staff in favor of the " ostrich syndrome" which caused these problems in the first the October 6 letter included the fact that the first aseti 3
of a Congressional aide who believed that your office w e
i= mediate appropriate action.
Tour letter iLplu that CAP has become a bottleneck to information about Catavba
~
i getting to the NRC from Duke, and I am deeply distressed by that perception.
CAP has always and vill always urge workers who have concerns they wish to be investigated to go to the NRC.
Two weeks ago, in fact, QC/QA inspectors to insure that they knev (1) their rights for protection from re-GAP prisals and harassment.
giving information to the h7C.(2) their avenues of redress, and (3) the importance of I have included a copy of that letter for you. As you can see I encourage workers to go to the NRC first - as I do in all of my investi-gations.
Ironically, the focus of your letter seems to be my responsibility to pass on inforcation to workers in centact with me about the DOL provisions and to urge them to come forward so their information "can bethe A pronptly evaluated and... corrective action initiated."
Tnese statements' hopeless naivete about the agency inspection / investigation process To su=marize, the workers at the Catauba site have been trying since at least December 1980 to get the NRC to investigate substantive charges of harass =ent and intimidation, violations of co=pany construction and quality assurance procedures and f aulty work =anship.
and lef t the workers to fare the bestThe NRC has consistently turned those charges back to D
}
they could.
To expect or even imply that I can or should somehow convince them to now trust the sa:e inspectors or investigators that have let them down consistently is ludicrous.
That is why I requested the Chairman to take unusual and exceptional action to provide an investigation team which I can honestly represent to these workers as credible and sincerely interested in.the pursuit of the real Catawba proble=s.
Your language to defend your staff is understandable, but the issues of concern to ne are (1) the as-built condition of the Catauba plant, and (2)the re= oval of an atmosphere of fear and harassment from the site.
I am interested in moving as quickly as possible through our own investigation and then on to cooperate with yours.
Esvever, let there be no misunderstanding that (1) the bottleneck for the information y u wish me to provide has been Region II, (2) that this information could have and chould have been investigated by the NRC years ago, and (3) as a result of the agency's ccntinuous foot-dragging the workers have lost oither capable or villing to investigate Duke Power Co=pany. total confidence in the age I suggest that you personally review the documentation available to the NRC in detail before you are so quick to defend your staff and ignore the substantial probb.m f acing your agency.
/D W ff
o The plant has a e facie quality assurance breakdownCata ew months.
is indeterminate.
and the as-built condition
. Respectfully,
%~
Billie Pirner Garde Director, Citizens Clinic
)
\\
Incl.
i l
i t
i i
l l
e t
e
rdM
'n
.(.f.'
. VI
. 50VERNMENT ACCOUNTADIUTY PROJECT p*
/ w kl 7
lesatv:o for Pocy Stuches.
- Pih p(/cd 1901 Que Street. N.W.. Woshington. D.C. 20009
$.S.-
dM 202)234 9382 January 26, WiEB U it R Honorable Chairman Nunzio Palladino Honorable Victor Gilinsky Honorable James Asseltine I
Honorable Thomas Roberts Ho:orable Frederick Bernthal i
~ Tnited States Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Comissioners:
I The Government Accountability Project (GAP), the Palmetto Alliance (Palmetto), and th Carolina Environmental Study Group (CESG), joined by Mr. Harry Langley, Mr. Howard
{
Sa=uel, Nunn, Jr., Mr. Ron McAfee, Mr. Nolan Hoopengarner, and other confidential witnesses, request that you take imediate action in the Catawba Kuclear Station (Catawba) operating licensing hearings to enforce the articulated policies of the Co=ission concerning the cond'ct of operating licensing hearings.
u It is our belief that both the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff (Staff) and the Chairman of the Licensing Board have seriously misinterpreted, to the detriment of the public health and safety, seve'ral Statements of Policy issued by the Comission
[
to give guidance on both the conduct and the objective of the operating licensing
' hearings.
We have appealed directly to the Commission on this matter because of the 1
apparently irreversible position of the Licensing Board to close the record on nurarous serious safety issues, on January 31, 1983, 0 without considering some of the most directly relevant information available to it.
In particular, neither the Office of Investigations (01), the Staff counsel, nor the Licensing Board itself, I
have taken steps to insure that the Licensing Board will receive the highly relevant infarmation being developed in two parallel inquiries being conducted by the Office
~
of Inspector and Auditor (OIA) into misconduct by the Region Il personnel who violated Commission policies regarding protection of witnesses and failure to enforce 1/ Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLSP No. 81-463-01 OL), P.emorandum and Order Confirming Closing of the Record and Schedule for Filing Proposed Findings,.
acember 30, 1983.
C/ / / A
/<OU-1/27..To OGC for Appropriate Action..Cpys to: RF, Docket /c[//
u E00. 84-0088
/ 7 u(Of u nu (
fr-E
,'To The'iomissioners January 26, 1984 I
1974 Consnission instructions to Duke Power Company (Duke) to establish an independent quality control (QC)/ quality assurance (QA) structure for both the Catawba ar.d McGuire nuclear projects, and by 0! into harassment and intisindation of welding QC inspectors by Duke Catawba management, and the deliberate actions by Duke to
. circumvent the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, for the establishment of an independent QA/QC department.
.We request that you take the following actions:
1.
Review the stated views of the Chainnan of the Licensing Board of the Catawba 4
proceedings that it is the primary instruction of the Comission to the Ca'tlwba Board to finish the proceeding by the fuel load date for Catawba, regardless of important safety issues for consistency with the Commissions Statement of Policy on conduct of Licensing Proceedings, 46 Fed. Reg. 28533; and 2.
Direct OI to promptly apprise the Licensing Board of the findings and material evidence at the conclusion of the ongoing OI investigation pursuant to the
~
" general duty of the HRC Staff to inform the Board of matters what are material to the issues in controversy so that informed decisions can be i
made." Statement of Policy on Investigations and Adjudicatory Proceedings,
~
l 48 Fed. Reg. 35358, August 10, 1983.
d I.
' BACKGROUND f
Catawba is a two unit nuclear reactor being. constructed near Rock Hill, South l
Carolina by Duke.
Both petitioners Palmetto and CESG are legal intervenors in the operating licensing proceedings. Rtitioner GAP is an independent public in-j terest organization conducting an investigation into allegations of worker harassment and intimidation, a pervasive QA breakdown, construction and hardware de'fects, and inadequate regulatory oversight at the Catawba facility.
Petitioners Mr. Nunn and Mr. Langley are former workers at the Catawba facility, who have tes.tified in the ASLB hearings about concerns of shoddy workmanship, poor manage-ment, and safety-related technical issues.
Each petitioner has taken individual steps to insure that the construction and potential operation of the Catawba facility are done with care, cuality, and with primary concern for the public
, ealth and safety.
h y.
For example, Mr. Langley raised concerns in 1978 about the continuing practice of craf tsman, to ignore the instructions of QC inspectors.
Also in 1978, he 24//
}
(
t,
" 'To The Corrnissioners January 26, 1984 protested the abuse of authority by the Catawba QA manager to override or ignore nonconforming conditions reported by inspectors such as himself.
More recently, Mr. Langley told NRC investigators about the fraudulent training seminars con-ducted at Catawba, which raise questions about the adequacy of those workers. His Affidavit describes:
Each' week of school we were given a test.
In order to become a certified welding inspector, we were required to pass each test....
In the second week of the class, the day before we were to be given the test, the answers and a copy gf the test appeared in our notebooks after our normal break.
From 'chen on, every week, the day before the test in later afternoon, a copy of the test and the answers would appear in our notebooks.
Everyone of the 12 of us received the same test and answers.
Mr. Nolan Hoopengarner, a former Catawba worker, has raised multiple questions since 1978 about worker safety issues, excessive' waste, disregard by Duke of its own construction procedures and NRC requirements.
Mr. Ron McAfee, a former ele,ctrical QC inspector at Catawba, left the job site in 1979 because of the demoralizing, dangerous, and disorganized state of the construc-
~
tion project.
Situations like the following " yellow ribbo~n" incident convinced him that Duke had -no intention of following proper procedures.
...had called us to inspect, meaning that the work should have been completed prope rly.
Mr. Land told us to mark whatever we found that was wrong (we tied yellow ribbons to those items). We found literally dozens of problems; the cable tray room was filled with yellow ribbons and when Land and one of his bosses came in and saw it, they both got very upset.
They promptly fixed the errors and removed the ribbons.
No documentation of these mistakes or the corrections was made.
Mr. Howard Nunn, removed from service a few months ago, raised technical issues ii) an h camera proceeding before the Board.
His most serious allegations--regarding laminations in the steel containment plate, the use of bad welding rods and wire, were heard by the Board.
However, discovery into Duke and the NRC Staff's explanation has been refused to intervenors.
CESG opposed the original Catawba construction permit on environmental issues, design of the thin ice wall reactor, adequacy of the cooling towers, and lack of independence of QA/QC from construction.
They continue to raise serious scientific issues regarding the synergistic effect of four nuclear power plants on one metro-politan area, and the inadequacy of emergency planning for Charlotte and surrounding areas in the event o,f a nuclear incident.
30/#
L
70' Tre Ccr:snissioners
( I Janua ry 26, 1984 Finally, Palmetto joined the Catawba proceeding in 1981, and has participated in the OL case through active discovery and litigation issues of a QA breakdown, in-adequacy of the design of the spent fuel pool at Catawba to absorb spent fuel from
'all Duke's nuclear plants.
Palmetto is also actively engaged in opposition to Duke rate hikes based on ill-planned and abandoned nuclear projects.
GAP's investigation, which began in March,1983, with background information from CESG and Palmetto, led to the filing of a separate citizens petition filed September 14, 1983, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.206.
Our request can be summarized as
.. - follows:
8 1.- 9 " vertical slice" of the safety systems at the Catawba facility ter-t determine if the failure of the design control system and the failure of the quality assurance / quality control procedures in con-struct. ion indicated that the "as built" condition of the plant was in compliance with the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
I
\\
2.
A management audit of the Catawba site management to determine the f
cause of the project's problems with inspection of the QA/QC program.
3.
An 0] inquiry into the deliberate violation of the Commission's requirements for Duke to develop and maintain an independent QA/QC program separate from construction.
4 Commission monitoring of the investigation by the OIA announced in April,19E3, into improprieties by Region II personnel in the handling of complaints of harassment, intimidation, and a QA breakdown brought to the HRC Staff by numerous welding QC inspectors.
On October 6,1983, we filed a. second letter requesting that you take immediate action to resolve the conflict of interest situation in Region II regarding the witnesses from whom GAP had compiled information.
In subsequent correspondence between GAP and the Commission Staff, we continued to raise our concerns over the apparent conflict of interest by the Region II officials and attorneys representing the NRC Staff in the ongoing licensing hearings and the allegedly " independent" inspection effort launched by Region II into the safety concerns raised by GAP witnesses.
To* he. Go=.issioners
,; January 26, 1SSC i
II. VIOLATION BY THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAP.D OF THE NRC STATEMENT OF POLICY ON CONDUCT OF LICENSING PROCEEDINGS, 46 Fed. Reg. 28533 May 27,1981 1.
The Chairman of the Catawba Licensing Board has mistakenly concluded that the intent of the Comission policy regarding expedited OL proceeding issued in May,1981, is to create a standard which places the completion of the operating licensing hearings, girior to fuel load, ahead of the fulfillment of the greater responsibility and legal requirement to resolve safety issues which have, become litigated matters in an adequate manner.
2.
The Statement of Policy states:
The Commission wishes to emphasize though that, in expediting the hearings, the board should ensure that the hearings are fair, and produce a record which leads to high quality decisions that adeouately protect the public health and safety and the environment.
(Emphasis added.)
The policy was developed following the "re-examination of the entire regulatory structure" after the Three Mile Island accident by the Commission.
A situation which is described in the policy as "... for the first time the hearings on a number of operating license applications may not be concluded before construction is completed."- Essentially, the " backlog" of nuclear plants facing the need for operating licensing hearings was an impending problem.
The Commission issued a
~
policy statement then (1981), "on the need for the balanced and efficient conduct of all phases of the hearing process."
Unfortunately for the public, the 1981 expedited hearing policy is seriously mis-understood by the Catawba Board.
On numerous occasions throughout the Catawba hearings, as well as throughout the pre-hearing scheduling discussions, the
. Licensing Board Chairman. Judge James L. Kelley, expressed his opinion regarding the Commission policy On completion of all operating licensing issues, except emergency planning, price to Duke fuel load dates.
For example, on October 11, 1963, during a hearing discussion on the Commission pol' icy above-referenced, c
Judge Kelley stated:
Try to finish this proceeding, except for offsite emergency planning, by the time they load fuel.
That's a very simple concept, and that's really as far as these proceedings go, all we need to worry about.
(Pg. 2392, lines 1-9)
On another occasion in the issuance of a ruling, he stated:
NN
00 missi'oners January 26, 1984 The parties have talked this over.
We all recognize that this is a big record, and some additional time is warranted.
We'd like to give more than we can afford to, but our problem is we got a problem on the other end.
We have anticipated fuel load date about mid-May, siid it's the Commission's stated policy that we are bound to attempt to decide this case by that time.
(Pg.' 11, 910, and confirmed in LBP 81-463-01 OL, December 30, 1983) i nother.
It would...it might very well, however, prejudice the Board's ability to decide the safety issue prior to the fuel load, anticipated fuel load date, and/or contrary to the Commission's policy on the conduct of licensing proceedings.
.,(Pg.11, 218, lines 15-20) 3 t is the unanimous request of petitioners that the Comission enforce its obligation
'9 the public established under the inherent authority vested in it in the Atomic f
)
(
sergy Organization Act of 1954, as amended.
I- -
be blunt, a Board attitude such as that held by the Catawba Board, insures that
)
se agency embarrassment of.2immer--97 percent completed and yet cancelled because f a _QA breakdown discovered after the operatino license record was closed and iablo Canyon, where massive and continuing QA problems were only disco ev red after ie NRC licensed the plant--will continue to be the scandals of the future.
]
.Q' JEST FOR COEISS10N TO DIRECT OI TO INFORM THE BOARD
' ALL MATERI AL BEING DEVELOPED IN ITS ONGOING INVESTIGATION trsuant to 10 C.F.R. Part 2, the Staf f has a duty to disclose of material informa-
.y g
en related to matters in controversy so that the Board can make informed decisions, e Commission recognized, as does GAP, that "There are potential conflicts be.
een a presiding officer's need to be informed of material developments and an '
cestigating office's need to avoid premature disclosures that could compromise p
2 inspection or investigation." However, the failure of OI to request that the rd consider its findings when the issues before both 01 and the Board are rallel, is inexplainable. (Compare ALBP No. 81-463-01 OL, Motions Re: Contention x, Prehearing Conference Orders, and letter from William J. Dircks to Billie rner Garde, Attachment #1) which states:
The first investigation pertains to allegations regarding a possible lack of QA/QC independence and related issues.
The second investigation pertains to allegations regarding welding QC inspectors.
This represents cne of the normal courses of action taken by the agency when allegations are received.
h Df// (ll
. To Th' e Cor.:nissioners
-7 January 26, 1984 i
Clearly, nothing could be more relevant to an informed decision of the compan attit'ude and trustworthiness than the evidence being compiled by the OI in tion.
To ignore such evidence weuld confirm the public's worst fears about the NRC operating license process--it's a charade.
However, in light of rece'nt developments, petitioners believe that the Staff in this case has simply misread its duty to disclose.
For example, an order issued January 19, 1984, in the Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 Jan.19,1984
, the Board granted a five week extension time to respond to
{
allegations that formed the basis of a joint intervenors motion.
These allegations i
~
led to an ongoing OI and Region IV investigation / inspection effort, which. the Staff suggested and the Board agreed would be a " benefit" to the Board prior to its ruling on the motion.
}
Interestingly enough, Waterford,'s anticipated fuel load date is I
March 31,1984.
Yet even that panel recognizes the importance of a complete record--
and chose to delay the hearing in order to receive Ol's viewn.
The Catawba Board's obsession with meeting the fuel load date is inexplicable to petitioners--but it brings to mind the "can of worms" analogy where _the only way to deal with a can of worms when the lid is off is to put it in a bigger can!
The lid is off the worm can at Catawba.
The Commission must take licediate action to insure that the Board understands that the special burden it carries in to public safety--not private profits, and that in order to fairly determine that question of safety--all information available to the parties on items of controversy cust be competently and aggressively litigated.
Respectfully submitted, O*
4@
W
'CL William Rcnalc McAfee
/
j/V Billie Pirner Garde Form:r Catawba Worker evernme t Accouetability Project
/!). Luawsw.
\\'S Nolan P., Hoopenga/ner /
j'ffff(f Robekt Gufld N For:er Catawba Worker Attorney, Palme.. Alliance
?LM.~/7l-) 4.
)fde /?,'let /se
,Howard San (1 Nunn, A (
/* /
Jesse" Rile ~y
//'"~
Forcer Cataw3a Worker L/
Carolina Environmental Study Group
/
^
.m---
..-.m.-.
+
ja* K849
(#;
jc, UNITED STATES w
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
e.c
{ g p(g/.: E c
C
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 W Q g[kk,
& 30 DEC 191993 Crfjggg.yf, r:
r--
WO Cff 3
~
ftEMORANDUM FOR:
Ben Hayes, Director Office of Investigations, FROM:
' Office of Inspection and Enforcement Richard C. DeYoung, Director
SUBJECT:
GAP RESPONSE TO NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON CATAWBA Sy letter from R. C. DeYoung, IE, to Ms. Billie Garde, GAP, dated November 1, 19S3, IE requested additional information GAP may have concerning some of the allegations made in their September 14, 1983 Catawba petition.
Bf letter dated December 2,1983, to R. C. DeYoung, i-is. Garde responded to that request.
Enclosed is a copy of their response for use in your investigation of certain allegations at Catawba.
Please note that apparently two of the affiants have requested confidentiality.
Richard C
_Ycung Director Office of despection and Enforcement
Enclosure:
12/2/83 GAP Letter and Enclosures
.,)
't cc w/o enclosure:
S. Burns, ELD
- 4,lJ '
/
Yh'
'/ l
/
l
/
a
!v u
f),:f-[yjs i ),
i a
Il
)1 af i g n e c y,2,2, tr
~
4' ivgt
~
s.