ML20134D485
| ML20134D485 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 04/10/1985 |
| From: | Denise R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Thompson H Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20134D437 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-161, FOIA-85-A-25 NUDOCS 8508190245 | |
| Download: ML20134D485 (3) | |
Text
-
.?
- %,\\
UNITEo STATES
)
,e CUCLEAR CEZULATORY COMMISSION y
h
- f REGION IV I
f*
911 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE. SUITE 1000 k
WP ARUNGT'ON, TEXAS 7EM1 9
APR 101985
' ~
-9$
ba av
~
r r-:
oo MEMORANDUM FOR: Hugh L. Thompson, Jr., Director G
I Division of Licensing, NRR 27! E
- ' W FROM:
R. P. Denise Director
_i o'
Division of Reactor Safety and Projects
SUBJECT:
KANSAS GAS AND ELECTRIC C
)
QUALITY FIRST PROGRAM A WOLF CREEK D :,,50-482)
We have previously discussed the Wolf Cree ty F1 t program with your staff in order to ensure that they were fully informed about the activities of IE and RIV in this area. Based on your continuing interest in this subject., I thought it might be useful to you to provide a brief description of the perspective, RIV activities, results of activities, etc.
RIV viewed the Quality First program of 4G&E -as an important element in NGE's- -
responsibilities to ensure that the Wolf Creek plant was constructed in ' ~
accordance with requirements.
It was intended by KG&E to provide a path separate from the line organization for the receipt and handling of concerns about construction quality, among other things, raised by KG&E and KG&E -
contractor employees. The provision of this pathway may have had the effect of KG&E receiving and dispositioning concerns (or allegations) which otherwise might have been brought to the NRC as the only separate path.
It was this
- context which prompted RIV to review the Quality First program to determine that it was being appropriately implemented, even though we recognized that the NRC had no specific criteria against which to judge acceptability of the program.
In the absence of formal NRC guidance, the Wolf Creek Task Force adopted an approach which can be expressed roughly as determining whether KG&E handled the concerns and allegations in the manner in which they would have been handled by the NRC if the NRC had been the recipient.
-- --One Of-the-important~aspes (clated-to-the-KGE /degeii. n ergenizational independence within KG&E. Early in the Task Force effort, we reached the conclusion that the planned reporting level was not sufficiently high, and KG&E raised that level in August 1984 at our suggestion.
(
STEPHE85-A-25 PDR T
t
j j.v
()
i
,y
}
i I
APR10 W l
Hugh L. Thompson, JR., DL 1
l The Wolf Creek Task Force requested assistance from IE in an initial assessment of the KE E Quality First program. This request is documented in a memorandum to Richard C. DeYoung from Richard P. Denise, dated September 24, l
1984 (copy attached). The assessment was to focus on structure and
)
implementation of the program.
I had asked 01 to participate on the IE/RIV i
team, but they declined. 01 did produce a separate report primarily related j
to qualification of personnel as investigators, and the handling of
~.
I allegations related to wrongdoing (such as drug use); you may wish to obtain a j
copy of the OI report on this review.
l The requested IE/R'V team review is documented in NRC Inspection Report i
50-482/84-37, dated October 24, 1984 (copy attached). The transmittal letter to KEE, dated November 2,1984, notes that the program had recently undergone i
change, and cautions KE E to be alert to indications of deleterious changes in program implementations.
1 i
j For completeness. I also attach NRC Inspection Report 50-482/84-12, dated.
l September 27, 1984, which includes some observations on the Quality First program. The lead inspector who performed this effort had identified the i
potential problem in reporting level, but this is not recorded in the report.
t j.
- r.,
The Wolf Creek Task Force has continued to monitor the KEE Quality First j
program and its im NRC Inspection Reports 50-482/84-48 (dated 18,1984)plementations., 50-482/84-52 (dated January 15,1985),and50-482/8 i
December l
- (dated March 1,1985), dealing with allegations and the Quality First pragram i
have been prepared; a copy of each of these reports..is attRhed. The Wolf- -
1
^
Creek Task Force has routinely documented the substance and disposition of allegations in inspections reports, and there are many inspection reports.
other that those cited, which contain such information; your staff should have copies of these reports.
i -
The Wolf Creek Task Force has reviewed a high percentage of the Quality First i
- files to ascertain appropriateness of action.
In addition, we found that the
~
NRC had received allegations which were the same as, or similar to, some of j
those received by KE E Quality First. A comparison of the NRC actions and the KE E actions was made in these cases, and we found.no substantial 1 - -
U1TTETWTEW3.
l i
1 l
1
Q s
)
10g Hugh L. Thompson, JR., DL M -
.c
~
I believe that you will find this infonnation helpful.
If you need additional infonnation, or wish to discuss these items, please call me (FTS: 728-8106).
I e
WM R. P. Denise, Director Division of Reactor Safety ~
- ' d and Projects Attachments:
1.
Memo, R. P. Denise to R. C. DeYoung, dated 9/24/84 2.
NRC IR 50-482/84-37, dated 11/2/84 3.
NRC IR 50-482/84-12, dated 10/12/84 4.
NRC IR 50-482/84-48, dated 12/19/84 5.
NRC IR 50-482/84-52, dated 1/23/85 6.
NRC IR 50-482/85-03, dated 3/1/85 cc wo/ attachments:
R. O. Martin, RIV J. M. Taylor, IE r,-
L. E. Martin, RIV eM -
OM 9
6 6
9,,
as O S S
e
.D W
M N
3 8
p &
W
March 1, 1985 nudear owareness netunk 1347h crossochusetts. burence, kansas 66044 (9D)749-1640 Director Office of Administration US Nuclear Regulatory Comnission SEfBott OF INFORMA90N Washington, D.C.
20555
' -@ HEQUEST K g h g-lhl FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST To Whun It May concern Qd
[N Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, U.S.C.
522, as amended, the Nue; ear Awareness Network requests the following documents regarding the Wolf Creek Nuclear Generating Plant.
Please consider "docunents" to include reports, studies, test results, correspondence, nenoranda, meeting notes, meeting ninutes, working papers, graphs, charts, diaarans, notes and sumnaries of conversations and interviews, computer records, and any other forts of written conmunication, including inter-nal NRC staff ner.orands.
The documents are specifically re-quested from, but not linited to, the f ollowing of ficcs of the NRC:
Office of Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data (AEOL): Office of Nuclear Reactor Research (liRR): Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (Research)
Office of Inspection and Enforcerent (II.E)
Office of Investigations (OI): Generic Isrues Branch of the Division of Saf ety Technology, and the Operating Reactors Branches of the Division of Licensing.
In ycur rcspense, pleasc identify which docurents correspond t c vi.ic. l e:;ue st s telow.
Pursuant to this request, please provide all docunents prepared or utilized by, in the possession of, or routed through the NRC related to the Wolf Creek Nucicar Generating Plant 1.
Any and all NRC documents relating to the Quality First cases, allegations, investigations.
2.
Any and all information on instances of intimidation and/or harassment of any workers at the plant.
3.
Any and all documents between the Commission and all other NRC offices particularly about, but not limited to, issues which the Commission is allowing to be in-g, d q,./4 vest.igated and inspected.
fpsyww/p 4.
Any an all documents generated within or as a result of the February 28, 1985 Commission briefing relat ing to the structural steel velding problem, licensing, and any other areas, by NRR or any other branches.
.s If any of the material covered by this request has been des-troyed and/or removed, please provide all surrounding docu-mentation, incluJing but not limited to a description of the action (s) taken, relevant date(s), and justification (s) for the actions.
For any documents or portions that you deny due to a specific FOIA exemption, please provide an index itemizing and describing the documents or portions of docunents withheld.
The index should provide a detailed justification of your grounds for claiming each exemption, explaining why each exemption is rele-vant to the document or portion of the document withheld.
This index is required under Vauchn v. Rosen (I), 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973),' cert. denied, 415 U.S. 977 (1974).
- n Ue look forward to your response to this request within ten days.
Sincerely, I
a' 1
9%c
/
Stevi Stephens
I March 1, 1985 nucear oworeness networc 13475 massachusetts. laurence, konsos 66044.(913)749-164 0 Director Office of Administration US Nuclear Regulatory Conmission SEEBOM OF INFORMAT:ON h'a shingt on,
D.C.
20555
O REQUEST FREEDO". OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST FRA--M-l(a I To hhur It.Gi cuocera:
h6(f b f Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, U.S.C.
522, as amended, the Nuclear Awareness Network requ2sts the following documents regarding the k'olf Creek Nuclear Generating Plant.
please consider "docunents" to include reports, studies, test results, correspondence, menoranda, meeting notes, meeting minutes, working papers, graphs, charts, diagrams, notes and sure. aries of conversations and interviews, computer records, and any other forms of written corrunication, including inter-nal ':PC staff menorands.
The documents are specifically re-quested from, but not Iinited to, the following offices of the NRC Office of Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data (AEOD): Office of Nuclear Reactor Research (NRR): Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (Research); Office of Inspection and Enforcement ( I f.E ) ; Office of Investigations (OI); Generic Issues Branch of the Division of Safety Technology, and tne Operating Peactors Dranches of the Division of Licensing.
In your response, please identify which documents correspond to which requests below.
Pursuant to this request, please provide all documents prepared or utilized by, in the possession of, or routed through the NRC related to the Wolf Creek Nuclear Generating plant:
1.
Any and all NRC documents relating to the Quality First cases, allegations, investigations.
2.
Any and all information on instances of intimidation and/or harassment of any workers at the plant.
)
Any and all documents between the Commission and all other NRC offices particularly about, but not Ilmited to, issues which the Commission is allowing to be in-vestigated and inspected.
4.
Any an all documents generated within or as o result of the February 20, 1985 Commission briefing relating to the structural steel welding problem, licensing, and v rm. o _ _ a,ny,other areas, by URR or any other branches.
vv i A wn w