ML20138B615
| ML20138B615 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 06/03/1985 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138B614 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8510170396 | |
| Download: ML20138B615 (38) | |
Text
Yc flkn J I
l2 /2 l$
~
-1 IJNITED STATES OF AMERICA
!??'CLEAPI e E0l!Lo T0"Y C 0r"'I s e I O N 2
PtJ9ttC BCCUMENT RCOM 3,
'l
_.g7 gt_11. P3:12 5
C0!*t'I S S IDNE PRT4ffE0 6
1 CLOSER j
7 i -
EyEPDTIONS 5 and 7 l
DISCt!SSION,0F. PENDIrlG INVESTIGATIONS l
lc 11 Chairman's Conference Pnom-~
12 1717 H Street, N.W.
i Washington, P.C.
l 13 l
i 14
- nnday, June 3, 1985 15 16 The Connission net in Closed'Sessi6n'beginninn 17 at 3:10 p.m.,
the Honorable Nunzio Palladino, Chairnan i
18 o f the Commission, presiding.
19 P P ES Et!T :
20 Nunzio Palladino, Chairman e
oberts,' Commissioner Thomas o 21 James Asselstine, Commissioner
-Frederick Pernthal, Commissioner 22 Lando Zech, Commissioner.
f 23 PEBERS OF THE STAFF PRESENT:
24 S.-Chilk, Secretary ii P. Nard, OI 25 C. Kagan,.0GC
- l l
h(p p YO3fb
..._. ~
- f.:.
?
-t t ;,;.
s J
IJ B. Hayes, OI t'. valsch, O(: C -
i 2
P. Da vi s',
OOP
. W.
Pircks,JE00 3~
' S. Chesnut, OCW-i K.-Cohenc.OCM d
- t!. ' Pa rl e r, ~ 0CM.
i S. Sohinki '0GP E
5 W.
Peamer,:0CF H. Denton,-NRR 6
7 8
r 4
~
g 1.
t
- t i, ~
10 gy i
- 12 j-l:
i L
13 l
l 1.
I iI.
14 i
4
- 15 16 4
l 18 19 1
20 I
~
'. 22 i
e 23 7
4:
'24 4
'25 3
,3 4
e
-t i
f-l.M I'. i L'
3 i
l 4
PR0CEED INGS i
2 CHAIRPAN PALLADINO:
Refore we begin this meetinq, 3l 1 believe it is necessary to vote to hcid the meeting on j
l short notice to close it on Exemptions 5 and 7 t
d 5
May I have such a vote?
6 (Chorus of ayes. )
7 As I see the purpose of the meeting, it is to 8
determine from NRR, based on what they heard at the meeting, ;
9 they can be assured to make a finding that -- they can to assure adequacy of protection of the public health and
'l sa f e ty.
And the reason I think it's closeable, because.ye,
12 need to discuss the seriousness of their findings, and
'3 whether or not any further investigations are needed, i
'd I was going to suggest that we start off by having E00 staff and NRR - 'see what response's they have is
'6 to the basic question I riised, and then we could discuss
'7 it and proceed from that.
18 VOICE:
Sounds good.
VOICE:
Why don't I begin?
j 20 MR. CHILK:- Nell, identify yoursel f, because 21 we have got to tart a tape running here.
22 PR. PENTON:
My name is Harold Denton,. Director t
33 of NRR.
24 We have done at this plant all the normal I
25 inspections and review that we do.for any plant.
And, in m.
m.
_______-__--.___.m._-_,_m_..__-um_.i.____
4
~
1 fact, in some respects, we have done some additional things 2
at this plant.
He had a number of inspectors, as Bob 3
Partin can describe, come from Region III, who did the d
inspection of the Callaway Plant, who were involved in 5
inspecting Wol f Creek, its sister design.
6 We also had inspectors from Region II' inspect' 7
this plant.
8-So we had, to a higher degree than normal, 9
inter-regional inspection activities looking at this plant.
H)
We have also put in quite a bit of ef fort Il following thdir technical resolution of issues tha t came...., l a
12 through the quality arturance-quality first program.
I 13 I was unaware 'of the dif ficulty that Of has i
Id identi fied until these results came back from a task force is that you have just heard about.
I see-this as'a structural lo generic issue that's going to come up at the Commission in 37 other cases very soon, because the next several all have 18 the same sort of program,.and.they have been u,nreviewed l'
with regard to the adequacy of their wrongdoing aspects.-
20 So I can't speak for wha t I don't know, but we 21 have done a. great deal of looking. into the technical 22 allegations and we* found 'nothing in there, in their program
.23 or in the way they resolved them, that would. lead us to 24 doubt that 'this plant does not meet the Commission's 25 regulations.
/
5 1
VOICE:
Harold, in the normal case, where you 7
have a pla'nt that doesn't have this kind of a program, 3
.somebody comes in with allegations and then says that d
these are allegations that have to be investigated.
5 As I recall, the way we deal with those at 6
the operating license decision'staae, if those investigdtions 7
are still ongoing, is that the Sta f f will, by that time, a
have known what technical aspects of the plant's operation 9
-- either the hardware or the people -- are affected or 10 might be af fected by the allegation, and the Staff would 11 have looked at those items in sufficient detail to come..hac.x 12 and say whether the' wrongdoing allegation is proved or 13 disproved, we have looked enough at the people and the i
l.d hardware to satisfy ourselves that there is no sa fety is impact and, therefore, the Commission can go ' ahead with to the decision.
17 Is there any way of knowing at this point or in the relatively near future whether somethi,ng like that j
18 19 has been done or could be done for the items that are
+
20 covered by these 77 allegations that -- wrongdoing allega-21 tions that Ben ha: problems with?
It seems to me that is-22 sort of the key question.
23 MR. DENTOM:
Let"me a kk' Bob Ma Ftin', Who 6versaw 24 the details of-this program, to respond to how we got at
. 1 25 ft.
I don't think the program here is all that different l l
6 l'
than what we have done at a number o f plants, and frank?y 2-I think'we have encouraged people to set up such a program 3
and to provide feedback so that they were solved internally, i i
d VOICE:
Oh, no question about that.
I 5
MR. DENTON:
And Bob has monitored this program
.I 6
throughout its development.
I think what was missing wa's
{
7 an OI involvement in this part of their program, but I am I
a not sure that OI was involved in the plant we just licensed L
yes terday, or Sa turday, either, in this regard.
Not 10 that maybe they shouldn't be, but I think we do need to i
11 face the decision of.what should the generic ro'le of 01.,,
12 be in reviewing this quality program.
i 13 But why don't you address the sa fety sioni ficance l i
l of the ones that you have' looked at?. We have looked at a 3d l
15 bio selection of them, and from the technical' standpoint i
l 16 we don't find them affecting their ability to meet your
[
17
-regulations.
18 Whether the'ones that have wrongdoing aspects a
19 would lead to something else, we don't know, if they wer e l
20 don &~isproperly.
l 21 CHAIPMAN PALLAb. 4:
Well. specifically drug l
22
~ use, drug abuse, specifically the falsification of documenta-23 tion,'does tha t leave you with uncertainty?
l-24 PR. DENTON:
If it had. I, wouldn't have f
L 25 recommended we come down here today and we looked at, one, 1
.]
7 I
who were the people involved?
If there had been d rug use 2
among 'the operating sta ff, we would have looked ha rder 3
and called that to your attention.
Post of these wrong-doing allegations'are about contractors, j
4 5
CHAIRPAN PALLADIN0:
You say "most."
Were all l
6 of them?
Were all of these allegations on drug use i
7 Concerned with Contractors only?
8 PR. THOMPSON:
This is Keith Thompson.
9 Let me say that the extent the drug use was 10 identified with KG&E employees, there was one female l
i 11 employee who was associated with the Daniels Co'nstruction...
12 individual who was arrested for marijuana growing on this 13 l individual's site.
My understandine is and it was neier l
14 to 0-1 15 VOICE:
An individual site near home?
l PR. THOMPSON:
His -- where he was living.
And 16 17 the police decided not to press charges whatsoever with 18 l
her a f ter they investiga ted it.
She was returned back to 19 work.
l 20 The other KGSE employee relates to the QA-QC l-21 area.
He was alleged to have been involved, they did:a 22 background investigation, and this particular individual 23 was cleared by the background investigation of any drug 24
. involvement, and he was. hired.
25 No operators or -- that is, whether licensed or 1
D f
s..
l F
not, you know, the people involved in operations and are l
1 2
involved as well as the people involved in olant maintenance t
3 and other opera tions. lWe discussed not only with our own inspectors that went there, we asked --
d 5
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
None of those peopl_e were 6
involved?
j 7
MR. THnf1PSON:
None of those people were involved 8
and neither were the people who were involved, have been identified through their fitness for duty.
Now, again, the adequacy of the fitness for duty l
10 program is an issue that's kind of before 'us, and so I l
12 don't -- I know it meets the EEI guidelines.
Bob'has --
13 it exceeds the guidelines.
14 VOICE:
It exceeds, is PR. THOMPSON:
But there have been no -- there's
'6 no individual in the operating progran that the fitness-for-17 duty program has identified to be involved in drugs.
18' You know, with respect to the docugientation, I'
which.is obviously what we are on, as Harold said, the 20 inspection program looks at the 'adeouacy of the documentation, 21 the-QA=QC program.
So I don't think you have identifled 22 anything unique, uniquely wrong for licensing purposes that's
'23 been there.
It's the same way with the QA-QC, you know, 24 where we have identified weakr. esses, we have initiated
'25 enforcement action on those.
f
o 1
MR. MARTIN:
This is Bob Martin.
If I can 2
expand on 'tha t point a little bit.
3 Wi th rega rd -- my s ta f f tol d me be fore coming in, with regard to these 77 cases, in some 22 cases we have i
4 I
5 looked at those cases as part of this follow-up field 6
inspection activity, recognizing that the kind of staff' 7
t ha t I used for that follow-up was my technical staff.
i 8
There fore, not investigators, and very possibly having backgrounds very similar to the engineers that are used in l
1o the Q-1 program.
11 But we were satisfied in that 22 cases that me..
l 12 picked at random and looked at, that the issues' identified, i
l l
13 or the implications that possibly could be drawn from the I
14 false record cases -- and these were primarily falsified 15 record types o f issues -- that the sa fety sys'tems to which 16 they applied had been appropriately checked out as being
'7 okay.
l 18 My sta ff, similar to, I'm sure, th,e Q-1 staff, l'
in this regard, did not focus on'the individual as to whether 20 they did in fact falsify as an overt wrongdoing act, but I*
21 rather were there any safety system implications.
(
~
l 22 Based on the kind of sampling we have been i
23 doing, and the. licensee not knowing what area we are going 24 to look at at any point, I'm trying to give you at least a
(
25 feel that from a safety system -standpoint, we still have 1
10
~
l technical confidence in the system that, you know, the 2
safety condition of the plant.
3 In addition to all the other things tha t you d
alluded to, which is the routine program we carry out, 5
for just the inspection of the plant in total -- preoperational 6
tests, the construction, and all those things that you've 7
hea rd before -- tha t program has been completed.
8 MR. DENTON:
We considered a number of options 9
before coming down here.
One was to suggest that 01 30 investigate every one of the wrongdoing ones.
You know.-that l
11 is one option.
i j
12 Another one would be to -have the company provide i
13 a document dealing with how they disposed of all 77, since l(
l
'1' that's come into issue.
l l
15 I think we settled on, and we're prepared to 16 advocate, was that Bob and Dan get together and continue 17 to caet with the company and resolve to their satisfaction r
le that this area has been properly settled, and J should 19 envision that might be a license condition or some'other 20 vehicle.to assure that it eventually gets put to bed.
21 CHAIRPAN PALLADINO:
And how long would that t
takey i
23 MR. MARTIN:
If I use my judgment, I would say 24 ft would be measured in weeks.
Put again, the kind of I
25 follow-up and the kind of perspective I would say is more
'l l l
1
-- is not an investigator's perspective.
From Ben's 2
investigatory standpoint, I think he would have to make 3
an es timate o f tha t.
I always underestimate cases of this d
kind from that standpoint.
5 ynICE:
Well, could I --
l 6
CHAIRPAN - PA LLADINO:
Yes.
7 MR. PIRCKS:
This is Bill Dircks.
8 I think what we h' ave to look into is do you want l
l l
to treat these as open allegations, subject to the allega-l
~
t 10 tion tracking system, and treat them as if they
- tere allegations coming directly into this agency.
)
i 12 To the extent 'tha t we haven't had any --
}
l 13 CHAIPPAN PALLADIN0:
Might they not have come --
1 i
3d they might have come to the agency --
65 PR. CIRCKS:
They mig'ht have, but'--
'6 CHAIRPAN PALLADINO:
---If there there had not L
'7 been a QA -- Q-1 program, j
18 MR. DIRCKS:
I think it was pointed out that i
the allegations, to the extent they were made into the 0-1
{
20 program, had the system of being. referred back to the alleger 21 f f that alleger so requested it.
And from what I gather, 22 that was determined to bt the case, and the allegers have 23 not come forward with a repeat of their allegation into the 2d system.
~25 VOICE:
So, Bill, you're saying that having fed it i
h
.?
1
-1 R back to the alleger, if. the alleger shrugs his shoulders i
and says okay, whether or not that is reflected in the 2
file, from our s tandpoint - tha t should be adequate, or at 1
3 l
least from the utility's standpoint it was adequate?
4 MR. DENTON:
I'm trying to put this into'one of l
I 5
6 two categories.
Do we treat it.as a unique allegation 7
coming to us at the initiative of the pers'on making the e
allegation? :Then we have a system by which' we handle this L
9 thing.
In ef fect, his would be a retreaded allegation, I ;
io
~
in
_ gather.
This would have been through one system and we'.re 12 going to retread it back through another system.
~
i3 FR. DENTON:
If we're s'ure it was through one l!
(
'r 14 system.
l is PR. DIRCKS:
If'we're sure.it was t'hrough one l
i6 VOICE:'
It's not clear it was through one system.
6 i7 PR. PALSCH:
I don't think anyb'ody'is proposing 18 doing the third-that Ben says were done right.
[
\\
o c
19 YOICE:
I gu'ess the other point-is, when you say l
20 it was -done right, we are going to have e say done 'right 21 according.to what.
And we don't have -- this is a repetition i
a l
22 of the Palo Verde thing.
We don't have any standard by which l
l we judge things to be done'right or wrong in this area.-
23 l
l 24 That's our problem.
And I think 8en.has a standard -but it's l r
23 a very high standard,'by which he,geverns and manages his l
4 f
i !
l
'l
_I.._
11 1
organization.
These other outfits don't have those 2
standards and we are going to have to make a judgment 1
3 factor here as to what are the criteria which we're using to go back into this a rea.
I think that should be done j
d 5 I before we reopen too many of these.
6 CHAIRf'AN PALLADINO:
Let me make a statement' I
7 and ask a question.
8 So far I've heard that with regard to falsifica-tion of documents, you feel like you have covered the safety 10 aspects of that.
But with regard to drug use, is it possible; il that that might have impacted on the quality of this plant.
12 where the start-up testing -- since some of their contract l
M start-up engineers were involved?
Do you feel you have the plant -- have you looked at the plant close enough to
'd make sure that the start-up testing and all t'he construction 15 to has been adequately performed, despite allegations of drug i
17 use?
is PR. PApTIN:
Th i s i s B o b Pa r t i n a g,a i n.
{
l' Granted, the distribution of resources applied 20 to different plants.
Wolf Creek has been looked at as 21 closely, as far as I can tell, as any plant that's gone 22 through the start-up phase.
23 With my usual hesitation, I would have to say yes,Ithinkwe'velookedatthisplantascloselyasanybodyl 28 25
- has, i
I
14 l
The problem that we have, when you allude to i
the allegations of drug use, is that the particular program 2
3 that the KG&E has, and the way in which they interface with their contractors, is to pass the allegations over to 4
5 the contrac tors.
How. I know the contractors onsite have fired-6 7
p eo pl e.
I know some of them have fired them based on their I
own observations, their own issues.
Some have fired people e
because -- ! know Daniels has fired a number of people 9
i us because they refused to submit to searches when those searches I
l it were based on suggestions made by people.
Ifa'nybodyr,efused; 12 to submit, he was fired and 'that was the end of-'him on the I
L is job.
And there have been other instances -- I don't 14 is know whether or not these all come from Q-1 program; I l
te doubt that they all did'-- but at least there has been, if i7 you will, that evidence of some workability of their is progrars onsite.
o i,
CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0:
How many of the 75-involved 20 contractors, Bob, do you know?
21 PR PAPTIN:
Of the --
i 22 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0:
75 --
j 23
Total-problem allegations ?
24 CHAIRPAN PALLADINO:
Yes.. How many involved --
23 VOICE:
77 t
l l
.l
--x.-
r-
1S I
I CHAIRt'AN PALLADIfl0:
77 How many involved 7
c on t ra c to rs ?
3 FR, PARTIN:
I believe -- I'm not sure of this --
f I believe virtually all of them, i
d I
5 CHAIRPAN PALLADINO:
I see.
l 6
PR. PARTIN:
There were.very few issues, I i
7 understand, involving wrongdoing that involved permanent l
a KG&E people.
9 Now' tha t is based on allegations made relative 10 to individuals.
l I see Ben's reluctance because there' is the...,
11 12
. consideration of leads and other things.
But based at i
I think the majority of the 1
l
'3 least on the surface of it.
o 14 fundamental issues identified were primarily directed is towards non-KG&E people.
16 VOICE: ' Bob, let me go back to your verification
'7 ef forts and also ask you about the appi tcant's' verification 1e l
ef forts for these 77 f tems.
l You said they had engineers doing the reviews i
20 on some of these things. - Are you saying that in each of 21 these 77 items that they had an engineer follow up on the i
22 technical aspects' to make.sure that technically there was i
23 no problem?
Say on the falsification of' documents.
Outte l
24 apart from whatever they did on whether falsification occurred, t
25 did they have somebody follow up on the technical side and go'
, ~'
16-5 F
back and say is this a problem here that af fects the safety i
of the systems of the plant or not?
2 FR. MARTIN:
My technical staf f is telling me 3
l l
4 that based on their follow-up of 22 of those 77 ftems, that the answer to your question is yes.
i VOICE:
Okay.
l 6
MR. PARTIN:
That they went beyond the technical l
7 side, to make themselves comfortable, that there was no 8
i
+
9 technical safety issue looming on the.back side of chat l
io wrongdoing allegatio'n.
si VOICE:
Was that reflected in the files of those l
12 777 I
i3 FR. MARTIN:- No, not nur -- I don't know the
} ;
i4 answer to that.
15 VOICE:
What KGAE did, what the --
to PR.-*ARTIN:
I don' t-know :he answer to tha t.
)
l
,7 In some cases, my people -- and the f.RR people and !AE is people -- when I say my~ people, that technical team, looked l
f A
to at some of these' issues and were.not happy' technically 20 with the amount of content-in the technical files.
So they l
21 went beyond just the files to look at other design documenta-22 tion and other things.during that review of those-half l
23 dozen or so issues -- and I don't know whether they're part of this 22 oor not -- but those>Malf dozen or so. Issues u
25 wereLfound to be okay through design organizations or other f
17
- i L
i t
i organizational documents.
i So we did a I f ttle bit of going beyond the 0-1 2
3 files.
l t
4 Now, to wha t extent that is applicable to this l
5 particular case o f 77, I do not know the answer.
CHA!PMAN PALLADINn:
- Well, I'm. confused.
3 7
thought you said you had looked at all 22 of those where a
documentation falsification was implied, and then you said you looked a t six.
I lost something there.
[
io MR. MARTIN:
During the technical review of the
[
ii 640 or so technical issues that were not part of the 112, 12 I am told by my staff that during that technical review 13 there was about a half a dozen issues that the technical 14 content of the file they were unhappy with, and they went is beyond the content of the file, because those.were issues, i6 that had they not been suitably dispositioned, the Staf f i7 would have said we have concerns about full power operation.
s to CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Now there were -- I wrote i#
down 19 cases of documents being falsified.. Did you.look 20 at those to see if they. impacted on the safety?
2:
MR. WART!N:
I would have to get to one of my 22 staff meettrs to find out whether we looked at all 19 or a 23 sampling out of those 19.
24 VOICE:
You don't know where the 22 was drawn from?;
25 MR. MAPTIN:
! don't know where the 22 overlay I,
I<
S m
1R I
1 with the 77, I really don't.
2 VOICE:
Okay.
3 CHAIPPAN PALLADINO:
My problen is tha t we are l,
being called on to make a decision that there is reasonable d
5, assurance that the health and safety of this plant will be i
6' protected adequately.
l 7
Now i f the Sta f f -- and I would expect the Sta f f a
to be able to reach that decision before we reach it, and this is what I was trying to get at, was based on what we 10 know from 01, does the Staf f feel that health and safety l'
of the public is reasonably assured for this plant in light, 12
. of that information, and based on the work that you have
'3 dene?
Id MR. DENTON:
That puts us in a bind, Mr. Chairman,
'S because we don't --
I
{
'6 CHA!PPAN PALLADINO:
tie are in the same bind.
t i
17 PR. DENTON:
-- we don't know wha t will happen
{
is when Ben looks furtner.
Now Ben has not said,that they I
l' were inadequately investigated.
They might be adequately 1
20 resolved.
l 21 CHAIRPAN PALLADINO:
Well, see, that's what I was I
l 22 asking about this documentation issue. If all 19 were covered j t :
f 23 in the 22, then you certainly would have reasonable l
24 assurance.
l 25 MR. DENTON:
Well, that's why I think O! needs
rk 4-19 I
l
~
I.
l 1
to go -- if I had been running the review. I would have gone l-l 2
further than-just tabulating.
I would have looked behind.
f-3 Now-the' technical sta f f' looked a t them and they looked to l
1 see if they were implemented.
d 5
I think it would help to know if O! had been 6
t l.
able to check some of these 77 or ever what number we'rit 7
talking about. whether they were adequately disposed or. not.
e l
so.we are left here in a quandary.
The question has been
{
raised but not the answer.
to (Laughter.)
j Il VOICE:
But i sn't it fair to ask Ben --
l 12 PR. DENTON:
I thought we could solve it later.
'3 because Ben didn't seect to think that they had bell.rfngers
'd in it.
It was not a case of Of coming in ringing the bell.
'S as they sometimes do, saying_you'd better he' alert'to'this l
'o problem or that problem.
I thought Ben was coming'in with a
'7 procedural breakdown and one that he was happy to_ remedy is la ter, but I'may be putting words _in his m'out,h.
l CHAIRMAM PALLADIN0:- Well, this is what I was 20 getting at.
If there was reasonable assurance.that the 21 health and safety it' adequately protected. then maybe a-22 follow-on look a t some-of these things would be appropriate.
23 But if'we' lack the confidence to say.that health and safety 1
24 will'be adequately protected, then-I think we're.not ready.
t l
25 to ma ke a decision.
I i
i 1.
-m -
.o l
1 VOICE:
But I think we've got to ask Ben at this 7
stage does he know of any wrongdoing that he's determined 3
at this point in his inquiry, any serious wrongdoing?
d VOICE:
I'm not sure that's exactly -- you can l
5 ask him tha t, I'm not ture that's exactly the right question,j 6
but you can get his answer on that.
But I think the 7
right question is when he looks at these 77 ftems, are 8
there any things there, i f proven, that 'wbuld be signi ficant I
9 pro bl em s ?
Io VOICE:
Is there any stijnf ficant wrongdoing so
'l far that he's come up with?
T h a t 's wh a t I ' m t r'y i n g to I.i n d, 9
I t
l 12 out first.
I O
Ct!AIPPAN PALLADINO:
gen, would you identify 1
'd yourself.
'S PR. HAYES:
This is Ben Hayes, Dir'ector of the
'6 Office of Investigations.
'7 Of the completed investigations that we have i
undertaken, I~ don't feel that we have what 01,would common)y
'8 refer to as a plant-stopper of the completed issues.
l My game plan, af ter this review of the 0-1 20 l
21 wrongdoing files, was to evaluate the files and the documenta=
22 tion on those flies personally and to try to set a course of i
23 action to at least clarify -- and, as Harold said, to go 24 beyond the docurrentation in the file to see if there is 25 something there.
f I
-...-.m
+
21 Again, I cannot tell the Commission this i
af ternoon what we may or may not find in any subsequent 2
3 investigation.
I VOICE:
No, but you can tell us up until now l
4 S
wha t you found.
And all I'm asking, if you found anything significant as far as your concern concerning wrongdoing.
3 MR. HAVES:
At this point we have no solid l
_7 i
evidence where Of has conducted an aggressive investigation s
l 9
saying that there is a serious matter of wrongdoing at to Wolf Creek.
VOICE:
Well, but in fairness, it started ten ii i
12 days ago.
I l
i3 VOICE:
That's right.
l PR'. HAYES:
And we may subsequently feel as i4 though to protect the Commission that we might'have to is 13 go further and look at some of these issues that surfaced i7 last week.
l is VOICE:
Right now you've got 77 question marks.
i ig PP. HAYES:
That's Correct.
20 MR. DENTON:
! guess in fairness to Sen, on the 21 seventh day you did write the Commission last fall about l
22 these issues, and ! guess you received some instructions at 1
23 that time related to this issue.
24 PR. HAVES:
Yes, we did prepare a document in l
i December of last year and we sent it to the Staff, to Pr.
25 4
s
- - -.. - ~ -
~
22 I
t Martin, Mr. Denton and Mr. Dircks, and subsequently some 1
2 issues were raised by Commissioner Roberts, and we attached 3
t ha t document to our response to Commissioner Roberta.
j i
)
d I Pe have always had concerns about the 0-1 5
program, and we watched the inspection process from that point fo rwa rd.
There's been numerous inspections, and we 7
felt fairly -- not totally comfortable.
We felt as though I
8 the issue had at least been looked at.
VOICE:
Let me read you some excerpts from that, 30 and I won't be long, i
l'
" flu t te simpl y, there is no investigitive program 12 per se" -- this is referring now to the KG&E program --
'3
" investigations are conducted by several KGSE organizations.
id There does not appear to be any integration of ef fort, nor
'8 is there a central point where everything cordes together."
'o Another one, just skipping to page 6. "In the
'7 final analysis, I do not have" -- this is now Fr. Ward
{
is speaking, I guess, in his memorantium to you, flen.
"I do not have a great degree of confidence in the 0-1 program.
I i'
20 certainly would not accept it as a suitable substitute for 21 0! efforts, at least in the areas of wrongdoing which fall l
22 wg thin the ambit of the 01."
23 And then finally, on the last page
" Based on 2d my evaluation" -- tnis is kind of the concluding paragraph, l
25 it is the concluding paragraph -
"it is my recommendation e
P3
{
and firm belief that the NRC should not rely on the results 2
of the KG1E investigative program, but rather it should 3l insist that natters falling within the jurisdiction of the 4f NRC be promptly reported through existing reporting 5
channels and a decision made at such time regarding the necessity of NRC intervention."
o 7
And then later on in January, this whole issue t
8 came to the fore over a specific case, but somehow the i
policy matter here got lost and nobody, no member of the Commis sion, including mysel f, 01, E00's office, nobo'dy 80 in this agency pic'ked up on that policy issue a'nd issued..
O
2 clear guidance to 01.
It's as simple as that, and here
'3 we are now, 10 days before licensing, and nothing has been done on that polic'y' issue.
15 PR. HAYES:
When we sa this issue" at Wolf I,
'6 Creek, again we wrote OGC, because I was concerned tha t i
these -- from the wrongdoin'g standpoint, that the Commission I
'7 was standing in the dark, and I couldn't see,that we had l,
.is D
I regulatory teeth, other than the files are available if've 20 want to look at them.
And a reading of OGC's paper -- and my 21 reading'is that we don't have a strong regulatory framework 22 with which these issues are required to br> forwarded to the 23 Commission, if nothing else, for monitoring purposes.
I 24 And so I was somewhat in a quandary there as to 1
23 what to do next, and our game plan was to visit two other
.x.
v.
. ~. -.. v. :: ~ -.,..,...
.s_... : s..
. g r se 24 l
1 1
Q-1 programs and try to get a sense of wha t is really out 2
there from an industry standpoint, and present something 3
to the Commission, which we embarked upon.
But that
.l d
doesn't help us on Wol f Creek today.
I 5i MR. DIRCKS:
But I think the question that Jim 6
Asselstine raised earlier is the one you have to keep co' ming 7
back to.
There have been allegations of wrongdoing and l
l 8
you're not completely satisfied with the way they were handled, and you almost in a sense of the word would be
'O following up on tha t,
i 11 The second part of the question you asked, Jim,,
l 12 was, has'the technical staff looked beyond those allegations l
'3 of wrongdoing and has the staff arrived at any conclusions I
'd as to the impact on the sa fety of the facility.
And I don't !
is know whether you got the answer to the same q'uestion.
'o MR. DENTON:
That's the one I was looking at.
17 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I think those are the l
18 I
two questions.
The first one, frankly, I think could even,
l' be rephrased from the standpoint that Ben, i f somebody walked i 20 in of f the street and gave you the information in those 77 21 files, would you do an OI investigation of those things?
22
!!R. HAYES :
We would certainly regard it as a I
1 23 matter that the office had jurisdiction over and would 24 institute, if nothing else, an evaluation, an inquiry could i
25 result from it, absolutely.
-f 4-25 g'
m i
VOICE:
So if that's the case, then we have to 2
turn to what the techtlical staf f has done.
And I think 1
that's.tbe key question here for me is do we have enough 3
i 5
i ;
d of a sense of confidence about the subject; matter that 5
a ffects, the plant and the people that are covered by those I
6 77 question marks to say that whether there's wrongdoing or l
7 not, that we've got a basis for concluding that the plant is :
i 3
8 okay.
l CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Well, I think we ought to 10 have --
q j
MR. MARTIN:
I was going to say, cou'Id I have..,
13 12 45 seconds to go out and check with my staff and get right 13 back?
id VOICE:
Sure.
15 VOICE:
In fact, you can bring in,' Dick, as 16 far gg {s m Concerned, WhoGVer you need.'
.MR. THOMPS'ON:
This is Hugh Thompson.
17 13 While.he's out, certainly from a 1,1 censing l'
standpoint, this design is. licensable.
This is, as you 20 know, a standardized plant, and certainly from the views 21 of that aspect.. it is one which we have experience from,-
22 we have the SNUPPS organization, the same organizations 23 that built Callaway, so that the issue tends to go more to 24
' the site-speci fic a spects of it.
l 25
-VOICE:
Yes.
?6
~ -.
F
' d.,
i i
1:
MR. THOMPSON:
Where we have the resident l
2-
. inspector'there, where we.-know, you know, how the construc-3
. tion.was. the adequacy of the QA-QC program, and I. guess j
i a
the follow-up on-the technical issues which we have I
d s;
5
. participated in with the region and how well that is done.
I 6
.My major concern again, ea rlier, was with l
7 ob'viously with_ the preoperational testing program which i
e you go and have verification _ that the systems per. form as designed, you have confidence'that'that process as the 1
0
' region observes it and signs off on that area before they l
H come back'to us to say that we should issue the license..-.
12 that process is all in place.
That will be done.
So 13 you should have -- that level,'that extra level of confidence [
\\
id plus the' normal reviews that we do.in starting and I guess j;
throughout the process. - for the years _ during ' construction, 15 16
-and we 'have not identified any ' specifics that tie back. in 17 directly to this _ falsification or drug users that gives us t
18 the nexus to say, by george, I can tell.you th,at there's a l'
basis for not acting..
20 l
MR. DENTON:
In fact,l We gave each of the 21
' reviewers a" sheet to fill out. when.they -rea'd, and so all 22 cthe allegations were read. by one =of our staff, and 'there 23 -
was a box', "Do you'Vind anything' in the file-tha t would
~
. lead'you to think we shouldn't. move:ahea'd in licensing this 24 25 plant?"
AllJthose boxes were. checked no'at the-and of the k-
~
27 l
. process.
2 Now that doesn't say that in the abstract that
'3 one of these drug allegations wouldn't lead to finding that
{
t 4
some part of the plant was improperly constructed.
So I j
5 don't think you should push the technical staff to speculate i
6 on wha t an investigation mioht ultimately show.
But based l
7 on what was actually in the file, we have people who look --
8 who have read what was in the file and they came away, just 9
based on what was.there, without speculating how widely that to crime may have gone.
11 VOICE:
But there were three main areas, harassment, 12 intimidation, fal sifica tion o f documents --
l 13 VOICE:
And drua abuse.
14 VOICE:
What?-
15 VOICE:
And drug a buse.
la VOICE:
And drug abuse.
Yes, those were the 17 three.
+
18 VOICE:
And also, Jim, did y'all do any inspections!l
{
19 o f Wol f. Creek ?
20 VOICE:
We did not do a CAT inspection.
The 21 company called 'in an outfit called Dallion (?)'which did a i
22 CAT-type inspedtion.
We went out:and requested regional 23 help to do a follow-up on that.
We criticized some parts 24 of what. they did, :b'ut in general we found -- and we' passed 25 this on to the region for follow-up, tha t all these issues-l
7-2A 1
were resolved.
So if they did any, they brought in an g
independent contractor called Dallion (tape unclear).
2 VOICE:
Well, I think we ought to keep in 3
l perspective what we are looking at here.
We are looking 4
5 at the company's, the utility's initiative, own initiative
{
to try to do a better job in quality assurance.
Our Off. ice 6
of Investigation has looked at a number of the same things 7
i that the compa ny ha s lo,oked a t.
I a
l So far, if I read Ben Hayes right, he's said that he has found no significant wrongdoings to date, but io he does have a question about a good deal of th'e allegations j ii f,
12 that are still -- that you've looked at.
So you can' t come 13 up with a conclusive answer on those.
j 14 So, you know, I think that's important to keep 15 in perspective.
So far he hasn't told us that from those io company-initiated efforts that we have turned up with i7 anything significant as far as wrongdoing is concerned.
\\
l 18 That doesn't mean you shouldn't continue, and I think -- I so certainly think you should continue, but it seems to me l
20 that we're taking an awful big step if we -. if the 21 technical staff can give us any reasonable assurance that 22 the plant can be operated safely, If you can't'do that, L.
23 that's important.
If you can do that, it seems to me that 24 we have an opportunity -- an obligation, I should say, to 25 move ahead, l
I-i
29 MR. PENTON:
But you can't draw much of a i
i conclusion -- let me restart the sentence here.
2 Saying that Ben Hayes has found no evidence of 3
l wrongdoing doesn't mean much when he-.hasn't had a chance l
4 i
5 to look at anything yet.
VOICE:
But he has looked at some of them.
He's 3
told me he's looked at some of them.
7 VOICE: -He's only looked at the files.
e VOICE:
But you've looked at ~ some of them.
to VOICE:
We have not investigated any of those' l
i si allegations, but we -have looked at the files and that's l
12 where our concern is based upon, or observations are based j
i 33 upon.
i4 VOICE:
Well, I hear that and I appreciate that,
~
and I know you haven't finished what you believe you should 15.
ie do.
And I think that's appropriate,'you probably should 37 finish it, no question about that.
18 All I'm saying is that to date you haven't told i
i, us that there's any significant wrongdoing that you have l
20 turned up, if I understand you right.
Today you-haven't 21 found anything.
22 MR. HAYES:
Our complete investigations, in my 23 view, we have not turned up anything that we normally
.24 call a plant-stopper, other than the one that I --
25 VOICE:
I mean that's important, I think we
r 30 i
i recognize that.
2 VOICE:
Let me see if I can pursue the point, 3
though, that you were trying to get on ib'efore, and tha t is
)
i if there is an indicated path available here for the d
5 Commission to nove ahead, it seems to me tha t it lies in i
6 seeking the answer to the question of whether these 77 l
allegations do in fact involve contractors, entirely or 7
I e
in the vast majority of cases, and therefore would involve personnel that simply no longer have anything to do with I
10 plant opera tions, or a t l eas t in any significant sense, a.nd j
then seconaly, whether also having looked at th'ese 77
'I 12 allegations, staff is entirely confident about any 13 technical rami fications from those 77 allegations.
l l
t
'd It seems to me that is the question that we have 15 to answer.
'6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
That's what I was lookinq 17 for.
18 VOICE:
I think Bob may have some,information for.
us.
l 20 MR. MARTIN:
If I may, let me give you an i
21
[
abbreviated answer, and then if you need more detail, I i
did bring Dick'Denise along with me, who led the team.-
22 23 Dick tells me that all -- underline all --
l 24
-sa fety concerns in the 0-1 program, including these 77, t
25 l
were looked a t by the technical -review teams that were put
-------.---.. - -----x--
. p.
31 I
o together, and therefore the issue was looked at also as a 2
technical' issue, as to its technical rami fica tions, a s 3
perceived by the teams and their supervisors and their i
d reviewers, 5
And jumping ahead beyond the specific 77 cases, 6
we do not have, from the Q-1 files, technical reservations 7
about the plant going to full power.
8 So, that statement incorporates the 77 I was uncertain of that before.
It does incorporate the 77
'O VOICE:
That's'a very important question.
What about personnel that are touched on by these 77?
A r e th ey,
12 in all cases personnel now external to the organization,
'3 in all cases?
Is that a flat sta tement?
'd MR. MARTIN:
Our understanding is that from Q-1,
'5 it has only been one instance of a 0-1 file casting allega-
'o tions against an individual who is currently an employee, 17 who is now currently, was hired on as an employee, permanent f.
18 employee of KG&E.
There may be people on site, still part of a l
20 contractor organization, that have bad allegations levied 21 against them and those allegations have not been followed i
22 up.
That kind of a punch list I cannot give you.
I can only 23 talk in terms of the KG&E operating sta f f at tilat plant.
24 There was one individual in QA-0C, when not employed by KG&E, 25 had an allegation levied against him.
The company did an I
a-Y 32
~
1 increased background investigation, is my understanding, 2
before bringing the person -on, cleared the person of the 3
- a llega tion, brought them onto their permanent staff.
j The question you asked was a much broader d
5 question.
I cannot -- I don't know that we have the data o
available.
7 VOICE:
There is more than one person involved 8
on the KG1E permanent payroll on some of these.
The 9
case that's already gone to DOL, and that KG&E person is l
10 s till on site.
In fact, he's the manager of quality assu.rance.
i 11 There's a case-of sexual harassment from a f
i 12 personnel person who is still employed there by KGAE.
This is Bob Martin again.
id The comment I made before had to do with allega-is tions o f drug use.
There was this other --
16 VOICE:
I'd like t,o say a little bit-for Ben's l
l 17 benefit.
l 18 I would agree wi,th ~everything you said ear, lier, 19 Ben, that the people were.not quali fied ' a s. inves tiga tors 20 in the quality first program.
In fact, we told them that l
21 in the inspection report that we 'sent them.from the l
_ 22 inspection last September.
They"never remedied that.
L 23 But when we were a t Wol f Creek-last' week, !
24 s ent -- I'll call him an investigator because he's a trained i
25 investigator. and holds <a' degree in criminal justice and t,hingst i
a i
0
.33 I
like that -- and had him check out the difference between 2
the quality first files -on drugs and -the staff files on 3
drugs, tha t is the rest of the organization, KGAE.
4 We found that. half the drug cases that came I
-5 in.to KG8E had not been referred to quality.-- a f ter they I
came -in to quality first had not,heen ' referred to security, j
o 7
and security gave very little. feedback.
But security.did l
8 follow. up on the drug cases and resolved them, but they simply weren't reflected in the quality first files.
And j
we reached beyond what your peopl's were able to.do, beca'use 10
'I we had one -- one body to do it.
t 12 To give you a case, just a classic case of
'3 what the files show - Paul comes into quality first and l
'd says two folks out in tool crib No. 3 have drugs.
The 1
'8 record shows_.that quality first called security and then it 16 shows the nex't entry that two people were terminated.
'7 When we went to.the security files ~ and. dragged
'8 them out of Jthem, we found that they immediat,ely -sent -
l security to tool crib No. 3, they. tested a controlled i
20 substance from one person,11t tested positive and. they.
{
21 escorted. htm to 'the ga te and ' he wa s termina ted.
.And the.
t l
22 other person re fused. to open.his = l_unchbox for examination, l
23 and-in accordance with their policy..they also escorted.htm 24 i.
to the ga te and terminated him.,
.h L
r 25 so wha t you ' find 'in. the-security depa rtment files, {
L, C
l
r la you don't find in the quality first files.
And that's a 2
classic examnle why Ben will say, "I can't tell, unless I l
i 3
look farther."
I 4
We looked farther in 22 cases for drugs.
5 VOICE:
And if I understood what Bob said earlier )
Dick, you looked.at every one of the 77 for technical 6
i 7
ra mi fica ti o n s ?
l e
VOICE:
We looked at every: single case that had a l
technical component and resolved it.
We had nine cases 10 that we were not satisfied on, but rather than leave it
{
there, we did-an onsite inspection in those nine instanc,es, I
l 12 l
and closed the issue.
The quality first files weren't
'3 adequate for the technical side, either.
VOICE:
What size was the total population that
'5 you looked at?
l
'6 VOICE:
We loqked at 271. files constitutinq 751 l
l concerns.
17 l
~
18 VOICE:
Okay.
You had questions a, bout nine and resolved those?
20 VOICE:- We had some questions about a lot that 21-we easily resolved, like talking to a couple of people, but j
22 we had nine significant questions which; required us to go 23 to quality assurance and quality control and get Hadwell (?)
24 records and welding records,look at those and look 25 at design changes and more or less resolve them -- we l
i i
m U
i-35 resolved all of them before we lef t.
2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Let me make the following i
3 observation.
I think you have provided me with information d
I 5
that I was lacking with regard to the feelings of the Staf f i
I f
f 6
on looking at the technical aspects of these issues.
l l
1 l
7 I think that in the presentation you ought to e
address the fact that you have made a review of the Q-1 I
program, that O! did find whatever they found -- and I do want to turn to Ben, or you could agree that one of you '
l 10 do it -- and indicate what the Sta f f has done a' bout it',,,,
li 12 with regard to health and safety aspects.
And I think then
'3 we might have a basis to proceed.
t
'd You might also want to add that there is follow-up 1
15 work that we may find it desirable to do, so 'that we can
'6 think a little more clearly about' our own policy with regard 17 l
to such programs, i
18
!s that reasonable way to approach --
o l'
VOICE:
Yes.
20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Okay.
And then I guess 21 each Commissioner will decide for himself what to do.
22 VOICE:
It seems to me, though, that this 23
- personnel question is the key outstanding question. -We j
i i
24 have heard a lot of ' assurances about technical adequacy here.
-j l
\\
l 25 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0:
Well, ! think that needs to l-l p
l l
f.-
36
(
1 i
be worked on.
Go ahead.
1 there were pretty firm assurances 2
VOICE:
3 on the personnel element of it, but I wasn't quite sure d
wha t I was hearing.
There was a certain signal-to-noise f
l 5
ratio there and it wasn't all clearcut.
6 MR. THOMPSON:
This is Hugh Thompson.
l 7
I think where we feel more confident is in the i
e drug use a rea.
That is to the extent that the allegations go to currently KG&E employees operating the plant.
I
,i 10 think what the degree of harassment and involvement, I think il you will find -- and I don't know the details,'maybe Di,c.,k,,
j i
12 does -- that there are indivioials tho are currently there 13 on site who are, I guess, part of the allegations that Id an individual harassed other people, and it probably goes I5 to the manager of quality assurance and some *other individualt.
16 So to say that.in the whole 77 that there will not 17 be KG&E employees is not correct.
But we can say that we 18 don't see an issue that relates directly to the day-to-day l'
operations of the plant by the operational personnel with 20 drugs and concerns of that area.
At least to that extent j
l 21 we have looked and have reasonable confidence that they do 22 not have licensed operators and operating personnel involved P
23 in that area.
24 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0:
But you have specifically l
25 focused on that question and' then reached that considered I
17 i
judgment be fore today?
3 FR THOMPSON:
Hell, not necessarily before 3
today.
But involving two today, tha t is I think it was
). reached independently that 4
the inspection team looked at i
5 that issue while they were there, we were raising the same 3
issue when I guess we originally got word tha t of had identified this area as not closed, 7
so on a separate pathway we were holding a
meetings with the licensee today to get their statement and their position with respect to that io issue.
This was-confirmed independently by our inspection team when they i
12 came back.
i3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Well, let ne point out u
tha t time is going.
I think at least for myself I am ready to go back into the meeting --
is 33 VOICE:
Fine.
CHAIRMAN PALLADIM:
And I would suggest tha t --
1 don't want to rush it, but any unnecessary things tha t 3
h you have here tha t you might --
23 VOICE:
Well, let se get merci fully brief.
CHAIRPAli Pall.ADf MD:
~,,
If you could make it --
l that's what I's getting at. Ass't skinp on this.
I'll leave 3
)
t es te bring it ur If rom do n ' t b r i n g i t u p,
then I
.3'11 ha.6 5,
a3X h
- s.
*'a to ask you
- .s.
I g,
e
[p:
~
3R
'. t, i
May we vote to withhold the tape?
i.
(Chorus of ayes.-)
i 7
(Whereupon, the closed portion of the l
3 meeting was adjourned ~at approximately 4:00 o' clock p.m.)
4 i
I I
s i
I l
i
- s l
l 9
l l
10 l
r ii 12 l
13 i
j 14 l
15 l
h@
I 17 I
is 19
?
2o j
. i
.2' 22
'23-2a
. 25 k
i l
l m...'
-.. m m
m
.