ML20138Q013
Text
.__
LIMITED DISTRIBUTION
/
- N,,
UNITED STATES i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
s,-
i j
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20655
'%,,,,, /
June 20,1984 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR AND AUDITOR NorE 'IO: Chairman Palladino During Tuesday's warm-up session fNhearings with Congressman Ottinger's commi'ttee you ked me to provide you with a briefing' paper on OL /
investigative activity rela ' to 'IMI-1.
fached is a briefing paper on our vestigati f
allegations in a 2.206 petiti the Union of concerned Scientists relating to tiI-1.
fO ul.Y Frederick W. Herr
Attachment:
As stated cc: Cacmissioners (4)
H. Plaine, OGC J. Zerbe, PE LIMITED DISTRIBUTIOJ i
8511140297 851017 PDR FOIA yj i
GILINSK85-437 PDR
N BRIEFING PAPER 10 CFR 2.206 Petition re TMI On May 8,1984, James Lieberman, ELD, forwarded to 01A for appropriate use the 2.206 Petition of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) dated May 9, 1984, together with various additional documents. The May 9 Petition supplemented UCS' earlier Petition dated January 20, 1984. Within the Petition, the UCS, requested the Commission to direct DIA "to investigate and determine whether the NRC staff has provided false or misleading information to the Boards or to the Commission or has been derelict in its duty in connection with the issue of environmental qualification in TMI-1."
In support of their request, UCS alleged the following:
1.
In an April 25, 1984, letter to Henry D. Hukill, Vice President and Director, TMI-1, General Public Utilities (GPU) Nuclear Corporation, John F. Stolz, Chief, Operating Reactors Branch #4, Division of Licensing, NRR, forwarded the results of an NRC audit of the environmental qualification files for TMI Nuclear Station Unit No.1 (TMI-1).
In the letter, Stolz stated "In general, we believe that the files contain documentation that can be utilized to provide the basis for demonstrating that the EFW equipment is qualified, with one exception."
UCS alleged this statement was misleading, if not outright false, in that a reader might reasonably conclude that the audit turned up satisfactory documentation of environmental qualification in all but one case, when, in fact, in none of the eight files audited was the documentation even close to adequate.
UCS also noted that the equipment audited were not minor components but included emergency feedwater pumps, emergency
. s.
2 feedwater system valves, electrical cables, terminal blocks, and flow transmitters.
2.
The NRC staff wrote a safety evaluation report which stated that GPU had
" completed a preliminary review review (sic) of the identified deficiencies and has determined that, after due consideration of the deficiencies and their ramifications, continued safe operation would not be adversely affected " without any basis for judging whether GPU's unsupported claims were true.
i Based on the information provided in the 2.206 Petition of the UCS, 0IA has initiated an investigation. Ms. Ellyn R. Weiss, General Counsel to UCS and i
Robert Pollard, UCS, will be interviewed by OIA investigators on July 21, 1
]
1984, to provide UCS the opportunity to elaborate on the information provided in the petition.
t 1
i f
6 i
. _ _.. _ _ _ _. _ _, _.. -