ML20147H772
| ML20147H772 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 01/28/1988 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20147H733 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#188-5832 2.206, NUDOCS 8803090064 | |
| Download: ML20147H772 (1) | |
Text
. . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
)
ff e .
'o, UNITED STATES NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION A d Il ( "I l 4- -
W ASMINGTOM. D.C. 29tM g gj m h h '
\...../
OFFICE OF THE mnaa
$4Cf4 E T A R Y '
Jantury 2 8,: 1988 l
MEMORANDUM IOR: Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for .Ltions j FROM:' .. Samuel J. Chilk, Secre _, ,
- m.
SUBJECT:
i PETITION OF THE GOVERN TENT {ACp0UNTA81LITY j.: PROJECT!REQUESTINGl A 0ELAY IN THE COMMISSIDM p FULLlPOWER. VOTE 50N SOUTH TFXAS On January 76, 1988, 4,
Accountability Projectmy(office GAP). 'received the .attached The petition requestspetition that the of the Aovernment Coeurission delay
- k. voting on full power operation for the. South Texas Muclear Project until i such time as investigations recomended by EAP: In the petition have been
, completed.
t This is being forwarded to vou for appropriate action'under 10 CFR 2.206.
Please provide the Comission on a timely basis with'a recomendation as to the request to delay the Cemvntssion meettag which is now scheduled for February. 2?,1988.
Attachment:
As Stated .
I Copies:'
, , . Chairman Zech-Comissioner Roberts
! Coanissioner Aernthal i Comissioner Carr
- Coemissioner Rogers General Counsel '
8803090064 800229 PDR ADOCK 05000490 P PDR 200 --- 003447
e, UNITED STATES OF.' AMERICA Eh:IE0 g '
BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY (X2U4ISSION i M L3W 26 P3 06 or n ec . .. : . . . . , . .
00Cyr w *f *. : :.. ...
In the matter of ) !!!iav "
)
South Texas Nuclear Project ) Petition pursuant to
) 10 C.F..R. $2.206 Units One and Two. )
- )
h e
i e, .
PETITION OF THC 00VERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT lV Prepared.by: .
,t Covernment Accountability Project 25 E Street, N.W.,.' Suite 700
~ Washington, D.C. 20001 '
2024347-0460 '
Dated: January.26, 1988 1
l 2 2 : .; c' :. L .' l J/8g.
- s. __
TABLE 10F CONTENTS * ';
Seeeion p g.
I. INTRODUCTION
- 1
- II. BACEGROUND/ FACTS 2 e
a-r, i II1. . %4EGAL e ANAIMSIS.1 .,q .,.= w;.-r - w4 &
".- A. The NRC's first .obligat;1on is sto ,
l protect public health and safety. 4 p .
B. 4The NRC's 1.imited review of the .
l STNP allegations jeopardizes .
k public heal'th and safety.:. 6 c IV. CONCLUSION 10
.n.
l l >
l r ,
F.
1 F
L i
4
) . ,,
.~.. .
n -
$ I. INTactCCTION 3';.h.
Pursuantito 10 C.F.R. $$2,202, 2.206, the Government i
Accountability Project (GAP) requests that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC 'or Coudission) delay voting on a full power
. - operating license for the south Temas Nuclear Project (STNP) until the following are' comp 1'eted:
E. 1. A complete investigation of all : allegations 'regarding the STNP.
- f. ,
- 2. Release to'the puhlic of an investigative / inspection report dispositioning each allegation.
CAP 'is making this request in . order to prevent a potential
.e
. health and safety problem from occurring as a result of the NRC's 4 f ailure to fully or properly investigate the 600 to 700 '
I allegations providediby current and fbraer STNP workers and g; .
I persons affiliated with theinuclear industry.
! We had. hoped that.by cooperating with the*NRC the STNP allegers.would have their allegations thoroughly. investigated.
Unfortunately, it is clear to us now that no such investigation I was : intended by .the agency. In fact, it came to our attention very recently that the NRC had prepared a draft of the findings of the Safety Significance Assessment Team (SSAT'or Team) even before the team returned from its inspection trip to the STNP.
This' demonstrates very vividly that NRC'has little inter.est in facts, and that.the investigation was probably doomed.from the start.
-1,
su .v r.t. - . .
l l
. II. BACMGROUND/ PACTS
-,3 ,
.4 Just over one year ago. CAP brought.to the NRCOs 'ettention i that numerous safety allegations were being raised about the STNP. )
In a January 20, 1987 letter to Victor Stello and Texas l Attorney General James Mattox, GAP announced its preliminary s investigation of the allegations andirequested an independant
{ (non-Region IV)' review., (Exh,1bi't A).. Responding for the NRC r .
V over the next few months, nr..stello. refused to consider the. idea.
k
- t. of an independent review inf the allegations, and 4 eventually 7.> .
subpoenaed iGAP for all information pertaining to .the STMP.,
(Exhibit B).
s b -
GAP : refused to turn over any information, ebelieving d.. ,
thetsubpoena to be illegal.. sutisequently, t,he NRC brought,an r ,
bm . - action in federal. court to enforcesthe subpoena. Enforcement was
' denied, causing the NRC and GAP to develop a cooperative arrangement that would' permit.reviewtof the allegationsiby an
, (,
^ Y' independent NRC1 team, while protecting the confidentiality of the allegers.
This arrangement was worked out following a November 19,
'F t- 1987 meeting with NRC technical personnel.
The substance of the .
i, agreement is reflected sin two pleces .cf corr.aspondence. :
(Exhibits C andiD).
During thetNRC team'a review, it becama clear that. time.and scheduling constraints were being placed on.the review.. GAP.
advised the NRC 4 that such constraints were prohibited.under 10 C.F.A. 550, Appendix B, Criterion 2.
(Exhibit D). Nonetheless, the NRC team quickly reviewed most of the allegers' flies without substantively reviewing the available supporting documentation.
. 9 **
q . e4 During the first week of January 1988, 'the NRC team cowpleted its inatial review. Without interviewing ahy of the allegers, the team concluded that the allegations were "not of immediate safety algnificance." (Exhibit E). This conclusion is
, outrageous on it.i face because GAP: staff advised the team.that "our working files were not prepared for the purpose of HRC ,
review. Nor.can.these files,take ,t.he, place,gof,a technical interview with the alleger.. Consequently, our files should only.
be used to complement a more thorough NRC. technical interview, and must.not be used to make a def'nitive i technical assessment of
. . any allegation.P '(Exhibit D. emphasis added) .:
}.[
' i Despite the ill-perceived lack of safety significance, the .
, NMC.teau chose 10' primary and 50 secondary allegations to review
- y. further.: (Exhibits E and F). Arrangementsiwere made for f: . anonymous on-the-record phone interviews to be conducted with 1
some of the allegers having knowledge about the 80 selected allegations. During one interview the NRC team agreed to take the alleger (John Corder) on a alte tour so Jul could show the NRC e
specifically where the problem areas were located.1/ ' However, upon reaching the STNP' site he was permitted to show the NRC only one of the ' ten allegations of his .that :the NRC team had selected.1/ That single allegation involved Unit Two. The:
- 1. Mr. Corder.no longer wishes to remain confidential.
- 2. All together, Mr.: Corder.has brought more than.100 allegations to the NRC:'s attention through GAP.
3
I
.. s . .
o.
l other nire allegations involved Unit one, which.is the unit.the a ;
1 WRC is s' r to license. Mr. Corder was .apparently (en'ied access to.0 nit for "security reasonss" (Exhibit G). l T' : team conducted its review of 60 of :the STNP ;
)
alleg during the week of January 18, 1988. Essentially, I the te.. s given four days .to complete the task and report back
'- to NRC mag.gement and the Commissioners. Current prges reports
-c indicate t at no significant safety problema were found. This.
L
- . conclusier is not surprising, considering the.NRC team made.the .
same dete .ination prior to its on-site inspection.. Obviously, the result was pre-determined.
III.'. LECa2 .uiALYSIS ' ,
4 L .
A, ine NRC's first ob1[gation'is to protect public health -
end safety.
The N tc has a mandatory duty to exercise .its authority .when i !
necessary. The foremoat : priority :for the NRC ;is to determine s
, that there will be adequate protection cf the. health.and safsty of the pubile. The issue of safety must be resolved.before.the i Commission issues a construction permit. Porter City Ch. of i
Isaak Walton League.v. Atomic Energy Commission,: 515.F.2d 513, 524.(7th Cir. 1975).'
"(Pjuolic Jafety is the first, last, and permanent:
i consideration in any decision on the issuance of a construction permit or a license to operate a nuclear facility." Power
-~.
i Reactor. Development-Corp. v. International Union of Electrical Radio and Machine Workers,4367 U.S. 396, 402(1961).}. See, also,
- ~
l Petition for Emergency and . Remedial Action,. 7 NRC 400, 404 ;
a l
, (1978). ;
1 The NRC has broad authority to revoke, suspend, .or modify the construction permit of an NRC Flicensee.- 42 U.S.C. 32236
- states that:
. . . . . __. . . . . . . l Any license may be revoked (for any material.
false statement in the application or any :
p' statement iof fact required under seetton 2232 of thisititle, or because of conditions revealed by such application tor statement of fact or any i 31 r epo r.t , record, or inspection.or other means which would warrant the Commission to refusa to grant a j;k- license on an original application,:or fer : failure to construct or operate a facility in accordance Fj with .the terms of the construction permit or i
- r. license. cf the technical specifications on :the a g,. ,J appli' cation, or for. violation of,'or fialute to '
pF. obser.ve any of the terms and iprovisions of .this i
, chapter or of any regulation (of the . commission.
See, also,.42 U.S.C. $f2133, Q134
',' The same criteria for the revocation, suspension, or modifi- -
a *
.',. cation of a construction permit . exist under NRC regulations.
H.
- h.- see, 10 C.F.R. 50.100t(1987).'
l7-The NRC:has a var.iety iof powers it can exercise .to protect -
i the public's health'and safety. The NRC has recognised.its i '
statutory authoritysto (1) issue orders to promote or to protect health or minimize danger to lifefor property; (2) impose civil penalties for the violation of certain licensing provisions, rules, and orders, and for violations for which licenses can be rovoked: (3) seet injunctive or other equietable relief for violation of regulatory requirements and (4) seek criminal, pena l t ies . - see, 10 C.F.R.>Part 2, Appgndix C, II (1987). In
- = = -- e e m = . .
~ ..
addition, pursuant to. regulations the NRC can "institute a proceeding...to modify, suspend, or revoke a license, or for such other action as may.be proper-." 10 C.F.R. $2.206 (1987) .
B. ) The NRC's limited review of the STNP allegations
$eopardizes oublic health and safety.
~] At the outset it is critical :to note that CAP.and the allagers attempted to have tthe NRC review the sallegations;nore -
L, , than one year ago. Therefore, any concern by:the NRC as to the i u
[ timeliness of the allegations and interference wlth licensing h schedules is neritiesa.
!(
y' Even a cursory ireview sof the somewhat limited allegers' .
- p. re .. files should cause any, investigator toibe cones'ned about the
(;l~ status of the RTWP. ; The.informatLon that several allegers have
, brought to the attention of GAP, and now the NRC4 points to a major quality assurance breakdown at STMP. For example, there is now information in the possession of the NRC which. suggests that.
STNP is experiencing theifollowing problema
,'. 1. . Lost material traceability
- 2. High rate :of errors on permanent plant. records
! 3. Failure to report and: documents, and/or fai. lure.to report and document in a, timely manner, all non-conforming condit'ionst
- 4. As-built conditions do not comply .with blua-line drawings or other applicable documentation :
- 5. Falsification of records
- 6. Code, FSAR, specifications, and procedural violations
- :_ _ u mu_ _
a
- 7. Lackecf freedom toireport non-conformancessand not be
~'
- subject to reprisals
. . t
- 8. Invalli H-5 Code. Data. Reports and Code Da b P.lates
- 9. Willft. :over-up of serious design, hardware,.and.
documentation discrepancies or inadequacies
- 10. Material falso statement (management knew, or should i ,, ,haveiknown,:of non-conformances)..
h other, areas of concern include engineering design ;(numerous . -
- '5
~ as-built interferences in some systems are causing components to:
be . inaccessible, or are causing specific . items to be subject to '
damage): hardware (welding ideficionedes) . procur.ement (.it .is likely that counterfeit fastaneras and/or fasteners that do Jmot .
meet ASME/ ASTM ispecifications have been used)r and intimidation i t
and harassment (many employees acknowledge that .they ,are not able t I to identify safety problems or acts of wrongdoing without being b- subjected to retallation).
l it :is impossible for the NRC to disposition the potentially ,
bl significant generic . concerns reflected iin the : allegations.in a.
i; four-day site inspection. Obviously, the NRCicould noti
~
legitimately expect to thoroughly hddress even the 60 selected h.
allegations which were the focus of the team's review.
Furthermore, one incident that occurred during the. team's site visit clearly demonstratesielther (1) that the NRC team's hands were hopelessly tied, preventing them from conducting a ,
thorough review of the allegations, or (2) that the team never had any intention of conducting a thorough investigation. The incident involved an on-site inspection with one of the allegers,
John Corder. Mr. Corder . contended that he could more effectively show the Nac tea.a where the problems were at STMPs:.fAthertthan, explain to them in an interview. It was agreed that he could accompany members.of the. team on a half-dayireview.cf the. l
' ~
problems at the STNP site.. He was limited to.the ten allegations of his that the NRC had picked to review.- When he.got to.the i I
site with the NRC: team, he was,, permitted to show. thes only one iof p the ten allegations.- Oddly. enough that one allegation had .
I' nothing to do with Unit one.. Of course, Unit One is the unit that the NRC plan,s to permi.t to sperate in the near future. Why, would the MRC tema not allow Mr; Corder. to identify his concerns in that unit? Mr.' Cordet was toldsthat.It would be "too .
, difficult"ito getshim into Unit one.e It was also implied.thatihe i
1
(
e.
~
could Act gain access to Unit one for security reasons.-
t The NRC's failure to provide Mrt Corder with access to Unit I one is one iclear example .of the : team'is inef fectual . handling of
" the STNP allegations. Who decides which pegsonnel.can have '
access to a nuclear facility? ; If the 1.icensee. played any role .in [
!#~ , denying Mr.' Corder access to Unit one, then isomething is l
, seriously wrong with the nuclear. regulation. process. Is the g ;
public to believe that.NRC bffic'lais.cannot: gain. access:to a nuclear f acility in order to inspect safety : concerns?
An additional problem with the NRC' team's review is that it was constantly subjected to overwhelming scheduling pressures.
such' pressures are not permitted to be a factor when matters affecting safety are at issue. NRC regulations (10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix B, criterion I) state in pertinent part 6
l
' . - ~ - - - - . . . - - - - - - . - - . - --,_-_._ _ ___,,_,,_---. , _ , , . _ _ . - - , - . , , , - , - - , - - . ., - , . . - - . . , - - -
r.= : - .
r y -.
- p-The persons and organisations performing quality
~
isurance functions.shall have sufficient .
ithority and organizational freedom to identify tality problemst to intiate, recommend, tor ovide solutions; and to verify implementation.of slu tions . Such . persons and toeganinations erforming quality assurance functions shall l rport to a management level.such that.this equired authority and organisational freedom, icluding suf ficLent independence f rom cost and .
thedule when opposed to safety considerations, i:e provided.
" ' ' ~
TheNFC team's review.cf the allegations amounts to a quality assurance verification of the $fNP. , Particularly. Unit One-. A proper analysis of the allegations,. thorough , interviews .
,[ ~w ith allegees, and a comprehensive inspection.of the siteicould .
.not;be accomplishedain the timerthe team was allotted. Even the t
,; ,- team's reduction of .the number of allegations to investigate: from 4
over 600 to 50 was not suf ficient to allow a thorough inspectien .
V i to be completed in four days.- The: obvious scheduling constraints (
b'
- 4 placed upon the team seriously hampered its ability to properly .
g investigste the STHP allegations. .Because of these problems.the 4
ly team's investigation does not comply .with WRC ' regulations.-
bE Finally, no issues of. wrongdoing have been investigated by N~
e the NRC.! The NRC! technical team was unable:to address STNP .
allegations involving wrongdoing. ; These allegations were i supposed to be addressed by the NRC's Office of Inspections (OI).
To date, no arrangements .have been made to accommodate an .OI review of wrongdoing allegations. Information on wrongdoing will provide the Commission with significant insight into.the corporate competence and character of the licensees such information must be fully evaluated before the commissLon. reaches a final decision on licensing.
-g- -
l IV. CONCLUSIE l ror all the foregoing reasons, the Commission _.should delay i i tion of l the vote on licantsing the STNP until.a thorough invest ga ;
I all allegations is completed and a.public report.is issued.
Respectfully submitted,-
g
'
- Billie P. Garde i L
- Richard E. Condit 5 Covernment Accountability; Project 25 E Streets M.w.,.sulte 700' Washington,iO.C. 20001 202-347.-0460 Dated: January 26, 1988 079AA23 !
e
\
i=
l l
1 1
~ .
r E. . -
1 a
- g. l
?
f' s rw m. _. ,, ,. = _
. 1 G
.s -
^
F .*
W.
.g$. , EXE13IT A - -
. Wamusesysuuspra- .
i V
o M
b l
l 9-.
s*
?'
t O
E.
e
==-e . .
, , . - , - . - , - , < , _ - . . _ , , , , - , - - - - , - - - - - . - , . . ,,-w,,- ww,,_.---, ,,-,--emyy, , - -, - - . , + - . , - - , , - - ,,m, --
-,- -cw- -,_,,- -
t
/
GCMRNMENT ACCOUptrA8!LITY PROJECT 1$55 ccc.c.cr.wr Awm;e. N W. Suite 202 ' -
W@,.cqc,r.. D.C 20056 '
- h :-f) 2328550 :
73 n
January 20, 1987 E* I w
Victor ste;;o. Executive otteet:r.
U. S.! Nuclear Regulatory C: matston
'Wasnington, D.C. 20555 i .
"-* James Mattox : *
Attorney ceneral for.sne s ase sf Oexas Supreme Courtisuilding.
T 14th & Colorado
- 5. , Austin, Texas: 73711 Re:' South. Texas Nuclear.Pr ;ect a-Dear Messrs Stello and Mat os .
This letter is to infcts ayeur respective egencies that e.he i Severnment Accountabsta % Pro ect (CAP)<. Mas eform4Lly . begun peeliminary investigat son into worker allegatLons at she South temas nuclear. pro 3ect.t J-p Since 1980, CAP.P.as clayed a significane rolesin advocating-0- , cn tonalt og whistleb!:we.rs and concerned 4c: :aens ion issuesi
,lavolving safety-re;a:ef precisms 4: .vartous sclear power
- i. f acilities.- . i Cur apptcacn to nuclear : power P.aa oeen steadfast 1f '
lL
- c, cne same safetyilsws and eequ14
- ;:ns.
toiensure:t at :ne governmen: en?:::es the nuclear
,g.
.As a resv;c.cf JAP:s ef foets (alone or in concert twith ota.or crqanisations) to exosse safety-telated :
- il' problems, the
- construct.:n and,'or spara:.:n :! several nuclear s power facilities -- prevacusly te.ougn: :s se !!:.so operate - -
r-were cancelled or postponed (for fur:ner rev:ew, .The eencelledi l7 facilities include tte it percent c: ;;etef 2:n.aer;nuclean power.
iE plant and the:85 percesi c:mp!eted**.:'.a c pl.J .- TM.:se wh4cM4 were postponed for f ar:ner rev;ew s c..se :* *e J: anene Peas, .
s.
u Three Mile Island,.Daast: Can yon, ar.1 *a t e r f : : : f4:;;.:;es, CAP currently es erireprese.-s : .
.: r s . ..9 . ;; n -
approximatelyi36 curren: and/or !cemer e p;:yees.cf :ne south Texas project.- The attegattons fr:n :ne .:r<ers range frem grand thef t of nuclear grade s:eet :s eng:neer;. g defects :n severa! a major safety cosponents. The at;ega:::ns csr.cern :ne.f allure of Houston Light & Power is quarantee 'succ:ntra ::t . compliance with industry and federal 24!ety requa raments. .. c;ud.ng tut .not limited tot defects ;n .e instrumentat;:n 494 centrol divaston:
defects andslack of cc p; ance w;:n federa; regulations :n the heating, ventilating, 4-d.d:e cendt:::aeag system: ;aeg :og .
compliance with qual.:y standards in :ne deed of soils 4 compaction; failure to c: p e:e required QA or QC documentations falstfication of requsred.*A at CC Accu.tentattont and;harassmen and intimidation of perste.r.e! wno attempt to adhere to federal safety standards, l n, r a: -~
. ,. m - ep -
,_ ., . .m . = = = = = = = * *
- k Jan;ary 20, '987 - Page Twc .
e
. Pr 's -
s Additionally, and :t spectfac cencere E n d.. ,
there are allegations sta: , .3 :.te State of - '
the : subcontractors at STP to 4.ac.ade. evercnarce;; tera:e ae:: ens :f s me,xas, -*
goods and services by 1cnargtag c!! ge H;.s:On Ltgnt 6 P:ve, nest r !
to Stown & Roots Inc. 7 mere :wn unacceptable bo'5. r t Lent '.7 ..aSTP f: . at cn whica suqqest s that 44 -
met worked,tandsubcontractors for have poet;.f rauc. .s :! ta 354rged for sannages ,i s .4 ; ss i completed as claimed. e pro;ect.wnten were not l-
, GAPlis curr.ently c:-c.c p
to,teeriworkers who aretc: cermes acow:1 1 ; terviews witn' bot'h current and g.g ,
. Washington, D.C. off!ce anc.*w! CAP investigators are a :ept;eg cal's f t:
.r. . 4 ,. . w dwes::ct! sees .
P issue a formal public report.Once our pre 11m: nary . nvest :qation:is ccmp
[ 'nfersunately, e- . ,cannot concerns advise ourRegion to ithe citants :'t er.c!!;ce those tof we tne
- work utch to provide theirin.cne interia, we
- NRC
(
e l,i been i(and i recently .r eleased unearnal agency. ' Our, reports emper tence .ichat confJrms Man s .
its regulatory requare. ents as iousluned un governing t ,
, procedures.
- q. ..
inspectors to process.i e al.egat;ensipursua.Thus, s prov;fe independentunless the NR l(
,7
';o internalivic state Attorney Generai eff.;ee. and/cr-regulations,' 3 :nd a GAP will. provide st l . congressionsi commat:ees, and/cc r.3 c:rer re:.pprope bodies which have an :?:eets: 9 e a.s u r : n
- a t o ry o f mun t eA pa t .
ate '
plant is designed, ccastrue:eds ar.dif;.aag 4+. in.e South Texas - '
, protects ene pubiac. ce r:n a mannere: Mat Please 4 h, investigati: ect any :moute:es ano.: 147Ns 3:a - exasi to Alenard Cend.::, S*.a!! A:::r +f : ves::;atet.
202-232-8550; or SL112e Carde. ~AP *:2-est : : : . e .. ; ; 4 - ? ; 3- 4 512..
V i.*:ers...
3:*;;d P.r +f Jar:e
.rects:r. w.:.es: ;!! ice a;cParc C:.4::
Stai! A ::r.aey cc Chairman Lando leen BC/RCaC30
, .e m' m6
---.,c-e- , - - 3.w__y,_g ,---.,,,,_,,,m.,,,,s .,,, , , . , _ _ , _ _ _ . - - _ , , _ _ _ _ , . _ , , _ _ _ _ _ - . _-_ ____,__ ,__. _ ___. _ _ _ - ,_ _ __
... p. .
I f.
% w j t 4 ww bM..h e i
O 4 C _- _ . , . -- . . ag f..
6 PB 9 -
4.
J
-s S
bd.-
I h .-ee .
?" ***
q M Q Q ah ""
8
? tst- 4eumJuegueuggememb Bur
,r#.v. -
k .,
b, b
e L*
- i We
=.
k.
S. .
- '?'
w a es I
h e
O l
l I
e
- - e oe e . m o oeem em se o =*
Unitch States.cf Americ'a:
l NUctAAA REcuLATORY CD604tssMHd 0; -
E _
p :.;.
In sie settet et Houston Lighting andiPower '
Company -
> DOCKET 700. g.ggg t 50-499 !
., 70 t's. 51111e PA rr.er. Garde
- - ^^ Government Accountab$ltty ~~
Project t 1555 Connect 4 cut Avenue. ii.W1 .
Suite 302' Washington. 0.C. 20':36 YOU AltE MERERY COA 04ANDED to appear et Room 6607. Nuclear Reguletery
- . Commission, 1735 Old Geo town Acad.18ethesda. Meryland on the .26th
I-day of May 1M7iat 9: ' o' clock A.M. to continue es necessary - l for the purpose of testifyingibe' fore Mrseene) concerning allegations.
of current and/or former se9 oyees of the South fasas Project concerafng .
the safety of the South Texas. Project. as descrfbsd in yoursletter of 4anuary 2J. US7 to Meises. Victor Stello and Jees t'attos.esad any other allegations whit.h you. hue.re.tsived concernir.g the safety of the Sout? :
- {- Yemas Project, and to prJvide any rece?ds or other docunents in your 5 pcssession or under your custody or centrol concerning such: allegations. .
, I -
i
. f l k
~ -
\ !
f q.
eter.$te . JN
_, Esecutive Director for Deerattana .
. i heYREuiatnevc-1nion
.ua e raw n
} h . <#4 . 1987 f*
w (301) 492-7614 l
On setten made promptly. and in any event at er before the time specif{ed in the 64 Mea for compliance at whose instanceby thethe parsenwas subpoena to whom issued the theConsission subpoenesay is 1) directed,(and quash er modify en the notice to; subpoena if it is unreasonable or requires evidence not relevant to any matter in issue.
er (2) condttien danial af the notien en juat and reasonable tenas. Such astien should be directed to the Secretary of the Cossif ssion, Idashington. 0.C. 20545..
o A -
~.. - u.
t b- 5 m . .,- __ =- _
't
' *= s .
,E P
- n. '
- a. . . . -
g .
E.22 BIT A C .
I Ea r
- . e yr .
b i
- 4 9
v I.
6 .
I lk. *
- e e
F W -
4 f
e amme w ee == .. .--m. * * *=e= """" ** *
- w - ~ + = - ~ , , - - - e w -
ae,>--m, ,.m w.,.ws, .,n,
,e.--em,.,,,*"-_**'gmm' , * *en.,,
___ ~ - - -,,,-
- , , .ey--,-----,,,,----v __-_,v -
- - - - - - --- w- --
- p. w. -
g.
b-M ,.
5: .
P.-*y. g * %
t a. . .% UMTED' states
"*i 3, .N $, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .
k . 6 %.-
- e us nes to=. o.'c. roest ) $ " .,""*
i c-NOVl! 4 fE7 ; A%
t.;
b.- Ms. - Billi e a Garde 7 *~
g Government Midwest 0 ntability Project .
I 424 Mar
( ,y lston, . sin iS4911
.m .rar ms, Gat.;e Fs will conf um the results of our sseeting of : Thursday, ilovember 19i1987, at wch we discut sed certain 411eirations GAf hhas deve1oped concerningithe
.dh Texas nuc lear power .planti .
. "fr. .
'.:- 4.. netting her en by your . tab 1f ng a series ,of talking. points concerning your
. < e of the objectives of .the meetirg, as well at a sammary of how EAP handles
.y ..vations received. We ifound the discussion utsfuli but cef ther agreed nor
.n . :,.rwed to the points' you raised. You retained a11:copie.s of the brfefing ;
.m- r > .. You ths.1 proceeded to table a tabulation of allegat.fons la suusnary ,
i . .t (all co; tes of which you. retained) thtch we reviewed on the spot,
- is . 2nclusion was that insdfflctent data Ees'available in the summaries to m i for,a deliberate and reasoned evaluatio's of the.ellegations. .In further.
?. ision you agreed to make your files ce these allegations available to vs.
, i . .. ;uent to the eetting staff has made 4:prellatnary visit to GAFHeadquarters t .. . ..de arran{,erents to begin detailed review of the process on november 30, 1- . . We will accord confidential treatment .to the identity of any 611egers L, -i .: names may surface during this review. Following our review, we will I .w .r you of the allegations which we ftel are appropriate, to review further.
"- . fw. :rved to 5.rovide us datn on which such follow up can proceed, stbject, in I . ... ases, to your contacting allegers.to assure that they will agree to be L . .. ..ed by the IJtC'. .
y : - z: Q. _ . .
4
.I 4 ". ..
o indicated that one set of allegatjens was in process in Wisconsin. We
. hat you will' simply provide us that information during the time we are. ;
g@;.. . 9 the other files 6t gap Headquarters. Separately, I also understand
[":. -
.ed some allebations on wrongdoing directly to the Office of 4
"[" M
- gations which:1s dea 11ngt directly with'ycu on those matters.
tj g..
i ,',..
- . cing was quite satisfactory from our point of view. We appreciate your ice and. cooperation and that of tha:allegers you repretent. With your
. e 4d cooperation we should be able.to give a proper review of the
.ons G/# has acquired. Needless to say, obtaining any information which
. have on alleged defects in the South Texas nuclear power plant will s in assuring that the public health and safety is protected at that
_,, Sinc. . . ..e re.ly
- M
/ . nv-:t T. A. ehmTAssdant for Operations Office of the Executive Director for Operations
---w-,----,-,---.,,--,-_.--,,,%. - . _ _ - _. ,---, ,y_. ,,_._---______,.,,__,,.,,3 ,,,,.,_,y ._,,_.,,.y,._,,,..,,, ._ ,,.___, _
9_ .7- -. - ,_ __- ----.
, E. % . . ..
ese - v
- w. *
. E. . - -
~ - -
. , ;. u
- s. .
.i
..+. .
. EXIIBITl .D t ..-
- MMMmmma Mao.
4
. .: ..r w. .
~e j
- al
=~t b.
p O..
s-iw Le
. 46 i
W - e
.e .
e l'
&=
e a
k i
8 , m . e om. #
I J
\ . . . . .
- m-,m,wc.-, , - ---v-,m-w.-e , , , , - - - aw-,-,--,,,--wm ,-,---------nw -m--,~-----ne,-,--~---v-+, e-----------w w-w- ,vwe ,- -,,em,w--> m,-
V W r
. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT .e
- 25 E Street. N.W., Suite 700 .. 2 Washington, D.C. 20001; --
GOT) 347 0480 December.4, 1987 '
, , MAND-Dr.1,IWarD Jose Calvo U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory Commission 7920 Norfolk. Avenue I"
Whiilips Building - "
. Setbenda, Maryland 3
+
Dear Jose:
[. We are writing :to discuss the statua. of the review of the.
South Texas Nuclear : Project (STMP) worker ' allegations.
b This L. review follows our preliminary meeting.cf Novembers19th. In that F meeting it was agreed that.a team of non-Region IV,NRC personnel:.
g would be permitted access to the STNP allegers' files under.
certain conditions and with theiallegers' permission. These ki conditions included .that.the identity of any alleger would be
- g. kept confidential and t. hat mo one at .the WrwP : site will be contacted about the information1 revealed during the review. In 1
^
addition, it was agreed that the allegere' information would only be revvaled to NRC need-to-know basis. personnel not participating it. theprotocol reiew onwasa t
The: development of this working >
necessary to permit NRC review while protecting our interests and the interests of the allegers.
p We appreciate the dill'gence and courtesy.that the~.
b Washington-based NRC personnel have exhibAtad in working at our
( office. We have tried to work closely with them to allow the review to proceed as efficiently as possible.
[ Eowever, over the last couple of days it has become clear to us, through the actions and comments of Paul O' Conner, that.there may be problema with the'reviewaof the allegations. No.
understand that'Mr. O' Conner's background is in project management, noti QA/QC and technical review. . We believe tt:at hLa background may be a limitation on the review process.. In.our opinion, his approach to the allegations may be hampering a thorough and independent technical review.
Yesterday, we were particularly disturbed by Mr. O' Conner's comments to other NRC personnel that a deadline (of TNeember -
12th) would control the review instead of the substance. 4 determining the amount of effort required. Such deadlines may (
violate 10 CFR 50, Appendir 5, Cri'terion I. We are aware of STNP's licensing schedule, but we must strongly object to this review being controlled by any licensing timetables..
e m ee e o , eenem
/
/
Jose CA1vo December.4, 1987 Page Two 1- .
. As we have.aiready discussed, it is essential.that.the 4 allegers' flies receive a detailed QA analysis. Each file Aust
' be read through in order :to get :an overall view of :the petsible CA/OC breakdown at STNP.!
Our: other concern with Mr. :o' Conner'd approach is that he .
, 4:seems .to take a very narrow view of the allegations. On several ,
occasions he has appeared to minimise the significance nf some
' allegations before the reviewer.could analyse it.in italontirety..
- This approach maytprevent the reviewer.from.makingtan J
independent assessment of an allegation based on.his technical, expertise. This concerns us because.the initial reviewtof the.
'~
allegations wil; determine the universe of information from which j the NRC can investigate.' Therefore,.it is important that no -
p allegationtis dismissed too.quickly.!
. In reviewing :a filed if the alleger's intent is somewhat
/W W
ambiguous, <then the Anterviewitapes should be reviewed or .the i alleger should be qusstioned if possible. As we.orplaised in the i., g. November 19th meeting,'our working filma were not prepared for 3 the'purpost' of NRC revitw. Nor.can these filas take the place.of a technical interview with the alleger.: Consequently, out. files e.hould only be used to complement a more thorough NRC. technical intervlaw,.and must not be used.to make.a definitive technical.
,c 'sssessment of any allegation. i Another issue that troubles us is that 411tt2 e, if any, f attention is being given to the documentation that supports Some .
[ of the allegations. This is ironic because.the mu information was.the subject of the NRC's subpoor,a.pporting Frankly, it has always.benniour concern that the NRC was not: interested in.
these documents but only wanted to review.eur summaries, which .
, may .not be : technically. complete.: Wearealise that it is much-easlee to dismiss an allegation if there are no supporting documents . We hope that.you and the other members of the review team will begin.to take full advantage of any ' supporting documentation that accompanies an alleger's file.
Finn 11y, in the last*two, days we have finished preparation of approximately 50 allegations that were.in files .tnat,we were unable to prepare previously. . We advised you that aoma . files had not been. completed at the November 19th meeting. , No one from NRC objected when we indicated that there would be a delay in .
producing these allegations. Yesterday, upon our mentioning that the additior.a1 m)1tgations were prepared, Mr. O' Conner stated
.that it may not be possible to review these allegations.because some members of the technical. review team have already completed their review and could not return.-
e 1
__ i_
s ;.
,s
.y.
s
, , ; ' t" Fi ' i, '
M
^
~.k; .
\ p,
,'g 1.
3
\ i g
L-
, q g '.\
s.g .s \
q 5N k
.s y %i s-N., s s, t s
3 , ,
i
' d; m ,
, \
i _ s s , %,
~
r Jose CalvoOs '
.s December 4. '.987 ' '
Fage Threer- ', , ,
7 ,
, e s -
s .
%\. '
]g '\ \+
, t s s 1 3'
TAs you know, this effort bas consumed many hours and other
- resources -- which are entremely limited. It would be unfair to everyone involved m% comp ~r.: mise the in n grity of.the review effort simply because of So additiodal allegations. There must be appropriate NRC staff'nesbers who could propegly.reviet: these allegations.
s, t% ' hope that you w11.1 'take these commerrts in t.he
'. constructiva: spirit in.which they are offered. We trust that you .
t- will beenth.tte doneall'byEscessary everyone tosteps date..to Our protect n.he hard work that has t* recotmer.detion is that.you.
l institute a conferenc'a call .with us to help work iout ouc concerns,.snd rectify the problems.which have developed.from.
l b today's a_oustoa;Chroniel,e, article.
E ' '
Yours truly, ,
r >
s hA}aY f
, s. Billie & Garde i Richard H. Condit
- L i
2Mna E Ottney (
i g,
6 0797tE01 ec Tom.mehm-U.S. Nuclear Getulatory Commission Maryland. National Bank Sullding :
7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Mary 1 cad G
e f
, , - - - . - , - . - . - . . , . , _ - - - - . . . . , - . , , , . . . . . - . _ - - - ~ . _ . . . _ _ . - - , . . - . . . . . . . , , - - - - - - - - . - - - -
- wa --_ - .m g eM 4 e& S 9 M 9 . geS 4
4 9
en, e e 4 4
e-a g w- p . % :g% - _- - **
. S P
O
-* ,t e
RXIIBIT .- 3 L -
- MMMM .
-g .
-- , e t e e e
9 8
s "
, i
.h i
...* g. za e **. . ,
T
. . 4 l
.i t
l *.
i I
~ 4 I
e e
I l-t 4
,4 6O .$
.e_ .
+ ..e se Q*W w .,
eneW*
..$e S
- e.3 S
a 6*9 G D6 -. ep=e.-=
_ _ _ , _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ --- - - ----~