ML20148D633
| ML20148D633 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 03/17/1988 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Bernthal, Roberts, Zech NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| 2.206, NUDOCS 8803240101 | |
| Download: ML20148D633 (12) | |
Text
-
4
.1 4
fa-Yt8/ fit
[
UNITED STATES
[
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 5
?
MAR 171998 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Chairman Zech Commissioner Roberts Comissioner Bernthal Comissioner Carr Comissioner Rogers FROM:
Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
RESPONSE TO PETITION OF THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT REQUESTING A DELAY IN THE COMMISSION FULL POWER V0TE ON SOUTH TEXAS On January 26, 1988 theGovernmentAccountabilityProject(GAP)requesteda delay in the Comission's meeting to consider full power licensing for South Texas, Unit 1 because of alleged deficiencies in the on-going review of allega-tions received through GAP. The staff has found no basis to delay the meeting.
The Director's Decision under 10 CFR 2.206 is being treated as a separate matter with a response to be provided to you prior to the currently scheduled meeting.
The staff had attempted to work with GAP to obtain these allegations since January 1987. Correspondence ensued between the staff and GAP, with repeated requests by NRC for the allegations related information.
Eventually the staff issued a subpoena to GAP to produce those documents.
In October 1987, the U.S.
District Court denied enforcement of the subpoena and urged the parties to work toward getting the safety issues to the staff. Subsequently, an agreement was reached between the EDO and GAP on the nain elements of a process that would provide the NRC staff limited access to information which might be of relevance in the forthcoming licensing decisions regarding STP.
The deficiencies alleged by GAP in the petition to delay voting)are related t
to the efforts of the Safety Significance Assessment Team (SSAT which was constituted in November 1987 to detemine the licensing impact of all allega-tions which GAP made available on the South Texas Project. After several weeks of preparatory efforts, including direct telephone contact with allegers, a site inspection was conducted during the week of January 18, 1988. The GAP request asserts the following as bases for their petition:
CONTACT:
P. Kadambi, NRR/PD-IV 492-1337 8803240101 880317 COMMS NRCC PDR CORRESPONDENCE PDR
The Commissfoners )
(1) The results of the NRC's limited investigation into allegations were predetermined, in that the NRC inspection team had prepared a draft of its findings before leaving the site after its site inspection, j
(2) One of the allegers was not pemitted to show the NRC team any of his allegations relating to Unit 1.
(3) The NRC review was subjected to overwhelming scheduling pressures, l
resulting in disposition of most of the allegations without interviewing the allegers and in a failure to thoroughly address the t
60 selected allegations that were the focus of the team's review.
1 (4) None of the allegations of wrongdoing have been investigated by the i
NRC.
1 The following is a response to each of the assertions:
(1) The results of the NRC's limited investigation into allegations were predetemined, in that the NRC inspection team had prepared a draft of its findings before leaving the site after its site inspection.
Response: No such draft was prepared. The SSAT inspection efforts were fully consistent with the technical infomation provided by GAP and the allegers.
I The only limitations on the review were due to the lack of specificity from the GAP regarding the allegations. The SSAT made strenuous efforts to over-come this difficulty by preparing for the on-site inspection in such a way that the allegations were viewed in a wide perspective.
Each allegation was examined for both the main concern and to ascertain any ancillary issues raised by the allegation, the potential root causes which might be involved and wider implications if the allegations were substantiated. As a result, the on-site inspection effort was focused on looking at specific items of documen-l tation and physical inspection of components and specific areas of the plant.
By the end of the inspection, a large body of information had been accumu-lated with the review of the information still incomplete. Under these circum-stances, it was not possible to make findings in many areas before leaving the site. Therefore, no draft could have been prepared by SSAT docurenting the inspection findings.
(2) One of the allegers was not permitted to show the NRC team any of his allegations relating to Unit 1.
Response: The alleger referred to in this assertion was interviewed by telephone on January 16, 1988.
The SSAT reviewed the infomation provided by the 011eger in light of the allegations selected by the SSAT for onsite inspec-tion and of allegations previously inspected at STP. Based on this review, the SS'4T concluded that all but one of the alleger's concerns were bounded by other issues selected for inspection by the SSAT, or by previous allegation reviews conducted on site.
.l The Commissioners The single exception mentioned above is the alleger's concern relating to fasteners in electrical switchgear provided by Westinghouse. The SSAT invited the alleger to the site to show the SSAT his concerns about fasteners in electrical switchgear. The alleger was allowed access to Unit 2 because
- 1) access to Unit 1 is more difficult to obtain than Unit 2 at the current stage of construction; and 2) the two units at STP are practically identical and any safety concerns raised regarding Unit 2 switchgear would have been equally valid for Unit 1.
The alleger came to the STP site on January 18, 1988 and toured the Unit 213.8 kv switchgear in th; company of two SSAT members.
No safety related concerns were identified as a result of the tour with this alleger.
(3) The NRC review was subjected to overwhelming scheduling pressures, resulting in disposition of most of the allegations without interviewing the allegers and in a failure to thoroughly address the 60 selected allegations that were the focus of the team's review.
Response: For approximately two months prior to the actual onsite inspection, the SSAT had access to the files which contained the concerns conveyed to GAP by the allegers. The SSAT found at a very early date that the allegations were deficient in terms of specific details. Based on this, the SSAT developed a program for inspecting the allegations which included provisions to compensate for the gener0 (as opposed to specific) nature of the allegations. An essential part of the SSAT program was the development of detailed inspection plans.
These plans included all the steps necessary to thoroughly inspect the installed condition at STP and establish a bounding condition for the generalized concerns conveyed by the allegations. These plans were developed well ahead of the actual onsite inspection.
The SSAT interviewed all the allegers who were made available by GAP. These interviews were conducted prior to and during the actual onsite inspection.
With only a few exceptions, the allegers did not provide specific details.
The few details that were provided did not require changes to the previously de"aloped inspection plans. While onsite, the SSAT made optimal use of avail-at,
'5ne.
This was accomplished by emphasizing physical inspections on site, and
..ing provisions to collect supporting data for subsequent review and evaluation offsite.
The SSAT was at the STP site frem January 18 through January 22,1988, or 4.5 calendar days.
In actuality, the SSAT worked extremely long hours, and put in the equivalent of eight work days on site. Subsequent to the onsite inspection, the SSAT spent an even greater period of time reviewing and evaluating inspection results and supporting data.
In all, the time spent by the SSAT in preparing for the inspection and reviewing and evaluating inspection results and supporting data, exceeds the time spent en physical inspection on site by about a factor of 5.
In light of this, and considering that the SSAT did not find any major issues which would have required additional tine on site, the SSAT considers that sufficient time was available to inspect the 71 primary and secondary allegations selected for onsite inspection.
The Comissioners It should be noted that, in the early phase of the SSAT review of GAP files, a total of about 700 allegations (provided by approximately 35 individuals) were identified. As the review continued, the SSAT determined that 120 of the 700 allegations were repetitious, 240 were issues for referral to 01 (harassment and intimidation, wrongdoing), and 140 more were non-safety related. Of the initial 700, a total of about 200 allegations remained for further review.
All 200 allegations were reviewed in detail by the SSAT and subsequently placed in estegories based on the discipline involved (for example. HVAC, piping, electrical,etc.). At the conclusion of this effort, the SSAT had identifi?d eight (8) categories of allegations. The allegations were further reviewed by the SSAT to determire comon characteristics, and all allegations within a category '%g commonality were grouped together to form a subset of the main categor; Mtal of 29 specific subsets were identified. These subsets were losely specify the issue (s) addressed in each allegation.
used to The cate,, es of allegations were reviewed again to identify for onsite inspection those allegations which were judged to have the highest safety significance.
Ten such allegations were identified and designated primary allegations. The SSAT then reviewed the subsets for allegations for onsite inspection which conveyed similar e m cerns as the primary allegations. A total of 61 such allegations were idecified and designated secondary allega-tions. The total of 71 primary a A w indary allegations represents approxi-mately 35 percent of the total alle s ons judged by the SSAT to be candidates for onsite inspection. The 71 allegations selected for onsite inspection are representative of all the technical concerns conveyed by the allegers to GAP, and bound either specifically or on a generic basis all the allegations in the eight (8) categories and 29 subsets.
(4) None of the Allegatiens of wrongdoing have been investigated by the NRC.
Response: The SSAT was aware of the wrongdoing aspects associated with the allegations, and made a deliberate effort to separate the safety significance aspects out of them. The safety significance aspects have been included within the allegations assessed for licensing impact. 01 encountered difficulty in their initial attempts to gain access to the allegers' informtion in the posses-sion of GAP.
However, the wrongdoing aspects are currently being evaluated by the Office of Investigations. OI has requested that GAP make available for interview the iqdividuals making allegations of wrongdoing regarding STP, GAP has indicated to OI that it is having difficulty in locating the allegers involved in the allegations under review by 01.
For this reason, O! has been unable to proceed with its investigations.
In sumary, the SSAT has almost completed its assessment of South Texas and a public report will be issued shortly. The staff review to date has identified no concern which would, in its opinion, warrant delay in the Comission's consideration of a full-power license.
He y
Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations cc: SECY OGC See previous concurrence:
Following page
DISTRIBUTIO_N Docket File NRC PDR Local PDR ED0 Reading PD4 Reading V. Stello T. Rehm T. Murley F. Miraglia D. Crutchfield DR4A J. Calvo P. Kadambi P. Noonan BHayes, 01
- See previous concurrences:
RMartin, P,IV E00 3447 JMurray, 0GC PD4/LA*
PD4/PM*
PD4/D*
- ADR4 DRSP:D PNoonan PKadambi:kb JCal LRubenstein DCrutchfield 03/02/88 03/02/88 QC
'88 03/04/88-03/ /88 ADP DONRR E
FHiraglia TMurley V
llo 03/ /88 03//0 /88
'O / 88 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
The Comissioners It should be noted that, in the early phase of the SSAT review of GAP files, a total of about 700 allegations (provided by approximately 35 individuals) were identified. As the review continued, the SSAT determined that 120 of the 700 cllegations were repetitious, 240 were issues for referral to 01 (harassment and intimidation, wrongdoing), and 140 more were non-safety related.
Of the initial 700, a total of about 200 allegations remained for further review.
All 200 allegations were reviewed in detail by the SSAT and subsequently placed in categories based on the discipline involved (for example, HVAC, pipang, electrical,etc.). At the conclusion of tins effort, the SSAT had identified eight (8) categories of allegations.
Th; allegations were further reviewed by the SSAT to determine comon characteristics, and all allegations within a category having commonality were grouped together to fonn a subset of the main category. A total of 29 specific subsets were identified. These subsets were used to more closely specify the issue (s) addressed in each allegation.
The categories of allegation,s were reviewed again to identify for onsite inspection those allegations thich were iudged to have the highest safety significance. Ten such allegitions were identified and designated primary allegations. The SSAT then reviewed the subsets for allegations for onsite inspec. tion which conveyed simila'r. concerns as the primary allegations. A total of 61 such allegations weretidentified and designated secondary allega-tions. The totai of 71 primary and. secondary allegations represents approxi-mately 35 percent of the total allegations judged by the SSAT to be candidates for onsite inspection. The 71 allegations selected for onsite inspection are representative of all the technical concerns conveyed by the allegers to GAP, and bound either specifically or on a generic basis all the allegations in the eight (8) categories and 29 subsets.
(4) None of the Allegations of wrongdoing have been investigated by the NRC.
Response: The SSAT was aware of the wrongdoing aspects associated with the allegations, and made a deliberate effort to separate the safety significance aspects out of them. The safety significance aspects have been included within OI encountered difficulty in the allegations assessed for licensing impact.
N their initial attempts to gain access to the allegers' informtion in the posses-sion of GAP. However, the wrongdoing aspects are currently being evaluated by the Office of Investigations. OI has requested that GAP make available for interview the individuals making allegations of wrongdding regarding STP. GAP has indicated to 0! that it is having difficulty in locating the allegers involved in the allegations under review by 01.
Forthisyeason,0Ihasbeen l
unable to proceed with its investigations.
3 In sumary, the SSAT has almost completed its assessment of South Texas and a public report will be issued shortly.
The staff review to date has identified no concern which would, in its opinien, warrant delay in the Comission's consideration of a full-power license.
t l
Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations cc: SECY OGC l
See previous concurrence:
Following page
y r.' -
DISTRIBUTI_0N Docket-File NRC PDR Local PDR ED0 Reading PD4 Reading V. Stello T. Rehm T. Murley F. Miraglia D. Crutchfield DR4A-J. Calvo P. Kadambi P. Noonan
- See previous concurrences:
PD4/LA*
PD4/PM*
PDA/D*
- ADR4 DRSP:D
.PNoonan PKadambt:kb JCalvo LRubenstein
~DCrutchfield 03/02/88 03/02/88 03/02/88 03/04/88 03/ /88 ADP DONRR ED0' FHiraglia TMurley VStello 03/ /88 03/ /88 3/ /88 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY s
t l
l l
l
The Conunissioners,
SSAT determined that 120 of the 700 allegations were repetitious, 2 were issues for referral to 01 (harassment & intimidation, wrongdoing) a d 140 more were non-safety related. Of the initial 700, a total. of ab t 200 allegations remained for further review.
All 200 allegations were reviewed in detail by the SSAT and ubsequently placed in categories based onthe discipline involved (for xample, HVAC, piping, electrical,etc). At the conclusion of this eff t, the SSAT had identified eight (8) categories of allegations.
The al egations were further reviewed by the SSAT to detemrine common characterist s, and all allegations within a category having comonality were grouped t ether to form a subset of the main category.
A total of 29 specific subsets ere identified. These subsets were used to more closely specify the is e(s) addressed in each allegation.
The categories of allegations were reviewed gain to identify for onsite inspection those allegations which were j dged to have the highest safety significance. Ten such allegations wer dentified and designated primary allegations. The SSAT then reviewed t subsets for allegations for onsite inspection which conveyed similar co erns as the primary allegations. A total of 61 such allegations were i tified and designated secondary allegations. The total of 71 primp y and secondary allegations represents approximately 35% of the total al)1egations selected for onsite inspection are egations judged by the SSAT to be candidates for onsite inspection. The 71 1 representative of all the tech cal concerns conveyed by the allegers to GAP, and bound either specifically or on a generic basis all the allegations in the eight (8) categories and 29 ubsets.
(4) None of the all gations of wrongdoing have been investigated by the NRC.
Response: The SSAT was aware of the wrongdoing aspects associated with the allegations, and macje a deliberate effort to separate the safety significance aspects out of them'. The safety significance aspects have been included within the allegations as'sessed for licensing impact. The wrongdoing aspects are currently being (nvestigated by the Office of Investigations.
The Commission was briefed by I on February 18, 1988 on the status of their investigation.
In sunnary, e SSAT has almost completed its assessment of South Texas and a public repor will be issued shortly.
The staff review to date has identified no concern'phich would, in its opinion, warrant delay in the Connission's considera 1on of a full-power license.
Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations RMartin cc: Secy 0GC JTaylor DISTRIBUTION
- Docket File,
NRC PDR Local PDR EDO Reading PD4 Reading V. Stello T. Rehm T. Murley F. Miraglia D. Crutchfield DR4A J. Calvo P. Kadambi P. Noonan ED0 3447
- See previous concurrences:
PD4/LA*
PD4/PM*
PD4/D*
- ADR4 PNoona PKadambi: kb JCalvo LRubenstein DCrutchfield T 88 03/02/88 03/04/88 03/[( /88 03/0
$q/ @
ED0
/ *)P 1
VStello
.71
.a T;
y 03/ /88 (d
/88 03/ /88 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
y i
The Comissioners >
SSAT determined that 120 of'the 700 allegations were repetitious, 240 were issues for referral of 01 (hasassment & intimidation, wrongdoing), and 140 more were non-safety related. bf the initial 700, a total of about 200 allegations remained for further\\ review.
\\
All 200 allegations were reviewed in detail by the SSAT and subsequently placed in categories based onthe digeipline involved (for example, HVAC, piping, electrical, etc)..At the conclusion of this effort, the SSAT had identified eight (8) categories of ailegations. The allegations were further s
reviewed by the SSAT to detemrine comgon characteristics, and all. allegations within a category having corunonality were grouped together to form a subset of the main category. A total of 29 speci ic subsets were identified. These subsetswereusedtomorecloselyspeci(ytheissue(s)addressedineach f
allegation.
again to identify for onsite The categories of allegations were reviewe g inspection those allegations which were judged to have the highest safety significance. Ten such allegations ware idehtified and designated primary allegations. The SSAT then reviewed the subs' qts for allegations for onsite inspection which conveyed similar concerns as the primary allegations. A total of 61 such allegations were identified arid designated secondary allegations. The total of 71 primary and secondary allegations represents approximately 35% of the total allegations judged,by the SSAT to be candidates for onsite inspection. The 71 allegations selectsd for onsite inspection are representative of all the technical concerns conveyed by the allegers to GAP, and bound either specifically or on a generic basis \\all the allegations in the eight (8) categories and 29 subsets.
\\
\\
(4) None of the allegations of wrongdoing have begn investigated by the NPC.
i
\\
Response: The SSAT was aware of the wrongdoing aspects associated with the allegations, and made a deliberate effort to separate the safety significance aspects out of them. The safety significance aspects have been included within the allegations assessed for licensing impact. The wrongdoing \\ aspects are currently being investigated by the Office of Investigations. The Comission was briefed by OI on February 18, 1988 on the status of their iny'estigation.
\\
In sumary, the SSAT has almost completed its assessment of South Texas and a public report will be issued shortly. The staff review to date has i'dentified no concern which would, in its opinion, warrant delay in the ComissioMs consideration of a full-power license.
Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations cc: Secy OGC DISTRIBUTION Docket File NRC POR Local PDR ED0 Reading PD4 Reading V. Stello T. Rehn T. Murley F. Miraglia D. Crutchfield DR4A J. Calvo P. Kadambi P. Noonan
- See previous concurrences:
h PD4/LA*
PD4/FM*
PD4/D*
AD%
8kSP:D PNoonan PKadambi:kb JCalvo LPubens n
DCrutchfield 03/02/88 03/02/88 03/02/88 03/q/88 03/ /28 ADP DONRR ED0 FHiraglia TMurley VStello 03/ /88 03/ /88 03/ /88 0FFICIAL PECORD COPY
}
The Comissioners\\ SSAT determihed that (0ofthe700allegationswererepetitious,240were issues for referral of 0 (harassment & intimidation, wrongdoing), and 140 morewerencn-safetyrela{ted. Of the initial 700, a total of about 200 allegations renained for f'o her review.
All 200 allegations were revimed in detail by the SSAT and subsequently niacedincategoriesbasedontydisciplineinvolved(forexample,HVAC, piping, electrical, etc). At th conclusion of this effort, the SSAT had identified eight (8) categories o allegations. The allegations were further reviewed by the SSAT to detemrire qmon characteristics, ard all allegations within a category having comonalityytere grouped together to form a subset of the main category. A total of 29 spec fic subsets were identified.. These subsets were used to more closely spec (ifv the issue (s) addressed in each 1
allegation.
The categories of allegations were reviewe gagain to identify for onsite inspection those allegations which were judggd to have the highest safety significance. Ten such allegations were identified and designated primary s
allegations. The SSAT then reviewed the subsets for allegations for onsite inspectionwhichconveyedsimilarconcernsasthqprimaryallegations. A total of 61 such allegations were identified and designated secondary allegations. The total of 71 primary and secondary allegations represents approximately 35% of the total allegations judged b'y,the SSAT to be candicates-for_onsite inspection. The 71 allegations selected for onsite inspection are representative of all the technical concerns conveyed'bv the allegers to GAP, and bound either specifically or on a generic basis all\\the allegations in the eight (8) categories and 29 subsets.
(4) Nere of the allegations of wrongdoing have been in estigaced by the NRC.
Response: The SSAT was aware of the wrongdoing aspects associatqd with the allegations, and made a deliberate effort to separate the safety Aignificance aspects out of them. The safety significance aspects have been in61uded within '
the allegations assessed for licensing impact. The wrongdoing aspec+s are currently being investigated by the Office of Investigations. The Co.issien was briefed by 0I on February 18, 1988 on the status of their investig'ation.
In sumnary, the SSAT has alrost completed its assessrent of South Texas da public report will be issued shortly. The staff review to date has ident1 ied no concern which wculd, in its opinion, warrant delay in the Comission's consideration of a full-power license.
Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations
\\
cc: Secy s
0GC
\\
DISTRIBUTION g
Docket File NRC PDR Local PDR ED0 Reading PD4 Reading s
V. Stello T. Rehm T. Murley F. Piraglia D. Crutchfield DR4A J. Calvo P. Kadambi P. Noonan
- See previous concurrences:
PD4/LA*
PD4/PM*
PD4/D*
ADR4 DRSP:D PNoonan PKadambi:kb JCalvo LRubensteir DCrutchfield 03/02/88 03/02/88 03/02/88 03/ /88 03/ /88 ADP DONRR ED0 FMiraglia TMurley VStello 03/ /88 03/ /88 03/ /88 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY L
g..
Thi Comissiopers SSAT determine that 120 of the~700 allegations were repetitious, 240 were issues for referral of 01 (harassment & intimidation, wrongdoing), and 140 s
morewerenon-saf(tyrelated. Of the initial 700, a total of about 200 allegations remain d for further review.
All 200 allegations were reviewed in detail by the SSAT and subsequently-placedincategoriesMsedonthedisciplineinvolved(forexample,HVAC, piping, electrical, et6). At the conclusion of this' effort, the SSAT had identified eight (8) categories of allegations. The allegations were further reviewed by the SSAT to dqtemrire comon characteristics, and all allegations within a category having camonality-were grouped together to fom a subset of-the main category. A-tota 1\\qf 29 specific subsets were identified. These subsets were used to more closely specify the issue (s) addressed in each allegation.
The categories of allegations were reviewed again to identify for ensite I
inspection'those allegations which re judged to have the greatest safety significance. Ten such allegations re identified and designated primary allegations. The SSAT then reviewed Qesubsetsforallegationsforonsite inspection which conveyed similar concerns as the prinary allagations. A total of 61 such allegations were identi'fied and designated secondary
\\
allegations. The total of 71 primary and secondary allegations represents approximately 35% of the total allegations dged by the SSAT to be candidates for onsite inspection. The 71 allegations s ected for onsite inspection are representative of all the technical concerns onveyed by the allegers to GAP, and bound either specifically or on a generic 6 asis all the allegations in the eight (8) categories and 29 subsets.
(4) None of the allegations of wrongdoing have baen investigated by the NRC.
3
\\
Response: The SSAT was aware of the wrongdoing aspects' associated with the allegations, and made a deliberate effort to separate the\\ safety significance aspects out of them. The safety significance aspects have'bgen included within the allegations assessed for licensing impact. The wrongdoinq aspects are currently being investigated by the Office of Investigations. NThe Comission was briefed by OI on February 18, 1988 on the status of their investigation.
\\
In sumary, the SSAT has alrest conpleted its assessnont of South Tgxas ard a public report will be issued shortly. The staff review to date has identified no concern which would, in its opinion, warrant delay in the Cemission's consideration of a full-power license.
Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations cc: Secy CGC DISTRIBUTION Docket File NRC PDR Local PDR ED0 Reading PD4 Reading V. Stello T. Rahm T. Murley F. Miraglia D. Crutchfield J. Calvo P. Kadambi P. Noonan DR4A JCalv%":/L PD4/ b PD4/PM Mfr.
PD4/D ADR4 DRSP:D o
LRubenstein DCrutchfield PNoo a PKadambi:kb 03/$/88 03/1/88 03/ 1 /88 03/ /88 03/ /88 ADP DONRR ED0 FMiraglia TMurley VStello 03/ /88 03/ /88 03/ /88 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
UNITED STATES e
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20665 e
wuu resncipal Correspon'dence Control
?
a!
FROM:
DUE: 02/10/88 EDO CONTR
- 0503447 DOC DT 01/26/88 FINAL REPLY Billie P. Garde, Richard E. Condit, cnd Edna F. Ottney, GAP (Rec'd by memo Chilk to Stello, 1/28/88)
TO:
NRC
'~
9H FOR SIGNATURE OF:
- GmN CRC NO:
)
t DESC:
ROUTING:
2.206 PETITION REQUESTING NRC DELAY VOTING ON A Stello FULL POWER OPERATING LICENSE FOR SOUTH TEXAS UNTIL INVESTIGATION OF ALL ALLEGATIONS Taylor Rehm Murley DATES 01/28/88 RMartin ASSItiNED TO:
CONTACT:
OGC Murray SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:
- 1. Prepar's memo to SECY for EDO's signature.
1,
- 2. Prepare 1tr to GAP for Murley's signature.
4, p.
6 d Pi 1
1 r
ly -
. r
~ ~ ~ ~ w r : -.
w.
. -.-.. L.
ur
'o,,
UNITED STATES P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
W ASHIN GTON, D.C. 20666 k
g.....
CFFICE OF THE SECRETARY January 28, 1988 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for stions FROM:
Samuel J. Chilk, Secre D
SUBJECT:
PETITION OF THE GOVERN TENT ACCOUNTABILITY i
PROJECT REQUESTING A D. LAY lN THE COMMISSION FULL POWER Y0TE ON SOUTH TEXAS my(office received the attached petition of the Government On January 26, 1988, GAP). The petition requests that the Comission delay Accountability Project voting on full power operation for the South Texas Nuclear Project until such time as investigations recomended by GAP in the petition have been completed.
i This is being forwarded to you 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 Comission meeting which is now scheduled for February 22, 1988.
Attachment:
As Stated Copies:
Chairman Zech Comissioner Roberts Comissioner Bernthal Comissioner Carr Comissioner Rogers General Counsel iTQ3OPOoq
pue vyk, UNITE 3 STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[
g, 4
'j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
% g,,,, +
MAR 171988 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Chairman Zech Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Bernthal Comissioner Carr Comissioner Rogers FROM:
Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
RESPONSE TO PETITION OF THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT REQUESTING A DELAY IN THE COMMISSION FULL POV.R Y0TE ON SOUTH TEXAS On January 26, 1988 the Government Accountability Project (GAP) requested a delay in f.ie Comission's meeting to consider full power licensing for South Texas, Unit 1 because of alleged deficiencies in the on-going review of allega-tions received through GAP. The staff has found no basis to delay the meeting.
The Director's Decision under 10 CFR 2.206 is being treated as a separate matter with a response to be provided to you prior to the currently scheduled meeting.
The staff had attempted to work with GAP to obtain these allegations since January 1987. Correspondence ensued between the staff and GAP, with repeated requests by NRC for the allegations related information.
Eventually the staff issued a subpoena to GAP to produce those documents.
In October 1987, the U.S.
District Court denied enforceinent of the subpoena and urged the parties to work toward getting the safety issues to the staff.
Subsequently, an agreement was reached between the EDO and GAP on the main elements of a process that would provide the NRC staff limited access to information which might be of relevance in the forthcoming licensing decisions regarding STP.
The deficiencies alleged by GAP in the petition to delay voting)are related to the efforts of the Safety Significance Assessment Team (SSAT which was constituted in November 1987 to determine the licensing impact of all allega-tions which GAP made available on the South Texas Project. After several weeks of preparatory efforts, including direct telephone contact with allegers, a site inspection was conducted during the week of January 18, 1988. The GAP request asserts the following as bases for their petition:
CONTACT:
l P. Kadambi, NRR/PD-IV l
492-1337 l
The Comissioners (1) The results of the NRC's limited investigation into allegations were predetermined, in that the NRC inspection team had prepared a draft of its findings before leaving the site after its site inspection.
(2) One of the allegers was not pemitted to show the NRC team any of his allegations relating to Unit 1.
(3) The NRC review was subjected to overwhelming scheduling pressures, resulting in disposition of most of the allegations without interviewing the allegers and in a failure to thoroughly address the 60 selected allegations that were the focus of the team's review.
(4) None of the allegations of wrongdoing have been investigated by the NRC.
The following is a response to each of the assertions:
(1) The results of the NRC's limited investigation into allegations were predetermined, in that the NRC inspection team had preparey a draft of its findings before leaving the site after its site ins ~pection.
Response: No such draft was prepared. The SSAT inspection efforts were fully consistent with the technical information provided by GAP and the allegers.
The only limitations on the review were due to the lack of specificity from the GAP regarding the allegations. The SSAT made strenuous efforts to over-come this difficulty by preparing for the on-site inspection in such a way that the allegations we,e viewed in a wide perspective.
Each allegation was examined for both the main concern and to ascertain any ancillary issues raised by the allegation, the potential root causes which might be involved and wider implications if the allegations were substantiated. As a result, the on-site inspection effort was focused on looking at specific items of documen-tation and physical inspection of components and specific areas of the plant.
By the end of the inspection, a large body of information had been accumu-lated with the review of the information still incomplete. Under these circum-stances, it was not possible to make findings in many areas before leaving the site. Therefore, no draft could have been prepared by SSAT documenting the inspection findings.
(2) One of the allegers was not permitted to show the NRC team any of his allegations relating to Unit 1.
Response: The alleger referred to in this assertion was interviewed by telephone on January 16, 1988. The SSAT reviewed the information provided by j
the alleger in light of the allegations selected by the SSAT for onsite inspec-l tion and of allegations previously inspected at STP. Based on this review, the l
SSAT concluded that all but one of the alleger's concerns were bounded by other l
1ssues selected for inspection by the SSAT, or by previous allegation reviews l
conducted on site.
l l
a s
The Commissioners 3-The single exception mentioned above is the alleger's concern relating to fasteners in electrical switchgear provided by Westinghouse. The SSAT invited the alleger to the site to show the SSAT his concerns about fasteners in electrical switchgear. The alleger was allowed access to Unit 2 because
- 1) access tu Unit 1 is more difficult to obtain than Unit 2 at the current stage of construction; and 2) the twu units at STP are practically identical and any safety concerns raised regarding Unit 2 switchgear would have been equally valid for Unit 1.
The alleger came to the STP site on January 18, 1988 and toured the Unit 213.8 kV switchgear in the company of two SSAT members.
No safety related concerns were identified as a result of the tour with this alleger.
(3) The NRC review was subjected to overwhelming scheduling pressures, resulting in disposition of most of the allegations without interviewing the allegers and in a failure to thoroughly address the 60 selected allegations that were the focus of the team's review.
For approximately two months prior to the actual onsite inspection, Respnnse:
the SSAT had access to the files which contained the concerns conveyed to GAP by the allegers. The SSAT found at a very early date that the allegations were deficient in terms of specific details. Based on this, the SSAT developed a program for inspecting the allegations which included provisions to compensate An essential for the general (as opposed to specific) nature of the allegations.
part of the SSAT program was the development of detailed inspection plans.
These plans included all the steps necessary to thoroughly inspect the installed condition at STP and establish a bounding condition for the ceneralized concerns conveyed by the allegations. These plans were developed well ahead of the actual onsite inspection.
The SSAT interviewed all the allegers who were made available by GAP. These interviews were :onducted prior to and during the actual onsite inspection.
With only a few exceptions, the allegers did not provide specific details.
The few details that were provided did not require changes to the previously While onsite, the SSAT made optimal use of avail-developed inspection plans.
This was accomplished by emphasizing physical inspections on site, able time.
and making provisions to collect supporting data for subsequent review and evaluation offsite.
The SSAT was et the STP site from January 18 through January 22, 1988, or 4.5 l
calendar days.
In actuality, the SSAT worked extremely long hours, and put in Subsequent to the onsite inspection, the equivalent of eigh*. work days on site.
the SSAT spent an even greater period of time reviewing and evaluating inspection In all, the time spent by the SSAT in preparing results and supporting data.
l for the inspection and reviewing and evaluating inspection results and supporting l
data, exceeds the time spent on physical inspection on site by about a factor i
In light of this, and considering that the SSAT did not find any major of 5.
I issues which would have required additional time on site, the SSAT considers that sufficient time was available to inspect the 71 primary and secondary allegations selected for onsite inspection.
l
-. - - ~
,.,,s
,w
4 The Comissioners It should be noted that, in the early phase of the SSAT review of GAP files, a total of about 700 allegations (provided by approximately 35 individuals) were identified. As the review continued, the SSAT determined that 120 of the 700 allegations were repetitious, 240 were issues for referral to 01 (harassment and intimidation, wrongdoing), and 140 more were non-safety related. Of the initial 700, a total of about 200 allegations remainea for further review.
All 200 allegations were reviewed in detail by the SSAT and subsequently placed in categories based on the discipline involved (for example. HVAC, piping, electrical,etc.). At the conclusion of this effort, the SSAT had identified eight (8) categories of allegations. The allegations were further reviewed by the SSAT to determine comon characteristics, and all allegations within a category having commonality were grouped together to form a subset of the main category. A total of 29 specific subsets were identified. These subsets were used to more closely specify the issue (s) addressed in each allegation.
The categories of allegations were reviewed again to identify for onsite inspection those allegations which were judged to have the highest safety significance. Ten such allegations were identified and desicnated primary allegations. The 3 SAT then reviewed the subsets for allegations for onsite inspection which c.onveyed similar concerns as the primary allegations. A total of 61 such allegations were identified and designated seco.1dary allega-tions. The total of 71 primary and secondary allegations represents approxi-mately 35 percent of the total allegations judged by the SSAT to be candidates for onsite inspection. The 71 allegations selected for onsite inspection are representative of all the technical concerns conveyed by the allegers to GAP, and bound either specifically or on a generic basis all the allegations in the eight (8) categories and 29 subsets.
(4) None of the Allegations of wrongdoing have been investigated by the NRC.
Response: The SSAT was aware of the wrongdoing aspects associated with the allegations, and made a deliberate effort to separate the safety significance aspects out of them. The safety significance aspects have been included within the allegations assessed for licensing impact. 01 encountered difficulty in their initial attempts to gain access to the allegers' informtion in the posses-sion of GAP. However, the wrongdoing aspects are currently being evaluated by the Office of Investigations. 0I has requested that GAP make available for interview the individuals making allegations of wrongdoing regarding STP. GAP has indicated to 0! that it is having difficulty in locating the allegers involved in the allegations under review by 01.
For this reason, OI has been l
unable to proceed with its investigations.
In sumary, the SSAT has almost completed its assessment of South Texas and a public report will be issued shortly. The staff review to date has identified l
I no concern which would, in its opinion, warrant delay in the Comission's I
consideration of a full-power license.
E k...
Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations cc: SECY OGC See previous concurrence:
Following page
6 DISTRIBUTI'ON Docket File.
NRC PDR Local PDR' ED0 Reading PD4 Reading V. Stello T. Rehm T. Murley F. Miraglia D. Crutchfield DR4A J. Calvo P. Kadambi P. Noonan BHayes, 01
- See previous concurrences:
ED0 3447 JMurray, 0GC PD4/LA*
PD4/PM*-
PD4/D*
- ADR4 DRSP:D LRubenstein DCrutchfield JCalp//88 PNoonan PKadambi:kb 9A/C 03/04/88 03/ /88 03/02/88 03/02/88 ADP DONRR EDO FMiraglia TMurley Vidllo 03/ /88 03//0 /88 W /r/88
/
OFFICIAL RECCRD COPY
.~.
l unatop g
fg UNITED STATEc NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[
g 7.
!j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%,,,y MAR 171988 l
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Chairinan Zech Comissioner Roberts Comissioner Bernthal Comissioner Carr Comissioner Rogers FROM:
Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
RESPONSE TO PETITION OF THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT REQUESTING A DELAY IN THE COMMISSION FULL POWER Y0TE ON SOUTH TEXAS On January 26, 1988 the Government Accountability Project (GAP) requested a delay in the Comission's meeting to consider full power licensing for South Texas, Unit I because of alleged deficiencies in the on-going review of allega-tions received through GAP. The staff has found no basis to delay the meeting.
The Director's Decision under 10 CFR 2.206 is being treated as a separate matter with a response to be provided to you prior to the currently scheduled meeting.
The staff had attempted to work with GAP to obtain these allegations since January 1987.
Correspondence ensued between the staff and GAP, with repeated rec,uests by NRC for the allegations related information.
Eventually the staff issued a subpoena to GAP to produce those documents.
In October 1987, the U.S.
District Court denied enforcement of the subpoena and urged the parties to work toward getting the safety issues to the staff. Subsequently, an agreement was reached between the ED0 and C*o on the main elements of a process that would provide the NRC staff limite.
- cess to infortnation which might be of relevance in the forthcoming licensing decisions regarding STP.
The deficiencies alleged by GAP in the petition to delay voting are related to the efforts of the Safety Significance Assessment Team (SSAT) which was constituted in November 1987 to determine the licensing impact of all allega-tions which GAP made available on the South Texas Project. After several weeks of preparatory efforts, including direct telephone contact with allegers, a site inspection was conducted during the week of January 18, 1988. The GAP request asserts the folicwing as bases for their petition:
CONTACT:
P. Kadambi, NRR/PD-IV 492-1337 6 Cs 3
~o WJ50 /W i
.Kjf
g l5 The Connissioners (1) The results of the NRC's limited investigation into allegations were predetermined, in that the NRC inspection team had prepared a draft of its findings before leaving the site after its site inspection.
(2) One of the allegers was not pemitted to show the NRC team any of his allegations relating to Unit 1.
(3) The NRC review was subjected to overwhelming scheduling pressures, resulting in disposition of most of the allegations without interviewing the allegers and in a failure to thoroughly address the 60 selected allegations that were the focus of the team's review.
(4) None of the allegations of wrongdoing have been investigated by the NRC.
The following is a response to each of the assertions:
(1) The results of the NRC's limited investigation into allegations were predetemined, in that the NRC inspection team had prepared a draft of its findings before leaving the site after its site inspection.
Response: No such draft was prepared. The SSAT inspection efforts were fully consistent with the technical information provided by GAP and the allegers.
The only limitations on the review were due to the lack of specificity from the GAP regarding the allegations.
The SSAT made strenuous efforts to over-come this difficulty by preparing for the on-site inspection in such a way that the allegations were viewed in a wide perspective.
Each allegation was examined for both the main concern and to ascertain any ancillary issues t
)
raised by the allegation, the potential root causes which might be involved and wider implications if the allegations were substantiated. As a result, the on-site inspection effort was focused on looking at specific items of documen-tation and physical inspection of components and specific areas of the plant.
By the end of the inspection, a large body of infomation had been accumu-lated with the review of the information still incomplete. Under these circum-stances, it was not possible to make findings in many areas before leaving the site. Therefore, no draft could have been prepared by SSAT documenting the inspection findings.
(2) One of the allegers was not permitted to show the NRC team any of l
his allegations relating to Unit 1.
Response: The alleger referred to in this assertion was interviewed by telephone on January 16, 1988. The SSAT reviewed the information provided by the alleger in light of the allegations selected by the SSAT for onsite inspec-tion and of allegations previously inspected at STP. Based on this review, the SSAT concluded that all but one of the alleger's concerns were bounded by other issues selected for inspection by the SSAT, or by previous allegation reviews conducted on site.
f 1
The Commissioners The single exception mentioned above is the alleger's concern relating to fasteners in electrical switchgcar provided by Westinghouse. The SSAT invited the alleger to the site to show the SSAT his concerns about fasteners in electrical switchgear. The alleger was allowed access to Unit 2 because
- 1) access to Unit 1 is more difficult to obtain than Unit 2 at the current stage of construction; and 2) the two units at STP are practically identical and any safety concerns raised regarding Unit 2 switchgear would have been equally valid for Unit 1.
The alleger came to the STP site on January 18, 1988 and toured the Unit 213.8 kv switchgear in the company of two SSAT members.
No safety related concerns were identified as a result of the tour with this alleger.
(3) The NRC review was subjected to overwhelming scheduling pressures, resulting in disposition of most of the allegations without interviewing the allegers and in a failure to thoroughly address the 60 selected allegations that were the focus of the team's review.
For approximately two months prior to the actual onsite inspection,
Response
the SSAT had access to the files which contained the concerns conveyed to GAP by the allegers. The SSAT found at a very early date that the allegations were deficient in terms of specific details. Based on this, the SSAT developed a program for inspecting the allegations which included provisions to compensate for the general (as opposed to specific) nature of the allegations. An essential part of the SSAT program was the development of detailed inspection plans.
These plans included all the steps necessary to thoroughly inspect the installed condition at STP and estfolish a bounding condition for the generalized concerns conveyed by the allegations. These plans were developed well ahead of the actual onsite inspection.
The SSAT interviewed all the allegers who were made available by GAP. These interviews were conducted prior to and during the actual onsite inspection.
With only a few exceptions, the allegers did not provide specific details.
The few details that were provided did not require changes to the previously developed inspection plans. While onsite, the SSAT made optimal use of avail-able time. This was accomplished by errphasizing physical inspections on site, and making provisions to collect supporting data for subsequent review and evaluation offsite.
The SSAT was at the STP site from January 18 through January 22,1988, or 4.5 calendar days.
In actuality, the SSAT worked extremely long hours, and put ir, the equivalent of eight work days on site. Subsequent to the onsite ir.spection, the SSAT spent an even greater period of time reviewing and evaluating inspection results and supporting data.
In all, the time spent by the SSAT in preparing for the inspection and reviewing and evaluating inspection results and supporting data, exceeds the time spent on physical inspection on site by about a factor of 5.
In light of this, and considering that the SSAT did not find any major issues which would have required additional time on site, the SSAT considers that sufficient time w3s available to inspect the 71 primary and secondary allegations selected for onsite inspection.
e t'
The Commissioners It should be noted that, in the early phase of the SSAT review of GAP files, a total of about 700 allegations (provided by approximately 35 individuals) were identified. As the review continued. the SSAT determined that 120 of the 700 allegations were repetitious, 240 were issues for referral to 01 (harassment and intimidation, wrongdoing), and 140 more were non-safety related. Of the initial 700, a total of about 200 allegations remained for further review.
All 200 allegations were reviewed in detail by the SSAT and subsequently placed in categories based on the discipline involved (for example, HVAC, piping, electrical,etc.). At the conclusion of this effort, the SSAT had identified eight (8) categories of allegations. The allegations were further reviewed by the SSAT to determine comon characteristics, and all allegations within a category having comonality were grouped together to form a subset of the main category. A total of 29 specific subsets were identified. These subsets were used to more closely specify the issue (s) addressed in each allegation.
The categories of allegations were reviewed again to identify for onsite inspection those allegations which were judged to have the highest safety significance. Ten such allegations were identified and designated primary allegations. The SSAT then reviewed the subsets for allegations for onsite inspection which conveyed similar concerns as the primary allegations. A total of 61 such allegations were identified and designated secondary allega-tions. The total of 71 primary and secondary allegations represents approxi-mately 35 percent of the total allegations judged by the SSAT to be candidates for onsite inspection. The 71 allegations _ sele ted for onsite inspection are representative of all the technical concerns conveyed by the allegers to GAP, and bound either specifically or on a generic basis all the allegations in the eight (8) categories and 29 subsets.
(4) None of the Allegations of wrongdoing have been investigated by the NRC.
Response: The SSAT was aware of the wrongdoing aspects associated with the allegations, and made a deliberate effort to separate the safety significance aspects out of them. The safety significance aspects have been included within the allegations assessed for licensing impact. 01 encountered difficulty in their initial attempts to gain access to the allegers' informtion in the posses-sion of GAP. However, the wrongdoing aspects are currently being evaluated by the Office of Investigations. OI has requested tbst GAP make available for interview the individuals making allegations of wrongdoing regarding STP. GAP has indicated to 0I that it is having difficulty in locating the allegers involved in the allegations under review by 01.
For this reason, 0! has been unable to proceed with its investigations.
In sumary, the SSAT has almost completed its assessment of South Texas and a public report will be issued shortly.
The staff review to date has identified no concern which would, in its opinion, warrant delay in the Comission's consideration of a full-power license.
v.
=a - 2 Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations cc: SECY OGC See previous concurrence:
Following page
DISTRIBUTION Docket File NRC Local PDR E00 Reading PD4 Reading i
V. Stello T. Rehm T. Murley F. Miraglia D. Crutchfield DR4A J. Calvo P. Kadambi P. Noonan BHayes, 01 ED0 3447 JMurray, 0GC
- See previous concurrences:
PD4/LA*
PD4/PM*
PD4/D*
- ADR4 DRSP:D PNoonan PKadambi:kb JCalyo LRubenstein DCrutchfield 03/02/88 03/02/88 Of/88 03/04/88 03/ /88 ADP DONRR E
FHiraglia TMurley V
llo 03/ /88 03/4 /88 7 88 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
_,