Text

Requests Explanation Re Whether or Not NRC Intends to Initiate Further Investigation.Recent Newspaper Article in Which Quoted Allegations Re Plant Equipment Investigated by NRC Encl
	ML20148F135
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	02/12/1988
From:	Condit R, Garde B; GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT
To:	Zech L; NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20148F094	List: ML20148F135;
References
	CON-#188-5834 2.206, NUDOCS 8803280074
	Download: ML20148F135 (7)
	v • d • e

{{#Wiki_filter:. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT 25 E Street, N.W., Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 347 0460 February 12, 1988 Lando W. Zech, Jr. Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Ret South Texas Nuclear Project worker allegations

Dear Chairman Zech:

We read with great interest a recent newspaper article in which you were quoted as saying that "100 percent" of allegations related to nuclear plant equipment are investigated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The relevant section of the article reads as follows: Adm. Lando W. Zech, Jr., chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, stressed in an interview that his agency's goal was public health and safety and that when an allegation was made about plant equipment, "100 percent get investigated," often by X-raying piping or testing equipment. But he said "people allegations," in which "somebody said something to somebody," were harder to investigate. See, New York Times, January 31, 1988, "Nuclear Agency Said to Lag in Seeking Out Crime," p. 8 (attached). We were astonished to read your statement because it has not been the experience of the Government Accountability Project (GAP) that "100 percent" of equipment-related allegations are investigated. Certainly that is not the case at the South Texas Nuclear Project (STNP). As you know, the NRC has been provided with 600-700 allegations from current and former STNP workers. We have estimated that more than 50 percent of those allegations are safety-related. We recently reviewed the STNP allegations, and we conservatively estimate that there are over 140 equipment-related allegations. These allegations pertain to problems in a variety of areas including: $$[3DO P

Lando W. Zech, Jr. February 12, 1988 Page Two o component maintenance o coatings o polar crane o hanger supports o electrical cables heating, ventilating and air conditioning systems o o fasteners o equipment repair o component accessibility o piping installation o welding In addition, the allegations focus on areas that may significantly impact on various pieces of equipment or entire systems. These allegations include: o engineering design problems o failure to inspect hardware o material compatibility problems as-built hardware being out of compliance with design o drawings harassment and intimidation of QA and QC personnel o o FSAR violations o ASME, ASTM, ANSI violations failure to follow proper QA/QC procedures o lost material traceability o invalid N-5 Code Data Report o The NRC's Safety Significance Assessment Team (SSAT) recently conducted a. site tour of the STNP focusing on only 60 allegations. It is obvious that the team did not review all of the alleged equipment-related problems. If the SSAT did not investigate any further numerous equipment-related allegations would not be resolved prior to licensing. Consequently, the statement attributed to you regarding 100 percent investigation would be false.

s. Lando W. Zech, Jr. February 12, 1988 Page Three Other issues pertaining to the NRC's investigation of the STNP allegations are disturbing. For example, there is no basis for the NRC's assessment that the allegations are not of immediate safety significance. This determination was set forth by Mr. T. A. Rehm in his January 12, 1988 letter to Elllie P. Garde, Esq. A subsequent confidential review of a sample of these allegers' files by an Jndependent organization (Quality Technology Company - QTC) resulted in a radically different assessment. The QTC review concluded that the allegers' files suggested that "potentially significant safety problems exist" at the STNP. QTC also maintains that the numerous harassment, intimidation and wrongdoing allegations were troubling because "it is not possible for safety requirements to be met consistently in this type of management environment." This analysis reinforces our belief that the NRC has no intention of comprehensively investigating the STNP allegations. As another example, it is disturbing how the NRC 1nteracted with Houston Light and Power (HL&P) regarding the STNP allegations. A memorandum (attached) posted by HL&P at the STNP site claims that "no safety concerns requiring additional attention were noted by the inspectors [SSAT)." The memorandum was posted immediately after the SSAT left the STNP site. The memorandum implies that since the SSAT did not inform HL&P of any serious safety concerns the plant has been given a clean bill of health. What was HL&P told about the SSAT's assessment of the 60 allegations under review during the site visit? How could HL&P obtain an assessment prior to the preparation of a report by the SSAT? Why was the public told to wait for a report when an assessment was already made? These questions need to be answered in light of the following facts: Mr. John Corder was denied access to Unit I while o attempting to point out safety-related problems to the SSAT. i-.

s V .s Lando W. Zech, Jr. February 12, 1988 Page Four i Some accounts of the SSAT's site visit have indicated o that the team was confined to Unit II. GAP was informed that a draft report of the SSAT's o review was prepared (before they returned from the STNP) by NRC staff who were not part of the team. One obvious implication is that HL&P has played a role in limiting the investigation of the STNP allegations. More disturbing, howevar, is the additional implication that NRC management is not willing to take any action that may negatively impact the licensing'of the STNP. Finally, we are very concerned to hear that the NRC is not issuing a preliminary public report on the SSAT's initial analysis of the STNP allegations, but instead has undertaken to write a NUREG. We assume this NUREG will follow the format of similar documents prepared at the conclusion of major allegation investigations at Waterford and Comanche Peak. Frankly, we are shocked at the prospect of the SSAT allegation investig? tion effort of.four days of on-site investigating serving as the basis for a NUREG document. Given the actions of NRC management in handling the STNP allegations, we have no choice but to teque.st,qn_ explanation .resarding whether.or not the NRC intends to init! ate further inyestigation. If the NRC believes that'there 1s no safety ~ significance or substantive merit to the STNP allegations, then we must advise our clients that they must seek other avenues of relief. Until the NRC thoroughly investigates each allegation, serious doubts about the safety of the STNP will continue to plague the public and those who have worked at the plant. We hope that you will make every effort to ensure that an honest investigation is conducted, and a public report is issued prior

Lando W. Zech, Jr. February 12, 1988 Page Five to licensing. The public and the workers who have risked their careers and livelihoods deserve no less. Sincerely, (bfd) b I Billie P. Garde i Director, GAP Midwest Richard E. Condit Staff Attorney RCt079AA15 cc: T. A. Rehm, NRC J. Calvo, NRC W. Briggs, NRC B. Garde, GAP L. Clark, GAP P. Goldman, Public Citizen Litigation Group T. Mack, Jones, Mack, Delaney & Young F ,-w-, .--._,.---,,,e .,n,,, _ _,,,-_e, _,_,,m n., v_,n,

Nuclear Agency Said to Lag in Seeking Out Crime ,-.. c... ~. ~ ~ ~ - ~~

,,,c,o,r, n,o,,,,u,,a,, -==,.s., u.u s.v 2,,,,.m.,,.e,,s

l",,"**8""""**'"r'==.

w. .rr ca. O,,"',"'.",,,Z'."'","** ~ ---a "L8E%d.M**-- 98'a*nSt ym. n mg ,,,,.,.,c,,,,,,,,,y,.,,,,, i.s. u . d.. w orn.a "'*=

C "* u' "***a*"i' r.

, n 9,, g,,,, p *, 4 re.e. .== i u,. r ww e.u uw .h.. no m.=e

e. ew%

r. h 7"' g

.=,,,, gp==~

. n.,ssawsww

'"*4..'.*".,'"'.",',",',M,."*.".",

==v.e w.mai 24=e o.m f.+p, t sr.d nw m -u. i

m..m.

s .,u e om ma c.;::.>.. .. i, t a ! um ca. m mm.= "t=L. -.-.~.e. ." d"".o",,",,,",T, . ova NCI'ine ,=...".'."."a. =

'"***=pa^**

=*-**.p-s=.* mw --..u,,.,,,

== va ..a.= ra=4. =.a,.v . OUR met 'w =nn a -*

a "=.

.= ..v .'s 8 a:9.a *"r,=..,.a.n.,3:.,7,,;

- u.

c ,.,it.

- r*

,,.,ui,.,, 7,, g-m rw., c co,,c m y wri vouo uvina wo r>< y. pan s or - ens,wy m w*tta Am Lande w sma

e. -,. nm c s pr eve,.te v.

= =m. = -s = cr.- e.,, a w v. w u .w.. ou, u _

1. e. p

.ggtirs guct. w*"S" " C='L"'.'J." *,i.o'",l", r DU TID

ry c.=

t .=n= .w ve.o =as wem. o.wrwi rn =, a r.ns Cned Wahin Apncy .an n =n i i.., e.. e. i..c. 4 LUG 'se==

caw ~.,,ve.,=e. Re ators and ai ma =,'~

e. m e,,, a.== - -- rm m c. c a. w a ..,,.ee r -w - = * ' ' *

a.n-o a c,=w.

s -.- ,% e. ~.o..,

.n.u.,,.,..=u,"** their entics differ,...~.~~.,,,,,u.,. a ca,.""- " *=

= - = ~ = =*** ,,...m.,., -.cc =c a. i.. ,., on sa ety n..

;,",:=.w ;~. ~..'... :::

m. L, ,,n.,,.u,,.u,..,,.u.s., .e m, = imp ca ons. i = m -. o -.- B4 a'WM of Casee B e -= .,.rs .a w.c-- >.

m. =c a.a.

Ai6-Ycar Old Ofhee n t n ,,. C', **,.'.*:.:: 'l'.,"."'" e w er ..a.

n..w.2

. e. rem =.ar g; * ^lgaj"' 'll' '""*."".*,3 or. w. m . er w in 'T' =".",,.,,,,,, E p- ,_.,,,g.,, y_.:; :: ~.arn.,.,,.Oigr;:p~,,,.,,s.. , "Y g g **' gg,,g,,,,. 8- ~ a.=t.h.aM"8h* t rg, pr,e

==- -

&P F 4

g,.pg pg m,.rtp fWf.7.Ts.8 W

W,4

.h.

pg

,ggq gg ng,i.S 61 P.m.a.to.h g pg, p. g,, g Es I..y.ft pr.8'1.M, 8.o Is.4 81 3 d E 3 M M'" W IP.ci-,yg g,R ' p.us .m. Safi hs 4f b fu t s p arg gpl. M _, L.. _'* C ".L'.'.' ". " C "? ' M ""." "** g~,',%, ",,,I'.3.".Y':"uM.ll <>.._,_v.,,. ~. .,..,~ ., o.,ca, %.y pu,,=,.., er-~_e - - -. - - =.. .~

- - s w se n.s n y'

,,,T,w,g. g e,.s,pe,.r.em t.e,,and.

=

w

a. p

-.,0 ee.m r.4 2,..,e.r a. ',"*g*'""8N=.* . es.,r , p. 4 f Peld pt

== w N pg.r. f : spry,19 1 p. ! 3.t.at g *t.smet L ist 4 - w--.,,.,~.n*=,a ',.,,=,,,,",,.,c: p',, a:',2 ,.,r.,,:,.g at ,,,,,,,,g .e.. - --~~.L N h.Wg N

,,,,,, W M c.,.

, e, u, .u, rg lM ever was ,.- m.u.- i 8'*M8 "*NM IM EP.rp pte.hesia, D g. "m":l'.b..'UM

A'I""

F ede*ti gpyggsp,4 pet al R.4.gett.B 68mpP) t.E,W. rt - e,= af..,,.a:;g::rgg Wr,.,~,+.;-',;;g s l'Ir B. M.L .ac.,t. eve ygg;;; ",a,",r" e. D.dl fib. 4 A ma Re .,g at e. syn 60 ~ ~ * - " ~ .'. m. e=. at = -.i. m ;.,, a n.s .n,,,,., -n ~ >~ ~~ ~.~ s P us, .f P.F.G.r g 1.E. I,. rteel. b u.s.pn na m. hr p.,.3,f, s.prer.a.L -,. a. c.- - ---. en,iu um o 32, _e a. ,g m" asisty+=e.= aas wp w4.w ac,a.nr c - .p. l ,. _ c.s u, a.s .-w e.et". -m s.. n.c n.se s. ~.A> r**== .,towisi' Jer. C.m C r m r.,

a. o..u,p.m.w h g y.,. v-s.u s,

c,.,, e,,,,,,,, st r,essy or*.rg 9. l NOh4 Of i 2-o n.in.J't.se e i.e is'astig. sty th.sf .e.e r*96 94 h,gL "The N K, ,w.'e.r..,s s,. c. sm.na.a.I, And Attitudes e t u.

a... u.

g,,,,,i,,.,,. c,,e., na h.a.r.4.sa am,.,,, u , n ,,.,,.,,,,..,,.,u, g,,,n,,, w 79w.u l ..u,ie.rv.r a =4.mm.me.rv s t a.s.i s p.m

- v..

i w. r s ry rNa

s. g l

gmg a from 28 en ,y pg,s.,r.s,,a? eeuw.se fear y.3* e a.m.t h e.** i.r cc. st is a u.,g v mem.ir489.D.u.fm t d seeW1 '.A1 M

.se est 1**.a4a.r M U tedtl 8 w w edup.uq W d.Ra.pe.

m.ad g,, g g gegggy g go.g asis o rt ads te m. ..are s m g=vt16 0 a.8 = *S8 a.n=.na e.e < w v,.,..c,,w u.,,o,n,e,og,.,s,=,s u ,.n,., - e ae, ha., ee ane v. a J.se r'5=4 d per s. I e.8 .m Ti. 2 ~ h ned h**= k not==*

m a.a.e en.

38.t. W. BJ yg.PB O.I W. Ib98 II' d g ,g g p, g g, 7 gg,,, g,,g g m.n.ro o m a.ms of e 448',E1 a ca.w.= 9 F Q. T.r t ,IsV #ei't.ry.e $ seer. gg.pn.ri.g,,. c,,,,, a,c k,.a..cgr4 33eP4 by g: .n.',d k#l8= m.'98M8'u-u.8%8'I.U*"e I N*8 o 8 gn W ad-W syn, gr p*.~.;.,g vs.hm ? .u= a s.a. rv ,,,,3. c. .a.ry cea.L=.1 m =a.or e em c.ne.ss.e.o. .ar .v ~ a es s w.ac.E.c r.u.n'w m,. s ri. -

p. p.,.S v..e w nrvsvaa*:, g g ru

.na.

e. secv s.e.se

.a i a'um=8 na M Peenwey g&,fe.JM $ M y,,,.n.... ,gg g,,yg 91HM) $ B$$ M.%sd/*Y O@if. ,py,yt f g, qyg gg gggg j g gj tart l/94. ar"w 5 c== = =6

ge, prig SA 34,he. pr'r.r.*li.

A Db E A T15i M E N 7

a=

/ p."O.n'A.N.P.Be.f ,e ,t, erg . w ca. pue af. , eyg,O E,,4 ,.a lue,-. J.'. Ut.e iP.ie b in,g sg pt Oli.M O Ih g ' N gjg pg i gr.p eaJW..yl %s g. cA3r.gg.rt.' h.e cosm sm.&as (he he 6s'W. l 8. n,,,ed,t,g,,d,,. *T.t 4 9 team.. h W*lt gpg,r4LA,4,1,3 Mt u yWp Eu c."2 b.us s'.m Uy b gl. h$C ggg gq f the"J # US. news'qF4 P '488M Drf.89 c.1rs.6 8'e.d W ,4p,,p,9,,,,,,,,g g j,,g, g,.

- .8 E8.t M

L 0. M, P Igrrt [ g pg,,,,, ,,,,g .,,gg,g g. w-yg re.n,.gg '=

ie'a =d 9

arme n.s c=w, b w.e. e a,* waser ,******F "h* ...a 'ar.= - 5/T

- 8

.er.r.> re P.ast prs,z,s.a me-M @l0

=='=3 P"" - t pnsendt @ /o w.a - n,,,...,, u, ii.,,,...ury c. an. u.a u a,

io Comnh Chid.

'.'*.".-,'i.5.'"*","v.'*.*.*- PrWrt e a w.m. d emus I .,,, + off

fyg, 8

n,.~- 13 's ta '.r a.shaES 8h*88 00&} f3 S&f

"8 #

mw go. e r s t,* n, e, < '. un.. e'*.,*i.,"e.".,.'= i. I.T .,,e.,,.,7,,9er'or.n wt te ep s,.

m.m,, u e *c===

u.t 'm aw v ygw 324. uw s,,*,u s r 8 T E D '*'.I "u# y as.s .,.ecv '.na' ,,,% m, d.o u <*enn p.,,,,e or.,. e. o t aa mmr.r c..S u i.. a w.,==we ~**.n .r agr w, v. cu sp. m s. w a na es er v. w.m' r Ts M W m k.o e.g. me p m p,, f. fm. W m,gm.m. ue es.as , ',a,sms,,,nu,s,.a,.ar.,',.ss .ns e y. h m. u wws ,m,9,,.,p**',,*",9.,,S,e*a,e,Ga*' * *',*", a] a r'a.co c,e,.is A h %.6 51 M n M p

araca a i d.r.rv. ma Mry stsim rc22 FSa wara uma 1 wu! av.a.re ts.r.c R T tr cr*r a.2:,2 tb4emL $ d o,

c .u u.f t(' relt h. pr'* ar, n c rw a = **.sa e % =3 .g o s

a. e., w l

w + ' hag "yarge A.64 '.' g.Detrafy ,..a,Aggygg.

s9 e awuk" pse.rmsir t 84

,sa 8" '",,,, ".l ing

sm iiiMe r&Niallt LA.. (F'8' 4 64C% I

. are.r ss.e i

1 i t-

'. py - ,.m ac *w n.y me., a. xe a .p. iema t. rag-d mv.,a.,v: e ae s er Karoea'=e%g. 4, ec ur c w+

i. ras u m em w.v.- n.4-o a m

, m... u u-w a m.,,e.n.:.s..cua espina .%,/ 4 M, p. ,,,, i '. r dL car:, mar.e.ne.u r e.a aa v=s a i+

7. n< :

L_A. l ~1. .e, c, s erv p c> 4 4 o m.a n.. awl ac 4 $ 9%s 3 '.# %-_. w ,, a, ia z.o a.asme u ene.r y ge -^; a 3 . I - ' e e.g., -eva.e swa w ees 's e ...#

ei re.pv sur, e v

+> w, i n8t r s-m u r p ** Pe** f *8 p' Y . t,.p*=1 e, .e..,*P. Sa4 2 % t l 8'

AY # 0.w"#E*C ~. wr m.,u.n.- =

m

Ml#PPF M.- =8 W af ww

~ s b , a. - .s uw -s u,en

== L e,.m..,w m

8

. r .a w m,, E jggegsggggt % n.r. ., wn .= s FW ph .h d IP' i i gg.g,

8. Mgd lw I 1 1 we ).t

-e. Ys _y=m, E '%.swy. w m..t.h.,r 9 9 tr..ip g( ap brtib O. E.1N. -ea d M gg ggg.g ,( 8E* .+,,.6 -w = w er,. 1 in.s e

m..e.,., r..,e es sp e-

~ -,u ,Amaru.e,.wa re y= r .n ,~~ %.'f s* ,f ru Asw h J.s. e e+ = = =. =. e

t Nou'uon Ughting & Neer Company THE TEAM OF NRC INSPECTORS REVIEWING GAP ALLEG COMPLETED THEIR WORK EARLY FRIDAY MORNING, JANUARY 22. ALTHOUGH THE FINAL REPORT WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE UNTIL TIME IN FEBRUARY AND NO P,RELIMINARY REPORT WAS ISSUED, WE ARE EXTREMELY PLEASED THAT THE ALLEGATIONS HAVE FINALLY BE REVIEWED AND THAT NO SAFETY CONCERNS REQUIRING ADDITIONAL ATTENTION WERE NOTED BY THE INSPECTORS. WE HAD BEEN INFORMED BY THE TEAM WHEN THEY ARRIVED THAT IF, DURING THEIR REVIEW, ANY CONCERN WAS DETERMINED SERIOUS ENOUGH TO REQUIRE FURTHER ATTENTION ON OUR PART, WE WOULD BE TOLD IMMEDIATELY. WE RECEIVED NO SUCH NOTICE AND ARE SATISFIED THAT CUR CONFIDENCE IN THE SAFE CONSTRUCT-10H OF THE PLANT HAS ONCE AGAlh BEEN CONFIRMED. O e 4 -,-.n..n e,- _,-.,- n,

[* ?J-, .. _... ;. _ 4 M ff hg Abfd Il DI UNITED 3TATEs e NUCLE AR HEGULATORY COMMISSION [ g e o n [}'QQ V 5-i w AsnmoTon.o.c. tosa : %.....N M N 6 t5 xle OFFICE OF THE 'i 5 $4CMETARY Jantury 2 8,: 1988 41 t [, MEMORANDUM TOR: Victor Stello,.f r. ' f. Executive Director for stions. h FRON: Samuel J. Chilk. Secre D{ 3, iACf0VNTABILITY c; -

SUBJECT:

t PETITION OF THE GOVERM !ENT [1 PROJECT! REQUESTING ( A NLAY lN THE CDMMISSION w. FULLIPOWER, VOTE $0N SOUTH TEXAS b 7 On.lanuary 76, 1988, my(office received the attached petition of the Government I ~. Accountability Project GAP). ' The petition requests that the Comission delay .k. voting on full power operation for the. South Texas Nuclear Project until such time as investigations recomended by GAP: In the petition have been i completed. [ 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 Comission meeting which is now scheduled for February 2?,1988. 7 Atta chmen t:- As Stated : l l T Copies: ' Chainnan Zech - Comissioner Roberts 1l. 2 Comissioner Bernthal T Comissioner Carr i Comissioner Rogers General Counsel ' f I ~ t l ? l .= .c [ EDO --- 003447

.isg .S p.. '{ l - ... ~ al g p. h[0' 7' UNITED STATES OP! AMERICA 9 BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION : 118 tal 2I PJ:36 a I ) E F8LT };, h,;2.

uuCYU w: s, L,..; c;*

In the matter of ) 11H A W. ) South Texas Nuclear Project- ) Petition pursuant to ) 10 C.F..R. $2.206 Units One and Two: ) r- ) 7 f-I ? ','[ PETITION OF THE COVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT. W', fr) ' I iI L:.

l, 3

Preparediby: l Government Accountability Project ' p' 25 E Street, N.W.,. Suite 700 l Washington,' D.C. 20001! 2024347-0460 ' l

?

I' 1 l Dated: January.26, 1988 : 1 l i i l I [ t

> &v O.,4'Y O A

i. r i

y [(

t* 6 (

e..z -,. -..

=___n J ~ .? .~~_[- +- --~---~.s k

me. -

I. '. y ~ r ~: u ,p 3, TABLEIQF CONTENTS *

l. C

," ~ ~ L -

g z

Seetien gP g t [l I. INTRODUCTION' 1 'l II. BACKGROUND / FACTS.' 2 4. a. .gIII., %JEGAL e ANAINSIS,1,,q., m -g-r r 4 4 5 A. The,NRC's first.obligat;lon is sto R,, protece public health and safety. 4 ). p B. 4The NRC's limited review of the. STNP allegations jeopardizes L. public. heal!th and safety.:. 6 g.. IV. . CONCLUSION 10 1:, r. P t. P ,p - If~ l - l l .E. s s.. \\\\ D 6-- T u I. a I l ) i i )

n,, m.______ e -__m7.__._- e __. y g ~~~ e --. w.. m s. x,. g. } '..; '.. r-I H ~ 7:- r I. INTRODUCTION $h.3 - Pursuant'to 10 C.F.R. $$2,202, 2.206,' the Government 4 ._.i Accountability Project (GAP) requests that the Nuclear Regulatoryi . g-I Commission (NRC 'or Commission) delay yoting on a full power 1,, operating license for the South Teras Nuclear Project.(STN?) + 2-. until the followin'g are comp 1'eted: 1. A complete sinvesgigation of all '411egatJons :regarding. E) the1STNP. r. J' 2, Release to'the puhlic of an investigative / inspection b ;:' report dispositioning each allegation. : GAP 'is making this request in. order to prqvent a potential f"i.4 health and safety problem from occurring as a result of the NRC's ,I failure to fully or properly investigate the 600 to 7001 1 Ig.. allegations providediby current and fbraer STNP workers and .56' l[ persons af filiated with the inuclear industry. ,I'i We had. hoped that.by cooperating with theiNRC the STNP !I p allegers'would have their allegations thoroughly. investigated. 't r. Unf o r tuna tely, it is clear to us now that no such investigation .[. 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 interest in i facts, and that.the investigation was probably doomed.from the start. l I-i l -1,

pA r.t.. _.s. -a y, ~. u.=- r,; ~,. - '} N' a x N l t II. SACXGACUND/ PACTS

y.,.

A /; j Just over one year ago. CAP brought.to the WILC5s.4 3 l sttention*' 4 ~ t that numerous safety. allegations were being raised about the. .-_{ \\', + L, STNP. In a January 20, 1987 letter to Victor Stello and Texas. [ Attorney General Jamee Mattox4 GAP announced its preliminary . investigation of the allegations and! requested an independent 3 L F (non-Region IV)' review,(Exh,1bi't A).1, Responding for.the NRC f;; over the next few months, Mr..Stello. refused to consider the. idea: l.. of an independent review iof the allegat. ions, and seventuall-y h. subpoenaed iGAP for all information pertaining to.the STMP.. [ (Exhibit B). GAP refused to turW over any 1,nformation,ebelieving w f '.. theisubpoena to be illegal.. Sub'sequently, the NRC brought,an e.-

[

action in federal. court to enforcesthe subpoena.. Enforcement was-denied, causing the NRC and GAP to develop a cooperative f... g arrangement that would' permit.reviewtof the allegat.ionsiby an independent NRC1 team, while protecting the confidentiality of the 1 allegers. f This arrangement was worked out following a November 19, v. p 1987 meeting with NRC technical personnel. The substance of the. ~ .0 agreement is reflectediin two. pieces.of corr.espondence. s F (Exhibits C andiD). During theINRC team's review, it became clear that. time.and s scheduling constraints were being placed on.the review. GAP. l advised the NRCithat such constraints were prohibited.under 10 ( c.r.si. 550, appendix s, criterion I. (Exhibit D). Nonetheless, f 4 f [ the NRC team quickly reviewed most of the allegers' files without ] substantively reviewing the available supporting documentation..

...m_._..___.________ .s.__,. y j t

v. _

e.. ? t 4 m,- During the first week of January 1988,'the NRC team l 3 n i i V completed its inatial review. Without interviewin'g ihty of the: S: - l 9 b allegers, the team concluded that the allegations-were "not of ^ z immediate safety significance." (Exhibit E). This conclusion is s.f, outrageous on ita face because GAP; staff advised the team.thati L "our working files were not prepared for the purpose of NRC. y [ review. Nor.can these, files,take,t.he,, place,(of,a technical { g interview with the alleger). Consequently, our files should only. I be used to complement a more thorough NRC. technical interview, - C I. and must. not be used to make a definitive technical assessment of y~. (gj any allegation.P * (Exhibit 'D, 'esphasis :added),' xv. fl'i Despite-the ill-perceived lack of safety significance, the i 3 ??' p _, NRC. team chose 10 : primary and 50 secondary gliegations to review : L-further.: (Exhibits E and F). Arrangementsiwere made for-j:; t anonymous on-the-record phone interviews to'ba conducted with some of the allegers having knowledge about the 50< selected ~ P. j allegations. During one interview the NRC team agreed to take-the allager (John corder) on a site tour so he could show the NRC p specifically where the problem areas were located.1/ ' However, upon reaching the STNP' site he was permitted to show the RRC only r l one of the' ten ellegations of his that the NRC team had selected.2/ That, single allegation involved Unit Two. The: i ^ i l 1. Mr. Corder no longer wishes to remain confidential. 2. All together, Mr., Corder.has brought more than.100 I allegations to the NRC:'s attention through CAP. I t -3 w

i g..... a- - - s.... L ,l. L ~x< other nira ellegations involved Unit one, which.is nhe unit :the.1 NRC is s' t to license,. Mr Corder was.apparently Manied access { totUnit for "security reasonsa" (Exhibi t G). G' T' team conducted its review of 60 of :the STNP alleg during the week of January 18, 1988 Essentially,. the teo, s given four days.to complete the task and report back m 4-to NRC mag,gement and the Commissioners. Current pegsa reports. T f j-indicate t k at no significant safety problems were found. This. h conclusier is not surprising, considering the.NRC team made.the. I .h same dete.ination prio,r to.its on-site inspection. Obviously, the result was pre-determined. III.. LECA. ANALYSIS'. p.. L 4no NRC's first obifgation'Ls to protect public health-A, .nd safety. The N tc has a mandatory duty to exercise.its authority.when i necessary. The' foremost : priority :for the NRC lis to determine i that there will be adequate protectionlof the. health.and safety of the public. Therissue of safety must be resolved.before:the t Commission issues a construction permit. Porter City Ch. of Izaak Walton League v. Atomic Energy Commission,; $15.F.2d 513,. I L 52 4.( 7 th Ci r. 1975).' "(P]uolic safety is the first, last, and permanenti consideration in any decision on the issuancelof a construction i t permit or a license to operate a nuclear facility." Power -4_ E

.- O .f;l[~ " . ac a_..

^

b-s -4 1 r 1 Reactor Development' Corp. v. International Union of Electrical ) s Radio and Machine Workers,$367 U.S. 396, 402(1961).3 See, also,,i j 1. Petition for Emergency and. Remedial Action,' 7 NRC 400, 404 u t 4 (1978). ~ " t. f The NRC has broad authority to revoke, suspend,.or modify the construction permit of an NRC.' licensee.- 42 U.S.C. 32236 t 6 states that: en {' Any licenae may be revoked (for any material. false statement in the application or any : h.. ' statement iof fact required under section 2232! of thisititle, or because of conditions revealed by + E.. such application tor statement of fact or any i ft' repoet, record, or inspection.or other means which would warrant the Commission to refuse to grant.a a.J license on an original application, nor for :f ailure a' to construct or operate un f acility in accordance with.the terms of the construction permit or > 3'.'i license of the technical speifications on :the a .sj application, or for.violatlon of,'or fialute to ~, obser.ve any of the terms and iprovisions of.this i g-chapter -or of any regulation tof the. commission. 6.*- See, also.i42 U.S.C. $f2133, Q134. lhs y The same criteria for the revocation, suspension, or modifii i a i cation of a construction permit. exist under NRC engulations. 3. -j;. See, 10 C.F.R. 50.100f(1987).' f 7-The NRC;has a var.ietyiof powers it can exercise.to protect l ' i. the public's healthiand safety. The NRC has recognized.its: I l. f statutory authorityitos (1)' issue orders to promote or to protect health or minimize danger to life'or property; (2) 'itnpose civil t [ penalties for the violation of certain licensing provisions, ( rules, and orders, and for violations for which licenses can be rovoked; (3) seek injunctive or other equietable relief for l ( violation of regulatory requirements; and (4) seek criminal. t l l penalties.- See, 10 C.F.R.<Part 2, Appqndix C, II (1987-). In I I .[ -s-

Q u.. , v.,; _. w[ * ' s a i...m.~.- 4 2 j f 1 v- ) addition, pursuant to. regulations :the NRC can "institute 4 J [ 'd i ! u

l 6

proceeding...to modify, suspend, or revoke a licenset or for such {' '4bi, i other action as may.be proper.." 10 C.F.R. $2.206 (1987,). r W ; i t, F f;' B.> The NRC.'s limited review of the STNP allegations ieopardises public health and safety. ]=- At the outset it.is criticalsto note that CAP.and the i allegers attempted to have (the NRC review the iallegations.aore-

~

t. g. than one year ago. Therefore, any concern by:the NRC as to the t g g timeliness of the allegations and interference with licensing c schedules is.neritless. mr. b Even a cursory treview sof the somewhat 11mited allegers'. p.,].j.' >ff files.should.cause any, investigator toibe concerned aboutithe y;. status of the STNP.; The.information that.several allegers have s ' (, brought to the attention.of GAP, and now the NRC4 points to a major quality assurance breakdown at STNP.. For example, there is .\\. now information in the possession of the NRC which. suggests that.' t -,h,. STNP is experiencing theifollowing problemas

1..

.E. Lost material traceability- }, 2, High rate :of errors on permanent plant. records ( 3. Failure to reports and documents, and/or failure to l report and document in a, timely manner, all non-conforming condit'ionst i 4.. As-built conditions do not. comply.with blua-line y drawings or other. applicable documentation : ^ I 5. Falsificat. ion of records 6. Code, FSAR, specifications, and procedural violations I I i p I i - l

4 P - 4, - } F 5 3 7. Lack sof freedom to ireport non-conformances iand not be .~5 d subject to reptisals

cc.

^ m ~ ~; 7 y 8. Invalli ti-5 Code.cata. Reports and code Data Plates i ( g 9. W111ft.. :over-up.of serious design, hardware,.anda documentation discrepancies or-inadequacies 10. Material false statement (management knew, or should-4" ,haveiknown,tof non-conformances).c Other, areas of concer,n include engineering design ;(numerous t 1 as-built interferences in some systens are causing components to t, ] [ be. inaccessible, or.are causi.ng specific. items to be subject to s 1 damage): hardware (welding toeficienedes) r procur.ement (.it.is likely that counterfeit fastaneras and/or fasteners that do Mot acet ASME/ASTMlapecifications have been used): and intimidation a and harassment -(many employees acknowledge that.they,are not able i to identify safety problems or acts of wrongdoing without being. subjected to retallation). It Is impossible for the NRC to disposition the potentially. significant generie. concerns reflected ein the : allegations ;in ai [ four-day site inspection. Obviously, the NRCicould noti j s j,. legitimately expect:to thoroughlyladdress even the 60 selected 'i allegations which were the focus of the team's review. k [ Purthermore, one dncident that occurred during the. team's l site visit clearly demonstratesielther (1) that the NRC' team's. 3 hands were hopelessly tied, preventing them from conducting a ) thorough review of the allegations, or (2) that the team never f had any intention of conducting:a thorough investigation. The I incident involved an on-site inspection with one of the allegers,. i l r-

]c ~ 5-

a

<.--e.--~.- q* ~- ~1m-~~~ 'A<-

,,x.

-s> y ( John Corder ' Mr. Corder. contended that he could more effectively. w b show the unc. team where the problems were at STMPs:f thertthan.'[ Q/.Sf y' 7-sy 4 P explain to them in an interviews It was agreed that he could ; 3 f f. ya.:g f. accompany members.of the. team on a half-dayiraview.of the: i 'f [ j n i problems at the STNP sii;e.. He was limited to.the ten allegations 7 [,"% of his that the NRC had picked to. review.- Nhen he :got to ;the j t [ alte with the NRC' team, he.was. permitted to show.them only oneiof ~ pt 'L, the ten allegations.- Oddly enough, that one allegation had 4 [, '. nothing to do with Unit one3 Of course, Unit One is the unit P' that the NRC plans to permi.t to sperate in the near future..Why i ma ,t I7* would the NRC team not allow Mrs Corder.to identify his concerns t ~' ,f in that unit? MrJ Cordet was tolds that. it would t>e "too - O[,

c. g.

h. c.- - e difficultito get ihin into Unit one. e It was also implied.that4he could not gain access to eUnit one for security reasons. t L 5 The NRC's failure to provide MrJ Corder ~with access to Unit -4 1 One is one sclear example '.of the :teants ' ineffectual. handling of, 5 the STNP allegations. Who decides. which per;sonnel.can have p t access to a nuclear facility? ; If the 1.icensee. played any role.in 3 denying MrJ Corder access to Unit One, thenisomething is -i q i 3 seriously wrong with the nuclear. regulation. process. Is the y public to believe that.NRC bf fic'lais.cannot : gain. access Jto 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. permitted to be a factor when matters i such pressures are not I affecting safety are at issue. NRC regulations (10 C.F.R. 50, j Appendix B, Criterion I) state in pertinent parts .} -84 t ( w

\\s - 3y} ca.. - g _. _._q (,J. ' - [... -.? +h .a-I

f

)

r... s \\t i..; t The persons and organisations performing quality ' 7 r tsurance functions. shall have sufficiottt ~1 F- ,i ithority and organisationalifreedom to ide'ntify

.b

? i, tality problemer to intiste, recomrand,nor ovide solutions; and to verify implementation of ' h ' ,7 i l f. slutions. Such. persons andtoeganisations se'.. 1 t erforming quality assurance functions.shall ?'cl u f. qport to a management level.such that this i rquired authority and organisational freedom, 1 icluding suffichent independence from cost andi

hedule when opposedito safety considerations,.

a:e provided. L m . The,"istC' team's review.of th's ellegations amounts to a ) quality assurance verification of the SYNP., Partleularly. Unit One. A pecper analysis of the allegations,ithorough interviews v.. a 'with allegers, and a comprehensive inspection of the~siteicould .~ , j[- ' .not.be accortplishedsin the timerthe team. n s allotted. Even the - i.r. d,j team's reduction of.the number of allegations to investigate: from over soo to 60 was not sufficient to allow a thorough inspectica. Ji to be. completed in four days.- The: obvious scheduling constraints, s plceed upon the team ser'iously hampered its ability to properly 2 ih investigate the STNP allegations..Because of these problems.the + team's investigation does not comply.with NRC 'regul.ttlans.- Finally, no issues of.wrongdo,ing have been investigated by k' the NRC.I The NRC: technical team war unable :to address STNP.' s allegations involving wrongdoing. ; These allegations were supposed to be addressed by the NRC's Office of Inspections (OI). To date, no arrangementsihave been made :o accommodate an.OI review of wrongdoing allegations. Information on wrongdoing will i provide the commission with significant insight into.the k corporate competence and character of the licensees such information must be fully evaluated before the commission. reaches 1 a final decision on licensing. y _g. l 7..

y.

s t.,. ~-~~- "~ 7 J l' 3 IV. CONCLUSION I 4 For all the foregoing reasons, the Commission,.should delay 1 1 h h the vote on liceitsing the STNP until.a thorough investigation of ).' .O $ all allegations is completed and a.public report.is issued. ty.. n g Respectfully submitted,- 3 I b sillieer. Carde i n j' h t. d b h p. Richard E:. Condit t M Covernment Accountabi.11ty. Project ... J 25 E Streets N.W'.,. Suite 700' Washington,iD.C. 20001 202-342-0460 i-Dated: January 26, 1983

t-s;;.

r. l _o W.' -I, 079AA23! e l, e ' .?' I a 9 l 'j i h l L t 10.

j+4 .t'. f. l E '... r t t L...,. r-I 11 !~ s g. AI !P e r, f :- Ag.. \\ p... l$ a.k.'. eiG d EXHIBIT ' A Y. - y. M aueWouumeanupus asumasaansammungsmap k t.;., t$.. d. te t.r o w tL: r I.,. r a. r 'l p,.- F ) i.......

s. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABluTY PROJECT 1555 Comecncue Awase. N W. Suite 202 ' Washington. D.C. 20036 hy22324550. r-w January 20, 1987 Ik i ~. - Victor stello. Executive-Director. U. S. ! Nuclear Regulatory C:v ss ten ' Washington, D.C. 20555 Janes Mattox:

- f' " " Attorney General fo r. sme 's ate s f ;;exa s Supreme CourtsBuilding:

1 14th & Colorado d.' Austin, Texas: 75711 Ret' South. Texas Nuclear.Pr :ect 3 Dear Messrs Stello'and Mattos This letter Ls to i.-!:rm syour ce'spective egencies that ehe i Severnment Accountabtlaty Pro;.ee (CAPb has eformally. begun I: peeliminary investigat son taso worker allegations at ;the South

p.

Texas nuclear < project. t kMG' , on1 behalf of whistle 51:we.rs and concernad ica t taens non issuosiSince 1 - avolving safety-reta:ed prestems atsvarious auclear power acilities.- Our apptcac5 to nuclear! power nas seen s-teadfastly the sames toiensure:tna: :ne government ent:::es the nuclear safetyilaws and regula:::ns.' As a resuIt.cf JAP:s 'ef forts (alone

3 or in concerttwith eta.er c: qan.settons) s exosse safety-telatedt problems, the: construct.:n and/or : para:.:n :t several nuclear.

i power faci 1Lttes -- prevatusly snougn: t o t=e !!:-to operate --- J. were cancelled or postpenedifor fur:ner rev:ew4.The cancellede facilities include.tr.e 94 percent c: p;eted 2: P.*e r.c u el e a r. powe r i ? 4 plant and the:85 percess c:spietediw.:*.a c p?.a-:.- 75:se which4 A were postponed for.f ar:ner rev:ew s c...:e : e J: anene Peas,. a' Three Mile Is!'and,.3:asi: Canyon, and aaterf::: fa::; : es. CAP currently ettnerereprese.*s ::.: . :rs.nq

n-approximately136 curren

and/or !cr9er e p;;yees af: ne south Texas project.-

The at.egations fr:n :ne

r<d:s range frem grand theft of nuclear grade steel :: enganeer; g defects ;n severa;a major safety component s.

The attega ::ns esecern sne.faalure of Houston Light a Power s quaranteetsunee.Arae:::. comp!:ance ws:h indust ry and f ederal date:y requt recents...nc;ud' nq dut.not ilmited tot defects in :.e tas t rumenta':::n 49d 'c:nt rol divastan: defects and ilack of ccep;: Ance wa n f ederal requlations :n the heating, ventilating. a.-d.a;r cendt:::n; g systemt 'act:of. compliance with qual &ty standards ta :ne area of soils : i compaction:. failure to c: p;e:e requ;ted CA or QC documentation; falsification of required.;A ar QC docuren Attent and;harassmen: and intimidation of perstar.e! wno atte*p: to adhere to federal saf ety standards. i .. _. ----. ~ *' w iur vru-rerr==' Ty---umww--e21w v ' en,y-m----g-w'we-y tWp -y-- g - - *-'w --e

r--.s--y' r-

E. u. i, t. 1 .;an;ary 20, 1987 - Page Two Fss.4 - .*e Additionally, and =f s'peci f:c cencer s :.t,"ggat, og 7,,,," there are allegations :nat u c.' ade. de;;terate actaans :f s:me :!. the : subcontractors at STP to :vercear goods and services by *.'enargang c!!" ge.90.st n Lign 6 P:wer f:r-to Brown & Roots Inc.

netr :wn unacceptable work.

that subcontractors have.f rauc. Lent;/ c"arged ST7 for mannours mot worked.! and flor por t ;:.s af ; e pr.s;ec:.wnten were not completed as claiemed. fo,rmeriworkers who aretc: cernec 40061 GAP tis curr.ently c:-2.c ! g ; terv L CAP investigators are A::epsteg cal's it:m woruers st.our itne South! Texas pro;ect.' 9. >gfgg' Washington,'D.C. off!ce and.',*. m M;dwestic!! tees W.3,; if issue a formal public report.once our prelle: nary : nvest:qation tis complete, w ~,.. '.n f or t una t ely, y 3 cannot advise our c1Lants.cr tnose we wort with to provide theirAn.tne interia, we i. L-. ' concerns to <the Region :v.c!! ace (of :ne Nac. r (~ out been stande recently. released unternal agency reper. amper tence.has >.- , l; che Arlington of fice.;s e t tner.unande or anwt i; Lng to ' comply.with s ca confirm)ithatt i yi its regulatory require. ents as ioutluned un governing 4 t procedures. 9ency y'. -- '+ inspectors to process:; e 4t;egat;or.s tpursua.Thus, unless the NRC to anternali'MC regulations,iGAP.wa;1.pr:vtde SP.e at;egatt: 3 directly to the. n state Attorney'Ceneral Off.;ce. And/cr.43

J.

n* appropriate congressional commat:ees. and/cr r.3 c:rer te r.;4 tory or munielpal i bodies which have an trieees:

- 3 ea.sur:ng : as :P.e South Texas plant is designed, ccastese:eds andif:racce3 nn a manners:Mac protects tae:pubLic. 9f Please a ect any moute:es anc.

474s 3: a 9 Texas 6 t

investigati to Ricnard Cend:::, Staf: A:::r +f : Sves:sta:ct. ~' 202-232-85504 o r 8 t L 1.'e Ca rde. CAP *;l-e s:

:. e. 414 - 7 * )-i % ) 2..

t.,..

Jer.4...

3;;;;d P.r +r *ar:e

0. recti:r. w.:.es: !!! ice R;c? art C:.4; Staff A ::r. ey I

cc: Chairman Lando.ZecM BG/RCaC30 I i gp hN . - - - ~, - _ -. _ --,..r,,-,_ _.,..r-m -._m-_. ,,,__,_y -._,r,--

L -. .: j A* 4.. A 9 4 am. e s+ te e, [- -r+-r-& k ' b f +e. e V + es.,. gy.. 3' t i 'h h ~ Y t I 1 5 P h-t&\\ ere - w .h. 2 F 64& f,* 4 4 -- 7,,.., d. ?. Y... 'n u . ;' b. ~' et 4. i p. It. e

g..

I e. ~. e 9 m M' axurary e e. ~ ~ - ' *). W - = ammmmmmmmmmmunes -w. c.;,e .e .4 .I.*. t* d

- 6

.f "we e a f -,.4 e \\\\ .f ww t ) >'g 4 he - e i e I ',e l 7 L. t e e o e i I

h l s Editch Statesief Americ'a ~ ~ ? NUCt.KAR RECUL.ATORY conodl5 MON n w-M.' '!".' w 3 s C In the settet ef; Houston Lighting andi Power n.y Company l > DOCKET NO.' $0 496 s 50 499t . t;, 70 l's. Sillie P.irr.er. Garde p - ^^ Government Accountability Project t 1555 Connecticut Avefice, fi.Wi E Suite 202' g. Washington. 0.C. 20036 e yi R YOU ARE HERESY COMMANDED, to appear at Room 6501. Nuclear Aegulatory iN Coemission, 1735 Old Georgetown Acad,:Bethesda Maryland on the.26th. day of May 1387iat 9:00 t o' clock A.M. to continue as necessary - P I'- for the purpose >cf testifyingTtifore NRC personnel concerning allegations. p-of current and/or former employees of the South Texas Project concerning. the safety of the South Texas. Project. al described in yoursletter of - 4k January 2J.1367 to Messrs. Victor Stallo and Jares f*attox,Jand any other allegations iAich you. have: received corcerning the safety of the South 1 Texas Project and to provide any records or other docunents in your c-possession or under your custody or control concerning such: allegations.. s o I E e f s ctor Ste .Jh Executive Director for Dearattans $EeYRNulatory Coenin ton MA. f'M.* 19 87-c Mn r.n uh,g / nm f 301) 492-7619 ___ f On motion nade promptly, and in any event at or before the time speelfied in the v6poena for cor.pitance by tht parson to whom the subpoena is directed,(and on notice to the + at whose instance the subpoena was f ssued the formission ray 1) quash or acdtfy'the subpoena if it is unreasonable or requires evidence not relevant to any mattar in issWe I or (2) condition dantal of the motion on just and rtasonable terms. Such notion sh8WId be directed to the Secretary of the Comission. Washington. D.C. 20555.. -[. _,l9g 4 p/), -l . ~ - n g

L 4 t:, c, o-c d / t Y-s 4 q,,.! . 4.e r w,,,y.- .t J, 4, .t. 4 1 ,y. .a s .m,. .l, 4... sa.*r M, =. - t E <g-g -cp i r u s b_ s Ikw n. ' a. -EZHTBI.T L C p,

- suumenesusumasausarmy, j.

s g A. 1.. r**

- t.

4.%= >.e e m. 7N ' 4 9.. .e e r l J i bb lU. ~ pf - X.- .t - t l a.. - .ra C. '. p. t ks e*

i,.,

h-i e e e 1 + l t I 4 l l 4 e i 1Q wn. --, .... -. - - - - - - -.. - -,. - ~ ~ - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - ~ - -

~ -,.an.J ;. l (- gn... .j54E..h_ y ~ ~~ g e d.htp % UNITE D'ST ATE S M....ge.g,.,c/d.% ,$ 9 g,, ' :v..... -. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i - :n.*j.,j.c/ -i uimwe ro=. o.c. roue f MNso s, NOVl! 41987 ( P{- 1. fe.- Ms. Billie r Garde 9 Government ntability Project -l Midwest 0 Ie... 424 Mar.. i (. _.igleton,i, sin iS4911 .i oar ms, su.a .n ~ Ws wil1 c'enfirm the results of our meeting of : Thursday, Wovember 19.1987, at k. W. ch we discuried certain allekations GAbhas developed concerningithe ..,th Texas nuc lear power planta . [. p s - l -'W '

4.. eetting bes:n.by your. tabling a seriesn,of talking points concerning your

. - of the objectives of.the meeting, as well at a samsary of how GAP handles ,.syatfuns received. We ifound the distussion usefuli but neither agreed nor y ~~s~ m a; read to tN points' you raised. You retained a11:copie.s of the'befeffng r: M '.. Ynu ths.1 proceeded to table a tabulation.of allegat. ions in sunmary g ..e * '. r..t (all co; tes of which you. retained)phich we reviewed on the spot. ...m. '" min, anclusion was that insafficient data was'.ava'11able in the suomaries to 'W i for,a deliberate and reasoned evaluation of the; allegations..In further: sion you agreed to make your files on these allegations available to us. .. ;uent to the meeting staff has made a! Preliminary visit to GAP Headquarters 9 .....de arransernents to begin detailed review of the process on November 30 EJ Wa will accord confidential. treatment.to the identity of any alle9ers a T.. .-i .: names may surface during this review. Following our review, we will b ..: you of the allegations which we feel tre appropriate to review further., I .w L.... fw. greed to r.rovide us data on which such folicw up can proceed, subject, in l 5 . a. ases, to your contacting allegerstto assure that they will agree to be I . _.... Md by the NRC) c m.. $YT=E p~. ?g.+ '-m. 4 indicated that one set of allegatjens was in process in Wisconsin. We Q..

hat you will: simply pruide us that infomatioli during the time we are.

E, pj r g the other files at GAP Headquarters. Separately, I also understand ,g .ed some allebat. ions on wrongdoing directly to the Office of i l 9 .,;;.W gations whichi ts dealing 1 directly with~ you on those matters. ly y

3.

., rf. ..cing was quite settsfactory from our point of view. We appreciate your l

- a ice and. cooperation and that of the: allegers you represint. Hith your l

4d cooperation we should be able.to give a proper review of the ions GAP has acquired. Needless tto say, obtaining any infomation which have on alleged defects in the South Texas nuclear power. plant will i s 'in assuring that the public health and safety is protected at that l - ',e,re.ly [- Sint l [ l .' T. A. chmi-Assts{% = p *,o ant for Operatit,n4 k' Office of the Executive -./) / a ] O 9 )g Director for-0perations! c O r 3v. p y r 4 {- y.

.m p . t. s., -... ~. - ...-. ~. g's2 k V e h' e. [ / j. a, -.... s. c t.: .n.... y,, ..~. m. .4 ..g.. r >p M. t

r F

5 tw 4 ,w m-- _.. s. - -u s a . J.. . ~........ - n.s. d ..x .v..- m,. v. ~ 9p.'2-. EXHIBITl .D t ~ 4'O-en,.. e eee s" e ..o g.~. e.r *, ....m..;~. -..,; a--.

e. s. :.

....a ...."u~***^- r. .m..

v. u,.

e4 -e 8 re.".. 9 5.a g

e

./ g., m. l W l e e g l O I e

-+

N er e 6a ~ h w e ~ * " D' a .... 3h er. i eye i b r# ~ b@ Y 9* e e O p. l. e f6 ie 'I L i 4,. e .e. .u 5. e L r 4 r I k 6 . mam (.

.~. x 4 ..i. ~, "~ ~-h 6 T r GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT I 25 E Street,. N.W., Suite 700 ' ..[.7 Washington, D.C. 200013 --- G02) 347 0480 i l.. Decembers4, 1967 : HAND-DELIVERED Jose Calvo 7920 Norfolk. Avenue D.S' Nuclear. Regulatory Commission Stiilips Building (. .Sethesda, Maryland - E~ l m. Dear Joses. k.' l g-We are writing :to discuss the status. of the. review of the. South Texas Nuclear Project-(STMP) worker' allegations..This [.. review follows our preliminary meeting-of Novembers19th. In that ' - [' ' meeting it was agreed that:a team of non-Region IV;NRC pegsonneli.' i g would.be permitted access to the STNP allegers' files under. k'! certain conditions and with the'allegers' permission. These i conditions includedithat.the identity of any alleger would be i U kept confidential.and that ino one at.the STNP : site will. be 1 W contacted about'the information< revealed during the review. In ?."- addition, it was agreed that the allegers' information would only i c" [,. be revealed to NRC personnel not participating in the review on a need-to-know basis.! Theidevelopment.cf this working protocol was h necessary to permit:NRC review while protecting our interests and g the interests of the allagers. ~ft We appreciate the dili~gence and courtesy.that the. I Washington-based NRC personnel have exhibited in working at our ( i l'. office. We have tried to work closely with them to allow.the. E review to proceed as offici'ently as possible. N' 7* However, over the last couple of days it has become clear to r us, through the actions and comments of Paul O' Conner, that.there S may be problema with the: review.of the allegations. Wo. understand 4that'Mr. O' Conner's background.is in project management, notiQA/QC and technical review. We believe that his. 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 b'y Mr. 0' Conner's, comments to other NRC personnel that a deadline (of December. 12th) would control the review instead of the substance. determining the amount of effort required. Such deadlines may. l violate 10 CFR 30, Appendix a, 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.; {} {} O)II V' / l/ //

y _. g. r. 3 7 L d* Jose Calvo i December.4, 1987 Page Two I f y ? s. t 0 As we have.already discussed, it is essential.that the i .l ' 4- .allegers' files receive a detailed QA analysis. Each file aunt be read through in order :to get uni overall view of :the possible J'. f QA/DC breakdown at STNP. I Our: other concern with Mr. :O' Conner's approach is that he i L 4 seems.to take a'very narrow view of the allegations. On several. E occasions he has appeared to minimize the significance of some. t. allegations before the reviewer ;could analyse it.in its entirety.. This approach maysprevent the reviewer.from makingcan independent assessment of an allegation based on.his technicals c. expertise.a This concerns us because.the initial reviewtof the. V allegations will determine the universe of Information from which l the NRC can investigate.? Therefore,'.it is important that no b

h. '

allegation 1s dismissed too.quickly. i t In reviewing:a filed if the alleger's intent is'somewhat [ f ambiguous,$then the interviewitapes should be reviewed or.the n h". ' alleger should be questioned if.possible.. As we. explained in the i $y 3, November'19th' meeting,'our working files were not prepaged for theipurpose of NRC review. Nor man these; files take the place.cf = 1 a technical interview with the alleger.: Consequently, our. files : O should only be used to complement a more thorough NRC. technical Interview, and must not be used.to make. a definitive technical : s i l j. assessment.of any allegation.i i ka: Another issue that troubles us is that J11ttle, if any, I t attention is being given :to the documentation that supports some. 6 of the allegations. This is ironic becauseithe supporting t l P. " information was.the subject of the NRC's subpoena. Frankly,.it has always ibeeniour concern that the.NRC was not : interested in. i these documents but only wanted.to review.our summariesi which. may inot be : technically. complete.: We' realise that it.is mucht 3 4 1 easier 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 r- } documentation that accompanies an alleger's file. Finally, in the last'two. days we have finished preparation s of approximately 50 allegations that were.in files.that we were unable to prepare previously.. We advised you that some; files had. not been. completed at the November 19th meeting.: No one from NRC. r objected when we indicated that there would be a delay in. ( producing these allegations. Yesterday, upon our mentioning that the additional allegations 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.' )

m. (. a w w. . -.,, ~

.~*--~---~'~-

r' Jose Calvoi f December.4, 1987 ? Page Three {s.~.;:],;,. i i;s y,; t t i As you know, this effort'has consumed many h urs and other resources -- which are extremely. limited. It would be unfair to i [ everyone involved:to compromise the integrity of:the review effort simply because of.50' additional allegations. There must: s ( be appropriate NRC staff members who could propegly. review these ) allegations. 4 k we hope that you will take.these coannents in the F I. constructive spirit in.which they are offared. We. trust that you will take all necessary steps ;to protect the hard work that has been done by everyone to date. Our recommendation ds thatayou. 1 4., institute a conference call:with. us to help work tout our concerna, and rectify the problems.which have developed.fross, i 9..r, W today's Houston : Chronicle article. i 3 Yours truly,~, } [ f[- 3d64 [M hkN p I. ~. Billie P. Garde i hg.....T ~ ~ Q } [ Richard El. Condit U 4.' Edna J. Ottney U R { \\\\ e ,l.. 079EE01 r cc: Tom.Rehmi L U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-9 Maryland, National Bank.8uilding : 7735 Old Georgetown Road 4 Bethesda, Maryland l (' 6

me h. 4 .a.m e 4 m. a 4 .e... e - e .e.- e G q 'n ' e s P t [: i-1- e i ^ ? f- 'T t-4 r l W 1 h-t_ -. f tI 6 ) E gw w m -...- an - - _ - -

s

a. e r

Y' g, A "1 g. e s i er s =r .F L .q. e e f fc ~ EXHIBIT.' E L M M aw. p ...q,5 .. c O .m = = f.. g ( t..: ~- 8 - sJ

s.,.

my A. -g; -g 1 ~t

- d" L.

ao E e e 4 0 h e e t k k c -, ey M% .f i h

I "N

.' W* 4 r e.. 4.1 ee a I d 6 f 4

%e4-i v

5

c. -w ---m R, ('a~rd W> see UNITED 5TATesi [ ,n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-o \\...../ JAN4ging e Ms. 81111e p. Garde ! Governmnt Accountability Project 3424 L Marcos Lane Appleton. Wisconsin 54911

DeariMs. Garde:

s As you are aware, the NRC team has completed.its initial review of the Government Acccuntability Project's (SAP) filet pertaioin t.o allegations of safety L-3 problems at the South, Texas Projer.tv As agree the NRC team reviewed GAP.'s ~ records at GAP's lleadquarters in Washington; 0,. These records consisted of r m audio tapes of the interviews with the allegerp (concerned individuals)'. l hand-written text extrapolated from the tapes accompanied with supporting l infomation, and allegation detaisheets that contained the alpha-numeric ^. identification and brief description of each allegation. As agreed.rall the. records examined by the NRC romained at GAP?s Headquarters..Durine this initial review, the NRC ' team focused on tho' technical content and specificity of the. i allegntions and there was no need to involve the concerned individuals at this time. The MRC team wrote brief descriptions of each allegatjon reviewed which i are presently being treated as confidential; As we discussed on December 30. 1987, the NRC team has selected 10 primary a, allegations for. investigation at the South Texas Project site. Each. primary allegation is accorpanied by secondary allegatjons that convey similar concerns as the primary one. A listing of these selected allegations was provided to Mr. Rfchard L Condit1of GAP..

4

' The NRCiteam has determined that.the data reviewed indicates that the a allegations are general in nature and not of iemediate safety significance. s Nevertheless, we would like to pursue the 10 selected allegations further. In order to do this, it is ieportant to make arrangements with the concerned. individuals involved so that the NRC t'am can contact them and determine if e 4 they can identify locations or components which concern them. This letter is to confirm NRC's previous verbal,arrangeeents with GAPito arrange contacts. ' i with allegers. We will start the onsite inspections at the South Texas-Project $1te during the week of January 18.~.1988 hnd desire to make contact with your clients as soon as possible.' i l l The NRC team will protect the identity of those concerned individuals requesting it and will draw-up confidentiality; agreements with the concerned individuals, 1 if reouired. In addition, the NRC team inspection plan will consider combining other related or unrelated concerns with the selected GAP'a11egations to ensure that the substance of the selected allegations does not reveal the identity of the concerned individuals requesting confidentialfty. Mr. Richard E 'Condit of GAP and Ms. Edna Ottney (GAP's consultant) have been very cooperative and, on behalf of the.NRC team, we would like to express our appreciation for their excellent support. he

g Ms. Billie P. Garde - With. regard to the notice of appeal from the U.S. District Court's refusal to enforce the original NRC stebpcena for certain safety infomation and identities of concerned individuals related to the South Texas Project, see the' attached memorandum from the NRC Solicitor to me which provides.the reasons for taking such.an action,i Should you have.any questit.ns regarding these matters, please contact me at f301)492-7781.i S i nt*P'IJ s... _ .._m. (seesd) 7. A,:Retus i 3 Thok siA. Rehmb Assistant.for Operations Office of the Executive Director for Operations

Enclosure:

i As stated i ) DISTRIBUTION

CentraliFile PO4 Reading i J. Calvo,iNRR W. Brin T. Rehm, ED0 W. Par'gsg OGC :

D. Crutchfield, NRR er,i OSC

T. Murleyv NRR Y. Stello, EDO I F. Miraglia, NRA X. Snith, OGC R. Brady, NRR

/ R. Condit, GAP t EDO r/f.

SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE PD4/D :

OGC/S OE00/A0 t JCalvo*- -- WEriggs TRehmi ~' 01/11/88 01/ /88 - 01/r/7883 ---yp ~v.- p ..---------,_,._------,,---m ,-w---,-,-w p-,,. y y-

e 3 2 O. I e ~* ---..s. 3 y 'E. ~- a t

- T

+w,, f e S e ~ EIBIBIT 4 F 3 w ammsmesummmumsmesumet I ? l . -g r, .e 'I 3 .._ y g

a 3

+ M

4 A

?

e-4

.N. .- w sa6 e Dm' =4 e e to k

3-4 M h

i'=

i i i 9 m es eM # ... _,.. _... _ _,. _,. _ _ _ _. _.,.... _ _... _. _ _ _... _, _.,.. _ _ _. _ _... _ _ _ _ - _ _ -. _ _ _ _. _ _ _.. _. ~ - _, _ _.

~_ ..s s o.a a.me j k,jCodd,$MM g, UNITED STATES I { q NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS510N o w m meron.e c.sosse, January 4,1988 PEFORANDUM FOR.: Thomas A. Pehm, Assistant for Operations Office of the: Executive Director for Operations Thcwas E. Murleys Director Office of Nuclear Peactor Regulation Prankid. Miragild. Associate Director i for' Projects Offfek of Nucleyr Reactor Requ1stion Dennis A Crutchffeld,' Director i Divis1on1of ReactortProjects.. III, !Y, V and Special Projec,ts Office of Muclear Peactor Regulation FROM: Jose A. Calvo, Director e Project Directoratot-IV

Div'ision:of Reactor: Projects III.

IV, Y andispecial. Projects Off.fce' of Nuclear Reactor. Regulation.

SUBJECT:

SOUTN TEXASIPROJECT MSTPb Pt.AN FOR EVALUATION .+ i AND' RE50LLITION10F ACLEGATIONS PR0f fDED BY THE GOVEPNPENTACCOUNTA8ILITY. PROJECT:(GAP)i .~ "

4 The plan for' the evaluation and, resolution of STP allegations provided by SAP is presented:in Enclosure.1, ie O

The NpC Safety Signiffcance Assessment Teari (55AT) (Enclosure 2) has completed. a preliminary review of the ellegations and associated materfele at #AP officas. in Washington, D.C., and has compfled, sursnarized, and cateaorized them by disefpline or toples (see Enc'losure 4). It is important.to note that theiS5AT had difficulty during its review in assessing the safety sfgnificance of many of the allegations due to the lacksof specificity and detail of the identifica-tion of a particJ1ar component or system provided by the allegers (referred to by GAP as concerned individuals - Cis.1. Because of the general lack of specificity of the allegations, it is imperrtive that the $$AT contact the attege.rs.acd detemine if they can identify lect,t'ons. or components that exhibit.the conditions that they have a concerrt over a' dTP., This will facilitate the SSAT: subsequent inspection to substantiate the concerns ) or detemine that the concern has been satisfactorily corrected.. If an alleger. cennot be contacted or if the1 contact. yields no additional specific informationi l to focus the.f aspection on a particular area or component, the individual. i allegatfor will'be dispositfohed as unsubstantf ated and the. general subfect l matter will be pursued further only if other related allegations provide some basis to assume:that there is validity to the concern.: Y 'CN 11I TO f) l

.. a a .s N 2-The 5 SAT wrote a brief description of each allegation reviewed. We feel that the subject matter.used ifn some of the allegation descriptions might. reveal the identity of the alleger.: Thus, the GAP allegatier descriptions prepared by SSAT.must remain confidential until: suchia time that the need for the confiden-tiality of the allegers :fs no lon,qer required.. 11!tts the.10 primaryt allegetions thet the 55AT will investigate at STP. ' Enclosure 6 lists the secondary allegations thatowfl1 also be considered along withithe primary a,llegations due. to their similarities to the primary allegations. 2 3 The proposed $$AT inspection team (, Enclosure 7) are the same. individuals that e perforved the! initial review, evaluation, and screening of the allegations. Given the time ressining. to prepare, for the. inspection and the general, non-specific rature of the allegations, the utilization of these experienced, reviewers or 1,nspection team nembers will greatly. facilitate. the effort. e 6AP has been contacted and cfvon the primary and secondary 411egation lists to. allow them to contact.the appropriate ellesers.and any others that ney provide. any additional infomation concernino the allegations selected for inspection. Depending on the results. of GAP contact with the allecers, the proposed.tenta-tive scheduleifor the inspectinn effort will commence efuring. the week of January M, 1988. .y Should you have any questiohs regarding these matters, please contact re at i X2740. r g M,' 8. ( N Jose A. Calvo, Director: Project Of rectorate

IV '

-3 Division ef Rea'ctor Projects - !!!, h IV,andispecial. Projects Office of Nuclearmeactor Regulation cc w/anclosures: SSAT Hembers - V. Stello, EDO W. Parler, 0GC J. Sniezek, NRR i I F. Partin, P.IV W. Pussell, RI W. Jnhnston, R! P L. Shao, NRR t.cr J. Roe, NRR ' J, Partlow, NRR r B. Hayes. O! I i W. Briggs, 0GC .K. Smith, OGC: J. Lieberman,:0E R. Brady, NRRI T. Martin, EDO l B. Carde,,GAPI g R. Condit, GAP

wn ...s Erelosure.1 i SOUTH TEXAM PPOJECT ALLEGATIC M ptV1EW $AFETY STCN!FYcAPCf ASSESSMENT 3TATUS REPORT,

1., BACKGR00NO.-

flirect interaction between MjC staff and The Governient Accountability ' Pro *ect >(GAP)! on the matter. of $6uth Texas Pro.fect safety com: erns outside of the litigation arers, began os ffcVember 19.!1987. A meeting was held in the Officol of the Executive Direct 6r of Operat.fons (EDO) :Bethesde.. with Thomas Ai Rehm leading the NRCistaff.repre!tentatfves an,d Billie P.

arde leading:the GAPirepresentatives.. The backdrop for this meeting wer' the decision by the US Mstrict Court dated October U, !?87 The Court.

had ruled to deny enforcement of a NPC subpoena on Ms. Garde because of the possibility of ?abridPerent of constituttocelly protected associational i rights."i in additton, the court stated that "Alternatives minimizing the a intrusion on assoctettonal rights must,be car,efully and conscientiously explored before resort riay be had ts the courtis process." , _ g. ff I Priorite the meeting of November.19,1987, agreement had been reached between the ET@ ind:Ms. Garde on rthe mein elements of a process,that would,. )d provide the NRC staff limited access to information which mfcht.be of l relevance in the forthcoming licensing decisfons regarding South Texas. $0 Project.: Consequently on November 19.1987,i NRC staff reviewers were 1: permitted to see brief surmaries of the allegations in the possession of ~ GAP. An attempt >was made by the technical experts present-to assess the i safety signf ffeanceiof the allegations.. Unfortunately,: the infonnation made available to the staff was to lacking in specificity that no conclue 4~ sfons >on safet to gain access'y significance could be reached, t in order for the N90 staff to more detailed informatf o'i.: arrangements were agreed,upon for the NRC technical staff to visit the AAP offices.in Washington, D.C.. The protocol for 'the NRC staff's work at the: GAP offices was agreed upon. to protect, to GAP's satisfaction' the. identity of individuals who.have. rade the allegations. The' NRC staff has completed.f ts preliminary review, nf the information made available.by GAP as described below within.the framework of agreenents reached with GAP thus far.. In addition, it is understood that GAP has provided the Office of investigations. (011 alleca-tions of harassment and intimidation and wenngdoing. To assure that all-GAP identified: allegations are reviewed and evaluated, the. NRC Safety Signiff;ance Assessment Team (SSAT)..which was assembled to per'onn the. initial reviewi of GAP's records, will forward to OT all allegations thati they reviewed and categorfred as harassment and.' intimidation or wrongrfoing. 9 .n n_-_,-,nn.,. ._,..._,,,nnn.vec,,y---

i 2 7. TNITIAL kRC STAFF REVIEW OF All ECATIONS t An NRC team was essembled, referred hereinafter as the $5AT (sefety significance assessment team), to review GAP records of interviews.with allegers. (re<' erred by GAP as concerned, individuals (Cis)) art individual, allegations that CAP enumerated from the interviews.i Enclosurei2 presents the MliC SSAT participants as well. as the disciplines that were involved in this initial reviewi of GAP't allegations docur.entation.: As agreedt FRC SSAT reviewed GAP's: records at GAP's offices: in Washington D.C. These e mcords consisted of audio tapes of most of the. interviews conducted by a GAP consultant with.' the C!s, the consultant hand-written text extrapolated from the: tapes, and:allegationidsta sheets theta contained each allegation's l unique alpha-numeric code and 4 brief description of the concern. 1 The SAP tonsultant's hand-writteni text was assembled.in maabered ffles which contained reference materials related to allegations. There are approximately 30 filesiwith varying quantitfes of etext and. reference. materials and -two-3+ ring binders contatnino thel 576 individual allegation data sheets. GAP has:categortred the allegations intoithe following ~ areas: safety-related; intimidationiand harassment, wrongdoine.i and non. t l s afety-relatedi, presents the categorization and designa. tion of allegattons used by AAP. The'WRC initial screeninciwas performed. by NRC SSAT piombers with expertise - fr particular areas of enrcernr mechanical enof reering, electrical engineering, civil / structural engineering,5 Ovality. Assurance and. Control; u and managementifincluding> the safety 4related aspects derived from harassment ,J and. tntimidation,: and wroegdoing concernsh m a The GAP censultant was available to the: teem to explain where!and how : the records were kept and assembled end'to answer any:questices for the i team..

4 SSAT mebers reviewed each alle' ation, its associated, interview text p

and reference raterial if tle in their area of expertise.. Screenfra also i included listening to selected audio tapes.to verify thei accuracy of the i written text extrapolated. free them, i The results of 'the SSAT review and. initief screening were docurented and frentified by allegatice numbert Each SSAT member wrote. a brie' description of each allegation as identified by GAP's consultant and indicated'ff the concern appeared to be safety-related or non safety related. Also, $$AT members noted if other disciplines may be involved with a particular sile'gation and whether the< CI needs to be contacted for additional.information.- Generally the SSAT's initial screening detennined that a large ma.fority of the alleeations. lacked specificity. in identifying a particular location, component, or system about.which the CI was concerned. The individual SSAT rember's data was combined and recategorf re into allecation aroups: Mechanical; Flectrical; Civfi/ Structural; QA/QC; Parassment and intimidation; Wrongdoing;. NPC Region IV; andiManagement ,__..._.-.,,,,_.____.__.,__-.---y.. _.-w.,,,,7,..._-m_, .,.m.m.m._.._,mm__,,___,,,,,-,,__-w-m.,,m ,,m,,,,-_ _..m_,,

3 t (ssues.t Each category has several subsets that was used to specify rmre etosely6 issues that each allegation appears to be addressing. > Enc 1nsure 4 identifies the allegation groups used by the.NRC SSAT. 3 COMPILING Al. LIGATION DATA A brief sunsary vas prepared for each allegation that was.nade available by CAP. Three 'dles contain<eg approximately 50 allegations.have been withheld by GAP due to conf.identiality. concerns on the part of the; . alleger.e The alle'getion sunrarfes 'have,been entered into a.computerizet /ata base. l along with the SSAWs preliminary categorization of the safety si of the a,17egation, the grouping of connonior similariallegations,gnificance deterutnation whether the allegen must.be contacted to provfde specific and infonration needed by ithe SSAT. to determine the safety significance of the. allegatier.. GAP's'initfal categorization of these a11epations listed duplicateiconcerns-under.different review disciplines. Because of this6 the 35AT inittelly had to consider approxfortefy 700, concerns..When these, duplications were reconciled there were F78 concerns, representing the.same numbee of i allegations, identified by #AP; Of these,159 ' oncerns are variations of u c an initial concern relatine additional facets of the original. concern such as possible documentation problems, or. intimidation or harassment related to or caused by the:fnitfet concern.i ~;j ' The' remaining concerns have been ccabined into groups with. similar cercerns-y j f altepetions) and will'he reviewed together to assure that the magnitude, 4 of each issue JS recognized and that.corron concerns are detected.

Also, the groupiee, of the concernir will ensure a certain degree of protection of the identit aliegation.=y of allegers.< In additibn,. GAP will advise whether,the or because they involved members of the. NPC staff.: are cover l

establithed NRC 51AT allegation groups.: grouping scheee is s_hown in Enclosure 4'. The NRC alfecation (concern) i The SSAT's primary effert will be expended on these allegations that are identified'as safety-related concerns. These issues will:be initially examined to determined whether they could affect criticality or pcwer ascension either because these operatters could represent unacceptable safety risks due to the alleger's concerns or because the allegation would be uninspectchie after the plant starts up. Following this, the most safety significant alterations will be identified and reviewed in detait by the 55AT. Pecause there is very little. specificity included in the gap allegations, it is imperative that the SSAT contact the.allecers and ask them to l identify tpecific locations,isystems, or components that exhibit the con-ditiers that they allege to pHst at South. Texas Pro.iect so that.the staff can substantiate the allegers concern or cenclude that the conce.rn has been satisfactorily corrected. t l l l t

A . a=w 4.. 4. Att EGATIONS: SELECTED FDR $77E IMSPECTIONS. . lists. the 10 primary allegations that the SSAT will investigate at South Texas'. lists the secondary allegations that will also be considered along with these primary allegations.due to their i siellarities to the primary allegation.: Out of the 5761 GAP afl1epetions enumerated.. only those.16 concerns identified in Enclosure 6:as "spec,1fic"!can be tied to a specific location,isystem, or component... The rest refer. only in general terms to items of concern.' It is therefore irperative that.the $$AT centact.the i allegers dn the remaining concerns to cbtain enough specific information : to conduct a detailed review.,3ome of the GAP's allecers wf11 require that a confidentielity agreement be completed by NRC before they. agree.to ?.' deal wfth,us. + i .u if an alleger cannot he contacted er.if the contact yields no additioest t specific informationi to focus the tinvestigation or a par.ticular system, component!or locatinn, the individual. allegation willibe dispositinned as unsubstantiated and the general

subject matter will be pursued further only if other related allegations provide some basis to assume that there.

J, ' is validity en the concern.. In additibn to the $$AT inspectico:on site, other sources of infonnation, .} such as Regional inspection reports pertaining to the:resnlutfor nf South.

)

Texas Project allegations,' FRR inspec,tions. data and safety evaluation reports, the licensee's: 5AFETEAM records, ardiother documentation that-3 'l currently; exists will be reviewed to determine v. tether they. provide any F8 additional information related to an alleger's concern. These supplemental '.h investigations will not: focus explicitly on an individual allefer's-3 corcern, they will also, f eelude;other: unrelated.issuas such. that.the i alleger's identity willibe protected,i if ree.ufred. 5. $$AT INSPECTION! ROLE, The SSAT will inspect the selected. GAP a11ecations at the South Tens Project (STP) site. The 55AT consists of experts in construction and inspection activities in nuclear power plants. The proposed organization o' the NRC inspection team, as well as the inspectnes names and their assignments are presented in Enclosure 7. The staff selected for the inspection team.are the same individuals that performed the. initial review,: evaluation, and screening of the allegations. Given the time remaining to prepare for the inspection and the general non-specific nature nf.the allegations, the use of these experienced reviewers as inspection team:rambers will greatly facilitate the effort. A major concernto' the allegation review.and inspection process is the protection of the confidentiality of the.allegers (concerned individuals). Arrangements will be made to contact the allegers by gap. If recuired, the NRC'will draw-up any confidentiality. agreements with the allegers. e w - w m me ww ---

s s. 5 In addition, the inspection plan will consider combinico other related or unrelated concerns with the selected MP #11egations to ensure that the i substance of the allegations does.not reveal:the idertity of these allegers: reouesting confidentiality. A detailed inspection plan will be prepared by the SSAT leader and its deputy with assistanceifrom ithe team members. Inspectnr guidance will be established: prior to the coannoncement of the inspection to assure consis, tency :in tbs inspection process..Erphasis willihe placed en root cause deterwinaticet of any substantiatet allegationssincluding the,ident.ifica-tion of any geeeric implicat.iens. i To'further facilitate the selected allegation resolution process., the 55AT. will utilize avellable Region IV inspection reports on disposition of allegations, as well as any.kRR inspection reports and safety evaluation reports for FTP,

y The'fo11 ewing tantatfve schedule is proposed for this inspection. effort; i

3 7' December 28,fl#P7f. January 1, 1988 - Initial plann.ing t - Selection af GAP allegations to be inspected - Selection of inspection teem members i t - Present ridentified allegations to be inspected: to CJP

dii (Allt the above actions have been completed) i T

January 4 - 8, 1988 4 - Detailed inspect. ion planning and inspector guidance preparation - Arrangements with MP to contact allegers: January 11 - 15, 1985 k .~

.s;

- Interview allagers W NRC is successful in arrar.eing interviews, e threugh GAP W - Tentativt start of onsite inspection depending on number of. allegersi to be interviewed January 18 - 22,1988: - Onsite inspection of selected allecations: January;75 - 76, 1988' - Susanar,y' of allegation inspection results. January 25 - February,3,1988'. - A11egetion inspection repnrt preparation

Febrvery 1 6 1988

- Tentative Cerenission briefing on full power license for STP, Unit 1 e ,-..-m,-.,.,,,,,-,,._____-,-__.-__._,r., .._,,..,..,,,_.,--,m-,_,.

. -u .w Enclosure ? SOUTM TEXAS PPNECT ALLEGATIONS MPC SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSPENT TEAM (SSAT) PFMBERS IMy01VED :!M THE INIMAL REVIEW OF 4AP RECORDS MEPRER 0AGAMf7AT10fr. DISCTPLINE Paul 0'Connor PD-9/NRRi Project.Fanagert N Edwant Tomlinson s

~PD.IV/NRR1

~ ' "" ~~ ' Elect. Irst. 4 Misc. l 3 hfFajan EMEB/NRR.I P.echacicali Pomuald Ltpinski ESAR/NRR Civil /itructurpl-a Hansraj Ashar E5GM/NRP-Civ11/Structurt1-L Jeeve Durr Reglen d QA/QC Patrick Milano e CE l 04/CC e Richard Correls LQA8/NRP. 1. ; _. 2..,..~ OA/0C .- jj George Johnsee TFTB/NRR 1 Weldinge Project Director. M Jose,Calvoi PD-IT/NRRI .9 .4 - ni -..,'Y 9

. ti

'. Ma .J, et

3 g

2-2 -= .. :!_ q 9 .-_.,__,,..__,,,__-.._,__._.-______,,s..,__.-..c_ r _m.. ... v. .,.... _, ~,. _, -. _ _, _ _ _ _. _ _ _. -

a i l l 1 SOUTH TEMAS PROJECT ALLEGATIONS i I GAP ALLEGATION CATEGORIZATION afb DESIGNATION : SECTION* l d ~ DISCIPLINE CATEGORY ALLEGATION RELATE 8 f.' LEGATIONS ~ +, i ! - Safety Splated A-Piping / Mech / Inst

a. % rdware 0001 -9999**

.1, . 2, .3, etc. ~ j B-Electrical. -.. II - Intimid/ Harass. C-Civil / Structural j j 0- HVAC

b. Doc./Drwgs.

y j III - Wrongdoing E-Engr / Design c. Insp./ Testing 1 F-Procurement /Purchas* i j IV'- Non;SifetfRel. G-Equipment Qualif. d.'Other f i i H-Fire ~Pestecti6e~ 1-QA/QC/N-5/Systees .. 'Gesple),jon._ 4 - a J-Welding i K-Safety / security }d - i ) L-NE.....,...-..... i i 4 M-Seismic & Environmental EXAMPLEr .s N-Generic (all disc)~ 0- Personnel I A a'- 0001= Safety related/ Piping / hardware P-Management fj Q-Training specific allegation number ? i j R-NRC - [ j l S-Safeteam 9 T-ESASCO U-HL&P ~ I A b - 8001.1 (same), subset documentation j V-S.C & T/0 ~ ~ j' ' W-ANI.... X-Qualification.of Personnel i f Y-Bechtel Z-Document control i ) Note: NRC allegation numbers use Arabic numbers I through 4 rather than Roman numerr.ls to facilitate use of a computerized data base )

- Allegation numeers are~ cross 're.ferenced to actual GAP a11e0stion number.

1 d4.,w.rAdJd;b,l./i,

..'..:.4+

i;

i j I _ Enclosure 4 SOUTH. TEXAS PROJECT: Al.t.EGATION55 NRC S$AT ALLEGATION GROUPS 5 A. MECHANICAL. AND PIPING 1. PIPING l A. Pipel C. Configuration: 8. Hydro i D. Chloride Contamination 2. VALVES A. Limitorque C. Missing a

8..

Ipstallation 3. MATERIAL 5. A. Traceabdlity 8.- CompatabiI!fty 4 4. HVAC A. Procorement C. Fabrication 8. Installction' D. Testing. .4 5. SESIMIC QUALIFICATIONI ? 6. FASTENERS A. Counterfeit / Foreign 7. WELDING 5 A. Weld Rod C. Welder R ; ~ 8. Qualifications-t 0. ,Traceablility. - -(

r.

0. OTHERi .2 7 y 8. .ELECTRICAt. h5 ~4 9 1. SPLICE 5 i A. Rayches i J 2. CAN.E AND CONOUIT I 3. INSTRUMENTATION i 4. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATIONi 0. OTHER

- tf

= 81. ..+ 2 t -_-.__n.---,--.-,-, .--.,,, m,--,,- e.,, ,,n,,-.-.-. ,,_.,,__,_,,._,__,_,,_,,..__,_._.__,,n,

o 2 C CIVIUSTRUCTURAL 1. CONCRETE 2. $0Its 3. COATINGS 0. OTHER o. gA/ge ~ c s 1. DESIGN CONTROL 2. PROCUREMENT - a 3. DOCUMENTi CONTROL.' 4 QC INSPECTIONi A. - Inspection Records ~ ~ B. t Travellers - C. ( Hold Point i D. I Authorized Nuclear Inspector. -~i E. I NCRs it 5. AS8UILT vs DES 1GM : t 6. SYSTEM TURN 0VEA I ~ % Y 7. FSAR/ SPECIFICATIONS 8. PROCEDURES. Y ~s 0. OTHER E. HARRASSMENT & INTIMIDATION -(SAFETY RELATED ISSUES ONLY) E F. WRONG DOING (SAFETY RELATED ISSUES ONLY) G. NRC H. MANAGEMENT ~ 1.. HL&# 2. 8ECHTEL

3.. ESASCor

4. - INTERMECH 5.

PERSONNEL PRACTICES. 6. TRAINING. 7. SAFETEAM 8 0. OTHER O. OTHER ! e m, ,_,._m.-

a as Enciosure 5 SOUTH' TEXAS'FROJECT At.t.EGATTONS PRIMARY At.LMAf foN5 SELECTED FOR W.*PECTION I. Mechanteel Piping' 1Aa-0560 ' Cf cencerned with the cuali+y of pipe. Joints. Valves - 1Aa-0563'- CI coecerned that many. valves are. installed - backwards. !!I. HVAC - 1Ja-0356 -:CI conc,erned with adecuacy of HVAC welds. IV.. Fasteners - 1Fa-0062 - CI concerned that counterfeit fasteners are - insta11ed'at STP.' V. Welding 1Ja-0130. C1 concerned with the. adequacy /qualf ty of wid a rod'used at STP. VI. Electrical Cable / Instrumentation - 1Ra-0119 - CI concerned with the adequacy of Raychem sp1 ices at STP. VII. A) Civ11/ Structural 1Ca-0638 - CI concerned with concrete drilling thrnugh reber. l E) Ica-04941-CI concerned with crack in botton of fuel.handlina u buildingt l l VIII. Coat.ings 4 1Ga-0059 - CI concernediwith coatings used on the ' m structures and equipseent. IX. QA/QC - if a-0401.1 - CI concerned with "as built!' vs. "as destqned' i l configurations of valves. ; 4 i X. NRC/ Region IV '1Aa-0554 .CI called NPC several times concerning certair problems and had no return response, ~"7 - P..0.. e

...e -9 _ south;TFXAS_PA0 JECT ALLEGATIONS ., ~.. SECONDARY. ALLFAATIONS, CATEGORY - MECHANICAL /PfPING Allegation No, nesierirtion. 1Aa 0560 Deffefent Pfpet Joints. lAt-0162 ~1 Pip'e to Tank Connections 18a-0307 l 1Eg-0754 Filter Screenst in M535'Leop > !pecific (sp.) ~ l 1Pa-PE79 Installation of Pumps.: Valves, Jnstruments-Installation of Purps, Valves l 1Ea-0556 Insta11attnn of Pumps,' Valves,, Instrumerts - Jnstruments - 1Ga-314 Stahm Generator installation.(s Pipe Paterialsifsp.),, Valves, p.) 1Ea-0556 ~ Instt11ation of Pgs Instrument: 1Ea-0432 ( YALYts 1Aa-0563 - -,5 Ya1+e installation Valve Paintenance.fs(p.),see 1Ep-0754 above) 1Aa-0081-1Ga-0305.1 Valve Installation IAa-0445 N Yalve festallation 2,4 l ][ I .~ HATEPTALS (Covered under other cat'egories) 1 af. Hv4C 10a-0046.1 Puctwork Welds - 1Da 0109 HVAttInstallations 10s-0117 FVAC! Material Traceability 10a-0296 HVAC Insta11ations' 10a-0337 HVAC.5eal Material'/sp.) 1s'a-0356 HVACiWelds 104-0450 .g HVAC Damper Isp.) 10a-0504-a. HVAC# Material 1Ah-0714 .:2..1 HVACi f nste11a tion 1Fe.-0619 n (!ee 1Da-0296) i

e i

---,.w. ____.,.__.-....-..-~,.,__-.m..--r --r,_

.--.s ..e 2 FASTENER $ A11egatinn! Pn. Desertntion 1Aa-0026 Bolts Installation i 1Fa-0048 Bol.t Trarcabf1'ity 1Fa-0084 Bol.t Traceabillity '~ ~ iia-0387 Pol.t installation ~ ~ ~ ~ S.Fa 0011 Bolt. Traceabitrity -= = "- r 1Fa-00e2 ~ Soft Traceab11rf ty (sp.) 11a-0082 Bolt Traceability 11'a-0087 Rolt Traceabil.ity 1Ac-0132 Bolt Traceabfl.ity IFa-0164 Bolt Traceahflity IFa-0488.1 Bol.t Traceabildty e 4' WEl. DING i IJa-0104 Weld Rnd Traceability Ida-130 Weld Rod.Trareebility

~C 17t-0571 Welders -

1Ja 0687.1 Welders (sp.) ~' 104-0170 Welders ~ j ida-0107 Welders : 1Ja-0354.2 Welders IJb-0053 Welders i is't-0064 Weld Rod. Traceability .f ELECTRICAL FAr COMPONENT $' r-e 1Ba-011? Cable installations 1Ba-01.75 Cable Insta11atfors 1Ba-0449 Cable Inst.a11ations

i IBa-0008 Cable installations 1Ba-0409.

Cable Insta11atiens s 1Aa-0126 Incoreiinstrumentation 1Ea-0465 Shielding for Panels 4(sp.} 1Aa-0566 Instrument Yalves (sp.). 1Aa-128 Finw Transmitter Installation fsp.) M.r:~ l CIVIL / STRUCTURAL. A ~ i 1Ca-0638 Concrete Drillina i 1Ca-0494 Concrete Settlements (sp.). 10c-0114 Fill-2fd 0121.1 Fill' 1 e - ' - - - - ~ ' " - - ' * ' ' ~ " " " " ~ ~ ~ " ' ' * - ~ * ~ " - ' ~ ~ ~ ~ '

-O 3 (0ATINGS Allegation No. Description 1Ga-0059 Coating Traceability / Application (sp.) E8/9C tid-0040 -Conffguration Control Yb-0094-Ita-0601.1 Cor.ffguration Control 1 Configuration Control 1Eb-0612 l Conf.1putat1on Contro1 tib-0705 fonfiguration control iib-0751 Con 6teuration Control 10b-0090 Records 1Ga-314

5. G. Inspection -

1Eb.159 1Eb-0159.2 Pipe Whipi#estraint Inspection Pipe Whtp> Restraint Inspection 1Ja-0254 FVAC Weld:Inrpect1on. 1Eb-061? 1Ab-0174 Support Instailstion Inspection 1Cb-0638.1 HVAC Inste11ation Inspection. Concrete Drilling Inspectfen NRCir.W ~ 15d-0267.1 e ConfidentialIt Deficiencies (y: 1Aa-0554 Deficiencies (sp.)) sp. tia-0555 4 e w. i . _4;gy 4g .,-...__-.._,,..,,._m .,,r,,e.,,

_ Enclosure 7 SOUTH TEXAS PA0 JECT ALLEGAT10NS l MRC SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE ASSES $ENT TEAM (SSAT) l PROPOSED FOR INSPECTION EFFORT Administrative Project Director . Team Leader (T.L. ) Support l J.A. Calve J. Durr "~ PD4/NRS,; Region _I T 1 Person F i i I' Depol y Region IV l Project Manager Team La ader (DTL) Support i ( j P.'O'Conno' r~2 Lead j P. Kadambi - Alt. ~ R. Correia i 1 Person LQA8/NRR PO4/NRR_.. AREAS STAFF { NRR 'Nechanical i i Support - Piping-J. Rajan (EE B/NRR) L . P'.Kadambi 4 -Walve w J. Rajan. -- .. ~. J - MVAC - E. Tomlinson (PD4/NRR; i ~ ~~ P. Milano (DE) OGC - Fasteners-J. Rajaa Support i - idelding - G. Johnson (EMT8/NRR) 1 Lawyer Electricst- - ~ ~~ ~ l 3 - Cable - E. Tomlinson .a - Instrumen-tation-K. Naudu (DRIS/NRR) 1, Civil /Struc-tural-R. Lipinski (ESGR/NRR) 'I - Concewte R.Lipinski Coatings - R. Lipinskt i i QA/QC-P. Milano T. L. B.T.L . t 4 ie i

6 O' L d w m m.ee m, M yggy gy%m -_= -__. , y e s. A EXHIBIT - G wemmunesseauurmW t-w e .1

i.

1 e 3 l ( l l l t e tg

i M e.

et sa WRhg '\\ l e .m ,, _ ~ - -.,-., - ,.,,,,,,,,-,,,,,_-,,,,,,.,ne,, ,,.,,,._,,._n,,,,_,,_n_.,

Y Oh 1 Teus Xuelehr Plant ~ Probed for Violations m m nu+s ec+ni,. By Ces Puesome.

= sawn pie me mm.

4 Nudeer Res herr Caa> Browti & Jtoot, and hieed<he Beeb. hTCent O[ h has W s last anneen tel engineerms and constreedom Q$ $$0N8 GTe -{ % d a3exas marwpower imm to complete the plaat plast anatsynewsag hundreds of NRC rJficials sent en inspeedon g* g gM t aBegatiana treai dosene d wortare team to Bay'Oty tut week aner une as $gt is poody engswered, re m w es e e n 4 % = gog

- - - fgggfg 4

i conserected with =*=+=ndard piemts of wrocytdoing under Bedr

d mer vensta safety tal's manageroeot, about haw in.'

50( ll!)e close /0 h an L voMas pouutal udety. defecte. W the seen Texas Accoedms to na NRC h% 80&th h as x P n e.c ro r ner a ty.and me

sed promma r.n.e froi.

. 0""F *"d'" ""

tim Nac ime enid chem en in. pee.

vsbes bees (nataued backwsed to tion wiE ag a5ect theer appicat6on, the see es welding materials, acts for a fu3.poner bcease, wtuch may and botta that may not have been be as early as nest smooth, designed to l'andle the screes of a South Texas Nedear Propect nudeat plaat. b one of a bandfuld nuclear plaats N allegations were.made by awaities bcenseg by the NRC. The snow than i 50 p(ent. workers l twtHmit poe,tr station is owned by through the Government Account-a four-utility consortium headed by abdity Project (GAP), an orgseise. the Heusica Power & Light Co. tion that deferds wetle-blowers. (HP&L) and has been under con. GAP has refused to divufse names teruction for more than 12 years. c(the workers,who feat retahation. tea a5 owed the WRC to esarmne The first unit of the SS.5 balion pro, ix was fueled fast month ard La the comphints after a federaljudge eetted to begm low power oper, rebuffed NRC's' effort to get the, ation this month. workers' names through a subpoe.', Unlike the S6atrook and Shore. na. > ham no: fear planta atD1 awsung HP&L spokean.aa Graham Paint-NRC ra:etnes in the Northeat, m er sad the udlity had not been al-Emth Texas p! ant had not been a lowed to see the aUegatena but said target cl animuclear activists or phnt officials think that they are commumty oppention. However, it "cid complaints.* h.to beta dogged by stieritions of "if that's the case, we're not con. s.%3dy construction and inept man, cerned." Painter said. "If we tooked

agernest as its cret scored to more at it, either we took corrective ae-than 4M percent of the irUtial $1 tion or it didn't amount to much.'

tut!cei est:rnste. Edna Ottney,. a nudest cord N hTC Ened HPat. 3100,000 in 2000, being inadequacies to qual. try-centrol prtrams. A year ! ster the irtiEty fired its main coctra.w, 1 1

a NRC spokeemes Joe Omenad connrmed that Corder had endier pointed out constreetion dedsets to test who investigated the ease. as agosgey leapector. Guhlead said ser.ints forGAP, said the eseyeben be did not know how serious the itsack kat sheet everyttoeg? tem defects were or wkst correctices,4 I keproper nedsay do, any, the atency had cedered. i iltse se thanum e of Accordas to NRC and GAP deo quattrcestral ements, other werkers have reiand the NRC seilen te sweetesna obset the adequacy.of 5: eases.

t c.

electrical epmose, pips.innes and it toperoestof ones mo"dess weida what the i.e,sdung ass-are tres, that plant is not ender eeld - idaints may aposer minor, ottney Ottesy, who hoe investisated aime seki, they sesorat that.the plant's aar compleases lor the N3tC. As as. gushey<ndret psogresa is defec. i employee of a consultag Arm ander tive. . contreet to the NRC, Ottney me,- The NRClaspects reistinly kth eral years ago ievestigated worker of a nudeer power plant before de. i ce about the Tennessee ciding whether to grant it an operi. i Vatey Astborty ancieer plants, a5 - ating licemen. Instead, the agency ef which are now closed for sedety ) sedies hesvilt ce a "poper tror of .s I u' reemana. i geeDy-easuraeo4 domsments that I g-South Teise, she esid. is weres ase ogpened Waquare the ydseg r thas TVA. I woeld not Hve cesse to. - meets NRC amaas=ds as it is hemg i the South Tsees pient? bellt. Jaha Corder a bruar South Ottney and sevend gaelity.coe. b, Teens worker who asroad so'he trol inspessors teed anc thes they p beerviewed cm the record,acknowl. wess instr,icted set se verify ano. r

deed that be reportad problems to aerneties decemans and that most t-pli.,t est NRC h besore tab.

amid they acepsed forper erkeing ing them to GAP. but he contended thdr jets, "The &t that mething was done to correes realet eserJew l s k' them. Seeth Team ase' Cerder, a 27. year Bechtei ese-nodear jobe? she sale t phyte who describes hhneelf as a me other joke Aur them. I ^ 'sood company man? was a super. lastbornh? - beendent et South Texas tents hg Corder, gest that's a * * ^~ ' ~ T ea I was ma=*aad last kA as who werhed on si er ' part of what the company said was a M'+ socicer.ptashr I woct forcs cutback. tel detkag back to the "Nobody carest be said. "Nobody 1 hees palated est 4 {. wams to bear it. They're behind flowe befors, tad it wee' as g schedule and out of money. Dey areMrrestie.Butlt never hoeareled say thry'D As it after the piast is to a vender'.m agelost employees runams? likeit has hers? Corder accempamed the NRC . Palacer said NRC emetale bed I inspection taaro on a teet Teensley told ther utiRy that it's typical to I of the South Teste ptsat, where he have these a5esstfees at the last had corn @ iced of numeteos een, ednute'and that tbe review ' abound t structioe M+rwda,la the recent. have no effect on heedstng?. ly comphsed Ua's L Altheast he NRC Wnan Gd!Lland said was ret alkt/ed to enter Unit 1 eg the agency may b:va told HPat, the $nt for wtat the NRC sais that the latect hupaction "has not i t were neurity r c.:c:u. Cord:r asid been a delaying facter'in the Ikens he ass alQ to point out iddutical ing process becatine a commission preh':es with r.etal fasteocrs on vote on the beeza has been post-an e!xtncal panel b Uch 2. poned for other reatona. "The fasteners are gone hGss-Idr>pcmcr tes'a dere da!ayed, irig.' hs t'id. "The per.1 le just h meath wk.1 the plat devel. ste:k up th:re? The panelis a pro. o?cian um#sW y;bratloc in its tective ceverint orse high-voltage coc'fe2 sT*.1 ei. acd tha NRC is me. switch plata that control electrical a.'yring a pctential pecbbm with its equip nent to the plaat. "thode tubes? shafts that aro Cerfs declined to characterice used to introduce sampling equip. the pknt as safe or unsafe. 'It's rcent into the reactor. The tube moddM.* ha said. "I stiD worry corroded in a almihr plant la Be&- abratit at nisht? gmm. a5owing radmetim water to spillinto the reactor baifbg, i

~ y s' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE -+ I certity that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the addressees listed below, by hand delivery on. January 26, 1988. 1. NRC Cossaissioner.s.. ... m,..., m.. s., L. W. Sech, dr., Chairman 2 f Thomas M. Roberts l, i Kenneth Rogers Frederick M. Sernthal I Menneth M.#Carr l 3 3 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consission i 1717 H Street, N.W. Washingtons D.C. i 2. Secretary i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. i b N ei g k Q C61.> $ O ) ^ e t Richard E.,Condit t 079AA23 cert G 0 0

e. e e w e e

%g.,,__]- G -,.- --a w-~--~-=- - ** -- --' ~

U t .i. 5 / 1-CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. I certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the addressees listed below, by hand delivery on January 26, 1988. 1. NRC Commissioners: ~ ? L. W.' tech, Jr.,, chairman Thomas M. Hobarts l. Kenneth Rogersa t Frederick M. Bernthal r' n-Kenneth 04. Care h U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 B Street, W.W.I Washington, D.C. f- - 2. secretary j 0.S. Nuclear. Regulatory Commission 1717 U Street,.N.W.: Washington, D.C. b' 'd dieu dL 2 Q $ I ~~ v.i s t. ELchard E. Condit t 079AA23 cert l l l l e -1 - - - - - - - - ~ - - ^ ^ ^ ^ ~ ~ ^ - _}}

ML20148F135

Contents

Text

Dear Chairman Zech:

ry c.=

.n.u.,,.,..=u,"** their entics differ,...~.~~.,,,,,u.,. a ca,.""- " *=

=

a=

SUBJECT:

DeariMs. Garde:

Enclosure:

SUBJECT:

Navigation menu

ML20148F135

Text

Dear Chairman Zech:

ry c.=

.n.u.,,.,..=u,"** their entics differ,...~.~~.,,,,,u.,. a ca,.""- " *=

=

a=

SUBJECT:

DeariMs. Garde:

Enclosure:

SUBJECT:

Navigation menu

Search