ML20151C196

Ack Receipt of to J Calvo Re Allegations at Facility.Nrc Intends That Initial Review at Gap Will Include Exam of All Parts of Recipient Files That NRC Deems Necessary

ML20151C196
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	12/08/1987
From:	Rehm T NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Garde B GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT
Shared Package
ML20151C191	List: ML20151C188 ML20151C196
References
FOIA-88-107 NUDOCS 8804120211
Download: ML20151C196 (2)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _

l

. \

Ms. Billie P. Garde Government Accountability Project 3424 N. Marcos Lane Appleton, Wisconsin 54911 Dear Ms. Garde We have received your letter to Mr. Jose Calvo of December 4,1987, on December 7,1987.

Whatever you may have felt suggested by discussions between members of our team who were reviewing STNP allegations at GAP last week, it is NRC's intentions, and the teams instructions, to fully and properly review the allegations you have on file.

There is no imposed deadline, although we intend to move as quickly as a quality review will allow. In that regard GAP at the November 19, 1987 meeting did indeed state that some additional allegations would follow. We were under the impression that all the allegations would be available when the NRC review began on November 30, 1987, but the 50 additional allegations provided by GAP will be reviewed as part of this initial effort. NRC intends that the initial review at GAP will include examination of all parts of your files that the NRC deems necessary in order to conclude which allegations need further follow up. When that review is complete we will advise you of the need to contact allegers and or obtain additional information that may be required to further clarify the allegations so that we can pursue our review to completion, including inspections as necessary.

In regard to the Houston Chronicle article, I believe the discussions between you and I, and you and Jose Calvo appear to have resolved that issue for the moment. The NRC person who was contacted by the author of that article believes he was misquoted. Our agreements as stated in my November 24, 1987 article to you stand.

T. A. Rehm Assistant for Caerations Office of the Executive Director for Operations .

t OFC :A0/0ED0  :  :  :

NAME :TARehm  :

DATE :12/8/87  :  :  :  :

l OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 8804120211 880407 PDR FOIA PDR l day 80-107

w *

?'.

r Ms. Billie P. Garde 3424 N. Marcos LaneGovernment Accountability Project ,

Appleton, Wisconsin 54911

Dear Ms. Garde ',

y r e your etter to ifr. Jose Ca ember 4,1 Whateverpmay havek an M* O i team inte o were reviewing STNP allgga 90ns atof GAP our last w allegations you have on file.,andtheteakThsi/uct h NRC 4 to fully and prope,rly review the

... b.,,qua There is nowill lity review imposed allow. deadlin , a thpuoh wg tnt meeting 444-6 state,ithat some additional 44,%AP ata'the Novemberend 19, 1987 to move as le NRC review began on November o ti 30,1were underWe the impr tJons would follow.

6uld be avail provided by GAPpH4-be-ee44ewd a h le yhen the i.p/h a ditional alfeg tYdHfjd '

files that the NRC deemthat part of thTsthe initial NRC TiiNeTf0TW review at GAP intends need further followWhen th up.s th tnecessary Jr view is complete in order to conclude which a

%egegd to contact M to further allegers clarify the and orgobtain additional,we will advise y to completion, in incigg inspections 11ecations

~as nec.so information that we can thatpursue our %

review y

In regard to the Houston Chronicle article 11 essary

and i #m n to g you andTheI, NRC moment. andperson youwh and Jose Calvo~ appear

, I believe thetc M

ony Asr .I Ar have between discussions a

)gjj '

p cor et4sle to you stand. >believes he was themisquoted.3haflgr@Menectp author of that articler gf J,j' li$V O .

s stated in my November 24, 1987 T. A. Rehm Assistant for Operations Office of the Executive Director for Operations yo34BB-l07

%l8

q h.,

,,4p as%q[o g UNITE D STATES

, y e 'g NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION r, j wAssiNoToN o. c.rosss

\* */ ..* December 7, 1987 VIA MESSENGER Richard E. Condit, Esq.

Government Accountability Project 25 E Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20001

Dear Mr. Condit:

As you are aware, pursuant to several discussions between GAP and Ms. Billie Garde, on the one hand, and the NRC, on the other hand, arrangements have been made for the NRC to send a team of qualified individuals to GAP's offices in order to review certain files which GAP and Ms. Garde have assembled regarding various allegations of safety defects at the South Texas facility. These NRC reviews began on November 30 and, from the agency's point of view, they have been proceeding smoothly since then.

On Friday afternoon, December 4, I was advised that GAP and Ms. Garde were upset with an article that appeared in a Houston newspaper that morning. I was further advised that, as a result of that article, you had called the NRC and instructed that no i i

review team would be allowed in GAP's offices on Monday, December 7, although a specific team had been assembled to  ;

conduct reviews of your allegations files at that time. In order l l

for the agency to find out what was going on directly from you, I was asked to give you a call.

We talked around mid-afternoon on Friday, December 4. You advised me that an article appearing in the Houston paper had upset several of your allegers and required you (GAP and Ms. Garde) to institute some ' damage control.' You indicated that because of the article you were required to spend a lot of time correcting some erroneous information and explaining the actual situation to calm down a number of people. Because it appeared to you that this process would extend into Monday and perhaps beyond, you felt that the review scheduled to begin on Mondoy could not go forward because, you believed, it would interfere with the discussions you felt were necessary to calm the anxieties created by the newspaper article. We agreed that a great deal of progress had been made in this matter in the past few weeks and neither of us wanted to jeopardize that progress.

You advised.me that you viewed the current problem as being neither the NRC's fault nor a permanent derailment of the procedures to which we had all agreed. You insisted, however, that GAP and Ms. Garde needed a tenporary halt in the procedures in order to give you time to clear the air with your allegers, j' " ?! ?f (p f'

~

8 As we discussed, although the NRC has not seen the article, as Ms. Garde represented the article to Frank Ingram in our public affairs office, it appears that some erroneous information may have been reported in the Houston paper. In particular, as you well know, gap's files have not been physically turned over to the NRC, but remain in gap's possession and control. Moreover, the NRC has not determined who within the agency can best investigate those of your allegations which may require further l investigation. Indeed, the basic reason for the ongoing review is to enable the agency to assess the significance of what you have and to make a reasoned decision as to how best to handle any significant safety concerns that your allegations may reveal.

Anything reported anywhere that is contrary to these two points I is incorrect. l I also advised you that your refusal to allow the scheduled review to continue on Monday, December 7, would create some difficulties for the agency, in that the necessary personnel could not be assembled and disbanded on a moment's notice without some difficulty. You indicated that you appreciated the NRC's logistical problems in assembling a review team of qualified people from different offices with different ongoing responsibil-ities and then cancelling the review on short notice. You felt that, notwithstanding the inconvenience to the NRC and its lack of fault in any misunderstandings caused by the article, it was still necessary to call a temporary halt to the ongoing review process. I expressed the agency's disappointment in the disrup-tion and its firm desire to continue the agreed upon review process promptly. You agreed that things had been going well and that any disruptions should be brief. I promised to relay the substance of our conversation to Tom Rehm, the key NRC official involved in establishing and overseeing the NRC's role in the previously agreed upon review process. I expressed my hope that you or someone from gap would call the NRC on Monday or Tuesday, l December 7 or 8, to arrange for a rescheduled review time. We I agreed that any halt to the review process should be brief.

After our phone conversation I did talk to Tom Rehm and he has advised me that he would honor your request to delay the review process briefly.

1 The NRC has absolutely no desire to derail the productive process which has been jointly developed to enable the agency to review the South Texas safety concerns which your allegers have raised.

From the agency's point of view, however, two important benefits of the process have been that it will enable the agency to obtain the information rapidly and that it will enable the orderly use of the agency's limited resources. Unscheduled interruptions and delays in the review process serve neither of these important interests. We sincerely hope that you will promptly reschedule

3 NRC review, in accordance with our previously agreed upon procedures.

Very truly yours, ,

h i

William H. BriWs, J

] .

Solicitor t

i I

a 4

4 i

.n.

~-~-

An* A w

of rulemaking and instead issue a prow rule.

. Yq ~

Cut commissioners Xtaneth Carr and Kenneth Rogers questioned wtwher the purpose m Q tions is to simply assess maintenance programs and industry ini*iatives while a rute la being developeas ;

or to work with utilities to improve maintenance and make a rule unnecessary.

"We should be clear on where we stand,"Rogers said. "I would say there may be some uncertainty here."

And in response to a statement by Stello that the purpose of the inspections is to "go out and see that R6It'5? V t plants get their maintenance programs 6xed," Carr said: "Then we ought to 6rst have a rule and then go enforce it. You don't need this policy statement to do that. All we're telling them (utilities) with the policy statement is that they ought to have a maintenance program."

Following the meeting, Carr-who has made improved maintenance his top priority-said he sup-ports the thrust of the staff proposal. But he also reiterated his position on the need for the commission to move beyond a policy statement. "I think we ought to have some kind of regulations on maintenance," he said.

Stello sugeested to the commission that it is unnecessary to specify how committed the commission currently is to rulemaking and said if the commission decides it wants to adopt a rule following the two-year assessment period, it would be in a position to do so. "We are initiating a process that leads us down the path to rulemaking," Stello said.

Staffers James Solezek and Jack Roe of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) charac-tertzed the proposed policy and inspection program as a major new undertaking by NRC aimed at fore-ing nuclear utilities to either make substantial improvements in maintenance or face new NRC regulations specifying maintenance standards.

"We believe maintenance related challenges to safety systems are very excessive," Sniezek, NRR deputy director, told the commission. "From a safety standpoint it's time for us to start exercising a leadership role in maintenance. We intend to be the impetus behind a new maintenance ethic in the nuclear industry. The 6rst thing we do is tell industry what we expect. we expect things to be 6xed when they're broken."

Sniezek and Roe stressed the need for NRC to get away from "paper reviews" of maintenance programs and industry initiatives to improve them and instead determine if improvements called for by industry "are actually taking effect" Staff plans to begin the inspections in April and said three out of every four plants would be inspected within the two year assessment period. h Each team would be comprised of six to eight members who will be on site about seven days. Roe said each inspection would result in a formal report and that industry and the public would have an op-portunity to comment on the inspection methods following a trial program. Several commissioners '

questiaed whether NRC has the resources to carry out so many intensive inspections within a two-year ,

period. "We believe we have a suf6cient number of quali6ed people," Roe said. Team members will come from headquarters and regional of6ces and will undergo training before 'nnin the in 4 Roe said.-Brian Jordan, Washington an

• THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT (GAP) HAS PETITIONED the NR to d y voting on a full. power operating license for Houston Lighting & Power Co.'s South Texas Project 1 un-til NRC investigates all of the allegations made by whistle blowers and publicly releases reports ad-dressing each charge.

NRC had sent an investigative team to STP to review 10 speciSc and 60 secondary allegations made by whistle blowers to G AP(INRC,18 Jan.,12). The allegations were chosen out of more than 600 I

safety related charges, and primary consideration was given to issues that "could affect criticality or power ascension," according to NRC documents. Unsubstantiated charges "would be pursued further k

only if other related allegations provide some basis to assume that there is validity to the concern," the document said.

But GAP now says that investigation's outcome was "predetermined" and was not thorough because the team concluded that the allegations were "not ofimmediate safety signi6cance" before follow up interviews with the allegers were 6nished. "NRC had prepared a draft of the 6ndings...even before the team returned from its inspection trip,"G AP said. GAP also alleges that the team was "constantly sub-jected to overwhelming scheduling pressures" to get the plant licensed and that the four day inspection trip could not have been adequate to investigate all the charges. g/

M Although inspection teams often start writing reports before they leave the site, that was not the case in this instance, said NRC spokesman Robert Newlin. As to scheduling pressures Newlin said,"the team was aware they could take more time if they needed."-Danialle Weaver, Washington 8

INsIDE N.R.C. - Febrw ar71,1988 l

w -

/Whi stle blowers' attorn@y to outline claims on STNP e See related story on Page 35 tobudlethe auegations whistle Wowns seems r:

otect the b a clash prJAMg5R.PIEmos0H of de work tt les ud penccalities of Houston Chromete WalNogion Bureau bdore the Departmert of Labor about StelloandGar e.

Ccmmission officials have been wres-WASHINGTON- ANuclearRegn!a. their dismhsats from plant werk or lost tory Com=iuloc offielal and the attor- pay,thesuerted reuure commhsiecto sheBut is not taking advantage totilSulle beeame de of 11!:3 commis- with attomeys l thoseUes sion's esecutive director of operations ney repetsettleg whistle b!cwers at the thTexas.

80sth Tuu 8uelear Project have icvesugate "Perwr.all ,I think she wuts publie- 6 April 146 and Garde pused the bar agreed to daeuss ateged safety defects rt of her game plan. exam in her bome state of Wiscoesin b there amid entfeism of the 4tbroey's Ity. That's some Raising a e is half her purpose." five months later did the clash produceC cooduct frora some of her tr:6uocal said Den C. Dartey, a former STNP @ stalemate.

allies. *lt's unfortuate It's otten h far, d i employee who has worked with Garde, D Themu Rehn, the com::iasien's aa. It's cs a aintthem and teua and B20!e rauens, said be but ocver been represented ber, L P sistant d ector of Ron4M CoMstein, whois 1workbg are le it the wsy," ujd Richard 1 and Billie P. Gude, e attorney, have with Garde on a discrimination com. Contt, a  %;ashington rtaff attorney at >

> .:i *~

a w chGarde to asaid Thunday she wouldmeetieg give Rehn duricg a plaint be filed throegb the Department G AP who works with Garde. 11

~#

, of Labor against Ebasco Seruces Ine Rehn said Su!!ois "tou customer E; - 2  ;

geoeralsummary of the ausgaucas. 'I and comes on strces Tha happens to 9 Garde, wbc worhs for a blic 1:ter. the South Tetu coutrueuen coctrae. u est law 6tm called the et tor, agreed thavsbe's usjou forbet ub i . be ber.(Garde's) style too g, s willhg 2 ullkr ht M's M E '- E 12 city. He added that contrary a' E E Accoutsot11ty Project, said abe hopes claims, man wMst!e blowen att will- d > when m's M of > pd ks O" the sw, mary will pert;ade the com. s missre: to invest l gate the plant's coo- in opub c. , proubly right," Rehm uld. 6 e nspooded that k lag h T@n) Law Wa 2e comWu y-;

strwdos. ' lie informed of events t msy responsible for assurug safety ngvla- ..

t5 Tt e dee!alon to meet is the fint signal ecttheir safety is one way OAP tnes tions at nuelut lacts are teet, so the mc3 that bod parties might compromise tobold the government accountable. m6G soon oc how to protect the whhue a(neyis comM a edg u wod with Mn*

a doncluey.

blowers'identitles while dulbg with she 'Arr.e:g hasis the the eBegadens usertace b formerCarde South uys h*ag I"0"1 more than 300 allegations of defects in Tezuguaht contrelwo kersthattheir critacal safety rystems at the r:uelear Garde first chauenged W safety of su rvisers alstfiedins tion reports. W Sou2 Tuas let et a Juvary p:ast K mjles southwest of Houstoe-4 federal judge refused hte tut MP U.iuaUy declin d to d!secu the press codartnet o Austin when she rooeth to erJoree a commiulce sub- tile atioca, but confirmed Nov. n4 that announced the had conected aDeged j "twoquaht controlins safety defects frem several eurrent and es for the names of the whistle "at for la tfyin ,

eers. The twoeet sides have et toofatins Etuco were former worken. She notified SteHo ogrec on bou to theides es den reprts. Late tut w ,

about them and cated ior an investigt.

H P und a third ushty coetrol tie bdependent cf Meno, his immed-J thepemmewbo llagethedefects.to roeet comes sa .workerhasbeenBred sta sMastes b Ebasco.

ud W commaamea The a Neither Rehn not Gude would pre- 8080'"400 5t'E i whistle vers Carde hu worked ps have with diet that nursday's meeting would Garde totists such as *te t' ,

ud some public icterest use, )

begun to enuche her ref turethe eduet a lo . awaited compecmtse. in tigat!on wu necessary 1 suo:s over to ne commusjon. acLaow ed they might accom- abe auegu,MeDe ud be commaske's ture phih oothng that the of aocawest r*6 ion staff canot be tmted l would act tale GAP's any problems and keep the defects at South Tezu ecuM nee to idee refusa to tars over the s "She could witu out what knows wMstle b owut, came secret .

the al: allons to the NRC. Theto(the and give it to us. We probabl w!11SteU4 ask uld be would protect eoefideo-NRC) ve to have somethie ce," sam bert Pouart a one r for more informatoo and k her to tial Socices of LMormauon aboct the ecgbeer at the Un}oo of Coo- uswer cesuocs that vroe wie the plut Then ewid teU ua ntat plut "to W limit of the law and our Sejertasut m!ght Tom Smjth, director of the Teau be we eu tle ce a courseprovi of abibt to dob'.owers' the whinle sv 11 cames.

Garde utst vocid a n," Reba sa11 Gude bu repeatadly refused. saying offlee of Pubbe Citizen, wh!ch bel defend Gardein courttut month,e ed Garde said the sumn. she willgive Suno mustmake a writtee promise, ete; "It wlU rd SteUo res; coded lasweg the sub-oc her to negotiate more sbcertl with Reba will be v the ccmmiase Smith said be ieves be detated toccg of tlam to invest). quath the nb-our tources(@ wh.ist:e poeta_ In a mouon the, commiulon should lavesu ate gate oriden poeta, GAP and Garde labeled Stallo blowers),"G uit and tht sou2 west region "provec and Sogth Tuu before it gruis a 1 Pouart of the scient1rts'sajoa, uM usregetsnimiscreaeta?

ver raung license to Hourtce be stares concerns etten erpressed try Gar 6e edgedthewould to jaU!!4 HeV1'e* Chf eM hikg Power Co.,the 1stgeat owner vb!stle blowers and that theLr r.ames ee. November 11,1til operstorof theSouthTitupreject -

The commission la set ytthest tocoMJtacts vote the He andshorJd Garde fear oot beStauo, forced turned over in turn, sal beto the NRC co woojd week of Dec.14 oc a fat.peser bee se tha t Victor SteUo Jr, execuuve d2retter recommend that HMP be givea a fun.

for South Tezu. of the NRC may not bocor promises of pwer operautg betnse even t! the "Scctwbere, there's room for a rs- coeMeetialaty. . aDegsuou are not rtviewed.

uoul coroptwnise nat's what ve've in refustat to edotte W subpoeta anled her abd GAP for, to get these '"I\rtug the aDegations over to last mosth, Nge Thimu F. Hcqu ef thiers to the table. We oeed to get StaBo La a tcul waste of time. fkt avrernartdtg them with esough detsu U1 thstrict Court in Wuhington ad-umhg oe tbem pow,' Smith sali mee'. abed Garde and SteUo to put the 5everal Icemer ETNP weders and to trif ter a rul lavesugauce en be pbbe teterwt above tt cee estrent worter, whom Gye uys 6:ce, "* Pol!ardund a - aa.u.. W wt a comon

L m eAva t: 'd t. w t .l. u .< P v v;H " M e " 1 W /rH B B)[ K M D s )

. 0<.\ C b 0 g e .rp

. 7

/J 3 FAX TO: KARLASMITH, OGC, H STREET jt. g,, v FROM: CLARE MILES , P A 27715 k5p 12/8/87 (1 Page) M c., 8 Sc u(.a .m0.0 t waG i;.:.~....E .l. .I Qsad. A. G. u,,C f' .s;, uw J4 L ,J .-G.

@'l

IWOW bN bC3 OVG'$N'

. hst assP.ttnt ras the $:uth Tc.tu :1!:ck

. ty JAf/.,2 ft. Pl?r.00Cf

- tt cs. Bl tard Condit, v;!d the cc;nmil-

,i g nnch ectoWes y neew- r:tu tM OAP A tred to c:Winge tr.e _

- int:rreti:n :n!, dites.ss'the aller,at:ca Y.%tmlTro.1 - TM cttwJ fer trivatcly.

. wh!r'.l; i. cw:r:, at th:.f ath s cu: "

. W: d):ft v 7.!.i a lot of f*t.f.*re et.d i Nuc:::t 'Nonct ras aiv pklietty. El: c:y t'aiq,1 will & li tot i Ber,@tuy. Comrethe:n . L:r filut! eon Nveltar s.t.w.ticr." C4i.d tt t t t i.

I t.r.c,,atles, cf raht/ d :: cts, r.no tM .Som: r.urit sr int' v.ctlvf a havc til!.tr 1 :t thttr L;.4 cr fccad itMitJ-

cycuty will d

cM.m;a tionis varrantti.s lfin it.'ies;Oct comr3t!on tl%'., ally ImptstT; to llnd vah et ot'.ar

-. rnans?.htThursiay.

recicar g,qt pt:nt) for Liu.as 11: ,

T'r ,ah Icarut. L!te. ecarnittioi: "Listle c't Lleir ernployers cr othcr ,

e sretestra1. trdi "Jt'lle P. Garde vto cenpaicainnbcdtncens tv.thrt

. Prot::L!:n cf the Ol.c.te 1.tccett h:c

. rcb..renate steat a itag/cy;rs Pr Dsp cr.'l fer. gmHr tun :ic:al t a hc te! Q'15 i tr. ? cmp!:I'cas r! th r,iant r.: City. tura:. !.'r Itl: r.'t.r to tro N!!w b:tw:ca Girce Ord Victar C t err,xtr2 this me. !!: s:.lJ the ea$ cornml:siWr, cr;ttllo..: Jt cet;r. thr.1 rM rn'y C::hlc b) c.at wo.lu.t.str.et u Jes:t-t &nnet Mr.4 in %shirDit

. to in tstw.tv. OC .rcie:ed in meele. an c::thet i.:c:n%;1: Thrtda GI.0 c;r ite NP.C sot.td say 'f hsr:#.\

s,st. r.xt;,:na' ty da  !;v:y. the s, t.t!! C'.e. terann' whM if r.ry con +temist un reittte

T!. the <tth 40! Ca at 0**rd.ird to long mLN LM d*.talled t tirit'e' 4!

L

- 1;et .o et togth has for Mt(n .G:rd ':l:lu

, ttr+ 1 1:O W ul.' the cer.m.PSIc'. 'let e?!

l.ar,httna L Pcc.tr Co .th: r'ar.!'i c;d the n .tw$ i;cr ccn it t.ne aty W.enta:i tt.r a: d'L:rc.:st over.cr. Ir. ram s'i

. . cel,y rn prcmp:d by l'J/d s c'eci. ol a;tre:ing to cretu e sattalinverti-

- i s:ca at to te r vp far cartain r.de211cd r Gardi

. ct; ticar c;cntim ven11)::. u ctit. }?tive t :'doon ce:1f>c ss 1:aa irmstes seh a pate: astbtu:

6 Cerammion.c.g..occrs tra. ltienuy lcritbn to crert;; her he Car #

i r.xd at less; a w::t to resice a plant s ccrt::::cd ttu the tou'.rmut rs*aa

, 'prie,rn:er.te und:t thca critas! ec:di. :rtsfj was itconie el cond;:llog aa tle:ts v. fore the strff Jasett.r cr.n ree, et,9 ette temw. .

crtrac.13 to the five.rr.0rr.'vr . co;*. mis. ~ "Th:re tra tec- e !?! c! gwe 30J Lab i

. sica 4cth:r en op;ratm;; 11cct.:e 4y Mt:i t'.dC Cordt tais aheuld N grar.t00. A.ly the*o-Th ISvest!!:ll03 Cf a h7/ ,

I

. Gerd:. oc wer:cs i:r 11.: Gwma- 5Mraus: se:te.m a the hrst c! we inget /.t.wgr.tshiuty Pro'ie:1. a rehe t res;ters at !v;th Tet:s cc':ld dCly itt j c e., I laterest ew!a rat kI:urea:t,:d firra tue! Lts Mitt *@llut :tirst gericrzim of th:trety on J fW:.

for ccmment.

' N. wcr t2:12 t) c.cr'.M- - - i

. -___. j

. 1 EPCed*r4.l@ l H0W6144 ChieMc't I

d. .f,,;/N8/I*N "

l g

[ Ic., z.,q.\f f e g.,i)@,'% Ft'..t*'h,'f.lJ.A!,

m u}

h/,5 M . 4*d%

y , .

-

,,4.**..

I

- . - .... ~ . ...

p u su w s- M . >-

i

.9 .

l .

i. ({

U h l?!i ,

Ms. Billie Pirner Garde Government Accountability Project Midwest Office 3424 Marcos Lane Appleton, Wisconsin 54911

Dear Ms. Garde:

This will confim our telephone conversation of November 4,1987. In that conversation we agreed to set up a meeting between you and the NRC in order for you to provide the NRC with infomation about safety allegations at the South Texas facility.

You indicated that you intend to table a sumary of allegations sufficient for NRC to determine their safety significance and whether investigation by NRC is warranted. You do not propose to leave a copy with us after the meeting. You expect us to review this data and advise you of how and with whom we will pursue investigation of the allegations, since your main concern is that you mistrust some people who might investigate these matters. If you do not object to our investigative scheme, you have indicated that you will provide the necessary further contact with allegers either directly or thru GAP as an intennediary.

While we are ready and willing to meet with you on this matter, we believe our discussions would be most productive if the sumary of allegations which you provide is written and in sufficient detail for NRC to det,emine their safety

- significance and whether investigation by NRC is warranted. We could review that data and proceed to investigate those allegations which appear to warrant investigation on the basis of the information you provide. If there is suffi-cient information presented for NRC to detemine that a significant safety issue is likely involved, we could then ask you for additional information.

If there are issues which do not appear to be significant safety issues on the basis of the information presented we could then so advise you. We understand that you will make no references to the names of allegers. If however, you chose to prcvide names, we are pt'epared to grant confidentiality as prescribed by our Manual Chapter on this subject.  !

l I understand you will attend with a knowledgeable investigator, and I will. ~ l have present people knowledgeable of Mechan' cal and Structural, QA and  !

electrical areas, since those are the areas you indicated are most involved. l l

%lh nw w . _

)

, e 4

1 I understand a member of your innediate family has a medical problem you must I deal with, and the earliest you can meet will be Thursday, November 12, 1987 at 10:00 a.m. We will use y office in the Maryland National Bank Building or l a nearby conference room.

Sincerely, j i

woutd) 7. A,Rahm T. A. Rehm Assistant for Operations Office of the Executive Director for Operations Distribution:

V5tello JTaylor TRehm rnn n 1

ums2.s' l

l 1

0FC :A0/0E00 )  :

b , l,t vi, O :  :

4

.....:.....rgm...: 9. 7 14 :.211..: 3 U

'.,. .E h..,:............:............................... .....

NAME :TRehm  : g)hl,  : ,s/  :  :  :

. . . . . . . : .1. . . . . . .Q. .L :

DATE :11/9/87  : t/9/il  : bHf(7  :  :  :  :

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

Ms. Billie Pirner Garde Government Accountability Project Midwest Office 3424 Marcos Lane Appleton, Wisconsin 54911

Dear Ms. Garde:

This is to confim your phone call of November 11, 1987 in cancelling our previously arranged meeting of November 12, 1987 and arranging for a later date of November 19,1987 at 8:30 a.m. , in room 6507, 7735 Old Georgetown Road, Bethesda, Maryland. We are prepared to meet on that date.

As I indicated in my letter to you of November 8,1987 we believe our meeting will be most productive if you provide infomation in written form. If however, you choose not to, or intend to amplify extensively in discussion, it might be advisable to transcribe the meeting in order to make sure we do not lose any details. If this appears reasonable to you, please advise me and I will make the arrangements.

Sincerely, l

T. A. Rehm i Assistant for Operations Office of the Executive i Director for Operations T>d

e l' s

g s.4 f.sA, UNITED STATES g,,iggs*

• '3 .m g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l',. [g y' ,* c'rAe_f 1

")

j W AsHINGTON, D. C. 20555

\.v j#

e ..*

)

FEB 0 91988 l 1

MEMORANDUM FOR: Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM: Lawrence J. Chandler 1 Assistant General Counsel I for Enforcement Office of the General Counsel

SUBJECT:

SOUTH TEXAS NUCLEAR PROJECT -

UNITS 1 AND 2 Enclosed please find a copy of a Petition dated January 26, 1988, filed by tne Government Accountability Project (Petitioner) requesting that the Commission celay voting on a full power operating license for the South Texas Nuclear Project (STNP) until there has been a complete investigation of all allegations regarding the STNP, and public release of a report disposing of each allegation. The Petitioner asserts as bases for this request that (1) the results of the NRC's limited investigation into allegations was predetermined, in that the NRC inspection team had prepared a draft of its findings before making its site inspection; (2) In an on-site inspection with one of the allegers, the alleger was not permitted to show the NRC team any of his allegations relating to Unit 1; (3) the NRC review was subjected to 1 overwhelming scheduling pressures, resulting in disposition of most of the l allegations without interviewing the allegers and failure to thoroughly address the 60 selected allegations which were the focus of the team's review; and (4) none of the allegations of wrongdoing has been investigated by the NRC.

The Commission has scheduled a vote on a full power license for STNP for February 22, 1988.

I have enclosed drafts of a letter of acknowledgment to the Petitioner for your signature and a Notice of Reculpt of the Petition for publication in the Federal Register.

CONTACT: Mary E. Wagner g,14-gg-;og T>5' I ~'

.~

., f i t f e.1 2

, e.

Please inform my staff of the technical staff contact who will be involved in preparing a response to the Petition and an estimated completion date. Pleass ensure that I am provided copies of all correspondence related to the Petition and that I am askea to concur on all staff correspondence.

Lawrence J. Chandler Assistant General Counsel for Enforcement Of6ce of the General Counsel

Enclosures:

1

1. Copy of Petition

2. Draft Letter of Acknowledgment

3. Draft Federal Register Notice l cc: w/ encl: J. Lieberman, OE ,

W. Olmstead, OCC '

R. Martin, RIV W. Brown, PlV 1

l DISTRIBUTION:

AGCE Rdr ,

ACCE Subj.

Chandler info Goloberg info Wagner chron l Contact  !

SC/RW/DH/LD/JM/WP info l NRC Central I

! OGC Rdr  ;

JMurray, OGC  !

MMalsch, OGC WParler, OGC SECY l EDO #003447 10.

OFC  : OGC \w :  :  :  :  :

. . . . . . . : . .. . . . . . . . . _ _ . . . .p G C E : O G C NAME :MEWagner:asi

LJChandler  :  :  :  :

DATE : 2/ /88  : 2/9 /88  :  :  :  :

s f'

a U,S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Docket No.

SOUTH TEXAS NUCLEAR PROJECT (License No. )

RECEIPT OF PETITION FOR DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. I 2.206 Notice is hereby given that by Petition dated January 26, 1988, the Government Accountability Project requested that the Commission delay voting on a full power operating license for the South Texas Nuclear Project (STNP) until there has been a complete investigation of all allegations regarding the  !

STNP, and public release of a report disposing of each allegation. The Petition asserts as gounds for this request that (1) the results of the NRC's limited investigation into allegations was predetermined, in that the NRC inspection team had prepared a draft of its findings before making its site inspection; (2) in an on-site inspection with one of the allegers, the alleger was not permitted to show the NRC team any of his allegations relating to l l

Unit 1; (3) the NRC review was subjected to overwhelming scheduling 1 pressures, resulting in disposition of most of the allegations without Interviewing the allegers and failure to thoroughly address the 60 selected allegations which were the focus of the team's review; and (4) none of the i allegations of wrongdoing has been investigoted by the NRC. The request is being treated pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 2.206 of the Commission's regulations. As provided by section 2.206, appropriate action will be taken on this request within a reasonable time.

l

s l

\

A copy of the Petition is available for inspection in the Commission's l Pub!!c Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W. , Washington, D.C. 20555.

Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this day of , 1988.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l

l l

I i

l

)

l 1

1 4

i I

e

Docket No. 50-498 (10 C.F.R. 5 2.206)

Ms. Billie P. Garde Mr. Richard E. Condit Government Accountabil!ty Project 25 E Street, N.W.

Suite 700 Washington, DC 20001

Dear Ms. Garde and Mr. Condit:

This letter is to acknowledge receipt of 9 Petition dated January 26, 1988,  :

filed by the Government Accountability Project (GAP) requesting that the Commission delay voting on a full power operating license for the South Texas Nuclear Project (STNP) until there has been a complete investigation of all allegations regarding the STNP, and public release of a report disposing of each allegation. CAP asserts as bases for this request that (1) the results of i the NRC's limited investigation into allegations was predetermined, in that the NRC inspection team had prepared a draft of its findings before making its site inspection; (2) in an on-site inspection with one of the allegers, the alleger was not perrrP.ted 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 failure to thoroughly address the 60 selected allegations which were the focus of the team's review; ano (4) none of the allegations of wrongdoing has been investigated by the NRC.

G A P's Petition has been referred to the staf.f for action pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2,206 of the Commission's regulations, As provided by i 2.206, action will be taken on your request within a reasonable time. I have enclosed for your information a copy of the notice that is being filed with the Office of the Federal Register for publication.

Sincerely, i

l Thomas E. Murley, Director l Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

Au stated l

1 . l l

l