ML20151N107

Responds to Requesting Info on NRC Review of Allegations Made by SA Milam.Nrc Carefully Reviewing Allegations & Developing Info to Address Allegations

ML20151N107
Person / Time
Issue date:	12/24/1986
From:	Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Celeste R OHIO, STATE OF
Shared Package
ML20151N092	List: ML20151N088 ML20151N098 ML20151N107 ML20151N118 ML20151N127 ML20151N135
References
FOIA-87-836 NUDOCS 8808080114
Download: ML20151N107 (2)

Text

i Distribution:

f* # No UNITED STATES W -

t" *

~ ,% NUCLE AR REGUL ATORY COMMISSION VPB REAC:'.3 M i

i vusm Novos. o. c. ros55 DQAVT REC.G

' I

. .! VStello

\ ***** / -

JRoe 15tarostecki TRehn BGrimes chain ue.N De:: ember 24, 1986 JSniezek HMiller HDenton RFHeishman JMartin JaCraig JKeppler CDeLiso The Honorable Richard F. Celeste WKerr MKing Governor of Ohio JPMurray EDO 2373 Columbus, Ohio 43?15 J0 avis MReardon BHayes

Dear Governor Celeste:

JTaylor I am responding to your letter of December ',1986 requesting infomation on the Nuclear Regulatory Connission (NRC) Staff's review of allegations made by Mr. Sam A. Milan, !!!, a fomer e oloyee at the General Electr1<: (GE) Company's facility in San Jose, California.

The NRC first reviewed Mr. Milam's primary concern, the issue of deferred verification, following receipt o' his allegations in 1983. The 1983 review of Mr. M11am's allegations did not identify significant safety issues. A copy of the NRC inspection report and 9E's response are enclosed. In October 1985, the Government Accountability Profect (GAP) notified the NRC that it had additional docunients concerning Mr. Milam's allegations. Following extensive discussions among GE, GAP, and NRC, in February, 1986 the NRC reviewed the documents in GAP's offices in Washington, D.C. After GAP and GE executed a proprietary information agreement (copy enclosed), the NRC received copies of these documents.

The Not conducted inspections at GE's San !ose facility during the weeks o' April 14 and July 14, 1986 to rev ew Mr. Milam's allegations, and issues raised i

by Mr. Charles Stokes, a consultaat for GAD. A copy of the consolidated inspection report will be sent te vou when it is issued. The staf' has nt, completed its review of these allenations. To date, no issues have been identified which require actions at any boiling water reactor nuclear pwer plant. A sumory of NRC activities related to Mr. Milam's allegations is enclosed.

Mr. Milan has not identi#ied any specific equipnent safety ornblems. He has general concerns that the desian control system in place at GE's San ilose offices from approximately 197R until 198' was deficient. He believes this censtitutes a potential safety problen. Many design changes and supporting documentation need to be reviewed to resolve all allegations. After the -

inspection report is issued, the staff will advise GE of the remaining item not addressed during the NRC inspections and request GE to address then, '

sub.iect to future NRC inspections. A schedule for resolutien of these items will then be developed.

Originated: JWCraig:lE MA- N Yld 880G000114 800629 Offy PDR FOIA /[

3AUMAN87-036 PDR

.. . =

9 The NRC staff is carefully reviewing these allegaticns and is developing infomation to address them consistent with their safety significance. I dssure you that the NRC will take prompt action if any issues are identified which threaten the safe operation of a nuclear 'acility.

i Sincerely, Lando W. Z .h, Jr.

Enclosures:

As stated l

l t

i f

i 1

I l

_...___, s

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

v1strioution:

DCS

1. "*% UNITED STATES

• j' %j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NRC PDR' DING VPB REA W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 g a D@VT RUDE VStello

% / JRoe RStarostecki

..... TRehm BRgimes December 24, 1986 CHAIRM AN JSniezek HMiller HDenton RHieshman JDavis JWCraig JTaylor CDeLiso JMurray MKing BHayes ED0 2334 The Honorable Edward J. Markey, Chairtnan JLieberman MReardon Subcomittee on Enera~v Conservation

~

TMurley, RI and Power JNGrace, RII Comittee on Energ'y and Comerce JKeppler, RIII U. S. House of Representatives RMartin, IV Washington, D.C. 20515 JMartin, RV

Dear Mr. Chairman:

I am responding to your letters of November 20, 1986 and December 8, 1986 related to allegations made by Mr. Sam Milam, III. I am sending you a sumary, prepared by the NPC staff, of the staff's actions concerning these allegations. I believe that this sumary addresses the concerns specifically expressed in your December 8 letter. The sumary also identifies the documents you requested on November 20. I am forwarding those documents. A copy of the response from Mr. James Taylor, Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, to the October 24, 1986 letter from the Government Accountability Project (GAP) is also enclosed. A copy o' the final inspection report will be forwarded when it is issued.

Sincerely, Lando W. I h, Jr.

Enclosures:

1. Sumary o' Staff's Actions Concerning Allegations, with related documents

2. Letter from J. Taylor, NRC, to GAP dated  ;

l December 22, 1986 cc: Rep. Carlos Moorhead Originated: IE:JWCraig Fa o-77-13g

'L -[ V W If

2 :8%g UNITED STATES o

g

[g , g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION w AsmNoTow. o. c. 20sss g .j

\....+/

cx4muru December 24, 1986 The Honorable Dennis E. Eckart United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Ee.'< art:

I am responding to your letter of Novenh v 20, 1986 concerning allegations made by Mr. Sam A. Milam, II:. I am enclosing a surrary of NRC staff actions in regard to Mr. Milam's concerns along with the related documents. A copy o' the response from Mr. James Taylor, Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, to the October 24, 1986 letter from the Gosernment Accountability Pro,iect (GD) is also enclosed. .

The NRC staff is carefully evaluating the safety sionificance of Mr. Milam's 1 allegations and is systematically developing information to allow proper disposition of these allegations. A copy of the final inspection report will be forwarded when it is issued.

Sincerely, l

Lando W. Ze , Jr.

Enclosures:

1. Sumary of Staff's Actions Concerning Allegations, with related documents

2. Letter from J. Taylor, NRC to GAP dated December 22, 1986

[ e #

., L, ,

m r'

y av. -

'It

. l HISTORY & STATUS OF ISSUES 9AISED BY S. A. Mit.AM, III AN9 C. STOKES The NRC first reviewed Mr. Milam's primary concern, the issue A copy of deferred o' the verification, following receipt of his allegations in 1983.

NRC Inspection Report and General Electric'sGovernment(GE) response for the NRC Accountability Project inspection perforned in 1983 are enclosed.

(GAP) notified the NRC in October 1985 that it had additional informatio concerning GE activities.

j I

NRC, GAP finally agreed to provide the NRC access to the documents in gap's l offices in February 1986. These Subsequently NRC was provided copies of these documents included a copy of Mr. Milam's work documents in March 1986.

record and a draft report prepared by Mr. Charles Stokes, a consultant Copies of for GAP, based principally upon his review of Mr. Milam's work record, related memoranda and a chronology of staff activities related to this issue are enclosed.

The NRC review of the issues raised by Mr. Milam and Mr. Stokes That process has beenis in the fom of an inspection effort and not an investigation.An interview with M continuing.

inspections were perfomed at the GE San Jose facility during the weeks o' April 14 and July 14, 1986. Mr. Milam was the only individual fomally A interviewed in connection with the staf"s review of these allegations.

copy of the transcript of this interview is enclosed as well as copies ofNRC  ;

drafts of the inspection report. l Mr. Milam's allegations were consistent with draf t manual chapter 0517.

The staff understood that GE believed that This Mr. Milam's work understar.dino was the record i contained $nfomation which was proprietary. l result o' the proorieta-y information agreement executed by GE and GAP on February 6,1986, concerning Mr. Milam's work record (enc 1osed)GE andhasr,E's stated desire to conduct a proprietary review of thesa documents.

thus requested an opportunity to review the final iaspection report and related documents for any proprietary infomation prior to its placenent in the Public Document Room.

The NRC staff intends to afford GE the opoort'.nity to review the documents discussed above and the inspection report. This is consistent with the standards contained in 10 CFR 2.790 and with the Office of Inspection and Enforcement Manual Chapter 0611. "Review and Distribution of Inspection Reports." Manual Chapter 0611 contains the procedures for reviewing inspec-tion reports to guard against inappropriate release of exemot information.

For example, the Manual Chapter states that ". . . Illf there is a significant doubt as to whether or not the material is proprietary, then a copy of the suspected final report will be sent to the licensee / vendor for proprieta review purposes only."

possible, all final inspection reports will be made available to the public after reviews to frientify proprietary information have been completed.

1

2 The documents related to Mr. Milar's allegations, including his work rec:ed, the transcript of the NRC's interview with Mr. Milam, and Mr. Stokes dra':

report will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room following a proprietary review by GE. While the staff originally intended to allow this review by GE l following issuance of the inspection report for the initial NRC inspecti:a.s of '

l these allegations, Congressional requests for the documents accelerated the NRC's schedule in this matter. When providing documents which poten,tially contain proprietary information to outside parties including members nf Ccigress, it is the staff's experience that a prompt proprietary review to make as many documents as possible available to the public is the best ccurse of action.  ;

l Enclostres:

1. GE Pt sprietary Information Agreement l

2. Ch anology of Activities

3. *i.ecuments provided to NRC by EAP

4. *0ccunen:s prepared or obtained by the Staff

5. *Transcrf pts of Interview with Sam A. Milam, III

6. List of plants mentioned in Mr. Milan's wcrk record  :

7. NRC Inspection Report No. 99900403/83-03,10/21/83 l and GE's response, 1/13/84

• Portion of documents potentially contain Proprietary Information and shculd not be made available to the public.

I

UNITED STATES j-

\** -

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j l

• I . j' r:ASHIN3 TON, D. C. 20664

\ $....* ) December 22, 1986 Ms. Billie Garde, Director, Environmental Whistleblower Project Governnent Accountability Project .

1555 Connecticut Avenue, N. W.

• Suite 202 Washington, D. C. 20036

Dear Ms. Garde:

Your letter of October 24, 1986, addressed t) Mr. Harold Denton, requested specific inforeation related to the NRC's Pispection activities being corducted in respnnse to allegations made by Mr. Sam A. Milan, III. While a report of the inspections conducted to date is being completed, your characterization of the inspection effort as essentially comrlete is incorrect. The NRC inspection effort is still in progress. In this rqard, Mr. Arthur Jackson, of your staff, requested specific infomation concerning the inspection findings and items I reviewed during the inspection. Since the information requested was the subject of an inspection report that has not jet been issued, it is inappropriate to discuss specific issues and related inspection findings and Mr. Arthur Jackson l was so informed on October 8, 1986. However, it is appropriate to inform you l that based upon the NRC review to date, no issues have been identified which necessitate corrective actions be taken on any nuclear power plant with compo-nents supplied by GE. ,

As you are aware, in addition to the issues raised by Mr. Milam, a number of j issues were raised in the report prepared for GAP by Mr. Charles Stokes, based upon his review of Mr. Milam's work record. As explained to Mr. Jackson on October 8,1986, the effort necessary to address the issues raised is substan-tial, and the inspections performed to date have not addressed all of these ,

issues. This effert is continuing. Copies of inspection reports related to these alleg.tions will be forwarded to you, as well as Mr. Milam, as they are issued. The inspection report for the inspectiers conducted during the weeks of April 14 and July 14, 1986 is expected to be issued in a few weeks. This report will discuss the current status of the NRC's efforts ard the next step 1.1 resolving the issues raised by Mr. Milam and Mr. Stokes.

"~

With respect to the suggestion in your letter that you have "specific followup information," it is our understanding that all applicable information concerning l Mr. Milam's tJ,egations has been provided to the NRC. However, if you have l additional i.sforntion related to these issues, please contact us so we can obtain this 1 Jormation.

Your letter also raised questions concerning the conduct of the NRC review of Mr. Milam's allegations. The NRC efforts related to resolution of these alle-gations are being conducted in accordance with the NRC's draft Manual Chapter 0517, Management of Allegations. While Mr. Milan was not contacted ba+. ween June 1,1986 (the date Mr. Milam returned a corrected copy of the transcript y ,,s

{Y

..,e Decenter 22, 1986  !

Ms. Billie Garde of his interview) and Octobe 2,1986 (the date Mr. Jackson, GAP Staff Associate, spoke with Mr. McIntyre, NRC), there is no significance which can be attributed to this lack of contact. Both GAP and Mr. Milam knew of the extensive natitre and number of allegations which were the subject of HRC review and 'should have known by virtue of the rurber of contacts NRC rade with GAP in obtaining ,

the documents and in interviewing Mr. Milam, that Mr. Milan's allegations were under active consideration. Accordingly, the provisions of the draft manual chapter calling for an alleger to be informed so that '. Pere is an awaraness that the allegation is not being ignored were met. ,

1 Sincerely,

/

b J mes M. Taylo Director l ffice of Inspection and Enforcement l cc: T. Ocvine, GAP A. Jackson, GAP S. Milam III l l

l l

l 1

1

-