ML20154F384
| ML20154F384 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 05/17/1988 |
| From: | Grimsley D NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM) |
| To: | Day B AUSTIN, TX |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20154F387 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-88-107 NUDOCS 8805230216 | |
| Download: ML20154F384 (4) | |
Text
S.
LE 7.EGULATO3Y COMMGSION sac so,a nu
,vai. s.
r/
3xc4_ gg_ jpg f
.s*
f
- t secNst t v et y **
i, g -
)
RESPONSE TO REE M OF
_ l ' N^'
M)'(i eaa' a'
!)
f INFORM ATION ACT (FOIA) REQUEST y7jggg O m o w a i. 5,,,.-.-
M kf _ \\
(h P AAT I -RECO RELE ASED OR NOT LOCATED (See checaed bones)
No agency records subrect to the request have been located No addetceal agency records suc9ect to the request have been located Agency records subsect to the request that are centifed e Appendia 1
are already avadatde for pubhc especton and copW e the NRC Pthhc Docume't Room.
X 1717 H Street. N W-. Washegten. DC Agency records subrect to the reavest thM are dentded in Appendis
__._ a'e becg '*4de avaJabe for pubhc especv and copyeg m the NRC Pupic Dw er' X Room.1717 H Street N W. Washtegton, DC, e a folder under thrs FOI A tvumter and req uester name The nonpropretary verson of the proposaksi t*at you agreed to accept m a tedephone conversaton **th a member of my s'a f a now beeg made avadaue for putA: rscecten r
a6d coveg at the NRC PutAc Document Room.1717 H Street. N W. Washington. DC. in a folder ureer th's FOiA number and 'eques*er name Enclosed e eformaboe on how you may ootae access to and the charges for copyeg records placed in the N AC PutAc Document Room,1717 H Street. N W. Washegica. DC Agency records subst to the re%est a o enclosed Any applicable charge for copes of the records prov4ed and pavment proced.res are noted e the commeets secte Records subrect to the request have been reie"ed to another Federal agencytesi for reve* and direct resporse to you in ve* of NRC s respoese to the request. no fu ther acton a being taken on appeal tetter dated r
PART H A-INFORM ATION WITHHfLD FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE Co tam eformatce e the requested records e being *>thheid from pubhc disciosure pursuant to the FOIA enempticas de.cr4>ed e and for the reasons stated m Part 11. sec.
tens 8. C. and D Ar*y re' eased portior's of the documents for wh ch only part of the record e beeg wehead are being made avaudie foe ovwie inspecten and copyeg e i
the NRC Puu.c Document Room.1717 H Street. N W.. Wash ngton. DC. m a folder under the FOlA numter and requester neans i
Comrnents 8805230216 000517 PDR FOIA DAYOG-107 PDR gt0-8tCTC*DW.SjMC5*fu'ND8tCC805 SGN h k u_/h. M<cc..A >
NIC FORM e64 es.
s at
Re:
FOI A. 88 107 APPENDIX I
RECORDS MAINTAINED AMONG POR FILES NUMBER DATE DESCRIPTION 1
1.
02/19/88 Accessinn No. 8802260232 Letter from The Light Company to NRC
Subject:
"Waviness" Condition in the Unit 1 Reactor Pressure s
Vessel 2 pages 2.
03/01/88 Accession No. 8803070353 Letter frcm Houston Lighting and Power Company to NRC,
Subject:
Supplemental deficiency report of elec-trical splices using Raychem heat shrink insulation raterial 6 pages 3.
03/16/88 Accession No. 8803210101 Letter from 8. Garde, GAP to L. 7ech, NRC,
Subject:
Recuests delay of consideration of full power license for 7 days pending SSAT report 1 page 1
Re:
F01 Ao 88-107 APPENDIX J
_ RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE POR UNDER THE ABOVE REQU NUMBER DATE DESCRIPTION 1.
12/4/87 Letter to Jose Calvo, NRC from Governrent Accountability Project (GAP).
Subject:
South Texas allegations 3 pages 2.
12/7/87 Memo to Thomas Rehn from Jose Calvo,
Subject:
REVIEW OF GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTAPILITY PROJECT ALLEGATIONS C0hCE S0llTH TEXAS PROJECT 2 pages 3.
12/16/87 Memo to Thomas Rehm f rom Jose Calvo,
Subject:
REVIEW OF GOVERNMENT ACCOUNABILITY PROJECT ALLEGATIOMS CONCEANI S0 lith TEXAS PROJECT 1 page 4.
01/4/88 Pemo to T. Rehm, T. Murley, F. Miraglia, D. Crutchfield from Jose Calvo,
Subject:
SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT (STP) PLAN EVALUATION AND RESOLUTION OF ALLEGATIONS PROVIDED 2Y GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT (GAP) 17 pages S.
01/14/88 Memo from Thomas Murley to Jose Calvo,
Subject:
DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO GRANT CONFIDENTIALITY TO ALLEGERS 1 PAGE 6.
01/27/88 Mero to T. Rehm, T. Murley, F. Miraglia and D. Crutchfield from Jose Calvo,
Subject:
INSPECTION OF GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT-ABILITY PORJECT Alt.EGATIONS CONCERNING SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT 2 pages 7.
02/05/88 Memo to Ben Hayes from Jose Calvo,
Subject:
SAFETY SIGNIF1-CANCE ASSESSMENT TEAM PEV!RE OF SOUTH TEXAS ALLEGATIONS IN YOLVING HARASSMENT AhD INTIMIDATION AND WRONGDOING 2 pages 8.
02/05/88 Feme to L. Marsh from Jcse Calvo,
Subject:
REQUEST FOR ASSIS, TAhCE TO THE SCl'TH TEXAS SSAT 1 page 9.
Feb. 1988 Oraft report of the Safety Significance Assessnent Team (SSAT)
SS pages 10.
03/01/88 Notice of Press Conference 2 pages 11.
03/21/88 Chart showing Safety Assessment Team and suppoeting staff 1 page 12.
03/22/88 Meme frm L. B. Marsh to Prasad Kadambi,
Subject:
EVALUATION OF SOUTH TEXAS UNIT 1 COMPONENT AN0MAllES 6 pages 13.
11/87 hote to T. A. Rehm, OEDO from J. A. Calvo, NRR,
Subject:
GAP MEETING ON ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING THE SOUTH TEXAS PRO-atti 1 page
Re: F01 A.88-107 APPEN0!X J
RECOR05 P.AINTAINED IN THE POR UNDER THE ABOVE REQUES NUMBER DATE DESCRIPTION 1.
12/4/87 Letter to Jose Calvo, NRC from Governrent Accountability Project (GAP),
Subject:
South Texas allegations 3 pages 2.
12/7/87 Memo to Thomas Rehm from Jose Calvo,
Subject:
REVIEW OF GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTAP!LITY PROJECT ALLEGATIONS CONCE S0llTH TEXAS PROJECT 2 pages 3,
12/16/87 Pemo to Thomas Rehm from Jose Calvo,
Subject:
REVIEW OF GOVERNMENT ACCOUNA8!LITY PROJECT Alt.EGATIONS CONCERN SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT 1 page 4.
01/4/88 Femo to T. Rehm, T. Murley, F. Miraglia, D. Crutchfield 1
from Jose Calvo,
Subject:
SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT (STP) PLAN EVALUATION AND RES0ttlTION OF ALLEGATIONS PROV10E0 BY GOVERNPENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT (GAP) 17 pages 5.
01/14/88 Memo from Thomas Murley to Jese Calvo,
Subject:
DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO GRANT CONFIDENTIALITY TO ALLEGERS 1 PAGE 6.
01/27/88 Memo to T. Rehm, T. Murley, F. Miraglia and D. Crutchfield from Jose Calvo,
Subject:
INSPECTION OF GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT-ABillTY PORJECT ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING SOUTH TEXAS PROJEC 2 pages 7.
02/05/88 Memo to Ben Hayes from Jose Calvo,
Subject:
SAFETY SIGNIFI-CANCE ASSESSMENT TEAM REV!RE OF SOUTH TEXAS ALLEGATIONS YOLVING HARASSMENT AND INTIMIDATION AND WRONG 00 LNG 2 pages 8.
02/05/88 Pemo to L. Marsh from Jose Calvo,
Subject:
REQUEST FOR ASSIS 1
TANCE TO THE SCUTH TEXAS SSAT 1 page 9.
Feb. 1988 Oraft report of the Safety Significance Assessnent Team (SSAT) 55 pages 10.
03/01/88 Notice of Press Conference 2 pages 11.
03/21/88 Chart showing Safety Assessment Team and suppoeting staff 1 page 12.
03/22/88 Memo from L. B. Marsh to Prasad Kadambi,
Subject:
EVALUATION OF SOUTH TEXAS UNIT 1 COPP0HENT AN0MAllES 6 pages 13.
11/87 Note to T. A. Rehm, CEDO from J. A. Calvo, NRR,
Subject:
GAP MEETING ON Alt.EGATIONS CONCEPNING THE SOUTH TEXAS PRO-JECT 1 page
OFFICE OF PUBLIC UTILITY COUNSEL
.~
- 7.m Peccar*
February 10, 1988 tRfEDOM OF INFORMATICE
[ACI REQUES # "M 7 CD '
Mr. Donnie H. Grimsley. Director Division of Rules and Records g L g 4/h f f Office of Administration and Resources Management U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington. 0.C.
20555 Re:
FOIA Request for Records Concerning Safety Allegations. South Texas Project
Dear Mr. Grimsley:
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act and 10 CFR Part 9. Subpart A.
"Freedom of Information Act Regulations",
please make available at the Comission's Washington. 0.C.
Public Document Room single copies of records in the following categories:
A.
All records related to safety allegations concerning the South Texas Project that are currently being investigated by the NRC.
According to published reports (see, for example.
"NRC Investigating South Texas Safety Allegations". INSIDE N.R.C.. 1/18/88, at 12-13). there are some 650 specific allegations.
This request includes but is not limited to. records documenting the allegations, records evaluating the safety significance of the allegations, utility records concerning the allegations.
and all other records related to the allegations.
B.
All records related to the establishment by NRC of an investigation team to review the allegations.
The investigation team is reportedly headed by Jose Calvo (NRR), and includes eight other members from NRR and two from the Office of Enforcement.
This request includes.
but is not limited to.
records related to the establishment of the investigation team, the procedures used by the investigation team, the records provided to f; ? C ' l 3 i 7 7 app l
en. m e.y...arret.c.ma w.nt,u- - - oa
3 Mr. Grimsley February 10, 1988 the team to initiate and conduct the investigation. and all other records related to the activities of the investigation team.
l We request a waiver of fees pursuant to 10 CFR 9.41 because the documents will be used by a state agency as part of an official investigation.
If you or any members of your staff have any questions concerning this request, please contact the undersigned directly by telephone at 512/345-9900.
Your prompt attention to this request will be apprecisted.
Sincerely, j
.b!1/J sat r/b s/
Barbare Day
)
Deputy Public Counsel BD:id i
b
,coyp- (f ic 7 fG70~((-/f/
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT 25 E Street, N.W., Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 347-0460 December 4, 1987 HAND-DELIVERED Jose Calvo i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
7920 Norfolk Avenue Phillips Building Bethesda, Maryland
Dear Jose:
We are writing to discuss the status of the review of the South Texas Nuclear Project (STNP) worker allegations.
This review follows our preliminary meeting of November 19th.
In that meeting it was agreed that a team of non-Region IV NRC personnel would be permitted access to the STNP allegers' files under certain conditions and with the allegers' permission.
These conditions included that the identity of any alleger would be kept cor.fidential and that no one at the STNP site will be contacted about the information revealed during the review.
In addition, it was agreed that the allegers' information would only be revealed to NRC personnel not participating in the review on a need-to-know basis.
The development of this working protocol was necessary to permit NRC review while protecting our interests and the interests of the allegers.
We appreciate the diligence and courtesy that the Washington-baned NRC personnel have exhibited in working at our office.
We have tried to work closely with them to allow the review to proceed as efficiently as possible.
However, over the last couple of days it has become clear to us, through the actions and comments of Paul O' Conner, that there may be problems with the review of the allegations.
We understand that Mr. O' Conner's background is in project
'S management, not QA/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 by Mr. O' 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 violate 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion I.
We are aware of STNP's licensing schedule, but we must strongly object to this review being controlled by any licensing timetables.
em::-
+
)
i
).
Jose Calvo December 4, 1987 Page Two As we have already discussed, it is essential that the allegers' files receive a detailed QA analysis.
Each file must ()
be read through in order to get an overall view of the possible QA/QC breakdown at STNP.
Our other concern with Mr. O' Conner's approach is that he seems to take a very narrow view of the allegations.
On several occasions he has appeared to minimize the significance of some allegations before the reviewer could analyze it in its entirety.
This approach may prevent the reviewer from making an independent assessment of an allege'. ion based on his technical expertise.
This concerns us because the initial review of the allegations will determine the universe of information from which the NRC can investigate.
Therefore, it is important that no allegation is dismissed too quickly.
l In reviewing a file, if the allager's intent is somewhat ambiguous, then the interview tapes should be reviewed or the alleger should be questioned if possible.
As we explained in the November 19th meeting, our working files were not prepared for
([)
the purpose of NRC review.
Nor can these flies take the place of a technical interview with the alleger.
Consequently, our files should only be used to complement a more thorough NRC technical interview, and must not be used to make a definitive technical assessment of any allegation.
1 Another issue that troubles us is that little, if any,
{
attention is being given to the documentation that supports some i
of the allegations.
This is ironic because the supporting gO
{
information was the subject of the NRC's subpoena.
Frankly, it has always been our concern that the NRC was not. interested in these documents but only wanted to review our summaries, which may not be technically complete.
We realize that it is much 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 documentation that accompanies an alleger's file, Finally, in the last two days we have finished preparation of approximately 50 allegations that were in files that we were unable to prepare previously.
We advised you that some files had Jr not been completed at the November 19th meeting.
No one from NRC objected when we indicated that there would be a delay in producing these allegations.
Yesterday, upon our mentioning that the 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.
I Jose Calvo December 4, 1987 Page Three As you know, this effort has consumed many hours and other resources -- which are extremely limited.
It would be unfair to everyone involved to compromise the integrity of the review effort simply because of 50 additional allegations.
There must be appropriate NRC staff members who could properly review these 1
allegations.
We hope that you will take these :;omments in the constructive spirit in which they are offered.
We trust that you
)
will take all necessary steps to protect the hard work that has been done by everyone to date.
Our recommendation is that you 1
institute a conference call with us to help work out our concerns, and rectify the problems which have developed from j
today's Houston Chronicle article.
Yours truly, j
Billie P. Garde
& 6. W Richard E. Condit bilt)
MAO (
Edna F. Ottney 079EE01 cc:
Tom Rehm U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Maryland National Bank Building 7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland I