ML20154M595
| ML20154M595 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 05/26/1988 |
| From: | Grimsley D NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM) |
| To: | Day B AUSTIN, TX |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20154M600 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-88-107 NUDOCS 8806020017 | |
| Download: ML20154M595 (3) | |
Text
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N NRc toia $nsor ist Nuvetnis,dO'l YC~
- %,ns, tvw
. s"%>.
p a
D.i AESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF F*
I XI "''
! gT /
- ^ "
gy g g INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUEST y
DOCalf Nuv8Emi,i 1 soas.cebel i.EOutST'.R d h) 8 0 '[,,
b L)
V f V6 g
} P' ART 1.-RECMADS RELEASED OR NOT LOCATED (See checked bonesi i
No agency records subrect to the request have been located.
No additonal agency records subrect to the request have been located-K are aiready availaNo for puNic hten and cop @ the NRC Public Documerit Room, Agency records m.br ct to the request that are ioentded in Append's e
1717 H Street. N W. Washegton, DC.
b are being made available for pubhc mspection and copymg m the NRC Pubhc Document Agency records subtect to the request that are identded m Appendia Room,1717 H Street. N W., Washington, DC. m a folder under this FOIA number and requester name The nonpropr.etary vers'. of the p oposalts) trat you agreed to accept m a telephone conversaton v th a member of my statt is now being made avadable for public irsscection and coyr.s at the NRC Pubhc Document Room.17t7 H Street. N W Washmgton, DC. in a fokier under the FOf A number and 'equester name.
Enclosed e informaton on how you may otta n access to and the charges for copyeg records placed in the NRC Pubiec Document Room,1717 H Street N W., Washegton, DC.
Agency records subsect to the request are enclosed Any applicable charge for cop 4es of the records provded and payrrent procedures are noted m the comments secton Rscords subrect to the roovest have been referred to another Federal agencybes) for revew and dwect response to you.
In www of NRC's response to the request, no further acten es being taken on appealletter dated PART ll.A-INFORMATION WITHHELD FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE C6ftam informaron in the requested records is being wrthheld from public disclosure pursuant to the FOI A esempt.ons described an and for the reasons stated m Part 11. sec-tions 9. C and D. Ang 'elened portions of the documents for which only part of the recoro is bemg withheld are bemg made available for publH: inspectson and copying m the NRC Pubec Document Room.1717 H Street. N W.. Washmgton, DC. in a folder under this FOIA number and requester name.
Comments 8806020017 080526 PDR FOIA DAY 88-107 PDR S'
Tvet. O.eECTOA D: '$ ON 08 JJS ANO etCC#DS A41 N T.C FO R M 464 r a a
d es
/
Re:
tot A. 88107 APP (NDl1 L
RECORDS MAINTAINE0 IN THE POR UNDER THE AB0yt REQUEST 8CR 0.A_,T1 OCSCRIP110N l.
3/2/88 Letter from Zech to Congressman Pickle,
Subject:
Concerns expressed by constituent, D.
Harrison of the South Texas Cancellation Campaign (2 pages; attachment to letter (3 pages).
2.
2/8/88 Letter from Newman & Holtzinger to S.
- Chilk,
Subject:
South Texas - Petition filed by GAP (4 pages).
3.
2/12/88 Letter from Government Accountability Project to L. Zech,
Subject:
South Texas worker allegations (7 pages).
4.
1/28/88 Memorandum from S. Chilk to V. Stello regarding GAP petition reouesting delay in Comission action on full power vote for South Texas plant (1 ?ane) 5.
12/4/87 Letter from B. Garde, R. Condit, E. Ottney, GAP, to Jose Calvo, HRC,
Subject:
Status of the review of STP worker allegations (3 pages).
6.
6/2/87 Memorandum from H. Prasad Kadambi, NRR, for Multiple Addresses,
Subject:
Daily Highlight for South Texas Project (2 pages).
7-12/7/87 Memorandum from Jose Calvo, NRR, for Thomas Rehm, EDO,
Subject:
Review of Government Accountability i
Project Allegations Concerning South Texas Project (2 pages).
8.
12/16/87 Memorandum from Jose Calvo, NRR, for Thomas Rehm, EDO,
Subject:
Review of Government Accountability Project Allegations Concerning South Texas Project (1 page).
9.
1/4/88 Memorandum from Jose Calvo, NRR, for T. Rehm, i
T. Murley, F. Miraglia, and D. Crutchfield,
Subject:
South Texas Project Plan for Evaluation and Resolution of Allegations Provided by the Government Accountability Project (16 pages including attachments).
10.
1/27/88 Memorandum from Jose Calvo, NRR, for T. Rehm, T. Murley, F. Miraglia, and D.
Crutchfield,
Subject:
Inspection of Government Accountability Project Allegations Concerning South Texas Project (2 pages).
I
.,_,_.-,y.._
Re:
FOI A.88-107 APPENDIX L
RECORDS MAINTAl_NED IN THE POR UNDER THE ABOVE RE0 VEST NUMBER HUMBER DATE DESCRIPTION 11.
11/24/87 Letter from T. A. Rehm, EDO, to Billie Garde, GAP,
Subject:
Confirms results of meeting which discussed allegations (1 page).
12.
1/12/88 Letter from T.
A. Rehm, EDO, to Billie Garde, GAP,
Subject:
Review by NRC team of GAP's files pertaining to allegations of safety problems at South Texas (2 pages) 13.
01/15/88 Memo to Patricia Wilder from Jo.e Calvo,
Subject:
C0llRT RE-PORTING SERVICES FOR THE S0llTH TEXAS PROJECT 1 page 14.
03/02/88 ALLEGATION PANAGEMENT SYSTEM printouts for South Texas,50-49P with Allegation Nos.NRR A-0004, 0005, 0006, 0007, 0008, 0009, 0010, 0011, 0012 It 0013 10 pages 1
i l
l
(
UNITED STATES h
,g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[
. e.
g W ASHINGT ON, D. C. 20555 E
l
%,*..+/
March 2, 1988 CHAIRMAN The Honorable J. J. Pickle United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C.
20515
Dear Congressman Pickle:
Thank you for forwarding to me the concerns expressed by your constituent, Mr. Dan Harrison of the South Texas Cancellation Campaign.
I want to assure you that the NRC treats very seriously allegations brought forward by workers at nuclear power plant sites and takes whatever action is necessary to ensure that public health and safety are protected.
The fact that an alleger wishes to remain anonymous would not cause the NRC to refuse to investigate an allegation.
However, if the alleger has not provided sufficient information to allow a meaningful review, his anonymity may effectively preclude detailed inspection and investigation of his concerns.
In the South Texas case, we could not obtain sufficient information to investigate some of the alleged concerns.
Following the Court decision denying enforcement of the subpoena for South Texas safety allegations, members of the NRC staff have worked cooperatively with representatives of the Government Accountability Project (GAP) to establish a means for obtaining as much information as possible on allegations made about construc-tion deficiencies at the South Texas Project and to protect the identities of those individuals who wanted to remain anonymous.
Once a framework for meeting these objectives was established, with GAP's full knowledge, the staff proceeded to obtain specific information regarding the allegations.
Technical experts reviewed all of the information made available by GAP, including documents and tapes of interviews with individuals.
GAP arranged, and NRC staff conducted, separate interviews to obtain more information from some of those who had made allegations.
Following this, the staff conducted an inspection at the South Texas site to determine the safety significance of the allegations.
The qualifications of the individuals performing the inspections were carefully reviewed to ensure maximum effectiveness of the inspection.
All the inspectors had sufficient experience to be able to detect the existence and nature of problems quickly.
Most had reviewed allegations at other plants.
The site inspection was completed during the week of January 18, 1988, and a report on its findings is being prepared. We will forward a copy of the report to you as soon as it becomes available.
Fo1b BBMLL nnum
.w
2-In addition to the allegations regarding the South Texas Project, Mr. Harrison makes reference to various news reports of impropriety regarding NRC's conduct of its regulatory function.
Each of these concerns has been or is being addressed within and outside NRC.
In your letter, you also requested an update as to the status of South Texas, Unit 1 operation.
Since receiving a low-power operating license on August 21, 1987, Unit I has experienced several operating problems that have delayed the startup schedule.
These include personnel operating errors, deficiencies in procedures, and the identification of several design deficiencies.
In the performance of its duties the NRC staff reviews the infornation on each problem that arises to determine how future licensing decisions would be affected, and also whether any past decisions should be changed.
Also, each problem is examined for evidence of wider areas for concern.
The current schedule for Unit 1 indicates that all the corrective actions proposed by the licensee, Houston Lighting and Power, will be completed prior to initial criticality.
The NRC staff is in the process of reviewing information from tne licensee to determine if initial i
criticality can be supported from a regulatory viewpoint.
1 I hope this information will be helpful to you in responding to 1
Mr. Harrison.
I l
Sincerely, 1
Originai signed by Lame 7ech. Jr.
Lando W.
Zech, Jr.
l l
l l
l Ref:
CR-88-32 l
I 3
Originating Offico: \\ EDO/NRR\\
.......(.. 4......
.... 'OCM OC OCM emesp...C p
..t.
....3..t
. 3.
g.....
==>
3 8
w:c roaw m oo ooiwacu or.o l
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY w u.s.a m o n -co.:
-~-..,...
JJ McKLE tom om===t. Tsus
{
WAYS AND MEANS JOINT COMurTTit ON TAXATION g,
s.,e-o.-.-
Congren of tije 1Hntteb 6tates mmo cuanws. oviaso<t n7 1" 7 L
%0115e Of Etprtgentatibtf "W
- E". '//[i 3Radington, BC 205:5 January 13, 1988 Lando W.
Zech Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Chairman Zech:
I have been contacted by the South Texas cancellation Campaign concerning the Governmental Accountablity Project (GAP) request to the National Regulatory Commission to establish a Special Investigating Team to look at the allegations made by workers at the South Texas Nuclear Project.
I understand that the Commission has refused this. request because the workers making the allegations would not identify themselves.
I can understand your reluctance on this basis; however, there have been serious statements made to my of fice by the South Texas cancellation Campaign regarding plant management.
This group alleges many violations of safety regulations during construction.
Further, I understand that many of these allegations have been well documented.
I do not pass judgement on these allegations and fully recognize the purpose of this group is to stop the STNP.
Nevertheless, serious allegations have been made.
Please let me k:now if the Commission has plans to look into any of these allegations.
Also, I would appreciate an update as to the status of this plant's operation.
I appreciate your assistance in this matter.
l l
Since y,
i
\\
I KLE JJP:peh Enclosure TMi$ STATIONERY PRINTED ON PAPER MADE WITH RECYCLIO FISER$
(
k Harrison 3400-B La Faystts Austin, Texas 78722 Novunber 16, 1987 Honorable J. J. Pickle 242 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Congressman Pickle:
I appreciate your continued efforts to monitor the status of the South Texas Nuclear Project and inquire of the Nuclear Regulatory Comission on the motions and reports that I have written you about. The copy that you sent me recently of the letter you received frcun the NRC was informative.
Your interest in this issue and the help you have given us is gratifying.
Yet the fact remains that the South Texas Nuclear Project (STNP) is nearing ecurpletion, and scme serious safety questions are unanswered. Over 50 of the very people who built it have made 650 allegations of construction problems regarding safety, cost overruns and criminal activity at the STNP. These plant workers do not trust the Nuclear Regulatory Ccanission (NRC) to adequately investigate their complaints. Many have tried the NRC only to find their inspectors unresponsive, or have seen other workers experience retaliation frcun their sployers after having gone to the NRC. For this reason, they have gone to the Government Accountability Project (GAP), a public interest law firm, for help in getting their concerns investigated while protecting their identities
/
and jobs.
G. A.P. has requested that the NRC establish a Special Investigating Team to look into the allegations at SWP, but the Comission has refused.
Your position in Congress gives you the influence to break this stalemate.
The people of Texas need these problems investigated to assure the safety of the SWP, and you can do this by requiring the NRC to establish a Special Investigating Team.
I am contacting you on behalf of the South Texas Cancellation Car:paign, an anti-nuclear power organization with over 300 members in Austin and other parts of Texas. We have long questioned the safety of construction of the STNP, and now more problems have surfaced even as the first unit of the plant nears ccznpletion.
See of the biggest doubts about STNP safety are the recently uncovered evidence of corruption and nuclear industry bias at the Nuclear Regulatory Ca:r::ission.
In December of 1986 the NRC assembled an internal 4,000-page report on regulatory activity within the 10-state NRC region (Region 4) including Texas that documented numerous inspection failures and policy violations. (See enclosed article for details) The report concluded that the regulatory function of WRC Region 4 was unreliable. Then in April of this year the Senate Governmental Affairs Comittee heard testimony of corruption at several levels within the NRC. It included an NRC inspector working at the Comanche Peak plant near Fort Worth who was harrassed by management for his critical inspection reports and a case of unethical information passing to a nuclear plant utility l
l l
l 1
--.-.,--,.y,i--
w-
-yyy g 9 e--
+-
3 g.--
--.p
(
prga 2 by a member of the Comission. (See enclosed article for details) These facts do not inspire confidence in the NRC to assure nuclear plant safety. And they reinforce the Government Accountability Project's hesitance to provide the NRC with any evidence without a Special Investigating Team.
G.A.P. began interviewing past and present workers from the nuclear plant last year. Within 6 months 35 workers had come forward with over 500 allegations of construction problems. So f ar, a total of 56 workers have testified to over 650 allegations of violations at STNP. Over 250 of the alleged violations involve safety-related construction. Tre NRC has refused G. A.P. 's request for a Special Investigating Team, but instead the NRC has subpoenaed their. lawyers and the witnesses.
G.A.P. has gone to court to fight the NRC rathh caanTurn the evidelice ovs-to NRC discretion.
G.A.P. recently r
won tre first round when a Washington judge ruled against the NRC subpoenas.
The establistrnent of a Special Investigating Team is a step that has been taken at other nuclear power plants. At the Zimer plant in Ohio, the Comanche Peak plant near Fort Worth and, previously, at the STNP, the NRC has set up such teams to hear evidence of construction problems. With the NRC's present lack of credibility this is the only way to assure an objective and fair review of the evidence. And it is the only way to assure protection of the workers' identities and protect then frca retaliation.
On behalf of all the people of Texas who must trust in the safe construction of this plant against the threat of a nuclear accident, we ask that you make a Special Investigating Team for the STNP a high priority. Please contact the NRC about this matter right away. Time is running out as STNP Unit 1 could beccme operational in a few weeks. All safety concerns must be resolved before this is allowed to happen.
We would like to meet with you on this matter the next time you are in your home district. We will contact your office to ask for an appointment. Thank you again for taking an interest in this issue.
urs trul,
'a. /' f @
Dan Harrison Spokesperson, South Texas cancellation Campaign
.t
-( G S O j)
.s NewMAN & Hot /rZ1NOER. P.d(ffpf sACn a Mcw.eAM f61S L. 5 Y a C C T. N w.
wituAu t. saan. sa DOv0LAS L Statsr0*O sownC hCH.T7eNGgn,se WASHINGTON. D C. 20036 g g g gj yg*
T F
s s A soumM 4 MT.sa Lois a huacLSTt.N.
Paul a utC" 202 955 6600 seAN m GesM f
otomotL tooAm siLLL onAmt OUlZ L*T t..
Amontw N ont(Nt.
Q(j(g** y A.,3.;,
m.ATwLIEN M sata
- ELA A LACEv 00VOL As G 0"TEN r, {. I' r 6..
.1, FRANKm UNQM J
8 mAmotLvNNcwuAN
,PAhCH arviNs.vesoN so-N T sTovoa. sm sauts a va.s>Ls serrLtcM = meccan.oTT nATM caArt A Av sc=
tv. =vL a t.
ALviN n. GUTTgmed AN gmQ m pnTTEAgQes cowaaDs Two-tv February 8, 1988 sANctavAN JAMCS S WILCOK. We pnuL J. SAeDot.
KEvim a GALLEN JACOLYN A SJMedCets TMOMAS A SCwwvY2 seosge? M goLoWoM MICHAEL F. ME ALv CMAmLgsc YM(SAUQ.JG N ANCY A WMITC*
f moe(NT t wMsTE mCSaN T, wioo Ng.
1 SCOTT A MApotAN I
sTEvtN P FRANTI
- a^$ ^'"
.o.cn LewsNsTt, sasen e ec N DON ALD J. S#LvtmMAN gants? C. SAYNAmo. m
]
sostp.eL STutss or ccMast6
- ma 4
f Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary Office of the Secreta'ry of the Commission U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 j
Re:
Houston Lighting & Power Co.,
et al.
South Texas Project, Units 1 & 2 Docket Nos. 50-498, 50-499
Dear Mr. Chilk:
Houston Lighting & Power Company (HL&P) has obtained,1f and reviewed the January 26, 1988, Petition regarding the South Texas Nuclear Project (STP) filed by the Government Accountability Project (GAP) pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206, and urges the Commission to deny it.
Section 2.206 provides an opportunity for persons to request the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to Institute action pursuant to Section 2.202.
The GAP petition is not addressed to the Director, does not seek a remedy i
f within the scope of Section 2.202 2/ and does not provide an adequate basis for the remedy GAP seeks.
Although the Commission could elect to construe the petition as addressed to its general discretion, the GAP petition is so patently l
devoid of merit that it should be summarily rejected.
-1/
The yetition was not served on HL&P, and GAP refused HL." s request for a copy.
A copy was obtained by con-tacting a media organization which had apparently been "timely served" by some party.
2/
The petition requests the Commission to delay its vote on full power authorization for STP Unit 1.
The Director does not have authority to order the Commission not i
to vote on a matter.
lO
~
LZ i
-,_ Y V u w u t ty)W w w
NRWMAx & Hot.Tztxacc. R C.
Samuel J.
Chilk, Sacratory February 8, 1988 Page Two The petition contains only the most general allega-tions regarding STP, and does not identify any specific al-legations which could constitute a basis for the relief it seeks. 3/
The GAP petition must also be evaluated in light of the organization's refusal to provide full information to the NRC and other forms of resistance to a proper investi-gation.
In view of the obdurate refusal to cooperate, which has continued for over a year, the organization is hardly in a position to criticize the Staff's handling of the allega-tions, let alone obtain the extraordinary relief it requests.
GAP's real target is the conduct of the NRC's in-vestigation; specifically that the Staff focused immediately on potentially safety-significant allegations and, in GAP's view, reached judgments too quickly.
Prompt, safety-focused investigations are, however, consistent with, and indeed required by, Commission policy.
Statement of Policy: Handling of Late Allegations, 50 Fed. Reg. 11,030 (Mar. 19, 1985).
GAP's grievance suggests that no investigation will be satis-factory unless the results confirm the organization's preju-dices.
-3/
GAP's only specific complaint is that Mr. Corder, a source of over a hundred of the GAP allegations, when brought on site to point out his concerns, was taken into Unit 2, but for security reasons, was not taken into Unit 1.
Putting aside the fact that Unit 2 is essentially identical to Unit 1, Mr. Corder had previ-ously pointed out his concerns in Unit 1.
He has previ-l ously toured Unit I with one of the NRC Senior Resident Inspectors for the purpose of pointing out his concerns.
He has also had separate tours of Unit 1 with members of the STP SAFETEAM as well as with members of the Bechtel 1
Project Management staff for the same purpose.
His concerns have been thoroughly investigated.
The results of the SAFETEAM investigation were provided to the NRC in a report submitted to NRC Region IV on Janaury 28, I
1987.
In addition, HL&P retained an independent expert from the Stone & Webster Engineering Company to review the HL&P investigation methodology and results, and the NRC Staff has also reviewed both the HL&P investiga-tion records and the independent expert's report.
N:.
w Q Hon.Tziwsse. P. C.
Samuel J. Chilk, Sacrotary February 8, 1988 Page Three For all the foregoing reasons, the petition should be summarily rejected.
Respectfully submitted, Ldf b fMMN ack R.
Newifnan
/
Attorney for Houston Lighting
& Power Company, Project Mana-ger of the South Texas Project, acting herein on behalf of itself and the other applicants, CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS, acting by and through the City Public Service Board of the City of San Antonio, CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY and CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS l
l l
(
l I
l 1
ww--:
00t.KEis
'ahn UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g pgg.g g).15 In the Matter of
)
+~'
hFricE d...'CKEhMG
)
I N HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER
)
Docket Nos.
)
50-499 OL
)
(South Texas Project, Units 1
)
and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the letter to Samuel J. Chilk from Jack R. Newman, dated February 8, 1988, have been served on the following individuals and entities by deposit in the United States mail, first-class, postage prepaid, or by arranging by messenger delivery as indicated by asterisk, this 8th day of February, 1988.
Lando W.
Zech, Jr.,
Chairman
- Ms. Billie P.
Garde U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Director of the Midwest Office Washington, D.C.
20555 Goverriment Accountability Project 3424 North Marcos Lane Commissioner Thomas M.
Roberts
- Appleton, Wisconsin 54911 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Richard E. Condit Government Accountability Project Commissioner Kenneth Rogers
- 1555 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 202 Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20036 Commissioner Frederick M.
Bernthal*
William Paton*
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Commissioner Kenneth M.
Carr*
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Secretary
- Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 bf T
/
ack R.
Newman
l t a f:-
.Y l
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT 25 E Street, N.W., Suite 700 VVashington, D.C. 20001 (202) 347 0460 February 12, 1988 Lando W.
Zech, Jr.
Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Re:
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 I
to read your statement because it has not been the experience cf 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:
\\
.()
Q-$-$2 A $ $$ &
ly
?
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 material compatibility problems o
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/Oc procedures o
lost material traceability o
invalid N-5 Code Data Report o
l The NRC's Safety Significance Assessment Team (SSAT) l recently conducted a site tour of the STNP focusing on only 60 l
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 allegatiens I
would not be resolved prior to licensing.
Consequently, the I
statement attributed to you regarding 100 percent investigation would be false.
l l
l l
l
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. Rehr in his January 12, 1988 letter to Billie P.
Garde, Esq.
A subsequent confidential review of a sample of these allegers' files by an independent 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 htrassment, intimidation and wrongdoing allegations were trousling because "it is not possible for safety requirements to be met consistently in this type of management environmeit."
This analysis reinforces our belief that the NRC has na intention of comprahensively investigating the STNP allegationn.
As another example, it is disturbing how the NRC interacted 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 l
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:
{
o Mr. John Corder was denied access to Unit I while attempting to point out safety-related problems to the SSAT.
Lando W.
Zech, Jr.
February 12, 1988 Page Four some accounts of the SSAT's site visit have incicated o
that the team was confined to Unit II.
o GAP was informed that a draft report of the SSAT's 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, however, is the additional implication that NRC is not willing to take any action that may negatively management 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 l
write a NUREG.
We assume this NUREG will follow the format of similar documents prepared at the cor.c2.usion of major allegation investigations at Waterford and Comanche Peak.
Frankly, we are shocked at the prospect of the SSAT allegation investigation effort of four days of on-site investigating serving as the basis for a NUREC document.
Given the actions of NRC management in handling the STNP allegations, we have no choice but to request an explanation regarding whether or not the NRC intends to initiate further investigation.
If the NRC believes that there is no safety significance or substantive merit to the STNP allegations, then we must advise our clients that they must seek other avenues of I
relief.
l 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 1
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, hb
%CLh (bfdl)
Billie P. Garde Director, GAP Midwest 1
Richard E. Condit Staff Attorney RC:079AA15 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 l
l l
l i
I
m 6..o n c,. 6 o a am 06e0 wC)...,marw. gs i.n. irir
.%.t. a.. M W. _y.i.g. q p Nuclear Agency Said to Lag in Seeking Out Crime
.orn.o.n,. _aa
_n_,.,,.au.pd y C_.e
_ 8 n._
r M B.w,b F_
Q
=c._..
At m W r
a
.r=
.. ~.= u t._ m.e.s.
,.m nu=t.
i M
,,. g m
- "g,gg
=, -
sr.
.= r th i as.a.r.mtal u.
m.
w
- .r=
a 4
g,.,_4.,.,,,
.r
~
=,.=.r.
._..,,,6,_w.
.u, r_u. m n.i4 u wy
,,, a.
- ar==
=.
~t, ac
.outrews.=
...u..,
im, _
.,u r,.,,.,.,,
u i cm..e.
d***
OctreNI.m
""*=.u",.,'_.,.'e",'.",
a n
, - ~.
=
outPeNI.38 I"""*'r'**u."*.' a m a
.u
===.= _e.a =.., u.
.n ma.rv.
c===..
m r.,.
m w, c* C'A'T'I.'d.#.'D n"*e
.r ru, usa i
r'y'*.
b.h.n S C_"_" ** 1."a.'riwy a"r.r"y"..".l.".**""""""5==-
.ggtgo Hui s.
N'.'=7.[$ d',j,* "'".'"s.*d_
j" '" 'Intirnidating Conduct'
'" "'S
=.
era.
- ',".,*t"l'."",,"."r.".".'"
y Ca' on r r.
n rs Cited Within Agency 0UhT111
",,,,',",,,",,,,,ll",,
,"'.,,,.:,,,, "1.',_4 r
,e..
s c._. _.g e
ators an e=..-~.
LU p,
o
'"'.****u.e.,,,,. " * ' " =
aen
.y.
_ = m. u c etr CD CS er
- .=.u.,
8**.===
n.,_
PI.* c~- cN,~
M OnSdey
- """,,",.g,,
. * =.,*,g,.,.... '.
"*. _w r...
.ir L.,
.wme l
= ' "
LTD C2 On5.
Bac of Cases
_,i,=_.. - _. w,.= =-
ne_ y n.
_.n,_a.
m,
.r=.u= = :~. -. _. r _
_= _ _ _, _.-
.m
_ _. _ - _m,_.._,._,
c.,___.__
. -. ~ -.
. : =__..
.-.:. =.
.e., : r. _._~_.=w.=,.._ -.=,..._. _. _ =_, _=:..
=__
_ _,, _.._.m____.. _.... _.
~ _, -
~
_ m_.
42 Th.
l ggg
.e.r J,_u D._, _ -
"' _Mac r
,..,_~....' C, _s._.a n,
.m
.,f.e L
e
_.h_.r, _ _ c
_gy ug.u pig r
.~.
_. - _ ~ _ _. - _. _. _. _. _..
=
tm
, ~,.,. _.,. _..
~._..._ _
~
_...,_.,r _.,
r
-_._r,.
Pursuing t eh Trvth:
=*,
- ==..,=.r-a
- =_l"".J _g
_._ 4"l'/ Critics Have Doubts m'"
^
l
""., s. _'"02 E"." N.e '".",".'J."_***'.
_ _ _'.c g,
3.i., =.' aa my Questioru or Pnormes
~
".",f f 7l'*,7',".
,,,,,,. =h.h,.Y,;.,U,k.
"'~"
. = ',. _.,,
" *" ".,,ll"JO g..
And Attitudes
=q. m. _.m. -
1
.,. _ =. - -,. =
m,,._._,
m..~.._~
,.~_.
._._e,_._.
- c.....a =_::=-=
m =s 2
_x,._=...::.:.a _,
.m = = = :._,. __,.
_. _=_.n.,,___=._-
m mo#*'"#'
kig.,.,
ys..
17"*.l",',Z._".'
AoveaTsssxaNT
?f._.m..~
~2' "Ff
_-. m,,__., w,.
m, - _
~e.-,.
7 ".
'"'"8 k.a r urc ena
. s.r
&m. 9.d C guy h. ee.
Ya "r"y 8'."
b.d
&cury M
80% W b cs.r' uT.'c".:::; :: " 1.Tra
- /f/8'7Pric' 88'-
g;:rr
- .:=::::T.'* ::
.., W.2'!* Ti."3 Or@ DAN.
i, s.r,y a
pas 4.
L=*
- z e i,r. a r. lI'*w*.* "_"". ".E.U.*.",.5 M,.'.d e"a'm"M. 'cCm"7
== jh' *** 5=*, u. s. ea*rI
.r e --
r.-
'5
a,==t s_.r i
"**," "., *.E'j _$ ",,.".._*.**.'ir.,"_"_',.,c.
e,..t o
-.5.,XX221 sei.
04AAJ.2 g
n m.n.
3,,
p.,.
w F,.br 4
.o
.e.
. s.. c.
- (tr.,
., hcar,.h lo0ZL Ph Sunera 22 93H.os. $.d s um so x<
.r
--.D y.g.,u wr.J.r
.n ur, I
i.te er.m C m.a,, c.r.u.. u.n s.e.4.s n a..u.<n r.
- r. eg re e.
d.W
.u w
.sw.Mr m.y.e.
- p.,,-
i.
.4 g
th i.n r rr.
t i.
cms o~.r >
ca.4.r.un c
hr M r C _re.,
_r _.
w.
v y l
.L e W
p
.$.h.cr n g in.4es e i 4 i r..a i.t'e.c.i e spen j;sL l
.Q s
ry b
.L r.
.ier. n I
l l
I.c8.#
ortic
.tru,.r 4 u '.Pi. c.
..d t.e n
. um ri.Al e
1h
"_", W.as *. *..
- __L t
a J
1ry.e.e r, ar..
-n..
e r 17.
.t-
"'"4
_ s,_. ]g,,
a
- .J.wr e.en
'*'***EF ".'n. rwe.ieJer v.p.r..A.ct.,PJ a.,.-
ue... e.
,,,,,T,
.a c
e, rec r
.h re
,W e
mi w.,,
6
.,,,,,,,,..pm....
I.
r, e.w.
p.i.ca.i w cw s e.6.,.'.
hPg.
.r 1 F. L*
f #.h>
%.,.r a.n.e....r g,.g c.
Ir.
,,.N.-.t,,..,-t *.,_.n ic.. f.,
rsa y rt 3 b
.p --
-e-=we-e-www-.is-.--
.---..---wo-e--
- = -, -,. -
---m---em-wwemwer-----mse.2c-er'
i Houiton Lighting Ar Power Company i
THE TEAM OF NRC INSPECTORS REVIEWING GAP ALLEG COMPLETED THEIR WORK EARLY FRIDAY MORNING, JANUARY 22.
ALTHOUGH THE FINAL REPORT WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE UNTI TIME IN FEBRUARY AND NO PRELIMINARY REPORT WAS ISSUED, WE ARE EXTREMELY PLEASED THAT THE ALLEGATIONS HAVE FINALLY B REVIEWED AND THAT NO SAFETY CONCERNS REQUIRING ADDITIONA 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-ION OF THE PLANT HAS ONCE AGAlh BEEN CONFIRMED.
9
.e- -
-m---.-
rm-
-.-v-.-.----.r- - - - -. - - - -.., -, - -
-w,m
www-.
-,.w..,
.--c..
' ~
I b
.p*"%,['t f.
UNITED STATES i
2 -
^
NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
E wass NGTON,0 C. 20555
%N s,,..... J OF rice OF THE SECRETARY January 28, 1988 i
s.
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Victor Steno, Jr.
Executive Director for stions i
FROM:
Samuel J. Chilk, Secre D
SUBJECT:
PETITION OF THE GOVERN ENT ACCOUNTABILITY I
PROJECT REQUESTING A CELAY IN THE COMMISSION FULL POWER VOTE ON SOUTH TEXAS On January 76,19fs8, my office received the attached petition of the Government Accountability Project (GAP).
The petition requests that the Comission delay voting on full power operation for the South Texas Nuclear Project until such titre as investigations recomended by GAP in the petition have been 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 22, 1988.
Attachment:
As Stated Copies:
Chairman.Zech Comissioner Roberts Comissioner Bernthal Comissioner Carr Comissioner Rogers General Counsel For kf7 noenm y
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT f
A/
'25 E Street, N.W., Suite 700
/
Wcshington, D.C. 20001 (202) 347-0460 December 4, 1987 l ~!G..,
HAND-DELIVERED Jose Calvo U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 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 confidential and that no one at the STNP site will be contteted 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 inter'ests and the interests of the allegors.
We appreciate the diligence and courtesy that the Washington-based 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 actigns and commentis of Paul O' Conner, that there may be problems with the rev'iiw'of the allegations.
We understand that Mr. O' Conner's background is in project 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_sieadline (of December 12th) would control the review instead of the substance determining the amount of effort required.
Such'diiIadlines 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.
Fo48849 5-u m.~ w
f 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 muet be read through in order to get an overall view of the pessible 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 allegation 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.
- In reviewing a file, if the alleger's intent is somewhat ambiguous, then the intewiew t p l
alleger should be questioned if,a, ep should be reviewed or the s
possible.
As we explained in the November 19th meeting, our working files were not prepared for the purpose of NRC review.
Nor can these files 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.
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 information was the subject of the NRC's subpoena.
Frankly, it 4Las 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 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.
1 i
Jose Calvo December 4, 1987 Page Three As you know, thi:.cfort has consumed.Tany 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 allegations.
We hope that you will take these comments in the constructive spirit in which they are offered.
We. trust that you will take all necessary ateps to protect the hard work that has been done by everyone to date.
Our recommendation is that you institute a conference call with us to help work out our
(.oncerns, and rectify the problems which have developed from today's H uston Chronicle article.
l Yours truly, d
Billie P. Garde Richard E. Condit FL2O 4.)
Edna P. Ottney b
079EE01 cc Tom Rehm U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Maryland National Bank Building 7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland
'~
LLju i i, sis
- a
)
e.
,[
UNITED STATES f
b NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
)
4 wouwaTon. o. c. acess
$e
\\'
- o...*
June 2, 1987 Docket Hos. 50-498 and 50-499 MEMORANOUM FOR:
T. Murley**
J. Partlow J. Sntezek F. Congel F. Miraglia*
W. Russell R. Starostecki* S. Black
- S. Varga*
B. Boger D. Crutchfield* G. Lainas L. Shao F. Schroeder C. Rossi G. Holahan S. Richardson A. Thadani W. Lanning THRU:
Jose A. Calvo, Director g4 Pro {ect Directorate - IV Div,sion of Reactor Proj ects - III, I's, Y and Special Projects FROM-N.PrasadKadambi,ProjectManager Pro;ect Directorate - IV Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, Y and Special Projects.
SUBJECT:
.g.u o,3.; DAILY HIGH,LI,q f0RJgg fgECT _ m.. y ],y))..
n.
... e x....z...,
n.
.,...- mwn...
The Government Accountability Project (GAP) has submitted on June 1,1%7 a motion and a p tition related to the South Texas Project.
The motion is related to the subpoena issued by the NRC staff to Ms. Billie P. Garde, and requests the Coseission to quash the subpoena. The motion also requests the opportunity for an oral argument.
The petition purprts to be pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 and requests establishment of "an independent investigative unit er special pro ects review team to deal with the allegations concerning the STHP." However, the petition requests that the effort should not be in any way "reviewed or in control of Mr. Stello or his staff."
~
o
.t.
/_.
y e.
7
.A 4 ; ~ ",
',, L.
o.
.."j % %; :. T h.,
gg,.
i'*'.
),4 g.
t.
a 6 *.;F.\\' 5.. = d 'c *.** h,;r.n ly-e -,.Eh-f'.
h ] $ h $ & & Nf ~5 *%%4... C,o. + '
...m..
a.
e e
^
p. '[
f June 2, 1987 The above submittals bring to three the motions submitted in recent days on South Texas.
Mr. Lanny Sinkin had submitted a motion to reopen the hearing record on May 29, 1968 (Daily Highlight on June 1, 1987). The staff attorneys 1987 as required by are prepared to respond to Mr. Sinkin% motion by June 18,TEET free OGC on the the regulations.
We are requesting gui('Lnce on response T.
GAP submittals.
J L k.
N.PrasadKadambi, Pro!V"ect Manager ProjectDirectorate-Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, Y and Special Projects cc:
W.C. Parler (OGC)
J.R. Goldberg (OGC)
+-
s -- > a. e -. w.
s m- -
......r.
,... 2
....,. 3,,, %.,%.
,,e
..v.
O g
g g9 e.
htWL C * ' '
' & ' T'$
l Q,_
f_k_,,
.,g
~
i
~
\\ MV ~
q
/p2 "8%q'o, UNITED STATES i'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{
j waswmcTON, D. C 20555
?' k.
,j December 7,1987 f
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Thomas Rehm, Assistant for Operations Office of the Executive Director for Operations FROM:
Jose A. Calvo, Director Project Directorate - IV Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, and Special Projects
SUBJECT:
REVIEW OF GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT A team of HRC staff reviewers has been reviewing allegations from concerned individuals (allegers), represented by the Government Accountability Project (GAP) at the GAP Office in Washington, D.C., since November 30, 1987.
The team consists of the following staff members:
Discipline Orcanization l
Paul O'Connor Sr. Project Manager NRR/PO4 Edward Tomlinson Electrical, Instrumentation &
NRR/PD4 Miscellaneous Romuald Lipinski Civil / Structural NRR/ESGB Jai Rajan Mechanical NRR/EMEB Richard Correia QA/QC NRR/LQAB l
Jaque Durr QA/QC Region I Patrick Milano QA/QC OE Paul O'Connor will canage, coordinate and monitor the review of the GAP allegatic.n.
1 There were initially 475 issues characterized by GAP as allegations.
This totai includes 43 issues that are classified by GAP as intimidation /hararsment.
On December 3, GAP identified 58 additional allegations that they have idsitified from their assessment of the concerned individual's statements. Allegatiota related to wrongdoing are being referred to 01.
The safety related aspects of these w -;.1gdoing allegations are included in the 47S allegations discussed l
above.
Approximately half of the allegations have been reviewed by the staff at this time.
The remaining allegations are primarily related to QA/QC and will be l
.1 viewed during the week of Cecember 7.
CONTACT:
L' P. O'Conr.or, NRR/PD-IV
/
492-94CS
$7I
-~
- - ~ ~ -
~
t-3 Thomas Rehm 2-The GAP personnel have been quite cooperative during this effort.
There are, however, a few allegations that are not yet being made available to the staff because the alleger has not yet authorized GAP to release the information concerning these allegations to NRC.
'5 i
Jose A. Calvo, Director Project Directorate - IV Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, V and Special Projects cc:
T. Murley O. Crutchfield F. Miraglia L. Shao K,1k Smith P. Kadambi DISTRIBUTION Central File PJO Reading
(.
Calvo P. O'Connor "See previous concurrence:
PO4/PM*
PO4/0 /1.C P0'Connor:sr JCalvo 12/04/87 12/ 7 /87
f I' 2;4 /, y 7,,] y ;,, p to ceo<,,9
'%j
^
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-),4 2
W ASHING TON. D. C. 20555
'o,
/
December 16, 1987
%,...../
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Thomas Rehm, Assistant for Operations Office of the Executive Director for Operations FROM:
Jose A. Calvo, Director Project Directorate - IV Division of Reactor Proje ts - III, IV, V and Special Projects
SUBJECT:
REVIEW OF GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT The NRC staff reviewers have completed their review of the initial Government Accountability Project (GAP) allegations related to the South Texas Project.
The allegations have been entered into a computerized data base to assist the reviewers in tracking and evaluating these issues.
At this time the staff is tracking approximately 700 allegations many of which are duplicates or slight variations of other allegations.
During the week of December 7, GAP representatives identified two additional batches of allegations which contain 68 new issues.
In cddition to the new allegations, one file containing 35 allegations has been withheld from the staff pending confidentiality discussions with the alleger.
Approximately one additional day will be required during the week of December 14 to complete the initial screening of these allegations.
g.j-( n h m.'
~
m e -, r l
Jose A. Calvo, Director Project Directorate - IV Division of Reactor Projects - III, l
IV, V and Special Projects l
cc:
T. Murley l
F. Miraglia D. Crutchfield T,
L. Shao
]
1 l
l CONTACT:
O P. O'Connor, NRR/PD-IV
()
I 492-9406 1
g f
4
t%/ '
d <fAAf OW l
. p o g#o, UNITED STATES 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 9
g e
WASHINGTON, D C. 20666 i
January 4, 1988
['
g
- e **
NO FEV0RANDUM F0P:
Thomas A Pehm Assistant for Operations p'_E Office of the Executive Director for Operations dh Themas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Peactor Regulation Frank J. Miraglia, Associate Director for Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Dennis M. Crutchfield, Director Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, V and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Peactor Regulation 4
FROM:
Jose A. Calvo, Director Project Directorate - IV Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, V and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
S0trTH TEXAS PROJECT (STP) PLAN FOR EVALUATION AND RESOLlRION OF ALLEGATIONS PROVIDED BY THE GOVFPNPENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT (GAP)
The plan for the evaluation and resolution of STP allegations provided by GAP is presented in Enclosure 1.
=
The NPC Safety Significance Assessment Tean (SSAT) (Enclosure 2) has completed a preliminary review of the allegations and associated materials at GAP offices in Washington, D.C., and has compiled, sumarized, and categorized them by
)
discipline or topics (see Enclosure 4).
It is importart to note that the SSAT had difficulty during its review in assessing the safety significance of many of the allegations due to the lack of specificity and detail of the identifica-tion of a particular component or system provided by the allegers (referred to by GAP as concerned individuals - Cis).
Because of the general lack of specificity of the allegations, it is imperative that the SSAT contact the allegers and determine if they can identify locations or components that exhibit the conditions that they have a concern over at STP.
This will facilitate the SSAT subsequent inspection to substantiate the concerns or determine that the concern has been setisfactorily corrected.
If an alleger cannot be contacted or if the contact yields no additional specific information to focus the inspectinn on a particular area or component, the individual allegation will be dispositioned as unsubstantiated and the general subject matter will be pursued further only if other related allegations provide some basis to assume that there is validity to the concern.
~
L 1
m w a a,,
-2 The SSAT wrote a brief description of each allegation reviewed. We feel that the subject matter used in some of the allegation descriptions might reveal the identity of the a11eger.
Thus, the GAP allegation descriptions prepared by SSAT must remain confidential until such a time that the need for the confiden-tiality of the allegers is no lonc,er required.
Enclosire 5 lists the 10 primary allegetions that the SEAT will investigate at STP. lists the secondary allegations that will also be considered along with the primary allegations due to their similarities to the primary allegations.
The preposed SSAT inspection team (Enclosure 7) are the same individuals that perforred the initial review, evaluation, and screening of the allegations.
Given the tine remaining to prepare for the inspection and the general non-specific rature of the allegations, the utilization of these experienced reviewers or inspection team nembers will greatly facilitate the effort.
GAP has been contacted and given the primary and seccndary allegation lists to allow them to contact the appropriate allegers and any others that ney provide any additional information concerning the ellegations selected for inspection.
Depending on the results of GAP contact with the allegers, the proposed tenta-tive schedule for the inspection effort will cocinence during the week of January H 1988.
Should you have any questions regarding these natters, please contact re at X27a60 8
(
W m
Jose A. Calvo, Director Project Directorate - IV Divisior ef Reactor Projects - III, IV, and Special Pro.iects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc w/ enclosures:
SSA1 Members V. Stello, EDO W. Parler, OGC J. Sniezek, NRR R. Partin, RIV W. Pussell, RI W. Johnston, RI L. Shao, NRR J. Roe, NRR
(
J. Partlow, NRR l
B. Hayes O!
l W. Briggs, OGC K. Smith, OGC l
J. Lieberman, OF R. Brady, NRR T. Martin, EDO B. rarde, GAP R. Condit, GAP
SOUTH TEXAS PPOJECT ALLEGATIONS REVIEW SAFETY SIGNIFICAFCE ASSESSMENT STATUS REPORT 1.
BACKGROUND Direct interaction between NRC staff and The Government Accountability Project (GAP) on the matter of South Texas Proiect safety concerns outside of the litigation arera, began on November 19. 1987. A meeting was held in the Office of the Executive Director of Operations (EDO), Bethesda, with Thomas A. Rehm leading the NRC staff representatives and Billie P.
Garde leading the GAP representatives.
The backdrop for this meetino was' the decision by the US District Court dated Octcher 27, 1987.
The Court had ruled to deny enforcement of a NPC subpoena on Ms. Garde because of the possibility of "abridgement of constitutionally protected associational rights."
In addition, the court stated that, "Alternatives minimizing the intrusion on associational rights must be carefully and conscien'tiously explored before resort may be had to the court's process."
Prior te the meeting of November 19, 1987, agreement had been reached between the EDO and Ms. Garde on the mein elements of a process that would provide the NRC staff limited access to infonnation which micht be of relevance in the forthcoming licensing decisions regarding South Texas Project.
Consequently on November 19, 1987, NRC staff reviewers were permitted to see brief sumaries of the allegations in the possession of GAP. An attempt was made by the technical experts present to assess the safety significance of the allegations.
Unfortunately, the infonnation made available to the staff was so lacking in specificity that no conclu-sions on safety sienificance could be reached.
In order for the NPC staff to gain access to more detailed infonnation, arrancements were agreed upon for the NRC technical sta#f to visit the GAP 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 made the allegations. The NRC staff has completed its preliminary review of the information made available by GAP as described below within the framework of agreements reached with GAP thus far.
In addition, it is understood tnat GAP has provided the Office of Investigations (01) alleca-tions of harassment end intimidation and wrongdoing.
To assure that all GAP identified allegations are reviewed and evaluated, the NRC Safety Significance Assessmeat Team (SSAT), which was assembled to perfonn tha initial review of GAP's records, will forward to 0! ell allegations that they reviewed and categorized as harassment and intimidation or vrongdoing.
/
-2 7.
INITIAL NFC STAFF REVIEW OF ALLEGATIONS An NRC team was assembled, referred hereinafter as the SSAT (sefety sicnificance assessment team), to review GAP records of interviews with allegers (referred by GAP as concerned individuals (CIs)) and individual allegations that GAP enumerated from the interviews.
Enclosure P presents i
the NRC SSAT participants as well as the disciplines that were involved in l
this initial review of GAP's allegations documentation. As agreed, t'RC SSAT reviewed GAP's records at GAP's offices in Washington D.C.
These records consisted of audio tapes of most of the interviews conducted by a GAP consultant with the CIs, the consultant hand-written text extrapolated from the tapes, and allegation data sheets that contained each allegation's unique alpha-numeric code and a brief description of the concern.
The GAP consultant's hand-written text was assembled in numbered files which contained reference materials related to allegations. There are approximately 30 files with varying quantities of text and reference materials and two-3 ring binders containino the 576 individual allegation data sheets. GAP has categori7ed the allegations into the following areas:
safety-related, intimidation end harassment, wrongdning, and non safety-related. presents the categorization and designa-tion of allegations used by GAP.
The NAC initial screening was perfomed by NRC SSAT members with expertise in particular areas of concern: mechanical enoireering, electrical engineering, civil / structural engineering, Ouality Assurance and Control, and management (including the safety-related aspects derived from harassment and intimidation, and wrongdoing concerns).
The GAP consultant was available to the team to explain where and how the records were kept and assembled end to answer any questinns for the team.
SSAT mwbers reviewed each allegation, its associated interview text and reference :raterial file in their area of expertise. Screenirg also included Itstening to selected audio tapes to verify the accuracy of the written text extrapolated from them.
The results of the SSAT review and initial screening were docurented and identified by allegation number.
Each SSAT member wrote a brief description of each allegation as identified by GAP's consultant and indicated if the concern appeared to be safety-related or non safety-related.
Also, SSAT members noted if other disciplines may be involved with a particular allegation and whether the CI needs to be contacted for additional infortnation.
Generally, the SSAT's initial screening determined that a large naiority of the allegations lacked specificity in identifying a particular location, component, or system about which the CI was concerned.
The individual SSAT r'eeber's data was combined and recategorize into allegation groups: Mechanical; Flectrical; Civil / Structural; OA/0C; Parassment and Intimidation; Wrongdoing; NRC Region IV; and P.anacement
' issues.
Each category has several subsets that was used to specify nore closely, issues that each allegation appears to be addressing.
Enclosure 4 identifies the allegation groups used by the NRC SSAT.
3.
COMPILING ALLEGATION DATA A brief sumary was prepared for each allegation that was made availeble by GAP. Three files containing approximately 50 allegations have been withheld by GAP due to confidentiality concerns on the part of the alleger.
The allegation sumaries have been entered into a computerized data base along with the SSAT's preliminary categorization of the safety significance of the allegation, the grouping of comon or similar allegations, and detennination whether the alleger murt be contacted to provide specific inferration needed by the SSAT to detertnine the safety significance of the allegatfor.
GAP's initie.1 categorization of these allegations listed duplicate concerns under different review disciplines.
Because of this, the SSAT initfelly had to consider approximetely 700 concerns.
When these duplications were reconciled there were 576 concerns, representing the same nunber of allegations, identified by GAP.
Of these,159 concerns are variations of an initini concern relating additional facets of the original concern such as possible documentation problems, or intimidation or harassment related to or caused by the initiel concern.
The remaining concerns have been combined into groups with similar cer.cerns f allegations) and will be revieved together to assure that the magnitude of each issue is recognized and that comon concerns are detected.
- Also, the grouping of the concerns will ensure a certain degree of protection of the identity of allegers.
In addition, GAP will advise whether the allegations withheld from NRC review because of reasons of confidentiality or because they involved members of the NPC staff, are covered by the establishd NRC SSAT allegation groups.
The NPC allegation (concern) grouping scheme is shown in Enclosure 4 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 detertnined whether they could affect criticality or pcwer ascension either because these operations could represent unacceptable safety risks due to the alleger's concerns or because the allegation would be uninspectable after the plant starts up.
Following this, the most safety significant allegations will be identified and reviewed in detail by the SSAT.
Pecause there is very little specificity included in the GAP allegations, it it. imperative that the SSAT :ontact the allegers and ask then to identify specific locations, systems, or components that exhibit the con-ditiers that they allege to exist at South Texas Pro,4ect so that the staff can substantiate the allegers concern or conclude that the concern has been satisfactorily corrected.
4 ALLEGATIONS SELECTED FOR SITE INSPECTIONS 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 similarities to the primary allegation.
Out of the 576 GAP allegetions enumerated, only those 16 concerns identified in Enclosure 6 as "specific" can be tied to a specific location, system, or component.
The rest refer only in general temQo items of concern.
It is therefore imperative that the SSAT centact the allegers in the remaining concerns to obtain enough specific infomation to conduct a detailed review.
Some of the GAP's allegers will require that a confidentiality agreement be completed by NRC before they agree to deal with us.
If an alleger cannot be contacted or if the cor. tact yields no additional '
specific information to focus the investigation or a particular system, component or location, the individual allegation will be dispositioned as unsubstantiated and the general subject matter will be pursued further only if other related allegations provide some basis to assure that there is validity to the concern.
In addition to the SSAT inspection on site, other sources of infom'ation such as Regional irspection reports pertaining to the resolutfor of South Texas Pro.iect allegations, PRR inspections data and safety evaluation reports, the licensee's SAFETEAM records, ard other documentation that currently exists will be reviewed to detemine whether they provide ary additicnal infonnation related to an alleger's concern. These supplemental investigations will not focus explicitly on an individual alleger's corcern, they will also include other unrelated issues such that the alleger's identity will be protected, if recuired.
5.
SSAT INSPECTION ROLE The SSAT will inspect the selected GAP allegations at the South Texas Project (STP) site.
The SSAT consists o# experts in construction and t
inspection activities in nuclear power plants.
The proposed organiretion o' the NRC inspection team, as well as the inspectors names and their assignments are presented in Enclosure 7.
The staff selected for the inspection team are the same individuals that perfomed the initial review, evaluation, and screening of the allegations. Given the time remaining to prepare for the inspectior and the general non-specific nature of the allegations, the use of these experienced reviewers as inspection team members will greatly facilitate the effort.
A major concern o' 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 agreerents with the allegers, l
l l
l l
i
In addition, the inspection plan vill consider combinirp other related or unrelated concerns with the selected GAP allegations to ensure that the substance of the allegations does not reveal the idertity of these allegers reauesting confidentiality.
A detailed inspection plan will be prepared by the SSAT leader and its deputy with assistance from the team members.
Inspector guidance will be established prior to the comencement of the inspection to assure consis-tency in the inspection process.
Errphasis will be placed on root cause detenninations of any substantiated ellegations including the identifica-tion of any gereric implications.
To further facilitate the selected allegation resolution process the SSAT will utilize available Region IV inspection repnrts on disposition of allegations, as well as any NRR inspection reports and safety evaluation reports for FTP, The fo11 ewing tentative schedule is proposed for this inspection effort:
December 28, 1087 - January 1, 1988
- Initial planning
- Selection of GAP allegations to be inspected
- Selection of inspection term members
- Present identified allegations to be inspected to GAP (All the above actions have been cornpleted)
January 4 - 8, 1988
- Detailed inspection planning and inspector guidance preparation
- Arrangements with GAP to contact allegers January 11 - 15, 1988
- Interview allegers if NPC is successful in arranging irterviews threugh GAP
- Tentative start of onsite inspection depending on number of allegers to be interviewed January 18 - 22, 1988
- Onsite inspection of selected allegationt January 25 - 76, 1988
- Sumary of allegation inspection results January 25 - February 3, 1988 i
- A11egetion inspection report preparation February 1, 1988
- Tentative Cernrission briefing on full power license for STP, Unit 1
-r
1 l
Fnclosure ?
1 SOUTH TEXAS PPOJECT ALLEGATIONS NPC SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE ASSESS!4ENT TEAM (SSAT) PFMBERS INVOLVED IN THE INITIAL REVIEW OF GAP RECORDS MEMBER ORGANIZATION DISCIPLINE Paul O'Connor PD-IV/NRR Project Panager Edward Tomlinson PD-IV/NRR Elec., Inst. & Misc.
s'ai Pajan EMEB/NRR Mechanical Pomuald Lipinski ESGB/NRR Civil /Structurel Hansraj Ashar ESGB/NRP Civil / Structural a(
Jeove Durr Region I QA/QC Patrick Milano OE 0A/0C Richard Correia LQAB/NRR OA/0C Georoe Johnsor FFTB/NRR Welding Jose Calvo PD-IV/NPR Project Director
. ~
SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT ALLEGATIONS l
GAP ALLEGATION CATEGORIZATION AND DESIGNATION SECTION*
DISCIPLINE CATEGORY ALLEGATION RELATED ALLEGATION %
I - Safety Related A-Pipir.g/ Mech / Inst
- a. Hardware 0001 -9999**
.1,
.2,
.3, etc.
B-Electrical II - Intimid/ Harass.
C-Civil / Structural D-HVAC
- b. Doc./Drwgs.
III - Wrongdoing E-Engr / Design c.
Insp./ Testing F-Procurement /Purchas IV - Non-Safety Rel.
G-Equipment Qualif.
- d. Other H-Fire Protection I-QA/QC/M-5/ Systems Completion J-E'elding K-Safety / security L-HP M-Seismic & Environmental EXAMPLES N-Generic (all disc) 0- Personnel I A a - 0001= Safety related/ Piping /hardwa?
P- !!-7agement specific allegation number Q-Training R-NRC S-Safeteam l
T-E8ASCO I A b - 0001.1 (same), subset documentation U-HL&P V-S.C & T/0 W-ANI X-Qualification of Personnel Y-Bechtel Z-Document Control Note:
NRC allegation numbers use Arabic numbers 1 through 4 rather than Roman numerals to facilitate use of a computerized data base.
Allegation numbers are cross referenced to actual GAP allegation nbaber.
SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT ALLEGATIONSS NRC SSAT ALLEGATION GROUPS A.
MECHANICAL AND PIPING 1.
PIPING A.
Pipe C.
Coafiguration B.
Hydro D.
Chloride Contamination 2.
VALVES A.
Limitorque C.
Missing B.
Ins'ta11ation 3.
MATERIALS A.
Traceability
(.,; ~.
B.
Compatability 4.
bkb A.
Procurement C.
Fabrication B
Installation D.
Testing 5.
SESIMIC QUALIFICATION 6.
FASTENERS A.
Counterfeit / Foreign 7.
WELDING A.
Weld Rod C.
Welder ID B.
Qualifications D.
Traceabilitv 0.
OTHER B.
ELECTRICAL 1.
SPLICES A.
Raychem 2.
CABLE AND CONOUIT 3.
INSTRUMENTATION
% 4.
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION 0.
OTHER
2 C
CIVIL / STRUCTURAL 1.
CONCRETE
__., 2.
SOILS 3.
COATINGS 0.
OTHER D.
QA/QC 1.
DESIGN CONTROL 2.
PROCUREMENT 3.
DOCUMENT CONTROL 4.
QC INSPECTION A.
Inspection Records B.
Travellers C.
Hold Point D.
Authorized Nuclear Inspector E.
NCRs 5.
ASBUILT vs DESIGN 6.
SYSTEM TURNOVER 7.
FSAR/ SPECIFICATIONS 8.
PROCEDURES 0.
OTHER E.
HARRASSMENT & INTIMIDATION (SAFETY RELATED ISSUES ONLY)
F.
WRONG DOING (SAFETY RELATED ISSUES ONLY) i G.
NRC H.
MANAGEMENT 1.
HL&P 2.
BECHTEL 3.
EBASCO 4.
INTEP. MECH 5.
PERSONNEL PRACTICES l
6.
TRA?NING 7.
SAFITEAM 0.
OTHER i
0.
OTHER l
---..n
S0llTH TEXAS PROJECT ALLEGATIONS PRIMARY Al. LEGATIONS SELECTED FOR INSPECTION 1.
Fechanicel Piping 1Aa-0560 - CI concerned with the quality of pipe joints.
II.
Valves - 1Aa-0563 - CI coecerned that many valves are installed backwards III.
HVAC - Ida-0356 - CI concerned with adequacy of HVAC welds.
IV.
Fasteners - IFa-0082 - CI concerned that counterfeit fasteners are installed at STP.
V.
Welding - 1Ja-0130 - CI concerned with the adequacy / quality of weld -
red used at STP.
VI.
Electrical Cable / Instrumentation - 1Ra-0119 - CI concerned with the adequacy of Raychem splices at STP.
VII.
A) Civil / Structural 1Ca-0638 - CI concerned with concrete drilling through rebar.
E)
ICa-0494 - CI concerned with crack in bottom of fuel handling building.
VIII.
Cnatings - 10a-0059 - CI concerned with coatings used on the structures and equipment.
IX.
0A/QC - iia-06nt.1 - CI concerned with "as built" vs. "as designed" configuratiens of valves.
X.
NRC/ Region IV - 1Aa-0554 - CI called NPC several times cencerning certair problems and had no return response.
l l
l l
l l
l
,, g f. g. j, I -I d 5+.'*
'rL \\
4 Enclosurg S0llTH TFXAS PROJECT ALLEGATIONS SECONDARY ALLER,ATIONS CATEGORY - MECHANICAL / PIPING A11ecation No.
Description 1Aa-0560 Deficient Pipe Joints 1/e-0162 Pipe to Tank Connections 1Ba-0307 Filter Screens in NSSS Loop - Specific (sp.) d IEg-0754 Installation of Pumps Valves, Instruments 1Pa-0279 Installation of Purps, Valves, Instruments 1Ea-0556 Insta11atinn of Pumps. Yalves Instruments 1Ga-314 Steam Generator Installation (sp.)
1Ea-0556 Inste11ation of Pum Pipe Paterials (sp.ps, Valves, Instruments 1Ea-0432
)
VALVES 1Aa-0563 Valve Installation (See 1Ep-0754 above) 1Aa-0081 Valve Paintenance (sp.) y 1Ga-0305.1 Valve Installation 1Aa-0445 Valve Installation MATEPIALS (Covered under other categories)
HVAC 1Ca-0046.1 Puctwork Welds 1Da-0109 HVAC Installations 10a-0117 HVAC Material Traceability IDa-0296 HVAC Installations 1Da-0337 HVAC Seal Material (sp.) /
10a-0356 HVAC Welds 1Da-0450 HVAC Damper (sp.)
1Da-0504 HVAC Material 1Ah-0714 HVAC Inste11ation IMc-0619 (See 1Da-0296)
2 FASTENERS Allegations No.
Description 1Aa-0036 Bolts Installation 1Fa-0048 Bolt Traceability 1Fa-0084 Bolt Traceability iia-0387 Rolt Installation 1Fa-0011 Bolt Traceability IFa-0082 Bolt Traceability (sp.)
iia-0082 Bolt Traceability 1Ya-0087 Bolt Traceability 17e-0132 Bolt Traceability 1Fa-0164 Bolt Traceability IFa-0488.1 Bolt Traceability WELDING IJa-0104 Weld Rod Traceability 10a-130 Weld Rod Tracerbility 1Xt-0571 Welders 1Ja-0687.1 Welders (sp.)
1Da-0170 Welders 1la-0107 Welders 1Ja-0354.2 Welders idb-0053 Welders 1J6-0064 Weld Rod Traceability ELECTRICAL IAC COMPONENTS 1Ba-0110 Cable Installations 1Ba-0175 Cable Insta11atfors 1Ba-0449 Cable Installations 1Ba-0008 Cable Inste11ations 12a-0409 Cable Insta11atiens 1Aa-0126 Incore Instrumentation 1Ea-0465 Shielding for Panels (sp.)
1Aa-0566 Instrument Valves (sp.)
1Aa-128 Flow Transmitter Installation (sp.)
CIVIL / STRUCTURAL l
1Ca-0638 Concrete Drillina 1Ca-0494 Concrete Settlements (sp.)
i ICc-Olla Fill 2Id-0121.1 Fill
3 C0ATINGS Allegation No.
Description 1Ga-0059 Coating Traceability / Application (sp.)
QA/QC IId-0040 Configuration Control 1Fb-0094 Configuration Control l-11a-0601.1 Configuration Control i
1Eb-0612 Configuration Control iib-0705 Configuration ' Control iib-0751 Confieuration Control 1Db-C090 Records 1Ga-314 S. G. Inspection IEb-159 Pipe Whip Restraint Inspection 1Eb-0159.2 Pipe Whip Restraint Inspection 1Ja-0254 FVAC Weld Inspection 1Eb-061?
Support Installation Inspection 1Ab-0174 HVAC Installation Inspection ICb-0638.1 Concrete Orilling Inspecticn NRC/r,IV 1Sd-0267.1 Confidentiality 1Aa-0554 Deficiencies (sp.)
iia-0555 Deficiencies (sp.1
SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT ALLEGATIONS NRC SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT TEAM (SSAT)
PROPOSED FOR INSPECTION EFFORT Administrative Project Director Team Leader (T.L.)
Support J.A. Calvo J. Durr PD4/NRR F~
Region I 1 Person Deput y Region IV Project Manager Team Le ader (DTL)
Support P. O'Connor - Lead R. Correi3 1 Person P. Kadambi - Alt.
LQAB/NRR PD4/NRR i
AREAS STAFF NRR Mechanical Support j
- Piping J. Rajan (EME8/NRR)
L P. Kadambi
- Valves J. Rajan i
- HVAC E. Tomlinson (PD4/NRR P. Milano (0E)
OGC j
- Fasteners-J. Rajan Support
- Welding _
G. Johnson (EMTB/NRR)j
' 8/// p g
1 Lawyer Electrical--
- Cable-E. Tomlinson
- Instrumen-tation--
K. Naudu (DRIS/NRR)
Civil /Struc-tural R. Lipinski (ESGB/NRR)
- Concrete--
R. Lipinski Coatings R. Lipinski QA/QC-P. Milano T. L.
D.T.L
. S\\ f)O UNITED STATES
! 'l; <
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
Wb B
i wAsmuorow. o. c. 20sse January 27, 1938 MEPOPANDUM FOR:
Thomas Rehm, Assistant 4
for Operations Office of the Executive Director for Operations Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Frank J. Miraglia, Associate Director for Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Dennis M. Crutchfield, Director Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, Y and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
Jose A. Calvo, Director Project Directorate - IV Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, V and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
INSPECTION OF GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PR0i1ECT ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT The NRC Safety Significance Assessment Team (SSAT) has completed its inspection of selected Government Accountability Project (GAP) allegations at the South Texas Project facility. The onsite inspection was conducted from January 15 l
through January 22, 1988.
The inspection was performed by twelve inspectors of the NRC SSAT and also involved Region IV and resident inspector personnel who provided background information related to previous inspection activity and interfaced with the i
Houston Lighting and Power (HL&P) personnel to facilitate the NRC SSAT's l
inspection efforts.
HL&P's personnel were cooperative and helpful in assuring that the NRC SSAT's l
reouests for information and access to systems and components were promptly accomodated. HL&P provided access to their SAFETEAM records to assist the NRC SSAT's efforts.
l During the inspection the NRC SSAT held telephonic interviews interviews with l
ten allegers and face to face interviews with two allegers who are represented by GAP. The interviews were arranged by GAP and a GAP representative was on the telephone with each of the allegers during the telephone interviews, l
GAP was very cooperative in assisting the NRC SSAT in obtaining additional specificity and details from the allegers during these interviews. The additional infonnation helped the NRC SSAT focus their inspections on the specific areas of the allegers concerns.
l M88HD7 L /o l
fQ 9
N
. o 2
The NRC SSAT's main focus was the inspection of the primary and secondary alle-gations previously selected in the NRC SSAT's inspection plan.
During the inspection a number of related allegations were also dispositioned by the NPC SSAT due to their similarity to primary or secondary allegations.
No items were identified during the inspection that require innediate corrective action prior to plant criticality.
A sumary report of the inspections findings is scheduled to be available by January 29, 1988 and the complete inspection report will be available three weeks after the completion of the sumary report.
m Jose A. Calvo, Director Pro.iect Directorate - IV Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, V and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ec:
V. Stello W. Briggs J. Sniezek B. Newlin R. Martin J. Taylor J. Gilliland l
i i
l l
l i
I l
l
DISTRIBUTION:
NOV 2 4 C7 vstello Jealvo P[A Ms. Billie Pirner Garde JTaylor ggs 4
Government Accountability Project TRehm Midwest Office EDo r/f DCrutchfield 3424 Marcos Lane Appleton, Wisconsin 54911
Dear Ms. Garde:
This will confinn the results of our meeting of Thursday, November 19,1987, at which we discussed certain allegations GAP has developed concerning the South Texas nuclear power plant.
The meeting began by your tabling a series of talking points concerning your view of the objectives of the meeting, as well as a sumary of how GAP handles allegations received. We found the discussion useful, but neither agreed nor disagreed to the points you raised.
You retained all copies of the briefing notes.
You then proceeded to table a tabulation of allegations in sumary fomat (all copies of which you retained) which we reviewed on the spot.
Our conclusion was that insufficient data was available in the summaries to allow for a deliberate and reasoned evaluation of the allegations.
In further discussion you agreed to make your files on these allegations available to us.
Subsequent to the meeting staff has made a preliminary visit to GAP lieadquarters and made arrangements to begin detailed review of the process on November 30, 1987. We will accord confidential treatment to the identity of any allegers whose names may surface during this review.
Following our review, we will advise you of the allegations which we feel are appropriate to review further.
You agreed to provide us data on which such follow up can proceed, subject, in some cases, to your contacting allegers to assure that they will agree to be contacted by the NRC.
You also indicated that one set of allegations was in process. in Wisconsin.
We i
assume that you will simply provide us that information durino the time we are
~
reviewino the other files at GAP Headquarters.
Separately, I also understand l
you passed some allegations on wrongdoing directly to the Office of Investigations which is dealing directly with you on those matters.
The meeting was quite satisfactory from our point of view. We appreciate your confidence and cooperation and that of the allegers you represent.
With your continued cooperation we should be able to give a proper review of the l
allegations GAP has acquired. Needless to say, obtaining any infonnation which you may have on alleged defects in the South Texas nuclear power plant will l
assist us in assuring that the public health and safety is protected at that facility.
Sincerely, 7
i
- Signed) 7. A Reh=
f
'p,6 W ) #,'
g,{ Office of the ExecutiveT. A. Rehm, Assistant for Op Q,
0-pA pMp p
, jG]
Director for Operations da
~
...: h# '.V :-.d -f.d.5
)FC
- A0/0EDO.
i.....:....
2--- :: D.
3--------....:-----....--:....---.....:......--...
M
- p M
LAME :TRehm
..... :......... - :...... 7-... : - -..a,...- g- - : -... - - - - - - - - :............ :........ - - - - : - - - - - - - - - - -
@/d :
t ) ATE :11/23/87 l
l OFFICIAL RECORD COPY l
MNOM D
t 9..k &
[
jo, UNITED STATES 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
~f
.(
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 r
h..C#/
JAN 111988 Ms. Billie P. Garde Government Accountability Project 3424 N. Marcos Lane Appleton, Wisconsin 54911
Dear Ms. Garde:
As you are aware, the NRC team has completed its initial review of the Government Acceuntability Project's (GAP) files pertaining to allepations of safety problems at the South Texas Project. As agreed, the NRC team reviewed GAP's records at GAP's Headquarters in Washington, D.C.
These records consisted of audio tapes of the interviews with the allegers (concerned individuals),
hand-written text extrapolated from the tapes accompanied with supporting information, and allegation data sheets that contained the alpha-numeric identification and brief description of each allegation.
As agreed, all the records examined by the NRC remained at GAP's Headquarters. During this initial review, the NRC team focused on the technical content and specificity of the alleghtions and there was no need to involve the concerned individuals at this time. The NRC team wrote brief descriptions of each allegation reviewed which are presently being treated as confidential.
As we discussed on December 30, 1987, the NRC team has selected 10 primary allegations for investigation at the South Texas Project site.
Each primary allegation is accompanied by secondary allegations that convey similar concerns as the primary one. A listing of these selected allegations was provided to Mr. Richard E. Condit of GAP.
The NRC team has determined that the data reviewed indicates that the allegations are general in nature and not of innediate safety significance.
Nevertheless, we would like to pursue the 10 selected allegations further.
In order to do this, it is important to make arrangements with the concerned individuals involved so that the NRC team can contact them and determine if they can identify locations or components which concern them. This letter is to confirm NRC's previous verbal arrangements with GAP to arrange contacts with allegers. We will start the onsite inspections at the South Texas Project Site during the week of January 18, 1988 and desire to make contact with your clients as soon as possible.
The NRC tean will protect the identity of those concerned individuals requesting it and will draw-up confidentiality agreements with the concerned individuals, if reouired. In addition, the NRC team inspection plan will consider combining other related or unrelated concerns with the selected GAP allegations to ensure that the substance of the selected allegations does not reveal the identity of the concerned individuals requesting confidentiality.
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.
RE-1 1
'z ww a v
a Ms. Billie P. Garde With regard to the notice of appeal from the U.S. District Court's refusal to enforce the original NRC subpcena for certain safety information 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.
Should you have any questions regarding these matters, please contact me at (301) 492-7781.
Sincerely, (signed) T. A, Rehm Thomas A. Rehm, Assistant for Operations Office of the Executive Director for Operations
Enclosure:
As stated DISTRIBUTION Central File PD4 Reading J. Calvo, NRR D. Crutchfield, NRR W. Briggs, OGC T. Rehm, EDO V. 'tello, EDO W. Parler, OGC T. Murley, NRR F. :iiraglia, NRR L-46-Snith, OGC R. Brady, NRR R. Condit, GAP ED0 r/f
- crE FREVIOUS CONCURRENCE PD4/D OGC/S OED0/A0 JCalvo*
WBriggs TRehm 01/11/88 01/ /88 01/d?'/88
OFFICE OF PUBLIC UTILITY COUNSEL
,, ~
,, m
% cam February 10. 1988 f1tfEDOM OF INFORMAT10M
[AC.T,REQUESTdZA ' F # "
Mr. Donnie H. Grimsley, Director Division of Rules and Records g 1.g 4/h / [
Of fice of Administration and Resources Management U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Re:
F0IA 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 Commission'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
,,afety 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 Of fice 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 g g yl1 y ; p 7.tgestass a w v.w.s.no tn..nrer sts an,s.a.ntaa sw me n.<c
..-e 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.
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 appreciated.
Sincerely,
[afV4nt0='b!
Barbara Day Deputy Public Counsel B0:id I
_ _ _. _ _ - _ _ _ _