ML20196H485
| ML20196H485 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 12/04/1987 |
| From: | Condit R, Garde P, Ottney E GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT |
| To: | Calvo J NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20147H733 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8803110052 | |
| Download: ML20196H485 (4) | |
Text
_
a, w
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT 25 E Street, N.W., Suite 700 >
2 Washington, D.C. 20001; G02) 347 0480 December 4,
1987 EAND-del,IVERED 1
Jose Calvo D.S. Nuclear. Regulatory Comalesion p.
7920 Norfolk Avenue r
Wh1111ps Building sethesda, Maryland 5*
Dear Joser
['.
We are writing :to discuss the status of the review of the.
South Texas Nuclear Project (STMP) worker' allegations..This
[
review follows our preliminary meeting.of November.19th.
In that meating it was agreed that 2 team of non-Region IV,NRC personnel..
g 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 thatino one at the STNP: site will.be contacted about the informationsrevealed during the review.
In addition, it was agreed that the allegers' information would only i
be revealed to NRC need-to-know basis. personnel not participating in the review on a The. development of this working protocol was t
necessary to permit NRC review while protecting our interests and g
the interests of the allegers.
C We appreciate the dill'gence and courtesy.that the.
Washington-based NRC personnel have exhibited in working at our 5
office.
We have tried to work closely with them to allow the p
review to proceed as efficiently as possible.
p.
{
sewever, 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'revieweef the allegations.
We.
understand that Mr. O' Conner's background is in project management, notiQ4/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 etfort required.
violate 10 CFR 50, Appendix a, criterion I. Such deadlines may.
We are aware of i
STNP's licensing schedule, but we must strongly object to this review being controlled by any licensing timetables.,
8803110052Ogggj]9g PDR ADOCK O PDR P
e
1 Jose Calvo December 4, 1987 j
Page Two i
As we have. already discussed, it is *Maential.that.the.
.allegers' flies receive a detailed QA analysic.
Each file must be read through in order :to get can overall view of :the possible CA/DC 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 minimise the significance of some.
allegations before the reviewer.could analyse it.in its entirety..
This approach may, prevent the reviewer.from. making:an independent assessment of an allegation based on.his technical, expertise.i This concerns us because.the initial reviewtof the.
c' allegations will determine the universe of inJormation from which 5
the NRC can investigate.? Therefore,'.it is important that Ao h.
allegation 1s dismissed too.quickly.!
In reviewing :s filed if the alleger's intent is somewhat i
/m ambigusus,'then the interviewitapes should be reviewed or.the b
i alleger should be questioned if.possible.. As we. explained in the jb, g,
November 19th meeting,'our working filsa were not prepared for the purpose of NRC review.
Nor man these files take the place.cf a tecnnical 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.
.c assessment of any allegation.i k.
Another issue that troubles us is that411ttle, if any, f
attention is being of the allegations.given.to the documentation that supports some..
t This is ironic because:the su information was.the subject-of the NRC's subpoena.pporting Frankly, it has always ibeeniour concern that the.amC was not : interested in.
these documents but only wanted to review.our summaries, which.
may.not be technically. complete.: We' realise 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 werd unable to prepare previously., We advised you that some. files had not been. completed at the November 19th meeting., No one free NRC objected when we indicated that there would be a delay in.
producing these allegations.
Yesterday, upon our sentioning that the additional ellegations were prepared, Mr. O' Conner stated that it may not se possible to review thesc allegations.because 4
some members of the technical; review team have already completed their review and could not Return. '
\\
i
--. ~ -..s
w.
Jose Calvoi December 4e 1987 Page Threei
,1... j' i
As you know, this effort has consumed many hours and other resources -- which are extrersely limitid.
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 prope(ly. review these allegations.
a, We hope that you will take these cosmeents in the constructive spirit in.which they are offered.
will take all necessary steps;to protect the hard work that hanWe. trust that you been done by everyone to date.
inatitute a conference call.with us to help amek iout ourOur recommendation is th concerns, and rectify the problems.which havs developed.from, b
today's souston : Chronicle article. e E
Yours truly, A),,Y f
\\
31111eer. Garde i h
i Richard II. Condit L
r Edna:r. Ottney
(
!~
F.
079EE01 cc:
Tom.mehm-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Maryland National Bank.Su11 ding :
7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland 4
i 4
f
g eO M
e 4
enomoe M e
.mo 4
i l
l s
e em m e
+4%
a J
i a
ge w g
=9 9
- 1 i
e r
'PW e
4 e
EXIIRIT.- E L 9
g
.e e
'M M
F
-4
[
we
=
e e 4
0 as 14
+
't-e 1.
l t
j
-4 e
I l
a l
4 eq y
_ m
.e
+.= ab W=W
-e ee W'M eO
- -.. =
-*== -**+=
u
,