ML20198B166
| ML20198B166 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 04/25/1983 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTOR & AUDITOR (OIA) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20198B158 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-584 NUDOCS 8605210550 | |
| Download: ML20198B166 (6) | |
Text
,,9 '* %S.,
', p,,J...
3 UNITE 3 STATES v.
g N aCLEAR REGULATURY COMMISSIOl'
';/
. E E
WASHINGTIN. D. C. 20555
- b
%, =..../
Office of Inspector and Auditor CASE
SUMMARY
TITLE: Catawba Nuclear Power Station -
File No.:
Review of NRC Handling of Allegations Date Opened:83-52 4/25/83 Investigator:
P. McKenna,Jr.d 9 O
/
/ M 4d(,/'
'/
NRC REGION: II SITE:
Catawba Nuclear Power Station Inspection:
Investigation:
(criminal-integrity-EED-Other)
Review:
LICENSEE:
Duke Power & Light CONTRACTOR:
ALLEGATION:
Government Accountability Project (GAP), assisting the Palmetto Alliance, advised NRC of "... serious questions about the NRC's oversight of problems that have been brought to the attention of both the resident and regional inspectors and investigators.
b DATES:
SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS 4/21/83 Billie Garde, GAP, lte to Hayes,0I, and O'Reilly, R.II, advising of GAP request for response re stated concerns at Catawba.
4/29/83 Hayes to Cummings memo referring matter to 0IA. Cummings to Commissioners memo advising OIA will review the matter.
5/6/83 Memo to file summarizing investigation to date.
5/18/83 Memo to file summarizing OIA/ GAP conversations on 5/7/83.
9/9/83 Memo to file re OIA (McKenna) meeting w/0I (Fortuna) re info related by GAP (Garc 5 9/14/83' GAP ltr to NRC Commissioners requesting "...that NRC.take immediate action to
~
Pr protect the future health & safety of public in and around the Charlotte, N.C.
area". The 46 page GAP ltr & voluminuous enclosures was provided to 0IA who was m
listed as an addressee.
o e g$@ 9/22/83 Cummings to Hayes memo advising of McKenna/ Garde conversation on 9/14/83 relating ga information re subject investigation.
mm Qg@10/6/83 Garde ltr to Chairman Palladino re NRC treatment. of GAP ltr of 9/14/83 being g
treated as a petition pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206.
10/11/83 McKenna/ Bowers meeting w/ Jim Stone,IE, re response to. GAP concerning 10 CFR 2.206 petition.
o g m.n.$5 4 u E-l.
M e.u.
Fo u+ e s - 5 P Q khcb
l page.2, Catawba 83-52 10/14/83 Director, IE, ltr to GAP (Garde) officially advising that GAP ltr of 9/14/83 be treated by NRC staff as a request for action in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206 10/20/83 OIA memo to Commissioners providing status of OIA investigation.
12/1/83 Investigation reassigned to G. Mulley.
12/15/83 Completed review of the allegations presented by GAP concerning Catawba. Prepared investigative plan.
1/5/84 Interviewed Bille Garde re GAP allegations presented in letters to the Commission.
1/10/84 Obtained transcripts from ASLBP hearings re Catawba. Will read testimony of welding inspectors and NRC Resident Inspectors.
1/30-2/3/84 Conducted interview of Maxwell, Van Dorin, Davidson, and Brownl re their knowledge of allegations at Catawba.
2/16/84 Completed preparation of Reports of Interview.
5/11/84 Draft final report &_ forwarded to AD/I for rev.ew ; verification.
5/22/84 Final Report of Investigation signed & dispatched.
^
t I
a n
/
~
15 5W
_. 4.
s Docket Nos. 50-413 & 50-414 (10CFR2.206)-
Robert Guild, Esq.
P.O. Box 12097 Charleston.-South Carolina 29412
Dear Mr. Guild:
This is in response to your June 27, 1984 request for action on behalf of your client, the Palmetto Alliance, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 with respect to the Catawba Nuclear Station. You asked that I institute proceedings pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202 to modify, suspend or revoke the construction per-mits for the Catawba plant, and to take other appropriate action to address instances of harassment and intimidation of quality control inspectors, vio-1ations of the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, and the detrimental effects of such licensee conduct on the effectiveness of its quality assurance program.
Your request is based primarily on your disagreements with the Licensing Board's recent Partial Initial Decision authorizing issuance of an operating license for Catawba Unit 1 in spite of the Board's finding of instances of harassment of quality control inspectors and violations of Appendix B.
At the time I received your letter, I had just issued a ' Director's Decision under 10 CFR 2.206" (copy attached) that responded to an earlier petition filed on behalf of the Palmetto Alliance by the Government Accountability Project. That petition raised many of the same issues and relied substantia 11y' on much of the same evidence that was presented in the operating license pro-ceeding for Catawba.
In my decision on the petition I concluded, as did the Licensing Board, that though problems have existed with the quality assurance program for Catawba, these problems did not represent a significant breakdown in the quality assurance program. Your letter does not raise any new factual information regarding the matters covered in my decision or, for that matter, in the Licensing Board's decision. Therefore, for the reasons fully stated in my decision under i 2.206, I do not believe that the problems identified at Catawba represent a massive or pervasive breakdown in the quality assurance program such that initiation of show-cause proceedings is warranted.
In your letter, you took issue with the Board's conclusion, notwithstanding its findings of fact, that the licensee did not violate 10 CFR 50.7 in its treatment of Mr. Ross.
I will examine this aspect of your petition further and infonn you of my decision with respect to the appropriateness of any enforcement action. On a related matter, the staff will.also take appropriate action on the results of a forthcoming report of the Office of Investigations on alleged harassment and intimidation at Catawba.
~
i
('
P
['
h s
~-
o s.
... A ~-
A copy of this letter will be provided to the Secretary of the Commission in view of the pendency of my 5 2.206 decision before the Commission for its discretionary review under 10 CFR 2.206(c).
I also enclose for your infor-mation a notice that will be forwarded to the Office of the Federal Register for publication.
Sincerely, Richard C. DeYoung, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Enclosures:
as stated cc: Duke Power Company J. Michael McGarry, Esq.
Distribution:
J. O'Reilly B. Jones S. Burns E. Christenbury
~
G. Johnson S. Chilk M. Malsch H. Denton D. Eisenhut K. Jabbour i
4 l
. a.m m
_...m
,s
-4.
]
[7590-01]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[ Docket Nos. 50-41'3 and 50-414]
~
~ " ' ~
DUKE POWER COMPANY (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2)
Receipt of Raquest for Action under 10 CFR 2.206.
Notice is hereby given that by letter dated June 27, 1984 Mr. Rob' rt Guild, on behalf of the Palmetto Alliance, has requested e
pursuantto[0CFR2.206thattheDirectoroftheOfficeofInspection and Enforcement initiate proceedings pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202 to modify, suspend or revoke the construction permits for the Catawba Nuclear Station.
The request is based primarily on the petitioners' disagreement with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board over the significance of the Board's recent findings regarding inadequacies in the quality assurace program for the Duke Power Company's Catawba Nuclear Station.
In its decision, the Licensing Board found that, despite instances of inadequacies in the quality assurance program and instances of harassment or intimidation of quality control inspectors, there was reasonable assurance that the plant had been constructed adequately to ensure no undue risk to public health and safety in the event that Catawba Unit I was authorized to operate. At the time the petitioner's request was filed, the Director was about to issue a decision regarding another petition filed on behalf of the Palmetto Alliance by the Government Accountability Project. This decision reviewed many of the same matters that were before the Licensing Board for decision.
t.
i
. =
- .=.
~
In the 2.206 decision-(00-84-16) the Director concluded that there had not been a significant quality assurance breakdown at Catawba such that the initiation of enforcement proceedings to. modify the Catawba construction pennits was' warranted. The June 27th petition filed by Mr. Guild does not present any new information that was not considered in reaching the recent 5 2.206 decision, and therefore no action appears warranted at this time to grant the relief requested by Mr. Guild on behalf of the petitioner.
The staff will examine, however, the petitioner's claim that the Board's findings of fact indicate that the licensee committed a violation of 10 CFR 50.7.- As provided in 10 CFR 2.206, the staff will take appropriate action on the petitioner's request for action within a reasonable time.
A copy of the petitioner's June 27, 1984 request is available for public inspection in the Comission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20555 and in the local public document room for the Catawba Nuclear Station at the York County Library, 325 South Oakland Avenue, Rockhill, South Carolina 29730.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this of July 1984.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Richard C. DeYoung, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement
~
\\
nf%f *"W,0..'0so-DUKE PowEn GOMPANY g.g.,
= =o y g,,
'" ^ ' " " ' ' * "
4 n O. Box asino LOTBNint "'"-
GirAutorrn. N. G. use4e "MO..To ',"O'^ "l,"
E~aNI^aa. sa no. m. 2570
% a!"Ota^"f".m KONALD L O4SSON August 19, 1985 J. M. Felton, Director FREODOW OF WFOpelAT40N ACT REQUEST Office of AdministrationDivisten of Rules and Rec f~0.TA 52Y Washington, D. C. 20555U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commi g g g [,2 d ' M ssion
)
Re:
Freedom of Information Act Re
Dear Mr. Felton:
Regarding Enforcement Action EA 84 quest
-93 i
Pursuant i
to implementing regulations therethe Freedom of Information A t (
on behalf of Duke under c
5 USC This enforcement action is reflEnforcement Action No.
Power I hereby documents related to and unde l request Imposition of Civil Penalty iss e ng taken against Duke Power r ying ected in the Notice of Violation a d Company.
ued August 13, 1985 This Proposed n
Head request extends Mr. quarters relating to the enforcement action and not Ga ry E.
only to all
" Beau" Ross relevant II including any such docum,ents documents but also to all such documents the events at NRC II and NRC Headquarters surrounding reflecting any communications b twithin NRC Region documents reflecting, un.This re derlying, quest includes, but in not limited to e ween Region 1.
Any or otherwise relevant to:
members communications all and/or between NRC Accountability representatives employees and/or representatives Project of Palmetto concerning possible enforcemen/or and
- Alliance, Ross any other the and and/or the outside Government t action based on the events Nuclear Station, concerns group or individual
[
expressed and/or quality control / quality assurance iharassment-by the welding inspectors at C t alleged surrounding Mr.
I and/or 2.
The June intimidation a awba drafts or proposals, and incl di4, 1985 Director's Decision (
of any J
fact-finding ation.
ng all documents reflecting any-9), including alternative u
investigation enforcement action or concerning M conducted b
- r. Ross. y NRC in independent 3.
connection in connection with theAny decision to engage or not t with the o engage in an Deliberations regarding whethenforcement action and Mr. y 4.
Ross.
Safety g
and Licensing discrimination within the meani er the record developed before th Board was r; quest adequate also extends to any to support Atomic e
ocuments reflecting deliberationsng of 42 a
.7.
This whether the
(
...... y - - - - - - - -
o~ ' ' '.
i J. M. Felton, Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission August 19, 1985 Page two record developed before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board was adequate to support the Board's finding of discrimination.
5.
Deliberations regarding the appropriate severity level to be assigned the alleged violation.
6.
Any communications between representatives of the NRC and representatives of the Department of Labor relating to this enforcement action or the events surrounding Mr. Ross.
7.
The Commission's decision not to review DD-85-9, including documents underlying and reflecting the majority votes of Chairman Palladino ar.d Commissioners Bernthal and Asselstine, and documents underlying and reflecting the dissenting views of Commissioners Roberts and Zech.
8.
The August 13, 1985 Notice of Violation including alternative drafts or proposals.
9.
The August 13, 1985 Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty, including alternative drafts or proposals.
I would appreciate your prompt response to this request within the ten 3
working day period provided in 10 CFR 59.9.
Duke Power Company's deadline for responding to the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty.is September 12, 1985.
The documents I am requesting could well prove to be significant to that response.
Accordingly, I hope that this request will be met as expeditiously as possible.
If you cannot meet this request within the period set out in the regulations, please noti fy me as soon as possible, and tell me when you will be able to respond.
Sincerely, Albert V arr, Jr.
c: James N. Taylor Jane A. Axelrad
\\
f
,n
-,.----w r
-