ML20198H302
| ML20198H302 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/29/1986 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | NEW YORK, STATE OF, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| References | |
| CON-#186-886 OL, NUDOCS 8601300261 | |
| Download: ML20198H302 (5) | |
Text
W.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
, #n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
4 f
- Qpw s
COMMISSIONEN[r"-
s.+
- l Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman (j[
JAN 2979866 Thomas M. Roberts U8 arR Wer i ".C' S
James K. Asselstine srcy.r" Frederick M. Bernthal 6
g Lando W. Zech, Jr.
m y
)
p JAN 301986 In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322 OL
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station)
)
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER In a motion of March 27, 1985, intervenors Suffolk County and New York-State requested the Commission to investigate certain allegations raised in a March 24, 1985 television broadcast ("60 Minutes") concerning the Shoreham Nuclear Plant.
Long Island Lighting Company replied to intervenors' motion on April 9,1985.
Following the 60 Minutes broadcast, Chairman Palladino in a March 26, 1985 memorandum requested the Office of Inspector and Auditor (OIA), the Office of Investigations (01) and the Executive Director for Operations (ED0) to provide sumary reports to the Commission on actions which had been or that would be taken relative to the 60 Minutes allegations.
On April 9,1985, OIA reported: that it reviewed a 1980 01 investigative report on Shoreham construction in an effort to determine any NRC employee misconduct and found none; that it was conducting an inquiry concerning an 9601300261 96o12 PDR ADOCK 0500 G
G2- -
2 allegation that NRC inspectors were unresponsive to information brought to their attention at Shoreham; that it was planning to contact the Assistant United States Attorney, Eastern District of New York handling the case on the 60 Minutes issues to determine if any NRC employee is or was involved; and that it planned to assess the agency's actions regarding the 60 Minutes matter to determine whether further 0IA involvement would be warranted.
In i
a July 31, 1985 follow-up memorandum, OIA reported that its inquiry developed no information to substantiate the allegations of unresponsiveness of NRC
[
i inspectors or organized crime activity at Shoreham.
OI responded on April 11, 1985, reporting that NRC Region I in 1979 and 1980 had inspected and investigated allegations by Mr. Jock McCrystal regarding drug use, worker qualifications, theft, and equipment damage.
01
~
further indicated that on February 5,1985, Region I had initiated an investigation of allegations by Mr. George Henry to the Suffolk County Legislature, similar'to the 60 Minutes allegations. Jointly with the FBI,
^~
Region I interviewed Henry on February 19, 1985 and February 27, 1985 regarding the allegations. 01 and Region I technical staff reviewed the 01/ FBI interview transcripts, as well as Henry's statements to the Suffolk County Legislature, to identify any areas of concern warranting further investigation or inspection activity.
Region I's Division of Reactor Projects, af ter performing two inspections at considerable expenditure of resources, found no violations of NRC requirements; it also found that most of the allegations accurately described conditions that existed, but that LILCO had properly identified, documented, and resolved the probleras, and that none of these allegations represented valid concerns regarding the safe operation of the Shoreham plant. Region I staff also determined that the allegations did not undercut the acceptability of the Shoreham QA/QC program.
3 Consequently, Region I staff concluded that further expenditure of resources would be unwarranted.
The E00 responded to the Chairman's request in an April 30, 1985 report, detailing the NRC staff's activities, including inspections and investigations related to the allegations.
See Attachment 1.
Based on our review of the 01, 0IA, and E00 reports, we are not aware of any basis for further action on the motion. Accordingly, the motion is denied.
Commissioner Asselstine disapproved this Order, and his separate views are attached.
It is so ORDERED.
For the Commission
{
i tr r
f" Gut.g.
(f}?cu b ( $CA
..U
?
F SAMUEL J. CHILK
, 7-Secretary of, the Commission s.
0 E,..
%+
n I -
s e o.
- s' /g,'.' *{ * '
Dated at Washington, D.C.
tc this ~1f day of January,1986.
SEPARATE VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE I would have referred intervenors' motion to the staff to be treated as a 2.206 petition rather than merely dismissing the motion as the Commission does.
e
- y'* **%
9
%g UNITED STATES
,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 (o...,/
APR 3 01935 o
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Chairman Palladino FROM:
William J. Dircks, Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
ALLEGED CONSTRUCTION PROBLEMS AT SHOREHAM This memorandum is in response to your March 26, 1985 request for a sumary of Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. actions taken or planned to address alle cast on CBS Network's 60 Minutes program on MarchThe specific problems of inter 24, 1985.
The main thrust of the 60 Minutes program was that alleged negligence of Shoreham, and that this resulted in cost overru deficiencies in the plant.
Areas of safety concern included quality control inspections, technician qualifications, material accountabiitty concrete used in the reactor ' containment building, and plant security.
, qua.lity_gf Turther, it was s'tated that only LILCo and ~the NRC have the right to mak l
inspections at Shoreham..
i York State Governor Mario Cuomo stated during the program i'
been able to arrange for an independent engineering evaluation or obta records in order to assess the quality of Shoreham's construction and its ultimate safety.
Our analysis of the infomation presented in the 60 M b'y the NRC Staff at the time the program was aired. ~ Furthemore, th tions and evaluations we have completed to date have not revealed a or safety-related deficiencies in the Shoreham facility as a result of alleg negligence or criminal activities.
of potential problems at facilities and has aggressively and objec sued such concerns when they have been raised.
Shoreham and in particular the concerns expressed Also, the routine inspection program conducted at the Shoreham facility foms a large par,t of the basis for the staff's conclusion that the facility i
, which built in substantial accordance with comitments and NRC regulations described briefly.
, is ated by Region I technical staff and management.To date, over tions are documented in published inspection reports.The results of these evalua-with respect to the.60 Minutes program are our recent contacts with two fom Of special interest Shoreham workers (one of whom, George Henry, was interviewed in the and an extensive investigation conducted at Shoreham during the period Dec 1979 through March 1980.
=
QCb I.b b u s y jyw 7 c hff
.. - ~ - - - - - - - - - - _..,
Chairman Palladino 2
Based on Long Island newspaper articles published in January 1985, Region I, on its own initiative, contacted two individuals who were previously employed at Shoreham. The first, Mr. George Henry (a former' QC inspector for two years at Shoreham), was interviewed by Region I staff on February 19 and 27,1985.
An inspection, conducted at the end of January 1985, addressed most of Mr. Henry's concerns (at that time, the only infomation available was that detailed in a January 17, 1985 newspaper article). The results of that inspection were documented in Inspection Report No. 50-322/85-10 issued on February 19, 1985.
While Mr. Henry described problems or events that did occur, it was found they had been identified by LILCo in the nomal conduct of their quality assurance i
program.
Region I found that the issues were properly evaluated by LILCo j
. Start-up and Engineering personne, and received acceptable technical dispo-l sition.
None of the technical issues described were found to represent a j-serious operational or design problem.
During the February.19 and 27 inter-views, Mr. Henry provided additional infomation and raised a few new concerns.
Regio _n I management.has reviewed the transcripts from these interviews, as well as the transcript from the, interview with the second individual Mr. Ronald Stanchfield, and further' inspections are being conducted. The results of these inspections will be documented in an inspection report as soon as they are available. A board notification regarding these allegations was made on i
February 7,1985.
At.the same time. 01 and the FBI also conducted joint inter-views relative to alleged misrepresentations before the ASLB regarding the l
Shoreham QA program.
pril 28, 1980, addressed 30 alle Investigation Report No. 79-24, issued onThat investigation encompassed the thre tions.
effort of three NRC investigators and five inspectors.
Areas covered included containment _concre_te, weld materials, welder qualifications, and intimidation of LILCo inspectors. Of special significance is the fact that Mr. Jock McCrystal, one of the Shoreham workers interviewed by 60 Minutes, was a prin-cipal contact during that investigation.
During that time, public notices were posted by NRC for a period of 70 days.
A 24-hour phone number was also provided, for points of contact with the NRC, in addition to the onsite inter-view of Shoreham workers.
No evidence was found which could substantiate:
(1) the u'se of defective ennerete; (2) the employment of unqualified workers; (3) the supply of inappropriate weld materials; or (4) the intimidation of construction workers. Based en the 60 Minutes broadcast, no new allegations were identified which had not been previously looked into.
In the record of all a[ legations received to-date, no pattern has been esta-blished or exists which suggests a programatic problem at Shoreham.
Regional follow-up has found the licensee's records to be well maintained, their staff to be cooperative, knowledgeable and qualified, and the construction and test-ing of Shoreham equipment and systems to be in compliance with regulations and representative of good engineering principles.
The NRC staff's routine inspection program directed at verifying an acceptable level of construction quality at Shoreham has been extensive.
Over 300 inspec-tion reports and 24,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> of inspection time have been devoted toward those ends since a construction pemit was issued in 1973.
A senior resident inspec-tor was initially assigned to the site in Octcber 1979, and there have been i
3
~..
Chairman Palladino 3
four resident inspectors assigned at various times since the inception of the resident program at Shoreham.
Construction of the facility was essentially completed in 1983.
All 70 of the construction deficiencies reported to the NRC under 10 CFR Part 50.55e have been appropriately addressed and corrected by LILCo. The Shoreham preoperational test program, begun in early 1976 and completed in October 1984, received comprehensive coverage by NRC inspectors, accounting for over 15,000 total hours. This included coverage of the TDI diesel engine recovery program.
Region I prepared a capsule sumary of HRC's inspection verification process at Shoreham, in the fonn of a Readiness Assessment Report dated December 6, 1984. That report concluded that LILCo constructed the plant in substantial accordance with their comitments and NRC regulations and is capable of, and ready to assume, the, safe low power operation of Shoreham.
LILCo's QA programs were'the subject of extensive litigation during the ASLB hearings. The Board agreed with the staff's conclusion that no adverse programatic trends were evidenced as a result of either licensee-identified items of noncompliance or the NRC inspection violation history.
With regard to third party inspections, there have been two independent design reviews of the construction process at Shoreham, performed by Torrey Pines Technology (TPT) and Teledyne Engineering Services (TES), for LILCo.
The_.firQ study was completed in September 1982, and addressed, in part, concre(e and weld construction and documentation. The TES design review, compleTeT in July 1983, was a comprehensive evaluation of the low pressure core spray system.
Both independent assessments found the construction process at Shoreham to be good.
The Staff's routine inspection program and investigation of allegations at Shoreham have been fully documented in inspection reports and transcripts from interviews with allegers.
This documentation can be provided, in total or in part,'upon request.
The staff, of course, will continue to be receptive to, and promptly follow-up on, all safety allegations made by members of the public with regard to Shoreham and other reactor facilities.
l' a
Willi
. Dircks Executive Director for Operations cc:
Comissioner Roberts Comissioner Asselstine Comissioner Bernthal Comissioner Zech SECY OGC OPE f
-