ML20203C256

Responds to Re Release of Info from Draft NRC Document to Util & Case.Nrc Policy States That Draft Documents Are Not to Be Given to Any Party Unless Document Available to All Parties & Placed in PDR at Same Time

ML20203C256
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	04/14/1986
From:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Garde B GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT
References
NUDOCS 8604210070
Download: ML20203C256 (4)

Text

.

e, .

APR 141986 Ms. Billie P. Garde ,

Government Accountability Project 1 1555 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 202 hshington, DC 20036

Dear Ms. Garde:

This responds to your letter of March 24, 1986, regarding release of information from a draft NRC document to Applicants for Comanche Peak and to intervenor Citizens Association for Sound Energy (CASEh Thi date of your letter appears to be in error since the events you discuss took place on March 25, 1986, and your letter was obviously written afterward.

Applicants had indicated, through verbal communication with the staff, that I six issue-specific action plan (ISAP) results reports were being finalized by  :

them and would be distributed to the parties shortly. Although the Supplemental Safety Evaluation Report providing the staff evaluation and comments on the Applicant's program plan was still in preparation, the staff had reviewed the six ISAPs and prepared draft conclusions. These draft conclusions were made available to the Applicants in advance of final NRC documentation for their consideration in preparing their report in order to expedite resolution of these issues.

NRC policy states that draft documents are not to be discussed with, given or shown by the staff to one party unless the document is made available to all parties and placed in the PDR at the same tiia This was done in this i case by telephone and letter the same day, March 25. In two separate phone calls on March 25, 1986, Applicants in one call, and Mrs. Ellis of CASE and yourself on another call, were read the draft conclusions of these ISAPs. The same information was given to both parties. Also the same day, the information was documented in a letter which was sent to all parties (including the Atomic Safety and licensing Board) and placed in the PDR and LPDR.

Sincerely, OdgM send W H. R. Denton Harold R. Denton, Director .

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

• SEE PREVIOUS PAGE FOR CONCURRENCES c e- Service List a o 0FC : PAD #5  : PAD #5* :DPLA*  : ELD * :NRR:DD* :NRR:D :g j j

_____: - _g____

JScinto

_ _ _ _ _ :_______:____________:___________:___________:___ :DEisenhut NAME .CT' ell :VNoonan :TNovak :PDe

____________:____________:_________ _ g_3 DATE :4/ 3_/86 :4/3 /86 :4/3/86 :4/3/86 :4/3/86 :4/ /f /86  : 4/fl/86 0FFICIAI. RECORD COPY g4210070860414 A ADOCK 05000445 PDR x_

DISTRIBUTION F03 ED0_-1584.

3 UoCKOL1 P1les %~ wi NRC PDR LPDR NSIC VStello JRoe TRehm JSniezek RMartin GCunningham JTaylor PPAS MARGO BRIDGERS ED0-1584 DMossburg ED0-1584 HDenton/DEisenhut VNoonan PBaker (2)

ELD CTrammell ED0 R/F VStello

Ms. Billie P. Garde Government Accountability Project 1555 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 202 Washington, DC 20036

Dear Ms. Garde:

This responds to your letter of March 24,1996, regarding release of information from a draft NRC document to Ap licants for Comanche Peak and to intervenor Citizens Association for Sound E ergy (CASE). The date of your letter appears to be in error since the ev nts you discuss took place on March 25, 1986, and your letter was obviously w itten afterward.

In the normal course of NRR business, di cussions of draft positions, requests for information, etc., between staff an applicants are frequently a programmatic expedient. NRC policy is jot intended to impede such exchanges of infomation, but rather 'o assure at all persons have equal access to it.

NRC policy emphasizes that draft doc ents are not to be discussed with, given or shown by the staff to one party u less the document is made available to all parties and placed in the PDR a the same time. This was done in this l case by telephone and letter the se/ne day, March 25. In two separate phone calls on March 25, 1986, Applicant in one call, and Mrs. Ellis of CASE and  ;

yourself on another call, were re d the draft conclusions of these ISAps. The i same information was given to bo parties. Also the same day, the l information was documented in a etter which was sent to all parties (including the Atomic Safety an 1.icensing Board) and placed in the PDR and 1.PDR . '

In this case, Applicants had dicated, through verbal communication with the l l staff, that six issue-speciff action plan (ISAP) results reports were being

finalized by them and would e distributed to the parties shortly. Although the Supplemental Safety Eval ation Report providing the staff evaluation and

! comments on the Applicant's program plan was still in preparation, the staff l

had reviewed the six ISAPs nd prepared draft conclusions. These draft conclusions were made avai able to the Applicants (and all parties) for their consideration if they so esired, recognizing that draft information is subject to change.

The above actions were t ken wholly in conformance with NRC policy on this l matter, j

Sincerely, e .

l ,

'f [ f

'y LY h4

• g d") f. h M

.h b*

pw

/

1 n Harold R. Denton, Director 9 ffice of Nuclear Reactor Reculation i A >

L&4 ',

.__l_ ______s __ ___I.____3_l_D,,,,,l,N,,: ,D,,,,,, [ ,N,R,R,: D,,,,,,, l ,f,D,0,,

l NAME : Ta 11 :V onan T a W into :D hut : HRDenton  : VSt 1 o, Jr. l

______:/ _______:-___________:-___________:_ _______

l lDATE:4/D/86 :4 , /k,6_

, ______ k__/8

. 6 /

/4M__86  : 4/3 /86  : 4/ /86  : / /86 1 l

OFFICIAI. RECORD COPY I

. . _ . . . ....u..> s, - - .

n*

e ur . e * *

/ '~,,

'o UNITED STATES n NUCLEAR REGULATOR'/ COMMISSION i,  ; . ,E wAsmNGTON, D. C. 20555

'g

} EDO PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL

/l D peuroid B 4 } [h

- - _ _ - - _ _ . . _-= = _ _ . _ . _ - - - -

FROM: DUE: 04/11/86 FDO CONTROL: 001584

> -- DOC DT: 03/24/86 BILLIE P. GARDE FINAL R PLY:

/9' & y)yg TO:

STELLO & DENTON '

FOR SIGNATURE OF: ** GREEN ** SECY NO:

~

STEtt-fr [gdn _d,,Yyvl$u M DESC:

Fi- o e gge d y p b b /g g w ,,u// pgA ROUTING:

RELEASE OF INFO FROM A DRAFT NRC DOCUMENT TO STELLO APPLICANT - COMANCHE PEAK ROE REHM DATE: 03/27/86 SNIEZEK ASSIGNED TO: NRR CONTACT: DENTON RMARTIN

_ , _ _ GCUNNINGHAM TAYl.OR SPECIAL- - INSTRUCTIONS OR RFMARKS:

IF NOONAN BELIEVES RIV SHOULD PREPARE RESPONSE - ADVISE MARGO (X27585).

NRR RECElVED:. MARCH-27 .1986 ACTION: 4DPLA-NOVdK kRR ROUTING: DENTON/ElSENHUT PPAS MOSSBURG

i :

. #Ycem(c 1 GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT '

1555 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 202 l Washington, D.C. 20036 (202)232-8550 March 24, 1985-Mr. Victor Stello Acting Director Executive Director of Operations Mr. Harold Denton Director of Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: Comanche Peak, Docket 50-445/446.

Dear Messrs. Stello and Denton:

i I have just learned of the release of information from a draft NRC document to the Applicant and request that your office take immediate action to prevent the occurrence of similar actions in the future.

Today an NRC staff member provided to a representative of the Applicant the staff comments, taken from a draft SSER, about the acceptability of six proposed Issue Specific Action Plans (ISAPs). Clearly this information -- apparently sought by the Applicant as a prerequisite for releasing the results of their reinspection efforts publicly -- is extremely valuable to them.

They can now, if they so desire, modify the results reports to comport exactly with the comments of the staff. More importantly, they have received a de facto approval for their implementation of the CPRT.

3 1

This is only the latest, albeit the most egregious, incident I in the staff's behind-closed-doors approval of TUEC's inadequate )

reinspection program. CASE and the Government Accountability Project (GAP) now feel that the NRC staff has deliberately misled us throughout the entire process of the CPRT review. It is little solace that the staff member responsible for the release of the information did not do so to deliberately harm CASE or violate NRC procedures. His actions are consistent with what has j l

been the status quo on this matter for months -- day-to-day regulatory approval and public posturing. As a practical matter, it was a meaningless gesture for the staff to provide us the same information given to the Applicant because we have no ability to assess the validity of the staff's conclusions about the ISAPs.

CASE and GAP have sought information about the implementa-tion of the reinspection program for 17 months. We have sought l such information through discovery, through the Freedom of l

s > >

g i 'j / ' [ k.DO -- 001004 1

m t >

Mr. Victor Stello Mr. Harold Denton March 24, 1986 Page Two Information Act, and through public meetings. All our efforts have been futile. On a variety of grounds, the staff and the Applicant have consistently refused to provide us the necessary information to make an evaluation of the Applicant's proposal.

Now the substance of the proposal has become reality, making a charade out of the NRC's commitment to public participation.

Based on information recently made available to GAP about the CPRT's actual implementation and the NRC's acquiescence to flagrant continuous violations of procedures and regulations, it is clear that developing a legal position to license Comanche Peak has superseded regulatory prudence and NRC precedent.

As you know, Comanche Peak, like Zimmer and Midland before it, has been the subject of a major QA/QC breakdown. SSER

1. 11, P-35). However, unlike the Midland and Zimmer cas(See, es, in which stop work orders were imposed and construction halted until an acceptable reinspection program had been approved, the staff has allowed work at the plant to continue -- even though the Applicant declares that such work is not being done according to federal regulations. Anyone, with or without competence, could make ignoreComanche Peak regulatorily " safe" given the opportunity to federal regulations.

The concerns raised by CASE and GAP about the adequacy of the reinspection program are not theoretical. The licensing board also raised similar concerns in the August 29, 1985 Memorandum 6-8.

(Proposal for Governance of this Case), LBP-85-32, p.

The staff's position is that the Applicant is proceeding at "its own risk." That is, of course, fiction. The risk is now, and always has been, that the public will be endangered by TUEC's regulatory detour.

Yours truly, Billie P. Garde BPG:42405 cc: Service List OIA Congressman Markey Congressman Udall