ML20205E702

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Discusses Ofc of Inspector & Auditor 850107 Recommendations to Commissioners.Confidentiality of NRC Informants Addressed in SECY-85-034.Weld Concerns Being Addressed by Comanche Peak Technical Review Team
ML20205E702
Person / Time
Site: Comanche Peak  Luminant icon.png
Issue date: 03/05/1985
From: Dircks W
NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To: Connelly S
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTOR & AUDITOR (OIA)
Shared Package
ML20205E553 List:
References
FOIA-86-133 NUDOCS 8608180470
Download: ML20205E702 (2)


Text

--

)

[

2I?

[

UNITED STATES f

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a

waammorow, p.c. noses MAR 0 5 585 OffEIAL USE Ry MEMORANDUM FOR:

Sharon Connelly, Director Office of Inspector and Auditor FROM:

William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT:

DIA RECOP9(ENDATIONS ON HANDLING ALLEGATIONS

..The January 7,1985 OIA letter to the Connissioners made two reconnen-dations regarding the hand 11n of allegations. The first recommendation would

.s establish a policy of routine deleting names and other identifying infor1 nation concerning persons who provi information to the NRC. The second mcommen-dation requests a technical resolution to a Comanche Peak weld concern. This second reconnendation was based on a letter from former intervenor Ms. Brink.

Regarding the first reconnendation, this matter was recently addressed by an agency wide task force which developed Connission policy reconnendations (SECY-85-34)onhandlingconfidentialissues. Since these reconnendations are currently before the Connission we believe that this CIA concern is being appropriately addressed.

Regarding the second mcommendation concerning welds (0! report of investiga-tion #4-84-006 and the issues raised by that m port) the Comanche Peak Technical Review Team (TRT) reviewed this report, as well as many other reports and documents, to ider.tify technical issues and allegations to be followed by the TRT. The policy of the TRT is to contact, whenever possible, all allegers who l

have come forward with concerns. This policy is to clarify the TRT's under-standing of the concern and assure that the TRT approach to resolution is responsive to the individual's concern. Ms. Brink was not contacted as she had no specific technical concerns and further did not know the whereabouts of two welders, who were characterized as having told her of potential weld concerns. According to the OI report, the two welders had not been interviewed by DI. Additionally, there was no reccrd that either of these two individuals i

had attempted to contact the NRC directly. As a result of the non-s acificity

~

of the welders' concerns and the lack of previous direct contact witt the NRC, the TRT decided to contact these individuals at a later time.

As the major site review effort by the TRT is r.ow coming to a conclusion, the TRT will now be pursuing the potential concerns of the two welders.

Accordingly, the TRT intends to attempt to contact these w61ders in the near i

future to ascertain the specifics of their concerns.

8608100470 060806 kf DE 33 PDR

1 0?fU[M QQf The CIA report of January 7, 1985 states that the welders' concerns centered around welding of the fuel pool liner. We note that the TRT has reviewed several other allegations relating to the quality of welding in the spent fuel pool and transfer canal at Comanche Peak thereby assuring assessment of this area and k therefore may have already addressed the concerns in question.

(SignetWilliam J.Dircks l

William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations DISTRIBUTION 1:

Wm.Dircks J. Roe

. T.Rehm V. Allo R. Martin J. Davis H.Denton D.Eisenhut PPAS V.Noonan R. Stark L.L-Sridgers (EDO 000258)

K. Bowman (EDO 000258) 4.% % li IFCALEERY SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE

  • DL CP DL Mk OffR ut HRDepton y/85

/85 RStark:mj VNoonan FMiraglia 2/

/85 2/ /85 2/

/85 j

t k

m g

2 x

m; y

$*$"$"'ts-to

~

0IA Reading October 10, 1985 MEMORANDUM FOR:

William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations FROM:

Sharon R. Connelly, Director Office of Inspector and Auditor

SUBJECT:

0IA REPORT ON COMANCHE PEAK, DATED AUGUST 30, 1985 Your memorandum of October 7,1985, indicates a misunderstanding of the c,onclusions contained in the August 30, 1985 OIA Report of Investigation regarding the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (SES). We investigated three separate incidents in which Region IV allegedly failed to respond to reports of wrongdoing by Texas Utilities Generating Company (TUGCO).

The three incidents were distinct occurrences that were each handled differently by Region IV, and we reported a conclusion with respect to each incident.

The first incident investigated concerned alleged inaction by Region IV when notified that eight Comanche Peak SES quality control inspectors had been detained and inspection reports had been confiscated.

As a result of our investigation of this incident, we concluded that Region IV was not sufficiently sensitive to the incident as it developed.

In the other two incidents, it was alleged that Region IV took no action when notified 1) that a contract inspector had been pressured to reword an inspec-tion report and 2) that TUGC0 had falsified inspection reports concerning the spent fuel tank liner plates. We concluded that in each of these two inci-dents Region IV responded appropriately.

Our Report of Investigation distinguished the three incidents and the separate conclusions we reached concerning Region IV's actions.

Our conclusion that Region IV was not sufficiently sensitive to reports of the detention of quality control inspectors and the seizure of inspection reports is not an ancillary comment.

It is our final conclusion with respect to this particular incident.

Our responsibility to ascertain and verify the facts with regard to the integrity of all NRC operations and to report our results to the Comission require OIA reports to be objective and complete presentations of all findings developed during OIA investigations. A practice of publishing only favorable conclusions in official 0IA reports and making critical comments as asides in separate memoranda would not be consistent with the OIA mission.

I hope this adequately responds to your concerns.

As always, your comments on our reports are welcomed.

91/sO"'C..:..............

....a.\\.?,......

....%0..........0I^

cmn

=~~>.w w.d.... a w.u s............. @

K.2..s.......

""> 14u/r&..

urc row m no. oinacu o24o OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

  • "5 *' " " - * ' ' '