ML20206U759

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Transcript of 841107 Meeting W/Comanche Peak Technical Review Team.W/O Encl
ML20206U759
Person / Time
Site: Comanche Peak  Luminant icon.png
Issue date: 06/24/1986
From: Noonan V
NRC - COMANCHE PEAK PROJECT (TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM)
To: Ellis J
Citizens Association for Sound Energy
Shared Package
ML19284C882 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-85-59 NUDOCS 8607110127
Download: ML20206U759 (5)
v • d • e


Text

,-o..

c, U.*aT E D sT AT ES

.- . / 't f.'UC L E A R R E GUL AT OR Y COT.;.,;isslot; '

~ '

s, ,5 . . .:. S H t '. 0 T O '. O C 2 C ', M

.3-DO NOT DISCLOSE Mrs. Juanita Ellis, President Citizens Association for Sound Energy 1426 South Polk Dallas, Texas 75224

Deariirs.Ellis:

Thank you for teeting with scme cf our Technical Review Team leaders and membe-s c n '.!edne sday, t'e semer 7, 19E2, to ciscuss your ccncerns regarcing the Cerar.c e Pe n facility. :n acccrdance with ycur request, we are encicsing a ccay of tre transcript of the meeting.

If you have any questions, pleas's call me or Ms. A. Vietti at either of the ' ~

following numbers: (301) 492-7903; (301) 492-4449.

Sincerely,

/

/

,/

\, . '/. aft

  • f7>onAn,

~

.k.f Frc,)ect Director o manche9 P uk dech[n,ical Review Team i

Erclosure:

As stated

, DO SOT JSCLOSE 1

i 6

~

FIA-85-59 _

aussF 0607110127 FOIA 860624 -

I PDR PDR j

GARDEGS-59

w ...

,.

  • p.o$ '8 8:%

,' __e, s

,'. ,y T ..

UfnTED STATES.' '

, g, ,::h e [!3h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i

, ,7....i.

p ,a er WAsm wcT o N. o. c. . ::s s,s er

' 5 .~ -

%, # cECEnER 3 E0

  • ...a .

s ,

s ,

N

. F.EMD.:AND'JM FOR: Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director, Divisien of Licensing.

- Richard H. Vollmer, Director, Division of Engineering f-Stephen H. Hanauer, Director, Division of Human Factor.s,/,.

Safety .

Denwood F. Ress, Director, Division of Systems Integration .

Tnomas' E. Hurley, Director, Division of Safety Technology Bernard J. Snyder, Program Director, TMI Program Office FROM: Harold R. Denton, Director, Office of Nuclear React.or .

.- Regul ati on

' SU5]ECT: NRR OFFICE LETTER NO. Ig, REVISION 1 PROCEDURES FOR NOTIFICATION TO LICENSING 30AP.05 0F RELEVANT AND PATERIAL NEh' INFORFATION Effective i=ediately, aif NRR.perscanel 411 use the fellcwing revised procedures for assuring prompt and a; propria:e actica on notifying Licensing Boards, Ap;eal Panel and the Commission of new information which is censidered by thf[ staff to be relevant and matarial to one or ecre licensing proceedings.

enese revised cro:edures reflect the excerience we have' gained since issuing m the criginal Of fice Letter No.19 on July 6,1978.

Tnis Office Letter places an cbligation en all NRR staff memben to be alert to tr.e significance of new infor.r.ation that is develeced in the ccurse cf their review and to consider whether this~ informatien coulc reascnably be regarded

,as putting a nr.w or different light upon an issue before Enards e. as raising a new issue af ter publication of the s taff's principal evidentiarj docu .ents, inis is the central theme of the procedures and requires the exercise of good jud;mant te assure tha 5 cards will not be burcaned with cata.-ial beycnd that potentially significant to the individual licensing prc:eedings.

)

./, 6 , .

Harold R. Centen, Director a u ,, - o n ,, z unYtt- y p 6' Office cf Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

Ecard Notification -

Procadure 3 26 gA g ::

cc: E. Chris tenbury, DELD a ', w c:

^

R. Ecsenthal, ASLAP (25 -

in

,. R. La:o, ASLEP @@i N h

=

. Op d wg -- o Y' A =

CC '

F0lA-85-59 :~~* e.~.~

s: . . -  :' -

BOARD N0i1FICAT10N PROCEDURE -

0 t' A.

' BACKGROUND N

Fo11 ewing Comission approval of its Soard Notification policy on May 4, 1978, the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation issued NRR Office Letter No.19, dated July 6,1978, which contained Board Notification procedtthes_.

to be implemented by NRR. The term " Beard Notification" refers to . ?; '

new information which is considered to be relevant and r.aterial to -

one or core licensing proceedings', i.e., material relating to an issue before a Licensing Board, Appeal Panel, or the Comission which can reasonably be regarded as putting a new or different light on that issue, or raising a new issue. (Note that the term *5 card" will be used in this procedure to refer to Licensing Scards, Appeal Panel and Comission. ) -

In a cercrandum dated May 10, 1978, of the Board Hotification policy be prepared whenthe Cemission apprcxtr.ately requested one year that an e

, of experience was available. To this end, Comission Paper SECY-80-129, dated March 10, 1980, provided an assessment of then current procecures and picposed changes to these procedures to correct proble=s encountered

. in carrying out the Board Notification policy.

E. DISCUSSION .

There were three significant changes to the Scard Notification procedures "recem.enced in SECT-50-129 and approved by the Co nission:

1.

(

Change the time threshold for initiating the fernal Ecard Nctification procedures f rom the issuance of the ACRS Suppierent and FES to 30 days before the start of the evicentiary hearing.

2.

Eliminate the routine transmittal to the Scards of staff ccreespondence and noticer to applicants and li:ensees. Staff ccrrespenden:e and notices to applicants and licensees would be sent to the 5 card only if it is determined to meet the pidelines for Scard Notification, i.e. , new inferraticn considered raterial and relevant.

3. Inter; crate the picelines for staff appraisal and evaluation of Ecard Notification ratter set forth in ALM-531, as fc11ows:

a.

suppiy an exposition adecuate to allc0 a res@ appreciaticn of the precise nature of the Board Notification matter;

b. supply an exposition adequate to allow a ready appreciation of the extent to what the Scard Notification .atter =ight have a bearing

, upon the particular facility before the beard; 7

c. [in the event a conclusion with regard to the safety or environmental ,

i significance of the Scard Notificaticn catter is presented, set forth

, the reasening underlying that conclusien sufficient to illow the beard to make an infer ed jud;:ent en Ae validity of the CcnClusiCn; and

  • . ~ . ,

a'

% O,

\

d.

where the board has limited jurisdiction, spell out the possible r' elationship between the subject matter of the notification'and -

one or more of the issues before the board. --.

C'

  • C. .

DETERMINATION OF RECOM.MENDATIONS FOR BOARD HOTIFICATION BY TECHN REYlEW GROUPS AND PROJECT MANAGERS The Scard Notification policy is applicable to operating license

- proceedings as well as construction permit proceedin;s. In these proceedings the staff will send new infor ation relevant and material to safety or environemntal issues to the Boards regardless of the specific issues which have been placed in controversy. This .

practice includes proceedings for the convtrsion of provisional to full-term operating licenses. In hearings concerning operating license amendments 5 card Notification is limited to the ir. sues under consideration in the hearing. All staff memoers are responsible for reviewing all inferration received in the course of their assigned tasks, including reports identified by the Re:aarch and Standards

  • Coordination Branch as being appropriate for consideration for Scard Nctification, to determine whether it ray be related to licensing proceedings and ray recretent relevant and material new information jhich should be provided to appropriate Scards.

-r Infermation re:eived from outside sources and considered to be suitable for Scard Notification should be handled in an expeditious manner. Scre exaroles cf inf ormation f rom outside sources are: (1) the repcrting cf errers discovered in a vendors Emergency Care Cooling System (ECCS)

  • modeis or codes which could result in changes to analyses previously evaluated and discussed in the SER, (2) t!.e reporting of geological features which could result in significant changes to these previo0 sly reported by the applicant and evaluated by the staff as discussed in the SER, and (3) those reports identified by the Resear:h and Standards Coordination Branch as being appropriate fcr consideration for Scard Notification. -

t i

Internally generated information that could reasonably be regarded as putting a new or different light upon an issue before 5 cards should also be reported as expeditiously as practicable. Hewever, the Cornission's policy recognizes the difficulty of determining the point when an individual staff r. ember's perceived concern has developed into a staff issue of suf ficient importance that ! cards are to be notified.

In accordance with the Ccamission's policy, internally generated information should be pr:vided to Scards at the pcint when the staff determines that it is necessary to get more inferr.ation abcut a pr:b:em f rom a source external to the s taf f. That is, if such new information -

is determined to be of suffici,ent impcriance to seek further information.

,g analyses, tests, etc. , fr:m licensees cr venc:rs, NRC c:ntracts, or N-cthers outside the NRC staff, then the issue has devel: ped to the point where concerned Scardqs 'h:uld be informed. .

9 e

(

\

- As for intern ~ ally generated information, technical papers .and journal \

articles should be provided to Boards at a point when the staff 6etermines that 11) such information is of sufficient importance to call into question staff positions and criteria or (2) the staff has determined to seet f further information, analyses, tests, etc., from licensees, vendors, , ;;, .# ,.

  • NRC contractors or others outside the staff. . __.

, 1. Staff members should provide prcmptly the following inform.ation, through their management, to the Director, Division of Licensing:

a. The item , recommended for notification of Boards.
b. An exposition a dequate to allow a ready appreciation of the precise nacure of Scard Notification matter.
c. Considerations regarding relevancy and materiality; i.e.,

putting a new or different light upon an issue before the l Soard or raising a new issue.

d. An exposition adequate to allow a reacy appreciation of the extent to what the Board Nctification matter might have a bearing upon the particular fa.ctlity before the Scard.

! e. A statement as to the perceived significance of the information as it may af f ect current staf f positions. (A clear assessment of the significance is not required at this time and the recommendation should not be delayed in order te permit lengthy determinations. If a clear assessment and final resciutien is available, it ebviously provides for a clean Ecard submittal.

For all rec:mmendatiens which ce nct contain a final resolution foliosup action is recuired to inf orm the Scares as.to the ultimate staff cisposition.) .

f.

In the event a conclusion with regard te the safety or environmental significance of the Scard Notification ratter is presented, set forth the reasoning unde'rlying that conclusion suf ficient to allow the Scard to cabe an infor:ed judgment on

, the validity of the c:nclusion.

g.

Where the 3 card has limited jurisdiction, spelk out the possible relationship between the subject r.atter of the notification and cne or nere of the

  • issues before the Scard. ,

f k

9 o'

h. If the information relates to a specific docket, a staterent as to pessible applicability to other dockets, .
2. NRR also has a responsibility for identifying information pote(ti. ally relevant and material to Boards considering facilities licensed >dnder Part 70 and under the cognizance of the Office of Nuclear Material '

Safety and Safeguards (NMSS). Staff members should make any such recommendations through their canagevent to the Director, Division of Licensing. The inforration provided should, to the ertent possible, conf orm to that listed in Item 1. above. The Director, Division cf Licensing,,will forward the Board Notification material to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.

3. F.ecorrendations way be judged by the Director, Division of Licensing, ,

not to be material and relevant and a recorandum to that effect will be provided to the originator. If the originator still feels that the inferration should be provided to Boards, he or she should so state in a folleeup recommendation. Such a follewup rec::mendation will be processed through the norral Board Nctification channels. Although ecrments cay be 'added indicating disagreerent by these who judged the

  • inferrati n not to be' relevant and caterial, it will be forwarded to the Board.
k. Ecard Netifications on differing pr:fessional .c;inions will follow the proceddres of NRC Manual Chapter 4125, " Differing Fr:fessior.al

_< O pi ni en:. "

0. PROCESSINC- CF BOARD NOTIFICATION RECDP.M.ENDATIONS
1. The iey to c:=:encerent of Scard Nctifications on a spe:ific case i: the e> t a bli s hme t.: of the date for the beginning of evidentiaiy hearing and issuance of related notice by the Scard. Prior to 30 cays before the -

haaring, new material which is considered material and relevant to a proceeding is presented to the Scards via SEP. supplement or other documa nt s. Hesever, if there are iters ,that have net been appropriately dispesed of, a surnary list is to be provided by the project manasar tc the Scard 30 days befcre the start of the hearing. For cases within 30 days of (or during) the evidentiary hearing new czterial f ound material and relevant chall be for trded promptly to the Scard according to these precedures. .

2. OELD will provide DL with periodic updates of a list of current proceedings for facilities under the cogni:ance of DL, indicating whether the Licensing Scard, Appeal Scard or Cc=missien ..as jurisdiction over proceedings.

/

, N-i .

! e e

e.

f . . .

a ,

. . , e -

,. 5 f 3. The Office of the Director, DL, will establish and raintain the '

record-keeping system related to all Scard Notification ratters. N This will include a log of current proceedings and a detailed list of issues under consideration.

4. The' Director, Divisi'o'n of Licensing, shall review all recomendat~ ions' .

and determine whether they are relevant and raterial (5 working day's .

, f rom logging). Recorrrnendations containing inforration considered to

. be directly related to a specific case are also reviewed for

, applicability to other cases. If it is determined that a reco=endation is not considered to be relevant and raterial, a remrancum to that effect is sent to the recorrending parties. If the inf erration and

, acco:pany.ing reco.rnendaticn are not clear enough for a determination to be mde, the Director will request clarifying inferration from the cri gi nator.

5.

~

For instances prior tc 3D days cf the evidentiarp hearing, the Director, Division of Licensing, shall forward a re:crandum to the cogni: ant DL Assistant Director (s) advising them that the iter be brought to the attention of the Ecard through incorporation in the SEF. or as supple-mentai staff testirony. A copy of the mcorandum will Le sent to the originator. The project ranager is responsible for seeing that the item is covered in evidentiary docur.ents unless it has been .

determined that the item has been rescised and that 5cted Notification j is not required. Final dispcsition shall be reported to the Office -

of the Directer, DL (Scard Nctification Coordinator). I

6. For instar.ces within 3D days of (or during) the evidentiary hearing, the Director, Division of Licensing, shall f orward a re cranda to the cognizant DL Assistant Directcr advising ther. that the item

.us te br:ugnt proc;:tly to'the atter. tion of the appropriate Ecards.

The cognizant DL Assistant Director shall escure that the item is breught prc:ptly to the attention of the Scards (5 working drys from rectipt of the Director's rer::randum).. Copies of the Ecarc Nctification shall be sent to the origirator, technical review '

group, Dffice cf the Director, DL (Scarc Notification Cocrdinat:r) and OELD (hearing DiYisien Directer and Chief Counsel).

t

7. A finding by the Director, Division cf Licensing, with regard ic 3eard recem ,endations shall be revie,<ed by the DL A.ssistan- Directors for applicability to proceedings related t: applications fcr c:,nst vction permits, post-Ce proceedings, applicatiens for cperating liter.ses, as well as proceecings relating to issuance cf license arend.ents. ,

Proceedings related to research and test f acilities licensed undhr Pan 50 are to be taken into consideration also.

1

/

y . . - - - --

L.

, i, , U.S. Departmc rit of 1.aror 7' f Room 7Al2, 819 Taylor St.

Fort Worth, Texas 76102 fg July 8, 1982

Dear Mr. Stinson:

This will acknowledge receipt of your complaint'against Brown & Root, Inc.,

alleging violations of the Energy Reorganization Act. Your comolaint was received in this office on July 2, 1982. ,,

The Act requires the Secretary of Imber to notify the person named in the complaint of its filing and to conduct an invs>=rigation into the alleged violations. Consequently, we are providing Brown 6 Root, Inc. with a copy of your complaint and advising of the Wage and Hour Division's responsibi-lities under this law. We have enclosed a copy of the pertinent section of the Act, and a copy of Regulations, 29 CFR Part 24 for your information.

This case has been assigned to Assistant Area Director, Robert Fortman, whese first action will be to try and achieve a mutually agreeable settle-ment through conciliation. If this is not attainable an investigation will be conducted as soon as possible. If you have further evidence, please give it to our representative who will contact you on this matter. If you have any questions do not hesitate to call me or our representative at 334-3417.

Sincerely, J Y

~'Curtis - . oe Area Director Enclosure F0A-85-59 Attachment

i To.

U.S. Depart- 't r

e .o - ,

. Room 7A12, 819 Tay1.r 8ttivt Fort Worth, Texas 76102 \-

July 8, 1982 r Brown & Root, Inc.

Stephen L. Hoech Manager of Employee Relations / Compliance E. O. Box 3 Houston, TX 77001

Dear Mr. Hoech:

This will notify you that the Wage and Hour Division of the U. S. Depart ent of Labor han received a complaint fron David C. Stinson alleging discrimina-tory employment practices in violation of The Energy Reorganization Act.

This charge was received by our office on July 2, 1982. We have enclosed a copy of the conplaint, 1 copy of Regulations, 29 CFR Part 24, and a copy of the pertinent section of the Act.

The Act requires the Secretary of Labor to conduct an investigation into the violations alleged. This case has been assigned to Assistant Area Director Robert Fortman whose first action will be to try and achieve a mutually agreeable settlenent through conciliation. If this is not attainable, the law requires that an investigation be conducted as soon as possible. You are encouraged, and will be given every opportunity, to present any relevant information or evidence to our representative.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely.

,, L, ) uLq ,.

Curtis L. Poer Area Director Enclosures

l C \

1

.fatir

~

s .

. I Roem IAl.', Ei9 Taylor St. T.'

Fort Worth, Texas 76102 (N s

)

Ju:y 27, 1982 David G. Stinson -

Re: David C. Stinson vs. Brown & Root, Inc.

Dear Mr. Stinsen:

This letter is to notify you of the results of our compliance actions in the above case. A previqua letter from this office advised you that your complaint was received on July 2, 1982, and enclosed a copy of Regula-tions, 29 CFR Part 2 t. and a copy of the pertinent section of the Energy Reorganization Act.

Our initial ef forts to conciliate the matter revealed that the parties would not at that time reach a mutually agreeable settlement. An investigation was then conducted. Our investigation did not verify that discrimination was a factor in the actions comprising your complaint. Conversely, it is our conclusion that your allegations are unprovable for the following reasons:

Intervie 4 of other empicyces and cor pany records provided insuf ficient evidence that your supervisor, Edvard Helland, refused to permit you to writs an SCK.

The evidence indicates that 'tr. Holland did not have any intentions of terminating you before your meeting of June 17, 1982. It appears that your termination was a result of statements made during that meeting between yourself and 'tr. Holland.

This letter will notify you that if you wish to appeal the above findings you have a ri;nt to a formal hearing on the record. lo exerei.e this right you most, within five (5) calendar days of receipt of this letter, file your request for a hearing by telegram to:

The Chief Administrative Law Judge U. S. Department of Labo:

Suite 700, Vanguard Building 1111 - 20th Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 F01A-85-59 Attachment 2

f David G. Stinson Unless a telegrau request is received by the Chief Administrative Law Judge within the f j ve-day period, this notice of determination will become the final order of the Secretary of Labor dismissing your complaint. By copy of this letter 1 am advising Brown & Root, Inc. of the determination in this case and the right to a hearing. A copy of this letter has also been sent to the Chief Administrative Law Judge with your complaint. If you decide to request a hearing it will be necessary to send copies of the telegram to Brown & Root, Inc. and to me at 819 Taylor Street, Room 7A12, Fort Worth.

Texas 76102, t elephone number 817 334-3417. After I receive the copy of your request, appropriate preparations for the hearing can be made. If you have any questfons do not hesitate to call me.

It should be made elcar to all parties that the role of the Department of Labor is not to represent the parties in any hearing. The Department would be neutral lu sush a hearing which is simply part of the fact-development process, and oni) allows the parties an opportunity to present evidence for the record, if there is a hearing, an Order of the Secretary shall be based upon the record r.ade at said hearing, and shall either provide appropria6e relief or deny the complaint.

Sincerely,

/()

.t .

~s .

)

~ f wk. .

~~ /: . m., ~

Curtis L. Poer Area Director cc: Brown & Koot, Inc.

NRC Chief Adm. Law Judge

't .

Septeober 29,1931 Y

MEW)RANDUM FOR: J. E. Gagliardo FROM : R. G. la

SUBJECT:

Allegation Regarding irregularities in Corr.anche Peak Raciographic Operation _s At approximately 0915 this date, the writer was contacted by telephone by a per:

who would identify himself only as " John" with sone interesting allegations regi site radiography operations.

a. Changing the film automatic processer speed so as to get the corre-film density.
  • b. "T" holes in pentrameters have been reamed to a larger size to giv the appearance of adequate film sensitivity.
c. Defective welds have been masked out when shooting adjacent thin w repairs.
d. Others

" John" indicated that he could be contacted a told " John" that I would forward the allegation to the Region IV office and th either Herr, Driscoll or lyself would get in contact with him in the near futu

- " John" stat'ed that he was still employed at the site but was scheduled for tent on October 1,1982 which was why he refused to give his last nane.

Assuming that " John" is currently employed a radiographer (as he stated), I hav deduced that his name is John Lunsford thru the use of the personnel rester and site telephng directo Allegation b could be a "biggy" and move on as soon as possible. a. and c. tou be legal if somewhat irregalar.

l I will take no action in this matter unless directed to do so.

' Note: Please copy this to RadigtnfWgten Ag enaw/0 t-U\IV%-59 gal /

?

Q4-82-025 Page Two

5. On October 1,1982, Mr. Taylor recontacted reporting Investigator and advised he had interviewed Cleveland. He stated Cleveland denied making the telephonic allegations to him and refused to provide any amplifying information concerning +.- -. . -+ -

He stated Cleveland .rovided his mailing address as (Cleveland state he does not curren y -

.. . . or advised that Cleveland agreed to come to the Region *!V office on October 6, 1982 and talk with an NRC investigator. Mr. Taylor stated that in spite of Cleveland's denial that he made the telephonic allegations, that he recognized Cleveland's voice as that of the alleger.

6. On October 6, 1982, John Cleveland did not come to the Office of Investi-gations Field Office, Region IV.
7. On October 7,1982, Mr. Taylor was advised that Cleveland had not come to 01:RIV as agreed. Mr. Taylor stated that TUGC0 officials had concluded that Cleveland was a liar and stated they. are not prepared to spend any time investigating the vague allegations.
8. Insomuch as Cleveland denied having made the subject allegations. E d failed to meet with OlF0, Region IV, representatives on October T, 1982 as agreed, this inquiry is closed. If further information concerning this matter is received, this inquiry will be re-opened.

,fd Y Uonaic' O. Drisk111, Investigator APPROVED BY: NA ,

Richard K. Herr, Acting Director Office of Investigation Field Office, Region IV Attachment (1) Taylor to Gagliardo memo /9-29-82

'ec: J. T. Collins, RIV E. H. Johnson, RIV J. E. Gagliardo, RIV W. J. Wa rd , 01 :"0

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20206U759&oldid=3052960"