ML20212K572

Directors Decision Under 10CFR2.206.* Director'S Decision 87-03 Denying 830323 Petition to Halt All Work Based on Rd Parks Allegations Re Implementation of QA Program & Load Testing of Polar Crane

ML20212K572
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	03/06/1987
From:	Miraglia F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	THREE MILE ISLAND PUBLIC INTEREST RESOURCE CENTER
Shared Package
ML20212K522	List: ML20212K518 ML20212K572
References
2.206, DD-87-03, NUDOCS 8703090352
Download: ML20212K572 (21)

Text

ro

. ,. ., o D D-87-03 c

'. 80CMETED

_USNRC UNITED ST ATES OF AMERIC A g g Q g g_

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 0FFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION Harold R. Denton, Director UTPc 'r e ~ ~ ' '

~

C om v. *.

In the Matter of )

Docket Nos. 50-289 GENER AL PUBLIC UTILITIES 50-320 NUCLEAR CORPOR ATION (10 C.F.R. 62.206)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Units 'I and 2) )

DIR E C T O R'S D E CISIO N U N D E R 10 C.F. R. '4 2.206 IN T R O D U C TIO N 8y letter to then Chairman Palladino of the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion dated Parch 23, 1983, Randy King, on behalf of the Three Mile Island Public Interest Resource Center- and others (TMI-PIRC or Petitioners), re-quested that the Commission " halt all work at TMI Units 1 and 2 immediately, save for maintenance necessary for safety." TMI-PIP C -based its request on the allegations of Richard D. Parks concerning implementation of the quality assu ance program and related areas at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2.

On May 17,1983, TMI-PIRC was informed that its letter would be treated as a request for action pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 6 2.206 of the Commission's j- regulations, and that its request for immediate action had been denied. The Staff's interim response to the Petition was set out in " Interim Director's Decision under 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206" ( D D 18, 18 NRC 1296) issued on November 18, 1983. This decision is the final response to the Petition.

The Parks' allegations were more fully set out in DD-83-18 as follows:

8703090352 870306 PDR ADOCK 05000289 G PDR

o ..

r..=c ,

(a Richard D. Parks, a senior start-up engineer at TMI Unit 2,

.provided a signed, sworn . affidavit to Thomas Devine, Legal -

Director of'the Government Accountability Project, on March 21,

'1983.- That affidavit, which was provided to the Commission by letter from Thomas .Devine dated ' March 23, 1983, contained Mr.

Parks' concerns regarding deficiencies in the recovery program at TMI U nit ' 2. Several- allegations were made concerning a .

breakdown of TMI - management controls and administrative procedures. The licensee was. charged with no longer _having a working, systematic review process for cleanup activities due to its attempt to meet "u nrealistic sched ules. " Work requests regarding the. polar crane were alleged to be inadequate because'

.the request did not_ cover engineering functions or

' documentation of- design quality assura nce. Fu rthermore, modifications and changes - regarding the polar crane were alleged to be intentionally classified as "not important to safety" so _as to circu mvent administrative procedures. Technical Specification violations were also alleged. As to polar crane testing itself. Mr. Parks alleged that load test procedures had not been developed in accordance -with applicable administrative procedures, and that the polar crane refurbishment violated quality assurance with dissimilar replacement of parts of the polar crane. Mr. Parks also alleged that the polar crane safety evaluation report- prepared by General Public Utilities N uclear Corporation. (the licensee) was inadequate because significant deficiencies were not addressed or resolved. The allegations also focused on concerns in both the quality assurarce and quality control area. In particular, continuous quality .

assurance violations were said to be evidenced by- numerous q uality deficiency reports and inadequate ' corrective action.

Furthermore, it was alleged that the management of the Bechtel Power Corporation , pro,iect director of the cleanup effort, improperly exerted influence on safety evaluation reports.

18 N R C at 1297-8.

In DD-83-18, I concluded that

[N]otwithstanding the identified procedural deficiencies in the refurbishment of the polar crane, the program utilized to refurbish, test and operationally verify a working crane was technically sufficient and provides reasonable assurance that the crane is safe for the conduct of the requalification test.

Furthermore, the licensee has ta ken action to correct the quality assurance deficiencies identified by M r. Parks and su bstantiated by the OI report. Therefore, the petitioners' request is denied in part to the extent that it seeks to have the NR C prohibit the licensee from conducting a load test of the TMI Unit 2 polar crane or otherwise qualifying that crane for t- - - - - - - - -

o .- .

use. The ' staff will, however, continue to evaluate the merits of Parks' allegations and 01 findings regarding those allegations.- The staff ~ reserves judgment as to whether enforcement action is appropriate concerning the allegations and findings related to this matter. I will issue 'a final decision with . regard to the remaining aspects of the petitioners' request upon the completion of the staff's evaluation.

18 N R C at 1301.

For the reasons discussed below, I have. decided that Petitioners' request should be denied.

DIS C USSIO N A. T MI-1

1. Safety Sicnificance of Parks Allecations at TMI-1 The Parks allegations and their implications, if any, for operation of.

T MI-1 were thoroughly considered by the Commission in the TMI-1 restart proceedin g . In Metropolitan Edison Company, (Three Mile Island Nuclear Sta-tinn, Unit 1), CLI-85-2, 21 N R C 282 (1985), the Commission determined, for l-reasons set out in detail 1/, that the harassment issues raised by Parks did not raise significant safety issues for the operation of TMI-1.

'-1/ First, Parks was a Bechtel employee, and Bechtel must bear primary responsibility for his harassment, although GPUN beurs responsibility for acts of its contractor. (Footncte 55. The cleanup at TMI-2 is being conducted as a joint effort by GPU Nuclear and its contractor Bechtel.

The limited direct involvement of GPUN employees _in any acts of harass-ment do not raise a significant safety issue because of the remedial acts ta ken by GPU N uclear management, see Supp. No. 5 [N U R EG-0680, TMI-1 Restart] at 13-9, and because of the limited nature of that in-L (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)

.a.

4 In a Memorandum and Order dated May 29,1985 ( CLI-85-9, 21 NRC 1118), the Commission, after extensive hearings in the restart proceeding, r

authorized TMI-1 to resume operation subject to certain conditions of opera-tion . In CLI-85-9, the Commission concluded:

In sum, the Commission has found that GPU Nuclear, the current Licensee at TMI-1, represents a significantly improved organization over Metropolitan Edison Company in terms of personnel, organiza-tional structure, procedures, and resources. The Commission is satisfied that the pre-accident management faults at TMI have been corrected such that there is reasonable assurance that THI-1 can and will be safely operated. The Commission also finds that none of the other concerns raised outside of this proceeding warrant sepa-rate enforcement action to keep THI-1 shut down. Accordingly, the Commission is lifting the immediate effectiveness of the shutdown Orders.

21 N R C at 1157. On October 2,1985, the N R C Staff authorized the restart of TMI-I pursuant to CLI-85-9.

Thus, the effect of Parks' allegations on operation of TMI-1 already have been considered and found by the Commission not to be a basis for prevent-ing operadon of T HI-1.

(FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE) volvement. ) Second, there has been no showing of a widespread pattern of discrimination against more than one individual. Third, Robert Ar-nold , the ma,ior GPUN official involved, is no longer associated with TMI-1 activities. Fourth, these acts occurred at TMI-2, not TMI-1, and hence they relate to the safe operation of TMI-1 only insofar as there is an overlap of individuals or policies. The Commission finds that the removal of Arnold eliminates any such overlap. Fifth, Licensee has now adopted clear policies to prevent any future harassment or intimidation."

21 N R C 282, 329.

In addition to consideration of the Parks' allegations in the TMI-1 restart proceeding, the Commission has taken enforcement action against GPUN based on allegations of discrimination against Parks. On August.12,1985, the Direc-tor, Office of Inspection and Inforcement served a Notice of Violation and

-Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (NOV) on GPUN. The NO V alleged that Richard D. Parks was discriminated against for- engagin g in protected activities in reporting safety problems to his management, requesting assis-tance from the NRC, and commencing a procceding with the Department of Labor. . O n. Parch 4,1986, after considering GP U N's response to the NO V, the Commission imposed a civil penalty in the amount of $64,000. 2_/

i 2.- Current TMI-1 S ALP Report On October 24, 1986, the NR C issued a Systematic Assessment of Licens-ee Performance (SALP) report for T HI-1 for the period September 1985 throu gh A pril 1986. A S ALP is an integrated NRC staff effort to collect available observations and data on a sampling and periodic basis and evaluate the licensee's performance based on this information.

Of eleven functional areas, six were rated a high level of performance (Category 1), four were rated satisfactory performance (Category 2) and one was rated minimally satisfactory (Category 3). The N R C's overall assessment l

l i

!. 2/ On March 20, 1986, the licensee requested a hearing. A notice of hear-ing was issued and the proceeding presently is in the discovery stage.

l -

=.

is that the Licensee has continued to demonstrate competent management and has generally exercised effective control of activities.

A SALP report for the period May 1986 through October 1986 was issued on January 5,1987. Licensee response to the report has not been received.

Eight of the ratings of the eleven functional areas re'mained the same. Of the remaining three, one improved from a category 2 to a category 1, another improved from a category 3 to a category 2 and the third was not rated.

The NP C's overall assessment for that period is:

Overall, the licensee has continued to ' operate TMI-1 safely with a generally strong orientation toward nuclear safety. .The orga nization is com prised of hig hly-qualified and well-trained person nel. Many licensee . initiatives go ~beyond regulatory req uire-ments.

3. Conclusion with Respect to TMI-1 For the reasons -described above, the Parks allegations do not warrant-

" halting all work" at THI-1.

B. T MI-2 l

1. Safety Significance of Parks Allegations at TMI-2 After release of the 9/1/83 interim OI Report addressing the Parks alle-gations, the Com mission asked the NRC Staff to review the Report. The Staff's technical review (SECY 84-36) was sent to the Commission on January 25, l

1984. The Staff agreed with many of the findings of the 01 Report and concluded:

i l The Staff is of the opinion that separate organizations operating l semi-independently on the cleanup effort during the time period that was under investigation contributed significantly to the managerent deficien-cies and instances of a'dministrative noncompliance. The licensee has undergone an extensive reorganization integrating GPUN and contractor

_ _ _ - , _ . _ . . - - - . _ . _ __y__ . . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ ,_.-_. _,.,_ _ ..w. . _ _ . . _ .. __. __

i p..

Y ( .'

organizations under one management organization. As of Nov-ember 1,1982, this reorganization has been essentially com pleted.

In addition, the licensee has subsequently introduced a new administra-tive procedural system to improve control of the cleanup activities.

As noted above, the OI Report did not attempt and was not expected to evaluate the safety significance of the instances of procedural noncom-pliance or the management deficiencies. An evaluation of safety signifi-cance has been conducted to place the deficiencies in perspective. The Staff, after a careful evaluation, has concluded that the specific deft-ciencies in plant activities or modifications covered by the OI report, particularly the refurbishment of the polar crane, did not result in a significar.t increase in the risk to public health and safety.

On January 9,1985, after extensive safety review, the NR C approved use of the polar crane to its load rating capacity of 170 tons. 3]

2. Recovery Ouality Assurance Plan for TMI-2 One of the principal allegations by Parks dealt with the adequacy of the GPUN Quality Assurance / Quality Control Department. After issuance cf the technical review (SEC Y 84-36) of the September,1983 Interim O! Report, the staff conducted a special inspection on the implementation of the GPUN Recov-ery Quality Assurance Plan (RQ AP) for TMI-2. The purpose of this inspec-tion was to examine and assess the effectiveness of the licensee's management controls as promulgated in the R Q AP. The R Q AP describes the licensee's formal program to assure that the requirements of applicable reg ulations ,

codes, and standards are applied in plant modifications, systems, and activi-3/

~

Letter from B. J. Snyder, Program Director, Three Mile Island Program Office, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to GPU Nuclear Corporation

-(January 9, 1985).

ties that are . determined to be important to safety or nuclear safety related, to ensure the health and safety of the public and site personnel. In addition to examining the implementation of the RQ AP, the inspectors examined the management controls that are applied to modifications, systems, and activities classified as not important to . safety. That inspection (50-320/84-12, dated October 10,1984) found that there is an extensive, detailed, and largely ef-fective Q A program at TMI-2.

3. Enforcement Actions at TMI-2 On February 3,1984, the Office of Inspection and Enforcement (IE) is-sued a Notice of Violation (NOV) for several procedural control violations that involved the failure of GPUN to adequately control activities to ensure compliance with GPUN-approved procedures for refurbishment of the reactor building polar crane. Since the Staff found that each procedural violation was of minor' safety significance which, if left uncorrected, could lead to more serious concerns, the violations were characterized in the aggregate as a Severity Level _ IV problem in accordance with the Enforcement Policy , 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Appendix C. GPUN responded to the NOV on February 28, 1984, setting out corrective actions that had been taken and

.others proposed for future im plementation. By letter from Richard C. DeYoung, Director of IE, to GPU Nuclear on April 18,1984, the NRC acknowledged those corrective actions and indicated the staff would review those actions in future inspections.

GPUN advised the NR C by letters dated October 5,1984 and October 8, 1984 that a modification had been made to the reactor building polar crane without proper engineering review and docu mentation . This modification ,

t

.g.

made in 1982, involved the' addition of a hand release mechanism which had been found to directly affect the operation of-the polar crane main hoist

~

bra k'es . The Office of Investigations (01) investigated this matter. The OI report was issued on September 23, 1985.

On September 29, 1986, the Staff issued an NO V and proposed imposition of civil penalty in the amount of 040,000 as a result of the modification to the main hoist brakes of the polar crane which was carried out without following the required GPUN-approved procedures. The N R C recognized in that .en-forcement action that the addition of the hand release mechanism appeared to be another more serious example of the original violations in which modifica-tions were made to the reactor building polar crane without proper engineer-I' ing review and documentation. The staff concluded that GPUN and Bechtel Northern Corporation personnel were aware of the requirements to comply I

with GPUN approved procedures and that Bechtel was not complying with them with regard to refurbishment of the polar crane. The staff concluded, therefore, that the violation apparently was willful and, in accordance with the General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NR C Enforcement Actions, categorized the violation as a Severity Level III. On October 29, 1986, G P U N paid the $40,000 civil penalty.

4. Current TMI-2 S ALP Report On May 8,1986, the NRC issued a S ALP report for TMI-2 for the period i May 1,1984 to February 28, 1986.

1 .

Six of ' the functional areas that were examined in detail have some

.  : relationship' to the allegations raised by Mr. Parks. These-are (1) shutdown plant operations /defueling preparations, (2) radiological controls, (3)' effluent monitoring and control, (4) quality assurance, (5) maintenance an'd (6) design, . engineering and modifications. Four out of the six categories were rated as a high level of performance (Category 1) and two as a satisfactory performance (Category 2). The S ALP concluded that:

Overall, the licensee has carried out its cleanup and shutdown activ-ities in a safe and technically -competent manner. The licensee's emphasis on safety has been demonstrated by a conservative ap-proach and a ' generally high degree. of management involvement in T MI-2 issues.

5. Conclusion with Respect to TMI-2 4

For the reasons described above, the Parks allegations do not warrant

halting all work at TMI-2.

i i

C O N C L USIO N i

The allegations made by Mr. Parks in March 1903 concerning L implementation of the quality assurance program at TMI-2 do not warrant the l

halting. of all work at TMI Units I and 2. Petitioner's request is denied. A 1

copy of this Decision will be filed with the Secretary for the Commission's review in accordance with 10 CFR 6 2.206(c) of the Commission's regulations.

hFrank J. Mhliglia,' I.-

A ting Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 6thday of March,1987.

7590-01

'U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET NOS. 50-289 AND 50-320 GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR CORPORATION THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATIONS UNITS 1 AND 2 ISSUANCE ~0F DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 Notice is hereby given that the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,

' has denied a Petition filed under 10 CFR 2.206 by Mr. Randy King on behalf of the Three Mile Island Public Interest Resource Center and others (TMI-PIRC or Petitioners) regarding the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2 (TMI 1 and 2). The Petitioners requested that the Commission imediately halt.

all work at TMI I and 2 except that for maintenance necessary for safety.:

TMI-PIRC based its request on the allegations of Richard D.-Parks concerning implementation of the quality assurance program and related areas of the Three

~

Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 2.

The staff has considered the Petitioner's allegations and has determined that they do not provide an adequate basis for the relief requested. The reasons are fully set out in a " Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206" (DD-87-03)-

which is available for public inspection at the Comission's Public Document

. Room located at 1717 H Street, NV, Washington, DC 20555, and at the local public document room at the State Library of Pennsylvania, Government Publications Section, Education Building, Commonwealth and Walnut Streets, Harrisburg, PA 17126.

A copy of the decision will be filed with the Secretary for the Comission's l ' review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206(c).

Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 6th day of March 1987.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COPEISSION A 3 Frank . Miragl , Acting Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 4

Three Mile Island

'..f'.

~

Public Interest Resource Center e 717-233-4241 i 1037' Maday Street e Harrisburg, Pa.17103

. . March 23, 1983 Nunzio Palladino, Chairman s E 22 n9r. Lc Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

- ;d b .-

Dear Chairman Palladino:

I write on behalf of the Three Mile Island Public Interest Resource Center in Harrisburg, and its seven constituent groups representing people in South Central Pennsylvania who are concerned about health and safety hazards represented by the cleanup of Three Mile Island Unit 2 and GPU's publicly stated plans to restart Unit 1 in mid-July.

We are deeply disturbed by allegations made by Richard D. Parks, senior startup engineer at Three Mile Island Unit 2, which claim that " eqtiipment has been modified and snap ju'dge-ments,made without proper engineering analysis, quality assurance steps have intentionally been skipped and totally circumvented, rules and documents have been changed al'ter the fact to justify Quality Assurance violations, and those who have defended the normal system of nuclear industry checks and balances have faced pressure, intimidation and retaliation which stripped them of the authority to function as viable members of the management team." , g-This utility, GPU Nuclear Corporatiori, has a quality assurance program. The law requires them to follow the procedures. They didn't in 1979, and they reduced TMI Unit 2 to a pile of radioactive rubble and brought Central Pennsylvania to the brink of disaster. ,

4 n.

Asse Nuelser Geeup % Yest, Conwel Penney $sente Uudes Commelen, Emu 6eesumened Three Ceegelen en Muniser Penser, Marsh 23 Mme taland Alert Teenuhts fut senartne c omunitene. Peopde Against Nuoteer Emery, W Veney h.

o' _..

Now, four years' inter, va learn that the TMI management,

'. a joint Bechtel and GPU Nuclear Corporation team, is still not following legally required procedures. They ta,ke reprisals against their employees, instead of listening to their concerns about safety, for the sole purpose of staying on schedule.

The lessons learned at Three Mile Island convince us that this management, General Public Utilities Nuclear Corporation, cannot be trusted with safe cleanup of Unit 2, or safe restart and operation of Unit 1 at TMI. In the face of crucially serious allegations made about management integrity, we call for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to halt all work at TMI Units 1 and 2 i:fnediately, save for maintenance necessary for safety.

Most sincerely, Randy King, President TMI Public Interest Resource Center l

l l

i l

l k--------_._ _____ _

C .

Three Mile Island Public Interest Pesource Center 1037 Maclay Street e Harnsburg, Pa.17103 e 717 233-4241 NEWS REIIASE For Immediate Release MARCH 24, 1983 CONTACT: Kay Pickering TMIA office (717) 233-7897 -

Home phone Iouise Bradford (717) 232-3070

'IMI PIRC CALIS FOR HALT TO OPERATIONS AT TMI The Three Mile Island Public Interest Resource Center (TMI PIRC) today asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to halt all work at Three Mile Island Units 1 and 2, except for necessary maintenance, and called for a Congressional Invest-igation of allegations of quality assurance violations in the

'IMI Unit 2 cleanup.

Citing allegations made yesterday by Richard D. Parks, a Senior S. tart-Up Engineer at TMI Unit 2, TMI PIRC also called - '

for formation of a high-level independent commission to inspect and monitor future cleanup activities at 'IMI.

In a letter to U.S. Representative Morris Udall, Randy King, PIRC President, linked Park's allegations with conditions at the plant before the 1979 accident. "The accident at

'IMI Unit 2, " King noted, "was, to a large extent, the result of gross incompetence in the operation of the nuclear reactor and occurred when personnel were operating outside the constraints of GPU's own procedures."

l Expressing concern for the safety implications of the charges, King wrote, "it is imperative to understand that any one of the several possible accident events during cleanup 1

operations would potentially result in a Class 9 accident."

- 30 -

See Letters Attached: NRC, Rep. Udall, Gov. Thornburgh.

I ~ AmeH8usteer Gesup Represonei e fork. Centrei Pennoyeeente Union Caeltelen, Env6penseneuf CesNon en Nuotest Power, heemh 28 Castelen, N Teamship Taft Senoring Comantese, People Against Nestoor Enerw. Susgeshanne VeNoy AaBenes. Tlwee telle $dend Aiort 7 _ - - _ _ _ _.

Three Mile Island Public Interest Resource Center 1037 Maday Street

• Harnsburg, Pa.17103

• 717 233-4241 March.23, 1983 The Honorable Richard Thornburgh Governor Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Harrisburg, Pa., 17120 Dear Governor Thornburgh I write to you' on behalf of the Three Mile Island Public Interest Resource Center and its seven constituent groups representing people in South Central Pennsylvania who are concerned about the health and safety hazards involved with the cleanup of Unit 2 at Three Mile Island and the prematiure restart of Unit 1.

We are deeply disturbed by allegations made by Richard D. Parks,a senior startup engineer for the Bechtel Corporation .

at Three Mile Island Unit 2,in a 56 page affidavit." Mr. Parks charges that the management of 'IMI Unit 2 has sacrificed its own system of safety-related checks and balances for 'IMI clean-up activities in order to meet unrealistic time schedules.

Ne are enclosing a copy of Mr. Parks affidavit and the News Release from the Government Accountability Project so you can read the alliigations in full.

GPU Nuclear has a Quality Assurance Program. The law requires them to follow the procedures. They didn't in 1979, and they reduced TMI Unit 2 to a pile of radioactive _ rubble dis and brought Central Pennsylvania to the brink of_p . aster.

Now, four years later, we learn that the 'INI aanagement, a joint Bechtel and GPU Nuclear Corporation team, :I.s still not following legally required procedures. They t'ake reprisals against their employees, instead of listening to their concerns about safety, for the sole purpose of staying on schedule.

y In the face of, crucially serious allegations made about management integrity , we have writen to Chairman Nunzio Palladino of the Nuclear Re(nllatory Commission calling s j r

for the Commission to halt all work at TMI Units 1 and 2 '

immediately save for mainte nance work necessary for safety. q j

, We have called upon the Honorable Morris Udall, Chairman i 2

of the Ecuse Committee o5! Interior and Insular Affairs to f.

I'

,4 hold hearings and conduct a fornal investigation into GPU's management of the TMI Unit 2 cleanup and the NRC's oversight of cleanup activities.

i We ca.L1 upon you as Governor of the State. of Pennsylvania to lend every assistance to any investigation, either govern-mental or independent, 'into these crucial safety issues. .

We, further, invite you to join us in insisting that an independent panel Fe established that will possess as its sole i . consideration the health and safety of area residents. This

\

panel should monitor every aspect of c1'eanup operatiions in detail and inuure that every proper safeguard is meticulously observed. s i

Sincerely yours,

~

, f'

.m Randy King, President

'IMI Public Interest Resource Center l

l' l

l I

e

= ---~-<wws ..w.--. ,, , __s

Three Mile Island c Public Interest Resource Center v 1037 Maday Street e Harnsburg, Pa.17103

• 717 233 4241 l

March 24, 1983 The Honorable Morris K. Udall, Chairman '

Conedttee on Interior and Insular Affairs .

U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 Representative Udall, .

I write on behalf of the Three Mile Island Public Interest Resource Center in Harrisburg, and its seven constituent grcops representing people in South Central Pennsylvania the M e concerned about health and safety problems presented by Three Mile Island.

~

Allegations by Richard Parks, a senior start up engineer '

at TMI unit II as aired by the Government Accountability

- Project of the Institute for Policy Studies come as one more g indictment in a long record of mismanagement and incompete.nce '

by General Public Utilities (GPU). Four years after the Unit II accident we no longer have any shred of confidence in the ability of GPU management or in the integrity of the Nuclear l Regulatory Commission (NRC) as an oversight body entrusted with the public welfare. Your committee has investigated many

• aspects of the TMI accident and its consequences and are uniquely qualified to conduct hearings into difficult technical

. issues. Therefore, we request that the Subcommittee on. Energy and the Environment hold hearings and conduct a formal invest-igation into GPU's management of the TMI-II cleanup and the NRC's oversight of cleanup activities.

We make this request for the following reasons: ^

The accident at TMI Unit-II was, ,to a larg5i extent, the result of gross incompetence in the-operation of the reactor and occured when personnel were operating

. (1) ,

outside the constraints of GPU's own procedurce.

Substantive allegations arose during Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Hearings that it is not uncommon for 'INI personnel to circumvent operational guidelines and that such conduct during the accident was in no

.way an isolated instance.

A compelling body of evidence exists indicating widespread cheating on operators qualifying examina-~

tions beyond the one case that was proven during the

- hearing process.

The integrity of management is cast into extreme doubt in regard to theirs

1) condoning and encouraging grave procedural improprieties in the cleanup activities at Unit-II as attested by Mr. Parks' affidavit, and GPU management's disregard for the consequences to publis safety,

2) dissemination of information to the proper Pennsylvania emergency authorities, and therefore to the public, during the course of the accident, and

3) probable complicity in the fraudulent exam-ination of at least one operator. .

Since thes'e are-long and ongoing problems that have ES6IeVeidconsiderablehabItcif.yandare,'afterfouryears, uncorrected, and since the NRC has held e-PU under intense scrutiny throughout this period of timc:, including the estab-lishment of a special NRC office land on-site personnel, we must conclude that the NRC is fully aware of these circum-stances and is very unlikely to intervene on behalf of the public interest. Mr Parks cites several specific events that substantiate this conclusion.

Additionally, we request your aid in the establishment of an independent panel to inspect and monitor cleanup activities at Unit-II. We think this panel should be of the stature of the Kemeny Commission but should be appointed with the approval of TMIPIRC, the coalition of area citizens groups concerned about TMI hazards.

It is imperative to understand that any of several possible accident events during cleanup operations would (2)

" a p.m, ,

N*

- , - _ -__.._-x.

potentially result in a class 9 accident. The management b problems' of GPU extend also to the restart of Unit-I. When combined with serious questions about the condition of essent-

~

ial elements of that reactor, the incompetence of GPU manage-ment subjects the people of this area to a double jeopardy that threatens their homes and families. Therefore, we urge your assistance in the invoking of a complete moratorium over activities in either Units-I or II until these critical questions can be resolved.

Respectfully, andy King, Pres.

Three Mile Island Public Information Resource Center e

l e

9 G 0

_ _ , ,,_ _, , , ,_,_ m_,,,,, , , , _ ,, ,,, q , _, _ _ , , , , _ , -_ , , . . _ _ . _ , . _ -a, - -

r UU Wednesday, March 23, 19 MQhhkhhg PRESS CONFERENCE:

-~

at 2:15 p.m.

1901 Q Street, N.W.

1901 Que Street. N.W.

Washington. D.C. 20009 Tel: 202 234 9382 ,

FOR RELEASE: 6:00 PM EUR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Billie Gards (202)234-9382 March 22, 1983 Tom Devine (202)667-7904.

THREE-MILE ISLAND ENGINEER FILES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR COMPLAINT, GAP ANNOUNCES TMI-II INVESTIGATION .

Mr. Richard Parks, a senior startup engineer for the Bechtel Corporatio ct the Three Mile Island (TMI) Unit II, today charged his management -- a team -- with reprisals and joint Bechtel and General Public Utilities (GPU) harassment after ha and others revealed massive quality assurance violations and significant safety concerns during the last two months aNout TMI cleanup

- cnd recovery operations. Through his counsel, the Government Accountability Project (GAP), Parks filed a Department of Labor complaint charging that management harassment, intimidation and actions to strip him of significant duties on-site are illegal under the Atomic Energy Act. As a result of Mr.

Parks' allegations, GAP has begun a preliminary investigation into the TMI cleanup.

Parks, an engineer with over a dozen years of military and commercial nuclear power experience, detailed his charges in a 56 page affidavit.

His primary concerns center around use of the " polar crane" which will lif t and remove the reactor vessel head and other heavy equipment to allow cleanup of the Unit II reactor. His charges include --

• safety-related modifications to equipment and components without full prior engineering and approval;

• quality assurance violations through issuance ofstest and administrativeprocedureswithoutpriorreviewapdapproval; j

• plans to use the polar crane without conducting Ell necessary safety tests and conclusions;

• appointment to a key oversight role of the individual reported on-site an the " mystery man" who shut off the safety injection pumps responsible for much of the damage at the original .

accident; . ,

~- .

• lack of an' integrated schedule between polar crane and other i reactor v. essel hegidlift activities;

• severe harassment and retialiation against those who internally challenged these violations, including investigation and dis-missal for utterly pretextual, previously-undefined offenses; and

• NRC collusion with the misconduct.

Parks charged that these practices were intentional and compromise the internal system.of checks and balances. The abuses resulted from a manage-ment attempt to conduct additional radiation monitoring without falling

'behind schedule after it was discovered in January that radiation levels under the reactor vessel are 30 times higher than previously estimated.

In a letter today to NRC Chairman Nunzio Palladino, GAP Legal Director Thomas Devine stat'ed-We are alarmed that Mr. Parks' experience mirrors that of so many He reports that your other nuclear workers who have contacted us. Instead, agency has failed to aggressively pursue his concerns.

NRC representatives violated his confidentiality, flatly refused to investigate his charges of reprisals, and rejected his allegations on flatly inaccurate grounds contradicted both by NRC notes and cor-porate QA records issued at the same time. Perhaps most disturbing, he reported a practice at 'IMI for NRC representatives to provide the licensee with advance drafts of Comunission documents, and vice versa.

After a consensus was reached, the " official" version would be released.

The continuing allegations of NRC-utility collusion are shattering

'* public confidence in the Commission. Mr. Parks, and GAP, want to '

cooperate with the NRC. As a result, we are submitting his affidavit for your review. Unfortunately, to date Constission representatives have not responded to Mr. Ptrks in good faith. As a result, we have c-- -=4eate further with the NRC until we  ;

advised Mr. Parks not tocr=misalon to ensure that objective, independant can negotiate with the techn4-=1 and investigative staff will be assigned to his case.

Mr. Parks' affidavit also has been forwarded to Congressman Udall's Like many House Interior Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment.

whistleblowers, Parks first attempted to work within the system -- both the corpor' ate and NRC versions. In a prepared statement, he explained why he is 3poing public" and legally defending his rights--

...$ am disillusioned that GPU and Bechtel management are taking such a sloppy approach toward restoring 'IMI Unit II. In light of the damage already done at TMI, there is no excuse to gamble on public health and safety, in order to meet cost and production schedules.{ y[

I an equally disillusioned that the NRC has knowingly;ptevided informal guidance and formal approval for this misconduct.% At the same time, the NRC has failed to work in good faith with employees like myself who seek to uphold the law. If the NRC and the nuclear industry are this careless at TMI, how such can we trust the programs at other plants?

l

/ . . 'I _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ __. . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ = . _ _ . _