ML20214E395
| ML20214E395 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/13/1987 |
| From: | Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Markey E HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20214E398 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900403 NUDOCS 8705220068 | |
| Download: ML20214E395 (2) | |
Text
I w
Distribution.
NRC PDR BGrimes e "%q Lccal PDR JBlaha p
Rea
['i )
NUCLEAR RE UL T RY COMMISSION 3 e g
o rg
.~.
W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 VStel1o E002743 t.
f JTaylor EMerschoff
%, V #
TRehm UPotapovs May 13* 1987 HThompson, NMSS RPettis CHAIRMAN JMurray, 0GC RMcIntyre JMartin, RV SECY 01 CA TMurley ED0 2743 The Honorable Edward J. Markey a
United States House of Representatives RStarostecki Washington, D.C.
20515 JPartlow
Dear Congressman Markey:
by Mr. Sam A. Milam, III, a former General Electric Company (GE)gations m I am responding to your letter of April 10, 1987 cc.icerning alle Nuclear Engineer, and Mr. Charles Stokes, a consultant to the Government Accountability Project (GAP).
Your_ letter raises questions concerning our response to your letter of December 8,1986, regarding the Coninission's practice of notifying an outside party of the nature of a Congressional inquiry. The Commission disagrees with your characterizations of our December 24, 1986 response on how and why GE was informed of your letter. The Commission staff has acted in a responsible manner consistent with established agency procedures. The Agency's action in permitting GE to make a proprietary review was undertaken only after the staff was satisfied that such review would not jeopardize any further Agency action. addresses this matter.
The Items of Nonconformance addressed in NRC Inspection Report No.
99900403/86-01 dated December 24, 1986, are receiving attention. The staff has recently completed an additional inspection at GE's San Jose facility to review documentation used by GE to support their response to the Items of Nonconformance referenced on pages 3 and 4 of your letter. This inspection report is presently being drafted. An NRC review of documentation used to support GE's response to tinresolved Items identified in Section C of the 86-01 inspection report, along with six additional items from the Stokes report, was also performed during the inspection. Deferred verification remains an unresolved item. This matter will be reviewed further in ar inspection scheduled for July 1987.
You expressed
- lack of confidence that all allegations were resolved with respect to tht eactor mode switch. This issue was identified in inspection report 86-01 as an unresolved item and, as such, will receive further attention.
The previous 86-01 inspection report did not address all of the concerns raised in Mr. Stokes' account of Mr. Milam's extensive work record. Only a representative sample of potentially significant concerns was selected for review by the NRC. GE was requested in the 86-01 report to provide a written reply to 143 additional items. Three of the four 'ssues vou identified for
!)h Originated: NRR:Pettis
,f k
8705220068 870513 '
l 'h y
h PDR GA999 EMVGENE 99900403 PDR
m
~
further action by the NRC, including the issue of unverified documents used in Final Safety Analysis Reviews, are includeo in this list.
The results of the staff review of these 143 additional items will be documented in a report of the July inspection. You will be provided a copy of that report. The fourth issue concerns improper divisional separation in electrical power distribution panels manufactured and designed by GE. This was resolved by replacing the'-
single power source feeding all four divisions with a design utilizing two separate power sources. GE reported this problem to the NRC Region V office on August 7, 1980. As a result of the above action taken by GE, this particular issue was closed during.the 86-01 inspectiun. provides the staff's response to the seven questions you asked regarding specific. technical issues. A copy of the report documenting _our most recent inspection will be forwarded to your office upon completion. We expect it to be completed within the next four weeks.
Commissioner Roberts did not participate in this response.
Sincerely, W.
Lando W. Zec Jr.
Enclosures:
1.
Staff Responses to Questions in 12/08/86 Letter To Chairman Zech 2.
Response To Questions On
-Specific Technical Issues cc: Rep. Philip R. Sharp m-m
-e-F
-+r-