ML20235G295
Text
_. - - _ . . _ _ - _ _ _ __ __. _ ____ _. . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
, ..o 1
March 12, 1987 l
l MEMORANDUM FOR: James M. Taylor Director, Office of Inspection and 1 Enforcement Harold R. Denton, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor 4
Regulation James Lieberman, Assistant General Counsel for Enforcement FROM: ,
, A. Bert Davis, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III
SUBJECT:
IMPENDING 2.206 REQUEST RE FERMI SAFETEAM AND u REQUEST FOR CONCURRENCE ON ACKNOWLEDGEMENT LETTER 1
Enclosed is a letter and enclosures received in Region III on March 9 from j SECOM advising that it will be filing a 2.206 Petition in the next several weeks regarding perceived inadequacies in the Fermi SAFETEAM and the scope of NRC's review of SAFETEAM files. Of the several enclosures, a GAP report on the Fermi.SAFETEAM appears to be the most significant. Among other things, 4 the GAP report lists 28 allegations and recommends that SECOM file a 2.206 I petition which (1) calls for NRC to review all SAFETEAM files at Fenni, and have an independent third party investigate inadequately dispositioned allegations (2) requests NRC require that all employee allegation programs i meet 10 CFR Appendix B requireinents and (3) requires all licensee employees i be given full disclosure about the SAFETEAM before they make a choice between I giving information to NRC or SAFETEAM.
Also enclosed is a draft acknowledgement letter which I propose to send to SECOM. I would appreciate your comments / concurrence by cob March 20.
gflefI w I c! W4 If/
A pu ta =
A. Bert Davis l Acting Regional Administrator
Enclosures:
As stated '
Iftf0ftMflod If1 this IR6fd Was deleted 16 secordance wi h Freedogof.informall0S Act,ex8m tiens ';ip . - -
8709290549 870924 h -413 PDR RIII RIII RIII n/jr Be ja iello D s 3/IW87 ; 3/ WS7 3/q487 i
4 I
SAFE ENERGY COALITION OF MICHIGAN P.O. 301 ))1 MONROE, MICRIGLI 48161 )
February 15, 1987 l I
Mr. Burt Davis l Acting Director, Region III l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Dear Mr. Davis l
4 Enclosed you will find a copy of the preliminary investigation of the Fermi 2 nuclear power plant located in Monroe County, Michi 6an. .
This investigation into worker allegations about the safety of Fermi l 2 was conducted by the Government Accountability Project during 1986.
GAP announced their findings at a Press Conference on January 14, 1987 in Detroit, Michigan. You will find additional information ,
included in this packet from this conference.
The GAF investigation of the Fermi facility revealed enough in- ;
formation to raise very serious questions about the quality of con- ;
struction of Fermi 2, the ability and willingness of Detroit Edison's )
management to comply with federal regulations, and the total failure of the internal employee allegation program, SAFETdAM. With over i three dozen Fermi workers providing information, the GAF investigators l concluded that the Fermi 2 facility is not a safe project that Le- l troit Edison officials would like to have the public believe.
As you art well aware, information gathered about Fermi 2 is of the same calliber that led to comprehensive investigations at j other nuclear plants (Zimmer and Midland). Those investigations re-vealed more complex problems which required major rework. The pro- ,
blems proved so serious the utilities abandoned their nuclear pro- {
jects. 1 The Fermi 2 project has not been spared these problems that l plague the nuclear industry. Significant modifications and rework l of many systems were necessitated due to Edison's own mistakes. In- j adequate attention to design control has led to excessive delays I and huge cost overruns. Lack of nuclear experience, underestimation I of the budget, poor quality control, equipment failures, design de-ficiencies, skill shortages, lapsing security measures, serious manage-ment weaknesses, and failure to complete surveillance pro 6 rams pro- ]
perly have plaqued this nuclear boondoogle. Furthermore , the pro- !
blems continue at Fermi 2. '
In the past SECOM has filed two separate petitions with the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding safety issues at Fermi 2, one in January, 1985 and another in February, 1986. In the January, 1985 petition we asked the NRC to withhold fuel loading and licensing, pending a full invaication into problems at the plant. These pro-g }w 21!) 3/1 M S ISSI.
1 l }
, 1 Puc Two SECOE Lott2r blems included the adequacy of the computer systems for retrieving data on critical areas of the plant, a design defective radwaste management facility,1mek of recorded and documented design changes, inherent weaknessess and deficiencies of the General Electric Mark I reactor.
The NRC responded by stating there were no loger problems or that we did not have enough basis for our safety allegations. So, in February,1986, we filed another petition asking the NRC to in- !
stitute proceedings regarding the ineffective and incompetently '
managed and operated licensee program at Fermi 2. We asked the NRC to hold hearings to investigate safety and management problems and to revoke Edison's operating license. These requests were both denied.
Since these petitions were filed, forty-seven workers from the Fermi 2 plant have been interviewed regarding safety concerns of this facility. The atmosphere of pressure and harassment on the workforce i that ' occurred at Fermi 2, did not permit the detection or correction of the root cause or generic implications of the safety concerns of these workers. Those concerns are documented in Detroit Edison's <
SAFETEAM files. Your agency has refused to fully investigate and I review the safety implications of the allegations contained in the j
! SAFETEAN files. Without an honest and independent investigative i effort, it will be impossible to determine how serious the problems {
are at the Fermi 2 nuclear plant.
The Safe Energy Coalition of Eichigan, based on the GAP inves-tigation,knows within those SAFETEAM files lies the information to identify serious quality control and quality assurance problems and i to lead the NRC to the root cause which would shed light on the severity of hardware and design deficiencies at the plant.
We believe the NRC has not done the job it was mandated to carry out. To refuse to take control of all the SAFETEAM files and conduct inspbetions and investigations into the issues raised by workers, is a very destructive, illegal, and' dangerous course for a government !
Therefore, the Safe Energy Coalition of Michigan agency)to (SECOM be the and on. Sisters, Servants, of the Immaculate Heart of Mary I l
(IHM) will be filing a joint petition 2.206 in the next few weeks addressing our concerns and the actions the NRC should be taking. "
l We'will be waiting your response.
Sincerely, f
/
LA$de" Jenni er E. Puntenney Director, Safe Energy Coalition of kichigan .
33414 Oakland Apt. #3 Farmington, Eichigan 48024 l Telephones (313) 477-2214 (h)
(3130 764-0478 (w) ces Representative John Dingell Governor James Blanchard Monroe County Board of Commissioners Senator Don Riegle Senator Carl Levin
SAFE ENERGY COALITION OF MICHIGAN P.O. 301 331 MONROE, MICHIGAN 48161 January 14, 1987 PRESS STATEMENT By ,
Jennifer Puntenney, Director Safe Energy Coalition of Michigan (313) .477-3441 The Saf e Energy Coalition of Michigan .has been a long-time opponent of Detroit Edison's Fermi 2 nuclear power plant. This 1,100 megawatt General Electric boiling water reactor was to cost
$229 million when construction began in 1969 The Detroit Edison Company estimated that the plant would be completed and operating commercially by 1974. Flagued by engineering problems and constfuc-tion delays, along with financial woes, this date stas' unattainable.
After 17 years, the Fermi 2 project has not been spared the pro-bloms that continue to grow and plague the world's nuclear indus-try.
Some delays have been attributed to regulatory changes after the 1975 Brown's Ferry accident in Alabama, the 1979 Pennsylvanian accident at Three Mile Island, and most recently, the Chernobyl disaster in the Soviet Union. Hundreds of modifications were re-quired after THI to enhance the safety of nuclear reactors. In 1979, further problems arose at Fermi 2 when significant modifica-tions and reworktwere necessitated due to Edison's own mistakes.
Page Two PUNTENNEY Press Statement An example of this was the radioactive waste processing facility.
I Inadequate attention to design control has led to exceasive delays and huge cost overruns. Lack of nuclear experience, underestimation of the budget, poor quality control, equipment failuyec, design de-ficiencies, skill shortages, and serious management weaknesses have plagued this nuclear boondoogle.
These problems and others are not subsiding, but they continue to grow in complexity and number. At $ 4.23 billion Fermi 2 is currently shut down due to the recent steam and chlorine leaks.
Furthermore, the plant must be operated below 20% of full power because of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's determination that Edison's personnel do not have enough operating experience. These delays are costing over $30 million a month in interest chaeges alone.
In the past, SECOM has filed two separate petitions with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding safety issues at Fermi 2, ,
one in January, 1985 and another in February, 1986. In the January, 1985 Petition we asked the NRC to withhold fuel loading and lican-sing, pending a full investigation into problems at the plant.
These included the adequacy of the computer systems for retrieving
- data on critical areas of the plant, a design defective radwaste management facility, lack of recorded and documented design changes, inherent weaknessess and deficiencies of the General Electric Mark I reactor,and the small containment surrounding the reactor, which' was not designed to cope with severe accidents.
The NRC responded by stating there were no longer problems or that we did not have enough basis for our safety allegations. So.
l 1
Faga Thrao-FUNTENNEY Press Statement I
l in February,1986, we filed another petition asking the NRC to in-stitute proceedings regarding the ineffective and incompetently managed and operated licensee program at Fermi 2. We asked the NRC to hold hearings to investigate safety and management problems and to revoke Edison s operating license. These requests were both l denied.
One month after the second petition was filed, we received a l call from a former Fermi 2 worker asking SECOM to help Publicly disclose documents that he held in his possession regarding the health physics operation at the plant. He had serious concerns .
about the safety of Fermi 2 and believed the plant should not be
- allowed to operate. This worker in March,1986 had recently won an out of court settlement with Detroit Edison. He had been fired i
for raising safety concerns.
In May, 1986, SECOM and the Sisters,~ Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary (IHM), a religious order established 140 years ago in Monroe, retained a non-profit public interest law firm based in Washington, D.C. after workers asked for help in publicly disclosing problems at Fermi 2. This firm, the Government Accountability Pro-ject, began an investigation into Fermi 2 workers' concerns and al-legations about safety.
Today, we will be announcing the Government Accountability Pro-ject's results of this 6-month preliminary investigation into safety issues at the Fermi 2 nuclear power plant. SECCM will also announce our intended course of action. Before that announcement, it is at this point, I would like to present Sister Barb Bacci of the IEM.
It is SECOM? s opinion that it is reckless and irresponsible for
PUNTENNEY Proos Statocont .
the NRC and the Detroit Edison Company to continue on this danger-ous course at Fermi 2. The Government Accountability Project)s report substantiates our long-held concerns that we have raised ,
in the past. The GAP report also documents workerd safety allegations about this nuclear facility and reveals the failure of Detroit Edi-son a SAFETEAM program.
The SAFETEAM program was begun in 1983 to allow workers to voice concerns internally to the company. It was also designed to prevent these concerns from delaying or shutting down Fermi 2 by the 1:RC.
l The concept is now patented and has been sold to other utilities, but not without problems. SECOM and GAP. protested early on to the NRC about the use of the SAFETEAM program. .The NRC has only examined 10 per cent of 1, 867 worker allegations in 1985 The report was only released after GAP and SECOM filed a Freedom of Information request to have the NRC's Offics of Investigations release this investigative review of the SAFETEAM. The report criticized the pro-gram as fundamentally flawed and on the whole useless.
The NRC i s refusal to fully investigate and review the safety implications of workerd allegations is reprehensible and falls dan-geroualy short of congressionally mandated responsibilities to pro-vide reasonable assurance of a safely built nuclear power plant.
Our past requests to the NRC for investigative action have not provided satisfactory answers. We will be pursuing the recommenda-tions of the Government Accountability Project. It is the only via-ble avenue to force the NRC to pursue the type of investigative 4f-fort necessary to determine the actual condition of the as-built plant. The following actions will be taken by the Safe Energy Co-alltion of Michigant
Fago F.ive P NTENNEY Stat 3 ment ;
i
- 1. File a petition pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 requesting that l l . . I the NRC take possession of all SAFETEAM files,. review the alle-gations for all potential safety-related deficiencies, deterw mine which allegations were originally or now are inadequately dispositioned pursuant to. the original commitments of .the site procedures and federal regulations, and conduct thorough inde-pendent investigations into those allegations. (Independence in this context means hiring a company with integrity and credi-bility to review the allegations, as opposed to the NRC or the utility.)
- 2. Include in the petition a request that the NRC require this and all employee allegation programs to be subjected to the requirements of federal regulations (10 CFR 50 Appendix B) .
3 Require that employees are given full disclosure about the SAFETEAM program. This disclosure must include informing work-ers that their allegations will be given to a senior management review team and investigated ~ by contacting the workers super-visors for *their side of the story."
Finally, SECOM will pursue these recommendations in federal court ;
litigation, if necessary, to put an-end to the serious regulatory failures which have plagued this plant.
6
GOVERNMENT ACCbUNTADIUTY PROJECT 1555 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 202 Wet #9 ton, D.C 20036 (202)2024550 Government' Accountability Project Midwest Office ,
3424 Worth Marcos Lana .
Appleton, WI 54911 (414) 730-8533 January .7, 1987 Safe Energy Coalition of Michigan ,
P.O. Box 332 Monroe, Michigan 48161 RE: Preliminary Investigation of Fermi, nuclear power plant.
Dear SECO Members:
Attached to this letter is the report of the Government
.- Accountability Project's preliminary investigation into worker allegations about the safety of the Fermi plant which was begun last spring at your raquest.
At this point GAP considers its FERMI investigation , -.
completed and, according.to the recommendations contained l
'in the report, suggest that federal court litigation is the only !
. viable' avenue to force the Nuclear Regulatory Constission to
. pursue the type of investigative effort necessary_to_ determine the actual condition of the as-built p2. ant. We belTeve that
,such an investigation is appropriate, based on serious regulatory failures which have plagued this plant ~and the conclusions that-we have drawn from"the niiiiSers of 'tNo workf5rce that we have
. falked to. In. addition to those two sources of information and -
knowledge, of coursac GAP has also relied on the information contained in the documents released this summer under the Freedom of Information Act regarding the SAFETEAM program.
Through the SAFETEAM documents it is obvious to us that there was an atmosphere of pressure and harassment on the i workforce which did not permit the detection or' correctifon of the root cause or generic implications._of _the,filifiEp~ concerns of the workforce. The g f.s obstinate refusal to fully investigate and review the safety implications of the allegations )
- contained in the SAFETEAM files is perhaps tihe mosE~ outrageous '
We strongly urge you regulatoryactionevertakenbytheMRC.
to challenge that-position in court. It is our firm belief that
]
l an honest and independent investigative effort of the SAFETEAM G
SAFE ENERGY COALITION OF MICHIGAN P.o. 301 M1 sosmor, MIcsIsas 48161 January 8, 1987 POR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Shirley Steinman (SEC0k) 313-242-2088 Mary Johnston (SEC0k) 313-477-1670 PRESS CONFERENCE ANNOUNCEMENT U (GAP) 111'yo,$rde 47 $
Jennifer Puntenney (SECOM) 313-477-3441 FERMI 2 SAFETY INVESTIGATION RESULTS ANNOUNCED BY NATIONAL PUBLIC INTEREST GROUP Monroe---The Safe Energy Coalition of Michigan (SECOM) will hold a press conference to announce the Government Accountability Project's results of a 6-month preliminary investigation into safety issues at
~
the Fermi 2 nuclear power plant.'which is 35 alles southeast of De-trbit. The press conference will bei WEDNESDAY, January 14, JSjl 9:30 a.m. j Farmington Hills Community Library 32737 W.12 Mile Road (west of Orchard Lake Rd.)
Farmington Hills. Michigan l 313-552-0300 l Representatives from SECOE and GAP will spent at the press conference.
Spokesperson Jennifer Puntenney, of the Safe Energy Coalition of Michigan, long-time opponents of Detroit Edison's Fermi 2 nuclear ,
facility, stated, "The problems at Fermi 2 are not subsiding but conA tinue to grow in complexity and number. It is reckleserand irrespon-sible for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Detroit Edison Company to continue on this dangerous course. The Government Accountability s7 (GAP) report substantiates our concerns and documents worke rs' safety allegations. As a result of the GAP investigation, 1
---more---
concarna would identify carioun quality control and_qualit.y assurance oroblams, the root cause of which would provide some ,
sense of the breadth and depth of hardware deficiencies at tine plant. Without that type of investigation'n ahd 'with'6 tit the access to an on site workforce it is impossible to determine how deep the problems at the Fermi plant are.
We continue to work with some of the former workers who have' brought suit against the Detroit Edison Company and/or other employers. Since thess cases are in litigation we )
cannot include any comments regarding those cases in this {
report. At such time as it is appropriate we will inform you of )
the issues raised by thosa employees in relation to this report.
At this point suffice it to say that we have found no contrary ,
evidence in the information not included herein to the conclusions !
and recommendations that we have made. j j
I have enjoyed working with you on this case. I wish that our relationship could he.ve started in 1983; however, that was ,
not possible. I wish you all ;the very best for 1987 and urge you to continue your challenge to the Fermi II reactor, which I' z am personnally convinced is in an unsafe and indeterminate j condition, managed by either_ incompetent or untrEitiforthy personnel who have 1:.ttle_ regard.for fiIdifil_regulitT6ns and requirements and virtually no appreciation for the_ dangers of I the reactor they are so eager to operate.
After you have reviewed this report please contact me to i discuss the recommendations.
Sincerely, '
I
% 4x G Billie Pirner Garde Director, Midwest Office
)
i i
. )
t cc: Sisters Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary Cs 4
I
,- fSECOM Preso Anncuncocont Paga Two SECOM will announce its intended course of action.
1 In May,1986, SECOM and the Sisters, Servants of the Immaculate Heart j l
of Mary (IHM), a religious order established 140 years ago in honroe, retained a non-profit public interest law firm based in Washington, D.C. after workers asked for help in publicly disclosing problems at Fermi 2. This firm, the Government Accountability Project, began an
]
' investigation into Fermi 2 workers' concerns and allegations about safety.
GAP's Midwest project director, Billie Garde, stated,
- GAP has com-plated the preliminary investigation begun last spring regarding Fermi 2. The conclusions of this probe confirms what many in the !
Detroit area have come to believe, that is, something drastically wrong occurred during the engineering, construction, and inspection of the Fermi 2 project. Members of the workforce, most of them now located at other plants around the country, believe that Fermi 2 is unsafe in its current condition."
Garde. explained further that "It is GAP s belief that the only way I
to determine the root cause and therefore the extent of the . problems of the plant is for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to take control of the SAFETEAM files and conduct inspections and investigat-tions into the issues raised by workers. Something must be done about these problems. The NRC is caught in its own ridiculous bureaucratic hiding place. This is not an acceptable solution where issues of health, safety.and cost are so important.#
Detroit Edison started the SAFETEAM program, that GAP refers to, in 1983 to allow workers to voice concerns internally to the company. The concept is now patented and has been sold to other utilities, but not I without similar problems that have occurred at Fermi 2. SECOM pro-tested early on to the NRC about the use of the SAFETEAM program.
The NRC only examined 10 percent of 1,867 worker allegations in 1985 In July,1986, the NRC's Office of Investigations released a report criticizing the program as fundamentally flawed and on the whole useless.
At $ 4.23 billion, Fermi 2 is currently operating below 20% of full power due to the problems at the plant and the NRC's determination that Edison's personnel do not have enough operating experience. These delays are costing Detroit Edison over $ 1 million a day in interest alone.
---30---