ML20235N786
| ML20235N786 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/10/1987 |
| From: | Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Glenn J SENATE, GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19306E746 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8707200229 | |
| Download: ML20235N786 (5) | |
Text
.
{
. f * %,, ',,
UNITED ST ATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
- t
/ '* '
WAsc*iNGTON D C 205!5 h
g b3 ~
j July 10, 1987 The Honorable John Glenn Chairman, Committee on Governmental Affairs United States Senate Washington, D.C.
20510-8250
Dear Mr. Chairman:
l I am responding to your June 22, 1987 request for information regarding the 1975 General Electric (GE) study referred to as the " Reed Report" and another internal GE document, also written in 1975, concerning the structural soundness
'(
The staff has reviewed the Reed Report of GE-designed containment vessels.
i on e number of occasions as discussed in the enclosed answers to your f
In each review the staff determined that no new safety issues were questions.
identified that were not part of ongoing staff reviews and initiatives.
Another review of the Reed Report is presently in progress and the results will It is anticipated that the NUREG be published as a NUREG by the Commission.A copy will be provided to you at that will be available later this month.
Proprietary and predecisional documents will be made available for your time.
staff's review through cur Office of Governmental and Public Affairs.
Sincerely, la.
1.ando W. Zech, r.
I 1
Enclosures:
Responses to Questions cc:. Senator William Roth l
1
.)
[
QUESTION 1.
i When and'under what circumstances did the NRC or any of its CommissionersWhen did first become awate of the existence of the Reed Report?Please provide the Comitte first possess a copy of the Reed Report?
copies of any and all documents in.the form of memorand concerns raised about GE reactor / containment vessel designs, including but not limited to a memorandum from Joseph Hendrie.
ANSWER _.
I The existence of the Reed Report was 'irst disclosed o j
the San Francisco airport on August 21, 1975.
23-24, 1976, two NRC staff members went to the GE Subsequently, on February offices in Washington, D.C. to review the Reed Report to determine if the report expressed any safety concerns of which the NRC was not aware an GE had met the requirements of Section 206 of the Energy Reorganization Ac In this review, 1974 in regard to the reporting of significant safety items.
the staff members did not identify any new safety concerns or any evidence that significant safety concerns had not been reported to the NRC.
A copy of the memorandum from the two staff members to the Director, O This memorandum was Nuclear Reactor Regulation, is provided as Enclosure 1.
l incorporated in the record of the hearing of the Joint Committee on Atomic l
Energy's Investigation of Charges Relating to Nuclear Re l
)
Since this initial review, the staff has reviewed the Reed Report several f
1 other times.
f In December 1977, Congressman John D. Dingell requested information on the Reed Report, which the Chair;an provided in a letter dated February 9, 1978.
On March 6, 1978, the staff formally asked GE to provide a copy of the Reed On March 22, 1978, GE gave l
Report or a list of the safety issues it raised.
the NRC a list of 25 issues identified in the report as having some safety-members of the NRC staff and a member of significance. On April 11, 1978, Congressman Dingell's staff met at the GE offices in Washington, D.C. and reviewed the Reed Report. On May 26, 1978, GE gave NRC the status and an On November 9, 1978, evaluation of the 25 issues identified in the report.
i
- " Investigation of Charges Relatirig to Nuclear Reactor Safety," Hearings of 18, 23, 24 and March 2 and 4, the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, February 1976. Volume II, at p. 1774.
1
(
the staff gave the Commission a draft letter response to Congressman D "no discussing the staff review and stating the staff conclus The Chairman forwarded the staff's findings to Congressman Dingell in a letter cated December 27, 1978 (enclosed).
The Commission first cbtained a copy of the Reed Report on January 5, 1979, wher GE provided a copy to the Atomic Safety Licensing Board in the Black Fcx The Board received and reviewed the report in camera _, and the GE categorized the report as
- proprietary" and proceedings.
~
report was not made public.
claimed that, under the provisions of the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR As part of its 2.790, the report was exempt from mandatory public disclosure.
agreement with GE, the Board issued a protective order relating to the in-clusion of the Reed Report into evi'dence in the Black Fox proceedings.
(1)theReed
{
The pertinent terms of the protective order were as follows:(2) verbatim extractions Report was available to the Board in confidence; were available to counsel insofar as they related to the Intervenor's contentions and Board questions; The Intervenor's counsel to evaluate the faithfulness cf the extractions.
l parties also signed protective agreements that limited access to and use o) the report.
Also enclosed are copies of (1) the February 25, 1976 memorandum from 25, 1972, memorandum W. Minners and D. Knuth to B. Rusche; (2) the Septembermemorandum from S.N. Hanauer l
from Joseph Hendrie; (3) a September 20, 1972, 27, 1978, response from the Chainnan J.F. O' Leary and others; (4) the DecemberThe Hanauer memorandum provides backl to Congressman Dingell.related to the Hendrie memorandum, but as you will g
it.
nell before the Reed Report and do not relate directly to CUESTION 2.
When and under what circumstances did the NRC or any of its Commissioners first become aware of the existence of the internal correspondence between GE's H.E. Stone and A. Philip Bray, concerning the potential impact of When did the NRC first disclosure of the Reed Report on GE's business?
i possess copies of such correspondence 7 Please provide the Committee with copies of any and all documents in the form of memoranda to or from the Commission or ED0 concerning l
4 (1) this internal correspondence and (2) the potential impact of release of the Reed Report on GE.
ANSWER.
The staff learned of the correspondence you referenced through recent articles l
The NRC does not have a in The Cleveland Plain Dealer and other newspapers.
i ccpy of this or related GE internal correspondence concerning the impact o disclosure of the Reed Report.
I
QUESTION 3.
What is the current NRC position on releasing the Reed Report to the public?
What is the basis for that position? Please describe how this position was established, and if it was the result of the Commissioners' voting procedures, include the date and result of the vote (s).
ANSWER.
The Commission has not reconsidered this issue since its previous vote of July 9, 1986 not to release the Reed Report to the public. At that time, the Commission, through a notation vote on SECY 86-176, decided by a vote of 3-1 (Chairman Zech and Commissioners Roberts and Bernthal approving and former Commissioner Asselstine disapproving) to withhold the Reed Report and not release it to the public. Copies of the letters to those individuals who filed Freedom of Information Act requests for the Reed Report are enclosed. Also enclosed are copies of SECY 86-176, Commissioners' vote sheets on the paper, and the Staff Requirements Memorandum completing action on the paper.
QUESTION 4.
What consideration did the NRC give to the information contained in the Reed Report at the time the NRC issued a construction permit for the Perry plant in May 19777 What consideration did the NRC give to the information contained in the Reed Report at the time the NRC issued an operating license for the 1
Was the Reed Report, or any portion thereof, made a Perry plant in 1985?
part of the official record of the construction permit or licensing proceeding?
ANSWER.
l The Reed Report was not, iii whole or in part, made a part of the official record of the construction permit or licensing proceeding for the Perry plant.
No special consideration was given to the Reed Report itself when the NRC'
'i issued the construction permit and operating license for the Perry plant. As stated above, the staff review of the Reed Report in 1976 did not identify any new safety concerns or any evidence that significant safety concerns had not been reported to the NRC. The staff is now reviewing the Reed Report from the perspectives gained from the licensing and the operating experience of GE On the boiling water reactors (BWRs), including four GE BWR-6 Mark III plants.
basis of its review to date, the staff has found no reason to limit operation l
of licensed BWR-6 reactors.
Certain issues addressed by the Reed Report are still being studied by the industry and the NRC. These include BWR pipe cracks; main steam isolation valve reliability; reload-dependent thermal, hydraulic, and reactivity limits; and the long-term effects of radiation on metal. Although some of these issues were not characterized by GE or recognized by the staff as safety issues when the Reed Report was written, the staff has since identified them as such during the development of ongoing safety programs. The staff's current study of the Reed Report has not revealed any new safety issues.
l As soon as the staff's study is complete, the results will be made available to you.
QUESTION 5.
When and under what circumstances did the NRC or any of its Commissioners first become aware of the' existence of a 1975 GE memo written by Dr. Miles C.
l Leverett, GE's former manager of nuclear safety, concerning the structural What response, if soundness of the Mark I, II and III containment vessels?
any, dio the NRC have to the information centained in Dr. Leverett's memorandum?
l ANSWER.
Review of this matter indicates that the NRC was unaware of Dr.
22, 1987 request. The Agency memorandum until it was mentioned in your Junedoes not'have any The Commission is attempting to obtain a copy of Dr.
the information in it.
Leverett's memorandum from GE.
l l
1 1
\\
1 1
l l
J l
,