ML20236C073

Director'S Decision Under 10CFR2.206.* Relief Request Granted in Part & Denied in Part.Request to Suspend Const Activities or CP Declined Due to Reinsp & Plant Mods Sufficiently Controlled.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20236C073
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	10/16/1987
From:	James Keppler NRC OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS
To:
References
CON-#487-4639 2.206, NUDOCS 8710270002
Download: ML20236C073 (30)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _

J

,- 3 Y

' l 00 17 MCgETED 4 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION M !9 A1026 0FFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS i-James G. Keppler, Director Office;ef HCKCirga .9kghy 3, SRANCH a )

n 1 In The Matter of )

) Docket Nos. 50-445 TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, ) 50-446 et al.

t (Coisanche Peak Steam Electric (10 CFR 2.206)

Station, Units 1 and 2 1

DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 6 2.206 I

INTRODUCTION On March 19, 1984, the Government Accountability Project (GAP) filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) a Petition pursuant to 10 CFR 6 2.206 on behalf of the Citizens Association for Sound Energy (CASE) and several nuclear workers at the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station site (Petitioners).

The Petition was referred to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation for consideration and, subsequently, to the Director of the Office of Special Projects, which was formed by the Executive Director for Operations in February 1987 to resolve the complex regulatory issues associated with the Comanche Peak and TVA facilities.

The Petition requested that the NRC take certain actions with respect to alleged serious construction and documentation deficiencies at the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (facility) of the Texas Utilities Electric Company, el al. (Licensees), holders of Construction Permits CPPR-126 and CPPR-127 and Applicants for operating licenses for Units 1 and 2. The relief requested a 87102 g $ h p

?" 1so1

B SLY

_ = _ _ . _ -

}

2' management audit of the Licensees to assess the cause of alleged design and construction quality assurance problems at Comanche Peak and an independent design and construction verification program for Comanche Peak. Under the l request, these actions would be accomplished through a Director's order for:

(1) an immediate halt to construction, (2) the assignment of a special NRC inspection team to determine the extent of the problems in design documentation and construction deficiencies, and (3) suspension of the construction permits until the work of-the special inspection team and an independent design and-construction verification program (IDCVP) are completed. The Petition was supported by. three affidavits from nuclear workers which were provided ,

contemporaneously to the NRC's Office of Investigations.1/

BACKGROUND The NRC acknowledged receipt of. the Petition by a letter of May 24, 1984 to the Petitioners. With respect to the request of the Petitioners that con-struction at the Comanche Peak facility be suspended immediately, the NRC Staff informed the Petitioners that it had conducted a preliminary review of the i

affidavits submitted by Petitioners in support.of the Petition and that none of i

the allegations in the affidavits raised a public health and safety issue requiring immediate suspension of construction activities. To the extent final NRC Staff review of these matters identified construction deficiencies, these matters would be corrected prior to operation of the facility. The Staff noted that it would continue to review the Petition with regard to the relief ,

requested in other areas and that the Staff would consider all relevant 1/ The reason given by the Petitioners to provide the affidavits only to the Office of Investigations was to protect the identity of confidential sources.

L.

3 j

-, )

t l

information, including additional information that Petitioners might submit to l further support the Petition. No additional information was submitted.

Following a detailed review of the Petition and supporting affidavits, the q J'

NRC Staff formed a'special review team to specifically evaluate whether l

construction should be allowed to continue. This team conducted its special l

)

review during the period April 3-13, 1984, and issued its report, " Comanche ]

Peak Special Review Team Report," on July 13, 1984. The team concluded in its j

report that the Licensees' programs were being sufficiently controlled to allow continued plant construction while the NRC completed its review ano inspection of the facility. The team evaluated the implementation of Licensees' management control of the construction, inspection and test programs and found it generally effective and receiving proper management attention. The team also probed the extent of problems with design documentation and construction deficiencies. Both strengths and weaknesses were found, but no weaknesses were identified of such severity as to warrant a halt in cor.struction.

In addition, following the special review team inspection, the NRC Staff assembled a technical review team (TRT) at the plant site on July 9,1984. The TRT consisted of over 50 technical experts drawn from the NRC (Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and Regions), national laboratories, and consulting organizations. The TRT investigated allegations from July through October j

1984. Among those were all the technical allegations raised by the Petition l

and supporting affidavits. Five supplements to the Comanche Peak Safety  ;

Evaluation Report (NUREG-0797) were issued documenting the findings of the TRT's investigations in the areas of electrical / instrumentation and test programs (SSER No. 7), civil / structural and miscellaneous (SSER No. 8),

protective coatings (SSER No. 9), mechanical / piping (SSER No. 10), and quality assurance / quality control (QA/QC) (SSER No. 11). Civil penalties have been assessed against the Licensees for violations based on the results of the TRT l

l l

l 4

review. 2_/ Of the allegations investigated and documented in SSER Nos. 7-11, The approximately 18% were substantiated, half of which were safety-related.

majority of the allegations raised in the Petition and supporting affidavits were addressed in SSER No. 11 dealing with QA/QC. The NRC Staff again concluded that the concerns raised in the TRT review, including the substantiated allegations, were not of sufficient severity as to warrant a halt in construction.

In response to the issues identified in these SSERs and elsewhere, the Licensees prepared and submitted, for NRC Staff review, the Comanche Peak Response Team (CPRT) Piogram Plan, which includes a plan for resolution of all issues and actions required by the SSERs, as well as self-initiated actions to broadly re-examine the adequacy of the design and construction of the Comanche Peakfacility.2/ The Staff issued SSER Supplement No. 13, dated May 1986, which concluded that this plan provides an acceptable overall structure for addressing known deficiencies and, through its self-initiated programs, for detecting unknown deficiencies in design and construction.

Other allegations raised in the Petition and supporting affidavits involving wrongdoing were considered by the NRC Office of Investigations (01).

Twoinvestigations(ReportNo. 4-84-025, Alleged Improprieties In The Brown &

Root, Inc. Document Control Center; Report No. 4-84-039, Alleged Intimidation 2/ See EA 86-09, issued May 2, 1986, proposing civil penalties in the amount of $250,000. The Licensees poid $200,000 of this penalty on August 4, 1986, and sought mitigation of the outstanding penalty amount. The Licensees' request for mitigation was denied by the Staff in an order imposing the outstanding penalty amount dated December 15, 1986 and payment of the balance was submitted on January 5, 1987.

3/ The adequacy of the Licensees' CPRT Program Plan is among the matters pending before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in the ongoing operating license proceeding.

i L

l QCInspector)andtwoinquiries(ReportNo.Q4-84-029, Alleged Use of Nonconforming Materials; Report No. Q4-84-030, Alleged Improper Upgrading of Material) were conducted. S/ The technical aspects of these OI Reports were considered in the work performed by the TRT and resulting Supplemental Safety l Evaluation Reports. The 01 Reports substantiated' allegations of intimidation, .

harassment, and discrimination. The NRC has also undertaken a comprehensive review and evaluation of the allegations of intimidation, harassment, and  ;

discrimination at the Comanche Peak facility as reflected in the report issued  :

by the Staff's Harassment and Intimidation Panel. EI Civil penalties have been assessed against the Licensees for violations based on the results of the panel review and the 01 Reports. 5/ 1 DECISION 1 s

With this background, I now consider each of the specific requests made by 1 i

. Peti tioners regarding construction activities at the Comanche Peak facility. j The Petition first requested a halt in plant construction. As described in the 1 Background, the NRC Staff had conducted a preliminary review of the matter of continued construction based on the information contained in the Petition and l

l

-4/

Board Notification No. 86-14 dated April 4,1986, enclosed a synopsis of Report No. 4-84-039. A summary of the other three 01 reports is contained in a menorandum to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board from R. G.

Bachmann, Counsel for the NRC Staff, dated August 25, 1986.

5/ See " Report of the Review and Evaluation of Allegations of Intimidation

~

and Harassnent of Employees at Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2," dated October 1985, transmitted to the Licensees by letter dated November 4, 1985.

-6/

See EA 86 63, issued May 2, 1986, proposing civil penalites in the amount ,

of $120,000. The Licensees paid $40,000 of this penalty on June 2, 1986, l and sought mitigation of the outstanding penalty amount. An NRC 1etter dated August 25, 1987 confirmed NRC determination that the violations l occurred but granted relief from payment of the full sum of the civil  !

penalty. .

l l

l

- _ _ _ _ _ - _ \

6 l concluded that it did.not raise safety issues requiring the imediate  !

suspension of construction. The special review team, and later the technical  !

review team, similarly conc 1nded that the Licensees' programs were being l sufficiently controlled to allow continued plant construction while the NRC l continued its review and inspection of the facility.

I In response to the TRT issues (as well as other concerns), the Licensees l developed the CPRT Program Plan which subsequently evolved into a set of corrective action programs to assure the safety-related design and construction of the facility. While the complexity of this evolution might have been reduced or avoided by a halt in construction in 1984 (to fully develop the l

l nature of the deficiencies and corrective actions requirea), by that time, construction of the facility was near completion. There was no evidence presented in the Petition or otherwise known to the Staff in that time frame, f nor is the staff aware of any now, to suggest that there were any significant ,

safety deficiencies in the plant whose identification and correction would have been prevented by allowing work to continue. The NPC Staff is continuing to evaluate the sufficiency of the Licensees' program and to monitor its conduct.

The Petitioner's request for a halt in construction is denied.

The Petition next requested the assignment of a special NRC inspection team to determine the extent of the problems in design documentation and con-I struction deficiencies, and a related management audit of the Licensees. In >

response to this request, the NRC formed the special review team. This team, which was constituted along the lines suggested in the Petition, conducted a special review and inspection during the period April 3-13, 1984. The NRC followed the special review team inspection with the technical review team ,

1 inspection and evaluation of allegations. More recently, in recognition of the complex regulatory issues associated with Comanche Peak (and TVA), the NRC created the Office of Special Projects (OSP) to provide direct, high-level 1

n 7 --  ;

management oversight and dedicated staff for the technical review and ,

inspection'of these projects. To this extent, the relief requested by Petitioners has been granted. However, the NRC declines to direct'the Licensees to undertake a separate comprehensive management audit since the NRC inspection activities discussed in.the Comanche Peak Speciel Review Team Report included a limited review of the implementation of the Licensees' management

s control of the construction, inspection and test programs.and found it

.. generally effective and receiving proper management attention. Moreover, since that inspection, the Licensees have made many management and organizational a

changes at Comanche Peak which are the subject of ongoing NRC review to assess their effectiveness. ,

Finally, the Petition requested a suspension of the construction permits until the work of the special inspection team and an IDCVP are completed. The request for a suspension of the construction permits is denied.for the same .

reason the request for a halt in ' construction is denied, as previously described. With respect to the associated request for an IOCVP, the Licensees have undertaken design validation and construction verification programs as a result of the CPRT program which are intended to accomplish essentially the same purpose. In large part, these CPRT activities are being performed by ,

third-parties with no prior involvement at Comanche Peak. To the extent that the Petition requests an independent validation program that is separate from the CPRT and the Licensees' corrective action programs (design validation and construction verification), the request is denied because such an effort would be duplicative of these programs and is not otherwise justified by a demonstrable need for additional independence. The NRC may, however, after reviewing the results of the CPRT and corrective action programs, require additional design and/or construction validation to resolve some shortcoming of those efforts.

8 CONCLUSION The relief requested in the Petition is granted in part and denied in part. As discussed above, I decline to suspend construction activities at the Comanche Peak facility, or the construction permits, because reinspection and plant modification activities are being sufficiently controlled. I also decline to direct the Licensees to initiate an independent management audit and an independent drsign and construction verification program. Finally, to the-extent the Petition sought special NRC inspections at the facility, as discussed above, such inspections have been and are being conducted and, to this extent, the relief requested in the Petition has been granted.

A copy of this decision will be filed with the Secretary for the Commission'sreviewinaccordancewith10CFR%2.206(c). As provided in 10 CFR S 2.206(c), this decision will become the final action of the Commission twenty-five (25) days after issuance unless the Commission elects to review this decision on its own motion within that time.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0FNISSION Oms.?9/byh%

/JamesG.Keppler, Director Office of Special Projects j Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 16 day of October , 1987.

g- - 7 e

4 V :< > 3 s

1

! y '.

,/.

li l

'l l-1

E . . . . _

Billie Pirnparde

. GAP - s Action couTnot er ,.. ..

co ' es^ouw es y Mi'  ;

w,anot No. .

TO:

4pqm l rorau acatv 4/2 W UE. F14252 I"

, Commissioners OUMENT 7 NAL aEPLY 3f)97g4 OISOR[PfioN .. ntE tocAT,o" PREPAAE FoR $rGNATU oF:

h LET7en O utvo O atacar O oTuta O

• • "^*a 2.206'- Petition on behalf zens of theinstructions speciAt Citi on mEuAm<s oTHER omecte

'to suspend the Comanche uttion Peak ConstrAssocia

~

Pennit NRC; until completion inspection

& 10VCP '

ofa speci l tvd'P 'o 1

' funningh@am.p I Of 3/8(l/8f -!

ELD 3/20/b4 a'o*""* aouti'*o i 141 < en%N Denton 4d 1/1n/na 843S34 l

1

. Mu DeYoung Collins.

l.Case /Denton  ;

- PPAS

2. Speis SECY-84-0318  ;

3. .

4 Mattson Vollmer l 5 "

' 4-O Fo W 232 ~

6. impa 30 '* !

l EXECUTIVE OtREc1CR FOR OP PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENCE CONTR !

OL 00 Nor amon ma con l l

l i

i l

GI.M/ERHt.M ACCOUNTADl!.!TY PAO.ECT

nd... e '

.' Mt 5: .c As .

q c09 Ose '::eet NN.. WesNngen D.C 20007 (202) 2h0N March 1?,1934  ;

i l

}

1 Honorab',a Chairman Hunzio Palladino  !

Honorable Victor Gilinsky Honorabie James'Asseltine Honcr6ble Thcmas Reterts -

Honorable -Frederi:k Bernthal.

United States Nu:laar Regulatory Ccmmissicn Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: Petition pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.206 Comanche Peak

Dear Commissioners:

On behalf of the Citizens Association for Sound Energy (CASE) and numerous nuclear workers en the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, the G0vernment AcccunS3i'ity Projec t (3AP) requests that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (URC) take immedi : .s l action to protect the public health ano safety cf local Texas residents thecugh the fcilowinc action : .

1. P.equire a ccorrehensive managemsnt cuoit of the Texas Utilities Inc -

Gencrating Ccmpany (TUGCC) officiais by an independent manage..ent suiiting firm to assess the cause cf the continuing inability of TbGC3 and its contrseters te implement an a::eptable design and constructi:n '

program for the Comanche Peak site that meets the requirement? c f l '.

C.F.R. 50, Appendix C.

2. Require an independent desien and construc tion veri fication crograr. i ia!C, '

to assess the integrity of the Comanche Peak sito auslity assur6nce (QA) program.

This should be a ccmolished through a Director's Order for:

a. An immediate Stop .'ork Ceder to ntit the current destruction, ma ni pul a tio n , and alleged f alsificaticn cf docuraents.

1/

b, The assignment c' en NP.C special inspection teach to determins the cxtcnt of :ht ,'robiams <,ito both the cesign cccumentation and the construction deficien:i?s at the plant. (This should be II- Ciceuse of historical -a on-goinq soestiuns regardina tha cbil'ty U. ..:se -

w;iiingness ci tb; Pogi. sci :ns;::* icn ar. . ?nin:censa. (?E'; staf: t o ;- f e c .

insp;ct c 'd audit p.oblems at : :e ComInche de:k f acilit), we s pe c i f i c i. . ,, r e:, .

• l t ha t th e s a c c i a l i ns oM t i m i o n L e c yni' : s e'.' of s c i ec t ?J .a e .. a r s o f "i,R a n';

• E l-feca other regious .cho havo ./.:,orience in deter .inativn of design / cons truct s,-

problens at acar-completed '.: 1 1 i t e s .

.-r.

1 '

March 19,19Ea f To* ihe: Commissioners a

j j

i done through an immediate inspection audit of documentation in both the permanent vault and the field " satellite" stations, j

(

coupled with the requested independent assessnent of the hardware on the site. through matching documentation to the "as-built" con-  !

dition of the plant.) l

3. Suspend the Cemanche Peak Construction Permit until the completion j of the special PRC inspection and IDVCP, and an analysis 'of the I results of those inspections which should include public partici-pation, to determine the appropriateness of further audit or other I l

requirements.2/ - I I. BACKGROUND  !

Comanche Peak is a two unit reactor under construction near Dallas, Texas.

It is being built by the electricity generating branch of the Texas Utiiities Electric Company (Texas Utilities Generating Company). The prime contract:r i for the plant is Brown and Root (B&R)', and there are numerous vendors end sub-  !

contractors engaged in the construction of the plant. The architect enginect j

( AE) is Gibbs and Hill . ]

I The request for a construction permit was filed in 1974, and constructicr.

actually began in late 1974. The plant is new, according to TUGCO, in twe l stages of completion: Unit 1 is allegedly 97 percent complete, and Unit 2 j is allegedly 65 percent complete.

Historically, Ccmanche Peak has had its share of regulatory difficulties.

However, in the past two years, the inside story of the Cemanche Peak plant has become widely known to the public after Mr. Charles Atchison, a formar j I

Quality Control (QC) Inspector, was fired for revealing safety concerns abou; the vendor.QC program. As you are aware, Mr. Atchison took his complaint to the Department of Labor under the provisions es tablished by Section 19 of thi  ;

Energy Reorganization Act. He won his case at every level of 0.0.L., but th=

t i

company refused to hire him back. (Subsequently, he secured two other positions  !

with nuclear industry subcor, tractors, and immediately lost his jobs becausa e.f  !

the " blacklisting" done by B&R.) The Atchison case has become the test e.Asaif;n of 1 the whistlebic.zer protection act. Recertly, Sik took its arguments to m L

]

Circuit Court of Appeals. GAP recognized the importance of this case, inc 1 filed an Amicus Curiae Brief explaining to the Court the importance of thz l whistleblower protection act as it plays a role in the day-to-day life of e j i

nuclear power plar,t construction project, t

'Jnfort'unately for beth the workforce and the public, Mr. Atchison's plicht it not an isolated incident. Since his firing, more workers haveScme filed 0.d.L. ,

cceplaints against their employers at the Comanche Peak site. forme l workers h:ve also volunteered to testify in the Operating License hearin;r. i i

i' In particular, two former Cccanche Fen en1ineers, Mr. Mark Walsh and P.r. vf,.'a.!

hc Doyle have participated in the Operating License hc.arings cn the subjec inadeouate and flawod conceot that was employed in the design snd constru

ti<:n )

of the Comenche Peak fr.cility. This " iterative" de:ign peccess is currer.';iv  !

the subject of a major cor.tention before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Sard l

/ (Board). l L

/The public p$rticipation should be mcdeled citer int Diabic Canyon pecWent

.. ......i.e ena i: . . ,o % 1 ra v . f E__________------__________ j

M ThW W 3 M W ens ~W --

-~ - - " - " "~

> In pecember,1983, the Board issued an Order which found that the " iterative" design crocess was not acceptable. They have required TUGC0 to file'a plan which would assure the Board that the plant "as built" could operate without endangering the public health ar.d safety. Hearings on the various proposals ,

for that review are on-going. It is TUGCO's position that the CYGNA Co pera- l tion, a company which performed an Independent Assesscent Program (I AP) through the past eight months, should also be allowed to do an appraisal which would i

.. alleviate the Board's concerns. The interveners, the Citizens Association ~for {

Sound Energy (CASE), reject that suggestion, on a variety of grounds. These i include the recent admission that CYGNA had pre-notified TUGC0 about the .

(

design packages it was going to review as a final check on its appraisal, and {

its refusal of CYGNA to produce any engineers to explain the report conclusions. l Interveners maintain CYG'iA's review was neither independent nor adequate. -

i l

Since the disclosure about CYGNA, GAP has been involved in reviewing the problems at the Comanene Peak site on a full-time basis. Our own preliminary I investigation will take approximately another 60 days. However, the information l that we have received to this point convinces us that the requests for imetiete action by the Commission are the minimum necessary to begin to get the Comanche Peak site under regulatory control. ,

l l

l l

II. LEGAL BASIS 4

, A. Legal Requirements i

The law gives the Commission broad discretion tg revoke, suspend, or modify l j

the constructions permit of an NRC licensee. 42 U.S.C. 32236 states that:

A license or construction permit may be revoked, suspended, or modified in whole or in part, for any material false statement i i

in the application for license or in the supplemental or other statement of fact required by the applicant; or because of l conditions revealed by the application for license of statement of fact or any report, record, inspection, or other means which {

would warrant the Comnission to refuse to grant a license en an l original application; or for failure to construct or operate a  !

facility in acccrdance with the terms of the construction permi. j of license or the technical specifications in the application; or l for the violation ef or failure to observe any of the terms and s provisions of this chapter or of any regulation of the Commission.

I Pa t 50.100 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Reguictions states the same- 9 I

criteria for the revocation, suspension, or modification of a construction permit. i The %C has a mandatory duty to exercise this authrity when necesscr a.

~

j Accorcing to the decision in Natural hoscurces Defense t c.m:il vs. U.S. ::vcler r e .-

Reoulatory Comission, 528 F.FTW(E6r. l#8T, oncer tne Atcmic Ener;3 sc: l 1954, the :.'d~~iRovired to detern.ine that there wili be adecuate protection c*.r.e f the ,

health and so.~ tty of the public. The issue of safety ..ast be re!cived tcfore 5.

Co.wi s sion i s sns a c r.u n,:tico permit. (Portee Cit < h d ~I r e.M L'a ' ' n : m :

~~

Atom ic Ene rg y Cct.m _s Qo n,. M S i . 2d 513, b ?G FX.7% .i . ) i

)

0

w,u w,a. a ewa ys - w - -

y i

. , B. , Criteria -to Exercise Discretion

+ +

According to 10 C.F.R. $2.206 the tiRC "May institute a prcceeding to modify,  ;

susper.d, or revoke a license or -for such other action as may be proper by serving en  ;

the . licensee an order to show cause which will: (i). allege the violations with which

~

the licensee is charged, or the potentially hazardous conditions.or other f acts deemed to be sufficient ground for the proposed action." As interpreted by the Proposed General Statement of Policy and Procedure for Enforcement Action, published in the Federal Regi ster, 44 Fed. Rec. 66754, Oct. 7,1980 (10 C.F.R. j2.202, 2.204 ), suspending j crders can be used to remove a threat to the public health and safety, the common defense 'and security or the environment. {

More specifically, suspension orders can be issued to stop facility construc.

tion when further work would preclude or significantly hinder the identification and. l correction of an improperly constructed safety-related system or component; or if the j licensee's quality assurance program implementation is not adequate and effective to i provide confidence that construction activities are being properly carried out. More- l over, orders can be issued when the licensee has not responded adequately to ctber  !

enforcement action or when the licensee interferes with the conduct of an innection or investigation or for any reason not mentiened above for which the license revocation-is legally authorized. In order to help determine the significance of viciations within this list, the Commission established " severity categories" ranging from the most serious strectural flaws (Severity I), to minor technicalities (Severity yl).  !

44 Fed. Reg. at' 66758-59.

GAP cites as precedent in this case the November 12, 1932, Show Cause Order.

issued by the Cocmission to the Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company regarding the Zimmer liuclear Power Plant.1/ 1 J

In that case, the Commission ordered the utility to "show cause" why construc- i tion should not be halted. At the time the Zimmer plant, sirailar to Ccmanche Peak, was I nearing completion when the discovery of numerous quality assurance problems in cen ,/

struction were brought to the attention of the agency by whistleblowers througn GAP.2 In this case, a similar situation has developec with the recent discovery cf numercus construction and design quality assurance deficiencies-at the site.

Also, similar to the Zimmer situation, is the Regional Inspection and Enforce-ment staff's failure to identify the nature and ex, tent of the QA breakdown througncut the life of the plant, i

C. Spe.cific Bases for Suspension, The Commission clearly has both the duty and the discretion to suspend the Comanche Peak Construction Fermit at this time.

3/ ee S Order to Show Cause and Order Immediately Suspending Construction, Cincinnati- Gas and Electric Con pany, et al . , (Z'rr.er Nuclear Power Plant ), Ct.I-r-M ,

U;ovember 12, T 22).

, I_d,, at I.

Marc h 19,132 s 7o .The Cc nissioners 1

Ouring the past several onths, TLG 0 h:s demonstrated an unwillingness to  !

pursue t.he minimum ce:essary contw,ent to comply with the laws and procedures surrounding the construction of nuclear power plants. -

The Government Accountability Project (GAP) has been indirectly monitoring the Comanche Peak oroject sinco Janmy,1003, when the firing of Charlas Atchiscn as l brought to our attention by MSI Ind ".r. Atchison, i

Our initial review of the documents surrounding that incident, the inadequacy of the NRC staff's resolution, and the staff and TUGCO s failure to recogni:e the seriousness of the underlying causes and results of company actions taken against- Mr.

Atchison caused our initial concern. In recent weeks, our role at the Comanche Feak site has increased dramatically. Former and current workers have sought GAP's legal, and investigative services in unprecedented numbers. Incorporated in this Petition is a summary of the issues presented in affidavits which are being submitted to the NRC's Office of Investigation (01).

Those affidavits represent only the first group of completed statements from former and current workers who wish to make the NRC aware of serious construction anc.

documentation deficiencies on the site. However, because of the serious and immedia:e nature of the allegations that are contained in these affidavits, we have decided that it is critical we submit them to the agency as soon as possible to prevent further destruction or f falsification of documents, harassment and intimidation, termination cf employees, and to insure that the NRC 01 investigators have every opportunity to take  ;

necessary immediate action if our request for an immediate Stop Work Order is granted.

In the event that such an order is granted, GAP commits to immediate and full  !

cooperation with the 01 staff investigators and to supplying information, affidavits  :

and su orting documentation wnich we are provided with by the Comanche Peak work- j force. l In the event that a Stop Work Order is not granted immediately, we will con-tinue to supply the same information. However , we will proceed according to GAP's normal (and unfortunately slower) procedures of presenting the agency only formaliced af fidavits and sworn statements under grants of confidentiality.

Further, GAP recognizes that the burden of proving the need for the rec;ested relief is ours. We have balanced that need, with the concern over a timely suhiss'en to the agency of information of immediate relevance to the 01 investigators. nere-fore, in deference to the letter, we request that the Commission allow GAP to sucplamon-this request at a later date, not to exceed 60 days, at the comoletion of GAP's preliminary investigation into the Comanche Peak project.

Ill. SU!W,ARY OF ISSUES RAISED IN AFFIDAVITS SU3MITTED TO THE NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATION The following list is a su n;ry of the issues raised in the af fidavits it;taitted today to the NRC's Office of Investigation. The:c af fidcvits have been submitted to 5/

_As the Commission is well aware, GAP investigators negotiete separately .ti t h%

each witness the terms and cerditicas under s;hich bc/che will provide inforna:iv.)

us and, in turn, to the lJC. See generally, Cons'aers Power Cor.cany Midland Flag Units 1 and 2), Docket Numbers 50-329/330 0"lCL.

. To 5.e Com i:sioners Marc h 19,19i.

l

< . the Director, Mr. Ben Hayes. We expect that the affidavits, and subsequent 01 ar:d II investigations and inspections will be reviewed by the Commission and/or the Directcr in making the determination whether or not to grant both the immediate relief sought ir, this matter, as well as the suspension of the construction permit until such time as the Com. mission is able to determine the extent of the problems at the Comanche Feak facility and the appropriate solutions.

We feel a need to communicate a sense of urgency to the Commission in re;ard to the deterioration of conditions on-sitt at Co.manche Peak. 1.'i thin t he pas t fer, mont ns, several major " players" in the QA and documentation breakdown have resigned or lef t the site. Mr. Ron Tolson, the QA Project Manager, and Mr. Frank Strand, a Document Control management of ficial, are no longer in the positions of authority af ter abrupt and unexpected staff changes. _

l Our sources indicate that documents are being altered and shuttleo around in a l wholesale manner as the company scrambles to erase traces of falsification, t.is-matching, and other problems with documentation.

The summary list follows:

1. Assignment of heat numbers in the field to materials used in safety-related construction.

2. Back-fitting of allegedly final components ready for turnover.

3. Downgrading safety-related material to non-safety-related to avoid ANI review (material is actually still in a safety-related systen).

4 Improper use of inter-office memos (10M) to disposition non-cenformance reports, or make charges that would be otherwise unauthorized.

5 Lack of material traceability for numerous hardware components.

6. Lack of proper QC inspec cr training, and evidence of widespread cheating on QC tests.

7. Institutionalized lack of independence of tne QA/QC function frca production.

8. Use of uncontrolled drawings and other design documentation to inspect.

and builo the plant.

9.* Lack of vendor document control.

10 Undocumented repairs (" bootlegging"), after the final QC signoff.

11. Harassment and intimidation of QC inspectors.

12. Falsification of safety-related documentation.

13. Failure to folicw blueprints follcued b / "as-built" program to legitimize the practice.

14 Pre-notification to areas and of documentation to be inspected by aucit teams, and by the NRC.

y gy gm 3 my.

7, y - ao , ne Tce rwpey 17 L;4 -

4- ,

7bx. 9': s

,. '4 .

S j

150sg Totally out-of-control documentation.,\

I

.16.g Failure ' tolprotdct ' permanent records [9 fj re-prcof valuts. ,p a 1 a 1/ , , .

s - i ) .

.s .

j

'17& Vpg'ruding no'nde f aty-related ~ma teriaic to? safety-related through the .

use of sinformE'/[3 iter-offlce op y mamos

'a1 J\end . ,other A unaccepta bl e procedur s

4, ,,

. 18'. htYer,$al faibd N/tenents !by phnt manageri'nOc the Atomic Safety; and -

, Licensing Bon /v.' f 3

3 I1NY'gs tnNthorizi$g,eiduance and use of the " controlled"' stamps by,,the QC . ~

Department ufad to indicate valid inspections of' safety-b;elatedt j

l' y -

m(terials; ) c s t o o -

.y_ l 3 ,

20. Inadequate staf9ng o'f document con *;rol offices, making itfimpossible lto keep up witPthe demands of crah andi QC, y

<tg h Q

'21. . Intentional eov,er

\

of known deficiencies in .thA,Vdocument control.

system. .g g /- ysl

<' ,22'. Inadequate, and unrelia ble documentation ' of dssign changes .ahi

drawings.

4 23; .4 Lack oficontepi nf. safety-related. drawing documentation-by allowing, craft toLobtain portions of document packages instead of the complete package, asjequired by proceCur.e. g4 y o 9Q

, c 1o

/ 24.. 'df Mtpread. drug,,abu,se and maaagement inattention to the problem.-  ;

t ) 3 1 o 1-> 1

25. Alteration of final desQb dra' wings.

i o 3.

<[~f

.. 7 26.. , Failure in the clean 1hess inEpiction program for' component m2intenance.

~

4 t

IV.. CONCLUSION [, ,

l

,4 . -!

By-separate letter, we have provided tM Director,.MroRichard2C. DeYoung, with a ofu this =. request ar.d. asked for hiilsediati respense to those items ThV affidadits uri t be sucplied to 01, anc we have y

. iden copy;(@i6d in this ' letter.proviced SCfety copies artd Licensing i

of tMd BoErd ' request with a 3

t u

' Limited .u , s Appehrance Statement filed today.')/ y We looklornard to completing our own preliminary investiga, tion and providing further

information to the Corr #ission. ,

+ .

! sincerely, ,

'  ?

A .- ,..

D.?'. " N i$ k .& ,

' 'i 8

). J\. .a Billie Pirner9 Garde -

/ , Citizens C1inic Directe'rt

^:L I s.

k s

$ '\

t ' . .t s \+

q

'\' ~-f f

I s 's g

- _ _ . _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _- i

p .-

k,s /*'.

UNITEDSTATESOF.bERICA-NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0iiMISSION' BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY' AND LICE!! SING BOARD In the Matter of': )

- ) .-

< TEXAS' UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, ) Docket Nos. 50-445 and-et . al- .-) 50-446

)

~(Ccmanche Peak Steam Electric Station, )

')

' Units'1 Land 2)

)

LIMITED APPEARANCE STATEMENT Of, BILLIE PIRNER GARDE

'My name is. Bil. lie Pirner Garde.

L I am the Director of the Citizens Clinic of the Government Accountability t

ProjectL(GAP).

The Government Accountability Project is a project of the Institute for j Policy S'tudies, Wasington, D;C. The purpose of the program is to broaden the understanding of the' vital role of public and corporate. employees in preventing waste and corruption, to offer legal and strategic counsel to whistleblowers , to

~

prohide a unique . legal education for law students, to bring meaningful and significant reform to the government workplace, and to expose government actions that'are' repressive, wateful or illegal, and that pose a threat to the health

- and safety of the A7.erican public. Presently, the Project provides a program of multi-level assistance for government empicyees viho report illegal, <:stefui, te improper actions by their agencies. gip regularly monitors governmental reforms, I

'ofiers expertise to E'ecutive / Branch offices and agencies, and responds to l

requests by Congress and state legislatures for analysis of legislation to mate f

l govern. T ent more accountable to the public.

t

1. , a .. oM: TED !.PPEAbC E . 5T ATEMEhi

- OF E RU E: M RM?. GARDE Page 2 L

GAP's Citizens Clinic is a citi: ens training, consulting, and social activist program for ' local _' grassroots'," public interest, community, and church

- grou ps . This program is designed to assist and direct citizen involvement. Its role is to provide a range of services to individuals or groups who begin to )

.i l

speak out about problems spawned by corporate or government ineptitude or 1

(

malfeasance. The Clinic's. focus is on assisting citizens- to effectively use 4

l. I L

their-First Amendment rights to expose.or address significant issues. ] !

The Clinic addresses health and safety concerns, consumer fraud, corporate f

" rip-of f s," pollution, government misconduct, abuse or inaction, and the abridg-

' ment.of individual rights that often accompanies the struggle of citizens to redress their grievances.

- In recent years, GAP has been approached by a growing number of witnesses

'frcm nuclear power plants under construction across the nation. In keeping with its objectives, both the GAP Whistleblower Review Panel and the Citizens Clinic Review Board have directed staff to pursue aggressively the comp 3 hints and problems that nuclear workers. bring forward.

GAP is not an " anti-nuclear" organization. Its objectives within the nuclear industry are the elimination of the government's misconduct and incction, the uncovering of f acts that warrant c1cser scrutiny or regulatory action by

.the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and monitoring of how the NRC ceals with significant information provided by nuclear "whistleblowers." This Clinic assames that nuclear-related issues cre critically important te the

[ public safety, and acts upon evidence that the NRC is doing an inadequate job Nuclear whistleblo.scr,,

regulating the nuclear industry that government created.

k' the central figures in our approach to nuclear-rclated work, are the vital l-l

b

?IMITEDAPDE'P.ANCE'5TATEMENT L

OF ?!LLIE P14CR GAC.Ct _

P3ge 3 r .

componentsiin.-the' struggle.for safe energy and making the public aware of dangercus-

_ or questionable conditiens.

GAP's' involvement with Comanche Peak be' g an a year ago when we learned of what happened.to Mr. Charles Atchison at the Comanche Peak site. The details of Mr. Atchison's firing .were familiar to us. We have heard hundreds of similar .

horror' stories from nuclear workers--from management executives to document clerks--across the country. What shocked us was the blatant disregard for Mr.

i Atchison's rights' by his employer, Brown & Root, and more specifically, the actions taken by the NRC staff to condone the company's wrongdoing and cover up its own.

flawed inspection.

In a letter which we filed with the' Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal BoardO we pretested the actions of the Regional Staff Inspector. Since that time, we have monitored both the NRC actions and those of Texas Utilities Generating Company (TUGCO) and Brown & Root at Comanche Peak. We have watched 1

the fate of other workers who have also raised.problens which they believed were a direct v'olation of. spproved construction procecures.and 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix'B. 1

[l This Board is familiar with many of these workers and their allegations of l flawed construction, violated ver. dor inspection procedures, inadequate design

. quality assurance '(QA), inaccurate design documentation, and pressure from management supervisors to approve faulty work and participation in unauthorized work activities.

This Soard is also f a.niliar with the type of inspections condiscted into q.

..many of those allegations, and the continuous series of re sort conclusions that

,c i I

< j l

un_________________.._____.______ ________: _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . . _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ ._j

<- . LIMITED. A:FEARC;CE ETATEFE.ii 10F'51LLIEFIP.l;EjGARDE- Page a

that su.mmarily dismiss or narrow the concerns raised by the public " whistle-bl owers ," In reviewing these inspection reports over the past year, GAP has conclused that.the entire regional inspection program is flawed. We have proposed toLMr. Richard C. DeYoung, by separate-letter today, that the Region IV inspection program be subjected to a rigorous review by an' internal team of auditors and

~

Inspection and Enforcement officials from other regions. We have found that

. Region IV is guilty of many of the generic. defects GAP identified to the -l Congressional Subcommittee of Investigations during a June 20, 1933 hearing of the House Comaittee on Interior and Insular Affairs'into the Investigation and Inspection Policies of the !iRC.

In short, Region IV is plagued with a quality assurance breakdown of'its.

. own inspections:

A. In its apercach to whistleblowers, Reof on IV has:  ;

- 1. violated the confidentiality of whistleblowers, either directly or indirectly;

2. narrowly defined issues raised by whistleblowers and failed to inspect beyond hcrdware examples the witness was able to identify specifically;

3. failed to record interviews or take affidavits, particularly on the most signficant issues being raised by whistleblowers; 4 failed to include affidavits in the public reports when the l' statements contradicted the ! RC's party-line on the problems

?-

at nuclear plants;

[

l 5. failed tn keep pace with new whistlebli aer alie5ations in a i

ticely manner;

- - - - - - - . - - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ g

~ }{= [WITED' ATP2AR2CE STATE". EXT Page 5 OF 9:tt1E PiR::ER GARCE B. In its aporoach to utilities, Region IV has:

6. conducted closed-door meetings with utility and contractor executives when investigating whistleblewer allegations;

7. provided advance warning to utilities about where and when Region IV was going to inspect hardware;

8. relied on industry's technical conclusions without disclosure of supporting data and calculations for evaluation of whistle-blower allegations;

9. offered advance, informal review of decisions to the targets of Revion IV investigations and inspections, thereby permitting utilities to escape accountability through informal, often-unenforced commitments "not to do it again;"

10. reviewed and informally approved licensee practices before I

approved by corporate officials with QA responsibilities, thereby.

undercutting the employees who tried to carry out their duties objectively despite the pressure of nanagement urgings that "it's all right with Region IV, so why are you holding things up?"

C. _I_n its approach to the public, the NRC has:

"11. attempted, as a knee-jerk reaction, to discredit critics--whether whistleblowers, anti-nuclear organi:ations, or simply interested and concerned citizens--by questioning their r.;ctivations, patrio-tism, integrity, and technical competence to raise questions abw l

public health and safety; l

L1,*.17E D. AL FE ARM:CE STA~EhF.NT .

Pcge 6 l

=CF 3!tt1E FIH ER GARfE 1 ,

l destroyed drafts of reports, significant tape recordings, created j

12. i secret files, failed to admit the existence of documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act (FOI A), and.given confiden-tiality to utility executives in order to prevent the public from

-learning how inspection findings were covered up.

Unfortunately, the result of. this regional-QA breakdown has been to make the Board's job much more difficult. Well-established agency case law pr2 vents the q l

Board.from leaving contested matters to the staff for resolution. Therefore, the inadequate staff effort has changed this Board's role to much more than is the usual in operating' license cases. We compliment this BLrd on its diligence and patience.

Todayr we have taken steps which we hope will improve the situation which the Board has been faced with throughout this hearing. We have filed a petition with the Commissioners, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.206, requesting the following: .

.l

1. Require a comprehensive management audit of TUGC0 officials by an independent management auditing firm to assess the cause of J the continuing inability of TUGC0 and its contractors to inplement an acceptable design and construction program for the Comanche Peak site that meets the requiret.ents of 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix B.

2. Require an independent design and construction verification pre-oram (IDVCP) to assess the integrity of the Comanche Peak site

p. -

)

QA progran.

L-

3. Suspend the Ccmanche Peak Construction Per.T.it until the conple-tion of the special f!P.C inspection and 10VCP, and an analysis of

c

'  ? LIMITED ~ Ai?EIRANCE LSTATD;EtiT

~0F'51LL!E FIRiER GAPOE page_7 the-'results of those inspections which should include'public l'

participation to determine the appropriateness of further i audit or other requirements. ~

j We have attached a copy of that Pe tition to this Statement for your review.

As you 'will note, part of.our request. is for an 10VCP to be accomplished in -

conjunction with the NRC special inspection team--hopefully, during an immediate Stop Work O'rder, j We have compared the current TUGC0 proposal and its methodology with that .j of- two other audits with which GAP has .been directly involved. TUGC0's proposal l falls f ar short of. both. GAP suggests that the Board consider the following. 1 observations in.its review of any p'roposal for a Comanche Peak audit: l i

1. . Independence and competence as outlined in the letter from Chairc.sn-Nunzio Palladino to Congressmen Dingeli and Ottinger, February 1, 1982, regarding the audit of the Diablo Canyon facility. (This criteria has been further developed for s_ituations parallel to Comanche Peak at the William-H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Plant and tha Midland Nuclear Power Plant.)

2. Public participation in the development of the rethodoloov. Both Midland and Zimmer independent audits incorporated several sets of meetings aith the utility, the NP.C the third-party reviewers, and the public. Those meeting: produced a rigorous and healthy audit methodology and protocol, which are now setting the standcrd  !

for third party audits at ether plants unf:rtunatcly, only wher J

the public demands it.

i

---

__-__---_____m___________ _

'LIMITEDIA?FEARA"CE STAii.'4ENT -

, iOF 9ILLIE p*RW.R GARCE Fage .8 '

g j l 3. Detailed methodology and protocol which will prevent any oppor' tun- l i

ity for skepticism or rejection of the results and conclusions of  :

a third-party audit or the design and-construction verification.

This must, at a-minimum,' include a commitment by the ' independent auditor to not engage in pre-notification of the utility, (or the NRC), about the~ specific components that will be inspected or the ~

documents and design packages which will be reviewed. Further, >

the company must commit to strict adherence'to the protocol to avoid any questions about the validity of the end product. ,

As an organization, we have participated in numerous similar meetings,  !

8 molding and shaping metho' d ologies for vendor audi'es,100 percent reinspection, QA. implementation reviews, and other variations on that theme. . We have assisted the agency in the current program en special independent audits at five sites across the country. We urge the Board to recuest the assistance of the NRC staff personnel who have developed a similar broad base of. experience in' these. types .

of audits to provide technical assistance. in the review of the audit preposal.

We also request the opportunity to submit our comments on the company's ;)roporals.

GAP has only begun a preliminary investigation. We do not anticipate hat We have our own preliminary investigat'on will be finished for ancther 60 days.

submitted to tne Office of Investigation (01), af fidavits from workers and forner workers, who have concerns about the plant and its ultimate safety. These wit-1

)

nesses have requested confidentiality. Therefore, we refer the Board to the August,13E3, Statement of Consideration which provides the established methods by which this, Board can receive access to the information, and a f fidavits which are submitted .to the NRC 01 office.

I

LIMITIO A;FEllAME ST ATEMEtiT OF E!LLIE F!U;E" Gl&DE page 9 f i.

Conanche Peak is a troubled proje.ct. Our level of knowledge is limited to the facts on the public record, embellished by the experiences of those w.'rkers with whom we have the opportunity to speak.  ::any of these witnesses have an understandable apprehension of entering the operating license hearing as witnesses.

They do not trust the regional NRC personnel either. We have explained to these '

witnesses that each organization--corporate, government, or volunteer--is made up .1 We believe of good and bad people, of competent and incompetent professionals.

that there is a commitment on the part of this Board to get to the er. tent and the t

i course of the problems. We sincerely here the Board succeeds.

Cated this 19th day of March,1984.

e, , /~' .

92fa.-( ..bC_d4  :

Billie Pirner Garde l

i i

j 1/This letter was treated by the Appecis Board es an Amicus Curiae n.r.d not allowco ir.to the record as "on timely."

8

,/.

UNTTED STATES OF AMERfCA 1

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS10ft E

BEFORE-THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAR

)

In 'the Matter of ) 50-445 and

) Docket Nos.

TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, 50-446, ,

et-al.- )

)

- (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, )

-Units 1 and 2) . )  !

1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE l 1

By my signature below, I hereby certify that true and l correct Regulatorycop

-the Government Accountability Project (GAP's) Petition td the Nuc ear f

Commission pursuant.to 10 C.F.R. 2.206, and the Limited Appear Billie Pirner Garde , 1994 ;

19th' day of March have been sent' to the names listed below this f by first class mail, or by hand-delivery where indicated by asteri

• Geary S. Mizuno, Esquire

• Administrative Judge Peter B. Bloch Office of Executive Legal Director l U.S. Nuclear Regula*ory Commission .U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

' 4350 East-West Highway, 4th Floor Maryland National Bank Building Bethesda, Maryland 20814 7735 Old Georgetown Road, Roce 101' Bethesda, Maryland 20814

• Dr. Kinneth A. McCollom, Dean Division of Engineering, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Architecture and Technology U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissior Oklahoma State University Washington, D.C. 20555

Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 -

Alan S. Rosenthal, Esquire, Chair. -

• Dr. Walter H. Jordan Atomic Safety and Licensing Appea ::

881 West Guter Drive U.S.NuclearRegulatoryCommissiol Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Washington, D.C. 20555 j

• Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esquire Dr. W. Reed Johnson, Member Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell Atomic Safety and Licensing Aopez}

& Reynolds U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissi:

1200 - 17th Street, Northwest Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20036

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

• • Honorable Chairman Nunzio Palladino U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Thomas S. Moore, Esquire, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Washington, D.C. 20555

! U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington 0.C. 20555 ** Honorable Victor Gilinsky U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ** Honorable James Asseltine U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Station Washington, D.C. 20555 (3 copies)

Office of the Secretary ** Honorable Thomas Roberts U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 ,

)

• Renea Hicks, Esquire ** Honorable Frederick Bernthal Assistant Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Environmental Protection Division Washington 0.C. 20555 Supreme Court Building f Austin, Texas 78711 John Collins q Regional Administrator, Region IV 1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 f Arlington, Texas 76011 Dr. David H. Boltz 2012 South Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 Lanny A. Sinkin ,

I 114 West 7th, Suite 220 Austin, Texas 78701 R. J. Gary Executive Vice President Texas Utilities Generating Company l 2001 Bryan Tower ,

l Dallas,. Texas 75201 )

• Mrs. Juanita Ellis, President Citizens Associations for Sound Energy 1426 South Polk Dallas, Texas 75224

• Rob Hager, Esquire Cristic Institute 1324 Morth Ca pitol Washington, D.C. 20001 -

~ BILLIE FIRNER GARDE

• Hand-delivered March 20, 1984. Government Accountability Project

• • Hand-delivered March 19, 1984

y .

p

=

2

{J (.,f I -GOVEANMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PAOJECT -

L -

Institute for Poucy Studies L 1901 CNe Street. N.W., Wo3Nngton, D.C. 20009 (202)204 G l JM-i March 19,1984 Hr. Richard C. DeYoung .

Director, Inspection and Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission -

Washington D.C. -20555

Dear Mr. DeYoung:

In the past several weeks, the Government Accountability Project (GAP) has had. I intensive dealings with whistleblowers in the Region IV area. These workers and former workers.come principly from two nuclear plant sites under construction--

Comanche Peak and Waterford. Although our findings, at this point, cannot even be categorized as " preliminary" at either location, we have been extremely disturbed by evidence of historical lack of oversight at both sites. Further,wearedisturbel that the posture of the. agency throughout the licensing nearings, and in its daily .

operation, reflects such a blatant and biased " pro-utility, regardless of the facts.,

attitude. l

. Today, we have filed a request, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.206, regarding the Comanche ,

Peak site... In that request, we have asked the Comission for the following immedia; actions:

1

1. Require a comprehensive management audit of the Texas Vtilities and 1 Generating Company (TUGCO) officials by an independent management auditing firm to assess the cause of the continuing inability of J TUGC0 and its contractors to implement an acceptable design and con- i struction program for the Comanche Peak site that meets the' require- j ments of 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix B. 1 4

2. Require an independent design and construction verification program (10VCP) to assess the integrity of the Comanche Peak site quality ]

assurance (QA) program. 1

3. Suspend the Comanche Peak Construction Permit until the completion of the special NRC inspection and 10VCP, and an analysis of the results of those inspections which should include public participatiori, to j determine the appropriateness of further audit or other requirements. ]

We sincerely believe that the only way to get the Comanche Feak site under immediat control, and avoid any further destruction of documentation, and equally important, to restore the confidence of the workforce in the NRC, is for you to issue an immediate Stop Work Order on the site. Finally, we believe that an appointment of separate inspection team made up on Commission employees from the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) and other regions is necessary to do an adequate and unbial probe into the extent of the QA design and hardware deficiencies at the Comanche PE site.

l l

l

$ 4

)

. . Mr. Richard C. DeYoung March 19,1984 l

]

As you 'may recall, GAP did an analysis of the generic defects and weaknesses in the NRC Inspection and Investigation Process which we presented to Congress in June,1983.

We have found that almost all of the defects we identified apply to Region IV. Sum-marized below, those are: f i

A. _In its aporoach to whistleblowers, Region !Y has: -

l

1. violated the confidentiality of whistleblowers, either directly or indirectly;

2. narrowly defined issues raised by whistleblowers and failed to inspect <

beyond hardware examples the witness was able to identify specifically;

3. failed to record interviews or take affidavits, particularly on the j most significant issues being raised by whistleblowers; j 4 failed to include affidavits in the public reports when the statements contradicted the NRC's party-line on the problems at nuclear plants;

5. failed to keep pace with new whistleblower allegations in a timely manner; B. In its approach to utilities, Region IV has:

6. conducted closed-door meetings with utility and contractor executives when investigating whistleblower allegations;

7. provided advance warning to utilities about where and when Region IV was going to inspect hardware;

8. relied on industry's technical conclusions without disclosure of sup-porting data and calculations for evaluation of whistleblower allegations;

9. offered advance, . informal review of decisions to the targets of Region IV investigations and inspections, thereby permitting utilities to escape accountability through informal, of ten-unenforced commitments "not to do it again;"

10, reviewed and informally approved licensee practicos before approved by corporate officials with QA responsibilities, thereby undercutting the employees who tried to carry out their duties objectively despite the pressure of management urgings that "it's all right with Region IV, so why are you holding this up?"

C. In its_ approach to the public, the NRC has:

11. attempted, as a knee jerk reaction, to discredit critics--whether whistle-blowers, anti-nuclear organizations, or simply interested and concerned citizens--by questioning their motivations, patriotism, integrity, and technical competence to raise questions about public health and safety; i

12. destroyed drafts of reports, significant tape recordings, created secret files, failed to admit the existence of documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act (FO! A), and given confidentiality to utility l

- " - Mr. Richard C. DeYoung ' March 19; 1924 executives in. order to prevent the public from 1 darning how inspection findings were covered up.

We are aware that there are currently internal investigations going on regarding the .

actions of Region IV employees. We believe that many of our witnesses have informatio f which will .be relevant to those' investigations. A copy of this letter has been given i -

to that office.

.We also respectfully suggest that you consider instituting your own review and" audit of the regulatory policies being implemented in your Region :V office. . We believe tha a rigorous audit and inspection by other regional inspection and enforcement personnel, i would provide you with . insight into the cause and the extent of the problems in that '

region. >

Please notify me immediately concerning your decisions regarding Comanche Peak. Asy;!

will note on Page 6 of the 2.206 request, the method by which GAP will handle the rest!

of its. investigation will depend on the agency's response. Thank you .for your attentil

.to this matter. ~

1

\

Sincerely, .

A Billie 'Pirner Garde 1 Citizens Clinic Director 4

- -__ _ - _ _____-___. . _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ --- _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ .