ML20236J304
| ML20236J304 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 07/31/1987 |
| From: | Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Atkins C, Conte S, Frank B, Gephardt R, Kennedy J, Markey E, Mavroules N, Moakley J, Studds G HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236J309 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8708060133 | |
| Download: ML20236J304 (8) | |
Text
(
6 0- 9 4 L Distribution:
,, g ' g [ga aro k w
d UNITED STATES VStello RI Dkt Rm I
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION JTaylor CA e
o 5
E WASHINGTON, D. C. 2055s TRehm ED0 2605 t
/
TMurley ED0 2587 JMurray j
l July 31, 1987 01 l
CHAmMAN WRussell WKane i
EWenzinger The Honorable Edward J. Markcy TElsasser United States House of Representatives EDO 2951 Washington, D.C.
20515 SECY 87-695 I
PDR I
Dear Congressman Markey:
LPDR i
I Docket No. 50-443 I am responding to the May 15, 1987 letter from you and your l
Congressional colleagues regarding the quality of workmanship and construction at the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant.
Allegations of l
faulty workmanship and construction are of particular concern to this agency.
Accordingly, the NRC has established procedures to i
deal with such types of allegations, particularly when they are j
received after construction of a nuclear facility is essentially complete.
i The allegations provided to the Employee's Legal Project (ELP) of Amesbury, Massachusetts by former workers at the Seabrook site were given to NRC Region I inspectors on April 20, 1987 during an NRC special inspection conducted specifically to address those concerns.
The NRC has been aware of the concerns of the ELP since l
August of 1986.
Since then the Region 1 Office has remained in close contact with ELP in order to ensure all information has been received which would allow a complete evaluation of the concerns of those former Seabrook workers.
Contacts with ELP have taken the form of correspondence, telephone conversations, meetings, and transcripts of statements of former workers.
The NRC Region I evaluation of these ELP concerns resulted in two separate special inspections and the expenditure of over 1000 direct inspection hours on site.
While one of the inspection reports has not yet been completed, the inspection reports can be made available for your review through our Office of Congressional Affairs.
The procedure followed by the NRC in the case of the ELP allegations at Seabrook is similar to that followed at other sites where faulty construction has been alleged.
A team of NRC inspectors, each with expertise in the areas of concern, is first assembled to evaluate the allegations.
If deemed necessary, outside consultants are also used as members of these special inspection teams.
The initial evaluation conducted by the team consists of interviews (where possible) with the individuals having first-hand information regarding the potential safety concern, a determination of whether the allegations pertain to safety-related activities at the site, and, finally, on-site inspection to review the completed work or work practices in question.
The results of this inspection effort then determine what additional action, if any, needs to be taken by the NRC in order to resolve the concern properly.
Originated:
RI:Elsasser 8708060133 870731 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
i 1
_g_
1 The NRC has been extensively involved in the review of site activities during the entire construction program at Seabrook, resulting in the expenditure of over 26,000 inspection hours.
This is a substantially larger inspection effort than conducted at other Region I construction sites.
The conclusion reached as a result of that effort was that Seabrook was a well constructed plant, with good quality control and strong construction management.
Our special inspections to deal solely with ELP cencerns have reinforced this prior conclusion regarding the quality of construction at Seabrook.
After this substantial evaluation, the NRC has concluded that none of these allegations 1
require further independent inspection of construction and work i
practices at the Seabrook facility.
The NRC is aware that ELP does not agree with our conclusion-in this regard.
Many of the allegations were vague generalizations, making it difficult to determine specifically what areas or activities required additional inspection in order i
to substantiate the concern.
Some of the concerns stemmed from l
previous problems or allegations that had already been resolved through previous NRC inspection and evaluation.
Only a small number of the former workers were willing to be interviewed by our inspectors to clarify or substantiate the ELP concerns.
Regardless of these difficulties, the NRC Region I follow-up 1
activitie's consistently treated all concerns brought forward by ELP as being valid and having the potential to impact adversely on Seabrook construction.
Our activities to date have been documented and provided directly to ELP.
l NRC recognizes your concern regarding the allegations received that relate to Seabrook.
We have treated these allegations in the same manner as we would at other sites throughout the country.
Independent NRC inspections to answer the questions raised by these allegations have been conducted.
As in other instances, due to the nature of the allegations, substantial additional inspection effort by the NRC and other parties has been necessary to clarify the concern and evaluate its impact on the safety of the facility.
In certain instances, other nuclear projects were cancelled because substantiated allegations revealed problems that the licensee was unable or unwilling to correct.
Our assessment to date is that this is not the case at Seabrook.
However, the NRC will continue to examine aggressively all allegations brought to our attention to ensure the safety of the Seabrook facility.
Sincerely, b 6v.
h.
Lando W. Zec, Jr.
Similar 1trs to: The Honorable Richard A. Gephardt The Honorable Nicholas Mavroules The Honorable Silvio 0. Conte The Honorable Joe.Moakley The Honorable Barney Frank The Honorable Chester E. Atkins The Honorable Gerry E. Studds The Honorable Joseph P. Kennedy
[on nc,)
o o
UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
y g
5 s
E W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 k
f I
g j
July 31, 1987 CH AIRMAN The Honorable Chester E. Atkins United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515
Dear Congressman Atkins:
I am responding to the May 15, 1987 letter from you and your Congressional colleagues and to your previous inquiry of March 5, 1987 regarding the quality of workmanship and construction at the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant.
Allegations of faulty workmanship and construction are of particular concern to this agency.
l l
Accordingly, the NRC has established procedures to deal with such types of allegations, particularly when they are received after construction of a nuclear facility is essentially complete.
The allegations provided to the Employee's Legal Project (ELP) of Amesbury, Massachusetts by former workers at the Seabrook site were given to NRC Region I inspectors on April 20, 1987 during an NRC special inspection conducted specifically to address those concerns.
The NRC has been aware of the concerns of the ELP since August of 1986.
Since then the Region I Office has remained in close contact with ELP in order to ensure all information has been received which would allow a complete evaluation of the concerns of those former Seabrook workers.
Contacts with ELP have taken the form of correspondence, telephone conversations, meetings, and transcripts of statements of former workers.
The NRC Region I evaluation of these ELP concerns resulted in two separate special inspections and the expenditure of over 1000 direct inspection hours on site.
While one of the inspection reports has not yet been completed, the inspection reports can be made available for your review through our Office of Congressional Affairs.
The procedure followed by the NRC in the case of the ELP all(gations at ;eabrook is similar to that followed at other sites where faulty construction has been alleged.
A team of NRC inspectors, each lith expertise in the areas of concern, is first e
assembled to evaluate the allegations.
If deemed necessary, outside consultants are also used as members of these special inspection teams.
The initial evaluation conducted by the team consists of interviews (where possible) with the individuals having first-hand information regarding the potential safety concern, a determination of whether the allegations pertain to safety-related activities at the site, and, finally, on-site inspection to review the conipleted work or work practices in question.
The results of this inspection effort then determine wnat additional action, if any, needs to be taken by the NRC in order to resolve the concern properly.
, /'f "%q)(
UNITEO STATES
+
NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{ c ('n r '... [$
e n
WASHINGT ON, D. C, 70555
% hs4 ff July 31, 1987 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Silvio 0. Conte United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515
Dear Congressman Conte:
I am responding to the May 15, 1987 letter from you and your Congressional colleagues regarding the quality of workmanship and construction at the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant.
Allegations of faulty workmanship and construction are of particular concern to this agency.
Accordingly, the NRC has established procedures to deal with such types of allegations, particularly when they are received after construction of a nuclear facility is essentially complete.
The allegations provided to the Employee's Legal Project (ELP) of Amesbury, Massachusetts by former workers at the Seabrook site were given to NRC Region I inspectors on April 20, 1987 during an
)
NRC special inspection conducted specifically to address those concerns.
The NRC has been aware of the concerns of the ELP since August of 1986.
Since then the Region I Office has remained in close contact with ELP in order to ensure all information has been received which would allow a complete evaluation of the concerns of those former Seabrook workers.
Contacts with ELP have taken the form of correspondence, telephone conversations, meetings, and transcripts of statements of former workers.
The NRC Region I evaluation of these ELP concerns resulted in two separate special l
inspections and the expenditure of over 1000 direct inspection hours on site.
While one of the inspection reports has not yet been completed, the inspection reports can be made available for your review through our Office of Congressional Affairs.
i The procedure followed by the NRC in the case of the ELP allegations at Seabrook is similar to that followed at other sites where faulty construction has been alleged.
A team of NRC l
inspectors, each with expertise in the areas of concern, is first I
assembled to evaluate the allegations.
If deemed necessary, l
outside consultants are also used as members of these special j
inspection teams.
The initial evaluation conducted by'the team i
consists of interviews (where possible) with the individuals 1
having first-hand information regarding the potential safety concern, a determination of whether the allegations pertain to safety-related activities at the site, and, finally, on-site inspection to review the completed work or work practices in question.
The results of this inspection effort then determine what additional action, if any, needs to be taken by the NRC in j
order to resolve the concern properly.
l
,[so ucg%,
UNITED STATES y
y,g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/nE W ASHINGT ON, D. C. 20555 J
July 31, 1987
)
CH AIRMAN The Honorable Joe Moakley l
l United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515
Dear Congressman Moakley:
I am responding to the May 15, 1987 letter from you and your Congressional colleagues regarding the quality of workmanship and construction at the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant.
Allegations of faulty workmanship and construction are of particular concern to this agency.
Accordingly, the NRC has established procedures to deal with such types of allegations, particularly when they are received after construction of a nuclear facility is essentially complete.
The allegations provided to the Employee's Legal Project (ELP) of Amesbury, Massachusetts by former workers at the Seabrook site were given to NRC Region I inspectors on April 20, 1987 during an NRC special inspection conducted specifically to address those concerns.
The NRC has been aware of the concerns cf the ELP since August of 1986.
Since then the Region I Office has remained in close contact with ELP in order to ensure all information has been received which would allow a complete evaluation of the concerns of those former Seabrook workers.
Contacts with ELP have taken the form of correspondence, telephone conversations, meetings, and transcripts of statements of former workers.
The NRC Region I evaluation of these ELP concerns resulted in two separate special inspections and the expenditure of over 1000 direct inspection hours on site.
While one of the inspection reports has not yet been completed, the inspection reports can be made available for your review through our Office of Congressional Affairs.
The procedure followed by the NRC in the case of the ELP allegations at Seabrook is similar to that followed at other sites where faulty construction has been alleged.
A team of NRC inspectors, each with expertise in the areas of concern, is first assembled to evaluate the allegations.
If deemed necessary, l
I outside consultants are also used as members of these special inspection teams.
The initial evaluation conducted by the team consists of interviews (where possible) with the individuals having first-hand information regarding the potential safety concern, a determination of whether the allegations pertain to safety-related activities at the site, and, finally, on-site I
inspection to review the completed work or work practices in question.
The results of this inspection effort then determine what additional action, if any, needs to be taken by the NRC in order to resolve the concern properly.
I
g afo g V.
I%
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
y7 g
W ASHINGTON, O. C. 20$55 5(
j
% 'A c
,5 July 31, 1987 caunuaN The Honorable Barney Frank Ur.ited States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515
Dear Congressman Frank:
I am responding to the May 15, 1987 letter from you and your Congressional colleagues regarding the quality of workmanship and construction at the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant.
Allegations of faulty workmanship and construction are of particular concern to this agency.
Accordingly, the NRC has established procedures to deal with such types of allegations, particularly when they are received after construction of a nuclear facility is essentially complete.
g The allegations provided to the Employee's Legal Project (ELP) of Anesbury, Massachusetts by former workers at the Seabrook site were given to NRC Region I inspectors on April 20, 1987 during an NDC special inspection conducted specifically to address those The NRC has been aware of the concerns of the ELP since concerns.
August of 1986.
Since then the Region I Office has remained in close contact with ELP in order to ensure all information has been received which would allow a complete evaluation of the concerns of those former Seabrook workers.
Contacts with ELP have taken the form of correspondence, telephone conversations, meetings, and transcripts of statements of former workers.
The NRC Region I evaluation of these ELP concerns resulted in two separate special inspections and the expenditure of over 1000 direct inspection hours on site.
While one of the inspection reports has not yet been completed, the inspection reports can be made available for your review through our Office of Congressional Affairs.
The procedure followed by the NRC in the case of the ELP allegations at Seabrook is similar to that followed at other sites where faulty construction has been alleged.
A team of NRC inspectors, each with expertise in the areas of concern, is first assembled to evaluate the allegations.
If deemed necessary, outside consultants are also used as members of these special inspection teams.
The initial evaluation conducted by the team consists of interviews (where possible) with the individuals having first-hand information regarding the potential safety concern, a determination of whether the allegations pertain to safety-related activities at the site, and, finally, on-site inspection to review the completed work or work practices in question.
The results of this inspection effort then determine what additional action, if any, needs to be taken by the NRC in j
order to resolve the concern properly.
i l
g['pa arog)('g UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
s,
g
- g WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 k
j July 31, 1987 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Gerry E. Studds United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515
Dear Congressman Studds:
I am responding to the May 15, 1987 letter from you and your Congressional colleagues regarding the quality of workmanship and construction at the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant.
Allegations of faulty workmanship and construction are of particular concern to this agency.
Accordingly, the NRC has established procedures to deal with such types of allegations, particularly when they are received after construction of a nuclear facility is essentially complete.
The allegations provided to the Employee's Legal Project (ELP) of Amesbury, Massachusetts by former workers at the Seabrook site were given to NRC Region I inspectors on April 20, 1987 during an NRC special inspection conducted specifically to address those concerns.
The NRC has been aware of the concerns of the ELP since August of 1986.
Since then the Region I Office has remained in close contact with ELP in order to ensure all information has been received which would allow a complete evaluation of the concerns of those former Seabrook workers.
Contacts with ELP have taken l
the form of correspondence, telephone conversations, meetings, and transcripts of statements of former workers.
The NRC Region I evaluation of these ELP concerns resulted in two separate special inspections and the expenditure of over 1000 direct inspection l
hours on site.
While one of the inspection reports has not yet been completed, the inspection reports can be made available for your review through our Office of Congressional Affairs.
The procedure followed by the NRC in the case of the ELP allegations at Seabrook is similar to that followed at other sites where faulty construction has been alleged.
A team of NRC inspectors, each with expertise in the areas of concern, is first assembled to evaluate the allegations.
If deemed necessary, outside consultants are also used as members of these special inspection teams.
The initial evaluation conducted by the team consists of interviews (where possible) with the individuals having first-hand information regarding the potential safety concern, a determination of whether the allegations pertain to safety-related activities at the site, and, finally, on-site inspection to review the completed work or work practices in question.
The results of this inspection effort then determine what additional action, if any, needs to be taken by the NRC in l
order to resolve the concern properly.
4 ga nog)o UNITED ST ATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c
g 7,,.
..E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 p'E os s*y '
July 31, 1987 CH AIRMAN s
The Honorable Joseph P. Kennedy United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515
Dear Congressman Kennedy:
I am responding to the May 15, 1987 letter from you and your Congressional colleagues regarding the quality of workmanship and construction at the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant.
Allegations of faulty workmanship and construction are of particular concern to this agency.
Accordingly, the NRC has established procedures to deal with such types of allegations, particularly when they are received after construction of a nuclear facility is essentially complete.
The allegations provided to the Employee's Legal Project (ELP) of Acesbury, Massachusetts by former workers at the Seabrook site were given to NRC Region I inspectors on April 20, 1987 during an NRC special inspection conducted specifically to address those i
concerns.
The NRC has been aware of the concerns of the ELP since August of 1986.
Since then the Region I Office has remained in close contact with ELP in order to ensure all information has been received which would allow a complete evaluation of the concerns of those former Seabrook workers.
Contacts with ELP have taken the form of correspondence, telephone conversations, t.eetings, and transcripts of statements of former workers.
Tne NRC Region I evaluation of these ELP concerns resulted in two separate special inspections and the expenditure of over 1000 direct inspection i
hours on site.
While one of the inspection reports has not yet been completed, the inspection reports can be made available for your review through our Office of Congressional Affairs.
The procedure followed by the NRC in the case of the ELP allegations at Seabrook is similar to that followed at other sites where faulty construction has been alleged.
A team of NRC inspectors, each with expertise in the areas of conce:'n, is first assembled to evaluate the allegations.
If deemed necessary, outside consultants are also used as members of these special inspection teams.
The initial evaluation conducted by the team consists of interviews (where possible) with the individuals having first-hand information regarding the potential safety l
concern, a determination of whether the allegations pertain to safety-related activities at the site, and, finally, on-site l
inspection to review the completed work or work practices in question.
The results of this inspection effort then determine what additional action, if any, needs to be taken by the NRC in order to resolve the concern properly.
4 I