ML20237K334

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Requests Summary Rept of Investigation Conducted by IE of Insp & Audit of Region IV Concerning Plant & Other Locations,Per Privacy Act,Part 9 Subpart a
ML20237K334
Person / Time
Site: Comanche Peak  Luminant icon.png
Issue date: 12/03/1986
From: Phillips H
NRC
To: Grimsley D
NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
Shared Package
ML20237J194 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-87-87, FOIA-87-A-14 NUDOCS 8708270144
Download: ML20237K334 (28)
v • d • e


Text

-

Dec A 2, e m

, ho t0 [o(

Donnlt b('m' Skeq 3 9 8 Yet.dd/

w Divi 3 ion o 4 ibl<.4 x 4 b co M s,, A D m From g. S.

PhJil,j,;

R >.d>nd L,9eelo<

s,,, 'n

\\

C., m,,, e G Pea e 5-te a -

e.ec.-l<le 5-ta 4. n 5 A gm1:

Pr occq Ac.t (L p,, t A s u.n. t to.A PW s e q nct, P~i 3, sm b p d a p_) e 3 4.

f ro v id e m.

wdh op3 o -f v e c o<d 4 4.

e

..__.o3._ N fo l(e Em $ :

i.

5 u. n, m o. < <7 r<goei of N c.,s,sil

+1ew.ce ~ d u ci< d 5

.b A

O H. u o f L s p<C w~ a Av ait e 4 h$ n, 3

cdion

. E cf

+%.

R.ra c (4 u,

a n n e.G fe a w s' L M

i dhr locaf-M.s, his s 'n.i e.: N pi d waa

  • w i f a
  • i<d

.. h M s.y c. k I 9 Yk bd w e. J f a ChiI l f a sM. d.

q v\\ 1 Sk [ f 0r k s vt 5 - tf c o r d s NY l

4. b a v-c.

,,.gy

..___k q o I. A of c m p ( Ji n f.e

o. p.m s.4 R.cz ns s

y-

... 4 Is y va'sim ;.i..e.,

me> ~ ~.y. 4, m.> w w,

d a)f ovt3.o i vt 9, d e ce (u b o f d

descr.4,,'nutdn, t e c. h n l c d im co m p h, c.+

A.

i h:, i n c l d,,,

9 d all swek q e r+> -

8708270144 870019 H

~A~1

2

.,?.

e.

e.=.

kN 7 0 s,, % ;1. e.,

if 2. a 3,L p ) reee.'vi a,

soon a.s t

..s%.n e d; a4c Iy no seuek

{s e

2. O 3 s L. t i W

3 6 f <J Lb proLJ.A tu i% G,~f4 9

re ys ke

.h i nsw.

T.h.i. i m A~b i s r

i 2

.e..fsmnQ%diuldu.b<u.<<dbecwu.== a em n' ka,kca clu <, ', L n

s a b i ec;f t'n v < 3 f.'pb d 2 wm t ic kn,w i

sa6 i coneiu.<<'oas u>ere

<e a. o L d.

II. l.,

I-\\. 5 Ph:

SM b:

L 3 d w i 'L,p u b c h

. -. h\\.S. %k.1 \\;g.

ogr B, hadr< su e of

.Eo Bo5 3Y l

. 6 l+n 1 o54 Te x a.5 76o'M 1

l l

~:,

[puay'o UNITED STATES

[k.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

.;Gj WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

,4/

58 DE0 0 9 Y I9, MErlORANDUM FOR:

Chairman Zech Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine Commissioner Bernthal Commissioner Carr l

FEOM:

Victor Stello, Jr.

Executive Director for Operations

)

SUBJECT:

STAFF ACTIONS REGARDING OIA REPORT ON COMANCHE PEAK In response to Chairman Zech's memorandum dated December 4,1986, this is to inform the Commission of the immediate actions taken in response to the report issued by OIA on November 26,

1986, regarding Region IV l

management actions on Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station.

I have directed NRR, IE, and the Regional Administrator of Region IV to

'immediately reviFw the~ report and all attachments with a view to determining whether any management actions may be warranted by the findings of the report, and, if so, what actions may be appropriate.

I expect to come to a prompt conclusion on this matter.

Pending a final decision on the need for cther management actions, the arrangements previously made for the preparation and review of Comanche Peak inspection reports will continue in effect.

In accordance with these arrangements, draft reports prepared by Region IV inspectors regarding Comanche Peak will be reviewed for technical sdequacy and enforcement significance and completed by IE.

The staff is also reviewing the technical content of the report to assure that all matters that may bear on licensing have or will receive appropriate attention, t'ith respect to your request to the Office of the General Counsel. I am edvised that the Office of the General Counsel has already commenced a

)

review of all of the material to determine whether, assuming that the report and some or all of the attachments are to be released to the public, any information should be deleted so as to prevent any unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

(We have been informed by OIA that no express pledges of confidentiality were made in connection with the preparation of their report. ) OGC's effort, too, is expected to be completed promptly.

Staff counsel in the Hearing Division, 000 - Bethesda, are also reviewing j

the documents to assess what impact the information might have on the l

ongoing licensing proceeding.

In this regard, the report is relevant and material to the issues in that proceeding and its release (subject to necessary deletions for privacy reasons and/or under protective order) l should be authorized by the Commission.

Additionally, counsel ' for the intervenor

CASE, Mr. Anthony Z.

Roisman,

has, by letter dated December 4, 1986, formally requested production of the report cnd all l

? 'M N / O (J d q P 9,

mfj/

y

u associated documents in connection with the ongoing discovery process.

A copy of his request and the staff's reply, dated December 5, 1986, are attached for your information.

Two Freedom of Information Act and one Privacy Act (by H. Shannon Phillips) requests have been received by the Commission seeking the release of the report; copies of these requests are i

also attached.

Upon completion of the foregoing staff efforts, I will determine what actions are warranted and will advise the commission of my recommendations for j

further action.

In the meantime, I recommend public release of the report subject to the outcome of the privacy review by OGC and the release of the to those individuals principally mentioned therein.

The latter report issue has, for purposes of expedition, been addressed by separate memorandum to the Chairman.

Origiral sip.nea cZ y1:,.a 2 Lilu p Victor Stello, Jr.

Executive Director for Operations Attachments:

As stated cc w/ attachments:

SECY OGC OIA I

J l

DISTRIBUTION:

i LChandler, OGC TRehm HDenton NRC Central File JSniezek J. Taylor VStello EDO r/f RMartin, RIV JRoe JMurray I

i i

l Wife ord unluMW \\

,a.

m

-!-J

.,J.Murray NME : IOlandler/amb E.Christenbury

V.ST611o

.-------- k- ------.---..---h--------.-------------

IWIE

/k / i /

$/f /

/

/

l?/4 /

y 1

1

_ __ y

1....

38 ElCp

.,,5

'g

- UNITED STATES yh j

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s g- (/

wash:NO 7ON, D. C. 20555 c,

n

\\;e.v

,s.

December 5,1986 Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.

Trial Lawyers for Public Justfee 2000 P Street, N.W. Suite 6D Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Roisman:

This is in reply to your letter of December 4,1986, to Mr. Victor Stello, requesting the production of a recently issued report prepared by the NRC Office of Inspector and Auditor relating to Region IV's activities in i

)

regard to the Comenche Peak facility.

Your request for the report and its associated attachments, drafts, depositions and documents, was made pursuhnt to 10 C.P.R. I 2.744. The subject report was forwarded to the-Commission by OIA on November 26 1986.

Independent of your request, the staff is reviewing the report to decide

whether, in accordance with the Commission's Board Notification procedures, it should be provided to the Board and parties in the "-

l ongoing Comanche Peak licensing proceeding.

This letter, a copy of which is being sent to the Board and other parties in this proceeding, constituted, the staff's response to your discovery request as well as the j

)

initial discharge of the staff's Board Notification obligations.

Because of the nature of the report, approval to release the report and any of the associated material must be given by the Commission.

In this regard, the Chairman of the NRC has directed that the Executive Director for Operations and the Office of the Oeneral Counsel review the report in its - entirety r.n d recommend appropriate action.

Accordingly, the Commission will be advised of your request as well as of the staff's views regarding its relevance.

Prior to doing so, however, it will be necessary to review the report as well as the voluminous associated material to determine whether any of the contents should be withheld from disclosure q

to prevent any unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, to protect j

confidential sources and/or' to permit the NRC.to take any management actions which may be warranted as a result of the findings of the report.

The staff has commenced its review and intends to proceed promptly on this matter.

_gg;#AMW gz

---_A

4 We will keep the Board and all parties advised of the staff's progress.

Sin rely,

(

T[awrence an er Special Litigation Counsel cc: Service List i

l l

l e

Wir M he es 4

A

.j" TRIAL. LAWYERS FOR Pusuc JUSTICE, P.C.

COUNSELIDR5 AT LAW SUITE 611

.\\-

2000 P S1REIT. NORTHWEST ANTHoNYZ Ror5AuN VASHINGTON. D.C. 20036 (202)463 8600 IxtCUTNL DIALCTOR ARTHUR BRYANT

~

5fAU ATTORNEY 98LLJL CARDL E s'T E N N o ET"

    • NS"oR December 4, 1986 o

EATHLLEN CUMBtRAATCH SLCRITARY.

Larry Chandler BY HAND Office of Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7735 Old Georgetown Road, 9th floor Bethesda, MD 20814 RE:

ENCLOSED

Dear Larry:

i The ~ enclosed letter to Victor Stello requests production of the recent OIA report regarding QA/QC at Comanche Peak and i

Region IV's involvement.

We contend that this report is also covered by our previously filed discovery on CPRT adequacy l

(9/22/86), including but not limited to questions 2, 9, 13, 14, 4

.19, and 35.

According to the extension agreement you reached with my co-counsel Ms. Garde, it is my understanding that you will be providing your answers to this discovery tomorrow.

Sincerely, Anthony Z Roisman AZR/bp enclosure cc:

service list i

i

>95oU j

, r; :, v(;

' -} 'i y :,. -.,:.,/ s

c.

4 TRIAL LAWYERS FOR PUBUC juSUCE. P.C.

couwstuons At Law t

SUITE 6tl 2000 P STREIT. NORTHWEST mggYjg WASHINGTON. D C. 20036 l

(202)463 8600 ARTHutStYANT staff ATf0RNtv swt cenot DIRLCTOR ENVIRONMENTAL WHf57LLBLOWIa f'RottCT sARsAna rRAn O'"CL M^N^GE" December 4, 1986 R.ATHtttN cuMBERBATCH

$tCRITARY Victor Stello BY HAND Executive Director of Operations i

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7735 Old Georgetown Road, 6th floor Bethesda, MD 20814 i

l RE:

Texas Utilities Electric Co. (Comanche Peak)

Dkt. Nos. 50-445, 446-OL and 50-445-CPA

Dear Mr. Stello:

s Pursuant to 10 CFR 32.744 and on behalf of Citizens Association for Sound Energy (CASE), I hereby request that you

)

produce immediately the recently completed OIA report, with all

)

attachments, draf ts, depositions, and documents, relating to the performance of Region IV in its evaluations of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station.

It is my understanding that this document and its attachments contain substantial evidence relating to the inadequacy of the quality assurance /quclity control program in ef fect at Comanche Peak during its construction as well as informatin regarding the failure of j

Region IV to report or disclose these deficiencies.

Inasmuch as the pending licensing and construction permit amendment proceedings both involve questions of 0A/0C adequacy during construction of Comanche Peak, and the OL proceeding involves the question of Region IV's performance and its implications for workers who felt harassment and intimidation and could not go to the NRC with their concerns, there can be no doubt that this report is highly relevant to both proceedings.

Because there are several motions now pending in both proceedings to which this information is relevant, I request that you release the documents no later than 4:00 p.m.,

Friday, December 5.

Failure to receive a response from you by then will be deemed equivalent to a denial within the meaning of S2.744(c),

j and we will proceed accordingly.

You may provide your response 1

by telephone and make a copy of the documents available at your offices for our pickup.

If I am unavailable at the above number, please contact my co-counsel Billie Garde at (202)232-8550.

Sincerely,

//fa4

_ -_ _ m J Anthony 2 o

man AZR/bp cc:

service list (by mail)

Larry Chandler (by hand) p p ?, n l 9.9 J, a, v_

J, '

a

,#~&-

Ellepallas MorningKrios

\\

December 4, 1986 FEED 0id 0F INFORMATION Chief, FOIA Branch ACT REQUEST Division of Rules and Records Q[

f U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 I

l d 9 -h To the FOI Officer:

This request is made under the federal Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C.

552.

Please send me a copy of the Office of Inspector and Auditor report regarding investigative matters concerning the Comanche Peak nuclear plant near Glen Rose, Texas. The particular report I am interested in i

is described in a newspaper article I have enclosed.

As-you know, the FOI Act provides that if portions of a document exempt from release, the remainder must be segregated and disclosed.

are Therefore, I will expect you to send me all nonexempt portions of the records which I have requested, and ask that you justify any deletions by reference to specific exemptions of the FOI Act. I reserve the right to appeal your decision to withhold any materials.

I am prepared to pay reasonable search and duplication fees in connection with this request. However, the FOI Act provides for waiver i

or reduction of fees if disclosure could be considered as "p rima rily benefiting the general public." I am a journalist employed by The Dallas Horning News, and intend to use the information I am requesting as the basis for a planned article. Therefore, I ask that you waive all search and duplication fees. If you deny this request, however, and the fees will exceed $100, please notify me of the I may decide whether to pay thecharges before you fill my request so that denial of my request for a waiver.

fees or appeal your As I am making this request in the capacity of a journalist and this information is of timely value, I will appreciate your communicating with me by telephone, rather than by mail, if you have any questions regarding this request.

Thank you for your assistance,My telephone number in Dallas is (214) 977-8467.

and I will look forward to receiving your reply within 10 business days, as required by law.

Yours truly, L

David Real Staff Writer Communications Center. Dallas Texas 75265,214S77-8222 bW

  • ^)

() /'7 n n n !

r e

,3 y l lll f L f,J ~*0 L

- =

p; %wr.z:ne---a%massu '

wa -

K

- m._

,s.

,4-

g jy 4

4 y

f, COntr$bbtIons d T '7

,1 P

[

n.,

q.,i sur Teksrem wruer ing have dan i 5, !

By DEBRA DENNIS

.'P*

Nicaraguan rebels are gettingless "Any othe belp the reb Y

aid from private U.S. citizens after going to be !

7 g*sr. T*/ @e..

revelations that the contras the controve.

f f.n

  • r Qf.,. "Ill.% #4

" - >l received millions of dollars from sajd Phil Ma t u.p

  • ih

(

pr it: on U.S. arms sales to tran, cans for Hut

~

.r

'T ntra supporten say, Justice,in Fc

["", %%..' "'

>r 4

"d*%m.f.'? d

"...Ya And a rebelspokesman and a par. not stupid T1

?

, 4.'?.[,. g i,y, based middlemen may have pocket. turned their i

ticiphnt in supply missions say U.S..

Many U.S

= %.

i,

..h:,:,c( -4

\\

i ed aufrofits fromthesecret armssales ment, he aajc I;.;. 3 N L l other congressionaDy author. misled about hed " humanitarian" assistance in. aidandfcar tl A fira to test the theory of "twiear this helicopter crashed while igniti a elimi-tended for the contras, i haltod We:!resday moments after nary blaze. The pilot walked away.Both the revelatJon of the arms GaryBenne never got to 1 SA deal and the possibthty of profiteer-PleaseseeCor f A b'co h c{t

hto Nucle ra.% /9Ro na 57 wn ge y Q q

y cloudec9

' Goodfem

~

t'W in i

rged her By AYLE EAVES Commir-lon officials w Id not Albert to<

espusbed

.I an BRUCE MILLAR discusscontentsof there it has t cf thdr

'l C

u'.Telesram wruer not been provided to me bers of

' wr. ole e,.-

f C'

about M y.

- +r The uelear Regulatory Commi& the Atomic Safety and censing Fine I hooe.,l weg,Arst g'l with an g

vestig Oon cf the commission's off' that wiD recommend the five-hevo a sister dr si n h conducted an extensive in. Board, the comminio s agency g, g endiamlnth mnt* Mu, lee at oversees the Comanche member commlarion bether the

.We need yor,,

P" Peak wer plant.andit produced a plantnear Glen Rose ould receive

' workspartten a sevrral g:

repor that plant opponentssaycon. an operstbg hee de@. Sows tains 'estrernely damaging conclu-Peter Bloch, ch n of the )).

We nord aho do begin skus.

censing board, asked for the re.

oodd you ploi errhages port but had t received a copy Tim W t:rs have A,-~

The' are demanding that the re-Wednesday, och saiditis the com. dothes and port b the commission's Office of mission's ision whether to re-

'Of nb," sald Everman comes to aid of Donna trspect and AudJtor bemadepub-lease th eport.

tan thr Da Mae Ward.

Uc. %e port on the agency's Arl-based Citizens Associa.

at w long it ington re caloffice was dehvered tio or Sound Energy, whieb has corrhag. was put on the hrt Wednesday at last week t commission members ughtlicensingof theplant, asked hen a goat 6 Children's Medical Center in Dallas andcommissa ecutJve Diree for the report in a letter sent nose whol Victor Stello, age WE d Wednesday.

CtMctmas

, Donna Please see Townsfolk en Page 2 Wednesday.

Please see Noelear en Page 2 drenmay 4

)

to the Fort WW cut back to work,haby sits.

P.O. Box 1g70!

it he's "not realgood"at the lows her around beca use she drops her iood.

ney're buddies They ate and put that butter MoUy loved it, Gallagher sa ya, and the hair-a night of saloon. keeping, on everything they could. They used a bout all washing seemed to have taken care of that 1

alert in the mornings."

of it."

problem.

t, beyond the shadow of it was one of those plastle tubs of marga-

"Weu, it didn't ready take care of it," Gal.

Jn.g}d.e : -

norning^

rice, actually. A 11ttle tub of it?

lagher confesses, "beca use when my wife gotg

- !.sa LooeUState

)

t on the sofa.,'! w,as letting "No,"saidGaHagber,*oneof thebiotubs."

home she thought MoDy's hair looked a little Buelness...q 1,just play and keep berself First, Gallagber turped to cleaning the oily. Rat's how I got caught."

.w ActuaU Sports, s

.ind ef dozing off and on*

greasy stuif off everything. nen, he says,"I detease: y, be seems to have a reasonable UAng.. s o g j

.n time end she was just put Molly in the tub.1)ust put the dog out." cosmetles at Nelman-Marcus,as ClasetSed...

While Brenda w He had to get Molly cleaned up, including a Mouy was dis Food...o.,

e butterout of therefriger raneb in the afternoon for a party. hair-wash, of course, so they could 1

hair.

be dog bad been playingin Con *L ero - all over her toys, EU he function, whleb had been donated to "Maybe we'll have a new 11ac," her baby Estortais -

j ber hair, all over tbe dog's the KERA TV auction last spring, included a sitter suggestt N-g was having a ball.

mini-rod co, wild west sb o w, co u boy sin gers, a

.)und g' olden retrieverl fol-barbecue and assorted other activities. It last.

o.c,p. ocan pp.m o.ny ac.pt seteney on empe one

,93 ed about five bours.

en mammo staurmoram anc on ww Loc

  • swer o' F*.wM or j

se scantwow g

amuseuupucusMuunnemstwMesunsMew=uvrers-vam*em r-m m

a-

-O a inusica) dance production if doesn't he always haw Lee Will Conquer Al

.,g as Deep E//um Blues, a MD classy Dallas Bl ck Dance record? It's 12 Top Ter Theater event this weekend a row for Richie and b pin ocL.nu at the Majestic Theater, Reunion Arena Friday ms-acru

- Morning

- Su

's char 9e VA Nuclear agen6y ddocuments report sought

~d.

y portant records.

Fer nee s.m o.

Thefirstwitness,VivienDrake, Continued from Page I Officials of Texas Utilities Elec.

j 11:ral a secretary at the agency's Wash.

De group asked the licensing tric Co., the ma}or owner of the C,

r_,.

l moDy ington headquarters.said she was board to obtain and release the re-plant, said in June 1965 that their aswea mmam i

b thz directed by Michael Dunlap,a su.

port. whleh it said

  • deals with se-own concerns about the plant were amm n is hesin hisoffice.Butshesaidshe rious deficiencies in the QA/QC such that they would not, at that rvisor at the agency, to purge cints iguaDty assurance /quahty control point, start it up even if they had a E'

th m hadnotbeentoldtodisposeofany Program at Comanche Peak and beense to do so.ne plant is under-C1 F*

avia.capr.

particularfilesnorlook forpoten, with serious problems with over-going an extensive reinspection, tially embarrassing part of a coverup. g records as sight of the plant by the Region IV and some completed construction it:nd office."

work has been ripped out and re-2reat-The Region!Vofficein Arlington done.

  • '*5-
stion, The second witness, Barry Bos-covers nuclear power plants in 14 he report is not the first sign of ig to kowitz,a staff consultant on field states.

trouble in the Region IV offlee.

/that cperations at the Washington Associa; ion counsel Tony Rois.

Last March,the comminion's off.

wisse s..

fr:m headquarters, aald be had no di-man, who signed the letter, said his ice of Inspector and Auditor said a= ween.

ainst rect knowledge that documents organization fears the commi=lon's that the Arlington office had not were disposed of after the veter-staff "may be sitting on this report, responded properly to allegations of 8'

d by ensweregrantedauthoritybyPa-perhaps... boping... to moairy its harassment of Comanche Peak in-m, %,p,,1,

.nves tel on June 25 to obtain docu-

. extremely damaging conclusions." spectora.

e VA ments in the agency's file Roisman aald the association on Joe Fouchard, the commission's as,um.serews ma e n

relevant to their lawsuit.

hursday would officially request chief spokesman in Washington, u.a onesomemar e 00fd8 But besaid thatafterbetold his thereportiromStello,whoreceived said;"Thereis an Office ofInspector t

esses superiors at that time that contin, a copy of it last week, and Auditor report oninvestigative

,and ved shredding of documents

It is my understanding that the matters relating toComanchePeak.

from might be illegal, he was ignored document and tu attachments con. Itis before thecommiarlon and Stel-their and a co worker told him the' tain substantial evidence relating to lo.Beyond that,wewillhavenocom-i

d be ahredding went on af ter theagen.

theinadequacy of the quahty assur-ment."

I'ERI cy had received the request for ance/qualitycontrolprogramin ef.

Region IV Director Bob Martin 4

their documents.

feet at Comanebe Peak during its has not seen the report and could g

construction, as well as information not conntnent on its contents Duntaptestified that he had au.

aday, thorized disposal of the docu-regardingthefailureofRegionTVto Wednesday, said Gary Sanborn, re-s Ad.

report or disclose these deficien gionalstateliaisonofficerintbeArl-(

supe. ments before receiving the seter-cles." Rotsman wrote.

ington office.

en h3 cas' request.

Comanche Peak is nine years be-uwrence Chandler, who repre-e de-Under questioning by Patel, hindits origina' l sched ule and is cost-sents theromminzionin the Coman-ed in Boskowitz said he subsequently ing $7.7 bilifon,10 times its original che Peak beensing process,said the told a superior that be was con-budget, ne Atomic Safety and LJ-commission staff will decide tdoe carned that two folders relevant censing Board has been critical of whether the report is pertinent to y10UTDewf says to the lawsuit had not been pro-the plant's design and construction, the Comanche Peak licensing pro-runanypnw gram videdbytheVAtoplaintifI:inthe andsomeinvestment officials have cess and therefore whether it non-commercia tnim case.

begun tovoice doubts that the huge abould be distributed to the licens-plant will ever belicensed.

ing board and other parties.

Wg OW SAMEF tors fight proposed parole y

Page1 days off for each day served.

In llrf3. Pa t back to Tarnat Harrell Anderson had received credit for 45 Ramirez brot$rskar pleaded guDty to killing the And geta y-p ersand wasgiven twomyearsen.

trale review this years and three months when be was released. tence.t His second bearing was snoved to Hous-y0Ur secondinse He wa in prison about 16 years.

ton beca use of intense pu blicity in Tarrant Coun-10 days, e is fcrucIly pro-ne kdge who tried several of the cases and ty-a topcfficialwas 11 have any effeet thegrandmotherof the4-year oldsaidtheywere Paprskar was released from the Teams Depart-

,i disappointed that all f our killers may be released ment of Corrections Aug.4,1980.

Anderson's from prison by the end of the year.

His wife Bonale Paprskar, also was convicted cfbeingtheone y8D[0 '"Qht in the slayinjs and was sentenced to two 259 ear J

g,

,O u7tY w &9 :

2 <=

Nuclear Information and Resource Service 1616 P Street, N.W., Suite 160, Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 328-0002 December 5, 1986 Donnie Grinsley Division of Rules and Records FREEDOM OF INFORMATION pEQUEST office of Administration wC g-yy g@

y US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 0 O'd IA~h 4r FRFEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REOUEST

Dear Mr. Grimsley,

Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 522, as amended, and 10 CFR 9.8 of the Commission's regulations, the Nuclear Information and Resource Service requests the following document the office of Inspector and Auditor (OIA) report on the OIA investigation into NRC Region IV. The report, approximately 4,000 pages, was submitted to the NRC Commissioners and the Executive Director of Operations, Victor Stello, on November 28, 1986.

In your response, please provide a list of offices to which this request was forwarded.

In our opinion, it is appropriate in this case for you to waive search charges, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 522 (a) (4) (A) 'because furnishing the information can be considered as primarily benefiting the general public."

The Nuclear Information and Resource Service is a non-profit organization serving local organizations concerned about nuclear power and provides information to the general public, members of Congress, State and local officials.

If you have any questions about the nature of this request, please contact me by phone-at 32e-0002. We look forward to your prompt reply.

4 I

Sincerely, W

L Stephanie Murphy 6

,o.~,, e -w w w L,

[f,

! ncL

y,

~ ~,

~ -

'.~

~, -

d#N

~

UNITED STATES

$\\

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[~"~

~

- i WASHI,NCTON.-C. C. '20555 ~

s

$* )-

r

.*e, e.

~

~

~

CHAIRMAN November 2{ 76.,

0FFICE OF THE

. ' ~

' ' ^

MEMORANDUM FOR:

Lee V. Gossick

~

~

~

Executive Dir for Operations i

FROM:

us Chainnan

SUBJECT:

NRC's Regulatory Mission I believe it highly desirable to continuously remind ourselves and our staff of the regulatory ethic of this agency and of the operational climate needed to nourish that ethic.

The mission of the NRC is to protect the public in the uses of nuclear facilities and materials. That is.the reason for our existence--the reason NRC was established as a separate and independent nuclear reg-ulatory agency. Our mission encompasses protection of the public health and safety and the environment, safeguarding of nuclear materials and facilities, and assuring consistency with this nation's anti-trust laws. -

This mission is the guiding force in establishing policies, conducting searching reviews of proposed and actual operations of nuclear facilities and issuing or denying licenses.

It is inevitable that in a complex and highly technical field such as

~

nuclear power, there will be differing viewpoints aanng capable and qualified persons within our organization as to what constitutes sound regulatory judgment. As we have emphasized throughout our agency life, diversity of viewpoint is a strength of our regulatory process, not a weakness; and we must maintain an agency climate which encourages j

qualified staff to speak their best judgment in carrying out their job.

An inevitable aspect of such a process is that some viewpoints will not prevail. Nevertheless, because of the importance we attach to our obligations to the public, we believe that it is.not.only the right but the duty of a member of the NRC management and staff to make known promptly to appropriate management levels any situation which he or she considers to be unacceptable from the standpoint of protection of the public. And it is the responsibility of NRC management to assure that

.all its employees, are afforded that opportunity.

~

,. rGM,%g %..

.m.....

The Commission is intent that there be no misunderstanding our commit 1 ment to these basic principles; that staff be able and expected to make known their best professional judgment, whether or not it corresponds with the views of other staff or nTanagement; and that this can be done with the assurance of n' recrimination or retribution.

o I ask you to assure that a copy of this memarandum be given to each NRC

'~

employee and to every new employee upon joining this agency.

/

L 01/27/87 1

DOCUMENTS RECEIVED BY CPRRG ITEM DESCRIPTION CFRRG-1 Supplemental statement G. Mulley 12/18/86 Noonan-to-Davis,1/6/8, w/ attachments (superseded by CPRRG-2 Memo.

CPRRG-9)

(Note: This is response to CPRRG request RG-P0-01 CPRRG-3 Ten CPPO-furnished documents as follows:

(1) Special Review Team Report

'(2) Technical Review Team Reports - SSERs, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 13 (3) Comanche Peak Response Team Program Plan and completed results reports.

(Someofthe results reports are not yet completed.)

(4) TUGC0 Quality Assurance Program Review (5) Cable tray and hanger inspection report (6) HVAC and support inspection report (7) CPRT-QA Program Review Report (8) Contention 5 Panel (memo from E00 dated 2/28/85,)supersedingearliermemodated 12/24/84 (9)

Intimidation Panel (memo from EDO dated 12/24/84)

(10) Report of Intimidation Panel (letter, NRC to TUGC0 dated 11/4/85) j' CPRRG-4 Memo.

Parler-to-Connissioners, 12/23/86,

Subject:

OC OF OIA REPORT CONCERNING REGION IV MANAGEMENT ACTIONS TOCOMANCHEPEAK(OIAINVESTIGATIONNO.86-10)

CPRRG-5 Memo. Connelly-to-Stello, 1/6/87,

Subject:

DIA COMANC F.EPORT.

(Transmits corrections to chart on page 34 a, basic report, summarizing Mr. Goldberg's analysis of '

issues.)

CPRRG-6 IE response (1/9/87) to CPRRG draft request (RG-IE-01)

CPRRG-7 IE response (1/9/87) to CPRRG draf t request (RG-IE-C)

CPD,G-7A NRC Enforcement Policy 10 CFR Part 2, 49 FR 8583 b

01/27/87

~

CPRRG-7B NRC Manual Chapter 4125, Differing Professional Opinions CPRRG-7C IE Manual Chapter 0400, Enforcement Program CPRRG-70 IE Manual Chapter 0610, Inspection Reports CPRRG-7E IE Manual Chapter 1245 Inspector Qualifications CPRRG-7F IE Manual Chapter 94300, Status of Plant Readiness for an Operating Licensee CPPRG-7G IE Manual Chapter 2512, Light Water Reactor Inspection Program -

Construction Phase CPRRG-7H Letter to TUGCO, April 11, 1983,

Subject:

CONSTRUCTION APPRAISAL INSPECTION 50-445/83-18; 50-446/83-12 CPRRG-71 Letter to TUGCO, January 21, 1986,

Subject:

INSPECTION OF COMANCHE PEAK DESIGN ADEQUACY PROGRAM SCOPE VALIDATION PROCESS AND REVIEW ChiCKLIST DEVELOPMENT 445/85-17, 50-446/85-14 CPRRG-7J Letter to TUGCO, September 9, 1986,

Subject:

INSPECTION OF COMANCHE PEAK DESIGN ADE00ACY PROGRAM (DAP), IMPLEMENTATION OF DISCIPLINE SPECIFIC ACTION PLAN (DSAP)X, MECHANICAL SYSTEMS AND COMPONENTS 445/86-18, 50-446/86-15 CPRRG-7K Letter to TUGCO, September 10, 1986

Subject:

INSPECTION OF TERA'S QA PROGRAM FOR THE COMANCHE PEAK DESIGN ADEQUACY PROGRAM 445/86-17, 50-446/86-14 CPRRG-7L Letter to TUGCO, November 4, 1986,

Subject:

INSPECTION OF COMANCHE PEAK DESIGN ADEQUACY PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION OF SPECIFIC ACTION PLANS VIII, IX, and IX; 50-445/86-19,50-446/86-16 CPRRG-8 RIV response (1/9/87) to CPRRG draft request (RG-RIV-02)

CPRRG-9 Memo. Noonan-to-Davis, 1/13/87, w/ attachments (supersedes CPRRG-2)

(Note: This is response to CPRRG request RG-P0-01)

CPRRG-10 Memo. Dircks-to-Office Directors, 3/13/84,

Subject:

COMPLETION OF OUTSTANDING REGULATORY ACTIONS ON COMANCHE PEAK AND WATERFORD CPRRG-11 Memo. Dircks-to-Office Directors, 10/17/84,

Subject:

COMANCHE PEAK PROJECT DIRECTOR CPRRG-12 Letter to TUGCO, 9/18/84,

Subject:

COMANCHE PEAK REVIEW CPRRG-13 Letter to TUGCO, 11/29/84,

Subject:

COMANCHE PEAK REVIEW CPRRG-14 Letter to TUGCO, 1/8/85,

Subject:

COMANCHE PEAK REVIEW 1

DOCUMENTS RECE!VED BY CPRRG 2

Y

(.s 01/27/87 CPRRG-15 Memo. Martin-to-Da bject:

REFERENCE MATERIAL FOR CPRRG - NOTES 0 CPRRG-16 Memo. Martin-to-Dtv

,-1/20/87,

Subject:

REFERENCE MATERIAL FOR CPRRG - NOTES OF H. PHILLIPS CPRRG-17 Memo. Martin-to-Davis,1/20/87,

Subject:

REFERENCE MATERIAL FOR CPRRG - REGION IV MANAGEMENT POSITIONS ON ATTACHMENT MM CPRRG-18 Memo. Martin-to-Davis, 1/20/87,

Subject:

REFERENCE MATERIAL FOR CPRRG - REGION IV INSPECTION AT COMANCHE PEAK (Note: This is response to CPRRG draft request--RG-RIV-01)

CPRRG-19 Memo. Martin-to-Davis,1/22/87,

Subject:

BACKGROUND INFORMA-TION ON CPSES INSPECTION REPORTS CPRRG-20 Memo. Martin-to-Davis, 1/23/87.

Subject:

ERRATA REPLACEMENT SHEETS FOR REGION IV ASSESSMENT OF COMMANCHE PEAK IDENTIFIED TECHNICAL ISSUES l

\\

DOCUMENTS RECEIVED BY CPRRG 3

m.m

..s

f c

L l

1 1

%I~

h.

(0 pen) Unresolved Item (445/8422-U-04):

Material certification for electrical penetration seals.

The NRC inspector questioned the l

certification of the chemical and physical testing.

In response, l

TUGCo provided BISCO certificate of compliance (C0C) Nos. 3057, 3081, 2893, and the BISCO site receiving inspection checklist for Purchase Order (PO) Nos. 2730 and 2773.

There was a statement that the articles complied with all P0 specification requirements (2323-MS-38F);

however, no reference was made to the DOW Corning, Inc., chemical and J

physical testing of the subject material.

This item remains open pending the receipt of a COC which certifies that this material meets such test requirements or DOW test results.

During this inspection, the NRC inspector found other documentation and hardware issues which are discussed in paragraph 6 of this report.

q f

(X k 4

i t

f l

I a

I l

'i j

\\

i

%2R 3(5 COG}cca3f 2/7/'S!7-2%

e' $

j 4

y 3

bNG)lad2L0amabb/

(u mTasc,not n k M w i

c ANT lw glaneuignt1(J2Q s uuwviw "ue#hudcv, AM-Jaapids i'

] C Aod a/ ' ha(

p d $ ~ le /? { a ( / a f lr ys

+ ' Q Oll uJ w w4 p %# adKad':..

lncc uAs f2 (ce ?.

t/2C- ?l2ib?ura) bcco.

'{ gag I

1 tw ffe L

uot

/

s

$2f3hfYd?J$-

~

2ctEGV C

e e f6 ( w k n & s - z o fo m i

\\xaut ch c$6c)I k')

is 0

j

}{ k j7 9

~m pa aav pub b /Leaksom har Ex -

(s:Albbt - A,bTwaads)aml/Bbd

0JA%t1kf8/

lr Ahd I bh

-ll w w - w a s u s i

w 4L, nlG)[

O G

1 atU

'cugM dl

)

n,an-r

/-

(g6stodof/*I8 %,)

7

-% data 4lueAAsad

-wkuewwL n8 s4 oo

/

z f

Tl6 tot '

Tub D

~ n b g S t.

7k1 E4/f

(

-ak a5 2kaoedd psski c+

~ 'A L

ayfMJ wa :

- m a d roat al m a u !

6&hQ3 sS'

' k y

-tu u,A na%AM&%dsaf C L a h & y'?)4*/ Q

/

7 eu arg.

1 I

5 q-

/

(

~

i lTibio)lNllD1021 0<21 f4G ' clc~51&& J (luffrh,!btSetli k w[h k;)b x[ Q kn

?s g6 w' lk

- duaaar n iz 2(new,wnW%k u;Ad

~

- fiz19% Tafleaflateyb cabd4>

afid~ElW4qi& K-l//sG(B Fad 9 wksek/

aaA a 0%

safa>dadk - QaNM 6L/TbMwd?MDdadd b;

/1Ekc&

svea<awbl //pl I fzadd$u(C 02 4 gul j

(9 a

p+ aML - onpaw<t9

-asc i M f,

v z 6... ' = 5 k A D y % % % w n a rauw Ju us p a y $ h aaltsm

, OEu$udam >

pat ajgp l'&nt&fv16'i n/z /&uD i

a

~r af

/sAnac-5 ihau g f1 r~b % h f [UAlaca S, 0"'* f ll y4kefalanMAa t9 a k s s s w w Jae 7e

9.

)

y

- lA Nf&q !VGf /asil b syq aed #

k

> e/WG au cur fY hckb ' 'hf3L)@ h /b' d

A Q&d df a(9 eh GadaC y

% db

  1. ftwp<aAB63F e

- Sqi:es;Lqchehagolle/ggd_

f%K heef>enacs wreur 00 f

ayud,de e d' W C

v Fa&eb asgetsarre Ad

&J

' s a k h a Q ts, M D

- uns}k ceaf tuna h

ba sMy&y4Ng)g#

uv ll?

h gh

- n Mawhno06u2/A> une (pAAfk&saaA)e & M

---^7

/

,l[ r ?h Y Mf **

dCM u ge% -

F a r kcu o ~as b

[pt ksa, t~b rar fl/-y hd7l h

keysmil fGgs wcw l%lle,hn hul Jyk'y i

(kk,not 3

kg to, [

A*

et ls, kk ak h vpie L why FF quc,bt1 Q

f k,liqr lCo a n lkt -b

+4

  1. m n #

,A +-, +

cm 1D (pnd dio1r hoocf 9 4 ("b Oh o' CDo Cco a by na+

wy a no-vnew tva n%

b enumb b(cet bepch l97 cmc h

Krv m o d,

c., an ciffn;7cehl in'^Id b

/

c Q

00 fMY b

\\;

i

/"*"g~

UNITED STATES

!T s

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i

I OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION I

\\

,/

631 Park Avenue, King of Prussia, Pa.19406 Tel. 215 337-5330 No. I-87-21

Contact:

Karl Abraham February 10, 1987 NRC STAFF PROPOSES TO FINE THE PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY $50,000 FOR AN ALLEGED WRONGFUL DISCHARGE OF A WORKER AT PEACH BOTTOM PLANT The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff has cited the Philadelphia Electric Company for allegedly causing the dismissal of a contractor's health physics technician because the technician expressed concern about his possible overexposure to radiation at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station in York County, Pennsylvania.

The Staff proposes to fine the Philadelphia Electric Company (PECO), which operates Peach Bottom, $50,000.

NRC regulations specifically protect nuclear industry workers' rights to express concerns about their safety to employers, or to the NRC.

On October 4, 1985, a Peach Bottom contractor, Bartlett Nuclear, Inc.

terminated the employment of George A. Field, a health physics technician, giving as its reason that he allegedly had excessive absences from work.

In a " Notice of Violation" sent to PECO on February 9, 1987, the NRC staff alleges that Mr. Field was fired by Bartlett "at the direction of the PEC0 Field HP Supervisor" because Mr. Field " persisted in raising concerns regarding I

whether he might have received a radiation exposure in excess of the regulatory limit while he was working in the Unit 3 offgas tunnel in March 1985 and because of a belief by certain PECO supervisors that Mr. Field had informed the l

Commission of his concerns.t' A special inspection, as well as an investigation, were performed, and the NRC staff believes that while Mr. Field received some radiation exposure during his work in the offgas tunnel, the amount of exposure was within the limits of such exposures set in NRC regulations.

l In a

letter transmitting the Notice of Violation to

PECO, Dr. Thomas E. Murley, Regional Administrator of NRC Region I, said that the NRC staff had determined that Mr. Field was terminated "for engaging in protected activity." Although PECO provided, during the investigation, other reasons for the termination, Dr. Murley said that the NRC was persvaded of its conclusion by four findings of the investigation:

(more) l I

s,.,

p b

1:,

1 I

4 t-1.

The technician apparently was never counseled regarding ' excessive absenteeism; 2.

There was no mention' of such absenteeism-in the technician's-personnel file; 3.

Although seven employees were designated for layoffs due to excessive l

absenteeism, only three employees were discharged; I

4.

Termination _ based solely on absenteeism apparently was inconsistent with the then current and past practices at Peach Bottom.

"The importance of allowing employees sufficient freedom to bring their perceived safety concerns to the attention of licensees, their contractors, and.

- the. NRC must be reinforced," said Dr. Murley.

"While the NRC encourages licensees to adopt an 'open door policy' which encourages employees and

' contractor employees to report problems to their supervision, it must also be made ' clear to employees that they. have the right to contact the NRC whenever

~

they perceive a safety problem exists ~ and that they. will not be harassed, intimidated, or discriminated against for bringing such concerns to their supervision or to the NRC."

Dr. Nurley - concluded - that these events were " indicative of the need for more effective management control of the radiation protection program."

~

PEC0 has 30 days either to pay the fine or to request in writing that part or all of it be withdrawn by the NRC staff. The company also has 30 days to admit or deny the alleged violation, and if admitted, to give_ its reasons for its happening, corrective steps taken and results achieved, steps taken to avoid further violations, and the date when full compliance will be achieved.

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has been informed of this proposed enforcement action.

i j

1 l

l

[

i J'

~

7-

)..

}-

-[t 5 UNITED STATES y"l%g NUCLEAR. REGULATORY COMMISSION ~

! 'o r<

1' h ~-

Offloe of Puhuc Affairs '.

~

-- N ' Y.. /

~.. =

. - Washington, D.C. 20555 FOR IMED'IATE RELEASE

~

No.86-173 Tel. 301/49.2-7715 (Friday, December 12,1986)

STATEMENT BY CHAIRMAN LANDO W. ZECH, JR.

The Comission has requested recommendations from its Executive Director for Operations and its General Counsel concerning a report from the NRC Office of Inspector and Auditor on the perfonnance of officials at our Region IV office at Arlington, Texas, on the handling of safety issues at the Comanche Peak nuclear power plant at Glen Rose, Texas. The Office of Inspector and Auditor completed its report on November 26. It dealt with allegations made by an NRC inspector at the Region IV office.

The Comission will take appropriate action on those recommendations as soon as possible after they are received. I regard our inspectors and our inspection program as vital elements in our efforts to protect public health and safety. If corrective actions are needed, they will be taken.

i t

4

.I l

d*

l 1

y; i

I b

i

~

- t_

~.

U.S. NUCLEAR ItEGULATORY COMMISSION NRC MANUAL Volume: 4000' Personnel Part : 4100 Federal RM O

CHAPTER 4125 DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS 4125-01 COVERAGE

.by i

i This chapter and appendix comprise NRC policy, objectives, procedures,

1 f responsibilities and other basic requirements and definitions established to

{ gi provide for the expression and resolution of differing professional opinions j Ly concerning matters related to the agency's mission.

4125-02 POLICY AND OBJECTIVES b:

h 021 Policy.

It is the policy of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and l

l the responsibility of all NRC supervisory and managerial personnel, to maintain g* -

a working environment that encourages employees to make known their best 1

though they may differ from a prevailing staff professional judgments even f

view, disagree with a management decisi.on or policy position, or take issue

)

with proposed or established agency practices.

Each differing professional opinion of an NRC employee will be evaluat3d on its own merit. Further, each differing professional opinion will be pursued to resolution and the employee's statement of differing professional opinion, together with the agency's final response, will be made available to the public to ensure the openness of NRC decisions that may affect the public.

l It is not only the right but the duty of all NRC employees to make known their best professional judgments on any matter relating to the mission of the Moreover, both the general public and the Nuclear Regulatory Com-agency.

mission benefit when the agency seriously considers NRC employees' differing professional opinions that concern matters related to the agency's mission. This policy is intended to assure all employees the opportunity to express differing professional opinions in good faith, to have these opinions heard and considered by NRC management, and to be protected against retaliation in any form.

022 Objectives,

a.

To define differing professional opinions, b.

To distinguish between differing professional opinions and the differences of views and opinions routinely raised and resolved

~

among staff members in the ordinary conduct of agency business, s

Approved: July 23,1985

~

C C

1

-DRAFT PRESS RELEASE-

]

NRC'S EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR APPROVES ACTIONS

{

AT REGION IV 0FFICE IN COMANCHE PEAK MATTER l

Victor Stello, Jr., Executive Director for Operations of the Nuclear f

1 Regulatory Commission, has approved a series of actions to deal with the findings of a report from the NRC's Office of Inspector and Auditor on the performance of officials 8t the agency's Region IV Office at Arlington, Texas, concerning the handling of safety issues involving the Comanche Peak Nuclear Powef Plant at Glen Rose, Texas. The Commission has approved these actions, and is continuing its review of the matter.

if}j The Office of Inspector and Auditor completed its report on November 26.

It deals with allegations made by an NRC inspector at the Region IV office. A pk summary of this report, with deletions, was made public on December II.

Ik

!?-)

Mr. Stello has fonned a special review group headed by John Davis, Director of NRC's Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards, to review the technical details of the 01A report to determine (1) the safety i

significance of the issues for Comanche Peak and whether actions should be taken to rectify any unsafe conditions; (2) whether the issues when identified by Region IV were appropriately handled; (3) whether the et;rrent augmented HRC review and inspection effort at Comanche Peak is sufficient to make a finding of reasonable assurance on the safety of construction without relying on l

Region IV's previous inspection program.

The NRC inspector at Region IV and h'is supervisor have been detailed temporarily from their present duties to be at the disposal of the review 4

group until the work of the group is complete.

"I have appointed this special review group, headed by a senior NRC i

official, to get an independent view of the matters covered by the OIA report. I have requested a report to me by January 30, 1987," Mr. Stello said.

l l

i

________________i

(

(J L1 o,

In-additiort. Mr. Stello has approved recommendations from Robert Martin, Region IV Administrator, that regional technical staff and supervisors be retrained concerning regional policies which set out the obligation of both the staff and supervisors and management to escalate disagreements promptly so that they can be resolved. Mr. Martin also has directed that an improved-j inspection report tracking system be developed to. identify those reports that are unacceptably delayed in the various stages of preparation, review, approve.1 and distribution. This new system is to be in operation by February 15, and will alert senior regional management of possible instances of protracted review of reports. Training will be conducted for all Region IV supervisors to remind them of their proper supervisory responsibilities, I

including the need to give adequate direction and guidance, and to identify and document weaknesses they discern in their subordinates. Supervisors will be held accountable for developing suitable individual development plans to

^

(

address any problems.

I

~.

m-e,-

A

F.

)

p g

,s

(

l

./

y :.. -

2 Robert B. Martin

.g Page 2 staff that identifies the signi ance of differences in classifi-cation of items or findings, from inspections. The CPRRG.is especially 4

interested in distinguishing between differences based on procedural requirements from those based on safety concerns and whether such differences result in different Regional handling and follow-up actions.

4.

Information that describes how Region IV intends that findings and items from inspections be " resolved" with regard to safety significance and I

significance to the licensees performance.

5.

The system or method used by Region IV to assure that appropriate Region IV staff members were aware and understood the'infonnation in Items 1-4, above.

6.

A copy of appropriate documents or relevant pages which address the above matters.

If you have any questions regarding this request, please promptly contact CPRRG.

1 Your reply should be received by CPRRG by January X 1987.

John G. Davis, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 4

m j

N 0

4

~

~

RIV2 DUPLICATE DRAFT 112/22/861 7,

ktr-pk i _

(,

i.

(

(

(

v o

l

.,,*.)D p [.g b' '

MENORANDUM FOR:

' James M. Taylor, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement, a yP h

FROM:

John G. Davis, Director Office of Nuclear Material y and Safeguards i

SUBJECT:

INFORMATION FOR COMANCHE PEAK OIA REPORT 86-10 REVIEW GROUP -- RG IE 02

.l In order that the Comanche Peak OIA, Report 86-10 Review Group (CPRRG) can pro-ceed with its review, the following information is requested of you concerning inspection reporting; item identification, classification, and disposition; and, resident and regional inspector responsibilities:

Information that IE has'which establishes the responsibilities of the 1.

' inspector, supervision, and management with regard to inspection perform-ance,~ reporting, review and concurrence on reports, and meaning and responsibilities of signatures and concurrences.

Information that IE has which identifies means to resolve. differences of 2.

opinions or positions with regard to inspection performance and report g

content.

?.

The possible. classifications of findings or conclusions from reports and 3.

l the meaning of the classifications. in forms of safety significance, con --

formance to procedures, " attention" or follow-up given to items because of classifications, conclusions regarding licensee perfonnancerand enforce-Wiiat the CPRRG seeks is infonnation that identifies thejignif.icance '

ment.

of diffe hnces in classification of J.tems or findings:from inspections - -

sufficient to separate proceduraljfrom safety concerns' andthether sucl._

~

differences should result in different handling and follow-up actions.

~

~

~

~

RIV4 DUP (ICATC

~

RAFT 112/22/861_ ~

M.-02

b..

%e i.

?

~

~

.fh James M; Taylor Page 2

~

4 Information that describes how s that findings and items from inspections be " resolved" with '

d to safety and procedural signifi-cance and licensee's performance.

5.

A copy of relevant documents which address the above matters. The information provided in 1 through 4 above should include appropriate references to applicable documents.

6.

A copy of any headquarters directed team activities, such as an AIT report, involving Comanche Peak.

If you have any questions regarding this request, please promptly contact CPRRG.

4 Your reply should be received by the CPRRG by January f 1987.

John G. Davis, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards l

J 1

~ ~

)

. L-h l

_~

RIV 4 DUPLICATE-DRAFT l112/22/861

r C

4' 1

p MEMOPANDUM FOR:

Robert D. Partin, Regional Administrator Region IV j

FPOM:

John G. Davis, Chairman Comanche Peak Report Review Group

SUBJECT:

INFORMATION FOR COMANCHE PEAK OIA REPORT 86-10 REVIEW GROUP -- RG RIV-01 In order that the Comanche Peak OIA Report 86-10 Review Group (CPRRG) can proceed with its review, the following information concerning the Comanche P sk q+

project since its inception is requested of you:

iT@

%D.

1.

A report on the extent to which the activities of Region IV at Comanche Peak covered the scope and requirements of the current IE ;;: lit; :::rr enee construc' tion inspection program (i.e., the IE inspection require-ments).

It should be noted that this request covers the IE ;

"t T

-eeewonee construction inspection program as now defined, not the program 0

as it may have been defined at the time the activity was inspected (or should have been inspected) at Comanche Peak. Also, the infonnation relates to inspection coverages by Region IV, J* row JAe; M. [w.,,

M v.

..e....

W. inspection activity - callad 9 ".::;h; "! ; " selit,, ;;;;,;..;;

-;..;e;;;%:."

2. ~ The regiunal inspection activity described against each requirement of the IE programe-k,, t!..

yn;T;u :.;;: i~ aad ad

+ka ""': :;;iirf. +ha

h. ie or 6,m
..;;;;th
, ;'t; ;;ttiti--- t% "d;pth".T..n.pecu en.

-. S i ;t ;~;f ";:713;," ;tc.

In sum, the CPRRG desires an expression of

what in'spections-, and the extent, that Region IV actual

' performed,.in all -

en

  • its aspec_ts, against what the IE const' uctior_ ; :?ity ::: r; :: program-r requires:or ' escribes.

~

d M

~

RIY 1 DUPLICATE DRAFT 112/22/86,),

~

Z_/ V- //

,1 f.

y

/

4 a.

2

~

A

.,,y.

k Page 2 Robert D.. Martin o

1

'ForeachIEJ ion requi provide a reference to the Region IV 3.

. document c

y., the requirement, including the page(s) where the requirement is addressed.

v 4.

A listing of the IE construction inspection requirements j

which were not covered (and why) by Region I. If a requirement was only V

. partially met, the report should so indicate.and explain. For any current program requirements not met through Region IV activities, you are j

requested to determine whether the requirements in effect at the time of the inspection may have been different and, if so, please inform the CPRRG the degree to which the' requirements in effect were met.

l 5.

A listing of the-Region IV construction; 'f t; ::::n.;; inspection-requirementsoractivitieswhichareinadditiontotheIEprodramandwhy i

the items were added by Region IV. A ref nce to the relevant Region IV document conveying the requiremnT sNd provided including the j

relevantpagenumber(s).

l 6.

A copy of the inspection reports and related correspondence concerning enforcement or management issues or the relevant pages for each of the items or activities which Region IV inspected which are a part of the IE l

construction ;;:M t ;;....m.. inspection program.

j i

If you have any questions concerning this roquest, please promptly contact the CPRRG.

16 Your reply should be received by the CPRRG by January g,1987.

g

~

John G. Davis, Director-Office of Nuclear Material

' Safety and Safeguards Rlv.dl

~

noarr (19/99nto

-- ' RTV 1 MPl TCATF

f:.

7

.(

(-

o b

MEMORANDUM FOR:

James M. Taylor Director office of Inspection and Enforcement A

h FROM:

John 6. Davis, Director t'

Office of Nuclear Materi and Safeguards

SUBJECT:

INFORMATION FOR COMANCHE' PEAK OIA REPORT 86-10 REVIEW GROUP.RG IE-01 In order that the Comanche Peak OIA Report 86-10 Review Group (CPRRG) can pro-ceed with its review, it needs information on what constitutes the current IE

[ Quality A'ssurancelinspection program at a reactor under construction and what, if any, specific ~ provisions or modifications were made for Comanche Peak.

Thus, the following infonnation is requested:

A description of the current scope and specific requirements of IE[ quality g 1.

assurance 3 inspection program that is to be accomplished by the NRC at a reactor under construction today. Please identify any requirements that d

are not expected to be implemented or where there is flexibility h*

regarding implementation under the control of the Regional Administrator a'nd the rationale for such determinations.

-l 2.

Were any specific additions, deletions or modifications made to the IE

[

[ quality assurancejinspection program as it was to be applied at Comanche Peak?

3.

The description of the scope and requirements should be as definitive as l

practical in tenns of the required actions,-sech as the items to be m

m -

siepp minelii M"

rm DRAFT 112/22/86),

' ~

~

RIV 3

~

ZE-0/-

l

~

f

_____-___A

r r

n

(

<.s James M. Taylor-, IE tk Page 2 i

ir.spected, skills to be applie expected schedule for inspections, i

" hold points," " readiness'. reviews," the " depth" of inspection, the size of

" samples," etc.

In sum, the requested information is that which will inform the CPRRG of the Quality assurance] inspection program required and

/

expected to be perfonned by the NRC at a reactor under construction.

If you have any questions concerning this request please promptly contact the l

CPRRG.

Your reply should be received by the CPRRG by January, 1987.

1 i

John G. Davis, Director j

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards cc: CPRRG Members Region IV Noonan POR emme E

e g

DRAFT,(,12/22/86),

~7:'~

RIV 3

.rE-0/

[.

g

(.

(

.)

1 MEMORANDUM FOR:

Vince Noonan Comanche Peak Project Office i'

FROM:

John G. Davis, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safeguards

SUBJECT:

INFORMATION FOR COMANCHE PEAK OIA REPORT 86-10 REVIEW GROUP RG PO-01 In order that the Comanche Peak OIA Repor.t 86-10 Review Group.(CPRRG) can proceed with its review, the following information is requested of you:

1.

A report on the extent to which the activities of the Comanche Peak Project Office (CPPO) covered the scope and requirements of the current IE

[ quality assurance) construction inspection program. This report should identify that which the CPPO has inspected and specify whether that which CPPO has inspected is required to be inspected as a part of the IE[ quality y

assurance)constructioninspectionprogram.

2.

As a separate section of the report, an identification of items and I

activities of the program implemented by CPPO that are in addition to or different than those in IE program.

1 The CPPO inspection activities described against the requirements, of the f- )

3.

IE program, i.e.. the specific item inspected, the skills applied, the I"]

+-

schedule of the CPPO activities, the site activities, the " depth" of l

CPPO activities, the size of " samples," etc.

In sum, the CPRRG-desires an

_i expression by CPP0 of what inspections CPPO actually performed, in all its-.

f aspects, and a comparison with-what the IE construction [ quality asstirance) ' ~

program requires or describes.

i I

DRAFT 112/22/861 RIV 5 DUPLICATE Po -of.

\\

l

~

--_ A

~

..i e

1 2

Page 2

-Vince Noonan 4.

For'each CPPO inspection re provide a reference to a CPPO do'cument con'veying the re

t. including the relevant page number (s).

5.

A copy of appropriate reports or relevant pages for each of the CPPO inspections.

If you Save any questions concerning this request, please promptly contact the CPRRG.

1 Your reply should be received by CPRRG by January A,1987.

j i

il I

John G. Davis Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards i

l 1

, - c-

-l

~I

_~

~

l 1

drift,(12/22/86} -

~

RIV 5 DljPLICATE

&-of

\\

l

~

~

~

g i

WORKING PAPER 1ki MEMORANDUM FOR:

Victor Stello, Jr.

Executive Director for Operations FROM:

John G. Davis, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards -

SUBJECT:

COMANCHE PEAK OIA REPORT 86-10 REVIEW GROUP RG EO 01 This is in reply to your memorandum of establishing the Comanche Peak OIA Report 86-10 Review Group (CPRRG).

The purpose of this memorandum is to describe for you the charter of the CPRRG and identify, in broad terms, the report that the CPRRG will provide you upon completion of its efforts.

The CPRRG has three specific tasks:

1.

Identify the safety significance of the thirty-two issues identified in OIA report 86-10.

(Attachment 1 to Attachment MM to OIA Report 86-10).

2.

Whether the issues referenced in Item 1, above, were appropriately handled as to process and disposition.

3.

Whether the current augmented review and inspection effort at Comanche Peak is sufficient to compensate for any identified weakness in Region IV's QA inspection programs.

The CPRRG intends to accomplish its three tasks as follows:

To rely principally on the OIA Report 86-10 and information to be submitted to the CPRRG to perform its tasks. The CPRRG does not intend to perform an independent investigation but will request information, review records and documentation, and interview as needed to perform its mission.

1.

IDENTIFY THE SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN OIA REPORT 86-10.

a.

Review each issue and define it in specific terms, b.

Evaluate the safety significance of the issue using NRC staff and consultants as appropriate, c.

Determine the disposition of each issue.

d.

Express an opinion on each issue.

m -,,

I

b. A n 'a e.

Provide a rationale for its opinion.

l 1

l

{

l WORDB 2 APER J

Victor Stello, EDO Page 2 f

2.

DETERMINE WHETHER THE ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN OIA REPORT 86-10 WERE APPROPRIATELY HANDLED AS TO PROCESS AND DISPOSITION i

This determination will be an integral part of the report dealing a.

with safety significance, b.

By disposition, the report will deal with the safety aspects of the issue as to significance and corrective action.

This may entail on-site review and examination by or for CPRRG.

c.

By disposition, the report will deal also with whether an item was appropriately categorized within the IE report system and how the item was eventually closed or resolved (or its current status).

3.

OETERMINE MiETHER THE CURRENT AUGMENTED REVIEW AND INSPECTION EFFORT AT COMANCHE PEAK IS SUFFICIENT TO COMPENSATE FOR ANY IDENTIFIED WEAKNESSES IN REGION IV's QA INSPECTION PROGRAMS.

The CPRRG will accept the existing IE construction quality assurance a.

inspection program as the standard against which the efforts at Comanche Peak will be compared.

The CPRRG does not intend to attempt to identify the IE inspections requirements that existed at the time an inspection should have been performed.

b.

The inspections actually performed by Region IV of those activities and items at Comanche Peak will be compared against the IE inspection program requirements as to items, skills, and timeliness.

The inspections actually performed by the Comanche Peak Project c.

Office will be compared against the IE inspection program requirements as to items and activities, skill, and timeliness.

d.

The report will identify whether the inspections actually performed result in an inspection effort at_ Comanche Peak which is equival.ent to the current IE construction (4uantv assurance 7 inspection program.

l The report will identify when the program falls short and when it exceeds the IE defined program.

The CPRRG will not review the technical findings of the inspection e.

program actually performed as to demonstrating the adequacy of the IE defined program or demonstrating the quality of the plant.

The CPRRG currently is developing a schedule aimed at report submittal to you by January 30, 1987. We will inform'you of the schedule.

WORKING PAPER John G. Davis, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

++*

.. b i

'l i

.j NOTE T0:

V. Noonan i

D. Terao ) x

^

FROM:

SUBJECT:

COMMENTS ON THE OIA REPORT 1.-

The OIA report, in general, addresses three principal allegations by the.

NRC Sr. resident inspector at CPSES (H. Shannon Phillips) contending that

1) the. RIV management downgraded or deleted proposed findings in RIY l

inspection reports, P) the RIV QA inspection programs at CPSES from 1974-1984 were inadequate, and 31 the data in'RIV NRC Form 766 (Inspector's Reporti inaccurately recorded the completeness of RIV inspections. The OIA summary report provides an unbiased and comprehensive summarv of the views of those individuals involved in the allegations. The attachments to the report primarily consist of transcribed interviews by OIA of NRC staff and consultants, draft inspection reports, and NRC memoranda which fonn the basis of the.summarv report.

2.

With regards.to what portions of the report should be released to the public, there are several alternatives ranging from issuing only the summary report to issuing the entire report in::luding the attachments. However, in releasing the entire GIA Report (i.e. summary report and all attachments), the l

3000 pages of attachments provide an excess of irrelevant and superfluous information which could be potentially damaging to the character of certain J.

individuals.

It is recommended that only the summary report be issued which p

contains a list of the attachments.

If necessary, those outside parties who find it necessary to obtain all the attachments or portions-thereof may do so through the usual FOIA process.

g4yml*

n 2

i 3.

With regards to the question of how the OIA report impacts CPSES licensino activities, it is necessary to assess each of the above 3 principal

. allegations. The first allegation described above (i.e. RIV management downgrading ins'pection report findings) could have a severe impact on the licensing of CPSES by. debilitating the credibility of RIV in their current role of overseeing the implementation of the construction adequacy portion of-

- the CPRT Program Plan. The Phillips allegations do not specifically contend that the current-RIV overview of the CPRT. construction adequacy program--which is also under the direction of the RIV management--was also sub.iected to harassment and intimidation, but this perceived implication strongly exists and is.perhaps the most damaging aspect of the OIA report on the current licensing activities.

The second allegation contending that.the RTV

. inspection activities were inadequate from 1974-1984 is currently a moot point in view of thr CPRT activities which envelopes this allegation. However, as noted above, if the adequacy of the RIV overvied of the implementation of the CPRT construction adequacy program becomes questionable, then it would be difficult for the NRC staff to provide credible testimony in the ASLB hearings on the adequacy of CPSES construction and construction QA from 1974 to the present.

The. third allegation involving the inaccuracy of filling out NRC Form 766 has l

no perceivable impact on the CPRT Program Plan or the licensing of CPSES.

L 4

a

q y<

,3, 4.

Pegarding possible actions to be taken as a result of the OIA report, there are several technical issues raised in the OIA report which should be pursued by NRR to ensure that they are being adequately addressed by the app 1_icant.

These issues include 1) BISCO fire seals and ?) the shipment of piping files to Stone & Webster. A more complete list could be detennined after a thorough review of the OIA report.

5.

The conclusions in the OIA report regarding T. Westerman's faulty rationale for the downgrading of violations in draft inspection reports is not well founded.

It appears that many cf the inspection findings in which H.S. Phillips and T. Westerman encountered disagreement in the disposition of the findings involved judgement or personal interpretation of requirements in determining whether or not a violation existed. This is evident in the differences of opinion of even the CIA's two. consultants (Scarbrough and Goldberg) on the same inspeci. ions find-ings in which H.S. Phillips and T. Westerman shared their disagreements.

l l

i f

____ __ - _______ -_ - _ _ _ a

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20237K334&oldid=5516975"