ML20237K664
| ML20237K664 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 08/19/1987 |
| From: | Terao D NRC |
| To: | Noonan V NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20237J194 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-87-87, FOIA-87-A-14 NUDOCS 8708270247 | |
| Download: ML20237K664 (3) | |
Text
___
,f 1 i
- ~
s NOTE TO:
.Y.
Noonan D. Teran ) s FROM:
SUc0ECT:
C0 WENTS ON THE 01A DEP0ci 1.
The'01A report, in oenerat, addresses three principal allecetions bv the NDC Sr. resident insDector at CPSES (H. Shannnn Phillips) contending that it the DIV management downgraded or deleted proposed findinos in DIV inspection reports, M the RIV OA inspection prograns at CDSES frorr 10t-1954 were inadeouate, and 31 the data in P.IV NRC Forn W (Inspector's Reporti c
inaccurately recorded the completeness o# RTV inspections.
The 014 sunmarv report.Drovides en unbiased and comprehensive summarv of the views of those individuals involved in the allegations.
The attachments to the report primarily consist o# transcribed interviews by OIA of ND.C sta'f and consultants, draft inspection recorts, and NDC memoranda which form the basis of the summary 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 sunnarv report to issuing the entire report including the attachments.
However, in releasino the entire OI A Report (i.e. summary report and all attachments, the
. 3000 pages of attachments provide an excess of irrelevant and superfluous in#ormation which could be potentially dameging to the character of certain individuals.
It is recomended that oniv the sumary report be issued which l
l contains a list of the attachmer.ts.
If necessary, those outside parties who find it necessar.v to obtain all the attachments or portions thereof mav dc sn through the usual FnIA process.
8708270247 870819 PDR FOIA BAUMAN87-A-14 PDR
( ~%:
"t 3
- 4. ' Regarding possible actions to be taken as a result of the OIA report, ther(
are'several' technical issues raised in the OIA report which should be pursued.
Lby.NDR to ensure'that'they are being adeouatelv addressed bv the applicart.
These issues include 1) BISCO fire seals' and ?) the shipment 0# pipino'#iles to Stone A Webster.- A more complete list could be determined after a thorouck review of_the 01A report.
5.
The conclusions in the O!A repnrt regarding T. Vesterman's faulty rationale
' f or _the downgrading of-violatinns in draft inspection reports is net well #our.ded.
It appears that many of the ir.spection findings in which W.S. Phillips and i
T. Westerman encountered disaoreerent in the disposition o' the findincs invnhed i
.iudgement or personal interpretation of requirements in determining whether or not a violation existed.
This is evident in the differences of opinion of ever.
'the OlA's two consultants (Scarbrouch and Goldberoi on the same inspections #ird-ings it which H.S. Phillips and T. k'estertrar shared their discoreements.
T 9
1
k,1 - V w
, l L
a J
l
'3.. Pith regar'ds to the cuestion of how the 0?A reoort impacts CDSES licensire activities, it is necessary to assess each of the above 3 principal l
j
. allegations. The 'irst allegation described abnve (i.e. RIV manaoement downgrading inspection report findingsi could have a severe impact on the
]
licensicc nf'CPSES by debilitating the credibility of PIV in their current role of overseeino the implementation of the construction adecuaev portion o#
]
the CPRT Program Plan. The Phillips allegations do not specifically cor, tend that the current RTV overview o# the CPDT construction adecuacy procram--whicF j
is also under the direction of the RTV management--was also subiected to harassment. and intimidation, but.this perceived implication stronnly exists and is perhaps the most damaging aspect o' the OIA report on the current licensin'g activities. The second allegation contending that the RTV inspection activities were inadequate from 1o74-1984 is currently a mont point in view of the CPPT activities which envelopes this allecatior..
However, as
'noted above, if the' adequacy of the P!V overview of the implementation o' the CPP.T construction adecuacy protJram becomes questionable, then it would be difficult for the NRC staf# to provide credible testimony in the ASLB hearings on the adecuacy of CPSES construction and construction QA from 1974 to the present.
The third allegation involving the inaccuracv of filling out NDC Forn 766 has no perceivable impact on the CPDT Prooran Plan or the licensing of CDSES.
_