ML20138L431: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 18: Line 18:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:}}
{{#Wiki_filter:, GOVERNMENT ACCOONT{LITYPROJECT
                                                                              . , {'          '..,,,
  .          Instituts for PolicyStudi:s                                                              '
1901 Que Street. N.W.. Washington. D.C. 20009                                                    (202)234-936:
February 8,1984                b-              .
5 YY                -
9  0 E
W  /g o Q-Mr. Richard C. DeYoung
* Director of Inspection and Enforcement U.S. tiuclear Regulatory Commission          -
Washington, D.C. 20555 Nar Mr. D'eYou6g:                                                                                        "'
c            ~
On January 5,1984, Duke Power Company (Duke) submitted a response to the Government' -
Accountability Project's (GAP) 2.206 Petition filed September 14, 1983, with the Commission. That petition requested a 100 percent reinspection of the safety-                                  '
related areas of the plant, a review of the design deficiencies and the breakdown in the design change control system, and a review of the implementation of the QA/QC.-
program. We also requested a management audit of Duke's Catawba management, an Office of Investigations investigation, and monitoring of the Office of Inspecto'r and Auditor investigation. -=                                                              .
            . In our recent meeting regcrding Midland, I informed you that I wanted .the opportunity                              o
            ' to respond to Duke's response which was, according to Mr. Steve Burns of the Execu-
                                                                                          '                                        h tive Legal Director's Office (ELD),; requested by the itRC.,
To do so most accuratel'    y , I' have forwarded copies of Duke's response to a group' of-
      '      site quality control inspectors who have agreed to assist GAP in an attempt to '
explain to you the results of the procedural quality assurance breakdown. In order to allow enough time for their review, I request an extension of 30-days to respond,                              ?
in writing.      If e shorter time period is necessary, I would like to arrange for a                            j meeting of Catawba coployees to explain the concerns they have about the as-built condition of the plant.
I look forward to your response.                                                                '~
                                                                                                                ~
Yours truly.
(
                                    .                      Billie Pirner Garde            '
Citizens Clinic Director                                        .
BPG:me                                                                                      .
l        .
          '          8512190269 851210 PDR  FOIA CARR85-584        PDR                                ,
wu y                            (h}}

Latest revision as of 08:47, 22 July 2020

Requests Extension of 30 Days to Respond to Util Response to Gap 2.206 Petition Re Reinsp,Review,Mgt Audit & Monitoring of Plant.Meeting W/Site Employees Requested
ML20138L431
Person / Time
Site: Catawba, 05000000
Issue date: 02/08/1984
From: Garde B
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT
To: Deyoung R
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
Shared Package
ML20138L353 List:
References
FOIA-85-584 NUDOCS 8512190269
Download: ML20138L431 (1)


Text

, GOVERNMENT ACCOONT{LITYPROJECT

. , {' '..,,,

. Instituts for PolicyStudi:s '

1901 Que Street. N.W.. Washington. D.C. 20009 (202)234-936:

February 8,1984 b- .

5 YY -

9 0 E

W /g o Q-Mr. Richard C. DeYoung

  • Director of Inspection and Enforcement U.S. tiuclear Regulatory Commission -

Washington, D.C. 20555 Nar Mr. D'eYou6g: "'

c ~

On January 5,1984, Duke Power Company (Duke) submitted a response to the Government' -

Accountability Project's (GAP) 2.206 Petition filed September 14, 1983, with the Commission. That petition requested a 100 percent reinspection of the safety- '

related areas of the plant, a review of the design deficiencies and the breakdown in the design change control system, and a review of the implementation of the QA/QC.-

program. We also requested a management audit of Duke's Catawba management, an Office of Investigations investigation, and monitoring of the Office of Inspecto'r and Auditor investigation. -= .

. In our recent meeting regcrding Midland, I informed you that I wanted .the opportunity o

' to respond to Duke's response which was, according to Mr. Steve Burns of the Execu-

' h tive Legal Director's Office (ELD),; requested by the itRC.,

To do so most accuratel' y , I' have forwarded copies of Duke's response to a group' of-

' site quality control inspectors who have agreed to assist GAP in an attempt to '

explain to you the results of the procedural quality assurance breakdown. In order to allow enough time for their review, I request an extension of 30-days to respond,  ?

in writing. If e shorter time period is necessary, I would like to arrange for a j meeting of Catawba coployees to explain the concerns they have about the as-built condition of the plant.

I look forward to your response. '~

~

Yours truly.

(

. Billie Pirner Garde '

Citizens Clinic Director .

BPG:me .

l .

' 8512190269 851210 PDR FOIA CARR85-584 PDR ,

wu y (h