ML20205B785

Lauds 850604 Decision to Propose Civil Penalty for 10CFR50.7 Violation.Util Attitude Toward QC Inspectors & Managers Unacceptable.Presentation of Gap Views Re 10CFR2.206 Violation Presented in

ML20205B785
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	06/28/1985
From:	Garde B GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT
To:	Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
References
2.206, NUDOCS 8509120242
Download: ML20205B785 (2)

Text

e 56 4/3/t//y

~ ,

j . .~-

I GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABluTY PROJECT 1555 Connecncut Awenue, N.W., Suite 202 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202)232-8550 June 28, 1985 Mr. James M. Taylor Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20558 Re: Director's Decision under 10 C.F.R. 2.206 re: Catawba

Dear Mr. Taylor:

Your June 4, 1985 decision to propose a $64,000 civil penalty against Duke Power Company for violation of 10 C.F.R. 50.7 was a long awaited welcome. Your decision was laudatory and we hope that the NRC will not waiver from the well documented decision.

The decision to soley base the civil penalty on the findings of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board panel was, however, unfortunate. The harassment and intimidation of Quality Control inspectors at Catawba was much more widespread than just the treatment of Mr. ' Bean' Ross.

The authority of the Director of Inspection and Enforcement is not constrained by ASLB proceedings in matters of enforcement, as you well know.

The weakness of the agency's decision to recognize only one incident of the harassment of Mr. Ross instead of looking to the real danger to the plant's Quality Assurance program as a result of the corporate attitude toward its conscientious Quality Control inspectors and managers is unacceptable.

Notwithstanding the debate on the proposed penalty, I must respond to your letter about Region II's handling of the Duke Catawba case.

Your letter was obviously written by Region II personnel, and as such was unabashedly self-serving. I understand that as a matter of practice the Director refers complaints such as those I made in my September 27, 1984 letter to the region in order to get "the other side of the story." However, I am disappointed that your response contained no analysis of the charges that I raised. I agree that the allegations made against Region II were serious, and I continue to regard the actions of Region II in this matter as conduct which your agency should be ashamed of,not defend. In fact, your personal inability to recognize the serious nature of the misconduct of regional personnel is very disconcerting. .

8509120242 850620 PDR j 5; .Z8 M G ADOCK 05000413 ppg llp

• Mr. James M. Taylor Page Two June 18, 1985 Perhaps my letter wasn't clear enoungh. I would like to be able to present GAP's view on this to your staff, or to the Office of Inspector or Auditor (OIA) if you feel it appropriate. .

l I look forward to your response, which shouldn't be l

delayed by either DOL or Duke interferences.

Sincerely, Billie P. Garde