ML20149H190

Forwards NRC & Ofc of Investigations (OI) Responses to Questions Raised in H Myers 840604 Memo to N Haller & OI 840913 Responses

ML20149H190
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island, 05000000
Issue date:	11/02/1984
From:	Kammerer C NRC OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS (OCA)
To:	Myers H HOUSE OF REP., INTERIOR & INSULAR AFFAIRS
Shared Package
ML20149B626	List: ML20149H124 ML20149H128 ML20149H134 ML20149H146 ML20149H154 ML20149H165 ML20149H190 ML20149H241 ML20149H258 ML20149H279 ML20149H386 ML20149H400 ML20149H435 ML20149H443 ML20149H453
References
FOIA-87-728, FOIA-87-853 NUDOCS 8802190168
Download: ML20149H190 (11)

Text

. bSCICp UNITED STATES

[ ig(4 s

g 8

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASH!NGTON, D. C. 205$5 g November 2, 1964

%,,,a.v ...

/ j k}f[

C. fS Dr. Henry Myers, Science Advisor Subcomittee on Energy and the Environment Comittee on Interior and Insular Affairs United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515

Dear Dr. Myers:

We have enclosed the NRC Staff and Office of Investigations responses to questions raised in your June 4, 1984 memorandum to

' Norman Haller, Executive Assistant to the Chairman. As previously discussed, we are also enclosing the 01 responses dated September 13, 1984. Please note that these responses have not been reviewed by the Comission.

Sincerely, Carlton Kamerer, Director Office of Congressional Affairs

Enclosure:

s As stated 8802190168 880216 PDR FOIA CONNOR87-728 PDR 1 /

i

• _i -_

l

" C'k f. . . ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... .....................

" 'k . . . . .# . ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... .....................

CAtt ) ..././. .. ... ... ..................... ..................... .....................

.- - ,-.o ....m . w .eu e n o OFFICI AL RECORD COPY -

• u.s. a m n u-4.o.:

t FINAL STAFF AND 01 RESPONSES i

l 1

i i

i

i

\

QUESTION 1. 1511 CORRECT THAT THE OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS DID NOT COMMENT ON SECY-84-36 (FINAL RESOLUTION OF THE TECHNICAL l CONSIDERATIONS PERTAINING TO THE TMI-2 CLEANUP ALLEGAT]ONS)

PRIOR TO ISSUA! ICE OF THE ENFORCEMENT ACTION ON FEBRUARY 3, 1984? DID I&E SEEK 01 VIEWS ON SECY-84-36 PRIOR TO TRANSMITTAL OF THE FEBRUARY 3 LETTER FROM MR.

DEYOUNG TO MR. CLARK? IF 01 DID NOT COMMENT ON SECY-84-36 PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 3,1984, WAS COMMISSION LEVEL STAFF AWARE OF THIS FACT PRIOR FEBRUARY 3, 1984?

~

ANSWER.

01 DID NOT COMMENT ON SECf-84-36 PRIOR TO ITS PRESENTATION TO THE COMMISSION'IN JANUARY 1984. SIMILARLY, 0101D NOT SEE THE PROPOSED ENFORCEMENT ACTION PRIOR TO ITS ISSUANCE. IE D]D NOT SEEK Ol's VIEWS PRIOR TO TRANSMITTING THE. ENFORCEMENT PACKAGE TO MR CLARK. WE DO NOT KNOW IF ANY COMMISSION LEVEL STAFF WERE AWARE OF THIS FACT PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 3, 1984. N0iWITHSTANDING THE FOREGOING, THE DIRECTOR, 01 WAS OFFERED AN OPPORTUNITY BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NRR TO PARTICIPATE AND/OR CONCUR IN THE PREPARATION OF WHAT LATER WAS DESIGNATED SECY-84-36. THE OFFER WAS DECLINED ON THE BASIS THAT 01 PARTICIPATION IN A STAFF ANALYSIS OF AN 01 PRODUCT WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH Ol'S

'p; b Ri',2 M 'c i!l; .

INDEPENDENCE. *

~

g'$ g . I O

!5  :

gg 2 0 '

RM c g

e ENCLO5VRE 2

. Question 2. Does NRC staff agree with the statement in Mr. Hayes' March 2, 1984 memorandum that: "One final comunent that we wish to make with respect to the (NRC) staff's response to l the O! report's findings is that the staff appears to l minimize the safety implications of each finding. We may .

agree that taken individually the findings may be minimized. I However, we are convinced that these findings when taken l collectively, did represent significant weaknesses in the )

licensee's management program and as such are, overall, o"  :

safety significance?" If the staff does not agree with this statement, does this statement represent the agency view? If it does not represent the agency view, what is the agency position as to the safety significance of the OI findings?

ANSWER _

The staff agrees with the statement cuoted above from the March 2,1984 memorandum from D. Hayes, Director. 01, to W. Dircks, Executive Director for Operations. In light of the O! October 18, 1984 analyses we are in the process of deciding whether the February 3,1984 notice of violation should be recormended.

In addition to the administrative control deficiencies cited by 01 in their September 1,1984 report, the staff was recently informed by the licensee of a modification to the polar crane during refurbishment which was siede withxt proper engineering review and documentation. Thc modification had significant safety implications and the staff has the matter under review for.possible -

further enforcement cetion.

l l

l I

I y--- ,- .,_r-,-- - . - _ -

, , . - _ . , , , , - . , _ , , - .__._,,,-,._,..._,..,.m_-__,,_..,_ ..___.,_m,,,-,,-_ .,__ ,__..,,_,_-m--.,.n,v,-_-,

QUESTION 3, DOES 01 AGREE WITH THE STATEMENT ON PAGE 3 0F SECY-84-36 THAT "THE STAFF FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF DELIBERATE CIRCUMVENTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES TO AVOID TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS?" DOES 01 BELIEVE THAT THIS STATE-MENT SHOULD BE REPHRASED TO MORE ACCURATELY REPRESENT THE 01 FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE EXTENT OF EVIDENCE INDICATING WHETHER CIRCUM-VENTION OF PROCEDURES WAS DELIBERATE.

ANSWER, 01 DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE STATEMENT ON PAGE 3 0F SECY-84-36 QUOTED ABOVE. HOWEVER, THE STAFF HAS RECENTLY INFORMED THE CcMMISSION THAT THIS STATEMENT NO LONGER REPRESENTS THE STAFF POSITION. THE STAFF HAS ALSO INFORMED THE COMMISSION THAT Ol'S CONCLtJSIONS THAT TMI-2 SENIOR PERSONNEL WERE AWARE OF THE NEED TO COMPLY WITH GPUN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES; THAT THEY DID NOT DO SO IN ALL CASES EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE EVIDENTLY AWARE THAT SUCH COMPLI ANCE WAS AN NRC REQUIREMENT; THAT THE CIRCUMVENTION OF REQUIREMENTS WAS AT LEAST TO SOME DEGREE DEllBERATEj AND THAT THEIR MOTIVATION APPEARED TO BE EXPEDIENCY NOT CONFUSION, SHOULD SUPERSEDE THE RELEVANT STAFF VIEWS PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED IN SECY-84-36.

01 AGREES WITH THE REVISED STAFF POSITION AND STAFF VIEWS.

I In their February 24, 1984 memorandum. Messers Walker and Beach i QUESTION 4.

stated in Item 6: "We stand by our conclusion in this aren.. We do i not impugn the integrity of any of the NRC TMIPO staff, nor do we j question their dedication to duty. The intent of our coments as  ;

merely to point out aress in which the TMIPO organization, through i their regulatory efforts, did contribute to the problans manifested l in the allegations. We balleved that the TMIPO personnel in no my intentionally contributed to these problems. We remain convinced.

however, that unless a more orthodox method of regulation is established for the TMIPO, the problems will romanifest themselves in pa rt. " Does the NRC staff agree with the foregoing statenent?

What is the agency position with respect to this statement?

ANSWER2 The staff does not agree with the statement quoted above from the February 24, 1984 memorandtn from R. Walker and B. Beach to B. Hayes. The staff carries out its functions at the site as impice.ention of the Connission's policy for the TMI-2 cleanup defined in NUREG-0883, Revision 2, "U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Policy and Planning Guidance." 1983. The Commission states therein <

" ...NRC will provide oversight, support, and if necessary direction to j ensure prompt decontamination of the acility and safe and timely removal e

of radioactive products from the site." (This guidance is unchanged for l present staff responsibilities.) l Consistent with the above Commission guidance, the staff perceives that the '

regulatory role at THI-2 is different fran that at other camnercial nuclear power plants and requires unique licensing requirements andThis a higher level involve-of NRC involvement in the oversight of cleanup activities. ,

i ment includes the review and approval of virtually all cleanup activities, including the implementing procedures. The staff role further involves a i

judgement as to a proper level of oversight of the various activities of the licensee to facilitate an expeditious and safe cleanup while at the same time not infringing unnecessarily on the licensee's primary responsi- i bilities. The staff continues to believe that the unique conditions at  !

TMI-2 and the significant level of both onsite and offsite NRC involvement  !

in the day-to-day cleanup activities require an unorthodox approach in the l

HRC regulatory oversight of the cleanup. t

?

II i

f I

l e em - ee I

- ~ . - - _ _ _ - - ..._._ _ ._,_.. _ --__._ __ -

CUESTION 5. DID 01 PARTICIPATE IN P.tEPARATION OF RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS POSED IN MY FEBRUARY 16, 1984 MEMORANDUM TO CARL KAMMERER? DID 01 AGREE WITH THE RESPONSE TO EACH CUESTION? IF NOT, WHAT DISAGREEMENTS EXIST BETWEEN 01 AND THE STAFF WITH RESPECT TO ANSWERS TO THE FEBRUARY 16 GUEST 10NS?

ANSWER.

01 DID FOT PARTICIPATE IN THE PFSPONSES TO THE FEBRUARY 16, 1984 MEMORANDUM NOR AGREE WITH THE ANSWER TO QUESTION 8.

HOWEVER, AS DISCUSSED IN THE ANSWER TO QUESTION 4 ABOVE, THE STAFF HAS RECENTLY INFORMED THE COMMISSION THAT THE 01 CONCLUSION THAT THE MOTIVATION FOR CIRCUMVENTION OF GPUN PROCEDURES APPEARED TO BE EXPEDIE!;CY NOT CONFUSION SHOULD SUPERSEDE THE RELEVANT STAFF VIEW PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED IN SECY-84-36 AND IN THE ANSWER TC CUESTION 8 0F THE FEBRUARY 16 MEMORANDUM.

01 AGREES WITH THE REVISED STAFF VIEW.

l l

0 CRIGINAL 01 RESPONSES I

I l

)

1

QUESTION 1. 15 IT CORRECT THAT THE OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS DID NOT l COMMENT ON SECY-84-36 (FINAL RESOLUTION OF THE TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS PERTAINING TO THE TMI-2 CLEANUP ALLEGATIONS)

PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE ENFORCEMENT ACTION ON FEBRUARY 3, 1984? DID I&E SEEK 01 VIEWS ON SECY-84-36 PRIOR TO TRANSMITTAL OF THE FEBRUARY 3 LETTER FROM MR.

DEYOUNG TO MR. CLARK? IF OI .DID NOT COMMENT ON SECY-84-36 PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 3, 1984, WAS COMMISSION LEVEL STAFF AWARE OF THIS FACT PRIOR FEBRUARY 3, 1984?

ANSWER.

01 DID NOT COMMENT ON SECY-84-36 PRIOR TO ITS PRESENTATION TO THE COMMISSION'IN JANUARY 1984. SIMILARLY, 01 DID NOT SEE THE PROPOSED ENFORCEMENT ACTION PRIOR TO ITS ISSUANCE. IE DID NOT SEEK Ol'S VIEWS PRIOR TO TRANSMITTING THE. ENFORCEMENT PACKAGE TO MR. CLARK. WE DO NOT KNOW IF ANY COMMISSION LEVEL STAFF WERE AWARE OF THIS FACT PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 3, 1984. NOTWITHSTANDING THE FOREGOING THE DIRECTOR, 01 WAS OFFERED AN OPPORTUNITY BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NRR TO PARTICIFATE AND/OR CONCUR IN THE PREPARATION OF WHAT LATER WAS DESIGNATED SECY-84-36. THE OFFER WAS DECLINED ON THE BASIS THAT 01 PARTICIPATION IN A STAFF ANALYSIS OF AN 01 PRODUCT WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH Ol'S b b i rT, '

INDEPENDENCE.

i"l;O m 'M C:

~

SQ g Y l hE E gp 2 o ,

R r9 l c,

g

i J

- 1

\

l QUESTION 3. DOES O! AGREE WITH THE STATEMENT ON PAGE 3 0F SECY-84-36 THAT "THE STAFF FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF DELIBERATE CIRCUMVENTION OF ADMINIS-TRATIVE PROCEDURES TO AVOID TECHNICAL REQUIRE-MENTS?" DOES 01 BEllEVE THAT THIS STATEMENT SHOULD BE REPHRASED TO MORE ACCURATELY REPRESENT THE 01 FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE EXTENT OF .

EVIDENCE INDICATING WHETHER CIRCUMVENTION OF PROCEDURES WAS DELIBERATE?

ANSWER.

01 DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE STATEMENT THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF DELIBERATE CIRCUMVENTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES TO AVOID TECHNICAL REQUI'REMENTS. THERE IS EVIDENCE IN THE 01 REPORT TO DEMONSTRATE THAT SENIOR TMI-2 0FFICIALS WERE AWARE THAT BECHTEL WAS NOT COMPLYING WITH GPUN PROCEDURES. THERE IS ALSO EVIDENCE THAT SOME TMI-2 0FFICIALS WERE AWARE THAT COMPLIANCE WITH THESE ADMINISTRAT!YE PROCEDURES WAS IN EFFECT AN NRC REQUIREMENT. THUS, O! IS OF THE VIEW THAT THE STATEMENT WOULD HAVE TO BE REPHRASED IF IT IS TO REFLECT ACCURATELY THE EVIDENCE IN THE 01 REPORT REGARDING CIRCUMVENTION OF THESE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES.

NONETHELESS, 01 DOES NOT OFFER ANY VIEW AS TO WHETHER THIS 1b OS'M .C CIRCUMVENTION RISES TO THE LEVEL OF A VIOLATION OF NRC REQUIREMENTS AS THE AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR SUCH $@ ng a gn DETERMINATIONS RESTS WITH THE STAFF, N:T 01. [= 9 S l

_ QUESTION 5. DID 01 PART]CIPATE IN PREPARATION OF RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS POSED IN MY FEBRUARY 16, 1984 MEMORANDUM TO CARL XAMMERER? DID 01 AGREE WITH THE RESPONSE TO EACH QUESTION? IF NOT, WHAT DISAGREEMENTS EXIST BETWEEN 01 AND THE STAFF WITH RESPECT TO ANSWERS TO THE FEBRUARY 16 QUESTIONS?

ANSWER.

01 DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE RESPONSES TO THE FEBRUARY 16, 1984 MEMORANDUM. 01 DISAGREES WITH THE ANSWER TO QUESTION 8 IN WHICH THE STAFF ASSERTS THAT THE "ADMINISTRAT!YE DEFICIENCIES" WERE MORE THE RESULT' dF CONFUSION THAk ANY DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO BYPASS GPU ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES. AS WRITTEN. THE STAFF RESPONSE IMPLIES THAT THE " ADMIN'ISTRATIVE DEFICIENCIES WERE SOLELY THE RESULT OF CONFUSION, AND THAT NO ELEMENT OF l l

DELIBERATENESS EXISTED. 01 AGREES THAT ITS REPORT DOCUMENTS CONSIDERABLE CONFUSION AT TM1-2 CONCERNING APPLICABLE REGULATORY l

REQUIREMENTS, AND THAT THIS CONFUSION MAY WELL HAVE BEEN A l CONTRIBUTING FACTOR IN THE NONCOMPLIAhCE WITH GPUN PROCEDURES.

NONETHELESS, 01 FEELS THAT THE EVIDENCE CONTAINED IN ITS REPORT WOULD LEAD A READER TO CONCLUDE THAT EXPEDIENCY, NOT CONFUSION,

_[

WAS THE PRIMARY REASON FOR NONCOMPLIAhCE WITH AT LEAST'SOME OF F THESE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES. GIVEh THIS, 01 CANNOT AGREE WITH

& a .m,e

$@' g THE IMPLICATION THAT NO DELIBERATENESS WAS INVOLVED.

ED 2 o 39 O

~