ML20238E541

Comments on Board Notification 87-12,rept of Investigation by Ofc of Inspector & Auditor,NUREG-1257 & V Stello 870414 Memo to Chairman Zech.Further Motions Will Be Filed After Reviewing Records & Appropriate Action Taken

ML20238E541
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	09/01/1987
From:	Garde B GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT
To:	Bloch P, Jordan W, Mccollom K Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#387-4358, RTR-NUREG-1257 OL, NUDOCS 8709150055
Download: ML20238E541 (3)

Text

_ _ - _ _ _

DOCKET NUMBER 'ggp pano. & UTIL l'AC.m --...-..,- -

g-g GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT j M:DWEST OFFICE 3h, 104 East Wisconsin Avenue Appletor, Wisconsin 54911 (414) 730-8533

'87 SEP -8 P3 :46 (J':

SepteS$fdrdk(1987' l

Peter Bloch, Chairman l

\ Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Admini.strative Judge 1107 West Knapp s Stillwater, Oklahoma 74075 Dr. Walter H. Jordan Administrative Judge Atom: Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 t

RE: Board Notification, No. 87-12, Report of Investigation ny the Office of Inspector _and Auditor; NUREG-1257 L and Memorandum of Aoril 14, 1987 from V. Stello to Chairman Zech.

Dear Judges,

On August 21, 1987, CASE representatives Billie Garde and Juanita Ellis received EN87-12 with approximately 3,500 - 4,000 pages of attachments. These documents contain in general:

1) the OIA investigative record that led to OIA Report 86-10 (a redacted copy of which was made publicly available on December 11, 1986)

2) the report of the Comanche Peak Report Review Group, the "Arlotto Report," NUREG-1257, dated March, J987, but'not released until August 20, 1987, with attachments, but not the record support

3) an April 14, 1987, memorandum from V. Stello to Chairman Zech, subject: Implementation of Recommen-dations of Comanche Peak Report Review Group, minus

, attachments 3-6.

8709150055 870901

{DR ADOCK 05000445 PDR 3) 0

4 1

e . .The staff's Board Notification. states'that:

_(b)ccause these documents address matters regarding.

RegioniIV's inspection activitiesgas they pertainLto Texas ~ Utilities Electric Company' quality assurance. program

.and;its implementation, portions may 131 relevant and

. material to' admitted Contention 5.

CASE. considers:all', issues raised through OIA Report 86-10 and it progenyfas material and relevant to the issues before the Board. Until CASE completes ~its review of.all of'the documents made available to the parties it is impossible to reach a. determination "on the identification'of any new issues or what evidence is now _

available.to support already identified and admitted issues, and/or the necessity of including, as evidence, the information contained in the dccuments.

However, a1 cursory review'of the materials, leads to the

' inescapable conclusion that some type of-discovery and evidentiary record wi.ll be necessary'in order to develop a record en the reliability of long.pastn(pre-1994) and more recent past (post-1984) staff conclusions:on Comanche Peak, and the weight and credibility.

to'.be afforded to staff conclusions and/or testimony on the issues in contention in his case.

This issue.'is extremely timely and cannot practically be

~ shifted'to someEfuture hearings as an ancilliary issue to the utility's case. .The December 17, 3986, memorandum from Regional Admin'istrator Robert D. Martin.to EDO' Victor Stello has admitted

.that the present review effort'by the utility will provide the basis for a determination of whether "there should be' reasonable assurance-.that'CPSES has been constructed in compliance with safety regulations irrespective of earlier QA problems."

1(Memorandum at 2) This puts the licensee's program in'a different light.

. Equally significant to CASE.is the legal acceptability of'the_ staff's conclusions, as developed in the "Arlotto Report," on the interpretation of 10 C.F.R. .Part 50 Appendix B criteria. CASE is extremely troubled by the Arlotto report's apparent complete Ebdication of cornmitment. to federal QA-requirements and its apology efforts on behalf.

of the Region'IV management decisions.

It is obvious 1that the conclusions in the Arlotto Report'and thc.Stello memorandum to the Commission are,.

at best, summary documents which require clarifications and explanations based on the record below'. For example, the' key. finding states:  !

None of the 34 issues identified in CIA Report 86-10 wcis found to be significant in terms of any direct adverso impact on plant safety (Stello memo at 2).

It is not at all clea r what is the basis for that statement, or what it means given the record made available to CASE.

1

]

., 1 Surely, it cannot nean that' indeterminate reactor vessel installation, which apparently can never be fully verified, is acceptable by legal standcrds. At this point the words in the staff' 4 conclusions appear to he completely-self-serving. verbiage, disconnected from citherla legal or' factual' context.

)

l Additionally,.it is obvious that the attempt to characterize H this entire effort as a debate,gone awry betseen one-inspector and l one supervisor is clear, fiction. For example, a consultant inter-viewed by.01A in May, 1986, gave specific testimony that he was told not to identify quality assurance concerns during his work on Comanche.. Peak. '(Transcript Statement of T. Young, pp.6-12)

That change is.not even addressed or identified. Other inspectors.

and consultants raised a' multitude of otner issues not addressed or identified.

This development. j s extremely significant to the issues Enow before this-Board'for determination. CASE will file further

. motions when it has finished reviewing the available records and. determining what action is appropriate.

Respectfully, k h Billie Pirner Garde, Esq.

cs cc: Service list i

9

__ _ _