ML20195J124

Board Notification 88-001:notifies That Intimidation & Contention 5 Panels on Plant Disbanded by EDO on 870306. Cases Have Been Reviewed & Considered by Staff in Connection W/Enforcement Action EA-86-063

ML20195J124
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	01/15/1988
From:	Charemagne Grimes NRC OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#188-5511, TASK-AS, TASK-BN88-001, TASK-BN88-1 BN-88-001, BN-88-1, EA-86-063, EA-86-63, OL, NUDOCS 8801210325
Download: ML20195J124 (2)

Text

l p etsu c o, UNITED STATES

'{j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

, [ W ASHING TON, D. C, 20555 e g E s I

%, * * " * /

JAN I 51988 Docket hos. 50-445 and 50 446 MEMORANDUM FOR: The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for Comanche Peak (P. B. Bloch, W. H. Jordan, K. A. McCollom, E. B. Johnson)

FROM: Christopher 1. Grimes, Director Comanche Peak Project Division Office of Special Projects

SUBJECT:

BOARD NOTIFICATION NO. 88-01 CONTENTION 5 AND INTIMIDATION PANELS ON COMANCHE PEAL This is to inform the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that, on March 6, 1987, the Executive Director for Operations disbanded the intimidation and Contention 5 Panels for Comanche Peak.

In two separate memoranda dated December 24, 1984, W. J. Dircks, then E00, directed the formation of two panels consisting of NRC senior staff management. One panel was directed to provide a position on whether a climate of intimidation existed at Comanche Peak. The second panel was directed to provide recctrraendations to the Project Director en Contention No. 5 relating 3

to applicants' failure to adhere to the quality assurance / quality control requirements.

On October 18, 1985 the intimidation / harassment panel, with assistance of a study team corrposed of a group of consultants, issued its report on the results of the review and examination of intimidation and harsssment issues at Comanche Peak. Both the study team and the panel concluded that some instances of intimidation did occur. However, they concluded that there was no "climate of intimidation" at Comanche Peak. The study team noted that a number of management practices existed which may not have been conducive to goed job performance anc which may have generated mistrust and suspicion and contributed to a lack of management credibility. This report was forwarded to the applicants for response and to the Board and intervenors for their information. By letter dated February 7, 1986, applicants responded to the report. The panel in its October 18, 1985, "Report of Comanche Peak Intimidation Panel," stated that the Panel and the 3tudy Team review was based upon raterials in the hearing record and 01 reports completed as of June 28, 1985. 01 has completed investigations of other allegations of intimidation and harassment since that date. These cases have since been reviewed and 830 ,(

yri O

S i

Tne Atonic Safety and Licensing JAN I5 MM Bocrd for Comanche Peak -?-

i considereo by the staf f in connection with enforcement action EA 86-63.

Therefore, with the issuance of the escalated enforcement package based on the results of the intimidation / harassment panel reviews, and the additional 01 investigations, the panel concluded its activities and was disbanded.

With regard to the panel forred to prepare the staff position en Comanche Peak hearing Contention No. 5, the original purpose of the panel was to integrate the views and experience of senior NRC managers to yield a staff deterinination regarding the applicants' adherence to the QA/QC requirements described in Contention No. 5. Folicwing the fomation of the panel, the staff issued five SSERs documenting findings and actions required to evaluate numerous allegations primarily dealing with construction of the plant. CYGNA Energy Services which conducted an Independent assessment program of design et  ;

Comanche Peak provided detailed lists of findings and open items. Applicants recognized the need to address all issues identified in the areas of design and construction and provided the staff with the Comanche Peak Response Team ,

(CPRT) Program Plan and the Corrective Action Program (CAP). The staff has reviewed and prepared an evaluatioh of the applicants' CPRT Program Plan as cocumented in SSER No. D and is currently preparing its evaluation of the CAP. The staff and its consultants have been and are currently reviewing implementation of the applicants' programs with regard to the adequacy of d6 sign and construction of Comanche Peak. Therefore, these events, together with the establishment of the new Office of Special Projects staff, have overtaken the need for a special panel to prepare a staff position cn Contention No. 5, and this panel was also disbanded.

1 CIC5 p Christopher I. Grimes, Director Comanche Peak Project Division Office of Special Projects I

,