ML20132B646
| ML20132B646 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 10/12/1983 |
| From: | Haass W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | Brownlee V NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20132B649 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-84-722 NUDOCS 8310270542 | |
| Download: ML20132B646 (7) | |
Text
w.
,u cket Nos. 50-413/414 007 12 1983 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Virgil L. Brownlee, Chief Reactor Project Section 2B Region II FROM:
Walter P. Haass, Deputy Chief Quality Assurance Branch Division of Quality Assurance, Safeguards, and Inspection Programs, IE
SUBJECT:
DUKE POWER COMPANY ORGANIZATION FOR QC By phone call to J. Spraul on October 7,1983, you requested that we address the Duke Power Company (DPC) QC organization for construction at Catawba.
Our memo to you of October 6 addressed DPC's organization for QA per your earlier request, and this memo addresses DPC's organization for QC.
We have reviewed docketed infonnation concerning DPC's organization as it relates to QC for Catawba and develcped the enclosed chronology.
The chronology shows that the NRC staff has also found the DPC organization for QC acceptable (i.e.,
meeting the requirements of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50) f rom about two years before the construction pennit was issuad for Catawba to the present.
We suggest that the above information be included in the respor.se to the GAP letter to refute the allegation concerning the independence of DPC's organiza-tion for QC at Catawba.
If you require additional assistance in this regard, continue to conta'ct Jack Spraul en FTS 492-4530.
Walter P. Haass, Deputy Chief Osality Assurance Branch Division of Quality Assurance, Safeguards, and Inspection Programs Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Enclosure:
Ctronology of Documanted Events Distribution:
E. L. Jordan, IE IE Files J. M. Taylor, IE IE Reading J. G. Partlow, IE QASIP Reeding J. G. Spraul, IE QUAB Reading GSpraul Reading h0UAB:QASIP:lE DC Cf s'ASIP:lE JG Spraul W 4e ss
'4 10/;L./83 kle I//t_J83 h
7 h Nd y
Y
~
Catawba (Duke Power Company)
QC Organization Development thronology of Documented Events October 12, 1973 Safety Evaluation Report issued by NRC.
Section 17 dis-cusses DPC's QC organization and states:
"In the area of construction, we have reviewed the independence, responsi.
bilities, authorities, and specific duties of the QA in-spectors in the electrical, mechanical, welding, and civil disciplines.
Figure 17.6 shows a further breakdown of the Construction Department QA organization.
DPC has stated that these inspectors perform objective acceptance inspec-tions and are full time inspectors who are independent from
~'
the construction and production craftsmen and foremen. DPC states that these inspectors have clear stop-work authority and the responsibility to refer problems to their super-vision."
A copy of SER Figure 17.6 is enclosed as Enclosure 1.
Pertinent conclusions of the staff, taken from the SER, were given in the October 6 chronology.
Basically, the staff concluded that DPC's organizational structure was acceptable.
October 1973 Draft Standard Review Plan issued.
February 1974 Standard Review Plan Revision 0 issued.
The pertinent acceptance requirements for QC in both these documents were:
1.
" Verification cf conformance to established quality requirements (i.e., inspections) for safety-related structures, systems, and components is accomplished by individuals or groups who do not have direct responsibility for performing the work being veri-fied."
(10 CFR 50 Appendix B Criterion I).
2.
" Inspection personnti are independent from the individ-ual or group performing the activity being inspected."
(10 CFR 50 Appendix B Criterion X)
October 1, 1974 DCP topical report on QA indicates that the February 14 1975 QA organization "has final review and approval of inspection procedures and reports and certification of inspectors."
The pertinent oraanization chart shows the site QA staff reporting directly to a Senior QC Engineer who is shown with a " functional" reporting line to.the Project Senior OA Engineer within the DPC QA orgenization.
A copy of this chart (Figure 17.1-8, Amendment 1) is also enclosed.
~~
April 17,1975 NRC staff reports acceptability of DPC's February 14, 1975 submittal.
August 1975 Construction Permit issued for Catawba.
March 1979 Standard Review Plan Revision 1 issued.
g
~
~
Revision 1 incidded item f (above) of 'the draft 'SRP and SRP Revision 0, but it revised item 2 to read as follows:
~
2.
" Organizational responsibilities are described.
Individuals performing inspections.are other than those who performed or directly supervised the activity being inspected and do not report directly to the innediate supervisors who are responsible fdr the activity being inspected.
If the individuals performing inspections are not part of the QA organization, the inspection procedures, personnel qualification criteria, and independence from undue pressure such es cost end schedule should be reviewed and found acceptable by the QA organization prior to the initiation of the activity."
Thert was no requirement that utilities with Construction Permits change their QA program to meet this revised re-quirement.
The DPC orgar.izatior, for QC at Catawba continued to be acceptable to the staff.
February 9,1981 DPC inforned the staff that the site QC staff was being brought into the QA organization for both functional and administrative controls.
July 14, 1981 NRC staff reports acceptability of having DPC construction QC included in the DPC QA organization.
-3 e
E Fie.vre 17.6 Ed in
- 2. :.
' hua.m
=
~.
=
E. 5
.=
=
e 3,
a-33 3
l :,
- t.,
- a. v
~
q, s,.. -
.,,. v.. 1
- v.... :n '
...,m.. a.
E
.e s
E OE E
unm.mmmi g
en
- g i
t *a y;
==
=
J. -
OB um
-W5 ie N
w i
g.
g h
d 8,,*
.e m
e e
- e. u.e e.m e
==
.a..
U
. e.
en
- C C
'==
y 1
O E*
=
w*
,m W
as e.
p e.m
=
c I.
.F4 8""
6e
> en
=
U I
E
.o e
e._
es==
W
,y V
m*
6 e
Z
i:
O
~ -
=
o
. EP e g
.e W
B ee 48 De
= to e.m
.mr y
a W
9*
. 9F g
.e
.e e m,
Dee.
e.e.
et h 9
- upe,
=
Om
.g gi, b
E 5.e
.E 3
m T
L m
0 W
ummmmm
.e m
o.
E e
em n
ee C)>
==
J 2 ;-
u
=
.)
=*
e on w
cne L.m -
C 1.
C
- c= s C
- =.
a sn C
., =e
.m.
M g
a e
g h
W wC oJ.
e.
m-
.t g
g
=
.E C E C
=
.s.
g
=
M b N
~
6 m
.m.mmmm.m uem 4 mum m a
Y.
.. l O
g g
e,#
0
,a g
w e
e em 5
I
-.m tr -
m m
.0 O
1 3'
r.
I
- 3
~
1 7...
-I T
i i
3:=
a j
- m il w.
=
g e
j
[J '
g A-g l
l l
l l
c 3
kt z
24
.g =1 7 l_a N:
2 ed
{
3=
s
)
.l l ----
g-
> f. + :: -. -. '. '
.. _. y, _-
,m 1*,;,m.,..
-w l
..g
=
.?.? ',
t 3
a g,
3.%
.A 5
7:
20 3.!
'u t l5 a
g}
- Ir
=
g e
J.
e.,
h 5
E 3I C
g n
33 l$
E
- t s
gg
- t I
1 J ;
l w.
V e
{
- - I
.~.
Ec e,n f-E5 f'
~~
wa
~
f 24
& { '2 Et*
gTT 3 :' t 2
l' t 3
.t
{:
21 s2
.I. =
w
.o.r.
1:
-s o
E l__
-s u
e I_
l t
'c -s c
"c 6
--~.
g
~. _., _, _
f l
e a :
o i,, s J r-y
..g 4
~
,1
=
l-
-(,
-- l,I l
a[
E, *. 2
- 1:
.g I
g
..e 3
};
l
-3.
.J
- gi
- J F 3 r
'~
T33
- y
- e. 4 8
cir l
3.
[
&[
I
,lt -
4:% t. 3'
. y l
CNC t. c i v R E C.
} 3. -}.
.}
.*g l
L..
gl 7.*un,,~ p,PC s
e e
t y.n e-f y{III, c
e l
Ico,ttal G-f o ri.
L
. c.,.
.it 72 TI
- s h.
11
.r 1
r 5..1 4
2 A3dj:
,~
a m
\\
\\f
' ' M&.
h--
g n
Lz.
N
.A.
GO NT.ACCOUNTABILITYMOJECT J
. ;g.
% @g m;f%,
.e.T{ %.Q :.
'g-9
- p..
-(202)234 9362 i
'?
1901Gue5treet.-N.W..voshingtoq.D.Cl.20009 (202)667-5223)
?
_i
- 46. iVe"-
. :.~ '
%.s
.o. e N
Octiober 13, 1983 l
.. g-_
- k.+i=-
n
{
j
Dear Quality Control inspector:
.. w.3
.p-.
f d Quality Control implementation at As,you.know..:the issue of Quality.Aesurance anthe Catawba nuclear plant is i
Muclear Regul,atory Commission, concerned citizens and Duke Power.
Some months ago the Palmetto Alliance, a group, opposed to nuclear power on environ-l mental and safety grounds, asked the Government Accountability Project (GAP) to 1
We reviewed almost conduct an independent investigation of the Catawba plant.
all of the. procedures used by the various craf ts in QA/QC work on the site since
-We reviewed all of the information that the NRC
' the beginning of construction.
staff has compiled about Catawba, and we have talked to numerous plant employees These are Our investigation produced numerous concerns.
and former employees.
If summarized in a 46-page report to the NRC Commissioners submitted last month.
you would like a copy of the report we will be glad to provide it to you.
. Melan -asked the Commissioners to require a '.' vertical slice" audit of all safety N'W atithblant - that :is to hire an dndependent consultant.to.1E at.a poss-section-of each system and determine the "as-built" condition of that system, Finally, we asked
~as well as-whether or not it matches the design of the plant.
~
the Commissioners to request an investigation into improper activities by Duke Tower Cyny management at Catawba, as well as an investigation into the "too m.c.a
" :r*1=+nsh.ip between the NRC and Duke.
.w
~-<ow
~-
--The Atcatic. Safety and Licensing Board (ASL3) is now conducting hearings about r Wat:strun /w:r.
Because workers have told us that they Quality Assuran'ce problems on the site.
fear reprisals, loss of their job, and various forms of harassment the Palmetto 1114=nce requested a " protective order" under which workers can of fer information
.I have included a copy of to the Board about the actual condition of the plant.
As you can tell, the order asks any workers who have concerns that ordar for you.
to do so by supplying a brief statement with your name and a way to contact you, a short summary of your concerns, and also the reason that you wish-to have 21, 1983.
identity protected by OctoberGAP will be presenting some statements to the Board on Octob an intermediary.
.p 83.
GAP has; Any worker who wishes to use GAP as an intermediary is invi who are concerned about the safety of the plants nhey are building, workers who Contact us at the above d while attempting to be the " watchdog."803-254-8132 co11ect h
m.i.have.been. arasse
'E 2 ber er atCO2-667-7904 / or Palmetto Alliance at Informatien, pieced to-if necessary.
Our understanding of the Catawba f acility grows every day.
gather with documentary evidence is beginning to form a clear picture.o quality assurance breakdown at the site.
ancisar, it appears that th'e lack of independence of QC/QA from construction and tion / cost
, QC supervision has contributed heavily to. error on the side of co P
surea f'
f'.
- h f
7.
.,.%,:..;...c.
a.-
w soinhna j
-^ Me...
-October 13, 1982
..;.
- y Control 2nspectora g.
4.
J.g:
Q..t
. -9.,
4.
. m.
and.w;mid hope that any :infoEtion.about tha edtent cf 2hass prtcedureswould be 7
1 rated to tthe 1tRC.- -the ASIB, mryto sua: g
.y
--Q,
.c.c
- u..
-The process of veiballyNr'oiding Nonconforming Items. V'e understand
~'
~
.that for a. great part of theconstruction at Catawba QC inspectors were-frequently
" overridden" by Construction personnel.or QA tech supervisors when they -identified NCl conditions. The process' of. not identifying these deficiencies in any way, of course, raises numerous questions about the problems which may have been incorrectly cpproved.
-The process of 1saking design changes to match construction deficiencies without the proper engineering review..The practice of field engineering changes to systems of ten def eats the purposes of stringent QA/QC requirements.
- The problems of QA/QC inspectors with management personnel who tend to define arguments over hardware deficiencies as " communications problems" with their supervisors.
Of particular concern to us is the Employee Relations Department's involvement in disputes between craf t and QA/QC over work quality.
- Tinally, we are -hearing about workers who either do not trust the NRC, or who believe access to the NRC is severely limited by Duke.
Employees should know that they are protected by 42 U.S.C. 35851, which states, No employer...may discharge any employee or otherwise discriminate against any employee with respect to his
,.,_.,. compensation,--terms,. conditions, or privileges of employ-s
' 'W.~ ment 5because5:he, employee...(1) commenced (or is about -to
' * ~ "
commence)...(any-inspection or -enf orcement action) under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, (2) testified or is about to testify i
in any such proceeding, or (3) assisted or participated in any (inspectkn or proceeding).
- n.' & N:P.%..An,om.5u.plgj.
.m.
~4ntgnployee=wbo Salieves that de has been discharged or otherwise "582., -
-W~
discriminated.against by any person in violation of (this law) l may within thirty days af ter such violation occurs file a complaint with the Secretary of Labor alleging such discharge r
or discrimination, in other words, workers who have infornation ubich concern them can not only go to the Board, the NRC Staf f, but also to GAP, the Palmetto Alliance, and/or to the newspapers and still be protected by law f or exposing the uncorrected'.probl~ ems that !'.
If any employee is fired, harassed or intimidated under cre of concern to them.
these conditions, the Department of Labor provides for a hearing before an Adminis -
trative Law Judge f or relief, reinstatement, back pay, or an order to the utility to stop the harassment.
We sincerely hope that the majority of the QA/QC inspectors on the site are not under We have
,gy pressure to approve faulty work, or to look away from QA/QC violations.
developed great respect for 4A/QC inspectors at nuclear sites across the country and the Catawba welding inspectors in particular.
As one NRC official recently said in a New York Times article, "QA/QC still depends on inspectors who are villing to risk their job to in'aure safety."
We wish you all the best of luck, and thank those who have had the conviction to insist that work be done "by the book."
RespectfuJ1y, 7
T.
$ $e,.
4}
gg sinie virner carde -
- w ;
- m. m..; y me
____ou_,_
..&... g i
+.
,e
\\\\
s
.%v g 1
I UNITED STATES 2,
NNUCLEAR REGULATORY COW.1SSION t
3!
I NOTICE
'5 The Atomic Safety and licensing' Board is presently 3
,jholding a hearing concerning*guality assurance procedures and l
l the quality of construction of the Catawba nuclear 7
f acility, particularly in the area of welding ir.spection.
The s
parties in the case are Duke Power Company, the NRC Staff, and Palmetto Alliance, an intervenor group.
Any present g
u :or forcer employee at Catawba who has personal.knoule.dge about
..g,significant defects in construction or in qu'ality assurance i
.,t e. y
- 33jprocedures at Catawba m'ay submit on,a confidential basis to U
9 the Board alone a statement which provides the following 75 inforraation':
=
[
1.
The person's name and telephone number and/cr g
3 accress.
17 2.
A brief description of the concern.
j 16 l
3.
A brief explanation of why the individual desires,
3, his concern to be expressed in closed,',rath~er' s
than public, hearings.
20 e The Board will review any statements it receives and then i
21 decide, in consultation with counsel for the parties to the.
22
}
case, whether and how to conduct a clos'ed hearing in which the 23 i
identities of the witnesses would be kept confidential.
The Duke Power Company's attorney and possibly another representatiO 25 of the company would attend the closed hearing, as well as I
_QWf-y f,h 2 Y'
/
N
[.c pQ.
..4. sjis. dlib
.it Ms-l 7s representatives of the NRC' Staff and' Falmetto. Alliance.
I
- ~d 2
However, they would be ordered not to disclose the identities 3
of the witnesses.
The prospective witnesses should reali=e
)
I that un6er this procedure, their identities would be a
. l 11
- 5. substantially protected from any further disclosure, but comple:Il e{protectionfremsuchdisclosurewouldnotbeguaranteed.
I.
j.
7l Confidential statements riust be filed with the Board E i by the dead 2ine date of October 21, 1983.. Statements may el 9
be delivered to the Board in a sealed envelope at the Office 10 of the Clerk in the Federal Courtroem in Rock Hill at Old
)
11 ! Post Office Building, Second Floor, Caldwell and Main Streets,
[
k >A2 3;EocbEil'l*,?' South taroline, Vr to the Ramada Inn in Rock Rill l
13 (at 1-77 an6 21 North) where the Board is staying.
Statements may be 6elivered personally or by an intermediary.
l
~
14
.vate y
.v.. ~
r 16 October 12, 1923 THE ATO'*IC SAFETY AND
[
,.I.'
I 17 Rock Hill', S.C.
LICENSING BOARD hSh W
e.
19 es L.
Kelley, C ar: Tin-
, d ' g g. - M-L l
['
21
~ Richard F. Foster, Member 1
Jt
./9
/
s >-).
E 22 s
p
/ i'.1.' m
- $.k
.. 2.w I
Paul W.
Purdom, MemDer FF 22 1
24 25 I
$$* T 2:*~ R R.
- .y C,7 y
-g.;
..(y
(
~ ~.,
d*
'o UNITED STATES g
8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
b 3
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 U.STNRC November 1,1983 E~EI Docket Nos~: 50-413 and 50-414 OIDCE 0F INVESTICAii%
IIADQUARTERSg
.m, ~
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 I
FROM:
Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director for-Licensing Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
QA/QC INVESTIGATIONS AT CATAWBA (BOARD NOTIFICATION NO.83-175)
In accordance with the NRC procedures for Board. Notifications, the following is provided for your infonnation.
The NRC Office of Investigations (01) has' opened.two investigations regarding the Duke Power Co.'s Catawba Nuclear Power Plant. The first investigation pertains to allegations gingarding a possible lack of QA/QC independence and related issues. The second investigation pertains to allegations regarding
= welding QC inspectors. lie will inform you of any significant findings regarding these matters as the. investigations permit.
Thomas M. Novak, Assistant rector for Licensing Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc: See next page O
8
-99 "-WP g,,
Q/
,,. i (R
DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR BOARD NOTIFICATION I
Catawba Unit 1 Docket No. 50-413/414 ACRS Menbers Dr. Richard F. Foster Dr. Robert C. Axtmann Robert Guild, Esq.
Mr. Myer Bender Carole F. Kagan, Esq.
Dr. Max W. Carbon James L. Kelley, Esq.
Mr. Jesse C. Ebersole Karen E. Long, Esq.
Mr. Harold Etherington J. Michael McGarry, III, Esq.
Dr. William Kerr Palmetto Alliance Dr. Harold W. Lewis William L. Porter Esq.
Dr. J. Carson Mark Dr. Paul W. Purdom Mr. William M. Mathis Mr. Jesse L. Riley Dr. Dade W. Moeller Alan S. Rosenthal Esq. -
Dr. David Okrent Howard A. Wilber, Esq.
Dr. Nilten S. Plesset Mr. Donald R. Willard Mr. Jeremiah J. Ray Richard P. Wilson, Esq.
Dr. Paul C. Shewmon Dr. Chester P. Siess Atomic Safety and Licensing Mr. David A. Ward Board Panel-
' AtomicSafetyandLicensinh_
~'
gq Appeal Panel Docketing and Service Section l
p Document Management. Branch m.
~
- c e
%a v
'z 6*.
e 0
(
9 I
\\
~
~
l 5
-I
5AT/GBA(ForBNs)
.L W. H. B. Tucker Vice President Nuclear Production Department Duke Power Company 422 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 cc: North Carolina MPA-1 P.O. Box 95162 Raleigh, North Carolina 27625 Mr. F. J. Twogood Power Systems Division Westinghouse Electric Corp.
P.O. Box 355 -
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.15230 e
9 Mr. J. C. Plunkett, Jr.
i NUS Corporation i
2536 Countryside Boulevard Clearwater Florida 33515 Mr. Pierce K. Skinner Route 2, Box 179N York, South Carolina. 29745 s..
North Carolina Electric Membership Corp.
3333 North Boulevard-l P.O. Box 27306 i
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 ~
Saluda River Electric Cooperative, t
.Inc.
I 207 Sherwood Drive Laurens, South' Carolina 29360 Mr. Peter K. VanDoorn Route 2,. Box 179N York South Carolina 29745 James P. O'Rdilly, Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission.
)
Region II 101 Marietta Street, Suite 3100 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 1
O I
e 4
y
../
v /1 t'
/$ Y
~
' **=.mi siawe, swm
.J t E.a. c.,,,
Fax to Joe Gilliland Region 11
'UUN E,.[5'[$.'5. _ E-L COMMITTEGM()lVEQip*R
* "'"~ ~ '"
O M'"'1 lC0' 0:::%
AND INSULAR AFFAIRS 3I'*M L
= 1.:: c.
- =.::r~-
gjg.,,,.
g
. u.s. wousr or armsunAnvrs Mg a
l
- ,g = =
p= m.
wenmov. o.c. aosis
=."..:":J:.,
- #-m.
E'if' O "*
- 7.'."1 g.g..Y.
~
November 1, 1983 g
L. Y"
- ,' 2 ll".A'
,a
""."." ' F".M*
.~
w The Honorable Nunzio Palladino Chairman.'
United Sta'tes Nuclear.hegulatcry Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am writing to express concern over the Commission's efforts to pursue allegations of safety-related deficiencies at.
i' nuclear construction sites.
Events of recent weeks are evidence that the NRC has not yet learned to cope with the potential f or actual existence of major flaws at nearly completed plants.
Recent allegations of a OA breakdown at the Catowba site have 4
been one such instance.
Testimony before the Atomic Safety i
and Licensing Board has revealed tha*. safety problems were
[
repeatedly brought to the att.ention of NRC staf f who then proceded to disclose the substance and the source of the information to the licensee.
I understand the board has now taken the unprecedented. step of
,5
. soliciting testinony from current employees under an express
'2 grant of confidentiality.
Thus it appears that the licensing board, as well as the employees of the. licensee, are unwilling l
to place confidence in the NRC staff.
This episode pinpoints the problem encountered by workers
[
who report saf ety problems to the NRC and who, in doing so.
may fear. disclosure of their identities and subsequent retaliation.
I am aware of the report issued in September by the " Advisory Committee for Review of Investigation Policy on Rights of Licensee Err.ployees under Investigation."
I understand this committee was forrned, in part, to respond to i
the ptoblems of "whistleblowers.
The committee's raport, however, f ails to address the selective use of grants of confidentiality.
c
[\\
g w h g < N.733-.
W j
,I-11/1...To 500 to Prepare Response for Signature of Chairmn and Com
$PI view.. Data due Com: Nov 14..Cpys to: RF, OCA to Ack.. 83-2459 e
i 4
o The Honorable Nunzio Palladino Nove'mber 1, 1983
~
The use of confidentiality in.' selected instances is a powerful tool in investi.gations.
It is used effectively by any number of federal agencies and now is apparently being used* by the Catawba licensing board.-
The history of NRC investigations demonstrates the need for procedures to allo use of this important tool in a manner providing protection to licensee employees and the polic.
Accordingly, I believe the NRC should adopt procedures which assure that employees will receive confidential status when l
the information provided by such employees will aid NRC investigation s.
. sincerely, b
MORRIS K. UDALL Chairman l
e 0
i l
t llP
- s y
A 9
~
7-i ATTACHMENT 1
/,f*
,3.,,
al,"
UNITED STATES e.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASe:ING TON. D. C. 20SSS NOV 2 31983 ocoo.
Es. Billie Pirner Garde
. Director, Citizens Clinic Government Accountability Freject Institute for Policy Studies 1501 Que Street, N. W.
Washirigtqn, D. C.
20C09 i
t
~
Dear Ms. Garde:
I have read with interest your letter of October 28, 1983, responding to ny letter of October 24, 1963.
I was pleased to note that tne Government Accountability Project (GAP) has urged workers having safety-related concerns to bring them to the NkC.
I % ulo reiterate my confidencit in the ability of Region II to conduct a thorough and objective evaluation of allegations they have received in the past or may receive in the future.
I assure you, my expressed confidence ir. Recion 11 and tne NRC staff is not an expression of loyalty or personal c'ciigatiens to any indivioual manager.
This' confidence has, insteac, developed frc:. close interactions over a long pericd of time.
I The Office cf Investigations has recently opened two investigations at Catawba d;aling at least in part with information contained in your September 14, 1983 i
petition.
The first investigation pertains to allegations regarding a possible lack of QA/QC independence ano related issues.
The second investigation pertains tc allegations regarding welding QC inspectors. This represents one of the normal courses of action taken by the agency when allegations are received.
Pleasi be assured that it is try intent to continue to pursue issues that have pctential fcr ircptcting en the protection of the public health and safety.
Sincerely, Willuhl.Dircks Executive Director for Operations e
),,.=
4" '
t
- - - - - - --