ML20132E489
| ML20132E489 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Grand Gulf  |
| Issue date: | 07/27/1984 |
| From: | Markey E HOUSE OF REP. |
| To: | Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20132E314 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-85-419 NUDOCS 8510010099 | |
| Download: ML20132E489 (3) | |
Text
_
= c--- - = c-x _..
hun =.:.ma.c
- e..
_y
- e.
I d
- - - =.
COR F E$$ D((hE b~((ED h[K!E$
W,'.,',',, n., ' y
~
Z
< uc..w u--c.u t I.
q
..-......, ~.
J.!9025t DI M Epr!5}n!2tib!5 d
n
...s....,
- ~J.~
v ;;; =;
"a
...u..........,
u nr,c,,n.c, n 313 f
f, e.--....
...us.,.~.
July 27, 1984 h
TT
.... ~..,
g/
1 1
The Menorable Nun:io J. Falladino Chair =an U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ce==is sion 1717 h Street, N.V.
Washing:en, D.C.
20555
Dear E.r. Chair = an :
I a= writing this le::e as a me:ber of the Energy and Environ =en: Sub ec==i:t e el I have reviewed with interes: and concern the Office of Inves:igation's (OI) March 5, 1984 report, " Grand Gulf Nuclea:
Power Plant:
Possible Deliberate and Villful Material False State =ents.Regarding RO and SRO License Exa=inazion
~
Applications" (Case No. 2-83-037).
I would'like to bring an aspect of this report to the Cc==ission's attention.
My concern involves whether officials of the Nuclear Regulatory Co==ission's (NRC) Region II office ac:ed properly in handling this case.
There are two cuestions of potential concern.
First, did Region II officials unnecessarily and/or inappropriately share infor=ation with i
the licensee?- And second, did Region II officials authorize a return to operations, and/or allow ces:inued operation, subsecuent to learning tha: the qualifications of Grand Gulf reactor operators were probably f alsified and the operators potentially unqualified?
Concerning :he first question, the 01 report appears to indica:e tha: Region. II of ficials infor=ed-the licensee that discrepancies in reactor opaf ator qualifica: ion cards could constitu:e a =aterial f alse state =ent prio to Region II's October 18, 1983 for=al' request for an OI investigation.
A1: hough :he OI' report indicates that Region 11 of ficials j
apparently began :o view the situa: ion as a possible material false state =ent between January 1983 and August 1963, this infor=a: ion was shared wi:h the licensee both in August 1983 and a: a Septe=ber 23, 1953 meeting, and the plant was per=i::ed to return to power on Septe=ber 25, 1983, prior to -
recuesting the 01 investigation or otherwise resolving this j
=a::er.
8510010099 850923 PDR FDIA REBERB S-419 PDR y
The "en::aile dun:ic J. ptiladino July 27, 1984 Page !wo signi$ican:17, the 01 report reveals tha by sharing this cenclusion--: hat discrepancies in the cualifica: ion carcs vere
.being regarded as possible material f alse sta: e= en:s--with th e licensee a: a Septe=ber 23, 1983 meeting, Region II caused a vice-Presiden of the Mississippi Power and Light (MP&L)
Ce:pany to subsecuently refuse to provide a le::e addressing
- his issue to NRC that was brough: :o tha: =ee:ing with7the intention of being provided to the agency.
Hence, it would appear : hat by sharing suspicions or possible conclusiens of potentially cri=inal conduct with the lic ensee, cc=pany officials at tha: time refused to turn over infor:ation and possible evidence to NRC.
These circu= stances are reminiscent of another case in which the U.5/ Depa:rment of Justice (DOJ) criticized URC for di=inishing the chances for successful prosecu: ion.
In a
. March 7, 1980 le:ter to NRC, DOJ vrote the following harsh words which appear appropos in this, case:
... gratuitous and apologetic concessions and adcissions, and gratuitous dis.clo sures of evidence and theories prior to the co:pletion of an investigation, could deservedly or undeservedly sugges a basic confusion as to who the respective clients are.
The clients, of course, are the public--the millions of persens who canno: afford to retain lawyers and law fir:s to represent the= before the NRC and who have no other persons to protect their interests.
Second, I a: troubled by'the ensuing course of events by which M?&L was allowed to restar: Grand Gulf on Septe ber 25, 1983 and operate through November 8, 1983.
According to the
" Chronology of Licensing Activities" provi~ded to me by the Cc= ission, low power testing was cc=pleted during this time period.
However, by August, 1983, and certainly no later than Sep:e=ber 23-30, 1983, Region II was aware of the erroneous operator training records and had reason to suspect the co=pe:ence of Grand Gulf's reactor operators.
Region II's October 18, 1984 Request for Investigative Assistance states is one that "... involves the sub=ittal of f alse tha: this case infor=ation to the NRC on a subj ect that could be material to the granting of licenses to operators."
~
1
The Fonerable Mun:io J. Falladino July 27, 1984 page Three i
Indeed, a Dece=ber 25, 19 E 3 = erertn du: f c: Executive Direc:c: for Operations Willia: J.
Dir:ks to Cc issioner vic:e Gilinsky feveals tha: had NRC known that the operate not caly would these
- aining records had been falsified, that epera:ers no: have been licensed, but, the low power license itself would no: have been issue 6.
Ibe Co::ission's regula-
- ions a: 10 CFR !50.100 and Section 186 ef the Ato:ic Energv Act, as a= ended, would allow suspensien er revoca:ica cf a '
license for this type of =aterial f alse state:ent.
I: is therefore difficult to understand how Region II officials could have, in good conscience and in co=pliance with the Cc :ission regulations and the law, allowed Grand Gulf to operare subsequent to deter ining tha: the adequacy of operator training was at best unknown, and quite possibly, inadequate.
To be sure,.four reactor operators (including ~two Senier Reactor Operators) had to be re oved fro: active duty a: ' Grand. Gulf in Nove:ber 19 83.
Nevertheless, the plant was a11 cued to centinue operations and a Confir=ation of Action le::er en thir-subj ect was not sen: by Region II until
~
Dec e:b er 5, 19 5 3'.
I expect the Co::is sion to condue:~ a thorough investiga:icn cf these events and deter =ine whether Region 11 ac:ed appropriately and within NRC procedures and regula-
- iens.
I would also apprecia:e a full and detailed response to the issues and concerns discussed above.
If the Cc==ission believes tha: this letter should not be
=ade public, please contact ne within ten days with a written explanatien fer why the public interes: would be be::er served by =aintaining this le::er's confidentiality.
Thank you for your at:ention to' this atter.
Sinc erely,
IDWARD J. MAR Q Me:ber of Congress IJM/sru i
cc:
The Honorable Morris K. Udall
.,. -... - - _.