IA-88-203, Discusses 871218 Interview of Region IV Personnel Re Wright-Patterson Air Force Base Investigation
| ML20205T449 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/27/1988 |
| From: | Pawlik E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Hayes B NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205T301 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-88-203 NUDOCS 8811140259 | |
| Download: ML20205T449 (3) | |
Text
'
(q~
- .g"%},
vNrnDSTA NUCLEAR REGULATCRY COMMISSLN f,,, y 4 7i I y a . ,e omes ce mvaSTl0 ATloNS MELD omCt.hQloN H
- 3. s
\ *O *"* )1 ou
- a.n'nPaiL L : :::O:.: 2. .:- ;
January 17, 1988
. . tg , , . .
ca. # . .---
0% --
MEMORANDUM FOR: Ben B. Hayes, Director Office of Investigations ,
---y _
THRU:
Roger A. Fortuna. Deputy Director # ,,,[:. , t _i S .~_~
Office of Investigations ( _
FROM:
O Eugene T. Pawlik. DirectorOffice ofRegion,
[Investigations e.
!!! f.B:: _
Fieldk
SUBJECT:
INTERVIEWS OF REGION IV PERSONNEL RE: WRIGHT-PATT AIR FORCE BASE (3-06-012)
On December 18, Igr.7, Assistant U.S. Attorney Christopher Barnes, acceepanied by 01: RIII Senior Investigator Harold G. Walker and 11.5. Air Force (USAF)
Office of Special Investigations '(OSI) Investigator David C. Lannak, went to NRC:RIV in Arlingten Texas, to' interview some of the NRC:RIV staffTie relative to the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (WPAFB) investigation.
two principal NRC:RIV staff rembers interviewed were Jerry Everett, NRC:RIV Nuclear Specialist.
Materials Safety Section Chief, and Charles Cain, N purpose for conducting the interviews of the two staff rembers was merely to further develop and clarify sorne of the infomation on re the 01 investigation of the WPAFB /cericium-241 (Am-241) spill.
Rather than ending up, bewever, with a clarification of the*reportability issue, Cain and Everett each provided infnmation to Barnes that, in his opinior rey have f atally effected any possible further criminal investigation of certain USAF personeel at Brooks Air Force Base (AFB), and significantly impacted on the char.ces for a successful p-osecution of certain personne involved in the Am-241 spill at- WPAFB.
18, 1987, interview ( Attachment 1), he stated that During Everett's December 26, 1986, f rce Dunlap was not a the infomation received by him on September reportable incident because none of the criteria of 10 CFR 20.403 was The NRC regulation, according to Everett, is vague, ambiguous, and exceeded. Everett, when questioned as to wt.at censtitutes leaves room for interpretation.
a "release," further went on to advise the U.S. Attorney that a "release,' in his (Everett's) opinion, was 'something beyond the licensee's control,' and
- that based upon his professional background and experience, the even constituted a "spill " not a "release," therefore invalidating that portien of 10 CFR 20.403 that addresses a ' release," and one of the triggers reportability.
8811140259 881017 PDR FDIA CAFFNEY88-203 PDR /
I' ! :
?
.. t
. Hayes 2 Janua ry 27, 1988 Irst spill of Am-241 required reporting under 10 CFR 20.403, and that s 'open to interpretation," Everett c'oncluded Ms interview with the Lttorney by stating that 10 CFR 20.403/405 was open to interpretation 34t the NRC had not connunicated to the USAF a full interpretation of
- 1e regulations were to be implemented.
ugicg as Everett's testimony was to the Department of Justice (00J) i igainst the USAF personnel involved in the event, the interview of Cain l
- :hment 2) was even worse. Early on in his interview, he advised everyone
> tt that his recall was baked solely on his Neverter 3 *1936, memorandum !
- hment 3), and that he had no additional recall. Cain went on to say ;
is also had neither contemporaneous notes nor a telephone log te refresh f emory. :
' 1 his interview, Cain stated he did not regard the USAF as a typical I
, ee . . Rather, he regarded the USAF as an "ally" treated as co-equals, , .'
. icked at by him as if they were an "agreement state." !
l cnt en to state that 10 CFR 20.403(b)(3) was open to interpretation. !
sked about the figure of a 1,000,000 counts per minute (CPM) l i :ination arrived at by the NRC as a result of the second spill, Cain '
. : that "it is net unreasonable that they ('SAF) J would have arrived -
r conclusion that this (second spill) was net reportable," and that '
l ',000 CPM may not be reportable, it could be characterized as minor.' l
'urther stated that the first spill (September 18,1986) was *open to retation" and "not reportable," and in his mind, the USAF was not i
i ent in waiting to report. In regard to the second spill (October 6.. '
Cain stated, "yes, the agency (NRC) should have been told" about the
! ination, but it was open to interpretation whether they (USAF) were i y reovireo te report it under 10 CFR 20.403 and 20.405. Cain then ,
det this interview by stating that all of 10 CFR 20.403 is open to I j
retation are if he were placed on the stand under oath, he weuld ;
l
- d in that ranner. He closed by saying that he had registered his -
i al views with the NRC that 10 CFR 20.403 is ambiguous and open to l [
rotation.
ntents of this testimony provided te the U.S. Attorney raises several i bing issues, which ! believe need to be brought to your attention. .
J 4
and foremost is my concern over the opininns expressed by both Everett ,
in that 10 CFR 20.403 is ambiguous and open to interpretation. As earlier, both Everett and Cain were interviewed by NRC:01 in January J Attachments 4 and 5), a few months af ter the WPAFB event. I have [
11y reviewed their sworn testimony and nowhere do I find views expressed ;
, any ambiguity in the regulation. In mid. November, eleven months later, i t and Cain were present and involved in at least two major NRC senior !
meetings helc; in Dayton, Ohio, just prior to the Senators Glenn and l
] baum h n ring. Again, I do not recall them volunteering any infonnation
. I
- (
l i
3 January 27, 1988 Ben B. Hayes about their views on the reportability and ambiguity aspects of 10 CFR 20.403.
I find it particularly disturbing that the views of Everett and Cain took over twelve months to surf ace, especially in light of the impact their views now have at the eleventh hour on the essence of the 01 case.
I am also disturbed by Cain's statement that he has registered his perser.s1 views with the NRC that 10 CFR 20.403 is ambigueus and open to interpretation.
Neither ! nor anyone in NRC:R!!! is aware of this infonnation, and certeinly if this was done, we (01) should have been advised of his views as soon as they were m de known.
I must also acknowledge that I am somewhat perplexed about the differencesNRC:R111 R!!! interpretations of 10 CFR 20.403.
between the NRC:RIY and NRC:030-28541/860C4(DRSS) was fern 11y issued on April 28, Insgection Repert No.
1987, and cited the USAF for failure to cornply with the regulations in question.
! question in ry own mind how these t w staffs can be so far apart on the interpretation of t.his comenly used regulation. I also ovestion wnether or not this perceived ' ambiguity' in the regulation is widespread among other flRC staff in other regions, anc wonder what impact that my be having today on the USAFi the recently issued U.S. Navy broad scope license, and licensees in general vis-a-vis reportable events. '
'r. sum. I think it is a fair assessment to say that the two recent interviews l . of Everett and Cain have at this lateI date placed most, if notthat all,this of the
, am also cf the opinion WPAF6 DOJ investigation in jeopardy. .
never shoulc have occurred the way it did, and expect the resultant fallout en this matter will artarrass the HEC in the eyes of both 000 an members of Congress.
such a scenario as this does not ever happen again with another 01 case.
Attachrents:
- 1. kescrt of Interview with Jerry Everett i en 12/18/E7
- 2. Report of Interview I
with Charles Cain en 12/16/67 I 3. Memo to File f rom l C. L. Cain dte 11/03/86 4 $ worn Testimony of Jerry Everett dtd 01/22/87
- 5. Sworn Testimony of Charles Cain dtd 01/22/E7 I
.__ - _ - - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _