IR 05000358/1980009
Text
<
-}
.[GCrc
- *
UNITED ST ATES
8 " 3,, I'1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'
U
~ /.E REGION 111 d" '
799 ROOSEVELT ROAD h
GLEN E LLYN,lLLINolS 60137
.....
16[ A7/
Un,QeJ.
+J y i't4e v
n CGh A MEMORANDUM FOR: Dudley Thoepson, Director, Enforcement and Investigation, IE g
FROM:
James C. Keppler, Director, Region III SUBJECT :
REGION III REVID: OF OIA SPECIAL INQUIRY CONCERNING ADEQUACY OF IE INVESTICATION 50-358/80-09 AT WILLIAM H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION At your request, we have reviewed the Office of Inspector and Auditor (OIA)
Special Inquiry "Re: Adequacy of IE Investigation 50-358/80-09 at the"...
William H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station" in which OIA concluded that the Region III (RIII) investigation effort did not adequately pursue all of the allegations in suf ficient depth or breadth and lacked adequate documentation." We identified seven critical OIA findings in the summary Our section of their report which apparently led them to this conclusion.
review f ocused on these seven findings and included in-of fice work and further investigation at the site. For each of the critical findings we assessed its correctness and significance and provide a discussion to support Our assessment along with some detailed supporting informa-our assessment.
tion is enclosed.
It is our view that some of the OIA findings are factual; however, none are significant with respect to facility adequacy or public health and safety.
Before commenting on the seven critical findings we have a more fundamental appears to be OIA's basic philosophy regarding IE's conduct problen with what of investigations. 01A suggests that each allegation and each problem found while investigating the allegation should be exhaustively pursued and
,
'
documented to the degree that would be done in a criminal investigation.
While we are alert to potential criminal violations, it has been our policy to focus on safety and compliance in investigations as well as inspections (see 10 CFR Part 1, Section 1.64).
As such, our approach has been to pursue
.
l an allegation to the point of determining that the health and safety matter
'
of concern to the NRC has been or will be resolved; for exampic, that a hardware problem was corrected, was in a review process which would lead to its correction, or a process was developed to assure its correction.
.
l Enormous resources would be required for IE to adopt the OIA philosophy and we believe there would be negligible public health and safety benefit.
!:
8207300193 820609 PDR FOIA DEVINE82-206 PDR Qe 3F
..
.
,.,
f..
.
.
l.
-2-
'I[
Dudley Thompson In the subject IE investigation the investigators made a decision as to which of Mr. Applegate's concerns were under NRC's jurisdiction and selected This was documented in a letter to Mr. Applegate these for investigation.
The investigators cnd he of fered no rebuttal to our planned course of action.
g then pursued these allegations to the extent necessary to determine whether the deficiencies identified by the allegations were corrected or were in a licensee's control system which provided for correction.
Subsequent investigation showed the deficiencies expected to be corrected were indeed corrected, except for one case which is not yet corrected but was and remains in the licensee's system to be corrected.
The investigation did not determine whether the correction or planned correction of any of the deficiencies resulted f rom Mr. Applegate's findings.
In retrospect we believe this should have been done because, if the corrections (or planned correction) had been made as a result of Mr. Applegate's findings (and they were not), rather than the licensee's then the investigation should have been broadened.
control system, that you review the enclosed material. If you agree with our assessment, we recommend that it be the basis for a Commission meeting on We request this OlA report.
James G. Keppler Director Enclosures: Replies to OIA Findings
.