ML16341C124

Advises Commission of Govt Accountability Project Sudden Refusal to Make Allegers Voluntarily Available for Interview,Per 840319 & 20 Telcons

ML16341C124
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	03/23/1984
From:	Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:
References
NUDOCS 8404110393
Download: ML16341C124 (6)

Text

March 23, 1984 For:

From:

Background:

Discussion:

The Commissioners William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations DIABLO CANYON ALLEGATIONS REVIEW To advise of Government Accountability Project (GAP) change of.

position regarding Staff interviews of allegers.

As mentioned at the Staff's briefing of the Coranissicn on March 19', 1984, Staff had agreed to GAP counsel's request for a face-to-face meeting in San Luis Obispo on the evening of March 19, 1984 to discuss allegations of false statements in recent submittals by PG&E.

Staff from Region V traveled to, the site in preparation for the 7:00 p.m. scheduled meeting, only to learn at approximately 6:40 p.m. that GAP counsel would n'ot permit the meeting to occur.

Counsel for GAP telephonically'dvised OI staff at the scheduled meeting that, in his words, he had been "stabbed in the back" and "betrayed."

GAP counsel reportedly stated he felt staff had failed.to.fulfi.ll.,a commit-ment not to draw any conclusions or make any recoranendations concerning resolution of the allegations pending completion of all interviews and receipt of all information from the allegers, By that conversation and a subsequent telephone conversation of March 20, 1984, with OI staff, GAP counsel laid down three conditions for staff interview of GAP clients-allegers:

(I) that an individual's attendance be compelled by full and detailed subpoena covering the individual and any documentary material; (2) that such interviews be transcribed by a court reporter;

and, (3) that GAP counsel have the right to cross-examine and challenge all information furnished by the licensee to the NRC in response to such allegations.

Staff is. surprised at GAP counsel's sudden refusal to make allegers voluntarily available for interview.

At no time has staff committed to withholding its resolution of an allegation or to deferring its recommendation regarding further 1 icensing of the Diablo Canyon facility until, in the judgment of GAP, all information and allegations had been received.

As early as December 5, 1983, and as late as March 16, 1984, the Staff made this clear to GAP counsel.

GAP counsel was advised that if new information were available, Staff would accept that information and deal with it as it had all previously furnished information.

8404220393 840323 PDR ADOCK 05000275 P

PDR

(

V

\\i I,

i,

In letters to the Commission dated March 13 and 19, 1984, GAP first criticized and then lauded the Staff for its willingness to meet with GAP.

These letters,

however, convey a misleading impression.

Implicit in both letters is the suggestion that the Staff has not been or is no longer willing to meet with GAP and its allegers to discuss their concerns.

To the contrary, the Staff has offered and has in fact met with these individuals on numerous occasions and at times convenient to GAP and its allegers to discuss their allegations to assure that all significant safety issues and charges of management misconduct are recognized and properly dealt with.

The Staff's position on this has not changed.

The Staff's willingness to accotanodate GAP's requests for meetings and discussions of necessity has entailed consideration of the Staff's obligation to continue its evaluation of allegations and to bring such matters to a responsible and timely closure.

Unrelated to the above, the Staff, at the March 19 Coranission

meeting, agreed to issue the final Inspection Report on the NSC Audit of Pullman, dated February 29, 1984, as a Board Notification.

Upon review of the records in this proceeding, we have determined that, under cover of a memorandum from the Office of the Secretary, Docketing and Services Branch dated March 8, 1984, a copy of the final Inspection Report and related documents were sent to the parties and to the Appeal Board.

Accordingly, a formal Board Notification does not appear to be necessary.

DISTRIBUl'ION:

NRc ooceetOCPDR/PDR (3)

FF (Z)

Cunningham Murray Christenbury Rutberg Chandler McGurren RMartin BHayes LShollenb HDenton WDircks erger JP)P Q

~OFC:

ELD

ELD

'. RV W

~

NAME:LChandl er/ket: GCunningham: R.Mart DATE:3/ '4:3/ ~84

~:3/

/84 (Signcdl William J. Dircks William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations

'OI B ayes

3/

/84

NRR

,:HDento

3/

/84

EDO

WDircks

3/~+/84

~

~

~

~

~

~

1 I

EAR REGULATORY CONNISS ION RECOMMENDED DISTRIBUTION SHEET Title of Proposed Paper Paper Type:

Information Report - Policy Issue Information Report - Rulemaking Executive Director for Operations (3)"

Deputy EDO (1)

Deputy EDO for. Regional Operations

& Generic Requirements (1)

Public Affairs (1)

Inspector

& Auditor (2)

Resource Management (3)

Executive Legal Director (2)

State Programs g2)

International Programs (2)

Nuclear Reactor Regulation (10)

Nuclear Nateria1 Safety 5 Safeguards (4)

In spec ti on

& En forcement (10) l 0 Research (10) 0 Analysis

& Evaluation of Operational Data (2)

Small

& Disadvantaged Business'tilization E Civil Rights (1)

Administration (1)

Central Files (1)

OELP (-1)

Security (1)

Facilities

& Operations (1)

Tech Info E Document Control (1)

Automatic Data Processing (1).

Rules

5. Records (1)

Contracts (1)

License Fee Mgmt Branch (1)

Mgmt Develop

& Training (1)

Federal Women's Prog. (1)

AS&LBP (2) 2 AS&LAP (2) 2 Region I (p)

Region II (2)

Region III (2 )

Region IY (2)

Region V (2)

TOTAL NO.

OF COPIES (o 2 RETURN ORIGINAL TO Mar o Brid ers, 6209 MNBB

'0 n

P I ~