ML17306B242

Partially Withheld Investigative Rept for Case 90-45H, Alleged Conspiracy Between Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Mgt & NRC Region V Mgt

ML17306B242
Person / Time
Site:	Palo Verde
Issue date:	09/25/1992
From:	NRC OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL (OIG)
To:
Shared Package
ML17306B243	List: IA-92-431, Final Response to FOIA Request for Documents.Forwards Documents Listed in App A.Documents Partially Withheld (Ref FOIA Exemptions 6,7C & 7F) ML17306B242 ML20127H376
References
FOIA-92-431 90-45H, NUDOCS 9301220313
Download: ML17306B242 (22)

Text

ATZAQMENT 6 OPPICE OP THB INSPECTOR GENERAL INVZ ST I GATIVB RB PORT ALLEGED CONSPIRACY BETWEEN PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION MANAGEMENT AND NRC REGION V MANAGEMENT CASE NO ~

90-45H THI:

R OR ZS T P

PERTY THE F TH INSPECTOR GENERAL.

IY ~

NOT B

.CED IN 'THE P~'BLIC DOC Yi WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.

FREE OF I RMAT

/PRIVAC ACT PTION (b)(5) lofpg~~atipg iq tq'co d '

d io accordance 4ith the preedgg,", of ig o, A(( ),

IIOfm3mg, FotA +A-

fl

'I

'I I

PAGE C I > 'R 'T Sin~~ECTS ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~..

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

STATUTES AND REGULATIONS.--. -....--......

4 NO i~un g NOPS IS ~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~ ~

~

~

o

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

5 BASIS ~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~ ~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~ o

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

7 DETAILS ~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

o

~

~

~

~

~

~ o

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

7 Tli'-c

[INDI.iGSo

~

~

~

~

~

~

~ i ~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

o

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

10 EXHIBITS ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

o 10

~,

OFF BUBJECTB

(

CIA,:!iy STATUTES AND REGVLATIONS 18 U.S.C.

371 18 U.S.C.

1001 10 CFR 0.735-49a

~,

0

8 YNOPBI8 This Office of the Inspector General (OIG) invest.igation was jnitjated based on a May.22,

1990, 10 CFR 2.206 petition, filed on behalf of~nda E. MITCHELL~o modify, suspend or revoke the palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS) license. 4MITCHELL, a

PVNGS employee+alleged vrongdoing by PVNGS management officials and N8c'lear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Region V

officjals.

The petition claimed a conspiracy existed between PVNGS and Region V officials.

Specifically, QITCHELLQalleged that through a series of i~proper communicatio.-s, PVNGS officials ~

vere able to influence Region V management to vater down inspection findings in Inspection Report (IR) 90-02.

AITCHFL+told OIG Qsh@ had no first hand knc;.I edge of the al 1eged

-elephone cal: s by PX'NGS managers to Regior V officials.

'MITCHEL% learned of the telephone calls from JQ~~~

~

~

9

~

~

~

~

~

'- ~ 3%& abcut vho,. the calls were allegedly rade.

d OIG that it vas understanding that the PVNGS officials called and exp: essed their dissat

'erection with hc.~

conductec a March 23, 1990, exit confererce.

All of the PVNGS and NRC officials allegedly involved in the isproper coruncnications denied disccssing~~perforoance dur jna the Ma ch 23, 1990, exit meeting.

Hc-eve, emergency

'iahtinc had been the topic o. telephone disc 'ssions between 79.4GS and Region V ranacers fol lcving a February 9,

1990, exit

.-ecting.

ording to the Reaion V officials, no ment jon vas

..ade cf d.

.-ir.- t.'-:se te.epl..c.".e dis=ussicns, and there;as nc attempt by PVl:~S

~ o contest

.he emergency lighting findina=.

The rurpcse of these

elephone conversat ons as to allc pv~;-S to c:.velop an un=.ers.and'ng of l:cv serious Region V bel'eved

-:-.e emergency lighting issues vere.

Following an enforcement conference at Region V on March 30, 1990, regarding a separate

matter, Region V officials met informally with PVNGS officials.

One tc=ic djscusseg at this session

-as communications between Region V and PVNGS.

During this meeting, Region V management told the pVNGS officials that it appeared their perceived conanunjcatjons problem was the result of the PVNGS staff not keeping PVNGS managers informed of the progress of ongoing NRC inspections.

The emergency lighting indings identified by ~>>~

jn draft inspection report were included in IR 90-02 as unresolve iter..s.

Research by the staffs at NRC Headquarters and Region V to develop the unresolved items in IR 90-02 continued for several months.

Following additional, inspections, Region V issued ZR 90-25 and IR 90-35, and assessed PVNGS a civil penalty of

$ 125,000 for emergency lighting violations.

1

This OIG investigation did not substantiate the existence of a conspiracy between PVNGS and Region V officials to eater down inspection findings.

I I

BA8 8 This Office of the Inspector General (OIG) investigation was initiated based on a May 22,

1990, 10 CFR 2.206 Petition, filed on behalf ofQinda E.

MITCHEL@to modify, suspend or revoke the

'palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS) license.

MITCHELL, a

PVNGS employeeg alleged wrongdoing by PVNGS officials and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Region V officials.

The petition also contained technical allegations of safety deficiencies in emergency lighting at PVNGS (Exhibit 1)

~

On October 31, 1990, ths'echnical concerns were addressed in a decision issued by the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (Exhibit 2).

Regarding th~ allegations of wrongdoing, the petition claimed a

conspiracy existed between PVNGS and Region V officials.

Speci fically,+~ I'ZCHELBjalleged that through a series of improper communications, PVNGS 'management officials vere able to influence Region V managers to water down inspection findings in Region V

Inspection Report 50-528/529/530/90-02 (IR 90-02).

It was also alleged that..3eqion V manageme. t retaliated against

] who conducted and reported much of IR 90-02.

The retaliation was alleged to be the esult of misrepresentations by,hese PVNGS officials regarding conduct during the IR 90-02 inspection (Exhibit 1).

This report dc"uments the OIG ir~vestigation of the alleged e fforts b; PP.:GS to discredit g-~ and to have Region U

manageme.-."a'r dcvn the findings that were developed during IR p0-02.

Tne ailegation that Region V officials retaliated against

@~;

as the result of the alleged improper communications is addressed in a separate OIG report.

DETAILS The Yay 22, 1&90, petition al'.eged that a conspiracy existed between pvNGS and Region V officials to influence the results of 90-02'he alleged cons a

involved telephone calls from management in Region V.

Allegedly, these calls accuse of misconduct and contained misrepresentations designed to discredit Qbeforeggg superiors at Region V.

The purpose of the telephone calls was to impede and interfere in an ongoing NRC inspection.

The petitioner alleged that IR 90-02 was watered down as a result of this conspiracy (Exhibit 1).

ZTCHEL+told OIG+seQad no first hand k owle e of the alleged elephone calls to Region V during which was accused of iscond ct and w4i h resulted in IR 90-02 being watered down.

MITCHELL tatedQh learned of the telephone calls from (Exhibit 3) ~

lj 14'I I

t, l

f I

ln June 1990, ~'was interviewed by OIG regardin the telephone calls to Region V by gVNGS officials.

told OIG that during the week followin ~ March 23, 1990, exit meeting at PVNGS on IR 90-02 Region V, comm nted to tha pe ion V management hpd been telephoned by and stated it wasgggf understan ing that telephone and t lephoned Accordin

.t.

and ere upset and

%oncerne about how L presented inspection findings on emergency ligh".ing during the exit meeting on March 23, 1990 (Exhibit 4).

Accord ng '.c~a.-,'r,.">>

Strbmssss+Jg told @@the PVNGs officials were upset becauseg- 'urprised them at the exit reeting vith new findin s whi =:"~hac. not discuss~4 during 'g inspection.

>did recall that at the conclusion of the exit meeting,

.as told that PVNGS officials vere surprised at the extent of inspection findings; therefore, they were not prepared to respond (Exhibit 4).

and runt-'~+'told 01G they 'did not reca'1 receiving telephone calls from PV1:GS officials concerningg~

perfonr=nce at he March 23, 1990, exit meeting or complaining about '~i8~~ inspection activities. ~and i+I@f1 also denied th~ey made telephone calls to Region V to discuss conduct at the March 23, 1990, exit meeting cr to char~e with misconduct.

Further, neither4ggg4 nord~5~j recall receivin" any telepl;one calls from P'RINGS off c:als reguc-sting that%~~ be "backed off" or that,

~be remo; ed o: transferred.

and iC-.

all acknovl edged,

however, X>at jt is not unusual in the nomaI course of business to telephone one another to discuss various official matter" (Exhibits 5, 6, 7,

and 8).

%@4jp~ also said that there were several telephone calls Between pVNGS and Region V officials to discuss the status of the emergency lighting program at PVNGS.

OIG learned that emergency lighting had been the topic of telephone discussions between PVNGS and Reg:on V officials prior to the Mar-h 23, 1990, exit

~

~

~

.eating.

Zn February 1990,~+g@9placed a telephone call to to express concern over the status of erergency lighting at

PVNGS, and ~~~/+'had a similar telephone conversation with

~

~

~

These calls to PVNGS were the result of inspection xndings by.

~

durin the week of February 5-9, lp90, at PVNGS.

Accor ing to on the day fpllowing February telephone call to telephoned p-.

and expressed surprise over the level of concern that ad been voiced by told was not aware of the extent of the Region V

oncerns wit h

PVNGS emergency lighting program.

According to said the level of concern regarding the emergency lxghtxng situation expressed by

(~Ill 111;

was not consistent with the impression left by the NRC inspector at the exit :ecting conducted on February 9,

1990 (Exhibit 6).

At about the time of the~~~.sand

.;telephone conversations,

. telephoned

.)

o discuss the emergency

) ighting situat1on at PVNGS.

.reinforced the concern that, had expressed to+.

'According to 4@mgg and no mention was made of ~~gVQ during tFiese February telephone discussions, and there was no attempt by PVNGS officials to contest the emergency lighting findings.

The purpose of the telephone conversations was to allow the PVNGS officials to develop an understanding of how serious Region V

bel;eved the erergency 1ichting issues to be (Exhibits 5 and 6).

told C'.G that sc-. et

.-,e dur ng the '-'eek follcwing the Yiarch Z3, 1990, exit meet,ing, ~was called by +~~g~~'-~ who asked that Y, e gency 1 ight ing be i n;-1 "ded on:he ace nda of a rect ing pl armed for Nazch 30, 19-0, at R gion V.

The March 30,

1990, meeting vas an enforcement c.-.fererce on a s=parate ra=ter.

Once again agan stated tl'ere was nc

".i si"'ssior. of t.".e March 23, 1990, exit erence or 4"M~ 'urir.~ =h

=- cor;:=."sat;on with ~~~%'3~>>

None of -he Rec;on V cr P'P.'GS r.:."racers recalled any telephore ccn"ersations caring the week

'"sec. ent to t"..e Ãa ch 23,

1990, exit..eetino

..".at per=ained

" jg.<<g condu=t at PVNGS or to t?:e results c:

~~

irspe~'t:crs

{Exh t ts 6,

7, and S).

-.".e conc'.. sion of the Yarch 3",

1"-.=.0, en.crgement conference a:

f t-.-grec.". '.. 4~ -=~.. ="et -r.J'"4 =

=e '-"

.. g-~~ and other P'GS of:iciais.

One topic iis -.

sed at tl 's sess "n was cc.-...u..ications

'n genera 'e=we:.

Region V and PUN:.S. gl;is ter ic "as suggested by the F".'JGS c.'f'. ais, and because

-..'~ was relatively nev to PVl':Ss +g -'an:ec to understand the routine sed Region to cor~un =ate ~zth :'.censees.

Earing this meeting told the PVl'GS officials that their perceived co bTunications probler. appeared to be the result of the PVlfGS staff not keeping PIGS maragers informed of the ps ogress of cngoing NRC irspections (Exhibit 6;.

p'..~'+.told C:G that~ dic not ac"ee with the manner in which d

r h

-'g insPecticn findings vere Presented in IR RC-OZ. ~teifeved

.e findings should. have been reported as violations rather than unresolved ite~. Q~~~ said the changes to the report vere discussed with)~ but,~ chose not to "fight, the issue" (Exhibit 4).

According to Region V management, the findings were not reported as violations because additional research was required by HRC and PVNGS staff to determine the exact technical and 10 CFR 50, Appendix R requireme ts that applied to the emergency lights inspected by (Exhibits 4, 5 and 6).

OZG learned that research by the staffs at NRC Headquarters and Region v to develop the unresolved items in ZR 90-02 continued

C>

I I

10 for several months.

After additional i: spections at PVNGS by

@~~pand other Region V inspectors, t o Region V inspection

reports, ZR 90-25 and IR 90-35, were issued.

Zn these inspection

reports, some of the unresolved items in IR 90-02 were identified as potential violations.

Following issuance of IR 90-35, the NRC assessed PVNGS a civil penalty of $ 125,000 for emergency lighting violations (Exhibit 9).

In October 1990,~ revi wed Region V inspection report IR 90-25 and told the OZG tha s reasonably satisfied that Region V addressed the in xngs initially identified and which were reported as unresolved items n

ZR 90-02 (Exhibit 10).

~INDI%GS This OZG investigation did not substantiate the allegation in the May 22,

1990, 10 CFR 2.20o Petition that a conspiracy existed between PVNGS officials and Region V officials to water down inspection =indings in IR 90-02.

EXHIBITS I

~see

f k

4 J,

I

10 CFR 2.790 INFORMATIONEXEMPT FROM PUSLIG DISCLOSURE ATTACHMENT7 U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION FINAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 5 2.206 DATED AUGUST 12) 1992

l)

'1 0