ML19350C861
| ML19350C861 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 06/01/1978 |
| From: | James Anderson NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTOR & AUDITOR (OIA) |
| To: | Case E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| ZECH, NUDOCS 8104060882 | |
| Download: ML19350C861 (8) | |
Text
m \\(
s P00R BRIGINAL
(([Arj[/,,1
'h UNITED STATES
~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- ?!)f [
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 s
6 - / - 7l'
[ w.fM. L -
llc -c emc<-
O&n lhb 't /dd
<- nac A aL an
,1 5 4 4y~
c Aw, s'~ x jw 214 n~, sbr Wo../3 < n n narr 6 A~d-e g'a-e /W a ~ E<9
% na
, M w m s,~A USA
~
,4 y 4 4 j /
f d k
' L' J 2 'A M J
A oxx
/f9L-7aF/
44.00 s a
/2:o a s.i.
}-
e
) I' f
1-18.104'000.8.82,
~
e P
G 4
@NT7s=Tr-70 c
QUESTI0tl5 FOR CASE 1.
On June 7,1973, the AEC staff filed Findings of Fact with the Licensing Board in the proceedings on the construction permit application for florth Anna Units 3 and 4.
According to the Subccmmittee staff, Mr. Case
. stated that this filing, Qith no mention of the geologic problem at the site, was an error.
He said he had never stated this before because he was never asked about it.
In light of the fact that flRC fined VEPC0 for filing an incarrect statement in the Summer of 1973, what is the justification for the staff filing an incomplete document in June? How did such a filing come about? Was Mr. Case's silence acceptabl5 in light of the procedural stance of this pro'ceeding and knowledge by the 6ther 4
participants?
a.
When did you come to the conclusion that this filing, with no mention of the geologic problem, was an error or mistake?
b.
If you knew then that the filing was in error, why did you not volunteer-this knowledge to someone sooner, even though you have
- 7 stated to the subcommittee that no one ever asked the question?
c.
Do you believe it reasonable and proper to remain silent about i
something one knows to be in error?
you d.
What-words, *do believe today, should have been included in the June 7, 4
1973 filing?
e.
Whose responsibility would it have been to include those words?
~f.
Since VEPC0 was fined for filing an incorrect statement in the Summer of 1973, what is the justification for the staff filing an incomplete document on June 7?
,4
=m O
+
- g.
How did this filing come about? ':as it mar datory? Who was responsi-ble for filing the document in the first place? If the filing was mandatory, why wasn't site visited prior to the filing to confirm
.AEC's suspicion of a fault?
h.
Do you believe your silence in this matter, until the 1977 sub-committee hearings was justifiable in light of the procedural stance of this proceeding and knowledge by the other participants?
1.
While preparing or reviewing the Findings of Fact in 1973, was the question of possible faulting at North Anna ever discussed or con-9 sidered for inclusion in the document?
j.
If the subject was not discussed, why was the subject avoided?
k.
If the subject was discussed, why was the information excluded fran the 'ocument?
d (1). intentionally omitted?
Why?
(2)- unintentionally omitted?
(3) if intentionally omitted, was the reason to keep information y.. - g.--,.
from ASLB? Why?.-
~ -; 7 l.
When.did you first learn of a possible fa 11t?
.m.- When did you become convinc ed-that the e was. a fault and not just a chlorite seam?
21 In December of 1977, Mr. ' Case told the Subcommittee staff.that he had been aware of casting' doubt on-the May-17 date, and that he knew this as far back 'as October of 1976. Why did.Mr. Case-wait until immediitely
_ prior to'the Subcommittee's'0ctober 13, 1977 hearing to resolve the question of.when'the staff was in fact hotified?- Why did not the investigation by -
- the_ Justice-Department:in the Spring of 1977, the Whitman memorandum n
~
.'.o.
1 publicly disclosed on September 29, 1977, and his briefing of John O' Leary shortly before the Subcommittee hearing stimulate an earlier resolution of this doubt?
Specifically, can you tell us what these facts were that caused a.
- you to question the May 17th date to the subcommittee staff in December 1977, that you said you were aware of in October 1976?
b.
Why.did you wait until immedistely prior to/ the subcommittee's October 13, 1977 hearing to resolve the question of when the staff was notified, if you knew of "some facts" as far back as October 1976 which casted ~ doubts on the May 17 date?
c.
Were you not stimulated by ongoing activitf prior to the October 1977 hearings to resolve this doubt?
e (1)
If not stimulated,-could you explain why not?
'd.
Were you interviewed by anyone from the Department of Justice prior to the October 1977 hearings relative to today's subject?
- (l )
If.so, did you inform that person of your doubts concerning
.the May.17th date,_ since.you 'would have been_ aware at that
~
. time that the May 17th date was in error?
(2)
If you were not asked the question, and-if you didn't volunteer
.the information,Jis there'an explanation for the absence of discussion on this is' sue?
e.
What was.the reason for your contact and/or. conversation with the subcommittee staff in December 1977?
'(1) : Did they _ contact-you, aor you them?.Why?
(2); Was,this a face-to-face. meeting, or telephone contact?
~
~
(3) Mr. Case filed a prepared statement in the material false statement case on May 23, 1975, which included the May 17, 1973 date as the time of initial notification of a fault.
a.
Who asked that the statement be prepared?
b.
Uhy were you asked?
c.
Why did you select May 17,1973 in May 1975 as the time of initial notification of the fault when Schwencer's memo of his phone conversation with VEPC0 on May 17,1973, and Cardone's affidavit of August 3,1973 clearly states that VEPC0 referrr to a " chlorite seam" on May 17th, and, according to Cardone, it wasn't until June 18, 1973 that AEC confirmed that the chlorite seam was associated with a fault?
(4)
Identify the internal NRC staff ~ procedure in handling the Maupin
~ letter'of October 19,.1977, including its receipt, review and In parti $ular, determine who saw 'the incoming correspondence response.
and who was' involved in formulating the response. What, if any, bh Nd
'_involvementdidftr.'~Casehaveinformulatingtheresponse? Why did not the Office of Congressional Affairs. know of the Maupin/
Englehardt exchange of correspondence?
.a.
Did you. read Maupin's letter of October 19, '1977,- af ter i t
-was received by Englehardt?
b.
Did you comment on it to'Englehardt?
(1) What~were your-comments?
9 O
i
_,..w__.mm,,,o.,_#
' c.
Were you involved in any way in formulating the response?
(1)
What was the extent of your involvement? What did you have to dffer?
d.
Do you know why OCA was not informed of the Maupin/
~
Englehardt exchange of correspondence?
(5)
In a memorandum dated flovember 24, 1975, Albert Schwencer informed R. S. Boyd, Acting Director, Division of Reactor Licensing and V. A.. Moore, Assistant Director for Light Water Reactors, Group 2, that the Briefs Filed By the Intervenor on the florth Anna 1 and 2 Disclosure Hearing Appeal contained an incorrect statement regarding the date of r:otification on page 49 of their Brief.
a.
Were you aware of this memorandum or were you advised by either Boyd or Moore of the statement by Schwencer?-
d
. (6). On November 25, 1975, A. Schwencer notified W. Massar by memo-randum that the " Proposed Brief to Appeal Board on VEPC0 florth Anna Disclosure Hearing" also contained an incorrect statement con-
_ 'cerning the-date of notification.by VEPCO.
~x.w
=-
a.
You were cc'd on this memorandum.
Do you recall seeing it?
.b.
What did you' do?
c.
If so, then you were aware of the May 17, 1973 date as far back as: floveinber 25,.1975?- Isn't that so?
LCASE.
On page_73 '.(October.13,51977 hearing),1y60 state "The record 'shows that the
- first' draft of' the' affidavit was completed and legal ' review began on July 18,
~
11973. ;Several/ drafts were subsequently developed. and the finished product was provided to the Board on August 3. 1973."
L
-=
e a
C Our investigation shows that the first draft affidavit was submitted to OGC on' July 10 and the second draft on July 20, 1973. Can you comment on this difference in dates? Secondly, comparison of the July 20 and August 3 versions shows that these documents are identical except for some minor word changes in item 7 of the affidavit.
Can you offer any explanation for
.this delay of about 2 weeks?
On page 70-72 you discuss the recommendations that could have been made to the Board and on page 72 you state, "Thus, the staff chose to make no pro-cedural recommendations to the Board when it filed af geologist's affidavit
.on August.3, 1973.
However, on Octt'er 17, 1973, the staff took the position
.that the public hearing on this issue should be reopened."
-- Who had the responsibility for notifying the Board?
-- Do you recall discussing the notification with Kartalia before the June 22,
"^
L 1973 blue book meeting?.
3-
--. Do you recall Kartalia wanting to recommend that the CP hearings be kept'open?
Why was there re'luItance ito.let Kartalia follow through?
~
t t
e I
a O
+
b
+
1 y
Ta '41,- p ' q ') *3 g
. '. - +
.a I
Question:
If you were so reluctant to send V'rtalia's letter notifying tra board of the fault at JanuaFy-G BB muting, why do you tisk it was an' error not to mention the geologic problem ir the Findings of Fact document of June 7,1973, as stated before the Subcommittee Staff in October 1977.
.> +
ylsut 2-c-v In' response to Bradford's question,by whom, when, and how the decision
~.to -seek.a civil penalty was made and how the amount of the penalty to be sought was arrived at.
n 1
e
'C 1
i g
l~*',,,^
((; ^,
g
- _,' y
__gy r
P
~
V
/
e
%i p:
w L
^ ^ - -
a y-h'
'I e
-rs.
a
<v
--f.
I
-