ML20043C536
| ML20043C536 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 03/30/1989 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTOR & AUDITOR (OIA) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20042D040 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-90-6 NUDOCS 9006050303 | |
| Download: ML20043C536 (52) | |
Text
_ _ _
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY r
/ ~'%,
N.....
Memorandum L
Report l~
This Document is loaned to you For Official Use Only.
Contents shall not be reproduced.
This document must be returned after it has served its purpose.
n.u.. ] 9 7 51 Copy No.
Oletribution:
w OFFICE OF INSPECTOR ft AUDITOR U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FREEDOM OF INFORMATION/ PRIVACY ACT EXEMPTION.....
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY L
. g 60 g 3 900405 AIROZO90-6 PDR_
i outunu
/N.....,*\\',
UNITED STATES
' [
p, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION wasmNG T ON. O. C. 20$55 g
l W,AR 3 01989 MEMORANDUM REPORT
)
SUBJECT:
IN0VIRY INTO ALLEGED TRAVEL ABUSE BY NRC EMPLOYEES OIA FILE:'
INQ 87-31 BACKGROUND On June 2,1987, a confidential source informed the Assistant Director for Investigations, Office of Inspector and Auditor (OIA), U.S. Nuclear Regula-tory Commission (NRC),_that NRC, had accepted transportation on a corporate aircraft owned by a utility. The source related that, in opinion, there was an appearance of impropriety on the part of accepting air transportation from the utility.
On-June 5, 1987, 01A contacted the confidential source who advised that had heard from several employees that several years ago, the NRC investigations / inspections of the WATERFORD NUCLEAR POWER during(WATERFORD),
accepted transportation on a Louisiana Power and PLANT Light Company (LP&L) corporate aircraft from New Orleans, LA, to WATERFORD.
The source said that had no further information concerning the incident.
(Attachment 1)
SUMMARY
OF INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITY On' June 9,1987, the source was reinterviewed by OIA-(Attachment 2) and related that did not want to characterize remarks to the Assistant Director for Investigations, CIA, as an allegation, but rather as an "off the cuff" remark. The source related that had heard, although could not recall from whom, that had traveled from New Orleans, LA, to WATERFORD on an aircraft owned and operated by LP&L, the licensee for WATERFORD.
According to the source was reportedly uncomfortable with accepting the transpor-tation. When. questioned by OIA as to the specific location of the incident, the source said that-was not certain the incident occurred between New Orleans and WATERFORD, and it possibly could have been taken place at another location and involved another licensee.
THIS REPORT MAY NOT BE REPRODUCEC OR PLACED IN THE PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOM WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FREEDOM 0F INFORMATION/FRIVACY ACT EXEMPTION (b)(5)(6)(7)(C) m
2..
OmCIAl.llSE ON3 Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Chapter 0.735.42(c)(Attach _-
ment 3) provides that "No employee shall accept free transportation in motor vehicles, aircraft, or other means, for official or unofficial purposes from NRC contractors, prospective contractors, licensees or prospective licensees, or representatives of any of them when such transportation might reasonably be interpreted as seeking to influence the impartiality of the employee or the agency."
Middle South Services Incorporated, was contacted by 01A (Attachment 4) to ascertain what records LP&L maintained on flights of their corporate aircraft, informed OIA that LP&L maintained some form of record to account for flights of their aircraft operating from New Orleans; however, the nonnal mode of travel between New Orleans and WATERFORD was by land vehicle.
The travel time by land to WATERFORD is less than forty minutes, and it would not be economical or practical to operate an aircraft for such a short trip.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)' Office, New Orleans, LA, was contacted by OIA to determine if the FAA maintained lists of passengers traveling on. corporate aircraft operating out of New Orleans, LA. The FAA advised that approximately 300,000 flights a year depart from New Orleans, and it would be too cumbersome to retain records of these flights over a long period. Consequently, the records are retained for only a ninety-day period.
(Attachment 5) was interviewed by OIA (Attachment 6) and statea during the period 1983 through 1985, 0!
conducted an extensive investigation at WATERFORD.
said that sometime during 1985, accompanied to WATERFORD; however, they traveled from New Orleans, LA, to WATERFORD via commercial rental vehicle.
sta ted has never traveled on a licensee's aircraft, and to knowledge has not traveled on a licensee's aircraft.
stated has not heard any talk among employees concerning traveling on a licensee's aircra f t.
NRC, was interviewed by OIA (Attachment 7) and related that during March 1985, traveled to Kenner, LA (suburb of New Orleans, LA), adjacent to the New Orleans Airport. During the week they were in the New Orleans area, they made a number of trips to WATERFORD using two rental vehicles obtained from a rental agency at the airport.
recalled that remained in the New Orleans area, while the rest of the team traveled to the WATERFORD site.
Sometime later arrived on site for a short time before returning to kenner, LA. According to no one used air transportation because there were no aircraft landing facilities in the immediate area of WATERFORD.
was interviewed by 01A (Attachment 6) and stated to knowledge none of the assigned to had ever used a licensee's aircraft for travel.
Said nmcat USE ORJ
ORCIAL USE ONJ 3-s if it had occurred was certain would have been apprised of the fact, stated that had no knowledge of having accepted free air travel on a licensee's corporate aircraft.
was interviewed by OIA (Attachment 9),
advised that during the period was part of an investigative team conducting investigations at WATERFORD. The team consisted of arrived in New Orleans and met with this team at the Best Western Hotel, Kenner, LA. On per instructions, obtained a vehicle from a rental agency located at the New Orleans Airport.
advised that remained in the New Orleans area while the other team members traveled to WATERFORD.
remained in the area until conducting interviews and reviewing records at LP&L corporate headquarters, they drove to Jackson, MS, and later drove to WATERFORD.
recalled was with the entire time and stated could " guar-antee" that did not travel on any licensee aircraft.
wasinterviewedbyOIA(Attachment 10)and related that from was involved with the investigation at WATERFORD.
recalled that during initial time on site, arrived on site. They remained at WATERFORD for approximately three days, said that was unaware of their mode of travel; however, did not hear any
" talk" of using a licensee's aircraft. According to the travel time from New Orleans to WATERFORD is less than forty minutes and to utilire air travel would be inappropriate, further advised that there are no aircraft landing facilities at WATERFORD or Taft, LA, the municipality adjacent to the plant site.
The Saint Charles Parish Sheriff's Office was contacted by OIA to ascertain if aircraft landing facilities were available in the WATERFORD area. The Sheriff's Office advised that there were no landing sites at WATERFORD or at Taft, LA.
(Attachment 11) was interviewed by 01A (Attachment 12) and advised that traveled from Bethesda, MD, to New Orleans, LA, on two or three occasions. The purpose of the travel was to debrief former LP&L employees. While in the New Orleans, LA, area they stayed at a motel in Kenner LA.
stated never traveled to the WATERFORD site; however, to recollection possibly went to WATERFORD. Their usual mode of travel was via rental vehicle, and to knowledge, neither nor any other employee utilized air travel between New Orleans and WATERFORD.
NRC, was inter-viewed by 01A (Attachment 13) and related that during 1984, made a number of trips to New Orleans, LA, in conjunction with ongoing investigations at WATERFORD.
advised that while in New Orleans, investigators I
p
OmCALlL%0U 4
.e stayed in' a motel in Kenner, LA, and commuted from their motel to WATERFORD via rental vehicle, stated to knowledge no employee ever used air transportation between New Orleans and WATERFORD.
NRC, was interviewed by OIA (Attachment 14) and stated that had been required to travel to WATERFORD'on several occasions. After arrival in New Orleans, LA, all travel in the New Orleans area and to WATERFORD was by rental. vehicle, denied ever utilizing LP&L aircraft to travel between New Orleans and WATERFORD.,
told OIA that on one occasion during either 1984 or 1985, flew on an aircraft operated by the Texas Utilities Generating Company (TUGCO) from Dallas, TX, to an airfield in the vicinity of the COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELEC-TRICSTATION(COMANCHEPEAK). Also on the aircraft were advised that traveled to the Dallas / Fort Worth (DFW) Airport via commercial aircraft and had met at the airport.
To recollection, use of the TUGC0 aircraft had been arranged by recalled that questioned concerning the propriety of traveling on the licensee's aircraft, and told them that there was no problem and the Region would reimburse TUGC0 for the cost of travel, advised the travel was related to an ongoing investigation at COMANCHE PEAK, and on their arrival at the landing strip they were met by a TUGC0 Vice President who transported them to the plant and later returned them to the landing strip.
The party then returned to DFW Airport on the TUGC0 aircraft.
said that to knowledge NRC reimbursed TUGC0 for the travel, and this was the only instance that had utilized a licensee aircraft for travel, was interviewed by OIA (Attachment 15) and related that during made two trips to WATERFORD with On each occasion in New Orleans, LA, and they traveled to WATERFORD via rental vehicle, said was aware of the incident in which traveled to COMANCHE PEAK on the TUGC0 aircraft, had been concerned at the time became aware of the incident, because thought it gave an appearance of impropriety by the NRC staff, advised that had no further knowledge of NRC staff using licensees' aircraf t for travel.
NRC, was interviewed by 0IA (Attachment 16).
advised that the use of licensee aircraft by NRC was " common." According to the Office of the General Counsel (0GC), NRC, had ruled on the use of licensee aircraft and opineo that it was permissible as long as the licensee was reimbursed.
told 01A that for the NRC to reimburse the licensee for travel, the Region involved would have to submit a Purchase Order to the Financial Operations Branch, bbk
0T%.5 E A review by OlA of all Purchase Orders submitted by Region IV, NRC, to the Financial Operations Branch, for the period 1982 through 1985, identified an NRC Order Number TX 84-215, dated April 9, 1984, reimbursing TUGC0 in the amount of $282.75 for air and ground transportation between the DFW Airport and COMANCHE PEAK and return for (Attachment 17).
The amount paid TVGC0 was based on the cost of comercial air travel between DFW and Waco, TX, at a cost of $92.00 per person, round trip, for three people.
TUGC0 was also reimbursed for surface travel between Granbury, TX, and COMANCHE PEAK at a cost of $6.75 (.22t a mile - 30 miles round trip).
Region IV, was interviewed by OIA (Attachment 18) regarding the use of licensee owned aircraft by Region IV employees, advised was unaware of the travel by stated knew of only two occasions curing which Region IV employees used licensee air-craft. The first involved Region IV using an Arkansas Power and Light Company helicopter to survey plant transmission lines. The second was during 1985 and 1986 when Region IV employees used the Houston Power and Light Company (HP&L) shuttle service between Houston ano the South Texas
- Project, told OIA that the Regicn IV employees' use of the shuttle was not an authorized procurement, and the employees were not paying for the service. After discovery of the situation by regional management, the utility was reimbursed for the flights.
(Attachment 19)
At the request of OIA, reviewed all Region-IV purchase orders for the period 1982 through 1987. This review identified the following instances of travel by Region IV employees on licensee aircraft in addition to the April 3, 1984, flight to COMANCHE PEAK.
On November 18, 1982, Region IV reimbursed Nebraska Public Power Company for air transportation provided the and one other Region IV employee between Omaha and Columbus, NE. Cost to the NRC was $500.00.
( Attachment 20)
On May 22, 1985, Region IV reimbursed Arkansas Power and Light Company for NRC's use of the licensee's helicopter to survey plant transmission lines. The cost to the NRC was $700.00.
(Attachment 21)
On June 1, 1987, Region IV reimbursed HP&L for seven helicopter flights occurring between Houston, TX, and the South Texas Project between March 1985 and August 1986. Cost to the hRC was $350.00.
(Attachment 22)
Region IV, by memo-randum dated AprTr <.1, 498N-TAttachment23)informedRegionIVmanagement that had utilized the HP&L shuttle service on four occasions to give testimony curing Atnmic Safety ano LiCEnsiDQ 8Jard hearings.
said that a licensee employee had recommended use the service _t3__ conserve time an_d told that they would biTTthe NRC for the cost of service ($50.00 per round trip).
stated that all the travel occurred in the performance of official NRC duties.
0ff0.
e.
Region IV, by memorandum dated April 23,1987, (Attach-ment 24) advised Region IV management that had utilized the HP&L shuttle service between Houston, TX, and the South Texas Project to cand"r* ma inspection in response to an alleoation.
further advised that a representative of the Peoples Republic of China attached to the NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement as part of an international agreement, had also used the licensee's aircraft.
Region IV, was interviewed by OIA(Attachment 25)andstated recalled the April 3, 1984, trip from the DFW Airport to Granbury, TX. The purpose of the trip was to attend a meeting with TUGC0 management concerning a matter involving TUGC0 quality assurance employees. When questioned by OlA as to who in the NRC arranged for the use of the TUGC0 aircraft, informed OlA that was not involved in makina those arrangenents.
stated that
~
~
arranged for to travel on the
- aircraft, said that when received notice that the meeting was to be held, was at WATERFORD on NRC business, was told of the impending meeting and 1.nformed the NRC staff would be traveling on the TUGC0 aircraft, said that upon their arrival in Granbury, TX, a TUGC0 vehicle picked them up and transported them to COMANCHE PEAK and later returned them to the air field, stated was unaware of any time constraints that required use of the TUGC0 aircraft, and General Services Administration vehicles were available for the NRC employees to travel to the plant. After returned to Region IV, arranged for the necessary paperwork to reimburse TUGC0 for the cost of travel.
An OIA review of Travel Voucher 4N909, submitted by on June 1, 1984, (Attachment 26) disclosed that departed from DFW on April 1, 1984, to Bethesda, MD.
departed Bethesda, MD, on April 2, 1984, and traveled to New Orleans, LA, on NRC business. On April 3, 1984, arrived at DFW at 10:10 a.m. and departed via " charter plane" for Granbury, TX.
arrived at 11:30 a.m.
left Granbury the same day and arrived at 0FW at 4:40 p.m.
The Request and Authorization for Official Travel attached to the Travel Youcher, reflected that amended request to include official business in New Orleans.
Travel Voucher No. 4R035, submitted by on May 11, 1984, (Attach-ment 27) reflected that traveled from DFW on April 3,1984, to Granbury, TX, via " chartered aircraft" and returned to DFW the same day. The attached Request and Authorization for Official Travel reflected the esti-mated cost of travel as $285.00 to cover the cost of air and ground travel from DFW to COMANCHE PEAK on April 3,1984, for The travel authorization was requested by and approved by inexplicably, _
claimed $6.14 for travel via privately owned vehicle (POV) between branoury, TX, adCUMAlttttE-PEAK. TU600-had-already been reimbiirsed $6.75 for the Found transportation on Purchase Order TX-84-215.
(Attachment 17) was reintervir.wed by 01A (Attachment 28) and was requested to (l00101 Al 1100 f)W V
oxcntgon review the travel documentation submitted by advised that based on the documentation reviewed, the cost of reimbursing TUGC0 for use of the aircraft was an authorized procurement.
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), NRC), was interviewed by OIA (Attach-ment 29) and acknowledged that in 1984, trav-eled on an aircraft operated by TUGC0 from DFW Airport to Granbury. TX. Upon arrival at Granbury. TX, a TUGC0 vehicle picked them up and transported them to COMANCHE' PEAK.
told OlA that during this period NRC had received a number of allegations from utility employees at COMANCHE PEAK, had been involved in a number of conversations with allegers, and had convinced the allegers to meet with a senior manager from TUGCO.
In addition, because of the number of employee concerns received, NRR had scheduled a major unannounced inspection of the facility.
advised that had contacted TUGCO, and asked to meet with the NRC staffMhe plant site.
recalled that had wanted all the participantM to arrive on site together.
This posed a considerable logistical problem. Although was not certain, opined that possibly suggested that they travel together to the site on the utility's corporate aircraft.
stated, although was not certain that had volunteered the use of the utility's aircraft, was sure that no one on the NRC staff had asked for use of the aircraft, contacted at WATERFORD, informed of the impending meeting at COMANCHE PEAK, and askeo that accompany the staff on the trip.
recalled that at sometime during the trip, questioned concerning the propriety of using the TUGC0 aircraf t, told there was no problem, that Region IV would reimburse TUGC0 for the cost of travel, was reinterviewed by 01A (Attachment 30) and related that was not involved in arranging for the use of the TUGC0 aircraft, opined that possibly suggested they travel together on the aircraft, could not recall the purpose of the trip to COMANCHE PEAK; however, the NRC staff and met with a group of allegers on site, and the staff and discussed the employees' concerns.
related that upon their arrival at DFW, in the main terminal, and drove them to the Butler Aviation Teminal (comuter teminal) where they boarded the TUGC0 aircraf t.
They landed on a dirt strip in the vicinity of the plant where they were met by a TUGC0 Vice President who drove them to the plant in his oersonal vehicle.
stated that while on board the aircraft, both asked about the appropriateness of traveling on the utility aircraft.
told them that Region IV would reimburse the utility for the cost of the travel.
TUGCO, was interviewed by 01A (Attachment 31) and stated recollection of the matter was that on Apri'. 2. 1984, secretary received a telephone call from told the secretary that were traveling to COMANCHE PEAK on h h.
8-gm.USE DV April 3,1984, and wanted to meet with on site.
explained that at the time of this call was out of the office on travel and secretary later contacted in east Texas and informed of call.
- tated later contacted and confinned that would be available for the meeting the following day.
l said that later received a call from
, who asked if would be flying to COMANCHE PEAK.
stated told iiad intended to fly to the plant, and asked if could accompany on the TUGC0 aircraft, said that the driving time from Dallas', TX, to the plant is approximately two hours and normally flies to the site.
explained that TUGC0 operates a Beechcri.ft King Air aircraft which has the capability of landing on small landing strips, emphasized that did not ask to operate the aircraft solely for the purpose of providing transportation for the NRC employees.
only asked if the NRC employees could accompany on the aircraft.
said that the following day met with at the DFW airport, and they departed via the TUGC0 aircraft to COMANCHE PEAK. They landed at a site approximately twenty miles from the plant, were picked up in an unmarked utility vehicle, and driven to the plant.
advised that while on site they spoke with plant employees. The group returned to DFW that afternoon via the TUGC0 airplane.
, OGC, NRC, was interviewed by OI A regarding the propriety of NRC employees utilizing utility aircraft for travel (Attach-ment 32),
saio that 10 CFR 0.735-42 is the applicable regulation.
This regulation precludes the use of free transportation by NRC employees, opined that if the NRC reimbursed the utility for the cost of travel there was no violation.
told OIA that if the use of a licensee dirCraft beCame routine or occurred on a regular basis as in the Case of a utility operating a " commuter" flight, then OGC would want to take "another look" at the issue.
advised was unaware of any frequent use of utility aircraft by NRC employees and that office received one or two calls annually regarding this issue.
l further advised that the NRC practice of reimbursing a utility for the cost of air travel on the basis of what it would cost the government for commercial air travel to transport thJ employee to the same destination was erroneous.
office had received an opinion from the Office of Government Ethics that the cost should be prorated based on the cost incurred by the utility to operate the aircraft.
advised that to knowledge there is no written guidance and this opinion had been provided verbally.
Office of Administration and Resources Management, NRC, was interviewed by OIA (Attachment 33) and related that normally the utility would submit a bill to the Regional office for any transportation provided to NRC employee (s).
The Regional office in turn would initiate a Purchase Order for payment to the utility.
In the event a bill was not received from the utility by the NRC, the Regional office would compute the cost of travel based on the approximate cost of comercial air travel to the site or to the nearest location.
nmtm W.OC
9-r' n USE ON.Y
~
CONCLUSIONS OIA's inquiry did not substantiate the original allegation concerning using a licensee's aircraf t to travel between New Orleans, LA. and WATERFORD.
l L
However DIA learned that in April 1986, accompanied in a TUGC0 owned airplane from DFW Airport to the vicinity of Granbury, TX.
Upon landing in Granbury, TX, traveled with to COMANCHE PEAK in ground transportation provided by TUGCO. The return trip to DFW Airport was completed in the same manner. The purpose of the NRC visit to COMANCHE PEAK was to talk to a group of TUGC0 j
employees who were thought to have concerns pertaining to COMANCHE PEAK.
OIA's inquiry substantiated that NRC reimbursed TUGC0 for the cost of the air and ground transportation between DFW~ Airport and COMANCHE PEAK. Con-sequently, there was no violation of the proscription in 10 CFR 0.735.42 concerning the use of free transportation by NRC employees. However, OIA believes that, in light of the purpose of the trip to COMANCHE PEAK, i.e. to talk to utility employees about concerns they may have pertaining to COMANCHE i
PEAK, the travel arrangements used by the NRC officials may have created the appearance of a loss of complete independence and impartiality on the part of NRC. OIA believes the Executive Director for Operations, in conjunction with the Office of the General Counsel, should issue guidance to the NRC staff concerning when the use of transportation provided by licensees is appro-priate.
During its inquiry. OIA noted that NRC reimbursed TUGC0 for the cost of the air and surface transportation between DFW Airport and COMANCHE PEAK.
It appeared, however, that NRC incorrectly calculated the cost to the government for the round trip. NRC reimbursement to TUGC0 was based on the cost for comercial air transportation for the same round trip.
Instead, NRC should have reimbursed TUGC0 an amount calculated by pro-rating the actual cost of the trip to TUGC0 among all passengers in the airplane, ckIN a
t
~
Lyle 5. Smith, Investigator Office of Inspector and Audit Attachments:
See next page OffiCMSE 0d
.. QC{l% hk ATTACHMENTS 1.
Memorandum from MULLEY to CONNELLY, dated June 24, 1987 2.
Report of Interview of Confidential Source, dated June 25, 1987 3.
10 CFR 0.735.42(c), dateo January 1,1986 4.
Report of Interview of
, dated June 25, 1987 5.
Report of Interview of FAA. dateo June 25, 1987 6.
Report of Interview of
, dated July 17, 1987 7.
Report of Interview of
, dated July 30, 1987 8.
Report'of Interview of
.. dated July 30, 1987 9.
Report of Interview of
, dated June 23, 1987
- 10. Report of Interview of
, dated June 29, 1987 11.
Report of Interview of Saint Charles Parish Sheriff's Office, dated June 30, 1987
- 12. Report of Interview of
, dated July 30, 1987
- 13. Report of Interview of
, dated July 14, 1988
- 14. Report of Interview of
, dated July 30, 1987
- 15. Report of Interview of
, dated July 1, 1987 16.
Report of Interview of
, dated June 30, 1987
- 17. Purchase Order TX-84-215, dated April 9,1984 18.
Report of Interview of
, dated July 14, 1987
- 19. Memorandum from for
, dated May 14, 1987
- 20. Purchase Order TX-83-028, dated November 18, 1982
- 21. Purchase Order TX-85-286, dated May 22, 1985
- 22. NRC Form 34, cated May 5, 1987
- 23. Memorandum from to
, dated April 21, 1987
-24.
Memorandum from for
, dateo April 23, 1987
- 25. Report of Interview of
, dated May 6, 1988
- 26. Travel Voucher, Authorization No. 4N909, dated June 1,1984
- 27. Travel Voucher, Authorization No. 4R035, dated May 11, 1984
- 28. Report of Interview of
, dated July 1, 1988-
- 29. Report of Interview of
, dateo July 11, 1988
-30.
Report of Interview of
, dated July 13, 1988
- 31. Report of Interview of
, dated December 1, 1988
- 32. Report of Interview of
.. dated July 10, 1987
- 33. Report of Interview of
, dated December 2, 1988 gyrit\\u.unDM
77 s
T
\\
s p
+g* *'o,h, w
UNITED $TATES 8-
[,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
]
a
}
wassiwoTow. o. c. rosss i
\\...../
m 2 uw l
1 V
P.EMORANDUM FOR:
Sharon R. Connelly, Director Office of Inspector and Auditor l
FPOM:
George A. f4ulley, Jr., Assistant Director for Investigations Office of Inspector and Auditor
SUBJECT:
ALLEGED IMPPOPRIETY PY NRC OFFICIAL On June 2, 1987, while talking to an NRC employee on an unrelated L
matter, the employee told me that he was surprised over recent remarks by t
with respect to the actions of The employee insinuated that should be careful about throwing stones if lives in a i
glass house. The employee then alluded to an incident during which l
reportedly accepted a ride on a corporate airplane during an official NRC trip. The employee stated that there certainly was an appearance of t
l impropriety in accepting the ride. The employee provided no additional detail.
l On June 5,1987, I contacted the NRC employee and asked for additional details. The employee stated heard "through the grapevine" from several employees that several years ago during the NRC inspections / investigations at the Waterford Nuclear Power Plant, had accepted a ride in a Louisiana Power and Light plane from New Orleans, Louisiana to the Waterford site. Apparently, the questioned the appropriateness of this action. The NRC employee could provide l-no further infonnation concerning the plane ride and had no knowledge of the circumstances surrounding either the offer or acceptance of the ride by t
i.
The NRC employee emphasized that did not want name released in any E
context in connection with this allegation.
\\
L
.M l
l eor
. Mu ley, g., Assistant Director for Investigations Office of Inspector and Auditor l
j 1
l ATTACHMENT 1 3\\
L
y~
[hL U $ NUCLt AR RtGUL ATORY coMMI$5 ton w a e momo n A.,o,o.
June 25, 1987
- ... v....u.....
Report of Interview Confidential Source was contacted by telephone reoarding an alleca-
,U.S. Nuclear tion that Regulatory Comission (NRC), may have traveled from New Orleans, LA, to the WATERFORD NUCLEAR POWER PLANT (WATERFORD) on an aircraft owned by the licensee which operatWs WATERFORD.
allegedly was in New Orleans in connection with an of matters related to WATERFORD, at a time when things at WATERFORD "were heating up."
An assigned to the who was apparently with in New Orleans was reportedly unccmfortable with HAYES accepting transportation from the licensee (Louisiana Power and Light [LP&L]). CS related essentially the following information:
thought it was ironic when CS learned that
, in
, because CS had general, about accepted transportation from a licensee heard that
. More specifically, CS heard (CS could not recall from whom) that An.
traveled from New Orleans to WATERFORD on an aircraft owned by LP&L. in New Orleans on that occasion was reportedly uncomfortable with accepting transportation from the licensee.
CS did not want to characterize this information as an allegation but rather as an "off-the-cuff" remark which he/she made to the Assistant Director for Investigations (A0/l), Offhe of Inspector and Auditor (0IA). CS is not certain that the situation described above occurred in New Orleans or that LP&L was involved. The situation may have occurred in a different geograph-ical location and it may have involved another licensee. CS will contact the AD/1, 01 A, if additional information is recalled.
June 9, 1987 Bethesda, MD 18/-31
..=
June 25, 1787 Mark Resner g
~~
nmenu-tL::.':u...u;; w:: w:1 ; u.a.u': = r. :
0ECIMM IN N Y ATTACHMENT 2
~
M usual activities of esmployees, auch as 0 9.736-43 (fee of 6 stamiens propesey.
stGyee's oClee e.r 46eesten ased utth Lane b,a
- me,t.a.e isans.
An esenployee shall not directly or in-m t
~ ~et - -
.r e
,. e.eee s
t., s.n.
m,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,, n,,,e84 kW ***
449 Amestance of unee46 cited adver.
48tectly use. or allow the une of. Gov.
l pasyees et m seeman, and th f
--as - assem tas taming or prosmotaenal smoter% auch as wasment property of any kind. includ-f
.w>cetans derect!F M 48me P n-.n eessy., er 1
asusst soortre the wetWe auta*ertamtaen pistese desmaan ansee aher ansra -8 p,,,,,,,,gg,,,,g, g
ins property leased to the Govern-w k
i et me bered of thett office bedece en-corposesaass, m _ n er ammesensame seem Ottner items of nominal intrinale wale ment. f67 other than officially ap-I m ist imethttles covered by parm-past la auch project, et ansch smessedism&.cor.
and proved activttles. An employee has a o
j
=-e=a n
by
**** *f 8'**8 h*d '"ren part as the esset-(5) Acceptance of transpor menaa not positive duty to protect and conserve poresHn. an c n er grasets fait 2h and (b) of this asetaen-e f
]
"Fhe head et the eunployee's office assamat et same - emersF Deeeresa, me*
$secesam&asant es** h the pg cavladens of Governement property.
IMlud q W
e es==y has decaseen senait cesp g"*
paragraph (c) of this accllen-esautpsment, supplies, and other proper-(c) No croployee shall accept free ty entrusted or leaued to him.
1 anett with the c Z-or deputy
,g suserws sa see apartric transportsh in m vehicles air-sounseter.
S4.735-44 Steadm8s,ese condert.
l
(;) Entsam fler reemebearnessnesnts for eE" neands upon menach eessh nac=as== entry. or craft. Or other smeans, for official or 1
persos of trawet and meth other nasce6-as**4ennent as
===h.
and anstensensent se i
unofficial purposes fross NRC contrac-No employee shall enaase in criml-
%? 30. leu. mande ansch n -rs==
- eetry, to be form. prospective costtractern, licensees nat. Infamous. dishonest, immoral, or aary assementestre smay be accepted tt G s er ah'=ot er caused tame amam*
It is not pP_M by paragraph (a) smaste for snas, or tea, or tancer sewint-or prospective Ilcensees, or representa-notoriously disgraceful conduct or j
i et th4s sectnest @ if rek*naturnemment tives of any of thesen when such trans-other conduct prejudicial to the Gov.
feesa Line sequersipent is snet reoived;
~
portation might reasonthly be inter-ernsunent.
g l
ased W 8t la snot ptmerited by Doctaien h
preted as oceking to influence the im-I j
D 130837 of tise Cr' _a General (a) Eacept as provided in paragraph partiality of tis t employee or the S4.735-45 Esmployee Indcheedne.n.
e i
deasd tensch 't.1647.or otherwise pro-(D) wr tel cf th&s esctiost aan esophoVee agencE Except as provided in 5 0.735-42(d) htb68ed by leer. Qesestaoses eencernens anos;4d not non cst or accept. directly or (d) An traphjee e. hall not solicit a the NRC considers the credit af fairs of 1
f applicateen of the Ceseptrealer Oeper-mM anf, A gW.L favor, en-contribution hosu mother esaployee its employees essentia!!y their own
}
at*o doces6est atteund be referred to the terta*=.surnt. loan, w any emer thing for a gift to an c!&E superior, snake concern. However, employees are ex.
i ceusteeler. Mosever, thts parasreph of anoneta y value, fresa a person who' a donation to an offletant superior, or pected to conduct their credit affairs I
dose seet allow ast esapioyee to be Felse-4D Has, or $s arektses to cintat:L con
- accept a gift frora an en.Moyee receiv-in a manner which Ges not reflect ad-l bearned er payement to be mande on h,Is tramal or other busaneas or financial ing less pay thals hin.self (S USC.
versely on the Government as their 4
betaalf, for enceashe ynz--*
!!vlag I
espesness, gifts, entert ' -' %t.
or sen.tions with NRC; 7351) nor sawl! ar. emp'opee directly employer. The NRC will not be placed
<33 Conducts
-.va-or actsvities or indirectly aollett frc n. accept frosa, in the position of acting as a collection other 9 beenefsta.
j aan) Ass ennaleyse $s not procteded by that are regulated by NRC or la en ap-offer to, or grant to an official weert-asency for private debts or of deter.
l l
Lanis emetaan or i G.736-43 fress' ptimne for a license frosa NRC or or or subordinate esmoloyee a loan of mining the validity or amount of con-i i
t1) partsetgutaen 1st the affairs of or (38 Nas latersets that may be sub-s,nore than a nosannat amount. Howev-tested debts to private concerna. An i
acceptance 6f an assard for a snesatert-atenually affected by the performance, er this paragraph does not prohibit-employee is exp-cted to pay each just 1
or nonperfornmarte* ol has official duty.
(I) A voluntary gtkt of nosalnal va:ue financial obligat!on in a proper and I
or donation in a an==tnal asmount timely smanner, especially one imposed eess anate contribeataoa or achaewe-seneset gewest by a charttable, reldgaenas.
(bs The fo!)owing exceptions are au-by law such as Federat. State. or local i
- r
~ t arcial, fraternal, nonprof-thortaed as being necessary and appro-l sande on a special occas6en auch as taEes. Pallure on the part of an em-gg
---(
w d * --t pulalic priate in view of the nature of the snarriage. Illness. or retiremment, or (2) estwtee. er civic erger.cpataea.
NRC*a werk and the duties and re-a loan as described above of smore than ployee althout good reason to honor
-- - - -***== of its esapioyeesc a nosninal==aamt where a special pen *. Just financial obligations or te make or adhere to antamfactory arransements sonal or h=h===
relationship is in.
j 8,8,",",g"g*,*,',','"s*,g ",*e.$ as ag _ 1) When the circuanstances make it i
for settlement saay be cause for dtses-clear that it as obvsous fasally or per-volved. with pesor approval of the plinary action. For the purpose of this a s. se. ases; ge put vese. asar. a. sess. es aosnel r-n=na==haf= (such as tha=* be* i hisher-ranking eenployee's r_ ;.. /. sectlan, a "just financial obilgation~
i yet sesee. nec sa. sess; es ya assas, asas.
tween the parenta, ettildress, or accuse after consultation with the couamelor means one anckmwtedged by the em-t.twrt es P a ttilt. Ort. 33.tesal of Etne eenployee and the esaployeel for NRC. or a deputy counselor, as playee or reduced to judsment by a Cc7as-se mesume of h rather thast the biasesness of the per-prowsded an S 4.7303(h). A copy of court, and "In a proper and timely aoses meeerned uttlch are me motivat-such approval shall be filed as provid-sananner maneans in a manner which per tane pearpose of furtanestas a prl.
ed for in 5 0.736-38(eM 11).
NRC determines does not. under the las factors.
geg, gatesset, est employee egnait anot, W ""f'an== of feed' ased ufseelt-(e) An esmoloyee shall not accept a
- I'#""*"*"*"
I "I
o-nsument - the inevidue"s em-I eneopt as pseelded ist S 4.736-48(dt. di -
meants of seemanal v.aleae en Istfmgaaent-m the - istery course of a ming
,,ose a,oreign
,o asment >=> -
gift. present, decoratiosa, er ettner rectly er,ta,eseetly use, or allow Staeu.e e,. e,,,a, in,er, sat a ob.te,n.ed ha.cheon - di - m e=n. - ea-, - author d b, congre.s a. -
l i
omroeg.t er in e n.com. w.
t.s i
meeting er en est lampaction uw wided by the Constituttort and in Pub.
Les yst st717.oct.22. ledal Osmoorenameent aangleyuneunt ettecen has wtnere est osapioyee may property be M L.96-196,91 Stat. 802.
c a.aa.,
..es.
i.ner.
seat, boom. mad. n.ha. go.tane ge,neral - --a -
,,s,,,c.
se a
- a. coon.
one a - =. - r m. -
a._
.norg,,et e, i
.a e UtC m A.eeptasace of - f- =asas e.co.a a,. w e ased an.e. red w out- -n =~ns e- <:s; ' ran i,.>, w,,t=g.=,=;,'"t ;>';
.n. - lo,ee shat! _t pa, tic,,at,.
4
-*vnsenettowned or. leased tenda ** wttlete provides as 8^Ha-temary terans to N N FR 30088.Juane 21.19861 wnlle a i
i suas e-es-o I
am.~.....
OFRCAE M U s nucle An af GULafomy CoMMillioN O't te o' moec.o. ene Ago.o.
June 25, 1987
,Peport of interview Middle South Services, Inc., was contacted by telephone to ascertain what records employer maintained for flights of corporate aircraft from New Orleans, LA to WATERFORD NUCLEAR POWEP PLANT (WATERFORD).
provided essentially the following information:
Records of some type are maintained to account for flights of corporate aircraft from New Orleans.
However, the normal mode of transportation between New Orleans and the WATERFORD site is vehicle.
The tt4p by vehicle is approximately forty minutes, and it would not be economical or practical to will pursue use a corporate aircraft for that particular trip, researching any such records if the Office of Inspector and Auditor believes it is necessary.
i June 9, 1987 Bethesda, MD 187v31 June 25, 1987 Mark E. P.esner
'..'?#: D;/,'"i" *; sY '.*U;M'# ;i tT.'? ' t'.'f : W., ?. iPis'TJ. ;'.'.'" " " : "" " '"
iOEbf,k h h ATT ACHMENT 4
y w- -
DELEM U s NUCLL AR A(GUL Af oAY Commission O't te it' 6Moect o' eM Awo to-June 25, 1987 a..............__..._...____
Report of interview The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) New Orleans, LA, was contacted by telephone (504 466 9746) to ascertain if the FAA maintains any flight manifest /p ssenger lists for flights of corporate aircraft which departed New Orleans during the 1982-1987 time frame.
An individual in the FAA's Local Coordinator's Office related essentially the following information:
There are approximately 300,000 flights a year departing New Orleans, and it would be too cumbersome to maintain a repository of such records pertaining to those flights. Therefore, the FAA only maintains records for that type of information for a period of ninety days following the flight.
k k
June 9, 1987 Bethesda, MD 187-31 June PS, 1987 Mark E. Resner
- .',wcn;a"c :;,. ::v.n;::w:=OkY ; :,uw.s:'.:.:
.=
y-nmma E m ac m ur s
I L
U $ NUCL( AR AtoVL AfoRY commit $ ton O't ce n' iaspec'o' eae Ave to-a...,.............__......_.._
Report of Interview Region !!, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Atlanta, GA, was inter-viewed by OIA en July 17, 1987, regarding purported travel to the WATEP"^^9 NUCLEAR POWER PLANT with
, NRC.
rel ed e intially the following.
- vised that during the period 1983 through 1985, had conducted an exta 4 A invest'agation at the WATERFORD plant and that
,a said that during 1985, accompanied on a trip to WATERFORD and that they had traveled to the plant via rental vehicle, advised that personally had never traveled on a licensee aircraft and that to knowledge has never traveled on any licensee aircraft, concluded the interview by saying that while assigned to the has not heard any " talk" among theti' employees concerning having traveled on a licensee aircraft.
~
July 17, 1987 Region 11 187-31
.=
Lyle B. Smith, investigator gf, July 17, 1987
- .w.c cn;r.T':;. v::u :::;n U w.c. M': u.; *::,,?. ;r:3?.r.'n" " " '" "'"
nettMM MI gg A m csMENT 6
SmClAE 00
)
U s 8WucLt An at cut Atomy coMMt55 ton
)
0 t ce os inspec oe sac Ago io.
I July 30, 1987
]
i Report of Interview U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) Bethesda, MD was interviewed by OIA 30,1987, regarding purported travel with on July NRC from New Orleans, LA to the WATERFORD NUCLEAR POWER PLAhT (WATERFORD).
related essentially the following, advised that during March 1985, and met in Kenner, LA a suburb of New Orleans, LA ad,lacent to the New Orleans airport.
They remained in the arca for a week during which they made a number 5
of trips to the WATERFORD site using two rental vehicles obtained from an airport rental agency.
recalled that at the time had remained in the New Orleans area while the rest of the team traveled to WATERFORD. Sometime later, arrived at WATERFORD staying only a short time and returned to Kenner, LA. According to none of the personnel has used air transportation during the week as there were no air-craft landing facilities in the imediate area of the WATERFORD plant.
July 30, 1987 Bethesda, MD 157-31 l
4 July 30, 1987 Lyle B. Smith, Investigator m::=u=a=.=.m.= = =.:
--.-inm itet M Y ATTACHMENT
- l
...***y O.,p.,,..rrious e
- udt.i I
U s NUCLt A A at out Af oRY Commission
- .. ce ne rio co, re a o,o.
July 30, 1987
""'""* ** - - ~ ~ ~ ~
Report of Int,erview l
Region !!, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission (NRC) Atlanta, GA was inter-viewed by OIA on July 30, 1987, and related essentially the following.
advised that to knowledge none of the assigned to had ever traveled on a licensee owned aircraft, and that is certain would have been apprised of the f6ct if this occurred.
stated that had no knowledge of having accepted free air transportation on a licensee curporate aircraft.
July 30, 1987 Bethesda, MD 187-31
/
Lyle B. Smith, Investigator July 30, 1987
.. di... s c -... w.
5 ::s is s..i s
,i : 5....i-
- 5 : : c. v. s. s..e.t.- :....:
s :i -i. :i s.. m.:
.s
- :. t v s:. o -, -..
.. s s. : :.. s :.: :.
hN ATTACHMENT 8
._=,._.;.. =
)
BBRllSE 0M
.\\
U s NUCLI AR Rf oVL ATomv coMuissiON O'l t. M lasDec'o, ant' Awo 'O' a..,
1 Report of Interview U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consission) was interviewed by OIA on June 23. 1987.
ef ter being apprised of the purpose of this interview related essen-tially the following, was a informed OIA that during the periodthat conducted an investigation at the L departed Power and Light Company's GP&L) WATERFORD NUCLEAR POWER PLANT.
Region I, NRC, on March 5,1985, arriving in New Orleans LA the same date, joined the at the Best Western Motel located in Kenner, LA a suburb obtained a of New Orleans. On March 6, 1985, per instructions of rental vehicle from an airport rental agency, l
remained in the New Orleans area, reviewing advised that LP&L records and interviewing former employees while the traveled to the WATERFORD plant. On March 11, 1985, drove to said that although could not be certain, Jackson, MS.
left Jackson, MS and drove to WATERFORD where they stayed for one day and on returned to New Orleans with the entire team in two rental March 12, 1985, vehicles.
during concluded the interview by saying that could their entire stay in the New Orleans and Waterford area, and thath
" guarantee' that entire period.
l
!87-31 BethesderMO Jv,,e 20, 1907
' ' June-23r1987
'tyt'e T.* Smithrin gafto g
ga ;t
- t sc. A * *
'*le gg * * ;*,:s.
t.. s et;*.
s
- a nrriNni IMG ONl muwn i
U $ Nuctt&R Rt GULAfomv commission O't ce o' iasom o' she Awo to-gg a... s............._ __._,..,___
Report of Interview
, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission (NRC) NRC),was interview by.01A on June 29,1987, regarding this allegation, related essentially the following.
advised that After being apprised of the purpose of this interview, WATERFORD from April 1984 until August 11, 1986, the date the final Report of Investigation was signed out.
Upon arrival at WATERFORD during April 1984, remained on site for approximately five weeks. The investigation was complex in nature and involved forty by the licensee, cheating on licensing examinations and altering of utility records.
Following initial five weeks on site, and thereafter returned to WATERFORD every three months to continue the investigations, stated that during initial time on site, arrived at the WATERFORD site. They remained at the plant for said that was unaware approximately three days and then departed.
of the method of transportation utilized to drive to or depart from WATERFORD,
- however, has not heard any " talk" concerning using a licensee aircraft to travel to WATERFORD.
advised that the travel time from New Orleans, LA to WATERFORD is less than forty minutes and utilization of an aircraft for this duration would be further explained that there are no aircraft landing inappropriate, facilities at WATERFORD or Taft, t.A. the municipality located closest to WATERFORD.
June 79,1987 Bethesda, MD 16/-41 June 29, 1987
....,,2 1.yle B. Smith, Investigat
- .w:enu a:u:: :e x;:.r.=. ;, -==.w
-.....mr nui v 3113cm,,,c,y in
l H A. USE ON.Y U s NUCLE AR R(GUL ATORY COMMi$siON c'i n.9 iaweno.
A o io.
June 30, 1987 a...,...........,._._.__.
Report of Interview The Saint Charles Parrish Sherif f's Office was contacted by OIA to ascertain if aircraft landing facilities wer(: available in the area of the WATERFORD NUCLEARPOWERPLANT(WATERFORD).
The Sheriff's office representative OIA spoke with advised that there are no landing fields in the area of the WATERFORD plant. The actual plant site has no landing field and the municipality of Taft, LA located closest to the plant does not have aircraft landing facilities.
i-Jun: 30, 1987 BethesdarMD
!SI-31 June-30r4987 tyWB'.' Smith;-Invertigator-
...e
-. s
. ;....i :
..: s:siss.. s:
,,: 5.,, i:
3 :c, vi s. s..,,.-
.. n :-
s>n : :..s:..: :.
i i _i. :i s. isc 4
v u :
- t
--.osf ATTACHMEf4T 11
~
Off C A. USE ONLY U $ NUCLE AR R(oVL Af 0mv COMMisseON 0.i ce n. me,eo, re a o o.
July 30, 1987 s
a............... _ _
Report of Interview
, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC), Bethesda, MD was interviewed by OIA on July 30, 1987, regarding purported travel with
, NRC, to the WATERFORD NUCLEAR POWER PLANT (WATERFORD).
related essentially the following.
told O!A that had traveled with from Bethesda, MD to New Orleans, LA on two or three occasions.
The purpose of the travel was to de-brief fonner Louisiana Power and Light Company employees and while in the New Orleans area they stayed in a motel in Kenner, LA.
advised that personally had never traveled to the WATERFORD plant.
recalled that possibly on one occasion might have traveled to the plant. The usual mode of travel was via rental vehicle and to knowledge',
had not utilized air travel between New Orleans and the WATERFORD plant, i
Jvly-307-1087 ScthesderMD IS741 "L)TeT.' Smtthr-Investigator
'* July-30r1987
- m m u =,:.:
=...n. :. =.i.
-=, = =.w
. ~
~
ash \\f ATTACHvENT 12
- ~. -
OfflCIALllSE ONLY U $ NUCLE An at cutafomv CoMMi$$ son
':n t, e mpoc o. ee Aeo on.
......... July 14, 1988 Report of Interview
, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) was interviewed by OIA on July 14, 1988 regarding this allegation.
related essentially the following.
advised that during 1984 made a number of trips to New Orleans, LA explained that during as part of an office was heavily comitted to a number of investigations this time the involving the Louisiana Power and Light Company (LP&L) at the WATERFORD plant, stated that while in the New Orivans area and the other stayed at a Best Western Motti located in Kenner, LA a suburb of New According to Orleans in close proximity to the New Orleans airport.
the team personnel comuted from Kenner, LA to WATERFORD daily and the mode of transportation was by rental car.
advised that to knowledge no personnel,
, had ever used air transportation between Kenner, LA and WATERFORD.
I had t
was aware of the incident in which the l.
traveled on a Texas Utilities Generating Company (TUGCO) aircraft from the Dallas /ft. Worth airport to COMANCHE PEAK, however, did not know that 1RC had accompanied on the flight.
187-31 July 14, 1988 Region IV July 14, 1988 Lyle B. Smith, investigator g,
?.W/ :.l Tal "i.','IIe.Y '.* * '. l.Y.'5 u l'C !. ' %
[f.i ?.i."l'C. ! *.':T"'"*"
~
ggQh ATTACHMENT 13
_=
FCIA.USE ON.Y U s NucLt An atoul Atony CoMMi15 eon O't ce e intec'o' av Awo sce i
a...,.~..o....._.__.
Report of Interview
, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (hRC), was interviewed by OlA on June 30, 1987, regarding this allegation.
related essentially the following.
was advised of legal rights by OlA and subsequently executed the standard OIA criminal rights waiver.
was aware of this OIA investigation that approximately told 01A that am-three weeks ago had received a call from a ployed by a consultant fire under contract to the Louisiana Power and Light Company (LP&L).
asked if had ever flown on a LP&L told that had not.
told i
corporate aircraft to which did not want to have to go through a bunch of records which was that reason for calling I
had made several trips to New Orleans, LA and to WATERFORD.
(
- aid denied ever utilizing a licensee aircraft for travel and that the mode
(
f of travel used was rental vehicle.
, although denying having used LP&L aircraft for travel between New Orleans, LA and the WATERFORD plant, informed CIA that on one occasion some-time during either 1984 or 1985, had flown on a corporate aircraft operated by Texas utilities Generating Company (TUGCO) from Dallas, TX to COMANCH said that in addition to and later returned to Dallas on the aircraft.
TUGC0 were passen -
gets on the aircraft.
advised that had met at the airport and that to recollection had arrsnged for the use of recalled that had questioned the licensee aircraft, concerning the propriety of traveling on the licensee aircraft and had told them it was not unusual that there was no problem and According that that the utility would voucher the region for the cost of travel.
the aircraft landed at a dirt strip outside the plant possibly in the A TUGC0 Vice President had picked them up and tovicinity of Granbury, TX.
transported them to the plant and later returned them to the landing strip.
advised that the party had returned to Dallas on the aircraft, knowledge the regional office had reinibursed the said that to utility for the cost of travel and that this was the only instance in which has traveled on any licensee aircraft.
187-31 July 30, 1987 Bethesda, MD July 30, 1987 Lyle B. Smith, Investigator.
- .Y!!cD; A"t":; 4' ' ';Y.N N001,'d'.'!i.: 'MR?t2 '"Y " " "*"
f ATTACHMENT 14 emnai 1Rf MO
0FCIA. l4E ONLY U $ NUCLL AR Rf GUL ATOmv commission I
? e n e mmo, re Aoo io.
July 1, 1987 Report of Interview
, was interviewed by OIA on travel with July 1, 1987, regarding U.S. Kuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC).
related essentially the following.
advised that was employed with when further advised that had traveled to the WATERFORD NUCLEAR POWER PLANT said that on two occasions. On both trips met (WATERFORD)within New. Orleans, LA and they traveled to and returned to New 3
WATERFORD via rental vehicle.
informed OlA that was eware of the incident in which I
had used a licensee aircraft for travel f rom l
According l
Dallas /Ft. Worth (DFW) airport to Granbury. TX and return to DFW.
j was " irritated' 4t the time was required to travel to the to was further concerned as felt that by COMANCHE PEAK site by vehicle, usirig a licensee aircraft the NRC staff was giving an appearance of impro-priety.
was aware of in which NRC stated that this was the only intitance said that the HOUSTON employees had traveled on a licensee aircraft, LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY. Houston, TX operated a helicopter shuttic service from Houston to the utility's SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT GENERATING STATION and advised that to anyone who buys a ticket can travel on the aircraft.
knowledge no one had used the utility service for travel.
l l
167-31 July W 7
/
s.ese w s*
1*
July 1, 1987 Lyle B.' Smith, Investigator
- .w:=:r a:: y. :e -nu.n2=d;,,;un.:::u.w
~
- y. m,W.1.E O ATTACarENT
. - - ~ _ - -
l i
0FC At USE OLY V s NUCLL AR AlGUL ATomv CoMMi15 eon
- <, s.wc o. n A a.,,
yg 3
},g, Report of Interview U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), was interviewed by OIA on June 30, 1987, regarding any payments to the Texas Utilities Generating Company (TUGCO) in reimbursement for air travel provided from the Dallas /Ft. Worth (DFW) airport to the COMANCHE PEAK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT and return to DFW, related essentially the following.
advised that use of licensee aircraf t by NRC employees was "comon" that the NRC Office of General Counsel (OGC) had ruled on the issue and opined that it was permissible as long as the licensee was reimbursed for the said that in order for the NRC to reimburse a licens-cost of travel.
ee for travel, the regional office would have to submit a purchase order to l
the NRC Financial Operations Branch.
l provided OlA office files containing all purchase orders submitted
\\
An OIA review of the
(
by Region IV, NRC for the period 1982 through 1985.
purchase orders identified NRC Form 103C, dated April 9,1984, reimbursing TUGC0 in the amount of $282.75 for air and ground travel between DFW and The cost of air travel was COMANCHE PEAK for computed on the projected cost of comercial air travel between DFW and Waco, l
In addition, TUGC0 was reimbursed for ground travel between the landing TX, field and plant site (5.22 a mile 30 miles).
i
!E7 31 M 4 30, M87 Sethesder MO Lf/ld" 8'."Smithr-investigator
' 06ne40r-1987 M
- .w m m =.: :. n; m.
= n :. p. = ; a.
.. c
()CilP.\\MllM09 4tT4Csscut is
_.__._._________..~..___.._~__.m___.
- w O t e't os set LA16NG TO tt.4 0esot a U N(' S poet of issus: u. s. NUCLEA GULATOnv COMMt$560m fg"* "
0 Arti.eas. n
>tOU,...O VW.I.
OF OPURCHASEOMORRPERYOUR OATI g) 4 g
@ DELIVERY ORDER UNDER CONTnACT NUustR g
~
1 APR.15 W t &R i.UM94 R ALLOTW4WT
' 4418NG.M4 M.71 Aeth
- 44035, Mi-PO.hvuttm CO.86tCovtt AND Ot&TINAt*O@Cemitssten TI V.S. suelear neswistory T O NI Teams Mt11 ties Electric Co.
Aeviam IV Atte:
A.A. W. President TUSCO 611 Ryes Plaza Dr.. Seite 1000 54 puer Temer, 400 merth 911ee Street, Lect tea #1 Ar11asten. TI Mall es114s. TI ?$288 Govt Rt.WLNT t/L Nvwst m DiSCOVhT T E RW5 TiWE f em Othevi Av Comanete Peek April 3 1984 s/s not Otityt RY F.O B.
$""v0'nMrT.'Tir***J7.',W,@$8.04#.'a*f 04'$"a',.*2f,# O/37h'#e'4'""**' " "* """' "**'*
3 O a aii. ~ is - a,.i U C 2 a ic u zi.
orv.
Univ vevet ra<ce Awov=7 Antictas on st avicts iteWo o Cost to sever air and greemd travel from DFd to Centar,he Peak as April 3,1984 for Atefore estiasted en commercial fliptt fres *tt to Mace. TI.. et a este of $92.00 per person round 5276.00 trip for three (3) people.
[5T...............
Greed transportation frea trendbury. Ts., to e - aa Peak site.
33 af tes remd trfe # Ztw
...y 15.,_,.
por s11e.........................
$282.75 EST M TIO TOTAL..................
THIS is A O!AICT EDGAL PROCUREnfST Au015 EJIMFT FROM FEDERAL. STATE As L9 CAL SALIS Asp USE 1A1L5.
SE A00!T!94AL ftml Am C040! Tiers ATTACM.D.
~
pd. 9414Y dlYd3 TOTAL Est. St82.75 Pt ASON TO CONT ACT REG AMDING THis OROE R (317)860311g Svste Roberstm. Perchasing Agent M
v G
J ATTAcsst"T 17 0/-
Of@k. USE ORy U s NUCLE An a(GUL Af oRY coMMillioN O*' te..* moecto. ee awo to-s............... _
Report of Interview
, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consnission (NRC) was interviewed by OlA on July 14, 1987, regarding the use of licensee aircraft by Pegion IV.
NRC employees.
related essentially the following.
advised was unaware of the travel by and to immediate recall the instances of Region IV employees having utilized licensee aircraf t in which region inspectors had used an Arkansas Power and Light Company aircraf t to survey plant transmission lines and in another instance Region IV employees had utilized the Houston Power and Light Company (HP&L) shuttle service between Houston, TX and the South Texas Proj-ect.
told OlA that the use of the HP&L shuttle service hac not been authorized and the employees were not paying for the service. As a result, this constituted an unauthorized procurement on the part of the employees involved.
stated that went back and paid HP&L for all instances could find in which employees had used the HP&L shuttle.
As the request of OIA, conducted a review of all Region IV purchase orders for the period 1982 through 1987, to identify sny additionti instances of Region IV 6mployees having utilized a licensee aircraft for travel.
On November 22, 1982 Region IV. NRC reimbursed the Nebraska Public Power Company for the cost of travel provided to the and one other Region IV employee between Omaha, NE anet Columbus NE.
The cost to the NRC was $500.
On May 22, 1985, Region IV reimbursed the Arkansas Power and Light Company for use of the utility's helicopter. The aircraft was used by Region inspectors to survey plant transmission lines.
Cost to the NRC was $700.
On June 3, 1987, Region IV reimbursed the Houston Power and Light Company for seven helicopter flights between Houston, TX and the utility's South Texas Project. The flights occurred between March 1985 and August 1906 at a cost of
$350($50pertrip).
Arlin i,en -TX 147-13 Niy-14 -19W v
7
'Ty Ye"B',' -Smittr,-! - tiptor -
~ duly-14r1987 g) g e g og g g*
- g..
a A *e'.* #88 *
- t
- 4
- {
g.g**
g*
- e e
a e
nmMM liRf ON
[
. 4
. m u..,
.., u.
1 n
,. /
Unitt0 STAf ts NUCLEAR REGUL.ATORY COMMIS$10N
- g ' 3,,g g
AtolON IV
$11 RYAN PLAaA DRIVE. SUITE tagt ARLINGTON. f tXAs 7te11 Mar i 4 ISET MEMORANDUM FOR:
i Division of Reactor Safety and Projects FROM:
Region IV
SUBJECT:
UNAUTHORIZED PROCUREMENT COMMITMENT (HELICOPTER SERVICES - HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY - 5350.00)
This office has received an invoice to award a purchase order for services that have been accepted by you (copy attached). _The provisions of the Federal Procurement Regulations as supplemented by NRC Manual 1101, Part I, state that no contract shall be entered into unless all applicable requirements of law, executive orders, and regulations have been met.
Failure to submit a requisition prior to the acceptance of the service results in the Government incurring a debt which has not been funded or authorized and constitutes an unauthorized commitment which requires ratification by an appointed Contracting Officer.
Such unauthorized commitments are not only contrary to procurement regulations, they also represent unfair treatment of Vendors who act in good faith in response to requests for service that they presume to be proper and are then required to wait for many months for payment while ratification of the unauthorized commitment is obtained.
Failure to check with this office prior to purchase can, in some instances, result in the user being liable for payment if the item cannot be purchased under our procurement authority.. Procedures must exist in each of fice to insure that requests for requirements are submitted in sufficient tin.e prior to the date of requirement to preclude recurrence of this problem.
In order to determine the basis for ratification of this unauthorized commitment, please furnish a written statement of facts explaining why this commitment occurMe and action instituted to prevent its recurrence.
Your cooperation in eliminating unauthorized commitments is appreciated.
ATTACHMENT li
s i
.g.
)
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
T I-6 N b-hfMQ_DA7.D M11L 23 A LT PM
+y.sLv,9
-ro-.
i t
6fi 6%
Signature:
Based on the above, ratification is (
) is not (
) approved for this unauthorized commitment.
Attachment:
As stated CC:
i I
^
1 p
int' ult t.
NRC - Attentien Nancy Helbroek s.n4.,
611 Ryan Plaza Drive Suite 1000 g, p g7 76011 VA Arlington l'in. No 3p3 i...
l'iirilme Order No.
NRC P.O. No. TX-87172 Houston Lighting & Power Company s.i ie:
Terms: Net Due Upon Receipt-- -
man - - -
u T enount firstfiPlior tj va ntif y
-~
,., ~ ~ ~ -
-n n - n.-a - m - - - - -
..w._.,,,,
To invoice for helicopter flights taken by NRC personnel.
Seven (7) flights covering the period of March 1985 - August 1986.
4350.00
$350.00 Total Amount Due This Invoice Please Remit To: Houston Lighting & Power Company Pro, ject Accounting -- PIP P.O. Box 3hh58 Houston, Texas 7723h s.c 4
WeK.. - s.
g ulsiflo ST ATES NUCMAR REC'.*t. ATOMY COMMIS$lON e
1 naciou av f
8 ett avan PLAZA DRIVE. Sultt tage I.9 ARLINGTON. f tKA3 Mett 9,,
......q MAY l 41967 MEMORANDUM FOR:
FROM:
Region IV
SUBJECT:
UNAUTHORIZE0 PROCUREMENT COMMITMENT (HEllCOPTER SERVICES - HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY - 5350.00)
This of fice has received an invoice to award a purchase order for services that have been accepted by you (copy attached).
The provisions of the Federal Procurement Regulations as supplemented by NRC Manual 1101, Part 1.
state that no contract shall be entered into unless all applicable requirements of law, executive orders, and regulations have been met.
Failure to submit a requisition prior to the acceptance of the service results in the Government incurring a debt which has not been funded or authorized and constitutes an unauthorized commitment which requires ratification by an appointed Contracting Officer.
Such unauthorized commitments are not only contrary to procurement regulations, they also represent unf air treatment of Vendors who act in good f aith in response to requests for service that they presume to be proper and are then required to wait for many months for payment while ratification of the unauthorized commitment is obtained.
Failure to check with this office prior to purchase can, in some instances, result in the user being liable for payment if the item cannot be purchased Procedures must exist in each office to under our procurement authority.
insure that requests for requirements are submitted in sufficient time prior to the date of requirement to preclude recurrence of this problem.
In order to determine the basis for ratification of this unauthorized commitment, please furnish a written statement of facts explaining why this commitment occurred and action instituted to prevent its recurrence.
Your cooperation in eliminating unauthorized commitments is appreciated.
- 6
- 8* * 'NL in3 %vuesta wat Aret As o., att euauts
- ** *
- a5 ** '*o ta ' o c aco OR D g
FoiNT OF ISSUE. U S NUCLE A's.
eLaTO?,' COMMISSION
_oa weta v
Arlin9 eon, Texas TI-83-028
'Tib.sitio% %vwet a g
O evac ^5c oaoca rta voua or oAtt h DELIVERY ORDER UNDER CONTRACT NUMetR 5 Nov h 18, 1982 os a v**t 'Auth. No. 3DtM -
atotwt~t 31X0200.902 94-21 Auth. No. 30256 -
T6757/GU cowsic%g Awo ot atisatiow tshe, roi ateo vv.an Nebraska Public Power District U.S. Nucleer Regulatory Commission TX-83-028 ATTN: Cecil Jones Region if P. O. 499 611 Ryan Plaza Dr.. Ste. 1000 li l
Columbus, Nebraska 68601 Arlington, Texas 76011 ottivtav e o e.
tivt eon ottivtar cova m%wtst o<6 e.vust a oiscoun t it aus Coltsnbus. Nebraska 44/19/82 n/a Net htose turnah the followong on the terms specorned on both soort of thos sheet end on the etteched, of env. estopt ther any sush terms wwh m,tt tw onconnatent wrth the terms of any en atong fedevel contract or agreement under whoch this Order os plewd wellnot eputy, Negotiated pumusnt to the authoritt of 41 U$C 252 (C) QL 4ttu Na AnticLts om stRvicts ot v.
vNit unit emics Awov%t Ror reimbursement of Licensee for prorated share of trk'sportation provided to, in Licensee aircraft fram 3maha, Nebraska on Novesiber 19, 1982 to Columbus,
$500.00 estimate' to be..............................
d hbraska s T,H_l,$_l,5, A CONFIRMING PURCHASE ORDER.
THIS 15 A DIRECT FEDERAL PROCUREMENT AND !$ EXDFT IM [. ME.@ A.'S3 M (D M @ E N,_,J O 1X_W:,
I l
3 TOTAL
$500.00 FERsoN TO CONT ACT mtG ARoiNG THis ORot R Connie Latigo. Office Services Assistant (817)860-8116 ATTACHMENT 20
~
i w a u t m a os,a u e.C w,as}
+
AND ? apt as sts LA teses t} % p.g (, nog 3
'I 001
]
~~
Poct or issue: v s tucLt' tovutomy couwissioN
~d a N v** *
- 286 I Y og oy,giteog %yggg a t
3 J '/
evnenAst omoan Pam vova or DATE
@ otuvemy omota uwota coutmAct Nuustm 04 Hry 22, 1965 ALLotwiset 564 NVVCA N CON 5sGNil ANO ct &t N a t ion ($ hip 10/
at to Nvutta 31X0200.945 94-21 N1n4SN953 U3 Nuclear Regulatory w as h 7635 246
& IV 1o (noteel Arkansas kadert& 1.ight 611 Ryan Plaza Carive, Suite 1000 P.O. kar 551 Arl.irrytm, TK 76011 I.ittle fuck, AR 72203 8 0m GELLING A00 mist gi t et tow 1 W1 # Cm OtLivt Rv GovtANW iL HvE6T A Dr5Co v 47 ft Kiis OELevtmv i O e
+
ss iam
- u. mm henne ferromh the followong on the terms noncof**d on both sons of thus sheet end on the erteched of any, essert that any ssoch terms whosh moght to entonnostent w*th she seems of any esneong foerelcontrect or eyeoment noner Anch thas Ornr os pieced woti not enply.
Negotieted portwent to the authority of 41 UsC 252 (C) (3),
itTM NCh AmtsCLit 0R $t MVICtl OtY.
UNet UN6t emlCL AMOUNT WHemter Servios for an Acrial survey of t.hs tran-imaion line ticutes at NO on 5/17/85 for 3.7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br />.
Im. 0Fr.
$700.00 i
l l
l TEIS IS A DIISI*f MDERAL PREREMNT MO IS DGMPT FIO1 MDI.EAL, SWE NO IDCAL SAIJri NO (ISC 'mXES.
StX ADDIT 104AL TERfi NO CG0ITICNS ATDOED.
'.*E IE N1YAE,'"d M k '. h " (817) 86 > 8112 TOTAL $700.00 T
30 %
ATT ACHMENT 21
.=-..s U.S. f>= CLEAR REQUL.ATORY C0attNS$60ft '
ISNC FORti $4 U
IM*L k'-
REQUISITION FOR SUPPLIES, EQUIPMENT, OR LABOR SERVICES p.,,
w,,
- 8. P40Ctstase0 otracts FOLLOW castimVCliotal0N htvtm6L OF f Chu SLI. Retain ReQweblef 8 Peaa.n9 ovisesoNN ]/ -
n tor record waisi a cop se returned 1
Cg"17 Tua rOnu sat to y,optar ead Svrfiv Breach FOS g
su A AtGUt&lfl0NIN9 Cao ANil A1:0N
- 1. PERSON TO CONT ACT
- 12. PHONE NO.
3(ATEOF REO
- 2. FECTION AL CODE 5/5/87
~ ~ '
T VED Wm. H. Foster
^M lUee__yer ef(
7M/
3
- 4. DELivEM f o rno - 6,,wce eae n e= =e w eac oase = rte reoar otr*> w a ea**e e
d Rt0Vi$' HONING OF F'CENW
/
NRC TITLE
- l. APPn0V ALS te'eas wear,s e eae e evee e en, ea e ea sae,e.e>se er ra e ee, e a.se a eme.w
$ ACTION SIGN ATURE DAIE l
er the *reeene cuesee ea san the oorst e'pe< sea Oretse, e, or s eaee s a POSTED I certify that pertenal property astett within the Officet0ivision have been Cafefully 6Creened tot ence86. are Cuttently fully Willif ed, and the addit #onal b P O ENTRY requested 6tems are absolvisly essentiallo work perfortnance a*o mil be u sed on'y f or essentist. of ficial purposes C F8llIO
~ ~ ' ~
~
- a. PROPERTY CU$f 0DIAN ts ewee, i d DELIVERED
- b. OF FICEIDIVISION DIRECTOR vm ut ai@ tt is paer.<es '
e COMPLETED 6 SHIP T o teeas.ean ne oest.aee sa C+=eiese a* hav.*e**s s
~~
~
PUT.CH ASE ACTION atu.e e<e,,e, 9
7 x P?- n x
- s. nt out sit e ittus,e,eeie r,u
.a. san o e,e sme ee.eea,,e..
D DESCR* DON QUAN-UNIT 4 ITEM ORSTOCK NUMBER e et ure sus r,e,c e r,o=,.,,,0...eea,,,.en e.~ o,..
nrv nueva.
j i
Payment of helicopter services between Houston and South Texas Project provided to NRC personnel by Houston Lighti qg 86.
and Power Company during the period March 1985. August D 7 flights @ $50,00 ea * $350.00 Justification: This was an unauthorized procurement.
4
- 7. RECIPIENT (3.paeveret The material and8ot services 6femited above have been f eceived in the Quantity ATTACHMENT 22 and Quality spec.fied.encept as otherwise noted.
-mwentt MNU DUt'e'L
UNITE D $TATES a t e s
o, 3
w NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
- YANc EYdY:"
April 21,1987 TO:
THRU:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Helicopter Transportation During the spring of 1985, after our assignment to the site, I was asked to 90 to the HL&P offices in Houston to review the company deficiency program in order to give testimony during the Phase 2 ( ASLB) hearings, it was recommended by of the utility that I should use the helicopter shuttle if there was space available in order to conserve time, being that it was of the essence, i t was told to me that the NRC would De billed from the flight log at $50.00 per round trip and the utility had a method of billing this as miscellaneous expenses.
This arranoement was discussed with and approved by and I believe was consulted on the matter.
I have made four round trips (leaving 8:00a.m. returning 1:00p.m.) two of the trips concerned infonnation needed in the hearings, one concerned C. A.T.
bolting problems and one trip concerning an allegation in the piping design area.
I believed at the time that this arrangement was satisfactory.
9 ATTACHMENT 23 4
IWult t.
NRC - Attention Nancy Holbrook w n4.c 611 Ryan Plata Drive. Suite 1000 DATE: k-29-67
. i.e u-Arlington 76011 VA Im. No. 323 Purihase Order No
,c s.
...n NRC P.O. No. TX-87172 Houston Lighting & Power Company eidie:
Terms: Net Due Upon Receipt n
y:e niiir liev ription A. uni i r-mm,
u_w,
-,,,,mmm.u,m,--m _ _ _ -_
T6 invoice for helicopter flights taken by NRC personnel.
Seven (7) flights covering the period of 14 arch 1985 - August 1986.
g3$o,co Total Amount Due This Invoice
$350.00 Please Remit To:
Houston Lighting & Pov(r Company Project Accounting -- PIP P.O. N x 3hh58 Houston. Texas 7723h
~
l APR 2 3 Iggr MEMORANDUM FOR:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
VISIT BY During the week of August 25-29, 1986, I was conducting an inspection in response to an allegation concerning the stress analysis for the containment linerpenetrationsatHL&PEngineeringoffices(5400Westheimer, Houston).
was Concurrent with my inspection, a group from conducting an Engineering Assurance (EA) Audit at the same offices.
A member who was of that HQ team was attached to !&E on an international cooperation agreement.
The team had intended to visit the site on Thursday of that week but decided not to do so As due to their desire to maximize their time in the Engineering offices.
part of my inspection, it became necessary to go to the site for the purpose of witnessing NDE thickness measurements, of the penetration sleeves, corducted at our request, assisted in this effort and was aware of this and every step in my inspection as I called during that week to brief on the progress of my inspection. During our phone conversation, asked me to attend the EA exit meeting on August 29 and I did so (see attached Exit Meeting Attendance Sheet).
I was offered transportation on the HL&P helicopter shuttle by It was my understanding at the time, based on conversations with and previous
, that such transportation hac conversations with been arraigned before, after agreement with the Region, that HL&P would submit an invoice for each trip taken.
It is also my understanding that this shuttle service had been utilized by NRC prior to my usage.
I felt that utilizing the shuttle was appropriate in this case due to limited time available to conduct was hoping to visit the site but was not going my inspection, to do so due to the EA's team decision not to visit the site. Through I became aware of this discussions with the fact and offered to have accompany me on my site visit.
was very grateful for my offer since felt that was not receiving full benefit from trip if did not visit the site.
l l
RlY j
(
4 /JV87 ATTACHMENT 24
/
\\
I w
j 2
l This memorandum is submitted to notify you of the facts Concerning my usage of the HL&P shuttle.
Attachment:
NRC EA Exit Meeting Attendance List CC:
l l
l 1 *-
3-,,m
~..-_--
O U S NUCLE AR af GUL Af ony CoMMissio'd j
- ' t, e n~wec'o e~e Aeo eu.
May 6, 1988 a...
........e..._._
l Report of Interview
. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC), was interviewed by O!A on May 6,1988.
related essentially the following, was apprised by OIA of the nature of this interview, specifically the event of April 3,1984, during which
, NRC, along with traveled from the Dallas /Ft. Worth Airport to Granbury(, TX and returned to the airport via a Texas Utilities Generating company TUGCO) corporate aircraf t.
While in the Granbury area, the NRC 1
employees utilized TUGC0 surface transportation from the landing field to the COMANCHE PEAK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT.
told 01A that did recall the particular trip that they had attended a meeting with TUGC0 Quality Assurance Personnel, said that was not involved in arranging for the use of the TUGC0 aircraft, that NRR, had made the l
travel arrangements for use of the TUGC0 aircraft.
related that when first learned of the impending meeting with TUGC0 was at the WATERFORD NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, Taft, LA on NRC business, received notification that the TUGC0 meeting was to be held the following day and that and the would be flving from the Dallas /ft. Worth Airport to Granbury TX on the TUGC0 aircraft, further related that upon the arrival in Grenbury, they used a TUGC0 vehicle to travel to the plant and later to return to the airfield.
i infomed OIA that General Services Administration (GSA) vehicles were available to the NRC for the travel to Granbury and could not recall any time constraints that necessitated the use of TUGC0 aircraft, l
said that upon return to the regional office arranged for the regional travel office to prepare a travel authorization and purchase oroer requesting reimbursement for the cost of travel, recalled that TUGC0 had been reimbursed for the travel.
May-6-1988 1r11ngtonrTX iS M 1
@ET. Smit - hW i I
~k&T6M988
?.'?# :."l., /i
- a'ii..P.
i l. Mi'.S ;: 'T1.". ' :'J :1 : W.,7. D '.T.'. ; ".'T ' ' " ' " ' ' '"
nCCIN Al l100 fWlV ATT ACHMENT 25
oW
.s veau aceut. cow cow =issi TR AVEL VOUCHER [PART 1
.,3,,,,
',Mc", ii.i cv w. e ior.aii.wcnoni vo. come.oae in vo.m
, 'l
'J'f*.'O','.'."..,
io aoi.. o c.. p o
... ~ -..
is a.
_ ]
x..,............... a... ~
/
i...~.~.
o 00 l,..,,1 l,,,,-
76011 y* *4.y P1mLDrive,_ Suiltl000, _-
Arlinate.... o......
~o o,-c. IX
..<~,<.
o
. o.,... o.
--- oo..,
<r., m. o o...
-T,....
c.
4-3-84 e
'IX h-1-84 Arling m L-
~
RC 70 SE SILLE o
> =. v a. -,..a
........,~v-.......a....~......mi.a.~.~.
...r.o-."...u.-.-..".u..-.~~~,~~-au"=..--
.....a.,
~~~
. - ~ ~ ~
...n
',~r.",:,,,
..........o
.a e
.. A v t L C.O.v t f o s. Y J 'c(ass o'No g,,,,,
1.
.o tN T g of wootA it Awov.e f T O cA fefA6 a.3 3 f
M.tAioo 08 I I, g ou e uao l [,,,u, 4.,
~n,
, g ww oo. < >
st e vict so s.e 6.. vC ' 'UN.
- a.* v a m s' t s
- TO wea a t v.s o.
- now
~
COC8 n
g) ymH. wo se.a...a 1...
D 4aa.89 eh
'l lj a........t.
t y 4.
.s en
..It ha & S
&. T A R.n.p. 79 0. ? A oa. w..v C
- h.at. c.,
8. Oth
,,. o,.,.
om,,,, o,,
. ~...,,,..
.c...
,4...
.o,.,.,.
,,,,o,,,,,,,,,,,
v
.t o,..-c
..............,,ii....
,. iv,i,g,'to oh,
_/
.%o v iov.cg.%c e vog o in ewis cga
.. -.i ivtwoniJavio%
a r'ioc ias st e va a r v a.o JJ soncn.%ct o. os.,g..,.o=
~.. c......m o,...
No 4n909_ _
a -. ~ ~
~~~
... $. o c.. c, v u,.........~,..~., n..
g,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
i.u.
ia. *...th...
...i.e.....u O I" "
Ov.u
,~.
5.ac.
..~..,,
3$ tnavat ADv aNc t s.. oos..
... we.,.m.a i sw i O C.~..t.a s f.. t...a c..s**.
8 /
s!W_M1 a..a'.....a..-...
O a a..a-.a... v...... --,
a ~~ m - ~~~
=
O c
....o c
,s,.
~ so.
f, e...,..
O 6 = i...a ia coa
~o.a - ia '"...... - -,.
...,~.-so ouc,,o~s<,
on......
...or.
. v i Q o- < v..
O a.+ow v.*~a
~ = 5-.~ua s.
O..,,..o,,vr..,.,,......,.~..w.
A O a.- nea uaaa 'a a-<.*
- l-
!p. ~
,o 7 6 @
O.
aua.
eo.tiG=chSTS in NG Y h ip'"u 29 eofa6 an ov.s r c g.wg o 30 vofas
)
27 acvvat fwgiNTmavtg ga scngoutgNo is.,on.c..
iNc vof o 1.e < rIw 79 8.g _ __
3,{
D h --
.. w.a.
m.a t uwr 7 on.g a oig w c A6cutAT eo.e M-.,.,,..........o,,..u.....iis.u..,.a..,....,m
- *. a. o.u..
c.
o.v.
Qu.t w-m.
.. m.s me.
.a.
ga h
- i..
any h u y
n:r o>
Da
~
%. Gas A 'u m E o. ' # A v Elt a
- DAYE
.....,............. - +........... -
L..)
.u<.............<.,...m........,m.~
..s..
o.e.
..a..
i i
/ / /84 o...
a _,.oc..... _.. _.
c 1
o.,,
_.... o..._.._.
s
.,,c. a n w s... e n... we.
.~
v..,
ass o
n %cw,rc.:w
- a..a.
- o..
...c...
a~
o.e o..x, c.o n....
...c..,
.., ~
'~
i c,.i... )
c.u
... c.o T
$l l W.{h ^'
1 _
I_
jF E
O i
1 1
..,...,,,....,...,,a.ic...;r..',...
-.a..
, e. a.a W..'*...,4..,.u..,e.....,.,,,.s.o..a.,........m..t',..
6004 "A
..... ~ c 9
"J'
'*.o8..*'."'
287 -
.d.41'*...
a.t *c.., a.a %.,.... o '.e '3. 1,0. 5..C am
..'l
. M.tf *
- M..A J. A. 5 t' F 3.
. 9 0
'#$ o' u."a.. ' at* )
.M S.
a
'jp.
i..AC.
A.'
S'A'lW(N'
- b. I '
i
.{,( 9 %f G
W l _
. NUCLEA2 CtEIULATORY C0esedissioN
'[
' REQUEST AND A IZATf0N FOR OFFICIAL TRAVEL
..e 1
Do Not Reneoer Carbones. AG skaded ereen nasar be wouparretj
-l y NhG Apperadis 1301 for detened esstructaons for evnenplethng then form i a,
- o. son. can atae es c
6 = e i.e esn. n.
a sw me w
a.m es is.,
.s.eme.
O **
O o'i..
[I
% l00 4N909 0 w.
Come erne 61. ene t ennu t navtt,.ovasect e :, =
1 C.ev. St 4 Ist C se
_6 anos aan P O 8.s. 8ptee er Oda.ed 1
i c,..,n
, c
.r. =
e i,
..+
ia.
i...~.e
- i.....
i.,,,.
ep Er thest en er stumst
- AMDfy as As.esres/
o.
It1 te.nete,egens asset, arte. -
See..igere i
oo ev oo v,
,u,,,,,,,,,,,,
.e 3
4 1 84 4 3 84 i
l 4
4 O^~*""*"",','****'
O 5"""' ' ~ ~"
. O eva-isc.
.ei.
,cw m,
" ~ '" '
O **. o' c. =i a.
i sca O sia e
o *a. ~. *
= O O ' we as '.aaa' aa 4
c -e o~'
O v.,c.~
e,~,.'a
- O'"'"~~""*
ri^<-
=a*=ai
.i-O
- a*a '==, c(**,.'.
a O i.'."=~
Oi."".".'.'.',',,,.'.'
O *, ".".'.l."l",, "
..".r a.~.
. O =ae s.- c '
- -i.*
O t..
i a
i saammcon i noun O a.- -- e
<ca e~aes O*
O "'
O u..ac s-. e. -.
O c' e.ei=,
O im O=
e
. ' ~
. O i.n av. e c-si. =i. '"
O t-o = s=.
4 ars O o'a*a a a.
O cw *y
,yp,,l',,*.
-a
,c h
C 1ane
- ^
- 30. Pi.ous.e 1.
es O 5
--a'm'.'*"astus C.neveri n Cs fisaqui b, P..so. Cass O a.jgi7a - >
0 sa t"***
i g
C 2ne Peceets A.te (Jusefy me Ae.e.ed h
i Q ovest enamet.
7e ?,asse e Asp =ame<pe eavfou.J t As= mee 8 iser t<eese Sw ser 4 Asnartel Aes.ies 14ht oO VV Awahi.ee enes t
- * **'a**. a
.. m os.
m
, ih.
No Gange n *.
48.
00tt0.*r^.98 91wl method. (2) Whecial ad.ttenet
- 3) per dagm Ce
. Silo,,,,SCG.M 6ftdtCa,tell,en stem 17; er {
i
- 6. C.n ( m anage O c ei.
,.,,,,,,,,,od,,,,,o,,,,,,,
18 h. er 1.
- 2) 1.as6si e.g P.F.EA8R h Cem
" avii.e
.a eem.,.
+1(3 v
,s, r,
<a, s.i e.,
a i, a,
.~. a
,ca...< -
O ei a.'
O a ae.
Caen.as%ese e
'*"'.,c.
O"'"'***"'*""'**"'""
O e - a '<. a O t v.
27 a.m.te (U. asen.ier sphase d 3S te fisues ter es a wgp'sesee initiets esri.d.eas she PWil AU1D40Ri2.Allose f uteD6 atitav Ailoss.
Amandad to add NWMal hainass-in Her Orlasas, IA. Qumga datas of Itineary as shoun abows.
n...,,...,
Arlington, 151 1.
Betheads,19 a c
- e.. ~
4 1,
,,.,e,
New Orleans,11 se w ilaa kE
% mi s -
meme iv.
v, m,
w e
3 3 aer 4pai..e Asp,..
30 ft.osesi.e tv 4/2/84 U 2/aA e
a-,
ao,
e, T it$e
- 32. CEH TIFICATIO'*4 OF AUTHORt2 AT LON The oNel travei orscr.t d abo.e.s hereov d.<ecred and espeaies neceswy to the pre over.e Das, eses e no., ine coad.noa. aa m.
ma,um.oa
.,,e e. r emre Tee.c n.,uic
....me.,d d. o, iiw so.ai r,,.c nm,ienori. n p..
4/2/84 y
,o.,,,
o.,
4.st>'.44.a..w.1s et I..se*. 4 Cerv t
~
.._ ;.. ~;.
~ ;, ], C, _,^, 1 _ _ _,,
'~ ~- {,
MAWEL VOUCHE3 (PARf 8)
- '",M[ff,7' '$$'*d-ooNo,
,[j SCHEDUlf 0F EXPENSES AND A300NTS CLACED g gtraoa m $e o,.,eo WW Do vv 04.
94 00 4N909 Awouwt cumno
-pre warvae or tarcass Au;t<g>ato svu,wg,
'. 34
.t. 2%
i ti 1 LV: Pas Via POV 4P AR: DW 32RT 6
56 iV. Via AA A?? 5e75P art TAD Q111P in hthanda. FD Ch Officini _ Mniness 4-2 LV: Via,EA 67 5:50P AR: !EY 7:19P in New Orleans. IA On Official Business 4-3 LV: BN 203 8:40A AR: DN 10:10A 1.V e Vin Charter Pinna AR2 Crnnh trv 'nd1130A Tn Granbury W rh Official Business **
4-3 LV: Via Charter Plane 4P AR: D W 4:40P LV: Via Taxi =
AR: Res 5:15P 16 50
- Abninfstrntive Annrovnl to co m Of ficini bstr onn in Granbury, 'IX a't the site!
5 00 Parking At nonrinntim-n t.
n inrc 41 0
0 0
48.40 48 4 Ao %
a.9 s 7s o sq 9s 11 1s 11 4-1 less than 1.0 Hours - No Claim s
Airfares 303 l
/
145 '52 O<ano total tAmt to ce Snown in item 29 Pa't ti A ORIGINAL Reverse of Payee Copy for Privacy Act Statement k
atc 8.l= *.
+-
.s. p VcLt AQ OCQULATOQV Cowwt$sIO.
n eei.
e
- Nccuius TRAVEL YOUCHER (PART 1) t.u o is as a.u (See CM Appendit 1601 for metructions for completmg th.s orm) n
.. massissi
.V (Do not remove ce,tions!
e n'.'GT.u".'.
' v o.v.e.n.t.a..no
)
..coatsscoot s n.wt o, v a.vt 6 t e a,..u i...ame...e i.u a wi
' ' E. T Y -
i.we.n. o.w.a n, c
n.
.......j....,~.
- j..n
' mal 94 00
... w... o.oo. u..
o... in ca...
611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington TX 76011
....otocI.............
. o,..c..< ou t y.....
o.,ii.o.
.. m.~oo,t.E.3 u, l no.,e r e n ow iww. oo. v v 6 (vo ww co. v vi ls,,,a ce,y citv Arlington TX 04-03-84 04-03-84 P4RC TO DE Sit.LE O 8.uf'O
, ai.
m.n,neMD.a.e.e,. im. va.n ti e
.a. ne.U.,.., ne
.w..t a,.
nie.
...,..o.a c s<*
,a.wi ga n g w..
..gs as www.c.a gg.,va 6t s E.C M P f
gg gg, gg.g t h...*
u
.a.ent r..
H.
Scyg.CU,O,vl4Y H
...a.n.H e,
c=..
q e 3.t F)
..*.m..
.a A, r.s..m CF f,'n 8* 'O'o# Pt a'sco e,t s covt.t.o ev,te i
N 'S O va.v p
.N S, R vC,,ohl -
t, C metw, 6 s p es.oot.,mo 48..asDv
,0 ma a.s.
. a.t,.
,,C, in it Nuw.u
~w oo,vi c't 8 v 8C s ao
...uso ta vv Pc S
ppy u
.m.* w.a 800*
' " o*'
To n.m..a c.-
t.
v.e.8849 9
..th ** 4
7
-) 4..e...
t.
v.
t.
e..
IA 4.m.15.
.., a a
- a.,o S.,. ca. W.y e....
c.,
o. u..,
a.,
....,., w. o,..u. o
...........o.~...............
,,,,,.u w o,vo,,..
,,,E,g.,n a o~,
e.....~....-n.....~...u....n
,,m o o,,
,,,,,.o
<rv1...,.1,o~ m.c cT.s ue
..,y ~o-n,o.c. u o,ov,v,,.,,o~. me,viou.o mesvoto = 1.cu.
No.
4R035 a t ~...
..c,,...n,,,,
~~~a
,.. t.o c.. E, vu n.
a E,,,
...........i.....,......no
' ' ' ~ ' ' * * " * ' * * " " * * "
a
... c.,....
. ~,..
O ***'
O c.
a.iv...a..-- =--
n.. m.ov.~u,,,,o.oo...
.,....we.
...,v a.,
..,,........ ~...
- -a.-*"-.-.
a c
..o c.
o~,
.~-o.----
a -. ~
s o u.
c
............. ~,,,
O Lu.a. i
.. a m.wmt a s et ovc, ions t,e on<..e an
.u we.,.,a.at vw6 O
iu.a v.=.a.'a = 5..- n-a...
v
.~,... ~..s.o s
a.
.n
..n
.... t.....
,, j,,
a~
E....
ru
.. e2 pic'p
,,..crv.6,-t 1.. m n sc tovu ~o.. oo.o.,
ap orau.wov~,cu ~to
,o.<,o.a.c.regsn u.
e,,o, va mcovoto m at a n a =.-u i
,on na oitw c.tcvurio=
an. a wen. m v-i
$6.14 i
oi n.
.,,.,,.n
...u,....,.~.....a,..-.......-
/
iw..
Ot
.. '.. '. '. '. ' -'**'*~~'.a,~*o*,.a.a.a...*'........'*..*+.....'..a'.
e Oa 5/ N /84 0:
I sics., vat o,,a.v a te n
- o. 11
- u. c..
u,.....
o,u.
.. i~.
i...........on........~.......,~,.
l S/ # /E4 m
tiGN.,v a t o,.p..Ov mG 0,, eC. 6 * *
- o.,t
.v,Hom s,t o t a,i, v.No 0,, ICE A
- o.,1 l
- 34..C C ovN,1NQ C L.5$1,1C.,aON i, w o f. 8.n..n. w..
-..t v.el
{
O..o.
o o.
..I.7...
o.
.I I
e..
- o...
...c....
e...
- o..
...e.
.~.,
2t /o W2w (oly
^
O E
F g
...,c............,,...................,.......................,.o,c,,......-..............,-.......
..............o.v c o... m.o.
8."d,,e....,......,.,....................,....,~,.8.vatCO*v,............,.....,....,.......,-.,........
(34 v i C. 0.l.
ut etyt Alt O 0# ## 8v.C v.C 5,
,tMth ATTACHMENT 27
TRAVEL V UCHER (PAT.T 21 j
'8" ^ #d[f,7,"['"[Z$'l47"'"*[,;emm ce
-l (Y.P78[h.si SCHEDULE OF tXPtNSES AND A'200NTS CLAIMt0 (I@@
i
- Do Noe
- . e
~
fd#E"i' ' " " 0" 'c,g,,u,,
o ioreicg40 voucxEGO e
>AoE No y
oo g,
O~
l 1
94 00 4R035 OATE NATURE OF EXPENSE AufMORf2Eo NUMMR OF AndOUNT CLAasto t86LEAGE OFideLES a*
is 84 4-03 Lv: DFW via Chartered aircraf t il:00a Ar: Grand!)urv TX Lv: Grandbury via POV ll:30a Ar: CP 11; 50a 15 3
07 in Comanche Peak TX on official business 4-03 Lv: Via POV Comanche Peak 3:300 Ar: Grandbury 15 3
07_
Lv: Grandbury via chartered aircrat
.Ar:
OFW 4: ISD No Per Diem. Less that 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br />, l
l 6
f I
l' I
Orand total ( Amg to De $noen en item 29 Part in ORIGINAL IM A4'ef14 Of Ptyee Copy tot Pfinacy Act Statement
U.S. NUCLE AR REGULAJOR Y COMMi5SIOes n!
}t^
-p y", i
=*
AND AUTHORIZATION FOR g OFFICIAL TRAVEL
?J.7" "' '
o REQUEST s
(See NRC Appendin i301 for deteiled instrs,creons for ev,npletint thtt forwn Do Nst Rensore Ce6ons. Au s neded eens nouse be conaparted) 4 o
, o e,o. c
.e c
. w, i.-
,,.s..m.
e, i
- a-
- 5*
a O== 0 oa=
1 0
% l 00 430 35 0 --
- u.,.u.
r u &
....ee
.e
..,,o.e...,,
e c.,,. 5,-
.,,, e 611 Ryan Plaza Dr., Suite 1000 Arlington, TX 76011 9 f r e e nos.s neceesse see 10 casa,nant Coawart.ve it j
17 Sper.si.,taneass ato., eise 12 er.ywa lemens 13 14 E.ie sese 1% f.sve. iters to fesuss en.
(A fr e 8earts til eemt.aeistas a.et shou.
- 88. do,e
.n y an.ut e ar an.pt
.meersemico eyesment aarnbeel 88eaf t' eses WW Do yy ens oo YY
,g,,.,,,
e a, g,,,,,,,
1 4
3M 4 3 M i
i O ^'Z. ~,','.",' "'
"*-a' isc.
.c w een *,
O **""" c a'o*'"
O,t=-
O a.. o' e. i -i *...
i.e.
s s
O <ra mr On
~,
-a-O '=*'a"c ~..
O u i a..
a
. ia.e
.ma.
O 7.U'"d"*' IInj'es Elqgt,-9,=;-,-O doe O o.,., c
,, c..,-*'**
- " " " ' ' ' " ' ' ' " ^ " '
f O c--* '~,, c~--a, a O re c
d O.o.c se-c -.,~
O t e.e...
e a'"''
O **' '.'"u*.S '.*='. c "' ~ -
O ca e s.".'.'o 8
'a ^"ac o' '
O a
.- ' - m - ---"
e O
- Q 'w O ' *'
e.
Oi Oia<ia e ec.e.-
a.i.'"
O t-o-, i...
v e*
O **"m' 'M,'QP 0 o'a' a '< a a -
=
h
- sea, a
toec.s Co.=e,s.es O ta -
30,weer e, T reves O ca~" '- 55^
Contrer1 R,e.asf pad Cm Rs*1f D.9 Pu.90er C.de O a-. - '.=
a O e,,.e :i,,.. c.n.
e n
O 2.* a - a.-sA
+ = a - *n Q opwe 15ser %,e
- 21. Tesume e Advenes re. red b, (Os.e, 6 Adv a.9 8 IF e Treves 5.c sec.
Ap.asrea Advense h&I DO YY Aussit vee.ns, 6
"'**88 22 f,as e, Ae,orse
' Authorues, as app opeiste, til pe, diem under the
'*,'" *"""' * "'.17 "o'*r ( 3 ) per dasen
.a 1 "
O ca=a allo.werice as indicated in etorn "I
- e can a seen n O ca ci on nor en
.e ii.i.on.od Cai.d in.iem.
is a. or i.
n,g.
$285
" * *'v =r ~ u
% e, r m,,
- 2. i.,, e a i.e...
as
,ca-4., =,
C. eft tti If.ft O si O a*.a A.
e' Me.1 SA.ct in.M.egs other Ih.n alup**
Tais tai C.
' * ~ + = * " - ~ '
O ee d,.
O t. s..e na~om
_c.,.--,
a..
.r.
Pett AUTHOM62 ATIOas uescq RE N RW Af e08s Cost to cover air and ground travel from I to Comanche Peak on April 3,1984 for from
=.e,....
Arlington, TX Texas Utilities Electric Co.
a c.,,,,.
r...
...e ~.
Grandbtry, TX.
e e-. -
' ~
Arlington, TX a-
Funds Control 4/ /84
..,,,...-l,,
es tresse forecas,i e
tT.etse
~
(Deel 31 A*a.aat.<ese Ass. ems, 30 neo.nesedav B.p.em ow,
~
IDret 834nen**w,
- Idee, f.ne orne.n om.p. a 37 CER fifICATION OF AUTHORIZATION The oHiteal Ef awl desct. bed abow it hereby directed and eapenses rows ary to Wte performance thereof are authorited in act
- ~ *. * * *. *. art =* e.*.w=vt tions on the ma thordation wth the Federal Trev.s Row 64t.cns, m one<.oed.or the Joint Trave Replei.e
- 088=J desputen
~ is.y r.ces fa,,,,
tse h r, ani s at.a ae e tr o e coo, AUDIT COPY
OTICIAL lBE ONLY U s NUCLt AR AEGUL ATomV CoMMIS$loN e.. c,.. im c e re A.o "
July 11, 1988
..... ~.........,
Report of Interview Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Connission (NRC)) was interviewed by OIA on July)11,1988, regarding
' travel on a Texas Utilities Generating Company (TUGCO corporate aircraft from the Dallas /Ft. Worth (DFW) Airport to Granbury, TX and return, related essentially the following.
When apprised of the purpose and scope of this interview, acknowl-edged that NRC, and TUGCO, had traveled from the Dallas /Ft. Worth Airport to an aircraft landing strip in the area of the COMANCHE PEAK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT (COMANCHE PEAK).
did not recall the exact date of the trip only that it was over a weekend during' 1984.
further advised that a TUGC0 vehicle had picked the party up at the landing field and transported the party to the plant site.
Later the TUGC0 vehicle returned home to the field and the party returned to 0FW on the TUGC0 aircraft.
advised that during this time, the NRC had received numerous alle-gations from allegers at both the WATERFORD and COMANCHE PEAK projects.
had been involved in a number of conversations with allegers and had convinced the allegers to meet with Senior TUGC0 management. Additionally, as a result of the number of concerns received, NRR had scheduled a major unannounced inspection at the plant.
ssid that had contacted and askeo that meet with the NRC staff at the plant.
hao wanted the NRC staff and to arrive at the plant at the same time, and that most likely had suggested that they travel on the TUGC0 aircraft.
was'certain that no NRC employee had solicited for use of the aircraft, recalleo that at sometime during the trip had ouestioned concerning the propriety of traveling on the licensee aircraft and that has assured there was no problem that the regional office would reimburse the utility for the cost of travel.
acknowledged that had contacted at the WATERFORD plant and informed of the impending meeting at COMANCHE PEAK. Initially they had not intended to inform of the meeting and inspection; however, had been informed and told to accompany the NRC staff to the plant.
July 11, 1908 Gaithersburg, MD 101-31
' blTT171~988 s
,...wv s.
J Lyle B. Smith, Inv ti tor
"~IM:L'lM**~..'as/
. J O.'5 u I ???. ~ #
'l.7. 7 5.' Ys ".' !".':l' " " " * " '
.s ATTACHMENT 29 n..,.,,,,,
k U $ NUCLE AR REGULAf oRY cOMuissiON o., c, o me.co, m a o io.
July 13, 1988
- ... o....a...,.
Report of Interview U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was reinterviewed by OIA on July 13, 1988.
related essentially the following.
advised'that had not been involved in arranging for the use of the Texas Utilities Generating Company (TUGCO) aircraft, and that possibly it had been TUGCO) suggestion that the NRC staff travel on the TUGC0 aircraft.
Said that could not recall the purpose of the trip involving any unannounced inspection, however, did recall that met with a group of allegers at the plant site who to recollection were utility
- workers, in not recalling if the trip involved a NRC inspection, explained that this would have been a NRR function and would not have been involved.
them a slip _ of paper regarding a non conformance report (NCR)ger had give recalled that.
had spoken with the allegers and an alle that the alleger felt had been improperly dispositioned. While on board the aircraft, had asked why no one from the utility had ever sat down and talked to the allegers.
informed 0!A that had met at the DFW main
- teminal, drove them to the Butler Aviation terminal where they met and boarded the TUGC0 aircraft. According to the aircraft landed at a " dirt strip" where they were met by a TUGC0 vice president, who drove them to the plant in his personal vehicle, reiterated that during had questioned as to the propriety of travel-the trip ing on the licensee aircraft and that had told them there was no
~
problems that the regional office would reimburse the licensee for the cost of travel.
1 July 13, 1988 Bethesda, MD 187-31
..=
July 13, 1988 t.yleB. Smith,Investprg
- m : e n u c:::, 4 5 2 +i e:;, : = = =. w
~ c ATTACHMENT 30 e........
_ _ _ _ _ - ~ _ _ _ _ _ _
G G.USE OWy U s NucLL AR Rf GUL AfoRv coMMtssioN Pt ce o' inewoe one Awo +o.
December 1,1986 a...,.... u.....
Report of Interview Texas Utilities 04narating Company (TUGCO),
was interviewed by 01A on December 1, 1988, in regard to NRC employees having utilized a TUGC0 corporate aircraft for travel between Dallas and the COMANCHE PEAK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT (COMANCHE PEAK) on April 3, 1984.
related essentially the following, was apprised by OIA of the purpose of this interview, wherein advised that recollection of the travel was that on April 2, 1984,
. secretary had received a telephone call from told secretary that would be traveling to COMANCHE PEAK on April 3,1984, on official NRC business, and wanted to meet with at the plant site.
explained that at the time of the call, was out of the office on travel, and later secretary contacted in East Texas and infomed
- call, stated that later contacted and confirmed that would be able to meet with the NRC on site the following day (April 3,1984). Sometime later received a call from NRC, and that had asked if intended to fly to the plant site on the TUGC0 aircraft and, if so, could the NRC employees accompany on the aircraft.
said that told that was intending to
- travel via the utility aircraft and that the NRC employees would be able to b
accompany on the utility aircraft from Dallas to the plant site. At this D
point in the interview, emphasized that had not asked to l
operate the utility aircraft for the sole purpose of providing transportation R
for the NRC and had only asked if was already intending to travel by aircraft, could the NRC employees accompany to the plant.
y explained that it required approximately two hours by car to travel from Dallas to the plant and that normally flies to the site. The utility operates a Beechcraft King Air aircraft which has the capability of operating.
l in and out of short landing fields.
said that the following morning met at the Dallas Ft. Worth Airport and later departed on the utility aircraft. They landed at a landing site located approximately twenty miles from the plant site. They were. picked up by a unmarked utility vehicle and transported to the plant. While on site they had talked with a number of employees in regard to the "T shirt" incident. They returned to Dallas Ft. Worth that af ternoon via the utility aircraft.
Decmber 1.192R Dallas. Tx 187-31
- .Deepmhar 1. 1988 4yle'B._Smi
_Lnve tig id.*.
ga 5
-,;.g sg f
.)
'8' I!
l
't
'=
1 L
nmrIAIME00
^" ^ c """ 3 '
4
$hf l
I u s Nuctt An ascutatoav couvissioN
[
w n o meco. re a o io.
July 10, 1987 o
j
.>........n...~_._.._....
Report of Interview Office of the General Counsel (OGC), U.S.
10, 1987, Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) was interviewed by OlA on July regarding the propriety of NRC employees utilizing licensee. transportation, rela,ted essentially the following, advised that 10 CFR 0.735.42 is the operable regulation, and pre-If the NRC reimburses cludes the use of free transportation by NRC employees.
the licensee for the cost of travel, then no violation is involved. in on a regular basis as in the case of a utility operating a commuter flight, said that then OGC would want to take "another look" at the issue, was unaware of any use by NRC employees of utility aircraft on a frequent office nonnally receives about one or two calls annually-basis and that regarding this issue, advised OIA that the NRC practice of reimbursing the utilities for air travel on the basis 'of what the cost of comercial air travel would be to office has move the employee to the same destination is erroneous, received an opinion from the Office of Government Ethics, that the cost should be pro-rated based on the cost incurred by the utility to operate the air-kno craft.-
saio that to this opinion was provided by the Government Ethics office verbally.
187-31 Washington,OT, July 10, 1987
=
July 10, fM7
... u w,. - -
Lyle B. S I
t r
W
- -weniT:M%~a:n;mm:- ::u ;zwinw.rw "'
\\
ATTACHMENT 32 OFFir.lM llRE BM
_.._.m_ _. _ _
r 7
i'
=0 U $ NTICI,(
ll PG o'
MISSION i
O'I ce o' imoeco. 4ac Awo to-o...............,,____..,_
l Report of Interview Division of Accounting and finance, Office of Administration and Resources Management, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) was interviewed by OIA on December 2,1988, in regard to the appropriate manner of computing the cost of air travel provided NRC employees by utilities; related the following, advised that in those instances when NRC employees have utilized utility transportation, the concerned utility would bill the NRC Regional Office for the cost of travel. The regional office would then initiate a In the event the utility purchase order to provide payment to the utility.
did not submit a bill to the NRC, the region would compute the cost based on the approximate cost of commercial air travel to the site or the nearest L
location to the site.
When asked if'the correct method of' computing the cost to the NRC would be the actual cost to the utility to operate the conveyance in this instance an advised that the information, cost of fuel, amount of fuel
- aircraft, l
expended, pilots salaries, etc., would not be available to the NRC and that l
this data would be required to compute cost.
l l
1 l
December 2, 1988 Bethesda, MD 18/-n
/
becember2,1788
.....,v-Lyle B. Smith, Investigat L
- Wcn;a"t":;,, :d.:M ;?:::::;, ' %?.p':s?.;~.';
'" '"'~
^
- c""'"'
3 DFFICIAI IIRE ON.Y
- -.