ML20064K165

Responds to NRC Request for Summary of Grounds for Criticism of IE Investigation of Alleged Deficient Const Practices. Itemizes Rept & Provides Info to Support Comment.Related Documentation Encl

ML20064K165
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	07/10/1980
From:	Chong L AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Strickler J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTOR & AUDITOR (OIA)
Shared Package
ML20064K144	List: ML20064K165 ML20064K168
References
NUDOCS 8010090119
Download: ML20064K165 (5)

Text

- - - - - - - ._ _

• LEIGHTGN K. CHONG 464 WEST BROADWAY NEW YORK. N.Y.10012 menestr=ss Asam,7 u.a. PavunT & Taaormamc omca July 10, 1980 Mr. Jerry Strickler Office of Inspector and Auditor, LA-1200 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CM usion Washington, D.C. 20555 Dear sirs Further to our discussion by telephone regarding NRC investigation 50-322/79-24 of Ialleged deficient construction practices at the Shoreham am writing in response to your request for a summary of

,, nuclear plant,

~

the grounds for our criticism of the investigation as being a " whitewash".

In doing so I refer you to my letter of May 20, 1980 to James Allan, Deputy Director, Region 1, commenting on the scope, methodology, and findings of the investigation conducted by,Dr Charles Gallina and other NRC personnel.

Since you have indicated that your office is not prepared to review the technical issues of the report, I confine the itemization below to the circu:nstances of the report rather than its contents.

- Although we provided Dr. Gallina with all of the starting material for the investigation, we were excluded from participation in or knowledge of its progress. We therefore have no direct evidence that Dr. Gallina de-liberately undermined the investigation in order to produce a sanitized re-However, the following circu= stances indi-port favorable to the licensee. frustrated cate that he, either deliberately or as a matter of agency mindset, a full and candid investigation of the allegations: . ..

1. Dr. Gallina did not take effective steps to develop contacts Nith at least half a deren other witnesses whom he was advised might provide infor-By refusing to provide adequate assur-mation on construction deficiencies.

ances or to create an atmosphere of protectiveness for workers to feel en-couraged to make disclosures, he effectively cut off any possibility of ob-taining information from these and other potential witnesses.

2. He breached his agreement to preserve in confidence the identity of Jock McCrystal, a former worker who provided leads on persons likely to be Dr.

• knowledgeable cf defects, from the persons whom Mr. McCrystal named.

Gallina attenpted to excuse this breach by noting that Mr. McCrystal received

' - D *D 3~ jg

' oc o A AlttLa 8010 o 9 o//f ,

Dudley Tho::ipson - 3-To assure that our file reflects all relevant activity on this matter.

01A would apprecia'a copies of any correspondence initiated by IE in response to the attached, or any correspondence which relates to Mr.

Chong's letter of May 20.

cc: H. Thornburg IE R. Shewnaker,IE

.e- -

OO 9 e 44

Dudley Thompson which he hoped would more clearly and narrowly delineate or exemplify his concerns about methodologies and the utilization of findings. He said tht this letter could serve as an addendum to' his letter of May l

20.

l It was mutually agreed by both Chong and OIA that since Chong's reference {

to a whitewash was of a generic nature, rather than indicative of an internal security / misconduct problem, there was no need to continue with any plans for a personal meeting. Accordingly, no further action b'y OIA l

is contemplated.

In assessing the significance of the five (5) issues contained in Mr. Chong's attached July 10 letter, you may find the following comments of benefit:

Issue 1 - Mr. Chong apparently fails to recognize the fact that Dr. Gallina expended considerable effort to provide ways for potential allegers and sources of infomation to establish and maintain contact with NRC in a manner designed to assure their anonymity. Whether or not such steps

~

were effective or adequate is, at best, subjective.

Issue 2 - Although Mr. Chong claims that Dr. Gallina breached "his agreement to preserve in confidence the identity of" an alleger, no .

evidence was provided to show that Dr. Gallina did, in fact, do anything which resulted in the alleger being identified. On the contrary, Dr. Gallina denies that he was in any way responsible for surfacing the identity of the alleger.

-Issue 3 - Mr. Chong claims that Dr. Gallina told him that a majority of "

the allegations could be confirmed as having occurred. Dr. Gallina told OIA that, in substance, he told Mr. Chong that many of the allegations had merit and that they appeared worthy of investigation. Dr. Gallina claimed that as a result of investigation, however, none of the allegations was substantiated. Dr. Gallina went on to state that "two minor items

~

of noncompliance" (unrelated to any of the allegations) were found. He maintains that at no time did he give any impression that any of the allegations was substantiated.

It would seem that the discrepancy between the recollections of Mr.

- Chong and Dr. Gallina may be based, in part, on a communcation problem.

Issue 4 - OIA does not have the technical expertise on which to base a meaningful comment on this issue.

Issue 5 - This issue again simply reflects the subjective opinion of the writer.

- _ _ - _ _