ML20083L637
| ML20083L637 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 03/01/1982 |
| From: | Kammerer C NRC OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS (OCA) |
| To: | Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20083L446 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-83-130 NUDOCS 8203150314 | |
| Download: ML20083L637 (3) | |
Text
.
D t
March 1, 1982 b
!!EMORAllDUM FDR:
Chairman Palladino Commissioner Gilinsi;y Ccr.nissioner Bradford Comissioner Ahearne Ccr:aissioner Roberts Carlton Karnerer, Director FROM:
Office of Congresssional Affairs
~
MEETIN5S WITH CONGRESSIONAL STAFF CONCER SUDJECT:
l DIABLO CANYOH IlWESTIGATION On February 8, the Cccnission received a letter (enclosure 1) from Representative Horris.Udall, Chairman of the House Interior Ccroittte expressing his concern with the conduct of the NRC investigation o seismic verification program for Diablo Canyon.
i indicated that Representative Panetta's staff and the staff of the Cocre l
Ccomittee's Subcor:nnittee on Energy, Conservation and Power w significant deficiencies with the NRC staff report, HUREG-0862 I
E l
On Tuesday, February 16, Frederick Ccabs (OCA) and Roger Fo
~
Henry flyers and Paul Parshley, majority staff nembers of the Sut-S to discuss their Energy and the Envirornent of the House Interior Ccomitte EJ Fred meeting and in Fred Ccnbs' subsequent converstations with Dr. Myers.
concerns.
Combs also spoke with Jeanine Hull.of the Subccrnittee on Energ E
and Power and with Catherine Cooke of Representative Panetta's Offic y
During the meeting with the Interior Comittee staff, both general and O :
The specific concerns with the investigation and report were discussed I
Interior Co:mittee staff believes the report surr.ary (HUREG-086 does not adequately reflect information in the interviews and that the h
interviews were inccuplete because major lines of inquiry were not U ;l 1
Interior Ccnaittee staff did not believe it useful to discuss in depth l
t specifics (now sumarized in three pages of notes) because th questions raised therein are ccuplex and any brief discussion of th (particularly in a context where HRC staff had no opportunity t For example, Dr. !!yers such discussion) would generate additional confusion.
N felt that Mr. Fortuna could not reasonably be expected to know w h
than l
not turned o/er all draf ts and associated ccm ents in llo/ ember, rat er b
having to be asked for notes following the Panetta letter, and.fo
) date: Fortur.t or
, 25 and Hcnember 6 drafts at some later (still undefin question appears not to have been asked. attention to poin (Encloture 2) i j
/
Howeve r, the l
and D vid Fleischalbr's letter c1, Fcbruary 5 (Enclosure 3). '
9 i h Dr.- !!ye rs :
[
ting points.welre raised durfng the discussic.s w t
'I ofo44 L
-Q
.i.................
sumt v.
. ~..
14 3
n g
During the Hwember 3 NRC-PG&E meeting, several people w n
h position to correct statements made by fir. Norton regarding t (1) did existance of drafts at that time and shortly th statement as misleading and did have an explanation for not where the explaination was reported. How informing his supenisors.
interview with Mr. Rocca (Appendix E, p.164), he appears to h
contradict this, indicating that he spoke to Mr. Brand at lu d
about the Norton statement.
the HRC investigation failed to follow up on nt by Rocca.
Mr. Haneatis was placed in chanje of PG&E's recertification e On page 3 of the report sumnary, he (2) on or about Hovember 3. indicates tha' ne was not aware draft reports until December 10. provide an explainati ld ble about the existence of the draf ts earlier.
i l
While returning to California from the November 3 meeting in Bethesda, the Norton misstatement was discussed by FG&E (3)
The inquiry into the nature and content of such discussions is incmplete.
During the subsequent conversations with Dr. Ny C staff believes the investigation to have been les.s than perfect, that the NR raised.
h Commission the investigatinn did nevertheless support stronger action by t e (If Interior Cmmittee staff is incorrect in i
inferring this, they should be so infomed.) Interior Comittee sta than was in f6ct taken.
(i.e.,NRCstaff) that NRC staff are now resisting an 01A review because they k
believe that the problem is with the Comission's having failed to
' stronger action rather than with deficiencies in the report.i d out The Interior Comittee staff believes that the OIA revi i
would assist without an undue demand upon OIA resources and that such.a rev ew the Ccxmission its effort to upgrade the quality of its invest would The Interior Ccemittee staff is concerned that the Ccamisssio ld result not withstand public scrutiny.
Ccmiission's failure to correct the deficiencies in l
~
difficult raise further doubt about the Cmmission's ability to face up to) but in quesitons (which an 01A report would also be likely to do fa ilings wculd be a sign of the Ccomission again seeking to sw ages of*
discuss specific concerns which are currently expressed in three p under the rug.
l notes.
y
.~.~. ~....
l
. - - ~
..........~-c-..~~
................7.................
eenee
- . * *=<..***.*<
$URhAMC g........
~ ~ ' ' ~ '
~
m 7
The staff of the Subccr:ctittee on Energy Conservation and Power (Ottinger) an Rep. Panetta's staff feel that.it_ is essential that the integrity of the NR investigations be above criticism.
Udall's request for an OIA evaluation, indicating that their concerns with the fiRC investigations are addressed in their enclosed letters dated November 13 December 18, February 4, and February 23.
cc:
SECY OPE OGC 2-
.s : :
~.
,W.1....acs........................
July 30,1982
!!EliORA'IDUh FOR:
Chaiman Palladino Orfgf J
41 Frui-Janes J. Cunmings, Director 4'# J. c[as'd by Office of Inspector and Auditor 83 S!!3 JECT :
REVIB! 0F I!NESTIGATIO!! PEPORTED Ill !!UP.EG-0962 Cy recorandum dated April 23, 1982, the Cmuission directed the Office of Inspector and Auditor (0IA) to conduct a review of the llRC investigation as set forth in lit! REG-0862, " Inspection Report of ' Preliminary Report, Seismic Reverification Progran' at Diablo Canynn !!uclear Power Plant, tinits 1 and 2." The Connission's direction was predicated on issues raised in a February 8,1932, letter from Congressnan t!dall and tne concerns conveyed by Congressman Ottinger in letters dated February 4 and 23, 1932.
Congressnan tidall's letter questioned the overall quality of the investigation and asked whether approcriate questions ucre asked during tne interviews conducted by ilRC staff; whether these questions vere appropriately followed up and so forth.
Congressaan Ottinger's letters Questioned the overall adequacy of flUREG-Ofl62.
By way of background, the staff's investination was conducted in two phases. The first phase (reported as "f;UP.EG-0362 Issue 2") consisted essentially of tne testimony of:
19 Pacific Gas and Electric (PCFE) enployees; 6 R.L. Cloud enployees; and A. firuce florton, outside counsel to PGhE.
The questioning of the above individuals sought to address 14 of the 16 issues which had been identified by the staff as being pertinent to the investigative ob:ectives. ExSeples of sone of tne la issues adaressud in tne first nhase are tn<r follouin1:
Issue G Pere coplcyees of P,.L. Clon eqJ ar any pressve to accept PG'.E's cur. ients that were,irovided es a r-esult of PPCE's review of the craf t reports?
Issue 7 l:ia Dr. Cloaa r. isle. a the !RC in state ents ne rue at l
the i.eetia; oith tne 'IPC on :: ova %r 3,1531?
If he did, l
eas this done knowingly?
Issue C Pid PG"E representatives nislead the !!RC in statenents tr.ey made at the recting with the iiRC on llover.ber 3, l
1931? If they did, was this donc knouingly?
l i
Issue 11 t'as the existence of the P..l.. Cloud draf t reports discussed by PGliE representatives at the liovenber 3,1931, PGr:E
.h I
i
. ;, [
- pen,
(
AWLoJ >
Chairnan Palladino 2
o 4
pre-neetings, at ti e lunch break on flovember 3, or after the neeting?
The second phase (reported as "!iUREG-0862 Issue 3") consisted of :a review and analysis of each PG&E comment nade to the various R.L.- Cloud draft sublittals for the purpose of detenlining unat, if any, effect these PG&E ca,nents nad on the final R.L. Cloud report.
The remaining two issues identified by the staff as being pertinent to this phase of the investigation were as follows:
Issue 15 Did any PG&E oral or written connents on the R.L. Cloud draft reports result in any unjustified changes in findings as contained in the llovember 12, 1931, draft report submitted to the NRC?
Issue 16 il hat were the bases for all of the substantive changes rade in the R.L. Cloud draft reports?
01A's review of the first phase of the investigation included the review of !!UREG-0862 Issue 2: transcripts of related Comnission neetings and the transcript of the Noverber 3,1981, meeting which gave rise to the investigation. Our review disclosed basic and substantive flaws.
For exanple:
The overall scope of t?.e investigation did not include obtaining the testinony of key HRC officials who were intinately involved and had knoaledge regarding key issues under investigation.
At a ninimun, the investigation should have included statements fr
.1
!!essrs. Denton and Eisenhut who were attendees and participants at the Movu.ber 3,1981, neeting with PG&E officials.
Such stateochts would have served, for example, to establish and docunent whether liRC officials were nisled by statenents made at the Novenber 3, 1931. ne.; tins.
ine overall questianing of uitnesses in rost instances was neither sufficiently aggressive nor probing.
Sale examples are as follous:
roce "orton, outside counsel to PCAE, was first inter-A c vic:r.d on Ducc A r 10, 10'11.
After a brief preamble, which estchlished uha !mrton vas trie notare of his relationship -
with PG?.E; and a vaiver by P' ?.E as to any attorney / client u
privilege, Morton uds read part of the '!ovember 3,1901, trai. script and the following o,uestion and answer took place:
Investigator: Did you know at the time you nade these concents that during the runth of October 1981 that two draf t rt ? orts had been given by Cloud and Associates to PG&E for review and concent?
"r. florton:
I did not know that.
I 7
t Cndirman Palladino 3
The interview was then for all intents and purposes ended.
.This entire interview of f!orton was conducted in approximately
- 10 minutes and clearly made no attempt to probe the question under consideration.
A. Bruce f:orton was again interviewed on Decenber 28,19S1, at which tine additional questions were put to florton.
Again in this interview of florton - lasting approximately 35 minutes -
the questioning is far from probing.
At one ooint florton is asked if he nade any inquiry during or before the llovember 3 neeting relative to the existence of drafts or working papers of Dr. Cloud's efforts.
ilorton answers that he did ask the question but cannot remember with whon he had the discussion, cannot renenber who was present at various neetings where he might have asked the question, but believes he asked the question of Dr. Cloud.
The questioning on this issue ua5 then dropped and no effort was made by the investigators to explore florton's answer any further.
Also during !!r. Ilarton's second interview, one of the questions asked centered on any conversations florton night have particinated in during the lunch break on Noveeber 3,1981, relating to the possibility that PC'.E enployees might have reviewed prior reports.
florton clains that he had none.
Ilouever, it is clear from the flovsiber 3,1931, transcript that Norton did have at least one conversation at the lunch break regarding the question of independence.
The transcript on this point is as follows:
...(f!ortun) so our problen lies, we think, in how do you assure tint it is on independent evaluation. Someone during tne lunch hoor said, nell, you should portray him as uearing a block hat.
l'e could say that, but nobody is going to believe it by simply saying it..."
Tne inve:,tigators shuuld have confronted ilorton with his con testinony and detenained the exact <liscussion he did have et the lunch nreak of i overber 3,1931.
Dr. Cloud was first intr:rvioied on Dacen%r 16, lnll, at which tine he was asked why, in response to ! r. Eisenhut's question (repeated belou) at the t'ovember 3,1901 reeting he had not nentioned the October 21 and 25 draf t reports *.thich he had previcasly su!n.iitted to Pr.aE.
Cloud replied that the only thing he had on his mind at the time of his response to l'r. Eisenhut's questica was the final report he soon would be subnitting to PGSE., However, the investigators failed to pursue a viable line of questioning when they did not probe into Clo'id's failiare to cention the October 21 and October 26 draf ts, especially
.Q e
i
l Cnairman Palladino 4
after knowing of the discussions that took place before and after Cloud answered Eisenhut's question. The relevant transcript
'is as follows:
"!!r. Denton:
Do se get the sane reports he (Cloud) gives you?
'ttr. l'aneatis: You just got it.
And I have to say, tir. Denton, that sone of these things have just been disclosed to rie, so you got it almost the sane time I did.
'l'r. Eisenhut: then will we be expecting to see the short-tern report, Coh Cloud said it's essentially cu,plete.
'llr. fiorton:
Dr. Cloud, could you answer that?
'!1r. Cloud:
I believe it's -- we will be turning it in eitner this week or next, so you should have it shortly tnereafter.
' fir florton:
I might add we do not have it.
It's not a question of us revieuing it.
lle dosi t have it, eitner.
It just hasn't been done yet.
'llr. Denton:
1: ell, since this is a particularly sensitive issue, I was wondering how you propose to handle co.nents on this draft, or are you going to send us the same repnet ne sends you and add you cover letter to it? Or how will you preserve independence?"
And later:
it'r. Denton:
I'n just asiang ocu injet.end.ent is it?
':tr. I'orton:
Any sugcestions you hav2 - if you unnt the report before we see it, fine.
I fraM ly reser.t the inplication that Dr. Cloud is not an indeaan%nt r2 vie:er becciuse nu is.
As :'r. !*enaa tis ins t r e,
>c tM t o yo u, ue heard this presentation to you yesterday - in fect, ue l
hi drd it " sunday for the first tine.
I assure."au that's the case and we cane back last night, or ve ca.;e back yesterday, and you heard it this rorning.
'The report itself hasn't been prepared.
If you want a
. copy before ne cet it, fine, or sinultaneosslT(emphasTs l
added)."
Chainaan Palladino 5
Three transcripts contain the notation " Discussion of f the record" with no further explanation (Norton, l'aneatis and Tresler transcripts).
These off-the-record situations, once the formal interview process has begun, should be explained, e.g., five minute break, lunch, review of documentation, etc., and not left to the reader's soeculation.
Obvicusly any substantive issues or questions which are discussed during off-tne-record periods should be rediscussed on the record.
The canagement decision regarding the nethodology to be used in conducting interviess of witnesses may well have inhibited witnesses fron being fully candid and forthright.
Initially placing individuals under oath and keeping a verbatim transcript nonnally does not rake A better approach would have been to witnesses feel confortable.
conduct initial interviews in a more infornal ranner, later renorializing the substantive parts of the interview in a fornal transcript under oath.
In addition to scope and direction, a good interview is a product of tine invested.
An adequate job simply cannot be done within the time frames illustrated by sone of the key interviews, e.g., Norton - 45 ninutes; Cloud - 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and 5 minutes; Rocca - I hour and 19 ninutes; l'aneatis 43 minutes; and, Grand - I hour and 44 ninutes.
01A's overall finding is that the IE investigation, as reported in HUREG-0362 Issue 2, was unsatisfactory.
DIA's revint of the second phase of the investigation (NUREG-0362 Issue 3) concluded that tne r.ethodology employed in addressing Issues 15 and 16 was reasonable and accomplished the stated puroose (see page 2), that is, to deten,ine what effect, if any, PCLE's ca,nents made on the various R.L. Cloud draft subni ttals had on the final R.L. Cloud draf t report.
f.Itnuugu a nu!.ber of f inor docu'entary and procedural deficiencies were noted, they did not af fect the overall soundness of the report.
By way of background, the rethodology employed included reviNinn copies of di1 kno.m draf t reports and al1 comr unts relating t!creto.
In this regard, Region V conducted interviews, under oath, viith both PftE and 0.L. Cloud personnel.
A cajor ob,;ective in com'octing thase interviws was to identify hou i;any different draft reports pure issu:d and tne nunber of copies of each draf t that existed. The decut entation r.:ceived frau PME and !!.L. Cloud was consistent with the ininnation developed in the intervieu process. Region V then analyzed the subnittals, connaring cornents rode on the draf ts to the final draf t, in order to detentiine if any significaret changes were made.
All identified changes were reviewed to determine their significance. Tne bases for all substantive changes were reviewed at the R.L. Cloud offices by IE and Region V enployees l
assigned to the investigation.
l
(
Cnoinnan Palladino 6
1 In evaluating the handling of Issues 15 and 16, DIA: interviewed Region V staff; examined infornation available in Region V's files pertaining to the investigation being conducted, including Peeting transcripts, correspondence bedieen hRC, Cloud and PG&E, NRC inspection reports, and other af scellaneous notes, briefs, etc; and analyzed NilREG-0862 Issue 3.
In perforntng this evaluation. DIA made the following observations regarding the investigative methodology and end product:
The documentation to support the work performed on Issues 15 and 16 was inconalete.
The documentation acquired consisted of informal uori; sheets, schedules and tabulations which were not conplete end required tne assistance of regional personnel to determine what was done and to interpret results.
As a result, the files in thenselves were insuf ficient to support the findings put forth in the report.
However, in many instances 01A was able to obtain adequate support by supplementing the files with discussions with the regional
=
s ta f f.
Each draft was not specifically compared to the final draft report, line by line, to identify changes which may have been made based on verbal rather than written connents. However, 0IA believes that any such changes would probably have surfaced because of the review
~
technique used, i.e., tracing uritten cm,nents through each version of tne Cloud report.
The report contains minor errors, such as inaccurate totals, and inconsistencies betueen the various sections reviewed by OIA, with nost errors occurring in the Sunnary and Details sections.
- Further, the infornation contained in the Sunnary and Details sections is not tot 411y supported by the report's appendices.
DIA could not reconstruct the report's schedules to correct the inaccurate totals due to inca 7plete documentation, as noted earlier. GIA attributes these errors to a lack of detailed review of the report prior to publication. prnhe51y due to the snort tine constraints for conpleting the repart.
DIA Selieves, nouever, that tnese vrrors and inconsistencies do not affect tne overall soundness of the report.
DIA's overall finding is tnat the r ethodology w, ployed by Region V in tne IE investigation, as repurted in IDIPEG-0762 'ssue 3, itas fully satisfactory, especially considering the tine constraints far cmpleting the work. Howver, a nutber of ninor deficiencies were identified in the i.resentation of investiriative results, os noted above, unich detracted fran the overall quality of the report.
A copy of this report is being furnished to the Acting Director, Office of Investigations (01).
In line with your April 23, 1982, request that a " review be undertaken with a vies to improving the investigatory process," 01 should consider how the investigatory deficiencies noted in w
s
f Chaiman Palladino 7
this report can be alleviated when developing their internal operating procedures.
With specific regard to the questions raised in !!r. Udall's letter of February 8,1982, we have the following connents:
Udall Questions:
1.
Here appropriate questions asked during the interviews conducted by llRC staff? and; 2.
llere questions appropriately followed up?
OIA Connent,:
The questioning of witnesses by flRC staff was in r.any instances neither sufficiently aggressive nor probing Further, several opportunities to pursue viable lines of questioning, based on the responses received, were not followed up.
Accordi ngly minirial investigative results were derived from the overall interview process.
lle believe that the interview r.,ethodology utilized in this investigation, that is, initially placing people under oath and obtaining verbatin transcripts, was partially responsible for this lack of results.
3.
!!as an adequate search made for relevant docur;ents?
OI M onment:
l'e believe 'teoion V took reasonable steps to insure that relevant docurents u2re obtained fra:i both PGtE and P..L. Cloud.
- t..
Are tr.e sun a ry sections of fit"lEC-O';62 an accurate reflection of the r aterials on uliich they are based?
OI A Come,it:
E4 cept es noted on page 6. paragraph 4, of tnis rte crandu"1 DIA found that the sun.Tary sections of I!UREG-0PS2 dre supported by the details sections of TVIEG-0362.
/
y cc: Comission (4)
Distribution
.J L. Bickwit OIA 82-14 4"
F. Renick OIA rdr X'
J. Fitzgerald TWiest RSmith d
- 11. Dircks t
'd '
S. Chilk R Engelken, RO V OIA orr'ce)
JCummin,gs/bab,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,l,,,,,,,,,,,,f,,,,,,,,,,,,
anecut)
ZB9 82 om>
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY em mi-mem uc rau ns oox; rxu cao