ML20085H200

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Comments on Review of Commission Meeting Transcripts Re Unresolved Open Item.Nature of Investigation,Required Findings,Conclusions,Recommendations & NUREG-0862 Should Have Included Util Matl False Statement Findings
ML20085H200
Person / Time
Site: Diablo Canyon  Pacific Gas & Electric icon.png
Issue date: 07/15/1982
From: Boulden H
NRC
To:
NRC
Shared Package
ML20083L446 List:
References
FOIA-83-130, RTR-NUREG-0862, RTR-NUREG-862 NUDOCS 8309070425
Download: ML20085H200 (3)


Text

/

s 'j

'f z

/

Q q

i l

ll

l l

f.i i

t.h hf ^s',e

.' h

.bo July 15,1982

/./'

'of.'.*{y

/'

't

)

's'/' f

,?'

y MEMORA*4DUM FOR:

File 82-14

!Y ss' i

FROM:

Harry Bould f)I j

SUBJECT:

UtiRE50LVED OPEN ITEM

[c h'

(

N7 g

g2-In my review of the transcripts of Cormission meetings, I noted two references to a vote by the Corcissioners for the investication not to include recommendations. The first reference is fcund on page 71 of the transcript of the closed sceting on January 21, 1982.

Tne second is found on page 22 of the transcript of the closed meeting on February 9,1982.

I called Walter Magee at the Secretariat on two occassions and asked his assistance in identifying and documenting the subject vote. He was not able to do so and told me he would have to consult Mr. Chilk (7/9/82). He was, however, able to identify another closed Commission meeting at which Diablo Canyon was discussed of which I had been unaware. He forwarded to me a copy of that tran-script, dated December 22, 1981.

I informed George Messenger, 0IA Deputy Director, Assistant Director for Audits, of my interest and concerns and my conversations with Mr. ifagee.

Mr. Magee told me in our second conversation that he had talked to Bob Engelken who scemed to recall that he had received instructions from the EDO by phone not to include conclusions and reconcendations in the special investigation report.

/*l t 9L

.n\\

.t

'/.\\

70425 830610 f.

'hi DIA REYNOLD83-130 POR7

2 Mr. Magee called me for a third time on July 14, 1982. He told me he had talked to Bob Engelken again and also to Mr. Dircks, the NRC General Counsel and they had been unable to confirm that the vote referred to by the Cha'irman had ever taken place. Mr. Magee said the General Counsel suggested that the Chairman had a recollection that the matter had been discussed and had believed a vote had been taken at the December 22, 1981, meeting. Mr. Dircks believed he had received his instructions from the Commissioners at the December 22, 1981, meeting but did not recall a vote or no recommendations. Thus it appears that there may not have been any vote.

If truely there was never a vote taken, this would be incredible to me.

There would have been four Commissioners who heard the Chairman make a false statement who were not responsive to correct the record. Also present was the Secretary to the Commission, the General Counsel, the EDO, the Deputy EDO, the Director NRR, the Deputy Director NRR, the Director IE, the Director PA, the Director PE, an ELD lawyer, and apparently listening by telephone the Region V Administrator, all high level NRC officials none of whom questioned or requested clarification of the Chairman's remarks.

It is inconceivable to me that many of these officials would not have known that the Chairman made a false statement if there had been no vote.

It would seem to me that the same standards would apply to this situation as should have been applied to the November 3,1981, meeting between PG&E and NRR.

NUREG 0862 does not include a finding that one or more caterial false statements were made by PG&E, does not refer to a notice of violation and does not recommend any actions. However, apparently on the basis of the NUREG, the Commissioners voted for PG&E to be issued a citation for a material false statement but that no civil penalty be imposed.

v

3

?

e In my opinion the nature of the investigation required findings, conclusions and recommendations and NUREG 0862 should have included them or explained why they were exp' icitly excluded, i.e., by Commission direction.if this l

was the reason. However, it is now unclear whether and what Commission guidance may have been conveyed to the EDO and to the Region V Admini-strator in regard to the inclusion or exclusion of conclusions and

.c5 recomendations in NUREG 0862.

cc:

J. Cummings G. Messenger A. Gauthier O

1

\\

l