ML20090H746

Withdraws Allegations Against NRC Staff as Summarized in Rept of Interview W/Ofc of Inspector & Auditor Atty R Smith. Methodology for Investiation Obviously Designed to Predetermine Results

ML20090H746
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	07/25/1984
From:	Devine T GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT, SAN LUIS OBISPO MOTHERS FOR PEACE
To:	Asselstine J, Palladino N, Roberts T NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
OL, NUDOCS 8407270107
Download: ML20090H746 (2)

Text

${s] ^

f GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT Institute for Policy Studies 1901 Que Street. N.W.. Washington. D.C. 20009 (202)234-9382 w.

u. rm July 25, 1984 JL 2S FI2 2l

'g!3 Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman Thomas Roberts, Commissioner James Asselstine, Comissioner

~U Frederick Bernthal, Comissioner Lando Zech, Comissioner 1717 H Street,:1.U.

1 Washington, D.C.

20555 l

Re:

Diablo Canyon iluclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 Occket rlumbers 50-275 and 50-323

Dear Commissioners:

On oehalf of the San Luis Obispo, California Mothers for Peace l

(dothers), this letter is to withdraw the Diablo Canyon allegations against toe Nuclear Regulatory Commission (flRC) staff, summarized in my Report of In-terview with Office of Inspector and Auditor (OIA) attorney Ronald Smith.

The reason for this action is simple:

The Mothers don't cooperate with R

coverups.

It has become painfully obvious that the methodology for the investigation is designed to predetermine the results. The basis for this disappointing assessment is as follows:

1) Mr. Smith informed me that his only concern is whether any staff misrepresentations on Diablo Canyon were intentional.

That reduces his effort to an exercise of finger-pointing, at best. The point of the allegations is that the system broke down; the staff presented a materially inaccurate, incomplete record to the Comission in the weeks prior-to a licensing vote.

It is of little solace to.the residents potentially endangered by the plant, if the evidence was suppressed merely due to in-competence rather than to criminal intent.

2) Mr. Smith explained that the allegations are vague and imprecise.

That is curious, since he drafted them during approximately a ten hour interview, in which he either.did not record the details or relegated them to " background" status.

Even more curiously, he refused to speak with the j

whistleblowers who have first hand knowledge. They could have helped to provide the unidentified, further details he claims to lack, if he had let i

l them.

3) Mr. Smith has accepted the staff's predictable denials of wrong-doing at face value. He further informed me that the staff's denials are sufficient grounds to dismist all allegations as unfounded. The problem is that in at least some cases the staff's-denials constitute-further false statements.

For example, the staff took credit for. interviews with whistleblowers who have never met the staff. Unfortunately, Mr. Smith 8407270107 840725 PDR ADOCK 05000275' C

PDR

~

informed me that the staff's answers are entitled to a " presumption of regularity."

In practice, that means he will not receive evidence of irregularity from eyewitnesses. His conclusions will be whatever the staff had told him.

4) Mr. Smith reassured me that if the staff's answers are false, at least they will be pinned down and GAP can "really get them" in the next OIA investigation. The problem is that by then the system will have failed; a major licensing decision will have been made on the basis of material false statements from the staff. Ileither the Mothers nor GAP are interested in "getting them next time"; we are not trying to write a book about the Diablo Canyon coverup. We want an accurate record before the Ccanission votes on the commercial license. DIA has missed the point.

Mr. Smith complained that the Mothers want an " inquisition." That is incorrect; the Mothers only want an investigation.

DIA will not talk to the complaining witnesses. As a result, 0IA has failed the minimum standards for any government investigation.

What happened with OIA at Diablo Canyon is the same phenomenon that occurred after the Three Mile Island cleanup debacle.

It also explains why the scandals at the dRC keep recurring -- there is no legitimate system of 4

checks and balances at this agency. Obviously the public cannot stop the Commission from assigning its internal watchdog to defend the staff, instead of to investigate it.

But there 'should be no pretense that this is occurring at the request of the public. This is the opposite of what the Mothers requested in their petition.

Sincerely, l

Thomas Devine Counsel, Mothers for Peace

..