ML20127D451
| ML20127D451 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 09/04/1992 |
| From: | Colapinto D KOHN, KOHN & COLAPINTO, P.C. (FORMERLY KOHN & ASSOCIA, MITCHELL, L.E. |
| To: | Selin I, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| CON-#392-13204 2.206, NUDOCS 9209150054 | |
| Download: ML20127D451 (3) | |
Text
- - -...
-~-
I.320 '
/
q K O H N. K O H N & ' C O L A PI N TO, P.C.
AT10 RN t'YS AT LAW
,gp{jg U%RC wistou.o. vtuut.ww waBH:NGtDN DC 2000 t 4 3 0 2 6 3 3 4
- r. 4,3
' * * 's a i.. -. i. s gp,g me.n o..o s...
t
.o...
o i
w,w w
.n.,~....
awwg rig a s wu%g sap.,
D AWO s. COLA f4NTLI.. a September 4, 1992 080.. 1 W:fe puch! ! q;., i,a g ;
..o....~x g pg 3
. a n.- s o.
.,1-m,e. -
4absm gO m es*
3Lh__LaAslmilq,_,an_d_R.L_ Rail Hon.:Ivan Selin Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission W shington,-D.C 20S55 Re Director's_ Decision No. 92-4, dated August 12, 1992,
-In the Matter APS, et al.,
Docket Nos. 50-528, 50-529,
--and 50-530 M10 C.F.R. S 2.206).
Dear Chairman-Selin:
I am writing regarding the above-referenced matter. On August 12, -1992,: Thomas E.
Mur)ey, Director, office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation -("NRR!'), issued the Final Director's Decision (DD-92-4) responding to certain allegations raised in a Petition of May 22, 1990 filed pursuant to 10 C. F. R. S 2.206 on behalf of Linda E.
Mitchell.
Pursuant to NRC. regulation DD-92-4_ will become the final action.of the NRC on September _8, 1992 unless the Commission, on its own motiont' institutes a review-of within that time.
On behalf -. of Mrs. Mitchell I hereby urge the Commission to take action to stayLthe final action concerning this matter._ This request is based on serious discrepancies between-. sworn testimony presented in U.S. Department of Labor (" DOL") legal proceedings and -
the findings stated in DD-92-4.
The Director's conclusions regarding Petitioner's allegations of _ wrongdoing on the part of-NRC.and/or Arizona,Public Service Co.
("APS")-officials as well as allegations concerning_the " watering
- down" of: NRC Inspection Report No. 90-02 is based almost entirely on a finding that "none of ' John Doc's' findings were deleted _from
~
the : report. "
_ DD-92-4 : at p.
6_ (emphasis added).
However, this critical; factual finding is'not supported by sworn testimony about the inspection = report by the " John Doe" inspector.
An excerpt from the transcript ofl " John Doe's" testimony about Inspection - Report 90 -02 ?is - as. follows:-
[Qj: _Okay, tell me what was included in this report,
.and what~was excluded in this report, generally?
9209150054 920904' PDR ALOCK 05000528 Q-G PDR e
e Page-_2 Hon. Ivan Selin September 4,-1992-
_(A): There was some disagreement internally with the NRC as-to the completeness of the issues, and nope thinati get lef t out of this report, for example, I had an issue with vendor manuals not being up to date, I had an issue with the maintenance practice of preconditioning the batteries prior to doing the eight hour discharge test, and had an issue with reportability and quality assurance that didn't'make this report.
Tr. 1704-05 (emphasis added).
In addition, " John Doe" further testified about Inspection Report No. 90-02 as follows:
Q:
Ilassume there was a process that this went through of some sort before it was issued.
Is that correct?
A:
Yes, that typically occurs.
And in this case,
-I wrote the report on my PC in draf t, and then sont it in
~
'to a formal typing report.
Then it_went to all parties involved. and -changes were made ibased on individual perceptions and word preferences.
I characterized these issues as violations as they'are in' Inspection Report 90-25.
Management felt that they should.be unresolved items.
And some of the information that: I had included __ill, this renort was omitted'from the final report.
I don't why.
Maybe by accident.
I don't~know.
Tr.. - 18 3 9_-4 0L(emphasis added).-
These material' facts do not square with the Director's
-conclusion that "none" of the draft findings were deleted from the report.
Accordingly, the Commission must reconsider DD-92-4 in
-light'ofithese additional facts.
- A stay and reconsideration of DD-92-4 is warranted given the-t apparent oversight of material evidence concerning the Petition-allegations.
This evidence demonstrates that serious safety and--
. quality-related concerns were, in 'f act, deleted f rom report No. 90_-
02.- Moreover,_ the Commission should defer finalf action in light of the findings of two other related investigations conducted by the NRC Of fice of _ Inspector General _ ("OIG") _ which found improper conduct on the part of NRC personnel concerning the handling of sensitive information related to Petitioner's allegations.
l
. _... -... _ - -...,. ~
.=
~.;
v
- q
.Page 3 ilon. Ivan Solin
. September 4,_1992 These are extremely serious matters which require the Commission's prompt attention.
Respectfully submitted, fj;teg ),j~(<,=
/
,'?
u.,
ss -
David K.
Colapinto ~
Attorney for Petitioner
'CC1 S.
Chilk, Secretary T
j 'y i
4 e
a
,