ML20129B012
| ML20129B012 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 07/02/1984 |
| From: | Rich Smith NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTOR & AUDITOR (OIA) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20129A429 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-84-745 NUDOCS 8506050073 | |
| Download: ML20129B012 (9) | |
Text
!
~
l U.S. NUCLEAR RECULATORY COMMIS$10N Office af inspecttr and Auditor osie et transee.euen July 2.
1984 Report of Interview Thomas M. Devine, Legal Director, Government Accountability Project (GAP) 1901 Q Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20009, upon interview concerning various allegations raised by him in two petitions, dated April 12 and May 3, 1984, respectively, submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206, provided the following information:
During the interview, which was conducted over a period of three days, various matters were discussed with Mr.-Devine which were reduced to the following specific allegations and infonnation:
1.
That Harold Denton, Directgt, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), made a false an#TSisleading statement to the Comissioners of the NRC, in that on March 19, 1984, he stqted that GAP notified James P. Knight, NRR, of allegations of'faise u d m h h Mi g #
T statement #'by a licensee, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) on March 16,1984,4p "Nhe dccas,fons begi[n d by n contacted by GAP
~"r-th t phj 3C, t
3 representatives onNuS arch 5, 1984, regarding the allegations and with the knowledge that the statement could mislead the Commissioners into a belief that the allegations were not timely made, thereby affecting their decision as to whether to permit low power testing at the Diablo Canyon facil)ity! Toes 7o,r4 O It M M P%e la oh rkt th% 14 Comrmt wvfu:. rR*4 Mig to Ir. the event Mr. De March 5, 8, 9,12,,gton was ignorant of the prior contacts of 4 14 and 15, James P. Knight, NRR, and Thomas Bishop, Region V, were also present at the hearing and were aware of at least some of the contacts, but made no effort to correct Mr. Denton, which constitutes a false statement to the Comissioners by omission.
The importance of this issue is not so much the statement itself but rather it's capability to influence the Comissioners to believe that because GAP was not raising allegations in a timely manner, they lacked real credibility and therefore should be dismissed and/or given little or no weight in the Comissioners' decision as E "
to whether to permit low power testing at the Diablo Canyon facility.
(A list of the contact dates is found at pages 3 and 4 of the April 12, 1984, petition.)
2.
Thp/S,J,phn B. Martin, Regional Administrator, Region V, made false t
y and isleading statements to the Comissioners of the NRC, in that on March 19, 1984, he stated that the "new allegations are, by and large, from the same people who had the old allegations," h = b- % e n e rdr.
that 11 of the 17 allegers had not previously spoken to the NRC as'"yfffffff June 25-27, 1984 Bethesda, MD
,,,,,84-26
.i 4
Ronald M. Smith, Senic Inve s t iga t or, OI A,,,,,,,,,,
July 2, 1984 Ev'r'sioa Na'$$IvTo'4Seic'v'ENu'vSea'Nsio~Tr"v'n"a^os'e7ce*[a $sEc't$'4=o 2uEv'o'n * *
/HL 8506050073 841211 PDR FOIA oo s2' DEVDES4-745 PDR
2
, f
- of that date,'and further. stating that the new allegations essentially represented mere " wrinkles".on the same issues previously raised in Supplerental Safety Evaluation Reports (SSER) 21 and 22, knowing that several examples of significant issues not
- addressed in SSER 21 or 22, in fact, were in existence, the purpose,ke/or(Fs.'
of these statements being to influence the Comissioners not to wait
~ for resolution of the allegations prior to pennitting low power testing at the Diablo Canyon facility.- (Examples of the significant SSER issues referenced abo;e are found at page five of the
/144rs t J r47Fu m r: aeerA<esoo,Jp646/Aso April 12, 1984, p:etition. 19 Cevr 6s soistus rf*JMofr,)yo N of T W G ' =
^ itHc i
,7)tegion V, made a false Q a p phn B. Martin,,feg &,ong),Ad,mipittrjtomilsf6Her 11nsky in that on 3.
an$ misleading statehent March 27, 1984, he' stated that the NRC had talked with a witness (HaroldHudson)"foratl l people at several different times, jag: g-
$gy ly,1,gg r, gen at uds n b
, pef gd and that he had not p
i been reinterview,ed)p,c g erg hrgas was sta 45 uFsori in a March 22, 1984 interviewed only o affidavit which Martin claimed to have read on or about March 23,1984 The impact of Martin's statement was that the Comissione could have been left with the impression that follow-up interviews had been carried out, particularly in the case of Hudson, whichwasnottrue,thesignificanceofthefailuretorintegw,. 8h[r being ghat the licensees' response to certain allegatio T Ftlepted by the NRC at face value with no re,tju g }Ififg,theh 'the Hudson allegers being permitted.
(Martin's reference toarea affidavit lis found at page seven of the March 26 Com Thatlhomas [ish'op,kw,!on V, made a false ranscrigt 11 aM t
$rWro"" A M 2'* '
"'I** WCffMW D Om M w 4
Reg to'the Comissioners of the NRC, in that on March 26, 1984, he stated that the NRC had not yet been provided additional supporting 4
material for an allegation concerning hydrostatic test records when, March 2,1984, knowing that said response wey$(g or about in fact, the records had been provided tgjjm t
o lead the Comigsgrgo believe that hydrostatic testing was not a problem area...
...:e 8: '#:d have influenced their decision to permit 7
.h<$EEh*4rMr*N'4MOthA"82ch"4 N
I i
rA It.is further believed by Mr. Devine that, regardless of whether Bishop had the materials, it was wrong to just ignore the allegation because of any alleged failure by an outsider to provide claimed pilegationpather
" documentation" in support of thj(aNU StNcWit 4@than for the NRC f*o val FM/3#
to rouest the data on its n
Tw neku u Co,mno! 7tosworr 4
9 That James P. Knight, NRR, by omission, made a false andinisleading 7
i 5.
statement'to the Comissioners of the NRC on March 19, 1984, in that he failed.to tell them that (a) Mr. Isa Yin, NRC, had discovered'IS7*
inspection issues which were material to the licensing decision, of i
[
which only a portion of the issues had been discussed; (b) serious questions had been raised by) uncontrolled design changes in the
" Quick Fix" program; and, (c an undocumented Westinghouse l
management policy regarding destruction of material records had been instituted, knowing that knowledge of any or all of these issues W NM*d4 NAAH 22 4ff tDMIT idaay aM pacc ht Arremed1.2 To A N% M I45V httrio.J uaoce to C 2.26 ITIS ATTActk0 Hoet10 kleW NWW AW foMO cd (AGet i 3D
3 could have affected the Commissioners' decision as to whether to pemit low power testing at the Diablo Canyon facility.
(Further support and discussion of this allegation is found at pages 6-9 of the April 12, 1984 petition.)
6.
ThatJppnB. Martin,RegionalAdministrator,RegionV,madeafalse WandFmiDeading statement to the Comissioners of the NRC on i
March 19, 1984, when he said, in referring to whether the contractor had corrected problems at Diablo Canyon, that "when there have been lapses they seem to have corrected themselves...there were problems that tended to get found by the quality and management systems that are set up to do that sort of thing," and more specifically as to welding deficiencies, said "and in every case it appears to be T* Jer=rf*'1984 affidavit and'a,datatypepts were contradicted by theTemM1 f, resolved," knowing that pp)inthhew of Harold Hudson and that Ms
'# lM./4 % d ailure to apprise the Commissioners of the fact that there was serious question as to the adequacy of the contractor corrective action could have affected the Commissioners' decision as to whether to~ pemit low power testing at the Diablo Canyon facility.
(The Hudson affidavit is attached hereto and further reference to the transcript testimony is found at p%e 9 of the April 12, 1984 aa petition. G ll &g M eTCtkNfrtN MS AW W$0$sb a Df W Hvosa Af e$ l-That Dennis Kirsch, Region 7, O !m$ $7 7.
on or about ebruary 29,1984,by omission, made a material false statement in IE Report 83-37 whep he did not discuss (a) the Nuclear Services Corporation (NSC) audit %[
14%eh-feed that "While a written Quality Assurance Progrsm exists, the program does not meet the e gl,r B..." or (b) the interview and4a fidgnents of 10 CFR 50, _ Appendix a0it of Harold Hudsonj which verified tne accuracy of the,,NSthe Comissioners of the NRC..ggigh ry;ard, knowing that
_-y en 1. e assence of this finding in reaching a decision as to whether to permit low power testing at the Diablo Canyon facility.
8.
Ty(tJ,chnB. Martin,RegionalAdministrator,RegionV,madeafalse MsleadingstatementtotheCommissionersoftheNRCon an March 26, 1984, whenhestatef,inreferringtotheappropriate standard for qualifying Nondestructive Examination Personnel for quality assurance work at Diablo Canyon, that " ANSI-N45.2.6 is not the applicable standard" knowing (a) that the contractor, Pullman, had committed to the same standard in 1974 because of Atomic Energy e
Comission pressure; (b) that this statement would negate the impact 0(
e of the NSC audit findings; and, (c) that the Commissicners 9
- rely on the satisfactory resolution of the issue in reaching a decision as to whether to permit low power testing at the Diab]o Canyon facility.
(See page 10 of the April 12, 1984 petitionfiand the 1974 Pullman memorandum attached hereto.)
9.
ThatJohnB.Mgr{ng Regional Administrator, Region V, by omission made a false an iMeading statement to the Comissioners of the NRC on March 26, 1984 when he failed to correct his statement of March 19 that "in every case it (welding problems) appears to be resolved" knowing that a memorandum dated July 30, 1982, to which he himself had referred on that same day, reflected that the problem of
g
. noncompliance with ANSI-N45.2.6, whichLsets qualification tswryygjc H f
gege-e 8
requirements for welding inspectors, had not been resolvedaand I N 7,7/
further knowing-that the omission could affect the Commissioners' decision as to whether to permit low power testing at the Diablo Canyon _ facility.
(See a copy of the July 30 memo attached hereto.)
10.-ThptgJghn B. Martin, Regional Administrator, Region V, made a false
- ahdrmilleading statement to the Comissioners of the NRC on April 13, 1984, concerning eight deficiencies identified on a plant tour conducted on April 11, 1984, by stating that it was found "at
~
least preliminarily, that none of them violate any requirement,"
when he knew, or should have known, that code violations for five of
/
them had been identified, and knowing further that his stated conclusion could affect the Comissioners' decision as to whether to permit low power testing at the Diablo Canyon facility. (Seeacopy of Park's affidavit dated April 17, 1984, attached hereto, and the transcript of Marti s comments fo t page f the April 13 7
I p
a y om orc Nde aise and
. 11. T at Denn s K rse,
misleading statemen kegionalAdministrator
, by failing to advise him of an apparent breakdown ir #, Region-corrective action for pipe' rupture restraints, knowing that.had the Regional e
s o s
d f' n
f in D
could have affected the Commissioners' decision as to.whether to pemit low power testing at the Djap1 (See a copy of the Harold Hudson affidavit JLne/1,g Canyon facility.
984, attached, which was,.in substance, discussed by*him with Kirsch in an interview conducted by/10-
'I d Mt M44W WM Wh44'D oP Pd UW" Of ri1 1984[M Ki i
nw s % sp'ryM fx M hr ht WM: EinfrWT' e
MAR 44 on a
- 12. That pie 1 -
is ed t
. Commission by stating-lo Canyon Drawing Control" was Mn,sd6Dr 510 teu)chaMhg.psg of " Design Chan SSER 72M)'aMgrYpfi 4
adequately resolved for purposes of licensing decisions." The alleged resolution cited the tracking.of a complicated design change which had, in fact, been 1
a on t rc
. d n
o r
e approval system but were handled by " Quick Fix" Las was ater verified by Isa Yin) and by informal rnemoranda (with no J.
accountability).
10yw HRC(TAAP'O
- 13. That a person, or persons unknown, in N # made a Government decision outside official channels which could also adversely affect the n tjw.,jntegrity of the Government by confidence of' the pubig/5e'd,at'H' March 1984, a finding -that "the publishing in NUREG.06 allegation that management has purposely destroyed documentation is not substantiated," then knowing that this conclusion was not based on any investigation by the NRC's.0ffice of Investigations which,-
pursuant to 10 CFR 1.36, has responsibility for investigation of all e
suspected wrongdoing on the part of licensees or permittees.
Mr.:Devine believed that this action would create at least the l
" appearance _of" actions prescribed under 10 CFR 0.735-49a. He also believed that this finding,- unchallenged, could +4se affect the TD
- W eb ee n?v 'w e g-g-
p q,
tr,.O%.-ywe+s-t g-1+~,.-+
ww weg"wm-ry--g,'-g-ww-g h-w per-->*--=g-r yr g
rg w ww.
.-9,9r--v n g--g-.
-p.gm..eaw mygyym +9 6 -se
- r e-e-v rw,,,,,y mb5g W e-'T
- -TM T
q
5 Comissioners' decision as to whether to permit low power testing at Diablo Canyon facility.
(The above citation is found within pages A.4-87.1 thru 87.4 of SSER-22 (NUREG-0675).
As further background,the " destroyed design review documents #
addressed whether the design of pipe support installation would withstand earthquake activity within the parameters required by the NRC's Novenber 1981 order suspending PG&G's license for Diablo Canyon. Successful completion of the review was required by the NRC before the license could be reinstated for the purpose of low power testing. "U TWMCmt MLE6eA 4 IMM@ Matf #DrW mr TM STMF Am q
Os ed ud tWf c.MrpecugM fft.Swce$ AmucSTS Tb BEtambygec8y gghirg
- 14. A basis may exist for one a'dditional allegation concerning the deletion by Dennis Kirsch, Region V, of substantive portions of the transcript of an interview with two witnesses (Steve Lockert and a confidential source) in January 1984. However, before perfecting the allegation, it will be necessary for Mr. Devine to further review and confirm the discrepancies. The questioned transcript and GAP's trar. script are currently in California and thus not available at this time. Should the review verify in Mr. Devine's mind that a valid allegation exists, he will forward the supporting evidence to this office promptly.
As stated in his 2.206 petitions of April-12 and May 3, Mr. Devine also believes that DIA should investigate the "causes of the QA breakdown within the NRC staff responsible for Diablo Canyon." In addition to the specific allegations addressed above, he expressed concern about the methodology of NRC fact. finding in regard to Diablo Canyon, e.g., refusing to conduct timely interviews and/or followup meetings with witnesses; turning over witness affidavits and evidence to the utility, thereby compromising the confidentiality of anonymous sources and the integrity of the Office of Investigations cases; relying on unchecked licensee responses as a basis to resolve and/or reclassify the safety significance of allegations; assigning staff members with a conflict of interest to resolve allegations, the confirmation of which would directly challenge the adequacy of the same individuals' prior inspection efforts; and, applying inconsistent actions to analogous alleged quality assurance violations at Diablo Canyon, compared with TMI and Waterford previous NRC enforcement actions at the Zimmer, Midla N h Q % yyl,f et/T W MG 41A7vWh yM fnM oe facj11 ties. 'rgedf gyw d ao r)N hk Y Yc# fry N was expt ned t'o E bevine that ti**e i'nv,estigative s Vr# & [or kote:
o Investiha I
staff is limited to lcoking at specific allegations of misconduct, i.e, items 1-14 above, and not " programmatic issues," as addressed in the last paragraph above, unless otherwise directed to do so.
Attachments:
As stated (cg, wu wCu one carwa Mc canrioy Astave r o aa w ae a e m5os a wreo aon,,ca.
~
Lgn. aarasxnee zurra,a wn wc1 Mgn%
r Fucca aravec Jear hefica. ne re srm wweo a grrwd y nucaun encur ara. aren we lod M ucwws oecaw w NCuko THVphrisruchfRo/i 'Ni d'T TM MM4 "'7" kUM Td AKW w a ra irs e.
2-6
}
i l
I have reviewe'd the above Report of Interview prepared by Ronald M.
Smith, Senior Investigator, OIA, have made changes, if any, as indicated -
by my initials, and hereby find that it~is a'true statement and accordingly adopt it as my ownsiry TIE Acomv3 4cJctideo wo g/ faced SKosl od 7tM PAGFWo pff EdufJGJU NbWTg 9%d,
%)b nr 7homas Devine I wish to formalize allegation #14, to read as follows:
- 14. That a person or persons unknown on the NRC staff, or Region V inspector. Dennis Kirsch, engaged in a false and/or misleading statement by omission through f&ilure to include-in the NRC staff. transcript of a January 5, 1984-interview with two witnesses, those. portions of the interview where Mr. Russ-Nolle was identified as a management official who obstructed inspectorn from performing quality assurance functions.
This om.ission removed from.the record information that was relevant to assess whether site management possessed the necessary c
character and competence to qualify for a low-power operating licer.se.
Even if the omissions were not material, they represent activities _ prescribed under-10 CFR 0.735-49a, which could " affect adversely the confidence of the public in the integrity of the government." 10 CFR 0.735-49a(f).
' GAP's draft transcript.of the' interview is insufficient to perfect the allegation.
However, attorney John Clewett and the two employee witnesses, who all participated in the January 5 interview, have requested to be interviewed
,by Mr. Smith about the inaccuracies in the staff transcript and how.the inaccuracies affected their confidence in the-integrity of the NRC staff.
Further, one of the employee witnesses has his copy of the tape _ recording from which-the staff's transcript was drawn.
To avoid further cluttering the typed text of Mr. Smith's interview.
-report, reference is hereby made to three documents which are, repord tgtS,ppecific allegations and'were attached to the interview relegan - 7) typed copy of March 27, 1984 GAP telegram to the' Commission, relevant to allegations l'and 2; 2) March 22, 1984'affi-davit'of John Clewett, relevant to allegations 1 and 2; and 3) typed copy of March-26, 1984 statement by Isa Yin to the Commission, relevant to allegation 5.
As a witness with first hand knowledge of
'the staff's_ response to allegations from employees, Mr. Clewett has requested to-be interviewed by Mr. Smith as part of the OIA investigation.
~~
- C. - -
7 I The necessary facts for the following two allegations had not occurred at the time of the June 25-27 interview.
At Mr. Smith's instructions for this type of contingency, they are summarized below as the most complete statement which is possible at this time.
- 15. That a person or persons unknown on the NRC staff, made false and/or misleading statements by omission through failure to provide sufficiently accurate, complete notice to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board of an issue material to the license -- the use of A307 bolts with the heads removed as studs welded to the containment liner.
On May 31, 1984 the Quality Assurance manager for the licensee's contractor Pullman Power Products informed personnel that the use of these bolts was "NOT acceptable."
(emphasis in original).
On June 12 the joint intervenors filed a copy of the memorandum with the Appeal Board, which reserved judgment on Diablo Canyon's commercial license with respect to this issue and ordered a response from the licensee.
Over six months earlier, in a January 5, 1984 interview, two witnesses had' notified Region V inspectors Dennis Kirsch and Gonzalo Hernandez of the same unacceptable practice.
In NUREG-0675, SSER 22, the staff reported that numerous challenged materials, including those covered by the January 5 allegations, werg$ a r, gd, suitable and acceptable for use.
As a result, t c m-plete record on this issue conflicts both with the allegers and site management. This creates at least the " appearance of" actions prescribed under 10 CFR 0.735-49a, which could " affect adversely the confidence of the public in the integrity of the Government." 10 CFR 0.735-49a(f).
(References to the January 5 disclosure are found on pages 21-25 of the draft transcript to that meeting, which is attached hereto.
The reference to this issue in the Appeal Board's decision is found on pages ten and eleven, footnote 21, of its June 28, 1984 Memorandum and order, which is attached hereto.
The reference to the staff's published position is found within pages A.4-103.3 through 103.6 of SSER 22.
Further, Mr. Clewett and the two employee witnesses, who all participated in the January 5 interview, request to be interviewed by Mr. Smith on this allegation.)
- 16. That on Thursday, July 5, Richard Vollmer, NRR, violated prior staff agreements with' witnesses by announcing that NRC inspector Isa Yin no longer would be permitted to conduct interviews with Diablo Canyon witnesser.
This announcement violated a December 1983 NRC staff agreement with Mr. Charles Stokes,_whose allegations later were confirmed by Mr. Yin.
This also violated an agreement by the NRC staff at a May 22, 1984 meeting,zD
8
'T) for Mr. Yin to interview additional whistleblowers to receive evidence of specific safety problems due to the-Quick Fix program in Unit 1.
Mr. Vollmer's subsequent refusal-to permit Mr. Yin's participation in employee interviews occurred during a July 5 telephone conver-sation with'myself. Mr. Vollmer made this decision, despite his knowledge that due to a previous' loss of confidence by relevant Diablo Canyon whistleblowers in the integrity
~
of the NRC, they would only disclose their evidence to l
Mr.. Yin as a channel to receive a good faith review.
Mr. Vollmer knowingly took action that will contribute to the staff's failure to receive evidence material for the upcoming decision;on a commercial license, since the Quick Fix program is one of the action items that must be resolved prior to licensing.
The evidence is even more significant to test the accuracy of the licensee's claim that a complete review of the Quick
'Fix program. confirmed the absence of any significant problems.
Mr. Vollmers's action also further erodes
" confidence in the integrity of the Government," in violation of 10 CFR 0.736-a(f).
1 (As-support for this allegation, Mr. Stokes and I both request to be interviewed by Mr. Smigth.
I also am seeking to confirm whether any NRC officials have obstructed Mr. Yin from performing any other duties.
If such further misconduct is confirmed, the evidence Will be forwarded promptly to OIA. Evidence _of notice oE to Mr. Vollmer of the whistleblower's loss of confidence in the NRC staff other than Mr. Yin can 4
be found in Mr. Stokes' comments at a July 2, 1984 public meeting.
The transcript of the meeting has not yet been released by the NRC staff.)
With respect to the allegations of false and/or misleading state-ments, the intent of each charge is not to point the finger at particular individuals and-assess their personal guilt or innocence as adequate resolution of.the allegation.
Rather, part of the T8
'8 that intent of the allegations is to establish
- in each instance'the record was deficient with respect to informa-tion material for a. licensing decision.
Specific officials were targeted as responsible for each act of misconduct, in order to comply with the format for OIA interview reports.
It may be necessary to' insure that the effort to identify responsible parties does not substitute for the underlying point of each allegation -- to challenge the adequacy of the licensing record.
as presented-by the staff.
Therefore, the reference to specific
- individuals 'in each ' allegation should be supplemented with the following [ phrase -
"a person or persons unknown in the NRC staff, or the identified target _,7."7g
- O e
9
~p e
,e s,-,,re-sen,N--,-,
,,--N<--,.w-,w-,,,--,--+,--,,-ww,--n',,--ee,,rw---,ve,ww.r,e-,,,w,ww,-n,,,,..,,,,a-,meme+m,,e,--gs,w,-,,
s.-,-rw.-.m-,.e-<-e,,ww-
9 411 of the above charges, including the alleged false and/or misleading statements, also represent activities prescribed under 10 CFR 0.735a, which could " affect adversely the confidence of the public in the integrity of the Government." 10 CFRO.735a(f).
More specifically, it is alleged that the. staff's actions caused a significant loss of confidence in the NRC among two relevant public groups -- 1) citizens in communities surrounded by Diablo Canyon; and 2) whistleblowers who risked their careers to d'.sclose their concerns to the staff about illegal construction and engineering practices.
Certain examples of affected whistleblowers already have been listed with respect to specific allegations.
The same point applies to Mr. Hudson, the alleger who attempted to work with the staff on issues relevant for allegations 3 and 6-9.
There-fore, I request that the OIA investigation also include interviews with these allegers and the public to determine whether their confidence has been eroded in the integrity of the NRC.
Mr. Smith also has informed me that he is not permitted to make findings of fact, but rather is limited to preparing a record from the various interviews and submitting it to a factfinder.
This restriction violates a basic premise of legal factfinding:
the government official or foram closest to the facts is responsible to make findings of fact.
Thus, the inspector who looks at evidence first-hand also authors the findings in the ensuing inspection report.
Analogously, the trial court prepares findings of fact, rather than an appellate court removed from direct observation of the witnesses.
If OIA pclicy normally is contrary to this premise, I-formally request that for this case Mr. Smith be granted the organizational freedom to draw conclusions as a result of his investigation.7p
(_
Thom.s Devine 7 [ fiI
=
August 1, 1984 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Chairman Palladino Comissioner Roberts Comissioner Asselstine Comissioner Bernthal Comissioner Zech FROM:
George H. Messenger, Acting Director Office of Inspector and Auditor
SUBJECT:
DIABLO CANYON - 2.206 PETITION The attached Report of Investigation documents an Office of Inspector and Auditor (0IA) investigation of allegations against seven NRC employees, which was initiated June 14, 1984, as a result of two petitions dated April 12 and May 3, 1984, respectively, submitted by Thomas Devine, Government Accountability Project (GAP), pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206. The petitions con-tained two general allegations:
1.
Whether there have been misleading or material false statements by the NRC staff to the Comission during the March 19, 26, 27 or April 13 (1984) briefings, or in Supplemental Safety Evaluation Reports SSER-21 (December 1983) or SSER-22 (March 1984); and 2.
The causes of the QA breakdown within the NRC staff responsible for Diablo Canyon.
When interviewed concerning these two general allegations, Devine provided information which fonned the basis for 16 allegations. None of the allegations were substantiated by this investigation.
On July 24, 1984, Thomas Devine declared that he was withdrawing all alle-gations and would follow up on that declaration in writing.
His reasons for withdrawal were set out in a letter to the Comission dated July 25, 1984.
That matter is addressed under separate cover to the Comission.
Attachment:
Rpt of Investigation (filed in separate folder) cc:
H. Plaine, OGC, w/att Distribution:
OIA Subject M6 OIA Reading pgch W
CONTAr"-
Rnnald Rmith OTA _
e 499.454
..... 9.t ^.M........ 9.t.Ef....
.t.A.
....RSm1,g y),b,a b,,
,,,HBow9rs,,,,,,,,,G
,,,,,n g,g r,,,
...... %. O..M..
..a..(..?.........kI.:.f.?.......c::..m. 8,,,,.,4..............
wee ronu sye no,soi nnew o2' OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
- U.S. C.PO M8 3400-2<
DIABLO CANYON - 2.206 PETITION The Office of Inspector and Auditor (01A) conducted an investigation into allegations against seven NRC employees, which was initiated June 14, 1984, as a result'of two petitions dated April 12 and May 3,1984, respectively, submitted by Thomas Devine, Government Accountability Project (GAP), pursuant to.10~CFR 2.206. The petitions contained two general allegations:
1.
Whether there have been misleading or material false statements by the NRC staff to the Conmission during the March 19, 26, 27 or April 13 (1984) briefinas, or in Supplemental Safety Evaluation Reports SSER-21 (December 1983}orSSER-22(March 1984);and 2.
The causes of the QA breakdown within the NRC staff responsible for Diablo Canyon.
When interviewed concerning these two general allegations, Thomas Devine provided information which formed the basis for 16-allegations.
Fourteen of the allegations were that individual NRC employees, on different occasions, either by statement or omission, falsely advised.the Comissioners on various issues of inport to the Comm'ssioners' decision on low power testing at Diablo Canyon. Two allegations rere against the NRC staff for (1) an alleged false statement in NUREG-0675 (5SEr.-22) and for (2) failing to give sufficiently complete and accurate notice to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board of a particular issue. None of the allegations as submitted were substantiated by this investigation. A report on the results of the investigation was completed late August 1, 1984.
On July 24, 1984, Thomas Devine declared that he was withdrawing all alle-gations and would follow up on that declaration in writing. His reasons for withdrawal were ' set out in a letter to the Comission dated July 25, 1984. A copy of this lett'er was provided to 0IA by the Commission ~on July 30, 1984.
This matter is addressed under separate cover to the Commission.
Office of Inspector and Auditor August 2,.1984 A O'
- kl:A
d1 w AC
[
L, g&pn u_
q DIABLO CANYON - 2.206 PETITION d-Jb. -4 f/s/ W The Office of Inspector and Auditor (0IA) conducted an investigation into allegations against seven NRC employees, which was initiated June 14, 1984, as a result of two petitions dated April 12 and May 3,1984, respectively, submitted by Thomas Devine, Government Accountability Project (GAP), pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206.
The petitions contained two general allegations:
1.
Whether there have been misleading or material false statements by the NRC staff to the Comission during the March 19, 26, 27 or April 13 (1984) briefings, or in Supp(March 1984); andlemental Safety Evaluation Report (December 1983) or SSER-22 2.
The causes of the QA breakdown within the NRC staff responsible for Diablo Canyon.
When interviewed concerning these two general allegations, Thomas Devine provided infonnation which formed the basis for 16 allegations. Fourteen of the allegations were that individual NRC employees, on different occasions, either by statement or omission, falsely advised the Comissioners on various issues of import to the Comissioners' decision on low power testing at Diablo Canyon. Two allegations were again:,c the NRC staff for (1) an alleged false statement in NUREG-0675 (SSER-22) and for (2) failing to give sufficiently complete and accurate notice to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board of a particular issue. None of the allegations as submitted were substantiated by this investigation. A report on the results of the investigation was completed late August 1, 1984.
On July 24, 1984 Thomas Devine declared that he was withdrawing all alle-gations and would follow up on that declaration in writing. His reasons for withdrawal-were set out in a letter to the Comission dated July 25, 1984. A copy of.this letter was provided to OIA by the Comission on July 30, 1984.
This matter is addressed under separate cover to the Comission.
Office of Inspector and Auditor August 2, 1984 4
127 M+
-..., pl a c
.s
_