ML20129B262
| ML20129B262 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 08/01/1984 |
| From: | Rich Smith, Smtih R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTOR & AUDITOR (OIA) |
| To: | Messenger G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTOR & AUDITOR (OIA) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20129A429 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-84-745 NUDOCS 8506050169 | |
| Download: ML20129B262 (2) | |
Text
o UNITED STATES
[
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O
- j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
-g
/
August 1, 1984 MEMORANDUM FOR: File THRU:
George H._ Messenger, Actin Director,01Ah HoU rs D
7 FROM:
aid M. Smith, Senior Investigator Office of Inspector and Auditor
SUBJECT:
DEVINE LETTER OF JULY 25, 1984, RE: DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 In the letter to the Comissioners dated dated July 25, 1984, (Attachment A to basic memorandum) Thomas Devine withdrew "the Diablo Canyon allegations against the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) staff..."
Devine cited i
" coverup" as his reason for withdrawal and raised several examples of itat he
. viewed to be a " methodology... design to predetermine the results" cf the investigation.
This investigator and OIA first became aware of the Devine letter at a Comis-sion meeting on July 30, 1984.
Prior to that time, the reporting invastigator had prepared a memorandum of his recollection of the two telephone calls which led to Devine's announced decision to withdraw the allegations (Exhitit 1).
(It should be noted that although the memo is dated July 27, 1984, it was prepared in pencil draf t on the afternoon of July 24, 1984, and, in any event, without the benefit of Devine's letter of July 25,1984.)
Although Exhibit I largely speaks for itself, nevertheless Devine's numbered
" disappointing"_ assessments are addressed as follows:
1.
It would be more accurate to say that " intentional" acts are of primary concern, particularly in this case where intentional acts (false state-ments) were alleged. As Mr. Devine was told, in trying to prove that intentional conduct, the lesser issue of misleading facts or negligent behavior should also come to light.
No investigation would be cut off just because it could not be shown that the act was intentional. As stated in Exhibit 1, ineffectiveness may be inferred from proven miscon-duct.
2.
Some of the allegations did prove to be " vague and imprecise", but after investigation not because they were drafted that way. The reporting investigator belTeves that each allegation was precise as to challenged conduct, as draf ted. The issue of speaking to the witnesses is addressed at Exhibit 1, but to encapsulate the matter - if the information concern-ing wrongdoing is accurate and reasonably complete and understandable, whether it is received first hand or second hand (through counsel) is Kh 8506050169 841211 PDR FOIA DEV1pE84-745 PDR ATTACHMENT B
(-.
2 information other than was previously provided. No additional informa-tion was provided, to indicate a need for such interviews was given.
Finally, the inuendo that important information was not included is absolutely false.
In addition, Devine was offered, and did take, the opportunity to include additional pertinent information (see again Devine's Report of Interview at Exhibit 2 and also the transmittal to Devine, Exhibit 3).
3.
As stated repeatedly to Devine, reasonable and plausible responses, supported by documentation, do entitle the employee to a " presumption of re (see again Exhibit
.1)gularity" standard absent evidence to the contrary 4.
Contrary to Devine's assertion, he appears to have missed the point as.to 01A's mission. The OIA investigative staff investigates allegations of intentional wrongdoing g other misconduct on the part of NRC employees.
When no act of misconduct is indicated, further investigative activity without any viable leads constitutes an unwarranted investigation.
Though stated poorly and out of context by Devine, it is true that if any NRC employee lies to an 0IA investigator on a matter material to an investigation, such conduct would clearly be misconduct and potentially prosecutable as a criminal offense under 18 USC 1001.
The remainder of Devine's letter appears to be further argument, without factual substantiation by Devine that the OIA investigation is fatally flawed.
To the contrary, the reporting investigator believes that this situation is analogous to that of a defense counsel dealing with a Government witness. He really has only. approaches:
(1) show that the witness is wrong on the facts, or (2) attack the witness and hope that he/she says something not intended as an emotional response and which could be of value to the defense to cloud the litigated issue. To date, Devine has not shown the facts found in this investigation (though they as yet have not seen all of them) to be wrong.
It would appear then that the possibility exists that GAP may have moved to the alternate mode.
Exhibits:
As Stated e
F L