ML20129B315
| ML20129B315 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 07/27/1984 |
| From: | Rich Smith NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTOR & AUDITOR (OIA) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTOR & AUDITOR (OIA) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20129A429 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-84-745 NUDOCS 8506050185 | |
| Download: ML20129B315 (3) | |
Text
.
sanr y o,
UNITED $TATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W
I wasHincton.o. c.rosss
\\.... p July 27, 1984 MEMORANDUM FOR: File THRU:
George Messenger, Acting Direct
, OIA Hollis Bowers, AD/I FROM:
Ronald M. Smith, Senior Cri al Investigator Office of Inspector and Auditor
SUBJECT:
TELEPHONIC CONTACTS WITH THOMAS DEVINE, GAP The purpose of this memorandum is to memorialize the substance of two tele-phone conversations I had with Thomas Devine on July 23 and 24, 1984, respec-tively. Devine initiated the call of July 23 at approximately 1:00 p.m. and the call lasted to approximately 3:25 p.m.
His stated purpose initially was to determine if I had reviewed his letter of July 19, 1984, which returned the original copy of his Report of Interview and raised additional matters con-cerning the Diablo investigation (84-26). At that time I had not yet reviewed the materials in detail and so informed Devine. He then asked if I was going to interview his witnesses.
I responded that I didn't know for sure yet; but that, unless an identified need to do so developed, I probably would not because my efforts so far were showing that the allegations were not correct.
The remainder of the time on July 23 and approximately 45 minutes on July 24 (11:23 a.m. to 12:10 p.m., approximation) was spent addressing differences over various matters. Salient among those was Devine's stated position that I should interview his witnesses because he was only the counsel for the sources of the allegations and Region V had " lied" to me, "made false statements" to me, and was not telling the truth. Therefore, his witnesses should be interviewed so that they could have the opportunity to rebut Region V's answers. The salient point I made to Devine was that testimony from his witnesses which would merely confirm their view as to the allegations was not needed because I was finding that the allegations were either factually in l
error or were erroneous because they were based on coments takent out of context.
I further said that I had reasonable and plausible responses to every allegation with documentation to support each response.
Devine then said I was going to conclude that the allegations weren't substan-tiated without talking to his witnesses who could show that Region V had provided me with " bullshit." I responded that if that were true, he should get me the infomation and/or tell me what it was, but that I was not and could not make him a partner in my investigation and that I was not going to conduct an inquisition concerning the NRC responses absent some indication that they were false. He told me that he had just told me so and that his witnesses could show that.
I asked what specifically they had that he had not already provided. Again he said that if they knew the responses by the NRC individuals, they could rebut the responses.
i h50605g5841211 Exhibit 1 DEvikg4'lA5 PDR
2 4
i During the course of the conversations, I pointed out multiple times that he was jumping the gun and that he should wait for my report.
If he then saw that any NRC responses were false and he had evidence to support such an
-allegation (s), he could report that to me and we would open an investigation into whether the individual (s) lied to me in an official NRC investigation.
Each time he answered that in the meantime the plant would be licensed and operating and the matter would be moot then (although I don't recall if I specifically said it, but a matteriof lying by NRC employees in an NRC investigation on material matters would never be moot, except possibly if the 4
person had since died).
I told him repeatedly, he would have to do things "by the numbers" in a logical sequence. ' Therefore, if I was being lied to and the lie was documented in ny report, then the matter could be pursued at that time, but that I would not conduct an inquisition on his say so, particularly in light of the information I have collected which, on its face, supports each j
respondent's coments in a reasonable and plausible way.
On multiple occasions, I pointed out to Devine that he was trying to " argue" interpretation of certain facts a certain way and that " arguing the facts" was not within our province. Our job is to report the facts on each side of the issue with argument as to which facts to believe or how they should be inter-preted being left for'the appropriate licensing board, the Comission, Congress or other appropriate forum. He was presenting arguments, not facts, or evidence.
i In several instances. Devine made the point that he had told me a lot and that i
only part of it was in our "fomat".
(The coment was true, because the allegations were extracted from what~he told me and that was done because we i
only look at the possibility of misconduct of NRC employees as an i
investigative matter. We do not do audits of the effectiveness of NRC operations (although findings of misconduct or poor performance may lead to j-the inference that effectiveness is diminished).)
There were many other comments, but they all centered around the items i
addressed above. - The bottom line, as I saw it, was that Devine believes that
'he and his witnesses should have the!right to see what I learned from the respondents and then be given the opportunity to rebut their infomation.
I rejected this view because to do so would have meant that I was no longer in charge of the investigation and would have then meant that every time I objected to Devine or his witnesses'c view of a matter, I would have had to justify inclusion or non-inclusion of " facts" based on the right of rebuttal.
I told Devine repeatedly that this was not.a trial, but an investigation, i.e.. I accepted his allegations and supporting infomation and then got each respondent's side of the story anTEis supporting infomation. As stated previously. the results seemed reasonable and gave me no indication that the responses were not truthful. Accordingly, there was no reason for me to I
pursue the matter further absent clear evidence that they were not truthful.
l Absent that, pursuing the matter on Devine's (or his witnesses) say so would delay the investigation for the purpose of conducting an inquisition to prove i
the innocence of the NRC respondents. Working on a presumption of regularity, it should be, and I believe is, against public policy for the Government to subject itself to such an inquiry. As stated previously, there is adequate remedy in those cases where its turns out that the respondent was not j
truthful.
. - =- - - -
3 The above response (and reasoning) apparently was not acceptable to Devine because he told me that this investigation was a " waste of time," at least twice; that he withdraws his allegations; that this was a " farce"; that he wouldn't be a party to it; that it was a waste of the taxpayers money; and that he would follow up his " formal" withdrawal of the allegations in writing.
I then reported the gist of the above to Hollis Bowers and George Messenger jointly with the recommendation that regardless of whether Devine " withdrew" his allegations, our Report of Investigation'should be completed and issued, which is to be the case.
Finally, I must point out that on multiple points, Devine would take a point I made and twist it to a different conclusion. For example, when I said I did not need to talk to his witnesses if they were only going to confirm their previous allegations as reported by him; he would then resgond, "You refuse to talk to my (or the) witnesses?" to which I would respond, That's not what I said, I said absent indication that I have been lied to and/or presented evidence that that is the case, there is no reason to interview witnesses to get information I already have, i.e., the allegations and support previously provided." The last time I gave that response, Devine made his comments about the nature of the investigation and his announced withdrawal of the allegations. He then abruptly hung up the phone.
l O
(
1 1
.