ML20129J035
Text
-. -
t l'
s September 18. 1990 MEMORANDUM =FOR:
Luis A.
Reyes, Director Division of Reactor Projects Region II FROM:
Chris A, VanDenburgh, Chief Reactive Inspection Section -2 i
Vendor Inspection Branch Division of Reactor Inspections and Safeguards
SUBJECT:
OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS COMMENTS ON VOGTLE INSPECTION REPORT - DRAFT 6 On September 17, 1990, before my departure from Region II, I met with Craig Tate and Larry Robinson of the Region II Office of Investigations (01).
We discussed their specific comments concerning the inspection report.
As you remember, I asked Ben Hayes to address three requests during OI's review.
These were:
Identify any errors in the inspection report's portrayal of the individual testimony.
Review Section 3.6 (Reportability of Previous Engineered l
Saf ety. Features Actuation System Load Sequencer Outages) to confirm that the level of detail did not reveal the identity of any confidential sources.
Review Section 3.7 (Reliability of Emergency Diesel l
Generators) and the corresponding conclusions to identify any information which would adversely affect a subsequent OI investigation.
4 An additional topic of our discussions concerned whether Sections 3.2.(Operability of the Residual Heat Removal Pump), 3.3 (Missed i
Containment-Isolation Valve Surveillance), 3.4 (Mode Change with an Inoperable Source Range Monitor Nuclear Instrument) and 3.7
-(Reliability of Emergency Diesel Generators) should be included in inspection report.
Craig feels uncomfortable, personally and prof essionally, because the inspection report documents conclusions which he has not verified beyond the testimony of the individuals involved.
I believe he is concerned that the individual's statements are self-serving and should not be trusted.
Based on his experience, Craig believes that the agency - would be better served if'the conclusions aren't documented because the NRC could I
be later. criticized for the investigatory weakness of the conclusions.
I disagreed with his experienced viewpoint.
In response to the first question, OI identified two areas in which the inspection report was' incorrect.
Comment i deletes the term k
1 1
y V
9611040226-960827
~
_PDR
encouragement from the summary of the allegation section and Comment 2 corrects a date error which we had previously identified in.another paragraph.
With respect'to the second question, 01 Indicated that the details did not violate any confidentiality agreements.
In response to the third question. OI indicated that the details and conclusions would not adversely affect any future investigations.
In fact, Comments 6 and 7 requested additional information concerning our conclusions that the direction given to the unit superintendent by the general manager was not specific.
With the exception of the Comments 2 and 7, I plan to incorporate these comments prior to issuance of the inspection report.
Comment 2
was that the sworn transcripts recorded the individual's testimony of his involvement as opposed to his involvement.
The comment inf ers that the individual's testimony was sel f-serving and is redundant based on the inspection's fundamental assumption that the individual's sworn testimony is valid.
Comment 7 requests additional detail regarding the lack of specificity in the general
)
manager'.s request to the unit superintendent.
The incorporation of this inf ormation by - resolution of Comment 6 should be suf ficient to resolve this issue.
Region II DI identified the following seven comments.
They are identified with respect to Revision 7 (9/17/90) of the inspection report.
Comment Page Comment 1
44 Section 3.0, first paragraph, last sentence -
remove
...and encouragement....
2-
- 44 Ser. tion 3.0, second paragraph, second sentence revise to read in order to document the (1) testimony of the individual's personal knowledge and involvement in the alleged violations....
revise to 3
S1 First paragraph, second sentence read... magnitude, because the readings at the l
IST test points....
l 4
58 Third paragraph, first sentence - the dates of i
June 15, 1990, and June 12, 1990, have been transposed.
5 64 Second paragraph, first sentence - revise to read
...accordance with the periodicity j
specified in TS Table 4.8-1...
6 65 Second paragraph, f ourth sentence - add detail describing the lack of specific guidance provided by the general manager, in that the 2
2 I
_1
i l(
.y a
t l-i f-general manager did not direct the unit superintendent-to the correct records and did l
not request
.a summary of the problems associated with the emergency diesel generator 7
history.
7 66 Conclusion, last paragraph, fourth sentence -
detailed in Comment 6 to the conclusion.
l add detail concerning the lack of specificity f
i s
Y r
i i
i I
l i
1 l
3-1 i
7
~
_