ML20137E665
| ML20137E665 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Three Mile Island  |
| Issue date: | 12/07/1984 |
| From: | Fortuna R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTOR & AUDITOR (OIA) |
| To: | Jamarl Cummings NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTOR & AUDITOR (OIA) |
| References | |
| SP-I-TMIA-022, SP-I-TMIA-22, NUDOCS 8508230321 | |
| Download: ML20137E665 (19) | |
Text
1
- ) .-*
g p3 #4Tg/ 4 ,
Y [// dQ UNITED STATES l
- ' 9,
.f , E. [,.,nI NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (( /~/yy7g _. g Q
,was m oros,o.c.2oses
- g ,
k.5 NOV 6 1980 j/
(ps ;
I
- e. '85 A 9 43
/
// MEMORANDUM FOR: Ja:Res J. Cumings, Director e y, InW ndJditor" c r.7
,/ FROM* Rog r f D vestigations 4 Office f Inspector and Auditor
SUBJECT:
IE INSPECTORS' ALLEGED FAILURE TO REPORT INFORMATION RE MARCH 28, 1979, HYDROGEN EXPLOSION AT TMI-2
%d In response to Victof Stello's October 23, 1980, request we have interviewed Region I Inspector Donald Neely (Enclosure 1) and he provided us with all his notes regarding Three Mile Island (TMI) from March 28, 1979, to date (see Exhibits to Enclosure 1). .
As you are aware, in response to the Chairman's March 21, 1980, memorandum to the EDO, the General Counsel, and you, IE is investigating the exchange of infonnation between Met-Ed and NRC on March 28, 1979, with a focus on whether a further civil penalty of Met-Ed .is justified._ One of the three issues identified at the outset of this investigation was Met-Ed's alleged failure to report the " containment pressure spike," i.e. .. hydrogen explosion. One of the key themes of Met-Ed personnel interviewed during various TMI accident investigations, has been that one or more ftPC inspectors were present in the control room and were alerted to the explosion when it occurred. IE's attention was recently directed at Neely when Joseph Chwastyk of Met-Ed identified Neely by name for the first time on September 3,1980. IE's request that DIA interview Neely was spurred by' their suspicion of (1) his veracity during their October 7,
! 1980, interview of him and (2) apparent alterations on the no.t.es " he provided to IE on October 22, 1980.
Although our interview should dispel some of IE's concerns about possible
.al terat ions to Neely's notes, it is in no way depositive of the issue of I whether IE inspectors were notiifed of the explosion, E losure 2 highlights some-of the lines of inquiry which should b purs d in order to resolve this-issue. Note that an decision on wh her t pursue this forcement issue fully must take into account (y) 1 IE's needs'f om an standpoint, (2) the public interest in knowing wh actua y occurred, and (3) the interest in either proving or dispr ing th allegations to remove the cloud that exists over the heads of any inr}e' cent inspectors that have been accused directly or indirectV. /
gR0023o321 841207 g ADOCK 05000289 PDR c\h
.', ( -
James J. Cunnings .
2 1
Enclosures 5 and 4 are transcripts of: interviews of Neely by the Special Inquiry Group. Neely, provided us with these transcripts because IE could not locate copies through the Central Files.
- ~'
Enclosures:
- l. Rpt of Interview - Neely .
- 2. 0:e* U"er c' Iaq.;,i ff/FffP
- 3. SIG Intery of Neely et al dtd 9/25/79
- 4. ..SIG Interv of Neely et al dtd 9/26/79 i.
.e O
e
. . ( , .
l l
REPO'RT OF INTERVIEW
}
Donald R. ?(eely, Inspector, Performance Appraisa7 Branch, Region I, Office of Inspection and Enforcement (IE) was irterviewed on October 27, 1980, by Roger A. Fortuna and David H. Gamble of the Jffice of Inspector and Auditor (OIA). Neely was advised of his right against self-incrimination as required by the Attorney Generals memorandum of June 4,1980. Neely then consented to being interviewed. ,
Neely was advised that IE had expressed a concern to OIA that the notes he sent to IE Headquarters via telecopy may not have been exact copies I of his original notes taken at Three Mile Island (TMI) on March 28,
- 1979. When requested, Neely imediately retrieved a somewhat battered gift oox from the two-drawer file cabinet in his offic'e. Neely removed l the following documents from the box and provided tlism to OIA:
A small green bound book (Exhibit A).
A stapled set of 15 pages of notes on white, lined paper (Exhibit B).
A stampled set of 19 pages beginning with a fann entitled
" Facsimile Request", (Exhibit C).
Neely said that Exhibits A and B together represent all the notes he took on March 28 and he has made no deletions, additions, or other changes to them. Heely believed it was when he moved from the Unit 1 to the Unit 2 control room that he discontinued taking notes in the bound book (Exhibit A) and began taking them on a pad of paper in a vinyl notebook (See Exhibit B).
Neely pointed out that Exhibit C includes photocopies of Exhibits A and D, together with the administrative form used to telecopy material from the regional office to headquarters. Neely said he paginated Exhibits A and B consecutively without regard to the pre-existing pagination on Exhibit B. He said this was to assure that all copies were received via i
the telecopy process and to provide a point of reference in case anyone
- wished to call him to discuss the notes. Neely said he performed this pagination at the same time he wrote "Sent to-Moseley" on the
- first page of the notes. OIA noted that both such ma'rkings were made by a red, felt-tipped pen.
Neely said the only one he has provided these notes to was Gregory Yuhas who was working on IE's "NUREG-0600" investigation of the TMI accident.
Neely believed that, in addition to Yuhas' own interest, Yuhas was obtaining copies at the request of Oliver Lynch who was working for the Special Inquiry Group (SIG).
Neely was asked whether he was interviewed any time in addition to the following: May 2 and 5, 1979 by IE; August 22, 1979, by Senator Hart's staff; September 25-26', 1979, by SIG; October 12, 1979, by SIG; and
' - ENCLCSURE 1
l October 7,*1980, by IE. Neely only rect.lled being contacted somewhat infomally by Lynch when the SIG first came to the TMI site. Neely said the September 25-26, 1979, SIG interviews were actually panel discussions between five IE personnel (including Neely) and Messrs. North, Lynch, and Miraglia of SIS. ~Neely said they discussed recommendations for improvements in the health physics (Hp) area. .
Neely reviewed and provided to OIA the balance of his box of material on TMI (Exhibit D). He said that many of the documents were actually other people's notes which he somehow came into possession of. .,
INVESTIGATORS' NOTE: 01A's review of Exhibit D revealed no other documents that appeared to be notes taken on March 28, 1979. Exhibit D includes a number of documents that are not notes, e.g., documents relating to travel and other administrative matters.
Neely was reinterviewed by OIA on October 28, 1980. Neely was reminded of his right against self-incrimination and he again consented to being interviewed.
Neely confirmed the information he had provided to OIA the previous day.
Neely (Exhibits E and F)provided OIA with two more documents he had located Neely said that he periodically removed the notes that he took on individual sheets (e.g. Exhibit B) from the pad of paper; he did not l
remove the notes every day. Therefore, Neely could not say when he removed Exhibit B from the pad or when he stapled them together. DIA noted that Exhibit B appeared to have been stapled twice before the current staole. . Neely replied that the only time he knew for certain that the staple was removed from Exhibit B was recently when he photocopied them in preparation for telecopying them to headquarters (he explained that wht.n an original has tears, " dog ears," etc., a photocopy has to be used to prevent jamming the telecopier). Neely suspected thhther time Exhibit B was restapied was when Yuhas had the notes; Neely said he concluded this because he understood Yuhas photocopied the notes when he borrowed them. Neely was " fairly certain" he did not take the notes
. apart on any other occasion.
DIA pointed out that the pagination on Exhibit B was in black ink while some of the 15 pages included writings in different ink. Neely said that obviously he paginated Exhibit B sometime after the actual notes were taken; however, he could not recall whether he did this shortly after the' notes were taken or just before he recently sent them to headquarters. Neely could not recall why something was scribbled out in the upper right-hand corner of page 4 of Exhibit B, nor could he ascertain by examination what had been scribbled out.
icion of his notes wa's generated fleely was advised that part of the susp'rovide them. Neely offered the by the length of time he had taken to p following account of the delay.
- *
- e e \
4
. . l t ,
l i Neely recalled he was first contacted by John Craig of IE headquarters l l in, he believed, the week of September 29 - October 3,1980. Neely said l
) he has since learned that Craig works for Norman Moseley, Director, )
Division of Reactor. Operations Inspection', IE. Neely said Craig and he l had a quite casual cor.versation. Neely recalled Craig said something to
]
the effect of "we would like to ask you some questions about the March 28, 1979,
) pressure spike" and then asked Neely if he coul.d can'e to headquarters j -
the following week. Neely said he told Craig that, oecause he was on a
- priority project with the TMI appraisal, he (Neely) w7uld have to get clearance with James Allen, Deputy Director, Region I. Finally Neely l
worked but the scheduling problems and was cleared to 97'to headquarters j for Perfonnance Appraisal Branch training in the week-of October 6-10.
i Neely said he told Craig he would " drop in" when he.was at headquarters for the training. Neely said he had no idea that IE was going to depose I him and he did not know that he was supposed to bring his notes or any l other records. Neely said that he called Craig's number in the morning
- of October 7 when he was in Bethesda. He said that Craig was not there, so he told Craig's secretary that he was in Bethesda. Neely said he later received a message at the training center that Craig had called and asked him to come down during his lunch break. Neely related that
- when he arrived in Moseley's office, ha was somewhat surprised to be confronted by a number of people, including a court reporter. Neely said that they later contacted him and asked him back in the afternoon. __
' He recalled that, as he entered the room the second time, the interviewers were joking about putting away the rubber' hoses. He sa.id that he was then asked for his records and told to send them when he returned to his office.
Neely said he was in Bethesda until October 9 when he went to TMI. He said he was back at Region I on Friday, October 10, 1980, but he .; pent virtually the entire day meeting with Boyce Grier (Director, Region I)
'and other regional management personnel regarding the TMI appraisal.
Neely said the TMI appraisal project was designated a priority project by. James Sniezek (another IE division director) and Victor Stello (Director,
~
IE); therefore, locating his notes became a lesser priority.M-I Neely said that Monday was a holiday. He said ha tried to get into his filing caoinet a number of times during the week of October 14 - 17, but could not. Neely explained that he never locked his cabinet because there was no key for it, but Peter Knapp had accidently leaned against it and locked it. He sa.d i that Knapp and others also attempted unsuccessfully to get into the cabinet. -Neely said he reached traig's secretary on October 16 and told her that he could not get the records Craig wanted, j
1 but that he would be down to IE headquanters for a meeting the 'ollowing day. On October 17, Neely met with Sniezek and then with Stello for a
} short meeting at 5:30 pm. Neely said Stello had a meeting with Moseley l immediately afterward. Neely said that he passed Moseley, who had been l waiting in the next room, as he left. Neely said Moseley saw him and waved, but Moseley did not say anything to him about the notes or anything else.
. . (
- Neely belkved it was about the 'following Tuesday, October 21, when he reached Tony Gody and asked him if he would try to get his cabinet open.
Neely explained that Gody has tools to do this type of thing. Neely said he saw Gody later and Gody said the cabinet was already open.
Neely told Gody he-had looked at the wrong cabinet. He said Gody then opened the right cabinet.- .
Neely said Craig called him on October 22 about the notes. He related i that Craig told him someone outside NRC (he believed Craig said it was ;
i someone from one of the Congressional committees) had reviewed the '
transcript of IE's recent interview of him (Neely) and this person wanted Neely's notes. Neely recalled that Craig told Neely that if he could not " fax" (telecopy) the notes to headquarters that day, he was to let Craig know. Neely said it may have been at this point when Gody finally got his cabinet open. He said that he faxed the notes (Exhibit l C) to Craig that day.
Neely said he located Exhibits E and F in one of the many cardboard boxes beside his desk. He said the box containing Exhibits A, B, C, and D was in hie filing cabinet in his office. He said all his records regarding .MI have at times been stored at various places at TMI. Neely said the records were with him at TMI during the first two weeks after the accident. He said he did not return to TMI then for another two or three weeks. He recalled that he then worked different shifts at TMI until about May 15, 1979, when he was appointed lead HP man at the newly-established satellite Regional office at TMI. Neely recalled that during this earlier period his' records were left laying out on a table in the supervisor's office in the Unit 1 control room. He said that NRC as well as licensee personnel had free access to his records.
Neely said that he was at TMI from May 15, 1979, until finally relieved of duty about November 1979 to begin preparations for the HP appraisal.
He said that his records were at TMI during this time with the exception of at least one period when his file was back at the region &l-office.
Neely said that sometime around the beginning of this period, they (i.e., Neely and his staff) were assigned office space on the Unit 2 turbine deck. He said this space was shared with the licensee's maintenance
. staff. Neely said that He all NRC HP personnel had access to his records said they tried to keep the file cabinet locked to during this time.
preclude access by licensee personnel, but they had trouble with one -
staff member who .often failed to lock it.
i l
l l
l 1
a, .. ( -
- Neely.said.they moved to the complex of NRC trailers in June or JulyHe 1979, right after the IE NUREG-0600 investigative team moved out.
said that his records were then moved into the trailer;He they said were not licensee cleaning locked in cabinets, but the trailer was locked.
personnel and other.NRC staff had access to the trailer. Neely noted as an example of the recordkeeping that they found many NUREG-0600 documents in the closets when they moved in.
He said there was another move at TMI during a time he was away from the site. He related that other NRC employees placed things from his desk .
into a box and set it aside for him. ,
I One final move which Neely.said his TMI records ha e undergone was within the ' regional office building. He said the move had to be accomplished with some haste and this only contributed to the disarray of his records.
i l Neely said the only individual who he knows actually looked through his records was Yuhas. He said this occurred at the TMI site around June 1979. He repeated that he believed Yuhas may also have provided information to Lynch. Neely said that he physically gave the records to Yuhas and, because he trusted Yuhas, he did not verify that all pages were there when they were returned.
Neely said that these exhibits represent all his records regarding TMI and that he has not destroyed any of.his records. Neely said he was
' not aware of any records being missing; however, he conceded that, given the extent of access to his records by others, material could be missing j
without his knowledge.
Neely was then asked if he had seen the transcript of his October 7, 1980, interview by IE. He said he had not. Neely indicated that he recently received a memorandum from Moseley asking him to review and _
' make corrections to the transcript. However, Moseley mistakenly sent -
.'him the transcript of an IE interview of James Higgins.
Neely's attention was then directed to line 15 at page 11was of the investigators' copy of the transcript of his October 7 interview. Neely asked what Neely said he was took place during the " Discussion off the record."
He only recalled that Craig not aware of any words being spoken then.
held a spiral stenographic pad close to Moseley and pointed to something on the page. He said Mdseley nodded and the questioning resumed.
Neely was then asked to read the transcript from line 17 at page 11 to line 5 at page 13 and to further explain this event.
- ( .
Neely said, that the next time he returned to the TMI site a'fter information had come out in the newspapers about the pressure spike allegedly having been brought to the. attention of NRC, he went to the Unit 2 control room to find out where the instrument that recorded containment pressure was located. Neely sa-id that he did this out of curiosity; he believed it was sometime after May 15, 1979. Neely said that he' asked Brian Mehler of the Metropolitan Edison Company, whom he had not known, where the instrument was. Neely recalled that Mehler pointed it out and then they began talking casually with each other. Neely related that Mehler said that NRC knew about the pressure spike and even their own (i.e., Metropolitan i Edison) management knew. Neely said Mehler also talkpd about the fal:t that "they" (unspecified) cut the chart out for.tha.t period. Neely said he did not pursue the matter because it was outside his jurisdiction but, because it appeared to be an allegation, he reported it (he believed on the same day) to Tony Fasano who was at TMI on a special investigative assignment. Neely said Fasano later told him that he (Fasano) had talked to Mehler and checked this out; Fasano reportedly concluded that Mehler had his dates mixed up. Neely observed that, even if Mehler was correct abeut an NRC inspector having been informed, Mehler did not indicate to Neely that he felt Neely was the inspector involved.
Neely said that the items listed at page 6 of Exhibit B, which is entitled
" ARMS Read Out," correspond to various monitoring instruments in the control room. He said that he listed the readings he .took at 1300 hours0.015 days <br />0.361 hours <br />0.00215 weeks <br />4.9465e-4 months <br /> beside the name of the monitor. He said that in order to see historical changes, he wrote the readings he took .at 1430 hours0.0166 days <br />0.397 hours <br />0.00236 weeks <br />5.44115e-4 months <br /> right beside the earlier readings. Neely pointed out that he wrote "1430" and the second set of readings in red felt-tip pen so they would be readily distinguishable.
Neely said he was present in the control room between 1300 and 1430 hours0.0166 days <br />0.397 hours <br />0.00236 weeks <br />5.44115e-4 months <br />. He said he overheard some radiological readings coming in over the radio. He said this is probably how he obtained the reacings listed at 1410.
Neely said that initially he and Higgins were the only NRC personnel in the Unit 2 control room. He recalled they took turns manning the telephone -
with a Metropolitan Edison employee occasionally helping. Neely said Higgins was primarily on the telephone because the line was established
- to communicate operations infonnation - the HF line was out of Unit 1.
Neely said the next NRC personnel to arrive were' Raymond Smith and Walter Baunack; he recalled that Smith began manning the telephone immediately upon his arrival. Neel.y_ recalled that Richard Keimig arrived sometime later.
Naely said he definitely would have recognized any other Region I employees; however, there were no others in the Unit 2 control room until sometime later.
_ _ _ - . ~ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._- - _ _ _ _ - - _ . . - - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - _ -
l .
J
. 7-DIA drew Neely's attention to Joseph Chwastyk's -recent identification of Neely Neely as the inspector he had informed about the pressure spike.
noted that he is the only inspector that was present in the Unit 2 control first couple room weeksearly)that been back at afternoon TMI for anywho considerable has ~ subsequently amount of (i.e., afte time. Smith, Baunack, and' Higgins have not been back to TMI. Neely said he just finished on August 8,1980, an inspection which essentially declared TMI's HP program a disaster for restart and which blamed the problem on Unit 2. Neely said it may be interesting to determine the
- date Chwastyk stated that Neely was the inspector involved and compare that'to'when Neely' performed this inspection. -,
INVESTIGATORS' NOTE:
Chwastyk identified Neely inian IE interview on September 3. 1980.
EXHIBITS:
A. Notes from March 28, 1979 re TMI.
l B. Notes from March 28, 1979 re TMI.
l " Facsimile Request" with notes as transmitted C.
on October 22, 1980.
D. Balance of Neely's records re TMI.
E. Additional records re TMI.
F. Additional rec,ords re TMI. ,
9 e
i m
fE I .
- - --_,n,-- ,---n- - . , . , - - - , - . - . , _ - , . ,.,m , - , , - - - - ----en..... . - - - . - - , , . - . , _ , , , _ . _ c--- -r, - .. e - - - -, - - - - - - , - - - , - . , -
l .
( lp
. OPEN LINES OF INQUIRY E INSPECTORS' ALLEGED FAILURE TO REPORT INFORMATION j RE MARCH 28, 1979, HYD OG PLOSION AT TMI-2 b^
1.
CorrobrateNeely'sstatemensth 7i A on October 27-28, 1980.
- a. Inte view Gregory Yuhas re his alleged June 1979 review of Ne ly's notes. ,
- b. Intervi Oliver Lynch re his allened (1) obtaining of Neely's tes through Yuhas and (2) interview of Neely for SIG ( .e., to obtain his sumary of the interview, etc.).
- c. Interview C ig, etc., re circumstances of Neely's l
invitation t. come to headquarters (e.g., whether Neely was, in fact, nstructed to bring his notes with him
]
+
the first time)
- d. Interview Sniezek tello re whether Neely's other assignment was of such a prio ity as Neely indicated.
- e. king Neely*'s filing cabinet Interview (establishKnapp)re date . 1 __
- f. Interview Gody re unlock ng Neely's filing cabinet (establish dates) - note that Gody w unavailable when OIA attempted to contact him on October 28, 1980.
, g. Interview Mehler and Fasano Neely's and Fasano's conversation with Mehler sometime after Ma 15, 1979.
- 2. Review prior interviews of Met-Ed pe onnel who recall NRC inspector in control room. -
- a. Correlate infomadon that indicates there may have been i two - not just one - inspectors info d.
- b. Reinterview re any inconsistencies.
- c. Confront with p'ictures and/or in person i ntificatiofl.
l 4
1 ENCLOSURE 2
[
(
( .
- 3. Review prior interviews of other inspectors on site early on March 28, 1979.
- a. Establish potentia.1 range of inspectors (generally considered to be only Neely or Higgins, but see SI,G Report re N.imitz).
- b. Reinterview re any inconsistencies.
- 4. -Review original notes of all inspectors within range.of.
possibilities. ,
- a. Interview /reinterview as necessary to obtalh clarification.
- b. Compare with notes as submitted previously to NRC management and the various TMI investigative groups.
- 5. Cross interview Chwastyk re the circumstances of his viewing of Neely (who he was with, when, and who was the NRC person he subsequently informed).
=
1
/
1
- - - -nm -,, - -- - - --m-
+ ~- - - - - -~ - - - , -n---w--,- --
. (
REPORT OF INTERVIEW Donald R. !(eely, Inspector, Performance Appraisal Branch, Region I, 27, 1980, Office.of Inspection and Enforcement (IE) was interviewed on October by Roger A. Fortuna and David H. Gamble of the Office of Inspector and Auditor (OIA). Neely was a,dvised of his right against self-incrimination Neely as required by the Attorney General's memorandum of June 4,1980.
then consented to being interviewed.
Neely was advised that IE had expressed a concern to OIA that the notes he sent.to IE Headquarters via telecopy may not have been exact copies ,
- of his original notes taken at Three Mile Island (TMI) on March 28, 1979. When requested, Neely immediately retrieved a. somewhat Neelybattered removed gift box from the two-drawer file cabinet in his office.
the following documents from the box and provided them to OIA:
A small green bound book (Exhibit A).
A stapled set of 15 pages of notes on white, lined paper (ExhibitB).
A stampled set of 19 pages beginning with a form entitled
" Facsimile Request", (Exhibit C).
Neely said that Exhibits A and B together represent all the notes he took on March 28 and he has made no deletions, additions, or other changes to them. Neely believed it was when he moved, from the Unit 1 to the Unit 2 control room that he discontinued taking notes in the bound book (Exhibit A) and began taking them on a pad of paper in'a vinyl notebook (See Exhibit B).
j l
Neely cointed out that Exhibit C includes photocopies of Exhibits A and j B, together with the administrative form used to telecopy material from the regional office to headquarters. Neely said he paginated Exhibits A and B consecutively without regard to the pre-existing pagination on l
Exhibit B. He said this was to assure that all copies were received via l
the telecopy process and to provide a pointNeely of reference in case anyone said he perfprmed this
- wished to call him to discuss the notes.
pagination at the same time he wrote "Sent to Moseley" on the first page of the notes. OIA noted that both such ma'rkings were made by a red,
' felt-tipped pen.
Yuhas
.Neely said the only one he has provided these notes to wa Neely believed that, in addition to Yuhas' own interest, Yuh Special Inquiry. Group (SIG).
Neely was asked whether he was interviewed any time in addition to theby Se following: May 2 and 5, 1979 by IE; August 22, 1979, staff; September 25-26, 1979, by SIG; October 12, 1979, by SIG; and aQ I
October 7, 1980, by IE. Neely only recalled being contacted somewhat I infomally by Lynch when the SIG first came to the TMI site. Neely said l the September
! between five IE25-26,"1979,(SIG petsonnel includirig interviews were Neely) and actually Messrs. panel North, discussions Lynch, and Miraglia of SIG. Neely said the improvements in the health physicsHP) (y discussed area.
recommendations for Neely reviewed and provided to OIA the balance of' his box-of material on TMI .(Exhibit D). He said that many of the documents were actually other I people's notes which he somehow came into ' possession of. 4 INVESTIGATORS' NOTE: DIA'sreviewofExhibitDrev$alednoother documents that appeared to be notes taken on March 28, 1979. Exhibit D includes a number of documents that are not notes, e.g., documents relating to travel and other administrative matters.
f Neely was reinterviewed by OIA on October 28, 1980. Neely was reminded of his right against self-incrimination and he again consented to being interviewed.
Neely confirmed the infomation he had provided to OIA the previous day.
I Neely)provided and F . OIA with two more documents he had located (Exhibits E Neely said that he periodically removed the notes that he took on individual sheets (e.g. Exhibit B) from the pad of paper; he did not remove the notes every day. Therefore, Neely could not say when he remoted Exhibit B from the pad or when he stapled them together. OIA noted that Exhibit B appeared to have been stapled twice before the current staple. Neely replied that the only time he knew for certain ,
that the staple was removed from Exhit'It B was recently when he photocopied j them in preparation for telecopying them to headquarters (he explained I that when an original has tears, " dog ears," etc., a photocopy has to be l used to prevent jamming the telecopier). Neely suspected the 'other time Exhibit B was restapled was when Yuhas had the notes; Neely said he concluded this because he understood Yuhas photocopied the notes when' he borrowed them. Neely was " fairly certain" he did not take the notes apart on any other occasion.
01A pointed out that the. pagination on Exhibit B was in black ink while some of the 15 pages included writings in different ink. Neely said that obviously he paginated Exhibit B sometime after the actual notes were taken; however, he could not recall whether he did this shortly after the notes were taken or just before he recently sent them to headquarters. Neely could not recall why something was scribbled out in the upper right-hand corner of page 4 of Exhibit B, nor could he ascertain by examination what had been scribbled out.
Neely was advised that part of the suspicion of his notes was generated by the length of time he had taken to provide them. Neely offered the following account of the delay.
~
~
Neely reca,lled he was first contacted by John Craig of IE headquarters in, he believed, the week of September 29 - October 3, 1980. Neely said he has since learned that Craig works for Norman Moseley, Director.
Division of Reactor Operations Inspection, IE. Neely said Craig and he had a quite casual _ conversation. Neely recalled Craig said something to the effect of "we would like to ask you some questions about the March 28, 1979, pressure spike" and then asked Neely if he could come to headquarters the following week. Neely said he t.old Craig that, because he was on a priority project with the TMI appraisal, he (Neely) would have to get clearance with James Allen, Deputy Director, Region I. Finally Neely worked out the scheduling problems and was cleared to ,go to headquarters for Perfonnance Appraisal Branch training in the week of October 6-10.
Neely said he told Craig he would " drop in" when he was at headquarters for the training. Neely said he had no idea that IE was going to depose him and he did not know that he was supposed to bring his notes or any other records. Neely said that he called Craig's number in the morning of October 7 when he was in Bethesda. He said that Craig was not there, so he told Craig's secretary that he was in Bethesda. Neely said he later received a message at the training center that Craig had called and asked him to come down during his lunch break. Neely related that when he arrived in Moseley's office, hc was somewhat surprised to be confronted by a number of people, including a court reporter. Neely
. said that they later contacted him and asked him back in the afternoon.
He recalled that, as he entered the room the second time, the interviewers were joking about putting away the rubber hoses. He said that he was then asked for his records and told to send them when he returned to his office.
Neely said he was in Bethesda until October 9 when he went to TMI. He said he was back at Region I on Friday, October 10, 1980, but he spent virtually the entire day meeting with Boyce Grier (Director, Region I) '
and other regional management personnel regarding the TNI appraisal.
Neely said the TMI appraisal project was designated a priority project by)
IE ; James therefore, Sniezek (another locating IE became his notes division adirector) and Victor Stello (Director, lesser priority.
Neely said that Monday was a holiday. He said ha tried to get into his filing caoinet a number of times during the week of October 14 - 17, but could not'. Neely explained that he never locked his cabinet because there was no key for it, but Peter Knapp had accidently leaned against it and 1ccked it. He said that Knapp and others,also attempted unsuccessfully to get into the cabinet. Neely said he reached Craig's secretary on October 16 and told her that he could not get the records Craig wanted, but that he would be down to IE headquarters for a meeting the following day. On October 17, Neely met with Sniezek and then with Stello for a short meeting at 5:30 pm. Neely said Stello had a meeting with Moseley immediately afterward. Neely said that he passed Moseley, who had been waiting in the next room, as he left. Neely said Moseley saw him and waved, but Moseley did not say anything to him about the notes or anything else.
- l. "
- Neely bel eyed it was about the .following Tuesday, October 21, when he .
reached Tony Gody and asked him if he would try to get his cabinet open.
Neely explained that Gody has tools to do this type of thing. Neely said he saw Gody. later and. Gody said the cabinet was already open. .
Naely told Gody he h'da looked at the wrong cabinet. He said Gody then ;
opened the right cabinet.
- I Neely said Craig called him on October 22 about the notes. He related that. Craig told him someone outside NRC (he believed Craig said it was someone from one of the Congressional committees) had reviewed the a transcript of IE's recent interview of him (Neely) .and this person wanted Neely's notes. Neel could not " fax" (telecopy) the y recalled notes tothat Craig toldthat headquarters Neely day,that if heto he was let Craig know. Neely said it may have been at this point when Gody finally got his cabinet open. He said that he faxed the notes (Exhibit C) to Craig that day.
Neely said he located Exhibits E and F in one of the many cardboard
_ boxes beside his desk. He said the box containing Exhibits A, B, C, and D was in his filing cabinet in his office. He said all his records regarding TMI have at times been stored at various places at TMI. Neely said the records were with him at TMI during the first two weeks after the accident. He said he did not return .to TMI then for another two or three weeks. He re' called that he then worked different'-shifts at TMI until about May 15, 1979, when he was appointed lead HP man at the newly-established satellite Regional office at TMI. Neely recalled that during this earlier period his records were left laying out on a table in the supervisor's office in the Unit I control room. He said that NRC as well as licensee personnel had free access to his records.
Neely said that he was at TMI from May 15, 1979, until finally relieved of duty about November 1979 to begin preparations for the HP appraisal.
He said that his records were at TMI during this time with th.e exception of at least one period when his file was back at the regional' office.
Neely said that sometime around the beginning of this period, they (i.e., Neely and his staff) were assigned office space on the Unit 2 turbine deck. He said this space was shared with the licensee's maintenance staff. Neely said that all NRC HP personnel had access to his records during this time. He said they tried to keep the file cabinet locked to preclude access by licensee personnel, but they had trouble with one staff member who often failed to lock it.
.., . i 1
Neely said they moved to the complex of NRC trailers in June or July 1979, right after the IE NUREG-0600 investigative team moved out. He said that his records were then moyed into the trailer; they were not locked in cabinets . but the trailer was locked. He said licensee Neely cleaning noted as personnel and other NRC staff had access to the trailer.
an example of the recordkeeping that they found many NUREG-0600 documents
.in the closets when they moved in.
He said there was another move at TMI during a time he was away from the site. He related that other NRC employees placed things from his desk into a box and set it aside for him. .,,'
One final move which Neely said his TMI records have undergone was within the regional office building. He said the move had to be accomplished with some haste and this only contributed to the disarray of his records.
Neely said the only individual who he knows actually looked through .his records was Yuhas. He said this occurred at the TMI site around June 1979. He repeated that he believed Yuhas may also have provided information to Lynch. Neely said that he physically gave the records to Yuhas and, because he trusted Yuhas, he did not verify that all pages were there when they were returned.
Neely said that these exhibits represent all his records regarding TMI
- and that he has not destroyed any of his records. Neely said he was not aware of any records being missing; however, he conceded that, given the extent of access to his records by others, material could be missing without his knowledge.
Heely was then asked if he had seen the transcript of his October 7, 1980, interview by IE. He said he had not. Neely indicated that he recently received a memorandum from Moseley asking him to review and make corrections to the transcript. However, Moseley mistakenly '
sent him the transcript of an IE interview of James Higgins.
Neely's attention was then directed to line 15 at page 11 of the investigator $'
copy of the transcript of his October 7 interview. Neely was asked what
. took place during the " Discussion off the record." Neely said he was not aware of any words being spoken then. He only recalled that Craig held a spiral stenographic pad close to Moseley and pointed to something on the page. He said Moseley nodded and the que'stioning resumed.
Neely was then asked to read the transcript from line 17 at page 11 to line 5 at page 13 and to further explain this event.
c y
7_,__.- - - - - - . . , - - - - , ,
..- _ , . - . - - . , , - , , . _c,., .-,
. . :- g Neely said'that the next time he returned to the TMI site after infomation had come out in the newspapers about the pressure spike allegedly having been brought to the' attention of NRC, he went to the Unit 2 control room to find out where the. instrument th6t recorded containment pressure was located. Heely said that he did this out of curiosity; he believed it was sometime after May 15, 1979. Neely said thht he asked Brian Mahler of the Metropolitan Edison Cempany, whom he had not known, where the instrument was. Neely recalled that Mehler pointed it out and then they began talking casually with each other. Neely related that_Mehler said that NRC knew about the pressure spike and even their own (i.e., Metropolitan Edison) management knew. Neely said Mehler also talke'd about the fact that "they" (unspecified) cut the chart out for that period. Neely said l he did not pursue the matter because it was outside his jurisdiction but, 1 i
because it appeared to be an allegation, he reported it (he believed on !
the same day) to Tony Fasano who was at TMI on a special investigative )
assignment. Neely said Fasano later told him that he (Fasano) had )
talked to Mehler and checked this out; Fasano reportedly concluded that l Mehler had his dates mixed up. Neely observed that, even if Mehler was l correct abeut an NRC inspector having been infomed. Mehler did not indicate to Neely that he felt Neely was the inspector involved.
Neely said that the items listed at page 6 of Exhibit B, which is entitled ;
" ARMS Read Out," correspond to various monitoring instruments in the control room. He said that he listed the readings he took at 1300 hours0.015 days <br />0.361 hours <br />0.00215 weeks <br />4.9465e-4 months <br />
~
beside the name of the monitor. He said that in order to see historical changes, he wrote the readings he took at 1430 hours0.0166 days <br />0.397 hours <br />0.00236 weeks <br />5.44115e-4 months <br /> right beside the i earlier readings. Neely pointed out that he wrote "1430" and the second set of readings in red felt-tip pen so they would be readily distinguishable.
Neely said he was present in the control room between 1300 and 1430 hours0.0166 days <br />0.397 hours <br />0.00236 weeks <br />5.44115e-4 months <br />. He said he overheard some radiological readings coming in over ;
the radio. He said this is probably how he obtained the readings listed l at 1410. ,
Neely said that initially he and Higgins were the only NRC personnel in He recalled they took turns manning the telephone -
the Unit 2 control roan. Neely said with a Metropolitan Edison employee occasionally helping.
Higgins was primarily on the telephone because the line was established to communicate operations infomation - the HP line was out of Unit 1.
Neely said the next NRC personnel to arrive were Raymond Smith and Walter Ba
-he recalled that Smith. began manning the telephone immediately upon his arrival. Neely recalled that Richard Keimig arrived sometime later.
Neely said he definitely would have recognized any other Region I employees; however, there were no others in the Unit 2 control room until sometime later,
^
y
\
l
. ; . (
~
OIA drew Neely's attention to Joseph Chwastyk's recent identification of '
Neely as the inspector he had informed about the pressure spike. Neely noted that he is the only inspector that was present in the Unit 2 ,
control room early that afternoon who has subsequently (i.e., after the first couple weeksl.haen back at TMI for any considerable amount of 4
time. Smith, Baunack, and Higgins have not been back to TMI. Neely said he just finished on August 8,1980, an inspect!on which essentially
- declared TMI's HP program a disaster for restart and which blamed the problem on Unit 2. Neely said it may be interesting to determine the date Chwastyk stated that Neely was the inspector involved and compare that to when Neely performed this inspection. '
INVESTIGATORS' NOTE: Chwastyk identified Neely in an IE interview on September 3, 1980.
EXHIBITS:
A. Notes from March 28, 1979 re TMI.
, B. Notes from March 28, 1979 re TMI.
4 C. " Facsimile Request" with notes as transmitted on October 22, 1980.
D. Balance of Neely's records re TMI.
E. Additional records re TMI.
F. Additional records re TMI. .
1
--- , _ _ - - _ _ - . - _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ - _ - - - .