ML20138M742

Requests That Encl Transcribed Interviews Re Allegations at Plant,Units 1,2 & 3 from 1985 to Present,Be Placed in PDR Effective Immediately

ML20138M742
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	02/25/1997
From:	Hannon J NRC
To:	Mcknight J NRC
Shared Package
ML20138M747	List: ML20138M742 ML20138M771 ML20138M778 ML20138M784 ML20138M792 ML20138M795 ML20138M802
References
NUDOCS 9702260155
Download: ML20138M742 (2)

Text

__ . . _ _

l p ung 4 UNITED STATES g j g

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 2056&4001 4

,,,,,+/ February 25, 1997 MEMORANDUM TO: James C. McKnight ,

IRM/RMB

/, l

~

FROM: John N. Hannon Millstone Review Group Leader

SUBJECT:

PLACEMENT IN PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOM OF TRANSCRIBED INTERVIEWS  ;

The Millstone Independent Review Group (MIRG) completed its evaluation of the handling of employee concerns and allegations

, at Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 from 1985 -

Present on September 24, 1996 and issued its final report on October 24, 1996. Transcripts of public meetings that were held in August 1996 to discuss the preliminary findings were placed in I the Public Document Room (PDR) on September 3, 1996.

The first of several transcripts of interviews conducted by the MIRG during the course of the evaluation were redacted for privacy information and sent to the PDR on September 24, 1996.

Further placement of redacted trhnscripts in the PDR was hold

. until this memorandum could be prepared to explain the reasons for placing the transcripts in the PDR.

From the beginning of the project, we had planned to treat each individual interviewed similarly, whether from the alleger community, the licensee or the NRC. We adapted guidance for

, processing transcribed interviews from the procedures being used

.by AEOD in their diagnostic and incident investigation work.

Unfortunately, in actual practice, this guidance was not uniformly applied to the NRC individuals that were interviewed.

NRC employees were not intended to be given the option of requesting their transcript be withheld from public disclosure, but they could expect the same level of redaction to remove privacy type information that would be afforded to others.

}

On July 18 and 19, 1996, transcribed interviews were conducted in [

Region I. The same written guidance was used to describe the C process for handling the transcripts that was used in previous p'I g /;

interviews of the alleger and licensee individuals, but language n .used during the opening and closing statements was different, in n$$ that it did not provide the NRC employees the option of

@O' withholding their transcripts 120m the PDR. (An audit conducted ob on 10/29/96 revealed that all but two NRC staff interviewees were So informed during the transcribed interview that their transcripts og would be put in the PDR. This was an oversight by the Team nu Leader and was discussed with the individuals involved.) In i o8 hindsight, the use of the same handout for NRC interviewees that

$4 was used for other interviewees created a confusion factor, in N that it left some NRC interviewees with the impression that they kE

• 'h would have the opportunity to request that their transcript be withheld from public disclosure, notwithstanding the fact that 263d6[were 4 told otherwise in the interview itself. .

o 4;

i l l l

Guideline #4 in the handout reads, "After you have had the l

orportunity to review your transcript, it will be redacted to i remove any privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information. I i

With your permission, the redacted copy of the transcript will be transmitted to the NRC's Public Document Room where it will be I made available to the public at the conclusion of the MRG's efforts. If the MRG does not obtain your permission to transmit '

the transcript to the Public Document Room, the transcript will not be released to the Public Document Rcom and will not be made available to the public. When some of the NRC interviewees read Number 4 of the guidance, they interpreted the guidance to mean I that they would have the option to go over their redacted transcript a second time to determine whether or not they wanted to give their permission to put the transcript in the PDR.

As a result of this inconsistency, the process for conducting interviews of NRC staff was re-examined, including the appropriateness of placing NRC transcripts in the PDR without the permission of the interviewee. Subsequently, NRC interviewees were contacted by the Transcript Custodian to verify their understanding that their redacted transcript would be put in the PDR.  !

~

All transcripts were redacted a'ccording to the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. Section 552),which deals with l

Exemptions.

Please place'the enclosed transcribed interviews listed below in the PDR effective immediately. Please place the asterisked records as attachments to this-memorandum, and the others as separate reports.' Al'1 documents ~ attached to this memorandum are to be'placed under Docket Numbers 50-245, 50-336, and 50-423.

Redacted transcript interview - Individual - June 27, 1996

• Redacted transcript interview - Thomas T. Martin - July 19, 1996 Redacted transcript interview - Michael Brown - May 21, 1996

• Redacted transcript interview--' Paul Swetland - July 17, 1996

• Redacted transcript interview - James Lieberman - July 22, 1996 Redacted transcript interview - James Tyrol - May 22, 1996 Redacted transcript interview - Gary Neron - May 30, 1996 Redacted trsnscript interview - Don Hiller - May 24, 1996

~* Redacted transcript interview - Wayne Lanning - July 18, 1996

'* Redacted transcript interview - William F. Kane - July 19, 1996

• Transcript interview --William Raymond - July 17, 1996

! Copies of these transcripts have been sent to the PDR for l immediate placement in the PDR, this date, i

Thank you.

Enclosures:

.As stated