ML20148F885
| ML20148F885 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Crane |
| Issue date: | 03/21/1984 |
| From: | Myers H, Simpson J AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | Kammerer C NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML082310280 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-87-728, FOIA-87-853 NUDOCS 8801260346 | |
| Download: ML20148F885 (2) | |
Text
,
l' W$bY i
Merch 21, 1984 TO:
Carl Kammerer PRO'M:
Henry Myers/ Jay Simpson RE:
NRC STAFF COMMENTS ON THE COMMISSION'S JANUARY 20, 1984 LIST OF INTEGRITY ISSUES IN TMI-l RESTART PROCERDING The following is in reference to Integrity Issues List Item I-E, p.
8-9, which concerns the May 9, 1979 mailgram sent by Mr.
Dieckamp
.to Chairman Udall (with a copy to Commissioner Gilinsky (NUREC 0760,
- p. 117-1].
The mailgram contains the following statement:
"There is no evidence that anyone interprated the
' Pressure Spike' and the spray initiation in terms of reactor core damage at the time of the spike nor that anyone withheld any information."
This portion of the mailgram contains two assertions of fact with respect to reporting of information on March 28, 1979.
First, Mr. Dieckamp stated that there was no evidence that anyone interpreted the pressure spike in terms of reactor core damage.
Second, Mr. Dieckamp stated that there was no evidence that anyone withheld any information.
OUESTIONS 1.
Does the staff believe that the first of Mr. Dieckamp's assertions cf fact is true?
2.
Does the staff believe that the second of Mr. Dieckamp's assertions of fact is true?
3.
Is it the NRC staff view that because the Commission did not "require" the information contained in Mr. Dieckamp's mailgram, any material false statements therein are not actionable under Sections 186 and 182?
4.
Is it the staff position that a person has not made a false statement unless he/she knew the statement to be false at the time he/she made it?
If so, how does the staff reconcile its position with the Commission's opinion in the North Anna case which stated:
"A statement may be 'falae' within the meaning of Section 186 of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C.
2236, even if it is made without knowledge of its falsity; that is, scienter is not a necessary element of a ' false' statement for the purposes of this section"?
5.
Does the staff agree with the licensing beard (PID, para 501) statement that Mr. Dieckamp's statement was "literally false?"
6.
Does the staff believe that the statements in Mr. Dieckamp's mailgram were "relevant to the regulatory ptocess"?
7.
Does the staff believe that the May 9 mailgram contains one or more material false statements?
8801260346 880122 PDR FOIA CONNOR87-728 PDR
,8., If the staf f does believe the mailgran contains a materia.1 fasle statement, does the staff believe it constitutes an actionable violation of the Atomic Energy Act?
Did the statement constitute such an actionable violation at the time it was made?
9.
If, following the transmittal of the May 9 mailgram, Mr.
Dieckamp found that he had made false statements in that mailgram, did~he have an obligation to correct those false statements?
10.
Has Mr. Dieckamp ever been interviewed by the NRC regarding the May 9 mailgram?