ML20211P615
| ML20211P615 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 03/10/1986 |
| From: | Martin J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20211P508 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8607230313 | |
| Download: ML20211P615 (3) | |
Text
,-
Attachm:nt 4 l
.3 oms
/s q[o, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
' g REGION V j
- s of 1450 MARIA LANE, SUITE 210 WALNUT CREEK,CAllFORNIA S4696
%,.... *,d MAR 10 1966 MEMORANDUM FOR: Victor Stello, Jr., Acting Executive Director for Operations FROM:
John B. Martin, Regional Administrator
SUBJECT:
REVIEW 0F OIA REPORT Pursuant to your memorandum request of February 28, 1986, I have reviewed the OIA report entitled "Diablo Canyon - Allegations of Misconduct by NRC Employees",
dated October 21, 1985.
I have also reviewed the related analyses and conclusions reported February 26, 1986, by the special panel chaired by Guy H. Cunningham, III.
I agree completely with the special panel's analyses and conclusions.. In particular I find their comments on the background and context of the events relevant.
I can think of nothing to add to their comments except for Allegation 2.
R'egarding Allegation 2, I agree with the special panel's observations; however, I would offer the following supplemental information which is crucial to the final conclusions.
Among other things, Allegation 2 concerned the extent to which we were advi:ing allegers of our resolution of the issues they had raised. The OIA characterized as " inaccurate" statements made by me in the course of discussions with the Commission regarding feedback with the allegers -
particularly that "we spent hours and hours and hours with Mr. Stokes, for example, doing just that."
Ine principal pieces of information relevant to this issue and contained in the OIA report appear to be 1) the schedule of R gion V meetings with allegers (Attachment 17), and 2) the report of interview with Region,I engineer Samuel D. Reynolds (Attachment 18)..Given'the ' fact that the schedule of meetings shows only one "close out" meeting prior to April,198a and the fact that Mr. Reynolds reported only a brief : lose out meeting with it is not surprising to me that OIA concluded as it did.
Although the schedule of alleger meetings does not clearly reflect it, (the schedule was not prepared for purposes of the OIA investigation) more than one alleger was advised of how we were dealing with his allegation (s) prior to l
April, 1984.
For example,'
was interviewed (with GAP counsel, Thomas Devine) on That interview, conducted by Region (inspectors Jesse Crews and Allen Johnson, included substantial information for about what we had looked at, what we had found, and what we were concluding in respect to his concerns regarding the RHR systems at t
Diablo Canyon. The inspectors tell me this interview lasted an entire evening.
8607230313 860711 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR l
i
,me.--
'N Victor Stello, Jr. t&c i 0 1985 (A transcript of that inverview, prepared by,
. as appended to w
his affidavit of and transmitted on to.
NRC as a part of the materials furnished the agency by GAP.) Another example involved an anonymous alleger known as As reflected in the transcript of the Commission's March 19, 1984, meeting (p. 66) Thomas Bishop explained how we had been able, through a third party, to get back to this alleger and let him know what we had found, and why, concerning his allegation i
that " red-head anchors are not allowed on nuclear projects."
The hours-lono interview of of which I have knowledge occurred in Region'V offices.
nr. Definis Kirsch conducted the interview, I am advised, with Thomas Devine present, beginning mid-af ternoon and runnin'g to about 6:00 p.m. that evening. Although Mr. Kirsch's notes of that meeting (contained in Regional files for " allegations 92-93") reflect only information amplifying original concerns, Mr. Kirsch tells me he also spent substantial time advis~ing of the results of Region V inspections into the latter's concerns regarding weiding activities at Diablo Canyon. This is in addition to the feedback session with Reynolds, cited by OIA.
~
In addition to the foregoing successful attempts to provide feedback to allegers, there were other, unsuccessful, attempts which took place in the same general time frame. Two examples are documented in another OIA file (Report of Investigation "Diablo Canyon - 2.206 Petition"), dated August 1, 1984.
In one case, Lewis Shollenberger, Regional Counsel, tried to set.a meeting date with GAP counsel (Clewett) and two allegers (Hudson and another A copy of a March 15, 1984 telegram to Clewett reflects the failure of thareffort (see Attachment E, OIA Report of August 1,1984).
This was discussed in the March 26, 1984 Comission meeting (transcript, p.17).
The second case is reflected by Tom Bishop's notes of telephone conversations with GAP Counsel Thomas Devine on March 16, 1984, (Attachment E, OIA Report) and supported by Bishop's testimony before the Commission (p. 65, transcript of March 19, 1984 Commission meeting).
In this instance, a meeting scheduled to take place in San Luis Obispo for both followu,p and closure never occurred when, without notice, GAP counsel and alleger (s) failed to show. That meeting was to have occurred the evening of March 19, 1984.
All of the foregoing indicates both successful and unsuccessful attempts to close with at least five different allegers which represents a good proportion of the major allegers (about 8) at the time.
Each instance is supported, at least in some measure, by material which existed in agency records at the j
time of my March 26/27, 1984 meetings with the Commission. Although I do not presently have any records, there may have been other occasions in early 1984 where Regional staff advised allegers of the results of their investigation.
Moreover, as early as March 19, 1984, I expressed my concern to the Commission that because of the volume of allegations and the difficulty of travel, we were finding that we dould not close the loop in all cases, and that we might not be in the future (Commission transcript, March 19, 1984, p. 67).
' v'ictor Stello, Jr. MAR 10 1966 In view of the above, I believe my words to the Commission regarding feedback to all allegers were far from being " inaccurate", misleading or overstated.
As I said to the Comission imediately following my commant concerning the I
hours and hours of time we spent closing with i
I think I pointed out to the Commission Monday -- yesterday andBut l
the previous Monday -- that we did not do that in all cases.
3 we did do it in some.
So the assertion that no effort was made whatsoever, is just false.
(Comission transcript, March 27, 1984,
- p. 270).
I fully agree that more feedback to allegers would have been desirable.,
As I pointed out in several Comission meetings, we were not doing that as much as we would have liked.
If an error exists here, it is one of priorities and resource application, not of inaccuracy and deception.
Thank you for this opportunity to re coment on these two reports.
~
fohn B. Martin Regional Administrator 4
0 0
0 er j
l l
l
,