ML20211Q028
| ML20211Q028 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/03/1983 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Asselstine NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20197G036 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8607230475 | |
| Download: ML20211Q028 (4) | |
Text
py31C?M s J: i)$/.539f
![Ysp recq'C,,.
UNITED SJ4IESz g-
- ( e NUCLEAR REGULMORY COMMISSION s.,
f v,',%.. E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
.0CT 3 1983 QD MEMORANDUM FOR:
Commissi istine ROM:
William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
AUGUST 1, 1983 LETTER FROM CONGRESSMEN UDALL AND MARKEY This memorandum is in response to your memorandum to me of September 27, 1983, which enclosed proposed answers to questions posed by Congressmen Udall and Markey in their letter of August 1,1983.
It is my personal opinion that your answers are accurate, with the exception of part of the the answer to Question 1, as noted below.
The staff has sent to each of the Comissioners today the Staff's proposed response to the Udall/Markey questions. The Staff response has the con-currence of all of the appropriate NRC offices except for the Office of Inspector and Auditor, which concurs except for the answer to Question 3.
In general, because the Staff answers have the concurrence of all appropriate offices (with the exception of OIA), which was obtained after considerable 5
discussions among the offices, I prefer them to the answers you sent me with your September 27 memorandum, except for one of your answers (to question 2d) which I personally feel is preferable to ours.
Answer to Question 1 If.you. choose to use your answer, changes to make it factually accurate are shown in the enclosed markup.
Answer to Question 2a Your answer is factually correct.
Answer to Question 2b I infer from your notation that you agree that the Staff's draft answer is factually accurate.
Answer to Question 2c Your answer is factually correct.
However, I believe the Staff's draft answer is a more complete answer to the question asked.
8607230475 830414 PDR ADOCK 05000289 l
P PDR
. Answer to Question 2d I prefer your answer over our draft answer.
Answer to Question 2e Since the Special Inquiry Group was appointed by the Commission, I think it woulc be more appropriate that a Commission-level office make the inquiries to obtain the information sought.
Answer to Question 2f The Staff's draft answer, which reflects changes in the prior draft sent to the Commission which were necessary to obtain concurrence, is preferable as a more complete answer to the question asked.
Answer to Question 3 I infer from your notation that you agree that the Staff's draft answer is factually accurate.
Answer to Questions 4 and 5 Your answers are factually correct. However, the Staff's draft answers provide some background that may be helpful to the Congressmen.
I trust that the above is fully responsive to your memorandum of September 27.
Gigned William J.Dirch.
William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
Enclosure:
Markup Answer to Question 1 cc:
Chairman Palladino Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Roberts Co=nissioner Bernthal SECY, 0GC, OPE Distribution WDircks EDO R/F VStello EDO 13394 JGoldberg u./
.J o
s__:______'______:.________.._:____________:__
DO P g
)FC
- ELDjf
- DE Pp Sfe E,o
- WDircks LAME :JGo erg MTF 0/30/83
- 9/?//83
- i/2V83
r.
t AM5WERS TO AUGUST 1, 19E3 CUESTIONS FROM CONGRESS!'AN UDALL AND MARKEY Ouestion 1.
When did HRC staff first reach a conclusion as to the substance i
of the Hartmann allegations cencerning leak rate falsificatien at TMI-2? What was the basis for any such conclusions? When and by what means were the Executive Cirecter for Operations and the Commission infomed of the conclusions? Please provide a complete list of persons who, prior to May 1983, had reached or j
known of conclusions concerning falsification of leak rate records.
C
" " ' ^
f^
Answer:
Q p s nA&b I
The NRC staff has never reached a final conclusion as to the substance of the Hartman allegations concerning leak rate falsification at TMI-2.
The NRC investigation of those allegations began in March 1980 and,
/:+e : Mr.
within a week or so, sufficient information had been gathered to lead the staff to conclude that the leak rate test results had likely been R"(
7 NRC inspectors Martirf[y basis for this conclusion was an falsified.
The primar Christopher, W Sicir with Mr. Hartman, a.
.s I cne OT sworn statement taken at that interview,fEiid a subsequent examination of r
GPU records related to the leak rate tests.
During the latter part of 7
. wgra /
4erdem df March, the NRC's Office of Inspector and Auditor exc.h.anged a few prelim-inary phone calls with the Department of Justice, infoming them of the A/,yfe.:
- 4. ff,. f.,ny,,
possMW d a refenal M Wnal psedodh @@K M, ygm "JD-representatives of the NRC met with members of the Department of Justice A
we.
{.d With the ge m l
" 5 co # 8 to brief them on all of the infomation in its possession.
referral to the Department of Justice, the NRC brought its own inves-
% f,:,l,'
oe us f whic h tigation to a halt and a final staff position on this matter was never p m e Na, em formulated.
bcpa t &
T>Se-gm la With respect to when and the means by which the Executive Director for o'-
/p., (,
Operations and the Comission were infomed about the Hartman alle-S w.^
m 4 9gg/.
oations and the staff's investication into them, as best we can recon-f9 m ",
struct, the Comission was first informed of this matter in writing in SECY-A-80-74-Memorandum and Order, Motion to Qua the Director,1&E, dated May 23, 1980.
A copy of that paper is en-closed. The Co:renission approved the proposed Memorandum and Order on g c,q.
without a staff briefing on the matter.
Also, as best we i., 4 e May 28, 1980, can reconstruct, the Comission was first informed of the general nature p%.
of this matter orally in the March / April 1980 timeframe.
Victor Stello J FAc.
describes the situation as follows:
"Due to the sensitivity of this matter, my discussicns with various Comissioners and senior staff censisted of oral conversations and General status of ongoing investigations were reported briefings.
at weekly EDO staff meetings, some of which included attendance by the Chaiman and representatives from other Commission offices.
While infomation concerning the Hartman allegations was generally disseminated (sic) orally, the Cc=ission's understanding of this
i l
matter is reflected in writing, specifically its Memorandum and Order of May 18, 1980 which referred to falsified test results and the engoing Grand Jury investigation.
A copy of that Memorandum and Order is enclosed.
See specifically page 6.
Further, this matter is specifically discussed in Supplement 1 of !?UREG-0680, issued tievember 1960, and Supplement 2 of liUREG-0680, issued March 19E1.
All of these documents received wide distribution throughout
,the agency."
(See attached Memorandum from Victor Stello, Jr.' to !!illiam J.
Dircks dated June 10, 1983, (attached to the June 10, 1983, Memo-randum from William J. Dircks to Comnissioner Gilinsky)).
The records of Comission meetings around and preceding May 1980 do not reveal any meetings on this subject nor do the Connission's Secretariat i
files contain documents dated in that timeframe on this matter (other than SECY-A-80-74).
With regard to a complete list of persons who, prior to May 1980, had reached or known of conclusions concerning falsification of leak rate records, as best as we can reconstruct, the following individuals Mr.
apparently reached a conclusion that the allegations were correct:
Thomas T. Martin, Team leader of the IE Investigation, and Mr. Harold L.
Ornstein of the Special Inquiry Group.
Apparently, the management of the Special Inquiry Group was aware of the conclusion of Mr. Ornstein.
With regard to the IE investigation of March / April 1980, the results and conclusion of that investigation were never documentd until June,1983.
Hcwever, the results of the investigation were discussed in great detail with senior management in IE and with the Director of OIA in April and May of 1980.
Apparently, no one w.as aware of Mr. Martin's conclusion As best we can reconstruct, senior members of ELD, prior to May 1983.
IE, Region I, t4RR, OIA, and the EDO had concluded in March / April 1980 that, although no final staff conclusions had been reached, leak rate test results had likely been falsified prior to March 28, 1979. The Conrnission was aware of this latter conclusion in the April /May 1980 timeframe.
Question 2 After concluding in 1980 that THI-2 leak rates were falsified, the tiRC staff apparently did not inform the ASLB, the Appeal Board, the Comission or the Department of Justice.
How does the Comission explain or answer the following:
a) the staff's failure to inform the Commission, prior to 1980, of Hartman's leak rate allegations made to the Office of Inspection and Enforcement in May, 1979, and then re-peated to the liRC's Special Inquiry Group in October,1979?
Answer:
After Mr. Hartman made his allegations in May, 1979, and repeated them in October 1979, nothing was done within IE and 01A on this matter until
____a