ML20235W262
| ML20235W262 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 03/01/1989 |
| From: | Grimsley D NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | Schmiege P O'MELVENY & MYERS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235W266 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-88-229, REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8903100562 | |
| Download: ML20235W262 (4) | |
Text
. _ _ _
U.S. NUCLEAR REIULATORY COMMISSION wac sointoutsi numsisi
.,,e,,
i FOIA 229
'I "
RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF XX jeaat ftESPHSE TYM I l e=at lNFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUEST - ^"
i gg g ggg DOCKET NuMit&R(Si(if easketvel NtQut4T&N Patricia A. Schmiege PART 1.- AGENCY RECORDS RELEASED OR NOT LOCATED (See checked bosest No egency records subt ect to the request have been located. l No additional egency records subtect to the request have been located.
Requested records are available through another pubhc distribution program. See Comments Sechon.
Agency records subsect to the request that are identified on Apper@ntes' are already available for public mspection and copying m the NRC Pubhc Document Room 2120 L Street. N W:. Washngton. DC 20555
~
Agency records subsect to the request that are identified on Appendentes) H are being made evailable for pubiic inspection and ecpyng n the X NRC Pubhc Documen, Room. 2i20 L Sireet. N W.. wasningion. DC. m a foider under ibis FOIA number and requester name.
The nonpropnetary version of the proposalis) that you agreed to accept in a telephone conversation with a member of my staff is now being made avetlable for public 6nspection and copying of the NRC Pubhc Document Room 2120 L Street. N W., Washington, DC. en a foider undei this FOIA number and requester rame.
Agency records subsect to the request that are identified on Appendimiesi may be inspected and copied at the NRC Local Pubhc Document Room identified in the Comments Sectson.
Enclosed is information on how you may obtain access to and the Charges for copying records placed in the NRC Public Document Room. 2120 L Street. N W .
Washngton, DC.
Agency records subsect to the request are enclosed.
Records subject to the request have been referred to another Federal egencybes) for review and direct response to you.
You will be billed by the NRC for fees totahng 6 in view of NRC's response to this request no further action is being taken on appeal letter dated N, I
PART 11. A-INFORMATION WITHHELD FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE Certam mformation in the requested records is being withheic from public disciosure puesuant to the exemptions described m and for the reasons stated m Part li.
XX sections s. C. and D. Any ,eieased pari ons of the documents for which oniy part of the record is being wiihheid are being made esa iabie for pubhc inspecison and copymg m the NRC Pubhc Document Room. 2120 L Street. N.W. Washington, DC. m a folder unoer this FOIA number and requester name.
COMMENTS l
l ^
i secN E EDOM F INFORMATION AND Pb8LICATIONS SERVICf S DIRECTOR. DIVglON OF b U / k T I i
8903100562 890301 !
PDR FOIA SCHMIEG88-229 PDR .% ,
1
_ _ . ._ - - _ - - _ _ ___m_ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __m__-_ ______-.__ ___m _-_ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . -. _.m____.____-__-___.m._..____-._________.-____.m___
/REEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT RESPONSE FOlA NUMBER (St FOIA 229 DunlAR 1_1989 PART 118- APPUCASLE EXEMPTIONS I
- L Recorda sublect to the r:quut thst are dzscribed on the enclosed Appendiales) I are being withheld in their entirety or in part under the Ex mptions and for the reasons set forth below pursuant to 5 U.s.C. 552(b) and 10 CFR 9.17(al of NRC Regulations.
- 1. The withheld mformaten is property classified pursuant to Esecutive Order (EXEMPTION 16
- 2. The withheld informaten relates solely to the mternal personnel rules and procedures of NRC, (EXEMPTION 2)
- 3. The withheld informaten es specifically enempted from pubhc disclosure by statute indicated. (EXEMPTION 36 Sections 141 145 of the Atomic Energy Act which prohibits the disclosure of Restncted Data or formerly Restncled Data (42 U S C 216 21651.
Section 147 of the Atomic Energy Act which prohibits the disclosure of Unclassified Safeguards information (42 U.S C. 2167)
- 4. The wethheld mformaten is a trade secret of commercial or fmancialinformation that ts bemg withheld for the reason (s) indicated. (EXEMPTION di i
The information is considered to be confidential busmess (propnetary) mformation.
l The information is considered to a e propnetary mformation pursuant to 10 CFR 2.790(d)(1),
1 l
The mformation was submitted and received in confidence pursuant to 10 CFR 2 790td)(2),
- 6. The withheld information consists of imeragency or mtraagency records that are not evailable through discovery durmg litigation IE XEMPTION 51. Apphcab Dehberative Process. Disclosure of predecisional information would tend to mhibit the open and trank exchange of ideas essential to the delebstative Where records are withheld in their entirety. the facts are enestncably intertwined with the predecisional mformation, There also are no reasonably s porteons because the release of the facts would permit en indirect mQuery mto the preoecesional procesis of the agency.
Attorney worloproduct pnvilege (Documents prepared by an attorney in contemplation of litigation i Attomey -chent pnvilege Confidential communications between an attorney and his her chent )
- 6. The withheld mformation is esempted from pubhc disclosure because its $sclosure would result in a clearly unwarranted mvasion of personal pnvecy, (EXEMPTION
- 7. The withheld mformation consists of records compiled for law enforcement purposes and is being withheld for the reas9n(s) mdicated. (EXEMPTION 7)
Disclosure cou d reasonably be espected to interfere with an enforcement proceeding because il could reveal the scopa. direction. anc toCus of en-EXFMPTION 7 MHforcement efforts, end thus could possibly allow them to take action to shield potential wrongdoing or a violation of NRC reuunements from inv Disclosure would constitute an unwarranted mvasion of personalpnvecy (EXEMPTION 7(Cll The mformation consists of names of individuals and other mformation the disclosure of which could reasonably be esoected to rever Stities of Confidential sources (EXEMPTION 7 (011 OTHLR XX Government in the Sunshine Act (GISA)s Exemptions 5, 7(C) and 7(0).
PART 11. C-DENYING OFFICIALS 15 unusnt to to CFR 9 25tb) andrrir 9 25 (c) of the U $ Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations. it has tieen determened that the mformadon withheld as esempt fesm producten or disclosure, and that its production or disclosure is contrary to the pubhc interest. The persons responsible for the deneal are :those officials identified below Es denying officiels end the Duector. Division of F reedom of information and Pubhcstions Ser densels that may be appepled to the Esecutive Dweetor for Operations (EDOI v ices. Office of Admmistration and Resources Management. for any DENYING OFFICIAL TITLE / OFFICE RECORDS DEklED APPELLATE OFFICIAL John C. Hoyle Assistant Secretary of the 5'Ca"^"Y 'D Cnmmhsion Ann. T YY PART 11. D- APPEAL RIGHTS The dernal by each denymg official 6dentified m Part ll.C may be appealed to the Appellate Official identifieJ .n thet section, Any eN, copeal must be ire writmg and must be made withm 30 days of receipt of this response. Appeals must be addressed as appropnate to the Executive Direcie for Operetnsin o> to the Secretary of the Commission.
U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commisso , Washmgton. DC 20555. and should cleerty stete on the envelope and m the htter that it is an Appeal from an innist FOIA Decision."
Nnc r'Jnu 4s4 (Part 2)
'"**' U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FOIA RESPONSE CONTINUATION
[ ]
Re: F01A-88-229 APPENDIX H D_0CUMENTS BEING RELEASED l
- 1. 11/3/83 Closed Comission Meeting Transcript: Report of Allegations at i Diablo Canyon. (40 page) Released in entirety l
- 2. 1/23/84 t: Discussion of Pending Closed Comission Meeting Transcrip(28 Investigations on Diablo Canyon. pages) Released in entirety
- 3. 3/19/84 Closed Comission Meeting Transcript: Status of Pending Investigation on Diablo Canyon. (14 pages) Released in entirety
- 4. 3/26/84 Closed Comission Meeting Transcript: Status of Pending Investigation on Diablo Canyon. (28 pages) Released in entirety
)
- 5. t: Status on Pending 7/30/84 Closed Comission Meeting Transcrip(90 pages) Released in Investigations on Diablo Canyon.
entirety
- 6. 1/8/85 Closed Comission Meeting Transcript: Periodic Briefing on NT0Ls(beginningat3:50pm). Page 20 through page 21, line 3 being released. (3 pages released) [ Deleted portions are outside the scope of the request.]
- 7. 1/8/85 Closed Comission Meeting Transcript: Periodic Briefing on NT0Ls (beginning et 4:20 pm). Page 3, line 15 through page 4, line 4 being released. (3 pages released) [ Deleted portions are outside the scope of the request.]
- 8. 4/23/85 Closed Comission Meeting Transcript: Discussion of Pending Investigations (beginning at 9:52 am). (26 pages) Released in entirety
i Re: F01A-88-229 APPENDIX-I DOCUMENTS BEING WITHHELD IN PART
-1. 4/23/85 Closed Comission Meeting Transcript: Discussion of Pending Investigations (beginning at 10:31 am)' Pages 2 through 8 are subject to request. Portions of pages 2, 3, 4, and 6 are being withheld pursuant to GISA Exemption 7(D). (8 pages released)
[0ther deleted portions are outside the scope of the request.]
- 2. 7/26/85 Closed Comission Meeting Transcript: Discussion of Pending Investigations.
are Portions bein withheld ofto pursuant pages GISA25, 29, 32, 33,(34 Exemption 5. 62and pages 35 released
- 3. 10/22/84 Closed Comission Meeting Transcript: Status of NT0Ls.
Page 33 through page 40, line 4, and page 52, line 8 through page 55, line 15 are subject to the request. Portions of pa 34 and 35 are being withheld pursuant to GISA Exemption 7(C)ges .
Portions of pages 53 and 54 are being withheld pursuant to GISA Exemption 7(D). (13 pages released) [0ther deleted portions are outside the scope of the request.]
i l
1 l
r
' ~ '
, r. "~.. -
O kN M f&fl{l J{: ',?%QLlc.;; . //}O3}Mk.,$* ,
- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA h' (y NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION { .
^
t .+
i 7
~ s,' . o
~ lis the matter of: , . .. . ~
', REPORT OF ALLEGATIONS AT
, 1 s, iDIABLO CANYON ,
' Docket No. .
c' ,', , .. .s -
V 4 i s
C. ,
1 1
l Location: Was,hington, D. C. Pages: 1 - 39 Date: Thursday, November 3, 1983 1
- i i 4 i
l o
i l
l
.- l I
(. TA)1.ot ASSOCIATES j i .wrt Reporters ,
1*;? ' wreet. N.W. Sete 1004
- e.a.apon. D C. 20006
.% 29M950 '
] I f
@5$WGS$Y NYW
- g. ._. - . . _-_ - _. _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _
1 L. .
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA' f .2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3, -
3 ---
-s w 4 REPORT OF ALLEGATIONS AT DIABLO CANYON 5 ---
6 CLOSED MEETING
'7 (Exemptiens 5 and 7)
--~
8' g Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commissioners' Conference Room 10 lith Floor 1717 "H" Street, M. W.
11 Washington, D. C.
12 Thursday, November 3, 1983 ,
13 The Commission met in closed session, pursuant to k notice, at 1:35 o' clock p.m., Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman 14 15 of the Commission, presiding.
16 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: i 37 NUNZIO J. PALLADINO, Chairman of the Commission 18 VICTOR GILINSKY, Member of the Commission j 19 THOMAS. ROBERTS, Member of the Commission 1 -
{
[ JAMES ASSELSTINE, Member of the Commission q 20 s j d FREDERICK BERNTHAL, Member of the Commission 21 l
't STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT COM?U.SSION TABLE:
22 23 J. ZERBE l M. MALSCH 24 H. DENTON 25 D. EISENHUT B. HAYES J. ROE 1 i
i
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ . _ - _ - - i
ll ,
- s REGION V'~ PARTICIPANTS VIA TELECOMMUNICATIONS:
f J. MARTIM B. FAULKENBERRY' D.-KIRSCH 4
J. CREWS L. SHOLLENBERGER 5
6 .__
7
^
8 9
10 11 12 -
13 '
.(-
14 15 16 g- 17 4
18 g ,,
e 21 i
22 l 23 24 I
j 25
.. 'l y
, 3 P3QCEEQlEQE 2
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: We will get started. This 3
meeting concerns allegations relative to the Diable Canyon 4
facility. The staff discussed a number of these allegations 5
in last week's meeting. Because the status of each 6
allegation differs from the others and they have various 7
sources, I would propose that we begin by asking Harold 8
Denton to summarize the allegations including any information 8
he has about when we receive the allegations, from whom, 10 what has been done so far about them and what fur'ther needs 11 to be done.
12 I would ask that particular emphasis be placed on 13 the Pullman allegations and to help us in that we have a phone 14 hook-up with Region V. Perhaps this is a good time to check 15 if we actually have a phone hook-up with Region V. Jack 16 Martin, are you there?
l l
17 MR. MARTIN: Yes, we are. Can you hear us properly?
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Yes, we can hear you now.
l 1
l 19 Did you hear my remarks so far?
20 MR. MARTIN: Yes, I have.
21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: All right. Following the 22 discussion by NRR.and Region V, then we can turn to specific 23 allegations that are currently being followed by OI. Are there 24 any additional comments Commissioners have before we get 25 started?
1 a 1 I
, (No rGOponcs.) ,
7
(~
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Let me turn the meeting over i l
3 to Mr. Denton.
4 MR. DENTON: Let me start by explaining just briefly 5
how the staff responds to allegations in general. Most 6
allegations come into the region and the regional administrator i 7
decides in the first instance whether it is something technical 8
that he can review and it is something that he properly 9
handles himself. He decides whether he needs technical 10 assistance in resolving it or whether it is somet!hing properly 11 shipped to NRR, for example, if it is a matter under 12 licening purview or if it is a matter involving misconduct, A
13 he ships it to OI.
14 The vast majority of allegations that come in to the 15 NRC come into the region and are di'sposed of by the regional 16 administrator. If you look at the pending OL's before you, 17 you will find that there are probably a number of allegations 18 pending on every OL. Me keep a tracking system that runs l 19 a little bit behind real time but it records periodically 20 the status of all the allegations which have come to anyone's l
21 attention.
22 If the allegation is referred to NRR, then we take 23 responsibility for closing. If it is referred to OI, they take 24 ltheresponsibility. Sometimes allegations come in directly 25 to NRR. Not very often but during the past week we have had a j
. I 5
I numbsr of allegations called to our attention.by Henry' Mayors.
2 Darrell has had a telephone conversation with Dr. Meyers just 3
this week about some Diablo allegations that'he will' call to 4
your attention.
i Going to the Pullman case, I understand that the 6
Pullman allegation was raised in the course of a hearing
'7 and I' don't remember the context of the hearing but around 8
September 9. When the regional administrator became aware of 8 it in that timeframe, he sent a couple of his inspectors to to review the records in that. They did review the' records and 11 they filed their views back before the Board on the Pullman ,
12 matter. .
13 It was not sent to MRR at the time .and apparently 14 it was not sent to the Commission. It was considered a 15 matter pending before the Board that was hearing that question.
16 We subsequently around the middle of October, I guess, got the
}
17 first referral from a Congressman, Congressman Thomas, is l
18 that right, Darrell?
) 19 MR. EISENHUT: Yes.
20 MP. DENTON: Congressman Thomas sent us a letter
}
21 and attached some material regarding Pullman. That was 22 received by the EDO around the 17th or so of October. That 23 was referred to OI because it dealt with construction quality.
24 Then we received another letter from Congressman Panetta 25 dealing with Pullman but slightly riifferent report. That came
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ . _ _J
I 6 O'
1 in in thnt sama tima frema and that was referred-to Martin.
. 2 Basically when it comes to the Pullman one, that matter has s
3 been handled by the region. I think that perhaps this is a 4
good time.to turn to Jack Martin and let him describe how he 5
handled that one from time time.it first got called to his 6 attention.
'7 It has not been referred to OI or to NRR.
8 MR. EISENHUT: Harold, that one was the one, the -
9 context was it related to the construction QA hearing.
10 Remember, the Commission referred the question o$ construction 11 QA that was before hearing, the Pullman report related to 12 construction deficiencies and apparently it was sent to the 13 board by the joint interveners as Harold saidlin early 14 Septembe,r. It was dealt with in that manner. It wasn't sent 15 to NRR or the Commission.
16 MR. DENTON: Jack, do you want to comment now i l
. 17 and tell us if I have summmarized it properly? l 18 MR. MARTIN: Yes. I guess the way I see this is l 19 I am not sure it is really an allegation. There was a filing 1
20 as I understand it to the -- or rather the joint interveners l
i 21 submitted the Pullman audit and made the case that that 22 represented significant new information and there were also as 23 I
recall some overtones of Pacific Gas and Clectric had not 24 3een forthright in hiding that report.
25 We 1 ked into it on the basis of did it constitute
l 7 c
1 significant nsw information or was it the kind of information 2'
that we had already.taken into account when the' agency took 3
a position that we really shouldn't reopen the construction 4
quality hearing. . I 5
As a result what we did was to take a look at the 6
Pullman report, the audit report, which was quite critical.
-7 We went into the company records to find out what they ever did a with this report. It appeared as if --'well, it didn't 9 appear. The Pullman company responded toesch of the audit 10 items and PG&E did their own audit to see that all the items 11 were closed out properly.
12 our review in September prior to filing our views 13 was simply to see if each of the audit items in what 14 appeared to be an appropriate fashion and to review the 15 PG&E overview of it, to see if they' vere properly involved.
16 It seemed to us that the audit for three of them, that it 17 looked to us as if three of them were not being addressed 18 properly. !
1
}~ 19 We had inspectors go down to the plant and get into 20 those two or three items to see if the records were clear and l
21 they had been closed out properly. He later concluded that they had been and documented that in an inspection report 22 23 and.we characterized our review of this whole thing as being 24 mainly procedural and paperwork.
25 We did not go back and delve into the substance of
- l 8 1
, tha findinga cnd any datoilsd insp;ctions to sea if tha 2
7 corrective actions were actually taken were there responses to the findings, did it look appropriate and did it appear 4
to have been handled properly. We concluded it was.
5 -
I was quite troubled by the question of how could 6
all of this come up at the last minute when the report had 7
apparently been around for five years. I was considering 8
whether OI should be brought in to look at that. In order to 8
form some judgment on this I had our enforcement officer and 10 senior inspector spend a couple of days over in t!he company 11 offices talking to people to find out there appeared to be any 12 dishonesty or attempts to hide this audit report. My 13 conclusion was that their report had been there. in the records 14 for us to look at and we may have looked at it at some point.
15 On the other hand, PG&E did not volunteer it but 16 it was there to look at had we wanted to look at those records.
l 17 I concluded that there wasn't any out and out lying. On the 18 other hand, they did not bring it to our attention during the l 19 construction quality proceeding that had just been examined by 20 the Appeals Board.
}
21 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: One has to ask the question, 22 do they have an obligation to do that and I am not necessarily 23 directing that to you.
24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Maybe we ought to direct it to 25 you, Jack. From your work so far, do you feel that it was a
. 9 I
raport that chould hava'bson directsd to the NRC by PGGE?
2
, MR. MARTIN: I am sort of new at this sort of thing.
3 I am not guite sure. Certainly on a. man-to-man basis, you 4
would expect it. I think we even said in our filing to the 5
Board that we.were a bit irritated that they didn't, but I was e
informed that there really isn't any legal obligation for them 7 to do it.
8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Maybe we ought to ask Harold 8 and see if he has any comment or General Counsel?
10 MR. DENTON: With regard to Board notification, the 11 rules are pretty clear. It is whatever is material and 12 relevant. I don't feel ready to judge it from a distance.
13 It depends on what these matters being litigated were. Certain -
14 ly they have files full of such reports from contractors and 15 whether this one was specifically being litigated or not, I 16 can't tell.
17 I would have to look into it to give you any better j 18 advice. It is not one that we focussed on.
l 19 COWiISSIONER GILINSKY: Can't that be settled pretty 20 simply whether that deals with one of the issues being litigated? ,
l 21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I was going to ask Marty if he 22 had any comments or suggestions on how we might best proceed? .
23 MR. MALSCH: I have three comments. One, I think 24 what has been dealt with before the Appeals Board is not the 25 issue of whether there was withholding information but the
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - _ _ a
10
, icsus of whether thara is new information on quality of 2
construction. I think that was the essence of the staff's' 3
pleading, filed with the Board. ,I think they did add the observation that they were troubled or disturbed, I forget what the exact wording was, about the failure to, inform-6 earlier.
'7 On the duty to inform, if the content of the report 8
is more or less accurately described by.the intervenor as 8
something out'of the ordin'ary, unusual or extremely significant ,
to '
I think there clearly was a duty to inform the Licensing Board.
11 I think probably also duty to inform the staff.
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: That sounds an awful lot 13 like the North Anna case, doesn't it?
14 MR. MALSCH: It is very similar to the. North Anna 15 case. What I don't know is what exactly to make of PG&E's 16 argument that this is just a run of the mill QA audit report l
17 like thousands of other ones. If that is so, there is 18 something to be said for the proposition that there is nothing l 18 non-routine, unusual or significant about it although I must ,
20 say that the way the interveners characterized it, it was just l
21 the opposite. On the face of it, it looks like it was just the 22 opposite.
23 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: That's right. Yes.
24 MR. MALSCH: I haven't seen the report. I think that 25 is the kind of thing you need a staff technical call on to l
o 1
11
. gcuga tha. significance. ,
2 o
On the third point, I think we have recognized that 3
the Commission refer to staff for further action and then --
CF. AIR!iAN PALLADINO: What is your third point?
5 i MR. MALSH: On what to do with it. We really for !
6 I lack of any other good idea as to how to handle it, we had l
'7 suggested that it simply be treated as a 2.206 petition 8
which is the way that staff would urge the Commission to treat 9
it, but before passing on criticality and low power operation 10 which was not the instant step but the step following that 11 which the Commission asked for a staff briefing very much 12 like this on status and then decide whether any further action '
13 needs to be taken.
14 I arrived at that without giving it a lot of 15 thought.
16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: There are two questions one ,
l 17 !
of which I thought Jack Martin had answered. One, was there
)
s 18 any new information on the technical issues and I gather that l 19 Jack Martin felt there was no new information and that 20 everything had been well considered. l
}
21 I thought there was only one other remaining issue.
i 22 Should PG&E have turned this over to us?
23 MR. MALSCH: I think the first question is the one 24 that the Appeal Board apparently has squarely faced. It is 25 denying the motion to reopen the record on construction quality
12 I
O.
I
. ascurence. Ma don't hnva the bsnnfit of thsir raasoning but
( 2 they must have reached some conclusion along the lines of 1
3 there is no significant new information in this report.-
4 I don't think although we can't be certain until 5
we see the opinion, but I don't think they are planning on 6 addressing the issue of was PG&E obligated to inform us 7 and did they breach that obligation?
8
. CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: You are suggesting that we ask.
8 NRR to look into that?
10 MR. MALSH: I don't know whether it is NRR -- i 11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Or the staff. ,
12 MR. MALSCH: Whether it is NRR making a significance 13 call and if it is significant, referring it to OI. I am not 14 exactly sure what the sequence would be but the concept was 15 to refer it to staff first for further action.
16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I don't know if the Commission l
17 has any thoughts on that or not. I would be inclined to l 1 18 refer it to the staff. If the ctaff feels there are substance l 19 to th'e requirement to have informed us, then perhaps have OI 20 look into any facts that are in question.
l 21 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I think that approach 22 would be agreeable with me but I think it is something that we !
23 have to have an answer to.
c 24 Let me ask you this, Harold. Quite apart from whethe c 25 there was a duty to notify the Board in this particular case
- . l 13
'l
. given tha postuis of the casa, where doan tha staff draw the 2
line in terms of something that they think a licensee has 3
an obligation to notify us about, notify the staff about, and something that it is just fine to just have in their files 5
and if we find it when we happen ~to be reviewing their files 6 or records, that is fine. l
.l
'I It is not clear to me where the line is on the 8-kinds of things that you really would expect a licensee to 8
come forward to you regardless of the posture of an ongoing 10 proceeding.
11 MR. DENTON: Since the plant was under construction 12 at the time, if they were going to build it in a way different-13 than the application and the question came up the other day 14 suppose there was a new capable fault found in the area that 15 changed or potentially changed the design basis of the plant.
16 I would expect to be notified about those kinds of things, ;
l
}
17 if there were geologic discoveries which would change the l
18 potential seismic design.
l 19 If they do an audit of the company installing 20 hangers and they find that the company is incompetent and
}
21 putting them in wrong and take proper remedial action and l 22 replace the company and put in all new hangers and check it, 23 then I don't know that that corrective system calls for 24 notification.
25 In other words, during the construction you have the 1
I '
.. 14 I
QA program, the fine and remedy d,efects, and if the region is 2
( happy that that process is going on, then I don't see that we need to be notified of every QA finding because there are an 4, awful lot of those.
Then if you get an issue being litigated like are 6
the hangers correct or not, then you would have to look to 7
see whether that information about the hanger company being replaced was material and relevant to the contention. So I haven't really looked to se if this Pullman Report tied directl y 10.
to the issues and I guess I would have to get 'together with 11 Larry Chandler to find out really what was being litigated 12 and see if this report had sufficient relevance to that issue 13 that it might have affected the staff's view 6n it. .
14 If it is just a report of a QA deficiency that has 15 been fixed, then ordinarily we woul'dn't be informed.
16 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: Isn't that what Jack Martin j 17 just told us?
18 MR. DENTON: It seemed to be very close to that i 19 but I don't know for sure what was being litigated and we g.
20 l don't have counsel here to tell me.
4 y 21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Suppose you were to look into i
r 22 it and try to make a determination or make a determination of <
23 whether or not it is something that should have come to the 24 NRC or to the Board. I guess you could work with the region 25 for any further input you need and then based on that make a i
--j
. 15 I
- c. .
recommendation.cs to whether or not OI needed to get into it.
2 Yes.
MR. DENTON: The only. thing that I am just not 3
certain about is what issues were being litigated. The region :
4 was' handling this hearing because it did go to aspects of 5
construction quality and NRR didn't have witnesses that 6 participated in that.
So.we didn't play a very big role in l 7 that hearing.
j 8
MR. MALSCH: There is one other consideration. This 9
issue is one of the more difficult aspects of the 10 Commission's policy on material false statements, when is 11 something significant enough to call into play this obligation, t 12 One test that has been suggested is if the informatio n 13 -- had you received the information at the time or when it was !
V timely, you would have done something with it like initiate 14 '
15 an investigation or a special inspection or done something to different even if the end result might have been that things
) l 17 are okay.
18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Actually the standard that l l 19 I remember from the North Anna decision was that it would be '
20 taken into account.
21 MR. MALSCH: Taken into account.
22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Not necessarily that you 23 aould do anything with it but that it was information that you 24 would take into account in your decision.
25 MR. MALSCH: That's right.
l
. 16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: ,In that case it turned out
{ that the information subsequently turned out to be incorrect or irrelevant at any' rate.
MR. MALSCH: That is correct. I was going to suggest that if you adhere to past practice, it isn't enough 6
to dispose of the issue to say'the end result was that Pullman 7
QA was okay. The question really was if you adopt the North 8
Anna test, would it have been something the staff would have 8
taken into account or if you adopt a slightly more stringent test that we are recommending in our material false statement
" study, would the staff have done something different than it 12 would not have done otherwise 13.ke initiate a study or 13 investigation. ,
14 MR. DENTOM: I think the difficulty would be 15 defining that because clearly our precedent has been that we 16 don't have the licensee report to the Board and the staff
}'
17 every result of a QA audit because there are literally _
18 thousands of those during the course of construction and i i
} 18 trying to decide what is significant and what isn't hasn't l
- 20 been written down within the staff.
I 21 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: On the other hand, if you t
I j
22 don't have some kind of a test like that it seems to me and
(
23 I am not saying thic is that kind of a case, but you would be l
l 24 in the position where you could have reports coming into the )
25 licensee saying that there is a fundamental breakdown in the QA o
. , I
- 17
. program eithor in a ssction of the plant or'throughout tha )
1 2
plant and as long as the licensee was saying that'we are 3
addressing that and we are correcting it with our own internal program, they would never be under an obligation to bring it to our attention.
6 MR. DENTON: Except we do in new plants today 7-require that they sign a statement saying the plant has been 8
constructed in accordance with the application and provide the 8
basis for it and that is reviewed by the staff and the region.
10 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: That is at the tail end 11 of the process though.
12 MR. DENTON: That describes how many non-conformance 13 reports and how many times they have fired a contractor 14 who was not up to speed and based on that information you 15 make a judgment as to whether the plant did eventually get 16 built in accordance with the application or not.
17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: North Anna gives you some-18 thing of a guideline. As I recall the document in question l ,
l 18 there had to do with the existence of a fault. They had some 20 consultants who decided that there was a fault near the l
21 reactor and it subsequently turned out that that wasn't !
22 right. At least, that is the current view.
23 It was information which indicated a possible 24 problem. It presented a view that was different than the
\ 25 one that was generally accepted. So it isn't a matter of l
. 1
- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J
. 1 18 t .
gatting down svary inst detail. ,It 10 getting information 2
. which really gives you a different view of the situation 3
than you had'at.the time. I don't think you need every last QA report but if'a QA report.comes through that says that 5
things are very different than they are generally thought to 6
be, then I would say that that is something that ought to get 7
considere'd.
8 MR. EISENHUT: Remember the' Commission came down .
8 with the policy that is now the Board notification process.
10 It has to be new information that is material and' relevant 11 to the hearing. If someone comes forth and says they have a 12
- whole box of non-conformance reports which is what one of 13 these allegations is, that is not necessarily. bad-in and 14 unto itself if everyone was systematically followed up and 15 if it was not new information that affected where we were 16 and where we were going at the time.
}.
17 I think you are right.
l I think it has to be new 18 information in some sense. On the other hand, if there are l 18 enough of these things going on where you may find every 20 day that there are multiple welding, let's say, that are 3
l 21 defective. Every one could be getting followed up as it went 22 along. The utility also has an obligation to look at it in 23 the overall sense and determine whether taken collectively 24 it is new information also.
25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: If the picture is different
. l . 19 y
than the ona WD tought'-- ,
2 o
MR. DENTON: We will follow it up but I guess I would 3
s'ee a difference between something like geology which if it 4
is wrong can be fixed by the applicant and if it is a poor 5
b well that has to be replaced it can be' fixed. The QA process 6
was intended to find and fix bad practices. I would expect
'I a good QA' program at any utility to be charting those things 8
up and fixing them. Certainly if you want me to look at it 8 and make a decision or make a recommendation, I will do that.
10 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Just for my information, 11 what was the disposition of the North Anna case? What did 12 the Commission do? -
13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: We fined VEPCO a very large 14 amount for those days.
15 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: What was it?
16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Thirty-five thousand l
17 d.ollars which for those days was a whopping sum. ;
l 18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: For failure to report.
l 18 COMMISSIONER GILINSK'l: For failure to bring forward 20 to us a report by one of their consultants stating that there I
21 was a fault in the area. That report later turned out not to 22 be correct or at least the accepted view is different.
23 MR. DENTON: The issue was being litigated before 24 the Board about seismicity and faulting. So they had this 25 report, brand new information that wasn't brought to anyone's 1
j
- s. 20 attention.
COMMISSIONER GILIUSKY: The standard was that 3
something was material if it would have been taken into 4
account. We decided that not bringing it forward to us was as much a statement as bringing forward something that wasn't true.
~7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I cather it was a controversial 8
issue among the Commissioners at that time.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I ' don't think so. I think 10 it was a unanimous decision as I recall.
11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I thought John Ahearne had 12 some different coints.
13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I don't thi'k n he was even 14 here.
15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Maybe that is why.
l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: There was a slight j 17 difference in that there was something like 11 points or 12 18 points and there was some slight difference and some l 19 Commissioners may have agreed with elaht or something like 20 ,
j that but as I recall it was a unanimous decision.
21 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I guess the reason I am 22 asking the question is just that I agree with Harold that 23 there is some distinction at least in the substance of what 24 is involved here and then my next question is sort of what 25 would the Cucunission do even if it were not pleased to the
_ _ _ _ = _ __
-l
. 21
., s point of feeling that this was an improper action on the part 2 '
of the utility. What would be our options? Are we talking 3
about a fine or what are we talking about? Therefore, the 4
question arises why we are talking about?
5 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: They run the range, 6
I think.
7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I am going to suggest that 8
we not try to answer all those questions now. I think we 9
needed to give some guidance as to how that Pullman allegation 10 should be addressed and I think we provided that guidance.
11 I think there has been additional guidance on criteria to be used.
13 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I really.wo,uld just like 14 for my education, what options would be before the Commission 15 if we pursued this? Can anybody give me an answer?
16 MR. MALSCH: As a separate enforcement action, we
{
17 i
! were we to find that there has been a material' false statement, J 18 we could do everything from issuing a notice of violation and l 19 extracting a commitment not to to it again and to do better
) in the future to a civil penalty of varying amounts to a l
21 suspension to outright revokation of the license. There l 22 isn't much to revoke at this point. In the initial licensing 23 case, we could reopen the record and take it into account 24 and it is at least on its face if the record should prove 25 there to be a material false statement, it is grounds for
l
, ,- 22 l'
dsnisl'of the licansa application,1f ws wanted to go that far.
2 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: The basis'of that denial 3
would beLsomehow lack of integrity on the part of management or'something?
5 MR. MALSCH: It is related to that. 'The statute 6
specifically makes it a violation to make a material false 7
statement.
8 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: It could also be the 8
basis of criminal referral to Justice if it is a title 18 10 '
MR. MALSCH: That is right.
11 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: In fact, that is ,
12 something that apparently Justice very actively. considered 13 for a-good while in the North Anna case.
14 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: So we are back to a familiar !
15 issue.
16 MR. MALSCH: There is a whole range of things that l
! J 17 could be done ranging from nothing to criminal referral, I !
.I 18 suppose, as the most severe possibility. I
} 18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: If we can leave that topic, 20 ' I am going to suggest that Harold continue his overview.
l 21 MR. DENTON: I had mentioned at the last 22 Commission meeting the status of nine of the allegations that 23 jumped out as warranting consideration during the IDVP seismic l l
24 reverification program. Actually, the region has like 15 )
j 25 allegations or so that some of which they briefed you on last l
l
. 23 1 ,
I tima that re.nga all over the map. .
2
(.; We briefed you on the ones that touch on the 3-adequacy of the design of the plant for seismic resistance.
To show you how' complicated'the issue does..become, Henry 5
Meyers called-this week'and Darrell and a member of OI talked 6 to Henry and apparently there is at lea'st a box of material 7 over there that pertains to these issues and Darre"ll has been 8
invited over to look in the box and see what is in there.
8 You may recall that during the summer there was a-10 - notice in the paper that the attorney general of talifornia 11 had referred either to Congress or to the Department-of 12 Justice some' allegations which I have been trying to find out 13 what they were and haven't succeeded. ,
( ..
' 14 There are several allegations that'we are working 15 on where the people want to remain either confidential or 16 anonymous that make it difficult. Darrell, maybe you would
}-
17 like to talk about the allegations you have been invited to l
18 go peruse. We don't know whether they touch on Pullman l 19 or other matters or misconduct.
20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Where are these?
l -
21 MR. DENTON: In Dr. Meyer's office.
22 MR. EISENHUT: Dr. Meyer's office has them now.
23 I talked to him yesterday with a member of OI. Most of them 24 generally relate to construction questions and they again s 25 not unlike the previous discussion we just had on Pullman, in t
l
e j-
., 24 fact Pullman was one of the' issues, in fact, the first issue.
2, l 1
They cover some six or seven'different topics from certificationn 3
to OC personnel'co adequacy.of concrete pouring and the~ test i 4
l samples taken to' loss of the traceability of wiring in.the l plant to design change notices that are mixed up at Pullman, 6
Foley, PG&E, et cetera. .
7 They cover a broad variety of things. It was 8 .
characterized as " lots of documents." It was characterized 9
as covering a. wide variety of things down to specific design 10 change notices by specific number that were characterized to 11 me in a broad number of areas including a large number of 12 -
13 non-conformance recorts were in the box.
Some of them I got over the phone by serial' number.
They were again laid out as non-conformance reports and Dr. Meyer's says that it is not clear whether they were followec l ap or not. It is very similar to the Pullman question. If 17 18 they are not significant new information, they probably did not have an obligation to bring then forward.
l 19 But they may very well h many cases have been non-20 l
- enformance reports which at the time were legitimate non-21 conformances that were followed up. So a detailed review is 22 1
going to have to be taken to determine what it is.
l Dr. Meyers left it. He did not want to send the 1 24 i staff the information. He specifically did not want to
, 25 l
~
2 send the information to the region but he would be happy and a
3 I was welcome to come see the ir: formation.. Fe felt in the past 4 no one was really willing to come and really look at it. No 5
ne wanted to listen to him but he enphasized that we were I
welcome to come over and look at the information.
He felt the stuff was quite a bit more substantial 7
than some of the things that have come,up in the past and he 8
g felt some of the things were of the nature that they could be followed up on.
I guess where the staff is left on this one is
~
I don't think I have many options other than to go look at the information.
[ COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Does he haYe an obligation to reveal this information to us?
15 MR. EISENHUT: I don't know. That is certainly
} a question I would defer to someone else. 1 17 l
l CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: It seems to me that he does 18 bave obligation to provide it to us. I think we ought to
} 19 explain it to him. I would be inclinded if there is no other 20 l
way to contact Congressman Udall and say, "Look, you have the 21 allegations. We have te work on them. We will respect the 22 confidentiality where there are such requests."
23 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: That seems quite reasonable.
24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Suppose you go there and you 25 read them. Unless you have the copics to give to the
l
. . 26 '
~ '
1 indivh. duals-- f MR. EISENHUT: It is not clear that they are 3
allegations. I don't think he characterized them as allega-tions along that line. It is an assortment of documents, 5
many different kinds of documentu.
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: That makes it even more
'7 important for you to go through them with your staff people.
8 MR. EISENHUT: I think that is correct.
8 It is clearly in my mind something that the region, 10 the people closest to the problem and it is going to take 11 regional personnel to go back through the non-conformance 12 reports and the samples of the ' concrete pourings, e_ti, cetera.
13 MR. DENTON: I would imagine that t,here may be
(
14 some reports somewhat like the Pullman Report that are other 15 reports that reflect adversely on certain phases of 16 construction but as Jack indicated, they are the files 17 that our inspectors routinely go through and audit and sample 18 although they may not necessarily look at every one.
I 19 MR. EISENEUT: A point on the Pullman. Apparently j 20 the letter we got in from Congressman Panetta appears at I
21 least at first reading to have a different Pullman audit 22 attached. It is an audit dated July 1977 whereas the second i
23 audit covers the period through September 1977 so it may well 24 be that there are two separate ones labelled the " Pullman-25 Kellogg" audit.
'
- l- 27
, Congroccman Pr.natta cal, lod yastorday and wa tried' 2
p to make' connections on this subject and were just unable,to
.3-but this shows the difficulty of really trying to sit down and follow up on,this package of information however lengthy.
5' it is.
6 COM11ISSIONER BERNTHAL: . Actually my question was 7' somewhat in quotation marks. I am almost sorry I asked it-8 that way. Is my understanding then.that somehow this 8
material is not'being released to you in a formal s' ort of way?
10 MR. EISENHUT: This information has not been 11 provided to the best of my knowledge to the staff as of right 12 now. I have no idea how long it has been available.
13 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Have you asked for it?'
14 MR. EISENHUT: We have asked. Apparently the.
15 original discussion came from, Ben,' did you talk to Henry 16 or one of your staff did?
l l.
17 MR. HAYES: Yes. I splke to Dr. Meyers and 18 indicated we would be willing to look at the material to
{'
19 see if the.re were allegations of wrong doing and he suggested 20 a technical person join us. So a member of my staff and l
21 Darrell then spoke to him on the telephone and he said that 22 he would like to do it on the telephone. I said, " Fine."
23 Those arrangements were made with Dr. Meyers yesterday, I 24 believe, Darrell?
25 MR. EIS E'U:UT: Yes. As a result of that was when he
28 j
1 '
, loft it that wa ers walcoms to co,m3 and look nt the information 4 in.his office.
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Suppose you follow up on that.
4 you may find that there are categories of information that are 5
not a problem hut then you are going to find if I am not 6
sure that are going to require some additional or further 7
inquiry. Then I think you should make a formal request for 8
them. We can back you up'if that is necessary.
O MD. . EISENHUT: First, I think we would certainly in 10 this kind of situation, we generally follow-up pr'omptly if l 11 nothing else to find out what the information looks like ,
12 I and what kind it is and what areas it is so we can focus the 13 right kinc of people that are going to have to look at it. (
I4 Certainly, it is of a nature that is going to require l
15 people to follow it up. )
16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Mould you make sure that a
}
17 formal request is made for that information on which you l
18 think you need to take action and if necessary, we will back
)
1 19 it up.
20 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I see the General Counsel l
21 over there with I presume thoughts running through his nind. ]
22 What is the legal status of the Commission in a matter like 23 this where a congressional office has material?
24 MP. . OiALSCE : Chat is what I was thinking about.
25 Ordinarily the obligation to inform attaches to licensees over s
l 1 .
' whom we have' jurisdiction. We don't have any kind of
. 2 routine jurisdiction over Congress.
3 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Or even non-routine q jurisdiction over Congress.
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: We can always request.
1 6 l
'MR. MALSCH: We can always request. I was just i 7
musing in my own mind as to what the effect would be'of a a
Commission effort to subpoena a congressional staff member 8
and that would raise difficult questions about relations to between the Executive Branch and Congress. All I could think 11 of was that it would be a very interesting case.
12 COE1ISSIONER ROBERTS: Are you defining this as the 13 g Executive' Branch? I think that is a mischaracterization, k
14 CliAIRMAN PALLADINO: I think you are right.
15 MR. MALSCli: Not exactly.
16 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: It is a lot more than not 17 exactly.
l 18 MR. MALSCH: It depends in what framework you are l 19 operating. We clearly are not part of Congress and I am not 20 sure exactly how that subpoena situation would work out.
I 21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I think if in the end we were 22 to contact Mo Udall and he says, "Mo, you can't have it," I 23 think that would be a definitive answer. I don't think we are 24 up there yet. I think we need to make it known after you v 25 had looked at the material that you do need certain materials
_______.____m__________ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
30
.~
so you can act on them and make a. formal request of them. If 2
(. you have a problem beyond that, then we can address it because 3
we have to maintain working relationships and sometimes you 4
want to use carefully any leverage you have and when we have 5
to use it, we can.
6 MR. DENTON: He is the person who called,it to our 7
attention. Apparently he gets a great deal of information 8
brought to him by people who don't think the NRC will respond
- 9 properly if brought up in the first place.
to Just to summarize then, we put on a slide last time 11 showing a total of nine allegations, five of them were from 12 individuals who wanted to remain anonymous so they are very 13 difficult to deal with because you don't know,anything more 14 than the bare statement on a piece of paper. }
15 Three of them wanted to remain confidential and l 16 one of them we have a name for and just received. So out of 17 l that group of nine that we talked about only one of them, 18 the component cooling water system involving an individual I 18 we name Mr. John Smith, had we fully put to bed. We intend 20 to pursue all nine of these and document our views on them.
I 21 But no progress has really been made since the last 22 meeting since all.the technical staff is in hearing this week 23 on similar matters.
24 MR. EISENHUT: Let's see, Harold. There is one 25 other that we should mention, the major one that came in.
i
. I 4 -
31 1 -
There was a call into Bill Dircks, I think it was late Friday 2
or thereabouts, and the call came in.from Sandy Silver who 3
is one of the interveners in the Diablo Canyon case. She' 4
is one of the members of the Mothers for Peace in California.
5 She specifically requested a meeting with the EDO.
6 After a number of discussions both Mr. Dirchs and
.7 myself were out on travel for a couple of days this week, I s
talked to her today. She had specifically stated that she had 9
some information that was very disturbing to them. She 10 specifically requested a meeting with Mr. Dircks. She said 11 l I
she would be comfortable for me to accompany Mr. Dircks to a 12 ,
i meeting in California to go through information they have 13 which is very disturbing, a number cf allegations.
14 She resigned herself to the fact that that meeting 15 would not be coming before the next scheduled neeting which' 16 l
was November 8. She said though that as soon as possible 17 after that meeting she would like for Mr. Dircks and/or myself 18 to go to California to talk to representatives of the Mothers l 19 for Peace and the joint interveners to go through whatever 20 information they have.
I 21 They felt that there were a number of issues they 22 have they would prefer not taking through the hearing process 23 but they do want to have a forum to discuss them with senior 24 '
management. Again they specifically stated they wanted to 25 talk to Mr. Dircks rather than through the region in a normal
, 1
. . .t j .
, 32.
croCDSs. ,
2 That issue is one that we are still considering and we will be talking to Mr. Dircks when he returns from travel.
COW 4ISSIONER GILINSKY: You are next, Joe.- .
l 6 ,
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I should have stayed out there.
MR. DIRCFS: It is causing us staff problems-8 when people say I don't trust the region or I don't trust the 8
resident or I don't trust Darrell or me or the EDO because 10 ultimately Darrell can't go inspect behind the breaker liner.
11 You have_to get a person who is a specialist to do that..
12 So what is happening is everyone is picking out their favorite 13 person to talk to them about it.
14 MR. EISENHUT: E'or example, when Commissioner 15 Bernthal was out there a question came up about the hollow 16 spaces behind the liner plate. She said that issue came up 17 about that time and she said that question came up from one 18 of their sources and apparently there is a question about i 19 voids behind the liner and the explanation was that it was b
20 unit two rather than unit one.
l l'
> 21 She said that was the kind of thing that came up l
22 through their system.
23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: There were earlier questions 24 about voids in concrete pourings. A number of them were not 25 resolved. Whether or not this is new information still remains
33 1
, l' ,'
, to ba'dstorminsd. ,
j 2
I. guess what is bothering me is do we have a whole !
3' population of all allegations? Can we make some effort so 4-that we get them coordinated? That is the reason for bringing- l 5 '
up the question.
6 MR. DENTON: The way they are coordinated is anyone 7
- who gets one gets it to the right office so usually the right 8
office is the region because they ten'd to deal with 9
construction. I have either kept the ones that came to me 10 .
or sent to Martin and he has done the same thing and we have 11 both referred them to OI when it seems that they are .
12 appropriate. -
13 So between Martin and I and OI, we have the ones
\ 14 that have been brought to our attention listed and people 15 plan to work on them and resolve them as quickly as we can.
16 Just by their very nature, they don't go very fast especially 17 f the people who are very hesitant about meeting with you and 18 telling all they know. It takes a long time to do it.
l 18 l
I think that between the three offices we do know 20 a lot of them that have come in to the NRC. Maybe Jack'would i
21 like to elaborate on the ones or how, sees,it and then we turn 22 to OI.
23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Are you on, Jack?
24 MR. MARTIN: Yes, I am. I don't have any new 25 allegations other than the ones I went over last Friday. I
1 J. - I' .' 34
' Harold charactsrizsa it corrsctly that among Danton,'mysalf 2 i and Ben Hayes we know what it is that is brought to our 3
attention. There seem to be'others' lurking in the background, 4
ones in Dr. Meyer's office or ones that Mrs.-Silver will only-5 reveal to Bill Dircks.
6 I think we know which ones have been brought to our 7 '
attention and have them assigned to the appropriate people to 8
follow up. I could go through again the ones that we talked 9
about last' Friday but those are the only ones. I don't have f 10 .
I anything new since'then.
11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Unless some Commissioner wants l 12 it,.I would suggest not going through those again. I guess 13 the observation I would make is that we try to collect them, 14 review them and detemmine what action. we ought to take and get 16 the region where the region is the appropriate arm of the ,
16 agency to do it. l 1
17 I
! When there is a reference, get them to OI, that the 18 l referral be made. I know that is a very general statement.
! " That is probably what you intended to do any how. The question 20 that comes up is at any point are there allegations that would l l 21 impact on any decisions the Commissian might make? There, 22 I guess, I would have to rely on your respective judgments to
{
23 keep us appraised of anything that falls within that category.
24 t1R. DENTON: I think we tend to err on the side of i i
25 caution such as with the Diablo Canyon study report which when j
3S
,1, - T it'ccm3 to our attention wa did cand it to cll partisc cnd
- ~
- 2. would be alert to anything that comes up that bears on pending 3 decisions before you, we will certainly inform you.
4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Jack, there was one point you s made the other night when we were talking about your relation-6 ship with the local intervenor groups.
I don't know whether 7 you want to share any of that with the Commission.here.
8 MR. MARTIN: When I first got here there seemed to be g a lot of discussion at least with the local interveners that to they didn't feel they could trust the agency, they.couldn't 33 trust the region. They were skeptical that we would ever do 12 anything about items they brought up.
13 I spent a considerable amount of time both at Diable 14 Canyon and at the construction site opening up communication with people just listening to what they had to say. ,
In particular with Mrs. Silver, I have met with her several l
17 times. We have had lunch a few times and we even had some I j ;
discussions as late as last Tuesday and she has been at least recently quite cooperative in telling us things that she hears l 19 that she think we ought to look into.
f 20 l I guess I am a little surprised that she would have.
21 a bunch of items that she hasn't told me about. Perhaps she 22 does but I don't feel any real animosity on the part of the 23 Mothers for Peace down there right now at least nothing to 24 where they would be reluctant to talk to us here in the region.
25
36
.- 1' ,' '
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I ,gusca that remains to b3 cQCn 2
. after they talk to the EDO. But I thought your remarks were 3
constructive. I L
4 I Are we ready to turn to OI? Thank you,. Jack.
5 MR. HAYES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Office of i 6
Investigation has six matters that it is.looking into, five of 7 '
which are inquiries or preliminary investigation and one is an.
8 actual investigation. .
9 I If you wish, I can go into the matters individually 10 or I can collectively summarize, whatever you desire is?
11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Why don't you tell us about the 12 one you have an actual investigation on and they summarize 13 the rest. .
14 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I think in Sen's case 15 he ought to hit each one because this is one that we didn't 16 get a lot of background on last week.
17 l MR. HAYES: The one that is actually under a full
.i 18 l scale investigation is an allegation of falsified background
! 18 investigations done by Pinkerton, Inc. on behalf of the licensee.
20 The FBI and NRC investigators are working jointly on this matter.
l 21 The Federal Bureau of Investigation has a, confidential infor-22 mant who has furnished the allegations. I don't believe we knov 23 the identity of that confidential informant.
24 We have looked into the allegations and gone to the 25 Pinkerton files as well as some of the licensee files and at i
, 37 1 .
thL prossnt tima W3 h0Vo not found or Oc0 cny indication of 2
, any wrongdoing on behalf of PG&E management. It would appear 3
as though if there is a problem, it is a local Pinkerton 4
problem and we found possibly one background file that might 5
be suspect. We looked at a total of somewhere between 15 and .
8 20 total files and really haven't come up with too much at all.
7 As of this morning one of our investigat' ors is with 8
the FBI hopefully finishing up the case.
O With respect to the preliminary investigations or the 10 inquiries, we received one allegation where an employee of i 18 Pullman observed two fellow employees pass a cylindrical 12 ' object through the fence line between units one and two and 13 he thought it might be TNT.
?
14 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: He thought it might be what?
15 MR. HAYES: TNT -- dynamite. The alleger has left 16 the site to some place in Chicago, Illinois unknown. We have 1
[ 17 done everything we possibly can and we will be closing that out 18 very shortly in.a closing report.
k i We don't feel the allegation ,
t j -
) 19 is meritorious.
A ~
2 20 The second item, an agent from the Alcohol, Tobacco i
j 21 and Firearms Agency arrested an individual who purchased C-4 9
22 from an ATF undercover agent. C-4 is an explosive, a military f 23 type explosive. Apparently this individual was observed or has q l
24 been oberserved in and around the site area and apparently is !
l 25 a member of the Diablo Canyon Blocade Group. I am not sure
__ - - -- J
),,--
- T
. , 38 what 'that is. Mayba Jack can fill us in on that'. But as 2 1
. f'ar as we~are concerned, our investigation is concluded. )
3 k There is nothing for us there. I 4
- i The third allegation involves an allegation.that a f 5 i I
, outfit that furnishes manpower to the site, Cataract Engineering 6
is the organization, the allegation is that Cataract is 7 .
falsifying background data resumes of its personnel so they 8
can get them hired by the licensee and of course, they get a 9
fee for that.
10 The alleger again has disappeared on u's and we have 11 not been able to amplify that allegation.
12 COMMISSIONER ROBERTSr What type of personnel do
- 13 Cataract provide? Are these trade crafts or are these 14 professionals?
MR. HAYES: I would assume, Commissioner, that these are trade crafts. I don't have that information here.
'7
! We have not been able to locate the alleger to get any amplification on it and that is still open and continuing.
k We received an allegation from a former QC inspector 3
-j 20 for Pullman who was there for five or six months and it is i
21
.{. an intimidation /harrassment allegation. The alleger again
.. t 22 has moved to somewhere in Indiana and a field check of his 23 neighbors as well as with the Post Office failed to disclose 24 a forwarding address and we can't locate that individual.
25 At this point we don't feel that there is any merit to his
1
=
39 all(gation. Tha particular allsg,ar wna torminatsd for i 2
, excessive ~ tardiness per the licensee records.
4 That, gentlemen, are the basic allegations in the preliminary stage and the one that we have looked at from an 5 ,
{
investigatory standpoint, the Pinkerton thing, that overall 6 {
7 I don't feel that any of these particular inquiries and/or the single investigation is significant.
8 -
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: All right. Any questions?
9 (No response.)
10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: We thank you all. I guess 11 we will see how these come into our deliberations later.
12 Thank you, Jack.
Can we confirm who was on the other end?
13
,. MR. MARTIN:
I Yes, we can. It is me-, Bishop, ,.
Sho11enberger, Crews and Faulkenberry.
15 1 CEAIRMAN PALLADINO: Thank you very much. Unless 16 anybody else has anything to say, we will stand adjourned. >
17
) (Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at 2:30 o' clock 18 p.m.,
to reconvene at the Call of the Chair.)
]. 19 20 7
21 l -
22 l l
23 i s
24 25
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - i