ML20236U476

Forwards Internal Memo,Provided to Licensee,Listing 14 Items Warranting Addl Exam Following Insp to Review Ofc of Investigations Rept.Inspector Reprimanded & Supervisors & Managers Counseled

ML20236U476
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	05/02/1984
From:	James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:	Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
Shared Package
ML20236U436	List: ML20236U434 ML20236U458 ML20236U476 ML20236U478
References
FOIA-86-98 NUDOCS 8712030078
Download: ML20236U476 (2)

Text

, ._. 3 w , :+ i L..--u -.a-- - " ~ - ~ ' - '~~*#" ~ ^

Ii ,,,,- . .h[. .. .

. "ig, CLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

.* % ^ . .p, h. nEGloN il l

• M .e -

101 M ARl(TT A ST R E E T, N.W.

• 8

. ATLANTA. G(oRGIA 30303 s.,

/ MAY 0 21984 MEMORANDUM FOR: William J. Dircks, Executive Director for Operations FROM: James P. O'Reilly, Regional Administrator -

SUluECT:

RELEASE OF INTERNAL REGIONAL MEMORANDUM TO LICENSEE This memorandum is to advise you that one of our inspector specialists, during the course of an inspecticn at the Vogtle facility of Georgia Power Company (GpC), provided the licensee with a copy of an internal Region II memorandum that he had prepared for his supervisor's signature. A copy of that memorandum is' included as Enclosure (1). That memorandum listed fourteen items which we  ;

considered as warranting additional examination by Regional inspectors at the l

site following our review of a completed O! investigation report concerning a '

licensee contractor. While the release of the memorandum did not violate your specific prohibition against the release of draft inspection and investigation reports, I feel that it did violate the spirit of that policy. l It should be tioted that the licensee was made aware of NRC concerns regarding 1 activities of the Pullman Power Products Company (PPPC), a licensee contractor, shortly after the start of an investigation, which Region II requested, into PPPC i

, activities at the Vogtle site. In response to those concerns, GPC conducted a l very detailed investigation of their own in which they identified and took action l on these issues. Briefings of the Regional staff by GPC were conducted on i several occasions during the course of GPC's investigation to keep us informed as. )

to their progress and corrective actions. Moreover, because PPPC is a vendor at

- several nuclear sites, several PPPC tssues were inspected by the Vendor Program Branch, at Region II's request. This information was also provided to the licensee in completed Inspection Reports.

In this particular case, the inspector discussed his areas of interest and provided the enclosed memorandum to a licensee representative as a means of

' facilitating his entrance interview. His inspection assignment was to followup

.and r.eport on the technical and compliance significance of site concerns identi-fied in the internal memorandum. Based on interviews with the inspector, I determined that the inspector was well aware of our policy on draft reports, but he overlooked the possible significance of releasing some infnraation from a completed O! report. This matter was identified during the inspector's required debriefing by Project Division personnel when he returned to the' Region. The inspection report identifies and contains findings on these issues (e.g., resolved, unresolved) and has the subject memorandum attached.

It should be noted that the inspector had been involved in this issue for approximately a year, and was very familiar with the extent of Georgia Power Company's involveme7t.

pDR 3 n o/

a r- <T A n.

., a a w e. u : .. 2. ~..a_.t.. .x=n . -

a.m: .. .. ~ .n , , W u s. x ,,

t... .M-'

4 .;- .

i William J. Dircks 2 I KY 0 2 1984 In response to this event, the Regional staff has again been counselled by their line supervisors and managers to reinforce the intent of Region II's policy directives. Th'e individual inspector has been verbally reprimanded for his actions. Further instructions have alw been provided to the Regional staff.

A memorandum from the inspector's Division Director,. included as Enclosure (2),

provides additional details on the occurrence. A separate ' evaluation by my -

Project Section Chief is provided as Enclosure (3).

In closing, I would add that my staff has reviewed the implications involved in the release of this particular document to the licensee. We find that the stated policy objectives were not compromised. This finding is based on the fact that ,

the OI investigation of PPPC was completed and formally presented to the Region for action; the licensee was aware of NRC concerns regarding the site activities of PPpC; the licensee conducted an extensive investigation which paralleled the issues in both the 01 investigation and the Region IV inspection efforts; the wording in the memorandum represents a listing of issues identified through a ,

review of the OI report and not a verbatim reiteration of investigative findings; and all of the major points in the memorandum have been previously discussed in meetings and briefings with and by the licensee.  ;

Region II has discussed this matter with the Office of Investigations, the Office:

of the General Counsel, and the Office of the Executive Legal Director. Inasmuch-as the subject 01 investigation was transmitted to the Department of Justicea (DOJ) for review, 01 Headquarters has also sent a copy of the Region II internaT

• memorandum to DOJ for their review. I have been inforn.ed that DOJ had declined:

interest in the PPPC case, but has recently reopened the issue because of generic; interests involving PPPC at other sites. The reopening had nothing to do with our internal memorandum. ,

Based on the results of the reviews conducted by Region II, I believe this event

' did not result in a licensee gaining an opportunity to improperly influence .NRC actions or decisions. Nevertheless, I wanted to bring it to your attention. :G; , ,

Furthermore, it may be appropriate to consider issuing policy directives which ..

articulate guidance on the release of internal memoranda to licensees or other outside organizations by mechanisms other than in response to an FOIA request.

I and my staff are not aware of policy directives on this subject issued by

, . the NRC. Should yo'u have any further questions on this issue, I will be happy to' discuss them with you.

. cm ( W '

mes P. O'Reilly 3 1

Enclosures:

I. Region II Internal Memor dum dated January II, 1984 - gd p.7

2. Region 11 Memorandum dated g4 April 20, 1984

3. Region 11 Memorandum dated April 4, 1984 -. Entke.l wifhheJcl 6-7 (pc,fg_ggyg )

j