ML20237L652

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Submits Allegations Made to Th Young.Recommends Investigation of Allegers Conclusion to Get All Facts
ML20237L652
Person / Time
Site: Comanche Peak  Luminant icon.png
Issue date: 01/13/1986
From: Phillips H
NRC
To:
NRC
Shared Package
ML20237F760 List: ... further results
References
NUDOCS 8708200292
Download: ML20237L652 (6)
v • d • e


Text

4 m.

k January 13, 1986 B M t 6 IT N o. 14 MEMORANDUM FOR: EILE FROM: H. S. Phillips, Senior Resident' Inspector j Comanche Peak

SUBJECT:

ALLEGATIONS MADE TO MR. T. H. YOUNG On November 25. 1985, Mr. Young, an NRC consultant, advised me of allegations that were made to him by a Texas Utilities Generating Company (TUGCO) consultant. I wrote you a brief. memorandum the same day which described the limited information which was given to me. The alleger worked in the TUGCO Inspection Process Control Group whi ch ' consi st ed of about a half dozen consultants who worked on inspecti on trends. The alleger was a f riend of Mr. Young and told him his concerns during an after duty hours conversation. Mr.

Young did not want to give names unless their names were protected.

In order t o pr otect the alleger's identity, I thought that the best ]

solution was to intervi ew all employees in this small group. Since the allegers were t o leave site in 15 days or less, it appeared necesserv to send the avail able information quickly to allow Region IV q management and/or the Office of Investigation (01) to decide whether '

to investigate or inspect. Since the allegation inf erred that management may be purposely impeding the reporting of adverse inspection trends, it appeared that this was an area that DI should handle.

On November C5, 1985, you called me about the telefaxed memo and I di scussed the f ollowing wi th you: (1) the lack of guidance to NRC inspectors on confidentiality as relates to allegations given to f non-NRC empl oyees (2) lack of specifics concerning the all egation, l l and (3) conclusions steted an the memo.

l During thi s conversati on you stated that more speci Fics were needed.

I stated that we know the group and the allegation, however, I could i perform an inspection in the subject area to get more details but it

! might compr omise any f uture investigation and might identif y the I alleger to TUGCO unless I talk to all involved. As you did not direct

! me to perform a special inspection, I thought you had agreed to e

! simply submit the general allegation to Region IV management or OI to l 1et them decide if an investigation or special inspection should be performed.

In this same conversation, you stated that I should not reach hasty conclusions in the memo; however, I emphasized that the conclusions were those of the alleger not mine. My memo states it is alleged thet TUGCO management was not properl y addressing adverse trends L

which were brought to their attention by the IPC group; however, I thought our conversation clarified any misunderstanding that the  ;

memo may have caused.

8708200292 870819 PDR ADOCK 05000445 G PDR '

i H. 5. Phillips PAGE 2 January 13, 1986' On January 13, 1986. I recei ved a memorandum f rom you which provided inf ormation regarding allegations made to NRC employees and comments on the memo. It stated the policy regarding NRC employees j but did not differentiate between NRC employees and consultants. I J interpret this'to mean that NRC consultants are considered the same as NRC employees with respect to handling allegations.

One aspect of your memorandum needs to be clarified; i.e., I do not understand why your memorandum did not reference our c onver sati on .

which occurred the same day you received my brief memo. If the j memo was' unclear, I would have gl adl y r evised it to cl arif y and j reference our conver sation to show that the conclusions were those of 1 the allegers and to document my offer to perform a special inspection J of the trending group. Perhaps all of this was discussed when you tal ked wi th ' the Rregi onal Admi ni str ator and other managers and, thus, j it was not necessar y to ref erenc e or further discuss our telephone c onver sat i on , t I have re-read Reg 2en IV Policy Guide Nos. 1051 and 1102 and'it appears that I f oll owed these guiden. In addition, I discussed the  ;

unusual nature of this allegation during our conversation and f oll owcrt -

-all directions. I think that I gave the available facts to you as they - :

were related t o n e by the NRC consul tant. I drew no conclusions as .

l I did not have enough inf ormat i on but recommended an investigate on )

of the alleger s conc 3 us2 cn to get all the facts. )

I H. s. Phillips 1 Senior Resident Inspector Comanche Peak j Encl osur e:

Memo dated Januari 13 1986 l ,

kbU.

l l

l

t-3 I ,

February if', 1986 Draft'1 Rev 1 l

O (A MEMORANDUM FOR: T- F- Want ccs?- Chini.

Coms, rs:A e--T- :! M ;,s ce I ' ' C, vug FROM: H. 5. Phillips. Leni or Resident inspector Comanche Pr>rc k

SUBJECT:

ALLEGATIONS MADE TO MR. T. H. YOUNG On November.25. 1905. Mr. Young, an NRC consultant, advised me of allegations that were made to hi m bv a Texas. Utilities. Generating I Company (TUGCO) c on s.ul t a nt . I wrote you a brief memorandum the ,

same day which described ther l i mi ted in4 ormation which was gi ven to me. The alleger worked in the TUGCO Inspection Process Control Group which consist ed of abottt a half dozen consultants who worked on inspect 2on trends. The +11eger was a friend of Mr. Young and told him his concerno during an af ter duty hours conversation. Mr.

Young did not want to give names unless their names were_ protected.

In order to protect the alleger's identity, I thought that the best' solution.was'to interview all employees in this small group. Since thts all egers were' to l e6ve site i n 15 days-or less, it appeared necessary to send the available inf ormation quickly to allow Region IV management and/or t he Of 4-i ce of Investigation (OI) to decide whether

H. S. .Phillips PAGE 2- February 19, 1986 to investigate or 2nspect. Since the allegation inf erred that )

management may be pur ponely i mpeding the reporting of adverse inspection t' rendu i t appeared that this was.an area that OI should handle. i On November 25, 1085. vou called me about the telefaxed memo and I discussed the fo]1ownng W3th yout (3) the 1ack of guidance to NRC inspectors on c onf identi ali ty as relates to. allegations given to i

non-NRC employees (2) lack of speci fics concerning the all egati on. '

tin d C) c oncl usi o% st at eci '2n the memo.

During this conversetson you stated that more specifics were~needed.

I stated that we Inow the gr oup and the allegation, however, I could per f or m an inspection in the subject area to.get more details but-it might comproma se env iut ur e i nvert i cetion and might identify.the al1eger to TUGCD un1ess I t al l' to el1 involved. As you did not direct me to perf or m a spec ial 2nspection. I thought you had agreed to j simply submi t the general c) l egat i on to Regi on IV management or 01 to I

( let them decide if an investigation or speci al inspection should be performed.

In this seme conversation, you stated that I should not' reach hasty conclusions in'the memo however. I emphasized that the conclusions were those of the all e.ger not- mi ne. My memo states it is alleged that TUGCO management was not properly addressing adverse trends which were brought to their attention by the IPC group; however. I

/

/

/ i H. 5. Fh111ips PAGE ~. February 19. 1986 I thought our conversotaon clarified any misunderstanding that the '

memo mov have caused.

l On January 13. 19E%. I received a memorandum from you which provided inf or met) cn r egarding al1egatiens made to NRC employees and comments on the memo. It s t et ect the policy regarding NRC employees but did not di f icar ent i ete between NRC employees and consultants. I l interpret that to meen that NRC consultants are considered the same as NRC emp]oyees w)th r n e p t- c t to hendl1ng al1egetions.

One espect of sour memor endum needs to be clarified; i.e.. I do iiot understand whi v eiir niemor a n d u m d) d not reference our converset2cn which occur r ed t h s.- 5. ' m e day you received my brief memo. If the J

memo was unc] ear. I would have 91cdly r evi sed it to elarif y and reference our con /ersM a on t o show that the conclusions were those of t h e a } } eg e i is and tc d oc u nier it m, otfer to perf ortn e special i n sp ec t .i ori of the trendarig ni et ir . . Per h ar n. i.1 1 of thi5 was discussed when you t al Lee wa i n tho lecaone: Adu n: otr a t or and other managers and, thun.

it was not. nececzera t o red er eric e or 4 tir ther discuss our telephone conversation.

I have re-read Region IV Polic, C,ulde Nos. 1051 and 1102 and it appears that I fol1 owed these quides. In addition, I discussed the j unusual nature of this allegation during our conversation .and f ollowed all di.ectionc. I th)nt that I gave the available f acts to you as they l

were relat ed to me by the NRC consultant. \

i I drew no conclusions as j l

l l i

j l .

I

/

r

, /. .

H. 5. Phi 1 laps PAGE 4 February.19. 198e.

I di d ' not have enough i nformation but recommended an investigation of the allegers conclur ion t o get all the facts.-

H. S. Phillips Senior.. Resident Inspector

' Corr.anche . Peak c c. , ,- o -%

i. .m...e ve. -

_a ,_

_ .....a ,

-~

a.. ,. .-- g-l-

t 1

1

~ ~

c2 _

h e w. . . . o .. nr.a t or e- kE k kW M e 0, x 2 i. e ui- I r. < c r,t :. a . a on

--_ _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ - - . _ _ - - _ _ - _ _ _

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20237L652&oldid=3111472"