ML20244E541
Text
-
i QQ$ -h' / 59/
LIMITED DISTRIBUTION t
l,f f j y, e. ( [,g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
$l{
l UNITED STATE 3 j
- k' \\ W /\\,,,.. [
E WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 s- + 4 8t* 6@ C h December 23. 1986 MEMOR ANDUM FOR:
Chairman Zech Commissioner Roberts
)
Commissioner Asselstine j
Commissioner Bernthal Commissioner Carr FROM:
Willia m C. Pa rler General Counsel S il B J E C T :
OGC REVIEW 0F OIA REPORT CONCERNING REGION IV f1ANAGEMENT A C TIO N S R EL A TIV E TO COMANCHE PE A K (01A IN VESTIG A TIO N NO. 86-10)
In accordance with Chairman Zech's memorandum to the Executive Director for O perations d ated December 4, 1986, the Office of the General Counsel has reviewed the subject report.
Principal matters reviewed were:
1.
the need to delete information in order to prevent unwarranted invasions of personal privacy at such time as the report and its attachments are made available to the public; 2.
the need to delete information in order to avoid compromising the N P C's abilitv to undertake appropriate investigaticos and/or referrals for investigation, e.g., to the Departmen4 nr Justice; 3,
whether the report justified the initiation of personnel a ctior s ; a n d,
4 the potential effect of the report on the ongoing Comanche Peak licensing proceeding.
Based on OGC's review of the report and its attachments, we have determined, with respect to the first inquiry, that, except for two documents (a consultant's resume which includes a home address and phone number and an identifiention of private contracts, and partial deletions of information in a completed N R C staff member's performance appraisal) no deletions to protect j
privacy appear to be required.
Thus, the material in the report that was C ON T A C T:
L.C handler, O G C 49-28658
/
(ColoscoQ. o Q
T he Commissioners. __ _
deleted for privacy reasons when it was initially released on December 11, l
1986, can be left in the report.
As concerns the second area of inquiry, certain informatio: concerning the certification of BISCO electrical penetration seals was deleted from the report itself prior to its initial release because of concerns that disclosure of the information could compromise the N R C's ability to investigate allegations of w ron g doin g.
B'ased upon our subsequent review of the report and relevant attachments, it appears that the technical concerns bearing on this issue were substantially disclosed in Inspection Report r{o. 50-445/85-16, 50-446/85-13, issued on April 4,1986.
(Preparation of this Inspection Report was among the matters investigated by OI A.)
The Inspection Report, however, does not characterize the concern in terms of possible " false certifications", i.e.,
wrongdoing, by BIS C O, but otherwise contains sufficient information such that one might reasonably infer that an investigation and/or referral of the matter could be appropriate.
A review of Attachment P to the OIA report (Interview of Johnson-at 17,79-80,99-101), discloses that, as. stated in the OI A report, Johnson discussed the propriety of an 0! investigation with the Region IV OI issues coordinator; the latter appears to have advised Johnson j
that there was insufficient information to then undertake an investigation but does not seem to have ruled out the possibility of initiating (one at a later time should future facts warrant the action.
Attachment P at 15-16, 18, 78-80,99-100) as well as a related attachment ( Attachment Q, Interview of 2
Fox), roveal that the matter was further reviewed by the Vendor Inspection Branch, IE in the context of similar issues raised by other Regions, as well as by N R R.
The OIA report and its attachments do not refer to any subsequent action taken by either IE or N RR to refer the matter to 01 following their reviews.
In order to determine whether there is a need to delete any information from the attachments to assure that the N R C retains the ability to effectively pursue investigations or otherwise refer matters for investigation, OI A was asked, in the context of the several pending F0I A requests and the discovery request filed in the Comanche Peak licensing proceeding, to review the attachments and to provide its views regarding the need to withhold information from public disclosure.
In addition, IE and NR R have been
{
requested to confirm that there is no need to undertake an investigation of the BISC O' matter or any other issue identified by the subject DI A l
investigation because of concerns of wrongdoing.
On December 22,1986, we j
asked 01 to review that portion of the 01A report which concerned BISCO i
and advise whether there was any investigative reason to withhold the BISCO l
metter from public release.
OI has conducted the requested review and concluded that further evaluation, including perhaps a preliminary inquiry, is ap p rop riate.
01 asked that no further release of the BISCO information occur j
until they have their opportunity to pursue it.
It appears, from O G C's perspective, that the information originally deleted from the OI A report, as well as relevant deletions from the attachments, should continue to be q
withheld subject to subsequent advice from OI.
( Although the report notes i
that DIA is undertaking two additional investigations at Region IV, we have j
l
)
I 1
i
. ~i
f'.
)
The Commissioners _I been informed by. OI A that release of the report and attachments would not be prejudicial to its activities.
Investigative work on one of the matters is complete and the report is being drafted and neither the report nor the attachments contain information concerning the second.)
With respect to the third area of inquiry, no ciear-cut violations of the N R C's personnel regulations, policies or proceduret are apparent.
We would note, however, that although the report and its attachments themselves do not contain any direct information that would sustain an~ action before a personnel tribunal, certain matters suggested by these documents but not investigated by OI A (and ancillary to the matters that are the subject of the report) are being pursued further to determine whether actions may be warranted.
Finally, in regard to the fourth area of inquiry, because the subject matter of the OIA report has a bearing on the quality assurance aspects of the Comanche Peak facility, which is among the central issues in the licensing proceeding, the report has the potential for protracting the hearing process.
As previously mentioned, there are, at this time, a number of Freedom of Information Act requests pending before the Commission requesting that the report and its attachments be released.
On December 11,1986, the Comnission released a redacted version of the report itself.
Also on this date, the staff issued a Board Notification in the Comanche Peak proceeding transmitting to the Licensing Board and parties a copy of the redacted version of the report.
In connection with the licensing proceeding, the staff received a discovery request from the intervenor, C ASE, seeking production of the report and all associated docunents.
(The Commission was informed of this request by memorandum from the Executive Director for Operations dated December 9 - 1986.)
To facilitate a response to both the F0I A requests and the discovery request, OIA was requested to itself review the report and attachments to determine whether, from its perspective, any deletions are appropriately made prior to release.
By memorandum dated December 19, 1986, OI A advised that it had no objection to releasing the report and all associated documentation in response to the discovcev request.
To summarize the foregoing in terms of a decision on the public release of the report and its attachments, it is recommended that, subject only to the limited i
deletions identified above and, upon completion of the reviews being undertaken, any additional deletions, the report and its attachments be released to the public at the earliest possible time.
Because of the nature of the issues involved, OGC has not, in this memorandum, addressed whether the OIA report has broader implications in terms of the functioning of Region IV or even more broadly, whether it raises concerns affecting other Regions.
One additional observation is in order.
It is unclear to OG C why reliance on the Regional ' Administrator and adherence to the N R C's longstanding procedures for handling Differing Professional Opinions, as set forth in N R C Manual Chapter, N R C-4125, would not have sufficed to permit a timely and effective resolution of all issues without having the situation escalate at the
3.-
4,.
The Commissioners.
cutset to the point of a full-scale OI A investigation involving charges such as harassment and intimidation.
The central issues which gave rise to this matter appear to involve differences in professional views on several matters.
O a
illiam C. Parler General Counsel cc:
SECY.
__-