NUREG-0862, Submits Review of NUREG-0862, Insp Rept of Preliminary Rept,Seismic Reverification Program at Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant,Units 1 & 2, Per Udall 820208 & Ottinger 820204 Requests.Investigation Conducted in 2 Phases
| ML20028B799 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 07/30/1982 |
| From: | Jamarl Cummings NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTOR & AUDITOR (OIA) |
| To: | Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20027A744 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8212060177 | |
| Download: ML20028B799 (7) | |
Text
qq, e.i.r y
t*.'t.5%:NC10 N. D. C. 2C155
{
[
- ~.-~:- /.
\\.,$',, '."
July 30,1982 i
l'.D'. ORA'iDUM FOR:
Chair.rian Palladino
.,7 M[1
/
b['
FRG4:
James J. Cummings, Director i
M' #
Lf Office of Inspector and Auditor 3
f s
REVIEW OF INVESTIGATION. REPORTEDIN NUREG dB62
SUBJECT:
23, 1982,. the Ccr.cission ' direct'ed the' 0ff' ice By memorandum da ted Apri) of Inspector and Auditor (01A) to conduct. a review o.f the NRC investig'ation as set forth in NUREG-0862, " Inspection Report of ' Preliminary Repo'rt,-
Seismic Reverification.Progr.am' at Diablo Canyon Nuclear' Powe,r. lan,t,,
P Units 1 and 2." The Commission.'s direction was predica.ted.on,is. sues,.,
raised in a February 8,1982, letter from Congressman Udall and the concerns conveyed by Congressman Ottinger in letters dated February 4 1982.
Congressma'n Udall.'s le,tter. questioned the. over.all qual,ity, and 23, investigation.and ' asked. whether..approcriate questions were,as,ke,d, of the during the.interv.iews' conducted by NRC. 'st.1ff; whether.these c.:estio.n.s ;.
were appropriately fo11cwed.up cand.so for.th.
Cong ress, mart Ottirger,'s letters cuestioned the overall a.dequacy: o.f NUREG-086'2.-..
By way of background,.the staff's in'ves'tigstion was. conducted in two,-
phases. The first phase (reported as "NUREG'-0862 Issue 2") consisted 1
.^
essentially o'f the testimony of:'
employees; 6 R.L. Clo'ud er.ployees; and A. Bruce Norton, outside c_ounsel
'The questioning of.the above.,indiv.iduals so.ught to,. address,14, to PG&E.
of the 16 issues wnich.had, be_en. dentif.ied by the staff as being pertinent
(
i l,
2 to the investigative objectives; Examples of"some of the 14 issues addressed in the.first phase are the followi.ng:
Cloud 'under any pressure to accept liere emp'loy'ees of PJ.L
' Issue 6 PGLE's comments that were.provided as a result of PG&E's review of the draft reports?
Did Dr. Cloud mislead the NRC in statements he made at 1:: sue 7
tne meeting with the NRC on November 3,1981?
If he did, l
was this done knowingly?
Did PG&E representatives misisad tne NRC in stitements
]ssue'- 8 they made at the meeting with the NRC on November 3, 19817 If they did, was this done knowingly?
t
as the existence of the R.L. Cloud draf t reports discussed issue 11 by PG&E representatives at the November 3,19Si, PGLE C212060177 821123 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
^---- m
pre-meetings, at th's lunch break on November 3, or after tha meeting?
The s'econd phase (reported as "NUREG-0862 Issue 3") consisted of a review and analysis of each PG&E canment made to the various R.L. Cloud draft submittals for the purpose of determining what, if any, effect these PG&E comments had on the final R.L. Cloud report.
two issues identified by the staff as being pertinent to this phase ofThe rema the investiga tion were as follows:
Issue 15 Did any PG&E oral, or written comments on the R.L. Cloud draft reports result' in any uniustified changes in findings as contained in the November 12, 1981, draft report submitted to the NRC?
2-Issue 16 What were the bases for all of the substantive chan2es nade in the R.L., Cloud draft reports?-
OIA's review of the first: phase ~of the investigation-included the review of NUREG-0862 Issue,2; trarscripts of. related. Commission. meetings and the, transcript of,the November 3,1981, meet'ing which gave, rise to the investigation..Our r.eview disclosed basic and substantive flaws.
example:
ror 3
The ove ral.1 :s.. cope of. the inves:tigat. ion,did the testimony'of key NRC officials Who were.not include obtaining.
intimately invol ved and had knowledge. regarding key-issuesiunder investightion.
.At a minimum, the investigation should have included. statements from Messrs. Denton and Eisenhut who were attendees and participants at the November 3,19'81, meeting with PGLE. officials. ;Such. sta.tements would have served,'for example, to esiablish and document whether HRC officiais were misled by statements made at the November 3, 1981, meeting. '. -, ;
The overall questioning of, witnesses in most instances:was neither.
sufficiently aggressive nor p' robing.
Some examples are as follows:
A. Bruce,Norton, outside counsel to PG&E, was fir'st inter-viewed on Jecember 18, 1981.
Af ter a brief preamble, which established who Norton was; the nature of his relationship with PGLE; and a waiver by PGLE as to any attorney / client privilege, Norton was read part of the November 3,1981, transcript and the following question and answer took place:
Inves tiga tor:
Did you know at the time you made these comments that during the ccnth of October 1981 that two draf t reports had been given by Cloud and Associates to PG&E for review and canment?
Mr. Norton:
I did not knew that.
8
.mnraturvtnnrumne y
~
The interview was then for all intents and purposes ended.
This entire interview'of Norton was' conducted in approximately 10 minutes and clearly made no attempt to probe the question under consideration.
A. Bruce Norton was again interviewed on December 28,1981, at which time additional questions were put to Norton.
Again in this. interview of Norton - lasting approximately 35 minutes -
the questioning is far from probing.
At one point Norton is asked if he made any inquiry during or before the November 3 meeting relative to the existence of drafts or working papers of Dr. Cloud's efforts.
Norton answers that he did ask the
.~
question but cannot remember with whom he had the discussion, cannot remember who was present at various meetings where he
~
might have asked the question, but believes he asked the question of Dr. Cloud.
The questioning on this issue was then dropped and no effort' was made by' the investigators to explore Norton's answer any-further.
i Also during Mr. Norton s second interview, one of. the questions.
asked centered'. on-any; conversations-Horton might have particioated in during the lunch break on November 3,1981, relating to the possibility that PG&E employees might have reviewed prior reports' Norton~ cla'ims -that he' had. none.
However, it is
~
clear from the November 3,~.1981, transcript that Norton did
'~
have at least one conversation at the lunch break regarding the qu'estion of ihde,bendence.
The' transcr(pt' o'nnthis ^ point is as follows:
...(Norton)'so our problem -lies', we think, in how do you assure that'it is' an' independent evaluation.
Someone during.the l' nch hobr said, well, you should portray him u
as wearing a-black hat.
We could say that, but-nobody is going ~to believe it by simply saying it..."
i Tne investigators should have confronted Horton with his own testimony and detennine'd the exact discussion he did have at the lunch break of November 3, 1981.
Dr. Cloud was first interviewed on December 16, 1981, at which t'ime he was asked why, in response to Mr. Eisenhut's question
(. repeated below) at the November 3,1981 meeting he had not mentioned the October 21 and 26 draft reports which he had previously submitted to PG&E.
. Cloud replied that the only thing he had on his mind at the time of his response to Mr. Eisenhut's question was the final report he soon would be submitting to PG&E.
However,. the investigators failed to pursue a viable line of questioning when they did not pro,be into Cloud's failure to mention the October 21 and October 26 drafts, especially 1
~_. -
- Cnaire.ar. Palladino 4
after knowing of the discussions that took place before and af ter Cloud answered Eisenhut's. question.
The relevant transcript is as follows:
"Mr. Denton:
Do we get the same reports he (Cloud) gives you?
'Mr. Maneatis:
You just got it.
And I have to say, Mr. Denton, that some of these thincs have just been disclosed to me, so you got it almost the same time I did.
'Mr. Eisenhut:
Vnen will we be expecting to see the sh6rt-term report, Bob Cloud said it's essentially complete.
.'Mr. Norton:
Dr. Cloud', could.you answer.that?
'Mr. Clo~ud:
I believe it's -- we will be turning it in either this we5k o'r next, 'so you should have. it shortly thereafter.
'Mr.
iorton:
I might add we do not have it.
It's not a question of us reviewing it.
We: don't.have it, either.
It just hasn't beeh d6ni yet.
'Mr. Denton:
Well, since' this. is a particularly sensitive e
issue, I was wondering how you propose to handle com.ments on this draft, or are you going to send us th'e same report he sends you and add you cover letter to it!
Or how will you preserve independence?"
And later:
'Mr. Denton:
I'm.just asking hoe independent is it?
^
'Mr. Norton:
Any suggestions you have - if you want the report before we see it, fine.
I frankly resent the implication that Dr. Cloud is not an independent reviewer because he is.
As Mr. Maneatis,iu:t reported to you, we J
heard this presentation to you yesterday - in fact, we I
heard it Sunday for the first time.
I assure you that's the. case and we chme back last night, or we came back yesterday, and you heard it this morning.
'The report itself hasn't been prepared.
If you want a cocy before we cet it, fine, or sinultaneo'usly (e.phasie.
l adoed)."
e 8
8 Three transcripts contain the notation Discussion off the record" with no further explanation (Norton, P.aneatis and Tresler transcripts).
These off-the-record situations, once the femal interview process has begun, should be explained, e.g., five minute break, lunch, review of documentation, etc., and' not left to the reader's speculation.
Obviously any substantive issues or questions which are discussed during off-the-record periods should be rediscussed on tne record.
Tne management decision regarding the methodology to be used in conducting interviews.of witnesses may:well have inhibited
- witnesses from being fully candid and forthright.
Initially placing individuals under oath and keeping.a. verbatim. transcript normally does not make witnesses feel confortable.
A better approach would have been to conduct initial interviews in a more informal manner, later memorializing the substantive ~-parts of the interview irr a formal transcript under cath.
In addition to scope and direction, a. good. interview is a product of time invested.
An adequate job si:8. ply:cannot be done within the time frarpes illustrated by some of the. key interviews, e.g., Norton - 45 minutes; Cloud
'2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />'and 5. minutes; Rocca - 1
' hour and 19 minutes; fianeatis - 43 minutest.and,.Erand - 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 44 minutes.
01A's overall finding is that the IE riridestigltion, as reported in HUREG-0862 Issue 2, was unsatisfactory.
t
~.
01A's review of the second phase of the investigatiort (NUREG-OSS2 Issue 3) concluded that the' methodology employed'in' addressing' Issues 15 and 16 was reasonable and accomplished the stated purpose (see page 2),dhat is, to determine what effect, if any, PG&E's canments made on the various R.L. Cloud draf t submittals had on the. final R.L. Cloud draft report.
Although a number of minor documentary and procedural ' deficiencies were noted, they did not affect the.overall soundness of the report.
By way of background, the methodology employed included reviewing cop'ies of all. kno.en draf t reports and all comm'ents relating thereto.
In this regard, Region V conducted interviews, under oath, with both PG&E and R.L. Cloud personnel.
A major objective in conducting these interviews was to identify how many different draft reports were issued and the nu-ber of copies of each draf t 'that existed.
The documentation received fran ?G&E an'd P..L. Cloud was consistent with the inforTr,ation developed in the interview process. Region V then analyzed the submittals, comparing comments maBe on the drafts to the final draf t, in order to determine if any significant changes were made.
All identified changes were reviewed l
to determine their significance.
The bases for all substantive changes l
were reviewed at the R.L. Cloud offices by lE and Region V employees assigned to the investigation.
i
~
l Chairman Palicdino 6
s.
I'n evaluating tho handling of Issues 15 and 16, DIA: interviewed Region V staff; examined information available in Region Y's files pertaining to the investigation being conducted, including meeting transcripts, correspondence between MRC, Cloud and PG&E, NRC inspection reports, and other miscellaneous notes, briefs, etc; and analyzed NUREG-0852 Issue 3.
In perfonning this evaluation, 01A made the following observations regarding the investigative methodology and end product:
The documentation to support the work performed on Issues 15 and 16 was incomplete.
Tne documentation acquired consisted of informal worksheets, schedules and tabulations which were not camplete and required the assistance of regional personnel to determine what was done and to interpret results.
As a result, the files in themselves were insufficient to support the findings put forth in the report.
However, in many instances 01A was able to obtain adeouate support by supplementing the files with discussions witn the. regional s taf f.
Each draft was not specifically compared to the final draft report,
. line by line, to identify changes which may have been.r.ade based on verbal rather than written ccnments.
However, GIA believes that any such changes would probably '. ave surfaced because of the review technioue used, i.e., tracing written comnents through each version of the Cloud resort.
1 -
3,.
The report contains minor errors, sucn as inaccu~rste totais, and inconsistencies between the various sections revsiewed by OIA, wi th 5
most errors occurring in the Sur, nary and Details sectio'ns.
- Further, the information contained in the Summary and Details sections is not totally supported by the report's appendices.
DIA could not reconstruct the report's schedules to correct the inaccurate totals due to incomplete documentation, as noted earlier.
DI A attributes these* errors to a lack of detailed review of the report prior to publication, probably due to the short time constraints for completing the report.
DIA believes, nowever, that these errors and inconsistencies do not affect the overall soundness of the report.
DIA's overall finding is that the methodology employed by Region V in the IE investigation, as reported in tiUREG-0952 Issue 3, was fully sa tisf actory, especially considering the tim.. constraints for completing tne work.
Hoaever, a number of minor deficiencies we re ic*entified in the presentation of investigative results, as noted above, wnich detracted from the overall cuality of the report.
A copy of this report is being furnished 'to the Acting Director, Office of ir.vestigations (01).
In line witn your April 23, 1932, request that a " review be undertaken with a view to ie. proving the investicatory process," 01 snould consi' der how the investigatory deficiencies noted in l
l e
o
Chairman Palladino l
this report can be alleviated when developing their internal operating procedures.
'o'ith specific regard to the questions raised in Mr. Udall's letter of February 8,1982, we have the following comments:
Udall Ouestions:
1.
t.'ere appropriate questions asked during the interviews conducted by NRC staff? and; 2.
'dere questions appropriately followed up?
DIA Comment:
The questioning of witnesses by 'iRC staff was in many instances neither sufficiently aggressive nor probing.
Further, several opportunities to pursue viable lines of questioning, based on the responses received, were not followed up.
Accordingly minimal investigative results were derived from the overall interview process.
We believe that the interview methodology utilized in.this ir.vestigation, that is, initially placing people under oath and obtaining verbatim transcripts, was
- r. -
partially responsible for this itck of results.
f 3.
Was an adequate search rade for relevant documents?
=.
,01A Comment:
We believe Region *V took reasonable steps to insure that relevant documents were obtained from bo~th PG&E and R.L.. Cloud.
4.
Are the summar: sections of NUREG-0862 an accurate reflection of the materials
, which they are based?
OIA Comment:
Except as noted on page 6, paragraph 4, of this memorandum OIA found that the sunmary sections of NUREG-0562 are supported by the details sections of KUREG-0362.
. cc:
Commission (4)
L. Bickwit F. Remick J. Fitzgerald W. Dircks S. Chilk R. Engelken, RO V 0
- -. - -