ML20132E711

Rept of Interview W/Ofc of Investigation,Atlanta Field Ofc Employee Re Impact Region II 830923 Meeting W/Util Had on Ofc of Investigation Case 2-83-037.Interviewee Name Withheld

ML20132E711
Person / Time
Site:	Grand Gulf
Issue date:	09/17/1984
From:	Mark Resner NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTOR & AUDITOR (OIA)
To:
Shared Package
ML20132E314	List: AECM-83-0681, Provides Addl Info Re Discrepancies Discovered in Operator & Senior Operator License Applications & Corrective Actions, Per .Discrepancies Identified Between License Applications & Training Records Occurred Prior to 1982 ML20132E309 ML20132E376 ML20132E398 ML20132E429 ML20132E458 ML20132E480 ML20132E489 ML20132E522 ML20132E527 ML20132E559 ML20132E569 ML20132E586 ML20132E617 ML20132E643 ML20132E705 ML20132E711 ML20132E778 ML20132E812
References
FOIA-85-419 NUDOCS 8510010152
Download: ML20132E711 (2)

Text

n U.s. NUCLE AR REoULATORY COMMISSION Citice ci intCmcr and Aucito' l.

=.....i........... So m & 17, ien Reoort of Interview Office of Investi Office, U.S. Nuclear segulatory Comission (NRC)gations , was interviewed (01),

withAtlanta respectField to what impact Regien 11 actions at a meeting on September 23, 1953, with Mississippi Power and Light (MP&L) had on 01 case.t2-83-037. He provided the follcwing information:

If, on September 23, 1983, Region II had entertained any ideas or discussions about referrin Operator (SRO)g license theapplications matter of or false Reactor Material FalseOperator Statements (RO) and Senior Reac (MFS)

- regarding training matters at Grand Gulf Nuclear Station (GGNS) to 01, there should have been no further discussion about the possible MFS with MP&L unless there were health and safety implications involved. He noted, that to his ..

~

knowledge, there were no health and safety implications involved with' this matter at that time. H~e had no problem or concern with the Region II onsite review of the operator licensing program at GGNS as long as the MFS issues-abcut training were not discussed. He believes that Region II conducted themselves in this matter as has been the practice of the NRC in general.

That is to say. that there is a continual exchange of information towards the end cf health and safety. .He believes this practice resulted in an element of preparedness on the part of certa.in MP&L employees een he interviewed. In his opinion, this was caused by the discussions between. Region II and MP&L about the possibility the issue of the discrepancies with the applications for R0 and SRO' exams at GGNS was an MFS. He explained that by ,)reparedness he meant that he perceived certain MP&L officials (Ken McCoy, Douglas Hunt, Jim McGaughy) had answers already prepared to his questions regarding MP&L management rtspensibility, oversight, and in general, involvement in the overall RO and SRO license application process. More specifically, the questions concerned their responsibilities to provide correct information to the NRC in the applications. He believes for the reasons previously noted, that the objective of the 01 investigation was made known prematurely to MP&L and frem that standpoint there was a compromise of the investigation. He does not believe that there was any ill conceived motives or intent on the part of Region II when they advised MP&L their actions in this matter were possibly an MFS.

With respect to' the MP&L letter allegedly withdrawn during the September 23, 1983, meeting between MP&L and (egion II, he had verbally requested the fomer MP&L plant manager, Ken McCoy on November 8,1983, to provide him with all MP&L docummtation concerning the R0 and SRO license applications for the initial cold license class at GGNS. However, he was not provided with that particular lette'r. He did not specifically ask for that draft letter.

8510010152 850923 PDR FOIA REBER85-419 PDR S e erber 14, 1984 Atir.ta , Gec=ia ...= 84-35

. Invmicat~- on o,........ so-+ e 17 1084 l .. Mrk I a l 9 ,s 0 0 C vu t NT 15

• a c og et, 0 8 waC is L Oawt O to anot =g e AC f NC* st a=D itS CONT E N'S a mt NCT TC e t DISt a't WTIC CwTsiOE T=g m E Ct eveNC act *C' *'t aow? *t aw'5se0% os Tat ce e,Ct os e=s'tCtoa amo avoston

. . . = _ _ . . . . .-.. _ _ .

'{

s ,.

He had not seen the draft letter until his interview with OIA and, at that tire, he requested and was provided with a copy of it for possible use in.the Grand Jury proceedin@ resulting from the OI referral on June 1,1984, to the U.S. Department of Justice. In his analysis of the letter, the contents would not have altered the course of his investigation because ultimately his investigation identified the same facts identified in the letter as well as additional facts beyond what the letter detailed.

1 He voted that his views as statqd characterizing Region II's actions in this matter as not in the best interest of the 01 investigation effort have not He also noted that any past ccaments relative to previously been made known.his concerns in this matter were made in a general identified with the GGNS case.

Generally, the problem regarding discourse between Regional Staff and the -

licensee is not unique to the GGNS, but are also apparent in other 01 investigative' efforts. Again, he noted that he does not believe such actions

' by Region II are intentional, but only an effort on the part of the Regional -

Staff to address health and safety issues.

I e e-

• eg e*

, O I

i l

e*

e e

a

t *a g S

e e

i e

, - - - - , - - . - . - , - , - e -- - , - - - - - ,, - ,- -- - - - . , , - - - - - , - - - - --. , - - , - ,- ,,,,, -, -. .,-y, , - ---..-,