ML20111B817

Requests That Commissioners Appoint ASLB Member to Review, Investigate & Issue Findings on NRC Mgt of Ee Kent Allegations.Evidence Suggests Investigation Deliberately Narrowed in Scope

ML20111B817
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	03/06/1985
From:	Garde B GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT
To:	Asselstine J, Palladino N, Roberts T NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
CON-#185-987 OL, NUDOCS 8503130243
Download: ML20111B817 (31)

Text

_

30VERNMENT ACCOUNTADIUTY PROJECT u -

555 Connecncur Awenue. N.W., Suite 202

/oshingron. D.C. 20036 ~ . ., p -

s (202)j,326p

.y March 6, 1985 Chairman Nunzio Palladino "U" Commissioner Thomas Roberts WE

• Commissioner James Asselstine "- ~ 'g- g Ob Commissioner Frederick Bernthal -

Commissioner Lando Zech U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Commissioners:

The Government Accountability Project regretfully requests that the Commissioners appoint a membc. of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) to review, investigate and issue findings about the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Earl Kent. Staff's handling of the allegations of Mr. E.

We request this procedure because, frankly, the system established by your agency to protect the public's health and safety has failed for three years. And, it continues to failMr.

by to provide adequate responses to the questions raised Kent as NRC's gross well asofthose bungling raised by the public about the this matter.

inspections by two Regions,Mr. Kent's experience with your agency has invo Regulation (NRR) , the Office of Nuclear Reactor Office of Inspector and Auditorthe Office of Investigations (OI), the (OIA), and now the Brookhaven l

National Laboratories (BNL). Yet, his concerns about the generic welding procedure deficiencies remain unanswered.

thorough, our request would not be necessary.If Unfortunately, the OIA and BNL the OIA report is sophomoric, self-serving and short-sighted.

The BNL report, although not yet publicly issued, c regurgitation of the same flawed analysis that has plaguedis, allegedly, this inspection and investation from the outset.

i Staff,This request is not filed under 10 C.F.R. 2.206. The through its numerous branches, has had many opportunities I i the agency's inspection efforts.to address Mr. Kent's allegations and/or the Instead, we request the N

t Nh3 \3$2.@ - ) -

Pcg3 Two

(,Mcrch 6, g dh 1985 Commission exercise its authority and appoint a judicial proceeding, conducted by the agency's adjudicatory branch.

. Background Three years ago, in March 1982, E. Earl Kent was fired from his job as a Bechtel Quality Engineer at the now-defunct Midland nuclear power plant. He was told that he was being l

terminated because he could not adjust to the way things were being done at Midland.

He was also told by his Bechtel super-visors that he had failed the oral part of a Level I examination.

Mr. Kent knew then, as he knows now, that he was fired from the Midland site because he found and reported too many serious

- problems with the welds, the qualifications of the welders, the welding techniques and procedures, and the quality of the plant.

Mr. Kent immediately reported his concerns to the NRC through Region III inspectors. Soon thereafter, he also reported his concerns to a local citizen intervenor. In July 1982, he submitted, through the Government Accountability Project (GAP), an affidavit outlining his concerns about the Midland welding defects.

In August 1982, Mr. Kent visited Region III to check on the status of the investigation into his concerns. Region

! III had nothing to report to him. They did not tell him that, at that time, Region III had already decided that his concerns were of no safety significance.

In early September, af ter he Otc. Kent) decided to contact Southern California Edison (SCE) , the owner of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), and tell them, as opposed to telling the NRC or Bechtel, about the generic welding procedure deficiencies, his allegations were dismissed almost immediately by SCE. However, they were duly reported to the Region V NRC office. The NRC accepted the disposition of Bechtel and SCE without comment.

Mr. Kent then contacted the local citizen intervenor group in California, the Alliance for Survival (Alliance), and told them of his concerns, and his frustrations about the failure of the NRC and SCE to study his safety concerns about defective Bechtel welding procedures.

The Alliance put Mr. Kent in contact with a Los Angeles Times reporter, Mr. John Odell. In October, Mr. Odell began calling the NRC and SCE and Bechtel to get to the bottom of the problems Mr. Kent had raised.

Pcgo Thrco March 6, 1985 On October 13, 1982, the Los Angeles Times ran a large article about Mr. Kent and his concerns. The bureaucratic reasponse was swift. OI, in concert with Region V, immediately interviewed Mr. Kent. Some weeks later, they took him on a site tour of San Onofre.

Less than six weeks later, the NRC released, at a press conference, its inspection and investigation effort into the Kent allegations -- which revealed, predictably, that there was no substance to his allegations.

For six months, GAP investigators probed the basis for the NRC conclusions. In a June 20, 1983, letter, GAP reported the results of its probe to the NRC Commissioners and Congress.

Another six months passed and in January 1984, OIA began 1

its own probe into the Kent Affair. That report was submitted to the Commissioners for their review in April 1984, and was obtained by GAP in July 1984.

Meanwhile, in the fall of 1983, Region III submitted the Kent materials to BNL for an analysis of the generic welding concerns raised by Mr. Kent about the Bechtel. welding procedures at Midland, San Onofre and the Palisades nuclear power plant. That study has been completed by BNL and submitted to the NRC. It has not yet been released to the public.

Since BNL has never contacted Mr. Kent to determine what his allegations are, GAP does not expect the BNL report to adequately answer Mr. Kent's concerns.

The Report of the Office of Inspector and Auditor On April 4, 1984, the Acting Director of OIA issued his report to the Commission on their investigation of the Kent Affair. The OIA investigation was prompted by a June 20, 1983, letter from GAP to the Commissioners regarding the fumbled Staff efforts to deal with the Kent issues up to that time.

The report, released to GAP under FOIA, is enlightening --

both on the issues the report addresses and on those it does not.

To summarize, the report confirms the following allegations about the NRC Staff's actions:

(1) Region III " sat on" the allegations of generic welding problems provided to it by Mr. Kent from March through October 1982. (OIA Review of a Government Accountability Project Complaint Concerning NRC's Treatment of E. Earl Kent, at 1) .

(2) Region III's OI investigator provided to Region V

, investigators' only " credibility" (i.e., defamatory) 4 information about Mr. Kent (given by Bechtel to the ,

NRC). (Id. at 2).

- - . - - , , - + - ,, n -, , s - , - - . , - , - - - - - - - - - - - r- .---,-,e , , ~ , - , . , , , - - - - - - - - - , - - , , , ---- - - - - - - ___

Pago Four March 6, 1985 2

(3) Region V OI investigators utilized " strict interview

and documentation standards" when obtaining informa-tion for Kent which were not applied to anyone else during the course of the subsequent Region V inspection. (pi. at 2).

(4) Alternatively, when " pursuing the validity of Kents allegations, Region V personnel conducted casual interviews of unidentified licensee and Bechtel personnel and documented these interviews by informal notes which were later destroyed."

(Id. at 2).

(5) Region V Office of Inspection and Enforcement (IE) personnel denied Kent " inspection tools, guages, ladders, and other measuring equipment"-

during an October 25, 1982, site tour of the San Onofre plant. (pd. at 2).

4 (6) Region V management personnel decided to conduct a press conference on December 6, 1982, in which they reported that Kent's allegations had been unsubstantiated. That did not notify Kent or his counsel (GAP), nor provide either.with a copy of the inspection report. (pi. at 2).

(7) Region V destroyed copies of drafts and notes of the final IE inspection into Kent's allegations.

(Id. at 2) .

(8) Region V "is not able to support or verify its inspection activity with confirming records or data." (11. at 4).

! (9) Region V responded to the Kent allegations only l

after major media interest followed the publication i

of the October 13, 1982, Los Angeles Times article.

l (pi. at 2).

(10) The NRC never obtained a written statement from Mr. Kent. (As noted, the NRC has never conducted an adequate interview of Mr. Kent in order to understand his allegations.) (pi. at 3).

l I (11) Other miscellaneous findings of inspection and investigation irregularities or inadequacies were discovered by OIA investigators. (See report i

summary).

, Pcg3 Fivo March 6, 1985 The OIA report substantiates all of the GAP allegations i

which it addresses of procedural mishandling of Mr. Kent's concerns. .However, the investigation does not address at all the most important questions that we raised. That is:

The second category, although separate from the actual hardware issues, is the question of the NRC's technical review of the issues raised by Mr. Kent. For example, although Region V requested assistance from the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) to evaluate the technical details of Mr. Kent's allegations, it appears that, in fact, no independent review was done. Under the Freedom of Information Act we requested and received the communications, notes, memoranda, etc., that surrounded'the issues raised by Mr. Kent. Review of these documents found a circular trail of verification that simply relied on the industry -- both Bechtel and Southern California Edison -- to interpret and explain Mr. Kent's allegations away. We have found no evidence of independent analysis of review by the NRC. (June 20, 1983, letter, p. 6).

Questions that remain not only unanswered, but apparently unasked, are: ,

(1) Why did NRR adopt, virtually verbatim, the technical analysis of Kent's allegations, performed by Bechtel and provided to the NRC?

(2) Why didn't Region V official; include in their inspection report that the basis of their conclusions about Mr. Kent's allegations came from Bechtel?

4 (3) Why did Region V allow Bechtel and SCE to dictate the conclusions of the Kent allegations?

Also not addressed is the serious charge that "(t)he Kent inspection was curtailed and prejudiced at the onset by SCE and Bechtel influence."

OIA investigators apparently " defined out" of the scope of the investigation the evidence of impropriety in regards to the two-week NRR " blitzkrieg" inspection. ([d. at 15-16).

OIA did not interview anyone from NRR at all regarding 1 their involvement in the shoddy disposition of Kent's allegations. Instead they based a conclusion that the Kent inspection was thorough on the totally self-serving statements J of the alleged targets of the investigation.

I a ;

Pego Six March 6, 1985 OIA's conclusion simply is not supported by the facts and documents gathered during GAP's investigation. The investigators failed to perform basic interviews necessary for adequate disposition. For example, (1) The OIA investigators have never contacted Mr. Kent or GAP to determine whether the scope of their investigation was adequately addressing the concerns raised to the Commission.

(2) BNL has never contacted Mr. Kent to determine what Mr. Kent's allegations are, therefore the "new independent look" at the Kent allegations is severely handicapped, if not totally crippled, because it draws the allegations from an inadequate and fatally flawed interview, an unsigned statement, a summary affidavit, and the self-serving interpre-tations of the allegations provided by Bechtel (3) The OIA investigator never contacted any representatives of Bechtel, SCE or Consumers Power to determine their knowledge, or establish the veracity of the NRC's statement.

(4) It is our information and belief that OIA removed from the' record, without explanation, memoranda or portions of memoranda about Mr. Jim Foster's dealings with Earl Kent.

P GAP believes that the evidence suggests the OIA investi-gation was deliberately narrowed in scope. We also have reason l to believe that the report finally submitted to the Commission

is far less comprehensive than the original report. Those i drafts were as usual withheld from the public.

! GAP will soon file suit under the Freedom of Information i Act in U.S. District Court to ob'tain the materials which the NRC refuses to disclose. We are committed to discover all

the facts behind the Kent Affair. OIA obviously is not.

Clearly, OIA either cannot or will not address the key issue of the Kent affair -- the curtailment of an NRC inspec-tion by the Bechtel Corporation. It is therefore up to the

Commission.

GAP unfortunately realizes that this issue has become so adversarial that it is no longer possible for dan branch of the NRC Staff to resolve it. In the past, the Commission has l

l 1

Pcgo Soven March 6, 1985 requested special administrative proceedings to resolve similar matters. This appears to be the only remaining agency remedy.

Sincerely, OY t Billie Pirner Garde Citizens Clinic Director 4

^ ^ ~

- . L9FMEURM5 -

q UNITsD 8 rats 3 *

./O** "'%,\ NUCLEAR REGULATCRY COMMISSU N

[

3 .

a asosom m tee mooseve67 nomo D Dh5CL0sg a . Contains iden stem sL6vw, sLLewoes sets, **

confidential so eg

• • • • • March 3, 1982 i

MDIORANDUM FOR: Region III Files, Midland * -

FRON: James E. Foster Investigator * *

SUBJECT:

AU.EGATIOES RE WELDING AT MIDLAND

~

On March 2, at approximately 1:05 p.m., a conference call was established, ,

with Robert Warnick, William Key, Duane Danielson, Bill Paton, Barbara Stamaris, and myself and E. Earl Kent participating. The purpose of the call was to ~

discuss Mr. Kent's concerns relative to welding deficiencias at the Midland site.

• Kent indicated that he had approximately 16 months previous nuclear inspec-tion experience, having worked at the San Onofre and Palisades plants. .Be stated'that he started work at Midland during December 1981, and was initially advised of his termination on February 25, 1987. Novaver, his termination was " frozen" until March 1,1982 when he. objected to the termination and a:cpressed c ncerns svar the adequacy of Midland welds. He indicated he had contacted the federal Bureau of Investigation on February 26, 1982 and re-quested protection due to his fears of personal harm (Region III was noti-fied of this contact mid-morning March 2, 1982). He stated that on March 1,19f2, Don Daniels of the Ann Arbor office of 3ech'tel interviewed him, discussed liis concerns, and than had advised him that he was formally i ter=inated.

Kant indicated that he was a Senior QC Engineer for Bechtel at Midland, and his duties included visually inspecting welds. During his inspections, he noticed socket velds on safety-related lines which he felt were unaccept-

. ably undersized. He described this problem as widespread and generic to socket velds at Midland (no s areas or lines were provided) as " socket fille't gauges" were not bein auci zed during inspections. He also discussed his concern that, on some socket velds, the rim of the socket had been melted.

• . Be indicated that two ' informal " audits", where a number of socket velds were selected for reinspection, had indicated several welds of each sample were -

deficient and required rework or rewelding. These welds had already been inspected and approved as acceptable by the other r,outine insnection personnel.

Kantstatadthatindividualsbythenamesof[ pand[ 3 had participated in these " audits" and would verify his observations. .

DO XOT DIsCLOSI Contains identity of confidenet.1 . . . . . . .

m Inv. EIS 8212 b0 NOT DISCLOSE C ntain3 identity C*

Region III ylles Midland confidential source' 3/5/82 The third contact came at approximately 3:30 p.m. [ .

3hadidentified the 36 inch diameter steam line veld which Kent had questioned. Ward

' indicated the v' eld has an inservice inspection veld prep (ground weld), has a slight aismatch which is fully acceptable for the line size, and has successfully passed an ultrasonic examination perforned to assure miniava vall size. The veld was judged fully acceptable. . -

Discussion with licenses personnel indicated that,a review by Eartford Steam Boiler and Insurance Company of all containment liner plate veld radiography (welds performed by Southern Boiler Works) had indicated approximately 20 radiographs which appeared to have technique or quality defects. The total sample of containment liner plate velds nu=bers approximately 900. This issue is documented on a Nonconformance Report dated yebruary 19, 1982, and will be processed under the licensee's systaa.

Ron Cook noted that it was true that many Midland pipe hangers are welded.

only on the web, not on the flange, but he considers this acceptable per the forces placed on the hangers. No further review was indicated at present.

I briefly discussed Kent's comments on Bechtel velding specifications with Cook, and he indicated that the concerns did not have any technical significance or validity. -

h .

James E. yester Investigator -

l l -

l l .

i DO NOT DISCLOSE Contains identity of coifidential source l

w - - -__ - - - - - - - - - -

. - _ - . . . - - . - - . - . . . - . . . - -  :. A D

[* ,

,: ECM umito sTATas E 0)R.y '

/

. E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e  % ww.manw. o. c.seems

\.....

April 4, 1984 MEMORANDUM FOR:

- Chairman Palladino Comissioner Gilinsky Comissioner Roberts .

i

- Comissioner Asselstine '

Comis oner Be ha FROM: George H. ssenger, etingDheter Office of Inspector and Auditor

SUBJECT:

DIA REVIEW 0F A GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJEC COMPLAINT CONCERNING NRC'S TREATMENT OF E. EAR Auditor (OIA) of infomation in a JuneThe attached report documents a -

Accountability Project (GAP) to the Comission. 20, 1983, letter from the Government In this letter, GAP requested E. Earl Kent of specific and generic welding flaws at Bechte Corporation (Bechtel) constructed nuclear power plants, particularly the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Stations (SONGS) Units 1, 2 .and 3.Based on our review of the material sent by GAP, we detemined the following three issues were appropriate for investigation by O'4:

NRC's treatment of Kent in regard to his allegations to the NRC.

Region V compliance with administrative procedures and inspection methods in addressing allegations by Kent / GAP.

The confidence level that can be placed in NRC's technical inspection and technical analysis of Kent / GAP concerns.

Our investigation into the first issue disclosed that Kent's allegations regarding Bechtel welding procedures, which were initially brought to the l attention of Region III in March 1982, were generic in nature and applied to t Bechtel's Midland Nuclear Project as well as other Bechtel constructed nuclear facilities. Region III inspected Kent's allegations as they related to l Midland; however, Region III did not address the overall issue of whether

! Bechtel's welding welding procedures were in compliance with professional society standards.

Bechtel's pertaining to SONGS.,

welding procedures and presented additional welding l

l CONTACT: Hollis Bowers, DIA 49-27170 l

l _- . -_.-_- - ---- --- - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

OEC4llSE ONLY j-I'  :

! On October 13, 1982, Kent's allegations were reported by the Los Angeles Times.

i In response to the media coverage Region V intarviewFKent and recorded Kent's transcripts, and aallegations statement.regarding welding deficiencies by tape recordings, However, the strict interview and documentation l standards which were used when obtaining infomation from Kent were not applied to anyone else during the course of the subsequent Region V inspection.

3 In pursuing the validity of Kent's allegations, Region V

personnel conducted casual interviews of unidentified licensee and Bachtel destroyed. and documented these interviews by infomal notes which were later personnel On October 25, 1982 Kent, NRC personnel, and licensee personnel conducted a

site tour tunity to at the out point Sanhis Onofre Plant during which Kent was provided the oppor-concerns.

gauges ladders, and other measuring equipment.However, Kent was denied insp Region V personnel proffered

!, that potential licensee insurance liability prevented Kent from unlimited i macy ofwithin access the sitethetour plant; however, under these limiting conditions, the legiti-is questionable. Since NRC chose to participate in the i

tour, we believe the necessary equipment should have been made available so Kent could have fully demonstrated his concerns.

Our investigation did not disclose any overt effort on the part of MRC to personally discredit Kent as alleged by GAP.

The fact that notations are made in a file concerning an alleger's background and work history is not inappro-priate.

However, DIA review of the material relayed to Region V by Region III .

indicates Kent's credibility rather than a review of his allegations was the substance of the comunication between Region III and Region V personnel.

At a Dece-ber 6,1982, press conference, Region V reported that Kent's allega-tions hao been inspected by the NRC and were unsubstantiated. Copies of the inspection report were provided to the press. GAP was not informed of the press conference nor provided a copy of the inspection report. Although Region V personnel claimed this was an oversight, in CIA's view NRC should have been more responsive to the a11eger. To correct this shortcoming the Region V Administrator instituted a new regional program to improve com, unica-tion between NRC and allegers. .

DIA investigation into Region V compliance with NRC administrative procedures and inspection methods when addressing Kent's allegations revealed that NRC, in responding to a Freedom of Infomation Act (FOIA) request by GAP, was unable to produce documents to support the findings and conclusions in the Region V inspection report.

tion of Kent's concerns was not thoroughly conducted or documents were j inappropriately destroyed in violation of FOIA and the NRC Inspection and Enforcement Manual. DIA learned, however, that the lack of documentation l

prepared during the Region Y inspection and routine destruction of drafts were the reasons why there were no documents available for release. Our investigation did not disclose any withholding or destruction of documents i

whuh FOIA. violated the provisions of the NRC Inspection and Enforcement Manual or .

)

While OIA does inspection re not have the expertise to technically evaluate the Region V j Regulation's, port nor the Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear Reactor i

Safety Evaluation Report, pertaining to Kent's allegations, the i

M pumm. .

l Ohhb N. N D U preparation of an independent technical analysis by the Division of Engineering in addition to the Region V inspection report indicates that technical attention was given Kent's allegations by NRC.

Our review of GAP's concerns over the handling of the NRC inspection /

investigation of Kent's allegations determined that the inadequacies in Region V's performance in addressing Kent's allegations were procedural and administrative in nature. We believe, regardless of the procedural and administrative shortcomings, the efforts of Region V and NRC Headquarters personnel demonstrate that NRC was consnitted to a thorough technical evalua-tion of Kent's allegations.

Attachment:

As stated cc: W.Dircks,EDO(3)

8. Hayes. OI l

1 0??X. fl.V WV

2 0FFICIAL USE OnLY p.- ~s

(, REPORT OF INVESTIGATION TITLE: OIA WM & A GOVER@eTP A000LNTABHJfY PMECT COPIAINT CENCDWING NBC'S TE.A24ENT T E. EARL 1ENT PREPARED BY:

lf/hK dQ4'

, Albert B. Pug h DATE:

%fffgg Investigatz

' Office of Inspectx and Auditz

' APPROVED BY: 111s amers Assistant Directx fx DATE: I,

. Mes gb Q Acting D , CIA OFFICE OF INSPECTOR Et AUDITOR U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FREEDOM OF INFORMATION/ PRIVACY ACT EXEMPTIOND.(E).E) (c) 0FFICIAL USE ONLY

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

OmCIAL USE RY

. BACKGROUND During the week of January 9 through 13, 1984, Office of Inspector and Auditor .

(OIA) Investigator Albert B. Puglia traveled to NRC's Region V office.

Walnut Creek, California to review Region V's performance in addressing alle- '

gations concerning welding procedures at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating j

$tation (SONGS), San Diego County, California made by Mr. E. Earl Kent. This OIA review was conducted based on assertions that the NRC mishandled an inspection of Kent's allegations. These assertions were made by the Government Accountabilit Project (GAP) on behalf of Kent in a June 20, 1983, letter (Attachment 1.

SUt#4ARY 4

i An analysis of GAP's concerns identified three broad issues which were addressed by OIA. These issues are (1) NRC's treatment of Kent in regard to his allegations to the NRC, (2) Region V compliance with NRC administrative procedures and inspection methods in addressing the allegations by Kent / GAP, and (3) the confidence level that can be placed in NRC's technical inspection

, and technical analysis of Kent / GAP concerns.

I. NRC's treatment of Kent in regaro to his allegations to the NRC Initially, Kent telephonically reported his 911egations regarding welding

' practices at Midland to NRC Region !!! personnel in March 1982. He subsequently furnished an affidavit to egion III in Jul

docenented his concerns over Bechtel Power Corporation Bechtel (y 1982,)which welding procedures in general and the welding proceoses used at Bechtel's

Midland Nuclear Project in particular. Additionally, in August 1982. Kent travelled to Region III, Glen Ellyn, Illinois and expressed his concerns to Region III personnel. Upon completing his interview with Region III personnel in Glen Ellyn, Illinois Kent returned to Southern California and began pursuing his concerns regarding Bechtel welding procedures at -

nuclear power plants built by Bechtel in general and at SONGS in i particular.

)

On September 6,1982, GAP, on behalf of Kent, wrote to the Region III I

Administrator, James P. Keppler, complaining about the lack of NRC response to Kent's concerns.

On September 7,1982. Kent expressed to Southern California Edison i

Company (SCE) his concerns regarding the adequacy of Bechtel welding procedures at SONGS. SCE conducted a review of Kent's allegations. During

, the week of September 13, 1982, SCE also reported Kent's concerns to the NRC during a routine inspection of the facility. The NRC inspector reviewed SCE's action to resolve Kent's allegations. This review con-sisted of discussions with SCE personnel and an examination of documenta-

tion. The inspector reported in his Inspection Report, 50-362/82-27, that A > me..

. . . - . . - . - . - - - - . - . . _ - - - _ - _ _ _ . , - - _ . . ,.,--- ._ . ___ ._ _..-, - i

OmC&USE DEY le was satisfied SCE had taken appropriate action to resolve welding

$ssues raised by Kent.

On October 6,1982, Mr. John O' Dell, a reporter for the Los Angeles Times contacted Region V and related he had been contacted by YEit on September 27, 1982, and Kent had described faulty welding practices at SONGS. O' Dell asked for an NRC response to Kent's allegations. O' Dell was informed of the Inspection Report noted above and SCE's action with regard to Kent's' concerns.

On October 13, 1982 Kent's allegations were reported in the Los Angeles Times which also generated significant additional media interest in the story. Kent was further interviewed by other Southern California media j

organizations. Based on the significant media interest generated by the 0' Dell article and to more properly respond to media inquiries, Region V decided that inspection activities were warranted into Kent's alle-gations.

While the subject of GAP's June 20, 1983, letter principally relates to Region V's performance in addressing Kent's concerns, Region III's perfonnance in reacting to Kent is also noted.

l Kent had expressed his allegations to Region III on three separate occasions, March, July, and August of 1982. In GAP's view, the lack of an i NRC response to Kent made necessary a GAP letter complaint on September 6,1982, to the Regional Administrator. Moreover, GAP claims it was not until November 1982 (well after Region V is heavily engaged in ,

the Kent effeis) th&t Region III contacted Kent and infonned him of Region III's course of action in responding to his allegations at Midland. .

Attachment 2 is a series of memoranda and Inspection Report 50-329/82-04 1

prepared in Region III which outlines Region III's actions in addressing Kent's allegations regarding welding. flaws at Midland. In sum, Region III did document their contact with Kent 'and did conduct an inspection at

• Midland. The inspection report addressed Bechtel welding procedures at Midland; it did not address generic welding procedures used by Bechtel.

After the publication of the medla story in Southern California on j

October 13, 1982 Kent was contacted by Region V NRC and a meeting was i

scheduled for October 15, 1982, to discuss his concerns. It should be noted that in GAP's letter complaint of June 20, 1983, it is implied that i Region V contacted Kent only after Kent had offered his assistance and i

' information on welding flaws at SONGS to Region V and only after the news articles appeared in the press. While Region III had had extensive contact with Kent Region V's awareness of Kent's concerns initially came about through press inquiries and not from Kent or Region III.

, In responding to Kent after the media coverage Region V Office of

! Investigations (01) investigators met Kent on October 15, 1982, to i discuss his allegations. This meeting was tape recorded. In addition, it i was agreed that a written transcript would be made of the tape recording i

• and that a succinct written statement would be prepared for Kent's signature. Kent subsequently refused to sign the statement on the advice e r*f*ltit a t if AP Asee s e

_ _- - ~~ - - - - .. -

f

[ })-(

. f

', of his counsel, GAP. During his interview with Region V 0! personnel, Kent identified two other individual; who he felt could support his 4

allegations," l and

• 3 Region V 0! personnel subsequently I interviewed tlese two"indiviouais and tape recorded the meetings.

, l After Region V 0! personnel documented Kent's concerns regarding welding deficiencies, via the tape recordings, transcripts, and a statement, this infonnation was given to Region V who proceeded to look into the matter.

Concerning the distribution of the tape recordings ,and transcripts of Kent's interview, on about October 14, 1982, Region V O! personnel agreed, in a conversation with GAP representatives, to voluntarily furnish GAP a copy of the tape recordings of the meeting with Kent. A review of Region Y memoranda established that an on-going dialogue developed between 01, Region V, and Mr. Victor J. Stello, Deputy Executive Director for Regional Operations and Generic Requirements, on how best to release the tape recordings and transcripts to GAP. Region V personnel explained that they were concerned that the transcripts were inaccurate and required review and correction before they could be released. On November 8, 1982, GAP filed an FOIA request to obtain this material. When confronted with GAP's FOIA request, NRC released the tape recordinas'and the transcripts in mid-December 1982. The transcripts had not been corrected.

On October 25,1982, Kent, NRC personnel and licensee personnel conducted a site tour at the San Onofre Plant during which Kent was provided an opportunity to point out examples of his concerns. However, Kent was denied inspection tools, gauges, a ladder, and other measuring equipment.

Region V personnel proffered that potential licensee insurance liability prevented Kent unlimited access within the plant.

On December 6,1982, Region V held a press conference and disclosed that Kent's allegations had been inspected by the NRC and they were unsubstantiated. Copies of the Inspection Report were made available to the press. During OIA interviews of Region V personnel, it was stated that the purpose in holding a press conference was to make public NRC's inspection of Kent's allegations and to expedite the release of the NRC infonnation. The Region V Public Affairs Officer infonned CIA that the Kent matter had generated substantial media attention and that during the course of the inspection, the Regi.on was repeatedly asked the completion date of the inspection. Rather than responding to media organizations individually, it was decided by Regional management that a press con-ference was the appropriate means of making known NRC's inspection of Kent's concerns. Regional management denied that they were attempting to discredit, or embarrass Kent and stated that the decision to utilize a press conference was appropriate in this case in view of the significant level of media attention to the matter. DIA inquired as to the reason Kent or his counsel, GAP, P not furnished a copy of the Inspection Report, was not advised the inspection had been completed, or was not alerted that a press conference was planned. Regional personnel claimed it was an oversight. -

GAP, in their complaint of June 20, 1983, to the NRC concerning NRC's inspection of Kent's allegations, indicated that there was an overt effort to personally discredit Kent and engage in malicious conduct

omcu.uuou I. \

toward Kent. GAP makes particular mention of notes of a telephone conversation between Region III and Region V which are contained in  !

Region V files concerning Kent's background and work history. GAP '

obtained this material from a F0IA request. Prior to comitting agency

resources to review and inspect.an alleger's concerns 0! Region V considered it appropriate to obtain information concerning the allegers background, education, expertise, work history, etc. This was '

accomplished in Kent's case. CIA's review of the notes in question indicated the emphasis of the telephone conversation was Kent's j credibility rather than his allegations.

CIA conferred with the newly appointed Region V Administrator concerning Region V's treatment of Kent. He stated that, independent of this CIA review, he had also reviewed the Kent matter and as a result, substantial procedural and policy changes had been implemented in Region V concerning allegers and their concerns. Specifically, the Region V Administrator has attempted to institute a program in which allegers such as Kent are treated with a high degree of tact and courtesy when bringing their concerns to the attention of the NRC. Attachment 3 is the newly imple-mented Region V policy which fomally institutes this program. Essen-tially, Region V has committed itself to improving comunications between t

the NRC and allegers, intervenor groups, and GAP-type organizations. It should also be noted that the Region V Administrator has independently the Kent matter (Attachment 4). In sum.

corresponded it is the Regionalwith GAP concerning's Administrator view that allegers need to be appr of the status of their allegations and concerns and that generally speaking, allegers should be treated with the same degree of courtesy and tcct thct is extended to licensee representatives.

1 2. Region V compliance with administrative procedures and inspection methods j in addressing allegations by Kent / GAP r

, GAP, in their letter complaint of June 20, 1983, to the NRC, indicated that the inspection procedures utilized by Region V in addressing Kent's concerns, were inadequate and not in compliance with existing NRC re-quirements. GAP, upon receiving a copy of the completed inspection

! report, submitted an FOIA request to the NRC to obtain the background material, draft report, notes, and interviews utilized in preparing the final NRC inspection report. The NRC, in responding to the FOIA request, was unable to produce the materials and documents which fimly supported the findings and conclusions documented in the final inspection report.

GAP, therefore, concluded that either the inspection of Kent's concerns was not conducted and/or that documents were inappropriately destroyed in violation of F0!A requirements. In sum, GAP called into question the i

i validity of the inspection that was undertaken to address Kent's I

allegations and Region V found itself in the position of not being able

to support or verify its inspection activity with confiming records or l data. For example, while Kent's allegations were tape recorded.

l transcribed, and put into a statement, Region V personnel were unable to i i

produce identification data and supporting documentation pertaining to i the persons they interviewed during their inspection of Kent's allegations. In pursuing the validity of Kent's allegations, Regional personnel conducted informal interviews of unidentified licensee and

, Bechtel personnel, and took infonnal notes which could not be produced i

OfflCl(EE ONLY when an F0IA request was submitted. In the final analysis, the validity of the inspection report prepared in response to Kent's allegations essentially rests on the personal integrity and professional assertions of Region V. personnel that they had, in fact, put forth a good faith effort in addressing Kent's concerns.

GAP, in their letter complaint to the NRC, also suggests that the Kent inspection had a predetermined completion date and was curtailed at the outset by licensee and Bechtel influence. In support, GAP cites meeting notes from a Region V meeting on October 14, 1982, and a letter to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) on October 29, 1982.

The meeting notes noted above were the result of a Region V meeting at the time Region V was made aware of Kent's concerns as published in the Los Angeles Times. The notes state, in part:

"(1)InterviewKentforallhisconcerns; ,

(2)Needfullinvestigativesupport; (3) Tech positions in Reg III ar.d V have to be the same (Engelken);

(4) Have NRR reaffirm their position on the code. ASME Code; .

(5) Call Fitzgerald/ Ward and discuss the matter with him."

~

0IA inquiry with the Region V 0I Field Office Director, determined that the list can be described as a tasking list developed at the initial meeting of Region V personnel to address Kent's allegations. It essentially outlines Region V's plan to address Kent s allegations.

Region V attempted to carry out these actions during the course of the Kent inspection and nothing is contained in the list to suggest that the inspection was curtailed or prejudiced.

GAP then makes reference to an October 29,1982, memorandum from Jesse L.

Crews, Supervisor, Region V, to NRC Headquarters, in which Crews stated:

"It is our intention to have a satisfactory resolution on all of the allegations by Mr. Kent prior to license issuance for San Onofre Unit 3, tentatively estimated by Region V as November 15, 1982. Your assistance in this time frame would be appreciated."

GAP goes on to state that the above noted paragraph indicates that the Kent inspection had a predetermined time frame for completion.

Region V management advised that Crews' memorandum attempted to alert NRC Headquarters that.their prompt assistance would be required to resolve Kent's allegations if the NRC was to maintain its proposed target date -

for the license. Crews' memorandum also states:

"In the course of Region V's special inspection (currently in progress) into allegations by Mr. Kent, we recognized that some could potentially impact upon license issuance for San Onofre Unit

( Ot*PiMtre e e. - -.

0TNISE01U .

l-j 3, and that the resolution of some issues may require technical assistance from NRR."

Region V management indicated that to read into the Crews' memorandum that Region V was not comitted to seriously looking into Kent's alle-

' gations is a wrong reading of the memorandum. Region V was simply alert-i ing NRC Headquarters that their prompt assistance was required to resolve Kent's allegations in a timely manner. Further, a concerted effort is i

i normally made to resolve all open allegations before considering changing a license issuance date.

GAP has also suggested that additional documents exist '.n Region V and

! had been inappropriately withheld from release under F0IA provisions. DIA i review of Region y files as well as discussions with F0IA personnel did I not disclose any improper withholding of documents under FOIA provisions.

GAP further asserts that agency documents concerning the Region V in-

! spection in response to Kent s allegations were destroyed in violation of '

Inspection and Enforcement (IE) Manual and F0IA. In support of this i

contention, GAP quotes paragraph 201, Section 1005-20 IE Manual, "Although draft inspection reports will not be disclosed as a routine i

]

basis, they will be available to members of the public upon request," as

NRC the termpolic{ draft inspection report" is defined in paragraph 102

, Section i

1005-04, of the IE Manual, and Section 1005-40 of the Manual outlines the ,

fonnat and content of draft inspection reports (Attachment 5). DIA determined that the Kent inspection repor.t was initially drafted and that routine supervisory and management review resulted in non-substantive corrections and changes. These actions resulted in retyping of the report. Draft reports, such as these, which are only earlier versions of the final report, do not fall within the meaning of draft inspection reports as defined in the IE Manual. Consequently, the Manual citation by GAP as prohibition against the destruction of the draft reports does not apply in this instance. With regard to notes obtained by inspectors during the Kent inspection, they were personal in nature and assisted the writer in the preparation of the inspection report. They were destroyed l upon incorporating their substance in the inspection report. Personal

' notes are not considered agency records as long as they have not been i

circulated to others and have not been co-mingled with agency records, and there are no prohibitions against destroying personal notes after the i

information has been incorporated into the inspection report. [ Porter I

Company Chapter Isaak Walton I.eague v. AEC (N.D. Ind 1974) and British Airports Authority v. CA8 531 F. Supp. 408 (D.C. Dist Ct'1982)]  ;

! 3. The confidence level that can be placed in NRC's technical insoection and 1

technical analysis of Kent / GAP concerns' 01A does not have" the expertise to evaluate the technical sufficiency of I the Region V inspection report or the Safety Evaluation Report (SER)

! (Attachment 6)preparedb the Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. The ivision of Engineering review, which is docu-I mented in the SER, was an inde endent analysis of some of Kent,s allega-

tions. The review involved (1 interviewing the people who accompanied Kent on a walk through tour of SONGS, (2) repeating the tour and i

i n e r, ,, . . . . . . .

OTCLUSE ONJ

' inspecting those welds which Kent pointed out were of concern to him, and (3) reviewing the documents provided by the applicant which demonstrated compliance with applicable codes. The preparation of the independent technical analysis by the Division of Engineering was in addition to the inspection report by Region V.

1 i DETAILS 1

1. Report of Interview, James G. Hanchett, dated January 11, 1984.

2. Report of Interview, Bobby H. Faulkenberry, dated January 11, 1984.

3. Report of Interview, William V. Johnson, dated January 12, 1984.

4. Report of Interview, Dennis F. Kirsch, dated February 1,1984.

5. Report of Interview, Ida M. Alexander, dated January 12, 1984.

6. Report of Interview, John B. Martin, dated January 11, 1984.

t j 7. Report of Interview, James E. Foster, dated January 31, 1984.

8. Report of Interview. Owen C. Shackleton, dated January 11, 1984, i

9. Report of Interview, Thomas W. Bishop, dated January 12, 1984.

, Attachment 1 - Letter to Comission from GAP dated June 20, 1983. -

Attachment 2 - Region III memoranda and Inspection Report pertaining to Kant's i

allegations.

Attachment 3 - Region V Instruction No.1303 dated January 6,1984.

! Attachment 4 - Letter to GAP from NRC Region V dated December 5,1983.

Attachment 5 - IE Manual Chapter 1000 dated March 28, 1977.

Attachment 6 - Safety Evaluation Report dated November 17, 1982.

~

J i .

I t

i e

---

ev r.-w--m. w w,v-,--m-- --w-r-w-, .-m, _m%.e.,,

. NUCLEAR EGf1 A Office cf inspector and Auditor January 27, 1984 o .eu rieu.. __

Report of Interviet -

James G. Hanchett, Public Affairs Officer, Region V, Walnut Creek, California stated that upon Mr. Kent holding a press conference in the Los Angeles area in which he voiced his concerns regarding Bechtel welding procedures, Region V received numerous inquiries from media organizations requesting coment.

Hanchett described Kent's press conference as, generating significant media attention in which Region 7 was repeatedly asked for a coment as to the validity of Kent's concerns. Region V's initial response to the press was that an NRC inspection was planned and that upon completion of the inspection NRC would be in a better position to coment on Lant's concerns.

During the course of the inspection, media organizations repeatedly inquired as to the completion date of the inspection. Hanchett went on to explain that because of the large number of media organizations that were following up on Kent's concerns, it was detennined by Region V management that the most efficient manner to respond to the media was via a press conference in the Southern California area rather than responding individually to the media representatives who had been inquiring as to NRC action in the matter.

Hanchett claimed that the decision to hold the press conference on December 6, 1982, in Southern California was made to expedite the NRC response to Kent's concerns and to provide the NRC response on one occasion rather than responding to the media organizations individually.

Hanchett further stated that at the press conference copies of the NRC inspec-tion report were furnished to the media and NRC management officials made a brief statement and were available for questions. When asked why Kent or his legal counsel, Government Accountability Project (GAP), was not also provided a copy of the inspection report, Hanchett replied that it was an oversight. To his knowledge, there had been no discussion or decision to deny Kent access to the inspection results or participation in the NRC press conference. Hanchett was further asked if Region V was engaged in an inappropriate game of "one upmanship" in responding to Kent's press conference with an NRC press conference. Hanchett denied this had occurred and stated that the NRC press conference on December 6,1982, was merely in effort to provide service to the press in the most effective inanner.

.. ...ci. . January 11, 1984 .^ ,, Walnut Creek, Califomia ,,,,, 83-82

,,- hrtB.Puglia[ ,,,,,,,,,,,,

January 27, 1984 E,*i #C'U Iv", 'a'"U e'A",*,lov', Ea'0,'ii~ U"v'," ^o ',7Ef, ^,'sU * 'a'~'o'l*v'*,'o7 ' " '""""

? ~- -- --_ - -- _ -- -. ----- -

. NUCLEAR Ox' Af ORY EGlfLA,t COMMI551 USE ONLY .'

Office of Inspector and Auditor

o. . u ,ieu.. _ Ja nua ry 27, 1984 Report of Interview William V. Johnson, Assistant Director for Materials and Qualifications Engineering, Division of Engineering, Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), was telephonically interviewed. Johnson stated that his staff had reviewed Kent's concerns which had been referred to his office from Region V. Johnson further stated that his office had concluded that Kent's concerns were unsubstantiated. Johnson went on to explain that his staff travelled to the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station and conducted a site tour to inspect and review Kent's concerns. It should be noted that this site tour was 1ndependent '

of the Kent / Region V site tour in w51ch Kent pointed out his concerns. Johnson indicated that the technical analysis conducted by his office examined Bechtel welding procedures, appropriate professional society codes, NRC requiements, and a review of Kent's specific concerns. Johnson went on to indicate that NRR recognized that the various professional society codes have different acceptable standards and are not in unanamity. Consequently, an analysis of the issues raised by Mr. Kent required a determination as to the appropriate code provision to be applied. Additionally, an independent safety analysis was conducted by NRR as to Kent's concerns. Johnson reiterated NRR's conclusion that Kent's welding concerns were without technical merit and that he had confidence NRR technical analysis was comprehensive and complete. NRR's inspection and analysis report was prepared and fomarded to Region V (See Attachment 61.

l l .

l l

l A

...... January 12,19tM ,, Walnut Creek, California ,,,,, 83-82 Albert B. Publia Investigator, DIA o,, ,,,,,, January 27, 1984 l s'!J!/0.' lit"%'G?'A'!Jfti#2!.'.W/".W#s i,'.iM3'4'o'E;"/a " ""'""""

t

UCLEAR R GUL kC CO is O Cffice cf Inspector and Auditor

< o, .,u .,..u.. February 13, 1984 Report of Interview Dennis F. Kirsch, Inspection Supervisor, Region V,' Walnut Creek, California was subsequently interviewed telephonically because he and his staff were on assignment during the Office of Inspector and Auditor (OIA) review in Region V. Kirsch said that substantial Region V inspection resources were committed to addressing Kent's concerns. Kirsch indicated that he had a good grasp of Kent's concerns, that they were examined and inspected to determine whether they had technical merit. Kirsch further stated that he was aware of the subsequent controversy concerning the treatment of Kent and the iss'ues raised in the drafting of the inspection report Kirsch noted that these topics have resulted in substantial changes in Region V inspection procedures. However, Kirsch reiterated that the application of technical resources to Kent's concerns were significant and the inspection was conducted in good faith.

Kirsch complained that he was disturbed that doubt has been cast on his professional integrity and the quality of the technical inspection based on reporting requirements and other administrative matters. Kirsch confirmed that he was confident in the technical conclusions and that Kent's concerns were unsubstantiated. .

Kirsch said that the reporting format and record keeping procedures employed in the Kent affair were in compliance with Region V inspection procedures up

.to that point in time. Subsequently identified shortcomings in reporting and inspection procedures were not peculiar to the Kent inspection and that the Kent inspection was conducted and reported in good faith..

l l

sa u.e... _r a .. . .. , , o m a _ ,, Bethesda, Md. ,,,,, 83-82

.,- Ib B. u , Inve s t iga t or , OI A o,,, ,,,,,,, February 13, 1984 E*u'Is Ea*NaaN'Iv"i [c'aE0c'v'Ei . low'r c'e'a$iss.o~ E,"v'Is 'o,Ec*s"$ "'s Ec't*E'a' 'o'au"r'o?' ' " '" * ""

. _: = ..

UCLE R FEG L T C 1 Sl; Cff4e cf Inspector and Auditor

o. . i, .u .. January 31, 1984 Report of Interview Ida M. Alexander, Chief. Administrative Services Branch, Region V, Walnut Creek, California stated that she is the FOIA Coordinator in Region V

. and that pursuant to FOIA request 83-618 submitted by Governmental Accountability Project (GAP), an extensive search for documents was conducted in Region V. Alexander indicated that to her knowledge, the FOIA request was hendled in a proper manner. Alexander further indicated that there have been instances in Region V when Region.V personnel have not promptly responded in searching for documents and that some Region V personnel do not appreciate the importance of prompt compliance with FOIA provisions. Alexander went on to repeat that the FOIA requests that were received from GAP concerning the Kent affair were handled routinely and promptly. Alexander was not cognizant of any impr.oper destruction.of documents or withholding of documents from release under FOIA provisions.

• The Regio V and Office of Investigations (OI) Headquarters file of FOIA request 83-618 was examined and no discrepancies or indications of improper handling were identified.

1

.. ..... January 12, 1984 , ,, Walnut, Creek, Calif. , , , , 83-82

.,- Albert B. Puoli Inve st iga tor , OIA_ o,.. .... , January 31, 1984

= === ===== = = =u= =or -- __

UC.L JL 1 JM IS$10 Office of Inspector and Auditor o,. .eie ur ..... Januarv 31. 1984

. Report of Interview John B. Martin, Regional Administrator, Region V, Walnut Creek, California stated that upon being assigned as the Regional Administrator in Region V he reviewed the Office of Investigations (01) Royce/Gunderson report and the Region V Kent inspection report. At the time Mr. Martin assumed the duties as the Regional Administrator Region V was the subject of severe criticism from GAP and an intervenor group at the Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant. Martin said it was his initial determination that communications between Region V and these groups required dramatic improvement. Consequently, Martin said he made a determined effort to meet with these groups to discuss problems of mutual interest. Martin indicated that the mere fact that these groups had an cpportunity to meet with NRC representatives and discuss mutual problems substantially improved relations between these groups and the NRC. Martin also said that he followed up these meetings with confirming correspondence (Attachment 4). ,

Martin stated that it was his position that Region V had not treated individual citizens and citizen groups with the degree of courtesy and tact ,

that should be forthcoming from a public agency such as the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC). Martin indicated that, as a general rule, he hoped ir.dividual citizens and citizen groups who come in contact with the NRC would be treated with the same de' gree of courtesy that is extended to licensee representatives.

• As a further result of Martin's review of the Kent situat' ion, he said that he instituted new procedures within Region V that carefully detailed a formal program of :eceiving, inspecting, reporting and notifying individuals who report conditions relating to NRC's responsibilities to regulate the nuclear industry (Attachment 3).

Martin indicated that his review of the Kent inspection report and the GAP complaint detemined that NRC's treatment of Mr. Kent was not what it should have been. Further, the inspection and reporting procedures that existed in

. Region V at the time the Kent insptction was conducted were inadequate. Martin said the newly instituted procedures within Region V strengthen inspection and reporting requirements and should allniate many of the criticisms pointed out by GAP. Martin further stated that it was his determination that the technical inspection and technical analysis of Kent's concerns by Region V were adequate in spite of other shortcomings. Martin said, from'an exclusively technical standpoint, Kent's concerns had been addressed and he had confidence that the technical conclusions reached in the report were valid.

ca wen. .a January 11. 1994 m Walnut Creek, Calif. F 83-82

,,- ynert g, 14., umt yaw; m m_ em u .. January 31, 1984

==:==::===::====w --

. NUCLEAR REGULAT C islO. j"&

Office of inspector sad Auditor o.. .e i, ou January 30, 1984 Report of Interview

' Bobby H. Faulkenberry, Deputy Regional Administrator, Region V. Walnut Creek, '

California stated that the Kent affair occurred during the tenure of the previous Regional Administrator. Favikenberry said that the Kent affair arose t abruptly in Region V as a result of a press conference held by Mr. Kent in Southern California. While Kent had had prior dealings with the NRC in Region 111. Region V was not aware of his activities in Region V. Consequently the initial media inquiries for a Region V response to Kent came upon them without i warning. Faulkenberry indicated that from the beginning of the Kent affair, it was Region V's intention to expedite the inspection of his concern and to '

disseminate a prompt response to the public. Faulkenberry acknowledged that i

some of the shortcomings that have been identified in Region V's handling of the Kent affair have merit and, upon reflection, resulted in changes in Region V procedures. Faulkenberry indicated that the Kent affair was handled in Region V utilizing routine inspection methods which, at this point in time, had been determined to be shortsighted. However, Faulkenberry further indicated that at no time was there any effort to discredit Kent personally or not to address his concerns in good faith. Initial meetings with the then Regional Administrator were directed at consnitting Region V resources in good faith to complete a prompt and thorough inspection of Kent's concerns.

Faulkenberry said that FOIA provisions were complied with in spite of the limited information that was available for release. Moreover, while individual inspectors had destroyed'their notes, they had incorporated their information into the inspection report and there was no attempt to hide infonnation from public exposure. Additionally, the destruction of initial drafts of the .

inspection report resulted from routine administrative revisions and corrections and was not a deliberate attempt to limit the content of the report.

Faulkenberry went on to describe new procedures that have been instituted in Region V concerning the documentation of Region V inspections. These new procedures better preserve information and fully identify persons interviewed.

Additionally, a fonnal system of obtaining citizens concerns and formerly corresponding with them to report the progress of NRC's effort to resolve inspection issues has been instituted in Region V. Faulkenberry noted that these new procedures were principally instituted as a result of the criticism received after the issuance of the Kent inspection report.

Concerning the tape recording and the transcription of Kent, Faulkenberry noted that this was the then normal practice employed in obtaining citizen concerns. Faulkenberry went on to acknowledge the confusion that resulted between the Office of Investigations (01) and the Region V staff concerning

, releasing the tape recordings and transcripts of Kent to GAP.

.. ... January 11, 1984 n ,, Walnut Creek, California ,,,,, 83-82

, , - Albert B. Puella vestigator, O R o .. ,,n. January 30, 1984 a====:=.=:== =:====:--

1 g 0 TIC 1. USE DM.Y g

. - 2-Faulkenberry concluded the interview by restating that it was Region V's objective to address Kent's concerns in a good faith manner and to apply the ,

necessary Region V technical resources to resolve his concefns. Additionally, the level of public interest that was generated regarding Kent's concerns, required a prompt NRC response. Consequently in attempting to quickly respond to the public and media, Faulkenberry acknowledged shortcomings arose concerning NRC's relationship with Kent and his legal counsel, Government Accountability Project (GAP). Faulkenberry indicated with the new procedures instituted in Region V should avoid a repetition of the criticism received in its handling of the Kent affair.

e e

4 9

4 4

i e

,, - c .c CJ e % . c5 a '- a 6.. c3 .- ..c><*:~ 6 6 . .= .. . --. . .- .. - . . .

)

UCLL' G lA Sl!

Of fice of Inspector and Auditor g

o.= i, ,seu..

February 13, 1984 l

1 Report of Interview James E. Foster, former Investigator, Region III, Glen Ellyn, Illinois, presently assigned to the Region III Inspection' Staff, was interviewed telephonically and stated that he had numerous conversations with Mr. Kent during 1982 regarding his concerns of welding flaws at the Midland Nuclear Project. Foster denied the GAP allegation that he had ignored Kent and did not take appropriate action to pursue resolution of Kent's concerns. Foster directed OIA attention to a September 24, 1982, memoranda with attachments which he had prepared for Regional Administrator James P. Keppler which outlined his meetings with Kent during 1982. This memoranda was prepared in response to a GAP letter dated September 6,1982, to Keppler regarding the Midland site. Attached to the cover memorandum is additional correspondence dated March 3,1982, March 4,1982, March 5,1982, March 22,1982 (2),

March 24, 1982, and August 11, 1982, which reports Region III's meetings, conversations, and inspection of Mr. Kent's concerns (Attachment 2).

Foster denied GAP's allegation that Region III had not taken action regarding Kent's concerns and referred to the above noted memoranda which documented Region III's response to Kent's concerns. -

Foster stated that he had not alerted Region V of Kent's concerns as they pertained to the San Ondfre site and indicated that he was involved in re-sponding to GAP's September 6,1982, letter to Keppler in. late September 1982.

Foster indicated that he had planned to refer Kent's information to Region V, but Kent's press conference in Southern California had occurred prior to his having an opportunity to alert Region V of Kent's concerns.

Foster denied he had discredited or embarrassed Kent while addressing Kent's welding concerns at Midland. .

- ... . . _ January 31, 1984 .. Bethesda, M1. ,,,,, 83-82 Albert B. Pugliabvestigator, CIA February 13, 1984 Ev'r's?!!Ci C'iII,fo'IUf!/J,5 'ou','iE

,! ^~'U"v'le'o,'UE'f,'O 0*rs'i~El'u'Ito ' ' " " ' " ' ' ' " "

0 10 At llSE ON.Y e.UCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMis$lg I

Office of Inspector and Audhor

o. .,i,.. n.u January 31, 1984

_ Report of Interview Owen C. Shackleton, Director, Office of Investigations (01) Field Office, Region V, Walnut Creek, California stated that Kent's concerns were brought to the attention of Region V based on inquiries.from a los Angeles Times reporter, John O' Dell. O' Dell was developing a newspaper art.icle based on Kent's concerns regarding welding flaws at the San Onofre Nuclear Generatir.g Station (SONGS). Shackleton . indicated that 01's involvement in Region V respondir.g to Kerit's concerns was to conduct the interview of Kent. It was recognized in Region V that Kent's concerns were technical in nature requiring a regional inspection. Shackleton said that he was requested by the Region to conduct the interview of Kent and take a statement from him. Shackleton then said he contacted 01 Headquarters and was advised that his participation in the Kent affair would be limited to taking a statement from Kent and turning -

the infomation'over to the Region so that the inspection could be conducted.

Shackleton said 01 was not the " lead organization" within the NRC concerning resolution of Kent's concerns.

~

Shackleton said that he and a member of his staff met with ' Kent on October 15, 1982, in Southern California and conducted the interview. This interview was tape recorded. Shackleton also stated that he conversed with GAP officials prio: to interviewing Kent and had agreed to furnish them copies of the tape recordings made during the interview of Kent. .

Upon completing the interview of Kent, Shackleton said that he reviewed the tape recordings and prepared a statement which outlined Kent's concerns and presented it to Kent for signature. Kent refused to sign the statement.

Additionally, Shackleton fomarded copies of the tape recording to NRC Headquarters for transcription.

Shackleton said that he and his staff also interviewed [

[.'

'2anda lupport <.]his allegations regarding welding flaws at SONGS. These inter were also tape recorded.

Shackleton then said he contacted 01 Headquarters at which time he was in-structed to tenninate his involvement in the Kent affair and to turn over the tape recordings of Kent to the Region for fomarding to the Government Accountability Project (GAP). Shackleton indicated that in his conversations with GAP he had agreed to turn over copies of the tape recordings, however, when the transcripts of the tape recordings were received they contained numerou_s errors and which required " clean up" and correction.

. . . January 11,1984.d/ ,, Halnut Creek, California 83-82

,,, 7 el

,_ Mhrt B. Puglia' : ~, Investigator, CIA January 31, 1984 o,,,,,,,,,,,

STsIEs*Nt mN'sIv". [o'4N8e'v'E*$v't 's'a$ ss o*='Y,"v'Is 'oe'Uc*sN='sYe'vN'4 '

Io'"uEv'oE * * *"

c3 07CL USE ONI.Y gp 2

i Shackleton was then asked the reason why GAP had not been sent the tapes after l he had agreed to do so. Shackleton replied that he was directed by 01 i Headquarters to tenninate his involvement in the Kent affair and turn the '

tapes over to ,the Region so they could send the tapes to GAP. Shackleton pointed to several office memoranda in which he requested the Region to forward the tapes to GAP. Shackleton indicated that the delay in sending the tapes was linked to correcting the written transcripts which had to be per-formed in Region V and which no one was willing to do. Consequently, there was considerable delay in sending the tapes and/or transcripts to GAP. Advice was also sought by the Region from Mr. Victor Stel.lo, Deputy Executive Director for Regional Operations and Generic Requirements, concerning releasing the tapes.

It should be noted that GAP eventually received the tapes, transcripts, and unsigned statement via a FOIA request after they had determined that the NRC was not going to voluntarily comply with its previous agreement. Further, DIA '

sees little difference between oral tape recordings and written transcripts of the oral tape recordings. Additionally, the written transcripts have never been corrected nor has a signed statement ever been obtained from Kent.

Shackleton said that Region V inspection personnel had obtained sufficient infonnation from the tape recordings and the unsigned statement to proceed with their inspection. Consequently, no one in Region V was willing to take the necessary time to correct the transcripts or pursue obtaining a signed statement from Kent. Shackleton also indicated that subsequent to the Kent affair, 01 had changed its policy concerning tape, recording interviewees. OI no longer tcp: recere interviewees. .

Shackleton then said that a member of his staff accompanied Kent and Region V inspectors on a site tour of SONGS. The purpose of the site tour was to provide Kent an opportunity to point out specific examples of his concerns.

Shackleton stated that the licensee had indicated " insurance liability" prevented Kent from having unlimited access to the plant. Consequently, Kent was not provided such things as a ladder or test equipment, i.e., gauges, during the site tour. -

Shackleton indicated that upon being brought into the Kent affair, he contacted Mr. James Foster, 01 Region III, on October 12, 1982, to find out Kent's prior involvement with Region III personnel. Shackleton said he made notes of his conversation with Foster and the purpose of the conversation was to obtain background material on Kent and his concerns as they related to the Midland site. Shackleton characterized this conversation as routine and an attempt to gather background material prior to his interview with Kent.

Shackleton denied GAP's claim that this conversation was an attempt to embarrass and discredit Kent.

Shackleton then stated that the former Regional Administrator conducted a staff conference on October 14, 1982, in which Region V's response to Kent was discussed. Shackleton said that he took notes at this meeting which described Region V's plan to respond to Kent's concerns. Shackleton denied GAP's claim that the list of actions to be taken suggest that Region V was attempting to curtail and prejudice the Kent inspection. Shackleton said he agreed with the plan, as noted, and the impression of this meeting was that Region V was prepared to conduct a good faith inspection of Kent's concerns.

00 DECL USE ONLY C0 Concerning FOIA requirements, Shackleton said he knows of no instances in which documents were destroyed concerning the Kent offer, and that he has complied with FOIA requirements in releasing material to GAP concerning the Kent affair.

Shackleton denied that he had discredited or embarrassed Kent at any time.

Shackleton said that information contained in 01 files concerning Kent's work history, background, education, etc. was appropriately gathered. Shackleton indicated that prior to comitting Agency resources in an NRC inquiry, it is appropriate to obtain infonnation on the credibility and reliability of the person bringing forth concerns as Mr. Kent had.

9

. i a

e e

d 4

i jf l

fi m PIAI !! M m t! v

UCLEAR LATORY C SSI Cffice af Inspector and Auditor o,.,. i,

.u.. January 31, 1984

, Report of Interview Thomas W. Bishop, Enforcement Coordinator, Region V Walnut Creek, California j

stated that he coordinated the preparation of the Kent inspection report.

Bishop indicated that subsequent to the completion of the Kent inspection report and the arrival of the new Regional Administrator, substantial changes have been made in Region V's procedures in responding to concerns brought to the attention of the NRC from individuals, such as Kent. Bishop further indicated that in his view, one of the major shortfalls of Region V addressing Kent's concerns, was the failure of the Region to get back to and subsequently correspond with Kent upon completing the Region V inspection. Additionally,'

the Regional procedures for documenting interviews during the course of an inspection were determined to be deficient, particularly after GAP called into

question the validity of the NRC inspection effort.

Bishop steted that Region V has substantially revised its internal procedures in addressing concerns brought forward by individuals and organizations that require the comitment of NRC inspection resources. The Kent affair and the subsequent controversy surrounding Region V's inspection of his concerns j

exposed the shortcomings in Region V's procedures to address these type matters.

Bishop indicated that a. principal cause of the controversy surrounding Region V's hanaiing of Kent's concerns was the failure of the Region to realize or -

understand that it had to conduct or maintain a dialogue with GAP in address-ing Kent's concerns. Had this point been better understood by the Region much of the controversy which ensued,could have been avoided.

Concerning alleged destruction of documents which has been proferred by GAP, Bishop said that to his knowledge all FOIA requests have been properly .

responded to and that all infonnation concerning Kent's allegations has been released. Bishop went on to say that routine administrative revisions of the initial inspection report had occurred, however, the changes made were administrative and gramatical in nature. Bishop said that the Kent inspection report received routine processing and no effort was made to preserve earlier editions of the inspection report. Bishop also said that the inspectors incorporated notes they had obtained in the report and subsequently destroyed them. At that point in time, this had been the routine practice in Region V.

l l

e

?

. .. January 12,1984[ ,, Walnut Creek, California , o 83-82

,,,_ Albert B. Puglia, Investigator, CIA o, . January 31, 1984

%A*#CMaI"%'""~*e'A"i,lR,**'!*2 ^**J",',".'#,'= '.'. "03'.?;!t'"','.*" " "'""'"*

y

- - _ . . -