ML20235W282
| ML20235W282 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 03/26/1984 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235W266 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-88-229, REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8903100577 | |
| Download: ML20235W282 (28) | |
Text
m ---- m - v y p
.7,,
v 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY. COMMISSION 3
STATUS OF PENDING INVESTIGATION ON DIABLO CANYON 5
6-CLOSED MEETING 7
Exemptions Nos. 5 and 7 9 '
Room 1130 10 1717 H Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
11 Monday, March 26, 1984 12
}
13 Pursuant to Notice, the Commission met in closed session at 14 11:05 o' clock, a.m.
15 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: q
~
16 NUNZIO PALLADINO, Chairman of the Commission 1 VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner 37 THOMAS ROBERTS, Commissioner JAMES ASSELSTINE, Commissioner ;
18
' FREDERICK BERNTHAL, Commissioner jg STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT COMMISSION TABLE:
20 S. CHILK W. DIRCKS 21 H. PLAINE . I R. FORTUNA i 22 J. MARTIN I T. BISHOP i 23 AUDIENCE SPEAKER:
24 L. CHANDLER 25
\
{
1 l
l '
\
l 8903100577 890301 ~
SCHMIEG88-229 PDR ,
l
'i L____________. .___________ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ __ _ _ . _ '_-..._______ __ _ . _. U
.,; g Y PR0CEEDING ,
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: ' Good morning, ladies and gentle'-
men. We have two meetings,Ltoday, on Diablo Canyon. In this first meeting, which is closed,-we will receive a status report on pending investigation. matters _ relating to the. plant and the-impact of any of these matters on the issues'to the decision facing us in this afternoon's meeting.
7 Both'the EDO staff and 01 are present to go over the 8
issues. I would propose we first turn the meeting over to OI-9 for a discussion of the items they are following &nd, in 10 particular, any changes that have occurred since our last 11-meeting last week and then we'll see if EDO has any additional '
12 comments.
13 Are there any other opening remarks that any of the 14 i Commissioners would like to make? '
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: No.
16 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0: If not, then I'll turn the I7 meeting over to Mr. Roger Fortuna.
IO MR. FORTUNA: Mr. Chai rman, Commissioners. Sin'ce II this past week when Mr. Hayes reported to you, no significant !
20 information from a negative perspective has developed.
21 As Mr. Hayes reported this past wesk, 01 has 15 22 investigative-type matters regarding the plant at Diablo i
! l 23 Canyon. Four of them have been closed out and another 11 are f
24 pending. Of those 11, it is 01's view -- yes, sir?
25 .
l l
L__________._________ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
r L '
3
' CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: It's different from.the chart.in l SSER-22...
! 2 i MR. FORTUNA: I think what has probably happened --
you should probably have a lower number than we have?
CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0: What I have is 16 -- 4 resolved 5
and 12 not resolved. .
6 MR. FORTUNA: Okay. I understand what the problem 7
is. Probably what has happened is I grouped two into one.and 8
they could be carried as open. Yours is an accurate number. I 9
was just taking two cases that look essentially the same and 10 making it one.
11 i
.In'any event, here is,where we stand from our 12 office's perspective. Of all the matters that we're handling, 13 it's our view that the subject matter of those cases has no 14 particular direct impact on any licensing-type decision.
15 Although they are significant and we want to resolve them, as 16 any of our cases are s+vaificant and we have to get a resolu-tion on it, there is nothing in our view that would in any way take on proportions to cause us to have a concern about, from II our view, the licensing of the plant.
20 The only case that we feel that in any way, shape, or 21 form may have an impact we have been working" on full speed with 22 two investigators and two inspectors, and that has to do with 23 the case that Mr. Hayes described to you this past week. So I 24 won't belabor too long. It's the Bostrum Bergen/MEDC0 case, 25
+
4 which is a supplier of fabricated steel hardware to the site.
The region has looked at the product that was sup-plied by Bostrum Bergen and they can. describe it in more detail, but the bottom line is that the material that has been identified as being supplied to the site is suitable for the 5
use that it's going to be put to -- its intended use.
6-CHAIRMAN PALLADI.NO: You say that that's a conclusion' 7
or a question?
8 l MR. FORTUNA: No, no. That's the bottom line-type l 9
conclusion. I don't mean to speak for them but Im trying to j 10 give you a tail end on our case so.it means sonething to you.
11
.The second half of that case is the MEDC0 case, which 12 is a subsidiary of Bostrum Bergen, and they are pipe support 13 suppliers and the region has sampled those pipe supports and, 14 again, they can give you a little more detail on it but ap-parently that, from a technical perspective, looks in pretty 16 decent shape.
I7 So I think to close it before we get into any more l 18 detail, if there is a need to, of all the matters that we'have I9 ongoing, there are none, in our view, that have an impact from 20 a licensing perspective. The one that is the closest to it is 21 the Bostrum Bergen/MEDC0 affair which we should have hopefully
, 22 l resolved, from an investigative perspective, in several more 23 weeks and, in the meantime, I think the region can give you a 24 good feel from a technical perspective as to the impact of the 1 25 .
5 y
material that was supplied to the f acility.
.. CHAIRMAN.PALLADIN0: Now, is the MEDC0 issue related to low power or full power?
MR. FORTUNA: I can't answer that from a technical perspective. In my view -- oh, I'm not qualified to and I don't think I want to eavesdrop on the rest of the. meeting, but I think the answer that will come from th'e region is a more 7
suitable answer than I can-supply. '
8 It doesn't from our view because, of course, when we 9
. opened, we asked the region which one of those things in the 10 ED0 side of the house should we take a look at first that had 11 potential.and this is the one we took a look at first and we're 12 working through that. This is an inspector-investigator 13 situation and we're confident that we'll have'it wrapped up and 14 there is no impact, but I'm certain the region can tell you, 15 from.a hardware perspective, much better than I can.
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Can we get comments?
I7 MR. DIRCKS: Well, do you want the hardware --
I CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0: Well, I don't know.
I9 MR. DIRCKS: Can you get into this hardware question?
20 We can certainly answer it. Do you want an answer now, or do 21 '
you want it later on in the open meeting?
22 MR. FORTUNA: There's no reason why --
l 23 MR. DIRCKS: It might be better in the open meeting.
24 MR. FORTUNA: From the OI perspective, I can 25 l
L___._____________ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . J
l I,* '
6
\ .
l L 1 L 1 essentially say that, other than that, we see nothing-that, in
.1 ,
{
our view, would have an impact on whatever decision you people make this afternoon.
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: In this report it says you have zero relative to low power; you have zero relative to full 5
power; you have 12 not needed for -- ,
l 6 MR. FORTUNA: You are looking at an NRR document.
7 What they've given you is a more technical call and I just 8
don't feel comfortable telling you that I, as an attorney /-
9 .
investigator, can draw that type of conclusion but I think 10 someone will do that for you shortly, sir.
11
.And others I can just draw out of common sense 12 because an 01 view, based on a couple of years operating 13 experience now, just as an example of an harassment and-14 intimidation case, when we don't see any indication, as we're 15 working it through that it is related to a widespread situa-16 tion, we feel comfortable telling you, and I'll sit here and I7 tell you this morning, that that, in and of itself, should have I
no impact but certainly we're going to wrap it up and fin'ish it D up and give an answer to you in the fullness of time, but we 20 don't see that as a --
21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Do you have ahy idea when that 22 will be complete?
23 MR. FORTUNA: Which, now? Any one of these --
24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Intimidation. There was a memo 25 .
1
-___-_._____--_.w- __ lt _ _ - _ - - . _ - _ - . _ _ . _ _ _ _ - _
- i
- 7-l 3 from Congr'essman Udall, I believe, dated February 22 and he raises questions, "What is the nature of ongoing investigations into.. allegations of intimidation and harassment? When did.the Office of Investigations initiate.its investigation.in this matter?How many investigate'rs have been assigned to.the task?
When will the investigation be complete? ,
MR. FORTUNA: Oh, Mr. Chairman, the answer, I be .
7 lieve, will be provided. I can speak to it very briefly. It
-is essentially along this line -- and, again, forgive me'for 9
. bogging down on this. '
10 l We have a memorandum of understanding with the 11 Department of Labor on these types of cases. Routinely, the 12 department takes lead, per Commission vote of'several years 13 back. The Department of Labor is handling the'se types-of 14 cases, now. They have a statutory mandate to complete field 15 work'.in approximately 30 days, once the allegation is received.
16 They make a preliminary finding. Then either party can appeal it de novo and go to a hearing process. So, essen-l 18 tially, many of these items under the DOL aegis are monitored II by our office and then we have contact with DOL and, if they 20 wrap it up at the end of the field work and there is a decision 21 made to take that finding, we'll have it in'about 30 to 45 22 1
days. If either of the parties -- either the accuse'd discrimi-
. 23 nating group or the individual who feels that he or she has 24 l , been discriminated against -- want to go another round, then 1
25 L-_-__-____------__- _. . _ -
8 N
j they could go another two to.three months through a hearing process somewhat similar to ALJ-type hearing in the NRC.
So, in an effort to give you an answer, I had to give you a little' background. It could be anywhere from 60 tn 90 days depending on what adjudicative process is utilized.
(Whereupon, Commission Gilinsky entered the room.)
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: The implication is that these l 7
don't have any direct relevance to low power?
8 MR. FORTUNA: Yes, sir. It would be much like, as is 9
going on in the Commission on any particular date; several 10 EEO-type discrimination complaints.may be filed and they are 11 processed.through the agency but it wouldn't necessarily have 12 -
an impact on the day-to-day operations of the agency. It is a l somewhat analogous situation.
14 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Roger, I gather there are 15 eight cases at Labor, is that right?
16 MR. FORTUNA: Approximately.
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: And of those, my recollec-I tion was that the Department of Labor staff had reached a' I3 preliminary conclusion that, in fact, there was intimidation or 20 harassment in two of the cases.
21 MR. FORTUNA: There was. I can't ijive you the 22 l number. It certainly wasn't all of them. I'll work with your 23 numbers but I can't guarantee that they're correct.
l 24 Yes, that's the basic preliminary finding and -- i 25 .
9
' COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Presumably, if, in fact, 2
those kinds of situations occurred in a number of instances and there was a more pervasive problem or even a perception of an intimidation or harassment problem at the site, that would be.
something of significance, wouldn't it, in terms of operation of the plant? ,
MR. FORTUNA: Yes, sir, it would. It's just the 7
function of the numbers and the locations. As a example -- and 8
I don't mean to bring another matter in, but let's try one that 9
we are sort of familiar with -- Comanche Peak -- where that 10 problem appears to be growing.
11 You take a look at your harassment and intimidation 12 and see if it cuts across many, many areas of the facility, if 13 it's focuse i in one particular area, how high .up in the orga-14 nization it is, and things of that sort, but I would have to 15 say,.in my opinion, and I do have some background in this area .
16 and I feel more comfortable in discussing it, I don't think 7
we're at that point yet. If we were, I would have brought it I
to your --
I9 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: So you would agree, 20 basically, with the position that that staff has taken which 21 is, based upon the number of people that the'p have talked to 22 either formally or informally, they don't see a widespread 23 problem. There may be some isolated instances including the 24 eight that Labor is looking at but you don't see a widespread 25
l 10
[ '.
- problem. Would you agree?
MR. FORTUNA: Not at this point, no, sir, I do not'.
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Roger, I'm not at all sure that you would have had a chance to look at this latest' submit-5 tal which, I guess, was just docketed this' morning'at 8:30 from GAP.
7 Notwithstanding their florid rhetoric and this other-8 matter of meeting or not meeting with staff, by and large 9
they've done their homework fairly well on some of these 10 things.
11
.One of the sections in this latest letter from them 12 speaks of evidence of material false statements. Have you had' 13 a chance, yet, to go through any of that? Can you make a 14 preliminary estimate of whether there is something there?
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: When did this come in?
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: This morning at 8:30. Is 37 today the 26th?
I3 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: There is a Roman numeral II !
20 section that goes on for three or four pages -- evidence of 21 ~ '
material false statements.
22 MR. FORTUNA: I've heard about it.
23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: On whose part?
24 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: GAP. A new submittal from l 25 .
i
~
11
+
GAP.
y
.. COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: No, but material false statement by whom?
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Well, I mean, you can read-the letter. There's a whole ' string of things here, Victor.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: What's the charge?
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: There are a number of alle-7 gations -- -
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: By the company? By NRC? By 9
.someone else?
10 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Well,'I could go through and 11 l summarize.for you, if you'd like, or would you like to read the 12 letter?
13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Why don't you. summarize.
14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I gather.there is more than ;
15 one.
16 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Oh, yes. Ninety-day welders
" log -- staff used this as a base for finding that 1 audit was wrong. Somehow, the NRC was hoodwinked, etcetera, etcetera.
I3 Qualification of quality control personnel -- raising 20 that issue again with some references to documentation.
21 '
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: They are t"alking about l l !
22
! material false statements by the company.
l 23 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Oh, yes, certainly.
l 24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: That's what I was asking.
25 1
l L., '12 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
- j. Sorry. Back-up data for NDE, 3
qualifications, whether inspections occurred, rewriting history through back-dated documents, Xeroxing signatures, cracked welds -- that's the kind of thing.
The answer to my question is, no, you haven't had a chance to look through it? ,
MR. FORTUNA: I. haven't had a chance to look through 7
it, no, sir. Nor has the office.
8 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0: They sounds like some o'f the 9
same things that were said before. '
10 1 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Yes, they do. !
1 11
. CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I was going to ask you what l 12 you're feelings are but, if you haven't looked at it, there's 13 no point in doing that. .
14 MR. FORTUNA: It would be'just speculation, sir, at 15 this point.
16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, let's see, where there I any charges to this point that we've been lied to?
MR. FORTUNA: If this is the one that I think it is, l 0 we picked up on it this past week and we had rumblings that it 20 might be coming in. I thought the bottom line on this was l 21 quite simply that some of the information.th'at the staff had 22 relied upon to draw some conclusions was flawed because we were 23 working off a licensee data base that wasn't accurate. I think 24 that's a big, broad stroke analysis, if this is the one that I 25 .
. 13 think it fs.
..MR. DIRCKS: As I recall, I thought something like this was submitted to the Aopeal Board, too. I think that was the case. Guy, can you --
MR. CHANDLER: There have been a number of alle-5 gations made in a submittal by the joint interveners which reference GAP's submittals that tall. about material false 7
statements. That is before the appeal board, 8
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: But are they charges just 9 '
that the data base is flawed or that --
10 MR. FORTUNA: Not true.
11
. COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:,
-- we've have been lied to?
12 .
MR. FORTUNA: I can't give you the answer, sir.. I '
13 i just don't know. I haven't had a chance to.1.ook at this, i 14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: How about the previous ones?
MR. BISHOP: Mr. Chairman, just to bring it to your 16 attention -- this is Tom Bishop, Region V. We received this I7 same package on Friday night, two minutes before closing our I
office, and we have gone through it Friday night, Saturday, and I9 yesterday.
20 So, to that degree, the staff has had the document 21 for a couple of days.
22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: The one dated March 26?
23 MR. BISHOP: Docketed March 26. It's dated March 23.
24 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0: Do you have any comments on this 25
l
. 14 W
]
that are appropriate to this. meeting? I 1
)
MR. BISHOP: We have several comments that we could 2
make on it but whether this is the appropriate meeting or the afternoon one --
4 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0: Well, I never know.
5 COMf11SSIONER BERNTHAL: On the question of material false statement it seems like it would be appropriate here.
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I just looked at the page as 8
it was handed it me and there's one item about, in effect, 9
6 1
falsification of signatures which ought to be - -
10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, I think if we are talking 11 about falsified information, I believe that would be pertinent ;
12 )
to this meeting. I would suggest we hear what the staff has to 13 say. .
i 1
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, I was just wondering whether these things have been dealt with before or not.
MR. FORTUNA: These specific items clearly have not 17 been by the Office of Investigations but perhaps it would be i IO useful, in a ten or fifteen second run-through, to describe how I9 we would evaluate something along this line which, evidently, 20 we're going '.o have to do in the next few days.
21 CHA.'RMAN PALLADIN0: But I gather the staff has had 22 this since Friday, has looked into it. Why don't we get the 23 benefit of their thinking.
l 24 MR. FORTUNA: That's where I was heading. What we do 25 i
l
15 essentia11'y is, even 'there was evidence of wrongdoing, f alsi-fication...or what-have-you, immediately go to the staff and ask, "Even if so, what is.the ultimate impact of this informa-tion if,.as alleged, is true, have on the health and' safety and the licensing. Then we can always let them look at that 5
perspective. There must be an allegation of falsif,ication of 6-something.
7 )
Go look at the piece of hardware behind the false '
8 statement or the forgery and see if it is. all right. That can j S i be done quickly and can be done fairly thoroughly' . Then we can '
10 always come in at a later date and take a look see who did it, 11 if anyone, and why was it done, for what reasons.
12 So, probably staff can help you from the hardware perspective -- is this thing good, is it bad, d-o we know yet, 14 have we had a chance to look at it -- and then we can step in short.ly'thereafter with identification of individuals and ;
16 motivations.
17 So the point I'm trying to draw is quite simply the 30 answer on the hardware would be useful to you today. Whatever I9 conclusion we draw about culpability or what-have-you you l
20 wouldn't necessarily need until a later date to help you 21 resolve your deliberations.
1 22 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0: Well, I would suggest that we 23 hear what the staff has to say. If it turns out that it is 24 information that also should be discussed in an open meeting, 25
16
+ .
we can also discuss ~it this afternoon.
~
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Clearly there are a couple of 2
things here that, as Victor points out -- the Xeroxing signa-tures -- I don't recall having been brought up before, although it certainly is possible it was, and the question of whether documents were intentionally back-dated may have come up .,
6-
{
before, I don't know.
7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Is there any objection to asking 8
the staff to comment on this? 4 9
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: No.
10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: No.
11
. COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I think we might also, 12 after this -- I don't have a problem with hearing from them 13 here. We also might want to cover it this afternoon as well, 14 since it directly affects some of the conclusions the staff 15 reached in the SSER.
16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: All right. Tom, are you pre-I7 pared to tell us what you determined over the weekend based on I
this document?
I3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I assume this part of the 20 j transcript is going to get released.
21 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0: Well, it depeYids on where it 22 goes. I was going to suggest that, if it covers information ,
23 that should be discussed in an open meeting, we discuss it 24 again this afternoon and, if it is pertinent to release this 25 .
_ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .m._.__ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . -
17 part of the transcript, then let's have it reviewed and, if necessary., released.
MR. MARTIN: What I had planned on doing, in the open session, is just saying that we've received'this, we have some impressions, we've gone through it, it's not a definitive, 5
thorough review, but we can react to each and everyone of these .
6 items. So, if you will, I'll pick out the ones that look like 7
they involve wrongdoing or lieing or that sort of thing, now, -
8 and we can deal with the others, if.you like, in the open 9
session.
10 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: That's really what I assumed 11 we might do, here.
12 MR. MARTIN: It's hard to say. These are all ad-vertised as false statements. I guess most of them we found 14 were not a question of lieing but either a matter of the 15 person's opinion or information that was missing. If we look 16 at the one about the faked signatures --
17 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0: What page is that?
IO MR. MARTIN: I'm on page 5. We wondered about'this 19 ourselves and I guess we can all participate in this a little 20 bit.
21 I'll hand out the documents in que'$ tion. We did this f 22 Saturday, on a sunny day, by using the technique of holding l
23 them up to the window and seeing which ones overlapped.
24 MR. FORTUNA: You fellows are really picking up on l
25 l
4 18 i
this. investigation.-
MR. MARTIN: We're learning from OI on this and'the 2
allegation is that these four or five welding documents were 1 3
involved in wrongdoing because all the signatures are identical and, indeed, if you hold them up to the light, they are all 5
identical. But we also noticed that all of the typing. stuff.is 6
identical, too, listed under items 1 through 10 and then 1 7
through 6. Everything in the procedure column, the " hold for 8
WK" is all the sar.e, and what we concluded was that this is a i 9
standard process sheet that is used for all pipe support work.
10 I mean, this is the ones.that the engineers put 11 together that show the processes to be used in the inspection 12 hold points and they are used for all welds on these pipe ,
13 supports.
14 Now, the thing that is different is the signatures and the check-offs in the last two columns. So I think it is 16 ,,
I7 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0: I thought you said that the I0 signatures were identical. I don't see signatures.
I9 MR. BISHOP: Signatures at the bottom of the page by 20 the engineering people identifying what inspections are to be 21 performed are identical because they want th'e same inspections 22 performed on every pipe support.
23 If you look in the right-hand columns, the inspec -
24 tor's sign-off of the completed inspections are different. So I l
25 .
I 1
l 19 i
. l l
it appeard to be correct that they Xeroxed the requirements j
)
document.many times. However, the inspection completion aspect of the document is different for each one. l 3 l MR, MARTIN: So, in other words, it would appear to be I a standard field support process sheet for all welds on these 1 5 ;
pipe supports and they all have the same requirements, the same I 6
hold points, the same check-offs, and so not only are the 7
signatures the same, but so are all the typed-in requirements 8
above. ;
9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Are you saying the signature 10 does not relate to approval of whatever operation was supposed 11 to have been done but, rather, approval of this as a form?
12 MR. MARTIN: Yes. That's what it appears. So, I guess 13 we did not -- this sort of brought me out of by chair when I i i
14 first saw it but the more we looked at it, it didn't look like
{
15 it involved anything more than a standard sheet that is filled 16 out for every weld on the pipe support.
CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0: Are you going to confirm that?
18 MR. MARTIN: Yes. We're almost sure that's what it is but I think we need to do some confirmation. So that's one 20 that, in our mind, is not quite the same flavor as presented.
21 I guess number 4 is a question of whether the man 22 actually did the inspections or not. The reasoning, here, 23 being that, if he inspected 314 welds in four days, that's 78 24 welds per day and that's too much for any one person to do.
25
l- '
l .
20 l'
1' Well,'we looked at.the support they gave for that in-2 the document that was handed to us and we can't make heads or tails out of it as to whether the one person did it or there were several persons all working at the same time. So that's another one that the paperwork seems to be in order and what 5
was presented in the package certainly doesn't substantiate the claim. So, we're going to. have to do some more digging on 7
that, too. But, on the surface of it, there is no hard evi- .
8 !
dence of any wrongdoing presented here.
9 The rest of these are really just the person's l
10 opinion and don't seem to involve questions of wrongdoing at 11 all, as best I can tell. Would you say that's fair?
12 ;
MR. BISHOP: That's correct. The only other one 13 might be the back-dated documents. .
I CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Which one is that?
MR. BISHOP: That's number 5 on page 5. In that ;
16 case, they cite two examples where Level 2 inspectors were I7 i certified on a given date and they are stating that the indi-IO vidual who made that certification back-dated the documents.
I3 It appears to be somewhat of a moot point in that the record 20 they provided us shows that both individuals, in fact, passed ]
21 their qualification exams and training requirements several 22 months prior to that, which there is no issue with. The issue 23 seems to be with the actual date that the fellow applied his 24 signature attesting to the fact that they had completed their 25 .
21 -
1 exams. '
,, CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0: Do they provide evidence of back-dating?
MR. MARTIN: No.
4 MR. BISHOP: No. They just provide the document with 5
the statement that this was back-dated. ,
6-MR. MARTIN: They'provided a document. It was a letter 7
from the man's supervisor to, I believe, his Personnel File, 8
saying this guy is a good man and he's passed all of his tests, 9
and it's dated such-and-so. Do you have a copy of that?
10 MR. BISHOP: Yes.
11
.MR. MARTIN: Somebody drew a circle around the signa-12 ture and said, "Back dated." Well, there's no evidence pre-sented that it was back-dated and,.in any event, the man's 14 qualification records that have been referred to predate all of that by several months. So here, again, that's one I think I !
16 will have to look into to some degree to see if there was any I7 part of evidence of back-dating, but there is none presented.
18 I think we could find a copy. It's good to look at I9 these. The package we got was a bit disorganized. So it took 20 an awful long time to find all these enclosures. Some of them 21 we didn't get at all.
22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Let's see if I understand where i l 23 we are. I'm not sure I do.
24 MR. MARTIN: Well, on page 3, they start with several 25
. 22 ]
examples of m'aterial f alse statements and, out of the seven that they give, we spoke to three of. those that would appear to be dealing with. false information.
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Are you going to discuss the others in the open meeting?
5 MR'. MARTIN: I had planned to because they don't look like they involve any questions of wrongdoing or anything 7
particularly sensitive.
8 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: So, numbers 5 -- the back-9 dated documents, and 6 -- Xeroxing signatures -- were the only 10 two that appeared to involve wrongdoing?
11
.MR. MARTIN: Well, 5, 6, and 4 -- 4, 5, and 6.
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Right.
MR. MARTIN: One could read into that wrongdoing that 14 no evidence was presented on any of this stuff except for 6, 15 and I showed you what the evidence was. ;
16 This is the evidence presented for number 5, the I7 back-dating, and I guess they are just asserting those letters I0 were back-dated.
I3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: What am I supposed to be 1
1 20 looking at, here?
21 MR. BISHOP: Those are the two doc'0ments which they 22 state were back-dated. They' re saying that the fellow who 23 signed those documents signed them at some date past the date l
24 that's indicated at the top right-hand corner of the letter.
l l 25 .
. 23 ,
'COPdISSIONER GILINSKY: And the reason for that is 1
l what for. thinking that? l 2 l MR. BISHOP: I assume their reason -- 1 3 I COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: It didn't say, or did it?
MR. MARTIN: Not really. I couldn't unravel that 5
exactly what the point was. ,
6 . i MR. BISHOP: If you look at the body of the informa-7 tion contained in the letter, it clearly states that the -
8 individuals passed their qualifications several months prior to 9
the date of that letter.
10 MR. FORTUNA: Maybe there's another way to take a !
11 look see at it real quickly. There's an analysis we do over in 12 our shop and that would be quite simply, in the meanwhile, while we're sorting through these types of situations of 14 whatever this Level 2 did, was it done properly and, if so, 15 that's put to bed. Then you're off and running on these other 16 issues.
17 MR. MARTIN: So I guess we really had two obser-IO vations, here. First of all, they didn't present any evidence I9 that it was, in fact, back-dated; and I guess the second l
20 question was, even if it were, other than it being a bad thing 21 to do, it doesn't appear to be very relevant" to anything '
l 22 technical because the man's qualification, which isn't in 23 dispute, is in order. So I guess that's one reason, if you 24 assume they are right, that would make you queasy about playing 25
24 ~I l
1 s.
{
with the dates on the documents. .
1 The specific issue. involved'doesn't appear to.be a nuclear safety problem. ,
There's a number of other things in here which I thought -- for example, claims that the staff refuses to meet with them, which one may consider wrongdoing, or that we have j 6'
trashed and smeared the al.legers, which may be considered l 7 .
wrongdoing -- I don't know whether you prefer discussing that 8 ,
here or in open session. I just as soon do it in open session. !
9 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I think it wo01d be better. I 10 .
CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0: Are these items 4, 5, and 6 11 discussable in open session? ,
12 MR. MARTIN: I would think so.
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I think's'o', yes. It's not 14 something that 01 is now investigating. So there is no sensi-tivity in terms of who they are talking --
CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0: Except I thought we normally I7 don't make the allegations on wrongdoing known so that we don't I0 signal --
I9 MR. FORTUNA: The rationale for that is to make sure 20 that, if there are wrongdoers out there, they don't know ahead 21 of time of what we are up to, but I would think, based on the 22 distribution of this document, the cat is out of the bag, so to l
23 speak.
24 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: That's right.
25 .
l t-
.z g j j
.t
' COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: It sounds like there is a preliminary judgment already here. In which case, we can certainly make that public. l COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: That's right.
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:' Yes, I would like to. I just 5
wanted to make sure. .
i 6
MR. MARTIN: I gue'ss, again, I would like to emphasize 7
this preliminary judgment, at least for the first three allega-8
- tions we received and we didn't know anything else about things 9
at Diablo Canyon, I think I would be more reticent, but, as I 10 pointed out a week ago, we've already spent an enormous amount I 11 of effort.there and think we have a fairly good feel for things 12 and, in that context, I guess I would see these, in the absence 13 of any good evidence, innocent until proven guilty, I guess is 14 the way I look at it.
We need to do some more work but there is nothing 16 presented here that makes me immediately conclude that there is
" a major problem.
IO CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, my major question is, I9 between 01 and the staff there was developed a chart that was 20 included in SSER-22. It says, "With regard to allegations 21 under investigation by OI" there were 16. Four resolved, 12 22 not resolved. And it says resolution required prior to low 23 power is zero, resolution required prior full power is zero, !
24 resolution does not impact low or full power, 12, and status 25 L_____-_.___-_______. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
c 26 j 1
. not determined, zero.
I Now, who made the observation and drew the conclusion 2 f that for low power the number is zero, and for full power it's zero?
4 MR. MARTIN: I think Mr. Hayes came out the week before 5
last and we spent a day on this and sifted through these items 6
and sort of discussed it. So we each had full benefit of each 7
other's ideas and I think that was an independent conclusion by 8
both sides. And they are really Hayes' to decide but we --
9 there doesn't seem to be any disagreement. .
10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: So this is agreed to both by 01 11 and the region staff?
12 '
MR. FORTUNA: Just to make the record perfectly 13 clear, and I hate to kind of clutter it with f.ootnotes, as far 14 as the safety significance, obviously we take our lead from the staff on that.
16 MR. MARTIN: I think the difference in the 16 that we 17 had in the chart and the 15 that Roger said was an example of a IO man whose subordinates claimed intimidated them and then, -
I9 later, his supervisor claimed he got intimidated by this 20 fellow. So he apparently was going both upwards and downwards 21 and we counted that as two allegations and I"think they've --
22 MR. FORTUNA: When I ran down here, I grouped it as 23 one case number, I guess.
24 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0: Any other questions.
1 25 .
1 l
l
27 i
, 'MR. DIRCKS: There is another document that you have before you. That's a note from Henry Meyers to Tom Rehm and Darrell Eisenhut. You've got copies of it. That, in the meantime, is being made a Board Notification so the parties will have copies of it.
5 This afternoon, I gather, Jack, to the extent you can 6
- 7 MR. MARTIN: Well, if anybody is interested, we can go 8
through that. I've been through it and I guess I would clas-9 sify that as among those items that don't present any --
10 i CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0: But is it material that is -
11 appropriate to a closed meeting?
12 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: No. It's an open session. ;
13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: So I don't think we ought to 14 dwell on items that are truly the province of the open meeting.
Anything more from anyone? Any questions? Any reason we 16 shouldn't adjourn?
I7 (No response.)
IO CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Thank you. We'll stand ad-I9 journed.
20 (Whereupon, the foregoing meeting was adjourned at 21 11:45 o' clock, a.m.)
22 23 24 25
I.
l 1 ,
- l. NUCLEAR REGULATORY-COMMISSION L 2 3
4 This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the 5
Commission in the matter of: Status of Pending Investiga-6-
tions on Diablo Canyon, held on Monday, March 26, 1984, at 7
1717 H Street, N. W., Washington, D. C., were held as herein 8
appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the Commission.
10 11 12 Elizabeth Ann Tipton 34 Official Reporter (typed) 15 .
Offi#ial Reporter (Sigr(ature) 37 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -
-___- _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _