1987.

This letter responds to your letter of September 21,

With respect to your first question, three significant facts contributed to my determination that the OI report did not merit placement in the PDR. First, the incident in question Occurred more than eighteen months before vote on release of the report was placed before the Commission. Second, the Department of Justice had independently examined the facts and circumstances surrounding the case and had determined that the allegations contained in the report did not support prosecution. perhaps most importantly, the Commission staff itself had Third, and recommended against any enforcement action. As Commissioner Carr's vote sheet indicated, "the case against the licensee [was] even in the eyes of our staff. Accordingly, I saw no purpose to be served by filing a report of a dated incident that neither DOJ nor the NRC staff believed could support further action.

at best weak.

With respect to your second question, the memorandum of Mr. Courtney is generally consistent with my recollection of the substance of my conversation with Mr. Martin, as testified to before your Committee. however, are his own and I decline to adopt them. Mr. Courtney's language and presentation,

Sincerely,

Hill. Rolants

Thomas M. Roberts

CC:

Rep. Denny Smith

Enclosed are copies of documentation which I have recently
received from Mr. Ron Ridenhour, a free-lance reporter for
Gambit Publications in New Orleans, concerning allegations
of deficient QA practices at Waterford. Mr. James Taylor,
from your office, has been following this issue since
April 19, 1983, and has requested this information in order
to more carefully focus. his review and investigation into
their substance. Since I had been the initial contact
between Mr. Ridenhour and the NRC, I agreed to obtain this
information for Mr. Taylor. However, at this point in time,
I think it would be appropriate if your office took the
lead, as was agreed in the April 19th meeting, and work with
Mr. Ridenhour directly. I have discussed this with
Mr. Ridenhour during our last few phone calls and have
provided him with Mr. Taylor's phone number.

I would like to bring to your attention two specific items.
First, Mr. Ridenhour is very concerned over new cracks in
the containment baserat which were discovered on
May 11, 1983, by the licensee and may have been withheld
from NRC review. Secondly, Mr. Ridenhour has expressed
concerns on several occasions, over the degree of
objectivity of regional inspectors, who reviewed initial QA
and basemat cracking issues. He appears to feel there is
some evidence to suggest collusion with the licensee.
view of this, I would strongly suggest that appropriate
measures be taken to assure an objective review to his
allegations.

In

If there is anything further I can do, please let me know.

Enclosures:

As stated

CC: D. Garner

J. Milhoan

S. Chesnut

J. Austin

EDO
SECY

Mr. GEJDENSON. Did you have somebody else in your office do that?

Mr. ROBERTS. No.

Mr. GEJDENSON. You were not the source to whom George White was referring when he noted the need to protect his source within the NRC?

Mr. ROBERTS. I wasn't the source.

Mr. GEJDENSON. You were not the source?

Mr. ROBERTS. No.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Do you think the leaking of information to a licensee, before that information is made public, warrants an investigation rather than a squelching of that information?

Mr. ROBERTS. I think any leak is a serious matter. I am not going to debate that at all. A leak is a serious matter.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Did you ever ask the recipient of the leak, George White, who sent him the memorandum?

Mr. ROBERTS. No.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Shouldn't that have been a basic part of the investigation?

Mr. ROBERTS. As I recall, I am not sure I knew George White in 1983.

Mr. GEJDENSON. But you knew at that point that when the issue was arisen and it was time to investigate it, you knew of George White involvement in this issue.

Mr. ROBERTS. That is correct.

Mr. GEJDENSON. And you didn't think it important to ask the individual involved where he got the information?

Mr. ROBERTS. Let me try to put my perspective on this, whether you agree with it or not. The leaked memorandum did not contain classified material, nor had it been marked for limited distribution. The memorandum basically noted that various New Orleans news publications had charged that the Waterford facility was plagued by quality assurance and base mat cracking problems and hence did not raise matters that the management would not have otherwise been apprised of.

My office determined that the document had been released pursuant to a FOIA request some time earlier.

Fourth, the matter was almost 2 years old. Given the resources of the Agency, in my view it would have been fruitless to pursue the matter further, and I would like to point out, I didn't make any secret about my conclusions or intentions. I informed the Chairman and my fellow Commissioners that I had inquired of my staff, and that I was satisfied that none of them had been responsible. And I believe I believe-I told each of them that I intended to take no further action.

That is my best recollection.

Mr. GEJDENSON. With hindsight, would you agree that it would have been more effective for an independent investigator to have questioned each of your staff, rather than simply collectively questioning them?

Mr. ROBERTS. Even today, I am not so sure it would have been an effective use of my resources to have it investigated further. I certainly would say, had I realized what was going to subsequently occur, in the light of hindsight I should have done something differ

ently, but at that time and as the events unfolded, I did not see any need to pursue the matter any further. I knew I had not leaked it. I had confidence and trust in my staff. They convinced me that they had not leaked it. I saw nothing to be gained by pursuing it further.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Didn't your belief that the leak was no big deal represent a change of heart on your part?

Mr. ROBERTS. I am not sure I entirely understand. A change of heart from what?

Mr. GEJDENSON. That was your original response. If you take a look at similar issues, just a year earlier, in August 1984 at a Commission meeting, there were discussions of the NRC using information obtained from former utility employees.

Do you remember what you said?

Mr. ROBERTS. No.

[EDITOR'S NOTE.-Minutes from the August 1, 1984 closed meeting follow:]

Washington, D.C.

August 1. 1484

ine Commission met 15 Closed session, pursuant co

beginning at 9:0v a.m., the Honorable Nunzio

J. Palleding, Chairman of the Commission, presiding.