Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 14:27:20 EST
Subject: Shirani's Response to NRC regarding Allegation 10 (Falsification of QA Record)

Dear Mr. Heller, NRC Region III, Sr. Allegation Coordinator:

I believe that this is my 3rd Response/Rebut that I have provided you so far.
1. Allegation No. 1 (Discrimination Case)
2. Allegation No. 7 (My Zion Part 21 issue and Exelon's switching it with another Part 21 issue and exclusion of my objective evidence in the audit report)
3. Falsification of QA Record by Exelon (This mail), Allegation No. 10.

Regarding all other technical allegations, I will be forwarding them to you one by one when I finish typing my responses to your hush hush and inadequate investigation just like the above three allegations. At Least I have to give you a credit that you kept the normal trending and consistency for being in noncompliance with the codes of federal regulations mandated by the past NRC when it existed.

Here is my attachment for my rebut to your response regarding my Allegation No. 10.

Oscar Shirani


Nuclear Safety Alert

As a concerned citizen of this country and a nuclear power plant worker, I have the following ALLEGATIONS against Exelon/ComEd, the operators of the largest nuclear plants in the United States, partly located in State of Illinois regarding the safety of our public:

Shirani’s Allegation No. 10

  1. In April 2003, I called Jim Heller, NRC Region III, Sr. Allegation Coordinator for my case and discussed my concern by phone as follows:

I stated that Exelon’s Russell A. Bastyr, SES Manager had falsified the results of my issued August 4, 2000 NUPIC/DSQG Audit of US Tool & Die/Holtec. I indicated that this falsification of Quality Assurance Record is shown in the Exelon Exhibit No. RX-46 in the DOL Hearing, December 2002. I indicated that this was the first time that I had seen the falsification of my US Tool & Die/Holtec Audit Report a couple weeks prior to my DOL hearing. The Exelon’s Exhibit No. 46, Page 4, dated August 4, 2000 (the same date that the audit report had been issued) reflected a condition report that indicated "all findings were resolved during the audit not to have any impact on the Dresden Station Dry Cask Storage loading".

NRC’s Response





LISLE, ILLINOIS 60532-4351

July 25, 2003

Oscar Shirani

21 W. 704 Buckingham

Glen Ellyn, IL 60137


Dear Mr. Shirani:

This letter refers to our April 21, 2003, letter which informed you that we were evaluating your concern that a supervisor added a statement to a Dresden Nuclear Power Plant condition report that was incorrect and after the specified date. The enclosure to this letter describes the results of our evaluation and inspection into your concern. Basically, we did not substantiate the concern because we were unable to determine whether the record was changed after the initial record was made.

If you disagree with our conclusions or wish to provide additional information, please contact the Region III Office Allegation Coordinators. The Region III Office Allegation Coordinators are

Jim Heller and Andrea Kock. They can be contacted by writing to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region III, at 801 Warrenville Road, Suite 255, Lisle, Illinois 60532-4351, or by calling the NRC Region III switchboard toll free at (800) 522-3025 or the NRC Safety Hotline at (800) 695-7403. Mr. Heller=s E-mail address is and Mrs. Kock=s E-mail address is If you E-mail them, please send the information to both E-mail addresses and their common E-mail address which is

Thank you for informing us of your concern. We take our safety responsibilities to the public very seriously and appreciate your willingness to bring these issues to our attention. Based on the results of our review, we consider the concern and this allegation closed.





Marc L. Dapas, Acting Director

Division of Nuclear Materials Safety

Enclosure: Closure Information

cc w/enclosure: AMS File No. RIII-03-A-0054



DOCUMENT NAME: G:\EICS\AMS-LTRS\0300054.dres\03-a-054.cls

To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment/enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment/enclosure "N" = No copy


















07/ /03


Concern 1:

You were concerned that a condition report provided by the licensee to the Department of Labor Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) has a false statement in it. You stated that the report was labeled as Exhibit #46 and that the last sentence on page 4 was added after the stated date of August 4, 2000. You speculated that the statement was added for the ALJ to see that your supervisor closed your audit findings before you talked to the NRC, thus making your statement that you discussed safety significant issues with the NRC meaningless because there were none to discuss.

NRC Evaluation and Conclusion for Concern 1:

An NRC inspector reviewed the licensee’s procedure for controlling condition reports at the time the condition report in question was written. You were concerned that a statement in the supervisor review section of the condition report was added to the record to contradict your claim and statements at a Department of Labor hearing. The following statement is what you claimed was added to the record:

The subject findings were thoroughly evaluated, and all the issues were resolved satisfactorily during the audit by the team not to have any impact on the Dresden Station Unit 1 Dry Storage cask loading.

During the inspection the inspector noted that procedure, AD-AA-106, Revision 2, A Corrective Action Program (CAP) Process Procedure has no requirements for dating or re-dating insertions into the supervisor review section of the condition report computer database. Since the licensee used a computer database for all condition reports, there was no original copy of the condition report to review to determine if any changes were made to the supervisory section of the condition report. The only record available for review was the one stored in the computer database; consequently, there was no way to substantiate if the record was falsified.

The ALJ hearing was a proper venue for you to explore your concern that a statement was added for the ALJ to see that your supervisor closed your audit findings before you talked to the NRC.

Based on the results of our inspection, we were unable to determine whether the record was changed after the initial record was made. In addition, we did not identify any increase in risk significance regarding the condition report if a supervisory review comment were updated after the original supervisory review. We plan no further evaluations and consider this matter closed since we did not identify any violations of regulatory requirements or unresolved safety issues.


My Comments to the NRC’s Response

Before I start to respond to the above shameful response from our nuclear safety guardians, NRC, I would like to elaborate about the regulations and then cut and paste the applicable regulations mandated by NRC in the 10CFR50 Appendix B "Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants".

I use the Italic format to show the exact words from the Code of Federal Regulation 10CFR50 Appendix B. Quality assurance Criteria is applied to the design, fabrication, construction, and testing of the structures, systems, and components of the nuclear power plants.

In addition, 10CFR71 Subpart "H" and 10CFR72 Subpart "G" are the Quality Assurance Criteria for the Spent Nuclear Fuel Transportation and Storage respectively (applicable to the nuclear spent fuel Dry Cask Storage used at Dresden nuclear station Unit 1, decommissioning plant to house the dry cask storage containers designed and built by Holtec/US Tool & Die).

The requirements of the 10CFR71 Subpart "H" and 10CFR72 Subpart "G" are very identical and almost mirror image of 10CFR50 Appendix B. Even though, spent nuclear fuel dry cask storage is not safety related, but it is important to safety. In addition, the quality assurance criteria used at Holtec and US Tool & Die are used the same for safety related and important to safety related applications. Some parts of the dry cask storage are built as a safety related items and follow 10CFR50 App. B Criteria and pressure vessel per ASME Codes Sec. III (design), IX (Welding), and XI (In-service inspection, ISI and In-service Testing, IST).

In a layman’s term, I call the 10CFR50 Appendix B as "Code". The Code is written by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and has 18 Criteria. The Code is written very brief and vague. In the past, the Code has been wrongfully interpreted by some end users and now by NRC.

American Nuclear Standard Institute (ANSI) and American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), have developed more clear standards for implementation of the Code. ANSI N45.2 and daughter standards and ASME NQA-1/NQA-2 have described the Code requirements and implementation of all 18 Criteria in more details for the end users. NRC has approved those standards and agreed that the standards are more detailed to mitigate any wrong interpretation and implementation of the Code. NRC has issued Regulatory Guides (Reg. Guides) and endorsed the stated ANSI and ASME Codes for Quality Assurance Program Requirements of Nuclear Power Plants.

10CFR50 Appendix B, Criterion V. "Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings"

"Activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures, or drawings, of a type appropriate to the circumstances and shall be accomplished in accordance with these instructions, procedures, or drawings. Instructions, procedures, or drawings shall include appropriate quantitative or qualitative acceptance criteria for determining that important activities have been satisfactorily accomplished".


10CFR50 Appendix B, Criterion VI. "Document Control"

"Measures shall be established to control the issuance of documents, such as instructions, procedures, and drawings, including changes thereto, which prescribe all activities affecting quality. These measures shall assure that documents, including changes, are reviewed for adequacy and approved for release by authorized personnel and are distributed to and used at the location where the prescribed activity is performed. Changes to documents shall be reviewed and approved by the same organizations that performed the original review and approval unless the applicant designates another responsible organization".

10CFR50 Appendix B, Criterion XVII "Quality Assurance Records"

"Sufficient records shall be maintained to furnish evidence of activities affecting quality. The records shall include at least the following: Operating logs and the results of reviews, inspections, tests, audits, monitoring of work performance, and materials analyses. The records shall also include closely-related data such as qualifications of personnel, procedures, and equipment. Inspection and test records shall, as a minimum, identify the inspector or data recorder, the type of observation, the results, the acceptability, and the action taken in connection with any deficiencies noted. Records shall be identifiable and retrievable. Consistent with applicable regulatory requirements, the applicant shall establish requirements concerning record retention, such as duration, location, and assigned responsibility".

The above Code of Federal regulations are clear and succinct enough and does not require the Shirani’s interpretation to prove that NRC does not understand the codes and certainly does not implement them.

If the Exelon’s Russell A. Bastyr, the nuclear supplier audit manager who was not in the audit is free enough to falsify the Quality Assurance Records (Non-Conforming Condition Report, Exhibit RX-46) and NRC does not find his action in willful violations of 10CFR50 App. B, Criteria V, VI, and XVII, then we are very vulnerable to any nuclear disasters. When our NRC does not find the Exelon’s action wrongful for falsifying the nuclear safety documentation records, then why do we need NRC as a misleading agents of public safety guardians.

Mr. Jim Heller told me in October 2003 that Bastyr was a Supervisor and used his discretion/opinion by making that statement in RX-46. So anything is acceptable for NRC and justifiable. I would like to ask NRC the following questions:

Computer data basis should have a control for the changes made and subsequent revisions as mandated by 10CFR50 App. B Criterion III "Design Control" and ASME NQA-2, Part 2.7 "Control of Computer Software".

My DOL hearing Exhibit RX-38 "The audit Report of US Tool & Die, dated August 4, 2000" has conspicuously documented the 9 findings as OPEN Findings. My DOL Hearing Exhibit RX-46, Page 4, dated August 4, 2000 (the same date as the audit report) indicated that all findings were satisfactorily resolved by the audit team during the audit and found to have no impact on the Dresden Dry Cask Loading.

RX-46 was a Quality Assurance Record (non-conforming condition report) and was falsified and NRC does not have any problems with it.

I would like to remind NRC that I would not allow you anymore to protect your partners of crime who willfully violate anything not to delay the loading of its casks in 2000 or delaying or possibility shutting down its boiling water reactors as a result of my GE audit in 1997 by lifting the stop work order and you justified it too. When I get to my GE audit issues and your resolution of that issue, then you need to answer our public just like this issue of falsified records.

It appears that Exelon is writing the NRC’s codes by having the procedures that are clearly and vividly in violation of the above codes.

Posted online November 11th, 2003 by Russell Hoffman