Opinion ID: 150668
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Count 2 Making False Statements in SL 2735

Text: Count 2 of the indictment charged Siemaszko with knowingly and willfully mak[ing], us[ing], and caus[ing] others to make and use a false writing, that is, [SL 2735], knowing that it contained ... material statements, which were fraudulent, to the NRC in violation of §§ 1001 and 2. The allegedly false material statements related almost exclusively to the nozzle inspection table: 1. [d]uring 10RFO, 65 of 69 nozzles were viewed, whereas, as the defendants then well knew, significantly fewer than 65 nozzles were viewed; 2. [i]n 1996, during 10 RFO, the entire RPV head was inspected, whereas, as the defendants then well knew, the entire head had not been inspected ...; 3. [s]ince the [RFO10] video was void of head orientation narration, each specific nozzle view could not be correlated, whereas, as the defendants then well knew, the [RFO10] inspection video included head orientation; 4. [t]he inspections performed during the 10th, 11th, and 12th Refueling Outage... consisted of a whole head visual inspection of the RPV head in accordance with [BACCP], whereas, as the defendants then well knew, areas covered by boric acid had not been inspected, nor had other required steps in the [BACCP] been taken; and 5. [f]ollowing 12RFO, the RPV head was cleaned with demineralized water to the extent possible to provide a clean head for evaluating future inspection results, whereas, as the defendants then well knew, a substantial layer of boric acid remained, which would impede future inspections. We must uphold the conviction on this count if there was sufficient evidence for a jury to convict based on any one of these five allegations. See Dedman, 527 F.3d at 598. The nozzle inspection table was an integral element of Davis-Besse's submissions to the NRC. Not only was it included as an attachment to SLs 2735, 2741, and 2745, but it formed the basis of Davis-Besse's risk analysis. Again, Siemaszko argues that he lacked the requisite intent to commit a violation of § 1001 because his original work was edited and altered by others and that he did not view the final version of the letter that was submitted. Siemaszko also relies heavily on his allegation that he signed the green sheet after submitting his draft but before the final draft was completedwithout seeing the final version. A rational juror could find that, although it is unclear when Siemaszko signed the green sheet, he did so after reviewing a draft including the false statements. Indeed, because some of the false statements in SL 2735 originated in the first draft written by Siemaszkofor example, the statement that some of the nozzles were satisfactor[ily] inspected and did not require recordinghe signed the green sheet at a time when a rational juror could find that he knew and intended to submit false statements to the NRC. Thus our discussion of the evidence presented with respect to the allegations in count 1 of the indictment reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence to support several of the allegations of false statements made in count 2. As a result, we have already determined that the government presented sufficient evidence for a rational juror to find that Siemaszko knowingly and falsely stated or caused to be stated that RFO10 included an inspection of the entire head and that the RFO10 video did not contain head orientation narration. Furthermore, a rational juror could attribute the admittedly false statement that there was a whole head visual inspection in compliance with BACCP in 1996, 1998, and 2000 to Siemaszko. Siemaszko admits that those three inspections were not in compliance with BACCP but argues that he did not make the false statement regarding BACCP in SL 2735 because it merely was copied from SL 2731. This argument is unavailing because Siemaszko was the origin of that language in SL 2731 and, therefore, a jury could determine that he caused it to be included in SL 2735. Goyal testified that boron deposits and limited access to the RPV head prevented an inspection in compliance with BACCP in 1996. The inspections in 1998 and 2000 were less complete than that in 1996, demonstrating that the BACCP procedure could not be fully utilized in either of those inspections. Siemaszko's first draft of SL 2731 stated that the general guidance of [another procedure] was used for these inspections. After Goyal noted that the draft referenced the incorrect procedure, Siemaszko switched the procedural reference number to indicate the BACCP had been used. Furthermore, even if Siemaszko had not himself made this alteration, he was asked to review later drafts of the letter that included the in accordance with language. A rational juror, therefore, could infer that he approved that language while knowing that the boric acid deposits prevented inspection in compliance with BACCP in 1996, 1998, and 2000. Siemaszko also argues that the whole head visual inspection language was not his. However, a draft co-authored by Siemaszko that was submitted to aid others in drafting the text of SL 2735 made the assertion that the whole head had been visualized during the three inspections because it stated that all of the nozzles not visible during the 2000 inspection were fully inspected during 1996. The nozzle inspection table also asserted that the entire RPV head was inspected in 1996. Therefore, a rational juror could conclude that Siemaszko made or caused to be made this false statement in violation of §§ 1001 and 2, and we may affirm on this ground without addressing the remaining allegations in count 2 of the indictment.