IA-87-467, Submits Daily Highlight.On 870601,GAP Submitted Motion & Petition Requesting Commission to Quash NRC Subpoena to Bp Garde & Opportunity for Oral Argument.Establishment of Review Team to Investigate Plant Allegations Requested
| ML20245B326 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 06/02/1987 |
| From: | Kadambi N Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Miraglia F, Murley T, Sniezek J NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20237J595 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-87-467 2.206, NUDOCS 8706080023 | |
| Download: ML20245B326 (2) | |
Text
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
\
e .. .3 D ' O t r ) (E' ?.
LM fcud2su.i oe e
/ bo ,
UNITED STATES NUCLEAP REGULATORY COMMISSION f b f 3 4 g
" * " * ~""
! 5,
...... 3 June 2, 1987
.t Docket Hos. 50-498 '
and 50-499 MEMORANDUM FOR: T. Murley:*
8 J. Partlow J. Sniezek F. Congel F. Miraglia* W. Russell R. Starostecki* 5. Black"
- S. Varga* B. Boger D. Crutchfield* G. Lainas L. Shao F. Schroeder C. Rossi G. Holahan S. Richardson A. Thadani W. Lanning THRU: Jose A. Calvo, Director Project Directorate - IV g
Div'sionofReactorProfects - III, IV, V and Special Projects FROM: N.PrasadKadambi,ProjectManager Pro'iect Directorate - IV DivlsionofReactorProjects-III, IV. V and Special Projects. ,,
. w. , .-.SUBJECR,.
d.[0AIIY IH. kikkR[jdhM,fjEC
, , .. . . . ,mr . . . . . . .
]
The Government Accountability Project (GAP) has submitted en June 1,1987 a notion and a petition related to the South Texas Project. The motion is related to the subpoena issued by the NRC staff to Ms. Billie P. Garde, and requests the Commission to quash the subpoena. The motion also requests the opportunity for an oral argument.
The petition purports to be pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 and requests establishment of "an independent investigative unit or special projects review team to deal with the allegations concerning the STMP." However, the petition requests that the effort should not be in any way " reviewed or in control of Mr. Stallo or his staff." ,
.w 4
, T.N.'.- .J
@+. .
4 fyf.p/+pgy :.. m
. n ,Xvn, n3. g~p9p.fc:t.$.
.y, :. .. .p.
- . . . . c, . .
9 8, q.q .. .
agg. , n,s}.nau .
ypp .
. - . . . , . . - ~
i
y ..-
~2" June 2, 1987 The above submittals bring to three the motions submitted in recent days on South Texas. Mr. Lanny Sinkin had submitted a notion to reopen the hearing record on May 29,1968 (Daily Highlight on June 1,1987). The staff attorneys are prepared to respond to Mr. Sinkin's motion by June 18. 1987 as required by the regulations. We are requesting guidarce on reVonse times from OGC on the GAP submittals.
db '
N.PrasadKadambi,ProjectManager Project Directorate - IV Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, V and Special Projects cc: W.C. Parler (OGC)
J.R. Goldberg (OGC) l l
l
- s. 4e , ,
" . A a +- 's g ; w e,a.. ww w 3g ,e . 3,,, g,gg,,, ,
?.
' ..?
- 7
- ' ** ~M41 c .* < , ; . e , .; . ,,,,,
I e.
l g
- * , thttt5 tea $
5 Eye Rtute of Ttxus GONZALO BARRIENTOS r.o. sox 12co8 AUSTIN, TEXAS 73711 (512) 443-0114
, STATE SENATOR DISTRICT 14 HAYS & TRAVIS COUNTIES June 10, 1987 Mr. Lando W. Zech, Jr., Chairman.
Nuclear Regulatory Ca mission Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Mr. Zech:
It is my understardir.g that two trotions concerning the South Texas Raclear Project (STNP) have recently been filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Cm mission. The first, a petition prepared by the Government Accountability Project (GAP), requests the establishment of an independent, special review team to investigate allegations received by GAP from workers at the South Texas Nuclear Project site. '1he second, filed by Intervenor Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power, Inc., is a notion to reopen the record of the STNP licensing hearings to determine if there is reason to change the conclusions. arrived at by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in the STNP gMings.
As a state senator whose district includes Austin, Texas, and as an individual concerned with the health and public safety of people throughout this State and Region, I urge you to act favorably, and expeditiously, on both rcotions.-
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Thank you very nuch. )
Sincerely, Gonzalo Barrientos State Senator GB/lg cc: Commissioner Thcmas M. Roberts commissioner James K. Asselstine Camissioner Frederick M. Bernthal' Commissioner Kenneth M. Carr Senator Lloyd Bentsen Senator John Glenn Congressman J.J. " Jake" Pickle
- &v Fo( N %1
- t re
%W, , 3p. c. L
e n
- g : L.1 %
+
'NzwxAN & Horrzmoen, P.C. O 2~ O sACMR NEWMAN 46fS L $TREET,N.W. wiLuAM g. 3AgR, sR sOMM E. MOLTIINGER, WM DOUGLAS L SChCSFORD F "E'8 WAStilt;GTON. D.C. 2 O03 6 AgE,^70" ,
J A 90UmmiGMT. JR MERG w FALLON ggCRGE L EDGAR lAN R GISM RATMLEtN N SMCA .Jtd C. GRA NT 1 DoutLASQ.GRttN ANDRCw N GREENt* .
MAROL Lyes D:(WMAN PAMELA A LACCT JOMN7 STOVOM.WR FRANM R LjNOM JAmets a vASILF REV*i J LIPSON MsCMAEL A SAUSER MATMLELN84 MCDCRMOTT ALVIN M GuTTERMAN sEFFRCT 5 MUM 4ALL' CDwARD J. TwCMEY ERROL M RATTERSON sAMES S wiLCCE, sm sANEI. Avan AtVIN R GALLEN RAUL J. SAVIOGE#
THOMAS A SCMMUTZ CONALD J. SILVERMAN l i
eslCMAEL F. ME ALY JACOLYN A. SIMMONS J l
ROBERT 4 WMITE ROSCRT M. SOLOMON l SCOTT A MARMAN l STEVEN P FRANT!
JOSEPMC.STut.eS NANCY A WMf7[
ROSIN T, wlGGINS*
david 5 RASMIN l ROitRT LOWENSTEIN 9807 AomTTED ess O C.
l MEKtRTS COMM I i
CIntst C. sArNARD, m ]
1 or couMm ;
1 1
June 11, 1987 l
Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary I office of the Secretary of the !
Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: Houston Lighting & Power Co., et al.
South Texas Project, Units 1 & 2 i Docket Nos. 50-498 OL, 50-499 OL i
Dear Mr. Chilk:
Houston Lighting & Power Company (HL&P) is in receipt of two documents filed by the Government Accountability Project (GAP) on May 29, 1987: first, a motion to quash a subpoena issued by the Commission's Executiv~e Director for Operations (EDO) to Ms. Billie Garde to appear and present information which l Ms. Garde claims to have regarding the safety of the South Texas Project (STP); and second, a petition pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.206 regarding the STP, i
HL&P urges the Commission to deny both the motion and the 2.206 Petition and to continue investigation of the allega- l
' tions purported to be~in the possession of Ms. Garde. The Commicsion's obligations to protect the public health and safety
! require it to explore fully any allegations that there may be l safety signif! cant deficiencies in a nuclear power plant.<
1 l HL&P, has itself, actively sought to obtain GAP's cooperation in assuring that the allegations are investigated.
When the first presc accounts of the allegations appeared, HL&P n'
~
?3 , !
er a p' w c_ ,,
f * *
(Cf'/'
Newbx & HoLTz1Noen, P. C.
Samuel J. Chilk June 11, 1987 Page 2 contacted Ms. Garde and asked for her cooperation. See, Attachment #9a to GAP Motion to Quash. Ms. Garde identified a series of conditions and objections, and HL&P offered to modify its investigation procedures to accommodate her demands. Despite repeated efforts by HL&P, Ms. Garde persisted in refusing to l provide the Company with even one of her purported hundreds of l
silegations. 1/ Consequently, HL&P concluded that GAP had no intention of identifying any allegations to HL&P or its independ-ent employee concerns program, the STP SAFETEAM, and urged GAP to provide the allegations directly to NRC. See Attachment to this letter.
GAP has also rejected voluntary cooperation with the l NRC, arguing that the EDO and Region IV are not trustworthy (all l are characterized as " proven and unrepentant miscreants").
( Motion at 3. Nevertheless, Ms. Garde has the duty to provide I such information to the NRC (see Statement of Policy: Handling of Late Allegations, 50 Fed. Reg. 11,030, 11,031 (March 19, 1985)), and the NRC has the duty and authority to investigate the allegations and determine whether they raise valid concerns about the safety of STP. 2/ Such an investigation should be conducted utilizing all necessary investigative tools available to the 1/ Although Ms. Garde based her refusal on her distrust of HL&P's SAFETEAM program, HL&P has been commended by the NRC for that program [see SALP Board Report 50-498/86-19 and 50-499/86-18 for period July 1, 1985 through December 31, 1986 at pages 23-24] and a thorough NRC inspection of the STP SAFETEAM program found that the program is being properly implemented and, in particular, that confidentiality of the it.dividuals was appropriately protected. NRC Inspection Report 50-498/85-18, 50-499/85-16, January 2, 1986.
2/ GAP states that "the information provided to GAP is known by STNP management or has been raised through proper channels"
[ Attachment #1 to GAP Motion to Ouash at paragraph 7) and that in each instance the GAP " client" had " raised a l discrete concern or concerns to his management . . . super-vision . . . SAFETEAM or the NRC . . . " [ GARDE Affidavit, 4 4.a]. These statements and GAP's further statement that "no licensing issues are being raised in this petition nor are we requesting the Commission to delay licensing at this time" [Section 2.206 Petition at 19], indicate that the allegations are unlikely to identify significant deficiencies that have not been resolved. Nevertheless, the l NRC has a duty to conduct an orderly investigation of them.
l l
_ _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ .._______m___
Nembw & $1ot.Tatwoes. P C.
Samuel J. Chilk June 11, 1987 Page 3 Commission, including compulsory testimony and document produc-tion. The Commission should proceed with this investigation in the manner it deems most appropriate.
fotion to Ouash Aside from its condemnation of Commission officials who might investigate its allegations, GAP identifies two basic legal grounds for quashing the subpoena. Neither is of any substance.
- 1. The EDO Lacks Authority To Issue The Subpoena The Commission's authority to issue the subpoena is clear under Section ICl(c) of the Atomic Energy Act. The EDO has broad statutory authority to act on the Commission's behalf pursuant to Section 209(a) of the Energy Reorganization Act and the Commission's regulations (10 CFR S 1.40).
- 2. The Information Sought By The Subpoena Is Privileged GAP claims that the information sought by NRC is shielded from discovery because it is confidential attorney / client communication or con.stitutes attorney work product. Neither claim provides a basis for quashing the subpoena unless it is proven that all relevant information in the possession of the witness is protected from discovery. In Re Arthur Treacher's Franchisee Litigation, 92 F.R.D. 429, 437-40 (E.D. Pa. 1981). It appears from the face of GAP's pleadings that Ms. Garde possesses information which is neither privileged nor protected from discovery. Further, GAP's all encompassing claim of work product protection is insupportable.
Ms. Garde argues that the attorney / client privilege serves as a complete bar to the enforcement of the subpoena, but her Motion to Quash and accompanying affidavit show that much of the information in her possession is not protected by the privi-lege. First, it appears that a number of the individuals who provided information to Ms. Garde are not represented by her at all and, therefore, have no claim to any attorney / client privi-lege. Ms. Garde's January 20, 1987 letter to Messrs. Stello and Mattox states that "GhP currently either represents or is working with approximately 36 current and/or former employees of the South Texas Project." (Emphasis added.) Whatever is meant by
" working with," it obviously falls far short of any possible
I Nzwhy Hon.Tz1xoza, P. C.
Samuel J. Chilk 1
)
June 11, 1987 j
Page 4 !
I l
1 I
attorney / client relationship. Accordingly, at least some l individuals have apparently provided information to her outside l the attorney / client context. I Second, where Ms. Garde has been " retained to represent employees in litigation against their employers and/or to provide :
advice regarding disputes and potential disputes with their l employers" (Garde Affidavit, 1 3), communications between these clients and Mo. Garde may, under certain conditions, be protected by the sttorney/ client privilege. The privilege, howeve:, does ,
not extend to communications made by those employees who l contacted Ms. Garde for the primary purpose of investigating and reporting " safety concerrs that they wanted pursued by the NRC."
Id. at 1 2. The retention of Ms. Garde to investigate and report to the NRC safety concerne which the employee, for whatever reasons, chooses not to report himself does not constitute legal services. The service provided by Ms. Garde in this vein is not any dif ferent than that performed by a lay investigator or detec- ,
tive whose employer requests that his identity remain anonymous. !
Non-legal services such as these are not protected by the l attorney / client privilege. See Underwater Storage, Inc. v.
United States Rubber Co., 314 F. Supp. 546, 548 (D.D.C. 1970).
Ms. Garde also argues that she is prohibited from '
disclosing the identity of her clients by her obligations under the attorney / client privilege. Even assuming, arguendo, that the attorney / client privilege is applicable to her communications with these persons, Ms. Garde's contention is without merit and is contrary to the law. The courts widely and uniformly hold, as a general principle, that the attorney / client privilege does not protect the identity of the attorney's client. 3/ In re Grand 3/ The rationale for the general rule is a simple one:
The existence of the relation of attorney and client is not a privileged communication. The privilege pertains to the subject matter, and not to the fact of the employment as attorney, and since it presupposes the relationship of attorney and client, it does not attach to the creation of that relationship. So, ordinar-ily, the identity of the attorney's client, or the name of the real party in interest, and the terms of the employment will not be considered as privileged matter.
N.L.R.B. v. Harvey, infra, 349 F.2d at 904 (quoting Behrens v.
Hironimus, 170 F.2d 627 (4th Cir. 1948)).
I Newinn & Hor.Tzzwozw. R C.
Samuel J. Chilk June 11, 1987 Page 5 Jury Investigation, 631 F.2d 17, 19 (3d Cir. 1980), cert. denied, sub nom. Tinari v. United States, 449 U.S. 1083 (1981);
N.L.R.B. v. Harvey, 349 F.2d 900, 904-905 (4th Cir. 1965).
Finally, GAP claims a broad " work product" privilege i for records or documents in Ms. Garde's-possession pertaining to the safety of STP. She contends that all of these records and documents are protected from disclosure by the work product rule. 1 Contrary to Ms. Garde's assertion, however, the work product rule !
does not confer upon the subpoenaed records an absolute !
protection against discovery.
First, the rule applies only to materials prepared in
" anticipation of litigation." Allegations provided to Ms. Garde for purposes of securing an NRC investigation of individuals' . !
concerns, rather than in connection with a potential Department of Labor proceeding, for example, are not provided in anticipa-tion of litigation and therefore are not protected work product.
See, e.g., Coastal States Gas Corp. v. Department of Energy, 617 F.2d 854, 864 (D.C.Cir. 1980).
Secondly, even if some of the information in.Ms.
Garde's possession is work product, it may nevertheless be discovered for " good cause" shown. Given the strong public interest involved in a thorough, orderly investigation of potentially significant safety matters, there is good cause for requiring disclosure. As stated by Ms. Garde's attorney (Mr.
Roisman) in a recent pleading on behalf of another client in the Comanche Peak proceeding:
The logical extension of [ Applicant's claim of work product protection) is that so long as a document is prepared with an eye to possible I use in any litigation it and the materials and methodology used in preparing it can be with-held from disclocure to the NRC even though it contains information that in vital to the NRC in carrying out its health and safety func-tions. Needs far less significant to the public than protection of life and health have been found to be sufficient to compel produc-tion of documents prepared by attorneys or at their direction and under their control and even where the attorney-client privilege is involved.
Consolidated Interveners' Reply,to TUEC's Opposition to Motion to 1 Compel Re: Gregory Discovery (Sets 5 and 6) dated April 20, 1987 (citations omitted).
- - - _ - - _ _ - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - _ _ - - --__-------_--__------_-__-----__--Ammr._ - - - - _ - - - a - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - ---___z.-
Neww & Hotrzmoza. P. C, I l
i Samuel J. Chilk 1 June 11, 1987 i Page 6 Finally, to the limited extant that the work product I rule applies at all, it would be limited to documents (or portions thereof) which record the lawyer's thought processes and mental impressions, and would not affect the ability of Ms. Garde to provide testimony in response to the subpoena.
i Individual determinations regarding whether the attor- 1 ney/ client privilege or the attorney work product rule apply to j the information sought by the subpoena can best be made when Ms. j Garde testifies in response to the subpoena. > j The Section 2.206 Petition The Motion to Quash was accompanied by another document addressed to the Commission, this one styled as a petition pursuant to 10 CPR S 2.206 (GAP Petition). The GAP Petition )
reiterates the basic arguments of the Motion to Quash (i.e., that 1 GAP has received certain " safety allegations" related to STP and that Region IV and Mr. Stello cannot be entrusted with their investigation), and requests that the Commission order a special investigation of the STP and direct that the investigation team not include members from Region IV and not be under the supervision of Mr. Stello or his staf f. 1
. i Section 2.206(a) permits any person to file a request 'I for specified NRC Office Directors "to institute a proceeding pursuant to S 2.202 to modify, suspend or revoke a license, or for such other action as may be proper." The Petition must specify, among other things, the facts that constitute the basis for the request." ;
The GAP Petition asserts that GAP has received a number of " safety allegations", but fails to specify any supporting-facts. GAP Petition at 1. GAP cannot invoke the Section 2.206 process and at the same time refuse to provide any of the alleged facts which form the basis for the requested action. -See, e.g.,
Duke Power Co. (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and TT, 00-79-6, 9 NRC 661 (1979). A Section 2.202 proceeding might be
. appropriate only after completion of such an investigation, not before any facts are known or asserted.
This inadequate attempt to invoke Section 2.206 should not distract the NRC from the basic issue of how to proceed in the face of GAP's refusal to disclose the " serious safety allega-tions" allegedly in its possession. GAP Petition at 1.
L NzwwAx & HoLizmoza, R C.
Samuel J. Chilk June 11, 1987 t
Page 7 By its Motion to Quash and its Section 2.206 Petition, GAP is seeking to dictate to the Commission how it manages NRC resources. It implicitly refuses to provide its allegations to the NRC unless and until NRC agrees to GAP's terms regarding-the i manner in which NRC employees should be assigned to investigate l them. The Commission need not accede to such pressure. It has the authority to compel the disclosure of the allegations and to determine for itself how they should te nandled.
If the concerns expressed by GAP -- that the inability, unreliability or incompetence of Region IV and/or the EDO and his Staff will impede the investigation -- have any substance, GAP will be free to point out deficiencies in the investigation after it is completed and to seek appropriate relief at that time.
GAP has made very serious allegations and has since refused to provide any specifics that can be investigated without further information. We urge the NRC to investigate these allegations. The testimony of Ms. Garde is a necessary and appropriate step in such an investigation. Ms. Garde's claim that she cannot testify because of her professional relationship I
to various unnamed individuals is not supported by sufficient evidence to meet her burden of demonstrating that no relevant information can be obtained through her testimony. Accordingly, we urge that the Motion to Quash and the accompanying Section l 2.206 Petition be denied.
l Respectfully submitted, N
ack R. Newman6 NW Attorney for Houston Lighting &
Power Company, Project Manager of the South Texas Project, acting herein on behalf of itself and the other Applicants, CITY OF SAN l ANTONIO, TEXAS, acting by and through the City Public Service I Board of the City of San Antonio, CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY and i CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS ;
i
xe,.
A m%
e The Light f S OmpMy HoustonLighting8: Power O. Boy 120 Houston.Texa 77001 (713)228 9211
' April 6, 1987 l
Ms. 'sillie Garde f7'N10P ?
Director of the Midwest Office Government Accountability Project d; APR 0 9 887 m 34R N. Marcos Lane s
Appleton, Wisconsin 54911 _ _ QM Q Newrnan & Holtzinger, P.C.
Dehr Ms. Garden s
in response to your lettir of March 27, 1987, please be advised that Houston Lighting & Power Company is very skeptical ' chat any further dialogue with GAP would be constructive. Although we are ready to utilize our EAFETEAM organization to perform investigations of any concerns related to neclear safety or quality at the South Texas Project, we believe that protracted disassion with your organization is wasting valuable time that could be better spent investigating r.uch matters. <
Your obvious low regard for SAFETEAM; which is consistent with the manner in which GAP has criticized other nuclear projects, prompts us to again urge that you imediately share your concerns with the Aclear Regulatory Commission. Your letter suggests that you have sugght " guidance" from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission but "hwe not received a response".
That statement is puzzling. In fact, you have.Lreceived a response from Mr. Stello by letter of February 18,1987 (available in tie siaclear Regulatory Conrnission public document room) in which you were assured of the availability of Nuclear Regulatory Comission resources to resolve issues your clients might raise. That letter concluded that failing to bring forth information promptly "would not be in the best interests of assuring the prompt resolution of legitimate se,fety concerns".
Your letter states that Houston Lighting & Power and its contractors have been made aware of serious safety concerns through internal processes.
The innuendo is that nothing has been donc. To the best of our knowledge, every suf h matter brought to our attention or those of our principal contractors has been investigated and resolved or is the subject of a pending investigation. If you have information to the contrary, plesse tell us.
The statement in your letter concerning irefimation obtained during discovery for the Goldstein case and and the conclusions which you have dFawn from that information are presumptuous at best. Contrary to your statement, a comparison of the interview transcript and the invutigation report reveals that each of the issues raised during'the interview were understood, investigated, and conclusions de awn based upon the facts. In any event, as you well know, the Goldstein case has been adjourned. When it resumes later this year, the defendant will present its case and a conclusion will be reached based 9pon all the evidence.
FoIA-B^r-%'T C3
Houston Ughting 8: Power Company Ms. Billie Garde April 6, 1987 Page 2 I reiterate our suggestion that you try our SAFETEAM system as modified to meet your concerns with respect to any matter of potent.ial '
safety consequences. In the meantime, however, we are taking steps to request appropriate government officials to obtain from you or your organization information which could potentially affect the safety of the ,
South Ti!xas Project. If such information exists and is furnished to us, we !
will spare no effort in pursuing its' resolution. .
la closing, let me add at the risk of being immodest, that the South Texas Naclear Project is managed by experienced professionals of the highest integrity. Our concern for public safety is of paramount importarce. Any suggest'on by your organization to the contrary is not supported by the record. Our concern for protecting the public and the plant is demonstrated by our fogged determination to unearth weaknesses wherever they can be found .
and dealing with them. ,SAFETEAM is but one of many techniques that we utilize in that effort. While our SAFETEAM program is not perfect, I believe it to be Nnong the very best in the country.
VerytrulyyouJs, l J. H. Goldberg Group Vice-President, Nuclear i JHG/JEG/sd ;
cc: Chairman L. W. Zech Commissioners K. M. Carr l T. M. Roberts J. K. Asselstine F. M. Bernthal Exec. Dir. V. Stello Reg. Adm. R. D. Martin Dir. 1 & E J. M. Taylor Owners T. V. Shockley A. vonRosenberg M. B. Lee
- 4mm- +-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER ) Docket Nos. 50-496 OL COMPANY, ET AL. ) 50-499 OL l
)
(South Texas Project, Units 1 )
and 2) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the letter to Samuel J.
Chilk from Jack R. Newman, dated June 11, 1987, have been served on the following individuals and entities by deposit in the United States mail, first-class, postage prepaid, or by arranging for messenger delivery as indicated by asterisk, on this lith day of June 1987.
Lando W. Zech, Jr., Chairman
- David S. Rubinton*
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Richard E. Condit*
Washington, D.C. 20555 Government Accountability Project 1555 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Commissioner Thomas M. Roberts
- Suite 202 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington, D.C. 20555 Anthony Z. Roisman*
Commissioner James K. Asselstine* 1401 New York Avenue, N.W.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20005 Commissioner Frederick M. Bernthal* William Paton*
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Commissioner Kenneth M. Carr*
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Jack R. Goldberg*
Washington, D.C. 20555 Office of the General Counsel Ms. Billie P. Garde U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Director of the Midwest Office Government Accountability Project Office of the Secretary
- 3424 North Marcos Lane U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Appleton, Wisconsin 54911 Washington, D.C. 20555 8
e s
/
W3 w 7/
/p* *
- cuq'o, UNITED STATES
, f' 3 .j 3 , ,
'n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p
$ W A SHING TON, D. C. 20555 d *12~.5 d
- s Y; o, l ,.,m y .
,5 CHAIRMAN July 13, 1987 l
The Honorable Gonzain Barrientos State Senator Senate of the State of Texas P.O. Box 12068 Austin, Texas 78711
Dear Mr. Barrientos:
Thank you for your June 10, 1987 letter concerning two pending motions before the Commission regarding the South Texas Nuclear Project (STNP).
The Government Accountability Project's request for an independent task force to review STNP allegations and the intervenor's motion to reopen the record of the STNP licensing hearings are currently under Commission consideration. The Commission intends to render decisions on both in the near future. I assure you that in making our determinations our primary concern will be the health and safety of the people of Texas.
The Commission appreciates your concern in these matters.
Sincerely, D /) A -.-_
J-&LQ Q Frederick M. Bernthal Acting Chairman
, , _ , FoI A-81-%1 g , + , : ~% w - c. 4
r- --
.,O' '
l I
i i
l l
l j l
l .l l
%n Attachment 1
-i Information in this record was deleted in accordance with)he (reedom of Information Act, exem F01A tA(tions ~%T 0 I J FoIA-97-4O l
T\
%l lW k __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - - ~ ~ ~ -
u_ __
' > >s . !
(
l
)VEPMAENT ACCOUNTADIUTY PROJECT (202)2324550 .
3 5 Connecncut Avenue. N Y Surre 202 smngrat D C. 20006 January 20, 1987 1
Or Victor Stello, Executive D. rec: On t !
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory C:nm:ss: l Washington, D.C. 20555 [
James Mattox '
Attorney General for :ne State Of Texas Supreme Court Building 14th & Colorado Austin, Texas 78711 ,
)
l Re: South Texas Nuclear Prc;ect 1 4
1' l
Dear Messrs. Stello and Yat:
0x: the
.74 This letter is to inform your respective agencies (CAP) has formally that begun Government Accountabil::y Pro;ect:nto worker allegations at the South
, preliminary investigat.on l Texas nuclear project.
role in advocating l Since 1980, CAP nas p.ayed a significant ,
1 on behalf of whistlebitwers and concerned varicus nuclear citizens poweron issues [0 involving safety-related preolems atOur appecaen to nuclear power nas oeen steadf) '
facilities. enferees the nuclear the same: to ensure sna: :ne government As a result safety laws and regula:::ns. toofex;;se GAP'ssafety-related efforts (alone i
or in concert with otner crgan:zations) problems, the construct.:n and/or Opera::en :o te offi:several nuclear to operate --
power f acilities -- prev cusly :hougnt rev;ew. The cancelled :
were cancelled or postpcned for furtnerc:epleted I:n.mer nuclear power facilities include ne 98 percen: Those wh:ch ,
plant and the 85 percent c:rpleted M.:;and p '. 4 - : .
c..de - e 0:ranene Peak, were postponed for furtner rev:ew ar.d aa:erf::: fac;;;;;es.
-ar Three Mile Island, D;act: Canyon, 3 : .2 -: s. g w;;n GAP currently e::ner represer.:fer-er and/or emp;;yees of :ne Scuth approximately 36 currentThe allega:ic-s ft:n :ne .:r<ers range from grand in severa' Texas project.thef t of nuclear grade steel :s engineer:ng def ec:sTne allega major safety ;;0e compliance with Lightcomponents.
& Power .3 guarantee subcen:-:ncluding out not I
Houston industry limited to:
and federalnsafety requirements, defects
- ne instrumentation and control division:
regulations in the g
I defects and lack of ccep' ance wt:n federal lack of heating, ventilating, and a:r cond::i:n:9g system; compliance c:mpaction:
with quali:y standards in :he area of soilsfailure to c: p;e and harassment f falsification of requ: red CA Or QC documentat on:to adhere to federal and intimidation of per s:nce t 'wno at;empt safety standards.
. e l
1 1
l k
l
~_
~
Attachment 2 t, 1
l I
l l
f 1
)
I
. i A \
p%.'o, '
UNITED STATES W i 's h.:. : i i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION M.,
L G j WASHINGTON O C 20$55
/
a...* t:- * *387 ket No. 50-498 4
Ms. Billie Pirner Garde Mr. Richard Condit Government Accountability Pro.fect Suite 202 1555 Connecticut Avenue, 4.W. 'i Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Ms. Garde and Mr. Condit:
' )
I am in receipt of your January ?O,1987 letter directed to me and the Attorney )
General of Texas. Your letter describes investigative activities you plan to i l
undertake relative u allegations you, have received frnm approximately 36 (
current and/or fonner employees of the South Texas Project. Your letter also I identified the general nature M scme of these allegations which appear to fall within the safety and regulatory responsibilities of the Nuclear Regulatory l
Cornission. Your letter also states that you cannot advise your clients to provide their concerns to the Region IV office of NRC. You assert that your i
' experience has been that Peofon IV does not comply with its requ!rements as.
outlined in agency procedures. Moreover, you demand that unless NRC provides other inspection personnel to process thesa allegations, you plan to provide i
those allegations to other fedividuals or neganizations.
i The South Texas Pro.iect is within .the jurisdiction of Region IV and that Region is the appropriate organization to review the conceres of your clients. I !
have confidence that Region IV will properly pursue this responsibility. I ~
have been in contact with Mr. Robert O. Partin. ec gional Administrator for "
41on 9 IV, and he assures c'e that his staff is therruchly prapared to comr:it the resources might raise.
required to appropr'ataly resolve the issues which your clients As you are aware, NRC is the responsible federal safety significant issues are addressed where appropriate.acency for ensuring Therefore, I that u"9t you to bring forth p.onptly, or advise your cliants to do so, to NRC or Nuston 1.ighting and Power, anw ir ormation r
you have on deficiencies which t
i would have a bearing on nuclea'r safety. To retain thers until ycur own report is prepared and published would not be in the best interests of asturing the Drompt resolution of legitinate sa'ety concerns.
I E
0 e
l
+
a Attachment 3 l
I i
WERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT B Comecncut Avenue. N W Sune 202 shingron. D.C. 20036 (202)232 8550
/ERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT
] WEST OFFICE l 24 MARCOS LANE PLETON, WISCONSIN 54911 March 4, 1987 Victor Stello Executive Director Opera tions l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ,
1 Washington, D.C. 20355 RE: South Texas Investigation h!a l
Dear Mr. Stello,
Your letter of February 18, 1987 regarding our South Texas investigation states that South Texas should be directed to Mr.any futher communications regarding Administrator. Bob Martin, Regional I
issues regarding safety to Region IV promptly.Your letter also urges us to b I
r issues of nuclear safety and the more recentGiven the history of incompeten evidence of impro-priety in Region IV I am surprised that you would continue to l;
- advise regional us t'o take allegations of nuclear saf aty to your present management. Your professed faith .n the Regional I
management can only be bureaucratic posturing, as I seriously doubt whether even you can ignore the seriouness of the impro-prieties confirmed by the Office in the recent of Inspectcir and continuning investigation and Auditor.
~
Mr. Stello, at some point you must assure responsibliity for '
the operation in Region IV to insure that the public health and safety around the Region IV facilities is protected. You apparently are willing to sacrifice that assurance in order to give the t public appearance of support for Mr. Martin et.al. Your error in judgement is incredible. Within the past 18 months we have seen evidence and testimony of the improper release of a draft inspection to Kerr-Meceereport on the Sequoyan Fusls Corporation f atal accident officals, the harassment and intimidation of h fproper fesident inspectors, the manipulation and/or deletion items release of from inspection reports, t h <'
3 inspection report results enchance the possibility of licensing, the destruction of doeurents, the f ailure to comply with statutory requirements under e Freedom of Information Act, the failure to properly investigate jllegationsofengineering, technical or hardware deficiencies at
' p'"{torsinRegionIV, the release of confidentiality of site
, Yees that have come forward with concerns, the cooperation [
b r." J h e - -. _
e l
. i 1
e e
O l
l I
e e
4 Attachment 4 I
O i
l l .
\
u