ML19350C771

Request for in-camera Review of & Protective Order for Tape Recording Containing Allegations Arising within Last 30 Days at Facility.Order Necessary to Protect Identities & Jobs of Informants.W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence

ML19350C771
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	03/16/1981
From:	Buchorn P CITIZENS FOR EQUITABLE UTILITIES
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8104060679
Download: ML19350C771 (5)

Text

.

PILATED

_ _ _ _ _ _ Co.T2SFONDE.NC4--

. col ca

( A,

. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

/ "-"r-- \

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j{ , , , ,

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD T c . .>-r.

2 S Igg; ,

-d :4 'remey ll

-- - :. . Senieg In the Matter of -

/

5 /g 1-) f Houston Lighting and power 5 Company, et al. 5 Docket Nos. STN 5 %

5 (South Texas Project, 6 h(W-4 q  %

Units 1 and 2) 9 . .97 HLUof f .\ iU

.h y L CEU MOTION FOR IN CAMERA BOARD REVIEW OF TAPE, FOR BOARD ORDER PROTECTING M'8 l.: .~. 0 01981 * '"

CONTENTSOFTAPE,ANDFORADMISSIONOFd,1, " "collels U p

. - - NEW CONTENTION By motion of February 27, 1981, Citizens for Eq ~' 1 , g,%,5 i J3@ \ ,

l Utilities (CEU) requested a protective order regarding a tape recording containing allegations arising within the last thirty days at the South Texas Nuclear Project.

l i This motion incorporates and elaborates the earlier motion.

\

• In the September 22, 1980 Memorandum and Order issued l by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, CLI-80-32, 12 NRC ,

l- the Commission noted at page 11:

l "In the Staff's view, 'should there be any matter which the Board believes justifies additional enforcement action, e.g. suspension, then such matters should be promptly referred to the Director .

for his consideration.'" (emphasis added)

In addition, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board may raise any safety issue on its own and is not bound by the parties' contentions. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York (Indian Point, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-319, 3 NRC 188 (1976).

To protect the identitifes and employment of the l persons involved in disclosing the. taped information and

.- h h 8164 06 0 h7] . __

to avoid cc= promising a potential and quite likely NRC investigation, CEU. requests a reedss at some point in these prec.eedings to per=it the Board to review the contents of the tape outside the presence of otDer parties and the public.

CEU does not consider an in ca= era review of this

~

tape to violate 10 C.F.R. 55 2.719(b), 2.780(a), or 2.7soce) for the following reasons:

(1) CEU contends that the allegations contained on the tape warrant a Board reco==endation to the Office of Inspection and Enforcement to take additional enforcement action, up to and including revocation of the construction permit, if the allegations are proven. CEU further contends that prompt referral of such a reco==endation should be made.

(2) The essential allegation e=erging from the evidence on the tape is that there is a concoiracy on the part of l

l Brown and _ Root , Inc. to prevent the Nuclear Regulatory i Co==ission fron conducting its lawful regulatory duty.

(3) The allegation of conspiracy is not a " fact in issue."

l 10 C.F.R. 5.2.719(d).

(4) The evidence on.the tape may be relevant to a

" substantive =atter at . issue" in thene proceedings, but CEU' requests in ca= era review only on the limited issue of the new conspiracy contention and matters related to the restriction of distribution,.not on evidence going e y r ,- e - ,

to esisting contentions in these proceedings. 10 C.F.R.

S 2.780(a). -

~

(5) Since the in ca= era review is to per=it the Board to =ake reco==endations to the Director of the Office of Inspection and Inforce=ent regarding a =atter no. at issue in these proceedings, the Board can and should "l'isten to such co==unication." 10 C.F.R. 2.780(c).

(6) Making the type of reco==endation requested is

,just the type of action the Nuclear Regulatory Co==ission encouraged this Board to take when it granted Intervenors relief in these proceedings rather than a hearing on the Order to Show Cause.

CEU contends that a tape recording is a particularly appropriate =echanis= for co==unicating in this adjudicatory proceeding because such recording permits Intervenor _c representatives to take evidence without the necessity ,

. of a f ace to face =eeting with sne attendant risk of exposing witnesses.

CEU requests that whatever decision the Board =1kes regarding the in ca= era review, the Board issue an order protecting the contents of the tape by restricting the distribution of the tape or any infor=ation contained in the tape to only the Washington, D.C. Office of Inspection and Enforce =ent. Part of the tape concerns what Intervenor contends to be =alfeasance on the part,of the Region IV Office of the Nuclear Regulatory Co==ission. Ths request, therefore, is to restrict distribution only to the

• e

Washington, D.C. Office.

CEU also coves this Board to take under advisement the new contention set forth in (2) above pending the outcome of the investigation to be conducted by the Office of Inspection and Enforce =ent and supportive material on this contention to be submitted by Intervenors.

The earlier offer to provide Applicants with a transcript of the . tape is hereby withdrawn as CEU finds

.there is no way to provide such infor=ation without compicuising the anonymity of the witnesses or the potential NRC investigation.

Respectfully sub=itted, no M % A Mrs. peggf,/Euchorn l, March 16, 1981 i

\ .

g.._. .. ,

e.;. w. u . . c.7 P.- W J .1 1.E L Certificat; of Service MI CED CORPESPONDENCE hereby certify that the foregoing document has been served on the following individuals and entities by hand (*) or by deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid on this //11 day of March, 1981.

4a4 & 1;4+-

PEgy$ Wuchorn Charles Bechiloefer,' Esquire

• Mr. Jack Newman Lowenstein~, Newman, Reis, Chairman Axelrad, a Toll Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20036

. Washington, D.C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section'(7)

Dr. James C. Lamb

• Office of the Secretary a13 Woodhaven Road U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissio:

Chapel. Hill, North Carolina 27514 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Ernest E. Hill Atomic Safety and Licensing Lawrence Livermore Laboratory Board Panel .

University of California U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissio P.O. Box 809, L-123 Washington, D.C. 20555 Liver = ore, Ca. 94550 Atomic Safety and Licensing Edwin J. Reis

• Appeal Panel (5)

Office of the Executive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissic Legal Director Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com:nission Washington, D.C. 20555 ,

Brian E. Berwick

• Assistant Attorney General for <D n G

the State of Texas geeggito Lanny Sinkin

/ ,;;m y 2207 Nueces Austin, Texas l.g, MAR 261981 > T CtRa cf th Secabr/

C:9 2 : & S :;l;e Eranch 7 ds @

l l

l 1

1 w _

\