ML20006B523
| ML20006B523 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon, FitzPatrick, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 01/03/1990 |
| From: | Cordes J NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Bevill T, Breaux J, Jeanne Johnston, Sharp P, Udall M HOUSE OF REP., APPROPRIATIONS, HOUSE OF REP., ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS, HOUSE OF REP., INTERIOR & INSULAR AFFAIRS, SENATE, APPROPRIATIONS, SENATE, ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS |
| References | |
| CCS, NUDOCS 9002050024 | |
| Download: ML20006B523 (10) | |
Text
.-
q y._
, if g ra UNITED STATES
'[
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
5 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20666
%g January 3,1990 i
The Honorable John B. Breaux, Chaiman Subcomittee on Nuclear Regulation Comittee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate I
Washington, D.C.
20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
j Re: Roger B. Clouch, et al. v. United States Nuclear Regulatory l
Comission, et al., No. 59-CV-1496 (N.D.N.Y. )
Steven A. Hiett, et al. v. The Pacific Gas and Electric Co.,
No. C 59-4569 FM5 (N.D. Cal.)
In Clough, employees (and labor unions representing employees) with access to the Fitzpatrick nuclear power plant in Lycoming, New York, have brought suit i
against the NRC_ and against the plant operator, the Power Authority of the State of New York (PASNY), to challenge random drug testing of PASNY employees i
with access to the Fitzpatrick plant. The PASNY random testing plan is set to take effect on January 3,1990, pursuant to the NRC's fitness for duty regulations, 10 C.F.R. 26.1 et seq.
l The plaintiffs' basic position is that the random testing requirement violates constitutional rights to privacy and due process. The Department of Justice is representing the NRC before the district court. We are arguing that the suit l
against the NRC lies, if anywhere, in the court of appeals, and that in any event the NRC regulations are fully constitutional.
Plaintiffs were seeking a temporary restraining order, which was denied January 2,1990, and a preliminary injunction preventing implementation of the random drug testing i
l requirements. The case is set for hearing on January 19, 1990 on the application for a preliminary injunction and on the NRC's motion to dismiss the complaint.
'In Hiett, a group of employees at the Diablo Cenyon nuclear power plant in AviTMach, California, have brought suit in district court against the plant operator, PG&E, to challenge random drug testing requirements imposed by PG&E L
pursuant to the NRC's fitness for duty regulations,10 C.F.R. 26.1 et seq.
The l
NRC.is not named as a defendant in the suit. Nonetheless, we are consulting with the Department of Justice on whether to intervene as a defendant to defend the NRC regulations. At the least, we will file a brief as an amicus curiae justifying our rules. On December 29, 1989, the district court entered a FULL TEXT ASCll SCANgc6[
e0 30m,wie PDR ADOCK 050 5
U N
l
F.
.d ' '
The Honorable John Breaux,
temporary restraining order temporarily preventing PG&E from implementing l
random drug testing. The order was entered ex parte; the court heard no presentation by the NRC or the utility. A preliminary injunction hearing is i
scheduled for January 10, 1990.
We will keep you advised of pertinent developments in these cases.
Sincerely.
l
'k I
i
. hn F. Cordes, Jr.
olicitor cc: The Honorable Alan K. Simpson i
i l
7[iobeuq%
UNITED STATES 1
?
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
(
c.
W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20666 i
- %.....'/
January 3,1990 l
j
?
The Honorable Philip Sharp, Chainnan Subcomittee on Energy and Power i
Comittee on Energy and Commerce a
United States House of Representatives i
Washington, D.C.
20515
Dear Mr. Chainnen:
Re: Roger B.' Clough, et al. v. United States Nuclear Regulatory l
Comission, et al., No. 89-CV-1496 (N.D.N.Y. )
i Steven A. Hiett, et al. v.-The Pacific Gas and Electric Co.,
l No. C 89-4569 tRd (N.D. Cal.)
l In Clough, employees (and labor ut;ons representing employees) with access to the Fitzpatrick nuclear power plant in Lycoming, New York, have brought suit against the NRC and against the plant operator, the Power Authority of the State of. New York (PASNY), to challenge random drug testing of PASNY employees
~
with access to the Fitzpatrick plant.
The PASNY random testing plan is set to i
take effect on January 3, 1990, pursuant to the NRC's fitness for duty i
regulations, 10 C.F.R. 26.1 et seg.
The plaintiffs' basic position is that the random testing requirement violates constitutional rights to privacy and due process. The Department of Justice is i
representing the NRC before the district court. We are arguing that the suit against the NRC lies, if anywhere, in the court of appeals, and that in any event the NRC regulations are fully constitutional.
Plaintiffs were seeking a temporary restraining order, which was denied January 2,1990, and a a
preliminary injunction preventing implementation of the random drug testing requirements. The case is set for hearing on January 19, 1990 on the i
asp 11 cation for a preliminary injunction and on the NRC's motion to dismiss tie complaint.
In Hiett a group of employees at the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant in Avita' W a,ch, California, have brought suit in district court against the plant operator, PG&E, to challenge random drug testing requirements imposed by PG&E i
pursuant to the NRC's fitness for duty regulations,10 C.F.R. 26.1 et sea. The NRC is not named as a defendant in the suit. Nonetheless, we are consulting with the Department of Justice on whether to intervene as a defendant to defend r
the NRC regulations. At the least, we will file a brief as an amicus curiae i
justifying our rules. On December 29, 1989, the district court entered a
~
i 9
.-m
---e
~-
,---,w r
.--. a
- %~. *&?.
~'
?
?
' }'l The Honorable Philip Sharp p.
. temporary. restraining order temporarily preventing PG&E from implementing
- random drug, testing. The order was entered ex parte; the court' heard' no
~
presentation by the NRC or the utility. A preliminary injunction hearing is scheduled for January 10, 1990.
We will keep you advised of pertinent developments in.these cases.
Sincerely, mf kb c
n F. Cordes, Jr.-
licitor i
cc: ' The Honorable Carlos J. Moorhead 1
l' l.
l l'
1
<)i,;
w j l
p'3*-
.h
[.
,p v
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
)
[-
.o WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 5
/
January 3,1990 f
R The Honorable Morris K. Udall, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment l
?
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs L
United States House of Representatives 1
Washington, D.C.
20515-
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Re: Roger B. Clough, et al. v. United States Nuclear Regulatory i
L Commission, et al., No. 89-CV-1496 (N.D.N.Y.)
L Steven A. Hiett, et al. v. The Pacific Gas and Electric Co.,
No. C 89-4569 FMS (N.D. Cal. )
In Clough', employees (and labor unions representing employees) with access to l
the Fitzpatrick nuclear power plant in Lycoming, New York, have brought suit againe.t the NRC and ~against the plant operator, the Power Authority of the l
State of New York (PASNY), to challenge random drug testing of PASNY employees y.
with access to the Fitzpatrick plant. The PASNY random testing plan is set to 1
take effect on' January 3,1990, pursuant to the NRC's fitness for duty regulations,10 C.F.R. 26.1 et seq.
l The plaintiffs'. basic position is that the random testing requirement violates constitutional' rights to privacy and.due process. The Department of Justice is E
representing the NRC before the district court. We are arguing that the suit against the NRC lies, if anywhere, in the court of appeals, and that in any r
event the NRC regulations are fully constitutional. Plaintiffs were seeking a temporary restraining order, which was. denied January 2,1990, and a preliminary injunction preventing implementation of the random drug testing requirements. The case is set for hearing on January 19, 1990 on'the application for a preliminary injunction and on the NRC's motion to dismiss the complaint.
In Hiett, a group of employees at the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant in Av1 Tite ~ach,- California, have brought suit in district court against the plant operator,L PG&E, to challenge random drug testing requirements imposed by PG&E pursuant to the NRC's fitness for duty regulations,10 C.F.R. 26.1 et seq. The NRC is not named as a defendant in the suit. Nonetheless, we are consulting with the Department of Justice on whether to intervene as a defendant to defend the NRC regulations. At the least, we will file a brief as an amicus curiae justifying our rules. On December 29, 1989, the district court entered a
^s.
e e
The Honorable Morris Udall -
temporary restraining order temporarily preventing PG&E from implementing random drug testing..The order was entered ex parte; the court heard no presentation-by the NRJ V the utility. A preliminary injunction hearing is scheduled for January 10, 1990.
We will keep you advised of pertinent developments in these cases.
Sincerely,
,fA7 AC J, n F. Cordes, Jr.
olicitor cc: The Honorable James V. Hansen
=
~-
g gy,
.w,
.I rw J'
UNITED STATES o-
.["
[,,f
. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
s WASHINGTON, D, C. 20S$5 l
l January 3, 1990 4
C l
The Honorable Tom Bevill, Chaiman Subcomittee on Energy and Water Development Comittee.on Appropriations United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Re: Roger B. Clough, et al. v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Comission, et al., No. CV-1496 (N.D.N.Y. )
- Steven A. Hiett, et al. v. The Pacific Gas and Electric Co.,
No. C 89-4569 FMS (N.D. Cal.)
In Clou6 employees (and labor unions representing employees) with access to-r theTff2 patrick nuclear power plant in Lycoming, New York, have brought suit against the'NRC and against the plant operator, the Power Authority of the L
State of'New York:(PASNY), to challenge random drug testing of PASNY employees with access to the Fitzpatrick plant. The PASNY random testing plan is set to.
-take effect on January 3,1990, pursuant to the NRC's fitness for duty regulations, 10 C.F.R. 26.1-et seq.
c 1
The plaintiffs'1 basic position is that the random testing requirement violates constitutional 1 rights to privacy and due process. The Department of Justice is representing the NRC before the district court. We are arguing'that the suit against the NRC lies, if anywhere,-in the court of appeals, and that in any event the NRC regulations are fully constitutional. Plaintiffs were seeking a temporary restraining order, which was denied January 2,1990, and a preliminary injunction preventing implementation of the random drug testing requirements. The case is set for hearing on January 19, 1990 on the application for e preliminary injunction and on the NRC's motion to dismiss the complaint.
.In Hiett, a group of employees at the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant in Av1Ta'Te'ach, California, have brought suit in district court against the plant operator, PG&E, to challenge random drug testing requirements imposed by PG&E pursuant to the NRC's fitness for duty regulations,10 C.F.R. 2-6.1 et seq. The NRC is not named as a defendant in the suit. Nonetheless, we are consulting with the Department of Justice on whether to intervene as a defendant to defend the NRC regulations. At the least, we will file a brief as an amicus curiae justifying our rules. On December 29,1989,' the district court entered a
,+
i :.
~..
The Honorable Tom Bev111,
d
' temporary restraining order temporarily preventing PG&E from implementing random drug testing. The order was entered ex parte; the court heard no presentation by the NRC or the utility. A preliminary injunction hearing is
- scheduled for January 10, 1990.
We will keep you advised of pertinent developments in these cases.
Sincerely, f1 AT J hn F. Cordes, Jr.
jolicitor cc: The Honorable John T. Myers l
l L
1
[
4 y.
i
~c o
UNITED STATES 7g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
f" g
7; E
. W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
....+/
January 4, 1990
)q
- The Honorable J. Bennett Johnston, Chairman Subcomittee on. Energy and Water Development 4
- Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, D.C.
20510
Dear Mr. Chainnen:
Pe: Roger B. Clough, et al. v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Comission, et al., No. 83-CV-1496 (N.D.N.Y. )
-Steven A. Hiett, et al. v. The Pacific Gas and Electric Co.,
No. C 89-4569 FMS (N.D. Cal.)
l In Clough, employees-(and lebor unions representing employees) with access to the Fitzpatrick' nuclear power plant in Lycoming, New York, have brought suit against the NRC and against the plant. operator, the Power Authority of the-State-of New York (PASNY), to challenge random drug testing of PASNY employees I
with access to'the Fitzpatrick plant. The PASNY random testing plan is set to take effect on January 3, 1990, pursuant to the NRC's fitness for duty 9
regulations, 10 C.F.R. 26.1 et seg.
I L
The plaintiffs' basic position is that the random testing requirement violates l-constitutional rights to privacy and due process. The Department of Justice is E
' representing the NRC before the district court.
We are arguing that the suit against the NRC lies, if ~ anywhere, in the. court of appeals, and that in any L
event the NRC regulations are fully constitutional. - Plaintiffs were seeking a temporary restraining order, which was denied January 2,1990, and a preliminary injunction preventing implementation of the random drug testing o
l-requirements. The case is set for hearing on January 19, 1990 on the l
application for a preliminary injunction and on the NRC's motion to dismiss L
the complaint.
l In Hiett, a group of emp1'oyees at the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant in AviTWach, California, have brought suit in district court against the plant L
operator, PG&E, to challenge random drug testing requirements imposed by PG&E pursuant to the NRC's fitness for duty regulations,10 C.F.R. 26.1 et seq.
The o
NRC is not named as a defendant in the suit. Nonetheless, we are consulting with the Department of Justice on whether to intervene as a defendant to defend p
the NRC' regulations. At the least, we will file a brief as an amicus curiae justifying our rules. On December 29, 1989, the district court entered a L
L
t..,
t
- .,L.
,s...
The Honorable J. Bennett Johnston.
temporary restraining order temporarily preventing PG&E from implementing random drug testing. The order was entered ex parte; the court heard no
+
presentation by the NRC or the utility. A preliminary injunction hearing is scheduled for January 10, 1990.
We will keep you advised of pertinent developments in these cases.
Sincerely, H
'F. Cordes, Jr.
- J licitor cc: The Honorable Mark 0. Hatfield k
e