ML20024A505
| ML20024A505 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 06/13/1983 |
| From: | Jun Lee AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8306170385 | |
| Download: ML20024A505 (4) | |
Text
_-
w o.,.s a A.9
/
9 a ma e
- N noew.a N
June 13,1983 y
_3 DOCKET NUMBER g h
PR O D. & UTIL FAC................
$ :, W:tibtW88 c-2,nise'u.
-?
- uelear regulatory Commissioners E.
92w 1717 H. Street, N.W.
.N s
1.'ashington, D.C.
20555 N ii.l Comnissioners:
The recent proposal presented to the Atonic Licensing Beard by the NRC Staff,(6-07-83) Goldberg - Dircks);
"The approach is to separate out corporate institution from corporate employees". (pg 3) is legally presiunp-tuous and solidifies the contention that Staff is in collucion vith utilities by reason of implied covert and unreasonable accommodation to the nuclear industry to the detriment of the health and safety of U.S. residents.
To suggest that TMI Unit l's restart will be enhanced by separating employees from canagement (" Institution") reaches new heights of desperation and confirms my earlier suspicions that Staff is seeking to stampede the
' Comhissioners toward erronous " precedent-setting" decisions that will have ar!
extended impact on eroding this Commission as well as future Commissions in rendering decisions based on precedent rather than on health and safety.
Although the fallacy of Staff's argument on " Separation of corporate g
'" inn'titution" from corporate employees" is obvious to everyone and has the familidr ring of arcuments presented before the Licensing Board during hear-ings on Unit 11;(separntion of Unit i from Urit 11 on pollution of environ-l rent), neverthelens I insist on presenting the folloving tact $ m perpetrated 1y the " Institution" (q"U)for the records 1.
Testinony taken in both licensing restart hearings and the CDU/B.W.
court documents, revealed time and again that employees perjured themselves l
t o protect the " institution" (GW) in order to naintain their jobs.
I 2
i i
1 1
l
~
O4 I
8306170385 830613 l
PDR ADOCK 05000289 1
H PDR 1
=
1
2 2.
The coercive actions taken by the " institution" GPU in attempting to silence conscientious employees, who revealed violations in cleanup at Unit II, removes all doubt about the feasibility of separating " institution" management from employees and cannot and will not resolve old habits and problems _ of safety violations, unless, of course. Staff can develop a fool-nroof method that would absoultely cuarantee non-harrassment of all nuclear employees who seek to report 136 violations 3
The attempts of " institution" GPU management to force unwanted and unneeded psychiatric examinations upon their employees by corporate psychiatrists, who then violated patient / doctor confidentiality, smacks of totalitarianism and requires adjudication of the courts.
4 The arrival of " institution" GPU interrogators at the home of an enployee at 2:00 a.m.,
requesting that the employee leave with them (which said employee did), and was interrecated for hours at a local eatery on th?
enployee's own time, suggests Russian-type bultrb1gand violates any citizen's richt to privacy and Icgal counsel cuaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.
5_. The intimidation of employees with threats of dismissal because of safety violations submitted to the 130 Commission.
Surely the Commission could have done more to protect the employee's right to confidentiality and snucht to expose those within the 13C Staff responsible for this violation.
, These are just-a few of the known tact $ es used by " institution" GPU to silence enployees but it reveals the nature of CPU and the unworkability of Staff's recent proposal.
GPU's recent "pledce" to assure all interested parties that,"any inappro-priate, attitudes or practices of the past (including the 1979 accident at Unit II),
have not been carried forward and will not manifest themselves in CPU nuclear and its operations of Unit I",
is enlightening.
Candor,after four years of orsistent lying, deviousness and safety violations, is no criteria for weighing n nan's worth. In point of fact, GPU',s word is not worth a shred of used toilet I
tissue and should be neighed accordingly.
4 9
e i
l
_.m
---.--~a-
- -- O - - -
O 3
GPU " institution" nanagement, among a few others, has never taken the NRC's authority serious 19 and with good reason.
The NFC Staff's laisser faire approach to regulating nuclear safety and misleading the Commission, time and time again on vital issues during briefing, is directly responsible for " institution" CPU's lackadaisical, anything goes attitude:
e.g. just give us the operating license... don't bother us with the details.
Staff lhe KRC/has used every " precedent-setting" decision of the past to enhance their arguments of the present and which, no doubt, will be used -
in the future to favor nuclear utilities.
The Commission then finds itself locked into an impcssible situation with little or no room for maneuvera-bility to reach a rational decision.
Many of these " precedent-setting" decisions, which Congress abdicated to the NRC, are now in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Less the Commission be overtly concerned about legal ramifications Generating from CPU, need we remind the Conmisrion that utilities are not the only sources that can engage in adjudicated redress.
The Commission is tread-ing in deep water, indeed, by permitting Staff excesses in creating atmospheres of desperation, thereby stampeding the decision-making process and attempting to set new precedents that can adversely" affect present and future decisions.
NRC Staff exceeds its authority even in suggesting that the KRC has juris' diction to separate any " institution" or management from its emp1'oyees.
Unless, of course, Staff is prepared to take over responsibility for the hiring, firing, discipline, time schedules, salaries and all other employee-l related endeavors required in a private enterprise.
The ludicrousness of Staff's proposal (separation of management from employees for improved operations) fools no one, least of all the Commissioners.
The argument, b9 sed on efficiency and safety is as strong as removing any business operation from its employees ; one does not need to look into l
., crystal ball to knou the chaotic effects. Of course,when we seek to
.arcenmodate, I suppose anything is acceptable.
l e
4 9
4
-e.
h Since the Commission is already aware of_ the Staff's r.henanigans and mischief, there can be n[i other decision than a dismissal of this latest, is a series, of 130 Staff acrobatics.
Sincerely, 3
(1 A
ne Lee 7
t we al 9
4 i
A e
4 9
e