ML20044A686
| ML20044A686 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 05/11/1990 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Bentsen L SENATE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20044A687 | List: |
| References | |
| CCS, NUDOCS 9007020059 | |
| Download: ML20044A686 (4) | |
Text
,
/
3
- f
'o,,
UNITED STATES
_I NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20666
,g k * * " ',o#
May 11, 1990 m
The Honorable Lloyd Bentsen United States Senator
'961 Federal Building-Austin, TX 78701
Dear Senator Bentsen:
I am responding to your letter dated March 22, 1990, in which you requested information pertinent to matters raised in a letter to you dated March 12, 1990, from John A. Corder.
In the spring of.1989, the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) became aware of the possibility that settlement agreements in several Department of Labor employment discrimination cases might contain possible barriers to individuals bringing safety concerns to the NRC.
On April 27, 1989, upon the discovery of this possibility, NRC sent letters to all nuclear utilities major architect-engineers,nuclearsteamsupplysystemvendors,fuelcyclefacIl-ities, and major materials licensees directing them to review their current and previous agreements to assure that such restrictive clauses were not present.
If restrictive clauses were found, the NRC directed the companies to notify current and former employees that they could freely come to the NRC at any time L
without fear of any form of retribution and that conditions in the restric-tive clauses would not be enforced.
Also, the companies were to notify the NRC by July 1,1989, if such restrictive clautes were identified.
Several companies informed the NRC that they had notified individuals whose agreements l
could be considered restrictive.
Some of Oxse companies, however, indicated that they believed the agreements were net mtrictive.
L When a company identified an agreement with potentially restrictive language, L
the NRC reviewed the agreement. Where the NRC determined that the agreement contained potentially restrictive language, it sent a certified letter to an affected individual or his/her attorney.
The letter instructed them that any restrictions on communications with the NRC were to be disregarded and requested that they identify any safety issues that were not brought to the attention of NRC because of the. agreement.
Less than half of the individuals contacted responded to the certified letters from NRC.
Some indicated that they did not feel restricted by their agreement, l
while others indicated that they felt restricted.
Some people who believed L
their agreements were restrictive indicated that they had safety issues not previously brought to NRC's attention.
Those indicating _that they had safety issues were contacted by the NRC and were requested to supply information about the issues.
L d(
FULLTEXT ASCO SCAN (
900
[of<7o2oo39 908804,3 u
Anock os PDC
0 r
The Honorable i.loyd Bentsen,
Mr. Corder was one of the individuals who believed his settlement agreement restricted his communications with the NRC and, in response to llRC's certified letter, he indicated that he had safety issues concerning the South Texas Project nuclear power plant. However, Mr. Corder refused to soluntarily cooperate with NRC, and after unsuccessful efforts by the NRC to meet informally with him to discuss his concerns, the Agency issued a subpoena on December 1, 1989, requiring that he provide testimony.
Mr. Corder, in compliance with the subpoena, met with the NRC staf f on March 27 and 28, 1990, in Texas, and communicated to them the safety concerns he had about the South Texas Project. The transcript of that meeting has been reviewed by NRC and Mr. Corder's concerns fall within the following categories:
(1) previous concerns he brought to NRC's attention that were reviewed, analyzed, and resolved by the staff in early 1988; (2) previous concerns provided to the utility's SAFETEAM for which he feels that adequate justifi-cationfordispositionwasnotprovided;(3)previousconcernsprovidedto NRC's Region IV staff for which he feels that adequate justification for disposition was not provided; and (4) all other items raised by Mr. Corder that may be potential safety issues. The NRC staff has developed a plan and begun the review of Mr. Corder's concerns.
Mr. Corder's attorney, in a letter dated September 28, 1989, submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for records relating to his previous concerns regarding the South Texas Project.
Subsequently, in a letter dated December 11, a similar request was submitted and a request was made that fees for processing the request be waived. On March 21, 1990, the NRC denied the request for a fee waiver because the use to be made of the records would be a private one. The enclosed chronology reflects NRC contacts regarding this matter.
I hope this information satisfies your concerns regarding this matter.
Sincerely, J mes 4.
h xecutive D rector for Operations Enclosure Chronology i
l l
l
~-
l' l
t.'
i i
CHRONOLOGY September 28, 1989 Mr. Corder's attorney informed NRC that Mr. Corder had concerns regarding the i
South Texas Project nuclear power plant which he believed.NRC had not evaluated.
Mr. Co.* der's attorney sought to impose i
conditiens on his presentation of the information to NRC including, NRC serving a subpoena on him.
Mr. Corder's attorney also submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request on his behalf for records pertaining to his previous concerns and allegations concerning the South Texas Project plant from June 1986.
November 3, 1898 NRC sent Mr. Corder's attorney a statement of estimated fees for processing the FOIA request.
December 1, 1989 After lack of cooperation,-a subpoena was issued by NRC requiring Mr. Corder's testimony on December 19, 1990.
December 11, 1989 Mr. Corder's attorney submitted another i
FOIA request on behalf of the Government Accountability Project for the same records and requested a waiver of fees for processing the two FOIA requests.
l Mr. Corder's attorney submitted a motion j
to NRC asking that the subpoena be modified and a protective order issued on the bases of undue financial hardship l
regarding the location of the deposition j
and NRC's failure to repond to the FOIA L
requests.
The was the first time NRC l
became aware that the processing of the
[-
FOIA requests was a prerequisite for l
conduating the deposition.
December 15, 1989 NRC confirmed, in writing, telephone discussions with Mr. Corder's attorney in which it was agreed that the location of the deposition would be changed.
The letter further stated that the NRC staff did not consider it necessary for the FOIA requests to be processed prior to l
I
~
l' the deposition and that the FOIA fee waiver request was being revicWod.
The letter also postponed the dt-posftion since Mr. Corder's attorney accid not i
withdraw the motion.
January 12, 1990 NRC notified Mr. Corder's attorney that the fee waiver request was denied because the use of the records was primarily for a private purpose (to allow Mr. Corder to prepare for the deposition) and not in the public interest.
January 29, 1990 Mr. Corder's attorney appealed the FOIA fee waiver denial.
February 8, 1990 NRC issued an Order denying the December 11, 1989 motion.
(Copy enclosed.)
March 21, 1990 NRC upheld the denial of the FOIA fee waiver.
March 27-28, 3.990 Mr. Corder provided his safety concerns to the NRC staff in a laeeting held in Texas.
i l
1 l.
L 1
l l
l