ML20086K453
| ML20086K453 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 10/17/1991 |
| From: | Dow R DISPOSABLE WORKERS OF COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC |
| To: | Selin I NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20086K373 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#491-12307 NUDOCS 9112130117 | |
| Download: ML20086K453 (4) | |
Text
.
4 Q,
~
Disposoblo Workors of Commacho Poak Steam Electric Station U.S. Office:
Canadian Office:
8775 Norwin Ave Suite 178, 1078 Wellington, #135 Nonh Huntingdon PA.15642 Ottawa, Ontario K1Y 2Y3 NRC Criticized Sandra Long Dow Richard E. Dow Jr.
Founder & Chief Executive Officer Director, Pubhc Relations October 17, 1991 Hon. Ivan Selin, Chairman U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rock Pike Rockville, Maryland :0852 In the Matter of PICHARD E.
DOW Docket Nos. 50-445, 50-446
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In response to the letter, dated October 3, 1991 (enclosed), from Robert D. Martin, Regional Administrator, Region IV, I must say, and strongly emphasize, that I am, not only surprised, but insulted, that my communication to you, was delegated to Region IV for a response.
In fact, their response, itself, merely serves to underscore, and re-iterate, my statements, which they refer to in paragraph two of their letter to me!
Why is it that I feel continually compelled to restate my position with regard to this matter, on the hope, and with the intent, to avoid misunderstanding, but, somehov, the Region IV office seems incapable of comprehending this very simple statement?
Must I continually remind the members of this Commission, although I seem to be precluded from addressing them directly, that it was I who came to you, initially!
This tends to seriously deflate the statements made by Region IV that I am refusing to provide the Commission with in-formation I possess.
The " staff", in turn, has not made "every attempt within its power to accommcdate [my] concerns for [my] personal safety (See paragraph two of letter to Dow from Stephen Lewis, dated 8 July, 1991) and for the integrity of the records and documents.
The " staff" has steadfastly insisted that I surrender the originals of everything I possess, carte blanche, and then wait, patiently, for their return to me.
I am supposed to believe that I will receive every single document back (although there are several thousand) and that they vill be in the same condition as when I surrendered them, and that I
{
have every word memorized, so I will instantly know whether on not an alteration has occurred, when Region IV's record on the loss, destruc-tion, alteration, and shredding of evidence, is public knowledge!
All 9112130117 911017 PDR ADOCK 05000445 P
- - ~_-
I requested was that I be present during any copying process.
- That, it would appear, requires a sacrifice on my part, noone elses, as I would have to_ adapt my schedule to yours, and I would have to come to you.
MY presence during copying is what would insure the integrity of the-documents;. secrecy, on the otherhand is indicative of other things.
Must I continually remind (or in the case of Mr. Lewis, argue) this Commission, that while, yes, you are bound in the Code of Federal Regulations, administrative law, as it were, that there is a Due Pro-cess clause in our Constitution, and that all law, administrative, or otherwise, in this country, is procedurally bound (i.e. federal law) in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, whether stated or implied, un-less there is a specific regulation to the contrary (which is not in direct contravention of the federal rules), and that the actions of the
" staff" amount to nothing more than a discovery request for production, inspection, and copying?
In all case of discovery, the burden is on the party requesting, and the requesting party must defray the cost of that request upon application of the party upon whom the request is made.
Did the " staff", in their complacency, not ever think that ulti-mately, someone vould challenge this?
Am I destined to have every statement, ruling, and/or order of this Commission reviewed by the D.C.
Circuit?
Is there not a middle ground here?
Does that " staff" not realize that the Federal Courts have joined the premises of law and equity?
I am going to stray, for a moment, from the response of Region IV, and address a matter of the greatest import, and, I believe, is the crux of-this entire affair, and that is the 16 reels of tape recordings.
First, it was the 16 reels of tape recordings, and knowing their (initially) probable importance, that prompted me to make direct con-tact with the NRC, initially.
That was January 10, 1991, and Ben Hayes came to my home immediately after that first call.
Upon his arrival, the very first thing I showed and discussed with him was those 16 reels of tape.
Since that time, and coincidentally after my refusal to re-
. turn the handwritten receipt given to me by Ben, for a photograph of the 16-reels, in a_ letter written to me by Region IV saying they found no need to look further at my evidence, Region IV, again, after learn-ing that_I nov was able to listen to the tapes, has placed a great deal of importance on those tapes, however, they continually failed to make specific mention of them, until reminded by me, in any of their " quasi-subpoenas".
Second, (See Respondent's Opposition To Petitioners' Motion For Stay Pending Review,-and Respondent's-Motion To Dismiss) the " staff" pow alleges that they knew nothing about these. tapes until I brought them up, for the first time, at the meeting in Region IV headquarters.
I believe the preceding paragraph addresses that matter sufficiently, although, certainly I will address it at greater length in my respon-sive pleading in the D.C. Circuit.
l With regard to " publicly reported statements (unquoted, of course L
and uncited, as well)-that (I) had no intention of complying with the subpoena." let me, again, put that statement in its proper context, for the " staff"'s clarification.
My statement, when asked if I would comply with the subpoena, was, to the effect, that as long as.any man-ner of subpoena required me to turn over materials, carte b)anche, I vould resist it, because I feared for its safety.
My initimi, and con-tinual statement to this Commission, the media, and everyone involved in this matter, is that given a public forum, I will openly present l
every piece of evidence I have, in the alternative given a safe en-l l
SELIN LETTER,-
I vircnment wherein copies can be made, in my presence, I have no pro-blem giving copies e-f anything I have to anyone.
That has always been my intent, is for everyone to see this material.
THIRD, I would respectfully ask the Chairman what the Commission is going to feel about the press that certainly must generate in regard to their withdrawl of the subpoena, after all the press generated a-bout it?
For my own personal satisfaction, I would ask, Why?
Why all this adamant pursuit, the late-night deliveries of these documents, the vast amount of money that must have been expended in challenging my at-tempt at having it quashed, just for Region IV to " throw up their hands" and literally say "vell, Mick, since you won't just give it to us, we say now it has no r; erit, and we don't want it now".
That sounds an av-I ful lot like "if you won't play the game my way; I'll take my bail a.0 go home!", perhaps that Region IV was reticent about any enforcement proceedinsa, and, I might add, well they should be according to what I now know is on the tapes.
FOURTH, and I say this in all due respect, what is the Commission's position going to be, in court, and in the media, when I intervene in the Steve Comley matter, a matter of considerable less importance, in that his are allegations of "possible" possession, without even the physical showing of the purported tape / tapes?
I have no ties with Mr.
Comley, other than the tie of association in the same situation, but he has been fined, and placed in real jeopardy, by what basis?
If he won't give up his purported tapes, then why isn't the Commission just dropping the matter against him as well?
Where is his refund?
In cicsing, Mr. Chairman, I have been told you are a gentleman, and by your position. certainly, a man of stature.
I'm just a one-legged Indian, "out
.. " attorney, without a license, who tried to be a good American citizen, as I was taught in school to be, and report to my government something that was wrong and needed to be addressed.
Can you and I not talk?
Must my ansvers come from the inept offices of people who are not interested in performing their function and don't want the " boss" to find out they screwed up?
Please, give me the courtesy of a direct response.
I am a pro-tagonist and am frankly tired of being branded an an-tagonist.
Respectfully submitted,
'ss
\\.
L R.
E KY DOW, DKrector Dub' Relations, D.W.C.P.S.E.S.
cc:
see attached Service List Enclosure
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing letter to the Hon. Ivan Selin, Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, was sent, by courier, to those parties listed below, on this the 17th day of October, 1991.
mN2. % t h Affiant
\\'
David C. Williams Lavrence J. Chandler, Esq.
Inspector General Assistant General Counsel for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hearings & Enforcement Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
W.L. Brown Robert D. Martin Regional Ccunsel, Region IV Regional Administrator, Region IV U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 611 Ryan Flaza Drivo 611 Ryan Plaza Drive Arlington, Texas 76012 Arlington, Texas 76012 I
i l
l l
t
]
/ *%.
uwmo sTAtts EN
/
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
ascioa iv OCT 0 71991 811 RYAN Pt.AZA oRIVE. sulTE 1000 i
ARUNGToN. TEXAS 79011 JL1C CU LJ Q W OCT 5 y
Richard E. Dow, Jr.
Sandra Long Dow
-Disposable Workers of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Suite 178 6775 Norwin Avenue North Huntingdon, Pennsylvania 15642 Richard E. Dow, Jr.
5andrn'Long Dow
- 135 1078 Wellington Ottawa, Ontario K1Y-2Y3 In the Matter of RICHARD E. DOW Occket t!os. 50 445, 50 446
Dear Mr. anc Mrs. Dow:
This is in response to your letter of September 1. 1991, to Chairman Selin, which has been referreo to me for response.
Since early 1991, you have made various safety allegations to the NRC.regarding Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, which the agency has attempted, in good f aith, to evaluate.
In order to assure the fullest consnunication of the facts underlying your. allegations, an interview by the Office of Investigations and a transcribed interview under oath by NRC staff were conducted. Because of your unwillingness to voluntarily provide lto the Ccmmission.information upon which your allegations are based, the staff was compelled to issue a subpoena on May 10, 1991. The-May 20,-1991, return date r,pecified in the subpoena was extended by a Comissicn order denying your motion to quash and by. subsequent. staff actions, to September 4,1991.
In addition to the efforts of the staff, as well as attorneys in the Office of the General Counsel, to f acilitate the process of. receipt of the particular documents, audio tapes, and other information covered by thh subpoena, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the NRC also offered to receive-the information that you contend supports your allegations.
Contrary to the unfounded charges in your September 1,1991, letter of staff misfeasance, unreasonableness, and threats regarding the subpoenaed material, m
l the staff has made every attempt within its power'to acccmodate your concerns l
. for your personal safety and for the integrity of the records and documents L
?
5%oe uao-st T6uOlGO'M 3PP
Richard E. Dow, Jr. OCT 3 Jmo cemanded by the staff subpoena, despite publicly reported statements that you had no intention of complying with the subpoena. The NRC's numerous good faith attempts to obtain the safety information you allegedly possess have been unsuccessful, with the exception of allegations related to plant labelling, le the staff to pursue the matter which were sufficiently specific to enab,ff has completed its inspection into through the inspection process. The sta that matter and will be ccmunicating the results of its inspection to you shortly.
The NRistaff has determined that under the circumstances, including all communications with you, there is no reasonable basis to believe that you are in possession of safety information regarding the Comanche Peak f acility.
Acccrdingly, the NRC does not intend to continue seeki'ng to compel you to provide the documents identified in the subpoena dated May 10, 1991, as subsequently modified, and is, in f act, withdrawing that subpoena. Should you cr anyone else provide us with specific information regarding the safe cperation of the Comanche Peak plant, we will review that informatien in accordance with staff procedures.
Your letter of Septemter 1,1991, expressed support for the petition filed on behalf cf the National Whistleblower Center en July 30, 1991, pursuant to 1C C.F.R.
2.206. That petiticn is currently under review and you will be provideo a copy of our decision. The NRC staff notc-s, however, that you provide no substantive support related to that petition. Additionally, as a matter apart from the procedures under Section 2.206, you inquire concerning procedures "not to reopen, but, rather, to re-initiate" licensing hearings regarding the Comanche Peak plant and concerning procedures to request that "all prior proceedings be abated."
I have been advised by our Office of the General Counsel that, while there are no specific Commission procedures which address the remedy you seek, there is nothing to prevent your seeking such action from the Commission, as a matter of its discretion. The staff notes, however, that you have likewise provided no support for such =xtraordinary action.
Sincerely, e
(-
hic Rcbert D. Martin Regional Administrator cc: see attached Service List l
l
UCI 3
'39)
Richarc E. Dow, LJr.
3_
CC:
David C. Williams
- nspector General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissicn Washington, DC 20555 Lawrence J. Chandler, Esc.
Assistant General Counsel for.
Hear.ings and Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 George Edgar, Esq.
Newman & Holt:inger, P.C.
1615 L. Strett, N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Juanita Ellis Presicent, CASE 1426 S. Polk Street Dallas, Texas 75224 W. L. Brown Regional Counsel, Region IV U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 611 Ryan Plaza, Suite 400 Arlington, Texas 75011 G. M. Longo, Esq.
Office of General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatcry Commission nashington, DC 20555 1
{
l
/
l t