ML20091F502

Clarifies 821210 Discussion Re Site Tour.Util Accompaniment of Protected & Anonymous Witness Inappropriate

ML20091F502
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	12/12/1982
From:	Garde B GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT
To:	Shaffer W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
Shared Package
ML17198A223	List: IR 05000329/1983008 ML20090A052 ML20090A064 ML20090A067 ML20090A071 ML20090A076 ML20090A080 ML20090A090 ML20090A103 ML20090A106 ML20090A110 ML20090A367 ML20090A377 ML20090A397 ML20090A403 ML20090A447 ML20090A451 ML20090A456 ML20090A465 ML20090A481 ML20090A487 ML20090A491 ML20090A500 ML20090A504 ML20090A514 ML20090A517 ML20090A543 ML20090A547 ML20090A559 ML20090A590 ML20090A594 ML20090A600 ML20090A613 ML20090A614 ML20090A623 ML20090A626 ML20090A631 ML20090A637 ML20090A642 ML20090A656 ML20090A658 ML20090A673 ML20090A698 ML20090A703 ML20090A733 ML20090A741 ML20090A748 ML20090A751 ML20090A758 ML20090A762 ... further results
References
CON-BOX-07, CON-BOX-7, FOIA-84-96 NUDOCS 8406020221
Download: ML20091F502 (2)

Text

.

i l

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT institute for Policy Studies 1001 Que Stree:. N.W., Washington. D.C. 20009 (202)234 9382 j

December 12, 1982 V (A l$Ul0 f pj?A l IgfP Mr. Wayne D. Shaffer A/ M i VPA M4 Midland Section Chief Sjif U t?jn /

i 3pecial Inspections Division PjrW:d yo i

' !3 I !

l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Roosevelt Road i

OL l

FlLE

/i /

Glen Ellyn, Illinois

Dear Mr. Shaffer,

This letter is to clarify the discussions that we had on Friday, December 10,1982 in regards to the site tour of one of the GAP witnesses. Unfortunately that site tour was not ableto take place. Hopefully by the time that there is ancther visit to the site by an Of fice of Investigations investigator we will have all worked out these details.

Clearly it is entirely inappropriate for the utility to accompany a protected and anonymous witness on a site tour. The witnesses are being protected FROM the licensee, in most cases because of actions that the licensee took against the worker for bringing serious problems to the attention of the NRC and, in this case, the Government Accountability Project (GAP).

A review of the law by GAP's staff counsel reiterates our view of the authority vested in the NRC to take a nuclear whistleblower on a site tour without having a licensee representative present. Certainly in the case of this licensee it seems a little incredible that they are taking the position of noncooperation with the nuclear witnesses. They have been extremely vocal about wanting the NRC investigation to be completed, and also to be made aware of the allegations being made. The quicker that the OI investigation is completed the sooner that they will be made aware of the problems identified by the GAP whistleblowers.

As we discussed on Friday, this particular witness is willing to take an additional risk. He has agreed to attend the site tour with a licensee representative if that is the only way that it can be arranged. Obviously there are further measures that the NR0 could takes however, since all parties wish to avoid this type of confrontation I am surprised that the licensee will not agree to the two conditions which we have requested on behelf of this witness.

j If the licensee is not willing to allow this witness to go on site with OI and IE investigators, but insists on having a representative than our witness must also have a representative. It does not have to be one of his lawyers, although that is the preferred choice. Our witness has suggested a local minister, another former enployee, an aide to an elected official, or one of the other GAP witnesses who is alreadf public.

(Mr. E. Earl Kent for example.)

DEC 16 GBl

' 8406020221 840517 PDR FOIA RICE 84-96 PDR i

Mr. Wayne D. Shaffer Decem.er 12, 1982 Additionally if our witness is to give up his anonymity to the licensee he requests that the utility guarentee 1.

that they will not divulge his'name publicly, through the hearing process, or within the documents which become part of the public record.

This individual and his family are a part of the Midland conununity. Public exposure could do an incredible amount of damage to his personal life and that of his family and children. It is certainly both reasonable and understandable that this individual make the request for continued protection from public identification.

If the above conditions can be resolved he is anxious and willing to cooperate fully with the NRC investigation.

Please keep in mind that this person contacted the NRO independently of GAP prior to any actions being taken on his allegations. It is not his responsibility that the investination has been delayed until two weeks prior to the announced target date for completion. Further, it is not the responsibility of his children to bear the brunt of ridicale or isolation because of the NRC being unable to enforce their rights under the Atomic Energy Act.

I hope that this problem can be resolved in the near future.

Sincerely, GCW Billic Pirner Garde citizens Clinic Director cc: Witness Mr. Don Inkens, attorney Mr. James Cook, CP Mr. James E. Keppler i

l l

i i

r l

l 1,

_..