ML20126B029
Text
-
f,
[*,,
UN:tto stAtts
[
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION iN Aeol0N 1 4
g*****/y 475 ALLENDALS ACAD KING OF PMUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA 16404 June 21, 1990 t
HEHORANDUM TO:
Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Congressional Affairs FRON:
Thomas T. Martin, Administrator
SUBJECT:
ALLEGATION OF FALSE TESTIMONY TO CONGRESS BY AN NRC LICENSEE We have.;.:ome aware of an allegation of a false statement given in testimony before Congress by a representative of an NRC licensee, Northeast Utilities.
The alleged false information was presented during a congressional hearing concerr=
secret sett;ement agreements involving nuclear. utilities. We believe
,t this allegation has been brought to the attention of Senator John Breaux, Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulations Connittee on Environmental and Public Works. We became aware of this through a copy of the enclosed letter from Mr, Robert A. $ol mon, Attorney at Law, New Haven, CT, concerning his client L to Senator John Breaux.
Please. confirm with Senator Breaux's of fice that they have recet ed the letter t
t' rom)ir. Solomon of the firm Pittnian, Sneehan, Solomon and Swaine, dated
~'
March 14, 1990.
[-.
Thomas T. Martin Regional Adminis* ator
Enclosure:
As Stated Information in this record was dekted haymond in accordance with e Frejd{of Information J. SheviosLy Act, exemptions A. Vegal f01A N 'I Allegation File No R].90-A-0042 C. White, O!
9212210350 920608 7
OUILD91-162 PDR I
_ _ _. _ _. _.. ~. _... - _ _.
w PITTMAN, SHEEHAN, SOLOMON & SWAINE Attorners at Law 10$ Court Sweet. Swts 400 P.O. Den 1928 New Haven. Connectevt 000S1928 Pm Jostae Pew gy r.<em(m) 42415,13 303 uu2..
aw w L $=see March 14, 1990 4
The Honorable John Breaux Chairmen, Senate Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulations Committee on Environmental and Public Works United State Senate Washington, D.C.
Re:
lv.ConnecticutLicht_& Power, d/b/s Northeast Et111 ties
Dear Senator Breaux:
In the Congressional Record you entered certain information you r a ved from Bill Ellis, Chairman and Chief Executive Offic r of Northeas Utilities, concerning its offer of settlement to The offer included language to discourage reporting safety toletions to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
As noty.d in documents supplied by Northeast Utilities, I represent j
Mr. Ellis and Northeast Utilities have assured you that Northeast.
.has correcty the offending language appearing in the offer to '
l M,s le-blowers,I have no knowledge as to the treatment of While other w nothing could be further _ from the truth 1
insofar as' Northeast Utilities' treatment of is concerned.
Prior to submitting a written agreement to h ) I reached an oral agreement with Northeast Utilities' attorney as follows:
1)
Connecticut - Light & Power, d/b/a Northeast Utilities and W. J..
B ney Corporation (a co-d endant in the case) would 2)
All parties would keep _ the terms of the settlement confidential; G
l I ( h' /; 6. 5ffwT*4}D-
@Eir EdT ~ M E t
W E "gs. 7$
3.r,3 US W e.4. N.04'.f.t sr.
r
-.g
.. r.e.
$.p l
w,a
.c we
+-
7
+
--=
v--
y w
t The Honorable John Breaux March 14, 1990 i
Page 2 e
4)
The litigation would be withdrawn.
subsequent to this, Connecticut Light & Power's attorneys submitted a lengthy settlement greement wkth onerous (and perhaps illegal) restrictions on First Amendment i
rights and, in his view, duty to re rt fety violations to the N.R.C.
Because of this, refused to sign the agreement.
We suggested " changes, still hoping to settle the litigation on the agreed upon terms.
Connecticut Light & Power's only response to us was that the settlement offer was withdrawn i
and we rahould proceed with litigation.
In a May 4,
1989 internal memorandum to Northeast Utilities's Officers, Northeast Utilities, by E.J.
Hroczka stated that 6
- settlement discussions have proved unsuccessful... Northeast Utilities plans to Vi orously and itself..."
in the litigation.
Since then, has undergone three full days of deposition,
As hi attorneys, we expended numerous hours rep senting resulting in large legal bills for which an hourly worker, is obligated.
All of this was necessitated by Connecticut Light & Power's refusal to enter into a written agreement consistent with the earlier cral I
agreement.
Of course, if we go to trial, we will expend a much greater amount of time.
Contrary to Mr.
Ellis' assurances, Connecticut Light & Power never offered to remove the offending language from the agreement or to substitute any alternative language.
21 fact, through its refusal to settle this matter on agreed n terms a its use of I
superior resources to litigate beyond financia(
resources, Connecticut Light & Power is now punishing l
precisely because he has made public the contents of the agreement.
Thus, not only has Connecticut Light & Power not rrected Lts actions, but it continues to act punitively toward for his role as a whistle-blower, including his role in bringing this issue to your attention.
t will continue to speak out on safety issues.
He is not anti-industry.
He worked at a 4
/ T A', W. 6 Nii P W E.45* M JN P5W W enN ti-r<% @3.4.7ofg W J..ntLT-"F5 N
.x
.c +
.g. - nv
'7 y
ti :10.
?)
Q
- w-
+
i The Honorable John Breaux i
March 14, 1990 Page 3 t
nuclear site for two years, but believes in systems to avoid the humaa errors which could result in a catastrophe.
Apparently, this is not acceptable to all members of the industry, including Connecticut Light & Power.
Very truly yours,
$0W $'bhw Robert A. Solomon-Attorney at Law RAS /lb cc:
Richard X. Walker, Esq.
o t
s
+.
I l
l l
e YN l,7 7 k.
% gf
- W " * *Bt ekt i, i. fif C :
h:5!
y. 'rS h, '
MR 3 e J. t a t= T., S A T i : -
s p.e% w.e.,3 p:-
sy b by.
l
,,y--.
v-a-
m
,.-..m-%
,,m e
---.-e m- - - = - - - -, - -. - - -. -
e.v-e*