ML20154J330
| ML20154J330 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07001113 |
| Issue date: | 03/07/1985 |
| From: | Ratner M RATNER, M.G. |
| To: | Felton J NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-158, RTR-NUREG-0762, RTR-NUREG-0810, RTR-NUREG-762, RTR-NUREG-810 NUDOCS 8603100565 | |
| Download: ML20154J330 (4) | |
Text
,
a L AW OFFICES MOZART G. RATNER, P. c.
6900 M STR E ET, N. W.
SulTE 640 WA5HINGTON, D. C. 2 OO3e Antacoottoa March 7, 1985 f REEDOM OF INFORMAllOh Mr. Joseph Felton, Director Aci~ RE00EST Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission FctrA /58 Washington, D. C.
20555 nwaos/os/es SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST Vera M. English, by her undersigned counsel, hereby supplements her " Request for Production of Documents Pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.790(6) and Request for Commission Declassification Under Part 9, App. 2 (10 CFR 195-196)," dated February 25, 1985, by the following items:
1.
Letter from O'Reilly to Vaughan, dated 7/30/84 reporting summary of "our meeting in Atlanta," referred to in Vaughan to O'Reilly letter of 10/29/84, 2.
Attachment A to G.E.'s License Condition No. 9 (G.E. Lic.
SNM-1097).
3.
Attachment to Vaughan to Stohr letter of 6/7/84, pertaining to items of apparent non-compliance with NRC requirements.
4.
Attachments 1 and 2 referred to in 6/15/84 Vaughan to O'Reilly letter.
5.
Appendix A referred to in Gibson to Long letter of 11/4/81, re 70-1113/81-14.
6.
Inspection Report 82-07, referred to in 4/8/82 letter from Gibson to Long.
7.
Inspection Report 81-14 referred to in 4/2/82 letter from Olshinski to Long.
8.
Inspection Report 82-09 referred to in 4/13/82 letter from Gibson to Long.
(McAlpine signed the above-referenced letter for Gibson.)
0603100565 050307 PDR FOIA RATNER OS-150 PDR
S Mr. Joseph Felton March 7, 1985 Page 2 9.
Information, submitted pursud7/84 - from Biddinger to Vaughan.
- 10. Inspection Report 84-11, daII, rel to in Vaughan to O'Reilly letter il and)nse thereto, dated 12/9/84.
- 11. All records of changes in fd nd pares in the i
Chemet Laboratory from Janud! to 15, 1985, filad with Region II, pursuCFR s)(b).
- 12. General Electric Company's benselcation pages dated 6/20/84, revisir,/83 3e,
Application - Chapter I - 3.
- 13. Ibid.
I-5.15, I-5.9 to 5.1:
- 14. Ibid.
I-3.1, I-3.4, I-4.1,
- 15. Standard Format & Content fC icalingency Plans for Fuel Cycle & Ma tei i t iclEG-0762,
referred to in 12/31/81 Fisthan.
- 16. Standard Review Plan for the Radica l Contingency Plans for Fuel Ceriallities, NUREG-0810, referred to in 3 renc Item 7, above.
- 17. Report submitted to Fuel Facfeguind Licensing Branch pertaining 'ntallar Control Plan, discussing the investi res>n of the discrepancies between 1983 actor six material categories.
- 18. G.E. License Condition 2.1 ot MPreferred to in 9/28/84 letter f rom Brown, ab vision of License Condition 2.1.
- 19. Update of " Criticality" Emer edurictive 12/26/83 and referred to in nora! rom Terry to Crow.
- 20. ANSI ANS-8.1-1983, described: fo.tional information for UPMP Amendme:ioni June 1, 1984 and attached to Bidding ian of 9/14/84.
?
Mr. Joseph Felton March 7, 1985
{
Page 3
- 21. Plant Procedure (P/P) Calibration and Operation Instruction (COI) 6, Rev.
1, Control of Samples in Chemet Lab, referred to in 70-1113-Inspection Report 84/17, p. 4, paragraph d.
- 22. Nuclear Safety Release 6.1.0. - Radiology Safety Regulations for Chemet Lab, original and all revisions, including Rev. 4 (ibid., p. 4, 1 d).
i 1
- 23. Plant Procedure Nuclear Safety Instruction 0-6.0 and all revisions, including Rev. 14 (ibid., p. 5, 1 f).
J
- 24. G.E.'s Chemical Metallurgical and Spectrochemical,'
Laboratory Manual, Rev.
5, 8/25/82 (ibid., p.
8, 1 j).
}
- 25. Plant Procedure Nuclear Safety Instruction E-6.0, and all revisions, including Rev. 11 (ibid., p.
12, 1 n).
j
- 26. Plant Procedure & Practices 40-19, Bioassay Program (ibid.,
- p. 13, 1 n)
{
I j
- 27. Nuclear Safety Release 0.2.0, Bioassay Urinanalysis Program, including Appendix A (ibid., p.
13, 1 n).
i
- 28. Revisions 1 and 2 to Calibration & Operation Instruction
{
(COI) 409, (Revision 2 dated 7/25/84) (ibid, p.
15 1 o).
- 29. All staff evaluation reports of G.E.
committees filed with NRC between 1/1/80 and 3/13/85.
1
- 30. All PRODS filed with NRC between 1/19/84 and 3/17/85.
I 5
- 31. Uranium Process Management Project Application Amendment, dated June 1, 1984
- 32. All P/P's filed with NRC from January, 1984 to March 11, I
l 1985.
I
- 33. January, 1984 Memorandum concerning NRC Region II comments on G.E. 's application for renewal of SNM-1097, referred to 1
in 4/12/84 Memorandum from Page to Cunningham.
t i
I j
Mr. Joseph Felton March 7, 1985 Page 4
- 34. NRC Inspection Report 70-1113/83-28 and Notice of Violation dated 10/31/83, referred to in Stohr to Long letter, dated 6/22/84.
- 35. G.E.'s 6/7/84 response to NRC's 10/31/83 Notice of Violation referred to in Stohr to Long letter dated 6/22/84.
Since the trial is scheduled to resume March 18, 1985, we respectfully urge your prompt action in response to this request.
very truly yours, i
i t Moz t G.
Ratner i
cc James Lieberman, Esq.
\\
t Neal Abrams, Esq.
F.C. Shomaker, Esq.
\\
i,,
l
&,gt A r'
L AW OFFICES g#
-r f ;
yj7 MOZART G. RATNER, P. c.
( p,/,
3.-
isoo w staa.cr. = w.
suite eso wA s sinato w. o. c. r o o ms aaca coac nee
/
sus.o.,a February 25, 1985 Director Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
/
Washington, D. C.
20555 Director Division of Security U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 Mr. James M. Taylor Deputy Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555
\\
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT 4
TO 10 CFR S 2.790(6) AND REQUEST FOR COMMISSION DECLAGSIFICATION UNDER PART 9, APP. 2 4
(10 CFR 195-195)
Vera M. English, by her undersigned counsel, hereby requests that the enclosed list of documents, all of which are in poncession of NRC but are not on file in the public document room, be made available for inspection and copying, without restriction, as soon as possible.
Mrs. English is complainant in DOL Case No. 85-ERA-2, in which the Secretary of Labor, af ter investigation, has found reasonable cause to believe that G.E.'s highest management, in its Wilmington, North Carolina, I
Nuclear Manuf acturing Plant, discriminatorily transferred and discharged Mrs. English from her analyst job in the Wet Lab, because she constantly complained to management and finally to NRC about nuclear safety violations and hazards, quality i v i r A l A n_-
..o..,
f y h)I f V )e
y,- n~ f y i control deficiences and management's deliberate falsification t i and. cover up violations. If substantiated, the complaint of discrimination is a Severity Level I violation. (" Misc. Matters," A, 4, 49 F.R. 8593) The' DOL hearing is scheduled to resume March 18, 1984 before ALJ Brisse'nden. NRC should recognize an obligation to produce, before the reopening date, all relevant evidence in its possession bearing upon this violation. 10 CFR S 2.790(a) (" violation of a license"). NRC regulations require the licensee to post, inter alla (10 CPR S 19.11(a) all "(2) * *
- documents incorporated into a license by_ reference, and amendments thereto, (3) the operating procedures applicable to licensed activities; (4) any notice of violation involving radiological working conditions an order issued pursuant to Subpart B of Part 2 of this chapter and any response from the licensee" and (10 CFR S 21.6(a)(3)), all procedures adopted pursuant to regulations in this part.
In addition, NRC inspectors in Region II have conducted investigations and issued reports on Mrs. English's charges against G.E. Mrs. English is party to a proceeding against G.E. and the Second Region inspection staff of NRC, catagorized by Mr. Taylor as a 10 CFR S 2.202 proceeding (7590-01], in which Mrs. English charges that the NRC ' inspectors' reports are deficient, inaccurate, biased and j, f n
unlawful -- i.e., violative of NRC's published standards, by which NRC is bound, but which the inspectors did not apply. The undersigned received from NRC copies of various } reports, 82-18, 84-04, 84-05, 84-13, 84-15, 84-16, 84-17, / 84-18, under a protective agreement (10 CFR S 2.790(6)(1)), which Mr. Neal Abrams and Mr. Ed Shomaker stated was a condition precedent to receipt of these reports. The undersigned does not agree that the aforesaid reports and/or the documents listed in the enclosure may lawfully be " deemed to be commercial or financial information within the meaning of S 9.5(a)(4) of this chapter." The undersigned asserts that as applied to a litigant in such proceedings as detailed above, 10 CFR S 9.5(4), which authorizes withholding f rom public disclosure as " confidential," matter "which is customarily held in confidence by the originator," is an unconstitutional denial of due process inasmuch as it denies complainant access to evidence necessary, or at least relevant, to prove her case and thereby vindicate her statutory right. It also frustrates performance by the charging party, "as private attorney general," of the role Congress assigned such parties "in enforcing the ban on discrimination." EEOC v. Associated Dry Goods Corp., 449 U.S. 590, 602 (1981). Likewise, the undersigned asserts that subsection 4(i), which exempts from disclosure "(i) [1] nformation received in confidence, such as trade secrets, inventions and discoveries -3_ .., =
1 ~ and proprietary data," is unconstitutionally ad insofar as it exempts "information received in confid nd " proprietary data," whatever that ambiguous, ed, term may mean. We have no quarrel with exemption from disclosure of real " trade secrets, inventions and discovand material properly classified as " Safeguards-Iion." But at maximum, only such portions of the inspectarts and the documents enumerated on the enclosed list truly contain such information, may lawfully be wit $am public exposure. The " protective agreement" which t signed executed in exchange for receiving the docume.ies to entire documents, not merely identified matte.n which can lawfully be withheld from public disclosu this extent, the " protective agreement" is legally ad and m void. S 10 CFR S 2.790 (b)(1), requires that on who proposes that a document or a part be withhelcl<e or in part from public disclosure on the ground thattains trade secrets or privileged or confidential cci information" shall submit an affidavit request 1 holding which "may designate with appropriate markingsrade secret or confidential or privileged commercia2ation within the meaning of S 9.5 (a)(4)," the objec.res withheld. Thus, the burden of proof is square.d on the objector to designate the parts of documents c.o be,
exempt from public disclosure under S 9.5(a)(4). Absent a sworn claim and proof by the opponent, G.E., that portions of the documents requested fall within S 9.5(a)(4), NRC is not permitted to withhold any document from public inspection, except on " Safeguards Information" grounds. In this respect also, the " protective agreement" is overbroad and void. Further, G.E. has waived any " confidential" privilege it may have claimed under 10 CFR S 2.790, by providing complainant in 85-ERA-2 with papers and data stamped " Company Confidential" and permitting complainant to of fer those documents in evidence without objection or any request for in camera inspection or for a protective order. An example is Exhibit C-10, in 85-ERA-2, sttached to this letter. Under the " opened door" doctrine, that waiver extends not only to documents named therein and to all like or related documents, but to all documents relevant to the charge in 85-ERA-2. To the extent that the decisions referred to and any document on the enclosed list of data may be withheld by NRC from public inspection, and receivable in evidence only subject to NRC's non-public access restrictions, we request that all restrictions be removed except from those portions of the documents as may be designated by G.E. which NRC, after careful review, determines are legally excludable. Of course, until NRC has released the documents for public inspection, or has been ordered by a court to do so, the undersigned, while at all. e" e e
?.' times reserving Mrs. English's rights and claims in the matter, will abide by the " protective agreement." To the extent that any documents are withheld from public disclosure on the ground that they contain " Safeguards Information," we request " Declassification Review" under Part 9, App. A, pp. 195-196, 10 CFR (1/1/84 ed.). Accordingly, a copy of this request is also being submitted to the Director, Division of Security. Because of the closeness of the trial date, the recent issuance of many of the subject reports (84-15 and 84-16 were received February 25, 1985, and 84-17 and 84-18 were received February 11, 1985), we respectfully urge consideration of and response to this " Request" on an emergency basis. Very truly yours, e Mozar G. Ratner Counsel for Vera M. English cc: James Lieberman, Esq. Chief Counsel Regional Operations and Enforcement Neal Abrams, Esq., Senior Attorney Office of Executive Legal Director F. C. Shomaker, Esq. " e
( (' ( (, REPORTS SUBMITTE0 BY GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (NUCLEAR ENERGY BUSINESS OPERATIONS)' TO Tile NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FOR VIOLATIONS OF NRC REGULATIONS DURING THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 1978 TO July 27, 1984 6_ m1DTIAL VIOLATims JANUARY 9,1979 UF6 gas RELEASE FEMUARY lLi,1979 U02 POteER IHEFT FAY 22,1900 UtMUTHORIZED REMOVAL OF LO2 PELLETS f JUNE l, 193/l SCCIDEtiTAL LOSS OF lIASTE l_IQUID l 'ITED VIOLATIONS 4 ihnCH10,1979 UtmuTwoRIZED REtO/AL OF CONTAMIfMTED TRASH JANUARY 1,1980 SHIPMEffT OF UF6 CYLIt0ERS U 9 e Charles M. Vaughan Manager, Regulatory Compliance O e op 4 6 ~ c le. e
~ i. LIST OF REQUESTED NRC DOCUMENTS NOT ON FILE IN NRC PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOM / (th , gy;,ff' 1. Letter of November 2, 1984, fromVaughantoStohrresite<gpIA ~ jU s. specific training program for trainees from G.E. to NRC. \\ G'i to NRC describing - h cs d' / l 2. Letter of November 2, 1984, from G.E. ( ,g t ( training program. h "f -w -3'. Attachment to November 15, 1984 Vaughan to O'Reilly letter /1 regarding results of inspection report 84-11 (dated 6, 10-18-84, on file). hi 4. Safety Evaluation Memo for Radiological Contingency Plan, 3{f identified in letter 12/11, Page to Vaughan (on file).
- ' 0'
\\ 5. Safety Evaluation Report for Changes to Chapter 4, identified in 12/11 letter Page to Vaughan (on f,'ile). ' 6. Letter from Vaughan to O'Reilly dated 2/14/84. fg. - J' ~ 7. Letter from Stohr to Long dated 8/10/84. l (6 and 7 are referred to in 10/31/84 Vaughan to O'Reilly j letter in file) f 8. " Revised license application pages" - dated 10/23/84, / .,;.; Revision 6 submitted with letter dated 10/23/84 from ~~ y / 73 7 'vaughan to W.T. Crow, NRC section leader; specifically, / {,., 2.9 " Investigator's Report of Unusual Occurrence" - Sec. I-2.20 and " Records" sec. 2.10. I-2.21 G /
- ' g ) 7(
e, 9. Ibid, Chapters 3 - Radiation Protection sec. 3. "Adain. Regs" I-3.1; " Technical Regs" sec. 3.2; I-3.4; " Safety." j \\
- 10. Ibid, Chapter 9 - Overview of Operation.
\\_ 11. Ibid, Chapter 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16.
- 12. Attachment to 10/12/84 Vaughan to Brown letter, on exemption regs, referred to in 9/28/84 Brown to Vaughan
'% f letter. L /13. Material transmitted with letter from Chas. M. Vaughan to J.P. O'Reilly dated March 21, 1984 (source Vaughan to Brown letter, 9/28/84, in file). Letter from Stohr to Long dated August 10, 1984 (same source as 13). i e
- h)4;5s,,G.E.'s Radiological Contingency Plan submitted to NRC on l
o --- January 14, 1982, and supplemented on April 4, 1984. 1
- 16. Application (6/1/94)/ Affidavit (6/4/84) concerning UPMP j
9 (referred to in 9/11/84 letter, Cunningham to Vaughan). f h T7. Fundamental Nuclear Material Control Plan submitted August g\\ 31, 1984 (ref'd to in 9/7/84 letter from Brown to i Vaughan). m - } I,,7 18. Letters of February 14, 1984 and March 21, 1984, relating to the Fundamental Nuclear Control Plan, from Long to Stohr e-/ /y.ji' ', referenced to in 8/10/84 letter from Stohr to Long. / //
- 19. Enclosure to letter of August 10, 1984 from Stohr to Long t
- - ~ ~ ~ - '(FNCP). '20. P/P 40-17, Rev. 3, Nuclear Safety Traling (referenced in 's 84/10 p, 3, 11 7 and 8. 9,~21. M.C. 41808 and M.C. 71814 (11 7 and 8, respectively, of 84/10 Inspection Report). 1 ,,.7....# { _.s.22. PROD operating procedures ref'd at p. 4 - 84/10 1 8(d)
- 23. Response of G.E. dated 6/7/84 to notices of violation
( issued 10/31/83 and 5/11/84 - referred to in letter from f Stohr to Long dated 6/22/84 concerning Report ,i j!
- 70-1113/83-28
/
- 24. All responses of G.E.
to findings of violation between 1978 l// and 1985. This is a continuing request.
- 25. Letter from J. O. O'Reilley to J.A.
Long dated July 30, 1984, summarizing meeting held in Atlanta (II) on July 10, 1984, between G.E. Reps and O'Reilly et al., ref'd in letter from Vaughan to O'Reilly dated 8/29/84. N 6. Attachment to June 7, 1984 letter from Vaughan to Stohr (responses to findings of " referenced" inspection NRC Insp. Rept. 83-28 (10/31/83). i : l
~. i." February 22, 1985 I, Vera M. English, authorize my attorney, Mozart G. Ratner, to receive all correspondence, transcripts, and other documents pertaining to " Request for Action Under 10 CFR 2.206 Regarding Activities at the Wilmington, North Carolina Facility of the General Electric Company," Docket NO. 70-1113,' and English v. General Electric Company, DOL Case No. 85-ERA-2. i I1 l.: e n e. I bl. Ossfiss i Vera M. English P e e t f 9}}