ML20154L541
| ML20154L541 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 05/16/1988 |
| From: | Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Sharp P HOUSE OF REP., ENERGY & COMMERCE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20154L547 | List: |
| References | |
| CCS, NUDOCS 8805310342 | |
| Download: ML20154L541 (5) | |
Text
.
gma e
UNITED STATES
~g M
E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
{
.k WASHINGTON, D. C 20555 e
%,..... p#
May 16, 1988 CHAIRMAN ge The Honorable Philip Sharp, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Power Committee on Energy and Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C.
20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am enclosing responses to questions contained in your letter of March 29, 1988, regarding the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant.
I understand our respective staffs have discussed the late receipt of your letter and the resulting delay in this response.
The documents provided in response to Question 1 have not been released to the public.
We request that you preserve their confidentiality through restricting access and use to the Members and Staff of the Subcommittee.
I assure you that the Commission will keep you informed on the status of this investigation.
t Sincerely, b
U/.
n
[.
Lando W. Zec Jr.
Enclosures:
As Stated cc:
Rep. Carlos J. Moorhead R
8805310342 800516 DR ADOCK 0500 8
10, 1987 the Director of the Office On December QUESTION 1.
of Inspector and Auditor stated that their investigation would be completed in 60 days.
However, in your February 17, 1988 letter to me, you state that the investigation will be completed in another 90 days.
(a)
What caused this delay?
ANSWER The Office of Inspector and Auditor (OIA) has completed two investigations relating to the Farley Nuclear Power Plant and The first completed investigation has one other ongoing.
relates to an alleger's claim that the NRR Region II Investigations Coordinator mischaracterized the Allegation and alleger's concern about contamination of a creek by discharges A copy of the OIA memorandum dated March 29, from Farley.
Confidentiel 1988, closing this investigation is enclosed.
source information included in the memorandum has been omitted.
The second completed investigation is based on allegations that NRC was attempting to impede an investigation by the Office of Investigations of the Alabama Power Company and that NRC had removed NRC inspection reports from the Local Public Document Room in Dothan, Alabama, to preclude public access to them.
OIA's report dated May 13, 1988, is also enclosed.
The third investigation involves several general allegations Investigative field pertaining to NRC's regulation of Farley.
Barring any work on these allegations is currently ongoing.
unforeseen developments during the field work stage, 01A anticipates completing this portion of its Farley investigation within 60 days.
The delay in completing these investigations resulted from the need to assign 01A's limited investigative staff to higher priority investigations.
The documents that are provided in response to this question We request that you have not been released to the public.
preserve their confidentiality through restricting access and use to the Members and Staff of the Subcommittee.
(b) Please provide the final report, when completed.
ANSWER We will provide to you a copy of the final report for the is issued by OIA.
ongoing investigation as soon as it
The Department of Justice recommended adoption of regulations dealing with the sequestration of QUESTION 2.
lawyers in a letter on Janury 21, 1987.
However, no action has been taken.
(a)
Were the Commissioners told of this advice?
If so, when?
(b)
Why has no action been taken on this re comme r.da ti o n ?
ANSWER:
The Commissioners and their respective staffs did not become aware of the Department of Justice letter until December 1987 or January 1988, at the earliest, while the etaff was ccupiling draft responses to your November 19, 1987, letter.
The Office of Investigations (01) elected not to pursue It was not deemed promulgation of a sequestration rule. reasonable or feasible to hold t
- Rather, abeyance pending the adoption of a sequestration rule.
other approaches to resolving the Farley impasse were pursued.
However, the drafting of a sequestration rule such as that recommended by the Department of Justice was begun shortly At the present after receipt of the Justice recommendation.
time, the proposed rule is in its final drafting stage.
1 l
l a
-,-,,-..-,,ng-,
,,,,ar.
,m,,
p.__w,,
y
,-es,,,
y ps, -+,-,
Please explain the reason for delay in response QUESTION 3.
to my November 19, 1987 letter.
Please explain who decided to eliminate much of the information in the draft letter and for what reason.
ANSWER 19, 1987, was received by NRC on Your letter of Novemberand was referred to the Office of November 20, 1987, The December 18, 1987 draft Investigations (01) for response.
response to which you refer was not approved by the Director of 01 and provided to the Office of the Chairman until January 4, 1988.
On January 11, 1988, after review by the Office of the Chairman, the proposed response was returned to the EDO and OI to assure there had been adequate review of the technical answers and to obtain 01 and ED0 responses to several suggested On revisions and comments from the Office of the Chairman.
the EDO and 01, respectively, provided January 13 and 26, 1988, On February 1, their redraft to the Office of the Chairman.
1988, the proposed response was circulated for comment to the offices of the other four Commissioners.
On February 11, 1988, an Office of the General Counsel attorney serving temporarily in the Chairman's office redrafted the His marked up v2rsion of the letter was circulated to letter.
the Commissioners on tho same day.
A copy of the marked up version is enclosed and it makes clear that the changes made were intended to assure the accuracy and completeness of the response.
In response to a suggestion from another Commission office that the answer to question 2 was excessively detailed, the Chairman's office shortened the answer, but attached the correspondence between the investigators and the attorneys 4
involved in the disputes concerning the investigation so information that there could be no suggestion that pertinent was being withheld. This approach was discussed with and A final version of the letter was prepared concurred in by 01.
Upon returning to the office on for the Chairman's signature.
February 16, 1988 the Chairman reviewed the final version of the letter and it was signed and hand delivered to your office on February 17, 1988.
In sum, while the Commission does not condone the extent of the delay in responding to your November 19, 1987 letter, there are occassions on which the need for an accurate and clear response, fully reflecting the Commission's position, means that a particular letter passes through several drafts, a In this instance, the process which can be time-consuming.
17, 1988 effect of the changes to the draft of the February letter to you did not eliminate essential information from the response package.
Enclosure
QUESTION 4.
Please provide the Subcommittee with a monthly status report on this case, arid provide a copy of the final report.
ANSWER In the matter of the Farley plant investigation in which you have expressed an interest, we are continuing to pursue resolution of issues concerning interviewing witnesses.
On April 13, 1988, the Office of Investigations (01) mailed eleven (11) subpoenas to employees of the Alabama Power Company's Farley Nuclear Plant.
Alabama Power has retained counsel independent of counsel for the company for these employees.
The subpoenas have return dates of May 17, and 25, 1988.
On April 27, 1988, the employees filed a motion with the Commission to quash the subpoenas; their motion was denied (the Commission's May 6, 1988 order denying the motion is attached).
Alabama Power and 18 management officials, filed a motion to intervene in the proceeding on the motion to quash.
This was also denied.
In a letter dated May 9, 1988, counsel for the employees informed OI that he intended to advise his clients not to comply with the NRC subpoena in the absence of a Federal District Court order unless 01 both agreed to release a transcript of the interviews within 10 days and recognized intervenor's rights to be represented by any attorney.
We are preparing to request an order to enforce the subpoenas from the appropriate court.
A monthly status report will be pruvided.
. _ _ _