ML20195B668
| ML20195B668 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 05/22/1986 |
| From: | Cunningham G NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Roisman A TRIAL LAWYERS FOR PUBLIC JUSTICE, P.C. |
| References | |
| CON-#286-311 OL, NUDOCS 8605290471 | |
| Download: ML20195B668 (3) | |
Text
'
% COnatspw,g%
-.s'o UNITED STATES "g
[-
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
.j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 1%
\\*****/
MAY 2 21986 gn c3,
00 Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.
Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, P.C.
hst7aPlG 4
/
~ PC 4
Suite 611 S
C" t
M[Qif w 2000 P Street, N.W.
Washingtor., D.C.
20036 in the Matter of Texas Utilities Electric Company, et al.
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Uiilts 1 and 2)
Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446 C) / _
Dear Mr. Roisman:
This is in reply to your letter dated April 16, 198G, in which you express two concerns regarding the conduct of staff counsel in the Comanche Peak licensing proceeding.
While I appreciate that these concerns were brought. to my attention, I am satisfied that the matters you raise do not in fact reflect improper conduct on the part of staff counsel.
The first concern you raise relates to the apparent failure of staff counsel to bring matters to the attention of the Licensing Board which, in your view, require such notification.
You cite three examples as illustrative of your concern: the OIA report addressing the staff's handling of the T-Shirt incident; allegations made by two former CPSES employees relating to improper design, inspection and construction activities and harassment and intimidation at Comanche Peak; and two PNOs issued by Region IV regarding possible sabotage or vandalism at Comanche Peak.
With respect to the OIA report, it has been the NRC staff position that this report is not relevant to the issues before the Board since the report relates to the staff's conduct of inspection activities and does not evaluate the applicants' activities.
.Thus, although staff counsel has knowledge of this report. I do not agree that there is a duty, either under the Commission's Board Notification policy and procedures or under the principle established in McGuire, to submit to the Board this report which is irrelevant and immaterial to the proceeding.
In any event, as you appear to be aware, the OIA report has been availabic in the Commission's Public Document Room since March 1986.
1 Staff counsel have advised me that they have no specific knowledge of the
.other two examples cited by you, save the general knowledge that allegations were recently made by a number of former CPSES employees which are under staff review, and that there may have been one or more acts of what may be sabotage / vandalism at Comanche Peak.
However, until the staff completes its determination of relevance and materiality of these matters, notification of the Board is not required.
If, and at such time as the staff determines that 8605290471 860522 PDR ADOCK 05000445
r,
. issues either of the examples you cite is relevant and material to any of the before the Board, it will provide notice of them.
Your second concern relates to two instances in which you suggest tha counsel represented that documents had been mailed on cer about the copy of the February 5,1986 letter to the licensee transmitting a mailed later.
d copy of the staff's finding of no significant environmental impact which h been sent to the Federal Register.
In a footnote in a brief to the sent to a copy of the letter was Commission, staff counsel indicated that(the same day it was published in the Federal 1986 CASE on 1ebruary 7,whereas you indicated in " CASE Reply In Support of Its Pend 14, 1986 that the letter Register)
Requests" submitted to the Commission on FebruaryI understand that this matter 10, 1986.
was not postmarked until February was ' discussed with you several weeks ago.
I am confident that the on information counsel was made in good faith reliance Moreover, I do not representation byfrom the staff, which had sent the letter.
believe it is accurate to suggest that such statement was used as an received aftirmative argument by the staff in support of its position before the nor does it appear to Commission in connection with CASE's stay request, have had a bearing on the Commission's decision nor in submissions to th Court of Appeals in connection with CASE's request for a stay.
The second document you indicate was not mailed on 11,1986 before the' Board. That letter, dated April had been previously conveyed to the Board Chairman that, consistent with general practice in this proceeding, the staff would not take a position on Earlier that day, in dispute between CASE and the applicants.
response to a phone call from the Board Chairman who inquire discovery connection with this motion, discovery disputes between CASE and the applicants, taking a position onthe Board Chairman was informed that was the staff pos The letter, The matter was not further discussed with the Board.may in fact d
motion.
11, 1986, although dated Friday April the same day as the date on the Board's Order.
until Monday April 14, 1986, This does not alter the fact that the staff did not receive or have any knowledge of the Board's order before the letter was dispatched.
To characterize this situation as an " apparent deception" exaggerates the situation beyond its reasonable proportions.
Moreover, I can find no information to support your understanding that there was controversy with the staff with respect to the position taken on the discovery dispute.
as another apparent example of the staff's departure from its duty to keep the Licensing Board informed, that the staff has In addition you state, reviewed documents at their locus without taking possession of them in ord to avoid their release under discovery or the FOIA.
It is my understanding, based on Mr. Noonan's letter to Ms. Garde, dated March 28
's 6 1986, that it is not at all unusual for the staff to review documents of this This practice type at their location rather than taking possession of them. discovery or FOIA may have the effect of renderingbut such result does not render the practice unlawful.
staff unproductive, There is no obligation that the staff take possession of do With respect making them available to CASE on discovery or under the FO sought to have such documents produced and has filed several related motions.
In summary, after looking carefully into the concerns you raise in your letter, I do not find that staff counsel acted improperly.
Thank you for bringing to my attention your concerns about the professional Please be assured of this Office's commitment to Office.
integrity of thisassuring that all staff counsel continue to represent the NRC staff w as well as for their responsibilities to the regard for the public interest Loard and parties.
Sincerely, g s "'
Guy H.f Cunningham, III Executive Legal Director Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq.
cc:
W. Reed Johnson, Esq.
Thomas S. Moore, Esq.
Peter D. Bloch, Esq.
Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Elizabeth B. Johnson, Esq.
Dr. Walter 11. Jordan Mrs. Juanita Ellis Robert A. Wooldridge, Esq.