ML20206F721

Advises That Gap & Macktal Will Only Accept Interview If Technical Review Team Present W/O Region IV Until Ofc of Inspector & Auditor Rept Released,Due to Dissatisfaction W/ Region IV Performance

ML20206F721
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	02/14/1986
From:	Lieberman J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
To:	NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
Shared Package
ML20206F590	List: ML20206F585 ML20206F643 ML20206F685 ML20206F701 ML20206F721 ML20206F727 ML20206F743 ML20206F769 ML20206F791 ML20206F794 ML20206F805
References
FOIA-86-157, FOIA-86-A-44 NUDOCS 8606240565
Download: ML20206F721 (3)

Text

i February 14, 1986 NOTE TO FILES I spoke today, February 14, 1986, with T. Carpenter, GAP, concerning his letter to Victor Stello dated February 3, 1986. He told me that GAP and Mr. Mactal would only accept an interview if TRT was present without Region IV, even if a transcript was made, until the OIA report was released.

However, even if TRT alone interviewed them, they would not do so if Region IV was responsible for the investigation of their concerns. In short, they are dissatisfied with Region IV's performance. Mr. Carpenter informed me that he was not an attorney.

?? ,

jf. ~

/

/ James Lieberman , Director and Chief Counsel

(/ Regional Operations and Enforcement Division OELD cc: R. Vollmer 0606240565 860609 PDR FOIA GARDE 86-A-44 PDR i

l l

aa. n /

\

t

,. 4 6 .-

. UNITED STATES ,

.:' x / i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5 g

{ -

REGION IV 'h h a .

dl[

q 8 611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE, SUITE 1000 ARLINGTON, TEXAS 76011 MEMORANDUM FOR: Guy H. Cunningham Executive Legal Director FROM: Robert D. Martin Regional Administrator

SUBJECT:

RESPONSE TO GAP'S FEBRUARY 28, 1986, LETTER IN RE: MR. J0E MACKTAL The following is Region IV's reaction to the subject letter.

We have considered the arguments and issues contained in the subject letter and we have found nothing to persuade us to alter our plan to issue a subpoena on Wednesday, March 5,1986, should Mr. Macktal fail to appear as requested.

Our overriding concern continues to be the protection of the public health and safety. If Mr. Macktal knows of "significant irregularities at the Comanche Peak plant" as he and GAP have claimed in both letters to and telephone conversations with NRC officials as well as in the press, then we believe that it is in the best interest of the public that he furnish us with such information as soon as possible. Instead, we view the most recent GAP assertions as obstructionist tactics which exhibit lack of real regard for the central issue--protection of the public health and safety.

Regarding the proposed " procedures to be enforceable for any communications between Mr. Macktal and the NRC," we have the following comments:

1. We do not believe that it is in the Government's best interest for Region IV to send Region IV representatives to Washington to interview Mr. Macktal when we can pay for Mr. Macktal to come from his nearby Texas home to the Region IV office in Arlington. While we certainly will not exclude Mr. Macktal's attorney from any such interview, we are also not aware of any requirement to pay the travel expenses of his attorney or other representative. We are not even aware of any similar situation where that has been done as a matter of discretion. Indeed, we would question whether doing such might not be against the intent of Congress as expressed in Sec. 502 of Public Law 99-141.

2. We do not agree to a condition of signing a statement committing the agency to complying with the procedures for the management of allegations that the staff is already otherwise obliged to follow. This type of request on the part of GAP only strengthens the view that GAP is not really interested in expeditiously resolving the real issue of finding and correcting any safety significant concerns.

I b

a d

4 6 1

Guy Cunningham 1 Regarding GAP's assertions that Region IV has. failed to follow agency l procedures in this particular case, available time does not allow for a point-by-point rebuttal. Needless to say, however, it is our belief that all applicable policies and procedures were followed in both letter and spirit in our dealings with both Ms. Garde and Mr. Macktal. Indeed, our approach was closely coordinated with headquarters. Similarly, time does not permit a response to the assertions or innuendo of wrongdoing contained in the older issues presented by GAP. In fact, we question the value of expending resources to address those items as the majority of them have been the subject of prior 0IA reviews.

If we allow ourselves to get into a point-by-point debate with GAP over erroneous or mischaracterized side issues, we frustrate our responsibility of seeking an expeditious determination of what Mr. Macktal claims to be safety-significant concerns. It would be ironic and a bit disconcerting if we are deterred from our mission to ferret out safety concerns by such tactics.

Robert D. Martin Regional Administrator cc: J. Lieberman, OELD L. G. Burns, OELD J. H. Sniezek, Acting DEDROGR 9

__