ML20237B653

Advises That Proposed Procedure in Does Not Solve Problem of Accessing Documents.Nothing in Ltr Obviates Need for Continuing W/Foia Requests.Related Correspondence

ML20237B653
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	12/09/1987
From:	Garde B Citizens Association for Sound Energy, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT
To:	Johari Moore NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
References
CON-#487-5107 OL, NUDOCS 8712170037
Download: ML20237B653 (3)

Text

' sf/d 7 REtATED CORRESPOREJh

, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT DOCKETEi;  :

1 MIDWEST OFFICE USNEC 104 East Wisconsin Avenue Appleton, Wisconsin 54911 (d'd) 7 '853 1rl E 15 P2 03 GFFid G dQ t.IA6 r DOCKEhNG 4 Sl"VICI.

December 9, 198%ANCh-Janice E. Moore, Esq.

Counsel for NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regul atot y Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 RE: In the Matter of TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING CO. et.al, (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2),.

Docket Nos. 50-445/6 OL

Dear Ms. Moore,

Your letter of December 2, 1987, surprised and confused me.

Although you did not reference the specific date of our conversation I assume that the letter must have been generated regarding the conversation we had in preparation for the supplemental views CASE filed in response to the Board's pre-hearing conference. (November 9, 1987, letter from Billie Garde to Peter Bloch, et.al.)

My notes of that conversation indicate that I initiated-the call to you in preparation of its views on the Board's preliminary order. CASE was attempting to determine whether the staff would be able to identify any of the inspection reports, audit reports, staff reviews, etc., which will form'the basis of the position that the staff will take for each PSR, prior to the final position in the SSER,'so that CASE could begin NOW to organize and analyze all of the documents and information in our collective files. I told you that CASE was not asking_for the

" preliminary views" of the staff, only for the completed reports and other factual information that is a part of the regulatory record for each area of interest.

I told you if the staff could undertake that type of designation it would alleviate some of the concerns that CASE had I

about the short turn around time between the release of the SSER and the identification of issues in dispute. You indicated that j you understood CASE's problem. You further asked me, if'we were  !

able to reach an accommodation would I be willing to forgo the FOIA requests GAP generates as relevant inspection reports and other documents are issued, thereby relieving the staff of that burden. I indicated that if the staff could offer some tangible agreement to solve the problem I would be able to accommodate l that request, since the objective of the FOIA and discovery work ,

is to find the information that is the basis for the staff's positions.'

B712170037 871209- PDR ADOCK 05000445 G PDR $d $b

o You called me back the next day and told me, quite definitively, that you could not make any agreement to identify what inspection reports, audits, document reviews, etc. (or portions thereof) were going to be considered under each area of interest until the SSER was issued. However, you did state that at that time the staff would provide the documents to the parties.

There was no further conversation planned on the subject, and no " preliminary agreement" of any type that I recall or have written down. Nothing in your statements to me indicated that your commitment to " provide the documents" to the parties was a preliminary agreement subject to further discussion or review by the Staff.

However, my understanding of the word " provide" was not that the Staff would docket to all of the people on the service list copies of all the related documents. I presumed that " provide" meant that you would provide to CASE one copy of the documents not already public, and an identification of all the documents already public that were to be considered under each area of interest. - -

Subsequent to our conversations, the Board issued the Litigation Schedule. (MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, Litigation Schedule, November 18, 1987.) The Board addressed the discovery responsibilities of the Staff as follows:

We request that the Staff phase the release to the parties of its work to permit early, efficient consideration at hearing. We also urge Staff to consider providing as much in process cooperation to CASE as can be efficiently managed. For example, Staff may inform CASE as early as feasible about the inspection reports, audit reports, investigations and other work products that are going to be i addressed in each SSER and allow CASE to pursue discovery of the Staff on Staff documents as the become available.

(Order, at 2-3.)

Your December 2, 1987, letter seems to imply that you are not going to follow the Board's suggestion, but rather to continue with the staff's intentions to make available the documents relied upon only after the release of the SSER.

Further, your letter indicates that instead of providing a copy of the documents to CASE you will make them available in a place convenient for all parties, suggesting the Arlington, Texas and Washington, D.C. Public Document Room. Neither the Washington, D.C., or the Arlington, Texas, PDR are convenient to CASE.

Frankly, it is far more convenient for CASE to continue to rely on the Government Accountability Project (" GAP") to process J and pursue'FOIA requests and law suits contemporaneously with the release of inspection reports, and to utilize and rely on the ,

l

l

' j t

rights available to CASE and GAP under FOIA to insure timely processing of information, than to rely on a post-SSER completion release of all of the information through the Public Document Rooms.

The procedure you propose in your December 2, 1987, letter simply does not solve the problem that led me to call you in the first place. As I explained to you then, CASE has extremely limited resources. To use them efficiently we must organize our work with strict attention to the time constraints that follow the release of the staff's SSER. We would be foolish to wait for the staff to identify the documents, after the release of the SSER, to begin our struggle to get all of the documents that form the basis for the various opinions that the staff has taken.

CASE's concern is particularly bolstered by the position that the Staff is taking in civil litigation with GAP over the release of documents that are clearly relevant to CASE's contention, are completed documents, and yet are being withheld under Exemption 5 of the FOIA. If the staff's assessment of what documents to withhold and what documents to release is similar to that evidenced in the FOIA suits I am deeply concerned that we a will be unable to adequately complete our review and preparation for hearing within the allotted time frame.

Unfortunately for CASE, GAP, and the Staff I do not see anything in your letter that would obviate the need for continuing with FOIA requests or to waive discovery against the Staff and rely on voluntary full and complete production.

If you wish to discuss this further please do no.t hesitate to call. If my reference to our conversations in my November 9, 1987, to the Board somehow breached etiquette please accept my apologies.

Sincerely, Blue L Billie Pirner Garde Attorney for CASE cc: Service List )

l l

l I