ML20235H803: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
Line 18: Line 18:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:}}
{{#Wiki_filter:-      - - - - - -
ORIGINAL Uh1TED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:                            DOCKET NO:  50-498 50-499  ,
HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY (South Texas Project)
DEPOSITION OF BILLIE P. GARDE LOCATION:      BETHESDA, MARYLAND              PAGES: 1- 127 DATE:          MONDAY, JULY 27, 1987 FoD-87-l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
444NDcYasereet Washington, b.C. 20001 h1
          ,                ,,, ,20,29                        (202) w =
PDR VERB --587                        NATIONWIDE COVERACE
 
a CR31840.0L                                                                                                                                          1 DAV/sjg-i 3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                                                                    !
2                                  NUCLEAR REGUL'ATORY COMMISSION 5 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD                                                                  I' 3
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x 4                                                                  :
In the Matter of:                                                :
5                                                                  :                          Docket No. 50-498 HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY                              :                                                    50-499 6                                                                  :
(South Texas Project)                                          :
                                                                                          ~
7 ___________________
8                                                                                                                                  i DEPOSITION OF BILLIE P. GARDE 9
10                                                          Bethesda, Maryland Monday, July 27, 1987 12                      Deposition of BILLIE P. GARDE, called for examination
{
13  pursuant to notice of deposition, at the United States Nuclear 14  Regulatory Commission, 7735 Old Georgetown Road, Room 6110, at 9:50 a.m. before DAVID L. HOFFMAN, a Notary Public within and 5
for the State of Maryland, when were present on behalf of the respective parties:
17 18                            ANTHONY Z. ROISMAN, ESQ.
Law offices of Anthony Z. Roisman, P.C.
19                            Suite 600 1401 New York Avenue, N.W.
20                            Washington, D. C.          20005 On behalf of the Deponent.
21 22 RICHARD CONDIT, ESQ.                                                                                  l' DAVID RUBINTON, ESQ.
Government Accountability 23                                Project 25 E Street, N.W.
i                    24                            Washington, D. C. 20001 On behalflof the Deponent.                                                                          .
25
                                                                                                                                      -- continued --
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700      Nationwide Coserage                                                804D6-M46
 
l 2
I-                                        ]      APPEARANCES (Continued):
(:
WILLIAM D..PATON, ESQ.
l
'                                                                  KARLA D. SMITH, ESQ.
3 STEPHEN SOHINKI, ESQ.
United States Nuclear 4                          Regulatory Commission Office of General Counsel 5                      Washington, D. C.        20555 On behalf of the Nuclear 6                          Regulatory Commission.
7 ALSO PRESENT:
8              EDWARD TOMLINSON 9  ,          ROBERT GUILD                                              '
10              JIM'PIEROBON 11                                                                        !
12
(                                    13 14 1
15
                                        .16 17 18  q 19 20 21 22 23 o
24 25 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700      Nationwide Coserage 800 336-6646
 
3$
I
                    ]                                  CONTENTS
(-
2  WITNESS                                                    EXAMINATION 3  . Billie P. Garde by Mr. Paton                                                    4 4
5                                                                            ,
6 1
7 8                                                                                1 9
EX'HIBITS 10 GARDE EXHIBITS                                                IDENTIFIED 11 Exhibit 1                                                            5 Exhibit 2                                                          7
('
13 Exhibit 3                                                          17 14  Exhibits 4 thru 6                                                  47 15  Exhibit 7                                                          51 16  Exhibits 8 and 9                                                  60 y7  Exhibits 10 thru 13                                                61 Exhibit 14 and 15                                                  62 18 q
                -19 i
20 21 22 23                                                                                    i i                24 25 ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700        Nationwide Coserage 80r.L346646
 
  .8400 01 01                                                                                                                      4
  ' t. Vbw                                            1                              PROCEEDINGS 2 Whereupon, 3                                BILLIE P. GARDE 4 was called as a witness and, having been first duly sworn, 5 was examined and testified as follows:
6                MR. PATON:        This is a deposition of Ms. Billie P.
7 Garde by-the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
                                                      ~8                My name is William Paton.              With me is Karla D.
9 Smith.
10                Ms. Garde is represented by Anthony Z. Roisaan.
11            'Mr. Roisman, would you indicate the names of the
                                                  -12    other counsel.
(                                                13                MR. ROISMAN:        Yes.      My cocounsel are Mr. Richard 14 Condit and Mr. Dave Rubinton -- R-u-b-i-n-t-o-n. both 15 attorneys with the Government Accountability project.                      '
16                                  EXAMINATION 17                BY MR. PATON:
18      0        Ms. Garde, did you bring with you today the 19 records that were requested by the subpoena?
20      A        What records were requested by the subpoena, as 21 you define them?
22      O        I will show you a document that I will mark as 23 Deposition Exhibit No. 1.
24                (Document handed to witness.)
(                                                25 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700        Nationwide Coverage      800-336-6646 I
L        .-                        - _ - - - - - - - -
 
8400 01-01                                                                                                                              5 DAVbw                1              BY MR. PATON:
(                      2      0      And ask you whether you are familiar with that 3  document.
l                          4                                          (Exhibit 1 identified.)
l-                          5              THE WITNESS:        I have seen this document before.
6              BY MR. PATON:
1 7      0      Does that document refer to certain records that 8  you were requested to bring with you?
9      A      It requests me to bring records or documents in 10' your possession or under your custody or control.                                                                  ,
11      0      Ms. Garde, if you will go a little slower.                                                          In 12  fact, whatever you want to do, but this will be Deposition 13  Exhibit 1. So it will be attached or it will be with the 14  transcript.
15      A      Repeat your question.
16      0      Do you agree there are certain records referred 17  to in that document?
18      A      Yes.
19      0      Did you bring those record with you?
20      A      No.
21      0      May I ask you why?
22      A      Yes.      Because all the documents in my possession 23  or under my custody or control are protected from disclosure 24  by either the attorney-client or the work product privilege.
25      0      Did you bring with you, for example, any of the ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700        Nationwide Coverage    800-336-6646
 
8400'01 01                                                                                6 DAVbw                1  agreements that you have with the ledgers?
(.
: 2.        A    No, I did not.
3          0    Can I'ask you how many written agreements, how 4'  many individuals?
5        A    You can ask me that. question.        I can't from my.
6-  memory, answer- that question.
7          0    There was an allegation, a statement by you, I 8    believe, _ in your January 20th letter that there were 36 9-  people that you were either working with or you had 36 10  ' clients. Do you recall?
11          A-    I-recall the January 20th letter, and I believe 12    the number that you cited is correct.
13          0    If you need to see that letter at any time, we 14    have a copy with us.        In fact, let me read you a brief 15    sentence from that letter.
16          A    May I see the letter?
17          0    Yes.      Absolutely.
18                (Document handed to witness. )
19              THE WITNESS:        My counsel has provided me.
20              BY MR. PATON:
21        'O    On page 1, the third paragraph, as. a matter of 22    fact, to make sure we are talking about the same document,-I 23    had marked this document as Deposition Exhibit 2.
24              .Do you agree this is a letter that you wrote to 25    Mr. Stello and to Mr. Mattox, dated January 20, '877 ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700        Nationwide Coverage  804336-6646
 
8400 01:01                                                                                      7 DAVbw              1              (Document handed to witness.)                                    l
(                      2                                            (Exhi' sit 2 identified. )
3-              THE WITNESS:        This is a letter that was sent from 4  my office to Mr. Stello and Mr. Mattox.                I don't remember if a
5  I was actually the person who wrote the entire letter.
6              BY MR. PATON:
7        0      I direct your attention to the signature at tne 8  end of the letter.        Your signature was apparently supplied 9  by somebody else.
10-        A      Yes.
11        Q      Referring to the first page, the third paragraph, 12  let me read that short sentence.
  ,                  13                " GAP currently either represents or is working i
14  with approximately 36 current and/or former employees of the                    <
15'  South Texas project. "
f 16        A      I see that sentence.
17        O    Are those 36 clients of yours?                                      j l
I 18        A      It's difficult for me to answer that question                  !    ;
l 19  with a yes or a no.        At the time that this letter was                    i l
20  written, the number was correct.                The number is no longer 21  correct. It has increased.            I believe it is now 22  approximately 54 or 56 current and/or former employees.                We 23  have an attorney-client relationship with those employees.
24        0    You said "we have."            Tell me who you mean by
.                      25  that.
ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700        Nationwide Coverage      800-336-6M6
 
l 8400101 01                                                                                        8 DAVbw                          1      A      I'am an attorney admitted in the bar in the State 2 of Wisconsin.        There are other people assisting me on the
                                  .3  investigation, who are attorneys admitted in other                    l I
4 jurisdictions.or working under our direction.              GAP, as you 5 know, is a public interest organization that has attorneys.
6 So when I refer to        "we," I'm referring to either myself or 7 other attorneys at GAP.
8      0      Do you or other attorneys in GAP have an i
9 attorney-client relationship with all 54?                                i, 10      A      Yes.
11      0      Are they written in every case?
12      A      No.
13      0      Would you estimate in how many instances they are 14  written?
15      A      Can      I consult with counsel for a minute?
16      0      Absolutely.
17              (Discussion off the record.)
18              THE WITNESS:      I believe we have written              i 19  agreements in approximately half of the cases.
20              BY MR. PATON:                                            {
21      0      You reside in Wisconsin?
I 22      A      Yes.                                                        '
23      0      When -- approximately when, did you finish law            i 24  school?
25      A      I graduate in May of 1986.
\'
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700        Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
 
(8400101 0.1L                                                                                                            9      !
LDAVbw.              1~              0-    When did you take the bar?                                                        I
('                  2                A In. July 1986.
3                0    .When were you admitted to the bar?
                    ~ 4-            A. September 1986.
                    .5    '
Q      This is probably not important, but do you happen 6          to recall the date?
7              A    "My recollection is it was the 20th.                                      It was  l I
i 8          around that time frame.                                                                      {
l 9              0      Around September 20, 1986.                      Do you agree, prior              {
10          to September 20, 1986, assuming that's the correct date, 11          ~ whatever the'date was in September, that you were not 12;        authorized to practice law.
13                      (Discussion off the record.)
14                      THE WITNESS:      I can't answer that question with a 15          yes or no.
16                      BY MR. PATON:
17                0      Please answer it any way you like?
18                A      Before September 1986, I was practicing law in 19          front of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and in front of 20          administrative bodies, such as the Department of Labor.
21                Q    Can you tell me, was this under the authority of 22          some other attorney?
23                A      In the context of, was there an ettorney 24          supervising my work, the answer to that 1s yes.
25                0    Did you practice law in any other manner than you ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
:                202 347-3700      Nationwide Coverage                800-336 6646
 
i 1
00 01 01                                                                                                                                                                      10 DAVbw                                                                    1  have indicated prior to September 20, 1986?
2        A                    I don't understand your question.
l 3        0                    Your testimony is that prior to September 20,                                'i 4  '1986, you, in fact, practiced law before the Nuclear                                                    j l
5  Regulatory Commission, and this is before you were admitted                                              l 6  to any bar; is that correct?
7                            MR. ROISMAN:                              And Mr. Paton, and the Department 8  of Labor.                                                                                                  l j
I 9                            MR. PATON:                        And the Department of Labor.
10                            THE WITNESS:                              Yes 11                            BY MR. PATON:
  }                                                                        12        O                  You were admitted in Wisconsin?
13        A                  In September 1986, I was admitted in Wisconsin.
14        0                  Have you been admitted to any other law bars 1
15  since that time?
j 16        A                  I have not applied to admission to any other bars 17  since that time.                                                                                          ;
18        0                  How long have you been associated with GAP?                                      !
i 19        A                  'As an employee?
l 20        0                    Yes.
21        A                    Since January 1982.
                                                                                                                                                                                            )
22        0                  Were you associated with GAP in some other 23  capacity prior to 1982?
4, 24        A                  Yes.
25        0                  would you tell us what that association is?
ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, 202-347 3700                              Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646        {
1
 
l 8400 01 01                                                                                                                                  11
(
DAVbw                                  1                                        A  As a client.
l                                          2                                        0  What is GAP's function in the South Texas 3  proceeding that we're here today to discuss?
4                                          A    I don't know what proceeding is.
5                                          0  That's fine.      You and Mr. Stello exchanged 6  correspondence in the early part of 1987;                                      ' is that correct?
7                                          A  There has been an exchange of correspondence 8    beginning in 1987, in writing, with the NRC, regarding South 9    Texas employees.
10                                                      0  okay.      You are stating, on behalf of GAP that you 11              possess a number of allegations concerning the South Texas j                            12              project?
13                                                      A  I'm not stating here anything on behalf of GAP.
14                That's not why I'm at this deposition.
15                                                          Are you referring to statements in letters?            I 16                mean, I don't understand what your question is.
17                                                      0  What I'm getting at is, what is GAP's function in 18                  this proceeding?                                      If you don't like that question -- ?
19                                                        A  I don't understand the question.
20                                                            The proceeding that we're in, I'm not sure what 21                  that is.
22                                                          0  The proceeding that we're in -- let me start 23                  again.
4.
24                                                            Either yca or GAP are claiming that you possess a 25                  number of allegations in the South Texas proceeding ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700      Nationwide Coverage    800 336-6646
 
8400LOl'O1 ~                                                                                                12
      '( .Vbw          I  concerning the South Texas project.                                                                    l
                      .2            A                                                                                            l L                                        Okay. .Do-you want me to that?-
p                                                                                                                                l L                      3            0    You are'having difficulty with, I think, some                                          j 4  fairly straightforward questions, and if you would tell me i
5 what your difficulties are, I would be very glad to help.                                                !
In the beginning of the deposition, you asked me.
                                                                          ~
6          A                                                                                              !-
i 7 a question of what does "we" mean, okay?                Now'you.are using                            i i
8 a term "you," to me, personally.                'I an having difficulty l'
9 understanding the difference between you, referring to GAP, 10  you referring to Billie Garde, and you, referring to my                                                I 11  clients who possess allegations.                                                                      ).
12            0    okay.      I don't want to get into a debate.                                  Let me I
13  just make a little comment.              In the document in which you 14  agree to represent clients, the document indicates that. GAP 15  is representing the clients.              So I had a little difficult 16  with that myself, but I will try to straighten out the "wes" 17  and the "yous "
18                You are aware, in fact, you have stated in 19  letters, and by "you," I mean you personally, are aware of a 20  number of allegations regarding the South Texas project.
21            A    I am aware of allegations regarding the South 22  Texas project.
23            O  And there are other attorneys employed by GAP who t                    24  are also aware of those allegations?                                                                        ,
{~            25            A  There are.
l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700      Nationwide CoveraFe      800 336-6646
 
    .8400:01 01-13
  ,    .- Wbw      1        0    And GAP is performing some function with respect 2  to those allegations?'                                                      -l 3-      A    That's too general"a comment for me to agree or                    )
4- disagree'upon.
i 5        0    Can you tell me what function GAP is -- what. is                  ]
                  '6  GAP attempting to do about those allegations?
7        A    Are you asking what'my professional mission is in 8  regard to the allegations?
9-            Is that your question?
10        -0    Try me again.      What was your question?
11'        A    Are you asking me, as~ an attorney, what my 1
12  professional mission is regarding either a client or an 13  allegation?
{
14-        0    That's a good question.              Would you answer-it yes?
15        A    Each client, obviously, is different.                    So-I am 16  going to give you a general answer.              Generally, clients have I
17  retained me or GAP or Richard Condit, specifically, either                    l 18-  for the purpose of representing them in a discrimination 19  employment matter or for the purpose of insuring that 20  allegations that they possess that stem from.their 21  employment at the South Texas plant are investigated 22  properly and competently and resolved to their satisfaction 23  regarding their safety issue and safety of the plant.
24              In some cases, those two purposes overlap.                        !
j'                25              Does that answer your question?                                    I l
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                              I 202-347 3700      Nationwide Coverage        800 336-6646 l                                      -                  -.
 
8400 01 01                                                                        14      !
  .DAVbw        1          O    Yas.      Thank you.
(            2                Is GAP a corporation?
3          A    I am not on the Board of Directors of GAP, and I 4    don't have the personal knowledge regarding its status to 5    answer that question.
6          0    I'm going to ask you later about the client 7    relationship. The reason I am asking you this question is, 8    it indicates that GAP will represent these people', and I 9    just think it's just a little unusual.
10                Do you know whether GAP is a partnership?
11                MR. ROISMAN:        Excuse me, Mr..Paton.        I believe 12    that I.can represent to you that the Government                          j 1
13    Accountability Project is a corporation, 501(c)(3) tax-(          14    exempt.
                                                                                              ]
15                MR. PATON:        I appreciate that.
16                Off the record.
17                (Discussion off the record.)
18                MR. ROISMAN:        Let me just be clear about my 19    understanding.
20                MR. PATON:        Let's go off the record a second.
21                (Discussion off the record.)
22                MR. ROISMAN:        My understanding is, that until 23    you, in effect, raise your hand and say "Now, this is 24    information that I do not want to be made public," that
:            25    whatever is said -- for instance, whatever has been said up I
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
                  ,            202 347 3700        Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 L
 
8400'01E01                                                                            15 i
OAVbw              1- 'until now, is on'the record and will;be available to us.            l 2                MR.'PATON: . Absolutely.
3                MR. ROISMAN:      I want you:to understands as soon
                                                                                            .)
4    ashouraise.yourhand,Ms.GardeandIwalk. . We will not                1
{
5    remain here and answer'even the question whether we want
                    .6    lunch or not off the deposition: record, if we want it on or 7  .in a closed deposition record, if.we want'it'open.
                    .8                MR. PATON:      This is the! reason. My; comment is 9-  this:    if I raise my. hand, it will be because.there is some 10    very small doubt in my mind about whether or not this matter 1
11:  ~s hould be on the public.        I will be sufficiently            j 12    conservative,.so that when I go to others in the NRC and ask
                  ' 13 -  them that question, I expect in my instances, the answer is 14    going to be, continue with the deposition.
  '(                                                                                          i 15                So I am suggesting that if at that point, you 16    walk, it really isn't going to be very effective or 17    efficient.
18                MR. ROISMAN:      No, but I cannot tolerate -- my    H client cannot. tolerate a situation in which any word'that 19 20    she speaks here, which she is perfectly free to speak on the 21    steps of the U.S. Capitol, if she wishes, to 10,000 people, 22    should be kept under seal by the NRC, and if that situation 23    arises, and you-want us to keep talking, the alternative is 24    for us to postpone the deposition.
I                  25                We will bring in our own court reporter and
(
l ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700      Nationwide Coverage 800-3364646
 
1
;8400_02 02t                                                                                                      16
(
DAVbw                          'l    record what'she says and be:able to                make it public.        But we Te                                                                                                                                  i 2    ' understand that is~a fight we may have down the road and not-                          1
  'h                                                                                                                                l 3 / now.                                                                                      -
j 4                  MR. PATON:      I'm suggesting.that yourJstatement, 5    that.the minute I raise my hand, you are going.to take a-      -
                                                                                                                            -i 6    walk, is really not very ' effective from anybody's point of
                                                                                      ~
7    view, but.obviously, that's your decision.-
8                  MR. ROISMAN:      But do you understand that we have
: 9. zero trust of the rest of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 10      who's going to make the decisions here, your bosses in the-                                !
1 11      OGC,'the Commissioners themselves, Mr. Stello.- We are not 12      willing to leave in their discretion the question of whether 13      or not comments that my client makes. publicly, intending to
  '{                              14 . ' be made publicly, will nonetheless be kept secret, not only 15      from the public but from her.
16                  Now that's a situation that we've already seen 17      happen to clients that my client is representing, who have 18      come to the agency, given information to the agency and then 19'    denied access to their own information.
                                                                                                                              )
MR. PATON:
20                                    Mr. Roissan, I expected you to make                  I i
21      those statements.        Thero are certain statements today I 22      expect Ms. Garde to make.          I hope we don't go beyond 1:00 23      o' clock, in repeating those statements.                Your position is 24      superclear. There are a lot of documents in the record to 25      indicate what your position is.              I understand your position.
{-
i      l
                                                                  /\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
j            202-347 3700        Nationwide Coverage        800 336-6646
 
8400 02 02                                                                                                17 DAVbw        1-  I am merely suggesting that for you to quote " walk," because                                              {
2    I raise my hand without even waiting for a decision, which 3    says, yes, the deposition continues, is really not the way                                                  l 4    to go, but that's your decision.
5                Now may I continue?
6                BY MR. PATON:
7          0    Ms. Garde, I want to show you Deposition Exhibit                                                1 8    3, which is your affidavit which is attached to your plea in 9    response to, I believe, your motion to quash the subpoena.
10                                            (Exhibit 3 identified.)
11                BY MR. PATON:
12          0    Somewhere on this page, it says "Since 1985, I 13    have been retained" -- yes, beginning in paragraph 2, it
{            14    says "Since 1985, I have been retained."
15                Now do you agree that that sounds a little 16    inconsistent with the fact that you were admitted to the bar 17    on September 20, 19867 18                MR. ROISMAN:      This is not cross-examination, Mr.
19    Paton, and I am not going to have my client sit here and 20    answer questions, "Do you agree that that's inconsistent."
21                If you want her to explain to you why she says 22    that there and she said something else elsewhere, that's 23    fine. If you want to cross-examine here, we'll take a ten-24    minute break.
I 25                MR. PATON:      Mr. Roisman, I suggest that we have Li I
L                                              ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC.
j            202 347 3700      Nationwide Cmerage    RB336 6646
 
8400 02 02                                                                                                                    18 DAVbw.  .I  had a lot of posturing this morning.                                                I have been very 2 straightforward, unbelievably straightforward.                                                    For you to 3  take an' objection, because I ask her to say is it a little 4  inconsistent -- I would be delighted to amend my question 5  and ask her to explain it.                                        I think we are being a little 6  overtechnical'here.
7                                            MR. ROISMAN:      Let me very clear about this.                    Ms.
8  Garde was prepared to come here and ask questions in an l
9  atmosphere that wasn't cross-examination.                                                Give us ten 10  minutes, I'll bring her back.
11                                            MR. PATON:        I would be delighted to have the 12    question say, can you explain.                                            That's fine.        I think we are                    ;
13  overworking this a.little.                                        I'm being very straightforward,.
(              14    very easy going here 15                                              BY MR. PATON:
16        O                                    Ms. Garde, explain it.              Whatever you' want to do.
17    But can you explain that statement?                                              I think Mr. Roisman 18    probably wouldn't object to that question.                                                Maybe you can 19    answer that question.
20        A                                    Yes.
21        0                                    Please.
22        A                                    Since actually 1984, I have been retained by 23    employees who have concerns and discrimination complaints 24    against utilities across the country under Section 210 of 25    the Energy Reorganization Act.                                          As I am sure you know, you a
ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700        Nationwide CoveraFe          800-336-6646
 
"8400~02 02                                                                                                                                              19 DAVbw          1  . don't have to be an attorney to represent employees under 2  that Act, but it-is,-as I understand it, and as I think you 3    understand it, being retained and practicing law and 4    representing employees.        Also since 1984, I have represented
: 5. employees in' licensing proceedings in the NRC since 1983.
6    I've represented employees in licensing hearings before the 7    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.              In each of those case, I've 8    had a supervising attorney and the client and the presiding 9    judge were all aware that I was not an attorney practicing 10 g  after admission to the bar.
11                My first retention by a South Texas employee was 12    in 1985.
13                Does that answer your question?
[              14          0    Yes.      Thank you.
15          A    I want to amend that to say, since 1982, because 16    I represented employees in both the Midland and the Zimmer 17    proceedings in front of the NRC in 1982, in front of the i
18    NRC.
19          0    You appeared in the Midland proceeding?
20        A      Not as an attorney representing the Intervenor, 21    but as representing employees in front of the Commission.
22        0      Your recollection is that you made an appearance 23    in that proceeding representing clients?
24        A      I think we're misunderstanding each other on the i
25    term " proceeding."                                                                                                                    !
i ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                                                                    1 202 347-3700        Nationwide Coverage                                                                  803336-6646
 
,18400.02: 32:                                                                                                            20 m
p;iDAVbwi      _l'          'Q Okay.
L 2f              A      I thirsk rou're referring to operating license                                          4 L -.( x i
,-      m 3      proceeding, and'I'm referring to investigations, and in some.                                          ,f
                '4 -    cases, those investigations led to appearances by witnesses 5      in a licensing proceeding.
6            _Q  -1  Thank you.                                                                                1 7                      Can you tell me when GAP'first became interested 8        in the safety allegations in the South Texas project.
: 9.                    I'm not trying to be tricky.              You know, when,did
              '10      .you or GAP receive your first allegation?                                                                )
I don't want to obfuscate the answer to that
                                                                                                                        ^
11                A q
12        question.
                                                                                                                                  )
              ,13                                                                                                                l Q      Please, if you have difficulty with anything,                                            j 14        just tell me.
f                                                                                                                              .
15                A'    That's a very broad. question, which incorporates 16        both my professional judgment about the South Texas project.-
17        Am I worried about the South Texas project, based on 18        someone's allegations, and my understanding of what a 19        client's specific concerns were, regarding South Texas.                                            I 20        received the first complaint about South Texas, personally, 21        in the context of workers I represented in 1985, where they                                              )
22        actually retained me, and in that casa, through the 23        Environmental Whistle Blower Protection Clinic, to represent 24        them against their employer at the South Texas project.
25        That's what I would consider the first allegation I k                                                                                                                              I Ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
[                202-347 3700      Nationwide Cowrage              800 336-6646
 
8400 02 02                                                                                                                21
        -DAVbw                                                  1 ' received.
2              Does that answer your question?
3        0    Yes.
4        A    That may be different than in 1983.            I read an l
5  NRC report in the PDR that made me think there was something 6  wrong with the plant.                                                    '!
7        O    I appreciate your answer.                                      ;
8              Did you then pursue your interest in that 9  allegation (nr other allegations af ter you received 'your i'
10  first one?    What I want you to recite is the history of your 11                                                                        !
interest in the South Texas Project allegations, but maybe            ,
12  you can't handle that.
13              I want to know, how did you first become
(                                                    14  interested?                                                            <
I A                                                                    !
15              Your question assumes a number of things which I          l i
16  don't think are correct.        I take it that "you," in that              !
* j 17  question was directed to GAP, organizationally.            When did        J 18  GAP organizationally become interested in the South Texas 19  project.
20        0    That's correct.
21        A    That's an entirely different question than, when          l j
22  did you, Billie Garde, take on the representation of l
23  clients, who believed they'd been discrimination against.            !      I 24        O    Please answer the first question.        Tell me about l
25  GAP's interest in these allegations?
i f
                                                                                                                                        !      l I
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700      Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
 
8400 02 02                                                                    22 DAVbw    1        A      Before I can answer that, I have to tate to 2  counsel.
3                (Discussion off the record.)
4              THE WITNESS:        Can you restate the question i
5  regarding GAP?
6              BY MR. PATON:
7        0      Please relate the history of GAP's interest in 8  the allegations in the South Texas project.
9        A      GAP, as an organization, specializes in 10  representing whistle blowers or workers who have concerns 11  and believe they have been or will be discriminated against 12  for raising those concerns at some point in the receipt of 13  allegations. There is a difference between an isolated
(        14  whistle blower or allegation received from a plant and an 15  increasing stream of allegations that we received.              Sometime 16  in early f all of 1986, there was a significant increase in 17  the allegations we received from the South Texas project and 18  workers who were calling GAP and either looking for me, 19  specifically, or looking for representation.          And I made a 20  recommendat' ion to the GAP Board that decides what work that 21  we get involved in or what cases we can take, that we do a 22  preliminary investigation at the South Texas project.
23              That is a different recommendation and a 24  different process than saying, John Doe has called me and i
25  asked me to represent him in a whistle blower claim against f
l4 l
                                        /4CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC.
l-              i 202-347 3700        Nationwide Coserage 800 336-M46
 
F' I
8'400 02'02                                                                                  23    )
DAVbw            1  Bechtel, and I believe the case-has merit, and we should i
    .                  2  take it. That's a different process.
( ---
L                        3        0      I appreciate your answer.            You made a 4'  recommendation to the Board, I gather, that they pursue 5  their interest -- or what was-your recommendation to the                  1 6  Board?
7        A      That question aesumes there is an interest.
8  There is no interest of GAP as an organization to take on 9  South Texas or to take on a particular project.                  That's 10  wrong.
11        0      I don't really think that's what I asked, but 12  that's all right.
13-      A      Well, you said, " pursue your interest."                That g                  14  assumes the interest is already there.            All right?
15        0      Okay.
16        A      At some point, as I just stated, in the fall, I 17  made a recommendation to the Board that the number of                            !
l 18  allegations that we were receiving on all fronts, convinced 19  me, in my professional judgment, that this was a very 20  troubled project, and that we should look further to see 21  whether or not the NRC had completely abdicated its 22  responsibility at the project and whether there was a ro19                      j 23  that gap needed to play, in terms of getting the information                    i I
24  accurately eddressed.
25        0      And did the Board respond to your recommendation?
I I
I ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                          ,    j 202 347-3700      Nationwide Cowrage      800-336-6646        1    1
 
8400'02 02                                                                        24      )
1 DAVbw    1            MR. ROISMAN:      Excuse me just one second.
2              (Discussion off the record.)                                  I i
3            MR. ROISMAN:      Mr. Paton, I just want to be clear          j i
4 about something.        You are now inquiring into a process              )
I 5 within the Government Accountability Project.              Mrs. Garde is-
              .6 perfectly happy to t.nswer_your timing questions.                I        I 7 understand why you want to ask them, but she will not answer
                                                                                            ]
(
8 the questions to the extent that you go beyond the timing to              j 9 ask here the questions, what did the recommendation say or 10  what were the contents of the recommendation or anything 11  like that.                                                                ,
12              I don't have any reason to believe that you are 13  going to ask t. hat, but I just want to be clear, as we go
_(        14  down the path.      She is very willing to give you the timing 15  answers.
16              MR. PATON:      Let me try again. I asked her merely      i 17  what did GAP decide to do about her recommendation.                  What 16  did they do in response to her recommendation.
19              Do you have any objection to that?
20              MR. ROISMAN:      I don't have any objection to that.
21              MR. PATON:      That's the only question I have.
22              MR. ROISMAN:      I didn't want you to get any false 23  impression about where this could lead or that she was in 24  some way waiving any claims or right she might have.
25              BY MR. PATON:
(
I i                                      ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700        Nationwide Coverage  800'336-6 646
 
m          .
3              in 7
25 f840010202L.
i
    ~DAVbw            1      0    . WouldLyou-answer the question?          I'll' repeat the
:2  question, if you want me to.
3              You indicated that you made a recommendation.to d  the GAP Board.      My question is, what was.the response?
S'      A      They agreed with my professional judgment that
                    .6  the flow of information indicated that a preliminary
: 7. investigation was in order.
8      0-    Did you conduct that preliminary investigation?
9      A      Yes.      It's not completed.
10        0      Okay.
11              Can you tell me the result of that?
12        A      No, I cannot tell you, because we haven't
          , -      13  completed or concluded what is the preliminary investigative
(              14  state.                                                                    !
15        O      Can I ask you' the subject of that preliminary 16  investigation?      In other words, what is the issue?            Is the
                  .17  issue how bad are things in South Texas?          Can you 18  characterize the issue, what it is you are investigating?
19        A      I don't know if I can characterize the issue that-20  you are investigating, because. in a preliminary 21  investigation, you are attempting to determine whether or 22  not the regulatory process broke down at a plant and there 23-  exist deficiencies or problems that have not been resolved 24  and are probchly not going to be resolved with the working 25  structurc3 in place.
('                                                                                            !
l ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700        Nationwide Coverage  800-336 6646
 
f8400LO2LO2                                                                                                        26-
    .DAVbw .  :1                        Q  Am.I correct that you havo not reached a 2              conclusion?
4
              .3-                          ' Any time L we need . a minute, just ~ go ahead.
4                            Am I correct'that.you have not reached.a 5              conclusion as to whether or not the regulatory process has-6-            broken down at South Texas?
7                        A  I don't want to lose. site of the fact here that.
8              we're talking about a process that began' after-we 9              represented clients in the context of discrimination 10              actions, who brought to us a series of concerns that we 11              began investigations-on behalf of those clients, in terms of 12              preparing for their Department of Labor -cases or ~ doing. their 13              Department of Labor cases or looking at tort suits. or 14              something 'else of that nature.
15                            And in the context of that, we then lookedito see 16              whether the systems in place are going to resolve whatever 17              deficiencies or failures exist.
18                            Let me give you an example.
19                            South Texas has a safe team program.                                South Texas 20              claims that their safe team program will identify 21              deficiencies that workers have and deal with discrimination 22              complaints, so that everybody should be happy when they                                                                      j l
23              leave South Texas or at least satisfied.              Theoretically, if 24              that program worked, as Houston Light and Power envisioned 25              it working, and as the NRC relied on its working, then there k
l 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700      Nationwide Coverage    80(>336-6646
 
8400c02'02:                                                                      27        l I
l l . DAVbw'        'l  may 'not be a need for larger commitment of! resources by' GAP            !
2  to clients. ' We would be able to say, go to safe team.              We
    .t-3  see that this works.                                                      !
4              So in order to be able to see if the systems are 5  working, or if we can just say, go to the NRC, at- this o , plant, you have gotLa top notch inspector.          He's not going .
7  to letianybody harass you.        He's going to take your I
8  concerns. -He's going to protect you.          You don't need a            l 9  series of GAP lawyers available to represent workers to do 10  investigations and to ensure that the process works.
l 11-              That's part of the preliminary investigative                  i 12  process.
13              Our preliminary investigative process concluded
{        14  fairly early on by talking to clients, their witnesses,                    !
15  supporting witnesses to their cases, that those processes 16  had broken down and were not functioning in a way that would 17  protect our workers.                                                      i 18        Q      I thought for a long time that you weren't going 19  to answer my question, but you answered my question.                Thank 20  you.
21              Do you have any estimate as to when your 22  investigation, GAP's investigation will be concluded?
23        A      Not until the NRC aspect of this proceeding is 24  concluded.                                                                '
25              A preliminary investigation concludes with 0
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
20b347 3700      Nationwide Coverage    800 336-6646
 
8400u02-02.                                                                        28      )
DAVbw. l' anotaer recommendation to'the GAP Board.          That 2  recommendation is either that -- it's not either/or, because            l i E                                                                                                          l l                                3  it's different in every case, but it is generally that we                !
1 4  believe we've flushed out all the concerns that are there 5  that haven't been resolved, that the NRC is back on track,              )
6  and they're working to resolve these concerns, and that is 7  not necessary for you to continue to represent new and more 8  workers that are coming out in front of the NRC or that the        (
9  allegations that have come forward have been brought                ,
10  forward, that there's a process that they can adequately be        1, e
I 11  resolved in, and that discrimination complaints are resolved        !)
I    l 12  and the system is working.          Or it might be that there is no j    l 13  way that the process is going to work, and that it is going 14  to take a full-scale investigation by GAP to make the
(.                                                                                j    )
15  clients whole or resolve their problems and make sure that          !
16  allegations and other concerns are adequately resolved and 17  fully investigated.
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 i
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700      Nationwide Coverage  800-336-6646
 
8400' 03 03i                                                                        29' DAVbur  11      0      Do you have any conclusion right'now as -- if I 2  may use your expression -- whether the system will work?
  ; l, 3      A      It is entirely, within .your hands, Mr. Paton.
4'      0      By "you" you mean the NRC7 5'      A      I would like'to put it in your hands.
6              (Laughter.)-
7              BY MR. PATON:
8      0    .Thank you.
9              (Discussion off the record.)
10            .THE WITNESS:      Counsel has reminded me of two 11  things that make that answer more complete, and I think they-12  need to be on the record.
13              First of all, I want to be clear that the 14  preliminary investigation in that process that I have
(
15  described starts with workers who come to us whom we take 16  their cases and that out of those cases, out of those
: 17. discrimination cases that were based on -- I want to make 18  the record very clear on this.            A worker doesn't come to us 19  with a Section 210 complaint unless he believes that he 20  raised internal safety concerns and was terminated or 21  harassed or somehow or another suffered some type of 22  discriminatory treatment as a result of attempting to raise 23  those safety concerns.                                                                ,
f 24              So it is an intermingled process where you are                            I L                25  looking at both the discrimination complaint and the safety h:
l1 I
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700      Nationwide Coverage    80 4 336-6646
_ ___ .___ _ _._____ _ _J
 
l
! 840DIO3iO3                                                                        30 l DAVbur      1  concerns, and in order to defend a client properly, as I am 2  sure you know, you have got to look at everything that that i
3  person. brings to you.
4                There is a decision that has to be made in terms 5  of the amount of resources that GAP is going to be able to 6  put on each client's case.          That largely comes from what is 7  the scope of the technical allegations that are raised or 8  what is the scope of the breakdown.
9                How does it stem -- how does the discrimination                    !
10    in terms of the termination affect the rest of the                              l 11    workforce?    Are we talking about a pattern and practice of 12    discrimination here which can reasonably lead to a conclusion i
13 that quality control inspectors are not raising safety
{          14    concerns or that welding department supervisors are not able l
15    to do their job and make proper judgments?
                                                                                                    )
(
16                Do you understand?
17                BY MR. PATON:                                                        I 18          0    Can I interrupt you for a second?
19                I don't mean to interrupt you, but your answer is 20    a little lengthy.        Help me with what issue -- I am not 21    trying to be funny, but what issue, what are you addressing 22    right now?
23        A      You are asking me process questions, okay?
I 24    Process questions are questions that have to have very open-                      l 25    ended answers because I have got to explain to you a lot of i
ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
[            202 347 3700        Nationwide Coverare  800-336-6646
__-_-____-__a
 
8400 03 03 13 1 DAVbur                    1 things that you don't seem to understand or' acknowledge 2  about the legal function that GAP performs.
3      0    okay.      The thrust of my question was what does 4  GAP intend to do from now on, and you may be answering that.
5        A    Well, that answer went more to the previous 6  question and answer about the process in terms of what GAP              i 7  intends to do.
8              The supplemental answer that I have is to make 9  clear on this record that we already have reached a I
10  conclusion, and a firm one, on the ability of Region 4 to 11  not make the system worked as envisioned and as incorporated 12  by the regulations and that that conclusion equally applies 13  to the Executive Director and people under his direct 14  control.
(                                                                                                    l 15              It is within the NRC's ability to put an 16  independent -- and I use that term somewhat loosely because 17  I mean independent of Victor Stello and Region 4 -- it is 18  within the NRC's ability to put together a team such as the 19  technical review team at Comanche, the team at Waterford, 20  the special inspection team at Midland to investigate these 21  concerns.
22      0      I gather that is what you want Mr. Stello to do?
23      A      I don't want Mr. Stello to do it.          At this point 24  I would think we would want the Commission to instruct that 25  such a team be commissioned.
l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700        Nationwide Coverage 800-3366646        1 i
 
i-840'OLO3'03'.      l''                                                                                                                                      32
  .F: Vbur-      1  I          Q    Okay, I think that is clear.
2 (Discussion off the record.)
3                  BY MR. PATON:
4            Q    I want to go back to your statement about your
                  '5      not bringing the_ records with you that were requested by the 6      subpoena.
7                  Is it your statement that all of those records 8'    would have revealed information that you think it is 9      inappropriate to reveal?
10            A      Yes.
11            Q      I want to ask you a few questions about 12      allegations that have been received by GAP and others on
  .I
                .13      behalf of GAP of the. South Texas Project.                                                                                              N 14                    Is 500 the correct number -- strike that -- what 15      is-the correct number of allegations that GAP now has?
16                  And I fully appreciate, Ms. Garde, that if you 17      asked 10 people to count them they would all come up with a 18      different number.                    But just for the sake of having a number, 19      do you have a number?
20            A    This is a dynamic process, as your own 21      investigations are.                      I believe the number is closer to 600
              -22        at this time.
23            0    And growing?                                                                                                                          .
l l                24            A    Yes.                                                                                                                                    '
L(.
25            0    I will show you Deposition Exhibit 2 in just a ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700                            Nationwide Coverage                    800 336-6646
                                            . _ _ _ _ _            ._ _        _                _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _      ______O
 
l l i 8400103 03                                                                                33 i
Vbur  1  moment, but at the bottom of page.1, the large paragraph at 2  the bottom of page 1, you, or GAP rather, set out a 3  description of these allegations.                Let me ask you whether 4  you consider that to be fairly accurate.
5                (Handing document to witness.)
6                THE WITNESS:      I don't understand your question.
7 The letter is accurate.          It is very, very general.
8              BY MR. PATON:                                                  (
9        Q    All Eight.
s 10                MR. ROISMAN:        Mr. Paton, could I just ask for a 11  clarification?
12                Did you intend by asking " accurate" whether this              ;
l
(-
13  generalized description was intended to be comprehensive?
14                MR. PATON:      That thought had occurred to me, but, 15  no, I didn't.
16                RR. ROISKAN:                                                    i You just want to know whether any          ]
1 17  of these were not correct, not whether there were others                    f 18  that might have been mentioned, even in a general way, that 19  weren't included?
20                KR. PATON:      I really didn't get into all _that.
21                BY MR. PATON:
22        Q      Your statement, I believe, is that when written 23  this letter in this respect is to your knowledge accurate; 24  it is not inaccurate to your knowledge?
25        A      Right.
1
                                              /\CE. FEDERAL }{EPORTERS, INC.                          f 202 M7-3700        Nationwide Coverage      800-336-6646        i a
 
L                                                                                                      I l18400 03 03-                                                                            34              ;
    '    Vbur-    1        0      Let's talk about roughly 600 allegations.                  I i
i
                -2  believe that is what you said, something like that.                    I am
                                                                                                        )
3  not going to get fussy about numbers.
4              Is there any way that you could estimate the I    l 5 number or whether there is a number of those that are not k
6 concerned with the safety of the facility, and by that I                            )
i 7 mean the hardware?
l 1
8      A      I believe we did that.            There is a document,
                                                                                                        ) l 9 which I am going to ask Mr. Condit to find, which makes a 10  reference to a percentage, which was also rough, regarding                            l t
11  the items that were safety related or wrongdoing.
J l
12        0      Yes.
(          13        A      In the 2.206 petition filed on May 29th,1987 in 14  the South Texas Nuclear Project, page 4 in the fact section, 15  end of the first paragraph.
16        0      I am very sorry, I got distracted.                Page 4?
17  Okay.
18        A      I am going to read this sentence, which answers 19  your question, which was accurate as of May 29th.
20              "Of the allegations reviewed, 21              an overwhelming number, 50 22              percent, pertains to the 23              safety of the plant.            Oth6r 24              categories of allegations s
25              include wrongdoing, 37 percent; J
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700      Nationwide Coverage      800-336-6646
 
8400 03 03                                                                                35
    ' vbur      1                intimidation and threats, 10 l              2                percent; and other concerns, 3 3-              percent."
4                Obviously, those percentages would change when 5  you add another hundred allegations, but I think that they 6  are probably similar.
7        0      Is it your position that each of the allegations 8  has been reported to the utility in some sort of deficiency 9  report?
10                I am trying to use words that I believe you used.
11                End of question.
12                MR. ROISMAN:      Excuse me, Mr. Paton.                Could you
(          13  just clarify whether you mean of all the allegations or just 14  the ones, the 50 percent that Ms. Garde has described as the 15  safety related ones?
16                BY MR. PATON:
17        0      Well, that is a good point of clarification.                                        Let 18  me ask you.
19                Start with the 50 percent that are safety                                                        1 20  allegations.
l 21        A      You used the term " deficiency notice."                      I think                            !
                                                                                                                                )
22  before I answer the question I would like to clarify that l
23  deficiency notice does not refer to a specific form.
24        0      Absolutely.      It is a general terme a
25        A      It is my understanding and belief that the safety ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700      Nationwide Coverage          800 336-6646
 
r 8400 03 03                                                                                                    36 i ' vbur                          1  related allegations have been raised in some form to the 2  management at the site.
3              Now, when you are dealing with a situation where, 4  for example, quality control inspectors were deliberately 5  not allowed to write an NCR, the allegation has been raised 6  comebody ripped up an NCR in management.            But the issue was 7  raised, okay?
i 8              So I want my answer to incorporate that set of 9  circumstances.
10        0      Okay.      So you are indicating that you believe 11  that at least in some instances, without getting into how 12 . many instances, reports have been made by the allegers that
('                              13  were destroyed or may have been destroyed, whatever your 14  word is?
15        A      It is my understanding and belief that many of 16  the allegations contained in the safety allegations were 17  improperly dispositioned or resolved.
18        0      Right.      That is a little different, but that is 19  fine. That is your testimony, and that is fine.
20              But I think you indicated a minute ago that some 21  of these reports by your clients may have been destroyed?
22        A      That is true.
23        0      Now, I will ask you a question that requires some 24  expertise that you may or may not have.            I don't know.      Do i'
25  you have any opinion?
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700        Nationwide Co erage    800-336-6646
 
l
.L8400:03 ?O3                                                                                        37.
I TVbur. 1                                And'the question is.do you have any opinion as to~
j ..          2                    whether the utility or the NRC could possibly find those 300 E              3                    reports?
4                        A      Yes.
5                                (Discussion off the record.)
6;                              BY MR. .PATON:
7                        O      If you don't mind, would you tell me what your 8                    opinion is?
9                        A      Could you ask the question a little more 10                    definitively?
11'                              You asked if I had an opinion on whether the NRC 12                    or the utility could -find the concerns?
13                        0      That is correct.
14                        A      My answer is, yes, I have an opinion.              The 15                  - opinion is that it is possible for the NRC to find the 16                    concerns by interviewing all the allegers and by talking to 17-                  my clients about what those concerns are.          I do not believe 18                    that on the face of the record, which constitutes the South 19                    Texas record, and not involving interviews of supervisors 20                    and employees of the utility, which obviously includes both 21                    HL&P and Ebasco, they are going to find everything.
22                        O      You would agree that in the posture that we are 23                    in now we can't do that because we don't know who your 24                    clients are?                                                        !
i
: 25.                              That is not a trick question.        Do you agree to ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700      Nationwide Coverage  800 336-6646 l
 
c 8400 03 03'                                                                          38 I .Vbur      1 that?
2      A    No, I don't agree to that at all.
3      .0    In other words, you are going to tell us the 4 conditions under which you would allow that to happen?
5            Let me start again.          May we talk to your clients?
6    -A      Not now.
7      Q    Are there conditions under which you 'would. allow 8 the NRC to talk to your clients?
9      A    Well, you have completely switched subjects now,                                i 10 and so I want to make sure that I understand what you are 11 asking.
12      0    Sure.
I*                                                                                                        ;
13            MR. ROISMAN:      I just want to make one thing clear 14 on the record, Mr. Paton, that the issue here is not Ms.
15 Garde allowing you to talk to her clients.              The issue is her 16 clients allowing you to talk to them, and she is just here 17 as their spokesperson.
18            MR. PATON:      Right.      I didn't say that as well as 1
19 I should have.
20            BY MR. PATON:
21      Q    Are there conditions under which your clients 22 would allow the NRC to talk to them or -- never mind.                              Go 23 ahead.
l            24            If that gives you some dif ficulty --
25      A      I really would feel uncomfortable answering that                                !
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202 347 3700      Nationwide Coverage      800-336-6646                          t 1
!                                                                    -            --------_ _--- _ ---___ J
 
8400 03 03                                                                                                39 I 'Vbur                            1 question right now because there is no proposal on the table 2 about what conditions our clients should be talked to.                I am 3 not prepared to discuss that right now.
4      0    But you did, I believe, attempt to work out with 5 NRC officials some appropriate conditions under which your 6 clients would agree to talk to the NRC, I believe, didn't 7 you?
8      A    The history of this action here, as a result that 9  led to this deposition, included my attempts to get the NRC 10  to appoint a team of individuals with credibility,                          i 11  integrity, and competency that I envision would interview my 12  clients, yes.
k                                13        0    If your clients were able to conclude that the                  !
1 14  team that the NRC appointed was satisfactory to them, I l
15  believe it is quite straightforward that they would then 16  talk to the NRC; isn't that correct?
17        A    That is a separate decision each of them will 18  have to make based on whatever the conditions are that exist 19  at the time of the interviews.            I can't answer that question 20  here.
21            MR. ROISMAN:      Mr. Paton, I hope that we are being 22  clear in your hypothetical.
23            If the Commission is setting up this kind of l
24  investigative unit, there may well be 200 other people whom 25  Ms. Garde does not represent, doesn't know, can only l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700      Nationwide Coverage      800-336-6646 l
 
8400 03L O3                                                                                                  40 I Vbur                                1  suspicion on the basis of her own experience that other 2
clients exist who would also come and talk to that team 3  whom we don't even know about.
4                  This was certainly the case at Comanche Peak, 5  where the team interviewed people whom none of us 6 - represented once there was a team established and its 7  credibility seemed to be there, and we only learned that 8  even any interviews had occurred af ter the fact, and we 9  still don't know the names of some of those people.
10                  So I want you to understand that we don't know 11  who all the allegers are.              Ms. Garde doesn' t know who they 12    all are, and the process that you have hypothesized might
(
13  prduce a much larger flow of people.                                    .
i 14                  MR. PATON:        I am not sure that I hypothesized      )
15    that.      I got it out of some pretty clear pieces of paper.
(
16                  BY MR. PATON:
                                                                                                                      )
17            0    Do you possess any allegations concerning the 18  South Texas Project that you obtained from persons who are 19  not now your clients?
20            A    Who are not now my clients?
21            Q    Yes.        People who you no longer represent or          !
                                    -22  people who you never represented.                                          1
                                                                                                                      ]
i 23            'A    That is two different questions.
24                  My understanding --
25            0    People you never represented, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700        Nationwide Coverage I
80a336 6646
 
l 8400 04 04                                                                                                            41
(                Vbur                                1        A    I want you to restate the question now.
2        0    Do you have any allegations concerning the South 3  Texas Project that you obtained from people that you have 4  never represented at South Texas?
5              MR. ROISMAN:      Are you talking again about only 6  the 50 percent so-called safety allegations?
7              MR. PATON:      No- all of the 600 allegations.        Yes, 8  the 600 allegations.      All your allegations.                        ,
9              THE WITNESS:      I believe I have an attorney / client 10  relationship with all the sources of information that are 11  incorporated in what I understand to be responsive to your 12  subpoena.
(                                                  13              (Pause.)
14              BY MR. PATON:
15        0    Can you tell me, Ms. Garde, whether it is part of 16  your understanding or your agreement with the allegers that 17  you say are your clients that they will waive their rights            I I
18  under the attorney / client relationship if the NRC appoints a 19  group of people that is satisfactory to them to receive 20  these allegations?
21        A    Is that my expectation?
22        0    I am asking you about your agreement with your 23  clients?
i 24        A    Your question assumes a number of steps.            So let  )
>t 25  me answer as I expect the process to have worked or to work.
I 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                        j
                                                          ,          202-347-3700      Nationwide CoveraFe 800 336-6M6            {
l
 
F;.
Dc00 04 04                                                                    42 IL Vbur  1              If the NRC appoints a team of individuals which I 2 am able to conclude, based on my professional judgment, my L
3 knowledge of the NRC and of how the system works, that if I 4 reach a professional judgment that my clients' interests are 5 protected, their jobs are protected, their confidentiality 6 will be protected, and that they by speaking to the NRC do 7 not risk those interests which they have retained me to 8 protect, my expectation is that the majority of them would 9 talk to the NRC and that they are waiting for me to be able 10 to tell them that such a team of individuals exist.
11              I do not know, given all of this delay and the 12 hostility of the Agency, which of my clients will choose, t
13 based on my advice, to make a decision that they don't want i
14 to talk to the NRC under any conditions any more, regardless 15 of whether in December they told me they would talk to the 16 NRC if a special independent team was created.
17              Do you understand that?
18      0      Yes.
19              It seems very clear from your statement that your 20 clients are going to rely on your expertise in determining 21 whether this is a group that they can trust or not.              That 22 seemed quite clear from your statement.                                              i l
23              Is that correct?
24      A      I think they are waiting to, yns.
4 25      0      You mentioned the word " hostility."
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700      Nationwide Coverage 8CKk3364 M 6
__ _______________ - - ______ a
 
1 l 8400 04.04                                                                                              43
: l. .Vbur      1                  Do some of your clients believe that the NRC has l              2    acted in a hostile manner at some time?
3          A        Yes.
4          Q        Could you.tell us?
5          A        The issuance of this subpoena necessitating my 6    recontracting all of the clients that I could get ahold of in 7    one way or another and the press coverage of the subpoena 8    and this whole debate with Stello saying turn over your 9    information and give me your workers and me having to say no 10    way has created a lot of hostility.
11                    And I would like the record to reflect this, that 12    there was, according to one of my clients who is still i
13    onsite at the plant, a meeting within the last several weeks 14    at which Bechtel and HLEP officials made the announcement 15    that this subpoena had been issued and that by July 29th I 16    was going to turn over everything that I had to the NRC and l'7    that they should prepare teams accordingly to be able to put 18    these allegations to bed immediately.
19                    Now, that group of people who received that 20    speech included some of my clients still at the plant, who 21    immediately then called me up to say what is going on.                                  That 22    situation, created by this debate over what is going to 23    happen with them and their allegations, has required my 24    consistent assurances that I will abide by the terms of my 25    ag reeme nt .
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700      Nationwide Coverage                    800-336 6646
 
l 8400 04 04                                                                                      44
(      Vbur        1        0    Of course, I think you understand there are two 2  sides to this debate.      Mr. Stello no doubt would not 3 consider this to be a hostile act.                I think he believes he 4  is merely doing his job.
5              Do you have any comment about that?
6        A    Not on the record.
7              MR. ROISMAN:      Go ahead.          Give him a comment.
8              THE WITNESS:      I don't think Mr. Stello does very 9  much that isn't a hostile act as directed toward whistle 10  blowers, and I mean that sincerely.
11              BY MR. PATON:
,                      12        0    Do you have any reason to believe that any of the i
i 13  allegations that are part of the 600 have been provided to
,                      14  the NRC7 15        A    Yes.
16        0    By whom were they provided?
17        A    The group of clients that I represent includes a 18  class of individuals who have ongoing litigation against 19  Ebasco or Bechtel or one of the individuals involved in 20  South Texas, and in some of those cases the substance of 21  their concerns has been communicated to the NRC through 22  either the public record -- for example, the NRC gets copies 23  of all Department of Labor complaints.                Some of those 24  complaints contain substantive allegations.                  Some of them, 25  all of them, contain allegations of violations of 50.7.
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
                                      .02 347-3XX)      Nationwide Coverate        800 334 6646
 
8400 04 04                                                                                                            45 i                Vbur                              1                So in terms of that class of employees, I believe 2  the NRC does have knowledge of the existence of concerns and 3  allegations.        In some cases before the clients got to us, 4  they attempted to go to the NRC or they went to the NRC or 5  their information was communicated to the NRC.
6                So, yes, I think that some of the information is 7  in the hands of the NRC.
8        0      Do you have any idea how many clients have 9 conveyed their allegations to the NRC in the manner you have          :
10 just described?                                                      {
11        A      A very small number, but I couldn't tell you 12  exactly.
13        0      Did they attempt -- when they revealed this 14  information to the NRC, did they attempt to keep that 15  information under wraps in any manner?
                                                                                                                              )
16        A      I can't answer that question in general.                1 17        0      Will you tell me what the 600 allegations are?
18        A      No.
19        0      Will you tell me why you won't tell me?
l 20        A      Yes.                                                    i 21        0      Please do so.
22                (Laughter.)
23                THE WITNESS:      Are you just going to let me 24  extemporaneously?
                                                                                                                                )
25                                                                        ,
4 l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 l
Nationwide Coverage 800 336-(646 I
 
8400 04 04                                                                                                  46 f~                    Vbur    1                BY MR. PATON:
2        0      Yes, I am.      I fully intend to do that.              If you 3    would like to take a break, that is. fine.                Whatever.
4                (Discussion off the record.)
5                THE WITNESS:        Mr. Paton, as I explained to you in 6    my affidavit and its various attachments and as is explained 7    in the 2.206, there has been a history of Region 4 failing 8    to take proper action in response to allegations.
9                That failing to take proper action includes the 10    release of the confidentiality of workers who contacted them i
11    with information.                                                                  I 12                It includes the failure to conduct competent
(                            13    inspections and take any meaningful enforcement action.                            l 14                It includes the inability to ensure that the 15    inspection and enforcement program in Region 4 operated for 16    the last decade in a manner to ensure that the nuclear 17    plants in that region are safe.
18                There is a variety of examples incorporated in 19    the motion to quash and in the 2.206 which I want to include 20    in the record just by reference.              I will address them first,        !
l 21    and then I have a few more that I want to incorporate.                          !
22                MR. ROISMAN:        Excuse me.        It may be simpler.        Why 23    don't we simply mark the two documents as exhibits and we 24    will provide the reporter with a copy.                Since you already i
25    have one, we already have one, it is not necessary to make
                                                                  /\CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC.
3            202 347 3700        Nationwide Coverage        800 336-6646
 
8400 04-04                                                                                              47
: 8.                Vbur. 1 extra copies of it, but you will have it for the official 2 record copy.
3            MR. PATON:      Which documents are you talking                      )
4 about?
5            MR. ROISMAN:      We are talking about the 2.206                      )
{
6 petition and the motion and memorandum to quash.                    ,
7            MR. PATON:      Do you want to give him a copy?
8            MR. ROISMAN:      That way we can refer to them by 9 exhibit number.
10              So, Mr. Reporter, we will make -- the Deposition 11  Exhibit No. 4 will be the motion and memorandum to quash 12  subpoena which was filed on behalf of Ms. Garde on May 29th,
(                        13  1987.                                                                              4 14                                          (Exhibit 4 identified.)
15              MR. ROISMAN:      Exhibit No. 5 will be the petition 16  of the Government Accountability Project, also dated May 17  29th, 1987, pursuant to 10 CFR Section 2.206.
18                                        (Exhibit 5 identified.)
19              MR. ROISMAN:      To complete this group of exhibits, 20  Exhibit No. 6 will be the Wisconsin Code of Professional 21  Responsibility.      My client advises me that she will provide                  l i
22  the reporter with an unmarked copy of that.                                      ,
i 23              This is the Wisconsin Code of Professional 24  Responsibility.
25                                        (Exhibit 6 identified.)                  1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700      Nationwide Coverage    800-3E6646
 
i j
l l
8400-04 04                                                                                                    48 I
1
(            Vbur          1                      (Discussion off the record.)                                l j
2                      MR. ROISMAN:      Exhibits 4 a'nd 5, my understanding i
3          is that there are copies of those already in Mr. Paton's 4          possession, a copy of course in our possession, and then 5          when transcripts are made available of this they do not need            j l
6          to be reproduced, a; least as far as we are concerned.                  j 7  i                  Exhibit No. 6, however, is one that has not been i
8  i previously put on the public record.                    It is not very long i
9          either, and it should be reproduced to the same extent that              i 10  )
you would reproduce the other exhibits.
11                      THE WITNESS:      Before all these procedural                )
                                                                                                                        )
12  l matters, Mr. Paton, you basically asked me a question of                        )
      ;                              \                                                                                  i
      \                          13          why, and I understand --
14                      BY MR. PATON:
I 15                o    Go ahead.      You understand the question.
16                A    I understand that question to be why is it my 17          professional judgment that Region 4 will not properly 1
18          process allegations or will handle my clients in a way that 19          is violating interests that I am supposed to protect.
20                      Is that the question?
21                0    Please answer that question.            My question was why  1 22          won't you provide us with the allegations?
23                A      Do you want me to answer that question?
24                0      Also.
I 25                      MR. ROISMAN:      Excuse me.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700      Nationwide Coverage      800 336-6646 l
 
                                                                                            ..l 8400 04 04                                                                        49 i Vbur    1              (Discussion off the record.)
i 2              THE WITNESS:      You are not asking me the basis?        l 3              BY MR. PATON:
4        O      The basis for the exercise of the attorney / client 5  privilege.      Ms. Garde, I want to ask you two questions and 6  then let you answer them both.            Because the answers may be  ,
l 7  lengthy let me put the two questions to you Letore you                  j 8  answer.
9              The first question is does your client -- do your 10  clients have any reason to believe that if the allegations 11  they possess were turned over to the NRC they would not be 12  appropriately dealt with by the NRC?
13              The second question is if your clients are 14  exercising the attorney / client privilege with respect to 15  this information, provide the basis for the exercise of the 16  attorney / client privilege.
17              Off the record.                                            1 18              (Discussion off the record.)
19              BY MR. PATON:
20        0      The second question is amended to provide the 21  basis for their exercise of the attorney / client privilege 22  and the work product privilege.
23        A      The answer for the first question is "yes," and 24  the basis question is addressed in both the motion to quash e
25  and the 2.206, which have now been incorporated into the 1
1 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700      Nationwide Coverage    800 336-6646
 
-8400 04 04                                                                              50
(-.Vbur    1          record. Exhibit 4 is the motion and memorandum to quash 2          subpoena. Exhibit 5 is the petition of the Government 3          Accountability Project pursuant to 10 CFR. 2.206.
4                      Both of these documents contain a series of 5          examples which are explained in the motion and in the 6          petition and demonstrate a pattern and practice of Region 4 7          as well as Mr. Stello of failing to comply with federal 8          regulations that set forth Region 4 's -- the requirement for 9          Region 4's conduct in regards to allegations.
10                      I would like to supplement these two documents by 11          incorporating several other examples and documents which set 12          forth the basis.
I
  \        13                      Is that acceptable?
14                0    I have no idea what the other documents are.
15                A    Well, documento and examples.
16                0    Could you give me some idea of what those are?
17                A    Yes.      In 1984, Victor Gilinsky wrote a memorandum                          l 18          to then Chairman Palladino regarding Fort St. Vrain.              That 19          memorandum starts with the statement:
20                      "My recent trip to Fort St.
21                      Vrain has reinforced my 22                      concern about the performance 23                      of Region 4.      Fort St. Vrain 24                      was in poorer shape than any 25                      reactor I have visited in ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700        Nationwide CoveraFe 800-336-6646
______-____-__--_-__a
 
r
  '8400104 04                                                                                              51 I LVbur    1:                recent years."                                                                j 2                It goes on to' discuss substantively some of the 3    problems that he saw..
4          0      Could I ask you, Ms. Garde, how did you obtain 5-    this document?
6          A      You can ask me, but I am not going to answer.
7          0      Could I see the document?
8        A      Yes, you can mark it as an exhibit.
9                MR. ROISMAN:        Let's mark the memorandum that Ms.
10    Garde has just referred to as Exhibit 7.
l 11                                              (Exhibit 7 identified.)                          i 12 ~              MR.'ROISMAN:        And have it bound and reproduced
    '(
1 13    when the transcript is reproduced.                                                        1 14                I am giving the reporter a copy.                                                j 15                Ms. Garde, would you please indicate whether the 16    markings in the upper righthand corner were on the document                                  I 17    when you got it or you added them or someone added them?
18                THE WITNESS:        Yes.      The handwriting in the upper 19    righthand corner is mine.
20                BY MR. PATON:
21          0      Let me ask you again, Ms. Garde.                                You say you 22    will not advise me where you obtained this piece of paper, 23    this May 29th memo?
24          A      I will not.
t                                                                                                            I 25          0      Can you give me the general reason that you won't ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
                  ;            202-347 3700          Nationwide Coverage                      8(G336-6646      j I
                                                                                                              .J
 
i
:8400 04                                                                                                '
52 1
:( .Vbur      l'  -tell me?-                                                                  ;
2-                MR. ROISMAN:      Wait.      Before she'gives you the.
3    general reason, maybe, Mr.'Patpn, you could state on the 4'    record what dif ference it makes . to the subject matter of the
                                                                                                .i 5    deposition.
6                MR. PATON:      I don't think I.want to do that 7    because I have' never seen this document before and Ms. Garde -            t 8    pulls it out.of her file and then says I won't tell you 9    where I got it.        It appears to be on the NRC letterhead,'but 10-    she won't give me any idea where she got this document.
11                  MR. ROISMAN:      Well, I am not going to let her          q i
12      answer any more questions in regard to the question of where
('        13      she got it or even why she won't tell you.              I don't think 14      you have any right to know where she got it from.
15                  If you doubt its veracity, go and check the 16      records of the NRC.
17                  MR. PATON:      Well, her statement that she won't 18      tell me where she got the document from indicates to me that 19    perhaps the document is not in the public record.
20                  BY MR. PATON:
21          0      Do you know whether the document is in the public 22      record?
23                  MR. ROISMAN:      She is not going to answer that 24    question either.
3 R25                  Let's just hypothesize Mr. Stello gave it to her ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3 202-347-3700      Nationwide Coverage    800-336-6646 Y-__---_______________
 
8400 05 05                                                                                                                              53 I' Vbur    1    last night at dinner.        What difference does~it make where it 2  .came from?  This is either a genuine document, which you can 3    easily check and we can't, or it is-not.
4                MR. PATON:      I am a little troubled by Ms. Garde's 5    unwillingness to tell me where she got this document ~from or 6  'whether or not it is on the public record.                                          If it is on the 7    public record, that is pretty simple.
8                MR. ROISMAN:      I don't think there is any reason 9    to be troubled by that at all because this deposition has 10    nothing to do with Ms. Garde's technique for doing 11    investigative work.
12                BY MR. PATON:
(        13        0      Let me ask you this question.                  Do you know-14    whether this document --
15                MR. ROISMAN:      I am not going to let her answer 16    that question either.
17                MR. PATON:      I am not asking her whether it is on 18    the public record.      I am asking whether she knows it is on 19    the public record.
20                MR. ROISMAN:      No, because it is outside the scope 21    of the subpoena.
L            22                MR. PATON:      Then why are you introducing it?
23                MR. ROISMAN:      Because the subject of the document 24    has everything to do with the deposition.
t 25                If you want to test whether or not it is a valid ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
                ,            202-347 3700        Nationwide Coverage                          800-336-6M6
 
8400'05 05                                                                                                                                        54 T I' #bur                              1  document, it is'okay with us.                Please let us know.
2              MR. PATON:      And your statement is if I raise my 3  hand, you are leaving?
4              Off the record.
5              (Discussion off the record.)
6              (Recess.)
7              MR. PATON:      Let me make a short statement about 8  the May 29th, 1984 memo.
9              Are we marking this?
10                MR. ROISMAN:                It is marked as Deposition Exhibit
                                          .11  7, and we have provided the reporter with a copy.
12                MR. PATON:      Is this mine?
      'i A-                                  13                MR. ROISMAN:          That is yours to keep.
14                MR. PATON:      Out of a super abundance of caution, 15    I would just note for the record my objection to the future i
16    use of this document based on the fact that Ms. Garde, who 17    is introducing this document, refuses to even tell us where                                                        '
18    she got this document or whether or not it is on the public 19    record.
20                So to that extent, I object to the document.
I                                          21                MR. ROISMAN:              I just want to note for the record 22    that if it is a genuine document it is. irrelevant where she 23    got it or whether it ever was on the public record.
It is a 24    document, the contents of which are obviously pertinent to 25    the subject, and that if there is a question as to whether l
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3 202 347-3700          NationwiJe Coserage                                  8(Xb336-6646
 
n.
  '8400 05 05                                                                                                '55
          ~
(iVbur                      l'  'it is real, of which;I have no' question, that is easily 2    determined by the. Agency.
3                        MR.JPATON:      It would probably be a little more 4-    easily determined by Ms.- Garde, who has presented the 5    document here.
6                      -MR. ROISMAN:      I assume the easy way to find out 7    whether it is real is to ask Mr. Gilinsky, a former 8    Commissioner, which-I assume current Commissioners could 9    'more easily do than we could do.
10                        MR. PATON:      That will take a few minutes, and Ms.-
11'    Garde probably will not want me to interrupt this i
12    deposit' ion.
k                          13                        MR. ROISMAN: _ It is all right.        We are putting it 14    in as part.of what she relies upon in answering this 15    question.
16                        MR. PATON:      I think the record is clear.
                                '17                        MR. ROISMAN:      Okay.
18                        THE WITNESS:      With this example, in the example 19    the first document that I relied on was the May 29th, 1984 20    memo, which has now been marked as Exhibit 7.                  Although 21    short, it is clear from the memo that Mr. Gilinsky's view of 22    the Fort St. Vrain project was negative and that his 23    negative view of that plant reinforced his concerns about 24    Region 4.
25                        I would note by way of information on the public ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3                    202-347-3700      Nationwide CoveraFe  800-336-6M6 L
 
8400 05 05                                                                                  56
( iVbur          1          record.that the reason for Fort St. Vrain's being in that 2          condition on May 29th, 1984 is possibly, and I believe 3          probably, explained by a statement or statements referred to 4          in an April 27th, 1987 edition of Inside NRC, which 5          discusses OIA on the first page, an article entitled "OIA 6          Probing Charges of Inspector Intimidation at Fort St.-
7          Vrain,"'and refers to an OIA. investigation into charges, 8          allegations of harassment very similar to the allegations of 9          harassment and intimidation at Comanche Peak, occurring            j l
10          apparently between December 1980 and June 1985.                    j 11                      I don't object to this page being entered into l
12          the record, but I need a copy of it, as this is the only          l
  /
                                                                                              )
13          copy I have.
14                      MR. ROISMAN:      Do you want a copy of that in the 15          record?- It is a publicly available reference.
16                      MR. PATON:      I foresee some problems with that,  1 l
J 17          but go ahead.
18                      MR. ROISMAN:      We will leave it as a cited 19          reference.
i 20 !                    THE WITNESS:      And this narrow example regarding  i l
21          Fort St. Vrain is one of the bases that leads my clients to 22          conclude that the Region 4 management is not interested in 23          hearing about problems at the South Texac Project and, if l
24          they hear about them, are not going to do anything about 25          them.
ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I,                  202-347-3700      Nationwide Cmerage 800-334 6646
 
1 1
l 8400 05 05                                                                  57 )
i i  Vbur    1              I would also note for the record the statement in  I 2  the Gilinsky memo's last paragraph regarding the senior        ]
3  staff members being subjected to strong pressure from i
4  Congress in the form of frequent and repeated telephone          l 5  calls to get the Waterford plant licensed.
I 6              Waterford is another plant in Region 4 that 7  required the NRC to expend on it several million dollars in i'
8  efforts at the end of construction in order to review 9  allegations given to them by workers at the Waterford 10  project, which ultimately led to extensive rework at the i
11  plant. Those problems were not identified by Region 4 12  inspectors.
13              It is my clients' view and my professional 14  jtsgment that the Waterford situation also results from 15  Region 4 management's failure to require proper inspection 16  programs according to the NRC's chapter manuals and 17  harassment and intimidation of regional inspectors who 18  attempted to pursue allegations at that plant.
19              The second example that I want to give you that 20  is the basis of the conclusions comes from a document that 21  is in the public record.      It comes through FOIA 86-215, 22  which sought all the documents regarding the development of 23  allegation policy, allegation processing policy, and 24  incorporates and includes memos from the various reg, ions i
I l            25  regarding a draft of a policy concerning release of ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i            202 347-3700      Nationwide Coserage E00-33M646 l
 
2 8400 05 05                                                                                                                    58 L -maur              1    information.to' licensees that was-circulated by Mr. Reim.
2                Mr. Reim's: memo, which this memo comments on                                                        and 3    I am going to introduce, is dated March.28th, 1984. .The
                      '4      memo that I am using has.no'date on it, although'it'is 5    indicated'from John T. Collins, Regional Administrator, 6    Region 4, Memorandum for T. A. Reim.                                        Although not dated, 7    the sign-off blocks on the bottom by Mr. Westerman and Mr.
8    Collins are:4/4/84 and 4/5/84.
9                The memo states:
10                    "In response to your memo                                                                                {
l I
11                    dated March 28th, same subject 12                  as above..."                                                                                              !
: 4.                                                                                                                                            i
                  ' 13                    Again, so the record is clear, that subject is:
14        "A Draft of a Policy Concerning Release of Information to 15      Licensees."
16                    Mr. Westerman's first comment is:
17                    "...a policy concerning release of 18                    information is timely.                                      Region 4                                    i 19                  has been following a similar but.
20                    unwritten polier."
21-                    That is paragraph 1.
22                    Paragraph 2 says:
i 23                    "The draft policy does not prescribe                                                                      :
24                    ow a licensee is to be advised, 25                    formally or informally.                                      Region 4 I
l ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700        Nationwide Coverage                              800-336-6646 l
 
8400'05 05                                                                          59 b'Vbur      1              has, where appropriate, informally 2              advised the licensee of issues and 3              then independently assessed and
                -4              formally inspected the licensee's 5              disposition.        This does not have 6              the same degree of visibility as 7              a formal letter to the licensee.
8              Region 4 has no preference, but we 9              feel that the method for advising i
10                the licensee should be uniform."
11                And it goes on into three other paragraphs.
12                I would note that described in paragraph 1.and 2
( -
13    is an unwritten policy, which is exactly what the public 14    interest community and the workers have announced and since 15    1979, that I am aware of, Region 4 has been following and 16    that the NRC has adamantly denied it was following, and it 17    confirms my clients' fears that any information given to 18    Region 4, at least during this time frame, was in fact --                                    ,
l 19    informally that is, not on the public record -- given to 4
20    licensees, independently assessed, and then dispositioned,                                    .
I 21    which is exactly their fear.                                                                  !
22                MR. PATON:      Could we have a copy of that?                                    i l
23                MR. ROISMAN:      This is going to be marked as L              24    Exhibit 8, and if you will make the mark on there.                  Why t
25    don't you let him put a mark on it, Billie?
I l
l t                                                                                                                  4
                                          /\CEJFEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC.                                            l
                  ,            202-347-3700        Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646      -
1 I
 
h8400.0505
          ~
60-l ..~' 'Fbur 1-                As soon as we get to the xerox, we will make I            2      copies.
3                                            (Exhibit 8 identified.)
l 4                  MR. PATON- Let me ask you this -- off'the 5      record.
6                  (Discussion off the record.)
7                  MR. ROISMAN:      Let's go on.the record.
8                  As she gives them to me, I will give them exhibit 9-    numbers. Billie, you want both of these?                Okay.                                        j y            10                  Exhibit No. 9 will be a letter dated June 10th, 11      1987 to Landa 2ech --                                                                                  ;
I 12                  MR. PATON:      Tony, could I interrupt for a second?
13      This~is a little disorderly, in that I am sitting over here,                                            i 14      I have never seen anything, and you are telling the 15      reporter.
16                  Let me look at it.
17                  MR. ROISMAN:      I don't. mind you looking at it.
18                  Let me just ask Billie something.                                              Was this 19      attached to the letter?
20    ,
THE WITNESS:      No.
l 21  j              MR. ROISMAN:      How do I identify it?                                                    i 22                  THE WITNESS:      It is a page from a transcript of a                                      J 23      public meeting.
1 l
24                                            (Exhibit 9 identified.)                                          .
25                  MR. ROISMAN:      Exhibit 10 is the page of a l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
                  ;            202 347-3700      Nationwide Coverage              800-336-6M6
 
=
Y-
        '8400 05 05                                                                                61
( 'Ubur-    1L . transcript of a public meeting which the witness will i                            2  further identify.
3'              MR. PATON:      Just give me enough so I know that
{
J 4  either I have or don't have a problem.
                                                                                                        ]
i (Exhibit 10 identified.)
:5 6              MR. ROISMAN:      Exhibit 11 is a letter dated Ju'.y 7  lith, 1987 to Robert D. Martin from the Government 8  Accountability Project.                                                l 9                                          (Exhibit 11 identified.)        j
                          '10                MR. ROISMAN:      Exhibit 12, while this is a famous 11  document,'this is a portion, page 237 through page 247, of d
                          -12  cases of a preliminary proposed findings of fact on b            13  harassment and intimidation in the Commanche Peak                    J 14  proceeding, obviously a public document.
15                                          (Exhibit 12 identified.)      .
16              MR. ROISMAN:      Exhibit 13 is a set of four 17  letters, either from the Government Accountability Project 18  or to the Government Accountability Project, all related to 19  the Wolf Creek facility, and the four letters together are
                                          ^                                                            '
20  Exhibit 13.
21                MR. PATON:      Okay, these are all together?
22                MR. ROISMAN:      Yes.
23                                          (Exhibit 13 identified.)      l 24                MR. ROISMAN:      Exhibit 14 is related to the case i                                                                                      \
25  of David Williams against Arkansas Power & Light, two                    j
                                                                                                        -1 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700      Nationwide Coverage    800-336-6646
 
1 8400 05:05'-'                                                                                                                                                                                                                          62 I
( Mbur          1                                    separate documents.                                                                                                                                                                      .
1 2'                                                                                                                                                                      ,
(Exhibit 14 identified..')        1 3                                                                                                                                                            MR. ROISMAN:          Exhibit 15 are some additional 4                            ' documents, also.related to Arkansas Power & Light, a package''
5-                                  of those and a number of memoranda and meeting notes, al~so
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                )
6                                    all public record.
7                                                                                                                                                                                          (Exhibit 15 identified.)          )
1 8-                                                                                                                                                          MR. ROISMAN:          That takes care of Exhibit.15.            J 9                                                                                                                                                            I'am now' going to hand you a package.of                        ]
l 10                                      documents, Mr'. Paton, one, two, three, four, five, six,                                                                                                                              -
11                                      seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 separate documents, 12                                      some with multiple pages, which Ms. Garde may rely upon in 13                                      answering the question which is still pending but will not I
be introduced as exhibits -- at least.these certainly all 11 4 15                                    won't be introduced as exhibits -- that we will proffer to I
16                                      you for your perusal during this lengthy lunch hour, which                                                                                                                              l 17                                    we would appreciate receiving back and which you may copy if 18            ;
you wish.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                )
19                                                                                                                                                              MR. PATON:        Let me ask a question on the last            j i
20                                    group of papers.                                                                                                                                                                        5 21                                                                                                                                                              BY MR. PATON:                                                  j i                                                                                                                                                                                                                )
22                                                                                                  0                                                          Can you say that all of these papers are in the                f I
23                                      public record?                                                                                                                                                                          .
              -24                                                                                                  A                                                          They were provided to me under the Freedom of 25                                      Information Act.                                                                                                                                                                      i l
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                        I' 202 347-3700          Nationwide Cmerage    800-336 4 46
 
1 L
8400 05 05                                                                          63
( (  Vbur    1          0    All right.
2                Can you say as to all the deposition exhibits l
l            3      that have been put in the record by you, with the exception l            4      of the one document on which we had some dispute, that all 5      of those documents are in the public record or were obtained 6      by you under FOIA?
7          A    Yes.
8                MR. PATON:      That solves a lot of problems, okay.
9                  Be fore we depart, I hope we can get an agreement 10      on the deposition papers.        I hope you realize this was a 11      rather rapid blur of paper.                                                    !
12                We have no dispute on 1, 2, and 3.
i 13                  4 and 5 were the GAP motions and the petition, 14      which we agreed not to bind.          They will not be attached to l
15      the transcript.
16 i                MR. ROISMAN:      One copy will be attached to the                  ;
i 17      official copy of the transcript.                                                j i
18                MR. PATON:      We agreed we would give one to the                  j 19      reporter, right.                                                                j 20                  6 is the Wisconsin Code.
I 21  !              7 is the document on which we had some dispute.
I
                                                                                                    ]
22                  I don't have 8.                                                    !
23                  MS. SMITH:      8 was the Inside NRC, I beli9ve.
24                  MR. ROISMAN:    No.      8 was the memorandum from i
25      Collins to T. A. Reim, with the signature lines on it.              I ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
                  !            202 347 3700      Nationwide Coserage    800-336-6646 i
 
r_____  ___      -            --
i d
:8400'05105-                                                                                  64:      1 i                                                                                                            l LT Vbur          1      believe we-handed it to'you after the reporter marked it..                          j
                                                                                                              )
                        .Why don't you-look there?-
l                2'                                                                                          ]
r 3                    MR. PATON:        All right, we have 8.
4                      9,  10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15.
l                                                                                                            J 1
j 5                    All right,
                                                                                                        'l 6                    MR. ROISMAN:        And we will get beck --- do you want -            )
                                                                                                          ']
7      your originals back?                                                              -
8                    THE WITNESS:        I don't care.                                    !
l 9                      MR. ROISMAN:        After lunch we will get back copies              '
10-      of that.
I 11                      MR. PATON:        I need to make generally two copies                )
l 12      of this, but I think we got through 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 --                                J
\..,                                                                                                            1 l:(            13      starting with 6.
                                                                                                              \
L                                                                                                            ]
14                      MR. ROISMAN:        You don't need to make copies of 6 15      either. We have copies of 7, and so does the reporter, and 16      so do you.      So you start with 8.
1 1
17                      MR. PATON:        Okay, all right.                                    j 18                      MR. ROISMAN:        So you have got 8 through 15.
19                      MR. PATON:        What else?
20                      MR. ROISMAN:        I think that is it.
1 21                      MR. PATON:        It is a quarter of 12:00.          We are
              '22      going to be back here exactly at 12:30 ready to go.
I 23                      MR. ROISMAN:        12:25.
/              24 25 i
l
                                                  /\CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                j
                      ,                202 347-3700        Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6M6                    l l
                                                                                          - _ - -      A
 
8400 05 05                                                                                                                                          65
(    51 bur  1                              (Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the taking of the 2      deposition was recessed for lunch, to reconvene at 12: 30 3      p.m., this same day.)
4                                                                                                                                                      1 5
6 7
8 9
l 10 11 12 I
t..        13 14 15  .
16  l 17  i 18  l 19 20 21 22 23 l
l              24 l  '
l              25 l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l                      i 202 347-3700          Nationwide Coverage                                                      800-3364 646 l
L-_______-______-_--_-_. _ _ - _ . _ _ _ _ _    _ _
 
8400.-06.06.                                                                                                                            66
  .f. iTbw    1                          . AFTERNOON SESSION
              '2                                                          (12:30.p.m.)
3  Whereupon, 4                              BILLIE P. GARDE
              .5    resumed the. stand and, having been previously duly sworn, 6  was examined and testified further as follows:
3
                -7              MR. PATON:-      I want to put something on the 8  record.                                                                                                                      I 9              I asked a question which essentially was, what i
10    are your complaints about Region IV, and that has some 12    limited interest in this deposition, and I was sure that you                                                              'l 12    were anxious to place it on the record, and I think you have 13    done so, ably and amply, with your reference to other 14    documents, such as the 2.206 petition, et cetera, however, I 15    want to change the direction of this deposition, because 16    you're obviously prepared to spend the rest of today and 17    sometime tomorrow in answering this question.                                                                And what we 18    are really here for, by mutual agreement of counsel, is the 19    basis for the exercise of the attornoy-client privilege, 20    which I have not even started yet.
21                So I want to direct questions to that, and if 22    there's time after that to get into Region IV, perhaps we 1
23    can do it.
24                But just before the lunch hour, this deposition 4
25    took on a whole new direction from your apparent attempt to ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                                                            ;
g            202 347-3700        Nationwirle Coverage                                                    800-336-6646 L                                  __
                                                                                                                                              .i
 
l 0400 06'06                                                                                                                                                                        67
          -.I  7bw'      I            take an awful lot of time and spend a lot.of this record 2              talking about your complaints about Region IV.                                                                                                  I understand j                        3              it, but that's really not the purpose.of the deposition.                                                                                                  So l
                        .4              I intend to proceed'with the questions about the attorney-L l'                        5            client relationship.
l
: 6.                                                      MR. ROISMAN:      Okay.      Two things, Mr. Paton.
7                                                        Number one, my client is'still in the process of 1
8            answering a question that you asked.                                              Secondly, this answer 9              is directly relevant to the privilege.                                                    It is not some                                                      l 10                extraneous thing.                                      The whole reason for claiming the l                    11                privilege is because the clients have requested that this 12        .information be kept confidential, because of their 13                perception, based upon this information and other 14                  information, that Region IV and the EDO, at least the 15                current EDO, cannot reliably, cannot reliably be trusted to 16                take allegations that are submitted to them.
17                                                          So-to begin with, the information that Ms. Garde 18                  is now answering, even if you had not put the question that 19                she's now answering the way you had, and had asked the 20                question, why do you claim the privilege, you still would 21                have gotten the same answer, because it's part of the 22                  answer.                                It's also part of the answer as to why, to the 23                extent that work product privilege is invoked, since that 24              privilege is subject to being overridden when there is a 4
25                substantial need, it's part of explaining why the u                                                                                            >\CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, 202-347-3700        Nationwide Coverage                                                                              I 800-336 4 46 l
 
8400 06 06                                                                                                                            68 I            Vbw'                                      I    substantial need can't exist for that particular group of 2    people, because essentially those people are not part of the 3    NRC. They are rogue elephants running amok outside the 4    scope of the NRC's proper method of operation.
l                                                                    5              They are no more a part of the NRC than Ollie 6    North's operation, running guns to Nicaragua with money that 7    he got --
8              MR. PATON:        Mr. Roisman.
9              MR. ROISMAN:        Now Mr. Paton, I will finish my 10    comment, or we will not stay here.              I'm entitled to make my 11    statement.
: 12.              MR. PATON:      I don't want to interrupt you, sir.        j t
I                                                    13              MR. ROISMAN:        You just did, and you are 14    continuing to.                                                          I i
15                MR. PATON:      That's right.
16              MR. ROISMAN:        I'm-sorry.          Let's go. You're 17    either going to let me state my position on the record, or 18    we will not stay here for this deposition.
19                Now which will it be?
20                MR. PATON:      I don't think, sir, that statements          ,
i                                                                          l 21    about rogue elephants and et cetera -- you have a point to                ,
I 22    nake?                                                                    l 23                MR. ROISMAN:      I have the right to describe this
!                                                                  24    agency's components and lack of components any way I wish, l                                                                                                                                                  ,
25    and I will, either with your permission or outside on the                l 1
i ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                      !
202-347-37(K)      Nationwide Coverage        MK) 336-(M6    I
 
8400 06 06                                                                                                                                                                                            69 I        7bw                            1              steps of the agency.
2                                    Now this is our position.          We didn't make any 3              bones about it in our pleading.                    This agency is a rogue 4              elephant.            It does not comply with the regulatory S              requirements of this agency.                  Asking my client to tell this 6              region something is no different than asking them to tell it 7              to the utilities.                You may ask us to tell it to competent 8              people.
9                                    MR. PATON:    You have a point to make.                                                                                I have 10              been, I think, willing --
11                                    MR. ROISMAN:    No, you're not.        You're trying to 12              cut us off right now.
I 13                                    MR. PATON:    And I'm just trying to tell you that 14~            this is the deposition that I am taking.
15  l                                MR. ROISMAN:    And you have asked a question that 16              my client is answering.
17                                    MR. PATON:    Your own letter acknowledges that the i
18  l purpose of this deposition is the facts to support the 19              attorney-client privilege.                  I intend to pursue that.
I 20  l                                MR. ROISMAN:    And the work product privilege.
21                                    MR. PATON:    Immediately prior to the lunch hour,                                                                            q 22              you, I believe, attempted to change the whole direction of                                                                                            l 23              this deposition by giving us a blur of paper, Deposition 24              Exhibits Number 8, 9, 10, 11, et cetera, et cetera.
25                                    The purpose of this deposition is the facts to ACE.FroERAL REPORTERS, INC.
20:-3413HO      Nationeide Omenige              NKL336W46
 
8400 06 06                                                                  70 L    Wbw    1    support the attorney-client privilege, and that's what I l
l            2    intend to pursue.
3              Now rather than -- I thought Ms. Garde would 4    respond in a reasonable manner to the opportunity that I 5    provided here, but it is obvious to me that you intend to 6    take up a lengthy, lengthy discourse on your problems with 7    Region IV, which it's quite clear, you have problems with 8    Region IV, but the purpose of this deposition is the 9    attorney-client privilege, and that's what I intend to 10    pursue.
11              MR. ROISMAN:      As I have said to you already, we 12    are still in the middle of answering a question that you l  t 13    asked, and if you asked the other question, you would still 14    get the same information, because it's relevant to the 15 i privilege. It's not extraneous to the privilege.
i l
16              MR. PATON:      I'm indicating to you that I think 17    your response to my question is an unreasonable response. I 18    was very glad to provide you the opportunity to state your 19    problems with Region IV, but I think the response you are 20    attempting to give is unreasonable,when you consider that by 21    your own statement, the purpose of this deposition is to 22    explore the facts to support the attorney-client privilege.
23              MR. ROISMAN:      Look, Mr. Paton, we've been real i
24 j  frank with each other, so let's be frank again.          During this i
25    lunch break, you have been ordered by superiors who are not 1
Acufr.DERAL REPORTERS, INC.
[            202.M74700        Nationwide Coserage 800-3346M6 u___-__-_------                                                                                    i
 
8400 06 06                                                                                                71
!                    7bw        1  there to defend themselves --                                                                I 2              MR. PATON:      Incorrect.
3              MR. ROISMAN:      -- to prevent this record from 4  publicly disclosing information which is alreedy publicly 5  known about Region IV.
6              MR. PATON:      No, now really --
7              MR. ROISMAN:      Ms. Garde's position is that if                              !
8  Region IV was a competent agency, she would have no need to 9  tell her clients, don't talk to them.
10              MR. PATON:      I have to correct as absolutely 11  incorrect statement, and it goes this way.              We have been 12  frank. I appreciate that.            I intend to continue to be 13  frank. I will tell you this.            I attempted to reach two 14  people who are superior to me and was unsuccessful in both 15  cases. It is, in fact, the lunch hour.            This decision I 16  have made myself.      I had help from cocounsel.          I have agreed 17  with everything she has said.            The deposition is obviously 18  taking on a turn that is inappropriate to the purpose of the 19  deposition. I intend to pursue facts that relate to the 20 ,
attorney-client privilege and not proceed on this course l
21 '
that has had been indicated by you.
l 22              MR. ROISMAN:      I wi)1 say again, the facts that 23  you are getting relate to the attorney-client privilege, and 1
24 l in our judgment, I don't care you ask the question, you are 25  still going to get all the information that we believe is ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700        Na;ionwide Coverage    8(XL336 f656
 
8400:06 06                                                                                                                                  72 I' Fbw                    1      pertinent, and we have no intent of making this deposition 2      last longer.
3                  You may remember, it was my hope that we would be 4      gone from here by 11:30.        It is certainly my hope that we 5      are going to be gone from here by 3:00 c' clock.                                                        And Ms.
6      Garde, there's not attempt to filibuster.                                We don't have any 7      interest in that.      We don't need this forum to talk about 8      the issues. We thought the Commissioners wanted to know, 9      why do you believe that the attorney-client privilege and 10      the work product privilege should be invoked here?                                                        Ms.
11      Garde is in the process of telling you that.                                            These exhibits 12      are. They speak for themselves.
k                        13                  All she wants to do and will do is to just 14        briefly describe to you what is the point that each one 15      makes, so that you will understand and the Commissioners 16        will understand why she's invoking this privilege.                                                        And I 17        think that's perfectly appropriate and within the scope of l
18        my letter to you and your communications to me.
19                    MR. PATON:      Mr. Roisman, I intend to proceed with 20        questions that relate to the attorney-client privilege.
21      t            MR. ROISMAN:      Let's be clear that if you are 22        stopping Ms. Garde from answering the question at this 23        point, you are cutting off her answer to a question which 24        you asked. I didn't ask her this question.                                      It wasn't my 4
* 25        part of the deposition.      She is still in the process of ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
                                ;            202 347 3700      Nationwide Coverage                          800-3364M6
 
~
q l
1
'18400 06 06                                                                                                                                                                                      73 J LFbw                                                                1    answering it.                                                                                                                                1 1
2                      MR. PATON:        Absolutely.                          I would agree that I 3    asked Ms. Garde a question.                                    She is, in her view, in the                                                  ,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                      -i '
4    process of answering the questioning.                                        It is clear to me 5    from happened immediately prior to the lunch break, that you                                                                              j i
6    intend to expand your problems or.your discourse on your 0
7    problems with Region IV way beyond anything. appropriate to                                                                                "
8    this deposition.                I thought I would give you an opportunity 9    that you would be glad to receive, but.it is obvious'to me                                                                                j 10    that if we pursue that at the length at which you intend to 11    pursue it, my purpose in taking this deposition will'not be 12    served, and we won't even begin to get to some of the I                                                                    13    questions I have about the attorney-client privilege.
14                        So that is what I intend to do.
15                        MR. ROISMAN:                        We will decide, as you ask these 16    questions,'whether we will answer them or not, based upon 17    our ability to properly give the information, which-we have 18    been asked to give.
19                        I will take it so far as to allow you to ask the 20    next question, with the recognition that you stop --
21                        MR. PATON:        Mr. Roisman, I don't think it is 22    really your position to allow me to ask a question or not 23    allow me to ask a question.                                    I will ask the questions.                                  If 24    you want to object to them, that's your privilege.                                                                    If you i
25    want to tell your client not to answer them; that's fine.
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l3                    202-347-37(K)                        Nationwide Coserage      800-336-6646
 
'{
  - 8400.06'06                                                                                              74'
    !      Ubw  'l-    But I don't think you're really in a position to allow me to 2    ask'any questions.
3                MR. ROISMAN:      You're asking them in front of I
                  '4    anybody other than yourself, with my permission. Go ahead.
5-              MR. PATON:      What was your last statement?
6                MR. ROISMAN:      The only reason that there's 7    anybody here other.than you listening to these questions 8    you're asking is, with my permission, ask your questions.
9                MR. PATON:      That is not of significance to me.
10                We asked Ms. Garde to come in and take her 11    deposition, and that's what I intend to do.
12                            EXAMINATION (Continued)
I 13                BY MR. PATON:
14          0      Ms. Garde, I believe you indicated previously 15    that there are now 54, either present or former employees of 16    the South Texas project, who have provided you -- and by 17    "you," I mean the attorneys that are employed by GAP -- with 18    allegations.?
19          A      I said this morning that it was either 54 or 56,                                                      i 20    I wasn't sure.
21          0      The difference in those numbers is not 22    significant right now.
23                Will you tell us their names?
24          A      Some of my clients' names are on the public 25    record and available to you through the Department of Labor                                                        1 I
                                              /\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                                                4
                      ;            202-347-3700        Nationwide Coverage 800-336-(M6
 
8400 06'06-                                                                                        75
                    ~
(' ant        'l    documents.- I,will not tell you, in this deposition, my 2    clients' names.
3          0    You have an objection to telling me the names of 4    the clients whose names are on record with. the Department of 5    Labor?
6                MR. ROISMAN:        No, I believe what she was, that 7    you already know those names, because they're a matter of 8    public record.      That's what she said.
9                MR. PATON:        Let's be practical. I can't leave 10    this room and go down to the Department of Labor and search 11    out all the names, et cetera, et cetera.
12                MR. ROISMAN:        No. Her point was that you, as a 13    representative of the agency should have done that about six 14    months ago.
15                MR. PATON:        Mr. Roisman, we don't need to get                              i i
16    into little side remarks like that.
17                MR. ROISHAN:        They're not side remarks.                              We're 18    trying to explain to you what my client is saying.
19                MR. PATON:        I'm sure you're unhappy about this                              i J
20    turn of events.
1
                      .21                  MR. ROISMAN:        I'm not unhappy about any turn of 22    events. My unhappiness is since Mr. Stello decided to try 23      to get the information Ms. Garde instead of doing his job.
I                      24      I am no less unhappy today than when I learned that.
n 25                  MR. PATON:        I have not had any objection to i
i
                                                    /\CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                          I I,                          ,            202 347 3700        Nationwide Coverage  800-336-6646
 
8400 06 06                                                                                                      76
( 'ifbw                                  1    remarks of that kind, but there is a limit.          If you. intend 2    to keep up that kind of remarks, such as " rogue elephant,"
3    et cetera, we consider terminating this deposition 4    ourselves.
5                BY MR. PATON:
6          0    Ms. Garde, my question is, you've indicates that 7    the names of some of'your clients are a matter of public 8  . record, because they are on record with the Department of 9    L' abor.
10                would you tell me what those names are?
l 11          A    They are on record with the NRC, because the 12    Department of Labor has to notify the NRC of all of the
(                                      13    Department of Labor complaints that are filed.
14          0    Do you know how many of those people there are?
15          A    How many of what people?
16          0    How many are we talking about?        How many people 17    are we' talking about?
18          A    I can't answer that question from memory.
19          0    Is it less than five?
20          A    No, it's more than five.
21          0    Is it more than ten?                                    )
22          A    In terms of Department of Labor actions,
,                                      .,. 23    potential Department of Labor actions and tort actions, it's 24    more than ten, and potential tort actions, it's more than 25    ten.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700      Nationwide Coverage  800-336-6M6
 
8400 06 06                                                                    77
(    Ubw  1        0      You just started talking about the tort action.
2    Are you wrapping that up with the Department of Labor 3    actions, or is that something different?
4        A      In some cases, it's the same.
5        0      I gather from that answer that in some cases it's 6    different?
7        A      Uh-huh.
8        0    Confining yourself to just the Department of 9    Labor, how many people are you talking about?
10        A      I don't know exactly.
11                (A pause.)
12                I will be glad, after the deposition is
(
13    completed, to send you a list of the docket numbers of the 14    cases of the clients that we represent in a section 210 15    action. I can't give that to you at this deposition.
16        0      I appreciate that.
17                You also referred to some tort claims.          Are you 18    willing to tell us who those clients are?
19        A      No.
20  .      O      Are those matters a matter of public record I
21    anywhere, the matters involving the tort claims?
22        A      Tort claims that are filed are a matter of public j            23    record.
24        0      Are you willing to send us the names of those 25    records after the deposition?
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I;            202-347-3700      Nationwide Coverage 800-3364M6 l
* 8400 06 06                                                                                                                                                                78
( Vbw                                                                    1          A    I'll send you the docket numbers of filed tort 2    actions.
3          0    The docket numbers and whatever jurisdiction it 4    is, whether it's a court or an agency or whatever.
5          A    Yes.
1 6          0    Will you tell us the allegations that have been 7    submitted by your clients who have tort claims?
8          A    Allegations of what?
9          0      Do you have any allegations from those clients, 10 l  the ones that have tort claims that relate to the South 11    Texas project?
12          A    Allegations of what.
k                                                                      13          0      Regarding safety matters that are included in the 14    600 allegations you say you have.
15 !        A    Mr. Paton, the people that contact GAP for 16    assistant in bringing a case against their employer for 17    harassment and discrimination have allegations.                              They may              ,
I 18    have one allegation -- that is, "I was pressured and 19    harassed, because I refused to falsify a document."                                          I 20    consider that an allegation.
21          0      Fine.        That's good.        Okay.
22          A      They may have 100 allegations which incorporate l                                                                          23    90 different welds and 10 different examples of 24    falsification and harassment and intimidation for certain l5 l                                                                          25    actions;right?      The nature of my work is that I represent i
i 1
i
                                                                                                          /\CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                              l
                                                                                ;            202 347 4 700        Nationwide Coserage                  800-33MM6
 
8400 06 06                                                                                                                      79 i        Ebw  1  people who have these concerns.              I take a client.                                                I 2    investigate those concerns, which leads to other concerns 3    and other --
4        0    Okay.
5        A    Let me finish my answer, please.
6        0    But I'm not sure why you are having trouble with 7  my question?
8        A    Your question is not simple.              You're saying, do 9    they have allegations.      I wouldn't have them as a client, if 10    they didn't have them an allegation that was a violation of 11    their rights and/or a violation of rules and regulations.
12        0      I think --
I~
13        A      Don't interrupt me.
14        0      I'm not sure why you are having so much difficult 15              MR. ROISMAN:      It's not any of your business why 16    she is having difficulty, Mr. Paton.              She's trying to answer 17    your question.
18 !
MR. PATON:      It is.      If I begin to get the idea 19 ,
that we're not really being -- just answering questions l
20 ! here, we're doing something else, then it is my business.
21 l              But go ahead, Ms. Garde.
22 l              THE WITNESS:      Mr. Paton, I'm not going to let you 23    limit my answers.                                                                                              l l
I l                    24                MR. PATON:      Let's be frank.          I really have no 25    intent to limit yoar answers, but it seems to me, I ask a                                                      )
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3?fC      Natiotswide Coverage                                      800 336-6646
 
j 8400 07 07                                                                                                                                                                80 1
(~ 'fbw                                  1  question, and you give me some lengthy discourse on what l
l                                          2  your procedure is.            I thought my question was fairly simple.
l
!                                          3  That is, do you have allegations from these people, and are                                                                            ,
i l                                          4  you willing to provide them us?
l 5                    THE WITNESS:      I answered that question this l
i 6  morning.
7                    BY MR. PATON:
l l                                          8                0  What was your answer?
9                A  No.
l l
10                0  My recollection is, we didn't say anything about 11  torts this morning.
l l
12                A  You didn't ask me anything about torts.
1 13                0  That's right.      That's why you didn't answer my 14  question this morning.                                                                                                                  ,
l 15                    My question specifically relates to those clients
                                                                                                                                                                                      ]
16  with which you are involved in a tort claim?                                                                                          I l
17                A  My answer is, the nature of my work is, I                                                                              !
18  represent people who have what I understand you think of as 19  allegations.
20                0  My question is, will you tell us what those 21  allegations are?
22                A  And my answer is no.
l                                          23                0  My question is, is that based on the exercise of l                                          24  their attorney-client privilege?
i
,                                          25                A    In some cases, and in some cases the exercise of I
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
                                              ,                202 347-3700      Nationwide Coserage                                                          800-336-6646
 
8400 07 07                                                                      81
(  iTbw    1  my work product privilege in my accomplishment of my                    i 1
2  professional mission to these clients regarding those                  j l
3  allegations.                                                          )
l 4        0    Okay.        Great. Now you mentioned three things.        l I
5  I'm not really sure.        I'm not challenging you, but you said    j 6  the attorney-client privilege, which is fine.            You said the  1 7  work product privilege.
                                                                                        ]
                                                                                          )
8              Now the basis your refusal to answer is based on 9  either one or the other of those two; is that correct?
10              MR. ROISMAN:        I believe she said three things.
11              MR. PATON:        I think she did, and I wasn't sure        i 1
J' 12  whether she meant to say that.
13              BY MR. PATON:                                              i i
14        0    What is your last one?
15        A    Accomplishment of my professional mission                    I 16  regarding what I have been retained to do, in some cases, 17  with people who have tort claims as well as others.                    l I
18        0    This is a basis for your refusal to answer, which          j l
19  is something other than the attorney-client privilege or the          i 20 , work product?
l 21 !      A      I think it describes the work product privilege            i t
22  and the professional judgment aspect of the attorney-client 23  privilege.
24        0      Then we are back to either the attorney-client              ,
i' 25  privilege or the work product privilege.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
                ;            202 347 3hK)        Nationwide CoveraFe 800-336-6646        I
 
1 i
(
                                                                                      )
8400 07 07                                                                    82
(  Ubw    1                Phr question.is, do you have an third basis cn1        ,
: 2. which you are refusing to answer?-
3                (Discussion off the record.)
                                                                                    )
4                THE WITNESS:      I need the Wisconsin Code of i
5    Professional Responsibility, which is marked as an exhibit.-      {
i 6                (Document handed to witness.                          I 7                (A pause.)                                            [
i 8                THE WITNESS:      Supreme. Court Rule 20.21 of the    /
9    Wisconsin Code of Professional Responsibility states that a I
10    lawyer should preserve the confidences and secrets of a 11    client.
12                In Ethical Consideration.1, it states that a 13    client -- I want to finish my answer.                              >
14                MR. PATON:      All I want to know is, roughly, where 15    you are reading-from.                                              ;
16-              THE WITNESS:      Supreme Court Rule 20.21, Ethical 17    Consideration 1.
18                BY MR. PATON:                                          i 19        0      That's where you're reading?
20        A      The middle of the paragraph.
21                " Client must feel free to discuss whatever he or 22-  she wishes with his or her lawyer, and a lawyer must be 23    equally free to obtain information beyond that volunteered 24    by his or her client.
4 25 That ethical consideration, which is further ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
j            202-317 3700      Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
 
1 f
8400 07 07                                                                                83 I
(  Vbw    1  developed in Ethical Consideration 4 sets forth an ethical 2  precept unlike the evidentiary privilege, which exists                                                                )
i 3  without regard to the nature or source of information or the                                                          j 1
4  fact that others share the knowledge.                                                                                f I
5              I am exercising that Ethical Consideration above                                                          l 6  and beyond the attorney-client and the work product 7  privilege.
8              So does that answer your question?
9        0      Yes.      It sure does.      I appreciate that.
10              We talked a minute ago about clients who have 11  gone to the Department of Labor, for example, and there are 12  dockets there, I                          Is it correct, that all of the allegations you 13 14  have received from clients who are involved in proceedings 15  before the Department of Labor, that all of thoso 16 . allegations are part of that record?
l 17        A      No, but those clients have been available to the 18  NRC for interview or investigation, or at least your attempt 19  to take their deposition or to interview them, since their 20  identity was publicly known through the Department of Labor-21 l NRC process. And in no case has the NRC Region IV Office or 22  any other office ever contacted any of those whistle blowers 23  and asked them about their discrimination claims or their 24  substantives claims or their concerns of safety problems.
25  Zero contact, even though Region IV has written inspection ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 447 3700      Nationwide Coverage    MG 336-6M6
 
h' t              4 r
28400.07.07                                                                                                          84
    ' (- 'Vbw    1  reports that imply that they have talked to those workers 2  and then closed out allegations based on no information or 3  contact by my clients.        If Region IV wanted to have talked t 4  those people, they could have tried.-
5              I don't know if my clients would have talked to 6  them, but that situation has never. occurred in any of the 7  clients that have filed Department of Labor actions at the 8  South Texas project, not once.
9        0    Okay.
10        A      Even when some of those people themselves 11  contacted the NRC, they never got a call back.
12        0    Okay.
13              I have two questions.            Was the NRC aware -- well, 14  the first question is, I asked you this before.                                  To the best 15  of your recollection now in the DOL cases, I think you've 16  indicated your memory is not good, but somewhere around 17  eight or nine, something like that, without getting too 18  precise on numbers, somewhere between five and ten, maybe, 19  DOL cases?
20        A      I think it is slightly more than ten, but I am 21  not positive.
22        0      I won't press you.
23              All right.        With respect to those DOL cases and 24  the NRC's inaction in talking with those people to which you 1
25  had testified, did the NRC have reason to know that their ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i            202 347 3700        Nationwide Coverage      RK)-336-6646
 
1 o
i 8400 07 07:                                                                              85    l
(~ d
      'bw      I    . complaints involved anything other than a matter that.was of 2    interest.to the-DOL?                                                      q d
3          A    If the NRC inspector or enforcement officer who              f l
4    reviewed the complaint is a thinking,-breathing human being,            j i
5    he would know that.                                                      q 6'          0'  'He would have known of all.the~other allegations?
7          A    You don't get. fired for raising allegations and 1
              -8    'then bring a complaint unless you had a safety concern.
                                                                                              .l t
              '9          0    Ms. Garde --
10-          A    That's a ridiculous question.
1 11            0    Let's be cool.        Let's relax.                        . I 12                  Do you know, in fact, with respect to these                  !
1 13      cases, whether the NRC was advised that.there were any other 14      matters of concern, other than the DOL issues?
15            A    By whom.                                                      .
16            0    Your client?
17            A    In some cases, my client made an additional 18      effort to try to get Region IV off their butt to do that 19      investigation, and they did not do it.            In some cases, the 20      allegation itself, the complaint itself, says I was doing X, 21      Y and Z, they didn't let me do X, Y and Z.              I've been fired.
22      Okay?
23                  A person reading that understands that this guy 24      raised a safety concern.        He was terminated, and then he i
25      filed a complaint.        In some cases, there's been no contact ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
                  ,            202-347-3700        Nationwide Coverage    80 4 336-6646        ;
 
          .8400 07 07.                                                                                                                                          86
:(; : thm(                              1    with.the NRC in terms of person to person contact.                                                        But I 2    don't think you are missing the point that discrimination 3    complaints themselves are violations of 50.7.
4          0                I have no problem with that.                        I'think my question 5    was fairly clear.
6      -
Can you tell me,-generally, what positions your 7    clients hold.                  For example, are any of them supervisors?
8          A                I don't want to answer that question.                                This.is 9    not a guessing' game.- You can go look at these allegations.
10    You have access to the file.                        You can pick up the file and 11    find out everything you want about these cases at.the 12-  Department of Labor.
I 13          O                Ms. Garde, I am not trying to delay this 14    deposition, but your answer, "I don't want to answer that 15    question," really was plenty.                          I'm not trying to delay'this 16    deposition.
17                            MR. ROISMAN:        Nor is she.          You don't seem to 18    understand, Mr. Paton.                    You ask her a question.                        You say, 19    would you tell me the answer to this.                                      She wants to tell you 20    now, and she also wants to tell you why.
21                            MR. PATON:      Okay.      But the last answer was very 22    simple.      I don't want to answer the question 23                            MR. ROISMAN:      Then she went on to explain the 24    reason why it was that there was no reason for her to sit 25    here    and expend her legal skills for the NRC, when she's
                                                                                                . ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
                                                            ,                        202 347 3700        Nationwide Coverage                  800-336-6646
 
8400.07:07-                                                                                                                                                                                                87 1    told the NRC where to go to find the information that they
( Vbw 2-  already knew where to go to find and now to go about finding 3    it. I think that is a fair part of the answer that she is 4    entitled.to give.
51              MR. PATON:                                                      We've spent three or four minutes L                              6    bickering about a question that'I think is very 7    straightforward and.very easy.
1 8                MR. .ROISMAN:                                                                      Mr. Paton, in a simplistic sense,                                                    )
l 9    all your questions are very easy to answer.                                                                                                                  This not a 10    simplistic client that I have here.                                                                                                                These are not                  )
11    simplistic problems.                                                                                                                                                                ;
l                                                                                                                                                                                                                          I 12                MR. PATON:                                                      I would never, ever accuse Ms. Garde                                                                    ]
13    of being simplistic.
14                MR. ROISMAN:                                                                      She is going to give you the full 15    answer or she is not going to answer any of the questions.
16    You are not entitled to tell her how short to make the i
17    answer.                                                                                                                                                                              j i
18                THE WITNESS:                                                                        I really object to that.                                                I don't      '
19    let people do that to my clients.                                                                                                                                                    I 20                MR. ROISMAN:                                                                      She's entitled go give the full                                                        !
l 21    answer.
22                MR. PATON:                                                      Let the record show that I'm not 23    saying anything now, and you are now competing with each 24    other as to what complaints you have about me.
4 1
25                Why don't we all calm down a little here and just i
                                                                  /\CE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, }NC.
i            202-347 3700                                                                      Nationwide Coserage                                          800-336 6646
 
8400.07;07                                                                                                                          88.
  . (I Jbw                                    1    answer'some questions?
2                          BY-MR. PATON:
3          0              of your 50-some-odd clients, do you know how many 4-  of them presently are still employed at-the site?
5        .A              No.
6          0              Do you know how many of them are not employed at 7    the site?
8        A              I can't give you an answer here.
9          0              I just don't understand your answer?
10              A.              I don't know, in my head.                  I don't know the-11        answer.
12              O              Can you make any sort of an estimate?
k                                    13              A              No.
14              0              Okay.      Are there any among the 50-some-odd 15        allegers who are neither present nor former employees at the 16        site?
17              A              Yes.
18              0              Can you tell me how they obtained their 1
19        information?
20                              (A pause.)
21              A              These individuals were either industry 22        consultants who received information about the South Texas 23        plant in the course of their work or NRC employees.
24                0              Can you tell me approximately how many NRC
                ^
25        employees have provided you with information?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i                      202 347 3700            Nationwide Coverage      800-336-6646
 
!.8400 07-07                                                                                                        89-
  -( - ifbw  1        A      No.                                                                                          .
t 2        0      Now I want to understand your answer. 'Is that 3    because you don't know or you are exercising, are. acting in                                              j 4    response to an attorney-client privilege?
5        A      I believe that it's covered under the attorney-6    client. privilege, because the identification of any more l
7    information could indicate information beyond the identity                                                J 8    of'the person who's contacted me'for legal advice.                                                        j 9        0      Let me ask you.        Can you repeat that answer?
10        A      Yes.      If I identify a specific number, l'believe' 11    that that will lead to a witch hunt to find a source or ten 1
12-  sources or 15 sources.      So I'm not going to tell you how k        13    many of the 54 individuals are NRC employees.
14        0      okay.
15                It is your statement then, am I correct, in 16    concluding that either one or more of these 50-odd allegers 17    from whom you have received information is an NRC employer?
18        A      That's a correct statement.
19        0      So you are claiming then that you are the 20    attorney for one or more NRC employees in respect to this 21    matter, the matter that we have discussed?
22        A      Just a moment.        I have to take to counsel.
23                (Discussion off the record.)
24                THE WITNESS:      The NRC employees that I am 25    claiming an attorney-client privilege for fall into one of ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
                !            202 347 3700      Nationwide Coverage  800 336-6646
 
8400-07 07                                                                      90 ja Ebw    1  two categories.      They either are people who have contacted 2  me, specifically, to provide them legal advice regarding a 3  concern that they have about South Texas, the South Texas 4  plant and making the NRC's system work, or they are people 5  who have contacted me or been contacted by me in the course 6  od doing investigations regarding what I'll describe as 7  litigation clients who have technical concerns and are what                                          j 8  I consider nontestifying experts that may be called upon in 9  the course of doing a Department of Labor hearing or a tort 10  hearing.
11              Does that answer your question?
l 12        O      Yes.
6
    '        13              MR. ROISMAN:      Mr. Paton, we should be clear about 14  something here, so that you understand.            We believe that to 15  the extent that any of these allegations are known by any                                            j i
l            16  employee of the NRC, that there's nothing in this subpoena                                            l 17  that seeks legitimately that information, because you 18  already know it.        The agency is treated as a unity for that 19  purpose. So if your employees know there allegations, then 20  your agency knows them, and having Ms. Garde tell you what 21  your employees already know is a foolish waste of time.
22              So we are not only saying that as to that I
l            23  information, that it's privileged, because either that 24  employee may be a client of Ms. Garde's for purpose of 1
i      25  advice or that employee may be the product of work product I
                                        /(CE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700        Nationwide Cvserage    M&336 6646 l
 
i l
l, u o                                    ,
8400 07:07                                                                                      91 l
    -), qVbw-      l~  that'she/is conducting for other clients and a.nontestifying                                  I 2-  expert, but-also, since they are NRC employees, the agency.
a 3    is deemed to know what your employees know 4                BY MR. PATON:'
5        0      Your counsel has indicated that I know these 6    names, but in any event, you refuse to tell me who these 7-  names are?
                .8                  MR. ROISMAN:      No.          What I've said is, you know 9    that-the'information is in the possession of the agency.
10                  MR. PATON:      But of course, under-your theory, if 11      Ms. Garde is this employee's attorney, this employee has no 12      need to tell other people in the NRC about it, because the 13      information, under your theory, is protected by the 1
14      attorney-client relationship.                                                                l 15                  So I'm suggesting to you that under your theory,                                  l l
16      I can't get this information.
17                  MR. ROISMAN:      You don't understand.                  In my
                .18      theory, you have this information.                  It's in the possession                  j
                                                                                                                      \
19      of your client.                                                                              l 20                  MR. PATON:      Let's don't argue about it                                      j l
21    i              BY MR. PATON:                                                                  j l
22            0      In any event, clearly, I think you've stated that 23      you will not provide us those names; is that correct?                                        !
24            A      That's correct.
4 l'
25            0      With respect -- I'm going to refer to 55 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700      Nationwide Coverage            800-336-6646 j
\i                                          _                _ _ _ _    .-__ _____ ____-_-_-_-_- _ --_- _ _ _ - _ A
 
          ?
(
8400 07 07                                                                                                                      92
!            ,                                                                                                                                                      i L            ( . Vbw . 1    Eallegerst okay?        I will agree readily that you didn't say I;
2    '55. You said'54, 56, whatever.
3                  Give me just a second.                                                                                                    ,
4                  The 55 all'egers, did they all come to you?                                                                  In          j l                                                      .
                                                                                .                                                                                    i L                        5      other words, did they initiate the' conversations with you or 1
(                        6      some other GAP attorney?
l                        7          A      No.      I've already explained that on the record.                                                                    ]
8                  In the course of doing an investigation of.a
                                                                                                                                                                    )
                        .9      particular client's concerns, our investigation leads to H
10- ,    other employees.          Those employees themselves may become l'
l 11      clients. Those employees may provide information that.
12      supports my client's information.                  Those employees may k          13      either be witnesses or rebuttal witnesses regarding my 14      client's information in preparation for a trial on the 15      merits of his claim.          Those employees that we contact may 16      give us information and do give us information in 'the 17      context of representation of individuals that may be 18      completely separate from what we contacted them for.
19                    Those individuals that we contacted gave me that 20      information in the expectation that I was going to keep that 21      information confidential until or unless I got their 22      permission to use that information in some way.
l                      23                    MR. ROISMAN:          Excuse me just a second.
24                    (Discussion off the record.)
25 l
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
                            }              202-347-3700          Nationwide Coverage                                        800 336-W6
 
    - - _ _ _ _ ~ - -
1 i
8400                                                                                  93-bjd/bs
(          1          .O      At the site -- strike that.
2                  Did you. personally talk to the allegers at or i
3      near the site?                                                                i
                                                                                                                      )
4            A      Sometimes.                                                      {
i
                                                                                                                  ]
5            0      Were.there other GAP attorneys who talked.to'the t
6      allegers at or.near the site?                                            .()
                                                                                                                  ;1 7            A      When you'say "at the site", you realize that I                    j
                                    ,                                                                                  1
                                                                                                                    'd 8l      can' t 'go on the site.
                                '9            Q      Or.near the site.
10            A      Well, I can go near the site.                                    ]
                                                                                                                      )
11            Q      Let me start again.
12            A      Are you asking me did I go to the parking lot, o r.              )
I k        13      did I go to Bay City?.
14            0      Easy.        Easy. Where did you conduct most of your 15      . interviews?
16          1A      It's a variety of telephone interviews and 17      personal interviews in and around the site area,.as well as 18      where'those people may be if someone leaves the site, gets 19      fired, goes to work in another plant.
20                    Frequently, it may be at that other location.
                                                                                                                    -)
21            Q      How many times did you go to the area near the                  ;
1 i
l                              22      site?
l l                              23'            A      There have been trips to the site by myself, my l
24      co-counsel, other investigators that we have working with us l
25      at least monthly for the last eight months.            About monthly.
l
                                                                /\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                          l
                                      ;              202 347-3700          Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646 I
l                                                                                                                      .
 
L                                                                                                                        s i
8400                                                                                                          94    j I
    '( ,,
l'      O      So, personally,.you have been to that area?                                                    l L                                                                                                                        d l          2        A      Several times.
3        Q      Somewhere in the neighborhood of eight times?                                            "'
4        A      I probably have been, but I am not sure about the 5    number of. trips.- But I'm confident that somebody's been h          6    there, either myself or Richard.              I've been there because L                                                                                                                      1 7    I've been doing DOL cases.          So there's been a fairly steady                                  .I i
8    stream of traffic, if that's what you're asking me.                                                      J i
l'        '9        Q      What other GAP attorneys have been there?
10        A      Richard Condit.                                                                              .
l                                                                                                                      -1 11        0      Anyone else?
12        A      We have an investigator.
                                                                                                                          ]
!    .                                                                                                                  J t    13        0      Is he an attorney?            He or she an attorney?
14        A      It's a she.      No, she's not an attorney.
15        0      And Richard is with the Washington office?
16        A      Yes.
17        O      Are there any other GAP attorneys in the                                                    i 18    Wisconsin office?
19        A      Occasionally.                                                                                  l 1
20        Q      Did you tell the clients that you would be able                                                I 21    to keep the allegations from the NRC?
22        A      I'm not going to answer that question because 23    what I told them is covered by attorney-client privilege.
24        Q      Okay.      Would you be willing to supply the NRC f
25    after this deposition with copies of your executed ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
              !            202-347-3700        Nationwide Coverage                                    800 336-6646
 
8400                                                                                                                                              95
      ;-              1      agreements with your clients, with the names deleted?
2                          MR. ROISMAN:            You're-talking about ones.that are 3      different than the one that's attached to the Motion to
                      '4      Quash?
5                          MR. PATON:        We can get into that.if we want to, 6      if she can state under oath that every one of these 7      agreements is precisely the same as the form that she gave 8      us. But I would be interested in, for example, the dates 9      they were executed.
10                            THE WITNESS:              I don't want to answer that 11      question without discussing the pros and cons,of doing that 12      with my counsel.                  And I don't think I can do that on a S-              13      break.
14                            BY MR. PATON:
15          0                Let me request that you do that, and we'll leave 16      it at that.              Let me also request --
17                          .MR. ROISMAN:              Mr. Paton, so that I'll be able to 18      advise her properly, if the documents are the same from 19      every client, are you satisfied with a statement from her                                                                  i 20      that the attached blank retainer agreement is the one that                                                                  l 21      was signed with X-number of people and that it was dated, 22      and to give you the dates?
23                            MR. PATON:      Yes.          In other words, I would have to 24      take a look -- can I see that agreement?                                                                                      3 l                                                                                                                                                    l
  ,                  25                            (Handing document to counsel.)
m-ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
                        ;                        202 347-3700              Nationwide Coverage                                          800 336-6646    )
                                                                                                                                                            )
 
f                        '
8400-          '
96
(      1                MR. PATON:      Yes, that'would be agreeable.. We 2    wouldn't need to see any agreement if she would.tell us the-3  ldate of each of those agreements.              That is, it has not been 4    amended in any way from the three-page representation 5    agreement that Ms. Garde attached ta) her motion.
6                I think it's Attachment One.
7              MR. ROISMAN:        Okay.      Go ahead. I'm sorry I 8    interrupted you.
9                BY MR. PATON:
        .10        0      Yes.      I want to ask you about this agreement.
11    There are expressions in here -- for' example, I'm looking at 12    page 1 of the representation agreement, paragraph number k    13    two:
14                " GAP will only release the client's identity.
15    GAP will no longer be responsible.              GAP understands.      Et 16    cetera.
17                Now, I'm correct that GAP itself, which the 18    record shows is a corporation, does not practice law.
19                Is that correct?
20        A      I think Mr. Roisn.an described what I understand 21 ,  to be the answer to your question this morning by' indicating 22    that perhaps this isn't the exact words to describe or way 23    to describe the relationship because I might be killed on 24    one of my numerous trips to Bay City, and these clients need
    /
25    to know that even though something would happen to me, the ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
j            202 347-37(O        Nationwide Coverage      8(0 33M646 l'
L
 
l l
8400                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              97 l
L                                            (                                              1                                        organization would ensure that'the representation agreement
                                                                                        '2                                              was continued.
3                                                                                                                                        And that'is what when it refers to GAP.
L                                                                                            4                                                                                                                                          Does that answer your question?
k l
5                                                                              A                                                          I think so.                                                                  At the top, the second and t,hird 6                                          line says that "the client agrees to retain GAP to perform 7                                          legal services."
8                                                                                                                                        The intent as I understand from you is that it 9                                          was really with a number of attorneys that are employed by 10                                                GAP.                                              That was the intent.
11                                                                                                                                                  If you look at paragraph one, " Staff attorneys 12                                                  Billie Garde and Richard Condit will be responsible for 13                                                  representing the client in this matter."
14                                                                                    Q                                                          Right.                                                                I think I understand.      Thank you.
l                                                                                      15                                                                                                                                              With respect to the allegers that did not execute 1
l                                                                                    16                                                  representation agreements, did you attempt to have them l
l                                                                                      17                                                execute an agreement?
;                                                                                      18-                                                                                  A                                                            I can't answer that question without some 1
39                                                explanation in some cases; the clients, people that 20                                                contacted us or that we contacted in the context of doing 21                                                our work preparing for another case -- for example, a 22                                                  litigation case or a trial -- have moved on to another plant 23                                                  sometime ago.
24                                                                                                                                              Their information was given to us on an oral i
                                                                                  .25                                                    understanding between that person and myself.                                                                                                                                                            They haven't ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-37(10                                                                  Nationwide Coverage    800-336-6646
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ,7
                                                                                                                                      . .q...                              Q;                *}-                  a
                                                                                                                          + ,                                    g W ' g_                                                          '
                                                                                                                                          -r                      j                      .
y                              ,
                                                                                                                                                                  ;;                    #                              1
                                                                                                                                ,1, 3).                        1.
                                                                                                                                                                      ,2-
                                                                                                                                                                      -e-
: e.                                              t -
j]';
:8400 i
                                                                                                                                                                            . ,l;-                                                                                            98' I'                                                    M                      , signed a representation agreement, but my notes of, for
                                                                                                              ,        /
2-              ,Jex:smple, a,telephono conversation or a personal meeting 3'                  labigatea. the agreement 'upon which that discussion occurs as
:) ; :)                                s
,                                                                                      4-                  a ' prerequ hi.te to the discussion.
                                                                                                                                                  .        )?
                                                                                  -5
                                                                                                                                                    'l You look confused.
V 6'                  I
                                                                                                                        'O                                          ies.              Repeat the very last thing you'said.
7                                    A
                                                                                                                                                                  *~
As'a prerequfai,te to further discussion, the
                                                                                                                                                                                                                  /4 A                        first matter                                                  tha% ic'~ discussed, if you call up on the f
M                                    telephond or you $eet with somebody personally, is the
                                                                                                                                            /
                                                          ', 10                                        . expel-ta::. ion, of f p vacy regarding the information and how it
                                                                                                                      ;                i                              ) !
i .o
{ll                                      may arfy may not [b'e used in order for me to do my job as an
                                                                                                                                , ;                                      /        <
12 a. a+:torneygreprenonting many times individuals who are engaged 13                          ,in hee,%d. litigation;regarding certain issues, I have to be
                                                                    '14                            .
abli;to protect'those confidences.
J                    'j j                                                      !                                                                                                                                  1 15 /                                              i                                    So, in- ot?cr , to do my job, that's the first thing e.
y yt
                                                    >                                                          /
                                                                ,16 ~ '  .
that 3 do. j won't get information otherwise.                                                                                                                                                              ,
                                                    *,                                                                                                                                        ,;.                                                                                                                    i 17 j
Of                                        Leta me . t.ry again.                                          Thg people that you do not M
                                                                                          .>                                      t,                                                    ,
18 W have written                                                                      '
agrcements yith, .'did you attempt with respect
                                                                    ,                                                                                                                  s                                                                                                                                t
                                            '                              19 ,                            to any of the)se beoplo to retain a written agreement?
p G
                                                        ;                  30 '' F A                                        No one refused to sign a written agreement.
21 j(                                          0                                        Ms. Garde,'mf question was --
4      l                                                                                                                          ,
i 22                                            A                                        I'm.: answering. "No one refused to sign a written 23                                agreement, if that's what you're asking.
                                                                /                              /                        >
                                                          / 2Y q.                                                          Q                                        No, that's not really what I'm asking.                                                                    What my
                          ,                ,f          d                                  -
                                            ,t                j)3                                          questiion was is did you attempt to get them to execute an Ti /                                                                                                  .
t                                                                              ]
                            .i
                                                                      ' -                                                                                                              ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
j                                                            202 347-3700                                      Nationwide Coserage                        8001364M6                                              !
                                                                                                            "              t
      /                                                                                                              !
t l-      - . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - - .                  _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _                                              - _ _ _ . _ . _ _ - __                              . _ _ - . . _ _ _        = . - _ _ .    -    . , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _          _ _ _    _ . _ _ . - _ . . . _ _ _ . - _
 
l 8400                                                                              99 I          1    agreement?
2        A      The people that we are still in contact with, the 3    people that we are -- your question assumes a process which 4    may be appropriate in some circumstances, but is not here.
5        0      Ms. Garde, I think my question is ultra-plain.
6        A      Then I don't understand it.
7        0      The question is simply this.            With respect to 8    those people with whom you do not have a written agreement, 9    did you attempt to obtain a written agreement?                        !
10                It'c very simple.
11        A      We don't talk to someone without an agreement.
12    Before we talked.        That agreement is then reduced to            j i
i 13 l writing. In some cases, that agreement is reduced to 14    writing only in my notes; that is, it captures an oral 15    agreement. All right?
16 j              Do you understand what I'm saying?
17        0      Absolutely.
18        A        All right.      In some cases, the majority of cases, 19    there is a written retainer agreement with the individual, 20 . but not in every case.
l 21 l      0        So your statement is that if, in your notes, you i
I 22    noted an agreement with the client, your conclusion is that 23    you have a written agreement with that client?
24        A        Yes.      Can I give you an example?
i 25        0        If you wish.
l                        /\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700        Nationwide Coserage    800-336W46 l
l 3
 
                                                                                                                                                  )
                                                                                                                                                  .I i
8400                                                                                                                                100
(                                                      1      A        Because'I don't think we're really communica' ting i
                                                                                                                ~
2  here. If, in 1985 or 1986, I was retained to do a 3  Department of Labor case, that individual gave.me the name 4  .of five people who would substantiate the discrimination or-5'  the technical allegations.
                                                            '6                He said, ."But you'd better call John Doe because 7  he's-leaving, he's got job at another site."        ,
l 8                I called John Doe.          John Doe says, "I'm going to 9  give you this information.          Everything your client said is
                                                            -10. absolutely right, and it's even worse than that.                  And I'm        {
11  going to tell you this information, but you can.never use my 12  name."
(
13                And I say, "Well, I want you to understand what I 14  need the information for.          I could either call you as a 15  witness, I could rely on you as an expert, or I could just 16  use this information in the development of my case."
17                And he says to me, "I will give you this 18  information only on the basis that you represent to me that 19  you will never use my name.            Not with the NRC, not with the 20  Department of Labor proceeding.              I'm going to just give you 21  that information."
22                Since that time period, they're gone.                But the 23  .information that they gave me and the conditions under which 24  they gave it to me remain.            I'm honoring that commitment .      I
(
25  may have never talked to the guy personally, but he only 1
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, 202-347-3700      Nationwide Coverage      MG336-6646          g
 
                          .8400'                                                                                                    101
(      l'            gave me the information on the basis of my representation to 2              him as an attorney that.I was going to use it in the way 3              that he agreed to give it to me.
J 4                  0              I think what you're saying is that, in those 5              cases, a written agreement such as this document here, which 6              is a three-page document, entitled Representation Agreement,                            j 7              really wasn't appropriate?
8                  A              Right.
9                  0              Okay.        The work product privilege that you are 10              referring to, I assume relates to the DOL cases?
11                  A              It refers to all the cases.                            .
12                  0              With respect to the cases that are not DOL cases,                    i
(                                                                                        I'm just suggesting 13              were you anticipating some litigation?
                                .14              to you that, in my view, the work product privilege relates i
15              to the. anticipation of litigation.
l 16                                  If you disagree with that, just say so.
l                                17                  A              Well, I'll do my legal brief later, I'm sure.                          f 18                                  MR. ROISMAN:              Mr. Paton, there is some dispute, I 19              think, in terms of the NRC position and our position on what 20              " litigation" means.
21                                  So I think it would be helpful if you could 22              define what you mean by " litigation", so her answer will be 23              responsive.
24                                  MR. PATON:              I don't want to do that.          I don't
(
25              want to start answering questions.                              I asked -- Ms. Garde is ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
j                              202 347 37 6                Nationwide Cmerage      80(b33M646 1
 
                                                                                                                                                                )
8400                                                                                                                                                102  1 I
(          l      an attorney, and if she wants'to say that she doesn't                                                                                l l
2      understand the meaning of " litigation", then that's fine 3      with me..
4                  MR. ROISMAN:      Ms. Garde and I just consulted and 1
5      she said, " Tony, I'd'like you.to make clear what it is that                                                                        !
6      'he meant."  I'm performing my function.
7                  MR. PATON:      All right.                                              Let me ask'you...
8                  BY MR. PATON:                                                                                                            ,
I 9-          0      Do you really have difficulty with my question?
10            A    Why don't you just stand on the NRC's own 11      definition of " proceeding" as utilized in its analysis of                                                                          i 12      what the Section 210 projections are?
l 13                  MR. PATON:      Let me ask the reporter -- let's go 14      off the record.
15                  (Discussion off the record.)
l 16                  MR. PATON:      If you can't answer the question or I
17      understand it, it's fine with'me.                                                  But it's my understanding 18      that work products typically anticipates litigation.
19                  But, anyway.                                                                                                            j 20    l BY MR. PATON:
i 21            0      In those cases that do not involve DOL issues, l
22      are you stating, am I correct that you are relying on the 23      work product privilege?
l 24            A      Yes.
i 25            0      In those cases, were you anticipating litigation?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC,
                      ;            202 347-3700      Nationwide Coverage                                                                    8(n336-6M6
 
l I
8400                                                                                                          103 l
(              1        A      Your question once again is not operating with                                      l 2  the realities I have put out on how we do our work, and how 3  I believe every attorney does their work.
4        0      Let me ask you a question.            Do you understand my 5  question?
6        A      Sure, I think I understand your question.                                      But 7  you're asking me --
8        0      Can you answer it?
9                (Discussion off the record.)
10                THE WITNESS:      Litigation as I define it and 11  understand it incorporates everything that the NRC includes 12  in its definition of a " proceeding" under the Atomic Energy
(
13  Act. And it includes and incorporates any contact between 14  my client or my witness and any agency of government in 15  which he or she has a claim, has an interest to be protected 16  and needs representation, or believes he or she needs 17  representation to protect her interests from the 18  government's abuse.
19                BY MR. PATON:
20 ,
0      Okay.      So that, if your client felt that he -auld
,                21  not obtain satisfaction from the NRC with respect to a I
l                22  safety allegation at the South Texas project, as I 23  understand your definition, that would involve he would 24  believe that he was involved in litigation.
i 25        A      If he retained me or provided information to me ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700        Nationwide Coserage      8(G336-6M6 f
 
84001                                                                                                                                      104
(-                                                'l        for the purpose of ensuring that the information was acted.
2        upon-by the NRC without endangering.his. employment situation 3        and protecting his interests.
4-                  As to those class of people, yes, I consider that 5        litigation. Your question went to the Department of Labor 6        subclass.
7            0        I think it went to other than Department of 8        Labor, but that's all right..
9            A        My answer isn't limited to that.                  I also want to 10        make-sure that you understand my answer does not preclude 11        the fact that some of these people specifically feared or 12        were: preparing for litigation and may still be preparing for
('                                                                                                                                        l 13        litigation if and when the time is right.                                    I 14                    Whether that time is right is now, whether there i
15        needs to be more investigation done by me before I file a 16        tort claim...                                                                  j 17            0        You mean litigation other than DOL litigation?
18            A        Uh huh.
19            0        Can you tell me generally what sort of proceeding 20        you're talking about?                  You referred to a tort claim.
21            A        Obviously, these people have remedies under a l
J 22        variety of regulations and state laws, depending on what 23        discrimination they have suffered.
24                    So, in those cases, we're talking about a wide 25        group of people here.                  As I said before, each of them has an I
l
                                                                                                                              /\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                  l ll            202 347-3700                Nationwide Coverage 8(n3364t6        ]
 
i
    -                                                                                                            i i
i a                                                                                                                i l                            8400                                                                          105 l ..
                              .(  'l    ' individual circumstance.      So I'm running through in my mind 2    .a lot of the different people.trying to answer your question 3    that incorporates all the different situations.
l l                                                                                                                i h                                  4          O        Split them up.                                            j l
i                                  5          A        I'm not comfortable that I've answered your              )
l-6    question as'to each individual situation as to each                    ;
1 1
L                                  7-    individual situation.        I think that's really kind of
                                  -8    difficult. That's why I am having a lot of trouble with            J 9    your very general question.                                            j 10          0        I want to ask you a question about what services i                                  11    you are providing to your client and to avoid the problem 12    that you just indicated you had with the last question,'I'll l                            -(
13    cut it up as much as you want.            Or you can cut'it up as much 1
14    as you want.1 15                  But, my question is:
16                  What services are you providing to your clients?-
17                  I'll make it more precise.
18                  If a worker at the site has no DOL claim but he 19    gave you a safety allegation and you have that information, 20    and you won't give it to the NRC, let me ask you, first of 21    all, do you have such a case?            Is there such an instance?
22          A        The first part of it, if the person has no DOL 23    claim, is too exclusionary.
l                                  24          0        It doesn't presently have.          All I'm trying to do l                              (
25    is -- you want to cut this up, so I'm trying to cut it up.
                                                                /4CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC.
l l              20244t3700        Nationwide Coverage      MG336-6646 w_____-______-_____--_.
 
i i
i 1
8400                                                                        106      I i
l    1              What I really want to know is what services-are 2  you providing your client?
                                                                                        ]
l 3      A      Each of the clients that I represent has or --                  i 4  strike that -- is involved in some type of litigation or                    j l
5  action with either the NRC or a state court or another 6  agency.
l 7              There's a variety of things.            But it includes          1 8  from the NRC's perspective the whole umbrella of 2.206                      j l
9  requests, investigations by OI, Inspections, investigations                j i
10  by Offee of Inspector and Auditor.                                          j l
11              It includes or could include testifying 1.n an                  {
l 12  ASLB proceeding, being a potential witness in an ASLB                      j i                                                                                    i 13  proceeding. It could include testifying or being a witness 14  in a criminal case, in a criminal case under state law and i
15  in a criminal case under federal law.                                        I 16 l    0      Okay, but I want to get precise.            I mean, it 17  could be a lot nf things.          But you're exercising the work 18  product privilege.        And I'd like to know why.                        I I
19 l            In other words, with respect to alleger A or                    !
I 20  alleger 1, or whatever, what is your basis for exercising 21  the work product privilege?
22 l            It could be a lot of things.
23      A      Well, the basis is for each individual client.
24  It's something different.
(
25      0      can you tell me for alleger No. 1?              You know, the    ;
ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
;        s            202-347 37(K)        Nationwide Coverage    8(kk346646 l
l
 
                                                                                                                                                          'l l
l 8400~                                                                                                                        107'
(                                      'l          point is it'isn't really helpful to say it could be this and 2          it'could be that.
3                        (Discussion of f the record.)
4                        THE WITNESS:      As to each individual client there 5          is a certain mission that I have been retained to do.                    And 6          in each case, that mission includes a range of 7          representation action.        It. includes in every case protection 1
8          of that person's interest from abuse by Region IV and from l                                                                9          the actions that would befall or the results that would l
l                                                              10'          befall my client if' Region IV improperly investigated their 11            allegations.
12                        And that's why you're cutting off the answer l                                                              13            about Region IV.'
14                        MR. PATON:      I'm not trying to -- all right.              Go 15            ahead.
16                        THE WITNESS:      By cutting off the answer about                  {
17            Region IV's incompetency or refusal to do its job is
                                                                                                                                                          'I I
18            directly relevant to this discussion.              This situation 19            results and is complicated only because Region IV isn't 20            doing their job.
21                        If Region IV of the NRC had a credible office,                    l 22            they acted on workers' concerns, they protected and defended l '
23            workers, then the work product privilege and the 24            professional judgment I have to exercise in protecting my 1
25            clients would not lead to the conclusion that turning over
{
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
g                    202-347 3700      Nationwide Coverage      800 336-6646
 
                        ~
l i
I 8400                                                                                                    108
(      l    the information is directly to the ' disadvantage of my 2    client, and will lead to negative results.
      .3                  BY MR. PATON:
          .                                            .                                                          I 4        O'      'Okay.- Talking now about the work product                                              I
                                                                                                                -1 3'    privilege, you view, am I correct that you view the possible 6    abuse by Region IV of your client as litigation that would 7    allow you to raise the work product privilege with respect 8    to these clients?
9        A        You keep using the attorney-client and the work 10      product privilege.        I want to make real clear that my 11      conduct is covered by and determined by the Wisconsin Code 12      of Professional Responsibility, one of which is of Ethical
-{
13      Consideration 5, which says that:
14                  A lawyer should not'use information acquired in 15      the course of the representation of the client to the 16      disadvantage of the client.
17                    And a lawyer should not use -- except with the 18      consent of the client after full disclosure -- such 19      information for his or her own purposes.
20          0        Let me -- I'm sorry.          Go ahead.
21          A        As I stated before on the record, the Wisconsin 22      rule set forth an ethical precept which I have to follow, 23      and I have to follow in order to do my job as an attorney.
    '24      And in doing that job, it is my conclusion that the example t'
25      that you gave -- a person comes to me and they have ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
            ;              202 347-3700      Nationwide Coverage          800-336-6646
 
8400                                                                                                              109
(. 1  information and they want to give it'to the NRC -- I've got 2  to exercise-judgment about what to do with that information.
3                    Do you understand what my answer is?                                                          -
i' 4      Q            Absolutely.            Could I see -- I just wanted to see 5  it, and the name of.it..
6                    (Pause.)                                                                                      1 7                    Ms. Garde, are you authorized to practice law in 8' Texas?
9      A            I'm not admitted to the State Bar of Texas.                                              But I
10  I'm authorized to practice law under the various 11  administrative rules and agencies that permit the practicing 12  of law in'those forums.
(
13    .O            Is'there any procedure that you have to go                                                  -]
l 14  through to authorize you to practice -- let me strike that.                                                    ;
15                    Is there'any procedure that you, in fact, went 16  through to authorize you to practice before the NRC7 17      A            You can answer that, Mr. Paton, if you can.
10      0            You can consult with your attorney.
19                    But, the question was what, in fact, did you -do?
20                    (Discussion off the record.)
21                    BY MR. PATON:
22      O            Just, in fact, what did you do is the question?
23      A            Well, once again, there is not just one type of 24  representation in the NRC.                    There are licensing hearings.                                      l
                                      ?
25  There's investigations, and there's inspections.
i ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                                            4 Natioriwide Coverage                                                    !
202 347-3700                                                        8(G336 6646 1
 
(8400                                                                                                  110
(    1                    -In the' licensing hearings, file a notice of
: 2.        appearance. Right?
3              Q      Did you do that?
4              A        In the Comanche Peak case.
5              Q.      That's all I'm asking.              All I asked you was --
6              A        In other cases -- let me finish -- in other 7          cases, I have represented workers in front of, for example, 8          OI, OIA and in licensing proceedings where I represented
                                                .'9        just a worker.
10              0      .I'm still trying to get at this question of what 11~          services you are providing to the allegers.                And in 12          response, your answer, you talked about abuses of Region IV.
I 13          You are going.to protect them from the abuses of RegionHIV.
14                      And I assume you're not going to reveal their 15          identity. Under your definition, you have a definition of 16          " litigation".
17                      'I'm sorry I rambled.            But what I would like to 18          know is with respect to alleger no. 1, the generalities are 19          not going to be very helpful -- with respect to alleger no.
20          1 or 2 or 3 or whatever, since you won't tell me what their 21          names are, what precise legal services are you -- do you 22          plan to render to that alleger?
l 23              A        I'm not going to go through 54 dif ferent 24          situations.      I'll tell you that there are some people that I i
25          have specific attorney-client privilege with for the purpose ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l            202 347-3700      Natjonwide Coverage      (400-336 4 46
 
5 i
              '8400                                                                                  111
(    'l    of-representing them in some type of employment 2    discrimination action.
3                  I've told you that already.
1 4        0      Right.                                                          l 5        A      And there are others that I represent solely for                ,
6    the purpose of representing them in front of the NRC in the 7    investigation, inspection,.2.206 process.                And all the        l 8    processes that are included, standing between a worker and                    {
l 9    the NRC. And protecting that worker and making sure the NRC 10    does its job.        And there are other individuals that I am 11    claiming only the' work product privilege for_in the_ context                i I
12    of,doing my investigations and my preparation for trial.and-                  l I
13    litigation and defense of other clients that have ongoing 14  ' litigation..                                                                '
15                  Does that answer your question?              I'm not going to 16    go through all 54.          One by one.        I can't do it out of my 17    head.
18        0        Does your answer include all 54?
19        A        I'm not sure my answer, as I just stated it, 20    included people who contacted us for the purpose of 21    representing them in some action against their employer, 22    whom we referred to other attorneys.                To the extent that my 23    answer did not incorporate that group, it now does.
                                                                                                          ]
                                                                    .                                      ?
24        0        okay.      You said...
I 25                  (Pause.)
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
[              202 347-3700        Nationwide Coserage      800-336-6646
                                                                                                            )
 
8400                                                                                                                              112
(                                            l              With respect to the 54-54, you have a written 2  agreement.
3        A      Could you wait just a minute?
4        0      sure.
5              (Pause.)
6        A      I think my answer also did not include, but may 7  have a category of people that I discussed as a 8    nontestifying expert. It may have.        I'm not sure, without 9    looking at the answer, if it also incorporated that.
10        0      Would you consider that person to be your client, 11    a nontestifying expert?
12        A      There are a group of people to which I claim a i'                                                                                                                                        #
13    nontestifying expert privilege of nondisclosure.
14        Q      That's not the attorney-client privilege.                        That's 15    another privilege.
16        A      That's what I'm saying.          I want to make sure that                    i l
17    my answer includes that class.        And with that class, then                        i 18    you've got the full 54.
19 ,      O      All right. So there are those for which you 20 I claim the attorney-client privilege for which you may also 21    claim the work product.
22                I think you said there was a small number where 23    you claimed the work product only.          Then there is a group I l-24    think that you indicated you are claiming privilege under
(
25    the name, the Wisconsin Code.
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 3c3700      Nationwide cmeran          soo 336-6r.46
 
1 l
          '8400  '
113 l
I          1                  Are there those for whom you are claiming 2    privilege only under the Wisconsin Code of Professional 3    Responsibility?
4        A        This code covers all of the privileges.                                                    I 5    believe that this code over-encompasses -- covers both 6    attorney-client and the work product.              It's a broader                                                1 7    privilege. There isn't'anyone between the two.
8        O        Then you were also claiming'this privilege which 9    is none of the above for a nontestifying expert?
10                  MR..ROISMAN:      Mr. Paton, I think there's some                                                  l 11      confusion there.
1
                      - 12                  MR. PATON:      Those are her words, I believe.
(        13                  MR. ROISMAN:      That's right.        But the confusion is l
14    that,.under the law, that is part of the work product.                                                      It's 15    a subset of work products.          She was giving you that subset 16    so that you'd understand.
L                      17                  MR. PATON:      Okay.      Super.
l 18                  BY MR. PATON:
19        0        How many nontestifying experts are there?
20        A        I can't tell you the number.            It's a small 21    number. Under 10.
                                                                                                                                                ?
22        O        You said about half of the 54 ' nave signed a 23    representation agreement.          Were they signed as is, or are                                                1 24    there amendments to those?
(
25        A        Each case is different.
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i              200-347-3700      Nationwide Coverage                                804336-6646
 
I I
i 8400                                                                                                                                                              114
          .1      0.      So I gather there are amendments to them.
2      A        I can't think of any that has a specific
        . 3  amendment to it.        I can think of some where the client has a 4  clarification of a retainer, or where this clarifies a 5  retainer.- So there may be more than one signed agreement.
6  I think that incorporates all of the examples.                                                                                                                      i l          7      0      Have all of your clients agreed.to waive the 8  privilege if Mr. Stello and Region IV are not involved in 9  the investigation of the allegations?
10              MR. ROISMAN:        I believe, Mr. Paton, you asked I
!        11  that' question before.
V                                                                                                                                                                                  l 12              MR. PATON:        I think-her answer was that's up to
    -( ,
13  them.
14                BY MR. PATON:
15      0        Is that accurate?
16              MR. ROISMAN:        I'm not going to let her --
j        17              MR. PATON:        I'm asking her.
18              MR. ROISMAN:        I don't want her -- I'm not going 19  to let her. She gave an answer on the record.
l 20              MR. PATON:        Mr. Roisman, it's a little tough.
21  We've been going for a number of hours here.                                                                                        Because she 22  answered the question before the lunch break.
23                Is it your position that you're refusing to allow                                                                                                      !
24  her to answer a question?
25                That's a little unreasonable, I think.
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i            200-347 37(0        Nationwide Coverage                                                                            8(x1336-f646
 
8400                                                                                                                                                            115
                                          -(                              1                              MR. ROISMAN:                    I think the standard is asked and 2              answered.
3                              MR. PATON:. You're refusing to allow her to.
4              answer that question?
5                              MR.'ROISMAN:                    She's willing to answer the 6              question.
7                              THE WITNESS:                    I don't have any automatic waivers.
8                              BY MR. PATON:
9                  0          How many of the 54 have paid a fee?
10                        A          I'm not going-to answer that question.
11                        0          Can I ask you is'that because you be?ieve.that's 12                    within the attorney-client privilege?
                                          .(.
13                        A          Yes.
14                        0.          The next question is who is the agreement with?
15                    Now, for example, the standard representation agreement 16                    says, " Accepted on behalf of the Government Accountability 17                    Project".
18                                  Who is the agreement with?                                                        Is it with you, or is 19                    it with GAP, or is it with some other attorney?
20                        A          I believe all the retainer agreements are signed 21                    either by myself or Richard.                                    I'd have to look at them to 22                    see if Lewis Clark signed any of them.                                                            He's the executive 23                    director of GAP.
24                        0          What I'm getting at is the intent, for example.
4 25                    I am looking at page 3 of the representation agreement.                                                                      It ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i                202 347-3700                    Nationwide Coverage                                    MG336-6646
 
1
  .e.
l              8400'                                                                                                                          116 l
(.                                                1-    ' says, " Accepted on behalf of Government Accountability 2      Project, Lewis Clark."
3                  So what I'm saying to you is, on'its face,-
4      regardless of who signed it, it would appear to be that the 5        agreement is with GAP.      But, is that the intent?
6              A    The intent is that individual clients have an 7        agreement with an individual attorney.
8              Q    That's fine.      As to the 27 or so who do not have 9        an executed agreement, are you the person with whom the l'                                                                    10        client had an agreement in those cases?
11              A    In'some cases, it's Mr. Condit.
L                              ,                                    12              O    Is either you or Mr. Condit?
                              ,                                      13            .A    There may be a case where the agreement is 14        initially between the investigator and the witness.              But I 15        think in all cases it's between either Mr. Condit or myself.
16                    MR. ROISMAN:      Mr. Paton, just so there's no 17        confusion, you understand, Ms. Garde has already indicated 18        that some of those 54 people will take that number for 19        discussion purposes with whom there is no attorney-client 20        privilege claim.      None of them, however, are people with 21        whom there's not a confidentiality understanding.
22                    And I didn't want your question to confuse that.
23                    The confidentiality understanding being part of 24        the way in which Ms. Garde or Mr. Condit are able to get i
25        information for the clients they represent.        But those are ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3                2a2 30-3700        Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
 
I J
1 8400                                                                                                                              117
                                                                                                                                                      )
l(            l. two different things.
2                MR. PATON:      Okay. .Let's pursue that'a little i
3                                                                                                                          I b i t . ..
4:                BY MR. PATON:                                                                                          l 5            0  The confidentiality agreement is based upon                                                            d k
6-  .either an attorney-client relationship or the work product                                                          l 1
7    privilege, or the subset, as you. describe it, of a 8    nontestifying expert.                                                                                                i 9                Is that correct?
10                What is the source of this confidentiality 11    agreement?
                      / 12                (Discussion off the record.)
(
t  13                THE WITNESS:      Can you restate the question?
14                BY MR. PATON:
15            0  I'm trying to.                Mr. Roisman clarified that the 16    basis of the privilege is a confidentiality agreement, which 17    I gather and I'm trying to find out the basis for that.                                                          I 18    assume that 'he basis is, in some instances, the attorney-19    client privilege, and in some instances, the work product 20    privilege, and in some instances, a subset, as you sey, of 21    the nontestifying expert.
22                Now, are there other bases for the 23    confidentiality agreement with your client?
24                MR. ROISMAN:      Excuse me, Mr. Paton.                                                      I think 1
25    there's a confusion.      I don't think it's a disagreement, I ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i            202 347 3700      Nationwide Coverage                                                800-336-6646
 
8400                                                                                                      118  4-
{
            '(          1    just think it's not clear.                                You're asking the basis for the 2    confidentiality agreement in terms of. privileges,.but.the                                      .I i
3    privileges are based upon the confidentiality agreement.
I 4                            It's the opposite way.                    The confidentiality 5    agre,ement exists.                                                                                ]
6                            MR. PATON:              You did raise the word 7    " confidentiality agreement" for the first time today.                                    And 8'  we've been talking all day about attorney-client privilege, i
9    et cetera, et cetera.                                                                            {
l 10                            BY MR. PATON:                                                            I l
11                0          I'm asking you on what basis you are withholding
                      , 12    information.                  I want to be sure that I understand all the                          ,
I' l
                    ;  13    various bases on which you are withholding information.
14                            That's the thrust of my question, i
15                            MR..ROISMAN:              So it's not the basis for the 16    confidentiality agreement?                                It's the basis for the refusal I
17    to disclose information pertained pursuant to a 18    confidentiality agreement that you're searching for?
19                            Is that right?
20                            MR. PATON:              Right.      Your use of the expression 21    " confidentiality agreement" didn't fit in nicely with the 22    discussions we've had today, but I agree with that, yes.
23                            THE WITNESS:            Is there a question pending?
24                            MR. ROISMAN:            He wants to know what the basis is
(
25    for the claimed privileges.
l'
: l.                                                              ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
                            ;                        202 347 3700              Nationwide Coverag      800-336-(M6 l
l L-________________-                                                        _                                                    l
 
8400                                                                                                                119 I                                    1                MR. PATON:      For withholding them.-                                l 2                MR. ROISMAN:      Where the' confidentiality agreement 3    exists, where it's not an attorney-client privilege.
4                THE WITNESS:      Then I don't understand the 5    question. I'm getting very confused.
6                BY MR. PATON:                                                          I 7        O      Let me try it again.            What I want to know is the 8    basis for your withholding information from the NRC.                    You've 9    indicated that there are several bases.              There's a' number.-          d 10    You are relying on a number of bases.
11              'Would you agree with that?
I 12        A      Yes.
I 13                One of them is the work product privilege.                    Would  )
                                          .,                                    Q                                                -
i 14    you agree with that?                                                                j l
15        A'      Yes.
16        0      One of them is the attorney-client relation?
17        A      Yes.
18        0      Are there others?
19        A      As long as you incorporate the subsets that we 20    have previously discussed.
21        O      Let's be very clear.          One of the subsets for work 22    product is the nontestifying expert.              Are there other 23    subsets?
24        A      An example of a subset of the attorney-client 4
25    privilege are people who called me seeking my help, wanting ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
f              202-347 3700      Nationwide Coverage      300 336-6646
 
8400                                                                                                                                            120 J
              -(                                        1- to retain me as an attorney, told me their story and I did 2  not take their case.        That's an attorney-client privilege.                                            i 3        Q      Right.- That's not a subset, that's the-4  privilege. Right?                                                                                        j l
5        A      Right.                                                                                          l 6        Q      It's the privilege that just continued.                                                  Okay.
7'  The relation didn't continue.
j 8-      A      Right.        The relation didn' t continue.                                    The 9  privilege continues.        Okay.                                                                            I i
10        Q      Are there others?                                                                              'j i
11        A      I think~ everything is covered under attorney-                                                  f L) 12  client and work product.        And nontestifying experts. 'Well, j
(                                                                                                                                                    i r
13  my counsel reminda me, I want to be real clear, that the                                                    j i
14  Wisconsin Code of Professional Responsibility description, 15  and their interpretation of what an attorney's rights and 16  responsibilities are to their clients under these ethical 17-  considerations that I have referred to covers all the 18  circumstances and situations of each of the 54 individuals.
19        Q      Right.      I agree.
n 20              MR. ROISHAN:      May I speak to her?
21              MR. PATON:      Sure.
22              (Pause.)
23              THE WITNESS:      Okay, Mr. Paton.                  My counsel sees 24  that I'm not telling you something, which is part of what I                                                '
i 25  am trying to express.        So let me try to express it again.
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700        Nationwide Coverage                800 336-6646                              1 l
 
I l
8400                                                                                    121
(      l                      In order for me to do my job on behalf of clients 2      I have to be able to do investigations.                    In order. to get 3      information which allows me to exercise my professional                                .,
4      judgment on behalf of those clients, I have to be able to 5      promise confidentiality in the course of doing my work.
6                      So that I can then advise my clients and 7      determine how to try a case or determine how to represent .a                    f 8      client.      I consider that covered by the work product i
                  .9      privilege in the context where I do not have an attorney-                            1 i
10      client privilege with that person who has provided me                                  l 11      information.
                                                                                                              .i 12                      And I have to be able to do that and grant that                      -
(                                                                                            ,
13      confidentiality in order to get the information, in order to                  j    !
14      do my work.
15                      That's clearly spelled out in this set of rules.
16      It's cicarly considered and debated and decided with the 17      context of an investigation done by an attorney in order to i
18      exercise their judgment.
19                      1 want to give you an example.              If somebody calls 20      me up and tells me, 1
21                      "I have this complainy.              I was terminated for            J I
22      falsifying documents.            I didn't do it.          I did not falsify            l 23      the documents. They really are terminating me because I'm a                            j l
24      wh i s tle-blo*,e r . "    I said give me five people to check your                    '
4                                                                                                      i l'                25      story.
i l
ACE FEDERAL REPORTEAS, INC.                                  l 202 347-3700        Nationwide Coverage        8n336-6646                l l
J
 
B400                                                                                                                                                    122
        .4                                                                        .1                And I called them up.              I have to be able to tell 2  those individuals that I contacted or they contact me.                    They 3  say, " Joe gave me your.name to call."
4              But, let me finish.
5              BY MR. PATON:
6        0      I just want to ask a little question.
7      A      It really blows me away because I'm getting 8  tired.
9        0      I know.      I'm sorry.
10        A      And you're interrupting me.
11        0      I really haven't interrupted you in a long time.
12    I'm just not sure what issue you're. addressing.
          's                                                                        13                MR. ROISMAN:        She's trying to explain to you --
14                MR. PATON:        She's telling me how she does her 15    job, and that's great.
16                MR. ROISMAN:        She's trying to explain to you                                    j 1
17    where the grant of confidentiality arises when it''s not                                          )
18  given to a client and which privilege it fits under. In 19  order for you to understand that it fits under the work 20    product privilege, she has to explain to you how she does 21    her work, so you understand why it's work product                                        l 22    requirement.                                                                            l        j i-23                MR. PATON:      m sorry.        I was following that.                                ,
24                BY MR. PATON:                                                                        I I -'
* 25        0      You're saying as to the five people that you 1
l h
l                                                                                                                /LCE? FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700        Nationwide CoveraFe      800-336-6 4 6                    {
 
1 e  il
(
8400                                                                                                    123 i    1 . check with to check this alleger's story, you view your 2  contacts with them as work product privilege, I think.                                                  j l
I  l 3      A      Yes.                                                                                        j i
4      0      I apologize.                                                                                l 5              Who prepared this representation agreement?
6      A      I'm sure I had some hand in it, but I can't tell 7  you who all prepared it.
8      0      As between GAP and the client, who prepared it?
9      A      GAP.
10      0      The paragraph numbered 4 says f
11              " GAP understands that the client does not --
12  underlined -- want Victor Stello to investigate and to
( s 13 participate," et cetera.                                                                              l 14              Whose thought was that originally?                                                        !
15              In other words, did you tell that to the client, 16  or did the client tell that to you?
17              MR. ROISMAN:      She's not going to answer that.
18              THE WITNESS:      I'm not going to answer that 19 question.
20              MR. ROISMAN:      What does it look like in terms of 21  your time, because my client is getting very tired and she's 22 willing to return.        But she's not willing to go on here for 23 much more. Another 15 minutes, 24              MR. PATON:      I'll do whatever you want to do.                                        I t
25  clearly have more than 15 minutes.                                                                      ,
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700      Nationwide Coverage    804 336 % 46
{
 
l 8430 124
(                                              1                MR. ROISMAN:        Unless I'm misreading the volume of 2  pages. . .do you want to take another time to come back?                        4 I
i 3                THE WITNESS:        We're talking a month before I'm 4  back in Washington.
5                MR. ROISMAN:        Let me explain the schedule.
I G                With the exception of now, 8 o' clock tounorrow 7  night and after, I won't be back from Houston.                I'm 8  departing immediately, and my current schedule will not                        I 9  bring me back to Washington earlier then to be able to meet 10  with Ms. Garde.          I'm just giving you my schedule.
11                I'm not even asking her schedule.            Starting at 8
    /                                          12  o' clock tomorrow evening.            And the rest of this week is
(
13  gone. I'm in Philadelphia on Wednesday.            I'm in Puerto Rico 14  on Thursday and Friday.            Starting on the 14th or at the end 15  of the day on the 14th of August, I'm gone for two weeks.                        ,
I 16                (Discussion off the record.)
17                (Recess.)
18                THE WITNESS:        Before we conclude for the day, I 19  want to clarify for the record one answer.              You asked me, as 20  I recall, if the NRC staf f looked in the documents, would 21  they find all the allegations.
22                MR. PATON:        Right.
23                THE WITNESS:        I'm not comfortable that my answer 24  indicated that if you looked in the documents prior to 4
25  disposition of deficiency notices and CR's and/or you I
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 37C0        Nationwide Coverage  IKo 33 m
 
8400                                                                                                                      125                I
(    1              interviewed the k'ey supervisors at the South Texas project l
2              and asked them the question -- Are all deficiencies reported                                                          j I
3              to you included in the record, and if not, what are                                                                  j 4              they? -- that you would get all the information.                                              You would 5              have to conduct interviews, but if you conducted interviews 6              of those key officials, they would -- it's my belief -- be                                                            i i
7              able to provide you all the information.
8                          But you would have to affirmatively ask:                                                  Tell us 9              all allegations that have been reported to you.                                                                      l 10                          BY MR. PATON:
11                  Q      And then, obviously, there would be some 12              dif ficulty in determining which are your allegations and 13              which are some other allegations?
14                  A      Well, I hope you find all the allegations.
15                  0      Okay.
16                  A      You should have already.                                                                                  I 17                          MR. ROISMANs      You understand that we've assumed 18              all along that the Commission's interest was not in the 19              subset of the allegations, but that the Commission's 20              interest was in having all of the allegations, of which, for 21              all we know, we have a very small part of that iceburg.
22                          MR. PATON:      I think we have agreed to continue 23              this deposition until 11:30 a.m. one week from Wednesday, to                                                  .
24              continue for six hours, hopefully to be completed prior to t
25              the six hours.
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700      Nationwide Coverare IKG336-fM6
 
9                  3nt                          p-                        M[in                                    ., ;) ;- ;j                                          ' s-                    ~'V            ,                        }
                                                                                                                                                                                  .r F
c ;ff              .;
[';.J. I :y;                          _
                                                                                                                                                                                          +-
                              ,, g l                    ' 't e                                                                  J e-                                                                                          r            A
: y.                                                          ,                                                                                                                          i s
                  . a'~
l.
r:
1      t y:
B(00.                                                                                      +.
126  -i Uf* \ ' M]                        u              1.
I 1; MR. . ROISMAN:                                        We're talking about August the 5th.:                                        1
                                                                                                                  's,
                                                                                                          /
                            . L ' ('-                                  2                                                    THE MtTNESTra                                  Is a copy of the airplane ticket
{i ,s p                                                        1
                  ; j j, &-
                                                                      .3                  that I gave ypu                                goi;rg                  to  be          reimbursed                              directly to GAP in y,
I ,i                                          4 7
c
                                                                                          . the form of a' chec't frh>m the'NRC,gincluding my. witness fee?
                                                                                                      ~                          !                                                .
y                                            l U-5
                                                                                                        /
4 M!!. PJi 1tN:                              Off the record.                                                                l
                                                                            +
s                                                                                                                                                          i
                            -*                                          6!                                                    (Disc fis. ion off the record. )
                                                                                                                                                                    ,J-7                            ,
(Whereupon; at 2430 p.m., the deposition        4                                                                        j f
                                                                                                                              /y                                              ,,                                        ,
1
                            ,('              7.
3                      8'        ,  . recessed, to deconvene at 11:30 a.m.,                                                                                          Wednesday, August 5, s
                                                          / /                                                                                                                                                          i
: i. I,                                                        1987.)                                                                                                                    >
                          ; q ( ' ,W['s 9                                      ,                                                          t .;                  l                                                    }
              .f j                                                  '10                                                            /,'?                                            ,
                                                                                                                                                                                              ,e                  *
                                                                                                                                /i          . , ,
(                                      ,
11
                                                                                                                                                /
i
                                                                                                                                                    +
                                                                ,. 12                                                                                        j                                                          .s
(                                                                                                                                  ij t                              g
                                ,                                    13                                                                                    i
                                                                                                                                                / /        1 9'3 14                                                                .,                                      # r                j            1 15                                                          'h /      <
d'
(                  +
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ;f
                                                                                                                                                                                                                      , .t t
                                            ,                          16                                                              <                                                                        .        F
                                  ,1                                            ,,..
17              -'
1
                                                            ,                                                                                                                                                t 48
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ,s 39
                                                                              ;;                                                                                                                                                }
                  .t i
e '20 f(                    ,
Se      t
              + P'                                                    21
                                                      '                                                                                                                                                                                                  1
                                                                                                                                                                                                .'                                                    i 22                                                ,                                                                    , -/                                                    ]
4                                                                                                                                                                                                ,
l 23
                                  >'''                                                  s<, ] ,,                                                                ,
24      '/,I} ,                    /          '
r                                'l
                'f ,              '
i /                  -
(s                                                                                          ,,
25
                                                                                                              ,        e                                                  , , -
      ,                                            g      i.                                                                                                          /
5,i                                                            .
                                                                                ],.',                              j                          Aca F'3DERAL REPORTERS,                                                          INC.
  ,                                                                              i                              / 202-347 3700                              f. , ' Nationwide Coverage 2 336-6646 5
9          ,V                                                                    >.
f
 
j i
127 j i
CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC & REPORTER
(
I,  David L. Hof fman      ,  the    officer before whom the foregoing deposition was taken, do hereby certify                  )
1 that  the witness whose          testimony    appears  in  the foregoing  deposition      was duly      sworn  by me;    that the testimony of said witness was taken in shorthand and thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under my direction; that said deposition is a true record of . the te'stimony given by said witness; that I am                    I neither counsel    for,    related    to,  nor employed by any of    the parties    to      the  action in which this deposition was taken; and, further, that I am not a' relative or employee of any attorney or counsel employed  by  the  parties      hereto,    nor  financial 1y or otherwise interested in the outcome of this action.
r
                                                                          /
r                  -/    m Notary Public in      ' er the State of            d My Commission Expires 7/1/90 e
 
                  ~
hitch 6tates of America                                          % *>
NUCIIAR REGULATORY 00MMISSION
(
0 in the snatter of: Houston Lighting and Power      '
Company
                                                                              > DOCKET NO. 50-498 50-499 TO                i:s. Billie Pirner Garde Government Accountability            ,
Project 1555 Connecticut Avenue,11.W.
Suite 202 h*ashington, D.C. 20036 YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear at Room 6507, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 7735 Old Georgetown Road, Bethesda, Maryland on the 26th day of May    1987 at 9:00      o' clock A.M. to continue as necessary for the purpose (,f testifying before NRC personnel concerning allegations of current and/or former employees of the South Texas Project concerning the safety of the South Texas Project, as described in your letter of January 2J,13E7 to Messrs. Victor Stello and Janes l'attox,' and any other
{,                      allegations which you have received concerning the safety of the South i                    Texas Project, and to provide any records or othe- docunents in your possession or under your custody or control concerning such allegations.
T      /
ctor Ste    o. J Executive Director for Ooerations Nu  e r RNulatorv Cnmmission                        M4u 9 /) , 1987
                    .im rie o nnidhorn
                                                                                /
l 7ttJEPHoNE (301) 492-7619 l
4 On motion made prtwnptly, and in any event at or before the time specified in the subpoena for compliance by the person to whom the subpoena is directed, and on notice to the party at whose instance the subpoena was issued, the Comission may (1) quash or modify the subpoena if it is unreasonable or requires evidence not relevant to any matter in issue, or (2) condition denial of the motion on just and reasonable terms. Such motion should be directed to the Secretary of the Comission Washington, D.C. 20555.
I I
L_      _ _ _ _
 
                                                                                                ~~~._
Att4 chm 2nt i2          ''
GCWERNMENT ACCOUNTADIUTY PROJECT' 1555 Connecicut Awnve, NW. Suite 202 dp ' by .i.
i Washington, D.C. 20006                                          (202)232 6550
{
t January 20, 1987 Victor Stello, Executive Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 James Mattox Attorney General for the State of Texas Supreme Court Building 14th & Colorado Austin, Texas 78711 Pe:  South Texas Nuclear Project
 
==Dear' Messrs. Stello and Mattox:==
 
This letter is to infora your respective agencies that the Government Accountability Project (GAP) has formally begun preliminary investigation into worker allegations at the South Texas nuclear project.
Since 1980, GAP has played a significant role in advocating on behalf of whistleblowers and concerned citizens on issues                      -
(
involving safety-related problems at various nuclear power facilities. Our approach to nuclear power has been steadfastly the same:    to ensure that the government enforces the cuclear safety laws and regulations.
As a result of GAP's efforts (alone or in concert with other organizations) to expose safety-related problems, the construction and/or operation of several nuclear power f acilities - previously thought to be fit to operate --
were cancelled or pestponed for further review. The cancelled facilities include the 98 percent completed Zimmer nuclear power plant and the 85 percent completed Midland plant. Those which were postponed for further review include tne Comanche Peak, Three Mile Island, Diablo Canyon, and Waterford facilities.
GAP currently either represents or is working wit-h approximately 36 current and/or former employees of the South Texas project. The allegations from the workers range from grand theft of nuclear grade steel to engineering defects in several major safety components. The allegations concern the failure of Housten Light & Power to guarantee subcontractor compliance with industry and f ederal saf ety requireraents, including but not limited to: defects in the instrumentation and control division; defects and lack of compliance with federal regulations in the heating, ventilating, and air condition,ing system; lack of compliance with quality' standards in the area of soils compaction; failure to complete required QA or OC documentation; falsification of required QA or QC documentation; and harassment
:      and intimidation of personnel who attempt to adhere to federal safety standards.
 
l i
I January 20, 1987 - Page Two k
thereAdditionally,  andthat are allegations  of specific  concern to the State of Texas, the subcontractors at STP toinclude    deliberate overcharge      Houston              actions Light of
                                                                                      & some of Power    for goods to Brownand services
                  & Root,    by "chatging off" their ewn unacceptable Inc.                                                              work Tnere is also information which suggests that subcontractors have fraudulently charged STP for manhours not worked, completed  as and for portions of the project which were not claimed.
GAP is cbrrently condycting interviews with both current and
    . former workers who are ecccerned about                                                            ;
GAP investigators are accept:nq calls from workers at ourthe South Texas project.                1 washington, D.C, office and our Midwest office.                                                  ]
j issueOnce    our preliminary a formal              investigation is ecmplete, we plan to public report. Unfortunately, in the interim, we cannot advise our clients or those we work with to provide their concerns to the Region IV office of the NRC. Our experience has                                  .
been (and recently released internal agency reports confirm) that                                {
the Arlington office is either u6able or unwilling to comply with                                l its regulatory requirements as outlined in governing agency procedures.
{
  ;          Thus, unless the NRC is willing to provide independent
  '  inspectors to process the allegations pursuant to internal NRC regulations, GAP will provide the allegations directly to the state Attorney General off;ce, and/or to the appropriate 1
congressional committees, and/or to other regalatory bodies which have an interest in ensuring            ina the South            or municipal plant is designed, constructed, and financed in a mannerTexas protects the public, that Please direct any inquiries about CAP's Scuth Texas                                        i investigation to Richard Condit, Staff Attorney Investigator, 202-232-8550, or Billie Carde, CAP M:dwest off:ce, 414-730-8533.
S ; nce r e .' y ,
Billie P:rner Garde Directcr, Fidwest Office Richard Ccnd:t Staff Atterney                                            t j    cc:    Chairman Lando Zech BG/RC:C30 1
1 l
 
X TELECOPIER 293 ;        0-29-67; 2:10 Aw: 414 731 7881      ,          2026283 73 ; oj F%Y 29 'Er712:15 f,PPLETON,WI 41 731-753;                                    14 fc' by ,
(
UNITED STATES                                          1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION                                    l 2      e' In the Matter oft l      'l              Bouston Lighting and Power                                                      4
                      .,              .            Company                                    Dkt No. 50-498/499
                      .,    -;',s South Texas Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2.                ,
AFFIDAVIT                                          l
: 1. My name is Billie Pirner Garde.        I am an attorney with the Government Accountability' Project (GAP).          I am currently the
                          .                  Director of GAP's Midwest Office, located in Appleton, Wisconsin.                    '
I am also co-director of the Environmental Whistleblower Protection Clinic..
: 2. Since 1985 I have been retained by a number of employees at STNP, some of who raised safety concerns that they wanted pursued by the NRC.      As part of my work I and other GAP attorneys began, in January 1987, a preliminary investigation of STNP.
: 3. Currently both GAP attorney Richard Condit and I represent ATNP employees in individual discrimination cases.              In these situations, we were retained to represent employees in litigation against their employers and/or to provide advice regarding disputes and potential disputes with their employers.
In other cases we were retained for the purpose of assuring that the employees substantive concerns were properly acted upen by the NRC and that the empicyees identity was protected from disclosure in order to protect their job and their future
(              employment possibilities. (See, Attachment 1.)
: 4. The STNP employees that contacted us did so as a result l
                                                                                    .)_
 
rr,Y 29  '6" 23'1t5 AFO'~~.4h..! JiJ "II ~i21                                          ,
of their inability to obtain an adequate resciution to concerns I      they had about'the design, construction, management, and i
potential operation of the South Texas plant. Although each individual clients experience is unique the key elements of their dilemma is the same:
: a.                                                                                s The clienteither management,        raisedona "discreet  concern deficiency paper"cr(i.e, concerns to his            i i
nonconformance reports, deficiency reports, etc.), b                              l documenting the concern in memoranda to supervision,y by                          !
raising the concern orally to site supervision, or by taking the concern to the site SAFETEAN or che MRC.
b.
The concern of the satisfaction.                    client was not resolved to her This may      have been because of inaction on the            1 i
issues the        raised, fears  of theorclient.
action on the concern that did not ally                    !
{
: c.      The client then began to suffer some sort of reprisal as result of having raised the concern, or is fearful of                          {
suffering a reprisal if he pushes the ' concern.
I'            d. The client, believing that she had a duty to insure that she does everything in her power to insure that the public health and safety is protected, retained GAP attorneys to get her concerns into the hands of individuals that will put                      j the ultimate issue - the protection of the public -at the                          i l
forefront of resciution of the issues of concern to the client.
: 5. Acting on the requests of our clients we began a series of contacts with the Nuclear Regulatory Csamission to establish an avenue for our clients to come to the NRC, present their information, protect their confidentiality, and be assured that their concerns would be investigated by officials that would indwwd put their obligacion to tne public health and safety                                l first.
(See, generally correspondence between Billie Pirder Garde                      !
and Victor Stello attached to this affidavic.)
6.
Our criteria to insure that our clients interests were i
protected and their goals were accomplished was to insure that l
I 1
 
m Y 29 '57 12: 16 # : I~ h .. 2:2 --; -- :  ,
P.3c l
independent and competent NRC employees process the allegations
(    according to the DRAFT MANUAL CHAPTER 0517, " Management of j
Allegations," which we recognize and understand to be the policy of the agency for processing allegations.        (Although we reccqnize that the manual chapter has some weaknesses we acknowledge that it is the current policy of the agency regarding allegations.)
                      ~
: 7. Mr. Stello has steadfastly refused to discuss our
{
i clients concerns and has rejected any attempts I have made to                                                                            I come up with an arrangement that resolves the needs of all of the 1111111L11@lttal#mAIJil10!#f r!!!PilJif_..
resource intensive effort.
: 8. Mr. Ste11o's position as detailed in his letter does not acknowledge the restraints within which he and I are operating.
I have been retained to insure that my clients information is properly and thoroughly investigated and that their current and future employment interests are not endangered.
j 9.
Mr. Ste11o's duties and responsibilities, according to the March, 1986, version of Manual Chaptar 0517', section 031, is to                                                                                                                                          I 1
Set policy and procedures for the receipt, processing, control, and disposition of allegations in conjunction with the Director of OI...(and) implement policy for protecting the identity of those who provide information to the NRC.                                                                          i l
: 10. It is important to underscore the fact that the clients that have come to me have come voluntarily because they have a sincere concern about the improper resolution of a safety related concern, and have no confidence that direct contacts with the                                                                              !
      -                                                                                                                                            1 k
3 l
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ . - - --- ~~
 
XERoy TELEccF1ER 295.:                                  5-29-37; 2: 17 AM: 414 731 7661                          1
                                                                                                                +
2023283473 : e4 tSY 29 '87 12:17 f#FLETON.UI 414 731-7331                                              P47 agency will provid's them the assurances needed to justify the risk they are'taking with their careers and reputations.
I
: 11. It is fair to state that the current situation at South Texas is a direct result of the repeated violations by Region IV's of the NRC's own policies and regulations. ( See, para. 37                              i to 40, and see attached Memorandum in Support of the Motion to Quash and Petition of the Government Accountability Project Pursuant to 10 CFR'2.206.)
: 12. It is critical'that tlie Commission acknowledge that there are consequences attached to having a single inspector, or an entire region, that has lost the faith cf the public as a                              -
result of the conduct and regulatory record of the Region. In this case the actions of Region IV over the past decade have destroyed its credibility.
13.
It is irrelevant to a resciution of the current issue            I whether the past inappropriate actions of Region IV inspectors or                                  l l
managers were a result of deliberate misfeasance or gress incompetence. The damage to the public interest by an improper investigation and " resolution" of our clients concerns plus the damage- to our clients financial well being, personal' reputation or career opportunities will most likely be significant. We have                                      i no choice but to fully advise our clients of the risks associated                                    i with reliance on Region IV employees to comply with NRC rules, regulations, or practices in the conduct of an investigation.
14.
As delineated below by way of example the consequences i
of NRC malfeasance can be catastrophic. Some employees never k
recover from the personal, emotional, and financial havoc caused l
 
                          ' { Q ,g7 ::::: v:.E :mu: a u TM-7551
                                                                                                    ...... 4,s . .s P.5/7 l
in their lives by providing information to a government agency in
                'l good faith and becoming, essentially, the " target" of a government investigation.              For example,                                ,
,-                                                                                                                      ^j a._If an employee is contemplating bringing suit against his                      1 employer.for illegal discrimination, violation of the-policy exemption to the at-will doctrine, defamation, public'                I intentional-interference with contract, or other causes of action, a negative NRC report presents an additional complication and expense to a client. Frequently the                    ,
burden that cannot be overcome because of the lack ofconse resources available to an employee to oppose the NRC's NRC's inadequate work effort. technical conclusions or because of the ta a determination on the central discrimination issue, tha                          )  '
his engaging in protected activity as defined by the Act c.
Protecting the interests of the employees at nuclear of Brown and Root v.Donovan plants in Texas is made even more complicated by!
l I.
whlen holds ~that employees ar,e not protected under Section747 F.                  I of government with their concerns and have initiated a2 l
law,        in  order  for  an        employee discharge _ tert theory she must prove that to  prevail  on    a    wrongf    '
refusing to violate a federal or state law /or following a federal or state law in violation of direct orders to the contrary was the " sole reasen" far the termination.                                              !
: d. The NRC investigations and inspections are not the the alleged offender are given an opportunity to'pres their evidence under rules of discovery in front of a neutral engineering experience and judgement. decision maker with techn
: a. If the inspecto political pressure,r is incompetent, succumbs to time or or engages.in other " shortcuts" to eliminate the employe                              s concerns the consequences of his efforts are of ten                                    4 catastrophic for individual employees.
: 15. Additionally, there is no avenue for appeal and review                            t t    of NRC findings which may be damaging to the employee.As a
 
N Y 23 '57 12:13 mLtten,;g au n-r: .                            '*-*e* 3*73 . e o P. O?
(
practical matter there is no adequete means for an employee to compensated if NRC officials violate his confidentiality or impugn his integrity or competence.
16.
As a result of the situation as described above GAP attorneys have an obligation to advise employees who contact us for legal advice regardiqq how to proceed in insuring their allegations are properly investigated and protecting tKemselves from further reprisals and retaliation.                                                                          ;
in    s. 's
                                          ---------~~*a' *66**"*J" represent generally two types of employees - those'whoy originall trusted the system with their concerns and are now gaged    en    in fighting the reprisals against them, or those who have information that they want revealed to competent        ernment gov officials without endangering their professional lives and careers.
    \
18.
Our representation is formalized by either a written attorney-client relationship between the employee and                or myself another atterney or based on a clear understandinge between th employee and the attorney in connection with the                      represent ti a on.
A copy of the standard attorney-client representati on. form used for these 19.
workers is attached to this affidavit (Attachment 1)
Our obligation under the agreement is very cle  ar. We may not, without our clients approval, provide either the identity of the clients or any information to th 2 of the agreement.)                                e NRC. ( See, p.
20.
We may not provide the information to Region of    IV the 3    NRC for the purposes of the investigation of th e concerns.      (See,
                                                                                      .w , , 2 e,
                  , g 3 .;:        :.::.- 3 ...; 4;4 73. III P.? ?
i i
                                                                                                        }
: p. 3 of the agreement.)
{                21.
We it.ay not provide the information to the current                    '
Executive Director of Operations, Victor Stello, Jr., for investigation. ( See, p.4 of the agreement.)
22.
We have, since January 1987, attempted to fulfill our obligation to our clients by obtaining a competent, non-Region                    '
IV, investigation / inspection commitment by the unc.
: 23. On January 20, 1987, we announced cur preliminary              I j
investigation of STNP allegations through c. letter to the State of Texas Attorney General's office and to Mr. Stello. We                                1
{i requestad that the NRC provide an independent inspection effort                  .
to review our clients' allegations. (See, attachment 2) 24.
Within a week officials at Houston Power and Light responded to our letter, not even addressed to them, indicating a desire to work with us in investigating allegations that were provided to us. Subsequent correspondence and discussions with EP&L, unfortunately, did not prove productive. (Correspondence between myself and HP&L ic provided as Attachment 9 a g.)
: 27. On February 18, 1987, Mr. Stallo responded to our concerns about Region IV's inability to conduct an independent and competent investigation by advising us of the following:
The South Texas Project is within the jurisdiction of Region the concerns cIV      and that Re ion is the appropriate organization to rev your clients.
IV will properly pursue this responsibility.I have confidence that Region        )
contact with Mr. Robert D. Martin, Regional Administrator have been in          l for Region IV, and he assures me that his staff is thoroughly prepared to commit the resources required to appropriately            resolve the issues with your clients m this matter should be directed to Mr. Martin in Region IV.                        i i
4 i
1
 
e .x tu.e.com e."    a*'    * ~ " ' " " " - .  ~~<a    <ni
* m y 29 '87 12:20 AFFL N 'd #I# E NI                                2262em : oy PM L (See, Attachment 3)
: 28. On March 4, 1987, I responded to Mr. Ste11o's blind vote of confidence in Region IV.
I referenced a long history of grnblems wi'h  r Realnn TV insper+1nn effnree rahinh T sm nan d'i deam Mr. Stello is well aware and again requested an independent investigation for our clients concerns.( See, Attachment 4)
: 29. On March 18, 1987, Mr. Stello affirmed his previous position and urgeo me to bring forth "any information" I have on deficiencies at STNP that would have a bearing on nuclear safety to NRC or HP&L - or advise our clients to do so. (See, Attachment 5.)
30.
On March 23, 1987, I again requested that Mr. Stello address directly my request for an independent individual or task
[
force to investigate the enneerns haino ralend hu nov a14aasa.
                  !                                                                                          t (See, Attachment 6.)                                                ~
31.
On April 6, 1987, EP&L officials wrote and inforzned me that they were "taking steps to request appropriate government officials to obtain from you or your organization information                  -
which could potentially affect the safety of the south Texas Project." (See, Attachment 99)                                                      l 32.
On April 8,1987, Mr. Stallo, who upon information and belief, responded to EP&L's ple<a for assistance, placed ma under direct threat of legal action if~I did not provide the information to the agency within 30 days. (see, Attachment 7.)
4a. vn at least enree occasions in March and April, 1987, I initiated conversations with Mr. Tom Rehm of the Executive Director's office to explain our legal obligations and our
 
m, g3 g :::I; cFF_- m.it 4:2 7~1 ~I3; FZT
                                                                                                                                                }-
:.6....s ro y.w,Aoinw .wwe==    6v one wurners ano enear information to an independent and competent team or individual within the NRC. The conversations apparently bore no fruit, although I was t.a .. ....... su.6 ms. nunm anu possio2y otners, wouAc cascuss the general nature of the allegations and inform me of the agency's decision regarding an avenue for processing of the allegations.
: 34. As the facts demonstrate I have spent six months attempting to get the NRC to act responsibly regarding our clients.
Our obligations to our clients have not changed.                        We mn.* .4th., provid. *k.= ,,Leh .
                                                                  . ..r e t . .. L wwww.u..us investigation to assure them that their safety concerns will be properly addressed or we must remain silent and not endanger the g  safety of the public by allowing an improper investigation to k,  permit cover up of safety problems and to net endanger their professional future and their source of income and reputation.
35 There is substantial reason to doubt that, if Region IV officials were given the responsibility of the investigation into                                                        !
                                                                                                                                                    )
our clients concerns that the effort would be conducted in accordance with CHAPTER MANUAL 0517 manual.
                                  ...  . . naw ww=uan=4uners enemseAves nave perhaps the best knowledge of the basis of our belief regarding Region IV officials because they alone are the recipients of all of the various reports, investigations, and inquiries conducted over the years by the Commission staff into Region IV fiascos.                    (A mote complete list is provided in the 2.206 Petition filed today by GAP on this issue, however, the following example is included to                                                        l
                                                                -g.
 
          . c. . . , cue. . vr . c . .,o  ,    c      3..  ....  -a,    -.- in ,coi        .        ..;e:334 3 ;  3
      . .            f%Y I9 'S7 II:II @LI~Ub WI J'4 731 ~III                                                    P.3/7 demonstrate that Region IV has not learned from,its errors.)
I
            '.                    37. In October,1983, the NRC's Office of Inspector and Auditor (OIA) finished two investigations of charges of impropriety of certain Region IV officials at the comanche Peak plant.        In a January 3, 1984, memo from then EDO William J.
Dircks to Chairman Palladino on the OTA reperra Dir,ke defendeA Region IV's actions in
                                                                                                                          )
: 1) not determining the full extent of an allegors allegations betnuch "at that time it appears to have been reasonable not to have contacted Ithe allegor] despite his allegations to the press of a cover up. Hindsicht W made that contact desirable but would not likely ha.2ve                  Elf hAve changed ge,    e  dtimate findings on the matter."
: 2)  defended Region IV's reliance on the utilities findings                            '
regarding the allegations, noting that "Acain, with the advantaae sma.a.
of hindsicht, one could sy that Region IV
                                            ...L 71.ww1J b.we a e s,w ul a.d 6us            sseou g MAvF3Dectea r,
attention      toTJ-
                                . x u ., . . . C  the. matter
                                                          . . . , v i vand e n to Tab.oleyond
                                                                                        .uw a review of someone a eTTsT5tr ene
{                    actioEsTRegion faDDear LQ rea.uoff hesonable~aEd correct. "
: 3)    acknowledged the impropriety of the actions of Region IV inspector R.G. Taylor in not conducting a " thorough investigation" in IER 50-445/82-14, and indicated that at intend to emphasize the need for thorcuch inspections of~
alleoed~3er:,c;,encies to UTF amd Reaion.1 Administrator to                                j avoid repet;,t:,on g tEse proBTems."                                          ~            l l
        ~                      4)    explained away the triple breach of an allegera'                                    l identity by stating that "...NRC policy o,g confidentiality was rless than clear in 1980 and not executed similarily in M.aegions.
u          ,
Our po1Tev .n Elis area is beinq reviewed Ed aw-t;      . . . ... 41 rr imit tTrs erDeccat,oftT or allecers b Tocard to conJidentialty be fulfi: , led . "
                                                              ~
(All emphasis is added)
: 38. There is substantial basis for our clients' position and our own professional opinion that neither Mr. Stelle or Region IV are competent government officials capable of conducting an inspection of worker allegations at the south Texas
(
                            ;;;;, .c gin mm.u:
                                                                                                                  ........,a;..
a u sa                            .
e.u:
plant 'in accordance with NRC Chapter Manuel 0517, Processing of I        Allegations.
39.
The basis for the opinions of our clients is a variety of experiences and impressions formed by tne actions of Region IV inspectors responsible for the plant.
40.
One of my clients, Mr. John Hodge, has authorized me to include the following example as the latest demonstration of Region IV's insensitivity, incompetence, and refusal to follow NRC's own chapter manual instructicna regarding allegations.
(The example is already on the public record.)
'                                  a. On November 22, 1986, John Hodge filed, pro se, a complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor against ESASCO alleging that he had been discriminated against for going to                                            {
SAFMEAM and for' disagreeing with his management over                                                    1 violations of site criminal laws, federal' rules and site procedures. Mr. Bodge also claimed that he had only recently
                    /.            Mcome aware ofAct, Reorganization            hisarights under Section 210 of the Energy nn,r.4 . wes.,. en es.nd t.              . hat there was..no,c,opy of the law
                                                                              . ..,42,si                          .
b.
The U.S. Department of Labor rajected his complaint because it was not filed within 30 days of the discriminatory-act.
c.
spy.On    1.aDecember      22, 1986, sk. det...an.st+o              on behalf of Mr. Hodges, I wr th. w.w. .ua avus olvi tvu.
6.
the law  On February 6, 1987, there was a conference call between Judge. yer for EBASCO, myself, and the Administrative Law During that conference call it was decided that before any litigation would be commenced on the merits of thedecided.
be      discrimination complaint that a preliminary issue had to The first issue was whether or not Mr. Rodges had constructive knowledge of the Act by a determination of the actual onsetnoe ne eh. une ea - i at th.
was no written order memorializing this issue..t s.. ok...
: e.      On April 28, 1987 wrote to Mr. modges .n,o informed him that Region IV hadthe Region conducted an investigation into his technical concerns and concluded that they were not substantiated. The only concern addressed by Region IV was the single issue in the                                                i Form 3's had been posted. proceeding, that is - whether or not the NRC
 
n;c, I-  s712:23 Ac LE7m..c :13 721 III                                  F , $, 7 g,
: f.                                                                                  !
No NRC inspector, investigator, or coordinator had ever i
interviewed Mr. Hodges.      Region IV had absolutely no idea'of                    !
(            the proof that Mr. Hodges had himself gathered to demonstrate that the Form 3's were not, in fact, posted.
: g. Region IV also completely ignored the technical allegations raised initially in Mr. Hodges complaint regarding wrongdoing issues and his safety-related concerns.
: h. They completely ignored, either deliberately or because kb$5.) $alf IAll 19889Fil'alet.at w!?Ri    EC ". II..I,rggnr r determine issues, proof, evidence, and any thing to substantiate the concerns.
: 1. The inspector, R.G. Taylor, is the same inspector previously inspections.
cited by OIA for conducting inadequate Apparently Mr. Dircks lessons from hindsight                        i were  not communicated      to Mr. Taylor, or already forgotten.
(see, paragraph 37 (3), supra.)
I 41, susequent communications between myself and Region IV has not produced any remedys (See, Attachments 8 a-d for a record of the correspondence on this example.)
: 42. Mr. Stello has steadfastly stood behind Mr. Martin and Roolon TV nffletale throughese the mass d a va o L1..,
                                                                  . . aJeuwe Gr misconduct, imprudence, incompetence, and dereliction of duties.
According to Mr. Stallo's testimony before'the Senate hearing and his May 1, 1987 letter, to Senator John Glenn, Mr. Stello was concerned with the " morale" of the people in Region IV. It is my personal belief that he was referring to the same people that OIA                      ,
had concluded were quilty of years of ignoring quality issues at Comanche Peak, and whose names figure prominently in each of the i
OIA invemHnarinne raFarcad *a 4a *hl= 811Las- = *~
s--2*
confident that Mr. Ste11o's concern did not run to the morale of one inspvuturu who had been sentenced to bureaucratic Siberia as a result of trying to do their job. I base my opinion, in part,
                                ~
1 1
l
 
XEEQX TELEcopsER 293 ;    S-29-87; 2:24 AH; 414 701 7861          +
2026283f,73 ; o 6 ty.y 29 '87 12:24 W L W 'd 41d 731" M 1                                                                                  P. 6,7
                                                                                                                                                ,7 i
I nn the fyr char W          h allo initially appneves a mana w ,l.. m.
for' Region IV official Tom Westerman, only to pull it back at the                                                                    )
insistence of CIA, and because Mr. Stello had recommended another senior Rsgion IV official, Mr. Paul Check, implicated by the                                                                          d Region IV investigations and the history of ignoring quality
          , problems at Region IV plants, for a promotion to a senior staff
* position in Washington.
41.
Mr. Ste11o's public and private support of Region IV's                                                                  i worst offenders and his failure to take any corrective action                                                                          1 i
j regarding the agency employees who have actively engaged in                                                                            i ennance ehne to a vi.1 6 Lea .a unc ..,o1 Liwi. .uc p auciveu                                                          as              i l
understandable only if he in fact condones the activity.                                                                                I l
: 42. As a result of Mr. Stallo's repeated failure to                                                                            \
{      demonstrate any acknowledgement of the NRC's own regulations regarding the processing of allegations and interfacing with allagers, while at the same time being the de facto operative of the utility from which our clienta need protection, we have no choice but to comply with our professional obligation to our clients      and protect them from the NRC.
43.
I am confident that the coasnissioners themselves will                                                                    l sen the M1emma T am in ,ad e==a.td. 'u            3;---61-..  -
A-==*r provided by the Director of Licensing when a similar problem arose in early 1984 regarding the Waterford and comanche Peak plants.
44 It is important that the Commission realize that I am i
very anxious for the resolution of this issue and look forward to g
turning the investigative responsibility of the concerns of my l
ar.%n TELEC0F IER a *            *~"~*''''#
* g ,67 II'Ig y,pp g    44..;  1  21 21 P.7/7
                                                                      .                                                            1 g 9ny, pn ,=nspatank me e&aFF members inh. he .                                          ....). .....a .s
{
integrity and fairness, and will abide by Chapter Manual 0517                                          .
(The Chapter Manual is attached to this affidavit as Attachment 10.)
However, I must comply with the restrictions that my cli'ents have put me and other GAP attorneys under regarding their individual concerns.
OO . A n e. _ s [$ -                                .=
millie Pirner Garde, Esquire 1
                                                                                                                                    \
                                                                                                                                    \
i Subscribed and sworn to me this                                                                                      i 29th day of Ma                                                                                                          I
(                                          .
        /                                      _
t outagami          County, Wisconsin h***
Iff Ncyggy
_ . ~ .
                                  \,' ),
PUBuc /  .
944pe#
                      % =N  ua I
i k
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          ..t
                                                                                                                                                                                                    .,.                                        8:. w.hr&.&  w yu.,,apa      g. . h' . .1sm
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        .e y                  -
                                                                                                                                                                                        .. e i
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ..                  - I-
: m.          ' :? l:.@n}l fllm.: .:.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  .:    ;.    **      tr    q,:=.e            w.
i
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      }
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                . . . s. _.n3~... s            . u.                                                                  4 1
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      .      .$, Uh , .,,.                        c l
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          ..          ..q w ,
eg
                                                                                                                                                                                                                              *:5.=]:f,0;:;._.;
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA D M [ V '                                                                                                                                  .,                                                      I tiUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION                                                                                                                    LAJ                      *N~.                    ~
l 1                                                                                      .                                            WQL$ # :p
                                                                                                                                                                                  .                          - 7..,'GsMC.W
                                                                                                                                                                                                                      . e, e c. . . .A, ,.s ,w ?&*
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  .  ..          , m, -
t... p J
                                                                                  -                                                *.                                                .q*                                                  .i
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      .p,,
tuq93,ge;L. -                                                  l In the matter of:: # ..
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ~
  ,  y.a
                                                                                                                  ~w:                          .
                                                                                                                                                                              ~ m.)      .
                                                                                                                                                                                                    ) . m.
in~..,d).'.*-.                                            L.1&.
9 4*E c .
n.5  5. 1.R.-  < . ,%
i Houston Lighting and' Power Company :.)tjQ, * '                                                                                                                                                                                              M n'in g'
                                                                                                                                            ,. t-                                                                                                                  m          ~498i                            ^!
To: Ms. Billie Pirner Gard. y h- .4                                                                .
                                                                                                                                                                                                .) )an.mE.gg.,3.0',499 M MM .WDoc ~e h                                                      -
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ^
F p .,
                                                                                                                                          -. n q':.
y          _=              .;:              ''"                                        . g 4.p n, p 'H -
                                                                                                                                                                                              .                                                                                                                                                        i
                                                                                                                                                        .O
                                                                                                                                                        .. ,b. . . .a.WAv.
                                                                                                                                                              <                                    h w . g.                                pp ,:;        .e.mqgu,og,.gt l %            pgn                  +w],    w              t .: s0;pw%
                                                                                                                                                            . .                                              -. . u                                                                                            ..          ,, ..
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              %W 3
_ :? :                                                                                                      .                          . .X2.1..T:2. :'MWw -                                                                                                        -w                                                                  t s;. w. : -                                                                                                            ..                  ..w:r w -~=: b.at:%JQ q                                                    b                                                                                n                                      1
                                . ,,s                                                                                                                                                              w,m m:.s/m3                                                        ~e . m edr#qd,ggk;;&                        p. m.!m                  r.. .-
m,                                                                                                                              - -a                                                      .                                              .                                0, I
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                .                    {
y...g                                                                                      MOTION AND MEMORABE)(Bt T_O ;QUASE ~8083'OEN& WW$i $g$p-M --                                                                              ''
7                                                                                                                                                                            . :.                                                                                                                                                '
y ,.                                                                                                                    r. - . -
d %...M,4q-"t,.                            .p
  .,.                                                                                                                          ,                                                      . .- .._ a . ,s.n. r . ,. ;,,,
M.']'                                              .
                                                                                                                                                                          .  .. - -                                    :.m 1.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              ..aa
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    .        124 g%e. rv                          wy                              ,
sp.- m %y.e,4.,..e
                                                                                                                                                                                                          ~ v<.$ g m.: b: mrmge
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                +4.+            sm.m.a                      ,:..-pwk. w.- .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                              .-., .,2ws
                                                                                                                                                    --m
                                                                                                                                                                                        .~.
i
                                                                                                                                                                                                                          .e.                            n. .,z t.:.r22v.      n u. ..                          ma W/ O 9-WMnt74-<              e. ~ ,.s 6 4 g -                                      .n".n ~.-
yv.u-                                            ;
                                                                                                                                                                                                              ~ ./:u/                                              -
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      , u.a.::p;r.,cy.:p
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            .% 'a        . , .        df,y
* d ..;..3.              . 9,7 W.<a.py p.r.
                                                                                                                                                                                                    .c            >
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      , yg,.a_.
                                                                                                                                                                                    =                , , -
                                                                                                                                                                                                  , w ..
                                                                                                                                                                                                            - ~.w~ -w.r-m.,re.p                  .<...a r 4 u;w ,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            - m.:.,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                . x .n .v. , w          .
            ',                                                                                                                                                                          .a ..'? Anthony.J.iBolsaan,' Esq.
                                                                                                                                                                                  '~
h 1401,                                            g p g g,e3, g ,
      . f-                                                                                                                                  -                          .                                                    Sultg. s,                                            ,,.f g m,;                                    _c x,. . .w                                                    M                                              M.; -                    y .-
                                                                                                                                                          ~ ,. e
                                                                                                                                                                    \.c:q::-
                                                                                                                                                                                      . . f s .
gm        *4. WWW e e,s            5    s      e  b                            g                                . . . . .
q.. ._.e              tye~                                                                                                                - . ..
: y. p%
v.t 9 _
                                                                                                                                          . cc          .y)M,    .. dh          %y4w,4p-_py 4
                                                                                                                                                                                                        ,. 4 ,WN s
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  *th@4 w
  ):i.G-1
            . .a
              .                        : . .                                                                                                  a::
i,$^.EAW * &- 4 g*ggg                                                                        _(WW :.-
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              'y                                    ,y
;        F                                                                                                                        .          %[y .3                                                                        Rid                                        l                    h                                Ti.
    , g&r;          em...
g .,
                                                  . ~ e.                                                                c,....-1.9.%.h@p_.-
a +.. . A;~Q..p6.f.Ifr .. .w
                                                                                                            ~-
r9      -
t                    3      y? ..
l l        . p+ w *Q ?, .
                                                                                              ., J ., .
                                                                                                              '' 3
                                                                                                                            - .p -? +".            k
                                                                                                                                                        , ' .' / '_ j ,. g. ,                                                    5.$.                                                            <
l 1                      %,g .,.p.,    g
',                                            ll",~. .          ,
                                                                            ~
b.
l                                    a f.''                                                      h                                                                                            , ;L          l
: h. y 7-                                                                                                                                                                              7..e ,...(202)k 3
!y n yry*.< x                                                                                \4                          wy.                                                  a y s y. z, ,.g %, n. m _ ,T.i. cl5.r.5. 9m;.y..
s.npm
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          . pa=g.,.r i
                                                                                            .'I.e
)ee - . _ _
I w~ .s. ~. .
                                                ..                3..
r ge                                                  . . . . .. a s
                                                                                                                                                                                  .?..w-arm.easdes          ..*~
i.,t*n**~wemm..
a.ume.s                              u-
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    .~w.-
d              ** : ; -' '                          8                                                  -
j                                                        -
$*r*=".(./gQe' .
P
                                                                ,,                                t                                                      *",Ef % e . t.~3.au8.,'.*,,'.**.,C,,,,
                                                                                                                                                                                  .        3,            .
                                                    }'# . ) :., e        t
* w ,.                1.g _ . . .j,. +          y. h=            .F                    .
3 . . . ..,u .,, y                                                                                                                                                      n                  1
                                                -n . r~. il y.          t
* a        -fm,                          d'        . e A.een \ s%s .%' j.s T                      1 . .-                                e
                                                                                              ',i I                              ,,'
* 4[ ., : -                                                                                                                                                              ,p oy:
                                                                  .l.                                                        ,.                - . a:-. .r . . , . 7, -                                                                                                                                                              <-
:.t. p+.JtOli                                      .
i            I' I
                                                                                              .t.
                                                                                                                              ,              *                      .,                . .      .                -. M..r                          upgrg                                    w'                              m, M 3:
e
                                                                                                  '                                                                  .-. ., 9 .g                                                                                                                                                    y,
~        '
5                                  .                l',                      l              '
                                                                                                                        .                                    ...c            $ $ ,W W W h{y .                                                                                                                                        Y              j km                                            .                ')                  g'                                                                                    n-::
                                                                                                                                                                    % 2 pis?G.T&RiGW                                                                                                                                  MW J
                                                                                      \                                                                                                  ;a%@y'" % ..                                                                                                        dLM,L* ~
                                                                                    . s.                                                                        .
p ; - n., . .
q                                              .s +
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ,,        e::                              s p                  w.~ ,..
y                                  - a                                                                                                                                                  .:
: p.              _ q.
                                                                                                                                                                                                          .sup, -
pu..q.pv.. y.
g,_pp.y      q{ g.,g                                                      rw
                                              ?                                                                                                                            . , V. ;                                                          1,.,.                  ., ,y. .g.'. m.,,.p.                  f. >e-        f j. t.
m
 
}-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
[                          NUCLEAR REGULATORY COHMISSION In the matter of:                      )
                                                    )
Houston Lighting and Power Company )        Docket No. 50-498
                                                    .)            50-499 y          To:    Ms. Billie Pirner Garde          )
                                                    )
a 0
l MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA                                          !
O Billie P. Garde, Esq. (Movant) hereby moves that the Commissioners of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) quash the subpoena issued by Victor Stello, Jr.
0-(      (Executive Director for Operations) on May 20, 1987.
The specific grounds for quashing the subpoena are as follows:
1 (1)  Compliance with Mr. Stello's command would compromise the_ health and safety of the public.
(2)  There is no authority for Mr. Stello to issue the May                        .
9 20, 1987 subpoena.                                                            l l
(3)  The information and identitites of Movant's clients are protected by the attorney-client privilege.
.I Movant  requests the opportunity for an oral argument on this Motion.
I Lt i
1-I t
L,                                                                  _ _ _ _ _ .____ -_ _- _ - - ---
 
O.
i t'
Respectfully submitted, y"            ,WL Q (r              bh g-                              Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.
1401 New York' Avenue N.W. 8600 Washington, D.C. 20005                                                        i (202) 628-3500
                                                  .A        s
                                                    / /
                                  &!L(k.
                                              . 4a Richard E. Condit David S. Rubinton Staff Attorneys Government Accountability Project 4
1555 Connecticut Avenue N.W. #200 Washington, D.C. 20036 I
(202) 232-8550 m.
Dated:  May 29, 1987 f,          079a06' 10' g
1 e
14 l
 
8                                                ,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                                                                      -{
f                          NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l*
i In the matter of:                                                                                                    .I
                                                    )
                                                    )-    i                                                                        lj Houston Lighting and Power Company )        Docket No. 50-498
                                                    )              50-499 1          'To:  Ms. Billie Pirner Garde          )
l l
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA l'                              [ Oral Argument Requested).                                                                        ,
s I. Introduction Victor Stello, without power or authority, has sought to compel an attorney, Billie Pirner Garde, Es q . , to divulge the names of her clients and information provided to her by her clients in direct violation of the conditions of her Il representation of these clients and of her obligations under the Legal Code of Professional Responsibility. The information sought was obtained by Ms. Garde, and investigators working for I
her and under her supervision and control, directly from her clients and relates solely to information required by Ms. Garde to properly represent those clients.        See Attached Affidavit of I        Billie Pirner Garde, Esq.
Ms.. Garde has been retained by these clients to assure that                                                      1 j
1 their concerns about the safety of the South Texas Nuclear Plant I
are properly investigated and resolved by the NRC.        In an attempt to assure that the concerns were properly investigated, Ms. Garde                                                        !
sought from the NRC creation of a competent and independent
't        investigation unit. See accompanying Petition Pursuant to 10 CFR                                                      i t
t
 
L t
52.206.. In order to be able to' properly advocate the' concerns of
    -I cher' clients to such a competent and independent investigation team, Ms. Garde obtained from her clients their-technical and expert opinions that formed the basis for their safety concerns.
:                Mr. Stello's attempt to obtain this information is for the y.
purpose and/or would have the effect of defeating the very
                              ~
concerns that motivated Ms. Garde's clients to retain her. It      is i
Mr. Stello and Region IV whose past and present conduct (fully documented by OIA reports and other investigations) that have convinced Ms. Garde and her clients that only an independent investigation team can properly evaluate and act upon the
              ,  concerns of these workers.
These work'ers have already taken substantial risks to pursue safety concerns which, when raised at the job site, were ignored.
                ' Fearful.of job discrimination and mindful of the consequences suffered by others before them, they ref rained f rom further pressing their concerns with Houston Power & Light (HP&L), but
  ~
i have nonetheless come to Ms. Garde and enlisted her assistance in        1 3
l assuring that their safety concerns are properly evaluated by the        1 NRC. Their experiences and those of other workers, all I
documented by OIA and others, convince them and Ms. Garde that allowing either Region IV or Victor Stello to be in charge of the investigation will severely compromise their safety concerns and substantially increase the risk that their identities will be disclosed to HP&L.      If this Commission were nonetheless to order Ms. Garde to divulge this information to the very persons whom i
these workers least trust, it would create incalculable harm for t
t
    .___=__-_.__-_    -.
 
T il .
the cause of" safety at every nuclear facility in the country..      l
)I                          O                (Although,Ms. Garde will not violate her duty to her clients, the Commissioners' action would be properly viewed as aligning the    _:
power of the highest levels of this agency with proven and g'                                            unrepentant miscreants (Stello and Region IV) and against the        j workers in the. nuclear industry and the public health and 7                                        safety.)    As the accompanying 52.206 Petition makes clear, there 4                                            is a far better course for the Commissioners to follow to both        >
assure the proper and prompt investigation of the safety concerns and to assure concerned nuclear workers everywhere that they will
  .                                          never be forced to choose between silence on the one hand and ineffective safety investigations by incompetent and ill-motivated NRC investigators on the other.
I' I .
II. Facts Beginning in 1985, Billie P. Garde has been contacted by workers at the South Texas nuclear power plant. These contacts have raised concerns ranging from specific complaints about harassment and intimidation for identifying safety problems at j
the plant, to general complaints about violations of federal and I                                                                                                                J state laws by certain individuals and subcontractors at the          )
plant. In some cases Ms. Garde was retained to represent these employees in discrimination complaints against their employers;        I I                                                                                                                !
in others, she was contacted regarding the substantive concerns        j about the plant.
Ms. Garde's representation of employees at the South Texas (f
Nuclear Plant is formalized by a written attorney-client l-
 
O agreement.        Her obligation under the agreement is very clear.
O    She may not, without her clients' approval, provide either the identity of her clients or any information to the NRC, to Region IV of the NRC, or to the current Executive Director of g    Operations, Victor Stello, Jr., for the purposes of the investigation of the concerns.
Ms. Garde has, since January 1987, attempted to fulfill her i    obligation to her clients by obtaining a competent, non-Region IV investigation / inspection commitment by the NRC.      On January 20, 1987, she announced her preliminary investigation of STNP allegations through a letter to the State of Texas Attorney                                          j General's office and to Mr. Stello.        She requested that the NRC                              k' provide an independent inspection effort to review her clients' allegations.
Within a week officials at Houston Power and Light responded to her letter indicating a desire to work with GAP attorneys in investigating allegations.        Subsequent correspondence and discussions with HP&L, unfortunately, did not prove productive.
On February 18, 1987, Mr. Stello responded to the concerns about Region IV's inability to conduct an independent and competent investigation by advising her of the following:
1 The South Texas Project is within the jurisdiction of                                      !
Region IV and that Region is the appropriate organiza-tion to review the concerns of your clients. I have il              confidence that Region IV will properly pursue this responsibility. I have been in contact with Mr. Robert D. Martin, Regional Administrator for Region IV, and he assures me that his staff is thoroughly prepared to commit the resources required to appropriately resolve the issues which your clients might raise .  . .  . Any I            further communications you may have regarding this
    ;          matter should be directed to Mr. Martin in Region IV.
 
i On March 4,  1987, Ms. Garde responded to Mr. Stello's blind
(                                              vote of confidence in Region IV.      She referenced a long history of problems with Region IV inspection efforts of which she is confident Mr. Stello is well aware and again requested an                          ;
independent investigation for her clients' concerns.
1 On March 10, 1987, Mr. Stello affirmed his previous position and urged Ms. Garde to bring forth "any information" she has on deficiencies which would have bearing on nuclear safety to NRC or HP&L -- or advise her clients to do so.
On March 23, 1987, Ms. Garde again requested that Mr. Stello address directly her request for an independent individual or 1
task force to investigate the concerns being raised by her clients.
On April 6, 1987, HP&L officials wrote to Ms. Garde and 1
informed her that they were "taking steps to request appropriate government officials to obtain from you or your organization information which could potentially affect the safety of the South Texas Project."
On April 8,  1987, Mr. Stello, who upon information and belief responded to HP&L's plea for assistance, placed Ms. Garde
'I under threat of legal action if she did not provide the information to the agency.
On at least three occasions in March and April, 1987, Ms.
8 Garde initiated conversations with Mr. Tom Rehm of the Executive Director's office to explain her legal obligations and her interest in providing access to the workers and their information f
f
 
n to an independent and competent team or individ;al within the NRC. The conversations apparently bore no fruit, although Ms.
Garde was led to believe that Mr. Rehm, and possibly others, would discuss the general' nature of the allegations and inform her of the agencies' decision regarding the processing of the allegations.
Ms. Garde has spent six months attempting to get the NRC to act  responsibly regarding the allegations raised by her clients.
Her obligations to her clients have not changed. She must either provide them with a competent government investigation or she must remain silent and not endanger the safety of the public by an incompetent NRC investigation, nor endanger the professional future, reputations and/or source of income of her clients.
There is a substantial basis for the workers' position and i
Ms. Garde's own prof essional opinion that neither Mr. Stello nor Region IV are competent government of ficials capable of conducting an inspection of worker allegations at the South Texas plant in accordance with NRC Chapter Manual 0517, Processing of Allegations.
Region IV's conduct in the widely publicized events surrounding the harassment and intimidation of MRC inspectors at Comanche Peak was done with the approval or at the urging of Victor Stello. Furthermore, Mr. Stello has steadfastly stood behind Regional Administrator Robert D. Martin and Region IV officials throughout the most devastating evidence of misconduct, imprudence, incompetence, and dereliction of duties. According to Mr. Stello's testimony before the Senate hearing and his May 6-
 
e            1
                        ?,      * ? A k, 4
                      .    ., o 3    (
1,  1987 letter to Senator John Glenn,4 he          as concerned with the
((        morale of-the people in Region IV.            Clearly he meant the people h3''
who were the " targets" of the investigation, not the NRC inspectors who had gone through bureaucratic " Siberia" as a result of trying to do their jot'.          Mr. Stello approved a monetary lt l
bonrs for one of the Region IV o,tficials then under a
a                          >
i in'gestigation, only to pull lt ba'c k v a t the insistence of the OIA.
t Additionally, Mr. Stello recommended another Senior Region IV official implicated by the# Region IV investigation for a senior staff position in Washington shortly before the report became                            l public.
i Mr. Stello's public and private support of Region IV's worst i
offenders and his failure to take any corrective action regarding the agency employees.who have actively engaged in conduct that is I,~~
a violation of NRC Regulations and practices is understandable on1[ifhecondonessuchactivity.
                    ;As a result of Mr. Stello's repeated failure to demonstrate any acknowledgement of the NRC's own regulations regarding the processing of allegations and interfacing with alleger, while simultaneously being the de facto operative of the utility from I
which the workers need protection, requires that she comply with her professional obligation to her clients and protect them from Mr. Stello and Region IV.
III. Legal Argument              ,
: 1. The Executive Director for Operations has no authority 0
to' issue the subpoena.
                  <                                _7-9
 
d Pursuant to the F7ergy Reorganization Act of 1974,        as I                      amended, and 10 C.F.R. $1.40, the Executive Director for Operations (EDO) is appointed by the Commission and performs such functions as the Commission may direct. In directing the EDO to e
perform numerous functions in 10 C.F.R.        51.40 (a q), the Commission specifically di6 not include the issuance of subpoenas      '
or commancincats to appear within the scope of the Executive t.
Director's duties.        This omission is especially significant when i one notes tnat the Commission specifically delegated subpoena power to the Office of Investigations (10 C.F.R. 51.36 (g)).
I While it may be possible that Mr. Stello could have been 1
91ven the authority to issue a Commandment To Appear (or subpoena) in this instance no such claim of authority has been expressed.
On the contrary, Ms. Garde was commanded to appear by Il a document which cited no legal authority whatsoever.          [See Attachment 13).
f in fact, the caption of the document discloses the basic flaw in the legal authority. If, as the document asserts, this          i is a subponea in the matter of Houston Lighting and Power, then it would have to be pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Part 2. The staff does
  's not have the authority to issue subpoenas without Board approval.
The mere fact that no Hearing Board is sitting does not expand the staff authority.        Instead it requires the staff to seek a t
subpoena from some other lawful authority, i.e., the Commissioners, with an adequate showing to justify its conduct.          1 I
Of course, the staff has not done this.
I i
Victor Stello should have made a timely request to the I
l
 
)
Commission for a subpoena. Perhaps he didn't make such a request i
y                                          because he was aware that he would have to explain the circumstances surrounding his request to the Commission and that he might therefore lose control of the information sought from o                                          Ms. Garde's clients.
)
Movant is also perplexed by the inclusion at the bottom of this Commandment of procedures for the quashing of a subpoena.
[See Attachment 13]. Like the Commandment, the procedures for quashing a subpoena do not cite to any rule, regulation or law of the NRC, the Administrative Procedure Act or the United States of America. However, the provision is repeated verbatim (minus the last sentence which directs such motions to the Secretary of the i
Commission) in 10 C.P.R. 52.720, the provision for a Board-issued subpoena. This procedure clearly applies to adjudications within s,
the context of domestic licensing proceedings. Movant does not understand why this particular provision is contained within this Commandment. This Commandment makes no mention of any
  ?
adjudication and Movant is not currently engaged in any                                          !
litigation involving the South Texas Nuclear Project.                      Therefore, i
the inclusion of the procedures to quash at the bottom of the B
Commandment was inappropriate and, to the extent that this document does not appear to be a subpoena at all, it was                                            ,
I erroneous.
I To the extent that there is no authority for the issuance of such a Commandment, Ms. Garde asserts her right to disregard it.
i To the extent that such a document might be construed to be a                                    ]
II                                                                                                                                            l subpoena requiring a Motion To Quash, this Memorandum supports                                    j 9-t
 
?
I i
1 l
: l.                  'that Motion.
((
0; l                            2.  .The Attorney-Client privilege prevents Movant from I
divulging the requested information to Mr. Stello.
I L                            The information sought in the subpoena is absolutely l                      protected. Povant is ethically bound to preserve the confidences i
and secrets of her clients.                Disciplinary Rule (DR) 4-101 of the ABA's Model Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 1.6 of the ABA Model Rules prohibit a lawyer from revealing information relating to the representation of a client.                Specifically, DR 4-101(B) states that          . . . a lawyer shall not knowingly .        . .
[r]eveal a confidence or secret of his client."
The information sought in this subpoena involves communications made by STNP employees to Ms. Garde of safety concerns at STNP.          These employees requested Ms. Garde's assistance upon the understanding that their identities would remain confidential.          These-clients also requested.that the information they communicated to Ms. Garde would remain confidential. Ms. Garde investigated their concerns so that she could have effectively argue for an independent investigation of their concerns. Ms. Garde's investigation into her clients' allegations was at all times linked to her clients' interest in having a proper investigation done.
In recognition of an attorney's ethical requirements the law has recognized certain privileges which legally permit an attorney to refuse to disclose information about her client or information prepared-or formed during the course of her legal s
l I
4 duties.            Of these privileges, the attorney-client privilege i  recognizes the right to keep communications made between the client and the attorney confidential.              In addition, the work product doctrine protects from disclosure documents and mental                '
i impressions generated by an attorney during the course of the attorney-client relationship.
There can be no question that the attorney-client relationship exists.              Movant has  express oral and written i
agreements with her clients.
[See Attachment 1}.
A claim of privilege can be made if several factors are met.
First, the holder of the privilege is a client. Second, the I
communication being protected was made to a member of the bar in her capacity as an attorney.              Third, the communication relates to a fact of which the attorney was informed by her client for the purposes of securing legal services.                United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corporation, 89 F.Supp. 357, 358-59 (D. Mass.
1950); Coleman v. American Broadcasting Corporation, 106 F.R.D.
l 210 (D.C.D.C. 1985).                                                            l i
The communications at issue here are clearly within the scope of the attorney-client privilege. The United Shoe standard                !
{
I                                                                                                l supports the availability of the privilege in the instani case.
The asserted holder of the privilege, STNP employees, became                    l l
1 clients of Ms. Garde; Ms. Garde, the person to whom I
communications were made, is a member of the bar of the State of Wisconsin; and, in connection with the employees' communications concerning safety conditions, Ms. Garde was acting as a lawyer in that she served to formulate a legal strategy to protect her c
a
 
}
i clients' reputations and careers while seeing to it that  their j            allegations were properly resolved.
)'
In fact, in a case very similar to this one, the U.S.
Supreme Court held that communications made to an attorney in the course of a factual investigation being conducted for the purposes of providing legal advice, must remain confidential.
Upjohn v. United States of America, 449 U.S.
383 (1981). In
{
i Upiohn, corporate attorneys conducted investigations to determine                        l' if Upjohn's payments to certain foreign officials were in violation of the law. Upjohn attorneys conducted interviews with employees to determine the extent of payments in order to provide legal advice, Upjohn at 394.                                                                i When the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) learned of the payments, through a company disclosure, it began an investigation and issued a summons requiring Upjohn to i  produce the relevant documents. Upjohn refused to comply with the demands of the IRS, and the agency brought an action to enforce the summons.              In supporting Upjohn's refusal to reveal communications with the attorneys the Court stated:
4 Consistent with the underlying purposes of the attorney-client privilege, these communications must be protected against compelled disclosure, Upjohn, at 395.
f I
In the instant case, like Upjohn, Movant conducted a factual                      i investigation in order to provide her clients with legal advice.
The facts developed through oral communications with the clients                                l
{
pertained to problems at the STNP. Movant analyzed the clients'                                  I l
I information and advised the clients accordingly.                Clearly, these                  l communications are privileged under the Supreme Court's holding in Upjohn.
1 l
                                                                                      ------_--_--- b
 
'8
: 3. The work' product doctrine prevents Movant from divulging
(                    the requested information~to Mr. Stello.
All the information received by Ms. Garde regarding problems at the STNP were received in the course of communications with
      .                    .her clients.      As such, these communications are clearly protected by the attorney-client privilege.
However, in the event that these communications are not i-found to be protected, Movant asserts that this information is protected by the work product doctrine.      It is well established that an attorney's notes or summaries regarding oral
'l conversations with third parties and/or witnesses are absolutely protected under the work product doctrine.        In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 473 F.2d 840 (8th Cir. 1973); U.S. v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225 (1975); In re Grand Jury Investigation, 412 F.Supp. 943 II' (E.D.Pa. 1976). Only in very limited circumstances can a party compel that work product materials be disclosed.        Even if the information is required to be disclosed under one of the limited I-exceptions, impressions of the attorney cannot be disclosed.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 (b)(3); 10 C.P.R.
52.740(b)(2).
In this case Mr. Stello would be unable to establish a substantial need for the information. Neither Mr. Stello nor Region IV can be expected to use any information to protect the I
public's health and safety.      In fact, it is likely that any information released to Mr. Stello on Region IV would either be covered up or inappropriately shared with STNP officials.
I I
 
)
l Regarding the work product doctrine, the Upjohn court-stated:
)(.
i l                      The notes and memoranda sought by the Government here, however, are work product based on oral statements. If they reveal communications, they are, in this case, protected by the attorney-client privilege. To the i-                      extent they do not reveal communications, they reveal the attorneys' mental processes in evaluating the communications. As Rule 26 and Hickman make clear, such work product cannot be disclosed simply on a showing of substantial need and inability to obtain the equivalent without undue hardship,                            ;
bp_ihn, at 401.
Furthermore, the work product doctrine applies to' investigations done.by third parties at the request and/or direction of an attorney. Alltmont v. U.S.,  177 F.2d 971 (3rd Cir.), cert. den., 339 U.S. 967 (1950).
In this case, any records or documents in the possession of Movant pertaining to the safety of the STNP are work products developed from oral communications with her clients. In addition, the documents and notes in question contain the thoughts and impressions of Ms. Carde.      Therefore, these documents are clearly exempted from disclosure under the work product doctrine.
Conclusion i
What this subpoena seeks to do is to force Ms. Garde to go    f against cne of the fundamental principles of her profession -- to betray the confidences of her clients.
Ms. Garde was retained      J for the express purpose of maintaining the confidences of her clients, while seeking to provide a proper mechanism for the
,              resolution of their safety concerns at STNP.      In pursuit of that, i
14 -
 
g-Ms. Garde has attempted to persuade Victor Stello to help her I
ll*          find such a mechanism. Failing at that, Ms. Garde has filed this day a petition with~the NRC pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.206 to order
            'the proper investigation of her clients' concerns.
't                We believe that there is no legitimate basis for Billie P.
Garde to appear pursuant to Mr. Stello's May 20, 1987 Commandment. Therefore, we hereby request that the Commandment 1
l_        to appear be quashed.                                              ,
l Respectfully submitted,
:i Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.
1401 New York Avenue N.W. #600 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 628-3500 I
t.
Richard E. Condit David S. Rubinton Staff Attorneys Government Accountability Project    l 1555 Connecticut Avenue N.W. #200    j Washington, D.C. 20036              ;
(202) 232-8550 1
079a05 I
I J
l
  '                                                                                I I
 
e M X TELECoPIER 295 ; G-29-07;'2: 15 AM: clo            731 7ggg      o        20262s3c73. ; ,,
f%Y 29 'Er? 12:15 APPLETT.A.WI .::.: ~I; II;                                      P.10
,. 4 lt UNITED-STATES
        ,                                    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter oft Houston Lighting and Power Company                                Dkt No. 50-498/499 South Texas Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2.
AFFIDAVIT
: 1. My name is Billie Pirner Garde.      I am an attorney with the Government Accountability Project (GAP). I am currently the Director of GAP's Midwest Office, located in Appleton, Wisconsin.
I am also co-director of the Environmental Whistleblower Protection Clinic.
: 2. Since 1985 I have been retained by a number of employees at STNP, some of who raised safety concerns that they wanted pursued by the NRC.                As part of my work I and other GAP attorneys i
began, in January 1987, a preliminary investigation of STNP.                                                        l
: 3. Currently both CAP attorney Richard Condit and I represent STNP employees in individual discrimination cases.                    In I
these situations, we were retained to represent employees in litigation against their empicyers and/or to provide advice i
regarding disputes and potential disputes with their employers.
I In other cases we were retained for the purpose of assuring that the employees substantive concerns were properly acted upon by the NRC and that the employees identity was protected from 1            disclosure in order to protect their job and their future employment possibilities. (See, Attachment 1.)
: 4. The STNP employees that contacted us did so as a result
{
i                                                                                                                              l
_j_
 
O                                                                                                        ~
Attachment #9e The Light o                          company n_,, i... ,~...-, i. o -:- n- ...o~.                        ::~,  m m... o t
March 18, 1987 j
0 Ms Billie Garde                                                                            }
Director of the Midwest Office                                                            i Government Accountability Project                                                          i i
3424 N. Marcos Lane Appleton, Wisconsin    54911                                                              )i 1
i
 
==Dear Ms Garde:==
 
We have been in touch with you as a representative of GAP concerning allegations regarding the South Texas Project by you and Mr. William Condit since the first appearance of those 6
allegations in the press on January 21, 1987. In writing to you on January 26, 1987, I sought your cooperation in bringing these matters to our attention using the SAFETEAM program which  has a proven record of success at the South Texas Project.
To facilitate your cooperation I offered the services of Mr. James Geiger, one of my most seasoned and trusted i(                                            managers and head of our Nuclear Assurance Department.                                      y Mr. Geiger contacted you immediately and conveyed repeatedly to you over the next several weeks our sincere interest in resolving the allegations which had allegedly been brought to your attention by employees at the STP site.
Mr. Geiger considered carefully the reservations you expressed concerning use of SAFETEAM and offered to modify these procedures in an effort'to accommodate your concerns. His letters of February 11 and March 5, 1987, documented those conversations, including urgent requests that you submit at least one of the allegations of which you have knowledge for investigation using 0
these modified SAFETEAM procedures on a " trial basis."
t You have been unresponsive to these suggestions and, in recent    weeks, have not even returned Mr. Geiger's telephone calls. We must therefore regretfully conclude that GAP has no
  '                                          interest in proceeding further with these discussions.                                        j 4
i We cannot, however, let matters rest at this point since this is not merely a disagreement between private parties.                                    i Larger matters of the public interest are potentially affected.
l Enyond the allegations of safety concerns, the implication of                                  l p
statements attributed to you in the press is that federal and                                  j state laws may have been violated in the construction of STP.                                  3 j
E.                                                                                                                              ;
I                                                                                                                                          !
I                                                                                                                                        b i
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _                                                                                            b
 
rp 25 T w ;i 3: E :: . .: a;; 2;    Ii;                                -
p.:
of their inability to obtain an adequate resolution to concerns          i s~
i they had about the design, construction, management, and                  I potential operation of the South Texas plant.        Although each individual clients experience is unique the key elements of their        1 i
dilemma is th's same
{
: a. The client raised a discreet concern or concerns to his
;-                  management, either on " deficiency paper" (i.e, nonconformance reports, deficiency reports, etc.), by              )
l
                  . documenting the concern in memoranda to supervision, by raising the concern orally to site supervision, or by taking the concern to the site SAFETEAM or the NRC.
: b. The concern of the client was not resolved to her satisfaction. This may have been because of inaction on the          )
1 issues the      raised, fears  of theorclient.
action on the concern that did not ally        )
I
: c. The client then began to suffer some sort of reprisal as result of having raised the concern, or is fearful of            4 suffering a reprisal if he pushes the concern.                    .
I
      ,-          d. The client, believing that she had a duty to insure that        I' she does everything in her power to insure that the public health and safety is protected, retained GAP attorneys to get her concerns into the hands of individuals that will put        i the ultimate issue - the protection of the public -at the          :
L forefront of resolution of the issues of concern to the client.
: 5. Acting on the requests of our clients we began a series of contacts with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to establish an avenue for our clients to ccme to the NRC, present their information, protect their confidentiality, and be assured that their concerns would be investigated by officials that would indewd put their obligation to tne public health and safety first.
(See, generally correspondence between Billie Pirner Garde and Victor Stello attached to this affidavit.)                              t 6.
  '                      Our criteria to insure that our clients interests were          !
protected and their goals were accomplished was to insure that              I l
l s
l I
 
          ,  p . ;_ .3  ;;: 3 :: E-'  . .: .- 2; 13.                            ,- -
1 i
independent and competent NRC employees peccess the allegations            '
t 0'            according to the DRAFT MANUAL CHAPTER 0517, " Management of Allegations," which we recognize and understand to be the policy of the agency for processing allegations.    (Although we recognise i            that the manual chapter has some weaknesses we acknowledge that it is the current policy of the agency regarding allegations.)
: 7. Mr. Stello has steadfastly refused to discuss our r            clients concerns and has rejected any attempts I have made to come up with an arrangement that resolves the needs of all of the 4
tiisglifJillAsli tBijamAllhel s                  108391111FillBI,m ,
resource intensive effort.
1
: 8. Mr. Stello's position as detailed in his letter does not acknowledge the restraints within which he and I are operating.
Ii          2 have been zetained to insure that my clients information la l
properly and thoroughly investigated and that their current and future employment interests are not endangered.
1                      9. Mr. Stallo's duties and responsibilities, according to        l q
the March, 1986, version of Manual chapter 0517, section 031, is to                                                                      I I                  Set policy and procedures for the receipt, processing, control, and disposition of allegations in conjunction with the Director of OI...(and) implement policy for protecting the identity of those who provide information to the NRC.
: 10. It is important to underscore the fact that the clients that have come to me have come voluntarily because they have a l
sincere concern about the improper resolution of a safety related          l l
concern, and have no confidence that direct contacts with the            I I
I            e
(
i
 
XERoy TE.E00 PIER 295 ;    5-;3-57: 2: 17 AM: 414 731 7561                      + 2026253473 : *4 1
j 8          $ Y 29 '87 12:1~ #"E ETC''.u! 414 731 E51                                        .P.4 7
                                                                                                          )
g(          agency will provide them the assurances needed to justify the                              )
risk they are taking with their careers and reputations,
: 11. It is fair to state that the current situation at South
;            . Texas is a direct result of the repeated violations by Region IV's of the NRC's own policies and regulations. ( See, para. 37 to 40, and see attached Memorandum in Support of the Motion to Quash and Petition of the Government Accountability Project Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206.)
: 12. It is critical that the Commission acknowledge that i.
there are consequences attached to having a single inspector, or an entire region, that has lost the faith of the public as a result of the conduct and regulatory record of the Region. In this case the actions of Region IV over the pasr decade have I(
destroyed its credibility.                                                                  {
: 13. It is irrelevant to a resolution of the current issue                        {
1 whether the past inappropriate actions of Region IV inspectors or managers were a result of deliberate misfeasance or gross                                  j i
incompetence. The damage to the public interest by an improper                              !
investigation and " resolution" of our clients concerns plus the                            j l
damage to our clients financial well being, personal reputation or career opportunities will most likely be significant. We have no choice but to fully advise our clients of the risks associated I
with reliance on Region IV employees to comply with NRC rules, regulations, or practices in the conduct of an investigation.
: 14. As delineated below by way of example the consequences t
of NRC malfeasance can be catastrophic. Some employees never i
recover from the personal, emotional, and financial havoc caused i
: u. .;. ;n                    j- -
        ,f e w i e._e..s 4 c-
                  % 29 . s
                                        -r-a .n u,.    ., :.- :.
o ,, ,., . ,,
3
    . {'.          in'their lives by providing information to a government agency in
                  . good faith and becoming, essentially, the " target" of a government investigation.              For example,
: s. If an employee is contemplating bringing suit against his 0                          employer for illegal discrimination, violation of the policy exemption to the at-will doctrine, defamation, public Intentional interference with contract, or other causes of action, a negative NRC report presents an additional complication and expense to a client. Frequently the consequences of a negative report present an ev:,dentiary burden that cannot be overcome because of the lack of resources available to an employee to oppose the NRC's technical      conclusions NRC's inadequate          work or because of the taint created by the effort.
e
: b. This is 'ven      more true if the NRC is attempting to reach a determination on the central discrimination issue, that
            .              is, was the employee harassed and/or intimidated because of his engaging in protected activity as defined by the Act.
: c. Protecting the interests of the employees at nuclear plants of Brown  in Texas and Rootis made
: v. even more complicated by the holding i
which hol3s~that eliiployees are not protected under SectionDonovan,        ,
210 of the Act unless they have contacted a competent organ of government with their concerns and have initiated a
                          " proceeding" under the Act. Additionally, under state common law, in order for an employee to prevali on a wrongful discharge tort theory she must prove that refusing to                        ,
violate a federal or state law /or following a federal or                    j state law in violation of direct orders to the contrary was the " sole reason" for the termination.
: d. The NRC investigations and inspections are not the results of a legal proceeding in which both the worker and the alleged offender are given an opportunity to present their evidence under rules of discovery in front of a neutral decision maker with technical competence and engineering experience and judgement.
: a. If the inspector is incompetent, succumbs to time or political pressure, violates the confidences of the witness, or engages in other " shortcuts" to eliminate the employees concerns the consequences of his efforts are often l
catastrophic for individual employees.
4                        15. Additionally, there is no avenue for appeal and review of NRC findings which may be damaging to the employee.              As a f
i
 
4tacx ic_E;;s Ee ::-:    . E-ar--n J =
* 414 C E        +
my z3 s 12:;5 s:LEt:N. - 4:4 721 5El a: cmc 3;,3 P.6 F I
I practical matter there is no adequite means for an employee to be compensated if NRC officials violate his confidentiality or impugn his integrity or competence.
16.
I                          As a result of the situation as described above GAP attorneys have an obligation to advise employees who contact us for legal advice regarding how to proceed in insuring their allegations are properly investigated and protecting themselves from further reprisals and retaliation.
in    s.  .i
                                                    -----------a-  =66susers represent generally two types of employees - those who originally trusted the system with their concerns and are now engaged in fighting the reprisals against them, or those who have information that they want revealed to competent government officials without endangering their professional lives and careers.
18.
Our representation is formalized by either a written attorney-client relationship between the employee and myself or another attorney or based on a clear understanding between the employee and the attorney in connection with the representation A copy of the standard attorney-client representation form used for these workers is attached to this affidavit. (Attachment 1) 19.
Our obligation under the agreement is very clear We.
t may not, without our clients approval, provide either the identity of the clients or any information to che NRC. ( See, p.
2 of the agreement.)
20.
t We may not provide the information to Region IV of the t
NRC for the purposes of the investigation of the concerns (See,  .
                                                  ~6-l l
l U
 
m..,..        .
            -w 23. 37 ;;:;9 :::_!: :1....: .:;- ;;  33;                        - --- ; - . o I: -                                                                                  P. n r
    ,          p. 3 of the agreement.)
t
: 21. We may not provide the information to the current Executive Director of Operations, Victor Stello, Jr., for investigation. ( 588, p.4 of the agreement.)
22.
We have, since January 1987, attempted to fulfill our obligation to our clients by obtaining a competent, non-Region IV, investigation / inspection commitment by the NRC.
: 23. On January 20, 1987, we announced our preliminary investigation of STNP a31 %ations through a letter to the State of Texas AttM ney General's office and to Mr. Stello. We requested that the NRC provide an independent inspection effort 1            to review our clients' allegations. (See, attachment 2) 24.
Within a week officials at Houston Power and Light responded to our letter, not even addressed to them, indicating a desire to work with us in investigating allegations that were provided to us. Subsequent correspondence and discussions with BP&L, unfortunately, did not prove productive. (Correspondence                          I
{
between myself and HP&L ic provided as Attachment 9 a g.)                              l
: 27. On February 18, 1987, Mr. Stallo responded to our concerns about Region IV's inability to conduct an independent and competent investigation by advising us of the following:
The South Texas Project is within the jurisdiction of Region                    I the concerns oIVyour and clients.
that Re ion is the appropriate organization to review {
t IV will properly pursue this responsibility.I have confidence that Region contact with Mr. Robert D. Martin, Regional Administrator have been in for Region IV, and he assures me that his ataff is thoroughly prepared to commit the resources required to
' g appropriately resolve the issues with your clients migh                          3 i              this matter should be directed to Mr. Martin in Region IV.'                      '
                                                                                                )
 
xEROM TELECCPIER 3M ;                : :r .. e -v w. 4;4 Li  ;,,3 202s2sso73 ; g, 4~          rV;Y 29 '87 II:I? #F# LIT.hW: 4;4 M-75n P.1/7
            ~(See, Attachment 3) g(
: 28. On March 4, 1987, I responded to Mr. Stello's blind vote of confidence in Region IV.
I referenced a long history of 3rnblems with neoinn TV.inspeerinn efenre,e.ihinh r .m anneiaon.
t Mr. Stallo is well aware and again requested an independent investigation for our clients concerns.( see, Attachment 4)
: 29. On March 18, 1987, Mr.-Stello      affirmed his previous position and urged me to bring forth "any information" I have on deficiencies at STNP that would have a bearing on nuclear safety to NRC or MPEL - or advise our clients to do so. (See, Attachment 5.)
: 30. On March 23, 1987, I again requested that Mr. Stello address directly my request for an independent individual or task i
force to investicar.n the c.nneerne haine rai..a hu anc a14aa*..
(See, Attachment 6.)
: 31. On April 6, 1987, HP&L officials wrote and informed me that they were "taking steps to request appropriate government officials to obtain from you or your organization information a
which could potentially affect the safety of the south Texas Project." (See, Attachment 99)
: 32. On April 8, 1987, Mr. Stello, who upon information and belief, responded to HP&L's plea for assistance, placed me under direct threat of legal action if I did noe provide the information to the agency within 30 days. (see, Attachment 7.)
as. un at Asast enroe occasions in March and April, 1987, I i          initiated conversations with Mr. Tom Rehm of the Executive 4      Director's office to explain our legal obligations and our
                                                          -g-1
 
m ..        ,e.:...e  e-  n.      ; : :..      ~~. a.- .v ,=n        ,                      l
                                                                                              .v.e w ., ; 2 \
3                      rs. 29 '8    12:21 33*L~~:: 1.: 214 731 ~iil                                F.2 -  l I
l 1.6....L 1.. v.w.totuw muse == 6v sne wurners ano eneir information            1 3                                                                                                          l to an independent and competent team or individual within the NRC. The conversations apparently bora no fruit, althcugh I was t a .. ....... suas ns. nunm          anu possio2y ocners, woula aiscuss o
the general nature of the allegations and inform me of the                        )
I agency's decision regarding an avenue for processir g of the allegations.                                                                      !
: 34. As the facts demonstrate I have spent six months I
attempting to get the NRC to act responsibly regarding our clients.
Our obligations to our clients have not changed. We an.> .4eh., pr vide                                                                l th.= utsk . ..mrS t... L ww...u uc                    i
{
investigablon to assure them that their safety concerns will be l
properly addressed or we must remain silent and not endanger the                    '
      ;                safety of the public bl allowing an improper investigation to                      I permit cover up of safety problems and to net endanger their professional fvture and their source of income and reputation.
35.
There is substantial reason to douc't        that, if Region IV officials were given the responsibility of the investigation into 1
our clients concerns that the ef fort would be conducted in accordance with CHAPTER KANUAL 0517 manual.
                                    . . unw ww mas auners encaselves nave perhaps the best                1 knowledge of the basis of our belief regarding Region IV
                                                                                                            )
officials because they alone are the recipients of all of the                        i various reports, investigations, and inquiries conducted over the years by the Commission staff into Region IV fiascost              (A mote l
complete list is provided in the 2.206 Petition filed today by
:                GAP on this issue, however, the following example is included to
                                                                -g_
l
 
                                                                                      ~.e....- .. ..
e.g ;3 5; :::II 4 :Lc e .o: 414 721-755; 0                                                                                              P. F7 1
demonstrate that Region IV has not learned from its errors.)
0
: 37. In october, 1983, the NRC's Office of Inspector and Auditor (OIA) finished two investigations of charoes of impropriety of certain Region IV officials at                the Comanche Peak g        plant.
In a January 3, 1984, memo from then EDO Nilliam J.
Dircks to Chairman Palladino on the OTA reperra ni re ke ,faf' ended Region IV's actions in:
: 1) not determining the full extent of an allegors allegations because "at that time it appears to have been reasonable not to have contacted allegations to the press of a cove the            a
[r up.llegor)      despite his e that contact desirable ht,would no<:411ndslaht MSEld hays                .
oed the ultimate findinos on the matter."likely M
{
i 2) regarding the allegations, noting that " ,defended            with the Region IV's re advantaos u.. m.7...sa of  h.,2 hindsieht,    one  u. could un        say clon  IVM.- M ggyJ"speo attention to the matter and to_..wGTTr m
                .a g      ...r-                      ukohyond a review j
vrJ....., gi                                              one actionsTRecton J.Vfacoe,yuu    ar t,o,, Es rea.. toft .      26 e          une sonable'~aiid correct. "
3) inspector R.G. Taylor in not conductinacknowledged                            the impropriet investigation" in IER 50-445/82-14. an              a " thorough indicated that ar allecod~3er!.cmenelis _tg E siiTReeintend to emphasize the ne avoid repet,.t:.on or these pr55 Tens.ional~Adminiatratori"~to 4) identity by stating that "... JNRexplained v                                        policy Jo              away the triple breach less ggn clear coIIcy reolons.-        in 1980in and  not executed similarily inconfidentiality UiIs m . 4 o.        n a ...... A37    rmir                      reviewed    Ilid allecers $ reoard to, confidentiality gg rulfilled."
_    =        ons  or (All emphasis is added) 38 i
There is substantial basis for our clients' position and our own professional opinion that neither Mr. Stello or Region IV are competent government officials capable of I
conducting an inspection of worker allegations at the south Texas 4
 
c.m i s.. : . - . :. -          a.  .  .... . . .. . - , , .  . .  . . , ,  ,
                                                                                                      "'''''44    *4 FA 29 5 IDII #35 E~:'
                                                        ! 4:4 I: I 1 I                                                                                                            P.4 7 plant in accordance with NRC Chapter Manuel 0517, Processing of g
I' Allegations.
39.
The basis for the opinions of our clients is a variety of experiences and impressions formed by tne actions of Region IV l-inspectors responsible for the plant.
: 40. One of my clients, Mr. John Hodge, has authorized me to include the fol19 Wing examDlt as the latest demonstration of Region IV's insensitivity, incompetence, and refusal to follow NRC's own chapter manual instructions regarding allegations.                                            l 1
(The example is already on the public record.)                                                          (
: a. On November 22, 1986, John Hodge filed, pro se, a complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor against ERAsco alleging that he had been discriminated against for going to SAFMEAM and for disagreeing with his management over violations of site criminal laws, federal rules and site procedures. Mr. Bodge also claimed that he had only recently i                            become aware of his rights under Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act, and that there was no copy of the law nnered snuwhere nn *he ri*a ensilshia ha kd-
: b. The U.S. Department of Labor rejected his complaint because it was not flied within 30 days of the discriminatory act.                                                                    1 c.
app. On1 4December        22, 1986,we sh. aet...an.ci...          on behalf of Mr.
Lt.. w.w ...a Hodges, I avus olvi.tvu.
: d. On February 6, 1987, there was a conference call between the law Judge. yer for EBASCO, myself, and the Administrative Law During that conference call it was decided that before any litigation would be commenced on the merits of bethedecided.
discrimination complaint that a preliminary issue had to The first issue was whether or not Mr. Bodges had      constructive the aernal on.rino.      knowledge na es. une    of the    Act by a determination of om.. 2 3. .w. .t ..
was no written order memorializing this issue, s.
On April 28, 1987, the Region IV Allegations Coordinator wrote to Mr. modges and informed him that Region IV had conducted an investigation into his technical concerns and concluded that they were not substantiated. The only i                        concern addressed by Region IV was the single issue in the proceeding, Form 3's had that    beenisposted.
                                                          - whether or not the NRC believed that
(
                                                                  ~11-1
 
              'z? 87 iizi /J:LE :h 4 4;; 731 ~E5;                                F'-
1
: f. No NRC inspector, investigator, or coordinator had~ever interviewed Mr. Hodges.        Region IV had absolutely no idea.'of 0 - (' -          the proof that Mr. Hodges had himself gathered to demonstrate that the Form 3's.were not, in fact, posted.            l 1
: g. Region IV also completely ignored the technical allegations raised initially in Mr. Hodges complaint 0
regarding. wrongdoing issues and his safety-related concerna.
: h. They completely ignored, either deliberately'or because b  =$ Is @ lkil IO@ H li'95AtOE M [GI T le@ rl !* *'
determine issues, proof, evidence, and any thing to substantiate the concerns.
0
: 1. The inspector, R.G. Taylor, is the same inspector              4 previously inspections.
cited by OIA for conducting inadequate Apparently Mr. Dircks lessons from hindsight were not communicated to Mr. Taylor, or already forgotten.
(see, paragraph 37 (3), supra.)
: 41. Susequent. communications between myself and Region IV has not produced any remedy, (See, Attachments 8 a-d for a record of the correspondence on this example.)                              '
(
: 42. Mr. Stello has steadfastly stood behind Mr. Martin and saoinn TV nefletale the.ueheut th mee= d . v. . , t i .. , .,14..... we slaconduct, imprudence, incompetence, and dereliction of duties.
According to Mr. Stello's testimony before the senate hearing and his May 1, 1987 letter, to Senator John Glenn, Mr. Stallo was concerned with the " morale" of the people in Region IV. It is my personal belief that he was referring to the same people that OIA had concluded were quilty of years of ignoring quality issues at Costanche Peak, and whose names figure prominently in each of the CIA inventinations refere=A        *a ia sht. n a t.. .  . . . 2s, confident that Mr. Ste11o's concern did not run to the morale of the issapeuturs who had been sentenced to bureaucratic Siberia as a result of trying to do their job.          I base my opinion, in part, C
i
 
          , XEROX TELEcopiER -295 +,
g.29.s7: 2:24 AN;  414 701 7861          0 2026283473 1 06                      ,
O                    ry:rt 29 '87 12:24      --'
                                                                                                                                              .]
1 1
g I.                    nn th, fy r char w p .11e initially ayy
                                                    ,                            ve. . mer.ata,., t,, _ ,
                                                                                                                                              ]
for Region IV official Tom Westerman, only to pull it back at the                                                      {
i
  . <                  insistence of CIA, and because Mr. Stello had recommended another                                                      !
l s
senior Region'IV official, Mr. Paul Check, implicated by the Region IV investigations and the history of ignoring quality
                    , problems at-Region IV plants, for a promotion to a senior staff
                                                                                                                                              )
position in Washington.                                                                                                1
: 41.                                                                                                            ]
Mr. Stallo's public and private support of Region IV's
                    -worst offenders and his failure'to take any corrective action i
regarding the agency employees who have actively engaged in                                                            d
                      ,.nnAnr.e twee,to a vt.1.sa.a .a unc .                1.c1    . .ud pseuciuvu sa understandable only if he in fact condones the activity.
: 42. As a result of.Mr. Stallo's repeated failure to i            demonstrate any acknowledgement of the NRC's own regulations                                                              i regarding the processing of allegations and interfacing with l                    allegers, while at the same time being the de_ facto operative of the utility from which our clients need protection, we have no choice but to comply with our professional obligation to our clients        and protect them from the NRC.
: 43.                                                                                                              I I am confident that the commissioners themselves will                                                    !
see the dilemma i em in s a d e - ... t d . L i= .      .2:... 61-..  .. 2--        .s provided by the Director of Licensing when a similar probles arose in early 1984 regarding the Waterford and Comanche Peak plants.
44 It is important that the Commission realize that I am very anxious for the resolution of this issue and look forward to 4        turning the investigative responsibility of the concerns of my t
i                                                                                                _ _ _ _      _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
 
            ^Lw ita::wita a.            .    - - .                        ,  ,,      ,
                                                                                                *<* .:;4 3 , a7 ]
j                  PSY 29 '87 12:15 AFF'_U:0.o! J;a 73;. gg;                                        v. n    l g gne, en ,nmristan* une .*nre m.mber. ow. h.c. ..... .....a ..
I i
integrity and fairness, and will abide by Chapter Manual 0517.
(The Chepter Manual is attached to this affidavit as Attachment 10.) However, I must comply with the restrictions that my L., ,
citents have put me and other GAP attorneys under regarding their I*'
                #' individual concerns.
  =s4 -
g              [                    ]
  ;                                                        b            4 T d a. _ 9 =_  1 .se Billie Pirner Garde, Esquire i
l t
Subscribed and sworn to me this                                                            l I
i
  ',i..
29th day of Ma                .
1
                                                                  ..                                            )
                  /                        .              @                                                  l Outagami        County, Wisconsin uuns,,
.s                              p?
                                % . Jt),,%                                                                      .
( 9NOTAity u    - ..
                                      ~ ig*.
l'      g$. i e,,L                  E PUBLfC /
f l$$'y3'*f* k{$
                                % uw**
l l
1 (I
l I
l
 
I                                                                  mm -
                                                                  ~ Attachnent #1 I                            REPRESENTATION AGREEMENT 3-(Client), residing at hereby agree to retain the Government Accountability Project (GAP) to perform legal services                                1 and represent me in the matter of my allegations regarding problems at the South Texas Nuclear Project (STNP). For the S
purposes of this agreement these services do not include litigation, unless specifically stated, or provided for in a i
previous or' subsequent written agreement.
1.
;                  Staff Attorneys Billie Pirner Garde and Richard E.
condit will be responsible for representing the Client in this matter.
The Client will accept the representation of other members of the GAP staff as deemed appropriate.      The Client 0k authorizes the responsible staff attorneys to do all things reasonably necessary or desirable to ensure that the concerns of the Client regarding the STNP will be investigated by competent 0
government officials.
These services shall be rendered gro. bono.
The Client agrees that s/he will not waive any rights to recover attorneys' fees if provided for by statute or regulation.
3 2.
The Client understands that GAP will keep the identity of the Client and the information provided regarding the South Texas Nuclear Project confidential. GAP will only release the Client's identity or information with the oral or written f
approval of the Client.
However, the Client understands that once his/her identity or information is released to any source, i
GAP will no longer be responsible for maintaining the Client's
{
1 Representation Agreement 3.t    Page Two confidentiality. GAP will not be responsible for maintaining the
$      confidentiality of Client once the client discloses his/her information or identity to any other person.
: 3. GAP understands that the Client does not want Region IV g      of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to investigate this matter due to the Client's belief that Region IV officials are incompetent or unwilling to investigate the Client's concerns.
g          4. GAP understands that the Client does not want Victor Stello, Jr. (NRC, Executive Director for Operations) to investigate or participate in an investigation or review of j      his/her allegations. It is the belief of the Client and GAP that Mr. Stello approves of Region IV's actions.
: 5. GAP understands that it is the Client's goal to have
                    ~
: g. her/his allegations properly and fully investigated by a competent governmental body.
: 6. GAP will advise the Client of the results of any g
investigation into the Client's allegations as the results become available.
: 7. The Client is retaining GAP in this matter because s/he is sincerely concerned about violations of regulations and/or procedures at the STNP. To the best of the Client's knowledge, all of the information provided to GAP is known by STNP l
management or has been raised through proper channels.
l4
    ;      8. The Client agrees to cooperate fully with the l                                  !                                                                    -- _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
 
)
l Representation Agreement                                                                        1 I
Page Three
}-
responsible' staff attorneys and to respond promptly to telephone calls and correspondence. Client agress to promptly notify the
)
responsible-staff attorney of any change in home or work address or telephone' number. Client authorizes GAP and its attorneys to review any and all files and records, wheresoever situated, in 1
the conduct of this representation.
Client acknowledges receipt of a copy of this agreement.
)
Client                                                      1 0- [ -  Dated:                                                                                            l Accepted on Behalf of the Government Accountability Project                                                                !
0-                                                                                                        !
by:
Louis Clark Executive Director J-3 1        (079a03)                                                                                          I l ;
1 l
I 9
 
j 0
                                                                                          ^**        hment # 2 GOVEANMENT ACCOUNTABluTY PROKCT                                                                    J 1555 Connecncer Avenue NW., bre 202 Woshington, D.C. 20036                                          (202)232-8550                    j 0~                                                                                                                      !
January 20, 1987 Victor Stello, Executive Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                                                          {
Washington, D.C. 20555                                                                      j 0
James Mattox Attorney General for the State of Texas Supreme Court Building 14th & Colorado Austin, Texas 78711 Re:    South Texas Nuclear Pro;ect
 
==Dear Messrs. Stello and Mattox:==
 
i This letter is to inform your respective agencies that the Gov'ernment Accountability Project (CAP) has formally begun preliminary investigat on into worker allegations at the South Texas nuclear project.
Since 1980, GAP has played a significant role in advocating 0,                        on behalf of whistleblewers and concerned citizens on issues
              '            involving safety-related proolems at various nuclear power facilities. Our approach to nuclear power tas been steadfastly the same      to ensure that the government ent::ces the nuclear safety laws and regulat: ns.
As a result of GAP's efforts (alone or in concert with other organizations) to expose safety-related problems, the construct:en and/or cperation of several nuclear 0                          Power facilities -- previously thought to be fit to operate --
were cancelled or postponed for further review.      The cancelled facilities include the 98 percent ecmpleted Zinmer nuclear power plant and the 85 percent comple.ted Midland plant. Those which were postponed for further review incluce tne Comanche Peak.
Three Mile Island, Diable Canyon, and Waterf:rd fac lities.
O GAP currently either represents or :s sor<:ng w:th approximately 36 current and/or f ormer empi yees of the South Texas project. The allegations from the wor <ers range from grand theft of nuclear grade steel to engineering defects in several major safety components.      The allegations concern the failure Of 9
Houston Light & Power to guarantee subcontractor compliance with industry and federal safety requirements, including but not limited to: defects in tne instrumentation and control division:
defects and lack of compliance with federal regulations in the heating, ventilating, and air conditioning system lack of compliance with quality standards in the area of soils y                          compaction; failure to ecmplete required QA or QC documentation; falsification of required QA or QC documentation; and harassment i                and intimidation of persennel who attempt to adhere to federal safety standards.
io
 
J
            )
:i
          -                              January 20, 1987 - Page Two 1
i Additionally [ and of specific concern to the. State of Texas, there are allegations that ine.'ude deliberate actions of some of the subcontractors at STP to overcnarge Hcuston Light & Power for goods          and services py " charging of f" the.r own unacceptable work to Brown & Root, I nte .
There is also information which suggests I                                    that subcontractors h6ve fraudulently charged STP for manhours not worked, and for portions cf the project which were not completed as c'laimed.                                                        i l
                                                                                                                    )
GAP fa' currently conduct:rg :nterviews with both current and former workers who are ecccerned about the South Texas project.
(                                GAP investigators are accepting calls from workers at our Washington, D.C. office and our Midwest office.
iesusOnce            our preliminary  investigation is complete, we plan to    1 a formal public report. Unfortunately, in the interim, we j
carm'ot advise our clients or those we work with to provide their I
concerns to the Region IV office of the NRC.                Our experience has been (and recently released internal agency reports confirm)                that the Arlington office is either unable or unwilling to comply with its regulatory requirements as outlined in governing agency procedures.
Thus, unless the NRC is willing to provide independent I(                              inspectors to process the allegations pursuant to internal "RC regulations, GAP will provide the allegations directly to the state Attorney General office, and/or to the appropriate
* congressional committees, and/or to otner regulatory or municipal bodies which have an interest in ensuring nat the South Texas
(
plant is designed, constructed, and financed in a manner that protects the public.
Please direct any inquiries about CAP's Scuth Texas investigation to kichard Condit, Staff Atterney Investigator, 202-232-8550, or Billie Garde. GAP M:dwest Off.ce, 414-730-8533.
(                                                                                S;ncere;y, B:llie Pirner Garde Direc:or, Midwest Office it l
Richard Condit Staff Attorney g                            cc:                  Chairman Lando Zech BG/RC:C30 4
 
..                                                                                                          e.              i h                          ,, 4                                                                            - Attachment #3
          /*                                                            UNITED STATES
['.\
g a
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHING TON. O C 20555 4
s                      j                                                                            l 0 ( . n . .'. . . / .
:r ;. a n67 Docket No. 50-498 s
Ms. Billie Pirner Garde Mr. Richard Condit Government Accountability Project Suite 202 1555 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
 
==Dear Ms. Garde and Mr. Condit:==
 
I as in receipt of your January 20, 1987 letter directed to me and the Attorney General of Texas. Your letter describes investigative activities you plan to      1 undertake relative to allegations you have received from approximately 36 current and/or former employees of the South Texas Project. Your letter also identified the general nature of some of these allegations which appear to        '
fall within the safety and regulatory responsibilities of the Nuclear Regulatory Commiission. Your letter also states that you cannot advise your clients to provide their concerns to the Region IV office of NRC. You assert that your experience has been that Pegion IV does not comply with its requirements as outlined in agency procedures. Moreover, you demand + bat unless NRC provides other inspection personnel to process these allegatfors, you plan to provide those allegations to other individuals or organizations.
The South Texas Project is within the jurisdiction of Region IV and that Region l                                        is the appropriate organization to review the concerns of your clients. I have confidence that Region IV will properly pursue this responsibility. I have been in contact with Mr. Robert D. Martin, Degional Administrator for Region IV, and he assures me that his staff is thoroughly prepared to comit the resources required to appropriately resolve the issues which your clients i                                    might raise.
As you are aware NRC is the responsible ferieral agency for ensuring that        I safety significant issues are addressed where appropriate. Therefore, I          l i
urge you to bring forth promptly, or advise your clients to do se, to NRC or Houston Lighting and Power, any information you have on deficiencies which would have a bearing on nuclear safety. To retain them until your own report is prepared and published would not be in the best interests of assuring the    i prompt resolution of legitimate safety concerns.
l l
t
,i i
 
  ).
                - Multiple Addressees                                                          '-
I(;
Anv further communications you may have regardina this matter should be directed
                            ~
to Mr. Martin in Region IV,
)                                                                                          Sincerely,
                                                                                            $,'  ., (,    bY        .
Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations cc:                The Honorable James Mattox Attorney General State of Texas Austin, Texas 78711 9
                      .        __m__.__    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _
 
;g Attachment #4        -
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT 1555 ConnechCur Avenue. N W. Sune 202 g "loshington. D.C. 20036                                              (202)232-8550 4
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT MIDWEST OFFICE 3424 MARCOS LANE APPLETON, WISCONSIN          54911
.g_                                                March 4, 1987 Victor Stello Executive Director Operations
  ,              U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 RE:  South Texas Investigation
 
==Dear Mr. Stello,==
 
Your letter of February 18, 1987 regarding our South Texas investigation states that any futher communications regarding South Texas should be directed to Mr. Bob Martin, Regional Administrator.
Your letter also urges us to bring forth any issues regarding safety to Region IV promptly.
Given the history of incompetence in Region IV regarding
              ' issues of nuclear safety and the more recent evidence of impro-priety in Region IV I am surprised that you would continue to advise regional us  to take allegations of nuclear safety to your present management.      Your professed faith in the Regional management can only be bureaucratic posturing, as I seriously doubt whether even you can ignore the seriouness of the impro-prieties  confirmed by the office          in the recent of Inspector          and continuning investigation and Auditor.
.(
Mr. Stello, the operation    inat some IV Region  point  you must to insure  thatassume  responsibliity for the public health and safety'around the Region IV facilities is protected. You apparently are willing to sacrifice that assurance in order to give the public appearance of support for Mr. Martin et.al. Your error in judgement is incredible.        Within the past 18 months we have seen evidence and testimony of the improper release of a draft lt            inspection report on the Sequoyan Fuels Corporation fatal accident to Kerr-McGee officals, the harassment and intimidation of resident inspectors, the deletion items from inspection reports, the improper manipulation and/or release of inspection report results to enchance the possibility of licensing, the destruction of documents, the failure to comply with statutory requirements under it I            the Freedom of Information Act, the failure to properly investigate f
allegations of engineering, technical or hardware deficiencies at reactors in Region IV, the release of confidentiality of site employees that have come forward with concerns, the cooperation i
L-__----------      -
 
l
)
with utility officals to 'liscredit whistleblowers, and a total I
disregard for public accountability.
For all of the above reasons we would be irresponsible if we' led more whistleblowers blindly to the slaughterhouse of your Arlington office.
l At some point you must choose between                                  l protecting  and defending the public health            the egos of your staff and protecting and safety.
l4 citizens to do the later. We will  You are paid by the taxaayers and the former.                            not participate in your doing I hope you are able to find an independent team to review the South Texas allegations.                                                                          4 Sincerely, Billie Pirner Garde                                              )
1 i
4-1 i
i 7                                                                                                                          !
l cs cc:  James Mattox                                                                                  .
Attorney General State of Texas w/end. OIA Report 86-10
)
 
o                                                                  M'hg . = h
)
1'      [pe arc ''*,l      '                          UNITED STATES
                                                                                                  ~ Attachment #5
    'I* .1                                      NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
i e                    wAsm NG TON. D. C. 20555
\      *.
f l
            %, . . . . #                                          MAR ! 01987
)f Ps. Billie Pirner Garde Government Accountability Prniar*
1555 Connecticut Avenue. NW, Suite '02 Washington, DC 20036
 
==Dear Ms. Garde:==
 
I have received your letter o' March 4,1987        It prompts me to remind you that NRC is the responsible federal agency for ensuring that safety significant views are aporopria*.ely addresseri. I therefore urge you to brina forth promptly any thfomatice wou have on deficiencies which would have a bearing on nuclear safety to NPC v to Hnuston Lighting and Power - or advite your clients to do so.
To withhold such information would not be in the best interests of assuring the prompt resolution of legitimate safety concerns.
Sincerely,
                                                                            ~        N
                                                                                  ~",.
Victor Ste114, Jr.,
Executive Director for Operations i,
 
g                                                                                                        Attachment #6 GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT -
1555 Connecncut Avenue. N.W. Suire 202 V shingron. D.C. 20036                                                                          (202)232-8550 f0    MIDWEST OFFICE l
l-    104 E. WISCONSIN AVENUE APPLETON, WISCONSIN                                      54915-8605 March 23, 1987 q
Victor Stello, Jr.
l Executive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i0 Washington, D.C. 20555 RE:  South Texas Investigation
 
==Dear Mr. Stello,==
 
4                                                Your letter of March 18, 1987 sidestepped the issue of whether or not you are going to appoint an individual or a task force from NRC's Washington office to accept and/or investigate allegations concerning the safety of the South Texas Project.
We are very concerned about the safety allegations known to 0'                                          us. We are so concernedthat we intend to insure that they are properly investigated.
We do not believe that Region IV is either capable or willing to do that type of investigation.      Please advise.
g                                                                              Sincerely,
                                                                            -            sN-      O f Billie Pirner Garde                                            j 0
cc:    Richard condit I
cs                                                                                                !
i 0                                                                                                                                            ,
I 1  t
                                                                                                                                              )
D                                                                                                                                              l
 
0
    ~ /pe aa:,, 'c,                                                                    Atta ch:nent 47 UNITED STATES
[.
3 NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D. C 20665 I                                                                              \
g I
                .                                        April 8, 1987 I                    Ms. Billie Pirner Garde Government Accountability Project 1555 Connecticut Avenue, W. Suite 202 Washington, DC 20036
 
==Dear Ms. Garde:==
1 1
0 I have received your letter of March 23, 1987. I accept your characterization of the allegations you have in hand as bearing on the safety of the S. Texas Nuclear Power Plant in a significant way..
                ~
                    '! urge you to bring these issues to NRC for our review. As to where and how I                    within NRC they will be addressed is my responsibility. Assignment within NAC      )
will be governed by the nature of the allegations. I can assure you they will i
be handled properly, both in regard to technical review and in regard to confidentiality.                                                                    i i
By the nature of significant safety issues, they must be addressed promptly, I
s Your letters imply that you have had this information for some time.                  i Therefore, if we do not receive full information on the allegations within 30      j days we will be constrained to take steps to acquire it by other means.
I Sincerely,                                ~
J                    i
                                                              /. As. &74' Vi    r Etello,  ,
Executive Director for Operations                          j l
(
)
)                                                                                                        ,
1 l
 
    -m-,,-~      - - . -
)
                          ' " %s                  UNITED STATES                    - Attachment #Ba
                                ; e,  NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION b '4
                                    $                REGION IV -
611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE. SUITE 1000 ARLINGTON, TEXAS 79011
} {'          %,              ,
3' John H. Hodge Sr.
                                                                                        ,  ', 4f l
2917 3rd St.                                                  RECD,:,                    1 Bay City Tx 77414                                                                        )
l
 
==Dear Mr. Hodge:==
 
==Reference:==
Allegation No. 4-87-A-007 This refers to our inspections into your technical concerns regarding the South Texas Project.
g Our inspection regarding this matter has been completed and our findings are documented in the enclosed report. This concludes the Regional Staff's activities regarding this matter.
With regard to the violation of requirements identified during this inspection, HL&P is required to inforn us in w;iting of the corrective actions they have taken, or plan to take. Our inspectors will continue to observe such actions g (-          to ensure proper resolution. I assure you that we will follow up such actions thoroughly to ensure full compliance with regulatory requirements.
Should you find the term " unsubstantiated" in the inspection report, this does not necessarily mean that we find the facts as you stated them to be untrue; rather, it means only that we were unable to obtain objective evidence to 3
corroborate your statements through interviews, document reviews, and/or direct observation. The NRC has objectively reviewed your concerns which ensures our decisions and conclusions are based on fact, and that any action based on these facts can be legally enforced.
We have benefited from hearing about your concerns and feel that our actions in        i 9
this matter have been responsive to those issues. We take our safety responsibilities to the public very seriously and will continue to do so within the bounds of our lawful authority.
Sincerely, 9                                                                    .
                                                        ... k. /          -
1 Mark Emerson Allegations Coordinator I
0
 
==Enclosure:==
as stated                                                                  j i
j
!              cc: Allegation File                                                                    l l
l 1                                                                                                      1
 
)    .
APPENDIX 1
3                                          U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION REGION IV sec Inspection bport:      50-498/86-38          Construction Permits:    CPPR-128 50-499/86-38                                  CPPR-129 Docikets: . 50-498                              Category: A2 50-499 Licensee:    Houston Lighting & Power Company (HL&P)
P. O. Box 1700 l                              Houston, Texas    77001 Facillity Name: South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At:    South Texas Project, Matagorda County, Texas
}                Inspection Conducted:    November 17, 1986, through January 30, 1987 T
3b4//1
        ~
Inspectors:                    /
11                                R. G. ~TayJor, Reactor Inspector, Project          Dite/
Section C, Reactor Projects Branch 1        .                                laubv                                        s/n/rr W. M. Pcijtill, Reactor Inspector, Project          Dite/
Sectioh A, Reactor Projects Branch h          u/N W L. Kel]Eri, Senior Resident Inspector ddt?
IFat(
Nomanche Teak Task Group 7
Consultants:    J. Brammer, Mechanical Engineer, Energy Technology Engineering Center R. Hagen, Electrical Engineer, Energy Technology Engineering Center
]
t
)'
 
3 2                                          1 gI D
                                                                                                          )
G M able M Project Section C Reactor Projects Branch Tb/53 Dite /  /
Inspection Summary 0                                                                Inspection Conducted November 17, 1986, through January 30, 1987 (Report 50-498/86-38: 50-499/86-38)
                                                                ' Areas Inspected:      Routine, announced inspection of licensee actions on previous inspection findings, review of IE Bulletins and Circulars, followup on licensee reported significant construction deficiencies, inspection of electrical d                                                                components, and followup on allegations.
Results: Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were              I identified.    .                    .
l e(
0                                                                                                                                                    i
                                                                                                                                                      )
0 f
1 l
ll                                                                                                                                      ,
2 I
i 1
j
 
      .                                                                                                    l 0
l I                                                                                                            j 25
(
A review of the weld inspection records found all. inspectors were qualified as American Welding Society (AWS) welding inspectors as required. There was one exception when magnetic particle testing was l
i-performed during a repair. The magnetic particle testing was performed by a qualified nondestructive. testing inspector. This perturbation of the P                  normal process could appear to be bases for the allegation.
l                  The FCR in. question was revised and superseded by FCR EL-01149. The i                  changes were mostly editorial in character. The new FCR was closed in                    ;
i                  December 15, 1986, in accordance with standard procedures. This y                  allegation was not substantiated.                                                      1 i
l                  (Closed) Allegation 4-85-A-118
'                  This allegation was that Ebasco and Bechtel had falsified the qualifications records of an Ebasco inspector. The information was stated as hearsay in character. Attempts by the NRC to obtain direct and 4
detailed information have been unsuccessful. Neither the individual mor
                . identified associates were found to have presented this allegation to the SAFETEAM. The subject of this allegation has not been addressed by a i                  SAFETEAM investigation.      .                                                      _
The NRC inspector reviewed the qualification records that had been it                  allegedly falsified. There was verification of the information in the qualiff cation records by Ebasco. There did not appear to be any questionable information. Personnel department records were compared to the qualification records to see if there were any inconsistencies. This allegation was not substantiated.
                                                                                                            ,i (Closed) Allegation 4-87-A-007 I
                                                                                                            ]
This allegation is that information about filing discrimination complaints was unavailable to site craft persor.nel.
A tour of the site by the NRC inspectors found that the NRC Form 3 with directions on filing discrimination complaints with the Department of Labor was posted at numerous locations such as outside the NRC office. in the " Communications Center" near the north gate where most constructies workers exit and in the Ebasco personnel office. The NRC inspector has observed that these forms have been widely posted for the past several years. This allegation was not substantiated.
: 7. SAFETEAM Activities l                  SAFETEAM is a franchised management system implemented in Saptember 1984
!                  and supplied by contract from Syndeco, Inc. (Subsidiary of Detroit l                  Edison). The SAFETEAM program is described in the "SAFETEAM Instruction Manual." By the end of 1986 approximately 25,000 contacts had been made
! i l
6
 
em GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABluTY PROJECT                            Attachment #8b -
1555 Connecticut Aenue, N.W., Suite 202 I  'oshington, D.C. 20036                                        (202)232-8550 g
May 8, 1987                                      !
(
Robert D. Martin, Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region IV 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000                                                  ;
Arlington, Texas    76011                                                      ]
s RE:  Allegation No. 87-A-007
 
==Dear Mr. Martin,==
                                                              -j l'
Last week two of my clients received a letter from Mr.
i              Mark Emerson of your office. The letter included an excerpt from Insepction Report 50-498/499-38, dated March 26, 1987                        i and signed by Mr. R.G. Taylor.                                                    l The letter from Mr. Emerson states that it refers to "our inspections into your technical concerns regarding the t        South Texas Project." It goes on to conclude:
We have benefited from hearing about your concerns        .
and feel that our actions in this matter have been responsive to those issues. We take our safety responsibilities to the public very seriously and                        i will continue to do so within the bounds of our lawful authority.
This letter goes to new lengths in perverting the image of Region IV as a competent and unbias regulator.
I                    First, Mr. Emerson has never talked to or interviewed either Mr. Hodges or Mr. Garcia. He has no idea of whether they have any technical concerns or not, and if they do, he has no idea of what they are.      Second, the information that Mr. Hodges or Garcia had any concerns or problem with the g
South Texas project could have only come from Houston Light and Power or EBASCO, or through the SAFETEAM.      In either case it is clear that the version of facts that the NRC received has nothing to do with the facts as known to Messrs. Hodge and Garcia.
That might be of some concern to an inspector that had any commitment to a search for the truth or a respect for the accuracy of his work. Since the inspection report is signed by Mr.                      j 9              R.G. Taylor, however, we are not surprised that the conclusion                  !
is a statement that serves the utility regardless of the facts.
(
i l
1 l
 
l Robert D. Martin                                Page two 0'                      It was our experience with Mr. Taylor at Comanche Peak and Waterford that convinced us that the reliability of his conclusions on any subject werequestionable. Mr. Taylor has demonstrated a long history of resentment to employees who have any safety concerns and a penchant for releasing inspection report findings that bear no resemblance to the factual 6                matters that he was to investigate or inspect.
Neither the letter nor the inspection report are accurate or based on anything other than information provided by the utility. In this case we believe that the utility prompted the. entire issue in order to have an NRC finding to utilize 0                in the Department of Labor cases of Messrs. Garcia and Hodges.
Although we are not surprised by that either we are a bit offended that Region IV would write a letter with such blatantly false information.
I have already brought this matter to the attention of
.I                the Executive Director's office. I have also filed a Freedom of Information Act Request on this issue, a copy of which is enclosed for your office. Please process this FOIA as soon as it is received in your office.
Sincerely, 4 i \A-s    ,
Billie Pirner Garde Director, Mid-West Office g
cc:  V. Stello J. Hodges R. Garcia l
l l
i f'.
1 t
                                                                                  )
l l
J
 
G zummmmsmmissmusarma
        . GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT                                                      Attachment #8b '-
: 1555 Connecncut Avenue, N.W., Suite 202 -
[ . Washington. D.C. 20036                                                                          (202)202-8550 May 8, 1987 Robert D. Martin, Administrator U.S.: Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region IV 611.-Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76011 RE:  Allegation No. 87-A-007
 
==Dear Mr. Martin,==
 
                                                                                                                    )
Last week two of my clients received a letter from Mr.
O Mark Emerson of your office. The letter. included an excerpt from Insepction_ Report- 50-498/499-38, dated March 26, 1987 and signed by Mr. R.G. Taylor.
The letter from Mr. Emerson states that it refers to 0    (,        "our inspections into your technical concerns regarding the South Texas Project."        It goes on to concludes We have benefited from hearing about your concerns                                    .
and feel that our actions in this matter have been responsive to those issues. We take our safety g                    responsibilities to the public very seriously and will continue to do so within the bounds of our lawful authority.
This letter goes to new lengths in perverting the image of Region IV as a competent and unbias regulator.
First, Mr. Emerson has never talked to or interviewed either Mr. Hodges or Mr. Garcia. He has no idea of whether they have any technical concerns or not, and if they do, he has no idea of what they are.        Second, the information that Mr. Bodges or Garcia had any concerns or problem with the South Texas project could have only come from Houston Light and Power or EBASCO, or through the SAFETEAM.          In either case it is clear that.the version of facts that the NRC received has nothing to do with the facts as known to Messrs. Hodge and Garcia.        .
That might be of some concern to an inspector that had any commitment to a search for the truth or a respect for the accuracy of his work. Since the inspection report is signed by Mr.
i              R.G. Taylor, however, we are not surprised that the conclusion r
is a statement that serves the utility regardless of the facts.
 
D k
i i
Robert D. Martin                                        Page two
'f 0
It was our experience with Mr. Taylor at Comanche Peak and Waterford that convinced us that the reliability of his conclusions on any subject werequestionable. Mr. Taylor has demonstrated a-long history of resentment to employees who                      ]
have any safety concerns and a penchant for releasing inspection                {
report findings that bear no resemblance to'the factual
..4 matters that he was to investigate or inspect.
Neither the letter nor the inspection report are accurate                    ,
or based on anything other than information provided by the                        l utility. In this case we believe that the utility prompted the' entire issue in order to have an NRC finding to utilize                    j 4                                                                                          l in the Department of Labor cases of Messrs. Garcia and Hodges.
Although we are not surprised by that either we are a bit offended that Region IV would write a letter with such blatantly false information.
I have already brought this matter to the attention of the Executive Director's office.      I have also filed a Freedom of Information Act Request on this issue, a copy of which is enclosed for your office. Please process this POIA as soon'as it is received in your office.
j                                      Sincerely, w            ,
Billie Pirner Garde Director, Mid-West Office cc:  V. Stello J. Hodges R. Garcia L
I 4
[
0 t
 
t# *' 8%                            UNITED STATES y..            ;          NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
                                        . I;                          REGION tv e                s11 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE. SUITE 1000
). (                        **o ,        8                      ARUNGTON. TEXAS N011        - Attachment #8e MAY I 91987 Mr. John H.-Hodge Sr.
2917 ~3rd Street Bay City, Texas 77414 I
I'
 
==Dear Mr. Hodge:==
 
==Reference:==
4-87-A-007                                                            -
In response to recent communications between your attorney and NRC, I wish to    ;
clarify my April 28, 1987, letter to you. On January 29, 1987, I received a      i letter from the United States Department of Labor, dated December 16, 1986,      !
which included your hand written statement citing harassment,' intimidation and  i discrimination. You also stated that employee protection provisions of the        !
Energy Reorganization Act were only posted at one location at the South Texas Project which was "off limits" to craftsmen.                                -
                                                                                                                )
(                      I routinely review documents sent to NRC by many organizations and agencies, including the Department of Labor, in the attempt to identify areas which might fall within the jurisdiction of NRC.        In accordance with our procedures, I l
assigned allegation number 4-87-A-007 to your complaint sent to DOL. We track    j these issues in our Allegation Management System. Hence, my letter to you was intended to notify you of our review of your complaint and to ensure that you are aware of your opportunity to inform NRC of any safety significant concerns that you have.                                                        ,
I regret any confusion my initial letter may have caused you. As your lawyer is ausre, if you have any remaining safety concerns, you can call me collect at (817) 860-8245 during normal business hours.
Sincerely, l
F
[          _-
i
'                                                                          Mark Emerson Allegations and Investigations Coordinator cc:
Billie Garde 104 East Wisconsin Avenue                                                          i Appleton, Wisconsin 54915-8605                                                      i
 
01 Attachment #8d  .
40VERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT                                .
    ,    3 555 Comecticut Avenue N.W.. Suite 202 g
1      voWigton, D.C. 20036                                -
(202)232-855" MID-WEST OFFICE.      ,
104 E. Wisconsin Ave.-B Appleton, Wisconsin 54911 y            (414) 730-8533
                              ..                  May 22, 1987 Robert D. Martin Regional Administrator 611.Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76011 RE:  Allegation 4-87-A-007
 
==Dear Mr. Martin,==
i I
On May 19,' 1987, Allegations and Investigations Coordinator Mark Emerson wrote' to Messrs. Hodge and Garcia to " clarify" his April- 28, 1987, letter to each of these gentleman regarding Insepetion. Report 50-498/499-38. His letter clarified, that is it explained, the misrepresentations in his previous letter-gI
      -      to my.clientst however, it did not resolve the substantive complaint raised to you in my May 8, 1987, letter.
The -f actithat Mr. Enerson may have received the allegations of harassment, intimidation and discrimination from a copy of
                                  ~
a complaint to the Department of Labor regarding the same and g          then ignored all of the. issues but the one whose resolution                  i would assist the utility and EBASCo in defeating the DOL case                  J on procedural matters is either deliberate misfeasance or gross negligence of duty. Mr. Emerson's actions in ignoring the complaint of harassment and discrimination are not surprising.
We understand that Region IV inspectors routinely ignore any
'g            complaints of harassment and intimidation by workers. In fact, Region IV's abysmal handling of the allegations of harassment and: intimidation by employees throughout Region IV is what let to the development of Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act, in part, and more recently to the development of Chapter 0517 of-the NRC manual. Examples like the ignoring the request for lr            assistance of..the quality control inspectors at Comanche Peak during the T-Shirt incident and mishandling of the concerns of paint coatings inspectors is why harassment and intimidation issues j            should be handled by the office of Investigations. Mr. Emerson's letter does not clarify whether or not he referred the allegations to OI. We assume he did not.
'l More importantly, Mr. Emerson offers no explanation for why he made no attempt to contact Messrs. Hodge and Garcia to determine 8                                                          j l
 
0
\-
I                                                        .
Is                                                                                                                                          ;
            .hnt evidence that Messrs. Garcia and Hodge had to prove that                                                                  I their were no, postings in locations available to them of NRC Form 3. We are not surprised by the lack of follow through by your inspectors. . We are surprised that you would not review Mr. Emerson's "clarifica tion," to insure that he had                                                                .i 4          addressed all,. of the issues raised by my May 8, 1987, letter.                                                                4 Weoffibiallyrequestthatyouopenupaproperinspection                                                                      .
l of the issue of the NRC Form 3 Posting and that you do an                                                                      ;
adequate inspection, according to the NRC manual chapters,                                                                    {
  ,        to reevaluate your previous, inaccu. ate, finding.                                                                            I Thank you for your attention to this matter.                                                                              1 Sincerely, l
Q Billie Pirner Garde Director, Mid-West Office i
1' ec: V. Stello l i            J. Hodges R. Garcia            .
                            *4
                                .                                                                                                          l l
I
:                                                                                                              1
                          'p k9:
a "I      i A                        j.;L l
                          ;e l                          .e, I'5                          1                                                                                l t.
L.-_____
 
y                                                                                                                    -
                                                                                                                    ~
Attachment #9a The Light c'                                    G o m P M Y in ",e "" i'<n''"< & i            < i m in - i7<  ii. " ". i< - 77"oi <> n 2 u .. 2,,
January 26, 1987 i
Ms Billie Gatde
{
Director of The Midwest Office
                                        ' Government Accountability Project                        >[ ji                      .y 3424 N. Marcos Lane                                                        .
m Appleton, Wisconsin        54911 I
 
==Dear Ms Garde:==
Articles in the Austin American-Statesman on January 20, 1987, and in the Houston Post on January 21, 1987, state that GAP has announced it will investigate safety issues at the
                                  ' south Texas Project after reviewing complaints "from about three dozen present or former employees at the project".
( (copies enclosed). According to the articles, you have said that-."several employees had told GAP they were harassed and intiraidated by Ebasco Services, Inc. , the project constructor end several subcontractors for raising safety questions". Mr Condit, of GAP in Washington, has stated that "the safety allegations to be investigated included defects in instruments
:-                                      cnd controls, problems in the heating, ventilating, and air conditioning systems, poor soil compaction, failure to com-plete required quality assurance or quality control documents, and falsification of quality assurance or quality control docussents" .          Although Mr condit' acknowledged that a number of these issues have been investigated at South Texas in the I                                      past, he remarked that "it appears from what we have been hsaring that the problems have not been resolved". The crticles indicate you stated that "af ter a preliminary in-VGstigation of the South Texas Project lasting three to six months, GAP will decide whether to continue with the inquiry or just issue a report on its findings to that point".
As you may know, Houston Lighting & Power Company has teken extraordinary steps during the past few years to en-                                          ;
courage employees to come forward with any safety concerns                                          l co that they may be promptly investigated.
l t
(
i
 
d linnuon Ughung & Power Compam f
4 Ms Billie Garde                                  January 26, 1987 0
In addition to various investigations conducted by HL&P and Ebasco management, in 1984 we ' established a SAFETEAR program to actively solicit and investigate quality or safety-related allegations from former and existing employees, and-provided an opportunity for such individuals to identify their concerns outside HL&P and Ebasco investigative programs.
O Whenever an allegation investigation is conducted by HLEP, Ebasco,.or SAFETEAM, the anonymity of the alleger is protected at the alleger's request. . We believe that.the program has been very successful in investigating and resolving every concern that has been brought to our attention by employees.
We are also pleased that every employee who has come to SAFE-0                          TEAM in confidence has had his identity effectively. protected from disclosure unless the employee chose to make his or her identity known to the public which has recently occurred in one situation.
The principal reason that we undertook the SAFETEAN g 't<                    program is-that we view with the utmost seriousness our res-possibilities as an NRC licensee and as the Project Manager on behalf of the co-owners. It is HL&P which has the ultimate responsibility for building a safe nuclear power plant, not the construction contractor or his subcontractors. We are particularly proud that, although our program predates the g                        commission's adoption of a statement of Policy concerning
                          " Handling of Late Allegations" (March 19, 1985), it fully implements the commission's encouragement of "the establish-ment of programs by utilities for the purpose of identifying and resolving allegations affecting safety in a timely manner as design and construction of a nuclear facility proceeds".        j In view of the steps we have taken to encourage employees to inform us of any safety concerns, we are very disappointed and concerned that any employees may have chosen to provide information to GAP, rather than to us. But if, for whatever reason, they have done so, it is still important to us to
'g                        obtain_that information so that we can assure that appropriate concerns are addressed and the plant, accordingly, is com-plated safely. Your action in apprising us of this information l                          would be consistent with the provisions of the commission's l                          Statement of Policy which urges that: "Any concerns bearing on the safety of a facility should be brought promptly to the 1                          attention of the applicant or licensee." Timely identifica-tion of problems is often critical to effective corrective action.
f i
j l
1
 
3.
Ilouston Ughting & Power Compant
_3_
g V Ms Billie Garde                                      January 26, 1987      ,
1 Moreover, if employees of Ebasco or any of its sub-I                                  contractors have harassed or intimidated other employees "for raising safety questions", it is. critical that these matters be identified promptly so that we can assure they are fully resolved. If any employees have been guilty of harassment or l
intimidation, which on this project is a clear violation of project policy and prescribed work practices, we need to-0                                  investigate their period of employment at South Texas to                    l assure that all instances of any such misconduct have been                  I investigated, and, further, that such persons are not currently employed on the' project.                                          ,
d We take effective steps to protect the identity of any      ,, i I                                    individuals who provide this-type of information to.us and              *
{
would do the same-for persons who have provided such informa-                )
tion-to GAP. If necessary, you may prefer to provide the relevant information to us without revealing the identity of your informants.- This may make it more difficult for us to investigate and resolve any questions they have raised, but we I l                              gladly assume that burden because of our overriding concern                  ,
for the safety of this plant and in turn, the public.                        J Failing all'else, we urge you to bring your information promptly to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission so that it can g
review these guestions immediately and take such action as may
                        -be appropriate, including advising us of any corrective actions required. Again, this would be consistent with the provisions of the commission's Statement of Policy which, in instances where notification of the applicant or licensee is unsatisfactory, advises "any person to bring such concerns g-                              directly to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission".
1 I should emphasize that since I was placed in charge of        ;
the south Texas Project Electric Generating Station in 1980, I              !
have personally taken an active interest in assuring that                    i overy safety concern raised - whether in the routine perform-r                                ance of the construction of the south Texas Project or as information provided by employees through other available mechanisms - is fully and thoroughly explored and resolved.
Nevertheless, as Mr Condit acknowledges, safety issues of the types he mentions have occurred and have been investigated at the project in the past.          If, notwithstanding all of our g                                efforts, you have information concerning existing or potential safety concerns of which we may not be aware, I urge you, as a
(                          matter of public responsibility, to provide that information ngw to us or to the Nuclear Regulatory Consission.
l
 
1 lb>mion t.ighting & Power Coinpam Ms Billie Garde                                            January 26, 1987 I further understand that you have sought to meet with a member of our Security Department on behalf of one of the employees you represent. Mr James E Geiger, Manager of our Nuclear Assurance Department (telephone 512 972-8620) will be our contact with you on such matters and I have asked him to                  l call you to set up a meeting immediately.
                                                                                                  ]
For the reasons described above, I hope you will provide him with any information GAP possesses concerning safety                      i
  ,                  related concerns at South Texas.                                              ;
1 As you know, the Commission's Statement of Policy notes that persons with allegations of the type ascribed to you in the press have a duty to bring such matters to the ccennis-sion's attention as promptly as possible, in part, to avoid i                unnecessary licensing delays.                While we share this concern, we also urge you to come forward now because of our moral and legal responsibility to assure the safety of the south Texas Project Electric Generating Station and, in turn, the public.
We hope you share this concern and therefore encourage you to cooperate with us and/or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission I(              toward this end. We would appreciate your earliest response.
Sincerely, I                                                                  k J H Goldberg Group Vice-President, Nuclear JHG/aks t
Enclosures                                                                        I cc                  Chairman      L W Zech            (NRC  w/encls)
Commissioners K M Carr            (
                                                                                  )
T M Roberts          "      "
(            )
I'                                                J K Asselstine      (
                                                                                  )
F M Bernthal          "      "
(            )
Exec. Dir. V    Stello          "      "
(            )
Reg. Admn. R D Martin            "      "
(            )
Dir. I&E      J M Taylor            "      "
(            )
Owners        T V Shockley                "
(CP&L        )
I                                              A    vonRosenberg            "
(CPSB        )
M B Lee                      "
(COA        )
l t
 
2 E
                                                                                                                                                                ~
1ttachment #9b The Light                                                                                                                                                    ;
company                        - .... _ .-
n.,,,,,,,,,
w,,,,-,-,
: i. m..m. , n. .......... i m.,m ,,,, , m , m..,2 o February 11, 1987 Ms. Billie Garde Director of the Midwest Office Government Accountability Project                                                                                                                          l i
3424 North Marcos Lane                                                                                                                                  i Appleton, Wisconsin 54911
 
==Dear Ms. Garde:==
 
This is to document our telephone conversations of January 30 and 7, 1987, regarding the investigation of allegations at the South Texas February Project (STP) which might be brought to the attention of Houston Lighting &
Power Company (HL&P) by workers or other persons represented by the Government                                                                          '
AccountabilityProject(GAP).
My understanding of your suggestions is as follows:
If HL&P and GAP could agree upon a mutually acceptable independent contractor who would perform any investigations, then any detailed discussion of the interview and investigative process would be unnecessary.
Assuming that HL&P performed the interview and investigative process, then that process would incorporate the following features:
(a)                          A written agreement on confidentiality to protect the identity of the worker would be necessary with a breach of the agreement by HL&P entitling the worker to sue.
(b) The identity of the investigators would be provided to the concerned worker for his review and conment.
(c) GAP would provide the worker's concern in the form of an affidavit or make the worker available for an interview.
  .                                  (d)                              If an interview was performed, a transcript would be maintained and the worker would have representation, presumably by GAP, during the interview.
t
    ,                                    (e)                          SAFETEAM would prepare an investigation plan for the concern that included specifics, e.g., what hardware would be reinspected, which individuals by name would be interviewed, etc.
 
0 L! h,ou..n 1.igining & Iwti a omium
: f.            Ms. Billie Garde.
C'                February 11, 1987    '.
Page Two I
(f)  SAFETEAM would then submit the, investigative plan to GAP and to the worker for their review and coments.
(g) SAFETEAM would then perform the investigation and, if necessary and appropriate during the investigation, the worker would have the-opportunity to come to the site and identify specifics which he could not do otherwise,  i.e., without a visit.
4 (h) The draf t of the SAFETEAM investigation report would be provided to the worker for his comments and opportunity to provide rebuttal information.
1 You stated that, if Hl.lP would agree to these features (or the indepen-
                -dent contractor. alternative), GAP would be willing to try out the process with one of the allegations-it has received.
In considering the following responses to your suggestions, you will
                .want to take into account discussion of our SAFETEAM program as outlined in Mr. Goldberg's' letter of January 26, 1987. I believe we have had extraordinary I . l. .-.      success in using this program to investigate and resolve concerns brought to        l our attention by employees, and I believe the program generally enjoys a reputation for integrity and effectiveness on the part of the work force at STP. I am confident that the program would be fully effective to address concerns brought to our attention under the aegis of GAP. I believe the best        1 I
                -way of conveying the reasons for this sense of confidence is to respond to each      (
of your points, describing in that context, the organization and process of the    l SAFETEAM program.                                                                    '
As to the suggestion regarding the use of an independent contractor for conducting investigations, this is already a feature of the SAFETEAM program.
I                All initial interviews and investigations are conducted by personnel employed by independent contractors who have successfully completed a psychological evaluation and a background check before assignment to the South Texas Project SAFETEAM. Given the success and reputation achieved by our program, I do not believe that it is necessary or desirable to introduce yet another independent        l contractor to investigate concerns which might be brought to our attention by
,              GAP.
As to the series of proposals dealing with the investigative process, I believe the intent of these suggestions is already satisfied by the SAFETEAM          ;
program and, with some modifications, could generally accommodate your proposals as follows:
(a) Confidentiality: As I explained, it is established, written SAFETEAM policy that the wishes of concernees desiring anonymity will be respected, and our program is structured in a way which assures    {
t u__________________              _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ._
 
37                                                                                                                    ,
linuu..A 1.ightinu & l'owi ( nmp.nn i
A,    Ms. Sillie Garde Febr'u ary 11, 1987'                                                                                          !
Page-Three that the concerned employee who requests anonymity has every reason to feel a high degree of confidence that his identity will not be disclosed. We take very strict protective measures, which I described to you, toward_this end. There may be situations where the investigative process, itself, may lead with reasonable certainty to the identification of the concerned employee. In our experience, however, we have never had an employee requesting                                  ,
anonymity who has complained to us that his/her identity was not                              R effectively protected. Given this record, we see no reason for formal agreements . including the right to sue, etc., of the type suggested. I suggest instead that GAP try out this system, and
                      -determine for itself its effectiveness.
(b)    Identification of Investigators: As I understand your concern about the identity of the investigator, it is based on the assumption that HL8,P employees conduct the investigations. As I indicated above, all investigative personnel are employees of independent contractors                          i and have been subject to intensive screening. If you have any doubt                            -
concerning the qualifications, partiality, and independence of the
    <                  investigators, I suggest again that you try the system and determine                          ,
(                  for yourself the effectiveness of these individuals.
(c) Availability'of the Worker: As I mentioned, we believe that                                        :
investigations can be conducted more effectively and efficiently if the concerned individual appears for a personal interview, and this                            1 is normal SAFETEAM practice. We would be willing, however, to                                  i attempt investigations initiated on the basis of affidavits,                                    i reserving the right to terminate any such investigation if it appears that the inquiry cannot be fruitfully conducted without a personal interview. Our judgment in the matter, however, would not                            .
preclude you from pursuing the matter with the NRC or other appro-priate government agency and particularly if the allegation related                              ,
to safety concerns, we would encourage you to do so.                                          ]
l (d) Transcript of the Interview: It is standard procedure to prepare a transcH pt of the initial. interview with the concerned employee from a recorsirg of the interview. Although such transcripts are not usually furnished to the employee, we will make copies of the transcripts of interviews with persons contacting us who are                                    !
represented, or directed to us by GAP and provide them to the                                  I employee and/or GAP. We have no objection to having GAP (or any other personal or legal representative) attend any such interview; this is consistent with present policy.
(e) Preparation of Investigative Plant As required by our present
  !                    program, SAFETEAM investigators prepare an investigation plan, generally identifying:
1 1
 
4-1 lidisuno1.iglini,e & D m n ( nnip.ms Ms.' Billie Garde t 'p" February 11, 1987                                                                              .
Page Four-
: 1. identification of concerns to be investigated,
[                      2. questions to be answered by the investigation,
: 3. persons to be. interviewed, and                                              1
: 4. documents to be examined.
,                        SAFETEAM is receptive to suggestions by the worker with respect to matters which should be included in the investigation plan.
(f) Comnent on Investigative Plan: ' Although not' presently a part of our program, we will afford to the concerned worker represented by GAP, a reasonable period to suggest in writing specific connents on the            i plan, as developed, to investigate the allegations which he/she has brought to the attention of SAFETEAM.- Such comments will be consid-ered, and the worker will be advised of the disposition of his/her comments. Investigations, however, will be conducted in accordance              ,
with plans which represent the best judgment of SAFETEAM officials.
Investigation plans may be modified from time to time as information is developed; such changes must likewise reflect the best judgment            !
of SAFETEAM officials.                                                            ;
(g)~ Site Visit: We would expect that during the course of the interview or the development of the investigative plan, it should become obvious as to whether it is necessary for the concerned individual to meet with the. investigator to point out some specifics. If that is necessary in SAFETEAM's judgment, we will make the necessary l                      arrangements for such a meeting at a convenient location whether it be the site or elsewhere.
(h) Review of the Investigative Report: As I mentioned, it is important that the concerned inc ividual receive the " feedback" of the investi-gation initiated in response to his/her concern, and this is a
:                      standard feature of SAFETEAM. We do not and will not make drafts of investigative reports available because that could impair the investigative efforts but, I-believe that our standard practice, which I described to you, meets the intent of your suggestion. A letter sisenarizing the investigation results and corrective actions taken (if any) is sent to the concerned individual.
As a standard feature, the response letter advises the concerned individual to contact SAFETEAM by letter or by phone (toll-free numbers are identified) if the individual believes that the concern in question has been misunderstood, or if he/she has further questions or additional concerns. I believe this practice meets the intent of your suggestion regarding input or comments by the employee after review of the investigative report.
1
 
I
: n.            .u,,,,        u ein iiie .m-i < . ... p..m Ms. Billie Garde-Feruary 11, 1987.
L(~          Page Five In short, I believe our existing practice meets the intent of your suggestions, particularly as supplemented by the relatively simple modifica-tions I have described.
Curing.our conversation of February 9, 1997, you indicated that the workers you are in contact with are dissatisfied with the performance of SAFETEAM.                        Based on that dissatisfaction, you stated that the use of SAFETEAM as an institution to perform investigations of the worker's concerns was not an approach you were willing to reconnend to these workers.
To alleviate your concern with that approach, let me make a suggestion.
From time to time, I have directed that an independent third party review be conducted of a specific and particularly sensitive investigation that SAFETEAM has completed. -The purpose was to obtain an independent contractor's perspective of the effectiveness of SAFEIEAM. My suggestion would be for me to select an independent third party to conduct a review of a sample SAFETEAM investigation performed as a result of concerns received from GAP or workers represented by GAP. The results of this review would be forwarded to the
        .. worker with the response letter.
(                              ! assure you that I will be intimately involved in the investigative process and the selection of the independent third party. Additionally, I alli personally review the independent third party report to assure its credibility.                          In short, I will maintain control over the activities associated Dith concerns forwarded under the aegis of GAP to assure that you have a single knowledgeable connunication link.
Accordingly, I would like to get the process moving. In our January 30 conversation we discussed a " test" case or concern -- one which would lend itself to objective analysis that is, a hardware or technical issue which could be resolved by engineering evaluations or reinspection. We are ready to start _no_w using the guidelines described above and would very much appreciate your cooperation.
ncerely yours,
                                                                                                  *m
                                                                                  . '/ s.  /  ft,<_
J. E. Geiger
    ;  JEG:Jkg
 
4                                                                                                                          i Attachment #9e GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTADluTY PROJECT                                                                          1 1555 Connecocut Avenue. N W, Suite 202
,            washington, D.C. 20036                                                                  (202)232 0550 GOVEHilMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT MIDWEST OFFICE l
3424 MARCOS LANE APPLETON, NISCONSIN                                  54911 February 19, 1987                        .
1 James E. Gsiger Houston Light and Power P.O. Box 1700 Houston, Texas              77001 1
* Ret  South Texas Investigation
{
 
==Dear Mr. Geiger,==
 
Thank you for your February 11, 1987 letter. Your letter' accurately summarizes our several conversations regarding the potential of working together to reslove worker allegations of hardware or technical concerns.
(
As I recall we are still in disagreement on two issues:
: 1)              providing a draft of the final report to the allegor' prior to the issuance of the report and 2) the use of the SAFETEAM                    to        1 do the investigation.                          i Your letter indicates that HL&P will not make available to the allegor a draft of the final report prior to issuance because it could " impair the investigation effort.' We of course, do not want to impair the investigative process. To the contrary, these procedures are to enchance the investigative process and insure that the final report accurately states; the allegation (s) and also includes all of the information which accurately reflects the investigative process and the basis for the conclusions. Since the draft report we wish to review to the same draft that circulated to members of management regularly after the investigation is completed it is unlikely that it would be possible to impair the e
investigation. Please reconsider your position on this issue.
Your suggestion to bring in a third party reviewer to audit the SAFETEAM report as a method of insuring the credibility of the report has some possibilities. However, I would still be in the position of recommending to the allegors that they risk going to en entity that has no credibility and trusting that organization on the basis of an independent audit at the end of the investigation. I think that there must be someway to insure the worker that this SAFETEAM investigation is different from the bad experience he had previously with the SAFETEAM at the beginning of the process.                    Please consider this problem.
9
 
1 L                                I also would like to gat this experiment underway; however, 1-f.          I ~ nust be satisified that the effort is sincere and will result 1            in a thorough investigation of the worker allegations which it is designed to investigate.
I look forward to meeting you next week.
Sincere y, Billie Pirner Garde,Esq.
i l
06
(
l l
1 1
1 1
i i
l l
 
i Attachment #9d The Light ME%f H..uunn Iiehnne s l'.e                        l'o m.sI:no i1..no..n.I n.n :Tont ,71i,2.%... n March 5, 1987 Y
Ms. Billie Garde C                                                    Director of the Midwest Office Government Accountability Project 3424 N. Marcos Lane Appleton, Wisconsin 54911
 
==Dear Ms. Garde:==
 
I This is to summarize our discussions during the last week or so regarding the investigation and disposition of concerns about the South Texas Project (STP) brought to our attention by the Government                                        ,
Accountability Project (GAP).
l t
I(                                                          In previous discussions I advised you that HL&P is unwilling to depart                          '
from our basic SAFETEAM approach to handling such matters at STP. I have offered several er.hancements/ modifications to that basic approach in response to your suggestions. I also comitted to be intimately involved in GAP-forwarded mattcrs to assist in lessening any apprehension you or your clients may feel about the effectiveness of SAFETEAM. Lastly I reiterated I                                                    my offer to have a sample of such investigations and results subjected to review by a third party that I would select for this purpose.
As to drafts of reports of investigations, I advised you, and I believe it is well recognized in similar circumstances elsewhere, that if persons preparing drafts of reports know that their drafts may be divulged to third I                                                    parties, especially GAP, this could have a " chilling effect"on the investigative process. I believe that a similar philosophy is reflected in investigations of serious airline and other transportation accidents. Where matters of public safety are concerned, we simply cannot take that chance.
To address your concern, I suggested that, in connection with matters I                                                    brought to our attention by GAP, I would assure that SAFETEAM provided a response letter which included a more detailed description of the investigation process and rationale for the investigation conclusions than is routinely provided to concerned employees at the conclusion of typical SAFETEAM investigations. We agreed that I would, by way of example, review a letter to a concerned employee in a case already closed and expand it to I                                                    reflect the type of additional material we would furnish under a possible understanding with GAP.
1
 
I p .nu..n t.ighnne A two 4 ono m i                Ms. Billie Garde March 5, 1987 Page 2-1                      I think it is imperative, however, that we set a deadline for conumencing investigation for matters of concern to employees represented by GAP or matters brought to our attention by GAP. We are genuinely concerned that matters possibly affecting the safety of a nuclear power plant not become the subject of protracted procedural discussions. That risk is unacceptable to us; we also believe that the NRC would likewise be I                concerned; and finally, that GAP's interest in safety would be poorly served.
We have agreed to meet again on Monday, March 9, 1987. At that time I will give you a sample of the expanded letter we would propose to use to inform a concerned employee represented by GAP of the results of the I                investigation of his/her concern. I am prepared to work with you as late as required next Monday and, if necessary, into Tuesday to review this material and get your agreement. I trust that, if we agree to try an investigation under the ground rules I've described, you will simultaneously provide me with at least one allegation which you believe represents a significant safety concern and which we can begin to investigate. If this demonstration I(              .is successful, I would expect that all other similar matters of which GAP is aware will be innediately brought to me for consideration, investigation and disposition under these ground rules. If this cannot be arranged and you advise us that matters possibly important to safety remain undisclosed, it would be our intention to ask for an appropriate investigation by government officials. Conversely, at any time that you believed our investigations I                were inadequate and we could not otherwise agree on corrective measures which provide assurance that such matters are properly investigated, we                -
would expect you to refer such matters immediately to appropriate NRC officials.
I want to underscore that HL&P is deeply committed to assuring that STP O                is reliable and safe. We therefore intend to press for the prompt identification and resolution of any concerns related to safety which may be in the possession of any person.                                                        '
I look forward to meeting with you and initiating this program next week.
I cerely yours,
                                                                                ~
D
                                                                      .{-{ma eiger I
                                                                  !.E.
JEG:dbe I
 
                                                                                    ~n.. &. . y ,;..n                                                                                                                          m
: 4. .y p;y. y.U
: i. .n.d N                    ~*                *,23$,s&.                                                  W<m,,                                                                                  . .j=,                                , .;:u..Wfw ck.k:&,.f.                                                          ~,,w'
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ,,b.                    . v.pa,2.v:
i
            ,,                                      c                                          .                                                                                                                                                                            .                                                    . ,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Ci.1.w%.., O ~
s-                    :=
r
                                                                                                                          .                    :.vts                              i,Dj.iu.r.,.w.                                            ,..su.c..-e. w . n .J,i u~.s
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                , :.w . ,y-a                                      'e%
A. . .
O+@;,.n                                                        a- ;Q, #
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              .a                .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                - ?..v. w
                      &kh,y+y.                                                        hh,3 D.;
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    .-                                                                                          ,, +                                      ,;                    ,%                                    4
: 4. .g,                                                                                            .o s..q..
i r%hh&'hhhk),-m,.nm                                                                                                                                                                        *W% . ' . .
m???I.?'Nh.. - . .. q.u.,n.;1fh.                            t
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      .y.'n.      qhY                              ,m* -
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            . ~,
: n. 3.cw <%,z , ..n. ,,.t.. .%cc.2
                            - .,.i,
                                        , :s.
                        .s ,w >.a.y.. :, ., - y a. _n.,, ~. e. , v,. + 1A. ,.,q..o. . ~ m.~.;
                                                                                                                                                                                ~%.g .n.,x. .n                              wY>    s ,in...
s                                DW, .dv 4.i &4..
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        , , . ,, . ..                                                      .                    .~      ..:.R,..        .n
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ,J,,                    n  A,u;
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              '.      $.w.    .        e.
r.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          .  ,.,yc.S
:. .      .%.                .      n.              D_F
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              . . . s t . >n n.y a, ,,u .6..,2,,c, r, L ,-
                              'y ,.
                                                                                                                                                                                  . . .- . . .                                                . .r      .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            -w                            ~-.                            ~..,.o,- ,.c.                                                                                  . .          u.                    t.c., cn.,x m.. . ;                                          -
0 ' ~".:M#                                                      W,.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        .                                                      .
: n.      .a .p' /,;.p00.'iBEFORE A . m .- 7HE:.NUCL. ,
w                          EAR                . 'REGULA..Td.
c                                                                          RY. .v. C, C.WS m.'s                                                ~
                        .p                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  ..                                                                                                                                                              e ,..
\ *,. e f,m,,,,.,vw-m,            . %e .p                                  . N1:y                        w,v, .., r%.. *v,4..O>.
A        ..                              .      ,w                    .
We,n.O.3                      :.: gin-m
* a
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                .. .. .. h.                    , g.% , w. .A      ..    . A:.. u 4. .
3 ,.        .p,.m,            Mt <,,%.7,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    * . :W.%s Q, ,A. .c.+:. u,z? ,n. W d, , /
y.s,. ' ' ' sf.
a      .M*
c p*. : ,jr.w4N. ~ . -
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ,%+ <,. :. r. -<, + m. . uu. W F;:                                                                                  .. f 6 .g. 6,9.q,g.g+ ',s .. -. a                                                                              ..p g; d.                    ,',''..). r.%  ,, t.p#,.,.N.'s
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          . ft                                                                                                                                    a-u          p e .% ,, - s                                                                                                      ,W..??-                          T'        y,4M                  *.        [,%
                                                                                                                                                        . ,,c,                                                      ,.,.}gg.      [. r s.c,.'7. , A              $..,          p.c . ,; .
e      .    .      d.            n.        ,;                                            . . ,
pM                g      g n'            j      ,,R.r.i                  .;              .A .4. ..,c<.. . w n.i .                                                            .                    .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  *y* , ,,f              '                  ,
: s. r . , .=.,g * < ,. a ;,p.
                                    . .,,                                            ,{ +                                        ''
e g 2,.>- J,. .p'g g,,p. t.") .pp,                                                                                      7.,t q.,                s ; p;.M.                  , . -"*          . QT        @,@ p,e; .** yje,.9                            .
eg!r.. M%                    J , , g, . y '
                                                      .a
                                                                                                                                                                                                                              .                                                                                  . _                                    W ym';                                                              W.3 ~< :. .J..?,ll
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ;- . . e ' . v. c o; ; ,.
Wgg. '.N'p@p '
                          -&. .                                                                    . .. .                                    : . .:. Da..-                                                                  .*          l' : s s i .e                                                          .-                    .            f, J.r s.3                                                                                                                                                                                                                              u'                                          ,
W;C "~~P h"
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                - ' ?.~; "
O"J                                      .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              #b                                                                                                                                                                                              .
      .,,,,.i~ t,+ .pm                                                              w"'W>                            lf)n.4$.        1 t h; tb                              ,: f.My a ;t.-t, g d f '.31 .va                  We, M                          .%J.v Q                                  . ' K )) u.'p' gfpQ. ,1,tp,9 n . P.u r s,uap t.ON        . ., . n.
r y. .%
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      +
: w. ,
4 e,. v>;.
                                  ; . ~ s. ,. , ., 2                                  -
                                                                                                                                                                                                                  ,. $ .. .                . r nz. . J.,s.,          ~;, ,. $.sa_ %a                                          u~ ,                                                                                                                                    .. . .
s,u              t s -9,",          .. ." , ;. ev.
n .. e-..
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      . =.A    : ... n. ya.,s                  .
4 ... ,. . .. .. , .* .% e .s _'Y..                                                              >
                                                                                                                                    . s t r ,' n, . ,s, ' '. y . ,.w...'y
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ..f, *\, - f. , .l l',;.4 k, a( ,, S to l.c ml . . '''), y.i * &k.,
r --
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    *. ' ', , . Y. '. 2 e6
* 3- -
2,                                                                                            '..''.\*L.'.                                                                                              *if)            v' 1
                                            ,                                                                yq                                  3- m'                              .        -        .        ...                              ...:                . . .                'c.e,t                                                                                                    .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    , ,. y ,., ,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                .t f}} t ' ".; .. .s + e m .; ' '.,7,; ',- f.. ,, , ;i ,
      ;                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          . : - .A, j              ;\. ;                                                                              yu q+1                                  , , , .
:. - .c ;. y, .?                                                                                                            e          #, ,7 , . ,g , - p ,, ;- ' ,g : , i. .;
o.4 .
2
                                                                                                                ,-u                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ; r. ~. . . s[,, f,g                                                              J,. og> p,i}6.R.gg S'-.                              . ,,y j,:,- .
c 3.p M. . k. . .. ...g.as-                                                                                                                      u
      . . . -                                                            % , - . . . , , , . , , .i ;                                                                                                                                        ...i .                                    ;
: 9.    ,, . , c                                                                                                .y
            - 8
                                            -            p                                                    4 3-                            .. . . . .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              ,. a. t .x  '
q .                    .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ,g., f . , . t...,s
: c.                  .
                  . r 7".
                                                                                                                                    'A
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  .                                      , l, 1                                                            .\                            - \
                , .cg                              x                                                                                                  Ne/,,.                                                                  - '
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            . . .-                                                                        r
                                        ,                                                                                              . ~                                        4
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  .                                                                                                                              r )                                                      4 g.
l t.3.w%.pg h
g . p s.                                                                                            o,,                                  y a
v1 .                  . . -
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ~w %pr-m.
wp.,p..,,,y e
3.', . '
i
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              +.,y c < m;u
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ?*n M _.jpm                                                                M .* ma                                                          . .+F W,b~.4p%                                                                                                                              t ,.r dwr ....
: n. . Y #                                                                                                                          >.          -
                                                                                                                                                                                                    . . .                                                                  p                                      s                                                                                                                .
y .:                                                                        ..                                      .
f.t wi 3[T q                                                                                                                  dt. % t0 : ' ' ' - :. * .                                                        1        'A  ,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ,. ..                                                                                                                                                . +. p'#.  < *;. '<
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              ..g Ja a
        >k , k \'h, ahN, M D D 5 "M, _,., M, EhN,N.. Mi
        ; ' .                                                                                                                                    . , . .:                                                                    e
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    . *w .Nkkh                        . -                              .
h[>                            .
        ' [9.,L. i                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      .K
                                                                                                            -$          ',                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              u                                                                              *, p y( g p'      4
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ,i            8,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              , . ,                                                                                      {'                      [,                            '                                                                                                      '
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ,,,''.9
                                                                            \ .; , '.:.'y y, e
* g,'
l',                                          q.
                                                                                                                                                          .. ~.
L                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              ,
3 ..                                                                                                                                                                            . ..                      . ..                                                                                                                                    ..                  ., y ..                                                      ..; . ;z L,A,                            /
: a. t . .: .                                                            \.'                              . , . . o.                                                .,.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            . p. . L u ..>. .. s ,. ' ,g:y,                                . v..
                                                                                                                              ,                                  .j , . ' '  *                              ''
v      . ,' A, ,                                  ;
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            . ., v.g v,1
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        .. p.                      .
9, . ;
f g
: 6.                      .' ,                          .                                                                                                                                            . .                          . ,                              . ,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ,.)                                      i,,ay.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          ,.,,, a s                                      -                          .% ,yI
                                                                                        , - , k ' ** #
                                                .. .                                                                                                                et ,- ' ( s .* J                            '.                          .,          9            W h s **e I* -                                                .J,A.'''
4'F-            ' ' ' *
* I'    ., ,. . g.                            p.
gs                                                                                                .
4,.,                                                                                                                                                                  ;. . . .
tt          .w
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                . .. . ,y y g
r r . .. .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ..                    c b''.
(,n.                                                                                  -
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    .,no s ,. &q u.
                                                                                                                        ,a1.,., 4                                  .. ,                                      ,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  .,s                                        e,.e , ,                                                      s.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              .                                                  s                          .t                .
g o , .1
( .,.,
ga ,, .
h * =
r
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  ' .' . . , / j J.% , l .
6                              , ~ ,*
i h*k" -
g'    .,
4 I
: h. , . ,'
q          ,                    f g                            b              , .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                .., . . . v                                                                .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        '.                                                                                                  . . - ,. fa
* t g,        7 i '' /                                                  ..'$                        .                                                                                                                                                                                  * '
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        .\ - {
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  -4                    ~ ,., .                                            , .. .g e,  .v
                    ...                          .                                                                                                          . ..                                              4.,                                                ,. .                  ..                    .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              .j....                                , , .                        s.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ,.          .r..,          es                      [mr ,                                              '
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          - .se.m. e
                  . I -                                    '
                                                                                                                              * ,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ./
                                                                                                                          ,                                      ,                                                                                                                              s                      ,\                                                                                                                                                                * . .                                                  I                  '
e c.,*pm. ,, , <r ir . . c .                                                                                                                        - .. . ,
    . , 4. . . . .e                                                                                                        _. ..                                                                                                                                          . y q, 9. ~ .L                                            .a..p,........,                p .m p,.                      e ..          w ., e . m. .c                                  ..,. a -w: .                                                                  ,
a.au,.                                                                  , ,                                      -
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            .                                                              ;,:                        - . .L                                                                                                                                                                                      . : . " . ,.. . , * ,                                              .
                                                                                                                                                            . -                                                                                                                ,- . .                                          .      4,                      . .                        . . . ,.                                      .
            ," ,                                                                                                                                                          ee q.J
                                                                                                                                                                                                    ' . 4 . 4ap w h . .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        'ald ' em.a - i.amiu'9'eq                                    I uA fBee' E * ,gk
* M                                                as'*- *EN-..--                                                                                      '.c.',..
L                                . ' . , .W-
    $ e. .x
                                                                  .2                                                                                      '
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          ..            %,                              %.                                                                                                                                  .. 7                        ,.-Ncy.                                                  .,        ,w
                                                                                                                                                          - ,.                            .                                  .              s 7 ..            .,.. g ; . ; 7 g 4 :n,~                                                                  ,,                          ,g g;_--        v v ., n, j,.. .          f . _ 4.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ,                  C;            . . . . . . . .                                                                                ,. . ..                                    .s.-                        .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                      #                                                                                        . .                              +- .                            ..        -.,,*.,.4.as                                    .                  .                          .                                                                            . s              < .
W
                              ''                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          .                          ... ..                                                                                                            .+,                                                                                                                        . **
r
* w*
r
                                                            ' '                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ~f                                                                        .
* i
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      .g.e,*=....--
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              ..... .,......', - ~
: d.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              . ,                                                                                                                        .
0                                                                                I                                                          s ,, . . .                                                                      .-
4..                                                                                                                                                .. .                    ..,,,7                                          ..            4    '.        g,                                      .r.,,
                                                                                                            '.- i                                      $
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          - ., ~ , , ,. J-
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ,.                                        - , eq . i -
4    .        ;                                                                                                                                                                                                                              _ . _ .                                                                                              . . _
_                                              1                                      .
gy          ag      e                                        ,,.h y_g
    $,t                                                                                                                                                                                      ' '
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            . . .                            .N..~''.*
7'. 9; '' .                                                                                                                    : ..~ ^
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              , , , , ,                                          av .. .
                  .                                                                                                                                                                                                                = . ,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    .....,                                            .. ,                                . . .          e              . .qg                                                .,
D
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      . ..,                      4pg 9
 
}
Houuon Lighting & Power 4:ornpant
('
)
Ms Billie Garde                                March 18, 1987 It is anomalous to us that an organization purporting to
)-          represent the public interest could show such little regard for that interest by withholding information of potential significance to the public health and safety. We will not be a party to such
            " games." We will urge federal and state officials to seek from you and your organization every scrap of information which could potentially relate-to the safety of the South Texas Project. If 0
any such information in fact exists and is made available to us, we will immediately pursue it to its resolution. We can then leave to the citizens of Texas the judgment as to which of us truly represents the public interest.
Sincerely, G.U.A J H Goldberg                                  i Group Vice-President, Nuclear Q. (        JKG/am cc    Chairman            L W Zech          (NRC)
I Commissioners K M Carr                  (" )
T M Roberts      (")
0 J K Asselstina F M Bernthal
(" )                                          l
(" )
Exec. Dir.
Reg. Adan.
V    Stello      (" )                                            <
Dir. I&E R D Martin J M Taylor
(")
(" )
Owners              T V Shockley      (CP&L)
A    vonRosenberg (CPSB)
O                                      M B Lee            (COA)
~(
r l
l t
i
 
i--
:                                                                                          ~'
Attachment #9f      i I
COVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT
      ' 17 %5 Connecticut Avenwe. N W Suite 202                                                  f (202)232 8550          l g 4      .mngron. D C. 20036
                                                                                                }
l March 27, 1987 t
Jerry H. Goldberg
            ' Group Vice President, Nuclear i          Houston Lighting & Power Corp.
1 P. O. Box 1700                                                                        '
Houston, Texas 77001 RE:  Investigation of the South Texas Project by the g
Government Accountability                  ,
Project                                    l
 
==Dear Mr. Goldberg:==
 
Your widely distributed letter of March 18, 19E7 was a                      1 curprise to me. Please be assured that the Government                              ]
g(          Accountability Project (GAP) has not made any final decision                        I regarding possible cooperation with HL&P on allegations.
As Mr. Geiger and your counsel were well aware, I was in trial the week of March 9-14, 1987 in Houston, litigating a South Texas related Department of Labor case, Goldstein v. EBASCo, 86-                    i I          ERA-36. The following week I was on a personal / professional                        j break while moving both my home and my office to new locations.                    j I did call Mr. Geiger and specifically informed him that I was not working from March 16 to 21, 1987, and that I would contact him regarding the proposals during the following week.
Therefore, your conclusion that " GAP has no interest in I          proceeding further" with negotiations is insincere and appears to be deliberately taking advantage of my one-week " working" vacation.
I am uncertain whether HL&P is terminating negotiations on a potential working relationship.        If so, please notify us of that I          in writing.      If you are not, let me summarize where the negotiations are apparently mired.                                                ;
l l
HL&P, through Mr. Geiger, has informed us that allegation investigations would have to be done by the SAFETEAM, but has agreed to a number of modified procedures to alleviate some of                    ,
ll
;                our concerns. He has indicated, however, that HL&P is not                    I l
          ;      willing to make additional concessions which would assure us that our clients are legally protected from reprisals, that the l                  investigation properly pursues the correct allegation, and that l
an adequate investigation was conducted once completed.
I i
 
)
  /              As I carefully explained to Mr. Geiger, the employees we represent have no faith in the credibility of the SAFETEAM.
Their individual and collective experiences have demonstrated that the SAFETEAM is not independent, does not protect or defend cmployees from harassment and discrimination, is neither able nor willing to reach truthful conclusions, has no authority to rcquire or implement corrective actions, does not generate daficiency paper in compliance with federal regulations, does not report allegations or findings of wrongdoing to the NRC, and is institutionally incapable of processing significant safety-related concerns.
The employees' experiences were confirmed by the information we recently obtained from HL&P in discovery in the Goldstein case.        For example, one SAFETEAM investigation contained allegations of harassment and intimidation, violations of hold points, and significant defects in the quality of work in the-Ceactor Control Building (RCB). A comparison of the interview of the engineer making the serious allegations with the results of that investigation prove that the SAFETEAM did not even understand the allegations, did not investigate the allegations given to the SAFETEAM of serious construction and quality defects in the RCB, and had no basis for its conclusions.
In any event you should be aware that GAP understands its obligations to ensure that allegations of safety concerns are
(-      investigated. In that regard, we have a proven history of discovering massive safety problems and seeing that they are cddressed. We would gladly match our history of demonstrated concern for public health and safety with any other organization, and feel confident that the comparison would reflect quite favorably upon us.
As for the South Texas Project, HL&P and/or EBASCo and/or Bechtel have been made aware of serious safety concerns through internal processes. We have also been in contact with the NRC and other appropriate government bodies regarding processing of                                          ,
allegations about South Texas. Recently, Region IV of the NRC                                      l received extraordinary criticism from the NRC Office of Inspector and Auditor (OIA) regarding the handling of allegations at the                                      4 l
Comanche Peak facility. Therefore, it is not appropriate to submit allegations to Region IV until some adequate resolution of the concerns raised by the OIA has been completed. We have asked the NRC for guidance as to how to proceed, given Region IV's lack of credibility. To date, we have not received a response.
So as you can tell, we are attempting to ensure that any information which comes to us about the South Texas plant is properly investigated, and that the appropriate corrective f
1      __-          _ __
 
MM Attachment #99 The Light
(      company                o.... .. .., , .. . ... _ ,. . , n. .m. . o. .. ...., . ,..m. ... , m . ... . . .
_ . -                                      .]
April 6, 1987              ]
i 1
Ms. Billie Garde                                                                                              j Director of the Midwest Office                                                                                i j
Government Accountability Project 1
3424 M. Marcos Lane Appleton, Wisconsin 54911                                                                                    1 1
 
==Dear Ms. Garde:==
 
In response to your letter of March 27, 1987, please be advised that Houston Lighting & Power Company is very skeptical that any further dialogue                                  l
::ith GAP would be constructive. Although we are ready to utilize our SAFETEAM organization to perform investigations of any concerns related to nuclear safety or quality at the South Texas Project, we believe that protracted discussion with your organization is wasting valuable time that could be better spent investigating such matters.
Your obvious low regard for SAFETEAM, which is consistent with the                                    ,
canner in which GAP has criticized other nuclear projects, prompts us to                                      )
again urge that you immediately share your concerns with the Nuclear                                        ;
(    R:gulatory Consission. Your letter suggests that you have sought " guidance" from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission but "have not received a response".                                  {
That statement is puzzling, in f act, you have received a response from Mr. Stello by letter of February 18, 1987 (available in the Nuclear Regulatory Consission public document room) in which you were assured of the availability of Nuclear Regulatory Comission resources to resolve issues                                      l your clients might raise. That letter concluded that failing to bring forth                                  i infonnation promptly "would not be in the best interests of assuring the                                    )
prompt resolution of legitimate safety concerns".                                                            1
(
Your letter states that Houston Lighting & Power and its contractors                                  I have been made aware of serious safety concerns through internal processes.
I          The innuendo is that nothing has been done. To the best of our knowledge, cvery such matter brought to our attention or those of our principal                                          ,
contractors has been investigated and resolved or is the subject of a                                        !
pending investigation. If you have information to the contrary, please tell us.
I The statement in your letter concerning information obtained during discovery for tne Goldstein case and and the conclusions which you have drawn from that information are presumptuous at best. Contrary to your statement, a comparison of the interview transcript and the investigation report reveals that each of the issues raised during the interview were g
understood, investigated, and conclusions drawn based upon the facts. in                                    j any event, as you well know, the Goldstein case has been adjourned. When it
:      rcsumes later this year, the defendant will p' resent its case and a ccnclusion will be reached based upon all the evidence.
I
 
I it                  ..,,i..n i ighimg x r.m i i < n p m Ms. Billie Garae i                  April 6, 1987 Page 2 I reiterate our suggestion that you try uur SAFETEAM system as modified to meet your concerns *ith respect to any rnatter of potential safety consequences, in the meantime, however, we are taking steps to request appropriate government officials to obtain from you or your organization information which could potentially affect the safety of the South Texas Project. If such information exists and is furnished to us, we will spare no effort in pursuing its resolution.
In closing, let me add at the risk of being immodest, that the South Texas Nuclear Project is managed by experienced professionals of the highest integrity.                  Our concern for public safety is of paramount importance. Any suggestion by your organization to the contrary is not supported by the r; cord.
Our concern for protecting the public and the plant is demonstrated by our dogged determination to unearth weaknesses wherever they can be found and decling with them. SAFETEAM is but one of many techniques that we
      -utilize in that effort. While our SAFETEAM program is not perfect, I b211 eve it to be among the very best in the country.
Very truly yours,
(                                                                                eb J. H. Goldberg Group Vice-President, Nuclear JHG/JEG/sd                                                                        s I          cc: Chairman                            L. W. Zech Commissioners K. M. Carr T. M. Roberts J. K. Asselstine F. M. Bernthal Exec. Dir.          V. Stello Reg. Adm.          R. D. Martin Dir. 1 & E          J. M. Taylor Owners              T. V. Shockley A. vonRosenberg M. B. Lee 1
F
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _                                                                              1
 
I
    **                                                                                  e        -
g              .
                                                                                    -f,.*,'.''r.;.+    -
                                                                                                              \
March 17, 1936            j
      'l f'
1 t                        Note to:              Richard C. Brady, Sr.
Program Manager for Allegations, NRR              ,
 
==SUBJECT:==
DRAFT MANUAL CHAPTER 0517 Our office has reviewed the advance copy of 0517 which you provided to us.        We have a few minor comments which are marked on the attached copy of the manual chapter.
b                                  If you have any questions please give me a call.
(2AL~1.
Karen Cyr II (                                                                  Regional Operations and Enforcement Division, OELD cc:            E. Shomaker, ELD L. Chandler, ELD                      ' .' s t                                                                        -l t
.f P 0 1 A - 6(.- 2 6 t                                                              '
                                                                  ,. 3h 4
 
3-.
(
S pf..          1    \1    .. t,
                      ,/ \j , (C'g\y' f I                '
gf l                      sg y
                                        \"    ;
lg .                                          U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION  '
NRC NANUAL Volume: 0000 General Administration Part :          0500 Health and Safety l                                                                                          .
NRR CHAPTER 0517 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS 0517-01          COVERAGE p
                                                                            %.h '- u. ~ C          'A
                                                                            / vM , ... - '    ;, _
1
              . This chapter and its appendices define the policy and procedures ffor the            f proper receipt, processing, control, and disposition *of allegations received      . G "' .
by NRC licensees and their contractors, the policy with individuals who provide infomation to the NR t -(1 cedures for the referral of matters which the staff hnd the policy and pro-potential wrongdoing to the Office of Investigations (0! etemined involve g
0517-02 021 OBJECTIVES disposition of allegations and to define procedures
                                                                              \
(sa+ 941 (Q \      "
receipt, status, and disposition of allegations are tracked                kg, through the Allegation Management System (AMS), thereby assuring that:
I              a.
allegations are properly assigned for processing and assessed for manner; significance to pemit ranking and resolution in a timely safety b.
timely and accurate infomation on all allegations is maintained I                    basis;and made available to NRC Offices and Regions on a need-to-know c.
!:                      all allegations not resolved by other femal means are l:                      processed in accordance with these procedures and the
!L                      resolution of all allegations is properly documented; t            022                                                            .
        ,              To assure that individuals making allegations to the NRC are
        \              properly treated, their identity protected where appropriate and possible, and notified of the resolution.
I 1
1
 
it ..
                .y tGC-0517-O3' MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS
.t'('
i 023 To assure that issues . raised are promptly.and adequately investi-gated.
024 To establish the policy for requesting and setting priorities for investigations of matters which involve potential. wrongdoing and
(                                                        to define the procedures for referral of such matters to 01.
                                            '0517-03        RESPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITIES 031 Executive Director for Operations (EDO)
('
Set policy and procedures for the receipt and disposition of allegations,'in conjunc, tion with theprocessing, contro),
Director. 01, implement the policy for initiation, establishment of' priorities and termination of investigations, request investi-gations of matters involving potential wrongdoing identified by I                                                    the Headquarters staff. and in conjunction with the Ofrectors of the Office of Investigations and the Office of Inspector and Auditor (OIA) implement policy for protecting the identity of those who provide information to the NRC.
For those matters with-in the purview of O! and CIA, only set policy and procedures governing their interfaces with other Offices and Regions.
I(                                          032 All Office Directors / Regional Administrators
                                                                                                                                                                    )
a.
Establish internal procedures so that all employees are aware of requirements for receipt, processing, control, and disposition of allegations and for the accurate and timely updating of the                                              '
8                                                  status of those allegations for which their office is the Action Office.
: b.      Appoint 'an Office Allegation Coordinator (OAC) who serves as
                                                    '    administrative point of contact for employees and other Offices and the Regions.            The OAC will:
I 1.
Ensure that the appropriate parts of the Allegation Data Form (NRC Fonn 307, Exhibit 1) are completed for all allega-tions received within the Office or Region and that the data are accurate and timely.
g                                                2.
Determine the appropriate Action Office and, if applicable, coordinate each allegation    with received.
the OAC of the affected Office or Region on
: 3.      Forward the Allegation Data Form to the respective Action Office OAC when the Office or Region is not the Action
        ,                                                      Office.
I 2
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _  .a
 
4 yWGEMENT OF RLEG'TIONS                                                                            i NRC 0517-03255 4
When the receiving Office or Region is the Action Office  ,
{
working days of receipt. (For power reactors, during                            i
: f.                                until the Commission meeting on full-power auth Receiving Office or Action Office for any allegation will, Manager of its receipt and the identification of the Office in addition to entering the allegation into the AMS.                      3 5.
Ensure that allegations received from other Offices or Regions are entered into the AMS within 10 workdays of receipt.
6.
Acquire input data on new allegations (including those -
and ensure this inforination is entered in the AMS. re)
: 7.                                                                                      i Ensure that all open allegations in the AMS are reviewed and                    ,
updated as necessary on a monthly basis.
8.
Part IK, 4g. and h. Ensure the preparation of reports as described inkj
: 9.                                                                                        )
Maintain records of individuals granted confidential source                        !
I who have been found to have a need to know informa would reveal the identity of a confidential source. on which
                                                      */,
10.
Maintain would revealsecure      files the identity  of a.when  such confidential    files contain information source.                        '
                                                                                                      , '{ ,
c.
Determine the safety significance and oeneric implications of tWose allegations that faTFwithin the programmatic resplinsibi.                  -
lity of that Office or Region and establish schedules for the
(
processing of allegations with the objective of resolving them              '
as promptly sing    decisionas  resources allow and prior to any applicable licen-date.
d.
Review those allegations for which it is the Action Office for NRR or WfSS. potential board notification and recorrrnend such nottffcation to                ,
i
: e.                                                .
Refer all matters where there is a reasonable basis for belief wrongdoing and for which the staff determines an investigation is necessary to determine whether regulatory action is required, except those involving NRC employees or NRC contractors, to the Office of                            ,
Investigations in accordance with the guidance herein and in Appendix 3 to this manual chapter and provide technical assistance to O! for investigating allegations as requested.          '
f.
Refer all allegations of wrongdoing by MRC employees or NRC con-tractors to the Office of Inspector and Auditor.
Nanual Chapter 0702).                                    (
 
==Reference:==
NRC 3
 
T              -
p:.0M 7 03,                                                                                      \
I                                                                              MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGAi!ONS 5                            '035
_ Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement                                    l a.-
Resolve allegations affecting matters for which itn.is the respo!
sible office including those that involve vendors or that are generic in nature in coordination with NRR or NMSS.
: b.                                                                                          2
                                  -Monitor the Regions.the allocation of resources for allegation managemenk
: c.                                                                                          {;
Monitor the investigations being conducted $                                          I requested by a Regional Administrator and established by the g . Director, Mond e    Office
                                                -- o{ Investigations mee,ts, regulatory needs.
                                                            -- ~~-                                                      f 036
                                                                                                              , h,2 j
Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation =_,y&
: a.                                                            i        '-
g jo j
dures regarding the processing of allegations. Propos            .
For those and procedures governing their interfaceQ,with o and Regions.                .
A
                                                                                                                    -  I b.
Review allegations concerning NRR licensees in coordination wi                          i
{                            the Action ifOffice notification,            for potential board notification and make such required.                                                            {'
: c.                                                                                              (
Evaluate implications of allegations relative to licensing deci sions with    andthe IE and    plant  safety Region  (s). concerning NRR licensees in coordination d.
Resolve assigned    those to NRR. allega'tions pertaining to reactor licensing issues                i
{
: e.                                                                                  .          t Maintain capabilities,the  AMS and with in coordination          any RM.
necessary improvements to modify its f.
Conduct    programmatic reviews of all action offices to assure implementation of NRC policy swi allegations, g.
Monitor the investigations being conducted within area of respon sibility to assure that an investigative priority or schedule          -
requested by a Regional Administrator and established by the Director, Office of Investigations meets regulatory needs      .
037 Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards a.
Review allegations concerning MMSS licensees in coordination wit the ActionifOffice notification            fer potential board notification and make such required.                              '
l
                                                      .'                                                                  l 5
 
i f          -
                                                                                                                                            )
ll MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS l                                                                                                              NRC' 0517-043-l 3                                                                                                                                            \
b.
Evaluate implications of allegations relative to licensing deci-sions concerning Region  (s).          NMSS licensees in coordination with IE and the c.
0 Resolve those allegations for which NMSS is the action office.
d.
4 Monitor the investigations being conducted within area of respon-sibility to assure that an investigative priority or schedule                                              !
Director, Office of Investigations meets regulatory nee 038 Office of Resource Manacement (RM) a.
Provide ADP support to maintain the AMS.
* b.
Provide special reports to Offices and Regions as requested.
: c.                                                                                                                      j
.i making modifications and improvements to the AMS. Pr 039 Office of the Executive Leoal Director and Regional Counsel a.
Provide legal counsel in resolving allegations as necessary.
I(                b.
                              'requested.
Review referrals of matters to the Office of Investigations, as c.
Provide legal counsel on confidentiality agreements as requested.
g            0517-04        DEFINITIONS 041 Action Office.
The NRC Office or Region that is responsible for reviewing and taking action, as appropriate, to resolve an allega
* tion.
'I                  042 Action Office Contact.
is assigned the responsibility for resolving an allegation.The st                                              1 043 Allegation.
A decieration, statement, or assertion of impro-priety  or inadequacy validity of which has notassociated  with NRC-regulated activities, the been estabitshed.
g                                                                          This includes all safety concerns identified by sources such as the media, indi-viduals or organizations outside the NRC, and technical audit efforts from Federal State or local government offices regarding activities at a licensee's site. Excluded from this definition are matters being handled by more formal processes                                    . r
                                                                                                                                * :,D
  ;                        such as 10 CFR 2.206 petitions hearing boards, appeal boards                                                '
etcIAllegations thaTmay resu,lt from these formal processes,and                                    .
1 4
are not resolved within these processes shall be subject to treatment under this manual chapter.
6 w_______-__-_
 
)  .
NRC-0517-0410 MANAGEMENT or ALLEGATIONS 3
044 Allegation Management System (AMS). A computerized information system that contains a sumary of significant data pertinent to each allegation.
3                            045 A11eger. An individual or organization who makes allegations.
The individual or organization may be a concern.ed private citi-zen; a public interest group; a licensee, vendor or contractor          ,
employee; or a representative of a local, State, or Federal agency.
(NRC employees should be aware of procedures for pre-senting differing professional opinions, NRC Manual Chapter 4125).
046 Confidentiality. The terin that refers to the protection of data that directly, or otherwise, could identify a confidential source by name.
It is not intended to deny staff members access to 'the identity of a confidential source when such identification is required by staff members to evaluate and resolve allegations.
047 Confidential Source. An alleger who has executed, or has orally represented that he/she will execute, a Confidentiality Agreement.
(Exhibit 2).
048 Inquiry. An activity involving minimal effort to determine the
!(                                  appropriate response to infomation reported to the NRC. Typi-cally, an inquiry entails the use of the telephone or written correspondence rather than formal interviews or other investi-gative  measures; however, formal interviews will be conducted if required.
049 Inspection.
For purposes of this Manual Chapter, a special investigatory activity normally conducted by E00 Offices and Regions that may be used to evaluate and resolve an allegation.
0410 Investigation.
For the purposes of this Manual Chapter, an activity  '
nortnally conducted by the Office of Investigations that any be used to evaluate and resolve an allegation.
0411 Office Allegation Coordinator (OAC). A designated staff member in each Office or Region who serves as the administrative point of  contact for that Office or Region regarding the processing of allegations.
0412 Receiving an allegation.
Office. The Office or Region that initially receives In some cases, the Action Office and Receiving Office will be the same if the allegation falls within the
                                ' functional responsibility of the Receiving Office.
0413 _ Safety Significant.      For purposes of this Manual Cha allegation will be considered safety significant if'pter,      an the allegation would, if true, (1) raise a significant question about the ability of a particular structure, system, or component to perfom its e
7
 
3        .'
4
              . Pt.Nt,GEME'.! 0F ALLEGATIONS l.
NRC 0517-05 0(                                                                                                            _
intended safety function or (2) raise a significant question of management competence, integrity, or conduct or about implementa-tion of the quality assurance program, sufficient to raise a legitimate doubt as to the ability to operate the plant saf
: 6.                          -A44ega44ons wh44h-are--oet-sefetf-e4  9        tt4444 ant d' he      11
                                                                                                          -e@ely.
the-cormal-4our4e-of-bus 4 cess-indel endent or iiceris 0414 Sanitization.
developed of  the alleger. as a result of an allegation does                      entity not revea 0415 Secure Files.
access is controlled on a need to know bases. File marked "Contains infomation which would reveal the identity of aTh confidential source" and controls shall include a sign-out procedu 0416    Wronadoing.                                                                        .
regu' story requirements and violations ~Esulting fro regard of to amounting    orintent.
reckless indTTierence to regulatory requirements A reasonable basis for belief of wrongdoing exists when, from the circumstances surrounding it, a violation of regulatory requirement appears more likely to have been intentiona f (.                    or than tofrom have  resulted error            from careless disregard or reckless indifference or oversight, 0517-05      BASIC REQUIREMENTS 051 Applicability.                                                                                    )
applicable to, and shall be followed by, all NRC emplo 052 Wrongdoing.
belief of wrongdoing, as opposed to those involvin and for which the staff concludes an investigation is necessary to *              ,
determine whether enforcement or other regulatory action is requi I                      should be referred to the Office of Investigations following the pr cedures set forth in Appendix 3 of this manual chapter.
i Al"egations                        l purview of CIA and are not entered into the AMS.of wro requester within 30 days whether the matter has been accepted for0! will n investigation estimated            and, schedule.      if so, the priority of the investigatione and th 1                    the requester with the basis for its decision.If              a request is not accep Any differences gation        shall be resolved in accordance with the p in Appendix 3 of this manual chapter.                                                            ,
enter allegations of wrongdoing into the AMS using inferinationThe O received art IX.2 of thisfrom manualthe        alleger or provided by 0! (see Ap[p chapter).
or a summary offits findings of those matters which-it investiga IA1-            :"
l N        [            '
8                                                              l 1
 
        .                                                                                                                              1 L                    NPC-0517-055' MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS to the ' requesting Of fice or Region. Allegations involving wrong-doing for which a Region is the Action Office will be coordinated by 1
                                                            ' the Region OAC with the 01 Field Office Ofrector in that Region.
Allegations involving wrongdoing for which a Headquarters Office is the Action Office will be coordinated with O! Headquarters (see also -
Appendix 1 Part IV.6).
053. Action Office Assignments. Allegations submitted by any source concerning NRC-regulated activities should be transmitted by the Receiving Office OAC to the OAC in the appropriate Office or Reg 1on for processing.
054 Identity of Allegers.        As a general rule, the need-to-know          :i principle should be implemented for allegers. Generally, this*means      1 avoidance of unnecessary use of the identity of the a11eger and other identifying information in discussions and in documents. With the          i
                                                          . exception of reports prepared by the Office of Investigations, reports should nonna11y not contain information which would reveal          )
the identity of an alleger. Individuals using documents containing        .{
infonnation which could reveal the identity of an alleger are responsible for controlling such documents, such as by placing them        f
(                                                  in closed' storage when not under the individual's personal control.      -1 If asked whether a person is an alleger, NRC staff should respond that it is NRC policy not to identify an alleger unless it is clear that the individual concerned has no objection.
1 Higher standards of control are to apply when an alleger has been granted confidential source status. Confidential source status is granted when a Confidentiality Agreement (Exhibit 2) is executed by the NRC and the alleger. Guidance with respect-to granting confi-
                                                        -  dentiality, revoking confidentiality, and providing the identity of a confidential source outside the NRC is contained in Appendix 2.      .
T                                                          The identity of a confidential source must be protected by not referring to the name or other identifying information1n internal NRC discussions unless absolutely necessary, and by expurgating the name and other identifying infonnation from documents before providing them to authorized / assigned NRC staff members. File's and documents which contain information which could reveal the identity of a confidential source are to be marked "Contains information which would reveal the identity of a confidential source " and may not be reproduced without the authorization of the OAC.
Inforestion which can reveal the identity of a confidential source may be withheld under the Freedom of Information Act from public disclosure pursuant to 10 CFR l 9.5(a)(7)(iv). Information which                l
                                                                                                                                        )
could reveal the identity of an alleger who has not been granted                i confidential source status may also be withheld under appropriate              !
circumstances, but this may not always be the case.
 
?
4 i        NRC-0517-057 y,
MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS 055 Confidential Files. Confidential files must not be compromised inadvertently. All information relating to cases where confiden-tia11ty has been formally granted, by signed agreement, must be kept 8                          in a secure controls        file cabinet or safe to which extremely limited access apply. These files must be physically separated from the normal  allegation infomation. A log      files due to the special acce'ss controls on the system must be utilized to clearly identif personnel who had access (observation or personal possession)to        y all these files and the time during which access was granted. The Office Director or Regional Administrator will, by written dele-gation, specify the responsible office person (s) who may permit access to this file. These designated persons must a) restrict access to authorized NRC personnel b verify the "need to know" of the individuals requesting acces,s a)nd so note on the                      f i*-
log by cr_.sther ccyy) of the inforination is made - multiple copies for simultaneous review must be returned to the file, d) ensure, by an informal briefing of the requestor, that inforination is kept in a secure returned    in alocation      while outside of the central file and is timely manner.
i            056 Staff Generated Infomation. Staff generated information relating to evaluations or inspections of allegations where confidentiality has been formally granted must be sanitized such that no information                        j is included that could through any path, lead to the identification                          1 of the alleger, or, suc,h staff generated infomation must be kept in the confidential files. The'0AC should provide case specific                                {
t                    instructions to NRC staff personnel who generate and review such infomation concerning sanitization of documents and all unsanitized                  2p documents to indicate generated its sensitivity.must contain a cover sheet that is clearly markedjv Draf ts of staff generated infam2+V for such cases e o enneuressr-                should be destroyed upon finalizatforFCF:nly p"h A /M 4 *~-          +--- t1M  _''-
                                              % t    p 'Mtr---tw M -
* v t : . M u -- An -4 e n> +- + - r          4 L                                                            '-'m t iat Confidential files should be complete, containing all information related to the resolution of                    .j the issues identified, similar to the normal allegation files. Con-fidential files may be referenced in the nomal allegation files, but no more than a cross reference with the effected projects and status, should be kept in the normal allegation file enclosure.                                I j
057 Responding to A11ecers. Those who provide allegations to NRC staff                              i l
must be treated with respect, consideration, and tact. Under no circumstances should they be dealt with brusquely or abusively.                                I When allegations are received in writing, a prompt' attempt to make
>                    personal contact must ordinarily be made in each case either by a U                    letter, telephone call or personal meeting. Contact should be
    ;              earnest and professional. The alleger should be promptly advised of the results of followup action and, in instances of unusual delay in                            i providing the results, should be advised of the status periodically so that there is an awareness that the allegation is being pursued.
9
 
0.'
4 g                  . M C 0517-058 MANGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS          _
058 Processing A11ecations. The Action Office should resolve all
                                . allegations in a manner which is timely under the circumstances (taking into consideration the schedule and/or sta D
Except as discussed below (Late-filed Allegations}ge    , allofallegations licensing).
received prior to issuance of an initial license should be resolved                    ,
before the ifcense is issued. Allegations having relatively high safety significance should be addressed first and with expedition.
Less significant allegations should be addressed as priorities and j                              resources perinit, but usually within 6 months of receipt. For purposes of this Manual Chapter, an allegation will be considered safety-significant if the allegation would, if true:
(1) raise a significant question about the ability of a particular structure, system, or component to perform itt intended safety function or (2) raise a significant question of management competence, integrity, or conduct or about implementation of. ths quality assurance program, sufficient to raise a legitimate doubt as to the ability                            4 to operate the plant safely.
  , I-Allegations should be screened as promptly as possible to assure the proper identification of safety-significance. As a result of screening, it may be possible to clos the process for logical reasons (e.g.e, out    some af ter    allegations initial inquiry,early      the in allegation is frivolous or too vague or general in nature to permit further be should    followup). Appropriate documentation of such determination provided.
  ,                                                      In any event, while the safety-significance of an allegation is important in detemining the extent and promptness of staff resource connitmen'ts, it should not affect the treatment of the alleger as discussed in section 057, above.
Followup of allegations, whether they are general or specific, g                          should focus not only on the particular allegation but on the                        ,
overall area of concern, including the potential for generic implications as well as wrongdoing. In this regard, note that an allegation directed toward a non-safety item or activity may, as a result of generic implications, affect a safety item or activity.
When a number of allegations point to or reinforce indications of a broader problem, prompt action to broaden the scope of the inquiry should be taken to detemine the extent of the problem.
                            .If it is appropriate, an inspection should be made. A plant visit with the person making the allegation may be made if necessary and if the individual location              is willing to make such a visit to find the exact of a problem.
case-by-case basis.            Access issues should be addressed on a Travel costs for the individual only can be t                      offered, if necessary, extending      the offer. and are borne by the Office or Region Carc should be taken to avoid embarrassment or abuse etc.      of  the individual,  e.g., schedule visit on off-shift / weekend, t                                                                                                          ..
 
l MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS f'
I                                                                                                NRC 0517-059 059 Late-filed Allegations.      Ideally a particular authorized.      facility will be reso,lved before any              s license iall and/or their tardy submission all allegations                            ved in c
I action, it may be necessary to give priori which, because of their potential impact on safety, must be g
ons before licensing action can be taken.                                  resolved must impact be    alert to the on upcoming          possibility licensing          that late-filed allegatioIn decisions.                    ns may this re I
l '-                            tion and consultation between Action Offices and theTherefore, licensing office is required in carrying out the          appropriate        responsib and procedures manual  chapter.          for processing late-filed allegations          ties        set o n this In reviewing alle whether, if true,gations, the Action Office will first determine l:
decision in thatthe    theyallegations    are materlat would require      denialtoofthe  thelicensing lice the imposition analysis            of additional conditions or investigation.                          on such        licens nse sought,                -
If it ap                    e, or further be material to a licensing decision, pears that the allegations asy.
:I-(                          determination on materiality and assist the Ac mining further appropriate action.                            ce in deter-office, if warranted. responsibility to reconsnend                    ng Board Notifi material to any licensing decision or which                          r after on their fac initial inquiry are determined to be frivolous                      or or too          vague I                          general in nature to provide sufficient information                                  for the st investigate out on this basis. will  receive      no  further  consideration      a closed to  and  may As to allegations which are material to the                        ifcensing de i i c s on, the' I
Action is new inOffice the sensewill of  next    determine raising    a matter whether on presented not    previously      the inform consi tending to allegations.      corroborate previously receivedresolved      but not yet ered or to the NRC will be considered, including that previo an applicant or Itcensee and that obtained                  s y provided by the      by Agency in course      of itsofreview investigation                and inspection efforts or from its prior allegations.
'I In some cases, information already available allegations.                  to the NRC        may be sufficient to resolve However, if an allegation is found to be both material and new, the staff will investigate the allegationIf further              the Action Office determines that, as a result of                      the numbe Itke allegations          or the timeframe in which they are      r of received l1                              y that full consideration of all allegations cannot                  b accomplished consistent with reasonable and                        e timely Connission Ifcensinq of  the a'        action, the Action office will conduct                  a furth er screening legations to determine their significance              y and safet to 12
 
_..-x.-----
(        .
i 1
9 C .0517 0510 1                                                                                                                MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS therefore to              what be authorized.      priority should be assigned relative to the activity considered:              The following screening criteria will be 1
1.
The likelihood that the allegation is correct, taki apparent level of knowledge, expertise, and reliability of the individual submitting the allegation in terms of the allegation  submitted credible contrary      and the possible existence of more information.
2.
The need for prompt consideration of the allegation
                                                                  ' recognizing the public interest in avoiding undue delay.
If the staff determines that an allegation raises a
* significant safety concern (as defined in section 058 above) regarding, for example, the design, construction, or operation of a facility or about quality assurance or control or management conduct, which brings into question the safe operation of the facility at a given stage of operation, the allegation must be addressed prior to authorizing that stage.
Allegations which are not safety significant will be resolved
,f in the normal course of business independent of license issuance.
s Note that the screening called for by this section is to be their safety-significance, be resolved before issu the initial screening called.for by section 058 above, on the other hand, is intended to facilitate the allocation of staff retources based oninsafety-significance necessary          all cases.            irrespective of license issuance and is 0510 Involvement of Licensees or Other Affected Organization.                  ~
For    allegations involving a potentially significant and immediate impact on the public health and safety should be promptly informed to assure p, roper and timely action.the af For other allegations, once information from allegers is received by the Office Director / Regional Administrator, the I                                                      should and  should be beadvised  specifically requested  to addressby it letter of the area of concern minimize            the expenditure of NRC resources.NRC to ensu however                                                In all instances, ce k                i        clear he has nidentity of an alleger should not be revealed unless ections and the effectiveness of investi-y                                                      gations/ inspections _@2 not be compromised, such as releasingdiscussed exceptions        or appearing below).to release an NRC inspection report (note
                                ,i r is ndM:re; : -etter ever te the affected organizatioThe alleger                  p #},tmust b 6 gov % NRC wiil review and evaluate the activities as necessary affected organization should be informed regarding the resolution    The t
pl-f f of j                                                    the.-allegation if appropriate (See Appendix I Part VIII).
13
 
I    .
4 MAN'GEMEhi 0F ALLEGATIONS moc 0517-0511 4
As  notedorabove, Itcensee            there vendor in      are two exceptions the resolution process.      to the involvement of the The first exception is where the beanofa11eger.
of      use to  theinformation        cannot licensee or vendor            be released without    compromisingin suffic the 3                                                      In such cases release should nonnally not be made unlesshealth public    the release    is necessary to prevent an iminent threat to the!
and safety.
where it appears there is a need to release the identity of fidential source and the appropriate Regional Administrator or Director shall be consulted in the case of all other allegers Office              l t
I The second exception is where a Ifeensee/ vendor could compromise investigation or inspection because of knowledge gained from the release of information, especially if wrongdoing is involved." In these cases, the decision to release the infonnation to the ifcensee En f8b4.                              shall be made by the Ofrector of the Action-office, the Regional y-
                            % g peg O            Administrator or the Director of the Office of InvestigationsIn .
determining whether to refer the allegation to a ifcensee,sidera-    con.
J
                            % ,* g                                allegations, that is, the likelihood that the licensee w)
                            %#                              g Release of information to a Ifcensee/ vendor is ex g t=(
Ik - g *p y exception for O! investigations.
                              *~              -
                                                        'g        ote that 10 CFR 19.16(a), involving radiological working condi-
                              ,,          -# A" "/  ,          and be made available to the licensee no later tha f ''          ,,,.'. . , rI* we information ection, and that confidentiality be provided at the worker's reques4 In addition to expurgating names and other identifying
                            -    ,                                              protection of confidentiality 7 *"      -
1,. O  a          retyping an, alleger's handwritten notice.y could also involve
                                    '8
* In the event the                      )
potential for wrongdoing is involved, the matter should be co-mation to the licensee.ordinated with O! prior to the inspection and pro g                          0511 Appendix 1.
This appendix provides procedures for receipt,                        l control, processing, and disposition of allegations assigned to                      I NRC Offices or Regions and the procedures and guidelines used to                      !
record the receipt, status, and disposition of allegations in the AMS.                                                                                  !
g                          0512 Appendix 2.
This appendix provides guidance for granting and              -
revoking confidentiality and for disclosing the identity of a con-fidential source outside of the NRC.                                                    ;
0513 Appendix 3.                                                                              i This appendix provides guidance for initiating, g                              establishing priorities for and terminating investigations of matters involving potential wrongdoing.
1'                                                                                ,
14
 
}
i M A *; ~ BEN' 0F ALLEGATIONS g(                                                                                  APPENDIX 1. NRC 0517                            _
i PROCEDURES FOR RECE!VING, SCREENING,            , AND ASSESSING CONTROLLINGPartALLEGATIONS        I: General AND FOR TH AMS)
O This part establishes procedural guidance for receiving These functions are to be established within eac                                        a      .
control staff      of an or personnel    individual    Office staff.
other appropriate  Allegation Coordinator , or a panel of ce(OAC) under the 4
provide the required training to ensure regarding the proper management of allegations.
ae that their y informed Allegations pertaining to NRC-licensed facilitiesesand                                    activiti to the attention of the NRC staff by telephone, letter                              may come
-                  or byl - direct socia              verbal contact at sites, in offices, at, and func tions.                                                meetings,        even at news med to processing in accordance with this manual chapterAll allega fessionally, promptly, and with consistent              .
rocessedtreatmenttha      pro.
t(                not recognite the term "off-the-record."It, the                is NRCvery              doesimportant to n off-the-record tant to safety cannotinformation            must be treated off the      be clearly advised record                                    mpor-that informati will be ' accepted officially and acted upon as ne,cessarybut that the inf
                                                                                                                                              }
d                with      the protection of an alleger's identity.As ality Agreement Exhibit 2                                            en dealing a general r dential source, a(n              has  been executed alleger)'s            making identity  may    thehave            alleger              toabeconfi-Ho reve Confidentiality regarding                Agreement an alleger's identity. to an alleger will provide .
Extending a m protection the maximu
* I              followed in extending or revoking a Confidentiality AgreementThe guid may be revealed outside of the NRC. Appendix                        rce's identity 2 also provides g NRC employees, particularly resident and regional                      inspectors
                                                                                , regional
'g.
tions, should become fully familiar with the prescribed dures to ensure that the required actions are performed es and proce-It is the responsibility of all employees who receive                            o take allegations t whatever informed.          steps are necessary to ensure that anromptly                            appropriate OAC i,
referred to either the OAC, other individuals as design i      Office, to recontact or the arrangements individual.      should be made for the OAC                      egionor  or designat d e staff member f
Al-1
 
                                                                                                                            - - - - - - - ~
_ , , ,          . . _ . . .    --              -- ~
tGC 0517, APPENDD 1 i
MANAGEMEhT OF ALLEGAg Part II:
I.
The Of fice Allega tion Coordinator (C!,C)
The initial responsibility of the OAC is to identify th Office-to which the allegation should be assigned                      e proper Action          for eval resolution in coordination with otheruation or Regions).
e            0ACsces and (either in 2.
The OAC serves as a focal point for administrative                                              proc trol is      of all allegations responsible    for:            assigned to the Regions                and essing ces.
andOfficon-The OAC
: a. Entering allegations into the AMS;
: b. resolution; Tracking allegations from initial              receipt to final
: c. Assuring establishment and maintenance of files the Region or Office;that clearly identify allegations assigne
: e. Ensuring that management and                                      s;                cognizant informed of allegations under their purview;
: f. Maintaining 4
g.properly Ensuring        that the final resolution of allegations ist documented.
r              3 The OAC assists technical staff sary to resolve issues                                                          members who ng allegation                    ,
formulation of a course.        In addition, the OAC may ass v t es neces-4                                      of action to resolve issues. ist in the A panel, which includes the OAC as a member,                                                      may be desig the primary responsibility to ensure that all allegati                  nated with assignedo and properly evaluated, and that                          ons arethepromptly    actions taken to the allegatt' n, as well as the resolution, are prope lresolve transmitted to the alleger and the affected organization priate.
n as appro-y documented
                                                                                                                                  ~
5.
The OAC will serve as the point of contact ment                            withofthe Depart Labor          on matters involving discriminationaunder the Energy Reorganization Act and will coordinate                                  of      as ne Section 210 O! and the Enforcement Staffs.                                        cessary with Part III:    _ Receipt of an Allegation 1.
Allegations Received by Telephone or Personal Visit Any NRC employee who receives a telephone call from someo to make an allegation should have the caller transferred                  ne who wishes to the OAC Likewise, if an individual appears in person at an N                            .
individual should be referred to the cal member.                                                                OAC  staff or other techni ce, the or the visitor as described, shall obtain                                    n as call as much info AI-2
 
j i      -
2 i
NNAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS I '                                                                                    APPENDIX 1, NRC 0517 possible. from the individual- (see item 3, below).
When unable to locate the OAC or other technical staff member, administrative em-playees should refer an individual to a technical staff supervisor.
2.-              Allegations Received by Mail
{
Personnel responsible for distribution of mail will forward cor-despondence that appears to contain an allegation to the OAC.          Both letters and envelopes will be forwarded and r:0 copies will be made.                            )
An employee who receives direct correspondence, including internal NRC memoranda, to the OAC. that contains allegations shall forward the correspondence of correspondence also should be made aware that correspo be transmitted in a sealed envelope marked "To 8e Opened                                          1 l'
Only;" for expedited transmittals (e.g., electronically), y Addressee such infonnation should be deleted from correspondence.
: 3.              Discussions with A11eger                                                                            !
i Any employee receiving a telephone call or visit, as discussed in itemindividual.
the    1. shall attempt to obtain as much infonnation as possible from 4                                            It is crucial to identify:                                                  J
                                        ~
: a.      full name                                                          '
b, complete mailing address                                                                    1 c.
: d. telephone number where the individual may be contacted                                      {
: e. position or relationship to. facility or activity involved nature of allegation j
If the alleger declines to provide the above information, ettempt to establish the reason (s) using the following guidance:
prohibiting an employer from discriminating against an em contacting the NRC.
sufficient inforination to evaluate his/her concern or exIf the alleger con confidentiality, a Confidentiality Agreement (Exhibit 2)pressly requests                              '
in accordance with the guidelines in Appendix 2. Part II.may Basic  be extended Require-ment 054 provides further infonnation regarding protection of confidentiality.
The alleger may be infonned that the itRC employee with whom he/she is in determine to  contact does      not have follow-up      the capability to evaluate the infonnation, action                                                                  i therefore,          it may be necessary, or to establish NRC jurisdiction;that for additional information.
l i                  The alleger should be infonned also, that--unless an objection is                                      I registered--he/she the    allegation. Thiswill ma be recontracted as soon as possible regarding                            {
a letter to the alleger,y be    at done  by telephone, an address desi      personal vistt, or by
{
acknowledge the receipt of the allegation. gnated,          which will This process  will permit also                            !
Al-3
 
_      = . . - - - -
I
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    )
NRC 0517, APPEtGIX 1
  '(                                                                                                                          P>NaGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS the alleger to review the infomation with the NRC to provide maximum assurance that the information has been correctly inter:preted and understood,                                                                                                                                                                    k
                                                                                                                                ~
{
j j
g                                If the alleger persists in not offering identification after the above explanations,                            document                                                                                                                              {
advise the alleger                            that hethe allegation in as much detail as possible and member in 30 days or any o/she may contact the OAC or d2signated staff the status of any actions being taken on the information supplie
.I                              Energy Reorganization Act, inform the allegers that NR                                                                                                                            i and that appropriate enforcement actions will be take employer if the allegation is substantiated. To assure personal employee rights are protected, advise the alleger that the complaint I
must be filed with the Department of Labor within 30 days of the occurrence of the discrimination event.
allegations received by telephone.to allegations received g
Part IV: Action by the Receivino Employee and
_the Office Allegation Coordinator (OAC)
    ,                1.
employee receiving the allegation will provide the info to the Receiving gation    Data Fom. Office OAC who will complete an NRC Form 307, Alle-I                                                                          The Action Office is then identified and the completed form and all documentation regarding the allegation will be                                                                                                                .
forwarded by the Receiving Office OAC to the Action Office OAC.
2.
The Action with accordance      Office                          OAC these        will enter the pertinent information in the AMS in' procedures.
the AMS.                                                                  All allegations must be entered into g                                        In this way an " audit trail" will be established so that NRC actions can be properly monitored and completed.
The OAC or other designated staff member will ensure that the alleger is properly contacted to acknowledge the    allegation. receipt of the allegation and to confim the specifics of                                                                                                          i Depending on the nature of an allegation, the OAC will provide copies of the santtired allegation documentation and the letter g
sent to the alleger (with the alleger's identity and identifyj and initiation of action.                                                                                                                                                                j tity of an alleger, a need-to-know determination must a11eger is a confidential source                                                                                                                        If thebe made.To t
See Appendix 2.                                                          the for determination When responsibility                      the handlinmust be documented.
transferred from one organizational unit to another,gthe                                                  of alleger      an allegation                  should is            be notified of the new point of contact (name and telephone number) by the individual single      pointwho of contact          is relieved    shouldas contact be the rule.        in order to assure ~ continuity.                                                      A        i o
                                                                                      /
Al-4
 
{  .
Pri",GEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS 4                                                                                                APPENDIX 1. NRC 0517 staff.sttpervisor at periodic intervals until the m satisfactorily resolved.
be trpde to that effect in the AMS.When the case is closed, an update should t                              3.
The OAC will coordinate allegation infomation with the technical staff  and    may the assist  in. determining whether the infdmation is suffi-            !
cient to identify      issues.
insufficient, further            the the contact with    OAC      or designated staff member will alleger.                                          assist inI i                                                                            A single point of contact with an
                                      . developing rapport, establishes continuity in th                                        i between the alleger's theidentity.
Regions and other NRC Offices, and aids in protection i                !
4 t
The OAC assists the cognizant technical staff in identifying and separating ing categories:  the issues involved in an allegation into one of the follow-
: a.                                                                                  ,
Allegations that involve technical matters, such as: inadequacies tion of(s)procedures; exposure      to radiation.        or inadequate corrective act-I(                                                ~
b.
doing and for which the staff determines an inve                        -            !
necessary to detemine whether regulatory action is require such as:
I record falsification; willful or deliberate violations; material                      i false statements; Reorganization              discrimination Act; or othe'r              under improper conduct.      Section 210(a) of the i
c.
Allegt,tions that involve matters outside the jurisdiction of NRC
: 5.                                                                                    .    .
I                                  have the' potential for being willful or deliberate                . However, vio such issues will normally be tracin the absence of specific allegat            ,
resolved using program resources.ked separately as technical issues and                      1 affect other Regions or Offices, follow up activities will be coordin                          '
i                                ated with the affected Offices and a Lead Office will be designated. Th OAC agreement  willas contact      theoraffected to which Office    Region shouldOffices have thewhich lead. should resul If agree-ment take the lead.cannot be reached at the OAC level, then the i
6.
A11egatioris in category 4b, except for those involving NRC employ
  '                            NRC contractors (see 10, below), should be referred to OI Field or Headquarters of this manual chapter. Offices in accordance with the guidelines in Appendix 3 made using the " Request for Investigation" form (Exhibit 3 I
AI-5
 
3      ,*
NPC 0517. APPEND!r 1 3; [-                                                                          MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS manual chapter) and distributed as indicated on the fonn. Upon recei of the completed form, Of will evaluate the request and conduct con pt..
sultations as necessary with the requesting office. If a request is C'g          i i
not accepted. 01 will provide the requester with the basis for its 3                        decision. Any differences between the staff and O! on the need for or priority of an investigation shall be resolved in accordance with the process described in Appendix 3 of this manual chapter.
7.
When applicable and after coordination, the Action Office should notify other  agencies such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administratio DOE, etc. in dealing with allegations in category 4c.
Notification to other Federal law enforcement agencies and State and local jurisdictions is the responsibility of the appropriate OI Office or the Office of.
Inspector and Auditor (for matters falling within its purview only).
8.
Allegations in the AMS. involving discrimination under Section 210 should be entered crimination complaint ~ under Section 210 of the Energy t
must  be filed with 'he crimination.              Cspartment of Labor within 30 days of the dis-Complaints should be filed with the Office of the Adminis-Department of Labor, Roomtrator, Wage and Hour Division, Employment Sta Washington, D. C. 20210.        53502, 200 Constitution Avenue, N. W.,            .
(                                                  The OAC also maintains awareness of DOL's in-      !
vestigative intent, and ensures NRC consideration of the need for its own investigation by timely referral to 01. The OAC will take reasonable steps to faciliitate-DOL's investigatics by assisting 00L in obtainin access to licensed facilities and any necessary security clearances.g t
Regional Counsel or OELD/ROED should be contacted on access problems, 9.
If an allegation is dete'rmined to have gencric implications, other Offices and/or Regions with responsibilities that ma be appropriately notified by the Action Office (e.g.y be affected will          -
tional data, RES for concerns affecting research activities, etc.), AE00 for oper 10.
Allegations regarding suspected improper conduct by NRC employees a NRC contractors management      for  will be brought to the attention of appropriate Auditor (0!A). possible referral to the Office of Inspector and
(
 
==Reference:==
NRC Manual Chapter 0702). Allegations of this nature are noti              !
l t
L Part V: Documenting Allegations                                I
: 1.                                                                                              i When an allegation is received and the action office identified, a .                    i working file should be established to contain all related documentation
                  'concerning the allegation, including all correspondence, memorandum to files, interviews, sions,  and meetings.and summaries of telephone conversations, discus-(
flies of,the Action Office  Thisinfile anshall be maintained officially designatedinlocation.
the official confidential files, those with extremely limited access, will be The al M
 
___-_____-__-----7 l~
MMGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS i
)                                                                                                    APPENDIX 1. NRC 0517    ~
l physically separate from the nomal allegation files,                                      ;
the documentation tion files.              similar to that kept in the non-confidentialbut will c allega-              '
file and clearly marked with the allegation number.The                      s          alle allegation.                                            To  ensure  proper 3
evaluation, full and complete information should bec docume In addition to obtaining basic infomation, attempts should be made to expand and clarify the information so thatwell defined.                                                                    the issue i documrted.All allegations, regardless of source or how sreceived                    must to bs                                                              ,
e locked Access when not into the official files is to be controlled.
use.                                      Files are a                                              the name of a confidential source or other identifying inform be stamped "Contains infomation which would on                        reveal should the iden a
confidential source" and access should be controlled cedure.                                                                            with a s authorization of the OAC.The infomation in these files shall not be originals.
t The same controls apply to copies as to                        i g
2.
There will be occasions when the allegations obviously have no s stance in these and  appear to represent a distortion of facts.
cases tact, the gener,al content of any communications, and conclusion that the matter need not be pursued.                      or a
      ;                                    these will be coordinated with the ap              Instances such as the OAC to ensure proper disposition.propriate technical staff by                            l 4
: 3.                                                                                                                      )
about an allegation cannot be overemphasized.The                          on              impjl ing of the allegation, as well as the proposed course                of a tiEvaluation a c on that will    be adopted to resolve the issue, will be based primarily on this infomation.
alleger may be warranted.In some cases, a personal interview with the NRC quired. management to detemine the best way to obtain the d        -
Depending on the nature of the allegation and the time sensi-      .
  ,                                      tivity,  assistance    from the Office of Investigations (01)eror oth resources may be requested.
4 As soon as possible after receiving an allegation or becoming                                awar) information that indicates inadequate or improper activities      , the of                  I person receiving the allegation shall notify the OAC.
Normally, no 3
shall such matters be discussed with licensees,d'                                          ncce after the OAC or designated staff member has briefed appropriate management.
                                                                                                          ,  ntil              /        N j
: 5.                                                                                                                        ;
all information received in conjunction with an alle 1
8
      ~
ensuring fully informed. that managcment and cognizant technical staff members are 5
                                                      ~
o w __ - _-          - _ _ - - - - - - -
Al-7
 
)          .
g        NRC 0517, APPENDIX 1 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS_
6.
Allegations tions (PNs) or  nonna11y    should Daily Reports    not be (ors);    addressed in Preliminary Notifica-however PN or DR entries are appropriate, the approv,al of an Office Directorif. it is
)
or a Regional Administrator should be obtained.
7.
If allegation documents which would reveal the identity of an alleger must be sent to other NRC personnel, the documents should be securely                  'l wrapped and marked "To be Opened by Addressee Only."
The sender must i                    dential source, the sender must verify the recipient is inclu the list of individuals with a need to know maintained by the OAC.                      k All          I NRC personnel are to take reasonable steps to ensure that the identity                    k of    an alleger identity ment 054.)
is notsource of a confidential    revealed        and all necessary is not revealed.                  step (s to See Basic Reqvfre-en i
Part VI:  Evaluation by Cognizant Technical Staff 1.
Office or Region will review the documentation to determ
>                    is a safety concern that requires imediate action. The technical
(
staff on        is responsible corrective    actions.for development, initiation, and follow-through Allegations or documents containing a substantial number followingofcriteria:
allegations once entered in the AMS can be screened using the            i
: a.                                        ..
i                            Is there an addressed?    immediate safety, concern which must be quickly              .
b.
Is theconcern?
alized  allegation a specific safety or quality issue or a gener-c.
Has the staff previously addressed this issue!                          -
d.
Does thoroughtheevaluation?
allegation package contain sufficient infonnation for a information that is needed.If it does not, identify the additional e.
Are all aspects of the allegation adequately defined and described to permit or allow a meaningful and extensive evaluation. This is a                  l allegation process screening    further. that may result in a decision not to consider the If the latter is the decided course of action, the alleger should be so informed in a courteous and diplomatic manner                ,
along with the rationale for not considerir.g it further.
for adverse publicity must be recognized when taking this action.The potential 3
        .        f.
Is the identity of the a11eger necessary for a thorough evaluation?
9 What specific issues are involved in the allegation? Can the issues be adequately addressed,.by a technical inspection?
I
 
)
MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS
  ' s. .                                                                                            APPENDIX 1, NRC 0517 h.
Can a      the allegation scheduled
                                                      ~
inspection?-be  examined and resolved by investigation      g or way to address the issues. If this is not possible, deterr.ine the best 1.
)                                              allegation to conserve staff resources?Can licensee / vend Consider potential prob associated with involving the ifcensee in the resolution process.lems J.
Does the allegation enforcement  action?    have the potential to require escalated k.
What    is theare iate actions  time  sensitivity of the allegation, and what imed-necessary?
1.
Will investigat've assistance be needed?                            .
m.
Identify peripheral issues that could develop.
n.
Are    any licensing actions or board proceedings pending which could be influenced or affected by the allegation. When an allegation involves a case pending before a licensing or appeal board or the
    '                                      NMSS as soon as possible to assist in the deter or not a board notification should be made.
made promptly by NRR or NHSS in accordance with office procedure c.
Should other NRC Offices be , notified?
p.
As soon as possible after the receipt of an allega Office will make a preliminary detennination of the safety signi-ficance of the item and the need for imediate regulatory action
: q.                                                                              .    ,
Establish a schedule for the resolution of each allegation which-is consistent with the ifcensing schedule, if applicable.                  -
            '                    r.
or action (s) is complete. Notify the OAC or designated staff mem 2.
Region to resolve each allegation that falls under it                        ,
                                                                                                                              )
action closeout.        taken      so    that    the    status      of  each      allegation    ca placed in the    Final  resolution working          of anwith file along  allegation all su shall be documented and                i final report should state the facts clearly,pporting        documentation.
in a style that does not The belittle or disparage the a11eger,
    ,              3.
For those allegations resulting in the need for corrective, the                action affected to protect organization the identity of the(s)alleger.
shall be properly infonned recognizing the nee
                                                                ,/
Al-9                          '
 
l-1 NRC 0517, APPENDIX 1
)E-                                                                                                  MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS 4
A reasonable effort must be made to notify all allegers of the NRC's disposition or resolution of their concern (s).
contain documentation of this effort.                    The official file must          ;
l
}
Part VII: A11ecation Resolution Documentation 1.
Allegation resolution documentation officially closes the file for athat casecase and shall file. be placed in the working file which now becomes 1
closed                                                                                    1
: 2.                                                                                                    {
                                        - A final report or document should be prepared that sets forth the facts about of            the allegation and its resolution clearly investigation                                                                eport and con i
plex or major gen,eric matter.an inspection report, or a technical paper for a com-q'                                        allegations proximate to 0L issuance.It c,an be an SER supplement for multiple Requirement 054).or material that could be used to identify, the al 3._
The final report should include a summary of the concern, a descrip-tion of the evaluation performed and the conclusions drawn.                                  4 7                                                                                                              It should
                                      . be written in a style that does not belittle or disparage the alleger.
4 Appropriate tion.                entries should be made in the AMS to close out the allega-
                                                                                    't.
5.
t                                  When allegationthe    final report has been approved (i.e., the case is closed), all documentatfor appropriate precautions! is subject to release under the FOIA with to protect confidentiality. Until that time, all allegation documentation is exempt from release under the FOIA in accordance          with 10 action.
for, law enforcement          CFR 9.5 Exemption (7) due to actual, or the potential.
An FOIA request received during the open 4                                  stage, for FOIAhowever, proc'essing. will " freeze" those documents in the file at that time ~
freely review case files when an allegation is closed and those documents necessary to account for official action.
6.
Reports issued by the Office of Investigations will be complete reports it
'                                      suitablefor Regions    forenforcement referral to the      Department of Justice (DOJ) or NRC Offices or action.
mation which would reveal the identify of confidential sources allegers.                                                                                    andA Transmittal letters referring O! reports to the Department of                      4
[
i confidential the reports.                  sources and allegers and request that 00J l
l                                                                                                                                        t i                                                    Memoranda to the E00 and Regional Administrators should
        '-                          also clearly indicate if a report contains information which would reveal                          !
the identity of a confidential source or alleger. The EDO and Regional Administrators of such reports onwill          make determinations a need-to-know    basis. regarding further distributions confidential source shall be, documented.            Determinations regarding a t
a1-10                          -
 
01        -
MeiAGEMENT Of ALLEGATIO*iS 0
I APPENDIX 1. NRC 0517 source identity of a'.hould confidential besource stamped
                                                                                  "        "Contains infomation wh O
Part VIII: Dissemination of Final Reoort 1.
                                      . priate, to the affected outside organization (s).A copy of th may be needed to summarize the matter.                    A transmittal letter l-                                                                                                                          '
              '2.
As in Part VII.1 above, copies of the final report shall be placed in the  NRCofrecords identity                system, and should be treated so as not to reveal the the alleger.                                              .
3.
The foregoing does not apply to 01 investigative reports. However, if I
an OI report is the primary document relied upon in the resolution of an allegation,.the a11eger should be provided with a summary of the report.
PART IX: Allegation Management System g            1.                    General a.
For purposes of the Allegation Management System (AMS) the defini-tion provided for an allegation is very general and broad. The significance or nonsignificance of an alle during the Action Office review and followgation      will be judged up activities. There
)                                                                                                                          -
is to be no screening of allegations for possible deletion prior to entries).
entering them into the system (except of course for duplication                )
of                                                                              'I storin              Tf.e AMS should provide a vehicle for collecting, tions.g and retrieving all key information regarding all allega-
                                                    'The Action Office ' determines the necessary action to be        ,
taken based upon the specifics of the case, be received and closed out the same day.            Some allegations may -
b.
The AMS provides basic descriptive and status information and serves as a referral system.
to contact for more specifics on    It identifies the office and staff an allegation.
  ;_                                      keeps the staff informed as to how the allegation was resolvedAdditionally, and provides reference to the close out documentation.
c.
When an allegation is received, it is not necessary to identify l                                          by separate entry into the AMS every component or subset of the allegation.
For example, if an allegation is received that con-sists of 15 separate concerns of wrongdoing and technical deft-ciencies, the allegation may be entered as one allegation. However, the description of the allegation should include the number of separate concerns and their subject area.
be a distinct grouping of concerns, for example, in two areas suchIn so as training and quality assurance.
In such a case it may be Al-11
 
i
* i MC 0517, APPENDIX 1 i I                                                                                MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS--
appropriate to enter two allegations.
A main objective is to ensure the system.that the receipt of an allegation is entered and tracked in An allegation is not completed and closed until an I
Action been taken.Office  supervisor determines that appropriate action has d.
Sensitive tions shall notinformation    such be entered in      as the names of persons making all the system.                        -    1 on the form shall be unclassified and shall not contain any safe t
guards mation,    infomation or any proprietary or commercial (2.790) infor-e.
Some allegations may require action by two or more offices. For entries should be made for each Action Office f t                                    action or one entry may be made with the involved DACs agree on the lead Action Office for followup of the allegation. If should be so indicated in the " remarks" section.anothe 2.
Interfaces with the Office of Investigations a.
(                        The Office of Investigations has jurisdiction over all allegations where there is a reasonable basis for belief of wrongdoing and for which the staff determines an investigation is necessary to determ whether regulatory action is required except those involving NRC employees or NRC contractors and will forward all allegations of a {
technical nature to the appr'opriate Office or Region.                      4 The Office or under the purview of OI--into the AMS using a number.
: b.                                                                                    i employees or NRC contractors, assigned to the (1)
The Region or Office OAC will coordinate with the 01 Field Ofrector or. 01 Headquarters representative to determine if sensitive  information is included which should not be placed into the AMS.
and the word " sensitive" put in its place.All sensitive infomati AMS user to the maximum extent possible.should be m (2)
The Region number.        or Office OAC will assign a Region or Office AMS The O! assigned number should be entered in the AMS as a cross-reference.                                                    I (3)
The name and phone number of the O! Field Ofrector or 01 Headquarters representative will be placed in the appropriate section of the fonn as the Action Office contact.
l 1
Al-12
 
l f.-      .
I MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS                                                                                        h 1
APPENDIX 1, NRC 0517 (4)
;                                    The O! Field Director will keep the Region or Office OAC apprised of the stat.us of the allegation investigation and                                  l 4                                    significance of the allegation to appropriate R Office management' and for use in updating the AMS.                                          1 (5)                                                                                                }
tion report has been issued and as remain.
sues long as allegation remains open, reference is made to{)
g schedule for resolution of the allegation is pla 1
: c.                                                                                                .
or Field Director will coordinate withr the respe                                                  {
Region OAC to complete the items 2.b(1) through (5), above                                          )
: d.                                                                            ,
j For allegations of a technical nature received, by      01 the OI Head-quarters or Field Director will contact the respective Office or Region for            andOffice.
the Receiving  follow the procedures as indicated in item 3 below I              e.                                                                                                          \
mented in the allegation case file.Ol's review of allegations                          -
: 3.    ~
Receivino Office                                                                                              1
                                                          */,
I Upon receipt of an allegation involving an NRC-regulated activity tive to the allegation (see Exhibit 1) retoa- the OAC w                                  e stepsinto  required    to identify the Action Office and to enter                            the alle-gation          the AMS.                                                                                        t The Receiving Office OAC should, in addition to determining the                                                )
priate Action Office, coordinate with the Action Office,ro-and' receive )
4 concurrence from the Action Office before transfer of responsibility i                        .
Action Office.
The Action Office shall :
a.
Complete that portion of the Allegation Data Fonn marked " Action Office," assign an allegation number to it, and enter the allegat into the AMS within 10 working days of the date of receipt of the allegation.
b.
Review tions in the and, AMS onwhere    necessary, a monthly basis. update the status of all open all            -
    '.          c.
As soon as possible after the receipt of an allegation and relevant infonnation has been reviewed and evaluated, make a preliminary detennination latory action.      of safety
                                                  /      significance and the need for any regu -
1 I
Al 11                        _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _                  __
 
MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS 9'
i '
APPENDIX 1. ARC 0517 d.
Schedule the resolution of each allegation to be consist the licensing schedule and the safety significance gation.                                                  ent with  of th e alle-e.
I                                                Make to NRR ora  determination regarding the needo for a board n tifi NMSS.
cation in nature, a follow-up notification is sent to boardsIf uation is completed, or whenever significant          when eval-relevant infor tion is identified during the course of evaluating              -
the allegation.
This detennination should be made as soon                  as possible in f.
accordance with the Action Office board notification              s.
proced Develop contain      and maintain all related d        a working file for each      allegation
                                                                                                        , which will of multiple concerns, documentation.
concern.                separate working files may be needed f g.
Thirty days prior to the construction completion        ppli-date (a cant's estimate) for each pending OL each                    Action Office wi forward to the appropriate licensing organization                    in NRR uation      of the before to be resolved        safetythesignificance construction of  al? allegations completion
                                                                                                        , an eval.-
date          not sc
(-                                        recorrrnendaticn for  dela                as to whether any or all ofe, them with a constitute grounds license.ying        issuance of (or otherwise restricting) an oper (See 059.)
h.
power operation, a report similar prepared.
                                                                          '/
g full-be to item g., a i.
Protect the identity of all allegers and, wheny confidentiality  is requested, are implemented.assure      that the added controls in this    er Manual Cha
: 5. NRR OAC '
In addition to the normal OAC responsibilities, the NRR OAC:
a.
In coordination upgrading      of the AMS. with ORM, is responsible for          n the skintenan b.
            ~
allegation resolution.AMS database for u                          e      n c.
of the policies and procedures in mplementa                    .
this Manual    tion      C i                                                                                        .
                                                                ,/
s Al.14
 
[                                                                                                            _
4 l
    \,                        MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS i                                                                                                                            i APPENDIX 3. NPC 0517 GUIDANCE FOR INITIATION, ESTABLISHMENT                            ND OF PR TERMINATION OF INVESTIGATIONS t
i PART I: General                "
On January 10, 1986,                                                                              k the Commission approved the i                          Staff and the Office of Investigations for initiatioguidelines proposei priorities and-termination of investigations        .
n, establishment of priorities for investigations and that                                                staff views o n establishing          i i
priority of an investigation were an integrale need cess.
guidelines.
partforofandth              <
The  following procedures are to be followed in im le investigatio I                                                                                              p ementing the PART II:
Referral byof Matters the Staf f for Investigation      ~
1.
'l  i                            Regional Administrators and Office Directors EDO,allshall gation          refer matters      to the Office of Investigations f, the latter through t where:
or possible investi-wrongdoing, as that tem is defined elsewhere in thi1) there is and 2) whether decide      the staffenforcement determinesoranother      investigation regulatory is          necessary fs acti or it to on is required 0
Matters for which there is not a reasonable basis t investigation rould be unnecessary                  o ng but for which    to andetemiis inv) action should not be referred to O! for investigationne the appropria 1
requirement or falsified a document, appropriate corrective action which the Staff h p oyee and takes ,
y violated a discipline 2.
conclude that further NRC action is unnecessary.as reviewed, the Sta j
All form referrals to 01 shall be made using the '' Request f Exhibit 3 to this Manual Chapter.                        or Investigation" 8
sR forth below as guidance. lown using                          w,illthebe    assigned to the examples regional counsel or OELO as appropriate.Each request          coordinated  + with 3
forms shall be distributed as indicated on the formCopies of the comp As    indicated priority            above, for each matter      the staff referred  to 01.will recommend , normal or low a high                  '
these examples are just that. serve as guidance in assigning prioritie case to assure that theJudgment                        must        still be    exercisedd in eachI v.
appropriate      priority    e.
is    establish b
P e
9e .
 
l                                                                                                            __
MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS I
a*                                                                                                APPENDIX 3. NRC 0517    -
fi 1h A.
l 7
deliberate violation of requirements having h                                            .
cance, to employees e.o.,or continuing members of thepotential pubife. for unnecessary radiation expo B.
Suspected tampering with vital equipment at a power reactor                          .
C.
Allegations of falsification of records available for cNRC                                  on inspe t or submittals to the NRC or deliberate withholding of information required to be reported to the NRC, where the situation involved presents 1:.1:. .      an imediate and continuing health and safety concern 1.
falsification of records having hign safety significance                      , such as  falsifications required  test;        which conceal a repeated failure to perform a 2.
criteria information for an operating facility; ora 3.
f level of individual involved in the alleged withholdng of the willingness of sianagement to conduct s raised.
j D.
Allegation of falsification of records available for NRC inspectio                                      l significant safety concern for licensing.or deliberate vio E.
Allegations of wrongdoing where immediate investigation is
                    ,    to ensure some    other waypreservation time perishable.and  availability of evidence or which are in Normal A.
on safety-related equipment at a facility under c B.
Allegations of deliberate violations of NRC requirements where the is no indication the violation is recurring or causing insnediate and i direct health and safety impact on the general public or employee                            .
C.
Allegations of falsification of records available for NRC inspection 9                    or  deliberate licensing            violation of HRC requirements of safety concern in the process.
t                                                                                                                              l
                                                    ,/                                                                            l
                                                                                                                                  \
A3-2                            - - -      - - - -          ~^
t
 
1 i
W.u GEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS
,)    (                                                                                            APPENDIX 3. NRC 0517 Low A.
Allegations of deliberate violations of NRC requirements, falsiff-
)                                              of workers where the licensee is aware of the all already undertaken corrective action.
a deliberate violation of NRC requirements.to determ B.
Allegations of deliberate violation of NRC requirements at an operating    facility  whereshutdown.
there is no near-term safety concern, e.g.,        {
the reactor is  in long-term 4
areas of responsibilities necessary investigations                      If the ar program office believes that a priority for a matter shculd be different thantothat ately        requested resolve            by the region, the region should be contacted imm the matter.                                                -
OI should be contacted within IS days of the original referral if the priority is changed from the initial request
: 5.                                                                                      .
Once a matter has been accepted by O! for investigation, if the
('                              an investigation Director,                      has changed, O! for his consideration.                  that information will be PART III:    Initiation of an Investigation by OI r,
1.
Upon receipt of the " Request for/ Investigation" form, OI will evaluate the request office. O! willand  conduct initiate          consultations an investigation    if: as necessary with the request a.
The staff has found that the alleged wrongdoing has had or could
* have an impact on the pubite health and safety, the common defense.
and security, protection of the environment, or antitrust laws provided that these matters are within NRC jurisdiction; and b.
believe that the matter involves wrongdoing; andThe Dir c.
The    Director.
available  to support investigation.
01thedetermines      that there allegation to warrant        is of initiation sufficient an          informa 2.
If upon review of the request, there is a reasonable belief that the alleged wrongdoing is solely a product of careless disregard or reckless indifference. O! will not normally conduct an investigation unless the because there are major regulatory implications                                      and the i
concurs with this judgment.                                              , OI
                                                                  /
A3-3
 
0      -
MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS APPENDIX 3, NRC 0517
:0 3.
01 will. seek Commission approval prior to initiating an investigation relating to the jurisdiction.      character / integrity of an individual within 01 4.
0 whether the matter has been accepted for                                            the investig priority assigned to the matter and the estimated schedule for com,p If a matter requester      is not with      accepted the basis  for itsfor investigation, OI will provide the decision.
4                                    copy of the original request as indicated on the req PART IV:
Resolution of Differences 8etween Staff and 0I_
1.
1 Following O! notification of its action on a request for lavestigation                    ,
assigned to the matter or the declination of O! t shall promptl his concern. y notify the Director of the appropriate program office of 2.
:: }                                The Director of the responsible program office will review disputed' matters referred by the Fegional Administrator and the priorities and office.
schedules assigned on matters referred to O! dire needs, promptly        and notify      the matter cant:ot be resolved with the the E00.
I                                                            ,
                                                                        . ).
3.
The EDO will resolve all differences over the need for and priority and schedules for investigations with the Director 0! or seek Cossnission resolution.                                                                                .
PART V:  Termination of Investigations
.I 1.
will    nonnelly be made outside the context of the inve priority /threshhold system.
it                                to its conclusion if there is a reasonable basis for a belief that matter ments. being investigated involves a deliberate violation of NRC require-The decision to terminate an investigation will be a case-by-case
                          ,      assessment by the Director. 0! of such issues as whether the relevant facts necessary to resolve the matter under investigation haFe been gathered, whether allegations of events or conditions are so old that lI                                witnesses are unavailable or could no longer be expected to recall
      ;                          pertinent information, or whether continued investigator) would be non-                                1 productive or otherwise not serve the agency's interests.                                              '
4 l
A3-4                                                                i
 
g                                                                                                                                                              j I
i MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS it (                                                                                                                                APPENDIX 3, NRC 0517 2.
determines that the need for or prioritye,of an i that information      will be provided to the Director, 01 for his considera    tion.
't 3.
For low and normal priority cases, 01 may close a c'ase if its projecti of resource allocations indicates that the ir.vestigation could not be initiated within a reasonable period of time which will generally be six!
months.
OI may close a case following its initial evaluation if at that                            {
g time O! is able to make a projection of its resource allocations and th                                ;
case would not be initiated within a reasonable period of time, e.g., six i months.
4 of lack of resources to pursue it.0! will notify the staff in writing wi 4                                                                          Part VI:
Resolution of Those Matters Returned to the Staff By OI Without Investigation 1.
Those matters which are returned to the Staff by 0I without                                            !
g /
N investigation process    to resolve  (see  V.3) will inspection            be handled by the staff as part findings.                                          of its norm This may include additional between the staff and licensee or proceeding with appropriate        on the basis of the original or supplemented inspection findings or such other actions as appropriate.
g s                                                              If, after development of A..up. phae _ntal infntm_ttiorto_r._. reassessment                                                                      o
                                          //    hvesfigation in accordance with the procedures in this chapter staff will not use its resources to conduct an investigation of.he[he matters referred back                  to the staff by OI. N Sf4 J                /
i    .
                                                            %+OT q tln,            s ch= th.
m,f                    Q 'H
                                                                                                                                              /
n
                                                                        ,g. m u 9                                      m.
j g' t          g
                                                                                                                                            .p:m:
                                                                      '                                          1. ,- nm.
                                                                                              /            r.,    ,"                                  .
W_
ax
                                              \                                                                                                                  .
p"'
i
                                                                                          /                                                    '
p    *
                                                                                  ,/                          .
gp
_l
                                                                                                                                      \. sl ' '
                                                                        ./
h      w, 3_L                o s =
                                                                                                              %a pi n J'f ell:'
ff w.          i H. . .
Ye A 3 'i
 
f . :. .
MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS EXHIBIT 3. NRC 0517 LIMITED DISTRIBUTION -- NOT FOR puBLIC DISCLOSURE Request No.
(Region-year-No.-)
TO:                                                                                                                            '
                          'FRON
)
REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
* 3-Licensee / Vendor / Applicant Docket No.
                    . Facility or Site Location 0.(
Regional Administrator / Office Date                        ~~""
                                                                                                                                        /
B A.                                Request What is the matter that is being requested for inves O.
O.            8.                  . Purpose of Investfoation
: 1.                                                                    rongdoing (be as specific $              suspected; explain the basis for this view aspossible).
O
: j. .
LIMITED DISTRIBUTION-- NOT FOR PUBLIC O!SCLOSU
                                                                                                                              ,! E3-1              Approved:
0
* _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' ' - - - - - ~ ~
 
3 MAN'GEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS 4                                                                                                                          EXHIBIT 3, NRC 0517 0
LIMITED DISTRIBUTION -- NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE 0
2.
                                                                      'What    are the potentisl regulatory requirements that may have been violated?
O 3.
If no violation concern?            is suspected, wha't is the specific regulatory Q
4.
If allegations occurred?      likelyare involved, occurred  _ is there  a view that the allegation
                                                                                                                , not sure likely,- explain the basis for that view.                    ~
                                                                                                                                      . If G5  <                                                                                                                        ,
C.                        Requester's Priority                    /,
g                                                            1.
Is the priority of the investigation high, normal, or low?
2.
What are      is the needed?      estimated date when the results of the investigation 3.
g                                                                  What da  te ?  is the basis for the date and the impact of not meeting this (For example, is there an immediate safety issue that must be addressed or are the results necessary to resolve any ongoing regulatory come    of theissue    and if so, what actions are dependent on the out-investigation?
6 9
i                                                                                                                        .
4 LIMITED DISTRIBUTION -- NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE W
 
D'  .
MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS EXHIBIT 3 NRC 0517
'l LIMITED DISTRIBUTION -- NOT FOR PUBLIC OISCLOSURE D. Contact 1
: 1. Staff members:                                '
t 2.
t                          A11egers identification with address and telephone number if not confidential. (Indicate if any confidential sources aFe involved and who may be contacted for the identifying details.)
F.      Other Relevant Information i
                                                                                                              ~
Signature
* I cc: CI (B. Hayes) *]
E00 NRR/NMSS as appropriate  ~
                                                */, ~"/
                                                    ~
                          /, ***/
,                  Regional Administrator **/, ***/
            */      If generated by regfon.
I T*/ If generated by IE.
h/ If generated by NRR/NMSS t
LIMITEDDISTRIBUTION-,NdiFORPUBLICDISCLOSUREW/0O! APPROVAL i
 
                        ,. mucarvweicur herum.N W.$use 202 1%oc 20tne                                                                          cetu 23MMO                      - Attachment
* 11                  E I
I                                                                                                                                                        $
T.ame ., ems,es , me som. Toas necean C==reen. Pose =t g                                $
j        i              g
  $                        pogini ettese Perser Seres ese Rienere Canart of tes toveressent Acceemeesswy Pro est
$                  (-6eAP) i l
                                                                                                                                                                      >d CC pos The SAP hrvesNestten of STP                                                                                            .
                                                                                                                                                        '            VC.
g]
i        OnMarch 6,1937me meneemment of $T P putstehoe toene meermetten eneut me Gerartenant e
Ascountansity Pro 6ect (GAP) to the eerseerce mreven a puse6caten e6erteuses to me                                                        yg                      4 4
(
emeesvees eninies "tene honom pees." The ano management has recueos to correct me inser-mesen throush atne tsteess etes" eno me howo chessimis memostoceryoct tho mtemeerme-g eg pg                    g' l          teaun pussiehoe assue G AP.
t                                                                                                                                          *
                                                                                                                                                                                            .Y 1            (            GAP le a non9 refit puh83c in                                                                                                            -
twee. hwasese. intimmesee.'erest organiserten met represones empeevees who new, toen j                                                    or suweroo mecrinuneheief ery sert eer memaanne m e moir leh ene. Irv es6ng es6 prosect the puesic hoe #m and namory. GAP in hmens tem by provaseessop                                                                    -:
l 7            estionsoneindivieseoswhosuoporttiretnn aansmurmerur6snestenuesoneuneare                                                                                          l ancernedweteWeeseestyof apeMicularcommunsryanebythestearneysteesonesuponses j'                                                                                                                            l j
ecetwee prern succeaefully essending ene protectsng employees teht have been gerungeusty l
w            - - - - - -              .,-
w,trar temerepresent                                                                                                  ,j.
            '        # are newy,ers one we are em,e.ense m =. Anan ne peamme 1                                                          ,
                      ~
cader toesus to represent see 6neersers of eer setems.wlmen the                                                            .
l                        poet ein years me have represernos hunereas of empesyeesof the nuclear treassery-creek 3
i
* f                                                                                                                                          l g
b          [ cierta, soromen, one aussereW Willnes, cenerecaert suwesereciert veneert manufac-amen,                                                                  eno6nsers,{
turers ans even empeevees of the Nucieer seguiesary Commesseen. To the esseNt that me estese over nucesor poner esseesvent, our cNames are vertuesfy ese "prHosseomr," Sus our g
                      ' cJeanes aH h. owe somemog enere m commen men geene tainey yo nucseer, toepy are pro-                                                                                    j y ans wim m.papeo ne euwesen te = w= m c.npuence weth mo r=w.iene                                  i E      >            l
                                            -~
pg esench-'                  . - - - rnuclearpower36esett J 1- A theysecohaveeruusher                                                                                    '
1
* r1                                                                                                            l wwh'            - men-may ren ineea parean er a enusNun in ushich mer hetteesses qpeangfy                    I                I l                        T4                    ^      anderaressesses er seek me emer mes and ignore me feestremones.
E reentthosgeogtheyressesmairiene teserpassesse.temercureursteen-                  -l                                          ,
sureemt the regu6eners ans precedures tours canoasseelem                              .. ..                                  d*            M            E 4
j                        j we eu sees    r reene m inveniece wwes    sorterempotees
                                                                        ==gn=no w trees  in trere ety    w    wo u.s. es. comer nes.w.eserv e _ which a, wah me men,inigaww.                                                        2  '
pronoms ane workers, one we reareenne them en trase of the U.S. Department of Leber which is roepennense for enforcme the empeores presacetevi presemees et the leer.                                                                        @
T.
                        "The basess hee" encourages orneneyees se tems thstr toesty concerna to the g  ,
setosay ATE Am er to th) M RC ano orornsees enet moreusuteto ne represets ser geene to me SAPgTCAm with their cencerns However, the neweesator e4 not een tne empeevees me                                                                    g facts aeevt me 8 hP5 TEAM or Hwur me prosectests sweesamee ao stem.
                                                                                                                                                                .h
                        ..h. ugh _ _ .n _ hypep _ e..em..o _ .. _ . _ me                                                                                        .
                      %As S75 AS4 is Sg ari 6neeporesna mvestepetarie sowicy. It is a management tems to provHee
* omsteyees                  nomsenere se turn este eneer cancems. Th.e program as amoresse by Neussen                                    Q                      _,,
Ughtsas & Pomer using consuneros ter uservesse an Invest 6eesers, see ressense to any SMegenshimaruWiessutwethoutgoingthroughereverecommstessef ML& Pan.ESASCOct-ficiep
                                                                                                                            .; efpositte.n 1.. the housasi une      heer.ngLignsg    mm emmey= & Poser    .ae ereans iew E  en.BA&CC isrm.n e erhaveherene tehen or gesng      =                  in current %. .
                  , SAF ETEAM we set legeny prosectee under me eeneseemsower protect 6en till. Doceves the cowts base nos yet esc 6eed whether geens to the sargTEAAA is scesectos acttwtty empseyeen shotof) be aware that they are eney aneures of legaf presortten en the following I cirucmetences:
t (U lt an ano6 eye anelses or partscspeces er is sense se seeiet;se perftcipate in en MAC pre-emanna, som as a use esne hearias er an mac e,---y er                                                                                                              g (SP #f as semappeessiers er pertmasses er is seem to aanser er perfecapose in s Departmans g
of Lamre precayess sur esamese e Osperiment of Laser hearing er anwesigertaru er
                    <gesp - pernc= son in -y .her acnon .each eunh-s me ACT.                                                                                    .. f
                    .n .
m e.                  ee.s.,ueesth.,wrt,.ng m e,C. ,se,se,,.gu.e,,y,e.
: a
              '                  ~
on,aa* rwere or o, ming weenim caemf<en nene compeerns esa                                                                  :-
de                                                                                                                                E
!                  Wetestem ty trytne to et ther the Sph Carcuert teerpressmewsewesug ene se arc acthe-he ever, unm ene court receousse that compiants anew twowy                                              ..
                                                                                                                                                                              *  )
are erwectet the enty surewer ser mertere sopresect themeshes                                                          6,,
e                                            concerne er cricorns amene heresamese er escrimanereen as v
g    h cosinue se press morter conterse ateus esseWy. teosty femas Preiset. Our ab$ectfwe le le ensure tenet att eineen caricorve are accesseed g                  ; .                            NaCrepasnare,nnemssaryseenseres,y        oneneweengesse    and reempvos.
ape procesares-no    more,no Our i      test we                    consaceas se (3st) 354 feer er mes se SAP- touch Yoses lnesangesene e
test                      Atu6.ene.Weehesssen.Q.C 3g.                .
r
                                                                  .n.e . . .      .
                                                                                                              <....>i
        &        <q)                                      '
b
__ . .p e t
 
l 3''                    -
L c.
l UNITE 0 sTATks j/'g- ,. . ''e,j          s
                                                                                                                                .vuCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS:.          4
            -* -                                                                        ,g                                              WASHINGTON D. C. 20555 Attachment # 12 '
,t.                                  .....                                                                                                    '#N 0 3 BH n.y/            g MEMORANDUM FOR:                                                                          Chairman Palladino M              /
3 FROM:                                                                                    William J. Dircks Executive _ Director for Operations
 
==SUBJECT:==
                                                                              . DIA REPORT (1) COMANCHE PEAK - MARKEY LETTER RE:                                    i
'                                                                                                                        REGION IV INVESTIGATIONS / INSPECTIONS AND (2) REVIEW OF                            '
CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY CASE ABOUT CONDUCT OF RIV INVESTIGATIONS / INSPECTIONS                    ,
By memo of November 16, 1983, you requested m my views on what actions might be necessary.My                                                                                y comments review leadsonme thetoreports, the    and conclusions outlined below.
A.                                      October 20, 1983 OIA Report " Comanche Peak - Markey Letter re: Region IV Investigations / Inspections."
,i.F                                                                  1.                                  I do not believe that Region IV should be criticized for failing to contcet Dillingham initially. Not only did Region IV take the initiative-to investigate allegations made in the press - as opposed to acting on an allegation brought directly to NRC's attention -
but the region was aware that Mr. Dillingham had signed the B&R review of the same allegations in apparent agreement with those
[                                                                                                          findings. Region IV as discussed in item 2 also reviewed the B&R and TUGC0 findings. At that time (1982), in that situation, it                                -
appears to have been reasonable not to have contacted Mr. Dillingham directly despite his allegations to the press of a " cover up."
Hindsight would have made that contact desirable, but would not likely have changed ultimate findings on the matter. Mr. Dillingham I                                                                                                          was furnished a copy of the final inspection report on June 15                                  j 1983 with a request that he contact RIV if he had more to report.
He did not take advantage of the offer.
: 2.                                    RIV's investigation of the allegation took the form of a separate review of an investigation performed by B&R and TUGCO. CIA feels I                                                                                                          that this was not an adequate manner by which to address the issues.
The Region IV review of the BAR and TUGC0 findings was independent, careful and included cross-checking' where necessary; 1.e., it was not simply a matter of noting BAR findings. Again, with the advantage of hindsight, one could say that Region IV management should have recognized the need to give special attention to the matter and to i                                                                                                          go beyond a review of someone else's work.                However, given the
  .                                                                                                      situation as it existed the actions of Region IV appear reasonable and correct.                    -
I
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ .                  .__                                                                e_..
 
L
\e s
s.
: 3. OIA further notes that RIV did conduct an independent investigation of three allegations inade in the news article - these allegations were not covered in the B&R report, therefore an inspection was made. Two of these allegations were issues concerning which
.I                                                        Mr. Dillingham had only second hand knowledge. Thus, the primary sources (Messerly & Whitt) were contacted. The third was sufficiently obvious that no further information was needed, and a notice of violation was in fact issued by RIV on this matter, q                                                    4. In' regard to the CASE letter (received via Congressman Markey's letter) which included an affidavit from Mr. Dillingham, no action had been taken, as OIA notes, because no new infonnation was presented that had not been looked into otherwise,.
: 8. October 20, 1983 OIA Report '' Review of Concerns. Expressed by Citizens c                                                  Association for Sound Energy About Conduct of Region IV Investigations /
Inspections.
: 1. OIA investigated the circumstances related to the issuance of two versions of Region IV Inspection Report 50-445/82-14 This report was revised after a licensee 50.55e letter had been received indi-J
      .                                                  cating that the licensee found a deficiency which a regional in-
                                                      . spection had overlooked. The underlying cause appears to be inadequate    ,
followup by.the regional inspector of the allegations on welds in        '
pipe whip restraints. Had the original regional inspection been            '
more thorough, the defective welds could have been identified. I intend to emphasize the need for thorough inspections of alleged
  ;                                                        deficiencies to OIE and Regional Administrators to avoid repetition of these problems.
: 2. The issue at point here from OIA's standpoint is that of the breach of an alleger's confidentiality. The situation out of which this evolved was fairly complex. An investigator did identify the alleger    i
  !.                                                      after he was released by the licensee in April 19823 and RIV staff    ,
testimony before the ASL8P in July 1982 again breached that confidentiality. The same alleger's testimony before the same          l ASL8P seems to make an open admission of his providing information to NRC. More to the point, NRC policy on confidentiality was less than clear in 1980 and not executed similarly in all regions. Our 1                                                        policy in this area is being reviewed and revised, as it is essential that the expectations of allegers in regard to confidentiality be
                                                        , fulfilled.
f 0
 
    .                                                                              I l
i I
1
)i In sumary, I believe Region IV's actions in these matters could have been better executed. I have initiated steps to assure that the lessons to q
be learned from this experience in Region IV are learned by all segments of the staff. Our policy on protection of confidentiality is being reviewed  1 3    and revised to strengthen its implementation. The need to treat allegations in a sincere and thorough manner is a frequent topic of many of our senior management discussions. I intend to maintain my personal involvement in this area in order to insure that continued improvement is achieved in the staff's handing of allegations.
)-
William Y
Dircks
                                                                    ~
Executive Director for Operations
}
cc: Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine Commissioner Bernthal SECY I ',      OGC OPE
: 8. Hayes 01 G. Messenger, OIA J. Collins, RIV
(
r l
                                                                                    }
 
0
                                                                                            ""~"
Enitch States of America ~
0'                                    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O
In the matter of; Houston Lighting and Power 0                              company
                                                                  > DOCKET NO. 50-498 50-499 TO                  l's. Sillie Pirr.er Garde i'                        Government Accountability            .
Project 1555 Connecticut Avenue. ft.W.
Suite 202 k*ashington 0.C. 20036 YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear at Room 6507. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 7735 Old Georgetown Road. Bethesda, Maryland on the 26th
          . day of May        1387 at 9:D0    o' clock A.M. to continue as necessary for the purpose of testifying before NRC personnel concerning allegations
    ,          of current and/or former employees of the South Texas Project concerning the safety of the South Texas Project, as described in your letter of January 2J.147 to Messrs. Victor Stello and James l'attox, and any other allegations which you have received cor.cerning the safety of the South Texas Project, and to provide any records or other docunents in your possession or under your custody or control concerning such allegations.
7 f
ctor Ste      .J.
e                                                      Executive Director for onarations k        REulatary Ca-intion                        ,M44/ #4e 19 87
        '1.,k
        . a r.nidhaen                                              [
Wm (301) 492-7619 On motion made promptly, and in any event at or before the time specified in the subpoena for compliance by the person to whom the subpoena is directed and on motice to the party at whose instance the subpoena was issued, the Cosmission may (1) quash er modify the su    ena if it is unreasonable or requires evidence not relevant to any matter.in issue.
l Or 2) condition dental of the motion on just and reasonable terus. Such action should
 
t UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
(                                                                            BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
                                                                                                    )
In the Matter of                                                                              )    Petition Pursuant
(
South Texas Nuclear Project
                                                                                                    )    to 10 C.P.R. 52.206
                                                                                                    )
                                                                                                    )
I PETITION OF THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT l
l I(
1 i
Prepared by:
Government Accountability Project 1555 Connecticut Avenue N.W. #200 l Washington, D.C. 20036 g                                                                                                  (202) 232-8550                    )
l I
Dated:                              May 29, 1987 I
i
: g. ,
e d
                                                                                                                                        -TABLE OF CONTENTS g:.                                                                                                                                                                                                  Page
                - I.                                                INTRODUCTION...................,........,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,                                                                            g II.
BACKGROUND.............................................                                                                              3 4
III. FACTS...................................,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
4
              - IV, .                                            LEGAL ANALYSIS.........................................                                                                              15 i
V.                                            CONCLUSION...........................,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,                                                                              gy VI . - RELIEF                                                                                                  REQUESTED.......................................                    20 l l(
:I:
lV
.t.
f 1
(-
i.
t
_-- - - _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - - _ - - - . - _ - - . . _ - - _ - = - _ - _ _ - - - _ - _ _ _ - _ . - - - - -            _
 
V l
I. INTRODUCT*ON g  (                                      The purpose of this Petition, in conjunction with the Motion                      I To Quash Subpoena filed on behalf of Billie P'irner Garde, Esq.,
I is to protect the public health and safety by assuring that'over-lg                                    400 serious safety allegations raised by current and former employees of the South Texas Nuclear Plant .(STNP) are properly investigated. In order to assure that these serious safety problems are properly investigated, the Commissioners are requested to establish special investigation unit which would comply with the spirit and letter of NRC Chapter Manual 0517 and
                                      - which would be similar to those now operating out of the Special l                                      Projects Office or to those previously established for Waterford and Comanche Peak. In order to provide the assurance that this investigation is properly conducted, the Commission must prohibit
.(
:    [
the involvement of Region IV or Victor Stello in the investigation.
As the following memorandum and attachments make clear, as
.4 well as the companion Motion To Quash and attachments to it, Region IV has had a long history of misfeasance and malfeasance with regard to investigation of worker safety allegations in I
particular and safety inspections in general.      Victor Stello has been an outspoken apologist for Region IV and its management, even to the point of seeking to reward and promote two of the 1
I                                      principal targets of the recent OIA investigation of Region IV at the time the critical OIA conclusions were being issued.                          The impropriety of the past practices of Region IV and Victor Stello 1
are well documented and well known to each Commissioner.                          The 1 -
 
1 1                                                                                                  i l
failure of either Regicn I'/ or Victor Stelio to repudiate their i
past conduct or discard pursuit of that conduct for the future is powerful evidence of the need for an independent special            l 1
investigation. It is critical that there be a competent and      I prompt investigation of the more than 400 safety allegations that  !
concerned workers have presented to their GAP attorneys and which  1 i
GAP personnel, working with and under the supervision of those      !
attorneys and in pursuit of the attorneys' representation of        l l
d l                              their clients, have pursued.                                        l l
The illegal subpoena issued by Victor Stello in an attempt 1
to force Billie Pirner Garde, Esq., to disclose the confidences of her clients is the last desperate act of a man who has been totally frustrated in his attempt to subvert the efforts of these concerned workers to have their concerns properly pursued.      For I (
t six months Ms. Garde has attempted, on behalf of her clients,    to convince Mr. Stello to establisn the appropriate investigative mechanism to assure a prcper consideration of the safety I
allegations. Mr. Stello has refused and, because it became apparent that he would never on his own allow the independent investigation required, this Petition has been filed to assure I
protection of the public health and safety.
By quashing the illegal subpoena and establishing the independent investigation sought here the Commissioners will both I
assure adequate protection of the public health and safety and expedite the process for resolution of these safety issues.
 
II. BACKGROUND 4                The South Texas Nuclear Project, a two-unit reactor, was granted a construction permit by the NRC in 1975.        The plant was supposed to be built in compliance with its construction permit,                                                                      )
I I
federal regulations and indust ry stal:dards. At that time Brown &                                                                l i
Root, Inc., was the architect, engineer and builder for Houston
                                                                                                                                                        ]
Lighting and Power (HL&P), the applicant for license and STNP's
,l principal owner. In April 1980, HL&P was fined $100,000 by NRC for failing to ensure that their contractor, Brown & Root, complied with federal safety standards and regulatory requirements. In September 1980, Brown & Root was removed as
,i.
l                engineer and construction manager of the STNP.      Later, in November 1981, Brown & Root withdrew as builder of the project and was replaced by Ebasco.      Brown & Root was subsequently sued lI(
l by HL&P and othet partners involved in the STNP for damages resulting from mismanagement of the project.      The suit was settled in 1985.
I In June 1986, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board concluded that there would be reasonable assurance that the STNP l                would be completed in accordance with federal requirements.
lf l                      Currently, the contractors involved at STNP include HL&P, Bechtel, Ebasco and SAFETEAM.      STNP is planned to begin fuel load on June 1, 1987, and Unit I is scheduled to start comraercial
(
operation in December, 1987.
3-
 
i 11 LIII.                        FACTS
;                                      -In January,1987, . GAP -at torneys began a preliminary investigation ~into the concerns of' workers and citizens pertaining to the STNP.                              Our' investigation of the STNP was 1
prompted by.the concerns of STNP workers who came to us for help
(.
in dealing.with problems at the plant.                              Due.to:the complexity and  l number of allegations raised by workers'at STNP, GAP retained the                              l
                                                                                                              }
assistance of an experienced' nuclear investigator.                              Using the-    4
                                                                                                              )
g' 1
techniques and criteria employed by successful worker allegation                                '
review' programs, GAP has sought to carefully investigate and categorize each allegation received from STNP workers. To date, I'
GAP-has reviewed over 500 allegations.                              Of the allegations-reviewed, . an: overwhelming number (50%) pertain to the safety of                              '
the plant. .Other categories of allegations include:                                wrongdoing I(        (37%), intimidation and threats (10%), and other concerns (3%).                                  J Since beginning.its investigation GAP has repeatedly
                                                                                                              )
requested that NRC provide an independent review and inspection I'
t ea's to address the allegations we were receiving (see attached letters).                              We requested independent review because of our            I negative. experience, over the last five years, with Region IV of I
the NRC concerning facilities throughout the region. In a'                                        I January 20, 1987, letter to Mr. Stello and James Mattox (Attorney General'for the State of Texas) we expressed our concern that
'I-      ' Region IV was " unable or unwilling to comply with . . .
l regulatory requirements."                              In addition, we requested that the NRC provide independent inspectors to compensate for Region IV's                                      1 deficiencies.                              Appendix A. On Pebruary 18, 1987, Mr. Stello 4-
                                                                                                              )
 
responded to our concerns about Region IV by stating:
(                The South Texas Project is within the jurisdiction of Region IV and that Region iu the appropriate organization to review the concerns of your clients. I have confidence that Region IV will properly pursue this responsibility.      I have been in contact with Mr.
Robert.D. Martin, Regional Administrator for Region IV, g                    and he' assures me that 1.is staff is thoroughly prepared to commit the resources required to appropriately resolve the issues which_your clients might raise.
Appendix B. On March 4th, we challenged Mr. Stello's assurances g              by articulating some of the instances of improper conduct by Region IV officials (including Mr. Martin) that we had experienced.        Again, we requested an independent review team.
Mr. Stello's March 18th letter, once again, ignored the issue of Region IV's competence and asked that our clients turn over their information to Houston Lighting and Power or the NRC.        Appendix C.
  '(                Our response was brief and consistent with our previous letters.        Appendix D. Finally, in an April 8th letter, Mr.
Stello clearly demonstrated that he was part of the problem and not part of the solution.1/        The letter reads as follows:
I have received your letter of March 23, 1987.        I accept your characterization of the allegations you have in hand as bearing on the safety of the S. Texas Nuclear Power Plant in a significant way.
I                  I urge you to bring these issues to NRC for our review.
As to where and how within NRC they will be addressed            ,
is my responsibility.      Assignment within NRC will be governed by the nature of the allegations.        I can assure you they will be handled properly, both in regard to technical review and in regard to
:(                    confidentiality.
By the nature of significant safety issues, they must be addressed promptly.      Your letters imply that you i                    have had this information for some time. Therefore, if l
f 1/  Interestingly enough, Mr. Stello's April 8th letter was Urltten two days after a letter from HL&P to GAP which stated:
(footnote continued) 1 a_-________.
 
we do not receive full information on the allegations
    /*                within 30 days we will be constrained to take steps to acquire it by other means.                                                  i l
(emphasis added)                  Appendix P. Mr. Stello's refusal to address    j the Region IV problem made it impossible for GAP to comply with his request, and clearly showed his complicity with Region IV officials.
As you are well aware, Region IV officials, from the top                    ;
level to resident inspectors, have repeatedly demonstrated their complete disregard for NRC policy regarding premature disclosure of information to utility officials.                    This has resulted in the exposure of the identities of NRC informants to utility officials, and has compromised inspection and investigation activities.
For example;
: 1.            In 1980, Region IV management prematurely disclosed information regarding a pending enforcement action to officials of the Hayward-Tyler Pump Co. resulting in the withdrawl of the enforcement action.                  (See, OIA Report and Congressional hearings on the issue from 1982).
: 2.                In 1981-1982, Region IV inspectors engaged in a variety of activities to prevent non-Region IV inspectors from completely (footnote continued)
                  ". . . we are taking steps to request appropriate government officials to obtain from you or your organization information which could potentially affect the safety of the South Texas Project." Appendix E.                  (See, GAP's response to HL&P's letter, also in Appendix E).                  It appears that Mr. Stello's letter was prompted by HL&P's request. Mr. Stello's sensitivity to the utility's needs, and insensitivity to the needs of STNP workers i
i and citizens of Texas, is further proof of the breakdown of the regulatory process and the need for independent review.
L___ _ ______ _
 
1 p.
l.
I.
t.
                          = assessing the condition of the STNP. (See, generally, record in-(                      lawsuit.HL&P v. Brown & Root, and testimony of NRC inspectors contained therein).
: 3.      In'1982, it was confirmed that Comanche Peak resident inspector R.G. Taylor ~ identified Charles Atchison to'the Comanche Peak site manager as a long time NRC informant.        (See, OIA Report:        Review'of concerns expressed by Case about conduct of I                          Region IV inspections / investigations, dated October 20, 1983).
il
:                                  4.      In 1982, the NRC's Office of Inspector and Auditor.(OIA) confirmed that Region IV inspector R.G. Taylor completed an
;t inspection (at that point IER 50-445/82-14) by relying almost            !
i
                          . exclusively on utility provided documents.        In fact, Mr. Taylor did not inspect any of the hardware components in question.
i Later, when deficiencies were identified in the same hardware by
' d.
(.'                  the Applicant, Mr.-Taylor attempted to cover the inadequacy of his inspection effort by withdrawing the.first version of the inspection report and issuing a second version.        OIA lt investigators concluded that Mr. Taylor's actions were, at a l
minimum, inappropriate.        (See, id.).
: 5.      In 1983, OIA investigated charges that Region IV did not I
r adequately investigate, and mishandled, the technical concerns of two Comanche Peak employees.        OIA concluded that Region IV of ficials dismissed the workers' allegations solely on the basis I
of information provided by Texas Utilities, and did not even
                                                                                                    ]
attempt'to contact the workers to determine if they had any further concerns -- even after the workers complained to Congress, the intervenor and OIA that they had numerous concerns
 
i'e.
not investigated Or addressed.                              (See, OIA Report:  Markey letter
(                      re: Region IV investigations / inspections, October 20, 1983).
: 6. In 1983, ASLB Judge Marshall determined that a Region IV investigator deliberately withheld information from the Comanche Peak licensing board under the cloak of confidentiality agreements in an attempt to cover up their own inadequate investigation of worker allegations.                              (See, Memorandum and Order of the ASLB,
;                          September 30, 1982, " Denying Reconsideration of Staff Request").
: 7. In 1983, at the Port St. Vrain nuclear facility, Region IV inspectors apparently were not permitted to identify quality control and assurance issues at the plant.                              These allegations are now the subject of an OIA investigation. (See, Inside NRC, April 27, 1987).
: 8. In February, 1984, Region IV officials interviewed a key
  ,{
witness regarding the Comanche Peak document control system breakdown.                            Instead of keeping the interview confidential, Region IV docketed a transcript of the interview to all parties on the Comache Peak service list, thereby providing the information to the utility.                            Later, Region IV management refused to produce a copy of the transcript pursuant to a GAP Preedom of Information 1
Act request, because they claimed the transcript was
                          " Confidential".                            Apparently Region IV officials forgot they had publicly disclosed the transcript and.already revealed the identity of the alleger.
: 9. Also, in March 1984, eight electrical QC inspectors were I
held against their will by Comanche Peak officials after identifying problems with the electrical system.                              When co-workers 8-
__.m._  _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _
 
contacted the NRC, Regicn IV inspectors and managers refused to I
respond. Their refusal was based on discussions with the Texas Utilities' Vice-President. OIA concluded that Region IV's actions were insensitive to the workers' plight and that they failed to act when called for help.      (See, Report of Investiga-tion - NRC Office of Inspector and Auditor, August 30, 1985).
: 10. In 1985, Region IV inspectors at the Wolf Creek nuclear facility were instructed not to write up identified deficiencies at the plant on the eve of its licensing.      The nature and extent of the deficiencies were misrepresented to NRC Commissioners at a
,                                            licensing meeting.
Aside from the incidents listed above, Region IV's total abdication of its inspection responsibilities at the Grand Gulf I                                            and Waterford nuclear plants has resulted in a financial crisis for Middle States Utilities.      Failure to do proper inspections during the construction of these facilities resulted in reinspecticns, rework, and excessive costs at both plants.        Both plants were substantially completed before non-Region IV personnel identified significant problems.
t-Clearly, Region IV's improper practices can have an adverse effect on the health and safety of the public.      For example, when a utility is given advance notice of allegations concerning its
(
facility and/or notice that an inspection will take place, the utility is able to make repairs without doing the proper paper work. Worse, the utility may be able to cover up the problem.
Under these circumstances proper inspection and investigation cannot take place. The result is that the NRC is not able to
 
,/,.
determine now'the problem slipped through the inspection and
      .I '
review process, and whether that process has broken down.                                                            Nor can the NRC determine whether the identified. problem-is symptomatic of more generic problems at the facility.
;                                                                                      Our worst' fears about Region IV were realized when Senator John Glenn, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, conducted a hearing regarding NRC's ability to conduct
: p.                                        investigations into wrongdoing by agency and utility officials.
The hearing publicly revealed a number of startling facts about Region IV of the NRC.
;                                                                                  .In his opening' statement Senator Glenn was severely critical of.the NRC's ability to investigate and properly regulate the nuclear industry.                                                            See, Opening Statement of Chairman John Glenn, p                                      April 9, 1987'(Appendix G).                                                              Senator Glenn's criticisms were directed at the NRC's national office as well as Region IV.
Senator Glenn's statement was more than corroborated during
  ,                                        the hearing.                                                            See, Statement of Julian Greenspun, Esquire, before the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, April 9,                                                          1987 (Appendix H).
NRC personnel also testified at the hearing.                  Of particular interest was the testimony of Ben B. Hayes (Director, NRC Office of Investigations).                                                            Mr. Hayes described the cover-up of an investigation into collusion between NRC personnel and Louisisma Power and Light (LP&L).2/                                                            Statement of Ben B. Hayes, Director,
                                      '2/                                        See, newspaper articles, Appendix I.
                                                                                                                                                  - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
 
NRC Offi e of. Investigations before the Ccmmittee on Governments)
Y Affairs, April 9, 1987, at 2-5 (Appendix J).                                Mr. Hayes also testified about Mr..Stello's improper conduct in coaching a Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) official on how to respond to an 4      NRC letter ask!ng.if TVA was in compliance with quality assurance
      .(QA) procedures under 10 C.P.R. 50, Appendix B.                                Id. at 5-7. .Mr.
Stello subsequently threatened Mr. Hayes over his investigation of the matter.                                Id. at 8.
George A..Mulley, Jr. (Assistant Director for Investigations at the NRC Office of Inspector and Auditor) testified about an Investigation he conducted into harassment of Region IV employees by Region IV management.                                The investigation focused on harassment  i resulting from Region IV inspectors' reports of safety problems.
One inspector that.Mr. Mulley talked to was H. Shannon
.i}    Phillips.3_/ Mr. Mulley's discussion with Mr. Phillips revealed the following:
                                        . .  . Mr. Phillips stated that he had been harassed,
.!                                      intimidated and pressured to remove proposed findings from draft inspection reports by downgrading them to a less serious issue or deleting them entirely from the report. Mr. Phillips provided evidence that when he and other inspectors resisted downgrading or deleting at least 30 proposed findings, the Director of the 1                                      Comanche Peak Task Group, Thomas Westerman, and another manager, Eric Johnson, removed violations from the inspection reports or substantially changed the report without the inspectors'. knowledge and other times without their concurrence. In one case the Region issued a final inspection report using the signature it.                                    page from a draft version of the report. This made it appear that the inspection report was approved by the inspectors involved -- when actually the inspectors were neither informed of the changes nor told of the 3/                            See, Statement of H. Shannon Phillips, NRC Senior Resident Ynspector, before the Committee on Governmental Affairs, April 9, l      1987.                              Appendix K.
0 4
issuance of the report.
I' I believe Mr. Phillips'. allegations were exactly the types of concerns that should be thoroughly investigated by an independent investigator within the NRC without regard to the potential consequences of the investigation on the licensability of a nuclear power plant.
i Statement of George A. Mulley, Jr., before the Committee on Governmental Affairs, April 9, 1987, at 3 (Appendix L).      As his investigation unfolded Mr. Mulley became concerned with interference by other NRC personnel. Mr. Mulley testified that
                                . . .  [A]fter having heard Mr. Phillips' evidence and interviewing other inspectors and consultants who raised similar allegations, I became concerned that if I
NRC managers, both in Washington and at the Region, learned the full scope of the management problems being raised in Region IV, my investigation would be interfered with.
I did my best to see to it that no one connected with NRC headquarters or Region IV knew the extent of I-(                my probe'into the-allegations concerning Region IV's attitude toward regulating nuclear power plants within its jurisdiction.
Id. at 4. After completing a draft of his investigative report
:!                  Mr. Mulley concluded:
(1)  Region IV managers acted inappropriately to limit violations assessed at Comanche Peak, and that          i Phillips was harassed and intimidated by Region IV management in an effort to get him to downgrade or I
delete his inspection findings.                              l (2) 'The Region IV Quality Assurance Inspection Program, as implemented at Comanche Peak, could not be relied on as evidence of the sfae construction of the          i plant.                                                        (
                                '(3) Because of the unreliability of the                l ll                        information entered on the automated inspection tracking forms (NRC Form 766) by Region IV inspection personnel concerning Comanche Peak, data obtained from i                        these forms should not be used for any NRC licensing
: l.                        decision.
l l
 
Id. at 6. Wnen word of Mr. Mulley's investigative report spread I
throughout the NRC he began to-receive pressure from Mr. Stello and other NRC officials.      Id. at 6-10. The pressure placed Mr.
                        'Mulley came in the form of the following:
e    OIA auditors were assigned to rewrite the report; e    statements from Region IV managers were removed from the report;
)
e    other explanations and quotes which were not supportive of the lax enforcement attitude of Region IV officals were removed;
)
e    Mr. Stello had the OIA report distributed throughout the NRC, thereby exposing those within the agency who had given testimony critical of some Region IV officials.
1    (,.
Ultimately, his report was severely edited.
The concerns of Messrs. Hayes, Mulley and Phillips about Region IV's regulatory approach was confirmed by a former Region IV official in an investigative interview with Mr. Mulley.        (See, NRC Investigative Interview of (deleted} at the Ramada Inn in East Ridge, Tennessee, June 24, 1986, Appendix M).      On the question of Region IV management's attitude toward enforcement, the witness indicated that some managers ".      . . really didn't
                        .believe in enforcement."      Id. at 11. Regarding inspections, the witness stated that inspectors would be undercut by management in two ways:    (1) in failing to provide assistants for inspections, and-(2) in discouraging inspectors from writing up violations by
                          " worrying their work product to death and. question it to a great f.-
l L___________            -
 
i
                                                                                              .I e
extreme." Id. at 10. Tne witness's conclusions about Region IV            1 1
can be summarized as follows:
l I don't think that Region Four could have been                    I considered as having a strong orientation to quality assurance programs from the programmatic viewpoint.
Had they had such a strong orientation over the years,                  ,
g                    then the results later seen at South Texas and at                      'l Comanche Peak and at Waterford never would have arisen.
Id. at 26.
We have in Region Four organization a number of 0
Personalities and their relationships with each other and their way of thinking, and many times these are, these ways of thinking are similar and they support each other, which tends to frustrate the checks and balances so that the merits of the checks and balances                  I are simply overcome by the attitudes and the personal g
relationships . . . .                                                    j 1
Q    And the mind, I'm getting back to Comanche Peak                    l and TUGCO, these three people would share would be one of leaning towards the utility. Do you feel that's true?
i 0(                  A'    I think  --
                                                                                              )
i Q      (Interposing)  Taking the utility's side?
A    Yes. I think that's true .  . . .
I            Id. at 55-56.
It is not surprising that a recent OIA report regarding the Comanche Peak facility was severely critical of Region IV. The I            report concluded that the historical regulatory record prior to January 19, 1985, is completely unreliable, and noted that inspectors who tried to identify quality problems at the plant I          were harassed and intimidated.
Under the circumstances GAP attorneys, and the workers we l                represent, are convinced that any information regarding problems              1 at the STNP will not be adequately investigated if put in the l
I l                                                                                                                                                i 1
 
I hands of Mr. Ste;;o or anyone connected with Reg:en IV. Workers are also fearful that eneir confidentiality will.not be protected by Region IV or Mr. Stello. It is clear that notning has been done to correct the imprcper actions of Region IV officials.      The j                      Senate hearing and OI/OIA investigations have shed light on the inner workings of an arm of the NRC normally only known to insiders. The information revealed to date indicates that Mr.
lg.                    Stello has not been part of any effort by the NRC to improve conditions'in Region IV. On the contrary, Mr. Stello has rewarded the wrongdoing of Region IV officials and has proven to g_                    be more interested in the morale of the wrongdoers than the morale of responsible NRC employees. Consequently, we cannot reveal any information to NRC until such time as an independent        '
and competent review team is assembled.
;I- {
l q
IV. LEGAL ANALYSIS                                                  I Initially, it is important for the Commissioners to understand why GAP attorneys have come to them for relief. It would be inappropriate to have Mr. Stello or anyone connected k
with Region IV decide the merits of this petition since they are the individuals we are seeking relief from. GAP seeks to ensure that a thorough and competent review of STNP workers' allegations        ,
i are completed. The Commissioners have the power to ensure that l                      the public health and safety is protected. At a minimum, the Commissioners must be accountable for the decisions and actions          )
of those to whom they delegate authority.
(
The NRC has broad discretion to revoke, suspend, or modify        )
l l
l l
 
f,                                                                                                  !
                              'the construction permit cf an NRC licensee.        42 U.S.C. 52236 states that:
!          (
Any~ license may be revoked for any material false statement  in the application or any statement of fact required under section 2232 of this title, or because of conditions of fact or anyrevealed report, by  such application or statement record, or inspection or other I                                    means which would warrant the Commission to refuse to grant a license on an original application, or for              .
failure to construct or operate a facility in                  i accordance with'the terms of the construction permit or license of the technical specifications on the application, or for violation'of, or failure to observe I                                any of the terms and provisions of this chapter or of any regulation of the Commission.
See, also, 42 U.S.C      SS2133, 2134.
The same criteria for the revocation, suspension, or
'l modification of a construction permit. exist under NRC regulations. See, 10 C.F.R.
50.100 (1987).
                                    "[plublic safety is the first, last, and permanent
'l(                        consideration in any decision on the issuance of a construction permit or a license to operate a nuclear facility."          Power Reactor Development Corp.' v.
International Union of Electrical
'l                          Radio and Machine Workers, 367 U.S. 396, 402 (1961).
See, also, Petition for' Emergency and Remedial Action, 7 NRC 400, 404 (1978).
[
The NRC has a mandatory duty to exercise this authority when
                          .necessary. The foremost priority for the NRC is to determine that there will be adequate protection of the health and safety
{                      of  the public.
The issue of safety must be resolved before the Commission issues a construction permit.          Porter City Ch. of Izaak Walton League v. Atomic Energy Commission, 515 F.2d 313, 524 (7th Cir. 1975).
16 -
 
  .u,;
q Tne NRC nas a variety of powers it can exercise to protect p        .the public's health and. safety. The NRC has recognized its statutory-authority to:                                (1) issue orders to promote.or.to protect. health or minimize-danger to life or property;                                      (2) impose civil penalties for the violation of certain licensing
)
provisions, rules, orders, and for violations for which licenses can be revoked;                                (3) seek injunctive'or other equitable relief for violation of regulatory requirements, and to seek criminal 3
penalties.                                  (See, 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Appendix C, II (1987)).                        In addition, pursuant to regulation NRC can " institute a proceeding to modify, suspend, or revoke a license, or for such other k
action as may be proper." 10 C.F.R. $2.206 (1987).
Suspension orders can be issued to stop facility construction when further work would preclude or significantly I' (              hinder the identification and correction of safety-related or other significant problems.
In the Matter of Cincinnati Gas &
Electric Co., 16 NRC 1489 (1982).
In. Cincinnati Gas &-Electric I
the Commission ordered the utility to "show causy" why construction should not be halted. At the time r.he Zimmer plant, like the STNP, was nearing completion when numerous problems were iI brought to the attention of the NRC by workers through GAP.                                                      The problems identified at Zimmer turned out to be extremely significant, eventually causing the plant to shut down.
1 While it is unclear to what extent the allegations of workers at the STNP will affect licensing or the continued operation of the STNP, it is clear that without the Commission's
          ' intervention there will not be an adequate investigation and
 
i" i
d review. Special task force and review team operations are not
      -l                      unusual in Region IV.      Bcth Waterford and Comanche Peak received special reviews by NRC personnel who,were not under the direction for control of Region IV.      Similarly, the STNP was partially-reviewed by Region III personnel.        In addition.to special review 4
teams the NRC has established an office of special cases to handle particularly troubled nuclear facilities.
Given Region IV's inability to adequately enforce federal requirements and administer proper inspections it would be~ most appropriate for the STNP to be categorized by the Commission as a special review facility.      Without a special review the NRC will not have all the information necessary to make decisions regarding the future of the STNP.        The STNP should not go on-line until such a review is completed.
          ~
As mentioned earlier, GAP attorneys have reviewed over 500 allegations from the STNP workforce.        The fact that 87% of those allegations involve matters of wrongdoing or safety raises
(
serious questions about the abilitites of Region IV and STNP                                                !
l management to ensure that the plant is being constructed safely and in accordance with federal laws and regulations. Furthermore, I
the fact that workers are so severely harassed and intimidated that they will not talk to STNP management or Region IV of the NRC indicates that a complete breakdown of regulatory control and
(
plant QA and QC procedures has occurred.        Even if Region IV was                                        j l
competent to conduct an investigation and review of allegations                                              )
received by GAP attorneys, it is unlikely that Region IV would                                            l I
l                              have personnel sufficient to investigate properly.
l
: t.                                                                                    -        -- -- - - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
 
l I'
l i'
rinally, the allegations of the workers which have been
: f. collected by GAP attorneys should not be considered " late filed".
We have attempted to see that these allegations received-appropriate review. However, Mr. Stello has refused to take action to see that the allegations being raised are reviewed in accordance with NRC procedures.      In addition, no licensing issues are being raised in this petition nor are we requesting the Commission to delay licensing at this time.      In the event that t
the Commission considers the allegations referred to in this petition as late filed, then only the priority of review should be affected.      As we understand it NRC's late filed allegation I
policy does not exclude any allegation from thorough investigation.
1 ('-
V. CONCLUSION Since the days of Brown & Root, it has been apparent that the STNP has not been a well managed nor a quality first-oriented I
project.- In part, the corrupt and incompetent practices of Region IV and Mr. Stello are directly to blame.      To date, Region IV management and Mr. Stello have steadfastly refused to i
repudiate their policies and practices.      The complex nuclear regulatory scheme as it relates to the STNP (and probably other Region IV regulated facilities) has completely broken down.                                                      Many 1
workers and citizens of the State of Texas have no confidence that the STNP can operate safely under current conditions.
I The members of the Commission must take strong and swift action to restore confidence in the nuclear regluatory process l
l l
l
?
 
              "{                                                                                                                                ,
and protect theypublic r.ealt'n and safety.                Immediate steps y
consistent with the relief requested.in this petition must be
      'taken.to help ensure'the safe operation of the STNP.
VI .1              RELIEF REQUESTED GAP respectfully requests that the following relief be granted:
                        '(1)  NRC Commissioners must establish an independent investigative unit or special projects review team to deal with the. allegations concerning the STNP.
                        -(2)  NRC Commissioners direct the staff to conduct interviews with all allegers pursuant to NRC Manual Chapter 0517.
(3)  Interviews and: subsequent inspections, investigations
      .and document reviews must be conducted by personnel who have had
{~
no previous' involvement with the STNP and are not employees assigned to Region IV for purposes of their performance
;      evaluations or work reviews and editing.
(4)  Supervision of independent inspection effort cannot in any way be reviewed or in control of Mr. Stello or his staff.
J                          (5)  All such other relief as the Commissioners deem just and appropriate.
?
1; l-
,                                                      1
 
'                                                I l
l I
k APPENDIX A 4
1 1
l l
1 l
t/t i
I f
I i
 
f-I GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABlUTY PROJECT I .1555 Connecncut Avenue. N \V Svire 202 l Washingron. D.C. 20036 1 f January 20, 1987 Victor Stello, Executive Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory C;mmission Washington, D.C. 20555 James Mattox Attorney General for the State of Texas Supreme Court Building 14th & Colorado Austin, Texas 78711 Re:            South Texas Nuclear Pro;ect
 
==Dear Messrs. Stello and Mattox:==
 
This letter is to inform your respective agencies that the Government Accountability Pro:ect (GAP) has formally begun preliminary investigat.on :nto worker allegations at the South Texas nuclear project.
Since 1980, GAP nas p;ayed a significant role in advocating on behalf of whistleblowers and concerned citizens on issues
          '                                  involving safety-re'ated  . prooiems at various nuclear power i                                  facilities.        Our apprcacn to nuclear power has oeen steadfastly the same:          to ensure inat the government enforces the nuclear safety laws and regulat::ns. As a result of GAP's efforts (alone or in concert with otner organizations) to expose safety-related problems, the construct::n and/or Operat en of several nuclear
  !                                          power facilities -- prev:ously thought to be fit to op? rate --
were cancelled or postponed for further review. The cancelled facilities include tne 98 percent completed Z:nmer nuclear power plant and the 85 percent completed 9.:diand p; ant.        Those which were postponed for furtner review include          e Comanene Peak, Three Mile Island, D:431: Canyon, and Waterf:rd fac:lities.
I CAP currently etther-represents :: ;;  Or<:ng with approximately 36 current and/or former empicyees of tne South Texas project. The allegations .f rom the wor <ers range f rom grand    ,
theft of nuclear grade steel to engineering defects in several major safety components. The allegations concern the failure of g                                            Houston Light & Power ta quarantee subcontractor compliance with        ,
industry and federal safety requirements, :ncluding but not limited to: defects :n tne instrumentation and control division; defects and lack of ccep;:ance with federal regulations in the heating, ventilating, and air conditioning system; lack of compliance with quality standards in the area of soils compaction; failure to c:mplete required QA or QC documentation; falsification of required 0A or QC documentation; and harassment
          .                                      and intimidation of pers:nnel who attempt to adhere to federal safety standards.
 
i, January 20, 1987 - Page Two
(
Additionally, and of specific concern to :he State of Texas, there are allegations that include deliberate actions of scme Of          i the subcontractors at STP to Overcharge McustOn Light & Power fer goods and services by " charging of f" Oneir Own unacceptable work to Brown & Root, Inc. T ".e r e is also information which suggests
:              that subcontractors have fraudulently charged STP for manhours not worked, and for por:::ns :f the pro ect which were not completed as claimed.
GAP is currently c:-d.ct.'ag : terv;ews with both current and former workers who are c:rcerned doout the South Texas project.
: g.              GAP investigators are accept:ng calls f rom workers at our Washington, D.C. office and zur Midwest office.
Once our preliminary : investigation is complete, we plan to issue a formal public report.      L* unfortunately, in the interim, we cannot advise our clients or those we work with to provide their
"              concerns to the Region :V office of the NRC.          Our experience has been (and recently released internal agency reports confirm) that the Arlington of fice :s either unable or unwilling to comply with its regulatory requirements as outi:ned in governing agency procedures.
g {,                Thus, unless the NRC :s willing to prov:de independent inspectors to process : e allegat: ens pursua-* to internal NRC regulations, GAP will provide the allegati: 3 directly to the state Attorney General eff;ce, and/or to tne appropriate congressional committees, and/or to other re:alatory or municipal bodies which have an :nterest in ensuring : a the South Texas I
plant is designed, constructed, and f:nanced in a manner that protects the public.
Please    rect any :nquir:es acou:      AP's S at- Texas investigatic    :o Richard Cond::, S aff A: :r ey
* investigator, 202-232-8550, or Bill:e Carde, CAP M:t-es: ::f.ce, 4;4-730-9533.
I                                                                                      '
S. cere..,
3:ll:e P:-*er Garde
(
D; rect:r, M;d..est Off:ce Richard C ndit Staff At: Crney cc:  Chairman Lando Zecn BG/RC:C30
 
3
    .                                                                    .I APPENDIX B i
i 1
l
  .(
r
?
{
I l
f
 
                                                                                                                  /
      ~    /f  % %,                                UNITED STATES                        T . ~ .i ~ 2 /2. :. L ,
f-            'i Q
          !              E NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION
          *Q            !                      ussmotoN o c rosss l                                  :::
                                                            --  ' 367 Pocket No. 50-498 Ms. Billie Pirner Garde Mr. Richard Condit Government Accountability Project Suite 202 1                  1555 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
 
==Dear Ms. Garde and Mr. Condit:==
 
I am in receipt of your January ?0,1987 letter directed to me and the Attorney
,t                  General of Texas. Your letter describes investigative activities you plan to undertake relative to allegations you have received from approximately 36 current and/or former employees of the South Texas Project. Your letter also identified the general nature of some of these allegations which appear to fall within the safety and regulatory responsibilities of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Your letter also states that you cannot advise your clients to t{                provide their concerns to the Region IV office of NRC, You assert that your experience has been that Peoion IV does not comply with its requirements as outlined in agency procedures. Moreover, you demand
* hat unless NRC provides other inspection personnel to process thesa allegations, you plan to provide those allegations to other individuals or neganizatire.s.                                          l t                The South Texas Proiect is within the jurisdiction of Region IV and that Region is the appropriate organization to review the concerns of your clients. I have confidence that Region IV will properly pursue this responsibility. I have been in contact with Mr. Robert P. Martin ce gional Administrator for Pegion IV, and he assures re that his staff is therruchly prepared to courlit the resources required to appropr'ately resolve the issues which your clients i              night raise.
As you are aware, NRC is the responsible federal agency for ensuring that safety significant issues are addressed where appropriate. Therefore, I urge you to bring forth promptly, or advise your clients to do so, to MRC or Houston Lighting and Power, any information you have on deficiencies which lt                  would have a bearing on nuclear safety. To retain them until your own report is prepared and published would not be in the best interes+s of assuring the prompt resolution of legitinate sa"ety concerns.
l
 
                      ''*ultiple Addressees                        -
(
Any further communications you may have regarding this matter should be directed
                      'to Mr. Partin in Region IV.
Sincerely,
                                                                          ,  -Wh
                                                                                  .W,% -
                                                                            .            i Victor Stello, Jr. /
Executive Director'for Operations cc:          The Honorable James Mattox
                                  ' Attorney General State of Texas Austin, Texas 78711
(
o I                                                                                                                                  .
I i
i i
).
0 I
1
 
e 4
k APPENDIX C
                                                                                                                                  \
l
(
t I
(
8
 
8 LGOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT 1555 Comecucut Avenue. N W. Suite '202                                      (202)232 8550 4 'oshingion.D.C. 20036
      . GOVERNMENT-ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT MIDWEST OFFICE
:3424 MARCOS-LANE
      -APPLETON, WISCONSIN                    54911 March 4,  1987 Victor Stello Executive Director Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.                  20555 RE:  South Texas Investigation
 
==Dear Mr. Stello,==
 
Your letter of' February 18, 1987 regarding our South Texas investigation states that any futher communications regarding South Texas'should be directed to Mr. Bob Martin, Regional Administrator. .Your letter also urges us to bring forth any issues regarding safety to Region IV promptly.
                        'Given the history of incompetence in Region IV regarding issues of nuclear safety and the more recent evidence of impro-
            .priety in Region IV I am surprised that you would continue to advise us to take allegations of nuclear saf ety to your- present regional management. . Your professed faith in the Regional
.            management can only be bureaucratic posturing, as I seriously doubt whether even you can ignore the seriouness of the impro-prieties confirmed in the recent and continuning investigation by the Office of Inspector and Auditor.
Mr. Stello, at some point you must assume responsibliity for Q            the operation in Region IV to insure that the public health and safety around the Region IV facilities is protected. ..You apparently are willing to sacrifice that assurance in order to give the                        j public appearance of support for Mr. Martin et.al. Your error in~ judgement is incredible.                Within the past 18 months we have seen evidence and testimony of the improper release of a draft inspection report on the Sequoyan Fuels Corporation fatal accident to Kerr-McGee officals, the harassment and intimidation of resident inspectors, the deletion items from inspection reports, tha improper manipulation and/or release of inspection report results                  j to-enchance the possibility of licensing, the destruction of documents, the f ailure to comply with statutory requirements under the Freedom of Information'Act, the failure to properly investigate allegations of engineering, technical or hardware deficiencies at reactors in Region IV, the release of confidentiality of site L            employees that have come forward with concerns, the cooperation
 
with utility officals to <liseredit whistleblowers, and a total disregard for public accountability.
For all of the above reasons we would be irresponsible if we    led more whistleblowers blindly to the slaughterhouse of your Arlington office.          At some point you must choose between protecting and defending the egos of your staff and protecting the public health and safety.        You are paid by the taxpayers and citizens to do the later. We will not participate in your doing the former.
I hope you are able to find an independent team to review the South Texas allegations.
Sincerely, Billie Pirner Garde i
s cs cc:      James Mattox Attorney General State of Texas w/end. OIA Report 86-10 L
L_---____-------__--------    - - - - -
 
        /p* % \                              UNITED STATES
[L      ,.    ;              NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION g      ""
E-                    W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 l
          ,,,,.-                                  MAR 101987 rs. E llie Pirner Garde
            %ver'nment Accountability Prniec+
1595 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite P02 EasMrfmoten. DC 20036 Dee- *ts. Garde:
i 3 have rdceived your letter n' March 4,1987 It prompts me to remind you tfhat NRC is the responsible federal agency for ensurino that safety sigtfHeant views are appropria*ely addressed. I therefore urge you to bring for$ :promptly any informative wou have on deficiencies which would have a bea-imp on nuclear safety to PDC or to Houston lipnting and Power - or advise year clients to do so. To withhold such information would not be in the best ictmests of assuring the prompt resolution of legitimate safety concerns.
}(  _
Sincerely,
                                                                                        &?
l -~;'
Victor Stal1I, Jr.'
]                                                      E.secutive Director for Doerations
)
1 0
1
\
I                                                                                                                                                                                                        ,
l I
 
0' 0
APPENDIX D 0
(
f i1                    i I
i i
l i
l t
 
u.w. wa GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT 1555 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.. Suite 202
  !  wash.ngton. D.C. 20036                                          (202)202-8550 MIDWEST OFFICE                                                                                  l 104 E. WISCONSIN AVENUE                                                                        i APPLETON, WISCONSIN        54915-8605                                                          j March 23, 1987 3
Victor Stello, Jr.
          . Executive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.      20555 3-RE:  South Texas Investiga, tion
 
==Dear Mr. Stello,==
 
0 Y ur letter f March 18, 1987 sidestepped the issue of whether                      ;
or not you are going to appoint an individual or a task force from                      '
NRC's Washington office to accept and/or investigate allegations concerning the safety of the South Texas Project.
We are very concerned about the safety allegations known to 0I*          us. We are so concernedthat we intend to insure that they are properly investigated.                                                            l We do not believe that Region IV is either capable or willing to do that type of investigation.      Please advise.
g                                              Sincerely, a w.~    O Bl311e Pirner Garde O
cca  Richard Condit 0
cs e
u_          _-__-    _
 
l' 4
APPENDIX E
'I
(
f i ('
i t
t 1
i i
 
I                                                                                                            l 551Inti]LiglIll                                                                                    l
      ,  company n_,.m m,                ... ., i.on..      n_,..,<,~ . m    ,~.m                          i l
4 March 18, 1987                                        l l
I          Ms Billie Garde                                                                                    ,
Director of the Midwest office                                                                    l Government Accountability Project o          3424 N. Marcos. Lane Appleton, Wisconsin    54911 i                                                                                                            l
 
==Dear Ms Garde:==
 
We have been in touch with you as a representative of GAP concerning allegations regarding the South Texas Project by you and Mr. William condit since the first appearance of those i        allegations in the press on January 21, 1987. In writing to you on January 26, 1987, I sought your cooperation in bringing these matters to our attention using the SAFETEAM program which has a proven record of success at the South Texas Project. To facilitate your cooperation I offered the services of Mr. James Geiger, one of my most seasoned and trusted
:( I        managers and head of our Nuclear Assurance Department.
t Mr. Geiger contacted you immediately and conveyed repeatedly to you over the next several weeks our sincere interest in resolving the allegations which had allegedly been brought to your attention by employees at the STP site.
l      Mr. Geiger considered carefully the reservations you expressed concerning use of SAFETEAM and offered to modify these procedures in an effort to accommodate your concerns. His letters of February ll. and March 5, 1987, documented those conversations, including urgent requests that you submit at least one of the allegations of which you have knowledge for investigation using i        these modified SAFETEAM procedures on a " trial basis."
You have been unresponsive to these suggestions and, in recent weeks, have not even returned Mr. Geiger's telephone calls. We must therefore regretfully conclude that GAP has no interest in proceeding further with these discussions.
I We cannot, however, let matters rest at this point since this is not merely a disagreement between private parties.
Larger matters of the public interest are potentially affected.
Beyond the allegations of safety concerns, the implication of statements attributed to you in the press is that federal and state laws may have been violated in the construction of STP.
 
i
)*
L '
Houston Ughtmg & Power Compan I
Ms Billie Garde                            March 18, 1987 It~is anomalous to.us that an organization purporting to l
represent the public interest could show such little regard for that interest by withholding information of potential significance      i 4
to the public health and safety. We will not be a party to such l                    " games." We will urge federal and state officials to seek from you and your organization every scrap of information which could potentially relate to the safety of the South Texas Project. If          i any such information in fact exists and is made available to us,          '
we will immediately pursue it to its resolution. We can then leave to the citizens of Texas the judgment as to which of us truly represents the public interest.
sincerely, (L4.A J H Goldberg                  ,
Group Vice-President, Nuclear  l
(          JMG/am cc    Chairman          L W Zech_        (NRC)
Commissioners K M Carr              (
                                                                  )
T M Roberts      (" )
g J K Asselstine  (" )                              l Exec. Dir.
F M Bernthal V  Stello
(")
Reg. Adan.
("} "
R D Martin      (    )
Dir. I&E        J M Taylor      (
                                                                  )
owners          T V Shockley    (CP&L) g'                                          A  vonRosenberg (CPSB)
M B Lee                                            ]
(COA)                              l I
i 1
l l
l
: 3. ji GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTADIUTY PROJECT 1555 Connecncut Awnve. N W Sune 202
            ,                      Woshington. D C. 20036                                              (202)232 8550 a
March 27, 1987 1-Jerry-H. Goldberg Group Vice President,' Nuclear Houston Lighting & Power Corp.
.[                                            P. O. Box 1700 Houston, Texas 77001 RE:  Investigation of the South Texas Project by the
      .                                                                            Government Accountability Project
 
==Dear Mr. Goldberg:==
 
Your widely distributed letter of March 18, 1987 was a surprise to me.
Please be assured that the Government
'I f s
Accountability Project (GAP) has not made any final decision regarding possible cooperation with HL&P on a' legations.
As Mr. Geiger and your counsel were well aware, I was in trial the week of March 9-14, 1987 in Houston, litigating a South Texas    related Department of Labor case, Goldstein v. EBASCo, 86-ERA-36. The following week I was on a personal / professional I
break while moving both my home and my office to new locations.
I did call Mr. Geiger and specifically informed him that      I was not working from March 16 to 21, 1987, and that I would contact him regarding the proposals during the following week.
Therefore, your conclusion that " GAP has no interest in I                                        proceeding further" with negotiations is insincere and appears to be  deliberately taking advantage of my one-week " working" vacation.
I am uncertain whether HL&P is terminating negotiations on a potential working relationship. If so, please notify us of that in writing. If you are not, let me summarize where the I
negotiations are apparently mired.
HL&P, through Mr. Geiger, has informed us that allegation investigations would have to be done by the SAFETEAM, but has i
j agreed to a number of modified procedures to alleviate some of our concerns. He has indicated, however, that HL&P is not willing to make additional concessions which would assure us that our clients are legally protected f rom reprisals, that the investigation properly pursues the correct allegation, and that            '
i an adequate investigation was conducted once completed.
l i
 
j.
As I carefully explained to Mr. Geiger, the employees we                                                                              1 4-I                represent have no faith in the credibili.ty of the SAFETEAM.
Their individual and collective experiences have demonstrated that the SAFETEAM is not independent, does not protect or defend employees from harassment and discrimination, is neither able nor willing to reach truthful conclusions, has no authority to require or implement corrective acticns, does not generate deficiency paper in compliance with federal regulations, does not I                      report allegations or findings of wrongdoing to the NRC, and is                                                                              !
I institutionally. incapable of processing significant safety-related concerns.
The employees' experiences were confirmed by the information we recently obtained from HL&P in discovery in the Goldstein t                    case. For example, one SAFETEAM investigation contained allegations of harassment and intimidation, violations of hold points, and significant defects in the quality of work in the*
Reactor Control Building (RCB). A comparison of the interview of the engineer making the serious allegations with the results of that investigation prove that the SAFETEAM did not even                                                                                      ;
l                    understand the allegations, did not investigate the allegations given to the SAFETEAM of serious construction and quality defects in the RCB, and had no basis for its conclusions.
In any event you should be aware that GAP understands its obligations to ensure that allegations of safety concerns are 8('                  investigated. In that regard, we have a proven history of discovering massive safety problems and seeing that they are addressed. We would gladly match our history of demonstrated concern for'public health and safety with any other organization, and feel confident that the comparison would reflect quite favorably upon us.
I As for the South Texas Project, HL&P and/or EBASCo and/or Bechtel have been made aware of serious safety concerns through internal processes. We have also been in contact with the NRC and other appropriate government bodies regarding processing of allegations about South Texas.- Recently, Region IV of the NRC g                    received extraordinary criticism from the NRC Office of Inspector and Auditor (OIA) regarding the handling of allegations at the Comanche Peak facility. Therefore, it is not appropriate to submit allegations to Region IV until some adequate resolution of the concerns raised by the OIA has been completed. We have asked the NRC for guidance as to how to proceed, given Region IV's lack g                  of credibility. To date, we have not received a response.
So as you can tell, we are attempting to ensure that any information which comes to us about the South Texas plant is properly investigated, and that the appropriate corrective
                                                                                    . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _w
 
I.
I i
measures will r e s u .' t .                      We aret not  "witnhclding" information or g        playing " games ," as ycu sugges                          . We    are merely see<ing the proper forum to ensure that the workers' complaints do not again fall upon deaf ears. Unless additional safeguards are provided we will not like SAFETEAM,                    turn over information to internal, site-cased programs, which have already been proven to be ineffective.
Our paramount concern is that the South Texas plant, if and when completed and operational, will be safe and in compliance with state and federal law. We hope that you share that goal?
However, public expressions of concern are hardly adequate. Our clients are waiting to see effective action before they will risk their careers and jobs by working within your " system".
Ultimately, the public interest!                  action-not words will determine who is representing Sincerely, L    k,              by Billie P. Garde Director, GAP Midwest BPG:079001 cc:                            NRC Chairman L. W. Zech iI                                        NRC Commissioners    K. M. Carr T. M. Roberts J. K. Asselstine F. M. Bernthal                            3 NRC Executive Director V. Stello                            j i
NRC Dir. I&E J. M.' Taylor T. V. Shockley, CP6L A. vonRosenberg, CPSB M. B. Lee, COA 3
l l
l
 
I g
APPENDIX r
;f I
i i/5 I
I t
l 2                                                                b
 
'g l p **sc u,
      ,f
* c, -                                            UNITED STATES
  ,f      , , . ,      j                                    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
    ;/                    8                                        W ASHINGTON, O C. 20655
* l 4      '
          .....#                                                            April 8, 1987 0                  Ms. Billie Pirner Garde Government Accountability Project
            .1555 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 202 Washington, DC 20036
 
==Dear Ms. Garde:==
 
0-I have received your letter of March 23, 1987. I accept your characterization of the allegations you have in hand as bearing on the safety of the 5. Texas Nuclear Power Plant in a significant way.
I urge you to bring these issues to NRC for our review. As to where and how 0              within NRC they will be addressed is my responsibility. Assignment within NRC will be governed by the nature of the allegations. I can assure you they will be handled properly, both in regard to technical review and in regard to confidentiality.
By the nature of significant safety issues, they must be addressed promptly.
I{            Your letters imply that you have had this information for some time.
Therefore, if we do not receive full information on the allegations within 30 days we will be constrained to take steps to acquire it by other means.
Sincerely, I
n  C,          J f/Lf,              c.
f Vitter Stello,    .        j Executive Of rector        i for Operations I
                                                                                                            )
0-1
(                                                                                                            i l
l
 
1
(
  ~
APPENDIX G f
)'          ,
).                                                                      .
d'
]
i
 
0 Senator
      <  John Glenn For Immediate Release
                                                    -News Release April 9, 1987
 
==Contact:==
Dale Butland 202-224-9799 Leonard Weiss 202-224-4751 3              .
0 OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHN GLENN April 9. 1987 g
Today we continue our hearings on ways to fight waste, fraud and mismanagement in the federal government.
Our ear lier hearings reviewed and documented the success of the statutory Offices of Inspector General, of which there are presently 19. Most of these offices were created g f    pursuant to the Inspector General Act of 1978. or amendments t  thereto. In the past five years, these offices have saved an esticated $71 billion in wasteful spending for the American taxpayer, and their investigations have resulted in over 16.000 criminal prosecutions and 15.000 administrative acticns.
I On April ?. 1967. I introduced a bill. S. 908. which    has been co-sponse- i by s aary member of this Committee, to create four neb statutory Inspectors General -- for the Department of the Treasury. the Federal Emergency Management Agency. the Office of Perscnnel Management. and the Nuclear g      Regulatory Commiss:on ( NRC ) .
                                      - MORE -
.I l
1 L-__---___-
 
Today. our focus is on the NBC. the independent agency responsible for regulating the commercia; use of nuclear power in the United States with the goal of preserving public health and safety and protecting the e n v i r c nr.e n t .
To monitor the integrity of its activities. In 1975 the g                      NRC created an Office of Inspector and Auditor (OIA) to provide the Commissioners with objective information on problems within the Commission.                  In 1982. as a result of a heightened awareness by the NRC that allegations of possible wrongdoing by licensees and applicants required a vigorous responses the NRC' created its Office of Investigations (01).
I The existence of these offices within the agency have helped to lessen the public's doubts about the relative safety of commercial nuclear power. I am. however. now deeply disturbed about current NRC operationt -- and particularly the impact of certisin r..aneten ent actions on the t                  mission and functions of these offices.
First. I believe there are serious deficiencies in CIA's objectivity and investigative practices which have diminished the effectiveness of the office.                  Despite the Commission's assertions to the contrary. it does not appear that OIA has I(                been allowed to perform the essential funct;c. of a statutory inspector general office.                    I think there is a        need to restore credibility tc the internal "watencog" function at the NRC.
I The bill I mentionec earlier. S. 906, tne        cspector General Act Amendments of 1987. incorporates GAO's recommendation for establishing a new statutcr y Cffice of Inspector General in the NRC.                  This chance ;s intenced to create a more independent atmosphere for trcrcogh. internal audit and investigative activities, i
The Inspector General will report to t r. e -: c a i rr a n cf t h e i Commission and Congress concerning significar1 a c u s e.s or deficiencies and make recommendations for' ccrrective acticn.
In my viewe this change will benefit the NRC': n.anagement operations and aid Congress' oversight funct;on.
6
                                                                - MCRE -
(
(
-            __m_____    _ _ . _ _ _ _ _
 
T 1
1 As a practical of Inspector        and Auditor catter.
(OlA) the till " transfers" the Office
              -Office. However, by law,                      into the new Inspector General                                  !
appcinted_by the President.tne Inspector General must be 1              the Senate.                              with the advice and consent of With these projections.and can be removed only by Presidential action.                                        ;
l able to thoroughly xi;nonduct      or mismanagementinvestigate allegations of employeethe new Inspec                                4 without fear of removal..                                              {
This is no trivial matter.                                                                              )
discovered evidence which suggestsThis Committee has l
3' between the NRC and licensees conce.1mproper communications ac t iv i t i es .'  And the evidence further suggests that the NRCrning the NRC's rk has own. been totally incapable of policing such misconduct on its
'4 One example illustrates the problem.
problems at a nuclear power plant were leaked from a198 Commissioner's office to the licensee. In fact. a representative of the licensee distributed the leaked                                                            ,
gk          distribution be limited, documents to his colleagues with the proviso that further                              i witbin the NRC."                      and I quote. "to orotect the source j
t Incredibly, solid evidence of when            the Commission was confronted with                                              \
the possible    leak from a Commissioner's                                            l g          office, the matter was not referred to OIA. Instead.
Commission should be handled        level  officials within          made a decision the Commissioner's      office, that the matter and            a minimal " investigation" followed with apparently little errort to make a record of such "ir.vestigation".
I                That episode alone demonstrates the need independent inspector general with the authority andfor a truly                                                    .
expertise occurs.      evento investigate if it          potential wrongdoing wherever it                                              j invcives a Commissioner's office.                                                    i I
policies which have limitedMy second concern relates to recently adopted NRC t        of. Investigations (OI)                    the effectiveness of the Office refer potential criminal matters to the Department ofto investigate external wr Justice.
to strain the    More NRC'sthanimportant anything else, such actions have served                                            ,
l Department. and airinish Ccngress'          relationship with the Justice                                          !
i                                                            and the the regulation of ccamer c.31 nuclear power.public's trust in
!r I          NRC is supposed to be a watchdog. not a lapdog.                After all. the l
                                                    -MORE-
:j -
f S.
projections908foraddresses    the need for additional statutory the Office of Investigations (OI).
codifies the recommendation of the Justice DepartmentThe              bill to and be under the general supervision OIthat
,I conti'nue the          to reportI believe.
Commission.                                                        of and Commission. that this relationship best  apparently  so does  the for vigorous detection wrongdoing              and disclosure by NRC licensees    and ofapplicants.
deliberateserves the NRC's need I
investigations to ensure thatThe bill also addresses the need for objectivity in O necessary, the Justice Department,      the Commission and. if are fully informed of potential To          criminal wrongdoing by licensees and applicants.
this end.
those providedOI is given certain authorities which parallel g-                                      to independent inspectors general. These are intended to enhance OI's independence and improve the Commission's credibility as the regulator of health and safety in the commercial nuclear industry.
In closing. I will say is not to malign any individualthat the purpose of this hearing gg              create innuendo. Rather. I cm concerned    asscciated with the agency or L                                                            cbcut what I see as timid limitations    oncontrols externaloninvest internal  affairs and t roubl es ome 16ations.
I abilityMy  tobill is intended achieve            to restoremission.
its regulatory      confidence in the SRC's great    I add that the Committee looks forward to hearing a deal of testimony this morning.
from the five members of the Commission. including testiseny originally planned the hearing so that the testimeny  Ir.e Committee on had g            current NRC operations would first be presentec by other witnesses.                                                                            f which would provide the Commissioners an                              {
presentation toine_Jde opportunity      to            comments on such testimony in their the Committee.                                                  ;
CCamissioners have insisted                However. because the                      {
reluctantly assented to theiron            testifying first. I have request.
6 30 -
t i
l l
 
r
  ~l APPENDIX H
+                                        ,
t              .
).
?
I i
r f
I I
 
1:
E' ' t '                                              STATEMENT OF JULIAN GREENSPUN, ESQ.
BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS APRIL 9, 1987 My name is Julian Greenspun.            Although I am now I
in private practice, for the past fifteen years I have held a variety of federal prosecutor positions in the k                                      U.S. Department of Justice.      From 1979 through 1986, I
I served as the Deputy Chief of Litigation in the General Litigation section of the Criminal Division.                  In this position I supervised thirty attorneys who prosecuted I
I criminal violations of regulations promulgated by such agencies as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC),
Mine Safety' Health Administration (MSHA), Occupational
'I i                        Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), a..i many others.
I spent a significant portion of this period handling a supervising potential criminal cases related to the 4
commercial-nuclear industry, including certain aspects of the Three Mile Island criminal case.
Based on my extensive experience with :ne NRC, I I
can unequivocally state tnat i know of no o her regulatory or investigative agency, where senior agency offi:ials have'taken as many bizarre and seemingly deliberate actions t
intended to hamper the investigation and prosecution of individuals and companies in the industry the agency                        ,
regulates.
t t
1
 
h L
I would.like to further explain this statement by giving the Committee two observations I have made about
.      NRC.        First, the NRC is'in too many ways a captive of L
the. industry.it regulates.        As a result, the agency has discouraged anyone inside the agency from finding wrongdoing          ,
on the part of industry representatives.          I also believe there has been continuous. improper pressure on the Office of Investigations (OI) by both industry and agency officials.        I Second, the NRC has a history of failed leadership in the Office that handles internal investigations and audits.
The Office of Inspector and Auditor (OIA) acts as if                  I it is part of the management " team" rather than an independent
        " watchdog" for the agency.        On more than one occasion, CIA has. avoided identifying and recommending corrective action for serious wrongdoi.1 and mismanagement by senior agency officials, while focusing-its attention on less important issues.
In my view, S.908, the legislation recently introduced to amend the Inspector General Act of 1978 is absolutely necessary to combat these problems.          The NRC would also benefit from additional Congressional oversight of its programs and activities.
To assist the Committee, I am prepared to discuss several specific cases which I believe demonstrate the l
 
)
,  r
['
1 i
NRC's unseemly protection of the industry from necessary
      . investigations of deliberate wrongdoing. Unfortunately, I cannot reveal all of the details of these cases because some of the information is protected by grand jury secrecy restrictions, and because I have not been able to obtain                                          ;
1 copies of essential documents I left behind in my Department files to honor these restrictions.
At the outset I can say that on more than one occasion                                      I when wrongdoing was under investigation by the Department, senior NRC officials, and perhaps even some Commissioners had ex-parte meetings or discussions concerning the subject
.(
1 matter of the investigation with those under investigation.                                        j
                                                                                                        ~
on at least one occasion, I personally requested that a senior NRC official not meet with the licensee under investigation. Despite my importuning, shortly thereafter the official engaged in a lengthy discussion with the target of the investigation.      His action unnecessarily derailed criminal prosecution,
).                                      a fact which I believe was known to those condue:Ing the meetings.
One example of the NRC's obfuscation of a major criminal violation occurr~ed at the Three Mile Island plant. Furthermore, I believe this violation may have been a contributing factor to the eventual melt-down at that plant. NRC regulations required that if a reactor i
I                                                                                                        i
                                                                                                          )
I                                                                                                  <
3' was losing over one gallon of water per minute, the source      {
i of which was unknown, the source of the problem must be found or the reactor shut down.      The utility's leak 0                                      rate tests for the 6 month period prior to the melt-down in March 1979, indicated that the reactor was continually        I l
losing more than one gallon of water per. minute. However,      j i                                                                                                        i the operators added water or hydrogen to the reactor,            j
                                                                                                          )
and falsified the computer data to create acceptable leak rates on paper. In addition, the results of " bad"
'I                                        tests were destroyed. The NRC inspector, who also took part in NRC's post melt-down investigation, was aware of these unlawful actions at the time they occurred but I{ -
failed to report them as violations.      Needless to say, the plant was not shut down until the disastrous melt-down occurred.
I After the melt-down, one honest TMI employee spoke at length to NRC employees on at least two occasions about the unlawful falsification and disposal of the I
leak rate documents. This information was not passed on to the Justice Department.      In fact, the NRC's initial investigation of TMI failed to even mention this information.
!I                                        See NUREG-0600, " Investigation Into the March 28, 1979 Three Mile Island Accident", By Office of Inspection and Enforcement.)    Only when this " whistle-blowing" employee L______-__----. _ _ - - - _ - - - - - - _
 
l D';
Li4 was-scheduled to appear on television did the NRC report these allegations to the Justice Department.      Subsequently, the allegations were verified by the independent analysis of experts and the testimony of an NRC inspector at the site.
Despite this, certain senior NRC officials continued to insist that the utility's conduct at TMI was acceptable.
i They adopted the utility's position that (1) nothing prohibited the addition of water to the reactor, (2)
,I:
there was nothing wrong with the destruction of " bad" leak rate tests, and (3) it was difficult to tell a " good" Ltest from a " bad" test. It is my belief that these officials I I (.
actively misled and even lied to the Justice Department            !
1 in the TMI case. Perhaps most revealing, in a meeting with myself and other prosecutors, Mr. Stello, now Executive Director of the NRC, said that an investigation at TMI            -
I would be bad for the operators morale, and: "Nobody is 1
going to tell me how to treat ggt licensees."    It is that attitude which must be dispensed with through changes              )
such as this legislation.
The end result of the TMI matter, of course, was the criminal conviction of the utility for violating
                'NRC regulations. See United States of America v. Metropolitan Edison Company, CR. No. 83-00188. To demonstrate to i
L___________________
 
ff
;    . /
1' i-
                                                          .              i Lf the Committee the depth of emotion felt by other Justice Department officials I will refer to the statement of U.S.' Attorney David-P. . Queen (now an Assistant Secretary of the' Treasury):
                              ~
                        "This notion that the NRC investigation --
whatever on' earth-that is -- is a."far superior L
l vehicle to these proceedings today" is utter poppycock.
I had not intended to address this issue, but I-cannot stand silent and allow the charade that has
-                been carried on by the NRC to be treated as anything but~that.
We are the only institution since this accident' occurred that has made the slighest iamn effort
                'to see this thing through to a conclusion. The NRC has not conducted any meaningful investigation; 4
to this day has used as a pretext the fact that the Grand Jury was conducting an investigation as a vehicle to avoid addressing its responsibilities.
5 As recently as six weeks ago, the NRC voted three to two to ignore what we are doing here today.
When the United States Department of Justice brought this indictment, when I got sworn into office, this investigation was virtually dormant and had been' for some time.
I'didn't see the NRC hustling to clean up the loose ends'and to make it known to the_public just j,                                      what went on in 1978_or 1979. We...made a Herculean effort to get to the bottom of the facts, something that was not done by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
                                                              ~
4                                              As_recently as six weeks ~ago, as I was about to say, they voted basically to proceed with a Unit-1 license restart application irrespective of the
;g                                      outcome of these-criminal proceedings.
Now I realize this is of secondary significance to whether the Court ought to take a plea, but Mr.
g Curran (TMI's lawyer) seems to raise the issue that we are not to worry if there are any loose ends here today because the NRC will take care of it.
.g                                        It is utterly delusional.
The NRC doesn't care what is in the indictment; they have said so. They don't care wnat the outcome g                                      of this case is; they have said so. They are going to' proceed and do whatever they want to do, and that is fine because I have no control over the
;g                                      'NRC, nor does the Attorney General or anyone else in the Department of Justice. But the statement of the facts as read by me a short time ago are precisely the correct statement of what took place.
l
 
D' .
i:
7:(.
                                  .The'TMI case, among others, demonstrated'the real need for an independent Office of Investigation at the NRC, and the lengths to which s'ome NRC leaders will go t'o protect the industry."                            ,
From my perspective at the Department, OI functioned
                      . fairly effectively, since it has sent.the Department
; 4 several dozen criminal-referrals.          Prior to OI, the Department received very few referrals from the NRC (see DOJ letter, Stephen J. Trott', Assistant Attorney General to Honorable Nunzio Palladino, NRC Chairman, March 18, 1985).          Despite OI's success, I detected continued pressure on OI to conform with the generally " hands-off" attitude if not
  'I                      policy of the NRC.          These pressures have lad to continuous attempts to con. trol OI.        One of the most sericus threats is the possibility that OI would be moved under.the control of the Executive Director for Operations, which is no less than putting the fox in the chicken coop.        Such an attempt was beaten back in 1985, with the support
                        .of-the Congress and the Department'of Just:.ce.            I believe Mr. Trott's letter is very important because it states:
                                          " Prior to and since the creation of OI, there has been some opposition as well as resistance within the NRC to the detection and disclosure of deliberate wrongdoing by NRC licensees... Senior personnel within 1-l the NRC who could affect or influence OI's ability to detect and report violations if it were realigned may have contributed to this problem."
                                            .The legislation proposed by Chairman Glenn would statutorily end the. possibility of moving OI. I believe i                                  this is a vital step to insure that OI will remain independent, and that wrongdoing will be detected.
The final example I would like to share with the
:                                  Committee does not concern a particular criminal case; it is the proposed Advisory Committee on the Rights of Licensees, which the NRC tried to establish in 1983.
I{                                Those behind.the establishment of an Advisory Committee sought to notify companies in advance that investigations were being undertaken, and allow utility lawyers to attend l                                ~a ll meetings between NRC investigators and company personnel.
These and other proposed restrictions would have gone well beyond what the Constitution and federal law require 1                                  in the way of due process for targets or subsections of investigations, who would, no doubt profit handsomely by insinuating themselves into interviews of employees.        j l-                                This (effort, under the guise of an Advisory Committee),        l would have carried the special relationship between the        l NRC and its licensees to preposterous lengths. It was merely a front to protect the utility companies from
_ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ - .                                                                            )
 
c-
[I l
'4 l                      disclosure of wrongdoing. DOJ and Congressional intervention thwarted this ruse, and similarly kept the OI from being placed under the NRC senior staff, and, helped persuade
(
the Commission not to adopt a pro-licensee definition of material false statements, which was another remarkable episode.
i One Commissioner summarized the position of those in the NRC who do not favor prosecutions when he told one U.S. Attorney that utilities should not be liable f
for false statements unless they are made under oath in the course of giving testimony.      of course, almost none of the NRC's contacts with utilities in the course
(                of construction and operation of a nuclear plant are conducted under oath, so prosecution of false statement i
violations would disappear.      A high of ficial of the        '
I NRC stated it another way:    "I don't want to know about false statements. Is the hardware okay"    These attitudes    i are antithetical to restoring public confidence in the i
NRC's regulation of commercial nuclear power.      "ihile the Committee cannot legislate attitudes, it has proposed
                                                                                      \
the needed changes in the way 01 would continue to report        '
I internally, and how it will refer cases to the Department.
OIA's Inadequacies The last issue I would like to discuss concerns 1
i l
 
I -              .
l the inadequacy of the NRC's Office of Inspector and Auditor, the putative inspector general's office. The leadership
'l                      of this office has been.a disaster. One Director of that office was effectively dismissed only after an embarrassing court decision cast doubt upon his integrity. The current
(                  head of the office has been the subject of a criminal referral to the Justice Department. The Department's i
correspondence in that case casts doubt upon her integrity I
and judgment.
(See, Letter from J. Greenspun to S. Connelly, February 7, 1986; Letter from L. Lippe to H.'Plaine, March 21, 1986; and Letter from L. Lippe to L. Zech, Jr., October 1, 1986.)
e                                                                            j OIA has historically ignored wrongdoing by NRC staff which benefitted operators of nuclear plants. This indicates to me that they are not investigating matters of importance, or at a minimum, are not conducting these investigations in a sufficiently professional manner.                                1 I am convinced that a statutory I.G. who has the              i independence to look will find real wrongdoing at NRC, as other I. Gs. have found at their agencies. I believe there is a need for a statutory inspector general at                  i the NRC which would aggressively audit and investigate all of the NRC's programs and activities.      Fundamentally.,
i j
such legislation would ensure that all senior agency                  l
 
                                                          ;a . ,
l officials who engage in inappropriate conduct or mismanagemer.:                                  1 l
are within.the jurisdiction'of such an office.            I also-believe theLlegislation addresses the problem of OI's-I                      'i independence in a vital and necessary manner.
Thank you for providing me with this opportunity to testify.. I believe the continued existence and absolutely
                                                                ~
I necessary expansion of nuclear power is too important to the future of this country to allow its regulation in a haphazard fashion.      As with the Banking and Securities I
Industries, however, effective, vigorous and independent enforcement of the law is necessary to minimize the possibility of a disaster as well promote public confidence in the 3(                    system.
We have no right to expect either with purported watchdogs who are supposed to work for the public, but in reality'are "in bed" with those whom they are charged with regulating.
I f
                                                                                                                        )
1 j
- - _ - _ _ - _ _ _                                                                                                      b
 
i 0
{
1 i
    $                                                                                  k APPENDIX I B
1 1
I g' i
I I
i l
I i
 
j  ,a  e
'                                                  !!}              ,
i l  h!W.[p!!!!!]!!!AinIIlibiil h}
LIiamuli,a                        :
l    '!
                                                                                  ~
o                                                    >
1
:                                                      5lE!EE u
I Ei    u!
if !!!!  lhl m! llih!
il h
l 1          11P17 d llli IP!!
                                                          'Ilj!j!!!i
                                                      '}llilII!!N$]jjjjiy dj]ip      .
d}              n!IIll!Ili
 
l EljepaHa$ ming)TehW i                                                          .
Deltas.Tenas fates,. Aent 10. les?
                                                                                        -                          O 1Cla S                                                                                            . _ . _ m. _.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      . . ~ . - - . -
                                                                                                                                                                                                                              -        ..~, .e accused of s _.
1 M1                  On UCt                                                                                                      --
                                                                                                                                                                                                                          . m.s ..      -. . re
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    \
                                                                                                .                                m                                                                                                                  -
                                                                                                                                              ~.
t.
                                                                                                                      .                                                        ,, ,.              ,u.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ~ ...
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        -a
                                              -                  .                    _5._s,,_,T,        ..
5=            Testimony pog,nts.:tg                                                                    : I. 9._.:,.                =..m..E i                P p.lE: 5.E NRC intimida, , tion'.                                                                                                  .m._
:~s:FiE hWO        .
                            -                              ..                        m,a,emsens      f.e.w.m.y.
                                                                                        -                . mm. .                                                                      ''
,t                                                    -      .r m--
e-
                                                                                      ----- == = ,:::::    -
s.
                                                                                                                              .e, ,, e,        , ,.
a.m t8 8.'*
* ma''r"-'*"
a,=----
8
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              '"m"=""
                                                                                                                              ..e          .              --                        . . - -
F.;, g ,,.                          .    "':l"'ga.---a -a                                                                          ..                            .      .c,,,, =,,;        ,:l;;;' '';a,:;g,=
                                                                                                  =====                      = .".,. "".*:."ll"
                                                                                                                                        ~              "s.'Mlll        ''ti;.                    -.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ,, ,, ,,m,s            s r              .. +, i                              .-a - ==          =                                                                                                                                              :
                                                                                      -----                                                                                                                            :: ::='m              :l',* ,;',,,,,.,
                                                                                          - - - -                                es              m        .                      -                ~,                            ,,,,,,,m,
                                                                                      .. c a .                =                                                          ..r.                  . . .e
        .                                                                .                                                        .,                                                        .m            .        .,,,,,,,,,,,,_,,,
s g. ..                                                  -                                _.    , .          ,-
c-
                                                                                              .            -s . as          _a c ,.. .
                                                                                                                                                                        ,, m s.,                      ..
t
                                                                                                                            -s
                                                                                                      - - = =                            -.,c                                  ..
f.-                                                                        .
                                                                                    -                      = =                  .s        -
j          ,, /+4 I
The N W MM 8=        UE*
Whl.h 9. shag Wte has he.t es fe.
                                                                                                                                                                        ,,,.,_.s.
                                                                                    .==r a== .w= an"c            =                                                        .qtas a.ampes CW8 8 e me g.ed W een. evloa.st.i.ssap        Wu.e W=e,
: f. .                  .ans.
mm -4.m      - Jumit
                                                                                                          - --W'=**=#
arem af f*A 8SC llmand 88 E'"
p
                                                                                                                            .ha.se r.ue B.y .h.e.7ssessme WebeF
                                                                                                                                                                        .m.a.ma.g auf.M. --SAs .48
                                                                                                                                                                                ,t.W.th.e
                                                                                                                                                                        .les.Mhs      .r.
egg aus e. .am>
                                                                                                                                                                                                                      , c, e=
g"$
pua.m.mABI N 88 O WaSam    g me h.Als.es.us .ma 7*            .                                ==========s===*                                ====s= m      e.,e Asles m.d 4.
swa .se W Cammerte Pt.t and                                                        .
  ;                                                                                        -. . ==a.            =                                    p-n. ins
: a. margo E*Ekse A an en n=== ase                                            - ' , . 'i                e u,..
                                                                                              ==
k
                                                                                      . see -
                                                                                    ===.e = = ==a=
ft.msnni assig as .sumRF
_==
m, e ==
                                                                                                                                              -a.e              s=>
                                                                                                                                                                                    -,.s .c                                  .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ,s                    . 't
* nets.gmen                                  t ens, e tis gang a g to. 4eet it esteL*      tis.gp assa.y e. .,r.asN              m.
K m.E.n e                        mID,    taasesas he. as peg sospe med                ps;se ages., had esepend Suk as.fts  game of.NGC O.a.8 8
                                                                                        , 2.a Date gag,,.
Camansks Sta
                                                                                                                                                                                ,,e a.gue er H4' a.t s
se es.t.BpfW dIMB                                                      e  a geau.                        gsrha.ed a
mu.ssme.ss um m s.ma sepa.a ft,e'.no 2 8 ruseefbsfue lash  .sa6m.e skimaes he .e e'amam.d*
maassa.gw esi as e as e.
etJ.E      asi es,s tus s.                          Ell b                                                                                                                                e.mus.el,.fsemus I.aB 8.FWIEW g                                                                                g.my,gg                  Emb mo          es"m4 C4see          er. asp t es.einset eraseenhusk gym amapeeps.ese.8 ts mp assa        m as suusr3    aanmaste ar.wasgu.seesist                        vg.erm y mamaryeru.
I essec                                        go.asgge.e aus suse $ t.a.re
                                                                                          =              ,pg,gg              ~
shant                                                            6 SL                  hr 48 h 8D I                            e                                                                          9st ns I e user.s.se
                                                                                                                                                  ==et sees    ==    mas        W            t 8 "8                oralto @ he DEC,
                                                                                                                                                                        .em em.                            sa e.g.st was asestau The amasaf to new.se              any or ddmom amar e.BuRE M.==
                                                                                                                                                                                        . a.s.r u."t.sen  sat            i.e'sms has. U
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    , e n.          ,, ,,
l                l
* a.as af Giap get
                                                                                                                                                                          *yg.ps 3D # h Ef W W 88 as se.tsee af to es  Sunes prus          .6
                                                                                                                        .h.s.e                  g.ur p.esus t.as .maa.ag            alk 4R.y                                              hr.941h B.h mu "9.am= = -a ce= ==
                                                                                                                              .                                                    .ammesy        IMAIWW 4                        .
k.
semaspa .SP. Ikas. s.mmeens es'D 9 mamp s                                W aan.*uns,W tes
                                                                                                                                                                                      -ar = ===
g aggEHHmEEB ERIs  a g.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ,.,g.B.M g m hp.., ,e,s.&.s.,
h et.& parts e .
                                        ,                                                                                ar.m.er
                                                                                                                        .          =- n-m      =a  e .=  ms*
w.ta.r.e.st nesma        y= a,e  eutenen    ==== =====.ha                gg,, g, gg ,,e,,f.pe.,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ,g,g
                                                                                                                              .a .          -= = = ame
                                                                                                                        .to .4puusy piwuse mis et                    =m,.s..s.u.m.mame      sem.,te ===-                              am f
as.sf a tasa re hose t.sm te md er amemas.es - er esar>
genegg*
m ags ges.p                                .m.aa,.a.ns.e gshe St.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ,.          n se i mm.es-C .
ment                              pani      amm.ys        a.m.meempe,t
                                                                                                                                                                                                .r. sums            he        m gas, ,,,,,auf.
e
                      .(                        ,
e*pa.ur, es .ene. rest.                  en eag 5mGARD8E =W                                              g ham.am.e,s,s.n e em e a
fu.I E 840 es as abib F ef W                                                            .ue    to,pu,s,.mu,d,e        es emmes.e m.=see-ses.s.ec                          am e.mmes g,ssansanagnostamemame 8'" 88al4E
                                                                                                                                                  = =as a.                e            W8EBs3 gn,,      , ,,            .
t auer      samme
                                                                                                                                                                      .es.sgase.m.,assmemam                                      ens superassums        uia.n glig g,g            as es au te i
                                                                        .                                              #8.pt amo                er gue I.S          gen.s . aus auteus ti In              e
                                                                                                                            ~488 8 guma a er sue. se
                            ,r          ,          .                                                                  amme tue fus alum e -                        hr& SMBEE O 8888U i      ,
                                                                                                                          -=e == == i te.s.s.e .h.e.he.t tesess en 88 mcemp 8.a="='*"=8    ==== '''''
W 84.e.e.ug tse auqu.S                        a s i ses e e suW              y,sm4 g          ME888088'8'
                                    'b g                      4 ll.                                                  .
 
t
                                                                                      -[!!jnq!A;jg!!jjjjg a iuj;in                    n i.e 5'i!      kk I lpll        !      .
'                                                                                      9bd                        .
                                                                                                        ,,, l. ,''l . .. ..,{I
-4 3a s4                  ill!!Ild Miu !a k          i
                                                                                                              !i!!il d!djjlillili!Ij!jf!i ji8 jlidlituhnli!
qi,mc4;,,..p.oi
'                                                                                                    j                        I flilibdntd.llijkhi 3a    -                      7 l}
1 o y,    ; syity sy. _
a a
t 3
J'*
h
 
    -,-------,-.-.------,--,-..---.,--,---,,---------r, O
z i
smigg                      ij"lotipt i, I I 5  4jlllj!!!!!uiif nij !l
                                                                                                                !!I!Il1 Ilgi3!pi:
                                                                                    $ }Il! 1i                eljjlNi!
l1
: l.                    jlnh!!!!il i                  niiliillel i
4 bI... . .
k    .g.          -
{=              l
                                                                                                          -l1ll E W 1l}[ilji 6                  ..,
t z  c                                    I
                                                .um i l-g.14;  .
z.-
                                                                                                          -      )laa u      Jgj !i!"i 211 Ph,j 4                              "fjD'ijli i Pl.              -
{jj jjlhi!              jf  Il!i i                                                N      E                          i
                                                                                      !)!1$d!1          !!i j}}
                                                                                                                      !v.n!
i l
                                                                      ~
e'!!i!$II,1l1 j
                                                                                  $I!IjNIONll4        II-          Oi!ay!
                                                                                                                        !O!
                                                        ..                A
 
I l
l                                                                                                                    )
(                                            WASHINGTON POST MAY 4, 1987
'    i;'                                    '
                                                                                                ~    ~
c ii ReactorLeak                                                          1 g
I          15 NUCLEAR Reguistory Comunission has him to look into it. Mr. Roberts guaried his staff,
              ..he.pseinend W for safety en- drew denials, reported the desimis to the other
      .        Innement. Sea. John Giman, who takes an enmminamaars and let the questima drop.
gi stuseetis andeer assetess,,d. ene unnatherised has home purseme for    When Sea. Glena looked ines this incident last    )
      .essesgl.weshe.the                                        amanth, he asked Mr. Roberts Ier aR Ms papers denW              his years age, This' substbg to it, Mr. Roberts rustet that he had s g
:                tesif een has hepartant them the throws < thans away. Then th>E& attorney, fbeth and passhe reaction Joseph E.diGeneva,wthisMeamoewas as as'                      Gpsen has asBad for the opening an investigation. Short sterward Mr.'
K Reharts, ons & the Roberts amid that he had Iseq$ Sp aspers and see W and unfor*=ma* the samt them to the sensaan .                        .-  ..          ;,.3 asenterissigt."                                          The leak is stiE a mysesen and them's an'      ,
h 'esitr 1985, sesr' a 'eneversation with a evidsene that Mr. Roberts had anything no ds g(        asuspaper suporter shout construction defects in with it. As for the amusing papera, it's equally a sensest being butt is.f ah een member c6 possible that they were innocemek lost and inno-th61AC's staf duesisted a nnems to the comuni> cently found. The atriking thing is the careless aissues. Whhis dire, it was in the heads d the response of the coni- and Mr. Roberts in ressear's seest,1848e South Services d New particular. The background to IMs episode is a                  ,
odeses. Several weeks later the NBC gm the sharp concern, not limited to Sam Glens and his
,        mens te klides South legaty and aboveboard, Governmental Affa}s            r  a-h that the NRC's          ]
he the issk gave the utility valuable tinne to internal investigations process *m innumelantly todealwithit.                                energetic, and insufficient lF S ' ;"=^ to pro.
                  .nsak reseniend a escret unti 1985, when an tect the coauninsum's integrity.The leak clearly NBC inapsenne came across the enemo in a fBe in shows that somebody at the IIRC was working RSide 8estk's e5ses. Attached as it was a note much too closely and coaly with the utihty for the I        kom a BSids seulk eSdelasquesting h public's safety. But when it lemmed of the leak,,
tisAty 'to pseenst the esses within the NRC.* ' the NRC did very little, and Mr. Roberts, to The insposter estEnd the thsedeirman of the whom the chairman referred the question, did reamens,snoe martines on aimant nothing and then lost te papers. Hat
    . ihm.'                  _ . .to i=Renee that it had passed would be slack performance in any seancy. At the t                    i..    .
                    ., . a ~..
l
 
A l
1
- I'                                                              i 4
J APPENDIX y i
l
 
N            .t ;                        ,
TES-* PONY OF BEN B.. HAYES.
    ,I                                                          ~DIRECTOR, 0FFICE 0F INVESTIGATIONS l'                                                          ' UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY' COMMISSION            ,
My name is Ben B. Hayes. -I was appointed the first permanent director of the NRC 0ffice of Investigations (01) in February;1983. I came to the NRC after 17 4
l                      years of criminal investigative experience with the Internal . Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation Division. My last assignment prior to coming to the NRC I
                ' was'as Chief:of Criminai Investigations for the Cleveland District which covers Northern Ohio.
4 I
On March 26, 1987, I was deposed under oath by_Mr. Stephen Ryan, Counsel for the Majority in the Senate Government Governmental Affairs Committee. My appearance
;g t at that. deposition was as a result of a written request from Senator Glenn, the i                        Committee Chairman-rather than on my own initiative. I subsequently was afford-ad an opportunity _to review the transcript of my deposition. Over this past weekend ! was infonned that the Committee would like me to summarire the infor-g
_ mation that I provided during the-deposition, and sponsor this summary as my testimony today. I was not able to complete my review of-this testimony until I returned from leave yesterday. I_would like to emphasize that the opportunity to provide my testimony, either during my deposition or here today, is not a privilege that I particularly sought.                        To the contrary, it was thrust ~upon me.
lg s.-                      Nonetheless, the information that I have provided to the Committee Staff, and which I am summarizing today, is truthful and as accurate as I can make it.
g-O! is the NRC organization responsible for the conduct of all investigations
                          . involving NRC ' licensees, licensee vendors, and other persons or entities over which NRC has jurisdiction. The office is staffed with investigators having a broad range of experience gained with other Federal investigative agencies such
,g.                          as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Internal Revenue Service, the Naval Investigative Service, and the Army Criminal Investigations Division. OI investigations that uncover or document wrongdoing that appears to violate criminal statutes are referred to the U.S. Department of
                          ' Justice. Investigative reports are also sent to the NRC official who requested                        l the OI investigation so that the *iRC ray take any necessary actions to protect the public health and safety.
 
3 g
There is a strong feeling within the industry and certain quarters of the Cc -
missicn to " decriminalize" 01 investigations, i.e. not prosecute them criminal-4 I
ly. There are significant and important persons in the Comission, both at the  I staff and.Comission level, who desire far less emphasis on criminal prose-cutions. During the years that I have been Director 01 has been in a constant battle to maintain its independence. There are people within the NRC, includ-g                                      ing some on the Commission itse'f, that want to decrease the level of confronta-  l tion that exists between 01 and the nuclear industry.
                                      ' MID-SOUTH DOCUMENTS i
I have been asked to describe the circumstances surrounding the discovery by 01 investigators of a sensitive NRC document in the files of a senior official of Louisiana Power and Light (LP&L), the utility licensed to operate the Waterford g                                    Nuclear Plant near New Orleans, La. During the course of an investigation at Waterford in March 1985, one of my investigators found this document in the personal files of the Vice President-Nuclear of LP&L. The NRC document is an internal NRC memorandum prepared by the Technical Assistant to then Commissioner Victor Gilinsky which had been addressed to the then Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement. The memorandum dealt with allegations of collusion between the NRC and LP&L, as well as cracks in the reactor base mat. The OI investigator who found the documents, Mr. William J. Ward, immediately recog-g                                    nized the importance of the documents, initialed and dated the reverse of them for evidentiary purposes, and brought them to my attention.
I noted the following characteristics of the documents. First, the internal NRC g                                    memorandum appeared to have core directly out of Commissioner Thomas Roberts' office or files in view of the initials on it.      Second, the memorandum was at-tached to a transmittal memorandum on the letterhead of Middle South Services.
Inc. which bore the date of June 15, 1983.      It was addressed to Mr. John J.
t                                    Cordaro and was sent from a Middle South official by the name of George E.
White. The memorandum was marked " confidential" with that tenn underscored. The brief text of that memorandum states, " Attached is a memorandum received from sources inside the NRC regarding Waterford cuality assurance matters. This memorandum is for your information but I would hope that you would limit its distribution to protect the source within the NRC".
 
d              -
I felt that the documents indicated that Middle South (the holding ccmpany fer LP&L) had a source directly inside the NRC, especially inasmuch as the documents I
i                  came from the files of Commissioner Roberts. Particularly startling was the j                    fact that the document was received in Commissioner Roberts office on Thursday, June 9,1983, and was transmitted by Mr. White of LP&L only four workino days later, June 15, 1983. The memorandum was important as it dealt with a base mat
:(                    issue which was under active review by the NRC staff, and that it reports collusion with the licensee on the part of NRC personnel, a very serious alle-gation in my opinion.
ll                  The document also notes that LP&L may have withheld information on the base mat cracks from the NRC. OI subsequently initiated an investigation of that issue.
For a licensee to know that the NRC was discussing the issues of possible collusion and the base mat issue would give them a tremendous advantage. This
:g                  is an example of someone within the NRC tipping a licensee of a potential inves-tigation. There have been instances where senior managers have tipped the fact -
      ~
that they intended to refer a matter to OI for investigation, or advised licens-ees as to how to respond to an official inquiry by the Commission.
1(    '
After leaving copies of the document at the Waterford Site, we returned to Wash-ington and consulted with other members of the OI Headquarters staff. Having concluded that the document in question came from the Office of Corrnissioner i              Roberts, based on various markings contained on the documents. I saw two options: take it to the Director of the NRC Office of Inspector and Auditor, or take it to the Chairman of the NRC. I elected to take the matter to the Chair-man who at that time was Nunzio J. Palladino.
l
                      .' met with the Chairman and the Chairman's Executive Assistant to share the dccument with them, and to explain how it came into the possession of OI. Chair-man Pelladino asked a few questions about the circumstances, including whether I
(              had discussed the matter with Corrnissioner Roberts. The Chairman asked me for my recommendation and I responded that the matter should be referred to the Director of OIA. On March 14, 1985, I received a one page memorandum from the Chairman that was hand delivered to my office. That memorandum directed me to discuss the matter with Commissioner Roberts as soon as possible, and stated that the Chairman had given Commissioner Roberts the copies of the documents that I had provided him. The memorandum also stated that the reorganization
 
O                                                                  4.
plan of 198C provides that supervision of the personnel within each Comission-I er's office is that Commissioners' responsibility. That menorandum did not di-rect me to refer the matter to OIA.
i The next day, March 15, 1985, I and Mr. William Ward, Assistant to the Director of 01, met with Commissioner Roberts and Commissioner Roberts' Legal Assistant Mr. James Cutchin, in Commissioner Roberts' office.
Commissioner Roberts held up what was apparently his file copy of the memorandum in question.          The memo-randum that he showed me appeared to be identical to the copy we found at the Waterford Site.
Commissioner Roberts indicated that he had inquired into the matter, talked to all members of his staff, and was convinced that no one on his staff had sent the documents; he suggested the documents might have been ob-tained by janitorial personnel or perhaps part time help that had been working in his office.
Commissioner Roberts asked me why I did not personally bring the matter to him. I replied that I thought my first obligation was to notify the
  ,                Chaiman.
Casunissioner Roberts then requested that I send him all copies of the documents in 01 files.
I advised Commissioner Roberts that I had taken notes during my prior discussion with the Chairman.
Commissioner Roberts then stated he wanted                    !
all copies of my notes as well. I complied with Commissioner Roberts' in-structions.
As we were leaving his office, Commissioner Roberts comented that
  , , ,      he would probably see this on the Hill.
We assumed that Commissioner Roberts was referring to his upcoming confirmation hearings which would be held prior to                                '
his reappointment as an NRC Commissioner.
After reflecting on the manner in which the matter had been handled. I elected to annotate the March                14, 1985, recorandum to reflect Commissioner Roberts' request for the documentation relat-ir.9 to this matter. This annotation was made by me on March 18, 1985, at which time it was countersigned by Mr. Ward.
I have been specifically asked what I would have done had I been in charge of the investigation of this incident.
I would have interviewed the Middle South and LP&L officials involved in this matter under oath, to include all recipients of the document.
I would have placed Commissioner Roberts' staff under oath, ard have questioned each member about the extent of their knowledge concerning this memorardum.              In short, I would have conducted a very extensive and exhaus-tive investigation to determine who was leaking information to a licensee.
 
)                                                                                                                  J The leaked docurent was definitely not the type of document that is publicly released. I would have objected if the document were proposed to be released to                          i I
the licensee within 7 days of it being provided to the NRC Staff. I have never before seen an internal document of this nature given to a party at-interest, oither in this or any other agency where I have worked,                                                  !
)            In response to specific questions during my deposition, I acknowledged that                            l Commissioner Roberts' office has been, in general, a continual critic of 01                            l
        ' cperations. Commissioner Roberts has raised proposals before the Commission that would limit in some respects Ol's ability to initiate investigations, to make referrals to the Department of Justice, or otherwise to conduct the busi-ness of OI.
Another incident involved a second Middle South utility, Grand Gulf Nuclear                              '
;            Station in Mississippi. The then Regional Administrator of the NRC Region II Office in Atlanta, Georgia, or his immediate staff, reviewed draft documents that the licensee proposed to submit to the NRC. On detecting the fact that the d:cuments appeared to contain a material false statement, the Regional Adminis-                          ,
3            trator or his staff told the licensee to go back and resubmit the document be-cause it would be considered a material false statement.
TVA PROBLEMS B
Another incident occurred that appeared to be an improper contact between the                            ,
NRC's Executive Director for Operations (EDO), Victor Stello, and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Manager of Nuclear Power, Mr. Steven White. The E00 is 3            essentially the chief operating officer of the NRC. Most of the day to day
(
activities of the NRC to include inspection, enforcement. licensing, and other regulatory activities are done under his general supervision. The general sub-
            #ct of that contact was one of the major issues being investigated by O! cono g
cerning the well publicized difficulties regarding the TVA nuclear program, i
By way of background, in December 1985, NRC Congnissioner Asselstine was being briefed by NRC Region Il personnel as well as TVA representatives on the status of the Watts Bar Nuclear Power Plant in Tennessee. I am told that during that                              ,
briefing, members of the TVA Nuclear Safety Review Staff reported that the plant was not built in accordance with NRC requirements; specifically, that the Watts i
i
 
Bar quality assurance program was not in conformance with the requirer ents of  i Appendix B to 10 CFR 50. Subsequent to this briefing, the NRC sent a January 3, t                    1986, letter to TVA asking TVA's official position as to whether Watts Bar was in compliance with Appendix B, and allowed TVA 7 days to respond in, writing.
The NRC letter was very important. If TVA were to have indicated that the plant was not in compliance with Appendix B, then the NRC Staff might have issued an immediate stop work order to halt construction. It was also noteworthy that Watts Bar was very close to licensing; in fact, they were anticipating licensing as early as April 1986.
I I was informed by Harold Denton, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,  l that Mr. Stello had initiated a telephone call in his presence while the two of f
them and other NRC staff were returning from a meeting at the Comission offices on H Street in Washington D.C.. Mr. Denton related that the telephone call was      j to Mr. Steven White, the TVA Manager of Nuclear Power, and that the conversation    !
dealt with TVA's proposed response to the NRC's January 3 letter. Mr. Denton was very uncomfortable with that because of his view that White should respond without any advice from the Commission. Mr. Denton told me that James Taylor, Director, IE, was also present in the van during that telephone call. I then k
w2nt to Mr. Taylor and asked him about it. Mr. Taylor confirmed that the call took place.
I was very concerned on learning of that phone call as 0I had ongoing investiga-8-
tions regarding TVA, and one investigation in particular had addressed the issue of whether a former TVA manager had lied to the NRC concerning readiness of Watts Bar for fuel load. There would be no reason for a licensee not to try to get a reading from the NRC as to how best to handle a very difficult situation such as a reply to that letter; however, in my view, it would be improper for-the NRC to give it. Mr. Denton indicated that Mr. White appeared to be shopping for advice as to how to reply to the January 3 letter. At the time of the tele-phone conversation, the NRC had not received a response to the letter. Such a response was not received until March 20, 1986.
l Goth Mr. Denton and Mr. Taylor felt the NRC should be dealing at arms length with TVA on such a critical issue. Because of my concerns about the possible impropriety of the telephone call, concerns that were heightened by the obvious concern expressed by Mr. Denton and Mr. Taylor, I elected to discuss the matter
 
-i                  .                                                                                with Chairman.Palladino. Chairran Palladino requested that I take the matter to f                        Ms. Sharon Connelly, the Director of OIA, which I did that same day.
After reporting the matter to 0IA, I was deposed by investigators from that office shortly after making the initial report to Ms. Connelly. I subsequently read the OIA report concerning this matter and noted that the report consisted I                            of my deposition and that of Mr.Stello, neither of which was taken under oath,  l It also consisted of memoranda of interview rather than depositions of Messrs. Taylor and Denton. The thrust of Mr.Stello's deposition was that he advised White not to give a definitive response to the January 3,1986 NRC let-
'l                            ter which, in fact, asked for a very definitive response.
The March 20, 1986 TVA response was not, in fact, definitive, i.e., it did not provide a clear yes or no answer. Rather, it reported that Mr. White found that I                            there was no " pervasive" breakdown in the quality assurance program at Watts
    ~
Bar. The OIA report on this matter concluded that there was no misconduct by NRC officials.
8{                          My OIA deposition was taken four days after my initial report to Ms. Connelly (April 11,1986), but Mr Denton and Mr. Taylor were not interviewed until the middle of June 1986. Mr. Stello was not deposed until July 30, 1986. In my view, this was a very serious, sensitive matter that deserved an expeditious I                            review and investigation, and that especially considering the stature of
{
Mr.Stello in the NRC structure, an investigation should be quick, complete, and
{
thorough.
l 8
Judging from the report, no one from TVA was interviewed regarding any aspect of  I the investigation. During my Committee deposition, in response to Mr. Ryan's cuestion,  I acknowledged, that I would have placed Mr. White under oath and
                              'have taken a deposition concerning that telephone call. I agreed that a fair 8
characterization of this matter was that a very senior NRC official was in con-
                                                                                                                )
tact with the licensee in a way that creates the impression that the official tipped the licensee as to how they should answer a particular inquiry that was also the subject of an 01 investigation.
 
l 0            .                .
                                                                ~8' THREATS BY STELLO_
l In the latter part of 1985 -- late November or early December -- I-< net with l                        Chairman Palladino to give him an update on ongoing investigations involving l                        TVA. Responding to the Chairman's questions I offered my impression that the Comission's handling of the TVA matter appeared to be disorganized, and that NRC had not in fact set forth a comprehensive program to identify the problems
                  , at TVA, much less a program geared toward resolving these issues.
Consequently, I recomended that the Commission appoint a senior executive to take the responsibility over the TVA project and provide that executive with the necessary resources. Later that day, I provided a similar briefing to then Commissioner, now Chairman, Zech. I subsequently drove to a management meeting at the NRC Region I Office at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. The next morning the management meeting commenced under the leadership of then EDO, Mr. William Dircks. That morning, Mr.Stello came up to me, and standing face to face and i shaking his fist in my face said, " Ben if what you said comes to pass I'm going to get you." At first I thought Mr.Stello was kidding, and I responded in a
{                jovial tone, "What are you doing Vic, threatening me?" Mr. Stello's reply was "I don't care how long it takes, I'm going to get you." I believe Mr.Stello was dead serious.
A little later, Mr. Dircks, the EDO, met with me in a small conference room; in the presence of Mr. Denton, Mr. Taylor, and the Region II Administrator, Mr.
Dircks said, "All right, Ben, what in the hell did you tell the Commissioners
.I                        because we've got to do damage control". I informed Mr. Dircks that I provided the Chairman and Commissioner Zech my personal' views as they requested, that I report to the Chairman, and when asked for my views, I intend to give them to                            ;
hin. The threatening incident and the conversation with Mr. Dircks took place on December 5, 1985. Within thirty days, Mr. Dircks retired, and Mr. Stello became the Acting EDO.
Subsequent to that meeting, there have been changes that affect the way in which O! operates. One of these actions was the establishment of the Investigation Review Board (IRB). The purpose of the IRB is basically twofold, to establish national priorities, and to assure that Staff investigative requests are                                I I
 
7                -                                          -
l warranted. The IRB has been in existence for five months. Prior to the f
establishment of the IRB,. Regional Administrators . could refer suspected wrongdoing matters directly to 01. This is no longer the case. A Regional
                                                                                                          ~
Administrator can no longer request'an investigation without IRB concurrence.
The practical effect of the IRB has been a dramatic downt rn in the number of I                        wrongdoing matters referred to 01 for investigation. There have been a total of 8 requests for investigation in a five month period since the board has been in operation. In contrast, for a comparable five month period just one year earlf-or, OI received 42 referrals for investigation. For example, as of the date of my deposition, one of the five NRC Regional offices, Region I, King of Prussia.                l
                    ' Pennsylvania, had not submitted a single request for investigation since the initiation of the IR8.
O I agree with Commissioner Asselstine's statement that the IRB appears to be a
                                      ... thinly veiled attempt by the EDO to control 01 by controlling what referrals are made, and thus what O! investigates." After Mr. Stello expressed the view                  !
that cases were being referred to 01 that should not have been, I wrote the ED0 d
((          and asked for a list of such cases. Mr. Stello's response was a memorandum that basically stated that he didn't have the resources to answer that question. I failed to see what the problem was that the staff was attempting to resolve.
Another change was SECY 85-369 which placed major limitations upon the NRC staff in its referral of matters to 01.            That document establishes priorities for conducting investigations, defines wrongdoing, and provides a threshold for staff requests for investigations. I believe the effect of that threshold has 0
been to direct the staff to make their own internal evaluation in a way usurping the ultimate goal of an O! investigation, i.e., the determination of whether the matter is or is not willful. The staff's interpretation of this threshold ap-pears to be that they are required to gather evidence indicating willfulness rather than merely reporting wrongdoing. This appears to have " chilled" surfac-
                                                                                                                        ~
ing of wrongdoing items to 01. It is the role of the investigator to determine              l whether or not a particular act was done willfully.
Other limitations exist on the authority of OI to initiate investigations re-garding the character and competence of licensees. To begin an_. investigation solely relating to those issues, O! is required to make a recommendation to the
 
Comission as to whether the investigation is warranted, and then be guided by a
{                          majority vote of the Comission as to whether or not to open the case.
There is one instance where the Commission declined to authorize an inves-tigation of this nature that involved senior officials at the Wolf Creek Gen-    <
Grating Station operated by Kansas Gas & Electric.      On Dec. 24, 1984, I wrote the Comission and outlined certain character issues pertaining to two senior Kansas Gas & Electric managers. Among the allegations described in that memoran-
                      ' dum were senior officials of the licensee ordering licensee employees to break into the car of a licensee employee in order to remove files; sexual harass-ment; and " blackballing" by the person responsible for the quality assurance      i program at Wolf Creek.      The latter involved an allegation that the official prevented a former employee who had raised safety concerns from getting a job 01sewhere in the industry. The Comission subsequently voted 4 to 1 not to authorize the investigation.      (Commissioner Asselstine desired an inves-      j e                        tigation.)
i There were other instances of attempts to curtail O! authority, especially OI's
(                      authority to self initiate investigations. A recent example of this was the Fcbruary 13, 1987 memorandum from Commissioner Roberts to the balance of the Commission which criticizes certain investigations initiated by OI. Commissioner Rcberts' memorandum recomends to the Commission, that in the event that I did          !
m not provide a satisfactory explanation, the Commission should. "... seriously censider whether organizational and management changes are necessary to assure that O! functions as we intend it to function, and that its activities are ade-quately supervised and controlled."
It is my understanding, based on his memorandum, that Commissioner Roberts be-        l lieves that OI no longer has the right to self-initiate investigations on wrongdoing matters identified or reported by NRC employees.        As noted in our March 20, 1987, response to Commissioner Roberts' memorandum, a response that we      I prepared at the direction of the Commission, I feel OI must retain the ability i                        to self-initiate investigations regardless of the origin of the allegation.
I On one occasion, Commissioner Roberts' legal assistant criticized 01's self initiation of a recent hospital case, and stated during a telephone conversation with me, "Quite frankly, Ben, you may have comitted a material false statement
 
l.
l0::                -                                                  - 11 ~
before the Commission". (I of course did not.) I took the comment seriously, especially when I subsequently learned the legal assistant voiced the same cen-1                              cern to a member of the NRC Office of the General Counsel.        Nonetheless, I be-lieve that O! did the right thing, especially in the particular case-in contrc-l                              versy which was a blatant example of not allowing my office to conduct a i                              thorough, aggressive investigation into some identified false documents.
't That was not the first time Commissioner Roberts' assistant has suggested to 01
                      , staff members that their jobs may be in jeopardy. In one such incident, the he told Roger Fortuna, the Deputy Director of 01, that Ol's management could be i                              replaced if "we or I" ever were to find OI not abiding by the "will" of the Comission.
One way of controlling O! would be to remove its independent status as a Comis-ll                              sion-level office and make it instead report to the EDO. There have been sever-al Comission initiatives- to move O! under the EDO. One such effort resulted in a two to two tie with one Commissioner, then Chairman Palladino, abstaining. The effect of such a move would be to remove Ol's ability to go directly to the Commissioners; rather, O! would have to go through the EDO. A strong letter l( [                            from the Department of Justice opposed any movement of 01 under Staff.
The proposed movement of 0! under the EDO was of great concern to my staff and I l(                              because we do not feel that we could exercise the independence, the thorough-ness, and completeness that we feel a professional Federal investigator must have to do a competent job were we to become a Staff office. If the Commission is going to have an investigative arm.        I believe that investigations of I                            wrongdoing matters must be supervised directly by the Commission rather then the f,C.C Staf f.
All cases involving potential violations of 18 USC 1001 have to be given to the t                            Connission for consultation before being released to the Department of Justice.
Moreover, all referrals to the Department of Justice require consultation with l
the NRC Office of the General Counsel. In response to Mr. Ryan's question, I agreed that in disclosing these investigative results within the agency to the Commissioners and their staff and Office of the General Counsel, there would be a possibility that this information could get back to the licensee, especially I                                in light of the situations where such tips have been made by NRC in the past.
L_______________________.-                            -
 
l l
I wculd like to e :hasize, however, that although this is, of course, a pos.
sibility, I do not have any indication that it in fact has ever occurred on a lg referred matter.
l l
The Commission has the right to tell O! not to refer cases to the Department of Justice. The OI investigation related to the D.C. Cook Nuclear Plant, was referred to the Department of Justice. That investigation focused on willful naterial false statements made to NRC by the licensee regarding compliance with  j
                              - NRC fire protection guidelines. At the conclusion of that investigation, I ex-ercised the authority I then had to refer matters directly to the Department of  1 Justice. I no longer have that authority.
1 The completed report of investigation was provided the NRC Staff. The Staff de-clined to make a decision whether the false statement was willful. They took it to the Commission. In one of the meetings subsequently held regarding the D.C.
Cook matter, the Cossnission voted 3 to 2 that it was a material false statement, but then voted 3 to 2 that the statement was not willful. I recall that during that meeting, there was a discussion on the record as to perhaps "unreferring"
(                        the matter from the Department of Justice. Apparently the Department of Justice disagreed with the Commission as they sought and obtained criminal indictments of the utility officials and the utility itself regarding the material false
                                                            ~
statements issues. These indictments were recently dismissed on statute of limitations grounds.
It was subsequent to that investigation and the controversy surrounding the DC Cook referral that OI was required to send any O! reports that we wished to refer to the Department of Justice to the Office of the General Counsel, and if they involved material false statement issues, to the Cocenission as well, prior to such referrals.
The Commission has specifically directed O! not to conduct or perfect criminal investigations. Nonetheless, I believe criminal prosecution of those licensees who chose to deliberately violate Comission rules and regulations would have a deterrent effect on the conduct of other licensees. Notwithstanding these re-straints, however, the Commission has authorized technical and investigative support at the request of the Department of Justice once the matter has been referred.
 
APPE?IDIX K i
k J
l I
a i
i l
l l
_ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - .            \
 
);
1 STATEMENT OF H. SRANNON PHILLIPS p                                                    BEFORE.THE SENATE    COMMITTEE APRIL 9, 1987 ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS    I 1
My name is H. Shannon Phillips.
I am the Nuclear Regulatory
?                                              Commission's Senior Resident Inspector (SRI) for Construction at the Comanche Peak nuclear power plant- in Texas. I am part of the Region IV staff.
I am testifying today pursuant to a letter from the Committee to Commissioner Zech requesting my attendance here today. My loyalty is to the NRC.                                    a I did not seek to testify but  !
am here pursuant to the Committee's request.
I have been asked to testify about recent events regarding Region IV's regulation of Comanche Peak and particularly how 1
these events have destroyed my career.
  \
I have been an NRC inspector for over 10 years; before that I worked as a materials scientist and quality assurance division
                                            ' manager in the aerospace industry.
I am a materials engineer by training and degree.
As a Senior Resident Inspector at the Comanche Peak nuclear power plant, it is my responsibility, by law,      to conduct inspections for purposes of determining whether Texas Utilities is-constructing the plant in accordance with NRC regulations and other legal requirements.
In 1985 I reported to the Chief of the Region IV Comanche Peak Task Group, Thomas F.
t                                                                          Westerman, and his assistant, Ian Barnes.
Westerman and Barnes reported to the Division Director, Eric Johnson, who in turn reported to the Region IV 1
1
 
I J
Administrator, Robert D. Martin.
(                                                According to the NRC's operating regulations if my inspection reveals that legal requirements have been violated or i
commitments have otherwise not been met my job is to write up the negative findings. Such findings are classified by the inspector as either a violation, a' deviation or an unresolved item according to the criteria and standards set forth in the i
regulations.      In practice the NRC inspector's decision on classifying negative findings is rarely questioned.
I was initially assigned to the Comanche Peak plant in mid-1984 to work with a special inspection team. This team was constituted by NRC headquarters to assess the severity of the numerous reported problems in the plant's design and construction.      The former Region IV Division Director, Richard k
Denise, told me that I had been chosen for the Comanche Peak team because of my experience with other troubled construction projects.
The head of the inspection team, Thomas Ippilito, told me to do a thorough and detailed job so that the NRC could decide if the plant was safe, and therefore, ready to load fuel. It was I
well known that Texas Utilities (TU), the plant's owner, had applied for permission to load fuel in the fall of 1984.
The special inspection team completed its field inspection I
work in early fall of 1984.      The NRC puolished the team's          i i
L l
conclusions and findings in a series of letters beginning in September 1984 and ending January 8, 1985.      The January 8, 1985  (
letter summarized the NRC*s observations on the quality assurance 6
i i
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _          _                                                            1
 
l l
                                                -                                              1 1
prcgram at Comanche Peak:                                          \
lI                                  Although the TUEC QA program documentation met NRC's        f requirements, the weaknesses of its implementation          '
demonstrate that TUEC lacked the commitment to aggressively implement an effective QA/QC program in several areas.
(List of specific areas omitted.)
(January 8,  1985 letter from Darrell Eisenhut to Michael Spence, President, Texas Utilities.)
That month Texas Utilities withdrew its request for fuel loading.
From late 1984 to September 1985 I and other inspectors were permitted the organizational freedom to identify deviations and violations at the plant, and did so.      During this time period I was under the direct supervision of Doyle Hunnicutt, Section Chief, who reported to Dorwin Hunter, the Branch Chief, and Mr.
Hunter reported to Richard Denise, the Division Director.
In the fall of 1985 Mr. Denise resigned, and Hunter and Hunicutt were replaced by Westerman and Johnson, respectively.
The effect of the new appointments was immediately apparent.
Westerman and Johnson began to challenge my inspection findings and those of other inspectors and consultants assigned to Comanche Peak. Westerman consistently suggested that we remove certain negative findings about the plant or that we " downgrade" violations to the category of findings called " unresolved items."
Westerman's motivation for these actions was, according to his own statements, that he was there "to license the plant." It is my belief that the basis for the intimidating conduct was my management's concern that negative inspection findings might reflect unfavorably on the licensee's performance and reduce I
l
 
i their chances Of ge:::.g a licens.                                    !
i This is most obviously demonstrated by what happened to one major inspection report, 85-05/07.                                    l The inspection field work was completed between April and June 1985.
The report was submitted to the Region IV office with the concurrence of all the inspectors and the supervisor, Dorwin Hunter.
However, the report was not issued at that time.      Instead, after the management change, Westerman pressured me to make substantive changes to the inspection report.
I did not succumb to such pressure.
During the fall of 1985 other inspection reports were subjected to the same treatment.
Over a 6-7 month time period from the fall of 1985 to February of 1986, I and other inspectors j
were subjected to increasing pressure to downgrade negative            \
(
findings to lesser categories or delete them entirely. The              )
                                                                                            )
{
findings which were being deleted were significant. During        this  '
1 1
time frame at least 30 proposed violations and findings were the subject of dispute between site inspectors and Region IV management.
These findings included:
I                        o The proper installation of the reactor vessel could not be verified because no installation specifications or procedures were available; I                        o There was totally inadequate control of design and construction records for piping and reactor containment liner plate, millions of pieces of paper had been shipped 1
off-site in cardboard boxes with no controls, no inventory, l
um____-__ _ _ _____
 
        ,__,__,_,,___-,,__----.-----,w--          v -"
and'no duplicates;.
    ].                                    o  A~ trend analysis of all Region IV negative inspection findings from 1974 to 1984 showed adverse trerds in Texas        '
Utilities' quality assurance program for design and construction of Comanche Peak, which TU should have been required.to analyze.
Some of the harassment during this time period was subtle, such as comments by my supervisors that " Don't you make quite a bit of money, don't you?...."
I took that statement to mean that if I did not buckle under to Westerman's instructions I could lose my job.
On another occasion Westerman made the comment that magion IV "would never forget" inspection _ report 8432, an 1
inspection into the failures of the nanagement of TU's corporate Ok Program. I was also told by Westerman that it would be better
    't if I found another job, outside of Region IV.
                                        . Region IV management officials also began to " nit pick" me.
For example, I was asked for strict accounting of my whereabouts ame my time on the site.
This is out of the ordinary for a        !
resident inspector.                      I was also asked for explanations and tastifications on the most minor details of the inspection work I uns able to do.
1 Throughout the fall of 1985 Tom Westerman conducted a series I
of smeetings on inspection reports in which he pressured, badgered and ultimately threatened me if I did not remove negative findings from inspection reports. One meeting in late November 1985, on control of design and construction records, lasted qmproximately five hours. I was directed to change many of my                                j t
I t
 
l l
findings.
The entire atmosphere demoralized and frustrated me.        By this                                                                    {
time Westerman had told me to " quit digging".      I began to question whether identifying problems at Comanche Peak was worth the hassle. Finally, in January 1986, I told Westerman that I would only put in information he wanted.
I told him that I would identify problems according to the NRC procedures, and he could classify them and tell me how to write them up.
However, in February 1986 I learned that the Region had issued a report of a major inspection without including several of the violations cited in the draft report, including damaging information concerning the reactor vessel.          Significantly, Westerman and Johnson, in releasing the report publicly, used the draft inspectors' signature sheet as part of the final report.
j I knew I had to report the matter and my overall concerns to someone independent of Region IV management.
I also knew I could not report this to Region IV management because recent actions had convinced me that Region IV officials condoned or directed the misconduct of Westerman and Johnson; for example, Westernman and recently been promoted.
I was aware of the NRC's Office of Inspector and Auditor, but knew of its reputation of being unable or unwilling to investigate the type of serious management issues that I was raising. In March 1986 I decided to take my concerns to Commissioner James Asselstine.          I understand that other inspectors and consultants also contacted Commissioner Asselstine with similar complaints.
I told Commissioner Asselstine that I would agree to talk to        l I
 
l l
l George Mulley of OIA cecause of his personal reputation for professionalism, but that I doubted the ability of the office to probe the full extent of the management problem and to recommend necessary corrective actions.
In April 1986 I met with Mr. Mulley and provided him with detailed information and substantive evidence about my original      I findings, the actions of Region IV management in removing the findings, and the harassment and intimidation to which I was subjected.                                                          i
(
I also told Mr. Mulley of incidents of harassment,            \
{
intimidation and other negative personnel actions taken against      \
other Region IV staff who had raised serious quality design and/or construction questions about other Region IV plants.
Over the next few months Mulley, working alone, conducted
{            his investigation.
During this time period I felt isolated, my secretary was reassigned and I was excluded from most Region IV staff meetings.
i In May 1986 a consultant at Comanche Peak hired by the NRC came to me and complained that, among other things, Westerman had steered the consultant group away from quality assurance issues I
and that certain NRC_ inspections were deficient. I told him that he should talk to OIA.
Soon thereafter I learned I was going to be removed from my I
job at the site for asking the NRC consultant to provide information to OIA. I went to Mr. Mulley and although he was able to stop my transfer of f-site, the intimidation and isolation increased.      I was told not to talk to NRC consultants, and I was left alone in a trailer apart frcm the rest Of the NRC staff, and I.          I was repeatedly called upon to defend my findings previously L      cited in draft inspection reports.
Between July and November 1985 I knew that.Mr. Mulley was writing the report of his investigation.                          I also knew that he had not pursued many of the incidents of harassment and pressure to remove findings at other Region IV facilities, including Wolf Creek, Fort St. Vrain, and Waterford.                          It was clear to me that Mulley was under pressure to downplay the significance of the evidence that he had obtained.
The report was released in late November 1986.        Within days it was distributed throughout the agency.                          All of the witnesses
                              .who had talked to Mulley were identified.                            This was an outrageous breach of confidence.                        The faith that Mr. Mulley had k        painstakingly established was shattered.                            It was clear to us that OIA had no independence and their findings received little respect, if any, from NRC headquarters.
In fact, the following week the Regional Administrator Martin                      gave a monetary award to Tom Westerman for his work at Comanche Peak.                      I, on the other hand, received from Barnes the i
first derogatory comments on my performance appraisal in my NRC career. I believe the action was in reprisal for my having gone I
to OIA with my concerns.                        I filed a grievance and subsequently the agency agreed to withdraw the com.v.ents.
This entire situation is wrong.      NRC inspectors must have the f reedom to identif y findings about the utilities that the NRC regulates and to write the truth about what they find, regardless
 
0 of the. impact that tr.e ::.th will have en the licensing cf a i
l    ,                        plant.
Unfortunately, my experience is that OIA has very little, if any, credibility among NRC employees, and that something must be done to give employees an avenue to bring up these types of concerns.      I think an independent inspector general is necessary to monitor the NRC management system to assure the integrity of the regulatory process, including the protection of inspectors like myself.
This concludes my testimony. I am prepared to answer questions the Committee may have on my experience at Comanche Peak.
I l
1
                                                                            -                      t I
i l
l l
0
                                    >                                                                l l
 
APPENDIX L o
1 I
C-_______.
 
l STATEMENT OF GEORGE A. MULLEY, JR.
l'                            BEFORE THE SENATE COKMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS APRIL 9, 1987 My name is George A. Mulley, Jr. I am the Assistant
                . Director for Investigations at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Office of Inspector'and Auditor (OIA).      OIA
                -investigates to ascertain the integrity of all NRC operations and,Lamong other things, ikivestigates allegations of NRC employee misconduct.
I am testifying today pursuant to a letter from the 1
Committee to Commissioner Zech requesting my appearance at this hearing. On March 20, 1987 I was deposed under oath by counsel
      ,.              to the Committee. My presence at the deposition was a result of y
a written notice from the chairman. Subsequently, I had the opportunity to review the transcript of my deposition.      This testimony is a summary of sworn statements made at the l
deposition.
I have been asked to testify today about an investigation that I conducted last year concerning allegations of intimidation
)
and harassment of NRC employees by their superiors in Region IV (Dallas) for reporting safety problems.      The particular nuclear
                                                                                                ]
plant invcived was Comanche Peak, which is owned by Texas                !
9 Utilities Electric, has been under construction for 14 years.
The Comanche Peak plant is not yet licensed to operate.      I have also been asked to testify about the process by which the results of my investigation were reported to the Commission.
o
 
I As background .nformation ! have been an investigator for 17                              l l
i            years. Prior to coming to the NRC ! worked as an investigator                                1 I
for the military.      I have worked at the Office of Inspector and                            l Auditor since October of 1982, first as a criminal investigator and then, in April 1984, I was given the responsibility of overseeing all of the OIA investigations involving nuclear power plants. In April 1985 I made the Special Assistant to the Director, and in July 1986 I was promoted to my present position.
l I supervise six other investigators.
In March 1986 OIA was contacted by Commissioner James Asselstine regarding allegations that he had received from a i
number of personnel working in Region IV, including Senior Resident Inspector Shannon Phillips, about harassment and intimidation from certain Region IV managemers for identifying i
I        safety concerns.      Gary Edles, then-Acting Director of OIA, told me that Commissioner Asselstine requested that I personally be                                  l assigned to conduct the investigation.      Asselstine told Mr. Edles I
that Shannon Phillips had indicated a confidence in me personally, although he had no confidence in OIA.      The Commissioner instructed that during this investigation all I
interviews I conducted be transcribed. This was unusual fo'r OIA, but.I thought it was a good procedure because it would provide a complete and accurate record.
I Soon thereafter I interviewed Mr. Phillips and determined that the allegations he raised were significant.      As the Senior Resident Inspector for Construction at Comanche Peak, it was his job to investigate Texas Utility's compliance with federal t
 
regulations in the construction of Comanche Peak.            It was his
[                                        belief that the condition of the Comanche Peak plant was                  I indeterminate and that Region IV had not properly inspected the plant or enforced federal regulations over the plant's 14 year construction history.
Additionally, Mr. Phillips stated that he had been harassed, intimidated and pressured to remove proposed findings from draft inspection reports by downgrading them to a less serious issue or            !
deleting them entirely from the report. Mr. Phillips provided evidence that when he and other inspectors resisted downgrading or deleting at least 30 proposed findings, the Director of the Comanche Peak Task Group, Thomas Westerman, and another manager, Eric Johnson, removed violations from the inspection reports or substantially changed the report without the inspectors'
(                                  knowledge and other times without their concurrence. In one case the Region issued a final inspection report using the signature page f rom a draf t version of the report. This made it appear i
that the inspection report was approved by the inspectors involved --when actually the inspectors were neither informed of the changes nor told of the issuar,ae of the report.
I believe Mr. Phillips' allegations were exactly the types    ,
i of concerns that should be thoroughly investigated by an independent investigator within the NRC without regard to the potential consequences of the investigation on the licensability of a nuclear power plant.
The evidence showed that the attitude of Region IV management was to create no further                      problems for Texas 3
 
l i
i Utilit:es.            T.e ev:dence als: :nd::ated that another Region :V
          =anager, Dorwin Hunter, had ceen transferred off the Comanche                i Peak project and later demoted as a result of his strong regulatory enforcement attitude toward Comanche Peak.              In      j cddition, I' learned of other instances of harassment and intimidation of NRC inspectors at other plants regulated by                  I Region IV, such as Fort St. Vra:n and Wolf Creek,                            i However, after having heard Mr. Phillips' evidence and
{
interviewing other inspectors and consultants who raised similar cliegations, I became concerned that if NRC managers, both in Washington and at the Region, learned the full scope of the management problems being raised in Region IV, my investigation would be interfered with.
I did my best to see to it that no one connected with NRC
( h0adquarters or Region IV knew the extent of m*. probe into the allegations concerning Region IV's attitude t: ward regulating nuclear power plants within its jurisdiction.
Unfortunately, even my best attempts to assure an independent investigation, including putting my personal credibility on the line, were not enougn to vercome the overall distrust of OIA.            It was clear to me tnat :tner NRC employees and other witnesses I wanted to interview did not believe that OIA 1
could or would protect them from retaliation. I even had to use f
Shannon Phillips to get individuals to talk to me because those individuals did not trust any representative of OIA.
J.n June 1986, soon after : asked Mr. Phillips to help          ;
i convince other witnesses to talk to me, I learned that the                    !
                                                  -4_
E_ __        - - - -
 
Administrator of Region IV was going to remove Phillips from tne plant site.              Mr. Robert D. Martin, Regional Administrator, stated during a conference call with me and Sharon Connelly, the Director of OIA, that he was going to remove Phillips from the site because Phillips was getting other people to cooperate with the OIA investigation, and had therefore lost his objectivity.                I believed that this proposed action constituted a reprisal for Phillips initiating the OIA investigation and I got NRC headquarters to stop the transfer.              However, at that point the confidentiality of the' investigation was compromised.
From that point forward I was under pressure from Victor Stello, the Executive Director of Operations, to complete the investigation and- then to write the report.
Given this pressure I felt that I had no choice but to limit this investigation to the specific concerns criginally raised by Phillips and ignore, for the time being, the :ther witnesses' complaints of Region IV's regulatory mismanagement of other plants and the evidence of harassment, intimidation, and pressure on other inspectors.
The pressure came not only f rom the Execut:.e Director of the NRC staff, but also f rom my supervisor, Sharen Connelly.                In late July of 1986 I finished the field work.              In September and 4
October 1986, while I was trying to write the report, the pressure being put on me by Connelly was so great that I asked her for a meeting with              Chairman Zech to determine if the pressure was actually coming f rom the Chairman's office, as she
        ,                    said it was.              Chairman Zech assured me that there was no reason 1
1-i
 
to be hasty in the course of either the investigation or the writing of the report. He stated he wanted a thorough and complete investigative report. I then finished pulling together the 3,000-page investigative record into a draft report-length document which included what I knew to be negative conclusions about the management of Region IV in general, and certain individual managers in particular. I gave the draft portions of the report to Sharon Connelly in October    1986.
The conclusions that I reached were that:
(1) Region IV managers acted inappropriately to limit violations assessed at Comanche Peak; and that Phillips was harassed and intimidated by Region IV management in an effort to get him to downgrade or delete his inspection findings.
    ,        (2)  The Region IV Quality Assurance Inspection Program, as implemented at Comanche Peak, could not be relied on as evidence of the safe construction of the plant.
(3) Because of the unreliability of the information entered on the automated inspection tracking forms (NRC Form 766) by Region IV inspection personnel concerning Comanche Peak, data obtained from these forms should not be used for any NRC licensing decision.
Sharon Connelly personally participated in substantially modifying the draft report. Connelly removed the conclusions I had written. Connelly focused the report on the merits of the technical issues underlying the violations the inspectors had found at Comanche Peak, which is an area outside the expertise of OIA.
 
l
:.do'not recall any prior occasion where Sharon Connelly
(                    took such an active role in the preparation of one of my reports.
ror the first-time in my career as an OIA investigator, she assigned a group of OIA auditors to rewrite the report. She also removed many of the statements from Region IV managers whom I had quoted.
The statements substantiated the conclusions I had        )t i
reached and demonstrated the lax enforcement attitudes of Regional management.
For example, when I asked Eric' Johnson how the agency would go about at this late date trying to verify that Comanche Peak was built safely absent all the necessary quality
      ;cosurance inspections and records, he responded, "We shouldn't
      -worry about the past, and you just go out and kind of kick the tires and if it feels good, you go on from there."
Another example was the removal of the explanations made by
    /
(    Thomas Westerman about why he was being very " tight" on issuing violations at Comanche Peak, more so than at other plants. He said that proposed violations, unless " absolutely correct", would creat a lot of " unnecessary paper work" and could lead to his credibility as a witness being questioned during NRC hearings.
I thought that these quotations reflected, more accurately than my words could, a misconception of their responsibilities as regulators.
Connelly removed the quotations because she said they were " inflammatory", and OIA could be criticized for taking things out of context.                                          However, I had been very careful to put both the context and the references in my draft report. I j
bolieve that by removing the conclusions and the quotations Connelly downplayed the severity of the Region IV management
 
l
!                    problem.
!                                                  Her edit;ng a;so prevented individual Region IV t          managers f rom being told tnat this type of lax enforcement attitude is not condoned oy the NRC. Finally, it denied the Commissioners the opportunity to protect the integrity of the NRC's enforcement program.
The report, or what was left of it, was finally completed and sent to the Commission and Executive Director Stello on November 26, 1986.
It is my understanding that Mr. Stello then sought permission from the Commissioners to distribute the OIA report throughout the agency and, as far as I know, permission was given.
This was a very unusual way of dealing with an CIA report.                    It was also, in my opinion, a very unsatisfactory way of treating the report because it disclosed throughout the agency
            /
the testimony of the persons who had put their faith in the OIA office and in me personally.
I was not consulted when the internal distribution was made so that I could comment on the decision and inform the individual witnesses.
Within days of the release, I was contacted by witnesses who hnd given me testimony under oath and who were extremely distressed that their test: mony had been disclosed throughout        the cgency.
Most of these individuals felt that the distribution was d:ne purposely to expose them to possible future retaliation.
It is my personal belief that the distribution of this rcport has destroyed the rapport that I had developed with these witnesses and that it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get any NRC employees or others to cooperate                                    with  '
i.
8-                                    )
I 1
 
ot.~.er ongoing invest; gat.ons of Region :V management.
(                                      I am not aware of any corrective action the NRC has taken to deal with the management problems in Region IV. On the other hand, within days of the report's release, Tem Westerman was awarded a monetary bonus for his work at Comanche Peak. I informed the EDO's office of my concerns about the inappropriateness of this action.
It is my understanding that a stop payment was placed on the check.
In conclusion, I would like to say that the problems brought to OIA by Shannon Phillips and others are extremely serious. The integrity of the regulatory process cannot be assured if the regulators become the defenders and protectors of the utility they are supposed to regtlate. One former Division Director at Region IV I interviewed stated:
I did not consider tnat Region Four had a strong enforcement program, and I believe that a lack of a s:rong enforcement program has its roots in the attitudes of the senior managers.
He confirmed that the lack of negative inspection findings could be seen as the attitude of trying to help TUCCO get their license.                                He said,
                                        ...I  personally believe that the att;;ude Of Region Tour management was not to do more work wn;cn would cause more problems for the utility.
The Commissioners needed to be informed of this attitude and its alleged specific consequences at Comanche Peak and other nuclear plants regulated by Region IV. Shannon Phillips tried to do that and is now fighting to save his career.
What happened to this investigation is an example that j
f.
9_
 
points out the faibre of O!A to bring ser: Ous manage =ent
        !                                                    problems to the attention of the Commissioners. In my personal view OIA did not go far enough in this investigation to ensure the integrity of Region IV's program.
That is the end of my prepared statement. I as now prepared to answer questions from the Committee.
t i
 
l
{
!(                                                APPENDIX M l
i
  .t i
If i
I
      ,                                                        )
t
* i 1
j 4
                                                                ]
i
 
    .                    v        URGINAL                  O UNIIED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION P
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO:
INVE.iTIGATIVE INTERVIEW
(
LOCATION: RAMArm I n                            PAGES:
                                                                        ~
h DAM    June 24, 1986 l
l l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
t Officwl Aaporten 44 North Camitol Servet Washmgton. D.C. 20001              -
(202)347 3700 NAnONWTDE COVRACE i
 
1 MR. MU* LEY:
The time is 2: 46 p.m. and 2
the date ;s the 24th of June, 1986.
3 We are in Room 171 I                                    of the Ramada Inn, East Ridge, Tennessee.
4 Present is 8 6,        g                        \
5 6
g autun. h 6 , myself, George Mulley, Spec 2al Assistant to the Directos's Office of tne Inspector and 7
Auditor, NRC, and the Court Reporter, Mrs. Banks.
8                                                                                        l We're here today to discuss with 9                                                                                        {
S. 6 information he has concerning Region Four's                  '
i 10 management of the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant.
11 12 being first duly sworn, made the following answers to 13 the following questions:
f      14
_(                                EXAMINATION BY MR. MULLEY:                                          i 15 Q
W M, before we get            started, would      (
18 l
you first briefly give us a resume of your experiences 17 at Region Four?
18                        A                  Yes,                                          l is I came to Region Four as the 6 'i i
                                    $g 6                                                            I 6,
20                        @,                        -
I$ 6 21 M with the                                            where I 21 am currently employed.
23 When I came to Region Four, Mr. John Collins 34 was the Regional Administrator.
S                                                                        Soon after I arrived            l U                          it became apparent                                                    I J
that many of the projects underway j
0
 
1 1                  in Regi:n Four were not progressing well in the regulato;y
(
2                    sense. These included the Cc-anene Peak pro ect, Wolf 3                    Creek, Watcrford and River Bend.
4                l                  Within a few months after I began work 5                j  in Region Four, an NRC task force was formed to handle a                    the completion of inspections at the Waterford Plant.
7                j  At about the same time, but shortly afterward, an NRC i                                                                .
8                    wide effort began on the Comanche Peak Plant. Neither      '
8                    of these efforts were under the direction and control N                    of Region Four, although there were personnel performing 11                    in this group or in these groups.
u                                    gegbEND, later on in that first year,
(                                            13 W6                                              gWM,              <
14                  eggg3Eb located in Kansas, andlPspent    uch of my time during
  ,-                                              15                    the period of M at the W M N .
18                                    I believe personally that the necessity 17                    for NRC task forces at Waterford and Comanche Peak were          ,
1                                                M'                    a direct result of the management resulting over a period N                    of time at these plants. That is, the  Regional efforts      ;
N                    were not sufficiently strong to manage the inspection f
21                    program  and    resolve the issues in a normal sense of St                    the regional responsibilities.
33                                    Part of these problems stemmed from t                                          M.                  insuring that the licensee complied with the regulations.
35                  One of the strong elements in insuring compliance with
 
i g                  the regulat; ns is enfor:ement.
I d:d not consider that Reg:.:r Tcur 2                                                                                  ad a strong enforcement :r: gram, and believe
{
j                          3            l    that & lack of a strong enforcement                                                                          :
                                                                                                                                                                ,r:gra.- has its rcots i
4                  in the attitudes of the senior managers.
5 Can we go off the record a minute?      Because 6
I want to be sure I'm heading wnere you want to head.
7              j                                                                                              (Thereupon, there was a discussion off                  '
3            ,        the record.)
i g
THE WITNESS:      In my view, the attitudes                            3 l
10                        that existed were in three or four parts.                                                                              First of all              j
  ;                11 was the attitude of the senior management about their                                                                                                        )
12                          responsibilities.
That is, did the senior managers evidence 13                          strong commitment to insure conformance with the regulations
(        gg and take a tough attitude regarding enforcement?                                                                                In
      ~
        .        15                            my view, they were not doing this.
l le                                                                                                                                                                          l The second attitude related to the feeling gy about the utilities themselves, and I believe that the 18                            attitude about the utilities affected how middle and senior
* i          19                            management conducted enforcement activit:,es.                                                                              If the senior      ,
y and middle managers felt good about the utility, friendly                                                                                    l 21                              towards the utility and otherwise had confidence in the g
utility, there was a tendency to not take strong enforcement g
attitudes, even though there may be violations occurring.
y The third attitude was the attitude towards g
4                                  the individual inspectors, and this fundamentally affected i
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -                '        _      _ _. _      __  ____-__-_-_----a
 
0 1 '
their werk. Wher senior management and middle management 2          let it be knowr that they had good feelings about the i
s^
3 utility, then the production of notices of violation cecause 4
of violations of regulations were discouraged.      All of 8
I                                              these attitudes come to bear on the individual inspectors          j 8                                                                              l and how they perceive their job as guided by their senior          l 7
management, i                                  8 when                        , Tom Westerman 8
was the enforcement officer, Mr. Check was the deputy 38 regional administrator, and h was the M 11 N ' h worked 6 reported                                          ;
I UI to the regional administrator, Mr. Collins.                      .
U It was clear to me that all of the ettitudes 14 that I mentioned were in operation in making the decisions
            -                      M on whether to take enforcement action which started with NB the notices of violation of conditions observed by 17          inspectors.
NB Overlaying all of the attitudes in the 8            inspection observations or findings was what I'll refer se          to as the political climate, and that's the political 81 climate within the NRC and as influenced by congressional at perceptions which lead people to develop strong or lenient      ,
88 attitudes, depending upon how 'the political climate within 8'
the NRC and outside the NRC viewed the licensee.      And      f 85 this view was not strictly limited to whether or not he l.
l I
 
g      was ccep.'ying with the regulations.
2                            g    personally invclved in some of these
{                                              3    .
attitudes in at least one case where an insrector at the Fort St. Vrain Plant, Mr. G.L.
4 Plumlee told me that his i
5 d
job was not to focus on inspections and not to get in 6 i        the way of the licensee.      He had received this guidance 7      [    from his section chief, Mr. Ireland, and M M 4                            Thinking that he had misunderstood che            .
p guidance, I asked Mr. Plumlee to meet with me in the presence 10          of Mr. Ireland and h                  In that meeting I              '
gg          instructed Mr. Plumlee that his primary job was to inspect          '
u          the licensee, and if his findings caused difficulty for is            the licensee, that was a burden that the licensee had g4 to bear, and that his Job was not to be concerned about whether
  ~
      -                                                                                                                        i 18            the licensee would find violations or negative inspection is              reports unpalatable and unwelcome.      His job, rather, was to do a good inspection Job and report the results.
37 to Because of the serious nature of the attitude-gg              expressed by Mr. Plumlee and because I was convinced that              j c)                he gained that attitude from his management, that is,            '    !
I sg Mr. Ireland and 6 I documented that conversation t3                as an .:7struction. Mr. Ireland and h -          never l
c3                denied that they had, over the years, given Mr. Plumlee 34 a reason to have the attitude that he had about his job
  )
t)                and how he should inspect and what priorities he should 3
l l
 
O g    j    place en nas t?'t:.
2          EXAM:NA' ^S SY Y.F. MULLEY:
I g~                                                              Q 3
And you had earlier discussed the attitude 4
l      of senior and middle lovel management and with respect 5
to how they felt acout a utility, and that this would g
affect their enforcement    posture. How did Region Four 7            feel about TUGCO specifically?
8            A 4
:n my view, Region Four felt that, and g
I'm speaking new of Region Four management,      felt'that 10 TUGCO was either doing or trying to do a good job, and              i 11 that they were tremendously burdened by the attacks on 12 their project by intervenor groups in that Region Four g3 did not wish to add to that burden.                                I I(                                          14 I      Q Do you think this affected the attitudes
      .                                      13 of the .nspectors and of the enforcement      people?  In other  I t
16            words, did you think they went                                    i i
out with the attitude of      i 17            trying to help TUCCO get their license?                            i i
gg            A I think that the lack of negative inspection -
g-g findings could be seen that way.        That the lack of          '
go negatives is a help, and I personally believe that the            '
11 attitude of the Region Four management was not to do more l
23 work which would cause more problems for the utility.
38 Tnts is difficult to establish firmly, y
but when I looked at the facts, I found that the amount 38 4
of inspection activities compared to the need at the
 
1 J
l g            p; ant was very small, and that for a considerable period 2            cf time, almost all the inspections at the Comanche Peak 3-        ;
Plant were done by the resident inspector with very little I
I 4              regional support.      So there simply was a fact that the        l 5              inspections weren't being done.      Whether this arose in i
a                the minds of senior management because of personnel shortages, 7                because of other priorities or because of their attitude
,                                          g                about the utility would be difficult to segra. gate.
                                          ,                                  However, the same situation had occurred to                      over a period of time at the Waterford Plant, and it was 1'                                  gg for these reasons that it was necessary to establish NRC 12                      task forces at Waterford and at Comanche Peak.      The root 13 cause for the task forces were, in my view, the lack of 6
(
14                      over the years detailed, precise inspection and 15                      identification of deficiencies and enforcement so the I
gg                      corrective actions would be taken.      We simply had a pile    ,
i 17                    of things accumulate on each of those plants.
gg                      Q                  Region Four, would there be a higher priority.
I gg                      than Comanche Peak that would Justifiably divert, you            .
so                      know, inspectors away from Comanche Peak to some other          i
{
i
:                project?    It would seem to me that Comanche Peak was i
g                        very important at that time.      It still is.                    '
l                                  g                        A                Comanche Peak was important at that time I
gg                      and still is, but as I say, f'
the s                      situation was taken out of the hands of Region Four and l
l l
        - _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ . __ _.                                                                          1
 
l
}
f g        placed on a higher level of management within the NRC.
(
2 I can't tel' . u what the cause was, but : can te.'1 you i
3  l      the fa'ct was that sufficient inspection to identify the i
4        conditions, which obviously there had not      occurred, and        I 5          that                                                                  l O                              the observation of violations and notices of violations        j e        which should have occurred didn't occur.        I would not          (
I l
7        have thought that there were pro;ects which had higher s
priority in Region Four other than the Arkansas Nuclear p
Units which were operating plants, and therefore, required              {
                                                                                                ~
10 inspection to insure that the operational conditions were t
11        being met.
ut                              I think this higher priority at Arkansas up would have been desired simply because the operating plants i (-
14 represented at the instant in time a greater risk to the a          public health and safety than did plants under                        '
g        it        construction.        This was, however, a different kind of            '
17        inspection.        The inspection of operations at Arkansas us was different than the inspection of operating, of          plants I
yp        under construction.
gg Now, in addition to the Arkansas units, i
l 11 there were the units at Omaha and at, and the other unit            ;
{
3                                                                              !    !
in Nebraska were operating plants primarily covered by              '
                                                                                                )
i 3          operational inspectors.        The problem with the  plants            1 l
sg under construction is that deficiencies in construction                  (
ss would eventually come to light and be more difficult to 1
i i
f
 
b 1                                  ,
correct because of already ecmpleted    construction. This 2                                      is different than operating plants where deficiencies lk  ,
I 3
in operating people and operating procedures could be 4
remedied without significant rework in a constructed plant.
5 t                                                                          Nevertheless, Comanche Peak did not appear 8
in Region Four to have had 7
an aggressive inspection program for a period of years.
8 I had conversations with the former senior resident 8
inspector, Mr. Robert Taylor, who told me that he had M
repeatedly appealed for assistance from the Region in 11 conducting construction inspections, and that these appeals ut                                              had not been responded to. The upshot of all this was G
t that the regional administrator had already given up 14 regaining control of inspection activities at Comanche 2                                              Peak and at Waterford, and this was simply implemented W                                              soon after I arrived.
17                                              Q                How would, I guess when we're talking            1 1
38 about regional management we're talking about h i
8                                              and Check and N                How would they pass on their at                                              attitudes concerning specifically TUGCo to the inspection, t      21 the resident inspector to let them know, you know, this as                                              is, we think TUGCO does a pretty good job.        They' re being i
as                                              unfairly criticized by intervening groups, therefore, i
Se                                              let us help them along.      How would that attitude get passed  I as                                              along to the inspectors?
t l
l
  -              - _ - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _                      _                                                        1
 
l l
L
!i l                                        1 i
{                                                                        Well, first of all, the attitude was passed        ;
2 on by lack of assistants                                                  I to provide help to inspect I                                                                                                  ne
.i.                                    3 I
plants.
l If you don't inspect, you will not find any 4
l          violations.
5 i-                                                                  Secondly, one of the very favorite 6
approaches to discourage Inspectors in writing violations 7
and writing reports on those violations is to worry their                !
5                                                                                                j i                                                work product to death and question it to a great extreme.                  i
!                            8                                                                                                  l In dealing with the inspectors who worket.
10 for me while I was in Region Four, I always conveyed to
:;                          11 them the attitude that 12 if it looked like a violation and smelled like a violation, then write it up as a violation is                                                                                              i and let the utility defend itself against that violation,              i 14 If the utility was able to show that to it was not actually      ,
in violation of the regulations, then I was perfectly is willing to retract the violation.
17 The attitude that led to worrying the is inspectors' report and the inspectors' no:1ce of violation i                    18 to death simply meant that the Inspector would be 38 discouraged from writing notices of violation because 21                                                                                              ,
(
he had to jump through so many hoops to get          it out.
21 Whether or not                                                        i that attitude and those actions of worrying 38 the violations to death sprang from the attitude of wanting 4
0 to go easy on the utility or simply wanting to have an 28
(    ,
airtight court case before any notice of violation was 4
 
4 l~
3      issued would be diffir;it to tell.
2
:n my cwn view, the attitude of net t
l 3
l    regula' ting violattens was the strongest force.                                : had 4        a sufficient number of discussions with GEEbumegy to b                    5        conclude thatate. m really didn't believe in s        enforcement.
He didn't believe in enforcement as a means 7        of achieving compliance with the regulations, and so he l
a        participated in worrying the paperwork to the point that less than the number of violations that could have been 3
ye        written were actually written.
11 I ve1wed the attitude of Mr. Check as ut        quite strongly anti-enforcement. Mr. Check on more than
(
13 one occasion told me that utilities had been licensed 14      by the NRC, had been found competent by the NRC, and that
              . g        we should be extremely cautious in saying otherwise, l
i as      Particularly in violations.        So I considered Mr. Check                                      '
i 17        a very weak enforcement advocate.
g                                                                                                            !
  .                                            In addition to that, I believe that                                            l I
Mr. Check was greatly influenced by the political aspects g
g        of any of the operations we conducted with the utilities                                      ,
a        or against them in terms of enforcement.        In fact, I believe I
g        that Mr. Collins, who was a regional administrator, was                                      !
33        also very much swayed by the political environment within as        the NRC and in conjunction with the licensee.
3        Q                  How did, how woul 6 go about                                                    ,
l
'l l
 
i
                                                                                          .2 1
    .                        worrying inspection findings?
Wou.*d he confr:nt the 2
(              l'      inspectors head-on?
t j            .                Just drop .lo'ations fr : the report?
3 6        How would f.e go about that?
4 A                While I was there I had no knowledge that 5
                            & 6 ever dropped a violat:.on from 1              report from 4
one of my inspectors.
GED would have direct contact  with 7
the inspectors for the intended and correct purpose of 8
being sure that the notice of violation was written clearly 9
and well written with proper citations against the 10 regulations.
{
That was his primary Job.
11 In addition to that, of course, dSe had          I 12 the job of keeping track of the violations so that we              ,
13 could see that violations were answered and otherwise 14 responded to.
        .                                  I'm sure that he had many conversations 15 with inspectors, and some of them got back to me, and
.            16 I can't remember the specifics, where he would argue that 17 something really wasn't a violation, and as I say, that Ml wasn't my attitude.
If it looks sufficiently like a 18 violation I would let the utility defend itself, rather 38 than have 6 defend the utility on violation.
21 I don't say that h                              '
23 -
contributions were all negative.
33 He did call our attention l to the need for greater precision in our language a number 8'
of times, and this was beneficial. But overall,
(
35 h attitude was anti-enforcement.
l
 
1 i
:r addition to direct  tentact w;tn                I 2
5 inspectors, dhi .rtsracted witn section enlof s and cranch 3
chiefs on the ,rtd;:::on of' inspection reports and any 4
accompanying net :es of violation.
5
:n tnis interaction          !
I was told a nu.T:er of times that h didn't think 6
that a violation was an appropriate vehicle to achieve 7
the corrected action. : can't recall any instance where 8                                                                                    !
I agreed with t...st decision on his part.
9          Q Hcw would he prefer to handle it?
10          A He would have preferred to handle it by 11 4
discussing the matter with the                                        I licensee and by having              !
12 any documented record be observations in the inspection                I I
13                                                                                    !'
reports, rather than clear violations.                                      1 ah                                                14 Q
t How would S W handle a disagreement 15 between himself and an inspector?          Fcr example, if he 16
(
i                                                          didn't think something should be a violation, if he wanted                    !
17 to downgrade it to an unresolved item or something like 18                                                                                        j that?      Do you have any knowledge of :nspectors      Just i                                              19 agreeing with his call or how he handled that?                                  l l
t 30        A I can't recall any at the moment, and 21 i                                                        by and large I relied upon the people that worked for 22 me to work through that process.
Bu t 6 normally                ;
ss i
\                                                          would have interacted with the section chief or more likely            1 l
I 14 26 the 6 h to gain his acceptance of h conclusions, and so you see,                    we have people t
i l      4 1
 
g    ;1ned up ir arw and an inspecter who wants to write 2
a violation, a  section chief who may have ne stren9 fee 1109s i
I 3 ,  one way or the other, and A N attempting to I
4  make a call based en his attitudes, as well as the facts
                                                                                                                                    ]
5    available to h:.m, and be:.ng influenced by N s    who basically had an anti-enforcement attitude, and in 7    someway that I couldn't testify to influenced by the                                                              J
(          3    regional administrator and deputy regional administrator.                                                        l i
3                      I'd say at that time that, and I'm speaking 10    now of the time frame when                            the relationships, t
gg    between regional administrator and the deputy regional                                                          ;
12    administrator were poor.      They simply didn't like each                                                      l 13    other, and they didn't share office responsibilities.
14    In fact, you might say there were at least two camps in 13    Region Four. That camp who, that didn't like Mr. Collins, t        gg    and that camp that was more dedicated to doing their job 17    than deciding whether they liked him or not.            That didn't 13    have anything to do with whether they-did their job or f
to    not.
3D                      I forget the exact date, but Mr. Martin
    ,        31    replaced Mr. Collins as regional administrator.                From 23    the enforcement viewpoint I considered this an improvement,                                                      j 25    but my view on that was more influenced by what Mr. Martin                                                      .
                                                                                                                                  !  i i  !
,'          y    said than by what I observed.      Mr. Martin repeatedly said                                                  J s
l as    .in 'staf f meetings and in briefings with the staf f and                                                      I i l
1 i
l                                                                                                                                    1
 
1 g        interact tns w:tn :ne staff that, to quote him, "; am
(
2    ,
ho,rse shit c. enf:::erent.  ! am a strong enforcer."  And l                          i 3    l    so he attempted to convey an attitude that I fully supported, 4
l    that if it looked ;;ke a violation then write it up as 3        a violation. I don't believe that he was fully successful s  i      in this anymore tnan some other managers who simply saw 7
the end product, not knowing that discouragement and change i                    g and downgrading had occurred during this process.
g The one brightest spot in the lower levels 10        of management supervision was a gentleman named John i
gg Jaudon, whom I relied upon in an unofficial capacity to it        be sure that the violations were written at the highest            j i
g                  13          justifiable severity level, g4 Mr. Jaudon had the training and ability 18        to upgrade a violation to a higher level and upgrade an          !
i i
to        unresolved item to a violation, and in this sense he differed!
17        from most of the other people in Region Four at the time            I 1
up          that I arrived. I don't believe, and I didn't observe f
gg          that Mr. Jaudon's attitude was pervasive in the                    l organization and over the period of time I was there, m                                                                          ,
t t                21          I believe that the attitude weakened because of the            !
a          influence of 6 and Paul check.
ss          Q W OM N O 34          A                N 3          Q                Okay. How involved was Mr. Martin based
 
0 g
c:. the shcrt per;;d cf tire that you were at the Reg:en,
    ,                            2          he was regional administrator, how 4t a
involved was he witn 3    j    the actual working of inspectors, for example, at 4      j    Comanche Peak?        Did he have a feel for what was go ng 1
5            on        at all?                                                                                                      2 6            A I don't beleive that Mr. Martin had a 7    ,      good feel for what was going on at all.                                                                                1
(                  '
i                            g          6, a s the NRC efforts on g
Wolf Creek through the commission decision for full power to            licensing.        When M to Region Four, Mr. Check 11            instructed me to pick up 12 13
                                  .                                                                        One of the first 14            things that M in con] unction witn Mr. Martin was to 15            start to regain control of the inspection efforts at le            Comanche Peak, and for that purpose we'estr.blished a task 17            force at Comanche Peak of numerous inspectors.
1g And I'll back up a little bit and say 3,            that when
                                                                              - - " was told that the g              division was undermanned and overworked, and W that 21            there were numerous vacancies that simply weren't being 1/B                  u              filled.
I believe that the correct number at that time g              was 16 vacancies in the division.
l gg Gne of the first actions that h after                                                        l s              h out that the vendor program was being transferred i.
          - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _                    _ _ _ .                                                                                                              i
 
I                                                                                                              -
3          to head:uarters was :-
determine wncther'tnere were good 2          people in tne vender program branch wno wanted to stay 4                                              >
3 in Arlington and whether those people were capable of 2
                                      .            carrying reactor inspection responsibilities. One of 5
t                                                  the attributes thath for was their attitude about 6
enforcement, particularly an attitude that I expressed t-7            as holding the licensee's feet to the fire on the i
a j          regulations.                                                          i Because of that and because of the i
10 background of the people and h with them,                          i 11                          Mr.
Ian Barnes, Mr. Lee Ellershaw out of the ut vendor program because of their very strong commitment g3                to enforcement. In addition to that, and I will say a                                                                                                            4
  ~
34 against a lot of advtce f rom Mr. Check and gehh 15 Mr. Shannon Phillips to stay with the us                    organization.
4 The advice for not keeping Mr. Phillips        !
i 17 was based primarily on his performance at the South Texas pg project where he had identified a r.amoer of deficiencies        '
I up-in the licensee's operation and had participated with I
t3                    a special task group at South Texas which eventually led                  t t
31 to rather momentous changes in the conduct of the South 22                    Texas project.
All of this occurred before dqlggENB, but g) of all these events and the advice that g                        34 N for not selecting Mr. Phillips was that you C3 couldn't trust Mr. Phillips to be part of the team.
l
 
3                                                                                                  .-
3  ,
My cwn :tnclusion was that you could trust him to do his work, an.                                              'i 9 -
2 3                                                    him and sent 3 ,
him down to Comanche Peak to carry one of the main leads 4  l    on the construction inspection acti' titles. While he ganamak g                            5                            that ne was doing a good Job.
g I don't knew that I answered your question.
7        because I had to start way cack wit'h the people.
O                          g        Q                Yes, I think you did. But you brought g
up another interesting point concerning Shannon Phillips 10 and the activities he was involved in in South Texas and 0
11        how that carried over. Some attitudes that were expressed          '
12        by 6 9                          13                          Do you know of any repercussions that 14        Phillips suffered at Region Four as a result of the findings 15        'that he, you know, participated in at South Texas other than,l 0                        gg you know, the advice not to keep him on, but during the 37        periods of time that you were at the Region was there pg        any sort of campaign against Phillips?      Was he, you know, 0
gg        blacklisted?
gg        A                I can only say what I was able to personally p                        21        observe. Again, reflecting that much of $$bgAABB was spent 23        out of town, I didn't see anything that I could call a            :
i 23        strong blacklist or campaign, but certainly on the part t
I                        Se        of M and h and a few others, there was a
,                        as        continuing stream of comments about watching Mr. Phillips I
 
s                                                                                                        j i
).
l l
l I
and nct trusting Mr. Phil.'1ps and watraing ycur back with
! /            2                    i Mr. Phillips. Most of that I cenc;uded was based upon 3-                  i his perforniance at South Texas and his Irve;vement with 4
Region Three personnel who did a specla;    inspection on 5
South Texas and revealed many things that were apparent a
to Mr. Phillips prior to that, but hadn't been acted upon 7
by Region Tour.
So I think that there was some distrust, a
some dislike and some apprehension about having a strong 8
willed, meticulous and capable person on the staff that Hl wasn't easily swayed to your point of view.
11 I regarded that as strengths not weakenesses.!
18 Q                You earlier spoke about the political          ;
13
(                                  climate and how it af fected Region Four management concerning 14 Comanche Peak and TUGCO. What was the political climate
      ~
18 at the Region?
14 A
Well, the climate, whether it's political 17 or not, was one of good personal relationships between 18                                                                                                l top management and, top management at TUGCO and top                  !
18                                                                                                  t management at the Region.      I say good personal relations 88                                                                                                  !
in the sense that people always acted more than civilly.              !
81 They acted friendly. They had a number of instances where st I would say that Mr. Check and others simply wished to ss                                                                                              !
leave the utility alone to do its 3ob, and to insure that        ,
Se r
the NRC people didn't interfere with that job.
35 We even had, at least one instance that 4
l
 
1 i
h                                                                                              ..
l 1
you're familiar with where there was a lean n9 over barkward                                                  1 i
f1        2 ,
to not get invcived : .- something that :ould have been 3
l    the business of tne NCR, particularly considering tne                                                            l 4                                                                                                                    1 total climate on that pro;ect and all surrounding 5      circumstances. I think that politically the NRC Region                                                        l 8
Four management found it necessary, and I don't say it 7
0 was really necessary, but they found it necessary to choose                                                    l l
8 sides between TUCCO and the TUGCO adve:sary so that there                                                      ,
t 9
was a choosing up sides in at least the philosophical, 1 '
MD sense and sometimes in the action sense between                                              ;                  i i
11 interveners and TUGCo.
H Whereas I thought that if there were sides, there were three sides. The NRC side, the utility side C
(    13                                                                                                                        I j
14 and the interveners' side, and we simply didn't have to                                        ,
2      choose.
s This all gets evidenced in small ways and small M5 changes and attitudes which overall give a bigger picture,                                                          !
17 referring to people who alleged problems as alligators, 2
not being really interested to determine what the problems W                                                                                                                          i are seen by the interveners.      Referring to them and thinking                                                  '
30 about them as Just a pain that has to be endured, I think                                    i i
21 tended to place the regional management on a side that
* It      they didn't need to be on.                                                                  l                      I 1
ss I remember at least one instance where to      a former TUGco employee wished to discuss the various 25 allegations that she had against TUGCO and Mr. Check was 1
 
0 attitude, tner' 0I            2
                                                          ^                  th nk h  =#d  g  d 'p *ch ' **d th'"k 3                              .
he made, and he previded good polley,    cut he had so man; 4                            n
                                          !!              things to do tha: I would not have expected him to s
s                            j              Personally be sure tnat
                                          !                                          the lower levels were pushing
            ,                            i up notices of viciattens, nor would I have expected him to do detail checxs on whether or not all the people in g                                            the Region were following his guidance. I simpl/ think he had too much to do in a short time to have expected it to be effective, because the situation had existed 11                                            f r such a long time. With respect to any enforcement l
I 12 actior.s that I took Mr. Martin was fully supportive,                I
(      g3 including civil penalties which I generated. That is,                I 14 I generated the notices of violations which led to the gg civil penalties, and so he was supportive of those.
3, I would say that there was only one g7                                            instance where my      udgment differed from his, on the 18 timeliness of issuing a report which centained a violation.
g, And in that case he simply delayed it for a variety of g                                            reasons, rather than issuing it in a more, what I                  '
i 21                                            considered to be more timely manner.        I would say that      i et                                            Mr. Martin was supportive of a strong enforcement policy.          '
33 He just had not teen able to achieve what he said he wanted 24                                            to achieve M .
35                                            Q Getting to a more specific area, if we 1
w--________
 
f.
could g            a'k
                                      . fer a  . nute about, : don't knew if tnis is
  ,(                  2    an accurate characterization, but the two different 3    philosophies concerning the importance of cond :t:n-4    inspections of hardware versus the 1.tportance of quality 0
g    assurance type inspections, s
from talking to some people at the Region-(
7 it seems to me there are two different            camps.                                                      Some people g
seem to feel that really what's important is looking at g
specific items of hardware and making sure they've been
.;                10 constructed properly and some other people believe quality                                                                  ,
11    assurance is very important.      Part of, you know, safety 12    of a plant, and that we should be spending a lot of time                                                                    !
I(                g3    with quality assurance.
1-4 Do you feel that eitner one of these two
.I la      played a lesser role at the Region or did the Region le      emphasize one of the two more than the other, quality 17    assurance over hardware type inspections ?
g      A Well, I think that fram the regional y      viewpoint the emphasis seemed to be on hardware.                                                                  I 30      considered that to be a fundamental mistake.                                                                  It is true 21      that if you've had an unreliable program over a period g      of years you don' t have any cho.ce but to inspect the 33 -
hardware to see if the correct hardware came about in i
4 34      spite of the program. I did not see strong amphasis from i
35      the leadership in the Region on quality assurance programs, l
_ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - -
 
0                                                                                                                                              4 1
t cut scre of tnis has to be 1:cked at in what is                                                  tru;y 2            a mixed perspective.
0                            1 3      ;;
From a regulatory viewpoint the regulators 4    :
i.
rely upon the utility to do the right job. They rely 5
on the utility to have good engineering, good organizations e              and good construction. And they rely on the utility to 7
have good quality assurance programs which help insure a
L that what should-be done is done.
3 It's a common phrase that you don't                                                inspect 10              quality in.
You must put the quality in there during 11 all these processes which you are relying upon to work.                                                                          .
12 Inspection can only tell you that your programs aren't                                                                            i 1
        ,      g3
        '                      working because the hardware is not right.                                                    I think that 34.
it's easier to inspect hardware than it                              is to inspect gg a quality assurance program and reach conclusions on that, 16 and I think that in the past there must have been some 17 emphasis on hardware rather than on the program yielding 18              the hardware.
            .gg From an NRC perspective, the man power D                allocated to direct inspections was extremely small compared 21
      '                      to the items which could be inspected, so by and large                                                                            :
o                we never could have beca expected to inspect more than i
i c3                about one percent of the plant. Some inpsection was intended 34 to determine whether the program was working correctly
            . cf              to yield the right kind of hardware, and that's a good
 
l o                    ,
l0.                                                                                        -.
( 3 g        check On :ne pr: gram, but  the pretat:1:ty cf uncever:ng 2    ,
smalll defects in the program by direct hard.are inspecticn
.4                          j 3    I  was extremely small.
I
(                          At the same time, the protacility of            "
5        determining a program that's really gone awry through a        direct inspection of hardware is quite good.      We would          i 7        expect to see that. We would expect to see pervasive a          hardware deficiencies because of pervasive breakdowns              ) 1 g
in quality assurance, pervasive breakdowns in engineering            !
10          and design and construction ~ processes. This is what.you 11            would expect to see as s signal.
12                              But there was no way that the NRC could        l g3            inspect the plant to insure that all the cor.ponents were 14          of quality. We simply had to rely .pon the utility to 15          do what they said they were going to do in program and j              is          hardware and to inspect to see that they were doing that.
17                              I think there is a general attitude that a            things can't be demanded to be perfect, but certainly g            we demanded at least reasonable assurance of public health          '
i gg            and safety protection.      So I think it's mixed, a mixed l
situation that we have.                                              I 21                                                                                  l 3B                              You've got to inspect the program and as            you've got to look at the procedures and you've got to          '
i se            look at the record keeping and you've got to look at the
  )3 as            hardware, and in order to achieve an across-the-board l-l l
l
                                                                                                    )
 
f-26
                                    ,                                                                                      )
4
::n:.'us;:n  nat tne. utility is comply:ng with all of :gs
    ,(                            2 j
commitments and complying with all of the Regulatory 3
requirements, y ; na /e to do it all.      :f you emphasize                    l f    one versus the etner, j
8                          5 i
then you rely solely on the utility to do a good                                                                    )
                                '                        3cc w: th P.o inspection or no good sampling of its perfor.mance at all.                                                    f ll 7
    '.                                                      : don't think that Region Four could have 8
8 been considered as having a strong orientation to qualit        y i
k assurance programs from the programmatic      viewpoint.
1 8                                                                          Had they had such a strong orientation over the years        then u                                                                    ,
5              the results later seen at South Texas and at Comanche Peak and at 2
Waterford never would have arisen.                            ;
i (                                  Q s
li So you, in your opinion, had Region Tour,                ,
let's take Comanche Peak, had Region Four emphasized the
* 15 I                                    quality assurance aspect of the inspection program that is maybe some of the problems      at                                      t Comanche Peak right now            '
1T 18 may have been resolved at an earlier stage by the utility                          i
    !                                  having a better program set up, identified programs?                              i t
18 Am i
I getting that right?                                                  ;
2                  A Yes. Yes.
i            -M And I believe that is                '
fundamentally true.      I think about this as a principle            I            .
E                                                                                          !
of leverage.
The program is going to yield hardware based          ;
i
                    #                                                                                                      }
on two things.
!    I                                                    The strength of the program and its 94                                                                                                        ;
correctness and the capabilities of the construction                                i forces from the craft on up through the supervision.                                1 If                    I I                                                                                                                    l l
                              .                                                                                            l h_.      _-_-_m.  .__.m  _
 
)                                                                                        -
1
:    tne progra- for qual;ty assurance is not strong, then 2
f(                            any deficiencies which occur in the construction organization 3
will simply be magnified.
4 At the same time, if you have a strong 5
1                            quality assurance program, then the tendencies of 8
construction to do a poor Job is overwhelmed by a good T
strong quality assurance program.
3 a                                                                              i But as I say, if you are, if you focus 8
on and give priority to inspection of hardware, you must to t
realize that your leverage is very, very small.      You must 11 focus, you must give considerable focus to the program 8
l II                                                                            ?
and utilize inspections of hardward to insure that what is s                      you think is being done in the program is actually showing          i l'
up in the field.
      ~
It 's more of a con firmation.                  I 15 You want to be advised if you see bad              l is j
)                                                                                                c hardware and you want to have it recognized that it was 17 i
a real foul-up in the program which yielded that.        You l
j is don't want                                                            t 3
to have bad hardware explained by an inadequate up program, and so I think at comanche Peak, TUGCO did not                1 88 have a strong quality assurance program and the lack of                !
Il                                                                              I a strong quality assurance program yielded a lot of hardware l El that wasn't what was intended.      And the Region didn't l
          - 33 1
remedy that sitution over a period of years.                            i I
88 Q
So if Region Four had not conducted an 85 inspection of TUGco's corporate QA program for the past u
 
I6                                                                                        ...
j                  1 ;    ten years, tner Ine Fegi n itself :::.d be a: fau .  -. ..
r,            2        feel, for some cf these prebi' ems that shewed up in : e
!                  3      field at this late date ?
4      A                  Yeah.
l I think that tnat would be a .ery 5
severe deficien *. On the part of the Region to have not a
conducted an inspecticn of the quality assurance program 7
and narrowed the effects of the field and taken corrective a        action.
3 I don't believe that the NRC ought to 10        do the utility's ]ob for them.        I think if we're 11 culpable, we're cuplable against our own regulations and                f ur our own job descriptions and our own responsibilities.
g3 The fact that we didn't do something which would have u
corrected a problem meant we didn't fulfill our obligations un            to the public and to the taxpayers and to our own oath 14 of office, rather than that we didn't fulfill any obligations 17            to TUGCO. They were sufficiently staffed.      They had HI                                                                                      1 suf ficient ability to hire good people and to pay good up people so that even if the NRC never inspected 'them, they go should have been expected to have a good program.
gg It's simply that if we didn't do a good 1
23 job and we didn't fulfill our obligations, and I don't                      i 33 l
) .'
think that the utility can lay off on the NRC their own                i
[        k            sins.
l    :                            Certainly, we would have well represented the public        -
l j        u
* both in terms of health and safety and in terms of expense
* I                                                                                          l l
 
g 1    ,
to tne public and in terms of pu 11r welfare had Region 2
Four demanded and obtained better :;uality assurance frc~
t 8                                                                            '
3 TUGCO.
4 0                  *et me give you a hypothetical scenario.
5 If an  inspector during inspection of a piece of hardware t
6 finds no problem with that specific piece of hardware 7
but does find a problem with the record keeping and QA 8
aspects, do you feel that you would still have a valid 8
violation, even though that, you know, even though the 10 end result or specific piece of hardware is, the one looked        *
      -                                                                      11 at is fine, do you think that the violation involving, 18 or the deficiency involving quality assurance would be 13 a valid violation?
r I'
14 A                  I certainly do.
              -                                                                                                              And a very important          ,
                    ~
18                                                                              I violation, because now you have good hardware, that                !
16 happened in spite of an inadequate program.      And by the 17 way, you think, or you are convinced that you have good 18 hardware in spite of the program, but I must say that I                                                                  18 if the records which document the hardware and all its 8
attributes and all its needs are deficient, you have              .
21                                                                                I some inherent doubt about whether what yot a,e is what          f 22                                                                                '
is actually there.                                              I i
23 Q                  On that one specific you looked at?
84 ll                                                                                      A Even on that one specific thing, because            i 88 record keeping is important because it yields the pedigree
 
i          and :n tnercugntred herses a pedigree                  is an 1.;crtant
(
2l          thing, and care :s taken in these, in nuclear plants, 3          if you don't have a certified mater:a1 test re;crt, for 4          example, and if you don't have a documented material content 5          of a component as a pump or a valve and you don't have                    t 6
the quality assurance records that demonstrate that what 7    ,
was done was what should have been done, then you're simply a
relying upon surface observation on your part or even
                                                    ,            perhaps better, relying upon the operational experience g            of the component, but all of these things go hand in hand 11 and the quality assurance program is intended to help Et insure that what is needed is built, and it is no 13
{                                                              substitute for that program to simply do an inspection 14 of the surface attributes of the component or of the whole ul            plant.
14 By the same token, you cannot tell gy whether a concrete wall six feet thick is well constructed a            by looking at the surface of it. You must rely upon the up Proper placement of re-enforcing bar, the inspection of go that re-encorcing bar, the documentation that says it 21 was put in accordance with design, the inspection of the 22            concrete that's poured.                      The samples that are taken to 33 insure that the picture is correct, and of the proper                              ,
3g                                                                                              l strength and all of these things go in so that when you're                        I as through if you don't have those records and you don't                              !  -
 
g.
3      na/e tnat pr:gr3m tnat yields these reccrds, then you 2
s mply are relying upon tne surfare observations.
  ,                (                        '
3    j                    And at Comanche Peak there was a large program to determine whether, help determine whether what 4  ,
!                                            4 5      was below the surface was what we thought was below the            1 6        surface on concrete. These were referred to as Schmidt 7        Hammer tests, to simply determine or help determine if h                                      a        we had good strong concrete, because you can only see o        the surface.
10        Q                During                  Region Four, did 11 you over have any occasion to discuss with Shannon Phillips 12 any concerns he may have with the way Regional Four management 13        was handling Comanche Peak?
  .                /'
A g,4 I can't recollect the details of any at 15        the moment, but jbMkWWEEF Comanche Peak rather routinely,        I i                                    1g          and if Shannon Phillips were on site I generally had a            ;
t 17          conversation with him. He did, from time to time, express gg to me concerns that he had about what he was finding in 6
up          his inspection, and in those I    ust simply always encouraged hba to bring them forward, put them in reports and write I
go 21          violations and so forth when they were due.                      '
l 3:                            Shannon Phillips to some degree was in 33          an awkward position, unfortunately.      He was the senior 34          resident inspector for construction and he had certain i                as          responsibilities at the same time because of the enormous I
 
_                                                          __    _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - ~ ~                            ~ ~ ~ ~          ~
I i
1 am:ent of ;;rk that had to be done, we put devn there i
t;                          2 a task force w;tn other pecple on it l
doing in a cat:h-up 3                              !                                  mode what .:eeded to be done over a pericd cf years.
So 4
in order for Shannon Phillips to be fully effective in
  .                    O the best interest of the NRC, and of course, the Region 8
as they're cht.ged, he would have had to have close working 7
relationships and good 8
interactions with all the other people who were part of the team.
8 I think that from time to time he didn't feel a part of that full team.
10 The process which was set in motion in 11 the summer of 1985, simply hadn't progressed to the point                i 12                                                                                                                                                                                        ,
that I would have said something significant;has to be 13
(                                                                                changed.
We always encounter, in dealing with people, 14 personal preferences, personal emphasis and personal likes 15 and dislikes, but during the time that I was there when it we had this group going I didn't observe that there was 17 a condition which needed any significant                                                          correction.
18 I do think that Mr. Phillips would have is had and probably expressed to me, I don't recollect the a/A    20 specific circumstances now, concern about whether we were 21 giving Comanche Peak a real gcod shakeout based upon things 22 that he would have porceived in people's attitude.                                                                I 23 don't think we had enough factual e)ridence to say one                                                                        ;
M                                                                                                                                                                                        i way or the other that we were going to reach the end of                                                                        !
26 the road and do a solid job in the late summer of 1985,
{
4
_ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - ~ ~ - ^ ~ ' ~ ' '            ' '
 
1
  ~
g.
1 i
                                                                      ;                                                                                          k and in:: :he early fal*.
: simply didr't have enougn 2                    evidonCG.
(k apen the operational inspectors l
3 j      to do their Job, the resident i
I 1
inspector in charge of 4                        construction to do his :ce and to werk closely with all i
5                          the other people invo;ved in the task force to be sure          t
(
6 that the composite, we did the correct NRC Job.
7 would not have been rurprised if
: i.                                                      g                              subsequent events                                                        i yielded some disagreements between people          I g                                                                                                          i and perhaps caused some significant differences of opinion.
10 -
f Particularly because of the cast of characters that were                  i gg                                      involved.
I may, if my memory were suf ficiently prompted,          j gg                                      recollect particul..                                                    i things that Shannon Phillips said            '
        ,                                    g3                                        to me sometime.        They
(                                                                                                              Just don't occur to me at this 14                                          moment, but                                                                \
if you have any that would help me,      I'd be g3 pleased to go ahead and deal with them.
I gg                                            Q I have one instance here that I'll discuss g7                                            in a little bit.
Did you ever have any occasion to witness la                                                                                                                          I any confrontations, for lack of a better word, between                      i 19                                                                  and Mr. Phillips concerning disagreements                i
{
gg                                                                                                                              l over inspection reports or maybe even involving                              i 21                                                              ,
involving what should be in an inspection 33                                                report?    Whether a finding was a valid finding, anything g                                                like that?
s 34                                              A                                                                        .
b I simply don't recall at the moment, but gg I'm trying to go back a couple of years, almost a couple                e h
 
1 p>                                                                                                                  1 l
1 g ,  of years new :.  .v  e : y, and : may have.      ust den't i
l 2    recall.
O      k'                                      l
                                                        ^
l                                                  g                Ckay. Let me ask feu a rcre deta;'ed 3                                                        .
4  questipn and that concerns the NRC form '66 which, if              j l
0                                            5                    is, I guess computer input data form that's a    prepared after inspections to show certain inspection 7    procedures and modules and whether the work was done on that procedure during the. inspection report.
s
                                            ,                    6 , 2 @ involvement to    at all with this program?                        -
11    A                Well, yes, because M were i
12    required to provide input to that. The intended result        !
1 13    from the people who prescribe that program was to be able g4    to capture the data on inspection hours and to keep track
              ~
05    of modules that were executed.
18                                            Region Four M g7    found that program to be highly unreliable. I didn't 13    believe the information that was in there, ap i my 3,    disbelief was vindicated by W Wolf Creek.
g                        At Wolf Creek 6 the data on n      historical inspections that was in that system, was in a      that system that uses 766's was so poor that h 23    an inspector from Region Two named Kenneth Jennison and        j 34    he did a hand sort and data accumulation on the total          i i
s si    file on Wolf Creek to determine from inspection reports        l l
k i
l
 
D                                                                                                  .
g          what was inspe:ted, wnat
!                                                                .odule was executed, hew much
- !                        2          inspection time was spe..: and so forth.
0                              6 And he 3          accumulated h :n Wolf Creek              sclely because S 4        qspdlb the system in place was a    snerbles. Strictly 5          unreliable.
s          Q                What l
would cause the unreliability of 7            sometning that would seem to be so straightforward where, I
e I know, from the way : understand the system to be set                    I g                                                                                    I up you have an inspector who does an inspection.        He then          t 3
g prepares a 766 form which outlines what he just did in                  i 11 the inspectio'n, and then that form is put into the system.
la Do you.have any indication as to why this system wac                      1 l
(          13 -                unreliable?
14                  A In my view we had some major contributors g                    to that.                                                                    i The first starts at the point that you started g
it with, and that's the input of the inspector. The system                  i 17 results that h for Wolf Creek indicated g                  inspections done in the 766 system which the inspection
                                                                                                              )
g                  report didn't support.
Simply there was a discrepancy                  <
l se                                                                                                1 between what w&s on the form and what was Just filed in l
gg                  the inspection report.      I think that there's a variety i
i g3                  of reasons for that      Carelessness is one, and that's            i I
g3                  an unimportant aspect.      I don't think it was a big 4
3g                  contributor.
4 c3 The second is that there was an overall
 
i 1                                                                                                1 a t t :,t u d e t ".a t if ycu.can think of sc.etning that would 2    :
have Justified your saying that you'>e done so.ething,                              )
)'
3 then mark _it off, even though you d:,dn ' t put anything                          f 4
to ;ustify that conclusion in the inspection report.                    :t's,      J 5
I looked at        the reactor vessel as I was walking by.            That 6
must      fulfill the obl:.gations under this module, but            I 7
don't put in my inspection report that I looked at the 8
reactor vsssel as I          was walking by, because that really 8
isn't an inspection.          And this is an example I just dreamed to up to illustrate what I mean by the desire to fulfill 11 the module obligations separately from fulfilling the 12 inspection obligations.                                                          '
18 And when I say that, I mean the module
(
14 3
obligations as relate to the record keeping.
l                  16 Second problem, of course, was correct
}
[                  18 input into the system by the people that took the data
;                  17 from the 766 forms and put them into the system, and then
)
18 the fact that the whole system was ma:,ntained by the 18 administrative organization to keep it up to date and there were always enormous difficulties in getting data
                    #            out, and I shouldn't say enormous. There were more than we thought were appropriate difficulties in getting data
                    #            out and doing sorts and so forth.
L But I would say that      l 88 by and large the largest contributor to discrepancies 6
}                                between actual inspections and what's in the 766 was                            I 1
L                                                                                                                      i
 
t i-1 a tendency :: : a ; '. s:mething an inspection in f. 4 ,
                                                                                      . . .. . .. g 3
2 the requirements Of :ne module wh::n rea;;y weren't, 3
0                    New, the way the system was set    up, did 4
you get credit for dcing a portion of an inspection module 5
or procedure, there snould have been some documentation 6
on the inspection repert.        !s that true?
7 A
Yes, that's true, and that's my view.
8 If you did sufficient enough, a sufficient amount of work 8
to fulfill the requirements of the module you should have i              10 written at least'a few sentences in the inspection report                  '
11 that says you did it.
12 Q                    Cr at least to acknowledge the fact that              '
i' 13 you looked at it?
            ~14 A                    Yes.
I don't work on that calibration, 15 you know.      You either did it or you didn't do it.
le        g so : guess the situation M at Wolf 17 Creek has been duplicated at Comanene Peak where we've 18 had examples of the 766, shows certain inspection 18 procedures going from 10 percent to 100 percent complete 30                                                                                        l and given credit to an inspection report, we go back to                  ,
Il                                                                                    i the inspection report that claims to have done 90 percent i
22 of inspection procedures, not one word in that inspection 23 report that shows anything was done at all. That, to 5      M me, is inappropriate.        Would you agree to that?
38          A That, to me, is inappropriate, and that's
(
 
0 25 g        wny h :he '66'::
r-be an unreliable indicater of                      the 2      inspections that 8 '
(                                            ,
                                                                -                had teen dene at Wolf Creek and why W 3      M the person        nat J :.T O'R ley leaned 6 , see wnat 4        the inspection report says, we'll rely on them to tell 5        us what was dene.
6        Q                  So far as Wolf Creek, then, 7
what was written down is what      counted?
If it wasn't written 3        down, it didn't count?
g        A That's correct.
10        Q You feel that attitude is pretty much 11 the prevailing or the way it should be?
12        A                                                                                            .
I don't think that attitude prevails, s                                            gg but I do think that's the way it should be.
    ~(
14        Q                  Right.
And if a person goes back to the 15 NRC and IE Manuals, you think that all procedures would is          support that sort of attitude?
17          A                Yes.
gg          Q Cetting back to Region Four's attitude gg concerning Comanche Peak, during one of my interviews y
of a Region Four inspector the individual outlined for 33          me an incident that he recalled involving g
attending a meeting involving a          cable tray hangers and also at the meeting was i
        )
24                        ,
and apparently h had said that                                              i g
I                                                        there was nothing wrong at Comanche Peak and what was E
 
3 1    reported to  .e, $ t:id' h that as 1:ng as 0 I.      2
              'l  g were                                didn't want t: hear 3
              . anybody at Region Four ever say aga:,n that there was neening i
4 wrong with the Comanche Peak and that this person who 8
I interviewed said that you had heard this continually 6
* from Region Tour personnel inspectors and supervisors 7
or whoever, M in a meeting and heard Mr. Counsel,                )
i 8
who was the head of Tt:GCo at that time 6 they were 8      going to do a three million dollar rework in Unit 2 and
                                                                                    )
10 he didn't know how much it was going to do in Unit 1,            5 11 and that for Stone and Webster to go back and do a complete  ;
12 evaluation of all piping design and hanger work in both i
18 units, and that for somebody in Region Four to say there's 14      nothing wrong with Comanche Peak, all this was ludicrous.
15 A                I recall an instance, : can' t give you le      the date or time when N said that, but 17                      was not alone. Mr. Collt::s expressed the 18      same attitude when h                            .
                                                                      %              j l
19      in on meetings where a Region Tour team said, "This plant        i 88      looks fine. Why is it still not licensed?"    And that 81      was based on their inspection observations.
21                      It would be difficult to me, for me to          I 23      say why inspectors or regional management had that attitude, ;
88                                                                    !
4 but they did have a lot of input f rom people that, their I                                                                                t 88 observations were valid and reliable. I personally heard  ;
i l
L - --__ _ _-_-_ - -- --
 
I
:s.                                                                                        ,_
g i                                Region Three team say.that based upon everything they'd l
2              done, that.the plant looked good.
gI                    ,
It looked better than 3            many that they had seen and so fcrth.
And I believe those kinds of signals tended to affect the middle management is 5
0
{      and top management attitudes.
6 "1
l As I've already said, the inspection results 7
aren't always extremely reliable indicators of the true lt              a    k          situation, because the amount of things, the number of I
e      !
i      . things inspected is small compared to the total. We think 10 t
we've done a good Job, but if we inspect one percent of            I gg              the plant, and that's across the board, one percent of        -
12              the concrete, one percent of the structural steel, one 13 g
percent of the primal system, piping and go on and so 14 forth, so the utility has hundreds of times as much 15 inspection going into the plant as the NRC does, and this i
is is all controlled by the quality assurance program, 17              including training of personnel, the qualifications      of gg
(
personnel, the documentation and all aspects of doing g,              their Job.
3 That's why the program in quality assurance, 21 just from An inspection viewpoint, is an extremely n                important program, because they magnify our efforts or                -
a                their efforts are way beyond our capabilities, and if
(                                                                                                {
3e 4
they do it right, then we can have a much higher level                  l N                                                                                  ,
of confidence than we could have based on our own                  i l    1 g                                                                                                j
 
8
                ~
g obser.ati:ns.
2 So fes, Mr. Ocunsel said, "'de've gone
't                        f 3        out and we've hired hundreds of people to :cre out and 4        inspect, and we're finding things that need correction l
'(                  5        and we're finding things that we're unsure about, and 6      we have a large program to try to correct this."      And 7      I didn't see why Reglen Four should be saylr.g that the a      Plant is all right and there's no problem if even the e      utility couldn't say that. I don't believe we ought to 10      get out ahead of the utility, telling him he didn't have 1
i 11        a problem when he was saying he did. But this is an 13        attitude.
gg                g                          It's not an unusual attitude to think        '
14        that the difficulties that a plant is encountering are
            ~
              ~
18        all political.                                    . It's I
gg        a blatant  untruth. If the problems weren't there, there 17        won't be any problem,    If they weren't hardware problems, pg        record keeping problems, quality assurance problems, then I
gg      'the utility could stand up and say, "Here is what I've 30        done and this proves that I've done it right and here t                21        are my people and their qualifications and here are my 33        records, and you can look at them."    And then you don't 23        have to raise the question of whether something is right.    ,
se        You'll see a record that's a reliable record that            l as        something was done. If you can't see that, then you l
 
7 I
                                                                                                                      \
l 1
i don't have any right to beleive tnat the plant is built 3
in the way tnat ;t was :ntended to te ouilt.
}k l
3 l
And so, I didn't th;nk nat attitude that                  l 4    d the plant was okay and that things were all political 5
((                    and tied up in interveners concerns and so forth was a b-            i 6  #
valid attitude at all.
7 f                                        This is not to say that some of these 8                                                                                          .
processes aren't painful.      Not to say that some of the 8
decisions and some of the statements made aren't ones to that we disagreed with.      Simply to say, though, that we 11 weren't doing anything that wasn't involved in the                              1 12                                                                                                        l regulations and we had to take the pain along with the                          ;
13 joy.                                                                          i i
I4 Q          -
Is there a difference between a violation L5 and an unresolved item?
18 A                  Yes.
17 Q
What would the difference be?
18 A
Well, a violation ;s something that you O
contend to a regulation that says something has to be C
done and that it wasn't done.      That's a violation, and n                          you can cite chapter and verse.
O An unresolved item in its proper context            ,
[3 is an item upon which more information is needed in order j
84 to determine whether it's a violation or not.        An i O unresolved item is not an item that we don't know whether t
: 4.                                                                                                                            -
I                                                                                                                                        i l-1    it's 3 vit;a:1cn :: not. It's nct sirp;y that.    :t's gn{                                                        2 an item that  *
                                                                                  'e need more information en it and someone's 3
got the action. Eltner NRC has got    ne action :: get 4
the information er tne utility has the action to supply 5
the in f o rma tio n , and upon receipt of the information a 6
determination will be made.
7 There was, and I'll say was, prior to 8
Bob Martin some tendency to call a violation an unresolved            !
8 item. And upon the production of further information 10 to call the unresolved item resolved because now more 11 information is provided.      That's incorrect. The correct      '
12 thing is that you get the additional information and 13
{                                                        additional information will tell you whether or not        a 14 violation has cccurred.
;                                                  16 4
But it's a trick, it's a trick to not Di j                                                  16 call a violation a violation.      Mr. Martin was very clear 17 and very explicit on what is an unresolved item and what W          is a violation, and they're not the same.        And you can't 18 write a violation as an unresolved item and disposition
  ,                                              3D it as not a violation when it actually is.
Il
;                                                                                  We tried to practice, I believe edRppe
,                                              31 the principle that if it's a as t'
violation it's a violation, and if it is an unresolved u                                                            i 8'                                                                                i ites,
: h.                                                                      there's more information due and then we'll make          I as the call when we've got more information. I don't                  i
 
.4                                                                                              e ,.
g        think we were en:1 rely successful    in that.
d Mr. MarIn 2 ,
reenf orced tnat rencept strongly.
I  (                                                                                      ,,
3        hadn't' reached tne goal yet.                                                      I
{
Q                                                                                    l 4
Mcw capable were unresolved                                      I items tracked?
5        A                  :
I                                                    think unrescived items were tracked a        quite well.
Probacly not in what I wovid refer to as 7          the most
{
timely way because of workload, personnel shortages                      \
a        and so forth. Sc when I say they were tracked, it was e
our practice to give a number to an unresolved item Just j
w like we give a number to the open item and just as we                                l i
11 give a number to the violation so that we could track                        <
Ut        them. But, and this is the one of the consequences of L
us the sin of calling a violation an unresolved item.
(                                                                                                                l 14 A violation requires a timely response u6          and timely closure by the NRC.                                                        I An unresolved item doesn't.
Hg Calling the violation an unresolved item can permit it 17 to remain in limbo for an extended period of time until He                                                                                                  i semebody gets around to it or opens up the book and says,                              i g,
                              " Hey, this unresolved item has been around a      long time.                          I n          Let's go do it."                                                                        k' me                                                                                      ,
so one of the sins of misnaming a violation at an unresolved item is like the timely corrective action.
23 The potential is now, and now you depend on the individual m                                                                                      i to put an emphasis on closure of an unresolved item,                      j 3
l as whereas it's more automatic if you call it by it's proper                l I                                                                                                    l l
 
i i
8-65 1
name, a vi lati n-
{      2  J    Q                So is :: possible f r unresolved : tens 3  l to go away?
I 4  l A
:t's possible fer unresolved items to I                                                                                                                    I 5        be resolved by the obtaining of addition information and a        never be called a violation, yes.      It's possible, I can't 7
think of an instance where it occurred, that an unresolved i
g item hung around so long until people got tired of it and Just called it resolved without really resolving it.
10        Q                  This is another scenario, hypothetical.
I
[    1 i
11        If, for example, h and an inspector had a                                                            1 12        disagreement over the interpretation of a code, let's                                              i l(
13        say the code involved record keeping and records off the 14        site and you had an inspector and supervisor disagree                                        ,
      ~
15        over what the code intended, would it be appropriate,                                        I i
le        who would be the appropriate referee in a disagreement gy        like this?    Who do you go to?    Could you go to the people g      UB        that wrote the code and try to get a resolution that way?
g        You know, call up the people in ANSI and say, " Listen, 30        this is what you say.      This is what you require. What                                l g        do you mean?"    Is this appropriate?
I A
at                          Well, I think it would be appropriate.                                            i n        I don'.t think it's the appropriate first step, but in y        your first step if h was supervisor of the g        inspector, then if the inspector disagrees his proper i
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _          _ L
 
8                                                                                                                            4:
r ;e is to esca; ate :t to a 1
level above h t
2 If he doesn't get it resolved there, then he should a
3 escalate it up anotner level and he should get                                            to the 4
regional administrator for a decision, and of course,                                                        ,
5          in NRC there are, there's a process for differing 6          professional opinions,which, because it's so time consuming 7
and arduous it cugnt not to be exercised at will, but 8            ought to be excr:: sed when really needed.
g                                                                  : would have expected an appeal process 10            on at                      least two levels to get a resolution of the                                      ,
disagreement.
11 And hadW of the appeal officials,                    '
12 I certainly would have said if we don't, if the code really I
13 isn't clear, why don't we ask the people that wrote it.                                                    '
      ~
34 Yes, I think that's an appropriate step, but not the first                                                      ,
15              one.                  Not the first step.                            I think the appeal official 16 ought to do that unless there was an agreement to do it 17              at the lower level.                                        If the supervisor and inspector 18              disagreed on the proper interpretation but they did agree                                                      l gg they would seek another interpretation and abide by it, a                that would not give me any problem at all as long as the 31              matter got resolved.                                                                                      I l
n                Q                                                      so in a case like this, do you think it's        !
a                appropraite for some sort of an agreement to be reached                                                  j g      34 between the inspector and supervisor in contrast to just 5
g saying forget it, it's not a violation, I'm taking it I
 
  .1' f              g  ;    ' cut, where :ne inspect =r going Out and did the work feels                                                    ''
(        2  :
strongly it is a violation, do you thlak there should 3          be some sort of accord reached?
4          A                  Yes. I think there 'should be an accord
            -5 reached or it should'be escalated. I don't agree with 4
the philosophy or the implementation that the supervisor 7          ought to make'the 3.
fina1 decision unless it's in an' instance                                                ;
g where the relation says he will.
You know, the easy things that come to mind are if a selecting of f acial who was
* 10
'                        selecting personnel to fill a job is the selecting official, 11          then he selects. It's his decision.                                                                      .
If the inspector gg who is at least as smart as the supervisor says that he 13          thinks that code is being violated, and I would be very                                                .
14 uncomfortable with the supervisor who says, "I don't care
$          15 what you say, because I know better than you do and I've                                                t 16          decided this now. Forget it."                                                                          i i
l g7                                                                                                                ;
I think that's at least poor style, and gg certainly not something I consider in concert                            with the t
g,          NRC's general posture on these things.          I mean if we can a          have appeal boards for licensing decisions, certainly gg .
we can appeal for first line of inspection of hardware, gg and I must say that I've been involved in a number of                                                                !
g those open discussions and appeals and written papers                                                                j gg                                                                                                                                  !
on it and things like that where we have inspectors say, D          ''I    don't think that this is right."      And we have even
 
1 l
l 0                                                                                                                                  1 1
had instances wnere I wouldn't think the inspector did 2            a good enougn ::: and we'd have a 0        l' t
discussion on that and 3            reenforce it.                                                          i j
4
: always think it's my right to require
(
5              them to do more inspection.      I den't feel it's my right 6              to tell them to do less than they think they ought        to 7            do, absent    some goed fundamental reason.
  ;                                        8              Q icu feel the supervisors at the Region, 9
now we're talking abcut at the level that, you know,                  i l
l.
10 h and 6 and people like that,                            do you          l 1
11              feel they know what's going on in the      field at 12              Comanche Peak?                                                      I I
13            A                *
            \
If there's any weakness I can personally 14 identify for NRC supervisors, is          tnat they don't know 15 what's going on in the field because they don't get there 16 often enough.
And the message is passed on to them or, 17 either intentionally or unintentionally filtered, and 18 i                                                    there are a lot of things that are difficult to describe 18 in words.
The old cliche is a picture is worth a thousand 3/B 20 words is magnified by an on-site visit where you can see            8 21 what's being done and you can see the conditions in the 2?
field which are very, very difficult to describe to a              ,
23 t
person from time to time unless things are really bad i
j      f 1                                  24 i                                      and out of control, and I think that, I think that is 8                                                                                  !
It's really a generality that most l
a generality.
8
 
l
'l                                                                                                          !
4)
I                  t    people who con fine their vorkdays to swivel chairs don' t really know what's going on in the field.      I think it's
(    2 3    a weakness that I recognized i
4      and h every cpportunit, N.he plants
.I                5      and clinb around on the hardware with inspectors and shine 6      flashlights and neasure things and insert gauges and, 7      to see what we we re really seeing and unscrew bolts and
'I                g      things like that where you simply can' t understand that g      from a description, particularly a description diat's            l 1
u)      constrained by time because you' re se busy.
,1 11                        So I would say by and large the regional 12      nanagement doesn' t know what's happening in the field
: r
              , is      unless they take the time to ob se rve i t firsthand. And    ,
t 14      I think that th a t kind of attitude is certainly an attitude
            ~
t$      that I see in commissioners. That's why you see H5      cormdssioners visiting power plants , Asselstine and others 17      on inspections , so they could t ry to see. Now, they don't    ,
18      see the nitty gritty. They see a lot rore than they can 19      in swivel chairs in tlashington.                                  ,
l 20      Q                                                    did you have 21      any knowledge of any of the Region Four nanagement asking to 22      go up to the site, especially one like Comanche Peak or some 23      of other sites that were being licensed and ask them to get                      '
I f                24      out all the closed and open items and various, you know, l4 25      IE Manual, Capte r 25 ins pe ct ion , just get out there I
                                                                                                ----_______a
 
0                                                                                                            .
W t              and get the    a;; :;csed, 1.9 other words, to facilitate                !
(.                        2        ,
                                        '      getting everytning done?                                                    l 0
                                        !                                                                                ~
3                A                    Sure. Yeah. Always.
4                  Q What type of attitude was this  instruction 5                    given in?    Was it ust get it done or was it actually 6                    to go out there and do the i
inspections and come back with, 7
you know, their findings?
Come back with the findings.
t                    g                l In other words, ;ust, you know, go out and look at these 9                        things, Just get it done or actually go out and do the                i l
i to inspection, validly do the inspection?                                        I
'                                                                                                                          I 11                            A                    I i
never heard that much specificity put            i i
l i
i 12 on it, but I have heard many times, said go out there                    ,
I l
(
13                            and close those open items.                                                  )
Close those unresolved items.
            .t4                              Close those inspection findings and get it done. I guess 15                            what was intended depends upon the speaker and the hearer 1                                          both, but I 16 think you're dealing with a mixed situation                  '
1 17                            there.      I know we had hundreds 13                                                                                                              l I
of items, maybe thousands of items that I think about                          1 i
g,                              it to follow up on and close, and we simply recognized, 20 our whole team, that we couldn't do that with a pencil.
  ,        21 We had to do that with inspection, so we demanded resources a                              from all over the country that said in order to close 23 this item we have to do certain things. We don't simply 1
24
    ?
sit down and write our name on a piece of paper.
3 So our job was to get out there and close,        i 4
l
 
0                                                                                                  :
i            disposition and etnerwise                                                    i take care of those matters that              '
2      !
needed tak:ng care of before we could say the plant was I                      '                                                                                      l 3
i ready to license, and I tnought we did it in the way that 4
it should be done and everyone on l'                                                    the team understood 5
  !                              what we meant by go out there and close those items.
6            Inspect.
Do what's necessary, Justify, do it right.
7
                                                    ~here's no doubt in my mind there were a
some players on tne stage that meant get it done if you 9
can get it done right.
If you can't get it done right, u)              do it anyway.      Yeah, I think there are some of those on 11              that stage.                                                                    4 12              O Do you think that attitude is proper 13 considering Comanche Peak, Just go out and get it done i
14 whether it's done right        or wrong?
15              A I don't know at this time.        When Whama h
16              ^
                                                      ,, :. t was  a little too early to tell what        '
17 the real attitude was.          I will say that I observed the          -
ul              NRC investing an enormous number cf resources          in that up              effort, and that would tell me that we expected to do 20              the right Job and not to pencil whip the situation.        But    {      ;
21                                                                                          f that's kind of almost empirical today.              You can't get
                                                                                                                \
u                inside the people's mind on it.
23                Q
                                                                                          , were i      24 you ever aware, did you ever pick up any indications that I                                                                                                      )
1 25                Region Four consultants out at Comanche Peak had been 9
1
 
0 52 1
told to, "ad been steered away frcr finding quality g  (          2 assurance issues and had been s tee red toward quality 3
control harduare tyce n:coler.s that were very easy to l
4  . fi x? Did you ever pick up anything like that?                          1 5      A                  : can't recollect any at the moment, but as 6      they say, of 7      all those instances.      The re 's no doubt that people coming in 8
and consultants coning in were given erphasis to look at                  ;
9      hardware.      I tnink there was a perception at that time 10 that the quality assurance program, no matter how much it            !
11 was inspected, might not yield suf ficient results to make 12 the plants licens able , so there was certainly an attitude i      13 that was in Mr. Collins' mind and sore of the things he said              ;
14 that said we really, it's the hardwa re on it there that              !
          ~
15 counts and we have to go out the re , the re f o re , and look            i 16        at the hardware.                                                      '
But as I've s aid earlie r,  the re 's 17 weaknesses in that, because your a 111ty to look at the 18        hardware is on the surface.
19 Ue did have sone consultants that focused 20 on hardware , whe ther it was concrete testing or hangers 21 or electrical installations and so forth.          I don't recollecti 22 an instance where the consultant thought he ought to look 2        at the program which led to the hardware as opposed to
}!
l      ;  24 hardware and was told don' t do that.        I just don't            l 25        recollect one.
4
 
i 3
                          ;                Oc you feel that the Region provides                l l
adequate training to their inspectors to go and look at 3(
2 3        quality assurance and procedures, and manual, Chapter 25, I
4        twelve type inspections, you know, the quality assurance            l l
l 5          type thing, do you feel like the Region inspectors are
{
1 6          trained sufficiently to go out and do these type of 7          inspections?
8          A                I think that training was an historical            ;
1 g          area of weakness in Region Four. Mr. Martin started on u)            a rather disciplined program to improve training that 11            personally involved himself in it, because he saw that l
12            same weakness. And so he did something about it at the l
i  13            top where it could be done.                                  '
14                            I would say that there was not emphasis i
15            on looking at the programmatic quality assurance in training.      3 up            Some people that, because of their experience and because it            of their prior training, and that's why I mentioned 13            previously Mr. Barnes and Mr. Ellersnaw and others that tg            he knew had that ability and that understanding of 2()          programtic matters to assist
  '                      @ to bring that strength to 6 , and they did 21 that.
I1 22 l
23                            It was a weakness across the board. The        ,
I                                                                                        i 24          training, good cross training is okay as long as you can        I j i
i 26          afford it. I never thought that many of the inspectors lI I
1
 
t 4
            ,                                                                                54 1    ]      who were nardware oriented had much                                l training 1-J                                                          cuality 2  ,        assurance aspects.
't
(                                                                                              l i                                                                          1 3  j        Q                This is kind of  3, 4
W , did you think that the inspectors who went                      1 i
5 out and found ;ust the, you know, small hardware problems 6
that could be easily fixed, do you think these are      the 7
guys that got rewarded and got ahead in the Region?                1
-(
.,                  8            A I den't know if I can answer that very 9
well. llbdidn't      mako very many organizational changes 10
                                            ~
i 6 brought in 11          M              the Region. Mr. Jaudon had been promoted
{
12 by the time that h                    Mr. Lawrence Martin was 13 i                      made a section chief before, shortly before he left there, 14            left the Region.
And I better not say shortly. It's 15 really not shortly, after I recollect the time scale.
i 16          None of those individuals were people that I thought found 17 the easy-to-fix problems necessar:ly.
18 If we're talking aceut promotions from 19 grade to grade but not from position of inspector to 20 position of supervisor, I
21 would say that if there were instances of that        they weren't 4
22 obvious they occurred because of that.                              ,
t 23 MR. MULLEY:    Well, why don't we go off        i I          24 the record a minute.
(
26 (Thereupon, there was a discussion off f
 
D n
3                the rercrd-)
l 2 -
i EXAMINATION BY MR. ML*LLEY:
      -(                    ,
3      .        Q                                                                                            !
l                              Co you have anything you would like to                                  l
                                          ~
{
4 l          add to this interview or any statement by way of conclusion r
5                that you would like to make?
6                A l                              Well, I think I've said a lot of things 7                                                                                                                t and it might be worthwhile to say something in summary g
about what we've been talking about, g
We have in Region Four organization a                                      i I
g3 number of personalities and their relationships with each 11 other and their way of thinking, and many times these                                          i t
12                  are, these ways of thinking are similar and they support                                      l j
g3
(
each other, which tends to frustrate the checks and                                          '
                                                                                                                                  \
14                  balances so that o
    ~
the merits of the checks and balances                                  '
15
{
are simply overcome by the attitudes and the personal                                          l 16                  relationships.
g7                                                                                                                '.
I would consider that 6 and k
33                  6 and Mr.                  Check are of like mind so that  an                              I r
gg                    appeal is not likely to be heard strictly on its merits.
30                  They'll back each other up.
I think that close relationship                              ;
21 between Mr. Check and 6 tends to frustrate any                                                    1 22                  appeals, make them rejected out of hand rather than on 23                    the merits. Maybe an attitude of, " Hey, I want to listen i      24                  to this, if you can't work it out with them I don't want i
O                    to listen to it."        I can see that occurring and you have e
 
I                                                                                      i.
t    ,  level after leve; lined up with the same T.ind,    set in f        2  d  .the mind. It isn't based on the merits. It's ;ust based 3  ,    on supporting the organization up and down.      The appeal 4        process and checks and balances simply aren't offered, f                5  !
and I think in tne current situation in Region Four I 6        would expect that to be in place and to be operating.
7        Q                  And the mind, I'm getting back to a        Comanche Peak and TUGCO, these three people would share g
would be one of leaning towards the utility.        Do you feel to        that's true?                                                      i t
11        A                    I think --
12        Q                    (Interposing)  Taking the utility's side?
13        A                    Yes. I think that's true, but each one
(
14        of those personalities has its own mix that lead to that 15          end result.      Whether 6 nas his mix because of                  '
16                                    and his basic attitude about 17          enforcement, and h ,                his attitude about the ul          utility is probably doing good work and there's more smoke tg          than there's fire, and Mr. Check about trusting the utility i
20          and let's not get too deeply involved in the business l
21          out there, all of these coming from different directions 22          come to the same re-enforcement attitude and the same                l 23          result that issues aren't considered and ventilated and l'            u          fully discussed and resolved on their merits.
l                                                                              They're a          done on another basis, and the attitudes and relationships f
 
                                                                                                                            \
$                                                                                                                          1 relat:.cnsnips that exist in all those people, 1    ; and c1;que 2
MR. M*.LLEY:  Okay. Thank you /ery .uch.
i 8
3 (Thereupon, tne inter /;ew was concluded        i 4        at 5:10 p.m.)
s                                    . . . . .
l 6
7 g  II l
                                                                                                                            \
9 l
                                                                                                                            \
10                                                                        '    l 11 12                                                                            )l 13                                                                            l 1
                                                                                                                          )
14 1
      =                                                                                                                l
        -                                                                                                                  l 15                                                                          1  1 0  l I
16 17                                                                            1 l
18                                                                              l l
19 i
E                                                                        I
                                                                                                                      !    l i    \
'f 21                                                                              1 I
I 22 23 1                                        24                                                                              l M
l
                                                                                                            .              l l
 
1 I
1
'd
                                            -.>......e.
                                            .....;..n..                  -,
                                                                          .. m .e  J r. .. ~. . n. .~  ,o  : ."' , .~. . R lh
            . .s. .; s    ;
                          .5      .c.
                                          ... ..  ...s..,;
                                                                  -~..
                                                                              . . .  .        ...--.a.
                                                                                                . .. ~.                        .......
                                                                                                                              .........a .            ,a..g g.:
: o. n n ..__e...
n
:.._= =s . n..._. 9. y.        . . ' ' . , . , , ,
            . ..,' . . e.n. ...s
: m. e.m  $m.n ..n a            .
          ...a ....
                    ...      o .e ..
't NA.".I CF PROCIIOING:                                Co.anche Peak AN INVESTIGATIVE INTERV*EW OF:                                                                                                  ,
j DOCKIT NO.:                                                                                                                                                                                                                            a 3
PI.ACI: Ramada Inn,                                                                                      .
(
DATE: June 2,4, 1986 l
wore held as herein appears, a r.d                                                          na: th;s                  _s    the origi..al
          ....a. ,,. s      ..4.p. g. e .,. -e , .e    e.
                                                            .. ...    ..e..s          . e  *  .< . ..s. e        ".....a.
                                                                                                                      . . . . .      5.a.es Nu  . -.    '*.a.-
Rogulatory Cc: .r.is sier. .                                                                                                                                                                                                            1 l
l
                                                                                                                                                            /                                                                                        \
                                                                                                                                      -                                                                                                              1 s'.~        '
MJ /s/- -
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      \
(      ..-__)
                                                                                                        ..e.s                  ,or-)
                                                                                                                              .            y D, Banks                                                                                                )
: n. .a .s .a . _. _. 4 .ge . ...
g
                                                                                                    .R =. c .- . = . ' s e'. .' .' .' .' .' .= . 2 a. .*.
Smith Reoorting Agency I
l l
l T'                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            '
l l
  @                              e l
l
 
I h
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE i
I certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
) 'l                      addressees listed below. Service.was accomplished by hand delivery on M % g j
W 1987.                                                                              ,e
                                                                                  ,(% .
                                                                                            'l.      ,,', j  7 r~
_T      ;. m    - - .
                                                                                                          .6 L-
: 1. NRC Commissioners:                          david S. Rubinton, Esq L.W. Zech, Jr., Chairmen Thomas M. Roberts James K. Asselstine Fredrick M. Bernthal Kenneth M. Carr
{
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
: 2. Bill Paton, Esq.                                                                l U.S. NRC                                                                      f 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
1
: 3. Secretary, U.S. NRC 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington,  D.C.                                                            j
: 4. Jack R. Goldberg, Esq.
U.S. NRC 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
i ll t
l l
t
 
0i COPIES TO:
: 1. Hon. John Glenn U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs
,                      340 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20510
: 2. Hon. Edward J. Markey U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515
: 3. Hon. Lloyd Bentsen U.S. Senate- Hart Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20515 i
: 4. Hon. Jake Pickle                                                            !
U.S. House of Representatives 242 Canon Office Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20515
: 5. Hon. Mickey Leland U.S. House of Representatives 2236 Canon Office Bldg.
'g                    Washington, D.C. 20515-4318
                -6. Hon. Henry B. Gonzalez U.S. House of Representatives 2413 Rayburn Office Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20515-4320
: 7. Hon. James C. Wright, Jr.
U.S. House of Representatives 1236 Longworth Office Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20515 s
: 8. Hon. John B. Breaux U.S. House of Represer.tatives Washington, D.C. 20515
: 9. James Mattox Attorney General of the State of Texas i                      Supreme Court Bldg.
14th & Colorado Streets Austin, Texas 78711
: 10. Mayor Frank Cooksey Members of the Austin City Council g                      City Hall 124 West 8th Street Austin, Texas 78701 l
 
)
l
: 11. Councilmember Maria Berriozabal San Antonio City Council                j ji                                                  P.O. Box 9066                            ;
San Antonio, Texas 78285                1
: 12. Clarance Johnson Office of Public Utility Counsel 8140 Mopack Westpark 3, Suite 120 Austin, Texas 78759
: 13. Lanny A. Sinkin, Esq.
Christic Institute 1324 No. Capitol St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20002                    j
: 14. Tom Smith, Director Texas Public Citizen 1611 E. First St.
Austin, Texas 78702-4455
: 15. Brian Baker Citizens for Consumers Rate Relief 401 West Drew Houston, Texas 77006 l
: 16. James Matz f.
Assoc. of Local Control of Utility Rates  ;
2601 Lazy Lake Dr.                      j Harlingen, Texas 78550                    i i
: 17. Nuclear Information & Resource Service    l W s ingt n  Db.2b36 l
: 18. Jim Drake, Director                        i Valley Interfaith                        j P.O. Box 1616                            1 Weslaco, Texas 78596 22061ist: RCdisk2 l
I                                                                                            l
 
                                        && G
    '~'
1                          Appendix I Wisconsin Code of Professional Responsibility
(
l 1
i i
1
 
                                                                                                .I m.
PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY              SCR 20.21          i
                                                                                                  )
SCR 20.18.' Alding unauthorized practice of law                              v
                                                                                                  )
k            (1) A lawyer may not aid a'nonlawyer in the unauthorized practice of law.
(2) A lawyer may not practice law in a jurisdiction where to do so            ,
would be in violation of regulations of the profession in that jurisdiction. i SCR 20.19. Dividing legal fees with a nontawyer                      .
A lawyer or law firm may not share legal fees with a nonlawyer, exctpt that:
(1) An agreement by a lawyer with his or her firm, partner or                  !
associate may provide for the payment of money, over a reasonable period of time after death, to his or her estate or to one or more specified      ;
persons.                                                                          1 (2) A lawyer who undertakes to complete unfinished legal business of          l a deceased lawyer may pay to the estate of the deceased lawyer that              '
proportion of the total compensation which fairly represents the services rendered by the deceased lawyer.
(3) A lawyer or law firm may include nonlawyer employes in a
          ;    retirement plan, even though the plan is based in whole or in part on a profit-sharing arrangement.
v SCR 20.20. Forming a partnership with a nonlawyer A lawyer may not form a partnership with a nonlawyer if any of the
          ;      activities of the partnership consist of the practice of law.
L          SCR 20.21. A lawyer should preserve the conf;dences and secrets of a client (1) Ethical consideration. Both the fiduciary relationship existing between lawyer r.nd client and the proper functioning of the legal system      '
require the preservation by the lawyer of confidences and secrets of one wl.o has employed or sought to employ him or her. A client must feel free to discuss whatever he or she wishes with his or her lawyer and a          l lawyer must be equally free to obtain information beyond that volun-teered by his or her client. A lawyer should be fully informed of all the facts of the matter he or she is handling in order for the client to obtain the full advantage of our legal system. It is for the lawyer in the exercise of his or her independent professional judgment to separate the relevant and important from the irrelevant and unimportant. The ob-
          ,      servance of the ethical obligation of a lawyer to hold inviolate the confidences and secrets of his or her client not only facilitates the full development of facts essential to proper representation of the client but  w-also encourages laymen to seek early legal assistance.
(2) Ethical consideration. The obligation to protect confidences and secrets obviously does not preclude a lawyer from revealing information            ]
1 I
l 7
 
i i
SCR 20.21                SUPitEME COUllT ltULES when his or her client consents after full disclosure, when necessary to                                  i perform his or her professional employment, when permitted by a                                          j
('        disciplinary rule or when required by law. Unless the client otherwise                                    ;
directs, a lawyer may disclose the affairs of his or her client to partners                              !
or associates of his or her firm. It is a matter of common knowledge                                    j that the normal operation of a law office exposes confidential profession-                                I al information to nonlawyer employes of the office, particularly secre-                                  !
taries and those having access to the files; and this obligates a lawyer to exercise care in selecting and training employes so that the sanctity of                                  {
all confidences and secrets of his or her clients may be preaerved. If the                                l obligation extends to 2 or more clients as to the same information, a                                    l lawyer should obtain the permission of all before revealing the informa-                                  l tion. A lawyer must always be sensitive to the rights and wishes of a
                                                                                                                    ]
client and act scrupulously in the making of decisions which may involve                                  l the disclosure of information obtained in his or her professional relation-                              i ship. Thus, in the abs-nce of consent of his or her client after full                                    l disclosure, a lawyer should not associate another lavryer in the handling                                I of a matter; nor sho71d he or she, in the absence of consent, seek counsel from another lawyer if there is a reasonable possibility that the identity of the client or his or her confidences or secrets would be revealed to such lawyer. Both social amenities and professional duty                                      l should cause a lawyer to shun indiscreet conversations concerning                                        i
_ clients.                                                                                                  1 (3) Ethical consideration. Unless the client otherwise directs, it is not improper for a lawyer to give limited information from his or her files to an outside agency necessary for statistical, bookkeeping, account-ing, data processing, banking, printing or other legitimate purposes,                                    {
(          provided the lawyer exercises due care in the selection of the agency and warns the agency the.t the information must be kept confidential.
j (4) Ethical consideration. The attorney client privilege is more limit-ed than the ethical obligation of a lawyer to guard the confidences and secrets of a client. This ethical precept, unlike the evidentiary privilege, exists without regard to the nature or source of information or the fact                                  I that others share the knowledge. A lawyer should endeavor to act in h manner which preserves the evidentiary privilege; for example, he or she should avoid professional discussions in the presence of persons to whom the privilege does not extend. A lawyer owes an obligation to advise the client of the attorney-client privilege and timely to assert the privilege unless it is waived by the client.
    .        (5) Ethical consideration. A lawyer should not nse information
    ,      acquired in the course of the representation of a client to the disadvan-tage of the client and a lawyer should not use, except with the consent of the client after full disclosure, such information for his or her own pu rposes. Likewne, a lawyer shouhl be diligent in his or her efforts to prevent the misuse of such information by his or her employes and aseme.ates. Care should be exerciseil h3 a lawyer to prevent the disclo-E t                                                                            __    __._.___________.m
 
t.
              ]  i PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY              SCR 20.23 sure of the confidences and secrets of one client to another and ~no                          v
(                                  employment should be ' accepted that might require such disclosure.
                  ,-                    (6) Ethical considers. tion. The obligation of a lawyer to preserve the 4
confidences and secreta of a client continues after the termination of his t'
or her employment. Thus a lawyer should not attempt to sell a law
                  ,                  practice as a going business because, among other reasons, to do so
                ,                    would involve the disclosure of confidences and secrets. A lawyer
                ;                    should also provide for the protection of the confidences and secrets of a
                .                    client following the termination of the practice of the lawyer, whether
                              .      termination is due to death, disability or retirement. For example, a
                  ;                  lawyer might provide for the personal papers of the client to be returned j                      to him er her and for the papers of the lawyer to be delivered to another lawyer or to be destroyed. In determining the method of disposition, the instructions and wishes of the client should be a dominant consideration.
                .                    SCR 20.22. . Preservation of confidences and secrets of a client (1) Except when permitted under sub. (2), a lawyer may not knowing-ly:
(a) Reveal'a confidence or secret of his or her client.
(b) Use a confidence or secret of his or her client to the disadvan-tage of the client.
(c) Use a confidence or secret of his or her client for his or her
                                      ' advantage or advantage of a 3rd person, unless the client consents after full disclosure.
(2) A lawyer may reveal:
(                    .
                              .    ,        (a) Confidences or secrets with the consent of the client or clients affected but only after a full disclosure to them.
(b) Confidences or secrets when permitted under disciplinary rules l                        or required by law or court order, i                          (c) The intention of a client to commit a crime and the information necessary to prever.t the crime.
(d) Confidences or secrets necessary to establish or collect his or her fee or to defend himself or herself or employes or associates against an accusation of wrongful conduct.
                ;                        (3) A lawyer shall exercise reasonable care to prevent his or her employes, associates and others whose services are utilized by the
:                      lawyer from disclosing or using confidences or secrets of a client, except that a lawyer may reveal the information allowed by sub. (2) through an
                !                      employe.
SCR 20.23. A lawyer should exercise independent professional                                            l
!                                .                        judgment on behalf of a client                                            -
l-                                      (1) Ethical consideration. The professional judgment of a lawyer                                      4 should be exercised, within the bounds of the law, solely for the benefit                              I of the client and free of compromising influences and loyalties. Neither 8
l
 
l SCR 20.23                  SUPREME COURT RULES i
v his or her personal interest, the interests of other clients, nor the desires
(                                ,        of 3rd persons should be permitted to dilute a lawyer's loyalty to a client. 1 (2) Ethical consideration, interests of a lawyer that may affect his or her judgment. (a) A lawyer should not accept proffered employment if his or her personal interests or desires will, or there is a reasonable probability that they will, affect adversely the advice to be given or        !
services to be rendered the prospective client. After accepting employ.
ment, a lawyer carefully should refrain from acquiring a property right or assuming a position that would tend to make his or her judgment less protective of the interests of the client.
(b) The self-interest of a lawyer resulting from his or her ownership of property in which his or her client also has an interest or which may
                                                          ,        affect property of his or her client may interfere with the exercise of free judgment on behalf of the client. If such interference would occur with respect to a prospective client, a lawyer should decline employment proffered by him or her. After accepting employment, a lawyer should not acquire property rights that would adversely affect his or her professional judgment in the representation of his or her client. Even if the property interests of a lawyer do not presently interfere with the exercise of his or her independent judgment, but the likelihood of interference can reasonably be foreseen by him or her, a lawyer should
                                                '            s    explain the situation to his or her client and should decline employment or withdraw unless the client consents to the continuance of the relation-l          '
ship after full disclosure. A lawyer should not seek to persuade a client to permit him or her to invest in an undertaking of the client nor make improper use of his or her professional relationship to influence the client
(.
* to invest in an enterprise in which the lawyer is interested.
(c) If, in the course of his or her representation of a client, a lawyer is permitted to receive from his or her client a beneficial ownership in publication rights relating to the subject matter of the employment, he or she may be tempted to subordinate the interests of his or her client to his or her own anticipated pecuniary gain. For example, a lawyer in a criminal case who obtains from his or her client television, radio, motion picture, newspaper, magazine, book or other publication rights with
                                              ,                    respect to the case may be influenced, consciously or unconsciously, to a
{
course of conduct that will enhance the value of his or her publication        '
rights to the prejudice of his or her chent. To prevent these potentially
                                              ,                    differing interests, such arrangements should be scrupulously avoided prior to the termination of all aspects of the matter giving rise to the employment, even though his or her employment has previously ended.
(d) A lawyer should not suggest to his or her client that a gift be made to himself or herself or for his or her benefit. If a lawyer accepts a gift from his or her client, he or she is peculiarly susceptible to the charge that he or she unduly influenced or userreached the client. If a client voluntarily offers to make a gift to his or her lawyer. the lawyer may        {
l i
l
( 1
 
l PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY                          SCR 20.23
(            j    accept the gift, but before doing so, he or she should urge that his or her client secure disinterested advice from an independent, competent person who is cognizant of all the circumstances. Other than in exceptional circumstances, a lawyer should insist that an instrument in which his or her client desires to name him or her beneficially be prepared by another lawyer selected by the client.
(e) A lawyer should not consciously influence a client to name him or her as executor, trustee or lawyer in an instrument. In those cases
                ,  where a client wishes to name his or her lawyer as such, care should be taken by the lawyer to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
(f) The possibility of an adverse effect upon the exercise of free
                ;  judgment by a lawyer on behalf of his or her client during litigation generally makes it undesirable for the lawyer to acquire a proprietary interest in the cause of his or her client or otherwise to become financially interested in the outcome of the litigation. However, it is not improper for a lawyer tn protect his or her right to collect a fee for his or her services by the r.ssert. ion of legally permissible liens, even though by doing so he or she may acquire an interest in the outcome of litigation.
Although a contingent fee arrangement gives a lawyer a financial interest in the outcome of litigation, a reasonable contingent fee is                                ~
permissible in civil cases because it may be the only means by which a layman can obtain the services of a lawyer of his or her choice. But a lawyer, because he or she is in a better position to evaluate a cause of action, should enter into a contingent fee arrangement only in those instances where the arrangement will be beneficial to the client.
(g) A financial interest in the outcome of litigation also results if monetary advances are made by the lawyer to his or her client. Al-though this assistance generally is not encouraged, there are instances when it is not improper to make loans to a client. For example, the advancing or guaranteeing of payment of the costs and expenses of litigation by a lawyer may be the only way a client can enforce his or her cause of action, but the ultimate liability for such costs and expenses must be that of the client.
(h) Occasionally a lawyer is crlled upon to decide in a particular cabe whether he or she will be a witness or an advocate. If a lawyer is both counsel and witness, he or she becomes more easily impeachable for interest and thus may be a less effective witness. Conversely, the opposing counsel may be handicapped in challenging the credibility of the
              ,    lawyer when the lawyer also appears as an advocate in the case, An l                  advocate who becomes a witness is in the unseemly and ineffective                                        I i                  position of arguing his or her own credibility. The roles of an advocate I                  and of a witness are inconsistent; the function of an advocate is to l                  advance or argue the cause of another, while that of a witness is to state l                  facts objectively.
I I
l t
I i
f l
I
                                                                                    . _ _ _ _ - . - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _    a
 
1 SCR 20.23                SUPREME COURT Rt!1.ES (i) Problems incident to the lawyer-witness relationship arise at differ-
                                                                                                                                              ~
ent stages, they relate either to whether a lawyer should accept employ-
            .(,                                                                                                                                ment or should withdraw from employment. Regardless of when the problem arises, his or her decision is to be governed by the same basic considerations. It is not objectionable for a lawyer who is a potential .
witness to be an advocate if it is unlikely that he or she will be called as a witness because his or her testimony would be merely cumulative or if his or her testimony will relate only to an uncontested issue. In the exceptional situation where it will be manifestly unfair to the client for the lawyer to refuse employment or to withdraw when he or she will likely be a witness on a contested issue, he or she muy serve as advocate even though he or she nay be a witness. In making such decision, he or she should determine the personal or financial sacrifice of the client that may result from his or her refusal of employment or withdrawal there-from, the materiality of his or her testimony and the effectiveness of his or her representation in view of his or her personal involvement, in weighing these factors, it should be clear that refusal or withdrawal will impose an unreasonable hardship upon the client before the lawyer accepts or continues the employment. Where the question arises, doubts should be resolved in favor of the lawyer testifying and against his or her becoming or continuing as an advocate.
s    (j) A lawyer should not permit his or her personal interests to influ-ence his or her advice relative to a suggestion by his or her client that additional counsel be employed. In like manner, his or her personal interests should not deter him or her from suggesting that additional counsel be employed; on the contrary, he or she should be alert to the
(                                                                                                                            desirability of recommending additional counsel when, in his or her judgment, the proper representation of his or her client requires it.
However, a lawyer should advise his or her client not to employ addition-al counsel suggested by the client if the lawyer believes that such employment would be a disservice to the client and he or she should disclose the reasons for his or her belief, 1
(k) Inability of cocounsel to agree on a matter vital to the representa-tion of their client requires that their disagreement be submitted by them jointly to their client for his or her resolution and the decision of the client shall control the action to be taken.
(I) A lawyer should not maintain membership in or be influenced by any organization of employes that undertakes to prescribe, direct or suggest when or how he or she should fulfill his or her professional obligations to a person or organization that employs him or her as a lawyer. Although it is not necessarily improper for a lawyer employed by a corporation or similar entity to be a member of an organization of employe8, he or she should be vigilant to safeguard his or her fidelity as a lawyer to his or her employer, free from outside influences.
 
PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY              SCR 20.23
                                                                                                    ~
g-                    (3) Ethical consideration, interests of multiple clients. (a) Maintain-ing the independence of professional judgment required of a lawyer precludes his or her acceptance or continuation of employment that will adversely affect his or her judgment on behalf of or dilute his or her loyalty to a client. This problem arises whenever a lawyer is asked to represent 2 or more clients who may have differing interests, whether such interests be conflicting, inconsistent, diverse or otherwise discor-        i dant.                                                                            I (b) If a lawyer is requested to undertake or to continue representation      ;
of multiple clients having potentially differing interests, he or she must        !
weigh carefully the possibility that his or her judgment may be impaired          !
or his or her loyalty divided if he or she accepts or continues the              i employment. He or she should resolve all doubts against the propriety              1 of the representation. A lawyer should never represent in litigation multiple clients with differing interests; and there are few situations in        f 1
which he or she would be justified in representing in litigation multiple        j clients with potentially differing interests. If a lawyer accepted such employment and the interests did besome actually differing, he or she f
would have to withdraw from employment wit.h likelihood of resulting hardship on the clients; and for this reason it is preferable that he or she      ^
refuse the employment initially. On the other hand, there are many              ~
instances in which a lawyer may properly serve multiple clients having potentially differing interests in matters not involving litigation. If the interests vary only slightly, it is generally likely that the lawyer will not be subjected to an adverse influence and that he or she can retain his or
( '
  /                her independent judgment on behalf of each client; and if the interests t                become differing, withdrawal is less likely to have a disruptive effect upon the causes of his or her clients.
(c) In those instances in which a lawyer is justified in representing 2 or      i more clients having differing interests, it is nevertheless essential that        I each client be given the opportunity to evaluate his or her need for representation free of any potential conflict and to obtain other counsel if he or she so desires. Thus before a lawyer may represent multiple clients, he or she should explain fully to each client the implications of the cmr. mon representation and should accept or continue employment only if the clients consent. If other circumstances r.re present that might cause any of the multiple clients to question the undivided :oyalty of the lawyer, he or she should also advise.all of the clients of those circumstances.
(d) Typically recurring situations involving potentially differing inter-ests are those in which a lawyer is asked to represent codefendants in a            .
criminal case, coplaintiffs in a personal injury case, an insured and his or
                                                                                                  ~
I her insurer and beneficiaries of the estate of a decedent. Whether a
                  !awyer can fairly and adequately protect the interests of multiple clients          ;
in these and similar situations depends upon an analysis of each case. In          !
certain circumstances, there may exist little chance of the judgment of I
s 1
i l
                                                                                                      )
 
l p
1" SCR 20.23                SUPREME COURT RULES
                /
          ',      the lawyer being adversely affected by the slight possibility that the interests will become actually differing; in other circumstances, the
  .!            chance of adverse effect upon his or her judgment is not unlikely.
(e) A lawyer employed or retained by a corporation or similar entity owes his or her allegiance to the entity and not to a stockholder, director, officer, employe, representative or other person connected with the entity. In advising the entity, a lawyer should keep parameant its interests and his or her professional judgment should not be influenced by the personal desires of any person or organization. Occasionally a lawyer for an entity is requested by a stockholder, director, officer, employe, representative or other person connected with the entity to represent him or her in an individual capacity; in such case the lawyer may serve the individual only if the lawyer is convinced that differing interests are not present.,
(f) A lawyer may represent several clients w'aose interests are not actually or potentially differing. Nevertheless, he or she should explain                                        ]
any circumstances tisat might cause a client to question his or her undivided loyalty. Regardless of the belief of a lawyer that he or she                                            ;
may properly represent multiple clients, he or she must defer to a client                                        j who holds the contrary belief and withdraw from representation of that client.                                                                                                            >
(g) A lawyer is often asked to serve as an impartial arbitrator or mediator in matters which involve present or former clients. He or she                                            {
may serve in either capacity if he or she first discloses such present or former relationships. After a lawyer has undertaken to act as an
(            impartial arbitrator or mediator, he or she should not thereafter repre-sent in the dispute any of the parties involved.
(4) Ethical consideration, desires of third persons. (a) The obliga-tion of a lawyer to exercise professional judgment solely on behalf of a client requires that he or she disregard the desires of others that might impair his or her free judgment. The desires of a 3rd person will seldom                                          )
adversely affect a lawyer unless that person is in a position to exert                                            !
strong economic, political or social pressures upon the lawyer. These influences are often subtle and a lawyer must be alert to their existence.
A lawyer subjected to outside pressures should make full disclosure of them to his or her client; and if he or she or his or her client believes                                          ,
that the effectiveness of his or her representation has been or will be impaired thereby, the lawyer should take proper steps to withdraw from representation of his or her client.
(b) Economic, political or social pressures by 3rd persons are less
        .", likely to impinge upon the independent judgment of a lawyer in a matter in which he or she is compensated directly by his or her client and his or h"r professional work is exchmively with his or her client. On the other hand, if a lawyer is compensatml fre t . source other than his or her 1
I 1
I t
                                                                                    .______-_-__-____-__-_-___-_-____._-a
 
L PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY                SCR 20.24
      ,I                                                        client, he or she may feel a sense of responsibility to someone other than the client.
(c) A person or organization that pays or furnishes lawyers to repre-sent others possesses a potential power to exert strong pressures against the independent judgment of those lawyers. Some employers may be interested in furthering their own economic, political or social goals        :
without regard to the professional responsibility of the lawyer to his or her individual client. Others may be far more concerned with establish-ment or extension of legal principles than in the immediate protection of the rights of the lawyer's individual client. On some occasions, decisions on priority of werk may be made by the employer rather than the lawyer with the result that prosecution of work already undertaken for. clients is postponed to their detriment. Similarly, an employer may seek, con-sciously or unconsciously, to further its own economic interests through      {
the actions of the lawyers employed by it. Since a lawyer must always be free to exercise his or her professional judgment without regard to the interests or motives of a 3rd person, the lawyer who is employed by one to represent another must constantly guard against erosion of his or her professional freedom.
(d) To assist a lawyer in preserving his or her professional independ-ence, a number of courses are available to him or her. For example, a          ,
lawyet should not practice with or in the form of a professional legal      -
l corporation, even though the corporate form is permitted by law, if any        J director, officer or stockholder of it is a nonlawyer. Although a lawyer        i may be employed by a business corporation with nonlawyers serving as            i directors or officers and they necessarily have the right to make deci-        I
(_                                                      sions of business policy, a lawyer must decline to accept direction of his or her professional judgment from any layman. Various types of legal          l aid offices are administered by boards of directors composed of lawyers and laymen. A lawyer should not accept employment from such an                i organization unless the board sets only broad policies and there is no interference in the relationship of the lawyer and the individual client he or she serves. Where a lawyer is employed by an organization, a written agreement that defines the relationship between him or her and the              I organization and provides for his or her independence is desirable since it may serve to prevent misunderstanding as to their respective roles.
Although other innovations in the means of supplying legal counsel may develop, the responsibility of the lawyer to maintain his or her profes-sional independence remains constant and the legal profession must ensure that changing circumstances do not result in loss of the profes-sional independence of the lawyer.
SCR 20.24. Refusing employment when the interests of the lawyer                  l may impair his or her independent professional judg-      -
I ment (1) Except with the consent of the client after full disclosure, a lawyer
!.                                                                may not accept employment if the exercise of his or her professional l
1 l
              . - _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ - = _ - - _ . - - - - _ - -                                                                                    '
 
M
                                                                                                                                    \
L
              /sq.T. M C '9'c,                                                  UNITED STATES                                      b" 0K                            .' 0, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION                      r /      -,
7
        .                                        n                                                                  C# & # .  /
e*h(a      ..t!-en V.' ASHIN GT ON. D.C. 2 0555 1,
                    .e gp .''
s
(                        ' Lp p I
* 37 yt 4 1
Orr:c: OF THE                                a ggy pg, 19g4 COMMISSIOrlER MEMORANDUM TO TIIE ClilsIR'4AN                                                    .
 
==SUBJECT:==
PERFOPy?d:CE OF REGION IV M'; recent trip to Fort St. Vrain has reinforced my concerns about the performance of Region IV.                    Fort St. Vrain was in poorer shape than any reactor I had visited in recent years.
Maintenance and housekeeping hac been neglected for a long time, discipline was poor.
It was appcrent that NRC inspectors and regional support had been pulled away from the operating plants to help get
  ,                                            Waterford and Comanche Peak into operation.                    I am very much
(                                            concerned that this has affected safety at operating plants, without the Corcaission even being inf ormed.                  Was this done en your :.n stru c t ion ?
finally, I have been informed that senior staff members have oeen subjected to strong pressure from Congress -- in the form of frequent and repeated telephone calls -- to get
                                                ' aterf ord licensed.      Are vou n. wa re of thi-s?
                                                                                                                    -                  l
                                                                                        /
f              /
                                                                                                            /                          I
                                                                                  ,/ -                  ip/ p  r Victor Gilinshy cc:  Co:r.missioner Roberts                                                          l Commissioner Asselstine                                                          j Corr.issioner Bernthal                                                          i l
SECY                                                                            j j
 
A                                                g,A A . [r MEMORANDUM FOR:              T. A. Rehm, Assistant for Operations, EDO FROM:                        John T. Collins, Regional Administrator, RIV
 
==SUBJECT:==
DRAFT OF POLICY CONCERNING RELEASE OF IN'ORMATION TO LICENSEES This memo is in response to your memo dated March 28,19E4, same subject as above, in which you requested comments.
Our comments are as follows:
: 1.      A policy concerning release of information is timely. Region IV has been following a similar, but unwritten policy.
: 2.      The draft policy does not prescribe how the licensee is to be advised (formally or informally). Region IV has, where appropriate, informally advised the licensee of issues and then independently assessed and formally inspected the licensee's disposition. This does not have the same degree of visibility as a formal letter to the licensee.              Region IV has no preference, but we feel that the method for advising the licensee should br uniform.
: 3.      Region IV would recommend that the scope of the policy should be broadened
(                      to include vendors.
'l
: 4.      Region IV would also recommend that it be made absolutely clear by the policy that public health and safety concerns will take precedence when required. Related information would be disseminated to the affected parties regardless of confidentiality or an ongoing inspection / investigation.
: 5.      There is a drawback to providing information initially to a licensee / vendor.
The initial inforrration in many cases, does not for example, identify that wrongdoing has ocCJrred. Often, especially in the case of vendor allegations, potential wrongdoing may not be identified until after the inspection (s)            l have been completed.          This situation makes it very difficult, if not        !
impossible, to determine whether the prompt release of information might            l compromise a subsequent investigation. It is recommended that the policy            l include a discussion which recognizes that the prompt release of infor-mation, which on 17e surface indicates no wrongdoing, may hamper a sub-sequent investigation of suspected wrongdoing. The position has to then E0:RIV                          R                                  AI # 84-168 TWesterman                      JCo. ins
{/4/84                        G/(/84 l
(
        ,          ..            y6 s                      ,
              't      1
: g.    .
          -      1      [_J_    '
 
                        *                      ~
T. A. Rehm.                                  I te that the cost of disclosure outweighs the benefits of prompt dis-closure.
The Region IV contact with regard to this memo is Thomas F. Westerman (728-8145).
el John T. Collins Regional Administrator, RIV cc:
P. Check R. Denise R. Bangart V. Stello R. DeYoung RA's I, II, III, V k
l i
 
(s f, f
                                                                                                          ~'
f KATHY CARTER-WHITE Attorney at Law 412 West Choctaw                                                  ^
Tahlequah, Oklahoma                  T
  .(                                              74464
        . wessa                                                                                    osa ,wm  ,
June 10, 1987 Mr. Lando Zech, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re:  Region IV Misconduct
 
==Dear Chsirman Zech:==
 
P 1'e a s e be advised that Region IV misconduct is not limited to the circumstance at Comanche Peak.
Last Spring, when area residents requested a conference with NRC, Sequoyah Fuels management, and themselves, what they got was a public meeting instead. I noted a letter submitted to the Local Public Document Room (unofficial LPDR) from Region IV to each and every employee of Sequoyah Fuels apprising them
(.        of their opportunity to appear and speak out for their jobs, which they did. No such letter nas sent to members of the groups which requested the meeting. The request did not include a request to listen to SFC employees whine about losing their jobs.
But thanks to card-shuffling by NRC Washington at the "public meeting" SFC employees were allowed to speak out of order, despite the fact that s number of protestants had arrived I hours early to insure they would be afforded the opportunity to raise some issues deserving of further consideration.
This type of "industyy bedfellows" protectionism is contrary to objective regulation for the public health & safety.
Ex parte communications with nuclear workers which promote job protectionism is antithetical to dignified administration and should not be allowed.      Please address a means of solving such problems in your analysis of the problem with Region IV.
Sincerely, l            !                                  Kathy Carter-White
      ?      :
IccW :
de: file                                                                                          j
(
1
 
t                                                {s 4 /C'
                                                                \                                                                                                    \
I I
1 were hospitalized in t          accident.            I'd like to look                                                            l
  ' 2 around; all' 37 are probably sitting here tonight and 3
just as healthy as the rest of us are.                        I say let's                                                      .
i reopen Sequoyah Fuels.
MR. MAUSShARDT:      Bob Bland,                          Arkansas 6
Peace Center.
7 MR. BLAND:  My name is Bob Bland and I'm with 0                            the Arkansas Peace Center in Little Rock, Arkansas.
8 We're concerned about this matter because we are                                                                          i 10                            downwind and down stream from Sequoyah.                              I'd like to                                          j l'
stop and ask these gentlemen a question:                            Did the NRC 12                            send a letter to every employee at Sequoyah Fuels
      '3                              inviting them to this meeting tonight? The truth. I'd N
l like to know if that's the truth that this commission                                                              ,
l 15                              invited every employee (inaudible) is that correct.
16                                        MR. MAUSSHARDT:      Letters were sent to                                                                        ,
17                            (inaudible) to each employee of the Sequoyah Fuels
        '8 l facility notifying them,of the meeting.                                                                                      ,
IS                                        MR. BLAND:  (inaudible)    I object to that type 20                            of procedure (inaudible) you had no right to (inaudible)                                                                  ,
21                                      MR. MAUSSHARDT: The intent of that letter was 22                          to notify people that worked at the plant that had the                                                                    ;
I We made a conscious                                                      ;
23                          most potential hazard facing them.                                                                                            ;
24                        effort to notify the facility through both press                                                                              i 25                      releases and advertisements that we took out in local                                                                  ,
International Litigation Services, Inc.                            75                                                j 1
 
                                                                                                                        .i i
54,. ll GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTADIUTY PROJECT 1555 Connecticut Avenue. NW.. Suite 202                                                  l Washington. D.C. 20036                                                  (202)232 4 550 1
July 10, 1987                '
M6 . Hubert D. Martin kegional Administrator NRC Region IV                                                                        l 613 Ryan Plaza Dr., Suite 1000                                                      !
Arlington, Texas 76011                                                                i l
                                                                                                                      ,  d HL: ALLEGATION No. 4-86-A-096, FOIA Appeal 87-A-35                              '
bear Mt. Martin:
The purpose of my letter is to obtain information on the utatus of the ollegation of Mr. Ed Stites. The Government Accountability Project and the law firm of Jones, Mack, Delaney &
Young currently represent Mr. Stites in all matters before the U.S.
j
                                                                                                                          )
Department of Labor and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Stites'          (NRC). See, attached authorization and release. Mr.
allegation  has been    outstanding for over nine months,
(                                since at least September        1986.
To date, we      have been unable to get any information regar  ding    the  status rave been advised through    of Mr. Stites' allegation from the NRC. We Act (FOIA)                        a response to a Freedom of Information still          request    that an  investigation of his allegation is in tiowe ve r , progress. See,  FotA  request 87-208, and appeal 87-A-35.
we  question  whether because Mr. Stites has not been          an investigation is in progress allegation                                given any indication that his is being pursued. NRC's failure to keep Mr. Stites appraised NRC policy. See,  of the  status of his allegation is a clear violation of ,
NRC-0517-057.                                            '
tHe's L : ea t itten t of Mr. Stites' allegation contradicts the claim that an investigation is in progress. First, Mr. Stites has never been fully interviewed by anyone from NRC. He has never given a sworn or notarized statement. Second, to the extent that sune of his concerns vrongdoing        issues, therelate to harassment NRC's                and intimidation Office of Investigations      and/or (OI) should        j 4
be involved. See, NRC-0517-052. Therefore, for matters involving harassment official to and/or      wrongdoing you would not be the appropriate NRC withhold information pursuant to our FOIA request.
I
 
  .q-(      Mr. Hubert D. Martin PAGC TWO about We .svuld appreciate it if you would advise us in writing, the status In particolar,              of Mr.been we have      Stites'  allegation asked  b      as soon a,s possible.
unawers to the following questions:y Mr. Stites to request the l
: 1. What
: 2. Who        issues has NRC chosen to investigate?
: 1. What are the investigating officials?
his    allegation?has been collected to support or refute evidence
: 1. What is the time tdble for completing the investigation?
NHC's retusal to provide Mr. Stites with any information negarding FOIA. We trust    his    allegation  is a violation of NRC policy and the        i prob l eia  in the very near future.that you will take immediate steps to rectify this '
Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
(
Sincerely, Richard E. Condit Staff Attorney cuet.osua CS : 1. Letter, M.
: 2. NRC response    Emerson 9/16/86 to FOIA appeal 87-A-35 c c : uei, u. Ila yeu Director, 01                                                                      ,
1 Charted Mullins Ot'fice of General Counsel l>onnie Grimsley l'reedom of Information Act Officer W6shington, D.C. 20555                                            -
ut i t es t e9 2 v. i t r : e l
i
 
E-o.>>
f-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the matter of                      )
                                                              )
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING            )  Docket Nos. 50-445-2 CCMPANY, et al.                      )
                                                              )          and 50-446-2 (Comar.che Peak Steam Electric        )
Station, Units 1 and 2)              )
(                            CASE'S PRELIMINARY PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT ON HARASSMENT AND INTIMIDATION
                                                          ,.                                                                  1 ANTHONY Z. ROISMAN Trial Lawyers for Public Justice 2000 P Street, N.W., Suite 611                                                ,
Washington, D.C.                                                              )
20036                                                      1 (202) 463-8600                                                                l Counsel for CASE
 
p-
                                                                                        - 237 -
                                          'IV.-
(:                                              I NS ENS I TI VI T Y/I N A C C E S S I B I LI TY/IN ATTENTIVENESS Of_ NRC' The inattentiveness and insensitivity of the~NRC Staf f to the concerns of QC inspectors at Comanche Peak about harassment, intimidation, and management non-support of quality assurance
                                                            'falso romcontributed    to' widespread
                                                                      .repor ting saf                  discouragement, e ty' violations.
The NRC contributed to the discouragement of QC inspectors in a number of specific ways:                            1 i
(1) remaining essentially inaccessible to QC
                                                            . inspectors who may have wished to confidentially voice concerns; (2) betraying the. confidentiality                    j of some inspectors who did voice concerns to the                      !
NRC; and (3) ineffectively responding to the concerns of QC inspectors that were brought to its attention.
A:      In General: Management's Ineffective Efforts to Ensure NRC Accessibility a
722. Several management personnel at Comanche Peak testified that'it -is widely known at Comanche Peak that employees were and are at all times free to bring concerns                                      t to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.                            For example, Gordon Furcy, Brown & Root site QA manager, testified that everyone on cite is aware that they have access to the NRC should they not'de able to get satisfactory resolution of their concerns through management. (TR. 41,105)                              Purdy also stated that he would be concerned if his people didn't have enough confidence in 'him or in other management personnel, such that they didn't want to give him " fir st crack" at their                                    .
L concerns. (TR. 41,110) 723. Other Applicant witnesses testified that employees J                  at Comanche Peak were made aware of their right to bring concerns to the NRC through the posting of NRC Form 3 on bulletin boards around the plant. (TR. 41,105)                                Gordon Purdy
_-___=___-__            . - . .
 
1
                                                                                                                                      -238-(.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  i i
testified that-the company also shows an audio-visual
                                            .pr esentation to inform employees of their right to contact                                                                                                                                              l
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        !}}

Revision as of 19:43, 4 March 2021

Transcript of 870727 Deposition of Bp Garde in Bethesda,Md Re Plant.Pp 1-127.Supporting Documentation Encl
ML20235H803
Person / Time
Site: South Texas  STP Nuclear Operating Company icon.png
Issue date: 07/27/1987
From: Garde B
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT
To:
Shared Package
ML20235H778 List:
References
FOIA-87-587 NUDOCS 8710010181
Download: ML20235H803 (495)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:- - - - - - - ORIGINAL Uh1TED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 50-498 50-499 , HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY (South Texas Project) DEPOSITION OF BILLIE P. GARDE LOCATION: BETHESDA, MARYLAND PAGES: 1- 127 DATE: MONDAY, JULY 27, 1987 FoD-87-l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 444NDcYasereet Washington, b.C. 20001 h1 

          ,                ,,, ,20,29                        (202) w =

PDR VERB --587 NATIONWIDE COVERACE

a CR31840.0L 1 DAV/sjg-i 3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  ! 2 NUCLEAR REGUL'ATORY COMMISSION 5 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD I' 3 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x 4  : In the Matter of:  : 5  : Docket No. 50-498 HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY  : 50-499 6  : (South Texas Project)  : 

                                                                                         ~

7 ___________________ 8 i DEPOSITION OF BILLIE P. GARDE 9 10 Bethesda, Maryland Monday, July 27, 1987 12 Deposition of BILLIE P. GARDE, called for examination { 13 pursuant to notice of deposition, at the United States Nuclear 14 Regulatory Commission, 7735 Old Georgetown Road, Room 6110, at 9:50 a.m. before DAVID L. HOFFMAN, a Notary Public within and 5 for the State of Maryland, when were present on behalf of the respective parties: 17 18 ANTHONY Z. ROISMAN, ESQ. Law offices of Anthony Z. Roisman, P.C. 19 Suite 600 1401 New York Avenue, N.W. 20 Washington, D. C. 20005 On behalf of the Deponent. 21 22 RICHARD CONDIT, ESQ. l' DAVID RUBINTON, ESQ. Government Accountability 23 Project 25 E Street, N.W. i 24 Washington, D. C. 20001 On behalflof the Deponent. . 25 

                                                                                                                                     -- continued --

ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 804D6-M46

l 2 I- ] APPEARANCES (Continued): (: WILLIAM D..PATON, ESQ. l ' KARLA D. SMITH, ESQ. 3 STEPHEN SOHINKI, ESQ. United States Nuclear 4 Regulatory Commission Office of General Counsel 5 Washington, D. C. 20555 On behalf of the Nuclear 6 Regulatory Commission. 7 ALSO PRESENT: 8 EDWARD TOMLINSON 9 , ROBERT GUILD ' 10 JIM'PIEROBON 11  ! 12 ( 13 14 1 15 

                                       .16 17 18   q 19 20 21 22 23 o

24 25 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 336-6646

3$ I 

                   ]                                  CONTENTS

(- 2 WITNESS EXAMINATION 3 . Billie P. Garde by Mr. Paton 4 4 5 , 6 1 7 8 1 9 EX'HIBITS 10 GARDE EXHIBITS IDENTIFIED 11 Exhibit 1 5 Exhibit 2 7 (' 13 Exhibit 3 17 14 Exhibits 4 thru 6 47 15 Exhibit 7 51 16 Exhibits 8 and 9 60 y7 Exhibits 10 thru 13 61 Exhibit 14 and 15 62 18 q 

                -19 i

20 21 22 23 i i 24 25 ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 80r.L346646 

 .8400 01 01                                                                                                                       4
  ' t. Vbw                                             1                               PROCEEDINGS 2 Whereupon, 3                                BILLIE P. GARDE 4 was called as a witness and, having been first duly sworn, 5 was examined and testified as follows:

6 MR. PATON: This is a deposition of Ms. Billie P. 7 Garde by-the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

                                                      ~8                My name is William Paton.               With me is Karla D.

9 Smith. 10 Ms. Garde is represented by Anthony Z. Roisaan. 11 'Mr. Roisman, would you indicate the names of the 

                                                  -12    other counsel.

( 13 MR. ROISMAN: Yes. My cocounsel are Mr. Richard 14 Condit and Mr. Dave Rubinton -- R-u-b-i-n-t-o-n. both 15 attorneys with the Government Accountability project. ' 16 EXAMINATION 17 BY MR. PATON: 18 0 Ms. Garde, did you bring with you today the 19 records that were requested by the subpoena? 20 A What records were requested by the subpoena, as 21 you define them? 22 O I will show you a document that I will mark as 23 Deposition Exhibit No. 1. 24 (Document handed to witness.) ( 25 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 I L .- - _ - - - - - - - -

8400 01-01 5 DAVbw 1 BY MR. PATON: ( 2 0 And ask you whether you are familiar with that 3 document. l 4 (Exhibit 1 identified.) l- 5 THE WITNESS: I have seen this document before. 6 BY MR. PATON: 1 7 0 Does that document refer to certain records that 8 you were requested to bring with you? 9 A It requests me to bring records or documents in 10' your possession or under your custody or control. , 11 0 Ms. Garde, if you will go a little slower. In 12 fact, whatever you want to do, but this will be Deposition 13 Exhibit 1. So it will be attached or it will be with the 14 transcript. 15 A Repeat your question. 16 0 Do you agree there are certain records referred 17 to in that document? 18 A Yes. 19 0 Did you bring those record with you? 20 A No. 21 0 May I ask you why? 22 A Yes. Because all the documents in my possession 23 or under my custody or control are protected from disclosure 24 by either the attorney-client or the work product privilege. 25 0 Did you bring with you, for example, any of the ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

8400'01 01 6 DAVbw 1 agreements that you have with the ledgers? (.

2. A No, I did not.

3 0 Can I'ask you how many written agreements, how 4' many individuals? 5 A You can ask me that. question. I can't from my. 6- memory, answer- that question. 7 0 There was an allegation, a statement by you, I 8 believe, _ in your January 20th letter that there were 36 9- people that you were either working with or you had 36 10 ' clients. Do you recall? 11 A- I-recall the January 20th letter, and I believe 12 the number that you cited is correct. 13 0 If you need to see that letter at any time, we 14 have a copy with us. In fact, let me read you a brief 15 sentence from that letter. 16 A May I see the letter? 17 0 Yes. Absolutely. 18 (Document handed to witness. ) 19 THE WITNESS: My counsel has provided me. 20 BY MR. PATON: 21 'O On page 1, the third paragraph, as. a matter of 22 fact, to make sure we are talking about the same document,-I 23 had marked this document as Deposition Exhibit 2. 24 .Do you agree this is a letter that you wrote to 25 Mr. Stello and to Mr. Mattox, dated January 20, '877 ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336-6646

8400 01:01 7 DAVbw 1 (Document handed to witness.) l ( 2 (Exhi' sit 2 identified. ) 3- THE WITNESS: This is a letter that was sent from 4 my office to Mr. Stello and Mr. Mattox. I don't remember if a 5 I was actually the person who wrote the entire letter. 6 BY MR. PATON: 7 0 I direct your attention to the signature at tne 8 end of the letter. Your signature was apparently supplied 9 by somebody else. 10- A Yes. 11 Q Referring to the first page, the third paragraph, 12 let me read that short sentence. 

  ,                   13                " GAP currently either represents or is working i

14 with approximately 36 current and/or former employees of the < 15' South Texas project. " f 16 A I see that sentence. 17 O Are those 36 clients of yours? j l I 18 A It's difficult for me to answer that question  !  ; l 19 with a yes or a no. At the time that this letter was i l 20 written, the number was correct. The number is no longer 21 correct. It has increased. I believe it is now 22 approximately 54 or 56 current and/or former employees. We 23 have an attorney-client relationship with those employees. 24 0 You said "we have." Tell me who you mean by . 25 that. ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6

l 8400101 01 8 DAVbw 1 A I'am an attorney admitted in the bar in the State 2 of Wisconsin. There are other people assisting me on the 

                                 .3  investigation, who are attorneys admitted in other                    l I

4 jurisdictions.or working under our direction. GAP, as you 5 know, is a public interest organization that has attorneys. 6 So when I refer to "we," I'm referring to either myself or 7 other attorneys at GAP. 8 0 Do you or other attorneys in GAP have an i 9 attorney-client relationship with all 54? i, 10 A Yes. 11 0 Are they written in every case? 12 A No. 13 0 Would you estimate in how many instances they are 14 written? 15 A Can I consult with counsel for a minute? 16 0 Absolutely. 17 (Discussion off the record.) 18 THE WITNESS: I believe we have written i 19 agreements in approximately half of the cases. 20 BY MR. PATON: { 21 0 You reside in Wisconsin? I 22 A Yes. ' 23 0 When -- approximately when, did you finish law i 24 school? 25 A I graduate in May of 1986. \' ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646

(8400101 0.1L 9  ! LDAVbw. 1~ 0- When did you take the bar? I (' 2 A In. July 1986. 3 0 .When were you admitted to the bar? 

                    ~ 4-             A. September 1986.
                    .5     '

Q This is probably not important, but do you happen 6 to recall the date? 7 A "My recollection is it was the 20th. It was l I i 8 around that time frame. { l 9 0 Around September 20, 1986. Do you agree, prior { 10 to September 20, 1986, assuming that's the correct date, 11 ~ whatever the'date was in September, that you were not 12; authorized to practice law. 13 (Discussion off the record.) 14 THE WITNESS: I can't answer that question with a 15 yes or no. 16 BY MR. PATON: 17 0 Please answer it any way you like? 18 A Before September 1986, I was practicing law in 19 front of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and in front of 20 administrative bodies, such as the Department of Labor. 21 Q Can you tell me, was this under the authority of 22 some other attorney? 23 A In the context of, was there an ettorney 24 supervising my work, the answer to that 1s yes. 25 0 Did you practice law in any other manner than you ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646

i 1 00 01 01 10 DAVbw 1 have indicated prior to September 20, 1986? 2 A I don't understand your question. l 3 0 Your testimony is that prior to September 20, 'i 4 '1986, you, in fact, practiced law before the Nuclear j l 5 Regulatory Commission, and this is before you were admitted l 6 to any bar; is that correct? 7 MR. ROISMAN: And Mr. Paton, and the Department 8 of Labor. l j I 9 MR. PATON: And the Department of Labor. 10 THE WITNESS: Yes 11 BY MR. PATON: 

 }                                                                         12         O                   You were admitted in Wisconsin?

13 A In September 1986, I was admitted in Wisconsin. 14 0 Have you been admitted to any other law bars 1 15 since that time? j 16 A I have not applied to admission to any other bars 17 since that time.  ; 18 0 How long have you been associated with GAP?  ! i 19 A 'As an employee? l 20 0 Yes. 21 A Since January 1982. 

                                                                                                                                                                                           )

22 0 Were you associated with GAP in some other 23 capacity prior to 1982? 4, 24 A Yes. 25 0 would you tell us what that association is? ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 { 1

l 8400 01 01 11 ( DAVbw 1 A As a client. l 2 0 What is GAP's function in the South Texas 3 proceeding that we're here today to discuss? 4 A I don't know what proceeding is. 5 0 That's fine. You and Mr. Stello exchanged 6 correspondence in the early part of 1987; ' is that correct? 7 A There has been an exchange of correspondence 8 beginning in 1987, in writing, with the NRC, regarding South 9 Texas employees. 10 0 okay. You are stating, on behalf of GAP that you 11 possess a number of allegations concerning the South Texas j 12 project? 13 A I'm not stating here anything on behalf of GAP. 14 That's not why I'm at this deposition. 15 Are you referring to statements in letters? I 16 mean, I don't understand what your question is. 17 0 What I'm getting at is, what is GAP's function in 18 this proceeding? If you don't like that question -- ? 19 A I don't understand the question. 20 The proceeding that we're in, I'm not sure what 21 that is. 22 0 The proceeding that we're in -- let me start 23 again. 4. 24 Either yca or GAP are claiming that you possess a 25 number of allegations in the South Texas proceeding ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646

8400LOl'O1 ~ 12 

     '( .Vbw          I  concerning the South Texas project.                                                                     l
                     .2            A                                                                                             l L                                        Okay. .Do-you want me to that?-

p l L 3 0 You are'having difficulty with, I think, some j 4 fairly straightforward questions, and if you would tell me i 5 what your difficulties are, I would be very glad to help.  ! In the beginning of the deposition, you asked me. 

                                                                          ~

6 A  !- i 7 a question of what does "we" mean, okay? Now'you.are using i i 8 a term "you," to me, personally. 'I an having difficulty l' 9 understanding the difference between you, referring to GAP, 10 you referring to Billie Garde, and you, referring to my I 11 clients who possess allegations. ). 12 0 okay. I don't want to get into a debate. Let me I 13 just make a little comment. In the document in which you 14 agree to represent clients, the document indicates that. GAP 15 is representing the clients. So I had a little difficult 16 with that myself, but I will try to straighten out the "wes" 17 and the "yous " 18 You are aware, in fact, you have stated in 19 letters, and by "you," I mean you personally, are aware of a 20 number of allegations regarding the South Texas project. 21 A I am aware of allegations regarding the South 22 Texas project. 23 O And there are other attorneys employed by GAP who t 24 are also aware of those allegations? , {~ 25 A There are. l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide CoveraFe 800 336-6646 

    .8400:01 01-13
  ,    .- Wbw      1        0     And GAP is performing some function with respect 2  to those allegations?'                                                       -l 3-       A     That's too general"a comment for me to agree or                    )

4- disagree'upon. i 5 0 Can you tell me what function GAP is -- what. is ] 

                  '6  GAP attempting to do about those allegations?

7 A Are you asking what'my professional mission is in 8 regard to the allegations? 9- Is that your question? 10 -0 Try me again. What was your question? 11' A Are you asking me, as~ an attorney, what my 1 12 professional mission is regarding either a client or an 13 allegation? { 14- 0 That's a good question. Would you answer-it yes? 15 A Each client, obviously, is different. So-I am 16 going to give you a general answer. Generally, clients have I 17 retained me or GAP or Richard Condit, specifically, either l 18- for the purpose of representing them in a discrimination 19 employment matter or for the purpose of insuring that 20 allegations that they possess that stem from.their 21 employment at the South Texas plant are investigated 22 properly and competently and resolved to their satisfaction 23 regarding their safety issue and safety of the plant. 24 In some cases, those two purposes overlap.  ! j' 25 Does that answer your question? I l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646 l - -.

8400 01 01 14  ! 

 .DAVbw        1          O     Yas.       Thank you.

( 2 Is GAP a corporation? 3 A I am not on the Board of Directors of GAP, and I 4 don't have the personal knowledge regarding its status to 5 answer that question. 6 0 I'm going to ask you later about the client 7 relationship. The reason I am asking you this question is, 8 it indicates that GAP will represent these people', and I 9 just think it's just a little unusual. 10 Do you know whether GAP is a partnership? 11 MR. ROISMAN: Excuse me, Mr..Paton. I believe 12 that I.can represent to you that the Government j 1 13 Accountability Project is a corporation, 501(c)(3) tax-( 14 exempt. 

                                                                                              ]

15 MR. PATON: I appreciate that. 16 Off the record. 17 (Discussion off the record.) 18 MR. ROISMAN: Let me just be clear about my 19 understanding. 20 MR. PATON: Let's go off the record a second. 21 (Discussion off the record.) 22 MR. ROISMAN: My understanding is, that until 23 you, in effect, raise your hand and say "Now, this is 24 information that I do not want to be made public," that

25 whatever is said -- for instance, whatever has been said up I

ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 

                 ,            202 347 3700         Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 L

8400'01E01 15 i OAVbw 1- 'until now, is on'the record and will;be available to us. l 2 MR.'PATON: . Absolutely. 3 MR. ROISMAN: I want you:to understands as soon 

                                                                                            .)

4 ashouraise.yourhand,Ms.GardeandIwalk. . We will not 1 { 5 remain here and answer'even the question whether we want 

                    .6    lunch or not off the deposition: record, if we want it on or 7  .in a closed deposition record, if.we want'it'open.
                    .8                MR. PATON:       This is the! reason. My; comment is 9-  this:    if I raise my. hand, it will be because.there is some 10    very small doubt in my mind about whether or not this matter 1

11: ~s hould be on the public. I will be sufficiently j 12 conservative,.so that when I go to others in the NRC and ask 

                 ' 13 -  them that question, I expect in my instances, the answer is 14    going to be, continue with the deposition.
 '(                                                                                           i 15                 So I am suggesting that if at that point, you 16    walk, it really isn't going to be very effective or 17    efficient.

18 MR. ROISMAN: No, but I cannot tolerate -- my H client cannot. tolerate a situation in which any word'that 19 20 she speaks here, which she is perfectly free to speak on the 21 steps of the U.S. Capitol, if she wishes, to 10,000 people, 22 should be kept under seal by the NRC, and if that situation 23 arises, and you-want us to keep talking, the alternative is 24 for us to postpone the deposition. I 25 We will bring in our own court reporter and ( l ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3364646

1

8400_02 02t 16

( DAVbw 'l record what'she says and be:able to make it public. But we Te i 2 ' understand that is~a fight we may have down the road and not- 1 

 'h                                                                                                                                 l 3 / now.                                                                                      -

j 4 MR. PATON: I'm suggesting.that yourJstatement, 5 that.the minute I raise my hand, you are going.to take a- - 

                                                                                                                            -i 6     walk, is really not very ' effective from anybody's point of
                                                                                      ~

7 view, but.obviously, that's your decision.- 8 MR. ROISMAN: But do you understand that we have

9. zero trust of the rest of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 10 who's going to make the decisions here, your bosses in the-  !

1 11 OGC,'the Commissioners themselves, Mr. Stello.- We are not 12 willing to leave in their discretion the question of whether 13 or not comments that my client makes. publicly, intending to 

  '{                              14 . ' be made publicly, will nonetheless be kept secret, not only 15       from the public but from her.

16 Now that's a situation that we've already seen 17 happen to clients that my client is representing, who have 18 come to the agency, given information to the agency and then 19' denied access to their own information. 

                                                                                                                             )

MR. PATON: 20 Mr. Roissan, I expected you to make I i 21 those statements. Thero are certain statements today I 22 expect Ms. Garde to make. I hope we don't go beyond 1:00 23 o' clock, in repeating those statements. Your position is 24 superclear. There are a lot of documents in the record to 25 indicate what your position is. I understand your position. {- i l 

                                                                 /\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

j 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646

8400 02 02 17 DAVbw 1- I am merely suggesting that for you to quote " walk," because { 2 I raise my hand without even waiting for a decision, which 3 says, yes, the deposition continues, is really not the way l 4 to go, but that's your decision. 5 Now may I continue? 6 BY MR. PATON: 7 0 Ms. Garde, I want to show you Deposition Exhibit 1 8 3, which is your affidavit which is attached to your plea in 9 response to, I believe, your motion to quash the subpoena. 10 (Exhibit 3 identified.) 11 BY MR. PATON: 12 0 Somewhere on this page, it says "Since 1985, I 13 have been retained" -- yes, beginning in paragraph 2, it { 14 says "Since 1985, I have been retained." 15 Now do you agree that that sounds a little 16 inconsistent with the fact that you were admitted to the bar 17 on September 20, 19867 18 MR. ROISMAN: This is not cross-examination, Mr. 19 Paton, and I am not going to have my client sit here and 20 answer questions, "Do you agree that that's inconsistent." 21 If you want her to explain to you why she says 22 that there and she said something else elsewhere, that's 23 fine. If you want to cross-examine here, we'll take a ten-24 minute break. I 25 MR. PATON: Mr. Roisman, I suggest that we have Li I L ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC. j 202 347 3700 Nationwide Cmerage RB336 6646

8400 02 02 18 DAVbw. .I had a lot of posturing this morning. I have been very 2 straightforward, unbelievably straightforward. For you to 3 take an' objection, because I ask her to say is it a little 4 inconsistent -- I would be delighted to amend my question 5 and ask her to explain it. I think we are being a little 6 overtechnical'here. 7 MR. ROISMAN: Let me very clear about this. Ms. 8 Garde was prepared to come here and ask questions in an l 9 atmosphere that wasn't cross-examination. Give us ten 10 minutes, I'll bring her back. 11 MR. PATON: I would be delighted to have the 12 question say, can you explain. That's fine. I think we are  ; 13 overworking this a.little. I'm being very straightforward,. ( 14 very easy going here 15 BY MR. PATON: 16 O Ms. Garde, explain it. Whatever you' want to do. 17 But can you explain that statement? I think Mr. Roisman 18 probably wouldn't object to that question. Maybe you can 19 answer that question. 20 A Yes. 21 0 Please. 22 A Since actually 1984, I have been retained by 23 employees who have concerns and discrimination complaints 24 against utilities across the country under Section 210 of 25 the Energy Reorganization Act. As I am sure you know, you a ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide CoveraFe 800-336-6646

"8400~02 02 19 DAVbw 1 . don't have to be an attorney to represent employees under 2 that Act, but it-is,-as I understand it, and as I think you 3 understand it, being retained and practicing law and 4 representing employees. Also since 1984, I have represented

5. employees in' licensing proceedings in the NRC since 1983.

6 I've represented employees in licensing hearings before the 7 Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In each of those case, I've 8 had a supervising attorney and the client and the presiding 9 judge were all aware that I was not an attorney practicing 10 g after admission to the bar. 11 My first retention by a South Texas employee was 12 in 1985. 13 Does that answer your question? [ 14 0 Yes. Thank you. 15 A I want to amend that to say, since 1982, because 16 I represented employees in both the Midland and the Zimmer 17 proceedings in front of the NRC in 1982, in front of the i 18 NRC. 19 0 You appeared in the Midland proceeding? 20 A Not as an attorney representing the Intervenor, 21 but as representing employees in front of the Commission. 22 0 Your recollection is that you made an appearance 23 in that proceeding representing clients? 24 A I think we're misunderstanding each other on the i 25 term " proceeding."  ! i ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 1 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 803336-6646

,18400.02: 32: 20 m p;iDAVbwi _l' 'Q Okay. L 2f A I thirsk rou're referring to operating license 4 L -.( x i ,- m 3 proceeding, and'I'm referring to investigations, and in some. ,f 

                '4 -    cases, those investigations led to appearances by witnesses 5       in a licensing proceeding.

6 _Q -1 Thank you. 1 7 Can you tell me when GAP'first became interested 8 in the safety allegations in the South Texas project.

9. I'm not trying to be tricky. You know, when,did
             '10       .you or GAP receive your first allegation?                                                                )

I don't want to obfuscate the answer to that 

                                                                                                                       ^

11 A q 12 question. 

                                                                                                                                 )
             ,13                                                                                                                 l Q      Please, if you have difficulty with anything,                                             j 14        just tell me.

f . 15 A' That's a very broad. question, which incorporates 16 both my professional judgment about the South Texas project.- 17 Am I worried about the South Texas project, based on 18 someone's allegations, and my understanding of what a 19 client's specific concerns were, regarding South Texas. I 20 received the first complaint about South Texas, personally, 21 in the context of workers I represented in 1985, where they ) 22 actually retained me, and in that casa, through the 23 Environmental Whistle Blower Protection Clinic, to represent 24 them against their employer at the South Texas project. 25 That's what I would consider the first allegation I k I Ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. [ 202-347 3700 Nationwide Cowrage 800 336-6646

8400 02 02 21 

       -DAVbw                                                  1 ' received.

2 Does that answer your question? 3 0 Yes. 4 A That may be different than in 1983. I read an l 5 NRC report in the PDR that made me think there was something 6 wrong with the plant. '! 7 O I appreciate your answer.  ; 8 Did you then pursue your interest in that 9 allegation (nr other allegations af ter you received 'your i' 10 first one? What I want you to recite is the history of your 11  ! interest in the South Texas Project allegations, but maybe , 12 you can't handle that. 13 I want to know, how did you first become ( 14 interested? < I A  ! 15 Your question assumes a number of things which I l i 16 don't think are correct. I take it that "you," in that  !

  • j 17 question was directed to GAP, organizationally. When did J 18 GAP organizationally become interested in the South Texas 19 project.

20 0 That's correct. 21 A That's an entirely different question than, when l j 22 did you, Billie Garde, take on the representation of l 23 clients, who believed they'd been discrimination against.  ! I 24 O Please answer the first question. Tell me about l 25 GAP's interest in these allegations? i f 

                                                                                                                                       !      l I

ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646

8400 02 02 22 DAVbw 1 A Before I can answer that, I have to tate to 2 counsel. 3 (Discussion off the record.) 4 THE WITNESS: Can you restate the question i 5 regarding GAP? 6 BY MR. PATON: 7 0 Please relate the history of GAP's interest in 8 the allegations in the South Texas project. 9 A GAP, as an organization, specializes in 10 representing whistle blowers or workers who have concerns 11 and believe they have been or will be discriminated against 12 for raising those concerns at some point in the receipt of 13 allegations. There is a difference between an isolated ( 14 whistle blower or allegation received from a plant and an 15 increasing stream of allegations that we received. Sometime 16 in early f all of 1986, there was a significant increase in 17 the allegations we received from the South Texas project and 18 workers who were calling GAP and either looking for me, 19 specifically, or looking for representation. And I made a 20 recommendat' ion to the GAP Board that decides what work that 21 we get involved in or what cases we can take, that we do a 22 preliminary investigation at the South Texas project. 23 That is a different recommendation and a 24 different process than saying, John Doe has called me and i 25 asked me to represent him in a whistle blower claim against f l4 l 

                                        /4CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC.

l- i 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 336-M46

F' I 8'400 02'02 23 ) DAVbw 1 Bechtel, and I believe the case-has merit, and we should i 

    .                   2   take it. That's a different process.

( --- L 3 0 I appreciate your answer. You made a 4' recommendation to the Board, I gather, that they pursue 5 their interest -- or what was-your recommendation to the 1 6 Board? 7 A That question aesumes there is an interest. 8 There is no interest of GAP as an organization to take on 9 South Texas or to take on a particular project. That's 10 wrong. 11 0 I don't really think that's what I asked, but 12 that's all right. 13- A Well, you said, " pursue your interest." That g 14 assumes the interest is already there. All right? 15 0 Okay. 16 A At some point, as I just stated, in the fall, I 17 made a recommendation to the Board that the number of  ! l 18 allegations that we were receiving on all fronts, convinced 19 me, in my professional judgment, that this was a very 20 troubled project, and that we should look further to see 21 whether or not the NRC had completely abdicated its 22 responsibility at the project and whether there was a ro19 j 23 that gap needed to play, in terms of getting the information i I 24 accurately eddressed. 25 0 And did the Board respond to your recommendation? I I I ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. , j 202 347-3700 Nationwide Cowrage 800-336-6646 1 1

8400'02 02 24 ) 1 DAVbw 1 MR. ROISMAN: Excuse me just one second. 2 (Discussion off the record.) I i 3 MR. ROISMAN: Mr. Paton, I just want to be clear j i 4 about something. You are now inquiring into a process ) I 5 within the Government Accountability Project. Mrs. Garde is- 

             .6 perfectly happy to t.nswer_your timing questions.                 I        I 7 understand why you want to ask them, but she will not answer
                                                                                           ]

( 8 the questions to the extent that you go beyond the timing to j 9 ask here the questions, what did the recommendation say or 10 what were the contents of the recommendation or anything 11 like that. , 12 I don't have any reason to believe that you are 13 going to ask t. hat, but I just want to be clear, as we go _( 14 down the path. She is very willing to give you the timing 15 answers. 16 MR. PATON: Let me try again. I asked her merely i 17 what did GAP decide to do about her recommendation. What 16 did they do in response to her recommendation. 19 Do you have any objection to that? 20 MR. ROISMAN: I don't have any objection to that. 21 MR. PATON: That's the only question I have. 22 MR. ROISMAN: I didn't want you to get any false 23 impression about where this could lead or that she was in 24 some way waiving any claims or right she might have. 25 BY MR. PATON: ( I i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800'336-6 646

m . 3 in 7 25 f840010202L. i 

   ~DAVbw            1       0    . WouldLyou-answer the question?          I'll' repeat the
2 question, if you want me to.

3 You indicated that you made a recommendation.to d the GAP Board. My question is, what was.the response? S' A They agreed with my professional judgment that 

                    .6  the flow of information indicated that a preliminary
7. investigation was in order.

8 0- Did you conduct that preliminary investigation? 9 A Yes. It's not completed. 10 0 Okay. 11 Can you tell me the result of that? 12 A No, I cannot tell you, because we haven't 

         , -       13   completed or concluded what is the preliminary investigative

( 14 state.  ! 15 O Can I ask you' the subject of that preliminary 16 investigation? In other words, what is the issue? Is the 

                  .17   issue how bad are things in South Texas?           Can you 18   characterize the issue, what it is you are investigating?

19 A I don't know if I can characterize the issue that-20 you are investigating, because. in a preliminary 21 investigation, you are attempting to determine whether or 22 not the regulatory process broke down at a plant and there 23- exist deficiencies or problems that have not been resolved 24 and are probchly not going to be resolved with the working 25 structurc3 in place. ('  ! l ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646

f8400LO2LO2 26- 

   .DAVbw .   :1                         Q  Am.I correct that you havo not reached a 2              conclusion?

4 

              .3-                          ' Any time L we need . a minute, just ~ go ahead.

4 Am I correct'that.you have not reached.a 5 conclusion as to whether or not the regulatory process has-6- broken down at South Texas? 7 A I don't want to lose. site of the fact here that. 8 we're talking about a process that began' after-we 9 represented clients in the context of discrimination 10 actions, who brought to us a series of concerns that we 11 began investigations-on behalf of those clients, in terms of 12 preparing for their Department of Labor -cases or ~ doing. their 13 Department of Labor cases or looking at tort suits. or 14 something 'else of that nature. 15 And in the context of that, we then lookedito see 16 whether the systems in place are going to resolve whatever 17 deficiencies or failures exist. 18 Let me give you an example. 19 South Texas has a safe team program. South Texas 20 claims that their safe team program will identify 21 deficiencies that workers have and deal with discrimination 22 complaints, so that everybody should be happy when they j l 23 leave South Texas or at least satisfied. Theoretically, if 24 that program worked, as Houston Light and Power envisioned 25 it working, and as the NRC relied on its working, then there k l 1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80(>336-6646

8400c02'02: 27 l I l l . DAVbw' 'l may 'not be a need for larger commitment of! resources by' GAP  ! 2 to clients. ' We would be able to say, go to safe team. We 

    .t-3  see that this works.                                                       !

4 So in order to be able to see if the systems are 5 working, or if we can just say, go to the NRC, at- this o , plant, you have gotLa top notch inspector. He's not going . 7 to letianybody harass you. He's going to take your I 8 concerns. -He's going to protect you. You don't need a l 9 series of GAP lawyers available to represent workers to do 10 investigations and to ensure that the process works. l 11- That's part of the preliminary investigative i 12 process. 13 Our preliminary investigative process concluded { 14 fairly early on by talking to clients, their witnesses,  ! 15 supporting witnesses to their cases, that those processes 16 had broken down and were not functioning in a way that would 17 protect our workers. i 18 Q I thought for a long time that you weren't going 19 to answer my question, but you answered my question. Thank 20 you. 21 Do you have any estimate as to when your 22 investigation, GAP's investigation will be concluded? 23 A Not until the NRC aspect of this proceeding is 24 concluded. ' 25 A preliminary investigation concludes with 0 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 20b347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646

8400u02-02. 28 ) DAVbw. l' anotaer recommendation to'the GAP Board. That 2 recommendation is either that -- it's not either/or, because l i E l l 3 it's different in every case, but it is generally that we  ! 1 4 believe we've flushed out all the concerns that are there 5 that haven't been resolved, that the NRC is back on track, ) 6 and they're working to resolve these concerns, and that is 7 not necessary for you to continue to represent new and more 8 workers that are coming out in front of the NRC or that the ( 9 allegations that have come forward have been brought , 10 forward, that there's a process that they can adequately be 1, e I 11 resolved in, and that discrimination complaints are resolved  !) I l 12 and the system is working. Or it might be that there is no j l 13 way that the process is going to work, and that it is going 14 to take a full-scale investigation by GAP to make the (. j ) 15 clients whole or resolve their problems and make sure that  ! 16 allegations and other concerns are adequately resolved and 17 fully investigated. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 i ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

8400' 03 03i 29' DAVbur 11 0 Do you have any conclusion right'now as -- if I 2 may use your expression -- whether the system will work? 

  ; l, 3       A      It is entirely, within .your hands, Mr. Paton.

4' 0 By "you" you mean the NRC7 5' A I would like'to put it in your hands. 6 (Laughter.)- 7 BY MR. PATON: 8 0 .Thank you. 9 (Discussion off the record.) 10 .THE WITNESS: Counsel has reminded me of two 11 things that make that answer more complete, and I think they-12 need to be on the record. 13 First of all, I want to be clear that the 14 preliminary investigation in that process that I have ( 15 described starts with workers who come to us whom we take 16 their cases and that out of those cases, out of those

17. discrimination cases that were based on -- I want to make 18 the record very clear on this. A worker doesn't come to us 19 with a Section 210 complaint unless he believes that he 20 raised internal safety concerns and was terminated or 21 harassed or somehow or another suffered some type of 22 discriminatory treatment as a result of attempting to raise 23 those safety concerns. ,

f 24 So it is an intermingled process where you are I L 25 looking at both the discrimination complaint and the safety h: l1 I ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336-6646 _ ___ .___ _ _._____ _ _J

l ! 840DIO3iO3 30 l DAVbur 1 concerns, and in order to defend a client properly, as I am 2 sure you know, you have got to look at everything that that i 3 person. brings to you. 4 There is a decision that has to be made in terms 5 of the amount of resources that GAP is going to be able to 6 put on each client's case. That largely comes from what is 7 the scope of the technical allegations that are raised or 8 what is the scope of the breakdown. 9 How does it stem -- how does the discrimination  ! 10 in terms of the termination affect the rest of the l 11 workforce? Are we talking about a pattern and practice of 12 discrimination here which can reasonably lead to a conclusion i 13 that quality control inspectors are not raising safety { 14 concerns or that welding department supervisors are not able l 15 to do their job and make proper judgments? 

                                                                                                   )

( 16 Do you understand? 17 BY MR. PATON: I 18 0 Can I interrupt you for a second? 19 I don't mean to interrupt you, but your answer is 20 a little lengthy. Help me with what issue -- I am not 21 trying to be funny, but what issue, what are you addressing 22 right now? 23 A You are asking me process questions, okay? I 24 Process questions are questions that have to have very open- l 25 ended answers because I have got to explain to you a lot of i ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. [ 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverare 800-336-6646 __-_-____-__a

8400 03 03 13 1 DAVbur 1 things that you don't seem to understand or' acknowledge 2 about the legal function that GAP performs. 3 0 okay. The thrust of my question was what does 4 GAP intend to do from now on, and you may be answering that. 5 A Well, that answer went more to the previous 6 question and answer about the process in terms of what GAP i 7 intends to do. 8 The supplemental answer that I have is to make 9 clear on this record that we already have reached a I 10 conclusion, and a firm one, on the ability of Region 4 to 11 not make the system worked as envisioned and as incorporated 12 by the regulations and that that conclusion equally applies 13 to the Executive Director and people under his direct 14 control. ( l 15 It is within the NRC's ability to put an 16 independent -- and I use that term somewhat loosely because 17 I mean independent of Victor Stello and Region 4 -- it is 18 within the NRC's ability to put together a team such as the 19 technical review team at Comanche, the team at Waterford, 20 the special inspection team at Midland to investigate these 21 concerns. 22 0 I gather that is what you want Mr. Stello to do? 23 A I don't want Mr. Stello to do it. At this point 24 I would think we would want the Commission to instruct that 25 such a team be commissioned. l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3366646 1 i

i-840'OLO3'03'. l 32 

  .F: Vbur-       1  I          Q     Okay, I think that is clear.

2 (Discussion off the record.) 3 BY MR. PATON: 4 Q I want to go back to your statement about your 

                 '5      not bringing the_ records with you that were requested by the 6      subpoena.

7 Is it your statement that all of those records 8' would have revealed information that you think it is 9 inappropriate to reveal? 10 A Yes. 11 Q I want to ask you a few questions about 12 allegations that have been received by GAP and others on 

 .I
               .13       behalf of GAP of the. South Texas Project.                                                                                               N 14                    Is 500 the correct number -- strike that -- what 15       is-the correct number of allegations that GAP now has?

16 And I fully appreciate, Ms. Garde, that if you 17 asked 10 people to count them they would all come up with a 18 different number. But just for the sake of having a number, 19 do you have a number? 20 A This is a dynamic process, as your own 21 investigations are. I believe the number is closer to 600 

             -22         at this time.

23 0 And growing? . l l 24 A Yes. ' L(. 25 0 I will show you Deposition Exhibit 2 in just a ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646 

                                            . _ _ _ _ _            ._ _         _                _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _       ______O

l l i 8400103 03 33 i Vbur 1 moment, but at the bottom of page.1, the large paragraph at 2 the bottom of page 1, you, or GAP rather, set out a 3 description of these allegations. Let me ask you whether 4 you consider that to be fairly accurate. 5 (Handing document to witness.) 6 THE WITNESS: I don't understand your question. 7 The letter is accurate. It is very, very general. 8 BY MR. PATON: ( 9 Q All Eight. s 10 MR. ROISMAN: Mr. Paton, could I just ask for a 11 clarification? 12 Did you intend by asking " accurate" whether this  ; l (- 13 generalized description was intended to be comprehensive? 14 MR. PATON: That thought had occurred to me, but, 15 no, I didn't. 16 RR. ROISKAN: i You just want to know whether any ] 1 17 of these were not correct, not whether there were others f 18 that might have been mentioned, even in a general way, that 19 weren't included? 20 KR. PATON: I really didn't get into all _that. 21 BY MR. PATON: 22 Q Your statement, I believe, is that when written 23 this letter in this respect is to your knowledge accurate; 24 it is not inaccurate to your knowledge? 25 A Right. 1 

                                             /\CE. FEDERAL }{EPORTERS, INC.                           f 202 M7-3700         Nationwide Coverage       800-336-6646         i a

L I l18400 03 03- 34  ; 

   '    Vbur-    1        0      Let's talk about roughly 600 allegations.                  I i

i 

                -2  believe that is what you said, something like that.                    I am
                                                                                                       )

3 not going to get fussy about numbers. 4 Is there any way that you could estimate the I l 5 number or whether there is a number of those that are not k 6 concerned with the safety of the facility, and by that I ) i 7 mean the hardware? l 1 8 A I believe we did that. There is a document, 

                                                                                                       ) l 9 which I am going to ask Mr. Condit to find, which makes a 10  reference to a percentage, which was also rough, regarding                            l t

11 the items that were safety related or wrongdoing. J l 12 0 Yes. ( 13 A In the 2.206 petition filed on May 29th,1987 in 14 the South Texas Nuclear Project, page 4 in the fact section, 15 end of the first paragraph. 16 0 I am very sorry, I got distracted. Page 4? 17 Okay. 18 A I am going to read this sentence, which answers 19 your question, which was accurate as of May 29th. 20 "Of the allegations reviewed, 21 an overwhelming number, 50 22 percent, pertains to the 23 safety of the plant. Oth6r 24 categories of allegations s 25 include wrongdoing, 37 percent; J ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

8400 03 03 35 

   ' vbur      1                intimidation and threats, 10 l               2                percent; and other concerns, 3 3-               percent."

4 Obviously, those percentages would change when 5 you add another hundred allegations, but I think that they 6 are probably similar. 7 0 Is it your position that each of the allegations 8 has been reported to the utility in some sort of deficiency 9 report? 10 I am trying to use words that I believe you used. 11 End of question. 12 MR. ROISMAN: Excuse me, Mr. Paton. Could you ( 13 just clarify whether you mean of all the allegations or just 14 the ones, the 50 percent that Ms. Garde has described as the 15 safety related ones? 16 BY MR. PATON: 17 0 Well, that is a good point of clarification. Let 18 me ask you. 19 Start with the 50 percent that are safety 1 20 allegations. l 21 A You used the term " deficiency notice." I think  ! 

                                                                                                                                )

22 before I answer the question I would like to clarify that l 23 deficiency notice does not refer to a specific form. 24 0 Absolutely. It is a general terme a 25 A It is my understanding and belief that the safety ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646

r 8400 03 03 36 i ' vbur 1 related allegations have been raised in some form to the 2 management at the site. 3 Now, when you are dealing with a situation where, 4 for example, quality control inspectors were deliberately 5 not allowed to write an NCR, the allegation has been raised 6 comebody ripped up an NCR in management. But the issue was 7 raised, okay? i 8 So I want my answer to incorporate that set of 9 circumstances. 10 0 Okay. So you are indicating that you believe 11 that at least in some instances, without getting into how 12 . many instances, reports have been made by the allegers that (' 13 were destroyed or may have been destroyed, whatever your 14 word is? 15 A It is my understanding and belief that many of 16 the allegations contained in the safety allegations were 17 improperly dispositioned or resolved. 18 0 Right. That is a little different, but that is 19 fine. That is your testimony, and that is fine. 20 But I think you indicated a minute ago that some 21 of these reports by your clients may have been destroyed? 22 A That is true. 23 0 Now, I will ask you a question that requires some 24 expertise that you may or may not have. I don't know. Do i' 25 you have any opinion? ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Co erage 800-336-6646

l .L8400:03 ?O3 37. I TVbur. 1 And'the question is.do you have any opinion as to~ j .. 2 whether the utility or the NRC could possibly find those 300 E 3 reports? 4 A Yes. 5 (Discussion off the record.) 6; BY MR. .PATON: 7 O If you don't mind, would you tell me what your 8 opinion is? 9 A Could you ask the question a little more 10 definitively? 11' You asked if I had an opinion on whether the NRC 12 or the utility could -find the concerns? 13 0 That is correct. 14 A My answer is, yes, I have an opinion. The 15 - opinion is that it is possible for the NRC to find the 16 concerns by interviewing all the allegers and by talking to 17- my clients about what those concerns are. I do not believe 18 that on the face of the record, which constitutes the South 19 Texas record, and not involving interviews of supervisors 20 and employees of the utility, which obviously includes both 21 HL&P and Ebasco, they are going to find everything. 22 O You would agree that in the posture that we are 23 in now we can't do that because we don't know who your 24 clients are?  ! i

25. That is not a trick question. Do you agree to ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646 l

c 8400 03 03' 38 I .Vbur 1 that? 2 A No, I don't agree to that at all. 3 .0 In other words, you are going to tell us the 4 conditions under which you would allow that to happen? 5 Let me start again. May we talk to your clients? 6 -A Not now. 7 Q Are there conditions under which you 'would. allow 8 the NRC to talk to your clients? 9 A Well, you have completely switched subjects now, i 10 and so I want to make sure that I understand what you are 11 asking. 12 0 Sure. I*  ; 13 MR. ROISMAN: I just want to make one thing clear 14 on the record, Mr. Paton, that the issue here is not Ms. 15 Garde allowing you to talk to her clients. The issue is her 16 clients allowing you to talk to them, and she is just here 17 as their spokesperson. 18 MR. PATON: Right. I didn't say that as well as 1 19 I should have. 20 BY MR. PATON: 21 Q Are there conditions under which your clients 22 would allow the NRC to talk to them or -- never mind. Go 23 ahead. l 24 If that gives you some dif ficulty -- 25 A I really would feel uncomfortable answering that  ! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 t 1 ! - --------_ _--- _ ---___ J

8400 03 03 39 I 'Vbur 1 question right now because there is no proposal on the table 2 about what conditions our clients should be talked to. I am 3 not prepared to discuss that right now. 4 0 But you did, I believe, attempt to work out with 5 NRC officials some appropriate conditions under which your 6 clients would agree to talk to the NRC, I believe, didn't 7 you? 8 A The history of this action here, as a result that 9 led to this deposition, included my attempts to get the NRC 10 to appoint a team of individuals with credibility, i 11 integrity, and competency that I envision would interview my 12 clients, yes. k 13 0 If your clients were able to conclude that the  ! 1 14 team that the NRC appointed was satisfactory to them, I l 15 believe it is quite straightforward that they would then 16 talk to the NRC; isn't that correct? 17 A That is a separate decision each of them will 18 have to make based on whatever the conditions are that exist 19 at the time of the interviews. I can't answer that question 20 here. 21 MR. ROISMAN: Mr. Paton, I hope that we are being 22 clear in your hypothetical. 23 If the Commission is setting up this kind of l 24 investigative unit, there may well be 200 other people whom 25 Ms. Garde does not represent, doesn't know, can only l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 l

8400 03L O3 40 I Vbur 1 suspicion on the basis of her own experience that other 2 clients exist who would also come and talk to that team 3 whom we don't even know about. 4 This was certainly the case at Comanche Peak, 5 where the team interviewed people whom none of us 6 - represented once there was a team established and its 7 credibility seemed to be there, and we only learned that 8 even any interviews had occurred af ter the fact, and we 9 still don't know the names of some of those people. 10 So I want you to understand that we don't know 11 who all the allegers are. Ms. Garde doesn' t know who they 12 all are, and the process that you have hypothesized might ( 13 prduce a much larger flow of people. . i 14 MR. PATON: I am not sure that I hypothesized ) 15 that. I got it out of some pretty clear pieces of paper. ( 16 BY MR. PATON: 

                                                                                                                      )

17 0 Do you possess any allegations concerning the 18 South Texas Project that you obtained from persons who are 19 not now your clients? 20 A Who are not now my clients? 21 Q Yes. People who you no longer represent or  ! 

                                    -22   people who you never represented.                                           1
                                                                                                                      ]

i 23 'A That is two different questions. 24 My understanding -- 25 0 People you never represented, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage I 80a336 6646

l 8400 04 04 41 ( Vbur 1 A I want you to restate the question now. 2 0 Do you have any allegations concerning the South 3 Texas Project that you obtained from people that you have 4 never represented at South Texas? 5 MR. ROISMAN: Are you talking again about only 6 the 50 percent so-called safety allegations? 7 MR. PATON: No- all of the 600 allegations. Yes, 8 the 600 allegations. All your allegations. , 9 THE WITNESS: I believe I have an attorney / client 10 relationship with all the sources of information that are 11 incorporated in what I understand to be responsive to your 12 subpoena. ( 13 (Pause.) 14 BY MR. PATON: 15 0 Can you tell me, Ms. Garde, whether it is part of 16 your understanding or your agreement with the allegers that 17 you say are your clients that they will waive their rights I I 18 under the attorney / client relationship if the NRC appoints a 19 group of people that is satisfactory to them to receive 20 these allegations? 21 A Is that my expectation? 22 0 I am asking you about your agreement with your 23 clients? i 24 A Your question assumes a number of steps. So let ) >t 25 me answer as I expect the process to have worked or to work. I 1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. j 

                                                         ,           202-347-3700       Nationwide CoveraFe 800 336-6M6            {

l

F;. Dc00 04 04 42 IL Vbur 1 If the NRC appoints a team of individuals which I 2 am able to conclude, based on my professional judgment, my L 3 knowledge of the NRC and of how the system works, that if I 4 reach a professional judgment that my clients' interests are 5 protected, their jobs are protected, their confidentiality 6 will be protected, and that they by speaking to the NRC do 7 not risk those interests which they have retained me to 8 protect, my expectation is that the majority of them would 9 talk to the NRC and that they are waiting for me to be able 10 to tell them that such a team of individuals exist. 11 I do not know, given all of this delay and the 12 hostility of the Agency, which of my clients will choose, t 13 based on my advice, to make a decision that they don't want i 14 to talk to the NRC under any conditions any more, regardless 15 of whether in December they told me they would talk to the 16 NRC if a special independent team was created. 17 Do you understand that? 18 0 Yes. 19 It seems very clear from your statement that your 20 clients are going to rely on your expertise in determining 21 whether this is a group that they can trust or not. That 22 seemed quite clear from your statement. i l 23 Is that correct? 24 A I think they are waiting to, yns. 4 25 0 You mentioned the word " hostility." ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8CKk3364 M 6 __ _______________ - - ______ a

1 l 8400 04.04 43

l. .Vbur 1 Do some of your clients believe that the NRC has l 2 acted in a hostile manner at some time?

3 A Yes. 4 Q Could you.tell us? 5 A The issuance of this subpoena necessitating my 6 recontracting all of the clients that I could get ahold of in 7 one way or another and the press coverage of the subpoena 8 and this whole debate with Stello saying turn over your 9 information and give me your workers and me having to say no 10 way has created a lot of hostility. 11 And I would like the record to reflect this, that 12 there was, according to one of my clients who is still i 13 onsite at the plant, a meeting within the last several weeks 14 at which Bechtel and HLEP officials made the announcement 15 that this subpoena had been issued and that by July 29th I 16 was going to turn over everything that I had to the NRC and l'7 that they should prepare teams accordingly to be able to put 18 these allegations to bed immediately. 19 Now, that group of people who received that 20 speech included some of my clients still at the plant, who 21 immediately then called me up to say what is going on. That 22 situation, created by this debate over what is going to 23 happen with them and their allegations, has required my 24 consistent assurances that I will abide by the terms of my 25 ag reeme nt . ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646

l 8400 04 04 44 ( Vbur 1 0 Of course, I think you understand there are two 2 sides to this debate. Mr. Stello no doubt would not 3 consider this to be a hostile act. I think he believes he 4 is merely doing his job. 5 Do you have any comment about that? 6 A Not on the record. 7 MR. ROISMAN: Go ahead. Give him a comment. 8 THE WITNESS: I don't think Mr. Stello does very 9 much that isn't a hostile act as directed toward whistle 10 blowers, and I mean that sincerely. 11 BY MR. PATON: , 12 0 Do you have any reason to believe that any of the i i 13 allegations that are part of the 600 have been provided to , 14 the NRC7 15 A Yes. 16 0 By whom were they provided? 17 A The group of clients that I represent includes a 18 class of individuals who have ongoing litigation against 19 Ebasco or Bechtel or one of the individuals involved in 20 South Texas, and in some of those cases the substance of 21 their concerns has been communicated to the NRC through 22 either the public record -- for example, the NRC gets copies 23 of all Department of Labor complaints. Some of those 24 complaints contain substantive allegations. Some of them, 25 all of them, contain allegations of violations of 50.7. 1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 

                                      .02 347-3XX)       Nationwide Coverate         800 334 6646

8400 04 04 45 i Vbur 1 So in terms of that class of employees, I believe 2 the NRC does have knowledge of the existence of concerns and 3 allegations. In some cases before the clients got to us, 4 they attempted to go to the NRC or they went to the NRC or 5 their information was communicated to the NRC. 6 So, yes, I think that some of the information is 7 in the hands of the NRC. 8 0 Do you have any idea how many clients have 9 conveyed their allegations to the NRC in the manner you have  : 10 just described? { 11 A A very small number, but I couldn't tell you 12 exactly. 13 0 Did they attempt -- when they revealed this 14 information to the NRC, did they attempt to keep that 15 information under wraps in any manner? 

                                                                                                                              )

16 A I can't answer that question in general. 1 17 0 Will you tell me what the 600 allegations are? 18 A No. 19 0 Will you tell me why you won't tell me? l 20 A Yes. i 21 0 Please do so. 22 (Laughter.) 23 THE WITNESS: Are you just going to let me 24 extemporaneously? 

                                                                                                                               )

25 , 4 l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 l Nationwide Coverage 800 336-(646 I

8400 04 04 46 f~ Vbur 1 BY MR. PATON: 2 0 Yes, I am. I fully intend to do that. If you 3 would like to take a break, that is. fine. Whatever. 4 (Discussion off the record.) 5 THE WITNESS: Mr. Paton, as I explained to you in 6 my affidavit and its various attachments and as is explained 7 in the 2.206, there has been a history of Region 4 failing 8 to take proper action in response to allegations. 9 That failing to take proper action includes the 10 release of the confidentiality of workers who contacted them i 11 with information. I 12 It includes the failure to conduct competent ( 13 inspections and take any meaningful enforcement action. l 14 It includes the inability to ensure that the 15 inspection and enforcement program in Region 4 operated for 16 the last decade in a manner to ensure that the nuclear 17 plants in that region are safe. 18 There is a variety of examples incorporated in 19 the motion to quash and in the 2.206 which I want to include 20 in the record just by reference. I will address them first,  ! l 21 and then I have a few more that I want to incorporate.  ! 22 MR. ROISMAN: Excuse me. It may be simpler. Why 23 don't we simply mark the two documents as exhibits and we 24 will provide the reporter with a copy. Since you already i 25 have one, we already have one, it is not necessary to make 

                                                                  /\CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC.

3 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646

8400 04-04 47

8. Vbur. 1 extra copies of it, but you will have it for the official 2 record copy.

3 MR. PATON: Which documents are you talking ) 4 about? 5 MR. ROISMAN: We are talking about the 2.206 ) { 6 petition and the motion and memorandum to quash. , 7 MR. PATON: Do you want to give him a copy? 8 MR. ROISMAN: That way we can refer to them by 9 exhibit number. 10 So, Mr. Reporter, we will make -- the Deposition 11 Exhibit No. 4 will be the motion and memorandum to quash 12 subpoena which was filed on behalf of Ms. Garde on May 29th, ( 13 1987. 4 14 (Exhibit 4 identified.) 15 MR. ROISMAN: Exhibit No. 5 will be the petition 16 of the Government Accountability Project, also dated May 17 29th, 1987, pursuant to 10 CFR Section 2.206. 18 (Exhibit 5 identified.) 19 MR. ROISMAN: To complete this group of exhibits, 20 Exhibit No. 6 will be the Wisconsin Code of Professional 21 Responsibility. My client advises me that she will provide l i 22 the reporter with an unmarked copy of that. , i 23 This is the Wisconsin Code of Professional 24 Responsibility. 25 (Exhibit 6 identified.) 1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3E6646

i j l l 8400-04 04 48 I 1 ( Vbur 1 (Discussion off the record.) l j 2 MR. ROISMAN: Exhibits 4 a'nd 5, my understanding i 3 is that there are copies of those already in Mr. Paton's 4 possession, a copy of course in our possession, and then 5 when transcripts are made available of this they do not need j l 6 to be reproduced, a; least as far as we are concerned. j 7 i Exhibit No. 6, however, is one that has not been i 8 i previously put on the public record. It is not very long i 9 either, and it should be reproduced to the same extent that i 10 ) you would reproduce the other exhibits. 11 THE WITNESS: Before all these procedural ) 

                                                                                                                        )

12 l matters, Mr. Paton, you basically asked me a question of ) 

      ;                              \                                                                                  i
      \                          13           why, and I understand --

14 BY MR. PATON: I 15 o Go ahead. You understand the question. 16 A I understand that question to be why is it my 17 professional judgment that Region 4 will not properly 1 18 process allegations or will handle my clients in a way that 19 is violating interests that I am supposed to protect. 20 Is that the question? 21 0 Please answer that question. My question was why 1 22 won't you provide us with the allegations? 23 A Do you want me to answer that question? 24 0 Also. I 25 MR. ROISMAN: Excuse me. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646 l 

                                                                                           ..l 8400 04 04                                                                         49 i Vbur     1               (Discussion off the record.)

i 2 THE WITNESS: You are not asking me the basis? l 3 BY MR. PATON: 4 O The basis for the exercise of the attorney / client 5 privilege. Ms. Garde, I want to ask you two questions and 6 then let you answer them both. Because the answers may be , l 7 lengthy let me put the two questions to you Letore you j 8 answer. 9 The first question is does your client -- do your 10 clients have any reason to believe that if the allegations 11 they possess were turned over to the NRC they would not be 12 appropriately dealt with by the NRC? 13 The second question is if your clients are 14 exercising the attorney / client privilege with respect to 15 this information, provide the basis for the exercise of the 16 attorney / client privilege. 17 Off the record. 1 18 (Discussion off the record.) 19 BY MR. PATON: 20 0 The second question is amended to provide the 21 basis for their exercise of the attorney / client privilege 22 and the work product privilege. 23 A The answer for the first question is "yes," and 24 the basis question is addressed in both the motion to quash e 25 and the 2.206, which have now been incorporated into the 1 1 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646 

-8400 04 04                                                                              50

(-.Vbur 1 record. Exhibit 4 is the motion and memorandum to quash 2 subpoena. Exhibit 5 is the petition of the Government 3 Accountability Project pursuant to 10 CFR. 2.206. 4 Both of these documents contain a series of 5 examples which are explained in the motion and in the 6 petition and demonstrate a pattern and practice of Region 4 7 as well as Mr. Stello of failing to comply with federal 8 regulations that set forth Region 4 's -- the requirement for 9 Region 4's conduct in regards to allegations. 10 I would like to supplement these two documents by 11 incorporating several other examples and documents which set 12 forth the basis. I 

  \         13                       Is that acceptable?

14 0 I have no idea what the other documents are. 15 A Well, documento and examples. 16 0 Could you give me some idea of what those are? 17 A Yes. In 1984, Victor Gilinsky wrote a memorandum l 18 to then Chairman Palladino regarding Fort St. Vrain. That 19 memorandum starts with the statement: 20 "My recent trip to Fort St. 21 Vrain has reinforced my 22 concern about the performance 23 of Region 4. Fort St. Vrain 24 was in poorer shape than any 25 reactor I have visited in ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide CoveraFe 800-336-6646 ______-____-__--_-__a

r 

 '8400104 04                                                                                               51 I LVbur     1:                recent years."                                                                j 2                 It goes on to' discuss substantively some of the 3     problems that he saw..

4 0 Could I ask you, Ms. Garde, how did you obtain 5- this document? 6 A You can ask me, but I am not going to answer. 7 0 Could I see the document? 8 A Yes, you can mark it as an exhibit. 9 MR. ROISMAN: Let's mark the memorandum that Ms. 10 Garde has just referred to as Exhibit 7. l 11 (Exhibit 7 identified.) i 12 ~ MR.'ROISMAN: And have it bound and reproduced 

   '(

1 13 when the transcript is reproduced. 1 14 I am giving the reporter a copy. j 15 Ms. Garde, would you please indicate whether the 16 markings in the upper righthand corner were on the document I 17 when you got it or you added them or someone added them? 18 THE WITNESS: Yes. The handwriting in the upper 19 righthand corner is mine. 20 BY MR. PATON: 21 0 Let me ask you again, Ms. Garde. You say you 22 will not advise me where you obtained this piece of paper, 23 this May 29th memo? 24 A I will not. t I 25 0 Can you give me the general reason that you won't ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 

                  ;            202-347 3700          Nationwide Coverage                       8(G336-6646       j I
                                                                                                              .J

i

8400 04 '

52 1

( .Vbur l' -tell me?-  ;

2- MR. ROISMAN: Wait. Before she'gives you the. 3 general reason, maybe, Mr.'Patpn, you could state on the 4' record what dif ference it makes . to the subject matter of the 

                                                                                               .i 5     deposition.

6 MR. PATON: I don't think I.want to do that 7 because I have' never seen this document before and Ms. Garde - t 8 pulls it out.of her file and then says I won't tell you 9 where I got it. It appears to be on the NRC letterhead,'but 10- she won't give me any idea where she got this document. 11 MR. ROISMAN: Well, I am not going to let her q i 12 answer any more questions in regard to the question of where (' 13 she got it or even why she won't tell you. I don't think 14 you have any right to know where she got it from. 15 If you doubt its veracity, go and check the 16 records of the NRC. 17 MR. PATON: Well, her statement that she won't 18 tell me where she got the document from indicates to me that 19 perhaps the document is not in the public record. 20 BY MR. PATON: 21 0 Do you know whether the document is in the public 22 record? 23 MR. ROISMAN: She is not going to answer that 24 question either. 3 R25 Let's just hypothesize Mr. Stello gave it to her ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 3 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 Y-__---_______________

8400 05 05 53 I' Vbur 1 last night at dinner. What difference does~it make where it 2 .came from? This is either a genuine document, which you can 3 easily check and we can't, or it is-not. 4 MR. PATON: I am a little troubled by Ms. Garde's 5 unwillingness to tell me where she got this document ~from or 6 'whether or not it is on the public record. If it is on the 7 public record, that is pretty simple. 8 MR. ROISMAN: I don't think there is any reason 9 to be troubled by that at all because this deposition has 10 nothing to do with Ms. Garde's technique for doing 11 investigative work. 12 BY MR. PATON: ( 13 0 Let me ask you this question. Do you know-14 whether this document -- 15 MR. ROISMAN: I am not going to let her answer 16 that question either. 17 MR. PATON: I am not asking her whether it is on 18 the public record. I am asking whether she knows it is on 19 the public record. 20 MR. ROISMAN: No, because it is outside the scope 21 of the subpoena. L 22 MR. PATON: Then why are you introducing it? 23 MR. ROISMAN: Because the subject of the document 24 has everything to do with the deposition. t 25 If you want to test whether or not it is a valid ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 

               ,             202-347 3700        Nationwide Coverage                           800-336-6M6

8400'05 05 54 T I' #bur 1 document, it is'okay with us. Please let us know. 2 MR. PATON: And your statement is if I raise my 3 hand, you are leaving? 4 Off the record. 5 (Discussion off the record.) 6 (Recess.) 7 MR. PATON: Let me make a short statement about 8 the May 29th, 1984 memo. 9 Are we marking this? 10 MR. ROISMAN: It is marked as Deposition Exhibit 

                                          .11   7, and we have provided the reporter with a copy.

12 MR. PATON: Is this mine? 

     'i A-                                   13                MR. ROISMAN:           That is yours to keep.

14 MR. PATON: Out of a super abundance of caution, 15 I would just note for the record my objection to the future i 16 use of this document based on the fact that Ms. Garde, who 17 is introducing this document, refuses to even tell us where ' 18 she got this document or whether or not it is on the public 19 record. 20 So to that extent, I object to the document. I 21 MR. ROISMAN: I just want to note for the record 22 that if it is a genuine document it is. irrelevant where she 23 got it or whether it ever was on the public record. It is a 24 document, the contents of which are obviously pertinent to 25 the subject, and that if there is a question as to whether l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 3 202 347-3700 NationwiJe Coserage 8(Xb336-6646

n. 

  '8400 05 05                                                                                                '55
         ~

(iVbur l' 'it is real, of which;I have no' question, that is easily 2 determined by the. Agency. 3 MR.JPATON: It would probably be a little more 4- easily determined by Ms.- Garde, who has presented the 5 document here. 6 -MR. ROISMAN: I assume the easy way to find out 7 whether it is real is to ask Mr. Gilinsky, a former 8 Commissioner, which-I assume current Commissioners could 9 'more easily do than we could do. 10 MR. PATON: That will take a few minutes, and Ms.- 11' Garde probably will not want me to interrupt this i 12 deposit' ion. k 13 MR. ROISMAN: _ It is all right. We are putting it 14 in as part.of what she relies upon in answering this 15 question. 16 MR. PATON: I think the record is clear. 

                               '17                        MR. ROISMAN:       Okay.

18 THE WITNESS: With this example, in the example 19 the first document that I relied on was the May 29th, 1984 20 memo, which has now been marked as Exhibit 7. Although 21 short, it is clear from the memo that Mr. Gilinsky's view of 22 the Fort St. Vrain project was negative and that his 23 negative view of that plant reinforced his concerns about 24 Region 4. 25 I would note by way of information on the public ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 3 202-347-3700 Nationwide CoveraFe 800-336-6M6 L

8400 05 05 56 ( iVbur 1 record.that the reason for Fort St. Vrain's being in that 2 condition on May 29th, 1984 is possibly, and I believe 3 probably, explained by a statement or statements referred to 4 in an April 27th, 1987 edition of Inside NRC, which 5 discusses OIA on the first page, an article entitled "OIA 6 Probing Charges of Inspector Intimidation at Fort St.- 7 Vrain,"'and refers to an OIA. investigation into charges, 8 allegations of harassment very similar to the allegations of 9 harassment and intimidation at Comanche Peak, occurring j l 10 apparently between December 1980 and June 1985. j 11 I don't object to this page being entered into l 12 the record, but I need a copy of it, as this is the only l 

 /
                                                                                              )

13 copy I have. 14 MR. ROISMAN: Do you want a copy of that in the 15 record?- It is a publicly available reference. 16 MR. PATON: I foresee some problems with that, 1 l J 17 but go ahead. 18 MR. ROISMAN: We will leave it as a cited 19 reference. i 20 ! THE WITNESS: And this narrow example regarding i l 21 Fort St. Vrain is one of the bases that leads my clients to 22 conclude that the Region 4 management is not interested in 23 hearing about problems at the South Texac Project and, if l 24 they hear about them, are not going to do anything about 25 them. ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I, 202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-334 6646

1 1 l 8400 05 05 57 ) i i Vbur 1 I would also note for the record the statement in I 2 the Gilinsky memo's last paragraph regarding the senior ] 3 staff members being subjected to strong pressure from i 4 Congress in the form of frequent and repeated telephone l 5 calls to get the Waterford plant licensed. I 6 Waterford is another plant in Region 4 that 7 required the NRC to expend on it several million dollars in i' 8 efforts at the end of construction in order to review 9 allegations given to them by workers at the Waterford 10 project, which ultimately led to extensive rework at the i 11 plant. Those problems were not identified by Region 4 12 inspectors. 13 It is my clients' view and my professional 14 jtsgment that the Waterford situation also results from 15 Region 4 management's failure to require proper inspection 16 programs according to the NRC's chapter manuals and 17 harassment and intimidation of regional inspectors who 18 attempted to pursue allegations at that plant. 19 The second example that I want to give you that 20 is the basis of the conclusions comes from a document that 21 is in the public record. It comes through FOIA 86-215, 22 which sought all the documents regarding the development of 23 allegation policy, allegation processing policy, and 24 incorporates and includes memos from the various reg, ions i I l 25 regarding a draft of a policy concerning release of ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. i 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage E00-33M646 l

2 8400 05 05 58 L -maur 1 information.to' licensees that was-circulated by Mr. Reim. 2 Mr. Reim's: memo, which this memo comments on and 3 I am going to introduce, is dated March.28th, 1984. .The 

                     '4       memo that I am using has.no'date on it, although'it'is 5     indicated'from John T. Collins, Regional Administrator, 6     Region 4, Memorandum for T. A. Reim.                                         Although not dated, 7     the sign-off blocks on the bottom by Mr. Westerman and Mr.

8 Collins are:4/4/84 and 4/5/84. 9 The memo states: 10 "In response to your memo { l I 11 dated March 28th, same subject 12 as above..."  !

4. i
                  ' 13                    Again, so the record is clear, that subject is:

14 "A Draft of a Policy Concerning Release of Information to 15 Licensees." 16 Mr. Westerman's first comment is: 17 "...a policy concerning release of 18 information is timely. Region 4 i 19 has been following a similar but. 20 unwritten polier." 21- That is paragraph 1. 22 Paragraph 2 says: i 23 "The draft policy does not prescribe  : 24 ow a licensee is to be advised, 25 formally or informally. Region 4 I l ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 l

8400'05 05 59 b'Vbur 1 has, where appropriate, informally 2 advised the licensee of issues and 3 then independently assessed and 

               -4               formally inspected the licensee's 5              disposition.        This does not have 6               the same degree of visibility as 7               a formal letter to the licensee.

8 Region 4 has no preference, but we 9 feel that the method for advising i 10 the licensee should be uniform." 11 And it goes on into three other paragraphs. 12 I would note that described in paragraph 1.and 2 ( - 13 is an unwritten policy, which is exactly what the public 14 interest community and the workers have announced and since 15 1979, that I am aware of, Region 4 has been following and 16 that the NRC has adamantly denied it was following, and it 17 confirms my clients' fears that any information given to 18 Region 4, at least during this time frame, was in fact -- , l 19 informally that is, not on the public record -- given to 4 20 licensees, independently assessed, and then dispositioned, . I 21 which is exactly their fear.  ! 22 MR. PATON: Could we have a copy of that? i l 23 MR. ROISMAN: This is going to be marked as L 24 Exhibit 8, and if you will make the mark on there. Why t 25 don't you let him put a mark on it, Billie? I l l t 4 

                                          /\CEJFEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC.                                            l
                  ,            202-347-3700        Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646       -

1 I

h8400.0505 

         ~

60-l ..~' 'Fbur 1- As soon as we get to the xerox, we will make I 2 copies. 3 (Exhibit 8 identified.) l 4 MR. PATON- Let me ask you this -- off'the 5 record. 6 (Discussion off the record.) 7 MR. ROISMAN: Let's go on.the record. 8 As she gives them to me, I will give them exhibit 9- numbers. Billie, you want both of these? Okay. j y 10 Exhibit No. 9 will be a letter dated June 10th, 11 1987 to Landa 2ech --  ; I 12 MR. PATON: Tony, could I interrupt for a second? 13 This~is a little disorderly, in that I am sitting over here, i 14 I have never seen anything, and you are telling the 15 reporter. 16 Let me look at it. 17 MR. ROISMAN: I don't. mind you looking at it. 18 Let me just ask Billie something. Was this 19 attached to the letter? 20 , THE WITNESS: No. l 21 j MR. ROISMAN: How do I identify it? i 22 THE WITNESS: It is a page from a transcript of a J 23 public meeting. 1 l 24 (Exhibit 9 identified.) . 25 MR. ROISMAN: Exhibit 10 is the page of a l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 

                  ;            202 347-3700       Nationwide Coverage               800-336-6M6

= Y- 

        '8400 05 05                                                                                61

( 'Ubur- 1L . transcript of a public meeting which the witness will i 2 further identify. 3' MR. PATON: Just give me enough so I know that { J 4 either I have or don't have a problem. 

                                                                                                       ]

i (Exhibit 10 identified.)

5 6 MR. ROISMAN: Exhibit 11 is a letter dated Ju'.y 7 lith, 1987 to Robert D. Martin from the Government 8 Accountability Project. l 9 (Exhibit 11 identified.) j
                         '10                MR. ROISMAN:       Exhibit 12, while this is a famous 11   document,'this is a portion, page 237 through page 247, of d
                          -12   cases of a preliminary proposed findings of fact on b            13   harassment and intimidation in the Commanche Peak                     J 14   proceeding, obviously a public document.

15 (Exhibit 12 identified.) . 16 MR. ROISMAN: Exhibit 13 is a set of four 17 letters, either from the Government Accountability Project 18 or to the Government Accountability Project, all related to 19 the Wolf Creek facility, and the four letters together are 

                                         ^                                                            '

20 Exhibit 13. 21 MR. PATON: Okay, these are all together? 22 MR. ROISMAN: Yes. 23 (Exhibit 13 identified.) l 24 MR. ROISMAN: Exhibit 14 is related to the case i \ 25 of David Williams against Arkansas Power & Light, two j 

                                                                                                       -1 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

1 8400 05:05'-' 62 I ( Mbur 1 separate documents. . 1 2' , (Exhibit 14 identified..') 1 3 MR. ROISMAN: Exhibit 15 are some additional 4 ' documents, also.related to Arkansas Power & Light, a package 5- of those and a number of memoranda and meeting notes, al~so 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               )

6 all public record. 7 (Exhibit 15 identified.) ) 1 8- MR. ROISMAN: That takes care of Exhibit.15. J 9 I'am now' going to hand you a package.of ] l 10 documents, Mr'. Paton, one, two, three, four, five, six, - 11 seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 separate documents, 12 some with multiple pages, which Ms. Garde may rely upon in 13 answering the question which is still pending but will not I be introduced as exhibits -- at least.these certainly all 11 4 15 won't be introduced as exhibits -- that we will proffer to I 16 you for your perusal during this lengthy lunch hour, which l 17 we would appreciate receiving back and which you may copy if 18  ; you wish. 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               )

19 MR. PATON: Let me ask a question on the last j i 20 group of papers. 5 21 BY MR. PATON: j i ) 22 0 Can you say that all of these papers are in the f I 23 public record? . 

              -24                                                                                                   A                                                          They were provided to me under the Freedom of 25                                       Information Act.                                                                                                                                                                       i l

ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I' 202 347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-336 4 46

1 L 8400 05 05 63 ( ( Vbur 1 0 All right. 2 Can you say as to all the deposition exhibits l l 3 that have been put in the record by you, with the exception l 4 of the one document on which we had some dispute, that all 5 of those documents are in the public record or were obtained 6 by you under FOIA? 7 A Yes. 8 MR. PATON: That solves a lot of problems, okay. 9 Be fore we depart, I hope we can get an agreement 10 on the deposition papers. I hope you realize this was a 11 rather rapid blur of paper.  ! 12 We have no dispute on 1, 2, and 3. i 13 4 and 5 were the GAP motions and the petition, 14 which we agreed not to bind. They will not be attached to l 15 the transcript. 16 i MR. ROISMAN: One copy will be attached to the  ; i 17 official copy of the transcript. j i 18 MR. PATON: We agreed we would give one to the j 19 reporter, right. j 20 6 is the Wisconsin Code. I 21  ! 7 is the document on which we had some dispute. I 

                                                                                                    ]

22 I don't have 8.  ! 23 MS. SMITH: 8 was the Inside NRC, I beli9ve. 24 MR. ROISMAN: No. 8 was the memorandum from i 25 Collins to T. A. Reim, with the signature lines on it. I ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 

                  !            202 347 3700       Nationwide Coserage    800-336-6646 i

r_____ ___ - -- i d

8400'05105- 64: 1 i l LT Vbur 1 believe we-handed it to'you after the reporter marked it.. j
                                                                                                             )
                       .Why don't you-look there?-

l 2' ] r 3 MR. PATON: All right, we have 8. 4 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15. l J 1 j 5 All right, 

                                                                                                        'l 6                     MR. ROISMAN:         And we will get beck --- do you want -            )
                                                                                                          ']

7 your originals back? - 8 THE WITNESS: I don't care.  ! l 9 MR. ROISMAN: After lunch we will get back copies ' 10- of that. I 11 MR. PATON: I need to make generally two copies ) l 12 of this, but I think we got through 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 -- J \.., 1 l:( 13 starting with 6. 

                                                                                                              \

L ] 14 MR. ROISMAN: You don't need to make copies of 6 15 either. We have copies of 7, and so does the reporter, and 16 so do you. So you start with 8. 1 1 17 MR. PATON: Okay, all right. j 18 MR. ROISMAN: So you have got 8 through 15. 19 MR. PATON: What else? 20 MR. ROISMAN: I think that is it. 1 21 MR. PATON: It is a quarter of 12:00. We are 

              '22       going to be back here exactly at 12:30 ready to go.

I 23 MR. ROISMAN: 12:25. / 24 25 i l 

                                                 /\CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                j
                     ,                202 347-3700         Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6M6                     l l
                                                                                         - _ - -       A

8400 05 05 65 ( 51 bur 1 (Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the taking of the 2 deposition was recessed for lunch, to reconvene at 12: 30 3 p.m., this same day.) 4 1 5 6 7 8 9 l 10 11 12 I t.. 13 14 15 . 16 l 17 i 18 l 19 20 21 22 23 l l 24 l ' l 25 l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l i 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3364 646 l L-_______-______-_--_-_. _ _ - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _

8400.-06.06. 66 

 .f. iTbw    1                           . AFTERNOON SESSION
              '2                                                          (12:30.p.m.)

3 Whereupon, 4 BILLIE P. GARDE 

              .5    resumed the. stand and, having been previously duly sworn, 6   was examined and testified further as follows:

3 

               -7              MR. PATON:-       I want to put something on the 8   record.                                                                                                                      I 9              I asked a question which essentially was, what i

10 are your complaints about Region IV, and that has some 12 limited interest in this deposition, and I was sure that you 'l 12 were anxious to place it on the record, and I think you have 13 done so, ably and amply, with your reference to other 14 documents, such as the 2.206 petition, et cetera, however, I 15 want to change the direction of this deposition, because 16 you're obviously prepared to spend the rest of today and 17 sometime tomorrow in answering this question. And what we 18 are really here for, by mutual agreement of counsel, is the 19 basis for the exercise of the attornoy-client privilege, 20 which I have not even started yet. 21 So I want to direct questions to that, and if 22 there's time after that to get into Region IV, perhaps we 1 23 can do it. 24 But just before the lunch hour, this deposition 4 25 took on a whole new direction from your apparent attempt to ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.  ; g 202 347-3700 Nationwirle Coverage 800-336-6646 L __ 

                                                                                                                                              .i

l 0400 06'06 67 

         -.I   7bw'      I             take an awful lot of time and spend a lot.of this record 2              talking about your complaints about Region IV.                                                                                                   I understand j                         3              it, but that's really not the purpose.of the deposition.                                                                                                   So l
                        .4              I intend to proceed'with the questions about the attorney-L l'                        5            client relationship.

l

6. MR. ROISMAN: Okay. Two things, Mr. Paton.

7 Number one, my client is'still in the process of 1 8 answering a question that you asked. Secondly, this answer 9 is directly relevant to the privilege. It is not some l 10 extraneous thing. The whole reason for claiming the l 11 privilege is because the clients have requested that this 12 .information be kept confidential, because of their 13 perception, based upon this information and other 14 information, that Region IV and the EDO, at least the 15 current EDO, cannot reliably, cannot reliably be trusted to 16 take allegations that are submitted to them. 17 So-to begin with, the information that Ms. Garde 18 is now answering, even if you had not put the question that 19 she's now answering the way you had, and had asked the 20 question, why do you claim the privilege, you still would 21 have gotten the same answer, because it's part of the 22 answer. It's also part of the answer as to why, to the 23 extent that work product privilege is invoked, since that 24 privilege is subject to being overridden when there is a 4 25 substantial need, it's part of explaining why the u >\CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage I 800-336 4 46 l

8400 06 06 68 I Vbw' I substantial need can't exist for that particular group of 2 people, because essentially those people are not part of the 3 NRC. They are rogue elephants running amok outside the 4 scope of the NRC's proper method of operation. l 5 They are no more a part of the NRC than Ollie 6 North's operation, running guns to Nicaragua with money that 7 he got -- 8 MR. PATON: Mr. Roisman. 9 MR. ROISMAN: Now Mr. Paton, I will finish my 10 comment, or we will not stay here. I'm entitled to make my 11 statement.

12. MR. PATON: I don't want to interrupt you, sir. j t

I 13 MR. ROISMAN: You just did, and you are 14 continuing to. I i 15 MR. PATON: That's right. 16 MR. ROISMAN: I'm-sorry. Let's go. You're 17 either going to let me state my position on the record, or 18 we will not stay here for this deposition. 19 Now which will it be? 20 MR. PATON: I don't think, sir, that statements , i l 21 about rogue elephants and et cetera -- you have a point to , I 22 nake? l 23 MR. ROISMAN: I have the right to describe this ! 24 agency's components and lack of components any way I wish, l , 25 and I will, either with your permission or outside on the l 1 i ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.  ! 202-347-37(K) Nationwide Coverage MK) 336-(M6 I

8400 06 06 69 I 7bw 1 steps of the agency. 2 Now this is our position. We didn't make any 3 bones about it in our pleading. This agency is a rogue 4 elephant. It does not comply with the regulatory S requirements of this agency. Asking my client to tell this 6 region something is no different than asking them to tell it 7 to the utilities. You may ask us to tell it to competent 8 people. 9 MR. PATON: You have a point to make. I have 10 been, I think, willing -- 11 MR. ROISMAN: No, you're not. You're trying to 12 cut us off right now. I 13 MR. PATON: And I'm just trying to tell you that 14~ this is the deposition that I am taking. 15 l MR. ROISMAN: And you have asked a question that 16 my client is answering. 17 MR. PATON: Your own letter acknowledges that the i 18 l purpose of this deposition is the facts to support the 19 attorney-client privilege. I intend to pursue that. I 20 l MR. ROISMAN: And the work product privilege. 21 MR. PATON: Immediately prior to the lunch hour, q 22 you, I believe, attempted to change the whole direction of l 23 this deposition by giving us a blur of paper, Deposition 24 Exhibits Number 8, 9, 10, 11, et cetera, et cetera. 25 The purpose of this deposition is the facts to ACE.FroERAL REPORTERS, INC. 20:-3413HO Nationeide Omenige NKL336W46

8400 06 06 70 L Wbw 1 support the attorney-client privilege, and that's what I l l 2 intend to pursue. 3 Now rather than -- I thought Ms. Garde would 4 respond in a reasonable manner to the opportunity that I 5 provided here, but it is obvious to me that you intend to 6 take up a lengthy, lengthy discourse on your problems with 7 Region IV, which it's quite clear, you have problems with 8 Region IV, but the purpose of this deposition is the 9 attorney-client privilege, and that's what I intend to 10 pursue. 11 MR. ROISMAN: As I have said to you already, we 12 are still in the middle of answering a question that you l t 13 asked, and if you asked the other question, you would still 14 get the same information, because it's relevant to the 15 i privilege. It's not extraneous to the privilege. i l 16 MR. PATON: I'm indicating to you that I think 17 your response to my question is an unreasonable response. I 18 was very glad to provide you the opportunity to state your 19 problems with Region IV, but I think the response you are 20 attempting to give is unreasonable,when you consider that by 21 your own statement, the purpose of this deposition is to 22 explore the facts to support the attorney-client privilege. 23 MR. ROISMAN: Look, Mr. Paton, we've been real i 24 j frank with each other, so let's be frank again. During this i 25 lunch break, you have been ordered by superiors who are not 1 Acufr.DERAL REPORTERS, INC. [ 202.M74700 Nationwide Coserage 800-3346M6 u___-__-_------ i

8400 06 06 71 

!                    7bw         1   there to defend themselves --                                                                I 2               MR. PATON:       Incorrect.

3 MR. ROISMAN: -- to prevent this record from 4 publicly disclosing information which is alreedy publicly 5 known about Region IV. 6 MR. PATON: No, now really -- 7 MR. ROISMAN: Ms. Garde's position is that if  ! 8 Region IV was a competent agency, she would have no need to 9 tell her clients, don't talk to them. 10 MR. PATON: I have to correct as absolutely 11 incorrect statement, and it goes this way. We have been 12 frank. I appreciate that. I intend to continue to be 13 frank. I will tell you this. I attempted to reach two 14 people who are superior to me and was unsuccessful in both 15 cases. It is, in fact, the lunch hour. This decision I 16 have made myself. I had help from cocounsel. I have agreed 17 with everything she has said. The deposition is obviously 18 taking on a turn that is inappropriate to the purpose of the 19 deposition. I intend to pursue facts that relate to the 20 , attorney-client privilege and not proceed on this course l 21 ' that has had been indicated by you. l 22 MR. ROISMAN: I wi)1 say again, the facts that 23 you are getting relate to the attorney-client privilege, and 1 24 l in our judgment, I don't care you ask the question, you are 25 still going to get all the information that we believe is ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Na;ionwide Coverage 8(XL336 f656

8400:06 06 72 I' Fbw 1 pertinent, and we have no intent of making this deposition 2 last longer. 3 You may remember, it was my hope that we would be 4 gone from here by 11:30. It is certainly my hope that we 5 are going to be gone from here by 3:00 c' clock. And Ms. 6 Garde, there's not attempt to filibuster. We don't have any 7 interest in that. We don't need this forum to talk about 8 the issues. We thought the Commissioners wanted to know, 9 why do you believe that the attorney-client privilege and 10 the work product privilege should be invoked here? Ms. 11 Garde is in the process of telling you that. These exhibits 12 are. They speak for themselves. k 13 All she wants to do and will do is to just 14 briefly describe to you what is the point that each one 15 makes, so that you will understand and the Commissioners 16 will understand why she's invoking this privilege. And I 17 think that's perfectly appropriate and within the scope of l 18 my letter to you and your communications to me. 19 MR. PATON: Mr. Roisman, I intend to proceed with 20 questions that relate to the attorney-client privilege. 21 t MR. ROISMAN: Let's be clear that if you are 22 stopping Ms. Garde from answering the question at this 23 point, you are cutting off her answer to a question which 24 you asked. I didn't ask her this question. It wasn't my 4

  • 25 part of the deposition. She is still in the process of ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
                               ;             202 347 3700       Nationwide Coverage                          800-3364M6

~ q l 1 '18400 06 06 73 J LFbw 1 answering it. 1 1 2 MR. PATON: Absolutely. I would agree that I 3 asked Ms. Garde a question. She is, in her view, in the , 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                      -i '

4 process of answering the questioning. It is clear to me 5 from happened immediately prior to the lunch break, that you j i 6 intend to expand your problems or.your discourse on your 0 7 problems with Region IV way beyond anything. appropriate to " 8 this deposition. I thought I would give you an opportunity 9 that you would be glad to receive, but.it is obvious'to me j 10 that if we pursue that at the length at which you intend to 11 pursue it, my purpose in taking this deposition will'not be 12 served, and we won't even begin to get to some of the I 13 questions I have about the attorney-client privilege. 14 So that is what I intend to do. 15 MR. ROISMAN: We will decide, as you ask these 16 questions,'whether we will answer them or not, based upon 17 our ability to properly give the information, which-we have 18 been asked to give. 19 I will take it so far as to allow you to ask the 20 next question, with the recognition that you stop -- 21 MR. PATON: Mr. Roisman, I don't think it is 22 really your position to allow me to ask a question or not 23 allow me to ask a question. I will ask the questions. If 24 you want to object to them, that's your privilege. If you i 25 want to tell your client not to answer them; that's fine. ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l3 202-347-37(K) Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646 

'{
  - 8400.06'06                                                                                               74'
    !      Ubw   'l-    But I don't think you're really in a position to allow me to 2    ask'any questions.

3 MR. ROISMAN: You're asking them in front of I 

                  '4    anybody other than yourself, with my permission. Go ahead.

5- MR. PATON: What was your last statement? 6 MR. ROISMAN: The only reason that there's 7 anybody here other.than you listening to these questions 8 you're asking is, with my permission, ask your questions. 9 MR. PATON: That is not of significance to me. 10 We asked Ms. Garde to come in and take her 11 deposition, and that's what I intend to do. 12 EXAMINATION (Continued) I 13 BY MR. PATON: 14 0 Ms. Garde, I believe you indicated previously 15 that there are now 54, either present or former employees of 16 the South Texas project, who have provided you -- and by 17 "you," I mean the attorneys that are employed by GAP -- with 18 allegations.? 19 A I said this morning that it was either 54 or 56, i 20 I wasn't sure. 21 0 The difference in those numbers is not 22 significant right now. 23 Will you tell us their names? 24 A Some of my clients' names are on the public 25 record and available to you through the Department of Labor 1 I 

                                              /\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                                                4
                      ;            202-347-3700        Nationwide Coverage 800-336-(M6

8400 06'06- 75 

                   ~

(' ant 'l documents.- I,will not tell you, in this deposition, my 2 clients' names. 3 0 You have an objection to telling me the names of 4 the clients whose names are on record with. the Department of 5 Labor? 6 MR. ROISMAN: No, I believe what she was, that 7 you already know those names, because they're a matter of 8 public record. That's what she said. 9 MR. PATON: Let's be practical. I can't leave 10 this room and go down to the Department of Labor and search 11 out all the names, et cetera, et cetera. 12 MR. ROISMAN: No. Her point was that you, as a 13 representative of the agency should have done that about six 14 months ago. 15 MR. PATON: Mr. Roisman, we don't need to get i i 16 into little side remarks like that. 17 MR. ROISHAN: They're not side remarks. We're 18 trying to explain to you what my client is saying. 19 MR. PATON: I'm sure you're unhappy about this i J 20 turn of events. 1 

                     .21                  MR. ROISMAN:        I'm not unhappy about any turn of 22     events. My unhappiness is since Mr. Stello decided to try 23      to get the information Ms. Garde instead of doing his job.

I 24 I am no less unhappy today than when I learned that. n 25 MR. PATON: I have not had any objection to i i 

                                                    /\CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                          I I,                          ,             202 347 3700         Nationwide Coverage   800-336-6646

8400 06 06 76 ( 'ifbw 1 remarks of that kind, but there is a limit. If you. intend 2 to keep up that kind of remarks, such as " rogue elephant," 3 et cetera, we consider terminating this deposition 4 ourselves. 5 BY MR. PATON: 6 0 Ms. Garde, my question is, you've indicates that 7 the names of some of'your clients are a matter of public 8 . record, because they are on record with the Department of 9 L' abor. 10 would you tell me what those names are? l 11 A They are on record with the NRC, because the 12 Department of Labor has to notify the NRC of all of the ( 13 Department of Labor complaints that are filed. 14 0 Do you know how many of those people there are? 15 A How many of what people? 16 0 How many are we talking about? How many people 17 are we' talking about? 18 A I can't answer that question from memory. 19 0 Is it less than five? 20 A No, it's more than five. 21 0 Is it more than ten? ) 22 A In terms of Department of Labor actions, , .,. 23 potential Department of Labor actions and tort actions, it's 24 more than ten, and potential tort actions, it's more than 25 ten. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6

8400 06 06 77 ( Ubw 1 0 You just started talking about the tort action. 2 Are you wrapping that up with the Department of Labor 3 actions, or is that something different? 4 A In some cases, it's the same. 5 0 I gather from that answer that in some cases it's 6 different? 7 A Uh-huh. 8 0 Confining yourself to just the Department of 9 Labor, how many people are you talking about? 10 A I don't know exactly. 11 (A pause.) 12 I will be glad, after the deposition is ( 13 completed, to send you a list of the docket numbers of the 14 cases of the clients that we represent in a section 210 15 action. I can't give that to you at this deposition. 16 0 I appreciate that. 17 You also referred to some tort claims. Are you 18 willing to tell us who those clients are? 19 A No. 20 . O Are those matters a matter of public record I 21 anywhere, the matters involving the tort claims? 22 A Tort claims that are filed are a matter of public j 23 record. 24 0 Are you willing to send us the names of those 25 records after the deposition? ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I; 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3364M6 l

  • 8400 06 06 78

( Vbw 1 A I'll send you the docket numbers of filed tort 2 actions. 3 0 The docket numbers and whatever jurisdiction it 4 is, whether it's a court or an agency or whatever. 5 A Yes. 1 6 0 Will you tell us the allegations that have been 7 submitted by your clients who have tort claims? 8 A Allegations of what? 9 0 Do you have any allegations from those clients, 10 l the ones that have tort claims that relate to the South 11 Texas project? 12 A Allegations of what. k 13 0 Regarding safety matters that are included in the 14 600 allegations you say you have. 15 ! A Mr. Paton, the people that contact GAP for 16 assistant in bringing a case against their employer for 17 harassment and discrimination have allegations. They may , I 18 have one allegation -- that is, "I was pressured and 19 harassed, because I refused to falsify a document." I 20 consider that an allegation. 21 0 Fine. That's good. Okay. 22 A They may have 100 allegations which incorporate l 23 90 different welds and 10 different examples of 24 falsification and harassment and intimidation for certain l5 l 25 actions;right? The nature of my work is that I represent i i 1 i 

                                                                                                         /\CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                                               l
                                                                                ;            202 347 4 700         Nationwide Coserage                  800-33MM6

8400 06 06 79 i Ebw 1 people who have these concerns. I take a client. I 2 investigate those concerns, which leads to other concerns 3 and other -- 4 0 Okay. 5 A Let me finish my answer, please. 6 0 But I'm not sure why you are having trouble with 7 my question? 8 A Your question is not simple. You're saying, do 9 they have allegations. I wouldn't have them as a client, if 10 they didn't have them an allegation that was a violation of 11 their rights and/or a violation of rules and regulations. 12 0 I think -- I~ 13 A Don't interrupt me. 14 0 I'm not sure why you are having so much difficult 15 MR. ROISMAN: It's not any of your business why 16 she is having difficulty, Mr. Paton. She's trying to answer 17 your question. 18 ! MR. PATON: It is. If I begin to get the idea 19 , that we're not really being -- just answering questions l 20 ! here, we're doing something else, then it is my business. 21 l But go ahead, Ms. Garde. 22 l THE WITNESS: Mr. Paton, I'm not going to let you 23 limit my answers. l l I l 24 MR. PATON: Let's be frank. I really have no 25 intent to limit yoar answers, but it seems to me, I ask a ) ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3?fC Natiotswide Coverage 800 336-6646

j 8400 07 07 80 1 (~ 'fbw 1 question, and you give me some lengthy discourse on what l l 2 your procedure is. I thought my question was fairly simple. l ! 3 That is, do you have allegations from these people, and are , i l 4 you willing to provide them us? l 5 THE WITNESS: I answered that question this l i 6 morning. 7 BY MR. PATON: l l 8 0 What was your answer? 9 A No. l l 10 0 My recollection is, we didn't say anything about 11 torts this morning. l l 12 A You didn't ask me anything about torts. 1 13 0 That's right. That's why you didn't answer my 14 question this morning. , l 15 My question specifically relates to those clients 

                                                                                                                                                                                      ]

16 with which you are involved in a tort claim? I l 17 A My answer is, the nature of my work is, I  ! 18 represent people who have what I understand you think of as 19 allegations. 20 0 My question is, will you tell us what those 21 allegations are? 22 A And my answer is no. l 23 0 My question is, is that based on the exercise of l 24 their attorney-client privilege? i , 25 A In some cases, and in some cases the exercise of I l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 

                                             ,                 202 347-3700       Nationwide Coserage                                                          800-336-6646

8400 07 07 81 ( iTbw 1 my work product privilege in my accomplishment of my i 1 2 professional mission to these clients regarding those j l 3 allegations. ) l 4 0 Okay. Great. Now you mentioned three things. l I 5 I'm not really sure. I'm not challenging you, but you said j 6 the attorney-client privilege, which is fine. You said the 1 7 work product privilege. 

                                                                                       ]
                                                                                         )

8 Now the basis your refusal to answer is based on 9 either one or the other of those two; is that correct? 10 MR. ROISMAN: I believe she said three things. 11 MR. PATON: I think she did, and I wasn't sure i 1 J' 12 whether she meant to say that. 13 BY MR. PATON: i i 14 0 What is your last one? 15 A Accomplishment of my professional mission I 16 regarding what I have been retained to do, in some cases, 17 with people who have tort claims as well as others. l I 18 0 This is a basis for your refusal to answer, which j l 19 is something other than the attorney-client privilege or the i 20 , work product? l 21 ! A I think it describes the work product privilege i t 22 and the professional judgment aspect of the attorney-client 23 privilege. 24 0 Then we are back to either the attorney-client , i' 25 privilege or the work product privilege. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 

               ;            202 347 3hK)        Nationwide CoveraFe 800-336-6646         I

1 i ( 

                                                                                     )

8400 07 07 82 ( Ubw 1 Phr question.is, do you have an third basis cn1 ,

2. which you are refusing to answer?-

3 (Discussion off the record.) 

                                                                                    )

4 THE WITNESS: I need the Wisconsin Code of i 5 Professional Responsibility, which is marked as an exhibit.- { i 6 (Document handed to witness. I 7 (A pause.) [ i 8 THE WITNESS: Supreme. Court Rule 20.21 of the / 9 Wisconsin Code of Professional Responsibility states that a I 10 lawyer should preserve the confidences and secrets of a 11 client. 12 In Ethical Consideration.1, it states that a 13 client -- I want to finish my answer. > 14 MR. PATON: All I want to know is, roughly, where 15 you are reading-from.  ; 16- THE WITNESS: Supreme Court Rule 20.21, Ethical 17 Consideration 1. 18 BY MR. PATON: i 19 0 That's where you're reading? 20 A The middle of the paragraph. 21 " Client must feel free to discuss whatever he or 22- she wishes with his or her lawyer, and a lawyer must be 23 equally free to obtain information beyond that volunteered 24 by his or her client. 4 25 That ethical consideration, which is further ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. j 202-317 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6

1 f 8400 07 07 83 I ( Vbw 1 developed in Ethical Consideration 4 sets forth an ethical 2 precept unlike the evidentiary privilege, which exists ) i 3 without regard to the nature or source of information or the j 1 4 fact that others share the knowledge. f I 5 I am exercising that Ethical Consideration above l 6 and beyond the attorney-client and the work product 7 privilege. 8 So does that answer your question? 9 0 Yes. It sure does. I appreciate that. 10 We talked a minute ago about clients who have 11 gone to the Department of Labor, for example, and there are 12 dockets there, I Is it correct, that all of the allegations you 13 14 have received from clients who are involved in proceedings 15 before the Department of Labor, that all of thoso 16 . allegations are part of that record? l 17 A No, but those clients have been available to the 18 NRC for interview or investigation, or at least your attempt 19 to take their deposition or to interview them, since their 20 identity was publicly known through the Department of Labor-21 l NRC process. And in no case has the NRC Region IV Office or 22 any other office ever contacted any of those whistle blowers 23 and asked them about their discrimination claims or their 24 substantives claims or their concerns of safety problems. 25 Zero contact, even though Region IV has written inspection ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 447 3700 Nationwide Coverage MG 336-6M6

h' t 4 r 28400.07.07 84 

   ' (- 'Vbw     1   reports that imply that they have talked to those workers 2   and then closed out allegations based on no information or 3   contact by my clients.        If Region IV wanted to have talked t 4   those people, they could have tried.-

5 I don't know if my clients would have talked to 6 them, but that situation has never. occurred in any of the 7 clients that have filed Department of Labor actions at the 8 South Texas project, not once. 9 0 Okay. 10 A Even when some of those people themselves 11 contacted the NRC, they never got a call back. 12 0 Okay. 13 I have two questions. Was the NRC aware -- well, 14 the first question is, I asked you this before. To the best 15 of your recollection now in the DOL cases, I think you've 16 indicated your memory is not good, but somewhere around 17 eight or nine, something like that, without getting too 18 precise on numbers, somewhere between five and ten, maybe, 19 DOL cases? 20 A I think it is slightly more than ten, but I am 21 not positive. 22 0 I won't press you. 23 All right. With respect to those DOL cases and 24 the NRC's inaction in talking with those people to which you 1 25 had testified, did the NRC have reason to know that their ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. i 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage RK)-336-6646

1 o i 8400 07 07: 85 l (~ d 

     'bw       I    . complaints involved anything other than a matter that.was of 2     interest.to the-DOL?                                                      q d

3 A If the NRC inspector or enforcement officer who f l 4 reviewed the complaint is a thinking,-breathing human being, j i 5 he would know that. q 6' 0' 'He would have known of all.the~other allegations? 7 A You don't get. fired for raising allegations and 1 

             -8     'then bring a complaint unless you had a safety concern.
                                                                                              .l t
              '9           0     Ms. Garde --

10- A That's a ridiculous question. 1 11 0 Let's be cool. Let's relax. . I 12 Do you know, in fact, with respect to these  ! 1 13 cases, whether the NRC was advised that.there were any other 14 matters of concern, other than the DOL issues? 15 A By whom. . 16 0 Your client? 17 A In some cases, my client made an additional 18 effort to try to get Region IV off their butt to do that 19 investigation, and they did not do it. In some cases, the 20 allegation itself, the complaint itself, says I was doing X, 21 Y and Z, they didn't let me do X, Y and Z. I've been fired. 22 Okay? 23 A person reading that understands that this guy 24 raised a safety concern. He was terminated, and then he i 25 filed a complaint. In some cases, there's been no contact ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 

                  ,             202-347-3700        Nationwide Coverage     80 4 336-6646        ;

          .8400 07 07.                                                                                                                                           86
(; : thm( 1 with.the NRC in terms of person to person contact. But I 2 don't think you are missing the point that discrimination 3 complaints themselves are violations of 50.7.

4 0 I have no problem with that. I'think my question 5 was fairly clear. 6 - Can you tell me,-generally, what positions your 7 clients hold. For example, are any of them supervisors? 8 A I don't want to answer that question. This.is 9 not a guessing' game.- You can go look at these allegations. 10 You have access to the file. You can pick up the file and 11 find out everything you want about these cases at.the 12- Department of Labor. I 13 O Ms. Garde, I am not trying to delay this 14 deposition, but your answer, "I don't want to answer that 15 question," really was plenty. I'm not trying to delay'this 16 deposition. 17 MR. ROISMAN: Nor is she. You don't seem to 18 understand, Mr. Paton. You ask her a question. You say, 19 would you tell me the answer to this. She wants to tell you 20 now, and she also wants to tell you why. 21 MR. PATON: Okay. But the last answer was very 22 simple. I don't want to answer the question 23 MR. ROISMAN: Then she went on to explain the 24 reason why it was that there was no reason for her to sit 25 here and expend her legal skills for the NRC, when she's 

                                                                                                . ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
                                                           ,                         202 347 3700        Nationwide Coverage                  800-336-6646

8400.07:07- 87 1 told the NRC where to go to find the information that they ( Vbw 2- already knew where to go to find and now to go about finding 3 it. I think that is a fair part of the answer that she is 4 entitled.to give. 51 MR. PATON: We've spent three or four minutes L 6 bickering about a question that'I think is very 7 straightforward and.very easy. 1 8 MR. .ROISMAN: Mr. Paton, in a simplistic sense, ) l 9 all your questions are very easy to answer. This not a 10 simplistic client that I have here. These are not ) 11 simplistic problems.  ; l I 12 MR. PATON: I would never, ever accuse Ms. Garde ] 13 of being simplistic. 14 MR. ROISMAN: She is going to give you the full 15 answer or she is not going to answer any of the questions. 16 You are not entitled to tell her how short to make the i 17 answer. j i 18 THE WITNESS: I really object to that. I don't ' 19 let people do that to my clients. I 20 MR. ROISMAN: She's entitled go give the full  ! l 21 answer. 22 MR. PATON: Let the record show that I'm not 23 saying anything now, and you are now competing with each 24 other as to what complaints you have about me. 4 1 25 Why don't we all calm down a little here and just i 

                                                                  /\CE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, }NC.

i 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336 6646

8400.07;07 88. 

 . (I Jbw                                    1    answer'some questions?

2 BY-MR. PATON: 3 0 of your 50-some-odd clients, do you know how many 4- of them presently are still employed at-the site? 5 .A No. 6 0 Do you know how many of them are not employed at 7 the site? 8 A I can't give you an answer here. 9 0 I just don't understand your answer? 10 A. I don't know, in my head. I don't know the-11 answer. 12 O Can you make any sort of an estimate? k 13 A No. 14 0 Okay. Are there any among the 50-some-odd 15 allegers who are neither present nor former employees at the 16 site? 17 A Yes. 18 0 Can you tell me how they obtained their 1 19 information? 20 (A pause.) 21 A These individuals were either industry 22 consultants who received information about the South Texas 23 plant in the course of their work or NRC employees. 24 0 Can you tell me approximately how many NRC 

                ^

25 employees have provided you with information? ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. i 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

!.8400 07-07 89- 

 -( - ifbw   1         A      No.                                                                                           .

t 2 0 Now I want to understand your answer. 'Is that 3 because you don't know or you are exercising, are. acting in j 4 response to an attorney-client privilege? 5 A I believe that it's covered under the attorney-6 client. privilege, because the identification of any more l 7 information could indicate information beyond the identity J 8 of'the person who's contacted me'for legal advice. j 9 0 Let me ask you. Can you repeat that answer? 10 A Yes. If I identify a specific number, l'believe' 11 that that will lead to a witch hunt to find a source or ten 1 12- sources or 15 sources. So I'm not going to tell you how k 13 many of the 54 individuals are NRC employees. 14 0 okay. 15 It is your statement then, am I correct, in 16 concluding that either one or more of these 50-odd allegers 17 from whom you have received information is an NRC employer? 18 A That's a correct statement. 19 0 So you are claiming then that you are the 20 attorney for one or more NRC employees in respect to this 21 matter, the matter that we have discussed? 22 A Just a moment. I have to take to counsel. 23 (Discussion off the record.) 24 THE WITNESS: The NRC employees that I am 25 claiming an attorney-client privilege for fall into one of ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 

                !            202 347 3700       Nationwide Coverage  800 336-6646

8400-07 07 90 ja Ebw 1 two categories. They either are people who have contacted 2 me, specifically, to provide them legal advice regarding a 3 concern that they have about South Texas, the South Texas 4 plant and making the NRC's system work, or they are people 5 who have contacted me or been contacted by me in the course 6 od doing investigations regarding what I'll describe as 7 litigation clients who have technical concerns and are what j 8 I consider nontestifying experts that may be called upon in 9 the course of doing a Department of Labor hearing or a tort 10 hearing. 11 Does that answer your question? l 12 O Yes. 6 

   '        13               MR. ROISMAN:       Mr. Paton, we should be clear about 14   something here, so that you understand.            We believe that to 15   the extent that any of these allegations are known by any                                             j i

l 16 employee of the NRC, that there's nothing in this subpoena l 17 that seeks legitimately that information, because you 18 already know it. The agency is treated as a unity for that 19 purpose. So if your employees know there allegations, then 20 your agency knows them, and having Ms. Garde tell you what 21 your employees already know is a foolish waste of time. 22 So we are not only saying that as to that I l 23 information, that it's privileged, because either that 24 employee may be a client of Ms. Garde's for purpose of 1 i 25 advice or that employee may be the product of work product I 

                                       /(CE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Cvserage M&336 6646 l

i l l, u o , 8400 07:07 91 l 

   -), qVbw-       l~   that'she/is conducting for other clients and a.nontestifying                                  I 2-   expert, but-also, since they are NRC employees, the agency.

a 3 is deemed to know what your employees know 4 BY MR. PATON:' 5 0 Your counsel has indicated that I know these 6 names, but in any event, you refuse to tell me who these 7- names are? 

                .8                  MR. ROISMAN:       No.           What I've said is, you know 9    that-the'information is in the possession of the agency.

10 MR. PATON: But of course, under-your theory, if 11 Ms. Garde is this employee's attorney, this employee has no 12 need to tell other people in the NRC about it, because the 13 information, under your theory, is protected by the 1 14 attorney-client relationship. l 15 So I'm suggesting to you that under your theory, l l 16 I can't get this information. 17 MR. ROISMAN: You don't understand. In my 

               .18      theory, you have this information.                   It's in the possession                  j
                                                                                                                      \

19 of your client. l 20 MR. PATON: Let's don't argue about it j l 21 i BY MR. PATON: j l 22 0 In any event, clearly, I think you've stated that 23 you will not provide us those names; is that correct?  ! 24 A That's correct. 4 l' 25 0 With respect -- I'm going to refer to 55 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 j \i _ _ _ _ _ .-__ _____ ____-_-_-_-_- _ --_- _ _ _ - _ A 

         ?

( 8400 07 07 92 ! , i L ( . Vbw . 1 Eallegerst okay? I will agree readily that you didn't say I; 2 '55. You said'54, 56, whatever. 3 Give me just a second. , 4 The 55 all'egers, did they all come to you? In j l . 

                                                                               .                                                                                    i L                        5      other words, did they initiate the' conversations with you or 1

( 6 some other GAP attorney? l 7 A No. I've already explained that on the record. ] 8 In the course of doing an investigation of.a 

                                                                                                                                                                    )
                       .9      particular client's concerns, our investigation leads to H

10- , other employees. Those employees themselves may become l' l 11 clients. Those employees may provide information that. 12 supports my client's information. Those employees may k 13 either be witnesses or rebuttal witnesses regarding my 14 client's information in preparation for a trial on the 15 merits of his claim. Those employees that we contact may 16 give us information and do give us information in 'the 17 context of representation of individuals that may be 18 completely separate from what we contacted them for. 19 Those individuals that we contacted gave me that 20 information in the expectation that I was going to keep that 21 information confidential until or unless I got their 22 permission to use that information in some way. l 23 MR. ROISMAN: Excuse me just a second. 24 (Discussion off the record.) 25 l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 

                            }              202-347-3700           Nationwide Coverage                                        800 336-W6

   - - _ _ _ _ ~ - -

1 i 8400 93-bjd/bs ( 1 .O At the site -- strike that. 2 Did you. personally talk to the allegers at or i 3 near the site? i 

                                                                                                                      )

4 A Sometimes. { i 

                                                                                                                  ]

5 0 Were.there other GAP attorneys who talked.to'the t 6 allegers at or.near the site? .() 

                                                                                                                  ;1 7            A      When you'say "at the site", you realize that I                    j
                                   ,                                                                                  1
                                                                                                                   'd 8l      can' t 'go on the site.
                                '9            Q      Or.near the site.

10 A Well, I can go near the site. ] 

                                                                                                                     )

11 Q Let me start again. 12 A Are you asking me did I go to the parking lot, o r. ) I k 13 did I go to Bay City?. 14 0 Easy. Easy. Where did you conduct most of your 15 . interviews? 16 1A It's a variety of telephone interviews and 17 personal interviews in and around the site area,.as well as 18 where'those people may be if someone leaves the site, gets 19 fired, goes to work in another plant. 20 Frequently, it may be at that other location. 

                                                                                                                    -)

21 Q How many times did you go to the area near the  ; 1 i l 22 site? l l 23' A There have been trips to the site by myself, my l 24 co-counsel, other investigators that we have working with us l 25 at least monthly for the last eight months. About monthly. l 

                                                               /\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                           l
                                     ;              202 347-3700          Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646 I

l .

L s i 8400 94 j I 

    '( ,,

l' O So, personally,.you have been to that area? l L d l 2 A Several times. 3 Q Somewhere in the neighborhood of eight times? "' 4 A I probably have been, but I am not sure about the 5 number of. trips.- But I'm confident that somebody's been h 6 there, either myself or Richard. I've been there because L 1 7 I've been doing DOL cases. So there's been a fairly steady .I i 8 stream of traffic, if that's what you're asking me. J i l' '9 Q What other GAP attorneys have been there? 10 A Richard Condit. . l -1 11 0 Anyone else? 12 A We have an investigator. 

                                                                                                                         ]

! . J t 13 0 Is he an attorney? He or she an attorney? 14 A It's a she. No, she's not an attorney. 15 0 And Richard is with the Washington office? 16 A Yes. 17 O Are there any other GAP attorneys in the i 18 Wisconsin office? 19 A Occasionally. l 1 20 Q Did you tell the clients that you would be able I 21 to keep the allegations from the NRC? 22 A I'm not going to answer that question because 23 what I told them is covered by attorney-client privilege. 24 Q Okay. Would you be willing to supply the NRC f 25 after this deposition with copies of your executed ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 

              !            202-347-3700        Nationwide Coverage                                    800 336-6646

8400 95 

     ;-               1      agreements with your clients, with the names deleted?

2 MR. ROISMAN: You're-talking about ones.that are 3 different than the one that's attached to the Motion to 

                     '4      Quash?

5 MR. PATON: We can get into that.if we want to, 6 if she can state under oath that every one of these 7 agreements is precisely the same as the form that she gave 8 us. But I would be interested in, for example, the dates 9 they were executed. 10 THE WITNESS: I don't want to answer that 11 question without discussing the pros and cons,of doing that 12 with my counsel. And I don't think I can do that on a S- 13 break. 14 BY MR. PATON: 15 0 Let me request that you do that, and we'll leave 16 it at that. Let me also request -- 17 .MR. ROISMAN: Mr. Paton, so that I'll be able to 18 advise her properly, if the documents are the same from 19 every client, are you satisfied with a statement from her i 20 that the attached blank retainer agreement is the one that l 21 was signed with X-number of people and that it was dated, 22 and to give you the dates? 23 MR. PATON: Yes. In other words, I would have to 24 take a look -- can I see that agreement? 3 l l 

  ,                  25                            (Handing document to counsel.)

m-ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 

                        ;                         202 347-3700              Nationwide Coverage                                          800 336-6646     )
                                                                                                                                                            )

f ' 8400- ' 96 ( 1 MR. PATON: Yes, that'would be agreeable.. We 2 wouldn't need to see any agreement if she would.tell us the-3 ldate of each of those agreements. That is, it has not been 4 amended in any way from the three-page representation 5 agreement that Ms. Garde attached ta) her motion. 6 I think it's Attachment One. 7 MR. ROISMAN: Okay. Go ahead. I'm sorry I 8 interrupted you. 9 BY MR. PATON: 

        .10         0      Yes.       I want to ask you about this agreement.

11 There are expressions in here -- for' example, I'm looking at 12 page 1 of the representation agreement, paragraph number k 13 two: 14 " GAP will only release the client's identity. 15 GAP will no longer be responsible. GAP understands. Et 16 cetera. 17 Now, I'm correct that GAP itself, which the 18 record shows is a corporation, does not practice law. 19 Is that correct? 20 A I think Mr. Roisn.an described what I understand 21 , to be the answer to your question this morning by' indicating 22 that perhaps this isn't the exact words to describe or way 23 to describe the relationship because I might be killed on 24 one of my numerous trips to Bay City, and these clients need 

    /

25 to know that even though something would happen to me, the ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. j 202 347-37(O Nationwide Coverage 8(0 33M646 l' L

l l 8400 97 l L ( 1 organization would ensure that'the representation agreement 

                                                                                       '2                                              was continued.

3 And that'is what when it refers to GAP. L 4 Does that answer your question? k l 5 A I think so. At the top, the second and t,hird 6 line says that "the client agrees to retain GAP to perform 7 legal services." 8 The intent as I understand from you is that it 9 was really with a number of attorneys that are employed by 10 GAP. That was the intent. 11 If you look at paragraph one, " Staff attorneys 12 Billie Garde and Richard Condit will be responsible for 13 representing the client in this matter." 14 Q Right. I think I understand. Thank you. l 15 With respect to the allegers that did not execute 1 l 16 representation agreements, did you attempt to have them l l 17 execute an agreement?

18- A I can't answer that question without some 1

39 explanation in some cases; the clients, people that 20 contacted us or that we contacted in the context of doing 21 our work preparing for another case -- for example, a 22 litigation case or a trial -- have moved on to another plant 23 sometime ago. 24 Their information was given to us on an oral i 

                                                                                  .25                                                     understanding between that person and myself.                                                                                                                                                            They haven't ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-37(10 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                       ,7
                                                                                                                                     . .q...                               Q;                *}-                   a
                                                                                                                          + ,                                    g W ' g_                                                          '
                                                                                                                                         -r                       j                      .

y , 

                                                                                                                                                                  ;;                    #                              1
                                                                                                                               ,1, 3).                         1.
                                                                                                                                                                     ,2-
                                                                                                                                                                      -e-
e. t -

j]';

8400 i
                                                                                                                                                                            . ,l;-                                                                                             98' I'                                                    M                      , signed a representation agreement, but my notes of, for
                                                                                                             ,        /

2- ,Jex:smple, a,telephono conversation or a personal meeting 3' labigatea. the agreement 'upon which that discussion occurs as

) ; :) s

, 4- a ' prerequ hi.te to the discussion. 

                                                                                                                                                 .         )?
                                                                                 -5
                                                                                                                                                   'l You look confused.

V 6' I 

                                                                                                                        'O                                           ies.               Repeat the very last thing you'said.

7 A 

                                                                                                                                                                  *~

As'a prerequfai,te to further discussion, the 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  /4 A                        first matter                                                  tha% ic'~ discussed, if you call up on the f

M telephond or you $eet with somebody personally, is the 

                                                                                                                                            /
                                                         ', 10                                         . expel-ta::. ion, of f p vacy regarding the information and how it
                                                                                                                      ;                i                              ) !

i .o {ll may arfy may not [b'e used in order for me to do my job as an 

                                                                                                                               , ;                                       /         <

12 a. a+:torneygreprenonting many times individuals who are engaged 13 ,in hee,%d. litigation;regarding certain issues, I have to be 

                                                                    '14                            .

abli;to protect'those confidences. J 'j j  ! 1 15 / i So, in- ot?cr , to do my job, that's the first thing e. y yt 

                                                   >                                                          /
                                                               ,16 ~ '   .

that 3 do. j won't get information otherwise. , 

                                                   *,                                                                                                                                        ,;.                                                                                                                     i 17 j

Of Leta me . t.ry again. Thg people that you do not M 

                                                                                         .>                                      t,                                                     ,

18 W have written ' agrcements yith, .'did you attempt with respect 

                                                                   ,                                                                                                                  s                                                                                                                                 t
                                            '                               19 ,                            to any of the)se beoplo to retain a written agreement?

p G 

                                                       ;                   30  F A                                         No one refused to sign a written agreement.

21 j( 0 Ms. Garde,'mf question was -- 4 l , i 22 A I'm.: answering. "No one refused to sign a written 23 agreement, if that's what you're asking. 

                                                               /                              /                         >
                                                         / 2Y q.                                                           Q                                         No, that's not really what I'm asking.                                                                    What my
                          ,                ,f           d                                  -
                                            ,t                j)3                                          questiion was is did you attempt to get them to execute an Ti /                                                                                                   .

t ] 

                            .i
                                                                      ' -                                                                                                               ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

j 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8001364M6  ! 

                                                                                                           "               t
     /                                                                                                              !

t l- - . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - - . _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ . _ . _ _ - __ . _ _ - . . _ _ _ = . - _ _ . - . , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . - _ . . . _ _ _ . - _

l 8400 99 I 1 agreement? 2 A The people that we are still in contact with, the 3 people that we are -- your question assumes a process which 4 may be appropriate in some circumstances, but is not here. 5 0 Ms. Garde, I think my question is ultra-plain. 6 A Then I don't understand it. 7 0 The question is simply this. With respect to 8 those people with whom you do not have a written agreement, 9 did you attempt to obtain a written agreement?  ! 10 It'c very simple. 11 A We don't talk to someone without an agreement. 12 Before we talked. That agreement is then reduced to j i i 13 l writing. In some cases, that agreement is reduced to 14 writing only in my notes; that is, it captures an oral 15 agreement. All right? 16 j Do you understand what I'm saying? 17 0 Absolutely. 18 A All right. In some cases, the majority of cases, 19 there is a written retainer agreement with the individual, 20 . but not in every case. l 21 l 0 So your statement is that if, in your notes, you i I 22 noted an agreement with the client, your conclusion is that 23 you have a written agreement with that client? 24 A Yes. Can I give you an example? i 25 0 If you wish. l /\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336W46 l l 3 

                                                                                                                                                  )
                                                                                                                                                  .I i

8400 100 ( 1 A Because'I don't think we're really communica' ting i 

                                                                                                               ~

2 here. If, in 1985 or 1986, I was retained to do a 3 Department of Labor case, that individual gave.me the name 4 .of five people who would substantiate the discrimination or-5' the technical allegations. 

                                                            '6                 He said, ."But you'd better call John Doe because 7   he's-leaving, he's got job at another site."        ,

l 8 I called John Doe. John Doe says, "I'm going to 9 give you this information. Everything your client said is 

                                                           -10. absolutely right, and it's even worse than that.                  And I'm        {

11 going to tell you this information, but you can.never use my 12 name." ( 13 And I say, "Well, I want you to understand what I 14 need the information for. I could either call you as a 15 witness, I could rely on you as an expert, or I could just 16 use this information in the development of my case." 17 And he says to me, "I will give you this 18 information only on the basis that you represent to me that 19 you will never use my name. Not with the NRC, not with the 20 Department of Labor proceeding. I'm going to just give you 21 that information." 22 Since that time period, they're gone. But the 23 .information that they gave me and the conditions under which 24 they gave it to me remain. I'm honoring that commitment . I ( 25 may have never talked to the guy personally, but he only 1 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage MG336-6646 g 

                         .8400'                                                                                                     101

( l' gave me the information on the basis of my representation to 2 him as an attorney that.I was going to use it in the way 3 that he agreed to give it to me. J 4 0 I think what you're saying is that, in those 5 cases, a written agreement such as this document here, which 6 is a three-page document, entitled Representation Agreement, j 7 really wasn't appropriate? 8 A Right. 9 0 Okay. The work product privilege that you are 10 referring to, I assume relates to the DOL cases? 11 A It refers to all the cases. . 12 0 With respect to the cases that are not DOL cases, i ( I'm just suggesting 13 were you anticipating some litigation? 

                                .14              to you that, in my view, the work product privilege relates i

15 to the. anticipation of litigation. l 16 If you disagree with that, just say so. l 17 A Well, I'll do my legal brief later, I'm sure. f 18 MR. ROISMAN: Mr. Paton, there is some dispute, I 19 think, in terms of the NRC position and our position on what 20 " litigation" means. 21 So I think it would be helpful if you could 22 define what you mean by " litigation", so her answer will be 23 responsive. 24 MR. PATON: I don't want to do that. I don't ( 25 want to start answering questions. I asked -- Ms. Garde is ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. j 202 347 37 6 Nationwide Cmerage 80(b33M646 1 

                                                                                                                                                               )

8400 102 1 I ( l an attorney, and if she wants'to say that she doesn't l l 2 understand the meaning of " litigation", then that's fine 3 with me.. 4 MR. ROISMAN: Ms. Garde and I just consulted and 1 5 she said, " Tony, I'd'like you.to make clear what it is that  ! 6 'he meant." I'm performing my function. 7 MR. PATON: All right. Let me ask'you... 8 BY MR. PATON: , I 9- 0 Do you really have difficulty with my question? 10 A Why don't you just stand on the NRC's own 11 definition of " proceeding" as utilized in its analysis of i 12 what the Section 210 projections are? l 13 MR. PATON: Let me ask the reporter -- let's go 14 off the record. 15 (Discussion off the record.) l 16 MR. PATON: If you can't answer the question or I 17 understand it, it's fine with'me. But it's my understanding 18 that work products typically anticipates litigation. 19 But, anyway. j 20 l BY MR. PATON: i 21 0 In those cases that do not involve DOL issues, l 22 are you stating, am I correct that you are relying on the 23 work product privilege? l 24 A Yes. i 25 0 In those cases, were you anticipating litigation? ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, 

                      ;             202 347-3700       Nationwide Coverage                                                                     8(n336-6M6

l I 8400 103 l ( 1 A Your question once again is not operating with l 2 the realities I have put out on how we do our work, and how 3 I believe every attorney does their work. 4 0 Let me ask you a question. Do you understand my 5 question? 6 A Sure, I think I understand your question. But 7 you're asking me -- 8 0 Can you answer it? 9 (Discussion off the record.) 10 THE WITNESS: Litigation as I define it and 11 understand it incorporates everything that the NRC includes 12 in its definition of a " proceeding" under the Atomic Energy ( 13 Act. And it includes and incorporates any contact between 14 my client or my witness and any agency of government in 15 which he or she has a claim, has an interest to be protected 16 and needs representation, or believes he or she needs 17 representation to protect her interests from the 18 government's abuse. 19 BY MR. PATON: 20 , 0 Okay. So that, if your client felt that he -auld , 21 not obtain satisfaction from the NRC with respect to a I l 22 safety allegation at the South Texas project, as I 23 understand your definition, that would involve he would 24 believe that he was involved in litigation. i 25 A If he retained me or provided information to me ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8(G336-6M6 f

84001 104 (- 'l for the purpose of ensuring that the information was acted. 2 upon-by the NRC without endangering.his. employment situation 3 and protecting his interests. 4- As to those class of people, yes, I consider that 5 litigation. Your question went to the Department of Labor 6 subclass. 7 0 I think it went to other than Department of 8 Labor, but that's all right.. 9 A My answer isn't limited to that. I also want to 10 make-sure that you understand my answer does not preclude 11 the fact that some of these people specifically feared or 12 were: preparing for litigation and may still be preparing for (' l 13 litigation if and when the time is right. I 14 Whether that time is right is now, whether there i 15 needs to be more investigation done by me before I file a 16 tort claim... j 17 0 You mean litigation other than DOL litigation? 18 A Uh huh. 19 0 Can you tell me generally what sort of proceeding 20 you're talking about? You referred to a tort claim. 21 A Obviously, these people have remedies under a l J 22 variety of regulations and state laws, depending on what 23 discrimination they have suffered. 24 So, in those cases, we're talking about a wide 25 group of people here. As I said before, each of them has an I l 

                                                                                                                             /\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.                   l ll             202 347-3700                 Nationwide Coverage 8(n3364t6        ]

i 

   -                                                                                                             i i

i a i l 8400 105 l .. 

                             .(   'l    ' individual circumstance.       So I'm running through in my mind 2    .a lot of the different people.trying to answer your question 3     that incorporates all the different situations.

l l i h 4 O Split them up. j l i 5 A I'm not comfortable that I've answered your ) l-6 question as'to each individual situation as to each  ; 1 1 L 7- individual situation. I think that's really kind of 

                                  -8     difficult. That's why I am having a lot of trouble with             J 9     your very general question.                                             j 10          0        I want to ask you a question about what services i                                  11     you are providing to your client and to avoid the problem 12     that you just indicated you had with the last question,'I'll l                             -(

13 cut it up as much as you want. Or you can cut'it up as much 1 14 as you want.1 15 But, my question is: 16 What services are you providing to your clients?- 17 I'll make it more precise. 18 If a worker at the site has no DOL claim but he 19 gave you a safety allegation and you have that information, 20 and you won't give it to the NRC, let me ask you, first of 21 all, do you have such a case? Is there such an instance? 22 A The first part of it, if the person has no DOL 23 claim, is too exclusionary. l 24 0 It doesn't presently have. All I'm trying to do l ( 25 is -- you want to cut this up, so I'm trying to cut it up. 

                                                               /4CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC.

l l 20244t3700 Nationwide Coverage MG336-6646 w_____-______-_____--_.

i i i 1 8400 106 I i l 1 What I really want to know is what services-are 2 you providing your client? 

                                                                                       ]

l 3 A Each of the clients that I represent has or -- i 4 strike that -- is involved in some type of litigation or j l 5 action with either the NRC or a state court or another 6 agency. l 7 There's a variety of things. But it includes 1 8 from the NRC's perspective the whole umbrella of 2.206 j l 9 requests, investigations by OI, Inspections, investigations j i 10 by Offee of Inspector and Auditor. j l 11 It includes or could include testifying 1.n an { l 12 ASLB proceeding, being a potential witness in an ASLB j i i 13 proceeding. It could include testifying or being a witness 14 in a criminal case, in a criminal case under state law and i 15 in a criminal case under federal law. I 16 l 0 Okay, but I want to get precise. I mean, it 17 could be a lot nf things. But you're exercising the work 18 product privilege. And I'd like to know why. I I 19 l In other words, with respect to alleger A or  ! I 20 alleger 1, or whatever, what is your basis for exercising 21 the work product privilege? 22 l It could be a lot of things. 23 A Well, the basis is for each individual client. 24 It's something different. ( 25 0 can you tell me for alleger No. 1? You know, the  ; ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

s 202-347 37(K) Nationwide Coverage 8(kk346646 l

l 

                                                                                                                                                          'l l

l 8400~ 107' ( 'l point is it'isn't really helpful to say it could be this and 2 it'could be that. 3 (Discussion of f the record.) 4 THE WITNESS: As to each individual client there 5 is a certain mission that I have been retained to do. And 6 in each case, that mission includes a range of 7 representation action. It. includes in every case protection 1 8 of that person's interest from abuse by Region IV and from l 9 the actions that would befall or the results that would l l 10' befall my client if' Region IV improperly investigated their 11 allegations. 12 And that's why you're cutting off the answer l 13 about Region IV.' 14 MR. PATON: I'm not trying to -- all right. Go 15 ahead. 16 THE WITNESS: By cutting off the answer about { 17 Region IV's incompetency or refusal to do its job is 

                                                                                                                                                          'I I

18 directly relevant to this discussion. This situation 19 results and is complicated only because Region IV isn't 20 doing their job. 21 If Region IV of the NRC had a credible office, l 22 they acted on workers' concerns, they protected and defended l ' 23 workers, then the work product privilege and the 24 professional judgment I have to exercise in protecting my 1 25 clients would not lead to the conclusion that turning over { ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. g 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646 

                       ~

l i I 8400 108 ( l the information is directly to the ' disadvantage of my 2 client, and will lead to negative results. 

      .3                  BY MR. PATON:
         .                                             .                                                          I 4         O'      'Okay.- Talking now about the work product                                               I
                                                                                                                -1 3'    privilege, you view, am I correct that you view the possible 6     abuse by Region IV of your client as litigation that would 7     allow you to raise the work product privilege with respect 8     to these clients?

9 A You keep using the attorney-client and the work 10 product privilege. I want to make real clear that my 11 conduct is covered by and determined by the Wisconsin Code 12 of Professional Responsibility, one of which is of Ethical -{ 13 Consideration 5, which says that: 14 A lawyer should not'use information acquired in 15 the course of the representation of the client to the 16 disadvantage of the client. 17 And a lawyer should not use -- except with the 18 consent of the client after full disclosure -- such 19 information for his or her own purposes. 20 0 Let me -- I'm sorry. Go ahead. 21 A As I stated before on the record, the Wisconsin 22 rule set forth an ethical precept which I have to follow, 23 and I have to follow in order to do my job as an attorney. 

    '24      And in doing that job, it is my conclusion that the example t'

25 that you gave -- a person comes to me and they have ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 

           ;              202 347-3700       Nationwide Coverage          800-336-6646

8400 109 (. 1 information and they want to give it'to the NRC -- I've got 2 to exercise-judgment about what to do with that information. 3 Do you understand what my answer is? - i' 4 Q Absolutely. Could I see -- I just wanted to see 5 it, and the name of.it.. 6 (Pause.) 1 7 Ms. Garde, are you authorized to practice law in 8' Texas? 9 A I'm not admitted to the State Bar of Texas. But I 10 I'm authorized to practice law under the various 11 administrative rules and agencies that permit the practicing 12 of law in'those forums. ( 13 .O Is'there any procedure that you have to go -] l 14 through to authorize you to practice -- let me strike that.  ; 15 Is there'any procedure that you, in fact, went 16 through to authorize you to practice before the NRC7 17 A You can answer that, Mr. Paton, if you can. 10 0 You can consult with your attorney. 19 But, the question was what, in fact, did you -do? 20 (Discussion off the record.) 21 BY MR. PATON: 22 O Just, in fact, what did you do is the question? 23 A Well, once again, there is not just one type of 24 representation in the NRC. There are licensing hearings. l 

                                      ?

25 There's investigations, and there's inspections. i ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 4 Natioriwide Coverage  ! 202 347-3700 8(G336 6646 1

(8400 110 ( 1 -In the' licensing hearings, file a notice of

2. appearance. Right?

3 Q Did you do that? 4 A In the Comanche Peak case. 5 Q. That's all I'm asking. All I asked you was -- 6 A In other cases -- let me finish -- in other 7 cases, I have represented workers in front of, for example, 8 OI, OIA and in licensing proceedings where I represented 

                                               .'9         just a worker.

10 0 .I'm still trying to get at this question of what 11~ services you are providing to the allegers. And in 12 response, your answer, you talked about abuses of Region IV. I 13 You are going.to protect them from the abuses of RegionHIV. 14 And I assume you're not going to reveal their 15 identity. Under your definition, you have a definition of 16 " litigation". 17 'I'm sorry I rambled. But what I would like to 18 know is with respect to alleger no. 1, the generalities are 19 not going to be very helpful -- with respect to alleger no. 20 1 or 2 or 3 or whatever, since you won't tell me what their 21 names are, what precise legal services are you -- do you 22 plan to render to that alleger? l 23 A I'm not going to go through 54 dif ferent 24 situations. I'll tell you that there are some people that I i 25 have specific attorney-client privilege with for the purpose ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202 347-3700 Natjonwide Coverage (400-336 4 46

5 i 

              '8400                                                                                  111

( 'l of-representing them in some type of employment 2 discrimination action. 3 I've told you that already. 1 4 0 Right. l 5 A And there are others that I represent solely for , 6 the purpose of representing them in front of the NRC in the 7 investigation, inspection,.2.206 process. And all the l 8 processes that are included, standing between a worker and { l 9 the NRC. And protecting that worker and making sure the NRC 10 does its job. And there are other individuals that I am 11 claiming only the' work product privilege for_in the_ context i I 12 of,doing my investigations and my preparation for trial.and- l I 13 litigation and defense of other clients that have ongoing 14 ' litigation.. ' 15 Does that answer your question? I'm not going to 16 go through all 54. One by one. I can't do it out of my 17 head. 18 0 Does your answer include all 54? 19 A I'm not sure my answer, as I just stated it, 20 included people who contacted us for the purpose of 21 representing them in some action against their employer, 22 whom we referred to other attorneys. To the extent that my 23 answer did not incorporate that group, it now does. 

                                                                                                          ]
                                                                   .                                       ?

24 0 okay. You said... I 25 (Pause.) ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. [ 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646 

                                                                                                           )

8400 112 ( l With respect to the 54-54, you have a written 2 agreement. 3 A Could you wait just a minute? 4 0 sure. 5 (Pause.) 6 A I think my answer also did not include, but may 7 have a category of people that I discussed as a 8 nontestifying expert. It may have. I'm not sure, without 9 looking at the answer, if it also incorporated that. 10 0 Would you consider that person to be your client, 11 a nontestifying expert? 12 A There are a group of people to which I claim a i' # 13 nontestifying expert privilege of nondisclosure. 14 Q That's not the attorney-client privilege. That's 15 another privilege. 16 A That's what I'm saying. I want to make sure that i l 17 my answer includes that class. And with that class, then i 18 you've got the full 54. 19 , O All right. So there are those for which you 20 I claim the attorney-client privilege for which you may also 21 claim the work product. 22 I think you said there was a small number where 23 you claimed the work product only. Then there is a group I l-24 think that you indicated you are claiming privilege under ( 25 the name, the Wisconsin Code. ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 3c3700 Nationwide cmeran soo 336-6r.46

1 l 

          '8400  '

113 l I 1 Are there those for whom you are claiming 2 privilege only under the Wisconsin Code of Professional 3 Responsibility? 4 A This code covers all of the privileges. I 5 believe that this code over-encompasses -- covers both 6 attorney-client and the work product. It's a broader 1 7 privilege. There isn't'anyone between the two. 8 O Then you were also claiming'this privilege which 9 is none of the above for a nontestifying expert? 10 MR..ROISMAN: Mr. Paton, I think there's some l 11 confusion there. 1 

                     - 12                  MR. PATON:       Those are her words, I believe.

( 13 MR. ROISMAN: That's right. But the confusion is l 14 that,.under the law, that is part of the work product. It's 15 a subset of work products. She was giving you that subset 16 so that you'd understand. L 17 MR. PATON: Okay. Super. l 18 BY MR. PATON: 19 0 How many nontestifying experts are there? 20 A I can't tell you the number. It's a small 21 number. Under 10. 

                                                                                                                                               ?

22 O You said about half of the 54 ' nave signed a 23 representation agreement. Were they signed as is, or are 1 24 there amendments to those? ( 25 A Each case is different. ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. i 200-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336-6646

I I i 8400 114 

         .1       0.      So I gather there are amendments to them.

2 A I can't think of any that has a specific 

       . 3   amendment to it.         I can think of some where the client has a 4   clarification of a retainer, or where this clarifies a 5   retainer.- So there may be more than one signed agreement.

6 I think that incorporates all of the examples. i l 7 0 Have all of your clients agreed.to waive the 8 privilege if Mr. Stello and Region IV are not involved in 9 the investigation of the allegations? 10 MR. ROISMAN: I believe, Mr. Paton, you asked I ! 11 that' question before. V l 12 MR. PATON: I think-her answer was that's up to 

   -( ,

13 them. 14 BY MR. PATON: 15 0 Is that accurate? 16 MR. ROISMAN: I'm not going to let her -- j 17 MR. PATON: I'm asking her. 18 MR. ROISMAN: I don't want her -- I'm not going 19 to let her. She gave an answer on the record. l 20 MR. PATON: Mr. Roisman, it's a little tough. 21 We've been going for a number of hours here. Because she 22 answered the question before the lunch break. 23 Is it your position that you're refusing to allow  ! 24 her to answer a question? 25 That's a little unreasonable, I think. l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. i 200-347 37(0 Nationwide Coverage 8(x1336-f646

8400 115 

                                          -(                              1                              MR. ROISMAN:                     I think the standard is asked and 2               answered.

3 MR. PATON:. You're refusing to allow her to. 4 answer that question? 5 MR.'ROISMAN: She's willing to answer the 6 question. 7 THE WITNESS: I don't have any automatic waivers. 8 BY MR. PATON: 9 0 How many of the 54 have paid a fee? 10 A I'm not going-to answer that question. 11 0 Can I ask you is'that because you be?ieve.that's 12 within the attorney-client privilege? 

                                          .(.

13 A Yes. 14 0. The next question is who is the agreement with? 15 Now, for example, the standard representation agreement 16 says, " Accepted on behalf of the Government Accountability 17 Project". 18 Who is the agreement with? Is it with you, or is 19 it with GAP, or is it with some other attorney? 20 A I believe all the retainer agreements are signed 21 either by myself or Richard. I'd have to look at them to 22 see if Lewis Clark signed any of them. He's the executive 23 director of GAP. 24 0 What I'm getting at is the intent, for example. 4 25 I am looking at page 3 of the representation agreement. It ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. i 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage MG336-6646

1 

  .e.

l 8400' 116 l (. 1- ' says, " Accepted on behalf of Government Accountability 2 Project, Lewis Clark." 3 So what I'm saying to you is, on'its face,- 4 regardless of who signed it, it would appear to be that the 5 agreement is with GAP. But, is that the intent? 6 A The intent is that individual clients have an 7 agreement with an individual attorney. 8 Q That's fine. As to the 27 or so who do not have 9 an executed agreement, are you the person with whom the l' 10 client had an agreement in those cases? 11 A In'some cases, it's Mr. Condit. L , 12 O Is either you or Mr. Condit? 

                              ,                                      13             .A    There may be a case where the agreement is 14        initially between the investigator and the witness.              But I 15        think in all cases it's between either Mr. Condit or myself.

16 MR. ROISMAN: Mr. Paton, just so there's no 17 confusion, you understand, Ms. Garde has already indicated 18 that some of those 54 people will take that number for 19 discussion purposes with whom there is no attorney-client 20 privilege claim. None of them, however, are people with 21 whom there's not a confidentiality understanding. 22 And I didn't want your question to confuse that. 23 The confidentiality understanding being part of 24 the way in which Ms. Garde or Mr. Condit are able to get i 25 information for the clients they represent. But those are ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 3 2a2 30-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646

I J 1 8400 117 

                                                                                                                                                     )

l( l. two different things. 2 MR. PATON: Okay. .Let's pursue that'a little i 3 I b i t . .. 4: BY MR. PATON: l 5 0 The confidentiality agreement is based upon d k 6- .either an attorney-client relationship or the work product l 1 7 privilege, or the subset, as you. describe it, of a 8 nontestifying expert. i 9 Is that correct? 10 What is the source of this confidentiality 11 agreement? 

                      / 12                 (Discussion off the record.)

( t 13 THE WITNESS: Can you restate the question? 14 BY MR. PATON: 15 0 I'm trying to. Mr. Roisman clarified that the 16 basis of the privilege is a confidentiality agreement, which 17 I gather and I'm trying to find out the basis for that. I 18 assume that 'he basis is, in some instances, the attorney-19 client privilege, and in some instances, the work product 20 privilege, and in some instances, a subset, as you sey, of 21 the nontestifying expert. 22 Now, are there other bases for the 23 confidentiality agreement with your client? 24 MR. ROISMAN: Excuse me, Mr. Paton. I think 1 25 there's a confusion. I don't think it's a disagreement, I ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. i 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

8400 118 4- { 

           '(           1    just think it's not clear.                                You're asking the basis for the 2    confidentiality agreement in terms of. privileges,.but.the                                      .I i

3 privileges are based upon the confidentiality agreement. I 4 It's the opposite way. The confidentiality 5 agre,ement exists. ] 6 MR. PATON: You did raise the word 7 " confidentiality agreement" for the first time today. And 8' we've been talking all day about attorney-client privilege, i 9 et cetera, et cetera. { l 10 BY MR. PATON: I l 11 0 I'm asking you on what basis you are withholding 

                     , 12    information.                  I want to be sure that I understand all the                           ,

I' l 

                    ;  13    various bases on which you are withholding information.

14 That's the thrust of my question, i 15 MR..ROISMAN: So it's not the basis for the 16 confidentiality agreement? It's the basis for the refusal I 17 to disclose information pertained pursuant to a 18 confidentiality agreement that you're searching for? 19 Is that right? 20 MR. PATON: Right. Your use of the expression 21 " confidentiality agreement" didn't fit in nicely with the 22 discussions we've had today, but I agree with that, yes. 23 THE WITNESS: Is there a question pending? 24 MR. ROISMAN: He wants to know what the basis is ( 25 for the claimed privileges. l'

l. ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
                           ;                         202 347 3700              Nationwide Coverag       800-336-(M6 l

l L-________________- _ l

8400 119 I 1 MR. PATON: For withholding them.- l 2 MR. ROISMAN: Where the' confidentiality agreement 3 exists, where it's not an attorney-client privilege. 4 THE WITNESS: Then I don't understand the 5 question. I'm getting very confused. 6 BY MR. PATON: I 7 O Let me try it again. What I want to know is the 8 basis for your withholding information from the NRC. You've 9 indicated that there are several bases. There's a' number.- d 10 You are relying on a number of bases. 11 'Would you agree with that? I 12 A Yes. I 13 One of them is the work product privilege. Would ) 

                                          .,                                     Q                                                 -

i 14 you agree with that? j l 15 A' Yes. 16 0 One of them is the attorney-client relation? 17 A Yes. 18 0 Are there others? 19 A As long as you incorporate the subsets that we 20 have previously discussed. 21 O Let's be very clear. One of the subsets for work 22 product is the nontestifying expert. Are there other 23 subsets? 24 A An example of a subset of the attorney-client 4 25 privilege are people who called me seeking my help, wanting ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. f 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 300 336-6646

8400 120 J 

             -(                                        1- to retain me as an attorney, told me their story and I did 2  not take their case.        That's an attorney-client privilege.                                             i 3        Q      Right.- That's not a subset, that's the-4   privilege. Right?                                                                                        j l

5 A Right. l 6 Q It's the privilege that just continued. Okay. 7' The relation didn't continue. j 8- A Right. The relation didn' t continue. The 9 privilege continues. Okay. I i 10 Q Are there others? 'j i 11 A I think~ everything is covered under attorney- f L) 12 client and work product. And nontestifying experts. 'Well, j ( i r 13 my counsel reminda me, I want to be real clear, that the j i 14 Wisconsin Code of Professional Responsibility description, 15 and their interpretation of what an attorney's rights and 16 responsibilities are to their clients under these ethical 17- considerations that I have referred to covers all the 18 circumstances and situations of each of the 54 individuals. 19 Q Right. I agree. n 20 MR. ROISHAN: May I speak to her? 21 MR. PATON: Sure. 22 (Pause.) 23 THE WITNESS: Okay, Mr. Paton. My counsel sees 24 that I'm not telling you something, which is part of what I ' i 25 am trying to express. So let me try to express it again. ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646 1 l

I l 8400 121 ( l In order for me to do my job on behalf of clients 2 I have to be able to do investigations. In order. to get 3 information which allows me to exercise my professional ., 4 judgment on behalf of those clients, I have to be able to 5 promise confidentiality in the course of doing my work. 6 So that I can then advise my clients and 7 determine how to try a case or determine how to represent .a f 8 client. I consider that covered by the work product i 

                  .9       privilege in the context where I do not have an attorney-                            1 i

10 client privilege with that person who has provided me l 11 information. 

                                                                                                              .i 12                       And I have to be able to do that and grant that                      -

( , 13 confidentiality in order to get the information, in order to j  ! 14 do my work. 15 That's clearly spelled out in this set of rules. 16 It's cicarly considered and debated and decided with the 17 context of an investigation done by an attorney in order to i 18 exercise their judgment. 19 1 want to give you an example. If somebody calls 20 me up and tells me, 1 21 "I have this complainy. I was terminated for J I 22 falsifying documents. I didn't do it. I did not falsify l 23 the documents. They really are terminating me because I'm a j l 24 wh i s tle-blo*,e r . " I said give me five people to check your ' 4 i l' 25 story. i l ACE FEDERAL REPORTEAS, INC. l 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8n336-6646 l l J

B400 122 

        .4                                                                         .1                And I called them up.              I have to be able to tell 2   those individuals that I contacted or they contact me.                     They 3   say, " Joe gave me your.name to call."

4 But, let me finish. 5 BY MR. PATON: 6 0 I just want to ask a little question. 7 A It really blows me away because I'm getting 8 tired. 9 0 I know. I'm sorry. 10 A And you're interrupting me. 11 0 I really haven't interrupted you in a long time. 12 I'm just not sure what issue you're. addressing. 

         's                                                                        13                MR. ROISMAN:        She's trying to explain to you --

14 MR. PATON: She's telling me how she does her 15 job, and that's great. 16 MR. ROISMAN: She's trying to explain to you j 1 17 where the grant of confidentiality arises when its not ) 18 given to a client and which privilege it fits under. In 19 order for you to understand that it fits under the work 20 product privilege, she has to explain to you how she does 21 her work, so you understand why it's work product l 22 requirement. l j i-23 MR. PATON: m sorry. I was following that. , 24 BY MR. PATON: I I -'

  • 25 0 You're saying as to the five people that you 1

l h l /LCE? FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide CoveraFe 800-336-6 4 6 {

1 e il ( 8400 123 i 1 . check with to check this alleger's story, you view your 2 contacts with them as work product privilege, I think. j l I l 3 A Yes. j i 4 0 I apologize. l 5 Who prepared this representation agreement? 6 A I'm sure I had some hand in it, but I can't tell 7 you who all prepared it. 8 0 As between GAP and the client, who prepared it? 9 A GAP. 10 0 The paragraph numbered 4 says f 11 " GAP understands that the client does not -- 12 underlined -- want Victor Stello to investigate and to ( s 13 participate," et cetera. l 14 Whose thought was that originally?  ! 15 In other words, did you tell that to the client, 16 or did the client tell that to you? 17 MR. ROISMAN: She's not going to answer that. 18 THE WITNESS: I'm not going to answer that 19 question. 20 MR. ROISMAN: What does it look like in terms of 21 your time, because my client is getting very tired and she's 22 willing to return. But she's not willing to go on here for 23 much more. Another 15 minutes, 24 MR. PATON: I'll do whatever you want to do. I t 25 clearly have more than 15 minutes. , 1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 804 336 % 46 {

l 8430 124 ( 1 MR. ROISMAN: Unless I'm misreading the volume of 2 pages. . .do you want to take another time to come back? 4 I i 3 THE WITNESS: We're talking a month before I'm 4 back in Washington. 5 MR. ROISMAN: Let me explain the schedule. I G With the exception of now, 8 o' clock tounorrow 7 night and after, I won't be back from Houston. I'm 8 departing immediately, and my current schedule will not I 9 bring me back to Washington earlier then to be able to meet 10 with Ms. Garde. I'm just giving you my schedule. 11 I'm not even asking her schedule. Starting at 8 

    /                                           12  o' clock tomorrow evening.             And the rest of this week is

( 13 gone. I'm in Philadelphia on Wednesday. I'm in Puerto Rico 14 on Thursday and Friday. Starting on the 14th or at the end 15 of the day on the 14th of August, I'm gone for two weeks. , I 16 (Discussion off the record.) 17 (Recess.) 18 THE WITNESS: Before we conclude for the day, I 19 want to clarify for the record one answer. You asked me, as 20 I recall, if the NRC staf f looked in the documents, would 21 they find all the allegations. 22 MR. PATON: Right. 23 THE WITNESS: I'm not comfortable that my answer 24 indicated that if you looked in the documents prior to 4 25 disposition of deficiency notices and CR's and/or you I ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 37C0 Nationwide Coverage IKo 33 m

8400 125 I ( 1 interviewed the k'ey supervisors at the South Texas project l 2 and asked them the question -- Are all deficiencies reported j I 3 to you included in the record, and if not, what are j 4 they? -- that you would get all the information. You would 5 have to conduct interviews, but if you conducted interviews 6 of those key officials, they would -- it's my belief -- be i i 7 able to provide you all the information. 8 But you would have to affirmatively ask: Tell us 9 all allegations that have been reported to you. l 10 BY MR. PATON: 11 Q And then, obviously, there would be some 12 dif ficulty in determining which are your allegations and 13 which are some other allegations? 14 A Well, I hope you find all the allegations. 15 0 Okay. 16 A You should have already. I 17 MR. ROISMANs You understand that we've assumed 18 all along that the Commission's interest was not in the 19 subset of the allegations, but that the Commission's 20 interest was in having all of the allegations, of which, for 21 all we know, we have a very small part of that iceburg. 22 MR. PATON: I think we have agreed to continue 23 this deposition until 11:30 a.m. one week from Wednesday, to . 24 continue for six hours, hopefully to be completed prior to t 25 the six hours. ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverare IKG336-fM6

9 3nt p- M[in ., ;) ;- ;j ' s- ~'V , } 

                                                                                                                                                                                 .r F

c ;ff .; [';.J. I :y; _ 

                                                                                                                                                                                         +-
                              ,, g l                     ' 't e                                                                   J e-                                                                                          r             A
y. , i s
                  . a'~

l. r: 1 t y: B(00. +. 126 -i Uf* \ ' M] u 1. I 1; MR. . ROISMAN: We're talking about August the 5th.: 1 

                                                                                                                 's,
                                                                                                          /
                           . L ' ('-                                   2                                                    THE MtTNESTra                                  Is a copy of the airplane ticket

{i ,s p 1 

                 ; j j, &-
                                                                      .3                  that I gave ypu                                 goi;rg                   to   be           reimbursed                               directly to GAP in y,

I ,i 4 7 c 

                                                                                         . the form of a' chec't frh>m the'NRC,gincluding my. witness fee?
                                                                                                      ~                           !                                                 .

y l U-5 

                                                                                                        /

4 M!!. PJi 1tN: Off the record. l 

                                                                           +

s i 

                           -*                                          6!                                                    (Disc fis. ion off the record. )
                                                                                                                                                                   ,J-7                            ,

(Whereupon; at 2430 p.m., the deposition 4 j f 

                                                                                                                             /y                                               ,,                                         ,

1 

                            ,('               7.

3 8' , . recessed, to deconvene at 11:30 a.m., Wednesday, August 5, s 

                                                          / /                                                                                                                                                          i
i. I, 1987.) >
                          ; q ( ' ,W['s 9                                      ,                                                          t .;                   l                                                     }
              .f j                                                   '10                                                            /,'?                                             ,
                                                                                                                                                                                             ,e                   *
                                                                                                                                /i          . , ,

( , 11 

                                                                                                                                               /

i 

                                                                                                                                                    +
                                                                ,. 12                                                                                         j                                                          .s

( ij t g 

                                ,                                     13                                                                                     i
                                                                                                                                               / /         1 9'3 14                                                                 .,                                       # r                 j             1 15                                                          'h /       <

d' ( + 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           ;f
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     , .t t
                                           ,                          16                                                              <                                                                         .        F
                                  ,1                                            ,,..

17 -' 1 

                                                           ,                                                                                                                                                 t 48
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       ,s 39
                                                                             ;;                                                                                                                                                 }
                 .t i

e '20 f( , Se t 

             + P'                                                    21
                                                     '                                                                                                                                                                                                   1
                                                                                                                                                                                               .'                                                     i 22                                                 ,                                                                     , -/                                                    ]

4 , l 23 

                                  >                                                   s<, ] ,,                                                                ,

24 '/,I} , / ' r 'l 

                'f ,               '

i / - (s ,, 25 

                                                                                                              ,         e                                                  , , -
     ,                                            g      i.                                                                                                          /

5,i . 

                                                                               ],.',                              j                          Aca F'3DERAL REPORTERS,                                                           INC.
 ,                                                                              i                               / 202-347 3700                               f. , ' Nationwide Coverage 2 336-6646 5

9 ,V >. f

j i 127 j i CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC & REPORTER ( I, David L. Hof fman , the officer before whom the foregoing deposition was taken, do hereby certify ) 1 that the witness whose testimony appears in the foregoing deposition was duly sworn by me; that the testimony of said witness was taken in shorthand and thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under my direction; that said deposition is a true record of . the te'stimony given by said witness; that I am I neither counsel for, related to, nor employed by any of the parties to the action in which this deposition was taken; and, further, that I am not a' relative or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties hereto, nor financial 1y or otherwise interested in the outcome of this action. r 

                                                                          /

r -/ m Notary Public in ' er the State of d My Commission Expires 7/1/90 e 

                 ~

hitch 6tates of America  % *> NUCIIAR REGULATORY 00MMISSION ( 0 in the snatter of: Houston Lighting and Power ' Company 

                                                                              > DOCKET NO. 50-498 50-499 TO                 i:s. Billie Pirner Garde Government Accountability             ,

Project 1555 Connecticut Avenue,11.W. Suite 202 h*ashington, D.C. 20036 YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear at Room 6507, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 7735 Old Georgetown Road, Bethesda, Maryland on the 26th day of May 1987 at 9:00 o' clock A.M. to continue as necessary for the purpose (,f testifying before NRC personnel concerning allegations of current and/or former employees of the South Texas Project concerning the safety of the South Texas Project, as described in your letter of January 2J,13E7 to Messrs. Victor Stello and Janes l'attox,' and any other {, allegations which you have received concerning the safety of the South i Texas Project, and to provide any records or othe- docunents in your possession or under your custody or control concerning such allegations. T / ctor Ste o. J Executive Director for Ooerations Nu e r RNulatorv Cnmmission M4u 9 /) , 1987 

                   .im rie o nnidhorn
                                                                               /

l 7ttJEPHoNE (301) 492-7619 l 4 On motion made prtwnptly, and in any event at or before the time specified in the subpoena for compliance by the person to whom the subpoena is directed, and on notice to the party at whose instance the subpoena was issued, the Comission may (1) quash or modify the subpoena if it is unreasonable or requires evidence not relevant to any matter in issue, or (2) condition denial of the motion on just and reasonable terms. Such motion should be directed to the Secretary of the Comission Washington, D.C. 20555. I I L_ _ _ _ _ 

                                                                                               ~~~._

Att4 chm 2nt i2 GCWERNMENT ACCOUNTADIUTY PROJECT' 1555 Connecicut Awnve, NW. Suite 202 dp ' by .i. i Washington, D.C. 20006 (202)232 6550 { t January 20, 1987 Victor Stello, Executive Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 James Mattox Attorney General for the State of Texas Supreme Court Building 14th & Colorado Austin, Texas 78711 Pe: South Texas Nuclear Project

Dear' Messrs. Stello and Mattox:

This letter is to infora your respective agencies that the Government Accountability Project (GAP) has formally begun preliminary investigation into worker allegations at the South Texas nuclear project. Since 1980, GAP has played a significant role in advocating on behalf of whistleblowers and concerned citizens on issues - ( involving safety-related problems at various nuclear power facilities. Our approach to nuclear power has been steadfastly the same: to ensure that the government enforces the cuclear safety laws and regulations. As a result of GAP's efforts (alone or in concert with other organizations) to expose safety-related problems, the construction and/or operation of several nuclear power f acilities - previously thought to be fit to operate -- were cancelled or pestponed for further review. The cancelled facilities include the 98 percent completed Zimmer nuclear power plant and the 85 percent completed Midland plant. Those which were postponed for further review include tne Comanche Peak, Three Mile Island, Diablo Canyon, and Waterford facilities. GAP currently either represents or is working wit-h approximately 36 current and/or former employees of the South Texas project. The allegations from the workers range from grand theft of nuclear grade steel to engineering defects in several major safety components. The allegations concern the failure of Housten Light & Power to guarantee subcontractor compliance with industry and f ederal saf ety requireraents, including but not limited to: defects in the instrumentation and control division; defects and lack of compliance with federal regulations in the heating, ventilating, and air condition,ing system; lack of compliance with quality' standards in the area of soils compaction; failure to complete required QA or OC documentation; falsification of required QA or QC documentation; and harassment

and intimidation of personnel who attempt to adhere to federal safety standards.

l i I January 20, 1987 - Page Two k thereAdditionally, andthat are allegations of specific concern to the State of Texas, the subcontractors at STP toinclude deliberate overcharge Houston actions Light of 

                                                                                      & some of Power    for goods to Brownand services
                  & Root,    by "chatging off" their ewn unacceptable Inc.                                                              work Tnere is also information which suggests that subcontractors have fraudulently charged STP for manhours not worked, completed  as and for portions of the project which were not claimed.

GAP is cbrrently condycting interviews with both current and 

    . former workers who are ecccerned about                                                             ;

GAP investigators are accept:nq calls from workers at ourthe South Texas project. 1 washington, D.C, office and our Midwest office. ] j issueOnce our preliminary a formal investigation is ecmplete, we plan to public report. Unfortunately, in the interim, we cannot advise our clients or those we work with to provide their concerns to the Region IV office of the NRC. Our experience has . been (and recently released internal agency reports confirm) that { the Arlington office is either u6able or unwilling to comply with l its regulatory requirements as outlined in governing agency procedures. { 

 ;           Thus, unless the NRC is willing to provide independent
  '   inspectors to process the allegations pursuant to internal NRC regulations, GAP will provide the allegations directly to the state Attorney General off;ce, and/or to the appropriate 1

congressional committees, and/or to other regalatory bodies which have an interest in ensuring ina the South or municipal plant is designed, constructed, and financed in a mannerTexas protects the public, that Please direct any inquiries about CAP's Scuth Texas i investigation to Richard Condit, Staff Attorney Investigator, 202-232-8550, or Billie Carde, CAP M:dwest off:ce, 414-730-8533. S ; nce r e .' y , Billie P:rner Garde Directcr, Fidwest Office Richard Ccnd:t Staff Atterney t j cc: Chairman Lando Zech BG/RC:C30 1 1 l

X TELECOPIER 293 ; 0-29-67; 2:10 Aw: 414 731 7881 , 2026283 73 ; oj F%Y 29 'Er712:15 f,PPLETON,WI 41 731-753; 14 fc' by , ( UNITED STATES 1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l 2 e' In the Matter oft l 'l Bouston Lighting and Power 4 

                     .,              .             Company                                    Dkt No. 50-498/499
                     .,     -;',s South Texas Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2.                ,

AFFIDAVIT l

1. My name is Billie Pirner Garde. I am an attorney with the Government Accountability' Project (GAP). I am currently the
                         .                  Director of GAP's Midwest Office, located in Appleton, Wisconsin.                     '

I am also co-director of the Environmental Whistleblower Protection Clinic..

2. Since 1985 I have been retained by a number of employees at STNP, some of who raised safety concerns that they wanted pursued by the NRC. As part of my work I and other GAP attorneys began, in January 1987, a preliminary investigation of STNP.
3. Currently both GAP attorney Richard Condit and I represent ATNP employees in individual discrimination cases. In these situations, we were retained to represent employees in litigation against their employers and/or to provide advice regarding disputes and potential disputes with their employers.

In other cases we were retained for the purpose of assuring that the employees substantive concerns were properly acted upen by the NRC and that the empicyees identity was protected from disclosure in order to protect their job and their future ( employment possibilities. (See, Attachment 1.)

4. The STNP employees that contacted us did so as a result l
                                                                                   .)_

rr,Y 29 '6" 23'1t5 AFO'~~.4h..! JiJ "II ~i21 , of their inability to obtain an adequate resciution to concerns I they had about'the design, construction, management, and i potential operation of the South Texas plant. Although each individual clients experience is unique the key elements of their dilemma is the same:

a. s The clienteither management, raisedona "discreet concern deficiency paper"cr(i.e, concerns to his i i

nonconformance reports, deficiency reports, etc.), b l documenting the concern in memoranda to supervision,y by  ! raising the concern orally to site supervision, or by taking the concern to the site SAFETEAN or che MRC. b. The concern of the satisfaction. client was not resolved to her This may have been because of inaction on the 1 i issues the raised, fears of theorclient. action on the concern that did not ally  ! {

c. The client then began to suffer some sort of reprisal as result of having raised the concern, or is fearful of {

suffering a reprisal if he pushes the ' concern. I' d. The client, believing that she had a duty to insure that she does everything in her power to insure that the public health and safety is protected, retained GAP attorneys to get her concerns into the hands of individuals that will put j the ultimate issue - the protection of the public -at the i l forefront of resciution of the issues of concern to the client.

5. Acting on the requests of our clients we began a series of contacts with the Nuclear Regulatory Csamission to establish an avenue for our clients to come to the NRC, present their information, protect their confidentiality, and be assured that their concerns would be investigated by officials that would indwwd put their obligacion to tne public health and safety l first.

(See, generally correspondence between Billie Pirder Garde  ! and Victor Stello attached to this affidavic.) 6. Our criteria to insure that our clients interests were i protected and their goals were accomplished was to insure that l I 1

m Y 29 '57 12: 16 # : I~ h .. 2:2 --; -- : , P.3c l independent and competent NRC employees process the allegations ( according to the DRAFT MANUAL CHAPTER 0517, " Management of j Allegations," which we recognize and understand to be the policy of the agency for processing allegations. (Although we reccqnize that the manual chapter has some weaknesses we acknowledge that it is the current policy of the agency regarding allegations.) 

                      ~
7. Mr. Stello has steadfastly refused to discuss our

{ i clients concerns and has rejected any attempts I have made to I come up with an arrangement that resolves the needs of all of the 1111111L11@lttal#mAIJil10!#f r!!!PilJif_.. resource intensive effort.

8. Mr. Ste11o's position as detailed in his letter does not acknowledge the restraints within which he and I are operating.

I have been retained to insure that my clients information is properly and thoroughly investigated and that their current and future employment interests are not endangered. j 9. Mr. Ste11o's duties and responsibilities, according to the March, 1986, version of Manual Chaptar 0517', section 031, is to I 1 Set policy and procedures for the receipt, processing, control, and disposition of allegations in conjunction with the Director of OI...(and) implement policy for protecting the identity of those who provide information to the NRC. i l

10. It is important to underscore the fact that the clients that have come to me have come voluntarily because they have a sincere concern about the improper resolution of a safety related concern, and have no confidence that direct contacts with the  !
     -                                                                                                                                             1 k

3 l _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ . - - --- ~~

XERoy TELEccF1ER 295.: 5-29-37; 2: 17 AM: 414 731 7661 1 

                                                                                                               +

2023283473 : e4 tSY 29 '87 12:17 f#FLETON.UI 414 731-7331 P47 agency will provid's them the assurances needed to justify the risk they are'taking with their careers and reputations. I

11. It is fair to state that the current situation at South Texas is a direct result of the repeated violations by Region IV's of the NRC's own policies and regulations. ( See, para. 37 i to 40, and see attached Memorandum in Support of the Motion to Quash and Petition of the Government Accountability Project Pursuant to 10 CFR'2.206.)
12. It is critical'that tlie Commission acknowledge that there are consequences attached to having a single inspector, or an entire region, that has lost the faith cf the public as a -

result of the conduct and regulatory record of the Region. In this case the actions of Region IV over the past decade have destroyed its credibility. 13. It is irrelevant to a resciution of the current issue I whether the past inappropriate actions of Region IV inspectors or l l managers were a result of deliberate misfeasance or gress incompetence. The damage to the public interest by an improper investigation and " resolution" of our clients concerns plus the damage- to our clients financial well being, personal' reputation or career opportunities will most likely be significant. We have i no choice but to fully advise our clients of the risks associated i with reliance on Region IV employees to comply with NRC rules, regulations, or practices in the conduct of an investigation. 14. As delineated below by way of example the consequences i of NRC malfeasance can be catastrophic. Some employees never k recover from the personal, emotional, and financial havoc caused l 

                          ' { Q ,g7 ::::: v:.E :mu: a u TM-7551
                                                                                                    ...... 4,s . .s P.5/7 l

in their lives by providing information to a government agency in 

               'l good faith and becoming, essentially, the " target" of a government investigation.               For example,                                 ,

,- ^j a._If an employee is contemplating bringing suit against his 1 employer.for illegal discrimination, violation of the-policy exemption to the at-will doctrine, defamation, public' I intentional-interference with contract, or other causes of action, a negative NRC report presents an additional complication and expense to a client. Frequently the , burden that cannot be overcome because of the lack ofconse resources available to an employee to oppose the NRC's NRC's inadequate work effort. technical conclusions or because of the ta a determination on the central discrimination issue, tha ) ' his engaging in protected activity as defined by the Act c. Protecting the interests of the employees at nuclear of Brown and Root v.Donovan plants in Texas is made even more complicated by! l I. whlen holds ~that employees ar,e not protected under Section747 F. I of government with their concerns and have initiated a2 l law, in order for an employee discharge _ tert theory she must prove that to prevail on a wrongf ' refusing to violate a federal or state law /or following a federal or state law in violation of direct orders to the contrary was the " sole reasen" far the termination.  !

d. The NRC investigations and inspections are not the the alleged offender are given an opportunity to'pres their evidence under rules of discovery in front of a neutral engineering experience and judgement. decision maker with techn
a. If the inspecto political pressure,r is incompetent, succumbs to time or or engages.in other " shortcuts" to eliminate the employe s concerns the consequences of his efforts are of ten 4 catastrophic for individual employees.
15. Additionally, there is no avenue for appeal and review t t of NRC findings which may be damaging to the employee.As a

N Y 23 '57 12:13 mLtten,;g au n-r: . '*-*e* 3*73 . e o P. O? ( practical matter there is no adequete means for an employee to compensated if NRC officials violate his confidentiality or impugn his integrity or competence. 16. As a result of the situation as described above GAP attorneys have an obligation to advise employees who contact us for legal advice regardiqq how to proceed in insuring their allegations are properly investigated and protecting tKemselves from further reprisals and retaliation.  ; in s. 's 

                                          ---------~~*a' *66**"*J" represent generally two types of employees - those'whoy originall trusted the system with their concerns and are now gaged    en     in fighting the reprisals against them, or those who have information that they want revealed to competent         ernment gov officials without endangering their professional lives and careers.
   \

18. Our representation is formalized by either a written attorney-client relationship between the employee and or myself another atterney or based on a clear understandinge between th employee and the attorney in connection with the represent ti a on. A copy of the standard attorney-client representati on. form used for these 19. workers is attached to this affidavit (Attachment 1) Our obligation under the agreement is very cle ar. We may not, without our clients approval, provide either the identity of the clients or any information to th 2 of the agreement.) e NRC. ( See, p. 20. We may not provide the information to Region of IV the 3 NRC for the purposes of the investigation of th e concerns. (See, 

                                                                                      .w , , 2 e,
                 , g 3 .;:         :.::.- 3 ...; 4;4 73. III P.? ?

i i 

                                                                                                       }
p. 3 of the agreement.)

{ 21. We it.ay not provide the information to the current ' Executive Director of Operations, Victor Stello, Jr., for investigation. ( See, p.4 of the agreement.) 22. We have, since January 1987, attempted to fulfill our obligation to our clients by obtaining a competent, non-Region ' IV, investigation / inspection commitment by the unc.

23. On January 20, 1987, we announced cur preliminary I j

investigation of STNP allegations through c. letter to the State of Texas Attorney General's office and to Mr. Stello. We 1 {i requestad that the NRC provide an independent inspection effort . to review our clients' allegations. (See, attachment 2) 24. Within a week officials at Houston Power and Light responded to our letter, not even addressed to them, indicating a desire to work with us in investigating allegations that were provided to us. Subsequent correspondence and discussions with EP&L, unfortunately, did not prove productive. (Correspondence between myself and HP&L ic provided as Attachment 9 a g.)

27. On February 18, 1987, Mr. Stallo responded to our concerns about Region IV's inability to conduct an independent and competent investigation by advising us of the following:

The South Texas Project is within the jurisdiction of Region the concerns cIV and that Re ion is the appropriate organization to rev your clients. IV will properly pursue this responsibility.I have confidence that Region ) contact with Mr. Robert D. Martin, Regional Administrator have been in l for Region IV, and he assures me that his staff is thoroughly prepared to commit the resources required to appropriately resolve the issues with your clients m this matter should be directed to Mr. Martin in Region IV. i i 4 i 1

e .x tu.e.com e." a*' * ~ " ' " " " - . ~~<a <ni

  • m y 29 '87 12:20 AFFL N 'd #I# E NI 2262em : oy PM L (See, Attachment 3)
28. On March 4, 1987, I responded to Mr. Ste11o's blind vote of confidence in Region IV.

I referenced a long history of grnblems wi'h r Realnn TV insper+1nn effnree rahinh T sm nan d'i deam Mr. Stello is well aware and again requested an independent investigation for our clients concerns.( See, Attachment 4)

29. On March 18, 1987, Mr. Stello affirmed his previous position and urgeo me to bring forth "any information" I have on deficiencies at STNP that would have a bearing on nuclear safety to NRC or HP&L - or advise our clients to do so. (See, Attachment 5.)

30. On March 23, 1987, I again requested that Mr. Stello address directly my request for an independent individual or task [ force to investigate the enneerns haino ralend hu nov a14aasa. 

                  !                                                                                           t (See, Attachment 6.)                                                 ~

31. On April 6, 1987, EP&L officials wrote and inforzned me that they were "taking steps to request appropriate government officials to obtain from you or your organization information - which could potentially affect the safety of the south Texas Project." (See, Attachment 99) l 32. On April 8,1987, Mr. Stallo, who upon information and belief, responded to EP&L's ple<a for assistance, placed ma under direct threat of legal action if~I did not provide the information to the agency within 30 days. (see, Attachment 7.) 4a. vn at least enree occasions in March and April, 1987, I initiated conversations with Mr. Tom Rehm of the Executive Director's office to explain our legal obligations and our

m, g3 g :::I; cFF_- m.it 4:2 7~1 ~I3; FZT 

                                                                                                                                                }-
.6....s ro y.w,Aoinw .wwe== 6v one wurners ano enear information to an independent and competent team or individual within the NRC. The conversations apparently bore no fruit, although I was t.a .. ....... su.6 ms. nunm anu possio2y otners, wouAc cascuss the general nature of the allegations and inform me of the agency's decision regarding an avenue for processing of the allegations.
34. As the facts demonstrate I have spent six months attempting to get the NRC to act responsibly regarding our clients.

Our obligations to our clients have not changed. We mn.* .4th., provid. *k.= ,,Leh . 

                                                                  . ..r e t . .. L wwww.u..us investigation to assure them that their safety concerns will be properly addressed or we must remain silent and not endanger the g   safety of the public by allowing an improper investigation to k,  permit cover up of safety problems and to net endanger their professional future and their source of income and reputation.

35 There is substantial reason to doubt that, if Region IV officials were given the responsibility of the investigation into  ! 

                                                                                                                                                    )

our clients concerns that the effort would be conducted in accordance with CHAPTER MANUAL 0517 manual. 

                                  ...   . . naw ww=uan=4uners enemseAves nave perhaps the best knowledge of the basis of our belief regarding Region IV officials because they alone are the recipients of all of the various reports, investigations, and inquiries conducted over the years by the Commission staff into Region IV fiascos.                     (A mote complete list is provided in the 2.206 Petition filed today by GAP on this issue, however, the following example is included to                                                         l
                                                               -g.

          . c. . . , cue. . vr . c . .,o   ,     c      3..   ....   -a,    -.- in ,coi         .        ..;e:334 3 ;   3
     . .            f%Y I9 'S7 II:II @LI~Ub WI J'4 731 ~III                                                     P.3/7 demonstrate that Region IV has not learned from,its errors.)

I 

           '.                     37. In October,1983, the NRC's Office of Inspector and Auditor (OIA) finished two investigations of charges of impropriety of certain Region IV officials at the comanche Peak plant.         In a January 3, 1984, memo from then EDO William J.

Dircks to Chairman Palladino on the OTA reperra Dir,ke defendeA Region IV's actions in 

                                                                                                                          )
1) not determining the full extent of an allegors allegations betnuch "at that time it appears to have been reasonable not to have contacted Ithe allegor] despite his allegations to the press of a cover up. Hindsicht W made that contact desirable but would not likely ha.2ve Elf hAve changed ge, e dtimate findings on the matter."
2) defended Region IV's reliance on the utilities findings '

regarding the allegations, noting that "Acain, with the advantaae sma.a. of hindsicht, one could sy that Region IV 

                                            ...L 71.ww1J b.we a e s,w ul a.d 6us            sseou g MAvF3Dectea r,

attention toTJ- 

                                . x u ., . . . C   the. matter
                                                          . . . , v i vand e n to Tab.oleyond
                                                                                        .uw a review of someone a eTTsT5tr ene

{ actioEsTRegion faDDear LQ rea.uoff hesonable~aEd correct. "

3) acknowledged the impropriety of the actions of Region IV inspector R.G. Taylor in not conducting a " thorough investigation" in IER 50-445/82-14, and indicated that at intend to emphasize the need for thorcuch inspections of~

alleoed~3er:,c;,encies to UTF amd Reaion.1 Administrator to j avoid repet;,t:,on g tEse proBTems." ~ l l 

        ~                       4)    explained away the triple breach of an allegera'                                     l identity by stating that "...NRC policy o,g confidentiality was rless than clear in 1980 and not executed similarily in M.aegions.

u , Our po1Tev .n Elis area is beinq reviewed Ed aw-t; . . . ... 41 rr imit tTrs erDeccat,oftT or allecers b Tocard to conJidentialty be fulfi: , led . " 

                                                              ~

(All emphasis is added)

38. There is substantial basis for our clients' position and our own professional opinion that neither Mr. Stelle or Region IV are competent government officials capable of conducting an inspection of worker allegations at the south Texas

( 

                            ;;;;, .c gin mm.u:
                                                                                                                  ........,a;..

a u sa . e.u: plant 'in accordance with NRC Chapter Manuel 0517, Processing of I Allegations. 39. The basis for the opinions of our clients is a variety of experiences and impressions formed by tne actions of Region IV inspectors responsible for the plant. 40. One of my clients, Mr. John Hodge, has authorized me to include the following example as the latest demonstration of Region IV's insensitivity, incompetence, and refusal to follow NRC's own chapter manual instructicna regarding allegations. (The example is already on the public record.) ' a. On November 22, 1986, John Hodge filed, pro se, a complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor against ESASCO alleging that he had been discriminated against for going to { SAFMEAM and for' disagreeing with his management over 1 violations of site criminal laws, federal' rules and site procedures. Mr. Bodge also claimed that he had only recently 

                   /.             Mcome aware ofAct, Reorganization            hisarights under Section 210 of the Energy nn,r.4 . wes.,. en es.nd t.              . hat there was..no,c,opy of the law
                                                                              . ..,42,si                          .

b. The U.S. Department of Labor rajected his complaint because it was not filed within 30 days of the discriminatory-act. c. spy.On 1.aDecember 22, 1986, sk. det...an.st+o on behalf of Mr. Hodges, I wr th. w.w. .ua avus olvi tvu. 6. the law On February 6, 1987, there was a conference call between Judge. yer for EBASCO, myself, and the Administrative Law During that conference call it was decided that before any litigation would be commenced on the merits of thedecided. be discrimination complaint that a preliminary issue had to The first issue was whether or not Mr. Rodges had constructive knowledge of the Act by a determination of the actual onsetnoe ne eh. une ea - i at th. was no written order memorializing this issue..t s.. ok...

e. On April 28, 1987 wrote to Mr. modges .n,o informed him that Region IV hadthe Region conducted an investigation into his technical concerns and concluded that they were not substantiated. The only concern addressed by Region IV was the single issue in the i Form 3's had been posted. proceeding, that is - whether or not the NRC

n;c, I- s712:23 Ac LE7m..c :13 721 III F , $, 7 g,

f.  !

No NRC inspector, investigator, or coordinator had ever i interviewed Mr. Hodges. Region IV had absolutely no idea'of  ! ( the proof that Mr. Hodges had himself gathered to demonstrate that the Form 3's were not, in fact, posted.

g. Region IV also completely ignored the technical allegations raised initially in Mr. Hodges complaint regarding wrongdoing issues and his safety-related concerns.
h. They completely ignored, either deliberately or because kb$5.) $alf IAll 19889Fil'alet.at w!?Ri EC ". II..I,rggnr r determine issues, proof, evidence, and any thing to substantiate the concerns.
1. The inspector, R.G. Taylor, is the same inspector previously inspections.

cited by OIA for conducting inadequate Apparently Mr. Dircks lessons from hindsight i were not communicated to Mr. Taylor, or already forgotten. (see, paragraph 37 (3), supra.) I 41, susequent communications between myself and Region IV has not produced any remedys (See, Attachments 8 a-d for a record of the correspondence on this example.)

42. Mr. Stello has steadfastly stood behind Mr. Martin and Roolon TV nffletale throughese the mass d a va o L1..,
                                                                  . . aJeuwe Gr misconduct, imprudence, incompetence, and dereliction of duties.

According to Mr. Stallo's testimony before'the Senate hearing and his May 1, 1987 letter, to Senator John Glenn, Mr. Stello was concerned with the " morale" of the people in Region IV. It is my personal belief that he was referring to the same people that OIA , had concluded were quilty of years of ignoring quality issues at Comanche Peak, and whose names figure prominently in each of the i OIA invemHnarinne raFarcad *a 4a *hl= 811Las- = *~ s--2* confident that Mr. Ste11o's concern did not run to the morale of one inspvuturu who had been sentenced to bureaucratic Siberia as a result of trying to do their job. I base my opinion, in part, 

                                ~

1 1 l

XEEQX TELEcopsER 293 ; S-29-87; 2:24 AH; 414 701 7861 + 2026283f,73 ; o 6 ty.y 29 '87 12:24 W L W 'd 41d 731" M 1 P. 6,7 

                                                                                                                                               ,7 i

I nn the fyr char W h allo initially appneves a mana w ,l.. m. for' Region IV official Tom Westerman, only to pull it back at the ) insistence of CIA, and because Mr. Stello had recommended another senior Rsgion IV official, Mr. Paul Check, implicated by the d Region IV investigations and the history of ignoring quality 

         , problems at Region IV plants, for a promotion to a senior staff
  • position in Washington.

41. Mr. Ste11o's public and private support of Region IV's i worst offenders and his failure to take any corrective action 1 i j regarding the agency employees who have actively engaged in i ennance ehne to a vi.1 6 Lea .a unc ..,o1 Liwi. .uc p auciveu as i l understandable only if he in fact condones the activity. I l

42. As a result of Mr. Stallo's repeated failure to \

{ demonstrate any acknowledgement of the NRC's own regulations regarding the processing of allegations and interfacing with allagers, while at the same time being the de facto operative of the utility from which our clienta need protection, we have no choice but to comply with our professional obligation to our clients and protect them from the NRC. 43. I am confident that the coasnissioners themselves will l sen the M1emma T am in ,ad e==a.td. 'u 3;---61-.. - A-==*r provided by the Director of Licensing when a similar problem arose in early 1984 regarding the Waterford and comanche Peak plants. 44 It is important that the Commission realize that I am i very anxious for the resolution of this issue and look forward to g turning the investigative responsibility of the concerns of my l ar.%n TELEC0F IER a * *~"~*'#

  • g ,67 II'Ig y,pp g 44..; 1 21 21 P.7/7
                                                                     .                                                             1 g 9ny, pn ,=nspatank me e&aFF members inh. he .                                          ....). .....a .s

{ integrity and fairness, and will abide by Chapter Manual 0517 . (The Chapter Manual is attached to this affidavit as Attachment 10.) However, I must comply with the restrictions that my cli'ents have put me and other GAP attorneys under regarding their individual concerns. OO . A n e. _ s [$ - .= millie Pirner Garde, Esquire 1 

                                                                                                                                   \
                                                                                                                                   \

i Subscribed and sworn to me this i 29th day of Ma I ( . 

        /                                      _

t outagami County, Wisconsin h*** Iff Ncyggy _ . ~ . 

                                 \,' ),

PUBuc / . 944pe# 

                     % =N  ua I

i k 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          ..t
                                                                                                                                                                                                    .,.                                         8:. w.hr&.&   w yu.,,apa       g. . h' . .1sm
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       .e y                   -
                                                                                                                                                                                        .. e i
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               ..                   - I-
m. ' :? l:.@n}l fllm.: .:.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  .:     ;.    **      tr     q,:=.e            w.

i 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      }
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               . . . s. _.n3~... s            . u.                                                                   4 1
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      .      .$, Uh , .,,.                         c l
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          ..          ..q w ,

eg 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                             *:5.=]:f,0;:;._.;

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA D M [ V ' ., I tiUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION LAJ *N~. ~ l 1 . WQL$ # :p 

                                                                                                                                                                                 .                           - 7..,'GsMC.W
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     . e, e c. . . .A, ,.s ,w ?&*
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 .  ..          , m, -

t... p J 

                                                                                  -                                                 *.                                                 .q*                                                   .i
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      .p,,

tuq93,ge;L. - l In the matter of:: # .. 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       ~
 ,  y.a
                                                                                                                 ~w:                           .
                                                                                                                                                                              ~ m.)      .
                                                                                                                                                                                                    ) . m.

in~..,d).'.*-. L.1&. 9 4*E c . n.5 5. 1.R.- < . ,% i Houston Lighting and' Power Company :.)tjQ, * ' M n'in g' 

                                                                                                                                            ,. t-                                                                                                                  m           ~498i                            ^!

To: Ms. Billie Pirner Gard. y h- .4 . 

                                                                                                                                                                                                .) )an.mE.gg.,3.0',499 M MM .WDoc ~e h                                                      -
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ^

F p ., 

                                                                                                                                         -. n q':.

y _= .;: " . g 4.p n, p 'H - 

                                                                                                                                                                                             .                                                                                                                                                         i
                                                                                                                                                        .O
                                                                                                                                                       .. ,b. . . .a.WAv.
                                                                                                                                                             <                                     h w . g.                                 pp ,:;        .e.mqgu,og,.gt l %             pgn                  +w],     w              t .: s0;pw%
                                                                                                                                                           . .                                               -. . u                                                                                             ..          ,, ..
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              %W 3

_ :? : . . .X2.1..T:2. :'MWw - -w t s;. w. : - .. ..w:r w -~=: b.at:%JQ q b n 1 

                                . ,,s                                                                                                                                                               w,m m:.s/m3                                                        ~e . m edr#qd,ggk;;&                        p. m.!m                   r.. .-

m, - -a . . 0, I 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               .                     {

y...g MOTION AND MEMORABE)(Bt T_O ;QUASE ~8083'OEN& WW$i $g$p-M -- 7 . :. ' y ,. r. - . - d %...M,4q-"t,. .p 

  .,.                                                                                                                          ,                                                       . .- .._ a . ,s.n. r . ,. ;,,,

M.']' . 

                                                                                                                                                                          .   .. - -                                     :.m 1.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              ..aa
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    .         124 g%e. rv                           wy                               ,

sp.- m %y.e,4.,..e 

                                                                                                                                                                                                          ~ v<.$ g m.: b: mrmge
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               +4.+             sm.m.a                       ,:..-pwk. w.- .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             .-., .,2ws
                                                                                                                                                   --m
                                                                                                                                                                                       .~.

i 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          .e.                             n. .,z t.:.r22v.      n u. ..                          ma W/ O 9-WMnt74-<              e. ~ ,.s 6 4 g -                                       .n".n ~.-

yv.u-  ; 

                                                                                                                                                                                                              ~ ./:u/                                              -
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     , u.a.::p;r.,cy.:p
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            .% 'a         . , .        df,y
  • d ..;..3. . 9,7 W.<a.py p.r.
                                                                                                                                                                                                    .c            >
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      , yg,.a_.
                                                                                                                                                                                   =                , , -
                                                                                                                                                                                                 , w ..
                                                                                                                                                                                                            - ~.w~ -w.r-m.,re.p                   .<...a r 4 u;w ,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            - m.:.,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               . x .n .v. , w           .
           ',                                                                                                                                                                           .a ..'? Anthony.J.iBolsaan,' Esq.
                                                                                                                                                                                 '~

h 1401, g p g g,e3, g , 

      . f-                                                                                                                                  -                          .                                                     Sultg. s,                                            ,,.f g m,;                                     _c x,. . .w                                                    M                                               M.; -                     y .-
                                                                                                                                                         ~ ,. e
                                                                                                                                                                   \.c:q::-
                                                                                                                                                                                     . . f s .

gm *4. WWW e e,s 5 s e b g . . . . . q.. ._.e tye~ - . ..

y. p%

v.t 9 _ 

                                                                                                                                         . cc          .y)M,     .. dh          %y4w,4p-_py 4
                                                                                                                                                                                                        ,. 4 ,WN s
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  *th@4 w
 ):i.G-1
            . .a
             .                         : . .                                                                                                   a::

i,$^.EAW * &- 4 g*ggg _(WW :.- 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              'y                                    ,y
F .  %[y .3 Rid l h Ti.
   , g&r;           em...

g ., 

                                                 . ~ e.                                                                c,....-1.9.%.h@p_.-

a +.. . A;~Q..p6.f.Ifr .. .w 

                                                                                                           ~-

r9 - t 3 y? .. l l . p+ w *Q ?, . 

                                                                                             ., J ., .
                                                                                                               3
                                                                                                                            - .p -? +".             k
                                                                                                                                                        , ' .' / '_ j ,. g. ,                                                    5.$.                                                             <

l 1  %,g .,.p., g ', ll",~. . , 

                                                                            ~

b. l a f. h , ;L l

h. y 7- 7..e ,...(202)k 3

!y n yry*.< x \4 wy. a y s y. z, ,.g %, n. m _ ,T.i. cl5.r.5. 9m;.y.. s.npm 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          . pa=g.,.r i
                                                                                            .'I.e

)ee - . _ _ I w~ .s. ~. . 

                                               ..                 3..

r ge . . . . .. a s 

                                                                                                                                                                                  .?..w-arm.easdes          ..*~

i.,t*n**~wemm.. a.ume.s u- 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    .~w.-

d ** : ; -' ' 8 - j - $*r*=".(./gQe' . P 

                                                               ,,                                t                                                      *",Ef % e . t.~3.au8.,'.*,,'.**.,C,,,,
                                                                                                                                                                                  .        3,             .
                                                    }'# . ) :., e         t
  • w ,. 1.g _ . . .j,. + y. h= .F .

3 . . . ..,u .,, y n 1 

                                                -n . r~. il y.          t
  • a -fm, d' . e A.een \ s%s .%' j.s T 1 . .- e
                                                                                              ',i I                              ,,'
  • 4[ ., : - ,p oy:
                                                                  .l.                                                        ,.                 - . a:-. .r . . , . 7, -                                                                                                                                                               <-
.t. p+.JtOli .

i I' I 

                                                                                             .t.
                                                                                                                             ,               *                      .,                . .      .                -. M..r                           upgrg                                     w'                              m, M 3:

e 

                                                                                                  '                                                                  .-. ., 9 .g                                                                                                                                                    y,

~ ' 5 . l', l ' 

                                                                                                                       .                                     ...c             $ $ ,W W W h{y .                                                                                                                                        Y              j km                                             .                 ')                  g'                                                                                     n-::
                                                                                                                                                                   % 2 pis?G.T&RiGW                                                                                                                                   MW J
                                                                                      \                                                                                                  ;a%@y'" % ..                                                                                                         dLM,L* ~
                                                                                    . s.                                                                         .

p ; - n., . . q .s + 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ,,        e::                              s p                   w.~ ,..

y - a .:

p. _ q.
                                                                                                                                                                                                          .sup, -

pu..q.pv.. y. g,_pp.y q{ g.,g rw 

                                              ?                                                                                                                             . , V. ;                                                           1,.,.                   ., ,y. .g.'. m.,,.p.                  f. >e-        f j. t.

m

}- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COHMISSION In the matter of: ) 

                                                    )

Houston Lighting and Power Company ) Docket No. 50-498 

                                                   .)             50-499 y           To:    Ms. Billie Pirner Garde           )
                                                    )

a 0 l MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA  ! O Billie P. Garde, Esq. (Movant) hereby moves that the Commissioners of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) quash the subpoena issued by Victor Stello, Jr. 0-( (Executive Director for Operations) on May 20, 1987. The specific grounds for quashing the subpoena are as follows: 1 (1) Compliance with Mr. Stello's command would compromise the_ health and safety of the public. (2) There is no authority for Mr. Stello to issue the May . 9 20, 1987 subpoena. l l (3) The information and identitites of Movant's clients are protected by the attorney-client privilege. .I Movant requests the opportunity for an oral argument on this Motion. I Lt i 1-I t L, _ _ _ _ _ .____ -_ _- _ - - ---

O. i t' Respectfully submitted, y" ,WL Q (r bh g- Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq. 1401 New York' Avenue N.W. 8600 Washington, D.C. 20005 i (202) 628-3500 

                                                 .A        s
                                                   / /
                                 &!L(k.
                                              . 4a Richard E. Condit David S. Rubinton Staff Attorneys Government Accountability Project 4

1555 Connecticut Avenue N.W. #200 Washington, D.C. 20036 I (202) 232-8550 m. Dated: May 29, 1987 f, 079a06' 10' g 1 e 14 l

8 , UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -{ f NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l* i In the matter of: .I 

                                                   )
                                                   )-    i                                                                        lj Houston Lighting and Power Company )         Docket No. 50-498
                                                   )               50-499 1          'To:   Ms. Billie Pirner Garde           )

l l MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA l' [ Oral Argument Requested). , s I. Introduction Victor Stello, without power or authority, has sought to compel an attorney, Billie Pirner Garde, Es q . , to divulge the names of her clients and information provided to her by her clients in direct violation of the conditions of her Il representation of these clients and of her obligations under the Legal Code of Professional Responsibility. The information sought was obtained by Ms. Garde, and investigators working for I her and under her supervision and control, directly from her clients and relates solely to information required by Ms. Garde to properly represent those clients. See Attached Affidavit of I Billie Pirner Garde, Esq. Ms.. Garde has been retained by these clients to assure that 1 j 1 their concerns about the safety of the South Texas Nuclear Plant I are properly investigated and resolved by the NRC. In an attempt to assure that the concerns were properly investigated, Ms. Garde  ! sought from the NRC creation of a competent and independent 't investigation unit. See accompanying Petition Pursuant to 10 CFR i t t

L t 52.206.. In order to be able to' properly advocate the' concerns of 

    -I cher' clients to such a competent and independent investigation team, Ms. Garde obtained from her clients their-technical and expert opinions that formed the basis for their safety concerns.
Mr. Stello's attempt to obtain this information is for the y.

purpose and/or would have the effect of defeating the very 

                             ~

concerns that motivated Ms. Garde's clients to retain her. It is i Mr. Stello and Region IV whose past and present conduct (fully documented by OIA reports and other investigations) that have convinced Ms. Garde and her clients that only an independent investigation team can properly evaluate and act upon the 

              ,   concerns of these workers.

These work'ers have already taken substantial risks to pursue safety concerns which, when raised at the job site, were ignored. 

                ' Fearful.of job discrimination and mindful of the consequences suffered by others before them, they ref rained f rom further pressing their concerns with Houston Power & Light (HP&L), but
  ~

i have nonetheless come to Ms. Garde and enlisted her assistance in 1 3 l assuring that their safety concerns are properly evaluated by the 1 NRC. Their experiences and those of other workers, all I documented by OIA and others, convince them and Ms. Garde that allowing either Region IV or Victor Stello to be in charge of the investigation will severely compromise their safety concerns and substantially increase the risk that their identities will be disclosed to HP&L. If this Commission were nonetheless to order Ms. Garde to divulge this information to the very persons whom i these workers least trust, it would create incalculable harm for t t 

    .___=__-_.__-_    -.

T il . the cause of" safety at every nuclear facility in the country.. l )I O (Although,Ms. Garde will not violate her duty to her clients, the Commissioners' action would be properly viewed as aligning the _: power of the highest levels of this agency with proven and g' unrepentant miscreants (Stello and Region IV) and against the j workers in the. nuclear industry and the public health and 7 safety.) As the accompanying 52.206 Petition makes clear, there 4 is a far better course for the Commissioners to follow to both > assure the proper and prompt investigation of the safety concerns and to assure concerned nuclear workers everywhere that they will 

 .                                           never be forced to choose between silence on the one hand and ineffective safety investigations by incompetent and ill-motivated NRC investigators on the other.

I' I . II. Facts Beginning in 1985, Billie P. Garde has been contacted by workers at the South Texas nuclear power plant. These contacts have raised concerns ranging from specific complaints about harassment and intimidation for identifying safety problems at j the plant, to general complaints about violations of federal and I J state laws by certain individuals and subcontractors at the ) plant. In some cases Ms. Garde was retained to represent these employees in discrimination complaints against their employers; I I  ! in others, she was contacted regarding the substantive concerns j about the plant. Ms. Garde's representation of employees at the South Texas (f Nuclear Plant is formalized by a written attorney-client l-

O agreement. Her obligation under the agreement is very clear. O She may not, without her clients' approval, provide either the identity of her clients or any information to the NRC, to Region IV of the NRC, or to the current Executive Director of g Operations, Victor Stello, Jr., for the purposes of the investigation of the concerns. Ms. Garde has, since January 1987, attempted to fulfill her i obligation to her clients by obtaining a competent, non-Region IV investigation / inspection commitment by the NRC. On January 20, 1987, she announced her preliminary investigation of STNP allegations through a letter to the State of Texas Attorney j General's office and to Mr. Stello. She requested that the NRC k' provide an independent inspection effort to review her clients' allegations. Within a week officials at Houston Power and Light responded to her letter indicating a desire to work with GAP attorneys in investigating allegations. Subsequent correspondence and discussions with HP&L, unfortunately, did not prove productive. On February 18, 1987, Mr. Stello responded to the concerns about Region IV's inability to conduct an independent and competent investigation by advising her of the following: 1 The South Texas Project is within the jurisdiction of  ! Region IV and that Region is the appropriate organiza-tion to review the concerns of your clients. I have il confidence that Region IV will properly pursue this responsibility. I have been in contact with Mr. Robert D. Martin, Regional Administrator for Region IV, and he assures me that his staff is thoroughly prepared to commit the resources required to appropriately resolve the issues which your clients might raise . . . . Any I further communications you may have regarding this 

   ;           matter should be directed to Mr. Martin in Region IV.

i On March 4, 1987, Ms. Garde responded to Mr. Stello's blind ( vote of confidence in Region IV. She referenced a long history of problems with Region IV inspection efforts of which she is confident Mr. Stello is well aware and again requested an  ; independent investigation for her clients' concerns. 1 On March 10, 1987, Mr. Stello affirmed his previous position and urged Ms. Garde to bring forth "any information" she has on deficiencies which would have bearing on nuclear safety to NRC or HP&L -- or advise her clients to do so. On March 23, 1987, Ms. Garde again requested that Mr. Stello address directly her request for an independent individual or 1 task force to investigate the concerns being raised by her clients. On April 6, 1987, HP&L officials wrote to Ms. Garde and 1 informed her that they were "taking steps to request appropriate government officials to obtain from you or your organization information which could potentially affect the safety of the South Texas Project." On April 8, 1987, Mr. Stello, who upon information and belief responded to HP&L's plea for assistance, placed Ms. Garde 'I under threat of legal action if she did not provide the information to the agency. On at least three occasions in March and April, 1987, Ms. 8 Garde initiated conversations with Mr. Tom Rehm of the Executive Director's office to explain her legal obligations and her interest in providing access to the workers and their information f f

n to an independent and competent team or individ;al within the NRC. The conversations apparently bore no fruit, although Ms. Garde was led to believe that Mr. Rehm, and possibly others, would discuss the general' nature of the allegations and inform her of the agencies' decision regarding the processing of the allegations. Ms. Garde has spent six months attempting to get the NRC to act responsibly regarding the allegations raised by her clients. Her obligations to her clients have not changed. She must either provide them with a competent government investigation or she must remain silent and not endanger the safety of the public by an incompetent NRC investigation, nor endanger the professional future, reputations and/or source of income of her clients. There is a substantial basis for the workers' position and i Ms. Garde's own prof essional opinion that neither Mr. Stello nor Region IV are competent government of ficials capable of conducting an inspection of worker allegations at the South Texas plant in accordance with NRC Chapter Manual 0517, Processing of Allegations. Region IV's conduct in the widely publicized events surrounding the harassment and intimidation of MRC inspectors at Comanche Peak was done with the approval or at the urging of Victor Stello. Furthermore, Mr. Stello has steadfastly stood behind Regional Administrator Robert D. Martin and Region IV officials throughout the most devastating evidence of misconduct, imprudence, incompetence, and dereliction of duties. According to Mr. Stello's testimony before the Senate hearing and his May 6-

e 1 

                        ?,      * ? A k, 4
                     .     ., o 3     (

1, 1987 letter to Senator John Glenn,4 he as concerned with the (( morale of-the people in Region IV. Clearly he meant the people h3 who were the " targets" of the investigation, not the NRC inspectors who had gone through bureaucratic " Siberia" as a result of trying to do their jot'. Mr. Stello approved a monetary lt l bonrs for one of the Region IV o,tficials then under a a > i in'gestigation, only to pull lt ba'c k v a t the insistence of the OIA. t Additionally, Mr. Stello recommended another Senior Region IV official implicated by the# Region IV investigation for a senior staff position in Washington shortly before the report became l public. i Mr. Stello's public and private support of Region IV's worst i offenders and his failure to take any corrective action regarding the agency employees.who have actively engaged in conduct that is I,~~ a violation of NRC Regulations and practices is understandable on1[ifhecondonessuchactivity. 

                    ;As a result of Mr. Stello's repeated failure to demonstrate any acknowledgement of the NRC's own regulations regarding the processing of allegations and interfacing with alleger, while simultaneously being the de facto operative of the utility from I

which the workers need protection, requires that she comply with her professional obligation to her clients and protect them from Mr. Stello and Region IV. III. Legal Argument ,

1. The Executive Director for Operations has no authority 0

to' issue the subpoena. 

                 <                                 _7-9

d Pursuant to the F7ergy Reorganization Act of 1974, as I amended, and 10 C.F.R. $1.40, the Executive Director for Operations (EDO) is appointed by the Commission and performs such functions as the Commission may direct. In directing the EDO to e perform numerous functions in 10 C.F.R. 51.40 (a q), the Commission specifically di6 not include the issuance of subpoenas ' or commancincats to appear within the scope of the Executive t. Director's duties. This omission is especially significant when i one notes tnat the Commission specifically delegated subpoena power to the Office of Investigations (10 C.F.R. 51.36 (g)). I While it may be possible that Mr. Stello could have been 1 91ven the authority to issue a Commandment To Appear (or subpoena) in this instance no such claim of authority has been expressed. On the contrary, Ms. Garde was commanded to appear by Il a document which cited no legal authority whatsoever. [See Attachment 13). f in fact, the caption of the document discloses the basic flaw in the legal authority. If, as the document asserts, this i is a subponea in the matter of Houston Lighting and Power, then it would have to be pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Part 2. The staff does 

  's not have the authority to issue subpoenas without Board approval.

The mere fact that no Hearing Board is sitting does not expand the staff authority. Instead it requires the staff to seek a t subpoena from some other lawful authority, i.e., the Commissioners, with an adequate showing to justify its conduct. 1 I Of course, the staff has not done this. I i Victor Stello should have made a timely request to the I l

) Commission for a subpoena. Perhaps he didn't make such a request i y because he was aware that he would have to explain the circumstances surrounding his request to the Commission and that he might therefore lose control of the information sought from o Ms. Garde's clients. ) Movant is also perplexed by the inclusion at the bottom of this Commandment of procedures for the quashing of a subpoena. [See Attachment 13]. Like the Commandment, the procedures for quashing a subpoena do not cite to any rule, regulation or law of the NRC, the Administrative Procedure Act or the United States of America. However, the provision is repeated verbatim (minus the last sentence which directs such motions to the Secretary of the i Commission) in 10 C.P.R. 52.720, the provision for a Board-issued subpoena. This procedure clearly applies to adjudications within s, the context of domestic licensing proceedings. Movant does not understand why this particular provision is contained within this Commandment. This Commandment makes no mention of any 

 ?

adjudication and Movant is not currently engaged in any  ! litigation involving the South Texas Nuclear Project. Therefore, i the inclusion of the procedures to quash at the bottom of the B Commandment was inappropriate and, to the extent that this document does not appear to be a subpoena at all, it was , I erroneous. I To the extent that there is no authority for the issuance of such a Commandment, Ms. Garde asserts her right to disregard it. i To the extent that such a document might be construed to be a ] II l subpoena requiring a Motion To Quash, this Memorandum supports j 9-t

? I i 1 l

l. 'that Motion.

(( 0; l 2. .The Attorney-Client privilege prevents Movant from I divulging the requested information to Mr. Stello. I L The information sought in the subpoena is absolutely l protected. Povant is ethically bound to preserve the confidences i and secrets of her clients. Disciplinary Rule (DR) 4-101 of the ABA's Model Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 1.6 of the ABA Model Rules prohibit a lawyer from revealing information relating to the representation of a client. Specifically, DR 4-101(B) states that . . . a lawyer shall not knowingly . . . [r]eveal a confidence or secret of his client." The information sought in this subpoena involves communications made by STNP employees to Ms. Garde of safety concerns at STNP. These employees requested Ms. Garde's assistance upon the understanding that their identities would remain confidential. These-clients also requested.that the information they communicated to Ms. Garde would remain confidential. Ms. Garde investigated their concerns so that she could have effectively argue for an independent investigation of their concerns. Ms. Garde's investigation into her clients' allegations was at all times linked to her clients' interest in having a proper investigation done. In recognition of an attorney's ethical requirements the law has recognized certain privileges which legally permit an attorney to refuse to disclose information about her client or information prepared-or formed during the course of her legal s l I 4 duties. Of these privileges, the attorney-client privilege i recognizes the right to keep communications made between the client and the attorney confidential. In addition, the work product doctrine protects from disclosure documents and mental ' i impressions generated by an attorney during the course of the attorney-client relationship. There can be no question that the attorney-client relationship exists. Movant has express oral and written i agreements with her clients. [See Attachment 1}. A claim of privilege can be made if several factors are met. First, the holder of the privilege is a client. Second, the I communication being protected was made to a member of the bar in her capacity as an attorney. Third, the communication relates to a fact of which the attorney was informed by her client for the purposes of securing legal services. United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corporation, 89 F.Supp. 357, 358-59 (D. Mass. 1950); Coleman v. American Broadcasting Corporation, 106 F.R.D. l 210 (D.C.D.C. 1985). l i The communications at issue here are clearly within the scope of the attorney-client privilege. The United Shoe standard  ! { I l supports the availability of the privilege in the instani case. The asserted holder of the privilege, STNP employees, became l l 1 clients of Ms. Garde; Ms. Garde, the person to whom I communications were made, is a member of the bar of the State of Wisconsin; and, in connection with the employees' communications concerning safety conditions, Ms. Garde was acting as a lawyer in that she served to formulate a legal strategy to protect her c a 

}

i clients' reputations and careers while seeing to it that their j allegations were properly resolved. )' In fact, in a case very similar to this one, the U.S. Supreme Court held that communications made to an attorney in the course of a factual investigation being conducted for the purposes of providing legal advice, must remain confidential. Upjohn v. United States of America, 449 U.S. 383 (1981). In { i Upiohn, corporate attorneys conducted investigations to determine l' if Upjohn's payments to certain foreign officials were in violation of the law. Upjohn attorneys conducted interviews with employees to determine the extent of payments in order to provide legal advice, Upjohn at 394. i When the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) learned of the payments, through a company disclosure, it began an investigation and issued a summons requiring Upjohn to i produce the relevant documents. Upjohn refused to comply with the demands of the IRS, and the agency brought an action to enforce the summons. In supporting Upjohn's refusal to reveal communications with the attorneys the Court stated: 4 Consistent with the underlying purposes of the attorney-client privilege, these communications must be protected against compelled disclosure, Upjohn, at 395. f I In the instant case, like Upjohn, Movant conducted a factual i investigation in order to provide her clients with legal advice. The facts developed through oral communications with the clients l { pertained to problems at the STNP. Movant analyzed the clients' I l I information and advised the clients accordingly. Clearly, these l communications are privileged under the Supreme Court's holding in Upjohn. 1 l 

                                                                                     ------_--_--- b

'8

3. The work' product doctrine prevents Movant from divulging

( the requested information~to Mr. Stello. All the information received by Ms. Garde regarding problems at the STNP were received in the course of communications with 

      .                    .her clients.      As such, these communications are clearly protected by the attorney-client privilege.

However, in the event that these communications are not i-found to be protected, Movant asserts that this information is protected by the work product doctrine. It is well established that an attorney's notes or summaries regarding oral 'l conversations with third parties and/or witnesses are absolutely protected under the work product doctrine. In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 473 F.2d 840 (8th Cir. 1973); U.S. v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225 (1975); In re Grand Jury Investigation, 412 F.Supp. 943 II' (E.D.Pa. 1976). Only in very limited circumstances can a party compel that work product materials be disclosed. Even if the information is required to be disclosed under one of the limited I-exceptions, impressions of the attorney cannot be disclosed. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 (b)(3); 10 C.P.R. 52.740(b)(2). In this case Mr. Stello would be unable to establish a substantial need for the information. Neither Mr. Stello nor Region IV can be expected to use any information to protect the I public's health and safety. In fact, it is likely that any information released to Mr. Stello on Region IV would either be covered up or inappropriately shared with STNP officials. I I

) l Regarding the work product doctrine, the Upjohn court-stated: )(. i l The notes and memoranda sought by the Government here, however, are work product based on oral statements. If they reveal communications, they are, in this case, protected by the attorney-client privilege. To the i- extent they do not reveal communications, they reveal the attorneys' mental processes in evaluating the communications. As Rule 26 and Hickman make clear, such work product cannot be disclosed simply on a showing of substantial need and inability to obtain the equivalent without undue hardship,  ; bp_ihn, at 401. Furthermore, the work product doctrine applies to' investigations done.by third parties at the request and/or direction of an attorney. Alltmont v. U.S., 177 F.2d 971 (3rd Cir.), cert. den., 339 U.S. 967 (1950). In this case, any records or documents in the possession of Movant pertaining to the safety of the STNP are work products developed from oral communications with her clients. In addition, the documents and notes in question contain the thoughts and impressions of Ms. Carde. Therefore, these documents are clearly exempted from disclosure under the work product doctrine. Conclusion i What this subpoena seeks to do is to force Ms. Garde to go f against cne of the fundamental principles of her profession -- to betray the confidences of her clients. Ms. Garde was retained J for the express purpose of maintaining the confidences of her clients, while seeking to provide a proper mechanism for the , resolution of their safety concerns at STNP. In pursuit of that, i 14 -

g-Ms. Garde has attempted to persuade Victor Stello to help her I ll* find such a mechanism. Failing at that, Ms. Garde has filed this day a petition with~the NRC pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.206 to order 

           'the proper investigation of her clients' concerns.

't We believe that there is no legitimate basis for Billie P. Garde to appear pursuant to Mr. Stello's May 20, 1987 Commandment. Therefore, we hereby request that the Commandment 1 l_ to appear be quashed. , l Respectfully submitted,

i Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.

1401 New York Avenue N.W. #600 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 628-3500 I t. Richard E. Condit David S. Rubinton Staff Attorneys Government Accountability Project l 1555 Connecticut Avenue N.W. #200 j Washington, D.C. 20036  ; (202) 232-8550 1 079a05 I I J l 

 '                                                                                I I

e M X TELECoPIER 295 ; G-29-07;'2: 15 AM: clo 731 7ggg o 20262s3c73. ; ,, f%Y 29 'Er? 12:15 APPLETT.A.WI .::.: ~I; II; P.10 ,. 4 lt UNITED-STATES 

       ,                                    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter oft Houston Lighting and Power Company                                 Dkt No. 50-498/499 South Texas Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2.

AFFIDAVIT

1. My name is Billie Pirner Garde. I am an attorney with the Government Accountability Project (GAP). I am currently the Director of GAP's Midwest Office, located in Appleton, Wisconsin.

I am also co-director of the Environmental Whistleblower Protection Clinic.

2. Since 1985 I have been retained by a number of employees at STNP, some of who raised safety concerns that they wanted pursued by the NRC. As part of my work I and other GAP attorneys i

began, in January 1987, a preliminary investigation of STNP. l

3. Currently both CAP attorney Richard Condit and I represent STNP employees in individual discrimination cases. In I

these situations, we were retained to represent employees in litigation against their empicyers and/or to provide advice i regarding disputes and potential disputes with their employers. I In other cases we were retained for the purpose of assuring that the employees substantive concerns were properly acted upon by the NRC and that the employees identity was protected from 1 disclosure in order to protect their job and their future employment possibilities. (See, Attachment 1.)

4. The STNP employees that contacted us did so as a result

{ i l _j_

O ~ Attachment #9e The Light o company n_,, i... ,~...-, i. o -:- n- ...o~.  ::~, m m... o t March 18, 1987 j 0 Ms Billie Garde } Director of the Midwest Office i Government Accountability Project i i 3424 N. Marcos Lane Appleton, Wisconsin 54911 )i 1 i

Dear Ms Garde:

We have been in touch with you as a representative of GAP concerning allegations regarding the South Texas Project by you and Mr. William Condit since the first appearance of those 6 allegations in the press on January 21, 1987. In writing to you on January 26, 1987, I sought your cooperation in bringing these matters to our attention using the SAFETEAM program which has a proven record of success at the South Texas Project. To facilitate your cooperation I offered the services of Mr. James Geiger, one of my most seasoned and trusted i( managers and head of our Nuclear Assurance Department. y Mr. Geiger contacted you immediately and conveyed repeatedly to you over the next several weeks our sincere interest in resolving the allegations which had allegedly been brought to your attention by employees at the STP site. Mr. Geiger considered carefully the reservations you expressed concerning use of SAFETEAM and offered to modify these procedures in an effort'to accommodate your concerns. His letters of February 11 and March 5, 1987, documented those conversations, including urgent requests that you submit at least one of the allegations of which you have knowledge for investigation using 0 these modified SAFETEAM procedures on a " trial basis." t You have been unresponsive to these suggestions and, in recent weeks, have not even returned Mr. Geiger's telephone calls. We must therefore regretfully conclude that GAP has no 

  '                                          interest in proceeding further with these discussions.                                        j 4

i We cannot, however, let matters rest at this point since this is not merely a disagreement between private parties. i Larger matters of the public interest are potentially affected. l Enyond the allegations of safety concerns, the implication of l p statements attributed to you in the press is that federal and j state laws may have been violated in the construction of STP. 3 j E.  ; I  ! I b i _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ b

rp 25 T w ;i 3: E :: . .: a;; 2; Ii; - p.: of their inability to obtain an adequate resolution to concerns i s~ i they had about the design, construction, management, and I potential operation of the South Texas plant. Although each individual clients experience is unique the key elements of their 1 i dilemma is th's same {

a. The client raised a discreet concern or concerns to his
- management, either on " deficiency paper" (i.e, nonconformance reports, deficiency reports, etc.), by )

l 

                  . documenting the concern in memoranda to supervision, by raising the concern orally to site supervision, or by taking the concern to the site SAFETEAM or the NRC.
b. The concern of the client was not resolved to her satisfaction. This may have been because of inaction on the )

1 issues the raised, fears of theorclient. action on the concern that did not ally ) I

c. The client then began to suffer some sort of reprisal as result of having raised the concern, or is fearful of 4 suffering a reprisal if he pushes the concern. .

I 

      ,-           d. The client, believing that she had a duty to insure that        I' she does everything in her power to insure that the public health and safety is protected, retained GAP attorneys to get her concerns into the hands of individuals that will put        i the ultimate issue - the protection of the public -at the          :

L forefront of resolution of the issues of concern to the client.

5. Acting on the requests of our clients we began a series of contacts with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to establish an avenue for our clients to ccme to the NRC, present their information, protect their confidentiality, and be assured that their concerns would be investigated by officials that would indewd put their obligation to tne public health and safety first.

(See, generally correspondence between Billie Pirner Garde and Victor Stello attached to this affidavit.) t 6. 

 '                      Our criteria to insure that our clients interests were          !

protected and their goals were accomplished was to insure that I l l s l I 

          ,   p . ;_ .3  ;;: 3 :: E-'  . .: .- 2; 13.                            ,- -

1 i independent and competent NRC employees peccess the allegations ' t 0' according to the DRAFT MANUAL CHAPTER 0517, " Management of Allegations," which we recognize and understand to be the policy of the agency for processing allegations. (Although we recognise i that the manual chapter has some weaknesses we acknowledge that it is the current policy of the agency regarding allegations.)

7. Mr. Stello has steadfastly refused to discuss our r clients concerns and has rejected any attempts I have made to come up with an arrangement that resolves the needs of all of the 4

tiisglifJillAsli tBijamAllhel s 108391111FillBI,m , resource intensive effort. 1

8. Mr. Stello's position as detailed in his letter does not acknowledge the restraints within which he and I are operating.

Ii 2 have been zetained to insure that my clients information la l properly and thoroughly investigated and that their current and future employment interests are not endangered. 1 9. Mr. Stallo's duties and responsibilities, according to l q the March, 1986, version of Manual chapter 0517, section 031, is to I I Set policy and procedures for the receipt, processing, control, and disposition of allegations in conjunction with the Director of OI...(and) implement policy for protecting the identity of those who provide information to the NRC.

10. It is important to underscore the fact that the clients that have come to me have come voluntarily because they have a l

sincere concern about the improper resolution of a safety related l l concern, and have no confidence that direct contacts with the I I I e ( i

XERoy TE.E00 PIER 295 ; 5-;3-57: 2: 17 AM: 414 731 7561 + 2026253473 : *4 1 j 8 $ Y 29 '87 12:1~ #"E ETC.u! 414 731 E51 .P.4 7 

                                                                                                         )

g( agency will provide them the assurances needed to justify the ) risk they are taking with their careers and reputations,

11. It is fair to state that the current situation at South
. Texas is a direct result of the repeated violations by Region IV's of the NRC's own policies and regulations. ( See, para. 37 to 40, and see attached Memorandum in Support of the Motion to Quash and Petition of the Government Accountability Project Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206.)
12. It is critical that the Commission acknowledge that i.

there are consequences attached to having a single inspector, or an entire region, that has lost the faith of the public as a result of the conduct and regulatory record of the Region. In this case the actions of Region IV over the pasr decade have I( destroyed its credibility. {

13. It is irrelevant to a resolution of the current issue {

1 whether the past inappropriate actions of Region IV inspectors or managers were a result of deliberate misfeasance or gross j i incompetence. The damage to the public interest by an improper  ! investigation and " resolution" of our clients concerns plus the j l damage to our clients financial well being, personal reputation or career opportunities will most likely be significant. We have no choice but to fully advise our clients of the risks associated I with reliance on Region IV employees to comply with NRC rules, regulations, or practices in the conduct of an investigation.

14. As delineated below by way of example the consequences t

of NRC malfeasance can be catastrophic. Some employees never i recover from the personal, emotional, and financial havoc caused i

u. .;. ;n j- -
       ,f e w i e._e..s 4 c-
                 % 29 . s
                                       -r-a .n u,.    ., :.- :.

o ,, ,., . ,, 3 

   . {'.           in'their lives by providing information to a government agency in
                 . good faith and becoming, essentially, the " target" of a government investigation.              For example,
s. If an employee is contemplating bringing suit against his 0 employer for illegal discrimination, violation of the policy exemption to the at-will doctrine, defamation, public Intentional interference with contract, or other causes of action, a negative NRC report presents an additional complication and expense to a client. Frequently the consequences of a negative report present an ev:,dentiary burden that cannot be overcome because of the lack of resources available to an employee to oppose the NRC's technical conclusions NRC's inadequate work or because of the taint created by the effort.

e

b. This is 'ven more true if the NRC is attempting to reach a determination on the central discrimination issue, that
           .              is, was the employee harassed and/or intimidated because of his engaging in protected activity as defined by the Act.
c. Protecting the interests of the employees at nuclear plants of Brown in Texas and Rootis made
v. even more complicated by the holding i

which hol3s~that eliiployees are not protected under SectionDonovan, , 210 of the Act unless they have contacted a competent organ of government with their concerns and have initiated a 

                          " proceeding" under the Act. Additionally, under state common law, in order for an employee to prevali on a wrongful discharge tort theory she must prove that refusing to                        ,

violate a federal or state law /or following a federal or j state law in violation of direct orders to the contrary was the " sole reason" for the termination.

d. The NRC investigations and inspections are not the results of a legal proceeding in which both the worker and the alleged offender are given an opportunity to present their evidence under rules of discovery in front of a neutral decision maker with technical competence and engineering experience and judgement.
a. If the inspector is incompetent, succumbs to time or political pressure, violates the confidences of the witness, or engages in other " shortcuts" to eliminate the employees concerns the consequences of his efforts are often l

catastrophic for individual employees. 4 15. Additionally, there is no avenue for appeal and review of NRC findings which may be damaging to the employee. As a f i

4tacx ic_E;;s Ee ::-: . E-ar--n J =

  • 414 C E +

my z3 s 12:;5 s:LEt:N. - 4:4 721 5El a: cmc 3;,3 P.6 F I I practical matter there is no adequite means for an employee to be compensated if NRC officials violate his confidentiality or impugn his integrity or competence. 16. I As a result of the situation as described above GAP attorneys have an obligation to advise employees who contact us for legal advice regarding how to proceed in insuring their allegations are properly investigated and protecting themselves from further reprisals and retaliation. in s. .i 

                                                    -----------a-   =66susers represent generally two types of employees - those who originally trusted the system with their concerns and are now engaged in fighting the reprisals against them, or those who have information that they want revealed to competent government officials without endangering their professional lives and careers.

18. Our representation is formalized by either a written attorney-client relationship between the employee and myself or another attorney or based on a clear understanding between the employee and the attorney in connection with the representation A copy of the standard attorney-client representation form used for these workers is attached to this affidavit. (Attachment 1) 19. Our obligation under the agreement is very clear We. t may not, without our clients approval, provide either the identity of the clients or any information to che NRC. ( See, p. 2 of the agreement.) 20. t We may not provide the information to Region IV of the t NRC for the purposes of the investigation of the concerns (See, . 

                                                  ~6-l l

l U

m..,.. . 

            -w 23. 37 ;;:;9 :::_!: :1....: .:;- ;;   33;                         - --- ; - . o I: -                                                                                  P. n r
    ,          p. 3 of the agreement.)

t

21. We may not provide the information to the current Executive Director of Operations, Victor Stello, Jr., for investigation. ( 588, p.4 of the agreement.)

22. We have, since January 1987, attempted to fulfill our obligation to our clients by obtaining a competent, non-Region IV, investigation / inspection commitment by the NRC.

23. On January 20, 1987, we announced our preliminary investigation of STNP a31 %ations through a letter to the State of Texas AttM ney General's office and to Mr. Stello. We requested that the NRC provide an independent inspection effort 1 to review our clients' allegations. (See, attachment 2) 24.

Within a week officials at Houston Power and Light responded to our letter, not even addressed to them, indicating a desire to work with us in investigating allegations that were provided to us. Subsequent correspondence and discussions with BP&L, unfortunately, did not prove productive. (Correspondence I { between myself and HP&L ic provided as Attachment 9 a g.) l

27. On February 18, 1987, Mr. Stallo responded to our concerns about Region IV's inability to conduct an independent and competent investigation by advising us of the following:

The South Texas Project is within the jurisdiction of Region I the concerns oIVyour and clients. that Re ion is the appropriate organization to review { t IV will properly pursue this responsibility.I have confidence that Region contact with Mr. Robert D. Martin, Regional Administrator have been in for Region IV, and he assures me that his ataff is thoroughly prepared to commit the resources required to ' g appropriately resolve the issues with your clients migh 3 i this matter should be directed to Mr. Martin in Region IV.' ' 

                                                                                               )

xEROM TELECCPIER 3M ;  : :r .. e -v w. 4;4 Li  ;,,3 202s2sso73 ; g, 4~ rV;Y 29 '87 II:I? #F# LIT.hW: 4;4 M-75n P.1/7 

            ~(See, Attachment 3) g(
28. On March 4, 1987, I responded to Mr. Stello's blind vote of confidence in Region IV.

I referenced a long history of 3rnblems with neoinn TV.inspeerinn efenre,e.ihinh r .m anneiaon. t Mr. Stallo is well aware and again requested an independent investigation for our clients concerns.( see, Attachment 4)

29. On March 18, 1987, Mr.-Stello affirmed his previous position and urged me to bring forth "any information" I have on deficiencies at STNP that would have a bearing on nuclear safety to NRC or MPEL - or advise our clients to do so. (See, Attachment 5.)
30. On March 23, 1987, I again requested that Mr. Stello address directly my request for an independent individual or task i

force to investicar.n the c.nneerne haine rai..a hu anc a14aa*.. (See, Attachment 6.)

31. On April 6, 1987, HP&L officials wrote and informed me that they were "taking steps to request appropriate government officials to obtain from you or your organization information a

which could potentially affect the safety of the south Texas Project." (See, Attachment 99)

32. On April 8, 1987, Mr. Stello, who upon information and belief, responded to HP&L's plea for assistance, placed me under direct threat of legal action if I did noe provide the information to the agency within 30 days. (see, Attachment 7.)

as. un at Asast enroe occasions in March and April, 1987, I i initiated conversations with Mr. Tom Rehm of the Executive 4 Director's office to explain our legal obligations and our 

                                                          -g-1

m .. ,e.:...e e- n.  ; : :.. ~~. a.- .v ,=n , l 

                                                                                             .v.e w ., ; 2 \

3 rs. 29 '8 12:21 33*L~~:: 1.: 214 731 ~iil F.2 - l I l 1.6....L 1.. v.w.totuw muse == 6v sne wurners ano eneir information 1 3 l to an independent and competent team or individual within the NRC. The conversations apparently bora no fruit, althcugh I was t a .. ....... suas ns. nunm anu possio2y ocners, woula aiscuss o the general nature of the allegations and inform me of the ) I agency's decision regarding an avenue for processir g of the allegations.  !

34. As the facts demonstrate I have spent six months I

attempting to get the NRC to act responsibly regarding our clients. Our obligations to our clients have not changed. We an.> .4eh., pr vide l th.= utsk . ..mrS t... L ww...u uc i { investigablon to assure them that their safety concerns will be l properly addressed or we must remain silent and not endanger the ' 

     ;                 safety of the public bl allowing an improper investigation to                       I permit cover up of safety problems and to net endanger their professional fvture and their source of income and reputation.

35. There is substantial reason to douc't that, if Region IV officials were given the responsibility of the investigation into 1 our clients concerns that the ef fort would be conducted in accordance with CHAPTER KANUAL 0517 manual. 

                                    . . unw ww mas auners encaselves nave perhaps the best                 1 knowledge of the basis of our belief regarding Region IV
                                                                                                           )

officials because they alone are the recipients of all of the i various reports, investigations, and inquiries conducted over the years by the Commission staff into Region IV fiascost (A mote l complete list is provided in the 2.206 Petition filed today by

GAP on this issue, however, the following example is included to
                                                               -g_

l 

                                                                                      ~.e....- .. ..

e.g ;3 5; :::II 4 :Lc e .o: 414 721-755; 0 P. F7 1 demonstrate that Region IV has not learned from its errors.) 0

37. In october, 1983, the NRC's Office of Inspector and Auditor (OIA) finished two investigations of charoes of impropriety of certain Region IV officials at the Comanche Peak g plant.

In a January 3, 1984, memo from then EDO Nilliam J. Dircks to Chairman Palladino on the OTA reperra ni re ke ,faf' ended Region IV's actions in:

1) not determining the full extent of an allegors allegations because "at that time it appears to have been reasonable not to have contacted allegations to the press of a cove the a

[r up.llegor) despite his e that contact desirable ht,would no<:411ndslaht MSEld hays . oed the ultimate findinos on the matter."likely M { i 2) regarding the allegations, noting that " ,defended with the Region IV's re advantaos u.. m.7...sa of h.,2 hindsieht, one u. could un say clon IVM.- M ggyJ"speo attention to the matter and to_..wGTTr m 

               .a g       ...r-                      ukohyond a review j

vrJ....., gi one actionsTRecton J.Vfacoe,yuu ar t,o,, Es rea.. toft . 26 e une sonable'~aiid correct. " 3) inspector R.G. Taylor in not conductinacknowledged the impropriet investigation" in IER 50-445/82-14. an a " thorough indicated that ar allecod~3er!.cmenelis _tg E siiTReeintend to emphasize the ne avoid repet,.t:.on or these pr55 Tens.ional~Adminiatratori"~to 4) identity by stating that "... JNRexplained v policy Jo away the triple breach less ggn clear coIIcy reolons.- in 1980in and not executed similarily inconfidentiality UiIs m . 4 o. n a ...... A37 rmir reviewed Ilid allecers $ reoard to, confidentiality gg rulfilled." _ = ons or (All emphasis is added) 38 i There is substantial basis for our clients' position and our own professional opinion that neither Mr. Stello or Region IV are competent government officials capable of I conducting an inspection of worker allegations at the south Texas 4

c.m i s.. : . - . :. - a. . .... . . .. . - , , . . . . . , , , 

                                                                                                      "44     *4 FA 29 5 IDII #35 E~:'
                                                        ! 4:4 I: I 1 I                                                                                                            P.4 7 plant in accordance with NRC Chapter Manuel 0517, Processing of g

I' Allegations. 39. The basis for the opinions of our clients is a variety of experiences and impressions formed by tne actions of Region IV l-inspectors responsible for the plant.

40. One of my clients, Mr. John Hodge, has authorized me to include the fol19 Wing examDlt as the latest demonstration of Region IV's insensitivity, incompetence, and refusal to follow NRC's own chapter manual instructions regarding allegations. l 1

(The example is already on the public record.) (

a. On November 22, 1986, John Hodge filed, pro se, a complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor against ERAsco alleging that he had been discriminated against for going to SAFMEAM and for disagreeing with his management over violations of site criminal laws, federal rules and site procedures. Mr. Bodge also claimed that he had only recently i become aware of his rights under Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act, and that there was no copy of the law nnered snuwhere nn *he ri*a ensilshia ha kd-
b. The U.S. Department of Labor rejected his complaint because it was not flied within 30 days of the discriminatory act. 1 c.

app. On1 4December 22, 1986,we sh. aet...an.ci... on behalf of Mr. Lt.. w.w ...a Hodges, I avus olvi.tvu.

d. On February 6, 1987, there was a conference call between the law Judge. yer for EBASCO, myself, and the Administrative Law During that conference call it was decided that before any litigation would be commenced on the merits of bethedecided.

discrimination complaint that a preliminary issue had to The first issue was whether or not Mr. Bodges had constructive the aernal on.rino. knowledge na es. une of the Act by a determination of om.. 2 3. .w. .t .. was no written order memorializing this issue, s. On April 28, 1987, the Region IV Allegations Coordinator wrote to Mr. modges and informed him that Region IV had conducted an investigation into his technical concerns and concluded that they were not substantiated. The only i concern addressed by Region IV was the single issue in the proceeding, Form 3's had that beenisposted. 

                                                          - whether or not the NRC believed that

( 

                                                                  ~11-1

             'z? 87 iizi /J:LE :h 4 4;; 731 ~E5;                                 F'-

1

f. No NRC inspector, investigator, or coordinator had~ever interviewed Mr. Hodges. Region IV had absolutely no idea.'of 0 - (' - the proof that Mr. Hodges had himself gathered to demonstrate that the Form 3's.were not, in fact, posted. l 1
g. Region IV also completely ignored the technical allegations raised initially in Mr. Hodges complaint 0

regarding. wrongdoing issues and his safety-related concerna.

h. They completely ignored, either deliberately'or because b =$ Is @ lkil IO@ H li'95AtOE M [GI T le@ rl !* *'

determine issues, proof, evidence, and any thing to substantiate the concerns. 0

1. The inspector, R.G. Taylor, is the same inspector 4 previously inspections.

cited by OIA for conducting inadequate Apparently Mr. Dircks lessons from hindsight were not communicated to Mr. Taylor, or already forgotten. (see, paragraph 37 (3), supra.)

41. Susequent. communications between myself and Region IV has not produced any remedy, (See, Attachments 8 a-d for a record of the correspondence on this example.) '

(

42. Mr. Stello has steadfastly stood behind Mr. Martin and saoinn TV nefletale the.ueheut th mee= d . v. . , t i .. , .,14..... we slaconduct, imprudence, incompetence, and dereliction of duties.

According to Mr. Stello's testimony before the senate hearing and his May 1, 1987 letter, to Senator John Glenn, Mr. Stallo was concerned with the " morale" of the people in Region IV. It is my personal belief that he was referring to the same people that OIA had concluded were quilty of years of ignoring quality issues at Costanche Peak, and whose names figure prominently in each of the CIA inventinations refere=A *a ia sht. n a t.. . . . . 2s, confident that Mr. Ste11o's concern did not run to the morale of the issapeuturs who had been sentenced to bureaucratic Siberia as a result of trying to do their job. I base my opinion, in part, C i 

          , XEROX TELEcopiER -295 +,

g.29.s7: 2:24 AN; 414 701 7861 0 2026283473 1 06 , O ry:rt 29 '87 12:24 --' 

                                                                                                                                             .]

1 1 g I. nn th, fy r char w p .11e initially ayy 

                                                    ,                             ve. . mer.ata,., t,, _ ,
                                                                                                                                              ]

for Region IV official Tom Westerman, only to pull it back at the { i 

  . <                   insistence of CIA, and because Mr. Stello had recommended another                                                      !

l s senior Region'IV official, Mr. Paul Check, implicated by the Region IV investigations and the history of ignoring quality 

                   , problems at-Region IV plants, for a promotion to a senior staff
                                                                                                                                              )

position in Washington. 1

41. ]

Mr. Stallo's public and private support of Region IV's 

                   -worst offenders and his failure'to take any corrective action i

regarding the agency employees who have actively engaged in d 

                     ,.nnAnr.e twee,to a vt.1.sa.a .a unc .                1.c1     . .ud pseuciuvu sa understandable only if he in fact condones the activity.
42. As a result of.Mr. Stallo's repeated failure to i demonstrate any acknowledgement of the NRC's own regulations i regarding the processing of allegations and interfacing with l allegers, while at the same time being the de_ facto operative of the utility from which our clients need protection, we have no choice but to comply with our professional obligation to our clients and protect them from the NRC.
43. I I am confident that the commissioners themselves will  !

see the dilemma i em in s a d e - ... t d . L i= . .2:... 61-.. .. 2-- .s provided by the Director of Licensing when a similar probles arose in early 1984 regarding the Waterford and Comanche Peak plants. 44 It is important that the Commission realize that I am very anxious for the resolution of this issue and look forward to 4 turning the investigative responsibility of the concerns of my t i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 

           ^Lw ita::wita a.             .    - - .                         ,   ,,      ,
                                                                                               *<* .:;4 3 , a7 ]

j PSY 29 '87 12:15 AFF'_U:0.o! J;a 73;. gg; v. n l g gne, en ,nmristan* une .*nre m.mber. ow. h.c. ..... .....a .. I i integrity and fairness, and will abide by Chapter Manual 0517. (The Chepter Manual is attached to this affidavit as Attachment 10.) However, I must comply with the restrictions that my L., , citents have put me and other GAP attorneys under regarding their I*' 

               #' individual concerns.
 =s4 -

g [ ] 

 ;                                                         b            4 T d a. _ 9 =_  1 .se Billie Pirner Garde, Esquire i

l t Subscribed and sworn to me this l I i 

 ',i..

29th day of Ma . 1 

                                                                 ..                                            )
                 /                         .               @                                                   l Outagami         County, Wisconsin uuns,,

.s p? 

                               % . Jt),,%                                                                      .

( 9NOTAity u - .. 

                                      ~ ig*.

l' g$. i e,,L E PUBLfC / f l$$'y3'*f* k{$ 

                               % uw**

l l 1 (I l I l

I mm - 

                                                                 ~ Attachnent #1 I                             REPRESENTATION AGREEMENT 3-(Client), residing at hereby agree to retain the Government Accountability Project (GAP) to perform legal services                                 1 and represent me in the matter of my allegations regarding problems at the South Texas Nuclear Project (STNP). For the S

purposes of this agreement these services do not include litigation, unless specifically stated, or provided for in a i previous or' subsequent written agreement. 1.

Staff Attorneys Billie Pirner Garde and Richard E.

condit will be responsible for representing the Client in this matter. The Client will accept the representation of other members of the GAP staff as deemed appropriate. The Client 0k authorizes the responsible staff attorneys to do all things reasonably necessary or desirable to ensure that the concerns of the Client regarding the STNP will be investigated by competent 0 government officials. These services shall be rendered gro. bono. The Client agrees that s/he will not waive any rights to recover attorneys' fees if provided for by statute or regulation. 3 2. The Client understands that GAP will keep the identity of the Client and the information provided regarding the South Texas Nuclear Project confidential. GAP will only release the Client's identity or information with the oral or written f approval of the Client. However, the Client understands that once his/her identity or information is released to any source, i GAP will no longer be responsible for maintaining the Client's { 1 Representation Agreement 3.t Page Two confidentiality. GAP will not be responsible for maintaining the $ confidentiality of Client once the client discloses his/her information or identity to any other person.

3. GAP understands that the Client does not want Region IV g of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to investigate this matter due to the Client's belief that Region IV officials are incompetent or unwilling to investigate the Client's concerns.

g 4. GAP understands that the Client does not want Victor Stello, Jr. (NRC, Executive Director for Operations) to investigate or participate in an investigation or review of j his/her allegations. It is the belief of the Client and GAP that Mr. Stello approves of Region IV's actions.

5. GAP understands that it is the Client's goal to have
                   ~
g. her/his allegations properly and fully investigated by a competent governmental body.
6. GAP will advise the Client of the results of any g

investigation into the Client's allegations as the results become available.

7. The Client is retaining GAP in this matter because s/he is sincerely concerned about violations of regulations and/or procedures at the STNP. To the best of the Client's knowledge, all of the information provided to GAP is known by STNP l

management or has been raised through proper channels. l4 

    ;       8. The Client agrees to cooperate fully with the l                                  !                                                                    -- _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

) l Representation Agreement 1 I Page Three }- responsible' staff attorneys and to respond promptly to telephone calls and correspondence. Client agress to promptly notify the ) responsible-staff attorney of any change in home or work address or telephone' number. Client authorizes GAP and its attorneys to review any and all files and records, wheresoever situated, in 1 the conduct of this representation. Client acknowledges receipt of a copy of this agreement. ) Client 1 0- [ - Dated: l Accepted on Behalf of the Government Accountability Project  ! 0-  ! by: Louis Clark Executive Director J-3 1 (079a03) I l ; 1 l I 9

j 0 

                                                                                         ^**         hment # 2 GOVEANMENT ACCOUNTABluTY PROKCT                                                                    J 1555 Connecncer Avenue NW., bre 202 Woshington, D.C. 20036                                          (202)232-8550                     j 0~                                                                                                                       !

January 20, 1987 Victor Stello, Executive Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission { Washington, D.C. 20555 j 0 James Mattox Attorney General for the State of Texas Supreme Court Building 14th & Colorado Austin, Texas 78711 Re: South Texas Nuclear Pro;ect

Dear Messrs. Stello and Mattox:

i This letter is to inform your respective agencies that the Gov'ernment Accountability Project (CAP) has formally begun preliminary investigat on into worker allegations at the South Texas nuclear project. Since 1980, GAP has played a significant role in advocating 0, on behalf of whistleblewers and concerned citizens on issues 

             '             involving safety-related proolems at various nuclear power facilities. Our approach to nuclear power tas been steadfastly the same      to ensure that the government ent::ces the nuclear safety laws and regulat: ns.

As a result of GAP's efforts (alone or in concert with other organizations) to expose safety-related problems, the construct:en and/or cperation of several nuclear 0 Power facilities -- previously thought to be fit to operate -- were cancelled or postponed for further review. The cancelled facilities include the 98 percent ecmpleted Zinmer nuclear power plant and the 85 percent comple.ted Midland plant. Those which were postponed for further review incluce tne Comanche Peak. Three Mile Island, Diable Canyon, and Waterf:rd fac lities. O GAP currently either represents or :s sor<:ng w:th approximately 36 current and/or f ormer empi yees of the South Texas project. The allegations from the wor <ers range from grand theft of nuclear grade steel to engineering defects in several major safety components. The allegations concern the failure Of 9 Houston Light & Power to guarantee subcontractor compliance with industry and federal safety requirements, including but not limited to: defects in tne instrumentation and control division: defects and lack of compliance with federal regulations in the heating, ventilating, and air conditioning system lack of compliance with quality standards in the area of soils y compaction; failure to ecmplete required QA or QC documentation; falsification of required QA or QC documentation; and harassment i and intimidation of persennel who attempt to adhere to federal safety standards. io

J 

            )
i
         -                               January 20, 1987 - Page Two 1

i Additionally [ and of specific concern to the. State of Texas, there are allegations that ine.'ude deliberate actions of some of the subcontractors at STP to overcnarge Hcuston Light & Power for goods and services py " charging of f" the.r own unacceptable work to Brown & Root, I nte . There is also information which suggests I that subcontractors h6ve fraudulently charged STP for manhours not worked, and for portions cf the project which were not completed as c'laimed. i l 

                                                                                                                    )

GAP fa' currently conduct:rg :nterviews with both current and former workers who are ecccerned about the South Texas project. ( GAP investigators are accepting calls from workers at our Washington, D.C. office and our Midwest office. iesusOnce our preliminary investigation is complete, we plan to 1 a formal public report. Unfortunately, in the interim, we j carm'ot advise our clients or those we work with to provide their I concerns to the Region IV office of the NRC. Our experience has been (and recently released internal agency reports confirm) that the Arlington office is either unable or unwilling to comply with its regulatory requirements as outlined in governing agency procedures. Thus, unless the NRC is willing to provide independent I( inspectors to process the allegations pursuant to internal "RC regulations, GAP will provide the allegations directly to the state Attorney General office, and/or to the appropriate

  • congressional committees, and/or to otner regulatory or municipal bodies which have an interest in ensuring nat the South Texas

( plant is designed, constructed, and financed in a manner that protects the public. Please direct any inquiries about CAP's Scuth Texas investigation to kichard Condit, Staff Atterney Investigator, 202-232-8550, or Billie Garde. GAP M:dwest Off.ce, 414-730-8533. ( S;ncere;y, B:llie Pirner Garde Direc:or, Midwest Office it l Richard Condit Staff Attorney g cc: Chairman Lando Zech BG/RC:C30 4

.. e. i h ,, 4 - Attachment #3 

         /*                                                             UNITED STATES

['.\ g a NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHING TON. O C 20555 4 s j l 0 ( . n . .'. . . / .

r ;. a n67 Docket No. 50-498 s

Ms. Billie Pirner Garde Mr. Richard Condit Government Accountability Project Suite 202 1555 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036

Dear Ms. Garde and Mr. Condit:

I as in receipt of your January 20, 1987 letter directed to me and the Attorney General of Texas. Your letter describes investigative activities you plan to 1 undertake relative to allegations you have received from approximately 36 current and/or former employees of the South Texas Project. Your letter also identified the general nature of some of these allegations which appear to ' fall within the safety and regulatory responsibilities of the Nuclear Regulatory Commiission. Your letter also states that you cannot advise your clients to provide their concerns to the Region IV office of NRC. You assert that your experience has been that Pegion IV does not comply with its requirements as outlined in agency procedures. Moreover, you demand + bat unless NRC provides other inspection personnel to process these allegatfors, you plan to provide those allegations to other individuals or organizations. The South Texas Project is within the jurisdiction of Region IV and that Region l is the appropriate organization to review the concerns of your clients. I have confidence that Region IV will properly pursue this responsibility. I have been in contact with Mr. Robert D. Martin, Degional Administrator for Region IV, and he assures me that his staff is thoroughly prepared to comit the resources required to appropriately resolve the issues which your clients i might raise. As you are aware NRC is the responsible ferieral agency for ensuring that I safety significant issues are addressed where appropriate. Therefore, I l i urge you to bring forth promptly, or advise your clients to do se, to NRC or Houston Lighting and Power, any information you have on deficiencies which would have a bearing on nuclear safety. To retain them until your own report is prepared and published would not be in the best interests of assuring the i prompt resolution of legitimate safety concerns. l l t ,i i 

 ).
               - Multiple Addressees                                                           '-

I(; Anv further communications you may have regardina this matter should be directed 

                            ~

to Mr. Martin in Region IV, ) Sincerely, 

                                                                                            $,'  ., (,    bY         .

Victor Stello, Jr. Executive Director for Operations cc: The Honorable James Mattox Attorney General State of Texas Austin, Texas 78711 9 

                     .        __m__.__     _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _
g Attachment #4 -

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT 1555 ConnechCur Avenue. N W. Sune 202 g "loshington. D.C. 20036 (202)232-8550 4 GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT MIDWEST OFFICE 3424 MARCOS LANE APPLETON, WISCONSIN 54911 .g_ March 4, 1987 Victor Stello Executive Director Operations 

 ,              U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 RE:  South Texas Investigation

Dear Mr. Stello,

Your letter of February 18, 1987 regarding our South Texas investigation states that any futher communications regarding South Texas should be directed to Mr. Bob Martin, Regional Administrator. Your letter also urges us to bring forth any issues regarding safety to Region IV promptly. Given the history of incompetence in Region IV regarding 

             ' issues of nuclear safety and the more recent evidence of impro-priety in Region IV I am surprised that you would continue to advise regional us  to take allegations of nuclear safety to your present management.       Your professed faith in the Regional management can only be bureaucratic posturing, as I seriously doubt whether even you can ignore the seriouness of the impro-prieties   confirmed by the office           in the recent of Inspector          and continuning investigation and Auditor.

.( Mr. Stello, the operation inat some IV Region point you must to insure thatassume responsibliity for the public health and safety'around the Region IV facilities is protected. You apparently are willing to sacrifice that assurance in order to give the public appearance of support for Mr. Martin et.al. Your error in judgement is incredible. Within the past 18 months we have seen evidence and testimony of the improper release of a draft lt inspection report on the Sequoyan Fuels Corporation fatal accident to Kerr-McGee officals, the harassment and intimidation of resident inspectors, the deletion items from inspection reports, the improper manipulation and/or release of inspection report results to enchance the possibility of licensing, the destruction of documents, the failure to comply with statutory requirements under it I the Freedom of Information Act, the failure to properly investigate f allegations of engineering, technical or hardware deficiencies at reactors in Region IV, the release of confidentiality of site employees that have come forward with concerns, the cooperation i L-__---------- -

l ) with utility officals to 'liscredit whistleblowers, and a total I disregard for public accountability. For all of the above reasons we would be irresponsible if we' led more whistleblowers blindly to the slaughterhouse of your Arlington office. l At some point you must choose between l protecting and defending the public health the egos of your staff and protecting and safety. l4 citizens to do the later. We will You are paid by the taxaayers and the former. not participate in your doing I hope you are able to find an independent team to review the South Texas allegations. 4 Sincerely, Billie Pirner Garde ) 1 i 4-1 i i 7  ! l cs cc: James Mattox . Attorney General State of Texas w/end. OIA Report 86-10 )

o M'hg . = h ) 1' [pe arc *,l ' UNITED STATES 

                                                                                                 ~ Attachment #5
    'I* .1                                      NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1

i e wAsm NG TON. D. C. 20555 \ *. f l 

           %, . . . . #                                          MAR ! 01987

)f Ps. Billie Pirner Garde Government Accountability Prniar* 1555 Connecticut Avenue. NW, Suite '02 Washington, DC 20036

Dear Ms. Garde:

I have received your letter o' March 4,1987 It prompts me to remind you that NRC is the responsible federal agency for ensuring that safety significant views are aporopria*.ely addresseri. I therefore urge you to brina forth promptly any thfomatice wou have on deficiencies which would have a bearing on nuclear safety to NPC v to Hnuston Lighting and Power - or advite your clients to do so. To withhold such information would not be in the best interests of assuring the prompt resolution of legitimate safety concerns. Sincerely, 

                                                                            ~         N
                                                                                 ~",.

Victor Ste114, Jr., Executive Director for Operations i,

g Attachment #6 GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT - 1555 Connecncut Avenue. N.W. Suire 202 V shingron. D.C. 20036 (202)232-8550 f0 MIDWEST OFFICE l l- 104 E. WISCONSIN AVENUE APPLETON, WISCONSIN 54915-8605 March 23, 1987 q Victor Stello, Jr. l Executive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i0 Washington, D.C. 20555 RE: South Texas Investigation

Dear Mr. Stello,

4 Your letter of March 18, 1987 sidestepped the issue of whether or not you are going to appoint an individual or a task force from NRC's Washington office to accept and/or investigate allegations concerning the safety of the South Texas Project. We are very concerned about the safety allegations known to 0' us. We are so concernedthat we intend to insure that they are properly investigated. We do not believe that Region IV is either capable or willing to do that type of investigation. Please advise. g Sincerely, 

                                                                            -            sN-      O f Billie Pirner Garde                                             j 0

cc: Richard condit I cs  ! i 0 , I 1 t 

                                                                                                                                              )

D l

0 

    ~ /pe aa:,, 'c,                                                                     Atta ch:nent 47 UNITED STATES

[. 3 NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D. C 20665 I \ g I 

               .                                        April 8, 1987 I                     Ms. Billie Pirner Garde Government Accountability Project 1555 Connecticut Avenue, W. Suite 202 Washington, DC 20036

Dear Ms. Garde:

1 1 0 I have received your letter of March 23, 1987. I accept your characterization of the allegations you have in hand as bearing on the safety of the S. Texas Nuclear Power Plant in a significant way.. 

               ~
                   '! urge you to bring these issues to NRC for our review. As to where and how I                    within NRC they will be addressed is my responsibility. Assignment within NAC       )

will be governed by the nature of the allegations. I can assure you they will i be handled properly, both in regard to technical review and in regard to confidentiality. i i By the nature of significant safety issues, they must be addressed promptly, I s Your letters imply that you have had this information for some time. i Therefore, if we do not receive full information on the allegations within 30 j days we will be constrained to take steps to acquire it by other means. I Sincerely, ~ J i 

                                                              /. As. &74' Vi     r Etello,  ,

Executive Director for Operations j l ( ) ) , 1 l 

    -m-,,-~      - - . -

) 

                         ' " %s                   UNITED STATES                     - Attachment #Ba
                                ; e,  NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION b '4
                                   $                 REGION IV -

611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE. SUITE 1000 ARLINGTON, TEXAS 79011 } {'  %, , 3' John H. Hodge Sr. 

                                                                                       ,   ', 4f l

2917 3rd St. RECD,:, 1 Bay City Tx 77414 ) l

Dear Mr. Hodge:

Reference:

Allegation No. 4-87-A-007 This refers to our inspections into your technical concerns regarding the South Texas Project. g Our inspection regarding this matter has been completed and our findings are documented in the enclosed report. This concludes the Regional Staff's activities regarding this matter. With regard to the violation of requirements identified during this inspection, HL&P is required to inforn us in w;iting of the corrective actions they have taken, or plan to take. Our inspectors will continue to observe such actions g (- to ensure proper resolution. I assure you that we will follow up such actions thoroughly to ensure full compliance with regulatory requirements. Should you find the term " unsubstantiated" in the inspection report, this does not necessarily mean that we find the facts as you stated them to be untrue; rather, it means only that we were unable to obtain objective evidence to 3 corroborate your statements through interviews, document reviews, and/or direct observation. The NRC has objectively reviewed your concerns which ensures our decisions and conclusions are based on fact, and that any action based on these facts can be legally enforced. We have benefited from hearing about your concerns and feel that our actions in i 9 this matter have been responsive to those issues. We take our safety responsibilities to the public very seriously and will continue to do so within the bounds of our lawful authority. Sincerely, 9 . 

                                                        ... k. /           -

1 Mark Emerson Allegations Coordinator I 0

Enclosure:

as stated j i j ! cc: Allegation File l l l 1 1

) . APPENDIX 1 3 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION REGION IV sec Inspection bport: 50-498/86-38 Construction Permits: CPPR-128 50-499/86-38 CPPR-129 Docikets: . 50-498 Category: A2 50-499 Licensee: Houston Lighting & Power Company (HL&P) P. O. Box 1700 l Houston, Texas 77001 Facillity Name: South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: South Texas Project, Matagorda County, Texas } Inspection Conducted: November 17, 1986, through January 30, 1987 T 3b4//1 

       ~

Inspectors: / 11 R. G. ~TayJor, Reactor Inspector, Project Dite/ Section C, Reactor Projects Branch 1 . laubv s/n/rr W. M. Pcijtill, Reactor Inspector, Project Dite/ Sectioh A, Reactor Projects Branch h u/N W L. Kel]Eri, Senior Resident Inspector ddt? IFat( Nomanche Teak Task Group 7 Consultants: J. Brammer, Mechanical Engineer, Energy Technology Engineering Center R. Hagen, Electrical Engineer, Energy Technology Engineering Center ] t )'

3 2 1 gI D 

                                                                                                          )

G M able M Project Section C Reactor Projects Branch Tb/53 Dite / / Inspection Summary 0 Inspection Conducted November 17, 1986, through January 30, 1987 (Report 50-498/86-38: 50-499/86-38) 

                                                               ' Areas Inspected:      Routine, announced inspection of licensee actions on previous inspection findings, review of IE Bulletins and Circulars, followup on licensee reported significant construction deficiencies, inspection of electrical d                                                                 components, and followup on allegations.

Results: Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were I identified. . . l e( 0 i 

                                                                                                                                                      )

0 f 1 l ll , 2 I i 1 j 

      .                                                                                                     l 0

l I j 25 ( A review of the weld inspection records found all. inspectors were qualified as American Welding Society (AWS) welding inspectors as required. There was one exception when magnetic particle testing was l i-performed during a repair. The magnetic particle testing was performed by a qualified nondestructive. testing inspector. This perturbation of the P normal process could appear to be bases for the allegation. l The FCR in. question was revised and superseded by FCR EL-01149. The i changes were mostly editorial in character. The new FCR was closed in  ; i December 15, 1986, in accordance with standard procedures. This y allegation was not substantiated. 1 i l (Closed) Allegation 4-85-A-118 ' This allegation was that Ebasco and Bechtel had falsified the qualifications records of an Ebasco inspector. The information was stated as hearsay in character. Attempts by the NRC to obtain direct and 4 detailed information have been unsuccessful. Neither the individual mor 

               . identified associates were found to have presented this allegation to the SAFETEAM. The subject of this allegation has not been addressed by a i                   SAFETEAM investigation.       .                                                       _

The NRC inspector reviewed the qualification records that had been it allegedly falsified. There was verification of the information in the qualiff cation records by Ebasco. There did not appear to be any questionable information. Personnel department records were compared to the qualification records to see if there were any inconsistencies. This allegation was not substantiated. 

                                                                                                            ,i (Closed) Allegation 4-87-A-007 I
                                                                                                            ]

This allegation is that information about filing discrimination complaints was unavailable to site craft persor.nel. A tour of the site by the NRC inspectors found that the NRC Form 3 with directions on filing discrimination complaints with the Department of Labor was posted at numerous locations such as outside the NRC office. in the " Communications Center" near the north gate where most constructies workers exit and in the Ebasco personnel office. The NRC inspector has observed that these forms have been widely posted for the past several years. This allegation was not substantiated.

7. SAFETEAM Activities l SAFETEAM is a franchised management system implemented in Saptember 1984

! and supplied by contract from Syndeco, Inc. (Subsidiary of Detroit l Edison). The SAFETEAM program is described in the "SAFETEAM Instruction Manual." By the end of 1986 approximately 25,000 contacts had been made ! i l 6

em GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABluTY PROJECT Attachment #8b - 1555 Connecticut Aenue, N.W., Suite 202 I 'oshington, D.C. 20036 (202)232-8550 g May 8, 1987  ! ( Robert D. Martin, Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region IV 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000  ; Arlington, Texas 76011 ] s RE: Allegation No. 87-A-007

Dear Mr. Martin,

                                                              -j l'

Last week two of my clients received a letter from Mr. i Mark Emerson of your office. The letter included an excerpt from Insepction Report 50-498/499-38, dated March 26, 1987 i and signed by Mr. R.G. Taylor. l The letter from Mr. Emerson states that it refers to "our inspections into your technical concerns regarding the t South Texas Project." It goes on to conclude: We have benefited from hearing about your concerns . and feel that our actions in this matter have been responsive to those issues. We take our safety responsibilities to the public very seriously and i will continue to do so within the bounds of our lawful authority. This letter goes to new lengths in perverting the image of Region IV as a competent and unbias regulator. I First, Mr. Emerson has never talked to or interviewed either Mr. Hodges or Mr. Garcia. He has no idea of whether they have any technical concerns or not, and if they do, he has no idea of what they are. Second, the information that Mr. Hodges or Garcia had any concerns or problem with the g South Texas project could have only come from Houston Light and Power or EBASCO, or through the SAFETEAM. In either case it is clear that the version of facts that the NRC received has nothing to do with the facts as known to Messrs. Hodge and Garcia. That might be of some concern to an inspector that had any commitment to a search for the truth or a respect for the accuracy of his work. Since the inspection report is signed by Mr. j 9 R.G. Taylor, however, we are not surprised that the conclusion  ! is a statement that serves the utility regardless of the facts. ( i l 1 l

l Robert D. Martin Page two 0' It was our experience with Mr. Taylor at Comanche Peak and Waterford that convinced us that the reliability of his conclusions on any subject werequestionable. Mr. Taylor has demonstrated a long history of resentment to employees who have any safety concerns and a penchant for releasing inspection report findings that bear no resemblance to the factual 6 matters that he was to investigate or inspect. Neither the letter nor the inspection report are accurate or based on anything other than information provided by the utility. In this case we believe that the utility prompted the. entire issue in order to have an NRC finding to utilize 0 in the Department of Labor cases of Messrs. Garcia and Hodges. Although we are not surprised by that either we are a bit offended that Region IV would write a letter with such blatantly false information. I have already brought this matter to the attention of .I the Executive Director's office. I have also filed a Freedom of Information Act Request on this issue, a copy of which is enclosed for your office. Please process this FOIA as soon as it is received in your office. Sincerely, 4 i \A-s , Billie Pirner Garde Director, Mid-West Office g cc: V. Stello J. Hodges R. Garcia l l l i f'. 1 t 

                                                                                  )

l l J

G zummmmsmmissmusarma 

       . GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT                                                      Attachment #8b '-
1555 Connecncut Avenue, N.W., Suite 202 -

[ . Washington. D.C. 20036 (202)202-8550 May 8, 1987 Robert D. Martin, Administrator U.S.: Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region IV 611.-Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76011 RE: Allegation No. 87-A-007

Dear Mr. Martin,

                                                                                                                    )

Last week two of my clients received a letter from Mr. O Mark Emerson of your office. The letter. included an excerpt from Insepction_ Report- 50-498/499-38, dated March 26, 1987 and signed by Mr. R.G. Taylor. The letter from Mr. Emerson states that it refers to 0 (, "our inspections into your technical concerns regarding the South Texas Project." It goes on to concludes We have benefited from hearing about your concerns . and feel that our actions in this matter have been responsive to those issues. We take our safety g responsibilities to the public very seriously and will continue to do so within the bounds of our lawful authority. This letter goes to new lengths in perverting the image of Region IV as a competent and unbias regulator. First, Mr. Emerson has never talked to or interviewed either Mr. Hodges or Mr. Garcia. He has no idea of whether they have any technical concerns or not, and if they do, he has no idea of what they are. Second, the information that Mr. Bodges or Garcia had any concerns or problem with the South Texas project could have only come from Houston Light and Power or EBASCO, or through the SAFETEAM. In either case it is clear that.the version of facts that the NRC received has nothing to do with the facts as known to Messrs. Hodge and Garcia. . That might be of some concern to an inspector that had any commitment to a search for the truth or a respect for the accuracy of his work. Since the inspection report is signed by Mr. i R.G. Taylor, however, we are not surprised that the conclusion r is a statement that serves the utility regardless of the facts.

D k i i Robert D. Martin Page two 'f 0 It was our experience with Mr. Taylor at Comanche Peak and Waterford that convinced us that the reliability of his conclusions on any subject werequestionable. Mr. Taylor has demonstrated a-long history of resentment to employees who ] have any safety concerns and a penchant for releasing inspection { report findings that bear no resemblance to'the factual ..4 matters that he was to investigate or inspect. Neither the letter nor the inspection report are accurate , or based on anything other than information provided by the l utility. In this case we believe that the utility prompted the' entire issue in order to have an NRC finding to utilize j 4 l in the Department of Labor cases of Messrs. Garcia and Hodges. Although we are not surprised by that either we are a bit offended that Region IV would write a letter with such blatantly false information. I have already brought this matter to the attention of the Executive Director's office. I have also filed a Freedom of Information Act Request on this issue, a copy of which is enclosed for your office. Please process this POIA as soon'as it is received in your office. j Sincerely, w , Billie Pirner Garde Director, Mid-West Office cc: V. Stello J. Hodges R. Garcia L I 4 [ 0 t

t# *' 8% UNITED STATES y..  ; NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

                                        . I;                          REGION tv e                 s11 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE. SUITE 1000

). ( **o , 8 ARUNGTON. TEXAS N011 - Attachment #8e MAY I 91987 Mr. John H.-Hodge Sr. 2917 ~3rd Street Bay City, Texas 77414 I I'

Dear Mr. Hodge:

Reference:

4-87-A-007 - In response to recent communications between your attorney and NRC, I wish to  ; clarify my April 28, 1987, letter to you. On January 29, 1987, I received a i letter from the United States Department of Labor, dated December 16, 1986,  ! which included your hand written statement citing harassment,' intimidation and i discrimination. You also stated that employee protection provisions of the  ! Energy Reorganization Act were only posted at one location at the South Texas Project which was "off limits" to craftsmen. - 

                                                                                                               )

( I routinely review documents sent to NRC by many organizations and agencies, including the Department of Labor, in the attempt to identify areas which might fall within the jurisdiction of NRC. In accordance with our procedures, I l assigned allegation number 4-87-A-007 to your complaint sent to DOL. We track j these issues in our Allegation Management System. Hence, my letter to you was intended to notify you of our review of your complaint and to ensure that you are aware of your opportunity to inform NRC of any safety significant concerns that you have. , I regret any confusion my initial letter may have caused you. As your lawyer is ausre, if you have any remaining safety concerns, you can call me collect at (817) 860-8245 during normal business hours. Sincerely, l F [ _- i ' Mark Emerson Allegations and Investigations Coordinator cc: Billie Garde 104 East Wisconsin Avenue i Appleton, Wisconsin 54915-8605 i

01 Attachment #8d . 40VERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT . 

    ,     3 555 Comecticut Avenue N.W.. Suite 202 g

1 voWigton, D.C. 20036 - (202)232-855" MID-WEST OFFICE. , 104 E. Wisconsin Ave.-B Appleton, Wisconsin 54911 y (414) 730-8533 

                              ..                  May 22, 1987 Robert D. Martin Regional Administrator 611.Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76011 RE:   Allegation 4-87-A-007

Dear Mr. Martin,

i I On May 19,' 1987, Allegations and Investigations Coordinator Mark Emerson wrote' to Messrs. Hodge and Garcia to " clarify" his April- 28, 1987, letter to each of these gentleman regarding Insepetion. Report 50-498/499-38. His letter clarified, that is it explained, the misrepresentations in his previous letter-gI 

      -      to my.clientst however, it did not resolve the substantive complaint raised to you in my May 8, 1987, letter.

The -f actithat Mr. Enerson may have received the allegations of harassment, intimidation and discrimination from a copy of 

                                  ~

a complaint to the Department of Labor regarding the same and g then ignored all of the. issues but the one whose resolution i would assist the utility and EBASCo in defeating the DOL case J on procedural matters is either deliberate misfeasance or gross negligence of duty. Mr. Emerson's actions in ignoring the complaint of harassment and discrimination are not surprising. We understand that Region IV inspectors routinely ignore any 'g complaints of harassment and intimidation by workers. In fact, Region IV's abysmal handling of the allegations of harassment and: intimidation by employees throughout Region IV is what let to the development of Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act, in part, and more recently to the development of Chapter 0517 of-the NRC manual. Examples like the ignoring the request for lr assistance of..the quality control inspectors at Comanche Peak during the T-Shirt incident and mishandling of the concerns of paint coatings inspectors is why harassment and intimidation issues j should be handled by the office of Investigations. Mr. Emerson's letter does not clarify whether or not he referred the allegations to OI. We assume he did not. 'l More importantly, Mr. Emerson offers no explanation for why he made no attempt to contact Messrs. Hodge and Garcia to determine 8 j l

0 \- I . Is  ; 

           .hnt evidence that Messrs. Garcia and Hodge had to prove that                                                                  I their were no, postings in locations available to them of NRC Form 3. We are not surprised by the lack of follow through by your inspectors. . We are surprised that you would not review Mr. Emerson's "clarifica tion," to insure that he had                                                                 .i 4           addressed all,. of the issues raised by my May 8, 1987, letter.                                                                4 Weoffibiallyrequestthatyouopenupaproperinspection                                                                       .

l of the issue of the NRC Form 3 Posting and that you do an  ; adequate inspection, according to the NRC manual chapters, { 

 ,         to reevaluate your previous, inaccu. ate, finding.                                                                             I Thank you for your attention to this matter.                                                                              1 Sincerely, l

Q Billie Pirner Garde Director, Mid-West Office i 1' ec: V. Stello l i J. Hodges R. Garcia . 

                            *4
                                .                                                                                                           l l

I

1
                          'p k9:

a "I i A j.;L l 

                          ;e l                           .e, I'5                           1                                                                                 l t.

L.-_____

y - 

                                                                                                                    ~

Attachment #9a The Light c' G o m P M Y in ",e "" i'<n"< & i < i m in - i7< ii. " ". i< - 77"oi <> n 2 u .. 2,, January 26, 1987 i Ms Billie Gatde { Director of The Midwest Office 

                                        ' Government Accountability Project                        >[ ji                       .y 3424 N. Marcos Lane                                                         .

m Appleton, Wisconsin 54911 I

Dear Ms Garde:

Articles in the Austin American-Statesman on January 20, 1987, and in the Houston Post on January 21, 1987, state that GAP has announced it will investigate safety issues at the 

                                  ' south Texas Project after reviewing complaints "from about three dozen present or former employees at the project".

( (copies enclosed). According to the articles, you have said that-."several employees had told GAP they were harassed and intiraidated by Ebasco Services, Inc. , the project constructor end several subcontractors for raising safety questions". Mr Condit, of GAP in Washington, has stated that "the safety allegations to be investigated included defects in instruments

- cnd controls, problems in the heating, ventilating, and air conditioning systems, poor soil compaction, failure to com-plete required quality assurance or quality control documents, and falsification of quality assurance or quality control docussents" . Although Mr condit' acknowledged that a number of these issues have been investigated at South Texas in the I past, he remarked that "it appears from what we have been hsaring that the problems have not been resolved". The crticles indicate you stated that "af ter a preliminary in-VGstigation of the South Texas Project lasting three to six months, GAP will decide whether to continue with the inquiry or just issue a report on its findings to that point".

As you may know, Houston Lighting & Power Company has teken extraordinary steps during the past few years to en-  ; courage employees to come forward with any safety concerns l co that they may be promptly investigated. l t ( i

d linnuon Ughung & Power Compam f 4 Ms Billie Garde January 26, 1987 0 In addition to various investigations conducted by HL&P and Ebasco management, in 1984 we ' established a SAFETEAR program to actively solicit and investigate quality or safety-related allegations from former and existing employees, and-provided an opportunity for such individuals to identify their concerns outside HL&P and Ebasco investigative programs. O Whenever an allegation investigation is conducted by HLEP, Ebasco,.or SAFETEAM, the anonymity of the alleger is protected at the alleger's request. . We believe that.the program has been very successful in investigating and resolving every concern that has been brought to our attention by employees. We are also pleased that every employee who has come to SAFE-0 TEAM in confidence has had his identity effectively. protected from disclosure unless the employee chose to make his or her identity known to the public which has recently occurred in one situation. The principal reason that we undertook the SAFETEAN g 't< program is-that we view with the utmost seriousness our res-possibilities as an NRC licensee and as the Project Manager on behalf of the co-owners. It is HL&P which has the ultimate responsibility for building a safe nuclear power plant, not the construction contractor or his subcontractors. We are particularly proud that, although our program predates the g commission's adoption of a statement of Policy concerning 

                          " Handling of Late Allegations" (March 19, 1985), it fully implements the commission's encouragement of "the establish-ment of programs by utilities for the purpose of identifying and resolving allegations affecting safety in a timely manner as design and construction of a nuclear facility proceeds".        j In view of the steps we have taken to encourage employees to inform us of any safety concerns, we are very disappointed and concerned that any employees may have chosen to provide information to GAP, rather than to us. But if, for whatever reason, they have done so, it is still important to us to

'g obtain_that information so that we can assure that appropriate concerns are addressed and the plant, accordingly, is com-plated safely. Your action in apprising us of this information l would be consistent with the provisions of the commission's l Statement of Policy which urges that: "Any concerns bearing on the safety of a facility should be brought promptly to the 1 attention of the applicant or licensee." Timely identifica-tion of problems is often critical to effective corrective action. f i j l 1

3. Ilouston Ughting & Power Compant _3_ g V Ms Billie Garde January 26, 1987 , 1 Moreover, if employees of Ebasco or any of its sub-I contractors have harassed or intimidated other employees "for raising safety questions", it is. critical that these matters be identified promptly so that we can assure they are fully resolved. If any employees have been guilty of harassment or l intimidation, which on this project is a clear violation of project policy and prescribed work practices, we need to-0 investigate their period of employment at South Texas to l assure that all instances of any such misconduct have been I investigated, and, further, that such persons are not currently employed on the' project. , d We take effective steps to protect the identity of any ,, i I individuals who provide this-type of information to.us and * { would do the same-for persons who have provided such informa- ) tion-to GAP. If necessary, you may prefer to provide the relevant information to us without revealing the identity of your informants.- This may make it more difficult for us to investigate and resolve any questions they have raised, but we I l gladly assume that burden because of our overriding concern , for the safety of this plant and in turn, the public. J Failing all'else, we urge you to bring your information promptly to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission so that it can g review these guestions immediately and take such action as may 

                        -be appropriate, including advising us of any corrective actions required. Again, this would be consistent with the provisions of the commission's Statement of Policy which, in instances where notification of the applicant or licensee is unsatisfactory, advises "any person to bring such concerns g-                               directly to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission".

1 I should emphasize that since I was placed in charge of  ; the south Texas Project Electric Generating Station in 1980, I  ! have personally taken an active interest in assuring that i overy safety concern raised - whether in the routine perform-r ance of the construction of the south Texas Project or as information provided by employees through other available mechanisms - is fully and thoroughly explored and resolved. Nevertheless, as Mr Condit acknowledges, safety issues of the types he mentions have occurred and have been investigated at the project in the past. If, notwithstanding all of our g efforts, you have information concerning existing or potential safety concerns of which we may not be aware, I urge you, as a ( matter of public responsibility, to provide that information ngw to us or to the Nuclear Regulatory Consission. l

1 lb>mion t.ighting & Power Coinpam Ms Billie Garde January 26, 1987 I further understand that you have sought to meet with a member of our Security Department on behalf of one of the employees you represent. Mr James E Geiger, Manager of our Nuclear Assurance Department (telephone 512 972-8620) will be our contact with you on such matters and I have asked him to l call you to set up a meeting immediately. 

                                                                                                  ]

For the reasons described above, I hope you will provide him with any information GAP possesses concerning safety i 

 ,                  related concerns at South Texas.                                              ;

1 As you know, the Commission's Statement of Policy notes that persons with allegations of the type ascribed to you in the press have a duty to bring such matters to the ccennis-sion's attention as promptly as possible, in part, to avoid i unnecessary licensing delays. While we share this concern, we also urge you to come forward now because of our moral and legal responsibility to assure the safety of the south Texas Project Electric Generating Station and, in turn, the public. We hope you share this concern and therefore encourage you to cooperate with us and/or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission I( toward this end. We would appreciate your earliest response. Sincerely, I k J H Goldberg Group Vice-President, Nuclear JHG/aks t Enclosures I cc Chairman L W Zech (NRC w/encls) Commissioners K M Carr ( 

                                                                                  )

T M Roberts " " ( ) I' J K Asselstine ( 

                                                                                  )

F M Bernthal " " ( ) Exec. Dir. V Stello " " ( ) Reg. Admn. R D Martin " " ( ) Dir. I&E J M Taylor " " ( ) Owners T V Shockley " (CP&L ) I A vonRosenberg " (CPSB ) M B Lee " (COA ) l t

2 E 

                                                                                                                                                                ~

1ttachment #9b The Light  ; company - .... _ .- n.,,,,,,,,, w,,,,-,-,

i. m..m. , n. .......... i m.,m ,,,, , m , m..,2 o February 11, 1987 Ms. Billie Garde Director of the Midwest Office Government Accountability Project l i

3424 North Marcos Lane i Appleton, Wisconsin 54911

Dear Ms. Garde:

This is to document our telephone conversations of January 30 and 7, 1987, regarding the investigation of allegations at the South Texas February Project (STP) which might be brought to the attention of Houston Lighting & Power Company (HL&P) by workers or other persons represented by the Government ' AccountabilityProject(GAP). My understanding of your suggestions is as follows: If HL&P and GAP could agree upon a mutually acceptable independent contractor who would perform any investigations, then any detailed discussion of the interview and investigative process would be unnecessary. Assuming that HL&P performed the interview and investigative process, then that process would incorporate the following features: (a) A written agreement on confidentiality to protect the identity of the worker would be necessary with a breach of the agreement by HL&P entitling the worker to sue. (b) The identity of the investigators would be provided to the concerned worker for his review and conment. (c) GAP would provide the worker's concern in the form of an affidavit or make the worker available for an interview. 

  .                                   (d)                              If an interview was performed, a transcript would be maintained and the worker would have representation, presumably by GAP, during the interview.

t 

   ,                                    (e)                           SAFETEAM would prepare an investigation plan for the concern that included specifics, e.g., what hardware would be reinspected, which individuals by name would be interviewed, etc.

0 L! h,ou..n 1.igining & Iwti a omium

f. Ms. Billie Garde.

C' February 11, 1987 '. Page Two I (f) SAFETEAM would then submit the, investigative plan to GAP and to the worker for their review and coments. (g) SAFETEAM would then perform the investigation and, if necessary and appropriate during the investigation, the worker would have the-opportunity to come to the site and identify specifics which he could not do otherwise, i.e., without a visit. 4 (h) The draf t of the SAFETEAM investigation report would be provided to the worker for his comments and opportunity to provide rebuttal information. 1 You stated that, if Hl.lP would agree to these features (or the indepen- 

                -dent contractor. alternative), GAP would be willing to try out the process with one of the allegations-it has received.

In considering the following responses to your suggestions, you will 

                .want to take into account discussion of our SAFETEAM program as outlined in Mr. Goldberg's' letter of January 26, 1987. I believe we have had extraordinary I . l. .-.       success in using this program to investigate and resolve concerns brought to         l our attention by employees, and I believe the program generally enjoys a reputation for integrity and effectiveness on the part of the work force at STP. I am confident that the program would be fully effective to address concerns brought to our attention under the aegis of GAP. I believe the best         1 I
               -way of conveying the reasons for this sense of confidence is to respond to each       (

of your points, describing in that context, the organization and process of the l SAFETEAM program. ' As to the suggestion regarding the use of an independent contractor for conducting investigations, this is already a feature of the SAFETEAM program. I All initial interviews and investigations are conducted by personnel employed by independent contractors who have successfully completed a psychological evaluation and a background check before assignment to the South Texas Project SAFETEAM. Given the success and reputation achieved by our program, I do not believe that it is necessary or desirable to introduce yet another independent l contractor to investigate concerns which might be brought to our attention by 

,               GAP.

As to the series of proposals dealing with the investigative process, I believe the intent of these suggestions is already satisfied by the SAFETEAM  ; program and, with some modifications, could generally accommodate your proposals as follows: (a) Confidentiality: As I explained, it is established, written SAFETEAM policy that the wishes of concernees desiring anonymity will be respected, and our program is structured in a way which assures { t u__________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ._

37 , linuu..A 1.ightinu & l'owi ( nmp.nn i A, Ms. Sillie Garde Febr'u ary 11, 1987'  ! Page-Three that the concerned employee who requests anonymity has every reason to feel a high degree of confidence that his identity will not be disclosed. We take very strict protective measures, which I described to you, toward_this end. There may be situations where the investigative process, itself, may lead with reasonable certainty to the identification of the concerned employee. In our experience, however, we have never had an employee requesting , anonymity who has complained to us that his/her identity was not R effectively protected. Given this record, we see no reason for formal agreements . including the right to sue, etc., of the type suggested. I suggest instead that GAP try out this system, and 

                     -determine for itself its effectiveness.

(b) Identification of Investigators: As I understand your concern about the identity of the investigator, it is based on the assumption that HL8,P employees conduct the investigations. As I indicated above, all investigative personnel are employees of independent contractors i and have been subject to intensive screening. If you have any doubt - concerning the qualifications, partiality, and independence of the 

   <                  investigators, I suggest again that you try the system and determine                           ,

( for yourself the effectiveness of these individuals. (c) Availability'of the Worker: As I mentioned, we believe that  : investigations can be conducted more effectively and efficiently if the concerned individual appears for a personal interview, and this 1 is normal SAFETEAM practice. We would be willing, however, to i attempt investigations initiated on the basis of affidavits, i reserving the right to terminate any such investigation if it appears that the inquiry cannot be fruitfully conducted without a personal interview. Our judgment in the matter, however, would not . preclude you from pursuing the matter with the NRC or other appro-priate government agency and particularly if the allegation related , to safety concerns, we would encourage you to do so. ] l (d) Transcript of the Interview: It is standard procedure to prepare a transcH pt of the initial. interview with the concerned employee from a recorsirg of the interview. Although such transcripts are not usually furnished to the employee, we will make copies of the transcripts of interviews with persons contacting us who are  ! represented, or directed to us by GAP and provide them to the I employee and/or GAP. We have no objection to having GAP (or any other personal or legal representative) attend any such interview; this is consistent with present policy. (e) Preparation of Investigative Plant As required by our present 

  !                    program, SAFETEAM investigators prepare an investigation plan, generally identifying:

1 1

4-1 lidisuno1.iglini,e & D m n ( nnip.ms Ms.' Billie Garde t 'p" February 11, 1987 . Page Four-

1. identification of concerns to be investigated,

[ 2. questions to be answered by the investigation,

3. persons to be. interviewed, and 1
4. documents to be examined.

, SAFETEAM is receptive to suggestions by the worker with respect to matters which should be included in the investigation plan. (f) Comnent on Investigative Plan: ' Although not' presently a part of our program, we will afford to the concerned worker represented by GAP, a reasonable period to suggest in writing specific connents on the i plan, as developed, to investigate the allegations which he/she has brought to the attention of SAFETEAM.- Such comments will be consid-ered, and the worker will be advised of the disposition of his/her comments. Investigations, however, will be conducted in accordance , with plans which represent the best judgment of SAFETEAM officials. Investigation plans may be modified from time to time as information is developed; such changes must likewise reflect the best judgment  ! of SAFETEAM officials.  ; (g)~ Site Visit: We would expect that during the course of the interview or the development of the investigative plan, it should become obvious as to whether it is necessary for the concerned individual to meet with the. investigator to point out some specifics. If that is necessary in SAFETEAM's judgment, we will make the necessary l arrangements for such a meeting at a convenient location whether it be the site or elsewhere. (h) Review of the Investigative Report: As I mentioned, it is important that the concerned inc ividual receive the " feedback" of the investi-gation initiated in response to his/her concern, and this is a

standard feature of SAFETEAM. We do not and will not make drafts of investigative reports available because that could impair the investigative efforts but, I-believe that our standard practice, which I described to you, meets the intent of your suggestion. A letter sisenarizing the investigation results and corrective actions taken (if any) is sent to the concerned individual.

As a standard feature, the response letter advises the concerned individual to contact SAFETEAM by letter or by phone (toll-free numbers are identified) if the individual believes that the concern in question has been misunderstood, or if he/she has further questions or additional concerns. I believe this practice meets the intent of your suggestion regarding input or comments by the employee after review of the investigative report. 1

I

n. .u,,,, u ein iiie .m-i < . ... p..m Ms. Billie Garde-Feruary 11, 1987.

L(~ Page Five In short, I believe our existing practice meets the intent of your suggestions, particularly as supplemented by the relatively simple modifica-tions I have described. Curing.our conversation of February 9, 1997, you indicated that the workers you are in contact with are dissatisfied with the performance of SAFETEAM. Based on that dissatisfaction, you stated that the use of SAFETEAM as an institution to perform investigations of the worker's concerns was not an approach you were willing to reconnend to these workers. To alleviate your concern with that approach, let me make a suggestion. From time to time, I have directed that an independent third party review be conducted of a specific and particularly sensitive investigation that SAFETEAM has completed. -The purpose was to obtain an independent contractor's perspective of the effectiveness of SAFEIEAM. My suggestion would be for me to select an independent third party to conduct a review of a sample SAFETEAM investigation performed as a result of concerns received from GAP or workers represented by GAP. The results of this review would be forwarded to the 

       .. worker with the response letter.

(  ! assure you that I will be intimately involved in the investigative process and the selection of the independent third party. Additionally, I alli personally review the independent third party report to assure its credibility. In short, I will maintain control over the activities associated Dith concerns forwarded under the aegis of GAP to assure that you have a single knowledgeable connunication link. Accordingly, I would like to get the process moving. In our January 30 conversation we discussed a " test" case or concern -- one which would lend itself to objective analysis that is, a hardware or technical issue which could be resolved by engineering evaluations or reinspection. We are ready to start _no_w using the guidelines described above and would very much appreciate your cooperation. ncerely yours, 

                                                                                                 *m
                                                                                  . '/ s.  /  ft,<_

J. E. Geiger 

    ;  JEG:Jkg

4 i Attachment #9e GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTADluTY PROJECT 1 1555 Connecocut Avenue. N W, Suite 202 , washington, D.C. 20036 (202)232 0550 GOVEHilMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT MIDWEST OFFICE l 3424 MARCOS LANE APPLETON, NISCONSIN 54911 February 19, 1987 . 1 James E. Gsiger Houston Light and Power P.O. Box 1700 Houston, Texas 77001 1

  • Ret South Texas Investigation

{

Dear Mr. Geiger,

Thank you for your February 11, 1987 letter. Your letter' accurately summarizes our several conversations regarding the potential of working together to reslove worker allegations of hardware or technical concerns. ( As I recall we are still in disagreement on two issues:

1) providing a draft of the final report to the allegor' prior to the issuance of the report and 2) the use of the SAFETEAM to 1 do the investigation. i Your letter indicates that HL&P will not make available to the allegor a draft of the final report prior to issuance because it could " impair the investigation effort.' We of course, do not want to impair the investigative process. To the contrary, these procedures are to enchance the investigative process and insure that the final report accurately states; the allegation (s) and also includes all of the information which accurately reflects the investigative process and the basis for the conclusions. Since the draft report we wish to review to the same draft that circulated to members of management regularly after the investigation is completed it is unlikely that it would be possible to impair the e

investigation. Please reconsider your position on this issue. Your suggestion to bring in a third party reviewer to audit the SAFETEAM report as a method of insuring the credibility of the report has some possibilities. However, I would still be in the position of recommending to the allegors that they risk going to en entity that has no credibility and trusting that organization on the basis of an independent audit at the end of the investigation. I think that there must be someway to insure the worker that this SAFETEAM investigation is different from the bad experience he had previously with the SAFETEAM at the beginning of the process. Please consider this problem. 9

1 L I also would like to gat this experiment underway; however, 1-f. I ~ nust be satisified that the effort is sincere and will result 1 in a thorough investigation of the worker allegations which it is designed to investigate. I look forward to meeting you next week. Sincere y, Billie Pirner Garde,Esq. i l 06 ( l l 1 1 1 1 i i l l

i Attachment #9d The Light ME%f H..uunn Iiehnne s l'.e l'o m.sI:no i1..no..n.I n.n :Tont ,71i,2.%... n March 5, 1987 Y Ms. Billie Garde C Director of the Midwest Office Government Accountability Project 3424 N. Marcos Lane Appleton, Wisconsin 54911

Dear Ms. Garde:

I This is to summarize our discussions during the last week or so regarding the investigation and disposition of concerns about the South Texas Project (STP) brought to our attention by the Government , Accountability Project (GAP). l t I( In previous discussions I advised you that HL&P is unwilling to depart ' from our basic SAFETEAM approach to handling such matters at STP. I have offered several er.hancements/ modifications to that basic approach in response to your suggestions. I also comitted to be intimately involved in GAP-forwarded mattcrs to assist in lessening any apprehension you or your clients may feel about the effectiveness of SAFETEAM. Lastly I reiterated I my offer to have a sample of such investigations and results subjected to review by a third party that I would select for this purpose. As to drafts of reports of investigations, I advised you, and I believe it is well recognized in similar circumstances elsewhere, that if persons preparing drafts of reports know that their drafts may be divulged to third I parties, especially GAP, this could have a " chilling effect"on the investigative process. I believe that a similar philosophy is reflected in investigations of serious airline and other transportation accidents. Where matters of public safety are concerned, we simply cannot take that chance. To address your concern, I suggested that, in connection with matters I brought to our attention by GAP, I would assure that SAFETEAM provided a response letter which included a more detailed description of the investigation process and rationale for the investigation conclusions than is routinely provided to concerned employees at the conclusion of typical SAFETEAM investigations. We agreed that I would, by way of example, review a letter to a concerned employee in a case already closed and expand it to I reflect the type of additional material we would furnish under a possible understanding with GAP. 1

I p .nu..n t.ighnne A two 4 ono m i Ms. Billie Garde March 5, 1987 Page 2-1 I think it is imperative, however, that we set a deadline for conumencing investigation for matters of concern to employees represented by GAP or matters brought to our attention by GAP. We are genuinely concerned that matters possibly affecting the safety of a nuclear power plant not become the subject of protracted procedural discussions. That risk is unacceptable to us; we also believe that the NRC would likewise be I concerned; and finally, that GAP's interest in safety would be poorly served. We have agreed to meet again on Monday, March 9, 1987. At that time I will give you a sample of the expanded letter we would propose to use to inform a concerned employee represented by GAP of the results of the I investigation of his/her concern. I am prepared to work with you as late as required next Monday and, if necessary, into Tuesday to review this material and get your agreement. I trust that, if we agree to try an investigation under the ground rules I've described, you will simultaneously provide me with at least one allegation which you believe represents a significant safety concern and which we can begin to investigate. If this demonstration I( .is successful, I would expect that all other similar matters of which GAP is aware will be innediately brought to me for consideration, investigation and disposition under these ground rules. If this cannot be arranged and you advise us that matters possibly important to safety remain undisclosed, it would be our intention to ask for an appropriate investigation by government officials. Conversely, at any time that you believed our investigations I were inadequate and we could not otherwise agree on corrective measures which provide assurance that such matters are properly investigated, we - would expect you to refer such matters immediately to appropriate NRC officials. I want to underscore that HL&P is deeply committed to assuring that STP O is reliable and safe. We therefore intend to press for the prompt identification and resolution of any concerns related to safety which may be in the possession of any person. ' I look forward to meeting with you and initiating this program next week. I cerely yours, 

                                                                               ~

D 

                                                                     .{-{ma eiger I
                                                                  !.E.

JEG:dbe I 

                                                                                   ~n.. &. . y ,;..n                                                                                                                           m
4. .y p;y. y.U
i. .n.d N ~* *,23$,s&. W<m,, . .j=, , .;:u..Wfw ck.k:&,.f. ~,,w'
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               ,,b.                    . v.pa,2.v:

i 

           ,,                                      c                                           .                                                                                                                                                                             .                                                    . ,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Ci.1.w%.., O ~

s-  := r 

                                                                                                                         .                     :.vts                               i,Dj.iu.r.,.w.                                             ,..su.c..-e. w . n .J,i u~.s
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                , :.w . ,y-a                                       'e%

A. . . O+@;,.n a- ;Q, # 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             .a                .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               - ?..v. w
                      &kh,y+y.                                                        hh,3 D.;
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    .-                                                                                          ,, +                                      ,;                    ,%                                     4
4. .g, .o s..q..

i r%hh&'hhhk),-m,.nm *W% . ' . . m???I.?'Nh.. - . .. q.u.,n.;1fh. t 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      .y.'n.       qhY                              ,m* -
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           . ~,
n. 3.cw <%,z , ..n. ,,.t.. .%cc.2
                            - .,.i,
                                        , :s.
                        .s ,w >.a.y.. :, ., - y a. _n.,, ~. e. , v,. + 1A. ,.,q..o. . ~ m.~.;
                                                                                                                                                                               ~%.g .n.,x. .n                               wY>    s ,in...

s DW, .dv 4.i &4.. 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       , , . ,, . ..                                                       .                     .~       ..:.R,..        .n
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ,J,,                     n   A,u;
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              '.       $.w.     .         e.

r. 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         .  ,.,yc.S
. . .%. . n. D_F
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             . . . s t . >n n.y a, ,,u .6..,2,,c, r, L ,-
                             'y ,.
                                                                                                                                                                                 . . .- . . .                                                 . .r      .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            -w                            ~-.                            ~..,.o,- ,.c.                                                                                  . .           u.                     t.c., cn.,x m.. . ;                                          -

0 ' ~".:M# W,. . .

n. .a .p' /,;.p00.'iBEFORE A . m .- 7HE:.NUCL. ,

w EAR . 'REGULA..Td. c RY. .v. C, C.WS m.'s ~ 

                        .p                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  ..                                                                                                                                                               e ,..

\ *,. e f,m,,,,.,vw-m, . %e .p . N1:y w,v, .., r%.. *v,4..O>. A .. . ,w . We,n.O.3  :.: gin-m

  • a
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                .. .. .. h.                     , g.% , w. .A       ..     . A:.. u 4. .

3 ,. .p,.m, Mt <,,%.7, 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   * . :W.%s Q, ,A. .c.+:. u,z? ,n. W d, , /

y.s,. ' ' ' sf. a .M* c p*. : ,jr.w4N. ~ . - 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ,%+ <,. :. r. -<, + m. . uu. W F;:                                                                                   .. f 6 .g. 6,9.q,g.g+ ',s .. -. a                                                                               ..p g; d.                     ,',..). r.%   ,, t.p#,.,.N.'s
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          . ft                                                                                                                                     a-u           p e .% ,, - s                                                                                                       ,W..??-                           T'         y,4M                  *.        [,%
                                                                                                                                                        . ,,c,                                                      ,.,.}gg.       [. r s.c,.'7. , A              $..,           p.c . ,; .

e . . d. n. ,; . . , pM g g n' j ,,R.r.i .; .A .4. ..,c<.. . w n.i . . . 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 *y* , ,,f              '                  ,
s. r . , .=.,g * < ,. a ;,p.
                                   . .,,                                            ,{ +

e g 2,.>- J,. .p'g g,,p. t.") .pp, 7.,t q., s ; p;.M. , . -"* . QT @,@ p,e; .** yje,.9 . eg!r.. M% J , , g, . y ' 

                                                     .a
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             .                                                                                  . _                                     W ym';                                                              W.3 ~< :. .J..?,ll
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           ;- . . e ' . v. c o; ; ,.

Wgg. '.N'p@p ' 

                          -&. .                                                                    . .. .                                    : . .:. Da..-                                                                   .*          l' : s s i .e                                                          .-                     .             f, J.r s.3                                                                                                                                                                                                                               u'                                          ,

W;C "~~P h" 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                - ' ?.~; "

O"J . 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              #b                                                                                                                                                                                              .
      .,,,,.i~ t,+ .pm                                                               w"'W>                            lf)n.4$.         1 t h; tb                              ,: f.My a ;t.-t, g d f '.31 .va                  We, M                           .%J.v Q                                  . ' K )) u.'p' gfpQ. ,1,tp,9 n . P.u r s,uap t.ON         . ., . n.

r y. .% 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      +
w. ,

4 e,. v>;. 

                                 ; . ~ s. ,. , ., 2                                  -
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 ,. $ .. .                 . r nz. . J.,s.,           ~;, ,. $.sa_ %a                                           u~ ,                                                                                                                                     .. . .

s,u t s -9,", .. ." , ;. ev. n .. e-.. 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     . =.A     : ... n. ya.,s                   .

4 ... ,. . .. .. , .* .% e .s _'Y.. > 

                                                                                                                                    . s t r ,' n, . ,s, ' '. y . ,.w...'y
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       ..f, *\, - f. , .l l',;.4 k, a( ,, S to l.c ml . . ), y.i * &k.,

r -- 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   *. ' ', , . Y. '. 2 e6
  • 3- -

2, '...\*L.'. *if) v' 1 

                                           ,                                                                yq                                  3- m'                              .         -         .         ...                              ...:                 . . .                 'c.e,t                                                                                                    .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    , ,. y ,., ,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                .t f}} t ' ".; .. .s + e m .; ' '.,7,; ',- f.. ,, , ;i ,
      ;                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          . : - .A, j               ;\. ;                                                                               yu q+1                                   , , , .
. - .c ;. y, .? e #, ,7 , . ,g , - p ,, ;- ' ,g : , i. .;

o.4 . 2 

                                                                                                               ,-u                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       ; r. ~. . . s[,, f,g                                                               J,. og> p,i}6.R.gg S'-.                              . ,,y j,:,- .

c 3.p M. . k. . .. ...g.as- u 

     . . . -                                                             % , - . . . , , , . , , .i ;                                                                                                                                         ...i .                                    ;
9. ,, . , c .y
           - 8
                                           -             p                                                     4 3-                             .. . . . .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             ,. a. t .x  '

q . . 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           ,g., f . , . t...,s
c. .
                 . r 7".
                                                                                                                                    'A
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 .                                       , l, 1                                                            .\                            - \
                , .cg                               x                                                                                                   Ne/,,.                                                                   - '
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           . . .-                                                                        r
                                       ,                                                                                              . ~                                        4
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  .                                                                                                                               r )                                                      4 g.

l t.3.w%.pg h g . p s. o,, y a v1 . . . - 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ~w %pr-m.

wp.,p..,,,y e 3.', . ' i 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             +.,y c < m;u
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       ?*n M _.jpm                                                                 M .* ma                                                          . .+F W,b~.4p%                                                                                                                              t ,.r dwr ....
n. . Y # >. -
                                                                                                                                                                                                   . . .                                                                  p                                      s                                                                                                                 .

y .: .. . f.t wi 3[T q dt. % t0 : ' ' ' - :. * . 1 'A , 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ,. ..                                                                                                                                                 . +. p'#.   < *;. '<
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              ..g Ja a
        >k , k \'h, ahN, M D D 5 "M, _,., M, EhN,N.. Mi
        ; ' .                                                                                                                                    . , . .:                                                                    e
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   . *w .Nkkh                        . -                               .

h[> . 

       ' [9.,L. i                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      .K
                                                                                                           -$          ',                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               u                                                                              *, p y( g p'       4
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               ,i             8,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              , . ,                                                                                       {'                      [,                            '                                                                                                      '
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     ,,,.9
                                                                           \ .; , '.:.'y y, e
  • g,'

l', q. 

                                                                                                                                                         .. ~.

L , 3 .. . .. . .. .. ., y .. ..; . ;z L,A, /

a. t . .: . \.' . , . . o. .,.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           . p. . L u ..>. .. s ,. ' ,g:y,                                 . v..
                                                                                                                              ,                                   .j , . ' '  *

v . ,' A, ,  ; 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            . ., v.g v,1
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       .. p.                      .

9, . ; f g

6. .' , . . . . , . ,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ,.)                                      i,,ay.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         ,.,,, a s                                       -                           .% ,yI
                                                                                        , - , k ' ** #
                                               .. .                                                                                                                 et ,- ' ( s .* J                             '.                          .,          9            W h s **e I* -                                                .J,A.

4'F- ' ' ' *

  • I' ., ,. . g. p.

gs . 4,.,  ;. . . . tt .w 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                . .. . ,y y g

r r . .. . 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ..                    c b.

(,n. - 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   .,no s ,. &q u.
                                                                                                                       ,a1.,., 4                                  .. ,                                      ,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 .,s                                         e,.e , ,                                                      s.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             .                                                   s                           .t                .

g o , .1 ( .,., ga ,, . h * = r 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 ' .' . . , / j J.% , l .

6 , ~ ,* i h*k" - g' ., 4 I

h. , . ,'

q , f g b , . 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               .., . . . v                                                                .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       '.                                                                                                  . . - ,. fa
  • t g, 7 i / ..'$ . * '
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       .\ - {
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  -4                    ~ ,., .                                            , .. .g e,   .v
                    ...                          .                                                                                                          . ..                                              4.,                                                ,. .                   ..                    .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              .j....                                , , .                         s.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       ,.           .r..,          es                      [mr ,                                              '
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          - .se.m. e
                  . I -                                     '
                                                                                                                              * ,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 ./
                                                                                                                         ,                                      ,                                                                                                                               s                      ,\                                                                                                                                                                * . .                                                  I                   '

e c.,*pm. ,, , <r ir . . c . - .. . , 

   . , 4. . . . .e                                                                                                        _. ..                                                                                                                                           . y q, 9. ~ .L                                            .a..p,........,                p .m p,.                       e ..           w ., e . m. .c                                   ..,. a -w: .                                                                   ,

a.au,. , , - 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           .                                                               ;,:                        - . .L                                                                                                                                                                                       . : . " . ,.. . , * ,                                              .
                                                                                                                                                            . -                                                                                                                 ,- . .                                          .       4,                      . .                         . . . ,.                                       .
           ," ,                                                                                                                                                           ee q.J
                                                                                                                                                                                                   ' . 4 . 4ap w h . .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       'ald ' em.a - i.amiu'9'eq                                    I uA fBee' E * ,gk
  • M as'*- *EN-..-- '.c.',..

L . ' . , .W- 

   $ e. .x
                                                                 .2                                                                                       '
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          ..             %,                              %.                                                                                                                                  .. 7                        ,.-Ncy.                                                  .,         ,w
                                                                                                                                                          - ,.                            .                                  .               s 7 ..             .,.. g ; . ; 7 g 4 :n,~                                                                   ,,                           ,g g;_--        v v ., n, j,.. .           f . _ 4.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           ,                   C;            . . . . . . . .                                                                                 ,. . ..                                    .s.-                         .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                      #                                                                                         . .                               +- .                             ..        -.,,*.,.4.as                                    .                  .                          .                                                                            . s               < .

W 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        .                          ... ..                                                                                                             .+,                                                                                                                        . **

r

  • w*

r 

                                                           ' '                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             ~f                                                                        .
  • i
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      .g.e,*=....--
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              ..... .,......', - ~
d. . , .

0 I s ,, . . . .- 4.. .. . ..,,,7 .. 4 '. g, .r.,, 

                                                                                                            '.- i                                       $
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         - ., ~ , , ,. J-
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ,.                                        - , eq . i -

4 .  ; _ . _ . . . _ _ 1 . gy ag e ,,.h y_g 

   $,t                                                                                                                                                                                       ' '
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            . . .                             .N..~.*

7'. 9; .  : ..~ ^ 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             , , , , ,                                           av .. .
                  .                                                                                                                                                                                                                = . ,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   .....,                                            .. ,                                 . . .           e              . .qg                                                .,

D 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      . ..,                       4pg 9

} Houuon Lighting & Power 4:ornpant (' ) Ms Billie Garde March 18, 1987 It is anomalous to us that an organization purporting to )- represent the public interest could show such little regard for that interest by withholding information of potential significance to the public health and safety. We will not be a party to such 

            " games." We will urge federal and state officials to seek from you and your organization every scrap of information which could potentially relate-to the safety of the South Texas Project. If 0

any such information in fact exists and is made available to us, we will immediately pursue it to its resolution. We can then leave to the citizens of Texas the judgment as to which of us truly represents the public interest. Sincerely, G.U.A J H Goldberg i Group Vice-President, Nuclear Q. ( JKG/am cc Chairman L W Zech (NRC) I Commissioners K M Carr (" ) T M Roberts (") 0 J K Asselstina F M Bernthal (" ) l (" ) Exec. Dir. Reg. Adan. V Stello (" ) < Dir. I&E R D Martin J M Taylor (") (" ) Owners T V Shockley (CP&L) A vonRosenberg (CPSB) O M B Lee (COA) ~( r l l t i

i--

~'

Attachment #9f i I COVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT 

     ' 17 %5 Connecticut Avenwe. N W Suite 202                                                  f (202)232 8550           l g 4       .mngron. D C. 20036
                                                                                                }

l March 27, 1987 t Jerry H. Goldberg 

            ' Group Vice President, Nuclear i           Houston Lighting & Power Corp.

1 P. O. Box 1700 ' Houston, Texas 77001 RE: Investigation of the South Texas Project by the g Government Accountability , Project l

Dear Mr. Goldberg:

Your widely distributed letter of March 18, 19E7 was a 1 curprise to me. Please be assured that the Government ] g( Accountability Project (GAP) has not made any final decision I regarding possible cooperation with HL&P on allegations. As Mr. Geiger and your counsel were well aware, I was in trial the week of March 9-14, 1987 in Houston, litigating a South Texas related Department of Labor case, Goldstein v. EBASCo, 86- i I ERA-36. The following week I was on a personal / professional j break while moving both my home and my office to new locations. j I did call Mr. Geiger and specifically informed him that I was not working from March 16 to 21, 1987, and that I would contact him regarding the proposals during the following week. Therefore, your conclusion that " GAP has no interest in I proceeding further" with negotiations is insincere and appears to be deliberately taking advantage of my one-week " working" vacation. I am uncertain whether HL&P is terminating negotiations on a potential working relationship. If so, please notify us of that I in writing. If you are not, let me summarize where the negotiations are apparently mired.  ; l l HL&P, through Mr. Geiger, has informed us that allegation investigations would have to be done by the SAFETEAM, but has agreed to a number of modified procedures to alleviate some of , ll

our concerns. He has indicated, however, that HL&P is not I l
         ;      willing to make additional concessions which would assure us that our clients are legally protected from reprisals, that the l                  investigation properly pursues the correct allegation, and that l

an adequate investigation was conducted once completed. I i

) 

 /              As I carefully explained to Mr. Geiger, the employees we represent have no faith in the credibility of the SAFETEAM.

Their individual and collective experiences have demonstrated that the SAFETEAM is not independent, does not protect or defend cmployees from harassment and discrimination, is neither able nor willing to reach truthful conclusions, has no authority to rcquire or implement corrective actions, does not generate daficiency paper in compliance with federal regulations, does not report allegations or findings of wrongdoing to the NRC, and is institutionally incapable of processing significant safety-related concerns. The employees' experiences were confirmed by the information we recently obtained from HL&P in discovery in the Goldstein case. For example, one SAFETEAM investigation contained allegations of harassment and intimidation, violations of hold points, and significant defects in the quality of work in the-Ceactor Control Building (RCB). A comparison of the interview of the engineer making the serious allegations with the results of that investigation prove that the SAFETEAM did not even understand the allegations, did not investigate the allegations given to the SAFETEAM of serious construction and quality defects in the RCB, and had no basis for its conclusions. In any event you should be aware that GAP understands its obligations to ensure that allegations of safety concerns are (- investigated. In that regard, we have a proven history of discovering massive safety problems and seeing that they are cddressed. We would gladly match our history of demonstrated concern for public health and safety with any other organization, and feel confident that the comparison would reflect quite favorably upon us. As for the South Texas Project, HL&P and/or EBASCo and/or Bechtel have been made aware of serious safety concerns through internal processes. We have also been in contact with the NRC and other appropriate government bodies regarding processing of , allegations about South Texas. Recently, Region IV of the NRC l received extraordinary criticism from the NRC Office of Inspector and Auditor (OIA) regarding the handling of allegations at the 4 l Comanche Peak facility. Therefore, it is not appropriate to submit allegations to Region IV until some adequate resolution of the concerns raised by the OIA has been completed. We have asked the NRC for guidance as to how to proceed, given Region IV's lack of credibility. To date, we have not received a response. So as you can tell, we are attempting to ensure that any information which comes to us about the South Texas plant is properly investigated, and that the appropriate corrective f 1 __- _ __

MM Attachment #99 The Light ( company o.... .. .., , .. . ... _ ,. . , n. .m. . o. .. ...., . ,..m. ... , m . ... . . . _ . - .] April 6, 1987 ] i 1 Ms. Billie Garde j Director of the Midwest Office i j Government Accountability Project 1 3424 M. Marcos Lane Appleton, Wisconsin 54911 1 1

Dear Ms. Garde:

In response to your letter of March 27, 1987, please be advised that Houston Lighting & Power Company is very skeptical that any further dialogue l

ith GAP would be constructive. Although we are ready to utilize our SAFETEAM organization to perform investigations of any concerns related to nuclear safety or quality at the South Texas Project, we believe that protracted discussion with your organization is wasting valuable time that could be better spent investigating such matters.

Your obvious low regard for SAFETEAM, which is consistent with the , canner in which GAP has criticized other nuclear projects, prompts us to ) again urge that you immediately share your concerns with the Nuclear  ; ( R:gulatory Consission. Your letter suggests that you have sought " guidance" from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission but "have not received a response". { That statement is puzzling, in f act, you have received a response from Mr. Stello by letter of February 18, 1987 (available in the Nuclear Regulatory Consission public document room) in which you were assured of the availability of Nuclear Regulatory Comission resources to resolve issues l your clients might raise. That letter concluded that failing to bring forth i infonnation promptly "would not be in the best interests of assuring the ) prompt resolution of legitimate safety concerns". 1 ( Your letter states that Houston Lighting & Power and its contractors I have been made aware of serious safety concerns through internal processes. I The innuendo is that nothing has been done. To the best of our knowledge, cvery such matter brought to our attention or those of our principal , contractors has been investigated and resolved or is the subject of a  ! pending investigation. If you have information to the contrary, please tell us. I The statement in your letter concerning information obtained during discovery for tne Goldstein case and and the conclusions which you have drawn from that information are presumptuous at best. Contrary to your statement, a comparison of the interview transcript and the investigation report reveals that each of the issues raised during the interview were g understood, investigated, and conclusions drawn based upon the facts. in j any event, as you well know, the Goldstein case has been adjourned. When it

rcsumes later this year, the defendant will p' resent its case and a ccnclusion will be reached based upon all the evidence.

I

I it ..,,i..n i ighimg x r.m i i < n p m Ms. Billie Garae i April 6, 1987 Page 2 I reiterate our suggestion that you try uur SAFETEAM system as modified to meet your concerns *ith respect to any rnatter of potential safety consequences, in the meantime, however, we are taking steps to request appropriate government officials to obtain from you or your organization information which could potentially affect the safety of the South Texas Project. If such information exists and is furnished to us, we will spare no effort in pursuing its resolution. In closing, let me add at the risk of being immodest, that the South Texas Nuclear Project is managed by experienced professionals of the highest integrity. Our concern for public safety is of paramount importance. Any suggestion by your organization to the contrary is not supported by the r; cord. Our concern for protecting the public and the plant is demonstrated by our dogged determination to unearth weaknesses wherever they can be found and decling with them. SAFETEAM is but one of many techniques that we 

      -utilize in that effort. While our SAFETEAM program is not perfect, I b211 eve it to be among the very best in the country.

Very truly yours, ( eb J. H. Goldberg Group Vice-President, Nuclear JHG/JEG/sd s I cc: Chairman L. W. Zech Commissioners K. M. Carr T. M. Roberts J. K. Asselstine F. M. Bernthal Exec. Dir. V. Stello Reg. Adm. R. D. Martin Dir. 1 & E J. M. Taylor Owners T. V. Shockley A. vonRosenberg M. B. Lee 1 F _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1

I 

   **                                                                                  e        -

g . 

                                                                                    -f,.*,'.r.;.+    -
                                                                                                             \

March 17, 1936 j 

     'l f'

1 t Note to: Richard C. Brady, Sr. Program Manager for Allegations, NRR ,

SUBJECT:

DRAFT MANUAL CHAPTER 0517 Our office has reviewed the advance copy of 0517 which you provided to us. We have a few minor comments which are marked on the attached copy of the manual chapter. b If you have any questions please give me a call. (2AL~1. Karen Cyr II ( Regional Operations and Enforcement Division, OELD cc: E. Shomaker, ELD L. Chandler, ELD ' .' s t -l t .f P 0 1 A - 6(.- 2 6 t ' 

                                                                  ,. 3h 4

3-. ( S pf.. 1 \1 .. t, 

                     ,/ \j , (C'g\y' f I                 '

gf l sg y 

                                        \"    ;

lg . U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ' NRC NANUAL Volume: 0000 General Administration Part : 0500 Health and Safety l . NRR CHAPTER 0517 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS 0517-01 COVERAGE p 

                                                                           %.h '- u. ~ C          'A
                                                                           / vM , ... - '    ;, _

1 

              . This chapter and its appendices define the policy and procedures ffor the             f proper receipt, processing, control, and disposition *of allegations received       . G "' .

by NRC licensees and their contractors, the policy with individuals who provide infomation to the NR t -(1 cedures for the referral of matters which the staff hnd the policy and pro-potential wrongdoing to the Office of Investigations (0! etemined involve g 0517-02 021 OBJECTIVES disposition of allegations and to define procedures 

                                                                             \

(sa+ 941 (Q \ " receipt, status, and disposition of allegations are tracked kg, through the Allegation Management System (AMS), thereby assuring that: I a. allegations are properly assigned for processing and assessed for manner; significance to pemit ranking and resolution in a timely safety b. timely and accurate infomation on all allegations is maintained I basis;and made available to NRC Offices and Regions on a need-to-know c. !: all allegations not resolved by other femal means are l: processed in accordance with these procedures and the !L resolution of all allegations is properly documented; t 022 . 

        ,               To assure that individuals making allegations to the NRC are
        \               properly treated, their identity protected where appropriate and possible, and notified of the resolution.

I 1 1

it .. 

               .y tGC-0517-O3' MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS

.t'(' i 023 To assure that issues . raised are promptly.and adequately investi-gated. 024 To establish the policy for requesting and setting priorities for investigations of matters which involve potential. wrongdoing and ( to define the procedures for referral of such matters to 01. 

                                            '0517-03        RESPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITIES 031 Executive Director for Operations (EDO)

(' Set policy and procedures for the receipt and disposition of allegations,'in conjunc, tion with theprocessing, contro), Director. 01, implement the policy for initiation, establishment of' priorities and termination of investigations, request investi-gations of matters involving potential wrongdoing identified by I the Headquarters staff. and in conjunction with the Ofrectors of the Office of Investigations and the Office of Inspector and Auditor (OIA) implement policy for protecting the identity of those who provide information to the NRC. For those matters with-in the purview of O! and CIA, only set policy and procedures governing their interfaces with other Offices and Regions. I( 032 All Office Directors / Regional Administrators 

                                                                                                                                                                    )

a. Establish internal procedures so that all employees are aware of requirements for receipt, processing, control, and disposition of allegations and for the accurate and timely updating of the ' 8 status of those allegations for which their office is the Action Office.

b. Appoint 'an Office Allegation Coordinator (OAC) who serves as
                                                    '    administrative point of contact for employees and other Offices and the Regions.            The OAC will:

I 1. Ensure that the appropriate parts of the Allegation Data Form (NRC Fonn 307, Exhibit 1) are completed for all allega-tions received within the Office or Region and that the data are accurate and timely. g 2. Determine the appropriate Action Office and, if applicable, coordinate each allegation with received. the OAC of the affected Office or Region on

3. Forward the Allegation Data Form to the respective Action Office OAC when the Office or Region is not the Action
        ,                                                      Office.

I 2 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ .a

4 yWGEMENT OF RLEG'TIONS i NRC 0517-03255 4 When the receiving Office or Region is the Action Office , { working days of receipt. (For power reactors, during i

f. until the Commission meeting on full-power auth Receiving Office or Action Office for any allegation will, Manager of its receipt and the identification of the Office in addition to entering the allegation into the AMS. 3 5.

Ensure that allegations received from other Offices or Regions are entered into the AMS within 10 workdays of receipt. 6. Acquire input data on new allegations (including those - and ensure this inforination is entered in the AMS. re)

7. i Ensure that all open allegations in the AMS are reviewed and ,

updated as necessary on a monthly basis. 8. Part IK, 4g. and h. Ensure the preparation of reports as described inkj

9. )

Maintain records of individuals granted confidential source  ! I who have been found to have a need to know informa would reveal the identity of a confidential source. on which 

                                                     */,

10. Maintain would revealsecure files the identity of a.when such confidential files contain information source. ' 

                                                                                                     , '{ ,

c. Determine the safety significance and oeneric implications of tWose allegations that faTFwithin the programmatic resplinsibi. - lity of that Office or Region and establish schedules for the ( processing of allegations with the objective of resolving them ' as promptly sing decisionas resources allow and prior to any applicable licen-date. d. Review those allegations for which it is the Action Office for NRR or WfSS. potential board notification and recorrrnend such nottffcation to , i

e. .

Refer all matters where there is a reasonable basis for belief wrongdoing and for which the staff determines an investigation is necessary to determine whether regulatory action is required, except those involving NRC employees or NRC contractors, to the Office of , Investigations in accordance with the guidance herein and in Appendix 3 to this manual chapter and provide technical assistance to O! for investigating allegations as requested. ' f. Refer all allegations of wrongdoing by MRC employees or NRC con-tractors to the Office of Inspector and Auditor. Nanual Chapter 0702). (

Reference:

NRC 3

T - p:.0M 7 03, \ I MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGAi!ONS 5 '035 _ Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement l a.- Resolve allegations affecting matters for which itn.is the respo! sible office including those that involve vendors or that are generic in nature in coordination with NRR or NMSS.

b. 2
                                  -Monitor the Regions.the allocation of resources for allegation managemenk
c. {;

Monitor the investigations being conducted $ I requested by a Regional Administrator and established by the g . Director, Mond e Office 

                                                -- o{ Investigations mee,ts, regulatory needs.
                                                           -- ~~-                                                       f 036
                                                                                                              , h,2 j

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation =_,y&

a. i '-

g jo j dures regarding the processing of allegations. Propos . For those and procedures governing their interfaceQ,with o and Regions. . A 

                                                                                                                    -   I b.

Review allegations concerning NRR licensees in coordination wi i { the Action ifOffice notification, for potential board notification and make such required. {'

c. (

Evaluate implications of allegations relative to licensing deci sions with andthe IE and plant safety Region (s). concerning NRR licensees in coordination d. Resolve assigned those to NRR. allega'tions pertaining to reactor licensing issues i {

e. . t Maintain capabilities,the AMS and with in coordination any RM.

necessary improvements to modify its f. Conduct programmatic reviews of all action offices to assure implementation of NRC policy swi allegations, g. Monitor the investigations being conducted within area of respon sibility to assure that an investigative priority or schedule - requested by a Regional Administrator and established by the Director, Office of Investigations meets regulatory needs . 037 Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards a. Review allegations concerning MMSS licensees in coordination wit the ActionifOffice notification fer potential board notification and make such required. ' l 

                                                     .'                                                                   l 5

i f - 

                                                                                                                                            )

ll MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS l NRC' 0517-043-l 3 \ b. Evaluate implications of allegations relative to licensing deci-sions concerning Region (s). NMSS licensees in coordination with IE and the c. 0 Resolve those allegations for which NMSS is the action office. d. 4 Monitor the investigations being conducted within area of respon-sibility to assure that an investigative priority or schedule  ! Director, Office of Investigations meets regulatory nee 038 Office of Resource Manacement (RM) a. Provide ADP support to maintain the AMS.

  • b.

Provide special reports to Offices and Regions as requested.

c. j

.i making modifications and improvements to the AMS. Pr 039 Office of the Executive Leoal Director and Regional Counsel a. Provide legal counsel in resolving allegations as necessary. I( b. 

                             'requested.

Review referrals of matters to the Office of Investigations, as c. Provide legal counsel on confidentiality agreements as requested. g 0517-04 DEFINITIONS 041 Action Office. The NRC Office or Region that is responsible for reviewing and taking action, as appropriate, to resolve an allega

  • tion.

'I 042 Action Office Contact. is assigned the responsibility for resolving an allegation.The st 1 043 Allegation. A decieration, statement, or assertion of impro-priety or inadequacy validity of which has notassociated with NRC-regulated activities, the been estabitshed. g This includes all safety concerns identified by sources such as the media, indi-viduals or organizations outside the NRC, and technical audit efforts from Federal State or local government offices regarding activities at a licensee's site. Excluded from this definition are matters being handled by more formal processes . r 

                                                                                                                               * :,D
  ;                        such as 10 CFR 2.206 petitions hearing boards, appeal boards                                                '

etcIAllegations thaTmay resu,lt from these formal processes,and . 1 4 are not resolved within these processes shall be subject to treatment under this manual chapter. 6 w_______-__-_

) . NRC-0517-0410 MANAGEMENT or ALLEGATIONS 3 044 Allegation Management System (AMS). A computerized information system that contains a sumary of significant data pertinent to each allegation. 3 045 A11eger. An individual or organization who makes allegations. The individual or organization may be a concern.ed private citi-zen; a public interest group; a licensee, vendor or contractor , employee; or a representative of a local, State, or Federal agency. (NRC employees should be aware of procedures for pre-senting differing professional opinions, NRC Manual Chapter 4125). 046 Confidentiality. The terin that refers to the protection of data that directly, or otherwise, could identify a confidential source by name. It is not intended to deny staff members access to 'the identity of a confidential source when such identification is required by staff members to evaluate and resolve allegations. 047 Confidential Source. An alleger who has executed, or has orally represented that he/she will execute, a Confidentiality Agreement. (Exhibit 2). 048 Inquiry. An activity involving minimal effort to determine the !( appropriate response to infomation reported to the NRC. Typi-cally, an inquiry entails the use of the telephone or written correspondence rather than formal interviews or other investi-gative measures; however, formal interviews will be conducted if required. 049 Inspection. For purposes of this Manual Chapter, a special investigatory activity normally conducted by E00 Offices and Regions that may be used to evaluate and resolve an allegation. 0410 Investigation. For the purposes of this Manual Chapter, an activity ' nortnally conducted by the Office of Investigations that any be used to evaluate and resolve an allegation. 0411 Office Allegation Coordinator (OAC). A designated staff member in each Office or Region who serves as the administrative point of contact for that Office or Region regarding the processing of allegations. 0412 Receiving an allegation. Office. The Office or Region that initially receives In some cases, the Action Office and Receiving Office will be the same if the allegation falls within the 

                               ' functional responsibility of the Receiving Office.

0413 _ Safety Significant. For purposes of this Manual Cha allegation will be considered safety significant if'pter, an the allegation would, if true, (1) raise a significant question about the ability of a particular structure, system, or component to perfom its e 7

3 .' 4 

              . Pt.Nt,GEME'.! 0F ALLEGATIONS l.

NRC 0517-05 0( _ intended safety function or (2) raise a significant question of management competence, integrity, or conduct or about implementa-tion of the quality assurance program, sufficient to raise a legitimate doubt as to the ability to operate the plant saf

6. -A44ega44ons wh44h-are--oet-sefetf-e4 9 tt4444 ant d' he 11
                                                                                                         -e@ely.

the-cormal-4our4e-of-bus 4 cess-indel endent or iiceris 0414 Sanitization. developed of the alleger. as a result of an allegation does entity not revea 0415 Secure Files. access is controlled on a need to know bases. File marked "Contains infomation which would reveal the identity of aTh confidential source" and controls shall include a sign-out procedu 0416 Wronadoing. . regu' story requirements and violations ~Esulting fro regard of to amounting orintent. reckless indTTierence to regulatory requirements A reasonable basis for belief of wrongdoing exists when, from the circumstances surrounding it, a violation of regulatory requirement appears more likely to have been intentiona f (. or than tofrom have resulted error from careless disregard or reckless indifference or oversight, 0517-05 BASIC REQUIREMENTS 051 Applicability. ) applicable to, and shall be followed by, all NRC emplo 052 Wrongdoing. belief of wrongdoing, as opposed to those involvin and for which the staff concludes an investigation is necessary to * , determine whether enforcement or other regulatory action is requi I should be referred to the Office of Investigations following the pr cedures set forth in Appendix 3 of this manual chapter. i Al"egations l purview of CIA and are not entered into the AMS.of wro requester within 30 days whether the matter has been accepted for0! will n investigation estimated and, schedule. if so, the priority of the investigatione and th 1 the requester with the basis for its decision.If a request is not accep Any differences gation shall be resolved in accordance with the p in Appendix 3 of this manual chapter. , enter allegations of wrongdoing into the AMS using inferinationThe O received art IX.2 of thisfrom manualthe alleger or provided by 0! (see Ap[p chapter). or a summary offits findings of those matters which-it investiga IA1-  :" l N [ ' 8 l 1 

        .                                                                                                                               1 L                     NPC-0517-055' MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS to the ' requesting Of fice or Region. Allegations involving wrong-doing for which a Region is the Action Office will be coordinated by 1
                                                           ' the Region OAC with the 01 Field Office Ofrector in that Region.

Allegations involving wrongdoing for which a Headquarters Office is the Action Office will be coordinated with O! Headquarters (see also - Appendix 1 Part IV.6). 053. Action Office Assignments. Allegations submitted by any source concerning NRC-regulated activities should be transmitted by the Receiving Office OAC to the OAC in the appropriate Office or Reg 1on for processing. 054 Identity of Allegers. As a general rule, the need-to-know :i principle should be implemented for allegers. Generally, this*means 1 avoidance of unnecessary use of the identity of the a11eger and other identifying information in discussions and in documents. With the i 

                                                         . exception of reports prepared by the Office of Investigations, reports should nonna11y not contain information which would reveal          )

the identity of an alleger. Individuals using documents containing .{ infonnation which could reveal the identity of an alleger are responsible for controlling such documents, such as by placing them f ( in closed' storage when not under the individual's personal control. -1 If asked whether a person is an alleger, NRC staff should respond that it is NRC policy not to identify an alleger unless it is clear that the individual concerned has no objection. 1 Higher standards of control are to apply when an alleger has been granted confidential source status. Confidential source status is granted when a Confidentiality Agreement (Exhibit 2) is executed by the NRC and the alleger. Guidance with respect-to granting confi- 

                                                       -  dentiality, revoking confidentiality, and providing the identity of a confidential source outside the NRC is contained in Appendix 2.      .

T The identity of a confidential source must be protected by not referring to the name or other identifying information1n internal NRC discussions unless absolutely necessary, and by expurgating the name and other identifying infonnation from documents before providing them to authorized / assigned NRC staff members. File's and documents which contain information which could reveal the identity of a confidential source are to be marked "Contains information which would reveal the identity of a confidential source " and may not be reproduced without the authorization of the OAC. Inforestion which can reveal the identity of a confidential source may be withheld under the Freedom of Information Act from public disclosure pursuant to 10 CFR l 9.5(a)(7)(iv). Information which l 

                                                                                                                                        )

could reveal the identity of an alleger who has not been granted i confidential source status may also be withheld under appropriate  ! circumstances, but this may not always be the case.

? 4 i NRC-0517-057 y, MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS 055 Confidential Files. Confidential files must not be compromised inadvertently. All information relating to cases where confiden-tia11ty has been formally granted, by signed agreement, must be kept 8 in a secure controls file cabinet or safe to which extremely limited access apply. These files must be physically separated from the normal allegation infomation. A log files due to the special acce'ss controls on the system must be utilized to clearly identif personnel who had access (observation or personal possession)to y all these files and the time during which access was granted. The Office Director or Regional Administrator will, by written dele-gation, specify the responsible office person (s) who may permit access to this file. These designated persons must a) restrict access to authorized NRC personnel b verify the "need to know" of the individuals requesting acces,s a)nd so note on the f i*- log by cr_.sther ccyy) of the inforination is made - multiple copies for simultaneous review must be returned to the file, d) ensure, by an informal briefing of the requestor, that inforination is kept in a secure returned in alocation while outside of the central file and is timely manner. i 056 Staff Generated Infomation. Staff generated information relating to evaluations or inspections of allegations where confidentiality has been formally granted must be sanitized such that no information j is included that could through any path, lead to the identification 1 of the alleger, or, suc,h staff generated infomation must be kept in the confidential files. The'0AC should provide case specific { t instructions to NRC staff personnel who generate and review such infomation concerning sanitization of documents and all unsanitized 2p documents to indicate generated its sensitivity.must contain a cover sheet that is clearly markedjv Draf ts of staff generated infam2+V for such cases e o enneuressr- should be destroyed upon finalizatforFCF:nly p"h A /M 4 *~- +--- t1M _- 

                                             % t    p 'Mtr---tw M -
  • v t : . M u -- An -4 e n> +- + - r 4 L '-'m t iat Confidential files should be complete, containing all information related to the resolution of .j the issues identified, similar to the normal allegation files. Con-fidential files may be referenced in the nomal allegation files, but no more than a cross reference with the effected projects and status, should be kept in the normal allegation file enclosure. I j

057 Responding to A11ecers. Those who provide allegations to NRC staff i l must be treated with respect, consideration, and tact. Under no circumstances should they be dealt with brusquely or abusively. I When allegations are received in writing, a prompt' attempt to make > personal contact must ordinarily be made in each case either by a U letter, telephone call or personal meeting. Contact should be 

    ;               earnest and professional. The alleger should be promptly advised of the results of followup action and, in instances of unusual delay in                            i providing the results, should be advised of the status periodically so that there is an awareness that the allegation is being pursued.

9

0.' 4 g . M C 0517-058 MANGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS _ 058 Processing A11ecations. The Action Office should resolve all 

                                . allegations in a manner which is timely under the circumstances (taking into consideration the schedule and/or sta D

Except as discussed below (Late-filed Allegations}ge , allofallegations licensing). received prior to issuance of an initial license should be resolved , before the ifcense is issued. Allegations having relatively high safety significance should be addressed first and with expedition. Less significant allegations should be addressed as priorities and j resources perinit, but usually within 6 months of receipt. For purposes of this Manual Chapter, an allegation will be considered safety-significant if the allegation would, if true: (1) raise a significant question about the ability of a particular structure, system, or component to perform itt intended safety function or (2) raise a significant question of management competence, integrity, or conduct or about implementation of. ths quality assurance program, sufficient to raise a legitimate doubt as to the ability 4 to operate the plant safely. 

 , I-Allegations should be screened as promptly as possible to assure the proper identification of safety-significance. As a result of screening, it may be possible to clos the process for logical reasons (e.g.e, out     some af ter     allegations initial inquiry,early       the in allegation is frivolous or too vague or general in nature to permit further be should    followup). Appropriate documentation of such determination provided.
 ,                                                      In any event, while the safety-significance of an allegation is important in detemining the extent and promptness of staff resource connitmen'ts, it should not affect the treatment of the alleger as discussed in section 057, above.

Followup of allegations, whether they are general or specific, g should focus not only on the particular allegation but on the , overall area of concern, including the potential for generic implications as well as wrongdoing. In this regard, note that an allegation directed toward a non-safety item or activity may, as a result of generic implications, affect a safety item or activity. When a number of allegations point to or reinforce indications of a broader problem, prompt action to broaden the scope of the inquiry should be taken to detemine the extent of the problem. 

                           .If it is appropriate, an inspection should be made. A plant visit with the person making the allegation may be made if necessary and if the individual location              is willing to make such a visit to find the exact of a problem.

case-by-case basis. Access issues should be addressed on a Travel costs for the individual only can be t offered, if necessary, extending the offer. and are borne by the Office or Region Carc should be taken to avoid embarrassment or abuse etc. of the individual, e.g., schedule visit on off-shift / weekend, t ..

l MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS f' I NRC 0517-059 059 Late-filed Allegations. Ideally a particular authorized. facility will be reso,lved before any s license iall and/or their tardy submission all allegations ved in c I action, it may be necessary to give priori which, because of their potential impact on safety, must be g ons before licensing action can be taken. resolved must impact be alert to the on upcoming possibility licensing that late-filed allegatioIn decisions. ns may this re I l '- tion and consultation between Action Offices and theTherefore, licensing office is required in carrying out the appropriate responsib and procedures manual chapter. for processing late-filed allegations ties set o n this In reviewing alle whether, if true,gations, the Action Office will first determine l: decision in thatthe theyallegations are materlat would require denialtoofthe thelicensing lice the imposition analysis of additional conditions or investigation. on such licens nse sought, - If it ap e, or further be material to a licensing decision, pears that the allegations asy.

I-( determination on materiality and assist the Ac mining further appropriate action. ce in deter-office, if warranted. responsibility to reconsnend ng Board Notifi material to any licensing decision or which r after on their fac initial inquiry are determined to be frivolous or or too vague I general in nature to provide sufficient information for the st investigate out on this basis. will receive no further consideration a closed to and may As to allegations which are material to the ifcensing de i i c s on, the' I

Action is new inOffice the sensewill of next determine raising a matter whether on presented not previously the inform consi tending to allegations. corroborate previously receivedresolved but not yet ered or to the NRC will be considered, including that previo an applicant or Itcensee and that obtained s y provided by the by Agency in course of itsofreview investigation and inspection efforts or from its prior allegations. 'I In some cases, information already available allegations. to the NRC may be sufficient to resolve However, if an allegation is found to be both material and new, the staff will investigate the allegationIf further the Action Office determines that, as a result of the numbe Itke allegations or the timeframe in which they are r of received l1 y that full consideration of all allegations cannot b accomplished consistent with reasonable and e timely Connission Ifcensinq of the a' action, the Action office will conduct a furth er screening legations to determine their significance y and safet to 12

_..-x.----- ( . i 1 9 C .0517 0510 1 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS therefore to what be authorized. priority should be assigned relative to the activity considered: The following screening criteria will be 1 1. The likelihood that the allegation is correct, taki apparent level of knowledge, expertise, and reliability of the individual submitting the allegation in terms of the allegation submitted credible contrary and the possible existence of more information. 2. The need for prompt consideration of the allegation 

                                                                  ' recognizing the public interest in avoiding undue delay.

If the staff determines that an allegation raises a

  • significant safety concern (as defined in section 058 above) regarding, for example, the design, construction, or operation of a facility or about quality assurance or control or management conduct, which brings into question the safe operation of the facility at a given stage of operation, the allegation must be addressed prior to authorizing that stage.

Allegations which are not safety significant will be resolved ,f in the normal course of business independent of license issuance. s Note that the screening called for by this section is to be their safety-significance, be resolved before issu the initial screening called.for by section 058 above, on the other hand, is intended to facilitate the allocation of staff retources based oninsafety-significance necessary all cases. irrespective of license issuance and is 0510 Involvement of Licensees or Other Affected Organization. ~ For allegations involving a potentially significant and immediate impact on the public health and safety should be promptly informed to assure p, roper and timely action.the af For other allegations, once information from allegers is received by the Office Director / Regional Administrator, the I should and should be beadvised specifically requested to addressby it letter of the area of concern minimize the expenditure of NRC resources.NRC to ensu however In all instances, ce k i clear he has nidentity of an alleger should not be revealed unless ections and the effectiveness of investi-y gations/ inspections _@2 not be compromised, such as releasingdiscussed exceptions or appearing below).to release an NRC inspection report (note 

                                ,i r is ndM:re; : -etter ever te the affected organizatioThe alleger                  p #},tmust b 6 gov % NRC wiil review and evaluate the activities as necessary affected organization should be informed regarding the resolution     The t

pl-f f of j the.-allegation if appropriate (See Appendix I Part VIII). 13

I . 4 MAN'GEMEhi 0F ALLEGATIONS moc 0517-0511 4 As notedorabove, Itcensee there vendor in are two exceptions the resolution process. to the involvement of the The first exception is where the beanofa11eger. of use to theinformation cannot licensee or vendor be released without compromisingin suffic the 3 In such cases release should nonnally not be made unlesshealth public the release is necessary to prevent an iminent threat to the! and safety. where it appears there is a need to release the identity of fidential source and the appropriate Regional Administrator or Director shall be consulted in the case of all other allegers Office l t I The second exception is where a Ifeensee/ vendor could compromise investigation or inspection because of knowledge gained from the release of information, especially if wrongdoing is involved." In these cases, the decision to release the infonnation to the ifcensee En f8b4. shall be made by the Ofrector of the Action-office, the Regional y- 

                            % g peg O             Administrator or the Director of the Office of InvestigationsIn .

determining whether to refer the allegation to a ifcensee,sidera- con. J 

                            % ,* g                                allegations, that is, the likelihood that the licensee w)
                            %#                              g Release of information to a Ifcensee/ vendor is ex g t=(

Ik - g *p y exception for O! investigations. 

                             *~              -
                                                        'g         ote that 10 CFR 19.16(a), involving radiological working condi-
                              ,,           -# A" "/   ,          and be made available to the licensee no later tha f            ,,,.'. . , rI* we information ection, and that confidentiality be provided at the worker's reques4 In addition to expurgating names and other identifying
                           -     ,                                              protection of confidentiality 7 *"       -

1,. O a retyping an, alleger's handwritten notice.y could also involve 

                                    '8
  • In the event the )

potential for wrongdoing is involved, the matter should be co-mation to the licensee.ordinated with O! prior to the inspection and pro g 0511 Appendix 1. This appendix provides procedures for receipt, l control, processing, and disposition of allegations assigned to I NRC Offices or Regions and the procedures and guidelines used to  ! record the receipt, status, and disposition of allegations in the AMS.  ! g 0512 Appendix 2. This appendix provides guidance for granting and - revoking confidentiality and for disclosing the identity of a con-fidential source outside of the NRC.  ; 0513 Appendix 3. i This appendix provides guidance for initiating, g establishing priorities for and terminating investigations of matters involving potential wrongdoing. 1' , 14

} i M A *; ~ BEN' 0F ALLEGATIONS g( APPENDIX 1. NRC 0517 _ i PROCEDURES FOR RECE!VING, SCREENING, , AND ASSESSING CONTROLLINGPartALLEGATIONS I: General AND FOR TH AMS) O This part establishes procedural guidance for receiving These functions are to be established within eac a . control staff of an or personnel individual Office staff. other appropriate Allegation Coordinator , or a panel of ce(OAC) under the 4 provide the required training to ensure regarding the proper management of allegations. ae that their y informed Allegations pertaining to NRC-licensed facilitiesesand activiti to the attention of the NRC staff by telephone, letter may come 

-                  or byl - direct socia               verbal contact at sites, in offices, at, and func tions.                                                meetings,         even at news med to processing in accordance with this manual chapterAll allega fessionally, promptly, and with consistent               .

rocessedtreatmenttha pro. t( not recognite the term "off-the-record."It, the is NRCvery doesimportant to n off-the-record tant to safety cannotinformation must be treated off the be clearly advised record mpor-that informati will be ' accepted officially and acted upon as ne,cessarybut that the inf 

                                                                                                                                             }

d with the protection of an alleger's identity.As ality Agreement Exhibit 2 en dealing a general r dential source, a(n has been executed alleger)'s making identity may thehave alleger toabeconfi-Ho reve Confidentiality regarding Agreement an alleger's identity. to an alleger will provide . Extending a m protection the maximu

  • I followed in extending or revoking a Confidentiality AgreementThe guid may be revealed outside of the NRC. Appendix rce's identity 2 also provides g NRC employees, particularly resident and regional inspectors
                                                                                , regional

'g. tions, should become fully familiar with the prescribed dures to ensure that the required actions are performed es and proce-It is the responsibility of all employees who receive o take allegations t whatever informed. steps are necessary to ensure that anromptly appropriate OAC i, referred to either the OAC, other individuals as design i Office, to recontact or the arrangements individual. should be made for the OAC egionor or designat d e staff member f Al-1 

                                                                                                                            - - - - - - - ~

_ , , , . . _ . . . -- -- ~ tGC 0517, APPENDD 1 i MANAGEMEhT OF ALLEGAg Part II: I. The Of fice Allega tion Coordinator (C!,C) The initial responsibility of the OAC is to identify th Office-to which the allegation should be assigned e proper Action for eval resolution in coordination with otheruation or Regions). e 0ACsces and (either in 2. The OAC serves as a focal point for administrative proc trol is of all allegations responsible for: assigned to the Regions and essing ces. andOfficon-The OAC

a. Entering allegations into the AMS;
b. resolution; Tracking allegations from initial receipt to final
c. Assuring establishment and maintenance of files the Region or Office;that clearly identify allegations assigne
e. Ensuring that management and s; cognizant informed of allegations under their purview;
f. Maintaining 4

g.properly Ensuring that the final resolution of allegations ist documented. r 3 The OAC assists technical staff sary to resolve issues members who ng allegation , formulation of a course. In addition, the OAC may ass v t es neces-4 of action to resolve issues. ist in the A panel, which includes the OAC as a member, may be desig the primary responsibility to ensure that all allegati nated with assignedo and properly evaluated, and that ons arethepromptly actions taken to the allegatt' n, as well as the resolution, are prope lresolve transmitted to the alleger and the affected organization priate. n as appro-y documented 

                                                                                                                                 ~

5. The OAC will serve as the point of contact ment withofthe Depart Labor on matters involving discriminationaunder the Energy Reorganization Act and will coordinate of as ne Section 210 O! and the Enforcement Staffs. cessary with Part III: _ Receipt of an Allegation 1. Allegations Received by Telephone or Personal Visit Any NRC employee who receives a telephone call from someo to make an allegation should have the caller transferred ne who wishes to the OAC Likewise, if an individual appears in person at an N . individual should be referred to the cal member. OAC staff or other techni ce, the or the visitor as described, shall obtain n as call as much info AI-2

j i - 2 i NNAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS I ' APPENDIX 1, NRC 0517 possible. from the individual- (see item 3, below). When unable to locate the OAC or other technical staff member, administrative em-playees should refer an individual to a technical staff supervisor. 2.- Allegations Received by Mail { Personnel responsible for distribution of mail will forward cor-despondence that appears to contain an allegation to the OAC. Both letters and envelopes will be forwarded and r:0 copies will be made. ) An employee who receives direct correspondence, including internal NRC memoranda, to the OAC. that contains allegations shall forward the correspondence of correspondence also should be made aware that correspo be transmitted in a sealed envelope marked "To 8e Opened 1 l' Only;" for expedited transmittals (e.g., electronically), y Addressee such infonnation should be deleted from correspondence.

3. Discussions with A11eger  !

i Any employee receiving a telephone call or visit, as discussed in itemindividual. the 1. shall attempt to obtain as much infonnation as possible from 4 It is crucial to identify: J 

                                       ~
a. full name '

b, complete mailing address 1 c.

d. telephone number where the individual may be contacted {
e. position or relationship to. facility or activity involved nature of allegation j

If the alleger declines to provide the above information, ettempt to establish the reason (s) using the following guidance: prohibiting an employer from discriminating against an em contacting the NRC. sufficient inforination to evaluate his/her concern or exIf the alleger con confidentiality, a Confidentiality Agreement (Exhibit 2)pressly requests ' in accordance with the guidelines in Appendix 2. Part II.may Basic be extended Require-ment 054 provides further infonnation regarding protection of confidentiality. The alleger may be infonned that the itRC employee with whom he/she is in determine to contact does not have follow-up the capability to evaluate the infonnation, action i therefore, it may be necessary, or to establish NRC jurisdiction;that for additional information. l i The alleger should be infonned also, that--unless an objection is I registered--he/she the allegation. Thiswill ma be recontracted as soon as possible regarding { a letter to the alleger,y be at done by telephone, an address desi personal vistt, or by { acknowledge the receipt of the allegation. gnated, which will This process will permit also  ! Al-3

_ = . . - - - - I 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                    )

NRC 0517, APPEtGIX 1 

 '(                                                                                                                           P>NaGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS the alleger to review the infomation with the NRC to provide maximum assurance that the information has been correctly inter:preted and understood,                                                                                                                                                                    k
                                                                                                                               ~

{ j j g If the alleger persists in not offering identification after the above explanations, document { advise the alleger that hethe allegation in as much detail as possible and member in 30 days or any o/she may contact the OAC or d2signated staff the status of any actions being taken on the information supplie .I Energy Reorganization Act, inform the allegers that NR i and that appropriate enforcement actions will be take employer if the allegation is substantiated. To assure personal employee rights are protected, advise the alleger that the complaint I must be filed with the Department of Labor within 30 days of the occurrence of the discrimination event. allegations received by telephone.to allegations received g Part IV: Action by the Receivino Employee and _the Office Allegation Coordinator (OAC) 

    ,                 1.

employee receiving the allegation will provide the info to the Receiving gation Data Fom. Office OAC who will complete an NRC Form 307, Alle-I The Action Office is then identified and the completed form and all documentation regarding the allegation will be . forwarded by the Receiving Office OAC to the Action Office OAC. 2. The Action with accordance Office OAC these will enter the pertinent information in the AMS in' procedures. the AMS. All allegations must be entered into g In this way an " audit trail" will be established so that NRC actions can be properly monitored and completed. The OAC or other designated staff member will ensure that the alleger is properly contacted to acknowledge the allegation. receipt of the allegation and to confim the specifics of i Depending on the nature of an allegation, the OAC will provide copies of the santtired allegation documentation and the letter g sent to the alleger (with the alleger's identity and identifyj and initiation of action. j tity of an alleger, a need-to-know determination must a11eger is a confidential source If thebe made.To t See Appendix 2. the for determination When responsibility the handlinmust be documented. transferred from one organizational unit to another,gthe of alleger an allegation should is be notified of the new point of contact (name and telephone number) by the individual single pointwho of contact is relieved shouldas contact be the rule. in order to assure ~ continuity. A i o 

                                                                                     /

Al-4

{ . Pri",GEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS 4 APPENDIX 1. NRC 0517 staff.sttpervisor at periodic intervals until the m satisfactorily resolved. be trpde to that effect in the AMS.When the case is closed, an update should t 3. The OAC will coordinate allegation infomation with the technical staff and may the assist in. determining whether the infdmation is suffi-  ! cient to identify issues. insufficient, further the the contact with OAC or designated staff member will alleger. assist inI i A single point of contact with an 

                                     . developing rapport, establishes continuity in th                                         i between the alleger's theidentity.

Regions and other NRC Offices, and aids in protection i  ! 4 t The OAC assists the cognizant technical staff in identifying and separating ing categories: the issues involved in an allegation into one of the follow-

a. ,

Allegations that involve technical matters, such as: inadequacies tion of(s)procedures; exposure to radiation. or inadequate corrective act-I( ~ b. doing and for which the staff determines an inve -  ! necessary to detemine whether regulatory action is require such as: I record falsification; willful or deliberate violations; material i false statements; Reorganization discrimination Act; or othe'r under improper conduct. Section 210(a) of the i c. Allegt,tions that involve matters outside the jurisdiction of NRC

5. . .

I have the' potential for being willful or deliberate . However, vio such issues will normally be tracin the absence of specific allegat , resolved using program resources.ked separately as technical issues and 1 affect other Regions or Offices, follow up activities will be coordin ' i ated with the affected Offices and a Lead Office will be designated. Th OAC agreement willas contact theoraffected to which Office Region shouldOffices have thewhich lead. should resul If agree-ment take the lead.cannot be reached at the OAC level, then the i 6. A11egatioris in category 4b, except for those involving NRC employ 

  '                             NRC contractors (see 10, below), should be referred to OI Field or Headquarters of this manual chapter. Offices in accordance with the guidelines in Appendix 3 made using the " Request for Investigation" form (Exhibit 3 I

AI-5

3 ,* NPC 0517. APPEND!r 1 3; [- MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS manual chapter) and distributed as indicated on the fonn. Upon recei of the completed form, Of will evaluate the request and conduct con pt.. sultations as necessary with the requesting office. If a request is C'g i i not accepted. 01 will provide the requester with the basis for its 3 decision. Any differences between the staff and O! on the need for or priority of an investigation shall be resolved in accordance with the process described in Appendix 3 of this manual chapter. 7. When applicable and after coordination, the Action Office should notify other agencies such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administratio DOE, etc. in dealing with allegations in category 4c. Notification to other Federal law enforcement agencies and State and local jurisdictions is the responsibility of the appropriate OI Office or the Office of. Inspector and Auditor (for matters falling within its purview only). 8. Allegations in the AMS. involving discrimination under Section 210 should be entered crimination complaint ~ under Section 210 of the Energy t must be filed with 'he crimination. Cspartment of Labor within 30 days of the dis-Complaints should be filed with the Office of the Adminis-Department of Labor, Roomtrator, Wage and Hour Division, Employment Sta Washington, D. C. 20210. 53502, 200 Constitution Avenue, N. W., . ( The OAC also maintains awareness of DOL's in-  ! vestigative intent, and ensures NRC consideration of the need for its own investigation by timely referral to 01. The OAC will take reasonable steps to faciliitate-DOL's investigatics by assisting 00L in obtainin access to licensed facilities and any necessary security clearances.g t Regional Counsel or OELD/ROED should be contacted on access problems, 9. If an allegation is dete'rmined to have gencric implications, other Offices and/or Regions with responsibilities that ma be appropriately notified by the Action Office (e.g.y be affected will - tional data, RES for concerns affecting research activities, etc.), AE00 for oper 10. Allegations regarding suspected improper conduct by NRC employees a NRC contractors management for will be brought to the attention of appropriate Auditor (0!A). possible referral to the Office of Inspector and (

Reference:

NRC Manual Chapter 0702). Allegations of this nature are noti  ! l t L Part V: Documenting Allegations I

1. i When an allegation is received and the action office identified, a . i working file should be established to contain all related documentation
                  'concerning the allegation, including all correspondence, memorandum to files, interviews, sions,   and meetings.and summaries of telephone conversations, discus-(

flies of,the Action Office Thisinfile anshall be maintained officially designatedinlocation. the official confidential files, those with extremely limited access, will be The al M

___-_____-__-----7 l~ MMGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS i ) APPENDIX 1. NRC 0517 ~ l physically separate from the nomal allegation files,  ; the documentation tion files. similar to that kept in the non-confidentialbut will c allega- ' file and clearly marked with the allegation number.The s alle allegation. To ensure proper 3 evaluation, full and complete information should bec docume In addition to obtaining basic infomation, attempts should be made to expand and clarify the information so thatwell defined. the issue i documrted.All allegations, regardless of source or how sreceived must to bs , e locked Access when not into the official files is to be controlled. use. Files are a the name of a confidential source or other identifying inform be stamped "Contains infomation which would on reveal should the iden a confidential source" and access should be controlled cedure. with a s authorization of the OAC.The infomation in these files shall not be originals. t The same controls apply to copies as to i g 2. There will be occasions when the allegations obviously have no s stance in these and appear to represent a distortion of facts. cases tact, the gener,al content of any communications, and conclusion that the matter need not be pursued. or a 

     ;                                     these will be coordinated with the ap              Instances such as the OAC to ensure proper disposition.propriate technical staff by                             l 4
3. )

about an allegation cannot be overemphasized.The on impjl ing of the allegation, as well as the proposed course of a tiEvaluation a c on that will be adopted to resolve the issue, will be based primarily on this infomation. alleger may be warranted.In some cases, a personal interview with the NRC quired. management to detemine the best way to obtain the d - Depending on the nature of the allegation and the time sensi- . 

 ,                                       tivity,   assistance    from the Office of Investigations (01)eror oth resources may be requested.

4 As soon as possible after receiving an allegation or becoming awar) information that indicates inadequate or improper activities , the of I person receiving the allegation shall notify the OAC. Normally, no 3 shall such matters be discussed with licensees,d' ncce after the OAC or designated staff member has briefed appropriate management. 

                                                                                                         ,   ntil               /        N j
5.  ;

all information received in conjunction with an alle 1 8 

      ~

ensuring fully informed. that managcment and cognizant technical staff members are 5 

                                                     ~

o w __ - _- - _ _ - - - - - - - Al-7

) . g NRC 0517, APPENDIX 1 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS_ 6. Allegations tions (PNs) or nonna11y should Daily Reports not be (ors); addressed in Preliminary Notifica-however PN or DR entries are appropriate, the approv,al of an Office Directorif. it is ) or a Regional Administrator should be obtained. 7. If allegation documents which would reveal the identity of an alleger must be sent to other NRC personnel, the documents should be securely 'l wrapped and marked "To be Opened by Addressee Only." The sender must i dential source, the sender must verify the recipient is inclu the list of individuals with a need to know maintained by the OAC. k All I NRC personnel are to take reasonable steps to ensure that the identity k of an alleger identity ment 054.) is notsource of a confidential revealed and all necessary is not revealed. step (s to See Basic Reqvfre-en i Part VI: Evaluation by Cognizant Technical Staff 1. Office or Region will review the documentation to determ > is a safety concern that requires imediate action. The technical ( staff on is responsible corrective actions.for development, initiation, and follow-through Allegations or documents containing a substantial number followingofcriteria: allegations once entered in the AMS can be screened using the i

a. ..

i Is there an addressed? immediate safety, concern which must be quickly . b. Is theconcern? alized allegation a specific safety or quality issue or a gener-c. Has the staff previously addressed this issue! - d. Does thoroughtheevaluation? allegation package contain sufficient infonnation for a information that is needed.If it does not, identify the additional e. Are all aspects of the allegation adequately defined and described to permit or allow a meaningful and extensive evaluation. This is a l allegation process screening further. that may result in a decision not to consider the If the latter is the decided course of action, the alleger should be so informed in a courteous and diplomatic manner , along with the rationale for not considerir.g it further. for adverse publicity must be recognized when taking this action.The potential 3 

       .         f.

Is the identity of the a11eger necessary for a thorough evaluation? 9 What specific issues are involved in the allegation? Can the issues be adequately addressed,.by a technical inspection? I

) MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS 

 ' s. .                                                                                             APPENDIX 1, NRC 0517 h.

Can a the allegation scheduled 

                                                      ~

inspection?-be examined and resolved by investigation g or way to address the issues. If this is not possible, deterr.ine the best 1. ) allegation to conserve staff resources?Can licensee / vend Consider potential prob associated with involving the ifcensee in the resolution process.lems J. Does the allegation enforcement action? have the potential to require escalated k. What is theare iate actions time sensitivity of the allegation, and what imed-necessary? 1. Will investigat've assistance be needed? . m. Identify peripheral issues that could develop. n. Are any licensing actions or board proceedings pending which could be influenced or affected by the allegation. When an allegation involves a case pending before a licensing or appeal board or the 

   '                                       NMSS as soon as possible to assist in the deter or not a board notification should be made.

made promptly by NRR or NHSS in accordance with office procedure c. Should other NRC Offices be , notified? p. As soon as possible after the receipt of an allega Office will make a preliminary detennination of the safety signi-ficance of the item and the need for imediate regulatory action

q. . ,

Establish a schedule for the resolution of each allegation which-is consistent with the ifcensing schedule, if applicable. - 

            '                     r.

or action (s) is complete. Notify the OAC or designated staff mem 2. Region to resolve each allegation that falls under it , 

                                                                                                                              )

action closeout. taken so that the status of each allegation ca placed in the Final resolution working of anwith file along allegation all su shall be documented and i final report should state the facts clearly,pporting documentation. in a style that does not The belittle or disparage the a11eger, 

   ,               3.

For those allegations resulting in the need for corrective, the action affected to protect organization the identity of the(s)alleger. shall be properly infonned recognizing the nee 

                                                                ,/

Al-9 '

l-1 NRC 0517, APPENDIX 1 )E- MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS 4 A reasonable effort must be made to notify all allegers of the NRC's disposition or resolution of their concern (s). contain documentation of this effort. The official file must  ; l } Part VII: A11ecation Resolution Documentation 1. Allegation resolution documentation officially closes the file for athat casecase and shall file. be placed in the working file which now becomes 1 closed 1

2. {
                                        - A final report or document should be prepared that sets forth the facts about of            the allegation and its resolution clearly investigation                                                                eport and con i

plex or major gen,eric matter.an inspection report, or a technical paper for a com-q' allegations proximate to 0L issuance.It c,an be an SER supplement for multiple Requirement 054).or material that could be used to identify, the al 3._ The final report should include a summary of the concern, a descrip-tion of the evaluation performed and the conclusions drawn. 4 7 It should 

                                      . be written in a style that does not belittle or disparage the alleger.

4 Appropriate tion. entries should be made in the AMS to close out the allega- 

                                                                                    't.

5. t When allegationthe final report has been approved (i.e., the case is closed), all documentatfor appropriate precautions! is subject to release under the FOIA with to protect confidentiality. Until that time, all allegation documentation is exempt from release under the FOIA in accordance with 10 action. for, law enforcement CFR 9.5 Exemption (7) due to actual, or the potential. An FOIA request received during the open 4 stage, for FOIAhowever, proc'essing. will " freeze" those documents in the file at that time ~ freely review case files when an allegation is closed and those documents necessary to account for official action. 6. Reports issued by the Office of Investigations will be complete reports it ' suitablefor Regions forenforcement referral to the Department of Justice (DOJ) or NRC Offices or action. mation which would reveal the identify of confidential sources allegers. andA Transmittal letters referring O! reports to the Department of 4 [ i confidential the reports. sources and allegers and request that 00J l l t i Memoranda to the E00 and Regional Administrators should 

        '-                           also clearly indicate if a report contains information which would reveal                          !

the identity of a confidential source or alleger. The EDO and Regional Administrators of such reports onwill make determinations a need-to-know basis. regarding further distributions confidential source shall be, documented. Determinations regarding a t a1-10 -

01 - MeiAGEMENT Of ALLEGATIO*iS 0 I APPENDIX 1. NRC 0517 source identity of a'.hould confidential besource stamped 

                                                                                 "         "Contains infomation wh O

Part VIII: Dissemination of Final Reoort 1. 

                                      . priate, to the affected outside organization (s).A copy of th may be needed to summarize the matter.                    A transmittal letter l-                                                                                                                          '
              '2.

As in Part VII.1 above, copies of the final report shall be placed in the NRCofrecords identity system, and should be treated so as not to reveal the the alleger. . 3. The foregoing does not apply to 01 investigative reports. However, if I an OI report is the primary document relied upon in the resolution of an allegation,.the a11eger should be provided with a summary of the report. PART IX: Allegation Management System g 1. General a. For purposes of the Allegation Management System (AMS) the defini-tion provided for an allegation is very general and broad. The significance or nonsignificance of an alle during the Action Office review and followgation will be judged up activities. There ) - is to be no screening of allegations for possible deletion prior to entries). entering them into the system (except of course for duplication ) of 'I storin Tf.e AMS should provide a vehicle for collecting, tions.g and retrieving all key information regarding all allega- 

                                                    'The Action Office ' determines the necessary action to be        ,

taken based upon the specifics of the case, be received and closed out the same day. Some allegations may - b. The AMS provides basic descriptive and status information and serves as a referral system. to contact for more specifics on It identifies the office and staff an allegation. 

 ;_                                       keeps the staff informed as to how the allegation was resolvedAdditionally, and provides reference to the close out documentation.

c. When an allegation is received, it is not necessary to identify l by separate entry into the AMS every component or subset of the allegation. For example, if an allegation is received that con-sists of 15 separate concerns of wrongdoing and technical deft-ciencies, the allegation may be entered as one allegation. However, the description of the allegation should include the number of separate concerns and their subject area. be a distinct grouping of concerns, for example, in two areas suchIn so as training and quality assurance. In such a case it may be Al-11

i

  • i MC 0517, APPENDIX 1 i I MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS--

appropriate to enter two allegations. A main objective is to ensure the system.that the receipt of an allegation is entered and tracked in An allegation is not completed and closed until an I Action been taken.Office supervisor determines that appropriate action has d. Sensitive tions shall notinformation such be entered in as the names of persons making all the system. - 1 on the form shall be unclassified and shall not contain any safe t guards mation, infomation or any proprietary or commercial (2.790) infor-e. Some allegations may require action by two or more offices. For entries should be made for each Action Office f t action or one entry may be made with the involved DACs agree on the lead Action Office for followup of the allegation. If should be so indicated in the " remarks" section.anothe 2. Interfaces with the Office of Investigations a. ( The Office of Investigations has jurisdiction over all allegations where there is a reasonable basis for belief of wrongdoing and for which the staff determines an investigation is necessary to determ whether regulatory action is required except those involving NRC employees or NRC contractors and will forward all allegations of a { technical nature to the appr'opriate Office or Region. 4 The Office or under the purview of OI--into the AMS using a number.

b. i employees or NRC contractors, assigned to the (1)

The Region or Office OAC will coordinate with the 01 Field Ofrector or. 01 Headquarters representative to determine if sensitive information is included which should not be placed into the AMS. and the word " sensitive" put in its place.All sensitive infomati AMS user to the maximum extent possible.should be m (2) The Region number. or Office OAC will assign a Region or Office AMS The O! assigned number should be entered in the AMS as a cross-reference. I (3) The name and phone number of the O! Field Ofrector or 01 Headquarters representative will be placed in the appropriate section of the fonn as the Action Office contact. l 1 Al-12

l f.- . I MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS h 1 APPENDIX 1, NRC 0517 (4)

The O! Field Director will keep the Region or Office OAC apprised of the stat.us of the allegation investigation and l 4 significance of the allegation to appropriate R Office management' and for use in updating the AMS. 1 (5) }

tion report has been issued and as remain. sues long as allegation remains open, reference is made to{) g schedule for resolution of the allegation is pla 1

c. .

or Field Director will coordinate withr the respe { Region OAC to complete the items 2.b(1) through (5), above )

d. ,

j For allegations of a technical nature received, by 01 the OI Head-quarters or Field Director will contact the respective Office or Region for andOffice. the Receiving follow the procedures as indicated in item 3 below I e. \ mented in the allegation case file.Ol's review of allegations -

3. ~

Receivino Office 1 

                                                          */,

I Upon receipt of an allegation involving an NRC-regulated activity tive to the allegation (see Exhibit 1) retoa- the OAC w e stepsinto required to identify the Action Office and to enter the alle-gation the AMS. t The Receiving Office OAC should, in addition to determining the ) priate Action Office, coordinate with the Action Office,ro-and' receive ) 4 concurrence from the Action Office before transfer of responsibility i . Action Office. The Action Office shall : a. Complete that portion of the Allegation Data Fonn marked " Action Office," assign an allegation number to it, and enter the allegat into the AMS within 10 working days of the date of receipt of the allegation. b. Review tions in the and, AMS onwhere necessary, a monthly basis. update the status of all open all - 

   '.          c.

As soon as possible after the receipt of an allegation and relevant infonnation has been reviewed and evaluated, make a preliminary detennination latory action. of safety 

                                                 /       significance and the need for any regu -

1 I Al 11 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS 9' i ' APPENDIX 1. ARC 0517 d. Schedule the resolution of each allegation to be consist the licensing schedule and the safety significance gation. ent with of th e alle-e. I Make to NRR ora determination regarding the needo for a board n tifi NMSS. cation in nature, a follow-up notification is sent to boardsIf uation is completed, or whenever significant when eval-relevant infor tion is identified during the course of evaluating - the allegation. This detennination should be made as soon as possible in f. accordance with the Action Office board notification s. proced Develop contain and maintain all related d a working file for each allegation 

                                                                                                       , which will of multiple concerns, documentation.

concern. separate working files may be needed f g. Thirty days prior to the construction completion ppli-date (a cant's estimate) for each pending OL each Action Office wi forward to the appropriate licensing organization in NRR uation of the before to be resolved safetythesignificance construction of al? allegations completion 

                                                                                                       , an eval.-

date not sc (- recorrrnendaticn for dela as to whether any or all ofe, them with a constitute grounds license.ying issuance of (or otherwise restricting) an oper (See 059.) h. power operation, a report similar prepared. 

                                                                          '/

g full-be to item g., a i. Protect the identity of all allegers and, wheny confidentiality is requested, are implemented.assure that the added controls in this er Manual Cha

5. NRR OAC '

In addition to the normal OAC responsibilities, the NRR OAC: a. In coordination upgrading of the AMS. with ORM, is responsible for n the skintenan b. 

            ~

allegation resolution.AMS database for u e n c. of the policies and procedures in mplementa . this Manual tion C i . 

                                                                ,/

s Al.14

[ _ 4 l 

   \,                         MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS i                                                                                                                            i APPENDIX 3. NPC 0517 GUIDANCE FOR INITIATION, ESTABLISHMENT                             ND OF PR TERMINATION OF INVESTIGATIONS t

i PART I: General " On January 10, 1986, k the Commission approved the i Staff and the Office of Investigations for initiatioguidelines proposei priorities and-termination of investigations . n, establishment of priorities for investigations and that staff views o n establishing i i priority of an investigation were an integrale need cess. guidelines. partforofandth < The following procedures are to be followed in im le investigatio I p ementing the PART II: Referral byof Matters the Staf f for Investigation ~ 1. 'l i Regional Administrators and Office Directors EDO,allshall gation refer matters to the Office of Investigations f, the latter through t where: or possible investi-wrongdoing, as that tem is defined elsewhere in thi1) there is and 2) whether decide the staffenforcement determinesoranother investigation regulatory is necessary fs acti or it to on is required 0 Matters for which there is not a reasonable basis t investigation rould be unnecessary o ng but for which to andetemiis inv) action should not be referred to O! for investigationne the appropria 1 requirement or falsified a document, appropriate corrective action which the Staff h p oyee and takes , y violated a discipline 2. conclude that further NRC action is unnecessary.as reviewed, the Sta j All form referrals to 01 shall be made using the Request f Exhibit 3 to this Manual Chapter. or Investigation" 8 sR forth below as guidance. lown using w,illthebe assigned to the examples regional counsel or OELO as appropriate.Each request coordinated + with 3 forms shall be distributed as indicated on the formCopies of the comp As indicated priority above, for each matter the staff referred to 01.will recommend , normal or low a high ' these examples are just that. serve as guidance in assigning prioritie case to assure that theJudgment must still be exercisedd in eachI v. appropriate priority e. is establish b P e 9e .

l __ MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS I a* APPENDIX 3. NRC 0517 - fi 1h A. l 7 deliberate violation of requirements having h . cance, to employees e.o.,or continuing members of thepotential pubife. for unnecessary radiation expo B. Suspected tampering with vital equipment at a power reactor . C. Allegations of falsification of records available for cNRC on inspe t or submittals to the NRC or deliberate withholding of information required to be reported to the NRC, where the situation involved presents 1:.1:. . an imediate and continuing health and safety concern 1. falsification of records having hign safety significance , such as falsifications required test; which conceal a repeated failure to perform a 2. criteria information for an operating facility; ora 3. f level of individual involved in the alleged withholdng of the willingness of sianagement to conduct s raised. j D. Allegation of falsification of records available for NRC inspectio l significant safety concern for licensing.or deliberate vio E. Allegations of wrongdoing where immediate investigation is 

                   ,     to ensure some     other waypreservation time perishable.and   availability of evidence or which are in Normal A.

on safety-related equipment at a facility under c B. Allegations of deliberate violations of NRC requirements where the is no indication the violation is recurring or causing insnediate and i direct health and safety impact on the general public or employee . C. Allegations of falsification of records available for NRC inspection 9 or deliberate licensing violation of HRC requirements of safety concern in the process. t l 

                                                   ,/                                                                             l
                                                                                                                                  \

A3-2 - - - - - - - ~^ t

1 i W.u GEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS ,) ( APPENDIX 3. NRC 0517 Low A. Allegations of deliberate violations of NRC requirements, falsiff- 

)                                              of workers where the licensee is aware of the all already undertaken corrective action.

a deliberate violation of NRC requirements.to determ B. Allegations of deliberate violation of NRC requirements at an operating facility whereshutdown. there is no near-term safety concern, e.g., { the reactor is in long-term 4 areas of responsibilities necessary investigations If the ar program office believes that a priority for a matter shculd be different thantothat ately requested resolve by the region, the region should be contacted imm the matter. - OI should be contacted within IS days of the original referral if the priority is changed from the initial request

5. .

Once a matter has been accepted by O! for investigation, if the (' an investigation Director, has changed, O! for his consideration. that information will be PART III: Initiation of an Investigation by OI r, 1. Upon receipt of the " Request for/ Investigation" form, OI will evaluate the request office. O! willand conduct initiate consultations an investigation if: as necessary with the request a. The staff has found that the alleged wrongdoing has had or could

  • have an impact on the pubite health and safety, the common defense.

and security, protection of the environment, or antitrust laws provided that these matters are within NRC jurisdiction; and b. believe that the matter involves wrongdoing; andThe Dir c. The Director. available to support investigation. 01thedetermines that there allegation to warrant is of initiation sufficient an informa 2. If upon review of the request, there is a reasonable belief that the alleged wrongdoing is solely a product of careless disregard or reckless indifference. O! will not normally conduct an investigation unless the because there are major regulatory implications and the i concurs with this judgment. , OI 

                                                                 /

A3-3

0 - MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS APPENDIX 3, NRC 0517

0 3.

01 will. seek Commission approval prior to initiating an investigation relating to the jurisdiction. character / integrity of an individual within 01 4. 0 whether the matter has been accepted for the investig priority assigned to the matter and the estimated schedule for com,p If a matter requester is not with accepted the basis for itsfor investigation, OI will provide the decision. 4 copy of the original request as indicated on the req PART IV: Resolution of Differences 8etween Staff and 0I_ 1. 1 Following O! notification of its action on a request for lavestigation , assigned to the matter or the declination of O! t shall promptl his concern. y notify the Director of the appropriate program office of 2.

} The Director of the responsible program office will review disputed' matters referred by the Fegional Administrator and the priorities and office.

schedules assigned on matters referred to O! dire needs, promptly and notify the matter cant:ot be resolved with the the E00. I , 

                                                                       . ).

3. The EDO will resolve all differences over the need for and priority and schedules for investigations with the Director 0! or seek Cossnission resolution. . PART V: Termination of Investigations .I 1. will nonnelly be made outside the context of the inve priority /threshhold system. it to its conclusion if there is a reasonable basis for a belief that matter ments. being investigated involves a deliberate violation of NRC require-The decision to terminate an investigation will be a case-by-case 

                         ,       assessment by the Director. 0! of such issues as whether the relevant facts necessary to resolve the matter under investigation haFe been gathered, whether allegations of events or conditions are so old that lI                                witnesses are unavailable or could no longer be expected to recall
     ;                           pertinent information, or whether continued investigator) would be non-                                1 productive or otherwise not serve the agency's interests.                                               '

4 l A3-4 i

g j I i MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS it ( APPENDIX 3, NRC 0517 2. determines that the need for or prioritye,of an i that information will be provided to the Director, 01 for his considera tion. 't 3. For low and normal priority cases, 01 may close a c'ase if its projecti of resource allocations indicates that the ir.vestigation could not be initiated within a reasonable period of time which will generally be six! months. OI may close a case following its initial evaluation if at that { g time O! is able to make a projection of its resource allocations and th  ; case would not be initiated within a reasonable period of time, e.g., six i months. 4 of lack of resources to pursue it.0! will notify the staff in writing wi 4 Part VI: Resolution of Those Matters Returned to the Staff By OI Without Investigation 1. Those matters which are returned to the Staff by 0I without  ! g / N investigation process to resolve (see V.3) will inspection be handled by the staff as part findings. of its norm This may include additional between the staff and licensee or proceeding with appropriate on the basis of the original or supplemented inspection findings or such other actions as appropriate. g s If, after development of A..up. phae _ntal infntm_ttiorto_r._. reassessment o 

                                         //    hvesfigation in accordance with the procedures in this chapter staff will not use its resources to conduct an investigation of.he[he matters referred back                   to the staff by OI. N Sf4 J                /

i . 

                                                           %+OT q tln,             s ch= th.

m,f Q 'H 

                                                                                                                                              /

n 

                                                                       ,g. m u 9                                       m.

j g' t g 

                                                                                                                                           .p:m:
                                                                      '                                           1. ,- nm.
                                                                                              /             r.,     ,"                                   .

W_ ax 

                                             \                                                                                                                  .

p"' i 

                                                                                          /                                                     '

p * 

                                                                                 ,/                          .

gp _l 

                                                                                                                                      \. sl ' '
                                                                        ./

h w, 3_L o s = 

                                                                                                             %a pi n J'f ell:'

ff w. i H. . . Ye A 3 'i

f . :. . MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS EXHIBIT 3. NRC 0517 LIMITED DISTRIBUTION -- NOT FOR puBLIC DISCLOSURE Request No. (Region-year-No.-) TO: ' 

                          'FRON

) REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION

  • 3-Licensee / Vendor / Applicant Docket No.
                    . Facility or Site Location 0.(

Regional Administrator / Office Date ~~"" 

                                                                                                                                       /

B A. Request What is the matter that is being requested for inves O. O. 8. . Purpose of Investfoation

1. rongdoing (be as specific $ suspected; explain the basis for this view aspossible).

O

j. .

LIMITED DISTRIBUTION-- NOT FOR PUBLIC O!SCLOSU 

                                                                                                                              ,! E3-1               Approved:

0

  • _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' ' - - - - - ~ ~

3 MAN'GEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS 4 EXHIBIT 3, NRC 0517 0 LIMITED DISTRIBUTION -- NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE 0 2. 

                                                                      'What     are the potentisl regulatory requirements that may have been violated?

O 3. If no violation concern? is suspected, wha't is the specific regulatory Q 4. If allegations occurred? likelyare involved, occurred _ is there a view that the allegation 

                                                                                                                , not sure likely,- explain the basis for that view.                     ~
                                                                                                                                     . If G5  <                                                                                                                         ,

C. Requester's Priority /, g 1. Is the priority of the investigation high, normal, or low? 2. What are is the needed? estimated date when the results of the investigation 3. g What da te ? is the basis for the date and the impact of not meeting this (For example, is there an immediate safety issue that must be addressed or are the results necessary to resolve any ongoing regulatory come of theissue and if so, what actions are dependent on the out-investigation? 6 9 i . 4 LIMITED DISTRIBUTION -- NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE W

D' . MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS EXHIBIT 3 NRC 0517 'l LIMITED DISTRIBUTION -- NOT FOR PUBLIC OISCLOSURE D. Contact 1

1. Staff members: '

t 2. t A11egers identification with address and telephone number if not confidential. (Indicate if any confidential sources aFe involved and who may be contacted for the identifying details.) F. Other Relevant Information i 

                                                                                                             ~

Signature

  • I cc: CI (B. Hayes) *]

E00 NRR/NMSS as appropriate ~ 

                                                */, ~"/
                                                    ~
                         /, ***/
,                  Regional Administrator **/, ***/
           */      If generated by regfon.

I T*/ If generated by IE. h/ If generated by NRR/NMSS t LIMITEDDISTRIBUTION-,NdiFORPUBLICDISCLOSUREW/0O! APPROVAL i 

                        ,. mucarvweicur herum.N W.$use 202 1%oc 20tne                                                                           cetu 23MMO                      - Attachment
  • 11 E I

I $ T.ame ., ems,es , me som. Toas necean C==reen. Pose =t g $ j i g 

  $                        pogini ettese Perser Seres ese Rienere Canart of tes toveressent Acceemeesswy Pro est

$ (-6eAP) i l 

                                                                                                                                                                     >d CC pos The SAP hrvesNestten of STP                                                                                             .
                                                                                                                                                       '             VC.

g] i OnMarch 6,1937me meneemment of $T P putstehoe toene meermetten eneut me Gerartenant e Ascountansity Pro 6ect (GAP) to the eerseerce mreven a puse6caten e6erteuses to me yg 4 4 ( emeesvees eninies "tene honom pees." The ano management has recueos to correct me inser-mesen throush atne tsteess etes" eno me howo chessimis memostoceryoct tho mtemeerme-g eg pg g' l teaun pussiehoe assue G AP. t * 

                                                                                                                                                                                           .Y 1             (            GAP le a non9 refit puh83c in                                                                                                            -

twee. hwasese. intimmesee.'erest organiserten met represones empeevees who new, toen j or suweroo mecrinuneheief ery sert eer memaanne m e moir leh ene. Irv es6ng es6 prosect the puesic hoe #m and namory. GAP in hmens tem by provaseessop -: l 7 estionsoneindivieseoswhosuoporttiretnn aansmurmerur6snestenuesoneuneare l ancernedweteWeeseestyof apeMicularcommunsryanebythestearneysteesonesuponses j' l j ecetwee prern succeaefully essending ene protectsng employees teht have been gerungeusty l w - - - - - - .,- w,trar temerepresent ,j. 

           '         # are newy,ers one we are em,e.ense m =. Anan ne peamme 1                                                          ,
                     ~

cader toesus to represent see 6neersers of eer setems.wlmen the . l poet ein years me have represernos hunereas of empesyeesof the nuclear treassery-creek 3 i

  • f l g

b [ cierta, soromen, one aussereW Willnes, cenerecaert suwesereciert veneert manufac-amen, eno6nsers,{ turers ans even empeevees of the Nucieer seguiesary Commesseen. To the esseNt that me estese over nucesor poner esseesvent, our cNames are vertuesfy ese "prHosseomr," Sus our g 

                     ' cJeanes aH h. owe somemog enere m commen men geene tainey yo nucseer, toepy are pro-                                                                                    j y ans wim m.papeo ne euwesen te = w= m c.npuence weth mo r=w.iene                                   i E      >            l
                                           -~

pg esench-' . - - - rnuclearpower36esett J 1- A theysecohaveeruusher ' 1

  • r1 l wwh' - men-may ren ineea parean er a enusNun in ushich mer hetteesses qpeangfy I I l T4 ^ anderaressesses er seek me emer mes and ignore me feestremones.

E reentthosgeogtheyressesmairiene teserpassesse.temercureursteen- -l , sureemt the regu6eners ans precedures tours canoasseelem .. .. d* M E 4 j j we eu sees r reene m inveniece wwes sorterempotees 

                                                                       ==gn=no w trees  in trere ety     w    wo u.s. es. comer nes.w.eserv e _ which a, wah me men,inigaww.                                                         2   '

pronoms ane workers, one we reareenne them en trase of the U.S. Department of Leber which is roepennense for enforcme the empeores presacetevi presemees et the leer. @ T. 

                        "The basess hee" encourages orneneyees se tems thstr toesty concerna to the g   ,

setosay ATE Am er to th) M RC ano orornsees enet moreusuteto ne represets ser geene to me SAPgTCAm with their cencerns However, the neweesator e4 not een tne empeevees me g facts aeevt me 8 hP5 TEAM or Hwur me prosectests sweesamee ao stem. 

                                                                                                                                                               .h
                       ..h. ugh _ _ .n _ hypep _ e..em..o _ .. _ . _ me                                                                                        .
                      %As S75 AS4 is Sg ari 6neeporesna mvestepetarie sowicy. It is a management tems to provHee
  • omsteyees nomsenere se turn este eneer cancems. Th.e program as amoresse by Neussen Q _,,

Ughtsas & Pomer using consuneros ter uservesse an Invest 6eesers, see ressense to any SMegenshimaruWiessutwethoutgoingthroughereverecommstessef ML& Pan.ESASCOct-ficiep 

                                                                                                                            .; efpositte.n 1.. the housasi une       heer.ngLignsg    mm emmey= & Poser    .ae ereans iew E  en.BA&CC isrm.n e erhaveherene tehen or gesng      =                  in current %. .
                  , SAF ETEAM we set legeny prosectee under me eeneseemsower protect 6en till. Doceves the cowts base nos yet esc 6eed whether geens to the sargTEAAA is scesectos acttwtty empseyeen shotof) be aware that they are eney aneures of legaf presortten en the following I cirucmetences:

t (U lt an ano6 eye anelses or partscspeces er is sense se seeiet;se perftcipate in en MAC pre-emanna, som as a use esne hearias er an mac e,---y er g (SP #f as semappeessiers er pertmasses er is seem to aanser er perfecapose in s Departmans g of Lamre precayess sur esamese e Osperiment of Laser hearing er anwesigertaru er 

                    <gesp - pernc= son in -y .her acnon .each eunh-s me ACT.                                                                                     .. f
                    .n .

m e. ee.s.,ueesth.,wrt,.ng m e,C. ,se,se,,.gu.e,,y,e.

a
             '                  ~

on,aa* rwere or o, ming weenim caemf<en nene compeerns esa  :- de E 

!                  Wetestem ty trytne to et ther the Sph Carcuert teerpressmewsewesug ene se arc acthe-he ever, unm ene court receousse that compiants anew twowy                                              ..
                                                                                                                                                                             *   )

are erwectet the enty surewer ser mertere sopresect themeshes 6,, e concerne er cricorns amene heresamese er escrimanereen as v g h cosinue se press morter conterse ateus esseWy. teosty femas Preiset. Our ab$ectfwe le le ensure tenet att eineen caricorve are accesseed g  ; . NaCrepasnare,nnemssaryseenseres,y oneneweengesse and reempvos. ape procesares-no more,no Our i test we consaceas se (3st) 354 feer er mes se SAP- touch Yoses lnesangesene e test Atu6.ene.Weehesssen.Q.C 3g. . r 

                                                                  .n.e . . .       .
                                                                                                             <....>i
        &         <q)                                      '

b __ . .p e t

l 3 - L c. l UNITE 0 sTATks j/'g- ,. . e,j s 

                                                                                                                                .vuCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS:.           4
            -* -                                                                        ,g                                              WASHINGTON D. C. 20555 Attachment # 12 '

,t. ..... '#N 0 3 BH n.y/ g MEMORANDUM FOR: Chairman Palladino M / 3 FROM: William J. Dircks Executive _ Director for Operations

SUBJECT:

                                                                              . DIA REPORT (1) COMANCHE PEAK - MARKEY LETTER RE:                                    i

' REGION IV INVESTIGATIONS / INSPECTIONS AND (2) REVIEW OF ' CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY CASE ABOUT CONDUCT OF RIV INVESTIGATIONS / INSPECTIONS , By memo of November 16, 1983, you requested m my views on what actions might be necessary.My y comments review leadsonme thetoreports, the and conclusions outlined below. A. October 20, 1983 OIA Report " Comanche Peak - Markey Letter re: Region IV Investigations / Inspections." ,i.F 1. I do not believe that Region IV should be criticized for failing to contcet Dillingham initially. Not only did Region IV take the initiative-to investigate allegations made in the press - as opposed to acting on an allegation brought directly to NRC's attention - but the region was aware that Mr. Dillingham had signed the B&R review of the same allegations in apparent agreement with those [ findings. Region IV as discussed in item 2 also reviewed the B&R and TUGC0 findings. At that time (1982), in that situation, it - appears to have been reasonable not to have contacted Mr. Dillingham directly despite his allegations to the press of a " cover up." Hindsight would have made that contact desirable, but would not likely have changed ultimate findings on the matter. Mr. Dillingham I was furnished a copy of the final inspection report on June 15 j 1983 with a request that he contact RIV if he had more to report. He did not take advantage of the offer.

2. RIV's investigation of the allegation took the form of a separate review of an investigation performed by B&R and TUGCO. CIA feels I that this was not an adequate manner by which to address the issues.

The Region IV review of the BAR and TUGC0 findings was independent, careful and included cross-checking' where necessary; 1.e., it was not simply a matter of noting BAR findings. Again, with the advantage of hindsight, one could say that Region IV management should have recognized the need to give special attention to the matter and to i go beyond a review of someone else's work. However, given the 

  .                                                                                                       situation as it existed the actions of Region IV appear reasonable and correct.                     -

I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . .__ e_..

L \e s s.

3. OIA further notes that RIV did conduct an independent investigation of three allegations inade in the news article - these allegations were not covered in the B&R report, therefore an inspection was made. Two of these allegations were issues concerning which

.I Mr. Dillingham had only second hand knowledge. Thus, the primary sources (Messerly & Whitt) were contacted. The third was sufficiently obvious that no further information was needed, and a notice of violation was in fact issued by RIV on this matter, q 4. In' regard to the CASE letter (received via Congressman Markey's letter) which included an affidavit from Mr. Dillingham, no action had been taken, as OIA notes, because no new infonnation was presented that had not been looked into otherwise,.

8. October 20, 1983 OIA Report Review of Concerns. Expressed by Citizens c Association for Sound Energy About Conduct of Region IV Investigations /

Inspections.

1. OIA investigated the circumstances related to the issuance of two versions of Region IV Inspection Report 50-445/82-14 This report was revised after a licensee 50.55e letter had been received indi-J
      .                                                   cating that the licensee found a deficiency which a regional in-
                                                     . spection had overlooked. The underlying cause appears to be inadequate    ,

followup by.the regional inspector of the allegations on welds in ' pipe whip restraints. Had the original regional inspection been ' more thorough, the defective welds could have been identified. I intend to emphasize the need for thorough inspections of alleged 

 ;                                                        deficiencies to OIE and Regional Administrators to avoid repetition of these problems.
2. The issue at point here from OIA's standpoint is that of the breach of an alleger's confidentiality. The situation out of which this evolved was fairly complex. An investigator did identify the alleger i
 !.                                                       after he was released by the licensee in April 19823 and RIV staff     ,

testimony before the ASL8P in July 1982 again breached that confidentiality. The same alleger's testimony before the same l ASL8P seems to make an open admission of his providing information to NRC. More to the point, NRC policy on confidentiality was less than clear in 1980 and not executed similarly in all regions. Our 1 policy in this area is being reviewed and revised, as it is essential that the expectations of allegers in regard to confidentiality be 

                                                        , fulfilled.

f 0 

   .                                                                               I l

i I 1 

)i In sumary, I believe Region IV's actions in these matters could have been better executed. I have initiated steps to assure that the lessons to q

be learned from this experience in Region IV are learned by all segments of the staff. Our policy on protection of confidentiality is being reviewed 1 3 and revised to strengthen its implementation. The need to treat allegations in a sincere and thorough manner is a frequent topic of many of our senior management discussions. I intend to maintain my personal involvement in this area in order to insure that continued improvement is achieved in the staff's handing of allegations. )- William Y Dircks 

                                                                   ~

Executive Director for Operations 

}

cc: Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine Commissioner Bernthal SECY I ', OGC OPE

8. Hayes 01 G. Messenger, OIA J. Collins, RIV

( r l 

                                                                                   }

0 

                                                                                           ""~"

Enitch States of America ~ 0' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O In the matter of; Houston Lighting and Power 0 company 

                                                                  > DOCKET NO. 50-498 50-499 TO                  l's. Sillie Pirr.er Garde i'                         Government Accountability             .

Project 1555 Connecticut Avenue. ft.W. Suite 202 k*ashington 0.C. 20036 YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear at Room 6507. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 7735 Old Georgetown Road. Bethesda, Maryland on the 26th 

          . day of May         1387 at 9:D0     o' clock A.M. to continue as necessary for the purpose of testifying before NRC personnel concerning allegations
   ,           of current and/or former employees of the South Texas Project concerning the safety of the South Texas Project, as described in your letter of January 2J.147 to Messrs. Victor Stello and James l'attox, and any other allegations which you have received cor.cerning the safety of the South Texas Project, and to provide any records or other docunents in your possession or under your custody or control concerning such allegations.

7 f ctor Ste .J. e Executive Director for onarations k REulatary Ca-intion ,M44/ #4e 19 87 

       '1.,k
        . a r.nidhaen                                              [

Wm (301) 492-7619 On motion made promptly, and in any event at or before the time specified in the subpoena for compliance by the person to whom the subpoena is directed and on motice to the party at whose instance the subpoena was issued, the Cosmission may (1) quash er modify the su ena if it is unreasonable or requires evidence not relevant to any matter.in issue. l Or 2) condition dental of the motion on just and reasonable terus. Such action should

t UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ( BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

                                                                                                    )

In the Matter of ) Petition Pursuant ( South Texas Nuclear Project 

                                                                                                    )    to 10 C.P.R. 52.206
                                                                                                    )
                                                                                                    )

I PETITION OF THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT l l I( 1 i Prepared by: Government Accountability Project 1555 Connecticut Avenue N.W. #200 l Washington, D.C. 20036 g (202) 232-8550 ) l I Dated: May 29, 1987 I i

g. ,

e d 

                                                                                                                                       -TABLE OF CONTENTS g:.                                                                                                                                                                                                  Page
               - I.                                                INTRODUCTION...................,........,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,                                                                            g II.

BACKGROUND............................................. 3 4 III. FACTS...................................,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 4 

              - IV, .                                            LEGAL ANALYSIS.........................................                                                                              15 i

V. CONCLUSION...........................,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, gy VI . - RELIEF REQUESTED....................................... 20 l l(

I:

lV .t. f 1 (- i. t _-- - - _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - - _ - - - . - _ - - . . _ - - _ - = - _ - _ _ - - - _ - _ _ _ - _ . - - - - - _

V l I. INTRODUCT*ON g ( The purpose of this Petition, in conjunction with the Motion I To Quash Subpoena filed on behalf of Billie P'irner Garde, Esq., I is to protect the public health and safety by assuring that'over-lg 400 serious safety allegations raised by current and former employees of the South Texas Nuclear Plant .(STNP) are properly investigated. In order to assure that these serious safety problems are properly investigated, the Commissioners are requested to establish special investigation unit which would comply with the spirit and letter of NRC Chapter Manual 0517 and 

                                     - which would be similar to those now operating out of the Special l                                      Projects Office or to those previously established for Waterford and Comanche Peak. In order to provide the assurance that this investigation is properly conducted, the Commission must prohibit

.(

[

the involvement of Region IV or Victor Stello in the investigation. As the following memorandum and attachments make clear, as .4 well as the companion Motion To Quash and attachments to it, Region IV has had a long history of misfeasance and malfeasance with regard to investigation of worker safety allegations in I particular and safety inspections in general. Victor Stello has been an outspoken apologist for Region IV and its management, even to the point of seeking to reward and promote two of the 1 I principal targets of the recent OIA investigation of Region IV at the time the critical OIA conclusions were being issued. The impropriety of the past practices of Region IV and Victor Stello 1 are well documented and well known to each Commissioner. The 1 -

1 1 i l failure of either Regicn I'/ or Victor Stelio to repudiate their i past conduct or discard pursuit of that conduct for the future is powerful evidence of the need for an independent special l 1 investigation. It is critical that there be a competent and I prompt investigation of the more than 400 safety allegations that  ! concerned workers have presented to their GAP attorneys and which 1 i GAP personnel, working with and under the supervision of those  ! attorneys and in pursuit of the attorneys' representation of l l d l their clients, have pursued. l l The illegal subpoena issued by Victor Stello in an attempt 1 to force Billie Pirner Garde, Esq., to disclose the confidences of her clients is the last desperate act of a man who has been totally frustrated in his attempt to subvert the efforts of these concerned workers to have their concerns properly pursued. For I ( t six months Ms. Garde has attempted, on behalf of her clients, to convince Mr. Stello to establisn the appropriate investigative mechanism to assure a prcper consideration of the safety I allegations. Mr. Stello has refused and, because it became apparent that he would never on his own allow the independent investigation required, this Petition has been filed to assure I protection of the public health and safety. By quashing the illegal subpoena and establishing the independent investigation sought here the Commissioners will both I assure adequate protection of the public health and safety and expedite the process for resolution of these safety issues.

II. BACKGROUND 4 The South Texas Nuclear Project, a two-unit reactor, was granted a construction permit by the NRC in 1975. The plant was supposed to be built in compliance with its construction permit, ) I I federal regulations and indust ry stal:dards. At that time Brown & l i Root, Inc., was the architect, engineer and builder for Houston 

                                                                                                                                                       ]

Lighting and Power (HL&P), the applicant for license and STNP's ,l principal owner. In April 1980, HL&P was fined $100,000 by NRC for failing to ensure that their contractor, Brown & Root, complied with federal safety standards and regulatory requirements. In September 1980, Brown & Root was removed as ,i. l engineer and construction manager of the STNP. Later, in November 1981, Brown & Root withdrew as builder of the project and was replaced by Ebasco. Brown & Root was subsequently sued lI( l by HL&P and othet partners involved in the STNP for damages resulting from mismanagement of the project. The suit was settled in 1985. I In June 1986, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board concluded that there would be reasonable assurance that the STNP l would be completed in accordance with federal requirements. lf l Currently, the contractors involved at STNP include HL&P, Bechtel, Ebasco and SAFETEAM. STNP is planned to begin fuel load on June 1, 1987, and Unit I is scheduled to start comraercial ( operation in December, 1987. 3-

i 11 LIII. FACTS

-In January,1987, . GAP -at torneys began a preliminary investigation ~into the concerns of' workers and citizens pertaining to the STNP. Our' investigation of the STNP was 1

prompted by.the concerns of STNP workers who came to us for help (. in dealing.with problems at the plant. Due.to:the complexity and l number of allegations raised by workers'at STNP, GAP retained the l 

                                                                                                              }

assistance of an experienced' nuclear investigator. Using the- 4 

                                                                                                             )

g' 1 techniques and criteria employed by successful worker allegation ' review' programs, GAP has sought to carefully investigate and categorize each allegation received from STNP workers. To date, I' GAP-has reviewed over 500 allegations. Of the allegations-reviewed, . an: overwhelming number (50%) pertain to the safety of ' the plant. .Other categories of allegations include: wrongdoing I( (37%), intimidation and threats (10%), and other concerns (3%). J Since beginning.its investigation GAP has repeatedly 

                                                                                                              )

requested that NRC provide an independent review and inspection I' t ea's to address the allegations we were receiving (see attached letters). We requested independent review because of our I negative. experience, over the last five years, with Region IV of I the NRC concerning facilities throughout the region. In a' I January 20, 1987, letter to Mr. Stello and James Mattox (Attorney General'for the State of Texas) we expressed our concern that 

'I-       ' Region IV was " unable or unwilling to comply with . . .

l regulatory requirements." In addition, we requested that the NRC provide independent inspectors to compensate for Region IV's 1 deficiencies. Appendix A. On Pebruary 18, 1987, Mr. Stello 4- 

                                                                                                              )

responded to our concerns about Region IV by stating: ( The South Texas Project is within the jurisdiction of Region IV and that Region iu the appropriate organization to review the concerns of your clients. I have confidence that Region IV will properly pursue this responsibility. I have been in contact with Mr. Robert.D. Martin, Regional Administrator for Region IV, g and he' assures me that 1.is staff is thoroughly prepared to commit the resources required to appropriately resolve the issues which_your clients might raise. Appendix B. On March 4th, we challenged Mr. Stello's assurances g by articulating some of the instances of improper conduct by Region IV officials (including Mr. Martin) that we had experienced. Again, we requested an independent review team. Mr. Stello's March 18th letter, once again, ignored the issue of Region IV's competence and asked that our clients turn over their information to Houston Lighting and Power or the NRC. Appendix C. 

 '(                 Our response was brief and consistent with our previous letters.        Appendix D. Finally, in an April 8th letter, Mr.

Stello clearly demonstrated that he was part of the problem and not part of the solution.1/ The letter reads as follows: I have received your letter of March 23, 1987. I accept your characterization of the allegations you have in hand as bearing on the safety of the S. Texas Nuclear Power Plant in a significant way. I I urge you to bring these issues to NRC for our review. As to where and how within NRC they will be addressed , is my responsibility. Assignment within NRC will be governed by the nature of the allegations. I can assure you they will be handled properly, both in regard to technical review and in regard to

( confidentiality.

By the nature of significant safety issues, they must be addressed promptly. Your letters imply that you i have had this information for some time. Therefore, if l f 1/ Interestingly enough, Mr. Stello's April 8th letter was Urltten two days after a letter from HL&P to GAP which stated: (footnote continued) 1 a_-________.

we do not receive full information on the allegations 

    /*                 within 30 days we will be constrained to take steps to acquire it by other means.                                                   i l

(emphasis added) Appendix P. Mr. Stello's refusal to address j the Region IV problem made it impossible for GAP to comply with his request, and clearly showed his complicity with Region IV officials. As you are well aware, Region IV officials, from the top  ; level to resident inspectors, have repeatedly demonstrated their complete disregard for NRC policy regarding premature disclosure of information to utility officials. This has resulted in the exposure of the identities of NRC informants to utility officials, and has compromised inspection and investigation activities. For example;

1. In 1980, Region IV management prematurely disclosed information regarding a pending enforcement action to officials of the Hayward-Tyler Pump Co. resulting in the withdrawl of the enforcement action. (See, OIA Report and Congressional hearings on the issue from 1982).
2. In 1981-1982, Region IV inspectors engaged in a variety of activities to prevent non-Region IV inspectors from completely (footnote continued)
                 ". . . we are taking steps to request appropriate government officials to obtain from you or your organization information which could potentially affect the safety of the South Texas Project." Appendix E.                   (See, GAP's response to HL&P's letter, also in Appendix E).                  It appears that Mr. Stello's letter was prompted by HL&P's request. Mr. Stello's sensitivity to the utility's needs, and insensitivity to the needs of STNP workers i

i and citizens of Texas, is further proof of the breakdown of the regulatory process and the need for independent review. L___ _ ______ _

1 p. l. I. t. 

                          = assessing the condition of the STNP. (See, generally, record in-(                      lawsuit.HL&P v. Brown & Root, and testimony of NRC inspectors contained therein).
3. In'1982, it was confirmed that Comanche Peak resident inspector R.G. Taylor ~ identified Charles Atchison to'the Comanche Peak site manager as a long time NRC informant. (See, OIA Report: Review'of concerns expressed by Case about conduct of I Region IV inspections / investigations, dated October 20, 1983).

il

4. In 1982, the NRC's Office of Inspector and Auditor.(OIA) confirmed that Region IV inspector R.G. Taylor completed an
t inspection (at that point IER 50-445/82-14) by relying almost  !

i 

                          . exclusively on utility provided documents.        In fact, Mr. Taylor did not inspect any of the hardware components in question.

i Later, when deficiencies were identified in the same hardware by ' d. (.' the Applicant, Mr.-Taylor attempted to cover the inadequacy of his inspection effort by withdrawing the.first version of the inspection report and issuing a second version. OIA lt investigators concluded that Mr. Taylor's actions were, at a l minimum, inappropriate. (See, id.).

5. In 1983, OIA investigated charges that Region IV did not I

r adequately investigate, and mishandled, the technical concerns of two Comanche Peak employees. OIA concluded that Region IV of ficials dismissed the workers' allegations solely on the basis I of information provided by Texas Utilities, and did not even 

                                                                                                    ]

attempt'to contact the workers to determine if they had any further concerns -- even after the workers complained to Congress, the intervenor and OIA that they had numerous concerns

i'e. not investigated Or addressed. (See, OIA Report: Markey letter ( re: Region IV investigations / inspections, October 20, 1983).

6. In 1983, ASLB Judge Marshall determined that a Region IV investigator deliberately withheld information from the Comanche Peak licensing board under the cloak of confidentiality agreements in an attempt to cover up their own inadequate investigation of worker allegations. (See, Memorandum and Order of the ASLB,
September 30, 1982, " Denying Reconsideration of Staff Request").
7. In 1983, at the Port St. Vrain nuclear facility, Region IV inspectors apparently were not permitted to identify quality control and assurance issues at the plant. These allegations are now the subject of an OIA investigation. (See, Inside NRC, April 27, 1987).
8. In February, 1984, Region IV officials interviewed a key
 ,{

witness regarding the Comanche Peak document control system breakdown. Instead of keeping the interview confidential, Region IV docketed a transcript of the interview to all parties on the Comache Peak service list, thereby providing the information to the utility. Later, Region IV management refused to produce a copy of the transcript pursuant to a GAP Preedom of Information 1 Act request, because they claimed the transcript was 

                          " Confidential".                             Apparently Region IV officials forgot they had publicly disclosed the transcript and.already revealed the identity of the alleger.
9. Also, in March 1984, eight electrical QC inspectors were I

held against their will by Comanche Peak officials after identifying problems with the electrical system. When co-workers 8- __.m._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _

contacted the NRC, Regicn IV inspectors and managers refused to I respond. Their refusal was based on discussions with the Texas Utilities' Vice-President. OIA concluded that Region IV's actions were insensitive to the workers' plight and that they failed to act when called for help. (See, Report of Investiga-tion - NRC Office of Inspector and Auditor, August 30, 1985).

10. In 1985, Region IV inspectors at the Wolf Creek nuclear facility were instructed not to write up identified deficiencies at the plant on the eve of its licensing. The nature and extent of the deficiencies were misrepresented to NRC Commissioners at a

, licensing meeting. Aside from the incidents listed above, Region IV's total abdication of its inspection responsibilities at the Grand Gulf I and Waterford nuclear plants has resulted in a financial crisis for Middle States Utilities. Failure to do proper inspections during the construction of these facilities resulted in reinspecticns, rework, and excessive costs at both plants. Both plants were substantially completed before non-Region IV personnel identified significant problems. t-Clearly, Region IV's improper practices can have an adverse effect on the health and safety of the public. For example, when a utility is given advance notice of allegations concerning its ( facility and/or notice that an inspection will take place, the utility is able to make repairs without doing the proper paper work. Worse, the utility may be able to cover up the problem. Under these circumstances proper inspection and investigation cannot take place. The result is that the NRC is not able to

,/,. determine now'the problem slipped through the inspection and 

     .I '

review process, and whether that process has broken down. Nor can the NRC determine whether the identified. problem-is symptomatic of more generic problems at the facility.

Our worst' fears about Region IV were realized when Senator John Glenn, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, conducted a hearing regarding NRC's ability to conduct
p. investigations into wrongdoing by agency and utility officials.

The hearing publicly revealed a number of startling facts about Region IV of the NRC.

.In his opening' statement Senator Glenn was severely critical of.the NRC's ability to investigate and properly regulate the nuclear industry. See, Opening Statement of Chairman John Glenn, p April 9, 1987'(Appendix G). Senator Glenn's criticisms were directed at the NRC's national office as well as Region IV.

Senator Glenn's statement was more than corroborated during 

 ,                                        the hearing.                                                            See, Statement of Julian Greenspun, Esquire, before the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, April 9,                                                           1987 (Appendix H).

NRC personnel also testified at the hearing. Of particular interest was the testimony of Ben B. Hayes (Director, NRC Office of Investigations). Mr. Hayes described the cover-up of an investigation into collusion between NRC personnel and Louisisma Power and Light (LP&L).2/ Statement of Ben B. Hayes, Director, 

                                     '2/                                        See, newspaper articles, Appendix I.
                                                                                                                                                  - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

NRC Offi e of. Investigations before the Ccmmittee on Governments) Y Affairs, April 9, 1987, at 2-5 (Appendix J). Mr. Hayes also testified about Mr..Stello's improper conduct in coaching a Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) official on how to respond to an 4 NRC letter ask!ng.if TVA was in compliance with quality assurance 

      .(QA) procedures under 10 C.P.R. 50, Appendix B.                                Id. at 5-7. .Mr.

Stello subsequently threatened Mr. Hayes over his investigation of the matter. Id. at 8. George A..Mulley, Jr. (Assistant Director for Investigations at the NRC Office of Inspector and Auditor) testified about an Investigation he conducted into harassment of Region IV employees by Region IV management. The investigation focused on harassment i resulting from Region IV inspectors' reports of safety problems. One inspector that.Mr. Mulley talked to was H. Shannon .i} Phillips.3_/ Mr. Mulley's discussion with Mr. Phillips revealed the following: 

                                       . .   . Mr. Phillips stated that he had been harassed,

.! intimidated and pressured to remove proposed findings from draft inspection reports by downgrading them to a less serious issue or deleting them entirely from the report. Mr. Phillips provided evidence that when he and other inspectors resisted downgrading or deleting at least 30 proposed findings, the Director of the 1 Comanche Peak Task Group, Thomas Westerman, and another manager, Eric Johnson, removed violations from the inspection reports or substantially changed the report without the inspectors'. knowledge and other times without their concurrence. In one case the Region issued a final inspection report using the signature it. page from a draft version of the report. This made it appear that the inspection report was approved by the inspectors involved -- when actually the inspectors were neither informed of the changes nor told of the 3/ See, Statement of H. Shannon Phillips, NRC Senior Resident Ynspector, before the Committee on Governmental Affairs, April 9, l 1987. Appendix K. 0 4 issuance of the report. I' I believe Mr. Phillips'. allegations were exactly the types of concerns that should be thoroughly investigated by an independent investigator within the NRC without regard to the potential consequences of the investigation on the licensability of a nuclear power plant. i Statement of George A. Mulley, Jr., before the Committee on Governmental Affairs, April 9, 1987, at 3 (Appendix L). As his investigation unfolded Mr. Mulley became concerned with interference by other NRC personnel. Mr. Mulley testified that 

                                . . .  [A]fter having heard Mr. Phillips' evidence and interviewing other inspectors and consultants who raised similar allegations, I became concerned that if I

NRC managers, both in Washington and at the Region, learned the full scope of the management problems being raised in Region IV, my investigation would be interfered with. I did my best to see to it that no one connected with NRC headquarters or Region IV knew the extent of I-( my probe'into the-allegations concerning Region IV's attitude toward regulating nuclear power plants within its jurisdiction. Id. at 4. After completing a draft of his investigative report

! Mr. Mulley concluded:

(1) Region IV managers acted inappropriately to limit violations assessed at Comanche Peak, and that i Phillips was harassed and intimidated by Region IV management in an effort to get him to downgrade or I delete his inspection findings. l (2) 'The Region IV Quality Assurance Inspection Program, as implemented at Comanche Peak, could not be relied on as evidence of the sfae construction of the i plant. ( 

                               '(3) Because of the unreliability of the                 l ll                        information entered on the automated inspection tracking forms (NRC Form 766) by Region IV inspection personnel concerning Comanche Peak, data obtained from i                         these forms should not be used for any NRC licensing
l. decision.

l l

Id. at 6. Wnen word of Mr. Mulley's investigative report spread I throughout the NRC he began to-receive pressure from Mr. Stello and other NRC officials. Id. at 6-10. The pressure placed Mr. 

                        'Mulley came in the form of the following:

e OIA auditors were assigned to rewrite the report; e statements from Region IV managers were removed from the report; ) e other explanations and quotes which were not supportive of the lax enforcement attitude of Region IV officals were removed; ) e Mr. Stello had the OIA report distributed throughout the NRC, thereby exposing those within the agency who had given testimony critical of some Region IV officials. 1 (,. Ultimately, his report was severely edited. The concerns of Messrs. Hayes, Mulley and Phillips about Region IV's regulatory approach was confirmed by a former Region IV official in an investigative interview with Mr. Mulley. (See, NRC Investigative Interview of (deleted} at the Ramada Inn in East Ridge, Tennessee, June 24, 1986, Appendix M). On the question of Region IV management's attitude toward enforcement, the witness indicated that some managers ". . . really didn't 

                        .believe in enforcement."       Id. at 11. Regarding inspections, the witness stated that inspectors would be undercut by management in two ways:    (1) in failing to provide assistants for inspections, and-(2) in discouraging inspectors from writing up violations by
                          " worrying their work product to death and. question it to a great f.-

l L___________ -

i 

                                                                                             .I e

extreme." Id. at 10. Tne witness's conclusions about Region IV 1 1 can be summarized as follows: l I don't think that Region Four could have been I considered as having a strong orientation to quality assurance programs from the programmatic viewpoint. Had they had such a strong orientation over the years, , g then the results later seen at South Texas and at 'l Comanche Peak and at Waterford never would have arisen. Id. at 26. We have in Region Four organization a number of 0 Personalities and their relationships with each other and their way of thinking, and many times these are, these ways of thinking are similar and they support each other, which tends to frustrate the checks and balances so that the merits of the checks and balances I are simply overcome by the attitudes and the personal g relationships . . . . j 1 Q And the mind, I'm getting back to Comanche Peak l and TUGCO, these three people would share would be one of leaning towards the utility. Do you feel that's true? i 0( A' I think -- 

                                                                                             )

i Q (Interposing) Taking the utility's side? A Yes. I think that's true . . . . I Id. at 55-56. It is not surprising that a recent OIA report regarding the Comanche Peak facility was severely critical of Region IV. The I report concluded that the historical regulatory record prior to January 19, 1985, is completely unreliable, and noted that inspectors who tried to identify quality problems at the plant I were harassed and intimidated. Under the circumstances GAP attorneys, and the workers we l represent, are convinced that any information regarding problems 1 at the STNP will not be adequately investigated if put in the l I l i 1

I hands of Mr. Ste;;o or anyone connected with Reg:en IV. Workers are also fearful that eneir confidentiality will.not be protected by Region IV or Mr. Stello. It is clear that notning has been done to correct the imprcper actions of Region IV officials. The j Senate hearing and OI/OIA investigations have shed light on the inner workings of an arm of the NRC normally only known to insiders. The information revealed to date indicates that Mr. lg. Stello has not been part of any effort by the NRC to improve conditions'in Region IV. On the contrary, Mr. Stello has rewarded the wrongdoing of Region IV officials and has proven to g_ be more interested in the morale of the wrongdoers than the morale of responsible NRC employees. Consequently, we cannot reveal any information to NRC until such time as an independent ' and competent review team is assembled.

I- {

l q IV. LEGAL ANALYSIS I Initially, it is important for the Commissioners to understand why GAP attorneys have come to them for relief. It would be inappropriate to have Mr. Stello or anyone connected k with Region IV decide the merits of this petition since they are the individuals we are seeking relief from. GAP seeks to ensure that a thorough and competent review of STNP workers' allegations , i are completed. The Commissioners have the power to ensure that l the public health and safety is protected. At a minimum, the Commissioners must be accountable for the decisions and actions ) of those to whom they delegate authority. ( The NRC has broad discretion to revoke, suspend, or modify ) l l l l

f,  ! 

                             'the construction permit cf an NRC licensee.        42 U.S.C. 52236 states that:

! ( Any~ license may be revoked for any material false statement in the application or any statement of fact required under section 2232 of this title, or because of conditions of fact or anyrevealed report, by such application or statement record, or inspection or other I means which would warrant the Commission to refuse to grant a license on an original application, or for . failure to construct or operate a facility in i accordance with'the terms of the construction permit or license of the technical specifications on the application, or for violation'of, or failure to observe I any of the terms and provisions of this chapter or of any regulation of the Commission. See, also, 42 U.S.C SS2133, 2134. The same criteria for the revocation, suspension, or 'l modification of a construction permit. exist under NRC regulations. See, 10 C.F.R. 50.100 (1987). 

                                   "[plublic safety is the first, last, and permanent

'l( consideration in any decision on the issuance of a construction permit or a license to operate a nuclear facility." Power Reactor Development Corp.' v. International Union of Electrical 'l Radio and Machine Workers, 367 U.S. 396, 402 (1961). See, also, Petition for' Emergency and Remedial Action, 7 NRC 400, 404 (1978). [ The NRC has a mandatory duty to exercise this authority when 

                         .necessary. The foremost priority for the NRC is to determine that there will be adequate protection of the health and safety

{ of the public. The issue of safety must be resolved before the Commission issues a construction permit. Porter City Ch. of Izaak Walton League v. Atomic Energy Commission, 515 F.2d 313, 524 (7th Cir. 1975). 16 - 

  .u,;

q Tne NRC nas a variety of powers it can exercise to protect p .the public's health and. safety. The NRC has recognized its statutory-authority to: (1) issue orders to promote.or.to protect. health or minimize-danger to life or property; (2) impose civil penalties for the violation of certain licensing ) provisions, rules, orders, and for violations for which licenses can be revoked; (3) seek injunctive'or other equitable relief for violation of regulatory requirements, and to seek criminal 3 penalties. (See, 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Appendix C, II (1987)). In addition, pursuant to regulation NRC can " institute a proceeding to modify, suspend, or revoke a license, or for such other k action as may be proper." 10 C.F.R. $2.206 (1987). Suspension orders can be issued to stop facility construction when further work would preclude or significantly I' ( hinder the identification and correction of safety-related or other significant problems. In the Matter of Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co., 16 NRC 1489 (1982). In. Cincinnati Gas &-Electric I the Commission ordered the utility to "show causy" why construction should not be halted. At the time r.he Zimmer plant, like the STNP, was nearing completion when numerous problems were iI brought to the attention of the NRC by workers through GAP. The problems identified at Zimmer turned out to be extremely significant, eventually causing the plant to shut down. 1 While it is unclear to what extent the allegations of workers at the STNP will affect licensing or the continued operation of the STNP, it is clear that without the Commission's 

         ' intervention there will not be an adequate investigation and

i" i d review. Special task force and review team operations are not 

     -l                      unusual in Region IV.       Bcth Waterford and Comanche Peak received special reviews by NRC personnel who,were not under the direction for control of Region IV.       Similarly, the STNP was partially-reviewed by Region III personnel.        In addition.to special review 4

teams the NRC has established an office of special cases to handle particularly troubled nuclear facilities. Given Region IV's inability to adequately enforce federal requirements and administer proper inspections it would be~ most appropriate for the STNP to be categorized by the Commission as a special review facility. Without a special review the NRC will not have all the information necessary to make decisions regarding the future of the STNP. The STNP should not go on-line until such a review is completed. 

         ~

As mentioned earlier, GAP attorneys have reviewed over 500 allegations from the STNP workforce. The fact that 87% of those allegations involve matters of wrongdoing or safety raises ( serious questions about the abilitites of Region IV and STNP  ! l management to ensure that the plant is being constructed safely and in accordance with federal laws and regulations. Furthermore, I the fact that workers are so severely harassed and intimidated that they will not talk to STNP management or Region IV of the NRC indicates that a complete breakdown of regulatory control and ( plant QA and QC procedures has occurred. Even if Region IV was j l competent to conduct an investigation and review of allegations ) received by GAP attorneys, it is unlikely that Region IV would l I l have personnel sufficient to investigate properly. l

t. - -- -- - - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

l I' l i' rinally, the allegations of the workers which have been

f. collected by GAP attorneys should not be considered " late filed".

We have attempted to see that these allegations received-appropriate review. However, Mr. Stello has refused to take action to see that the allegations being raised are reviewed in accordance with NRC procedures. In addition, no licensing issues are being raised in this petition nor are we requesting the Commission to delay licensing at this time. In the event that t the Commission considers the allegations referred to in this petition as late filed, then only the priority of review should be affected. As we understand it NRC's late filed allegation I policy does not exclude any allegation from thorough investigation. 1 ('- V. CONCLUSION Since the days of Brown & Root, it has been apparent that the STNP has not been a well managed nor a quality first-oriented I project.- In part, the corrupt and incompetent practices of Region IV and Mr. Stello are directly to blame. To date, Region IV management and Mr. Stello have steadfastly refused to i repudiate their policies and practices. The complex nuclear regulatory scheme as it relates to the STNP (and probably other Region IV regulated facilities) has completely broken down. Many 1 workers and citizens of the State of Texas have no confidence that the STNP can operate safely under current conditions. I The members of the Commission must take strong and swift action to restore confidence in the nuclear regluatory process l l l l ? 

              "{                                                                                                                                 ,

and protect theypublic r.ealt'n and safety. Immediate steps y consistent with the relief requested.in this petition must be 

     'taken.to help ensure'the safe operation of the STNP.

VI .1 RELIEF REQUESTED GAP respectfully requests that the following relief be granted: 

                        '(1)   NRC Commissioners must establish an independent investigative unit or special projects review team to deal with the. allegations concerning the STNP.
                        -(2)   NRC Commissioners direct the staff to conduct interviews with all allegers pursuant to NRC Manual Chapter 0517.

(3) Interviews and: subsequent inspections, investigations 

     .and document reviews must be conducted by personnel who have had

{~ no previous' involvement with the STNP and are not employees assigned to Region IV for purposes of their performance

evaluations or work reviews and editing.

(4) Supervision of independent inspection effort cannot in any way be reviewed or in control of Mr. Stello or his staff. J (5) All such other relief as the Commissioners deem just and appropriate. ? 1; l- , 1

' I l l I k APPENDIX A 4 1 1 l l 1 l t/t i I f I i

f-I GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABlUTY PROJECT I .1555 Connecncut Avenue. N \V Svire 202 l Washingron. D.C. 20036 1 f January 20, 1987 Victor Stello, Executive Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory C;mmission Washington, D.C. 20555 James Mattox Attorney General for the State of Texas Supreme Court Building 14th & Colorado Austin, Texas 78711 Re: South Texas Nuclear Pro;ect

Dear Messrs. Stello and Mattox:

This letter is to inform your respective agencies that the Government Accountability Pro:ect (GAP) has formally begun preliminary investigat.on :nto worker allegations at the South Texas nuclear project. Since 1980, GAP nas p;ayed a significant role in advocating on behalf of whistleblowers and concerned citizens on issues 

         '                                   involving safety-re'ated  . prooiems at various nuclear power i                                   facilities.         Our apprcacn to nuclear power has oeen steadfastly the same:          to ensure inat the government enforces the nuclear safety laws and regulat::ns. As a result of GAP's efforts (alone or in concert with otner organizations) to expose safety-related problems, the construct::n and/or Operat en of several nuclear
 !                                           power facilities -- prev:ously thought to be fit to op? rate --

were cancelled or postponed for further review. The cancelled facilities include tne 98 percent completed Z:nmer nuclear power plant and the 85 percent completed 9.:diand p; ant. Those which were postponed for furtner review include e Comanene Peak, Three Mile Island, D:431: Canyon, and Waterf:rd fac:lities. I CAP currently etther-represents :: ;; Or<:ng with approximately 36 current and/or former empicyees of tne South Texas project. The allegations .f rom the wor <ers range f rom grand , theft of nuclear grade steel to engineering defects in several major safety components. The allegations concern the failure of g Houston Light & Power ta quarantee subcontractor compliance with , industry and federal safety requirements, :ncluding but not limited to: defects :n tne instrumentation and control division; defects and lack of ccep;:ance with federal regulations in the heating, ventilating, and air conditioning system; lack of compliance with quality standards in the area of soils compaction; failure to c:mplete required QA or QC documentation; falsification of required 0A or QC documentation; and harassment 

          .                                       and intimidation of pers:nnel who attempt to adhere to federal safety standards.

i, January 20, 1987 - Page Two ( Additionally, and of specific concern to :he State of Texas, there are allegations that include deliberate actions of scme Of i the subcontractors at STP to Overcharge McustOn Light & Power fer goods and services by " charging of f" Oneir Own unacceptable work to Brown & Root, Inc. T ".e r e is also information which suggests

that subcontractors have fraudulently charged STP for manhours not worked, and for por:::ns :f the pro ect which were not completed as claimed.

GAP is currently c:-d.ct.'ag : terv;ews with both current and former workers who are c:rcerned doout the South Texas project.

g. GAP investigators are accept:ng calls f rom workers at our Washington, D.C. office and zur Midwest office.

Once our preliminary : investigation is complete, we plan to issue a formal public report. L* unfortunately, in the interim, we cannot advise our clients or those we work with to provide their " concerns to the Region :V office of the NRC. Our experience has been (and recently released internal agency reports confirm) that the Arlington of fice :s either unable or unwilling to comply with its regulatory requirements as outi:ned in governing agency procedures. g {, Thus, unless the NRC :s willing to prov:de independent inspectors to process : e allegat: ens pursua-* to internal NRC regulations, GAP will provide the allegati: 3 directly to the state Attorney General eff;ce, and/or to tne appropriate congressional committees, and/or to other re:alatory or municipal bodies which have an :nterest in ensuring : a the South Texas I plant is designed, constructed, and f:nanced in a manner that protects the public. Please rect any :nquir:es acou: AP's S at- Texas investigatic :o Richard Cond::, S aff A: :r ey

  • investigator, 202-232-8550, or Bill:e Carde, CAP M:t-es: ::f.ce, 4;4-730-9533.

I ' S. cere.., 3:ll:e P:-*er Garde ( D; rect:r, M;d..est Off:ce Richard C ndit Staff At: Crney cc: Chairman Lando Zecn BG/RC:C30

3 

   .                                                                    .I APPENDIX B i

i 1 l 

  .(

r ? { I l f 

                                                                                                                  /
     ~     /f  % %,                                UNITED STATES                         T . ~ .i ~ 2 /2. :. L ,

f- 'i Q 

         !               E NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION
         *Q             !                       ussmotoN o c rosss l                                   :::
                                                           --   ' 367 Pocket No. 50-498 Ms. Billie Pirner Garde Mr. Richard Condit Government Accountability Project Suite 202 1                  1555 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036

Dear Ms. Garde and Mr. Condit:

I am in receipt of your January ?0,1987 letter directed to me and the Attorney ,t General of Texas. Your letter describes investigative activities you plan to undertake relative to allegations you have received from approximately 36 current and/or former employees of the South Texas Project. Your letter also identified the general nature of some of these allegations which appear to fall within the safety and regulatory responsibilities of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Your letter also states that you cannot advise your clients to t{ provide their concerns to the Region IV office of NRC, You assert that your experience has been that Peoion IV does not comply with its requirements as outlined in agency procedures. Moreover, you demand

  • hat unless NRC provides other inspection personnel to process thesa allegations, you plan to provide those allegations to other individuals or neganizatire.s. l t The South Texas Proiect is within the jurisdiction of Region IV and that Region is the appropriate organization to review the concerns of your clients. I have confidence that Region IV will properly pursue this responsibility. I have been in contact with Mr. Robert P. Martin ce gional Administrator for Pegion IV, and he assures re that his staff is therruchly prepared to courlit the resources required to appropr'ately resolve the issues which your clients i night raise.

As you are aware, NRC is the responsible federal agency for ensuring that safety significant issues are addressed where appropriate. Therefore, I urge you to bring forth promptly, or advise your clients to do so, to MRC or Houston Lighting and Power, any information you have on deficiencies which lt would have a bearing on nuclear safety. To retain them until your own report is prepared and published would not be in the best interes+s of assuring the prompt resolution of legitinate sa"ety concerns. l 

                     *ultiple Addressees                        -

( Any further communications you may have regarding this matter should be directed 

                     'to Mr. Partin in Region IV.

Sincerely, 

                                                                          ,   -Wh
                                                                                  .W,% -
                                                                            .            i Victor Stello, Jr. /

Executive Director'for Operations cc: The Honorable James Mattox 

                                  ' Attorney General State of Texas Austin, Texas 78711

( o I . I i i i ). 0 I 1

e 4 k APPENDIX C 

                                                                                                                                 \

l ( t I ( 8

8 LGOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT 1555 Comecucut Avenue. N W. Suite '202 (202)232 8550 4 'oshingion.D.C. 20036 

     . GOVERNMENT-ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT MIDWEST OFFICE
3424 MARCOS-LANE
     -APPLETON, WISCONSIN                    54911 March 4,  1987 Victor Stello Executive Director Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.                  20555 RE:   South Texas Investigation

Dear Mr. Stello,

Your letter of' February 18, 1987 regarding our South Texas investigation states that any futher communications regarding South Texas'should be directed to Mr. Bob Martin, Regional Administrator. .Your letter also urges us to bring forth any issues regarding safety to Region IV promptly. 

                        'Given the history of incompetence in Region IV regarding issues of nuclear safety and the more recent evidence of impro-
            .priety in Region IV I am surprised that you would continue to advise us to take allegations of nuclear saf ety to your- present regional management. . Your professed faith in the Regional

. management can only be bureaucratic posturing, as I seriously doubt whether even you can ignore the seriouness of the impro-prieties confirmed in the recent and continuning investigation by the Office of Inspector and Auditor. Mr. Stello, at some point you must assume responsibliity for Q the operation in Region IV to insure that the public health and safety around the Region IV facilities is protected. ..You apparently are willing to sacrifice that assurance in order to give the j public appearance of support for Mr. Martin et.al. Your error in~ judgement is incredible. Within the past 18 months we have seen evidence and testimony of the improper release of a draft inspection report on the Sequoyan Fuels Corporation fatal accident to Kerr-McGee officals, the harassment and intimidation of resident inspectors, the deletion items from inspection reports, tha improper manipulation and/or release of inspection report results j to-enchance the possibility of licensing, the destruction of documents, the f ailure to comply with statutory requirements under the Freedom of Information'Act, the failure to properly investigate allegations of engineering, technical or hardware deficiencies at reactors in Region IV, the release of confidentiality of site L employees that have come forward with concerns, the cooperation

with utility officals to <liseredit whistleblowers, and a total disregard for public accountability. For all of the above reasons we would be irresponsible if we led more whistleblowers blindly to the slaughterhouse of your Arlington office. At some point you must choose between protecting and defending the egos of your staff and protecting the public health and safety. You are paid by the taxpayers and citizens to do the later. We will not participate in your doing the former. I hope you are able to find an independent team to review the South Texas allegations. Sincerely, Billie Pirner Garde i s cs cc: James Mattox Attorney General State of Texas w/end. OIA Report 86-10 L L_---____-------__-------- - - - - - 

       /p* % \                              UNITED STATES

[L ,.  ; NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION g "" E- W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 l 

         ,,,,.-                                   MAR 101987 rs. E llie Pirner Garde
           %ver'nment Accountability Prniec+

1595 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite P02 EasMrfmoten. DC 20036 Dee- *ts. Garde: i 3 have rdceived your letter n' March 4,1987 It prompts me to remind you tfhat NRC is the responsible federal agency for ensurino that safety sigtfHeant views are appropria*ely addressed. I therefore urge you to bring for$ :promptly any informative wou have on deficiencies which would have a bea-imp on nuclear safety to PDC or to Houston lipnting and Power - or advise year clients to do so. To withhold such information would not be in the best ictmests of assuring the prompt resolution of legitimate safety concerns. }( _ Sincerely, 

                                                                                       &?

l -~;' Victor Stal1I, Jr.' ] E.secutive Director for Doerations ) 1 0 1 \ I , l I

0' 0 APPENDIX D 0 ( f i1 i I i i l i l t

u.w. wa GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT 1555 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.. Suite 202 

  !  wash.ngton. D.C. 20036                                           (202)202-8550 MIDWEST OFFICE                                                                                  l 104 E. WISCONSIN AVENUE                                                                         i APPLETON, WISCONSIN        54915-8605                                                           j March 23, 1987 3

Victor Stello, Jr. 

          . Executive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.      20555 3-RE:  South Texas Investiga, tion

Dear Mr. Stello,

0 Y ur letter f March 18, 1987 sidestepped the issue of whether  ; or not you are going to appoint an individual or a task force from ' NRC's Washington office to accept and/or investigate allegations concerning the safety of the South Texas Project. We are very concerned about the safety allegations known to 0I* us. We are so concernedthat we intend to insure that they are properly investigated. l We do not believe that Region IV is either capable or willing to do that type of investigation. Please advise. g Sincerely, a w.~ O Bl311e Pirner Garde O cca Richard Condit 0 cs e u_ _-__- _

l' 4 APPENDIX E 'I ( f i (' i t t 1 i i

I l 551Inti]LiglIll l 

      ,   company n_,.m m,                ... ., i.on..       n_,..,<,~ . m    ,~.m                           i l

4 March 18, 1987 l l I Ms Billie Garde , Director of the Midwest office l Government Accountability Project o 3424 N. Marcos. Lane Appleton, Wisconsin 54911 i l

Dear Ms Garde:

We have been in touch with you as a representative of GAP concerning allegations regarding the South Texas Project by you and Mr. William condit since the first appearance of those i allegations in the press on January 21, 1987. In writing to you on January 26, 1987, I sought your cooperation in bringing these matters to our attention using the SAFETEAM program which has a proven record of success at the South Texas Project. To facilitate your cooperation I offered the services of Mr. James Geiger, one of my most seasoned and trusted

( I managers and head of our Nuclear Assurance Department.

t Mr. Geiger contacted you immediately and conveyed repeatedly to you over the next several weeks our sincere interest in resolving the allegations which had allegedly been brought to your attention by employees at the STP site. l Mr. Geiger considered carefully the reservations you expressed concerning use of SAFETEAM and offered to modify these procedures in an effort to accommodate your concerns. His letters of February ll. and March 5, 1987, documented those conversations, including urgent requests that you submit at least one of the allegations of which you have knowledge for investigation using i these modified SAFETEAM procedures on a " trial basis." You have been unresponsive to these suggestions and, in recent weeks, have not even returned Mr. Geiger's telephone calls. We must therefore regretfully conclude that GAP has no interest in proceeding further with these discussions. I We cannot, however, let matters rest at this point since this is not merely a disagreement between private parties. Larger matters of the public interest are potentially affected. Beyond the allegations of safety concerns, the implication of statements attributed to you in the press is that federal and state laws may have been violated in the construction of STP.

i )* L ' Houston Ughtmg & Power Compan I Ms Billie Garde March 18, 1987 It~is anomalous to.us that an organization purporting to l represent the public interest could show such little regard for that interest by withholding information of potential significance i 4 to the public health and safety. We will not be a party to such l " games." We will urge federal and state officials to seek from you and your organization every scrap of information which could potentially relate to the safety of the South Texas Project. If i any such information in fact exists and is made available to us, ' we will immediately pursue it to its resolution. We can then leave to the citizens of Texas the judgment as to which of us truly represents the public interest. sincerely, (L4.A J H Goldberg , Group Vice-President, Nuclear l ( JMG/am cc Chairman L W Zech_ (NRC) Commissioners K M Carr ( 

                                                                  )

T M Roberts (" ) g J K Asselstine (" ) l Exec. Dir. F M Bernthal V Stello (") Reg. Adan. ("} " R D Martin ( ) Dir. I&E J M Taylor ( 

                                                                  )

owners T V Shockley (CP&L) g' A vonRosenberg (CPSB) M B Lee ] (COA) l I i 1 l l l

3. ji GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTADIUTY PROJECT 1555 Connecncut Awnve. N W Sune 202
            ,                       Woshington. D C. 20036                                              (202)232 8550 a

March 27, 1987 1-Jerry-H. Goldberg Group Vice President,' Nuclear Houston Lighting & Power Corp. .[ P. O. Box 1700 Houston, Texas 77001 RE: Investigation of the South Texas Project by the 

      .                                                                            Government Accountability Project

Dear Mr. Goldberg:

Your widely distributed letter of March 18, 1987 was a surprise to me. Please be assured that the Government 'I f s Accountability Project (GAP) has not made any final decision regarding possible cooperation with HL&P on a' legations. As Mr. Geiger and your counsel were well aware, I was in trial the week of March 9-14, 1987 in Houston, litigating a South Texas related Department of Labor case, Goldstein v. EBASCo, 86-ERA-36. The following week I was on a personal / professional I break while moving both my home and my office to new locations. I did call Mr. Geiger and specifically informed him that I was not working from March 16 to 21, 1987, and that I would contact him regarding the proposals during the following week. Therefore, your conclusion that " GAP has no interest in I proceeding further" with negotiations is insincere and appears to be deliberately taking advantage of my one-week " working" vacation. I am uncertain whether HL&P is terminating negotiations on a potential working relationship. If so, please notify us of that in writing. If you are not, let me summarize where the I negotiations are apparently mired. HL&P, through Mr. Geiger, has informed us that allegation investigations would have to be done by the SAFETEAM, but has i j agreed to a number of modified procedures to alleviate some of our concerns. He has indicated, however, that HL&P is not willing to make additional concessions which would assure us that our clients are legally protected f rom reprisals, that the investigation properly pursues the correct allegation, and that ' i an adequate investigation was conducted once completed. l i

j. As I carefully explained to Mr. Geiger, the employees we 1 4-I represent have no faith in the credibili.ty of the SAFETEAM. Their individual and collective experiences have demonstrated that the SAFETEAM is not independent, does not protect or defend employees from harassment and discrimination, is neither able nor willing to reach truthful conclusions, has no authority to require or implement corrective acticns, does not generate deficiency paper in compliance with federal regulations, does not I report allegations or findings of wrongdoing to the NRC, and is  ! I institutionally. incapable of processing significant safety-related concerns. The employees' experiences were confirmed by the information we recently obtained from HL&P in discovery in the Goldstein t case. For example, one SAFETEAM investigation contained allegations of harassment and intimidation, violations of hold points, and significant defects in the quality of work in the* Reactor Control Building (RCB). A comparison of the interview of the engineer making the serious allegations with the results of that investigation prove that the SAFETEAM did not even  ; l understand the allegations, did not investigate the allegations given to the SAFETEAM of serious construction and quality defects in the RCB, and had no basis for its conclusions. In any event you should be aware that GAP understands its obligations to ensure that allegations of safety concerns are 8(' investigated. In that regard, we have a proven history of discovering massive safety problems and seeing that they are addressed. We would gladly match our history of demonstrated concern for'public health and safety with any other organization, and feel confident that the comparison would reflect quite favorably upon us. I As for the South Texas Project, HL&P and/or EBASCo and/or Bechtel have been made aware of serious safety concerns through internal processes. We have also been in contact with the NRC and other appropriate government bodies regarding processing of allegations about South Texas.- Recently, Region IV of the NRC g received extraordinary criticism from the NRC Office of Inspector and Auditor (OIA) regarding the handling of allegations at the Comanche Peak facility. Therefore, it is not appropriate to submit allegations to Region IV until some adequate resolution of the concerns raised by the OIA has been completed. We have asked the NRC for guidance as to how to proceed, given Region IV's lack g of credibility. To date, we have not received a response. So as you can tell, we are attempting to ensure that any information which comes to us about the South Texas plant is properly investigated, and that the appropriate corrective 

                                                                                   . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _w

I. I i measures will r e s u .' t . We aret not "witnhclding" information or g playing " games ," as ycu sugges . We are merely see<ing the proper forum to ensure that the workers' complaints do not again fall upon deaf ears. Unless additional safeguards are provided we will not like SAFETEAM, turn over information to internal, site-cased programs, which have already been proven to be ineffective. Our paramount concern is that the South Texas plant, if and when completed and operational, will be safe and in compliance with state and federal law. We hope that you share that goal? However, public expressions of concern are hardly adequate. Our clients are waiting to see effective action before they will risk their careers and jobs by working within your " system". Ultimately, the public interest! action-not words will determine who is representing Sincerely, L k, by Billie P. Garde Director, GAP Midwest BPG:079001 cc: NRC Chairman L. W. Zech iI NRC Commissioners K. M. Carr T. M. Roberts J. K. Asselstine F. M. Bernthal 3 NRC Executive Director V. Stello j i NRC Dir. I&E J. M.' Taylor T. V. Shockley, CP6L A. vonRosenberg, CPSB M. B. Lee, COA 3 l l l

I g APPENDIX r

f I

i i/5 I I t l 2 b

'g l p **sc u, 

     ,f
  • c, - UNITED STATES
  ,f      , , . ,       j                                    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
    ;/                    8                                         W ASHINGTON, O C. 20655
  • l 4 '
         .....#                                                            April 8, 1987 0                   Ms. Billie Pirner Garde Government Accountability Project
            .1555 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 202 Washington, DC 20036

Dear Ms. Garde:

0-I have received your letter of March 23, 1987. I accept your characterization of the allegations you have in hand as bearing on the safety of the 5. Texas Nuclear Power Plant in a significant way. I urge you to bring these issues to NRC for our review. As to where and how 0 within NRC they will be addressed is my responsibility. Assignment within NRC will be governed by the nature of the allegations. I can assure you they will be handled properly, both in regard to technical review and in regard to confidentiality. By the nature of significant safety issues, they must be addressed promptly. I{ Your letters imply that you have had this information for some time. Therefore, if we do not receive full information on the allegations within 30 days we will be constrained to take steps to acquire it by other means. Sincerely, I n C, J f/Lf, c. f Vitter Stello, . j Executive Of rector i for Operations I 

                                                                                                            )

0-1 ( i l l

1 ( 

  ~

APPENDIX G f )' , ). . d' ] i

0 Senator 

     <   John Glenn For Immediate Release
                                                    -News Release April 9, 1987

Contact:

Dale Butland 202-224-9799 Leonard Weiss 202-224-4751 3 . 0 OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHN GLENN April 9. 1987 g Today we continue our hearings on ways to fight waste, fraud and mismanagement in the federal government. Our ear lier hearings reviewed and documented the success of the statutory Offices of Inspector General, of which there are presently 19. Most of these offices were created g f pursuant to the Inspector General Act of 1978. or amendments t thereto. In the past five years, these offices have saved an esticated $71 billion in wasteful spending for the American taxpayer, and their investigations have resulted in over 16.000 criminal prosecutions and 15.000 administrative acticns. I On April ?. 1967. I introduced a bill. S. 908. which has been co-sponse- i by s aary member of this Committee, to create four neb statutory Inspectors General -- for the Department of the Treasury. the Federal Emergency Management Agency. the Office of Perscnnel Management. and the Nuclear g Regulatory Commiss:on ( NRC ) . 

                                      - MORE -

.I l 1 L-__---___-

Today. our focus is on the NBC. the independent agency responsible for regulating the commercia; use of nuclear power in the United States with the goal of preserving public health and safety and protecting the e n v i r c nr.e n t . To monitor the integrity of its activities. In 1975 the g NRC created an Office of Inspector and Auditor (OIA) to provide the Commissioners with objective information on problems within the Commission. In 1982. as a result of a heightened awareness by the NRC that allegations of possible wrongdoing by licensees and applicants required a vigorous responses the NRC' created its Office of Investigations (01). I The existence of these offices within the agency have helped to lessen the public's doubts about the relative safety of commercial nuclear power. I am. however. now deeply disturbed about current NRC operationt -- and particularly the impact of certisin r..aneten ent actions on the t mission and functions of these offices. First. I believe there are serious deficiencies in CIA's objectivity and investigative practices which have diminished the effectiveness of the office. Despite the Commission's assertions to the contrary. it does not appear that OIA has I( been allowed to perform the essential funct;c. of a statutory inspector general office. I think there is a need to restore credibility tc the internal "watencog" function at the NRC. I The bill I mentionec earlier. S. 906, tne cspector General Act Amendments of 1987. incorporates GAO's recommendation for establishing a new statutcr y Cffice of Inspector General in the NRC. This chance ;s intenced to create a more independent atmosphere for trcrcogh. internal audit and investigative activities, i The Inspector General will report to t r. e -: c a i rr a n cf t h e i Commission and Congress concerning significar1 a c u s e.s or deficiencies and make recommendations for' ccrrective acticn. In my viewe this change will benefit the NRC': n.anagement operations and aid Congress' oversight funct;on. 6 

                                                                - MCRE -

( ( - __m_____ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _

T 1 1 As a practical of Inspector and Auditor catter. (OlA) the till " transfers" the Office 

             -Office. However, by law,                      into the new Inspector General                                   !

appcinted_by the President.tne Inspector General must be 1 the Senate. with the advice and consent of With these projections.and can be removed only by Presidential action.  ; l able to thoroughly xi;nonduct or mismanagementinvestigate allegations of employeethe new Inspec 4 without fear of removal.. { This is no trivial matter. ) discovered evidence which suggestsThis Committee has l 3' between the NRC and licensees conce.1mproper communications ac t iv i t i es .' And the evidence further suggests that the NRCrning the NRC's rk has own. been totally incapable of policing such misconduct on its '4 One example illustrates the problem. problems at a nuclear power plant were leaked from a198 Commissioner's office to the licensee. In fact. a representative of the licensee distributed the leaked , gk distribution be limited, documents to his colleagues with the proviso that further i witbin the NRC." and I quote. "to orotect the source j t Incredibly, solid evidence of when the Commission was confronted with \ the possible leak from a Commissioner's l g office, the matter was not referred to OIA. Instead. Commission should be handled level officials within made a decision the Commissioner's office, that the matter and a minimal " investigation" followed with apparently little errort to make a record of such "ir.vestigation". I That episode alone demonstrates the need independent inspector general with the authority andfor a truly . expertise occurs. evento investigate if it potential wrongdoing wherever it j invcives a Commissioner's office. i I policies which have limitedMy second concern relates to recently adopted NRC t of. Investigations (OI) the effectiveness of the Office refer potential criminal matters to the Department ofto investigate external wr Justice. to strain the More NRC'sthanimportant anything else, such actions have served , l Department. and airinish Ccngress' relationship with the Justice  ! i and the the regulation of ccamer c.31 nuclear power.public's trust in !r I NRC is supposed to be a watchdog. not a lapdog. After all. the l 

                                                   -MORE-
j -

f S. projections908foraddresses the need for additional statutory the Office of Investigations (OI). codifies the recommendation of the Justice DepartmentThe bill to and be under the general supervision OIthat ,I conti'nue the to reportI believe. Commission. of and Commission. that this relationship best apparently so does the for vigorous detection wrongdoing and disclosure by NRC licensees and ofapplicants. deliberateserves the NRC's need I investigations to ensure thatThe bill also addresses the need for objectivity in O necessary, the Justice Department, the Commission and. if are fully informed of potential To criminal wrongdoing by licensees and applicants. this end. those providedOI is given certain authorities which parallel g- to independent inspectors general. These are intended to enhance OI's independence and improve the Commission's credibility as the regulator of health and safety in the commercial nuclear industry. In closing. I will say is not to malign any individualthat the purpose of this hearing gg create innuendo. Rather. I cm concerned asscciated with the agency or L cbcut what I see as timid limitations oncontrols externaloninvest internal affairs and t roubl es ome 16ations. I abilityMy tobill is intended achieve to restoremission. its regulatory confidence in the SRC's great I add that the Committee looks forward to hearing a deal of testimony this morning. from the five members of the Commission. including testiseny originally planned the hearing so that the testimeny Ir.e Committee on had g current NRC operations would first be presentec by other witnesses. f which would provide the Commissioners an { presentation toine_Jde opportunity to comments on such testimony in their the Committee.  ; CCamissioners have insisted However. because the { reluctantly assented to theiron testifying first. I have request. 6 30 - t i l l

r 

 ~l APPENDIX H

+ , t . ). ? I i r f I I

1: E' ' t ' STATEMENT OF JULIAN GREENSPUN, ESQ. BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS APRIL 9, 1987 My name is Julian Greenspun. Although I am now I in private practice, for the past fifteen years I have held a variety of federal prosecutor positions in the k U.S. Department of Justice. From 1979 through 1986, I I served as the Deputy Chief of Litigation in the General Litigation section of the Criminal Division. In this position I supervised thirty attorneys who prosecuted I I criminal violations of regulations promulgated by such agencies as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Mine Safety' Health Administration (MSHA), Occupational 'I i Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), a..i many others. I spent a significant portion of this period handling a supervising potential criminal cases related to the 4 commercial-nuclear industry, including certain aspects of the Three Mile Island criminal case. Based on my extensive experience with :ne NRC, I I can unequivocally state tnat i know of no o her regulatory or investigative agency, where senior agency offi:ials have'taken as many bizarre and seemingly deliberate actions t intended to hamper the investigation and prosecution of individuals and companies in the industry the agency , regulates. t t 1

h L I would.like to further explain this statement by giving the Committee two observations I have made about 

.      NRC.         First, the NRC is'in too many ways a captive of L

the. industry.it regulates. As a result, the agency has discouraged anyone inside the agency from finding wrongdoing , on the part of industry representatives. I also believe there has been continuous. improper pressure on the Office of Investigations (OI) by both industry and agency officials. I Second, the NRC has a history of failed leadership in the Office that handles internal investigations and audits. The Office of Inspector and Auditor (OIA) acts as if I it is part of the management " team" rather than an independent 

       " watchdog" for the agency.        On more than one occasion, CIA has. avoided identifying and recommending corrective action for serious wrongdoi.1 and mismanagement by senior agency officials, while focusing-its attention on less important issues.

In my view, S.908, the legislation recently introduced to amend the Inspector General Act of 1978 is absolutely necessary to combat these problems. The NRC would also benefit from additional Congressional oversight of its programs and activities. To assist the Committee, I am prepared to discuss several specific cases which I believe demonstrate the l

) , r [' 1 i NRC's unseemly protection of the industry from necessary 

      . investigations of deliberate wrongdoing. Unfortunately, I cannot reveal all of the details of these cases because some of the information is protected by grand jury secrecy restrictions, and because I have not been able to obtain                                           ;

1 copies of essential documents I left behind in my Department files to honor these restrictions. At the outset I can say that on more than one occasion I when wrongdoing was under investigation by the Department, senior NRC officials, and perhaps even some Commissioners had ex-parte meetings or discussions concerning the subject .( 1 matter of the investigation with those under investigation. j 

                                                                                                        ~

on at least one occasion, I personally requested that a senior NRC official not meet with the licensee under investigation. Despite my importuning, shortly thereafter the official engaged in a lengthy discussion with the target of the investigation. His action unnecessarily derailed criminal prosecution, ). a fact which I believe was known to those condue:Ing the meetings. One example of the NRC's obfuscation of a major criminal violation occurr~ed at the Three Mile Island plant. Furthermore, I believe this violation may have been a contributing factor to the eventual melt-down at that plant. NRC regulations required that if a reactor i I i 

                                                                                                          )

I < 3' was losing over one gallon of water per minute, the source { i of which was unknown, the source of the problem must be found or the reactor shut down. The utility's leak 0 rate tests for the 6 month period prior to the melt-down in March 1979, indicated that the reactor was continually I l losing more than one gallon of water per. minute. However, j i i the operators added water or hydrogen to the reactor, j 

                                                                                                          )

and falsified the computer data to create acceptable leak rates on paper. In addition, the results of " bad" 'I tests were destroyed. The NRC inspector, who also took part in NRC's post melt-down investigation, was aware of these unlawful actions at the time they occurred but I{ - failed to report them as violations. Needless to say, the plant was not shut down until the disastrous melt-down occurred. I After the melt-down, one honest TMI employee spoke at length to NRC employees on at least two occasions about the unlawful falsification and disposal of the I leak rate documents. This information was not passed on to the Justice Department. In fact, the NRC's initial investigation of TMI failed to even mention this information. !I See NUREG-0600, " Investigation Into the March 28, 1979 Three Mile Island Accident", By Office of Inspection and Enforcement.) Only when this " whistle-blowing" employee L______-__----. _ _ - - - _ - - - - - - _

l D'; Li4 was-scheduled to appear on television did the NRC report these allegations to the Justice Department. Subsequently, the allegations were verified by the independent analysis of experts and the testimony of an NRC inspector at the site. Despite this, certain senior NRC officials continued to insist that the utility's conduct at TMI was acceptable. i They adopted the utility's position that (1) nothing prohibited the addition of water to the reactor, (2) ,I: there was nothing wrong with the destruction of " bad" leak rate tests, and (3) it was difficult to tell a " good" Ltest from a " bad" test. It is my belief that these officials I I (. actively misled and even lied to the Justice Department  ! 1 in the TMI case. Perhaps most revealing, in a meeting with myself and other prosecutors, Mr. Stello, now Executive Director of the NRC, said that an investigation at TMI - I would be bad for the operators morale, and: "Nobody is 1 going to tell me how to treat ggt licensees." It is that attitude which must be dispensed with through changes ) such as this legislation. The end result of the TMI matter, of course, was the criminal conviction of the utility for violating 

               'NRC regulations. See United States of America v. Metropolitan Edison Company, CR. No. 83-00188. To demonstrate to i

L___________________

ff

. /

1' i- 

                                                         .               i Lf the Committee the depth of emotion felt by other Justice Department officials I will refer to the statement of U.S.' Attorney David-P. . Queen (now an Assistant Secretary of the' Treasury):
                             ~
                       "This notion that the NRC investigation --

whatever on' earth-that is -- is a."far superior L l vehicle to these proceedings today" is utter poppycock. I had not intended to address this issue, but I-cannot stand silent and allow the charade that has - been carried on by the NRC to be treated as anything but~that. We are the only institution since this accident' occurred that has made the slighest iamn effort 

               'to see this thing through to a conclusion. The NRC has not conducted any meaningful investigation; 4

to this day has used as a pretext the fact that the Grand Jury was conducting an investigation as a vehicle to avoid addressing its responsibilities. 5 As recently as six weeks ago, the NRC voted three to two to ignore what we are doing here today. When the United States Department of Justice brought this indictment, when I got sworn into office, this investigation was virtually dormant and had been' for some time. I'didn't see the NRC hustling to clean up the loose ends'and to make it known to the_public just j, what went on in 1978_or 1979. We...made a Herculean effort to get to the bottom of the facts, something that was not done by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

                                                             ~

4 As_recently as six weeks ~ago, as I was about to say, they voted basically to proceed with a Unit-1 license restart application irrespective of the

g outcome of these-criminal proceedings.

Now I realize this is of secondary significance to whether the Court ought to take a plea, but Mr. g Curran (TMI's lawyer) seems to raise the issue that we are not to worry if there are any loose ends here today because the NRC will take care of it. .g It is utterly delusional. The NRC doesn't care what is in the indictment; they have said so. They don't care wnat the outcome g of this case is; they have said so. They are going to' proceed and do whatever they want to do, and that is fine because I have no control over the

g 'NRC, nor does the Attorney General or anyone else in the Department of Justice. But the statement of the facts as read by me a short time ago are precisely the correct statement of what took place.

l

D' . i: 7:(. 

                                 .The'TMI case, among others, demonstrated'the real need for an independent Office of Investigation at the NRC, and the lengths to which s'ome NRC leaders will go t'o protect the industry."                             ,

From my perspective at the Department, OI functioned 

                     . fairly effectively, since it has sent.the Department
; 4 several dozen criminal-referrals.           Prior to OI, the Department received very few referrals from the NRC (see DOJ letter, Stephen J. Trott', Assistant Attorney General to Honorable Nunzio Palladino, NRC Chairman, March 18, 1985).           Despite OI's success, I detected continued pressure on OI to conform with the generally " hands-off" attitude if not
  'I                       policy of the NRC.          These pressures have lad to continuous attempts to con. trol OI.        One of the most sericus threats is the possibility that OI would be moved under.the control of the Executive Director for Operations, which is no less than putting the fox in the chicken coop.         Such an attempt was beaten back in 1985, with the support
                       .of-the Congress and the Department'of Just:.ce.             I believe Mr. Trott's letter is very important because it states:
                                          " Prior to and since the creation of OI, there has been some opposition as well as resistance within the NRC to the detection and disclosure of deliberate wrongdoing by NRC licensees... Senior personnel within 1-l the NRC who could affect or influence OI's ability to detect and report violations if it were realigned may have contributed to this problem."
                                            .The legislation proposed by Chairman Glenn would statutorily end the. possibility of moving OI. I believe i                                   this is a vital step to insure that OI will remain independent, and that wrongdoing will be detected.

The final example I would like to share with the

Committee does not concern a particular criminal case; it is the proposed Advisory Committee on the Rights of Licensees, which the NRC tried to establish in 1983.

I{ Those behind.the establishment of an Advisory Committee sought to notify companies in advance that investigations were being undertaken, and allow utility lawyers to attend l ~a ll meetings between NRC investigators and company personnel. These and other proposed restrictions would have gone well beyond what the Constitution and federal law require 1 in the way of due process for targets or subsections of investigations, who would, no doubt profit handsomely by insinuating themselves into interviews of employees. j l- This (effort, under the guise of an Advisory Committee), l would have carried the special relationship between the l NRC and its licensees to preposterous lengths. It was merely a front to protect the utility companies from _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ - . )

c- [I l '4 l disclosure of wrongdoing. DOJ and Congressional intervention thwarted this ruse, and similarly kept the OI from being placed under the NRC senior staff, and, helped persuade ( the Commission not to adopt a pro-licensee definition of material false statements, which was another remarkable episode. i One Commissioner summarized the position of those in the NRC who do not favor prosecutions when he told one U.S. Attorney that utilities should not be liable f for false statements unless they are made under oath in the course of giving testimony. of course, almost none of the NRC's contacts with utilities in the course ( of construction and operation of a nuclear plant are conducted under oath, so prosecution of false statement i violations would disappear. A high of ficial of the ' I NRC stated it another way: "I don't want to know about false statements. Is the hardware okay" These attitudes i are antithetical to restoring public confidence in the i NRC's regulation of commercial nuclear power. "ihile the Committee cannot legislate attitudes, it has proposed 

                                                                                      \

the needed changes in the way 01 would continue to report ' I internally, and how it will refer cases to the Department. OIA's Inadequacies The last issue I would like to discuss concerns 1 i l

I - . l the inadequacy of the NRC's Office of Inspector and Auditor, the putative inspector general's office. The leadership 'l of this office has been.a disaster. One Director of that office was effectively dismissed only after an embarrassing court decision cast doubt upon his integrity. The current ( head of the office has been the subject of a criminal referral to the Justice Department. The Department's i correspondence in that case casts doubt upon her integrity I and judgment. (See, Letter from J. Greenspun to S. Connelly, February 7, 1986; Letter from L. Lippe to H.'Plaine, March 21, 1986; and Letter from L. Lippe to L. Zech, Jr., October 1, 1986.) e j OIA has historically ignored wrongdoing by NRC staff which benefitted operators of nuclear plants. This indicates to me that they are not investigating matters of importance, or at a minimum, are not conducting these investigations in a sufficiently professional manner. 1 I am convinced that a statutory I.G. who has the i independence to look will find real wrongdoing at NRC, as other I. Gs. have found at their agencies. I believe there is a need for a statutory inspector general at i the NRC which would aggressively audit and investigate all of the NRC's programs and activities. Fundamentally., i j such legislation would ensure that all senior agency l 

                                                         ;a . ,

l officials who engage in inappropriate conduct or mismanagemer.: 1 l are within.the jurisdiction'of such an office. I also-believe theLlegislation addresses the problem of OI's-I 'i independence in a vital and necessary manner. Thank you for providing me with this opportunity to testify.. I believe the continued existence and absolutely 

                                                                ~

I necessary expansion of nuclear power is too important to the future of this country to allow its regulation in a haphazard fashion. As with the Banking and Securities I Industries, however, effective, vigorous and independent enforcement of the law is necessary to minimize the possibility of a disaster as well promote public confidence in the 3( system. We have no right to expect either with purported watchdogs who are supposed to work for the public, but in reality'are "in bed" with those whom they are charged with regulating. I f 

                                                                                                                        )

1 j - - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ b

i 0 { 1 i 

    $                                                                                  k APPENDIX I B

1 1 I g' i I I i l I i

j ,a e '  !!} , i l h!W.[p!!!!!]!!!AinIIlibiil h} LIiamuli,a  : l '! 

                                                                                  ~

o > 1

5lE!EE u

I Ei u! if !!!! lhl m! llih! il h l 1 11P17 d llli IP!! 

                                                          'Ilj!j!!!i
                                                      '}llilII!!N$]jjjjiy dj]ip      .

d} n!IIll!Ili

l EljepaHa$ ming)TehW i . Deltas.Tenas fates,. Aent 10. les? 

                                                                                        -                           O 1Cla S                                                                                             . _ . _ m. _.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     . . ~ . - - . -
                                                                                                                                                                                                                              -         ..~, .e accused of s _.

1 M1 On UCt -- 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          . m.s ..      -. . re
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    \
                                                                                                .                                m                                                                                                                  -
                                                                                                                                              ~.

t. 

                                                                                                                     .                                                        ,, ,.              ,u.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ~ ...
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        -a
                                             -                   .                    _5._s,,_,T,         ..

5= Testimony pog,nts.:tg  : I. 9._.:,. =..m..E i P p.lE: 5.E NRC intimida, , tion'. .m._

~s:FiE hWO .
                           -                              ..                         m,a,emsens      f.e.w.m.y.
                                                                                        -                . mm. .

,t - .r m-- e- 

                                                                                     ----- == = ,:::::     -

s. 

                                                                                                                             .e, ,, e,         , ,.

a.m t8 8.'*

  • mar"-'*"

a,=---- 8 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              '"m"=""
                                                                                                                             ..e           .               --                        . . - -

F.;, g ,,. . "':l"'ga.---a -a .. . .c,,,, =,,; ,:l;;;' ;a,:;g,= 

                                                                                                  =====                      = .".,. "".*:."ll"
                                                                                                                                        ~               "s.'Mlll         ti;.                    -.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ,, ,, ,,m,s            s r               .. +, i                               .-a - ==          =                                                                                                                                              :
                                                                                     -----                                                                                                                             :: ::='m              :l',* ,;',,,,,.,
                                                                                          - - - -                                 es               m        .                       -                ~,                            ,,,,,,,m,
                                                                                      .. c a .                =                                                          ..r.                  . . .e
       .                                                                .                                                        .,                                                         .m             .         .,,,,,,,,,,,,_,,,

s g. .. - _. , . ,- c- 

                                                                                             .             -s . as          _a c ,.. .
                                                                                                                                                                        ,, m s.,                      ..

t 

                                                                                                                            -s
                                                                                                      - - = =                             -.,c                                   ..

f.- . 

                                                                                    -                       = =                  .s        -

j ,, /+4 I The N W MM 8= UE* Whl.h 9. shag Wte has he.t es fe. 

                                                                                                                                                                        ,,,.,_.s.
                                                                                    .==r a== .w= an"c             =                                                         .qtas a.ampes CW8 8 e me g.ed W een. evloa.st.i.ssap        Wu.e W=e,
f. . .ans.

mm -4.m - Jumit 

                                                                                                         - --W'=**=#

arem af f*A 8SC llmand 88 E'" p 

                                                                                                                           .ha.se r.ue B.y .h.e.7ssessme WebeF
                                                                                                                                                                        .m.a.ma.g auf.M. --SAs .48
                                                                                                                                                                               ,t.W.th.e
                                                                                                                                                                        .les.Mhs       .r.

egg aus e. .am> 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                      , c, e=

g"$ pua.m.mABI N 88 O WaSam g me h.Als.es.us .ma 7* . ==========s===* ====s= m e.,e Asles m.d 4. swa .se W Cammerte Pt.t and . 

 ;                                                                                         -. . ==a.            =                                    p-n. ins
a. margo E*Ekse A an en n=== ase - ' , . 'i e u,..
                                                                                             ==

k 

                                                                                      . see -
                                                                                   ===.e = = ==a=

ft.msnni assig as .sumRF _== m, e == 

                                                                                                                                             -a.e               s=>
                                                                                                                                                                                   -,.s .c                                  .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                               ,s                    . 't
  • nets.gmen t ens, e tis gang a g to. 4eet it esteL* tis.gp assa.y e. .,r.asN m.

K m.E.n e mID, taasesas he. as peg sospe med ps;se ages., had esepend Suk as.fts game of.NGC O.a.8 8 

                                                                                        , 2.a Date gag,,.

Camansks Sta 

                                                                                                                                                                                ,,e a.gue er H4' a.t s

se es.t.BpfW dIMB e a geau. gsrha.ed a mu.ssme.ss um m s.ma sepa.a ft,e'.no 2 8 ruseefbsfue lash .sa6m.e skimaes he .e e'amam.d* maassa.gw esi as e as e. etJ.E asi es,s tus s. Ell b e.mus.el,.fsemus I.aB 8.FWIEW g g.my,gg Emb mo es"m4 C4see er. asp t es.einset eraseenhusk gym amapeeps.ese.8 ts mp assa m as suusr3 aanmaste ar.wasgu.seesist vg.erm y mamaryeru. I essec go.asgge.e aus suse $ t.a.re 

                                                                                         =               ,pg,gg               ~

shant 6 SL hr 48 h 8D I e 9st ns I e user.s.se 

                                                                                                                                                 ==et sees    ==     mas         W            t 8 "8                 oralto @ he DEC,
                                                                                                                                                                       .em em.                            sa e.g.st was asestau The amasaf to new.se              any or ddmom amar e.BuRE M.==
                                                                                                                                                                                        . a.s.r u."t.sen  sat             i.e'sms has. U
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   , e n.           ,, ,,

l l

  • a.as af Giap get
                                                                                                                                                                          *yg.ps 3D # h Ef W W 88 as se.tsee af to es  Sunes prus          .6
                                                                                                                        .h.s.e                  g.ur p.esus t.as .maa.ag             alk 4R.y                                              hr.941h B.h mu "9.am= = -a ce= ==
                                                                                                                              .                                                    .ammesy        IMAIWW 4                        .

k. semaspa .SP. Ikas. s.mmeens es'D 9 mamp s W aan.*uns,W tes 

                                                                                                                                                                                     -ar = ===

g aggEHHmEEB ERIs a g. 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ,.,g.B.M g m hp.., ,e,s.&.s.,

h et.& parts e . 

                                       ,                                                                                ar.m.er
                                                                                                                        .          =- n-m       =a  e .=   ms*

w.ta.r.e.st nesma y= a,e eutenen ==== =====.ha gg,, g, gg ,,e,,f.pe., 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ,g,g
                                                                                                                              .a .          -= = = ame
                                                                                                                        .to .4puusy piwuse mis et                    =m,.s..s.u.m.mame       sem.,te ===-                               am f

as.sf a tasa re hose t.sm te md er amemas.es - er esar> genegg* m ags ges.p .m.aa,.a.ns.e gshe St. 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ,.           n se i mm.es-C .

ment pani amm.ys a.m.meempe,t 

                                                                                                                                                                                                .r. sums            he        m gas, ,,,,,auf.

e 

                      .(                         ,

e*pa.ur, es .ene. rest. en eag 5mGARD8E =W g ham.am.e,s,s.n e em e a fu.I E 840 es as abib F ef W .ue to,pu,s,.mu,d,e es emmes.e m.=see-ses.s.ec am e.mmes g,ssansanagnostamemame 8'" 88al4E 

                                                                                                                                                 = =as a.                e             W8EBs3 gn,,      , ,,            .

t auer samme 

                                                                                                                                                                     .es.sgase.m.,assmemam                                      ens superassums         uia.n glig g,g            as es au te i
                                                                        .                                              #8.pt amo                 er gue I.S          gen.s . aus auteus ti In              e
                                                                                                                            ~488 8 guma a er sue. se
                            ,r          ,           .                                                                  amme tue fus alum e -                         hr& SMBEE O 8888U i       ,
                                                                                                                         -=e == == i te.s.s.e .h.e.he.t tesess en 88 mcemp 8.a="='*"=8    ====

W 84.e.e.ug tse auqu.S a s i ses e e suW y,sm4 g ME888088'8' 

                                   'b g                       4 ll.                                                   .

t 

                                                                                      -[!!jnq!A;jg!!jjjjg a iuj;in                    n i.e 5'i!      kk I lpll        !      .

' 9bd . 

                                                                                                       ,,, l. ,l . .. ..,{I
-4 3a s4                  ill!!Ild Miu !a k           i
                                                                                                             !i!!il d!djjlillili!Ij!jf!i ji8 jlidlituhnli!

qi,mc4;,,..p.oi 

'                                                                                                    j                         I flilibdntd.llijkhi 3a    -                      7 l}

1 o y,  ; syity sy. _ a a t 3 J'* h 

   -,-------,-.-.------,--,-..---.,--,---,,---------r, O

z i smigg ij"lotipt i, I I 5 4jlllj!!!!!uiif nij !l 

                                                                                                               !!I!Il1 Ilgi3!pi:
                                                                                   $ }Il! 1i                 eljjlNi!

l1

l. jlnh!!!!il i niiliillel i

4 bI... . . k .g. - {= l 

                                                                                                         -l1ll E W 1l}[ilji 6                   ..,

t z c I 

                                                .um i l-g.14;   .

z.- 

                                                                                                         -       )laa u      Jgj !i!"i 211 Ph,j 4                              "fjD'ijli i Pl.              -

{jj jjlhi! jf Il!i i N E i 

                                                                                     !)!1$d!1          !!i j}}
                                                                                                                     !v.n!

i l 

                                                                     ~

e'!!i!$II,1l1 j 

                                                                                  $I!IjNIONll4         II-           Oi!ay!
                                                                                                                        !O!
                                                       ..                 A

I l l ) ( WASHINGTON POST MAY 4, 1987 ' i;' ' 

                                                                                                ~    ~

c ii ReactorLeak 1 g I 15 NUCLEAR Reguistory Comunission has him to look into it. Mr. Roberts guaried his staff, 

              ..he.pseinend W for safety en- drew denials, reported the desimis to the other
      .         Innement. Sea. John Giman, who takes an enmminamaars and let the questima drop.

gi stuseetis andeer assetess,,d. ene unnatherised has home purseme for When Sea. Glena looked ines this incident last ) 

     .essesgl.weshe.the                                         amanth, he asked Mr. Roberts Ier aR Ms papers denW              his years age, This' substbg to it, Mr. Roberts rustet that he had s g
tesif een has hepartant them the throws < thans away. Then th>E& attorney, fbeth and passhe reaction Joseph E.diGeneva,wthisMeamoewas as as' Gpsen has asBad for the opening an investigation. Short sterward Mr.'

K Reharts, ons & the Roberts amid that he had Iseq$ Sp aspers and see W and unfor*=ma* the samt them to the sensaan . .- ..  ;,.3 asenterissigt." The leak is stiE a mysesen and them's an' , h 'esitr 1985, sesr' a 'eneversation with a evidsene that Mr. Roberts had anything no ds g( asuspaper suporter shout construction defects in with it. As for the amusing papera, it's equally a sensest being butt is.f ah een member c6 possible that they were innocemek lost and inno-th61AC's staf duesisted a nnems to the comuni> cently found. The atriking thing is the careless aissues. Whhis dire, it was in the heads d the response of the coni- and Mr. Roberts in ressear's seest,1848e South Services d New particular. The background to IMs episode is a , odeses. Several weeks later the NBC gm the sharp concern, not limited to Sam Glens and his , mens te klides South legaty and aboveboard, Governmental Affa}s r a-h that the NRC's ] he the issk gave the utility valuable tinne to internal investigations process *m innumelantly todealwithit. energetic, and insufficient lF S ' ;"=^ to pro. 

                 .nsak reseniend a escret unti 1985, when an tect the coauninsum's integrity.The leak clearly NBC inapsenne came across the enemo in a fBe in shows that somebody at the IIRC was working RSide 8estk's e5ses. Attached as it was a note much too closely and coaly with the utihty for the I         kom a BSids seulk eSdelasquesting h public's safety. But when it lemmed of the leak,,

tisAty 'to pseenst the esses within the NRC.* ' the NRC did very little, and Mr. Roberts, to The insposter estEnd the thsedeirman of the whom the chairman referred the question, did reamens,snoe martines on aimant nothing and then lost te papers. Hat 

   . ihm.'                  _ . .to i=Renee that it had passed would be slack performance in any seancy. At the t                    i..    .
                   ., . a ~..

l

A l 1 - I' i 4 J APPENDIX y i l

N .t ; , TES-* PONY OF BEN B.. HAYES. 

    ,I                                                           ~DIRECTOR, 0FFICE 0F INVESTIGATIONS l'                                                           ' UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY' COMMISSION             ,

My name is Ben B. Hayes. -I was appointed the first permanent director of the NRC 0ffice of Investigations (01) in February;1983. I came to the NRC after 17 4 l years of criminal investigative experience with the Internal . Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation Division. My last assignment prior to coming to the NRC I 

                ' was'as Chief:of Criminai Investigations for the Cleveland District which covers Northern Ohio.

4 I On March 26, 1987, I was deposed under oath by_Mr. Stephen Ryan, Counsel for the Majority in the Senate Government Governmental Affairs Committee. My appearance

g t at that. deposition was as a result of a written request from Senator Glenn, the i Committee Chairman-rather than on my own initiative. I subsequently was afford-ad an opportunity _to review the transcript of my deposition. Over this past weekend ! was infonned that the Committee would like me to summarire the infor-g

_ mation that I provided during the-deposition, and sponsor this summary as my testimony today. I was not able to complete my review of-this testimony until I returned from leave yesterday. I_would like to emphasize that the opportunity to provide my testimony, either during my deposition or here today, is not a privilege that I particularly sought. To the contrary, it was thrust ~upon me. lg s.- Nonetheless, the information that I have provided to the Committee Staff, and which I am summarizing today, is truthful and as accurate as I can make it. g-O! is the NRC organization responsible for the conduct of all investigations 

                         . involving NRC ' licensees, licensee vendors, and other persons or entities over which NRC has jurisdiction. The office is staffed with investigators having a broad range of experience gained with other Federal investigative agencies such
,g.                          as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Internal Revenue Service, the Naval Investigative Service, and the Army Criminal Investigations Division. OI investigations that uncover or document wrongdoing that appears to violate criminal statutes are referred to the U.S. Department of
                          ' Justice. Investigative reports are also sent to the NRC official who requested                         l the OI investigation so that the *iRC ray take any necessary actions to protect the public health and safety.

3 g There is a strong feeling within the industry and certain quarters of the Cc - missicn to " decriminalize" 01 investigations, i.e. not prosecute them criminal-4 I ly. There are significant and important persons in the Comission, both at the I staff and.Comission level, who desire far less emphasis on criminal prose-cutions. During the years that I have been Director 01 has been in a constant battle to maintain its independence. There are people within the NRC, includ-g ing some on the Commission itse'f, that want to decrease the level of confronta- l tion that exists between 01 and the nuclear industry. 

                                      ' MID-SOUTH DOCUMENTS i

I have been asked to describe the circumstances surrounding the discovery by 01 investigators of a sensitive NRC document in the files of a senior official of Louisiana Power and Light (LP&L), the utility licensed to operate the Waterford g Nuclear Plant near New Orleans, La. During the course of an investigation at Waterford in March 1985, one of my investigators found this document in the personal files of the Vice President-Nuclear of LP&L. The NRC document is an internal NRC memorandum prepared by the Technical Assistant to then Commissioner Victor Gilinsky which had been addressed to the then Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement. The memorandum dealt with allegations of collusion between the NRC and LP&L, as well as cracks in the reactor base mat. The OI investigator who found the documents, Mr. William J. Ward, immediately recog-g nized the importance of the documents, initialed and dated the reverse of them for evidentiary purposes, and brought them to my attention. I noted the following characteristics of the documents. First, the internal NRC g memorandum appeared to have core directly out of Commissioner Thomas Roberts' office or files in view of the initials on it. Second, the memorandum was at-tached to a transmittal memorandum on the letterhead of Middle South Services. Inc. which bore the date of June 15, 1983. It was addressed to Mr. John J. t Cordaro and was sent from a Middle South official by the name of George E. White. The memorandum was marked " confidential" with that tenn underscored. The brief text of that memorandum states, " Attached is a memorandum received from sources inside the NRC regarding Waterford cuality assurance matters. This memorandum is for your information but I would hope that you would limit its distribution to protect the source within the NRC".

d - I felt that the documents indicated that Middle South (the holding ccmpany fer LP&L) had a source directly inside the NRC, especially inasmuch as the documents I i came from the files of Commissioner Roberts. Particularly startling was the j fact that the document was received in Commissioner Roberts office on Thursday, June 9,1983, and was transmitted by Mr. White of LP&L only four workino days later, June 15, 1983. The memorandum was important as it dealt with a base mat

( issue which was under active review by the NRC staff, and that it reports collusion with the licensee on the part of NRC personnel, a very serious alle-gation in my opinion.

ll The document also notes that LP&L may have withheld information on the base mat cracks from the NRC. OI subsequently initiated an investigation of that issue. For a licensee to know that the NRC was discussing the issues of possible collusion and the base mat issue would give them a tremendous advantage. This

g is an example of someone within the NRC tipping a licensee of a potential inves-tigation. There have been instances where senior managers have tipped the fact -
      ~

that they intended to refer a matter to OI for investigation, or advised licens-ees as to how to respond to an official inquiry by the Commission. 1( ' After leaving copies of the document at the Waterford Site, we returned to Wash-ington and consulted with other members of the OI Headquarters staff. Having concluded that the document in question came from the Office of Corrnissioner i Roberts, based on various markings contained on the documents. I saw two options: take it to the Director of the NRC Office of Inspector and Auditor, or take it to the Chairman of the NRC. I elected to take the matter to the Chair-man who at that time was Nunzio J. Palladino. l 

                     .' met with the Chairman and the Chairman's Executive Assistant to share the dccument with them, and to explain how it came into the possession of OI. Chair-man Pelladino asked a few questions about the circumstances, including whether I

( had discussed the matter with Corrnissioner Roberts. The Chairman asked me for my recommendation and I responded that the matter should be referred to the Director of OIA. On March 14, 1985, I received a one page memorandum from the Chairman that was hand delivered to my office. That memorandum directed me to discuss the matter with Commissioner Roberts as soon as possible, and stated that the Chairman had given Commissioner Roberts the copies of the documents that I had provided him. The memorandum also stated that the reorganization

O 4. plan of 198C provides that supervision of the personnel within each Comission-I er's office is that Commissioners' responsibility. That menorandum did not di-rect me to refer the matter to OIA. i The next day, March 15, 1985, I and Mr. William Ward, Assistant to the Director of 01, met with Commissioner Roberts and Commissioner Roberts' Legal Assistant Mr. James Cutchin, in Commissioner Roberts' office. Commissioner Roberts held up what was apparently his file copy of the memorandum in question. The memo-randum that he showed me appeared to be identical to the copy we found at the Waterford Site. Commissioner Roberts indicated that he had inquired into the matter, talked to all members of his staff, and was convinced that no one on his staff had sent the documents; he suggested the documents might have been ob-tained by janitorial personnel or perhaps part time help that had been working in his office. Commissioner Roberts asked me why I did not personally bring the matter to him. I replied that I thought my first obligation was to notify the 

 ,                Chaiman.

Casunissioner Roberts then requested that I send him all copies of the documents in 01 files. I advised Commissioner Roberts that I had taken notes during my prior discussion with the Chairman. Commissioner Roberts then stated he wanted  ! all copies of my notes as well. I complied with Commissioner Roberts' in-structions. As we were leaving his office, Commissioner Roberts comented that 

  , , ,       he would probably see this on the Hill.

We assumed that Commissioner Roberts was referring to his upcoming confirmation hearings which would be held prior to ' his reappointment as an NRC Commissioner. After reflecting on the manner in which the matter had been handled. I elected to annotate the March 14, 1985, recorandum to reflect Commissioner Roberts' request for the documentation relat-ir.9 to this matter. This annotation was made by me on March 18, 1985, at which time it was countersigned by Mr. Ward. I have been specifically asked what I would have done had I been in charge of the investigation of this incident. I would have interviewed the Middle South and LP&L officials involved in this matter under oath, to include all recipients of the document. I would have placed Commissioner Roberts' staff under oath, ard have questioned each member about the extent of their knowledge concerning this memorardum. In short, I would have conducted a very extensive and exhaus-tive investigation to determine who was leaking information to a licensee.

) J The leaked docurent was definitely not the type of document that is publicly released. I would have objected if the document were proposed to be released to i I the licensee within 7 days of it being provided to the NRC Staff. I have never before seen an internal document of this nature given to a party at-interest, oither in this or any other agency where I have worked,  ! ) In response to specific questions during my deposition, I acknowledged that l Commissioner Roberts' office has been, in general, a continual critic of 01 l 

        ' cperations. Commissioner Roberts has raised proposals before the Commission that would limit in some respects Ol's ability to initiate investigations, to make referrals to the Department of Justice, or otherwise to conduct the busi-ness of OI.

Another incident involved a second Middle South utility, Grand Gulf Nuclear '

Station in Mississippi. The then Regional Administrator of the NRC Region II Office in Atlanta, Georgia, or his immediate staff, reviewed draft documents that the licensee proposed to submit to the NRC. On detecting the fact that the d
cuments appeared to contain a material false statement, the Regional Adminis- ,

3 trator or his staff told the licensee to go back and resubmit the document be-cause it would be considered a material false statement. TVA PROBLEMS B Another incident occurred that appeared to be an improper contact between the , NRC's Executive Director for Operations (EDO), Victor Stello, and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Manager of Nuclear Power, Mr. Steven White. The E00 is 3 essentially the chief operating officer of the NRC. Most of the day to day ( activities of the NRC to include inspection, enforcement. licensing, and other regulatory activities are done under his general supervision. The general sub- 

           #ct of that contact was one of the major issues being investigated by O! cono g

cerning the well publicized difficulties regarding the TVA nuclear program, i By way of background, in December 1985, NRC Congnissioner Asselstine was being briefed by NRC Region Il personnel as well as TVA representatives on the status of the Watts Bar Nuclear Power Plant in Tennessee. I am told that during that , briefing, members of the TVA Nuclear Safety Review Staff reported that the plant was not built in accordance with NRC requirements; specifically, that the Watts i i

Bar quality assurance program was not in conformance with the requirer ents of i Appendix B to 10 CFR 50. Subsequent to this briefing, the NRC sent a January 3, t 1986, letter to TVA asking TVA's official position as to whether Watts Bar was in compliance with Appendix B, and allowed TVA 7 days to respond in, writing. The NRC letter was very important. If TVA were to have indicated that the plant was not in compliance with Appendix B, then the NRC Staff might have issued an immediate stop work order to halt construction. It was also noteworthy that Watts Bar was very close to licensing; in fact, they were anticipating licensing as early as April 1986. I I was informed by Harold Denton, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, l that Mr. Stello had initiated a telephone call in his presence while the two of f them and other NRC staff were returning from a meeting at the Comission offices on H Street in Washington D.C.. Mr. Denton related that the telephone call was j to Mr. Steven White, the TVA Manager of Nuclear Power, and that the conversation  ! dealt with TVA's proposed response to the NRC's January 3 letter. Mr. Denton was very uncomfortable with that because of his view that White should respond without any advice from the Commission. Mr. Denton told me that James Taylor, Director, IE, was also present in the van during that telephone call. I then k w2nt to Mr. Taylor and asked him about it. Mr. Taylor confirmed that the call took place. I was very concerned on learning of that phone call as 0I had ongoing investiga-8- tions regarding TVA, and one investigation in particular had addressed the issue of whether a former TVA manager had lied to the NRC concerning readiness of Watts Bar for fuel load. There would be no reason for a licensee not to try to get a reading from the NRC as to how best to handle a very difficult situation such as a reply to that letter; however, in my view, it would be improper for-the NRC to give it. Mr. Denton indicated that Mr. White appeared to be shopping for advice as to how to reply to the January 3 letter. At the time of the tele-phone conversation, the NRC had not received a response to the letter. Such a response was not received until March 20, 1986. l Goth Mr. Denton and Mr. Taylor felt the NRC should be dealing at arms length with TVA on such a critical issue. Because of my concerns about the possible impropriety of the telephone call, concerns that were heightened by the obvious concern expressed by Mr. Denton and Mr. Taylor, I elected to discuss the matter

-i . with Chairman.Palladino. Chairran Palladino requested that I take the matter to f Ms. Sharon Connelly, the Director of OIA, which I did that same day. After reporting the matter to 0IA, I was deposed by investigators from that office shortly after making the initial report to Ms. Connelly. I subsequently read the OIA report concerning this matter and noted that the report consisted I of my deposition and that of Mr.Stello, neither of which was taken under oath, l It also consisted of memoranda of interview rather than depositions of Messrs. Taylor and Denton. The thrust of Mr.Stello's deposition was that he advised White not to give a definitive response to the January 3,1986 NRC let- 'l ter which, in fact, asked for a very definitive response. The March 20, 1986 TVA response was not, in fact, definitive, i.e., it did not provide a clear yes or no answer. Rather, it reported that Mr. White found that I there was no " pervasive" breakdown in the quality assurance program at Watts 

   ~

Bar. The OIA report on this matter concluded that there was no misconduct by NRC officials. 8{ My OIA deposition was taken four days after my initial report to Ms. Connelly (April 11,1986), but Mr Denton and Mr. Taylor were not interviewed until the middle of June 1986. Mr. Stello was not deposed until July 30, 1986. In my view, this was a very serious, sensitive matter that deserved an expeditious I review and investigation, and that especially considering the stature of { Mr.Stello in the NRC structure, an investigation should be quick, complete, and { thorough. l 8 Judging from the report, no one from TVA was interviewed regarding any aspect of I the investigation. During my Committee deposition, in response to Mr. Ryan's cuestion, I acknowledged, that I would have placed Mr. White under oath and 

                             'have taken a deposition concerning that telephone call. I agreed that a fair 8

characterization of this matter was that a very senior NRC official was in con- 

                                                                                                                )

tact with the licensee in a way that creates the impression that the official tipped the licensee as to how they should answer a particular inquiry that was also the subject of an 01 investigation.

l 0 . . 

                                                               ~8' THREATS BY STELLO_

l In the latter part of 1985 -- late November or early December -- I-< net with l Chairman Palladino to give him an update on ongoing investigations involving l TVA. Responding to the Chairman's questions I offered my impression that the Comission's handling of the TVA matter appeared to be disorganized, and that NRC had not in fact set forth a comprehensive program to identify the problems 

                 , at TVA, much less a program geared toward resolving these issues.

Consequently, I recomended that the Commission appoint a senior executive to take the responsibility over the TVA project and provide that executive with the necessary resources. Later that day, I provided a similar briefing to then Commissioner, now Chairman, Zech. I subsequently drove to a management meeting at the NRC Region I Office at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. The next morning the management meeting commenced under the leadership of then EDO, Mr. William Dircks. That morning, Mr.Stello came up to me, and standing face to face and i shaking his fist in my face said, " Ben if what you said comes to pass I'm going to get you." At first I thought Mr.Stello was kidding, and I responded in a { jovial tone, "What are you doing Vic, threatening me?" Mr. Stello's reply was "I don't care how long it takes, I'm going to get you." I believe Mr.Stello was dead serious. A little later, Mr. Dircks, the EDO, met with me in a small conference room; in the presence of Mr. Denton, Mr. Taylor, and the Region II Administrator, Mr. Dircks said, "All right, Ben, what in the hell did you tell the Commissioners .I because we've got to do damage control". I informed Mr. Dircks that I provided the Chairman and Commissioner Zech my personal' views as they requested, that I report to the Chairman, and when asked for my views, I intend to give them to  ; hin. The threatening incident and the conversation with Mr. Dircks took place on December 5, 1985. Within thirty days, Mr. Dircks retired, and Mr. Stello became the Acting EDO. Subsequent to that meeting, there have been changes that affect the way in which O! operates. One of these actions was the establishment of the Investigation Review Board (IRB). The purpose of the IRB is basically twofold, to establish national priorities, and to assure that Staff investigative requests are I I

7 - - l warranted. The IRB has been in existence for five months. Prior to the f establishment of the IRB,. Regional Administrators . could refer suspected wrongdoing matters directly to 01. This is no longer the case. A Regional 

                                                                                                          ~

Administrator can no longer request'an investigation without IRB concurrence. The practical effect of the IRB has been a dramatic downt rn in the number of I wrongdoing matters referred to 01 for investigation. There have been a total of 8 requests for investigation in a five month period since the board has been in operation. In contrast, for a comparable five month period just one year earlf-or, OI received 42 referrals for investigation. For example, as of the date of my deposition, one of the five NRC Regional offices, Region I, King of Prussia. l 

                    ' Pennsylvania, had not submitted a single request for investigation since the initiation of the IR8.

O I agree with Commissioner Asselstine's statement that the IRB appears to be a 

                                      ... thinly veiled attempt by the EDO to control 01 by controlling what referrals are made, and thus what O! investigates." After Mr. Stello expressed the view                  !

that cases were being referred to 01 that should not have been, I wrote the ED0 d (( and asked for a list of such cases. Mr. Stello's response was a memorandum that basically stated that he didn't have the resources to answer that question. I failed to see what the problem was that the staff was attempting to resolve. Another change was SECY 85-369 which placed major limitations upon the NRC staff in its referral of matters to 01. That document establishes priorities for conducting investigations, defines wrongdoing, and provides a threshold for staff requests for investigations. I believe the effect of that threshold has 0 been to direct the staff to make their own internal evaluation in a way usurping the ultimate goal of an O! investigation, i.e., the determination of whether the matter is or is not willful. The staff's interpretation of this threshold ap-pears to be that they are required to gather evidence indicating willfulness rather than merely reporting wrongdoing. This appears to have " chilled" surfac- 

                                                                                                                        ~

ing of wrongdoing items to 01. It is the role of the investigator to determine l whether or not a particular act was done willfully. Other limitations exist on the authority of OI to initiate investigations re-garding the character and competence of licensees. To begin an_. investigation solely relating to those issues, O! is required to make a recommendation to the

Comission as to whether the investigation is warranted, and then be guided by a { majority vote of the Comission as to whether or not to open the case. There is one instance where the Commission declined to authorize an inves-tigation of this nature that involved senior officials at the Wolf Creek Gen- < Grating Station operated by Kansas Gas & Electric. On Dec. 24, 1984, I wrote the Comission and outlined certain character issues pertaining to two senior Kansas Gas & Electric managers. Among the allegations described in that memoran- 

                     ' dum were senior officials of the licensee ordering licensee employees to break into the car of a licensee employee in order to remove files; sexual harass-ment; and " blackballing" by the person responsible for the quality assurance       i program at Wolf Creek.       The latter involved an allegation that the official prevented a former employee who had raised safety concerns from getting a job 01sewhere in the industry. The Comission subsequently voted 4 to 1 not to authorize the investigation.      (Commissioner Asselstine desired an inves-       j e                         tigation.)

i There were other instances of attempts to curtail O! authority, especially OI's ( authority to self initiate investigations. A recent example of this was the Fcbruary 13, 1987 memorandum from Commissioner Roberts to the balance of the Commission which criticizes certain investigations initiated by OI. Commissioner Rcberts' memorandum recomends to the Commission, that in the event that I did  ! m not provide a satisfactory explanation, the Commission should. "... seriously censider whether organizational and management changes are necessary to assure that O! functions as we intend it to function, and that its activities are ade-quately supervised and controlled." It is my understanding, based on his memorandum, that Commissioner Roberts be- l lieves that OI no longer has the right to self-initiate investigations on wrongdoing matters identified or reported by NRC employees. As noted in our March 20, 1987, response to Commissioner Roberts' memorandum, a response that we I prepared at the direction of the Commission, I feel OI must retain the ability i to self-initiate investigations regardless of the origin of the allegation. I On one occasion, Commissioner Roberts' legal assistant criticized 01's self initiation of a recent hospital case, and stated during a telephone conversation with me, "Quite frankly, Ben, you may have comitted a material false statement

l. l0:: - - 11 ~ before the Commission". (I of course did not.) I took the comment seriously, especially when I subsequently learned the legal assistant voiced the same cen-1 cern to a member of the NRC Office of the General Counsel. Nonetheless, I be-lieve that O! did the right thing, especially in the particular case-in contrc-l versy which was a blatant example of not allowing my office to conduct a i thorough, aggressive investigation into some identified false documents. 't That was not the first time Commissioner Roberts' assistant has suggested to 01 

                     , staff members that their jobs may be in jeopardy. In one such incident, the he told Roger Fortuna, the Deputy Director of 01, that Ol's management could be i                               replaced if "we or I" ever were to find OI not abiding by the "will" of the Comission.

One way of controlling O! would be to remove its independent status as a Comis-ll sion-level office and make it instead report to the EDO. There have been sever-al Comission initiatives- to move O! under the EDO. One such effort resulted in a two to two tie with one Commissioner, then Chairman Palladino, abstaining. The effect of such a move would be to remove Ol's ability to go directly to the Commissioners; rather, O! would have to go through the EDO. A strong letter l( [ from the Department of Justice opposed any movement of 01 under Staff. The proposed movement of 0! under the EDO was of great concern to my staff and I l( because we do not feel that we could exercise the independence, the thorough-ness, and completeness that we feel a professional Federal investigator must have to do a competent job were we to become a Staff office. If the Commission is going to have an investigative arm. I believe that investigations of I wrongdoing matters must be supervised directly by the Commission rather then the f,C.C Staf f. All cases involving potential violations of 18 USC 1001 have to be given to the t Connission for consultation before being released to the Department of Justice. Moreover, all referrals to the Department of Justice require consultation with l the NRC Office of the General Counsel. In response to Mr. Ryan's question, I agreed that in disclosing these investigative results within the agency to the Commissioners and their staff and Office of the General Counsel, there would be a possibility that this information could get back to the licensee, especially I in light of the situations where such tips have been made by NRC in the past. L_______________________.- -

l l I wculd like to e :hasize, however, that although this is, of course, a pos. sibility, I do not have any indication that it in fact has ever occurred on a lg referred matter. l l The Commission has the right to tell O! not to refer cases to the Department of Justice. The OI investigation related to the D.C. Cook Nuclear Plant, was referred to the Department of Justice. That investigation focused on willful naterial false statements made to NRC by the licensee regarding compliance with j 

                             - NRC fire protection guidelines. At the conclusion of that investigation, I ex-ercised the authority I then had to refer matters directly to the Department of   1 Justice. I no longer have that authority.

1 The completed report of investigation was provided the NRC Staff. The Staff de-clined to make a decision whether the false statement was willful. They took it to the Commission. In one of the meetings subsequently held regarding the D.C. Cook matter, the Cossnission voted 3 to 2 that it was a material false statement, but then voted 3 to 2 that the statement was not willful. I recall that during that meeting, there was a discussion on the record as to perhaps "unreferring" ( the matter from the Department of Justice. Apparently the Department of Justice disagreed with the Commission as they sought and obtained criminal indictments of the utility officials and the utility itself regarding the material false 

                                                            ~

statements issues. These indictments were recently dismissed on statute of limitations grounds. It was subsequent to that investigation and the controversy surrounding the DC Cook referral that OI was required to send any O! reports that we wished to refer to the Department of Justice to the Office of the General Counsel, and if they involved material false statement issues, to the Cocenission as well, prior to such referrals. The Commission has specifically directed O! not to conduct or perfect criminal investigations. Nonetheless, I believe criminal prosecution of those licensees who chose to deliberately violate Comission rules and regulations would have a deterrent effect on the conduct of other licensees. Notwithstanding these re-straints, however, the Commission has authorized technical and investigative support at the request of the Department of Justice once the matter has been referred.

APPE?IDIX K i k J l I a i i l l l _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - . \

); 1 STATEMENT OF H. SRANNON PHILLIPS p BEFORE.THE SENATE COMMITTEE APRIL 9, 1987 ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS I 1 My name is H. Shannon Phillips. I am the Nuclear Regulatory ? Commission's Senior Resident Inspector (SRI) for Construction at the Comanche Peak nuclear power plant- in Texas. I am part of the Region IV staff. I am testifying today pursuant to a letter from the Committee to Commissioner Zech requesting my attendance here today. My loyalty is to the NRC. a I did not seek to testify but  ! am here pursuant to the Committee's request. I have been asked to testify about recent events regarding Region IV's regulation of Comanche Peak and particularly how 1 these events have destroyed my career. 

  \

I have been an NRC inspector for over 10 years; before that I worked as a materials scientist and quality assurance division 

                                           ' manager in the aerospace industry.

I am a materials engineer by training and degree. As a Senior Resident Inspector at the Comanche Peak nuclear power plant, it is my responsibility, by law, to conduct inspections for purposes of determining whether Texas Utilities is-constructing the plant in accordance with NRC regulations and other legal requirements. In 1985 I reported to the Chief of the Region IV Comanche Peak Task Group, Thomas F. t Westerman, and his assistant, Ian Barnes. Westerman and Barnes reported to the Division Director, Eric Johnson, who in turn reported to the Region IV 1 1

I J Administrator, Robert D. Martin. ( According to the NRC's operating regulations if my inspection reveals that legal requirements have been violated or i commitments have otherwise not been met my job is to write up the negative findings. Such findings are classified by the inspector as either a violation, a' deviation or an unresolved item according to the criteria and standards set forth in the i regulations. In practice the NRC inspector's decision on classifying negative findings is rarely questioned. I was initially assigned to the Comanche Peak plant in mid-1984 to work with a special inspection team. This team was constituted by NRC headquarters to assess the severity of the numerous reported problems in the plant's design and construction. The former Region IV Division Director, Richard k Denise, told me that I had been chosen for the Comanche Peak team because of my experience with other troubled construction projects. The head of the inspection team, Thomas Ippilito, told me to do a thorough and detailed job so that the NRC could decide if the plant was safe, and therefore, ready to load fuel. It was I well known that Texas Utilities (TU), the plant's owner, had applied for permission to load fuel in the fall of 1984. The special inspection team completed its field inspection I work in early fall of 1984. The NRC puolished the team's i i L l conclusions and findings in a series of letters beginning in September 1984 and ending January 8, 1985. The January 8, 1985 ( letter summarized the NRC*s observations on the quality assurance 6 i i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ 1

l l 

                                                -                                               1 1

prcgram at Comanche Peak: \ lI Although the TUEC QA program documentation met NRC's f requirements, the weaknesses of its implementation ' demonstrate that TUEC lacked the commitment to aggressively implement an effective QA/QC program in several areas. (List of specific areas omitted.) (January 8, 1985 letter from Darrell Eisenhut to Michael Spence, President, Texas Utilities.) That month Texas Utilities withdrew its request for fuel loading. From late 1984 to September 1985 I and other inspectors were permitted the organizational freedom to identify deviations and violations at the plant, and did so. During this time period I was under the direct supervision of Doyle Hunnicutt, Section Chief, who reported to Dorwin Hunter, the Branch Chief, and Mr. Hunter reported to Richard Denise, the Division Director. In the fall of 1985 Mr. Denise resigned, and Hunter and Hunicutt were replaced by Westerman and Johnson, respectively. The effect of the new appointments was immediately apparent. Westerman and Johnson began to challenge my inspection findings and those of other inspectors and consultants assigned to Comanche Peak. Westerman consistently suggested that we remove certain negative findings about the plant or that we " downgrade" violations to the category of findings called " unresolved items." Westerman's motivation for these actions was, according to his own statements, that he was there "to license the plant." It is my belief that the basis for the intimidating conduct was my management's concern that negative inspection findings might reflect unfavorably on the licensee's performance and reduce I l

i their chances Of ge:::.g a licens.  ! i This is most obviously demonstrated by what happened to one major inspection report, 85-05/07. l The inspection field work was completed between April and June 1985. The report was submitted to the Region IV office with the concurrence of all the inspectors and the supervisor, Dorwin Hunter. However, the report was not issued at that time. Instead, after the management change, Westerman pressured me to make substantive changes to the inspection report. I did not succumb to such pressure. During the fall of 1985 other inspection reports were subjected to the same treatment. Over a 6-7 month time period from the fall of 1985 to February of 1986, I and other inspectors j were subjected to increasing pressure to downgrade negative \ ( findings to lesser categories or delete them entirely. The ) 

                                                                                            )

{ findings which were being deleted were significant. During this ' 1 1 time frame at least 30 proposed violations and findings were the subject of dispute between site inspectors and Region IV management. These findings included: I o The proper installation of the reactor vessel could not be verified because no installation specifications or procedures were available; I o There was totally inadequate control of design and construction records for piping and reactor containment liner plate, millions of pieces of paper had been shipped 1 off-site in cardboard boxes with no controls, no inventory, l um____-__ _ _ _____ 

       ,__,__,_,,___-,,__----.-----,w--          v -"

and'no duplicates;. 

   ].                                     o   A~ trend analysis of all Region IV negative inspection findings from 1974 to 1984 showed adverse trerds in Texas        '

Utilities' quality assurance program for design and construction of Comanche Peak, which TU should have been required.to analyze. Some of the harassment during this time period was subtle, such as comments by my supervisors that " Don't you make quite a bit of money, don't you?...." I took that statement to mean that if I did not buckle under to Westerman's instructions I could lose my job. On another occasion Westerman made the comment that magion IV "would never forget" inspection _ report 8432, an 1 inspection into the failures of the nanagement of TU's corporate Ok Program. I was also told by Westerman that it would be better 

   't if I found another job, outside of Region IV.
                                        . Region IV management officials also began to " nit pick" me.

For example, I was asked for strict accounting of my whereabouts ame my time on the site. This is out of the ordinary for a  ! resident inspector. I was also asked for explanations and tastifications on the most minor details of the inspection work I uns able to do. 1 Throughout the fall of 1985 Tom Westerman conducted a series I of smeetings on inspection reports in which he pressured, badgered and ultimately threatened me if I did not remove negative findings from inspection reports. One meeting in late November 1985, on control of design and construction records, lasted qmproximately five hours. I was directed to change many of my j t I t

l l findings. The entire atmosphere demoralized and frustrated me. By this { time Westerman had told me to " quit digging". I began to question whether identifying problems at Comanche Peak was worth the hassle. Finally, in January 1986, I told Westerman that I would only put in information he wanted. I told him that I would identify problems according to the NRC procedures, and he could classify them and tell me how to write them up. However, in February 1986 I learned that the Region had issued a report of a major inspection without including several of the violations cited in the draft report, including damaging information concerning the reactor vessel. Significantly, Westerman and Johnson, in releasing the report publicly, used the draft inspectors' signature sheet as part of the final report. j I knew I had to report the matter and my overall concerns to someone independent of Region IV management. I also knew I could not report this to Region IV management because recent actions had convinced me that Region IV officials condoned or directed the misconduct of Westerman and Johnson; for example, Westernman and recently been promoted. I was aware of the NRC's Office of Inspector and Auditor, but knew of its reputation of being unable or unwilling to investigate the type of serious management issues that I was raising. In March 1986 I decided to take my concerns to Commissioner James Asselstine. I understand that other inspectors and consultants also contacted Commissioner Asselstine with similar complaints. I told Commissioner Asselstine that I would agree to talk to l I

l l l George Mulley of OIA cecause of his personal reputation for professionalism, but that I doubted the ability of the office to probe the full extent of the management problem and to recommend necessary corrective actions. In April 1986 I met with Mr. Mulley and provided him with detailed information and substantive evidence about my original I findings, the actions of Region IV management in removing the findings, and the harassment and intimidation to which I was subjected. i ( I also told Mr. Mulley of incidents of harassment, \ { intimidation and other negative personnel actions taken against \ other Region IV staff who had raised serious quality design and/or construction questions about other Region IV plants. Over the next few months Mulley, working alone, conducted { his investigation. During this time period I felt isolated, my secretary was reassigned and I was excluded from most Region IV staff meetings. i In May 1986 a consultant at Comanche Peak hired by the NRC came to me and complained that, among other things, Westerman had steered the consultant group away from quality assurance issues I and that certain NRC_ inspections were deficient. I told him that he should talk to OIA. Soon thereafter I learned I was going to be removed from my I job at the site for asking the NRC consultant to provide information to OIA. I went to Mr. Mulley and although he was able to stop my transfer of f-site, the intimidation and isolation increased. I was told not to talk to NRC consultants, and I was left alone in a trailer apart frcm the rest Of the NRC staff, and I. I was repeatedly called upon to defend my findings previously L cited in draft inspection reports. Between July and November 1985 I knew that.Mr. Mulley was writing the report of his investigation. I also knew that he had not pursued many of the incidents of harassment and pressure to remove findings at other Region IV facilities, including Wolf Creek, Fort St. Vrain, and Waterford. It was clear to me that Mulley was under pressure to downplay the significance of the evidence that he had obtained. The report was released in late November 1986. Within days it was distributed throughout the agency. All of the witnesses 

                              .who had talked to Mulley were identified.                            This was an outrageous breach of confidence.                        The faith that Mr. Mulley had k        painstakingly established was shattered.                            It was clear to us that OIA had no independence and their findings received little respect, if any, from NRC headquarters.

In fact, the following week the Regional Administrator Martin gave a monetary award to Tom Westerman for his work at Comanche Peak. I, on the other hand, received from Barnes the i first derogatory comments on my performance appraisal in my NRC career. I believe the action was in reprisal for my having gone I to OIA with my concerns. I filed a grievance and subsequently the agency agreed to withdraw the com.v.ents. This entire situation is wrong. NRC inspectors must have the f reedom to identif y findings about the utilities that the NRC regulates and to write the truth about what they find, regardless

0 of the. impact that tr.e ::.th will have en the licensing cf a i l , plant. Unfortunately, my experience is that OIA has very little, if any, credibility among NRC employees, and that something must be done to give employees an avenue to bring up these types of concerns. I think an independent inspector general is necessary to monitor the NRC management system to assure the integrity of the regulatory process, including the protection of inspectors like myself. This concludes my testimony. I am prepared to answer questions the Committee may have on my experience at Comanche Peak. I l 1 

                                                                            -                       t I

i l l l 0 

                                   >                                                                l l

APPENDIX L o 1 I C-_______.

l STATEMENT OF GEORGE A. MULLEY, JR. l' BEFORE THE SENATE COKMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS APRIL 9, 1987 My name is George A. Mulley, Jr. I am the Assistant 

                . Director for Investigations at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Office of Inspector'and Auditor (OIA).      OIA
                -investigates to ascertain the integrity of all NRC operations and,Lamong other things, ikivestigates allegations of NRC employee misconduct.

I am testifying today pursuant to a letter from the 1 Committee to Commissioner Zech requesting my appearance at this hearing. On March 20, 1987 I was deposed under oath by counsel 

     ,.              to the Committee. My presence at the deposition was a result of y

a written notice from the chairman. Subsequently, I had the opportunity to review the transcript of my deposition. This testimony is a summary of sworn statements made at the l deposition. I have been asked to testify today about an investigation that I conducted last year concerning allegations of intimidation ) and harassment of NRC employees by their superiors in Region IV (Dallas) for reporting safety problems. The particular nuclear 

                                                                                               ]

plant invcived was Comanche Peak, which is owned by Texas  ! 9 Utilities Electric, has been under construction for 14 years. The Comanche Peak plant is not yet licensed to operate. I have also been asked to testify about the process by which the results of my investigation were reported to the Commission. o

I As background .nformation ! have been an investigator for 17 l l i years. Prior to coming to the NRC ! worked as an investigator 1 I for the military. I have worked at the Office of Inspector and l Auditor since October of 1982, first as a criminal investigator and then, in April 1984, I was given the responsibility of overseeing all of the OIA investigations involving nuclear power plants. In April 1985 I made the Special Assistant to the Director, and in July 1986 I was promoted to my present position. l I supervise six other investigators. In March 1986 OIA was contacted by Commissioner James Asselstine regarding allegations that he had received from a i number of personnel working in Region IV, including Senior Resident Inspector Shannon Phillips, about harassment and intimidation from certain Region IV managemers for identifying i I safety concerns. Gary Edles, then-Acting Director of OIA, told me that Commissioner Asselstine requested that I personally be l assigned to conduct the investigation. Asselstine told Mr. Edles I that Shannon Phillips had indicated a confidence in me personally, although he had no confidence in OIA. The Commissioner instructed that during this investigation all I interviews I conducted be transcribed. This was unusual fo'r OIA, but.I thought it was a good procedure because it would provide a complete and accurate record. I Soon thereafter I interviewed Mr. Phillips and determined that the allegations he raised were significant. As the Senior Resident Inspector for Construction at Comanche Peak, it was his job to investigate Texas Utility's compliance with federal t

regulations in the construction of Comanche Peak. It was his [ belief that the condition of the Comanche Peak plant was I indeterminate and that Region IV had not properly inspected the plant or enforced federal regulations over the plant's 14 year construction history. Additionally, Mr. Phillips stated that he had been harassed, intimidated and pressured to remove proposed findings from draft inspection reports by downgrading them to a less serious issue or  ! deleting them entirely from the report. Mr. Phillips provided evidence that when he and other inspectors resisted downgrading or deleting at least 30 proposed findings, the Director of the Comanche Peak Task Group, Thomas Westerman, and another manager, Eric Johnson, removed violations from the inspection reports or substantially changed the report without the inspectors' ( knowledge and other times without their concurrence. In one case the Region issued a final inspection report using the signature page f rom a draf t version of the report. This made it appear i that the inspection report was approved by the inspectors involved --when actually the inspectors were neither informed of the changes nor told of the issuar,ae of the report. I believe Mr. Phillips' allegations were exactly the types , i of concerns that should be thoroughly investigated by an independent investigator within the NRC without regard to the potential consequences of the investigation on the licensability of a nuclear power plant. The evidence showed that the attitude of Region IV management was to create no further problems for Texas 3

l i i Utilit:es. T.e ev:dence als: :nd::ated that another Region :V 

         =anager, Dorwin Hunter, had ceen transferred off the Comanche                i Peak project and later demoted as a result of his strong regulatory enforcement attitude toward Comanche Peak.               In       j cddition, I' learned of other instances of harassment and intimidation of NRC inspectors at other plants regulated by                   I Region IV, such as Fort St. Vra:n and Wolf Creek,                             i However, after having heard Mr. Phillips' evidence and

{ interviewing other inspectors and consultants who raised similar cliegations, I became concerned that if NRC managers, both in Washington and at the Region, learned the full scope of the management problems being raised in Region IV, my investigation would be interfered with. I did my best to see to it that no one connected with NRC ( h0adquarters or Region IV knew the extent of m*. probe into the allegations concerning Region IV's attitude t: ward regulating nuclear power plants within its jurisdiction. Unfortunately, even my best attempts to assure an independent investigation, including putting my personal credibility on the line, were not enougn to vercome the overall distrust of OIA. It was clear to me tnat :tner NRC employees and other witnesses I wanted to interview did not believe that OIA 1 could or would protect them from retaliation. I even had to use f Shannon Phillips to get individuals to talk to me because those individuals did not trust any representative of OIA. J.n June 1986, soon after : asked Mr. Phillips to help  ; i convince other witnesses to talk to me, I learned that the  ! 

                                                 -4_

E_ __ - - - -

Administrator of Region IV was going to remove Phillips from tne plant site. Mr. Robert D. Martin, Regional Administrator, stated during a conference call with me and Sharon Connelly, the Director of OIA, that he was going to remove Phillips from the site because Phillips was getting other people to cooperate with the OIA investigation, and had therefore lost his objectivity. I believed that this proposed action constituted a reprisal for Phillips initiating the OIA investigation and I got NRC headquarters to stop the transfer. However, at that point the confidentiality of the' investigation was compromised. From that point forward I was under pressure from Victor Stello, the Executive Director of Operations, to complete the investigation and- then to write the report. Given this pressure I felt that I had no choice but to limit this investigation to the specific concerns criginally raised by Phillips and ignore, for the time being, the :ther witnesses' complaints of Region IV's regulatory mismanagement of other plants and the evidence of harassment, intimidation, and pressure on other inspectors. The pressure came not only f rom the Execut:.e Director of the NRC staff, but also f rom my supervisor, Sharen Connelly. In late July of 1986 I finished the field work. In September and 4 October 1986, while I was trying to write the report, the pressure being put on me by Connelly was so great that I asked her for a meeting with Chairman Zech to determine if the pressure was actually coming f rom the Chairman's office, as she 

       ,                    said it was.              Chairman Zech assured me that there was no reason 1

1-i

to be hasty in the course of either the investigation or the writing of the report. He stated he wanted a thorough and complete investigative report. I then finished pulling together the 3,000-page investigative record into a draft report-length document which included what I knew to be negative conclusions about the management of Region IV in general, and certain individual managers in particular. I gave the draft portions of the report to Sharon Connelly in October 1986. The conclusions that I reached were that: (1) Region IV managers acted inappropriately to limit violations assessed at Comanche Peak; and that Phillips was harassed and intimidated by Region IV management in an effort to get him to downgrade or delete his inspection findings. 

   ,         (2)  The Region IV Quality Assurance Inspection Program, as implemented at Comanche Peak, could not be relied on as evidence of the safe construction of the plant.

(3) Because of the unreliability of the information entered on the automated inspection tracking forms (NRC Form 766) by Region IV inspection personnel concerning Comanche Peak, data obtained from these forms should not be used for any NRC licensing decision. Sharon Connelly personally participated in substantially modifying the draft report. Connelly removed the conclusions I had written. Connelly focused the report on the merits of the technical issues underlying the violations the inspectors had found at Comanche Peak, which is an area outside the expertise of OIA.

l

.do'not recall any prior occasion where Sharon Connelly

( took such an active role in the preparation of one of my reports. ror the first-time in my career as an OIA investigator, she assigned a group of OIA auditors to rewrite the report. She also removed many of the statements from Region IV managers whom I had quoted. The statements substantiated the conclusions I had )t i reached and demonstrated the lax enforcement attitudes of Regional management. For example, when I asked Eric' Johnson how the agency would go about at this late date trying to verify that Comanche Peak was built safely absent all the necessary quality 

      ;cosurance inspections and records, he responded, "We shouldn't
      -worry about the past, and you just go out and kind of kick the tires and if it feels good, you go on from there."

Another example was the removal of the explanations made by 

   /

( Thomas Westerman about why he was being very " tight" on issuing violations at Comanche Peak, more so than at other plants. He said that proposed violations, unless " absolutely correct", would creat a lot of " unnecessary paper work" and could lead to his credibility as a witness being questioned during NRC hearings. I thought that these quotations reflected, more accurately than my words could, a misconception of their responsibilities as regulators. Connelly removed the quotations because she said they were " inflammatory", and OIA could be criticized for taking things out of context. However, I had been very careful to put both the context and the references in my draft report. I j bolieve that by removing the conclusions and the quotations Connelly downplayed the severity of the Region IV management

l ! problem. ! Her edit;ng a;so prevented individual Region IV t managers f rom being told tnat this type of lax enforcement attitude is not condoned oy the NRC. Finally, it denied the Commissioners the opportunity to protect the integrity of the NRC's enforcement program. The report, or what was left of it, was finally completed and sent to the Commission and Executive Director Stello on November 26, 1986. It is my understanding that Mr. Stello then sought permission from the Commissioners to distribute the OIA report throughout the agency and, as far as I know, permission was given. This was a very unusual way of dealing with an CIA report. It was also, in my opinion, a very unsatisfactory way of treating the report because it disclosed throughout the agency 

           /

the testimony of the persons who had put their faith in the OIA office and in me personally. I was not consulted when the internal distribution was made so that I could comment on the decision and inform the individual witnesses. Within days of the release, I was contacted by witnesses who hnd given me testimony under oath and who were extremely distressed that their test: mony had been disclosed throughout the cgency. Most of these individuals felt that the distribution was d:ne purposely to expose them to possible future retaliation. It is my personal belief that the distribution of this rcport has destroyed the rapport that I had developed with these witnesses and that it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get any NRC employees or others to cooperate with ' i. 8- ) I 1

ot.~.er ongoing invest; gat.ons of Region :V management. ( I am not aware of any corrective action the NRC has taken to deal with the management problems in Region IV. On the other hand, within days of the report's release, Tem Westerman was awarded a monetary bonus for his work at Comanche Peak. I informed the EDO's office of my concerns about the inappropriateness of this action. It is my understanding that a stop payment was placed on the check. In conclusion, I would like to say that the problems brought to OIA by Shannon Phillips and others are extremely serious. The integrity of the regulatory process cannot be assured if the regulators become the defenders and protectors of the utility they are supposed to regtlate. One former Division Director at Region IV I interviewed stated: I did not consider tnat Region Four had a strong enforcement program, and I believe that a lack of a s:rong enforcement program has its roots in the attitudes of the senior managers. He confirmed that the lack of negative inspection findings could be seen as the attitude of trying to help TUCCO get their license. He said, 

                                       ...I  personally believe that the att;;ude Of Region Tour management was not to do more work wn;cn would cause more problems for the utility.

The Commissioners needed to be informed of this attitude and its alleged specific consequences at Comanche Peak and other nuclear plants regulated by Region IV. Shannon Phillips tried to do that and is now fighting to save his career. What happened to this investigation is an example that j f. 9_

points out the faibre of O!A to bring ser: Ous manage =ent 

        !                                                     problems to the attention of the Commissioners. In my personal view OIA did not go far enough in this investigation to ensure the integrity of Region IV's program.

That is the end of my prepared statement. I as now prepared to answer questions from the Committee. t i

l { !( APPENDIX M l i 

 .t i

If i I 

     ,                                                         )

t

  • i 1

j 4 

                                                               ]

i 

    .                     v         URGINAL                  O UNIIED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION P

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: INVE.iTIGATIVE INTERVIEW ( LOCATION: RAMArm I n PAGES: 

                                                                       ~

h DAM June 24, 1986 l l l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. t Officwl Aaporten 44 North Camitol Servet Washmgton. D.C. 20001 - (202)347 3700 NAnONWTDE COVRACE i

1 MR. MU* LEY: The time is 2: 46 p.m. and 2 the date ;s the 24th of June, 1986. 3 We are in Room 171 I of the Ramada Inn, East Ridge, Tennessee. 4 Present is 8 6, g \ 5 6 g autun. h 6 , myself, George Mulley, Spec 2al Assistant to the Directos's Office of tne Inspector and 7 Auditor, NRC, and the Court Reporter, Mrs. Banks. 8 l We're here today to discuss with 9 { S. 6 information he has concerning Region Four's ' i 10 management of the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant. 11 12 being first duly sworn, made the following answers to 13 the following questions: f 14 _( EXAMINATION BY MR. MULLEY: i 15 Q W M, before we get started, would ( 18 l you first briefly give us a resume of your experiences 17 at Region Four? 18 A Yes, l is I came to Region Four as the 6 'i i 

                                   $g 6                                                            I 6,

20 @, - I$ 6 21 M with the where I 21 am currently employed. 23 When I came to Region Four, Mr. John Collins 34 was the Regional Administrator. S Soon after I arrived l U it became apparent I J that many of the projects underway j 0

1 1 in Regi:n Four were not progressing well in the regulato;y ( 2 sense. These included the Cc-anene Peak pro ect, Wolf 3 Creek, Watcrford and River Bend. 4 l Within a few months after I began work 5 j in Region Four, an NRC task force was formed to handle a the completion of inspections at the Waterford Plant. 7 j At about the same time, but shortly afterward, an NRC i . 8 wide effort began on the Comanche Peak Plant. Neither ' 8 of these efforts were under the direction and control N of Region Four, although there were personnel performing 11 in this group or in these groups. u gegbEND, later on in that first year, ( 13 W6 gWM, < 14 eggg3Eb located in Kansas, andlPspent uch of my time during 

 ,-                                               15                    the period of M at the W M N .

18 I believe personally that the necessity 17 for NRC task forces at Waterford and Comanche Peak were , 1 M' a direct result of the management resulting over a period N of time at these plants. That is, the Regional efforts  ; N were not sufficiently strong to manage the inspection f 21 program and resolve the issues in a normal sense of St the regional responsibilities. 33 Part of these problems stemmed from t M. insuring that the licensee complied with the regulations. 35 One of the strong elements in insuring compliance with

i g the regulat; ns is enfor:ement. I d:d not consider that Reg:.:r Tcur 2 ad a strong enforcement :r: gram, and believe { j 3 l that & lack of a strong enforcement  : 

                                                                                                                                                               ,r:gra.- has its rcots i

4 in the attitudes of the senior managers. 5 Can we go off the record a minute? Because 6 I want to be sure I'm heading wnere you want to head. 7 j (Thereupon, there was a discussion off ' 3 , the record.) i g THE WITNESS: In my view, the attitudes 3 l 10 that existed were in three or four parts. First of all j 

 ;                 11 was the attitude of the senior management about their                                                                                                         )

12 responsibilities. That is, did the senior managers evidence 13 strong commitment to insure conformance with the regulations ( gg and take a tough attitude regarding enforcement? In 

     ~
       .        15                            my view, they were not doing this.

l le l The second attitude related to the feeling gy about the utilities themselves, and I believe that the 18 attitude about the utilities affected how middle and senior

  • i 19 management conducted enforcement activit:,es. If the senior ,

y and middle managers felt good about the utility, friendly l 21 towards the utility and otherwise had confidence in the g utility, there was a tendency to not take strong enforcement g attitudes, even though there may be violations occurring. y The third attitude was the attitude towards g 4 the individual inspectors, and this fundamentally affected i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' _ _ _. _ __ ____-__-_-_----a

0 1 ' their werk. Wher senior management and middle management 2 let it be knowr that they had good feelings about the i s^ 3 utility, then the production of notices of violation cecause 4 of violations of regulations were discouraged. All of 8 I these attitudes come to bear on the individual inspectors j 8 l and how they perceive their job as guided by their senior l 7 management, i 8 when , Tom Westerman 8 was the enforcement officer, Mr. Check was the deputy 38 regional administrator, and h was the M 11 N ' h worked 6 reported  ; I UI to the regional administrator, Mr. Collins. . U It was clear to me that all of the ettitudes 14 that I mentioned were in operation in making the decisions 

           -                      M on whether to take enforcement action which started with NB the notices of violation of conditions observed by 17           inspectors.

NB Overlaying all of the attitudes in the 8 inspection observations or findings was what I'll refer se to as the political climate, and that's the political 81 climate within the NRC and as influenced by congressional at perceptions which lead people to develop strong or lenient , 88 attitudes, depending upon how 'the political climate within 8' the NRC and outside the NRC viewed the licensee. And f 85 this view was not strictly limited to whether or not he l. l I

g was ccep.'ying with the regulations. 2 g personally invclved in some of these { 3 . attitudes in at least one case where an insrector at the Fort St. Vrain Plant, Mr. G.L. 4 Plumlee told me that his i 5 d job was not to focus on inspections and not to get in 6 i the way of the licensee. He had received this guidance 7 [ from his section chief, Mr. Ireland, and M M 4 Thinking that he had misunderstood che . p guidance, I asked Mr. Plumlee to meet with me in the presence 10 of Mr. Ireland and h In that meeting I ' gg instructed Mr. Plumlee that his primary job was to inspect ' u the licensee, and if his findings caused difficulty for is the licensee, that was a burden that the licensee had g4 to bear, and that his Job was not to be concerned about whether 

  ~
     -                                                                                                                        i 18             the licensee would find violations or negative inspection is              reports unpalatable and unwelcome.       His job, rather, was to do a good inspection Job and report the results.

37 to Because of the serious nature of the attitude-gg expressed by Mr. Plumlee and because I was convinced that j c) he gained that attitude from his management, that is, '  ! I sg Mr. Ireland and 6 I documented that conversation t3 as an .:7struction. Mr. Ireland and h - never l c3 denied that they had, over the years, given Mr. Plumlee 34 a reason to have the attitude that he had about his job 

 )

t) and how he should inspect and what priorities he should 3 l l

O g j place en nas t?'t:. 2 EXAM:NA' ^S SY Y.F. MULLEY: I g~ Q 3 And you had earlier discussed the attitude 4 l of senior and middle lovel management and with respect 5 to how they felt acout a utility, and that this would g affect their enforcement posture. How did Region Four 7 feel about TUGCO specifically? 8 A 4

n my view, Region Four felt that, and g

I'm speaking new of Region Four management, felt'that 10 TUGCO was either doing or trying to do a good job, and i 11 that they were tremendously burdened by the attacks on 12 their project by intervenor groups in that Region Four g3 did not wish to add to that burden. I I( 14 I Q Do you think this affected the attitudes 

      .                                      13 of the .nspectors and of the enforcement      people?   In other   I t

16 words, did you think they went i i out with the attitude of i 17 trying to help TUCCO get their license? i i gg A I think that the lack of negative inspection - g-g findings could be seen that way. That the lack of ' go negatives is a help, and I personally believe that the ' 11 attitude of the Region Four management was not to do more l 23 work which would cause more problems for the utility. 38 Tnts is difficult to establish firmly, y but when I looked at the facts, I found that the amount 38 4 of inspection activities compared to the need at the

1 J l g p; ant was very small, and that for a considerable period 2 cf time, almost all the inspections at the Comanche Peak 3-  ; Plant were done by the resident inspector with very little I I 4 regional support. So there simply was a fact that the l 5 inspections weren't being done. Whether this arose in i a the minds of senior management because of personnel shortages, 7 because of other priorities or because of their attitude , g about the utility would be difficult to segra. gate. 

                                          ,                                   However, the same situation had occurred to                      over a period of time at the Waterford Plant, and it was 1'                                   gg for these reasons that it was necessary to establish NRC 12                      task forces at Waterford and at Comanche Peak.      The root 13 cause for the task forces were, in my view, the lack of 6

( 14 over the years detailed, precise inspection and 15 identification of deficiencies and enforcement so the I gg corrective actions would be taken. We simply had a pile , i 17 of things accumulate on each of those plants. gg Q Region Four, would there be a higher priority. I gg than Comanche Peak that would Justifiably divert, you . so know, inspectors away from Comanche Peak to some other i { i

project? It would seem to me that Comanche Peak was i

g very important at that time. It still is. ' l g A Comanche Peak was important at that time I gg and still is, but as I say, f' the s situation was taken out of the hands of Region Four and l l l 

        - _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ . __ _.                                                                           1

l } f g placed on a higher level of management within the NRC. ( 2 I can't tel' . u what the cause was, but : can te.'1 you i 3 l the fa'ct was that sufficient inspection to identify the i 4 conditions, which obviously there had not occurred, and I 5 that l O the observation of violations and notices of violations j e which should have occurred didn't occur. I would not ( I l 7 have thought that there were pro;ects which had higher s priority in Region Four other than the Arkansas Nuclear p Units which were operating plants, and therefore, required { 

                                                                                               ~

10 inspection to insure that the operational conditions were t 11 being met. ut I think this higher priority at Arkansas up would have been desired simply because the operating plants i (- 14 represented at the instant in time a greater risk to the a public health and safety than did plants under ' g it construction. This was, however, a different kind of ' 17 inspection. The inspection of operations at Arkansas us was different than the inspection of operating, of plants I yp under construction. gg Now, in addition to the Arkansas units, i l 11 there were the units at Omaha and at, and the other unit  ; { 3  !  ! in Nebraska were operating plants primarily covered by ' 

                                                                                               )

i 3 operational inspectors. The problem with the plants 1 l sg under construction is that deficiencies in construction ( ss would eventually come to light and be more difficult to 1 i i f

b 1 , correct because of already ecmpleted construction. This 2 is different than operating plants where deficiencies lk , I 3 in operating people and operating procedures could be 4 remedied without significant rework in a constructed plant. 5 t Nevertheless, Comanche Peak did not appear 8 in Region Four to have had 7 an aggressive inspection program for a period of years. 8 I had conversations with the former senior resident 8 inspector, Mr. Robert Taylor, who told me that he had M repeatedly appealed for assistance from the Region in 11 conducting construction inspections, and that these appeals ut had not been responded to. The upshot of all this was G t that the regional administrator had already given up 14 regaining control of inspection activities at Comanche 2 Peak and at Waterford, and this was simply implemented W soon after I arrived. 17 Q How would, I guess when we're talking 1 1 38 about regional management we're talking about h i 8 and Check and N How would they pass on their at attitudes concerning specifically TUGCo to the inspection, t 21 the resident inspector to let them know, you know, this as is, we think TUGCO does a pretty good job. They' re being i as unfairly criticized by intervening groups, therefore, i Se let us help them along. How would that attitude get passed I as along to the inspectors? t l l 

  -               - _ - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _                      _                                                         1

l l L !i l 1 i { Well, first of all, the attitude was passed  ; 2 on by lack of assistants I to provide help to inspect I ne 

.i.                                    3 I

plants. l If you don't inspect, you will not find any 4 l violations. 5 i- Secondly, one of the very favorite 6 approaches to discourage Inspectors in writing violations 7 and writing reports on those violations is to worry their  ! 5 j i work product to death and question it to a great extreme. i ! 8 l In dealing with the inspectors who worket. 10 for me while I was in Region Four, I always conveyed to

11 them the attitude that 12 if it looked like a violation and smelled like a violation, then write it up as a violation is i and let the utility defend itself against that violation, i 14 If the utility was able to show that to it was not actually ,

in violation of the regulations, then I was perfectly is willing to retract the violation. 17 The attitude that led to worrying the is inspectors' report and the inspectors' no:1ce of violation i 18 to death simply meant that the Inspector would be 38 discouraged from writing notices of violation because 21 , ( he had to jump through so many hoops to get it out. 21 Whether or not i that attitude and those actions of worrying 38 the violations to death sprang from the attitude of wanting 4 0 to go easy on the utility or simply wanting to have an 28 ( , airtight court case before any notice of violation was 4

4 l~ 3 issued would be diffir;it to tell. 2

n my cwn view, the attitude of net t

l 3 l regula' ting violattens was the strongest force.  : had 4 a sufficient number of discussions with GEEbumegy to b 5 conclude thatate. m really didn't believe in s enforcement. He didn't believe in enforcement as a means 7 of achieving compliance with the regulations, and so he l a participated in worrying the paperwork to the point that less than the number of violations that could have been 3 ye written were actually written. 11 I ve1wed the attitude of Mr. Check as ut quite strongly anti-enforcement. Mr. Check on more than ( 13 one occasion told me that utilities had been licensed 14 by the NRC, had been found competent by the NRC, and that 

             . g        we should be extremely cautious in saying otherwise, l

i as Particularly in violations. So I considered Mr. Check ' i 17 a very weak enforcement advocate. g  ! 

  .                                             In addition to that, I believe that                                            l I

Mr. Check was greatly influenced by the political aspects g g of any of the operations we conducted with the utilities , a or against them in terms of enforcement. In fact, I believe I g that Mr. Collins, who was a regional administrator, was  ! 33 also very much swayed by the political environment within as the NRC and in conjunction with the licensee. 3 Q How did, how woul 6 go about , l 'l l

i 

                                                                                         .2 1
   .                         worrying inspection findings?

Wou.*d he confr:nt the 2 ( l' inspectors head-on? t j . Just drop .lo'ations fr : the report? 3 6 How would f.e go about that? 4 A While I was there I had no knowledge that 5 

                           & 6 ever dropped a violat:.on from 1               report from 4

one of my inspectors. GED would have direct contact with 7 the inspectors for the intended and correct purpose of 8 being sure that the notice of violation was written clearly 9 and well written with proper citations against the 10 regulations. { That was his primary Job. 11 In addition to that, of course, dSe had I 12 the job of keeping track of the violations so that we , 13 could see that violations were answered and otherwise 14 responded to. 

       .                                   I'm sure that he had many conversations 15 with inspectors, and some of them got back to me, and

. 16 I can't remember the specifics, where he would argue that 17 something really wasn't a violation, and as I say, that Ml wasn't my attitude. If it looks sufficiently like a 18 violation I would let the utility defend itself, rather 38 than have 6 defend the utility on violation. 21 I don't say that h ' 23 - contributions were all negative. 33 He did call our attention l to the need for greater precision in our language a number 8' of times, and this was beneficial. But overall, ( 35 h attitude was anti-enforcement. l

1 i

r addition to direct tentact w;tn I 2

5 inspectors, dhi .rtsracted witn section enlof s and cranch 3 chiefs on the ,rtd;:::on of' inspection reports and any 4 accompanying net :es of violation. 5

n tnis interaction  !

I was told a nu.T:er of times that h didn't think 6 that a violation was an appropriate vehicle to achieve 7 the corrected action. : can't recall any instance where 8  ! I agreed with t...st decision on his part. 9 Q Hcw would he prefer to handle it? 10 A He would have preferred to handle it by 11 4 discussing the matter with the I licensee and by having  ! 12 any documented record be observations in the inspection I I 13  !' reports, rather than clear violations. 1 ah 14 Q t How would S W handle a disagreement 15 between himself and an inspector? Fcr example, if he 16 ( i didn't think something should be a violation, if he wanted  ! 17 to downgrade it to an unresolved item or something like 18 j that? Do you have any knowledge of :nspectors Just i 19 agreeing with his call or how he handled that? l l t 30 A I can't recall any at the moment, and 21 i by and large I relied upon the people that worked for 22 me to work through that process. Bu t 6 normally  ; ss i \ would have interacted with the section chief or more likely 1 l I 14 26 the 6 h to gain his acceptance of h conclusions, and so you see, we have people t i l 4 1

g ;1ned up ir arw and an inspecter who wants to write 2 a violation, a section chief who may have ne stren9 fee 1109s i I 3 , one way or the other, and A N attempting to I 4 make a call based en his attitudes, as well as the facts 

                                                                                                                                    ]

5 available to h:.m, and be:.ng influenced by N s who basically had an anti-enforcement attitude, and in 7 someway that I couldn't testify to influenced by the J ( 3 regional administrator and deputy regional administrator. l i 3 I'd say at that time that, and I'm speaking 10 now of the time frame when the relationships, t gg between regional administrator and the deputy regional  ; 12 administrator were poor. They simply didn't like each l 13 other, and they didn't share office responsibilities. 14 In fact, you might say there were at least two camps in 13 Region Four. That camp who, that didn't like Mr. Collins, t gg and that camp that was more dedicated to doing their job 17 than deciding whether they liked him or not. That didn't 13 have anything to do with whether they-did their job or f to not. 3D I forget the exact date, but Mr. Martin 

   ,        31    replaced Mr. Collins as regional administrator.                 From 23    the enforcement viewpoint I considered this an improvement,                                                       j 25    but my view on that was more influenced by what Mr. Martin                                                      .
                                                                                                                                  !  i i  !

,' y said than by what I observed. Mr. Martin repeatedly said J s l as .in 'staf f meetings and in briefings with the staf f and I i l 1 i l 1

1 g interact tns w:tn :ne staff that, to quote him, "; am ( 2 , ho,rse shit c. enf:::erent.  ! am a strong enforcer." And l i 3 l so he attempted to convey an attitude that I fully supported, 4 l that if it looked ;;ke a violation then write it up as 3 a violation. I don't believe that he was fully successful s i in this anymore tnan some other managers who simply saw 7 the end product, not knowing that discouragement and change i g and downgrading had occurred during this process. g The one brightest spot in the lower levels 10 of management supervision was a gentleman named John i gg Jaudon, whom I relied upon in an unofficial capacity to it be sure that the violations were written at the highest j i g 13 justifiable severity level, g4 Mr. Jaudon had the training and ability 18 to upgrade a violation to a higher level and upgrade an  ! i i to unresolved item to a violation, and in this sense he differed! 17 from most of the other people in Region Four at the time I 1 up that I arrived. I don't believe, and I didn't observe f gg that Mr. Jaudon's attitude was pervasive in the l organization and over the period of time I was there, m , t t 21 I believe that the attitude weakened because of the  ! a influence of 6 and Paul check. ss Q W OM N O 34 A N 3 Q Okay. How involved was Mr. Martin based

0 g c:. the shcrt per;;d cf tire that you were at the Reg:en, 

   ,                            2           he was regional administrator, how 4t a

involved was he witn 3 j the actual working of inspectors, for example, at 4 j Comanche Peak? Did he have a feel for what was go ng 1 5 on at all? 2 6 A I don't beleive that Mr. Martin had a 7 , good feel for what was going on at all. 1 ( ' i g 6, a s the NRC efforts on g Wolf Creek through the commission decision for full power to licensing. When M to Region Four, Mr. Check 11 instructed me to pick up 12 13 

                                  .                                                                         One of the first 14             things that M in con] unction witn Mr. Martin was to 15            start to regain control of the inspection efforts at le            Comanche Peak, and for that purpose we'estr.blished a task 17             force at Comanche Peak of numerous inspectors.

1g And I'll back up a little bit and say 3, that when 

                                                                             - - " was told that the g              division was undermanned and overworked, and W that 21             there were numerous vacancies that simply weren't being 1/B                   u              filled.

I believe that the correct number at that time g was 16 vacancies in the division. l gg Gne of the first actions that h after l s h out that the vendor program was being transferred i. 

         - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _                    _ _ _ .                                                                                                              i

I - 3 to head:uarters was :- determine wncther'tnere were good 2 people in tne vender program branch wno wanted to stay 4 > 3 in Arlington and whether those people were capable of 2 

                                      .            carrying reactor inspection responsibilities. One of 5

t the attributes thath for was their attitude about 6 enforcement, particularly an attitude that I expressed t-7 as holding the licensee's feet to the fire on the i a j regulations. i Because of that and because of the i 10 background of the people and h with them, i 11 Mr. Ian Barnes, Mr. Lee Ellershaw out of the ut vendor program because of their very strong commitment g3 to enforcement. In addition to that, and I will say a 4 

 ~

34 against a lot of advtce f rom Mr. Check and gehh 15 Mr. Shannon Phillips to stay with the us organization. 4 The advice for not keeping Mr. Phillips  ! i 17 was based primarily on his performance at the South Texas pg project where he had identified a r.amoer of deficiencies ' I up-in the licensee's operation and had participated with I t3 a special task group at South Texas which eventually led t t 31 to rather momentous changes in the conduct of the South 22 Texas project. All of this occurred before dqlggENB, but g) of all these events and the advice that g 34 N for not selecting Mr. Phillips was that you C3 couldn't trust Mr. Phillips to be part of the team. l

3 .- 3 , My cwn :tnclusion was that you could trust him to do his work, an. 'i 9 - 2 3 him and sent 3 , him down to Comanche Peak to carry one of the main leads 4 l on the construction inspection acti' titles. While he ganamak g 5 that ne was doing a good Job. g I don't knew that I answered your question. 7 because I had to start way cack wit'h the people. O g Q Yes, I think you did. But you brought g up another interesting point concerning Shannon Phillips 10 and the activities he was involved in in South Texas and 0 11 how that carried over. Some attitudes that were expressed ' 12 by 6 9 13 Do you know of any repercussions that 14 Phillips suffered at Region Four as a result of the findings 15 'that he, you know, participated in at South Texas other than,l 0 gg you know, the advice not to keep him on, but during the 37 periods of time that you were at the Region was there pg any sort of campaign against Phillips? Was he, you know, 0 gg blacklisted? gg A I can only say what I was able to personally p 21 observe. Again, reflecting that much of $$bgAABB was spent 23 out of town, I didn't see anything that I could call a  : i 23 strong blacklist or campaign, but certainly on the part t I Se of M and h and a few others, there was a , as continuing stream of comments about watching Mr. Phillips I

s j i ). l l l I and nct trusting Mr. Phil.'1ps and watraing ycur back with ! / 2 i Mr. Phillips. Most of that I cenc;uded was based upon 3- i his perforniance at South Texas and his Irve;vement with 4 Region Three personnel who did a specla; inspection on 5 South Texas and revealed many things that were apparent a to Mr. Phillips prior to that, but hadn't been acted upon 7 by Region Tour. So I think that there was some distrust, a some dislike and some apprehension about having a strong 8 willed, meticulous and capable person on the staff that Hl wasn't easily swayed to your point of view. 11 I regarded that as strengths not weakenesses.! 18 Q You earlier spoke about the political  ; 13 ( climate and how it af fected Region Four management concerning 14 Comanche Peak and TUGCO. What was the political climate 

     ~

18 at the Region? 14 A Well, the climate, whether it's political 17 or not, was one of good personal relationships between 18 l top management and, top management at TUGCO and top  ! 18 t management at the Region. I say good personal relations 88  ! in the sense that people always acted more than civilly.  ! 81 They acted friendly. They had a number of instances where st I would say that Mr. Check and others simply wished to ss  ! leave the utility alone to do its 3ob, and to insure that , Se r the NRC people didn't interfere with that job. 35 We even had, at least one instance that 4 l

1 i h .. l 1 you're familiar with where there was a lean n9 over barkward 1 i f1 2 , to not get invcived : .- something that :ould have been 3 l the business of tne NCR, particularly considering tne l 4 1 total climate on that pro;ect and all surrounding 5 circumstances. I think that politically the NRC Region l 8 Four management found it necessary, and I don't say it 7 0 was really necessary, but they found it necessary to choose l l 8 sides between TUCCO and the TUGCO adve:sary so that there , t 9 was a choosing up sides in at least the philosophical, 1 ' MD sense and sometimes in the action sense between  ; i i 11 interveners and TUGCo. H Whereas I thought that if there were sides, there were three sides. The NRC side, the utility side C ( 13 I j 14 and the interveners' side, and we simply didn't have to , 2 choose. s This all gets evidenced in small ways and small M5 changes and attitudes which overall give a bigger picture,  ! 17 referring to people who alleged problems as alligators, 2 not being really interested to determine what the problems W i are seen by the interveners. Referring to them and thinking ' 30 about them as Just a pain that has to be endured, I think i i 21 tended to place the regional management on a side that

  • It they didn't need to be on. l I 1

ss I remember at least one instance where to a former TUGco employee wished to discuss the various 25 allegations that she had against TUGCO and Mr. Check was 1

0 attitude, tner' 0I 2 

                                                          ^                   th nk h  =#d   g  d 'p *ch ' **d th'"k 3                               .

he made, and he previded good polley, cut he had so man; 4 n 

                                          !!              things to do tha: I would not have expected him to s

s j Personally be sure tnat 

                                         !                                          the lower levels were pushing
           ,                             i up notices of viciattens, nor would I have expected him to do detail checxs on whether or not all the people in g                                             the Region were following his guidance. I simpl/ think he had too much to do in a short time to have expected it to be effective, because the situation had existed 11                                             f r such a long time. With respect to any enforcement l

I 12 actior.s that I took Mr. Martin was fully supportive, I ( g3 including civil penalties which I generated. That is, I 14 I generated the notices of violations which led to the gg civil penalties, and so he was supportive of those. 3, I would say that there was only one g7 instance where my udgment differed from his, on the 18 timeliness of issuing a report which centained a violation. g, And in that case he simply delayed it for a variety of g reasons, rather than issuing it in a more, what I ' i 21 considered to be more timely manner. I would say that i et Mr. Martin was supportive of a strong enforcement policy. ' 33 He just had not teen able to achieve what he said he wanted 24 to achieve M . 35 Q Getting to a more specific area, if we 1 w--________

f. could g a'k 

                                     . fer a   . nute about, : don't knew if tnis is
 ,(                  2     an accurate characterization, but the two different 3     philosophies concerning the importance of cond :t:n-4     inspections of hardware versus the 1.tportance of quality 0

g assurance type inspections, s from talking to some people at the Region-( 7 it seems to me there are two different camps. Some people g seem to feel that really what's important is looking at g specific items of hardware and making sure they've been .; 10 constructed properly and some other people believe quality , 11 assurance is very important. Part of, you know, safety 12 of a plant, and that we should be spending a lot of time  ! I( g3 with quality assurance. 1-4 Do you feel that eitner one of these two .I la played a lesser role at the Region or did the Region le emphasize one of the two more than the other, quality 17 assurance over hardware type inspections ? g A Well, I think that fram the regional y viewpoint the emphasis seemed to be on hardware. I 30 considered that to be a fundamental mistake. It is true 21 that if you've had an unreliable program over a period g of years you don' t have any cho.ce but to inspect the 33 - hardware to see if the correct hardware came about in i 4 34 spite of the program. I did not see strong amphasis from i 35 the leadership in the Region on quality assurance programs, l _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - -

0 4 1 t cut scre of tnis has to be 1:cked at in what is tru;y 2 a mixed perspective. 0 1 3  ;; From a regulatory viewpoint the regulators 4  : i. rely upon the utility to do the right job. They rely 5 on the utility to have good engineering, good organizations e and good construction. And they rely on the utility to 7 have good quality assurance programs which help insure a L that what should-be done is done. 3 It's a common phrase that you don't inspect 10 quality in. You must put the quality in there during 11 all these processes which you are relying upon to work. . 12 Inspection can only tell you that your programs aren't i 1 

        ,      g3
        '                       working because the hardware is not right.                                                     I think that 34.

it's easier to inspect hardware than it is to inspect gg a quality assurance program and reach conclusions on that, 16 and I think that in the past there must have been some 17 emphasis on hardware rather than on the program yielding 18 the hardware. 

            .gg From an NRC perspective, the man power D                allocated to direct inspections was extremely small compared 21
      '                       to the items which could be inspected, so by and large                                                                            :

o we never could have beca expected to inspect more than i i c3 about one percent of the plant. Some inpsection was intended 34 to determine whether the program was working correctly 

           . cf               to yield the right kind of hardware, and that's a good

l o , l0. -. ( 3 g check On :ne pr: gram, but the pretat:1:ty cf uncever:ng 2 , smalll defects in the program by direct hard.are inspecticn .4 j 3 I was extremely small. I ( At the same time, the protacility of " 5 determining a program that's really gone awry through a direct inspection of hardware is quite good. We would i 7 expect to see that. We would expect to see pervasive a hardware deficiencies because of pervasive breakdowns ) 1 g in quality assurance, pervasive breakdowns in engineering  ! 10 and design and construction ~ processes. This is what.you 11 would expect to see as s signal. 12 But there was no way that the NRC could l g3 inspect the plant to insure that all the cor.ponents were 14 of quality. We simply had to rely .pon the utility to 15 do what they said they were going to do in program and j is hardware and to inspect to see that they were doing that. 17 I think there is a general attitude that a things can't be demanded to be perfect, but certainly g we demanded at least reasonable assurance of public health ' i gg and safety protection. So I think it's mixed, a mixed l situation that we have. I 21 l 3B You've got to inspect the program and as you've got to look at the procedures and you've got to ' i se look at the record keeping and you've got to look at the 

  )3 as            hardware, and in order to achieve an across-the-board l-l l

l 

                                                                                                    )

f-26 

                                   ,                                                                                      )

4

n:.'us;:n nat tne. utility is comply:ng with all of :gs
    ,(                            2 j

commitments and complying with all of the Regulatory 3 requirements, y ; na /e to do it all. :f you emphasize l f one versus the etner, j 8 5 i then you rely solely on the utility to do a good ) 

                                '                         3cc w: th P.o inspection or no good sampling of its perfor.mance at all.                                                    f ll 7
    '.                                                       : don't think that Region Four could have 8

8 been considered as having a strong orientation to qualit y i k assurance programs from the programmatic viewpoint. 1 8 Had they had such a strong orientation over the years then u , 5 the results later seen at South Texas and at Comanche Peak and at 2 Waterford never would have arisen.  ; i ( Q s li So you, in your opinion, had Region Tour, , let's take Comanche Peak, had Region Four emphasized the

  • 15 I quality assurance aspect of the inspection program that is maybe some of the problems at t Comanche Peak right now '

1T 18 may have been resolved at an earlier stage by the utility i 

    !                                   having a better program set up, identified programs?                               i t

18 Am i I getting that right?  ; 2 A Yes. Yes. i -M And I believe that is ' fundamentally true. I think about this as a principle I . E  ! of leverage. The program is going to yield hardware based  ; i 

                   #                                                                                                       }

on two things. ! I The strength of the program and its 94  ; correctness and the capabilities of the construction i forces from the craft on up through the supervision. 1 If I I l l 

                              .                                                                                             l h_.       _-_-_m.   .__.m   _

) - 1

tne progra- for qual;ty assurance is not strong, then 2

f( any deficiencies which occur in the construction organization 3 will simply be magnified. 4 At the same time, if you have a strong 5 1 quality assurance program, then the tendencies of 8 construction to do a poor Job is overwhelmed by a good T strong quality assurance program. 3 a i But as I say, if you are, if you focus 8 on and give priority to inspection of hardware, you must to t realize that your leverage is very, very small. You must 11 focus, you must give considerable focus to the program 8 l II  ? and utilize inspections of hardward to insure that what is s you think is being done in the program is actually showing i l' up in the field. 

     ~

It 's more of a con firmation. I 15 You want to be advised if you see bad l is j ) c hardware and you want to have it recognized that it was 17 i a real foul-up in the program which yielded that. You l j is don't want t 3 to have bad hardware explained by an inadequate up program, and so I think at comanche Peak, TUGCO did not 1 88 have a strong quality assurance program and the lack of  ! Il I a strong quality assurance program yielded a lot of hardware l El that wasn't what was intended. And the Region didn't l 

          - 33 1

remedy that sitution over a period of years. i I 88 Q So if Region Four had not conducted an 85 inspection of TUGco's corporate QA program for the past u

I6 ... j 1 ; ten years, tner Ine Fegi n itself :::.d be a: fau . -. .. r, 2 feel, for some cf these prebi' ems that shewed up in : e ! 3 field at this late date ? 4 A Yeah. l I think that tnat would be a .ery 5 severe deficien *. On the part of the Region to have not a conducted an inspecticn of the quality assurance program 7 and narrowed the effects of the field and taken corrective a action. 3 I don't believe that the NRC ought to 10 do the utility's ]ob for them. I think if we're 11 culpable, we're cuplable against our own regulations and f ur our own job descriptions and our own responsibilities. g3 The fact that we didn't do something which would have u corrected a problem meant we didn't fulfill our obligations un to the public and to the taxpayers and to our own oath 14 of office, rather than that we didn't fulfill any obligations 17 to TUGCO. They were sufficiently staffed. They had HI 1 suf ficient ability to hire good people and to pay good up people so that even if the NRC never inspected 'them, they go should have been expected to have a good program. gg It's simply that if we didn't do a good 1 23 job and we didn't fulfill our obligations, and I don't i 33 l ) .' think that the utility can lay off on the NRC their own i [ k sins. l  : Certainly, we would have well represented the public - l j u

  • both in terms of health and safety and in terms of expense
  • I l l

g 1 , to tne public and in terms of pu 11r welfare had Region 2 Four demanded and obtained better :;uality assurance frc~ t 8 ' 3 TUGCO. 4 0 *et me give you a hypothetical scenario. 5 If an inspector during inspection of a piece of hardware t 6 finds no problem with that specific piece of hardware 7 but does find a problem with the record keeping and QA 8 aspects, do you feel that you would still have a valid 8 violation, even though that, you know, even though the 10 end result or specific piece of hardware is, the one looked * 

      -                                                                      11 at is fine, do you think that the violation involving, 18 or the deficiency involving quality assurance would be 13 a valid violation?

r I' 14 A I certainly do. 

              -                                                                                                              And a very important           ,
                   ~

18 I violation, because now you have good hardware, that  ! 16 happened in spite of an inadequate program. And by the 17 way, you think, or you are convinced that you have good 18 hardware in spite of the program, but I must say that I 18 if the records which document the hardware and all its 8 attributes and all its needs are deficient, you have . 21 I some inherent doubt about whether what yot a,e is what f 22 ' is actually there. I i 23 Q On that one specific you looked at? 84 ll A Even on that one specific thing, because i 88 record keeping is important because it yields the pedigree

i and :n tnercugntred herses a pedigree is an 1.;crtant ( 2l thing, and care :s taken in these, in nuclear plants, 3 if you don't have a certified mater:a1 test re;crt, for 4 example, and if you don't have a documented material content 5 of a component as a pump or a valve and you don't have t 6 the quality assurance records that demonstrate that what 7 , was done was what should have been done, then you're simply a relying upon surface observation on your part or even 

                                                    ,            perhaps better, relying upon the operational experience g             of the component, but all of these things go hand in hand 11 and the quality assurance program is intended to help Et insure that what is needed is built, and it is no 13

{ substitute for that program to simply do an inspection 14 of the surface attributes of the component or of the whole ul plant. 14 By the same token, you cannot tell gy whether a concrete wall six feet thick is well constructed a by looking at the surface of it. You must rely upon the up Proper placement of re-enforcing bar, the inspection of go that re-encorcing bar, the documentation that says it 21 was put in accordance with design, the inspection of the 22 concrete that's poured. The samples that are taken to 33 insure that the picture is correct, and of the proper , 3g l strength and all of these things go in so that when you're I as through if you don't have those records and you don't  ! -

g. 3 na/e tnat pr:gr3m tnat yields these reccrds, then you 2 s mply are relying upon tne surfare observations. 

  ,                 (                         '

3 j And at Comanche Peak there was a large program to determine whether, help determine whether what 4 , ! 4 5 was below the surface was what we thought was below the 1 6 surface on concrete. These were referred to as Schmidt 7 Hammer tests, to simply determine or help determine if h a we had good strong concrete, because you can only see o the surface. 10 Q During Region Four, did 11 you over have any occasion to discuss with Shannon Phillips 12 any concerns he may have with the way Regional Four management 13 was handling Comanche Peak? 

 .                 /'

A g,4 I can't recollect the details of any at 15 the moment, but jbMkWWEEF Comanche Peak rather routinely, I i 1g and if Shannon Phillips were on site I generally had a  ; t 17 conversation with him. He did, from time to time, express gg to me concerns that he had about what he was finding in 6 up his inspection, and in those I ust simply always encouraged hba to bring them forward, put them in reports and write I go 21 violations and so forth when they were due. ' l 3: Shannon Phillips to some degree was in 33 an awkward position, unfortunately. He was the senior 34 resident inspector for construction and he had certain i as responsibilities at the same time because of the enormous I

_ __ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I i 1 am:ent of ;;rk that had to be done, we put devn there i t; 2 a task force w;tn other pecple on it l doing in a cat:h-up 3  ! mode what .:eeded to be done over a pericd cf years. So 4 in order for Shannon Phillips to be fully effective in 

 .                     O the best interest of the NRC, and of course, the Region 8

as they're cht.ged, he would have had to have close working 7 relationships and good 8 interactions with all the other people who were part of the team. 8 I think that from time to time he didn't feel a part of that full team. 10 The process which was set in motion in 11 the summer of 1985, simply hadn't progressed to the point i 12 , that I would have said something significant;has to be 13 ( changed. We always encounter, in dealing with people, 14 personal preferences, personal emphasis and personal likes 15 and dislikes, but during the time that I was there when it we had this group going I didn't observe that there was 17 a condition which needed any significant correction. 18 I do think that Mr. Phillips would have is had and probably expressed to me, I don't recollect the a/A 20 specific circumstances now, concern about whether we were 21 giving Comanche Peak a real gcod shakeout based upon things 22 that he would have porceived in people's attitude. I 23 don't think we had enough factual e)ridence to say one  ; M i way or the other that we were going to reach the end of  ! 26 the road and do a solid job in the late summer of 1985, { 4 _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - ~ ~ - ^ ~ ' ~ ' ' ' '

1 

  ~

g. 1 i 

                                                                      ;                                                                                           k and in:: :he early fal*.
simply didr't have enougn 2 evidonCG.

(k apen the operational inspectors l 3 j to do their Job, the resident i I 1 inspector in charge of 4 construction to do his :ce and to werk closely with all i 5 the other people invo;ved in the task force to be sure t ( 6 that the composite, we did the correct NRC Job. 7 would not have been rurprised if

i. g subsequent events i yielded some disagreements between people I g i and perhaps caused some significant differences of opinion.

10 - f Particularly because of the cast of characters that were i gg involved. I may, if my memory were suf ficiently prompted, j gg recollect particul.. i things that Shannon Phillips said ' 

       ,                                    g3                                         to me sometime.        They

( Just don't occur to me at this 14 moment, but \ if you have any that would help me, I'd be g3 pleased to go ahead and deal with them. I gg Q I have one instance here that I'll discuss g7 in a little bit. Did you ever have any occasion to witness la I any confrontations, for lack of a better word, between i 19 and Mr. Phillips concerning disagreements i { gg l over inspection reports or maybe even involving i 21 , involving what should be in an inspection 33 report? Whether a finding was a valid finding, anything g like that? s 34 A . b I simply don't recall at the moment, but gg I'm trying to go back a couple of years, almost a couple e h

1 p> 1 l 1 g , of years new :. .v e : y, and : may have. ust den't i l 2 recall. O k' l 

                                                        ^

l g Ckay. Let me ask feu a rcre deta;'ed 3 . 4 questipn and that concerns the NRC form '66 which, if j l 0 5 is, I guess computer input data form that's a prepared after inspections to show certain inspection 7 procedures and modules and whether the work was done on that procedure during the. inspection report. s 

                                            ,                     6 , 2 @ involvement to    at all with this program?                        -

11 A Well, yes, because M were i 12 required to provide input to that. The intended result  ! 1 13 from the people who prescribe that program was to be able g4 to capture the data on inspection hours and to keep track 

              ~

05 of modules that were executed. 18 Region Four M g7 found that program to be highly unreliable. I didn't 13 believe the information that was in there, ap i my 3, disbelief was vindicated by W Wolf Creek. g At Wolf Creek 6 the data on n historical inspections that was in that system, was in a that system that uses 766's was so poor that h 23 an inspector from Region Two named Kenneth Jennison and j 34 he did a hand sort and data accumulation on the total i i s si file on Wolf Creek to determine from inspection reports l l k i l

D . g what was inspe:ted, wnat ! .odule was executed, hew much - ! 2 inspection time was spe..: and so forth. 0 6 And he 3 accumulated h :n Wolf Creek sclely because S 4 qspdlb the system in place was a snerbles. Strictly 5 unreliable. s Q What l would cause the unreliability of 7 sometning that would seem to be so straightforward where, I e I know, from the way : understand the system to be set I g I up you have an inspector who does an inspection. He then t 3 g prepares a 766 form which outlines what he just did in i 11 the inspectio'n, and then that form is put into the system. la Do you.have any indication as to why this system wac 1 l ( 13 - unreliable? 14 A In my view we had some major contributors g to that. i The first starts at the point that you started g it with, and that's the input of the inspector. The system i 17 results that h for Wolf Creek indicated g inspections done in the 766 system which the inspection 

                                                                                                              )

g report didn't support. Simply there was a discrepancy < l se 1 between what w&s on the form and what was Just filed in l gg the inspection report. I think that there's a variety i i g3 of reasons for that Carelessness is one, and that's i I g3 an unimportant aspect. I don't think it was a big 4 3g contributor. 4 c3 The second is that there was an overall

i 1 1 a t t :,t u d e t ".a t if ycu.can think of sc.etning that would 2  : have Justified your saying that you'>e done so.ething, ) )' 3 then mark _it off, even though you d:,dn ' t put anything f 4 to ;ustify that conclusion in the inspection report. :t's, J 5 I looked at the reactor vessel as I was walking by. That 6 must fulfill the obl:.gations under this module, but I 7 don't put in my inspection report that I looked at the 8 reactor vsssel as I was walking by, because that really 8 isn't an inspection. And this is an example I just dreamed to up to illustrate what I mean by the desire to fulfill 11 the module obligations separately from fulfilling the 12 inspection obligations. ' 18 And when I say that, I mean the module ( 14 3 obligations as relate to the record keeping. l 16 Second problem, of course, was correct } [ 18 input into the system by the people that took the data

17 from the 766 forms and put them into the system, and then

) 18 the fact that the whole system was ma:,ntained by the 18 administrative organization to keep it up to date and there were always enormous difficulties in getting data 

                   #             out, and I shouldn't say enormous. There were more than we thought were appropriate difficulties in getting data
                   #             out and doing sorts and so forth.

L But I would say that l 88 by and large the largest contributor to discrepancies 6 } between actual inspections and what's in the 766 was I 1 L i

t i-1 a tendency :: : a ; '. s:mething an inspection in f. 4 , 

                                                                                     . . .. . .. g 3

2 the requirements Of :ne module wh::n rea;;y weren't, 3 0 New, the way the system was set up, did 4 you get credit for dcing a portion of an inspection module 5 or procedure, there snould have been some documentation 6 on the inspection repert. !s that true? 7 A Yes, that's true, and that's my view. 8 If you did sufficient enough, a sufficient amount of work 8 to fulfill the requirements of the module you should have i 10 written at least'a few sentences in the inspection report ' 11 that says you did it. 12 Q Cr at least to acknowledge the fact that ' i' 13 you looked at it? 

           ~14 A                     Yes.

I don't work on that calibration, 15 you know. You either did it or you didn't do it. le g so : guess the situation M at Wolf 17 Creek has been duplicated at Comanene Peak where we've 18 had examples of the 766, shows certain inspection 18 procedures going from 10 percent to 100 percent complete 30 l and given credit to an inspection report, we go back to , Il i the inspection report that claims to have done 90 percent i 22 of inspection procedures, not one word in that inspection 23 report that shows anything was done at all. That, to 5 M me, is inappropriate. Would you agree to that? 38 A That, to me, is inappropriate, and that's (

0 25 g wny h :he '66':: r-be an unreliable indicater of the 2 inspections that 8 ' ( , 

                                                               -                had teen dene at Wolf Creek and why W 3       M the person        nat J :.T O'R ley leaned 6 , see wnat 4        the inspection report says, we'll rely on them to tell 5        us what was dene.

6 Q So far as Wolf Creek, then, 7 what was written down is what counted? If it wasn't written 3 down, it didn't count? g A That's correct. 10 Q You feel that attitude is pretty much 11 the prevailing or the way it should be? 12 A . I don't think that attitude prevails, s gg but I do think that's the way it should be. 

   ~(

14 Q Right. And if a person goes back to the 15 NRC and IE Manuals, you think that all procedures would is support that sort of attitude? 17 A Yes. gg Q Cetting back to Region Four's attitude gg concerning Comanche Peak, during one of my interviews y of a Region Four inspector the individual outlined for 33 me an incident that he recalled involving g attending a meeting involving a cable tray hangers and also at the meeting was i 

       )

24 , and apparently h had said that i g I there was nothing wrong at Comanche Peak and what was E

3 1 reported to .e, $ t:id' h that as 1:ng as 0 I. 2 

             'l  g were                                didn't want t: hear 3
             . anybody at Region Four ever say aga:,n that there was neening i

4 wrong with the Comanche Peak and that this person who 8 I interviewed said that you had heard this continually 6

  • from Region Tour personnel inspectors and supervisors 7

or whoever, M in a meeting and heard Mr. Counsel, ) i 8 who was the head of Tt:GCo at that time 6 they were 8 going to do a three million dollar rework in Unit 2 and 

                                                                                   )

10 he didn't know how much it was going to do in Unit 1, 5 11 and that for Stone and Webster to go back and do a complete  ; 12 evaluation of all piping design and hanger work in both i 18 units, and that for somebody in Region Four to say there's 14 nothing wrong with Comanche Peak, all this was ludicrous. 15 A I recall an instance, : can' t give you le the date or time when N said that, but 17 was not alone. Mr. Collt::s expressed the 18 same attitude when h . 

                                                                     %              j l

19 in on meetings where a Region Tour team said, "This plant i 88 looks fine. Why is it still not licensed?" And that 81 was based on their inspection observations. 21 It would be difficult to me, for me to I 23 say why inspectors or regional management had that attitude, ; 88  ! 4 but they did have a lot of input f rom people that, their I t 88 observations were valid and reliable. I personally heard  ; i l L - --__ _ _-_-_ - -- --

I

s. ,_

g i Region Three team say.that based upon everything they'd l 2 done, that.the plant looked good. gI , It looked better than 3 many that they had seen and so fcrth. And I believe those kinds of signals tended to affect the middle management is 5 0 { and top management attitudes. 6 "1 l As I've already said, the inspection results 7 aren't always extremely reliable indicators of the true lt a k situation, because the amount of things, the number of I e  ! i . things inspected is small compared to the total. We think 10 t we've done a good Job, but if we inspect one percent of I gg the plant, and that's across the board, one percent of - 12 the concrete, one percent of the structural steel, one 13 g percent of the primal system, piping and go on and so 14 forth, so the utility has hundreds of times as much 15 inspection going into the plant as the NRC does, and this i is is all controlled by the quality assurance program, 17 including training of personnel, the qualifications of gg ( personnel, the documentation and all aspects of doing g, their Job. 3 That's why the program in quality assurance, 21 just from An inspection viewpoint, is an extremely n important program, because they magnify our efforts or - a their efforts are way beyond our capabilities, and if ( { 3e 4 they do it right, then we can have a much higher level l N , of confidence than we could have based on our own i l 1 g j

8 

                ~

g obser.ati:ns. 2 So fes, Mr. Ocunsel said, "'de've gone 't f 3 out and we've hired hundreds of people to :cre out and 4 inspect, and we're finding things that need correction l '( 5 and we're finding things that we're unsure about, and 6 we have a large program to try to correct this." And 7 I didn't see why Reglen Four should be saylr.g that the a Plant is all right and there's no problem if even the e utility couldn't say that. I don't believe we ought to 10 get out ahead of the utility, telling him he didn't have 1 i 11 a problem when he was saying he did. But this is an 13 attitude. gg g It's not an unusual attitude to think ' 14 that the difficulties that a plant is encountering are 

            ~
              ~

18 all political. . It's I gg a blatant untruth. If the problems weren't there, there 17 won't be any problem, If they weren't hardware problems, pg record keeping problems, quality assurance problems, then I gg 'the utility could stand up and say, "Here is what I've 30 done and this proves that I've done it right and here t 21 are my people and their qualifications and here are my 33 records, and you can look at them." And then you don't 23 have to raise the question of whether something is right. , se You'll see a record that's a reliable record that l as something was done. If you can't see that, then you l

7 I 

                                                                                                                     \

l 1 i don't have any right to beleive tnat the plant is built 3 in the way tnat ;t was :ntended to te ouilt. }k l 3 l And so, I didn't th;nk nat attitude that l 4 d the plant was okay and that things were all political 5 (( and tied up in interveners concerns and so forth was a b- i 6 # valid attitude at all. 7 f This is not to say that some of these 8 . processes aren't painful. Not to say that some of the 8 decisions and some of the statements made aren't ones to that we disagreed with. Simply to say, though, that we 11 weren't doing anything that wasn't involved in the 1 12 l regulations and we had to take the pain along with the  ; 13 joy. i i I4 Q - Is there a difference between a violation L5 and an unresolved item? 18 A Yes. 17 Q What would the difference be? 18 A Well, a violation ;s something that you O contend to a regulation that says something has to be C done and that it wasn't done. That's a violation, and n you can cite chapter and verse. O An unresolved item in its proper context , [3 is an item upon which more information is needed in order j 84 to determine whether it's a violation or not. An i O unresolved item is not an item that we don't know whether t

4. -

I i l-1 it's 3 vit;a:1cn :: not. It's nct sirp;y that. :t's gn{ 2 an item that * 

                                                                                 'e need more information en it and someone's 3

got the action. Eltner NRC has got ne action :: get 4 the information er tne utility has the action to supply 5 the in f o rma tio n , and upon receipt of the information a 6 determination will be made. 7 There was, and I'll say was, prior to 8 Bob Martin some tendency to call a violation an unresolved  ! 8 item. And upon the production of further information 10 to call the unresolved item resolved because now more 11 information is provided. That's incorrect. The correct ' 12 thing is that you get the additional information and 13 { additional information will tell you whether or not a 14 violation has cccurred. 

;                                                   16 4

But it's a trick, it's a trick to not Di j 16 call a violation a violation. Mr. Martin was very clear 17 and very explicit on what is an unresolved item and what W is a violation, and they're not the same. And you can't 18 write a violation as an unresolved item and disposition 

 ,                                              3D it as not a violation when it actually is.

Il 

;                                                                                   We tried to practice, I believe edRppe
,                                               31 the principle that if it's a as t'

violation it's a violation, and if it is an unresolved u i 8' i ites,

h. there's more information due and then we'll make I as the call when we've got more information. I don't i

.4 e ,. g think we were en:1 rely successful in that. d Mr. MarIn 2 , reenf orced tnat rencept strongly. I ( ,, 3 hadn't' reached tne goal yet. I { Q l 4 Mcw capable were unresolved I items tracked? 5 A  : I think unrescived items were tracked a quite well. Probacly not in what I wovid refer to as 7 the most { timely way because of workload, personnel shortages \ a and so forth. Sc when I say they were tracked, it was e our practice to give a number to an unresolved item Just j w like we give a number to the open item and just as we l i 11 give a number to the violation so that we could track < Ut them. But, and this is the one of the consequences of L us the sin of calling a violation an unresolved item. ( l 14 A violation requires a timely response u6 and timely closure by the NRC. I An unresolved item doesn't. Hg Calling the violation an unresolved item can permit it 17 to remain in limbo for an extended period of time until He i semebody gets around to it or opens up the book and says, i g, 

                              " Hey, this unresolved item has been around a      long time.                           I n           Let's go do it."                                                                        k' me                                                                                       ,

so one of the sins of misnaming a violation at an unresolved item is like the timely corrective action. 23 The potential is now, and now you depend on the individual m i to put an emphasis on closure of an unresolved item, j 3 l as whereas it's more automatic if you call it by it's proper l I l l

i i 8-65 1 name, a vi lati n- { 2 J Q So is :: possible f r unresolved : tens 3 l to go away? I 4 l A

t's possible fer unresolved items to I I 5 be resolved by the obtaining of addition information and a never be called a violation, yes. It's possible, I can't 7

think of an instance where it occurred, that an unresolved i g item hung around so long until people got tired of it and Just called it resolved without really resolving it. 10 Q This is another scenario, hypothetical. I [ 1 i 11 If, for example, h and an inspector had a 1 12 disagreement over the interpretation of a code, let's i l( 13 say the code involved record keeping and records off the 14 site and you had an inspector and supervisor disagree , 

      ~

15 over what the code intended, would it be appropriate, I i le who would be the appropriate referee in a disagreement gy like this? Who do you go to? Could you go to the people g UB that wrote the code and try to get a resolution that way? g You know, call up the people in ANSI and say, " Listen, 30 this is what you say. This is what you require. What l g do you mean?" Is this appropriate? I A at Well, I think it would be appropriate. i n I don'.t think it's the appropriate first step, but in y your first step if h was supervisor of the g inspector, then if the inspector disagrees his proper i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ L

8 4: r ;e is to esca; ate :t to a 1 level above h t 2 If he doesn't get it resolved there, then he should a 3 escalate it up anotner level and he should get to the 4 regional administrator for a decision, and of course, , 5 in NRC there are, there's a process for differing 6 professional opinions,which, because it's so time consuming 7 and arduous it cugnt not to be exercised at will, but 8 ought to be excr:: sed when really needed. g  : would have expected an appeal process 10 on at least two levels to get a resolution of the , disagreement. 11 And hadW of the appeal officials, ' 12 I certainly would have said if we don't, if the code really I 13 isn't clear, why don't we ask the people that wrote it. ' 

     ~

34 Yes, I think that's an appropriate step, but not the first , 15 one. Not the first step. I think the appeal official 16 ought to do that unless there was an agreement to do it 17 at the lower level. If the supervisor and inspector 18 disagreed on the proper interpretation but they did agree l gg they would seek another interpretation and abide by it, a that would not give me any problem at all as long as the 31 matter got resolved. I l n Q so in a case like this, do you think it's  ! a appropraite for some sort of an agreement to be reached j g 34 between the inspector and supervisor in contrast to just 5 g saying forget it, it's not a violation, I'm taking it I 

 .1' f               g   ;     ' cut, where :ne inspect =r going Out and did the work feels

( 2  : strongly it is a violation, do you thlak there should 3 be some sort of accord reached? 4 A Yes. I think there 'should be an accord 

            -5 reached or it should'be escalated. I don't agree with 4

the philosophy or the implementation that the supervisor 7 ought to make'the 3. fina1 decision unless it's in an' instance  ; g where the relation says he will. You know, the easy things that come to mind are if a selecting of f acial who was

  • 10

' selecting personnel to fill a job is the selecting official, 11 then he selects. It's his decision. . If the inspector gg who is at least as smart as the supervisor says that he 13 thinks that code is being violated, and I would be very . 14 uncomfortable with the supervisor who says, "I don't care $ 15 what you say, because I know better than you do and I've t 16 decided this now. Forget it." i i l g7  ; I think that's at least poor style, and gg certainly not something I consider in concert with the t g, NRC's general posture on these things. I mean if we can a have appeal boards for licensing decisions, certainly gg . we can appeal for first line of inspection of hardware, gg and I must say that I've been involved in a number of  ! g those open discussions and appeals and written papers j gg  ! on it and things like that where we have inspectors say, D I don't think that this is right." And we have even

1 l l 0 1 1 had instances wnere I wouldn't think the inspector did 2 a good enougn ::: and we'd have a 0 l' t discussion on that and 3 reenforce it. i j 4

always think it's my right to require

( 5 them to do more inspection. I den't feel it's my right 6 to tell them to do less than they think they ought to 7 do, absent some goed fundamental reason. 

 ;                                         8              Q icu feel the supervisors at the Region, 9

now we're talking abcut at the level that, you know, i l l. 10 h and 6 and people like that, do you l 1 11 feel they know what's going on in the field at 12 Comanche Peak? I I 13 A * 

           \

If there's any weakness I can personally 14 identify for NRC supervisors, is tnat they don't know 15 what's going on in the field because they don't get there 16 often enough. And the message is passed on to them or, 17 either intentionally or unintentionally filtered, and 18 i there are a lot of things that are difficult to describe 18 in words. The old cliche is a picture is worth a thousand 3/B 20 words is magnified by an on-site visit where you can see 8 21 what's being done and you can see the conditions in the 2? field which are very, very difficult to describe to a , 23 t person from time to time unless things are really bad i j f 1 24 i and out of control, and I think that, I think that is 8  ! It's really a generality that most l a generality. 8

l 'l  ! 4) I t people who con fine their vorkdays to swivel chairs don' t really know what's going on in the field. I think it's ( 2 3 a weakness that I recognized i 4 and h every cpportunit, N.he plants .I 5 and clinb around on the hardware with inspectors and shine 6 flashlights and neasure things and insert gauges and, 7 to see what we we re really seeing and unscrew bolts and 'I g things like that where you simply can' t understand that g from a description, particularly a description diat's l 1 u) constrained by time because you' re se busy. ,1 11 So I would say by and large the regional 12 nanagement doesn' t know what's happening in the field

r
              , is       unless they take the time to ob se rve i t firsthand. And     ,

t 14 I think that th a t kind of attitude is certainly an attitude 

            ~

t$ that I see in commissioners. That's why you see H5 cormdssioners visiting power plants , Asselstine and others 17 on inspections , so they could t ry to see. Now, they don't , 18 see the nitty gritty. They see a lot rore than they can 19 in swivel chairs in tlashington. , l 20 Q did you have 21 any knowledge of any of the Region Four nanagement asking to 22 go up to the site, especially one like Comanche Peak or some 23 of other sites that were being licensed and ask them to get ' I f 24 out all the closed and open items and various, you know, l4 25 IE Manual, Capte r 25 ins pe ct ion , just get out there I 

                                                                                               ----_______a

0 . W t and get the a;; :;csed, 1.9 other words, to facilitate  ! (. 2 , 

                                        '      getting everytning done?                                                    l 0
                                        !                                                                                ~

3 A Sure. Yeah. Always. 4 Q What type of attitude was this instruction 5 given in? Was it ust get it done or was it actually 6 to go out there and do the i inspections and come back with, 7 you know, their findings? Come back with the findings. t g l In other words, ;ust, you know, go out and look at these 9 things, Just get it done or actually go out and do the i l i to inspection, validly do the inspection? I ' I 11 A I i never heard that much specificity put i i l i i 12 on it, but I have heard many times, said go out there , I l ( 13 and close those open items. ) Close those unresolved items. 

           .t4                              Close those inspection findings and get it done. I guess 15                             what was intended depends upon the speaker and the hearer 1                                           both, but I 16 think you're dealing with a mixed situation                   '

1 17 there. I know we had hundreds 13 l I of items, maybe thousands of items that I think about 1 i g, it to follow up on and close, and we simply recognized, 20 our whole team, that we couldn't do that with a pencil. 

 ,        21 We had to do that with inspection, so we demanded resources a                               from all over the country that said in order to close 23 this item we have to do certain things. We don't simply 1

24 

   ?

sit down and write our name on a piece of paper. 3 So our job was to get out there and close, i 4 l

0  : i disposition and etnerwise i take care of those matters that ' 2  ! needed tak:ng care of before we could say the plant was I ' l 3 i ready to license, and I tnought we did it in the way that 4 it should be done and everyone on l' the team understood 5 

 !                              what we meant by go out there and close those items.

6 Inspect. Do what's necessary, Justify, do it right. 7 

                                                    ~here's no doubt in my mind there were a

some players on tne stage that meant get it done if you 9 can get it done right. If you can't get it done right, u) do it anyway. Yeah, I think there are some of those on 11 that stage. 4 12 O Do you think that attitude is proper 13 considering Comanche Peak, Just go out and get it done i 14 whether it's done right or wrong? 15 A I don't know at this time. When Whama h 16 ^ 

                                                     ,, :. t was   a little too early to tell what        '

17 the real attitude was. I will say that I observed the - ul NRC investing an enormous number cf resources in that up effort, and that would tell me that we expected to do 20 the right Job and not to pencil whip the situation. But {  ; 21 f that's kind of almost empirical today. You can't get 

                                                                                                                \

u inside the people's mind on it. 23 Q 

                                                                                         , were i       24 you ever aware, did you ever pick up any indications that I                                                                                                      )

1 25 Region Four consultants out at Comanche Peak had been 9 1

0 52 1 told to, "ad been steered away frcr finding quality g ( 2 assurance issues and had been s tee red toward quality 3 control harduare tyce n:coler.s that were very easy to l 4 . fi x? Did you ever pick up anything like that? 1 5 A  : can't recollect any at the moment, but as 6 they say, of 7 all those instances. The re 's no doubt that people coming in 8 and consultants coning in were given erphasis to look at  ; 9 hardware. I tnink there was a perception at that time 10 that the quality assurance program, no matter how much it  ! 11 was inspected, might not yield suf ficient results to make 12 the plants licens able , so there was certainly an attitude i 13 that was in Mr. Collins' mind and sore of the things he said  ; 14 that said we really, it's the hardwa re on it there that  ! 

         ~

15 counts and we have to go out the re , the re f o re , and look i 16 at the hardware. ' But as I've s aid earlie r, the re 's 17 weaknesses in that, because your a 111ty to look at the 18 hardware is on the surface. 19 Ue did have sone consultants that focused 20 on hardware , whe ther it was concrete testing or hangers 21 or electrical installations and so forth. I don't recollecti 22 an instance where the consultant thought he ought to look 2 at the program which led to the hardware as opposed to }! l  ; 24 hardware and was told don' t do that. I just don't l 25 recollect one. 4

i 3 

                         ;                Oc you feel that the Region provides                l l

adequate training to their inspectors to go and look at 3( 2 3 quality assurance and procedures, and manual, Chapter 25, I 4 twelve type inspections, you know, the quality assurance l l l 5 type thing, do you feel like the Region inspectors are { 1 6 trained sufficiently to go out and do these type of 7 inspections? 8 A I think that training was an historical  ; 1 g area of weakness in Region Four. Mr. Martin started on u) a rather disciplined program to improve training that 11 personally involved himself in it, because he saw that l 12 same weakness. And so he did something about it at the l i 13 top where it could be done. ' 14 I would say that there was not emphasis i 15 on looking at the programmatic quality assurance in training. 3 up Some people that, because of their experience and because it of their prior training, and that's why I mentioned 13 previously Mr. Barnes and Mr. Ellersnaw and others that tg he knew had that ability and that understanding of 2() programtic matters to assist 

 '                       @ to bring that strength to 6 , and they did 21 that.

I1 22 l 23 It was a weakness across the board. The , I i 24 training, good cross training is okay as long as you can I j i i 26 afford it. I never thought that many of the inspectors lI I 1

t 4 

            ,                                                                                54 1    ]       who were nardware oriented had much                                l training 1-J                                                           cuality 2   ,        assurance aspects.

't ( l i 1 3 j Q This is kind of 3, 4 W , did you think that the inspectors who went 1 i 5 out and found ;ust the, you know, small hardware problems 6 that could be easily fixed, do you think these are the 7 guys that got rewarded and got ahead in the Region? 1 -( ., 8 A I den't know if I can answer that very 9 well. llbdidn't mako very many organizational changes 10 

                                           ~

i 6 brought in 11 M the Region. Mr. Jaudon had been promoted { 12 by the time that h Mr. Lawrence Martin was 13 i made a section chief before, shortly before he left there, 14 left the Region. And I better not say shortly. It's 15 really not shortly, after I recollect the time scale. i 16 None of those individuals were people that I thought found 17 the easy-to-fix problems necessar:ly. 18 If we're talking aceut promotions from 19 grade to grade but not from position of inspector to 20 position of supervisor, I 21 would say that if there were instances of that they weren't 4 22 obvious they occurred because of that. , t 23 MR. MULLEY: Well, why don't we go off i I 24 the record a minute. ( 26 (Thereupon, there was a discussion off f

D n 3 the rercrd-) l 2 - i EXAMINATION BY MR. ML*LLEY: 

     -(                    ,

3 . Q  ! l Co you have anything you would like to l 

                                          ~

{ 4 l add to this interview or any statement by way of conclusion r 5 that you would like to make? 6 A l Well, I think I've said a lot of things 7 t and it might be worthwhile to say something in summary g about what we've been talking about, g We have in Region Four organization a i I g3 number of personalities and their relationships with each 11 other and their way of thinking, and many times these i t 12 are, these ways of thinking are similar and they support l j g3 ( each other, which tends to frustrate the checks and ' 

                                                                                                                                 \

14 balances so that o 

   ~

the merits of the checks and balances ' 15 { are simply overcome by the attitudes and the personal l 16 relationships. g7 '. I would consider that 6 and k 33 6 and Mr. Check are of like mind so that an I r gg appeal is not likely to be heard strictly on its merits. 30 They'll back each other up. I think that close relationship  ; 21 between Mr. Check and 6 tends to frustrate any 1 22 appeals, make them rejected out of hand rather than on 23 the merits. Maybe an attitude of, " Hey, I want to listen i 24 to this, if you can't work it out with them I don't want i O to listen to it." I can see that occurring and you have e

I i. t , level after leve; lined up with the same T.ind, set in f 2 d .the mind. It isn't based on the merits. It's ;ust based 3 , on supporting the organization up and down. The appeal 4 process and checks and balances simply aren't offered, f 5  ! and I think in tne current situation in Region Four I 6 would expect that to be in place and to be operating. 7 Q And the mind, I'm getting back to a Comanche Peak and TUGCO, these three people would share g would be one of leaning towards the utility. Do you feel to that's true? i t 11 A I think -- 12 Q (Interposing) Taking the utility's side? 13 A Yes. I think that's true, but each one ( 14 of those personalities has its own mix that lead to that 15 end result. Whether 6 nas his mix because of ' 16 and his basic attitude about 17 enforcement, and h , his attitude about the ul utility is probably doing good work and there's more smoke tg than there's fire, and Mr. Check about trusting the utility i 20 and let's not get too deeply involved in the business l 21 out there, all of these coming from different directions 22 come to the same re-enforcement attitude and the same l 23 result that issues aren't considered and ventilated and l' u fully discussed and resolved on their merits. l They're a done on another basis, and the attitudes and relationships f 

                                                                                                                           \

$ 1 relat:.cnsnips that exist in all those people, 1  ; and c1;que 2 MR. M*.LLEY: Okay. Thank you /ery .uch. i 8 3 (Thereupon, tne inter /;ew was concluded i 4 at 5:10 p.m.) s . . . . . l 6 7 g II l 

                                                                                                                           \

9 l 

                                                                                                                           \

10 ' l 11 12 )l 13 l 1 

                                                                                                                          )

14 1 

     =                                                                                                                 l
       -                                                                                                                   l 15                                                                          1   1 0  l I

16 17 1 l 18 l l 19 i E I 

                                                                                                                     !     l i     \

'f 21 1 I I 22 23 1 24 l M l 

                                                                                                            .              l l

1 I 1 'd 

                                            -.>......e.
                                            .....;..n..                   -,
                                                                          .. m .e  J r. .. ~. . n. .~   ,o   : ."' , .~. . R lh
           . .s. .; s     ;
                          .5       .c.
                                         ... ..   ...s..,;
                                                                 -~..
                                                                              . . .  .        ...--.a.
                                                                                               . .. ~.                        .......
                                                                                                                              .........a .            ,a..g g.:
o. n n ..__e...

n

.._= =s . n..._. 9. y. . . ' ' . , . , , ,
           . ..,' . . e.n. ...s
m. e.m $m.n ..n a .
          ...a ....
                    ...      o .e ..

't NA.".I CF PROCIIOING: Co.anche Peak AN INVESTIGATIVE INTERV*EW OF: , j DOCKIT NO.: a 3 PI.ACI: Ramada Inn, . ( DATE: June 2,4, 1986 l wore held as herein appears, a r.d na: th;s _s the origi..al 

          ....a. ,,. s      ..4.p. g. e .,. -e , .e    e.
                                                           .. ...     ..e..s          . e  *   .< . ..s. e        ".....a.
                                                                                                                      . . . . .       5.a.es Nu   . -.    '*.a.-

Rogulatory Cc: .r.is sier. . 1 l l 

                                                                                                                                                            /                                                                                        \
                                                                                                                                      -                                                                                                              1 s'.~         '

MJ /s/- - 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     \

( ..-__) 

                                                                                                       ..e.s                  ,or-)
                                                                                                                              .            y D, Banks                                                                                                )
n. .a .s .a . _. _. 4 .ge . ...

g 

                                                                                                    .R =. c .- . = . ' s e'. .' .' .' .' .' .= . 2 a. .*.

Smith Reoorting Agency I l l l T' ' l l 

  @                              e l

l

I h CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE i I certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the ) 'l addressees listed below. Service.was accomplished by hand delivery on M % g j W 1987. ,e 

                                                                                 ,(% .
                                                                                            'l.      ,,', j  7 r~

_T  ;. m - - . 

                                                                                                         .6 L-
1. NRC Commissioners: david S. Rubinton, Esq L.W. Zech, Jr., Chairmen Thomas M. Roberts James K. Asselstine Fredrick M. Bernthal Kenneth M. Carr

{ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C.

2. Bill Paton, Esq. l U.S. NRC f 1717 H Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 1

3. Secretary, U.S. NRC 1717 H Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. j

4. Jack R. Goldberg, Esq.

U.S. NRC 1717 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. i ll t l l t

0i COPIES TO:

1. Hon. John Glenn U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs

, 340 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20510

2. Hon. Edward J. Markey U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515
3. Hon. Lloyd Bentsen U.S. Senate- Hart Bldg.

Washington, D.C. 20515 i

4. Hon. Jake Pickle  !

U.S. House of Representatives 242 Canon Office Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20515

5. Hon. Mickey Leland U.S. House of Representatives 2236 Canon Office Bldg.
'g                     Washington, D.C. 20515-4318
               -6. Hon. Henry B. Gonzalez U.S. House of Representatives 2413 Rayburn Office Bldg.

Washington, D.C. 20515-4320

7. Hon. James C. Wright, Jr.

U.S. House of Representatives 1236 Longworth Office Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20515 s

8. Hon. John B. Breaux U.S. House of Represer.tatives Washington, D.C. 20515
9. James Mattox Attorney General of the State of Texas i Supreme Court Bldg.

14th & Colorado Streets Austin, Texas 78711

10. Mayor Frank Cooksey Members of the Austin City Council g City Hall 124 West 8th Street Austin, Texas 78701 l

) l

11. Councilmember Maria Berriozabal San Antonio City Council j ji P.O. Box 9066  ;

San Antonio, Texas 78285 1

12. Clarance Johnson Office of Public Utility Counsel 8140 Mopack Westpark 3, Suite 120 Austin, Texas 78759
13. Lanny A. Sinkin, Esq.

Christic Institute 1324 No. Capitol St., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20002 j

14. Tom Smith, Director Texas Public Citizen 1611 E. First St.

Austin, Texas 78702-4455

15. Brian Baker Citizens for Consumers Rate Relief 401 West Drew Houston, Texas 77006 l
16. James Matz f.

Assoc. of Local Control of Utility Rates  ; 2601 Lazy Lake Dr. j Harlingen, Texas 78550 i i

17. Nuclear Information & Resource Service l W s ingt n Db.2b36 l
18. Jim Drake, Director i Valley Interfaith j P.O. Box 1616 1 Weslaco, Texas 78596 22061ist: RCdisk2 l

I l 

                                        && G
   '~'

1 Appendix I Wisconsin Code of Professional Responsibility ( l 1 i i 1 

                                                                                                .I m.

PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY SCR 20.21 i 

                                                                                                  )

SCR 20.18.' Alding unauthorized practice of law v 

                                                                                                  )

k (1) A lawyer may not aid a'nonlawyer in the unauthorized practice of law. (2) A lawyer may not practice law in a jurisdiction where to do so , would be in violation of regulations of the profession in that jurisdiction. i SCR 20.19. Dividing legal fees with a nontawyer . A lawyer or law firm may not share legal fees with a nonlawyer, exctpt that: (1) An agreement by a lawyer with his or her firm, partner or  ! associate may provide for the payment of money, over a reasonable period of time after death, to his or her estate or to one or more specified  ; persons. 1 (2) A lawyer who undertakes to complete unfinished legal business of l a deceased lawyer may pay to the estate of the deceased lawyer that ' proportion of the total compensation which fairly represents the services rendered by the deceased lawyer. (3) A lawyer or law firm may include nonlawyer employes in a 

          ;     retirement plan, even though the plan is based in whole or in part on a profit-sharing arrangement.

v SCR 20.20. Forming a partnership with a nonlawyer A lawyer may not form a partnership with a nonlawyer if any of the 

          ;      activities of the partnership consist of the practice of law.

L SCR 20.21. A lawyer should preserve the conf;dences and secrets of a client (1) Ethical consideration. Both the fiduciary relationship existing between lawyer r.nd client and the proper functioning of the legal system ' require the preservation by the lawyer of confidences and secrets of one wl.o has employed or sought to employ him or her. A client must feel free to discuss whatever he or she wishes with his or her lawyer and a l lawyer must be equally free to obtain information beyond that volun-teered by his or her client. A lawyer should be fully informed of all the facts of the matter he or she is handling in order for the client to obtain the full advantage of our legal system. It is for the lawyer in the exercise of his or her independent professional judgment to separate the relevant and important from the irrelevant and unimportant. The ob- 

          ,      servance of the ethical obligation of a lawyer to hold inviolate the confidences and secrets of his or her client not only facilitates the full development of facts essential to proper representation of the client but   w-also encourages laymen to seek early legal assistance.

(2) Ethical consideration. The obligation to protect confidences and secrets obviously does not preclude a lawyer from revealing information ] 1 I l 7

i i SCR 20.21 SUPitEME COUllT ltULES when his or her client consents after full disclosure, when necessary to i perform his or her professional employment, when permitted by a j (' disciplinary rule or when required by law. Unless the client otherwise  ; directs, a lawyer may disclose the affairs of his or her client to partners  ! or associates of his or her firm. It is a matter of common knowledge j that the normal operation of a law office exposes confidential profession- I al information to nonlawyer employes of the office, particularly secre-  ! taries and those having access to the files; and this obligates a lawyer to exercise care in selecting and training employes so that the sanctity of { all confidences and secrets of his or her clients may be preaerved. If the l obligation extends to 2 or more clients as to the same information, a l lawyer should obtain the permission of all before revealing the informa- l tion. A lawyer must always be sensitive to the rights and wishes of a 

                                                                                                                    ]

client and act scrupulously in the making of decisions which may involve l the disclosure of information obtained in his or her professional relation- i ship. Thus, in the abs-nce of consent of his or her client after full l disclosure, a lawyer should not associate another lavryer in the handling I of a matter; nor sho71d he or she, in the absence of consent, seek counsel from another lawyer if there is a reasonable possibility that the identity of the client or his or her confidences or secrets would be revealed to such lawyer. Both social amenities and professional duty l should cause a lawyer to shun indiscreet conversations concerning i _ clients. 1 (3) Ethical consideration. Unless the client otherwise directs, it is not improper for a lawyer to give limited information from his or her files to an outside agency necessary for statistical, bookkeeping, account-ing, data processing, banking, printing or other legitimate purposes, { ( provided the lawyer exercises due care in the selection of the agency and warns the agency the.t the information must be kept confidential. j (4) Ethical consideration. The attorney client privilege is more limit-ed than the ethical obligation of a lawyer to guard the confidences and secrets of a client. This ethical precept, unlike the evidentiary privilege, exists without regard to the nature or source of information or the fact I that others share the knowledge. A lawyer should endeavor to act in h manner which preserves the evidentiary privilege; for example, he or she should avoid professional discussions in the presence of persons to whom the privilege does not extend. A lawyer owes an obligation to advise the client of the attorney-client privilege and timely to assert the privilege unless it is waived by the client. 

   .         (5) Ethical consideration. A lawyer should not nse information
   ,      acquired in the course of the representation of a client to the disadvan-tage of the client and a lawyer should not use, except with the consent of the client after full disclosure, such information for his or her own pu rposes. Likewne, a lawyer shouhl be diligent in his or her efforts to prevent the misuse of such information by his or her employes and aseme.ates. Care should be exerciseil h3 a lawyer to prevent the disclo-E t                                                                             __     __._.___________.m

t. 

              ]  i PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY               SCR 20.23 sure of the confidences and secrets of one client to another and ~no                           v

( employment should be ' accepted that might require such disclosure. 

                 ,-                     (6) Ethical considers. tion. The obligation of a lawyer to preserve the 4

confidences and secreta of a client continues after the termination of his t' or her employment. Thus a lawyer should not attempt to sell a law 

                 ,                   practice as a going business because, among other reasons, to do so
                ,                    would involve the disclosure of confidences and secrets. A lawyer
                ;                    should also provide for the protection of the confidences and secrets of a
                .                    client following the termination of the practice of the lawyer, whether
                             .       termination is due to death, disability or retirement. For example, a
                 ;                   lawyer might provide for the personal papers of the client to be returned j                      to him er her and for the papers of the lawyer to be delivered to another lawyer or to be destroyed. In determining the method of disposition, the instructions and wishes of the client should be a dominant consideration.
                .                     SCR 20.22. . Preservation of confidences and secrets of a client (1) Except when permitted under sub. (2), a lawyer may not knowing-ly:

(a) Reveal'a confidence or secret of his or her client. (b) Use a confidence or secret of his or her client to the disadvan-tage of the client. (c) Use a confidence or secret of his or her client for his or her 

                                     ' advantage or advantage of a 3rd person, unless the client consents after full disclosure.

(2) A lawyer may reveal: ( . 

                             .    ,        (a) Confidences or secrets with the consent of the client or clients affected but only after a full disclosure to them.

(b) Confidences or secrets when permitted under disciplinary rules l or required by law or court order, i (c) The intention of a client to commit a crime and the information necessary to prever.t the crime. (d) Confidences or secrets necessary to establish or collect his or her fee or to defend himself or herself or employes or associates against an accusation of wrongful conduct. 

               ;                        (3) A lawyer shall exercise reasonable care to prevent his or her employes, associates and others whose services are utilized by the
lawyer from disclosing or using confidences or secrets of a client, except that a lawyer may reveal the information allowed by sub. (2) through an
               !                      employe.

SCR 20.23. A lawyer should exercise independent professional l ! . judgment on behalf of a client - l- (1) Ethical consideration. The professional judgment of a lawyer 4 should be exercised, within the bounds of the law, solely for the benefit I of the client and free of compromising influences and loyalties. Neither 8 l

l SCR 20.23 SUPREME COURT RULES i v his or her personal interest, the interests of other clients, nor the desires ( , of 3rd persons should be permitted to dilute a lawyer's loyalty to a client. 1 (2) Ethical consideration, interests of a lawyer that may affect his or her judgment. (a) A lawyer should not accept proffered employment if his or her personal interests or desires will, or there is a reasonable probability that they will, affect adversely the advice to be given or  ! services to be rendered the prospective client. After accepting employ. ment, a lawyer carefully should refrain from acquiring a property right or assuming a position that would tend to make his or her judgment less protective of the interests of the client. (b) The self-interest of a lawyer resulting from his or her ownership of property in which his or her client also has an interest or which may 

                                                         ,        affect property of his or her client may interfere with the exercise of free judgment on behalf of the client. If such interference would occur with respect to a prospective client, a lawyer should decline employment proffered by him or her. After accepting employment, a lawyer should not acquire property rights that would adversely affect his or her professional judgment in the representation of his or her client. Even if the property interests of a lawyer do not presently interfere with the exercise of his or her independent judgment, but the likelihood of interference can reasonably be foreseen by him or her, a lawyer should
                                               '            s     explain the situation to his or her client and should decline employment or withdraw unless the client consents to the continuance of the relation-l          '

ship after full disclosure. A lawyer should not seek to persuade a client to permit him or her to invest in an undertaking of the client nor make improper use of his or her professional relationship to influence the client (.

  • to invest in an enterprise in which the lawyer is interested.

(c) If, in the course of his or her representation of a client, a lawyer is permitted to receive from his or her client a beneficial ownership in publication rights relating to the subject matter of the employment, he or she may be tempted to subordinate the interests of his or her client to his or her own anticipated pecuniary gain. For example, a lawyer in a criminal case who obtains from his or her client television, radio, motion picture, newspaper, magazine, book or other publication rights with 

                                             ,                    respect to the case may be influenced, consciously or unconsciously, to a

{ course of conduct that will enhance the value of his or her publication ' rights to the prejudice of his or her chent. To prevent these potentially 

                                             ,                    differing interests, such arrangements should be scrupulously avoided prior to the termination of all aspects of the matter giving rise to the employment, even though his or her employment has previously ended.

(d) A lawyer should not suggest to his or her client that a gift be made to himself or herself or for his or her benefit. If a lawyer accepts a gift from his or her client, he or she is peculiarly susceptible to the charge that he or she unduly influenced or userreached the client. If a client voluntarily offers to make a gift to his or her lawyer. the lawyer may { l i l ( 1

l PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY SCR 20.23 ( j accept the gift, but before doing so, he or she should urge that his or her client secure disinterested advice from an independent, competent person who is cognizant of all the circumstances. Other than in exceptional circumstances, a lawyer should insist that an instrument in which his or her client desires to name him or her beneficially be prepared by another lawyer selected by the client. (e) A lawyer should not consciously influence a client to name him or her as executor, trustee or lawyer in an instrument. In those cases 

               ,   where a client wishes to name his or her lawyer as such, care should be taken by the lawyer to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

(f) The possibility of an adverse effect upon the exercise of free 

               ;  judgment by a lawyer on behalf of his or her client during litigation generally makes it undesirable for the lawyer to acquire a proprietary interest in the cause of his or her client or otherwise to become financially interested in the outcome of the litigation. However, it is not improper for a lawyer tn protect his or her right to collect a fee for his or her services by the r.ssert. ion of legally permissible liens, even though by doing so he or she may acquire an interest in the outcome of litigation.

Although a contingent fee arrangement gives a lawyer a financial interest in the outcome of litigation, a reasonable contingent fee is ~ permissible in civil cases because it may be the only means by which a layman can obtain the services of a lawyer of his or her choice. But a lawyer, because he or she is in a better position to evaluate a cause of action, should enter into a contingent fee arrangement only in those instances where the arrangement will be beneficial to the client. (g) A financial interest in the outcome of litigation also results if monetary advances are made by the lawyer to his or her client. Al-though this assistance generally is not encouraged, there are instances when it is not improper to make loans to a client. For example, the advancing or guaranteeing of payment of the costs and expenses of litigation by a lawyer may be the only way a client can enforce his or her cause of action, but the ultimate liability for such costs and expenses must be that of the client. (h) Occasionally a lawyer is crlled upon to decide in a particular cabe whether he or she will be a witness or an advocate. If a lawyer is both counsel and witness, he or she becomes more easily impeachable for interest and thus may be a less effective witness. Conversely, the opposing counsel may be handicapped in challenging the credibility of the 

             ,    lawyer when the lawyer also appears as an advocate in the case, An l                  advocate who becomes a witness is in the unseemly and ineffective                                         I i                  position of arguing his or her own credibility. The roles of an advocate I                  and of a witness are inconsistent; the function of an advocate is to l                  advance or argue the cause of another, while that of a witness is to state l                  facts objectively.

I I l t I i f l I 

                                                                                    . _ _ _ _ - . - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _     a

1 SCR 20.23 SUPREME COURT Rt!1.ES (i) Problems incident to the lawyer-witness relationship arise at differ- 

                                                                                                                                             ~

ent stages, they relate either to whether a lawyer should accept employ- 

           .(,                                                                                                                                 ment or should withdraw from employment. Regardless of when the problem arises, his or her decision is to be governed by the same basic considerations. It is not objectionable for a lawyer who is a potential .

witness to be an advocate if it is unlikely that he or she will be called as a witness because his or her testimony would be merely cumulative or if his or her testimony will relate only to an uncontested issue. In the exceptional situation where it will be manifestly unfair to the client for the lawyer to refuse employment or to withdraw when he or she will likely be a witness on a contested issue, he or she muy serve as advocate even though he or she nay be a witness. In making such decision, he or she should determine the personal or financial sacrifice of the client that may result from his or her refusal of employment or withdrawal there-from, the materiality of his or her testimony and the effectiveness of his or her representation in view of his or her personal involvement, in weighing these factors, it should be clear that refusal or withdrawal will impose an unreasonable hardship upon the client before the lawyer accepts or continues the employment. Where the question arises, doubts should be resolved in favor of the lawyer testifying and against his or her becoming or continuing as an advocate. s (j) A lawyer should not permit his or her personal interests to influ-ence his or her advice relative to a suggestion by his or her client that additional counsel be employed. In like manner, his or her personal interests should not deter him or her from suggesting that additional counsel be employed; on the contrary, he or she should be alert to the ( desirability of recommending additional counsel when, in his or her judgment, the proper representation of his or her client requires it. However, a lawyer should advise his or her client not to employ addition-al counsel suggested by the client if the lawyer believes that such employment would be a disservice to the client and he or she should disclose the reasons for his or her belief, 1 (k) Inability of cocounsel to agree on a matter vital to the representa-tion of their client requires that their disagreement be submitted by them jointly to their client for his or her resolution and the decision of the client shall control the action to be taken. (I) A lawyer should not maintain membership in or be influenced by any organization of employes that undertakes to prescribe, direct or suggest when or how he or she should fulfill his or her professional obligations to a person or organization that employs him or her as a lawyer. Although it is not necessarily improper for a lawyer employed by a corporation or similar entity to be a member of an organization of employe8, he or she should be vigilant to safeguard his or her fidelity as a lawyer to his or her employer, free from outside influences.

PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY SCR 20.23 

                                                                                                   ~

g- (3) Ethical consideration, interests of multiple clients. (a) Maintain-ing the independence of professional judgment required of a lawyer precludes his or her acceptance or continuation of employment that will adversely affect his or her judgment on behalf of or dilute his or her loyalty to a client. This problem arises whenever a lawyer is asked to represent 2 or more clients who may have differing interests, whether such interests be conflicting, inconsistent, diverse or otherwise discor- i dant. I (b) If a lawyer is requested to undertake or to continue representation  ; of multiple clients having potentially differing interests, he or she must  ! weigh carefully the possibility that his or her judgment may be impaired  ! or his or her loyalty divided if he or she accepts or continues the i employment. He or she should resolve all doubts against the propriety 1 of the representation. A lawyer should never represent in litigation multiple clients with differing interests; and there are few situations in f 1 which he or she would be justified in representing in litigation multiple j clients with potentially differing interests. If a lawyer accepted such employment and the interests did besome actually differing, he or she f would have to withdraw from employment wit.h likelihood of resulting hardship on the clients; and for this reason it is preferable that he or she ^ refuse the employment initially. On the other hand, there are many ~ instances in which a lawyer may properly serve multiple clients having potentially differing interests in matters not involving litigation. If the interests vary only slightly, it is generally likely that the lawyer will not be subjected to an adverse influence and that he or she can retain his or ( ' 

 /                 her independent judgment on behalf of each client; and if the interests t                 become differing, withdrawal is less likely to have a disruptive effect upon the causes of his or her clients.

(c) In those instances in which a lawyer is justified in representing 2 or i more clients having differing interests, it is nevertheless essential that I each client be given the opportunity to evaluate his or her need for representation free of any potential conflict and to obtain other counsel if he or she so desires. Thus before a lawyer may represent multiple clients, he or she should explain fully to each client the implications of the cmr. mon representation and should accept or continue employment only if the clients consent. If other circumstances r.re present that might cause any of the multiple clients to question the undivided :oyalty of the lawyer, he or she should also advise.all of the clients of those circumstances. (d) Typically recurring situations involving potentially differing inter-ests are those in which a lawyer is asked to represent codefendants in a . criminal case, coplaintiffs in a personal injury case, an insured and his or 

                                                                                                 ~

I her insurer and beneficiaries of the estate of a decedent. Whether a 

                  !awyer can fairly and adequately protect the interests of multiple clients           ;

in these and similar situations depends upon an analysis of each case. In  ! certain circumstances, there may exist little chance of the judgment of I s 1 i l 

                                                                                                      )

l p 1" SCR 20.23 SUPREME COURT RULES 

                /
         ',      the lawyer being adversely affected by the slight possibility that the interests will become actually differing; in other circumstances, the
  .!             chance of adverse effect upon his or her judgment is not unlikely.

(e) A lawyer employed or retained by a corporation or similar entity owes his or her allegiance to the entity and not to a stockholder, director, officer, employe, representative or other person connected with the entity. In advising the entity, a lawyer should keep parameant its interests and his or her professional judgment should not be influenced by the personal desires of any person or organization. Occasionally a lawyer for an entity is requested by a stockholder, director, officer, employe, representative or other person connected with the entity to represent him or her in an individual capacity; in such case the lawyer may serve the individual only if the lawyer is convinced that differing interests are not present., (f) A lawyer may represent several clients w'aose interests are not actually or potentially differing. Nevertheless, he or she should explain ] any circumstances tisat might cause a client to question his or her undivided loyalty. Regardless of the belief of a lawyer that he or she  ; may properly represent multiple clients, he or she must defer to a client j who holds the contrary belief and withdraw from representation of that client. > (g) A lawyer is often asked to serve as an impartial arbitrator or mediator in matters which involve present or former clients. He or she { may serve in either capacity if he or she first discloses such present or former relationships. After a lawyer has undertaken to act as an ( impartial arbitrator or mediator, he or she should not thereafter repre-sent in the dispute any of the parties involved. (4) Ethical consideration, desires of third persons. (a) The obliga-tion of a lawyer to exercise professional judgment solely on behalf of a client requires that he or she disregard the desires of others that might impair his or her free judgment. The desires of a 3rd person will seldom ) adversely affect a lawyer unless that person is in a position to exert  ! strong economic, political or social pressures upon the lawyer. These influences are often subtle and a lawyer must be alert to their existence. A lawyer subjected to outside pressures should make full disclosure of them to his or her client; and if he or she or his or her client believes , that the effectiveness of his or her representation has been or will be impaired thereby, the lawyer should take proper steps to withdraw from representation of his or her client. (b) Economic, political or social pressures by 3rd persons are less 

        .", likely to impinge upon the independent judgment of a lawyer in a matter in which he or she is compensated directly by his or her client and his or h"r professional work is exchmively with his or her client. On the other hand, if a lawyer is compensatml fre t . source other than his or her 1

I 1 I t 

                                                                                    .______-_-__-____-__-_-___-_-____._-a

L PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY SCR 20.24 

      ,I                                                         client, he or she may feel a sense of responsibility to someone other than the client.

(c) A person or organization that pays or furnishes lawyers to repre-sent others possesses a potential power to exert strong pressures against the independent judgment of those lawyers. Some employers may be interested in furthering their own economic, political or social goals  : without regard to the professional responsibility of the lawyer to his or her individual client. Others may be far more concerned with establish-ment or extension of legal principles than in the immediate protection of the rights of the lawyer's individual client. On some occasions, decisions on priority of werk may be made by the employer rather than the lawyer with the result that prosecution of work already undertaken for. clients is postponed to their detriment. Similarly, an employer may seek, con-sciously or unconsciously, to further its own economic interests through { the actions of the lawyers employed by it. Since a lawyer must always be free to exercise his or her professional judgment without regard to the interests or motives of a 3rd person, the lawyer who is employed by one to represent another must constantly guard against erosion of his or her professional freedom. (d) To assist a lawyer in preserving his or her professional independ-ence, a number of courses are available to him or her. For example, a , lawyet should not practice with or in the form of a professional legal - l corporation, even though the corporate form is permitted by law, if any J director, officer or stockholder of it is a nonlawyer. Although a lawyer i may be employed by a business corporation with nonlawyers serving as i directors or officers and they necessarily have the right to make deci- I (_ sions of business policy, a lawyer must decline to accept direction of his or her professional judgment from any layman. Various types of legal l aid offices are administered by boards of directors composed of lawyers and laymen. A lawyer should not accept employment from such an i organization unless the board sets only broad policies and there is no interference in the relationship of the lawyer and the individual client he or she serves. Where a lawyer is employed by an organization, a written agreement that defines the relationship between him or her and the I organization and provides for his or her independence is desirable since it may serve to prevent misunderstanding as to their respective roles. Although other innovations in the means of supplying legal counsel may develop, the responsibility of the lawyer to maintain his or her profes-sional independence remains constant and the legal profession must ensure that changing circumstances do not result in loss of the profes-sional independence of the lawyer. SCR 20.24. Refusing employment when the interests of the lawyer l may impair his or her independent professional judg- - I ment (1) Except with the consent of the client after full disclosure, a lawyer !. may not accept employment if the exercise of his or her professional l 1 l 

             . - _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ - = _ - - _ . - - - - _ - -                                                                                    '

M 

                                                                                                                                    \

L 

             /sq.T. M C '9'c,                                                  UNITED STATES                                       b" 0K                             .' 0, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION                       r /      -,

7 

       .                                         n                                                                   C# & # .  /

e*h(a ..t!-en V.' ASHIN GT ON. D.C. 2 0555 1, 

                   .e gp .

s ( ' Lp p I

  • 37 yt 4 1

Orr:c: OF THE a ggy pg, 19g4 COMMISSIOrlER MEMORANDUM TO TIIE ClilsIR'4AN .

SUBJECT:

PERFOPy?d:CE OF REGION IV M'; recent trip to Fort St. Vrain has reinforced my concerns about the performance of Region IV. Fort St. Vrain was in poorer shape than any reactor I had visited in recent years. Maintenance and housekeeping hac been neglected for a long time, discipline was poor. It was appcrent that NRC inspectors and regional support had been pulled away from the operating plants to help get 

  ,                                            Waterford and Comanche Peak into operation.                     I am very much

( concerned that this has affected safety at operating plants, without the Corcaission even being inf ormed. Was this done en your :.n stru c t ion ? finally, I have been informed that senior staff members have oeen subjected to strong pressure from Congress -- in the form of frequent and repeated telephone calls -- to get 

                                               ' aterf ord licensed.       Are vou n. wa re of thi-s?
                                                                                                                   -                  l
                                                                                       /

f / 

                                                                                                           /                          I
                                                                                  ,/ -                   ip/ p   r Victor Gilinshy cc:   Co:r.missioner Roberts                                                           l Commissioner Asselstine                                                          j Corr.issioner Bernthal                                                           i l

SECY j j

A g,A A . [r MEMORANDUM FOR: T. A. Rehm, Assistant for Operations, EDO FROM: John T. Collins, Regional Administrator, RIV

SUBJECT:

DRAFT OF POLICY CONCERNING RELEASE OF IN'ORMATION TO LICENSEES This memo is in response to your memo dated March 28,19E4, same subject as above, in which you requested comments. Our comments are as follows:

1. A policy concerning release of information is timely. Region IV has been following a similar, but unwritten policy.
2. The draft policy does not prescribe how the licensee is to be advised (formally or informally). Region IV has, where appropriate, informally advised the licensee of issues and then independently assessed and formally inspected the licensee's disposition. This does not have the same degree of visibility as a formal letter to the licensee. Region IV has no preference, but we feel that the method for advising the licensee should br uniform.
3. Region IV would recommend that the scope of the policy should be broadened

( to include vendors. 

'l
4. Region IV would also recommend that it be made absolutely clear by the policy that public health and safety concerns will take precedence when required. Related information would be disseminated to the affected parties regardless of confidentiality or an ongoing inspection / investigation.
5. There is a drawback to providing information initially to a licensee / vendor.

The initial inforrration in many cases, does not for example, identify that wrongdoing has ocCJrred. Often, especially in the case of vendor allegations, potential wrongdoing may not be identified until after the inspection (s) l have been completed. This situation makes it very difficult, if not  ! impossible, to determine whether the prompt release of information might l compromise a subsequent investigation. It is recommended that the policy l include a discussion which recognizes that the prompt release of infor-mation, which on 17e surface indicates no wrongdoing, may hamper a sub-sequent investigation of suspected wrongdoing. The position has to then E0:RIV R AI # 84-168 TWesterman JCo. ins {/4/84 G/(/84 l ( 

       ,          ..            y6 s                       ,
             't      1
g. .
         -      1      [_J_     '

                       *                      ~

T. A. Rehm. I te that the cost of disclosure outweighs the benefits of prompt dis-closure. The Region IV contact with regard to this memo is Thomas F. Westerman (728-8145). el John T. Collins Regional Administrator, RIV cc: P. Check R. Denise R. Bangart V. Stello R. DeYoung RA's I, II, III, V k l i

(s f, f 

                                                                                                         ~'

f KATHY CARTER-WHITE Attorney at Law 412 West Choctaw ^ Tahlequah, Oklahoma T 

 .(                                              74464
       . wessa                                                                                     osa ,wm   ,

June 10, 1987 Mr. Lando Zech, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: Region IV Misconduct

Dear Chsirman Zech:

P 1'e a s e be advised that Region IV misconduct is not limited to the circumstance at Comanche Peak. Last Spring, when area residents requested a conference with NRC, Sequoyah Fuels management, and themselves, what they got was a public meeting instead. I noted a letter submitted to the Local Public Document Room (unofficial LPDR) from Region IV to each and every employee of Sequoyah Fuels apprising them (. of their opportunity to appear and speak out for their jobs, which they did. No such letter nas sent to members of the groups which requested the meeting. The request did not include a request to listen to SFC employees whine about losing their jobs. But thanks to card-shuffling by NRC Washington at the "public meeting" SFC employees were allowed to speak out of order, despite the fact that s number of protestants had arrived I hours early to insure they would be afforded the opportunity to raise some issues deserving of further consideration. This type of "industyy bedfellows" protectionism is contrary to objective regulation for the public health & safety. Ex parte communications with nuclear workers which promote job protectionism is antithetical to dignified administration and should not be allowed. Please address a means of solving such problems in your analysis of the problem with Region IV. Sincerely, l  ! Kathy Carter-White 

     ?       :

IccW : de: file j ( 1

t {s 4 /C' 

                                                               \                                                                                                    \

I I 1 were hospitalized in t accident. I'd like to look l 

  ' 2 around; all' 37 are probably sitting here tonight and 3

just as healthy as the rest of us are. I say let's . i reopen Sequoyah Fuels. MR. MAUSShARDT: Bob Bland, Arkansas 6 Peace Center. 7 MR. BLAND: My name is Bob Bland and I'm with 0 the Arkansas Peace Center in Little Rock, Arkansas. 8 We're concerned about this matter because we are i 10 downwind and down stream from Sequoyah. I'd like to j l' stop and ask these gentlemen a question: Did the NRC 12 send a letter to every employee at Sequoyah Fuels 

     '3                              inviting them to this meeting tonight? The truth. I'd N

l like to know if that's the truth that this commission , l 15 invited every employee (inaudible) is that correct. 16 MR. MAUSSHARDT: Letters were sent to , 17 (inaudible) to each employee of the Sequoyah Fuels 

       '8 l facility notifying them,of the meeting.                                                                                      ,

IS MR. BLAND: (inaudible) I object to that type 20 of procedure (inaudible) you had no right to (inaudible) , 21 MR. MAUSSHARDT: The intent of that letter was 22 to notify people that worked at the plant that had the  ; I We made a conscious  ; 23 most potential hazard facing them.  ; 24 effort to notify the facility through both press i 25 releases and advertisements that we took out in local , International Litigation Services, Inc. 75 j 1 

                                                                                                                        .i i

54,. ll GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTADIUTY PROJECT 1555 Connecticut Avenue. NW.. Suite 202 l Washington. D.C. 20036 (202)232 4 550 1 July 10, 1987 ' M6 . Hubert D. Martin kegional Administrator NRC Region IV l 613 Ryan Plaza Dr., Suite 1000  ! Arlington, Texas 76011 i l 

                                                                                                                      ,   d HL: ALLEGATION No. 4-86-A-096, FOIA Appeal 87-A-35                               '

bear Mt. Martin: The purpose of my letter is to obtain information on the utatus of the ollegation of Mr. Ed Stites. The Government Accountability Project and the law firm of Jones, Mack, Delaney & Young currently represent Mr. Stites in all matters before the U.S. j 

                                                                                                                          )

Department of Labor and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Stites' (NRC). See, attached authorization and release. Mr. allegation has been outstanding for over nine months, ( since at least September 1986. To date, we have been unable to get any information regar ding the status rave been advised through of Mr. Stites' allegation from the NRC. We Act (FOIA) a response to a Freedom of Information still request that an investigation of his allegation is in tiowe ve r , progress. See, FotA request 87-208, and appeal 87-A-35. we question whether because Mr. Stites has not been an investigation is in progress allegation given any indication that his is being pursued. NRC's failure to keep Mr. Stites appraised NRC policy. See, of the status of his allegation is a clear violation of , NRC-0517-057. ' tHe's L : ea t itten t of Mr. Stites' allegation contradicts the claim that an investigation is in progress. First, Mr. Stites has never been fully interviewed by anyone from NRC. He has never given a sworn or notarized statement. Second, to the extent that sune of his concerns vrongdoing issues, therelate to harassment NRC's and intimidation Office of Investigations and/or (OI) should j 4 be involved. See, NRC-0517-052. Therefore, for matters involving harassment official to and/or wrongdoing you would not be the appropriate NRC withhold information pursuant to our FOIA request. I 

 .q-(      Mr. Hubert D. Martin PAGC TWO about We .svuld appreciate it if you would advise us in writing, the status In particolar,              of Mr.been we have      Stites'  allegation asked   b      as soon a,s possible.

unawers to the following questions:y Mr. Stites to request the l

1. What
2. Who issues has NRC chosen to investigate?
1. What are the investigating officials?

his allegation?has been collected to support or refute evidence

1. What is the time tdble for completing the investigation?

NHC's retusal to provide Mr. Stites with any information negarding FOIA. We trust his allegation is a violation of NRC policy and the i prob l eia in the very near future.that you will take immediate steps to rectify this ' Thank you in advance for your cooperation. ( Sincerely, Richard E. Condit Staff Attorney cuet.osua CS : 1. Letter, M.

2. NRC response Emerson 9/16/86 to FOIA appeal 87-A-35 c c : uei, u. Ila yeu Director, 01 ,

1 Charted Mullins Ot'fice of General Counsel l>onnie Grimsley l'reedom of Information Act Officer W6shington, D.C. 20555 - ut i t es t e9 2 v. i t r : e l i

E-o.>> f-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the matter of ) 

                                                             )

TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING ) Docket Nos. 50-445-2 CCMPANY, et al. ) 

                                                             )           and 50-446-2 (Comar.che Peak Steam Electric         )

Station, Units 1 and 2) ) ( CASE'S PRELIMINARY PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT ON HARASSMENT AND INTIMIDATION 

                                                          ,.                                                                  1 ANTHONY Z. ROISMAN Trial Lawyers for Public Justice 2000 P Street, N.W., Suite 611                                                ,

Washington, D.C. ) 20036 1 (202) 463-8600 l Counsel for CASE

p- 

                                                                                        - 237 -
                                         'IV.-

(: I NS ENS I TI VI T Y/I N A C C E S S I B I LI TY/IN ATTENTIVENESS Of_ NRC' The inattentiveness and insensitivity of the~NRC Staf f to the concerns of QC inspectors at Comanche Peak about harassment, intimidation, and management non-support of quality assurance 

                                                            'falso romcontributed     to' widespread
                                                                     .repor ting saf                  discouragement, e ty' violations.

The NRC contributed to the discouragement of QC inspectors in a number of specific ways: 1 i (1) remaining essentially inaccessible to QC 

                                                           . inspectors who may have wished to confidentially voice concerns; (2) betraying the. confidentiality                     j of some inspectors who did voice concerns to the                       !

NRC; and (3) ineffectively responding to the concerns of QC inspectors that were brought to its attention. A: In General: Management's Ineffective Efforts to Ensure NRC Accessibility a 722. Several management personnel at Comanche Peak testified that'it -is widely known at Comanche Peak that employees were and are at all times free to bring concerns t to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. For example, Gordon Furcy, Brown & Root site QA manager, testified that everyone on cite is aware that they have access to the NRC should they not'de able to get satisfactory resolution of their concerns through management. (TR. 41,105) Purdy also stated that he would be concerned if his people didn't have enough confidence in 'him or in other management personnel, such that they didn't want to give him " fir st crack" at their . L concerns. (TR. 41,110) 723. Other Applicant witnesses testified that employees J at Comanche Peak were made aware of their right to bring concerns to the NRC through the posting of NRC Form 3 on bulletin boards around the plant. (TR. 41,105) Gordon Purdy _-___=___-__ . - . .

1 

                                                                                                                                      -238-(.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  i i

testified that-the company also shows an audio-visual 

                                            .pr esentation to inform employees of their right to contact                                                                                                                                               l
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       !}}
Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20235H803&oldid=3202465"