ML20006A028

J Corder Response to NRC Staff Motion to Modify Subpoena & Motion for Protective Order.* Requests Protective Order Until NRC Makes Documents Available to Corder by FOIA or Directly.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20006A028
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	01/08/1990
From:	Corder J CORDER, J., ROBINSON, ROBINSON, PETERSON, BERK, RUDOLPH, CROSS
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
CON-#190-9681 OL, NUDOCS 9001250093
Download: ML20006A028 (13)

Text

E hr l$f cocnri nuMar.n

f f/g 7 PROD. s. Uret FAC.

c n

'l UNITED STATES'OF AMERICA CD E

U C

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2

% :JAN 12 P4 :05-

<3 BEFORE THE COMMISSION Ei OrncE DF SECAETARY 00 CME MG A SEi<VICI.'

BRANCH 4

IN THE MATTER ~OP:~

-)

)

D'ocket Nos. 50-4$8

.f HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY )

50-419

'(South Texas Nuclear-Power Plant)

)

.t

. JOHN CORDER'S RESPONSE TO NRC STAFF's MOTION TO MODIFY SUBPOENA AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

's,),'s 8

Billie Pirner Garde

ROBINSON, ROBINSON, PETERSON, BERK, RUDOLPH, CROSS & GARDE LAW OFFICE 103 East College Avenue Appleton, WI 54911 (414) 730-8533 Attorney for John Corder January 8, 1990 l'

9001250093 900108 PDR ADOCK 05000498 EUN

't O

)

l 5' l

1.

i i

~

P UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i

i BEPORE THE COiiMISSION i

i IN THE MATTER OP:

)

)

D0cket Nos. 50-448 l

HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPAl;Y )

50-449 o

(South Texas Nuclear Power Plant)

}

t JOHN CORDER'S RESPONSE TO NRC STAFP's i

MOTION TO MODIFY SUBPOENA AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 9

i b

b 1

9 a

l Billie Pirner Garde

ROBINSON, ROBINSON, PETERSON, BERK, RUDOLPH, CROSS & GARDE LAW OFFICE 103 East College Avenue Appleton, WI 54911 (414) 730-8533 Attorney for John Corder January 8, 1990 l

f f

g gt

_m

F

... v

_t' t

i k

i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR RECULATORY COMMISSION i

BEFORE THE COMMISSION

{

IN THE MATTER OP:

)

l

)

Docket Nos. 50-498 HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY )

50-4j9 (South Texas Nuclear Power Plant)

)

1 JOHN CORDER'S RESPONSE TO NRC STAPP's MOTION TO MODIFY SUBPOENA AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER COMES NOW John Corder and requests that the Commission 1

modify the December 11, 1989, subpoena issued to him by the NRC

Scaff, Mr. Corder requests that as a condition precedent to the taking of his depocition before tr>e Nuclear Regulat.ory Commission Staf f he be provided access to the information that details the

~ allegations that Mr. Corder has previously provided to the NRC Staff, either by responding to the Freedom of Information Act Request pending before the Commission since September, 1989, or by otherwise making the requested documentation available to Mr.

Corder, Mr. Corder agrees with the Staff that the issue of logistics appears to be resolved and withdraws that issue from 1

l l

r a..

i consideration upon the understanding that Staff counsel has agreed to take Mr.

Corder's deposition at a place and time convenient to all parties, with a recognition that Mr. Corder is not able to pay for the costs of an attorney or representative.

I.

BACKGROUND AND ARGUMENT i.

John Corder was employed as a nuclear engineer for the Bechtel Corporation for over twenty-seven years.

In 1986 Mr.

t Corder was laid off from his employment with Bechtel at the South Texas nuclear power plant.

As a result of his belief that his termination was accomplished in violation of 42 U.S.C.

5851 he filed a complaint pursuant to that regulation.

(IN THE MATTER OP JOHN A.

CORDER VS. BECHTEL ENERGY CORPORATION, 88-ERA-9.)

That matter was resolved between the parties by virtue of 0a RELEASE AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, and an AGREED ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE, signed on October 28,

1988, by counsel and the Honorable James W.

Kerr, Jr.,

a U.S.

Department of Labor i

Administrative Law Judge.

On May 25, 1989, the parties were ordered by the Honorable Elizabeth Dole, Secretary of Labor, to submit the agreement for approval.

The parties have submitted the Settlement and are awaiting a ruling by Secretary Dole on dismissal pursuant to the position set forth on this matter in POLIZZI VS. GIBBS AND HILL, 87-ERA-38, July 18, 1989.

In September, 1989, after the Secretary of Labor requented i

2

F r

l the settlement and the Bechtel Corporation identified Mr.

i Corder's settlement as potentially having restrictive language in it, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff contacted Mr. Corder, by letter through his former attorney advising Mr. Corder that if

\\

L Mr.

Corder had safety concerns about the South Texas plant

"...which have not been brought to the attention of the NRC..."

(

that a mutually ' agreeable time and place would be arranged for t

[

identification of those. concerns.

(See,- September 5,

1989, I-letter f rom - Dennis _ Crutchfield, Associate Director for Special i

[

Projects, to Robert Rice, Esquire, attached as Exhibit 1.)

.[

In responding to that letter Mr. Corder indicated that he still had safety concerns about the South Texas plant which he believed the NRC had not evaluated.

He proposed that the NRC I

Staff make available to him the materials developed by the agency 1

in-response to the various concerns he had raised with the agency since 1986 in order to determine what issues had been reviewed by p

the NRC Staff, what issued had been resolved, t.he basis for t.he resolution of those

issues, and wh.nt isnues had nvver been pursued.

In order to facilitate that information Mr. Corder also l

filed a Freedom of Information t,ct request.

To date the POIA request has not been answered.

This request is particularly important to insure that all of Mr. Corder's issues that have a potential ~effect on public health and safety are resolved for several reasons.

First, Mr. Corder has had a long history of contacts with the NRC in which he has I

3 t

N m

s E

' raised numerous concerns.

He was originally interviewed by the g

NRC's Of fice of Investigations regarding concerns he had about h,

STP.

He was never provided a copy of that transcript, no n

investigation was ever conducted into his concerns and allegations to the best of his knowledge, and there has been no T.

resolution of any of the issues that he raised to OI.

Second, he provided numerous detailed allegations to the Government Accountability Project (GAP) in connection with the 1987-88 GAP p

investigation of STP as a confidential alleger.

Since the-NRC i;

Staff did not perform a total review of all of the information provided' by allegers to GAP It is impossible to know what allegations of. Mr. Corder's the NRC Staff looked at, aside from I

the information contained in SSAT, NUREG 1306, March, 1988.1 p

Third, although Mr. Corder had a personal interview with the NRC's Saf ety ' Assessment Team regarding some of the allegations L

and concerns that he had about STP in connection with their 0

- review of two of his allegations, those issues are not fully addressed in the SAT report.

Finally, Mr. Corder raised the F

issues o f-violations of 10 CUR 50.7 that have never been f ~.-

l addressed.

In short, Mr. Corder has no way of knowing without reviewing documents in the possession of the NRC staff what issues-were recorded by the NRC for inspection or investigation and what became of those issues.

o 1

See, in general, the background of United States v.

Garde, 673 P. Supp. 604 (D.D.C 1987), and the agency actions in connection with the allegations of STP allegers.

)

4

p i.

4 i

f Additionally, since Mr. Corder ended his employment at STP he has been involved as an intervenor in the rate hearings before the Public Utility Commission of Texas.

In that. capacity he had 1

L' the-opportunity. to again visit the STP site where he observed l

additional proof of his original concerns as well as observed E

[

additional issues of concern to him.

Finally, the passage of i

6

[

time, literally. years, makes reviewing the materials prepared t

- contemporaneous 1y by the NRC staff regarding Mr.

Corder's comments and concerns critical in refreshing his recollection on those issues and allowing him to reference the supporting details l-and information he provided to the NRC.

No other single source for these' issues exist.

L In short, the NRC staf f probably t.as most of the raw data regarding-Mr.

Corder's

concerns, however, since they never L

comprehensively responded to him on the evaluation of his concerns' he has no way of knowing whether they were 4

- misunderstood, ignored, or just fell through the cracks of the

- last minute licensing efforts of the Staff.

He'has offered te invest the time necessary to sort through the documentation and reach a determination on the issues and the resolutions-in order to answer the question _ posed by the Staff, however, he cannot be expected to appear at a depos4 ion and o

recount from years of employment at STP specific details that I

have been previously provided to the Staff, with any degree of accuracy : or reliability.

Further, Mr. Corder is not satisfied 5

e k

i that the issues he raised which have been evaluated by the Staff s

and apparently closed were ever even understood because no interview was ever conducted, and Mr. Corder wasn't permitted to

[

show the NRC his concerns at the plant.

Therefore, Mr.

Corder, requests the assistance of the e

Commission in directing the Staff to provide him the information necessary'to determine what issues he has regarding the safety of 1

STP that have not yet been resolved and the bans for those that have.

This could have already been accomplished had the NRC cooperated in responding to the FOIA request submitted in September, 1989.

As demonstrated below the Staff has affirmatively neglected its duties with respect to processing the FOIA request, and left Mr. Corder in this predicament.

At this s

juncture, relief is sought from the Commission.

II.

PREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST On September 28,

1989, this firm submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

Request which was acknowledged by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on October 4,

1989, and assigned the NRC FOIA number 89-431.

The request sought, inter alla, all informatio.: generated in connection with John Corder's concerns and allegations about the South Texas Project (STP) from June 1986 to the present.

This request includes, but is not limited to all inspection reports, document reviews".

On October 4,

1989, the NRC acknowledged the request.

The acknowledgment 6

f l

~ ' -

required the payment of costs for search for records responsive to the> request that exceeded two hours and for dup 1.ication of i

disclosed records which exceed 100 pages.

The staff committed to

?

provide an estimate of the fees and time to process the

[

1

.complalnt.

l On November. 3,

1989, (received November 9,

1989) the NRC sent a Statement'of Estimated fees for FOIA 89-431 for a total of I

n304.29 and requested that fees be paid.in advance.

On December t

11,

1989, this office submitted a FOIA fee waiver which is currently under review according to a recent telephone inquiry to Ms. Linda Robinson.

Because of Mr.

Corder's inability to pay the fees and e

expenses, a ~ second FOIA was submitted on December 11, 1989, on behalf of Mr. Corder by this firm as an extension of the work Ms.

Garde had done ' with the Government Accountability Project,- a public interest organization regularly exempt from FOIA fees.

This.' request was assigned NRC FOIA number 89-532 and a Statement

'of Fees has not been received by this office yet.

No information has'been received under either request, t

CONCLUSION As a result of the situation presented by Mr.

Corder's subpoena and his lack of access of NRC' inf ormation Mr. Corder respectfully requests the Commission to issue a protective order on behalf of-Mr.

Corder, until the Staff makes documents 7

1

w.

(?,I

<(.

f i

[

(

available to him- (either through the FOIA or directly) that p

contain. the : issues presented by Mr.

Corder to the NRC, the i

. resolution of those

issues, if any, and the basis of the resolution.

Upon receipt Mr.

Corder will timely review the information and prepare for his deposition.

p Respectfully submitted, f

w.- b e Billie Pirner Garde'

~

Robinson, Robinson, Peterson, Berk, l

Rudolph, Cross & Garde Law Office

+

103 East College Avenue Appleton, WI 54911 (414) 730-8533 5

Attorney for John Corder t

Enc. a/s cc Certificate of service

(

.I I.

i V

i s

A

.1 M

l.'

4 l

8 j'

E

i

-i

• 1

._ Exhibit

' ((

UNITED STATES RECL mu m i s ; t

(

)s-g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 9

)

wAsnirvciorv. o. c. om r,

\\*% m, #

L d

September 5, 1989 Richard T. Rice. Esq.

Stevens & Rice

[M('$yQ O, ; ;3 100 North Velasco. Suite 200

p. O. Box 1326 Angelton, Texas 77515

Dear Mr. Rice:

On April 27, 1989, the NRC sent lettery to l utilities, major architect-engineers, nuclear steam supply system vendors, fuel' cycle faciljtics, and me;ior-materials licensees concerning prayisions in settlenient pr othvr agreements which could be interprotud to restrict the settling par}y or parties from consnunicating safety concerns to potentially restrictive language-in an$hy NRC.

If an organizbtion Identified agreement, it was to jurWdistyly 00}]t) the affected party to ignore coy.restricijgrethat would preyent (ltst party from connunicating freely with thy NHC concyrping potent]al Spfppy j;;pp.

Almost all of the organizations responding to this letter indicated they believed that they had no agreements which contained potentially rystrictive language. However, a nuuber of respondents wury cautious 4pd even though they stated that they felt there were no rystrictlyc proyisions 10 thujr agrycibentt, they sent letters to certain indly1 duals or parties 10formjpg theta they could freely communicate with the hKC concerning potential safety 16suus, ucchtvl has Wrtsten to you concerning an individual,your finn repr9sentea. Mr. John A.

Corder.

In this letter, Bechtcl St settlement agreement for Mr. Corcer$1cd that While they do not huljeye thu contaipp restrictions on consuunicalog freely with the NRC on safety concernt. Mr. Corder should he 0011f j94 Th6 he can costuunicate with thy HRC on Niter; of nwclyer ygfoty.

In order to detennine whether Mr. Corder has infor1 nation concerning potential shfety issues which have not bet,n provided to the NhC. We reque Mr. Corder to contact Mr. Ted Quay (1-800-368-5642. ext. 20705)st you notifywithin cays of the receipt of this letter.

If thery are safety concurns rhich has not be.cn brought to the attention of the imC place will L,e arranged for identification of,thelp concprog.a mutually agrppable t i

Sincerely, J71 64 5

Dennip N. Crutchftpld. Als991 4 p P]rvetcr for Special Projects

/

Officp of Nuclyar 8voctor 8v94101100

TRP; 8

t J ' -; 4.

?,

t F0ttliLD UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UbNriC (l[

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i

'90 JAN 12 P4 :05 L

BEFORE THE COMMISSION

.:,rort 0; EEC,61AriY DOCK [!imia nLiWICI DRANH IN THE MATTER OF

)

)

Docket Nos. 50-448 j.

HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY )

50-449

-(South Texas Nuclear Power Plant)

)

l i

e i

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby, certify that copies of " John Corder's Response to NRC's Staff Motion to Modify Subpoena and Motion For Protective Order" in-the.above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the mail system, 1

this 8th day of January, 1990, i

Samuel J. Chilk Office-.of the Secretary.

U.S.

Nuclear-Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

-i Samuel J. Chilk*

Hy Federal Express Office of-the Secretary

-11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852

. Docketing and Service Section office of the Secretary

'U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington,~DC 20555 Richard K.

Hoefling Counsel for NRC Staff U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555 iOtt[

Ih Billie Pirner Garde Attorney for John Corder

,er

-