|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20206H2221999-05-0404 May 1999 Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR50.60 That Would Allow STP Nuclear Operating Co to Apply ASME Code Case N-514 for Determining Plant Cold Overpressurization Mitigation Sys Pressure Setpoint.Commission Grants Exemption ML20195C7541998-11-0505 November 1998 Order Approving Application Re Proposed Corporate Merger of Central & South West Corp & American Electric Power Co,Inc.Commission Approves Application Re Merger Agreement Between Csw & Aep ML20155H5511998-11-0202 November 1998 Exemption from Certain Requirements of 10CFR50.71(e)(4) Re Submission of Revs to UFSAR ML20248K5051998-06-0909 June 1998 Confirmatory Order Modifying License (Effective Immediately).Answer for Request for Hearing Shall Not Stay Immediate Effectiveness of Order NOC-AE-000109, Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Rev to 10CFR50.55a, Industry Codes & Standards.South Texas Project Fully Endorses Comments to Be Provided by NEI1998-03-30030 March 1998 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Rev to 10CFR50.55a, Industry Codes & Standards.South Texas Project Fully Endorses Comments to Be Provided by NEI ML20137U3531997-04-0808 April 1997 Order Approving Application Re Formation of Operating Company & Transfer of Operating Authority ML20116B8871996-07-19019 July 1996 Transcript of 960719 Predecisional Enforcement Conference Re Apparent Violations of NRC Requirements at Plant TXX-9522, Comment Opposing Proposed GL on Testing of safety-related Logic Circuits.Believes That Complete Technical Review of All Surveillance Procedures Would Be Expensive & Unnecessary Expenditure of Licensee Resources1995-08-26026 August 1995 Comment Opposing Proposed GL on Testing of safety-related Logic Circuits.Believes That Complete Technical Review of All Surveillance Procedures Would Be Expensive & Unnecessary Expenditure of Licensee Resources ML20072P5441994-07-13013 July 1994 Testimony of Rl Stright Re Results of Liberty Consulting Groups Independent Review of Prudence of Mgt of STP ML20092C3911993-11-15015 November 1993 Partially Deleted Response of Rl Balcom to Demand for Info ML20092C4031993-11-15015 November 1993 Partially Deleted Response of Hl&P to Demand for Info ML20056G3351993-08-27027 August 1993 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR2 Re Review of 10CFR2.206 Process ML20044D3311993-05-0404 May 1993 Comment Supporting Proposed Generic Communication Re Mod of TS Administrative Control Requirements for Emergency & Security Plans ST-HL-AE-4162, Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR20 & 50 Re Reducing Regulatory Burden on Nuclear Licenses1992-07-22022 July 1992 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR20 & 50 Re Reducing Regulatory Burden on Nuclear Licenses ST-HL-AE-4146, Comment Supporting Draft Reg Guide DG-1021, Selection, Design,Qualification,Testing & Reliability of EDG Units Used as Class 1E Onsite Electric Power Sys at Nuclear Power Plants1992-07-0606 July 1992 Comment Supporting Draft Reg Guide DG-1021, Selection, Design,Qualification,Testing & Reliability of EDG Units Used as Class 1E Onsite Electric Power Sys at Nuclear Power Plants ST-HL-AE-4145, Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Loss of All Alternating Current Power & Draft Reg Guide 1.9,task DG-1021.Supports Rule1992-07-0606 July 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Loss of All Alternating Current Power & Draft Reg Guide 1.9,task DG-1021.Supports Rule ML20101K1131992-06-29029 June 1992 Motion for Leave to Suppl Motion to Modify or Quash Subpoenas & Supplemental Info.* OI Policy Unfair & Violative of Subpoenaed Individuals Statutory Rights & Goes Beyond Investigatory Authority.W/Certificate of Svc ML20101G2041992-06-18018 June 1992 Motion to Modify or Quash Subpoenas.* Requests Mod of Subpoenas Due to Manner in Which Ofc of Investigations Seeks to Enforce Is Unreasonable & Fails to Protect Statutory Rights of Subpoenaed Individuals.W/Certificate of Svc ML20087L3301992-04-0202 April 1992 Affidavit of RW Cink Re Speakout Program ML20087L3491992-04-0202 April 1992 Affidavit of JW Hinson Re ATI Career Training Ctr ML20087L3651992-04-0202 April 1992 Affidavit of Rl Balcom Re Access Authorization Program ML20087L3561992-04-0202 April 1992 Affidavit of Wj Jump Re Tj Saporito 2.206 Petition ML20116F2671992-02-19019 February 1992 Requests NRC to Initiate Swift & Effective Actions to Cause Licensee to Immediately Revoke All Escorted Access to Facility ML20094E9511992-02-10010 February 1992 Requests That NRC Initiate Swift & Effective Actions to Cause Licensee to Immediately Revoke All Escorted Access to Facility & to Adequately Train All Util Employees in Use of Rev 3 to Work Process Program ML20066C5041990-09-24024 September 1990 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re NRC Fitness for Duty Program.Urges NRC Examine Rept Filed by Bay City,Tx Woman Who Was Fired from Clerical Position at Nuclear Power Plant Due to Faulty Drug Test Administered by Util ML20006A0281990-01-0808 January 1990 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 ML20005G1431989-12-11011 December 1989 Motion to Modify Subpoena & Motion for Protective Order.* Protective Order Requested on Basis That Subpoena Will Impose Undue Financial Hardship on J Corder ML20005G1451989-12-0505 December 1989 Affidavit of Financial Hardship.* Requests NRC to Provide Funds for Investigation & Correction of Errors at Plant Due to Listed Reasons,Including Corder State of Tx Unemployment Compensation Defunct ST-HL-AE-3164, Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50, Acceptance of Products Purchased for Use in Nuclear Power Plant Structures,Sys & Components1989-07-0505 July 1989 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50, Acceptance of Products Purchased for Use in Nuclear Power Plant Structures,Sys & Components ML20244C9131989-03-28028 March 1989 Transcript of 890328 Meeting in Rockville,Md Re Discussion/ Possible Vote on Full Power Ol.Pp 1-65.Supporting Documentation Encl ML20055G7801988-11-10010 November 1988 Investigative Interview of La Yandell on 881110 in Arlington,Tx.Pp 1-13.Related Info Encl ML20055G7831988-11-0909 November 1988 Investigative Interview of R Caldwell on 881109 in Arlington,Tx.Pp 1-27.Related Info Encl ML20055G7881988-11-0909 November 1988 Investigative Interview of AB Earnest on 881109 in Arlington,Tx.Pp 1-90.Related Info Encl ML20055G7151988-11-0909 November 1988 Investigative Interview of J Kelly on 881109 in Arlington, Tx.Pp 1-35.Supporting Documentation Encl ML20205T7001988-11-0101 November 1988 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re Initiation of Fitness for Duty Program at Facility.Need for Program Based on Presumption That Nuclear Power Activities Require That Personnel Be Free from Impairment of Illegal Drugs ML20151M2071988-07-25025 July 1988 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR170 & 171 Re Fee Schedules.Principal Objection to Rules Relates to Removal of Current Ceilings on Collection of Fees ML20196A3701988-06-17017 June 1988 Notice of Receipt of Petition for Director'S Decision Under 10CFR2.206 & Issuance of Director'S Decision Denying Petitioners Request DD-88-09, Decision DD-88-09 Denying 880317 Petition by Earth First, Gray Panthers of Austin,Lone Star Green,Public Citizen,South Texas Cancellation Campaign & Travis County Democratic Women Committee for Commission to Delay Util Licensing Vote1988-06-17017 June 1988 Decision DD-88-09 Denying 880317 Petition by Earth First, Gray Panthers of Austin,Lone Star Green,Public Citizen,South Texas Cancellation Campaign & Travis County Democratic Women Committee for Commission to Delay Util Licensing Vote ML20148K0271988-03-21021 March 1988 Transcript of 880321 Discussion/Possible Vote on Full Power License for South Texas Nuclear Project,Unit 1 (Public Meeting) in Washington,Dc.Viewgraphs Encl.Pp 1-73 ML20150D1401988-03-21021 March 1988 Appeal of Director'S Decision on Southern Texas Project.* Requests That Commission Consider Appeal & Stay Licensing Decision Until Sufficient Evidence Acquired to Support Final Decision ML20150D0411988-03-17017 March 1988 Petition Of:Earth First!,Gray Panthers of Austin,Lone Star Green,Public Citizen,South Texas Cancellation Campaign, Travis County Democratic Women'S Committee.* Withholding of Issuance of License Requested ML20196H4661988-02-29029 February 1988 Receipt of Petition for Director'S Decision Under 10CFR2.206.* Gap 880126 Petition to Delay Voting on Full Power OL for Facility Until Investigation of All Allegations Completed Being Treated,Per 10CFR2.206 ML20148Q9531988-01-26026 January 1988 Petition of Gap.* Commission Should Delay Vote on Licensing of Facility Until Thorough Investigation of All Allegations Completed & Public Rept Issued.Exhibits Encl ML20237C2751987-12-13013 December 1987 Director'S Decision 87-20 Denying Petitioners 870529 Motion That Record in Facility Licensing Hearings Be Reopened & Fuel Loading Be Suspended Pending Resolution of Issues. Petitioner Failed to Provide Any New Evidence ML20236H3751987-10-29029 October 1987 NRC Staff Consent to Motion to Quash Subpoena Filed by E Stites.* Staff Concedes Possibility of Deficiencies in Svc of Subpoena to Stites & Therefore Does Not Oppose Motion to Quash.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20236E0111987-10-23023 October 1987 Order.* Grants NRC Request for Addl Time to Respond to Motion to Quash Subpoena of E Stites,Per 871008 Order. Response Should Be Filed by 871029.Served on 871023 ML20235T3891987-10-0808 October 1987 Motion to Quash Subpoena & Motion for Protective Order.* Subpoena Issued by Rd Martin on 870922 Should Be Quashed Due to Stites Not Properly Served,Witness Fees & Transportation Costs Not Provided & Issuance in Bad Faith ML20235T4171987-10-0808 October 1987 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Quash or in Alternative in Support of Motion for Protective Order.* Martin 870922 Subpoena of Stites Invalid & Improper.Decision to Subpoena at Late Date Form of Harassment.W/Certificate of Svc ML20195D8561987-09-22022 September 1987 Subpoena Directing E Stites to Appear on 871008 in Arlington,Tx to Testify Before NRC Personnel Re Allegations Made Concerning safety-related Deficiencies &/Or Records Falsifications at Plant IA-87-745, Subpoena Directing E Stites to Appear on 871008 in Arlington,Tx to Testify Before NRC Personnel Re Allegations Made Concerning safety-related Deficiencies &/Or Records Falsifications at Plant1987-09-22022 September 1987 Subpoena Directing E Stites to Appear on 871008 in Arlington,Tx to Testify Before NRC Personnel Re Allegations Made Concerning safety-related Deficiencies &/Or Records Falsifications at Plant 1999-05-04
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20101K1131992-06-29029 June 1992 Motion for Leave to Suppl Motion to Modify or Quash Subpoenas & Supplemental Info.* OI Policy Unfair & Violative of Subpoenaed Individuals Statutory Rights & Goes Beyond Investigatory Authority.W/Certificate of Svc ML20101G2041992-06-18018 June 1992 Motion to Modify or Quash Subpoenas.* Requests Mod of Subpoenas Due to Manner in Which Ofc of Investigations Seeks to Enforce Is Unreasonable & Fails to Protect Statutory Rights of Subpoenaed Individuals.W/Certificate of Svc ML20116F2671992-02-19019 February 1992 Requests NRC to Initiate Swift & Effective Actions to Cause Licensee to Immediately Revoke All Escorted Access to Facility ML20094E9511992-02-10010 February 1992 Requests That NRC Initiate Swift & Effective Actions to Cause Licensee to Immediately Revoke All Escorted Access to Facility & to Adequately Train All Util Employees in Use of Rev 3 to Work Process Program ML20006A0281990-01-0808 January 1990 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 ML20005G1431989-12-11011 December 1989 Motion to Modify Subpoena & Motion for Protective Order.* Protective Order Requested on Basis That Subpoena Will Impose Undue Financial Hardship on J Corder ML20150D1401988-03-21021 March 1988 Appeal of Director'S Decision on Southern Texas Project.* Requests That Commission Consider Appeal & Stay Licensing Decision Until Sufficient Evidence Acquired to Support Final Decision ML20148Q9531988-01-26026 January 1988 Petition of Gap.* Commission Should Delay Vote on Licensing of Facility Until Thorough Investigation of All Allegations Completed & Public Rept Issued.Exhibits Encl ML20236H3751987-10-29029 October 1987 NRC Staff Consent to Motion to Quash Subpoena Filed by E Stites.* Staff Concedes Possibility of Deficiencies in Svc of Subpoena to Stites & Therefore Does Not Oppose Motion to Quash.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20235T3891987-10-0808 October 1987 Motion to Quash Subpoena & Motion for Protective Order.* Subpoena Issued by Rd Martin on 870922 Should Be Quashed Due to Stites Not Properly Served,Witness Fees & Transportation Costs Not Provided & Issuance in Bad Faith ML20235T4171987-10-0808 October 1987 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Quash or in Alternative in Support of Motion for Protective Order.* Martin 870922 Subpoena of Stites Invalid & Improper.Decision to Subpoena at Late Date Form of Harassment.W/Certificate of Svc ML20216D1111987-06-25025 June 1987 Reply of Bp Garde to NRC Staff Opposition to Motion to Quash & De Facto Opposition to Petition Per 10CFR2.206.* NRC Has Not Established That Garde Assertions Not Sustainable.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20215D6471987-06-11011 June 1987 NRC Staff Answer Opposing Motion to Quash Subpoena Filed by Bp Garde,Esquire.* Gap Has Not Provided Sufficient Basis on Which Commission Could Conclude That attorney-client Privilege Protects Info Sought by Nrc.W/Certificate of Svc ML20214P3101987-05-29029 May 1987 Petition of Gap.* Requests That NRC Initiate Special Investigative Unit Complying W/Nrc Chapter Manual 0517, Excluding Region IV & V Stello from Participation,To Investigate Employee Allegations.Supporting Matl Encl ML20237G5981987-05-29029 May 1987 Motion to Reopen Record of Licensing Hearing to Determine Whether ASLB Conclusions Should Be Altered Due to Evidence of Undue Influence Exercised Over NRC Personnel by Util Mgt. Related Documentation Encl ML20214P2851987-05-29029 May 1987 Motion & Memo to Quash Subpoena.* Bp Garde Motion That Commission Quash V Stello 870520 Subpoena ML20203E1851986-07-22022 July 1986 Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Affidavit of Jn Wilson Re Design of Nonconforming Structures to Withstand Hurricanes & Tornados in Order to Correct Erroneous Statements Made in 860714 Affidavit.Related Correspondence ML20207E1131986-07-17017 July 1986 Statement of Views on Questions Re Design of Nonconforming Structures to Withstand Hurricanes & Tornadoes.W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20210E2071986-03-21021 March 1986 Motion to Compel Production of Documents Re Alleged Illegal Drug Use in Response to Applicant 860306 Response to Second Request for Production of Documents.Certificate of Svc Encl. Related Correspondence ML20154Q1391986-03-19019 March 1986 Response Opposing Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power, Inc 860228 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record:V & for Board Ordered Production of Documents.Motion Not Timely Filed. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20154Q3341986-03-19019 March 1986 Response Supporting Applicant Motion for Leave to Reply to Portions of Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power,Inc Partial Response to Show Cause Order.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20138B0161986-03-17017 March 1986 Response to Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power,Inc 860228 Motion to Compel Further Answers to Second Set of Interrogatories.Disclosure of Info Constitutes Invasion of Employee Privacy.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20138A8781986-03-14014 March 1986 Response Opposing Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power,Inc 860221 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record.Affidavit of JW Briskin Encl ML20141N8461986-03-12012 March 1986 Motion for Summary Disposition of Issue F.No Genuine Issue of Matl Fact Exists & Applicant Entitled to Favorable Decision.Affidavit of Je Geiger Encl ML20154B6111986-02-28028 February 1986 Response Opposing Portions of Concerned Citizen About Nuclear Power 860221 Partial Response to ASLB 860207 Show Cause Order.Further Arguments on Motion to Reopen Should Be Rejected.W/Certificate of Svc ML20154B4791986-02-28028 February 1986 Response Opposing Applicant 860218 Motion for Protective Order,Instructing Applicant Not to Answer 860204 Second Set of Interrogatories & Request for Production of Documents. W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20154B5781986-02-28028 February 1986 Motion for Leave to Reply to Portions of Concerned Citizen About Nuclear Power 860221 Partial Response to ASLB 860207 Show Cause Order.Proposed Reply Encl ML20154B8471986-02-28028 February 1986 Motion to Compel Applicant Response to Second Set of Interrogatories.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20205K6151986-02-21021 February 1986 NRC Position in Response to ASLB 860207 Memorandum & Order Requesting Addl Info to Resolve Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power,Inc Motion to Reopen Phase II Record:Iv. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20141N2131986-02-21021 February 1986 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record to Admit Encl Deposition of JW Briskin,For Order to Produce Documentation Re Quadrex Corp & to Schedule Hearings at Conclusion of Ordered Production of Documents.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20137W8841986-02-18018 February 1986 Motion for Protective Order to Direct Util to Respond to Only Interrogatories 12a,b & C in Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power 860204 Second Set of Interrogatories. Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20151T7131986-02-0606 February 1986 Response Supporting Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power, Inc 860117 Motion to Withdraw Contention Re Overpressurization of Westinghouse Reactors.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20151T6861986-02-0606 February 1986 Response Opposing Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power,Inc 860117 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record for Discovery & to Suspend Further Activity in Phase III ML20151U6731986-02-0303 February 1986 Response to Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power,Inc 860117 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record.Motion Supported to Include Addl Discovery & Hearings.Discovery Previously Limited by Board Contentions 9 & 10.W/Certificate of Svc ML20151T5841986-02-0303 February 1986 Response Opposing Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power 860117 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record:Iv;For Discovery & to Suspend Further Phase III Activity.Util Withholding Quadrex Rept W/Intent to Deceive ASLB ML20198H2791986-01-29029 January 1986 Response Supporting Applicant 860109 Motion to Incorporate Corrections Into 851205 & 06 Transcripts.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20137J0971986-01-17017 January 1986 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record:Motion IV for Discovery & to Suspend Further Activity in Phase Iii.Encl EA Saltarelli Oral Deposition & Overview of Facility Engineering Should Be Entered Into Phase Ii.Related Correspondence ML20140B6191986-01-17017 January 1986 Motion for Withdrawal of Contention Re Overpressurization of Westinghouse Reactors.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20137A8731986-01-0909 January 1986 Motion to Incorporate Proposed Corrections to Transcript of 851205-06 Hearing ML20151T5291986-01-0303 January 1986 Response Supporting Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power 860114 Motion to Withdraw Pending Contention on Overpressurization of Westinghouse Reactors.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20137L9501985-11-27027 November 1985 Motion to Sequester Witnesses to Be Called in Reopened Phase II Hearings on 851205 & 06 Re Issues of Credibility. Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20210A4581985-11-13013 November 1985 Response Supporting Applicant 851014 Motion to Establish Schedule for Phase III of Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20205G5251985-11-0808 November 1985 Response to Applicant 851014 Motion to Establish Schedule for Phase III Hearings.Proceeding Activities Re Phase III Should Be Suspended Until After Issuance of Partial Initial Decision Phase Ii.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20198B7991985-11-0505 November 1985 Motion Opposing Intervenor 851016 Motions to Reopen Phase II Record.Stds for Reopening Record Not Met.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20198B8431985-11-0404 November 1985 Motion to Strike Reckless Charges in 851029 Withdrawal Motion from Record.Intervenor Should Be Warned That Repetition of Behavior Will Not Be Tolerated.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20138N2431985-10-31031 October 1985 Response Opposing Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power Motion to Reopen Phase II Record:Ii.Exhibits 2 & 4 Barren of Any Info on Quadrex Review or Results.W/Certificate of Svc ML20138N0291985-10-29029 October 1985 Motion to Withdraw 851016 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record & for Discovery.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20138H9981985-10-24024 October 1985 Response to Applicant 851004 Motion to Incorporate Transcript Corrections.Offers No Objection Except for Listed Proposed Changes.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20133J1521985-10-16016 October 1985 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record to Admit Four Encl Exhibits.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20133J3501985-10-16016 October 1985 Motion to Reopen Phase II Record & Extend Right to Discovery Set Forth in ASLB 850618 Memorandam & Order to All Parties. Certificate of Svc Encl 1992-06-29
[Table view] |
Text
> , ,
cot i O
%
/' -ez.m UNITED STATES OF MiERICA
" s
-
'
NUCLEAR RESULATORY COAHI53 ION -
if ." 2 6 jgg{ p, C 42
.- - - :
1--
t'. Sc:rdary
- 7. e-EEFORE THE ATOMIC 3AFETY AND LICENSINO EOand / . .. g'.ts f
'
In the Matter of ) /o to
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER ) Docket Nos. 50-493 Gr COMPAHY, _E_r AL. ) 5 0 -4 9','_. PL
-
) -//
(SOUTH TEXA3 PROJECT, UNITS I F' N #
1 AND 2)
}
h( fii
[
, ,
4{
4 APR0 gh v.s.eama.31981 s umums C >
CCANP MOTION TO COdPEL I4RC STAFF "**
P TO PROVIDE INFORAATIO. 9
,
7 s
. to ;) \ ' '
' Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. ) 2 744 (c) . Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power (CCANP) request the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to compel the Iiuclear Regulatory Ccmmission to produce the identities and sworn statements of those inspectors uho supplied information which formed the basis of the Order to Show Cause.
.
,
I. Introduction l
On October 28, 1980, CCANP filed " CCANP REQUEST FOR ILFORM.c TION - FROM NRC ' STAFF" which asked for s
,
"the names of-those inspectors who supplied
, .information about harrassment at the South Texas Nuclear Project and the names of those employees who harrassed and intimidated them. i' On November 17, 1980, Hr. Bernard bordenick, Counsel for NRC Staff, sent the "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO CCASP 'hEQUESTS FOR INFORMATION' AND HOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIDE." This response stated that the=CCANP October 28 request was being forwarded to the Executive Director for'Operaticins (EDO) for a reply.
On December 8,1980, Ar. dordenick sent the second "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO CCAliP ' REQUEST FOR INFORMATI0ii F30d iiRC STAFF' . "
Mr. Bordenick informed CCANP that the EDO, pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
') 2 744 (b), ' declined to provide the names requested.
CCANP originally sought these identities and sworn statements ~
in the context of a request on behalf of both Intervenors to the ,
Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a public hearing on the Order to Show Cause of April 30,.1980. (Letter from Ianny sinkin to victor
-
8164 080 7 lf h So l -
. . .
.
.. c
.
- .g.
.
.
.
-
Stello dated May 28, 1980) In that request, CCANP stated on Page six, Item six:
.
Not havinr the oublic hearine will adverselv affect the
'; ability of tne e s ta to evaluate tnis oroject and tne acil-
'
ity of Intervenors to succort their contentions before tne ASES. As CCA..P and CEU understand tne puclic nearing, y the ERC would produce the actual witnesses and sworn state-ments which formed the basis for the Order to Show Cause.
'
Such evidence is invaluable not only as contrasted to para-phrased statements of unidentified individuals but also as offering Intervencrs an. opportunity to gather addition-al testimony from said witnesses. Io deny the recuest for a oublic'hearin: would be to deny existine evidence and Datential evidence to tne Intervenors and bv so doine denv such evidence lo the A3L . (emphasis in original)
'
Cn September 22, 1980, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission -
issued a Memorandum and Order denying the request for a public hearing but affording alternate relief to the Intervenors. This document states at Page thirteen:
Citizens has offered a namber of reasons why a hearing should be granted as a catter of discretion. It claims
,
that a hearing would require the 3RC staff to call as wit-nesces several persons who have not yet been identified, but whose interviews support the Director's order. This, in turn, would allow Citizens to learn the identities of those persons and to further question them. However, as Houston Applicants] su?5ests, Citizens can file either interoga{ tories with the staff or a Freedom of Information request with the Commission in order to learn the identi-ties of persons with knowledge about the incidents covered by the Director's crder. "
These possibilities are a far cry from Citizens' fears that failure to have a hearing
-
on the enforcement order would be tantamount to denying tc it . the ' evidentiary basis for the NRC actions in the
-Order to Show Cause'."
The October 28 request from CCARP followed the suggestion of the Commission. (The youth and inexperience of the CCAh?
representative filing the October ~28 request' produced a request more. limited in scope than the original CCALP request, i.e. not thefsuorn statements and only harrassment rather than the entire Order to 5hou Cause basis. CCAUP-asks that this dotion to Com-pel include all .the . items covered by the first paragraph of this notion. Such a chan;e would not alter the issues or real sub-E
-stance of the decision on the motion.)
The-denial of.this information conveyed in the December 8
. 1980, URC response:
c.
(1) denies Intervenors relief expressly provided for by the Commission.. Part of the basis for deaying. tte request for
.
4 S
f r
. . - ~ . . , s
'
??
~
L .
A%.
G#
.. .
j[ 'J2i a public hearing on the Order to Show Cause was the Co= mission's view noted above that Intervenors could get the identities and 7,;,@,'t' ,.9M?$ ~
sworn statements'through interrogatories filed with the Staff.
jf "' When Intervenors filed just such an interrogatory with the Staff, 41
- J the Staff refused to answer. . Intervenors are thus left in the position of either going back to the Commission to again request f the public hearing or having this 3. card grant relief.
.y ,
, 14 (2) adversely affect Intervenor interests by denying Inter-3'5 venor access to personnel identities and sworn statements that i
are clearly relevant to the Issues and Contentions Intervenors
] are to argue before this Board.
1 Intervenors are sensitive to the-difficult. policy issues V. raised by this request. The dRC Office of Inspection and Enforce-ment ob'iously has a strong desire to protect those who provide 1 . information to NRC investigators. Intervenors feel a similar
- concern for witnesses who bring information to the Intervenors.
j Uhile the idea that persons cooperating in exposing probleas at 1 a nuclear power plant face harassnent.or loss of job is abhorent,'
I the history of this plant indicates such a concern is unfortunate-3 ly narranted.
.
At the same time, the finding of the Order,to Show Cause
- are in some instances identical to the contentions of Intervenors.
The evidence behind the Order is therefore invaluable to Inter-
>
venors and the withholdin; of that evidence detrimental to Inter-venor interests. To adequately represent our interests, Inter-venors are compelled to file this motion.
There is one category of witnesses and statements for whom the. rational of denial is not so clear. Persons who are no long-er in the employ of Houston Lighting and Power or Erown and Root ,
may no. longer be reluctant to be identified. The Office of In-
- spection and Enforcement can locate and approach these indivi-duals about permitting their identification to Intervenors and the release of their sworn statements.
For the current employees of either Houston Lighting and Power or Erown and Root, the confidentiality problem still exists.
, ',Je offer an alternative to the granting of the motion to compel.
This alternative aly well require futher definition and may be inpractical. t.evertheless, we offer the alternative in an ef-fort to accomodate the competing interests involved in this ques-tion.
~Ihe guiding principle in any approach. to tak' nq the evidence of these uitnesses must be the protectial of the witnesses. To
. achieve such protection may well require extraordinary and unusu-al measures.
, .We could be satisfied if the doard journeyed to the Eay City
- area.to interview witnesses produced by the_ Office of Inspection and Enforcement. These interviews would be conducted based.on
., .the Board's own questions and on questions subcitted by all par-
-
.
4
-- e - y
+-..-.s...
4 rt ties to the proceeding. Only the Scard, c:HC counsel, and
" 'I %
yNge 'V Cffice of Inspection and Enforcement personnel would be present
.- MM for these interviews.
.. %l '
y.) To assure anonymity for the uitnesses may require the 71?j[.
> Eoard to go to larger town than, bay City or to travel under
,
Up assumed names to prevent the small town network from noti-SC fying l!auston Lighting and Fouer or Brown and Root of their JF presence. If Lay City is chosen, reservations should be made in such a uay that notice is not given of the arrival of a large number of people from Washington, D.C. W;tnesses with evidence of non-compliance snould be called first and witness-es against whom allegations are made second as the latter are most likely to inform Houston Lighting and Power or Brown and Root of the Board's presence. Each witness called should be cautioned not to reveal they have been called. Interviews should be conducted only at such times and on such days as the witnesses would not be required to request time off from their employers. Uitnesses should also bc given a copy of 42 U.S.C.
) 5651 regarding their remedies should there be any subsequent harrassment.
In effect, we'are suggesting the Eoard preside over and take the depostions of these witnesses in such a canner that their testimony will be admissible. While at the same time their id Antities will be protected. A prior stipulation by all parties would probably be necessary uith objections limit-ed-to mat"'eriality and relevancy. The stipulaton on admissi-bility should include deletien of names uhere necessary to protect individuals, including nac.es of the witnecses them-selves. -Additionally, the transcript should not contain in-
-forcation sufficient to identify persons whose protection is ,
sought. THe F3I release to Intervenors and Applicants might serve as a model.
,
We have not been able tode te to develop a better suggestion
- but certainly we are open to discussion on this matter.
If no alternative can be developed, however, we are com-pelled to-press our motion as stated.
If the. motion is denied, we request the Board to certify to the Commission the following questiais:
- 1. In light of-the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Memorandum and Crder of 3eptember 22, 1980, CLI-80-32, 12 .;RC , and specifically in licht of the part of the Hemorandum'and Order uhich states:
~" Citizens-has offered a number of recsons-
-
.why~a hearing should be. granted as a mat-ter of. discretion. -It claims that a' hear-
- ing would require'the ERC staff to call as-witnesses several persons who- have ' not yet
-
.
. .-
_ _ . , _ -w
. . . <. f,3
,
e, u
. ,w.
~ a , r.
-
C-i'agi#E ,
. . ,
.%.
s .
SO5wd'
.,fIgCg7 been identified, but whose interviews
.
support the Direc tor's order. This, in
.
- -
--
W
.W:?e e turn would c.llot. Citizens to learn the
- f. ' ' - identities of those persons and to further pf question them. IIowever, as Houston suggests, I Citizens can file either interrogatories y
y with the staff or a Freedom of Information request with the Ccamission in order to
'
, lecrn the identities of persons with knonledge about the incident covered by the Director's order. These possibilities are a far cry from Citizens' fears that a failure to have a hearing on the enforcement order uould be tantacount to denying to it
'the evidentis:ry basis for the ERC actions in the Order to .5how Cause "
did the Connission inton<1 to e:: press agreenent that these identities interrogatories trould be and Freedom of released Information if such request uere filed'?
- 2. If the ans;cr to e,uesti"- 1 is "yns , " does the Cosa19sion have specific advice on how thesc identities may h rel:aacd to Intervenors?
As the release or identities in response to an Intervenor raction is not to grant ;iven by the Corainsion as a reason the Intervonor request for a public hearing, Intervenors relief afforded vicu to the lenial of by Intervenors thisthe release as a denial Cocaission in lieu ofof a hearins.
,
11espectfully submitted,
'
j ftan> ,
4 &fyy
-
&
t.a n n y '- in _ u.
Citizcb',u c. oncerned in Peg M///.~tc.: ora Ecout i:uclear Feuer Citize2.s for Equita' ole Utilitics March 3 6, 1931
.
e
>. . .,. . . . . . _ _ _ _
.
- -
M&b 6' A .
.I$hi$ :ngses - .
F339'
.
'
~
'5f. Y Certificat of Service
'ner, -
We hereby certify that the foregoing document has 6 "pYa;i. OT been served on the following individuals and entities by
~.i?V hand (*) or by deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class, postage
,['
k
prepaid on this /6fL day of March, 1981.
- I
'
4 7 '
-
' - h'5? 1 V % Y%_ _ ,_. Ln
{yeggy Buchorn LannpSinkin Charles Bechhoefer, Esquire
- Chairman Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Axelrad, & Toll U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20036 Dr. James C. Lamb
- Docketing and Service Section (7 313 Woodhaven Road Office of the Secretary Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissi.
Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Ernest E. Hill
- Lawrence Livermore Laboratory Atomic Safety and Licensing University of California Board Panel .
P,0. Box 809, L-123 .
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissi Livermore, Ca. 94550 Washington, D.C. 20555 Edwin J. Rois
- Atomic Safety and Licensing
' Office of the Executive Appeal Panel (5)
Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissi U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 ,
, Brian E. Berwick
' Assistant Attorney General for @ gh
'
the State of Texas < \
. ^
-n - ?.\
~
t c.r. 2 0 $81 *
'
c....ge.-sentm 'l S Y- f jl
/ /6 vb
.
9 e
~
v