-2

III. SECY-85-386

Construction

"60 Minutes" Broadcast on Shoreham

The Commission by a 4-1 vote (with Commissioner Asselstine disapproving), approved an order denying a March 27, 1985 Suffolk County/New York State motion for an immediate investigation of issues raised during a March 24, 1985 CBS broadcast of "60 Minutes" and for the Commission to hold in abeyance all Commission proceedings on Shoreham licensing and operation pending completion of the investigation. Commissioner Asselstine indicated that he preferred to treat the motion for an investigation as a 2.206 petition and refer it to the staff. (Subsequently, on January 29, 1986 the Secretary signed the Order.)

CC: Chairman Palladino

Commissioner Roberts
Commissioner Asselstine
Commissioner Bernthal

Commissioner Zech

Commission Staff Offices

EDO

PDR Advance

DCS 016 Phillips

NOTATION VOTE

RESPONSE SHEET

TO:

SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION

FROM:

SUBJECT:

COMMISSIONER ROBERTS

SECY-86-342 - PROPOSED ACTION REGARDING SUSPECTED
FALSE STATEMENTS BY LOUISIANA POWER AND LIGHT
MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL - WATERFORD 3

COMMENTS: The SRM referred to as instructing the staff to make a recommendation to the Commission regarding this matter actually instructed the staff to make a recommendation if enforcement action is appropriate. The staff has concluded that enforcement action is not appropriate. Nevertheless, the staff proposes to send a letter and place a synopsis of the OI report in the PDR.

I fail to see that any legitimate regulatory purpose would be served by releasing information from the long-delayed OI report or having the Region send the letter. DOJ declined prosecution in the case and sent derogatory letters to each of the officials in February 1985 (over 18 months ago).

SECRETARIAT NOTE: PLEASE ALSO RESPOND TO AND/OR COMMENT ON OGC/OPE MEMORANDUM IF ONE HAS BEEN ISSUED ON THIS PAPER.

NRC-SECY FORM DEC. 80

This is to advise you that the Commission (with Chairman Zech and Commissioners Bernthal and Carr approving) have agreed that LP&L should be provided with the synopsis of OI report 4-84-043S and advised that no further Commission action will be taken in this matter. The Commission has no objection to the staff's sending a letter of transmittal as shown in the attached version. Commissioner Roberts disapproved, and would not send a letter or release the OI Report; Commissioner Asselstine disapproved, he would have cited the licensee for material false statement violations.

Mr. GEJDENSON. The affinity that you have for the Waterford plant

Mr. ROBERTS. I missed the word. The what I have?

Mr. GEJDENSON. The affinity. You seem to have an affinity for the Waterford plant in your voting pattern. I understand that the office did indicate that you were free to vote on these issues.

Can you explain to us why you felt the report should not be released?

Mr. ROBERTS. I would have to refresh my recollection. I just can't answer off the top of my head. I will be happy to provide that to

you.

Mr. GEJDENSON. I would like you to provide that to the committee.

Mr. ROBERTS. I would respectfully submit that I don't have any particular affinity for Waterford or for any plant.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Were you the one from your office who sent George White a copy of the June 8, 1983 memorandum to D. Young from Joosten?

Mr. ROBERTS. No.

[EDITOR'S NOTE.-The above-mentioned memorandum and document follows:]

1987.

This letter responds to your letter of September 21,

With respect to your first question, three significant facts contributed to my determination that the OI report did not merit placement in the PDR. First, the incident in question occurred more than eighteen months before vote on release of the report was placed before the Commission. Second, the Department of Justice had independently examined the facts and circumstances surrounding the case and had determined that the allegations contained in the report did not support prosecution. Third, and perhaps most importantly, the Commission staff itself had recommended against any enforcement action. As Commissioner Carr's vote sheet indicated, "the case against the licensee [was] at best weak . . ." even in the eyes of our staff. Accordingly, I saw no purpose to be served by filing a report of a dated incident that neither DOJ nor the NRC staff believed could support further action.

With respect to your second question, the memorandum of Mr. Courtney is generally consistent with my recollection of the substance of my conversation with Mr. Martin, as testified to before your Committee. Mr. Courtney's language and presentation, however, are his own and I decline to adopt them.

Sincerely,

Hull. Rolants

Thomas M. Roberts

CC:

Rep. Denny Smith