ML19325C803

Responds to 890914 & 19 Ltrs Re Constituents a Rich & K Mccook Concerns Pertaining to Dismissal of Adjudicatory Hearings in Conjunction W/Settlement Agreement Between Util & Case.Record Copy

ML19325C803
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	10/13/1989
From:	Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Bentsen L SENATE
References
CCS, NUDOCS 8910170286
Download: ML19325C803 (5)

Text

..

r..

t October 13, 1989 k

The Honorable Lloyd Bentsen United States Senator 961 Federal Building Austin, Texas 78701

Dear Senator Bentsen:

i This letter responds to your letters of Se atember 14 and 19,1989, which forwarded concerns from Ms. Andrea Rich of Fort Wort 1, Texas, and Mr. and Mrs. Kendall McCook of Tolar, Texas. They raised concerns regarding the licensing process for the Comanche Peak Steam fiectric Station.

In particular, they focused on implications associated with the dismissal of the adjudicatory hearings in conjunction with the settlement agreement between the intervenor, Citizens i

Association for Sound Energy (CASE), and Texas Utilities Electric Company.

At the time of the dismissal of the proceedings, the Citizens for Fair Utility Regulation (CFUR)ofFortWorth, Texas,petitionedtheU.S.NuclearRegulatory Conmission (NRC) to intervene in the proceeding in place of CASE. The Commission denied CFUR's request because they did not satisfy the criteria for late intervention set forth in Section 2.714 of Title 10 of the Code of Fcderal Regulations. We note that Mr. and Mrs. McCook were among those who filed affidavits supporting the CFUR petition. We have enclosed the Commission's Order, CLI-88-12, which details the consideration of and bases for the denial of CFUR's petition. Subsequently, CFUR filed a petition for review of the Commission's decision with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Dockets 89-4124and89-4310).

It is important to recognize that the dismissal of the adjudicatory proceedings does not dispose of the issues requiring resolution; in fact, the NRC staff has continued to pursue the resolution of concerns such as those expressed in the letters from Ms. Rich and the McCooks. The problems with design and construction deficiencies have been addressed extensively by the applicant.

Corrective actions have been reviewed and inspected by the NRC and are part of the public record; as an example, we have enclosed copies of Supplement 20 to the NRC's Safety Evaluation Report for Comanche Peak for your information.

The Safety Evaluation Report, its supplements, and the NRC ir.spection re) orts for Comanche Peak are available to interested members of the public at tae Local Public Document Room at the Somervell County Public Library in Glen Rose, Texas.

t We responded to similar concerns you forwarded, related to the findings of the Augmented Inspection Team (AIT), in our letter of September 19, 1989. Concerns related to employee allegations and other current issues at Comanche Peak are addressed through our normal review and inspection activities in a manner consistent with our activities at other plants, with one significant exception.

The Commission established a Special Projects organization in 1987 that war responsible fcr all licensing and inspection activities related to the Comanche Peak facility and the Tennessee Valley Authority facilities.

This organization

)(A o

('N I o n o a r(c spp

iI 4

The Honorable Lloyd Bentsen 2

reported directly to the Executive Director for Operations through 1988 and then to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, beginning in 1989. A separate Comanche Peak Project Division continues to deal with the particulerly complex regulatory problems confronting the Comanche Peak facility.

As the completion of Comanche Peak Unit I draws closer, we anticipate that public interest and concern, like that expressed by Ms. Rich and the McCooks, will rise. We will ensure that all issues important to safe operation of the plant are acceptably resolved before a license to load fuel and begin startup testing is granted. Any concern brought to the attention of the NRC that could affect the safe construction or operation of a nuclear power plant is pursued.

In some cases, issues can be resolved after licensing, as was implied in Mr. McCook's conversation with Mr. McKee. The NRC is responsible for the regulation of the commercial nuclear industry to ensure that the public health and safety are adequately protected.

Concerns or allegations of technical inadequacies, or other improprieties at the facilities we regulate, are taken seriously.

We hope that this information is responsive to your request.

Sincerely.

Original Signed By:

James M.Taylx James M. Taylor Acting Executive Director for Operations

Enclosures:

1.

NRC Memorandum and Order CLI.88-12, dated 12/21/88 Supplement 20 to Comanche ul[ouf C,d 2.

Peak Safety Evaluation Report dated 11/88 (3 copies)

Distribution See next page

• SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCES

/

OFC :*CPPD:D:NRR :*ADSP:NRR

• D:NRR

• TECH EDITOR:ED

CA NAME :CIGrimes

DCrutchfield:TEMurley

JMTa lo DATE :10/02/89

10/02/89

10/3/89

10/2/89

10/gg489

10// I 89

/

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

!,'o i s

.m l f-r

, y' ;' LThe Honorable Lloyd Bentsen s

.DISTRIBDTION (w/o enclosures):

Docket File (50/445-446)

NRC PDR t

Local'PDR EDO Reading; ADSP Reading (EDO-4758 and 4765)

CPPD Reading.

C

' JMTayl or.

JBlaha di HThompson' DCrutchfield TQuay CGrimes i

JLyons

RWarnick JHWilson-4 MMalloy

- MFields Congressional Affairs JGilliland, RIV/PA RMartin, RIV TMurley JPartlow FMiraglia FGillespie DMossburg-(E00-4758and4765)

~SECY.(89-1024 and 1037)

MBridgers(EDO-4758and4765)

EPeyton (89-35 and 36)

't i

J V

I 1

OCS v

1. ..wr\\o.

.d UNITED STATES g

[

g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

~'

7; a

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20666 s

f The Honorable Lloyd Bentsen United States Senator i

961 Federal Building Austin, Texas 78701 l

Dear Senator Bentsen:

This letter responds to your letters of September 4 and 19, 1989, which forwarded concerns from Ms. Andrea Rich of Fort Worth, Te s and Mr. and Mrs. Kendall McCook of Tolar, Texas. They raised concerns

' gar, ding the licensing process L

for the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station.

In particular, they focused on implications associated with the dismissal the adjudicatory hearings in conjunction with the settlement agreement tween the intervenor, Citizens Association for Sound Energy (CASd), and Texas Utilities Electric Company.

At the time of the dismissal of the pr eedings, the Citizens for Fair Utility Regulation (CFUR) of Fort Worth, Texas, petitioned the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory i

Counission (NRC) to intervene in the The Comission denied CFUR's request bep/ proceeding in place of CASE.

ause they did not satisfy the criteria for late intervention set forth in Se tion 2.714 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations. We note that Mr. a Mrs. McCook were among those who filed afficavits supporting the CFUR tition. We have enclosed the Commission's Order, CLI-88-12, which detail the consideration of and bases for the denial of CFUR's petition. Subseque ly, CFUR filed a petition for review of the i,

Commission's decision with t United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth i

Circuit (Dockets 89-4124 an 89-4310).

1 It is important to recogn ze that the dismissal of the adjudicatory proceedings does not dispose of the ssues requiring resolution; in fact, the NRC staff has continued to pursue th resolution of concerns such as those expressed in the letters from Ms. Rich nd the McCooks. The problems with design and i

construction deficie les have been addressed extensively by the applicant.

Corrective actions ve been reviewed and inspected by the NRC and are part of the public record; s an example, we have enclosed copies of Supplement 20 to the NRC's Safety F aluation Report for Comanche Peak for your information.

The Safety Evalu ; ion Report, its supplements, and the NRC inspection reports for Comanche Pe are available to interested members of the public at the Local i

Public Documen Room at the Somervell County Public Library in Glen Rose Texas.

We responde to similar concerns you forwarded, related to the findings of the Augmented spection Team (AIT), in our letter of September 19, 1989.

Concerns

)

related t employee allegations and other current issues at Comanche Peak are addresse through our normal review and inspection activities in a manner consist t with our activities at other plants, with one significant exception.

The C ission established a Special Projects organization in 1987 that was responsible for all licensing and inspection activities related to the Comanche Peak facility and the Tennessee Valley Authority facilities. This organization reported directly to the Executive Director for Operations through 1988 and then to the Director. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, beginning in

-w e-

-.-,a.vn.--,,,,,.,.,_,.n,..

,. ~. _,,,.,,

p y :* j ;,

p I:

4 i

The Honorable Lloyd Bentsen 2

L 1989. A separate Comanche Peak Project Divistorvcontinues to deal with the particularly complex regulatory problems con ehting the Comanche Peak facility.

As the completion of Comanche Peak Unit 1/ raws closer, we anticipate that public interest and concern, like that empressed by Ms. Rich and the McCooks, will rise. We will assure that all issdes important to safe operation of the.

plant are acceptably resolved before license to' load fuel and begin startup testing is granted. Any concern br ht to the attention of the NRC that could affect the safe constructior} r operation of a. nuclear power plant is pursued.

In some cases, issues gan be resolved after licensing, es was implied in Mr. McCook's convers The NRC is responsible for the regulation of the coupe / tion with Mr. McKee.rcial nuclear industry to ensure public health and safety are dequatel.v protected.

Concerns or allegations of.

technical inadequecies, or ther improprieties at the facilities we regulate, are taken seriously.

We hope that this info ation is responsive to your request.

Sincerely, t

James M. Taylor Acting Executive Director for Operations

Enclosures:

1.

NRC randum and Order CLI-12, dated 12/21/88 2.

Sup ement 20 to Comanche Pe Safety Evaluation Rt ort dated 11/88 (3 ccpies)

Distv bution Seefhext page Do/umentName: BENTSENJ

• SEE PREVIOUS C NC RE OFC :*CPPD:D:NRR :'ADSP:NR D.i

AEDO

lLCH EDITOR :

/t

'q J

.j.........:............:..........:

NAME :CIGrimes:cm :DCrutchfic :TE Murley

JMTaylor lg[fpq:

DATE :10/02/89

10/02/89

10}/89

10/ /89

10/02/89 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY fn j, v

k 1

kl 3

s UNITED STATES OF ANERICA-

'b NUCLEAR RESULATORY Com!$3!0N Com!ss!0NERs:

Lande W. rech. Jr.. Chairman W EC 21 Pl2:06 Thames N. Roberts Kenneth N. Carr Urv. -cciit.,

t' Kenneth C. Rogers James R. Curt'ss s%-

SDtVEDDEC 21193 1r the Natter of b

h TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC 5

Docket Nos. 50-445-OL COMPANY. U &.

l 50-444-OL

(

(Comanche Peak Steam Electric h

Docket Ne. 50-445-CPA

'I'

Station. Units I and 2)

J) r MEM0RANDtM AND ORDER 4

CLI-88 1

!. Introduction and Sununary On August 11. 1988, the organization Citizens for Fair Utility t

Regulation ("CFUR" or " Petitioners") filed a late petition before the j

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board seeking to intervene in the Coma Peak Operating License ("0L") and Construction Permit Amendm

~

proceedings.

This filing presents a sunewhat unusual situation because theLicensingBoardwhichwasconduttingthoseproceedingsdismissed both cases on July 13. 1988 approximately four weeks earlier, acting on a joint motion filed by all parties pursuant to a settlement agreemen The NRC staff and the applicant. Texas Utilities Electric Company

("TUEC') filed their responses with the Consission rather than wit Licensing Board, in the apparent belief that the Consission had sole jurisdiction over the petition.

The Licensing Board has not acted on CFUR's petition -- not even to the extent of ruling on the threshold g g,,a n A A LG W,

.(f.

ww

L.;..,..

i

• 2-c,.

a i

question of whether it has jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

In light of the Licensing.8oard's inaction, and in order to clarify any resulting confusion regarding the status of-the Comanche Peak the consission has elected to rule on the petition itself.I Upon review. we find that the petition fails to satisfy the five-factor test b

for late-filed intervention petitions set forth in 10 C.F.R. 2.714(a)(1-v).

Therefore, we deny the petition to intervene.

II. CFUR's Petition' CFUR was one of three original intervenors in this proceeding.

y/t having been admitted to the proceeding on June 27. 1979. CFUR and the i

second intervenor withdrew from the proceeding in 1982. leaving the Citizens Association for Sound Energy (' CASE *) as the only party contesting the issuance of the operating license.

4 In this petition.

CFUR alleges that it withdrew from the proceeding on the asstaptio that (1) it would support CASI's efforts snd (2) CASE would dilig prosecute the proceeding against Comanche Peak.2 CFUR further alleges that CASE does not intend to implement the oversight functions of th sett1 ment agreement which allow a CASE representative:(1)tomonitor I

questionable judgments by the parties and the Lice Initially, the petitioners filed their petition before the Licensing Board which had been hearing both Comanche Peak proceediat Licensing Board's clear state.aent during a public proceed'ag th before it dismissed the case that any such petition should be dire to the Connission.

Seg Transcript at 25.202-08. Whether that advice decision to rule on the petition ourselves.was correct in this ca 2

CFUR alleges that its reliance upon CASE was " reasonable.'

accept this characterization although, as we will demonstrate. it is We irrelevant for our purposes.

n.,,s-

--e p,,-,v,

.,.,-,,,,w,,wn,,a---,w,,w,-,,,-an-,m,,-

,_,-,,,,,....-_..--...--.--.,s,----

-r-,

- - - - -,, - -, -, - = - -

1,.

'F

..g Q

construction and operation of the plant as a acaber of TURC's Operations ReviewLCausittee; and (2) to report any perceived problems to the N Accordingly, in C M 's view. CASE cannot be relied upon to necessary.

uphold the public's interest in a safe plant.

As a result. C M argues that it is now entitled to replace CASE as L

an intervenor in the proceeding because CASE hat, failed to carry out the above assumptions upon which CM acted, contrar:t to CM's wishes.

i i

According to the petition, if CM had known that CASE might withdraw from the proceeding. it would not have withdrawn.

Therefora, argues CM good cause exists to grant the late-filed petitfon to intervene.3 V' Furthermore. CM alleges that it has no alternative means other than intervention to protect its and the pubite's interests, that it ces make important contributions to the record, that no other parties are available to represent C M 's interests, and that allowing C M to intervene will not delay the proceedings which were dismissed by the i

1.fcensing Board on July 13. 1988.

III. Analysis A. The Applicable Standard In order to prevail. CM must satisfy a balancing of the five requirements for an " untimely' or " late. filed' petition found in 3C M 's allegations include:

plant; the existence of unspecified life-threatening safety flaw perjury by the applicant's employees or agents; falsification of documents and engineering calculations by the applicant; hazardous pipe coating; inadequate record-keeping; and defe spent fuel pool liner.

,..~,_.

.--,..,w.e,.,_-_m..-~~~~,w--m___

m,

,__m____-,_

.m m

---m--

(

- - -. =. - - -

i (' f, J

-4.

e o

3..

10 C.F.R. '2.724 (a)(1)(i.v).4 Those five factors aret g

(1)the'goodcause*forfa11eretofileontimes (2) the availability of other means of protecting the petitioners' interests (3)theextentto which the petitioners' participation any reasonably t,e expected to assist in developing e i

sound records (4) the extent to which the petit 1oners' interest will be represented by 1

existing parties and (5) the extent'to which the petitioners' participation will broaden the issues..

.p t or delay the proceeding.

The burden is on the petitioner to satisfy the Commission that a balancing of these factors weighs in favor of granting the petitio Petropolitan Edison Comoany (Three Mile Island Nuclear Powe 1

Unit 1),CLI-83-25,18NRC327,331(1g83).5 B.

Factor (1): ' Good Cause' For Late Intervention L

l Long-standing and well-settled Consission precedent clearly that one party may not demonstrate " good cause" for late inte y

attempting to substitute itself for another party which has withdraw i

4 interest requirements found in 10 C.F.R. 2.714.Th at 7-8.

h's agree.

5 five-factor lateness test.Thus, we will confine our ana ysis to theNRC S 5

!n preparing this order, we have reviewed both CFUR's initial petition and its "First Supplement" together with the responses t documents filed by both the NRC Staff and the Applicant TUEC totally disregarded the letter filed by the Nuclear Management and We have Resources Council ('NUMARC") dated October 7, 1988.

NUMARC is not a (Footnote Continued on Next page) 3 s -- o, ~ = w n n.,nw.m,,,,v~.-,nn,e.w,,-...,,,_,.--n-.,,,,

-en,--n,-,--, _ -. -, - - - - - -.. - - - - - - -, -, -. - - - - - - - - - -, - -, -, - ~ - -

.. t,

frohtheproceeding.

E.,

j33, 34,. Sulf States Utilities Cannany (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2). ALAS-444, 6 NRC 760. 795-i jggg").

In that case, the Union of Concerned Scientists attempted to' replace the State of Louisiana after the State decided to withdraw f the proceeding, arguing that the organisation and its members had b

" lulled into inaction" by the State's previous participation. 4 NRC at 796.

The Appeal Board rejected that argument. holding that the belate petitioners assumed the risk that the previous litigant's degree of involvement would not fulfill their expectations and that "a foreseeab consequence of the materialization of that risk was that it would no

, y.

longerbepossibletoundertake[themselves)thevindicationof(their]

t interests.'"

6 NRC at 737. ggo11.n3 Ouke power Comenny (Cherokee Nucle Station. Units 1. 2. and 3) ALhB-440. 6 NRC 642, 645 (1977)

(" Cherokee").

In essence, a potential intervenor may not rely upon an existing intervenor to present its views or represent its positions without assuming the risk tha.t they will not do so.

Furthermore, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has specifically upheld the Conmission's denial of late i

intervention in similar circumstances.

"We do not find in statute or i

case law any ground for accepting the premise that proceedings before administrative agencies are to be constituted as endurance contests modeled after relay races in which the baton of proceeding is passed o L

successively from one legally exhausted contestant to a newly arrivin i

l (footnote Continued From Previous Page) party to this proceedin Commission regut2tions.g and has not sought to participate under on the record should properly seek leave to intervene or lea participate as an amicus.

See 10 C.F.R. 2.715 (1988).

1 C... _ _, _. ~. _.. _ _ _ _ _.

l

.s.

\\

i legal stranger."

[

faston Utilities Connission v. Art, 434 r,td 347, 852 (0.C.Cir.1970).

Clearly,thiscaseisanalogoustotheRivertend,ggegkgg,an i

Easten cases.

In each of these cases, the interveners attempted to claim a "right' to substitute themselves for parties she have with from the proceedings.

Obviously, however, a party has no 'right' to substitute itself into a proceeding. Instead, each party must demonstrate that it is entitled to intervene on its own merits. A previous reliance.. however misplaced.. en another party to asse

{

interests does not in and of itself constitute suffittent ' good caus f

to justify late intervention.

Like the petitleners in Riverlead end i

Cherokee, CFUR assumod the risk that CASE mould not represent interests to its complete satisfaction when it withdrew from the proceeding in 1982.

It cannot now complain when that risk becomes reality.6 Thus, the claim that CFUR relied upon CASE to represent its!

i nterests in the hearing does not constitute ' good cause" for late i

ntervention and the first factor weights against granting the petitio C.

Analysis of Factors (11) through (v)

We now turn our attention to the remaining four factors agpinst which we aust weigh the petition.

t When the intervention is extremely untimely and the proceeding has been essentially completed, as is in this case, and the petitioner utterly fails to demonstrate any l

cause* for late intervention, it must make a " compelling' case that 6

The fact that various members of CASE may have disagreed w course of action taken by the majority of CASE's membership or dir (Footnote Continued on Next Page)

--s-------

-- w-

..._.,._--...,.,,._--.._n,

,,,=._,wn.w,,,-,w,.,-wn,,,,a,,,..,m,,,w.,,,,,,

.7,,

\\

7..

other four factors weigh in its favor. jgg,3,3,,, kangjaland Lightin m (thereham Nuclear Power Statten. Unit 1). ALAB.743,18 'N 397 (1983) (*])gtg,g'): Detroit Edison Cansany (Enrico Femi Atomi Power plant, Unit 2). ALA8 707.18 NRC 1780.1788 (1982) j

}

South Carolina Electric and San Canaanv (Virgil C. Senor NuclearI Station, Unit 1), ALA8 442, la NRC 881, 888 (1981), Aff'l 33 Fairfield United Action v. NRC, 879 F.2d 241 (D.C.Ctr.1982) (T As we w111 demonstrate, we find no campelling case here.

The NRC staff concedes that factors (11) and (iv) weigh in favo the petitioner and we agree.

Turning to the third facter, the ability to contribute to a scend record, we find that CPUR has been absenI the proceedings for sin (8) years.

There is no evidence that it has ear knowledge of the nature of the factual background or specific issue 1

+

}

involved in contention 5 at issue in the OL Proceeding or Cententi at issue in the CPA proceeding.I Furthemore, and most importantl has identified no special expertise or experience which its members possess which would enable it to address those issues.

}

The only factor cited is a vague reference to participation in the prior proceedings before it withdrew as a party.

l However, CFUR does not provide us with any specific accomplishment in those hearings which would demonstrate any significant empertise.

1' l

(

(FootnoteContinuedFromPreviousPage) i does not add any support to CFUR's petition.

Obviously, in a v organization, there can be as many points of view as there are mem I

Throu hout both the Petition and the "First Supplement

• CFUR repeatedly gnored the CPA proceeding and has failed to address

. Contention 2 admitted in that proceeding.

petition as filed in both proceedings, we note that what littleWhile w I

(FootnoteContinuedonNextPage) l l

=

i

l 8

. n Moreover. CFUR has not identified any witnesses it intends to at the hearings which it proposes, such less any experts in the area which wem at issue in either the OL or CPA proceeding.

Additionally.

CFUR's issues appear to be simple, unsupported disagreements with statements in various NRC documents such as inspection repo Petition at 14-15.

The Appeal Board has repeatedly stressed the importance of providing specific and detailed information in supp factor (iii).

"When a petitioner addresses this [ third) criterion it should set out with as much partievlarity as possible the precise t

it plans to cover, identify its prospective witnesses, and susuarise

.p r I

their proposed testimony."

Mississioni Power & Lieht Company (Grend GulfNuclearStation. Units 1and2).ALA4-704,16NRC1728,1730 (1982): Shoreham 18 NRC at 399.

In the circumstances of this case, CFUR would need to be very precise and detailed regarding the issu

{

intends to raise and how it intends to addmss them.

Having failed to do so, this factor weighs heav'iiy against intervention.

Regarding factor (v) we find that there will be an inevitable delay while CFUR acquaints itself with the proceedings.

Although CFUR alleges that it "is fully prepared to take the proceedings as it finds them." s_e, Petition at 19, we find that promise of questionable value g

i CFUR's members have not been involved with the proceedings for over (6) years.

The petition indicates that CFUR apparently has no knowledg of the extensivs proceedings which have occurred after 1982. For (Footnote Continued From Previous Page) substance CFUR's submittals contain refer exclusively to the OL proceeding, not the CPA proceeding.

CFUR's intervention in the OL proceeding is absent in the CPATherefo l

proceeding.

l L

er

-m--

---,-m e-w n-m,,-,,,.n,,_,nw,,,,,,n-,,,,_,-_

-_ _,.,ma_,,,,,_

.,_~-----s,

_.---,,,--,,_,,,n--.,__..

.,. _ w.,

aw.

. r. '^:, A

^

'g.

j example. CFUR's. primary reference to the extensive corrective p undertaken by TUIC at Comanche Peak such as the CPRT and the 4-quote from a 1987 CASE newsletter. jggPetition. Attachment 8.

Additionally. CPUR makes ne reference to the extensive evaluati the NRC staff which have resulted in the various Project Status Re and the supplemental Safety Evaluation Reports.

Obviously, evaluation j

of these documents (among many others) would be central to the status of the plant's construction and the current posture of the i

licensing process.

Yet the petition contains no evidence that CFUR has even comenced such a review. Therefore, we find no evidence in the petition that CFUR could famediately step'inte both proceedings withou a substantial delay.

Furthennere. CFUR appears to be attempting to broaden the issuel i

dispute before the two proceedings. Contention 5 at issue in the OL proceeding alleges that TUtc employed inadequate Quality e

Assurance / Quality Control ("QA/QC") procedures during plant j

construction.

Contention 2 at issue in the CPA proceeding alleges that TUEC deliberately violated NRC regulations in order to speed construction.

However. CFUR raises issues which appear to go beyond I

those two areas. Jg Note 3. gggg.

Expansion of the hearings. to cover these issues would undoubtedly delay the proceedings.

IV. CFUR's Supplemental Pleading In its 'First Supplement." CTUR alleges that TUIC and CA$t have conspired to enter into " illegal settlement agreements

• resolving at least one of the Department of Labor ("D0L*) employment discrimina cases concerning retaliation against alleged "whistleblowers."

1 CFUR l

l

--_--._-,,u----,--_

___,_,._.,__,,,n

...,-nn_n,,,,,,,n_m-,,,_

_m---,-n.

,,,nv

.-~

a p*.'

- 10

. :,f g..

,e.

seeks a hearing to explore these claims.

In addition to widening the scope of the proceedings' gg facter (v). gggg. these allegatten not constitute grounds for ordering a hearing.8 We read the agreement' referenced in the CFUR's supplemental petition to allow the in involved to bring any safety concerns he has directly to the N on his own behalf or en the behalf of ergenizations not reference

[

the agreement, and to respond to an administrative subpeone t

subpoena is not quashed by the issuing officer.

la its response. TURC concedes as much. jgg Applicant's Response to C M 's First Sup a

at 8.

Moreover, at the prehearing conference discussing the settle W.

agreement (at which CFUR was present) counsel for both CASE an pointed out that none of these individuals involved ih settlement agreements before.the 00L were barred from bringing concerns '

13g Transcript at 25.257s 25.268.

The agreement referenced in the CPUR t

petition only restricts the individual's right to appear voluntaril a witness or a pgt3x in certa n NRC proceedings (and then only o I

of the organizations and individuals listed in the agreement) and ob11 gates the individual to take " reasonable" steps to resis in such proceedings.

As long as the individual's right to bring matters to the NRC in a reasonably convenient manner is not curtailed see a violation of federal law or NRC regulation.

8 CFUR's allegations in this regard appear directed not at CASE itself who rep, resented CASE before the NRC and, c individual before the Department of Labor actions performed in their role as a repre. These allegations concern According to an exhibit attached to CFilR's "F sentathe before the 00L.

understand that the individual involved is pursuing this ques.

the DOL.

tion before

-..es...

-,-..,m.._.-..

..-_-,_m-~..,_-_,r

,,,_m

~.-m c+

,#,w.-..,,

r-w 1 L s t:.

I

)

' Y.

Suunsey i

l i

Is.suunsry, CPUR has failed to justify the lateness of the petition i

and has not carried its " compelling" burden of balancing the last four factors.

Accordingly, the petition to intervene must be and hereby is denied.'

It is se ORDERED.

For the Commission, k

E 0/d,c-

\\g denn G. Weyte W'

istant Secretary for the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland i

//

day of[rden/w,1988.

i A

i

~

r

'On the day before the Cosenission was to vote on this order Conssission received a "Second Supplement" to the Petition to Intervene

, the i

from CFUR.

The Supplement alleges various inadequacies in the installation of Kapton insulation at the Comanche Peak facility.

extremely late pleading does not contain any evidence or inforslation This which would change our decision on the outcome of the petition to intervene.

s

- +. - -. _, -. - -.., - - -

.., _ -.... - -, _ _ - ~... _ - _ -....... _.,.

,.,._s.,-

-,,--.-,n---,

r;

,s

.7-

.c

- me neeg%,W 4

UNITED STATES c<

W[

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a@

p=.

l1

's WASHINGTON, D. C. 20066 l

1 k

EDO Frincioal Correspondence Control

]

l FROMs.

DUE: 10/02/89 EDO CONTROL - 0004758' DOC DT 09/14/89 FINAL-REPLY.

.)

Ccn.*Lloyd Bentsen TO '

l OCA FOR' SIGNATURE OF '

• • GRN CRC NO: 89-1024 2p CWecutive Director

'DESC:

ROUTING:

. ENCLOSES LETTER FROM ANDREA RICH CONCERNING' RMartin, RIV

{

COMANCHE PEAK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT DATE: 09/20/89

^

ASSIGNED TO:-

CONTACT:

NRR

Murle_y_,

e SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:

. REPLY-TO AUSTIN, TEXAS OFFICE.

f NRR RECEIVED: SEPTEMBER 20, 1989 ACTION:

i_.ADSP:CRUTCIFIELD o-l

.NRR ROUTING:

MURLEY/SNIEZEK PARTLOW MIRAGLIA GILLESPIE r

l MOSSBURG l

l, i

r l'

+

i l

l' I -

Q

'I

,g+

lil} f *.f s.

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY i

CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET PAPER NUMBER:

CRC-89-1024 LOGGING DATE:: Sep 20 89 '

f f/ ' ACTION OFFICE:

EDO l

AUTHOR:

Senator Lloyd Bentsen g

AFFILIATION:

UNITED STATES SENATE s

LETTER DATE:

.Sep 14 89 FILE CODE:

j T

SUBJECT:

Constituent's: concerns regarding. Comanche Peak-ACTION:

Direct Reply DISTRIBUTION:

'h lSPECIAL HANDLING: OCA to Ack.

.q

. NOTES:

Constituent'- Andrea Rich

-DATE DUE:

Oct. 4 89

'3IGNATURE:

-DATE SIGNED:

AFFILIATION:

f I

i

~ ~ ~**

NRYbif, &

9 - 24) - 97 c.:,e lO 's ( i & 9 ihne l

kt0--~u041b6 4

\\M j

7.-

+ 4,*.

' e '.

FINANh COMMthCL SCitNf:L CND TRANSPORfCTION JONT ECONOMIC -

JOINT COMMITTil DN TAMATION En(teh 6tateg 6 enate WASHINGTON, DC 20510 September 14, 1989 l

Mri Carlton C. Kammerer, Director Office of' Congressional Affairs The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20555 Dear Mr. Kammerer Enclosed for your. review is a copy of a letter I have received from Ms. Andrea Rich of Fort Worth, Texas.

I would certainly appreciate your sending me any pertinent information that you might have in this regard.

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely, di A

loyd entsen E

losure PLEASE REPLY TO:

961 Federal Building Austin, Texas 78701 l

l I

l r,

I l

l..

A-n J --s a

A4 1

O[ IV I I VM h

Q,,l?T M}?f

,.,; a.

V"

{_

l L2a a g a 7 /9er;.

gusa)pupc.

i e

p ru 3\\\\g

' % $dcz Aza~,

pp' F

1 pasu puna)g~e nd v

nean J

sD>+s

~ww.a. r

& p k k S C4. & A y k.g _,n tarjmust k%.w& A h

M akhf O A U f f" -

j' & j ( () J & c j t l

-c sa t +L. w& cmh&. yl wavt //gL6 A.e

• /8t 3*,

("g

.~Lki5Md"*'d{bf'"".)

,Cm

' Auf[ hiuut 2.-.

Ntedll W w

L

1. ^f si c,, &

[

f.7 Qaat-cL n~ w ea n u-,~

42 C($b<cb

/ tit./29 4t.0 7t.

d Ao,

?

%bClu t/u httaea4. SATA AASE, bluf"NU=f.

c edu e&>- y asLx j

. arLk saduk Le b kul 0-tul '

'c /uutnu clLid. (cjy 6/u noa

. boca 00 a

Y

% Aa~)<wucw p i & A Q i u u s d.tl t

av d.

/

w c3 Ar s'y

,c a,nt &

sn, S4 w -s n o s a u c J u.a w j y & f c A sea.

kA

L h dan. wvu.

/ L&y'a r

y

%-lcL&vcn Aca_,badun

/n plu Jun f

} 'T2L [b. e,% u, ]%

gg '

Qg g b

.., a sC & h t &t ttuu ea q nul Lad

%L cw lkk.d.

b, 9

u put n ha'. th-My "v.

k*q 2.xf.ALC8' a

L ulu c-Kveit

y7 g:

7 y ;...:. -

A UNITED STATES g

i 8

NUCLEAR REGULA10RY COMMISSION a'

's wasmwotow, o. c. notes

\\....

EDO Principal Correspondence Control-t u,

FROMs DUE: 10/03/89 EDO CONTROL: 0004765 DOC DT 09/19/89 FINAL REPLY Sen. Lloyd Bentsen r

TO -

CA FOR' SIGNATURE OF:

48 GRN

• 4 CRC NO: 09-1037 i

Executive Director g

i ROUTING:

)

DESC:

ENCLOSES LETTER FROM KENDALL & VIRGINIA MCCOOK RMartin, RIV l

i-i CONCERNING SAFETY PRODLEMS AT COMANCHE PEAK

'r DATE: 09/22/09 ASSIGNED TO:

CONTACT:

NRR

__Munley i

r EPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:

REPLY TO AUSTIN, TEXAS OFFICE.

l NRR RECEIVED: SEPT. 22, 1989 ACTION:

F ADSP:CRUTCHFIELD' l

NRR ROUTING:

MURLEY/SWIEZEK MIRAGLIA PARTLOW GILLESPIE j

l MOSSBURG l

ACTI0il 1

DUE TO NRR DIRECTOR'S "

l q\\o.E V9 l

gy, t

I L

l' r

4 5

si

f.,,

L 4'

<[

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET PAPER NUMBERt CRC-89-1037 LOGGING DATE! Sep 21 89 i

ACTION OFFICE:

EDO i

l

['

AUTHORt' Lloyd Bentsen--Const Ref AFFILIATION:

UNITED STATES SENATE LETTER DATE:

Sep 19 89 FILE CODE: ID&R+5 Comanche i

SUBJECT Unsolved safety problems at the Comanche Peak i

l nuclear power plant r

ACTION:

Direct Reply DISTRIBUTION:

OCA to Ack SPECIAL HANDLING: None NOTES Kendal & Virginia McCook DATE DUE:

Oct 5 89 SIGNATURE:

DATE SIGNED:

AFFILIATION:

l l

l 1

l l

l l

200---coq 7es Wd Off. EDO h 2 ^ - R i-we ng

/O ' ep

l ge,'

4LOYO M ER 193148 fHeAtect C0estesact scatwet AwoinAsetepert ATeow J0W1 e coa #0edeC

~ " " ~ ' ~

linitch Stated Senate WAsHwoToN, DC 20510 September 19, 1989 Mr. Carlton C. Kammerer, Director Office of Congressional Affairs The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20555

Dear Mr. Kammerer:

Enclosed for your review is a copy of a letter I have received from Mr. and Mrs. Kendall McCook of Tolar, Texas.

I would certainly appreciate your sending me any pertinent information that you might have in this regard.

Thank yoit for your assistance.

Sinceroly, du.,

v Lloyd Bentsen l

United States Senator i

Enclosure PLEASE REPLY TO:

961 Federal Building Austin, Texas 78701 j

r k

i 1

b i

i I

t 0- ; v v v~,-

$ s r )-..

^m n -, -y g n n n ps l

e

\\[tt',

~

b q.

'. ^

s p

., +*

i Y

'Kendall and. Virginia McCook f,

~,

Rt.1 Box 70.

l; Tolar, Texas 76476-in _

28 August 1989 a-h Senator.Lloyd Bentson-

.U.S.

Senate f<

Washington, D.C.

f;,

[

Dear Senator'Bentson:

L

[

We live four miles from Comanche. Peak Nuclear Power Plant, and ve have been forced to put our home and land up for sale because of i

E L

our fears about continuing unsolved safety problems at the plant.

I L

on April-23rd, and on May 5th, Borg-Warner check valves; failed in'" hot functional testing."

A call to Joe Gilliland, Public Affairs Officer of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the valves are not heing replaced but only re-worked.

The next test of their workability will apparently be after nuclear reactions have been generated.

So many-problems have come to our at'tention in the last year since

-l the license hearings were. suspended, yet Comanche Peak and the Nuclear j

(

Regolatory Commission. insist they vill hurry to license the plant and

]

begin loading. fuel October 2nd.

P This' newspaper account appeared in a Dallas. Times Herald front i

I:

page article on August 20, 1989.

Many of the details.of Comanche j

Peak's difficulties are carefully presented.

Please read the article i

carefully to see the problems.

I am also enclosing an August 5th l

r Fort Worth Star Telecram editorial that calls for all safety problems

.l n

to be resolved before the plant is licensed.

R 1

L We are also including a January 4th, 1987 Star Telegram article l

L that captures the plant's long history of mismanagement and poor con-

[

struction.

We believe that new license hearings must be held before an Atomic Safety Licensing Board so that the many dangerous problems can.be addressed.

i Please have a staff member carefully examine the enclosed materials.

I

'n, We love our home and do not want to be forced to leave.

We desperately need help.

m E

We include copies of petitions we circulated to convert Comanche Peak to natural gas, an abundant (in Texas) and safe fuel without the vaste problems of nuclear fuel.

The licensing process should not continue until after a thorough investigation into the many problems at Comanche Peak.

Only this past week the accompanying allegations were reported to me by a man named i

l i

v i

/~~Cis.

. c S'

,1 i

Clifford Jackson (see document #7).

I called Phillip McKee on Friday,

- 25 August, 1989, and I asked if the questions (as shown in document'#7) l would be' resolved before a license'was issued.

He could not guarantee that these problems would be resolved.

Mr. McKee is the Deputy Director i

. of Comanche Peak Project Division, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations (phone 301-492-7000).

l t

[

AttherequestofbettyBrink, we are sending the entire July 10th l

l

' Nuclear Regulator Commiskion report.

The conclusions about Comanche

' 4 J. -

Peak's attitude.toward safety is stated on p.52 of that report.

"The applicant's response did not reflect the style of proactive operations i.

managen:ent philosophy normally associated with safe reactor plant

- management."

I These documents are many.

h'e trust you'll be able to review them carefully and assist us with these concerns.

L Thank You,-

hN ',Ntr t

Unaoux/Ktd

~"

KendaL1 and Virginia McCook l

r V

t i

~

b r

=