ML20035B525
| ML20035B525 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 03/25/1993 |
| From: | Dow R AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20035B512 | List: |
| References | |
| CPA, NUDOCS 9304020114 | |
| Download: ML20035B525 (10) | |
Text
. -..
~
'03-25-1993 11:47AM~ FROM ACCU-PRINT 817-573-0053 TO 13015041672-'
P.05
-t UNITED STATES OF AMERICAL f
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS:
Ivan Selin, Chairman Kenneth C. Rogers James R.
Curtiss Forrect 3.
Remick l
E.
Gail de Plancue I
)
In the Matter of:
)
TEXAS UTILITES ELECTRIC
)
COMPANY, et al.
)
Docket Nos.-S0-446, 50-446-CPA
)
( Comanche Peak Steam
)
}
Electric Station, Unit 2)
)
)
4 RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS' MOTION IQ STAY ISSUANCE OF FULL POWgR LICENSE j
Come; now, R. Micky Dow, himself, and on behalf of'Ron Jones.-and Yvonne Wilkinson, and files this, their. response to
?
Petitioners' Motion to Stay Issuance of Full Power License, and
- l,
in support would show that, t
MATTEP.S PENDJNG FORM _ ESTOPPEL i
There are, among others, at least two matters pending before-the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which will have a direct and bearing effect upon these, and other proceedings effecting the licensing of Unit 2 at the' comanche Peak Steam Electric station for which this applicant seeks a i
full-power license.
In an order, dated March 4, 1993, the U.S.
Court of Appeals.
I for the District of Columbia Circuit. ruled, in part '...
Petitioner s canttol be ptchibited f r om t;ee ki n.9 judicial review I
i because they were not parties to non-existent proceedings.
RESPONSE._Iti_1VP_P_.QBJ._.QF PETITIQJsggy *._ tio_T_I. ON TO STAY. i t
9304020114 930325 I
PDR ADOCK 05000446 C
]
~.03-25-1993 11:47AM FROM ACCU-PRINT 811-573-0053 TO.
130150416723 P.07 Further. petitioners cannot be_ required to exhaust administrative proceedings that can have:no effect on the action they challengo, i.e..
respondents order granting,- without notice and tne opportunity for a hearing, an *1mmediate [ly) effective" amendment of intervenor's construction per mit.
which is apparant.
on its face that the court intended that. at least with regard to the construction permit amendment. that public hearings be had, and, therefore, until such time as those hearings are held. there i
can be no furtherance in the licensing process.
The court's i
ruling, at least until it is finalized into mandate, serves as an-i estoppel to any #arther proceedings either by the initiation of-i the applicant, or the Commission itself.
i SETTLEMENT ACREEMENT STILL IMPQ&l&M1 f
f f
Although the petitioners were erroneouc in their assert 2ons i
l about the settlement agreement they chose to call " secret". they t
raised several valid points which need to be more closely.
explained herein.
i The agraement reached betwaen.the applicant and the public i
group known as C.A.5.E. which resulted in the transfer of a large sum of money has been at the root of a long-standing and bitter controversy.
The emount of the financial transfer is immaterial I
for the purposes of this pleading; the fact that the Commiccion approved the agreement is also immaterial for the purposes of
)
this pleading.
What is important is what was the ultimate effect of this agreement, what was its actual purpose. and did that act l
have a deciding effect upon the issuing of the operation license I
I for Unit 1, and was this a legitimate act of good faith.
The 8E1PQNXE TO PETITIONERS' MOTION TO STAY.
n
- 1
, 25-1993 11:47AM FROM' ACCU-PRINT 917-573-0053 TO 13015041672 P.08 I
~
answer to these and other similar cuestions is emphatically NO.
[
The ciacct and proximate result of the signing of that agreement, immediately before several of the origi nal l
I e
whistleolowers were to testify before the ASLB. was the immediate t
withdrawl of contentions by C.A.5_E., which had the direct effect i
t of leaving nothing further for the ASLS to inquire into, which r
meant the enly business left on the table was the granting of the l
license, and absent any voice to the contrary, that ic exectly j
e wnat was done.
[
Although the ASLB.
and the Commission knew of the i
contentions, they
- failed, completely, to inouire and/or investigate the true purpose for the withdrawl of those
'i i
l contentions, and contented themselves.
in the contrary to i
l c certaining the legality of the language of the agreement itself.
l i
Further, there is no relevance in what those whictieblowers I
were told about still retaining the right to address their i
concerns directly to the NRC, after the fact, with the releases being signec and monoy having changed hands.
What is
- relevant, and of the highest
- import, is the i
condition of the minds of tnese whistleblowers, who believed. and 1
come still co, that they had lost, forever, the occortunity to i
i make any allegations, and that, in fact. if they ever tried to do so in the future, they would be sued for the monies paid to them i
by virtue of the agreement, which is clearly indicated by the
{
affidavit of Ron Jones, end, as Ron Jones is represented by the author of this pleading, we will further ctate that he will RESEONSE TO PETITIONERJ' MD. TION _ EOR _Slar -
t m-
03-25-1993 11:48AM FROM ACCO-PRINT B17-573-0053 TO 13015041672 P.09 j
f i
testify to the same, under oath, before the Commission proper.
What ic important to note is that the contentions of Ron Jones were never placed on the record before the ASLb, and f
because of their withdrawl they have never been addressed, investigated, and, most important of all, corrected.
The bulk of Mr. Jones' contentions have to do with wiring separation problems-in the control room, and as such have direct bearing on not only l
Unit 1,
but Unit 2, and, ultimately, the safety of the plant as a whole.
Therefore, he must be given en opportunity to testify.
A further point, worthy of note, are the over 1.000 i
violation reports contained in the papers of Charles Atchison.
Mr. Atchison was also present during the settlement " days"; but, unlike any of the others effected by that agreement, Mr. Atchison-f i.
Passed away before the significance of that agreement became known.
i All of the "Atchison papers" are available, includins the J
original handwritten notebooks carried oy the deceased Atchison, none of which has ever been introduced into the record, Investigated or corrected, and include, not only information about unit
- 1. but Unit 2, and the plant as a whole.
i The same is true for the other seven whistleblowers, whose testimony was precluded, primarily by the condition of their mind, but precluded none tne lees.
It is still viable, still available, still unaddressed, uninvestigated, and most important of all. unrepaired and unectrected.
To fail to hear, record, and i
investigate these contentions is to fail to act in the best a
i i nter ect of the public, and will, ultimately, cause a major and PESPONSE TO PETITI9E @ ' MOTI.ON FOR STAY -d-4
^
r 03-25-1993-II:4BAM-FROM i-CCU-PRINT B17-573-0053 -
TO 13015041672 P 10 l
s i
Irreparable injury to these parties, and the.public as a whole, i
'.6 QQW ADpE AL_ XERVES As ESTOPDEk' 5
3 In addition to the above and foresoing, there still exists
.{
an cpen appellate process with regard to petitioner-R. Micky Dow and the organization known as the Disposable Workers of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station.
i 7.;
on or about January 14 -
- 1993, the appeal was granted
.l regarding the issue of intervention by R.
Micky Dow.
It has alieady been established that R. Micky Dow was arrested on that particular day and confined in the Tarrant County Jail, in Fort i
e 4
Worth, Texas for an extended pericd of time, preventing his
+
response to that notice, and, in fact, preventing his. discovery 4
of the notice itself until on or about the 16th day of February, f
1 1993.
Arguendo assumed, and it is nat. that the Kohn petition on i
h behalf of the Orr 's was denied without appellate recourse. it
}
t remains that the Dow apposi is still valid. and, as such the ASLB t
cannot be dissolved, nor the hearings process on the construction permit extension ruled as moot.
To do so would be for the ASLB to usurp the authority of the Commicsion itself, which it does r
not have the right or the authority t'o do; and,.therefore, until i
the Commission rules on the Dow
- appeal, all proceedings must remair. status que, and any issusoce of a full-power license is 1
estopped, thereby.
i NO ADEQUATE RCPEDY AVAU Af%E Ar_LiH J
i By virtue of the Code of Feceral Regulations, the only method by which the license to operate under full power may be ettacked, by anyone seeking to do so, is by virtue of Section RESPQNSE TO PEl_!]1QNERS* MOUON FOR_MfQ' ~
\\
1 03-25-1993 11:49AM -FROM ACCU-PRINT B17-573-0053 TO 13015041672 P.11
'I f*
2.206 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, in petition j
i form.
Under the provisions of that section,.there is granted a
" reasonable time".
with no further enumeration, in which to respond, and by virtue of various court rulings, a petitioner may
)
t f
not deem a petition to be denied, for the purposes of seeking
.l judicial review, until after a six-month period of no response.
Ey very regulation alone, the intervenor is denied an adequate j
immediate remedy at law.
Further, by regulation, the review of i
such a
petition is
- denied, and any subsequent filings are precluded, leaving, again, an individual with no adequate remedy f
at law.
Therefore, all interventions, and/or placement of i
contentions, must be done so before the fact, as there-is no J
availability to do so after the fact.
l CheSA.QTEp AND COMPETENCE
[
The basic, and most important. prerecuisite for licensing to j
coerate a nuclear power plant, is the character and competence of the applicant to do so.
There now exists clear evidence that e
i this applicant has conspired with the Tarrant County District.
4 i
- Attcrney, and others, to confine R.
Micky Dow in jail, and to bring him there from whereever he might bo, in order to deny, preclude, interfere, and/or stop his appearance, and/or the d
f filing of any manner of pleading which might have a direct or indirect impact on the licensing of Unit 2.
I There has been litigation filed
( C A-3-93-CVO517-G,
U.S.
i l
District Court for the Northern District of
- Texas, Dallas
[
Division) which will, in point of fact, ascertain whether the
}
l concuct of the applicant i; or is not criminal in its nature, j
pE.SEqtiSE TO PETITIONERS' MOTLChLEOR_SJM.j I
t i
)
I
E
._03-25-1993 11:49AM FROM ACCU-PRINT 817-573-0053 TO 13015041672 P.12
-l i
Whether or not the criminality of
-the conduct is escertained, the fact otill romains that the only connection R.
Micky Dow has ever had with this applicant is to have the status i
of one who attempts to stop the licensing of CPSES.-and no other.
R.
Micky Do
- bas never been en employee thereof, nor has any member of his immediate family, he has no connection with this i
facility save that which is outlined her einabove, and, therefore, to openly and actively conspire against the aforesaid can only be viewed as the
- desire, and the capability to conspire against i
anyone who coposes the licensing of this facility.
If this be true, and it is, the applicant, certainly, does not have the l
recuisite character and competence to have a
license or to userated under the privilese which the license allows.
Therefore, until such time as the district court can adequately and ecuitably adjudicate the matter of this-applicant's consciracy, that Open case serves as an estoppel to any manner of further proceeding with regard to the full-power license, and a l
stay musc issue.
That the aforecaid R.
Micky Dow will prevail in his litigation against the applicant on a charge of conspiracy to preclude his activities against the applicant, is self-certain in regard to the existance of a note, from the handwriting of the
[
Tarrant County District Attorney'c office which supports and r
correborates those allegations, a copy of the affidavit from the j
attorney who discovered the note is and has been in the
[
t possession of Region IV for a period in excess of thirty
- days, v
and they have refused to address the matter.
The foregoing notwithstanding, the district court is certain to rule for R.
R_ESPONSE TO PETITIONERS
- tto.IIDB_f.Q8_5101 i
03-25-1993 -- 11:50;d1' FROM ACCU-PRINT'817-573-0053 TO 13015041672 P 13.
t i
i r
i Micky Dow based upon the physical evidence elone, and having done SM? will'then be crima. facie' evidence that this applicant does not-have the requisite character to have a license.
I t
CONCLUSIONE
~!
What has been shown. hereinabove. is that viable and a
critical safety and construction violations dealing with both i
Units i and 2.
has been precluded, not only from the' record, but I
trom investigation and correction, by virtue of a set of suspect circumstances. which can. however, be readily corrected by
~i allowing those who mace the original contentions an-opportunity-
.I to testify to the same.
We have further seen estocoel by virtue of ocen and pending court matters which will have a direct and destructive effect i
.I upon whether or not license should issue.
t, we'have also seen that there is an open and. operational 1
empellate crocess in olace whicn must be' finalized before any-further action may take place in this matter. serving as a j
i further estocpel to the granting of a licence for full-power.
inally there has surfaced a real, viable, and corroborative i
challenge to the character and competence of tnis applicant to have and to hold a licensa for operation.cf any kind; one that must be ellowed to go to final adjudication to ascertain any possible criminal liaoility on the part of the applicant herein.
~
What is most important, still, are the actual, existing, and i
i degenerative construction and safety violationss that are still PreSent in both Units 1 and Unit 2.
There is no
" good guy"'or i
RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF PETITTONERS* MOTION TO STAY.l i
4
- L{
03-25 1993.11:50ft1 FROM ACCU-PRit4T B17-573-0053 TO 13015041672
- P.14 1
+
i bed guy *, but there is-a definito noslisence,- one which will-ultimately lead to an accident, which, in all probability will f
~
result in a " melt-down".
That negligence, for whatever
- reason, vccurred when tne contentions, at the firct licensing
- hearing, i
were withdrawn. and not invesitgatec. nor corrected.
This is the-i clear and definite liability to botn the applicant. for'failing-I 6
to addrecce wnat they had clear snowledse was defective, and the' NRC. who was also aware. and chose to issue the license rather
- nan scend more time in terreting out these conditions, j
addressing them, and caucing their correction. This particular party, herein, has shown direct conflict between unadressed e
construction violations, in Unit 1.
and current accidents and/or 1
"tripc". which are a direct recult. thereof; as well as at least 1
l three allegatior, reports. with regard to unit 2 that either have not, yet, been investissted, or were investigated so poorly or 1
incompletely, that a second allesation, with resard to the poor j
investigation technicues, had to be filed.
[
l WMEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED. it is imperative that a stay
[
of the issuins of the full-power license fcr Unit 2 at CPSES be-i cut into effect immediately.
until all matters pending are l
r accressec and/or adjudicated.
Failure to ao so is not only in
[
t the best interests of the general public, but. the interests of justice, as we
t Resoectfully submitted, N
R, MICKY DOW. bro se 506 Mounteln View Estates Gr e nour y, Texas 76048 (517) 572-0920 PESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF PETTTIONEBJ' PS_T1QN TO___5TAY ;
i i
7:.
03-25-1993 11:51At1 FROM ACCU-PRINT B17-573-0053 TO 13015041672
.P.15~
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE a3
.-e 26 " "' < 6 This is to certify that a true and correct copy c the foregoing was, this 25tn day of March, 1993. telefaxed to the, 4
Of+ ice cf the General Counsel for the NRC, and, to the cffibes of Gecrge L.
Edgar, attornav for acclicant.
With a true and correct conv beins mailec, by regular First Class nail, to the carties listed below.
k
&i.
R.
MICKY DOW,' Affiant j
i rmile Julian Charles A.
Mullins, Escuire Docketing Section Office of the Generel Counsel l
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
U.S.
NUOleaT Reguletory Comm.
11555 Rock Pike 11556 Rock Pike l
Rockville, Maryland 20S52 Rockvilie. Marylano 20852
{
George L.
Edgar Mike Kohn i
Newman & Holtringer Kohn. Kohn & Calacinto 1615 L.
Street, N.W.
517 Florida, N.W.
Wasninston, D.C. 20036 Washington, D.C.
20001 Juanita Ellis Robert A.
Wooldridge Citizens Association for Worsham, Forsythe, sampels Sounc Energy
& Wooldridge 1426 5. Polk 2001 Ervan Tower. Suite 3200 Dallar. T+xas 75224 Callas. Texas 75201
- i i
I e
d 6
b s
i t
1 TOTAL P.15
..