ML20035D006
| ML20035D006 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 03/31/1993 |
| From: | Dow R AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20035C999 | List: |
| References | |
| CPA, NUDOCS 9304120030 | |
| Download: ML20035D006 (7) | |
Text
03-31-1993 12:34PM FROM ACCU-PRINT 817-573-0053 TO 13015041672 P.06 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS:
93 M"' 31 P i '19 Ivan selin, Chairman Kenneth C. Rogers James R.
Curtics Forrest J. Remick E, Gail de Plancue
)
In the Matter of:
)
TEXA5 UTILITES ELECTRIC
)
COMPANY, et al.
)
Docket Nos. 50-446, 50-446-CPA
}
l (Comanche Peak Steam
)
i Electric station, Unit 2)
)
)
RESPONSE TO COMMISSION ORDER OF MARCH 26, 1993 SY R.
(11CKY DOW. AN INTEEEfeTED PARTY l
Comes now R.
Micky Dow. an ir,terested carty, anc files this, i
l nic rec;onse
.c tne Commission order of March 26.
1993, wherein 1
1 the Commission requitec certification, from the license
- holder, th6t the lenguese conLeined in the settisment agreements bet. ween TUEC and the minority shareholdere contained no language that evuld be construed as srchibitive to recorting safety and/or contstruction violations to the NRC.
This issue arose becduse of a letter submitted by the National Whistleblower Center to the Commission which was a response by the attorneys for Tex-ta Coccerative to this party, and, therefore, this serty is the one most able to file, not only e
response to those pleadings filed
'a y TUEC. but to clearly state, for the record, the impression he was left with by that letter from William Burchette. attorney for Tex-La.
EESPONSE TO COMMIS$ TON ORDER OF MARCH 26._fY R_.
MICKY DOW l 9304120030 930331 PDR ADOCK 05000446 0
03-31-1993 12:35PM FROM ACCU-PRINT 817-573-0053 TO 13015041672 P.07
- 1. COMMISSION ORDER NOT SPECIFIC ENOUGH LQ_CL ARIFY ISSUE.
1 I
Neither the National Whictieblower Center, nor, especially, I
i this interested party, have ever been employees at CPSES, nor in any other manner business associates thereof; yet, both, and others have continued an active. persistant, and vocal interest in the saf+ty, particularly of the construction of both Units 1 and 2, thereof.
It has never been cocumenteo, nor did the Commission inauire, if these agreements, and tne language they contained, were aver mado available to emcloycoc, their femilies, or the t
suo-contractors, and, therefore, none could have been aware of any manner of these iccucc.
What is clear, what has ceused the concern, first by this party, second by the National Whistleblower Center, and thirc, spearently, by the Staff itself, was the language in the response to carty Dow, from attorney Eurenette. which cuoted rectrictive langauge with regard to Section 9.2( d ) of those agreements, which stated, in specifics, that Tex-La will "encourese and solicit its attorneys not to oppose, or assist ANY THIRD PARTY ( emohasis added ) in opoesing TU Electric in connection with ANY MATTERS ( emphasis added ) relating to
[CPSES). ", which is clearly indicative that the language is preclusive and restrictive, by its failure to 1
exempt emnioyees.
relatives, and/or sub-contractors, or mention them in any manner of specifics.
The mere use of the words Third Party is all-inclusive.
~urther, TUEC was extremely careful, in its inquiries to i
RESPONSE TO COMMISSION CRDER OF MARCH 26, BY R. MICKY DOW l l
1
)
---m
---v
03-31-1993 12:35PM FROM ACCU-PRINT 817-573-0053 iO 13015041672 P,08 I
)
I
)
to the minority owners, to limit their language to reporting safety concerns to the NRC. by employees; which, at best is mere cuasi adherence to the order, and a careful sidesteoping of the issue itself.
It demands closer.
and more specific inquiry by the commission.
L. The Core Issue Is still Unit 1.
The settlement agreements with the minority shareholders came immediately on tne heels of the questionable agreement which ended the Unit 1 licensing proceedings.
It is imperative to stress that those proccodingc were not dicmissed because all of the contentions / violations / problems had been IDENTIFIED, LOCATED, and CORRECTED, but because, by virtue of the settlement, they were w!THDRAWN.
Of course tne licence was then issued, as a matter of course, there was nothing left on the table to cause further incuiry into the propriety of that issuance.
t Simply because the Commission, and the Congress found nothing out of order with the language of the 198e egreement is totally immaterial, it is the impact that agreement had on licensing that has merit.
It is because of the successful preclusion of those contentions from examination that the settlement agreements, the subject of this order, were written in the same manner.
It Worked once. why not again?
The issue, here, is Unit 1.
It was, obivously, because of the timing of the agrements, and the litigation which prompted them, that Unit 1 was the atcblem.
It was because of this that the surchettte law firm was contacted, which prompted the RESPONSE TO COMMISSION ORDER OF MARCH 26. BY R, MICKY DOW _
I 03-31-1993 12:36PM FROM ACCU-PRINT 817-573-0053 TO 13015041672 P.09 Questions by this party, the National Whictleblower Center, and the Staff.
is of no merit how wonderful things HAVE bec ame at CPSES, It or what wonderful programs the utility has instituted as a result of simply "being caught" during the Unit 1 process.
It does not matter if Unit 2 is perfect in every regaro. especially when there is still major doubt about Unit 1.
What does matter is the continued evasion of looking at things that WERE NOT ADDRESSED during that ceriod, and the apparent continued worry that they ultimately would be, which is clearly evidenced by these cleverly worded settlement agreements.
What is important to remember is that if Unit ;
ic licensec, and begins ooerating at full-power, and, then, something does occur with Unit 1.
the result will be TWICE ss tragic with two units on line, and twice the potential.
- 3. Condition _of the Mind. the Original WhistLgblowers the Key.
What the commiccion needs to look at,
- again, is the condition of the mind of anyone who reads, or hac knowledge of these agreements.
What does a reasonable man surmise from that lerguege, and, the answer is self-evident.
It means silence.
The whistleblower story is old end tired, but it has not changed.
The current oroblems with Gulf Statec, and Comanche Peak are proof Whistleblowers are still harassed, in spite of section 211.
People are still murdered.
in soite of the death penalty.
This party had nc croblem in identifying the true meaning of the language of the minority settlement agreements. or tne letter from Eurchette.
The National Whistleblower Center had RESPONSE TO COMMIGGI_ON ORDER OF MARCH 26. BY R. MICKY DOM _
03-31-1993 1
- none, and, neither, seemingly did the Staff themselves.
The records of the NHC Will clearly show who truly are responsible for allegations that turn out to be valic, and the bulk of which 1
at least result in either croposed civil penalties, and/or major l
i 1
reprimand.
It is stoups like Disposable Workers.
and the h
National Whistleblower center, who cannot be threatened with their jobs and livelihood who are responsible.
The onl y one who hoc anythins to the contr ar y to offer is the utility, who says on the one hand "there's nothing wrong at Unit 1, because it has a
i license, and there's r.othing wrong with Unit 2 because of the programs we've initiated after we got caught on Unit 1, but if anyone dares to bring the subject up, we 'll ta ke our settlement monies cack, or we will spend untold amounts of money and time to i
make surc they can't find a forum to present these issues.
What about the people who DO HAVE testimony, allegations, and proof to offer who have filed repeated affidavits with this Commission attecting so.
and seylne clearly that they were told tney had lost that opportunity forever, and if they tried to do anything else, or assist anyone else in doing so, they would lose what they had received, or worse?
If this Commission is to honestly accept the fact thet this utility did nothing to force i
parties to keep their silence. then let them ask the parties themselves, and not take the repeeted word of one Who has been caught in the very act of covering uo safety and construction violations and would have gotten away with it had they not paid the people bringing the contentione to withdraw them. But, they RE SPONSLT.O__Q_QMMIS$10N ORDER OF MARCH 26-1993 + <
03-31-1993 12:37PM FROM ACCU-PRINT 817-573-0053 TO 13015041672 P.11 continue to scend thousands of dallers, hundreds of hours of the public and this Commissions time with tactics and pleadings designed for the sole purpose of cenying a forum whereby these issues can be settled once and for all.
The foregoing notwithstanding, the Commission is respectfully
- asked, what about the contentions of Charles Atchison that could not be reintroduced.
as the utility says all the other whistleblowers had the opportunity to do?
Charles Atchison passed away before he had the opportunity to do so.
This party, however, represents his widow, has those papers and contentions, and is Willing to clace them on the record.
They consist, not of vague allegations. as the utility would have the Commission believe, but,
- rather, unexamined NCR's, los sheets which were altered, and oesign plans and drawings, also altered coupled with the testimony of Ron Jones who was privy to this data with Mr. Atchison.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the only viable and equitible decision this Commission can possible reach, in the interest of the public
- safety, and in course of their administrative responsibility thereto, is to ask, under oath, in coen tribunal, both the minority shareholders, and the prior and present whistleblowers, What their condition of mind was during and after the signing of those agreements.
To do less is a 9r uve travesty. and serious injus Ice.
This party joins with the National Whistleblower Center, and urges this commission stay the licensing of Unit 2 at CPSES until and if all answers are sotten to these. and other. avestions.
RESPON5E TO COMMISSION ORDER OF MARCH 26. GY R.
MICKY DOW 03-31-1993 12:37PM FROM ACCU-PRINT 817-573-0053 TO 13015041672 P.12 Respectfully submitted.
\\
\\
N " V 31 Pi.50 R.
MICKY DOW, pro \\se 506 Mountain View Estate Granbury, Texas 76048 (617)S73-0923 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was, this 25th day of March, 1993. telefaxed to the Office of the General Counsel for the NRC, and, to the offices of George L.
Edgar, attorney for apolicant, with a true and correct copy being mailed, by regular First Class mail. to the parties listed below.
N R. MICKY DOW, Affidot Emile Julian Charles A.
Mullins. Esquire Docketing Section Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
11555 Rock Pike 11555 Rock Pi ke Rockville, Maryland 20S52 Rockville, Maryland 20052 George L.
Edgar Mine Kohn Newman & Holtzinger Kohn, Kohn & Calapinto 1615 L.
Street, N.W.
517 Florida, N.W.
Washinstun, D.C.
2OO3e Washington, D.C.
20001 Juanita Ellis Robert A.
Wooldridge Citizens Association for Worsham. Forsythe, Sampels Sound Energy
& Woc 1dridge 1426 S. Polk 2001 Bryan Tower, Euite 3200 Dalles. Texas 75224 Dallas, Texas 75201 l
RESPONSE TO COMMISSION OPDFP OF MARCH 26 GX_R. _ MICKY DOW TOTAL P.12