ML20079H825
| ML20079H825 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 01/19/1984 |
| From: | Stephens M AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| 81-453-03-OL, 81-453-3-OL, ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8401240067 | |
| Download: ML20079H825 (14) | |
Text
_
00CMETED USNRC T4- MN 23 Ali:51 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 7 g .,,,yu7 , . ,
UUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ccc .'J: ;7 - ,
SERVED JAN 241984 In the Matter of
)
) ASLBP Docket No. 81-453-03 OL KANSAS GAS & ELECTRIC CO., ET AL. )
~~
) (NRC Docket No. 50-482)
(Wolf Creek Generating Station, )
Unit No. 1) )
PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND REQUEST FOR HEARING COMES NOW the petitioner, Nuclear Awareness Network, Inc.,
by and through its Director, Mary M. Stephens, and petitions for leave to intervene in the captioned matter pursuant to 10 CFR 2.714. Petitioner's request, untimely made, is based on good cause and upon such circumstances as to justify the granting of said petition and for the setting of special evidentiary hearings herein. In support of its request petitioner would show the following:
- 1. Nuclear Awareness Network, Inc. is a duly authorized, not for profit, Kansas corporation established in 1983 for the express purpose of providing education, research, lobbying, and testimony on issues relating to nuclear power, waste, and related 8401240067 840119 matters. PDR ADOCK 05000482 0 PDR Tom and Joyce Young, Gridley, Kansas are members of Nuclear Awareness Network and live within twenty miles of the Wolf Creek Generating Station construction site. Other members of the Nuclear Awareness Network live, work, and recreate within
, f)g3
the geographic areas surrounding Wolf Creek and have interests which may be affected by the outcome of the proceeding.
Mary M. Stephens, a member and director of the Nuclear Awareness Network, is authorized to represent its members in this proceeding.
The interests of petitioner and its members may be affected by the proposed operation and on-site storage of spent nuclear fuel at Wolf Creek. The operation of a nuclear power plant at the site may endanger the health and safety of peti-tioner's members due to several factors including both the routine and accidental release of ionizing radiation from the plant. Additionally, the safety and well be.ing of petitioner's members may be adversely affected by the possibility of a nuclear accident which,may damage or destroy their livelihood, homes, and property. Recreation may be jeopardized by the project's impact upon the water and aquatic life adjacent to the plant. An order granting applicants an operating license may subject petitioner's members to unnecessary risks to health, life, and property in contravention of the protections provided by the Atomic Energy Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. Wo y', v. Seldin 422 US 490,-(1975); Sierra Club v. Morton , 405 US 721, (1972).
Petitioner's members include doctors, physicists, public officials, a college dean, construction workers, attorneys, and
farmers. Petitioner's resources and the respective expertise of its individual members insure that its contribution to this proceeding will be significant and responsible.
- 2. Should the Board permit this intervention, the Nuclear Awareness Network will timely file contentions which, when viewed in the aggregate, create serious doubt as to the physi-
. cal integrity of the structure known as the Wolf Creek Generating Station. Statements made by former Wolf Creek construction workers to the undersigned in the'last thirty days strongly suggest that the contractor at Wolf Creek has encouraged or permitted procedures and practices contrary to the conditions of the Safety Evaluation Report (docket no. STN l
l 50-482) and applicable federal regulations. Statements mede by construction workers to the undersigned evidence a systematic breakdown between construction site practices and quality assurance / quality control.
Based on the statements voluntarily made to petitioner's director in the last thirty days, Petitioner would file conten-tions alleging:
a) That the deliberate poli.cies practiced and permitted by Daniels Construction Co. as general contractor at Wolf Creek are contrary to and make mockery of quality assurance / quality centrol requirements putatively imposed on this project; b) That construction workers were directed by Daniels' foremen to perform work in safety related areas at variance
with established procedures creating doubt as to the physical soundness of the structure; c) That Daniels' foremen directed construction workers to mislead quality control personnel and at least one Daniels' foreman forged and falsified work documents for safety related matters. .
In support of its contentions relating to the breakdown of quality assurance / quality control petitioner proffers the testimony of the following individuals who worked at Wolf Creeks (a) Sam Goucher was a journeyman sheet metal mechanic who worked.at Wolf Creek till August of 1982. Mr. Goucher was involved in rework in the diesel generator building and frequently saw OC travelers altered and postdated. Mr. Goucher discovered travelers and weld control documentation on safety related work that had been falsified. Mr. Goucher would testify that he discovered thirty to forty welds in the diesel generator building with no documentation. Ultimately, new documents w re made and he witnessed a quality control official forced by supervisors to sign off on the paperwork.
(b) Mr. Kenny Rowell worked as a journeyman sheet metal welder at Wolf Creek through October of 1983. Mr. Rowell has given statements to the undersigned indicating that he was constantly ordered by a foreman to do safety related welds l
s "out of procedure". Mr. Rowell was instructed by his fore-man that he was never to question his instructions whether they were consistent with procedure or not. Mr. Rowell was informed that.he would be fired if he failed to follow the instructions of his foreman regardless of the prescribed procedure. Mr. Rowell has stated that he witnessed welders ordered to make welds for which they were not certified.
(c) Mr. Earnest Larrick worked as a journeyman sheet metal mechanic at Wolf Creek until December of 1981. Mr. Larrick heard a Daniels' Foreman tell a co-worker not to tell quality control about any mistakes he discovered. Mr. Larrick stated to the undersigned that he worked on safety related jobs that involved tightening bolts with load indication washers. Repeatedly the bolts broke.before they were tightened down to the desired strength and were subject to an engineering correctional report (ECR). Mr. Larrick stated the workers were told to continue using these bolts and to " solve" the problem, the bumps on the washers were flatened with a hammer. Mr. Larrick also stated it was common knowledge that supervisors at Wolf Creek painted regular bolts green so that they would pass as Q bolts.
(d) Mr. Neil Campbell worked at Wolf Creek through August of 1981 as a journeyman sheet metal worker in the auxiliary and control buildings. Mr. Campbell has stated to the undersigned that he was repeatedly ordered to stamp false D numbers on welds.
Mr. Campbell stated that he regularly saw his supervisor falsify and forge welders' names on auxiliary and control safety related travelers and weld documents.
I - - .-
l l
n (e) Mr. Vince Ley worked as a sheet metal welder at Wolf Creek through November of 1983. Mr. Ley stated that for a year and a half that he kept a handwritten list of safety related QC
. problems regarding welds which did not have documentat ion. In September of 1982 his list was given to Daniels' supervisors at Wolf Creek. The list was thrown in the trash. Mr. Ley has stated to the undersigned that the contractor constantly ordered 4
its workers to do safety related work out of procedure. Mr. Ley stated that while he was employed at Wolf Creek the Nuclear Regulatory Commission distributed a letter to the workers encouraging them to speak up concerning any problems they might have relating to work procedures. Two of his co-workers reported specific concerns to the NRC. Subsequently one of the workers was threatened with great bodily harm by his foreman if he was to' report any other problems to the NRC. Mr. Ley also related inci-dents involving bolt holes in the wrong location. According to Mr. Ley's statement, the standard procedure was to weld over the hole, grind it off, and cut a new hole without reporting to
- quality control. .
(f) Mr. Tony Shores worked at Wolf Creek as a sheet metal mechanic on two separate occasions through December of 1982.
Mr. Shores stated to the undersigned that he was repeatedly ordered to perform safety related work without quality con-tol approval. Mr. Shores stated that he was told to
remove and replace concrete anchor bolts without quality control inspection. Mr. Shores also stated that he handed Mr. Vince Ley's list of OC problems to his supervisors who threw the list in the trash.
Petitioner submits that the incidents stated by the named construction workers constitute evidence of a systematic disre-gard for procedures required by the Safety Evaluation Report.
, If the construction site experiences of the referenced werkers is l
I representative, the integrity of the physical structure at the Wolf Creek Generating Station must be seriously questioned as well as the ultimate question of whether the Plant may be safely operated. Petitioner submits that only through the use of Nuclear Regulatory Commission's adjudicatory processes can this ultimate issue be resolved.
- 4. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.714 (a) (1) (i) - (v) and 2.714 (d) petitioner submits the following as good cause for its late filing and for the required balancing of factors necessary to permit its intervention.
a) Good cause, if any, for failure to file on time.
Petitioner was unaware of the existence of the serious allega-tions made by the referenced construction workers till mid-December of 1983, when.she was contacted by a represen-tative of the workers. These allegations, made by construction workers in face-to-face interviews by the undersigned, clearly
constitute newly arising information. Petitioner could not have obtained this information earlier than the moment these workers decided.to make public their evidence. Having received the information, petitioner's director acted diligently to bring their serious allegations to the attention of the Board. On January 5, 1984, the undersigned wrote a letter to Hon. Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, informing him "Recent and significant evidence has increased our concern enough to * *
- submit a late - tiled peti-tion to intervene in thd Operating Licenso Hearing Procedure."
(Letter dated January 5, 1984 from Mary M. Stephens, Director, Nuclear Awareness Network to Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairman, Atomic Safety'and Licensing Board Panel).
As this Board is aware ". . . newly arising taformation
.has long been recognized as providing " good cause" for accep-tance of a later contention. In The Matter of Consumer's Power Company, docket nos. 50-329-OM, and OL 50-330-OM, 16 NRC 571, 577, citing Indiana and Michigan Electric Co., 5 AEC 13,14(1972). The construction workers first approached peti-
/
tioner's director in December of 1983. Their allegations of safety-related violations were not -ilable till these indivi-duals decided to come forward with s - avidence. Petitioner cannot be charged with prior knowledge of their allegations and once the undersigned learned of them, she acted diligently.
. . - - - ~ .. . _-._ _ __
I l
b) The availability of other means whereby the peti-tioner's interests will be protecte'd. The availability of other means to protect petitioners' asserted interest is nonap-
- parent if not' nonexistent. Petitioner is not aware of any contention filed by parties to this proceeding which directly ,
relates to the serious allegations referred to herein nor .
is there reason to believe these matters will be dealt with Certainly petitioner's right to a limited
~
sua sponte.
appearance statement (which the undersigned has requested) are not comparable to the substantive rights provided by intervenor status. Only through presenting testimony, cross examining opposing witnesses, and through the full use of the Board's adjudicatory process may petitioner's interests and rights be protected. If permitted to intervene, petitioner will request the setting of a bifurcated hearing schedule and call its wit-nesses to testify in support of its allegations. Obviously, the' Board would permit staff and applicant adequate time to investigate these allegations and prepare testimony of its own.
c) The extent to which petitioner's participation would reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record.
There is no other forum within which petitioner may present its contentions as exclusive jurisdiction of this matter is certainly with the Board. Petitioner is represented by experienced counsel who has for the last five years been exten-
10-sively engaged in state and federal regulatory practice involving public utilities. From 1979 through 1982 petitioner's counsel was employed as Deputy General Counsel to the Kansas ,
f- Corporation Commission and in that capacity was assigned to all matters relating to Wolf Creek. Petitioner's members possess technical expertise in relevant areas Which further insure its ability to contribute to the record in this proceeding.
d) The extent to which petitioner's interest will be represented by existing parties. As indicated above, peti-tioner is aware of no other contention by anyone party to this
, proceeding Which coincides with the allegations of the referenced construction workers. While concern about the safe operation of Wolf Creek is of central importance to the Board, no party to the proceeding has made these specific allegations raised herein by this petitioner. While the staff is charged i
with representing the public interest in this proceeding, it cannot be presumed that the staff's view of the public interest in this case will coincide with petitioner's view. Absent the existence of coinciding contentions made by other parties to this proceeding, it would seem clear that only petitioner can be expected to advocate its point of view based on newly arisen 4 ev'idence.
c ,#-- --,,r% . .,- --- e - ---y - ,.--,.,w-,r-- m- - . - , - , . -r - w -i-.-,--,,.r.---- y-,e., ,e .,wwm---..,,%..-
e) The extent to which the petitioner participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceedings. Assuming, l
arguendo, that the Board accepts petitioner's specific conten-tions following the granting of intervenor status, the issues before the Board will necessarily be broadened. Staff, appli-cant, and other parties to this proceeding will require time to prepare for hearing. The operating licensing hearing will likely be extended for a period of months. But, as this Board
" If there are outstanding has noted in another proceeding, questions involving public health and cafety relating to opera-tion of the Plant, the necessary action to resolve that should be taken rather than attempting to quiet the matter by invoking the doctrine of estoppel by laches." In the Matter of J Washington Public Power Supply System, et al, docket no.
50-508, ASLBP 83-486-01 OL (1983).
Conclusion The Nuclear Awareness Network has demonstrated that it has the legally required interest to establish standing and shown that a balsncing of the factors required by 10 CFR 2 714 weigh in' favor oE granting this petition. The Nuclear Awareness Network respectfully requests an Order granting its petition for leave to intervene and for hearings. The Nuclear Awareness Network will, if permitted to intervene, submit proposed con-tentions which raise issues which are most serious. Any deci-sion on its contentions adverse to applicants could dictate the
denial of an operating license. Petitioner believes this con-sideration overrides legal niceties pertaining to the timeli-ness of filing and the practical exigencies of extending this hearing. Only through a full airing of this matter will public confidence in the safety of Wolf Creek be insured.
Respectfully submitted, hb$4v ]N.
Mary'M. f;ephens, Dirdctor w- -
Nuclear Kwareness Network, Inc.
1347%@ Massachusettes, Lawrence, Kansas 66044 (913) 749-1640 A. Rodman Johnson 820 Quincy, Suite 418 Topeka, ~ Kansas 66612 (913) 232-6933 Attorney for Petitioner AFFIDAVIT 4
I, Mary M. Stephens, being first duly sworn, do depose the same as follows:
- l. That I am the Director of The Nuclear Awareness Network, Inc. and duly authorized representative;
- 2. That the foregoing petition was prepared at my request and at my direction, that I have read the con-
, . . ~ . - _ . - _ ,
l 00CMETED l U'iNPC J tents thereof, and that based upon my own person $ k g 3dWI :51 believe that the facts averred therein are true and correct.
CFF!Li OF 5LCig 7;c CCCMEilNG & SERVO' BRANCH YMary0M.A M.
Y ptpphens, Director Nuclear M reness Network, Inc.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 19th day of January, 15j4.
. Carol Mae Shannon N OT A tt Y Pij n l. ! C state of L. mas '
, .s.. ..
~
Notary Public My commission expires / - -
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mary M. Stephens, do hereby certify that I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Petition for Leave to Intervene and Request for Hearing was placed in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid on this 19th day of January, 1984, addressed to:
The United States Nuclear Regulatory The Executive Legal Director Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C., 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 205555
Dr. George C. Anderson Docketing and Service Section Department of Oceanography ~ Office of the Secretary, University of Washington U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Seattle, Washington 98195 Washington, DC'20555 C. Edward Peterson, Esquire Kent M. Ragsdale Assistant General Counsel General Counsel Kansas Corporation Commission Missouri Public Service Commission State Office Building - 4th Floor P.O. Box 360 Topeka, Kansas 66612 Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 Dr. Hugh C. Paxton Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1229 - 41st Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Los Alamos, New Mexico 87544 Washington, DC 20555 Myron Karman, Esquire A. Scott Cauger, Esquire
-Deputy Assistant Chief Assistant General Counsel Hearing Counsel Missouri PUblic Service Commission Office of the Executive P.O. Box 360 Legal Director. Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
. Washington, DC 20555 Eric A. Eisen, Esquire Jay E. Silberg Birch, Horton, Bittner & Monroe Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1140 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036 Washington, DC 20006 Alan S. Rosenthal, Esquire Dr. John H . Buck Atomic Safety and Licensing. Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Brian P. Cassidy, Esquire Thomas S. Moore, Esquire Federal Emergency Management Agency Atomic Safety and Licensing Region I Appeal Board J.W. McCormack POCH U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Boston, Massachusetts 02109 Washington, DC 20555 D% D-Mary M. %gephens i
_ - - _ - - - - - - - - - -