ML20082L095
| ML20082L095 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 12/02/1983 |
| From: | Mcgarry J DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN, DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8312050407 | |
| Download: ML20082L095 (26) | |
Text
,m _
\ - '
U 7hf0 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS$3N UFC / -2 pa 2~
BEFORE THE COMMISSION-In the Matter of )- .
)
DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. ) Docket Nos. 50-413 ,
) 50-414
( Catawba Nuclear Station, )
Units 1 and 2) )
APPLICANTS' ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT'S
" MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE
. BRIEF," AND MOTION TO STRIKE on November 15, 1983, Duke Power Company, et al.
(" Applicants") filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Com-mission a request for a stay of rulings issued in this proceeding by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board on~ November 10 and November 14, 1983, respectively. (The factual background relating to these rulings is set forth in
" Applicants' Motion for Stay of Orders Issued by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board," pp. 2-4). On November 17, 1983, the Commission issued an order which deferred ruling on Applicants' request pending consideration of responses to the motion. In its order, the Commission requested that all parties submit answers to four questions relat-ing to its consideration of Applicants' motion by November 23, 1983.
8312050407 831202 '
In; response to the Commission's order, the Government Accountability Project (GAP), which is not a party to this proceeding, filed with the Commission a " Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief," - (" Motion") . and an amicus brief.1/ This brief does not address the questions raised by the Commission. Indeed, it contains no legal argument whatsoever (see GAP brief, p. 3). Rather, the brief out-lines a " parade of horrors" relating to the alleged treat-ment of Applicants' QA welding inspector and welding in-spector supervisor witnesses by Applicants' counsel.
GAP's submittal is apparently designed to convince the Commission that unlimited access to these witnesses by intervenor Palmetto Alliance is warranted because these Duke Power Company (DPC) employees remain "under the direction of [DPC3 officers in matters relating to this hearing" (GAP brief, p. 6). GAP argues that contact with these witnesses by Palmetto Alliance's counsel during hearing breaks and overnight is needed since it may pro-vide "the only opportunity the [ASLB] has to insure that they hear both sides of the story from the workers -- not just the Company's" (Id.).
1/ "Brief for Amicus Curiae The Government Accountability Project of the Institute for Policy Studies on Duke i Power Company's Request for Stay of Order as Amended, Permitting Intervenor Contact with Duke Employees Scheduled to Testify in the Operating License Hear-ings" (" GAP brief") .
t
. . - _ . - _ _ _ _ _ = - . - . _- - - .- .. _ _ - - _ .
a d I l
i
. Under the guise of providing an accurate and unbias-ed view of events, GAP's amicus curiae brief ignores the factual record which has been compiled in this case i
through the testimony of the very group of witnesses whom l l
GAP seeks to " protect." Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. $2.730,
]
{ Applicants accordingly oppose GAP's motion for leave,to l i
file its amicus brief. Applicants also move to strike portions of this brief and the two accompanying affidavits as argumentative and without record support.
ARGUMENT l GAP's amicus brief is premised on the assumption that Applicants' welding inspector and welding inspector super-visor witnesses are being subjected to pressure by counsel i for Applicants to tailor thei.- testimony as their attor-i
~
neys instruct them to do. For example, on p. 7 of its brief GAP characterizes its submittal as " pass [ing] along the message from the workers for relief from the pressure
, they are under." This insinuation is also clearly re-flected in the affidvit of Billie P. Garde attached to the GAP brief, wherein Ms. Garde alleges the existence of I
" excessive pressure on the Catawba site toward welding quality control inspectors scheduled to testify concerning i their 1981 complaints" (Garde affidavit, p. 1). Ms. Garde also describes an anonymous phone call GAP received from a DPC OA welding inspector who, although not scheduled to testify himself, allegedly expressed concern that his i
4 i
W l
\ - _ _ _ -. _ _ _ _ _ - . - _ - - . _ _ . _ _ _ . - - . . . - . . - - . - ._._- -
4 fellow inspectors were being subjected to training sessions with DPC attorneys in which they were being
" closely questioned about what they were supposed to say."
(Garde affidavit, p. 2). Similarly, the affidavit of Louis Clark of GAP asserts that this anonymous telephone caller 9
told me that he happened to have friends who were being made to go 'over and over' their upcoming
! testimony by Duke Power Company attorneys. He said these friends were afraid and felt intimi-dated. The tension among the workers was intense, according.to the caller. [ Clark affidavit, p. 13 In view of these allegations, GAP urges that the commission allow GAP participation in this matter since it "provides the Commission with the only direct view of the workers [ sic] plight at Catawba" (Motion, p. 6). As will be demonstrated below, this is simply not the case.
That GAP's amicus brief does not reflect "the only direct view" -- or even a correct view -- of the QA welding inspectors' situation at Catawba can be demon-strated first by an examination of the record. Such an examination reveals that, when specifically questioned about the existence of pressure, intimidation, and/or i .
1 improper " coaching" from DPC attorneys with respect to their testimony, several OA welding inspectors and welding inspector supervisor Gary E. (" Beau") Ross clearly indicated on the witness stand that there had been no such pressure. See Tr. 6573-6574 (testimony of inspector Boyce a
L
Cauthen), Tr. 6174-6176 (testimony of inspector John Bryant), Tr. 8502-8506 and Tr. 8545-8547 (testimony of inspector Scott Gantt), and Tr. 6610-6612 (testimony of welding inspector supervisor Ross). ,
(These transcript excerpts are attached to this motion.) Thus, contrary to GAP's insinuations, these witnesses told the Board, under oath, that they had not been intimidated or influenced by
~
counsel, and that their testimony was their own.
GAP's representation that it provides the Commission with the only accurate view of these witnesses' " plight at Catawba" is also disingenuous because it ignoros evidence tending to show that any rumors or insinuations about threats to these workers' job security in retaliation for their testimony have been originated (or, at the very least, fomented) not by DPC officials but by GAP itself.
See Tr. 6610-6612, wherein Mr. Ross describes the two telephone calls made by Ms. Garde of GAP to him and to his l wife. See also Tr. 6175, wherein Mr. Bryant recounts a
- telephone call to him from Ms. Garde in which she warned him "that there is a chance of retaliation by Duke Power against the inspectors . . . .
l Finally, GAP's assertion that its amicus brief should be allowed because it alone can provide the Commission with a " direct" and, presumably, a well-supported view of I
these witnesses' situation is undermined by the very nature of the submittal it has made to the Commission. An
examination of the GAP brief reveals ~ that it relies throughout upon allegations, innuendo, and sources of information whose veracity cannot be tested.
The reader is told, for example, that evidence supporting the allegations set forth on pp. 3-4 of the brief is " contained in specific detail in several sets of documents provided in discovery to Intervenors, obtained
~
by Amicus through [FOIA], and verified during an inde-pendent investigation by Amicus . . . (GAP brief, p. 4) .
No effort is made, however, to identify any of these documents specifically. Similarly, GAP asserts on p. 6 of its brief,that "[t]he case against Catawba . . . is based on information submitted by employees of Duke Power.
These comments are both specifically and generally the indictment of Duke's Catawba plant and the failure to implement an acceptable Quality Assurance plan." Here again, no references to such comments are provided.
l Even more disturbing are Ms. Garde's and Mr. Clark's statements in their affidavits relating to their telephone l conversations with an anonymous DPC welding i'nspector who i
expressed concerns about other anonymous DPC QA welding inspectors' treatment by counsel. These allegations typify the approach GAP has taken throughout its involve-ment in this proceeding, which has been to claim the i
existence of various relevant documents, worker concerns, etc., without assuming the obligation of substantiating
its allegations so that they can be" met on the merits.
Such a " hit and run" approach takes unfair advantage of GAP's status as a non-party to this proceeding.
Applicants submit that the Commission cannot credit these unsupported allegations and bald assertions about unnamed individuals' supposed concerns because there is no way to confront and examine the validity of these assertions.
CONCLUSION Based upon the foregoing, Applicants oppose GAP's motion for leave to file its amicus brief with the Com-mission. Should the Commission accept GAP's brief, Applicants respectfully move in the alternative that all of section III of the brief except for the first paragraph on p. 3, the last sentence on p. 4, and the excerpts from Mr. Ross' testimony on p. 5, be struck as argumentative and without record support. Applicants also move that the affidavits of Billie Garde and Louis Clark, which are
attached to the GAP brief, be struck for the same reason.
Respectfully submitted,
,- y ,
) ./,!~ i : I' / l1 1' .._';l ( Y '. ,
J. Michael McGarry, III .' _.
Anne W. Cottingham DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 857-9833 Albert V. Carr, Jr.
Ronald L. Gibson DUKE POWER COMPANY
. P.O. Box 33189 Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 (704) 373-2570 Attorneys for Duke Power Company, et al.
December 2, 1983
Testimony of John Bryant 6174 l
i A Yes, sir. l 2 Q There was some discussion, Mr. Bryant, concerning '
31 the. situation where you found a rejectible condition.
4 You left the area and then you came back and the situation '
5,was corrected. Do you recollect that discussion?
I A It seems like there was a bunch of them. There e li 7 may not have been. I don't recall any specific one.
8 Q I believe -- Let me ask you the question. Is 9 there anything wrong with craft correcting a situation'?
io A No, sir it , Q Mow, how long have you been on the job?
12 A Just a little over seven years.
13 0 Have you raised technical concerns over those l 14 seven years?
15 A Yes, sir. I 16 Q Have you ever been formall'y disciplined for
! 17 raising such concerns? -
0 l 18l A Mo, sir, in g/ Q Do you feel that any discussion you may have had
$ 20 or had with counsel intimidated or influenced your testimony?
E l 21 A No, sir. .
E i
- 22 Q Did your counsel tell you to speak the l 23 truth? '
5 j 24 j A Yes, sir.
25 O Do you feel that your written and oral testimony
~ + ~ w . , e---,,,- ,,,,, u - --
m-
- 7) 6173 i
i is indeed your testimony and not that of your counsel? l 2 A Yes, sir. t 3 Q Have you had any discussions _ sut this case
, with Palmetto Alliance or the Government Accountability 5
Project? -
i 3: A Yes, sir.
7 Q Would you explain ti.ose discussions.
g A I don't remember the dates, but it was shortly 9 -- the first time Billie Garde contacted me and talked, 10 and it was shortly after -- after the discovery date up there, i ii and she informed me -- she is the one that informed me 12 of Beau's low evaluation or what he had got, and she told 13 me that she had talked with Art Allum about Beau's evaluation 34 and warned me that there is a chance of retaliation by 15 Duke Power against the inspectors and that's -- that's
- s je just about it on the first conversatien.
! i7 0 You had another conversation with her?
e \
l is A Yes, sir., ;
3
- When was-that?
io O t
20 A It was carlier this -- early this week sometime.
f -
E. 21 I'm not sure if it was Monday o Tuesday.
r
. 22 Ox And what was the ' nature of that conversation? !
- s
$ . ~
E 23 . A Not then -- excuse ne -- she informed me of the 24 IO people coming to Catawba nu;:: car station and that she 23 wanted me to cass the w rd along to D au and the other
_p _ , - . . _ _ . - - - --
r - , - - , - - -
6176 i.
i inspectors that just be truthful with them and tell them l 2 what they need to know, and she told me that -- that she felt a that Larry Davison had committed a crime against the 4
1, statutes of the -- or the rules of the regulatory as f ar -
5 as treatment toward his in'spectors and that he should be I
6 prosecuted for those crimes. :
i 7 (Pause.) !
8 Q Itave you had any other contact with the 9 Government Accountability Project?
io A th), sir.
, l 11 Q You stated that you been working in Beau Ross's 12 crew; is that correct?
13 A Yes, sir. '
{
14 0 Ilave you ever worked for any other supervisor?
15 A In the inspection field or --
16 0 Yes, sir. In the inspection field.
8 I 17 A No, sir. i
, o i
- is Q There was some discussion this morning, Mr. Bryant, i {
- io concerning the OlA forms. Do you remember discussing this t
E 20 with Mr. Guild?
E g 21 A Yes. ,
's .
22 Q In your judgment, are 01A forms more thoroughly l e !
23 reviewed today than they were in the past ? j A
24 A To sone degree, you know -- they -- they are 25 basically the review -- my chain of comnand, it's basically the same, L_t the resolution and stuff like that is more -- ;
Testimony of Bovce Cauthen 6573 s
- j i i
i k i i nonsafety-related pipe; is that correct?
2 A My socket welds and the fit I found, when that
- 3. occurred. It's nonsafety-related.
i ._
i !
4; Q You made reference today -- yesterday -- in 1 i ~
5' discussing Item E3, the E reflecting the letter assigned !
6i to you by the technical te.sk force, and you made reference 7
to the fact that E3 involved Class E and F piping systems. i 8 Are Class E and F piping systems safety-related?
9 A No. They just -- all they usually get is final 10 visual. .
11 Q Mr. Cauthen, you also made reference, I believe, 12 , in discussion of Item E3 to a phrase " slack-up on NCIs."
13 Did you mean to suggest that you, Boyce Cauthen, approved 14 any faulty work?
15 A No. Didn't. I didn't approve no faulty work.
"g 16 The word come down from up the hill to just slack up on v
I 17 nonconformances.
0 l 18 Q And did you handle it some other way?
E -
l 19 A Yeah. When I caught them, I told them to cut 4
j 20 them out and call me back. l c !
} 21 Q And you were satisfied with the way you handled r '
- 22 it?
! 23 , A well, they did cut it out. I rechecked it.
I 24 Ek\ C Mr. Cauthen, there was some discussion this 25 morning concerning your contact with counsel. Do you recall l
f i
6574 t
i 1 that? I 2 IPause.)
3 A The meeting we had in Charlotte? .-
l 4 Q No, sir. The questions that Mr. Guild asked you ;
l 5 l this morning. Do you remember'Mr. Guild asking you questions 6 about meeting with your lawyer?
7 A Yeah. I remember him asking me. i 8 Q When you met with your lawyer, did your lawyer 9 intimidate you?
10 A .No, sir.
11 Q Did your lawyer influence your testimony?
12 A No, sir.
13 Q Did your lawyers tell you what you had to say?
Id A Told me I had to tell the truth.
15 Q Is the testimony that you have given to this
~
5 16 Board -- both the written testimony that you are holding v
- I- -- 17 - in your hand and the- oral testimony threcame from your- -
n 18 mouth -- your. testimony and not the testimony of your a
19 attorneys?
{
i 20 A Yes, sir, that's right. I said what I wanted to
,e
{
e 2 21 say.
r i g 22 Q Mr. Cauthen, you made reference to NCIs that were ,
e ,
23 written up as a result of your M-4I activity. Do you have 5
24 any reason to believe that those NCIs were not properly 25 considered?
b~
r Testimony of Scott Gantt 2502 1
mgc 18-6 1' O Yes.
2
- A Just casual talh, and not much of that. I haven't 3 had too many dealings with Mr. Davison.
G 4
O Have you had any dealings with Mr. Davison in i .
5 conjunction with preparing yout testimony in this case?
i 6 A No, sir.
7 Q Has ha met with you a-d other inspectors on that
' '- I e subject?
l-o A Not since that meeting right bef6re we submitted 10 our concern.s. .
11 O Who have you met with in Duke management with respect 12 to the subject of your testimony?
13 A My supervisor, Bo Ross.
I 14 Q Mr. Ross. Anyone else?
15 A No, sir. !
j j
1e Q When did you meet with Mr. Ross? ;
i 8
= 17 A Sir? ;
\
O l 18 O When did you meet with Mr. Ross on that subject? [
I l
- A This was just when he told us to get all of our
, 19 l 1
r i 20 notes together and submit our concerns.
f 21 I Q After that happened, what I am talking about is !
E -
= 22 getting ready for your testimony in this case, have you met 1
h 23 with anyone concerning your testimony in this case? I 5 f 24 A I met with attorneys.
25 Q Who was that?
2503 I
mgc 18-7 1 A Ron, Al, Mike and the lady. What was her name?
2 Q Ms. Cottingham.
3 A Yes.
i O Anybody else?
5 A No, sir.
6 '
0 Mr. Morgan?
7 A No, sir. ,
i 8
Q You haven't talked to Mr. Morgan about your testimony?
9 A No, sir.
I i
10 0 H,ow did you come to write the testimony the way it i 11 is written?
12 A We were given these questions and asked to answer. ,
i 13 Were you given them in writing?
Q 14 Yes, sir.
A 15 Q Did you answer them in writing?
g E
g 16 A Yes.
8
- 17 Q Did you carry them home and answer them, or did 8
18 you sit in a room at a desk or something?
g I
e
= 19 A We went to a room and answered them.
j 20 Q And what did they say about them before you went s
g 21 off and answered them'?
I 22 A They said to answer them honestly.
g E
l 23 Q And I t a . it, you did?
5 24 A Yes, str.
25 0 And wha- ippened with them then, as far as you e, -- - . _ , - - _ - _ _ . ,
e
,. 5504 t
I mgc 15-8 know?'
2 ,
.A We gave them back to the attorneys after we answered 3
them.
e ;
Q Did you have it written out in longhand?
~
5' .
A Yes, sir. ~
6 i O
And someone obviously typed it up, right?
7 .
A Yes, sir.
8 !
Q 9
Did they give it back to you then and say, "Look ,
it over"?
10 A Yes, sir.
Q knd you did?
12 l A Yes, sir. I
'3 t 1
Q Did you change anything, add anything, subtract 14 anything?
15
- - A
& I changed some wording to make it plainer what I to 3
8 wanted to say. '
=
17 0
8 Did you discuss the wording with the lawyers?
2 18 3 A Yes.
{ Q And tell me about what you discussed and what you 20 h changed?
E o
21 lg A
!e Well, it was just a matter of -- a question of,
' := 22 "What did you mean?"
And I wrote some answers to better 23 l
clarify what I meant.
2a Q Do you remember where that happened?
25 A It was on the job.
4
8505 I
mgc 18-9 Q I'm sorry. Where in your testimony?
2 A No. I can't remember where it happened.
3 O Let's look at Page 2. The question appears on i
. Page 1, quote:
"What is your understanding of what these 5 ~
concerns were?" '
6 Is that the answer you gave? .
7 A Yes, sir.
8 Q Did that get changed? .
9 A No.
O Q
11 At Line 16, quote, "Did you express all of your
~
concerns," end quote, and in the answer you are talking l j
12 about a concern you did not express.
'3 Did they ask you what you meant by that?
14 A Yes, sir.
15 E
Q What did you say?
g 16 I A
8 I read my answer, and I didn't change anything.
'7 Q That answer is on Line 17 through 21, and it 8
18 2
I C appears here just the way you wrote it out in longhand?
y A Yes, sir.
20
[ Q Did the question that appears at Line 22, was that t
c 21 g
originally asked to you in writing?
22 E A No, sir.
23 2
Q So who added that question?
24 A I would s-ty Ron.
Q Mr. Gibson?
. - , _ _ - . - - ._ ~
8506 i '
i 1
mgc 18-10 i A Yes, sir. ,
2 Q Did you discuss what you meant by that answer, 3[beyondwhatitsayshere?
i d
f A No.
5 Q They didn't ask you to amplify or explain? i 6
A No.
7 Q Okay. Did they ask you what you meant when it 8
says in that answer, quote, "In my opinion, this problem -
has grown greatly," end quote?
l 10 A _I can't remember if they did or not. ;
" Q Have they asked you or did anybody else at the i 12 company ask you since then?
I3 A '
I-can't remember.
Q Did anybody ask you about whether Fred Bulgin has 15 been a help or a harm to the morale problem?
8 16
$ A No, sir.
8
- 17 Q Before I asked you that question today? '
C U
18 i
I A No.
e l'
O Did anybody ask you whether Larry Davison was 20 f
e involved in that morale problem before I asked you today, l 21 l or words to that effect?
22
$ A No, sir.
23 2
25
Additional Testimony of Scott Gantt E545 mgc 21-161 it -- is, what were the subjects of questions, anticipated 2
questions, I war going to ask, the subjects of questions 3 ! vou discussed? i THE WITNESS: I don't' recall. ,
5 BY MR. GUILD:
- 6- 0 Was it about any of the matters in your prefiled 7
testimony that we have already touched on; say, the morale 8
question?
A I can't say specifically what it was. I don't 30 remember. ,
Il Q I would ask you to try again. I will refresh 12 vour recollection.
~
l 13 How about the subject of your specific concern !
Id with the root condition of the weld and how that concern 15 l was resolved?
16 A I can't say what was said.' I don't recall.
'I I7 Q Were there any other instructions or guidance .
3 2
18 given to you by an'yone representing Duke Power Company, !
I
.e y
lawyers or anyone else, with respect to how to respond to i '
20 questions that were likely to be asked on your testimony?
I[2 lt E
21 A No, sir.
22 i ,
O Did they tell you to tell the truth?
8 23 A Yes.
Ig!
- 24 When did they tell you that?
0 25 A At several different 7.eetings.
t l
- - _ . _ _ - , ~ _ . _ _ . ~ _ . . _ . . . . _ . . _ _ ,._ _ , _ , _ , _ _ _ . _ _ . , . _ , _ _ . _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _. ._ .
8546
.gc 21-17 1 0 Well, that is an instruction. I meant to include -
2 that kind of thing. They did instruct you to tell the truth, ,
3 right?
d Yes, sir.
A 5 O Did they instruct you tb not express opinions?
6 A No, sir.
7 Q Did they instruct you to speak to things that you 8 I knew for a fact?
9 10 11 12 i
13 14 15 16 ;
17
- i 18 19
.i 20 21 !.
f 22 :
23 1
24 ,
l 25 I
. 6:47 1
i .
22joyl 1 A Net to my recollection.
2 o Well, what instructions did they give you? They 3 did tell you to tell the truth. What other instructions 4 did they give you?
5 a That's all I remember.
l 6 Q And you didn't remember that a moment ago, right?
7 A I didn't know that was what you were asking a 8 moment ago.
9 O If you have a doubt about what I am trying to get 10 at, Mr. Gantt, what I am trying to understand is what kind 11 of guidance came, instructions, information about what was 12 going to happen in this hearing about questions I was going 13 to ask or ways you were to answer questions or respond to 14 questions came from lawyers or anyone else before you 15 testified?
0 3 16 A There was no guidance as dar as how to answer v
17 questions at all besides tell the truth.
O g 18 O All right, sir. Have you had any other meetings, 3
l t
10 then, with. respect to your testimony in this case with anyone j 20 else from Duke or representing Duke other than the October 26t:1 l 21 meeting and then the~ meeting last with Mr. McGarry?
E g 22 A No, sir.
5 23 MR. GUILD: One moment, Mr. Chairman.
1 24 (Pause) 25 MR. GUILD: "r. Chairman, reserving my richts to
Testimony of Gary (Beau) Ross
- REE3/4 ,
6610 l
I to have a complete set. But I think the ceneral concept 2 we have now established. '
~
3 MR. MC GARRY: That is helpful. j l
4 JUDGE KELLEY: All richt. ,
5 MR. MC GARRY: We have some questions, i I
6 Mr. Chairman.
7 BY MR. MC GARRY:
8 O Mr. Ross, if you can keep your voice up so 't 9
the court reporter and the Board and parties can hear you.
10 Mr. Ross,'have you had an opportunity to discuss your 11 testimony with your counsel? ,
12 A Yes.
13 O Do you feel that your counsel have soucht to 14 intimidate you?
15 A No, I do not. ,
16 Do you feel that your counsel have soucht f Q 8
- 17 to influence your testimony?
e -
a p 18 A No.
3 l1 19 0 Have your counsel told you what to say?
{ !
j 20 A No.
[o 21 O Is the testimony that you have written and r I g 22 the testimony that you will cive today orally, tonorrow l 23 perhaps, your testimony and not that of your counsel?
8 24 A Yes, it is.
25 O Mr. Ross, have you been contacted by either ?
res3/5 6611 i
I 1
Palmetto Alliance or the Government Accountability Project?
2l A I was contacted by the Government Accountabilit}
I Project, I think a couple of times. j 3l d 0 Could you explain that contact?
5 A Well, the one contact was by a 6 phone call and it was a matter of, expressed some surprise 7 that I was still employed by Duke and wanted to know if 8 I had obtained a lawyer and had tried to pursue beine able .
9 to keep my employment at which point I told her that I 10 didn't rea-lly -- I wasn' t aware that my employment was in 11 jeopardy.
12 Q And who made that phone call, to the best of 13 your knowledge?
Id A To the best of my knowledoe, Ms. Garde.
15 That is who she identified herself as. '
16 When was that?
- f O I 17 A It was just when the discovery phase started.
8 18 I don't know the exact date. Just as the discovery phase g
a o
t 19 was startino.
j 20 0 Would April, May 1983 seem about the right
'E
'2 21 time?
I g
22 A Probably so,'yes.
5
, 23 0 What was the nature of the second telephone 8
24 conversation?
25 A The second call, I was already in bed, t
, . _ . . - - _ , _ . . --. -. - . . . . . , , , ,,_y._ _ _ _ _ , - - _ _ .
661-ree3/6 .
1 and she talked to my wife and she seemed concerned acain 2 that I hadn't talked to a lawyer and the fact that when we 3 got the hearinos and whatnot over with that Duke was coina tc -
4 drop me like a hot potatoe, I believe was the terms used.
5 So she acain' recommended I dt contact a o lawyer and try to establish a more secure basis for 7 continuing my employment with Duke?
8 O Mr. Ross, the second phone conversation, you d.
9 not have this individual, but your wife did?
10 . A That is right.
11 O Who was that conversation with?
12 A Well, as far as I know, she said it 13 was Ms. c.arde acain.
14 0 When was that phone conversation?
15 A I don't remember the exact date; it was a
- l. 16 something like a couple weeks after the first one, we got th 8
= 17 first phone call.
18 0 E-d that phone call upset your wife?
19 A It did somewhat, yes. It did. See, she
{
t
{ 20 doesn't really have a cood understandino -- I don't confide r
! 21 in her things that go on like I should. But she was kind I
g 22 of upset there for awhile.
h 23 MR. MC GARRY: No further cuestions, your 8
24 Honor.
.25 JUDGE KELLEY: Thank you. That brings us to t
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION i
In the Matter of )
)
DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. ) Docket Nos. 50-413
) 50-414 (Catawba Nuclear Station, )
Units 1 and 2) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that ecpies of " Applicants' Answer In Opposition To The Government Accountability Project's ' Motion For Leave To File Amicus Curiae Brief,' and Motion to Strike" in the above captioned matter have been served upon the follow-ing by deposit in the United States mail this 2nd day of December 1983. .
- Nunzio J. Palladino Alan S. Rosenthal Chairman Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission Appeal Board Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- Frederick M. Bernthal Washington, D.C. 20555 Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Thomas S. Moore Commission Atomic Safdty and Licensing Washington, D.C. 20555 Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
- James K. Asselstine Commission Commissioner Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Howard A. Wilber Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board
- Victor Gilinsky U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissioner Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 James L. Kelley Chairman
- Thomas M. Roberts Atomic Safety and Licensing Commissioner Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555
Dr. Paul W. Purdom Jesse L. Riley 235 Columbia Drive 854 Henley Place Decatur, Georgia 30030 Charlotte, North Carolina 28207 Dr. Richard F. Foster Karen E. Long P.O. Box 4263 Assistant Attorney General Sunriver, Oregon 97702 N.C.. Department of Justice P.O. Box 629 Chairman Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
- Scott Stucky U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Docketing and Service Section Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington', D.C. 20555 Commission -
Washington, D.C. 20555
- Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Don R. Willard Appeal Board -
Mecklenburg County U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Department of Environmental Commission Health Washington, D.C. 20555 1200 Blythe Boulevard Charlotte, North Carolina 28203 George E. Johnson, Esq. ,
Office of the Executive Legal
- Martin G. Malsch, Esq.
Director Deputy General Counsel and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Acting General Counsel Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
! Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission l Washington', D.C. 20555 Albert V. Carr, Jr., Esq.
Duke Power Company Billie Pirner Garde P.O. Box 33189 Government Accountability Project Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 1901 Que Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009 Richard P. Wilson, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General James A. Fitzgerald, Esq.
State of South Carolina Office of General Counsel P.O. Box 11549 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Columbia, South Carolina 29211 Commission
' ~ '
i Robert Guild, Esq.
Attorney-at-Law P.O. Box 12097 Charleston, South Carolina 29412 '
'I
,. . /i ' _;- Il ' .. Q > c , l.b-Palmetto Alliance 'J. Michael McGarry, III 2135 1/2 Devine Street Columbia, South Carolina 29205
- Designates those hand delivered.
.. -- - - - . - ,-_,- - -. - . . - - _ . . - _. - _ _-___ _ - - _ - _ _ - _ -