ML20083N667
| ML20083N667 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 04/16/1984 |
| From: | Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8404190256 | |
| Download: ML20083N667 (12) | |
Text
k.
00CKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4/16/84 BEFORETHEATOMICSAFETYANDLICENSINGBbD APR 18 A10:16 In the Matter of l
" P "> " r r e 'A c t g
.; ;, y TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING l
, Docket Nos. 50-445-2' COMPANY, et al.
and 50-446-2 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station i
Station, Units 1 and 2) l CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' MOTION TO ESTABLISH A CUT-OFF DATE WITH RESPECT TO ALLEGATIONS OF INTIMIDATION EFFECTS Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.730(c), CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy),
Intervenor herein, hereby files this, its Answer to Applicants' d
Motion to Establish a Cut-Off Date with Respect to Allegations of Intimidation Effects.
On 4/5/84, Applicants filed their Motion to Establish a r t-Off Date u
with Respect to Allegations of Intimidation Effects; this motion was received by CASE on 4/6/84.
In their Motion, Applica.its refer to the Board's 3/15/84 Memorandum (Clarification of Open Issues),
specifically pages 13 and 14, wherein the Board stated that the issue of intimidation relates to the question "whether there has been a practice of discouraging the report of nonconforming conditions," and that this issue is i.ot confined to specific previously known subissues.
Applicanto claim that:
"In view of the potential ongoing nature of the issue, a cut-eff date is necessary in order to avoid, as the Board noted, the substantial penalty of t.aduly prejudicing the plant's start-up date.
It is also necessary in order to assure orderly 8404190256 040416 DR ADOCK 05000 g
D563
'qq e
e litigation of this issue." Applicants argue that such a cut-off date is necessary "so that all parties may know, during the hearing preparation
- stage, the specific incidents to be presented at hearing.
llence an effective cut-off date must exist at the time intense preparation for hearing begins."
Applicants then request that a cut-off date of March 31, 1984, be established and "that no evidence of specific allegations of intimidation or discouragement or alleged effects thereof, occurring af ter that date be admitted at the hearing."
As shall be demonstrated herein, Applicants' motion and arguments are not valid and are in fact designed to prevent CASE from providing the Licensing Board with sufficient information, documentation, and witnesses to illustrate the true extent of the intimidation, harassment, and threatening of Quality Control Inspectors, craftspeople, documentation specialists, engineers, and others at Comanche Peak.
l Applicanta Motion Is Premature The Board and all parties are in agreement already that hearings on the issue of intimidation cannot be held prior to the July hearings, and I
even that date is not certain at this time.
Thus, absent any other considerations, Applicants' proposed cut-off date of approximately three-and-a-half months prior to the first possible hearing date is unreasonable, unnecessary, and premature.
Iloweve r,
there are other considerations which should be taken into account by the Board.
Applicants' motion is predicated upon oft-repeated and by this time tiresome phony fuel load dates which they historically (and at times hysterically) persist in using in attempts to blackmail the 2
m.
o Board into-taking premature actions in these proceedings and to avoid Applicants' having to deal with important issues.
This has been a long-i established pattern by Applicants in these proceedings, and CASE urges that the Board order a halt to such frivilous and unsubstantiated alleged fuel load dates.
Although Applicants still are stating publicly that they continue to cling to the unattainable goal of loading fuel for Unit 1 between July and September, the NRC Caseload Forecast Panel recently came to a different conclusion.
Although there has been no official report by the Caseload Forecast Panel regarding its March 20-22 Comanche Peak review (at least CASE has received none), public statements indicate that the Panel believes that fuel loading will not begin before April 1985 (see attached 3/22/84 FORT WORTH STAR-TELEGRAM article).
Throughout these. p roceedings, -- -the Board _ and parties 'h' ave been subjected to a continual barrage of_ pleadings (written and - verbal) by Applicants' counsel urging 1that the Board hurry things up so as not to delay Applicants fuel load.'
_It should be pointed out that-Applicants' counsel are not under oath when they make these statements, and 'it:is safe -
4 to assume that. Applicants' employees who'give this information -tof'their attorneys are'also not_under: oath.'
Because of the. preceding,- CASE moves-J that the Board order the Chairman of the. Board ' and" Chief; Executive 'Of hicer.
- r
.+
of Texas' Utilities -Company,. Perry G.. Brittain,- and Michael. D..
- Spence, 9.,.
.~
g,-
President, Texas _UtilitiesGeneratingCompany,--tofimme,diatelyfile,,snorn:
_.s, n
g
^ affidavits with" the Licensing-Board' setting'forth' whit each belie ds the 3
+
~
ifuel fload dates-for Units 1 and,2 williactually be,
.'andthe4 basis 7 for-
- such r belief. -
We - further move that the Board inclu' e _ in,its ' Ord'er - }that, d
~.M
?3' N
~
Q
,N--
wg.
t p
g,
,.m
s should either Mr.
Brittain or Mr.
Spence at any time receive information which indicates that such fuel load dates might be changed, each is to immediately file a sworn affidavit with the Board to that effect.
CASE believes that this procedure is necessary to discourage and hopefully help control Applicants' future attempts to ccerce and intimidate the Board by means of this particular ploy.
Further, Applicants' proposed cut-off date would preclude CASE from
~
pursuing information which is just now being provided to CASE on discovery regarding the T-Shirt incident (see CASE's 3/12/84 Seventeenth Set of Interrogstories and Requests to Produce to Applicants). Applicants did not answer CASE's 3/12/84 Seventeenth Set until April 5, 1984 (received by CASE on 4/6/84) -- after Applicants' proposed cut-off date.
In' a'ddition, Applicants' proposed' cut-off date would preclude CASE
-from pursuing information which is yet to be-supplied in answer to CASE's 3/14/84~ Eighteenth ~ Set of Interrogatories and Reauests to Produce to Applicants.
On ~ April 5 (the day Applicants were to-have mailed their-answer)- Applicants-asked - for clarification of CASE's Question 3 of our Eighteenth.' Set.
CASE responded'by phone on 4/6/84 with confirmation in writing s on'4/7/84 (see-CASE's letter to Applicants of 4/7/84).
CASE 'has
.been advised.that Applicants arel treating Question 3 of our-Eighteenth Set asu a new request 1(which(obviously will further. delay: ; receipt : of the
- documents ~ requested).
. See CASE's Motion. to Compel, which is being sent _ in
.thisisame-mailing..
'Also, Applicants' proposed cut-off_date:would-preclude CASE from -the-(potential: of.. having new witnesses contact CASE as-a. result of the-recent surprise visit. by.-' the1NRC. Task Force under :- the 1 direct. supervisionJ of w
-b j-
.4..
Darrell Eisenhut, NRC Director of Licensing, which arrived at the Comanche Peak site on April 3.
It appears that numerous current and former workers are coming forward with allegations because of this new federal 1
investigation.
(See attached 4/10/84 DALLAS TIMES HERALD article. )
It is little wonder that Applicants do not want CASE to be able to pursue this additional information, which is certain to add substantially to the proof of our case that intimidation, harassment, and threatening of OC inspectors and others at Comanche Peak is rampant, widespread, and thoroughly ingrained into the thinking and actions of many of Applicants' management personnel, including upper management.
CASE urges that the Board not allow Applicants to sidestep CASE's further development of this vitually important issue.
4 CASE also urges that, should the Board decide that a cut-off date is in order,. it tie such date to the actual anticipated time of the hearings
.(such as a certain number of days prior to the hearings), subject to extension for good cause.
In addition, CASE urges that the Board bar-I
' Applicants from filing additional motions for a cut-off date prior to a set 1-As discussed in this newspaper. article, documentation specialist Dobie Hatley has received notification by the Department of Labor that DOL's initial investigation-is complete and.has found that Ms..-Hatley was illegally fired and that " Pressure-was brought to bear:on Mrs.'
Hatley by craft employees and by her-supervisors to' circumvent' established document control procedures.'- ' The f act that she = resisted this pressure and complained of document. control deficiencies contributed: to her
-termination." CASE has requested Ms.
Hatley to supply us with a copy :
of the DOL letter and :we will be forwarding it to the Board. as soon:as
- we ' ' receive it'. lWe note that, ~to our knowledge, Applicants did not1
~
~
advise.the-Board of the DOL. ruling as they.did in the case of-William.
'Dunham, 'which CASE believes is in violation of-the' Board's. continuing
- order
- for; all parties
-to -keep it ' informed 'of significant: or potentially:significant matters; relevant.to'these proceedings...Please:
consider this pleading as ~ CASE's notification to. the Board of what. we consider to be a significant matter.
~
5
date certain by the Board, again keyed to a certain number of days prior to the actual anticipated hearing date.
Otherwise, CASE anticipates that Applicants will be continually updating their motion, necessitating responses from CASE, consideration by the Board, et cetera, ad infinitum.
Granting of Applicants' Motion would be detrimental to an orderly litigation of the Intimidation Issue Applicants argue that granting of their motion is necessary "in order to assure orderly litigation of this issue."
- However, since there are undoubtedly additional witnesses whom CASE will be calling on Intimidation issues following ongoing discovery and perhaps the coming forward of new witnesses, the -granting _ of Applicants' Motion at this time would be disruptive of the process envisioned in the Board's 3/15/84 Memorandum since it would necessitate CASE's filing additional motions later to call each new-matter and/or witness to the Board's attention.
.This will not only rob CASE of already in-short-supply time but would unnecessarily _
- burden an already -large record and needlessly take up additional ' Board-time.
Applicants' Motion Goes Beyond the Board's-Suggestion Applicants argue. "that' no-evidence _ of. specific allegations of intimidation-or discouragement or alleged effects thereof, occurring after that!date be ' admitted atthe hearing"-(emphasis added).
This is_obviously not what the Board intended-in its,3/15/84 Memorandum, and on pages 4 and.
5,ti.e' Board'specifically_ states:
"Le t - us also caution 1the ' parties-that should.important Enew safety-concerns 'of allegations, ' relevant to this contention.(Contention 5),
come to'11ght, they will be admitted for consideration by this Board.-
=.
s t
.w w
'n Mw f
y
-W r*
f
i Furthermore, the trial of some issues may reveal interrelationships among issues or may give rise to new issues, and those implications
- may require exploration."
The Board should recognize Applicants' ploy of sneakily pulling into its Motira.the means for assuring that Applicants would not have to deal with any important new safety concerns or allegations which new CASE witnesses bring to light.
We urge that the Board reject Applicants' ploy outright.
CASE's Answer and Motions For the reasons set forth herein,. CASE urges that the Board-deny Applicants' Motion in its en'tirety.
Further, CASE moves that:
- 1.
The Board order the Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
. Officer of Texas Utilities-Company, Perry G.
Brittain, and Michael D. Spence,' President, Texas Utilities Generating Company, to immediately file sworn affidavits with the Licensing Board setting forth' what each believes the fuel load dates f'or Units 1 and 2 will actually be, and~the basis for such belief.
The' Board further order that, should either Mr. Brittain or-Mr. ' Spence at any time receive information 'which indicates that such fuel load dat'es;might be changed,- each is to= immediately file - a ~ sworn af fidavit with the Board to that effect.
2.
-Should 'the' Board ~ decide that a cut-off date is in order,' :it tie such date to the-. actual anticipated time of the hearingsL(such as
^
a-certain number,of days'priorJto the 1 hearings),.' subject to' extension for good - cau s,e.
~
.The- ~ Board bar Applicants fromLfiling additional motions for'
~
'7.
~
9 V
V
+T' W
a cut-off date prior to a set date certain by the Board, again keyed to a certain number of days prior to the actual anticipated hearing date.
3.
The Board reject outright Applicants' ploy of including in their Motion that the " alleged effects" of specific allegations or intimidation or discouragement occurring after March 31 be excluded from future hearings.
4.
As stated above, the Board deny Applicants' Motion in its entirety.
Respectfully submitted,
>> AUs DM, gMrs.) Juanita Ellis, President CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 214/946-9446 e
-8.
=
~
m_______.--
9,
,e
- s.
.g fortWorthStar-Telearam U
T_.g. _ _...
.r m,.so u - m.e m tou. - io-r wo.m m..,moirm
,e Reactor NRCtask force predicts =
Seb, c (S Comanche Peak delays PreCided co t>
ed from Pare i April 1983.They said the NRCs pro a "5
e*gd*
'}..
pa - e,,
w M.
<- f
' ' %j,., g pecuon would be altered after fur ~
..t'.,'
S' v
B RUCEjll,LgR th ducussons with utility off>
,J
.g Commercial operatios of the Co "we re going to give them more manche Peat nuclear power plar't dats7 said Imuss Fitar. executive
'"*** worrt begin before Detober1985.at vice president of Texas Utihues i
most a year behind plant owners' Generating Ca current schedule, a federal panel It'slust a matter oidifferent en.
Predicted Wednesday.
periences and dif f erent i
'm g.
..s The prehmanary estamate by the viewpoints." said Homer Schmidt. '
-~
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis 11JGCO manager of nuclear ser-saan's caseload forecast panel has veces J
r l
stirred concerns that further dela) liesaidconstructionissixtoeight would mean increased plant costs weets behind schedule. meatung,
and higher electric bdli fuel loadmg could begin in August Officials of Texas Utihues Der or September.
i trse Co the holdsng company fur it would be " premature" to ex-utihties that own the ptant. sand t he) pect that the revised compleuon were surprised by the panel's fand f orttast would result ta baghe r costs ings but maintained they could f or the ptant.Schmedt said.
w.
meet current goals of loadme fuel Utihty offictals have estimated COM ANCIIE PEAK... startup may be delayed.
into the nuclear reactor hetuern that a del.y an commercial opera-July and Se pt e m he t.
Thee lion beyond 1964 would Jact up the ior manager of the newly form [I censing of the' plant said the new i
disacreed with the NRC's estimate cost by 51 rnithon a day an tuterest Comanche Peat task force.
NRC estimate sagnals the beginning that fuelloading worft begin hefore and replacement fuel expensei Ibp NRC officials in Washington of a new c)tle of lugher plant com-Please see NRC on Page 9 Construction delays an 1983 boosted formed the group last week to con-pletson costs. efforts to raase elec.
i the plant's estimated cost by $450 sohdate all investigations into the tricity rates and dentals by utahty malhon.
safetyof Comanche Pealt officials, he plant as four wears behind Ippohto said the NRC group mas
- 1 think they will claim that they
=chedule. Utihty officials estimate concerned about progress in four will have togo foranotherrate hike that it unit herin commercialopera. areas painting.prtspennonaltest. or add to one they have alreadv j
teens in early 1985. They have pre-ine,thermalinsulauon and a hst of filed "said Barbara Bolt 2 of Catuens dicted the finalcompletto's cost will 9.000 unfinished stemt home of Association for Sound Energy.
he 13g4 balhan. five times hieher these stems are minor.
IJst fnonth. Texas Utahues Den than the original estimate. The The NRCs prehmanary prover tree Co. proposed a $30L2 muhan plant as near Glen Row. about 4.i tson of f uelloading between April rate increase. The increase would miirs snutherst of Fort Worth.
andJune I'JfG willbereviewed af ter homt cintomers' bells an average of The NRC panca revised its este plant owners tubmit additional ma. 8 percent. The company sneludes mate becauw membersbehevelhat terial. A final prediction mill he Texas Dcctric Service Co.. Texas plant owners mere being too opts. made wst han a menth.ippohto said. Poueris Light Co.and Da!!as Power mistic.saidThomas A.Ippotato.sen.
A Dalla > based group oppomng le & laght Co.
i l
P
- t. m S acL $ p u m~S s
mm
%u=
t 2u a c = s.E x Comanca.e Peak fir., -mg
, w M* 3 8=2p=maeigfliga<!m S
c2a x
DALLAS IMES HERALD Tues of wor er ru.e. /1,0.ff 4'B-1L..egTION.a1 n.c i;c m j7 k} j 3 $2.. !4 E a C
y e s&~n m=
u-3
=
w o B SS k."; it epgjES{,g~$3]
j.5 j hj$
FRONT PAGE - METRO S
'M E
By JACK BOOTH Comnussion to launch an investh g
gg j
8 g 3 by s a s g a$1 gation into allegations of construc-t
.ya n8a
,gg 8 43e2 s
- j Staff Writer' work until plant documents could tion flaws at the plant and to halt Q
3 "o. g g.=
p
~83 e
n c
3 xgdaC
- 0ug i
~E'i?y. 3c=E "i%"x The U.S. Department of Lab #
93 dtFjE.2 "2%j6<g be safeguarded.
has ruled that a documents super-
=
Prompted by the group's March c
3 T E visor was illegally fired from the launched a major, surprise investi-N
- g 4 a lE 9 y =. $ j - 3 s E $ *= "8 2 ]
19 request. the NRC staff id 8
Comanche Peak nuclear plant be-
"~
e "g
cause she complained about pres-Eation at the plant a week ago
'* N sures to circumvent document wgo
= y a 3 o.:g g go tee m 3.g
- o
-M; gators went straight to the docu-
$hN
.g g * $ j j 3 3 3).gsj.I.
2 '"@
that is still in progress. After ar-3 %
c procedures.
na 3 O
nving at the plant. NRC investi-o5~
The ruling in favor of former 3 y $ 8 S b.y
-a C5
- 3 E
S ment room to begin interviewing y
.,[8
.2 " h.E"S$#
supervisor Dobie Hatley marks e y E. E the third time in a year that the o
" $ e g 8 " E g, y 5 y S 8 ' d workers about the charges by
~~
eR l\\1rs. Doble and other employees.
O E S.2 department has found that a Co.
' S.s a "
na e s5 manche Peak supervisor or in-In the latest Labor Depahent
(
$3j d h 3 3 5 = g -.
3 "j -
E,3ER"y} 6E35!"2%5 spector was illegally fired.
ruling. Curtis Poer the Dallas-
&S o
oO]
R1rs. Hatley's firing on Feb. 7
- Mh
,c @j gI
- g5F2#E 3,3 al E'$5 o7','3 area director wrote in an April 6
- . g g 4 E 3 prompted the Government Ac-letter that investigators concluded b
3 'S E 4 4 l = " 5 $.e 3 3 m g b P' x 0 o E y 2*if countability Project, a Washing-Mrs. Hatley had been fired in vio-8s ton, D.C.. based citizens group. to
- Q
,~ ] 2.g.E c d E 2. ~'. S.:
.Eo iS S c e ask the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory See COMANCHE on Page 3-j g
3ybgga a e o 2.c
.%2a5 E 13 ^% 2.c u o.
o o-m 3 ". o I c xt e - $ E a c$ " t o S 7 383EE#
5t o
cMtm o ES$5
$ 5 = E S E.E 5 E '5 E S 5 8 Te w
ensaz em wast su f
3l legs'852
%"5E12)' tif h
d
~s N s'.
Ig5
~ #2 =
"3-*"
= # f u $.$
<5'k p
.3"5.$ GEE 2xg$oSI*
ifol
.2 sc E
ca E~
3' 8.c E5
$ u v=
5 4.d "8 c 0 A
angns c-S
%"e'ns53stw SEh"E b
W
~
ygjEo.s" set E
ta c a sa
$$x"h"9 e
a x s
u>b Js" u
s a "e
ou 8
j h
C - 3 j a ". 3 a
I g g !
.E o '5
~5 " %
4 3Ein1Hin.1gA.iae.O Tle ant =.ia! *4E E!*
es
=
ye s t 8~=c%
c gs a@Eca a
aw#EbERWc8,Ob: ga Rv tsSa8EE%8E a33xfoi el Bt S
a 8. g 5 1 2 f 3 7
~ S t s ? =F d i.
l a.g o.e. a K>
-.g,ac.a e
.c -
a Y3 N
' O
- y. j e i s. 2 2... E o
o.
-Saag cs y]u a
J _ '$e ' - E =L F E 2 g x
me e s_aE am
~
- 82".
o ce ap g %S!=e rs-1'8w s x l1 "E gecepg ge.
^
l Eox - u E c. 8 m 'T "A
Sg3 - E m= 4
- 5 gas e a
c.
g
.s r
l eye. k a Ngng>t"paepo84*g-nu 8=S"Ek.a@i $,3He2I.
u s-l ["a l b g
=s r
g,1 easa o
E t
2 lim
$-4 #
gg.s$.s#agoAEg 3 Eo e E
- M E
o.
ME 3 o
S g
E.g-hyc>.c3 e
o s
m.
B
COCKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA N
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PkOND A10:17 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICE N
In the Matter of
}{
' b !CE OF SLCRE,AE (
}{
.CCMETWG & SERV!U.
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC
}{
DocketNoSP3@445-2 COMPANY, et al.
}{
and 50-446-2 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric
}{
Station, Units 1 and 2)
}{
l CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE By my signature below, I hereby certify that true and correct copies of CASE's 4/16/84 Answer to Applicants' Motion to Establish a Cut-Off Date With Respect to Allegations of Intimidation Effects have been sent to the names lilsted below this 16th day of April
,1981, by: Express Mail where indicated by
- and First Class Mail elsewhere.
- Administrative Judge Peter B. Bloch
- Nicholas S.' Reynolds, Esq.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell 4350 East / West Highway, 4th Floor
& Reynolds Bethesda,. Maryland 20814 1200'- 17th St.,'N. W.
Washington, D.C.
20036
- Ms. Ellen Glasberg, Law Clerk U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- Geary S. Mizuno, Esq.
4350 East / West Highway, 4th Floor Office of Executive Legal Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory
- Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom, Dean Commission Division of Engineering, Maryland National Bank Bldg.-
Architecture and Technology
- Room'10105 Oklahoma State University 7735 Old Georgetown Road Stillwater, Oklahoma. 74074 Bethesda, Maryland 20814
- Dr. Walter H. Jordan Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 881 W. Outer Drive Panel 10ak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory' Commission Washington, D. C..
20555
- Herbert Grossman, Alternate Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
~U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4350 East / West Highway, 4th Floor Washington, D. C.
20555 1
4
=-
_-. _ _ ~ - -
.o i
Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq., Chairman Renea Hicks, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Assistant Attorney General Board Environmental Protection Division U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Supreme Court Building Washington, D. C.
20555 Austin, Texas 78711 Dr. W. Reed Johnson, Member John Collins Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Regional Administrator, Region IV Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
-U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 611 Ryan Plaza Dr., Suite 1000 Washington, D. C.
20555 Arlington, Texas 76011 Thomas S. Moore, Esq., Member Lanny A. Sinkin Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal 114 W. 7th, Suite 220 Board Austin, Texas 78701 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.~ C.
20555 Dr. David H. Boltz i
2012 S. Polk
-Michael D. Spence, President Dallas, Texas 75224 Texas Utilities Generating Company Skyway Tower Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal 400 North Olive St., L.B. 81-Panel Dallas, Texas 75201 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Docketing and Service Section (3 copies)
Office.of the Secretary U.'S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 1
+
r i
+
l n _NL~0AD Ks.)JuanitaEllis, President
' CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy)'
~ 1426 S.: Polk 9
'2
-n..
,-,.