ML20086Q393
| ML20086Q393 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 12/26/1991 |
| From: | Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20086Q316 | List: |
| References | |
| CPA, OL, NUDOCS 9112300165 | |
| Download: ML20086Q393 (26) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ . _ - _ _ _ _ _ .
1 I
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l l
Ef_Q31 THE COMMIS_SJ0JJ In the Matter of }{ Docket Nos. 50-445-OL
}{ 50-446-OL TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC }{
}{ Docket No. 50-445-CPA (Comanche Peak Steam Electric }{
Station, Units i and 2) }{
AFFIDAVIT OF CASE PR Rip 1N1_dVANITA ELLIS BEFORE HE, the undersigned notary public, on this day personally appeared Juanita Ellis, who being by me duly sworn, on her oath stated as follows:
My name is Juanita Ellis. I am over the age of twenty-one (21) years, and I am competent to testify. I have never been convicted of a crime. I am the President of CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy).
I have personal knowledge of the facts contained in the preceding " CASE'S HOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE RESPONSE TO PORTIONS OF HOTION OF R. MICKY AND SANDRA DOW TO REOPEN THE RECORD," " LIMITED NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF JUANITA ELLIS," and " CASE'S RESPONSE TO PORTIONS OF HOTION OF R. MICKY AND SANDRA DOW TO REOPEN THE RECORD" in the above-captioned proceedings and such facts as stated are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
22n h a hJs >
(an'ita Eijis, President of CASE
~
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me thisd[' day of uor4 A _,
1991.
RO9tN D. 9ENtf
{9 lheryMin,9WHfM
%MWM l-
,f__lM_ i l
_/ ,
n 'and for the &
M
_u
' Notffi PubTI State of Texas My Commission Expires:__b2MW 30 9112300165 911226 PDR ADOCK 05000445 O PDR [
l
~ . _ _ . - _ _ _ _ .
DOCKETED usNnc UNITED STATES OF AHERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '91 p[r 27 t'i :20 E FORE THli_CQMMLSSlQN In the Matter of }{ Docket Nos. 50-445-OL
}{ 50-446-OL TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC }{
}{ Docket No. 50-445-CPA (Comanche Peak Steam Electric }{
Station, Units 1 and 2) }{
CERTIFICATE 0f_SJMICE I hereby certify that copies of " CASE'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE RESPONSE TO PORTIONS OF HOTION OF R. MICKY AND SANDRA DOW TO REOPEN inE RECORD,"
" LIMITED NOTICE OF /,PPEARANCE OF JUANITA ELLIS " " CASE'S RESPONSE TO PORTIONS OF HOTION OF R. MICKY AND SANDRA DOW TO REOPEN THE RECORD," and
" AFFIDAVIT OF CASE PRESIDENT JUANITA ELLIS" in the above-captioned proceedings have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or as indicated by an asterisk (*) by Federal Express, this 26th day of December 1991:
Peter B. Bloch, Esq., Chairman Marian L. Zobler, Esq.
Administrative Law Judge Counsel for NRC Staff Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
Panel 20555 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, O. C. 20555 R. Micky Dow '
Sandra Long Dow Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom 1078 Wellington, #135 Administrative Judge Ottawa, Ontario KIY-2Y3 .'
1107 West Knapp Canada Stillwater, Oklahoma 74075 George L. Edgar, Esq.
Dr. Walter H. Jordan Newman & Holtzinger, P. C.
Administrative Judge 1615 L Street, N. W., Suite 1000 882 West Outer Drive Washington, D. C. 20036 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Adjudicatory File (2)
Janice E. Moore, Esq. V. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Deputy Assistant General Counsel Washington, D. C. 20555 for Advanced Reactors Attn: Docketing and Service Section and Special Proceedings U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Secretary (3)
- Mail Stop 15B18 U. S. Nuclear Regulatsry Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Section 31
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (1)
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication
- U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1 White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852
-- , f- A4 h JM .) Juanita Ellis, President P SE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 214/946-9446 32
e . .
Mr. David H. Boltz /k Jlh jf)I*
and Ms. Barbara N. Loltz 2012 S. polk Dallas, lexcs 75224 Mrs. Juanita Ellis, President C.A.S.E.
1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 Janacry $. 1989 Dear Mrs. E111st 16, 1988 to our Ictter of This is in response to your reply of Decemberis our understanding (also f rom tax atto liovember 28, 1988. It that the IRS may never define for CASE vhich expenses, etc. and/or which set (s) of individuals and/or Froups CASE should reimburse f or work asso-ciated with CASI's activities concerning the Comanche Peak plant.
Trankly, we are unwilling to avait an answer f rom the IRS which may never come, in reply to questions which (f re your letter of December 16) appar-ently had not even been posed.
Theref ore, picare provide us with wTitten ansvers to the f ollowing ques-tions concetming the mentes received by CASE in the settlement with TV of July, 1988 as soon as possiblet
- 1. The name(s) and address (es) of each and every financial institu-tion in which monies from the settlement have been deposited.
- 2. The number (s) of each and every account in each financial institu-tien which contains/ contained monies from the settlement.
The exact type of each and every account. (E.g., 60-day CD, 9D-3.
day CD, etc.)
- 4. 1Sether or not interest is being paid and/or is accruing on any or all of the accounts.
$. If interest is being paid and/or is accruing on any or all of the accounts, please provide the interest rate (s) for each account.
(Note: If the interest rate has changed or fluctuated since the date monies were deposited in the account, pier.ne indicate the in-terest rates paid /accived to each account..)
- 6. If interest is being paid and/or is accruing or any or if the interest is all of the accruing accounts, please note for each secount in the account and/or if any interest has been paid out to any in-dividual and/or group, and/or has been transferred to a different and/or new account.
(If interest has been paid out to any individual and/or ginup, please list the amount, to whom, and the date of each payment. Please provide the same inf ormation for any tranf ers.)
e: e l i
bolt ;
1/5/89 t
Page 2 [(
- 7. List each and every disbursement which has be u made fron. any or all of the accounts. for each disbursettent, viense give the iolloving inf ornations the atnount, to whorr it was tr.ade, on what ;
date, on what basis, and for what purpose. ;
P Please provide this inf ormation to us as soon as possible. Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely, ,.
- //
ce.u., .: py s ,
- Barbara N. Boltz , ;f i N
- Q . , _ .n .. c . <..+.,
. ..f w ,
,, J t
David P., holtz .
P 4
/$ ?
{
k i
.t.
,h i t
.4 s
e
{
1
?
.i - 1 b,n
-j^_
l l .
. _ ; _ ;.. - - . . --_ m ;. . _ , .. x , _ _ _ . . . . _ . _ . - . . . , _ _ . , _ . . _ ._._.-...__._.,.__.-,.~_..,.-.,_,.._,.__a,_____.,_,__._,__,_
,e Scocones. O'CONNon & DLANscr r ATToHNEYS AT LAW A Poorennine an.(4:neosiavina (se Cot evat.t.s 64onswt D. Nesnnis<a t "" '
' **
- I 141k0 D ALLAS PA H HWAY.tiVITE s:(so ,
H awnv Hnne at* D A LLAR TEX AN TS$40 hoawle s s-wtitirae my tois v e.m an
.inuvu a w 0. V e== ens moa n ti er e.snal.enmaat.as avisig es:
T u nsw ow r. M. J nw tm . (TMIMF Mt i al. 9 D.a 1, DWT AT 8, I.AD TFJ.F.PetnN F. (214) $ % l 9797 J 1.A hnes 3.aw 70JJJUPIS.W (*J14) M8H6 Woh6 t T A M 4.at March 31, 1989
. 5%H191T Mr. David H. Boltz Ms. se ]?nre H. Boltz 2012 $ 4 0/ m'1k '
Dally, ~1 n n 75224 Information.
Ret ,C,p,[ing,, A s soci a t i on f or Sou nd Ene rgy Fi na nci al Dern W , n ad Ms. Bolt T'nia 1.i ra ' represents Citizens Association for Sound Energy in cer :.ain matt.ers. In response to your request, CASE asked Mr.
Harny Davis, a CPA retained by our firm, to compile the enclosmi information. I believe the information is self expl.an'axery and should provide answers to all the questions posed by you, This inf ormation is being provided to you in light of your have worked status as f ormer Board Members and as As individuals who closely with CASE in the past. I am sure you are aware, published out of context or pieces of financial information released without any background explanation canCASE be damagingis relying on to a publicly supported organization such as CASE.responsibly to avoid your intellect and your ability to act Your drmaging or inappropriate uses of this information.
voluntary cooperation will be appreciated.
On another subject, we must have the Social Security 1: amber of each person to whom CASE may pay a portion of the settlement funds. It will help to expedite the process if you will provide me with both of your Social Security 14u:r.bers.
If you have any questions please contact me.
Very truly yours, ,
^
Of Theodore (Te f 'W4!-
M. Jones
/
TMJ/tm x
Scoon1Ns. O'CoNNoH h DLANf.CCT ATWHNEYR AT LAW Hr.arnt D.f ca.oewat A Pnorvmonat.Cwn.onaviou or (gii w ru
' "I I
, 141 A0 D ALLA N PA H H W A Y. Nt'ITE mie O Y H awov Hosrau DALLAk. TEX AN YnS40 moak h e tatitit.n av tsis; tr.n Am JnmatMAw0.Ytwnom 940 Ak h Of LIA A$, PfTy ? AIJS ATintf 148
- I'M EDTtOM 8; &l. J uh'fA Ts.t r.corswn;(214124't.n?9? ' 8m* ** L*t4 A L
- L* L 887 AT8. La
- Ts.Lworst n (2141 *t#ft 6sORD f 8 A >48 La*
^""'
July 7, 1989 Mr. Ed Cloutman *'I A HAND DELIVERY Mullinax, Wells, Baab t. Cicutman 3301 Elm Street Dallas, Texas 75226-1637 kMM/f Re: Information nelease f~r'om chSE.
Dear Mr. Cloutman:
Pursuant to our conversation today, I have enclosed copies of CASE's most recent financial statements f or your client's review.
This information is also being released to the public at large to better inform the public of CASE's current status and activities.
We hope that the public dissemination of this information will avoid the misconceptions and misinterpretations involved with our earlier inf ormation releases to Mr. and Mrs. Boltz.
The information given to Mr. and Mrs. Boltz on March 31, 1989 was compiled in a format designed to address specific questions asked by Mr. and Mrs. Boltz. The misinterpretation of this information by the Broaux Subcommittee has made it clear that the information in this f orma t is suspectible to misunderstanding and misuse.
Furthermore, that inf ormation release contained a level of detail (e.g. account numbers) that should not be public information. We theref ore request that Mr. and Mrs. Boltz provide a wrAiten list of all third parties, organizations and entities to whom they have supplied this information and the ' purpose for which the information was supplied. We also request that Mr. and Mrs.
Boltz refrain from giving this information to any third parties, entities or organizations in the future, without the express wr.'.tten consent of CASE's Board of Directors.
I hope that our prior response to Mr. and Mrs. Boltz's direct questions, their on-site inspection of CASE ' s books and records, 3
and tnis information release have pr.ovided the Boltz's with all the inf ormation they . need for their stated purpose of verifying that CASE has been properly run since the settlement with TU Electric. I look forward to hearing f rom you soon regarding our requests.
Very truly yours, AN Theodore (T,ed) M. Jonea N
TMJ/sgs
[p ane m UNITED STATES
! j,%
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N
$ w ASHINGTON. D. C. 20SS5
(.....f Janua ry 30,1990 Docket Nos. *50-445 "
and 50-446 hN is ty Mrs. Betty Brink, Board Member Citizens for Fair Utility Regulation 7600 Anglin Drive Fort Worth, Texas 76140
Dear Mrs. Brink:
SUBJECT:
ALLEGATION OSp 89-A-0089 This is in response to the concerns raised by the Citizens for Fair Utility Regulation (CFUR) in the Recuest for Stay, dated October 16 1989, your letter of November 8,1989 and our meeting of December 7,1989. Although the Comission' Order of October 19, 1989 only addresses the technical concerns and settlement agreement issues vaiced in the Request for Stay, the NRC staff has endeavored to evaluate all of CFUR's concerns. The purpose of this letter is to oescribe the basis for the NRC staff's resolution of those etncerns.
The enclosure to this letter pres 2nts the NRC staff's conclusions regarding the fundamental technical issues. CFUR has not raised any issues not already considered by the staff. However, we recognize your desire for a further explanation of the resolution of those issues. In addition to the specific issues addressed in the enclosure, CFUR has also raised several philosophical issues which we should explain so as to provir's a centext for our conclusions regarding the more specific technical issues.
First, several CFUR reprehentatives have suggested that we should consider your concerns with respect to the viability of light-water reactor technology.
The NRC's responsibilities and authority are predicated on the Atoate Energy Act and the Energy Reorganization Act which, in conjunction with opplicable case law, establish the fundamental premise that light-water reactor technology on be used as an' energy source so long as an appiteant for a license satisfies the applicable Federal regulations for that technology. The Final Environmental Statement for Comanche Peak (HUREG-0775, September 1981) addresses alttrnative energy sources in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and concluded that the addition of the two units to TU Electric's system is expected to result in significant savings in system production costs, decreased dependence on fuel supplies of uncertain availability and increased system reliability.
hone of the issues raisea by CFUR adversely affect the viability of light water reactors.
t January 30, 1990 Mrs. Betty Brink t I
with that explain the bssis for our resolution of your concerns in the hope that,ility to :
%- knowledge, you will understand how the NRC has discharged its responsib .
+
i protect the public health and safety.
Sincerely,
. e.
Ja s E. Ly , Chairman 11 gation Rev Cornittee nche Peak Project Division ,
t
Enclosure:
CFUR issues w/ attachments ,
cc w/ enclosure:
See next page t
e r
- , .- ,r..,.., , - - - - . . , - , . . , . -., ,,, -, a__,- ., _. ~..m., ,.y-- -...,e, . - . , . ._ ,,
CFUR.1SSUCS
- 1. Issue The risk of low power operation is exemplified by problems (including release of radioactive gases) at Ft. St. Vrain, which was also regulated ,
by R-IV. Now,10 years after startup, it is shutdown forever.
Evaluation Tht NRC will not issue any license, not even a low-power license, without rthonable assurance that there is adequate protection of the public health 4 and safety. Nevertheless, there are special considerations to low-power operation. Most importantly, the possible consequences of an accident during1 1ow-power operation are limited to a very small fraction of those possible at full power. Low-power operation would generate-less than one-twentieth of the radioactive fission products which would be generated at full power. :This decrease in fission products.also dramatically reduces the amount of decay heat available to damage the core as compared to full power operation. Therefore, accidents at low-power operation would evolve over longer periods than at full-power operation and cou1J be contained by equipment designed to cope with accidents occurring at full power.
CFUR's concern appears to stem from an DIA investigation of-Region IV management in 1986 which raised issues related to the inspection activities at Ft. St. Vrain, in addition to Comanche Peak. CFUR implies that inspection policies during the construction of these plants had allowed inherent flaws to go undetected.
The concerns raised by OIA Report 86-10 were reviewed extensively by an NRC staff panel, referred to as the Comanche Peak Report Review Group (CPRRG), and subsequently in en fndependent investigation by David Williams, then with the Government Accounting Office and now the NRC's w , Inspector General. The results of those investigations,.which were released to the public, concluded that the issues were primarily administrative and did not have any direct adverse impact on plant safety.
Those issues were also investigated by Senator Glenn's committee.
The corrective actions-that resulted from the CPRRG review, as described in the published report NUREG-1257, included several followup inspections which were assigneo to the Comanche Peak Project Division when the Office of Special Projects assumed responsibility for the inspection activities at Comanche Peak in early 1987. The results of those followup inspections similarly did not reveal any evidence that any safety-significant deficien-cies have gone undetected. Moreover, a comprehensive review of the design and construction of Comanche Peak has bisen conducted in conjunction with the Comanche Peak Response Team (CPRT) and Correct.ive Action Program since 1986. Based on extensive review and' inspections,- the staff concluded that the CPRT had adequately implemented its invest 1gative activities related to the design, construction, construction quality assurance / quality control, j
Reacto ' Regulation. The panel has completed their revitw of the SALP process at Comanche Peak including the CfUR concerns. The panel %
thoroughly reviewed the developrent of the SALP report, and conducted h.tarviews with selected SALP Board riembers. As a separate initiative, the staff members involves with the Conunche Peak inspection program were requested to provide any coments they mignt have on the SALP report and were told that their coments could be provided anonyrously. The results of the survey were also reviewed by the panel. The panel has completed its review and the resulting recocznendations are currently being reviewed by senior NRC management. Af ter action is taken on those recourendations, the results of the panel's review and related records will be r?ade publicly available.
A decision on tha irsuance of an operating license is separate from the SALP process and will not be made until the necessary Special Projects licensing and inspection efforts are completeo, and the ORAT inspection previously discussed is corpleted. Although the insights derived froin the SALF report provide a subjective adjunct to the formal findings submitted to NRC management with a licensing recocinendation, the formal findings provide a much stronger and more accurate basis for the licensing decision. The SALP process is retrospective and, therefore, the performance sursnary provided to the utility in the SALP report is to a large extent historical in nature.
The anonymous memorandum also asserted that NRC inspection reports and other cocurents had been edited to create an inaccurate characterization of the utility's perforunce. This assertion could imply inappropriate action on the part of HRC supervisors and managers, so this concern was referred to the Office of Inn,pector General for any action they deem !
ne cessary.
- 7. Issue CASE settled with TV Electric because of the significant economic irterest in settling the whistleblower claims and the settlement of theseicialms was contingent on CASE withdrawing. The individual settlerent agreements have not been reviewed by the NRC or made public. The settlement was not based on the resolution of safety issues.
Evaluation The settlerent of the Comanche Peak proceedings was based on a Joint The Stipulation signed by case, TU Electric Company, and the NRC staff.
parties submitted the Joint Stipulation to the Licensing Board for its approval. The 1.icen: sing Board reviewed this Joint Stipulation before dismissing the proceedings. In addition, the settlement involved a i
separate agreement between Case and TV Electric Company. As part of its consideration of whether to dismiss the proceedings, the Licensing Board also reviewed the Case-TU agreement. Both of these agreerents are I
httached to the Licensing Board's order of July 13, 1988. (28 NRC 103)
These agreerents are public documents.
e As_pa'rt of the Case and TU Electric agreenent, TV Electric . agreed to .
continue in good faith to negotiate settlunents of outstanding employment discrimination claims against TU Electric and its contractors at the time of signing the agreement. TU Electric iso agreed to regotiate in good faith settluents with persons identified by CASE, who had asst ~ fASE in the CPSCS licensing process. A sample of the release which was to be signed if these negotiations were successful was attact.ed as an exhibit to the Licensing Board's order.
As a result of these negotiatio1s, Tu reached agreements with three groups of individuals. First,10 reached an agreement settling a lawsuit involving a number of former employees, known as the Atchison plaintiffs. This was a suit pending at the time in the Texas : tate courts. Second, TU negotiated settlement agreements resolving three of four pending Department of Labor complaints. These agreements are not, to the staff's knowledge, public documents. CFUR's concerns, as clarified below, appear to relate to these agreement:. Third, pursuant to the settlement a9reenent with CASE, TU reached agreerent with most of those persons cesignated by CASE as having assisted it during the licensing process, in its stay request, CFUR alleged that (1) TU Electric conditioned the settlement of individual claims on the dismissal of the hearings and the withcrawal of CASE, (2) the Settlement agreements have not been reviewed by the staff and have not been made public, and (3) that the settlement was not based on the resolution of safety issues. During the meeting which took place on December 7,1989, CFUR clarified its cucerns. CFUR stated its main concern was with the individual Department of Labor agreements. CTUR believes that these individual agreements should be reviewed by the staff to cetermine if the agreerents contain restrictive clauses similar to those found in two settlements of Lepartment of Labor com;,laints involving two forrer employees at the Comarche Peak site, Mr. Polizzi and Mr. Macktal. Neither of those agrecuents were in any way related to the settlement of the proceeding in 1968. CFUR believes that the CASE agreenents shoula also be reviewed to determine whether the -.
language of the agreements could be construed as adversely atfecting the willingness of the signers to bring safety concerns to the NRC.
To address CFUR's concerns as clarified in the December 7 meeting, the f
' staff took several steps. First, the staff reviewed the responses of TV Electric and its contractors to a generic letter issued to all licensees, I applicants, and principal vendors on April 27, 1689. This letter requesteo that licensees t.nd their contractors identify settlement agreements they executed which contained clauses precluding the signer from bringing safety
' concerns to the NRC. The staff determined that in response to that letter, TU Electric had not identified any of the agreenents which were executed around the time of the Comanche Peak settlerant as having restrictive clauses.
In addition, representatives of the Comanche Peak Project Division and the Office of the General Counsel reviewed all of the releases signed by the Atchison plaintiffs in settlerent of their lawsuit, and all of the l
settlement agreements and releases signed in settlement of the Departrent
+ of Labor Complaints pending at the tire of the-Comanche Peak settlement.
The staff's review indicated that none of these settlesent agrecuents and releases involve restrictive clauses of the type which were found in previous settlerent agreements. In f act, the agreements settling the Department of Labor complaints, contained explicit language which informed the foriner employee that he/she was free to take any ' safety concerns to the NRC. The releases signed by the Atchison plaintiffs did not have any specific language concerning the right of the individual to bring safety concerns to the NRC. However, there were no restrictive clauses which precluded the individuals f.om doing so. In addition, the Atchison plaintiffs were informed by thei counsel of their continuing ability to bring their safety concerns to the NRC. The staff also reviewed a sample of the release signed by those receiving compensation for their assistance to CASE. These releases do not contain any restrictive clauses and it was TU Electric's practice that when the individuals presented the signed releatas, they were informed of their continuing ability to bring their safety concerns to the NRC. In aodition, it is the staff's understanding that CASE did not designate these indiviauals entil mid-1989 and that accordingly, these releases were not executed until long after the settlement of the Comanche Peak proceedings.
The Atchison plaintiffs were mainly people who had already appeared before the Licensing Board as witnesses ouring the Harassment and Intimidation hearings. There has been no indication that these individuals have any safety concerns which were nct already brought to the attetion of the staff. As far as the Departrent of Labor Complainants are concerned, as discussed above, there is specific language in the settlement agreements which they signed that informs them of their right to centinue to bring safety concerns to the NRC. In f act, one of these individuals has engaged in a continuing oialogue with the staff since he signed the agreement.
Thus, there is no evidence that CTUR's concerns raise any safety issues with respect to the settinents with indivicuals entered into around the tise of the settlement of the Comanche Peak proceeding. The staff has not found any evidence of an intent, either express or implied, to keep those who signec individual agreements from presenting their safety concerns to t.he NRC. Therefore, the mere fact of a link between the negotiation of 1"lividual settlements and the general settlement of the Counche Peak proceedings did not result in stopping the flew of safety information to the NRC and, thus, does not raise a safety issue.
With respect to the general settlement agreement between the parties to the proceeding, as required by the agreerent, CASE has been given and has taken an active part in monitoring the activities at the Comanche Peak site. CASE has made both TU Electric and the NRC ante d issues which are of concern to CASE. Therefore, the settlement bas, in f act, resulted in the continuing resolution of safety issues presented by CASE, and
~
CFUR's allegation in this area is wit.hout merit.
ll The ERC has issued a proposed rule to make it clear that any. restrictive '
- clauses in settlement agreements, even language that sight be perceived ;
as restrictive, is not permitted. A final rule which considered public All of the agreements associated with coments is before the Comission.
the CASE settienent are consistent with the proposed rule, in sumary, the staff finds that the agreements are tot restrictive, and events which have taken place since the signing of those individual agreements indicate that the individuals who signed tae agreecents do not consider themselves precluded from bringing safety concerns to the NRC.
Therefore, the staff. has determined in respons2 to the Comission's Order of October 19, ISE>S, that there are no safety issues raised by CFUR's allegations with respect to the settlement of the Cocanche Peak proceedings.
- 8. Issue Kapton wiring. Although TU spokesmen have repeatedly denied Kapton problems in any safety related installations, and have stateo that all Kapton has been properly installed, on 9/28/89, a flashover occu-red which destroyed several wires as a result of Kapton insulation. A Harch 1989 inspection report states that certain allegations regarding Kapton "will remain open."
CFUR wants to know where Kapton is used, and why it is acceptable.
Evaluation Kapton is a trade name for aromatic polyimide, poly p,As p',documented diphenyloxide, in pyromellitimide, NRC Inspection Report manuf actured by the DuPont Cortpany.50-445/89-04; 50-446/89-04 utilized in Class 1E applications in the following equipment at Comanche Peak:
Electrical Conductor Seal Assechlies
- Containment Electrical Penetrations Gamametric Neuton Flux Monitoring System Cables
- Borg Warner Feedwater Isolation Valve Solenoics
- Electric Hydrogen Recombiner
- Incore Thermocruples The acceptability of Kapton insulated conductors is based Theseprimarily on docunents, the component environmental qualification packages.
which are maintained by the applicant at the plant site, typically refer y both the type of testing which was used to simulate accident conditions and the applicability of unique plant component configurations Additionally, which incorporate Kapton, to the design basis accident conditions.
the reliability of Kapton-insulated conductors in comercial nuclear power applications has been established based on extensive operational experience under nonnal and transient plant conditions.
l EX1HBIT F !
RESOLITrlON 1, Barbara N. Boltz, Secretary of CH4cns Associa'va er Sound Energy, a Texas Non-Profit corporation (hereinaf tcr the " Association"), hern ,ertify that the resolution set forth hereunder was duly adopte6 at a meeting of toe soard of Directors of said Association duly held on June 14, 1988, at which a quorum was present and voting, and that said resolution has not been amended or rescinded and is in full force and effect on the date hereof RESOLVED that all of the actions heretofore taken and proposed to be taken by Mrs. Juanita Ellis, President of the Asrociation, with respect to the proposed Settlement Agreement.between the Association, Mrs. Juanita EDis, ,
and Texas Utilities Electric Company, (hereinafter the " Settlement Agreement"), including but not limited to, the actions of Mrs. Ellis in connection with negothtlor. and participation in discussions with the parties to the transaction be, and hereby are, in all respects epproved, confirmed and ratified; and further
~
RESOLVED that the terms and provisions of the proposed Settlement Agreement, as presented to the meeting, be, and hereby are, approved and the the President of the Association, be, and hereby is, authorized and empowered to execute and deliver the Settlement Agreement in such form as she may deem necessary or advisable, her approval thereof to be conclusively evidenced by her signature thereto, ami to take any and all action she may deem necessary in connection with the foregoing to enable the Association to fully and promptly parform en of its obligations with respect to the said Settlement Agreement; and further RESOLVED that Mrs. Ellis be and she hereby is authorized and directed on behalf of the Association to execuse any and all documents and to take any and all action that she may deem necessery or desirable in order to enable the Association to carry out and effectua?q the purposes of the foregoing resolution and the transaction covered thereby.
IN hTTNESS WHEREOF I hereunto set my hand and the seal of said Association this 4"7 day of June,1988.
s s
-l tb/OkfttA.
Barbara N. Boltz, Secytary
L ;. .
s .y ; * ,.
CASE (CITIZENS ASSN FOR SOUND ENERGY)
==~
n t 9L6-p
/ a6 July 13, 1988*
6XHisty-F llAND-DELIVERED AT PREHEARING CONFERENCE TO THE BOARD AND ADMITTED PARTIES Administrative Judge Peter B. Bloch Dr. Walter H. Jordan U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission RBI W. Outer Drive Atome Safety & Licensing board Oak Rides, Tennessee 37830 Washington, D. C- 20555 Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom 1107 West Knapp Street -
Stillwater, Oklahoma 74075
Dear Administrative Judges:
Subjects in the Matter of Texas Utilities Electric Company, et al.
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Units 1 and 2 Application for an Operating License Docket Nos. 50-445-OL and 50-446-OL
- and Construction Permit Amendment Docket No. 50-445aCPA Information Relevant to Various Motions of Intent to Intervene, etc.
~
ADVANTAGES OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND JOINT STIPULATION
- CASE briefly addresies here a few of the reasons CASE believes it is vitally important for the Board to grant the Joint Stipulation which has been
-of fered and to dismiss these dockets. (There will be other legal arguments made by others, and we are not' attempting to address each and every reason here;*we did, however, want to share our thinking on a few specific points.)
As CASE has told the Board and parties acce time ago, CASE and Messrs. Doyle and Walsh (af ter reviewing what are undoubtedly cons of documents, participating in meetings with engineers and consultants of Applicants, and making plant tours) have reached the point of stating specifically that
' u arding Applicants' plan f'or addressing the piping / pipe support design inwues, ise are ready to state that if Applicants do what they say they are going to do, the way they say they are going to do it, their plan is acceptable to CASE. We have arrived at, or believe we soon will arrive at, similar positions regarding other design issues. (It should be noted that CASE does not consider this a def eat, but rather a victory, not only for us but for the public health and safety.)
1 i I
, --, .---:%- -- n - -- v
,o 1 -
However, we are not yet ready to signtions, of f on implementa plan.to how we can best monitor implementation given our current op fficult Monitoring implementation $n the centext of licensing hearings (and is di if not impossibl*e unless one had access to workers inside the plant localized, E would even in suchIn instances, contrast, the kaowledge obtained wou want to obtain it).
Stipulation provide CASE with an unprecedented opportunity to monito day-to-day activities at the plant.is basically a backward-looking process of current basis-(as opposed to what CASE will be able to have input litigation in the licensive proceedings).the time -- today and in the f uture -- not a and an effect at In addition, we will be able to monitor implementation in a f ar more detailed and completeHaving way than wouldtoever the ability havehave a p.i' been technical possible in the conte of the licensing process. h consultant to go on audits with the utility's auditors, to have t essary same access to documents as the auditors, and copies of any documents t nity which nece
- to do his/her work, is an extraordinary opportunity -- an eppor u CASE will never have unless the Licensing Board dismisses these dockets.
Stipulation npeaks for itself, acd that itl is We We believe that the Jointobvious that there are numerous finalattractive comment f eatures to will heret not repeat all the points again, and will simply make oneCA We have considered our options very five years,. her.
on for at least anoths carefully, and look upon this as replacing one process for anot board CASE and working.
is eager to begin our new role and to get i will our consulta and that if the Board dces not proceed now that such an opportun ty never come again. ,
4 CFUR'S FILING: and " JOHN DOE" i CASE now comes to a more dif ficult portion' of this letter, been which in is be ng provided in accordance with the Board's standing. Order which has eff ect. for years that the parties are to keep the Board informed regardingA matters impcrtant to these proceedings. f have f pleadings filed in response to the recent, flurry of vario d personal knowledge of which I believe I must now inf orm the Boar .
offensive, to CASE and me personally, of There is one filing which is mostis that which is styled " Citizens f or " Fair the various pleadings filed; it 1:
Utility Regulation's Motion to Intervene and f or Sua S 2
---=er***=w e 4.
" Petitioner was a former legal intervenor in the above-captioned proceeding. At the time petitioner (CFUR) withdrew as an intervenor it was inf ormed by Citizens Association for Sound Energy (CASE) that it's (sic) contentions, spe,cifically Contention No. 5, would be fully addressed and litigated by CASE."
The second sentence and its implications are f alse and appear to be deliberately misleading, in several ways. First, CASE never made .uch pronises not did v'e move to adopt any of CFUR's contentions.
Next, with regard to any possible implication thatAsContention 5 was ever the the Board is aware, contention of CTUR alone, this is not correct.conten: ion of all three of the original Contention 5 was the joint _
Intervenors ( ACORG, unich withdrew June 16, 1981; CFUR, which withdrew February 23, 1982; and CASE). In the Board Order Subseouent to the Prehearing Conf erence of April 30, 1980 (June 16, 1980), the Board addressed the proposed contentions of the parties and at page 11 Contention 5 vas a combination of the proposed spe:ifically indicated that "(CTUR 4A-ACORN 14-CASE 19 Joint contentions of all three Intervenors:
Contention)". Thus, contention 5 was always one o' OASE's contentions.
When ACORN, then CFUR, virtually abandoned CASE, Ccqrintion 5 was CASE's alone to pursue as CASE saw fit and to the extent that CASE, as the only Intervenor remaining in the original proceedings f or the past six years (as vc11 as in additional proceedings such as Docket -2 and the CPA Docket),
decided we could and should pursue it.
Another erroneous implication to which we' take strong exception is that CASE has not " fully addressed and litigated" Contention 5. CASE does not believe that anyone who has been involved in the proceedings for the past six years The f act that CFUR insinuates such would accuse CASE of failing to do so.it has not been involved in the proceedings, his not is proof positive th'at to adequately follow the case and inform taken sufficient time or interest itself (despite the f act that CASE has spent much time, noney, and ef f ort in copying and supplying one of CFUR's current spokespersons with many hundreds of pages of. documents). It appears obvious, and we believe it will become the . slightest idea of what has already even more obvious, that CFUR has notThis one aspect alone would undoubtedly been litigated and what has not.
lead to vasted time , energy, effort, and delays f or the Board and all
- -parties were the Boa'rd or the Commission to ever entertain the idea of admitting CFUR again as a party to proceedings on Comanche Peak.
This appears to be borne out by' the 7/11/88 Notice of Withdrawal Without Prejudice of Petitioner " John Doe," which states, in part:
"First, John Doe wanted to enusure (sic) that the ASLB would 'e listen to his substantive quality concerns regarding the Coma Second, John Doe sought to Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES).
protect his rights under, the terms of a confidential settlement agre,e ment which Mr. Doe and his counsel have never seen.
the motions filed by Cit! ens f or Fair "Mr. Doe now maintains that ' Individual Residents' will, Utility Regulation (CFUR) and byallthe of his interests. Throughout if granted, adequately protect these licensing proceedings, Mr. Doe's main interest was to ensure that a f air, impartial and competent tribunal hear his concerns.
3
Due to the filings on behalf of CFUR and tne ' Individual Residents', John Doe has no reason to litigate his contentions directly and can return to his prior role as a witness before the Board." '.
It therefore appears that CFUR and/or the " Individual Residents" will be relying upon the allegations of " John Doe" -- allegations which CASE has reason to believe the Licensing Board, the NRC Staff, and the admitted parties to these proceedings are already f amiliar with. Recent newspaper articles in the local press indicate that " John Doe" may in fact be S.M.A.
Hasan, although CASE cannot be absolutely certain of this. However, if indeed " John Doe" is Mr. Hasan, we call the Board's attention to the fellowing.
Mr. Hasan, who f ormerly worked at Comanche Peak, contacted CASE first after he was laid of f f rom his job. It was CASE which initially typed up the draf t of his concerns and referred him to Ms. Billie Carde of the Government Accountability Project (CAP), to assure that his rights under Department of
~
Labor (DOL) laws could also be protected. CASE and a CAP representative also accompanied Mr. Hasan to meetings with the NRC Staf f on 1/10/86 and 1/30/86 so that he could present his concerns to them. During one of the prehearing conferences (we apologize that we have not yet located the specific citation), Ms. Garde specifically inf ormed that Board that there had been a DOL complaint filed by a former worker (and I believe but am not certain that she specifically identified Mr. Hasan by name at that time) whc alleged that Stone & Webster had rehired many of the former workers at the plant . There were several references by CASE to Mr. Hasan in various
- pleadings (see, for instance 7/6/87 CASE's Supplementary Response to Applicants' Interrogatories to Consolidated Intervenors (Set No.1987-1) and Motion for Protective Order, (CPA), at pages 10, 12, 20 and 21, 24 through 27, 33, 41 and 42, 52, 55 and 56, and especially pages 41, 51, 55; CASE's 1/12/88 Progress Report, at page 4).
Perhaps the most definitive statement of Mr. Hasan's concerns are contained in the 1/6/88 letter from Phillip F. McKee, Deputy Director, Comanche Peak
~
Project Division, NRC Of fice of Special Projects, to Mr. Hasan; Mr. Hasan had requested that 1 send this letter to the Board and af ter some delay his attorney (Michael Kohn at . the time) authorized its release and it was sent
- by CASE to the Board' under cover letter tdated May 17, 1988. (It should be noted that this filing also includes the Applicants' 7/2/87 response.) The concerns of Mr. Hasan are very similar to many of the Walsh/Doyle issues, and CASE believes that the concerns raised by Mr. Hasan have been or are being addressed by the various reinspection programs. Since he has not 4 worked at Comanche Peak since 1085, it is not clear what new concerns he might have which have not already been cohsidered.
Mr. Hasan's DOL hearing was held on 6/22/87. On October 21, 1987, the DOL
, issued a Recommendec Decision and Order; ss Administrative CASE LawBoard, informed the Judgethe
( ALJ)ALJ ruled adversely to Mr. Hasan and dismissed his complaint against all respondents (see Case No. 86-ERA-24, in the Matter of S.M. A. Hasan, Complainant, v. Nuclear Power Services, Inc., Stone &
Webster Engineering Corp. , Texas Utilities Electric Co., Inc. , Respondents).
I am very much concerned about Mr. Hasan. In the past, he had often turned tc me when he was unable to con:act his attorney, and although I was always 4
r . o I
careful not to interf ere with any attorney / client relationship an dwas careful to always point out that I could not give him legal advice, I did try to be there when he needed someone to talk to. However, when I last attempted to contact Mr. Hasan recently, he told me. that I should talk only to his attorney, Mr. Kohn. CASE and I have t,hereicte been unable to contact him since that tiee.
In addition to the above, prior to any consideration of allowing CFUR to again become a party to the proceedinFs, the Board or the Commission should
~
also look at CFUR's track record for the relatively short time it was an intervenor. The fact of the matter is that CFUR, af ter having made some agreements with the Applicants regarding some of its own contentions (see, for instance: Stipulation attached to Applicants' 11/2*/81 Motion f or Dismissal of [CFUR's) Centention 9 on an Expedited Basis; and 1/25/82 board Order Dismissing Contentions 1, 4 and 6, wherein the Board granted CFUR's 1/19/82 motion to wit.hdraw for all purposes its Contentions 4 and 6 and granted the 1/19/82 joint motion,of CFUR and Applicants "to dismiss Contention 1 f rom this proceeding, f ollowing negotiations and an agreement entered into by those parties"), advised the Licensing Board on 2/8/82 by telephone "that for financial reasons, CFUR was withdrawing all of its remaining contentions" (see Board's 2/9/82 Order Cancelling Scheduled Evidentiary Session). g; CASE remembers well how hard it had to fight to attain separate status to pursue discovery on joint Contention 5 (see: CASE's 11/20/80 Motion to Grant CASE Separate intervenor Status; CASE's 11/20/80 Motion to Appoint CASE as Lead Party for Consolidated Contentions; Board's 12/31/80 Memorandum and Order (Rulings on Consolidation of Parties, Appointments of Lead Party-Intervenors, Miscellaneous Motions'and Other Matters); CASE's 7/2B/81 Motion for Board Clarification of Wording of Contention 5; CASE's 11/7/81 (1)
Motion for Reconsideration of Consolidation on Contention 5; and (2)
Transmittal of Additional information). The Board initially appointed ACORN as lead intervenor for Contention 5; af ter ACORN withdrew f rom the proceedings, the Board appointed CFUR lead intervenor for Contention 5 --
over CASE's strenuous objections'.. During,the time when CFUR was lead Intervenor for Contention 5, its performance (for whatever reasons) was -
totally inadequate. Finally, during the 12/1/81 prehearing conference, CASE stated (page 100): , ,-
"MS. ELLIS: .. . I'm talking about the Contention 5 wherein we gave the history of what had happened with it and pointed out that f.or whatever reasons -- from at least December 31st, IS30 through at least October 29th of 1981, there wa's not a single question asked of the Applicants or the NRC Staf f regarding this very important contention, because the Bo*ard has made every other intervenor in these proceedings the lead party on this contention except CASE, and CASE is the only one that ever asked any questions about it." ,.
The Board at that time decoupled CFUR and CASE insof ar as lead intervenor was concerned on discovery, and CASE was finally able to more adequately and actively pursue discovery on Contention S (see 12/1/81 transcrint, page 101); at that time, CFUR also stated that it did intend to remain actively a party participant as to Contention 5 (see 12/1/81 transcript, page 106).
5
, . . . _ _ _ . _ _ __ ,- ._._.-m __ . _ - . . s . _ _
q ,, i However..on 2/23/82, CTUR filed its Motion for Voluntary Withdrawal of Contentions Two, Three, Five and .Seven and additionally requested to
. withdraw'from the proceeding as an active party intervenor.: On 3/S/82, the ,;
Board granted-summary disposition of CTUR's; Contentions Two and Seven (see Board's 3/$/82 Order (Granting- Summary Disposition of Contentions 2 and- 7). .
.And on:3/25/82, the Board- and parties participated in a telephone conference call-(see Board's 4/2/82 Order (Following Conference Call)) wherein the Board granted CFUR's motion for ' withdrawal, ' declined to adopt CFUR's
~ Contention Three. and stated that " Contention Five remains a contention in this' proceeding under the sponsorship of CASE.").
Another very troublesome and misleading aspect of CFUR's filing is the apparent attempt to prove by some sort of non-existent unwritten agreement between_ CASE and CFUR that CASE was somehow obligated to inform CFUR or Lindividuals associated with CFUR that CASE was considering a settlement agreement with TU ' Electric.. This appears to be a deliberate misrepresentation to attempt to insinuate that somehow CASE has broken an agreement by not including CFUR in its settlement discussions and negotiations.- Aside f rom the obvious fact. that had CASE done so there would have been nothing to -talk about and no settlement could ever have been achieved. .the simple f act is that CASE had no such ob?igation. CFUR had sa
, . opportunity to participate fully as an Intervenor Cn the licensing proceedings. Although CASE does not fault CFUA for withdrawinI as it did for financial reasons, neither will CASE a_ low CTUR to unfairly characterize CASE'sTrt ent actions ori to second-guess' CASE regar6f ng matters .about which '
CFUR has little or;no knowledge.
In this regard .thel Board shou $d be aware that at least some representatives of CFUR:and the Fort 1 Worth- Sierra Club were given the opportunity to attend a CASE meeting. CASE sent out a notice on June 11, 1988, which emphasized in the _ strongest possible terms the importance of the meeting. Emphasis was especially given to the following stated purpose of -the meeting:
"For khe- membership to be advised re'garding proposals,
~
- c recommendations . and resolutions which may be made at the CASE Board of Direc, tors' meeting.to be held June 14, 1988; membera may -
s also be-requested to vote on propdsals,' recommendations, or' resolutions by the CASE Board of Directors."
fhe notice also . emphasized that:
"THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT MEETINGS WE'VE EVER RAD."
4 f " DON'T MISS YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE IN DISCUSSING AND MAKING MAJOR DECISIONS REGARDING FUTURE ACTIVITIES AND I
DIRECTIONS CASE .WILL TAKE."
To. nye personal knowledge and belief, both Betty Brink' (propased intervenor CTUR) and Lon Burnam (proposed intervenor Fort Worth Sierra Club), among others, received this notice. However, as .has been the case with very f ew exceptions in the past several years, neither chose to attend this meeting.
In aedition,=on Sunday, July 10, 1988, I personally telephoned Ms. Brink to advise-that CASE .was preoared to rent a conf erence room at the Sheraton Hotel on the evening of Tuesday, July 12, in order to brief her and the Fort 6
y- r --
=--w
p .. a -
Vorth organizations _regarding all those details regarding the agreement which we were able to discuss at that time. Ms. Brink advised that they were-having a meeting that evening and that she would call me, hopefully around 7:30 P.M.- I advised her that we would await her call before making arrangements for the conference room. However, she never called back. On Monday, July ll, I received word from Lon Burnam on my answering machine that he was returning the call on behalf of Ms. Brink and that their attorney had advised that they should not talk with us, but that they would like to resume one-on-one discussions with me (at an unspecified time), and' that I should not take their actions personally.
At the risk (and probably the certainty) of sounding unprofessional, I must ask; where were all these people for the past ten years (fourteen years if you count rate hearings) when CASE needed them? If there are workers with concerns about important safety issues at the plant, where are they? -It is very dif ficult to understand how these people could have trusted CASE and me for all those years and now suddenly seem to believe that we have totally changed and would now do something which we did not believe was truly in the best interests of the public. It hurts me very, very deeply and I'm af raid I cannot help but show it.. If the Board has any additional questions, I request that they address them to the other representatives of CASE.
I also want to take this opportunity to thank the Licensing Board for its patience, its sincere concern and desire to find out what the true condition '
, of Comanche Peak is, and to say that you sure expect a lot from an i Intervenor!
- Respectfully submitted, CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Ene rgy) 4
. cst 2dd krs.)JuanitaEllis u' President cc: Board and admitted parties -- hand-deliv ctd at 7/13/88 prehearing
- conference R"emainder of service list -- first class mail sometime af ter 7 /13 /88
,- prehearing conference o
7
I,' . 1 .,
- ,a i
-j CITIZENS ASSOCIATION FOR SOUND ENERGY- -[ 1 BOARD OF DIRECTORS Proposed Resolutions ,
F The following resolutions were proposed on Tuesday, July 12, 1988 to the C.A.S.E. Board of Directors by David H. and Barbara E. Loltz, of ficers and boardmembers of C.A.S.E.:
I tesolution:
Today, July 12,.1988, it is hereby resolved that the C.A.S.C. Board of-Directors pledges that C. A.S.E. v111 participate fully as an intervenor in the upcoming rate base case before the Public Utility Co:cission of Texas on Comanche Peak.
It is also further resolved that C.A.S.E. v111 also participate fully
- as an intervenor.,in any other rate base case which may be filed later before
) ,'
the. P.U.C. . regarding portions of - CPSES which were not included in- the upcoming rate base case (if any). (E.g., if the utility decides to wait and include Unit 2 in rate base at a later date.)
~
c7.i ' Resolution:.
-Today, July 12,1988, it is. hereby resolved that the C.A.S.E. Board of Directors L has authorized that. the sum of $250,000.00 vill be reserved ex -
- clusively'and specifically to cover' expenses which' vill be incurred in pur--
= suing C. A.S.E.'s intervention in the upcoming rate base case on Comanche Peak.
(Thissumin51udesmoney'forattorneys'feesandexpenses, expert vitness fees .
and expenses, as vell as associated expenses including salaries (to be determined -
'by September 30, 1988 by the Board of Directors) for C. A.S.E. rate base case co-ordinator(s) , and for their expenses associated with pursuing the rate base case.)
-1
. J. .
Proposed Resolutions 7/12/88 Page 2
- Resolution:
Today, July 12, 1988, it is hereby resolved by the C.A.S.E. Board of Directors that, upon notification of the utility's request to load fuel in Unit 1, the C. A.S.E. co-ordinator(s) vill provide the C. A.S.E. Board of Directors with an estimated budget.
It is also further resolved that the C.A.S.E. co-ordinator(s) vill provide the C.A.f Board of Directors with monthly su=. aries of expenditures on the rate L 2 + a1- -f summary of progress on the case.
Y 'esolution:
R Today, July la n eby resolved by the C.A.S.E. Board of Directors that the Bot. . <2.n <.w the authority to authorice additional y expenditures to enable C.A.S.E. to successfully pursue this rate base case before the P.U.C. and, if necessary, before state courts, having been pre-sented with a written report by the C.A.S.E. coordinators explaining the reasons why such additional funds are needed, and what a=ount is required.
W Resolution:
Today, July 12, 1988, it is hereby resolved by the C.A.S.E. Board of Directors that as of August 1,1988, C. A.S.E. rate base co-ordinator(s) vill retain the law firm of Mr. Jin Boyle (Austin. Texas) with an appropriate retainer agreement and a reasonable retainer fee, to represent C.A.S.E. as an intervenor in the upcoming rate base case on Comanche I'eak.
It is further resolved that the C.A.S.E. rate base case co-ordinator(s) shall begin to work with him on developing the case upon notification of the utility's request to load fuel in Unit 1.
A
o f.. w Proposed Resolutions 7/12/88-Page 3
)
dr , Re sciution:
Today, July 12, 1988, it is hereby resolved that the Treasurer of C. A.S.E.
vill file a detailed monthly Treasurer's report to the Board of Directors regarding the status of all C.A.S.E. acaounts, and summarizing all expenses, income and interest received, etc. In addition, the Treasurer vill list all payments to individuals, by name, with a brief description of the reason (e.g. ,
reimbursement of expenses, salary for the month of , etc.), and the date(s).
$$ Resolution:
Today, July 12, 1988, it is hereby resolved by the C.A.S.E. Board of Directors that, upon receipt of all submittals by C. A.S.E. boardmembers for requests for reimbursement of back-salary and/or expenses or associated with the settlement agreement
, payments of any type j , the Board will consider and reviev each submittal.
Board approval of all such requests for reimbursement is required.
It is further resolved that upon Board approval of all requests for reimbursement or for payments of any type associated with the settlement agreement, the C. A.S.E. Treasurer will prepare and deliver a written report *
~
to the Board 4'a complete su= mary, by name, of all amounts received and/or to be received over a period of t. a- by each boardmember, with.a brief notation and breakdown of total a=ounts into appropriate categories (e.g. ,
repayment of loan to C.A.S.E., interest on loan, etc.).
It is further resolved that this written report ivill be submitted to the Board for its approval and, upon approval, will be released to the mem-bership and to the public.
- NOTE: It is assumed that the CPA vill assist the Treasurer in this.
O
.o..,w
! . Proposed Resolutions 7/12/88 Page 4
)
- k. Resolution:
Today, July 12, 1988, it is hereby resolved by the C.A.S.E. Board of and/or offers by C.A.S.E. to Directors that, upon receiving all requests from various other groups and individuals to whom C. A.S.E. determined to reimburse for expenses, etc.
at its June 14, 1988 board meeting (i.e., other than C.A.S.E. boardmembers) the Board of Director shall consider and review each such submittal.
Board approval of the final amount of each such submittal and/or request for reimbursement is required.
It is further resolved that, upon Board approval of all such requests, sabmittals, etc. , the C.A.S.E. Treasurer will prepare and deliver to the Board a complete su= mary, by name and/or group, of all arounts disbursed I. to each individual and/or group, with a brief notation and breakdown of total amounts into appropriate categories (e.g. , legal salaries, legal expenses, etc.). (NOTE: It is assumed that the CPA vill assist the Treasurer in this.)
It is further resolved that, this written report will be submitted to I
'the Board for its approval and, upon such approval, udll be released to the membership and to the public.
7' Resolution:
Today, July 12, 1988, it is hereby resolved that on or before September 30, 1988, C.A.S.E. will hold a meeting in Dallas for its members - - who will be duly notified by first-class mail at least two weeks in advance.
It is further resolved that the members will be given an opportunity at this meeting to become informed on C. A.S.E. 's current roles with the 0.R.C.
and in the upcoming rate base case on CPSESjebC-(NOTE: It is felt that, now that the complete settlement package has been made public, the members need a chance now to discuss C. A.S.E.'s future.) .
___ _