ML20107B115

Opposition to Case Motion for Production of Documents Re Termination of J Cole.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20107B115
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	10/30/1984
From:	BISHOP, COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
To:	Citizens Association for Sound Energy
Shared Package
ML20107B092	List: ML20107B100 ML20107B115 ML20107B125
References
OL-2, NUDOCS 8411020081
Download: ML20107B115 (5)

Text

. - ~ = ~ . c -- -

--.a~-.u-=....-.. w.-.-.-...---..~

REUJED CCT;Tc ;;;T.'CE CKET DC,ypp;ED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '84 00T 31 P1250 BEFORE- THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD -t : ,,

s.. ~.9,y:

vro In the Matter of )

)

TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING ) Docket Nos. 50-445-2 COMPANY, et al. ) 50-446-2

)

(Comanche Peak Steam Electric )

Station, Units 1 and 2) )

OPPOSITION TO CASE'S MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Applicants oppose CASE's motion for production of documents concerning the termination of James Cole. The motion aserts two bases for CASE's " good faith" belief that Mr. Cole was terminated for document falsification and argues that the discovery it seeks is "potentially" important to CASE's contention that Ms. Neumeyer improperly was pressured into signing-off missing hold points on the liner plate travelers. CASE's assertions are groundless, and its argument falls of its own weight.

The two bases for CASE's contentions concerning Mr. Cole's termination are: the unfounded speculation of a " CASE document reviewer" that Mr. Cole was terminated for falsification of docu-ments and an internal Brown & Root memorandum summarizing an investigation of allegations made by Avril Dillingham, Jr., a former employee at the site. The speculation of the unnamed reviewer cannot support CASE's position; indeed, it's not evidence 8411020081 841031 PDR ADOCK 05000445 9 PDR

, l 4

_2-

- of anything, and it-must be. disregarded by-the Board. The inves- j 1

. tigative report cited'by CASE actually undercuts its position. In

' pertinent.part, the report. states:

Mr.;Dillingham told ns he knew of only one i specific instance, described below, where

' documentation could not be produced.to verify a hold point. He was careful to state in the interview that even this one incident did not involve " false documentation," as alleged in the letter. Mr. Dillingham cited no instance l of' false documentation during the interview.

The only specific incident cited by Mr.

!- Dillingham in the interview involved an NCR written by James Cole, B&R QC inspector. Mr. ,

-Dillingham said that in the incident in ques-tion,.a stainless hanger had been hung over ,

the weld, covering it up. When Mr. Cole went to' the weld location for final inspection, he could not find the traveler verifying that a previous-weld inspection had been performed.

Atithe time, the traveler had been temporarily misplaced by the Boilermaker department.

Since--Mr. Cole did not have the traveler to verify that a-previous inspection had been

~

performed, he properly wrote-an NCR, requiring removal of.the. hanger and reinspection of the

' weld. Thus, although Mr. Dillingham was apparently concerned about the misplaced traveler, he believed that B&R QC (Mr. Cole) responded in accordance with procedure, and Mr. Dillingham stated to us that no problem exists today with the weld. ,

. Attachment to CASE's Motion, p. 20. .

This report clearly does not support CASE's " contention" that

'Mr.-Cole falsified documents. To the contrary, it states unequiv-ocally that Mr. Dillingham does not know of any misconduct by Mr.

' Cole, and, thus,-it cannot provide the factual predicate for the discovery CASE is seeking.

i r

i L

m __ _ _ . .. . _ . _ . _ _ _.__._ _ ,._ _- - _ . _ _ _ _ t _ __.;

- < Finally, CASE argues that the discovery it seeks is "poten-tially" important to CASE's contention concerning Ms. Neumeyer.

CASE's argument, however, is unavailing. In contrast to Ms.

Neumeyer, who.was asked to update certain travelers based on inspections completed and verified by other inspectors, Mr. Cole actually performed the inspections and signed the travelers based on his own work. This critical difference in the functions performed by the two inspectors vitiates CASE's argument that the reasons for Mr. Cole's termination will "shed important light" in the.Neumeyer controversy.

-This Board was convened to adjudicate the issue of whether there was pervasive harassment and intimidation of Quality Control Inspectors. In a 2-1 decision, the Board permitted CASE to raise new contentions concerning the liner plate travelers. CASE's

-current motion is nothing more than an attempt to digress even further from the harassment and intimidation issue. As such, the motion should be denied.

Respectfully submitted, Bruce L. Downey BISHOP, LIBERMAN, COOK, PURCELL &

REYNOLDS 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 857-9800 Counsel for Applicant October 30, 1984

w. .

-m___.___-.,-_..___ . _____._.__;-_-

DCLKETED UStGC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSI Mn 31 Pl2:51 .

.1 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY'AND LICEMSING(BOARD

. . . . . a u .c ,

In the Matter'of

~

)

, )

TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC ) Docket Nos. 50-445-2 and COMPANY, et --

al. ) 50-446-2 (Comanche Peak _ Steam Electric ) (Application for Station, Units 1 and 2) ) Operating Licenses)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I_hereby certify that copies of the foregoing " Opposition To

' CASE's Motion For Production Of Documents" in the above-captioned matter-were served upon the following persons by hand-delivery en October 31 1984, or by overnight delivery,* or deposit in the United' States mail,** first class, postage prepaid, this 31st day of October, 1984:

PeterfB. Bloch, Esq. ** Chairman, Atomic Safety and Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission- Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. William L. Clements

• Dr. Walter H. Jordan' Docketing & Services Branch 881 West Outer Drive U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Herbert Grossman, Esq. .

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Stuart A. Treby, Esq.

Commission Office of the Executive Washington,-D.Cl 20555 .

Legal Director C. 9. Nuclear Regulatory

• • Mr. Robert D. Martin Co amission Regional Administrator Washington, D. C. 20555 Region IV U.S. Nuclear Regulatory ** Chairman,- Atomic Safety and Commission Licensing Board Panel 611 Ryan Plaza Drive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Suite.1000 Commission Arlington, Texas 76011 Washington, D.C. 20555

p.- ~ -w _ . _ ...:.._.:.__.___.._.__..

. ._ _ s . _ _..___..___.-_)

• • Renea. Hicks,' Esq. Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.

Assistant Attorney' General Executive Director Environmental Protection _ Trial Lawyers for Public Justice Division 2000 P. Street, N.W.

P.O. Box 12548 Suite 600 Capitol' Station Washington, D. C. 20036 Austin, Texas 78711 Ellen Ginsberg, Esq.

• • Mrs.'Juanita_Ellis Atomic Safety and Licensing President, CASE Board Panel 1426 South Polk Street U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Dallas, Texas 75224 Commission Washington, D. C. 20555

/

ITruce L. Downey cc: John W. Beck Robert Wooldridge, Esq.

e pr+--w=,c-w,-w-,,m~,,<we.,--,,,.-m, ,,y,,,,, , , _ ,, , , , _ , , ., , .