ML20112C992
| ML20112C992 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 01/07/1985 |
| From: | Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20112C990 | List: |
| References | |
| (LBP-84-54), OL, NUDOCS 8501110507 | |
| Download: ML20112C992 (54) | |
Text
-
1/7/85 MfED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING B0hE JNJ ll gg In the Matter of i
DocketrNos. 50-445 d0bisd 50,ig6iAP l
s kV!CF TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC i
faMy COMPANY, et al.
l l
(Applicationforan (Comanche Peak Steam Electric
{
Operating License)
Station, Units 1 and 2) l CASE'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF BOARD'S 12/18/84 MEMORANDUM (CONCERNING WELDING ISSUES)
CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy), Intervenor herein, finds it necessary to file this, its Motion for Reconsideration of Board's 12/18/84 Memorandum (Concerning Welding Issues) (LBP-84-54) g/.
BACKGROUND In filing this Motion for Reconsideration, CASE recognizes that the Board has stated, in its Memorandum on page 1:
"... In deliberating on what we have heard [in the hearings on.
welding issues raised by Henry and Darlene Stiner], we have reluctantly come to the conclusion that neither of the Stiners is a credible witness.
"Our conclusion about the Stiners' credibility is more fully explained in the body of our opinion.
. As a result of reaching this conclusion about the Stiners' credibility, we have found it appropriate to use Applicants' proposed partial initial decision as the framework within which to write our decision.
-/1/ On 12/28/84, CASE and Applicants sought extensions of time in which to file Motions for Reconsideration of the Board's 12/18/84 Memoranda (Concerning Welding Issues) and (Reopening Discovery; Misleading Statement), respectively. Judge Bloch granted both extensions, with pleadings to be put in the mail on 1/7/85.
85011105078501b7 PDR ADOCK 05000445 0
pg 1
a
g Obviously, the Board relied upon Applicants' proposed partial initial decision based on the assumption that it could safely rely upon Applicants' pleading to contain accurate representations of the record of these proceedings.
It is very unfortunate that the Board chose to so rely upon the good faith of Applicants and Applicants' counsel in this regard, because, as discussed herein, the Board's confidence in Applicants was misplaced.
In addition, because of a peculiar and unfortunate series of events, CASE was not as helpful regarding the proposed welding findings as we would like to have been.
We again call the Board's attention to the fact that CASE's primary representative, CASE President Juanita Ellis, was working on a pleading related to the Walsh/Doyle design allegations (Richmond inserts, which CASE considers to be one of the 'most important of the design issues) at the time CASE's 9/9/84 Proposed Findings of Fact on Welding Issues had to be filed; the filing on the Richmond inserts had to be filed on 9/10/84.
CASE pleaded with the Board for additional time in which to file our response on the Richmond inserto; however, the Board accepted the representation of Applicants' counsel that there were no significant matters raised during meetings held between the NRC Staff and the Applicants regarding Walsh/Doyle issues. CASE was placed in the untenable situation of having to choose between filing our answer on Richmond inserts on time or making complete and adequate welding findings. As we stated under GENERAL DISCUSSION, page 1, first paragraph, of CASE's 9/9/84 Proposed Findings of i
Fact on Welding Issues:
?
i 2
)
" CASE has been unable to adequately complete our welding findings due to the work load currently being experienced. Although we have had several volunteers helping. prepare summaries to assist CASE's primary representative, Mrs. Ellis, in the preparation of these findings (and she has also been working on them), there is simply no one else in CASE except Mrs. Ellis who has the background to know how to combine the-findings into a cohesive overall picture for the Board.
Similarly, and at the same time, she has found it necessary to devote her time to assisting Mr. Walsh in preparing CASE's answer to the Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition on Richmond Inserts, which CASE and Mr.
Walsh consider to be one of the most important of CASE's design issues.
It is due to be mailed Monday, 9/10/84... "
CASE made the difficult decision to complete our pleading on the Richmond inserts (which was a mammoth effort, as anyone who has reviewed that pleading can attest), while at the same time attempting to work in what we could on the welding findings. We made this decision based on the fact that at least the welding information was already in the record of the proceedings, whereas the information on the Richmond inserts was not.
This was a decision which we should not have been forced to make, as was indirectly recognized later by the Licensing Board. The Board has since found (Board's 10/31/84 Memorandum (Multiple Filings), page 2):
"... we have now obtained and read the transcripts of the August 8, 9 and 23 meetings between Staff and Applicants. Our understanding of these meetings leaves us without any rational explanation of how Applicants could have come to assure this Board that there were no significant matters raised in those meetings.
"Under the circumstances, we should not have required CASE to respond to summary disposition motions with respect to which the Staff has serious doubts. We required CASE to do so based on Applicants' representations that significant matters were not involved. Hence, we unnecessarily subjected CASE to a time deadline and to the likely need to make multiple filings.
(First emphasis in the original; second emphasis added.)
However, as pointed out in CASE's 11/15/84 Motion for Reconsideration of Board's 10/31/84 Memorandum (Multiple Filings), the damage to CASE was 3
1 i
far more serious and extended to CASE's proposed welding findings as well.
As discussed in that Motion (page 14; see full discussion at pages 14 through first paragraph on page 17):
"... the damage to CASE has been far greater than indicated by the Board in the preceding and does not apply only to the design / design OA issues. CASE was also forced to forego filing complete and adequate welding findings because we had to make a decision between the welding findings and our Answer to Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition on Richmond inserts. Had we not had to answer Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition on Richmond inserts at the particular time we did, we would have had enough time to more adequately complete our proposed welding finndings; as it was, we did not have sufficient time, and due to the pressoof other deadlines, we were unable even to file responses to Applicants' and NRC Staff's proposed welding findings."
And, as we stated at pages 16 and 17 of that pleading:
"The only adequate remedy to this damage to CASE, which was the direct result of Applicants' deliberate misrepresentations to the Board, would be to allow CASE to supplement its proposed welding findings. However, such a remedy is impossible and worthless if it must run concurrently with the other deadlines and work load CASE is under regarding the design / design 0A issues.
. This is necessarily true because at least the information on the welding issues is already in the record; therefore, any time there must be-a choice between proposed welding findings and new information (not already in the record) regarding design / design OA issues, CASE must choose the design / design OA issues.:
"It cannot be argued, in one sense of the word, that CASE should be allowed.to supplement our Proposed Findings of: Fact and Conclusions of Law Regarding Welding Issues in order to conplete the record; obviously, what's in the record, is in the record already.~ However, there is another compelling reason for allowing CASE to so supplement: '
to assist the Board. Without such suppler.entation by CASE, the Board will have to engage in a much more detailed, exacting scrutiny of the record to be certain that its decision does not leave out important points.
" CASE therefore moves that, as a partial remedy to the damage done to CASE by Applicants' deliberate misrepresentations to the Board, the Board allow CASE an additional ~ twenty days in which to supplement CASE's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Regarding Welding Issues. Further, CASE moves that this additional time be time set aside for this specific purpose, without the clock's running on other matters (such as design / design 0A p1 endings); this would be similar to the time set aside by the Board during hearings."
4 l
l
We call the Board's attention to the fact that, again due to the work load regarding Walsh/Doyle pleadings, Mrs. Ellis not only did not have time to respond to the Proposed Findings of Applicants or NRC Staff, she did no more than quickly glance at them when they were received. CASE did not expect the Board to rely upon Applicants' Proposed Findings when it issued its own findings. It was not until the Board's Order was received on 12/19/84 f2/, with the Board's notation that it was using Applicants' proposed findings as the framework for the Board's decision, that Mrs. Ellis reviewed Applicants' proposed findings in more detail.
As discussed herein, the combination of these events has resulted in the Board's having made findings -- based on the representations of Applicants' counsel in Applicants' 9/7/84 Proposed Findings -- which are erroneous and not supported by the record in some instances and which have unnecessarily and irrevocably damaged not only CASE's witnesses, but the credibility of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the entire regulatory process as well.
It is therefore even more imperative now that the Board allow CASE to assist the Board by pointing out specific errors and misstatements in the Board's Memorandum which have occurred due to these unusual circumstances.
/2/ CASE left word for the Board late on the afternoon of 12/19/84 that we had not received pages 43 through 56 of the Board's MEMORANDUM and requested that those pages be supplied to CASE. We received those pages on 12/24/84.
5
I DISCUSSION OF SPECIFIC PORTIONS OF BOARD'S MEMORANDUM We will refer to these items by the page number on which they occur in the Board's MEMORANDUM.
The first matter concerns a paragraph in the Board's Memorandum which included specific details which should never have been included it the Board's Memorandum to begin with, according to the Board's own specific orders.
It is therefore CASE's position that our discussion and any responses by Applicants or the NRC Staff should be held 131 camera. CASE has attempted to obtain a commitment from the parties tha.t the information regarding this item will be retained JJ1 camera by counsel for Applicants, NRC Staff, and the State of Texas, and not be discussed or revealed, directly or indirectly, by them to their clients. Counsel for the NRC Staff have agreed (at least for now); we are still discussing this with Applicants' counsel, and have not yet been able to discuss it with the State of Texas. Ve will advise the Board further regarding this under separate letter to which will be attached the ff! camera information. Assuming we can reach agreement, we will be sending copies of this confidential iJt camera information only to the Licensing Board, the Appeal Board, and attorneys for the parties, in a separate package marked " CONFIDENTIAL" (the only appropriate rubber stamp we could find).
The discussion is contained on pages 7 through 19 of this pleading.
6
Pages 7 through 19 of this pleading are a camera -- for official use only Copies of those pages are being supplied under separate cover to the Licensing Board, the Appeal Board, and the counsel of parties who have indicated they will hold those pages and any subsequent discussion in confidence absent an order to the contrary from the Licensing Board.
7
A Page 1, third paragraph:
The Board found that Henry Stiner was discharged from Comanche Peak because of absenteeism, not because he reported a gouge in a pipe to a QC inspector. The Board stated:
"... we find that Henry Stiner had a long-standing absentee problem at work and that he was discharged from the plant because of his absenteeism, not because he gave-information to a QC inspector about a gouge in a pipe preceding the three day absence that precipitated his termination..."
The Board's ruling in this regard was premature and inappropriate, since.this was to have been considered in the intimidation portion of these proceedings, and not in regard to the welding issues.
CASE discussed this matter in its Proposed Findings in a very general way under GENERAL DISCUSSION, page 6 continued on page 7; and specifically in regard to DOWNHILL WELDING only, page 11-1 and II-2.
CASE stated on page 11-2, first paragraph:
"This will be discussed further in CASE's Expected Findings of Fact regarding the Intimidation portion of the hearings, and we are only addressing it here insofar as the downhill welding aspect is concerned." (Emphasis added.)
It was also the NRC Staff's understanding that this issue was_to be addressed in the Intimidation portion of the hearings, and in their 9/28/84 Response to Applicants' and CASE's Findingssof Fact on Weld Fabrication, the Staff stated (page 6, IV.1):
" CASE devotes a significant portion of its proposed findings on downhill welding to a discussion of-the circumstances surrounding the alleged unlawful termination of Henry Stiner. CASE Finding of Fact, Part II at 1.
The Staff notes, however, that while the circumstances of Mr. Stiner's termination may be considered in the ' intimidation' portion of this proceeding, this matter is not at issue in this portion of the proceeding and thus evidence relating to that matter is irrelevant in this portion of the proceeding." (Emphasis added.)
20
m a
i There were extensive evidentiary depositions taken as part of the
' Intimidation portion of these proceedings, including that of Mr. Stiner.
In I
this portion of the proceedings, CASE has not addressed the evidence taken in the other side of the hearings.
(We have not, in fact, even thoroughly reviewed the depositions from the Intimidation portion of the proceedings.)
It should also be noted that the Board itself, in its Memorandum, offered no discussion or transcript citations in support of its conclusion.
It does not appear to CASE to be appropriate for the Board to make findings without citing the specific basis for them.
CASE has no way of knowing the basis for the Board's conclusion and cannot adequately address it.
For the reasons discussed in the preceding, CASE moves that the Board reconsider this portion of its MEMORANDUM and defer any ruling regarding whether or not Henry Stiner was terminated for reporting a gouge in a pipe:
until the Board issues its findings regarding the Intimidation portion of the hearings.
In addition, CASE moves that the Board exclude its-stated adverse finding and its implications from its consideration of Henry Stiner's credibility in this portion of the proceedings.
21
Page 6. second full paragraph:
The Board found that:
"Mr. C. T. Brandt is the QA Staff Engineer at CPSES... (Applicants Exhibit 141 at Attachment A.)"
While the Board's finding in this regard is accurate to the extent that Mr. Brandt's title at Comanche Peak is "0A Staff Engineer," it is also misleading, since Mr. Brandt is not an engineer.
The document referenced in support of this statement (Applicants' l
l Exhibit 141, Attachment A), which was part of Applicants' preflied direct testimony for the September 1982 hearings, does not indicate that Mr. Brandt is the "0A Staff Engineer." In Applicants' Exhibit 141, Attachment A, it states, in pertinent part:
" POSITION: Mechanical / Civil QA/0C Supervisor, TUGC0
" EDUCATION:
BA - Biological Sciences, 1974 All course work complete for MA - Zoology, 1976 University of Missouri
" EXPERIENCE:
1980 - Present
" Principal Quality Assurance Specialist, Ebasco Services, Inc., New York, N. Y., under contract to Texas Utilities, Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Glen Rose, Texas. Currently assigned as Mechanical / Civil QA/0C Supervisor, responsible for all Non-ASME Mechanical and Civil Quality Control Activities to assure compliance with specifications, Code, and Regulatory requirements. Responsibility for reviewing and approving inspection methods and has overall responsibility for training, staffing and personnel development of Civil and Mechanical inspection and QA personnel."
in his prefiled rebuttal testimony during the welding hearings in February and March, 1984, Mr. Brandt did not indicate that there was any change in either his educational or professional qualifications or that he 22
0 had subsequently become an engineer except in title; he testified (/4/, page 1):
"I am the QA Staff Engineer at Comanche Peak. My educational and professional qualifications are attached to Applicants' Exhibit 141 which was previously received into evidence."
Further, the word " Engineer" is misleading to anyone reading the record, since Mr. Brandt is not an engineer.
(It is also CASE's understanding that Mr. Brandt testified in the Intimidation portion of these proceedings that he is not an engineer.)
It is important that this be noted in the Board's findings so that the proper weight will be given to Mr.
Brandt's testimony regarding welding (as well as other) issues. Since this statement is contained in a Board Memorandum, which Elves added weight and credibility to the statement, subsequent reviewers of the record of these proceedings (such as an Appeals Board, the NRC Commissioners, or Appeals Courts) might well be misled and give more weight to Mr. Brandt's testimony 2
than is warranted and misinterpret the record to mean that Mr. Brandt is indeed an engineer.
For the reasons discussed in the preceding, CASE moves that the Board reconsider the wording of this portion of its findings, and that the wording be changed to:
"Although he is not an engineer. Mr. C. T. Brandt is the QA Staff Engineer at CPSES."
/4/ Applicants' Exhibit 177, Rebuttal Testimony of W. E. Baker, C. T.
Brandt, M. D. Huscente, F. E. Coleman, C. R. Brown, J. D. Creen, J. E.
Ha11 ford, I. Pickett, A. M. Braumuller, and S. Fernandez Regarding Allegations of D. Stiner and H. Stiner Concerning Weave Welding, Welding of Misdrilled Holes, Downhill Welding, and Weld Rod Control, received into evidence and bound in following Tr. 9976.
23
o Page 10, second paragraph:
The Board's MEMORANDUM states:
"Mr. Stiner's testimony also indicates that he has had a tendency to elaborate on testimony adverse to Applicants as the proceeding progresses. For example, in earlier testimony filed in this proceeding, Mr. Stiner stated that he performed welds on misdrilled holes several times (CASE Exhibit 666 at 18).
In subsequent testimony Mr. Stiner changed from several repair welds on misdrilled holes to at least 20 or 30 such welds (CASE Exhibit 919 at 22) and during redirect examination Mr. Stiner testified that he performed hundreds of ' plug welds' throughout the plant (Tr. 10672).
Mr. Stiner subsequently testified that he had performed 20 or 30 plug welds in a single day (Tr. 10699-70)."
The manner in which Applicants worded this portion of their Proposed Findings (which the Board relied upon in its MEMORANDUM) is deliberately misleading. Applicants have misrepresented the record of these proceedings to the Board; the citations referenced by Applicants in their Proposed Findings (on which the Board relied in its MEMORANDUM) do not support the implications and some of the statements made by Applicants.
With regard to Applicants' statement that Mr. Stiner had a tendency to elaborate on testimony adverse to Applicants as the proceeding progressed, it must be remembered that the 1984 welding hearings were in effect an opportunity for Applicants to relitigate and answer in the record Applicants' deficiencies of proof.
It could be said that Applicants also
" elaborated" on their previous testimony -- to the point that they had many additional witnesses to support Applicants' position who had never even testified before.
However, it is obvious that Applicants' primary reason for the first sentence of the referenced paragraph was to introduce distorted examples 24
o designed to deliberately mislead the Board. The clear intent and i
implication of this clever but deliberately misleading wording is that Mr.
Stiner changed his testimony several times regarding this subject, and that he kept expanding and increasing the numbers to make Applicants look bad, starting off by saying that he made what are commonly known as " plug welds" (repair welds on misdrilled holes) several times, then later changing the number to 20 or 30 such welds, t' in changing the number to hundreds of such welds; and that he later testitaed that he had actually performed 20 or 30 plug welds in a single day.
As demonstrated by the following discussion of what is actually in the record, Applicants have misrepresented the record to the Board.
- Further, such misrepresentation had to have been deliberate, since one only has to actually read the transcript pages cited by Applicants to arrive at the true picture. We will address these in the order of Applicants' transcript citations.
CASE Exhibit 666 at 18 (Tr. 4220):
It is important to note Mr.
Stiner's testifying in these proceedings was triggered by the handling by NRC Region IV of his and Mrs. Stiner's concerns, and that this portion of Mr. Stiner's testimony in the September 1982 hearings dealt with inaccuracies and/or omissions in I&E Report 81-12 (Staff Exhibit 170,.
He testified at Tr. 4219/19-4220/13:
"Q: Did you have problems with regard to (the accuracy of] Allegation 2 in I&E Report 81-12 (Staff Exhibit 178), beginning on page 666D-12 of CASE's Exhibit?
25
r s
"A:
Yes. Allegation No. 2 states ' Holes are drilled in various types of pipe' supports, cable tray supports, and plates, and when, on occasion, they are found to have been drilled in the incorrect location the holes are filled, utilizing an illegal plug weld.'
And under
' Investigative Findings,' it is stated:
'... Individual A [Mr. Stiner]
was interviewed and stated that holes are drilled in pipe supports and cable tray supports to facilitate bolting them in place.
He stated that on occasions when it is determined that the hole was drilled in the incorrect location, it is filled in utilizing a plug weld.
He stated that another hole is then drilled in the proper location on the component.
Individual A stated he had the impression, based on comments made by various supervisors, that plug welding was not an accepted practice.'
"This does not accurately reflect what I told the investigator. As indicated in his notes on 666D-12, I also told him in answer to his question as to what would happen if I did get caught making a plug weld that anyone who got ' caught by QC will get written up.'
I also told him 'I've done this several times myself,' and that my foremen even stood around and watched for OC.
I told him that I 'know some are in the North Spreader Rm' (in the Auxiliary Building)..." (Emphases added.)
The portions in Mr. Stiner's testimony which are at issue here are supported by I&E Report 81-12 (NRC Staff Exhibit 178) and the NRC investigator's " sanitized" back-up notes (CASE Exhibit 666C-11, to which CASEExhibit666D-12refersf5/). A review of those docume'ts indicates that the I&E Report did not include the fact that Mr. Stiner had told the investigator that he (Mr. Stiner) had made illegal plug welds several times himself or that Mr. Stiner had identified to the NRC investigator a specific
~
f5/ CASE Exhibits 666, 666C, and 666D were accepted into evidence at Tr.
4202. CASE Exhibit 666D was prepared by CASE, then reviewed by Mr.
Stiner, in an attempt to bring together the contents of the I&E Report regarding Mr. and Mrs. Stiner's allegations to the NRC and of the NRC Investigator's " sanitized" ba:k-up notes, in one place for the convenience of the Board and all parties.
(See Tr. 4205/15-24.)
(Unfortunately, this appeart to have been more confusing than helpful.)
Mr. Stiner referred extensively to pages of CASE Exhibit 666D in his testimony; however, the documents which are of importance are the NRC investigation report (I&E Report 81-12, Staff Exhibit 178) and the NRC Investigator's " sanitized" back-up notes for I&E Report 81-12 (CASE Exhibit 666C), which are referenced in CASE Exhibit 666D.
26
T location where Mr. Stiner knew such illegal plug welds had been done (the North Spreader Room) -- although the NRC investigator's " sanitized" back-up notes clearly indicate that Mr. Stiner did tell the NRC investigator these things. During his discussion with the NRC investigator, it is apparent that Mr. Stiner did not attempt to quantify the specific number of plug welds he had performed, but simply stated that "I've done this several times myself" and that he knew some were in the North Spreader Room.
In his 2/7/84 prefiled testimony f6/, Mr. Stiner did attempt to quantify the number of plug welds he had made in the cable spread room. He stated (CASE Exhibit 919, page 22, excerpted from lines 10-15):
"I don't remember if I made it clear that these plug welds [which Mr.
Stiner's foreman, Fred Coleman, had instructed him to make) were made in the cable spread room; I made 20 or 30 at least. There were never any QC inspectors present before or after and my foreman would run watch for QC while we did them. I also made plug welds in other safety-related areas in the plant."
(Emphases added.)
In Applicants' Proposed Findings, the clear implication is that first Mr. Stiner said he made at least 20 or 30 illegal plug welds, then later he said he made hundreds throughout the plant. However, it is clear from the above-quoted testimony (including the use of the semi-colon in the first sentence) that when Mr. Stiner stated that he had made 20 or 30 at least, he was referring only to the cable spread room. Applicants conveniently omitted this fact. Applicants' statements are misleading.
Further, Applicants ignore the fact that Mr. Stiner stated at that time (in his 2/7/84 prefiled testimony) that he had also made plug welds in f 6/ CASE Exhibit 919, bound in* following Tr.10,333.
27
other safety-related areas of the plant; they give the erroneous impression that he changed the number from 20 or 30 plug welds to hundreds.
Applicants' statements are again misleading.
It is important to note here that Applicants cite Tr. 10672 to support their statement that "during redirect examination Mr. Stiner testified that he performed hundreds of ' plug welds' throughout the plar.t" as though his testimony at Tr.10672 conflicted with his earlier 2/7/84 prefiled testimony
-- while at the same time ignoring the fact that Mr. Stiner, in his previous 2/7/84 testimony, had specifically stated that "I also made plug welds in other safety-related areas in the plant," (although at that time he did not attempt to make an estimate of the number of plug welds he had made in other safety-related areas in the plant). Applicants' representations are misleading.
Further, at Tr. 10672 -- which is specifically referenced by Applicants
-- Mr. Stiner testified (lines 1 through 8):
"BY MR. HACER:
"0: Do you have any other basis for your opinion that these welds were illegal?
"At Other than the fact that I have done several, or I'm going to say 25 or 30 in this cable spreader room, and hundreds all over the plant that have never had any kind of engineering judgment, documentation, or QC verification." (Esphasis added.)
It is clear from the above that, to Mr. Stiner, the 25 or 30 to which he referred was merely a clarification of, and attempt to quantify, the "several" he had originally stated he had performed in the cable spreader l
28
T room. The most detrimental implication which can be drawn from this is that perhaps Mr. Stiner does not understand the word "several" to mean (as defined in the dictionary): an indefinite number, more than two but not very many. Even this is arguable, however, since it is also possible that Mr.
Stiner did not consider 25 or 30 to be very many when compared with the total number of illegal plug welds which have been performed at Comanche Peak. The Board cannot know exactly what his thinking was regarding this, because nobody -- including Applicants' counsel -- asked him to explain it at the time.
Contrary to the implication by Applicants, it is obvious -- when Mr.
Stiner's testimony is taken in context, including relevant and material statements which Applicants conveniently omitted -- that Mr. Stiner did not change his testimony as he went along, nor is his testimony inconsistent.
To the contrary, it is clear in the record that, in the very instances cited by Applicants (which conveniently omitted statements contrary to Applicants' position), Mr. Stiner merely attempted to further clarify his testimony by trying to give an idea of the specific numbers involved, whereas in his earlier testimony, where he was discussing what he had told the NRC investigator, he was less specific. There is nothing inconsistent or wrong with this.
CASE submits that the citations referenced by Applicants in their Proposed Findings (on which the Board relied in its HEMORANDUM) do not 29
support the implications and some of the statements made by Applicants, and that Applicants' representations to the Board in this paragraph are deliberately misleading. Therefore, CASE moves that the Board reconsider this portion of its MEMORANDUM and so find.. CASE further moves that the Board exclude its stated adverse finding and its implications from its consideration of Henry Stiner's credibility in this portion of the proceedings.
(CASE will address Applicants' statement that "Mr. Stiner subsequently testified that he had performed 20 or 30 plug welds in a single day (Tr.
10699-70)" beginning on the next page, when we discuss page 59 of the Board's MEMORANDUM.)
)
I h
f-i I
30
a Page 10. last sentence of second paragraphs and page 59 and first full paragraph of page 60; re: Welding of Misdrilled Moles:
The Board stated, on page 10, last sentence of second paragraph:
"Mr. Stiner subsequently testified that he had performed 20 or 30 plug welds in a single day (Tr. 10699-70)."
We will address this as part of the following discussion.
In the portion of the Board's MEMORANDUM on page 59 and the first full paragraph of page 60, although the Board references many of the same citations and in some instances the wording is similar, it appears that the Board has used wording which is different from that of the Applicants (or the NRC Staff). Of particular concern to CASE is that portion of the Board's MEMORANDUM which states:
"The one overriding factor regarding the Board's decision involves Mr.
Stiner's incredible statement that a 1 1/4 inch hole in two inch thick material (on which he allegedly welded many times (Tr. 10683-84)) could be easily welded in about two minutes (excluding the blending of the weld with surface material (Tr. 10698-9)), and it would only require two weld rods to complete (Tr. 11158)."
The Board then discusses the testimony of Applicants' and NRC Staff's witnesses, which seems to indicate that it would be impossible to do what Mr. Stiner stated he did. The Board then states (page 60):
"Mr. Stiner's sworn testimony on this point is not accurate and reliable. The board believes that any welder who had ever weld-repaired a misdrilled hole of this large size or smaller would have been able to at least provide a response that was in the ballpark.
In that Mr. Stiner was not able to do so, the Board questions whether Mr.
Stiner has ever performed a weld repair on a misdrilled hole..."
In this instance, it appears to CASE that the Board has misinterpretted the tantimony in the record regarding this matter. Mr. Stiner's concerns 31
r and testimony dealt with illegal repairs which he knew as " plug welds." It appears that a point which the Board has missed is that the " plug welds" to which Mr. Stiner referred were illegal in two wayst (1) because they did not have the proper paperwork and inspection; and (2) because they could not be considered to be the correctly-made " plug welds" (or repair of misdrilled holes) regarding which Applicants' and NRC Staff's witnesses testified.
In short, Applicants' and NRC Staff's witnesses were referring to correctly-made " plug welds" (which may well have taken 20 or 25 weld rods and 20 or 25 minutes to do correctly), whereas Mr. Stiner was referring to an illegal method of welding misdrilled holes which was not properly done and which could not accurately even be referred to as the repair of misdrilled holes as the term was used by Applicants' and NRC Staff's witnesses.
CASE's understanding of this is supported by testimony in the record.
Tr. 10684/22-10685/10:
"THE WITNESS [MR. STINER]t
... what we've testified to is when you're watching for QC, you don't have time to stop and allow your weld to cool. You weld one side, flip it over, without chipping the flux out of it, and you weld the other side out.
Then you grind the surface back down to parent metal.
" JUDGE BLOCH: And when you did these, you didn't chip out the flux at all?
"THE WITNESS: Never.
" JUDGE BLOCH: No time?
"THE WITNESS: Like I say, there's no time when you're standing there trying to get these done without QC catching you, you don't have time to chip the flux out and all that. You barely have time to grind the surface back down before QC comes along and sees you're doing a plug weld... "
(Emphases added.)
32
And at Tr. 10697/5-10699/12:
" JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. As I understand it, when you are making this repair weld it is lying flat on a surface.
"THE WITNESS [MR. STINER]: Correct, and you are actually making a fillet weld around the inside of that hole until you get it filled in and it connects in the middle.
" JUDGE BLOCH:
So it is actually a continuous series of fillet welds?
"THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
" JUDGE BLOCH: Do you have to grind in between the passes of the fillet weld?
"THE WITNESS: You should to do it properly.
" JUDGE BLOCH: But that wasn't done or it was done?
"THE WITNESS:
It wasn't done. Like I say, you just welded one side and flipped it over without allowing it to cool, I might add also, which is another problem that you have with it.
Then you would weld the other side out.
Now when you make your second weld is when you will entrap a lot of slag.
"If you don't clean your welds, whether it be a fillet weld or a plug weld, you are going to have entrapment of slag.
In the test centers that is one of the main things.
If you don't clean your welds back down to a bright and shiney (sic) metal you are going to fail your test because of the entrapment of slag.
" JUDGE BLOCH: How long would it take to make a repair weld properly?
"THE WITNESS: That would depend on the size of the hole and the thickness of the material.
P
. A one-and-a-quarter inch hole on a two-inch thick plate, if you welded it and allowed it to properly cool and cleaned it properly, I am going to say probably five minutes. That is just my estimate.
"Like I say, I have never made a plus weld that was the required plug weld. So I guess really I couldn't testify as to how long it actually would take to do a proper one.
" JUDGE BLOCH: So you could do it, but incorrectly, and you did it in about two minutes?
"THE WITNESS:
Oh, for sure.
33
" JUDGE BLOCH:
For sure in less or more than that?
"THE WITNESS: Excluding the blending in of the surface.
" JUDGE BLOCH: You would finish in two minutes and then the rest is cover up time?
"THE WITNESS:
Right, which that would just depend on how long it took you to grind it back down and cosmetically blend it in, because one thing you don't want to do is you don't want to get down past the parent metal because then it will show an indication there that there has been a base metal defect."
(Emphases added.)
And during cross-examination by NRC Staff Counsel, still referring to Mr. Stiner's previous testimony regarding illegal plug welds (Tr. 11156/22-11159/16):
"BY MR. MIZUNO:
"0: On 10698 to 99, you discuss the approximate amount of time needed to repair misdrilled holes.
"... I believe it starts out approximately around... line 6 and goes over until about line 12...
"BY MR. MIZUNO:
"0: You indicated that you did a plug weld in about two minutes.
Tf!E WITNESS: I see where 1 state that, yes.
"BY MR. MI2UNO:
"0:
llow many rods do you think it would take to repair a 1-1/4 inch hole in a 2-inch plate?
"As Probably two.
"0: Two rods? Okay.
"HR. MIZUNO: That's all.
34
vi f77 e
~
s la c
w W
L tc
" JUDGE BLOC 3: J thow{Iongwouldit apa?
"He just sold he didn't have it in sind when he was answering the other question.
"Did you have it in mind or didn't you?
"THE WITNESS: When I answered the g$estion as to let's aissume that it's a 2-inch thick plata, yes, I was tal@ing about the 2-inch thick plate. You could do it in two minutes, t
)
" JUDGE BLOCH: Both rods, including turning it over, not. chipping off the slag -
"THE WITNESS: You wouldn't'une all the rods now, you'd use most of one of them and part of the'Jecond one or the last one.
J
" JUDGE BLOCH: So it's about one and part of.a rod, not quite two full ones?
s I
i 3
s s
"THE WITNESS: You can ainosit oake the we?i' with one r'od.
You've got to turn it over to finish the hanger out. '
N' (Esphases added.)
Mr. Stiner testified'that h we.1ded one side, flipped it over, without I
?
chipping the flux out of it, and welded tb other side out; an'd,that it would take two rods (about one. entire rod and part of a second one) to repair a 1-1/4 inch hole in,s.binch plate.
But it must be remembered that Mr. Stiner was talking about what,he knew as " plug welds",which were not 4
i done correctly in the manner which Applicants'.and NRC Staff witnesses were talking about. Applicants' and NRC Staff's witnesses did not testify regarding the type of illegal " plug welds" which Mr. Stiner was talking about. Mr. Stiner specifically staua (although he attempted to give the-
\\
Board an estimate) that he guessed he really couldn't testify as to how long it would actually take to do a phoper one, because he had,never made one.
1
},
g 35 f;
i 3
i
\\.'
t.
E s'
(
lt is also important to note that the questions by NRC Staff Counsel were in regard to Mr. Stiner's previous testimony about the length of time it would take to make the so-called " plug welds" which were done incorrectly. His answers cannot properly be used now to attempt to show that he was stating that he could make a correctly-done " plug weld" in two minutes using two weld rods.-
The testimony of Applicants' and NRC Staff's witnesses supports Mr.
Stiner's statements regarding the amount of time it would take to burn one weld rod (approximately one minute). He stated that it would take about two minutes to burn one rod, flip the material being welded over, and burn part of another rod, which would be consistent with its taking about one minute to burn one weld rod.
It appears to CASE that the Board is assuming that Mr. Stiner was saying he could do in two minutes with two weld rods what Applicants' and NRC Staff's witnesses said would take 20 or 25 minuten and 20 or 25 weld rods. Had this been the case, it would indeed have been " incredible," as the Board states on page 59. However, the record -- as referenced by the Board in its MEMORANDUM -- does not support such an interpretation.
When Mr. Stiner testified "you are actually making a fillet weld around the inside of that hole until you get it filled in and it connects in the middle," the Board apparently interpreted this to mean that Mr. Stiner made a fillet weld around the inside of that hole until you get it [the entire volume of the hole] filled in and it connects in the middle. However, this l
36
'cannot be what Mr. Stiner meant, because had this been what he did, he would have ~2een properly making a " plug weld," and it is clear in the record that he was not talking about properly-made " plug welds." He stated specifically that he had never made a plug weld that was the required [or properly made]
plug weld (see quoted transcript citation, bottom of page 33 preceding).
According to Mr. Stiner's testimony, it appears obvious to CASE that Mr. Stiner was not saying that he filled up the entire volume of the hole (as was discussed by Applicants' and NRC Staff's witnesses), but rather that i
he made a fillet veld around the top of the inside of the hole (just below the top or lip of the hole so as to be almost flush with the top of the hole), then continued around in a continuous series of fillet welds towards the center in sort of a spiral effect (but still on the same level, just below the top or lip of the hole) until just that top layer of fillet welds was filled in and connected in the cen*:r.
Then he flipped it over, without chipping the flux out of it and without allowing it to cool, then welded the other side in the same manner, thus entrapping a lot of slag -- but without having filled in the entire volume of the hole. This would mean that what he actually made was not a proper or correctly-made " plug weld" but, in l
l effect, a bootleg improperly-made type of weld which really only capped t'e g
weld on each side, leaving inside a hollow, hole empty except for a lot of entrapped slag.
CASE believes that a careful reading of the transcript
[.
citations quoted on the preceding pages clearly supports this l
l interpretation, rather than the interpretation which the Board appears to l
have assumed.
I 37 l
L
It must be remembered that Mr. Stiner is not a paid or professional witness. He is not highly educated. He is not an expert in the use of the English language or in public speaking. He was not coached by CASE or its representatives about what to say or how to say it.
He was a welder. He sometimes has difficulty in explaining what he means; but it does not appear that this was such an instance.
It appears clear from the record on which the Board relied in its MEMORANDUM, when Mr. Stiner's testimony is considered in context, what was meant in this particular instance.
{
When his testimony is considered in this light, it is obvious that it would indeed have been possible for Mr. Stiner to have made the illegal and incorrect type of " plug weld" about which jui testified in the amount of time and using-the number of weld rods he stated he did.
It also would have-been possible for him to have performed 20 or 30 plug welds in a single day (as referenced on page 10, last sentence of second paragraph, of Board's MEMORANDUM). CASE moves that the Board reconsider its order and so find.
(It further appears that it would require a volumetric examination to
- accurately determine whether uor not a given " plug weld" had been done in this manner.)
In addition to the preceding, the Board should acknowledge that Mr.
Stiner was right when he stated (when he told the NRC investigator in 1981 l
and in his September 1982 prefiled testimony at Tr. 4220/12-13) that he had made " plug welds" in the North Cable Spreading Room. The welding of misdrilled holes without authorization has now been substantiated by a Staff inspection of.56 supporcs in the north cable spreading room; the Staff found I
l 38 i
two plug welds in each of three supports, but none of these welds was properly documented (see discussion bottom of page 70, continued on page 71, of Board's MEMORANDUM).
(It is not clear whether or not the NRC Staff has at this time also made a determination about whether or not the plug welds were properly or improperly made.) However, had it not been for the testimony of Henry Stiner and his persistence, there is no reason to believe that those illegal " plug welds" would have ever been found (see discussion at pages III-11 and 111-12 of CASE's 9/9/84 Proposed Findings of Fact on Welding Issues). The Board should give credit where credit is due and find that the Staff's finding of these illegal (undocumented) plug welds in the location Henry Stiner said they were reflects favorably on the credibility of Henry Stiner.
For the reasons discussed in the preceding, CASE m'2ves that the Board reconsider this portion of its decision and find that Mr. Stiner's testimony in this regard was consistent and does not bear adversely on his credibility. CASE further moves that the Board find that the Staff's finding illegal " plug welds" in the location Henry Stiner said they were bears favorably on his credibility.
I I
l 39 b
o
\\
- o ge 61, first full paragraph; and page 63, first full paragraph
a The Board stated on page 61:
"The testimony of both Messrs. Coleman and Brown that they had not observed any unauthorized welding of misdrilled holes is significant in that they routinely monitored the work of the welders under them, including Mr. Stiner, and would have been aware of any problem which existed in this regard (Applicants Exhibit 177 at 10; Tr. 11480, 11534). Messrs. Green and Hallford, who have also had welders under their supervision for an extended period of time at CPSES, provided similar testimony (Applicants Exhibit 177 at 41).
" Applicants further testified that there was little motivation to violate procedures by performing unauthorized welding on misdrilled holes, to do this could result in termination (Applicants Exhibit 177 at 41)."
The Board stated on page 63:
"To determine if the OC inspections were being routinely performed on weld repair of misdrilled holes, Applicants conducted a preliminary search of documentation for cable tray hangers in the cable spreading room and reported that QC inspection reports of over 450 misdrilled holes were located (Tr. 10038). Applicants concluded that this reflected thol misdrilled holes were being properly inspected by QC (Tr. 10039, 11401-07)."
The NRC Staff has now found that there was welding of nisdrilled holes without authorization in the north cable spreading room (Board MEMORANDUM at bottom of page 70 continued on page 71) -- where Mr. Stiner told the NRC to f
look in 1981 and in testimony in these proceedings in September 1982 (Tr.
4220/12-13).
It has now been confirmed that Mrs. Stiner did make l
unauthorized weld repairs of misdrilled holes under direction of her foreman 1
(Board MEMORANDUM at pages 63-64).
Although the Board discussed what is found to be a "significant violation of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50" regarding the unauthorized l
welding of misdrilled holes in its MEMORANDUM at pages 69-71, there is one aspect of this which was not included but which should be.
l 40
CASE moves that the Board reconsider its MEMORANDUM and (in addition to its discussion at pages 69 through 71) find that the credibility of Applicants' witnesses is called into question by the findings discussed in the preceding, when contrasted with the testimony of Applicants' witnesses as discussed in the preceding quoted portions from pages 61 and 63 of the Board's MEMORANDUM.
41
4 Page 15, first paragraph under item 2. Darlene Stiner:
The Board relied totally upon, and used the exact wording of, Applicants' Proposed Partial Initial Decision for this paragraph.
The Board stated:
"With regard to her testimony, Mrs. Stiner apparently relied heavily on what her husband told her..."
The obvious intent of Applicants' wording here is to paint Mrs.
Stiner's testimony with the same brush as Mr. Stiner's; i.e.,
if Applicants' can persuade the Board not to believe Mr. Stiner's testimony, they can also conveniently dispose of Mrs. Stiner's testimony through guilt by association. However, the record of these proceedings does not support such a broad statement or implication; and the single example of this is stated in the Board's Memorandum:
"For example, Mrs, stiner relied on Attachment B to her testimony in responding to several questions concerning why she believed and testified that weave welding caused excessive heat input that would result in damage to the parent metal (e.g., Tr. 10305-10). However, in subsequent cross-examination she revealed that she had not even read Attachment B, but rather her husband had discussed it with her and she agreed with his views on the subject.
She stated that the Attachment.
related to her husband's testimony, not her testimony (Tr. 10542-45)."
Had the testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Stiner been filed separately, rather than combined, the record would have been much clearer in this regard.
However, Mrs. Stiner's testimony must be viewed in context, and the record-l l
as it stands reveals the following.
Mrs. Stiner stated in her prefiled testimony, regarding statements l
made by Mr. Stiner (bound in following Tr. 10,333, CASE Exhibit 919, admitted into evidence at Tr. 9979, at page 3).
42 l
s
.o "A:
(Mr. Stiner):
... I previously stated in my testimony that inexperienced welders were doing some poor and/or illegal welding practices at Comanche Peak.
I know now that a skillful welder is onen who possesses a considerable amount of technical information. Merely being able to run a pass or make a good bead is not enough, because in the process of making a weld he may, from lack of understanding, jeopardize the strength of the welded structure. Consequently, such factors as properties of metals, expansion and contraction grain growth, effects of heat, and others should definitely be considered essential knowledge for any welder.
I was not trained by Brown & Root to know these things.
I was not even given a written test; the only requirement at' Comanche Peak is to pass a three position plate test, which only requires the ability to make a good bead. All of the welders at Comanche Peak are trained in the same manner and, according to the ASME Code, it is up to the Applicants to assure that each welder is qualified to do the job, not just make a good bead but to understand all of the process.
"Q: Mrs. Stiner, do you agree with Mr. Stiner's statements?
"A:
(Mrs. Stiner): Most definitely. I was trained the same way, and the test was the same. Most of what I learned, I learned for myself by reading and trying to improve my skills. I have recently found a welding manual that George Baird had me buy while I was in training for welding (SMAW).
I was having some problems with my welds, so Mr. Baird ordered me to buy a copy of WELDING SKILLS AND PRACTICES, published by the American Technical Society, to help me with my training.
(I believe it cost $9.00.)
Mr. Baird said he thought it was about the best welding book he had seen and that I should use it at CPSES.
It did help me at that tim (, and I hope it will also help the Board members to better understand some of Henry's and my testimony. We have-attached as Attachment B to our testimony some of the pages from it, and we will be referring to them in our testimony later.
(Emphases added.)
"As I received additional certifications, and especially after I became a OC inspector, I learned more and more by reading and.trying~to understand the importance of what I was doing."
It must be remembered that although this was jointly-filed testimony, it is indicated very clearly which statements are being made by Mr. Stiner, or by Mrs. Stiner, or by both of them.
Perhaps it would have been more
' accurate for.Mrs. Stiner to have said that Mr. Stiner (rather. than "we")
would be referring to Attachment B later in his testimony (or the Stiners' 43
d
)
jointly prefiled testimony), the record shows that the only additional references in Mr. and Mrs. Stiner's joint prefiled testimony were made by Mr. Stiner (at pages 8-9, 15-16).
Thus, it is clear that in their prefiled testimony regarding Attachment B, Mrs. Stiner indicated that she had been ordered by George Baird to buy a copy of a book (WELDING SKILLS AND PRACTICES, portions of which were attached to the Stiners' prefiled testimony as Attachment B),
that Mr. Baird " thought it was about the best welding book he had seen" and that Mrs. Stiner should use it at CPSES, that it did help Mrs. Stiner at, that time [when she was in training for welding], and that she hoped Attachment B would be helpful to the Board in understanding the Stiners' testimony.
She did not state in her prefiled testimony that she had reviewed the book or Attachment B in preparation of her testimony for the February 1984 hearings, or even that she had reviewed it since the time when she was in training for welding.
According to Applicants' Exhibit 177 (at 5),
Mrs. Stiner was in a qualified welding position (though not welding the entire time) from February 27, 1979 to August 3, 1980 (see middle paragraph, page 4 of Board's 12/18/84 Memorandum). Thus, it appears that she would have been in training for welding prior to February 27, 1979 -- some five years prior to her February 1984 prefiled testimony; this is the last time it is stated in the record that she read the book (portions of which-were included as Attachment B to the Stiners' joint testimony).
Although the manner in which Applicants worded the portion of their Proposed Findings (which wording was used intact by the Board in the 44 o.
. ~
i' w
above quoted portion of its Memorandum) makes it sound as though Mrs.
Stiner's testimony was inconsistent regarding this matter, the record clearly reflects that the Attachment to the prefiled testimony (except for her having merely identified the book and given a brief background about it and how she came to have it, and stating that-it had helped her at the time she first got it) did indeed relate to her husband's testimony, rather than her testimony.
Further, this matter was discussed in detail in the transcript pages referenced by Applicants and others, where Mrs. Stiner clarified her testimony (an opportunity which the Board has often afforded Applicants' witnesses, without prejudice or apparent detriment to their credibility).
One thing which CASE has seldom claimed is that the Board is unfair, but we believe that this is clearly an instance where they are being unfair -
especially in light of-circumstances brought about, at least in part (though not intentionally) by the Board's own actions.
The circumstances of Mrs. Stiner's testiimony on 2/23/84 were extremely-unfortunate. The witnesses had been sequestered (including Mr. and Mrs.
Stiner's.being sequestered from each oth'er). Everyone (including counsel) were told not to talk to the sequestered witnesses; Judge Bloch stated (Tr.
10,046-10,047):
"MR. REYNOLDS: Could you clarify the extent to which we are allowed to speak to the witnesses?
" JUDGE BLOCH: You shouldn't speak to the witnesses.
"MS. ELLIS: About anything?
" JUDGE BLOCH:
I think it would be preferable because of the appearance that would be created."
45
N 1
Following the lunch break from 12:20 to 1:30 P.M. (Tr. 10,047-10,048),
the-Board called Applicants' panel, Messrs. Baker and Muscente. Mrs. Ellis requested.that the Board delay the cross-examintion of those two witnesses to allow the Stiners to go ahead and testify (Tr. 10,050/1-11); the Board declined (Tr. 10,050/12-14), and stated:
" Assuming it's going to take most of the af ternoon [for the cross-examination-of Messrs. Baker and Muscente}, we're ready.to stay here into the evening hours; so we'll finish up the Stiners tonight."
4 Mrs. Stiner was not called to testify until middle or late af ternoon i
4
' (at Tr. 10,142). During Mrs. Stiner's cross-examination, Applicants' counsel badgered her. The Board had to caution Applicants' counsel (Tr.
10,196/23-25):
" JUDGE BLOCH: One second.
"Mr. Reynolds, you don't have to point fingers, and we don't have to talk loud."
The Board did not allow a break for dinner, and Mrs. Stiner was on the stand (with.only a very few water and restroom breaks) continuously from the 3
middle or late afternoon until 10:00 P.M.
CASE's primary representative, Mrs. Ellis, had stayed up most of the preceding night typing up written rebuttal testimony prepared by Mr. and Mrs. Stiner,-which the Board would I
not accept into evidence. Mrs. Ellis had had only about 2-1/2 hours sleep, and so informed the Board at about 7:00 P.M. (Tr. 10,229/1-6; see also Tr.
10,208/17-20 and 10,220/4-9). At 7:00 P.M.. Board Member Dr.' Jordan left for the. evening.(Tr. 10,228/2 and 10,228/24-25). As the evening wore on, Mrs.
Stiner clearly was showing extreme fatigue and confusion.- She stated (Tr.
L 10,276/17-20):
i i
46
-+4
+
t-er-+-m
,pyy
-g-
-i-y
-ne p++4
% ye w
-ne-.a 9e+wL-yr--.p.my-----g 9----.y
..v.--p--m-----
y ywwa--<m-e-W=-~eW' iv
"THE WITNESS [Mrs. Stiner):
I'm sorry.
I should have said Harry Williams did not -- he indicated to me that I would be fired if I didn't buy it off.
I may have said Randy Smith.
I don't know.
I'm tired."
At Tr. 10,277/23-10,278/3, CASE's representative voiced her concern:
"MS. ELLIS:
Mr. Chairman, could we ask the Applicants' attorney not to keep replowing the same ground over and over. We are all tired, and I'm sure Mrs. Stiner is tired.
It may force her to make statements which are not correct, simply because she is being badgered by the Applicants' attorney."
The extent of Mrs. Ellis' incapacity is illustrated by the following exchange, when she realized that she should have objected to something which had already passed by (Tr. 10,298/10-10,299/6):
"MS. ELLIS:
Mr. Chairman, I'm going to object to Mr. Reynolds continuing to misrepresent the witness' testimony and trying to put words into her mouth....
"... Also, several times Mr. Reynolds has misstated Mrs. Stiner's testimony previously.
"Now, while that might be a reasonable occurrence from time to time, I think it's obvious by this point it's deliberate.
"And I object to that.
"MR. REYNOLDS:
Mr. Chairman, objections have to be interposed timely.
It doesn't do any good now for Ms. Ellis to complain about questions that were asked-and-answered ten minutes ago.
" JUDGE BLOCH:
I certainly can't rule on those objections now."
Finally, at 10:00 P.M.,
the hearing was recessed until the next morning (Tr. 10,326/25-10,327/17):
" JUDGE BLOCH: I would like advice from the parties about whether they.
can last.
"MS. ELLIS: I will never make it.
"MR. MIZUNO: I can last.
47
o "MR. REYNOLDS:
I can definitely last.
I can't speak, but I can last.
" JUDGE BLOCH: Mrs. Ellis says she cannot.
Dr. McCollom says he cannot.
"MR. REYNOLDS:
I have no objection to a Special Master sitting alone.
" JUDGE BLOCH: The problem is, that won't help Mrs. Ellis from falling over.
"MR.-REYNOLDS:
Infairnehstothiswitness,Idon'tthinksheshould have to be sequestered overnight for half an hour of testimony.
(Discussion off the record.)"
During the off-the-record discussion, Mrs. Stiner also indicated to CASE that she was exhausted and would prefer to adjourn for the night.
" JUDGE BLOCH: We are adjourned until 8:30 in the morning."
In retrospect, it is obvious that CASE should not have allowed Mrs.
Stiner to be subjected to what amounted to cruel and unudual punishment, to i
~
which other witnesses were not subjected. Mrs. Ellis (with 2-1/2 hours sleep the night before, without the usual dinner break for much-needed nourishment) was in no shape to adequately represent anyone, especially towards the end of the 8-1/2 hour period between lunch and recessing for the night. Mrs. Ellis and/or Mrs. Stiner should have insisted that the Board take a proper dinner break and/or that the hearings be adjourned for the.
evening much-earlier than they were.
[
The next morning, physically and mentally totally exhausted, Mrs. Ellis contacted Applicants' counsel and advised that she was simply unable to continue. Applicants' counsel and Mrs. Ellis met with the Board in the hall and Mrs. Ellis (with the concurrence of Applicants' counsel) asked that the Board adjourn the hearings. The Board stated (Tr. 10,331/1-21):
48
'r
, - + -.., -,
,-r--
-e
c
" JUDGE BLOCH: Good morning.
"We anticipate having an abbreviated schedule this morning.
In a bench conference held in the hall among all of the parties, prior to this morning's proceeding, we learned that we obviously. exceeded the emotional and physical resources that Mrs. Ellis brings to these proceedings, which I must say is in one sense an accomplishment on our part, because they are substantial emotional and physical resources.
We regret that we were not informed of the problem before the situation occurred. We certainly would have broken off the proceedings yesterday.
"Mrs. Ellis feels that because she went beyond her resources, that her ability to defend her witnesses may have been compromised,-and the Board felt that she should have an opportunity, after studying the record, to be able to present additional testimony that might help clarify matters that may have occurred because of the late hour.
"We also have agreed to suspend hearings on the welding questions today, at Mrs. Ellis request. Those would be resumed at a later date.
The Board also allowed Mrs. Stiner to make a statement for the record (Tr. 10,335/8-10,336/19):
" JUDGE BLOCH: Mrs. Ellis has requested that Ms. Darlene Stiner be able to make a statement this morning, which she desires to make after consulting with Billy (sic) Garde, who is a third-year law student who is affiliated with the Government Accountability Project.
"Ms. Stiner, you may make a statement this morning. You may also prepare better and make a statement the next time you are going to be here.. That is entirely up to you.
"THE WITNESS [Ms. Stiner]: Thank you.
l "I would just like to say that last night I should have spoke (sic) up.
l-I didn't know that I could.- I knew that I could ask for~a break, which
{
I did, I think, on one occasion. But I would like to say that I was extremely tired.
I know that's no excuse for a lot of things, but I believe in my mind, honestly believe that Mr. Reynolds and the attorney for the Staff intentionally made it look like I was a liar.
t-
"I am not a liar.
I have never been a liar. I wasn't raised that way.
l I'm only trying to make sure that this plant is built properly and safely for the people around it.
And if they get their kicks or they t
make their money or whatever by making me look like a liar, because I'm
(-
tired and they take advantage of the situation, I have no defense --
none.
i
[
l 49
"Mrs. Ellis is not an attorney. Therefore I would appreciate it li from now on -- and I don't know if there's anything that can be done about the past or not, about last night's testimony, but I would appreciate it if the Board would step in somehow and give me some protection in this matter, since she is not an attorney."
" JUDGE BLOCH: Mrs. Stiner, had the Board felt that it was necessary, we would have. The matter of the late hour, I think, is the most serious question here. It is the job of counsel for the Applicants and the Staff to find out the truth, and if in some matters they believe that the truth is not in the testimony, it's their job to attempt to show that. I don't think that's a matter of treachery or trickery.
That is just what they must do in a proceeding like this.
"I think Mrs. Ellis and you probably were aware of that.
I can't believe that you weren't aware of that.
"THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I am aware of that.
" JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you for your statement."
In all fairness to the Board, it should be noted that part of the problem was that the Board was attempting to finish with Mrs. Stiner's testimony so that she and Mr. Stiner would not have to be sequestered from each other again that night. However, it must also be noted that the problem might not have arisen (or at least have been as acute) had the Board either accepted CASE's suggestion at 1:30 P.M. that the Board postpone the testimony of Messrs. Baker and Muscente until after Mr. and Mrs. Stiner had testified, or if the Board had even taken the normal dinner break.
The reason CASE has gone into this much detail regarding the background of this matter is that, in spite of its assurances to Mrs. Ellis and Ms.
Stiner that Ms. Stiner would be allowed to clarify the record, the Board appears in its 12/18/84 Memorandum to be using Mrs. Stiner's prior testimony against her. This is contrary to the fairness which all parties usually receive from the Board in these proceedings.
50
o The record reflects that Mrs. Stiner's testimony regarding this matter was not inconsistent, as the Board's Memorandum seems to indicate it is.
We have already discussed Mrs. Stiner's original testimony regarding Attachment B to the Stiners' jointly-filed prefiled testimony (see quoted transcript on page 43 and discussion on pages 44 and 45 of this pleading).
During cross-examination of Mrs. Stiner regarding Attachment B, she gave the following testimony:
Tr. 10,245/9-10,246/3:
"BY MR. REYNOLDS:
"Q:
Mrs. Stiner, on page 3, toward the bottom of the page, you refer to a book or a manual of some sort?
"A:
Yes, sir.
"Q: What did you read in that manual?
"A:
At the time that I got the manual, I was having some problems with my welding, and Mr. George Baird --
"Q: That's all stated here. What did you read in the manual?
"A:
All different sections of it at that time."
(Emphases added.)
It must be remembered that the time that Mrs. Stiner stated she had read the book was about five years prior to her February 1984 testimony.
She never stated that she had read it since that' time.
Continuing from the transcript:
"Q:
How did it help you?
"A:
It told me what my weld surface should look like, what problems --
what I might be doing in my practice that might be causing a certain type face on my weld.
It told me what could happen to the weld metal and such as that.
(~
I "Q: Did it tell you that welding with transverse oscillation was acceptable or unacceptable?
l l
51
l
)
"A:
I don't remember exactly what it stated about it.
I don't recall.
I would have to get the book down and look at it."
(Emphasis added.)
Later (towards the end of that difficult evening), when responding to questions from NRC Staff counsel about excessive heat input when weave welding being a problem, Mrs. Stiner testified (excerpted from full discussion at Tr. 10,306/1-10,310/25):
"Q: What did you read that gave you this belief?
"A:
Well, I've read a number of welding books about this sort of thing. This Welding Skills and Practices has a lot of things in it.
"Q:
Can you list them now?
"A:
Right off~the top of my head, I can't quote you anything, but it has a lot of things about heat inputs, what effects you have, and that sort of thing.
"0:
Are you familiar with Attachment B to your testimony?
"A:
Yes, sir."
It should be noted here that Mrs. Stiner's statement is not inconsistent with anything she said previously or later. Obviously, she was familiar with Attachment B -- but to a very limited extent.
It was her book (which was the reason for having included any reference to it in her testimony to begin with; !!r;. Stiner wanted to use it, but it wasn't his book, it was hers). She had not read the book for some time (perhaps as long as five years).
She did not refer to it later in her.prefiled testimony.
Continuing from the transcript:
"0:
Is this one of the sources on which you are relying for your concern about heat input during weave welding?
"A:
Yes.
It shows -- it gives you some configuration.
It shows you 52
i "Q:
Can you direct us to that page, please?
"A:
Look at Figure 11-4.
It shows you the whipping motion.
".... The only thing I'm trying to tell you about this Figare 11-4 of that sheet is that it does show you -- explain a little bit about a whipping motion, if you don't understand the term oscillation or whipping motion."
(Emphases added.)
During the 3/19/84 hearings, Mrs. Stiner clarified her testimony regarding Attachment B.
She stated on redirect by Rob Hager (an attorney who assisted CASE during that one week of hearings (Tr. 10524/1-19):
"BY MR. HAGER:
"Q:
Ms. Stiner, I would like to draw your attention to your prefiled testimony, and a reference that appears there at the bottom of page 3 to a book.
"Can you simply tell the Board why you included a reference to this book in your testimony?
"A:
This book was the reference in my teatimony because it was my book, and it was helpful to me in my welding; that's why it was purchased.
"However, the attachments that were added out of this book were for my husband's testimony, not mine.
"The only reason it was added in in my testimony is the fact that it was my book.
"Q:
You don't really purport to have read those attachments?
"A:
I read part of the different things back when I was having these welding problems, but it's been so long ago I don't recall them."
And during cross-examination by NRC Staff counsel, Mrs. Stiner testified (excerpted from Tr. 10541/23-10553/4):
"BY MR. MIZUNO:
"Q: Mrs. Stiner, you indicated on redirect that portions of Attachment B were attached because Mr. Stiner refers to them?
"A:
Yes, sir.
1 53
m.
i s
i 1
"Q:
But you do refer to other portions of Attachment B in your testimony?
"A:
No, sir.
t "Q: You do not refer to Attachment B at all?
"A:
Just only as -- it's just that reference, t>a..t I'm aware of it.
I'm familiar with it as being in the book that belsaged to me.
"Q:
You've read that, you've read Attachment B?
"A:
No, sir.
j "Q:
You have not read Attachment B?
"A:
Not totally through, no, sir.
"Q:
But you have read parts of it?
"A:~ Little parts of it, yes, but I've had a lot to read, so I haven't read the whole thing, no.
It was for my husband's testimony, not mine, so I didn't feel that I needed to --
"Q: Then why do you' discuss it on page 3 and 4 from lines 18 through 6, if this was solely for the purpose -- if-Attachment B wss attached solely for --
i I
A He read this part to me, my husband read it to me, and I read sections, and what he said to me, I agree with, that's all I was saying.
J
A This Attachment B, when my husband found this.and wanted to add it to his part of the testimony, well, we were at home and he said something to the effect, hey, honey, listen to this, and I am listening to him read it to me. So I have heard it read and other than that I am not real familiar with it, but it is for his testimony and not mine.
7-
" JUDGE BLOCH: Well, are you now saying that you read the book?
"THE WITNESS:
No, sir, that is not what I am saying. The reason I bought the book to start with was because I was having problems with' the face of my weld the way it appeared.
So I only went to the-sections that applied to that. That is all it was for.
It was just to show me what to do to make my weld look pretty.
So I didn't really go
- into the rest of it.
54
4 4
~
MR.
HAGER:
I might add here that the testimony itself in the original prefiled states that Mrs. Stiner came across the book on the advice of Mr. Baird and that the witnesses wanted to lay out why they have this particular book as the reference that Mr. Stiner is now referring to, dnd that is the purpose of this testimony.
MR.
HAGER:
Mr. Stiner is relying on this book for his testimony.
JbDbE BLOCH: We will permit the testimony to_ stand solely for the purpose of asserting that the book was purchased at Mr. Baird's order and for no other purpose.
JbDbE BLOCH:... the problem is that the testimony was in a number of places and some of it was of a negative nature.
I remember that the Chairman asked, for example, is there anything in the book that suggests that weave welding is bad, and the witness said she didn't know of anything in the book.
"Now she says she has read some portions of the book and we now know that there is a limited value to her saying that she doesn't know anything in the book that says weave welding is bad. But she doesn't know it.
She hasn't read a lot of the book and she doesn't know that there is anything in the book that say that weave welding is bad.-
MRS. ELLIS:
Mr. Chairman, one of the things that I recollected on Friday morning following that long night was the fact that had I been awake I wouldn't even have allowed him to have cross-examined her to the extent he did because I knew that.
I just simply was not on my toes enough and I was not conscious enough of-that at the time.'
JbDbE BLOCH:... In reviewing your testimony from last time was there any portion of the testimony in which you were asked about what.
the book said and what it said about weave welding in.which you made an error?
"THE WITNESS: Actually I was just' sort of dumb-founded when he started asking me about Attachment B.
. The only thing I said that was wrong was the fact that I.
didn't know of anything in there about the weave welding because, like you just stated, I wouldn't know.
I mean there is no way I could.know.
- That is the only thing I said.
55
o
" JUDGE BLOCH: Well, you did read some of it during the hearing and you have had a chance to read it since. Were any of your answers about that portion that was in the exhibit wrong?
"THE WITNESS:
No.
MR. MIZUNO:
Mr. Chairman, I just want to point to transcript 10,306 where I start asking questions about this book.
I started off by asking are you familiar with Attachment B to your testimony, to which Mrs. Stiner answered yes.
"Then I asked her is this one of the sources on which you are relying for your concern about heat input during weave welding, and she said yes and she referred to a specific page and a figure.
" JUDGE BLOCH: Are those two statements incorrect?...
"THE WITNESS: Okay. The question that asks if I am familiar with Attachment B.
I am familiar with it in the fact that my husband put it in, and to that extent only.
So actually the answer, yes, sir, I agree with the answer.
I am fami. liar with it to an extent. The next question actually should be no, I am not really relying on it, but my husband is relying on it.
" JUDGE BLOCH: And the next question was about what was in it.
It was can you direct us to that page, please, the page that you are relying on? You said, well, look at Figure 11.4.
How did you know Figure 11.47-
"THE WITNESS: I went back into Attachment B and at first I couldn't even find Attachment B.
Then when I got back there Mr. Mizuno asked me something about, he said any particular part in it or something like that. And I said well, look at that particular photograph.
"The only thing I believe I said about it was that it showed the pattern of the weld, which it does.
" JUDGE BLOCH:
It shows yoou the whipping motion, right?
"THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, and that is all I said.
" JUDGE BLOCH: Mrs. Stiner, if you are ever asked a question such as are you familiar with it, what you mean is you have looked at it, but
(
you haven't read it.
You are really supposed to explain fully so the Board understands your answers to questions.
"THE WITNESS: Well,_you see, at that time I thought that the fact that i
he wanted to know if I recognized it, and I did recognize it.
Then at
(
that point 1 think, right there somewhere around there just at the time I
l
[
56-L '.
he started cross-examining me on that, we had a five minute break, and I said, Mrs. Ellis, I need to tell you something. What I was going to tell her was, you know, this is not mine, and she said I can't talk to you.
So I couldn't do anything except sit here, and I didn't know whether to answer the questions or not to answer the questions because it wasn't mine to start with and she wouldn't talk to me.
So I couldn't tell her."
Mrs. Ellis' recollection of this incident was that there was such a time during Ms. Stiner's cross-examination (to the best of Mrs. Ellis' recollection, it was during a discussion among counsel and the Board about something) when Ms. Stiner attempted to ask Mrs. Ellis about something. And Mrs. Ellis did tell Ms. Stiner that she could not talk to her.
So Ms.
Stiner just answered the questions to the best of her ability at the time.
Returning to the transcript:
" JUDGE BLOCH: Do you remember my asking you if there was anything you wanted to correct or clarify in your testimony?
"THE WITNESS: At the end of my testimony; is that what you are talking about? Yes, sir.
"MR. HAGER:
I think she has testified now that there is nothing in error that she feels that needs to'be corrected. There is an ambiguity in this question are you familiar with Attachment B which I think is perfectly understandable that she explained that she recognized it.
"THE WITNESS: What I said about the photograph was right."
This incident was very unfortunate and unfair to Mrs. Stiner in several ways. She was placed into a position where she was asked questions about Attachment B, about which she had very limited knowledge; she was sequestered and was unable to even talk to CASE's representative, Mrs.
Ellis, to tell her the situation and ask to what extent she was required to answer questions regarding the attachment which had been included for Mr.
57
Stiner to use; so she just did the best she could under the circumstances.
And, in accordance with the Board's assurances during the February 1984 hearings, she clarified her testimony during the 3/19/84 hearings.
Under the circumstances, as detailed herein, the wording of the Board's Memorandum is inaccurate in that this one example is certainly not adequate basis to come to the very broad and general conclusion that "With regard to her testimony, Mrs. Stiner apparently relied heavily on what her husband told her."
To the contrary, although obviously as husband and wife there was some discussion between them of the issues, Mr. and Mrs. Stiner (with CASE's encouragement) for the most part deliberately tried to keep from relying upon each other's testimony. The record does not indicate 4
otherwise.
Further, as discussed herein, the implication in the Board's wording that there are inconsistencies in Mrs. Stiner's testimony regarding Attachment B is overstated; in addition, Mrs. Stiner has now clarified her testimony (which the Board has allowed Applicants' witnesses to do in these proceedings without prejudice or apparent detriment to their credibility).
For these reasons, CASE moves that the Board either delete this paragraph or change the wording of this portion of its Memorandum to read something like:
"On one occasion (regarding Attachment B to the jointly-filed testimony of Mr. and Ms. Stiner), Mrs. Stiner relied on what her husband told her regarding the contents of Attachment B."
58
Page 18, last paragraph:
The Board relied upon, and used the exact wording of, Applicants' Proposed Initial Decision when it stated:
"On this record, Mr. Stiner is shown to be a convicted felon; further, the record demonstrates that Mr. and Mrs. Stiner... "
CASE strongly objects to the manner in which this paragraph was worded.
(See in camera discussion at pages 7-19 of this pleading.)
In addition, Applicants' combining the discussion of Mr. Stiner's record with the rest of the sentence is clearly an attempt again to discredit the testimony of Mrs.
Stiner through guilt by association.
(We also do not agree with the rest of the Board's statements in this paragraph, but are not addressing the balance of the paragraph at this time.) This is patently unfair and highly prejudicial to Mrs. Stiner.
CASE moves that the Board delete the first portion of this paragraph
-which states:
"On this record, Mr. Stiner is shown to be a convicted felon."
59 u
____m
!p I.
Page 62, last sentence of first paragraph:
The Board stated:
"The Staff further testified that an Inspection Report 81-12 (Staff Exhibit 178) determined that ' plug welds' were being
)
utilized.by welders in accordance with Brown & Root welding j
procedures (NRC Staff Testimony at 26, 30)."
j It should be noted that Inspection Report 81-12 (Staff Exhibit 178) j also found that:
l
" Investigation of the above identified allegations disclosed no evidence supporting the claims of Individual A."
(Page 2 of I
Report, Results.)
However, there are inconsistencies between the Inspection Report and the " sanitized" back-up notes of the NRC investigator (see more detailed discussion bottom of page 25, continued on page 26, of this pleading,.where i
some of these inconsistencies are address; indeed, there are numerous f
inconsistencies regarding many issues discussed in the Inspection Report such that the Board should not rely upon any of the conclusions in the i
j Report; however, we are.only addressing this one issue at this point).
Further, the NRC Staff has now found that there was welding of i
misdrilled holes without authorization in the north cable spreading room-
'(Board MEMORANDUM at bottom of page 70 continued on page 71) - which is i
where Mr.'Stiner told the NRC to look in 1981 and in testimony in these a
proceedings in September 1982 (Tr. 4220/12-13).
It has now been confirmed
'that Mrs. Stiner did make unauthorized weld repairs of misdrilled holes under direction of her foreman (Boar'd MEMORANDUM at pages 63-64). This does-l not support the statements made in Inspection Report 81-12 regarding " plug welding."
ll 4
60
l
)
For the reasons discussed above, CASE moves that the Board reconsider its MEMORANDUM and find that the accuracy and credibility of NRC Inspection Report 81-12 (NRC Staff Exhibit 178) is called into question by the J
Preceding and that the Board cannot rely upon Report 81-12 regarding " plug welding."
I 4
4 f
I 61
i Page'9, middle of page:
The Board stated:
" Applicants' witnesses provided credible and consistent testimony on direct and in response to the cross-examination questions.of all parties.
In addition, in response to cross-examination questions Applicants' witnesses stated that they were instructed to tell the absolute truth when testifying and that if their testimony reflected problems with the plant, it would not adversely impact their employment at the plant (Tr. 11518-9, 11652, 11703, and 11744-5).
In short, the Board finds no inconsistencies from Applicants' witnesses which would call into question their credibility... "
l The Board, in its Memorandum (which CASE recognizes was taken in large i
part directly from' Applicants' Proposed Findings of Fact in the Form of an Initial Decision), dwelled extensively and at times erroneously on the reasons the testimony of CASE Witnesses Henry and Darlene Stiner was not i
credible.
As discussed in various portions of this pleading, there.are also instances regarding the welding issues which call into doubt the credibility i
of the testimony of Applicants' witnesses.
In addition, there are other instances.in the record regarding the-
+
~
welding issues of which CASE is aware where the credibility of Applicants' witnesses is called into question (which CASE has not had time to' include in this pleading). Further, CASE will be pursuing certain aspects of the credibility of Applicants' testimony and representations regarding welding i
(~
issues during the period set aside by the Board for discovery regarding credibility issues. The Board stated (Board's 12/18/84 Memorandum (Reopening Discovery; Misleading Statement), pages 9 and 10:
"... CASE and the Staff may undertake additional discovery concerning samples, testing or any other aspect of testimony whose credibility-they now decide to investigate within the time limits imposed in the l
accompanying Order...
1 i-I 62-f a-,--r-
,3 em----.,,,..,---n-,,-,w-4,,-,-.---,n
..----ee-----
-m
--32
7l o
).;,
6 i
i:
" Citizens Association for Sound Energy and the Staff... ma;r conduct discovery until February 21, 1985 on questions relating to san.ples, tests or,the credibility of testimony or representations of Tpxas Utilities Electric Co., et al. in this proceeding. Delays is response to interrogatories will be considered should their (sic) be 6 request j
for an extension of this time period."
i (Emphases added.)
The Board should hold the record open regarding the credibility of CASE's and Applicants' witnesses pending receipt of the results of CASE's t
and the NRC Staff's discovery and summary of its results. Further; ' the B(ard cannot rule in a vacuum, and it cannot ignore any adverse findings which the Board may make regarding the credibility-of Applicar?.s' witnesses s
which may come to light as a result of the intimidation portion of these proceedings. Inaddition,theBoardshouldmakeclearthatl'tllsalways
)
open to receive any inforaatica (including, for example, any findings by the NRC's Technical Review Team) dhich bears (either favorably or unfavorably) upon the credibility of the witnessen of any of the parties in this (
h'
(
proceeding. CARE so moves.
y g
4 4
+
g t
I i
k m
g s
i
?
x i
s N
c I.
i
\\
(
e e
,9
\\
{
f 5
c I'-
3
,r, t
a y
9 Y
7%
I 1
I' 63 V
4f k
v.
I Entire Board Memorandum:
CASE's review and analysis of the Board's 12/18/84 Memorandum is not yet complete, and the items included in this pleading are only a few of those which appeared to be inaccurate or misleading, based only upon CASE's recollection. This is an unusually long and detailed Memorandum; it would take considerable time to go back in the record and review each transcript citation (which is now necessary in order to determine which of Applicants' representations are accurate and can be relied upon).
Because of the unusual circumstances (detailed in this pleading) regarding the Board's 12/18/84 Memorandum (Concerning Welding Issues),
including the fact that Applicants have deliberately and willfully disobeyed the Board's specific orders, and that Applicants' Proposed Findings of Fact in the Form of a Proposed Initial Decision (upon which the Board relied as the framework for its 12/18/84 Memorandum) contain erroneous statements and misrepresent the record of these proceedings, CASE moves:
(1) That the Board allow CASE to supplement this pleading at the time we provide the Board with summary information of our findings following discovery regarding the credibility of Applicants' testimony and representations in these proceedings (as authorized by the Board in its 12/18/84 Memorandum (Reopening Discovery; Misleading Statement); see discussion at pages 62 and 63 preceding);
(2) That, in the meantime, the Board postpone making final its 12/18/84 Memorandum (Concerning Welding Issues); and 1
64 i
m
t
-(3) That the Board grant the specific CASE Motions set forth elsewhere in this pleading.
Respectfully submitted, 2J & fN'3 grs.)JuanitaEllis, President CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 214/946-9446 65
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
}{
}{
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC
}{
Docket Nos. 50-445-1 COMPANY, et al.
}{
and 50-446-1 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric
}{
Station, Units 1 and 2)
}{
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE By my signature below, I hereby certify that true and correct copies of CASE's Motion for Reconsideration of Board's 12/18/84 Memorandum (Concerning Welding Issues) (LBP-84-54) i have'been sent to the names listed below this 7th day of January,198ji,
by: Express Mail where indicated by
- and First Class Mail elsewhere.
(pages 7-19 are in_ camera and are being sent under separate cover)
- 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
- Judge Elizabeth B. Johnson Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
- Geary S. Mi=uno, Esq.
-P. O. Box X, Building 3500 Office of Executive Legal Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Director l
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory.
- Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom, Dean Commission l
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 'd. Jordan.
Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Carib Terrace Motel Board. Panel 552 N Ocean Blvd..
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission -
Pompano Beach, Florida.
33062 Washington, D. C.
20555 e
1 w-
.w
+
~
]')
Chairman Renea Hicks, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Assistant Attorney General 13oard Panel Environmental Protection Division U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Supreme Court Building Washington, D. C.
20555 Austin, Texas 78711 John Collins Regional Administrator, Region IV U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 611 Ryan Plaza Dr., Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76011 Lanny A. Sinkin 114 W. 7th, Suite 220 Austin, Texas 78701 Dr. David H. Bolt:
2012 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 Michael D. Spence, President Texas Utilities Generating Company Skyway Tower 400 North Olive St., L.B. 81' Dallas, Texas 75201 Docketing and Service Section (3 copies)
Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 21 mOJ A *. s
[cfs.)JuanitaEllis, President WASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk i
Dallas, Texas 75224 214/946-9446 g
o 2