Similar Documents at Byron |
---|
Category:AFFIDAVITS
MONTHYEARML20098G8821984-10-0101 October 1984 Affidavit of Kj Green Re Integrated Design Insp Concerning Mechanical Engineering Work ML20098G8741984-10-0101 October 1984 Affidavit of Br Shelton Re Integrated Design Insp ML20098G8881984-09-29029 September 1984 Affidavit of RW Hooks Re Integrated Design Insp Concerning Structural Design ML20098G8871984-09-28028 September 1984 Affidavit of EM Hughes Re Idvp ML20098G8781984-09-28028 September 1984 Affidavit of RW Manz Concerning Findings 3-11 Through 3-14 & 3-17 of NRC 830930 Integrated Design Insp Re Westinghouse ML20098G8791984-09-28028 September 1984 Affidavit of RP Tuetken Re Readiness for Fuel Loading ML20098G8831984-09-28028 September 1984 Affidavit of W Faires Re Findings 3-15 & 3-16 of NRC 830930 Integrated Design Insp Rept ML20098G8811984-09-28028 September 1984 Affidavit of Cw Dick Re Independent Design Review ML20098G8851984-09-27027 September 1984 Affidavit of Rl Heumann Re Costs of Delay in Startup & Operation of Unit 1 ML20095F1071984-08-18018 August 1984 Affidavit of KT Kostal Re Prefiled Testimony of C Stokes. Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20094S6421984-08-16016 August 1984 Affidavit of Gt Klopp Re Wh Bleuel Proposed Testimony Concerning Need for Failure Modes & Effects Analysis. Certificate of Svc & Svc List Encl.Related Correspondence ML20080L0601984-02-13013 February 1984 Affidavit of LO George Re Date Accumulated by Reinspection Program Final Rept.Evaluation Will Clearly Indicate That Quality of Work Performed Is Satisfactory.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20079N4081984-01-24024 January 1984 Affidavit of Rl Heumann Re Costs of Delay in Startup & Operation.Notice of Appearance for Pp Steptoe,Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance for G Herrin,Rg Fitzgibbons & P Murphy & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20079N3971984-01-24024 January 1984 Affidavit of C Reed Re Const Status & Target Fuel Load Dates ML20083J6231984-01-0606 January 1984 Affidavit of L Delgeorge Re Reinsp Program.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20080R1101983-10-10010 October 1983 Affidavit of DD Ed,Clarifying Testimony Re EPA Rept, Protective Action Evaluation Part Ii,Evacuation & Sheltering as Protective Actions Against Nuclear Accidents Involving Gaseous Releases ML20076J1091983-06-14014 June 1983 Affidavit of DC Thomas Supporting Extension Until 830628 to File Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Re Contentions 22 & 9(c).Time Needed Due to Heavy Trial & Teaching Schedule.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20074A7711983-05-11011 May 1983 Affidavit of RP Tuetken on J Hughes Allegations Re Welding. Welding of Brace to Pressure Pipe Proper,If Performed Per Design Specs.Util Conducting Reinsp of Work Performed by Contractor QC Inspectors ML20064N4211983-02-10010 February 1983 Affidavit of KA Ainger Re Changes to Plant Design to Mitigate Potential for KRSKO-type Bubble Collapse Water Hammer in Feedwater Bypass Line.Westinghouse Ltr, Bypass Drawing & Notice of Appearance by Vg Copeland Encl ML20028B9051982-11-0808 November 1982 Affidavit Re Westinghouse Application for Withholding Proprietary Info Encl in App C to FSAR in TR Tramm 820818 & 0902 Ltrs to NRC Concerning Turbine Missiles ML20027C5431982-10-0505 October 1982 Affidavit of La Bowen.Util Does Not Intend to Install Temp Sensors on Feedwater Bypass Sys Piping.Existence of Constant Feedwater Flow Precludes Water Hammer Event Similar to Event at Krsko ML20058G8601982-07-30030 July 1982 Affidavit Consisting of Documents Supporting Response in Opposition to NRC Motion for Summary Disposition of Dekalb Area Alliance for Responsible Energy/Sinnissippi Alliance for Environ Contention 9c.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20058E2291982-07-26026 July 1982 Affidavit of Jc Petersen on Waiver of or Exception to Financial Qualification Regulations.League Petition & Exhibits Do Not Demonstrate Special Circumstances Warrant Exception to Financial Qualification Regulations ML20058E2011982-07-26026 July 1982 Affidavit of DA Nash.Rockford League of Women Voters Exhibits Do Not Substantiate Claim of No Need for Power or Existence of Alternative Energy Sources.Prof Qualifications & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20069C8941982-07-19019 July 1982 Affidavit of DD Malinowski on Contention 9c Re Various Phenomena Affecting Steam Generator Tube Integrity & Water Chemistry Measures to Be Taken to Eliminate or Minimize Adverse Effects of Phenomena ML20069C8991982-07-19019 July 1982 Affidavit of EM Burns on Contention 9c Re Flow Induced Vibration & Tube Wear in Preheater Section of Westinghouse Model D Steam Generators ML20058G9571982-07-19019 July 1982 Affidavit of Ej Sternglass.Cumulative Affects of Radioactive Release from Reactors Located in Northern Il Should Be re-evaluated.EPA Min Dose of Radiation Probably Cannot Be Met for Some Local Populations ML20054M9431982-07-0909 July 1982 Affidavit of Aw Serkiz Re Dekalb Area Alliance for Responsible Energy/Sinissippi Alliance for Environ Contention 9(a).NRC Has Not Completed Evaluation of Krsko Plant Water Hammer Event.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20054M9411982-07-0909 July 1982 Affidavit of MP Phillips Re Dekalb Area Alliance for Responsible Energy/Sinissippi Alliance for Environ Contention 3(e) on Worst Case Weather Evacuation Planning. Util Committed to Provide Revised Evacuation Time Estimates ML20054M9281982-07-0101 July 1982 Affidavit of Wl Forney Re Dekalb Area Alliance for Responsible Energy/Sinissippi Alliance for Environ Contention 1.Util Performance Compares Favorably W/Other Licensees ML20054E7771982-06-0707 June 1982 Affidavit of Rj Netzel Re Contention 9(d).Steam Generator & Reactor Coolant Pump Support Design Took Into Account Fracture Toughness Properties of Matls Making Up Supports. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20054E7511982-06-0707 June 1982 Affidavit of GP Lahti Re Contention 2.Describes Regulatory Criteria Considered in Analyzing Cumulative Routine Releases from Plant & Other Nuclear Plants in Il.Design Objectives Considered Described ML20054E7531982-06-0707 June 1982 Unexecuted Affidavit of Ji Fabrikant Re Contention 2 on re-evaluation of Health Effects of Projected Routine Release of Radioactivity for Residents of Dekalb,Sycamore & Rockford Areas ML20054E7551982-06-0707 June 1982 Affidavit of G Klopp Re Contention 2A.Incremental Risk from Nuclear Accidents to Area Residents Cannot Be Zero.Risk Should Be Determined by Risk from Byron.Other Plants Pose Insignificant Risk ML20054E7601982-06-0707 June 1982 Affidavit of T Tramm Re Contention 7 That Util Will Comply W/New Regulatory Requirements on Hydrogen Control/Generation Matters ML20054E7671982-06-0606 June 1982 Affidavit of La Bowen Re Contention 9(a)on Water Hammer. Possible Courses of Action Being Discussed,Including Westinghouse Recommendations Re Krsko Plant Events ML20054E7661982-06-0404 June 1982 Affidavit of RW Carlson Re Contention 9(a) on Water Hammer. Steam Generator Bypass Sys Design,W/Listed Mods,Is Adequate to Minimize Likelihood of Bubble Collapse Waterhammer Events in Steam Generators to Acceptable Level ML20054E7721982-06-0404 June 1982 Affidavit of Rj Netzel Re Contention 9(b).Reactor Vessel Supports Designed for Asymmetrical Blowdown Loads & Stress Limits within ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code Allowable ML20054E7681982-06-0404 June 1982 Affidavit of R Pleniewicz Re Contention 9(a).Operating Procedures Re Operation of Feedwater Bypass Sys Will Implement Westinghouse Recommendations ML20054E7631982-06-0404 June 1982 Affidavit of Jc Blomgren Re Contention 8.Primary Sys Decontamination Would Result in No Significant Adverse Impact to Human Environ Quality ML20054E7591982-06-0404 June 1982 Affidavit of Hm Ferrari Re Contention 6.Concerns Raised Carefully Considered & Reviewed in Fsar.Sufficient Assurance Exists to Assure Containment of Radioactive Matls Under Worst Postulated DBA ML20054E7581982-06-0404 June 1982 Affidavit of G Klopp Re Contention 4.Intervenor Interpretation of Single Failure Demonstrates Misunderstanding of NRC Requirement on Accident Analysis ML20054E7571982-06-0404 June 1982 Affidavit of Jc Golden Re Contention 3.Plant Emergency Plan Provides Reasonable Assurance Prompt & Effective Actions Will Be Taken to Protect Public Health & Safety ML20054E7331982-06-0303 June 1982 Affidavit of C Reed Re Contention 1.Expresses Util Strong Commitment to Safe Plant Operation to Protect Public Health & Safety & to Operate Plant within NRC & Other Requirements ML20054E7731982-06-0303 June 1982 Affidavit of WT Bogard Re Contention 9(b).Asymmetric Blowdown Loads Adequately Addressed in Plant Design ML20054E7501982-06-0303 June 1982 Affidavit of R Querio Re Personnel Qualifications,Personnel Commitment to Plant Safety & Plant Plans for Packaging & Transport of Waste Matls.Plant Has Necessary Technical Qualifications ML20054E7471982-06-0303 June 1982 Affidavit of Wj Shewski Describing Util QA Program.Util History of Compliance W/Applicable QA Criteria Does Not Indicate Util Unwilling or Unable to Operate Plant Safety ML20054E7391982-06-0303 June 1982 Affidvait of Wl Stiede That Specific Incidents Listed in Contention 1 Do Not Prove Util Unable or Unwilling or Lacks Technical Qualifications to Operate Plant Safely ML20054M9331982-05-25025 May 1982 Affidavit of Jr Creed on Dekalb Area Alliance for Responsible Energy/Sinissippi Alliance for Environ Contention 1(f).Allegations Re Security Violations at Quad Cities Resolved ML20039C2481981-12-21021 December 1981 Affidavit of Mm Cherry Per ASLB 811208 Order Re 790926 Meeting.Affidavit Never Implied or Stated That Position in Case Was for Purposes of Delay 1984-09-29
[Table view] Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20207E0051999-03-0202 March 1999 Transcript of 990302 Public Meeting with Commonwealth Edison in Rockville,Md.Pp 1-104.Supporting Documentation Encl ML20236H9381998-06-30030 June 1998 Transcript of 980630 Meeting W/Commonwealth Edison in Rockville,Md.Pp 1-123.Supporting Documentation Encl ML20198P3001997-11-0404 November 1997 Transcript of 971104 Public Meeting W/Ceco in Rockville,Md Re Measures Established by Ceco to Track Plant Performance & to Gain Understanding of CAs Put Into Place to Improve Safety.Pp 1-105.W/Certificate & Viewgraphs ML20149M2951996-11-29029 November 1996 Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR50.60 Re Safety Margins Recommended in ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code Case N-514 TXX-9522, Comment Opposing Proposed GL on Testing of safety-related Logic Circuits.Believes That Complete Technical Review of All Surveillance Procedures Would Be Expensive & Unnecessary Expenditure of Licensee Resources1995-08-26026 August 1995 Comment Opposing Proposed GL on Testing of safety-related Logic Circuits.Believes That Complete Technical Review of All Surveillance Procedures Would Be Expensive & Unnecessary Expenditure of Licensee Resources ML20059C2351993-12-17017 December 1993 Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-21-2 Re Commercial Grade Item Dedication ML20044A8111990-06-27027 June 1990 Comment Opposing Closure of Lpdr of Rockford Public Library ML20245J0191989-04-14014 April 1989 Comment Re Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Ensuring Effectiveness of Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants ML20214X1871987-06-11011 June 1987 Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty in Amount of $25,000 Based on Four Severity Level III Violations Noted During 860721-0808 Insp ML20205Q1711987-04-0202 April 1987 Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty in Amount of $25,000. App Re Evaluations & Conclusions Encl IR 05000812/20100311987-02-26026 February 1987 Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty in Amount of $100,000 Based on Violations Noted During Insps on 850812-1031 ML20210T7321987-02-11011 February 1987 Unexecuted Amend 6 to Indemnity Agreement B-97 Substituting Item 3 of Attachment to Indemnity Agreement in Entirety W/ Listed License Numbers,Effective 870130 ML20209J3251987-01-30030 January 1987 Transcript of 870130 Commission Discussion/Possible Vote on Full Power OL for Facility.Pp 1-72.Supporting Viewgraphs Encl ML20213G4381986-10-24024 October 1986 Unexecuted Amend 5 to Indemnity Agreement B-97,substituting Item 3 of Attachment to Agreement in Entirety W/Listed License Numbers,Effective on 861106 ML20211B0841986-08-0505 August 1986 Transcript of 860805 Meeting Between Region Iii,Computer Interference Elimination & Util in Redmond,Wa Re Plant as-built Drawing Review.Pp 1-200 IR 05000506/20070221986-05-0202 May 1986 Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty in Amount of $25,000 for Violations Noted During Insp on 850506-0722.Violations Noted:Failure to Establish Radiological Safety Procedures & to Adequately Train Personnel ML20138C7301985-12-0909 December 1985 Order Imposing Civil Penalty in Amount of $25,000 Per 850606 Notice of Violation & Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty.Licensee May Request Hearing within 30 Days of Date of Order ML20205E8741985-10-28028 October 1985 Exemption from GDC 4 of 10CFR50,App a Requirement to Install Protective Devices Associated W/Postulated Pipe Breaks Primary Coolant Sys.Topical Rept Evaluation Encl ML20102A2981985-01-0707 January 1985 Petition Requesting Aslab Grant Intervenor Appeal & Order Further Hearings on Safety of Plant ML20099L2581984-11-27027 November 1984 Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance in Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20099G5381984-11-23023 November 1984 Supplemental Appeal Brief in Response to Intervenor 841106 Supplemental Brief on Appeal & in Support of ASLB 841016 Supplemental Initial Decision Authorizing Issuance of Ol. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20100K0411984-11-22022 November 1984 Submits Concerns Re Safety of Local Residents in Event of Accident & Excessively High Cost of Projected Operation of Facility ML20107H7841984-11-0606 November 1984 Supplemental Brief on Appeal of ASLB 841016 Supplemental Initial Decision Granting Authority for Issuance of Ol. Decision Should Be Reversed.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20140E4081984-10-31031 October 1984 Executed Amend 1 to Indemnity Agreement B-97,deleting Items 2A & 3 in Entirety ML20098G8841984-10-0202 October 1984 Joint Statement of RW Manz & W Faires Re Findings 3-11 Through 3-17 of NRC 830930 Integrated Design Insp Rept. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20098G8681984-10-0202 October 1984 Answer to Intervenor Motion to Reopen Record Re Bechtel Independent Design Review.Motion Should Be Denied ML20098G8901984-10-0202 October 1984 Joint Statement of Kj Green & RW Hooks Re Integrated Design Insp ML20098G8911984-10-0202 October 1984 Joint Statement of Cw Dick & EM Hughes Re Independent Design Insp ML20098G8821984-10-0101 October 1984 Affidavit of Kj Green Re Integrated Design Insp Concerning Mechanical Engineering Work ML20098G8741984-10-0101 October 1984 Affidavit of Br Shelton Re Integrated Design Insp ML20098G8881984-09-29029 September 1984 Affidavit of RW Hooks Re Integrated Design Insp Concerning Structural Design ML20098G8831984-09-28028 September 1984 Affidavit of W Faires Re Findings 3-15 & 3-16 of NRC 830930 Integrated Design Insp Rept ML20098G8811984-09-28028 September 1984 Affidavit of Cw Dick Re Independent Design Review ML20098G8791984-09-28028 September 1984 Affidavit of RP Tuetken Re Readiness for Fuel Loading ML20098G8781984-09-28028 September 1984 Affidavit of RW Manz Concerning Findings 3-11 Through 3-14 & 3-17 of NRC 830930 Integrated Design Insp Re Westinghouse ML20098G8871984-09-28028 September 1984 Affidavit of EM Hughes Re Idvp ML20098G8851984-09-27027 September 1984 Affidavit of Rl Heumann Re Costs of Delay in Startup & Operation of Unit 1 ML20098E2371984-09-24024 September 1984 Reply to Intervenor 840918 Proposed Supplemental Initial Decision.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20097E7221984-09-13013 September 1984 Agreed Motion for Time Extension Until 841101 to File Petition for Hearing Re Emergency Planning Commitment W ML20097C5311984-09-12012 September 1984 Motion to Reopen Record to Include Plant Design as Issue. Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20097B7791984-09-10010 September 1984 Proposed Supplemental Initial Decision Re Reinsp Program. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20096A6391984-08-30030 August 1984 Rebuttal Testimony of RW Hooks Re Validity of Info in Attachment 7 to Stokes Testimony Concerning Design Assumption for Plant.Stokes Info Inapplicable to Plant. Related Correspondence ML20096A6191984-08-30030 August 1984 Rebuttal Testimony of B Erler Re Stokes Allegations Concerning Evaluations of Discrepancies in Calculated Actual Stress Performed by Sargent & Lundy.Related Correspondence ML20096A6261984-08-30030 August 1984 Summary of Rebuttal Testimony & Testimony of ML Somsag, Eb Branch,D Demoss,Mr Frankel,Bf Maurer & Jk Buchanan Re Plant QC Inspector Reinsp Program & C Stokes Allegations Re Welds.Related Correspondence ML20096A6441984-08-28028 August 1984 Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance in Proceeding.Related Correspondence ML20112D5271984-08-24024 August 1984 Applicant Exhibit A-R-4,consisting of Feb 1984 Rept on Bryon QC Inspector Reinsp Program ML20112D5031984-08-24024 August 1984 Applicant Exhibit A-R-5,consisting of June 1984 Suppl to Rept on Bryon QC Inspector Reinsp Program ML20112D7441984-08-23023 August 1984 Intervenor Exhibit I-R-1,consisting of Undated List of Teutken Safety Category Insp Types ML20112D7511984-08-21021 August 1984 Staff Exhibit S-R-1,consisting of 840813 Instruction for Walkdown of Cable Tray Hanger Connection Welds ML20112D4641984-08-21021 August 1984 Intervenor Exhibit I-R-11,consisting of Undated Chronological Date Listing of Util Responses to Interrogatory 12.VA Judson to Mi Miller Re Interrogatory 12 & Supplemental Responses Encl 1999-03-02
[Table view] |
Text
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
r r...
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
Marshall E. Miller, Chairman Dr. Richard F. Cole Dr. Dixon Callihan ,
In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-454-O L
) 50-455-O L COMMONWEALTII EDISON COMPANY )
)
(Byron Station, Units 1 & 2) )
STATE OF ILLINOIS )
) SS.
COUNTY OF COOK )
AFFIDAVIT OF MYRON M. CHERRY AS DIRECTED BY BOARD ORDER OF DECEMBER 8,1981 MYRON M. CHERRY, being first duly sworn, on oath states as follows:
- 1. I am counsel to the Rockford League of Women Voters (" League")
in this proceeding, as well as in two related proceedings (one now on appeal before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and one pending before the Illinois Commerce Commission), of both of which the Board has knowledge. I have personal knowledge of the matters stated herein.
- 2. As appears in the Board's Order of December 8,1981 (at page 2),
the Board is requesting affidavits with respect to the allegation that League counsel announced, even before he was counsel to the League, that his only purpose in representing the League was for delay's sake.
- 3. At no time in connection with the Byron Plant, whether at the September 26, 1979 meeting referred to or otherwise, have I ever stated, referred, allegea, alluded to or implied that my posture or position as counsel in this (or any other) proceeding would be for purposes of delay.
~
I 8112290115 811221
$DRADOCK 05000454 PDR ~~
- . - - . - - - - = . .. - - . - . . . -. . . .. _ - - _ - . . -.
J i
- 4. At the time of the September 26, 1979 meeting ("hereafter September meeting") I had not as yet agreed to represent the League in J
connection with Byron, but I had agreed, as a courtesy to Ralph Nader, to sit in f on a meeting regarding the intention of the League - then unrepresented - to -
1 i 4 amend its contentions as permitted by an earlier Board Order. At the September meeting the question of whether, and (if so) when, I would enter an appearance for the League arose - principally, I believe, at the request of Commonwealth ,
i Edison counsel. I explained to all concerned that I was (as I had earlier advised t the League) not entirely persuaded that I should represent the League in its opposition to the Byron Plant before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. My concerns (which are and have been on record in numerous other forums, including the Congress of the United States) were that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (and earlier the AEC) had displayed a generally hostile posture toward intervenors t raising safety and environmental issues in hearings and, therefore, if that climate continued, then an intervention by the League might accomplish nothing and ;
might be u waste of time and resources.I I did, however, state to those 8 assembled that there were other considerations involved in my decision as to i whether I would accept the Byron assignment. Essentially these considerations I
' concerned the status of unresolved safety problems, both generally and as applied to Byron.
l l
l I
i 1. I might add that I am not alone in these views - critical of past NRC-AEC credibility. Such views have also been expressed by the Kemeny Commission reporting to the President on TMI; the Nuclear Regulatory Commission review concerning TMI (NUREG/CR 1250); Commissioner Bradford in his October 19, 19 81 .
speech before the Eastern Association of Attorneys General (NRC Press Release l S-3-81, Tuesday October 27, 1981); and, as recently as December 15,1981, by the l Chairman of the Commission as quoted on page 1 of the New York Times on that t
i '
date.
l l -
- 5. I explained at the September meeting that in my view, if (i) the Nuclear Regulatory Commission could be forced to directly confront the essentially insupportable position of conceding the existence of a whole host of unresolved safety problems while nonetheless continuing to license plants; and (ii) a decision could be issued by the Commission (or by a court of law upon judicial review) to halt licensing of nuclear power plants until unresolved problems were resolved (rather than merely studied); and (iii) such a review could be imposed (as I believed it should since I believe it to be required by law) upon re-examination of construction permits issued without regard to the resolution of unresolved safety problems (such as the Byron permits) - then by definition the cost of nuclear power would dramatically increase to the real cost of including all adequate and necessary safety and environmental requirements. 'Ihis additional cost (and perhaps also the time necessary to implement safety resolutions) would create an even further economic burden on nuclear power and might be a sufficient precedent to pravent utilities in the future from considering the ,
nuclear option because, when viewed with all its real costs, it is and would be demonstrated to be uneconomical. This analysis, while involving increased costs and perhaps delayed (or prevented) operation of unsuitable plants is nothing more than an explication ot' a fair cost-benefit analysis in assessing the nuclear option
- something which has concerned us for some time. (See, e_.g., the EIS regarding the ECCS Rulemaking before the AEC.)
- 6. I further stated at the September meeting that as an intellectual matter, the issues addressed in paragraph 5 appealed to me because the Commission had admitted to the existence of hundreds of unresolved safety problems and would ultimately find it difficult to avoid the resultant confrontation in licensing. Therefore the overall issue thus presented could be considered crisp, and also legal (as opposed to purely factual), since the
_3
~~ ~"'
~ZZi___ _ ___ _ ___ __ _ _ T-- ~ ~ ~
)
t H
Commission has also conceded that it has no real resolution for the outstanding safety problems. I further informed the participants that this issue had intrigued me for some time but that I had not decided whether to represent the League given my view (based upon considerable experience in AEC-NRC proceedings) that Licensing Board hearings typically did not deal fairly with serious safety issues -
a view which the NRC's own Special Inquiry Group, several months later, bluntly expressed by terming hearings "a sham" insofar as any genuine, open-minded i
consideration of safety issues is concerned.
- 7. Ultimately, because of the legal challenge and public interest benefits these issues presented, I accepted the assignment from the League.
Thereafter I concentrated my efforts on the unresolved safety problems and the
- economic cost and timing of fairly implementing them, as well as on other ,
important specific issues re?ating to Byron. Contrary to Edison's suggestions of delay, it was I, and the Leaeve who asked Director Denton for a prompt hearing I
under 10 C.F.R. sec. 2.206 and 2.202 with respect to those issues (moving also in tandem before the Illinois Commerce Commission on similar and related matters).
The Director's response was to wait some six months before he decided our Petition, a matter now on appeal after several further months of Commission- ,
caused delay in deciding whether to review the Director's decision internally. In parallel, although somewhat earlier, I and the League filed a documented and ,
i '
detailed Petition to Intervene before this Board which was admitted in substantial part; and I and the League promptly moved to initiate discovery against the Staff I
and Commonwealth Edison. Our discovery requests today still remain unanswered; and as noted in our Petition for Reconsideration, the Board's overall deliberations with respect to the Petition to Intervene occupied the Board for 18 months (March 1980 to August 1981).
_ .g _
- 8. I believe that if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission fairly meets the unresolved safety issues in a hearing, then the League will be able to demonstrate that the Byron Plant does not meet existing regulations and that an operating license should g be issued, let alone construction continued pursuant to what I believe is a legally ' invalid construction permit, a position we have consistently taken from the beginning. Neither I nor the League want, nor will we tolerate, any unnecessary delay in the resolution of these important issues.
- 9. When I accepted employment with the League I did so in accordance with the Leagues directives, which are of public record and in part set forth in the contemporaneously filed Affidavit of Betty Johnson. These directives were (and are) to raise substantial meritorious issues and obtain a resolution as promptly as circumstances permit.
- 10. As I have indicated before, I find Commonwealth Edison's position bizarre. Particularly is this so since if all of those persons had in truth been witnesses to the statement alleged in the Commonwealth Edison Affidavits to have occurred on September 26, 1979, I cannot comprehend why nothing was said to the Board immediately thereafter, or upon the filing of the Petition to Intervene on behalf of the League and my appearance herein, or during the ensuing eighteen-plus months. Indeed, Mr. Murphy's and the Staff's letters sent promptiv after that 1979 meeting (see Com. Edison's Exs. 9,10) not only make no mention of any " delay threat" but bespeak an environment of cooperation among all concerned. See also Com. Edison's Ex.13 and 14 at par 3 which characterizes the September meeting as one of " extended discussion" as to " areas of compromise."
- 11. Attached hereto is Mr. Michael Miller's December 2,1981 letter (received while I was on my honeymoon), and my response to him which he requested I file with the Board.
- 12. I believe that this Affidavit responds to the Board's general and specific inquiry concerning " delay threats" (see also 1 3 above), but for the sake of completeness I add that: (a) I did not tell Mr. Murphy - or anyone else -
on September 16,1979 (or at any other time), as alleged in his Affidavit, that I would delay for 10 years, or that I would bleed Edison white, or that I had done so on any other occasion. I do recall telling Mr. Murphy at some point in September 1981 (af ter he had violated every agreement he made concerning discovery issues) that I believed him a fool and incompetent. (b) I did not state (as set forth in Tramm's Affidavit - but, interestingly, not in the Affidavits of Murphy, Bielawski, Bowen, Westermeier, Ainger and Lavin who also claim to be in attendance at that meeting) on September 10, 1981 or at any other time that my intent was "to delay Byron as long as possible."
~
- 13. I have confined this Affidavit to the general and specific " delay for delay's sake" charges allegedly emanating from the September 26, 1979 meeting, as that is what I understand the Board's directive to require. I must emphasize, however, that - as is already obvious from the League's Petition for Reconsideration itself - there are many other inaccuracles in Edison's response to that Petition.2
! / /4,
.WYR M . O ll Elf R Y V '
N to /
SUBSCRIBED and SW
,;BeforeOte f This gj Day s c of December,1981.
\;}v >
W ./ w
- 'il D. Notary Publicg
/
, ' . .', p ,' -
- 2. The only illuminating fact from the Edison Affidavits is their consistent inability even to describe a disassociation of discovery implementation in the I.C.C. case from this proceeding, thereby in reality confirming the League's original position. See, e.g., Lavin Aff., Com. Edison Ex. 8 at 1 4.
(j ISHAM. LINCOLN & BEALE COUNSELORS AT LAW ONC FIRST N ATIONAL PLAZ A FORTT SECOND FLOOR CHICAGO, lLLINOIS 60603 TELEPHONC 312 558 7500 TELEX:2 5288
' waSMINGTQ86 OFFICC H2O CONNECTICUT AvtNut.N w.
Suif t 325 WAS Mt NG TON. O. C. 2 0 0 36
,' 202 833-9730 December 2, 1981 Myron A. Cherry, Esq.
Cherry & Flynn One IBM Plaza - Room 4501 Chicago, Illinois 60611 In the Matter of
- Commonwealth Edison Company
' (Byron Station, Units 1 and 2)
Docket Nos. 50-454, 50-455
Dear Mike:
i l
In your letter of November 25 to the Licensing Board concerning the Byron' Station operating license pro-ceeding, you refer to an asserted offer of settlement which you " considered a bribe". My recollection of the events of that day are quite distinct. I made no offer of settlement to you or to the League of Women Voters, rather, I asked you on what basis the League might consider settlement.
I most assuredly did not offer you any sum of money which you might construe as a " bribe" or otherwise. Indeed, my recollecticn of our conversation that day is that you were the only person who used the term " bribe".
Your persistent mischaracterization of that con-versation is yet another example of your inability or un-willingness to be candid and truthful in your dealings with the Licensing Board and counsel for Commonwealth Edison Company. I request that you acknowledge that your charac-l terization of this conversation has been false and that you do so in writing, with copies to the Licensing Board.
Yours truly, b
MIM:es Michael I. Miller cc Service List l
l 2Nunnumummmuummmumamn
- EXHIBIT A _
., '1 ~
hL,PE 00 'IO AFFIDAVIT OF MYPG M. CB2RY pmn
W
/ l,, *
,/ " .
2 ,.
).
LAW OFFICCS ,
C H E' R R Y? % F LY N N ONEISM PLAZA ,
C HICAGO, ilk.INOIS 6 0611
~
- tasal ses-H77 Decerrber.21,'1981 ,
! Michael I. Miller, Esq. -
Isham, Lincoln & Beale ,
One First National'Pla::a t Suite 4200 Chicago, Illirois 60603 Pc: In the Matter of Ocmonwealth Edison Ccrpany
' (Byron Station, Uhits 1 & 2), Dkt. Nos. 50-454, 50-455
Dear Mr. Miller:
Your letter of De W r 2, 1981 arrived in my absence. I do not deviate one iota fran my earlier statcrants. You will recall that when you raised the question of settlement you and your clients were steadfastly opirscd to discussing anything short of paying (and overpaying) the Icague's legal fees in this case, looking at the Icague's participation in this impor8 ant proceeding as a " cost of doing business" by Ca:rorrmalth FAieon rather than a sincere attengt to work out the serious and meritorious problens raised by the Icague.
l I am very disturbed by the ranner and method by which your law firm has proceeded in this case, as I would have hoped that your firm's j perfon-ance in the Midlard case (which has already been spread of record before the Nuclear Pagulatory Ocnmission) would not be duplicated herein.
Suffice it to say that our long friendship and my prior respect for you as a professional (based in part on our having attendcd law school 4
together) has now been impaired by your fim's performance.
I have always found it possible in the past to speak with you on
, ratters when your young lawyers have acted foolishly or arbitrarily. Thus, you would have done well to bring sone reason and rationality herein, ard
- I am sorry that you have not had the consciousness to do so.
I am sending a copy of this response to the Licensing Board since you have expressly requested me to do so in your letter of
. Decc-ber 2,1981.
~
. - EXHIBIT B -
'IO AFFIDAVIT OF MYIG M. CHERRY
. _ - , - _ _ . . . . - , _ - . _ _ . , _ _ _ . _ , , , , . . . . _ _ . _ , _ _ . _ _ ~ . _ , , _ . _ _ _ - . . . _ _ . . . - _ -
- ~, ,
/ f s ,,
' Micluel I. Miller, Esq.
- Decarber 21, 1981 Page 'No l
' hhile I am reluctant to once again solicit cooperation a: tong counsel, ycu mald do well to heed my prior requests to have the matter of these serious Byron safety and other issues pra:ptly litigated. You (and Edison) nust realize that the questions surrounding Byron will not sinply disappear, and your client - a regulated utility - must give way to the public interest.
Yours very truly, Myron M. Cherry nt/dm cc: Service List I
l l
t
_ . . ..