ML20091E256

Application to Secretary for Hearings & Oral Argument in Support of Motion for Leave to Intervene out-of-time & Motion to Reopen Record Submitted by SL Dow Dba Disposable Workers of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station & RM Dow.*

ML20091E256
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	04/06/1992
From:	Dow R, Dow S DISPOSABLE WORKERS OF COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
CON-#292-12782 CPA, OL, NUDOCS 9204140021
Download: ML20091E256 (7)

Text

. - .. - - . . - - - . . . - . - - - . . - . - . . - . . - _ - _ - _ -

T

} }L Q78* 2 '

04 i i

00LMElE0 -

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA' ifMIRC NUCLEAR REOULATORY COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS: '92 APR -7 P3 :23 Ivan Selin, Chairman _

d

-Kenneth C. Rogers h_ kM[f((j['$

James R. C'artiss rb, c8 i Forrest J. Remick  :

E. Gail de Planque

-.Q In The Matter oft Q Q

TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY Q Docket Nos. 50-445-OL Q 50-446-OL

-(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Q 50-445-CPA '

-Station, Units 1 and 2) Q Q ,

APPLICATION TO Tile SECRETARY FOR HEARINGS  :

AND' ORAL ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE OUT-OF-TIME AND MOTION TO REOPEN THE RECORD ,

SUBMITTED-BY SANDRA LONO DOW dba DISPOSABLE WORKERS OF COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION AND R. MICKY DOW

-TO THE SECRETARY OF THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION:

-Comes now Sandra Long Dow dba Disposable Workers of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, and R. Micky Dow,.and file this, their Appli- _

cation To The Secretary For Hearings And Oral Argument In Support Of Motion For-Leave To Intervene Out-Of-Time-and Motion To Reopen-The -

Record Submitted By Sandra Long Dow dba Disposable Workers Of Comanche i Peak Steam Electric Station, And R. Micky Dow, and for.cause would show, that, BASIS FOR MOTION Applicants currently have pending before the Commission their Motion For Leave To Intervene Out-of-Time,-and their Motion To Reopen

-The Record, with regard to the above-styled and numbered matter.

10 C.F.R.-Q2.772 states, in part "When briefs, motions or other 1

papers . . . are submitted to the Commission itself, . . . the Secre-APPLICATION TO THE SECRETARY FOR HEARINGS. . . . 9204140021 920406 ADOCK 0500044S;

.PDR

.PDR 3 0 )

J)$

o l

. . . - - . , - . _ . . . - - , , . . . - , .= , .-- ~.-,,,, _

1 tary . . . (is] authorized to . . . (j) Refer to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel . . . requests for hearings not falling under

$2.104 of this part, where the requester is ent.cled to further pro-ceedings. . . . "; and the only part of $2.104 which in applicable in this case would be (a) In the case of an application . . . which the Commission finds that a hearing as required in the public interest. .

. .",.which pieces the power to grant hearinge, for almost any mannner of application, motion, and/or appeal, squarely in the hands of the _

Commission, and, in this case, the Gecretary, directly.

More importantly, 10 C.F.R. ('.763 shows that "In its discretion the Commission may allow oral argument upon tha request of a party made in a notice of appeal or brief, or upon its own initiative.", and while, specifically, these are motions, and not. notices of appeal, or briefs, it would seem to be obvious that the pleadings presently be-fore the Commission are, at least, or could be viewed, at the discro- )

tion of the Commission, as appeals of earlier attempts at the same process with the same goal in mind. That it would be in the best in-

-terest of the public to hold oral argument is self-evident.

ARGUMENTS

1. Responsive Pleadings To Hotion Wrought With Inaccuracies.

There have been two responsive pleadings, the first by the licen-cee, and the second by the " staff", to the pleadings of these applic-ants. They are both ambiguous and convolutant, to the point of being ludicrous. They fail, completely, to address the actual situation at hand, and stray into areas of vaguenens and incongruency; are rift with material falso statements, and some areas that border if not completely encompass perjury.

APPLICATION TO Tile SECRETARY FOR llEARINGS. . . .

The Secretary is respectfully reminded to review the previous mo-tion _ filed by these applicants to reopen the record, and the " staff's" response to it. The licencee's position was completely rejected by the

" staff", and, more importantly, the " quasi" attempt at intervention by Juanita Ellis, and her organization Citizens Association For Sound En-ergy, was a poorly covered attempt to try other matters before the Com-missi.on, and determined to be immaterial to the matter at hand.

The responsive pleading filed by the licensee can be summed up in much the same manner as the intervention of C.A.S.E., in that what the licensse is basically saying is "Come On, We told you guys everything was o k. at Comanche Peak, Disposable Workers and Micky Dow are pickinn on us, make them leave us alonel", and the questions the Commission should be asking itself is that, if this were, in fact, true; then why do Disposable Workers, and Micky Dow, keep coming back, wi th more ex -

tensive pleadings, more substantiation, more witnesses, and yet their direction has never changed? Why, why, does the licensee, and the

" staff" not want the record reopened, why do they not want this matter reexamined?

2. Credability Challenged Of Winesses Whose Credability Is Established.

If it is vrue that the testimony of Doble Hatley, Ron Jones, and -

others is too old. 'f it is true that everything they might conceiva-bly testify to has e -

ay been identified and corrected--then why, WHY were each of these individuals, and several others, who will also come forward, paid sums of approximately FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS APIECE, NOT FOR THEIR PAIN AND SUFFERING, NOT FOR THE END OF THEIR CA-REERS, NOT FOR THE END OF THEIR LIVES, AS THEY KNEW THEM, BUT SPECIF-ICALLY NOT TO TESTIFY, NOW OR EVER, BEFORE THE ASLB OR ANY OTHER COURT, APPLICATION TO THE SECRETARY FOR HEARINGS. . . . l

NOT TO EVER INITIATE ANY LITIGATION, AND NOT TO ASSIST IN ANY MANNER i 0F LITIGATION, AND MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL, IF THEY WERE EVER REQUESTED TO DO SO, TO IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY DROWN & ROOT AND/OR TU ELECTRIC, AND TO RESIST ANY MANNER OF SUBPOENA?

3. WHAT ABOUT DOW SUBPOENA, AND WHY WAS WILKINSON FIRED.

Both the licensee and the " staff" argue that the " staff" has come to the conclusion that applicant Micky Dow does not have any material of consequence based on a letter written to him by Chairman Selin, yet they fail to set cut how they reached that conclusion without examin-ing any evidence. The " staff" issued a subpoena duces tecum, served it in the middle of the night, threatened enforcement proceedings which would mean financial penalty, jail, or both, attempted to negotiate financial agreements to pay for the tr'nscriptions of 16 reels of audio tape; and, yet, when applicant Micky Dow steadfastly refused to turn the materials over carte blanche, but agreed to surrender them if he u cresent during the transcription process, the staff suddenly, s- it any manner of support for their move, announced that because

. . .w would not carte blanche release his materials it was therefor LP r. mined that he had none and the subpoena was dropped, yet Mr. Ste-phen Comley had been fined several hundred thousand dollars, is now facing enforcement proceedings which will jail him, for only alleging that he MIGHT have some tape recordings; and, even yet more curious, Yvonne Wilkinson was threatened with termination at CPSES if she did not turn these same tapes over to the applicant, and when she said she could not as they were in the possession of Mr. Dow, SHE WAS TERMIN-ATED FOR THEFT of those tapes, yet the licensee has never filed a theft report with any law enforcement agency, nor have they contested APPLICATION TO THE SECRETARY FOR HEARINGS. . . . _ _ _ _ _ ________ - _. -

O the unemployment claim of Mrs. Wilkinson, and continue to bar her from seeking employment at CPSES becauseaof a theft she never committed.

This one item, alone, is sufficient to cause a reasonable doubt as to the viability, the accuracy, and the overall honesty of not on-ly the prior-proceedings, but the attempts to deny the current motions.

5. The Public Has A Definite Interest In Holding Hearings.

The entire Comanche Peak aff air has gone on entirely too long, and still holds many unanswered questions. The press and varied med-ia coverage still continues, still in the same doubtful, questioning '

vein, and the public still continues to ask questions about the safe-ty of this facility. By holding hearings, creating a record, allowing testimony, on the viability of applicants' motion to reopen this rec-cord, these matters could be laid to rest once and for all.

CONCLUSIONS The record of this affair is one of the longest in the history of this industry, and allegations of unsafe conditions, improprieties, untruths, mismanagement, and imminent disaster still prevail. People who have been silent for a-period, in some cases,.of ten years or more out of fear for their lives and the safety of thier families and_fu-ture, that were denied the opportunity to testify at the first hear-ings, and still believe this plant to be unsafe, are now prepared to come forward.and give that testimony.

For the Commission to vote on the present pleadings before it .

would constitute the biggest misscarriage of justice in the history of this Commission. To allow two pleadings that are designed to miss-direct the attention of this Commission with their material false statements and poorly misdirected reasonings is a travesty.

APPLICATION TO THE SECRETARY FOR HEARINGS. . . . . - _ . . - ,

l Applicants, herein, could easily move for the opportunity to res-pond to these ansvers in writing, but that attempt would also be lud-icrous in that it would only serve to pile yet more paperwork into the files of this matter and confuse the Commission yet further.

To provide an open forum, with the ability to call and question witnesses will preclude further inundation of this record. Material false. statements cannot survive in the open forum, neither will per-jury when the oath is taken. Litigants cannot stray from the issues when thtre is an immediate ruling available from those presiding.

tiost importantly, this motion vill succeec or fail upon the dir-ect presentation of the litigants, in full view of the public and the record, and the ghosts of the past will be determined to be just that, ghosts, or spectres of the future.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, in the interests of justice, and, in the interesta of the public valfare and knowledge, these applicants formally request the Secretary grant them hearings on their Motion For Leave To Intervene Out-Of-Time, and their Motion To Reopen The Record, allowing them to argue their motion oefore the Atomic Safety Licensing Board, and for such other and further relief to which they may show themselves to be justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted, O

SAdDRA LONG DOW dba DQ)POSABLE WORKERS OF COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, pro se 322 Mall Blvd. #147 Monroeville, Pa. 15146 (412) 856-7843 APPLICATION TO THE SECRETARY FOR HEARINGS. . . . ,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ -_ _ _ _ _ _ _____________m_ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Mb R. MICKY DOW 322 Mall Blvd.j#147 Monroeville, Pa. 15146 (412).856-7843 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was Lent to all parties to this action listed below, by courier, on this the 6th day of April, 1992.

_3 Affiant

}'

United States Nuclear. Regulatory Commission Offices of Ivan Selin, Chairman 11555 Rock Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852 Janice Moore, Esquire Bill Stryker Office of the General Counsel Office of the Inspector General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rock Pike 11555 Rock Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852 Rockville, Maryland 20852 George L. Edgar, Esquire Dan M. Berkovitz Newman & Holtzinger, P.C. Senate Office Building 1615 L' Street, N.W., Suite 1000 1st St. & Constitution Ave.

Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington, D.C. 20510 Juanita Elli s, President Citizens Association for Sound Energy 1426 South Polk Street l Dallas, Texas 75224 l Charles A. Mullins, Esquire Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rock Pike L - Rockville, Maryland 20852 I-t

_