ML20094K416
| ML20094K416 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 03/16/1992 |
| From: | Edgar G, Wooldridge R NEWMAN & HOLTZINGER, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC), WORSHAM, FORSYTHE, SAMPELS & WOOLRIDGE (FORMERLY |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| CON-#192-12707 OL, NUDOCS 9203200286 | |
| Download: ML20094K416 (39) | |
Text
/; /27o7 w ; ar.i;LD 4
udNnC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEEORE THE COMMISSION 92 nta 17 A10:38 g s c 3 si U t ita, '
~ ut nar, . Mrvli.!
HH ale
)
In the Matter of )
)
TEKA6 UTILITIES ELECTRIC ) Docket Nos. 50-445-OL COMPANY ) 50-446-OL
)
(Comanche Peak Steam-Electric )
Station, Units 1 and 2) )
)
TU ELECTRIC'S ANSWER TO THE PETITION TO INTERVENE AND MOTION AND SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO REOPEN BY MICRY DOW AND SANDRA LONG DOW AND TU ELECTRIC'E REOUEST FOR ADMONITION OF THE DOWS On February 20, 1992, Mr. Micky Dow and Mrs. Sandra Long Dow (the " Dows") filed a " Petition For Leave to Intervene" ,
(" Petition") it.-the Comancho Peak Steam Electric Station ,
t
("CPSES") operating license proceedings. On February 21, 1992, the Dows filed a " Motion to Reopen the Record" (" Motion"). In an Order dated February 28, 1992, the Commiesion stated that the Licensee should file a consolidated response to the Petition and Motion on March 16, 1992. On March 13, 1992, the Dows filed a
" Supplement.to Motion to Reopen the Record" (" Supplemental Motion"). Texas Utilities Electric Company (" Licensee" or "TU Electric") hereby files its response in opposition to the Dows' untimely petition to intervene, the motion to reopen, and the supplemental motion to reopen and requests that they be summarily denied. The Licensee also requests that the Commission issue an admonition.to the Dows.
l l
9203200286 920316 0 PDR C
ADOCK 05000445- hpdb jh PDR ,
The Dows' Petition, Motion, and Supplemental Motion tepresent trieir latest attempt to circumvent and undermine the Licensing Board's dismissal of the licensing proceedings in 1988. :
On November 20, 1991, the Dows filed a patently deficient motion to reopen the Comanche Peak licensing proceedings. Following ,
extensive responses by TU Electric and the NRC staff, the Commission issued a Memorandum and Order (CLI-92-01) on January 17, 1992 which denied the Dows' motion because, inter alia, the Dows did not address the Commission's requirements in 10 C.F.R.
S 2.714 and were not parties to the licensing proceedings.
The Dows' most recent petition is 13 years out of time and was filed more than two years after issuance of the low power operating license for Comanche Peak Unit 1. Through this -
patently untimely and meritless pleading and the accompanying motion and supplemental motion to reopen, the Dows now request the NRC to reinstitute adjudicatory proceedings and permit them to participate in those proceedings as a party. Moreover, the Dows make this extraordinary request withou even addressing some of the requirements set forth in 10 C.F.R. S 2.714 governing petitions to irstervene. Therefore, as discussed below, the Commission should summarily dismiss the Dows' petition to intervene and their accompanying motion and supplemental motion to reopen. . Additionally, given their consistent failure to t
minimally observe the commission's requirements, the Commission should admonish the Dows that the Commission will not o.tertain l
I future pleadings that reflect similar failures.
l s
ARGmiEHI 1.
The Dows' Request For Leave to Intervene Fails to Satisfy The Requirements of 10 C.F.R. 4 2.714 And should Be Denied A. The Dows Do Not Proffer One Valid Contention A petitioner must advance at least one valid contention to be permitted to intervene in a proceeding. Een lijas.i:utippi Power & Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-130, 6 AEC 423, 424 (1973); 10 C.F.R. S 2.714(a)(2) and (b)
(1991). The Dows' petition does not contain any proposed contentions. For this reason alone, the Dows should not be allowed to intervenu.
B. The Dows Do Not Hay.e Standina To Intervene Section 2.714(a)(1) of the NRC's regulations states that "any person whose interest may be affected by a proceeding
. . . shall file a written petition for leave to intervene." The Commission normally applies judicial concepts of standing in determining whether a party has sufficient interest in the proceedings. Puget Sound Power & Light Co. (Skagit Nuclear Power Project, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-599, 10 NRC 162 (1979), vacated on other grounds, CLI-80-34, 12 NRC 407 (1980). Such standards require a showing thats (1) the action being challenged could cause injury-in-fact to the person seeking to establish standing; and (2) such injury is arguably within the zone of interests protected by the statute governing the proceecings. Petitioners may demonstrate their interest by showing that their residence is
)
t witnin the geographical zone which could be affected by a nuclear accident. Louisiana Power & Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), ALAD-125, 6 AEC 371, 372 n.6 (1973). The NRC has held that distances of up to 50 miles from a nuclear power plant are within the geographical zone of interest. . Texas Utilities Generating Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), LDP-79-18, 9 NRC 728, 730 (1979). ,
The'Dovs fail to demonstrate how their interest may be adversely affected by these proceedings and provide no information regarding their residence. The Dows reside in Pennsylvania, which is hundreds of miles from comanche Peak.
Clearly, they are not within the geographical zone that would be ,
affected by an accidental release of radiation from CPSES. Sen e g , Houston Lighting & Power Ct. (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2), LDP-79-10, 9 NRC 439, 443 (1979). Indeed, the Dows admit that " petitioners' interest in this proceeding is not persono'. in any manner." (Petition at 4). 1/
1/. Furthermore, to the extent that the Dows are requesting intervention on behalf of the Disposable Workers of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station ("DWCPSES"), they have not addressed the requirements for organizational standing set forth in Honston Lighting & Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-535, 9 NRC 377, 389-04 (1979). In particuler, the Dows' Petition does not allege any organizational injury nor identify ar.y members of DWCPSES who have authorized DWCPSES to represent them in this proceeding and who have individual standing. (Een
-Petition at 4).
C. The Dows' Request For Leave To Intervene Fails To Satisfy The Requirements For Late Filed Inte rvent ions .
The Dows have not and cannot make the requisite showing that they should be permitted to intervene out of time. Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 2.714(a)(1), an untimely petition to intervene may be gran'ed only upon a balancing of the following factors: ,
(1) Good cause, if any, for failure to file on time.
(11) The availability of other means whereby the petitioner's interest will be protected.
(iii) The extent to which the petitioner's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record.
(iv) The extent to which the petitioner's interest will be represented by existing parties.
(v) The extent to which the petitioner's participation
- will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding.
In moving to intervene out of time, the burden of persuasion on those factors is clearly upon the petitioner and the factors must be addressed in the petition itself. Boston Edison Co. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-816, 22 NRC 461, 466 (1985).
Although all of the factors must be considered, a failure to demonstrate good cause for failure to file on time requires a compelling showing on the remaining four factors. Nuclear Fuel services. Inc. (West Valley Reprocessing Plant), CLI-75-4, 1 NRC 273, 274-7c 11975); Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick e
1 I
l
- . ~ , , _
0 Generating Station, Unit 1), LBP-86-9, 23 NRC 273, 279 (1986). 2/
- 1. The Dows Have Not And Cannot Show Good Cause In this case, the Dows fail to meet their burden of showing good cause under 10 C.F.R. S 2.714(a)(1)(1). The Dows filed their Petition 13 years after the notice of application for the operating licenses was issued (44 Fed. Reg. 6995 (Feb. 5, 1979)), and two years after the orerating license for CPSES Unit 1 was issuod. The Dows' excuse for failing to intervene in a timely fashion is that they only recently learned of allegations which, if brought to the attention of the original Licensing Board, would purportedly have prevented licensing. However, the Patition itself (at 1-2) does not specifically identify what, if any, of the Dows' information is new. Furthermore, most of the Dows' allegations appear to relate to design and construction activities that took place about 1984, and the few remainder allegations appear to relate to matters that are one year old, if 1
2/ The factors set forth in 10 C.F.R. S 2.714(a)(1)(ii) and (iv), the availability of other means to protect the
!r' petitioner's interests and the extent to which the l petitioner's interests are protected by other parties, are of."relatively minor importance." (Kansas Gas & Electric l Cn (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No. 1), LBP 84-17, i 19 NRC 878, 887 (1984); Detroit Edison Co. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2), ALAB-707, 16 NR; 1760, 1767
! (1982)). In light of the fact that the Dows do not have any i
personal interest in this proceeding, their interests will be adequately protected by a S 2.206 petition.
I r
o
-7 not older. (San Section II.A, infra). Thus, the Dowa are not raising their allegations in a timely manner. 3/
The Dows' tactics are also at odds with the concepts of fair and orderly conduct of administrative proceedings. As th3 Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has stated in a case affirming a' Commission order denying a late intervention:
[A] person should not be entitled to sit back and wait until all interested pornons who do so act have been heard, and then aomplain that he has not been properly treated. To permit such a person to stand aside and speculate on the outcome . . . and then
_ permit the whole matter to be reopened in his behalf, would-create an impossible situation.
Easton Utilities Commission v. AEC, 424 F.2d 847, 851 (D.C. Cir.
1970) (quoting Red River Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 90 F.2d 282, 286-87, cert. denied, 305 U.S. 625 (1938)). The coart further stated:
We do not find in statuto or case law any ground for_ accepting the premise that proceedings before -adtainistrative agencies .
are to be constituted as endurance contesta modeled after relay races in which the baton of proceeding is passed on from one legally 3/ The Dows also claim that they "were not involved in the issue when it first came to light, and/or when the original
, licensing hearings were in session." (Petition at 1-2).
However, Boards have consistently. held that previously available information newly acquired by a petitioner and newly-acquired organizational existence do not constitute good cause for delay in seeking intervention. Een, e.g.,
Florida Power and Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4), LBP-90-5, 31 NRC 73, 79-81 (1990),
aff'd, ALAB-950, 33 NRC 492 (1991). Egg alag Puget Sound l
Pcwer'& Light Co. (Skagit Nuclear Power Project, Units 1 and i 2 ) , I.BP-7 9-16, 9 NRC 711, 714 (1979) (preoccupation with other matters is not good cause for late filing).
\
i
^'
l exhausted contestant to a newly arriving legal stranger.
424 F.2d at 852.
The Commission need not look any further than the CPSES proceedings for a rationale for rejecting the Dows' untimely Petition. Specifically, the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the Commission's rejection of the Citizens for Fair Utility Regulation's ("CPUR") untimely petition to intervene. After noting that CFUk's petition was filed nine years out-of-time, six years af ter CFUR's voluntary withdrawal, and a month af ter the hearing had been dismissed, the Court concurred with the Commission's denial of CFUR's late petition. San Citizens For Fair Utility Regulation v. NRC, 898 F.2d 51 (5th Cir.), cort.
denied, 111 S.Ct. 246 (1990).
These principles are clearly applicab.le to the Dows' Petition, which should accordingly be rajected. The Dows should not be allowed to intervene into thic proceeding at such a late date. To allow the Dows to intervene in these proceedings af ter nine years of litigation, a settlement between the parties, and two years of operation of CPSES Unit I would make a mockery of the administrative process and would encourage potential intervenors to sit back and wait until a plant is operating to intervene. If for no other reason, the Dows' Petition should be denied in order to preserve the integrity of the adjudicatory process.
-p.
I i
i l
~
- 2. The Dows Will Not Contribute To Developing A Sound Record Under the third factor, the extent to which the petitioner's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a ocund record ($ 2.714(a)(1)(111)), the Dows were required to " set out with as much particularity as possible the precine issues [they plan) to cover, identify (their) prospective witnesses, and summarize their proposed testimony." dialthrdppi Eower & Licht cot (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-704, 16 NRC 1725, 1730 (1982); acc also Long laland Lighting Cn (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), ALAB-743, 18 NRC 38'., 399 (1983). The ability of the petitioner to contribute to the development of a sound record becomes a more important factor in cases where the grant or denial of the petition also decides whether thoro will be any adjudicatory hearing. Haahington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 3), ALAB-747, 18 NRC 1167, 1180 (1983). There is no reason t.o grant an inexcusably late intervention petition and trigger a hearing unless there is cause to believe the petitioner not only proposes a " substantial safety or environmental issue" but is also well
" equipped to make a substantial contribution on it." Id at 1181. Indeed, the Commission has recently held that in order to prevail on this factor, the moving party must " demonstrate thst it has-special expertise on the subject to which it seeks to raise." Commorwealth Edison co. (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-86-8, 23 NRC 241, 261 (1986).
, i e
a t
In this case, the Dows make no serious attempt to l explain the matters they propose to raise, or to summarize the evidence their witnesses might give. Instead, the Dows raise ,
several vague allegations about " material falso statements made by the applicants," and unspecified evidence that was ,
deliberately kept from the Board." (Petition at 2). The Dows ;
claim that their proposed witnesses know of design and construction issues related to the 1984 time frame. However, the j Dows never even refer to TU Electric's subsequent Corrective Action Program (" CAP"), which included a comprehensive validation of design and construction at CPSES 1/ Moreover, the Dows fail to indicate why any of these matters raise a serious cafety or environmental concern. Based on the Dows' vague pleading, and their lack of appreciation of the corrective action programs at CPSES, it is clear that the Dows would not contribute to the development of a record on the matters that they seek to raise.
- EEE, e.g., South Carolina Electric and Gas Co. (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1), ALAB-642, 13 NRC 881, 891-94 (1981),
aff8d sub nom. Fairfield United Action v. NRC, 679 F.2d 261 (D.C. Cir. 1982).
Furthermore, as discussed in Section III below, the Dows have a pattern of filing frivolous, scurrilous, and 1/ One of the attachments to the Petition, " Affidavit of .
Thayron E. Hatley, Jr.," pertains to an enforcement action F
related to operation of Unit 1, and therefore is outside of the scope of this proceeding, SEE Enblic Service Co. of New Hamoshirn (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-940, 32 NRC 225, 238 (1990).
, . . . _ , - - . - , . . , . . ~--,,,.-..e.,c r._,-, ,y- , . . _ . ,,,m. e., ., , - , , , ,
- II -
materially deficient pleadings. Therefore, not only would the i
Dows not contribute to the proceedings, any participation by ther.
would likely be disruptive.
- 3. The Dows' Intervention will Broaden the Issues and_Dgley the Proceedings The Dows appear to concede that their participation will broaden the issues. (Petition at 3). When ruling on a late filed petition to intervene, the Commission must consider "(t]he extent to which the petitioner's participation will brosden the issues or delay the proceeding." 10 C.F.R. $ 2.714(a)(1)(v)
(1991). Although this factor is not conclusive, it is a particularly significant one in striking the balance under 10 C.F.R. S 2.714(a). Project Management Corp. (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant), ALAB-354, 4 NRC 383, 394-95 (1976); Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1),
ALAB-743, 18 NRC 387, 402 (1983). In considering the issue of delay, the relevant inquiry is "whether the proceeding -- not license issuance or plant operation -- will be delayed."
Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-828, 23 NRC 13, 23 (1986); Detroit Edison Co.
(Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2), ALAB-707, 16 NRC 1760, 1766 (1982). Moreover, in the case of a very late petition, there is a substantial likelihood that the grant of the petition will lead to delay. Detroit Edison Co. (Greenwood Energy Center, Unita 2 and 3), ALAB-476, 7 NRC 759, 762 (1978).
In this case, it can hardly be doubted that permitting the Dows to intervene 13 years out of time and af ter the
12 -
Licensing Board dismissed the proceeding would result in substantial delay and a broadening of the issues.
In Puget Sound Power & Light Co. (Skagit Nuclear Power project, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-559, 10 NRC 162 (1979), vacated on other grounds, CLI-80-34, 12 NRC 407 (1980), the Appeal Board rejected a petition to interfuno flied three and a half years af ter the deadline for intervention petitions were due. After noting the "high potential for delay which would attend upon a grant of intervention at this very late stage of an already prot racted proceeding," the Appeal Board made the following statement which is particularly applicable here:
In this regard, we once again must record our belief that the promiscuous grant of intervention petitions inexcusably filed long after the prescribed deadline would pose a clear and unacceptable threat to the integrity of the entire adjudicatory process.
See ALAB-552, augra,10 NRC at 6-7, quoting from Duke Power company (Cherokee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3), ALAB-440, 6 NRC 642, 644 (1977). More specifically, persons potentially affected by the licensing action under scrutiny would be encouraged simply to sit back r.nd observe the course of the proceeding from the sidelines unless and until they became persuaded that their interest was not being adequately represented by the existing parties and thus that their own active (if belated) involvement was required. No judicial tribunal would or could sanction such an approach and it is T
equally plain to us that it is wholly foreign to the contemplation of the hearing provisions of both the Atomic Energy Act and ,
the Commission's regulations.
10 NRC at 172-73-(footnote omitted).
Similarly here, the grant of the Dows' " inexcusably" f
late Petition will inevitably delay the proceedings and threaten L
, .- , _ _ ~
1
- 13 - -
i the " integrity of the entire adjudicatory process." It should be !
summarily denied. l l
II. i The Motion To Roopen The Record Does !
.Not Satisfy The' Commission's ;
Raa_uirmments in 10 C.F.R. E 2.734(a)
- When a petitioner seeks to intervene in a proceeding in which the record has beon closed, it must satisfy both the requirements for a late filed petition as well as that for a ,
motion to reopen the record. Arizona Public Service Co. (Palo .[
i Verde Nuclear Generating Station,~ Units 1, 2 and 3), LBP-82-117B, [
16 NRC 2024, 2031 (1982), review datlined, ALAB-713, 17 NRC 83, 84 n.1 (1983). !
Even if the infirmities indicated above did not exist, the Dows' belated Motion and Supplemental Motion would still not support a decision'by the Commission to reopen the record in the Comanche Peak Proceedings. The Commission's regulations state
-that "[a] motion to reopen a closed record to consider additional ;
evidence will nor be granted unless the following criteria are satisfiad":
(1). The motion must be timely, except that an exceptionally grave issue may be considered An the discretion ofLthe: presiding officer even if -i untimely-presented.
(2) The motion must address a significant safety or
-environmental issue.
l v -e'+we ar-%a vv, v -tr .,r-+-,-e ,-r,.--+vvv vwvvy r- =,w'iwr -, , w e se,-e,c- g r- iw-y-ve-pre -y =-ey y ,- - w-e- - , - - 4 g -,E
i 3 t i
- 14 -
(3) The motion must demonstrate that a materially i different result would be or would have been [
likely had the newly proffered evidence been ;
considered initially.
-10 C.F.R. S 2.734(a)(1991) (emphasis added). l As demonstrated below, the Dows' motion and supplemental motion to reopen do not indicate why any of the ,
materials that they seek to introduce into the records (1) are ,
timely raised; (2)'have safety significance; or (3) would have ;
i
-led the Licensing Board in 1988 to deny the joint motion for ,
dismissal. Therefore, the Motion and Supplemental Motion must be l
.i denied'for failure to satisfy the requirements of 10 C.F.R. S 2.734(a).- l A. . The Motion and Supplemental Motion Are Not Timely :
Filed i j To bc timely, the moving party must show that the issue sought to be:rnised could not have been. raised earlier. 5/
~
Pacific Gas'E E3eq_tric Com (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, ,
Units-l-and-2), ALAB-775, 19 NRC 1361, 1366, aff'd sub nom- San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peggg.v. NRC, 751 F.2d 1287 (D.C. Cir. I 1984), vacated in part on other grounds, 760 F.2d 1320 (1985),
aff'd on reh'a en banc, 789 F.2d 26 (1986). Motions to reopen '
which are based-on information which has been available to a ,
t part y for' one-year or more are generally rejected by the Board.
Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit- 3 5/ The Dows' unde'rstanding of " timeliness" is flawed. The. Dows ,
claim that "this' Motion in timely, as it ja being-filed 24
? hours-after the Petition for Late-Intervention." (Motion at-2).- However, this is clearly not the time period in question under 10 C.F.R. S 2.734(a)(1). ,
o
. ._ __ ,,. _; _..._. -.- ,m. -. , , . . _ _ .r s... . , , _ , .m.,. , _ . . ,_m..
I 1
No 1), ALAD-815, 22 NRC 198 (1988). An untimely motion to reopen the record will not be granted unless the motion raises an
" exceptionally grave" issue rather than just a significant issue.
Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-886, 27 NRC 74, 76, 78 (1988) (citing 10 C.F.R S 2.734(a)(1)(1988)).
In the instant case, the motion and supplemental motion to reopen have not been timely filed. The Dows themselves admit that their "information, for some part, is quite old. . . .
(Supplemental Motion, at 2). As previously discussed, the Dows' Motion and Supplemental Motion contain allegations (including allegations by Dobie Hatley, Ron Jones, and Charles Atchison, and nine CPSES nonconformance reports ("NCRs")) that primarily relate to design and corstruction activities that took place about 1984.
Such allegations clearly are not timely.
The remainder of the issues raised by the Dows have been on the public record for a year, if not longer. For example The Dows allege (Motion at 4) that the they are in possession of TU Electric property (i.e., audiotapes) which show violations of NRC regulations. However, these tapes have been in the Dows' possession or known to the Dows for approximately one year, i
- _ - , , . _ . . . , . , . . - . . . . . _ , . . . _ _ . - _ . . . _ _ . . . ~ _ . _ . . _ , , . - . , , , . _ . .
~. __ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ - - _ . _ _ _ .- . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
l l
l
\
- 16 -
The Dows allege (Motion at 4) that the fire-watch logs l were falsified and covered up. However, the incident ,
occurred more than one year ago and the NRC has been fully aware of the facts regarding these matters. 4/
The Dows allege (Motion at 6 and Supplemental Motion at
- 2) that there was a conspiracy to preclude submission of evidence in the CPSES OL proceedings, as indicated by the treatment of Joseph Macktal. However, this same e claim has been raised on several occasions within the last four years by other persons as a basis for late intervention in the CPSES licensing proceedings. Sac Texas Utili.les Electric Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-88-42, 28 NRC 605, 612 (1988), aff'd sub nom. Citizen for Fair Utility Regulation v. NRC, 898 F.2d 51 (5th Cir. 1990),
cert. denied, 111 E.Ct. 246 (1990). Ecc algo Texas '
Utilities Electric Co. (Comanche Peak Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-89-6, 29 NRC 348 (1989); Hacktal v. NRC, Docket No. 89-1034 (D.P. Cir. June 11, 1990).
F The Dows allege (Motion at 7) that there are missing or >
incorrect labels at CPSES. However, this matter was raised years ago in NRC's Operational Readiness i n/ In any event, this matter is not within the scope of this l proceeding. See in. 4, supra.
l l
Inspection Report 89-200 and is being addressed through TU Electric's labeling program.
- The Dows allege (Motion at 4-5 and Supplemental Motion at 3) that there are toxic waste landfills at CPSES.
However, the NRC has known about these landfills for years. Sen DD-91-04, 34 NRC 201 (1991).
In summary, none of the issues identified by the Dows has been raised in a timely manner.
B. The Dows Have Not Raised A Significant Safety or Environmental Concern The Commission's regulations mandate that a motion to reopen the record raise a serious safety or environmental issue.
10 C.F.R. S 2.734(a)(2) (1991). The Dows' Motion and 1
Supplemental Motion fail to indicate how any of the matters that they propose to introduce could raise a serious safety or environmental concern.
Indeed, most of the Dows' allegations pertain to design and construction activities that occurred around 1984 (e.g.,
Atchison's documentation of 900 alleged safety concerns (Motion at 4), the errors documented in nine NCRs (Motion at 3 and Supplemental Motion at 4), the alleged falsification of engineering and design changes (Motion at 2-3), and the alleged discovery of wiring violations and drugs (Motion at 3)). These issues ceased te have any importance once TU Electric implemented
its Corrective Action Program, which validated the design and construction at CPSES. 2/ Therefore, these allegations have no present safety significance.
Furthermore, many of the Dows' concerns have already been examined by the NRC and determined not to have any safety significance. For examples
- The NRC has considered the Dows' claims regarding the audiotapes (Motion at 5) and has concluded that "there (is) no reasonable basis to believe that [the Dows) are in possession of information indicative of safety concerns regarding the Comanche Peak facility." See Letter from Ivan Selin, NRC Chairman, to Mr. Dow (Nov.
20, 1991); Letter from Robert Martin, NRC Region IV Administrator, to Mr. Dow (Oct. 3, 1991).
- With respect to the Dows' claims regarding fire-watches (Motion at 4), the NRC has concluded that TU Electric 2/ With respect to the nine NCRs that were resolved in 1984, the Dows allege that these NCRs were " physically altered" by one of the Dows' proposed witnesses, Dobie Hatley.
(Supplemental Motion at 4). Even if true (and the Dows provide no information to support their allegation), the allegation would have no safety significance given the subsequent design and hardware validation programs.
Furthermore, as discussed _in TU Electric letter TXX-88495 (June 9, 1988), Enclosure at 20-21, TU Electric performed a self-initiated review of NCRs dispositioned prior to December 22, 1986, to ensure that the dispositions are technically adequate and in compliance with licensing commitments.
took appropriate actions with respect to the falsification of fire-watch logs. H/
With respect to the Dows' allegations on labeling (Motion at 7), the NRC has determined that TU Electric has established an " excellent labeling program." 2/
With respect to the Dows' claims regarding "texic waste dumps" (Motion at 4-5 and Supplemental Motion at 3),
the Commission has determined that the CPSES landfills do not pose a threat to the safety of the plant and do not warrant an environmental impact statement. Egg DD-91-04, 34 NRC 201 (1991). 1D/
Finally, with respect to-the Dows' claims that Mr.
Macktal and others were precluded frem presenting evidence to the Licensing Board (Motion at 6 and B/ Sen, e.g., NRC letter to TU Electric dated March 27, 1991, proposing imposition of a $50,000 civil penalty related to falsification of fire-watch logs, but also finding that "TU Electric, through its pursuit of an identified concern, discovered this situation, promptly informed NRC, thoroughly investigated the matter and took prompt and extensive corrective actions." Additionally, as discussed in in. 4 aupra, this issue is outside of this proceeding.
1/ Sen NRC Inspection Report 50-445/91-70 (p.4).
1D/ The Dows also refer to "off-site waste dumps" that allegedly contain radioactivity. (Motion at 4-5 and Supplemental Motion at 3). However, the Dows never make any connection between the off-site dumps and CPSES, nor do they explain why NRC would have jurisdiction over these dumps in connection with this proceeding.
, ' i Supplemental Motion at 2), the Commission has refused to reopen the CPSES hearings for other individuals (including Mr. Macktal) who have made sjmilar claims that there was a conspiracy to preclude submission of evidence in the CPSES OL proceedings. Enc Texas
.111tiegJ1ectric fa,. (Comanche Peak Stear. 21ectric F ation, Units 1 and 2), CLI-88-12, 28 NRC 605, 612 (1988), aff'd Enb_ nom. citizens for Fair Utility eg.gulation v. NRC, 898 F.2d 51 (5th Cir. 1990), cert.
,lenigd, 111 S. Ct. 246 (1990). See also Texas Utilities Electric Co. (Comanche Peak Station electric Stations, Units 1 and 2), CLI-89-6, 29 NRC 348 (1989).
Macktal v. NRC, Docket No. 89-1034 (D.C. Cir. June 11, 1990) (dismissing Macktal's appeal on grounds of mootness).
Finally, the Dows have raised other allegations that have absolutely nothing to do with safety or are not witnin the jurisdiction of NRC. For example, the Dows allege (Motion at 4) that-Marie Yvonne Wilkinson was subject to sexual and racial discrimination. Clearly, such claims are not within the jurisdiction of the NRL.
Consequently, the Dows have failed to meet the second prong of 10 C.F.R. S 2.734 and the Commjasien should deny their motion and supplemental motion to reopen the record in the Comanche Peak proceedings.
l
C. The Dows Have Not Demonstrated That The Matters Would Have Caused The Board Not To Dismiss The Prcceedings In order to reopen the record, the Dows must also demonstrate that "a different result would be or would have been likely had the newly proffered evidence been considered initially." 10 C.F.R. S 2.734(a)(3) (1991). When the motion to recpen the record is not releted to a litigated issue, the effect of the proffered evidence cannot be measured against the Board's decision on a particular issue, but must be viewed against the effect on the outcome of the proceeding. Long Island Lighting Cn (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-83-30, 17 NRC
'1132, 1142 (1983) (citing Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-138, 6 AEC 520, 523 (1973)).
The matters that the Dows seek to introduce into the record would not have caused the Board to reject the settlement of the proceedings. As previously discussed, the Dows do not raise any significant safety or environmental concerns.
Moreover, many of the Dows" allegations have been submitted to this Commission by the Dows and others in earlier petitions to intervene and motions to reopen. See, e g , Texas Utilities Electric Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-88-12, 28 NRC 605 (1988); CLI-89-06, 29 NRC 348 (1989);
CLI-92-01 (Jan. 17, 1992). These allegations were not a sufficient basis for reopening the hearings then, and they are l
l l:
not a sufficient baals now. Clearly, the Dows' allegations would not have caused the Licensing Board to reach a different result.
III.
The CommisIinD Should Admonish the Dogg 10 C.F.R. S 2.708(c) states in pertinent part that:
The signaturn of a person signing in a representative capacity is a representation that the document has been subscribed in the capacity specified with full authority, that he has read it and knows the contents, that to the best of his knowledge, information and belief the statements made in it are true, and that it is not interposed
'for delay. If a document is not signed, or is signed with intent to defeat the purpose of this section, it may be stricken.
This section is similar to Rule 11 r.f the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP"). 11/ While Rule 11 of the FRCP is not 11/ Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states in pertinent part that:
The signature of an_ attorney or party constitutes a certificate by the migrer that the signer has read the pleading, motion, or other' paper; that to the best of ti.a' signer's knowledge, information, and belief formed after r?asonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or good inith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as-to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation . . ._If a pleading, motion or other -
paper is signed in violation of this Rule,_the Court,-upon motion or upon its own initiative,
-shall impose upon the person who signed it, a represented party, or both, an appropriate sanction, which may include an order to pay to the other party or parties the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred because of the filing of the pleading, motion or other paper, including (continued...)
i directly applicable to practice before the Commission, judicial interpretations of hule 11 should serve as guidance for interpreting S 2.708(c). 12/
Federsi caselow interprets Rule 11 to impose the following affirmativo duties on a party who signs a pleading, motion or other document (1) that the (party) has conducted a reasonable inquiry into the facts which support the document.
(2) that the (party) has conducted a reasonable inquiry into the law such that the document embodies existing legal principles or a good faith argument "for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law;"
and (3) that the motion is not interposed for purposes of delay, harassment, or increasing costs of litigation.
11/(... continued) a reasonable attorney's fee.
H Fed. P.. Civ. P., Rule 11, 28 U.S.C.A.
12/ The NRC has acknowledged that the provisions contained in 10 C.F.R. Part 2 are based on the FRCP. Statement of Considerations, 27 Fed. Reg. 377 (1962). Moreover, the NRC has often relied on judicial interpretations of the FRCP as guidance for interpreting similar or analogous NRC rules.
Sag, e.o., Detroit Edison-Co. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2), LBP-78-37, 8 NRC 575, 581 (1988); Cincinnati Gas and Electric Co. (William H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station,_ Unit 1), LBP-82-47, 15 NRC 1538, 1542 (1982);
Toledo Edison Co.. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-300, 2 haC 752, 760 (1975); commonweal _th Edison Co. (Zion Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-196, 7 AEC 457, 461 (1975).
See also Rex v. Ebasco Services, Nos. 87-ERA-6 and 87-ERA-40 (May 12, 1989)'(Rule 11 of the FRCP was applied in a Department of Labor case).
Thomas v. Capital Security Services. Inc., 836 F.2d 866, 873 (5th Cir.-1985). The Commission should interpret S 2.708 to impose similar duties on a party to an NRC proceeding. 13/
As discussed below, the Dows have failed to cond6ct a reasonab1re inquiry into the factual and legal bases which allegedly support their pleadings. If the Dows had conducted a minimal search of the NRC record, they would have discovered that their allegations are meritless, incorrect, or omit material facts. Moreover, it is apparent that the Dows are making their claims in bad faith and for the purpose of harassis.; TU Electric and the PRC. The Dows' pleadings in this matter represent the latest in a continuing pattern of conduct that is clearly unacceptable in NRC pioceedings. As a result, the time has now
-come for the Commission to admonish the Dows for the repeated defects in their pleadings.
The Dows' pattern of conduct is obvious from a recitation of their actions in this and other proceedings. In particular:
13/ This same result would also be justified under 10 C.F.R. S 2.713(a) (" parties and their representatives in proceedings subject to this.subpart are expected to conduct themselves with honor, dignity, and decorum as they should before a court of law"); 10 C.F.R.-S 2.713(c) (the Commission may
" reprimand, censure or suspend from participation in'the particular proceeding pending before it any party or representative of a party who shall refuse to comply with its directions, or who shall be guilty of disorderly, disruptive, or contemptuous conduct"); or 10 C.F.R. S 2.718(e) (the Commission has the power to "[r]egulate the
~
course of the hearing and the conduct of the parties"). See Alan Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, CLI-81-8, 13 NRC 452, 453-54 (1981).
. _ _ _ _ . , . . . - _ - __ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _. . -._.~._
1 c..
f.- . 7 1
- A. The Dows have repeatedly submitted pleadings that omit l
?
material.information of which the Dows are aware or l phould have been_ aware if they had performed a H reasonable incuiry. For example I
- I
.The " Motion to Reopen the Record" (Nov. 20, 1991) at 3, is based in part upon a settlement agreement involving ,
l Joseph Macktal. However, with even a modest amount of j
\
inquiry, the Dows would have been aware that the I commission previously rejected the Macktal settlement u
agreement as a basis for reopenAng the record, and that i
the Commission's decision was upheld by the i
-courts 11/ l l
'l
-* - In any. event, the Dows were certainly aware of these precedents following the response of TU Electric and !
h E 'the NRC' Staff-to their motion-and the Commission's '
1 order denyirig the motion. 15/
Nevertheless, the a L
L Dows' most recent. Motion to Reopen at 6, again relies n .
, uponLthe Macktal. settlement agreement without i
<> mentioning these precedents.
/-
'{
fli/- San CLI-88-12, 28 NRC_G05'(1988);_CLI-89-06, 29 NRC 348 f(1989); Citizens for Fair Utility Regulation v. NRC,'898 a F.2d 51 (5th'Cir.), cert. denied,-111 S.-Ct. 246.(1990);
Macktal v. NRC,LDocket No. 89-1034-(D.C. Cir. June 11, J1990).
- . _15/~ San " Licensee's-Answer To.The Motion To' Reopen The' Record 1By Micky.Dow and Sandra Long Dow" (Dec. 2, 1991)Lat 12-13, 32- '
F '33;i"NRCEStaff's Reply to Motion of R Micky and Sandra Dow tofReopen the Record" -(Dec. 9,-1991) at 3-4,_13-14;-CLI !
RO1,_ slip;op, at 10-11.
+
n Ns t - r ,r w ,+ L. - , ,- , , . . , - , - --,. , , , , , , - ,,v-, s -,e ,- e~- - -n m,~---
The Motion at 4, refers to " mismanagement, violations, and related coverup" involving CPSES fire-watches.
However, the Dows were aware, but neglected to mention, that the NRC issued a civil penalty involving the fire-watches. They also were aware or should have been aware, but did not mention, that the NRC concluded that "TU Electric through its pursuit of an identified concern, discovered this situation, promptly informed the NRC, thoroughly investigated the matter and took prompt and extensive corrective actions," li/ and that the NRC closed this violation. 12/
- - The " Motion to Reopen the Record" (Nov. 20, 1931) at 8, alleges that tnere was a " Secret Settlement Agreement" between CASE and TU Electric. However, the Dows were almost certainly aware, and ir,any case easily could have learned, that this settlement agreement was made public at-the tiwe of dismissal of the CPSES licensing proceedings in 1988-and was published in full in the Licenaing Board's dismissal order. 18/
1E/ San EA 91-015, letter dated Mar. 27, 1991, from NRC' Region IV Administrator Robert D. Martin to TU Electric at 2.
l 12/ Jhug NRC Inspection Repert 50-445/91-28 (July 11, J991).
l l- 1H/ Ege LBP-88-188, 28 NRC 103, 126-135 (1988).
l In their " Motion to Roopen the Record" (Nov. 20, 1991) at 5, the Dows claim, based upon allegations by S.M.A.
Hasan, that TU Electric employed a " fraudulent scheme to certify the pipe support system at Comanche Peak with multiple sets of design criteria" prior to 1984.
However, they were aware or should have been swara, but did not mention, that the NRC had previously investigated this allegation and had determined in 1988 "that the collective-allegation asse-iated with the use of inconsistent pipe support design criteria by the previous design groups has been adequately resolved." 12/
- In the~ Motion at 7, the Dows claim that CPSES components have not been labelled or have been mislabelled. However, the Dows did not mention, and easily could have learned, that TU Electric and the NRC have both been aware of discrepr cies involving component labels, that TU Electric has developed a label program to address this concern, and that the NRC Staff has recently closed this concern, finding that l,
I
- 11/ Letter from Phillip E. McKee, NRC Office of Special 1 Projects, to Mr. S.M.A. Hasan, Enclosure 1 at 3 (Jan. 6, 1988).
"[t]he licensee has implemented an excellent labeling program." 2D/
- The Notion at 4, alleges that the Dows plan to introduce 16 reels of audiotape that identify safety concerns. However, the Dows were aware, but did not mention, that the NRC had previously determined that there is "no reasonable basir to believe" that these tapes contain information indicative of safety concerns at CPSES. 21/
- The Motion at 4-5 and Supplemental Motion at 3, make allegations regarding " waste dumps" at CPSES. However, the Dows were aware or should have been aware, but did not mention, that the NRC has previously determined that these landfills do not pose a threat to the safety of the plant, do not warrant an environmental impact statement, and are under the primary jurisdiction of other agencies. 22/
2D/ San NRC Inspection Reports 50-445/89-200 (at 39-40),90-020 (at 6-7), and 91-70 (at 4).
11/ San Letter from-Ivan selin, NRC Chairman, to Richard E. Dow,
- Jr. (Nov. 20, 1991); Letter from Robert D. Martin, NRC Region IV Administrator, to Richard E. Dow, Jr. (Oct. 3, 1991).
22/ Een DD-91-04, 34 NRC 201 (1991).
The Motien at 2-4 and Supplemental Motion at 2, allege, based upon sources that were at CPSES in the 1984-time frame, that there are uncorrected construction and design deficiencies at CPSES. However, the Dows are aware, 23/ but did not mention, that TU Electric established and successfully implemented a comprehensive Corrective Action Program after 1904 to validate the design and construction at CPSES.
The Supplemental Motion.at 3, alleges that " fuel has been onsite since 1982, without public knowledge."
This statement is-incorrect on two counts: First, TU Electric was issued a license to receive fuel in February 1983, and this license is a matter of public record; second, TU Electric began to receive fuel shortly after issuance of the license, not in 1982 as alleged by the Dows.
In summary, the statements made by the Dows in their pleadings to the NRC consistently contain omissions of material fact.- In some cases, the Dows were clearly aware of the material facts; in other cases, the Dows easily could have discovered the 23/ Een, e.g. " Licensee's Answer to the Motion to Reopen the Record by Micky Dow and Sandra Long Dow" (Dec. 2, 1991) at
- 8. In particulr.7, the Dows raise claims regarding Charles Atchison. Mr At chisen's employment claims were resolved in Brown & Root, f r_ r . v. Donovan, 747 F.2d 1029 (5th Cir.
1984). The Circuit Court commented on the credibility of Mr. Atchison at 1031.
a> - > + r +n, --n --,r. ~+- ss..- ..u - .a .__ w, -
material facts by performing a reasonable inquiry. In any event, it is apparent that the Dows have engaged in a pattern of making inaccurate and unreliable statements to the NRC.
B. The Dows have engaged in a pattern of making frivolous claims. For exam _olet ,
In support of their " Motion to Reopen the Record" (Nov.
20, 1991) at 3-4, the Dows claim that they had new evidence and information that "has only come to light within the last thirty (30) days." However, upon reviewing the Motion, the Commission found thac "the information supporting their motion has been before us on previous occasions _," and that their information "is simply not timely in any sense of the word." 2A/
In support of their " Motion to Reopen the Record" (Nov.
20, 1991) at 6-7, the Dows claim that, had the licensing board in the CPSES licensing proceeding known of the Dows' allegations, the Dows would have been allowed to intervene. However, the Commission concluded that allegations similar to those identified by the Dows had been raised previously before the licensing and the Commission, and that the " allegations are insubstantial and unsupported and do not constitute l
-li/ CLI-92-01, slip op, at 7-9.
i
t f
~
, . a basis for voiding the settlement agreement or reoponing the proceedings." 25/
- The Petition at 1-2, claims that the Dows have good cause for filing 13 years out-of-time because they "were not involved in this issue when it first came to light.." Similarly, the Motion at 2, claims that the filing in timely because "it is being filed 24 nours after the petition for late intervention." The ,
frivolous nature of these claims is evident on their face..
e In summary, the Dows continue to make frivolous arguments.
C. The Dows have engaged in a pattern of making scandalous claims without any substantiation. For example __
(-
- In a letter datsd September 1, 1991, to NRC Chairman Selin, the Dows alleged that TU Electric engaged in
-perjury," citing a S 2.206 petition filed by a third person. In e letter dated 0:tober 3, 1991, the NRC concluded that the Dows' lettar " provide [d] no ,
substantive support related to that petition." 25/
25/ CLI-92-01, slip op at 11.
25/ Letter from Ronald D. Martin, NRC Region IV Administrator, to Mr. Dow (Oct. 3, 1991) at 2.
. . ._ . _ m . _. __
Despite the NRC's conclusion quoted above, the Dows repeated their allegations regarding " perjury" and
" material falso statements"_the very_next month throughout their Novemrer 20, 1991, " Motion to Reopen the Record." In response, the Corlission found that the Dows " cite absolutely no documentation for that allegation. [The Dows) do not even support the allegatAon with their own affidavit; instead we have only their own ipse dixit in the Motion." 22/
Despite the Commission's conclusions quoted above, the Dows have now repeated their allegation regarding
" material false statements" in the Petition at 2 and their allegations of " criminal intent," " material false statements," and " perjury" in th6 Supplemental Motion at 2. Once again, the Dows offer absolutely no support for their allegation.
In summary, the Dows have a history of making scandalous claims without any independent corroborating evidence.
22/ CLI-92-01, slip op. at 10.
33 -
D. The Dows are harassing TU Electric and the NRC. For examplet _
- During the last year, the Dows have initiated five proceedings against the NRC and TU Electric in the courts, three of which were dismissed. 2B/
- In the last four months, the Dows have twice tried to reopen the CPSES licensing proceedings.
- The Dows have made scurrilous and baseless charges against the NRC and TU Electric. For example, in addition to their claims discussed above, the Dows have made claims of duplicity between the license holder and members of Region IV of the NRC, to bypass, and cover-up and/or overlook various safety concerns, including the fire-watch violations of 1990 and i . -
l~ 2B/ Sag, pow v. NRC, No. 92-1069 (D.C. Cir.) (petition-for review of Commission's denial of motion to reopen and l
- petition for injunction to prohibit operation of CPSES); No.
91-1238 (W. D. Pa) (complaint for damages); Dow v. NRC, Nos.
91-1461 and 1462 (D.C. Cir.) (petitions for review of the issuance of the CPSES OL; dismissed by Orders dated Jan. 30, l_
1992); Dow v. Comanchg_2pak Steam Electric Station, No. CA4-91-255-E (N.D. Tax.) (petition for injunction against operation and construction of CPSES; dismissed by Order deted Apr> 11, 1991); In Ret DQH, Nos. 91-1451 and 1444 (5th Cir.) (petitions for injunction and writ of mandamus;
' dismissed by Orders dated Nay 7 and 9, 1991).
34 -
1991;" 22/ failure of the NRC Staff and TU Electric to inform the Licensing Board of perjury; 2D/ and, implications that unnamed persons murdered or attempted to murder whistleblowers. 31/
In summary, through their numerous actions and baseless charges against the NRC and TU Electric, it is apparent that the Dows are attempting to harass both the NRC and TO Electric.
E. The Dows have engaged in a pattern of not complying with the Commission's rules. For .
gxamoler Mr. Dow did not comply with an NRC subpoena for y documents, audiotapes, and other information which, l-accordingly to Mr. Dow, contain 'dence of safety l
concerns related to CPSES. The NRC decided not to j pursue this subpoena after it concluded that there was no reasonable basis to believe that Mr. Dow was in possession of information of safety concerns regarding CPSES.-32/
L 21/ Sag Motion at 4. See also, " Motion to Reopen the Record" ,
(Nov. 20, 1991) at 3.
10/ Snn " Motion to Reopen the Record" (Nov. 20, 1991) at 6-7.
31/ San Letter from the Dows to Ivan Selin, NRC Chairman (Sept.
1,.1991) at 3, 6.
32/ Sen Letter from Ivan Selin, NRC Chairman, to Mr. Dow _(Nov.
20, 1991); Letter from Robert D. Martin, NRC Region IV Administrator, to Mr. Dow (Oct. 3, 1991).
\
- The_ Commission rejected the Dows' " Motion to Reopen the Record"-(Nov. 20, 1991) in the CPSES licensing proceeding, finding that the Dows had no right to file such a motion because they were not parties and that ,
the Dows did not address the five factors governing late intervention in 10 C.F.R. S 2.714(a)(1). 13/
- As discussed above, the Dows' Petition does not address the Commission's regulations related to contentions, the standing of the Dows, or organizational standing.
In summary, the Dows havo repeo.tedly refused to follow the Commission's requirements.
As demonstrated above, the Dows have engagsd in a pattern of not complying with the Commission's requirements, of making frivolous and scurrilous claims, of making statements which the Dcws knew or should have known omit material facts, and of-harassing TU Electric and the NRC. Therefore,-TU Electric requests that the Commission admonish the Dows and issue an order stating that the Commission will'not accept, and will not require the parties to respond to, any further pleading by the Dows .
unless the Commission affirmatively determines that the pleading facially complies the Commission's procedural requirements, reflects a good faith effort to confirm the validity of-the 32/ CLI-92-01, slip op. at 5-7.
36 -
factual and legal allegations contained therein, and otherwise appears to be free of the types of defects discussed above.
TU Electr.tc realizes that such an order would be unusual. Ilowever, TU Electric submits that the nature and pattern of the Dows' conduct are unique. Given these circumstances, an admonition and an order are necessary to protect TU Electric and the NRC Staff from further abuse of the NRC process. Such a protection order would also enable TU Electric and the NRC Staff to maintain the focus of their attention and resources where they properly belong -- on ensuring the-safety of CPSES.
i 1
i-
-. - .. .. c . _ . _ ____ _ _ ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _
- 37 -
IV.
CQHCLUSlOR For the reasons discussed above, the Dows' petition to intervene and.the accompanying motion to reopen and supplemental motion to reopen are patiently deficient and should be summarily dismisced. Furthermore, the Commission should admonish the Dows that it will not accept further pleadings from the Dows that centain similar defects.
Respectfully submitted,
.4?kf" . / -
of Counsel [,Goorge M. dgaf V f Robert A. Wooldridge Steven W. Frantz Worsham, Forsythe, Samples, Steve A. Linick
& Wooldridge Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.
2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 1000 Suite 3200 1615 L Street, N.W.
Dallas, TX 75201 Washington, D.C. 20036 (214) 979-3000 (202) 955-6600 Attr:m yJ for Texas Utilities Elecccic Company March 16, 1992
f UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
( NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ctrl;tp o BEFORE THE COMMISSION U.iNi'C 72 MN? 17 A10:39
) m W (d E t C,.e it,' -
In the Matter of ) i,acg[ ; nm s cI,-W.1
) hE a law TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC )
COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-445-OL
) 50-446-OL
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric )
Station, Units 1 and 2 )
)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OP SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "TU 7:lectric's Answer to the Petition to Intervene and Motion and Supplemental Motion to Reopen By Micky Dow and Sandra Long Dow and TU Electric's Request for Admonition of the Dows" were served upon the following persons-by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid and properly addressed, on the date shown below:
Chairman Ivan Selin U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Commissioner Kenneth C. Rogers U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Commissioner James R. Curtiss L U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Washington, D.C. 20555 l Commissioner E. Gail de Planque U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Commissioner Forrest J. Remick' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
f 3
.L i
Janice Moore, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Secretary U.S. Nuclear 1:egulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn Chief, Docketing Service Section (Original plus two copies)
R. Mickey Dow Sandra Long Dow 8 Great Southern Shops Suite 200 Bridgeville, Pennsylvania 15017 Charles E. Mullins, Esq.
Office of General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co:amission Washington, D C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington. D.C. 20555 Dated this 16th day of March, 1992.
,s Y N Steven P. Frantz Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.
1615 L Street,.N.W.
.Suito 1000 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 955-6822 l
l
!