ML20134E779

Response to Applicant First Set of QA Interrogatories & Request to Produce & Motion for Protective Order.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20134E779
Person / Time
Site:	Braidwood
Issue date:	08/16/1985
From:	Guild R GUILD, R., ROREM, B.
To:	COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
References
CON-#385-263 OL, NUDOCS 8508200446
Download: ML20134E779 (24)

Text

9&h s

August 16, 1985 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD DOU ETED

. USNRC In the Matter of: )

) '85 AUG 19 R2:07 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50- 45 60L-

) 50-457 ea .

(Braidwood Nuclear Power ) crF:y 00CKfT ,inci$Iyf6~

Station, Units 1 and 2) ) ERANCH RESPONSE TO APPLICANT COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY'S FIRST SET OF QUALITY ASSURANCE INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS DIRECTED TO INTERVENORS BRIDGET LITTLE ROREM, ET AL.

AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Intervenors Bridget Little Rorem, et al., by their under-signed counsel, hereby respond to Applicant Commonwealth Edison Company's First Set of Quality Assurance Inte::rogatories and Requests to Produce Documents, which were served August 2, 1985.

Pursuant to 10 CFR Section 2.740(c), Intervenors move for the entry of a protective order as to each interrogatory and request for production of documents, or portion thereof, as to which they herein obj ect. As the Board has previously directed and

, as the parties have previously undertaken, Intervenors will endeavor to negotiate and resolve discovery disputes including our objections prior to seeking a ruling from the Board on the Motion For Protective Order.

By way of introduction Intervenors note that their discovery requests of Applicant and the NRC Staff, consisting of interroga-tories and requests to produce documents served July 2,1985, 8508200446 850816 PDR ADOCK 05000456 C PDR

still remain substantially unanswered; or, where answered, have been answered only so recently and in such a manner that at this time Intervenors have not had sufficient opportunity to examine, inspect and evaluate the information in order to incorporate such information in this response. Although complete answers to Intervenors' interrogatories and document production requests were due to be served August 9,1985, a Third Partial Response was served August 10, a Fourth Partial Response was served August 12 and a Fifth Partial Response was served after close of business August 13, 1985. Intervenors are informed by Applicant's counsel that documents identified in answer to Intervenors' interrogatories are to be made available for inspection and copying at their offices after August 19, 1985.

Answers to several critical interrogatories including Number 58 which seeks information regarding corrective actions taken to remedy deficiencies identified in the amended QA contention are to be provided by August 23, 1985.

As directed by the Board, the parties have sought to negotiate discovery disputes prior to seeking Board rulings on objections. Intervenors anticipate that additional answers and information may be forthcoming from Applicant and the NRC Staff although presently the subject of their objections, either by voluntary agreement or by Board Order.

On August 1, 1985, Intervenors served their Response to NRC Staff Interrogatories and document production requests.

This NRC Staff discovery sought information on Intervenors'

, =

position regarding each subpart of our amended QA contention including particularly other instances of violations of the cited 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B criteria and corrective actions taken. Where answers to Applicant's interrogatories have already been provided in response to this NRC Staff discovery, these answers are not repeated here in the interest of brevity, but such previous answers are specifically identified in response to the appropriate interrogatory by Applicant.

Applicant seeks the production of documents from Intervenors for inspection and copying. Documents identified in the answers to the following interrogatories, except those which are privileged, will be made available for inspection and copying at counsel's office in Chicago, Illinois, at a time to be agreed upon. In the course of preparing for the litigation of this contention, advising and communicating with intervenors and others, documents are prepared by counsel or at counsel's direction which are privileged and not subject to discovery pursuant to 10 CFR Section 2. 740(b)(1) . Such documents as trial preparation materials are subject to a work product privilege and an attorney-client privilege protects from disclosure the mental impressions and opinions of counsel. 10 CFR 5 2. 740(b)(2) .

Such documents as handwritten notes, memoranda and other documents prepared by Intervenors' counsel or at counsel's direction are privileged and protected from disclosure. Intervenors object to the production of such documents and ask the Board to enter an order protecting such materials from disclosure.

i o

Ql: Describe every oral communication which you have had which refers or relates to each subpart of the contention by:

a. date;

b. whether the communication was on the telephone or in person

c. the subject matter of the communication; and

d. identify all persons participating therein.

You may exclude all such communications in which counsel for Staff and/or Applicant participated.

A1: This interrogatory impermissibly seeks the description of "every" oral communication "which refers or relates to" the subparts of the contention participated in by Intervenors'

" attorneys, including all employees of BPI." Intervenors obj ect to the description of communications which are exempt from discovery as attorney-client and attorney work product privileged information. Oral communication by and among in te rvenors ' counsel, counsel's employees, agents and advisors, Intervenors, and persons seeking legal advice are protected from discovery. 10 CFR $2.740(b)(1) and (b)(2); Rule 26(b)(4),

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent Applicant seeks communications by " Stanley Campbell and Diane Chavez" as included in the definition of the terms, "you and your,"

Intervenors object on relevance grounds since neither Mr. Campbell no r Ms . Chavez are parties to this proceeding. Aside from oral

' communication in which counsel (or counsel's employees and l

l

agents) were participants, no other communication is believed to have occurred as sought by this interrogatory.

Counsel for Intervenors have had oral communications with a number of prospective expert consultants and advisors, none of whom are presently expected to be called as witnesses at trial. Intervenors obj ect to disclosing the identities of these persons or the content of the communication (s) with them.

10 CFR 52.740(b)(2); Rule 26(b)(4), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Intervenors' counsel have had oral communications with a number of present and former Braidwood site employees. In light of the serious claims involving harassment and intimidation of such site employees, Intervenors are concerned that simply disclosing the existence of such communications with counsel for Intervenors may subject such persons to reprisal or fear of reprisal which, at the least, may have a chilling effect on their willingness to cooperate with Intervenors and participate in this proceeding. Intervenors object to describing such oral communications with counsel since such communications are not discoverable. Applicant can interview such persons itself to obtain the same information.

The following oral communications are identified in which counsel for Intervenors participated:

1. July 9-14, 1985 John D. Seeders

2. July 9, 10, 1985 Worley O. Puckett

3. July 9, 1985 Lee Hornberger

4. July 15, 1985 Frank Martorana

5. July 24, 30, 1985 L.G. McGregor

6. July 14, 29, 1985 Dan Holley

7. July 29, 1985 Richard Snyder

8. July 30, 1985 Tim Stewart

9. July 31, 1985 Herschel Stout

10. August 1, 1985 R.D. Hunter As represented in our August 2, 1985, Motion For Confidential Treatment of Eleven QC Inspector Names, counsel for Intervonors communicated with each of the sixteen Comstock QC inspectors who were identified in the April 5,1985, NRC memo attached to our July 15, 1985, supplemental filing. We object to the disclosure of the names or identifying information regarding l

persons who have not' consented to such disclosure. Applicant has agreed to protection of such information on an interim l

l basis pending agreement on or other resolution of Intervonors' request for protective orders providing such confidentiality, i On May 17 and 24, 1985, counsel had oral communications

' with an unknown person who had knowledge of facts relevant to the amended QA contention. Intervonors object to describing l

such communication since a description may serve to identify this person who cicarly desired and sought anonymity. The nature of the communication persuados Intervonors that the person has a icgitimate interest in remaining anonymous.

L - -- -

1

, Q2: Identify the documents in your possession prior to f the admission of the contention which refer or relate to each subpart of the contention and identify each person supplying you with each such document.

A2: The picadings and exhibits previously served upon 1 Applicant and filed in this proceeding refer or relate to the l'

contention. The documents identified as exhibits to these pleadings were supplied by the NRC Staff in the case of inspec-tion report, by the Court Reporter in the case of the Koppler-Warnick Deposition and the Koppler Byron testimony, the Chicago Tribuno in the case of the articlo quoting Mr. Keppler, and by Applicant in the case of the savoral Commonwealth Edison documents. Other documento consist of attorney work product and attorney-client privilogod materials the identification and production of which is objected to. In addition, counsel for Intervonors roccived documents believed to be from the anonymous individual referred to in Interrogatory 1, above, l

Intervonora decline to describe or produco nuch documents since

, they would likely provide identifying information which would  :

I compromise this individual's anonymity.

)

Q3: Identify each individual and organization with j

" quality nasuranco exportiso" whom you have conoulted concerning  ;

, i j Braidwood and identify each document which refera or relaten to nuch consultation, f

I e

1

,e ---- ---.w--, _______________________-_____-_________________l

A3: Intervenors object to disclosing the identities of or substantive communication from the persons with QA expertise referred to, where none of these persons are, at present, expected to be called as witnesses at trial. 10 CFR 52.740(b)(2); Rule 26 (b)(4), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Q4: Define the word " breakdown" as it is used in the contention.

A4: Intervonors employ the word " breakdown" as a term of art with the same meaning ao la attached to the word by the NRC as, for examplo, in 10 CFR Section 50.55(o) and in the Atomic Safety and Liconoing Appeal Board decision in the ca.11away caso, ALAB 740, 18 NRC 343 (1983).

{ For each subpart of the contention doncribe the Q5:

correctivo action which han been or in being implemented to 1

l correct the deficiency doncribed thoroin.

AS: Intervonora answered this question with respect to correctivo action regarding each deficiency cited in each nub-I part of the contention in our Augunt 1, 1985, Rooponno to the NRC Staff'n July 12, 1985 Interrogatories. We reiterate such anoworn at thin timo. Such annworn woro provided in responso to Interrogatorion 3, 4, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16, 17, 22, 23, 26, 27, 30, 31, 34, 35, 38, 39, 41, 43, 46, 47, 50, 51.

9 Q6: For each corrective action identified in answer to Interrogatory 5, state whether you believe the corrective action has been or will be, if impicmented in accordance with its description, effective in rectifying the specified quality assurance deficiency. If your answer is negative, describe fully the particulars in which the corrective action is asserted to bo inoffective, the basis for each such assertion and identify all documents which refer or relato to your answer.

A6: Intervonors answered this question with respect to corrective action regarding each deficiency cited in cach sub-pcrt of the contention in our August 1, 1995 Response to the NRC Staff's July 12, 1985 Interrogatories. We reiterate such answorn at this time. Such answers were provided in response to Interrogatorien 3, 4, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16, 17, 22, 23, 26, 27, 30, 31, 34, 35, 38, 39, 42, 43, 46, 47, 50, 51.

Q7: State whether you will contend at the hearing that the specific factual occurrences act forth in the contention exhibit an annerted pattern of quality assurance deficiencies

. on any common basin other than the specified critorion of 10 CFR Part 50, App. B oot forth in the contention. If so, describe cach auch common basis for an asserted pattern of quality annuranco deficiencies and identify any documents which refer or reinto to auch common banin.

r__ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . -

=

1 A7: This interrogatory appears to seek the disclosure of the legal opinions or theories of Intervenors' counsel and, l as such, it is objectionable as addressed to privileged attorney work product. It also prematurely would require Intervenors to take a position on such legal theories before we have had an adequate opportunity in discovery to ascertain evidence of common bases and patterns. Even at this stage, how-l ever, evidence of such patterns and common bases have been l

identified, for example, by NRC Regional Administrator James G.

Keppler who observed that such serious deficiencies were a product of Applicant's management being " spread thin at the top."

February 1, 1984, Chicago Tribune, "Will County A-Plant Faulted -

' Worse' Than Byron."

QS: Define the words harassment, intimidation, retaliation and discrimination as used in the Joint Stipulation on Quality i Control ("QC") Inspector Harassment Contention (" Joint Stipulation").

A8: The terms harassment, intimidation, retaliation and f

discrimination as used in the contention, collectively represent policies, practices, acts or omissions by Commonwealth Edison or its contractors intended to or having the effect of impeding, interfering with, or improperly influencing the performance of quality assurance duties by Braidwood site employees. Such conduct includes discrimination as defined and

prohibited under the Employee Protection provisions of the Energy Reorganization Act, 42 USC Section 5851 and 10 CFR Section 50.7, and pressure to sacrifice quality and safety l interests out of cost and schedule considerations.

Q9: Describe each instance of (A) harassment and (B) intimidation either (1) carried out or (2) participated in by Irv DeWald, Larry Seese, Bob Seltman and R.M. Sakalac and for each such instance:

a. identify the QC inspector or other Comstock employee allegedly harassed or intimidated;

b. identify the Comstock supervisor involved;

c. describe the quality or safety concern expressed by the QC inspector or other l

Comstock employee;

d. state whether the quality or safety concern j was resolved and if so, describe its resolution;

e. state the date of each such instance; and

f. identify documents which refer or relate to each such instance.

A9: Intervenors decline to identify any person who has I

l not consented to the disclosure of his or her identity and L

likewise, decline to disclose any information which might tend to permit the identification of such persons. Intervenors moved for the entry of a protective order on July 12, 1985, to protect the contidentiality of persons with knowledge of

l harassment evidence. On August 2, 1985, Intervenors moved for confidential treatment of the names of eleven (11) Comstock QC inspectors at their request. Such motions remain pending and in the interim Applicant has agreed to the non-disclosure of

' such identifying information.

1. a. John D. Seeders

b. Sakalac, Seltman, Seese, DeWald

c. complained about harassment in connection with his QC duties as described in his August 17, 1984 letter

d. not resolved

e. in August 1984, subsequently involuntarily transferred out of Q.C.

f. August 17, 1984 letter

2. a. Worley O. Puckett

b. Marino, DeWald

c. improper construction procedures, improper qualification of welders, material traceability de ficiencies ; recommended complete stop work order for all welding activity

d. not resolved

e. May-August 1984

. f. see, documents attached to July 12, 1985, Motion To Admit Claims of Intimidation and Harassment of Comstock Quality Control (QC)

Inspectors

13 -

r k

3. a. Rick Snyder -

b. Sakalac

c. refused to close out inspection document with open engineering change notice

d. March 28, 1985

e. not resolved

f. April 5, 1985 NRC Memo

4. a. Inspector "I"

b. John Walters, Ken Worthington

c. told he'd be discriminated against if he did not produce more _nspections ; work with blinders on

d. unknown

e. not resolved

f. April 5, 1985 NRC Memo

5. a. R.D. Hunter

b. more than one supervisor

c. more than a little bit of intimidation

d. unknown

e. not resolved i

f. April 5, 1985 NRC Memo

.6. a. Inspector "II"

b. Sakalac, other Comstock management

c. told to finish an inspection even though drafting' errors noted

d. not resolved

=

s

6. e. November 5, 1984

f. April 5, 1985 NRC Memo

7. a. Inspector "III"

b. John Walters, Daryl Landers

c. observed base metal reduction; Walters told him not to worry; Landers said to keep production up

d. unknown

e. unknown

f. April 5, 1985 NRC Memo

8. a. Herschel Stout

b. unknown

c. production overrides quality

d. not resolved

e. unknown

f. April 5, 1985 NRC Memo

9. a. Inspector "IV"

b. un'known

c. quantity first, not quality

d. not resolved

e. unknown

f. April 5, 1985 NRC Memo

10. a. Inspector "V"

b. Sakalac, DeWald ]

l c. Sdelac berates inspectors; DeWald has discrim-

inated against many inspectors; attitude is "how can I hang-you"

i l

10. d. not resolved l

l

e. unknown i i l f. April 5, 1985 NRC Memo l

l

11. a. Inspector "VI" l b. Sakalac l

l c. Semlat lied to get him fired; Sakalac used l forms contrary to procedure; constantly being watched; involuntarily transferred L after visiting NRC office

! d. not resolved

e. unknown l f. April 5, 1985 NRC Memo

12. a. Inspector "VII"

b. unknown

c. hangers not inspected, just as-built; no inspection report or nonconformances written; walkdowns done, drawings made to show as-built configuration

d. not resolved

e. unknown

f. April 5, 1985 NRC Memo I

I 13. a. Inspector "VIII"

b. unknown i

c. more money for more certifications; can't i remain proficient in all areas; quality goes down i

r

=

13. d. not resolved

e. unknown

f. April 5, 1985 NRC Memo

14. a. Dan Holley

b. unknown

c. Sam Russman both QC inspector and auditor -

conflict of interest

d. unknown

e. unknown

f. April 5, 1985 NRC Memo

15. a. Inspector "IX"

b. Sakalac

c. told IX to close out ICR's without going through engineering; Sakalac threatened him; "I can put you in the vault;"

Inspector IX says that everyone knows about Sakalac, but nothing is ever done. Tells me what to do though not certified; isn't qualified; just done to get the paper work complete

d. not resolved

e. unknown

f. March 29, 1985 NRC Memo

16. a. "another individual"

b. Sakalac

i

16. c. knows of at least 5 guys Sakalac has jumped on; nothing gets done; telling inspectors what to do when he's not certified in area; railroaded John out; new leads in who can't answer questions in their areas but will sign off NCR's or ICR's without appropriate disposition; told to keep numbers of NCR's and ICR's down; interested in numbers and not quality; wrote up guy who didn't have 2

enough numbers; Quality First program sucks, hasn't done a damn bit of good; threw me out

) '

of inspecting cable pans - too many NCR's ;

engineers signed off - no problem. Out of 100 i

hangers last week all but one or two no good.

Supervisor wanted me to close out several ICR's -

not certified in my area. Sakalac pressured me to close them out; going to weed out inspectors based on production, not quality.

d. not resolved

e. unknown

f. March 29, 1985 NRC Memo

17. a. " individual"

b. Sakalac

c. new people just closing out documents without inspections; afraid of Sakalac; no training; complained to CECO about "use as is" disposition 4 .

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

- -u- ----1 a -- . n. a sa.

17. c. (cont.) of NCR's to avoid re-work; one person completed 93 hangers with 1,114 welds in one day; improper QA auditing

d. not resolved

e. unknown

f. March 29, 1985 NRC Memo

18. a. Inspector A

b. unknown

c. new hires will complete paperwork; "get the job done"

d. not resolved

e. unknown

, f. March 29, 1985 NRC Meno

19. a. Inspector B

b. unknown

c. in 15 years of inspecting, first nuclear job where quantity first, not quality

d. not resolved

e. unknown

f. March 29, 1985 NRC Memo

20. a. Inspector C

b. Sakalac

c. gave up lead position because of intimidation; Sdelac uses extreme profanity; attitude is how can I hang you not help you

d. not resolved

20. e. unknown

f. March 29, 1985 NRC Memo

21. a. Inspector D

b. Sakalac

c. no overtime unless production increased; Sakalac threatened inspector to sign off ICR

d. not resolved

e. unknown

f. March 29, 1985 NRC Memo

22. a. Inspector E

b. unknown

c. intimidation far worse than one supervisor or lead

d. not resolved

e. unknown

f. March 29, 1985 NRC Memo

23. a. Inspector F

b. Sakalac

c. many run-ins with Sakalac; demanded he write up electrician or lose qualification

d. not resolved e, unknown

f. March 29, 1985 NRC Memo

24. a. Inspector G

b. unknown

c. being watched; they are keeping book so they can fire me

24. d. not resolved

e. unknown

f. March 29, 1985 NRC Memo

25. a. all inspectors present

b. unknown

c. quantity first, quality work or inspections were secondary

d. not resolved

e. unknown

f. March 29, 1985 NRC Memo Q10: Describe each effect of Mr. Sakalac's alleged harass-ment which remains uncorrected, identify each person on whom each such effect has operated and identify all documents which refer or relate to each effect.

A10: The effect of the widespread harassment misconduct by Mr. Sdelac is to undermine the integrity of all of the inspection work performed by those who worked under his supervision or subject to his influence. All inspection

. documents executed by such persons are suspect.

Qll: Identify each of the "more than 25" Comstock QC inspectors referred to at page 4 of the Joint Stipulation dated July 12, 1985.

l All: The identities of the more than 25 Comstock QC l

inspectors who complained to the NRC since at least August 1984, l

O 21 -

are not specifically known to Intervenors. We are informed of such a fact but not of the names of each of the inspectors.

According to the NRC, 24 inspectors complained of harassment on March 29, 1985. See, April 5,1985, NRC Memo at page 2.

As detailed above in answer to Interrogatory 9, Intervenors object to disclosing the names of any such persons who have not consented to the disclosure of such identifying information.

Of the 16 names known to Intervenors we have disclosed 5 names with consent.

Q12: Identify each and every person who you intend to call as a witness at the hearing in this matter on the contention, and with respect to each such person:

a. Describe the witness ' education and professional background.

b. State the substance of the facts and opinions to which the witness is expected to testify;

c. Give a summary of the grounds for each opinion; and .

d. Identify all documents which form the basis for each opinion.

A12: Intervenors have not at present identified any person intended to be called as witnesses in the proceeding except as previously noted in our July 12, 1985, Motion To Admit Claims of Intimidation and Harassment of Comstock Quality Control (QC) Inspectors. However, pursuant to 10 CFR S2.740(e)

a Intervenors intend to seasonably supplement this response as required.

Q13: State the full name, address, occupation and employer of each person answering the interrogatories or assisting in the preparation of such answers, and designate the interrogatory or the part thereof he or she answered.

A13: These interrogatories are being answered by the undersigned counsel for Intervenors. No consultants or other advisors are relied upon for such answers.

DATED: August 16, 1985 Respectfully submitted, T h wo b M dt lA) Nil u/ Nu1L RoberbGuild J One of the Attorneys for Intervenor Rorem, et al.

Robert Guild Douglass W. Cassel, Jr.

Timothy W. Wright, III 109 North Dearborn Suite 1300 Chicago, Illinois 60602 (312) 641-5570

~

muuTED CORRESPONMM9 00n cito U$tiRC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

'85 gjg 39 p;,;9, ONS$ffNGRtiac '

I hereby certify that I have served copies of SRI $ck Response to Applicant Commonwealth Edison Company's First Set -

of Quality Assurance Interrogatories and Requests To Produce Documents Directed to Intervenors Bridget Little Rorem, Et Al.

and Motion For Protective Order on each of the parties listed on the attached Service List, by having said copies placed in envelopes, properly addressed and postaged, and deposited in the U.S. mail at 109 North

Dearborn,

Chicago, IL 60602, this 16th day of August, 1985; except that Mr. Miller, counsel for Edison, was served by personal delivery at the offices of Isham, Lincoln & Beale.

h bm f t

L

BRAIDWOOD SERVICE LIST 50-456/50-457 OL Lawrence Brenner, Esq. Elaine Chan, Esq.

Chairman and Administrative Judge NRC Staff Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington D.C. 20555 7335 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, MD 20014 Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Administrative Judge Joseph Gallo, Esq.

102 Oak Lane Isham, Lincoln & Beale .

Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Suite 840 1120 Connecticut Avenue N.W.

Dr. Richard F. Cole Washington D.C. 20036 Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Docketing & Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Secretary Washington D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rebecca J. Lauer, Esq. Washington D.C. 20555 Isham, Lincoln & Beale Three First National Plaza Atomic Safety and Licensing Chicago, IL 60602 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ms. Bridget Little Rorem Commission 117 North Linden Street Washington D.C. 20555 Essex, IL 60935 Atomic Safety and Licensing C. Allen' Bock, Esq. Appeal Board Panel P.O. Box 342 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Urbana, IL 61801 Commission Washington D.C. 20555 Thomas J. Gordon, Esq.

Waller, Evans & Gordon Michael I. Miller, Esq.

2503 South Neil Isham, Lincoln & Beale Champaign, IL 61820 Three First National Plaza Chicago, IL 60602 Lorraine Creek Route 1, Box 182 Manteno, IL 60950 Region III U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Inspection & Enforcement l 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 l

l

.