ML20202F881
| ML20202F881 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 07/10/1986 |
| From: | Cassel D CASSEL, D.W., ROREM, B. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#386-956 OL, NUDOCS 8607150255 | |
| Download: ML20202F881 (9) | |
Text
-
b O((, -
9 July 10, 1986 e
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 00CMrf0 USQ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION - .
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDOk 14 N1:08 iS[Er " e-In the Matter of: ) ~ .' ,'
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-456
) and50-4570 (Braidwood Nuclear Station, )
Units 1 and 2) )
INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR SUBPOENA AND FOR RULING ON NEW EVIDENCE OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, ON A NEW CONTENTION Intervenors Forem, et al., by their undersigned attorney, hereby move the Board:
(1) to authorize a subpoena for Mr. Thomas Corcoran, former Comstock QC Manager, to testify in these j hearings, and (2) to rule that evidence concerning Mr. Corcoran's August 1, 1983 allegations is relevant to Intervenors' existing QC Inspector Harassment Contention or, in the alternative to so ruling, (3) to admit an additional late-filed "Corcoran Contention" as set forth in Exhibit A hereto.
f BACKGROUND The background of this motion is set forth in Intervenors' Motion For Disclosure of Relevant Documents From OI Files, attached as Exhibit B hereto. That Motion was filed June 25, 1986 and remains pending.
1 8607150255 860710 ADOCK 05000456 PDR
$cS .= - .-
O RE00EST FOR SUBPOENA M r. Corcoran's August 1, 1983 allegations, set forth in Attachment A to Intervenors' June 25 Motion, are plainly relevant and important to the issues in this case, for the reasons set forth at pp. 4-5 of the June 25 Motion. Accordingly, Intervenors move the Board to authorize a subpoena for Mr. Corcoran to test-ify in these proceedings. (Applicant has advised Intervenors of 1
Mr. Corcoran's current address, so that service of a subpoena is l
practicable.)
In the event the Board were to disagree with Intervenors' position that Mr. Corcoran's allegations are plainly relevant to this case, Intervenors would ask instead that a subpoena be authorized for Mr. Corcoran's deposition, on the ground that his allegations, even if not already shown to be relevant, could lead to the discovery of relevant evidence (including testimony by Mr.
Corcoran). */
PELEVANCE OF MR. CORCOPAN'S AUGUST 1, 1983 ALLEGATIONS TO EXISTING CONTENTION Mr. Corcoran's August 1, 1983 allegations fit within a fair reading of Intervenors' existing QC Inspector Harassment
- Contention.
i
-*/ Because of the large expense of bringing Mr. Corcoran to Illinois (he presently resides in California), Intervenors would ask that the Board, if it prefers or requires a
, deposition, allow the deposition and any hearing testimony to be taken in a single trip to Joliet. For example, the deposition could be taken before the Board as an offer of proof, t
2
Mr. Corcoran, according to the NRC report, Attachment A to Intervenors' June 25 Motion, alleged that OC records and inspec-tion reports were being falsified, that he was threatened with being fired if he did not keep quiet and that he was afraid of being seen with the resident inspector.
On their face, these allegations appear to be within the scope of the following portions of Intervenors' existing conten-tion:
(a) that Edison and Comstock " failed to provide sufficient authority and organizational freedom and independence i from cost and schedule as opposed to safety considera-tions to permit the effective identification of and correction of quality and safety significant deficien-cies."
(b) that "[s)ystematic and widespread harassment, intimida-tion, retaliation and other discrimination has been
! directed against Comstock OC inspectors and other employees who express safety and quality concerns by Comstock management."
(c) that "[i]nstances of harassment and intimidation include at least the following:
- 1. At various times since at least August 1984, ...
t Comstock QC inspectors have complained about harass-2 ment .... Harassment and retaliation treatment included ... termination of employment, ...."
(Emphasis added.)
3 9, . , ,.,.., -
l i
As Mr. DeWald has previously testified in this proceeding, soon after Mr. Corcoran's August 1, 1983 allegations to the NRC, Mr. Corcoran was, in fact, terminated as CC Manager by comstock.
Mr. DeWald further testified to the ef fect that he was advised that the reasons for the firing had to do with Mr. Corcoran's quality orientation.
1 Mr. Corcoran's allegations, coupled with his subsequent firing, clearly raise questions about whether cost and schedule overrode quality to the point of interfering with the identifica-i tion and correction of deficiencies, as alleged in statement (a) j above from Intervenors' existing contention.
1 Further, Mr. Corcoran's allegations of harassment directed at the site OC manager himself, as long ago as the summer of 1983, tend to confirm the " systematic and widespread" nature of Comstock harassment, as alleged in statement (b) above from Intervenors' contention.
Finally, Mr. Corcoran's allegations tend to show, as alleged in statement (c) above from Intervenors' contention, that harass-I ment at Comstock has indeed taken place since "at least" August ,
1984, and has included termination of employment. */
For all these reasons, plus those noted at pp. 4-5 of Intervenors' June 25 Motion, Mr. Corcoran's allegations are rele-vant to Intervenors' existing OC Inspector Harassment Contention.
Accordingly, Intervenors move the Board to so rule.
l
~*/ While statement (c) refers to harassment of OC " inspectors,"
in its generic sense this term is broad enough to include an inspector, like Mr. Corcoran, at the site managerial level.
4 I
l l
i
'i .
I I NEW CONTENTION f In the alternative, in the unlikely event the Board rules
.; that Mr. Corcoran's allegations are not relevant to the existing I
J contention, Intervenors move the Board to admit the "Corcoran Contention," Fxhibit A hereto, as an additional late-filed contention. This contention would satisfy the five-factor test of 10 CFR S2.714 for admission of late-filed contentions, for the following reasons:
l Good Cause.
l.
i l Intervenors first learned of Mr. Corcoran's allegations on June 16, 1986, when they received Attachment A to their June 25 Motion in the mail. As long ago as August 1985 Intervenors had asked the NRC staff to produce all documents concerning i
allegations of harassment by Comstock, but the staff has withheld
{
any documents or information concerning Mr. Corcoran's l allegations, on the ground that an OI investigation was pending.
a The day after receiving the document in their Chicago
^
I office, Intervenors' counsel brought it to Joliet and discl'osed it to the Board and parties, and recuested the NPC staff to 3
produce all relevant documents. After staff explained that an OI
) investigation was pending, and the Board scheduled an in camera session with OI for June 30, Intervenors on June 25 f urther moved the Board to require maximum appropriate disclosure by OI.
4 Intervenors' view, since they first received the Corcoran i document, has consistendy been that Mr. Corcoran's allegations t
l are relevant to Intervenors' existing contention. Intervenors'
)
4 5
l l
_ _ _ . - . _ - - .- _. _ . . . _ . . .~ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ . _ . _ . _ . . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _
counsel so stated orally at the June 17 hearing, and reiterated the point in writing in the June 25 Motion (pp. 4-5).
However, on July 8, 1986, NRC staff argued that the Corcoran 4 allegations are not relevant to the existing contention.
Promptly following that argument, Intervenors are filing this motion in the alternative.
In these circumstances, Intervenors have moved promptly and diligently in filing this new contention in the alternative.
Indeed, Intervenors are now doing so, even though OI has yet to complete its presentation to the Board on the matter, and Intervenors' pending motion for further documentation remains undisposed of.
- 2. and 4. Other Means, Other Parties.
In the extensive litigation over Intervenors' other late-filed contentions, all parties recognized that factors (2) and (4) weigh in favor of admission. Nothing about the Corcoran Contention suggests any different conclusion.
- 3. Sound Record.
The value of Mr. Corcoran's allegations to a sound
! record is so clear as to need little elaboration. They go to the important questions of how high-level, purposeful, longstanding and systematic has been Comstock's harassment and exaltation of 1 quantity over quality, as well as the effects of such harassment
-- in this instance, according to Mr. Corcoran, that falsified OC records and inspection reports went unreported to the NBC (and l thus may remain falsified to this date). Further, they go to the l
6 1
- _ . ~ _ . - _-- . -
necessary scope and to the adequacy of any corrective action or reinspection programs that purport to address questions raised by the other evidence of Comstock harassment.
- 5. Broadening and Delay.
Even if treated as a new contention, Mr. Corcoran's allegations relate to essentially the same subject matter already being litigated -- harassment, intimidation and production a pressure by Comstock, and their effect on the reliability of inspections and documentation. The litigation would be broadened, of course, to address new evidence of additional harassment, occurring at a higher level and over a longer period than the evidence to date has shown. At least one additional witness (Mr. Corcoran) would be called to testify.
However, at this point Intervenors are not aware of any reason to expect any delay beyond the actual time required for
, the testimony of Mr. Corcoran and perhaps additional witnesses.
Thus, while some broadening and delay will result, it is outweighed by the importance of the information (see factor 3 above).
l Summary On Five Factors Four of the five factors weigh heavily in favor of admission of the late-filed Corcoran Contention. Together they outweigh the likely extent of broadening and delay (the fif th factor). If the Board believes a new contention is needed, the Corcoran 7
Contention therefore passes the five-factor test for admission of a new contention.
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Intervenors move the Board to authorize a subpoena for Mr. Corcoran and to rule that his August 1, 1983 allegations are relevant to the existing contention or, in the alternative to so ruling, to admit Intervenors' late-filed Corcoran Contention.
i DATED: July 10, 1986 Respectfully submitted, hRh Douglass W. Cassel, Jr. g One of the Attorneys for Intervenors Forem, et al.
i J
Douglass W. Cassel, Jr.
Robert Guild j Timothy W. Wright, III 109 North Dearborn i Suite 1300 1 Chicago, Illinois 60602 l (312) 641-5570 i 4
i 1
8 1
- . - , . , - _ - . - . . . - _ . , , - , _ - . - - _ . - - - . . , , , . , - , _ ., _..-._ ,_,,, . - , . , . -n., , ,.., , . . _ - -.
CbHIBl1 h INTERVENORS' CORCORAN CONTENTION Contrary to Criterion I, "O rg a n i za t ion" of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B, and 10 C.F.R. Section 50.7, Commonwealth Edison Company and its electrical contractor, L.K. Comstock Engineering Company have failed to provide sufficient authority and organiza-tional freedom and independence from cost ano schedule as opposed to safety considerations to permit the effective identification i of and correction of quality and safety significant deficiencies.
Systematic and widespread harassment, intimidation, retaliation and other discrimination has been directed against Comstock OC inspectors and other employees who express safety and quality I
concerns by Comstock management. Such misconduct discourages the identification and correction of deficiencies in safety related components and systems at the Braidwood Station.
Instances of harassment and intimidation include at least the following:
- 1. On August 1, 1983, Mr. Thomas Corcoran, the Quality Control manager for Comstock at Braidwood, reported to NRC Region III that QC records and inspection reports were being falsified, that he had been threatened with being fired if he did not keep quiet, and that he had not talked to the NRC resident inspector at Braidwood for fear of being seen with him.
Soon af ter Mr. Corcoran so reported, he was terminated as Comstock OC Manager at Braidwood, in whole or in part because Comstock management viewed him as too committed to quality as opposed to production.
1
BiHl81T K June 25, 1986 UNITED' STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0!! MISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i
In the Matter of: )
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-456 and 50-457
)
(Braidwood Nuclear Station, )
Units 1 and 2) )
INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE OF
., RELEVANT DOCUMENTS FROM OI FILES Intervenors Rorem et al. , by their undersigned counsel, pursuant to the Commission's " Statement of Policy; Investigations ,
Inspections, and Adjudicatory Proceedings ," 49 Fed. Reg. 36032, hereby move the Board to provide for " full disclosure" (id.)
in this case of relevant 01 documents , to the extent appropriate under the Commission's Policy Statement, as detailed below. */
FACTS On June 16, 1986, Intervenors ' counsel received in the mail a purported Region III NRC Memorandum, " Quality Control Allegations At Braidwood," dated August 2,1983 (Attachment A hereto) . An investigative reporter was in counsel's office at the time and also saw the document.
~*/ By moving for disclosure consistent with the Commission's Policy Statement, Intervenors do not waive any objections they may have to the Policy Statement, q] _ er _ de n M QFWTVf5 ? $.
l On June 17, 1986, counsel disclosed the foregoing facts to the Board in open hearing and requested NRC staff to produce all
' documents relating to the allegations in Attachment A.
On that date and subsequently, NRC staff counsel replied that the document relates to a pending OI investigation. One or more additional OI investigations may be relevant as well.
Pursuant to the Commission's Policy Statement, the Board has now scheduled an in camera session with 01 representatives for Monday, June 30, 1986.
ARGUMENT Intervenors are of course in no position to apply the Commission's Policy Statement to particular documents in 01 files we have not seen. Our Motion For Disclosure, therefore, urges i
j the Board to grant full disclosure of 01 documents in this case, to the extent appropriate under the Commission's Policy Statement, af ter the Board has reviewed 01's in camera i
presentation. . .. ,
i In support of our Motion, we wish to call the Board's attention to three points: (1) the Commission's general policy favoring disclosure, (2) the disclosure options available to the Board under the Policy Statement, and (3) the particular facts favoring liberal disclosure in this case.
. i
- 1. The Commission's General Policy Favoring Disclosure.
While each case must be decided on its own merits, in its Policy Statement the Commission makes clear "that as a general rule it favors full disclosure to the boards and parties, that information should protected only when necessary, and that any limits on disclosure to the parties should be limited in both scope and duration to the minimum necessary to achieve the 1
purposes of the non-disclosure policy." (Policy Statement.)
The only permissible purposes of non-disclosure are:
"(1) To avoid compromising an ongoing investigation or j inspection; and (2) to protect confidential sources . " (Id.)
- 2. The Board's Disclosure Options.
Under the Commission's Policy Statement, once the Board has received OI's in camera presentation, the Board has at least five disclosure options which it may employ to implement the Commission's general rule favoring full disclosure.
The first three of those options exist if OI asserts, and the Board agrees, that immediate, unrestri cted disclosure would compromise an ongoing investigatior el u onfidential source.
These options are:
. "to provide for the timely consideration of relevant matters derived from investigations 4 and inspections through the deferral or rescheduling of issues for hearing" (id.),
l . "by placing limitations on the scope of disclosure to the parties" (id.) or
1
. "by using protective orders" (id).
The fourth and fifth of these options arise if:
l
. "the board disagrees that release will prejudice the investigation," (id. ) or, by parallel implication,
. if the board disagrees that release of parti-cular information would compromise the identity of a confidential source.
Intervenors urge the Board to give careful consideration to using any or all of the foregoing disclosure options , consistent with the Commission's general rule favoring full disclosure.
- 3. Facts Favoring Full Disclosure In This Case.
At least three facts already known to Intervenors offer further support for full disclosure of all OI and NRC staff documents related to the allegations set forth in Attachment A.
First, the allegations in Attachment A are of unquestionable relevance to this case. Mr. DeWald has already been cross examined concerning whether he was informed, at the time he l assumed his position as Comstock QC manager at Braidwood,that I
his predecessor, Mr. Corcoran, was fired for being too quality 1
j conscious. If the allegations in Attachment A are true, they lend strong support to that suggestion. And if true, they not only shed light on Mr. DeWald's initial mission with respect to quality vs. quantity, but also raise questions about the length of time during which the Comstock QA/QC program at Braidwood has been unreliable (or worse), and thus about the adequacy of any
corrective action or reinspection programs.
Second, the vintage of Attachment A - nearly three years old -
suggests several considerations. It may no longer be likely that disclosure of other three-year-old or two-year-old documents would, in fact, compromise an ongoing investigation. By now, any evidence not yet uncovered may have been destroyed. Alterna-tively, the perpetrators of any wrongdoing may no longer be on site, and their successors may be unlikely, at this late date, to destroy evidence, because they may not even know which documents are inculpatory, or where they are located.
Intervenors urge the Board to question 01 representatives carefully about the real, practical impact of any disclosure -
especially disclosure under a protective order - at this late date. For example, disclosure under a protective order limited to attorneys in this case would not include disclosure to attorneys for Comstock, against whom the allegations in Attach-ment A appear to be made.
The age of Ol's investigation also suggests either that the matter is not one of high priority - and thus of questionable importance - or that OI has been stumpe:' in its efforts to investigate. Petitioners believe that it would be appropriate for the Board to inquire into why the investigation has taken so long, and to weigh the answers in deciding whether to order disclosure.
Third and finally, disclosure of relevant 01 and NRC staff documents can no longer be withheld on the ground of protecting
l 4
the alleger's identity. His identity, as shown in Attachment A, i
is known to Intervenors: it is public information. Other docu-
! ments naming him can no longer be withheld on the ground of protecting his confidentiality, because that confidentiality no l longer exists. */
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Intervenors move the Board to provide for full disclosure, to the extent permitted by the Commission's Policy. Statement, of all OI or other NRC staff documents concerning the matter set forth in Attachment A or I otherwise relevant to the issue in this licensing proceeding.
DATED: June 25, 1986 Respectfully submitted, 4
Douglass W. Cassel, Jr.
One of the Attorneys for Intervenors Rorem, et al.
- Douglass W. Cassel, Jr. ~-
Robert Guild Timothy W. Wright, III 109 North Dearborn
, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 641-5570
- */ Of course, if there are other confidential sources in the j
investigation, whose identities have not yet been compromised, l their identities may still be withheld.
l
f g cM N ELLYN. 0L LIMIS MI3I
- August 2, 1983 MEMORANDUM FOR: Region III Files FROM: R. C. Knop, Chic [, Project s 11 ranch 1
SUBJECT:
QUALITY cot 1 TROL ALLEGATI0f1S AT BRAIDWOOD At 1905 on August 1, 1983, Tom Corcoran, a QC Manager for Comstock Engineering at Braidwood, called the IE duty officer. Ile stated that QC records and inspection reports are being falsified. Ile claims he has documents to back up his charges. lie wants to remain confidential. lie has been threatened with being fired if he does not keep quiet. lie has not talked to the resident inspector for fear of being seen with him. 11e was told that someone would be in touch with him.
IIis address and telephone number is:
2515 central Drive Joliet, IL (815) 436-2970 (availabic af ter 7:00 p.m.)
f c s y' R. C. Knop, Chief Projects Branch I cc: G. W. Roy E. Pawlik l
[
I I
l ATTACHKeraf
.. p n
7/10/86 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of: )
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-456
) 50-457
, (Braidwood Nuclear Power )
Station, Units 1 and 2) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have served copies of Intervenors' Motion For Subpoena And For Ruling On New Evidence Or, In The Alternative, On A New Contention on each party to this proceeding as listed on the attached Service List, by having said copies placed in envelopes, properly addressed and postaged (first class), and deposited in the U.S. mail at 109 North
Dearborn,
Chicago, Illinois 60602, on this 10th day of July, 1986; except that the Licensing Board, NBC Staff Counsel Mr. Treby, and. Edison counsel Mr. Miller were personally served at the hearing held on July 10,19 8 6.
D,L w .
n i
, . - . - .. , ~ .
i .
PRAIDWOOD SERVICE LIST Herbert Grossman, Esq. Michael I. Miller, Esq.
Chairman and Administrative Judge Peter Thornton, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Isham, Lincoln & Beale U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Three First National Plaza Washington D.C. 20555 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Richard F. Cole Docketing & Service Section Administrative Judge Office of the Secretary Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Commission Commission Washington D.C. 20555 Washington D.C. 20555
- A. Dixon Callihan C. Allen Bock, Esq.
Administrative Judge P.O. Box 342 I
102 Oak Lane Urbana, Illinois 61801 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Bridget Little Forem Stuart Treby, Esq. 117 North Linden Street NRC Staff Counsel Essex, Illinois 60935 U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Commission 7335 Old Georgetown Road Thomas J. Gordon, Esq.
Bethesda, Maryland 20014 Waller, Evans & Gordon i 2503 South Neil 1 Joseph Gallo, Esq. Champaign, Illinois 61820 Isham, Lincoln & Beale 1150 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Lorraine Creek Suite 1100 Foute 1, Box 182 Washington D.C. 20036 Manteno, Illinois 60950 Region III Office of Inspection &
Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Roosevelt Poad Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i Washington D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing j Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 l
-- -. - - . - - - . - - - -. - - , - _ _ . . _ _ --.- ,-_-- - - _ _ _ ._.- .-, ,.-