ML20203L699
| ML20203L699 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 08/21/1986 |
| From: | Guild R GUILD, R., ROREM, B. |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| CON-#386-514 OL, NUDOCS 8608290091 | |
| Download: ML20203L699 (30) | |
Text
,
[
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 00tMETED USNRC BEFORE THE COMMISSION W ME 28 2054
)
gFFICt OF Ehdt !Atf T In the Matter of
)
OCMrigCb
)
Commonwealth Edison Company
)
)
Docket Nos:
50-456
/
(Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2
)
50-457 [ L
)
)
Intervenors' Brief Supporting The Decisions of the Licensing Board To Compel i
Disclosure Of Relevant Documents From Office Of Investigation Files And To Issue A Deposition Subnoena j
i Intervenors,Rorem, et al., by their undersigned counsel, file this brief in support of the decisions by the Licensing Board to disclose relevant documents from Office of Investigation k
(OI) files to the parties in the proceeding subj ect to protective order, and in support of the decision by the Licensing Board to
+
issue a deposition sibpoena.
The disclosure procedure is governed by the Commission's ' Statement of Policy; Investigations, Inspections, and Adjudicatin$; Proceedings," 49 Fed. Reg. 36,032 (1984), which authorizes the filing of this brief.
The issuance of a subpoena by the Chairman is a ministerial act authorized by 10 C.F.R. 2.720, " Subpoenas".
FACTS On June 16, 1986, Intervenors ' counsel received by nail a purported Region III NRC Memorandum, "Ouality Control Allegations i
8608290091 860821 j
PDR ADOCK 05000456 O
r-At Braidwood," dated August 2, 1983.
(Attachment A hereto.)
This memo memoraliazes an August 1, 1983 phone call to the NRC from Thomas Corcoran, then QC Manager for the Braidwood electrical contractor, L.K. Comstock Company.
In this phone call, Mr. Corcoran claimed insoection reports and QC reports were being falsified, and that he had documents to support his charges.
He said he had not spoken with the Resident Inspector for fear of being seen with him, and that he had been threatened with being fired, "if he does not keep quiet".
(Attachment A.)
Two months after this memo was written, Mr. Corcoran was, indeed, fired.
According to his successor, Mr. Corcoran was fired because "[h]e really wasn't construction oriented.
He was quality oriented...."
(Tr. 1224).
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 Mr. Corcoran's allegations.
On that date and subsequently, NRC staff replied that the documents related to a pending 01 investigation and would not i
he disclosed.
On June 25, 1986, Intervenors filed a motion requesting the Board to compel disclosure of relevant documents from OI files.
(A copy of this motion is attached for the Commission's
(
convenience.
See Attachment B).
Intervenora have also requested l
a deposition subpoena for Mr. Corcoran.
P l
,i
.~.
l
_3_
On July _22, 1986, the Licensing Board announced its intention, based on two ex parte, in camera briefings with OI staff, to compel disclosure of relevant documents under a protective order.
The Board also determined that Intervenors were entitled to a subpoena for Mr. Corcoran's deposition, since his allegations of document falsification, followed by his ternination for being too " quality oriented", are plainly relevant to the nending harassment contention.
OI objected to the Board's decisions.
This brief supports the Board's rulings.
I ARGUMENT I.
The Licensing board Was Correct In Ordering OI To Disclose Relevant Documents From Its File On The Corcoran Matter.
The URC staff is under an express duty to disclose to the board and parties "all new information they acquire which is considered relevant to any issue in controversy in the proceeding."
"Statment of Policy; Investigations, Inspections, and Adjudicatory Proceedings," 49 Fed. Reg. 36,032 (1984).1 The Commission recognizes only two 10mited exceptions to this rule favoring full disclosure:
"(1) To avoid connronising an ongoing investigation or inspection; and (2) to protect confidential sources."
Id.
Documents concerning the Corcoran allegations do not fall within either of these exceptions and should be disclosed.
4
A.
The Corcoran Allegations Are Relevant To The Pending Harassment Contention t
The threshold legal question is whether the documents are
" relevant to any issue in controversy in the proceeding."
Id.
To resolve this preliminary question, and as contemplated by the Policy Statement, the Board: conducted two in camera, 39t narte briefings with OI'sta ff.
On the basis of these briefings, the Board determined Mr. Corcoran's allegations were_ relevant to the
'pending contention.
1-Obviously Intervenors are not privy to the information i
disclosed to the' Board.2 Nonetheless, the facts known to date, all of which are part of the public record, clearly confirm the correctness of the Board's determination.
l Mr. Corcoran was the QC Manager for the electrical contractor, 4
}.
L.K. Comstock Company.
At approximately 7:00 p.m. the evening of August 1, 1983, he placed a call to Region III.
In-this call i
he complained that records were being falsified and that he would be fired if he did not " keep quiet."
(Attachment A.)
Two months i
later,.because he was too~" quality oriented", Mr. Corcoran was 4
l fired.
(Tr. 1224).
Furthermore, Mr. DeWald, who is Mr. Corcoran's j
successor as Q.C. Manager for Comstock, learned of Mr. Corcoran's l
purported work deficiencies from Mr. Richard Cosaro, then the i
i Braidwood Project Superintendant for Commonwealth Edison. (Tr. 1220),
t In short, Mr. Corcoran alleged document falsification and the fear of reprisal.
(Attachment A).
According to Mr. DeWald, 1
Mr. Corcoran was fired shortly after these allegations for being too " quality oriented."
(Tr. 1224).
And Mr. DeWald became aware of Mr. Corcoran's " deficiencies" - i.e. his quality crientation -
through Mr. Cosaro, then Project Superintendent and the voice of Commonwealth Edison policy on site.
(Tr. 1220).
It is abundantly clear that the Corcoran allegations, particularly when viewed in light of his successor's testimony, are relevant generally to the pending contention.
The contention alleges that, contrary to Criterion I of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B, and 10 C.F.R. Section 50.7, Cotsonwealth Edison has failed to provide an environment where quality considerations are free from construction and schedule pressures.
The contention further alleges that intimidation and retaliation against those who raise quality concerns " discourages the identification and correction of deficiencies in safety related components and systems at the Braidwood station."
(Preamble, Admitted Contention.)
The Corcoran matter fits squarely within this contention.
B.
The Corcoran Allegations Do Not Fall Within The Limited Exceptions To The Rule Favoring Full Disclosure
- 1. Disclosure will not compromise an ongoing investigation.
The Commission explicitly recognizes that the mere existence of an ongoing investigation is not license to subvert the Staff's duty to disclose.3 To that end, the Policy Statnent orovides for an array of disclosure options.
Though each case must be decided i
l
(
on its merits, the Commission correctly believes the Board can
" resolve most potential disclosure conflicts" in favor of, at the least, restricted disclosure.
As possible aporoaches, the Commission suggests:
"to provide for timely consideration of relevant matters derived from investigations and inspections through the deferral or rescheduling of issues for hearing."
(Policy Statment).
" placing limitations on the scope of disclosure to the parties." (Id.)
"using protective order."'
(Id.)
Two of these disclosure options have been used with success in the current proceeding.
For example, at the staff's request,
~
recent disclosures by the NRC regarding allegations currently under investigation by the Region III staff were made subject to a protective order which limited distribution to counsel.
(Attachment C hereto).
The express purpose of this nrotective order was to maintain the confidentiality sought in ongoing i
NRC inspections.
Analogous restrictions could be crafted which would protect OI's purported investigation into the Corcoran matter.
The third disclosure option - deferral of the proceeding -
though not enplc-red as of yet, was recognized by the Board as available to Intervenors if the !TRC staff failed to conply.with its disclosure duty.
Finally, 01, by its seemingly dilatory response to this matter, belics their present claim that the investigation would a
I in fact be compromised.
Mr. Corcoran's allegations are over 4
three years old.
Leads tresh in 1983 may well be irretrievably s
lost in 1986.
Certainly the Policy Statement does not envision withholding information as a shield for agency neglect.
- 2. Disclosure will not affect the confidentiality of the source.
Mr. Corcoran's identity is public information.
His name i
appeared in a recent newpaper atricle, along with a discussion of his original allegations.
(Attachment D hereto).
Therefore, since confidentiality no longer exists, disclosure to parties will obviously not affect the confidentiality of the source.
Moreover, disclosure under some form of protective order, as sought by Intervenors, will help assure that Mr. Corcoran will remain free from-harassment and retaliation.5 II.
The Licensing Board Was Correct in Agreeing To Intervenors' Request for A Deposition Subpoena, And Such Subpoena Should Be Issued Without Further Delay.
The relevant provision of the NRC Rules of Practice provides in its entirety:
On anplication by any carty, the designated presiding officer or, if he is not available, the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Panel, the Chief Administrative Law Judge or other designated officer will issue subnoenas i
requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses or the production of evidence. The officer to whom application is made may recuire a showing of general relevance of the testimony or evidence sought, and may withhold the subpoena if such a showing is not made, but he shall not attemnt to determine the admissibility of evidence.
i 10 C.F.R. 2.720(a), " Subpoenas."
(Emphasis added.)
Failure to issue a deposition subpoena is comoletely without i
legal basis.
Intervenors have made application to the Chairman for a subpoena.
The language of the Rule clearly states that the officer will issue a subpoena, contingent only on a discretionarv i
decision to require a showing of general relevance.
This showing 1
was made in two OI briefings, after which the Board concluded 4
that the evidence sought by deposition was relevant generally I
to the pending contention.
As discussed above, the correctness of that determination cannot be doubted.
I Furthermore, though the matter is clear on its face, it is significant that under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, mere proof of service of a notice to take a deposition " constitutes a sufficient authoriztion for the issuance by the clerk of the district court...of subpoenas for the persons named or described therein."
Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(d)
(Emphasis supplied.)
It'is apparent that a deposition subpoena for Mr. Corcoran should be issued without further delay.
CONCLUSION l
For the foregoing reasons, Intervenors support the decisions a
of the Licensing Board both in ordering OI to disclose relevant i
documents from its file on che Corcoran allegations, and in agreeing to issue - upon Intervenors' request - a subpoena for l
Mr. Corcoran's deposition.
l i
h l
t Dated:
Augus t 21, 1986 j.
Respectfully Submitted, f
NJ
~
~
Robert GuiEd)
One of the Attorneys for.
Intervenors Rorem, et al.
- 4. -
l 4
f 4
1 1
1 Douglass W. Cassel, Jr.
Robert Guild 109 tiorth Dearborn St.
Suite 1300 Chicago, Illinois 60602 (312) 641-5570 4
I i
i 1
ENDNOTES 1 This position was reaffi*:med in May of 1985 in NRC Proposed Rule, " Adjudication; Special Procedures for Resolving Conflicts Concerning the Disclosure of (sic) Nondisclosure of Information,"
50 Fed. Reg. 21.072 (1985) (to be codified at 10 C.F.R.52.795a-k).
2 The Policy Statement indicates that the Board should rule on the disclosure question after they are " advised of the nature of the investigation involved, the status of the insp_ction or inves tigation, and the proj ected time for, its comple ilon."
3 "The general rule is that all information warranting disclosure to the boards and parties, including information that is the subj ect of ongoing investigation or insnections, should be disclosed, except as provided herein.'
(Policy Statement).
(Emphasis supplied.)
In addition to 'the restricted disclosure contemplated by these options, the Board can recommend conglete disclosure if it disagrees that release of information would compromise a confidential source or prejudice the investigation.
(Policy S ta tement).
Intervenors do not seek unrestricted disclosure in this case.
5 If there are other confidential sources in the material to be disclosed, whose identities have not yet been revealed, their identities may of course be withheld from public disclosure nursuant to protective order-l
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 hereby certify that I have served copies of Intervenors' Brief Supporting The Decisions of The Licensing Board To Compel Disclosure Of Relevant Documents From Office Of Investigation Files And To Issue A Deposition Subpoena to each party listed on the attached Service List, by having said copies placed in envelopes, properly addressed and postaged (first class) and deposited in the United States Mail at 109 North
Dearborn Street,
Chicago, Illinois 60602 on this 25th day of August,- 1986.
)0 lNk b!l lc,-
i?Y i.
g,
/dAr/(GE/d 4
w
,,--r,-.-m,--.-
~,,,ee-m,,n
---,e-,----vmg--n----
--n,---,~-,----,-,----,,,,+----,7=.,-m-e-
SERVICE LIST Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Administrative Judge Appeal Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington D.C.
20555 A. Dixon Callihan Nunzio J. Palladino Administrative Judge Chairman and Commissioner 102 Oak Lane U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Commission
~ '
Gregory Berry, Esq.
NRC Staff Counsel Thomas M. Roberts U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commissioner i
7335 Old Georgetown Road U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Sethesda, Maryland 20014 Commission Washington D.C.
20555 Joseph Gallo, Esq.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale James K. Asselstine 1120 Connecticut Avenue N.W.
Commissioner Suite 840 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington D.C. 20036 Commission Washington D.C.
20555
- Michael I, Miller, Esq.
Peter Thornton, Esq.
Frederick M. Bernthal Isham, Lincoln & Beale Commissioner Three First National Plaza U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Chicago, Illinois 60602 Commission Washington D.C.
20555 Docketing & Service Section Office of the Secretary Lando W. Zech, Jr.
~
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commissioner Washington D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
Bridget Little Rorem Washington D.C.
20355 117 North Linden Street i
Essex, Illinois 60935 Herbert Grossman, Esq.
Chairman and Administrative i.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Judge Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Board Washington D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C.
20555 4
e w
e' i
3 t
I t
(
(
T ATTACHMENT A a
4 i
1 I
f I
- a =* u **+. u * *** ****
.ygj-Aur,ust 2, 1983 HEHORANDUM FOR: Itegion III Files FROM:
It. C. Knop, Clitet, Project s lirancti 1 SUDJECT:
QUALITY CONTit0L A1.1.ECATIONS AT 11RAIDWOOD At 1905 on August 1, 1983, Tom Corcoran, n QC Hanager for Comstock Engineering at Braidwood, called the IE duty officer. !!c stated that QC records and inspection reports are being falsified. !!c claims he has documents to back up hin charges. Ile wants to remain confidential. IIc has been threatened with being fired if he does not keep quiet. !!c has nat talked to the resident inspector for fear of being scen with hica. lle was told that someone would be in touch with him.
!!!s address and telephone number 10:
2515 Central Drive Jolict, IL (815) 436-2970 (availabic after 7:00 p.m.)
(.
R. C. Knop, Chief Projects Branch I cc:
G. W. Roy E. Pawlik ATTACMMT A"
9 8
m ATTACHMENT B
s June 25, 1986 UNITED ~ STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
BEFORE Ti!E ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of:
)
)
COMMONWEALTl! ED130N COMPANY
)
Docket Mos. 50-456 and 50-457
)
(Braidwood Nuclear Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE OF
_ RELEVANT DOCUMENTS FROM OI FILES 2.venors Rorem et al., by their undersigned counsel, pursuant to the Commission'a " 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 OI documents, to the extent appropriate under the Commission's Policy Statement, as detailed below. */
FACTS On Juno 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
'l 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.
. 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 01 investigation.
One or more additional,01 investigations may be relevant as well.
Pursuant to the Commission's Policy Statement, the Board has now scheduled an in camera session with OI 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 OI files uc have not seen.
Our Motion For Disclosure, therefore, urgos the Board to grant full disclosure of 01 documents in this case, to the extent appropriate under the Commission's Policy Statement, after the Board has reviewed 01's in camera presentation.
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 f
the Board under the Policy Statement, and (3) the particular f acts favoring liberal disclosure in this case.
J w..
w pr,
.,,a-r-
-_y,-yy
,n y
_,e,
~.,,,
,n_
--,,,---g-.,
-,em,,,-
ww--,-g,,,,
,,.g
n--
-w_y.-m-
3_
1.
The Cc==insion's Cencral Policy Favering Disclosure, d
While each case must be decided on its own merits, in its Policy Statement the Commission makes cicar "that as a general rule it favors full disclosure to the boards and parties, that 1
information should protected only when necessary and that any 4
liuits on disclosure to the parties should be limited in both scope and duration to.the minimum necessary to achieve the purposes of the non-disclosure policy."
(Policy Statement.)
The only permissibic purposes of non-disclosure are:
l l
"(1)
To avoid compromising an ongoing investigation or inspection; and (2) to protect confidential sources."
(Id.)
1 2.
The Board's Disclosure Options, j
j Under the Commission's Policy Statement, once the Board has roccived 01's in camera presentation, the Board has at 1 cast five disclosure options which it may employ to impicment the Commission's general rule favoring full disclosure.
I The first three of those options exist if OI asserts, and the Board agrees, that immediate, unrestricted disclosure would I
compromise an ongoing investigation or a confidential source.
f These options are:
"to provide for the timely consideration of relevant' matters derived from investigations i
and inspections through the deferral or rescheduling of issues for hearing" (id.),
"by placing limitations on the scope of disclosure to the partics" (id.) or i
- - +,- --
6-*----
,----e---wri-y---ti.we=-w.-
y-s e,e,,- e e
,--,---v----e
-e
---***=-----m-
- - - - - - - - + - -
r v-
-m---~-*w*-'
'--5--'-
.q-
"by using prorocrive nrdore" (y).
The fourth and fifth of these options arise if:
"the board disagrecs that release will prejudice the investigation," -(id.) or, by parallel implication, 1
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 l eas't three facts already known to Intervenors offer further support for full dis' closure 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 inforced, at the time he assumed his position as Comstock QC manager at Braidwood, that his predecessor, Mr. Corcoran, was fired for being too quality conscious.
If the allegations in Attachment A are true, they j
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 unreliabic (or worse), and thus about the adequacy of any
~. _.._..._ _
-.y-9 y-.w.-
s m.
-+--,
9
5-cortective ocLion vt-telnai,ection pruntums.
~
Second, the vintage of Attachment A - nearly thrce years old -
suggests several considerat ions.
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 -
l cspecially disclosure under a protective order - at this late date.
For exampic, 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 01's investigation also suggests either that the matter is not one of high priority - and thus of questionable importance - or that OI has been stumped 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 URC staff documents can no longer be withheld on the ground of protecting
--w-
,,4
,A,m 3
.y-p r--
ee-
--w----+
- c, -
the alleger's identity.
!!in identity, as shcun in Attachment A, is known to Intervenors: it is public information.
Other docu-monts naming him can no longer be withheld on the ground of protecting his confidentiality, because that confidentiality no longer exists.
- /
CONCLUSION 4
For the foregoing reasons, Intervenors move the Board to I
provide for full disclosure, to the extent permitted by the Commission's Policy. Statement, of all 01 or other NRC staff documents concerning the matter set forth in Attachment A or otherwise relevant to the issue in this licensing proceeding.
DATED: June 25, 1986 Respectfully submitted, R
y Douglass W. Cassel, Jr.
One of the Attorneys for Interven rs Rorem, et al.
Douglass W. Cassel, Jr.
Robert Guild Timothy W. Wright, III 109 llorth Dearborn Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 641-5570
- /
Of course, if there are other confidential sources in the
~
investigation, whose identitics have not yet been compromised, their identitics may still be withheld.
r r
'5ggc ci e e rti.vw. inwootS ec t3s August 2, 1983 HEHORANDUM FOR: Region III Files i
FROM:
R. C. Knop, Clelef, Project s Branch 1
SUBJECT:
QUALITY C0!!TEOL Al.l.ECATIONS AT BRAIDWOOD At 1905 on August 1,1983, Tom Corcoran, a QC Hanager for Comstock Engineering at Braidwood, called the IE duty officer. lic stated that QC records and inspection reports are being falsified. lic claims he has documents to back up his ci arges.
lie wanto to remain confidential. !!e han been threatened with being fired if he doco not keep quiet..
lic has not talked to the resident. inspector for fear of being seen with him. lie was told that someone would be in touch with him.
Ills address and telephone number is:
2515 Central Drive Jolict, IL (815) 436-2970 (availabic after 7:00 p.m.)
T R. C. Knop, Chief Projects Branch I cc:
C. W. Roy E. Pawlik i
ATTACMMT A"
r-'---
--w-w r
--+-e
-m r--ye
00CMETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA usNRC NUCLEAR RECULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICEUSING BOAm AUG 28 A10:54 0FFICE CF ".Cifi,W/
00CMETP G i Hi VICl.
In the Matter of:
)
En3
)
COMMONWEALTil EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-456 and 50-457
)
(Braidwood Nucicar Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICS I hereby certify that I have served copics of Intervenors' Motion For Disclosure of Relevant Documents From OI Files on all parties to this proceeding as listed on the attached Service List, by having said copics placed in envelopes, properly addressed and postaged, and deposited in the U.S. mail at 109 North
Dearborn,
Chicago, Illinois 60602, on this 25th day of June, 1986; except that the Licensing Board and counsel for Edison and counsel for NRC Staff were served by personal delivery at the hearing held on June 26, 1986 in Joliet, Illinois.
B h,G I
i
--w-g
- ---, y
DPAIDWOOD SERVICE LIST
!!crber t Cr0ssman, Prg.
Micieuel I. Filier, Eug.
Chairman and Administrative Judge Peter Thornton, Eso.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Isham, Lincoln & Deale U.S.
Nuclear Pegulatory 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 Pegulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington D.C.
20555 Washing ton D.C.
20555 A.
Dixon Callihan C.
Allen Pock, Esq.
Administrative Judge P.O.
Box 342 102 Oak Lane Urbana, Illinois 61801 Oak Didge, Tennessee 37830 Dridget T.ittle Forem Stuart Treby, Psq.
117 North I.inden Street NRC Staff Counsel Essex, Illinois 60935 U.S.
Nuclear Pegulatory Commission 7335 Old Georgetown Road Thomas J.
Gordon, Eso.
Bethesda, Maryland 20014 Waller, Fvans & Gordon 2503 South ticil Joseph Callo, Ps o.'
Champaign, T111nois 61820 Ishpm, Lincoln & Deale 1150 Connecticut Avenue N.W.
Lorraine Creek Suite 1100 Poute 1, Dox 182 Washington D.C.
20036 raanteno, Tllinois 60950 Region III Office of Inspection &
Pnforcement U.S.
Nuclear Pegulatory Commission 799 Roosevelt Fond Glen Fllyn, Illinois 60137 Atomic Safety and T.icensing Doard Panel U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commincion Washi.ngton D.C.
20555
er e
9 e f
e I
ATTACHMENT C l
i-5 1
k I
e I
i
Wex%[o p
UNITED STATES g
8
.n (
p, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
jj WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555
%....bo#
August 11, 1986 Michael I. Miller, Esq.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale Three First National Plaza Chicago, IL 60602 Robert Guild, Esq.
Business and Professional People for the Public Interest 109 N. Dearborn Street Sufte 1300 C,hicago, IL 60602 In the Matter of Commonwealth Edison Company (Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2)
Docket Nos.50-45G and 50-457 RE: NRC Staff Additional Production of Documents Responsive To Intervenors' Ilarassment Contention
Dear Messrs. Miller and Guild:
On August 5, 1986, the Staff provided you with certain documents described in its cover letter of August 4, 1986 which updated and augmented the Staff's document production on Intervenors' harassment contention.
In the August 4 1986 letter, the Staff reiterated its understanding of the scope of'the contention.
Subsequently, the Board and other parties discussed the Staff's view of the scope of the egntention' and it appears the Board and other parties believe the Staff has been too restrictive in its view.
Tr. at 10250-259. They would find relevant documents relating to any allegation of harassment or of emphasis by Comstock management of production over quality made by any Comstock quality control inspector.
While the Staff does not agree with this broader view of the scope of the contention,1/ nonetheless the Staff 1/
See e.g.
- This Bcard's Memorandum And Order Admitting liarassment and Intimidation Issue on Five-Factor Balance),(dated May 2,
1986 in which the Board, while discussing the factor 'of good cause, described briefly the scope of the contention:
"Although Subpart 2.C, as filed on May 24, 1985, was specific enough to have met the specificity requirements for the filing of a contention and could have been admitted at that time, the Board established further deadlines for filing of additional (FOOTNOTE CONTIN 0ED ON NEXT PAGE) e
has determined to provide the following nine documents relating to an allegation recently received by Staff (and the only other one known to Staff counsel) from a quality control inspector performing work for Comstock at the Braidwood site.
RIII-86-A-0096 0096-1 June 4,1986 Alleger Identification Sheet 0096-2 Allegation Management System (2) 0096-3 June 6,1986 Letter to Allegor from C.H. Weil 0096-4 June 6, 1986 Memorandum For C.E.
Norelius from C.H.
Weil 0096-5 June 13, 1986 Memorandum For C.E. Norelius from C.H.
Weil 0096-6 July 14, 1986 Letter to NRC from Alleger 0096-7 July 17, 1986 Memorandum For C.
Paperiello from C.H.
Weil 0096-8 July 6,1986 - Newspaper article, Chicago Tribune 0096-9 August 7, 1986 - Memorandum For C.E.
Norelius from C. H. Weil The Staff notes that the investigation of this allegation is ongoing.
Therefore, disclosure of these documents should be accorded the same protection as that accorded to the documents relating to Allegation No.
RIII-86-A-0079 produced by the Staff on August 6, 1986, pursuant to Board order.
In other words, disclosure of the subject documents is to be limited to counsel until such time as the Staff completes its investigation and issues its report on Allegation No. RIII-86-A-0096.
Sincerely, Grc or Alan Berry g
Counsel for NRC Staff i
Enclosure:
As Stated i
cc. w/o encls: Service List (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE) specific information for the purpose of limiting Intervenors to only those specifica in discovering and trying the harassment issue."
Order at 6 (emphasis added).
The Staff has maintained that instances of alleged harassment or intimidation not specifically identified in Intervenors' amended contention are beyond the scope of this proceeding.
.s E
>1-A m
-o a
O Y
I
}-
e 4
ATTACHMENT D i
a i
i i
J e
c.
Chicago Tribune August 4, 1986 Section 2, Page 1 TRC ' sitting on' Braidwood probe
'homas M. Burton told the NRC that "quatity-con-before Braidwood can open, it be found to be criminal.
"All we can say on this investi-ti i records and inspectio re-must overcome some obstacles, An attorney for Common-gation is that 'there are th ngs ianager at the Braidwood ports arc being falsified,,n, ac-mcluding an NRC board consid-wealth Edison Co., Michael I.
underway that date back two or ir plant construction site 1e federal Nuclear Regula, cording 1o an NRC cring safety and,th.c Illinois Miller, said last week that "to three years. The reason they Commission in 1983 that memorandum. Such falsification Commerce Commission's con-my knowledge, there has been have not been investigated crevi-records on the project of safety records would be a srderation of costs.
no contact between the NRC ously has to do with shortage of being falsified, but :hree unmnal oHense.
At least 26 cmployees of Com-and Commonwealth Edison" on manpower. These is a backtort of
'ater the federal agency has The manager, Thomas Cor-stock have made other allega-the alleged falsification of safety investigations, and has been ever begun its investigation coran, directed the quality-con-tions to the NRC that Comstock documents at Hraidwood. Miller smcc the NRC Ollice of Inve-he matter.
trol section at Hraidwood for harassed them' on the job site to said he would be likely to know stigations was created.
ollicials say they were 1..K. Comstock & Co. Inc. of overlook safety problems and to about it if the NRC had contact-Douglass Cassel Jr., a Chicago
~
to investigate because of Danbury, Conn., the electrical speed up construction at ed either Edison or one of its attorney representing resid< nts
>wer shortages, but an at.
contractor on the $5.05 billion Braidwood-a charge Comstock contractors.
near the plam who oppose the opposing the licensing of plant being built 55 miles south-has denied.
And NRC officials. conceded licensing of Hraidwood, ca!!cd vood charged in an inter. west of Chicago. lic smce has But Corcoran's allegation is that htlic had been done on the this an e ample of the NHC's hat the agency is " sitting !cil Comstock.
unique in two ways. lie is the matter, blaming a shortage of lack of concern for safety issocs.
- tilegation."
One Braidwood reactor is 96 only high-level official for a personnel for the three-ycar Cassel charged that Corcoran thz evening of Aug.1, percent complete and is sched-Brandwood contractor known to delay.
"was pressurcd to leave by Com-the quality-control manag-uled to begin operations in May, have raised safety-related An NRC spokesman at the stmk because he was too realous the electrreal contractor at 1987; the other is set for com-charges. And he is the first to agency's Midwe.st regional ollice tidwood comtruction site piction in October,1988. But raise issues that potentially could in Glen Ellyn, Jan Strasma, said:
Continued on page 4 9
w g-
/
to them, a request being opposed by the NRC.
~
_/
One of those attorneys, Cassel, was irate' that the NRC had not
(. ntinued from page I told him or others representing u
on safety."
residents near the plant about Stiller-said Corcoran was not Co'rcoran's charges.
fired but left. Comstock on his in a recent filing in the licensing own. But h1 iller did say that Com.
proceedings for tiraidwood, the stock olTicials were unhappy with NRC'said the Corcoran "investi-Corvoran's work.at the approxi-gation is ong'oing and is still in its mate time Corcoran complained early stages.
to the NRC, and that he was "lat-In an apparent attempt to ex-erally transferred to another job" plain why so little has happened before leaving Comstock about on the matter over the last three three months later.
years, the agency said,"The Ofiice The backlog of cases and the of Investigatiom has fmite inve-manpower shortage at the NRC's stigatory resources."
investigative office have caused in April, lien llayes, director of criticism by Democrats on Capitol the NRC's Office of Investiga-11i11 as the Reagan tions, testified on Capitol Hill that i ha,s cut NRC fundm,admimstratmn he could not see how his "28 in-g.
based m,Of fice of Investigations, vestigators can handle a caseload the W ashmgton, is, a,quau-of the magnitude that we base."
independent office withm the Hayes testilied that his ollice had NRC that reports,directly to the about 190 unfinished investiga-Ine-member commisuon,that runs tions in the works at the time.
the agency, not to ollicials in re-vestigations,that the Ollice of in-
"The fact gional o!!i'ces. The investigative of-inspections are de-tice is assigned the task oflooking layed or not as wcu done as they ated'potentially criminal cases rel-nught be has been a source,ol, into io nuclear power plants.
't he 1983 NRC memorandum, cpncern to me,, Aliller said.
ihree >cais is a bit much under written by R.C. Knop of the agen, any circumstances. But he agreed cy's Glen Ellyn o!! ice, said Cor-that "this, branch of the NRC has coran had reported having docu.
just an incredible number of ments to back up his ch5rges of aHegatmnt falsification of safety records.
Corcoran, who stopped working U.S. Rep. Edward N1arkey [D..
at Ilraidwoo l within months af ter Afass.] said at that Apnl heanng making his ieport to federal regu.
of his flouse Subcommittee on lators and who has since moved to Energy Conservation and Power California, declined to comment that, " excluding cases that are less in a recent interview, saying only, than 2 months old, my stalT has "I no longer work in Illinois."
done a statistical analysir showing Residents lising near the power 37.3 percent of the Olhee of Inve-than 12 months.,y cases are older stigations' backlo plant construction site, who are opposing the licensing of Ilraidwood through ongoing NRC h1arkey added: " Cases do get hearings, also have found out stale. The trail of csidence grows a little weaker. Documents get de-about Corcoran's charges. Attor-nep representing the residents are stroyed, lost memories fade, and, seeking to have detailed files on of course. prosecution becomes Corcoran's bliegations turned over more diflicult."
(
i
~
1 2
5
. - -