ML20206P697

Intervenors Rorem Et Al Motion for Disclosure of Relevant Documents from Ofc of Investigations Re QC Allegations at Facility.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20206P697
Person / Time
Site:	Braidwood
Issue date:	06/25/1986
From:	Cassel D CASSEL, D.W., ROREM, B.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#386-773 OL, NUDOCS 8607020217
Download: ML20206P697 (9)

Text

-

g agAltu cunut.wumanSh '

June 25, 1986 UNITED' STATES OF AMERICA. -

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING IlGM 0 i

JSNR In the Matter of: )

JN 30 Ali 52 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. gg-456and50-457OL

) MWin y (Braidwood Nuclear Station, ) och[T{jgcf'M gg Units 1 and 2) ) <

INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS FROM 01 FILES Intervenors Rorem ej M., 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 Allegaticas At Braidwood," dated August 2, 1983 (Attachment A hereto). An investigative reporter was in cour,sel's office at the time and also saw the document.

• / By moving for disclosure consistent with the Commission's Policy Statement, Intervonors do not waive any objections they may have to the Policy Statement.

8607020217 860625 l

{DR ADOCK 05000456 PDR JD s o 3

e .

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 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 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 the Board under the Policy Statement, and (3) the particular facts favoring liberal disclosure in this case.

P t 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 liuits on disclosure to the par: _es 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 permissible purposes of non-disclosure are:

"(1) To avoid compromising an ongoing investigation or 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, unrestricted disclosure would compromise an ongoing investigation or a confidential source.

These options are:

. "to provide for the timely consideration of relevant matters derived from investigations and inspections through the deferral or rescheduling of issues for hearing" (id.),

. "by placing limitations on the scope of disclosure to the parties" (id.) or j

. "by using protective orders" (id) .

The fourth and fifth of these options arise if:

. "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 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 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 OI 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 OI's investigation also suggests either that the matter is not one of high priority - and thus of questionable importance - or that 01 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 OI and NRC staff documents can no longer be withheld on the ground of protecting u

i

the alleger's identity. His identity, as shown in Attachment A, 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 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 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

Douglass W. Cassel, Jr.

y One of the Attorneys for Intervenors Rorem, et al.

Douglass W. Cassel, Jr.

Robert Guild Timothy W. Wright, III 109 North Dearborn Suite 1300 Chica go , IL 60602 (312) 641-5570

• / Of course, if there are other confidential sources in the investigation, whose identities have not yet been compromised, their identities may still be withheld.

I Y,, /j8 ottb EtkYN. 0Lt4NOIS sot 37

..... August 2, 1983 MEMORANDUM FOR: Region III Files FROM: R. C. Knop, Chief, Projects Branch 1

SUBJECT:

QUALITY CONTROL ALLEGATIONS AT BRAIDWOOD At 1905 on August 1,1983, Tom Corcoran, a QC Hanager for Comstock Engineering at Braidwood, called the IE duty officer. lie stated that QC records and inspection reports are being falsified. lie 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. He was told that someone would be in touch with him, llis address and telephone number is:

2515 Central Drive Joliet, IL (815) 436-2970 (availabic af ter 7:00 p.m.)

grc Kr R. C. Knop, Chief Projects Branch I cc: G. W. Roy E. Pawlik ATTACl4 KENT A"

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of: )

)

COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-456 and 50-457

)

(Braidwood Nuclear Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have served copies of Intervenors' Motion For Disclosure of Relevant Documents From 01 Files on all parties to this proceeding as 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, 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 n,G l.

l l

l i

BPAIDWOOD SERVICE LIST Herbert Grossman, Esq. Michael T. 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 Regulatory Commission Commission Washington D.C. 20555 Washington D.C. 20555 A. Dixon Callihan C. Allen Bock, Esq.

Administrative Judge P.O. Box 342 102 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 2503 South Neil Joseph Gallo, Esq. Champaign, Illinois 61820 Isham, Lincoln & Beale 1150 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Lorraine Creek Suite 1100 Route 1, Box 182 Washing ton D.C. 20036 Manteno, Illinois 60950 Region III Office of Inspection &

Fnforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commi'ssion 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Pllyn, Illinois 60137 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

. Washington D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory -

Commission Washington D.C. 20555 l

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