ML20211D840
| ML20211D840 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 06/05/1986 |
| From: | Steptoe P COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO., ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#286-539 OL, NUDOCS 8606130163 | |
| Download: ML20211D840 (15) | |
Text
'
CELATED CORRLsyong y, 0)
N '((L N
g 9 r >
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i ~JUNll19 P $
i s .;nmNG & !
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING B06RD cmc;DRANCH b; JY-1;Rc p
y In the Matter of: ) N
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY )
) Docket Nos. 50-456 /
(Braidwood Station, Units 1 ) 50-457 b and 2) )
BRIEF OF COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY IN OPPOSITION TO THE ADMISSION OF PARKHURST CONTENTION .
I. INTRODUCTION On May 27, 1986 Intervenors Rorem et al. filed a
" Motion to Admit Additional Late-Filed Harassment and Intimi-dation Contentions." Intervenors' Motion proposes two new contentions. One arises from the discharge on March 26, 1986 of an L. K. Comstock QC inspector, Mr. R. D. Hunter, for inspecting welds through paint. The second deals with the allegations of a clerk / typist employed by L. K. Comstock who was " loaned" to Sargent & Lundy, Ms. Bonnie Parkhurst.
l Applicant does not contest the admission of the proposed Hunter contention, provided that the contention is properly focussed on the reason for Mr. Hunter's discharge. 1/
Applicant does, however, oppose the admission of the Parkhurst contention. Intervenors' Motion is based on a critical misstatement of fact as to when Intervenors learned or should have learned of Ms. Parkhurst's allegations. Intervenors are l
l 1/ See Part III of this Brief.
( 8606130163 860605 PDR l
G ADOCK 05000456 PDR Ts03 .
unjustifiably late in proposing this additional contention.
Moreover, litigating the Parkhurst contention would not contribute anything to the overall record on alleged harassment of L. K. Comstock QC inspectors, and would result in a substantial, unjustifiable delay in the completion of this proceeding.
II. UNDER THE FIVE FACTOR TEST OF 10 C.F.R. $ 2.714, THE LATE FILED PARKHURST CONTENTION IS INADMISSIBLE.
Factor (i) Intervenors Have No Good Cause For Their Failure to File the Parkhurst Contention in a Timely Fashion. ,
Both the Commission and the Licensing Board have recently reaffirmed that this first factor is the crucial element in the analysis of whether a late-filed contention should be admitted. CLI-86-08, 23 NRC __ (April 24, 1986);
Memorandum and Order (Admitting Harassment and Intimidation Issue on Five-Factor Balance) dated May 2, 1986. Intervenors' Motion (at p. 4) asserts that:
Intervenors first learned of Ms. Parkhurst's allegations, and of the April 10, 1986 ruling by the Administrative Law Judge through a Board notification provided by Appl $ cant under a cover letter dated April 28, 1986.
This is untrue, or at least seriously misleading. Intervenors were, or should have been, fully informed of Ms. Parkhurst's allegations on or about January 10, 1986, when the NRC Staff made its records concerning those allegations available to Intervenors and Applicant in response to Applicant's discovery request.
Attachment A to this Brief is the NRC Staff's cover letter and index to the documents made available en January 10, 1986. Thirty-five of these documents (#s 7 to 41) relate to Ms. Parkhurs't's allegations. As the NRC Staff's cover letter indicates, Applicant and Intervenors agreed to treat these documents and the information they contain as confidential.
Therefore Applicant is handicapped in describing to the s
Licensing Board what these Parkhurst documents contain. The Licensing Board should examine the confidential documents itself if it has any doubt that they were sufficient to inform Intervenors of Ms. Parkhurst's allegations. For example, the Parkhurst documents made available on January 10, 1986 include:
Doc. #9 The NRC Staff's February 20, 1985 Memorandum summarizing Ms. Parkhurst's initial February 15, 1985 telephone call to the Staff regarding her drawing control and employment discrimination concerns.
Doc. #s 28,31 Ms. Parkhurst's four page written complair.t, l dated February 17, 1985, documenting her l allegations to the NRC and U.S. Department of Labor.
Doc. #15 The NRC Staff's June 18, 1985 Memorandum l summarizing a telephone call from Ms. Parkhurst on June 17, 1985 in which she complained about being laid off.
Doc. #s 11, 14 Ms. Parkhurst's three page written complaint, i
dated June 18, 1985, to the NRC and to the U.S.
Department of Labor.
Additional documents made available to Intervenors on January 10, 1986 reflect the NRC Staff's and the Department of Labor's processing of Ms. Parkhurst's allegations.
The Parkhurst allegations reflected in the confiden-tial documents made available to Intervenors on January 10, 1986 are the same allegations addressed in the Administrative Law Judge's ruling attached to Intervenors' proposed contention. Intervenors' assertion that they first learned of Ms. Parkhurst's allegations in late April, 1986 is therefore inexplicable. 2/
The Administrative Law Judge's ruling in favor of Ms.
Parkhurst, which was entered on April 7, 1986 and transmitted to the Licensing Board and to the parties by Applicant's counsel on April 28, 1986, does not constitute " good cause" for Intervenors' untimely contention. The Administrative Law Judge's ruling is not a final decision of the U. S. Department of Labor; it is being appealed. Moreover, in NRC proceedings a party which has sufficient facts to form the basis for a contention can not sit back and wait on the outcome of another proceeding before submitting its contention.
! Previously in this proceeding, for example, 1
Intervenors clain ed that they refrained from filing a quality assurance conter .an pending the outcome of events--
l 2/ Applicant has been unable to confirm that Intervenors actually inspected the confidential documents made available to them by the NRC Staff on January 10, 1986.
However, the absence of this confirmation doesn't really matter. Intervenors can not turn their back on documents made available during discovery and then, more than four months later, argue that good cause exists for a late-filed contention.
l l
specifically, the outcome of Applicant's Braidwood Construction Assessment Program (BCAP). Intervenors argued that by refraining for five months from filing their contention, they sought to avoid needless litigation. The Commission rejected ;
this argument, observing:
Parties to Commission proceedings must live with the choices they make. Intervenors had the option of pursuing their aims outside the adjudicatory context, or of filing a timely contention, but an untimely filing is not made acceptable by the fact that the party refrained from burdening the adjudicatory process during the months of delay.
CLI-86-08, 23 !!RC (April 24, 1986) (slip op. at 4).
Thus, whether Intervenors learned of the Parkhurst allegations in January and chose not to pursue them at that time while awaiting the outcome of the Labor Department proceeding, or whether they simply turned their back on the confidential Parkhurst documents offered to them by the Staff--the result is the same. There is no good cause for Intervenors' four-and-one-half month delay in submitting the i Parkhurst contention. 3/
3/ To the extent that Intervenors seek to litigate Ms.
Parkhurst's document control allegations, as opposed to her claim that she was the victim of employment discrimination l (see Intervenors' Motion at 7, n.*), Intervenors' contention is even more untimely. Ms. Parkhurst's document control allegations are described in detail in NRC Inspection Report 50-456/85044(DRS); 50-457/85043(DRS), The NRC Staff concluded that the document control allegations were unsubstantiated. A copy of this inspection report was sent to the Licensing Board and all parties, including Intervenors, on October 4, 1985. See Attachment B.
l l
Factors (ii) and iv). The Availability of Other Means Whereby the Applicant's Interest Will Be Protected and the Extent to Which Intervenors' Interest Will Be Represented by Existing Parties.
While these factors are given less weight than other factors in resolving the admissibility of late-filed con J 1
tentions, the Commission has held in this proceeding that they weigh in Intervenors' favor. CLI-86-08 (slip op. at p. 9).
Accordingly, Applicant does not contest that these factors are in favor of admitting the Parkhurst contention.
Factor (iii) Intervenors Have Not Shown That Litigating the Parkhurst Allegations May Reasonably Be Expected to Assist in Developing a Sound Record.
Intervenors' Motion asserts that adding evidence on the Parkhurst allegations will contribute to a sound record in two ways. First, Intervenors claim that the alleged retaliatory actions taken against Ms. Parkhurst, a clerk / typist who is not and never was employed by Comstock's QC department, show that " harassment and undue production pressure within the QC department at Comstock reflected the attitudes of Comstock's site management generally." (Motion at 6) Intervenors do not claim, nor could they, that evidence concerning Ms. Parkhurst's allegations would help the Licensing Board determine whether l
there wat harassment and intimidation of Comstock QC inspectors l
within the QC department. Intervenors suggest that it is
" notable" that Comstock's Project Manager and Project Engineer were implicated in the alleged discrimination against l
l
Ms. Parkhurst. These individuals have no responsibility under Comstock's organization for QA or QC matters. (See Inter-venors' Ex. 7, Enclosure 2, page A0015026)
Apparently seeking to remedy this lack of relevance, Intervenors speculate that "[T]he Parkhurst case appears to reflect either a failure by Comstock QA to detect the problem, or else a lack of sufficient independence of Comstock QA to challenge the actions of Comstock site management." (Motion at 7). There is no basis at all for this suggestion. The .
Administrative Law Judge's Decision and Order establishes that although Ms. Parkhurst was a Comstock clerk / typist, she was loaned to Sargent & Lundy, which largely supervised and controlled her day-to-day activities in Sargent & Lundy's mylar (engineering drawing) room. Ms. Parkhurst's safety concerns related exclusively to Sargent & Lundy's mylar room.
(Parkhurst Contention Ex. A, pp. 4-5) Comstock QA has no responsibility for auditing or overseeing Sargent & Lundy's activities anywhere, much less Sargent & Lundy's control of engineering drawings. Sargent & Lundy's own quality assurance organization (and Applicant's QL Department) have that responsibility. 4/ The Administrative Law Judge's Decision und Order does not even refer to the Comstock QA organization.
4/ See e.g. Attachment B to this Brief, p. 2.
Intervenors have simply attempted to invent a connection to Comstock QA where none exists. 5/
Finally, it should be noted that although Intervenors refer to "the Parkhurst evidence", they have not promised to provide anything to the Licensing Board other than the record of the Labor Department proceeding. Intervenors have not offered to call Ms. Parkhurst herself as a witness, or to furnish expert testimony addressing the relevance and significance of the clerk / typist's harassment claim to the QC inspector harassment issues which are the focus of this case.
The lack of probative value of the "Parkhurst evidence" in proving or disproving the Comstock QC inspector harassment claims means that this factor weighs against admission of the contention.
Factor (v) Admission of the Parkhurst Contention Would Significantly Delay This Proceeding.
Intervenors contend that admission of the Parkhurst contention would not significantly broaden or delay this pro-ceeding because under the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata, there is no need to relitigate the Department of 5/ In the spring of 1985 Ms. Parkhurst took an extensive leave of absence due to her husband's illness. When she came back to work at Braidwood in June she worked briefly for Comstock as a clerk in its Xerox room before she was laid off. (Parkhurst Ex. A, p. 6, 1 42-43) Obviously Comstock QA has no oversight responsibility for such photocopying or for Comstock employment decisions with respect to clerks in the Xerox room, since these are not safety-related activities.
Labor's findings in this case. (Motion at 9) This is not a serious suggestion. The Administrative Law Judge's ruling is not the final decision of the Department of Labor; for this reason alone the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel are inapplicable. Alabama Power Company (Joseph M. l Parley Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2), ALAB-182, 7 AEC 210, 1
212-13 (1974), rev'd on other grounds, CLI-74-13, 7 AEC 203 (lh74).
Even if there were a final decision of the Department of Labor with respect to Ms. Pa: khurst's allegations, the doctrine of res judicata and collateral estoppel would not apply, among other reasons, because Commonwealth Edison was not a party in the proceedings before the Department of Labor, and there was no privity between Commonwealth Edison and Comstock, the defendant. Although this is'not the appropriate occasion to submit a brief on the legal concept of privity, it is clear that this is an issue which has to be determined based on the
! facts and circumstances of each case. In this case, unlike the 1
situation in Texas Utilities Generating Co. (Comanche Peak j Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-83-34, 18 NRC 36 (1983), no Commonwealth Edison employee was involved in the l alleged discriminatory acts against Ms. Parkhurst. Moreover, unlike the situation in Comanche Peak, Cemeteck's defense strategy in the Labor Department case was hardly one which Commonwealth Edison would have adopted: Comstock argued that I
if there was any discrimination against Ms. Parkhurst, it was
Sargent & Lundy's fault, not Comstock's, because Ms. Parkhurst was on loan to Sargent & Lundy. No Sargent & Lundy witness appeared to explain or defend its reprimand and reassignment of Ms. Parkhurst. Just as a matter of common sense, is it likely that Commonwealth Edison would take such an approach, if it had any control over Comstock's Labor Department litigation? The Administrative Law Judge's finding that harassment occured reflects the case presented to him, which was not Edison's case, nor was it in any sense a complete case.
Intervenors also suggest that even if the Parkhurst allegations are relitigated before this Licensing Board, the time required for such relitigation would be "quite limited" in view of the small number of witnesses and the fact that the evidence has already been gathered and organized by the Administrative Law Judge. (Motion at 9) This Licensing Board has already ruled that it will not normally accept deposition transcripts in lieu of live testimony. One would therefore expect that the Licensing Board, if it is to be consistent, 1
I would require the live testimony of Ms. Parkhurst, rather than just her Labor Department transcript. In addition, the Licensing Board would have to hear at least three more .
I witnesses: one from Sargent & Lundy to explain and justify !
( Sargent & Lundy's reprimand and reassignment of Ms. Parkhurst; l
l one from Comstock to explain Ms. Parkhurst's lay-off; and an NRC Staff witness. Thus it would take a minimum of four witnesses to try the Parkhurst contention. So far in this case
1 I
it has taken two weeks of hearing time to complete the examination of - three witnesses. Applicant therefore believes that at least two additional weeks of hearings would be required to litigate the proposed Parkhurst contention. Such a delay is not justified in view of the limited relevance of the Parkhurst allegations to the overriding QC inspector harassment issue, and in view of Intervenors' unjustified and unjusti-fiable delay in proposing this new contention.
In balancing the five factors, the three most important factors all weigh against admission of the Parkhurst contention. The contention is submitted more than four months late, without good cause. The contention relates to alleged discrimination against a clerk / typist due to her safety concerns involving Sargent & Lundy's document control activities. Ms. Parkhurst's claims have nothing to do with Comstock QC inspectors. Finally, admission of the untimely contention will unjustifiably prolong this proceeding.
Accordingly, the proposed Parkhurst contention must be rejected.
III. THE LICENSING BOARD SHOULD CLARIFY THE HUNTER CONTENTION.
l l Applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion with respect to each admitted contention in this proceeding.
Therefore it is of great concern that contentions admitted be i drafted with basis and specificity as required by 10 CFR 5 2.714. The gist of Intervenors' Hunter Contention is clear enough. Mr. Hunter claims that he was terminated because of l his deposition testimony, and not, as Applicant contends,
\
1 l
J because he inspected welds through paint, EcWever, Intervenors I also incorporate in their Hunter Contention Mr. Hunter's two i
page Quality First letter, which appe~ars to raise a number of much broader, much less well-defined issues, such as:
I wish to question ... the training, instructions and supervision given in nr.y and all areas of Quality Control and Quality Assurance. ,
(Hunter Ex. A, p. 1) If this is in fact the contention, rather than evidence offered in support of the contention, it is not sufficient notice to inform Applicant or anyone else as to what -
Mr. Hunter's specific concerns are, or what evidence Applicant will have to bring forward to meet its burden of persuasion. ,
Similarly there are cryptic references to the relationship between Comstock and Bestco, alleged favoritism given to "certain people" and alleged substance abuse ' problems--none of this is clear enough to allow Applicant to know what la to be ,
litigated.
To the extent thesu murky issues are unrelated to .
Mr. Hunter's discharge, they fail to satisfy the five-factor i test for late-faled contentions in 10 CFR $ 2.714. Intervonors .
have been in contact with Mr. Hunter by letter and by telephone since September, 1985. (See Hunter Deposition Tr. 10-12, 72-73, Hunter Dep. Ex 3). They have not shown why these generalized allegations could not have been brought forward earlier. Moreover, Intervenors have not even attempted tc chow ,
what evidence they would offer that would contribute to a sound e e - e, - - - -a e e -
e -
l record on any of these collateral issues. Finally, these cryptic references to QC and QA training, favortism and substance abuse hold the potential for a dramatic expansion of the hearing time in this case. I 1
Applicant therefore requests that the Licensing Board I delete Hunter Exhibit A from the admitted Hunter contention, and define the matter in controversy as whether Mr. Hunter was discharged in retaliation for his deposition testimony in this case. (Of course, to the extent Hunter Contention Exhibit A or-any of the allogations made in Hunter Contention Exhibit A are j i
relevant to Mr. Hunters discharge, they could be offered into evidence or otherwise addressed in testir. tony. )
IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated, the Licensing Board should reject the proposed Parkhurst contention and accept the proposed Hunter contention, limited to the issue of whether Mr. Hunter was discharged in retaliation for his deposition testimony.
! Re ect s ted, l \ ,
j L n hep'---- __
l Philip P. Steptoe 6 l One of the Attorneys for l Commonwealth Edison Company Isham, Lincoln & Beale 3 First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60602 (312) 558-7500 l -
Dated: June Q, 1986 s
u
,CERTIF;tCATE OF SERVICE I, Philip P. Steptoe, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing BRIEF OF COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY IN OPPOSITION TO THE ADMISSION OF PARKHURST CONTENTION was served on all persons on the attached service list by deposit in the United States nail, first class (or by expedited means, as shown) this O day of June, 1986.
( hA PhY11p P. $teptoe
[G i
i l
i
SERVICE LIST Herbert Grossman, Esq.
Chairman Mr. William L. Clements Administrative Law Judge chief, Docketing and Services Atomic Safety and Licensin9 United States Nuclear Regulatory Board Commission United States Nuclocr Regulatory office of the Secretary Com' mission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20S55 Ms. Bridget Little Rorem Dr. Richard F. Cole 117 North Linden Street Administrative Law Judge P.O. Box 208 Essex, IL 60935 Atomic' Safety and Licensing Board United States Nuclear Regulatory * ~ Robert Guild Commission Washington, DC Douglass W. Cassel, Jr.
20555 Timothy W. Wright, III BPI
- Dr. A. Dixon Callihan 109 North Dearborn Street Administrative Law Judge Suite 1300 102 Oak Lane Chicago, IL 60602 Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Charles Jones, Director
- Stuart Treby, Esq. Illinois Emergency Services Elaine I. Chan, Esq. _ and Disaster Adency Of fico of the Executive Legal 110 East Adams Director Springfield, IL 62705 United States Nuclea:. Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 William Little, Director Braidwood Project Region III Atomic Safety and Licensing United States Nuclear Regulatory )
Board Panel CC!amission United States Nuclear Regulatory 799 Rooseveli Road Commission Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Washington, PC 20555 Janice A. S tevens Atomic Safety and Licensing (For Addressee Only)
Appeal Ecard Panel United States Nuclear Ruuulatory ;
United States Nuclear Regblatory Commission Commission 7920 Norfolk Avenue Washington DC 20555 Phillips Building Bethesda, MD 20014 Caorge L. Edgar, Esq, Thomac A. Schmuts, Esq.
Newman & Holtzinger, P.C. )
- Hand Dolivery 1515 "L" Street, N.W.
$uite 1000 Washit.gtcp, DC 20035
I e i e
ATTACHMENT A N s .- Jp n%,,% UNITED STATES q j .,[j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/. c
..s /, ) -[/ Q,f,g s.
m WAsmNGTON, D. C. 20555 January 10, 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 Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 6060?
In the Vatter of Commonwealth Edison Company (Braidwced Station, Units 1 and 2) g Docket Nos. 50-456 and 50-457 Vh RE: NRC Staff Response To Applicants First Request For Production of Documents To The NRC Staff
Dear Messrs. Miller and Guild:
On December 12, 1985, Applicant filed with the Executive Director of Operations a Recuest for Production of Documents pursuant to 10 C.F.R
% 2.744 In its reouest, Applicar.t seeks documents relating to a conten-tion raised by Intervenors that " supervisors employed by Applicants' electrical contractor [L.M. Ccmstock Co.) allegedly harassed and iritimidated their QC inspector and other employees." Letter from Elena Z. Kezelis, Esq. to William Dircks at 1 (December 12,1985).
The Staff has undertaken a search for documents responsive to Appli-cant's request. That search has resulte.' in the identification of 124 responsive documents. An index of ta 'e documents is appended to this letter. Of the 124 documents, the Staff will make available to Applicant and Intervenor for inspection and copying 117 documents in their entirety. Seven documents (118-124) are being withheld in their entirety pursuant to 10 C.F.R. l 2.790(a)(7). Documents 118-124 all relete to the Staff's ongoing investigation of Allegation No. RIII-ff;-A-0067 Disclosure of these documents at the present time could interfere with the Staff's investigatory efforts and hamper its regulatory
\
- y. . - . Q : gg.
1 g
(,/ n % w/
(
o O function. Consequently, Documents 118-124 are being withheld from disclo-sure in their entirety at this time pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 6 2.790(a)(7)(1) pending completion of the Staff's investigation of Allegation No.
RIII-85-A.0067. Documents 118-124, however, will be made available to the parties after the investigation of this matter is complete.
In its December 12, 1985 letter, Applicant states that it is "willing to agree that the documents we obtain from the NPC Staff and the information they contain will be treated in accordance with the terms of [the Protective Order entered by the Board on December 6,1985]." Id. at 2.
Documents 1-117 are being made available for inspection and copying by Applicant and Intervenors based on the understanding by all the parties that these documents constitute confidential information within the meaning of the Dececmber 6, 1985 Protective Order.
The documents will be available for inspection and copying at the offices of Willicrc F. Little, Eraidwood Project Director, 799 Roosevelt Road, Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137. Please call Mr. Little at (312) 790-5578 to arrange an acreeable time to inspect and copy the responsive documents.
S*cprely, b
Oe Gregory A an B ry Counsel f - NR Staff
/
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/o ercl.: Service List 1
m
i APPENDIX Documents Responsive To Allegation No. RIII-85-A-0005
- 1. 7 pages of Allegation Management System Forms P. March 14,1985 Memorandum from P.R. Pelke to C.H. Weil
- 3. Janua ry 16, 1985 Memorandum from C.H. Weil to C.E. Norelius 4 Allegation Data Form (ATS-RIII-85-A-005) (January 14,1985)
- 5. Same as 3, supra
- 6. Same as 4, supra Documents Responsive To Allegation No. RIII-85-A-0032
- 7. 4 pages of Allegation Management System Forms 8.. July 15, 1985 Memorandum from C.H. Weil to C.E. Norelius
- 9. July 12, 1985 Letter from D.P. New to W.G. Cheney
- 10. July 12, 1985 Letter from D.P. New to B.J. Parkhurst
- 11. June 18, 1985 Letter from B.J. Parkhurst to Department of Labor
- 12. Same as 9, supra
- 13. Same as 10, supra 14 Same as ll, supra 15 June 18, 1985 Memorandum from C.H. Weil to C.E. Norelius
- 16. Sane as 15, supra
- 17. June 18, 1985 Letter from C.E. Weil to B.J. Parkhurst
- 18. April 15,1985 Memorandum from C.H. Weil to C.E. Norelius
- 19. April 9,1985 Letter from R. Wzyguski, D0L Compliance Officer, to B,0. Parkhurst
- 20. April 1,1985 Letter from F. Rolan, LKC Project Manager, to R.
Wyzguski
- 21. Sargent & Lundy Employee Performance Note re: B.J. Parkhurst (February 1, 1985)
s ??. Same as 19, supra
- 73. Same as 20, supra
- 24. Same'as 21, supra
- 25. March 6, 1985 Memorandum from C.H. Weil to C.E. Norelius
- 26. March 4, 1985 Letter from D.P. New to T. Trumble
- 27. Redacted versinn of Document 31, infra
- 28. Redacted version of Document 35, infra
- 29. Same as 26, supra
- 30. March 4, 1985 Letter from D.P. New to B.J. Parkhurst
- 31. February 17, 1985 Letter from B.J. Parkhurst to Department of Labor
- 32. February 22, 1985 Letter from C.H. Weil to B. Parkhurst
- 33. February 22, 1985 Memorandum from C.H. Weil to C.E. Norelius
- 34. Redacted version of Document 25, supra
- 35. February 17, 1985 Letter frem B.J. Parkhurst to C.H. Weil
- 36. February 20, 1985 Letter from C.H. Weil to B.J. Parkhurst
- 37. February 20, 1985 Memorandum from C.H. Weil to C.E. Norelius
- 38. Allegation Data Form (ATS-PIII-85-A-0032) (February 15,1985)
- 39. Same as 37, supra
- 40. Same as 32, supra
- 41. A11eger Identification Sheet Documents Responsive To Allegation No. RIII-85-A-0062
- 42. March 13, 1985 Memorandum to W. Forney from L. McGregor re:
Allegations with regard to qualification certification of L.K.
Comstock QC Personnel (S pages)
- 43. March 19, 1985 Memorandum to C. Norelius from C.Weil re:
Allegation No, RIII-85-A-0062 (7 pages)
- 44. March 13, 1985 Allegation Data Input Form (1 page)
. 45. November 1, 1985 Allegation Management S Allegation No. RIII-85-A n062 (8 pages) ystem Fonns/
Documents Responsive To Allegation No. RIII-85-A-0068
- 46. March 29, 1985 Memorandum to R. Spessard from C. Weil re:
Allegation No. RIII-85-A-0068 (4 pages)
- 47. March 20, 1985 Allegation Data Input Form (1 page)
- 48. November 1, 1985 Allegation Management System Forms /
Allegation No RIII-85-A-0068 (8 pages)
- 49. April 4, 1985 Letters to Alleger from C. Weil (10 pages)
- 50. Undated Alleger Identification Sheet (1 page)
- 51. Undated, unsigned typewritten memorandum (2 pages)
- 52. November 8, 1985 Letter to Alleger from C. Weil (1 page)
- 53. Noverter 8, 1985 Letter to Alleger from C. Weil (1 page)
Documents Responsive To Allegation No. RIII-85-A-0072
- 54. March 29, 1985 Handwritten notes of telephone conference taken by R. Lerch (1 page)
- 55. March 29, 1985 Verorandum to R. Warnick from L.McGregor re:
telephone conference cell with Applicant (4 pages)
- 56. March 29, 1985 Allegation Data Input Form (1 page)
- 57. April 1,1985 RIII-Daily Report (1 page)
- 58. April 4, 1985 RIII-Daily report (1 page)
- 59. April 5, 1985 Memorandum from W.J. Dircks to Commission re: " Daily Staff Notes - April 4, 1985" (1 page)
- 60. November 1, 1985 Allegation Management Computer Form / Allegation No. RIII-85-A-0072 (8 pages)
- 61. November 7, 1985 Memorandum to E. Pawlick from C. Weil re:
Allegation No. RIII-85-A-0072 (1 page)
- 62. March 29, 1985 Memorandum to R. Warnick from L. McGregor re:
Quality control allegations from L.K. Comstock inspectors (8 pages)
- 63. April 5, 1985 Memorandum to C. Norelius from C. Weil re: LKC quality assurance program at Braidwood (18 pages)
F.
. i i 64. April 8, 1985 Letters to Allegers from C. Weil (17)
- 65. April 10, 1985 Facsimile of Femorandum to C. Weil from L. McGregor (3 pa.ges)
- 66. April 17, 1985 Memorandum to C. Weil from P. Felke re: Braidwood Alleoation Review Board meeting on April 12,1985(2pages)
- 67. November 8, 1985 Letter to Alleger from C. Weil (17 pages)
- 68. November 4, 1985 Inspection Report No. 50-456/85021; 50-457/85022 Documents Responsive To Allecation No. RIII-85-A-0119
- 69. August 27, 1985 Memorandum from C.H. Weil to C.E. Norelius
- 70. Allegation Data Input Form (August 20,1984)
- 71. August 23, 1984 Memorandum from W.L. Forney to C.H. Weil ,
- 72. August 17, 1984 Letter from J.D. Seeders to I. DeWald
- 73. Same as 70, supra
- 74. Same as 71, supra
- 75. Same as 72, supra
- 76. Alleger Identity Sheet
- 77. 6 pages of Allegation Tracking System. Forms
- 76. January 25, 1985 Memorerr'um from E.T. Pawlik to C.H. Weil ,
- 79. January P1,1985 Letter from C.H. Weil to J.D. Seeders
- 80. August 29, 1984 Letter from C.H. Weil to J.D. Seeders
- 81. December 31, 1984 Letter from R. Warnick to C, Reed transmitting Inspection Report No. 50-45ti/84-34; 50-457/84-32 DOCUMENTS RESPONSIVE TO ALLEGATION No. RIII-A-0123
- 82. February 14, 1985 Mercrandum to C.E. Norelius from C.H. Weil
- 83. February 26. 1985 Memorandum to C.E. Norelius from C.H. Weil 8a. January 23, 1985 Letter to C.H. Weil from S. Goldstein (Dept.
of Labor) transmitting Order of Dismissal of 00L Proceeding ,
1 4 l
l
- 85. July 26, 1985 NRC Memorandum from C.H. Weil to File
- 86. January 29, 1985 NRC Memorandum from C.H. Weil to C.E. Norelius ,
87.- Undated Copy of Report of DOL Investigator R. Wyzpuski
- 88. September 5, 1985 Letter from Worley O. Puckett to DOL
- 89. September 13, 1985 Memorandum from C.H, Weil to C.E. Norelius
- 90. September 9 1985 Letter from D0L to C.H. Weil transmitting 84 exhibits from Dept. of I abor "Vhistleb)cwer file"
- 91. January 17, 1985 Memorancum from C.H. Weil to C.E. Norelius transmitting Order of Dismissal of D0L Proceeding
- 92. January 8,1985 Memorandum from C.H. Weil to J. A. Hind, C.E.
Norelius, and J.F. Sheeter
- 93. November 8,1984 Memorandum from C.H. Weil to C.E. Norelius
- 94. November 6, 1984 Letter from D.P. New (DOL).to T. Trumble (Comstock)
- 95. Undated pleading from G.0. Smith. Esq. and 15 exhibits to be offered in D0L Proceeding
- 96. November 7, 1984 pleading from L. Hornberger, Esc. and 41 exhibits ;
to be offered in DOL Proceeding
- 97. Copy of Transcript of December 12, 1984 D0L Proceeding
- 98. September 26, 1984 Letter from C.H. Weil to W.O. Puckett
- 99. September 17, 19F4 Memorandum from C.H. Weil to C.E. Norelius 100. September 13, 1984 Letter from D.P. New (DOL) to W.0. Puckett 101. September 13, 1984 Letter from D.P. New (DOL) to T. Trumble 102. September 13, 1984 Letter # rom D.P. New (DOL) to W.0. Puckett 103. September 13, 1984 Letter from D.P. New (DOL) to T. Trumble 104. September 6, 19P4 Memorandum from C.H. Weil to C.E. Norelius and R.L. Spessard 105. August 28, 1984 Vemorandum from L. McGregor to C.H. Weil 106. August 28, 1984 Allegation Data Input Form (RIII-84-0213)
I
n s % t 107. September 6,,1984 Letter from C.H.'Weil to Worley 0. Puckett 108. August 28, 1984 Handwritten memo from L. McGregor to R. Warnick 109. Same as 106, supra, 110. Same as 105, supra 111. Alleger Identification Sheet 112. September,11, 1984 Transcript of Allegation Interview -
~
112. October 26,1984 Memorandum from C.H. Weil to R.L. Spessar'd 114. Undated Memorandum of Memorandum to File from'C.H. 'n'eil (10 enclosures), x -
115. December 4, 1985 Memerardum from C.H. Weil to W.0. Puckett 116. Allegation' Management System Form (December 4, 1985) re: Allegation R I I I . 84-t--0123 117. Inspection Report No. 50'.456'/85009; 50-457/85009 c; i Withheld Documents Responsive To Allecation No. RIII-85-A-0067 ,
118. November 8, 1985 Letter to Alleger from C. Weil (1 page) 119. March 29, 1985 Memorandum to R. Spessard from C. Weil re: Allegation '
No. RIII-85-A-0067 (5 pages) 120. April 4, 1985 Letter to Alleger Erom'C. Veil (6 pages) _ , ,
121. Undated and unsigned typewritten memorandum (3 pages)
~
122.UndatedAllegerI'dentificationShefet-(1page) s 123. November .1,1985 Allegation Manactment System Form / Allegation i No. RIII'85-0067 (8 pages) l !
l 124. March 20', 1985 Allegation Data Inp0t' Form (1 page) l
.c i
I s
i 1
e ,
, ATTACHMENT B . , ,
9 pa ss4 9 UNITED STATES f 9., NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N
[ MEGION lli 5 79e moostvtLT meAo oi... au.v=. n.u.o.. ui n
.0CT 4 1985 Docket No. 50-456 ,
Docket No. 50-457 ,g -
is?""Af.*ao' Jut"J:7'"' . CONFIDENTIAL Vice President 1 Post Office Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 l
Gentlemen:
This refers to the special safety inspection conducted by Mr. R. Mendez l of this office on August 22 through September 5, 1985, of activities at !
Braidwood Station Units 1 and 2 authortzed by NRC Construction Permits l No. CPPR-132 and No. CPPR-133 and to the dissussion of our findings with 1 Mr. L. Kline at the conclusion of the inspection.
The enclosed copy of our inspection report identifies areas examined during l the inspection. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of a selective )
examination of procedures and representative records, observations, and ) ,
! interviews with personnel.
No violations of NRC requirements were identified during the course of this inspection.
!, In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosed inspection report will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room, l
We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.
f
) Siccarely, l
1 J. J. Harrison, Chief
- Engineering Branch L
Enclosure:
Inspection Reports '
No. 50-456/85044(DRS);
DISTRIBUTION:
' No.50-457/85043(DRS)
O. OVENS NA l
See Attached List For Distributio g f. g l F ucemo "="^"" l l
Va e i wn a mn-g ' a A LK,cousa -
l N . . _ _ _ _
Commonwealth Edison Company 2 OCT 4 1985 Distribution: .
cc w/ enclosure:
- 0. L. Farrar, Director of Nuclear Licensing M. Wallace, Project Manager D. Shamblin, Construction Superintendent J.F.Gudac,PlantManager '
C. W. Schroeder, Licensing and Compliance Superintendent DCS/RS8 (RIDS)
Licensing Fee Management Branch Resident Inspector, RIII Braidecod Resident Inspector, RIII Byron Phyllis Dunton, Attorney General's Office, Environmental Control Division D. W. Cassel, Jr., Esq.
J. W. McCaffrey, Chief, Public Utilities Division H. S. Taylor, Quality Assurance 3 Division E. Chan, ELD J. Stevens, NRR The Honorable Herbert Grossman, ASLB The Honorable A. Dixon Callihan, ASLB The Honorable Richard F. Cole, ASLB 4
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION III i Report No. 50-456/85044(DRS); 50-457/85043(DRS) -
1 Docket No. 50-456; 50-457 License No. CFPR-132; CPER-133 Licenste: Commonwealth Edison Company Post Office Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name: Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: Braidwood Site, Braidwood, IL Inspection Conducted: August 22, 23 and September 5, 1985
/%A I 9MG/Pf Inspector: R. Mendez Approved By:
hMLWh'%
C. C. Williams, Chief (/24/[f~
Plant System Section < <
Inspection Summary )
Inspection on August 22 through September 5, 1985 (Report No. 50-456/85044(ORS);
50-457/85043(DR5))
Areas Inspected: Special, unannounced inspection of allegations; and licensee action on allegations. The inspection involved a total of 16 inspector-hours by one NRC inspector.
Results: No violations or deviations nre identified.
I pl0(!Oud 6h- - _ - . ._
l 1
DETAILS
- 1. Persons Contacted Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO)
, *L. M. Kline, Project Licensing and Compliance Superv[sor J. M. Preston, Director, Quality First L. K. Comstock (LKC)
F. Rolan, Meinager The inspector also contacted and interviewed other licensee and contractor j personnel during this inspection. ,
i
- Denotes those personnel atter. ding the September 5,1985 exit interview. l
- 2. Review of Allegations
- a. (0 pen) Allecation (RIII-85-A-0032)
As part of an allegation received on February 15, 1985, the alleger advised the NRC that: (1) the S&L Mylar Department was not secure which allowed anyone to come into the department and remove mylars and Engineering Change Notices'(ECNs); (2) mylars and ECN books were being taken from the rcom without proper sign-out; (3) the document control room has inadequate file cabinets and bookcases; and (4) she was not provided with adequate training. The individual t had previously discussed her concerns with the Braidwood site l
Quality First Team on January 14, 1985, after being contacted by ,
l the team for an interview.
Licensee Review The licensee review of this allegation was documented in its records as Concern Number QF-85-291 as follows:
(1) S&L and the licensee conducted audits of both the mylar and ECN document control systems during the period January 15 - August 7, 1985. The audit effort covered both past and current document control activities. The audit of the sylar control system
- identified approximately 21 administrative errors such as typing errors, timing of status posting, and misfiling of the mylar drawings. No. deficiencies were identified durin the ECN-control system audit. Ther audits did not identi any instances where documents were improperly removed from the document control room.a 1
- 2
l (2) The licensee determined that the document control room is staffed during working hours (including two shifts) and at other i times when special work schedules require the document room to be open.
(3) The licensee determined the docume'nt control room to be adequately sized early in 1985 after it had:been enlarged in November 1984. With'the increase in document flow to approxi-mately 10,000 pieces of paper per month, the document control room was moved to a large trailer in April 1985.
NRC Review The NRC inspector determined through discussion with ML personnel that the alleger was in charge of mechanical pipe support sylars.
Mylar diswings are translucent documents which are copied to produce l blueprints. i (1) During a review by the NRC inspector of the original document control room (where the alleger worked during the time that the )
allegation was made) it was determined that there was only.one entrance into the room. Licensee personnel stated that the entrafice to the room was blocked by a counter where drawings or ECNs could be signed-out. Licensee personnel also statede that.it was the respc.nsibility of the assigned clerk to keeps unauthorized personnel out of the room. EL management itt. Led, hosever, that the clark had. allowed unauthorized personnel into >
the room on several occasionsa (2) Mechanical support sylars are required by ML Procedure BFFI-5 to be controlled and anyone checking out a mylar drawing was required upon receipt to provide their signature for tracking and accountability purposes. Based on discussions with ML personnel and review of the reprimand the alleger received, it appeared that the assigned clerk (the alleger) had allowed
! aylar drawings to be checked out without receiving the required signatures.* The inspector conducted a review of the control process for 50 randomly selected sylar drawings and all of the dommuschahproper adherence to procedural requirements.
(3) It was determined by the NRC inspector that original ECN documents are not released from the document control room. A
! copy of the ECN is made for the individual requesting the ECN.
This practice was in accordance with the approved procedure and was found to be acceptable to the NRC.
- (4) According to M L management, the assigned clerk (the alleger) had been given adequate vertaal instructions for her task and
.was verbally warned about permitting unauthorized people into the room and the clerk was informed several times that she had complete control of access to the room.:
)
- 3 l
~
o ,
i (5) The present document control room appeared adequate and mylars and ECN books were observed to be filed in an appropriate i manner.
Conclusion ,
The allegation could not be substantiate &, Based,on the audit conducted by the licensee and the NRC inspection," no significant
- adverse conditions were noted regarding Mylar and ECN controls and facilities. It appears that adequate vertal instructions were given '
(
to the allegw to enable: hor to properly control activities at the '
document control room where she was assigned.. This allegation remains open pending completioer of Department of Labor action related to this matter. se.%cu.eo roe. c>=c.Lo,19s5 4 r 9 oo A M. i.a emcAc,o j
- b. (Closed) Allegation (RIII-85-A-0005)
On January 14, 1985, an alleger telephoned Region III and provided the following allegation ,
I The alleger stated that Comstock Rework Program is " full of loopholes and that the documentation flow through QC is not clear ,
in the procedure." As an example, the alleger stated that seldom '
)
is a basemetal inspection perfonned. The alleger stated that the basemetal inspection is required to be done after a defective part is removed and before the replacement is installed.
NRC Review The NRC inspector reviewed L. K. Comstock Procedure 4.3.2.4, Revision B. " Rework". The purpose of the procedure is to provide instructions to control and track rework. A review of the procedure indicated
> that it is clear and adequate in scope and applicability. The procedure requires that QC hold points be established and that the work described on the rework form be completed. For example, Comstock Engineering initiates a rework traveler (form No. 223) and rework tag which may establish a hold point. Form No. 223 requires c
that the licensee approve the traveler. The traveler is sent to the field along with the rework tag. A copy of the traveler is also sent to QC. Ition a designated hold point is reached, the craft foreman contacts the QC inspector for inspection. When QC determines that all the work has been properly perfonned, they remove t'.ee rework tag. The completed traveler and QC inspection report is then sent i
through LKC Engineering and QC for final review. Discussions with five QC inspectors indicated they had no problems following the procedure and that they had not experienced any instances of i harassment and intimidation associated with the performance of this ;
activity.
i With respect to tre allegation that base metal inspections were not being performed, the NRC reviewed approximately two hundred rework travelers in various stages of completion. Travelers were reviewed ),
in the records vault, in the LKC engineer's office and in the field.
Where applicable, it was noted that a hold point was established in 4
(
~
every situation requiring a base metal inspection. Additionally, L. K. Comstock weld inspection checklist form No.19 requires- that base metal be within the requirements described by L. K. Comstock I Procedure 4.8.3, " Weld Inspection." All weld inspection checklists were noted to be properly signed off. ,
On August 23, 1985, the NRC inspector witnessed a hanger being removed' in the field. The rework traveler noted that a base metal inspection was to be performed after removal of the hanger. The NRC inspector
~~
observed that this work was proceeding in accordance with the instructions.
Conclusion The allegation could not be substantiated. Procedural requirements regarding rework and base metal 1.15pections, including the associated procedures directing this element of the Comstock Rework Program, were found to be adequate and appropriately implemented.
- 3. Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representative (denoted in Paragraph 1 above) at the conclusion of the inspection on September 5, 1985. The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspections noted in this report. The inspector also discussed the likely informational content of the inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed by the inspector during the inspection. The licensee did not I
identify any such document / processes as proprietary.
i 0
5