ML20214R205

Informs That Allegation RIII-86-A-0155 Re Violations of Regulatory Requirements & Specs & Lost Records by QC Inspector Received by Region III on 860916 from Individual Formerly Employed by Applicant Electrical Contractor

ML20214R205
Person / Time
Site:	Braidwood
Issue date:	09/19/1986
From:	Berry G NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	Callihan A, Cole R, Grossman H Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#386-821 OL, NUDOCS 8609290107
Download: ML20214R205 (2)

Text

\ $11

'o UNITED STATES

, g y *' y *r*' g E

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W ASHINGToN, D. C. 20555 DOLKETEP USNRC 3

, - L: g*

• • • • • '86 SEP 23 P3 :05 September 19, 1986 0FFICE U H . m > v DOCKEIlhG A LEM.f.

BRAh?

Iferbert Grossman, Esq., Chairman Dr. Richard F. Cole Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Administrative Judge 102 Oak Lane Oak Ridge, TN 37830 In the Matter of Commonwealth Edison Company (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2)

Docket Nos. 50-456 and 50-457 C(-

Dear Administrative Judges:

This is to inform you that on Tuesday, September 16, 1986, the Region III received an allegation (Allegation No. RIII-86-A-0155) from an individual formerly employed at the Braidwood facility by Applicant's electrical contractor. The individual alleged, inter alia, that (i) Comstock was violating regulatory requirements and its own specification by utilizing the AWS D1.1 - 1975 Code rather than the current edition of the AWS D1.1 Code and (ii) Comstock had lost records relating to a former Comstock QC inspector in an attempt to discredit him. The former QC inspector involved was among the 24 QC inspectors who attended a meeting with the NRC on March 29, 1985. As the attached memorandum (which is being provided to the Board in camera) indicates, the alleger raised other concerns to the Region III Staff which, in the Staff's view, are not relevant to the contention currently being litigated.

As stated earlier, the Staff was contacted by the alleger on Tuesday, September 16, 1986, three days prior to the date of this letter. Conse-quently, the Staff has not yet had an opportunity to make "an initial screening of the allegations" to determine that they are not " frivolous" but "are relevant and material to the decisionmaking process" and thus warrant the submittal of a board notification. See Statement of Policy:

hh G

j

N, t r Handling of Late Allegations, 50 Fed. Reg. 11,030 (March 19,1986). O The Commission's Statement of Policy makes clear that allegations which have not undergone the required review should not be submitted to the presiding tribunal. Id. at 6-7. In performing its initial review of the allegations, the Commission requires that the Staff determine whether, "if true, the allegations are material to the licensing decision in that they would require the denial of the license sought, the imposition of additional conditions on such license, or further analysis or investigation." Id.

at 4. Allegations that are not material as defined above or are too general or vague to provide sufficient information for the Staff to investigate do not warrant further action by the Staff. Id. The Staff was directed by the Commission to revise its board notification procedures to reflect the considerations set forth in the Statement of Policy described above. Id. at 7. Attachment 3 to this letter is a copy of the Staff's revised board notification procedure.

Because the Staff has not had sufficient opportunity to make an initial determination regarding the materiality of Allegation No. RIII-86-A-0155, the Staff is not obligated to submit a formal Board Notification at this time. Nevertheless, in view of the Board's standing instructions to Staff counsel to inform it of matters relating to Intervenors' inspector harassment contention , the undersigned is bringing this matter to the Board's attention at this time.

Please be advised that the attached memorandum documenting the subject allegation had been redacted to delete the alleger's name and other iden-tifying information. This is because as of this date, the undersigned is not able to represent that confidentiality has not been granted to the alleger.

Finally , please note that because premature disclosure could compromise an impending Staff investigation , the subject memorandum is being submitted only to the Board for in camera review. Should the Board determine that the matters discusseTin that memorandum are relevant and material to the issues in this proceeding, Staff counsel will provide a copy of the subject memorandum to Applicant and Intervenors pursuant to a protective order limiting disclosure only to counsel for Applicant and Intervencrs.

Sperely, Gregory ,la Y 5, crry Counsel for C Staff l cc w/o enclosures: Service List

-1/ A copy of the Commission's Policy Statement is enclosed as Attachment 2.