Testimony of Jl Roulo on Contention 42 Re Sabotage.No Increased Risk of Sabotage Results from Use of Contractor Employees,Including Transient WorkersML20065A919 |
Person / Time |
---|
Site: |
Byron |
---|
Issue date: |
02/15/1983 |
---|
From: |
Roulo J COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
---|
To: |
|
---|
Shared Package |
---|
ML20065A894 |
List: |
---|
References |
---|
NUDOCS 8302220321 |
Download: ML20065A919 (26) |
|
Similar Documents at Byron |
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20207E0051999-03-0202 March 1999 Transcript of 990302 Public Meeting with Commonwealth Edison in Rockville,Md.Pp 1-104.Supporting Documentation Encl ML20236H9381998-06-30030 June 1998 Transcript of 980630 Meeting W/Commonwealth Edison in Rockville,Md.Pp 1-123.Supporting Documentation Encl ML20198P3001997-11-0404 November 1997 Transcript of 971104 Public Meeting W/Ceco in Rockville,Md Re Measures Established by Ceco to Track Plant Performance & to Gain Understanding of CAs Put Into Place to Improve Safety.Pp 1-105.W/Certificate & Viewgraphs ML20149M2951996-11-29029 November 1996 Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR50.60 Re Safety Margins Recommended in ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code Case N-514 TXX-9522, Comment Opposing Proposed GL on Testing of safety-related Logic Circuits.Believes That Complete Technical Review of All Surveillance Procedures Would Be Expensive & Unnecessary Expenditure of Licensee Resources1995-08-26026 August 1995 Comment Opposing Proposed GL on Testing of safety-related Logic Circuits.Believes That Complete Technical Review of All Surveillance Procedures Would Be Expensive & Unnecessary Expenditure of Licensee Resources ML20059C2351993-12-17017 December 1993 Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-21-2 Re Commercial Grade Item Dedication ML20044A8111990-06-27027 June 1990 Comment Opposing Closure of Lpdr of Rockford Public Library ML20245J0191989-04-14014 April 1989 Comment Re Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Ensuring Effectiveness of Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants ML20214X1871987-06-11011 June 1987 Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty in Amount of $25,000 Based on Four Severity Level III Violations Noted During 860721-0808 Insp ML20205Q1711987-04-0202 April 1987 Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty in Amount of $25,000. App Re Evaluations & Conclusions Encl IR 05000812/20100311987-02-26026 February 1987 Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty in Amount of $100,000 Based on Violations Noted During Insps on 850812-1031 ML20210T7321987-02-11011 February 1987 Unexecuted Amend 6 to Indemnity Agreement B-97 Substituting Item 3 of Attachment to Indemnity Agreement in Entirety W/ Listed License Numbers,Effective 870130 ML20209J3251987-01-30030 January 1987 Transcript of 870130 Commission Discussion/Possible Vote on Full Power OL for Facility.Pp 1-72.Supporting Viewgraphs Encl ML20213G4381986-10-24024 October 1986 Unexecuted Amend 5 to Indemnity Agreement B-97,substituting Item 3 of Attachment to Agreement in Entirety W/Listed License Numbers,Effective on 861106 ML20211B0841986-08-0505 August 1986 Transcript of 860805 Meeting Between Region Iii,Computer Interference Elimination & Util in Redmond,Wa Re Plant as-built Drawing Review.Pp 1-200 IR 05000506/20070221986-05-0202 May 1986 Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty in Amount of $25,000 for Violations Noted During Insp on 850506-0722.Violations Noted:Failure to Establish Radiological Safety Procedures & to Adequately Train Personnel ML20138C7301985-12-0909 December 1985 Order Imposing Civil Penalty in Amount of $25,000 Per 850606 Notice of Violation & Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty.Licensee May Request Hearing within 30 Days of Date of Order ML20205E8741985-10-28028 October 1985 Exemption from GDC 4 of 10CFR50,App a Requirement to Install Protective Devices Associated W/Postulated Pipe Breaks Primary Coolant Sys.Topical Rept Evaluation Encl ML20102A2981985-01-0707 January 1985 Petition Requesting Aslab Grant Intervenor Appeal & Order Further Hearings on Safety of Plant ML20099L2581984-11-27027 November 1984 Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance in Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20099G5381984-11-23023 November 1984 Supplemental Appeal Brief in Response to Intervenor 841106 Supplemental Brief on Appeal & in Support of ASLB 841016 Supplemental Initial Decision Authorizing Issuance of Ol. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20100K0411984-11-22022 November 1984 Submits Concerns Re Safety of Local Residents in Event of Accident & Excessively High Cost of Projected Operation of Facility ML20107H7841984-11-0606 November 1984 Supplemental Brief on Appeal of ASLB 841016 Supplemental Initial Decision Granting Authority for Issuance of Ol. Decision Should Be Reversed.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20140E4081984-10-31031 October 1984 Executed Amend 1 to Indemnity Agreement B-97,deleting Items 2A & 3 in Entirety ML20098G8841984-10-0202 October 1984 Joint Statement of RW Manz & W Faires Re Findings 3-11 Through 3-17 of NRC 830930 Integrated Design Insp Rept. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20098G8681984-10-0202 October 1984 Answer to Intervenor Motion to Reopen Record Re Bechtel Independent Design Review.Motion Should Be Denied ML20098G8901984-10-0202 October 1984 Joint Statement of Kj Green & RW Hooks Re Integrated Design Insp ML20098G8911984-10-0202 October 1984 Joint Statement of Cw Dick & EM Hughes Re Independent Design Insp ML20098G8821984-10-0101 October 1984 Affidavit of Kj Green Re Integrated Design Insp Concerning Mechanical Engineering Work ML20098G8741984-10-0101 October 1984 Affidavit of Br Shelton Re Integrated Design Insp ML20098G8881984-09-29029 September 1984 Affidavit of RW Hooks Re Integrated Design Insp Concerning Structural Design ML20098G8831984-09-28028 September 1984 Affidavit of W Faires Re Findings 3-15 & 3-16 of NRC 830930 Integrated Design Insp Rept ML20098G8811984-09-28028 September 1984 Affidavit of Cw Dick Re Independent Design Review ML20098G8791984-09-28028 September 1984 Affidavit of RP Tuetken Re Readiness for Fuel Loading ML20098G8781984-09-28028 September 1984 Affidavit of RW Manz Concerning Findings 3-11 Through 3-14 & 3-17 of NRC 830930 Integrated Design Insp Re Westinghouse ML20098G8871984-09-28028 September 1984 Affidavit of EM Hughes Re Idvp ML20098G8851984-09-27027 September 1984 Affidavit of Rl Heumann Re Costs of Delay in Startup & Operation of Unit 1 ML20098E2371984-09-24024 September 1984 Reply to Intervenor 840918 Proposed Supplemental Initial Decision.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20097E7221984-09-13013 September 1984 Agreed Motion for Time Extension Until 841101 to File Petition for Hearing Re Emergency Planning Commitment W ML20097C5311984-09-12012 September 1984 Motion to Reopen Record to Include Plant Design as Issue. Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20097B7791984-09-10010 September 1984 Proposed Supplemental Initial Decision Re Reinsp Program. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20096A6391984-08-30030 August 1984 Rebuttal Testimony of RW Hooks Re Validity of Info in Attachment 7 to Stokes Testimony Concerning Design Assumption for Plant.Stokes Info Inapplicable to Plant. Related Correspondence ML20096A6191984-08-30030 August 1984 Rebuttal Testimony of B Erler Re Stokes Allegations Concerning Evaluations of Discrepancies in Calculated Actual Stress Performed by Sargent & Lundy.Related Correspondence ML20096A6261984-08-30030 August 1984 Summary of Rebuttal Testimony & Testimony of ML Somsag, Eb Branch,D Demoss,Mr Frankel,Bf Maurer & Jk Buchanan Re Plant QC Inspector Reinsp Program & C Stokes Allegations Re Welds.Related Correspondence ML20096A6441984-08-28028 August 1984 Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance in Proceeding.Related Correspondence ML20112D5271984-08-24024 August 1984 Applicant Exhibit A-R-4,consisting of Feb 1984 Rept on Bryon QC Inspector Reinsp Program ML20112D5031984-08-24024 August 1984 Applicant Exhibit A-R-5,consisting of June 1984 Suppl to Rept on Bryon QC Inspector Reinsp Program ML20112D7441984-08-23023 August 1984 Intervenor Exhibit I-R-1,consisting of Undated List of Teutken Safety Category Insp Types ML20112D7511984-08-21021 August 1984 Staff Exhibit S-R-1,consisting of 840813 Instruction for Walkdown of Cable Tray Hanger Connection Welds ML20112D4641984-08-21021 August 1984 Intervenor Exhibit I-R-11,consisting of Undated Chronological Date Listing of Util Responses to Interrogatory 12.VA Judson to Mi Miller Re Interrogatory 12 & Supplemental Responses Encl 1999-03-02
[Table view] Category:TRANSCRIPTS
MONTHYEARML20207E0051999-03-0202 March 1999 Transcript of 990302 Public Meeting with Commonwealth Edison in Rockville,Md.Pp 1-104.Supporting Documentation Encl ML20236H9381998-06-30030 June 1998 Transcript of 980630 Meeting W/Commonwealth Edison in Rockville,Md.Pp 1-123.Supporting Documentation Encl ML20198P3001997-11-0404 November 1997 Transcript of 971104 Public Meeting W/Ceco in Rockville,Md Re Measures Established by Ceco to Track Plant Performance & to Gain Understanding of CAs Put Into Place to Improve Safety.Pp 1-105.W/Certificate & Viewgraphs ML20209J3251987-01-30030 January 1987 Transcript of 870130 Commission Discussion/Possible Vote on Full Power OL for Facility.Pp 1-72.Supporting Viewgraphs Encl ML20211B0841986-08-0505 August 1986 Transcript of 860805 Meeting Between Region Iii,Computer Interference Elimination & Util in Redmond,Wa Re Plant as-built Drawing Review.Pp 1-200 ML20096A6261984-08-30030 August 1984 Summary of Rebuttal Testimony & Testimony of ML Somsag, Eb Branch,D Demoss,Mr Frankel,Bf Maurer & Jk Buchanan Re Plant QC Inspector Reinsp Program & C Stokes Allegations Re Welds.Related Correspondence ML20096A6191984-08-30030 August 1984 Rebuttal Testimony of B Erler Re Stokes Allegations Concerning Evaluations of Discrepancies in Calculated Actual Stress Performed by Sargent & Lundy.Related Correspondence ML20096A6391984-08-30030 August 1984 Rebuttal Testimony of RW Hooks Re Validity of Info in Attachment 7 to Stokes Testimony Concerning Design Assumption for Plant.Stokes Info Inapplicable to Plant. Related Correspondence ML20094P7721984-08-17017 August 1984 Summary of Testimony & Direct Testimony of CC Stokes on Reinsp Program.Related Correspondence ML20094R1021984-08-17017 August 1984 Transcript of CC Stokes 840817 Deposition in Chicago,Il. Pp 1-173.Vol Ii.Related Correspondence ML20094P5991984-08-16016 August 1984 Direct Testimony of CC Stokes Re Engineering Evaluations Performed & Use of Engineering Judgement by Sargent & Lundy. Suggests Need for Independent Engineering Analysis of Safety Significance of Reinsp Program.Related Correspondence ML20094P6311984-08-14014 August 1984 Summary of Testimony & Testimony of Ds Kochhar on Contention 1 Re Reinsp Program.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20094P6831984-08-13013 August 1984 Summary of Testimony & Testimony of Wh Bleuel on Contention 1 Re Reinsp Program.Resume Encl.Related Correspondence ML20094P6951984-08-13013 August 1984 Summary of Testimony & Testimony of EP Erickson on Contention 1 Re Reinsp program-inspector Qualification & Work Quality.Resume & Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20093L4881984-07-30030 July 1984 Summary of Testimony & Testimony of Eb Branch Re Contention 1 (Reinsp Program,Work Quality).Related Correspondence ML20093L1811984-07-30030 July 1984 Summary of Testimony & Testimony of KT Kostal on Contention 1 Re Capacity of Sys Control Corp Supplied Components to Carry Design Loads.Related Correspondence ML20093L2721984-07-30030 July 1984 Summary of Testimony & Testimony of Ak Singh on Contention 1 Re Evaluations of Discrepancies in Cable Tray Hanger Connections,Solid Bottom Tray Welds & Ladder Tray Weld Connections.Related Correspondence ML20093L2051984-07-30030 July 1984 Summary of Testimony & Testimony of Ld Johnson on Contention 1 Re Adequacy of Sys Control Corp Supplied Main Control Boards.Related Correspondence ML20090E5521984-07-17017 July 1984 Testimony of Eb Branch Re Job Responsibilities,Educ Background & Work Experience.Related Correspondence ML20090A7981984-07-0909 July 1984 Testimony of Gf Marcus Re Pittsburgh Testing Lab Source Insp of Equipment & Components Supplied by Sys Control Corp ML20090A8121984-07-0909 July 1984 Testimony of Bf Maurer Re Analysis of Structural Adequacy of Main Control Panels Designed & Fabricated by Sys Control Corp ML20092P7921984-07-0202 July 1984 Summary of Testimony & Testimony of ML Somsag Re QA Inspector Reinsp Program for Hunter Corp.Related Correspondence ML20092P7891984-07-0202 July 1984 Summary of Testimony & Testimony of Rv Laney on Contention 1 Re Work Quality.Related Correspondence ML20092P7951984-07-0202 July 1984 Summary of Testimony & Testimony of Ak Singh on Contention 1 Re Reinsp Program,Work Quality.Related Correspondence ML20092P7941984-07-0202 July 1984 Summary of Testimony & Testimony of LO Delgeorge on Contention 1 Re Reinsp Program,Inspector Qualification & Work Quality.Related Correspondence ML20092P5541984-07-0202 July 1984 Summary of Testimony & Testimony of Dl Leone on Contention 1 Re Reinsp Program for Work Quality ML20092P5551984-07-0202 July 1984 Summary of Testimony & Testimony of R French on Contention 1 Re Reinsp Program ML20092P7781984-07-0202 July 1984 Summary of Testimony & Testimony of Wj Shewski on Contention 1 Re Reinsp Program,Inspector Qualification.Related Correspondence ML20092P7811984-07-0202 July 1984 Summary of Testimony & Testimony of Jm Mclaughlin on Contention 1 Re Reinsp Program,Work Quality.Related Correspondence ML20092P7871984-07-0202 July 1984 Summary of Direct Testimony & Testimony of RP Tuetken Re Reinsp Program.Related Correspondence ML20092P7851984-07-0202 July 1984 Summary of Testimony & Testimony of Wb Behnke on Contention 1 Re Overview of Quality Program,Work Quality. Related Correspondence ML20092N4971984-06-29029 June 1984 Testimony of Bg Treece on Issues 5 & 6 Re Cable Overtensioning,As Limited by ASLB 840608 Order.Related Correspondence ML20092N4911984-06-29029 June 1984 Summary of Direct Testimony of Jo Binder on Issues 5 & 6 Re Cable Overtensioning,As Limited by ASLB 840608 Order.Related Correspondence ML20092K7691984-06-26026 June 1984 Summary of Testimony of J Hansel on Contention 1 Re Reinsp Program.Prof Qualifications Encl.Related Correspondence ML20205H8901983-08-10010 August 1983 Public Version of Transcript of 830810 in Camera,Ex Parte Hearing in Rockford,Il.Pp 7,585-7,610 ML20205H8941983-08-10010 August 1983 Public Version of Transcript of 830810 in Camera,Ex Parte Hearing W/Ofc of Investigations in Rockford,Il.Pp 7,611.1- 7,611.71 ML20205H8841983-08-0909 August 1983 Public Version of Transcript of 830809 in Camera,Ex Parte Hearing in Rockford,Il.Pp 7,304-7,405 ML20080B3051983-08-0303 August 1983 Testimony of RP Tuetken Re Util Reinsp Program of Work Performed by Contractor Insp Personnel Prior to NRC Region III Mar,Apr & May 1982 Insps.Appropriate Steps Taken to Remedy Problems ML20080B3091983-08-0303 August 1983 Testimony of Aw Koca Re General Nature of Hatfield Inspector Training & Certification Program.Certification of J Hughes Described ML20080B2951983-08-0303 August 1983 Testimony of Ma Stanish Re Recertification of Qa/Qc Inspectors Subsequent to NRC Region III Mar,Apr & May 1982 Special Team Insps.Reinsp Program Implemented to Review Work Performed by Inspectors Before NRC 1982 Insp ML20023C7151983-05-12012 May 1983 Testimony of P Holmbeck Re Investigation Into Adequacy of Emergency Plans Re Emergency Planning Contentions.Util Made No Attempt to Study Protective Value of Sheltering Populations Around Plant ML20204F5721983-04-26026 April 1983 Transcript of 830426 Hearing in Rockford,Il.Pp 5,964-6,156 ML20069M4791983-04-25025 April 1983 Handwritten Testimony of J Hughes Re Qa/Qc at Facility ML20069K5691983-04-21021 April 1983 Testimony of Ld Butterfield Re Steam Generator Tube Integrity.Proposed Steam Generator Mods Would Minimize Tube Wear Due to Flow Induced Vibration.Related Correspondence ML20069K5631983-04-21021 April 1983 Revised Testimony of Tf Timmons Re Steam Generator Tube Integrity (Flow Induced Vibration Phenomenon).No Significant Tube Wear Will Be Experienced in Steam Generators Due to Flow Induced Vibration.Related Correspondence ML20073J6691983-04-18018 April 1983 Testimony of Jl Murphy on Rockford League of Women Voters & Dekalb Area Alliance for Responsible Energy/Sinnissippi Alliance for Environ Consolidated Emergency Planning Contentions 3 & 13.Related Correspondence ML20073K4461983-04-18018 April 1983 Rebuttal Testimony of Levine Re Rockford League of Women Voters Contentions 8 & 62 & Dekalb Area Alliance for Responsible Energy/Sinnissippi Alliance for Environ Contention 2a on Public Risk.Related Correspondence ML20073G4241983-04-11011 April 1983 Testimony of Ee Jones Re State of Il Emergency Svc & Disaster Agency Responsibilities Concerning Emergency Planning for Nuclear Facilities & Intervenor Amended Emergency Planning Contention ML20073G4051983-04-11011 April 1983 Testimony of Jc Golden Re Amended Emergency Planning Contention ML20073G4121983-04-11011 April 1983 Testimony of Dl Smith Re Resources Available for Transport & Treatment of Contaminated Injured Persons.Resume Encl 1999-03-02
[Table view] Category:DEPOSITIONS
MONTHYEARML20207E0051999-03-0202 March 1999 Transcript of 990302 Public Meeting with Commonwealth Edison in Rockville,Md.Pp 1-104.Supporting Documentation Encl ML20236H9381998-06-30030 June 1998 Transcript of 980630 Meeting W/Commonwealth Edison in Rockville,Md.Pp 1-123.Supporting Documentation Encl ML20198P3001997-11-0404 November 1997 Transcript of 971104 Public Meeting W/Ceco in Rockville,Md Re Measures Established by Ceco to Track Plant Performance & to Gain Understanding of CAs Put Into Place to Improve Safety.Pp 1-105.W/Certificate & Viewgraphs ML20209J3251987-01-30030 January 1987 Transcript of 870130 Commission Discussion/Possible Vote on Full Power OL for Facility.Pp 1-72.Supporting Viewgraphs Encl ML20211B0841986-08-0505 August 1986 Transcript of 860805 Meeting Between Region Iii,Computer Interference Elimination & Util in Redmond,Wa Re Plant as-built Drawing Review.Pp 1-200 ML20096A6261984-08-30030 August 1984 Summary of Rebuttal Testimony & Testimony of ML Somsag, Eb Branch,D Demoss,Mr Frankel,Bf Maurer & Jk Buchanan Re Plant QC Inspector Reinsp Program & C Stokes Allegations Re Welds.Related Correspondence ML20096A6191984-08-30030 August 1984 Rebuttal Testimony of B Erler Re Stokes Allegations Concerning Evaluations of Discrepancies in Calculated Actual Stress Performed by Sargent & Lundy.Related Correspondence ML20096A6391984-08-30030 August 1984 Rebuttal Testimony of RW Hooks Re Validity of Info in Attachment 7 to Stokes Testimony Concerning Design Assumption for Plant.Stokes Info Inapplicable to Plant. Related Correspondence ML20094P7721984-08-17017 August 1984 Summary of Testimony & Direct Testimony of CC Stokes on Reinsp Program.Related Correspondence ML20094R1021984-08-17017 August 1984 Transcript of CC Stokes 840817 Deposition in Chicago,Il. Pp 1-173.Vol Ii.Related Correspondence ML20094P5991984-08-16016 August 1984 Direct Testimony of CC Stokes Re Engineering Evaluations Performed & Use of Engineering Judgement by Sargent & Lundy. Suggests Need for Independent Engineering Analysis of Safety Significance of Reinsp Program.Related Correspondence ML20094P6311984-08-14014 August 1984 Summary of Testimony & Testimony of Ds Kochhar on Contention 1 Re Reinsp Program.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20094P6831984-08-13013 August 1984 Summary of Testimony & Testimony of Wh Bleuel on Contention 1 Re Reinsp Program.Resume Encl.Related Correspondence ML20094P6951984-08-13013 August 1984 Summary of Testimony & Testimony of EP Erickson on Contention 1 Re Reinsp program-inspector Qualification & Work Quality.Resume & Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20093L4881984-07-30030 July 1984 Summary of Testimony & Testimony of Eb Branch Re Contention 1 (Reinsp Program,Work Quality).Related Correspondence ML20093L1811984-07-30030 July 1984 Summary of Testimony & Testimony of KT Kostal on Contention 1 Re Capacity of Sys Control Corp Supplied Components to Carry Design Loads.Related Correspondence ML20093L2721984-07-30030 July 1984 Summary of Testimony & Testimony of Ak Singh on Contention 1 Re Evaluations of Discrepancies in Cable Tray Hanger Connections,Solid Bottom Tray Welds & Ladder Tray Weld Connections.Related Correspondence ML20093L2051984-07-30030 July 1984 Summary of Testimony & Testimony of Ld Johnson on Contention 1 Re Adequacy of Sys Control Corp Supplied Main Control Boards.Related Correspondence ML20090E5521984-07-17017 July 1984 Testimony of Eb Branch Re Job Responsibilities,Educ Background & Work Experience.Related Correspondence ML20090A7981984-07-0909 July 1984 Testimony of Gf Marcus Re Pittsburgh Testing Lab Source Insp of Equipment & Components Supplied by Sys Control Corp ML20090A8121984-07-0909 July 1984 Testimony of Bf Maurer Re Analysis of Structural Adequacy of Main Control Panels Designed & Fabricated by Sys Control Corp ML20092P7921984-07-0202 July 1984 Summary of Testimony & Testimony of ML Somsag Re QA Inspector Reinsp Program for Hunter Corp.Related Correspondence ML20092P7891984-07-0202 July 1984 Summary of Testimony & Testimony of Rv Laney on Contention 1 Re Work Quality.Related Correspondence ML20092P7951984-07-0202 July 1984 Summary of Testimony & Testimony of Ak Singh on Contention 1 Re Reinsp Program,Work Quality.Related Correspondence ML20092P7941984-07-0202 July 1984 Summary of Testimony & Testimony of LO Delgeorge on Contention 1 Re Reinsp Program,Inspector Qualification & Work Quality.Related Correspondence ML20092P5541984-07-0202 July 1984 Summary of Testimony & Testimony of Dl Leone on Contention 1 Re Reinsp Program for Work Quality ML20092P5551984-07-0202 July 1984 Summary of Testimony & Testimony of R French on Contention 1 Re Reinsp Program ML20092P7781984-07-0202 July 1984 Summary of Testimony & Testimony of Wj Shewski on Contention 1 Re Reinsp Program,Inspector Qualification.Related Correspondence ML20092P7811984-07-0202 July 1984 Summary of Testimony & Testimony of Jm Mclaughlin on Contention 1 Re Reinsp Program,Work Quality.Related Correspondence ML20092P7871984-07-0202 July 1984 Summary of Direct Testimony & Testimony of RP Tuetken Re Reinsp Program.Related Correspondence ML20092P7851984-07-0202 July 1984 Summary of Testimony & Testimony of Wb Behnke on Contention 1 Re Overview of Quality Program,Work Quality. Related Correspondence ML20092N4971984-06-29029 June 1984 Testimony of Bg Treece on Issues 5 & 6 Re Cable Overtensioning,As Limited by ASLB 840608 Order.Related Correspondence ML20092N4911984-06-29029 June 1984 Summary of Direct Testimony of Jo Binder on Issues 5 & 6 Re Cable Overtensioning,As Limited by ASLB 840608 Order.Related Correspondence ML20092K7691984-06-26026 June 1984 Summary of Testimony of J Hansel on Contention 1 Re Reinsp Program.Prof Qualifications Encl.Related Correspondence ML20205H8901983-08-10010 August 1983 Public Version of Transcript of 830810 in Camera,Ex Parte Hearing in Rockford,Il.Pp 7,585-7,610 ML20205H8941983-08-10010 August 1983 Public Version of Transcript of 830810 in Camera,Ex Parte Hearing W/Ofc of Investigations in Rockford,Il.Pp 7,611.1- 7,611.71 ML20205H8841983-08-0909 August 1983 Public Version of Transcript of 830809 in Camera,Ex Parte Hearing in Rockford,Il.Pp 7,304-7,405 ML20080B3051983-08-0303 August 1983 Testimony of RP Tuetken Re Util Reinsp Program of Work Performed by Contractor Insp Personnel Prior to NRC Region III Mar,Apr & May 1982 Insps.Appropriate Steps Taken to Remedy Problems ML20080B3091983-08-0303 August 1983 Testimony of Aw Koca Re General Nature of Hatfield Inspector Training & Certification Program.Certification of J Hughes Described ML20080B2951983-08-0303 August 1983 Testimony of Ma Stanish Re Recertification of Qa/Qc Inspectors Subsequent to NRC Region III Mar,Apr & May 1982 Special Team Insps.Reinsp Program Implemented to Review Work Performed by Inspectors Before NRC 1982 Insp ML20023C7151983-05-12012 May 1983 Testimony of P Holmbeck Re Investigation Into Adequacy of Emergency Plans Re Emergency Planning Contentions.Util Made No Attempt to Study Protective Value of Sheltering Populations Around Plant ML20204F5721983-04-26026 April 1983 Transcript of 830426 Hearing in Rockford,Il.Pp 5,964-6,156 ML20069M4791983-04-25025 April 1983 Handwritten Testimony of J Hughes Re Qa/Qc at Facility ML20069K5691983-04-21021 April 1983 Testimony of Ld Butterfield Re Steam Generator Tube Integrity.Proposed Steam Generator Mods Would Minimize Tube Wear Due to Flow Induced Vibration.Related Correspondence ML20069K5631983-04-21021 April 1983 Revised Testimony of Tf Timmons Re Steam Generator Tube Integrity (Flow Induced Vibration Phenomenon).No Significant Tube Wear Will Be Experienced in Steam Generators Due to Flow Induced Vibration.Related Correspondence ML20073J6691983-04-18018 April 1983 Testimony of Jl Murphy on Rockford League of Women Voters & Dekalb Area Alliance for Responsible Energy/Sinnissippi Alliance for Environ Consolidated Emergency Planning Contentions 3 & 13.Related Correspondence ML20073K4461983-04-18018 April 1983 Rebuttal Testimony of Levine Re Rockford League of Women Voters Contentions 8 & 62 & Dekalb Area Alliance for Responsible Energy/Sinnissippi Alliance for Environ Contention 2a on Public Risk.Related Correspondence ML20073G4241983-04-11011 April 1983 Testimony of Ee Jones Re State of Il Emergency Svc & Disaster Agency Responsibilities Concerning Emergency Planning for Nuclear Facilities & Intervenor Amended Emergency Planning Contention ML20073G4051983-04-11011 April 1983 Testimony of Jc Golden Re Amended Emergency Planning Contention ML20073G4121983-04-11011 April 1983 Testimony of Dl Smith Re Resources Available for Transport & Treatment of Contaminated Injured Persons.Resume Encl 1999-03-02
[Table view] Category:NARRATIVE TESTIMONY
MONTHYEARML20207E0051999-03-0202 March 1999 Transcript of 990302 Public Meeting with Commonwealth Edison in Rockville,Md.Pp 1-104.Supporting Documentation Encl ML20236H9381998-06-30030 June 1998 Transcript of 980630 Meeting W/Commonwealth Edison in Rockville,Md.Pp 1-123.Supporting Documentation Encl ML20198P3001997-11-0404 November 1997 Transcript of 971104 Public Meeting W/Ceco in Rockville,Md Re Measures Established by Ceco to Track Plant Performance & to Gain Understanding of CAs Put Into Place to Improve Safety.Pp 1-105.W/Certificate & Viewgraphs ML20209J3251987-01-30030 January 1987 Transcript of 870130 Commission Discussion/Possible Vote on Full Power OL for Facility.Pp 1-72.Supporting Viewgraphs Encl ML20211B0841986-08-0505 August 1986 Transcript of 860805 Meeting Between Region Iii,Computer Interference Elimination & Util in Redmond,Wa Re Plant as-built Drawing Review.Pp 1-200 ML20096A6261984-08-30030 August 1984 Summary of Rebuttal Testimony & Testimony of ML Somsag, Eb Branch,D Demoss,Mr Frankel,Bf Maurer & Jk Buchanan Re Plant QC Inspector Reinsp Program & C Stokes Allegations Re Welds.Related Correspondence ML20096A6191984-08-30030 August 1984 Rebuttal Testimony of B Erler Re Stokes Allegations Concerning Evaluations of Discrepancies in Calculated Actual Stress Performed by Sargent & Lundy.Related Correspondence ML20096A6391984-08-30030 August 1984 Rebuttal Testimony of RW Hooks Re Validity of Info in Attachment 7 to Stokes Testimony Concerning Design Assumption for Plant.Stokes Info Inapplicable to Plant. Related Correspondence ML20094P7721984-08-17017 August 1984 Summary of Testimony & Direct Testimony of CC Stokes on Reinsp Program.Related Correspondence ML20094R1021984-08-17017 August 1984 Transcript of CC Stokes 840817 Deposition in Chicago,Il. Pp 1-173.Vol Ii.Related Correspondence ML20094P5991984-08-16016 August 1984 Direct Testimony of CC Stokes Re Engineering Evaluations Performed & Use of Engineering Judgement by Sargent & Lundy. Suggests Need for Independent Engineering Analysis of Safety Significance of Reinsp Program.Related Correspondence ML20094P6311984-08-14014 August 1984 Summary of Testimony & Testimony of Ds Kochhar on Contention 1 Re Reinsp Program.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20094P6831984-08-13013 August 1984 Summary of Testimony & Testimony of Wh Bleuel on Contention 1 Re Reinsp Program.Resume Encl.Related Correspondence ML20094P6951984-08-13013 August 1984 Summary of Testimony & Testimony of EP Erickson on Contention 1 Re Reinsp program-inspector Qualification & Work Quality.Resume & Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20093L4881984-07-30030 July 1984 Summary of Testimony & Testimony of Eb Branch Re Contention 1 (Reinsp Program,Work Quality).Related Correspondence ML20093L1811984-07-30030 July 1984 Summary of Testimony & Testimony of KT Kostal on Contention 1 Re Capacity of Sys Control Corp Supplied Components to Carry Design Loads.Related Correspondence ML20093L2721984-07-30030 July 1984 Summary of Testimony & Testimony of Ak Singh on Contention 1 Re Evaluations of Discrepancies in Cable Tray Hanger Connections,Solid Bottom Tray Welds & Ladder Tray Weld Connections.Related Correspondence ML20093L2051984-07-30030 July 1984 Summary of Testimony & Testimony of Ld Johnson on Contention 1 Re Adequacy of Sys Control Corp Supplied Main Control Boards.Related Correspondence ML20090E5521984-07-17017 July 1984 Testimony of Eb Branch Re Job Responsibilities,Educ Background & Work Experience.Related Correspondence ML20090A7981984-07-0909 July 1984 Testimony of Gf Marcus Re Pittsburgh Testing Lab Source Insp of Equipment & Components Supplied by Sys Control Corp ML20090A8121984-07-0909 July 1984 Testimony of Bf Maurer Re Analysis of Structural Adequacy of Main Control Panels Designed & Fabricated by Sys Control Corp ML20092P7921984-07-0202 July 1984 Summary of Testimony & Testimony of ML Somsag Re QA Inspector Reinsp Program for Hunter Corp.Related Correspondence ML20092P7891984-07-0202 July 1984 Summary of Testimony & Testimony of Rv Laney on Contention 1 Re Work Quality.Related Correspondence ML20092P7951984-07-0202 July 1984 Summary of Testimony & Testimony of Ak Singh on Contention 1 Re Reinsp Program,Work Quality.Related Correspondence ML20092P7941984-07-0202 July 1984 Summary of Testimony & Testimony of LO Delgeorge on Contention 1 Re Reinsp Program,Inspector Qualification & Work Quality.Related Correspondence ML20092P5541984-07-0202 July 1984 Summary of Testimony & Testimony of Dl Leone on Contention 1 Re Reinsp Program for Work Quality ML20092P5551984-07-0202 July 1984 Summary of Testimony & Testimony of R French on Contention 1 Re Reinsp Program ML20092P7781984-07-0202 July 1984 Summary of Testimony & Testimony of Wj Shewski on Contention 1 Re Reinsp Program,Inspector Qualification.Related Correspondence ML20092P7811984-07-0202 July 1984 Summary of Testimony & Testimony of Jm Mclaughlin on Contention 1 Re Reinsp Program,Work Quality.Related Correspondence ML20092P7871984-07-0202 July 1984 Summary of Direct Testimony & Testimony of RP Tuetken Re Reinsp Program.Related Correspondence ML20092P7851984-07-0202 July 1984 Summary of Testimony & Testimony of Wb Behnke on Contention 1 Re Overview of Quality Program,Work Quality. Related Correspondence ML20092N4971984-06-29029 June 1984 Testimony of Bg Treece on Issues 5 & 6 Re Cable Overtensioning,As Limited by ASLB 840608 Order.Related Correspondence ML20092N4911984-06-29029 June 1984 Summary of Direct Testimony of Jo Binder on Issues 5 & 6 Re Cable Overtensioning,As Limited by ASLB 840608 Order.Related Correspondence ML20092K7691984-06-26026 June 1984 Summary of Testimony of J Hansel on Contention 1 Re Reinsp Program.Prof Qualifications Encl.Related Correspondence ML20205H8901983-08-10010 August 1983 Public Version of Transcript of 830810 in Camera,Ex Parte Hearing in Rockford,Il.Pp 7,585-7,610 ML20205H8941983-08-10010 August 1983 Public Version of Transcript of 830810 in Camera,Ex Parte Hearing W/Ofc of Investigations in Rockford,Il.Pp 7,611.1- 7,611.71 ML20205H8841983-08-0909 August 1983 Public Version of Transcript of 830809 in Camera,Ex Parte Hearing in Rockford,Il.Pp 7,304-7,405 ML20080B3051983-08-0303 August 1983 Testimony of RP Tuetken Re Util Reinsp Program of Work Performed by Contractor Insp Personnel Prior to NRC Region III Mar,Apr & May 1982 Insps.Appropriate Steps Taken to Remedy Problems ML20080B3091983-08-0303 August 1983 Testimony of Aw Koca Re General Nature of Hatfield Inspector Training & Certification Program.Certification of J Hughes Described ML20080B2951983-08-0303 August 1983 Testimony of Ma Stanish Re Recertification of Qa/Qc Inspectors Subsequent to NRC Region III Mar,Apr & May 1982 Special Team Insps.Reinsp Program Implemented to Review Work Performed by Inspectors Before NRC 1982 Insp ML20023C7151983-05-12012 May 1983 Testimony of P Holmbeck Re Investigation Into Adequacy of Emergency Plans Re Emergency Planning Contentions.Util Made No Attempt to Study Protective Value of Sheltering Populations Around Plant ML20204F5721983-04-26026 April 1983 Transcript of 830426 Hearing in Rockford,Il.Pp 5,964-6,156 ML20069M4791983-04-25025 April 1983 Handwritten Testimony of J Hughes Re Qa/Qc at Facility ML20069K5691983-04-21021 April 1983 Testimony of Ld Butterfield Re Steam Generator Tube Integrity.Proposed Steam Generator Mods Would Minimize Tube Wear Due to Flow Induced Vibration.Related Correspondence ML20069K5631983-04-21021 April 1983 Revised Testimony of Tf Timmons Re Steam Generator Tube Integrity (Flow Induced Vibration Phenomenon).No Significant Tube Wear Will Be Experienced in Steam Generators Due to Flow Induced Vibration.Related Correspondence ML20073J6691983-04-18018 April 1983 Testimony of Jl Murphy on Rockford League of Women Voters & Dekalb Area Alliance for Responsible Energy/Sinnissippi Alliance for Environ Consolidated Emergency Planning Contentions 3 & 13.Related Correspondence ML20073K4461983-04-18018 April 1983 Rebuttal Testimony of Levine Re Rockford League of Women Voters Contentions 8 & 62 & Dekalb Area Alliance for Responsible Energy/Sinnissippi Alliance for Environ Contention 2a on Public Risk.Related Correspondence ML20073G4241983-04-11011 April 1983 Testimony of Ee Jones Re State of Il Emergency Svc & Disaster Agency Responsibilities Concerning Emergency Planning for Nuclear Facilities & Intervenor Amended Emergency Planning Contention ML20073G4051983-04-11011 April 1983 Testimony of Jc Golden Re Amended Emergency Planning Contention ML20073G4121983-04-11011 April 1983 Testimony of Dl Smith Re Resources Available for Transport & Treatment of Contaminated Injured Persons.Resume Encl 1999-03-02
[Table view] |
Text
"
[
SUMMARY
OF THE TESTIMONY OF JEROME L. ROULO Mr. Roulo is an employee of Commonwealth Edison Company whose present job title is Deputy Nuclear Security Administrator. As such his duties include administering the security screening program for employees of both Commonwealth Edison Company and its contractors at nuclear power plants.
Mr. Roulo's testimony comprises that portion of Contention 42 dealing with the increased risk of sabotage as the result of using transient workers. The testimony describes the circumstances under which persons are allowed to work at the Byron Station without escort and describes the elaborate contractor employee screening procedure which must be followed for that purpose. Both the Nuclear Security Administrator and Quality Assurance check on the effectiveness of these screening procedures. Mr. Roulo's testimony concludes that there is no increased risk of sabotage at Byron Station as F
the result of using contractor employees, including transient workers.
8302220321 830215 PDR T ADOCK 05000454 ppg
/
TESTIMONY OF JEROME L. ROULO ON CONTENTION 42 Q.1. Please state your name.
A.l. Jerome L. Roulo Q.2. By whom are you employed?
A.2. Commonwealth Edison Company 0.3. How long have you been employed by Commonwealth Edison Company?
A.3. For 31 years.
Q.4. What is your present job title?
A.4. Deputy Nuclear Security Administrator.
Q.5. For how long have you held that position?
A.S. For five years.
l Q.6. What are your duties as deputy Nuclear Security Administrator?
A.6. I administer the employee security screening programs for Commonwealth Edison Company and contractor employees.
l Q.7. Please describe the scope of your testimony.
A.7. My testimony addresses that portion of League
- Contention 42 which asserts that " obtaining the temporary services of transient workman . . . results in . . . in-creasing the risk of sabotage. . . . " .
Q.8. Are contractor employees allowed to work at Byron Station, after the reactor has loaded fuel, unescorted?
A.8. No, except under the circumstances described below:
Commonwealth Edison Company mandates that all personnel, who require unescorted access to Byron Station, will undergo pre-employment screening. The screening requirement begins 90 days prior to fuel load. Individuals are accepted or rejected for unescorted access based on the results of the pre-employment screening.
Q.9. What are the requirements of the Byron Station con-tractor screening procedure?
A.9. Contractors working at Byron Station are required to submit a screening procedure to the CECO Nuclear Security Administrator for approval. The procedure must, as a minimum, contain provisions to:
- 1. Establish a method for evaluating employees who have maintained a trustworthy work record for three continuous years.
- 2. Conduct a background check on all employees who l.
have been employed with the contractor for less than three years which includes:
- a. Contacting prior employers.
l b. Contacting personal references.
l
{
- c. Examination by a licensed psychiatrist or physician or other persons professionally trained to identify aberrant behavior, for purpose of observing and disqualifying persons displaying indications of emotional instability such that there is reasonable doubt the person could discharge his duties in a competent manner.
- 3. Establish a continued observation program for all employees, so that supervisors may identify and take appropriate corrective measures when personnel display aberrant behavior.
- 4. Provide for immediate notification, of the ter-mination, of all personnel for whom unescorted access has been requested. Also, to cancel the unescorted access privilege for any individual whose trustworthy status has changed.
- 5. Commit to maintaining proper screening documentation and to making all documentation available to Commonwealth Edison Company and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for audit. The documentation would include, as a minimum:
- a. Current approved copy of the procedure.
- b. Current letter of approval from CECO.
- c. Current letter of authorized signatory officials.
- d. Screening file for each concerned individual.
- e. All current copies of requests for unescorted access.
- f. All copies of cancellations of unescorted access.
- g. Annual certificates of continuous observation.
Q.10. Does Commonwealth Edison Company check on the effective-ness of contractor screening programs?
A.10. Yes. Commonwealth Edison must assure that personnel, who have been granted unescorted access to Byron Station, have been screened properly. To this end, the Nuclear Security Administrator has a full time staff member, whose only assignment is to conduct periodic audits of all
. contractors who require unescorted access to our nuclear plants. This individual can be supplemented with additional staff assistance if required.
Q.ll. Are there any further checks of this contractor screening procedure?
A.ll. Yes. Commonwealth Edison's quality assurance department personnel conduct periodic audits of con-tractor screening procedures and practices.
Q.12. Are there written guidelines for these screening requirements?
A.12. Yes. The attached screening requirements (Roulo Ex. 1) are furnished to all contractors who will require unescorted access to Byron Station. These requirements outline, in detail, the various rules by which we expect the contractors to satisfy the Commonwealth Edison personnel screening program.
Q.13. Have these procedures been reviewed by the NRC?
A.13. Yes. The Byron Station physical security plan has been evaluated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and has been accepted by them.
Q.14. Do you believe that there is increased likeli-hood of industrial sabotage at the Byron Station ,
as a result of the employment of transient workers by contractors performing maintenance tasks at the Station?-
A.14. No. I believe that the contractor screening pro-cedure described above provides assurance that there is no increased risk due.to the employment of transient workers. Only the employees meeting the stringent screening requirements set forth in Roulo Exhibit 1 can Work unescorted at the Byron Station.
f I
l l
l l
l
" Roulo
. Exhibit 1 Subiect: Personnel Security Clearance - Screening Requirements for Access to Nuclear Power Plants Contractors who have personnel needing unescorted access to Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO) Station Nuclear Power Plants are required to establish a personnel screening program. Appendix A quotes various -
regulatory requirements >and Ceco policies which are the basis for this requirement. Attachment 1 sets forth the requirements which the screening program must meet. Attachment 2 is a model procedure which may be used as a guide for establishing a contractor program.
Assistance in establishing a screening program can be obtained from Jerome L. Roulo, (312) 294-8554, and any questions should be directed to him.
Sincerely,
{
t Winston L. Duke Nuclear Security Administrator WLD:JLRtj tf Enclosure l
to l
l APPENDIX A BASIS FOR PERSONNEL SCREENING PROGRAMS _
Unescorted access into an operating nuclear plant is authorized by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rules and Regulations, Part 73.55, Requirements for Physical Reactors Protection of Licensed Activities in Nuclear Power Against Industrial Sabotage.
be Following are excerpts f rom the various documents to used in preparing the personnel security screening plan:
- a. ANSI N18.17-1973, " Industrial Security for Nuclear Power Plants", Paragraph 4.3 " Employee Screening."
making a shall be employed for Procedures determination of the acceptability ofthe candidates continuingfor plant employment and nuclear with regard to their acceptability of employees as trustworthiness. These procedures shall include, a minimum, the following provisions:
(1) an investigation, eithertoprior a to employment or-position allowing .
prior to assignment adverse escort, to disclose access without might bear on his character traits that abilities or motivation to discharge his duties
or (2) examination by a licensed psychiatrist physician or other person professionally trained to identify aberrant behavior, either prior to to a position employment or prior to assignment allowing access eithout escort, for the purpose disqualifying persons of observing and displaying indications of emotional instability such that there is reasonable doubt that the person could discharge his duties in a competent manner.
and (3) continued observation of all employees appropriate corrective measures by responsible supervisors for indication of aberrant behavior of personnel in the course of performance of j their duties.
10 CFR 73.55, Paragraph (a) : The licensec shall
' b.
maintain an on-site physical establish and I
protection system and security organization assurance againstwhich will provide protection with high successful industrial sabotage by. . . the following:
Paragraph (a) (2) : An internal threat of an insider, including an employee (in any position).
l . _ . _ - _. . .. - - - .- .
~
App A - 2 Requirements -
(5) "A Paragraph (d) : Access numbered picture badge identification system shall have authorized be used for all individuals who without escort. An access to protected areas the licensee but who individual not employed by requires frequent and extended access to protected and vital areas may have authorized access to such areas withoat escort provided that he receives a picture badge upon entrance into the protected area, which must be returned upon exit from the protected - no area, and which indicates: (i) non-employee required; (ii) areas to which access is escort the period for which access authorized; and (iii) has been authorized. Badges shall be displayed by all individuals while inside the protected area."
NRC MEMORANDUM FOR:
Reactor Safeguards Licensing c.
Branch Members Division of Operating Reactors -
FROM: Robert A. Clark, Chief Reactor Safeguards Licensing Branch
SUBJECT:
SCREENING OF INDIVIDUALS GRANTED UNESCORTED ACCESS TO THE PROTECTED AREA. Review Guidelines #1 DATE: November 26, 1977
. unescorted access to the protected area may be granted to employees of a licensee and- its contractors established by three (3) based on the reliability continuous years of trustworthy employment. This method establishing reliability is considered to be of screening of ANSI equivalent to the pre-employment N18.17-1973, Sections 4.1 and 4.2. A licensee's program for granting unescorted access to the protected area based on trustworthy employment is employment acceptable ifof(a)the at least three continuous years of individual with the licensee or his contractor is documented, and (b) the trustworthiness of the individual as determined by a review of the individual's employment record.
1 ATTACHMENT 1 REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL SCREENING PROGRAMS OPERATING NUCLEAR STATIONS COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY I. OVERVIEW All contractors with personnel performing work at Operating Nuclear Stations of the Commonwealth Edison a personnel screening Company (CECO.) must establish program. The following general steps are essential:
. Establish a personnel screening procedure (Section II)
. Obtain approval of the procedure from the CECO. Nuclear '
Security Administrator (NSA) (Section III A) screen all personnel
. Implement the approved procedure:
requiring unescorted access (Section III B)
. Submit name (s) of .of fical(s) authorized to approve requests for unescorted access to station (Section III C)
Submit Request for Unescorted Access to station (Section IV) i' Maintain all documentation required by the approved
~
procedure; this documentation must be available for audit by CECO. and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) (Section V)
Submit changes in authorized access list to station as appropriate (Section VI A)
Submit revisions to the screening procedure for ,
approval to the CECO. NSA (Section VI B)
l i
, Att. 1-2 I II. SCREENING PROCEDURE A. Introduction _
- 1. The contractor shall submit a procedure detailing his personnel security of ANSI N18.17- which screening program 1973, meets the requirements
" Industrial Security for Nuclear Power Plants,"
Paragraph 4.3 " Employee Screening."
- 2. The screening program consists of four elements used in several combinations depending upon the type of employee being screened:
a) Certification by contractor / Union b) Background Check c) Behavioral Evaluation d) Program for Continued Observation Each element is described in detail in later sections and all are summarized in Section II G. s
- 3. The procedure must address the screening require unescortedof all types of personnel establishing who may his program, the access. In Contractor must bear in mind that the purpose of his screening program is to determine of and assure employees with the continued acceptability regard to their trustworthiness B. Certification by Contractor / Union Employees or union members who have greater than years of service may have all of their three screening accomplished by supervisor certification.
For contractor employees, the certification is made by a responsible contractor supervisor who For can attest union individual's trustworthiness.
to the same affirmation of trustworthiness members, the responsible shall come from the business agent or For people with officer of the member's local union.
three or more years of continuous employment or union membership, the certification is all the screening required.
There are cases where an employee has recently transferred from one nuclear station contractor to another. If such an individual has had continuous work experience in an operating nuclear station with satisfactory certification from previous employers, then he may be screened as if his employment had been
Att. 1-3 Thus, for continuous with the current contractor.
! example, if John Doe had worked for the XYZ company at Zion Station for the past three years and left thenXYZ ABC to work for the ABC company at Zion Station, company may obtain a certification from XYZJohn company would to include in John Doe's screening file.
require no further screening.
C. Background Check For employees and union members with check less than years of. service, a background is three The background required as part of their screening.
check shall, as a minimum, include the following:
contact one (1) employment reference and 1
1.)
contact two (2) other character references, y,
2.) contact two (2) employment references and contact one (1) Other character reference. ~
The background check should address reliability and checks should not trustworthiness. The reference include relatives.
D. Behavioral Evaluation Employees and union members with less than three years of service are required to undergo a Behavioral "Thurstone Temperament to Evaluation similar L. Thurstone, Science Research Schedule" by Dr. L.
Chicago, Associates, Inc., 259 East Erie Street, Test Form A, Institute Illinois, 60611; or 16 P. F.
of Personality and Ability Testing, 1602-04 Coronado Drive, Champaign, Illinois.
l This evaluation is for the purpose of observing and disqualifying persons displaying indications of emotional instability such that there is reasonable that the person could discharge his duties in a doubt competent manner.
E. Continued Observation Program The contractor shall include in his procedure provision for continued observation to detect any of all persons signs of granted unescorted access aberrant behavior The or other indication of decreased contractor shall commit to trustworthiness. immediately of such signs and cancel notifying CECO.
the individual's unescorted access authorization.
i .
Att. 1-4 F. Screening Requirements The manner used to accomplish and document the screening of an employee will depend upon the length of time the individual There has been are twoassociated possiblewith the options contractor or union.The forms required for documentation listed below. are attached as exhibits and of each option referenced in the description. The contractor shall include the applicable option (s) with the associated forms as part of his screening procedure.
In order for an employee to gain unescorted individual access to a nuclear station for work purposes, contractors must certify each employee in accordance with one of the following options:
OPTION 1:
~
Observation by contractor supervision for tnreeatyears any or more while working for the contractor location (CECO . or non-CECO.) who will certify to the employee's reliability, (See Exhibit I), or; as a union member in good Three years or more standing with certification by the business agent or responsible officer of the local union, (See ExhiDit
- II), or; experience in Three years or more of continuous-work with satisfactory an operating nuclear station recommendations from all contractors with whom the l
' person was employed during the three-year period.
OPTION 3:
A background check (See Paragraph II C).
A behavioral evaluation (See Paragraph II D).
Att. 1-5 G. Screening Requirements Summary Requirements Summary Three years Less than or more three years (Option 3) (Option 1)
Certification X X
by Contractor Program for -
Continued X X
Observation
Background
X Cneck Behavioral X Evaluation
~
H. Subcontractor Screening The Principal Contractor is responsible personnel.for the The screening ~ of all Succontractor screening will be completed utilizing the approved the Principal screening procedure submitted by Contractor _.
III. PROCEDURE APPROVAL AND IMPLEMENTATION A. Approval contractor snall submit his screening The The procedure must procedure to CECO. for approval. by the responsible company .
be dated and signed official. Tne procedure should be submitted to:
Nuclear Security Administrator Commonwealth Edison Company P. O. Box 767 - Room 1248 E.
Chicago, Illinois 60690
.. . . -. - - - _-. .. . . - . , _ . . -- . - - . _. ~ . . . _ _ . - . . _ . , _ _
Att. 1-6 If it is The procedure will be reviewed promptly.
found to be acceptable, an approval letter will be as sent to the contractor. This should be maintained part of the screening program documentation.
B. Implementation Prior to requesting unescorted access for any have all of his individual, the contractor must and the necessary serbening accomplished The contractor shall documentation assembled.
determine which of the three options is appropriate for each of the personnel needing access and make his psychological arrangements, such as for own In establishing the program it evaluation services.
would be appropriate to advise each individual that his screening records will be availableIncomplete for audit by or CECO. and NRC personnel upon request.in denying the inadequate screening will result s
concerned individual access to the site.
screening is a requirement Personnel establishing compliance with performance objectives in Federal Regulations for nuclear station security and provides for assurance that the failure Therefore, public healthto adhere and safety are protected. personnel screening prior _ to to procedures for requesting unescorted access can be a violation of Federal Regulations.
C. Authorized Signatures _
Before the station can grant unescorted form containing the access it must have name(s), title (s)on ,file andaspecimen letter or signature (s) of the contractor official (s) who are authorized to sign the Requests bearing request for unescorted access.
signatures not on the authorized list will not be processed.
IV. REQUESTING UNESCORTED ACCESS Contractors shall request unescorted access on the form shown as Exhibit V.
A request shall be valid for a period of one year, at which time it must be renewed.
Att. 1-7 nuclear station has its own process for Each granting unescorted access. The screening procedure is The contractor should take only a part of this process.
steps to understand the process and allow sufficient time This will prevent delays in to complete all steps. once contractor obtaining unescorted access badges employees reach the station.
V. DOCUMENTATION A. General -
The contractor's screening program must provide its for complete, accurate documentation of all parts. Federal Regulation provides for periodic audit of screening programs by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and by the Commonwealth Edison Company Quality Assurance Department. Incomplete records are always interpreted to indicate inadequate screening and will lead to loss of unescorted access for the contractor personnel involved. Audits occur without~
random
' warning and may be done on a basis of selection.
B. Records The contractor's screening documentation shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
- 1) Approved Screening Procedure
- 2) Procedure Approval letter
- 3) Authorized Signature letter Screening files (content depending
- 4) Individual upon which option is applicable) a) Contractor Certificate b) Union Certificate '
c) Background check references (three) d) Behavioral Evaluation record
- 5) All effective requests for authorized access
- 6) Authorized Access cancellations
- 7) Documentation of Continued Observation Program
Att 1 - 8 C. Audits and Records Checks
- 1) Records checks will be made, usually for personnel newly added to the access list. These checks are to detect any dif ficulties encountered intothe screening maintain an process and assist the contractor effective program. Such checks will be made as deemed necessary by either nuclear station staff or corporate nuclear security personnel. Improperly screened individuals will not be granted access to the site.
- 2) Commonwealth Edison Quality Assurance audits will be made annually. The audits usually cover a random files for selection of contractors and contractor Though it may each station and are unannounced.
happen that a particular contractor's records will should be prepared to not be scrutinized, all Inadequacies will successfully pass such audits.
result in contractor personnel being barred from the._
site until records are put in proper order.
- 3) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission holds unannounced such the nuclear stations. During inspections of inspections, contractor screening records are subject discretion. Such to audit at the inspector's as twice a year.
inspections occur as often Deficiencies can result in denial of access for some or all of a contractor's people, citations against the station and, if serious enough, fines.
VI. CHANGES AND REVISIONS A. Access List Chances We require that all contractors change notify CECO.
of the immediately of the termination or whom reliability status of any personnel for access has been requested. This unescorted notification will be by telephone or a personal visit followed by a written notification (See Exhibit VI).
Additions to existing access lists shall be made using Exhibit V. It is not necessary to resubmit the each time a change occurs.
entire access list However, the contractor may be required, from time to time, to consolidate individual requests on a single current list.
Changes and cancellations must be signed by an of ficial whose authorized signature is on file with CECO.
Att. 1-9 B. Procedural Changes procedure Revisions to an approved screening and approval. The must be submitted for review be in the letter of approval for such revisions must contractor's possession before the revision original may be procedure, implemented. As with the Nuclear revisions shall be submitted to the CECO.
Security Administrator.
l w
O l
t ATTACHMENT 2 XYZ Company Security Screening Procedure
- 1. This procedure will be followed for each employee of XYZ Company and each union member on the XYZ Company payroll who require unescorted access to a Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO.) Nuclear Generating Station. XYZ Company will require this procedure Company to be andfollowed will forbe any subcontractors to XYZ responsible for dnsuring that proper screening and documentation exists prior to requesting unescorted access for subcontractor personnel.
- 2. Option 1 with three or more years . of For employees continuous employment with XY7 Company; or for union members with three or more years of continuous union membership; g for personnel with three or more years of continuous work experience in an operating nuclear.
station.
management will certify three years of a.) XYZ trustworthy employment based on reliable and observation and a check of the employee's work record using Exhibit I;ce'Ttif or ay union three officer,years or of business agent, will reliable and trustworthy union membership in good standing based upon observation and a check of work records using Exhibit II; g XYZ management will obtain satisfactory recommendation of three or more years of continuous work experience all in an employers operating nuclear station from involved using Exhibit I modified to show each employer and each period of employment. .
- 3. Option 3 employees with less than three years of For continuous employment with XYZ Company; or for union members with less than three years of continuous union membership:
Att. 2-2 a.) Examination and evaluation by a psychiatrist or physician, or testing evaluation similar to "Thurstone Temperament Schedule" for the purpose of observing and disqualifying persons displaying indications of emotional instability such that there is reasonable doubt the person could discharge his duties in a trustworthy and reliable manner. Such evaluation shall be documented.
b.) A background investigation to disclose adverse character traits that might affect a person's ability or motivation to discharge his duties in a reliable and trustworthy manner will be completed by contacting and documenting three references as follows:
- 1) One (1) employment reference and two (2) personal character references (not relatives);
- 2) Two (2) employment references and one (1) personal character reference (not relatives); '
- 3) If no previous employment exists, three (3) personal character references (not relatives).
- 4. XYZ Company will submit to the proper CECO. nuclear station, with a copy to the CECO. Nuclear Security Administrator, a letter containing name (s ) , title (s) ,
and sample signature (s) of the company of ficial(s) authorized to sign requests for unescorted access and cancellations of unescorted access.
- 5. Upon completion of 2, or 3 above, XYZ management will submit a request for unescorted access using Exhibit V signed by an official designated as in 4 above.
s Att. 2-3
- 6. XYZ Company will provide for continued observation has requested of all personnel for whom XYZ Company aberrant unescorted access to detect any signsof of decreased behavior or other indication trustworthiness. Should such behavior be detected, XYZ CECO. Station Company will immediately notify the in person.
Security Administrator by telephone or Supervisory personnel performing such observation will i
submit every twelve months a letter certifying that he has performed the observation, listing each individual so observed and verifying that no aberrant behavior has been detected. XYZ Company will obtain the assistance of a competent psychiatrist or physician to establish a program to train supervisors in the detection of those types of aberrant bahavior for which they must be alert.
immediately notify CECO. of any
- 7. XYZ Company will termination from XYZ Company or change in reliable, trustworthy status of any person for whom unescorted 4
access has been requested. Such notification will be by telephone or in person to the CECO. Station Security Administrator and followed by written notification
~
using Exhibit VI.
- 8. XYZ Company will maintain documentation generated by this procedure as follows:
a.) Current Current approved copy of this procedure letter of approval from CECO.
b.)
c.) Current letter of authorized signatory officials d.) Screening file for each concerned individual
- containing (as required) :
- 1. Copy of Exhibits I or II
- 2. Three (3) background check references
- 3. Certificate of Behavioral Evaluation copies of requests for unescorted e.) All current access f.) All copies of cancellations of unescorted access 9.) Annual certificates of continuous observation All documentation will be available to CECO. and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission upon request. It will be maintained at the XYZ Company general office.
Company Officer Date Title
e EXHIBIT I certification of Reliable and Trustworthy Employment XYZ Company The employee listed below has completed three or more years of continuous employment with . XYZ Company in positions which have afforded close observation of the employee.
A review of the employee's employment record on for this the years has been completed. Based past three information, I consider the employee reliable and trustworthy.
I recommend clearance for unescorted access to Commonwealth Edison Company Nuclear Generating Stations.
~
Name (Last, First & Macdle Initial)
Social Security Number I
i Date of Employment i
I Manager .
Date
~
1
EXHIBIT II i
Union Certification of Reliable and Trustworthy Employment l
Name of Union Member (Last, First & Middle Initial)
Complete Address Social Security Number s
Date of Membership The person listed above has completed three or more years as a member of this union. A review of the member's work Based on record for the past three years has been completed. and this information, I consider this person reliable trustworthy. I recommend clearance for unescorted access to Commonwealth Edison Co. Nuclear Generating Stations.
Name of Union Address Union Officer / Business Agent i
Date ,
l
^
Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT V Request for Unescorted Access Nuclear Power Station Date Commonwealth Edison Company c/o Nuclear Security Administrator 72 West Adams Street, Room 1248 E.
P. O. Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690
, dated
Reference:
Approved Procedure No.
The attached list of personnel, employees of s
a (Name of Company) Adoress undergone the screening process established by the have have met the acceptability referenced procedure and requirements. The records and reports of the screening process for the above-named are available for inspection upon request Nuclear Commonwealth Edison Company and/or the by the Regulatory Commission.
Unescorted access is requested for Nuclear Power Station.
as an authorized By ^ virtue of my authority or corporation, I representative of the aforesaid company herewith make this application. .
By:
Name:
(Print or Type)
Title:
cc: Commonwealth Edison Company Nuclear Security Administrator at Nuclear Power i Station (s)
IlllJl )
2 9 1
. 8 2 f o 7 3 o N 6 4 2 . 5 5 S 4 6 e 3 7
g .
a S 2 1
8 P 9 s
7 6 s E 7 7 e CE / / c I T 9 0 c VA 0 1 a RD / / d E 5 4 e
S 0 0 t r
o c
s e
n u
n r o w o f
g o s a t n l c e o a S i m i u S h o t d E C l l
i i R v D , , d d i D e t a d A u e n n e t i E e r n
V M v t e h O A S v c T l I
e a I e e r e B m k p I o a n H l f L o e X ~ t e E 4 1 r
3 1 2 2 s c 1 4 e s n
i o l t d d e e s z u i n l u i
)
t
. . l u I l a n M
o t i
& u t p
o t o E s s M r . s e A i R o h t
N F r
. s C A e s t m - e t
s n a -
a a h J -
c L
(
o s i J ,
e d h n n _
, t i i e i l
o m n D S p m _
i u _
k l . _
s o _
t NR o s _
OE N i _
IB 3 1 h _
TM o T PU .
ON ' D
. t EXHIBIT VI Cancellation of Unescorted Access Date: l Station Security Administrator Commonwealth Edison Company Dresden Station Quad Cities Station R. R. #1 . P. O. Box 216 Cordova, IL 61242 Morris, IL 60450 LaSalle County Station Zion Station R.R. No. 1 - Box 240 4
101 Shiloh Blvd. Marrielles, IL 61341 Zion, IL 60099 (Name or Company) (Address) for tne personnel Unescorted access is hereoy cancelled listed below:
Name Social Security Numoer (Last, First & Middle Initial)
By:
Name:
(Print or Type)
Title:
cc: Nuclear Security Administrator 72 West Adams Street, Room 1248 E.
P. O. Box 767 Cnicago, IL 60690
, _ _ - . - . - - - _ _ , , .. ._