ML20054E648

Suppl to 820422 Motion That Discovery Not Be Had Re Production of Any Documents Re Quality Rept Sys.State & Applicants Are Negotiating on Method & Conditions for Disclosure of Quality Matters

ML20054E648
Person / Time
Site:	Clinton
Issue date:	06/08/1982
From:	Zabel S ILLINOIS POWER CO., SCHIFF, HARDIN & WAITE
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20054E649	List: ML20054E648 ML20054E650
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8206140027
Download: ML20054E648 (6)

Text

'

I a

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION . _ .

.g IN Tile MATTER OF ILLIN0IS  :

) ,

POWER COMPANY, S0YLAND )

POWER COOPERATIVE, INC. and )

s WESTERN ILLIN0IS POWER )

COOPERATIVE, INC. )

) Docket No. 50-461 OL (Operating License for )

Clinton Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER Illinois Power Company (" Illinois Power"), Soyland Power Cooperative, Inc., and Western Illinois Power Cooperative, Inc. (" Applicants"), pursuant to Section 2.740(c) of the Rules of Practice of the Nuclear Regula-tory Commission ("NRC"), on April 22, 1902 moved that discovery not be had with respect to the production of any documents relating to the Quality Report System described in the Answer to Interrogatory No. 24 of the Supplemental Response of Illinois Power to the State of Illinois' ("the State") Second Set of Interrogatories of March 16, 1982. In that Motion Applicants stated

that they would supplement that Motion and this filing

'_is made pursuant to that statement. _

l. As recommended by the Board at the Third Special Prehearing Conference held May 4, 1982, and as stated in the 8206140027 82060s $

PDR ADOCK 05000461 0 PDR

s State's initial Response to Applicants' Motion for a Protective Order of May 6, 1982, the State and Applicknts are endeavoring to reach agreements on the method and' conditions for disclosure of quality matters contained in the " Quality Report System" implemented by Applicants.

2. Pursuant to the most recent discussion between counsel for Applicants and the State on May 24, 1982,

Applicants have proposed and the State is considering an agreement to resolve this matter as more fully described below. Applicants have informed the State that it would be filing this supplement and the State has indicated that it wishes to consider this supplement before responding to the Applicants' proposal.

3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is the Affidavit of William C. Gerstner, Executive Vice President of Illinois i

Power Company. As described in Exhibit 1 the so-called Quality Report System (" System") was implemented in i

i February, 1982 to provide a direct method of communication i between the Quality Control inspectors and the top level of management, specifically Mr. Gerstner. The System was implemented in part in response to the concern expressed by some employees that quality matters were not being brought to the attention of Applicants' top management. -

4. As more fully described in paragraph 5, pf Exhibit 1, the System is implemented in such a manner.

that employees can submit reports on any matter of concern to them. Although the intent of System is to provide.a

-mechanism for quality matters to be brought to the direct and immediate attention of top management, the reports frequently have been used for matters totally unrelated to quality. The reports submitted are often almost indecipherable if simply read. They are generally harid-written and contain short-hand methods of expressions, such as acronyms and abbreviations that, without explanation or intimate knowledge, are meaningless to most people. Further-more a substantial number of the reports have contained allegations, not pertaining to quality, against named employees at the Clinton Power Station. The continued filing of such reports, however, indicates that the employees have confidence in the System. They know that i

the secrecy is being maintained and that no recriminations will result from submitting reports.

5. Applicants have and will continue to inform the NRC staff of any matters revealed by the reports required to be disclosed by the NRC regulations. Further-more, as explained to the employees, the System was not intended to replace their normal reporting nor to in any

.way limit or replace their right to communicate concerns 7

theymayhavedirectlytotheNRCthroughtheon-sitf inspector or otherwise.

l l

6. Applicants have proposed to the State to furnish it, under an agreement of non-disclosure or a3 agreed protective order, the following information: ;

a. A summary of every report filed to date pertaining to quality matters, such summary to be prepared by counsel for Applicants and Mr. Gerstner.

b. To the extent possible the summaries will be in haec verba of the reports themselves but will have the decided advantage of providing a mechanism to eliminate or at least minimize the problems of unintelligibility in the actual reports.

c. All responses to anonymous reports pertaining to quality which have been made available at the Clinton Power Station will be made availabic to the State as well as the substance of responses to signed reports.

d. Pursuant to the requirements of the NRC regulations this information would be periodically up-dated and furnished

~

to the State.

_ -- - - _ . . - - - , . - . . - . . - _ _ . - _ _ , . -. .-, . ~ .

1 I e

! 7. Confidentiality of the System is essential to its effective functioning, to its very continuance.

IftheemployeesutilizingtheSystemperceive,irreppective

.of the reality of that perception, that the-confidentiality 1

of the System has been compromised the System will be effectively destroyed. Exhibit 1, paragraph 7.

8. The NRC, and therefore this Board, has an independent duty to assure that the Clinton Power Station

. can be safely operated. To the extent the System provides  ;

I a mechanism permitting quality matters to be brought to the direct attention of, and to be dealt with by, the top

management of the Applicants it is in furtherance of- that duty.

9. Applicants recognize that the Board also has a duty, with respect to the conduct of the hearings, to assure that the parties, through the discovery process, have adequate access to the information necessary to-i develop the issues and contentions raised in the proceeding.

! 10. This Board must balance these two duties.

1 Applicants submit that to achieve disclosure by causing the destruction or necessitating the termination of the l System would be totally inconsistent with the Board's independent-duty. Applicants believe the proposal in paragraph 6 above would furnish all the information which ftheStateneeds (recognizing the State would have the right toseek,ifadequatelyjustified,additionalinforma(ion based on the information furnished) while minimizing the risk of ending the System. Applicants must state, i

however, that they cannot assure the Board that even this degree of disclosure will not undermine the System. -

Any greater disclosure would certainly do so. -

4

11. Applicants request, for reasons stated previously, that the Board refrain from ruling on this matter until the State has had an adequate opportunity to review this supplement and counsel for Applicants and the State have an opportunity to consult in an attempt to resolve this matter. Counsel for Applicants will inform the Board of the results of such consultation.

WHEREFORE, Applicants move this Board to defer ruling until the Board is informed of whether the parties have reached agreement and, failing such agreement, that the Board then enter an order that discovery not be had with respect to the production of any documents relating to the Quality Report System or, in the alternative, enter a protective order and limit discovery as set forth in paragraph 6 hereof.

Respectfully submitted,

' i ,

e

' One of the Attorney's for Applicants c pated: June 8, 1982

'Sheldon A. Zabel -

killiam Van Susteran Charles D. Fox, IV  :

Schiff liardin 6 Waite 7200 Sears Tower Chicago, Illinois 60606 312/876-1000

_. .______ ___ ________