ML20077D203

Response Supporting Intervenor Motion to Suppl Qa/Qc Record on Preoperational Testing,Per 830721 Telcon.Qa/Qc Concerns Arise Out of Entire Scope of Region III Insps & Cannot Be Separated from Preoperational Testing

ML20077D203
Person / Time
Site:	Byron
Issue date:	07/21/1983
From:	Whicher J DEKALB AREA ALLIANCE FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF ROCKFORD, IL, WHICHER, J.M.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8307260425
Download: ML20077D203 (6)

Text

7 ,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 'UY l N p

} BEFORE TIPL ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSIN DBOA'MD. Y In the Matter of D

.n @s r hLe

)

}

' g M9 /[

h < c+ sj j COMMONWEALTH EDISON. COMPANY ) Docket No. J0-45I4 /c (Byron Station, Units l'and!2)

/

f REPLY IN SUPPORT OF INTERVENORS' MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT QA/QC RECORD ON PREOPERATIONAL TESTING i

Pursuant to. leave granted by the Board'during the conference call of this date, Intervenors the League-and DAARE/ SAFE hereby reply to " Memorandum of Commonwealth Edison Company in Opposition to Intervenors' Motion to Supplement QA/QC Record Regarding Pre-operational Testing" filed July 13, 1983 and "NRC Staff Response to Joint Intervenors' Motion to Supplement QA/QC Record Regarding Preoperational Testing" filed July 18, 1983.I/.

(1) Timliness The Staff conceden the motion is timely; however, Common-wealth Edison does not, basing its position on the fact that, the enforcement conference summary (Exhibit B to Intervenors' Motion) precipitating Intervences' Motion relies on ' documents available earlier. Edison ignores, however, the fact that the signifi-cance of those documents, including the Staff's change of 1/ The Staff pleading was received by Intervenors on July 20, 1483 8307260425 830721 1 PDR ADOCK 05000454 9 PDR

$ 0$

.'poaition ao established in Exhibit B, only bcccco known to Intervenors within a week of filing their-motion.

(2) .Significant-Safety Issue Commonwealth Edison characteristically takes a very narrow view of Intervenors' Motion, emphasizing the specific violations at issue.- Edison ~does not, however, concern itself with import of the Reg 16n IIIl language in Exhibit B. ' Edison has pointed to its " extensive nuclear power plant committments, co'mprising four operating n'uclear power plants and two under construction" (Edi-son' Memorandum at p.1).. This ' fact, of course, f . undercuts Edison's theory that the; violations-are' insignificant, for given its extensivenuclearplantoperatingexpehlenceit'shouldnothavea staff at Byron that is " inadequately prepared" and that is en-gaging in " inadequate conduct of preoperational testing" (Exhibit B (Summary) at p.2).

Edison and the Staff attempt to equate the severity levels contained in 10 CFR Part 2 Appendix C with the safety signifi-cance factor relevant to the Board's determination hero. While violation severity levels may have some bearing on the Staff's view of the nature of a specific violation, they cannot i n a r.iy sense be said to be despositive of whether an issue meets the level of safety significance of the evidence. To hold otharwise would allow the Staff to determine what is and is not sufficient

.to reopen a closed record, a result clearly not - contemplated by the Commission.

) While Intervenors agree that the severity levels in the two inspection reports, Exhibits A and C, are Severity Level IV, that I

i 2

i d

j docs not_cnd the cetter. Exhibit B accorializsa and cuaanrizos an enforcement conference concerning " Deficiencies Identified in the Preoperational Test Program for Byron Station, Unit 1" (sum-

\

J ' mary at p.1). Ten CPR App. C, SIII B describes when an enforce-i*

J ment conference'is called:

" Enforcement conferences are norma'lly cond'ucted for all Severity Level I, II, and III violations and for Severity Level IV violations that are considered symptomatic of j

program deficiencies, rather than isolated concerns.

(emphasis supplied).

~

y Therefore, Region III'has'obviously concluded that the specific violations noted in Exhibits A and C are indicative of. larger problems..

With respect to Intervenors having pointed out the' Staff change of position, the Staff submits the1 affidavit of Mr. Forney which~ simply states that the Region III conclusion as expressed in the hearing is unch'anged. Region III's refusal to change its hearing position before this Board does not mean that it has hot made contrary statements elsewhere in public documents.

Mr. Forney's assertion that Region III does not " view" its statement as an admission is unhelpful, for this is a legal conclusion for the Board, not for the Staff. The Staff's incon-sistencies in its' statements before the Board, and its statement in these documents cannot be explained so easily away by mere conclusory and self-serving assertions.

Mr. Forney's- attempt to cast faegion III statements in the documents "as related to overemphasis on schedule and production by the operating staff...and not whether the.QA organization had sufficient independence from production" is unpersuasive, for an overemphasis on schedule and production not only results in 3

--~,- -

' violctiong, . but.undarscoros Edic:n's unwillingnaco and inability to conntruct this plant within the requirements of the NRC, as Intervenors state in Contention IA.

~

• +

In' sum,' the very fact that Exhibit B ' was issued, 'and the statements by Region. III concerning Lthe , adequacy of Edison's

. program, . support -Intervenors' clain ,that a significant safety issue is raised.

'(3) Potentiali to-Affect'the Outcome Potential to' affect the outcome does=not mean that Inter-venor.s must prove that the license will not: issue if, this evi-dence.is admitted; rather, 'Intervenors submit. this evidence as proof, of a change of position by the Staff or a possible mis-statement of the Staff position in its prefiled ' testimony as well as additional, newly-developed evidence pertaining to Edison's QA/QC program.1/ To the-extent the Board may find,-without ,this evidence, that Edison's preoperational test program is illustra-tive of'its QA program, that finding must certainly be affected by this evidence.

(4) Commonwealth Edison's Remaining Arguments Edison attempts to keep this matter from the purview of the Board in part on the justification that it declined to put in 1/ The characterization of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Pouer-Corp.

(Vermont Yankee Station), ALAB-138, 6 AEC 520 (1973), in the

}; Board's May 12, 1983 ruling (at p.6) is unhelpful here. This is not a situation uhere a triable issue of fact or summary

$ judgment analogy is helpful, for short of the statements by

' Region III officials in the Region III letter, Intervenors, of course, can submit no evidence such as counter-affidavits, f

but can only argue from the record, I.

4 6

m

' ovid:nca on the'issus of preop 3 ration 1 testing'in its case in chie'f'.

It is not for Intervenors to decide how Commonwealth I

Edison will attempt to carry its burden in this proceeding. The

'seope of'the contention is not defined.by. Edison, but by the I

contention itself. It is instructive to note that tho' Staff

! E makes no'such~ argument; indeed, it proferred direct testimony on l preoperational testing,land therefore is in apparentiagreement

that this: evidence is within the scopeLor the contention. More-over, preoperational testing cannot be neatly separa'ted from QA/QC, for QA/QC concerns arise in the entire gamut of-Region III inspections, from excavating the ' foundation- through ' continuing surveillance'of plant operations, an'is illustrated by the direct evidence of Edison and the Staff concerning fines imposed upon Commonwealth Edison at Lits operating plants.

Edison's chief complaint appears to be that, if the Board allows this evidence into the evidentiary record, Intervenors'

-will be encouraged to cubmit every I&E report which comes across counsel's' desk. Intervenors submit that this series of reports was carefully selected and brought to the Board's attention precisely because of the significance of the matters raised.

More importantly, however, is the fact that Edison continues to be found in violstion of NRC regulatory requirements. - The mere fortuitous timing of the evidentiary hearing and Region III

~

inspections should not work to preclude this Board from hearing all the available evidence on matters with'in the scope of the QA/QC contention.

eaa 5

n .-. = .

"t.,

ys g _

• s For tha reasons stated, Int 0rvenors' Motion should bo granted.

Dated: . July.21, 1983.

Respectfully snbmitted, M- ] t'. O E W ~~~ ,

Jane M. Whicher*

Attorney for Intervenors the Rockford League of Women Voters, and DAARE/ SAFE on issues and matters relating to quality

-assurance / quality' control

-l Jane M. Whicher '-

109 N. Dearborn.

Suite 1300 '

Chicago, IL- 60602 (312) 641-5570 I 8 g

. . *

• i. * ",'

, , . . 8

-f ge .

, .* .. 8

'a

• g ,

• 'I e

h

-)

/ ,

3.

l r

6 I