ML20077S709
| ML20077S709 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 09/16/1983 |
| From: | Becker B, Bloom J, Crowley C, Furse M, Mark Miller COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20077S701 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8309220184 | |
| Download: ML20077S709 (60) | |
Text
--
DOCMETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
% SEP 21 Pl2:51 BEFORE THE ATCMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BO g y g 000471% /, c.d.co ERM::':
In The Matter of
)
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-454 OL
)
50-455 OL
)
(Byron Nuclear Power Station, )
Units 1 & 2)
)
APPLICANT'S REPLY TO INTERVENORS' PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON QUALITY ASSURANCE / QUALITY CONTROL Commonwealth Edison Company (" Applicant") files this Reply to Intervenors' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Quality Assurance / Quality Control.
INTRODUCTION In the body of these Reply Findings Applicant has organized its reponse on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis, in order to facilitate review of the Applicant's Reply in con-junction with the findings to which it responds.
Applicant's paragraph-by-paragraph reply to Intervenors' Proposed Findings must be prefaced, however, by the following introductory com-ments.
Applicant's understanding of proposed findings of fact is that their purpo'se is to assist the Board in evaluating 8309220184 830916 DR ADOCK 05000454 PDR
4 the voluminous evidence placed before it during weeks of hear-ings.
The importance of proposed findings of fact is manifest.
It is clear that any order ultimately issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission must be based on substantial evidence.
New England Coalition v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 582 F2d 87 (1st Cir. 1978).
County of Rockland v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, No. 83-4083, 4037 (Slip Opinion, 2nd Cir., May 27, 1983).
Within the adjudicatory structure of the NRC itself, there is recognition that the decisions of Licens-the decisions ing Boards must be more than merely conclusory:
must " confront the facts of record."
P.S. Co. of N.H.
(Seabrook Station, Units 2 &2 ), ALAB-422, 6 NRC 33, 41 (1977), affirmed, CLI-78-1, 7 NRC 1 (1978).
And the accompanying opinion must explain why evidence reasonable or its face, but contrary to the result reached was rejected.
P.S.E. & G. Co. (Hope Creek Generating Station, Units 1&2), ALAB-429, 6 NRC 229, 237 (1977).
The importance of proposed findings to the decision making process has been repeatedly stressed by the Appeal Board.
- See, Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units 1&2),
e.g.,
ALAB-691, 16 NRC 897 (1982); Northern States Power Company (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1&2) ALAB-244, 8 AEC 857 (1974).
We recognize that each party, in its pro-posed findings, will emphasize those portions of the record which it believes support its position.
But effective advocacy does not encompass the sdbmission of proposed findings which ignore substantial evidence which should undoubtedly be taken
. into account by the Licensing Board in the decision making process.
Thus proposed findings should encompass the testimony proffered by each of the parties, rather than being a wholly one-sided version of the evidence which fails to acknowledge the record as a whole.
Moreover, it is the responsibility of each of the parties to submit proposed findings which fairly and accurately state the evidence upon which the parties rely.
Likewise, proposed findings must be based on evidence in the record, and should not be conclusory, unsubstantiated allega-tions.
Contrary to Applicant's understanding of the para-meters of proposed findings of fact, Intervenors' Proposed Findings of Fact constitute an incomplete review of the evi-dence placed before the Board, a review laced with distortion, inaccuracy, and misrepresentation.
Applicant's Reply to the findings of Intervenors demonstrates on a paragraph-by-paragraph ba:is the myriad respects in which Intervenors fail to present the Board with a fair and complete review of the record; the purpose of this introduction is to illustrate the overall tenor of Intervenors' Proposed Findings.
Intervenors divide their findings into several cate-gories, the first of the categories being Applicant's com-pliance with NRC regulations in general.
In this category Intervenors cont $nd that' Applicant "has compiled a consistent l
record of non-compliance with NRC regulations at its nuclear power plants.
(Intervenors' Proposed Finding 4.)
The
. subsidiary findings submitted in support of this conclusica, however, fail to present the Board with a complete picture of the evidence placed before it by the parties.
For example, Intervenors note the fines assessed against Applicant in the past decade by the NRC, yet fail even to mention the substan-tial testimony in the record pertaining to the extensive cor-rective action taken by Applicant in response to the noncom-pliances upon which thu fines were based, or the testimony that for the period 1979-1982 Applicant's facilities were below the Intervenors national and regional averages for civil penalties.
point out that Applicant and certain of its employees were indicted for noncompliances at the Quad Cities Station, yet inexcusably neglect to note that Applicant and the employees subsequently were found not guilty of the charges against them.
Intervenors' Proposed Findings do not fairly reflect In sum, the state of the record, a record which in reality depicts an applicant that has recurrently had noncompliances and has been fined by the NRC but has also taken corrective action in rea spunse to problems identified by the NRC and has had a satis-i factory overall record in complying with NRC regulations.
Intervenors' second category is entitled " Contractors at Byron," and within this category Intervenors discuss the allegations made by their three witnesses, Messrs. Smith, Gallagher, and Stomfay-Stitz.
In their findings with regard to j
these witnesses Interveners simply ignore large portions of the v.
Inter-record which contradict the testimony of the allegers.
venors essentially have presented the Board with nothing but a
, rahash of the prepared testimony of the witnesses, citing the testimony of Applicant's witnesses and the NRC Staff only to the extent that such testimony substantiates the alle'gations of Intervenors' witnesses.
Examples include:
Intervenors assert that Mr. Smith was instructed not to perform a thorough audit of the Authorized Nuclear Inspector (Inter-venors' Proposed Finding 45); Intervenors fail to note the uncontradicted evidence that this audit was intended to be limited in scope.
Intervenors claim that Mr. Smith's audit reports were modified by Mr. Somsag in a manner which lessened the impact of the reports (intervenors' Proposed Finding 47);
Intervenors fail to acknowledge the sub-stantial testimony developed during the cross examination of Mr. Smith and the examination of the NRC Staff which indi-cated that the changes to Mr. Smith's audits were not substantial.
Intervenors claim that there was no main-tenance program for the Ross concrete and that Blount Brothers' Mr. Andre
- plant, lied on this issue to the NRC (Intervenors' Proposed Finding 55); Intervenors neglect to point out that the record includes testimony by Mr. Gallagher that maintenance of the batch plants was performed conscien-tiously by he and Mr. Pope and uncontradicted testimony from the NRC Staff that Mr.
Andre's comments to the NRC involved only calibration of the batch plants, and not maintenance generally.
Intervenors assert that a substantial amount of concrete was made with noncon-forming aggregate (Intervenors' Proposed Finding 56); although Intervenors' sum-marily state that " Edison failed to offer any credible evidence to the contrary,"
they neglect to even refer to the evidence in the record which indicates that Mr. Pope examined the results of a cylinder test to assure himself,that the aggregate was satisfactory, and the extensive testimony of Messrs, Tallent and Johnson of Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory describing the testing of aggregate at the Byron site.
4 Intervenors claim that because water was added to concrete after test samples were taken the results of concrete tests were not accurate (Intervenors' Proposed Finding 58); Intervenors ignore the uncontradicted _
testimony of Mr. Johnson that additional test samples were taken after water was added.
Intervenors assert that daily, rather than weekly, surveillances were required to be performed by Blount Brothers at the tendon storage barns (Intervenors' Proposed Find-ing 71); Intervenors ignore the uncontra-dicted testimony of Mr. Mihovilovich that Sargent & Lundy approved weekly, rather than daily, surveillances because the barns were ventilated.
Intervenors assert that an inspection of tendon buttonheads by Blount Brothers was conducted in an inadequate manner (Inter-venors' Proposed Finding 75); Intervenors do not even mention the evidence in the record that the Blount Brothers "inspec-tion" was simply an informal review to ascertain the extent of the buttonhead problem, and that the tendon supplier, INRYCO, s dsequently performed a 100%
reinspection of the buttonheads.
Inter-venors also fail to include in their pro-posed finding the fact that the NRC Staff veritied the satisfactory resolution of the buttonhead problem.
Intervenors do, however, make the asertion that "it appears that the documents generated from [the Blount Brothers inspection) have been destroyed or other-This wise rendered unavailable.
assertion is utterly baseless, lacking any support whatsoever in the record, and is nothing short of offensive to Applicant.
The examples go on and on.
In short, Intervenors have ignored their responsibility to present the Board with a fair recount-ing of the testimony pertaining to their three witnesses, choosing instead' to proffer an entirely one-sided version of the testimony which bears little if any relation to the actual record developed before the Board.
Intervenors continue their pattern of distorting the record in their next category of proposed findings, entitled
" Edison's QA/QC Organization."
For example, in their-Proposed Finding 97 Intervenors claim that NRC Region III disagreed with The record Applicant's resolution of noncompliances at Byron.
location cited by Intervenors, however, cays nothing of the the record (testimony of Mr. Stanish) actually says that sort; noncompliances that were considered closed by Applicant had not all been closed by the NRC Staff.
Mr. Stanish did not testify that the NRC disagreed with Applicant's resolution of the problems.
Likewise, in their Proposed Finding 111 Intervenors assert that Applicant has been " stripping" Byron Unit II of equipment for installation in Unit I, citing the testimony of Mr. Stanish.
Actually, Mr. Stanish rejected the suggestion of Intervenors that Unit II was being stripped of equipment, testifying only that on occasion equipment has been moved from Unit II to Unit I.
Intervenors also assert in this proposed finding that Applicant is engaged in a " headlong rush" to complete Unit I, and that such a rush is compromising quality assurance at both units.
Intervenors cite no record references in making this claim, nor could they; there is absolutely no basis in the record for Intervenors' claim, and Mr. Stanish expressly stated that Unit I was not being completed at the expense of Unit II.
v Finally, Intervenors again mischaracterize the record in their final category,," Effectiveness of NRC Inspections."
Examples include Intervenors' Proposed Findings 126, 129, and
, 132.
These findings build on mischaracterizations of the record which permeate their earlier proposed findings.
In Proposed Finding 126, Intervenors suggest that Mr. Hayes' conclusions with regard to Mr. Stomfay-Stitz' allegations concerning " missing" structural steel beams were based solely on Mr. Hayes' 35 years of experience, rather than on a meaning-ful investigation.
The record actually demonstrates that Mr.
Hayes' conclusion in this regard was premised on an extensive investigation of pertinent files, an investigation which re-vealed no evidence supportive of Mr. Stomfay-Stitz' claim.
In Proposed Finding 129, Intervenors note that Hunter Corporation disagreed with the recommendation of the NRC Staff with regard to component support inspections.
Intervenors neglect to add that Hunter Corporation modified its procedures in response to the NRC's concerns, and that the Staff was satisfied with these modifications.
Finally, in their Proposed Finding 132 Inter-venors suggest that the NRC Staff's investigation of Mr. Smith's allegation that changes were made to his audit drafts to lessen the impact of the audits was inadequate because " Smith's origi-nal drafts were missing from company files."
The uncontradicted l
testimony in the record, however, was that only one such draft was missing from Hunter Corporation files, and the NRC Staff in fact examined a number of audit drafts in reachino its conclus-ion.
Thus, as in the categories discussed above, Intervenors l
here utterly fail to pres'ent the Board with anything approxi-mating a fair and complete picture of the efforts undertaken by
O the NRC Staff in reviewing tha work performed at Byron by Applicant and its contractors.
A capsule summary of Intervenor's proposed -findings is that they are shot through with mischaracterizations of testimony and testimony taken out of context and they consis-tently ignore uncontradicted contrary evidence.
Intervenors have tendered to the Board and the parties a document which refuses to recognize the record as a whole and which fails to provide a meaningful basis for ultimate findings by the Board.
Paragraphs 1-3 No response.
Paragraphs 4-18 Intervenors' description of items of non-compliance since 1974 which have led to fines by the commission is incom-plete and misleading.
Intervenors avoid any mention of the extensive corrective actions taken by Applicant in response to these noncompliances.
As described in great detail in the prepared testimony of Mr. Del George, and as related in the Proposed Findings previously submitted by the Applicant, exten-sive corrective actions were taken by the Applicant in response to each of the items of noncompliance.
(Applicant's Proposed i
Findings 690-705.)
In addition, Intervenors ignore the fact that for the period 1979-1982, all Applicant's facilities were below the national and regional averages for civil penalties.
(Applicant's Proposed Finding 690.)
The Intervenors also ignore testimony establishing that the NRC Staff has within the
past two years issued increased amounts of civil penalties as a matter of policy.
(Forney, Tr. 3927.)
Paragraph 19 This paragraph misstates the evidence relating to the Salem reactor trip breaker incident and Applicant's response.
Contrary to Intervenors' allegations the record shows no evi-dence from Mr. Connaughton of the NRC or any other witness (1) that trip breakers "were not included within Edison's maintenance program;" (2) that trip breakers at Zion failed because of this reason; (3) that the failure to transmit the manufacturer's maintenance recommendation accounted for the Zion malfunctions; or (4) that breaker incidents at Zion were
" identical" to those at Salem.
Mr. Connaughton testified that the incident at Salem occurred because the trip breakers were not included in a preventive maintenance program and the manu-facturer's recommendations were not followed.
(Connaughton, Tr. 4085)
He did not refer to similar incidents at any of Applicant's plants.
And although Mr. Sues testified that trip breakers at Applicant's Zion Station failed because of " improper maintenance," he also testified that he was unaware of why the maintenance was improper.
(Sues, Tr. 4044-45.)
However, in contradiction to Intervenors' assertion in paragraph 19, Mr. Sues did state that Applicant requires that all manufacturer recom-l mendations be referenced in all maintenance procedures.
(Sues, Tr. 4017.)
Finilly, the, record shows that at Byron, even prior to the Salem incident, trip breakers were included in a mainte-nance program and the manufacturer's recommendations were referenced in maintenance procedures.
(Sues, Tr. 4016-17.)
I
. Paragraph 20 Intervenors state that as a result of noncompliance with Commission regulations in 1977 and 1978 at the Dresden Station, in December 1977 the NRC Staff increased its inspec-tion frequency to weekly at Applicant's three operating nuclear facilities.
For support, Intervenors rely on the testimony of Louis O. Del George.
However, Intervenors fail to accurately relate Mr. Del George's testimony concerning this issue.
First, Mr. Del George's testimony states only that inspection frequency was increased.
It does not specify a particular frequency.
Second, such increased inspection frequency was confirmed by Mr. Del George only with respect to the Dresden plant, and not as to Applicant's other operating plants.
Third, Mr. Del George emphasized that the purpose of the in-creased inspection frequency was to confirm that other> areas of Applicant's operation were in compliance with Commission regula-After several weeks of increased inspection effort the tions.
NRC Staff did so conclude, and the inspection frequency was reduced to its previous level.
(Del George, Applicant's Pre-pared Testimony at 16-17, ff. Tr. 2344.)
Paragraph 21 Intervenors' statement that allegations made by former guards at the Quad-Cities Station resulted in the crimi-
- However, nal indictment of Edison and two employees is true.
Intervenors faif'even to, mention that a trial was subsequently held and Applicant and its employees were found not guilty.
In addition, Intervenors
( Applicant's Proposed Fiding 708. )
~.. _. _.
. fail to mention that the Commission specifically found that Applicant took " prompt corrective action on the specific items of noncompliance which were identified."
(Applicant Proposed Finding 709.)
Paragraph 22 No response.
Paragraph 23 Intervenors' discussion of the steam generator bolt-ing problem at Braidwood is misleading.
First, it is irrespon-sible for Intervenors to cite the original characterization of the bolting problem as a " breakdown" in the quality assurance programs at Byron and Braidwood, without providing any explana-tion of the subsequent retraction of this terminology.
In fact, while a February 2, 1983 NRC Staff transmittal letter makes reference to a breakdown in Applicant's quality assurance program at Byron, the Staff panel testified that this reference was a mischaracterization, that the wrong version of the trans-mittal letter was originally sent to the Applicant, and that the proper version subsequently sent contained no such reference.
(Hayes, Tr. 2451, 3637-3638.) Moreover, the Staff specifically testified that the bolting problems at Braidwood and Byron did not represent a breakdown in the Applicant's quality assurance program.
(Forney, Tr. 3637.)
Paragraph 24 No response.
Paragraph 25 No response.
. Paragraph 26 Intervenors' assertion that the discovered noncom-pliances are only the "tip of the iceberg" is offeredrwithout record support.
In fact, such a suggestion by Intervenors was rejected by witnesses for Applicant and the NRC Staff.
(Stanish, Tr. 2620, 2627; Hayes, Tr. 3690; Forney, Tr. 3691-92, 3708.)
Paragraphs 27-30 Intervenors' proposed findings concerning Systems Control Corporation (" SCC") inaccurately characterize Applicant as having failed to take corrective action to remedy problems with this contractor.
In fact, audits and surveillances by Applicant's quality assurance department resulted in the issuance of two stop-work orders to SCC.
(Applicant's Proposed Findings 523, 524.)
Moreover, Applicant assigned personnel of the Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory, the independent testing agency I
at Byron, to the SCC plant to perform a 100% reinspection of all items.
In addition, panels already shipped and received at Byron were reinspected and repaired.
(Applicant's Proposed Finding 525.)
Following extensive NRC inspections, all QA/QC pro-gram deficiencies at SCC were corrected and verified by NRC l
Region IV inspectors in a follow-up inspection.
Since early 1980, both Applicant and the NRC Staff have made certain that problems associated with equipment supplied to Byron by SCC have been corrected.
(Applicant's Proposed Findings 526-528.)
The NRC Staff testified,that it considers Applicant's conduct in response to problems with SCC to have been very responsible.
(Applicant's Proposed Finding 529.)
i r
, Paragraphs 31-36 Intervenors' Proposed Finding 35 implies that Appli-cant was irresponsible in not issuing a stop-work to Batfield Electric Company until January 1981.
However, while problems had earlier been identified, they were discrete and gave no indication that Hatfield had a broader problem with the im-All earlier plementation of its quality assurance program.
problems had been resolved to the satisfaction of NRC Region Both Applicant and NRC Staff witnesses agreed that a III.
stop-work in response to these earlier problems would not have been appropriate.
(Applicant Proposed Finding 521.)
Following issuance of the stop-work order in Jan-uary 1981, Hatfield undertook, at Applicant's direction, a broad range of corrective actions.
These corrective actions satisfied both Applicant and the NRC Staff.
The stop-work was lifted in April 1981.
(Applicant's Proposed Finding 522.)
Paragraph 37 No response.
Paragraph 38 Intervenors mischaracterize Inspection Report 78-07.
Contrary to Intervenors' assertion, the fact is that Inspection Report 78-07 never found a failure by Reliable Sheet Metal to prescribe required experience for quality assurance inspection personnel.
What,,the report found was that the experience l
requirement was not prescribed in an Applicant-approved docu-l ment.
(Shewski, Tr. 2511.)
. Paragraph 39 f
The stop-work order against Reliable Sheet Metal will not be lifted until Reliable's QA/QC program is entirely accept-able to Applicant's quality assurance organization.
This will only occur following complete reinspections by Reliable and overinspections by Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory, the inde-pendent testing agency on site at Byron.
(Applicant's Proposed Findings 532, 486.)
Paragraph 40 Here Intervenors have plainly distorted the record.
on cross-examination by Intervenors, Mr. Shewski In fact, stated that he knew nothing of any plans by Applicant to re-quest such a variance.
(Shewski, Tr. 2591-92.)
This is not a failure to rebut a " charge" in the sense that other evidence established that such plans existed.
Rather, it was a direct statement that such a plan had, to Mr. Shewski's knowledge, never been formulated.
Assuming Applicant has no plans to request such a variance, how else was Mr. Shewski to respond?
Paragraph 41 Intervenors claim that Hunter production people, under pressure to work quickly, were doing shoddy work.
How-(
ever, the allegations in this regard of Intervenors' witness, Michael Smith, were based solely on hearsay reports from two P pefitters.
(Smith, Intervenors' Prepared Testimony at 21, i
)n cross examination, Mr. Smith testified that e
ff. Tr. 3243.)
he knows of no pipe supports which were improperly installed.
I (Smith, Tr. 3274-3275.)
i
Paragraph 42 NO response.
Paragraph 43 Intervenors claim that on at least ten occasions pipe support inspections were documented but never performed, rely-ing solely on Mr. Smith's testimony that on these occasions he witnessed Frank McGhee, Hunter's QA Inspector Supervisor, initial reports without first verifying that the inspection had Intervenors' proposed finding ignores the stipu-taken place.
lated testimony of Hunter Corporation Lead Auditor Michael Zeise that Mr. McGhee initialled documents in this manner only on three occasions and that he, Zeice, was not informed that any of these instances, which involved welds, had failed subse-quent testing.
(Applicant's Proposed Findings 577-578.)
Paragraph 44 Intervenors cite Mr. Smith's testimony that once or twice a week he was instructed not to include problems in his However, Mr. Smith's testimony on this issue audit reports.
Intervenors' witness only identified four speci-was confused.
fic instances when he did not include a problem in an audit These instances occurred during performance of Audit report.
059-3 and entailed two supports which apparently lacked docu-mentation and two sets of documentation for supports he was On cross-examination Mr. Smith explained unable to locate.
that these probl' ems were,not included in Audit 059-3 because they did not fall within the scope of the audit checklist.
(Applicant'sProposedFib. ding 561.)
. Intervenors characterize the reason given by Mr. Smith's supervisor for not including such problems in an audit report as "the purported excuse that the problem would be caught later There is no evidence, however, that any problem observed on."
by Mr. Smith but not included in his audit reports was not subsequently remedied.
In fact, Mr. Smith testified that an item was not mentioned in an audit report only when the auditors were assured that the Hunter Corporation QA department was already aware of the problem and would resolve it.
(Appli-cant's Proposed Finding 562. )
Paragraph 45 Intervenors claim that Mr. Smith was instructed not to conduct a thorough audit of the Authorized Nuclear Inspector.
The testimony of both Mr. Somsag and Mr. Smith, however, indi-cated that this audit was limited in reope and was pe[ formed thorough]y with regard to its limited purpose.
(Applicant's Proposed Findings 573-574.)
Paragraph 46 Intervenors assert that Mr. Smith was instructed by l
Mr. Somsag and Art Simon to avoid the NRC personnel on site.
I On cross-examination, however, Mr. Smith indicated he was unfamiliar with the NRC's on-site activities.
There is no evidence that he attempted to contact the NRC during the time l
he was employed by Hunter Corporation.
Mr. Somsag denied issuing such instructions and the NRC inspector who investi-found no evidence of a gated this allegation, D,. W. Hayes, Hunter Corporation policy precluding employees from talking l
. freely to an NRC inspector.
Mr. Hayes found, based on his own inspection experiences at Byron, that he could always talk to anyone he wished.
(Applicant's Proposed Findings 585-587.)
Paragraph 47 Intervenors claim that Mr. Smith's audit reports were substantively changed by the deletion of critical passages.
Review of these changes, however, indicated that no findings or underlying facts were deleted from Mr. Smith's reports and that any changes made were editorial and did not detract from the prophylactic or remedial purpose of the reports.
(Applicant's Proposed Findings 566-570.)
Paragraph 48 No response.
Paragraph 49 Intervenors' proposed finding cites only a portion of NRC Inspector Yin's testimony that Hunter's program for timcly inspections of piping suspension system components was not being implemented in the Unit 1 Containment Area.
In his full testimony, Mr. Yin explained that the program was being follow-ed with this single exception.
Moreover, according to Mr. Yin the foreman in the Unit I containment area had simply misinter-preted the program's requirements.
(NRC, Tr. 3797.)
Intervenors also misstate the testimony of Appli-cant's witness, Michael Stanish.
They claim he testified that i
v.
" shortcuts", contrary to' regulations, permitted field changes in pipe support installa, tion prior to approval.
Mr. Stanish testified that field changes were made before formal written l
l l
. approval but after oral approval by the designer.
(Stanish, Tr. 2659.)
Mr. Stanish never called this a " shortcut."
Paragraph 50 While the facts Intervenors choose to present here are true, in context they do not support the conclusions Intervenors would have the Board draw.
Intervenors ignore Mr. Stanish's testimony explaining that the reason Applicant did not discover the bent diesel generator anchor bolts at Unit I before they were discovered by the NRC Staff was that inspection of this particular equipment had not yet been per-formed by the contractor.
(Stanish, Tr. 2657.)
In addition, while Intervenors imply that grouting anchor bolts renders them inaccessible for purposes of inspection, the record is clearly to the contrary.
Mr. Stanish testified that even after grout-ing, the tops of the bolts remain visible, and if bent they have a noticeable out-of-plumbness appearance.
(Stanish, Tr.
2655.)
Indeed, the bent anchor bolts at Unit I were discovered after they had been grouted.
(Stanish, Tr. 2655.)
It simply is unwarranted to conclude, as Intervenors urge, that this condition would not have been discovered by Applicant or the relevant contractor during the course of scheduled future inspections.
j Paragraph 51 In describing their witness, Daniel Gallagher, Inter-venors claim Mr. Gallagher is a batch plant operator with seven years of experience.
This description is misleading since at the time he was hired by Blount Brothers Corporation, in 1975, f
. I Mr. Gallagher had no prior experience in mixing concrete.
(Gallagher, Applicant's Prepared Testimony at 4, ff. Tr. 3459.)
Intervenors claim that Applicant pressured Blount Brothers to increase concrete production.
However, Mr. Gallagher testified that this alleged pressure did not affect concrete quality.
(Applicant's Proposed Findings 616-617.)
Intervenors also claim that the Ross plant was incap-The NRC able of producing competent Category I concrete.
Staff, however, reported that safety-related concrete had been mixed at the Ross plant on two occasions in 1976.
(NRC Pre-i pared Testimony at 23, Ex. F at 4, ff. Tr. 3586.)
In addition Donald Pope stated he has used the Ross plant to produce Cate-gory I concrete.
(Applicant's Proposed Finding 627.)
Paragraph 52 Intervenors falsely assert that Applicant offered no evidence that the Ross plant is capable of producing competent As noted above Mr. Pope testified safety-related concrete.
that the Ross plant can and has been used to produce conforming f
safety-related concrete.
(Applicant's Proposed Finding 627.)
Paragraph 53 Intervenors claim that the trucks used to mix and transport the Ross plant batches were incapable of uniformly The NRC Staff mixing the ingredients of a dry mix or batch.
found that the safety-related concrete batched at the Ross plant had been fransported in trucks which had been tested for i
uniform mixing capacity.
(NRC Proposed Findings B-180-H-181.)
. Mr. Gallagher's claim that on the first work day following his discharge Mr. Pope tried to mix a safety-related batch at the Ross plant was disputed by Mr. Pope.
Mr_ Pope stated that he did not operate the Ross plant on or near that day and that there were no batch tickets indicating the Ross plant had been used on that day.
(Pope, Applicant's Prepared Testimony at 16, ff. Tr. 2833.)
Paragraph 54 No response.
Paragraph 55 Intervenors claim that there was no maintenance program for the Ross plant and that Lou Andre lied by informing the NRC otherwise.
Mr. Gallagher, however, testified that he and Mr. Pope conscientiously performed maintenance of both plants.
Mr. Gallagher's testimony that Mr. Andre lied to an NRC inspector was based on the witness' misconception of the scope of Mr. Andre's statements.
As evident from the testimony of the NRC Staff, Mr. Andre was answering questions limited to l
calibration of the weighing and measuring apparatus at the f
These are the only components of the batch batch plants.
plants whose maintenance was regularly scheduled and which were considered by the NRC as having any safety significance.
(Applicant's Proposed Findings 611-613.)
Paragraph 56 Inter enors' assertion that Applicant offered "no credible evidence" to counter Mr. Gallagher's allegation that 100,000 yards of concrete was mixed with non-conforming aggre-l l
. gate simply ignores substantial portions of the record.
Messrs.
Tallent and Johnson testified to the extensive testing done on both the aggregate and the resulting concrete used in-construc-tion at the Byron site.
The NRC Staff testified that on the two occasions that aggregate was found not conforming the Applicant took appropriate steps to ensure that the aggregate was..st used and that concrete placed with non-conforming aggregate was tested for strength.
Contrary to Intervenors' claim that Mr. Pope complained about the aggregate "to no avail," Mr. Pope testified that when he voiced doubts regarding the aggregate quality he had been reassured by review of cylinder test results which proved the aggregate used was conforming.
(Applicant's Proposed Findings 597-599.)
By comparison, Intervenors' claim that 100,000 yards of safety-related concrete was made with non-conforming aggre-gate was supported only by the speculative testimony of Mr.
Gallagher.
On cross-examination this witness acknowledged he was not privy to the various test results and knew of no speci-fic instance when non-conforming aggregate was used in the batching of safety-related concrete.
(Applicant's Proposed Findings 599, 602.)
Paragraph 57 Intervenors' claim that water was added in excess of specifications has no support in the record; Mr. Gallagher admitted that his testimony involved water added surrepti-tiously without documentation, not water added in excess of specifications.
(Applicant's Proposed Finding 606.)
l
..,.... -. ~.
.. - - ~.
Contrary to Intervenors' claim that Applicant and/or Blount Brothers had too few QA employees to supervise concrete placement, thus permitting the surreptitious addition of water to the concrete mix by workers, Messrs. Pope, Tallent and Johnson testified that there was a QA/QC inspector present at every placement or pour.
(Pope, Tr. 2879, Tallent and Johnson, Tr. 3978.)
According to Mr. Johnson, water could not be added to the concrete without these inspectors being aware of it because the addition of water would require changes in the operation of the trucks which would be both seen and heard.
(Applicant's Proposed Finding 607.)
Paragraph 58 Contrary to Intervenors' hearsay claim that test samples were taken only before water was added at the pour site, Mr. Johnson of PTL testified that new samples a[e taken and additional slump tests are run after water is added at the pour site.
(Tallent and Johnson, Tr. 3965-3966.)
Paragraph 59 Intervenors claim that even if QA/QC personnel did observe the unauthorized addition of excess water, Blount Brothers' production supervisors would overrule them and order l
the addition of water anyway.
First, as discussed in Paragraph 57 above there is no evidence that excessive water was added, i
Second, Mr. Gallagher admitted that he knew of no specific l
v.
i instance when Blount Brothers production personnel overruled QA l
personnel in this regard; his testimony as based solely on unsubstantiated hearsay.
(Gallagher, Tr. 3492-3495.)
l
. 1 Paragraph 60 Intervenors assert "there is absolutely no evidence in the record that [the cement storage silo blower which had an oil leak) was actually fixed."
Again Intervenors have ignored the the record; both Mr. Pope and the NRC staff testified that oil leakage problem was remedied in a timely manner and did not significantly contaminate the cement used.
(Applicant's Pro-posed Findings 620-622.)
Paragraph 61 Intervenors claim that Mr. Gallagher was somehow prevented from correcting misrepresentations made by Blount There is no evi-Brothers QC personnel to NRC investigators.
dence that Mr. Gallagher ever attempted to contact the NRC during his employment by Blount Brothers.
NRC inspector D.W.
Hayes concluded, based on-his inspection activities at Byron, that no worker was prevented from talking freely with him.
(NRC, Tr. 3799 )
Paragraph 62 Intervenors incorrectly assert that Applicant intro-duced no direct evidence of test results relating to the strength of safety-related concrete.
Applicant proffered Marvin Tallent, Jr. and Joseph Johnson, employees of Pittsburgh "esting Labora-tory, who testified to the procedures and results of the strength tests for safety-related concrete.
Contrary to Intervenors'
+
claim, these test results demonstrated the strength of concrete actually used in constru,ction.
Although Intervenors claim that water was added to concrete after test samples were taken, in
. fact the evidence is that additional test samples were taken of the concrete after water was added.
(Tallent and Johnson, Tr.
~
3965-3967.)
Paragraph 63 No response.
Paragraph 64 Intervenors claim that the batch plant operators never saw any test results.
Mr. Pope, however, stated that he was aware of the test results and that he would be informed of any failing test results.
(Pope, Applicant's Prepared Testi-mony at 10-13, ff. Tr. 2833.)
Paragraph 65 Intervenors assert there are serious doubts about the accuracy of Blount Brothers records and documents but offer no direct evidence of inaccuracies.
Mr. Gallagher's claim that the batch tickets failed to reflect added water is based on second-hand reports from unidentified sources.
(Applicant's Proposed Finding 604.)
By comparison the NRC Staff testified that NRC inspectors found no reason to doubt the accuracy of Blount Brothers records and documents.
(NRC, Tr. 3769-3770.)
Intervenors specifically claim that Mr. Pope admitted f
that batch tickets were not always accurate.
The basis of this assertion is the following exchange.
"Q.
Mr. Pope, the pour slips aren't always correct and accurate, were they?'
A.
No.
i I
. Q.
Okay.
A.
I tried to make them that way, but I'm not perfect."
~
Clearly Mr. Pope was not commenting on the general reliability or accuracy of these records but on the possibility of his own human error in filling out these forms.
(Pope, Tr.
2846-2847.)
1 Paragraph 66 While conceding that Mr. Stomfay-Stitz' demeanor as a witness " raises some questions concerning his specific recollec-i tion of events while he was employed at Byron," Intervenors 4
contend that his demeanor on the witness stand 5 years after he left the Byron site merely reflects the competency of QA/QC personnel at Byron.
In fact, Mr. Stomfay-Stitz was repeatedly admonished by the Board for his evasive answers.
He demon-strated an ability to selectively recall events that purportedly transpired during his employment by Blount Brothers.
(Appli-cant's Proposed Finding 682.)
Paragraph 67 Intervenors' claim that the manner in which Mr.
Stomfay-Stitz performed his receiving inspections resulted in a
" completely unreliable and misleading set of QA/QC documenta-tion records" distorts the record.
Mr. Stomfay-Stitz testified that he did follow Blount Brothers receiving and inspection Work Procedures,yith regard to all the many materials he re-ceived with the sole exceptions of embeds and masonry blocks which arrived without accompanying documentation.
Documenta-tion always arrived shortly thereafter; documentation for the
~27-masonry blocks usually arrived within hours of the shipment, and embed documents customarily arrived no more than two days The embeds themselves and partially prepared R&I re-later.
ports were segregated until this documentation arrived and the reports could be completed.
No non-conforming material was improperly accepted and no material was used in contruction i
prior to receipt of complete documentation.
(Applicant's Proposed Findings 645-647.)
Paragraph 68 Intervenors' assertion that Category I masonry blocks were accepted without recording of the fact that these blocks were wet and dirty is misleading.
The blocks were not accepted for Category I construction; instead, they were properly tagged and quarantined for Category II use only.
(Applicant's Proposed Finding 660.)
P_aragraph 69 Intervenors claim that Mr. Stomfay-Stitz' tendon inspections " slacked off" with the knowledge and acquiescence of Mr. Barnhart and Mr. Donica.
On cross-examination, however, Mr. Stomfay-Stitz changed his testimony, stating that neither Mecsrs. Barnhart nor Donica had so acquiesced or had instructed He further stated that he only inferred him to " slack off".
since that they had knowledge of the nature of his inspections, Most impor-he never discussed his " slacking off" with them.
tantly, Mr. Stom1ay-Stitz testified that his inspections during this period did not result in the acceptance of non-conforming materials.
(Stomfay-Stitz, Tr. 3010-3011.)
l i
l Paragraph 70 Intervenors assert that Mr. Stomfay-Stitz was ordered
- However, to fill out R&I reports for items he had not inspected.
the record indicates that these items were properly inspected by qualified personnel who then instructed Mr. Stomfay-Stitz on how the reports should be filled out. (Applicant's Proposed Findings 648-649.)
Paragraph 71 Intervenors assert that daily, rather than weekly, inspections of the tendon storage barns were required.
Again Intervenors fail to fully acknowledge the evidence placed-before the Board.
John Mihovilovich testified that although an early version of the Blount Brothers Work Procedures required daily inspections, Sargent & Lundy approved weekly rather than daily storage inspections because the storage barns were venti-A letter from Sargent & Lundy confirming this method of lated.
l inspection in November of 1977 predated Mr. Stomfay-Stitz in-spections, and weekly inspections were incorporated into subse-quent revisions of B.lount Brothers procedures.
(Mihovilovich, Tr. 2786-2787.)
Paragraph 72 Intervenors claim that Mr. Stomfay-Stitz found tendon storage conditions unacceptable because of the presence of mud however, the tendons were stored on pallets and water.
In fact, which were ten inches high and wrapped in protective plastic, and Mr. Stomfay-Stitz actually testified that he never found l
His any dirt, mud or condensation on the stored tendons.
. disagreement with Mr. Donica regarding other aspects of the storage conditions was characterized by Mr. Stomfay-Stitz as a professional disagreement in interpreting the storage-report forms.
(Applicant's Proposed Findings 652-653.)
Intervenors' allegation that the NRC attributed subsequent discovery of some rusted tendons to storage condi-tions is misleading.
The rust occurred where vertical posts holding the tendons in place had rubbed off the protective grease on some tendons.
NRC inspector Hayes explained that the rust problem was not a result of storage conditions but would have resulted, in these circumstances, no matter how clean or dry the storage barns were.
In fact, NRC inspectors regularly examined storage conditions and found them acceptable.
(Appli-cant's Proposed Findings 654-655.)
Paragraph 73 Intervenors claim that Category II masonry blocks were not properly stored or marked.
Mr. Stomfay-Stitz, how-ever, testified that these blocks were tagged with yellow tape and designated for Category II use only.
Contrary to Mr.
Stomfay-Stitz' unsubstantiated speculation, there is no evi-dence in the record that the construction workers ignored these tags and used the quarantined blocks in Category I construction.
(Applicant's Proposed Findings 660-661.)
Paragraph 74 Interhenorsastertthatthe" bolting-in"surveillances were not properly performed.
" Bolting-in" as defined by both Mr. Barnhart and Mr. Stomfay-Stitz was a simple review of
. on-going construction to ensure that bolts were being properly placed.
Notwithstanding Mr. Stomfay-Stitz' contention that bolting-in was performed improperly, the record demonstrates that the tasks required of Mr. Stomfay-Stitz in this regard were relatively simple and were well within his capabilities.
At any rate, subsequent to Mr. Stomfay-Stitz' bolting-in sur-veillances the slotted connections he reviewed were all re-placed and reinspected.
In addition, the fixed connections claimed to have been reviewed by Mr. Stomfay-Stitz (Mr. Barnhart testified that Mr. Stomfay-Stitz' bolting-in duties encompassed only slotted connections) were all subsequently checked for torque by Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory.
(Applicant's Proposed Finding 670-676.)
Paragraph 75 Intervenors claim that an inspection by Blount Brothers for cracks in tendon buttonheads was inadequately pe rmed.
The record, however, demonstrates that this "inspectivn" was actually an informal review conducted simply to ascertain the extent of the problem.
In fact, INRYCO, the tendon supplier, subsequently conducted a 100% reinspection of the tendon button-heads.
The NRC Staff verified the satisfactory resolution of the cracked buttonhead problem, as noted in NRC reports.
(Applicant's Proposed Findings 656-658.)
I Intervenors assert that "it appears the documents generatedfromtbis[the'BlountBrothersreview] inspection have been destroyed or otherwise rendered unavailable."
This assertion is wholly baseless, and is an affront to the Appli-
. there is absolutely no evidence that documents generated cant; from the preliminary review performed by Blount Brothers per-sonnel were destroyed or "otherwise rendered unavailable."
Paragraph 76 Intervenors assert that Sargent & Lundy, on learning a structural beam was not installed, would delete that beam from its plans and then generate paperwork to cover its deci-sion.
Intervenors thus imply that these design decisions were made without appropriate engineering analysis.
There is no l
evidence, however, that any structural beam was mistakenly or improperly deleted during construction.
Nor is there any evidence that Sargent & Lundy did not perform appropriate analyses prior to revising design plans.
(Applicant's Proposed Finding 679.)
Intervenors state that applicant " appeared unable or unwilling to proffer any evidence on this matter."
Applicant i
points out, however, that responding to Mr. Stomfay-Stitz' confused allegations was difficult.
As the NRC Staff noted in its review of Mr. Stomfay-Stitz' allegation pertaining to the steel beams, its attempts to investigate the allegation were frustrated by Mr. Stomfay-Stitz' inability to identify the location of the beam in question or the person he contacted at Sargent & Lundy.
A number of Mr. Stomfay-Stitz' allegations were based on pure speculation, unsubstantiated by specific Such" allegations left the Applicant in the dark with evidence.
regard to formulating a meaningful response.
(Applicant's Proposed Findings 678-680.)
_ _.. ~... - _. _, -. _ _, _ -. _
....._.-____-___,m_..
,, -, _ _ _ _. _. _.,.. _ _, _, -,. _ _ _.., -. ~. - _ -., -.,. _,,, _,,.. _ _, _ -
. Paragraph 77 Intervenors assert that the testing procedures were inadequate to identify non-conforming aggregate and imply that either the procedures or the results were manipulated in order to obtain passing results.
Messrs. Tallent and Johnson, em-ployees of Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory, which tested the aggregate used at Byron, explained the procedures followed, which included daily testing and multiple sampling of the aggregate pile.
Contrary to the gist of Intervenors' proposed finding, Mr. Stomfay-Stitz acknowledged that he had no know-ledge that PTL either falsified or failed to report negative test results.
Moreover, although Intervenors assert that Mr.
Stomfay-Stitz was never informed of more than one failing sample of aggregate, he admitted on cross-examination that he did not receive test results from PTL and thus was nor informed when aggregate samples passed a test.
Messrs. Tallent and Johnson testified that the only time during Mr. Stomfay-Stitz' tenure at Byron that the aggregate was non-conforming occurred in March, 1979, at which time appropriate steps were taken to segregate the condemned aggregate.
(Applicant's Proposed Findings 664-665).
Intervenors misrepresent the testimony of the NRC Staff by claiming that in response to failing sieve test re-sults, "Sargent & Lundy merely changed the specifications..."
The NRC Staff acYually testified that testing verified that concrete quality was not compromised, and that the excessive fines were composed of limestone, which under the circumstances
' was deemed to be a permissible component of the aggregate.
(NRC, Tr. 3775, NRC Prepared Testimony Ex. F, 4-5, ff. Tr.
3586.)
Paragraph 78 Intervenors assert that no precautions were taken to ensure that workers did not take aggregate from the condemned portion of the aggregate pile.
The record, however, indicates that proper procedures were followed when aggregate was con-demned.
During his cross-examination, Mr. Stomfay-Stitz con-ceded the accuracy of a series of memoranda he authored which traced the procedures followed after the aggregate was con-demned in March, 1979.
These memoranda show that the condemned aggregate was appropriately cordoned off, that the cordons were checked daily, and that workers were not taking any of the condemned aggregate for construction use.
(Applicant's Pro-posed Finding 666-667.)
Paragraph 79 Intervenors assert that non-conforming aggregate was used in safety-related concre.e throughout Mr. Stomfay-Stitz' This assertion is based on the fact that the tenure at Byron.
NRC did not investigate the acceptability of the aggregate pile between the 1975 and 1979 condemnations.
As the testimony of the NRC Staff and Applicant's witnesses indicated, during the 1975 and 1979 occasions the condemned aggregate was properly quarantined and *Whatever, amounts of non-conforming aggregate l
were placed did not result in any failed strength tests.
(Applicant's Proposed Findings 599-602, 667-668).
Although I
l
~.
. Intervenors imply that Mr. Hayes testified that non-conforming aggregate was used at a time other than during the 1975 and 1979 condemnations, in reality Mr. Hayes' testimony in this regard pertained to the problems with aggregate encountered in December, 1975.
The inference that the aggregate was at other times non-conforming is unsupported by any credible evidence.
Messrs. Tallent and Johnson testified that daily tests were performed on the aggregate, and from September, 1979 through the the date of Mr. Gallagher's leaving Byron (June 1, 1979),
aggregate failed conformance tests only in March, 1979.
(Appli-cant's Proposed Finding 599.)
Paragraph 80 Intervenors claim that the Blount Brothers production organization controlled the QA/QC organization so that QA/QC inspectors lacked the independence and support necessary to perform their jobs.
This assertion is premised on the purported control Blount brothers production supervisors had over deci-sions regarding hiring, overtime and pay increases for QA/QC Personnel.
Absent evidence that such decisions had an effect on performance of the Quality Assurance function, the facts relied on by Intervenors are immaterial.
The evidence indi-cates that the Blount Brothers QA organization had the neces-In sary independence to identify and correct quality problems.
fact, Mr. Stomfay-stitz acknowledged that regardless of the control purporte*dly exercised by the production organization The NRC the QA/QC staff was able to identify quality problems.
staff testified likewise.
There is absolutely no evidence to
. support Intervenors' claim that QA/QC personnel were not sup-ported in disagreements with production.
(Applicant's Proposed Findings 640-641.)
Paragraph 81 Intervenors assert that Mr. Stomfay-Stitz was inade-quately trained to perform his job responsibilities.
By his own admission, however, Mr. Stomfay-Stitz received adequate training to be a materials controller.
(Applicant's Proposed Findings 636-637.)
In addition, the testimony illustrated that bolting-in was a relatively simple and limited review of on-going construction, and Mr. Stomfay-Stitz was adequately pre-pared for the performance of this simple task.
(Applicant's Proposed Findings 670-674.)
Although the NRC Staff stated that Messrs. Stomfay-Stitz and Barnhart were not certified to per-form structural steel inspections, it did not assert that either man was incapable of performing a limited review of the nature described by the witnesses.
(NRC, Tr. 3725-3728).
At any rate, the slotted bolts which Mr. Stomfay-Stitz reviewed were subsequently subjected to a 100% reinspection and the l
fixed bolts were subsequently checked by PTL for torgue com-i pliance.
(Applicant's Proposed Findings 675-676.)
1 Paragraph 82 Intervenors assert that QA/AC personnel were severely l
overworked and quote Applicant's counsel as saying it is " strange that someone who graduated from high school less than a year before had more work to do than anyone else on the staff" with f
the exception of Mr. Barnhard.
This statement is cited out of I
i
. i context since it was a comment on Mr. Stomfay-Stitz' perception of his responsibilities rather than on the actual extent of those responsibilities.
(Stomfay-Stitz, Tr. 3128-321,9.)
Paragraph 83 There is no credible basis for Intervenors' claim that Blount Brothers employees were discouraged from coming forward with evidence of wrongdoing.
The NRC Staff speci-fically found that Blount Brothers QA/QC personnel were free to report problems.
(NRC Tr. 3756-3757.)
NRC inspector D.W.
Hayes added, based on his own inspection activities at Byron, that he found no instance when a worker was prevented from talking freely with him.
(NRC, Tr. 3799.)
By comparison to Intervenors' vague accusations, the activities of Messrs. Gallagher and Stomfay-Stitz after leaving Blount Brothers' employ suggests that their failure to report problems to the NRC was their own choice.
Neither man, despite the testimony of both that they believed the problems to be serious, contacted the NRC after leaving the Byron site.
(Applicant's Proposed Finding 683.)
Paragraph 84 Intervenors challenge the testimony of Mr. Mihovilovich on the basis that he was aware that Mr. Stomfay-Stitz believed that some of the documents were false.
Aside from the issue of whether Mr. Mihovilovich agreed with Mr. Stomfay-Stitz' testi-mony, Applicant 1 points out that the record indicates that the majority of documents discussed by Mr. Mihovilovich were not challenged by Mr. Stomfay-Stitz.
At any rate, Mr.Stomfay-Stitz'
~
. claims regarding Blount Brothers documents must be weighed in view of his demeanor as a witness and his admittedly confused memory.- (Intervenors' Proposed Finding 66, Applicant's Pro-posed Finding 682.)
Although Intervenors assert that Mr.
Barnhart had "no excuse" for not completing the R&I's himself, they fail to note that Mr. Barnhart instructed Mr. Stomfay-Stitz to examine the materials received in order to confirm the inspections performed by Mr. Barnhart.
(Applicant's Proposed Finding 648.)
Paragraph 85 Intervenors' assertion that Applicant posted signs instructing workers how to contact the NRC with evidence of wrongdoing only at the insistence of the resident inspector is an obvious and irresponsible mischaracterization of the record.
In fact, the resident inspector testified that he observed such signs (called "NRC Form 3's") at the time he arrived on site.
(Forney, Tr. 3663.)
In that same portion of the record, although ignored by Intervenors, the resident inspector testified that i
he knew of no practice either by Applicant or by any contractors which inhibits workers from coming forward with information regarding problems or defects.
(Forney, Tr. 3660, 3662; Appli-cant's Proposed Finding 534.)
Paragraph 86 The information provided here by Intervenors is in-complete.
At Tf.' 2706, the page following that cited by In-tervenors, Mr. Stanish testified that he has been approached by contractor quality assurance supervisors with information l
l i.
e 38-initiated by contractor employees.
He testified that Appli-cant's quality assurance organization ir.vestigated the allega-tions to determine their significance.
(Stanish, Tr._2706, 2707.)
Paragraph 87 Intervenors again misstate the record by adding gratuitous language to the characterization of the testimony of Robert Querio.
Mr. Querio simply stated that he had no know-ledge of a process by which Applicant instructs contractors of their responsibility to protect contractor employees who come forward with information concerning problems and deficiencies.
a Mr. Querio never said he had no reason to believe that such responsibility was communicated.
Moreover, Mr. Querio further testified that to encourage workers to report perceived problems large signs describing reporting procedures are conspi uously posted throughout the Byron plant.
(Querio, Tr. 2741; Appli-cant's Proposed Finding 535.)
Paragraph 88 Contrary to the unsupported assertions of Intervenors, there plainly has been no failure on the part of Applicant to facilitate the free flow of information from workers with l
knowledge of problems or deficiencies.
(Applicant's Opinion Portion of Proposed QA/QC Findings at 21, 22; Applicant's Proposed Findings 533-535.)
f Paragraph 89 No response.
1
-eyy Tv~7e-y+--+r---
ep?wt-.-^tWr*--*
ehe--.vyw.-----%.-mm my.we iy--9m-e em'e-m----
-,-+e----wm-
~e-w'i t-,
e-w
- - - -w ea w w
y
.y.r--e rwre e-es-9seme--'Y e
e-Wza e-%w
e j Paragraph 90 While the emphasis of Commonwealth Edison as a com-pany is necessarily on production, the emphasis of its quality assurance organization is wholly quality.
(Shewski, Tr. 2402, 2580; Spraul, Tr. 3569-71, 3578.)
Moreover, Intervenors' citation to Mr. Shewski is inaccurate, and therefore mislead-ing, to the extent it implies that Mr. Shewski testified that QA/QC has low priority, or that QA/QC hiring practices indicate low priority.
In fact, a suggestion to this effect by Inter-venors was firmly rejected by Mr. Shewski.
(Shewski, Tr. 2396.)
Paragraph 91 Contrary to the imprecise assertion by Intervenors, there has been only one quality assurance superintendent at the Byron site:
Michael Stanish has held the position since it was estab.ished in January, 1981.
( Applicant Proposed Finding 476. )
The four quality assurance supervisors who preceded Mr. Stanish replaced each other according to the normal corporate manage-ment development and promotional sequence available to promis-i ing management personnel.
(Except in the the case of one To have supervisor who was killed in an automobile accident.)
deprived these people of promotion would have resulted in their leaving Commonwealth Edison Company.
(Applicant's Opinion Portion of Proposed QA/QC Findings at 8-9. )
l These changes in quality assurance personnel did not have an adverse Sffect on quality assurance implementation at Byron.
(Id. at 9.)
Any disruption is minor and short lived because continuity during a supervision change is sustained l
l
. through the overall continuity of membership of the site quality assurance group.
(Id. at 9, 10.)
No item of noncompliance was ever issued by the NRC Staff ccacerning Byron quality assurance staffing and management policy.
(Id.)
Paragraph 92 Intervenors have mischaracterized Robert Querio's testimony regarding the staffing of production personnel at Byron.
Both units at Byron are presently staffed for pro-duction.
This entire complement will be taking Unit 1 ex-aminations in May, June and July at 1984.
Therefore, there will be twice as many people taking the exam as will actually be needed for Unit 1.
(Querio, Tr. 2733.)
Presumably, up to half the people taking the test could fail without affecting the adequacy and sufficiency of the licensed staff at Unit 1.
Intervenors fail even to mention these important facts, though they are set out on the very transcript page cited by Inter-venors.
In addition, Intervenors fail to mention that the and has production staff at Byron has been in place since 1978, completed training qualification programs.
(Querio, Tr. 2732, 2733.)
It is thus clear that the current production staff at Byron is experienced and fully trained.
Paragraph 93 This conclusory finding is unsupported by the record in this proceeding.
Applicant directs the Board's attention specifically to Applicant's Proposed Findings 477-479, 497, 498, and Applicant's Opinion Portion at Page 11, for a summary of the record evidence showing that contractors have been given
. the incentive by Applicant to comply with all applicable Commis-sion regulations.
In addition, the Board's attention is directed to Applicant's Proposed Findings 475-499 for a detailed summary of evidence showing that Applicant has in fact effectively monitored and supervised the QA/QC programs of its contractors.
Applicant submits that the fact that Mr. Shewski could not give a precise numerical answer to the question "how many separate contractors have worked on the Byron plant" is indicative of nothing.
Paragraph 94 Intervenors fail to mention the critical fact that Applicant's quality assurance auditors are trained to examine documents and to look for alterations or discrepancies, in order to determine whether the documents have been falsified.
Moreover, this finding demonstrates Intervenor's inability to grasp a fundamental quality assurance concept.
Contrary to the statement in Intervenors' proposed finding, quality assurance personnel do not check their own documents.
Rather, they check the documents generated by quality control and production personnel.
Independence of the quality assurance department from production responsibilities ensures conscientious and thorough document reviews.
( Applicant's Proposed Finding 482. )
Pargraph 95 Notwithstanding Intervenors' generalized claims that Blount Brothers ocuments were falsified, Mr. Stomfay-Stitz ultimately was able to specifically testify to the purported falsity of only a limited number of documents.
However, al-
- though Mr. Stomfay-Stitz apparently found fault with almost every form he was required to complete, he did not testify that the information contained in the documents falsely represented the actual conditions of materials.
Therefore Mr. Miholvilovich's review of pertinent Blount Brothers documents was not an inappro-priate method by which to examine Mr. Stomfay-Stitz' allegations.
In weighing Mr. Miholvilovich's testimony the Board should note that Mr. Stomfay-Stitz's testimony of falsification is riddled with generalizations, evasions and confusion.
(Applicant's Proposed Finding 682.)
Paragraph 96 Intervenors' purported examples of " grudging" com-pliance with Commission regulations completely mischaracterize the record.
A detailed presentation of facts relating to Appli-cant's exception to the formal education requirement for quality control inspectors is found in Applicant's Proposed Findings
{
492 through 494.
Such an exception was necessary in order to preserve the right to demonstrate that an individual without the requisite formal education possessed comparable or equiva-lent competence.
Such a demonstration is specifically per-I mitted by Commission regulations provided that an exception is taken.
The NRC Staff subsequently approved the exception taken by Applicant.
Paragraph 97 Intervenors have mischaracterized the testimony of Michael Stanish regarding items of noncompliance at Byron.
3 Intervenors state that the NRC Staff disagrees with the resolu-tion of some items of noncompliance.
This is simply an incor-Mr. Stt.lsh testified rect portrayal of the cited passage.
that all items of noncompliance had been resolved to the satis-faction of Commonwealth Edison.
He further testified that all items of noncompliance had not necessarily been formally closed by the NRC Staff.
Mr. Stanish said nothing about a disagreement (Stanish, by the Staff over the resolution of the noncompliances.
Tr. 2683-84.)
Paragraphs98-100 Intervenors charge that the 30 noncompliances found This neces-at Byron in 1982 is an indefensively high number.
sarily ignores most of the relevant testimony presented by While the number of Applicant and Staff in this proceeding.
noncompliances identified at Byron in 1982 did increase rela-tive to earlier years, Applicant and Staff took pains to explain in detail the numerous reasons for this increase.
Chairman Palladino last year stated that he
- First, expected a better level of performance from licensees with l
This has been l
respect to construction quality assurance.
translated at the regional level into an enhanced inspection effort by the regional inspectors.
(Hayes, Tr. 3592.)
Second, the arrival on site of a resident inspector in October 1981 contributed to the increased number of noncom-pliances.
(Forney, Tr. 3592. )
Third, as construction at Byron nears completion the inspection activities of'everyone involved, Staff, Applicant
.,,--,-.-y-
-,,,n-,,.,
- - - - + - - - - - -
.r
..+,.-,
,,,.,.-.,v,,--,-
-y--,,--.-.--,-,y...
-, -, -.. - ~
y
- and contractors, have become greater and more complex.
(Forney, Tr. 3605-06; Williams, Tr. 3607.)
The important point, which Intervenors have chosen to ignore, is that the inspection work during this period is more finely detailed and intricate.
(Williams, Tr. 3606.)
In other words, there is more going on than simply an increase in inspector hours.
The inspectors are "there is cer-looking harder, and, as the Staff pointed out, tainly more opportunity to.
find problems."
(Williams, Tr. 3607.)
Finally, and perhaps most important for purposes of it is misleading for Intervenors to compare the
- rebuttal, number of non-compliances in 1982 at Byron Unit I with those in the same year at LaSalle Unit II.
Mr. Forney testified for the Statt that in his judgment certain non-compliances during the final construction stages of a Unit I do not recur at Unit II.
This may be because lessons are learned the first time which prevent recurrence.
(Forney, Tr. 3938, 3939; William, Tr.
The better comparison is obviously with LaSalle Unit I, 3937.)
which had 33 instances of non-compliance in 1982, three more than at Byron Unit I.
(NRC Staff Prepared Testimony at Attach-ment B-3, ff. Tr. 3586.)
Paragraph 101 l
No response.
Paragraphs 102-105 contrdly to the Intervenors' assertions, the general attitude of the NRC Staff Region III toward Applicant's quality The assurance program is one of approval, not skepticism.
. Staff testified that Applicant's quality assurance program has made certain that effective action was taken to correct identi-fied deficiencies before they could develop into major problem (Hayes, NRC Staff Prepared Testimony at 10, ff. Tr.
areas.
The Staff resident inspector testified that Applicant's 3586.)
quality assurance program is good.
(Forney, Tr. 3881.)
I&E Report 82-05 (Applicant's Ex. 8) concluded that Applicant's quality assurance program was good.
(Applicant's Proposed the NRC Finding 509.)
Based on inspections conducted to date, Staff concluded that there is reasonable assurance that Byron has been constructed in accordance with Commission requirements and Applicant's commitments, and can be operated safely.
ff. Tr. 3586.)
(Hayes, NRC Staff Prepared Testimony at 10, Paragraph 106 Michael Stanish did testify that his site quality assurance organization has discovered instances of failure by Inter-Applicant to safeguard Byron safety related equipment.
venors, however, fail to mention that it is the responsibility of the quality assurance organization to discover such problems.
i Mr. Stanish's testimony shows that his organization was doing and was promptly discovering and correcting these its job, l
l problems.
(Stanish, Tr. 2650. )
Paragraph 107 There is no support for Intervenors' assertion that Applicant's qualkty assurance organization does not perform basic monitoring of production.
Intervenors cite a single The citation by example concerning Hatfield Electric Corpany.
e 6 Intervenors is incomplete, however, since at Tr. 2641 Mr.
Stanish explained that the Applicant did not check Hatfield's t
quality assurance manual because the addition of a lower level l
supervisor was thought not required to be included in the manual.
(Stanish, Tr. 2641.
Paragraph 108 No response.
Paragraph 109 There is no support for Intervenors' assertion that voiding nonconformance reports ("NCR") seriously undermines the effectiveness of Applicant's trend'ng analysis.
It is not necessarily true that voiding an NCR makes a trend analysis look better.
(Stanish, Tr. 2647.)
Generally, an NCR is voided upon a determination that the item is in feet not nonconforming.
Therefore, a properly voided NCR should have no effect on a trending analysis.
(Stanish, Tr. 2689.) Moreover, Mr. Stanish's prepared testimony shows that even with respect to the few NCR's which were improperly voided, new NCR's were subsequently generated to maintain the accuracy and integrity of the trend-ing analysis.
(Stanish, Applicant's Prepared Testimony at 12-13, ff. Tr. 2619.)
Paragraph 110 Paragraph 110 suggests that corrective actions taken by Applicant in response to denials of access to waste disposal sites have been sineffective or inadequate.
The language is an irresponsible mischaracterization of Robert Querio's testimony.
,-..r..
_-..-_-r_
. Since 1980, Applicant has been denied access to low-level waste burial sites on eight occasions.
(Querio, Tr.
2719, 2720; Del George, Applicant's Prepared Testimony at 22, ff. Tr. 2344.)
It is true that at the times of these denials of access Applicant had procedures in place for processing, packaging and hauling low-level waste.
(Querio, Tr. 2720.)
However, in response to denials of access to waste disposal sites, Applicant han initiated prompt and thorough corrective measures, including extensive modification to procedures, where a violation of Commission regulations was involved.
This information was presented in great detail in the prepared testimony of Louis O. Del George, and is summarized in Appli-cant's Proposed Findings 699 through 704.
Paragraph 111 The information presented in paragraph 111 is false.
Mr. S'.anish rejected a suggestion by Intervenors' counsel
- First, on cross-examination that Applicant has been " stripping" Unit II of equipment for installation in Unit I.
Mr. Stanish testified that on occasion equipment has been removed from Unit II for use in Unit I.
(Stanish, Tr. 2678.)
Second, there is absolutely no support in the record for Intervenors' assertion that Appli-cant is engaged in a " headlong rush" to complete construction of Unit I, or that quality assurance with respect to either Unit I or Unit II has been compromised in any way as construc-tion of Unit I neare completion.
To the contrary, Mr. Stanish testified that Unit I was not being completed at the expense of Unit II.
(Stanish, Tr. 2679.)
Moreover, testimony by the NRC l
l t
_~_
. staff has established that attention to quality assurance has increased dramatically at Byron as construction of Unit I nears completion.
(Applicant's Proposed Finding 506.)
Paragraph 112 This paragraph incorrectly suggests that a decision by the Byron superintendent to restart a reactor which had shut down for safety reasons is controlled by " production" and not safety considerations.
The evidence in the record is to the Mr. Querio testified concerning procedures for a contrary.
restart after a reactor trip.
(Querio, Tr. 4029-4037.)
The written procedures provide that only the plant superintendent may author.ize a startup and then only after a thorough analysis of the occurrence and a determination, controlled by engineer-ing judgment, that the startup is "in a safe direction."
(Querio, Tr. 4032-4033.)
However, as NRC Inpector Mr. Forney confirmed, because of the complicated electrical circuits, some shut downs are " ghost trips" wherein even after all possible checks are made the exact reason for the occurrence is indeter-minable.
(Forney, Tr. 4083.)
Under such circumstances, with careful monitoring a restart should be allowed even if the cause is still unknown.
(Id.)
Therefore, the evidence demonstrates that a procedure allowing the restart of the reactor after a trip under the conditions described above will not compromise quality assurance efforts to benefit production goals.
Paragraphs ll3-1"i9 These proposed findings mischaracterize the record in A summary of the evidence on this issue is this proceeding.
=_
. presented at pages 28 and 29 of the opinion portion of Appli-cant's proposed QA/QC findings.
The evidence establishes:
(1) The Standard Review Flan referred to by Intervenors is not applicable to Applicant's quality assurance program, (2) Not-withstanding this inapplicability, Applicant's quality assur-ance program in fact incorporates at least six of the seven items referred to by Intervenors, and (3) The seven items are considered relatively trivial by the NRC Staff, and not neces-1
~
sary for compliance with commission regulations.
Paragraph 120 Intervenors here present conclusory facts which are unsupported by either the subsidiary findings which follow or by the full record in this proceeding.
There simply is no evidence that the NRC Staff has an " overly deferential" attitude towards Applicant.
Paragraph 121 Intervenors' statement that 10-12 NRC Region III Inspectors are responsible for ten sites is false.
As the record shows at Tr. 3684, fully 15-18 construction inspectors divide their time among the ten sites within the region.
In addition, Intervenors ignore the fact that Byron has been assigned two full-time resident inspectors.
(Hayes, Tr. 3663. )
1 Paragraph 122 Intervenors' language mischaracterizes the record.
In fact, Mr. ForEey testified as follows:
when the applicant or licensee is required to respond to an item of noncompliance, generally the response requires the appli-cant or licensee to do additional inspec-
. tions whereby in many cases they find addi-tional problems. But the scope of what we look at any time we reach an item of non-compliance is generally expanded upon by the licensee, contractor, or whoever he has do it.
(Forney, Tr. 3691.)
Paragraph 123 Intervenors wrongly assert that Mr. Yin testified that it is a matter of pure luck whether any given item of noncompliance is discovered by the NRC.
The passage cited by Intervenors is unclear, yet it is clearly inaccurate to cite this portion of Mr. Yin's testimony for such a proposition.
(Yin, Tr. 3676.)
Paragraph 124 The testimony of Mr. Hayes cited by Intervenors has nothing to do with the independence of Edison's QA/QC erogram; it concerns Blount Brothers.
(Hayes, Tr. 3756-57, 3760.)
Moreover, the particular question regarding Blount Brothers concerned the independence of quality assurance financial Mr. Hayes' response was that the necessary require-assets.
ments existed to make a finding of independent financial assets.
(Hayes, Tr. 3760.)
Paragraph 125 Once again Intervenors cite testimony out of context.
In context, the facts are these:
The Region III Staff was asked by Intervehors how,many NRC inspectors would be required to inspect all construction activity and equipment at the Byron site.
Mr. Williams responded as follows:
"I'm sure the number
....-- ~. - - - -
. would be commensurate with Commonwealth Edison's quality assur-ance/ quality control staff."
(Williams, Tr. 3685.)
The quality assurance / quality control staff referred to by Mr. Wiiliams was later defined to include the staffs of both Applicant and its Byron contractors.
(Williams, Tr. 3687.)
Mr. Forney then estimated the size of this QA/QC group to be approximately 200 people.
(Forney, Tr. 3688.)
Paragraph 126 Contrary to Intevenors' assertion, Mr. Hayes did not speculate that Mr. Stomfay-Stitz' allegations pertaining to missing structural beams was unsubstantiated based solely on his 35 years experience.
In fact, Mr. Hayes testified that he and other NRC inspectors spent many hours attempting to investi-gate these allegations.
They reviewed all field change requests, telephone memos and correspondence in both Blount Brothers and Sargent & Lundy files for the period of Mr. Stomfay-Stitz's employment.
Mr. Hayes reported that they found no record of any design change that related to any telephone call by Mr.
Stomfay-Stitz in regard to a missing structural beam'.
(NRC, Tr. 3742-3743.)
Paragraph 127 Intervenors suggest that NRC i,spector Hayes simply n
concluded without appropriate investigation that Mr. Stomfay-Stitz had the authority and responsibility to bring forward v.
QA/QC problems.
A complete reading of Mr. Hayes' testimony demonstrates, however, that Mr. Hayes' conclusion was based on his interviews with various Blount Brothers and Applicant personnel and his sWbsequent finding that there was no evidence that QA/QC activities Wcrc Otificd by Elrint Brothers produc-tion.
(Hayes, Tr. 3745.)
Paragraph 128 No response.
Paragraph 129 Again Intervenors fail to fairly reflect the record in their Proposed Finding.
Although Hunter Corporation dis-agreed with the conclusions of the NRC Inspector, believing that its program for inspecting component supports was ade-it modified its procedures in response to the NRC in-
- quate, spection.
The NRC Staff was satisfied with the modifications made by Hunter Corporation.
(Applicant's Proposed Findings 557 and 558.)
Paragraph 130 Intevenors imply that in response to non-conforming aggregate, Sargent and Lundy merely changed the specifications.
On the contrary, Mr. Hayes testified that Sargent & Lundy t
determined after analysis that the quality of concrete was not compromised due to the nature of the fines involved.
(NRC, Tr.
3774, NRC Prepared Testimony, Ex.F, 4-5, ff. Tr. 3586. )
Paragraph 131 In asserting that the NRC Staff inappropriately l
relied on Blount Brothers documents, Intervenors again demon-Inter-strate a careless disregard for the evidentiary record.
venors refer to a number of areas in which Blount Brothers documents purportedly were " falsified or did not reflect the
. true situation."
The record presents a different picture, however:
with regard to tendon storage, the evidence as a whole demonstrates that Mr. Stomfay-Stitz's problems with Blount Brothers forms do not amount to a situation in which the documents are unreliable.
With regard to cracked buttonheads, the NRC did not even review (and thus did not rely on) Blount Brothers documents since the Blount Brothers review was informal only.
Likewise, with regard to missing structural beams, the NRC investigation did not involve any purportedly falsified Blount Brothers documents; the NRC Staff was unable to locate any documentation pertaining to this allegation.
On the issue of " aggregate competency", Mr. Stomfay-Stitz himself was unable on cross-examination to identify any respects in which his memoranda were false or inaccurate.
Finally, with regard to mixer truck uniformity, Mr. Gallagher claimed that rented trucks were capable of mixing safety-related concrete from the Ross plant, while the NRC Staff testified that the rented trucks had not been tested for uniformity, but that the regular Blount Brothers trucks had passed uniformity tests.
This issue thus did not involve the purported inaccuracy of Blount Brothers documentation.
(Applicant's Proposed Findings 653, 656, 658, 680, 667, 625.)
Paragraph 132 l
Although Intervenors attempt to convey the impression e
l that a number of Mr. Smith's original audit drafts were missing l
from Hunter Corporation',s files, and that therefore the NRC Staff investigation of changes made to audits was inadequate,
. in fact the evidence was that only one audit draft could not be found.
The NRC Staff examined a number of audit drafts in reaching its conclusions.
(Applicant's Proposed Finding 567, 570.)
Paragraph 133 Intervenors' citation is erroneous:
John Spraul did not testify at Tr. 3594.
Intervenors claim that although Mr. Spraul examined Applicant's stated safety commitments he did not investigate whether Applicant's practices were actually in accordance with their commitments.
This entire proposed finding is such a mischaracterization of the record as to render it valueless as anything other than a tool of confusion.
Mr. Spraul's testi-mony was solely concerned with whether Applicant's quality assurance and production organizations will be sufficiently independent of each other during operation of Byron.
(Spraul, Tr. 3563.)
To assert, as do Intervenors, that Mr. Spraul looked only at safety commitments and ignored actual practices, is to support an irrelevant half-truth with an entirely false premise.
It is simply wrong to say that Mr. Spraul's testimony concerned " safety commitments."
What Mr. Spraul did, in order to determine whether quality assurance and production would function independently of each other, was review Applicant's program for the Byron operational phade.
(sproul, Tr. 3565.)
Based upon this pro-and commitments contained therein, Mr. Spraul concluded
- gram, that quality assurance and production would function indepen-
l l
. dently during Byron operation.
(Spraul, Tr. 3565-66, 3569-71.)
Mr. Spraul's conclusion was necessarily future-looking; since Byron is not yet operating, Mr. Spraul could not have-confirmed that commitments were actually beir.g met.
Paragraph 134 Intervenors assert that Region III inspections at Byron were not thorough, pointing as an of example to the fact that even though Region III examined the certification of Blount Brothers QA/QC personnel in I&E Report 82-05 it did not become aware of certification problems involving Messrs. Barnhart and stomfay-Stitz until much later.
Intervenors are being disingenuous, at best, in their proposed finding.
Region III did not purport to examine the certification of all Blount Brothers QA/QC personnel in Report 82-05; rather, the Region III Staff conducted an overall evaluation of the certification programs of various Byron contractors.
The Region III findings prompted the extensive certification review and reinspection program conducted over the past year by the Applicant of its contractors, including Blount Brothers.
(NRC, Tr. 3725-3726. )
Paragraph 135 Despite Intervenors' continued claim that Blount Brothers production personnel controlled QA/QC personnel's pay there is no documentary or other evidence to substantiate Mr.
Stomfay-Stitz' hearsay testimony on this matter.
(NRC, Tr.
3756.)
Moreover, NRC Inspector William Forney testified that in preparing I&E Report,2-05 he conducted a 45-minute personal 8
interview with several Blount Brothers QA/QC inspectors, prob-
^
ing for any concerns on their part about their ability to make adverse findings, and found no evidence of intimidation.
Mr.
Stomfay-Stitz himself testified that he knew of no instance when Blount Brothers' Production Departmant kept its QA/QC Staff from identifying quality problems.
(Applicant's Proposed Finding 640, NRC, Tr. 3758-3760.)
Paragraph 136 No response.
Paragraph 137 No response.
Paragraph 138 No response.
Paragraph 139 The fact that Hunter Corporation did not inform the NRC inspector of the existence of its Audit 059-3 doer-not warrant the conclusion proposed by Intervenors that Region III does not obtain all relevant records for its inspections.
In fact, even without the audit the NRC Staff was able to perform a complete review of Hunter Corporation's component support inspection program.
(Applicant's Proposed Finding 557.)
Paragraph 140 While Mr. Forney did admit that events at Zimmer could lead one to question the Region III's ability to ade-l quately monitor licensee construction compliance, he personally did not agree wfth this assessment.
(Forney, Tr. 3868.)
More important is the fact that Region III did discover the break-l down in quality assurance at the Zimmer plant and did order a
, halt to construction activities.
(Forney, Tr. 3867.)
It was in response to construction problems at Zimmer that Region III conducted the special team inspection at Byron in the-spring of 1982.
(Forney, Tr. 3867; Applicant's Proposed Findings 509-513.)
This is evidence of effective monitoring by the Region III Staff.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing paragraph-by-paragraph analysis, Commonwealth Edison Company respectfully requests that Intervenors' proposed findings and conclusions on this contention not be adopted by the Board.
s-t
.m..
1 The foregoing document, " Applicant's Reply to Intervenors' Proposed Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law on Quality Assurance / Quality control" is respectfully submitted by the undersigned attorneys for Commonwealth Edison Company.
/ >As
~
/'
Michael I. Miller i
Bruce D. Becker h
" oAnne G. Blpom
~,
@/Ad I8h Mark C. Furse Catherine T. Crowley
[
ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE Three First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60602 (312)558-7500
- 90405 Dated:
September 16, 1983 s
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-454 OL
)
50-455 OL (Byron Nuclear Power Station,
)
Units 1 & 2)
)
_CER.T_IFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned, one of the attorneys for Common-wealth Edison Company, certifies that he filed the original and two copies of each of the attached " APPLICANT'S REPLY TO INTERVENORS' PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON QUALITY ASSURANCE / QUALITY CONTROL", and " APPLICANT'S REPLY TO THE NRC STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CON-CLUSIONS OF LAW ON QUALITY ASSURANCE / QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES" with the Secretary of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and served copies of each on the persons and at the addresses shown on the attached service list.
Service on the Secretary r
and all parties was made by deposit in the U.S. Mail, first-1983.
class postage prepaid, this 16th day of September, I
N One of the attorneys for Commonwealth Edison Company ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE Three First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60602 (312) 558-7500 v.
Firm Code 90405 1
l l
t
.... - ~.
SERVICE LIST COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY -- Byron Station Docket Nos. 50-454 and 50-455 Mr. Ivan W. Smith Secretary Administrative Judge and Attn: Chief, Docketing and Service Section Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ms. Betty Johnson Washington, D.C.
20555 1907 Stratford Lane Rockford, Illinois 61107 Dr. Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Ms. Diane Chavez Board Panel SAFE U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 326 North Avon Street Rockford, Illinois 61103 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Dr. Bruce von Zellen Department of Biological Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Sciences Northern Illinois University Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 DeKalb, Illinois 60115 Chief Hearing Counsel Joseph Gallo, Esq.
Office of the Executive Isham, Lincoln & Beale Suite 840 Legal Director 1120 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20036 Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Douglass W. Cassel, Jr.
Union Carbide Corporation Jane Whicher P.O. Box Y BPI Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Suite 1300 109 N. Dearborn Mr. Steven C. Goldberg Chicago, Illinois 60602 Ms. Mitzi A. Young Office of the Executive Ms. Patricia Morrison 5568 Thunderidge Drive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Rockford, Illinois 61107 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. David Thomas 77 South Wacker Atomic Safety and Licensing Chicago, Illinois 60621 Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555'