ML20077S720
| ML20077S720 | |
| 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 8309220188 | |
| Download: ML20077S720 (9) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOCMETED USNRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 21 Pl2:51 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING 0FFICE Or $[cpgf,.
OCCKETmG A SEPV;:
ENANC4 In The Matter of
)
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
Des:ket Nos. 50-454 OL
)
50-455 OL
)
(Byron Nuclear Power Station, )
Units 1 & 2)
)
APPLICANT'S REPLY TO NRC STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES Commonwealth Edison Company (" Applicant") files this Reply to the NRC Staff's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclu-sions of Law on Quality Assurance and Quality Control Issues.
The numbered paragraphs which follow correspond to the NRC Staff's numbered paragraphs.
Paragraphs H1-H35 No Response.
Paragraph H36 A
This proposed finding is somewhat incomplete.
summary of the evidence on this issue is presented at pages 28 and 29 of the Opinion portion of Applicant's proposed QA/QC findings.
The evidence establishes (1) The Standard Review Plan referred to by the Staff is not applicable to Applicant's quality assurance prograin; (2) Notwithstanding this inapplic-8309220100 830916 PDR ADOCK 05000454 G
. )
i ability, Applicant's quality assurance program in fact incor-porates at least six of the seven items referred to by the Staff; and (3) The seven items are considered relatively triv-ial by the Staff and not necessary for compliance with Commis-sion regulations.
Paragraphs H37-H153 No Response.
Paragraph H154 The NRC Staff asserts that neither Mr. Barnhbrt nor Mr. Stomfay-Stitz were qualified to perform certain inspections of structural steel.
Applicant assumes that the use of the term " qualified" in this context refers to the certification of the men rather than their actual capability to perform the work at issue.
The NRC Staff did not testify that either Mr. Barnhart or Mr. Stomfay-Stitz were not qualified in the sense c' being unable to actually perform the inspections of structural steel which they did perform.
(NRC, Tr. 3724-3728.)
Paragraph H155 The NRC assertion that all structural steel bolting in the containment building and other areas is subject to 100%
reinspection is somewhat misleading.
It would be more precise to state that all the bolts Mr. Stomfay-Stitz claims to have inspected were double checked or reinspected.
Specifically, the slotted connections examined by Mr. Stomfay-Stitz were subsequently rep 5 aced due to design changes and reinspected, and the torque of all fixed bolts examined by Mr. Stomfay-Stitz
. was reviewed by Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory.
(Applicant's Proposed Findings 675-676.)
Paragraph H156 The NRC statement that Mr. Stomfay-Stitz was not
" qualified" to perform structural steel inspections should be construed to refer only to his lack of certification, and not to his lack of ability.
The evidence as a whole indicated that Mr. Stomfay-Stitz was capable of performing the limited tasks involved in bolting-in.
(Applicant's Proposed Findings 670-764.)
Paragraphs H157-H171 No response.
Paragraph H172 The NRC Staff asserts that Mr. Stomfay-Stitz believed his superiors actually performed inspections on goods received while he was absent "until he became disillusioned."
This should not be construed to mean that inspections were not always performed.
Mr. Stomfay-Stitz never testified that he ever doubted that these inspections had been performed; rather his disillusionment led him t feel that he should question everything his superiors told him to do.
(Stomfay-Stitz, Tr.
3236-3237.)
Paragraphs H173-H188 No response.
Paragraph H189 The NRC Staff s,tated that Mr. Gallagher " assumed that the bad aggregate problem was solved after he left the site."
Such a statement is susceptible to various interpretations.
_ Actually, Mr. Gallagher testified that he assumed during his tenure at Byron that the aggregate was satisfactory, and that since leaving the site he has not learned of anything_to change that assumption.
(Gallagher, Tr. 3514-3516.)
Paragraph H190 No response.
Paragraph H191 The NRC Staff inaccurately states that Mr. Gallagher alleged that water in excess of specifications was added to On cross-examination this witness explained concrete batches.
that he was not claiming that excessive water was added, only that water was added surreptitiously.
(Applicant's Proposed Finding 606.)
Paragraphs H192-H198 No response.
Paragraph H199 The NRC asserts Blount Brothers QA controlled the The record addition of water to concrete at placement areas.
also indicates, however, that PTL technicians were also present i
at the placement site and also supervised the addition of water.
(Tallent & Johnson, Tr. 3978.)
l Paragraphs H200-H232 l
No response.
Paragraph H233 The NRD Staff correctly quotes Mr. Somsag as stating that Audit 059-3 showed QCWI's were not inspecting for the A more precise statement of the Audit location of supports.
.. ~
-. itself is that QCWIs were not properly accepting as-built data.
(Smith, Intervenors' Prepared Testimony, Ex. C, 9-10, ff. Tr.
3243.)
Paragraphs H234-H244 No response.
Paragraph H245 The NRC Staff asserts that a formal inspection pro-gram which included M916 design tolerances and documentation of f
as-built data began following Audit 059-3.
The record, how-f ever, indicates that an inspection program which included the M916 tolerances did exist at the time of Audit 059-3; Hunter Corporation production personnel were aware of M916 and docu-mented its use, albeit at times incorrectly, in 4 of the 5 A more component supports reviewed in the initial Audit 059-3.
formalized inspection program was implemented subsequent to Audit 059-3 and the NRC Staff's March,1980 recommendations.
(Applicant's Proposed Findings 550-553, 557-558.)
Paragraphs H246-H252 No response.
Paragraph H253 l
The NRC Staff asserts the follow-up to Audit 059-3 examined 50 component supports.
Mr. Smith testified that in this follow-up audit he and Mr. Zeise only reviewed the five i
supports involved in the initial audit.
(Smith, Tr. 3387.)
Paragraph H254-Rt93 No response.
l Paragraph H294 The NRC Staff's claim that Mr. Smith did not observe the signing-off of inspection reports is incorrect.
Mr. Smith stated that he " witnessed" the initialing of documents by a person who did not perform the inspection.
(Smith, Tr. 3427.)
Paragraph H295 No response.
v t
.m.
The foregoing document, " Applicant's Reply to the NRC Staff's Proposed Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law on Quality Assurance /Ouality Control Issues" is respect-fully submitted by the undersigned attorneys for Common-wealth Edison Company.
f Michael I. Miller b
nn_
Bruce D.'Becker
=
JoAnne G. )!floom ff C7m Mark C. Furse 5
Catherine T. Crowley
/
ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE Three First National Plaza l
Chicago, Illinois 60602 (312)558-7500
- 90405
[
Dated:
September 16, 1983 I
\\
~
e
/
l
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)
CERTIFICATE 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 I
PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF INTERVENORS' LAW ON QUALITY ASSURANCE / QUALITY CONTROL", and " APPLICANT'S REPLY TO THE NRC STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACTS CLUSIONS OF LAW ON QUALITY ASSURANCE / QUALITY CO with the Secretary of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and served copies of each on the persons and at the addresses Service on the Secretary shown on the attached service list.
and all parties was made by deposit in the U.S. Mail, first-class postage prepaid, this 16th day of September, 1983.
W l
One of the attorneys for Commonwealth Edison Company ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE Three First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60602 (312) 558-7500 Firm Code 90405
-..... _,,...... - -.,,, -,, ~..., - -, - - -.
r
.... - - - - - - ~. -
.~.,n
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 Ms. Betty Johnson Commiasion Washington, D.C.
20555 1907 Stratford Lane Rockford, Illinois 61107 Dr. Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Ms. Diane Chavez Board Panel SAFE 326 North Avon Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Rockford, Illinois 61103 i
Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Dr. Bruce von Zellen Department of Biological Board Panel Sciences U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Northern Illinois University j
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 Washington, D.C.
20036 Commission J
Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Douglass W. Cassel, Jr.
Union Carbide Corporation Jane Whicher BPI P.O. Box Y Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Suite 1300 109 N. Dearborn Mr. Steven C. Goldberg Chicago, Illinois 60602 Ms. Mitzi A. Young Ms. Patricia Morrison Office of the Executive 5568 Thunderidge Drive Legal Director Rockford, Illinois 61107 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. David Thomas 77 South Wacker l
Atomic Safety and Licensing Chicago, Illinois 60621 Appeal Board Fanel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 i
'"We e--p-e.g.-.%
_ _.. _ _