ML20078L160
| ML20078L160 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 10/17/1983 |
| From: | Whicher J DEKALB AREA ALLIANCE FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY, SINNISSIPPI ALLIANCE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (SAFE), WHICHER, J.M. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8310200097 | |
| Download: ML20078L160 (12) | |
Text
-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 00CKETED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION USNRC ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD . ..
T3 OCT 19 A11:43 Before Administrative Judges:
Ivan W. Smith, Chairman y Dr. A. Dixon Callihan cfc,;
q ,g g, ,;ygg,g s .,
Dr. Richard F. Cole cuscu In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. STN 50-454 OL
) STN 50-455 OL COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY )
)
(Byron Nuclear Power Station, )
Units 1 and 2) )
JOINT INTERVENORS' REPLY TO SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON QUALITY ASSURANCE / QUALITY CONTROL I. INTRODUCTION In ruling on these fact issues, Intervenors urge the Board to keep in mind the following:
First, notwithstanding the fact that this phase of the QA/QC hearings was initiated by the unexpected availability of John l Hollis Hughes' testimony, the burden throughout this operating license proceeding remains on Commonwealth Edison. It was because of Mr. Hughes' willingness to testify before the Board concerning his observations and experiences at the Byron plant that the evidentiary proceding was reopened. All burdens placed on intervenors related to " reopening" the QA/QC phase of the hearings dissolved with'the issuance of the Boardts orders reopening the evidentigry proceeding ~.
The 82-05-19 reinspectiop program and the allegations against Hatfield Electric Co pany werg briefly touched upon, in a ve{y superficial way, by testimony of witnpsses for Commonwealth 1
83102000970 PDR ADOCK 00 454 PDR C
Edison and the NRC staff during the spring phase of the hearing.
Because of Edison's lack of thoroughness in presenting a complete evidentiary picture on these issues to the Board in the first instance, as well as the failure of the staff to be forthcoming in presenting the details of allegations against Hatfield Electric and the 82-04-19 reinspection program, the record in that phase of the hearing was incomplete. 7.n other words, Edison had simply not met its burden on Intervenors' Contention lA.
Intervenors submit that Edison has similarly failed to carry that burden when given this second opportunity to do so. A simple review of Edison's prefiled testimony of Mssrs. Koca, Stanish, and Teutken shows that that testimony is cast in vague, nonspecific terms, and deals with the issues only on the shallowest of levels. This shortcoming is further amplified when Edison's evidence is compared with the facts developed on cross-examination of Edison and staff witnesses by counsel for Intervenors, as well as with the testimony of John Hughes, and the stipqlated testimony of Irvin Souders and Junius Ogsbury.
Second, both Edison and the staff rely extensively, in their proposed findings, on staff substantiation or failure to substantiate " allegations" received from plant workers. Board l
reliance on such staff findings is inappropriate for two reasons.
To rely on the staff to find facts would result in improper and unlawful delegation of the Board's authority to the staff, as the Board has previously recognized. Additionally, the Board must look at what the staff has done so far in its investigation.
, t 2
A
. , , . - . - - , . . -- . - - , , ,-- g ,
, While staff investigations may be accorded some weight, because 4
of its flawed investigatory techniques, staff findings are entitled to no weight in this circumstance and should therefore 7
- be disregarded. If the Board choses to rely to any extent on staff investigations, it cannot at this time make findings on any allegations which are open, egg., supplied test answers. Such findings cust await the completion of all inspections and investigations, and Intervenors' opportunity to explore the i substance of those investigations and inspections.
Third, upon review of Edison and staff findings from the August phase of the hearings, it is apparent that the same flaws contained in the written direct testimony are repeated here, for the proposed findings and conclusions exhibit a superficiality and convenient ignorance of most facts developed on cross-
! examination, which facts are fully discussed in Intervenors' initial findings submitted on September 30. Therefore, Intervenors' stand principally on that document, and herein discuss only certain misstatements submitted by opposing parties.
For the reasons stated in Joint Intervenors' initial findings and conclusions and in this document, no operating license may issue on this state of the record.
II. TESTIMONY OF JOHN HUGHES Mr. Hughes' recounting of his testing experience (see Edison findings 771-74) remains essentially rebutted. Mr. Koca hasabso}utelynorecollectionoftheincident, and, Mr. Souders 3
l~ __ __.
., . l confirms the fact that Mr. Hughes was retested immediately. In addition, the allegation is still under investir.ation by tho Office of Investigation. Contrary to the staff's assertion (see NRC staff proposed finding H-344) there is no necessity that the Board " find conclusively that the improper testing practice took place", for there is no requirement that findings be made only if they can be made " conclusively".
With respect to the discrepancy in the dates of the two tests, (see Edison finding 770), that evidence is unhelpful. No evidence was introduced by any witness as to how those dates came to appear on the documents. Also, because OI chose not to release the document until after Mr. Hughes had testified, he was given no opportunity to testify concerning the dates. Finally, both Mr. Souders and Mr. Hughes unequivocally testified that retesting occurred within 45 minutes. Therefore, the discrepancy in the documents means nothing and should be disregarded. Most important, is the lack of any testimony rebutting the fact that Mr. Hughes had the test and answers available to him upon retesting.
As may be expected, both Edison and the staff rely extensively on documentation in an attempt to disprove Mr.
Hughes' testimony regarding the perfunctory nature of his classroom training. (See Edison finding 752.) Each) however, conveniently ignores the undisputed evidence that Hatfield documentation system is simply not to be trusted, as Intervenors have shown throughout their. proposed findings.
Similarly, there is no attempt made to explain away the l
4 l
~.
gross discrepancy in the hours of documented on-the-job training and Mr. Hayes' attempt to verify the same. (see Edison finding 754.) Edison's description of the missing documents as having been " inadvertently lost or destroyed as a result of the reinspection / rework operations" is simply without foundation in the record. While in his written direct testimony, Mr. Hayes states that the loss or destruction of the records was
" inadvertent", on cross-examination Mr. Hayes testified that "the original documents here had been misplaced or destroyed." At no time did he support his conclusion of inadvertance.
Ft'rther, the Board must take into account the fact that fully a fourth of the reports have simply vanished. Accordingly, any inference the Board may draw from missing docuicents must be drawn againt the applicant.
In findings 759-761, Edison argues that, because the records so indicate, the Board ought to find tht Mr. Hughes was certified as a Level II inspector on November 1, 1982. Such a conclusion is unjustified. Hatfield's documents are inherently unreliable, and both Mr. Koca's testimony and the NRC staff testimony with respect to Mr. Hughes' certification were based solely on those documents. The Board must therefore adopt Mr. Hughes' version of i his testimony.
Similarly, in finding 763, Edison argues that because the staff did not substantiate on the basis of the available documentation that Mr. Hughes had not received the training he was supposed to have received, the Board should find likewise.
5
Again, any reliance on the staff's failure to substantiate is inappropriate.
III. OTHER ALLEGATIONS AGAINST HATFIELD Commonwealth Edison summarily dismisses all other allegations, upon which public testimony was heard, in proposed findings 775-780. As shown above, and in Intervenors' proposed findings (see generally initial findings 115-47) Edison is simply in error.
Further, Edison asserts, at finding 779, that "the substance of the uninvestigated allegations" shows that investigation of them can be delayed, citing Forney tr. 7878.
There appears at that page absolutely no authority for such an assertion. Indeed, Commonwealth Edison ought to be unaware of the substance of the uninvestigated allegations, and Mr.
Forney aware only of those received by his office. Finally, as Intervenors have shown, such an assertion as to the allegations which have been publicly disclosed is simply wrong.
(Intervenors' findings, id.)
IV. THE 82-05-19 REINSPECTION PROGRAM Edison's initial misstatemen6s with respect to the reinspection program appear in finding 782, containing in a description of the NRC staff findings in 82-05-19. First, the
" inconsistencies" in contractors' programs were in fact inadequacies. Second, with respect to Hatfield, the staff determined that six of the nine certification files reviewed were inadequate. (Panel, Exhibit A at p. 69.)
6
Contrary to the implication of finding 783, the staff did not attempt to identify inspectors unqualified to perform their functions, nor did 1.t attempt to identify deficient work.
Edison correctly states that the staff inspection identified inspectors improperly certified, but conveniently ignores the fact that without the demonstration of qualification which certif' cation was supposed to have provided in the first instance, there is no assurance that inspectors are in fact qualified. Commonwealth Edison's and Hatfield Electric's ' failure to demonstrate such inspector qualification should result in a finding by the Board, as set forth in Intervenors' Contention lA, that there is no reasonable assurance that the plant has been
! built in conformance with NRC requirements.
1 Edison also implies (see findings 785-786) that there was no requirement to apply ANSI Standard N45.2.6-1978 prior to the 82-4 05-19 inspection. The panel's testimony at the hearing (see
_ Intervenors' finding 75) squarely contradicts this.
As intervenors show in their findings at 145-147, the post-82-05 certification testing program has not been followed
- (compare Edison finding 788), for Mr. Hughes' tests did not in any sense of.the word contain forty questions for each area for certification. (See Intervenors' finding 145,) Indeed, M r.
Hughes' own test on three' areas of certification, Koca Exhibit M,' contained only 40 total questions.
Applicant also neglects to mention in finding 789 that its review of presently-employed inspectors to verify whether they 4
7
, , - , , - - - - --,,,,,,-.n,. , ,,- . - . - - - - - - - , - - - , -
met the standards failed to uncover that four inspectors were not properly certified, and at least one of these, it has been proven by the staff, was in fact unqualified. (Two Hatfield inspectors without high school degrees had been incorrectly certified; Mr. Hughes' certification documentation was inaccurate; Tnd the Hatfield Quality Assurance Manager was found by the staff not to be qualified.) Thus, the 100% review of contractor inspector certification packages (see Edison finding 792) has hardly been shown to be effective in uncovering s.
Hatfield's improper certifications. Indeed, since four have so far been shown to have slipped through the cracks at Hatfield, and half of those were not caught by Edieon, there is no reasonable assurance, nor can a reasonable assumption be made, that all Hatfield inspectors are qualified. Even if such an inference were justifiable on the facts, that says nothing about the reasons why Hatfield's slipshod QA program was allowed to exist in the first place, and to cont.inue until construction was nearly complete.
The reinspection of work is discussed beginning at Edison finding 795. Again, Edison ignores the fact that it was
! resistant to the idea of a resinpection program. In spite of its description of this program as "very extensive and comprehensive", the program in fact remains nothing more than a sampling program. Further, because the program has thus far found two inspectors whose work was inadequate, as described in Mr. Teutken's testimony (Teutken, prefiled test, at p.9) and because the program thus far' has only encompassed 25% of 8
Hatfield's inspectors, the obvious inference is that there are indeed other unqualified inspectors whose work has not been subject to the sampling progroam.
In findings 802-805 and 808-809, Edison asks the Board to predict the results of its inspection. Such a prediction should not be accepted by the Board for at least three reasons. First, in the face of two demonstrably unqualified inspectors, any prediction favorable to Edison is clearly inappropriate.
Second, the staff has not accepted the 90% pass rate for subjective attributes. (panel, tr. 7997-99, 8003, 8006.) Third, Edison and the staff are unable to agree as to what constitutes a subjective, or objective, attribute. Because the faults uncovered include thus far length, cracks, fusion, porosity, and slag (all attributes as to which there is no aggrement as to their subjective or objective nature (tr. 8000-05)), the appropriate passing rate cannot now be determined.
Therefore, until the program is complete and the staff and Edison disputes resolved, there can be no prediction as to the outcome of the 82-05-19 reinspection program.
Further, Edison's reliance on over-inspections performed by the independent testing laboratory, PPL, failed to uncover the faults which the reinspectiop program has found, (see 816) and therefore should not be relied on to enhance the acceptability of the'82-05-19 inspection program. (see Intervenors' finding 65).
In findings 812 and 813, E'dison discusses Mr. Stanish's audit of the reinspection program. Edison deals in substance 9
l l
r i
only~with the fact the audit uncovered two improperly certified w v Hatfield inspectors. Its assertion that the other areas covered
, by the audit "did not involve work quality" is simply untrue.
For example, the audit also found that Hatfield was not following its.own QA/QC program with respect to discrepancy reports, thereby avoiding their inclusion in trending analysis. (See Intervenors' findings 61-64, 70-72.) In addition, the safety implication of Hatfield's refusal to include bolt torque inspections in the-82-05-19 program was completely ignored. (See Intervenors' findings 61-64.)
In finding 817, Edison discusses the ex parte, in camera session with Region III and OI personnel. It is suggested that the Board make several findings with respect to that session.
However, any such findings at this point are inappropriate, and in fact contrary to due process principals and- prejudicial to the interests of Intervenors. Because the evidence was accepted ex parte and in camera, only one party to this proceeding, the NRC sbaff, was able to present evidence, examine witnesses, and argue the facts and their significance to the Board. Therefore, L
any substantive evidence presented to the Board ex parte in camera must not be found as fact, nor even considered by the Board as substantive evidence in this proceeding. Any use of that evidence beyond a mere scheduling decision by the Board deprives Intervenors of their chance to even know about the l
information, much less cross examine witnesses or argue the merits of the issues to the Board.
Accordingly, for the reasons act forth herein and in 10
F. o Intervenors' proposed findings and conclusions, no operating license may issue.
Respectfully submitted,
- Ah !. _
Jane M. Whicher \
Attorney for Intervenors The League and DAARE/ SAFE on all issues and matters pertaining to quality assurance /
quality control October 17, 1983 Jane M. Whicher 109 North Dearborn Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 641-5570 11
r 3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 00LMETED BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of '83 OCT 19 M1:43 .
) !
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY DocketN{ 4 gig (Byron Station, Units 1 and 2) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify this 17th day of October, 1983, that copies of " JOINT INTERVENORS' REPLY TO SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONSLUSIONS OF LAW ON QUALITY ASSURANCE / QUALITY CONTROL" in the above-captioned proceeding were served on the following by deposit in the United States mail.
Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Steven C. Goldberg, Esq.
Administrative Judge Office of Executive Legal Atomic Safety and Licensing Director Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Office of the Secretary of Dr. A. Dixon Callihan the Commission Administrative Judge Attn: Docketing & Service Union Carbide Corporation Section P.O. Box Y U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Richard F. Cole Administrative Judge David Thomas, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing 77 South Wacker Drive Board Chicago, IL 60621 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Joseph Gallo, Esq.
Washington, D.C. 20555 Isham Lincoln & Beale 1120 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Alan P. Bielawski, Esq. Room 325 Bruce Becker, Esq. Washington, D.C. 20036 Isham Lincoln & Beale Three First National Plaza Chicago,-IL 60603 .
W L] A .
JANE M. WHICHER(~.
x
- ,.. , _ . - - ____ -.-- -.-