ML20081B793
| ML20081B793 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 03/06/1984 |
| From: | Norton B NORTON, BURKE, BERRY & FRENCH, PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20081B795 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8403120006 | |
| Download: ML20081B793 (23) | |
Text
_
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOUUEC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION m kr BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD
'84 MAR -9 A10 :50
)
In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-275 6.dyfyyj
) 50-323 BRANCH PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC C0WANY )
) (Design Quality Assurance)
(Diablo Can;on Nuclear Power )
Plant, Units 1 and 2) )
)
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY'S ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO JOINT INTERVENORS' 1
MOTION TO AUGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, l TO REOPEN THE RECORD On February 14, 1984, Joint Intervenors filed a notion to augnent l or, in the alternative, to reopen the record on design quality assurance. In support of that notion they subnitted two affidavits of Charles Stokes l (Novenber 17, 1983, and February 8,1984), a fomer pipe support designer at Diablo Canyon; the affidavit of John Cooper (January 23,1984), a fomer instrunent and control technician at Diablo Canyon; and several handwritten outlines presented by the NRC Staff at a January 31, 1984 public neeting regarding Mr. Stokes' allegations on small bore piping:
Pursuant to a February 23, 1984 Order of this Board, Joint Intervenors served a March 2,1984 supplement to their February 14 notion addressing a transcript of the January 26, 1984 neeting between Charles Stokes and representatives of the NRC Staff. In these filings Joint Intervennrs request the Board to augnent or reopen the record to consider this "new
)
8403120006 840306 PDR ADOCK 05000275 g PDR
- )
4, irforration" a: part of the reopened design quality assurance hearings. For
'the reasons set forth below. Pacific Gas and Electric Conpany (PGandE) twsptctfully requests that the notion be denied in its entirety.
l ,
,?
. Background
/ ,e' )
v 1 g ,
o . . . ~ On ' June. 8,' 19822 doint Intervenors (fled a notion to reopen the '
s ,
Diablo Canyon? record alleging deficiencici, in the quality assurance program.
, j
/ After hearing argunent on this and othek ' natters on April 14, 1983, the B'ard '
s' issued an Order on April 21,1953(unpublished)grantingthenotiontoreopen ontheissue'ofdesignqualityassuranbeonly. In that Order the Board
., directed Joint Intervenors to refile their notion insofar as it sought reopening on coistruction quality assurance issues. Joint Intervenors conplied wita this directive on May 10, 1983. After an evidentiary hearing on l
July 19-22,1983, the Board issued an Order on October 23, 1983, followed by a nenorandun opinion on December 23, 1983, denying the notion. P.tcific Gas and Elektric Conpany (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-756, 18 NRC (1983).
Following nonths of discovery, the reopered hearings on design quality assurance were held at Avila Beach, California, comencing October 31, 1983, and ending on November 21, 1983. Following the final filing of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, but before this Board's decision on l design quality assurance, the Joint Intervenors, through both their new (GAP) and 31d (Center far Law in the Public Interest) attorneys, have cone forward with nurerous eleventh hour allegations which have but one goal: to stop the licensing and operation of Diablo Canyon by obstructing and thwarting the a:tninistrative process. )
Argunent The Principle of Administrative Finality Requires that the Motion be Denied With alnost clockwork precision, Joint Intervenors have conveniently filed yet another notion to present "new infornation" allegedly not previously considered by this Board in its review of design quality assurance issues for Diablo Canyon. Before addressing the substance of the affidavits acconpanying the notion, this Board nust resolve the larger and more conplicated issue of the doctrine of administrative finality. Briefly stated, that doctrine is that with any adninistrative proceeding there nust cone a tine when the evidentiary record is closed. Obviously, this principle nust be applied in a reasoned nanner if an adninistrative natter is ever to be brought to a logical and timely conclusion. As the United States Suprene Court has observed:
"Adninistrative consideration of evidence ... always creates a gap between the time the record is closed and the time the administrative decision is pronu; gated (and we night add, the time the decision is judicially reviewed).
If upon the coming down of the order, litigants night denand rehearings as a natter of law because sone new circunstance has arisen, sone new trend has been observed, or sone new fact discovered, there would be little hope that the adninistrative process could ever be consuonated in an order that would not be subject to reopening. ICC v. Jersey City, 322 U.S. 503, 514, 64 S.
Ct.1129,1174 88 L.ed.1420 (1944). Yt. Yankee Nuclear Power v. National Resources Defense Council, 435 U.S. 519 at 555, 96 S. Ct.1197 at 1217 (1978).
1 J
The Appeal Board has had recent occasion to apply this principle. In the Matter of Union Electric Conpany, (Calloway Plant, Unit 1), ALAB 750A,18 NRC (decided Deceober 9,1983).
In that case the Board was presented with new evidence of an alleged l
nonconservatisn in the analysis of the loads on the nanually welded i
, embedded plates as a basis for reopening the record. In declining l 4
to reopen the record, the Board observed that:
"Because the Staff has the natter under review, a final
- resolution of the question of the purported ,
non-conservatisn has not been reached. Thus, it is '
possible that new information Maring on the safety of the manually welded embeds will be forthcoming. But,
, particularly given the $taff's monitoring on an ongoing
_ basis of the construction and operation of individual neclear facilities, the potential for new developnents affecting litigated issues always exists. Litigation nust nevertheless at scne point cone to an end... Any new developnents can be brought to the attention of either the Connission (if it still has jurisdiction over this proceeding at the time) or the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. See generally Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and Z), ALAB-551, 9 NRC 704, 707 (1979); 'Public Service Co.
of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-530, 9 NRC 261, 262 (1979); Public_ Service Co. of New Han) shire (Seabrook Station, Unit: 1 and 2), '
ALAB-b u , a NM; 094, 965-96 (1978)." (Calloway, supra, Slip opinion at 4-5).
I See also, Pacific Gas _and Electric Co., (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-644,13 NRC 903, 994-95 (1981) refusing to reopen the record on seisnic issees for a third tine to review a new USGS report which had been recently issued, but which used underlying data that had been previously available and in fact relied upon by expert witnesses of the parties. )
!. _, . _ _ _ ~ . _ _. . . ~ __ . _ . . . , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ . ._
J
Joint Intervenors now seek to avoid this result by arguing that l
this is "new and tinely infomation" meeting the standards for reopening a closed record. We disagree.
The "new infomation" offered by Joint Intervenors is neithee new nor of such significance that it would change the result and it is not being presented in a tinely fashion.1/ At the outset we note that the subject I
matter--design quality assurance--has been at issue before this Board for alnost two years. As this Board well knows, the design and design quality assurance aspects of Diablo Canyon have been thoroughly reviewed for the past I
two years. Hundreds of engineers have spent hundreds of thousands of l
l 1/ Counsel for Joint Intervenors, and their key "whistleblower", have a
! keen appreciation for the tactic of leading one to falsely believe that the tenporal relationship between events is other than it is. In Joint Intervenors' notion it is stated that Mr. Stokes' 11/17/83 affidavit was not servedthat implying on Joint the parties until Decenber Intervenors were not27,1983 aware (po. 20-21)Infomationobviously of this "new" until that time. In fact, on February 2,198a, Mr. Stokes testified, under oath, before the California State Assembly Utilities and Connerce Comittee, that upon his temination on October 14, 1983, he went to the Mothers for Peace with his " story" and that they innediately put him in touch with GAP (when the Mothers for Peace have retained) and Mr. Devine (Mr. Stokes', GAP's and the Mothers for Peace attorney) helped hin prepare his conplaint filed with the Labor Departnent on Novenber 14, 1983, and the Novenber 17, 1983 affidavit. For Joint Intervenors to
-attenpt to lead this Board into believing they had no knowledge of the affidavit when in fact they obviously knew of Mr. Stokes' " story" either before or during the hearing on design quality assurance is, to say the least, strange oenavlor for a party wno 1s engaging in a wholesale attack of the integrity of entire organizations and the individuals enployed by those organizations.
Mr. Stokes enploys precisely the sane tactic in stating that "on October 5,1983, I disclosed three... deficiency reports... which led to ny
. subsequent layoff, effective October 17, 1983." In fact, Mr. Stokes first filed the three deficiency notices on handwritten DR foms on August 8,1983, and was aware of the ongoing investigation and resolution of his concerns during August and Septenber. See Attachnents B and C.
non-hours looking at these issues, including a concentrated independent review of the IDVP. The issue of design quality assurance has been fully aired in lengthy hearings after all parties had anple opportunity to conduct full and l
complete discovery. In addition, the Board nay take judicial notice of the fact that the public at large in the San Luis Obispo area was given prior notice of the design quality hearings last Novenber. Obviously the affiants for Joint Intervenors were well aware of those hearings, yet they chose not to cone forward at that tine. Rather, they conveniently waited until after the hearings were conpleted and this Board was, prest;nably, prepared to issue its decision. All of the issues raised in the affidavits acconpanying the notion relate to events and actions which took place prior to the reopened DQA hearings. Indeed, the factual information upon which the allegations are based was available to the parties during the discovery process. For example, Mr. Cooper was last enployed at Diablo Canyon in March,1963, and Mr. Stokes fron November,1982, to October,1983. In their 6ffidavits tiey recount actions and events purportedly related to design quality assurance issues which, if true, certainly could and should have been discovered during the months of discovery preceding the DQA hearings. In fact, it is difficult to think of a single factual predicate for any of the allegations upon which the notion relies that, if true, was not easily discoverable during the nonths preceding the DQA hearing.
The only thing "new" about these allegations is that they were cleverly packaged by Joint Intervenors' new set of lawyers and then paraded before the media and Nuclear Regulatory Connission. Adnittedly, the docunents are "new" i.e., they are dated from Novenber 1983, to the present, but the
infomation on which they were based is not.2/ Since all of the "new infomation" was available to Joint Intervenors during discovery conducted in the DQA hearings, they should not now be allowed to manipulate the adninistrative process by trotting out through a new set of attorneys their "new infomation" to auguent/ reopen the record. This nanipulation, if allowed, will effectively obstruct the NRC administratt e process. In effect, intervenors will be pemitted to lay back until the eve of conpletion of the hearing process and then spring "new infomation" on a tribunal and demand that hearings be resuned to consider that infomation. A nore effective impedinent to the orderly functioning of the adninistrative process would be difficult to imagine. Justice and logic denand that such a result be precluded.3_/ See, In the Matter of Cincinnati Gas and Electric Conpany, et.
al. (Wn. H. Zinner Nuclear Power Station, Unit No.1), CLI-82-20,16 NRC 109 1
(1982) where the Connission refused to allow new QA contentions to be adnitted when, as in the instant case, the standards for reopening had not been net j (tineliness) and the QA allegations were currently under investigation by the 1
2/ During discovery for the DQA hearings all internal PGandE and Project DQA audits were produced for inspection and copying by Joint Intervenors. These audits docunented certain discrepant conditions at the Onsite Project Engineering Group (OPEG) and corrective action which was inplemented. Joint Intervenors chose to ignore or negligently failed to pursue this natter further during discovery or at hearing.
Sinilarly ITRs 60 and 61 dealing with small bore piping and deficiencies in calculations were available to Joint Intervenors for review anu further action through discovery and hearing had they so desired. Many other issues raised by Mr. Stokes were also actaally litigated by the parties.
~
3/ Counsel for GAP has boasted at NRC neetings that he can continue filing 100 allegations per nonth for six nonths. Under this scenario the Board could not close the record and render a decision until Joint Intervenors/ GAP decide to end their subnittals, the likelihood of which appears slin.
NRC Staff. The Comission enphasized the proper role of the Boards and the Staff. The forner are to adjudicate issues; the latter to review, nonitor, inspect, and take enforcenent action, if necessary. This is just such a case. The instant allegations are under review by the Staff and will Presunably be fully addressed and appropriate action, if necessary, will be taken. Accordingly, further hearings are not only unwarranted but would constitute an absolute abonination of the adninistrative process.
A. Stokes Allegations The vast najority of the Stokes' allegations are addrened substantively in the Breisneister, et. M., affidavit ("Breisneister affidavit") covering sone 58 false charges (identified by ronan nunerals I through LVIII in the Bref.ineister affidavit) fron the 11/17/83 and 2/8/84 affidavits and the 1/25/84 transcript (Attachnent A). Responses to allegations concerning Mr. Stokes' perception of why he was laid off are contained in the affidavits of Mr. Tressler, et. al., ("Tressler affidavit")
and that of Mr. MSngoba (Attachnents B and C). Mr. Stokes' false charges regarding deceitful assignnent of calculational packages is addressed in i
Attachnents A and B and the affidavit of Mr. Schusterman (Attachnent D). The allegations concerning qualification of QC inspectors to AWS code, their alleged inability to read weld synbols, and the allegation that welders did not possess copies of welding procedures is addressed in both Attachnent A and Mr. Etzler's affidavit (Attachnent E). Mr. Stokes' nistaken beliaf that Bechtel's contract for Diablo Canyon was for a fixed price is addressed in Mr.
Friend's affidavit (Attachment F). Mr. Stokes' erroneous assertion that Mr.
Curtis could not answer questions fron OPEG engineers regarding drawing 049243 l and never got back with answers is addressed in Mr. Curtis? affidavit (Attachnent G).
l<
l -.. ,__ - -. - - , -.-
The Stokes' allegations, as contained in his affidavits of 11/17/83,2/8/84, and the 1/25/84 transcript of hi:. neeting with NRC Staff nenbers, fall into one or nore of four basic categories. Those categories are as follows:
- 1. The factual predicates of the allegation are, as a natter of law, denonstrably incorrect; il
- 2. Tne factual predicates of the allegation are substantially or partially correct from which an inference or ennelusion is drawn but, upon examination of all of the relevant facts, the alleger's preferred inference or conclusion is, as a natter of law, denonstrably incorrect; 1/
- 3. The factual predicates of the allegation are substantially or partially correct, but lead to an inference or conclusion of little or no safety significance; 1/
4/ The allegations which fall (ato these categories are identified by ronan nuneral as set forth in the attached Breisneister, et. al., affidavit or by written description as they nay be addressed in liY!ier affidavits.
The allegations which fall in this category are: VI, VII, XII-XV, XVII-XXV, XXVIII, XXXI, XXXII, XXXVIII, XL, XLI, XLIII, L LI, LIV, LV, LVII. In adoition, the allegations addressed in the Mangoba, Shusternan, Etzler, Friend, and Curtis affidavits (Attachnents B-G).
5/ The allega. ions which fall in this c 'egory are: I-V, VII-XI, XIII-XVI, XIX, XXII, XXVI, XXVII, XXIX, XXX, XXaII, XXXV, XXXVI, XXXIX, XLI, XLIV, XLVI, XLVII-XLIX, LI, LII, LIII, LVI, LVIII. In addition, there are sone factual predicates in those allegations addressed by Attachnents B-G which are at least partially correct but, when viewed in light of all the facts, do not lead to the conclusions proffered by the alleger.
~
6/ The allegations which fall in this category are: I, II, III, XII, XV, XXIV, XXXII, XXXV, XLV, LI, LIII, LVIII.
I l
l
[.
\
- 4. The allegation is based on hearsay or speculation thereby lackingsufficientfoundation.1/
- 1. Denonstrably Incorrect Factual Predicates A large number of Mr. Stokes' accusations fail when the factual predicates for those accusations are examined and are found to be incorrect.
For exanple, Mr. Stokes alleges that Becatel normally would not nind finding errors in the small bore piping review because:
"Bechtel has always had a cost plus ten percent basis contract. They don't care if they have to---They are very adanant, if they aren't doing original design for you and you tell then that you want it done right and you 1 keep insisting on it and you have your own people to nonitor, well, hell, if they do it wrong they'll cut it out and do it again because it's cost plus ten.
Diablo Canyon is the first job I know of where they stuck their neck out and bid lunp sun to prove that plant was okay, and when they you how they did it.got close to (1/25/84 the end at Transcript -- 22) and I'll tell The fact of the matter is that Mr. Stokes is incorrect. As set forth in the affidavit of Mr. Friend, Bechtel's contract for Diablo Canyon is not a fixed price, but rather, a cost-plus basis contract.
Another example of patent incorrectness is Mr. Stokes' accusation that nanagement hired people it could control by threat of deportation:
"I believe that managenent helped to enforce questionable
, design practices by hiring aliens on " green cards" who were afraid to disagree with superiors due to the risk of being disnissed and subsequently deported if they could not naintain their jobs. I personally know of nany I..
1/ The allegations which fall in this category in whole or part are: III, VI-IX, X, XIII, XX, XXI, XXIX, XXXI, XXXII-XXXIV, XXXVII, XLII, XLIII, XLV, XLVI, L-LII, LIV LV LVII. In addition, many of the factual predicatesorbasesoffere,dfortheallegationsaddressedinAttachments B-G fall in this category.
l r
l
Indians brought over fron the Catawba nuclear pla: In Sout's Carolina who felt this way. One Indian who was a friend becane so disheartened that he just signed off anything, whether it was right or wrong, That is unfortunate, since he was a good engineer. The conbination of nanagenent intinidation and the large nunber of errors sinply were too $
nuch, and he lost his spirit." (Stokes, 2/8/84, p. 2)
An exanination of the facts shows that Mr. Stokes is again unequivocably nistaken. Green card holders are pemanent residents of the United States and have all the rights of a United States citizen except the right to vote. 8 U.S.C.S. Sections 1101, 1251. Enploynent status has no bearing on their being allowed to renain in the United States. As set forth in the Breisneister affidavit, paragraphs 91-92, the neans for the alleged intinidation simply did not and do not exist.
Two of Mr. Stokes' nore serious and insidious charges, that of purging of records with the intent of covering up dishonest acts, and the alleged disenonest acts themselves fall squarely in this category. The facts are sinple and straightfoniard.
First, the dishonest conduct never occurred. Calculations were never assigned to accomplish qualification outside design criteria.
(Schusternan aff.; Breisneister aff., par. 40-43, 51-53). If dishonest conduct did not occur then obviously no coverup of tilat conduct is possible.
In this case the factual predicate of purging the records, which serves as the basis for the inference of a coverup, is also sinply not true. No files or records have ever been purged. (Breisneister aff., par 177)
Along nore technical lines is Mr. Stokes' allegation that the Bechtel in-house STRUDL was linited to 80K nenory thereby liniting its ability
o to qualify pipe supports. (Stokes, 1/25/84 Tr., pp. 27, 38-39) As set forth in the Breisneitter affidavit, the Bechtel STRUDL computer progran allows the analysis of problens up to 262K nenory. In fact, Bechtel has never experienced a case, at Diablo Canyon or elsewhere in which STRUDL nenory limitations prevented the analysis of any pipe support frane. (Breisneister aff. , par. 168-173.) In fact, it was apparently Mr. Stokes' lack of knowledge (as opposed to his professed superior kncwledge) about STRUDL which led hin to this erroneous belief. (Id.)
A detailed reading of Attachnents A thru G, and I, are necessary to fully appreciate Lath the large nunbe'r and gravity of factual inaccuracies in Mr. Stokes' allegations. We respectfully subnit that a fair reading of the docunents subnitted with Joint Intervenors' notion and the attachnents to this response can lead to only one conclusion: Mr. Stokes' concerns are directed at sonething other than safety.
- 2. Denonstrably Incorrect Inferences or Conclusions Many of Mr. Stokes' allegations contain one or nore correct, or substantially correct, factual predicates which, when viewed in isolation, lead to what appear to be logical conclusions or, to apparently reasonable inferences. However, when all relevant facts are brought to bear on the allegation, the conclusion or' inference becones illogical or unreasonable and the substance of the allegation disappears. By way of exanple, Mr. Stokes alleges that QC inspectors could not read welding synbols because they were not consistent' qualified to the AWS code and were not issued the AWS synbols. t . 2/8/84, p. 8) Mr. Stokes' factual predicates that the QC
inspectors were not qualified to the AWS code and were not issued AWS synbols is correct enough, but the apparently logical conclusion that they therefore could not read welding angle, effective throat symbols, and related instructions from the design drawings, is simply incorrect. As set forth in Attachnent A, paragraph 135:
The AWS Structural Welding Code did not, when Diablo Canyon started, and does not today, require AWS qualified inspectors. Inspectors need not be issued the AWS weld synbols. Knowledge of these symbols, like nuch other naterial, is part of an educational, experience or training background. These synbols are connonly available in references and need not be issued to inspectors.
Another exanple of this type of allegation occurs when Mr. Stokes correctly states that Mr. Mangoba spent several days approving nany calculation packages. This factual predicate is followed by the inference
- that the calculation packages were not properly reviewed. The additional facts that change that inference are that Mr. Mangoba had instructed five other senior experienced engineers to perfom a detailed technical content i review of the calculational packages over and above the required and nomal j checking procedures, as a part of his approval.
Those serious charges of Mr. Stokes' that do not fall exclusively in category 1 above fall in this category. For exanple, Mr. Stokes' charge of being teminated for filing discrepancy reports (DR) has sone true, or partially true, factual predicates to it, e.g. Mr. Stokes was indeed laid off on October 14, 1983. When all of the facts and docunentary evidence are viewed, it is obvious that Mr. Stokes was laid off in a noma 1, scheduled reduction of forces. His DRs were, for all naterial purposes, filed in i August, not October. (Mangoba affidavit: Tressler aff., par.14-18).
- 3. Insignificance of Inferences or Conclusions Mr. Stokes' allegations also seen to contain accusations which are either substantially or partially correct but when pursued to a logical conclusion, amount to little or no safety significance. For example, Mr.
Stokes alleges that engineers were put to work designing pipe supports without first receiving training. (Stokes, 11/17/83, p. 2) As set forth at length in the Breisneister affidavit, only experienced, technically qualified engineers were hired to work in the snall bore pipe support group. (Breisneister aff.,
par. 1 -7 ) In addition, they did receive additional training, albeit not always in as tinely a fashion as would be optinally desirable. More importantly, there was no correlation between errors made in calculations and the timeliness of training received. (Anderson aff., Exhibit 1, p. 35) i Another example is that of Mr. Stokes' allegation that Bechtel issued out-of-date STRUDL nanuals to engineers in the seisnic design review.
The allegation, while partially true (Breisneister aff., par. 161-166) sinply does not give rise to any significant concern. The basic STRUDL user's nanual has not changed in 16 years. (Id. at 163) The changes that Mr. Stokes clains
- c. were late in arriving are sinply changes to make it easier for the user. (Id.
i at 164) Mr. Stokes' concern is largely academic. (Id. at 165) -
- 4. Speculation and Hearsay While all of Mr. Stokes' allegations fit into one of the three categories described above, many of the factual predicates are speculation i
and/or rank hearsay. An allegation cannot, and should not, be used as the l basis for any notion when there is absolutely no fcundation to support the factual predicates as legally adnissable evidence. For exanple, Mr. Stokes l
- ., m., . .. ,.. ....,,. . - , - . . _ . _ _ . . ~ , , , _ . _ . . . . . _ . _ . . _ _ _ . . _ . _ . . . . , , . . , _ _ . , _ _ . . . , . _ , ~ , . _ , _ . _ _ . - _ _ . _ _
l speculates that an operator night have difficulty operating the plant (Stokes, 1/25/84, pp.115-116) and then, piling hearsay on top of speculation, Mr. i 1
4 Stokes clains tnat "there are other allegations that I have read, concerning i 1
whether the operators could indeed operate the plant safely." (Id. at 116)
Other exanples of allegations which are rife with speculation and/or hearsay are those concerning " green card" holders (Stokes, 2/8/84,
- p. 2), the Bechtel contract (Stokes,1/25/84, p. 22), why Mr. Stokes was laid off (see Attachnents A and B), and nanagenent's notives for various and sundry other alleged evils.
Mr. Stokes has brought a new dinension to these proceedings. After l
literally a decade of adversarial proceedings with years of discovery, endless days of hearings, and uncountable nunbers of pages of evidence, the Joint Intervenors have been unable to show that anything of safety significance is wrong at Diablo Canyon. The docunents provided to then in discovery alone anount to tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of pages. Now they 4
have Mr. Stokes, who, while working for the licensee, was able to steal about in the night ransacking files seeking what he perceived to be danaging infomation. Mr. Stokes freely adnits:
"I knew I'd better start getting sone infomation to back up ny allegations. I knew if I didn't get sonething they would just squash ne like a bug. So during those tines occasionally when ny workload was low, like when they had r a bonb threat at 9:00 o' clock on Friday night and i everybody left because it was approved, so-called, leave tine, nobody cane to see ne fron 9:00 o' clock on. I was working until 2:00 o' clock. So I just strolled around the plant and looked at hangers. I worked on ny DRs during those times.
- _ I nade up a list of about 200 angle franes which failed l just outright. The unbraced angle without even doing a l calc.
i l
l
I also visited the trailer that Mr. Mangoba occupied during the day because the maintenance people who had to j open the door tended to leave it unlocked occasionally.
I had free access to all books without anyone looking at ne, other than occasionally the sweeper. It allowed ne to take the docunent out of the book, over to the Xerox nachine and nake a copy of it, put it right back in the book and nobody knew I d ever looked at it. I ,ot those i copies of those docunents, and those are the ones I gave '
Isa and the guys at the site." (Stokes, 1/25/84, p. 94)
Although it is nost painful to know of Mr. Stokes' conduct, it is reassuring to know that an engineer as obviously dedicated to finding danaging infornation as he was, and who essentially had free access to all records, cannot identify any safety significant itens. Each and every one of his allegations, when investigated thoroughly, results in the conclusion that either the allegation was false, its conclusion or inference incorrect, or, when correct, of little significance.
B. Cooper Allegations _
The affidavit of John Cooper (Exhibit F of the notion) seens to have been tacked on to Joint Intervenors' notion as an afterthought, and is i given very little attention in the body of the notion. This is not surprising. The information in the affidavit is neither significant nor relevant to design quality assurance, nor is it tinely.
Joint Intervenors' notion is prenised on the assertion that the supporting affidavits, including the Cooper affidavit, " bears directly on the issue of design quality assurance at Diablo Canyon," (notion at 2) is of
" undeniable relevance," (notion at 3) and "goes to the very heart of the seisnic redesign of the plant and the verification progran undertaken by the DCP and the IDVP," (notion at 3). When we exanine the only two pages in the
notion which discuss the Cooper affidavit, we find the statenent by counsel i that Mr. Cooper portrays "a seriously flawed design practice." Counsel then goes on to refer to the itens recounted in Mr. Cooper's affidavits as " quality assurance deficiencies," (notion at 18). These statenents, as they apply to the Cooper affidavit, constitute an egregious and questionable nisrepresentation by Joint Intervenors to this Appeal Board.
When Mr. Cooper worked for PGandE, he was not a design engineer and was not a part of any design engineering organization. He was not a QA engineer. He was an inspection maintenance technician and construction field engineer, and neither his duties nor his activities as described in his affidavit bear any relationship whatsoever to design quality assurance.
Indeed, Mr. Cooper hinself does not even clain that his allegations relate to design QA--the relationship seens to be purely an unexplained fignent of Joint Intervenors' inagination.
As explained in the affidavit of J.D. Shiffer, et d., ("Shiffer affidavit") (Attachnent H), the Cooper affidavit centers around an interesting and positive aspect of project administration at Diablo Canyon--the encouragenent by anagenent enployees to raise safety concerns, irrespective of the enployees' organizational affiliations or job description. (Shiffer aff. , par.18-25) Mr. Cooper, on several occasions, brought to the attention of managenent and the NRC, concerns related prinarily to the design of the residual heat renoval (RHR) systen. In each and every case his concerns were i
actively considered and fomally dispositioned (Id., par. 26-31). Mr.
Cooper's concern--satisfaction of single failure criterion and prevention of spurious closure of valves between the RHR systen and the reactor coolant systen by unanticipated electrical signals--have been fully resolved by PGandE
in a nenner specifically approved by the NRC. The decay heat renoval function meets the applicable licensing criteria for Diablo Canyon, and the potential for unwanted valve closings has been eliminated (Id. , par. 3-17).
Mr. Cooper's complaint is, in essense, that the matter was not resolved to his satisfaction. Certainly he is entitled to his opinions, but the concerns he raised were duly taken into consideration by PGandE nanagenent in arriving at an acceptable resolution. His concerns, though, clearly show no characterization whatsoever of inadequate design QA.
Mr. Cooper also cites several ?nstances of what he considers to be nanagenent retaliation _ or punishnent for, in his own words, being a "whistleblower." As explained in the Shiffer affidavit, paragranhs 51-70, there has been no punishment, retaliation, or even threats of punishnent or retaliation against Mr. Cooper.8_/ Significantly, nowhere in his affidavit does Mr. Cooper allege that he sought redress at a higher level of nanagenent at PGandE with regard to any alleged or perceived harassnent, intinidation, or retaliation.
' Joint Intervenors nake a nunber of allegations which they assert are supported in the Cooper affidavit. (notion at 18) However, they offer no explanation of how such support is to be gleaned fron the affidavit. In fact, the allegations are extraordinarily misleading, particulary since they are characterized as " quality assurance deficiencies."
8_/ This is not to say that isolated acts of intinidation, harassnent, or retaliation cannot or have not occurred on a job as large as Diablo Canyon. Rather, the q'uestion to be asked is -- "Has nanagenent ever encouraged cr condoned such actions once brought to its attention?" As noted, PGendE has had a stated policy for nany years of not allowing harrassing, intinidating, or retaliatory conduct. (Shiffer aff., par.
18-20, 53, 54).
-.- - .- = - _ - _ _ - . - . _ _ ..-
The alleged " failures of corrective action" involved only a failure of the corrective action Mr. Cooper would like to have seen taken. There was indeed corrective action taken, and it did not fail (Id., par.13-14).
Sinilarly, the dranatic accusation of docunent destruction involved i legitinate renoval of unofficial documents which had nothing to do with QA or the design process (Id., par. 47). There was no retaliation, intinidation, or threats (Id., par. 51-70). The " violation" of internal adninistrative controls was a single de nininus lack of a^ signature of no substantive significance, (Id., par. 48-50) and there was no " refusal" to correct an erroneous FSAR description, (Id., par. 35). The other allegations in the Cooper affidavit are similarly without substance. (Id., see generally par.
16,32-52).
In short, the allegations are of little substance, bear no relationship to design QA, and cannot be considered as support for the extraordinary action of reopening or augnenting the record following the conclusion of hearings.
-C. NRC Staff January 31, 1984 Meeting Handouts All of the questions which were raised in the NRC Staff handouts at the January 31, 1984 neeting have been addressed in PGandE's February 7,1984 subnittal. (Exhibit'l to Attachnent I) In that subnittal, PGandE responded to each and every question and concluded that there is reasonable assurance that the as-constructed snall bore piping neets all design criteria. PGandE believes these answers are fully responsive to the Staff's questiens and will assist the Staff in its ongoing investigation.
D. Coaclusion Joint Intervenors' notion nust not be considered in a vacuun.
Rather, it must be viewed in light of the hundreds of thousands of nanhours of review that the design of Diablo Canyon has received during the past year and the evidence this Board has received on the subject of design quality assurance at Diablo Canyon. It nust also be seen as it relates to the regulatory franework under which plants such as Diablo Canyon are to be designed and built. As they argued at the DQA hearings, Joint Intervenors are of the view that the regulations require absolute assiirance of absolute perfection in each and every instance. Anything less than absolute perfection is fatal. The adoption of such a view by this Board would, of course, prevent Diablo Canyon, or any other plant, fron ever being licensed or operated. It is respectfully subnitted that is indeed the goal of Joint Intervenors.
The test here nust be whether Diablo Canyon is designed and constructed to reasonably assure protection of the public health and safety.
PGandE is confident that this Board has that reasonable assurance as a result of the evidence presented to it during the DQA hearings. A thorough review of Joint Intervenors' notion, its Exhibits, this response and the affidavits attached hereto should not intrude upon that reasonable assurance. It is respectfully requested that the notion be denied in its entirety.
Dated: March 6,1984 Respectfully subnitted, ROBERT OHLBACH PHILIP A. CRANE, JR.
RICHARD F. LOCKE DAN G. LUBBOCK Pacific Gas and Electric Conpany P. O. EN 7442 San Francisco CA 94120 (415) 781-4211 ARTHUR C. GEHR Snell & Wilner 3100 Valley Center Phoenix AZ 85073 (602) 257-7288 BRUCE NORTON THOMAS A. SCARDUZIO, JR.
Norton, Burke, Berry & French, P.C.
l P. O. Box 10569 Phoenix AZ 85064 (602) 955-2446 Attorneys for Pacific Gas and Electric Conpany Dated: March 6,1984 By Bruce'Norton
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the batter of )
)
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 'l
) Docket No. Sn-275
) Docket No. 50-323 Dichlo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, ) '
Units 1 and 2 ) -
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The foregoing document (s) of Pacific Gas and Electric Company hoc (have) been served today on the following by deposit in the United
' States mail, properly stamped and addressed:
Judge John F. Wolf Mrs. Sandra A. Silver Chcirman 1760 Alisal Street Atomic Safety and Licensing Board San Luis Obispo CA 93401 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wachington DC 20555 Mr. Gordon Silver 1760 Alisal Street -
Judge Glenn O. Bright San Luis Obispo CA 93401 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board US Nuclear Regulatory Commission John Phillips, Esq.
Wachington DC 20555 Joel Reynolds, Esq.
Eric Havian Judge Jerry R. Kline Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Center for Law in the Public Interest US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 10951 W. Pico Blvd. - Suite 300 Los Angeles CA 90064 W2chington DC 20555 David F. Fleischaker, Esq.
Mrc. Elizabeth Apfelberg P. O. Box 1178
! c/o Betsy Umhoffer Oklahoma City OK 73101 t
1493 Southwood S2n Luis Obispo CA 93401 Arthur C. Gehr, Esq.
Snell & Wilmer Jcnice E. Kerr, Esq. 3100 Valley Bank Center Public Utilities Commission Phoenix AZ 85073 State of California 5246 State Building Bruce Norton, Esq.
350 McAllister Street Norton, Burke, Berry & French, P.C.
S n Francisco CA 94102 P. O. Box 10569 Phoenix AZ 85064 Mrc. Raye Fleming 1920 Mattie Road Chairman Shall Beach CA 93449 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mr. Frederick Eissler US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Sc nic Shoreline Preservation Washington DC 20555 Conference, Inc.
4623 More Mesa Drive Senta Barbara CA 93105
Chairman
- Judge Thomas S. Moore Atomic Safety and Licensing Chairman Appeal Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Appeal Board W3chington DC 20555 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555 ,
S:cretary US Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- Judge W. Reed Johnson W3chington DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing l
Appeal Board Attn Docketing and Service US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Section Washington DC 20555 0 Lawrence J. Chandler, Esq.
- Judge John H. Buck H3nry J. McGurren Atomic Safety and Licensing US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Appeal Board Office of Executive Legal Director US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555 Washington DC 20555 Mr. Richard B. Hubbard Commissioner Nunzio J. Palladino MHB Technical Associates Chairman 1723 Hamilton Avenue Suite K US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Sen Jose CA 95125 1717 H Street NW Washington DC 20555 Mr. Carl Neiberger Talegram Tribune Commissioner Frederick M. Bernthal P. O. Box 112 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 52n Luis Obispo. CA 93402 1717 H Street NW Washington DC 20555 Michael J. Strumwasser, Esq.
Susan L. Durbin, Esq. Comeissioner Victor Gilinsky Pcter H. Kaufman, Esq. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 3580 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 800 1717 H Street NW Los Angeles CA 90010 Washington DC 20555 Maurice Axelrad, Esq. Commissioner James K. Asselstine N3wman & Holtzinger, P.C. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1025 Connecticut Ave. NW 1717 H Street NW Washington DC 20036 Washington DC 20555 Commissioner Thomas M. Roberts US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street NW Washington DC 20555 k
Dnte: March 6, 1984 M1 __
- C pies delivered by courier.
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _