ML20097C028

Response to ASLB 840904 Memorandum & Order Acknowledging Submittal of Applicant 840803 Submittal & Staff 840831 Repts on Foreman Override Issue & Directing Parties to Submit Views on Future Action on Issue.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20097C028
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	09/12/1984
From:	Carr A DUKE POWER CO.
To:
References
OL, NUDOCS 8409140241
Download: ML20097C028 (53)

Text

-

f _. t ,

00LKETED USNPC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 84 SEP 13 A9:30 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD: ::

. , a In the Matter of )

)

DUKE POWER' COMPANY,'et ' - ~

al. ) Docket Nos. 50-413

) 50-414 6(,,

(Catawba Nuclear Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO BOARD

~ ORDER OF SEPTEMBER 4, 1984 In its' Memorandum and Order of September 4, 1984 (pp.

7-8), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("the Board")

acknowledged the submittal of the Applicants' August 3, 1984 and the NRC Staff's August 31, 1984 reports on that portion of the " foreman override" issue as to which the record is still open, and directed the parties to submit their views on "what action should be.taken next" on this remaining issue. The_ position of Duke Power Company, et

.,- al. (" Applicants"),-which requests that the record be closed on this matter, is set forth below.

I. Introduction Resolution of the . Welder B and related foreman override concerns is the only issue remaining open before this Board and as such, is the only remaining obstacle to the authorization of a low-power operating license for the

_ Catawba Nuclear Station.1/ June 22, 1984 Partial Initial 1_/ In addition to the condition relating to the Welder B

' concerns, the Board also conditioned its order in its (footnote continued) 94 1$400 a

Ztro3

s-

, 3 .w 1 Decision at 271-72.

In its Partial Initial Decision, the Board noted that

. Applicants.were then conducting an extensive. investigation of the foreman _ override concerns raised by an individual identified as Welder B,2/ and that the NRC Staff would

-(footnote continued from previous.page) sJune.22, 1984 Partial. Initial Decision upon

" demonstration to this Board of reasonable assurance

~ that the emergency diesel generators at the Catawba Station can perform their function and provide reliable service with reference to the concerns encompassed by the Intervenors' late. contention

, ~a dmitted June 22, 1984." Partial Initial Decision at i_ 272.

n-Applicants submit that this condition has been met, since in its August 22, 1984 Order the Board dismissed Intervenors' diesel generator contention and cancelled the evidentiary hearing scheduled on that contention.- l See also the Board's September 4, 1984 Memorandum and I Order. The, Board found in both its August 22,-1984 Order (at 1-2) and its September 4, 1984 Order (at 7) that Palmetto Alliance and CESG had not demonstrated their ability to make a significant contrib'ution to-the record on the highly technical diesel generator contention, despite the Board's repeated direction.

that a failure ~to do so would result in'theidismissal of the contention. See Partial-Initial Decision at 273, n.50; July 20, 1984 Memorandum and Order at 5:

Tr. 12,815.- Given the dismissal of this contention,

'there is no longer any diesel generator issue over which the ' Board should retain ~ jurisdiction.- In this regard, the Board pointed out in its September 4, -1984 Memorandum and Order (p. 7) that the " safety of the Catawba diesel generators is now a matter for Staff 4-resolution."

'~ The Board's Order was also subject to Applicants' making certain minor- procedural changes related to

.their-Quality Assurance program. The Board-did not

-retain jurisdiction on this issue, ruling instead that the conditions were to be met "to the satisfaction of i_ the Staff." Partial Initial Decision at 271.

2/ This Board has defined " foreman override" as actions (footnote continued) r --,.-r, - -~r ...~_-.-..;-. . , . . . , . . , , . . . . . - - . . , . . . . . . - . , - . , - . , - - - . - . - - __--,--,---u-.-----..~..___-._,.-.. ~

_ - - -. . _ - - . ~.-

..,.. j. subsequently review'the findings of this investigation and

^

' submit its own report to the Board. In light of the then-pending-investigations, the Board held the record open.on-that issue "for thA purpose of reviewing reports from the' Applicants and Staff on their resolution of these-concerns." Partial Initial Decision at 237-38. In addition, the Board conditioned its order authorizing the

. Director of' Nuclear Reactor Regulation to issue a low-

[ powerf operating license for Unit 1 of Catawba upon Applicants' demonstration to the Board of "a reasonable assurance that the ' Welder B' and related concerns . . .

do not represent a significant breakdown in quality assurance at Catawba." Id. at 272.

As discussed.in~section III, below, Applicants believe that this-condition has been satisfied by the submittal of the Applicants' and the Staff's reports.

These reports' conclusively demonstrate, without further

'~

evidence,-that the ' Welder B and related foreman override econcerns. investigated by both the NRC and Duke do not represent a."significant breakdown" in quality assurance

! at Catawba. The reports thus satisfy'the criteria

' ~

established by . the Board for closing the record on this remaining issue.. Accordingly, Applicants take the position that _the _ foreman override issue warrants no i

i l (footnote continued from previous page) by supervision that "resulted in defective work or a L violation of.QA procedures." Partial Initial Decision l 'at 238.

l l-b s

- . _ _ . _ - . . - _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ - ._ _..__ _ _..~. _ . _ ._ _ _._.,._ _ _ _ _ ___._

.w.

.e 6 further attention on the part of this Board; that this Board should close the record on this single remaining 2

issue; and that this Board should remove the sole

' remaining condition to its order (i.e., the satisfactory resolution of the Welder B issue), which would have the effect of enabling the Director of NRR to issue a low-

' power operating license for the Catawba Nuclear Station.

The " reasonable assurance" provided by these two reports that the " Welder B" and related foreman override

concerns do not reflect a "significant breakdown" in OA at Catawba is, in itself, sufficient to warrant the Board's promptly closing the record on this remaining aspect of

contention 6. Applicants also demonstrate herein, however, that due process has been satisfied by allowing the parties this opportunity to comment on the disposition

- of.this remaining Board issue (see section IV,-below); and that1other factors such as the interests of administrative finality and the cumulative nature of the material in the Applicants' and the NRC Staff's reports (see section V below) argue compellingly against allowing either l- discovery or additional hearings on these foreman override allegations.

Still another important factor to be considered is the need for timely resolution of this one remaining open issue. Applicants are presently proceeding under the authority of a license, issued July 18, 1984, Which P .m e

e ,- w. e w - ,w-,- , w,,- - , - -, , - ,po+y.,,,-,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,ew,wg,-nw ,y.,-

-9 :n- ~5~

. authorizes only the-loading of fuel-and conduct of certain.

pre-critical. testing activities.

As noted in the attached affidavit of Warren'H. Owen, Duke Power. Company Executive Vice-President of the Engineering, Construction.and Production Group, Applicants' current schedule calls for achieving initial _ criticality on-October 17, 1984; thus 4

, ~ additional licensing authority is required by that date.3/

While. Applicants would normally have moved for the

-issuance of a 5% -license,4/ we note that in this instance the Board's June 22, 1984 Partial Initial Decision has already authorized the issuance ~of such a license by-the Director of NRR upon the satisfaction of the two conditions stated therein. Partial Initial Decision at

- 2 71' . Since it is our position'in this document that both

oflthese conditions have now.been met and that the license may now be issued, the filing of a' separate motion requesting issuance of a low-power license appears 1/ Resolution of this. issue by the Board, however, is necessary prior to-that date in order to-allow the NRC y Staff.to process and issue the license in a timely fashion.

4_/ - In the May-15v 1984 " Stipulation Among The Parties,"

-Applicants indicated (p. 2) that should it become necessary, theyl intended to seek "further authority from this Board with respect to achieving criticality and;1ow-power testing," and that they would file an appropriate motion with the Board and parties seeking authorization of such activities. -The subsequent Lissuance of the June 22, 1984 Partial Initial Decision makes such a motion unnecessary at this time.

9

Li o - redundant and unnecessary. Applicants will of course submit such a motion if time constraints make it necessary to 30 so.

II. Background The in camera concerns initially raised by Board witness Sam Nunn included an allegation of "forem'an override." The Board carefully noted that this concern, as well as the other in' camera concerns, were not separate a

contentions;.rather, "they were merely examples of matters that fell within theLbroad scope of Contention 6." Partial

. Initial Decision at 17. As discussed below, the " Welder

'B" and related foreman override concerns Which are the subject of the Applicants' and the Staff's reports are only a narrow ~ aspect' of the in camera issue d'ealing with foreman override.

At the Board's request, the Staff began investigating the " foreman override" allegations raised by one of the in i

camera witnesses during the safety hearings. Staff Exh. 27 at 1. (NRC Inspection Report 50-413/84-03 and 50-414/84-03 became Staff.Exh.'26 and the accompanying " Summary of l

Investigative Interviews" became Staff Exh. 27. These were served on the Board and the parties January 20,

-1984). In following up on these concerns, the Staff conducted personal interviews with numerous Duke employees

.to determine whether foreman override was a-broad generic t problem at the Catawba site. These interviews revealed i

V g -..  !

that "there is not a pervasive. problem with the issue of

]

iforeman override and . . . there have been only isolated

- incidents involving this issue." Staff Exh. 27 at 2. (See-i also'NRC; Inspection Report 50-413/84-31 and 50-414/84-17

.  : at 3, which was served on the Board and parties on April 26, 1984.) -Indeed, the StSff stated:

-Under the subject of foreman override, the inspector found that while some individuals may have held their fereman in relatively low esteem in terms of qualification and ability to manage the crew this was not pervasive and may have

". .been a personality problem. . 1&te vast majority of the craft-interviewed spoke very favorably of their past and present field supervisors (foremen).

Staff'Exh. 26 at 5. However, during these interviews an 3:

individual referred to as " Welder B" indicated possible L ,

irregularities . involving' one particular foreman. Staff

. ,. . . . . . . , - . . . s. . -

Exh. 27 at 2. See also the Staff's April 26, 1984 Report at 3.

Accordingly, after. informing the Board that foreman override was not a pervasive problem, Region II then focused its inspection more narrowly on the specific

- welding foreman named by Welder B and on this foreman's crew. The Staff summarized. the findings of this round of interviews as follows:

During the numerous interviews conducted by the Region II Staff,'each interviewee.was specifically asked if he had ever experienced any problems regarding foremen directing them to work out of procedure or to engage in work activity in-violation of procedure. The interviewees were primarily from the welding and pipefitters craft with several foremen and quality control inspectors also interviewed.

m-

- , ,.se *esm, - - - , - e ,-w--ee...-v ---w.m-,w-ww-w -me--e-e w,,e w, ym#yg,p. g y v y w y--ww-ew y--prty--v w g ae . y e - y- y- y

., . Almost all had worked on various crews and had. ,

worked for several foremen during their i employment at Catawba. Only Welder B and individuals subsequently interviewed in )

connection with the " Welder B issue" identified problems they experienced and this was only with the second shift welding crew foreman. No other information was-developed that indicated there were problems involving other foremen and the Region II Staff concentrated inspection. efforts on the second shift welding crew.

April 26, 1984 Staff Report at 3-4.

During March, 1984, Duke was informed of the various issues raised during the NRC Region II Staff's inquiryE/

and promptly began its own investigation into these issues. The Staff noted in its April 26, 1984 Report that it was identifying Etwo unresolved action items (relating

' ~

'td fab'rication of socket welds and unauhhorized removal of

~

. .a rc . strikes.) as .a result of these allegations.

On August 3, 1984, Applicants submitted " Duke Power Company's Investigation of Issues Raised by the NRC Staff

~

in Inspection Report 50-413/84-31 and 50-414/84-17" (the 1/ These allegations were characterized by the Staff as follows:

1) welders working on stainless steel sockets may have violated interpass temperatures, 2) arc strikes may have been removed from a valve without proper documentation, 3) socket welds may have been made out of procedure in that one side of the socket was completely welded and then the other side welded, 4) the lead man on the crew reportedly acted as a 'look out' for . licensee OC inspectors when welding procedures were being violated, 5) welders perceived the foreman to be applying pressure for quantity, and 6) the foreman allegedly instructed welders to weld without being in possession of proper welding documentation.

April 26, 1984 Staff Report at 2.

e

• * " Duke Report") , which was served on the Board, the parties and NRC. Region II. This report' addressed all of the allegations raised in the Staff reports. The Duke report also addresses additional employee concerns raised during Duke's investigative interviews.- Some, although not all, of these concerns related to foreman override; accordingly, Applicants' report addresses both the foreman override allegations and various other technical concerns that are not before this Board.

On August 31, 1984.the NRC Staff submitted to the Board and parties its final report on the Welder B foreman override issue, Inspection Report 50-413/84-88 and .50-

. s .- ..:-.- .L.

.. s .

. .:.: .- . . . ..t ..-r . . > . . . c n. :. -~ - r- - ~- :e 414/84-39 (the " August 31 Staff Report"), wherein it

. ', closed'out'.the twd.I remaining' ope.n items and.thus brought- -

this matter to a satisfactory conclusion.

The overall effect of these reports -- the several by the NRC Staff and Applicants' August 3 report -- is simply to confirm.th-e Board's findings on forema'n override set forth in the June 22, 1984 Partial Initial Decision. In other words, these reports confirm that there is no evidence foreman override is a widespread problem at Catawba, and thus support the Board's finding that this issue.should be resolved in Applicants' favor. See Partial Initial Decision at 238.

10 -

III. The. Applicants' and the Staff's reports provide. reasonable assurance that the Welder B concerns do not reflect a signifi-cant breakdown'in quality assurance at Catawba As previously noted, the Board had left the Welder B matter open'for the limited-purpose of determining whether such presents.'a significant breakdown in' quality assurance at Catawba. Applicants submit that the Duke Report conclusively demonstrates that the " foreman override" concerns raised by Welder B and several other employees at O

Catawba do not reflect a significant breakdown in quality assurance. Nor do such concerns indicate the existence of

" systematic deficiencies in plant construction" or

. , ., .r g... .

.. :. ". company yy,e s a ur.e . ,to ,; approve

, , , faul,ty ; workm,anphip,.", , W.h,1ch... 3, :. ., . , . , . . ._

. were the focus of Contention 6. On the contrary, Duke's

, , . .. .:.;-  : ..  : . . . . . . .r. .. .- .- r, y.  :...-><.~.:~,.-

-. ,# j . ,- 4  : extensive. investigation,".which . included interviews evith/ * - e" 2 - ~

217 individuals. representing approximately 10,000 work-years of experience on over one million work items at

- Catawba, found that high quality construction standards l

L are being met at Catawba and that " foreman override" is y not a problem at the site. Duke Report at 1-2.

( While it is true that during these interviews a few allegations of foreman override were made by Duke employees, two points (both of which are discussed in detail in Applicants' Report) should be made with respect

'to these allegations. First, no alleged instance of foreman override resulted, or would have resulted, in work which was deficient in any way. Second, these few l

f

_ -- .r-.m_..-. , ...,---~...,c m,m,.e,m,m., , , , . . , . - . . - , . - , . . . . . , ,

11 -

allegations provide no evidence that there exists, or has existed, at Catawba a pattern of pressure by supervision on craftsmen to violate procedures, to perform less than satisfactory work, or to sacrifice the quality of work in order'to' meet production-schedules.

- ,,. ~ .. . ... .

w

, ,- . .>  ?

.As ex'plained in the Duke report, the latter conclusion is bolstered by two factors. The first is the extremely small number of supervisory personnel implicated

. during Duke's investigation ~and the small number of incidents alleged. In interviews with 217 employees, less than a dozen specific instances of possible foreman override were mentioned, of which fewer than six incidents

~~+w: v . :..- + ; n . r.

,n ..r.e,y .. s . acoul u~r

. , h. be .. . .s i-..:L.v

• ven..part w:1. ially s;ubs.:.tantiate . . . . .d:

. : Most of these e.a...

. inc.14ents. .involv.ed .one , welding Nr.eman ~r a' lthough- three '

?..v . . ,..... ,. .n.ur y....v;:r'..

v. 5:,-o -~ s. w n.~..s u. ~ n . Y .: ' . ' - %. - + ~ '.- " - -

other supervisors were also named in connection with isolated events. Each of the several isolated incidents of foreman override that_ appear to have occurred reflected iT. procedural-violations which every individual involved p- agreed were not intended to result, and could not have

! . resulted, in deficient work. None of the interviewees

(

indicated that such instances reflected a widespread pattern or practice at Catawba. Nevertheless,-all the allegations were thoroughly investigated and the resulting

, work found acceptable.

I I

s l' .

e .

Second, th'e conclusion that foreman override is not a problem at Catawba is also supported by the clearly random and isolated nature of the alleged incidents, which does not reflect widespread attitudes or practices by supervisory personnel. In short, the instances determined

~

'by Duke 'to ' consti$ute foreman ove'rride do 'not fall' into any pattern suggesting that Duke supervision or management systematically or consistently ignored quality

-considerations in order to meet construction schedules, or that the company's policy was to sacrifice quality for quantity of work performed.

Given Contention 6's focus upon " systematic" and'

. . . ./. .

.. % . . wide'sp$eafdefi$i'enhi'eisi "and'uf6ii$eea' side'ddoriiparih '

• * ' ~ '

.. ; . . c.,,.t . r. pressure. to, approve. faulty.. workmanship;". this lack..of.any.. .. . ..

.w. : v. . :< .r. :. : > . . . > w u.

t , . -i,.

. < a . ..: . :.. . . , ..u. : , .". ..e .  ; .. . :~ : + n .:< . .e.. .. - .. , : . . . ~ ~. ~i. ~..-

discernible pattern of foreman override is' particularly significant. It should be recalled ~that in evaluating the in camera allegations of foreman override, the Board in this proceeding has focused upon whet,her such occurrences

- were indicative of a pervasive " pattern of foreman i-pressure to 'get the job done' without . regard -to quality. "

- Partial Initial Decision at 238. The same focus should apply in evaluating these few remaining foreman-override concerns. While evidence of pervasive, persistent and la company-condoned foreman override could call into question the safety of the plant, this Board has recognized that

. . ,i As. the.;. Appeal Bo.ard, . pointed.. out. ,in. Callaway, we. . . ,,.. . . .

do not expect that a project of the size and complexity of Catawba will be constructed I

J ,. '

l t ~,,.v- ,,. _ r . . . . - - - , - . , 2 :, -:. .._::;,...-...,-,.

without some lapses in construction and quality assurance procedures. The question is whether such lapses were of such-a magnitude and so pervasive that the safe operation of the plant

.may have been compromised.

d at 33. . The Board concluded that there was no such Id.

, compromise of quality with respect to the Contention 6

, ;9 "

.. . .. . . , . , . . . . . .. ~ . .. ... . ..

allegations discussed in'its Partial' Initial Decision. Id.

As discussed b'elow, that same conclusion applies to the

. foreman override allegations discussed in the Applicants' and the Staff's reports.

The August 31 Staff Report on the Welder B foreman override concerns supports and confirms Applicants' findings that these concerns do not indicate a

,.:.:.. :i i../ .~ *:,gggQgy gygygi.-fg gd tY^*a$h$ib'$ '5'EE5Owh%.^ ~~ H " #

l -

W s,?,": y *.,; "( ;i7

-In, ,.yr;n~:

its. -Report,'the

~~ .w. w. Staff indicat'esl:.its

,'".' ',,'j"g.; - app'roval;.of/the

. "; i.M . : ,'. '. , ~y ~ ..;. ~ Qr'. *. ' % 'V. y.* '

manner in which' Duke's investigation was conducted. The.

" conduct and depth" of the licensee's investigation was

-reviewed periodically by.the Staff, which satisfied itself that the Duke employees sel'ected .to co.nduct interviews, . .

i were "well qualified" and that the company's

( " investigative plan and- proposals to initiate resolution p

l of the concerns expressed by employees" reflected a " valid f.

I .and logical approach." August 31 Staff Report at 4. The Staff also notes thati- Duke's' inquiry was " initiated from a x high level of licensee management" and that responsibility

[ for the investigation "was fixed.at the highest levels of

. . . . . ;, m ,.. licensee manngement,. "...Id. .

at. 4.. .. . ...

s .r.. . , , .. . . . . .. ...4 .# . .

t I

L

^

,-sj.., . .- ,

. .-. .-,..-....a- . ~,-..:-..,, , - . . . _ . - .,  ;..-... - . . . ~ . -

In addition, the Staff states in its August 31 Report that during Duke's investigation, Region II contacted 5 several individuals interviewed during the investigation 4

~

, to determine their view of the process. These employees c3 r reported to the Staff that'"they were satisfied that their

. ,1

' int'erviews 'were con' ducted in~a' professional" manner and

~

-f j that. they were given ample opportunity to express their ,

s

" [ concerns to the licensee." M . After completion of Duke's i

j [ investigation, the NRC also contacted at home (to protect f' ' privacy) 27 of the 37 individuals who had expressed

} h oncerns to Duke, to determine whether these employees Q were satisfied with the company's resolution of their

, i~ :n

> . ~ ,.

.f g' ..

, g . gg ,gg.ggg y .:y g sg }:.m g . .

39gg,3.gg. ,g.-

i x '

.i all stated that they were satisfied s. with the..results .m of.8

-....... - . . ,..,.. . . ,,. .,..r. ..:~.......s.

.. . ., ~- .*. , .> .

.,.,,' u ,.., . . , . c. . . .-. ..< ...a....,... . . .

u. . .- .<.~.

a , the licensee investigation and they felt that their

. ,j T(kconcernswereappropriatelyaddressedduringthe

+ 2 (investigation."$/ M. at 6. .

i _[i i

N , ' ' Even more significant is the fact that the Staff's

' August 31 Report closes out both of the unresolved items

' ' ~

2-- identified by the Staff in its April-26, 1984 Report. One y ,go i4

1.

of these unresolved issues was the fabrication of socket

} welds allegedly without proper process control, without

.. +/

, regard for interpass. temperatures, and without regard for

,h authorized weld bead deposit sequence procedures.

, 1.1 s

_= p

.j-6,,/

The Sta.ff will continue to attempt to contact the m . ; . . / ' +.m -c, repaining, .indiyiduals, but will. .not . amend . the . report..

!,k"O ...s.

unle'ss.these employees voice a different opinion.

. .. x. , - -..

j August'31 Staff Report at 6.

.,7

.r t

. , j.

h

s-e- ,

s.  ;

As to.the. allegations that a foreman had instructed workers to weld when they did not have proper 4

-documentatl.on (process control) in their possession, Applicants' investigation revealed that, of those i

incidents wherein the. employee alleged' direct knowledge of

-s.2ch occurrences,there appear'to'havb been tb o~ccas1ons-where workers-were asked to begin work but were not required.to do so when they explained to their supervision that they had no documentation in their possesion.. There

~

.also appear:to have been three instances in.which welders it worked for a short time on minor ~ preparatory activities with their. documentation in or near the work area, but not

.. . ~:,. :.%. W . : .;'. ' y i: .

• x .s. ~~ '

" In %h'eir..lpl iy..s

. c. . . . ..;

. . ical..e . . :,.pos ses Q~ ' ' ' . ': , '-

on.si,. .While n'..s :-tfIe ::Ee,m:;p.,f. '.,.l.';h..orary' removal'

. ,- . , 'of ,their documentation c~o'nstitutedJ a :v5.ola. tion of. 'the' , - . .

t.f ' 7.~. a . ', ;', , . .' :. ' . -:.::*. . .~ . . e . ..:.4.+.:. Y

. .v.. . . '.r '. ' " ~ + i . '.%. v. c. i W.'.lJ. .*; '..' % ~ ~ i .5

-.', .. O g language of process-control procedures, in each' instance

' the worker knew what parameters were to be followed and

-thus.the= intent of~the procedures was satisfied. See the.

. 3 . ,; . .

,' Duke. Report,, Attachment.A,., Segtion.lIII. . . , . , . . , , ., ,. s. . , ,.

The August.31 Staff Report affirms Duke's conclusions with respect.to the process control allegations.- It -

reiterates' Duke's findings that'ther'e has not been "a-g

~

widespread problem" in this area and that. "[t]here was no

. , . . ~ , .

• evidence.of ,~

defective. work.due'to'the fact that in each'

-case the worker involved was aware of the work

(

. requirements." August 31 Staff Report at 1. The Staff

. 6% ) %:wi,J .L - <T . . ,..:v

. - : 4 ::. y w.n .,..a . v + '. '. k n +r w.:- s .sr- <4 sve^ .: ~ ~ s

~

. -'- * ' n ' .

'-e r.

L k

+ >

9 + ,

.m v -,r. u,-em,-amme-.ew.e - -.v =-.~.r ,,w-,v-- e -s-a , . - -. - . .e.-.m-,.,a-,.---n-,-,., e-,. ,~.e-,n+-- ,,e_.n.- - . -

1, g also noted with approval the corrective action to be taken, consisting of meetings with employees to re-emphasize procedural requirements in this area.

With respect to interpass temperatures, Applicants found that out of the 134 welders interviewed, only four c , .

welders stated'that they had direct knowl' edge of interpass temperature violations. Further interviews'and testing both by Duke and an independent-research laboratory demonstrat'ed that in all.likelihoc.d no actual interpass temperature violations occurred. If such violations did occur, they were isolated instances which, . according to the tests performed, would not have had an adverse impact e . .; .. . ..:.....,_........,,.~..:,,..

. . . . . .. .. .... - . -.s

.+....,....~.-<.;......u.... . ..

..-- .v. :..a .y.. ..

. .s. .. . a .- ~. . .s..: --

a:+nr upon the integrity of the welds. See the Duke Report, -

A , .. '0;, .? .....,

Attachment:

4, Sc e.ction I ', .

,. . ;. <. e . .. . e . .. y

.. . . . . . . . . . ~ - . . . .. ,~. u n . . . . . . . . .I< - * . ' . . 1.

.. .. .. w. . .~. . .

=

...:: ,s .. .e . ..raza.

The August 31-Staff Report notes the extensive testing and metallurgical analyses conducted by both Duke and by the Brookhaven. National Laboratory (BNL) to pn.. ..J.

, ..- .. determine..whether..the alleged. violations.of interpass.. s .

temperature would'have created defective welds. The Staff

. state's that the results of' the analyses by both BNL an'd Duke showed that all :the sample welds met acceptable I;

standards for susceptibil'ity to intergranular stress corro'sion cracking. Atigust ' 31 St'aff "Re' port 'at 2. The

.s .4 . . . -. . . . .

Staff also concurs with Duke's conclusion that violations of interpass temperature requirements were isolatcd, and

..p: .6 . e.g..r. ithatecauch 4. occur:Jencesvwouldinot havecaf facted .:the ~. >.w ..-% - - "- ': N

s

-, integrity of the welds in' question. Id. -

Finally, the Staff does not dispute Applicants' finding that interpass temperature violations were not dira.r.ed by the foreman of

.the welder in question. However, the Staff states that 1"there is reason to believe" that the few incidents that

' ~ "

did $ccur were'"probably" due to " the welder i s perception

~ '

that his foreman was directing him to ignore the procedure

.to meet'the schedule." -Id.

Applicants were unable to document one employee's allegation that on several welds in a tight or awkward location he had altered the welding sequence from the sequence described in the applicable procedures. The p.g.y > .. . . e < . , . . . . .,

y,>. < v,.pg... . .;$,.o yp .j v q;...:, ; . -; .~..: 4 :- ;.f . . - . g.g;. . r . + , -:.+ %

,in'dividusi 'in question did not 'identifp,'any specific welds 4:l % ,./ . . . : ..' ,n.- .

don.e in this.. manner, Eve.n i; fait di,d ., occur, :h' o wever, this.< , , 1 ,.

(. .s. : . . ;, :1.s . . . . . . ., . Lx: . . . . . . > . : e.

alt.eration of' the welding sequence is not significant 1

.- . r ..-~.. -

- -' - . . . ^;<

since the technique described is a viable method for making difficult welds and does not constitute a violation

... , f

.. .. .....: Of__ASME o.r Duke, procedures. ,.This indi.vidual.was..therefore . .

incorrect in his belief that he had violated procedures.

, See the Duke' Report,' Attachment B,'Section II. .The August

-31 Staff Report agrees with Applicants' conclusion that i

"there was no technical violation of the procedure."

August'31 Staff' Report at 1.

'The Staff' expresses' concern,'

, .. u . . . , , . . . ..,- . -

however, that " welders did the work with the perception that they were in violation of the procedure." Id. .

p ; .c .. c: a. . . g ,+ . t.w. . .y . < ,. . .w :~ . . :. . + ~,o x. .w .:- e

. -: v~ % n~.  ;+." . - - .': v a ' ' . .'

y y=-- -e, -- .yv-r--

- syy .g.-,y ,ge-- -,-p*% g wiei,vy,--iw-.,m-e9wt-y

,y,-w g r-m- a, v 9 e ww +9 + + m-ee p -- 9--,g #ga-.g g-sp- +

i.

.L.

The other unresolved issue identified by the Staff in its April 26, 1984'~ Report was the removal of arc strikes from welds allegedly without the proper approval. This issue arose during an NRC' interview with a Catawba employee, who expressed concern that on one occasion his b'

. foreman had filed" arc strikes from th'e~ socket region'of a valve (1.e., near the weld) and instructed him to do the same if the arc strikes were "not too bad." Applicants' investigation determined that the foreman's decision to remove the minor arc strikes was proper. Process control procedures for the system in question permit the welder (or the foreman, who is responsible .for his crew's work)

. . , , ,-< y,,s.

. .;w a : , .- :. . , c

. s .. . .......a . . ... .

. e . v ., : . , u.. 1.-  ; e . a .~: i., . a. ; ,~ .3 :

.to ' rem 6ve' are: 'st'r'ike's - fiom tihe i4sla '.z. .e:.u . . . ,ohe.'^Mofeov;er,Vall'

- t- "

, e. .

..,4

. valves.dn cri.tical.. ,socket. weld. systems.weldedaby.this'

.. , . , . j,.

.........  :, . :. . s . .. ~ . . . .,0::.": .~::f.'~...~ ..... .: a . a. > - ~;.-

' ~

foreman's crew were examined for indications of improper filing. .No file marks were found outside the' weld region, indicating.no violations of procedure occurred. See Duke Report, Attachment B,-Section,I.

In its August 31 Report, the Staff cites without dispute Applicants' findings that "thare was no evidence that ARC strikes were removed from' anywhere but the weld zone without proper authorization and documentation," and

^that "the allegation that a foreman had' removed'an ARC'

... . . . ,, . :s . .

strike without authorization could not be substantiated."

9 h ; . :. 9 >4\ ,: n q .~ n .:., a .p ". .' h W. h ;r : '. .:-=. . : '.<;t:+.. h . o ? ~' " t * %.~ i.- 3: .~/. ' ' :~. i -:- M' *: i 'y

l

-August 31 Report at 3. The Staff also reiterated that c

"the hardware that was purported to be involved showed no

' evidence of ARC strike removal." Id.

In its April 26, 1984 Report, the NRC Staff had also

' identified-the allegations of a lead man acting as a  ;

t s. .

' '" lookout"' and!'f6remen' applying pre'ssurs for atuant.ity. ~ (S'ee

p. 8, n'. 5, . ' supra . ) These concerns, which were

-incorporated by the NRC Staff into the two unresolved issues, are discussed in detail by Duke in its August 3 report. With respect to the allegation that craftsmen acted-as " lookouts" for QC inspectors while welding procedures were violated, Applicants determined that out

.w . . .. .,. .. , s. a.

....s . ... . . . . . . , . r ..s,.., 7, ,. .. . .. ., . . ,3 , . . .ej ..s

. 2 3 . ,, . . .a ., ....y.,,

.7 <, . . .

<.-.- f ,. df

• the"six (iristanc'es'J o'f "th'iYnatitire illeg'ed" td" have' '. - ' ' '

\.C<. -- .a '. '.,< i.. ..  ;.o.ccu.rr, .ed,

... . . . .,;. ...on.ly,. .o.ne constitute.d.~

. . ,. . .-a-vio.l:atio,n: .of. . .. .pr.ocedu.res.

. . ... . . . a.~.; . a. : , ; . . . . a. . . .: .

. .. o. : . . .. .v . s. . .r. . ..  :.w - r* .. . ..* .

.. - r - .. .~,

and'this' incident raised no safety concerns. The foreman involved has been removed from his supervisory positi on..

.See the Duke-Report, Attachment A,Section II.

'As.to the Staff's general concern that welders

. perceived the -foreman to be " applying -pressure for

, , quantity,.". Duke asked all employees interviewed whether they_ believed the quality of any of their work 'had been affected by production pressure, and, if so,.whether they

- . . u -rec'alled the work'in; question.' Six specific incident's

• y . , . . . . . ,. . .. . . . . ~~ . -

i

-raised by employees were then investigated. Applicants I-determined that even assuming that there was excessive f,p..m,. .

,c+c. productlon ,. pres sure,.,in.3these . incidents,. .the , quality .of ,the..

i

. . y. . .e t.,

i l-e ,-. , , s ,,r s . .s..---, . - - ~ . , - , , - - , , ~ ,,,,-~---..,m-,.--,---m.-u.-,.e,.n.,,,

,.n,.:.a-..,., ,,,,.+_c,m.

j ,

20 -

work done-(and, accordingly, the safety of the hardware involved):was~not affected. Moreover, appropriate corrective action has now been taken with respect to the supervisory personnel involved. See the Duke Report, pp.

18-19 and 24-27;' Attachment A, Sections I and VIII.

.c 4 - -

'InTresponse'to' Applicants' inve'stigat'ibn'of these two unresolved items, the Staff's August 31 Report closed out

-both issues-(see pp. 1-3),-indicating the Staff's acceptance of Duke Power Company's resolution of these concerns. Had the Staff disagreed with Applicants' conclusions, or believed that Duke's investigation had not satisfactorily' dealt with the open items, it would have

. . . , , . . . . . . .p...

. ,. <.....<.,,.. ..-n.. . . . . . -.. .. ; .

.. ~indicstsa ss 'niuc}i iiFitsA6giist"'31R'epoYE "'Tliafif'd'id......:*~'..-- ..:

y .. y .y . ... ,

' '~"'

~ .

. ,.,nop'do .so,' confirms. the Staff'.s . pos,ition, in :Sta,ff,. Exh,. 27.

de ;; ..r . ,:.; .:. .. ;. t ... :. . : , % a ..

.v.'. r ;. - .. .... ~ . .t.-

. . ., *. .. ~. .

~.-

...<\;.. . . . . . + . . -

.c *.

1 and reiterated.in the Staff's April 26, 1984 Report that

' foreman override is-"not a pervasive problem" at Catawba and'that "there have been only isolated incidents

. . involving this. issue."~ . . .

In sum, it is clear that the investigative efforts of Applicants and Staff have provided sufficient information

. to provide the Board with reasonable assurance that the

Welder B and related concerns do not represent a i* . -

fsignific' ant breakdown in quality assurance 'at Catawba.' '

x ,, s , , , , , , , . . ~. e . ,ur n 1 ~ - . . .. .. ~ . . . . . .

This Board needs nothing further to satisfy itself with regard to this issue.

w<.,.e.;.;i.e. . ny: .c g....w, .~ vs sn.-w wlv~e.w : ... m W. > r :uw t

. .s m a n.o .4:6 y. o . - J'..r :., e. .:'. . < * ~ ~

A'

_.- . i IV. - -Due process does not require further' consideration of the fo' reman override

-concerns in an evidentiary 1. earing An examination of both judicial and administrative precedent _as well-as the Welder B reports submitted by the

-Applicants and the NRC Staff.demonstates that further

,. 3.# . . . . - ., ... . -

. .- e. . .- .

hearings on this neard issue are not required to provide due' process to.Intervenors. Having raised the matter of foreman--override, th'e Board is now free to close the

. record based upon a finding that the reports by the Applicants and the-NRC Staff satisfactorily resolve the

-issues.

It_is significant that'the foreman override issue is

. r . . . , . . . . M.:n - . ..::. ..e~- . . : ..

~.w o..

.. . ::. .. c. . . . s .< ;.........v..

..<.<..v;,.>.....,....>. . . ...

.~. v t . : ?....

\ ~ : . .~ . . c . u . . . v. . a..<.

- -c.-- - . , ~ . c

- not an issue ra<:ised y:the Intervenors in :h'is t pro *nceeding.

.  ;. . ' . - ' REther, 3,t; is"a. Licen,singg. Board. issue. And : git.'is. up, to. the , '. . .f. , .

n .H,,g ,

. . .,...,>.. .,pr

.. .. :....n:

. ..a>>.- .

?.:. .s F . F .t . . . -v . ~ : ..v:: . .: i.? .. . .

-~e om . .

Board to decide whether, and-to.what extent, it believes additional information and witnesses are necessary to

, :. satisfy itself that foreman override doe's not constitute a o

r j "significant breakdown" of quality assurance at Catawba.

! It is Applicants' position that, .given the current posture o'f this proceeding and. the results of the Welder B

-investigations. conducted by the Applicants and the Staff, l

[ there is no need for the Board to call additional

~

'. wit'nesses and clinduct fur'the'r 'hea'r'ings .

p. v. ." , ' . . v......

.. .. . - ., . . . .. .. - - o . . . . . ~ '. - '

o 6 y..s.sny .

.c <&&:,y r .a '.a . w. .: .? ...-a

% r .*.s-er s., w :. <.

',w v-. #: ~ " h ".' <

• Ni .:. '. : & W' u

. . :: ** c' . ~'w

1 s l

. i i

The. requirements of due process vary with the -

circumstances; both factual and legal, of the particular i

proceeding.1/ In;a-Civil Aeronautics Board proceeding, for. example, the Board in reaching its decision relied on updated. data obtained after the close of. hearings. The

.;s .c% c.

g g ruled'that ^ " fundamental' 'fa'irnes s "~

required the CAB to allow other parties to file their own

- version ' of the relevant factual developments over the last three years and to comment on the new data on which the Board relied. See Delta-Air Lines, Inc. v. CAB, 561 F.2d

'293, 306 (D.C. Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1045

(1978). The court required these written submissionr -~ from

, r s, s . . :, , . . a . . ..- 3: . , . - - ,:. . :s ..r.-,.. . g . + . p . ..e, - e > . , . ~ . e. v . -

a. - ..

-the 'oth'e' r pa'rtitiis. t'o"be 'entertairied"61il ~ becduse' '6f fotir' ^ " * "". ". '> "

fz :f < q . .  :.s c #

h, , J. . ., .. .f . ~ . fac, tor.s s ' (1;) '.tliere. .was. a long .( three., year) . .-delay si.nce,the:.s

. , .3.,-

a. .. . , ,.i . n .;:, .. u r . r . . ~. p. . .. .c... . . . . . . . .: -1 '

...,.J...: ..

. . . . ..b ~..... .a :. . ' *

~ .. : - .

parties had been able'to submit evidence, during which time peculiar changes :in air transportation occurred; (2) the Board's' adjustment of the record with new data was

, . , . . ,,. s . .. - significantly detrimental,to,a.particular,. party;,(3).that. ,

-party had present plausible arguments refuting the r .

1/_. The' Supreme Court has held'in a variety'of settings

^ , that due process does not require cross-examination of

~.

+-witnesses.See, e.g., Vitek v. Jones, 445' U.'S. ;'480,

..,,,e.....a..-- e496 (1980) (transfer -of. prisoners-to. -mental- -  : * ~

• institutions); Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584,.607-08 (1979)(commitment of children to taental institutions);

Goss v. Lopes, 419 U.S. 565, 581- 83 ' (1975 ) ( ten-day suspension from school); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S.

cs &:,h d,,m, fe, .. .. ., f 539, .,567. ,68 (1974)Jpr.i. son..: dis.ciplinary.. proceedings) .; ,.; . w m ...- 2, c . :

See,also Friendly, "Sorae Kind of Hearing",' ~ 123 U. Pa.

L. Rev. 1267, 1283-87 (1975).

en

• i Board's ' interpretation of the facts; and (4) the Board'had arguably attached a different weight and significance to some of the data than in prior CAB practice. Id.

~This limited written submission of evidence and

, . comments on other parties' evidence,was required by due

. process only'because of'these"!four factors.' Similaf factors are not present in the Catawba proceeding. In

-this case: -(l) there has only been an eight month delay since the Staff .first' reported on " Welder B"; (2) acceptance of the new information on foreman override by this' Board does-not " adjust" the balance of the evidence

'to'the Intervenors' detriment, but rather is simply W..f 2.~. .

, ,,..: .. ...: . .-i.:;r.. con

.~.<...y.,,r.

. . ..:firmatory of ~ p. . rior'ev .

.c.

w >:i'dence;"'ma

..< ~- >.

( 3) r;;the;

:. . ;Interv.~.

e.- :, - .. .x ~ : ...:...

enors hav. e

.~

.. p r.. es + . e n. .. . ,-ted ..no . arg.uments .or . contrar. gvid..e..n. c..e.. tha..t refute .

.... , . .. +.... ..r.: - - .y,.

. . . -- -v - ..o . s. .

.s o. ..= , ..,.,~,....v.:........

. . ~ . , , . . ....~~..,r.c

....>.: v. ,.. ,

.. .,.? ... . . .: . .. : .' . .. *

. the Board'is initial'deci'sion on foreman override; and (4) the Board has. not deviated from prior NRC practice. Thus the circumstances under which fundamental fairness

. required'. additional. written submissions. by the parties

.....,.,e. .. . . .

1 .. ...v , . .. c. .. .: -

when the CAB updated the record are not present in the Catawba proceeding. . Ab.sent such facts,; due process

, requires no further action by the parties.

Significantly,'even if due process were to require some .further proceedingsi they would need 'to be no more- '

s .

p.s.-. . ;;.; . v. . . . -..~.u ~. . :. .. : ..... ....- - . s. . . - e.: - ~. .. , . . . . . . . . - ..v -

elaborate than submission of written comments on

-information already before the Board. In Delta Air Lines, d ,a.W.w. <.sf. )s uwa , ,s,ppteg s.ubmi,ss[on,,and;,,comm,ents ,wer,e,,.all .,that , dge.,. ... .,. ,.,, .., .j.,

-A

T.

y ... .24 -

a process required.- The Court of. Appeals did not require

.further discovery or evidentiary hearings with an opportunity for cross-examination. Due process cannot be said to require such elaborate, formal procedures in t

. response. to the Licensing Board's receipt of the Welder B 1 s,; .# .+ -

r- . . .. - '

3- . r- -

' reports. See'also Friendly, "Some Kind of Hearing", 123 U.

Pa. L. Rev. 1267, 1281 and n.79-(1975).

In this case'the Board's September 4, 1984 Order calling for comments by the parties provided due process to all concerned. Only if the Intervenors file an evidentiary' submission in response to this order would there~ be any need for further comments, and then only from W .f.. ' : .~'.% . S & . J'W. ' * ".:'* V s .i *

• JA 3.'; ? .A./.. Nll- '?l*l' '.. N~%+ %. UO .' ^ kA: * ' A.'"

the Applicants and the Staff. The~Intervenors currently

. have:the',o gi:d:d. -VN:y:#'usu ;n.^ . "n .pportunity s '; . '>to.

A acomment . %hu ' n o.the.,

>.G. W ,:Applican.' . . . . . .ts?d. . ' ' 'v and5the,EtWi.1

. .i . . s - .

'.~. ':: :'

Staff's reports. Even a generous interpretation of due process requires no more. See also Northeast Airlines, Inc.-v. CAB, 345'F.2d 484, 487 (1st Cir.), cert. denied,

. 382 U.S. 845 (1965);- Cross-Sound Ferry Services,.Inc. v.

' United States, 573 F.2d 725, 730 (2d cir. 1978).

l . .

L

. .Indeed, Judge' Friendly has offered. insightful criticism of the various "[1]ofty sentiments" and references provided in support of.a purported

" ' ~ '

const'itut ionai 'righE. 'to cross-Axahnine' withess'es in

p. . .a .

. ..; . . . . . w, ; n. .. .. . ..w ..a.. -e. .. . :u, n .. r: . * . - .

administrative hearings. See Friendly, Some Kind of e

Hearing", 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1267, 1283-85 (1975)(citing Q42 .s.c.4,. . . .c. references -to*the 'Bibl'e? Wigmore; ' tho' EmperoriTrajanj"lahd 4 G N ' 4""-

Wild Bill Hickock). Judge Friendly explained:

. - , -,,..-..a.,.--..mzm-,..,-,-en_,,er.m-,~ww v,,~._, ..,,..,,%en w, ,m e . c ..y w-y.,-.%--,,,w,,.y-,v.-.,---,-

. a While agreeing that these references were wholly appropriate to the witch-hunts of the McCarthy era and that cross-examination is often useful, o one must query their universal applicability to the thousands of hearings on welfare, social

. security benefits, housing, prison discipline, education, and the like which are now held every month -- not to speak of hearings on recondite scientific or economic subjects. In many such

c. .

. . cases the main effect of< cross-examination is delay . . . .

d

_I_d. at 1284-85 (footnotes omitted).

Furthermore, the Intervenors are not entitled to another hearing on foreman override simply because they may claim that material factual issues are in dispute. See

-10 C.F.R. $2.749; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Material factual issues, by definition, are those which can affect the

@:: %::1.@. e. f'".W.'l; Wi :.H:.*r...* v *:".,:. !.:'QX. M-::' .i.';'.L,.'C c. A ;':;." :u +... 3:.k . i.< . . ?. .l .Q':  : . ' * *:. -

outcome of the'. proceeding. Black's Law Dictionary'881'(5th

"/*.

/ 4

@?,W' :l.G.T.;.:Yl.',;pc. ' .ed . 1981') .~ . The facts.sub -

" '.-only,& k::*.i: .4%j M'ect

' *wit'o i.:.'d$sSut'e ,'aie ' a the^

' 0;'. r-.';.,; ,, .H.. .?'n

~.1 'i.'W * ~ W:.%;. .* ' a:a . Th.W technical resolutions to the employee concerns voiced during the investigations. This is because during their investigations both the Applicants and the NRC Staff

,r . , , . . accepted. all.. allegations as being . founded. in . fact. . ,.No credibility judgments were made. The Intervenors would have .to challenge these technical resolutions to ' raise' material facts. Yet even in the context of summary disposition under 52.749 or Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c), it is with a fact ..to put,- it in not enough. .-simply to'disa. gree

. .. ~ .. . . .

> . . . . . u.: 1 .,. , . . . . ~ ,. ~ ... . ..

.<~: . - . . . . ...a: ..+.a- . .. >... ~ a -

dispute-or in issue. There must be specj fic facts set forth to show that there is a genuine issue of fact. See, v.W6.r. , s. . . c..w.'q.C,. 3 Long'. Island : Lightiing >-Co , >( Shoreham, Nuclearr Powers -Y " *-r:4e

" ? 4'

1 e

.. . Station, Unit 1), July 24, 1984, slip. op. at 6-9; 10 C.F.R. {2.749(b). Furthermore, there is no material fact in dispute (and clearly no need for further hearings) if the'Intervenors-simply question the credibility of Applicants' commitments to the Board and the NRC Staff, or J ,

. . . , . . ~ -

. .. .. x. .

. .. ~

if the -Intervenors question the NRC's enforcement of those -

commitments. See Independent Insurance Agents of America

v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 646 F.2d 868, 869-70 (4th Cir. 1981).

In any event, because of the special status of foreman' override as a Board issue, the Board is not compelled to hold further hearings even if there g a

$*A s$.? ;'i. , .~. :.'",?ll:a...?.G material factua1 li.Y:.?!

4 W.  :. f ~. ssue .i.l.':' . dis.-  % GThe  !$ 'il cl

. : . im "h. tiiat T 1:% .aT V. it.a d. *..'.:C."r*

n pute.

.. . ,.... . ~

t di'spute; as to' mateirial.. factuhl"lismiies. -mandatied 'hejarings;

. a- .

a.1.,. : .. n;':.d. \s : ; M a n .s ::'..>' .::. ; c y-l ' *i.. . .: .6.:r . ..W'.w.% p.>.

s: i s ilV'6: . ~ ;r v- ;..>.. ':r ' . .w ;

.was recently rejected by the United States Court of Appeals. In a suit challenging an NLRB investigation of alleged miscoiduct during a union certification election,

,,,,..,.,,,, .,the court end.orsed .. the .NLRB'.s. . resolution. o,f. those disputed material. facts based on an investigative report despite the employer's. claims.of violation of due process;.See

.. ., ..a.. .

.v.

.. . . . . . . .n -. . . .

NLRB v. ARA' Services, 717 F.2d 57, 66-67 (3d Cir. 1983)(en

'banc).

The Court explained its reasoning as follows:

,..:,,,...,.....w..c.m..,. .

...,,.r,-.....,..1r... -

- :.~ -s. .,.:....~'.. ~ -~ ~ .. .. ~u-

[The employer] contends that .the failure to hold an evidentiary hearing as to the agency status of [several employees] violated its due process right, which it equates with the standards for

?, lse.G.dr.o...~. ..'.. .c - ev.identiaryr hearings..:in3FedefReCiv. e.Rse 56(c)s e . .:A 1 e. .a... .+ %1 We' reject that contention. The strict standard

.of Rule 56(c) is derived not from the due

.: .ay. . . , s.ca: : -n. . .. c' c * -

b- .<- * -

v

,. , - l l

process clause of the fifth amendment, but from the' seventh ~ amendment. It could be changed with respect to proceedings in Which jury trial is ,

not required. What sort of factual investiga-tion ~is_ required by due process depends upon a ,

number of variables. See Friendly, Some' Kind of Hearing, 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1267 (1975).

Certainly the inquisitorial model of procedure

, selected by Congress for certification matters

-in section 159(c) of the Act satisfies due process even though the hearing officer, under 19 C.F.R.'{l02.64(a) merely reports, without resolving credibility' issues or making recommendations.

A fortiori investigations of election irregularTties, Which are entirely creatures of Board regulation, do not require 4

evidentiary hearings satisfying Rule 56(c) standards.

Id,. at 67; see'also Weinberger v.' Hynsun, Wescott &

Dunning,'412 U.S.:609, 621-22 (1973).

'In this NRC proceeding,'unlike the NLRB proceeding in ARA Services, part of the difficulty arises from the fact

- that there are no clear procedural guidelines in the statutes or the' regulations to govern the situation-at

~

hand. It is clear, however, as explained in ARA Services, that there is no requirement in the'due process clause of the U.S. Constitution that any further hearings lun held.

The: matter of a Board-mandated election in-NLRB proceedings can constitionally be resolved without a

- hearing. The final resolution of this NRC Licensing Board's foreman override issue can similarly,be resolved without a hearing. The foreman override issue, which is a

" creature [] of [the] Board," can and should be resolved on the current evidentiary record. See also Friendly, "Some Kind of Hearing",'123 U. Pa. L. Rev, at 1289-91.

. . , -- .~.,, - -, _ -,. , - _ , .. .. -. .. . .-- - -_~ ~._.. .._ _ ._ . - ,__ - ... _ ..~ , .. _ _._ . _.. . .

The precedent of Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. FPC, 453 F.2d 463 (2d Cir. 1971), cert.

denied,.407 U.S. 926l(1972) is instructive and supports the proposition that no further adjudicatory hearings on the Applicants' and NRC Staff's Walder B reports are '

7 warranted. In that case, the hearing record was closed by I

the Federal Power Commission (FPC) hearing examiner despite-the " absence of usable data" on one environmental

- i; issue, fish conservation.8/ A comprehensive report, issued after the close of the hearing record, was relied h upon heavily by the FPC in its final order because of the inadequate factual record developed at the hearings.

Y'.b .:

. t . '"... . ' L . . . . . ' . . . !! il u.: . *:.s:' '. ..: : ^ ?.' la l . * * * " " . ,

^

.' G : a.. :. , . * : . . * . '- . ;.. ' ".., :. :.

.r . . . .

Thus, no opportunity was offered to address this report in the. con..t.exf. . ~ , . of., an . . . .D I.: . +..c. .r ,,adj=ud. icat,ory:'.hea.r. . - ing.

es.p,it.

e...,lth.'e

s . ~ * . . * ;.

..~...,.'#

Intervenors' challenge to the adequacy of the FPC's 3:

consideration of this issue, the Court of Appeals affirmed the FPC's order' based on this post-h' earing report in

- Scenic Hudson Preservation ~ Conference v. FPC, 453 F.2d at 476-77.

A subsequent Court of Appeals case involving new i ,

information on the same issue did not alter this principle. See Hudson River Fishermen's Ass'n v. PPC, 498 8_/ The facts underlying Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference are not fully described in the court's opinion. See 453 F.2d at 469-70, 476-77. A subsequent

. Court of Appeals case provides the basis for the above

...r.- ' ,

., . m. . , .c summary' 'of 'the

• facts'. Seh ' HQdson 11'ver **Fi'shirissns "*'

• Ass'n v. FPC, 498 F.2d T77, 830, 834 (2d Cir.

1974)(discussed infra).

. . _~ _- . . _ _ _ _ _ _ , . _ , _ _ _ - . _ . _ _ _ _ , _ . - . . - . _ . _ _ _

..e J F.2'd 827 (2d Cir. 1974). In 1972-73, a subsequent study (this' time' conducted by the AEC) substantially called into question the. original report' relied upon by the FPC. The FPC, . however", refused to take any further action. Upon

n review of this action, the Court of Appea'Is ordered the

, . ., .- .: . . . , s -

FPC. to conduct further hearings on fish conservation '

pursuant to a provision'of the facility license granting a

" continuing jurisdiction" to the FPC over the fish

' conservation issue. d., 498 F.2d at 831-32.

The FPC's refusal to correct-the apparent error in the initial report it relied on was accordingly vacated. Further hearings, solely on-the fish conservation issue, were sl , i. .' f *..l' *.?a':.'n . . V.. ' 'i ' : '. 4 4 .]T~ :: .i. 0.l lO; ,'.. * ?l:1. . . A . ' 9,~ .d. 4 : 5

~. ^ h o ~ ^ b ' O Y

ordered, primarily because there were now two E .;

.:..9.6.: . '.

7 '..dM.,,s.o. ,dirad3.htdh.~

. . ~ repcir'ta,h.ni!ii't'

.. .. .-- hen 8hwhibh..'hkd. . bh. Nri. I'ub.jscENdII "' /

to hearings. Id., 498 F.2d at 834-35.

Numerous differenc3s between that challenged FPC

^

action and the Catawba operating license proceeding ar~e

[-

apparent.- In-Catawba, hearings have been held on the issue. Additionally, the subsequent reports on foreman ,

override support, rather than contradict, one another.

Thus the Licensing Board may rely on uncontradicted reports filed after the hearings in a manner similar to

<..w.... .~ ; th..at

..~., - . APP.r. o, ved . in - Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v.

.e - n-FPC. Indeed,,the error reversed in Hudson River Fisherman's Ass'n v. FPC, not present in the Catawba M,:.~ ,:vskv :... ptoceeding's /"wasFa^fafhsa1'by"th ^ag~ency tdtakEEf6Nhk'r>

. '"'~ ''"~#

~

, L.; .

evidence after a reliable subsequent study (by another agency) raised substantial questions about the reliability of.the first report. In contrast, the confirmatory subsequent reports received by the Catawba Licensing Board support closing the record and reaffirming the Board's

.,{ . ,. . . .. . .. . .,- . . .. .  :-, . . - - ,

Partial Initial Decision on foreman override.

. The Commission's Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, CLI-81-8, 13 NRC 452 (1981) also supports final resolution of the foreman override issue on the current evidentiary record. Because, as discussed supra,~due process does not require evidentiary hearings on the Welder B reports, the Board ~should be extremely D's .$' ,':.*W's.\ . / T.- ' r.)..h 'O.l 'T'. # :.*.*:E,i , J ".. b Y. ,W: p, . , .. , c'/.,:i.l,fg M". * *Og: f/ , "" ' " ? '. .

• reluctant' to engage in unnecessary,,'**h earings which wil'1

' ' ' ~ ,

b k> ~ d:bci

>,.*. *:fcS

; cau'se:.

. . . . . : .. . costly;aicen'si'ng"

. . . .. . .. r-l de' ay'fwith litde,'a.result &Nt?.banefit*.[#9.i D

to the protection of the public health and safety. See CLI-81-8, 13 NRC at 453. 'In light of the fact that the evidentiary record on foreman override has been confirmed

p. e ..:.. . .-by .the . Welder 1B . reports, . and that. due. process- requires no- ' i -

further hearings, the Board should meet the objective of the. Commission's Statement of Policy by closing the record p and affirming the Partial Initial Decision on foreman I

override.

., ..q: ,...1...: Closing the. record'.without

......:.......-, . . . . . . . . ~ . . - f.w urth

- . s.w o .

w."er he..ar.ing.s

..<o , ., . . is

. + v ..... ~ 15 .m .

consistent with prior reasoning of the Board. As the Board explained in the. context of denying further formal l_cq.s... ef .c.:. . discovery /"these 'are,. a-fter4all',^Boardvwit'nesses'.' Oui d "' * " " ^ ' " '

l l

, _ _ _ . _ , . . - e

4

. o -

31 -

primary concern is whether the concerns of these, our

-witnesses, is' addressed." Tr. 11,220, Kelley 12/13/83.

The' lengthy investigations of the NRC Staff and the Applicants have clearly addressed the concerns of the Board witnesses, the concerns of " Welder B," and indeed

_ ....- , .7, , , ,: ,, x . .- -

all of the other concerns which were raised during the investigation. This then satisfies the above quoted concern of- this Board, without the need for further evidentiary hearings.

Some further guidance on the propriety of closing the record without.further adjudicatory hearings is provided by the Commission's action in the Zimmer proceeding. See

.E 's .G ::)'.n!, .',,

i l

4.':Cl.I.i:'b. "".' ? f .T *f ';%P& "P... A W . :.. c.Y.T.t. M../.'J'.'<4 .

. T " ; .'

.I-Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. (Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power

> v . .. . .

y. . . . ..... , . ...a.....,,.

h? 0 h,5kYhi?k$)h.0. .

Y,h ;, c .N , , . , .Ibi?*.k,b:.:  ?." *;? . ....Y. ?.Y?Y: 5'Y~.h 'W.O' Zimmer, the Licensing Board refused to admit eight late quality assurance contentions under $2.714 as contentions of ~ the Intervenor. Because of the seriousness of the n.....,,., .c. tissues-raised,-though,~the Board sought to. admit-them.sua..-- . v sponte as Board issues pursuant to $ 2.760a. The Commission, ., . . . . however, directed the Licens.ing Bo.ard s .. c..

to . -

.- . dismiss the contentions because it~had already' initiated a '

separate investigation into the same issues, revealing a y...o n. .cnum.ber of quali.n...wty ass.ur.ance prob. lems. .and  : w .>pro..mpt.i.n. g th. - <e .

su.;. . .: n.m ~.. .. . . ... n n. . . - m. . .- - .

.o n .<* a.+- -

requirement of a compre.hensive quality confirmation program at Zimmer. Yet despite the apparent seriousness w.: .s ;a,-fr,W o'ffthe i'usdes +1lnvestigated PtheComrhiis'i'o'nI -dirsetsd'the9'd\ ""*""M ' * ' .

m--

. g- ,

y

' Licensing' Board in Zimmer not to undertake duplicative

-hearings on these same issues, but instead chose itself to .

resolve the issues outside the adjudicatory process.

Zimmer, CLI-82-20, 16 NRC at 109-11.

'Even more so in the case of Catawba, where the-N"' ' ' ^ ' '

c'oncurren'tTNRC 'inves'tigation itas ievealed there to -be no '

significant problems, the Zimmer precedent suggests the Board should not undertake hearings on this Board issue

, when there has also been a separate NRC investigation of

..the matter. In Zimmer the Commission expressed a Lpreference for handling such late-arising allegations through'a staff investigation, even when the allegations

h. .,. i.v

.<<. .. . . y .. r.

.a- r...o.......'.. .

.. a . . . . : n .. . . . : . . t <. . w. < - r - ...: < ..<. v . .s~

. .: g 4:-_seri'ileM o TNok"tha'hY$ein v ,Estigatio;if' ii1Eo 'th'[Willii B '* V f.:'i.'C. ;h,...'.?',4 issue; is.icompleteiahd' .the.'reportis1haWe'.beenssubinitted,'Othe%. " . . ' "

Vies =*.W i:.6;,hl;'V;.-Q M:?:AQ.% .h'=* ; *; :.V,V.*W.$t :.M'b. 'NJ F: d' *: '.*V O ~at '.M V: T4. N ' ' ' T*'N " " *Y Board-can close the record on foreman override.

In light. of the limited requirements of due process

'in'this setting, NRC precedent, and the confirmatory-nature of the Walder B reports, the Board. should close the .

_ record now and'. finalize its resolution of the foreman override issue. The -Board itself is the one that needs to - '

. . ~

. . . . . . , . . . . . be.

. .... sa.tisfied. as to :the resolution

~ ~ of

- . the

. - f.orem.an .o.v.erride.

. .~ ,

issue. It can and should close the record to reaffirm the u.m .:., n ,,

., . : conclusion reached in the' June.22_ Partial Initial.

. >. n . . e ,. . u. ~.. .. , n .. ..... .

,v .. , e ~ o .,-..~. .. -.-~ . ~,n.ee<.,,h~<~ .

Decision, based on the in camera testimony as confirmed by tho. investigative reports filed by the Applicants and the w G 3 .e;..  :.n:n eiR.RCMaf f.m g.,y:.1,4 s . g; n_ . .v..h.-; ,. , .e.  :.,, n . r ; .. .. O w .:.v:....  ; gr...< ,t.<>

33 -

V. Other factors argue against allowing further discovery or hearings on these foreman override concerns As demonstrated in Section III above, the recent reports by Duke Power Company and the NRC Staff on the Welder B and related foreman override concerns provide

' reasonable assurance"that'these ' concerns clearly do no't' reflect a "significant breakdown of quality assurance at Catawba." There is, therefore, no reason not to close the record en these concerns since the standard in.the June 22, 1984 Partial Initial Decision has been met. Moreover, as discussed in section IV, above, closing the record on this issue would not constitute a denial of due process e- f.. e .

-gggg .g,ggnbYs '~iffihis~yE6cadfnif. " Mil'le' "Ahpfi'c' antis '

P r ~ .. , l, p,,.V . b.elieve sthat ethe , arguments . set. forth'ein'.. sections . III.~.'.and . ' ..'

- a .. c . ,. .a ,. .' . . . . . m. . , s '. .:. -?.

. .  :. . .-..c..:c'..,+

.- m . . 'Ir ~. -

av- ' ~:~~  : >\ - -

• IV constitute ample authority for closing the record on the foreman override issue without further actions such as discovery or hearings, we note that other factors also

..,.,t..-. .. .

. support.thi,s course,of. action. These, consider.ations.are , ,

discussed below.

A. The need for administrative finality. .

mandates closing the record In' assessing the 'eNtent to' whichthd inte're's'ts of

~

~ '

administrative finality support the closing of the record

... ~- .. .,

.on the-foreman override-issue.withoutnadditional~ discovery or hearings, the present posture of this proceeding should be considered. The Catawba operating license proceeding

,y..~.., . . w. .. . r ~% ?. . . . - s.w &. > .c v. .. > , . ~ i: .': N *.i.;*'

.n. c- . v.:n ; . .. i;ha.s been .. ,:i .. .. going on fo..~r more than three ' rw years,

.i.n s nce 4 the c T- ., g i n > s

~

. *o'  !'

notice of the operating license application appeared in 1the Federal' Register on June 25, 1981. The safety phase of this-proceeding has involved at least three prehearing

-conferences, consideration by the Board of 75 contentions, and approximately' fifteen months of discovery,2/ during

. , v.- . . .. ..u

., ,.,.-....... ~ .

.c. .-

whichl voluminous pleadings were exchanged.

Forty-five days of hearings were held, during which almost 14,000 pages of transcript were compiled. (Almost all of this hearing-time was. devoted to Contention 6.) The Board heard testimony from 85 witnesses (and, in addition, called four witnesses of its own) and admitted over 280' exhibits into evidence. Two interlocutory appeals were yi:;l:,.? Ll.CL .2: ;:& . sG 2 k :.'.;< ;.u A&:..: 6.k:a J:.'.& L* ;ld S l.,% 1.: 7 *n? X :,' .* +.'.+ W .-)

filed.during this phase of the. proceeding, both'of which

. . .,.s.x;, .4

., .;. .' were 'also 4 considered' 'by thei Commis'sion't ' ' ". " *'*" '# ^ ' *

".'f'",'

4% j. e v:.e:;< . . .. v . . , * ~ ~.; :-: . ? y *" + .' *

. * 'd ..< - *

• i W r ' ' ' % ""' ' ' *n *"'# ' ' Y '**

. D ' M'? .r* V '?i~

A separate Board was~ convened in 1984 to hear ten emergency planning contentions. Approximately six months was allowed for' discovery on these contentions, and one r . . , . . s interlocutory.. appeal was filed. .The. emergency. planning: . . . .

hearing lasted sixteen days and resulted in a record of

, ,approximately 4000 transcript pages. Testimony from fifty

..... . witnesses.was heard'and 7.2. exhibit.s.were. admitted... . .. . -

Moreover, a diesel generator contention was admitted in

~

..a..,.....m....,..

this proceeding.

..<.c...

Discovery'on .,-....-.,.~v.

...........,..-.,a.. this contention began..in ~~..v.. ,......n . . .

late February, 1984 and ran through July, 1984. The 1/ Discovery began in March, 1982 and ended in July, g',. ve..;4.4.y .. ,wcci 1983 PS. Discovery-onwsome/...but .not "ai1; 'df othemadmittedh - ' "'

• 6 % "

contentions was stayed by the Board between June and December, 1982.

w. ..q...... ,. ... .

.c .

I o ,.

35 -

Applicants and the Staff prepared extensive pre-filed testimony on this contention which was submitted to the Board and parties. However, given the Intervonors' inability to contribute to the record on this issue, the contention was dismissed by the Board just prior to the commencement of the scheduled hearing.

Given the protracted nature of this proceeding and the full record that has already been compiled on the one remaining open issue, Applicants submit that further consideration of the foreman override concerns is unwarranted.

The need to call an end to further rounds of

. .n. d . ., & . , . . . . . ~ .. , . : .,

..h.:.0.:..,' ~ :n ': .3 .' - ' *

.. 'O 'e .w.. .-:.. , , . *Q admih,istrative litigatio.;;.. . .l. >L .,. d.. * .. :n has beensemp5a. ized. .: .. : l a ,: . ::...

~

on various

. .n. . , c . - . . oc,casions. byl tha ;.U.S. Supre'me\ Cour.t. s .The. Court;/ s. wel1- A .: - - -

. .. { ... . s . s . . . .. . l.. ~. n g * ~., e . s. . : v . . ..... .. e ; , . . . : -s . .. ,. , ~ 4 >,<

. o s . .,; r.* ~.; ;i. ., C , s.v .. . . . c z. > -

~~~

known language in ICC v. City of Jersey ' City is particularly instructive in the circumstances of this case:

,. , . , . . , , , . . . One. of. the.. grounds ..of, resistanc,e .to . .......... -. , , ,

administrative orders throughout federal experience with the administrative process has been the claims of private litigants to be

... entitled to rehearings to bring the. record up to date and meanwhile to stall the enforcement of-

,, , , , , , , the.administrat.ive order. . , Administrat_i.ve .. , ,

consideration of evidence . . . always creates a gap between the time the record is closed and

. the time.the administrative decision is promulgated. This is especially true if the

+ .- 'a ' -

issues are-difficultr the' evidence intricate,' '

and the consideration of the case deliberate and careful. If upon the coming down of the order litigants might demand rehearings as a matter of law because some new circumstance has arisen, gva .... , r..,./p. . q;. .. some..new-trend has .been . observed , or < some snew.n . .. . ..b . . r..:y ..e fact discovered, there would be little hope that the administrative process could ever be

.- .... . .~  :~,. . r ..

. . ~ , . ...

a-36 -

consummated in an order that would not be subject to reopening. It has been almost a rule of' necessity that rehearings were not matters of right, but were pleas to discretion. And likewise, it has been considered that the discretion to be invoked was that of the body making the order, and not that of a reviewing body.

q, , . .

322 U.S. 503, 514-15 (1944)(emphasis.added.).-

This ,

~

1anguage has been quoted and reaffirmed by the Supreme

-Court in several recent decisions. See Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519, 554-55 (1978); Bowman Transportation

v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, 419 U.S. 281, 294-95 (1974); United States v. ICC, 396 U.S. 491, 521 (1970).

p..o. . . ,g . .,;,w

.. The. protracted

.., s . .. . . wi. . e r .nature .y . y.ofi .9~...the

. s proce.edings

. <. - e.w. ns, : .v i,in. Jersey . City,+. .. <. ~ .

e ,.: .

e .. ~ u t .-

with requests for further

c. , .

hearings and resultant delays,

..:.~.......i.,,......~....,- .. . . . < - . .n- , , -

v

.;r . . . . ..-.s ., . . - .- .

n. .

.u d'ar:..i.0, -c.4 :igngt. .urillk.a .tha'.t extserienced. by..the parti'as..dn this r.

3 ..

..r -. ,.s: . . .. ;

proceeding.

The facts of the Jersey City case are instructive.

.In that rate case the ICC held three separate sets of s.. . . . . . "'

' hea'rin'gs,"" issue'd fourdecfsloris"Gliich fixed subway 'fa're' ' '

rates at three different levels, entertained two petitions for modificatiort or J.reconsid'eration, .and reopened the

~

' hear;ings 'orice' s'uii sp'onte,' 'only 'to have 'a"three-jtidgie' ' ' '

. district court invalidate the last two rate orders of the L ,; .m, . J ., .w . IICC 'andPorder,. a .fou'rth .. set. of. hearings. . 322..U.'S. i at. 505-- .i. -~.

512. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the district court, explaining the practical necessity in

%. ta.r,% .<.+. .v. c e .e

• u ..- . . m r~- : :.a:. ' o r .>a s:'.:.+ ' t- . ' r *, ~ 5 .

• ~

admfri~1Ea. . rat:iv'w ei;d.tig ~a tion of bringi. 4:.w.A;.:.te ng hearings . .;>':n-.

to ian end I. t_ . * .%.

.- .%. .

• h.y * .s;.*

VJ- r ;s ~

• ~? *

.- ** J  %. w*.t' ' r'

.o despite the fact that1"some new circumstance has arisen, some new trend has been observed, or some new fact discovered." d. at 514. Significantly, the Court stated:

'The Court has held that administrative tribunals "have' power themselves to initiate inquiry, or,

• ' when their authority is invoked, to c.ontrol_the range' of investigation ~ in ascertaining' what is to satisfy the requirements of the public interest in relation to the needs of vast regions and sometimes the whole nation in the enjoyment of facilities for transportation, communication and other casential public services." Federal Communications Commission v.

Pottsville Broadcasting Co. [309 U.S. 134, 142 (1940)]. -

Id. at 516-17.

In this proceeding, the Board, having initiated t'ne

1. ,ho,MQ.M21iku$ty'Einti'o"formh'ri"ohairiiobbo 1d eldr~cih ^1'd'$ohtii6N'

'? "

j*f.i ., i ' , . .

, and.;close;,.the issue.

The. public fir)terest cwp,uld.;not:.ble . ;l,;.. , ,.

y ....a,c;s,.(;. :r.. .3:.,

. . . . .i h ,. D . P l.g;:.n., , . .:~ y.y;s ;y:.a: *, . :r,.-1 4 :. .. ; . w : a.c .~r T: b >. .

, . :..,by.u,repet . ;.. 9 ~itive~ hearings onm

• atters already resolved served to the satisfaction of the NRC Staff. In addition to the

, original case on Contention 6, the Board has also heard 7 ,, . . . . . . . . .

extensive

. ...-... additional testimony on fo. reman ov.erride

. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .a. . . . .a .e from

~ . - .. -

numerous witnesses, and received in evidence numerous NRC

_ Staff reports on,the subject, and has before,it for its w . c.n . . . . . . .

consideration'the Applicants'.nand

.. . , . . . . .s .

the Staff',s Walder

. . . . . .. - .u B .- o - .- - s reports. See Apps. Exh. 112; Staff Exhs. 26 and 27; IC Tr.

, 181-86, 11/9/83; Tr. 12,215-59, 1/30/84: Tr. 12,339-93, py4 .. . . ,4,. .~ . . , .~ . : ,n . v .. .. n + - a ..

s.. .,..: .>.<.. m o .:.:~..u.< ~..:.: ... .: .um. - +

1/31/84; IC Tr. 1275-1327, 1/31/84. These reports demonstrate that not just the foreman override issue, but

8. : v q.~ '.,,.;;.r.v.indee,d glh the,Jssue,s.,pa1 sed,,, involving.;Weldep,;p,. ,havy..)eeny.,, ;... . ,,,,,,...

D . , ,: . . .. ;

. 6b .. . . .?. F -  :., ~- .

.'~- '

n.  : -' .

. o resolved. It is significant that in Jersey City, even though there appeared to be more recent evidence that could alter the basis for the ICC's decision, the Supreme Court reversed the district court's order requiring further hearings. See 322 U.S. at 512.

'By' contrast, in 'this operat'ing licerise proceeding, all of the recent investigations support, rather than undermine, the reasonable assurance found by the Licensing Board in its June 22, 1984 Partial Initial Decision.

Nothing in the Applicants' or the Staff's Reports indicates that any of the Board's findings should be changed. Thus, in this proceeding even more so than the

• i;fa.M.,: ~.5;:- . :.:Qlr ff.ff.)f. *:.7gg,yg4 y*kgg,+jfy,. h~b$t$'"c5 $*',5Y '

p g $ e 1

. ,- 1. . . :nece'ssary '.to. reco.gnize.\the ~.ne'ed,',for, administrati)e.' .$. ;

g :.p'l d.i: o' :.r..:. s .t ., ':. . .-; 4' i

\': i :: :2.i:. ';:. p- : ~.l. : %s c: ~.: y c%':h.';.': : e .. .i ":. n . ~r.'.~

W .r- , .

finality and close the record.. .

~ . .

The need for administrative finality has been recognized in a variety,of other settings, all of which

.y ..s.. ., are.directly, applicable to_the,,i_ss,ue.of for.eman o.verride ,, ,

in this proceeding in its current status. In Seacoast

._. Anti-Pollution League v. NRC, 598.F.2.d 1221 '(1st Cir.

..p . . . .

19,79)

... , the Cour.t.-of.

+.ri;w . Appea." a upheld

.- u. .

t.h.e NRC.'s..>e dec.ision,-.

- < z- "-

after several administrative and federal court appeals, to conduct no further consideration under NEPA of alternate

, a . ,. w ;..,.- , . > , . ,,, . as . .: . .. ,. . . ,:e . .

.w p ;. . . . , . .. . v . .

-a.... . w : s.u. <... c ,

sites which were not proposed in a timely manner. The court explained that "[t]he administrative process has to W r:. .4./ v. c <have ,7 structured;. time. limit.s., ,1.est 4Aecisions.;never. be<...-

.. . , . r , L,.:y. .c . . .

• ^'

t E. e '. ,q?

* * .. .r' ', ; < ** * -

, . , *i

3 g reached .~.-. ." I,d.,

d 598 F.2d at 1230, quoting ICC v.

City of Jersey City. In the Catawba proceeding, the s

. late-arisingLissue of foreman override similarly requires noifurther evidentiary evaluation. The time for such has passed..

. ; f ., ;.

, .c r -

Guidance on closing. the record on foreman override is

-also provided by NLRB v.' Miami Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 403 F.2d 994 (5th Cir. 1968) . - In that case the employer alleged that the hearing examiner abused his discretion by failing to reopen the hearing on the basis of newly discovered evidence. The employer raised claims not unlike those raised by the Intervenors in connection with

&;i ;h..J.b:. *; "'tM'e.(in'i. camera

• *k * . ha. * -. .l'ng. "o.

' n. . '. *i  %'-

s:.ca "N 61aime.d 1Nat i>:.n.2 ear ecausew. of. -a4 s --~: ' M

,...,'. ..'U.t . ' '. . denial,of..preheari'ng ,dircover s...fr;; ,:y V: % 97 ,.m :.n.L. m . :.n:. . .; ;,, *.. ~& . .%y .it.', . had u & '..note.'l' earn'ed' thi '.c'.'.'.

J. . -

• .*:,:' *u'.'

v..- % ... .,k'.

identity of one individual with relevant knowledge on one issue.until the hearing. The employer investigated after the hearing and -obtained information that contradicted the 7...* - . .. .._... . ,tes,timony pre,sented .during .the . hearing.. Yet,,the. Court of .

Appeals held that it was not an abuse of discretion for

., .the hearing examiner to refuse to reopen.the record w,,. . . .. . . ; ,.. . "Th.ere.

... .- comes a. time.

.- <when. ev. en. l. abor .h. earings must draw . to. -

an end." g ., 403 F.2d at 997.

Even more so'in this operating license proceedi'ng,

~

s . . .., ; ,.. m .. +

. . e ~ . .,.. ,A . .o . - . . . . . .<.. . . a a . . . . :x. . , , ....n .,,,.

w.,' .w. -

where the purported "new evidence" (in the Welder B reports) confirms the prior evidence, rather than svy..V s.t,J., y > .contrNdicting. it,,, there.,is. eyen 1es s .of., a..< need-- ei.ther.:.to c ..n ;.c -:..:.. a .

, . .:,9 .u.;.y ...

(.

~40 -

burden the evidentiary record on foreman override or to prolong-this administrative proceeding. See also Friends of tho' River v. FERC, 720 F.2d 93, 98 n.6 (D.C. Cir.

7

~1983); RSR Corp. v."FTC,-656-F.2d 718, 720-22 (D.C. Cir.

'1981); Tri-State Motor ~ Transit'Co. v. United States, 570

. . c m< rF.2d 773i ,778 . (8th Cir. -1978); Greene' County Planning : ' -

Board v.~FPC, 559 F.2d 1227, 1233 (2d Cir. 1976), cert.

denied, 434 U.S. 1086 (1978). In accordance with the Jersey City line of cases, the Board should now recognize the need for administrative finality and close the record.

B. The holding of hearings on~ Applicants' and Staff's Walder=B reports would result in cumulative evidence and would needlessly burden the. record y, w a.4 W .. y ,*: % .c;, O .% a ::. n : -l

• S? W L Neth.si Another-argument against further. consideration in

.*  : l .

.. .- .e . . , .. . .

5/C' ., ,.;:::;;this..p<roceed.i;'ng h:n,yf. .. . . . .. .y .. . :, ; .. .m 6f.vth'et,Weldar'.'

w.; < ., v v Bs :ain.4fxeldt.edllfciro'

. , .  :~n~  :. .c .. - ~.v anm ' a:W* U y:. . .  : ;i., i. ."<!s :

v.~ .. .m.. - - -

override concerns is.that the material in these reports constitutes cumulative evidence. When placed with.in the -

overall context of. Contention 6, it'is clear that these

. . gap ..

foreman override concrrns are quite-similar top and in' * "- ' ' '"

many instances identical to, the Quality Assurance concerns already litigated under contention 6.

Indeed('a i ;. 6 , . ,

. number.;of the. allegations addressed.in'the..WelderrB ..... .. J .- -

investigations,' including both thesgeneral subject of y .r . , m . " foreman Sverride".

<...:..u.;,.-,... . - . . and 'sev.eral r v ~.. ~.,,s. of. th,.e. spec.if,ic technical.

. ~ .2 . * - +.'m >

concerns allegedly resulting from foreman override, were in fact litigated during the forty-f'.ve day safety phase 9/.l . 3. w./v." 'heerings infthis proceedingi App 11'castistheref8rsadbmit '# # 1 ' P# W* *

._ < .; . , .. y , .,.,. ,, , ,. ;,. . . .. _ . . . . . . .. _,. , , /., . , . ~ y. ..

<..,...q!......:, ,

y_ '-M 1

• a"l*V.M*8 v.s*@ "'? ~ ~ ~ ' '

n*""" NF?

-that the material in the Duke Report and in the August 31

-Staff Report is essentially cumulative, and that additional consideration of this material in this proceeding'is not necessary.

The-issue of " foreman override," which underlies the Y '

~ Welder B investigat' ions, w asi fidst' raised on November 9, "

~

~

1983 by Board witness Nunn. I.C. Tr. 181-86, Nunn 11/9/83.

Nunn alleged.that certain welder foremen at Catawba would order welders to perform work in a manner contrary to prescribed procedures or to the welder's concept of correct welding. These allegations came to be referred to collectively as " foreman override." The Applicants and b.t. ,idZ...i.,.6.ldStNif hres'e'ntia'ke'stk.$on[fidhEddEtehh' NT$fii$$nh#' ^"

h-)

..>;: o . . , , ?- witnes.ses 'on i.'oreman'.. override c.includipg .;.th

r. ;..o se..-;

ident. s..-

i fied . . . . ; . . .

. g . . e, ,.....

.  :. . . ... .. e. :.- .a. ....~. . . :...c.. .,a. ..s .: a . v.n..... ,....<. ;/,:.. .~ . .

c. . . . - .a......,~.

. . w. . . :'.. ~..,-

by Mr. Nunn as having been the subject of what he perceived to be improper instructions. The Intervenors, including Mr. Nunn himself, cross-examined these witnesses

. . . . . . ., .. .. e.xtensivel.y. . See Apps.. .. .. Exh,'., 112.r . Tr. ..,12y 21.5- 59, .1/30/84 r .

Tr. 12,339-75, 1/31/84; IC Tr. 1275-1327, 1/31/84. The Board also admitted the NRC Staff's January .20., 1984, a, .. . . .

U, .[c .

. - Report and identified

.. , .s. ..

the. attached

s. ...

" Sum. mary of~ .-

C Investigative Interviews" as Staff Exhs. 26 and 27. Tr.

. r 12,319,'Kelley 1/.31/84." Addit'ionally, Mr. Nunn' testified' - '

p  :.3 .~. 4. . . . . , . . . , . . . . . . . ... ..:...,~w- u.. m . .. m . 4.. s . ... . .o -

and was examined by the Board and the parties during the

. ;g .;,w. :; e.r.. r.g'v.N.c,'. : t

. c:a ,. a. q .

• l .4 :,. Q..q.*Mi :,:. .ar : .+ n *~.n. h.n.y~ r.rv i s :; a p. t.s ' < .wr .

, . . . .v: L'.

s.> p.

.. . r. , s; - ..v. , . . . .w

. . . . .  ;.. . u s..

_2__-___-__-_:-__-_--_--__-_--_-_----_----_-_- - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

( 4

,. .j l i

s . .e j

-t' eh lf l' safety hear"ing's. IC. Tr. 153-294, 11/9/83: Tr. 12, 159-91,

, . o .s s

i _1/30/84; Tr. 12,376-93, 1/31/84; see generally Partial l 4 ,f +

s Initial' Decision at 232-38.

fl t ,

,e As noted, during these hearing sessions a number of

,; i.

th;e' techaical issues subsequently raised in the Welder B

'investiNatioris by' Applicants and" the Sta'ff were addressed

~

and, resolved. For example, the' allegation of foremen l

> .. l directing workers to perform work without having adequate

, process control documentation in their possession was

,. t addressed,in detail at the hearing. The identical concern t' e, f*

,7 f ' /' was alsoiaddressed in the Welder B investigations. See

_ Dulde Report, Attachment A,Section III; see Partial

'~

l.

Q;c 4ce.: ,~ ,u.. . *1'n$1A1 TsEis~idri7% O 83 * '4 Ef.N." $$3 [*2'35hfi " seI"SEEO# .

A IC PFF,.175', pp. 49-50. Similarl y.kQ yyt.9~-l$4.pps .% '.fiht'+ .& fikM-}4'e);'.2Y!j% s iW4.V - f.'.y, Yt' hincidents W.**f. ir: ofS .,%& ':::& "n'D*'

alleged cold springing .were litigated - dtiring the hearings

,< 'as well as investigated in connection with Welder B. See Duke Report, Attachment B,Section III; Partial Initial

. Dec.i.,sion.','. T T2 0- .2 9,. at.,pp.. 2 1 4. . 1 7...

..m s ., . - . .

.A.l l, e g a. t i o.n s i n..v o.l, v..i n. g l

3y fit-up inspections were also litigated during the safety

>. 3 e.

., - p' phase'as.well as subsequently investigated in. connection I,.

O withu.. Welder

. .-s., B (Duke Report,. .. . . ... Attachment 'B, ' .Section XV;-

Partial Initi,al Decision TT18-19, p. 214), as were

.,s (,

~

i J. .. ~ . Upu ' '. concerns . relating' tot preheating before 'Wel' ding 7(Duke " " " - '

.. p. .

~ . .

J . . . .

Report, Attachment.3,Section VI; Partial Initial v '

Decision, 1126-29, pp.l173-75); working on nonconformed

., 3 p;q 4 r+g.< r:-p. f,tems,.,( puke.f,Repor;t,;nAttachmer}t; .A,.., Section. IV,;rRa.rtial;..u., .y. N a . . g.,

M

• W .4

?

l. 1 f-( ", y -

l 1

,. C '/

m ,. . x

.( . ..-.8 ', ;,

4.l -

r- s

... ~

.-~

q

, ,3 _ -,,,.,% y ,, h, _ g g , , , _ , , ,.,p. .,...s ,-,5,._w. ,,y r-_y . , ., ,._ ..-.-_m3

, j , Initial Decision 1946-48, pp. 82-83), and stenciling of l

l welds (Duke Report, Attachment A,Section VI; Partial Initial Decision 1117-18, pp. 73-74).

Based upon.all of the evidence, the Board found with respect'to~Nunn's assertions that "there is no indication of a' N ttern of foreman pr'ess'u're toget the joi done'

~

'~P ~

without regard.to quality." Partial Initial Decision at 238. .The Board further found with respect to these concerns that "there has been no ecmpromise of the QA program at Catawba, but on the contrary, the evidence ,

1 i

indicates the program is effective." Id.

As discussed above, the Applicants' and the Staff's ar;:4. . . . :.e s w

'e . s wN .. .

h*-n .. . ' ..

> !'. =:

. . e .* s

. nquir .~res.

• t- .....'.....:....

t.e*'

. . . . ..: ......,...~.m..-..

~ ~. v - * ? .s ** ' ~ . ' as ' . .*' ; * * * : ** ! 1

.e . r LM s ubs e'q.-uent reman o o the fo -s t .s

• r* t*4 t v-e. ** 4 rr e conc' erns-raised initiall e. .

%.)lf',~,j.M]fFlM;gW i.(:.d ?:L?:< G.~y

~

v~.M by %.?Welder  %.M:B? corroborate the.Joard's-9' ?W& %.:':' lW.;h%.MiM'.

conclusion.- Interviews with 217 individuals at Catawba

'(which represented approximately 10,000 work years of experience on over one million work items.at the plant) w e ,. v ,.. . . .e . ...r,ey,ealed f. ewer than .twe1ve specific., incidents ,of .possible:

foreman override, of which fewer than_six could be even

, c. , partially. substantiated. Of the latter group, each

- incide,nt. involved pr.ocedural vio.l. ations that..ever.y,one -

involved agreed were not intended to result, and could not

- - ' ^"' have res'ulted,tih work belo'w " ace'eptiable'stan'dards. Al'I' a , . .. . . : .- -1 . , ..

, , _- - a- - . . - - - - - <- -

, .such, allegations-were investigated and all work.was'.found.

to be acceptable.

>. ' irs

e *,.;4 - '.?A W .d5r.r::V.Y. & iF ~%*a *. 6.: ^

r '%.*.=  % p * *Y - 'i;' 6. i' .i p * '- .n.W :*~^>' *~'~'' S " n. %

. L' **:~ -

vwr h

~.' .,. . ,

._~.....~._.=_u..u....-._-_...,.. '

.-~,_._.-~.--._..._._-.,..I._..._

, .o Given the previous adjudication and Board ruling on Mr. Nunn's foreman override concerns, and the similarity between the types of foreman override concerns raised by Mr. Nunn and those dealt with in Applicants' report, Applicants submit that the Welder B reports recently submitted by t'he Applicarit$ 'and " the St$df' constit'u te

?,~

cumulative evidence. While not all of the specific technical concerns and factual situations investigated

, therein had been raised earlier, the conclusions reached were the samer there is no " company pressure to approve faulty workmanship" at Catawba. There is, therefore, no need for any further consideration of the foreman override

6. '.U... ~. % . G d,~ i.3 h ^- ;-a*. w ~i..- + % $ .% O ;% S : - --'

.+d L*t..W.;-d.: '

issue a ~ u. ;'Uf thi. V..s proceed'ing.To permit further discovery ---

.' and, possibly, liti

?q.m

:.'.s.y;. .4 :.. syM :m.f-y f.:g ; gati'on'

>?.; on this ...subj;ect y .73.':.,:.;~;+ xe, would bei.r.'%. p.".*u-W':<~se 4."- + .~

particularly inappropriate given the extensive hearing time already devoted to similar concerns raised under Contention 6, and the fact that the Board has already r m , . . ., , m., ruled . in,. Applicants ' , favor, on . this contention. ' . Partial . .. .

Initial Decision at 268-69.

. , .Both. federal precedent and the.NRC. regulations make

!..' .. ,. . .. , . clear, that' . repetitive and .c.umulative.. evidence, nee.d...not be ,, , ,

considered. In Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nucilear Power' Stationi Unit' 1) , " ,BP #

(Emergency

. a::,g m . , .. ; a ... .- ~. .. . -m - -- - -

. Planning ' Proceeding), August 13, 1984, slip.op. at pp. 6-

.7, the Board cites MCI Communications v. American

%'g. %,..

. . 4, . ... Telephone. .ande. Telegraph .Co .~., .r.7DB.s.F. 2d.1,081,y M;71.,.(.7th .Cir. .-

. 4.

1983), wherein the court of appeals stated:

l

a 'e - 45 -

Litigants are not entitled to burden the court with an unending stream of cumulative evidence [ citations omitted].

As Wigmore remarked, "it has never been supposed that a party has an absolute right to force upon'an unwilling tribunal an unending and superfluous mass of testimony limited only by his own judgment and whim. . . . The rule should merely declare the trial court empowered

.'. to enforce a limit when in,its discretion the situation justifies this.'" 6 Wigmore, Evidence

$1907 (Chadbourne Rev. 1976). Accordingly, Federal Rule of Evidence 403 provides that evidence, although relevant, may be excluded when its probative value is outweighed by such factors as its cumulative nature, or the ' undue delay' and ' waste of time' it may cause .

Whether the evidence will be excluded is a matter within the district court's sound discretion and will not be reversed absent a clear showing of abuse. Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 127, 94 S.Ct. 2887, 2912, 41-L.Ed.2d 590 (1974); Chapman v. Kleindienst,

$. 0, ':.'s.'. .' w.j . 0.% ". .:5,0,7:q .[2 d. - 1246., ,;1.2 51An . 7(, ( 7.th1C.irg,.19.74 ) .; ;.,, . ,g c;c c .., ,f.. ? ',: . .m .

See also 10 C.F.R. $ 2.743(c.)., which provides that "[o]nly .

h.' /hi+M 6"rAl"evantfl$UN[ AlEnd$ei'is$ eNi5e'n'c $$$his# don #' * "

unduly repetitious will be admitted," and 10 C.F.R. I 2.757, which provide's that "[t]o prevent unnecessary delays or an unnecessarily large record, the presiding b ;, w... ':'

. . . . - .. .- . .. .~. .

~. . . , - .~ -: .. -

officer.may . - . . -(b) . strike argumentative, repetitious, cumulative or irrelevant evidence." A licensing board is authorized to~ regulate'the' course'of the-proceeding and

. ' . .s , , - . . . - . . ~ . - . .- ,

. th'e' conduct of the. particip. ants. 10 C.F.R. .. 52.718. In

~ .

light of.this. authority, Applicants submit that.no.further.

. r.>>>. < hearings.on'these cumulativetissues are' warranted. " - '

f

'Me.*. e ', pp ,. e' 'f eg 9 , , ,S '

"dp - n */ ' M e ' g. .* 9 'e a *"* **

g #* 'I

• 4 p *

• o?, * ' *. , e.' [ **8

.h -* *

• e * , - * * = t' #]l,*y  ; en." < e * ,.

- - , ,. . . ., . ., .. . -,....m- -..-_._- .. ---. _ _._-- ..,.._, - -

n.

• C. Additional Discovery Is Not Warranted As noted above, the Applicants' and Staff's investigation of the " Welder B" and related foreman override concerns grew out of the foreman override allegations raised by witness Nunn during the in camera liearing sessions on Contention 6. The Board has already .-%

made clear its position that no additional discovery is warranted on any of~the in camera issues, including

, foreman override.

On December 13, 1983, immediately before the evidentiary hearing on the in camera issues, Palmetto Alliance made a belated request for postponement of, and

.'-.y.~Ehe: es".e1*

1,..:i.:.s o.:.:.~. y.,:;- ,J -io M . 'di~s: c:ove.

.?- on,

-- .A ;

formI1 ry isues s.e :.t . .< %( I . d .,534-42,

-- Tr .m has 's0 n : v l2/13/83), which the Board denied. Tr. 11,2'17-221,. Kell'e .

s=.Y.~.*wp  ;.yg w zn;;;, c . ..y wi. .L,y i.-[:.:::ic.e -:W w .Mymv.w :s ',n:','e , w e9 v.c O.L'+

• y' ~ '% "- ?:6: w-12/13/83.'10,/ The bases for that ruling, which included the tardiness of the. motion, the availability of informal voluntary discovery to Palmetto Alliance during that time,

..,-. ~ . ~.. . ,;.3ntervenors '. fa,il.ure, ,to make a .,','. persuasive showing"_ of.._

their need for discovery, and the fact that these were Board issues, are. set.forth in the. record. Id. Moreover, on pp.16,--18 of its Fartial Initial . Decision the Board .

. 10,/ See also Tr. 12,335 (1/31/84), wherein the Board denied Palmett'o Alliances' motio' n to reveal th'e'siameis

.s e .,. .f ~ c., y .of- those - people interviewed by the NRC in connection- "

.with the. Staff.'s January 20,.1984 Report-(see Staff Exh. 27). Ruling that the Intervenors' request was "in the nature of further discovery", which it characterized as " entirely inappropriate," the Board

.< ..,.. furt.h.er. 'noted. that it had similarlyj denied. pr.evidius. -

. .l discovery motions o;n this subject - " tim'e and again."

Tr. 12,335-36, Kelley 1/31/84.

C c- . . .,

n 4 -

47 -

made the following points to provide a further statement

.of its views on the purported need for discovery on the in camera concerns:

First, contrary to its. apparent claim (I.C. Tr.

534), Palmetto was not automatically entitled to formal discovery on the in camera concerns as a 3 '

w x .

matter of.right under the Rules of Practice. .

Under 10 C.F.R. $2.740(b)(1), discovery is based only on an admitted contention. Discovery begins after the first prehearing conference and concludes before the final prehearing conference, except upon leave of the Board for good cause shown. The'in camera concerns were not themselves individual " contentions;" they were.merely examples'of matters that fell within .

the broad scope of Contention 6. A brief l chronology will place this aspect of the matter l in perspective. . Discovery on Contention 6. began l in December 1982'(16 NRC 1795, 1810) and closed in'May, 1983, subject to an extension the Boa 1 4 a f Jg.w il.:,-:.'.f. .J. ~ , granted {,to, allownPalmett'o..lintiljmid -July to... l..: 5W.A. -. -. , en.H conduct depositions concerning quality assurance

, , conce,rns 17'NRC 1121... The fi.nal.'

p.hV ed$.gretM 4,., %. -#:#5'h**#1"j 9 i,n welding.9 confer,e,nce .3 on .. Qrgention .. .g :, ,,7

- on September 12,'1983 and' hearings began on October 4,.1983. The in camera concerns were first expressed on November 8-10, 1983.

Palmetto's motion for still more discovery on Contention 6, based on the in camera concerns, ,

was not made .until December 13, 1983, three days before we largely closed the record on that

. <,.... . . ,, JContention.. . '.a

. . -- s' - - -- -

As this' chronological outline suggests, it would

.be impractical to. recognize formal. discovery,

. rights based on a broa'd range of employee-concerns that surface late in the case, as they

'.. . , . . . a..did.here.. .At.least.if.the.. full panoply-of- ,

discovery devices were to be allowed --

depositions, interrogatories, motions to compel,

. , , , several.

,,, additionalanswers,..etc.j-- monthsit to might take, he t proceeding.

,.. completa

.w .q. , .

.This would'meanj'in turd','~that'theECommission's

~

+ ~-

policy of attempting'to. complete operating-license proceedings before the Applicant's anticipated fuel load date probably could not be

, implemented in some cases, including this case. .

..z. . -:e . i . , . s In1our.tjudgment.; such aidelay'.should not usuall'y" " " - #- r; be necessary for a " fair'and thorough h' earing h*- --___-_.___.-w _ . . , . . ._ , . - - . - , . . . -,.% .,,_.,_e,y,,,.,., w,,,.,,,.,,yy,,y ....pg ,m...,.m.f.,, , _ , , ,.vgy.,w..,,,e

4

. oz .#

48 -

process", and certainly was not necessary in l this' case. - See Statement'of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceeding, 13.NRC 452, 453 (1981).

l The Board also_ pointed out that

[m] ore importantly, except in unusual circumstances not presented here, formal discovery on_particular quality assurance

g. ~'

concerns raised by.. individual employees is.not . ,

necessary for an' adequate exploration of the i concern '. . . . It is the broader / generic concerns -- not individual pipes and concrete pours -- on which prehearing discovery may be necessary.-

' Id. at 18-19. The concerns identified by Welder B and by several.other craftsman at Catawba are specific and technical in nature. These concerns have been investigated by both the Applicants and the Staff, have Q..,:.*l.ii.4 % .g.'} *" Q : y *:jl g y g f } & Q c.r. Q'* , Q 'f .. - . ..

Qj g S,l '  :*C -b ': '

- - - . . nature, resolved.

pf.g.24j .:pi-.-QW.:t.:-m:cand

.gz have:

wy: u. been . : ;.cay appropriately

= ir:. n: '~:L.y - w%' . '.Wi::3 kn-va.-+i':x:T.: :- mW!: ww:'*" . .

VI.. Conclusion Given the . fact that the Applicants' and the Staff's reports on the' foreman override issue provide " reasonable 3 .w. i.. . . . . . . e . .. assurance". that this. . issue.,. doe.s , notg . reflect..a. significant

' breakdown in quality assurance at Catawba, the case law

. , . . . which holds .that due process. does not require that

a. h.e.arings be held,=.th,e advanced stage of this.p.roce,eding, -

. s the interests 'of administrative finality, the fact--that

~

the concerns addressed in~these reports constitute e...,.w,.... . .

, 4. - . . .a . , .- - . v. . .,. ~ u. . .c. .~>. .r- - . > -

, . , ,. cumulative' evidence on matters already litigated in this proceeding, the fact that virtually every issue discussed h,.I.,/. - . . .

in',' Appl.icants3 , repott arose fr.om . facts..occurr.ing before .y -

I l'

.--e,- ,e r'w.e, e+,--- - - + i+-re,~,,um- .e-s-+.yr+ w wv,, vw ww ,,r rem y -ret w o., ,gs sa. wee w. .- =c y.-e ae+ e+1,e+..eg-y.g ew grr eenr-e--

i o 49 -

the close of discovery on Contention 6, and the fact that the remaining foreman override question is a Board issue and thus may be resolved at the Board's discretion, Applicants urge that the entire record in this proceeding be closed. No measurable benefit would be obtained by allowing further discovery and additional hearings on an issue that has been thoroughly investigated by the Applicants and resolved to the satisfaction of the NRC

. Staff. Moreover, the needless delay to operation of the plant (which is presently scheduled to go critical on October 17, 1984) that would be occasioned by additional consideration of this issue would create significant

.. c

~ *. :. .~.. u . 4 ~ ic 4 .. .:.s A k.u -.h > .... - w s. . -;di :-: .-;i< t -l .4 '. 4, uyv.:GG.

r .T L*..e . . . .

expense for~the Applicants.

Respecf fully subdilt'ted,

. r.u c :a p y :v na.u n :c, M i d w ,. (;s...% . A .- .: .!ww i.n c..'.: ...-

. n .v >,m v ~ - ~-

. r. - e .u -

4..- - --- '

v J. Michael McGarry, I' Anne W. Cottingham Mark S. Calvert

. . . . , ., ,. ., . .. BISHOP, . .LIBERMAN, . COOK,- PURCELL:. . .

& REYNOLDS 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 857-9833 -

a . . . .. . , -, , ,

.a , . -

~ . '

,. . , . . . . . . Alber.t V..Carr, Jr. . .

DUKE POWER COMPANY P.O. Box 33189 Charlotte, North Carolina 28242

,,.....,v..,,,.

'(704) 373-2570

. . . . .. . . . . . c ....;.. .- . . . . - , . ~ - .

Attorneys for Duke Power Company, et al.

September 12, 1984 ~

- - >.  % ~

m -w-,- - wv p+--yw , . , - . - - --.gp y g- g *&- e g --n-s w- - - . - - w

(. . .

".,.c i. . 1 1,8e.* ...

. .+:ig . '.  ?.

• : ..'. .,V

..u..,.

r .

.'yp

.c'. ~. ?',m. ~ ,..%'",*

'9.p. .  ; ' , t' *.

,, .- . Q[.'.- 1NIITED STATES'0F AMERICA- , .' %l

.~. ,. u..: ..~..'i y

.. gtJCLEAR REGutATORY tuletI55 ION w. - .

.s.... ~ .

. . 5., .

. . . . .o... .

. utme THE ATG41C SAFETY AW LICBISING BOARD > .~M,.e Pn%%,p.

. u . ., a ..

s.n, . .? .

.s *84W.EP.13 M.. r9i3W, w

'In the. Natter of" . ,

~

r > myvM n

4 . c, .gzv .

. . w:+

. C, !@;z M , ; G .m 1 Docket:No. 50-413;.

DUKE P(NER . - CtMPANG...et e al.:

50-41.4 .,

r

~

.my

. .m. . .. mm:.e..c..

c.,m.>.

..df .E.

. J,:

~(catawhm.muciar station- s

2. .

~.

4 yd,&m, r4.

-Units 1 and 2).".m. .,

4 -

g'.. ,

,. ;. . G

.2 ,1 N

. , 4.. . J{.aN,#:

' . 9:t -

,, w G. i.3...l. 7. " 7 : 5 _. .

• I ,' df... .d%m  :.

n . .

. w:

.u.. . m... .

a. .

x~

x.;:'

1, . .

/"

.a..n..v. >

. . :#." . AFFIDAVIT OF WARREN H. OWEN "

?:.

,. a M..e,s.v . ..

w . s:m c

f,Mh. ,g

y. .2;. ..

1s,

.I .an.m Executive' Vice' President o

.  % aame is .:1farren H.. Cuene

.b..g.weg.,;:

Engineering; consted:tfon

~

x

.. and Production .

Groupi Duke Power .. Company. Itas:a.g.g..i44..

these.lg:c .a

. member oftlw Board.of Directors.,,a..--

. s . .. . . .

and: of the: Executive Committee..

,. e.r. . .i . .

7 I.n..

.

,. N.m%;

e,.

' E'*j .f:. m capacitiescI, wL ha:$s.ponsible for. .N, i .

.c .. .

. . . . . .,Nsti . 'a. . . POWedi

. ..  : . . . . .a

d. . . *. .. .. . w

n. w

. ,..sfon s.:: W ifor th.n

.. ~.+

e ng other thtagsi i;he fuel e . cam,.u. - . .

. ~ . .r ,.A. . .w,. . . ,:,e .m. ,v+'.M .;c;.y

., . loa' ding. .]M,.m  :.

N .,

h...n..

/ . nuclea,:r:.

untts. . Sc.h dules . .m . s.. ;

.t

...c.~.. .

~

H. , . .,

.a n., .. ., . g 3...a.)

.. y

, e.,og

. . . . .. have been. devel for m DW .st r y ,

g m . u m m .y m ;. y w p. m q m .y n @.~

e.~;ses7m.:q M ',A take. mq7.in- k... account

' ex.perience4 tith such activities * 'e~ at its five operaung. nuclear rwetersic.y:.., . .}t.M* S., ' . . .

~.y

,;,,.,. . ' *fn .,. '.-

4, y.(

..L .s . .

, p.: .,. *

,,  ;;. y n t-Q..

~

.3

~ .w r.

# ~ .

'., .::t . sv'1 .

,.~-

. g &.

a'*~

J.&:& " -

1'.

$  ? * ~ .;.

. '\.!.N l'..

.'.,-ih.. *x ;...y*. .:.

. , ~ .:a ..

.h purposeMbihis.afftdaviti is tot in' form the Licensing Board of;.the:.T;,,.'; .%

h . ." . sl. 1",[4 ':*.. ,

.s ir f .. . * #?. .# ' [

j \.. ., schedule-feha, cNetNg, criticality;anddesttag at. power 1avels net to;edd"s

. t.a. . ... . s ..

.o. . -

.- +. , . ... .

..n.- .o..

.y M ' 954. and for powerfascension to levels:above DSL This. schedule reflects"%[. .

.~

. ., . -3 . ,

g,e. .

.. .s

. /. . ..<.5  ;- a v. .

1. , . Pre 2ress.to.a date;.1/(camplett'ng pre-critical testingy ,,,. .,. , f.... .,.,. g.., g, g W

.. ..; 2,::-." mQ,, t

.' . . -:: .^.:...-  : . .. .n M..  :

. n..'..

.g. @..,9': .z. S:n._

u m. , . w .:,.y.a.. .. ... .

y.. .. ,.......c.. 1..

..,..y..

.. ~ . , . .

- . . .g

.y

a. m. ,, .p . . . e.

d , .. ..g..

W. . ..v . a. . . . . ..,

- . .-%. . . ..d. . .

. .gf. , ...l.s..

'4

,.w Un. W Der corrent.:.ss...h.+edule :p.. ::

- for Catauba: Unit 1 Jef.l..ects.the'following: . . 3. . : .1 .E._;)- 3;; -s

.;;y . .:

..>"v .. ;; - .s,e;

.,u. .

.ty

.nw . r . . . ,

.n .. .m ~. ~ ,

n. ,.y m.:.u.

m..

~.

.w . . .... 7. w.

~.  :.

y g...a 9 ,,j. p rj

.  ;. - .. m. .. .s. . s ay,9.c.n.

i. ..y 7

%g<.Wrm..:7 " , ~ ' " ' ~ Commenced:Julp.19,1984;':" completed; WQQ M.B July 23. 1984. s$p..M

- ~~

o W.

y

... &. .s.. .a. ..:g.%.mg.

n c..

n. ...h.

. . . . . .. . . .: ~ :...r . .s .  :. >. - :: ...

4 p. ..

..d:: -

Pre-CriticsTTestfag:

Commenced July.23L 1984;f te ben M:g Wp s'a. ;. ,.. - .

gn.. 4. a.e e. wM.w.:. .w. . se.m.plete.:d .0. . .ctober., -17..w.1984. i.,.c . ..J.i@g..S.h y~ .u .y:

.u,.:: .s.. .

.. : w: . .

u c

. a

. e, * .

l ~. - p ,, . .  ;; .

gg...y\;. gen. .M .

g : .s..h...

J, M. _ 0-SE power' testing,r,s...

Commence Octobee 17,1984; to'ha! 1 yyn.??. .

j.7.:s'agg(plantcritical)-m_. g;;-~~+ _.:.r==c-completed

,a , . . . .

.) i. <.;.y-~ ... . :

. ..,s r.w.:. a.;,,a;w.-morr.

. .n..v -...,m..-., . ..,* ; m ,- =4~ u. '=.~ ~.- ~. .*2:s.. .t =. r .2. ~..w~ . ~"'~ ~m._ . .-.

w -w

~.Ml4#f 'E".* *. T**.'.*'**."*

• [;.

..,"a a w:

? #* * *'

N. . .

i . < c.=:: a.,. ar;. ..:, . :n. : l ' W'.. "h. N 9 .~.m.7T^ .aw *~ '['

Y k.

[. Yo I .[3

,. a. . .~g 7 , . M .

n- T. m.N Y. ~. 3..'.-.w'.#

e **g .w***[#**

. .* - ~..~ w...-~~=.- ... -m.._,..,.. ~- ..e

, g,, . ..

. g@I*.E ',,,, ..~-t J .

m. pf.g.

f / '

syg -

g".-'.'%. .z;.i:t =~.h.. * ' . , s ....a., .

• • 8'=l. v. F .* .*

~~.-.a ': " ~ ' '#".#**blN *. ~ . .

, ..mG;r. . ..

' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..

.v

..e.. _c..4..'.v..::.'..'.s.._...v--,---v..--~,.-~.

. . ... . 7 .

,. ,.,..,e.

. . - ' . . . . c.

= , v~.=e.n.-~. . .n.~y- ~~,,w. .

- ~ -e ~e V~. . * ** * :b*.* v.%. ,; ;.! M,ien, w.n. . .

... .% #. .., .e, . . . . . . .. m . . . , . . ..

r. ~v~ .. - * : ~, .Q ' , .* v#,, ...:P s - ... .

...,n.' ..'.".: ct ' . >= y *.**n.-- .

2 ~ . - . .-1,.:r&(

w.,,,%. . . ,M- .W,.- ..

..r .,..?.'.'.f' .

.n'

Of s. T ,s .; ' Q.,%. G y .c. .: .. .E..f

. -: u.u.

.c ,

. m . , ?. . ,*:e~.

, -l..

Y . 6. , . .

• s . . ,...

( !* * .*,.,m,. ;.. . . ,. .:/.W.u.'.9'm'g.4(/.y

. . .. . . ~,

g .

ieweir .testM *.M,, n a 4:

b. r. 1984. gto'14. .

?.g ;",,Y.%. . .e5.. . M,x:<.9%iencelos.

'. ,< :, ,.Y. . .?!' M. M.. .,A.9:./gv t- .s..e.#...;.

1D.os._G... March;19.A.?

~

. ..,,,.. .i .1985 . 'y . sw T 4 . . ,a g; . ..

icompleted. .

p '.. .

..g,., , . . 4. .p . ,

. **,.N v....' U b. -

. . ",'/dM

~ . - - ,. . *

@*.b,

-k ...?. :!... *l7 *.T* ".;,$""f-N.s, . ,.

. ,. JE'~

. . . >. . ij.4.a."i. - rf *-

• 4 '

O,

. ...'. 9. . "e....w e

w ,.D MEd'3 N_"

'* M.

,'.% * ~ . .  ?  % . . '.

-. YW$. ,.$%mi. .M, ? _.i:.A,- %.%.,~. .r  :.4. . - 4.,W,, .,, ckuN.. . _ . . . . .

. . . . ,...~.-

in.,t...d_uly,2..:swor_n.7, t s M _ _ s. tat,e

..c..,. .. . . . . . . .

&n%m.,,J o . .r..ren.H,. ,, . ... .of...s 1. .. .. .._._

. ._. . . :~. . . :.,.., ... .... .._.. . 1.,.,.,.... a. ge y. ._.  :

~m..

.._. .m_.. . _. . ..

.+.

.. .m _ .._y : . a. s m .m

.we e.'. -p-

, = _ .

. ;; tem

.5_

- ~ . .

-.r wp ,.s , .

. .,3. .g m .%<'r,m. .- a.

. n ,.w.=; . 4,s.;,,p y . .t. g

, ..,." ., hav ... .;;gy.,

,,..... p ,4f . . ..a, .r. .:.sti.,.m g.,,,,.,3. w 7,,.regatog affida its.ca#y _g~.c..

ta m.r,O.,e,,_p..,e

,eE ,d"4 hee fo,.. v nd' th,at f5 a,eva  :.:aments...,

s,~ tate.,...i.

,"s,. v vw;%eA*%w.; v.

.;,-- r y e.

m we

. ay;t.i.

wwe-s. .m .w- r.+:m.q.p x.? 1>. ve . .pq . :. , r: < - - * -

cony;i.;ne

.' f

,mm

ma *Ql$w2 e ynereern ep,.g ;wrm.<m.r-e L,' -

.. . Elbesti'W knowle

[' . * .N.:.1.6%hereinNWtF0shiud?Ifopi'ihitFtDtL

-..Bi;&#:

-:,,.,,,e... -% N iW y ,;..: r g., y ,,= g,..g.,3,.y. g.4.&.:'%

,, 7 .

.. ........y .

%.c.F g ~--

v.ms  :% . .inclyb..,H.:upMW*u%t w~. -

.~-

r*t m,- u.pve s ._ y

.e_ [.d Den _hM.g'I"M.~.gM.#

.m

~y

• ^

r----.~.w-L. MW: - -

/

. n -- . ~@*mw,.*,

gJ. MTm

_,c.

~

wem e-.- iU Q: . " **"y' *-1 ty .,r;.,,, : .,f,;,.,,,g gf .a., y.,,j,gy. g;,gp,,,;>, 3sneggg;.a

. i: * . .w . .eq r * =$g,Q.wg' ' .'*;.*i"**'*-h*'*T***'J,

,,,,,M vA N;r 4ep.ggggp[.

mgspqerr.nS@ [qg_3,o,,yggtp.,; f.m.FLT.M'. ,,,,;,;,,,,,,,:

61%M. ,4=fW.*  : .Ql'EM s:<mava n sla;*-*sMfMM-Q[

+~

~~p - :

~~' : :.--v *Hvm:=.. M . m --

• DCT

~

4d.+*- ' th'>.s.w C**w. .ns.5*~;~~  :~. ~~~~~=.~v'.~-.

• S" . *- s,.er't~5~W.'.: . .R-%g.a....:

ed.> J sC%' -. ,U ~ 's *

,.4...

::r.c . 3wy.

'.~.g.--a-

> .ss-:c E ,~.w..nJ:e..c - .a.:

-.u

- . . ~;a... .m.c..

A- .

-e .; n

~~.~.+.a.

~. .:'"':".w.

v v - .'%.m" e.

f..vi~%*=f.

2  ; ,:m. :-.m;w.e.x ..t%'..'@

. . .., e .cc .-4 . ..J.A . . . . , . . , , ,m- m_

ac . ~ iq*%~<l$,i.Q+y@'.w\?:;t. "'T"" t W r

' .. .s..;.r . .eu:nse n. r. ~.si RW 3arrippO a.s... .;,r *;;. .*: .

evegege swe=

m.pga.Wrh$3 - ws. j r.;. m ~, ..

h . f

• "*~^

w, . n.

W@%'~' ,t, 6, ;.7'"@.*E'F*"?j"s.,gs.c.d,gt W

• ' :4  ;;;-y , ;

..-.m"n ,M. . .a..w .

m.~

a,... .y .' w.A.s ,~..n. ,@wn.

, . nw x.t"fM11.l*/,m.,'f;/.Q/.'a'%. M.4.7 J A;.it.mkr#.Wir/Wji%m, M.g.A.4;t  ;;u r :n m.

.*;QQM;

' ws y. .: @., arren: rf.' .t. .*H 2 . ' . .;p:: ,.i.,.d,

~.a en. .. - e-ab.e aa. - ., r. m, w:: re u.rs.,.. a.z. .c u. w* v.v w er ..~.== ...i;.-..x--: .. rw% w --pW>;Rn*

..,. r r =... -. .. r e.... ,.s .

c

. .m. pa.d. . , n:. .n .e~ e.~*. 9. .- .s... .- -.. -

.-w.. . . . . . .

.3

....%"2... ......c. ..m. ..a a, ...,..,,,,...r...wr-. 4. ----

y.y.

.k.,.,b. an.. b ,, .- M. .. . . , . . b.....

.n. , m .

_ ."k7y? y*---~~*'k .

.~

m .g

. ,.. a.

gy

. . ... ~ Y q y y g.3 Q m3

. ,,N,g*. ,'. ,. ,*e.,

.a. .. ..*- . . . .;kc t . .h.rg h.~*. g . m . gr, m

, . L;.

~ - .;.. -~ q g ,. y .. ,..., m ,y,. g., .. Je pe m .i,_ Maw g,r.y_ . Juana wJM.9as u,mmg * ~,&y a.3.;;.~w%gg.z y. . w*J.M.~,dqW

, ,.1

~

. e ?. ,$,.Q,g. .,. . ,r,c,,%.y.w.,b.pr o,:. c 17' 'tr m,y,J.y,W.J J

h,, y nS q,gy.g

.m _,, _

f..N_. ~ . 'j", ,;,A dE.,.N. E. c_'.h[ h/ .WS_I WiM .mer .Ydd.M. . ;,( .y,gr --

.. , $ 4,gg ,,h ,. _hf h .j;- .9.--f'-,k iE

-.,2 - . - . , ... .. -

~

'.p ;..

• sr E, ^

D_@ h. .._ ,, ,,..- i N .

,e. ' ..__,..-.C.__"__- W e p.: :.". .a. s. ;' , , -

' T"u r _ __.

1-

.g 2.Jfk.

NS b,...w.Qm , Q.. } h...$) h .. ?h&.W$.5*. - 5%

k.' .D *

. . - - ,: . w% . v, p .- &. w.f S . ah, . . - *. sew'ct4.;;.W:.am. P.t%,,,.w-%t.f.

m g

> N. 5'W.9 v.,k MI 3s.?'F ,,.jg%.",,!YK 2"?"" T.*

._--~.- -_.m

.u . . . . , h :. . '==- **-w'""-~  ? m-

_- cV'." . ,_, _. . . _.m.m y,4. ~.4~.

g ,., 4 ,;L .

1. i_..p ma;&tA.

. 'u w  %. .r.-;f;r ~.--My,7 ..

t pr.e ....v._ . , y1- a -f. e.m .p . ._.yum, -

. . .. m,.--.

e,.,--*'."=t.m.. .* F. *. .n.W, W . ..  %.,.

4 ,m".pasm--- .

. 'Y l y

' ; 1} - ry lwj f', $$ '.f 2

.g;.

,.p4 M

p. r. ptv ??.ff"W b'?}.i .. %..w y-NW ., p',%. ,; /J;. th'"*  ; 9 /%' v'ffh e.,- i

? ;*? ., -[M.p*y.'.*-Q?,9 w.w. zw.y.w, ,,. . ~. e,#",".s p> w:p u

.i ,

..s..r.. Q. %.. e..~A....t..+ . p. s.

..- . v

,g.

.r.c ..c.x-9 s .<%*.Q: g

> . (

,.... .r s  ;

u

%. .i,.p:+ 3 .>:-W. a. , ,,. ..g p.

. ,r.Amm. y.,g'y,g,.,m.eJ l

,-y.: ,- y*.a. pr,

, ;7) . . .. e ,. Mm....

['!h 4Nsc(p[h[ f _ <?- w . g;:.;;9au:

y::(kk-h>%.

. E,l ,k,h*h / h .

m

. . a. .

• a .JQ.

. ;. q. 5. .:g?

..: u.md Q.>.

=. :, %.pp%y.:,my.,

y...., n..= 5 g.. .. n g.x 6:. .

. - % n.-t 2

_ ... y d. + n+.%=,0,

.A.. . ... y p ~

hi M%v ghhhf

. n..y;;u::. i ,.>

. -.w%

.,,.

;.;3 d,q4.Q~;.

. ,uf,.m.,'i

. K: .: .< y

':< &lD.:'.r

.w

. .. mm:,

w L&, g,.%.. :

' . . . . . . n... .%..... ML. . $ps.c..u.m. - ' QjlpN.v .i %.u..%., g..: .iR.,..w%.~.p m n q,

. n .p,,Qu.s.. . ..gg. . . .p.g. ~ .-_.2 . s.. ,.*Y; r ,i. . '~.l,q~":m' C 3'sJ a , ., lW 6

y. 2. ..., . . ,a .a ..y.. .p._ .n.. wm,. ,.y ' . ,Me...

-s.

<k;.?J: T '1. : --

.QL,:. ., s.

j $w ,;q.. *5

p. k+

i.n. : .&,a rm%.m . A.

o gl7..ke %.- .,P.. .,.M. .n.: . g: q. Fs " . .. ..

.,ae; W.,.w..,,.:%..

W s.~;. .w +y..ll:r w.%l, w:q .

a a, c . w. ... ,m+ mw c, .@. *....:J, y mon.:w w>.. .m~

~

h . .. .

• h'

.y . Q_q. s;.5 ~f. 'y,iy - Gg'f.R=.f .'? X 4M(Iq[:.'. N{, . h..P*

.~ -n.W:.").g..g. .+.?.p *: '".Q.

, , %. c. . ..m.

.r- -...,m .. . ...,.:.:- - . . . , . . . , . . . . . . . ,,.,,s..

.,_.y j,;. 4 - . ,

l* W;:. . ?.*i'S.{..t.p  ? . h.I.fjh.  ? pl)]lf: l $< o ,4.,yg f.W.. jb?.5'] b$ge-M g,:. ,sp,3%4lyo..

e ye ,. g.~ m ,_

. . , - . e.: . .g;Av * '

< * -. w e.. rgmw 4, W .6,e t./ g.,.,..... .'f..p.g.g i ., 5 .y::l Y.'Y ,ji;,._.W, ql{'q p,.h.h.h &g( vusn epdl,l

f. l.0 ' -l: . .

.Da, f f . .- .M,b.,M. . . . . r+ gs.6#fq,@y.Wg ,.  %,. @* . . . . .. O p.

% i#,,QW'P./E.. ' .hov3;6 #.' l

. .. N y .-

.y;p.

~{4. k kf 1:.h.I[ . .m,4:'. -: ?.C ..:v.Wh&G.=3;", f

.i,),$ ,kM . .v ;c. L:g.. . ,.. , .g.x . ;.n h gr.p hg hg.h4.'.3 %,t.g;ih,, M h [,..

u. w. y .z u.lp

.$$yMi.'  : , .xq. .nw H.. .

..g.:

'd. .. . ..c r..[$'[.h,. Y%.hgNG ".

r

'._q.'.

.:. g-c fCV ~

h d',

h TL.w r r.n  :......

4 .;- .n..,c.us,@y%. 9 .;;. x, .

• ,9. . . s

...a.,

w :2, ,0 4../.r*,; <'W.; . ' l psp g;.

8%

L. 3 . g.f*w,y.g,y,'g:/j'#-E'hW's .' ..j'# "/Mbs k C l'Fy* . f *'4 L ?

p ' ;..?.?

qf% *~.. : . .. 4

..ry. p " } t- p y, g Qu.y.sc .ga, f h.o e. ,. y,T,:c,g,m.f*

• S e..:p.::g*:f,,g$../W ,; yr,1 peQ ., . . . . . . . . , , . .

Mk' ,

l.

• "4#"7% $ ..g r'.' M. o..'.W*y*g.,@

6

• - : . .. t;?..;4g , ,. hc .y g' e:

- @p'.it' . - @' a .pfg . '% a.//-^'rv Etk-4 u.Et've

.:e - 7. * .e % - pa';?t-,M

• • sv d**Ct"?,

' 4f '* ** '".'.Y.? t *b "9' . .

2 - 1

,j ; $,,' :?' [.hy:j '? i.' !"M * *"

4t. -? .p*$1 C.N',.', d.j ..A:. .. . W sl *r~ ' 5 'R.: * ."$0fiWW ; g' .g *j y:\t . .?**,,; :.M. s do;, O.f.f.ss'

• f.l;* 4 Gag .h ,l.Y5.0.'.*..*,fQ:h)y.? . h's **,'. L '-C ' ~ . R '..1..S l5 Y*h: , 9.:

s'i '* - 2;'&&fs&A.f

.~ '". 'g,Q.' . a .

.J.G.&: , '

,o , ,' f ,f %Q.q n,*t4^ 1 .

. r *

' & . .v- ** ' e-4 . -m ';--

l ~? .N.2 u,

$k{ki. ' ,. ; 's. J.$

v, ?hY ,.:p'L '.4,Q

..y .

.,..,s.

- Q.;y... d.

, *g ...Q.f..fg,.U. ...nA. n.

c,Y *:\W ,, ,g f w

- vwggr.s * * :. $$b',l.h h

. . .y , r.%

y. ., - .

.q g .

• s *"??., .. t.-

k.r' n

m',-.*' W*h,fl,f.b'$.* * .. '

. L. . ,. ;: : .n

v. _q. .w..y.,.x

fi. y, r N.5

,t. 'n' ;4,1,~ ,;*

. '. . ,$.? .m :' d$.g. $Y

.y,=s . .. w y-A... Y;a,:.,.

. .:'q.,*%.

.g sn. . .. -< . * . r . g,t I*c. . . V., .

.a . . c *

..s+.- ,,  ;$. .%: m ..M.

. , s. e .. * * , , . ,~ ~, .ya.%.1' *1..v en

.:1:g - *ll >r **v, .q.::;':A Y.s..'-

.* w . -

s

." y

.t - .. *  % s

"* L,%g.

.'T.;d u ?. - M +, n . - ,--  %- L. - ..> - M 4f,y.:

=

e~ '

riy;:it. r, .~'

, > . ' &s'7 e :m?:~.q:;[.d. ,4 , ,m..gs 21.::s qnym.=C *;

• k:.irt:*.t,7.F ,,M.',.~..<- t... .%

. ! . "~..

' w~

.... c:.

v p.

mn ~ .. , . ... . -  :- . .- . y ' ' > ;?y?n%y%(p.s -

. M g .g 1

c%

(. -%"

e,3 4 v.- v.m. . , ...1 ..i.,... -.gy:nt 7

. . . .. .:. .. . . . - . . 4 < . ry. ..

a.L M.-m k , I .. @! -.y.. .(.h: :ww.e.*

I, C , .T 8f .o

• a

,f . >. .y .. . 8. , p.

-,e w.w.:.c:w m::,ww n ,

p ;,-.; .yh

. - -.m'.s,.%;m"s 7 s 3

~ w :7 ~ e

-: , , n.? .+.

, m .: ,....

me. .,mg  : .r.

i

> . ~ . - e,.

n

p

,spjp

,q.;m.

i c.

L. . . o JCD<ETEr U:MC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '84 SEP 13 A9:31 BEFORE'THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD. , ,%.,

puu '.!!Tr.i& SH so BRANCH In the Matter of. )

. . .)

m- ,

' DUKE POWER COMPANY,.et al. . )

)- ' Docket Nos. 50-413 '

50-414 (Catawba Nuclear-Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

. I hereby certify that copies of " Applicants' Respanse To

' Board Order Of September 4, 1984" in the above captiormd matter has~been served upon the following by deposit in the ';nited States mail this 12th day of September,-1984.

James L. Kelley, Chairman George E. Johnson, Esq.

. .At omic Safety, and . Licensing . .~* " '~'"U . Office.of the" Executive Le

> , . c. w u. " ' " DlieTEor"' "" "'" " ~ '" gal . . ' ' ' ' ' " ' ' ~ ~

' Boa'r'd'PAnN1 U.S.' Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory Commission -

Commission *

• 4 Vf p .h W Wa'shingtioriB D. CN/20535"'A0 ' uM.Wa'shihif tionPDYC6'dO 55FC" *

• 4 '"#'. "

~

Dr. Paul W. Purdom Albert V.-Carr,.Jr., Esq.

235. Columbia Drive Duke Power Company Decatur, Georgia 30030 P.O. Box 33189 Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 w.i. :.. . , . .Dr i , Richard F. F o s t,e r ,,,. y , ,

, . , RichardiP.,,Wils,on,, .Esq. ,, , , , . . . _ .

P"O. Box'4263

~

Assi,stant Attorney General

- Sunriver, Oregon 97702 State of South Carolina P.O. Box 11549 I

Chairman:.. . ,

. .  ; Columbia, South Carolina. 29211' Atomic Safety and Licensing

. Board. Panel- . Robert Guild, Esq'.

~ UiS.'N6 clear ' Regulatory' ~

Attorney-at- Law' ~

l~ Commission P.O. Box 12097

. Washington,-D.C.' 20555 Charleston,. South Carolina 29412

,6.e.<.s.4 Chairman. , c.,,....-4 . .  :" Palmetto Alliance.~ <r - -- * ~

,  ; Atomic Safety and Licensing 2135.1/2- Devine Street

.A'ppeal Board ' Columbia, South Carolina 29205 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission W.3: A + .WAship @on,..D.,,C. m 2,Q55J.x ,. .

r;,.. t.% .,,.,m.....,. c.,, ., ; . .y , , . . . . q.

, . .  ;..,..., .. . ~

I~

o i

, < , , . + - +

9 4*ecw ew-- .-.,a- .-w- +--ees---c e .s.w ,,--y-9,- -c.---=- -t-a--se t-w +,---,w

1. ,- w-y & Wy.4 af $ w f - --@, e- +- ee ,s-e-

t. ...a Jesse L. Riley William Clements 854 Henley Place Docketing and Service Section Charlotte, North Carolina 28207 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Karen E. Long, Esq. Washington, D.C. 20555 Assistant Attorney General N.C. Department of Justice Don R. Willard

'~

Post Office. Box 629 .. . . Mecklenburg County Raleigh, ' North Carolina' 27602 Department of Environmental Health John Clewett, Esq. 1200 Blythe Boulevard 236 Tenth Street, S.E. Charlotte, North Carolina 28203 Washington, D.C. 20003 Bradley Jones, Esq.

Regional Counsel,

, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington,'D.C. 20555

,> ~%i:~ u J v :< . . . G 4::.r.. n;w 9 ..cm.x< ......,- 4. >. .. .~.v :< . . . > - - w '< . ..

. . u.. .Ja.v;.n . .e.

J. Michael McGarry, -III . / '

. '-. c .. a.. x.o- .. .+ : i.- ::3ci.e. g:.,;.u. . :.:a , =. s.w; . c.f

.w7::.9 z.r.i.~,M : , .m .:.:::36 y ~,'. ..x:. .. t .e

. . .. w. .

64. ... x

. . . , . . . . . . . . . . _. ,. . .. . . . , . . . . .. ..a.... .

. .t . . , . -. ..3

.. .. . . . . . .....s , . , . . ,, .

• Additional copy served at another. address.

.,.,. ,.,. ;. v . .. v. . . . .

, .. ,, ..w.~.. - ,. r. .- ~.1 .-

- + + -

. .e .;. . . s.1 .. > .. . . s .

. .. n, , , . : , .

. . . .c...... . r.,: ..: . . . . . . , . . ..n -- :. . ~ . ~ ~

~

v t e.a g