ML20098E237

Reply to Intervenor 840918 Proposed Supplemental Initial Decision.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20098E237
Person / Time
Site:	Byron
Issue date:	09/24/1984
From:	Gallo J, Mark Miller, Millerm I COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO., ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE
To:
References
OL, NUDOCS 8409280258
Download: ML20098E237 (52)

Text

n- - -

o. ..

gg@i DOLKETED 7

USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIg[ g{p 27 A)) :49 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD c r r w- r : wk. C In the Matter of ) DOWhyj [C

)

COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-454 OL

. ) 50-455 OL (Byron Nuclear Power Station, )

Units 11& 2) )

REPLY.TO INTERVENORS' PROPOSED SUPPLEMENTAL INITIAL DECISION In accordance with the schedule established by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Licensing Board") ,

. Commonwealth Edison Company (" Applicant" or " CECO") submits

,this reply.to Intervenors' September 18 Proposed Supplemental

. Initial Decision. This reply addresses only those areas where. substantive differences exist between the respective

positions of the Applicant'and Intervenors. We have not replied to Intervenors' conclusory findings (e.g. Intervenors' l '

. proposed revisions to CECO's Proposed Supplemental Initial Decision, paragraph 104) since they are merely a summation of other-factual-findings which we believe to be erroneous and to which we have specifically replied.

To facilitate the Licensing Board's decisionmaking process, the reply findings are separately identified by c

' reference to the Intervenors' findings to which they reply and are designated by the prefix "R." The Licensing Board should accept'Intervenors' views as consonant with those 8409280258 840924 gDRADOCK 05000454 PDR ~

Q} - __ __ _ . _._.. _ _ _ . . _ _ ._. _ ._

I

e set forth in Applicants' proposed decision in the. paragraphs of

CECO's Proposed Supplemental Initial Decision where text was either adopted by Intervenors or their editorial revisions have no. substantive impact.

e m

e

' REPLY TO INTERVENORS' PROPOSED PARAGRAPH 2B R-2B. Intervenors' mischaracterize the nature of the issues remanded by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board (" Appeal Board") in ALAB-770. Intervenors suggest that the entire issue of the construction adequacy at Byron was remanded by the Appeal Board and it was only within a " full exploration" of construction adequacy that attention was to be focused on Hatfield and Hunter. The

. Appeal ~ Board'(ALAB-770, p. 27) did state that the Byron Reinspection Program should be explored "in terms of whether there is~ currently reasonable assurance that the Byron facility has been properly constructed." In the sentence following this quotation, the Appeal Board carefully and clearly stated that the construction adequacy at Byron was ..

to be considered on remand solely within the context of the qualifications of Hatfield and Hunter quality control inspectors and the work performed by those two contractors. / The

. suggestion in Intervenors' Paragraph 2b that the scope of the Appeal Board's remand order involved work quality issues

-under the Byron Reinspection Program other than that of Hatfield and Hunter is erroneous and should be disregarded by the Licensing Board.

• / The adequacy of the equipment supplied by Systems Control Corporation (" SCC") was also a matter remanded by the Appeal Board; however, the qualifications of SCC quality control inspections was not tested by the Byron Reinspection Program since the Program only included contractors who unlike SCC performed work at the construction site.

-r REPLY TO INTERVENORS' PROPOSED PARAGRAPHS 26A-26C R-26A-26C. Intervenors assert that Applicant failed to apply adequate expertise in the development of the Byron

-Reinspection Program. .In particular, they point to the alleged inexperience of Mr. Del George, his lack of expertise as a statistician and the lack of precedent from other

" reinspection programs" to support certain assumptions used in the Byron Reinspection Program. Intervenors do not fairly characterize the record. Contrary to their arguments, the Byron Reinspection Program was developed by a number of people all of whom provided the expertise necessary to structure a comprehensive and adequate program.

Intervenors stress in-Paragraph 26A that Mr. Del George's assignment as-lead-manager of the Byron Reinspection Program was his first such assignment--the implication being that the formulation of this important program was improperly entrusted to a " rookie." This interpretation ignores the fact that Mr. Del George had substantial experience relevant to the management of a program like the Byron Reinspection Program. He managed a number of backfit projects at the Dresden and Quad Cities Stations involving structural, elec_trical and mechanical construction activities. (Del George,-prepared testimony, at 3, ff. Tr. 8406.) Mr. Del George participated in corrective action programs involving

8-g reinspection work under the ASME and AWS Codes at Applicant's LaSalle County Station. (Del George, prepared testimony at 3-4, ff. Tr. 8406; Tr. 8467-68). Mr. Del George's experience at-LaSalle included reinspection of the installation of structural steel, mechanical systems supports and piping and a reinspection plan involving bolt torquing. (Del George, Tr. 8468.) -The facr that these programs involved work

~ quality objectives does not detract from their relevance as

-building blocks of substantial experience that held Mr. Del George in good stead in discharging his function as the manager responsible for managing the development of the e

_ Byron Reinspection Program.

More importantly, Intervenors incorrectly characterize Mr. Del George's role as though he was solely responsible for the Program's development. In fact, he was only one of

• three individuals who played a central role in the development of the Byron Reinspection Program. The Project Construction Department, represented by Mr. Tuetkin, provided insight as to the nature of the site contractors' activities. The Applicant's Quality Assurance Department, represented by Mr.

Shewski, provided assistance in shaping the Program by providing guidelines for Program groundrules and mechanisms to assure adequate oversight during implementation of the Program. (Del George, prepared. testimony at 5, ff. Tr. 8406:

Tr. 8470-71.) Additionally,11RC Region III Staff participated

i The NRC in development of the Byron Reinspection Program.

~

resident inspector, Mr. Forney, added 2 to 4 inspectors to the roster of inspectorsLwho were candidates for. reinspection.

(Del George,-prepared testimony.at 11, ff..Tr. 8406; Forney,

'Tr. 10,078-79.). It was at Mr. Forney's suggestion that the-first: inspector listed on each site contractor's roster was.

iincluded'in the Program. (Forney, Tr. 10,777.) Finally,

-his recommendation was adopted expanding the reinspection

. period from 30 to 90 days. (Forney,-Tr. 10,'079.) Thus, it is'readily apparent that the Byron Reinspection Program was Lthe product of the combined efforts of the Applicant and NRC-

. Region III; not as suggested by Intervenors, the work of a

--solitary individual.

Intervenors' attack on Mr. Del George's lack of expertise in statistics is~of no consequence since mathematical statistical theory was not a basis for formulating the Program. Furthermore, it is not surprising that many of the sampling elements and acceptance criteria used in the LProgram had never.been applied in' reinspection programs for-other plants since we previously observed that this Program wasl unusual in' testing the qualifications of quality control

= inspectors. (I.D. 1 D-416.) Compare Shoreham . (adequacy of

. construction);_Diablo Canyon (adequacy of design) . ) */

-*/ Long. Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power

' Station, Unit-1), LBP-83-57, 18 NRC 445 (1983);

l Pacific Gas and Electric Co.-(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power . Plant Units 1 and 2) 7 ALAB-763, 19 NRC 571, 582 (1984).

=..

7-In. sum, Applicant brought to bear individuals with adequate-expertise who applied their knowledge to structure a proper reinspection' program-for the Byron Station.

N

-f 5

a 7 +

6 g ,w y re, -w , -m-4 e ,-wr.. +~ge +-w-, - - , , 4-myn--- - ,-.,c,,, ,,e-,- +, ,,, ,wn,,,e-m,-w,g,-,- g n- -,vs. ego-, ,-- ,n -g

j REPLY TO INTERVENORS PROPOSED PARAGRAPH 32

Intervenors suggest that Applicant'had the burden of establishing that inspectors who performed fewer than the minimum number of inspections (50 for Hatfield and Hunter and 25 for PTL) were "as likely to perform as well as inspectors who stayed on the job longer." A comparison of

.the. performance record of QC inspectors based cn length of-service is, irrelevant'to the question of whether these inspectors were adequately trained to qualify for the job.

In any event, there was no need.to reinspect the group of inspectors identified by Intervenors because, as they admitted,-

a 100% reinspection' effort was unnecessary. (Intervenors' Proposed Decision, paragraph 30.) The results.of the inspectors sampled under the Byron Reinspection Program provided the basis for-inferring'that the population of inspectors not captured by the Byron. Reinspection Program, including those

. inspectors who had less that 50 or 25 inspections, were also qualified.

S L

REPLY TO INTERVENORS' PROPOSED PARAGRAPH 34A

R-34A. Intervenors.suggest that the results of the reinspection program demonstrate that the addition of inspectors to the sample of. inspectors whose work was reinspected by the NRC Staff was nonconservative. It would, of course, have required an unerring ability to predict the future to select, in advance, those inspectors who would score the lowest in the reinspection program. Contrary to Intervenors'

-assertion, Mr. Forney described the basis on which he selected inspectors to be added to the reinspection program as-follows:

Q. Mr. Forney, how did you select the inspectors which were added to the random sampling for inspectors at Hatfield? You selected four of them from what I recall in your testimony.

A. Yes, I did. I reviewed records of a number of Hatfield inspectors of whom I felt were at least marginally experienced, so I wanted to see how they would come-out.

(Forney, Tr. 7994.)

This was clearly a rational basis on which to add inspectors whose qualifications were deemed suspect to the reinspection program. Given Mr. Forney's status as an NRC

-employee and his apparent continuing skepticism about the qualifications of quality control inspectors at Byron (See finding R-99, infra), the Licensing Board should reject any hint that he deliberately selected inspectors who were

'likely to score well in the reinspection program.

L- ___

,e REPLY TO INTERVENORS' PROPOSED PARAGRAPH 35 R-35. Intervenors assert that there is no basis for the " engineering judgment" which underlies both the adequacy of the sample of inspectors for drawing conclusions concerning the qualifications of those inspectors not captured by the reinspection program and the basis for concluding that in-accessible and not-recreatable inspections are adequate. We

-deal here with the engineering judgment in question.

The Licensing Board is referred to Applicant's original proposed' findings 30 and 37 which analyze the basis for'the adequacy of the sample of inspectors. It should be-

.noted in addition that the adequacy of the sample of inspectors was validated after the reinspection program was completed by reference to Military Standard 105-D (" Sampling Procedures

.and Tables for Inspection by Attributes," Washington, D.C.

U.S. Government Printing Office 1963). '(Del George, prepared testimony at 14, ff. Tr. 8406; Del-George, Tr. 8699-8700-)

That. standard is a standard ANSI document containing sample plans which specify sample size as a function of population size. For each of the contractors the number of inspectors

. reinspected equals or exceeds those which would be specified under Military Standard 105-D for a single sampling plan at a' normal-inspection level. (Del George prepared testimony at 14-15,'ff. Tr. 8406, see also Reply Finding R-34A, supra.)

, . R

._. 1 a- ,

i

'The controversy over the basis for the adequacy of 1

the inspector sample is'placed in proper prospective when it recogn'izedithat the qualifications of those inspectors not

~

captured by'the reinspection program were validated by the Ifb11owing syllogism. The' Byron Reinspection Program was a

-response'to.NRC: item of noncompliance 82-05-19 which found that~the. programs.of site contractors for qualifying quality

' control inspectors were inadequate and not in accordance with ANSI N 45.2.6. Thus, CECO was compelled to assume, before .the Byron' Reinspection . Program began, that-the programs

for qualifying quality control inspectors.were inadequate 1

'and th'at,~as a result, individual; inspectors may have been F

, unqualified in.the period prior to September, 1982. (Del George <Tr. 8796.)' As explained by Mr. Del. George, it was assumed 'at :the inception of the' program. that if the results Edemonstrated.the qualification of the: sampled inspectors,

-the' effectiveness'of-the inspector; qualification programs hadIbeen shown and an inference that the~unsampled population ofIinspectors wastalso qualified could be drawn. '(Del xGeorge,~Tr. 8794; 8796-97.) That assumption was validated

-bylthe results of the program which showed that the sampled l inspectors'were, in-fact qualified to the acceptance criteria forLthe-BRP. '(Ibid).

Similarly, it was assumed that inaccessible and J

not-recreatable inspections were sufficiently similar to the reinspected work so.that-the results of the program for

. reinspected attributes were transferable. (Del Georga Tr.

8795.) .This assumption was also validated, both by a review

. of the inspection procedures for inaccessible and not-

-recreatable work and the good results of the reinspection program itself that, among other things, determined that the

-qualification and certification procedures in place prior to

+

September,-1982 were effective. (Del George Tr. 8796-97.)

.These assumptions were in fact the engineering judgments which underlay.the design of the reinspection program. (Del George Tr. 8877.)

The above bases for CECO's engineering judgment in selecting the sample of inspectors and determining lthe adequacy'of 'he t inaccessible.and not recreatable inspections are in sharp contrast to the apparently nonspecific and unexplained use of engineering judgment in the Comanche Peak case (Texas Utilities Generating Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric-Station Units 1 and 2), LBP-83-81, 18 NRC 1410, 1420 (1983))'. There the Licensing Board criticized the 7

applicant?and th~eLStaff'for urging it to accept engineering

-judgment "without any explanation." The evidence before us, however, contains just the explanations of engineering judgment which were lacking in Comanche Peak. Indeed, the Comanche Peak Licensing Board recognized that " reasoned J

explanation" supporting conclusions regarding the safety of systems at issue in that proceeding would provide a satisfactory b

+ '!  : ,

. 4 .9

-13 .

3 ,

' basis for resolving issues before it.~ (18'NRC at,1420.)

^ ,

-\

Finally /.it should be noted that Dr. Singh -never, ,

4

- addressed the.ade'quacy of the sample'of inspectors in his i .. . .

- prepared-testimony (See Singh,.Tr. 9067-68.) Moreover, as discussed'.in paragraphs 180 and 181 of Applicant'.sfPrcposed Decision, Dr. Singh's use of statistics with' respect to work quality was appropriate.

kl

(

5.k *

• t, 1

• 1

! jg W h,

'$ t.

f f' 7 1

4 P

- ng .

4

,/ a i

e e

f T,

L ,

j. ' ~. ; -

3 r- .

l' I

s.

4

. 1.

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

m.

'p:

s .

REPLY TO INTERVENORS' PROPOSED

, PARAGRAPH 36

'R-36. Intervenors are apparently unaware of the

. record evidence which describes the basis on which the NRC LStaff added' inspectors to the reinspection program. (See

' Finding R-34A, supra.) The basis on which inspectors having

.less than the minimum number of inspections were excluded

'from the program was described in Mr. Del George's direct testimony. While, those inspectors, some of whom had as few zus 7 : inspections were not1 included in th'e inspector sample, the results of reinspections of their work was included in

.the program data base for determining.the existence of

' design.significant discrepancies. (Del Goerge, prepared testimony at 16-17, Attachment E at 7,~ff. Tr. 8406.) The remaining major assumptions on which CECO based its approach

.to the1 reinspection program were also clearly articulated on the record. .(See Del George, Tr. 8787-8801.)

> 9

,k ;G b '

s c3 i

REPLY TO INTERVENORS' PROPOSED PARAGRAPH 37

'R-37. The. citation to Dr. Frankel's testimony >at

~

Tr. fil,137 does not relate directly to ,th'e adequacy of f t-inspector sampling, but rather to-the similarity of various Hunter inspection elements. '(See Frankel, Tr. 11,134-36.)

~

ToJthe extent Dr. Frankel's testimony can be regarded as having gener&l applicability, he made clear that in the type

'ofsurveysamplingworkwithwhicbhewasfamiliarthe ,

- statistician does not routinely perform statistical tests to determine the appropriateness of' aggregation of elements,

. but rather defers to the subject matter' expert. (Frankel, Tr. 11,137, See also Rep}y Finding R-34A, supra. )

t s

,/<

4.

F a

.5-I l

I r

.=

.. >. , ,i , _ , _ , , - - , . - - . . - - _ . .

REPLY TO INTERVENORS' PROPOSED PARAGRAPH 38A R-38A. Dr. Ericksen correctly cites The Byron-Reinspection Program Report (Applicant's Exibit R-4) for the proposition that if a QC inspector could not be identified unequivocally as the original inspector of a Hatfield-produced weld, that weld or inspection activity was not included in the Program.

However, Intervenors, in Paragraph 38A, then incorrectly infer'from the Ericksen testimony that the wclders who produced these. welds could not be identified-due to inadequate.

records and'that this alleged circumstance places the quality of those welds into question. Nothing in Dr. Erickson's testimony or in the BRP Report cited by him remotely suggests that there was any issue concerning welder identification or qualification which was addressed by.the BRP. Indeed, the matter was irrelevant to.the' Program since the objective was to match up the original.QC inspector with his original inspection activity so that they both could be reinspected.

For-these' reasons, the statement in Intervenors' Paragraph 38A concerning~a "nonconservative bias" should be disregarded

, as lacking basis ~in fact. It should be noted that those

. welds for'which no inspector could be identified or for whicE inspection records were otherwise incomplete were subject to a'further inspection as a result of a CECO quality assurance audit finding. (Shewski, prepared testimony at Attachment 0, ff. Tr. 8423.)

km

4 REPLY TO INTERVENORS' PROPOSED PARAGRAPHS41-49B R-41-49B. Applicant and Intervenors have both presented proposed findings which deal with the weight to be attached to Dr. Kochhar's criticisms of.the use of the first 90 days of each inspector's work for reinspection purposes. The sufficiency of Dr. Kochhar's work experience, human factors ex-periments of 2 or 3 hour3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> duration.-*/ and theoretical ruminations as a basis for our findings have been fully presented by CECO and Intervenors. However, one point rises above the conflicting views.of Dr. Kochhar's testimony and the weight to be accorded to it, namely that the Kochhar thesis assumes that the: training and qualification of inspectors to be reinspected are not in question. Indeed his major criticism of.the selection of the first 90-day period is that such training is sufficient to forestall initially the onset of monotony and boredom. Thus, Dr. Kochhar concludes that any reinspection.must be performed over the t atei of the inspector's

-job performance to allow the effects of early enthusiasm to beJoffset by the.later effects of monotony and boredom.

• / Applicant and Intervenors refer to Dr. Kochhar's experiments as lasting two or three days. (Applicant's

_ Proposed Decision, Paragraph 47;-and Intervenors' Proposed Decision, Paragraph 47.) As indicated at Tr. 10,558, Dr. Kochhar testified to a two or three-hour duration period. However, during questioning by the Licensing Board, Dr. Kochhar agreed with Dr. Cole's two or three-day characterization. (Tr. 10,595-596.)

-Although the record is confused, Applicant's argument that the duration of the Kochhar experiments are too short.to be meaningful is unchanged, regardless of whether two or three hours or days is used.

b

p 1

..-- l i

i l

l l

Dr. Kochhar's thesis may be valid in a general l

t sense but it is irrele"cnt to the issue at hand. For as'Dr.

Kochhar admitted (Tr. 10,571), it was necessary to reinspect a Byron'QC inspectors' early work before the effects of on-the-job training masked any lack of adequate training.

Obviously, the first weeks of an inspector's performance was the proper target for' reinspection under the Byron Program.

Ninety days was a sufficient period of time for reinspection --

long enough to provide reliable information showing the trend-of inspector performance, but not too long to mask any training shortcomings. (Applicant's Proposed Decision, Paragraph 41.) This point is conceded in Paragraph 49B of Intervenors' Proposed Decision.

Intervenors also argue in Paragraph 49B that the use of the first 90 days was nonconservative for purposes of making " generalizations concerning the levels of inspector performances over time at Byron." This poi;.t is a nonseguitur since the issue of inspector performance over time was neither an objective of the Byron Reinspection Program nor an issue in this proceeding. Intervenors also urge that the results of the first 90 days of inspection is nonconservative for purposes of drawing work quality inferences. Neither Dr. Kochhar nor.any other witness supported this notion.

This is perhaps the reason that Intervenors provide no supporting citation to the record. Both of these conclusions should be rejected.

s -

-r

?

REPLY TO INTERVENORS' PROPOSED PARAGRAPH 54 R-54. Intervenors' attack Mr. Hansel's use of the Harris and Chaney data measuring defect detection rates among inspectors. They object to the data'being used to

support the efficacy of a 90%. acceptance criterion established to determine. agreement rates between inspectors with respect to the inspection of subjective attributes. TheEcriticism is misplaced because the Harris and Chaney data indicating that an inspector will only detect 20 to 80% of the defects on'an item of equipment depending on its complexity indicates

a substantial likelihood for differing results among inspectors, i.e., each inspector will detect some defects not found by

-others. The application of this data to support the 90%

criterion can only be questioned if one assumes the incredible, namely,.that the inspectors who participated in the Harris and Chaney experiments-only detected the same defects during their' inspections. Thus, it was reasonable for Mr.

Hansel to use the Chaney-and Harris data as one basis to validate the 90% acceptance criterion for the inspection of subjective attributes under the Byron Reinspection Program.

In any event, the issue is academic in view of the Intervenors' acceptance of the 90% criterion in their Paragraph 54.

- - . ~ . . .. . - . = n . . . . . . . . .

- w: .

l _ , -

y

. REPLY TO INTERVENORS PROPOSED PARAGRAPH 65 ,

_ ., .R-65. ' Mr.

Hansel found no evidence of a buddy-t system whereby_a reinspector might alter-hissinspection-

~

results:because of a personal friendship.with the original inspector.- Indeed, Mr. Hansel testified that there were a

number:of countervailing reasons-why a reinspector would not

=-

be motivatedLto improperly favor an original inspector.

I(Applicant's Proposed Decision,. Paragraph 65.). Intervenors-believe:that.Mr. Hansel's-views are entitled to.no weight because he' failed to interview any reinspectors directly.

.; As-Hansel stated,l interviews with:reinspectors would. serve little purpose because they would not be forth-1 '

M coming.- .(Hansel, Tr. 9021.) Common sense supports-this.

judgment. ~.The notion that-a reinspector would'" confess"-

during.an interview that he had., favored.his buddy _ inspector

' is2 naive.. Moreover,'Intervenors' argument ignores the fact:

- thatLthe NRC Region III also'found no evidence of the buddy

_ system being employed under the Byron Reinspection Program.

(Tr. 9856-57.)

< - Finally, the " buddy system" issue is a red herring.

~

2'-  :-because the.uncontroverted:-testimony of Mr. Hansel is that

- such a system'could not work. effectively as a result of employee turnover and protective measures employed during

- the Program.

~

Only one of'the original Hatfield QC inspectors p.s y'g-

• 9 9 y- -vi=-M-+v1 y w wi- g vt-C.egrw-- yry qy y w .pg=w i.ee -y e- sypgyv- ,9 -o. g - y y wwg p-p w,ip-sur -y m-ryyt--qqir v-wy v 9- wy 'yv( m-w9p 1rkw *- gag - y9 -g 17 g-w-

.was'still employed at the time of the Byron Reinspection

-Program. -(Hansel, Tr. 8926-27.) Moreover, a Hatfield QC inspector'still employed at the Byron Station recorded the

' lowest agreement rate for subjective. attributes in the BRP and a QC inspector who had left the Byron site in July, 1981 Lhad one of the highest' agreement rates for objective attributes.

(Buchanan, prepared testimony, Attachment C, ff. Tr. 11,174.)

Thuss the~ buddy system was apparently ineffective at Hatfield.

- In the case of Hunter, the identity of the original QC s inspectors captured in the Program was masked by the use of identifying numbers rather than by name. (Hansel, Tr.

8927.) PTL's reinspectors came from work locations at sites other.than Byron, thereby minimizing the likelihood that a

~

reinspector might be personally acquainted with one of.the original QC inspectors. (Hansel, Tr. 8927.)

Mr. Hansel's views were consistent with the results of the special unit concept inspection performed by PTL inspectors on behalf of the Applicant. These inspectors,

.who had no apparent connection with Hatfield and Hunter employees, were able to reproduce the results of Hatfield

'and Hunter reinspectors without difficulty. . Clearly if the favoritism suggested by Intervenors were present, it would have been found by the PTL inspectors during the performance of the unit concept inspections. (Applicant's Proposed V. Decision,-Paragraph 69.)

1 r- y w-,, - , .

• ^

y

, REPLY TO INTERVENORS'LPROPOSED PARAGRAPH 68 1R-68. Intervenors suggest that results of inspections per' formed by PTL. inspectors are tainted because PTL had a

" cumulative. average of 85.3% for all its inspectors whose

subjective work was reinspected, and 77% for its inspectors whb were reinspected in the expanded sample perioc." These percentages, so Intervenors' argument goes, are below the 90% 26ceptance criterion for subjective attributes, and hence the PTL inspectors were less than fully qualified.

This argumentuis without merit since it is based on the improper use of the statistics.

The Byron' Reinspection Program in the first instance was structured to-determine the qualification of individual inspectors. Thus, the 90% and-95% acceptance criteria were applied on an inspector-by-inspector basis to determine Lindividual competence. Inferences were then drawn with respect to'the total populationiafter the qualification of the sampled. inspectors was individually determined. (Applicant's Proposed Decision, Paragraphs 50-54.)

( As explained by Mr. Del George, the averages computed by Intervenors are meaningless. (Del George, Tr.

8506-09.) 'In the case -f PTL, the calculated averages below 90% reflect the results of two inspectors who did not pass the acceptance criteria established under the Program.

~,.

In this circumstance, all of the inspectors' work-was reinspected, thereby removing any doubt concerning the adequacy of their work. More importantly, the reinspecti.on activity for PTL was expanded to other inspectors who inspected the same type of work to assure that'the failed inspectors represented a unique circumstances rather than a trend. (Applicant's

. Proposed Decision, Paragraphs 55-56.)

Finally,1 Intervenors' reliance on the average agreement rates for PTL inspectors subject to the BRP is irrelevant to the validity of the special unit concept inspection. As described by Mr. Shewski, the special unit concept inspection was conducted by five PTL inspectors who were qualified and certified to the requirements of ANSI N 45.2.6. (Shewski, prepared testimony at 20, ff. Tr. 8423.) .

m

REPLY TO INTERVENOR3' PROPOSED 1 PARAGRAPHS70-76A )

1R-70-76A. Intervenors argue that three factors advanced in Dr.-Kochhar's testimony undermine confidence in the results of the Byron Reinspection Program. Specifically, they urge that the results were improperly' biased because (i) of reliance on the first 90 days of inspector's job performance, (ii) 'the reinspectors knew the names of the original inspectors, and (iii) the reinspectors, in most 9

cases, knew the original inspection results. A fair reading of Dr.'Kochhar's testimony leads to only one conclusion,.

' namely, that he has failed to raise a scintilla of doubt

. with respect to.the objectivity of the results of the Byron Reinspection Program. The biases his theories hypothesize and their effects are not demonstrable by any objective criterion.

Dr. Kochhar's position on the first 90 days is disposed of supra in Paragraphs R-41-49B. The assertion of bias due to the reinspector knowing the identity of the original inspector is addressed supra in Paragraph R-65. In addition, it should be noted that in response to a Licensing Board's question, Dr. Kochhar stated that the auto and small parts industries mitigate _the effects of inspector tedium by reassigning the inspectors to other responsibilities in the plant. (Kochhar, Tr. 10,602-603.) Thereafter, Dr. rochhar

admitted that the commingling of inspectors with other workers could affect the impartiality of inspectors when they return to that duty. (Fochhar, Tr. 10,608-609.) Dr.

Kochhar also admitted that the auto and small parts industries had never Oiewed the potential of' impartiality among inspectors because of~ commingling with the general work force as a serious problem. (Kochhar, Tr. 10-609-610.) Nevertheless ,

Dr. Kochhar disregarded actual industry experience and continued to persist in the notion'that the effect of the bias should'be considered. (Kochhar, Tr. 10,610-611.)

On the issue of bias due to the so-called " mimic"

~

effect, Dr. Kochhar has not quantified its effect on the Byron Reinspection Program. However, he agreed that the effect would be offset by the tendency of the reinspectors b.

to overcall weld discrepancies, i.e, generally categorize borderline welds as discrepant rather than acceptable.

'(Kochhar, Tr. 10,624-625). The mimic effect would also be offset by the tendency of inspectors generally to justify their existence by finding discrepancies (Kochhar, Tr.

10,625-626), and the tendency of inspectors to exercise more care when inspecting safety-related equipment. (Kochhar,

. Tr . 10,626.) In sum, it is impossible on this record either to ascertain the impact, if any, of the mimic effect on the results of the Byron Reinspection Program, or to determine

.A S' O 19 .k .A 4 w &Am a + n

$ 4_ <

f :gr h' - .

d the impact of the offsetting. phenomena indicated above. In

.this circumstance, the Licensing Board can conclude only

. that-Dr.-Kochhar's testimony on mimic effect is without 4

. probative value.

4 9

9 k

A f'-

f

(

If l' .

6

[

I s

g

. - . . - - - , . . - ,,,,, .- , , - , . . . - , , , - , , . . - - , , , , . , , . , - , , , , _ , . , - ,--,-_.-r.,.,__--,..,. _-,,,_,,--.,,___,n,

._v REPLY TO-INTERVENORS' PROPOSED PARAGRAPH 99 R-99. Intervenors' proposed paragraph-99 begins

^

with a reference to material which, although received in-

~

evidence, was to be expressly limited to the scope of the remanded hearing, the results of the reinspection program

<for Hatfield, Hunter and PTL. The " Byron Reinspection-Program Report" referred;to was introduced into evidence as

~

Applicant's Exhibit R-4 with the understanding of all parties and the Board : that -only those . portions of Applicant's Exhibit -

-R-4 actually referred-to by witnesses could be used as a basis for findings. (Tr. 11,146.) The statistics'found in the second:and third paragraphs of Intervenors' Proposed Paragraph 99 are not.-limited to Hatfield,_ Hunter and'PTL, but address the results of the reinspection program for all

. contractors. (Applicant Exhibit R-4, Exhibit V-2.) Accordingly,

'these statistics should_be disregarded.

For the three contractors who were the subject of this remanded proceeding 68 inspectors were subject to the reinspection program- (23 for Hatfield, 22 for Hunter and 23 for PTL) and only 1 PTL inspector did not meet the threshold of acceptable performance after six months of his inspections were-reinspected. (Del George, prepared testimony,-Attachment C, ff..Tr.-8406.) In' addition, the results for one Hunter inspector, one Hatfield inspector and two PTL inspectors

F;

- were regarded as indeterminate in that they failed to meet the acceptance criterion for visual welding after-90 days

'and had no insepetions thereafter. (Applicant Exhibit R-4, Table V-2.) For PTL, the fact that one inspector failed to meet-the acceptance criterion for visual welding after six months led to a reinspection of all visual weld inspectors.

(Del George, prepared testimony at 28, ff. Tr. 8406.)

Accordingly, for the contractors which are within the scope of this proceeding, the Byron Reinspection Program does establi'sh the qualifications of inspectors and the presumption that they uncovered defects of possible safety significance has not-been' rebutted. For Hatfield and Hunter, less than 5% of the sampled inspectors were shown to not meet. program acceptance criteria in that their qualifications .

were deemed. indeterminate. For PTL, the percentage of inspectors not meeting program acceptance criteria is higher, but all PTL inspectors performing visual weld inspections were reinspected, thus removing the issue of their qualification from the realm of inference to that of demonstrated capability.

Intervenors proposed paragraph 99 also selectively quotes from the testimony of Mr. Hayes as supporting the proposition that inspector capabilities could not be inferred from the results of the Byron Reinspection Program. Mr.

Hayes was quite straightforward in stating that the views he u I

y fs:

set forth in a memorandum asserting that the BRP " tells us little about the capability and effectiveness-of the selected inspectors" were not actually held by him at the time he

. prepared the memo or when he testified. (Hayes, Tr.-10,050.)

Mr. Hayes further explained his position in response to Board' questions at Tr. 10,053-058, indicating that at the time he prepared the~ memorandum, he did not feel that the Byron Reinspection Program conclusively established that the inspectors were qualified (Hayes, Tr. 10,054) and that his memorandum was written to provoke discussion. (Hayes, Tr.

~10,056.) Mr. Hayes ultimately stated that the testimony of Mr. Little summarized what the NRC Staff believed the Byron Reinspection-Program accomplished. (Hayes, Tr. 10,121.) As noted in Commonwealth Edison Company's Proposed Decision, paragraph 102, Mr. Little stated that the results of the program demonstrated inspector capability.

Intervenors' proposed paragraph 99 is based principally on the testimony of Mr. Forney. Mr. Forney was the senior resident inspector at Byron when the Byron Reinspection.

Program was formulated and made many suggestions about the reinspection program that Commonwealth Edison Company proposed, all of which were accepted. (Forney, Tr. 10,077-078.)

AppaFently he never made any suggestions for changes in the program which would have met his current criticisms of the BRP. Mr. Forney's testimony is confusing since he now

disagrees with his own statement of the purpose of the BRP in the' hearings conducted in August, _1983 (Compare Tr. 7991 with Tr. 10,083) nor does he agree with the statement of the purpose of the BRP found either in our initial decision (Tr.-10,090) or'ALAB-770.

- (Tr. 10,091-92.) Accordingly, and because he had no specific responsibilities with respect to the Byron Reinspection Program after July, 1983, we give little weight to his testimony. (Forney, Tr. 10,075.)

However, a careful reading of Mr. Forney's testimony indicates that his differences with the NRC Staff position are truly

" miniscule", even if one just considers the results of the

~ Byron Reinspection Program in terms of a demonstration of inspector qualification.

Mr. Forney stated that the results of the Byron Reinspection Program alone do not conclusively demonstrate that an' inspector is capable. (Forney, Tr. 10,063.) Before a conclusive statement regarding qualification of inspectors could be made, Mr. Forney would have wanted to know if the inspector whose work.was being reinspected had detected defects in his original inspections. This was necessary to avoid too possibility that the inspector originally passed all work, but that the work was of sufficiently high quality so that the reinspection agreement rate merely validated the quality of the work at an acceptance level which met Byron

E T

-, u

^

A LReinspection Program acceptance criteria of 90% and 95%.

(Forney,1Tr. 10,065-66.) ik. . Forney, readily agreed, however,

~

" :thatithe results of the.BRP provided assurance:that: prior to

-September,s1982, quality' control inspectors were capable of

, - identifying'significant, safety-related hardware problems.

L(Forney,:Tr. 10,099.') Mr. Forney also agreed that an ability Lto r discern acceptable work revealed something'about an Jinspector's.-qualifications so'that even.if work quality were Jiditially very-high inspectors were_sufficiently qualified so:as'notLto; reject. work performed in accordance with requirements.

(Forney,. Tr.fl0,067.) Moreover,'Mr.-Forney was' aware of a

' number'of'Hatfield, Hunter and PTL nonconformance reports which documented' discrepant' conditions at Byron Station.-

(Forney,LTr. 10,'112.) If inspectors had been doing a poor .

. job-and craftspeople a" superior' job, he would not-have

' I

expected to find very many discrepancy.and nonconformance report issued.- (Forney, Tr. 10,112.)' Ultimately, Mr.

'Forney agreed that a 14% rejectfrate for first time inspections was reasonable, that is, that workers made errors about 14%

~

of the time. (Forney, Tr. 10,112.) This was substantiated

, =by two Commonwealth Edison Company quality assurance surveillances

--which documented an approximate 14% reject rate for two-aspetts of Hatfield cable pan hanger work when it was initially

~

i inspected. (Shewski, prepared testimony, Attachments o and 4

d wp

,w

..~

R, ff. Tr. 8423.) Since the Byron Reinspection Program

. acceptance criteria were set at 90% and 95% for subjective

'and objective inspection respectively, an agreement rate for inspectors. in the Byron - Reinspection Program at or above f 'aose rates : demonstrated, even to Mr. Forney, that the

-inspectors.were-qualified in finding problems when they originally' inspected a crafts-person's work. (Forney, Tr.

10,112-13.)

After evaluating Mr. Forney's testimony as a whole, we agree-that his differences with the NRC Staff position are miniscule. His testimony does not detract in any significant fashion from the preponderance of=the evidence which establishes that quality control inspectors at Byron

-prior to September, 1982 were qualified and thus may be presumed to have detected safety significance deficiencies.

Indeed, not one witness has even disputed.the qualifications of-inspectors to detect safety significant deficiencies and it is that type of deficiency which has been the focus of-our concern.

3 :.

REPLY TO INTERVENORS' PROPOSED PARAGRAPH 112-R-112. Of the total of 1713 evaluations of discrepant conditions observed on Hatfield objective attr ibutes, 1244 evaluations determined the " discrepancy" to be-within cur-rent design parameters and tolerances. Applicant concludes that_these so-called discrepancies were not valid because the reinspection-criterion was more stringent than that established for the original inspectors. Intervenors appear to accept this point; however, they also argue that uncertainty exists because it is not clear how many of the discrepancies covered by the 1244 should have-been detected by original inspectors. Since the " discrepant condition" did not exist at the time of the original inspecticn, the answer to Intervenors' query is "none."

Intervenors' characterization of this matter and in Paragraph 122 should be rejected.

f m

I u

.c c

RF. PLY TO INTERVENORS'. PROPOSED PARAGRAPH 116 R-ll6. ..

Intervenors urge that the supplemental reinspec-

-tionLprogram was established because of-shortcomings in the

' original report'which were identified by the NRC Region III  ;

i Staff and others. This statement is incorrect. The supple- l mental program'was initiated to provide further information

' requested by the Region III Staff.

Tuetken, prepared testimony at 31, ff. Tr. 8406. In addition, the supplemental program.

Eprovided' additional data to permit a complete work quality assessment. (French,. prepared testimony at 9, ff. Tr. 9044.)

The need for this additional information is not surprising in view of'the fact that the' original thrust of the Program was to determine inspector qualifications.

I .

e 1

-e 1

4 i

REPLY TO INTERVENORS' PROPOSED PARAGRAPH 118 R-ll8. Intervenors quarrel with the discussion in the footnote to Paragraph 118 concerning the design significance of one Hatfield discrepancy. As explained in the footnote, the discrepancy was properly evaluated as lacking in design significance. Intervenors disagree based on their perception of "the history of manual operations in operating plants such as TMI and the imperfect nature of any testing system."

Intervenors. cite no record basis to support their position.

None can be cited because no record support exists. Inter-venors' position as stated in Paragraph 118 and referenced in Paragraph 126 should be rejected.

m. .

REPLY TO INTERVENORS' PROPOSED PARAGRAPH 129

.R-129. Intervenors cite Mr. McLaughlin (Tr. 9142) as stating that some highly stressed welds captured in the Byron Reinspection Program were not evrluated by Sargcnt &

Lundy. That transcript reference does not support Intervenors' proposed finding. At Tr. 9150-51, Mr. McLaughlin describes

.th e-popul ati on of hignly stressed welds which-were evaluated by Sargent & Lundy in the Byron Reinspection Program. kr.ile it. is not clear -from 'the testimony whether there were additional highly stressed welds captured by the BRP which were not evaluated by Sargent & Lundy, Applicant's Exhibit R-5 at page SII-l indicates that all such welds were in fact evaluated.

L'

n

. . . 'l.'

REPLY TO INTERVENORS' PROPOSED PARAGRAPH 131 R-131. The addition supplied by Intervenors to Paragraph-131 is not substantive. However, to be accurate, should read:

" including strength reductions of up to 90% for welds without cracks. (McLaughlin, Tr. 9160)

Three welds _had cracks and for purposes of eval-uation were assumed to have a 100% strength reduction. (McLaughlin, Tr. 9162-9163.)"

6 F

e

~ ,%.

' REPLY TO INTERVENORS' PROPOSED PARAGRAPH 132A

_- R-132A. Intervenors misperceive.the evaluation approach used by Sargent & Lundy with respect to inspecting so-called " neighboring welds" under the Byron Reinspection

< Program. If discrepant weld was identified during the Program,-the inspection activity was expanded to include all welds on the connection containing the discrepant welds.

(McLaughlin, Tr. 9155.) Inspection of welds on-neighboring connections was not undertaken under the Program unless th<-

Sargent & Lundy evaluation relied upon such a connection to share.the load that was recalculated for a connection containing a discrepant weld. (Erler, prepared rebuttal testimony at 5-6, ff. Tr. 11,158.) Mr. Kostal carried his evaluation of SCC-discrepant welds beyond that necessary for the' Byron' Program. For example, all connections and their welds were inspected _in instances where Mr. Kostal wished to

-establish-the existence of redundant load pathes. (Tr.

10,234-238.) This activity,was. unnecessary but it was ordered by Mr. Kostal because of his desire to answer any conceivable question during cross-examination. (Tr. 10,238-240.)

14.' _ _ _

.4 I

REPLY'TO INTERVENORS' PROPOSED PARAGRAPH 159 i R-159 _Intervenors assert that because design is not an issue in'this proceeding, the Licensing Board can make no findings with respect to conservative loadings, assumptions or' margin used in the Byron design. Although the adequacy of the general design of the Byron plant was not an issue, the Sargent & Lundy-discrepancy evaluations clearly do fall under the ambit of the-remanded proceeding. Sargent &

Lundy's evaluation necessarily considered loadings, assumptions and margins used in the design. And, as noted by the Licensing Board, the issue of design criteria is relevant to the extent that the criteria are used in the evaluation of the

~

discrepancies noted in the BRP. (Tr. 10,668, 10,687.)

Thus,.to the' extent that these factors were used in the Sargent & Lundy evaluations, evidence on loadings, assumptions and margins was properly received into evidence, and findings .

based upon that evidence may be made. Accordingly, the Board may properly find that the unrebutted evidence on

' loadings, assumptions and design presented by Mr. McLaughlin and Mr. Laney lend support to their conclusion on the adequacy of the Hatfield and Hunter work. Intervenors' contrary assertion in their proposed paragraph 159 as well as Paragraphs 168 and 170 should be disregarded.

A

v. .

.a REPLY TO INTERVENORS' PROPOSED PARAGRAPHS 166-166E-R-166-166E. Intervenors reiterate several positions in these. paragraphs that have been addressed previously in this Reply.- For' example, Intervenors' proposed paragraph 166 mischaracterizes the scope of this remanded proceeding.

This matter is discussed supra in Paragraph R-2B. Similar references will be made as appropriate to other paragraphs in the 166 series. Only new matters will be addressed in any detail.

Intervenors' first basis for disputing Applicant's conclusion on work quality is their allegation that there has been no showing of inspector qualification from which work quality can be inferred. Specifically, they state

~

that, based on the testimony of Messrs. Forney and Hayes, one cannot reasonably infer from the BRP results that quality control inspectors at Byron prior to March, 1983 were qualified.

As has been discussed in our reply finding R-99 supra, *he .

testimony of Messrs. Forney and Hayes does not cast doubt on the conclusions that can be drawn from the reinspection program regarding inspector qualifications. Further, Intervenors do not dispute an inferance of adequate work quality if it is_ established that inspectors were, indeed, qualified.

Intervenors' reliance on the Kochhar and Ericksen criticisms in paragraph 166b have been addressed supra in R-t

7- y A

.g

". , i 41-49B-and infra R-178A-184A respectively. Intervenors also suggest that the inadequacy of the reinspection program to support an inference of work quality is confirmed by the

' fact that Mr. Laney had to rely on other bases to support his conclusion that the quality of Hat ield and Hunter work was acceptable. All of Applicant's work quality witnesses used multiple bases for their conclusions on the adequacy.of the Hunter and Hatfield. As a conscientious and responsible expert witness, Mr. Laney felt obligated to go beyond the documents which reportad the results of~the c BRP. Those further investigations are described in Mr. Laney's prepared testimony and are the basis for his overall judgment. (Compare, Laney, prepared testimony at'pp. 9-10, f f . Tr'. 9 339 with Laney, Tr. 9379-80.)

In paragraph 166-C, Intervenors attack'the use of the Applicant's QA program to' buttress work qu,ality judgments.

The criticism of PTL's inspector performance has'oeen addressed supra in R-68, and it will not be $epeated here.. The episode of the alleged .PTL attempt to override the third party review does not, as suggested by Intervenors, reflect adversely on the reliability of PTL. PTL was not attempting to alter the results of the Program, rather its action is attributable to misunderstanding due to a lack of communication among Applicant, Sargent & Lundy and PTL. (Tr. 9316-17.)

Moreover, this issue was discovered by CECO Quality Assurance c______-___ _ - _ - . - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ __ _ - _ ___- _ __ a

in one of its audits and corrected by PTL as a result.

(Shewski, prepared testimony, p. 15;' Attachment O, ff. Tr.

8423.)

Finally, Intervenors suggest'that two extraneous

-issues involving Systems' Control Corporation (" SCC") cast doubt on the validity of the inference of acceptable work quality.at Byron from the results of the BRP. First, Intervenors suggest that CECO's supervision of SCC at Byron casts. doubt on the overall adequacy of CECO's quality assurance program. The effectiveness of SCC's quality assurance program and CECO's oversight of SCC was litigated in the initial hearings on quality assurance. We found that SCC's-quality assurance program was " fraudulent" and that CECO defaulted in its oversight responsibility of that vendor (I.D. -1D-442). That issue was not remanded by the

. Appeal' Board and its relitigation in the remanded proceeding was not suggested by any party. What was before us in the remanded proceeding was the efficacy of the 100% source inspection of SCC equipment to which we also referred in our

-initial decision. We learned that CECO had inadvertently not met all of its commitments to conduct such inspections, but that subsequent reinspections and analyses demonstrated the adequacy of that equipment. (See Commonwealth Edison Conpany's Proposed Initial Decision paragraph 204-264.)

Intervenors do not challenge those conclusions in their proposed findings. It is clear that SCC was not a site contractor at Byron; that it was not subject to the reinspection program; and that the erfectiveness of CECO's quality assurance programs'for site contractors is not significantly diminished by its lack of oversight of SCC, an off-site vendor.

The second extraneous issue involves CECO's procurement practices with respect to SCC. We have previously ruled that procurement practices with respect to SCC are

^ pertinent only insofar as the purchases over time bound the SCC quality assurance issue we are considering. (Tr. 10,471-

.77.) .Accordingly, we-reject any inference concerning the effectiveness of CECO's quality assurance program arising from the continued procurement of SCC equipment.

---______________m_.._ _____m -_ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

m-s:

REPLY TO INTERVENORS'~ PROPOSED PARAGRAPHS 178A-178B Intervenors' claim that conclusions regarding R-178A-B. i work quality are based on " bald assertions of engineer ng seriously misconstrues the-nature of the evidence judgment" Far from the " unexplained reasons" which led the before us. f engineering Comanche Peak licensing board to criticize the use o judgment (see supra, finding R-35), here both the voluminous wealth prepared testimony and extensive cross-examinationh of Common Edison Company's witnesses Laney, McLaughlin, Branch, Frenc ,

ided.

and Del. George and Staff witnesses Little and Muffett prov clear and convincing explanations of the basis for the (See e.g. Laney ,

engineering judgments which were reached.

9339; McLaughling, prepared testimony at 10-27,uff. Tr. d prepared testimony at 16, ff. Tr. 9047; Muffett, prepare testimony at 21-25, ff. Tr. 9510.)

s J

f REPLY TO INTERVENORS' PROPOSED PARAGRAPH 178C R-178C. Having misconstrued the nature of the engineering

-evidence before us, Intervenors also mischaracterize the nature of our interest in statistical evidence. Our initial decision questioned the adequacy of a sample of inspectors (ID-1 D-436) and did not address at all the adequacy of the sample of work captured by the Byron Reinspection Program.

Indeed, we noted on the record that the data on work quality generated by the Byron Reinspection Program was essentially a by-product of the program's results regarding inspector qualification, but that some use could be made of it. (Tr. 10,750.)

Intervenors emphasis on the results of the Byron Reinspection Program in assessing work quality is misplaced. As Mr. Del George explained, any conclusion en work quality for hatfield, Hunter and PTL must rest on an evaluation of the rasults of the Byron Reinspection Program insofar as they relate to inspector qualification, the results of the Byron Reinspection Program with respect to work quality as evaluated by engineering judgment-and other inspection programs at Byron. (Del George, Tr. 8804.) Moreover, the use of mathematical statistical theory to validate work quality was neither relied on by the Applicant'or Staff nor is its application required by NRC regulations, as Intervenors concede. All of Dr. Ericksen's criticisms of the use of statistics to infer work quality in

the Byron Reinspection Program were based on his analysis of observed discrepancy rates and not the more meaningful valid discrepancy or design significant discrepancy rates. (See Commonwealth Edison Company Propcsed Supplemental Initial Decision, 1180-181.) A detailed rebuttal.of each point made by'Dr. Ericksen is therefore not useful since his criticisms are-largely irrelevant to the issues before us.

ese

--=qm- -

myY--v+y--fq-+w---=~,++wwy-wwt-+em-wt-y7,.r-7w---rw w, ev7-9--A n-y %-44w6- ., ,,-t --aw-+.~p--e* v s*----w-..s-,-+

c~

'O REPLY TO INTERVENORS PROPOSED PARAGRAPHS 180-182 R-180-182. Commonwealth Edison Company rebuttal witnesses Somsag and Buchanan demonstrated the factual, engineering basis for aggregating inspection elements into two categories, subjective and objective. Dr. Ericksen's criticism of aggregation is based solely on his evaluation of the results of the Byron Reinspection Program. Yet those results are expressed in terms of observed discrepancies.

Intervenors have not'establishad that the engineering judgments which underlay the aggregation of inspection elements for Hunter.and Hatfield are erroneous when the more meaningful valid or design-significant discrepancy detection rate is applied. Indeed, no quality control inspector subject to the BRP missed a design significant discrepancy, regardless of inspection element. Thus, applying Dr. Ericksen's methodology, one would apparently conclude that aggregation of inspection elements for purposes of determining the probability that design significant discrepancies exist in the portion of the plant that was not reinspected was proper.

The immateriality of Dr. Ericksen's statistical analysis is demonstrated by the change in calculated reliabilities-for Batfield visual weld examination when clustering of the sample is accounted for by calculating the design effect.

9 e

-(Ericksen, Tr.'ll,ll7.) The design effect of 40 results in the calculated reliability being reduced from greater than

! 99.9% to 99.5%.. f(Ericksen, Tr. 11,117.) Finally, Intervenors perr,ist'in their assertion that reliabilities should have

.been calculated at a greater than 95% confidence level "for attributes and elements that were particularly important to plant safety" citing Dr. Ericksen's prepared testimony without any specific page reference. It is disingenuous to even propose finding on this subject since Dr. Ericksen's testimony which refers to it was stricken. (See Tr. 11,026-27.)

r ._

ar m

4

)

i 1

REPLY TO INTERVENORS' PROPOSED PARAGRAPH 184A R-184A. Intervenors' criticism of the data underlying the BRP is misdirected. Dr. Ericksen identified only one apparent change in the data contained in the BRP report, three additional observed discrepancies attributed to the Hunter inspector identified as Inspector "A." (Ericksen, Tr. 10951.) This apparent change in the data was explained by CECO rebuttal witness Mr. De Moss who described fully the reason why the three discrepancies were initially attributed to Inspector "A" and the basis on which it was determined that these three discrepancies had been reworked, inspected by another QC inspector and therefore excluded from the BRP.

(De Moss, Tr. 11,162-63; 11,165.) There were numerous changes in-the data supplied by CECO, through its counsel, in response to written interrogatories propounded by Intervenors.

Changes in answers to interrogatories are required by the.

-NRC rules of practice when it is determined that the original answers are incorrect. 10 CFR S 2.740 (e) (2) . We specifically declined to receive an exhibit submitted by Intervenors which described the chronology of CECO's answers to interrogatories, observing that it had no probative value. (Tr. 11,115.)

J

r The forgoing document, Commonwealth Edison Company's Reply _to Intervenors' Proposed Supplemental Initial Decision,.

'is respectfully submitted by the undersigned, attorneys for Commonwealth Edison Company..

M L . .

Michael I. Miller

/

Ocb Ib Joseph Ga'llo

• k)'

Isham, Lincoln & Beale Three First National Plaza ~

Suite ~5200 Chicago, Illinois 60602 (312) 558-7500 Isham,.-Lincoln & Beale

~1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

' Suite 840 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 833-9730

.Date:.. September 24, 1984 1.

1

00LFE T U2kC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'84 S9 27 All :49 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD LFF!CE N Ellh # 1, 00C6LidGASLEV' In The Matter of ) 3 RANCH

)

COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ) Docket Nost. 50-454-OL

) 50-455-OL (Byron Nuclear Power Station, )

Units 1 & 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned, one of the attorneys for Common-wealth Edison Company, certifies that he filed the original and two copies of the attached " REPLY TO INTERVENORS' PROPOSED SUPPLEMENTAL INITIAL DECISION" with the Secretary of_the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and served copies on the persons and at the addresses shown on the attached service list. Unless otherwise noted on the Service List, ,

service on the Secretary and all parties was m;de by deposit in the U.S. Mail, first-class postage prepaid, this 24th day of September, 1984. 4 -

. V /{4'bW One of the Attorneys for Commonwealth Edison Company ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE Three First National Plaza Chicago,-Illinois 60602 (312) 558-7500

of-F*

SERVICE LIST COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY -- BYRON Station Docket Ncs. 50-454 and 50-455

• Ivan . W. Smith,' Chairman Dr. Bruce von Zellen

' Administrative Judge Department of Biological Sciences Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Northern Illinois University 1U.S.fNuclear Regulatory Commission Dekalb, Illinois 60115 4350 East West Highway West Tower - Room 439 ** Douglas W. Cassel, Jr.

Bethesda, Maryland 20814 BPI 109 N. Dearborn St.; Suite 1300

• Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Chicago, Illinois 60602 Administrative Judge 102 Oak Lane

~

Mrs. Patricia Morrison Oak' Ridge, Tennessee 37830 5568 Thunderidge Drive Rockford, Illinois 61107

• Dr. Richard F. Cole Administrative Judge *Mr. Steve Lewis Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mr. Michael Wilcove Office of the Executive Legal U.'S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4350 East West Highway Director West Tower - Room 439 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissio-Bethesda, Maryland 20814 7735 Old Georgetown Road Room 9604 Joseph Gallo, Esq. _

Bethesda, Md. 20814 Isham, Lincoln & Beale '

Suite 840 Atomic Safety and Licensing ll20. Connecticut Avenue, NW Board Panel Washington, D.C. 20036 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissio

-Washington, D.C. 20555

'

• Region III U.S.' Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Office.of Inspection & Enforcement Appeal Board Panel 799 Roosevelt Road U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissio Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Washington, D. C. 20555

-Ms. Betty Johnson- Docketing & Service Section Office of the Secretary 1907.Stratford Lane U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissio Rockford, Illinois 61107 Washington, D.C. 20555 Ms. Diane Chavez

- S AFE 405 South Fourth Street Rockford, Illinois 61108

• Served by Federal Express

• • Served by Messenger c - ._ _-~ ~ _. - . _ _