ML20138M541
| ML20138M541 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 12/19/1985 |
| From: | Guild R GUILD, R., ROREM, B. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138M538 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8512230020 | |
| Download: ML20138M541 (21) | |
Text
-
r- ~
- t. I ,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORETHEU.S.NUCLEARREGULATORYCOMMISSIOhf[C In the Matter'of:' ) 15 DEC 19 P2:22
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50.45,6 f
) 5{j45,7,3 3 3gno (Braidwood Nuclear Power- )
BRANCH Station, Units 1 and 2) ) December 19, 1985 INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO COMMISSION 00ESTIONS Intervenors Bridget Little Rorem, et al., respond to the Commission's questions posed in 'its December 5,1985 Order.
These questions relate to applicant Commonwenith Edison Company's September 23, 1985, Petition seeking exemption from 52.786(b)(1) of the Rules of Practice and revi'sw of an Appeal Board decision denying the request for directed certification. By these peti-tions applicant sought the dismissal of intervenors' quality assurance contentiqn now pending before the Licensing Board.
Commission review at this -time would be unwarranted and unproductive. Even a decision favorable to Commonwealth Edison on the issue presented for review would not disturb the admis-sibility of the amended quality assurance contention. Granting applicant's requests for exemption and review would lead only to I
the ultimate readmission of and hearings on the same serious quality assurance issues already under litigation; but only after considerable unproductive procedural delay in the litigation.
Without reaching the merits at this preliminary stage, the Commission should conclude that, as found by the Appeal Board, applicant's requests for exemption and review should be denied.
I h
G
$O$ $
- - ~
p 1 Should the Commission nonetheless choose to undertake review, intervenors desire to be heard on the merits of the issue presented, including the propriety of the iicensing Board's deci-sion to authorize preliminary depositions _ inquiring into the
" serious Quality ' Adsurance questions at Braidwood" identified by NBC Regional Adainistrator James G. Keppler.' Special Prehearing ConferenceLCrder, LDP-85-11, Slip. Op., p. 20. However, even if those depositions were found to be improper, that. finding would not lead to a denial of the admission of the CA contention, since applicent disclaims any effort to disturb the Licensing Board's correct'concibsions that intervenors' amended 0A ccntention met the basis and specificity requirements of 52.714(b), and that the balance of the late-filing factors of S2.714(a) supported the contention's admission. ALAB-817, Slip. Op., p. 4, citing Commonwealth Edinop's Motion for Directed Certification of July 8, 1985, at p. 1.
The relief sought by applicant, with support by the staff,
_i_s, s simp h beyond the scope of any remedy legitimately available fog the. alleged nom. Unfer such circumstances the scope of
~
review,1fgranted would be limited to the rendaring of an 7
essentially advisory opinion on the largely moot point of the Licensing Board's Meppler deposition decision. The Appeal Board correctly declined to review such a narrow fact-dependent and largely advisory question as is presented in this extraordinary case. Long Isla$d Lighting Company (Shoreham Nucicar Power Station, Unit 1) ALAD-74 3,18 NBC, 390 f n. 3 (1983).
2 l
& 7-
. t COMMISSION OUESTIONS I. WHY, GIVEN THE APPARENT VIOLATION OF 10 CFR 2.720(H) AND 2.74 0 ( D ) , DID APPLICANT OR STAFF NOT SEEK, BEFORE THE AMENDED OA/QC CONTENTION WAS ADMITTED, APPEAL BOARD OR COMMISSION REVIEW OF THE LICENSING BOARD'S ORDER (LBP-85-ll) ALLOWING THE DEPOSITION OF MR. KEPPLEB?
As the Commission's guestion acknowledges, neither the applicant nor the staff were sufficiently aggrieved by the Licensing Board's April 17, 1985 Order authorizing the Keppler deposition to ask the Appeal Board or Commission to intercede prior to their active participation in the deposition of Mr.
Keppler more than one month later on May 20 and 24,1985. */
Indeed, applicant and the staff bided their time for yet another month until the decision by the Licensing Board admitting inter-venor's amended quality assurance contention on June 21, 1985.
Applicant's Motion for Directed Certification was not filed until July 8,198 5.
As this chronology makes apparent, the real object of applicant and staff's effort is to appeal the admission of intervenors' quality assurance.gontention. Their challenge to procedures adopted in the Licensing Board's earlier Special Prehearing Conference Order, LDP-85-11 is merely a ruse to circumvent the
- / " Applicant proceeded to participate in the deposition, even though the Licensing Board had informed Applicant, in a conference call ten days prior to the deposition, that the Board did not intend to rule on Applicant's request for reconsideration until af ter the deposition." Response of Intervenors in Opposition to Commonwealth Eqison Company's Motion For Directed Certification, July 18, 1985, p. 4.
3
s 9 express prohibitions against interlocutory appeal from the .
admission of a contention. 10 CFR S S 2.714(a) and 2.730(f). Only by pressigg their claims of error in a timely fashion before the ,'
P Keppler deposition was conducted could applicant and staff have avoided the present mootness of those issues and with it the inescapable conclusion that these parties have waived any present right to complain, e , .
e II. IS THE RELIANCE ON THE KSPPLER DEPOSITION THE ONLY CLAIMED BASIS FOR ERROR IN THE LICENSING BOARD'S ADMISSION OF THE AMENDED ROREM QA/QC CONTENTION?
WHAT IS THE RESPONSE OF APPLICANT AND STAFF TO 5 ROREM 'S STATEMENT IN HER OCTOBER 7, 1985 FILING THAT THE AMENDED QA/OC CONTENTION IS NOT BASED ON THE KEPPLF.R DEPOSITION, BUT ON OTHER PUBLICLY AVAILABLE MATERIALS?
The only claimed bases for error in the Licensing Board's admission of the amended quality assurance contention which are even arguably before the Commission now are those asserted by applicant in its July 8~, 1985 Motion for Directed Certification, subqcquently denied. ALAB-817. There, applicant ,
posed the issue for review as follows:
... whether the rules of practice sanction a . .,
licensing board's allowing an intervenor.to obtain discovery on a contention which:the board has .,
found deficient and to r'esubmit an amended conten-
~
tion after obtaining discovery, under guidelines and on a schedule set by the board.
Motion, Supra, p.-2.
Applicant and staff press seriously only the Keppler deposi-tion issue and "not whether intervenors' amended quality assurance contention satisfies the basis and. specificity requirements of 4
m 1 ~.
, i 10 CPR S2.714(b) nor whether intervenors should prevail on a balancing of the factors governing admission of late-filed contentions under 10 CFR S2.714(a)." Id.,p. 1.
Neither applicant nor staff seriously press complaints of the Licensing Board's " allowing [intervenors] to resubmit an amended contention ... under guidelines and on a schedule set by the board." Motion, supra, p. 2. Just as well, since the
" guidelines" and " schedule" required of intervenors by the Licensing Board were far more exacting than called for by the Rules of Practice. Given the thin treatment by the movants it is hardly surprising that, as applicant now complains, the " Appeal Board'did not discuss" these arguments. Petition for Review, p. 2.
Of course applicant and staff did raise other objections before the Licensing Board to the admission of intervenors' amended quality assurance contention, consisting of arguments on the basis and specificity requirements and on the balancing of the late filing factors. However, these issues are not claimed to be before the Commission on review, Motion, supra, p. 1, nor could they be since an interlocutory appeal on such issues is barred by 10 CPR SS2.714(a) and 2.714(f).
As asserted in intervenors' October 7, 1985 Answer, p. 4, the Keppler deposition played only the most limited role in the formulation of our amended Quality Assurance contention, primar-ily by confirming that the public NRC inspection reports on which we guestioned Mr. Keppler, and which we independently cited as bases for the amended contention, were also the basis for his
" serious questions" concerning OA at Braidwood to which he had 5
I
c ~. ,
previously testified. l As the Licensing Board acknowledges, intervenors' introduc-tion to the amended Quality Assurance contention provides a
" lengthy" and " detailed" exposition of the history of QA problems at Braidwood - far beyond Mr. Keppler's testimony - and a description of the major corrective action programs undertaken to
" address" these problems. See, Motion To Admit Amended Quality Assurance Contention, pp. 1-15, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Thus, the asserted error in allowing the Keppler deposition is the only basis properly claimed here for rejecting the OA contention, which rests independently on the documentary record of serious OA deficiencies at Braidwood.
III. IF THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST PART OF QUESTION 2 IS YES, WHY DOES ERROR IN ALLOWING THE DEPOSITION NECESSARILY LEAD TO REJECTION OF THE CONTENTION?
ARE APPLICANT AND STAFF ARGUING FOR THE USE OF SOME EXCLUSIONARY RULE, LIKE THE MUCH CRITICIZED ONE USED IN CRIMINAL CASES, WHEREBY ERROR IN ALLOWING DISCOVERY BARS ADMISSION OF A CONTENTION BASED ON THAT DISCOVEFY, AND IF SO, WHAT IS THE SUPPORT FOR THIS ARGUMENT?
As the Commission perceives by these questions, even assuming arguendo the error asserted by applicant, such error does not justify rejection of the amended QA contention either in law or logic. Setting aside the separate point that the conten-tion, even if rejected because of its use of the Keppler deposi-tion, would nevertheless be rea.dmitted on independent bases (see response to question 5 below), the3 relief sought by applicant is simply not available or appropriate to cure the injury complained 6
o f. Even if the Licensing Board's Keppler deposition procedure-for considering an amended 0A contention were indeed improper (a proposition we dispute), ' the only timely ef fective remedy would have been an order directiag that such procedure not be employed, thus averting the Licensing Board from its asserted " collision course" with Commission regulations. (Commonwealth Edison Company's Motion For Directed'Cer'tification, July 8, 1985, p. 7.)
Neither applicant nor staff effectively sought such appropriate relief when it was available during the month prior to their participation in the Keppler deposition. Whatever " injury" was caused by this error was suffered then. Neither party should now be heard to prescribe a cure for a patient long since either dead or healed without their did.
The burden of demonstrating the appropriateness of and entitlement to the relief sought is upon the applicant as the moving party here. 10 CFR S2.732. It failed to shoulder this burden effectively before the Appeal Board and in its petitions for exemption and review. The short answer to applicant's prayer is that it has advanced no explanation whatever why such relief is appropriate to remedy the wrong allegedly done. It has simply cast the dice in hopes of a winning roll.
The Commission suggests, with apparent skept:cism, that applicant and staff may have in mind (though they have yet to articulate) a novel exclusionary principle as the basis for applying the remedy sought to the errors asserted. By analogy to the exclusionary rule fashioned in criminal proceedings to bar the government's use of evidence seized in violation of the 7
Fourth Amendment's protections, the Commission devines in the relief sought here some theory that dismissal of the quality assurance claims against applicant might be founded upon the exclusion of the allegedly improper Keppler deposition. In the absence of any other asserted basis for relief, an unstated exclusionary rule theory may well be the foundation of appli-cant's claim.
The inappropriateness of the analogy becomes readily apparent upon the most casual consideration. The exclusionary rule is mandated in criminal proceedings as a matter of constitu-tional law in order to protect the citizenry against unlawful searches and seizures by the police in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and to deter government from such constitutional vio-lations "in the only effective available way." Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 6 4 3, 81 S. C t.16 8 4, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081,10 9 0 (19 61). No claim has been made by applicant that any of its rights, let alone such hallowed constitutional guarantees as the protections against unlawful search and seizure, were transgressed by the Licensing Board's Keppler deposition procedure. Nor was the NRC staff -
the only potentially injured party - heard to complain of any such transgressions. Of course, an argument by the NRC staff that it needs constitutional protection from the NRC's licensing boards - while perhaps attractive to the staff here - is legally absurd.
Application of such an exclusionary rule here by the Commission would require a careful conclusion, as reached by the Supreme Court in Mapp, supra, that exclusion of the " illegal" 8
Keppler deposition " evidence' is the "only effective available way" to " compel respect" from the licensing boards for the unidentified " rights" which have been violated. 6 L.Ed.2'd at 1090. It took the Supreme Court some 47 years after fashioning the exclusionary rule for the federal courts in Weeks v. United 4
States, 23 2 U.S. 3 8 3, 3 4 S. Ct. 3 41, 58 L.Ed. 6 5 2 (1914 ), to determine that such a rule was the "only effective" way to compel respect for the Fourth Amendment by the States as concluded in Mapp, supra. Whether the Supreme Court was correct or not there, such an empirical judgment would be required from the Commission to support adoption of such an exclusionary rule here. There is simply no logical or legal foundation for such a conclusion.
Moreover, even if an exclusionary rule were defensible in theory, it would not apply here because, as shown below in answer to Ouestion 5, the " evidence" supporting admission of the amended OA contention was not " fruit of the poisonous tree," Wong Sun v.
U.S., 3 71 U.S. S 4 71, 8 3 S. C t. 4 07, 9 L.Ed.2d 4 41, 455 (1963).
The public record of programmatic guality assurance failures at Braidwood is wholly independent of the Keppler deposition.
Of course this does not mean that the facts thus obtained become sacred and inaccessible. If knowledge of them is gained from an independent source they may be proved like any others ...
Id., 9 L.Ed.2d at 453.
9 w
IV. IF THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST PART OF OUESTION 2 IS NO, WHAT OTHER ERRORS ARE ASSERTED THAT COULD LEAD TO REJECTION OF THE AMENDED OA/OC CONTENTION?
The only errors asserted here by applicant and staff as-a basis for rejection of the amended QA contention are oc framed in applicant's July 8, 1985, Motion for Directed Certificatio', n
- p. 2, and September 23, 1985 Petition for Review, p. 1. These asserted errors are confined to the Licensing Board's Koppler deposition procedures for entertaining an amended QA contention.
Applicant disclaims assertion of,any other errors, here, including challenges to the Licensing Board's admissibility conclusions, Motion, p. 1. Appropriately so, since any such challenges now are barred as impermissible interlocutory appeals from an order admitting a contention by the Rules of Practice.
10 CFR SS2.714(a) and 2.730(f). ,
In its June 21, 1985 Order Admitting Amended QA Contention, LBP-85-20, the Licensing Board considered at length the opposi-tion by applicant and staf f to' the contention's admission, and determined that the highly " detailed petition," id., Slip Op.,
- p. 8, including a " lengthy explanation of the alleged OA breakdown at Braidwood," id., Slip Op., p. 6, " clearly meets basis and specificity requirements." Id., Slip Op. at 2. The Board observed that the " cumulative effect of the a11eged deficiencies if proven to exist without adequate corective act. ion could lead us to reasonably conclude that the Braidwood QA program was not functioning effectively during the plant's construction." I d,, ,
Slip Op., p. 15. The Board further concluded that the balancing of the late filing factors - even absent good cause for inter-10 I -
venors' lateness - warranted admission. Id., S]ip Op. at 25.
The Commission should not entertain further interlocutory
- . consideration of these decisions by the Licensing Board. To do so would sanction a circumventiod of the express prohibitions of the Commission's Rules, 10 CFR SS 2.714(a) and 2.730(f), and would merely reward applicant and staff by permitting them to make the case they disclaim and obtain impermissible interlocutory appeal from the order admitting the contention. If such re-litigation of the admissibility is permitted notwithstanding these objec-tions by intervenors, we ask a full opportunity to respond to any new assertions of error by applicant and staff not yet presented to the Appeal Board or Commission.
V. IF THE AMENDED OA/OC CONTENTION IS REJECTED BECAUSE OF ITS USE OF THE KEPPLER DEPOSITION, COULD INTER-VENOR ROREM SUPPORT ADMISSION OF THE CONTENTION BASED 03 OTHER AVAILABLE.INFORMATION?
Yes. As the Appeal Board concluded, rejection of the amended contention would be a wholly pointless exercise even assuming, arguendo, both error in the Keppler deposition decision and that rejecting our May 24, 1985 contention would be an appro-priate remedy for such an error. In such an event intervenors intend to refile the amended 0A contention on the basis of the record of widespread QA failures of Braidwood which are indepen-dent of the Keppler deposition.
Here, even were we to strike the deposition and reject the contention, as the applicant asks, the
'r.tervenors would be free to refile the same contention using the publicly available documents 11
as the basis for their contention. Because the Licensing Board's balancing of the section 2.714 factors already weighed the first factor (i.e.,
good cause for late filing) against the inter-venors, the end result would be the sam'e unless
~
the Board were to reverse itself with respect to the other factors. LBF-85-20, 21 NRC at 1747-49.
Thus, in _all probability the contention once again would be admitted.
ALAB-817, Slip Op., p. 8, n. 21.
As argued in our October 7,1985 Answer to applicant's petitions, pp. 3 and 4, at deposition Mr. Keppler simply explained that the " serious quality assurance questions at Braidwood" which he had referred to in his Byron testimony were j all identified in previously published NRC Region III inspection i
reports, particularly Inspection Report 82-05 of February 2, 1983, in which a $100,000 civil penalty was proposed for a quali-ty assurance breakdown in the installation of mechanical safety related equipment, and a special quality assurance Inspection Report 83-09 of March 4, 1984, in which numerous OA violations were identified in the major site contractors' work. Both inspections documented the existence of potential hardware defi-ciencies at Braidwood. Keppler Deposition, Tr. 108-111.
~
y The detailed findings of 0A failures documented in these public inspection reports were already in intervenors' possession and became the heart of intervenors' amended 0A contention. M r.
Keppler merely confirmed that he, too, regarded the questions raised in these documents as serious. Of course, as observed by the Supreme Court in Wong Sun, supra, any information obtained through the Keppler deposition does not become " sacred and inaccessible," even if the deposition was authorized in error.
12
The inspection reports themselves relied upon as the basis for the amended contention are a wholly independent source of the facts of widespread QA problems at Braidwood.
The same amended QA contention would certainly be refiled and readmitted even if the Keppler deposition were stricken and the contention rejected.
In addition, as argued at pp. 6 and 7 of our October 7,1985 Answer, the stipulated Quality Control (OC) Inspector Harassment contention would stand admitted on bases wholly independent of the Keppler deposition.
VI. IF THE ANSWER TO QUESTION 5 IS YES, HOW WOULD COMMISSION REVIEW AT THIS TIME AFFECT THE SCOPE OR TIMING OF THE QA/QC HEARING?
The likely conseguences of Commission review at this time would almost certainly be extensive delays in the presently anticipated hearing schedule with the scope of the OA issues to be heard at least as extensive as those now likely to go to hearing. In short there is nothing to be gained and appreciable time and rather pointless effort to be lost by the Commission, the Boards, the staff and the other parties if this review is undertaken.
At the time the parties learned of the Commission's December 5, 1985 Order, to which these responses are addressed, the parties were in substantial agreement on a revised litigation schedule to be submitted for approval to the Licensing Board. This schedule contemplated a QA hearing commencement date between April 22 and 13
May 6,1985, dependent upon dif fering views on the timing of a final round of discovery and summary disposition. In order to prepare responses to these Commission questions the parties have already suspended nine discovery depositions previously scheduled during the week of December 9 on the Oc inspector harassment contention. It is anticipated that applicant and intervenors will need to reschedule this discovery in a manner which will adversely affect the hearing schedule now in negotiation.
Further adverse impact on the present hearing schedule is inevitable if review is undertaken. Under the scenario assumed in this question, substantial briefing and pleading work would take place at least- before the Commission and Licensing Board.
Progress on discovery, summary disposition, and hearing prepara-tion would be substantially delayed, if not halted altogether, until the re-filed contention was readmitted. The total time lost in the hearing schedule is unknown but obviously substan-tial.
In terms of the effect of the Commission's assumed scenario on the scope of issues for hearing, adverse consequences are also likely. Since the Keppler de~ position evidence is no part of the admitted contention */, and the Licensing Board's basis and specificity ruling would remain unchanged, there will be no l reduction in the scope of the present amended QA contention to be gained from going through the motions of rejection and ultimate l readmission.
1 i *j See, e.g., NRC Staff Response to Applicant's Motion for l
Directed Certification, July 23, 1985, pp. 9, 10.
14 i
The scope of issues going to hearing, however, may well be even broader if review, rejection and readmission occur. At present all the parties contemplate a narrowing of the OA issues to be actually tried through a thorough discovery and summary disposition process. */ However, it is not inconceivable that enhanced time pressures on the parties after contention readmis-sion may serve to limit hhe availability and effectiveness of discovery and summary disposition as issue-narrowing tools. The present full schedule for these activities may actually produce a narrower and more focused scope of QA issues for hearing.
VII. COULD GREATER DILIGENCE BY APPLICANT OR INTER-VENOR ROREM HAVE LED TO EARLIER LITIGATION OF OA/0C ISSUES IN THIS PROCEEDING?
No. The good cause'for delay through mid-October 1984 (illness of intervenors' first counsel, followed by the full-time occupation of intervenors' new counsel in the Byron licensing hearings) was set forth in intervenors' letters of August 6, 1984 and October 17, 1984, to the Licensing Board. Upon reviewing this case in October, 1984, intervenors initially refrained from filing a OA contention, in the hope that the Braidwood Construc-tion Assessment Program (BCAP), announced in June 1984, would clear up the " serious questions" about GA at Braidwood (testified to by Mr. Keppler on August 1, 1984) and needless litigation
- / See, e.g., Motion To Admit Amended Quality Assurance Contention, May 24, 198 5, p. 7.
15
thereby avoided. Only after it became obvious (through the January, 1985 BCAP stop-work order, the February 1985 CAT Team report, and the monthly BCAP meetings which intervenors attended) that BCAP would be substantially delayed and in any event would not come close to resolving all major QA problems at Braidwood, did intervenors in March 1985 file a OA contention.
But even if intervenors had " jumped the gun" on BCAP and filed their QA contention in October 1984, this litigation would i not have been advanced. From the beginning the OA hearing sche-dule has been " driven" by applicant Commonwealth Edison's need to complete on-going major corrective action programs in advance of hearing. On July 19, 1985, applicant filed its first Motion To Amend Hearing Schedule grounded on its position that "[I]t is not feasible to complete the litigation of Intervenors Rorem, et al.,
... guality assurance contention within the timeframe of the schedule established for the litigation of the other conten-tions." Id. , p. 1. Applicant there sought more than a three month delay in the original October 1, 1985, OA hearing date in order to accomodate completion of the corrective action program for the installation and inspection of safety related mechanical equipment. (This program addresses the " breakdown in your qual-ity assurance (OA) program" for installation and inspection of such critical equipment as steam generators and reactor coolant pumps, as was identified by the NRC in Inspection Report 82-05 and the accompanying civil penalty citation issued February 2, 1983.) At the July 23, 1985 Prehearing Conference applicant identified the Safety Related Equipment corrective action program 16
as the one "that drives the schedule, because its anticipated that the other corrective action-programs that are relevant to the contention will be completed'in advance" of that one. Tr.
I 202-02. Two further schedule delays have since been initiated by applicant and, as earlier discussed, a third is presently under-i discussion which would put the QA hearings back to late April or early May. Each scheduld slippage has been necessitated by .
applicant's failure to meet projdcted completion dates for the safety related equipment: corrective action program among others.
The applicant's report on this critical program is still unavail-able and is now projected for January 22, 1986.
.By letter of November 18, 1985, applicant notified the Licensing Board of a projected five month slippage of Braidwood Unit 1 fuel loading and a six month slippage of Unit 2 occasioned by:- "[T]he most recent budget review of the schedule of engineering and construction activities and preoperational testing ...." November 18, 1985 letter from Reed to Denton, attached hereto as Exhibit B.
The Licensing Board appropriately considered and rejected I
applicant's assertions that intervenors should be blamed for any hearing delays occasioned by the-completion of on-going correc-tive action programs. As the Licensing Board concluded in its June 21, 1985 Order "these programs were not initiated in response to the QA contention and Applicant cannot blame Rorem for _ the delay the completion of the programs will cause. Any such delay stems from Applicant's need to remedy past problems it acknowledges needed attention." Id., LBP-85-20, Slip Op., p. 21.
17
The Board went on to reject the assertions of Project Manager Michael J. Wallace as " strain [ing) credulity" in claiming that earlier notice of intervenors' OA contention would have occasioned a more' expeditious completion of these corrective action programs in time to meet an October 1 hearing date. Id.
at 22. As the Board noted, such an assertion was an'd is inconsistent with the f act that by letters of August 6 and October 17, 1984, intervenors' counsel notified the Board and parties of their intention to file a OA contention. Id. at 23.
The Licensing Board, of course, fully considered and weighed the perceived tardiness of the OA Motion against admission, but struck the ultimate balance in favor of admission in part because of the " overriding significance of the aggregated QA issues, pointed up by intervenors' amended contention." Id. , pp. 24-25.
Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, intervenors Bridget Little Rorem, et al., urge that applicants' petitions for exemption from Commission regulation and for review be denied.
DATED: December 19, 1985 Respectfully submitted, Douglass W. Cassel, Jr.
Robert Guild N
Robert Guild
< (( [ pK\
b J Timothy W. Wright, III One of the Attorneys for 109 North
Dearborn,
- 1300 Intervenors Rorem, --et --al.
Chicago, Illinois 50602 (312) 641-5570 18
EXHIBIT A May 24, 1985
[']" ,
. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Mattbr of: !)
. )
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY )
e ) Docket Nos. 50-456 (Braidwood Nuclear Power ) 50-457 Station, Units 1 and 2) )
MOTION TO ADMIT AMENDED QUdLITY ASSURANCE CONTENTION Pursuant to the Commission's Rules of Practice, 10 C.F.R.
Section -2 714, and the Licensing Board's Special Prehearing Conference Order, April 17, 1985, Intervenors Bridget Little Rorem, et al., by their undo Jigned counsel, hereby move to admit an amended quality' assurance (QA) contention for litigation in this prcceeding. In support of this Motion Intervenors set forth a specification of the factual bases for InPervenorg' claim that
~
a serious breakdown has occurred in the quality assurance program at the Braidwood Nuclear Station, together with an explanation of the manner in which the known evidence of widespread quality assurance flaws provides overwhelming basis for this contention.
Documentary materials supporting this amended contention, referenced in the discussion below and identified in an index
- preceding tSo materials, are attacned hereto as e'xhibits. Among these materials are portions of the transcript of testimony of Nuclear Regulatory pommission Regional Admini trator James G.
! Keppler and Branch Chief Robert F. Warnick given in deposition l 6463#46E&- 1
Hay 20, 1985, as authorized by this Board in its April 17, 1985
_ Order (pp. 38-39). The Keppler and Warnick depositions, NRC
~
inspection reports and other documents detail the widespread QA failures at Braid' wood which are the bases for Intervenors' amended contention.
I. THE QA BREAKDOWN AT BRAIDWOOD There can be virtually no dispute that a pervasive breakdown has occurred in the Quality Assurance program at Commonwealth Edison's Braidwood Nuclear Power Station. Serious, programmatic failures to comply with twelve of the eighteen Quality Assurance criteria required by 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B, preclude the
" reasonable assurance" conclusion that Braidwood has been constructed in such a manner that it can be operated without endangering the public health and safety. 10 C.F.R. Section 50.57(a); Union Electric Company (Callaway Plant, Unit 1), ALAB-740, 18 NRC 343 (1983).
The NRC enforcement record at Braidwood amply substantiates the seriousness of the quality assurance violations by Edison and its site contractors as well as the pervasive scope,of this breakdown and its hardware implications. The significance of these QA violations at Braidwood is confirmed by the conclusions of NRC Regional Administrator Keppler, who stated publicly last year on the heels of the Byron license denial, "I'm more concerned about Braidwood than Byron at this point. ... We have had hardware deficiencies at Braidwood. I'm not comfortable with making a statement as I did with Byron that Braidwood was built
( properly."
2
~
1 1
("Will Couhty A-Plant Faulted' ' Worse' than Byron," Chicago I
() . Tribune, Fbb. 1, 1984 and cxcerpts from Keppler Deposition, Tr.
104, Exhibit 1.)
While the existence and extent of these quality assurance failures at Braidwood have been acknowledged by the NRC Regional office, it remains most troubling that such acknowledgement did not occur until so late in the plant's construction that much, if not most, of the safety-related hardware at Braidwood was already installed. The initial significaht NRC QA findings at Braidwood did not occur until the Februar$ 2, 1983, $100,000 civil penalty imposed fob "a breakdown of your quality assurance (QA) program
, as it relates to the installation and installation inspection of mechanical : safety-related equipment." (February 2, 1983 Letter, Keppler (NhC) to O'Connor (CE Co.), Exhibit 3.)
~
Only months earlier, a special NRC quality assurance team inspection designed to identify QA problems similar to those just found at the Zimmer facility,' (excerpt from Keppler Deposition, Tr. 113, Exhibit 2), wholly-failed to detect the serious QA flaws at Braidwood. (Inspection Report 82-03, July 16, 1982, Exhibit 4.) Mr. Keppler now concedes that this earlier QA inspection was
" ... not a very good effort ... not a very ef fective inspection" (excerpts from Keppler Deposition, Tr. 118, Exh. 2), and that the Braidwood plant had received only " minimal" NRC attention before 1983. (Id., Tr. 119.)
It was not until mid-1984 that the NRC staff finally acknowledged widespread evidence of " inadequate contractor programs and workmanship, inadequate licensee reviews of the 1
)
3
to 4
4 contractor programs, and inadequate licensee quality assurance
() overview to ensure contractor activities met all requirements" at Braidwood. (May 7, 1934 Letter, Keppler (NRC) to O'Connor (CE Co.), p. 2, Exhibit 5.)} In the accompanying Inspection Report 83-09,_the j NRC cites Edison for six severity level IV violations involving khe major site contractors in programmatic failures to comply with the Commission's qudlity assurance criteria for
" Corrective Actions; Instructions; Procedures and Drawings; Quality Assurance Program; Audits; Document Control; and Design Control." Id. An additional violation remains open to this day, yet identified only as an " Unresolved Item" pending the completion of a 100% reinspectidn of all installed ASME piping materials fo'r evaluation of safety significance. Mr. Keppler disclosed that this "Unresolv'ed Item" is classified as "at least a Severity III violation based on the unknown quality of some installed piping materials," but potentially a severity level II violation if the reinspection discloses further hardware prob-
$ lems. (excerpts from Keppler Deposition, Tr. 40-41, 47, Exh. 2; April 4, 1984 Memo, Keppler (NRC) to DeYoung (NRC), Exhibit 6.)
As a direct result of the videspread and serious quality assurance failures identified by the NRC's Region III at Braidwood, sweeping. corrective action programs were imposed upon Commonwealth Edison beginning 'in mid-1984. The seriousness of the QA problems at Braidwood dictated the necessity for corrective action which not only reorganized the quality -
assurance program and management to oversee future work, but required massive efforts to address the indeterminate quality of 4
i existing plant construction which resulted from the programmatic quality assurance breakdown.
{)
The fEct that we have required the company to '
institute a program of thel magnitude of BCAP is indicative that we have : concerns about construction.
.I wouldn't ask them to do that if I didn't have concerns about constructio,n ...
-Yes. ,We have concerns. -T e purpose of the BCAP program is to determine whether or not there are real hardware problems, major hardware problems.
... the BCAP program.is a major encompassing type program. It's looking at past construction work, it's dealing with future ' work, and it's dealing with an overview of problems that they identify as a result of the past construction review. ...
... that effort is being carried out in response to general concerns that were raised that might be indicative of concerns in other areas. ...
The concerns were that the utility was not exercising '
control over its contractors, and that the contractor QA programs in certain areas were not being implemented effectively. The 83-09 inspection errort focuses on three major areas: It focused on piping, electrical and, I believe -- I.believe, heating, ventilation and air conditioning work....
I believe there were a number of common problems.
(Excerpts from Keppler Deposition, Tr. 108-111, Exh. 2.)
Pertinent excerpts from the depositions of Messrs. Keppler and Warnick are appended to this pleading as Exhibit 2; the full text of the deposition is separately bound and submitted to the Board for its use. Applicant had the opportunity to question Messrs.
Keppler and Warnick in a telephone conference conducted Thursday, May 23, 1985. While a transcript of Mr. Keppler's responses to Applicant's questions was not yet available at the time of this filing, Mr. Keppler reiterated that the jury is still out on QA O
5
at Braidwood. The impact of'the QA flaws and the extent of the
.7s failure of. hardware to meet regulatory requirements remain D
indeterminate. The Staff's ' conclusions regarding the safety of Braidwood must await review of the findings of BCAP and the other corrective: action programs. The' full transcript of the most recent portion of the KeppleraWarnick deposition will be filed with the Bbard for its consideration.
~
Over 20 major corrective action programs remain underway at Braidwood, (excerpts from Warnick Deposition, Tr. 206-07; Exh. 2),
with additional programs addressing unresolved deficiencies of varying levels of scope and significance. Id. In addition to these " top twenty" corrective action programs whose projected completion dates extend into 'the Fall of 1985 and perhaps beyond (April 8, 1985 Letter, Smith (CE Co.) to Keppler (NRC), Exhibit 7), the NRC required Edison to evolve the "Braidwood Construction Assessment Program" (BCAP), beginning in June 1984, to persuade the NRC that notwithstanding the widespread quality assurance breakdown "Braidwood Station has been constructed in accordance with regulatory requirements." (June 22, 1984 Letter, O'Connor (CE Co.) to Keppler (NRC), Exhibit 8.) The NRC does not expect
.BCAP to be completed and a report to be submitted to the NRC until August or September, 1985. (Excerpt from Warnick Deposition, Tr. 196, Exh. 2.)-
What is established based on the existing re^ cord at Braidwood is a quality assurance program so riddled with systematic flaws that even the NRC's Regional Administrator could not vouch for the quality of its construction (excerpts from O
6 h
Keppler Deposition, Tr. 92-93, Exh. 2.) This QA breakdown is of such seriousness 'that it has resulted in the failure to effec-O tively identify existing hardware deficiencies, id., and has created a condition where the quality of safety-related struc-tures, systems and components at Braidwood is indeterminate.
(e.g., April 5,1984 Memo, Keppler to DeYoung, Exh. 6.) Consis-tent with the standard erunciated by the Appeal Board in Callaway, supra, this Board simply cannot conclude that there is
" reasonable assurance" that the Braidwood Nuclear Power Station has been constructed such that it can be operated without endan-
~
gering the~public health and safety.
Intervenors submit that upon admission of their amended quality assurance contention, appropriate procedural vehicles such as stipulations, admissions and summary disposition are availableboeliminatefromthisproceedingthosefactsorclaims which are not genuinely in dispute. Intervenors believe it likely that substantial aspects, if not most aspects, of their amended quality assurance contention will be established without the necessity of trial. The existing record of a quality assurance breakdown at Braidwood is simply beyond reasonable dispute.
Having established as a threshold matter the existence of a pervasive breakdown in the Braidwood quality assurance program, the focus of litigation on this amended contentio'n will appro-priately shif t to the anticipated affirmative defense that not-withstanding the QA breakdown the safety-related components, systems and materials at Braidwood are built to required codes, GIb .
7
+
specifications and procedures and will perform satisfactorily 1n service. ~10 C.F.R. Part 50, ' Appendix B, " Introduction." It is km) s
- A expected that Applicant, who' bears the burden of proof on its application for an operating license ( 10 C.F.R. 52.732) would rely upon its still incomplete corrective action programs including particularly the Braidwood Construction Assessment Program to demonstrate construction quality. Intervenors, upon establishment of their claim on the merits, would be prepared to go forward with litigation on the results, effectiveness and reliability of BCAP and the other corrective programs. However, at the present time there is no room for genuine dispute that a serious, pervasive QA breakdown occurred at Braidwood. The only real issue in the hearings will be whether the corrective action programs, once they are completed, will remedy that unquestioned breakdown.
II. THE PENDING CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAMS It is premature to predict whether the more than 20 major corrective action programs at Braidwood (including BCAP) will, upon completion, remedy the QA breakdown at the plant. Moreover, even though it is too early for full evaluation, serious flaws have been identified in each of the three elements of BCAP.
These flaws have required significant further corrective action, caused delays in BCAP program performance or nece'ssitated BCAP program rework, and have cast doubt on the eventual reliability of BCAP program results. For example, the level of " reinspection discrepancies" i.e., failure to effectively perform reinspec-8
4 tions, identified ( by the NRC under the BCAP " Construction Samp1.e Reinspection" element necessita$ed a suspension of reinspection activity and "the partial repeal reinspections" of previously
~
reinspected hardware. The subject of BCAP reinspection deficiencies has been identified an an unresolved item by NRC (Inspection Report 85-02, p. 7, Exhibit 9) and was a concern
! expressed b' y the 'NRC Construction Appraisal Team (CAT) inspec-4
- tions. (CkTInspectionReport 84-44/40, p. III-7, Exhibit 10.)
i Even where'the BCAP reinspection has identified previously uncor-rected disbrepancies, concerns have been raised about the
. improper " invalidations" of these discrepancies by the site i
Architect-Engineer Sargent & Lundy (S&L). An Unresolved Item was opened on this concern, (1@,* pp. 5-6), and a violation of 10 4
C.F.R. Part' 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI was cited for failure to take proper corrective action. (Inspection Report 85-06, i
i March 8,1985, pp. 4-5, Exhibit 11.)
The initial review work of the second BCAP element - Reveri-fication of Procedure to Specification Requirements (RPSR),
involving a review of all site. contractor installation and inspection procedures did not begin until January 31, 1985. Its
{ review of procedures which were " current" as of June 30, 1984, will fail to account for the numerous changes which have been i
made since that date. This concern was an NRC open item.
(Inspection Report 85-02, p. 8, Exh. 9.)
l The third BCAP element seeks to reverify some (not all) of
- j. -the more than twenty other Braidwood corrective action programs.
i Beyond the numerous problems which exist in those other programs,
! 9 i
1 the reliability of this BCAP element has been questioned for
,_ failing to. include any actual hardware inspections to establish
(_) the effectiveness of the corrective action program itself in assuring actual construction quality. (Inspection Report 84-30/28, p. 6, oct. 4,1984 and encl. 5 thereto (meeting minutes),
Exhibit 12.)
TheNRCStaffhasexpressedconcernsaboutthereliability of a numbe'r of Edison's specific corrective action programs. For example, the Material Traceability Verification Program (MTV) which was instituted in response to NRC findings in Inspection Report 83-09 (Exh. 5), has identified some 3150 piping components which have no traceability markings. Some 566 piping components did have traceability markings but had no corresponding source documentation. How inspectors could have verified the traceability of these components remains unclear. Inspection Report 85-15/16, p. 11, Exhibit 13 The QA Inspector Reinspection Program was established to address concerns regarding hardware acceptability and inspector qualifications. As reported 'u the May 16, 1985, Inspection Report 85-15/16, pp. 19, 20, E ). h . 13, Edison is only now reformulating the program from the ground up to address f andamental flaws in the program's original form and execution.
Inadequate program inspector training and the absence of effective program procedures resulted in wide variances in inspector reject rates. The NRC has identified concerns regarding the QC Inspector Reinspection Program as an open item.
Id. Of the Applicant's " top twenty" corrective action programs,
-m v
10
twelve project completion dates ifor June 1985 or later, two as late as December,.1985, and for three no completion dates at all h- . were projected as of March 8,,1985. (Letter, Smith (CE Co.) to Keppler (NRC), transmitting updates on " top twenty" corrective action programs at Braidwood, Exh. 7.)
Finaliy, the very existe ice of so many major corrective action programs underway simultdneously with construction at Braidwood, as noted by the CAT team, raises further questions about licensee's ability to build the plant safely: "The major areas of concern to the NRC CAT are: (1) the dependence on final walkdown ibspections late in the construction program to identify and resolve problems; and (2)'the ability to manage the large number (over 20) of ongoing major corrective action programs and ensure that current work is correctly performed." (Transmittal letter to CAT Inspection Report 84-44/40, p. 1, Exh. 10.)
The fdregoing examples of NRC concerns about the effective-ness of BCkP and other programs are intended simply to illustrate the_ point that the reliability of these corrective action pro-grams must be the subject of scrutiny on these and such other more fundamental grounds as the independence and objectivity of those performing the reviews as well as the scope and depth of the reviews themselves. Only when their results are available for scrutiny and review can a reliable assessment be made of
~
whether they have remedied the QA breakdown at Braidwood. In addition, the jury is still out on the issue of the extent of QA and construction deficiencies yet to be identified at Braidwood.
O 11
y, '
>; III. ADDITIONAL POINTS -
Intervenors urge that the amended contention is amply supported hy factual bases " set forth with reasonable speci ficity." 10 C.F.R. 52 714(b). While the evidence cited of
~
l a pervasive QA breakdown at Braidwood is compelling, it need not be evaluated at this pleading stage beyond its acknowledgement as establishing sufficient basis' for admission and litigation.
Mississippi Power & Light Compan9 (Grand Gulf Nuclear Stations, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-130, 6 AFC 4j23 (1973). .
In'its April 17 Order, the Licensing Board observes (pp. 42-43)thatthe(identificationofwitnessesandthesubjectsof their expected testimony by Intervenors would aid it in passing
~
on the; admission of any amended QA contention. Intervenors submit'that the evidence discussed in this pleading will be
.ofr,sred to establish substantial ele.nents of its claims of quality assurancerbreakdown. Indeed, the individuals and organ-izations with substantial quality assurance expertise which counsel have consulted since receipt of the Board's April 17 h
Order have confirmed that the record evidence it'self at Braidwood.
F ^ ,
best establishes the claim of quality assurance breakdown.
Should it prove necessaryd or appear helpful to the Board, Intervenors would expect to present expert opinion testimony to evaluate the QA record at Braidwood and establish' that it does represent a pervasive failure of the QA system. "Intervenors have alsoundertakentoretainexpert}QAassistancetoovaluatethe effectiveness of the BCAP and other Braidwood corrective action
() "
)
12
programs. - Although QA experts to perform this evaluation effor.t t
have .not yet ' been' retained, counsel expect to do so in a timely fashion in: light of the incomplete status of BCAP and the Board's anticipatedOctoberhearings'chddule. Several firms and individuals believed by counsel to be highly qualified on these subjects hEve been consulted since the Board's April 17 Order.
Intervenora expect to be able'to identify their expert consultanth in time for the scheduled pre-hearing conference and to schedulb their review efforts in light of the present hearing schedule.
Finally, two other matters are memorialized herein at the direction of the Board Chairman. First, in a conference call on May 10, 19b5, the Board granted Intervenors' four additional days, until May 24, to file their amended contention. Second, by way of background for our specification of detailed underlying data supporting Intervenors' QA contentions, Inter.venors describe herein their efforts to question "NRC Staff personnel knowledge-able about Braidwood QA/QC issues," believed by Intervenors to be most able to " supplement the testimony Mr. Keppler provides at his deposition with underlying data and any in depth analysis Staff may have performed." Special Prehearing Conference Order, April 17, 1985, p. 38. In order to effectively shoulder this burden of specification, Intervenors identified to NRC Staff counsel the following NRC personnel and areas of Braidwood QA knowledge for inclusion in the deposition panel to supplement the testimony of Regional Administrator Keppler: Braidwood Resident Inspectors R.D. Schultz and W.J. Kropp, each of whom had O
13
conducted a number of inspections at Braidwood where QA n deficiencies were identified; Braidwood BCAP Inspector R.N.
V Gardner, who has been specially assigned to inspect and review the BCAP program; W. Forney, former Chief, Projects Section 1A,
~who has supervised and approved Braidwood inspection activities over the last year; Tony Varela, specialist inspector from NRC Region I, o recently inspected at Braidwood in response to concerns regarding concrete problems; and those members of the NRC Cor.struction Appraisal Team (CAT) who performed the recent CAT Inspection at Braidwood, most knowledgeable in the following areas where significant adverse QA findings were made: Project Management, Corrective Action Systems, Mechanical Construction, QCinspectionactihities, the six identified potential enforce-ment actions, and the four identified program weaknesses requiring increased management attention. Inspection Report 84-44/40, February 15, 1985, Exec. Sum., p. A-1, Exh. 10.
NRC Staff counsel declined to make any of these identified NRC personnel available for deposition, and took the position that discovery was not yet appropriate. Staff took the position ,
that Mr. Keppler needed no help in explaining what he meant by his August 1, 1984, Byron testimony which acknowledged serious QA l
questions.at Braidwood. Branch Chief R.F. Warnick was selected by Staff to assist Mr. Keppler. Staff counsel and counsel for Intervenors agreed that the dispute concerning th'e production of l these staff witnesses should be taken before the Board for resolution. It was agreed that Intervenors' counsel would ask I the Board Chairman to arrange for an on-the-record conference i . C/
1 14 m m
call to hear the dispute.
On May 14, 1985, counsel for Intervenors telephoned the o,g)
Board Chairman and made a request for consideration of this matter. The Chairman declined to entertain this dispute and instructed Intervenors to go forward with the deposition without the additional witnesses. The Chairman asked counsel to identify in this filing those persons sought for deposition, and stated that the-Board could consider the need for further relief later.
e 15 ,
EXHIBIT B ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE COUNSELOR $ AT t AW THRE((gf 5{ NATlONAg pgA{A cwicAco. ttt,No,s ne, TELf rHONE 317 5581:m IIJut* ADS e5 HAM tart tyg WASHtNGTON OFFICf ROttRT T t#6COLN. tort test Tilf2 2 $20s
- ttMCONNECTicuTavtNut N W tanttlAM G SE Alf, toss ten WA$MsNG D C MN nt nu va
. November 18, 1985 Herbert Grossman, Esq.,
Chairman Administrative Law Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Richard F. Cole,~
Administrative Law Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. A. Dixon Callihan, Administrative Law Judge 102 Oak Lane Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Re: In the Matter of Commonwealth Edison Company (Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2)
Docket Numbers 50-456 and 50-457
Dear Administrative Judges:
Pursuant to the duty of full disclosure as articulated by the Appeal Board in Duke Power Company (William B. McGuire Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-143, 6 AEC 623 (1973), I enclose a copy of Commonwealth Edison Company's. Report on the Braidwood Construction Assessment Program.
I also enclose'a copy of a letter from cordell .
Reed to Harold Denton concerning revised fuel load dates for Byron Station, Unit 2, and Braidw Station, Units 1 and 2.
S'ncer j vf .
Philip P'. Ste t c PPS:KMB .
cc: Service List n n e n, An o a pil MfW I
Commonwe:lth
[' ch one ries: EdiunCrucag2. Ittinois National Plata.
\ Wi (y'7 Address Ripfy Chicago. 13.
IMois Pcs O!!<ce Box 767 60090 November 18, 1985 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Of fice of: Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wasnington, DC. 20555 Subjecti Revision to the Expected Fuel Load Dates For Byron Station Unit 2 and Braicwood Station Units 1 and 2 NRC Docket Nos. 50-455; 50-456/457 Reference (a): Cordell Reed letter to H. R. Denton
, dated December 24, 1984
Dear Mr. Denton:
Re ference (a) provided you with Commonwealth Edison Company's units.
best estimates of the fuel load schedules for the subject The most recent budget review of the schedule of engineering and construction activities and preoperational testing has resulted in a change in the estimate of the fuel load dates of Byron Station Unit 2 and Braidwood Station Units 1 and 2 to later dates. The current estimate is that fuel can be loaded in Byron Unit 2 by not later tha'n October 15, 1986, and in Braiawoou Units 1 and 2 by September 30 1986, and which of course, co,ntingencies January 31, cause could 1988, respectively. There are, than the above dates. fuel luad to occur later I will continue to keep you advised of any changes in the scheduled fuel load date for these units.
Very truly yours, x %
Cordell Reed Vice President
/klj cc: J. G. Keppler (RIII) 0903K -
m 3 T
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DEKETED L$NPC BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
'85 DEC 19 P2:23 In the Matter of: -) 0FFRE0?1EcgirAg.
-) 00CKETiHG & SEimri
-COMMONWEALTH EDISON. COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-456 BRANCH
) 50-457 (Braidwood Nuclear Power )
~ Station, Units 1 and 2) ) December 18, 1985 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I ..hereby certify that I have served copies of INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO COMMISSION QUESTIONS to each party listed on the attached Service' List,.by having said copies placed in envelopes, properly addressed and postaged (first class) and deposited-in the United States Mail at 109 North
Dearborn,
Chicago, 60602 on this 18th day of December, 1985; except that-copies were sent via Federal Express overnight delivery to each of the five Commissioners, the Docketing- and Service Section, Mr. Joseph Gallo and Mr. Gregory Berry.
h W =-
1-
BRAIDWOOD SERVICE LIST Gary J. Edles, Chairman Michael I. Miller, Esq.
and Administrative Judge Peter Thornton, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Isham, Lincoln & Beale Appeal Board Three First National Plata U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chicago, Illinois 60602 Washington D.C. 20555 Docketing & Service Section Thomas S. Moore Office of the Secretary Administrative- Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
' Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission Appeal Board Washington D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 C. Allen Bock, Esq.
P.O. Box 342 Reginald L. Gotchy Urbana, Illinois 61801 Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Bridget Little Rorem Appeal Board 117 North Linden Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Essex, Illinois 60935 Washington D.C. 20555 Thomas J. Gordon, Esq.
Herbert Grossman, Esq. Waller, Evans & Gordon Chairman and Administrative Judge 2503 South Neil Atcmic Safety and Licensing Board Champaign, Illinois 61820 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 Lorraine Creek Route 1, Box 182 Richard F. Cole Manteno, Illinois 60950 Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Region III U.S. Nuclear-Regulatory Commission Office of Inspection &
Washington D.C. 20555 Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory A. Dixon Callihan Commission Administrative Judge 799 Roosevelt Road 102 Oak Lane Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Atomic Safety and Licensing Gregory Berry, Esq. Board Panel NRC Staff Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission 7335 Old Georgetown Road Washington D.C. 20555 Bethesda, Maryland 20014 Atomic Safety and Licensing Joseph Gallo, Esq. Appeal Board Isham, Lincoln & Beale U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 1120 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Commission Suite 840 Washington D.C. 20555 Washington D.C. 20036
r-n . -
. . *e Nunzio J. Palladino Chairman and Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
. Washington D.C. 20555 Thomas M. Roberts
. Commissioner -
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
-Washington D.C. 20555 James K. Asselstine Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 Frederick M..Bernthal Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 Lando W. Zech, Jr.
Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555
- .. .- - . - . . _ - _ _ - _ _ - - _ , . .-, . - . . _ - _ , . . . . - _ . . - _ . - ,