ML19331B063

Opposition to CPC 730928 Petition for Reconsideration of ALAB-147.Petition Is W/O Merit & Opts for Narrow Qa/Qc Responsibility Interpretation.Aec Support Has Led to WASH-1250 Criticism.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19331B063
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	10/03/1973
From:	Cherry M CHERRY, M.M./CHERRY, FLYNN & KANTER, Saginaw Intervenor
To:	NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
References
ALAB-147, NUDOCS 8007250761
Download: ML19331B063 (5)

Text

.. 9 g

'V ' ',.g

_THfS DOCUMENT CONTAINS october 3, 1973 D Ihl" 3 P00R QUAUTY PAGES - O CT E'. <3733 i -

UNITED' STATES OF AMERICA h #[,E.? Egjo fN

- . /, N 4\ ,

4 W ATOMIC' ENERGY COMMISSION (n l >

f BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of )

)

)

Docket Nos.[ 0-329qand CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY

) 5_M 55 (Midland Plant, Units 1 & 2) )

.

SAGINAW INTERVENORS' OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ALAB-147 Under date of September 18, 1973, the Appeal Board (ALAB-147) issued an order directing the immediate improvement of Bcchtel QA-QC program to be in conformance with Commission regulations, subject, however, to Petition for Reconsideration timely filed by the Applicant. Such a petition was filed under date of September 28, 1973. We opposc the Petition for Recon-sideration for the following reasons:

(1) The Appeal Board had all the information before it which the petition now relies on for reconsideration. The Applicant has offered no new evidence and accordingly, the Petition is without merit. The Appeal Board has already in ALAD-147 interpreted the regulations and the Applicant offors no new evidence (such as a revision in the QA-QC plan of which the Appeal Board was unaware) to justify reconsideration or i

'

.

chango the decicion; 8007250 % #' / .

. _ . _ ____ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

.

.

.

.

(2), The Petition for Reconsidoration opts for a ,

Assuming for narrow interpretation of QA-QC responsibility. 4 the moment that Applicant's argument can be made in the regulations, it is an interpretation which should be rejected not only in light of this Applicant's poor QA-QC history and e..g..

not only in light of Bechtel's poor QA-QC history (see Palisados record), but also in, light of the general low tenor in the nuclear industry of quality assurance and quality control.

______

See WASH-1250, The Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors, at p. 3-19, where the Commission stated as of July, 1973, that " fully offective quality assurance programs havb not been sufficiently ,

developed or implemented." In light of this state of events, one would hope that the Applicant would opt for a QA-QC program Certainly which strengthens and improves QA-QC responsibility.

the record requires the Appeal Board to ta'ke that step in light of the importance of quality assurance and quality control in the prevention of catastrophic nuclear accidents; the (3) At page 3 of the Petition and following, Applicant urgos that the Project Superintendent not being "directly responsible" may also have QA-QC responsibilities because he is "far removed" from the actual implementation of the work. And at the same time we are told that the Project

-

, .

.

3 - 1 -

__

. .

.

. .

Superintendent will not have the authority of QA-QC " hiring

,

and dismissal, training, assignment, pay, and ability to initiato a stop-work order" (Petition at page 7), we are also told that the Project Superintendent's advice is sought with respect to the total number of QC engineers (Petition at page 7), that the Project Superintendent may veto pay increases of QC personnel (Petition at page 8), and that stop-work orders are exercised and issued under and through the " authority" of the Project Superintendent (Petition at page 9) . The Project Superintendent has overall responsibility' for seeing that the plant is built and should not have any responsibility with

.

respect to QA-QC. There should be a man of equal stature as the Project Superintendent fully responsible for QA-QC matters, having no interest whatsoever in construction activitics whether directly or indirectly. In fact, in light of the sad history of QA-QC in the nuclear industry, the Project Superintendent or the overall man in charge of the program should be a person

.

~

charged solely with QA-QC

-

responsibility;

(4) The Regulatory Staff supports the Petition for Reconsideratien primarily because it has an interest in supporting its interpretations and activities which have led to the WASH-1250 criticism. Indcod, the Regulatory Staff is '

.

.

.

6

. .

that so concerned about upsetting'its " rule" that it. states..

if the Appeal Board enforces QA-QC horo, it might upset the '

See Regulatory Staff ,

"applc cart" in the entire industry.

28, 1973, footnote 4 Petition for Reconsideration, September at p.4. If QA-QC, throughout the industry, is as weak and '

inefficient as disclosed by the' Midland record, then the nuclear industry " apple cart" ought to be upset.

. . .

The Saginaw Intervenors have been opposing the Midland Plant for sometime now on many substantive and l

procedural issues, one of the most important is quality f

The action of the Saginaw assurance and quality control.

prompted the Appeal Board to reexamine this Intervenors has issue, and each_ tbme the Appeal Board has taken some action in the direction suggested by the Saginaw Intervenors, although the Appeal Board has not gone as far as we have At this juncture, granting the suggested the law requires.

Applicant's Petition for Reconsideration would be a giant We respectfully urge the Appeal Board to stop backwards.

i t and take another stop forward and como down hard on Appl can An exampic mado new may very wcll save lives in tho Bechtcl.

-

. l

.

.

.

.  :

.. . ,

.-

'

. .

.

futuro. A nod by the Appeal Board in support of the Applicant and the Regulatory Staff will do no less than state to the nuclear industry that quality assurance and quality control is not as important as we once thought.

.

Respectfully submitted, Y I Myro lj. Cherry,Couniel for ntervenors

.

Myron M. Cherry One IBM Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60611 ,

312-222-9350

.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

.

I certify that a copy of this Opposition was mailed postage pre-paid and properly addressed on October 3, 1973, to the Appeal Board, to Appeal Counsel for the various parties, and to the Secretary of the Commission.

^ ii

/Ll i r, Myror)/ cherry, pouksel for

- Intew ors

~.

e 4

e

%

- - .