ML20077S720

Reply to NRC Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law on Qa/Qc Issues.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20077S720
Person / Time
Site:	Byron
Issue date:	09/16/1983
From:	Becker B, Bloom J, Crowley C, Furse M, Mark Miller COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20077S701	List: ML20077S698 ML20077S709 ML20077S720
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8309220188
Download: ML20077S720 (9)

Text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOCMETED USNRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 21 Pl2:51 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING 0FFICE Or $[cpgf,.

OCCKETmG A SEPV;:

ENANC4 In The Matter of )

)

COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ) Des:ket Nos. 50-454 OL

) 50-455 OL

)

(Byron Nuclear Power Station, )

Units 1 & 2) )

APPLICANT'S REPLY TO NRC STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES Commonwealth Edison Company (" Applicant") files this Reply to the NRC Staff's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclu-sions of Law on Quality Assurance and Quality Control Issues.

The numbered paragraphs which follow correspond to the NRC Staff's numbered paragraphs.

Paragraphs H1-H35 No Response.

Paragraph H36 This proposed finding is somewhat incomplete. A summary of the evidence on this issue is presented at pages 28 and 29 of the Opinion portion of Applicant's proposed QA/QC findings. The evidence establishes (1) The Standard Review Plan referred to by the Staff is not applicable to Applicant's quality assurance prograin; (2) Notwithstanding this inapplic-8309220100 830916 PDR ADOCK 05000454 .

G PDR

)

i ability, Applicant's quality assurance program in fact incor- l porates at least six of the seven items referred to by the Staff; and (3) The seven items are considered relatively triv-ial by the Staff and not necessary for compliance with Commis-sion regulations.

Paragraphs H37-H153 No Response.

Paragraph H154 The NRC Staff asserts that neither Mr. Barnhbrt nor Mr. Stomfay-Stitz were qualified to perform certain inspections of structural steel. Applicant assumes that the use of the term " qualified" in this context refers to the certification of the men rather than their actual capability to perform the work at issue. The NRC Staff did not testify that either Mr. Barnhart or Mr. Stomfay-Stitz were not qualified in the sense c' being unable to actually perform the inspections of structural steel which they did perform. (NRC, Tr. 3724-3728.)

Paragraph H155 The NRC assertion that all structural steel bolting in the containment building and other areas is subject to 100%

reinspection is somewhat misleading. It would be more precise to state that all the bolts Mr. Stomfay-Stitz claims to have inspected were double checked or reinspected. Specifically, the slotted connections examined by Mr. Stomfay-Stitz were subsequently rep 5 aced due to design changes and reinspected, and the torque of all fixed bolts examined by Mr. Stomfay-Stitz

was reviewed by Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory. (Applicant's l

Proposed Findings 675-676.)

Paragraph H156 -

The NRC statement that Mr. Stomfay-Stitz was not

" qualified" to perform structural steel inspections should be construed to refer only to his lack of certification, and not to his lack of ability. The evidence as a whole indicated that Mr. Stomfay-Stitz was capable of performing the limited tasks involved in bolting-in. (Applicant's Proposed Findings 670-764.)

Paragraphs H157-H171 No response.

Paragraph H172 The NRC Staff asserts that Mr. Stomfay-Stitz believed his superiors actually performed inspections on goods received while he was absent "until he became disillusioned." This should not be construed to mean that inspections were not always performed. Mr. Stomfay-Stitz never testified that he ever doubted that these inspections had been performed; rather his disillusionment led him t feel that he should question everything his superiors told him to do. (Stomfay-Stitz, Tr.

3236-3237.)

Paragraphs H173-H188 No response.

Paragraph H189 The NRC Staff s,tated that Mr. Gallagher " assumed that the bad aggregate problem was solved after he left the site."

Such a statement is susceptible to various interpretations.

Actually, Mr. Gallagher testified that he assumed during his tenure at Byron that the aggregate was satisfactory, and that since leaving the site he has not learned of anything_to change that assumption. (Gallagher, Tr. 3514-3516.)

Paragraph H190 No response.

Paragraph H191 The NRC Staff inaccurately states that Mr. Gallagher alleged that water in excess of specifications was added to concrete batches. On cross-examination this witness explained that he was not claiming that excessive water was added, only that water was added surreptitiously. (Applicant's Proposed Finding 606.)

Paragraphs H192-H198 No response.

Paragraph H199 The NRC asserts Blount Brothers QA controlled the addition of water to concrete at placement areas. The record also indicates, however, that PTL technicians were also present i at the placement site and also supervised the addition of water. (Tallent & Johnson, Tr. 3978.)

l Paragraphs H200-H232 l

No response.

Paragraph H233 The NRD Staff correctly quotes Mr. Somsag as stating that Audit 059-3 showed QCWI's were not inspecting for the location of supports. A more precise statement of the Audit

, , _ _ _ ___._ ____ _ _ . . ~ _ - _ _ _ _ _

l itself is that QCWIs were not properly accepting as-built data.

(Smith, Intervenors' Prepared Testimony, Ex. C, 9-10, ff. Tr.

3243.) -

Paragraphs H234-H244 No response.

Paragraph H245

' The NRC Staff asserts that a formal inspection pro-  :

gram which included M916 design tolerances and documentation of f as-built data began following Audit 059-3. The record, how- f ever, indicates that an inspection program which included the M916 tolerances did exist at the time of Audit 059-3; Hunter Corporation production personnel were aware of M916 and docu-mented its use, albeit at times incorrectly, in 4 of the 5 component supports reviewed in the initial Audit 059-3. A more formalized inspection program was implemented subsequent to Audit 059-3 and the NRC Staff's March,1980 recommendations.

(Applicant's Proposed Findings 550-553, 557-558.)

Paragraphs H246-H252 No response.

Paragraph H253 l

! The NRC Staff asserts the follow-up to Audit 059-3 examined 50 component supports. Mr. Smith testified that in this follow-up audit he and Mr. Zeise only reviewed the five supports involved in the initial audit. (Smith, Tr. 3387.)

i Paragraph H254-Rt93 ,

No response.

l

Paragraph H294 The NRC Staff's claim that Mr. Smith did not observe the signing-off of inspection reports is incorrect. Mr. Smith stated that he " witnessed" the initialing of documents by a person who did not perform the inspection. (Smith, Tr. 3427.)

Paragraph H295 No response.

v t

The foregoing document, " Applicant's Reply to the NRC Staff's Proposed Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law on Quality Assurance /Ouality Control Issues" is respect-fully submitted by the undersigned attorneys for Common-wealth Edison Company.

f .

Michael I. Miller nn_ b '

Bruce D.'Becker

=

JoAnne G. )!floom ff C7m Mark C. Furse

. 5 Catherine T. Crowley /

ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE Three First National Plaza 60602 -

l Chicago, Illinois (312)558-7500

1. 90405

[

Dated: September 16, 1983 I

~ ,

\

e l

/

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

In the Matter of )

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

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 I

and two copies of each of the attached " APPLICANT'S REPLY TO INTERVENORS' PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON QUALITY ASSURANCE / QUALITY CONTROL", and " APPLICANT'S REPLY TO THE NRC STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACTS CLUSIONS OF LAW ON QUALITY ASSURANCE / QUALITY CO with the Secretary of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and served copies of each on the persons and at the addresses Service on the Secretary shown on the attached service list.

and all parties was made by deposit in the U.S. Mail, first-class postage prepaid, this 16th day of September, 1983.

W One of the attorneys for l Commonwealth Edison Company ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE Three First National60602 Plaza Chicago, Illinois*

(312) 558-7500 ,

Firm Code 90405

, , , , - - -. . . . . _ , , . . . . . . - - . , , , - , , ~ . . . , - - , - - - . r . . . . - - - - - - ~ . - .~.,n . -,

SERVICE LIST COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY -- Byron Station Docket Nos. 50-454 and 50-455 Secretary Mr. Ivan W. Smith Attn: Chief, Docketing and Administrative Judge and Service section Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C. 20555 Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiasion Ms. Betty Johnson Washington, D.C. 20555 1907 Stratford Lane Rockford, Illinois 61107 Dr. Richard F. Cole Ms. Diane Chavez Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel SAFE U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 326 North Avon Street i

Rockford, Illinois 61103 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Dr. Bruce von Zellen Board Panel Department of Biological U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Sciences j

Commission Northern Illinois University DeKalb, Illinois 60115 Washington, D.C. 20555 Chief Hearing Counsel Joseph Gallo, Esq.

Isham, Lincoln & Beale Office of the Executive Suite 840 Legal Director 1120 Connecticut Ave., N.W.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20036 J

Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Douglass W. Cassel, Jr.

Union Carbide Corporation Jane Whicher '

BPI P.O. Box Y Suite 1300 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 109 N. Dearborn Mr. Steven C. Goldberg Chicago, Illinois 60602 Ms. Mitzi A. Young Office of the Executive Ms. Patricia Morrison 5568 Thunderidge Drive Legal Director Rockford, Illinois 61107 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. David Thomas Washington, D.C. 20555 77 South Wacker Chicago, Illinois 60621 l Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Fanel ,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 i

__ * '"We e--p-e.g.-.% _ _ . . _ _