ML20083D950

Motion to Reopen Record & for Order Imposing Commitments on Util Re Qa/Qc Issues

ML20083D950
Person / Time
Site:	Byron, Braidwood
Issue date:	12/22/1983
From:	Whicher J DEKALB AREA ALLIANCE FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF ROCKFORD, IL, SINNISSIPPI ALLIANCE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (SAFE), WHICHER, J.M.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20083D952	List: ML20083D950 ML20083D964
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8312280371
Download: ML20083D950 (8)

Text

- . _ _ _ __

y .

DOCHETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ..

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOA E 13 EC 27 P12:58 fjFrrfrUC,m In the Matter of ) 'C

)

COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-454 OL

) 50-455 OL Byron Nuclear Power Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

MOTION TO REOPEN RECORD AND FOR ORDER IMPOSING COMMITMENTS Intervenors the Rockford League of Women Voters, and DAARE/ SAFE, by their undersigned attorney, hereby move the Board to reopen the record on QA/QC on the issues set forth below, and to enter an order formally and explicitly imposing on Commonwealth Edison and the NRC staff informal commitments they have made during the course of litigation of Joint Contention lA (Quality Assurance / Quality Control). As grounds for this motion, Intervenors show how recent developments have demonstrated that the record must be reopened, and both Edison and the staff have failed to abide by commitments expressed during the hearing, all to the prejudice of Intervenors.

8312280371 831222 PDR ADOCK 05000454 o PDR ,

1. Recent Developments.

A. Commitment to keep Board and parties informed of status of 82-05-19 reinspection program, and significant developments in that orogram.

Attorneys for Commonwealth Edison have committed to keep the Board and parties informed of developments relevant to the Byron operating license proceeding. Un-questionably, of the status of the 82-05-19 reinspection program is such a topic. It is apparent from recent letters to the Board, however, that Edison has utterly failed to keep that commitment. The staff has made a similar commitment, apparently premised on the release of Inspection and Enforcement (I & E) reports. (See August 11 tr. at 8018-19.) That commitment has been sidestepped by the staff.

Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a letter from NRC staff counsel which makes clear the following chronology of events:

October 28 -Edison's preliminary report on results of reinspection program sent to NRC November 3 -Edison's preliminary report sent to Board and parties November 18 -NRC's initial response sent to Edison December 2 -NRC staff counsel informs Board and parties of staff November 18 responses, I and of expansion of reinspection program. i As demonstrated by this chronology, sometime between the November 18 staff response, and the sending of that response to the Board and parties on December 2, sub-stantial developments occurred. */ Those developments, as apparent from Exhibit A are: (1) a further review cf the reinspection program by Edison and (2) "c necessity" to expand the program with respect to three contractors, including Hatfield Electric Company. Both Edison and the staff are noticeably silent as to any cktaib of the expansion, including the reasons for it and the e:: tent of it.

Clearly, the fact that the program has been expanded indicates substantial deficiencies in either the results of the reinspection, or the method of reinspection, or both. .

Further, the staff evaluation of the adequacy of the program, as well as the Edison and staff agreement to ex-pand that program, occurred entirely outside the purview of the Board and Intervenors , in spite of the fact that that program has been the subject of vigorous litigation.

B. The termination of Mr. Koca.

Mr. Koca, who was the chief witness for Edison concerning the testing and certification of John Hughes ,

-*/ Telephone calls from the undersigned to counsel for Edison and the staff confirmed that there are no pulbic documents that reflect these developments, other than the December 2 letter.

has been terminated from his position as Hatfield

~

Electric's Quality Assurance Manager. The sequence of events, according to the Board notification of this fact by counsel for Edison, attached hereto as Exhibit B, is as follows:

Augus t 5 -meeting between NRC staff and Edison, wherein the staff expressed certain

" concern" with Mr. Koca. ,

(August 9-12-evidentiary hearings including testimony by Edison and staff witnesses) i October 21 -" effective" date of Mr. Koca's termination December 14 -Edison's notification to che Board and Intervenors.

First, it is obvious that Edison's notification was far from prompt, as nearly seven weeks elapsed between the

" effective" date of termination and the date of notification, and four and one half months elapsed between the meeting and the notification.

Second, it is clear that neither Edison nor the staff were forthcoming in their testimony before the Board during ,

4 the August evidentiary session. Both Edison and the staff I

had grave concerns regarding Mr. Koca's " ability to function effectively" due to friction between him and Hatfield's QC personnel, and his inability to " perform his j ob responsibilities effectively" (Exh. B, p.1) during the litigation of Hatfield's program. Neither expressed that concern and, in fact, attempted to give the Board the impression that both Hatfield's and Mr. Koca's

performances were completely satisfactory. In short, despite Edison's contrary assertions */ Mr. Koca's credibility, ability and job performance were directly in controversy (see, e.g., Joint Intervenors Partial Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Contention lA filed September 30, 1983, findings 21-45 at pp. 7-14), and the staff I and Edison had knowledge pertaining to those very issues, which they kept from the Board. **/ _

Because facts relating to Mr.

Koca are directly relevant to the August round of hearings and were known to all parties except Intervenors, but kept from Intervenors and the Board, the prejudice is clear. ***/

C. The commitment that the license should not issue until satisfactory completion of the 82-05-19 reinspection program.

Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a letter dated December 18 from B.J. Youngblood, Division of Licensing, I

• / On page two of Exhibit B Edison attempts to convince i the Board of the insignificance of Mr. Koca's termi-i nation. As argument, lacking any substantiating facts, it should be disregarded.

• • /

-- It is curious that Edison felt obligated to reveal other aspects of that meeting. (E.g., Teutken, tr. of August 11 at 7756-58.)

• • • / It appears that this action, too, was taken outside the normal "I & E" system, thus allowing the staff to make findings against Edison, concerning Hatfield and Mr. Koca, without issuing an I & E report that would have been sent to Intervenors and the Board.

to Commonwealth Edison containing a " laundry list" of items to be completed prior to fuel load. Noticeably absent from that list is any mention of the successful completion of the 82-05-19 reinspection program. */ That completion was committed to by the staff witnesses at the hearings (see i

tr. of August 11 at pp. 7806-10). Accordingly, it appears that commitment has been unilaterally by the staff.

2. Legal Argument In its " Memorandum and Order Setting Special Deposition Session" dated May 12, 1983, the Board set forth the standards for reopening a closed evidentiary record. Those standards have been met here.

. A. The motion is timely.

This motion is based on the cumulative nature of the three developments set forth above. Any " timeliness" concerns should be directed to Edison and the staff, not Intervenors, for it is their dilatory actions that have kept these developments from the Board and Intervenors.

B. A significant safety issue is involved.

~

The safety significance of the 82-05-19 reinspection program has already been ruled on by the Board in reopening

-*/ While the letter concerns open SER items, the SER is predicated on a satisfactory QA program which is not

, now evident at Byron.

J this matter. Now, the evidence demonstrates that not only are the results of the program worse than Edison 1 1

I predicted */ , but those worsening results have been kept from the Board.

1 C. Effect on the proceedings.

This standard was discussed in its May 12 Order (at pp. 4-6). In sum, the Board's standard appears to be that the information " reasonably might affect the outcome of this proceeding." (Id. at p. 5; emphasis in original.)

While there is no " outcome" as yet, the Board has already ruled that the 82-05-19 reinspection program meets that standard. The correctness of that ruling is underscored and strengthened by the fact that the results of that program are not as suggested during the August hearings. **/

3. Conclusion.

For the reasons stated above, the record should be reopened on the three new developments (the results of the

• / NeegenerallyprefiledtestimonyofTeutken,tr.of August 11 following p. 7760.

~

• • / To the extent that the Board's ruling encompassed a

~" defending against a summary deposition" concept, the

~~

impossibility of such a demonstration by Intervenors is clear from the fact that not only did the three developments occur purposefully outside the purview of the Intervenors, no public documents were generated to alert Intervenors to the developments as they occurred, or the details of the developments. Accordingly, should the Board not be inclined to grant this motion at once, the appropriate course is to stay ruling on this motion and allow discovery to enable further evidence to be developed.

the termination of the reinspection, and whether the license can issue without resolution of the program),

and an order should be issued formally imposing on Edison and the staff a duty to promptly inform Intervenors and the Board of developments as they occur.

Respectfully submitted, Jane M. Whicher' N, AA. W ,

Attorney for Intervenors The League of Women Voters and DAARE/ SAFE on all issues and matters pertaining to quality assurance / quality control December 22, 1983 Jane M. Whicher 109 North Dearborn Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 641-5570

53 Ef t;

, /  %,,

E o UNITE 3 STATES 8"- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

{ . ,i WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 December 2, 1983 k .... * # l Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Union Carbide Corporation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission P.O. Box Y Washington, D. C. 20555 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Dr. Richard F. Cole Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D. C. 20555 In the Matter of COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (Byron Station, Units 1 and 2)

Docket Nos. 50-454 and 50-455

Dear Administrative Judges:

Ly letter dated November 3,1983, the Applicant forwarded to the Board and parties a preliminary report on the Byron reinspection program which was submitted to the NRC on October 28, 1983. Enclosed for your information is a letter, dated November 18, 1983, which documents th'c NRC Staff's initial response to the preliminary report. Subsequently, as a result of Staff coments on the preliminary report, the Applicant's re-review of the program indicated a necessity to select additional samples of visual weld inspections by Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory, Hunter Corporation, and Hatfield Electric Company which will extend the reinspection program for up to three months.

l Sincerely,

, Mit A. Yo ,ung Counsel for NRC Staff

Enclosure:

As stated 8312280374 831222 '

{DRADOCK 05000454 PDR cc w/ enclosure: Service list M- O

~

~

J'HIBIT A

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _