DAARE/SAFE Collection (DeKalb/Rockford)

"DAARE and SAFE are consensus organizations actively opposed to the use of nuclear power in all its forms and which support PEACE, ALTERNATIVE ENERGY, and ENERGY CONSERVATION."   In January 1978, the DeKalb Area Alliance for Responsible Energy (DAARE) and the Sinnissippi Alliance for the Environment (SAFE) filed formal petitions with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requesting public hearings on NRC plans to issue an operating license for the Byron Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 &  2, to Commonwealth Edison.  At the time local citizens residing near a plant had the regulatory right to request an NRC hearing to litigate issues which they could maintain with reasonable specificity would affect their health and safety if the plant went into operation.  In August 1979, both DAARE and SAFE were granted "intervenor" status and participated jointly in the NRC proceeding as one intervenor, "DAARE/SAFE".  The Rockford League of Women Voters also requested and was granted separate intervenor status.   Ten contentions were submitted by DAARE/SAFE for litigation.  The ten contentions were: 1) Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) - the assertion that the Byron plant was poorly designed and constructed by Commonwealth Edison and contractors; 2) "As Low As Reasonably Achievable" (ALARA) Radiation- maintaining that the large number (13) of planned and operating nuclear power plants in Northern Illinois would expose the surrounding population to excessive radiation; 3) Emergency Planning - that there was inadequate emergency and evacuation planning for the 50 mile "ingestion zone" around the Byron Plant that the NRC believes might receive excessive radiation in the event of a plant accident; 4) Probability Risk Assessment - that NRC regulations fail to require the nuclear industry to calculate and protect against the chances  of "multiple, mutually independent failures" occurring in more than one plant system at a time such as occurred at Three Mile Island (TMI); 5) Excess Capacity - that Commonwealth Edison already maintains an abundance of excess electrical generating capacity in Northern Illinois and that the Byron plant was not needed; 6) Decommissioning - Commonwealth Edison lacked the means and money to decommission and decontaminate Byron after the plant's official 30-year lifespan; 7) Fuel Cladding - evidence that the fuel cladding element used in the Byron reactor fuel rods will become brittle and susceptible to failure; 8) Hydrogen Explosion - the Byron plant lacked sufficient safeguards against hydrogen explosions such as at TMI; 9) Steam Generator Inadequacies - the steam generators (heat exchangers for the reactor) used at Byron were experimental Westinghouse Corp. models with two deficiencies that could result in inadequate core cooling:  waterhammer in piping and excessive tube vibration; and 10) a generic contention - a list of six unresolved deficiencies applicable to all Westinghouse designed nuclear power plants. In its separate intervention, the Rockford League of Women Voters submitted 142 contentions for litigation.  The League was represented at the time by attorney Myron Cherry, of the Chicago private law firm Cherry & Flynn.   The NRC Commission assigned a panel of three NRC members (one attorney and two technical experts) to comprise the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) empowered to hear evidence and render a decision on the operating license for the Byron plant.  In 1979, the ASLB established a timetable for discovery leading to official hearings.  Discovery between the official parties: intervenors, NRC Staff, and Commonwealth Edison began and extended until 1983.  In October 1981, Commonwealth Edison petitioned the ASLB to impose sanctions against both intervenors for failure to respond to interrogatories.  The ASLB expelled the League from the proceeding because of the failure of it's counsel to respond.  DAARE/SAFE was not expelled by the ASLB because while representing itself "pro se", it was attempting to comply with discovery.   The League filed an appeal of its expulsion to an appeal board of the ASLB, and was finally re-admitted under new counsel in June 1982.   Meanwhile, DAARE/SAFE proceeded through discovery and Motions for Summary Disposition with its ten contentions.  Of those ten, the QA/QC, ALARA, Emergency Planning, and Steam Generator contentions survived as issues to be litigated.  The rest of the contentions were not litigated because of financial and technical constraints.  As citizen groups neither DAARE nor SAFE had any funding sources other than voluntary member contributions.  Approximately $7,000 was raised for the intervention effort, but DAARE/SAFE could neither afford legal counsel nor research or witness outlays.   In 1981 DAARE/SAFE obtained free legal counsel from Business and Professionals in the Public Interest (BPI), a Chicago public interest law firm to represent both it and the League in challenging an NRC regulatory change on the issues of "Need for Power" and "Financial Qualifications".  The issues were first entered before the Byron ASLB but quickly moved to federal court.  From that experience, BPI was recruited to represent both DAARE/SAFE and the League on QA/QC, a contention issue shared by both groups.   Upon it's re-admittance to the proceeding, the League's contentions were consolidated into five issues:  QA/QC, Steam Generators, Seismic, Sabotage, and Liquid Pathways.  All except the liquid pathways contention proceeded to litigations by agreement of the parties.  The League obtained separate representation from attorney David Thomas of the Chicago Kent College of Law upon the Steam Generator contention.   Hearings upon the contentions took place in federal court in Rockford, Illinois, beginning March 1, 1983.  The hearings began with Limited Appearances by members of the public and extended into evidentiary testimony before the ASLB.  According to the ASLB's dictate, the intervenors were joined in litigation of common issues and a "Lead Intervenor" was designated per issue.  DAARE/SAFE was lead intervenor on the QA/QC contention with representation by Jane Whicher from BPI.  The League was lead intervenor on the Steam Generator contention regarding tube vibration.  DAARE/SAFE maintained its separate waterhammer issue.   DAARE/SAFE was also designated lead intervenor on the Emergency Planning contention, and obtained limited free legal counsel from Rockford attorney, Bryan Savage.  Shortly before the hearings started it was stipulated between all parties that the issue would be excluded from hearing and resolved "privately" over a designated time period.  Commonwealth Edison and the State of Illinois Department of Emergency Services and Disaster Agency (ESDA) promised to rectify glaring "short comings" in the Byron emergency and evacuation planning.  The ASLB retained jurisdiction over the issue in the event the parties failed.  Resolution of the issue outside of court continued until 1986.   The hearings continued before the ASLB throughout 1983. They were well attended and generated much media attention regionally.  During the course of the hearing, a lawsuit was filed by the Rockford Register Star newspaper in response to the ASLB holding session "in camera" on sensitive QA/QC testimony.   On January 13, 1984, the ASLB issued a decision ruling in favor of Commonwealth Edison on all issues except QA/QC and denying it an operating license for the Byron plant.  This was an historical decision-the first time any NRC ASLB had denied an utility a license to operate a nuclear power plant.  The decision generated national media attention and was regarded as a serious blow to the nuclear industry as a whole and the viability of continuing to construct nuclear power plants.  The ASLB basically concluded that Commonwealth Edison had failed to demonstrate that the Byron plant was constructed safely due to the inadequate QA/QC program it followed throughout plant construction.   Commonwealth Edison immediately appealed the decision to the ASLB Appeal Board and generated a "reinspection program" at the Byron plant, a direct and statistical reinspection and analysis of all construction inspection activities at the plant since construction.  Edison also hired expert firms to analyze inspection records and personnel certifications.  Most of this activity was not direct verification of construction adequacy since most plant construction was built-over and not available to direct inspection.  However, Edison used this basis to request that the ASLB decision be remanded for re-hearing.   The ASLB Appeal Board remanded the decision back to the Byron ASLB and after extended hearings, the ASLB on October 16, 1984, issued final decision in favor of Commonwealth Edison and awarded it an operating license for the Byron units.

Note written by