ML16340C527

Requests Info Re Process of Independent Review for Facility, Perceived Weakness Leading to Errors in Process & Steps Taken to Eliminate Such Errors in Future

ML16340C527
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	10/28/1981
From:	Mader G CALIFORNIA, STATE OF
To:	Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML16340C523	List: ML16340C522 ML16340C527 ML20052B705
References
NUDOCS 8205030601
Download: ML16340C527 (6)

Text

le I

e4

~ 4 STATE OF CALIF6tNIA SEISMIC SAFETY COMMISSION 1900 K STREET, SUITE 100 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 9SB14 (916) 32249'l7 Robert A. CIlson,

&ecutivo Director EDMUND G BROWN N,'I, Governor tg

~~

4r r~ ter

~

October 28, 1981 Mr. Nunzio J. Palladino Chairman

'uclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555

Dear Mr. Palladino:

The recent series of articles in the statewide press regarding

'arthquake safety of the two nuclear reactors and appurtenant equipment at Diablo Canyon has caused concern among members. of the California Seismic Safety Commission.

The Commission specifically discussed this item at its meeting on October 8th, and it directed letters of inquiry be sent to the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Nuclear Regulatory Comission and John A. Blume and Associates.

This concern stems not only from the uncertainty of'whether the reactor'and equipment can withstand the projected earthquake

forces, but also from what appears to be a breakdown in the process for providing an independent review of plans and on-site inspection during construction.

In 1977, at the request of members of the California Legislature, the Seismic Safety Commission reviewed the history-of the siting of the Diablo Canyon plant, including what had transpired to that time and the status of the process of "independent" review.

The report to the Legislature concluded that "given the state-of-the-art, the acquisition of new knowledge, and the need for expert judgement, the process (of review for the Diablo Canyon Nuclear site) is about as complete as it could be." It appears

now, that perhaps this conclusion is no longer valid.

The Commission has established policy in its report on "Goals and Policies for Earthquake Safety in Californian which states that "all new critical facilities... should be subject to thorough and independent review and inspection of design and construction."

We recognize that review was taking place at Diablo Canyon; it also appears that such review broke down in several important instances.

Therefore, the Commission would like your answers to the following:

1.

Do you believe the process of independent review set up. for Diablo Canyon was truly independent as delineated by Seismic Safety COTII1ission policy for independent review (enclosed)?

I I

2.

Since errors apparently

arose, where in the process do you believe the weaknesses existed which allowed for such errors?

3.

What, if any, steps have you taken thus far to correct the problems in your review process which would be applied to other facilities?

The Commission recogni zes that the building of nuclear reactors is a very complex process.

However, that complexity should not be confused by the overall need for an independent review of design and construction.

It is a sound principle, and if carried out correctly, should provide a

proper outcome.

I have enclosed a copy of the Commission's Report on Independent Review for your i nformation.

The Commission looks forward to your response.

Sincerely, Enclosure (SSC 81-01')

I GEORCiE NADER Chairman

'b I

L

'1

"N,. >89X X

X 1

e NRC SECRETARIAT Logging Date e

TO:.'" a Commissioner.

X)gg(exec. Oir.ioper. -,"',

0 Cong. Liaison O Public Affairs Incoming:

From:

e

~

~

Date Gen. Counsel C3 Solicitor O secretary Q lnipector fre Auditor Pollc Evaluation To!

Subject:

Date ol ow-u tr to 1s s t Diablo Can on Ref.

EDO 11044 Denton Cys: Dircks Cornell

.'Rehm Stello

'eYoung;,

Kerr, SP

,Shapar, The 10/28/81 ltr fm Nader 'is circulating fo'r Commission

. approval.

The SECY will reference Scott's =letter when the final is

-..sent by Chairman.

Prepare reply for signature of:

a Chairman a

Commissioner a

EDO, GC, CL, SOL, PA, SECY, IA, PE a

Signature block omitted a.

Q Return original of incoming with response I

I II e

e i

1 I

%2 For direct reply gg( For appropriate action Q

For information iiee'd Off. Esp Time.. +.'.M./

(see SECY-'81-2273)

Remarks:

docket, RF NRC42 1

le For the Commission:

eSend three I3) copies of reply to'Secy e

I Correspondence snd Records Branch

~e ACTIONSLIP.;, '

I'