ML20039D258
| ML20039D258 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 12/28/1981 |
| From: | Badham R, Markey E, Ottinger R, Shumway N HOUSE OF REP., HOUSE OF REP., ENERGY & COMMERCE |
| To: | Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8112310469 | |
| Download: ML20039D258 (12) | |
Text
.mn-*:=m co"*as "ww-m 640WC OPTICC BUILDIN 3 ANNEX NO. 3 necMAmt t OTTuosta. eLT., CMMpw.M PHONE (132) 1241424 W." "r ".'.h. ". !""." ', I"=^0;. ". "."-
~
g gu
==u gm U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COLKETED u
7,l,"d"A"',,, m,
" """","QQ SUBCOMMITTEE oN ENERGY CONSERVATION USMC
=gg. ata.
ognm,.
AND POWER h
COMMITTEE oN Eh RGY AND COMMERCE
'8)
((C 28 A8l12
%g**"p" "$;
WASHINGTON, D.C.
20515 Dec ber11861981 0FFICE OF EECREQ'.
. M,.o..ce
~
x, S.
00CKEilNG & SER\\,
mr
=
N ;.\\
BRA!.CH b
Rm-pi The Honorable Nunzio Palladino ggg3 0 T3?r-- d g-Chairman 7- -- -, [t) -4 ff" g Nuclear Regulatory Commission
'~
.P;ugjo,,,,,,..;; " - ze t,
Washington, D.C.
20555
/
v-
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Last month Chairman Dingell and I communicated to you our very serious concerns regarding the disclosure of errors in'the design and construction of a number'of commercial power reactors.
In our letter, we were particularly concerned about the discovery of such errors at Diablo Canyon Unit I following the issuance by
~
the Commission of a low power license.
As a consequence, we noted the need for a quality assurance audit of unquestionable competence and independence of the seismic design of the Unit I reactor.
You were requested to supply the Committee with the criteria which would be used by the Commission in determining the independence of the required audit.-
Since our letter of November 13, the Subcommittee has discovered additional information which raises serious questions regarding the independence and integrity of the audit conducted by Robert L. Cloud Associates (RLCA), under contract to Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E).
Specifically, the Subcommittee has i
learned that there were two drafts of Dr. Cloud's report, the first being designated the October draft and the second referred to as the November draft.
The October draft was submitted to the utility for review and comments. about a month pfiori to.being supplied to the Commission.
The November draft, which-incorporated many of the utility's comments, was then released to the Commission and the public.
The Subcommittee has also learned that, following the submission of the first draft and prior to the i~ssuance of the second draft, representatives of the utility and its contractor misled Commission officials as to the status of the Cloud report, asserting it was not complete and would be distriouted only when it sas complete.
These statements were issued amidst assurances to the Commission of its independence.
In view of the contractor's apparent association with the OS utility invol.ving the submission of a draft of its report for 5
review, the incorporation of the utility's comments into the
~
publicly released report, the joint misrepresentations to NRC staff concerning the status of the report, the manner in which the / /
existence of two reports was discovered, and the inability of the l
Q3 0
l.
U N
+
o 2
utility and the contractor to locate all the copies of ths October draft and associated " inserts" containing the utility's comments.,
the integrity of a trustworthy safety reanalysis has been violated.
This dramatically underscores the need for criteria for deterrining the independence of any future audit.
The copies of the October draft containing the utility's comments, and the differences in the October draft and the November draft raise a number of disturbing questions.
As the aission has not yet responded to our letter of November 13, I that you include responses to the following questions in your reply.
Throughout the corrections and comments on the October draft, the utility repeatedly deleted the term " qualify" and replaced it with " analyze" or " evaluate".
This substitution is significant because it addresses the issue offresponsibility.
One of the PG&E employees who reviewed the October draft, Mr. J. J. McCracken, explained the difference in a handwritten comment that, "PG&E can have analysis done by a supplier or consultant, but ultimate responsibility for qualification must rest with the licensee -
PG&E.
Stating otherwise will red, flag the NRC."
(1)
In view of these changes, please supply the Subcommittee with an explanation of PG&E's responsibility for qualifying equipment and work.
(A)
In the, case of Diablo Canyon, was any of this responsibility delegated or transferred to, or performed by Westinghouse or any other equipment manufacturer?
(B)
If such delegation is found, were NRC requirements violated?
(2)
Does Dr. Cloud's use of the " wrong" terms indicate a finding by Dr. Cloud that such responsibility was in fact performed by Westinghouse or any other equipment supplier?
(A)
If not, does the use of the " wrong" term indicate a.
failure on the part of Dr. Cloud to understand who was responsible for portions of the equipment qualification program?
e m'
n' i
)
I I:
3 (B)
If Dr. Cloud did not understand who had responsibility for portions of the equipment qualification program, what is the validity of his report?
(C)
Please describe the basis for recognizing (i) Dr.
Cloud and (ii) Robert L.
Cloud Associates as qualified to conduct such audits.
(D)
Is there any evidence which would indicate that the responsible employees of the utility or its contractors were confused about which party was responsible for qualifying'the equipment?
(E)
Was Dr. Cloud's audit confined to a review of documents provided by the licensee or did Dr. Cloud have access.to the, records and employees of any contractor and equipment supplier?
(F)
If access were provided, how extensively was it utilized?
(3)
As indicated in the October draft, the supporting documentation and data. relied upon by Robert L. Cloud associates in reaching its conclusions were to be attached as appendices to the report.
However, the November draft states that such documentation is available only for " authorized examination at the office of Robert L.
Cloud Associates."
(A)
What is the basis for this change?
(B)
Who is responsible for this change?
(C)
Who determines what constitutes an " authorized examination"?
(D)
What is the criteria used to determine what constitutes an " authorized examination"?
(E)
Did the utility provide all the parties to the licensing proceeding with (i) a notice regarding the availability of the report (ii) a copy of the report, and (iii) a, copy of the supporting documentation?
O I-I '
f
__m_______
4 (F)
Is a copy of (i) the report and (ii) the supporting documentation available in the NRC's public document room and. Region V office.
If not, why not?
(G)
Does the Commission staff have a copy of (i) the October draft, (ii) the NoOember draft, (iii) the supporting documentation?
If not, why not?
(4)
Please supply the names of all persons employed by Robert L.
Cloud Associates, either directly or by contract, who contributed to or participated in the preparation of (i) the October draf t and (ii) the November draft.
(A)
How many professionals are employed by Robert L.
Cloud Associates onf (i) a full time or (ii) part-time basis?
(B)
How many independent contractors are employed by Robert L. Cloud Associates?
(C)
What procedures have been' established to determine if any of Robert L.
Cloud Associates' employees or independent contractors (i) were employed by, (ii) had any contractual relationship with, or (iii) had any financial relationship with the utility, Westinghouse or any other company doing work on the Diablo Canyon reactor?
(D)
What procedures will be utilized to assure that the contractor and its employees who perform the required NRC audit are free from any real or apparent conflict of interest through prior association with the utility, Westinghouse, or any subcontractor or equipment supplier?
~
(5)
One of the copies of the October draft distributed to the utility is missing.
(A)
What attempts have been made to locate the missing copy which was designated as Copy 27 (B)
To whom was this copy sent?
(C)
What is the function performed by the person who received Copy 2?
4
\\
5 (D)
What is the relationship between the function performed by the recipient of Copy 2 and the scope of the November draft?
(E)
What attempts have been made to identify the recipients of the other four internally distributed documents supplied to the utility?
(F)
What efforts have been made to determine the extent of the internal distribution of the October. draft?
(G)
What attempts have been made to determine the extent of (i) any additional written comments by utility employees regarding the October draft and (ii) any verbal, telephone or other undocumented comrunications between Robert L. Cloud Associates' and the utility regarding the October draft?
(B)
What attempts have been made to produce the inserts mentioned in the October draf t on (1) pages 55 and 56, Copy 45
(" replace with attached text"), (ii) page 51,~ Copy 45
(" insert here"), (iii) page 33, Copy 43 (" insert B")?
(I)
In each of the incidents cited in subparagraph (B),
the text of the November draft is substantively different from the October draft.
In regard to changes made on pages 55 and 56, there were additional conclusions.
(1)
What actions have been undertaken to determine if such additions reflect the independent judgment of the author of the report?
(2)
What actions have been undertaken to determine if adequate documentation exists to support such additions?
(3)
In view of the fact that there were additional conclusions inserted into the November text, what efforts have been undertaken to determine if supplemental infortaation had been provided to form the basis for the changes?
(6)
As many of the adopted changes have the effect of making the report less critical of the utility, what assurance can the commission provide the subcommittee that the changes do not reflect a la~ck O
~
6 of objectivity in the analysis and report of Robert L. Cloud Associates?
(7)
On December 4, 1981 Pacific Gas and Electric Company submitted a proposed audit program, which includes the qualificationp of those firms which Pacific Gas & Electric proposes to conduct the program.
(A)
Given past behaviour on the part of Robert L.
Cloud Assoicates in regard to the submission to the utility of the.0ctcber draft, and in view of its apparent complicity with the licensee in making false statements to the Commission regarding the existence of the draft, under what circumstance would Robert L..
Cloud Associatee be' considered by the Commission to be an acceptable contractor, as proposed,by the utility?
(B)
In view of the questions surrounding the adequacy and independence of the Cloud report, and the questions raised concerning the Diablo quality assurance program as a whole, what actions will the Commission take to determine the safety of the plant as constructed?
(1)
What assurance can the Commission give to the Subcommittee that the proposed reanalysis program will systematically evaluate each major step from design through construction of this plant?
(2)
How is Unit 2 af fected by (i) the revelations of construction errors, and, (ii) the safety reanalysis proposals?
(C)
What is the purpose and scope of the Teledyne review?
(D)
If the proposed review by Robert L. Cloud Associates is found to be independent, what additional assurances regarding the deF1gn and construction of the plant will be obte.ined as a result of the Teledyne review?
z 7
(8)
What actions will be taken by.the Commission in 7
regard to the false statements made to NRC staff on November 3, 1981,.and associated events, to prevent recurrence?
Thank'you for your prompt response to these questions.
Sincerely, 44 f
Richard L. Ottinger Chairman RLO:mb 7
e o
e e
e 5
L 9
e l
l
- l l
l l
L_
j
I EDWARD J. MARKEY Wassessevom, 0.C.
2 cst $
'~ o.~= &""
um m.1m
~~~
.a -..
(011gl'C66 Of IIJC E.illitCD hlated
- C fl.*~.".T e caw ANo w--c==
(617) 113 2781 INTERICrA AND INSULAM house of Representatibes
^ " ^ ' " '
m,,, _,,. m
=i-m,,
..-m.
em$
'~L","t;"gll"g":'"
Elashington, D.C. 20515 om >~=
December 16, 1981 Nunzio J.
Palladino Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- [
~ "';c,;7,3
-......_,r; - J' "g g< 323 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20555 7 "hairman Palladino:
_ eve there is now sufficient ev[d$5c Ot3 pg IL an alarming failure by Robert Cloud A's36Mk h,in a I'n c.
and Pacific Gas and Electric Company to mainta properly impartial, objective, and independent audit of the questionable seismic support systems at the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant.<
I am shocked that what purports to the public to be a fair and independent audit of Diablo Canyon has in fact been apparently been compromised beyond the point of no return.
As you are aware, five copies of the draft Cloud report, "A Preliminary Report on the Design Interface Review of the Seismic Reverification Program,"
were provided by Mr. Robert Cloud on October 21 to PG&E officials.
Editorial comments on this draft were af made by PG&E.
Four of these copies are now in the
/
- ; I ? p,.'
~
possession of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
One f
copy appears to be missing.
m 0 TW On November 3, PG&E of ficials gave no indication to NRC staff that the utility had any prior access to the Cloud report.
On November 19, at an oversight hearing on Diablo Canyon and quality assurance in nuclear power plant construction held by the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, I asked you the following question:
"before the independent auditor returns the report to you, do you have any intention of consulting with or allowing PG&E to consult with the auditor or make editorial comments on that report?"
In your reply to my question, you indicated that you hoped PG&E would not interfere with the independence of the audit.
gD3 s
Instead of maintaining an arms length relationship, O
PG&E and Robert Cloud Associates, Inc. appear to have j
been hand in hand.
I believe it is time for a fresh start, and that the NRC should move at once to dispense with the present sham " independence."
The NRC should ask all parties to this proceeding to consult together,
~
Chairman Nunzio J.
Palladino December 16, 1981 Page 2 agree upon a list of acceptable firms, and submit that list to the Commission.
The NRC should then select a firm to conduct.the audit, based upon the following criteria.
The firm should be made up of competent professionals, who have had little or no connection with PG&E or its major contractors like Westinghouse, and who have done no prior work on Diablo Canyon.
All drafts as well as the final version should be equally available to all parties to the proceeding.
No editorial comments provided behind closed doors should be
- permitted.
Finally,'a public-hearing on the findings of the audit should be held prior to any action to return the operating license for-the reactor to the utility.
I believe that Governor Brown's suggestion that the audit include examination, from design conception through the construction of the plant "as built," of three specific safety systems (one electrical andetwo piping systems),
to make certain that the plant can in fact operate.cafely in the event of an earthqua' e.
With best wishes, Sincerely,
~
gr '
EJM/dh Edward J. Markey Chairman Subcommittee on Oversight and' Investigations O
e e
O
l EDWARD J. MARKEY l
m...
,,,,, m.,,,,
- n Congress of tIJc IMnitch htaf@,t
,0.* O.';.* ~,,"* ~
==v a = =- "
6i7)123 27at sviconomAwoinsutAn Mouse of Representatibeg
^ " ^ ' "
- Hiasbington, D.C. 20515 gg g 28 A8 :1L.... _,,.,
m...
.m.
om >=
- ==,=,ggg * = "'
81h($c..
December 2 sgMLCH Nunzio J.
Palladino Chairman 5 325 PaGD.f4UTIL MO '60 2 7-Nuclear Regulatory Commission rg0n5T il""1
- "S*"
1717 H Street, N.W.
"--kington, D.C.
20555
_;Taan Palladino:
eu
~
In an earlier letter, I indicated that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission should require that the independent c
' ca audit of the Diablo Canyon seismic protection systems y
"N/g be completely impartial and free of any taint of conflict of interest.
, gE R
I am now considering calling for a hearing on the DEC30E3 W matter of the Robert Cloud Associates, Inc. relationship
'];
with Pacific Gas and Electric concerning the " design interface review of the seismic reverification program" report.
Therefore, I am writing to indicate that it fg /
is imperative that the NRC obtain from Cloud Associates M
and PG&E all records of formal or informal communications between the two pertaining to this report.
Please send me copies of all requests for,such information that have been made to date or might bs'made in the future.
Please provide my office as soon as possible with the results of the NRC analysis of the differences between the October 21 Cloud preliminary draft and the November 18 draft; also, please provide my staff with a statement of the NRC staff position on whether statements made by a PG&E official on November 3 misrepresented the status of the preliminary Cloud report; also, please provide my staff with a description of the manner in which Cloud reports will be provided to the NRC.
With best wishes, Sincerely, o3 h\\
l O EJM/dh Edward J.
rkey Chairman Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations t
__.___________J
NTRM AN D. SHUMWAY f 2:s Lo=owonTH House omcE Bur.Louma 117w Dastarv. CALwonmA WassesMGTON,D C, 20$$$
D0L KE TF'*
cWI fj,'jpp CHRISTOPHER C.SEEGER n =c"E'",% : "^*= h=
ColIgregg of tIJc Ettittb fstalc6
^ ~ ~ " ^ ' " * " ' " '
w MERCHANT MARINE AND a
tJ43 Noorn EL Donaam, Rooes 5 3f)ouse of EeptegenEltitfiD 28 A8:13 n="caics
- * " " ' * ^ ' " * " ~ ' "
- t ELECT COMMITTEE ON AGING Elasfjington, D.C.
0
" ^ " a; '"'",,
BRAHCH December 23, 1981 E.b.T Mr. Nunzio J. Palladino, Jr-0.
I FAC..
Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Cormission
'N Washington, DC 20555 g
]
~
Dear Chairman Palladino-mcgit followedwithinterestthelicensingprocessoftheDiabloCan[yonBeca m,m nuclear power plant.
While I agree that the safe operation of\\the g" u n
/
plant is paramount, I have also been concerned with the seemingly.
/
endless delays that have plagued this project from the beginning.N h y Most recently I have been disturbed by events indicating that
\\Q questions have been raised regarding the " independence" of one of the consultants chosen to participate in the Diablo Canyon safety review. This appears to be the latest attempt by opponents to undermine this project.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company has proposed a very reasonable and comprehensive audit program by renowned experts.
In the absence of substantive documentation to the contrary, I would urge the Conmission to allow the audit to proceed, and not to bow to those who have dedicated themselves to preventing the operation of Diablo Canyon at any cost.
Sincereg,..
(
' : $Y
_)
NORMAN D. SHUMWAY Member of Congress cc: Commissioner John F. Ahearne Commissioner Peter A. Bradford A3 Commissioner Victor Gilinsky Commissioner Thomas M. Roberts lb
w;.sawassrom erres.
ME3 SERVICES COMMITTEC 1IOS Lemowomme Hauss Owner ihmtmeses O susceassetTrasse y
WJ.speassfoss. D C.
ROSIS UZMENT AN D MILtTAQv (101) 12.5-5811 NUCLEAM LYtTEM3 (h
ESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT O!!g rC 6 6 Of IIJC d tiitCD 6 titt $
HOUSC ADMINISTRATION Newrom7 BE.ACM, CA.
- 92660 Mouse of Representatihet8 utu 28 A9:13 om ni-ar~=uc^~roucv
= ~ 'nc
y*,*$",",^y"o y ROBERT E. BADHAM 437H OtsTnicT.CAUFORNI A,
CO M M ITTEC EEPUEU h EARCH r
TASK FORCE ON NATIONAL. DEFENSE December 22, 1981
"" -.. FAC[ del' - -
-23 p
Mr. Nunzio J.
Palladino, Jr.
Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Chairman Palladino:
I have followed with interest the proceedings before you dealing with, the licensing of the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant because of its importance to the power supply of California.
I have become disturbed by recent events which indicate that a campaign of ramors against expert consultants may be allowed to obscure the fact tha't the Pacific Gas and Electric Company has proposed a very reasonable and comprehensive inde-pendent audit program by renowned experts which should be adopted.
concerned that the Diablo Canyon plant operate in a safe I am, of course, I am also concerned that the power supply of California manner.
- However, not be endangered by needlessly and unreasonably protracting the licensing I hope that the Commission will consider the audit program solely process.
on its merits and not on.the basis of statements by those who are determined to prevent the operation of Diablo Canyon despite any efforts to-insure safe,
[fg "
reliable operations.
s v f7
}
Cord' y
asu tg -DECG0i930 - $
L i
h" j
ert
' am
\\
Member of Congress REB:kw
_a DSN S
/ 6
-_.A