ML20041F850
| ML20041F850 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon, Midland, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 03/08/1982 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Albosta D HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20041F851 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, ISSUANCES-OM, NUDOCS 8203170480 | |
| Download: ML20041F850 (2) | |
Text
-
4
~
9.W
.O Tl FAC..
.2 x-sn DOCKET NUMBER
,, 3 1 Q L/d M
'82 FM -9 A9 12 PROD. & UTIL FAC.
.*yg--g M.AR g 1982 The Honorable Don Albosta C
,7, g
"~
United States House or Representatives Wasnington, D.C.
20515 HEem.m 1
X m
L\\
R16Ja Q} rad;9 arc.g ej
Dear Congress;aan Albosta:
This is in response to your letter of February 2,1982, to Chairuh,nJalla'dM6diw" f
regarding the independent aucit of the Didolo Canyon luclear Powerviant g
(DCr.PP) of the Pacific Gas and Electric Coapany (PGsE).
~
The independent audit re'sulted from the discovery of an error in the seistaic design of equipment ano piping in the containuent annulus of the DCNPP Unit 1.
The design error was detecteo in late September lW1 by PGaE and was reported by PG4E to the tal!C. Based upon an inspection performed by our Region V Office and the discovery of additional design errors, the Comission issued an Oraer on Noveaber 19, 1981, which suspended the DCuPP Unit 1 operating license that authorized fuel loading and low power operations (i.e., operations below 5t.
of full power level). The Connission Order also required PGM. to conduct an independent design review for all seismic service-related contracts that were in effect prior to Jun's 1978 (Enclosure 1). In addition, the Director of the NRC Office of Huclear Reactor Regelation (hRR) issued on Hovenber 19, 1981, a letter to PuhE requesting that further independent design reviews be conducted prior to the issuance of an operating license authorizing operation of DChPP Unit 1 above 57, of full power (Enclosure 2).
In a subuittal dated Deceinber 4,1981, P6&E provided its proposed plan for the seis::ite design verification program in response to the Co:miission Order, including the technical qualificationi, of the organizations and inoividuals to conouct the independent design review (Enclosure 3).
The issue of independence of the proposed organizations and individuals to perform the design verification program has beets a major factor in our oeliberations regarding this program. In our response to a letter from Congressmen Dingell I
and Ottinger, Chairuan Palladino set forth the specific factors that will De considered to determine the independence and technical qualitications of the organizations and individuals (Enclosures 4 and S respectively).
Since the issue of independence is of such i;;iportance, an haC investigation has been conoucted of the circurastances surrounding the development of a pre 11ainary report prepared by the proposed indepencent aucitor but cat.cented y~
on by PbaE prior to submittal of the report to the f.nc.
This investig'ation l
resulted in a Comission Statement and Notice of Violation (Enclosures 6 and 7 respectively).
D$
s i.
/
f 8203170480 820308 PDR ADOCK 05000275 U
PDR 3g
-r,.-.-,,-.p.
IMC 1I
~
2 Regarding the costs for the independent audit, I can only provide you with some very preliminary estimates.
I do.not expect that the program can be coupleted before the end of Hay of this year and it could extend much longer. The independent review organization contracted by PGSE has so far spent approximately 10,000 professional man-hours on the project. I expect that a similar effort has been devoted by PG&E.
In adoition, other parties to the Diablo Canyon proceedings are spending time and resources in their participation.
In summary, I do not think that the total verification progran can be completed with less than
)
20 to 30 man-years of effort by the utility and its contractors.
,i With respect to the potential and expected benefits of the independent design verification program, we expect that certain changes to the design and as-built structures, systems and components of the Diaolo Canyon Unit I will be required and will be made. However, far greater benefit will be the added assurance that the plant has been properly designed and built, thereby further ensuring that the operation of the plant will pose no undue risk to the public.
Sincerely, GUtG WilliamL Ditchi l
William J. Dircks, Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
1.
Commission Order, dtd. 11/19/81 2.
hRR ltr. to PG&E, dtd. 11/19/81 3.
PG8E. response of 12/4/81 to Commission Order 4.
Ltr. frm. Concressmen Dingell & Ottinger, dtd. 11/13/81 to Chairman Palladino 5.
Chairman Palladino response to Dingell 5 Ottinger ltr.
dtd. 2/1/82 6.
Commission Statement, dtd. 2/10/82 7.
I&E ltr. to PG&E (Hotice of Violation), dtd. 2/11/82 l
l