ML20054A838
| ML20054A838 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 03/01/1982 |
| From: | Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Ottinger R HOUSE OF REP., ENERGY & COMMERCE |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8204160191 | |
| Download: ML20054A838 (2) | |
Text
J y
j#*N kg UNITED STATES e %.
k NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
j j
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 e
j March 1, 1982 CHAIRMAN
~
S gsCEBNU 9
The Honorable Richard L. Ottinger b
h\\ gg gj981P' h
[hy#"
Chairman
~
M Subcommittee on Energy Conservation 9,
W
//
and Power Committee on Energy and Commerce q,
United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C.
20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Your letter of December 18, 1981 posed several questions regarding the independence and integrity of the Diablo Canyon Unit 1 seismic reverification program being conducted by R.
L. Cloud Associates, Inc. (RLCA).
Pacific Gas and Electric has nom nated RLCA as its primary auditor in i
Company (PG&E) conjunction with a pr plan proposed on December 4, 1981.
The NRC is continuinq
, review of the PG&E proposals, fol-lowing provision for coinments by Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr.
and Joint Intervenors, participants in the Diablo Canyon li-censing proceeding.
The NRC has not yet decided whether the program meets the terms of the order issued to PG&E on Novem-ber 19, 1981.
Nor have we made a decision on the acceptability of RLCA as primary auditor.
Meanwhile, PG&E is proceeding at its own risk to implement the proposed plan subject to NRC observation in the field.
NRC has completed a two phase investigation into the circum-stances surrounding the development of three drafts of the RLCA report.
The drafts were reviewed and commented upon by PG&E prior to completion of the final version that was submitted l
to NRC.
Phase I of the investigation dealt with facts re-garding possible misstatements concerning PG&E review of the RLCA proposal which were made by officials of PG&E and RLCA at a public meeting on November 3, 1981.
Phase II included an assessment of the impact of the PG&E review on the report submitted to the NRC by RLCA.
On February 10, 1982, the Commission announced its determination that a material false statement had been committed by represen-tatives of PG&E in violation of section 186a of the Atomic J
Energy Act, as amended.
The Commission directed the NRC staff 8204160191 8203o1 PDR ADOCK 05000275 U
l 2
i 1
to issue a notice of violation and to meet with PG&E officials to discuss methods of improving lines of communication within PG&E and between PG&E and the NRC.
The Notice of Violation was issued on February 11.
The Commission took no action re-garding PG&E's nomination of RLCA as primary auditor in its seismic reverification program.
t I trust that many of the concerns expressed in your questions have been fully resolved by the Phase I and II Reports, Com-mission Statement, and Notice of Violations, all of which have been provided to you, and my February 1, 1982 letter.
Answers i
to the remainder of your questions must await a Commission de-cision on the acceptability of RLCA as an independent contractor and, separately, PG&E's proposed seismic reverification program.
The NRC staff has been meeting with representatives of PG&E, Governor Brown, and Joint Intervenors to discuss these proposals.
l The Commission will meet again to discuss this matter in the near future.
We will, of course, provide you copies of any further Commission decisions in this r~ gard.
Sincerely, J
Nunzio J.
Palladino cc:
Representative Carlos J. Moorhead i
l l
l l
.~
i
~, _.-
nomeome#1"o*3b~rxuo..
.. - w.
em...
mos ou)u m.
C.Z. %, ;".;CJ~~"."#.'.t "*.7."'a'" ". "'-
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES gg y
.w.
,e egvu e
rE e SUBCOMMITTEE oN ENERGY CONSERVATION Ifs.2.s. us,e,n.
E.""T,.E.". ",0; sx u.a.
ano.
r. n.
AND POWER "J.'.'IE."lUT cW O."w'ln, or TMt
- "4'@,g'" " *-
COMMITTEE oN ENERGY AND COMMERCE "0,"","O "'-
g
- /o *J'.,'.J,"'.O '",e" WASHINGTON. D.C.
20515 ta
- e. >
December 18, 1981
....c,
.c.o..
The Honorable Nunzio Palladino Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 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 ct Diablo Canyon Unit I following the issuance by the Commission of a low power licenae.
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 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 prior 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 issuance 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 distributed only when it was complete.
These statements were issued amidst assurances to the Commission of its independence.
In view of the contractor's apparent association with the utility involving the submission of a draft of its report for 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 p
l bl,u2l2205LS QL@
y'P h p
~ ~ ~
\\
~ ~ _
THIS STATIONCRY PRINTED ON PAPCR M ADC WITH RCCYCLCD FIDCHS
2 utility and the contractor to locate all the copies of the 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 determining the independence of any future audit.
The copies of the October draft containing the utility's comments, and the differe'nces in the October draft and the November draft raise a number of disturbing questions.
As the Commission has not yet responded to our letter of November 13, I ask 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 of responsibility.
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?
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"?
i I
(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?
1
~
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 November 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 on (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?
l
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 communications between Robert L.
Cloud Associates and the utility regarding the October draft?
(H)
What attempts have been made to produce the inserts mentioned in the October draf t on (1) pages 55 and 56, copy #5
(" replace with attached text"), (ii) page 51, Copy #5
(" insert here"), (iii) page 33, Copy #3 (" insert B")?
(I)
In each of the incidents cited in subparagraph (H),
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 information had been provided to form the basis for the changes?
(6)
As man;' 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 lack
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 qualifications 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 October 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 Associates 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 quections 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 affected 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 design and construction of the plant will be obtained as a result of the Teledyne review?
s 7
(8)
What actions will be taken by the Commission in I
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, Richard L. Ottinger l
Chairman i
RLO:mb i
l i
l l
--