ML20078B848

Answer to Joint Intervenors 830909 Suppl to Motion to Reopen Record on Const QA W/Newly Discovered Evidence.Tendered Documents from Pullman Power Products Significant.Hearing Should Be Reopened.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20078B848
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	09/21/1983
From:	Strumwasser M CALIFORNIA, STATE OF
To:	NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8309270277
Download: ML20078B848 (12)

Text

I ED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ffN C BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL MARD .

%3 SEP 26 P4:38 C FF'F -- :r In the Matter of ) :c;.. -Ti,q h

) Dochet Nos. 50-275..O.L.

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ) 50-323 0.L.

(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Project, )

Units 1 and 2) )

)

GOVERNOR DEUKMEJIAN' S RESPONSE TO JOINT INTERVENORS' SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO REOPEN ON CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE Governor George Deukmejian hereby replies to the September 9, 1983, filing of Joint Intervenors, which seeks to supplement their Motion to Reopen the Record on Construction Quality Assurance with newly discovered evidence consisting of an August-September 1977 audit of Pullman Power Products at- Diablo Canyon and the July 1977 proposal leading to that audit.

The tendered documents constitute significant new evidence on the question of construction quality assurance. The Governor supports the request that the record before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board on the motions to reopen the record be supplemented with the prof fered documents -- as well as any evidence PG&E may tender in response.

I THE QA IMPLICATIONS OF THE NEW EVIDENCE In a September 14, 1983, letter from Philip A. Crane, Jr., to the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal I

1 1.

8309270277 830921 DR ADOCK 05000 gh.h

Board, Pacific Gas and Electric Company urges that the newly revealed audit not be judged without reference to other documents PG&E intends to file to provide a " context" for the audit report.

PG&E is doubtless correct that a fuller development of the record i would permit a better assessment of the new evidence; whether the documents PG&E intends to are sufficient to provide such a full

" context" cannot be ascertained without full discovery of the underlying facts. Nevertheless, there is considerable irony in PG&E, which had urged parties and tribunals to judge the COA issue without this new evidence, now to warn of the dangers of a decision based on an incomplete record.

Whatever evidence PG&E may subsequently submit, certain conclusions can be drawn from the evidence tende' red by Joint Inttrvenors.

A. The Audit Report Undermines the Claim of PG&E Witnesses at tne CQA Mini-Hearing That Pullman had an Exemplary QA Program As noted by Joint Intervenors in their supplement (pp. 2-3), PG&E witnesses sought to contain the implications of the breakdowns in the QA program for the H. P. Foley Company by claiming that the other " major" contractor at Diablo Canyon, Pullman Power Products, had a superior performance record -- a 10 on a scale of 10 according to one witness. (CQ Tr., pp. 573-574, 605-606.)

The 1977 audit offers a quite different picture, one of an utterly deficient QA program. According to the report, the Pullman program failed to meet all but one of the 18 criteria of 2.

Appendix B.1! The deficiencies ranged from relatively minor shortcomings 2 / to such devastating findings as the absence of any contract requirement to comply with Appendix B ( Audit, p. 10),

inadequate directions to workers (id., p. 14), the falsification of records (id., p. 16), numerous welding problems (id. ,

pp. 21-26), and a general finding that "it appears that a corrective action system has not been operative" (id., p. 37).

B. The New Evidence Substantiates the Governor's Claim That the Recently Disclosed Foley Breakdown is Part of a Long History of QA Breakdowns in Welding at Diablo Canyon At the mini-hearing in July, the Governor introduced 23 exhibits showing deficiencies in the Pullman work much like those disclosed in the 1983 Foley work. (See Gov. Exhs. CQ-4, 7, 10-13, 15-25, 28-30, 32, 35, 37, 41, 54; see Post-Brief of Governor Deukmejian in Support of his Motion to Reopen the Record on Construction Quality Assurance, pp. 18-21.)

It may well be that the Pullman audit was ordered in response to the. large number of adverso inspection reports in 1976 and 1977 -- although the response, if it was that, was slow

1. Only Criterion VIII -- Identification and Control of Materials, Parts, and Components -- was found to be met. (Audit,

p. 19.)

2. Interestingly, one of the criteria for which the audit came closes to a finding of compliance was Criterion XVII --

Quality Assurance Records. This gives a new perspective to the finding by PG&E and the IDVP, in the attempt to resolve PNO-22A, that there were adequate records to verify construction. (CQ Tr., p. 377.) Indeed, record keeping may be one of the few aspects of QA for which Diablo has no history of repeated inadequacies.

1

3.  !

i f

in coming , since the problems dated back all the way to 1972 (see Gov. Exh. CQ-1). But it is clear that the corrective actions did not prove sufficient to quell the problems, since there were at least five additional adverse reports between 1978 and 1983 1

concerning Pullman work. (See Gov. Exhs. CQ-32, 35, 37, 41, 54.) l

' The new evidence thus further supports the Governor's contention that PG&E's QA program has failed to recognize the generic implications of identified QA failures sad failed to take aggressive corrective action. Not only do the five subsequent reports concerning post-1977 Pullman work demonstrate the inadequacy of the corrective action taken in 1977, but the recurrence of welding errors by Foley in the 1983 " big push,"

virtually identical to those of Pullman in the 1977 big push, demonstrates the general deficiency of PG&E's oversight of construction.

Once again, we acknowledge that we do not yet have the 4 benefit of PG&E's response, detailing the history of this episode.

However, we can identify some pertinent questions that should be asked about how PGEE dealt with this devastating audit report:

(1) Did PGEE respond forthrightly to the findings of deficiencies and require that its contractor do the same, or did PG&E respond to the findings with technical objections that failed to meet the substance of the findings and failed to address the deficiencies identified by NRC inspectors?

(2) Did the highest levels of PGEE management give this report the attention it deserves? What were their instructions to immediate managers?

4.

l (3) Did PG&E seek to bring its OA program and the implementation of that program up to the express standards of Appendix B --

or did it continue to rely on its own view of what a OA program ought to be?

(4) What action, if any, did this report lead PG&E to tEk2 with )

I respect to its other construction contractors?

(5) And, perhaps the most importantly, for those deficiencies in  !

the program found to have existed from 1971 to 1977, was the l l

corrective action limited to prospective correction of the OA program and a fix of the known construction defects, or was all the actual construction that took place under the deficient program verified and corrected?

II THE NEW EVIDENCE RENEWS OUESTIONS ABOUT PG&E'S CANDOR IN DEALING WITH THE NRC Perhaps the most troublesome fact about this remarkable new evidence is that it has gone undisclosed for six years, through two hearings on quality assurance.

The proposal from the auditor, Nuclear Services Corporation, bears the date July 28, 1977, and the audit itself recites that the work was conducted between August 22 and September 20, 1977, and transmitted to Pullman on October 24, 1977. The hearing on quality assurance before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board took place in October 1977. It is remarkable that during this same month, when an independent auditor was reporting that the work of one of its main construction contractors failed in nearly every respect to meet the 5.

l l

l requirements of the commission, PG&E felt no obligation to reveal the existence of the report to the licensing board, the parties, or the staff, and felt itself at liberty to have its witnesses testify precisely to the contrary.

Six years later PG&E was again testifying, this time before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board, on the adequacy of its QA program, and. still felt no obligation to disclose the existence of this report. Instead, the applicant's witnesses cited the Pullman work as evidence of the high quality of construction at Diablo. Indeed, one PG&E witness at July's mini-hearing, Mr. Etzler, is revealed by the new audit to have been involved in the 1977 review of Pullman work, in his capacity as lead mechanical engineer for PG&E. (See Audit, p. 5.) This raises new questions about his general participation on a panel so emphatically endorsing the Pullman work.

Earlier this year, at the April 14, 1983, oral argument before this board on the motions to reopen, counsel for PG&E belittled the motions on the claim that they lacked evidence of problems with construction quality assurance and asserted that there was no evidence of any such problems. (Tr., p. 201.)1[

PG&E's conduct in this matter is all the more remarkable given its history of similar problems before this commission. In 1982, the commission cited PG&E for making a material false

1. It should be understood that neither the Governor nor his counsel have any basis to suspect that counsel for PG&E knew of the existence of this report at the time he made those representations.

6.

l statement to the staff concerning the claimed independence of verification contractors. ' (Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plants), CLI-82-1 (1982) 15 NRC -- .)

The transcript of the January 25, 1982, commission deliberations shows the Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement expressing the view that the incident demonstrated "something basically wrong with the leadership" of the utility (Tr., p. 145) and the Chief of the NRC Regional Office relating the recurring -

impression that PG&E is "not always free and forthcoming with information" (Tr., p. 160).

Given PG&E's record in such matters, one would expect a special effort by the corporation to ensure candor and frankness in its dealings with the commission, its boards, its staff, and other parties.

III CONCLUSION This episode once again illustrates the wisdom of the test this commission has followed in assessing motions to reopen the record. Under Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Nuclear Power Station) ALAB-138 (1973) 6 AEC 520, 523-524, the motien to reopen must be granted if it raises a triable issue of fact concerning a significant safety issue. (See generally, Post-Hearing Brief of Governor Deukmejian in Support of his Motion to Reopen the Record on Construction Quality Assurance, pp. 1-4.) This standard recognizes that a moving party can scarcely be expected to produce evidence conclusive on an issue without the benefit of discovery.

7.

i l

PG&E has demonstrated how important this rule is. It has kept from the commission and the parties significant evidence tending to show breakdowns in construction quality assurance at Diablo Canyon -- while at the same time belittling the motions to reopen for their failure to adduce evidence of such a breakdown.

PG&E can now be expected to cull its own files to produce

, whatever evidence it can find that best serves its immediate needs. While it is eminently entitled to do so, it is now more clear than ever that this board cannot be sure it has an accurate picture of the evidence until the parties have had an opportunity to conduct discovery and to develop a full record on the issue.

The new evidence tendered by the Joint Intervenors makes it clearer than ever that this board cannot assume Diablo Canyon has been constructed in accordance with the commission's regulations until the record is reopened and a full hearing held.

DATED: September 21, 1983.

JOHN K. VAN DE KAMP, Attorney General of the State of California ANDREA Sf'ERIDAN ORDIN, Chief Assistant Attorney General MICHAEL J. STRUMWASSER, Special Counsel to the Attorney General PETER H. KAUFMAN, SUSAN L. DURBIN, Deputy Attorneys General By '

MI

[ IAEL J.

STR @ SSER Attorneys for Governor Deukmejian 3580 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90010 (213) 736-2102 8.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD

)

In the Matter of )

)

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-275 O.L.

) 50-323 0.L.

(Diablo Car. yon Nuclear Power )

Plant, Units 1 and 2) )

)

l CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this date I caused copies of l the foregoing GOVERNOR DEUKMEJIAN'S RESPONSE TO JOINT INTERVENORS' SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO REOPEN ON CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE served on the following by U.S. Mail, first class (except for those persons marked with an asterisk ("*"),

to whom the envelope was posted Express Mail), postage prepaid.

Hon. Nunzio Palladino, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H S treet, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Hon. Victor Gilinsky, Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H S treet, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Hon. Thomas Roberts, Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H S treet, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20555 1.

. . - _ = .. . . . - .

l l

Hon. James Asselstine, Commissioner

' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H S tree t , N .W.

! Washington, D.C. 20555 Hon. Frederick M. Bernthal, Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Hon. Thomas S. Noore, Chairman

• Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Hon. W. Reed Johnson

• Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Hon. John H. Buck

• Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 1

Judge John F. Wolf, Chairman

. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i

Washington, D.C. 20555 Judge Glenn O. Bright Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Judge Jerry R. Kline Atomic Saf ety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission j Washington, D.C. 20555 Harold Denton i Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Leonard Bickwit, Esq.

Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 2.

Lawrence Chandler, Esq.

• Henry J. McGurren, Esq.

Office of Executive Legal Director BETH 042 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washing ton, D.C. 20555 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washing ton, D.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Section Mrs. Elizabeth Apfelberg 1415 Cozadero San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Janice E. Kerr, Esq.

Public Utilities Commission 5246 State Building 350 McAllister Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Mrs. Raye Fleming 1920 Mattie Road Shell Beach, CA 93449 Mr. Frederick Eissler Scenic Shoreline Preservation Conf erence, Inc.

4623 More Mesa Drive Santa Barbara, CA 93105 Gordon Silver Sandra A. Silver 1760 Alisal Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Joel R. Reynolds, Esq.

Eric Havian, Esq.

John Phillips, Esq.

Center for Law in the Public Interest 10951 West Pico Boulevard, Third Floor Los Angeles, CA 90064 Bruce Norton, Esq.

• Norton, Burke, Berry & French t 2002 East Osborn l Phoenix, AZ 85064 Philip A. Crane, Jr. , Esq.

• Richard F. Locke, Esq. I Pacific Gas and Electric Company San Francisco, CA 94120 3.

.a w~

David S. Fleischaker, Esq.

P. O. Box 1178 Oklahoma City, OK 73101 Arthur C. Gehr, Esq.

Sndll & Wilmer 3100 Valley Bank Center Phoenix, AZ 85073 Mr. Richard B. Hubbard MHB Technical Associates 1723 Hamilton Avenue, Suite K San Jose, CA 95125 Mr. Carl Neiberger Telegram Tribune P. O. Box 112 San Luis Obispo, CA 93402 i Virginia and Gordon Bruno Pecho Ranch .

i P.O. Box 6289 '

Los Osos, CA 93402 Nancy Culver 192 Luneta -

San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Maurice Axelrad, Esq.

• Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, & Axelrad 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, r.C. 20036 DATED: September 21, 1983 JOHN K. VAN DE KAMP, Attorney General of the State of California ANDREA SHERIDAN ORDIN, Chief Assistant Attorney General MICHAEL J. STRUMWASSER, Special Counsel to the Attorney General SUSAN L. DURBIN, PETER H. KAUFMAN, Deputy Attorneys General By 1

'/ 'M IfKEL J. STRUMWASSER

- Attorneys for Governor George Deukmejian 3580 Wilshire Boulevard l Suite 800 Los Angeles, California 90010 (213) 736-2105 4.