ML20132A590
| ML20132A590 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 11/13/1981 |
| From: | Dingell J HOUSE OF REP., ENERGY & COMMERCE |
| To: | Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16340C288 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8112180187 | |
| Download: ML20132A590 (7) | |
Text
._ _ - _ _ _ _ - _
-e ge.
e.r w.sw j
amesi : ecu.tecm c m man
. amo.st. e7e.ase, m.s.
u.wma S m.w-n. s.
l a.aaes v.m=o 6m mw o a vn =sa, m.v.
O"A '.'w*Nian,U'
,'." "v 7 4 N.h.%ClistCINCMC$tildbts w
rnw m. e vi.amo n. u m.ui n.a.
"'".M ","" '",vr.
'u"m" '=w =s..". *.*a, 5.^ "'.
COUUnittte CR 6Detgp Anh CCidtnttti A
ue=
i v.=u
.us.s.v.c.
.w.i.ua.s.
Reen 2ti5. 6rbitra rwhc et,fice secanc.
ene m.an um
- u.
a.usam
.e
. 8%ss.a.s a.mL.i, em.
- M4.Tna. CAL.#.
wa4.aa su. v saw a G.tsh/ ' (.C3 Do.C.
204" o'"
e s. psas r a.an=as 4. Sm
.U
. ou..m.
vuom.- 4.v
- s. wwa
.c.m a &.rerTk g.ee gew g T34 Pm
.m.
- n.
m.
. m er...%.
w+c.u..mA =i. m m,.
NovemberT13 1981
=.
. u.
4.
e.assu.me.au.tWh.g. e,6.
4-u v ui w,:=.x6==e i.4. -
w msEJW te. hu(4 1TE.
I
_,..,,,,,;,m.,
' LESIGEMED ORIGIHLL
=,
sw
- ==
i' Dertified.Ds._ _.
f.
%w es-x.,.,'
h-Konorable Nunzio J. Palladino 4 m,,
- 'Cha.irman 3$
LS. Nuclear Regulatory Co=ission P,,..
Washington, D.C.
20555 y'
..s
Dear Mr. Chairman:
.e.el.
p
. In his 4pril 9,.1981 testimony before. the !!ouse 'Ihterior and Insular w-T3 Affairs Subco=ittee ou En. w and Envirotmritf Er. Malcolm Furbush.a i
d 's Senior Vice President and Gencrcl Counsel. for.The. Pacific Cas and Electric
.. b a Co=pany stated 'that the Diablo Canyon Uniti, nuclear power reactor was "the
$ E E..
most. thoroughly studied nuclear powerpirr,.c. n!.in the. history of the vo'rld."
%,
- Q;,
In view of this record, the recent seristi.ri. disclosures 'of inerensingly
~
dyjy
,.acrious cm.fety-related scismic design ean(conat.ruction errors at this p mc '
reactor raise fundamental questione aboutat$e; yt,ifi;ty's quality assurance 5. *.
- pretram. Moreover, the f act that the fi'rhti ener, relating to the supports f$5.
,for..the pipin;; in the reactor's cooli4 eye-tem p van-dine. overed just one day W tc af ter the Comission issued a low-power. te#.t hemure, raises serious
' E..d.
' ' questions about the adequacy of the Co=isyidu's' review and licensing
. d 'g..
Jp'ractices. The' subsequent discovery c>f;.; add'itionni saf ety-related errore.
. escribed se potentially more significent 'thdn the initial error ' elevate
.'d.he problem from an isolated incident to a pattern of. behavior on the part
- 0
, n. a.c:.
t
.Seu
- yQ.
?of the licensee "vhich is f ar below t,hkfelhddrd which:is. cr.pected by the
] K
1public or which should be accepted by; th'ejcognissitrn..As a result, the ve.rur r"izsua raised by these. discoveries it trdda;f%riacd f5 rom a. simple. matter T.W ~ ']c4' cerning the licensec's quality assura dsj ptog'ri:i.to a r.ajor and u
n
+cu
,. :funda. mental matter concerning the CocminsicrDa Wi1.ity hud villingnens to
$ @3"ff." '.i.','eps.bteits' the public's health and saf tjys;L'T
?,e.ffectively reguicte the nuclear indudEUjih.?a r.anner which adequ.ately 4
sa w e.o a.
m a.....
76$- F.
,O-
"ne. belated disclosures of purpod(difNino'rNihoM cach of then a t*U "surpri'se to the licensing at,ency, shovC,thet/.the EEC cr.n, end.dc.es license a
', l y.
' ' plant ba s e d, to a gr ea t c.r.t ent, on:4 '(Hi'ifioh'eble 'rcliance on the good-f aith eo
^
' efforts of the applicant. Althoughl thy,(sitisit'e7sdiousuees.of the recently d.. c*
- mdiscoVered. crrors s.nd the implication. Aft:;6.tich?ei rcre en the avdrni cafety'
'QQ o! the reactor 'are yet to he' determincQLh'iJ;siriousnen of the errors is v
irrelevs.st to tbc fundamental insuco.rm.eed(by.,thle'iz'j' discovery.
These are M ejo$ d.t6 ddinister a quality et.mp.:. c.ghp, question of the utility's ability"f St. rdprogre.m which ensures that thh"Mt%r Vill'ba Ansigned., constructed Ucad ' operated' in conformity vith app 1'i'c1NR.rqtpMions. More 'importcutly,
?
...~quertions are. raised as to the Gou=iwlon'#sbilit.y;to -d.etect deficiencies
... u.n
.e....
.'n.
i.I....
h121801878111g4
'"WU mt ! m.. n..
.c.;-~
ADOCK 05000275
- y,y;g,g. y._.,,.
l CF
_x'..~Wm
N.. '
D
. we.
.c. -
.. n
. u.
(
"::::.. ::.;;*;;y 1.:
9 ;..,-
a.
/
p.on.1.Sqnsio J. Palladino
,}'d.,.M/5/,72/l.'ll.[~j, h,,
.Movesber 13, 19al
.,;.;;,.g,g.....,,,.
l :-
f.
.Tage 2
' ; io ;.s; ii. ii. '-
?
.'d...O, ;.. ' * *,~. b.,'.
'f..(o($..'(. (.(,@..f. :'i'ty..M..%.;W.~ ~. :
.=.
s 1
m
- ;< of:..w;.r.ry:rNr:T.v-: * *.*
..m nmn. u.. m, ; n : : : : :.'..
mWWHmn"
- ~.
$.nItbe st ility's progran cud to tespon,d-to.:sec6....f.icie..ncies zn a ur.naer c?-
- de
~. L 'which dissuades repetition and whidh*.TiW4.Esi pobrit~ confidence in tha.,
... regulator,'s vigor. We regret to iayfthM a;is,of the evidence
"' ' presented.to date, the response to boE8.h"'dh"th@Wdlbs second issue is Y$ h't,
h
":;f.;m.n,W.a,.,,4c.-
it
%, s'5dlibes.rtening.
..w
. For a nu=ber of reasons, the~rignlN-nisiec.of tbe S..blo Canyon 1
.... vy -.
i iFgs t,itMg t iA 'th'e.. fir s t
',. situation is greater than the incidentjQe;}f(idnepl5nW pff,appointpent ieali test of the Coc=istion's regulat6ieffpeMdr Ms. Chairman and Mr. Roberts ' as Comiss'ionar.i. We Mairef to say. that we
...g,, ', derive little comfort from the Coc:=ig,ig'p.jgegu.ipcenitloithg ytility's
'-J <-
offsr to voluntarily delay exercis'ing'EtW.Wth'dfit.yYr'aht6dito ir bf its "
c-
, license and to contract for the.perf'cEdQh aisAdit?of'other seiznic
,, f ' *6af-ety"syate=s. - The Co=:nission'a.cojhnydnrg1}an e upon. the utility's good
. iidentions to' conduct this a'udit see=e.'.$imiy,4.c.s.yiscet ci.netc the issue-cis f N.e
- o. :i,v. e.a~nd ' caPacit'7 to
..r. ai. sed concerns the ade%nacy of i.E. s.M..i.'.M..,itin.4.n&p.'ntir.o].,..The f ailure k.
monitor itself and those under its;d W ct
' bets the EC and th'e utility to. dis'c[oE6?j'tMi,.e rots..over a
- period of atleast. four
't.gency or the utility now performs or.'yhnp; acts to"htvel.perferned h..has "be'en pointed out "it is like asking thEpysgrelybbcnde: ype ' mistake and the
'cpeople who didn't f.ind it before',to. tMg?MlMhMMpe-t.ight'have. gene vrong."1 Any real or apperent cer?r?dt%F.atlWYir blicly perceived vill i
undermine the ' at te=pt to restore publ.i'dM6dfyfknee'. ity the safety of the iplant and the ability of the utility l Add;';'.M 4?oisicolon.to.provi.de for the p:blic safety.
- :siEU.L.... ' ; ~ M F '.:....
u: n,s m,;,..n L
,o m
s. :.......
A.second f actor which magnified t'bede-ighifiedn' e' br the events-at e
&blo Canyon concerns the public' contr6Ms7Et<' desist' rations which have
~ surrounded the licensing of this bdbob.".TM;.MsMi;ddie of these errors bat not.only resuscitated the prot.esLMCWofyinAint.cd. the position of those who have argued that the react.w.'c.isf.dsfq:.anci..veited these. opponents
.vith a degree of credibility that vas,previously,.u,nattsint@le.. Moreover,
, the credibility of the protestors..has,;been, gained.at.Miq~. expense of the Co=. ission.which appears incapable oE.~:a..l.4..c'6v,'eri.,ng,tha. t th.e wron.g blueprints ytre'need. 2.n constructz.ng a portion of,thc~9pluent,7 cud; gree,ts such. --
s.
s-c
- discoveries with apparent nonchalance.
The f ailure of the Co=ission.tejiltye[r' revoke, suopend, or minically, s
' ~
~ dd' restrictive amendments, to the ensting.1.qv tover tent. license in epite 4
of disclosures of.cerors of apparentti.lnercan.ing. sign.i_ fica.uce s. trains the
-fcith of all but those most devoted - to urbu-linfVis.t.he Cc=ission's cc W tsent to a vigorous and independent.repflatcry regiide'. ' The ice =ission s position in this inntance' is undernised V th6-domissieu i
' staff's public concession that thij"dlW,4,h~rg vcre jf s.ufNeient egnitude to have prevented the issuance of.the!"lic~ enact origindly.. The.Conmission's f ailure to initiate fornal action.againct. the criating Tic 6nse becomen
. l l y
....w..,
-:w..
i
. ~ - -
l 1., " Questions at Diablo Canyon '.' Sanjos e Meret ry_ hvo ;- Oct, 28, ic61.
.. n
~ -
,_~_ - _
........s :. r :
-. (,,.
Hon..Nunzlo J. Palladino
' ! ' ' T
',.. '. ". ~. '. Jl
- i..
yovember 13, 1981 y,,, 3,
....:.:...' \\,.,-
.,J.?........... c..,. a.W.-l
-l l'
. a..... :. r..v....... u m -: T '" ~
i
- indefensible when it -is admitted.that..the.licente.shony not. hav.e been
~
. issued in the fitse place.
..'l.'.1
- s *;..f,
..m..
. ; p.
[,
The third and perhapo most sig'ulf'i. eat @f.f5ctdi'.EchfAN the Commission's performance regarding Diab,}o, Ca.n.yo,q,conce.rns provisions in the 3
- cNuciaar ltegulatory Comission's. authorization bill vhiWydtc the
~
Cos:sission with the authority to. is'u'e' 'temporar.y, opst& ting" licens es in -
' advance of completion of any hearing. required.hy.Se'ctro'nP189 'htid 192 of the Atonic Energy Act. Provisions in th'e' recentif passieOpbi.c. v.e'reion of the' C
bill allow a tenporary operat.ing license be.iss.ued:whW.R1 the non-bearing
' provisions of the Act are met - when M5"{e'a[ctor is in cocpliance with all
'the rules and regulations of the Commission. The Con::dosion's failure to
. -insist 'that an existing licensee ed=' ply %1th these.1?cNkEenents raises
"'" ~ ':? serious questions as to whether"th'e cocaission is^chWpeterit to ad=inister
- this new authority in a responsible manner'vibh the degree of protection intended by its sponsors. Moreover, in. view of its phat 'p'erformance, the deference.given the. utility in this. innt.uce by e-1-Idsing' it to continue to
~
possess a license which should not haVe"Sese iseded'li bbe first instance and by relying upon infomal and est,ra4egal.agreremurscM11coge the presta:ption that the exercise of excliiibfeWdeVal' ' uthority,in' this area is a
'adegnste to protect public health's6' " safety.
d The final factor raised by the Dia3Io'Cinybn situation regardt the Cec 21ssion's overal. concern for q'uality" ass'urance. I'i.'s, poke.sman fe r PG4I is quoted.in the Vall treet Journal as.acknowledgins that "we had a breakdown
.in our quality assurance." Diablo Canyon however, is not the only reactor ta have experienced such probic=s'rsc'enEl'y, 'Similar situations hav.
- occurred at WPPS Unit 2, Midland M2f Marble, Eil).t.,Zire.er 'and So. Teras Project z.
Clearly, there has h an a major breakdm in the Co==ission's overan system of quality controe, t's"is~ evidenced oy re' actors in different parts of the country facing simiD r p' rob'len." ' The' 'chths 'pkogram needs to s
d
.be. reviewed.and strengthened.
~
In regard to the specific probled ahtWDi'cbTo Canyon power reactor, we are advised that 'at a November 9.,~1981, briefing,.both NRC staff and Coxxierioners recognized the need for annindependent audit and a cocnlete reverification of cil seismic-relat'ed"a'c't'Ivities perfo::m_e_d by,subcontracters and the quality control progrcm.
In Vi'eF6f'this Coc=itt.c.e 's concern raised by the Diablo disciocures, you arc re, quested to sugply the following information:
1.
Plecse provide, prior to. the issuance of the-50.54(f) let'ter, the definition of the ter=a (i) " independent," (ii) "co=petent," (iii)
' " integrity," and (iv) " complete."~
~
2.
Please' provide the criteria. to be used in, assuring that the
. proposed audit vill be " independent..".
.m.,
l Y
,,,...L s
-Eon.5unzioJ.Palladino November 13, 1981 P*E* 4
- ,.i L.,
In view of the licee. ace's p' st performance, and that of its 3.
a
. subcontractors.: what procedures vill be utilized to ' ensure that there are no
~
. cot.flicts-of-intercats in the pctfory.asc'c of any required. audits? ~
s' 1
t i
i 4.
What plans does the NRC have to ensure that a si: diar situation will not arise at other plants now.under construction 7 What, if any, additional quality control procedures does the -NRC propose to institute in its inspection programt f
Sincerely.
ohn D. Dingell, Chai n
Richard L. Ottinger, Chaixman i
Committee ~on Energy & Commerce.t b
i i
.Su oom ttee on Energy Conservat on
& Power e
g e
G
....4 a
T g...
- ** I.%
s i
Dear Congressmen:
This is in response to your November 13, 1981 letter which expressed your concern over the implications of the recent seismic design errors detected at the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant.
I share your concern and can assure you that the implications of these errors have been and will be thoughtfully.
considered by the Commission.
s The timing of the detection of these errors, so soon af ter authorization for low-power operation, was indeed unfortunate and it is quite understandable that the Congress' ano the public's perception of our licensing process has been adversely affected.
Had this information been known to the Comission on or prior to September 22, 1981, the facility license would not have been issued until the questions raised by these disclosures had been resolved.
Based on staff review anc Commission consideration of these design errors, the Commission on November 19, 1981 suspended PG&E's license to load fuel and conouct tests at up to 5's of ratec power pending satisfactory completion of certain actions ordered by the Commission (CLI-81-30 enclosed). These actions include 1.
The conduct of an incependent design review program of all safety-related activities performed prior to June 1,1978 under all seismic-related service contracts used in the design of saf ety-related structures, syrtems and components.
2.
A technical report that fully assesses the basic cause of all design errors identified by this program, the significance of the errors found and their impact on facility design.
u,..
,DESIGNATID ORIGINAll h
certified By _
%Q_g l v
y
$hbk%h
+
, 3.
PG&E's conclusions of the effectiveness of the dt; e verification program in assuring the adequacy of facility design.
4.
A schedule for completing any modifications to the facility that are required as a result of the design verification program.
In addition, the Commission further ordered the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) to provide for Commission review and approval.
1.
A description and discussion of the corporate qualifications of the company or companies that PG&E would propose to carry out the independent design verification program, including information that demonstrates the independence of these companies.
2.
A detailed program plan for conducting the oesign verification program, s
In recognition of the need to assure the credibility of the design verif'ication program, the Commission will decide whether the companies proposed by PG&E are qualified to conduct this program after providing the Governor of California and Joint Intervenors in the pending operating license proceeding 15 days for comment. Also, the Commission will decide on the acceptability of the plan proposed by PG&E to conduct the program, af ter providing the Governor of California and the Joint Intervenors in the pending operating license proceeding 15 days for comment.
W
i 3"
i Prior to authorization to proceea with fuel loaaing, the NxC must be satisfied with the results of the. seismic design verification program referred to in paragraph 1, and with any plant moaification resulting from that program that may be necessary prior to fuel loading. The NRC may impose additional requirements prior to fuel loading necessary to protect health ana safety based upon its j
review of the program or any of the information provided by PG&E pursuant to paragraph 4.
This may include some or all of tne requirements specified in the letter to PG&E, dated November 19, 1981.
Responses to each of tne four questions in your letter are enclosed in (Enclosure 2).
'I assure you that our decision to permit PG&E to proceea with fual loading will not be made until all the actions contained in the Commission's November 19, 1981 Order are fully satisfiec.
Sincerely, kunzio J. Palladino Chairman
Enclosures:
1.
CL1-61-30 dated November 19, 1961 2.
Responses to Questions in November 13, 1981 Letter l
i e
4
.