ML20210U528
| ML20210U528 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 01/20/1984 |
| From: | Fay E NRC OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS (OCA) |
| To: | Gilinsky, Palladino, Roberts NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20210U520 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-86-197 NUDOCS 8610100061 | |
| Download: ML20210U528 (1) | |
Text
'
/-
v '%g 4-3 UNITED STATES
-['
[..,- f,.
, g
- I i
,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,$.,,_.*'.r WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
{,.
3 s 'y a
n
.r : I - /:
'%.T"'
+o#
January 20, 1984 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Chairman Palladino Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine
/
Commissioner Bernthal FROM:
Edward S. Fay, Ac g
re tor Office of Congres iona A fairs
SUBJECT:
FINAL TESTIMONY FOR UDAL'L HEARING ON DIABLO CANYON Attached is a copy of the final testimony for the Diablo '
Canyon hearing on Tuesday, January 24.
We plan to deliver this testimony to the Subcommittee Staff at Noon, Monday, January 23, 1984.
Attachment:
As stated cc:
-!c ' a ci!.t.s:.-
e
3 3.'l f,j Ci 8610100061 860930 PDR FOIA HOLMES86-197 PDR
=... _.......
e i
~
TESTIMONY 0F NUNZIO J. PALLADINO CHAIRMAN U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON i
DIABLO CANYON LICENSING CONCERNS l
JANUARY 24, 1984 0
$QQ '
r N
i (REVISED 1/20/84 5: 00 P.M.)
i i
e 6
' - ~
, _. - -. -... : ' ~ ~ ~.. :. 1, ;..
L. - _ -_,.- - 2. : _,_
~-
- -~- - ~-. ~
2-(REVISED 1/20/84 5:00 PM)
'DIABLO cat.YOH TESTfv0NV l
f1R. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE, WE AGAIN APPRECI ATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS WITH YOU THE ISSUES AND CONCERNS
'N REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE LICENSING PROCESS FOR THE DIABLO
"~
CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, WE LAST DISCUSSED THESE MATTERS WITH YOU NEARLY A YEAR AGO ON MARCH 8, 1983.
MR CHAIRMAN, IN YOUR i
LETTER TO.ME OF DECEMBER 20 0F LAST YEAR YOU IDENTIFIED AS YOUR PARTICULAR CONCERN "THE STATUS OF THE LICENSING PROCESS AND THE RESULTS OF THE NRC'S REVIEW OF THE DIABLO CANYON DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION."
FIRST, I WILL DISCUSS THE STATUS OF THE DESIGN,
VERIFICATION EFFORT; SECONDLY, THE ONGOING HEARING PROCESS; AND THIRDLY, THE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED IN RECENT MONTHS.
THE COMMISSION STAFF HAS MADE CONSIDERABLE PROGRESS IN ADDRESSING AND RESOLVING THE QUESTIONS ASSOCIATED j
WITH DIABLO CANYON.
I WOULD LIKE TO ADD, HOWEVER, THAT MANY OF THESE QUESTIONS ARE STILL BEFORE EITHER THE COMMISSION OR THE I
NRC'S APPEAL BOARD FOR DECISION.
i DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM i
THE DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM FOR DIABLO CANYON UNIT 1 HAS ESSENTIALLY BEEN COMPLETED.
THE PROGRAM WAS ORDERED BY THE COMMISSION IN NOVEMBER OF 1981 WHEN WE SUSPENDED THE LOW POWER LICENSE FOR UNIT 1.
IT INCLUDED THE VERIFICATION OF THE SEISMIC DESIGN, REFERRED TO AS PHASE I, AND THE NON-SEISMIC DESIGN, REFERRED TO AS PHASE II.
IT CONSISTED OF TWO COMPLEMENTARY e
d
- El'.******"J'
'Z* *_ C.7 ~7.,._ _ _ _ _._ _11 _._.,. __ _ _ *,.1_.. _ _._
'~^._,,___..__,__..._,,_.,,__i*,.__
_,_.. ? *~. ** *ii.*l.
..j_
(REVIScD./20/84 SiOO PM)
...DII.ELC CANYOU TESTIMONY J
t EFFORTS:
THE INDEPENDENT DESIGN VERIFICATION EFFORT, CALLED IDVP, WHICH WAS PERFORMED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR (TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES), AND THE INTERNAL TECHNICAL PROGRAM, CALLED THE ITP, WHICH WAS PERFORMED BY PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE BECHTEL CORPORATION UNDER THE DIABLO CANYON PROJECT.
4 !
THE IDVP EFFORT, CONSISTED OF SEISMIC DESIGN VERIFICATION IN SELECTED AREAS AND NON-SEISMIC DESIGN VERIFICATION OF THREE MAJOR SAFETY-RELATED SYSTEMS.
THE IDVP ALSO PERFORMED AN AUDIT OF DESIGN QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAMS AND THEIR IMPLEMENTATION.
THE PGaE EFFORT INCLUDED A VERIFICATION OF THE SEISMIC DESIGN OF ALL.
l SAFETY-RELATED STRUCTURES, SYSTEMS, AND COMPONENTSJ RESOLilTION OF j
CONCERNS IDENTIFIED BY THE IDVPs AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE PLANT f
AS NECESSARY.
SEMI-MONTHLY REPORTS ON THE STATUS OF BOTH THE IDVP AND PG8E PROGRAM WERE ISSUED.
THESE REPORTS PARTICULARLY FOCUSED ON IDENTIFYING NEW CONCERNS.
IN ADDITION, THE IDVP ISSUED IN EXCESS 0F 60 INTERIM TECHNICAL REPORTS.
REPORTS WERE ISSUED WHEN THE VERIFICATION OF A PARTICULAR ASPECT HAD BEEN SUFFICIENTLY COMPLETED TO ALLOW THE IDVP TO REACH A CONCLUSION.
THE IDVP ISSUED A FINAL REPORT ON ITS EFFORTS IN SEGMENTS BETWEEN MAY AND OCTOBER 1983.
THE FINAL REPORT INCLUDED AN EVALUATION OF All.
~
DESIGN ERRORS AND THE BASIC CAUSE FOR'THESE ERRORS.
AN ERROR I
DESIGNATION MEANS THAT A DESIGN CRITERION WAS NOT MET OR AN
~ ~ T2'*r:L::~ **L:7 '"~' ~ ~~~;T"' C::L'-.l: ~~". " T __ -_
^.:
. :... :........:......- ^ T :::...:
- - - ^
^
' 'D? AELO CADYON TEST!MOA'Y (REVISED 1/20/8u 5:00 Pr.,
OPERATING LIMIT WOULD HAVE BEEN EXCEEDED.
THE RESOLUTION OF AN ERROR REQUIRED A PHYSICAL MODIFICATION, A CHANGE IN OPERATING i
PROCEDURE, MORE REALISTIC CALCULAi!ONS, OR RETESTING.
PG&E ISSUED SEPARATE FINAL REPORTS FOR PHASE I IN SEPTEMBER 1982 AND PHASE II IN JUNE 1983.
ALL REPORTS WERE AMENDED THROUGH OCTOBER j
1983, DISTRIBUTED TO ALL PARTIES, AND RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC.
1 THE IDVP BASED ITS VERIFICATION ON INFORMATION THAT HAD BEEN PROVIDED BY PG&E, THE INFORMATION WAS EVALUATED WITH RESPECT TO j
LICENSING CRITERIA AND COMMITMENTS IN THE FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS T
REPORT AND IN OTHER LICENSING DOCUMENTS FOR DIABLO CANYON.
IN EXCESS OF 300 ERRORS OR OPEN ITEMS WERE IDENTIFIED AND REVIEWED i
BY THE IDVP.
BASED ON FURTHER INFORMATION PROVIDED BY PG&E AND THE INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS OF THE IDVP, ABOUT EIGHT PERCENT OF THESE CONCERNS WERE CLASSIFIED AS ERRORS.
a THE DESIGN VERIFICATION EFFORT BY THE IDVP AND PG8E RESULTED IN t
EXTENSIVE MODIFICATIONS TO THE PLANT.
WHILE SOME OF THOSE CHANGES WERE DUE TO THE CONCERNS IDENTIFIED BY THE IDVP, THE MAJORITY WERE THE RESULT OF PG&E'S INTERNAL SE!SMIC DESIGN VERIFICATION OF ALL SAFETY-RELATED STRUCTURES, SYSTEMS, AND COMPONENTS.
IN MOST CASES WHERE A QUESTION AROSE REGARDING THE NEED FOR A MODIFICATION, THE PLANT WAS UPGRADED TO ENSURE THE DESIGN BASES FOR THE PLANT WERE MET.
SUCH MODIFICATIONS WERE 0FTEN MADE IN LIEU OF FURTHER ANALYSES AND EVALUATIONS.
EVEN
!e j
i I
i 2 ::: :
- 2. :2-.2=
=
=
::.=:::
2 - -
. 01 ILO CARYOM TESTIM 0t:Y (REVISED }/20/F.4 5:00 Pt0 THOUGH, ANOTHER ANALYSIS OR EVALUATION MIGHT HAVE PROVEN THE MODIFICATIONS UNNECESSARY.
IN MID-1983 THE DESIGN VERIFICATION EFFORTS WERE SUFFICIENTLY COMPLETED FOR OUR STAFF TO EVALUATE THE PROGRAM AND ITS FINDINGS.
THE INITIAL SEGMENT OF THE STAFF'S EVALUATION WAS ISSUED ON AUGUST 5, 1983 AS SUPPLEMENT 18 TO THE SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT.
FURTHER STAFF EVALUATIONS AND RESOLUTION OF CONCERNS IDENTIFIED IN THE REPORT WERE SUBSEQUENTLY ISSUED ON OCTOBER 14 AND ON DECEMBER 23, 1983 AS SUPPLEMENTS 19 AND 20.
FINAL STAFF ANALYSIS OF MATTERS RELEVANT TO FULLPOWER OPERATION OF THE PLANT WILL BE FORTHCOMING.
1 THE NRC STAFF CONCLUDED IN SUPPLEMENT 18:
(1) THAT THE IDVP HAD
^
MET THE REQUIREMENTS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE DESIGN VERIFICATION EFFORT, (2) THAT THE DESIGN VERIFICATION EFFORTS BY THE IDVP AND PG8E HAD IDENTIFIED ALL SIGNIFICANT DESIGN DEFICIENCIES, AND (3)
THAT APPROPRIATE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS HAD BEEN AND WERE BEING TAKEN TO ENSURE THAT THE DESIGN OF DIABLO CANYON UNIT 1 CONFORMS TO THE LICENSING CRITERIA.
LICENSING AND HEARING PROCESS THE LICENSING REVIEW ACTIVITY IS FOLLOWING A THREE-STEP LICENSING PROCESS. THIS PROCESS WAS PROPOSED BY PG8E AND APPROVED BY THE
.~. --
.-+=--..,:
Tf ABLO CANYOM TESTIfiONY' (REVfSED 1/20/84 5:00 P'-
a-COMMISSION IN DECEMBER 1982.
IN THIS PROCES5 THE PEINSTATEMENT OF THE LOW POWER LICENSE AND ISSUANCE OF THE FULL POWER LICENSE WERE TO BE ACCOMPLISHED IN THE FOLLOWING STEPS:
STEP 1:
A DECISION REGARDING THE LOADING OF FUEL INTO THE~
REACTOR VESSEL AND PERFORMANCE OF PRECRITICALITY TESTING.
(THE REACTOR IS IN THE SUBCRITICAL CONDITION, AND THEREFORE NO FISSION PRODUCTS ARE GENERATED).
STEP 2:
A DECISION REGARDING CRITICALITY AND OPERATION AT A POWER LEVEL UP TO 5 PERCENT.'
STEP 3:
A DECISION REGARDING THE ISSUANCE OF THE FULL POWER LICENSE.
l AT AN OPEN MEETING ON OCTOBER 28, 1983 THE COMMISSION CONSIDERED THE MATTERS RELATED TO THE REINSTATEMENT OF THAT PORTION OF THE ll LOW POWER LICENSE THAT AUTHORIZED FUEL LOADING AND COLD SYSTEM TESTING.
PRESENTATIONS WERE MADE BY OUR STAFF, PG&E, AND THE i
JOINT INTERVENORS.
ON NOVEMBER 8 THE COMMISSION AUTHORIZED PG8E l'
TO COMMENCE FUEL LOADING AND CERTAIN PRECRITICALITY TESTS (COLD SYSTEM TESTING).
THIS DECISION ENCOMPASSED ONLY A PORTION OF THE STEP 1 AUTHORIZATION.
THE REMAINING ELEMENT OF PG8E'S PRECRITICALITY TESTING PROGRAM, THAT IS, HOT SYSTEM TESTING, WAS A
s
' ' '! A?i." C.:JYDN TESTP'Of'V (rey! SED.1/20/84 5:00 PM)
HOT ADDRESSED AT THAT TIME BECAUSE PGaE HAD'NOT THEN SOUGHT THE FULL STEP 1 AUTHORIZATION.
PG8E STARTED THE FUEL LOAD OPERATIONS ON NOVEMBER 15 FOLLOWING THE U. S. COURT OF APPEALS DENIAL OF A STAY REQUESTED BY THE JOINT INTERVENORS.
FUEL LOAD OPERATIONS WERE COMPLETED ON NOVEMBER 20 AND THE REACTOR VESSEL HEAD WAS BOLTED DOWN ON NOVEMBER 29. PGaE HAS NOW COMPLETED COLD SYSTEM TESTING.
ON JANUARY 4, 1984, PGaE REQUESTED AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT FURTHER PRECRITICALITY TESTING IN THE HOT SHUTDOWN AND HOT STANDBY CONDITION.
SUCH ACTIVITIES ENCOMPASS THE REMAINDER OF STEP 1.
THE REACTOR WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO ACHIEVE CRITICALITY AND l
FISSION PRODUCTS WILL NOT BE GENERATED.
SUCH OPERATION ALLOWS FURTHER TESTING OF SYSTEMS AND COMPONENTS AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES, INCLUDING, FOR EXAMPLE, A CHECK FOR THERMAL EXPANSION OF PIPING AND EQUIPMENT.
PG8E HAS INFORMED US IT EXPECTS DIABLO CANYON UNIT 1 TO BE READY FOR SUCH TESTING ACTIVITIES THIS WEEK.
WE HAVE ALSO BEFORE US A REQUEST BY PGaE TO IMPLEMENT STEP 2 0F THIS PROCESS, THAT IS, TO PERMIT CRITICALITY AND LOW POWER OPERATION.
WE HAVE TENTATIVELY l
SCHEDULED A MEETING FOR FEBRUARY 10TH TO DISCUSS THIS REQUEST WITH THE PARTIES TO THE LICENSING PROCEEDING.
REGARDING THE HEARING PROCESS, THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD CONDUCTED A HEARING ON THE REOPENED ISSUE OF DESIGN i
- =.. =... -
= -. -
DIABLO CANYON TESTIMONY ~ (REVISED 1/20/84 5:00 PM)
QUALITY ASSURANCE IN NOVEMBER OF LAST YEAR IN AVILA BEACH, CALIFORNIA.
AT THE HEARING, EVIDENCE ON A NUMBER OF DESIGN-RELATED ISSUES WAS PRESENTED BY OUR STAFF, PGaE, GOVERNOR DEUKMEJIAN AND THE JOINT INTERVENORS.
ALL PARTIES HAVE FILED PROPOSED FINDINGS WITH THE APPEAL BOARD AND A DECISION IS EXPECTED IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
THE COMMISSION HAS NOT YET DECIDED WHETHER TO AWAIT THAT APPEAL BOARD DECISION BEFORE ADDRESSING PGaE'S REQUEST FOR AUTHORITY TO GO CRITICAL AND CONDUCT LOW POWER TESTS.
AS A SEPARATE MATTER, THE APPEAL BOARD DENIED MOTIONS BY THE GOVERNOR AND THE JOINT INTERVENORS TO REOPEN THE HEARING ON CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE ISSUES.
THE OPINION EXPLAINING THAT DECISION WAS ISSUED IN DECEMBER, APPEALED BY BOTH THE GOVERNOR AND THE INTERVENORS, AND IS PRESENTLY UNDER 1
CONSIDERATION BY THE COMMISSION.
STATUS OF ALLEGATIONS FINALLY, I NOW WILL DISCUSS THE MATTER OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ALLEGATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED REGARDING THE DIABLO CANYON PLANT.
AS OF THE END OF 1983, APPROXIMATELY 100 SEPARATE CONCERNS HAD BEEN IDENTIRIED.
THE ALLEGATIONS WERE RECEIVED FROM I
A VARIETY OF SOURCES, INCLUDING PRIVATE CITIZENS, FORMER AND CURRENT WORKERS AT THE PLANT AND AT THE PGaE OFFICES, NEWS MEDIA, INTERVENORS, AND CONGRESSIONAL OFFICES.
IN SOME CASES, THE SOURCE HAS REMAINED COMPLETELY ANONYMOUS; IN OTHERS THE SOURCE IS t
7 __ '_ ~ L '" n _? y -' =~ ' ' *' =?7 -~ _~1* =~ =~-*3;3~,3 -
- =*3, _ _ _ _
.. i : L i _ '..?:vrk T~5 :" A.Y
-E-(REVISER-1/?O/8u SiOG =M)
KrioWN GNLY TO THE NRC; HOWEVER, IN MOST CASES THE SOURCE HAS BEEU PUBLICLY IDENTIFIED.
IN LIGHT OF THE NUMEROUS ALLEGATIONS, OUR STAFF ESTABLISHED AN ALLEGATION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR DIABLO CANYON TO BETTER COORDINATE THE ACTIONS OF THE VARIOUS NRC OFFICES.
THE PROGRAM WILL PROVIDE A CLEARER UNDERSTANDING OF EACH ALLEGATION, A DETAILED TECHNICAL REVIEW OF THE APPROPRIATE AREA 0F THE ALLEGATION, AND ON-SITE INSPECTIONS AND DISCUSSIONS WITH THE ALLEGER AS NECESSARY.
A STATUS OF THESE EFFORTS AS OF LATE DECEMBER WAS ISSUED As SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT SUPPLEMENT 21.
I WOULD NOTE THAT A SECOND PART OF THIS DOCUMENT WAS ISSUED WITH A LIMITED DISTRIBUTION IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE ANONYMITY OF SOME ALLEGERS AND TO ASSURE THAT NRC'S ONGOING INVESTIGATION EFFORTS WOULD NOT BE IMPEDED.
ilE ARE DETERMINED TO REVIEW AND EVALUATE EACH ALLEGATION AND TO RESOLVE EACH ALLEGATION INSOFAR AS IT IS RELEVANT TO PARTICULAR STAGES OF OPERATION SUFFICIENTLY TO PROVIDE REASONABLE ASSURANCE OF SAFETY BEFORE AUTHORIZING EACH SUCH STAGE OF OPERATION.
MOST OF THE ALLEGATIONS HAVE BEEN EXAMINED IN SUFFICIENT DETAIL TO ALLOW THE NRC STAFF TO CONCLUDE THAT THEY DO NOT PRESENT A SIGNIFICANT SAFETY ISSUE OR REQUIRE FIXES OR REPRESENT A SUBSTANTIAL BREAKDOWN OF MANAGEMENT OR QUALITY CONTROL SYSTE,MS.
THE STAFF NOTES, HOWEVER, THAT THESE'ARE THE ALLEGATIONS THAT WERE MOST AMENABLE TO RESOLUTION.
^
~
. _. :J
~
r 'fi'_C CANY0t.' TESTIMONY (=.EVIsED 1/20/St 5:00 PM)
~
MANY OF THE REMAINING ALLEGATIONS HAVE BEEN PARTIALLY EXAMINED.
THEY INVOLVE MORE COMPLEX AND DIFFICULT ISSUES.
IN ADDI. TION, WE.
CONTINUE TO RECEIVE NEW ALLEGATIONS.
THE STAFF HAS NOT YET DETERMINED WHETHER ANY SIGNIFICANT SAFETY ISSUE OR SUBSTANTIAL i
BREAKDOWN OF MANAGEMENT OR QUALITY CONTROL SYSTEMS WILL EMERGE FROM THE CONTINUING EVALUATION OF THE ALLEGATIONS.
THESE ALLEGATIONS INVOLVE SUCH ISSUES AS SMALL BORE PIPING, ANCHOR BOLT INSTALLATION, CONSTRUCTION RECORDS CONTROL, INSPECTOR QUALIFICATIONS AND HARASSMENT OF PERSONNEL.
OUR STAFF HOPES TO COMPLETE ITS EXAMINATION OF MOST OF THESE ALLEGATIONS AND TO DRAW A CONCLUSION IN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS.
BASED ON THE ALLEGATIONS ALREADY REVIEWED, THE STAFF IDENTIFIED SOME ACTIONS THAT IT BELIEVES SHOULD BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO A DECISION REGARDING AUTHORIZING CRITICALITY.
SEVERAL OTHER l
ACTIONS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED FOR COMPLETION PRIOR TO AUTHORIZING OPERATION ABOVE 5 PERCENT POWER.
THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL ACTIONS IDENTIFIED AS THE STAFF COMPLETES ITS EXAMINATION.
COMMISSION REVIEW OF THE STAFF ANALYSES AND RECOMMENDATIONS IS IN PROGRESS.
i IN CLOSING, I WANT TO ASSURE YOU THAT, WHILE PG8E EXPECTS TO BE i
READY TO PROCEED TO CRITICALITY SHORTLY, WE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE ANY SUCH ACTIVITY UNTIL WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THERE IS REASONABLE ASSURANCE THAT THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC IS ADEQUATELY PROTECTED.
1 i
i
---l~.-
' *T* l -.':L
- .~ ~ K L.?"~~~~ L.-. * **2 2:T~ -
-.:: :~"...~:_,---.-_
-.,