ML20212F063
| ML20212F063 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 07/30/1984 |
| From: | Yin I NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20209D027 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-86-197 NUDOCS 8701090061 | |
| Download: ML20212F063 (2) | |
Text
_.
u..m j f.6. y..
s 3. -
~
X kwa -
4<
TESTDONY BEFORE THE C08 ell 55 ION M(ARIE gcv t
FOR 2550ANCE OF DIAaLO CANYON UNIT 1 FULL PWER OPERATIM t.IttMSE Y
Ros JLfLY 30, 19M
[,.
VesTW (, M
- AK My W E4's b EWS
- d.o*
Prepared By: J. T. Yin c it4 3rA W **a pom pb % h&'
W. Choirson'and aesbers of the Comeission, thent you for invitisq se N
to present my personal view of matters concerning the issuance of N
.Diablo canyon Unit I full power license.
~
i As you know, I was requested by the Headquarters staf f to participate in the NRC's investigation of allegations concerning the cEnstruction of I
Diablo Canyon. I was specifically assigned ta pursue a11egations.in ths
~
piping design control arm's. Pased on inspections conducted periodically free November 29, 1983 taitay 2,1984, I identified. many significant technical ane QA deftciencies. Contrary to the approach normally taken by my Region with significant pmblems, no enforsteent conference was held, nor was there any enforcement action taken. No requests were saae for licensee progree upgrade, and there was no attempt to broaden the inspection areas and scope. Defective prograes. such as Quiet Fiaes and Onsite Pmject Engineering Group design activities were allowed to continue j
untti July 19M. when the licensee decided to abolish these practices. My request to followup on the licensee progran revision was denied.
I In the followup of)he seven License ConditTon f tens that were incorporated into the low power license, even though ! vas the instigator for six of the seven itees, and would normally be ccasidered to be the post knowledgeable j
man on the issues and details, nevertheless, I was not considered essential in the followup review and evaluation. Peer Review Team inspection for l
Itees No.1 and 7 was conducted on the third week of May 1984, during my vacation overseas. Peer Review Teas inspections for Iteas No, 2 to 6 were perfomed during *.he fourth week of May 1984, when I returned from vacation, and accompanied the ACR$ on the site tour. Subsequent n yiew of the Paar
. Review Team reports contained in the draft SSER Mvealed that they contain 3i most,1y undocumented reviews and casual observations. There were cases where f
the inspection sample selegted was extreetly small, where probless originally identified continued to, exist, where review e.riteria mere compromised without i
technical justification, and where Tees failed to address the $pecific i
progres deficiency issues. For the nuder of staff assigned. and hired to I
work in the Peer Review Teams, and the length of time spent since the
{
April 13, 1994 Coenission meeting,1 don't feel es though we'ee really addressed all the issues.
The 29 page " Concern items on 20VP Evaluation of L/t and 5/8 Piping and Pipe l
Support Design," resulting frpe my review of a number of <1oud reports, we're
=
submittee to NRR for evaluation on April 25, 1984 Although these were a'
~
part of my original planned inspection,1 requested NRR staf f involvement based on the consideration theti (1) since NRR co managed the progree, any
/
- )
/
e
,e 870106 j
87010
$1 i
j hyESe64U g
3 r
'Amrnm.t.,-- m-,r.w:m.ryr.wwn>"m" '-
~ ~ M "* ~
~~
i
findings would be against our own staffers, and (2) since NRR had alreacy accepted the program, they should be able to-6 plain the situattaa,tf deficiencies were being identified. The inspection was n:t"schedulsd until the week of.)une 17, 1984 Surdened by long presentations, indoctrinations for the Special Review Team am6ers, discussion no issues unrelated to the 10VP, unavailability of docusents that had been stored in renotalocations, and my personal schedule difficulties, the act041 time that:1 spert;,
inspecting t.%t week was less than 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />, h request to travel back Sunday to continue the inspection first thing Monday was denied.
As you can see, J was not pleased'with how NRR has been sanapjng afv1 resolving my inspection findings. I believe asettional investigation and inspection e* fort is warranted to properly close out identiffe(, areas of I believe this could be accruiplished in three to.five weeks, concern.
This followup inspection would proylde the Consission a clearer pic*are of the extent of the problem or the 1sck of probles.
In any event, if the Commission decides to grant
- tSe Di'ihlo Canyon t e
~
full pawer operating iteense today, I shall respect the Commission's i
.iudgezent and decision, and shall cooperate fully in any followup actions deemed necessary. Looking back... I know that I have been honest in my work, and feel that I have fulfttled my assigned duty.
Despite difference in professional opinion, I have not doubted the NRR ranagerrent's honesty l
and integrity, ano wish them the best of luck in handling the rany other ongoing troubled facilitits,
.I i
l i
t O
i I
1
)
i l
s s T
I
)
1 t
t i'
s g
T 1....,.,. _ = - -
... ~. -.,
- - - - - ~,
^