ML20212F074
| ML20212F074 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 08/30/1984 |
| From: | Yin I NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20209D027 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-86-197 NUDOCS 8701090100 | |
| Download: ML20212F074 (2) | |
Text
..
p :v o i...o 1
\\
\\
l Opening Statement Before
~
Subcommittee on Energy and the.Invironment.
Comittee on Interior and Insular Affairs i
U.S. House of Representatives on August 30, 1984 Prepared By:
- 1. T. Yin 4
Mr Chairmati and members of the Congress, my name is Isa Yin, I am a Senior Pechanical Engineer in NRC's Region III, Division of Reactor Safety.
Relative to the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant investigation effort, my assignment was to follow up en some.of the allegations made by Mr. Charles Stokes. The specific investigation areas were restricted to site small bore piping suspension system design cont'rol.
Howevgr due to hardware def feiencies cbr.erved during plant w?.lkdown, the licensee design control measures for large bore piping system were also included as part of the overview inspection and evaluation. My inspection effort wes carried out periodically from Nceember 29, 1983 to May 2,1934.
My testim 0ny before the NRC Comission hearing conducted on August 2,1984 for the issuance of Diablo Cenyon Unit 1 full power operating license focused on four main issues.
First, the staff's handling of inspection (indings had not been forceful and 8
thorough. Defective programs such as the onsite quick change of piping restraint design by a few appointed site individuals and the Onsite Project Engineerine Group (OPEG) design activiti,es,'which had been in violation of many regulatory requirements for substantial periods of time, were allowed to u..nihue until June 1984, sten PG&E decided to abolish these practices.
Having neglected the implementation of a QA program for years, the adecuacy and effectiveness of.the latest program upgrade remained questionable.
Second, the Peer Review Team did not fully address the six of the seven L*cer.se Conditions that were instigated by me, and required resolution prior to the Comission's issuance of a full power license. The Team reports contained mostly undocumented reviews and casual observations.
There were cases where the inspection sample selected was extremely small, where problems ceiginally identified continued to exist, where reYieW Criteria were Compromised Without technical justification, and where Team failed to address the specific program deficiency issues.
Third, the management and acceptance of the Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) were regrettable.
The OPEG's technical review adequacy and j
overall QA program' measures were passes by IDVP and accepted by the staff.
The same areas were inspected later and had resulted 100% reevaluation of i
small bore pipe support computer calculations and the abolishment of CPEG j
design responsibilities.
The ' followup review of my 29-page " Concern items on 10VP Evaluation of large Bore and Small Bore Pip'ng and Pipe Support Design" i
perforced by the Special Review Team, organized ci-the-spot, did not fully -
address ray concern of the apparent insufficient program scope and review depth to resolve the seismic design problems that had led to the Contr.ission's suspension of a low power license in November,1981.
\\
i 8701090100 870106 I
A')
%.~~.y. 7-tm;;;p. r~~~mm yp:- q::peqc.v gh pe.:r.v7.--~k:r:- w:~ ;--
7
0
,s.
e j
=
Fourth, even though my QA program inspection, allegation investigation, ano technical review findings had resulted in excess of tw man-years followvp
' effort conducted by the Feer Review Team frdp Mar 4h 30 to July U,1984, try desire to participate in the resolution of the License Ccoditions with the Team was granted but made irppossible due to concurrent work activities.
I subsequently made requests:
(1) to carry out followu Canyon Project crganization and program chahges, (2) p observations on Diablo to review specific database from which the Peer Review Team drew its favorable conclusion on the ticense Conditions, (3) to continue the interrupted review of JDVP technical measures at Clond otfice, and (4) to be given cpportunity to review Reedy records which had concluded that there was no design CA breekdom at 0?EG.
All my requests were denied.
g Durino the Auc.ust 2,1984 Comission hearing', I sta ted that, "I bel; adc1-i tionai investigaticr. and inspection ef fort is warranted to properly e out identified areas of concern.
I believe this could be accomplished in three to five weeks.
This follewup inspection wovid provide the Comission a clearer picture of the extent of the problem or the lack of problem.
I still beliese e
l in the above statement today.
Mr. Chairrian, and r. embers of the Congress, thar.k you for the opportunity to testify.
I shall truthfully answer any questions that you may wish to ast.
E l
h l
f
}
I
}
t i
1 l
l I
e g
l 3
0 2
a f
m~~m e.v n~~m-- -.~y.rmm;-rw ~~-*..m ;rm;?m w r~vn - -.. * :r.~ m~ ~ m ': w. v ~ s' ' "an"-
L