ML20214A842

Intervenor Exhibit I-ROREM-156,consisting of to Jd Dingell Re Implication of Recent Seismic Design Errors Detected at Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant

ML20214A842
Person / Time
Site:	Braidwood
Issue date:	10/07/1986
From:	Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Dingell J HOUSE OF REP., ENERGY & COMMERCE
References
OL-I-ROREM-156, NUDOCS 8705190619
Download: ML20214A842 (8)

Text

_

W 7 mL

'Ii*

f .N UNITED STATES

% /d[7/Ji4 S1:! Ns

'/..?"S[% NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -

wx}.2 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 ~by6 UA/ ~' / b T.;:1 '-

[ %lCM}!

February' I, 1982

.y:'y;;~T210??fUgg 12 FE .-2 ggf P.10D.& UT.: .-Av.g.Q.s, _

- - ( _- -yyr)[Jjj The Honorable Wohn D. Dingell, Chairman Committee on Inergy and Commerce 0

-Q n ,. o.; . b United States House of Representatives p, D /S g

• Washington, D.C. 20515 p- -

e, $[3 3

88 g ~. v.

Dear Mr. Chairman:

//

We share the concerns expressed in your Novembe ,.J98 4 tter regarding the implication of the recent seismic design errors detected at the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant. The implication of these errors has been and will be thoughtfully considered by the Commission.

(WQ '

u. The timing of the detection of these errors, so soon after authorization '

for icw-power operation, was indeed unfortunate and it is quite understandable that the Congress' and the public's perception of our licensing pro. cess has been adversely affected. Had this information been known to us on or prior to September 22, 1981, I am sure that the facility license would not have been issued until the question's raised by these disclosures had been resolved.

Because of these design errors, on November 19, 1981 we suspended Pacific Gas and Electric Company's (.PG&E) license pending satisfactory completion of the following:

1. The conduct of an independent design review program of all

' sa.fety-related activities performed prior to June 1,1978 under all seismic-related s.ervice contracts used in the design of safety-related structures, systems 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.

3. PG&E's conclusions of the effectiveness of the design verification program in assuring the adequacy of facility design.

4. A schedule for completing any modificat. ions to the facility that are required as a result of the design verification program.

In addition, the Commission ordered PG&E to provide for NRC review and approval:

1. A description and discussion of the corporate qualifications of the lAltfiMENDE[ B6P98980N] company or,w companies

,3iC35 N that d ' 3N:PG4E:wculd

. prepose to carry out the s.msW*l5% 2/ hA m , . _ aw

s.=tes heat 9s n2.z{za2stg tq q ,v.4, ,o, 0 ,x 3 u---J D503 3

\ f B705190619 861007

//

PDR ADOCK 05000275 j/ \ t, _.;. J .::.C. .

0 PDR Q

' \, - . - -

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS IN NOVEMBER 13, 1931 LETTER TO .

.. CHAIRMAN PALLADINO FROM CONGRESSMEN DIfGELL AND OTTINGER U' Ouestion 1: Please provide, prior to the i'ssuance of the 50.54(f) letter, the definition of the terms (i) " independent,"

'. / (ii) " competent," (iii) " integrity," and (iv) " complete.

/ Response:

Although one of the options under. consideration by the Commission was a 50.54(f) letter, the Commission decided to suspend PG&E's license to load fuel and conduct tests up to 5 percent power by Memorandum and Order dated November 19, 1981, pending satisfactory completion of certain actions, including the conduct of a design verification program.

Also, a staff letter of the same .date required PG&E to carry on other design verificatica programs prior to issuance of any license authorizing operation above 5 4 . percent power.

O The most important factor in NRC's evaluation of the indi-viduals or companies proposed by Paci~fic. Gas and Electric '

to complete the required design verification program is their competence. This competence must be based on knowledge and experience in the matters under resiew. These individuals.

or companies should also be independent. Independence means that the individuals or companies selected must be able to provide an objective, dis;:assionate technical judgment, provided solely on the basis of technical merit. Independence e also means that the design verification program must be conducted by companies or individuals not previou' sly involved with the activities at Diablo Canyon that they will now be reviewing. Their integrity must be such that they are regarded as reputable companies or individuals. The word

" complete" applies to the NRC requirement for review of all O - au its ssuraace Procedures ad c=atro's used by e ch pre-June 1978 seismic and non-seismic service related contractor and try PG&E with regard to that centract. A comparison of these procedures and controls with the related criteria of

. Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 is also re uired. Any deficiencies or weaknesses- in the quality assurance . procedures and controls

- c.f the contractor and PG&E will be investigated in more detail. In addi. tion, calculations will be checked in an audit program. Numerical calcula: ions for which the original basis cahnot be de: ermined will be recalculated to verify the initial design in::ut.

~

l l s

. -. . . . - . . . . . . . . . . - . __ . ~ . .

.. . J 2

.t yp'

'O o.

independent design verification program, including info'rmation\ -

demonstrates the independence of these companies.

2. A detailed program plan for conducting the design verification program.

In recognition of the need to assure the credibility of,the design

verification program, NRC will decide on the acceptability of the '

companies' proposed by PG&E to conduct this program after providing the Governor of California and Joint Intervenors in the pending operating licensing proceeding 15 days for comment. Also, the NRC will decide on the acceptability of the plan proposed by PG&E to conduct the program, after providing the Governor of California and the Joint Intervenors in the pending operating ifcense proceeding 15 days for comment. ,

Prior to authorization to proceed with fuel loading, the NRC must be l satisfied with the results of the seismic design verification program and with any plant modification 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 and safety based upon its review of the program or any of the information provided by PG&E. This may include some or all of the requirements i

specified in the letter to PG&E dated November 19, 1981.

~

Responses to each of the four questions in your letter are enclosed.

A decision to pemit PG&E to proceed with fuel loading will not be made until all the actions contained in the Comission's November 19, 1981

.. Order are fully satisfied. .

- Sincerely, l

Nunzio J. Pallacino l cc: Rep. Carlos Moorhead ,

Enclosures:

1. Comission Order, dated 11/19/81 .

2. Ltr from Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC to PG&E dated 11/19/81

3. Responses to Questions e o e

he------ , . - - . . . . . . . eme**e----=*=**e**==.e..-. -

\ E q c>

Ouestion 2: Please provide the criteria to be used in \

assuring that the proposed audit will 'be independent."

Response: The competence of the individuals or companies is the most important factor in the selection of an auditor. Also, the companies or individuals may not-have had any direct previous involvement with the activities at Diablo Canyon that they will be reviewing.

In addition, the following. factors will be considered in evaluating the question of independence:

i

1) Whether the individuals or companies involved had been previously hired by PG&E to do similar seismic design work.

2) Whether any individual involved had been

~

previously employed by PG&E (and the nature of the employment).

3) Whether the individual owns or controls

. significant amounts of PG&E stock.

4) Whether members of the present household of individuals involved _are employed by PG&E.

5) Whether any relatives-are employed by PG&E in a management capacity.

In addition to the above considerations, the following procedural guidelines will be used to assure independence:

, (h.

1) An auditable record will be provided of all comments on draft or final reports, any changes made as a. result of such comments, and the reasons for such-changes; or the consultant will i ssue only a final report (without prior licensee comment).

2) NRC will assume and exercise the respon-sibility for serving the report on all 4

parties.

t e

• - * - eve- * * * = ' - so *

• t- -* em . . . , . . .__,

r j'

.' Ouestion 3: In view of the licensee's past performance,-

. ,, and that of its subcontractors, what

'_'- procedures will be utilized to ensure that

/' there are not conflicts of interests in the performance of any required audits?

i f

./ .

Resoonse: We are requiring that PG&E provide the NRC l with a description and a discussion of the corporate qualifications of the companies proposed to carry out the various design verification programs, including information that demonstrates the independence of these

, companies. This information will be provided to the Governor of California and the Joint Intervenors for comments. Based upon review of the information provided by PG&E and the ,

comments of the Governor and Join: Inter-C/) venor, the NRC.will decide on the accept-ability of the companies with respect to their " independence" and " competence." In addition, approval will not be,given by NRC if.we determine that a potential conflict of interest exists in the performance of any

. required audits that cannot be adequately addressed by procedural safeguards.

Question 4: What plans does $he NRC have to ensure that a similar situation will not arise at other plants now under construction? What, if any,

' additional quality control. procedures does the NRC propose to institute in its inspec-tion program?

r"N Resoonse: The Commission is developing an action plan

(-) that will result in improved NRC review of quality assurance programs at operating nuclear power plants and nuclear power plants under construction. The details of the action plan will be available in the near future.

l 1

-+ - . . - .- . . . . , , . _.m., -

.---- [ tv

,w- . v- = .. l s

, ,,. " , g, ;,.=- E;&.Jpottfe of hpresentatibeg l

- - u. Ceuum.ttee on energy anh Ccmmere: i

. .aur-

.,.,,.,,. r, '

=" ""'i"- n== m:5. 3bi tum mus etna p.ac%. .., _g a. j ,27

,,:::;,m. .

- m.

.v

,,,,,.";,, Eastington, 33.C. 20515' tea.

l".

T,een

..",=L:u;s.-~

J. TMs.4, s 4 as una.suk.8

.8 D38 nb Pas

.L. W e a.s.s 8M.

CLEY. WDsEBacT. .% .v.

,,yr,9 .-,; -

,,n sy Adb f.B. TCE. D,aa.E.b.m

4. , . S.aats

m. r. see. e.

m ue u.

e,,r.ses eam.

2 -L.,o,u r.

8, u.

sa8#98 v. MA84. TEX.

r.m.

February 23, 1982 rui. ,

n c= =. c= - -

The Honorable Nunzio Palladino .

Chairman q Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 .

Dear Mr. Chairman:

I Your response of February 1, 1982 to our letter of -

November 13, 1981 concerning the independence of the Diablo Canyon.

Audit is, quite frankly, unsatisfactory. Despite the amount of

. time requi red to provide your response, for which no explanation was given, your reply failed to adequately address the issues. ,

This establishes an unacceptable level'of performance for.the -

Commission. .

While recogni=ing that the ultimate responsibility of the Commission is the protection of public health and safety, the

- Committee'.s concern, expressed in our.Nove=ber 15, 1981. letter, is the establishment and maintenance of competent and credible

. procedures by which technical issues are addressed throughout'the Cjs licensing process.

In the case of the Diablo' Canyon nuclear power plant, the NRC's f ailure to discover the utility's numerous technical errors before issuing an operating license points to a p:oblem which may be far more serious than the errors the=selves. As a result of the sequence of events in this case, we are no longe: confronted with simply technical erro:s a= enable to technical solutions.

Rathe:, we are f aced with the erosion of the public confidence in not only the NRC's ability, but also its willingness, to fulfill its responsibility as the protector of public health and safety.

Subsequent to the discovery of the errors at Diablo Canyon, the NRC suspended the license of the utility and required an independent audit of the plant's seismic design. The purpose of the audit is to determine what, if any, additional protections are needed at the plant to ensure the public's t.ealth and safety and to :es:cre public confidence in the saf ety .cf 7he plant. In order

accc plish these goals, che integri y Of t'.D audit must be .

guaranteed by the unimpeachable p prie:y of its p:: cess. ,

e

Honorablo Nunzio Palladino February 23, 1982 Page 2 -

The c.riteria contained in your letter appear to do little to ensure the integrity of the audit. Your letter seems to confuse

" independence" with " competence" and " avoidance of conflict of -

I interest"; all'of which are required in the Commission. order for l the audit. Indeed, your letter ultimately fails to provide any meaningful standard by which the independence of the audit can be

• judg'ed. -

For example, even if R. L. Cloud and Associates met the independence through lack of conflict of interest requirements described in your response to our letter, the independence of the  ;

3 firm has been brought into question by evidence in the Inspection u,) Report (NUREG-0862) that Cloud and PG&E together tailored the scope of the audit to meet the needs of the utility. This degree of cooperation between the auditor and the audited is inconsistent with the concept of independence. The independent auditor must clearly nnderstand its client to be, in cases like this, the public as represented by the Commission and the intervenors, not the utility. If .thir is not a view shared by the Commission, we should be so informed. .

The NRC staff has understood the importance of avoiding real or apparent improprieties in an audit if its findings are to merit public confidence. The staff has taken steps to guarantee the independence of audits for nuclear units seeking licenses in the near term. These precautions are being taken for plants that are not now contested by intervenors and have no record of .

construction irregularities! It is ironic that the Diablo Canyon

(~)T L.

plant, so heavily construction contested record, is not and with to subject such at a deplorable least equivalent

. standards.

In extemporaneous remarks before the Interior and Insular Affairs subcommittee on Energy and the Environment on November 19, 1981, you stated that freedom from editorial comment would be an essential. element in determining the independence of an audit. We a:e dismayed that after three months you have discarded even this minimal standard of independence and replaced it with an entirely different concept: no conflict of interest.

We, too, wish the audit.to avoid a conflict of inte:est. But we also believe it must be independent. Absent special definitions, it must be assumed that the Cctsission intends ,

cem=cnly accepted definitions of words used in its orders. The 1 dictienary defines " independent" to nean:

Pelitical autoncmy, f:ee f:0m influence, guidance, c: cent:ci of ancthe: c: cthers. -

. Eenorablo Nunrio Palladino

• February 23, 1982 Page 3 l

Failure to use precise language in Commission orders, or later substitution of words that are by no means synonymous, -

' confuses staff and applicants alike, and makes the task of

. conforming action.s to Co= mission orders.more difficult.

As the NRC considers the applications for operating licenses 4 '

~

I of plants with histories .of poor quality assurance during -

construction, the importance of a credible audit increases. The I value of such an audit will increase proportionally to the I perception of its independence from the utility. In this manner, public confidence which was lost through the disclosures at Diablo

([') Canyon and other , constructions sites can be regained by the Commission. In view of the foregoing, we request the Commissioners to review the response contained in the February 1, 1982 letter and reformulate the criteria by which they will evaluate the " independence" of the audit ordered on Nove=ber 19, .,

1981 of the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant.  !

Sincere'ly, l 1

l ,

. John D. Dingell, C airma. Richard L. Ottinger, Chairman Committee on Energy Subcom=ittee on Energy and Commerce. Conservation and Pcwer Committee on Energy O and Commerce i

e O

S

~

_ l l

-.-