ML20093L282

From kanterella
Revision as of 15:52, 3 May 2020 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Comments on Naymark Jul 1984 Answers to Commission Questions Re Nuclear Svc Corp 1977 Audit of Facility Work of Pullman Power Co.Commission Should Not Settle for Less than Full Resolution of Safety Issues
ML20093L282
Person / Time
Site: Diablo Canyon  Pacific Gas & Electric icon.png
Issue date: 07/26/1984
From: Strumwasser M
CALIFORNIA, STATE OF
To: Palladino N
NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
OL, NUDOCS 8407310350
Download: ML20093L282 (1)


Text

l. s

!f '  %

JOHN K. VAN DE KAMP Attorney General State cf California DEPAllTMENT OF JUSTICE Yh ""

3580 WIL$lilRr. BOULEVARD, ROOM 800 July 26, 1984 LOS ANS M10 (213) 736-2304 CNVFTe Udhn Hon. Nunzio Palladino, Chairman, and Members of the Cmmission ,84 JUL 30 P12 55 Nuclear Regulatory Cmmission Washington, D.C. 20555 3r , ,

10 L i % a d . .

Dear Chairman Palladino and Mmbers of the Ccam'ission:

PICIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cmmission D_ocket No. 50-275, 50-323 t L In response to the invitation of the Secretary to the Carmission, we offer

_f the following cmments, on behalf of Governor George Deukmejian, concerning the July 1984 answers of Dr. Sherman Naymark to the cmmission's questions regarding the Nuclear Services Corporation's 1977 audit of the Diablo Canyon work of the Pullman Power Cmpany.

The response of Dr. Naymark simply reinforces the central fact about the quality of construction at Diablo Canyon: that the cmmission does not have any basis for assuming that the work meets the cmmission's regulations.

Dr. Naymark staMs behind the devastating criticism of the Pullman Diablo OA program -- including findings that seventeen of the eighteen criteria of Appendix D were not met. Just as Pacific Gas and Electric Cmpany aM the NRC staff were not persuaded by NSC, NSC has not been convinced by the IG&E aM staff efforts to explain away the audit.

In his pending Petition for Review of AIAB-756, the Governor pointed to the dispute between PG&E and NSC concernirg the Pullman work as evidence of the need to convene a hearing to resolve the critical safety questions the audit raises. The Atmic Safety and Licensirg Appeal Board felt itself at liberty to weigh the conflicting evidence and reach conclusions without such a hearing. Now the canission has before it additional evidence that such a hearing was required. 'Ihe person responsible for the audit, after seeing the PG&E arr3 NRC Staff evidence, continues to staM behiM the original findings of deficiencies. We think it would be inconceivable for the canission would settle for less than a full resolution of these safety issues, on the record, as the law requires.

Very truly yours, JOHN K. VAN DE KAMP At or General fj -

O '

MM#~-

MICHA J. STRUMNASSER Special Counsel to the Attorney General cc Service Lf at CNOohk PDR

)Y