ML20082H475

Forwards C Stokes Affidavit Requesting Investigation of Alleged Illegalities Re QA of Piping,Pipe Supports & Welds

ML20082H475
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	11/30/1983
From:	Devine T GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT
To:	Gilinsky V, Palladino N, Roberts T NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20082H478	List: ML20082H475 ML20082H492
References
NUDOCS 8312010169
Download: ML20082H475 (5)

Text

'

V.

. . . . .. .. ... L ..... - .. ... . ... .

l GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT 00cxETEn institute for Policy Studies N 1901 Que Street. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20009 (202)234-9382 4 13 D 30 Pl2:59 Novemberc 3,Qgg19g b y 00CHEimGA sggy;;,

BRANCH

Honorsble Nunzio Palladino, Chairman Honorable Edward Gilinsky Honorable Thomas Roberts 'gn --m Honorable James Asselstine pp,[f'M,,;.:h.M.$.C.N.h39]

Honorable Frederick Bernthal

Dear Commissioners:

The Government Accountability Project (GAP) represents Mr.

Charles Stokes for the purposes of a disclosure to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) of alleged illegalities at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. From November 1982 until October 1983 Mr. Stokes was a field engineer performing pipe stress and pipe support design calculations as part of the design verification program under joint Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E)-Bechtel manage- '

ment. On October 5, 1983 Mr. Stokes submitted Discrepancy Re? orts detailing generic design deficiencies on welding, angles and bolts at the plant. Less than two weeks later, Mr. Stokes was laid off effective October 17, 1983. Pursuant to 42 USC 8 5851 he has filed a complaint and supporting affidavit with the Department of Labor.

Mr. Stokes believes that his affidavit is relevant for your review. A representation letter, as well as copies of his Novem-ber 14 complaint and November 17 affidavit, are enclosed. This statement is being distributed directly to the Commission, '

because the issues of design verification have been subjected to your personal scrutiny in recent public briefings. Mr. Stokes j

seeks the opportunity to supplement the record created at yoar

October 28, 1983 publip meeting on similar issues.

l Mr. Stokss believes that his disclosure evidences serious violations of Atomic Energy Act requirements for the design and quality assurance of piping, pipe supports and welds at Diablo

~Q

-C Canyon. The techniques involved manipulation of personnel and

~o assumptions in engineering calculations, followed by destruction 58 of related documents. The immediate'effect in Mr. Stokes' S$ experience was to accept nearly all work that originally had been j rejected at approximately a 507. rate. The ultimate effect snay be

.5 ~ to compromise public health and safety, if the plant's operating l38 license is based on an unreliable design " verification" program

g< whose results were predetermined. More specifically, Mr. Stokes gg charges --

mc.o revio (1) construction of new pipe supports near p' pass"usly supports, in order to redo the calculations and the failedfailing pipe supports, thereby avoiding the requirement to expand the sample due to an initially high failure rate. (Affidavit, at 12.)

L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ MQ3

Nsvember 30, 1983 '

P s g e ~2 (2) design drawings that exaggerated the load ratings, or strength, of hardware such as U-bolts by up to four times more than claimed by those who sold the bolts. The ratings were possible due to inaccurate assumptions about pipe size and room temperature conditions, as well as failure to mention that the bolts were forcibly bent in order to achieve the load ratings.

Engineers were instructed to continue relying on the false load ratings, even after the inaccuracies had been exposed. (Id., at

-~

5-7.) .

(3) management action to identify the engineers who had failed pipe su? ports and transfer them from the assignments. They were replaced by engineers who would not challenge the party line.

(Id., at 9.)

(4) failure to issue controlled documents for engineers to use in sample calculations. The engineers compensated by basing their analyses for Diablo Canyon on calculations drawn from the unique conditions of different plants, such as Davis Bessie, Midland, Catawba and others. As a result, the factual assumptions were inaccurate in up to 30% of the cases. ~(Id., at 2-3.)

(5) destruction of engineering calculations that failed pipe l supports, along with references in the calculations log to the engineering reviews that produced this " wrong" result. In Mr.

Stokes' cases, the log only reflectes his work for five out of more than 100 calculations which he prepared. "/7 7he~~ original calculations demonstrating system failures vanisEed." (Id., et 10.)

(6) complete reanalysis of the failed pipe supports described above by new engineers, although their official mission was merely to conduct rout he reviews for the accuracy of previously completed work. (Id,., at 9-11.)

(7) a stated policy that once an engineer signed off on calculations, "they were Bechtel property and Bechtel could do what they pleased, including destroying them and having someone else rewrite them. " (Id., at 10.)

(8) redefinition of hardware, such as renaming an unintention-al restraint as a support, thereby inaccurately reclassifying a

design flaw as an additional factor of safety. (Id., at 13.)

l (9) design flaws that led inter alia to welds with radii up to 25% smaller than minimum American WeHing Societiy (AWS) standards, and failure to provide full penetration of welds, as required by AWS. The design drawings inaccurately represented the nature 'of the welds in the plant, so quality control inspec' tors did not look for the flaws that in fact existed. (Id.,

~-

at 16-17, Exhibit 1.)

(10) failure to modify pipe weld procedures to reflect their use on support steel, resulting in both suspect hardware and unreliable quality control inspections that checked for compliance with the wrong procedures. (Id., at 17, Exhibit 1.)

l l

, November 30, 1983

. . Page 3 I

(11) angle members, another form of pipe support, that were up to four times too long for allowable bending stress urider the relevant professional code. In an hour walkdown, Mr. Stokes found over 200 violations, on approximately 100 out of 300 frames checked. 'Some unreliable supports have been repaired, while I

( equivalent pieces remain untouched. (I_d., d at 17-18, Exhibit 2.) l (12) failure to verify the proper location of hilti-bolts due I l

to engine.ering analyses and QC inspections based on measurements from the wrong base lines. (Id , at 18, Exhibit 3.)

(13) failure for sustained periods even to issue blank Discrepancy Report (DR) forms -- the engineering equivalent of Nonconformance Reports -- necessary to report major problems such

~

as those identified by Mr. Stokes. (Id,., at 19-20.)

(14) retaliation against those who wrote Discrepancy Reports.

In October Mr. Stokes took the initiative to obtain blank forms and submit the DR's. The DR's disclosed his unsuccessful efforts to raise these issues within the chain of comman'd up to Bechte11 - 1 I headquarters in San Francisco. Within two weeks he was laid off.

i Although the official excuse was reduced manpower ~needs, for the next few weeks the~ staff was working overtime. On November 14, j j Mr. Stokes filed a complaint with the Department of Labor pursuant i to 42 U.S.C. j 5851, challenging his layoff as ret'aliatory. He l contended, j 1

Even if manpower needs were' diminished, someone else should have gone'first until I could follow through on the significant issues I had raised.

It was obvious to me that the layoff was. designed to prev'ent me from following up on the issues, just as our trailer had been recoved from pipe support reviews in March to get us out of the way. My layoff was an example for everyone else. (Id., at 19-20.)

In sum, Mr. Stokes charged that "I have never before seen management at any plant that was so persistent about accepting work that had been done' wrong originally." (Id., at 13.) He i requests that the Commission (1) fully pursueTis allegations

-before any decision to permit low power testing of the plant; and (2) refer relevant allegations to the Off: ice of Investigations for possible criminal referral to the Department of Justice. He will cooperate fully with any good faith Kr.C resaonse to this disclosure.

By separate letter today this affidavit is Seing sent to Mr. T.W.

Bishop in Region V.

Respectfully submitted, Thomas Devine Leg ~al Director i

l

..-.---4,-m-m--m.-. . . , _ . . _ _ - , . _ , , _ , - . . - - - , , _ , . _ - - _ , . . - . . . - , . _ _ - - - . - - - - _ . - - - - - - ~ . - --

. s 6

Route 1 Box 223 Cottonwood, Alabama 36320 Mr. Thomas Devine Government Accountability Project of the Institute for Policy Studies -

1901 Que Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20009

Dear Mr. Devine:

This is to authorize you to serve as my legal representative for my disclosure to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission of misconduct at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant.

This letter also authorizes you to use my information and statement for your work on the Zimmer Nuclear Power Station.

I have worked at Zimmer and am concerned that the engineering abuses in the corrective action program at Diablo Canyon are not repeated at Zimmer.

Sincerely, Charles Stokes -

CS:jhs I

= '

165 S. Dolliver #219 Pismo Beach, CA 93449 November 14, 1983 Administrator U.S. Cepartment of Labor Employment Standards Administration Wage and Hour Division 200 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20210 To Whom it may Concern:

This letter is to file a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 5851, amendments to the Energy Reorganization Act designed to protect whistle-blowers at nuclear power plants from retaliation for disclosing possible violations of the Atomic Energy Act. This letter is being sent pursuant to instructions received from Mr. Manuel Sausen, Compliance Officer, in the Glendale, California Wage and Hour Division.

Effective October 17, 1983, I was laid off from my position as field engineer at the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, Units I and II.

I worked for the Pacific Gas and Electric Company at Diablo Canyon on a

, contract basis,although I "as assigned to a group from the Bechtel i Corporation. A Bechtel supervisor infomed me of the personnel action.

I believe that I was prevented from returning to work on October 17, because I bad disclosed serious violations of Atomic Energy Act requirements for the design and quality assurance of pipe supports, welds and other hardware at Diablo Canyon. My disclosures were threatening to management, because they revealed sufficiently widespread flaws that the plant's license for operations could be significantly delayed.

l I will follow this complaint with a supporting affidavit and cooperate fully with any compliance officer assigned to investigate my case.

l Sincerely, d

Charles Stokes cc: Mr. Manuel Sausen