ML20099H559
| ML20099H559 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 02/04/1985 |
| From: | GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20099H479 | List: |
| References | |
| 2.206, NUDOCS 8503190411 | |
| Download: ML20099H559 (5) | |
Text
?~
6 4
~
Exhibit 3
-xr- -mz.2 s:s r 2-7_==1 m UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Egf9Cg the NucltgC 6egylgtgty Cgsm[ss[gg
)
In the Matter of
)
)
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC
)
Docket Nos. 50-275 COMPANY
)
50-232
)
Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power
)
Plant, Units 1 and 2
)
)
AFFIDAVIT OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA SS COUNTY OF San Inis Obispo CITY OF Arroyo Grande, CA The above, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
My name is I am providing this affidavit freely and voluntarily, without any
- threats, inducements or coercion to Mr.
Thomas Devine, who has identified himself to me as the legal director of the Government Accountability Project (GAP).
This statement evidences my concern over a
quality assurance (OA) breakdown at the Diablo Canyon nuclear p 9er
- plant, particularly with respect to the accuracy of design drawings.
I have instructed Mr. Devine to disclose my statement to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) but to remove my identity until a
suitable agreement is signed by government officials to protect my anonymity.
I worked at Diablo from October 1981 to April 1982, ahen I
B503190411 850314 PDR ADOCK 05000275 g
PDR g
resigned as a draftsman for small-bore piping drawings in the program for design, redesign and modifications of pipe supports.
My work helped prepare for and implement the seismic design review of the facility.
The areas where I worked included the
- annulus, au::i l i ary
- building, diesel generator and for a short while the turbine building.
As qualifications, I have been drafting mechanical design drawings since I was 14.
I am just sheet of earning a Mechanical Engineering degree from college.
Outside of Diablo
- Canyon, I
have worked as supervisor of a drafting department and as a
design engineer.
My specific allegations are listed below.
They are presented to define the issues and serve as a starting point for further discussion with the NRC.
1.
For an extended period, nearly every day I had to go into the field to check the location of hardware before drafting the drawing, because the requested measurements were physically impossible.
2.
During my field reviews I routinely found instances of hardware deficiencies, such as loose U-bolt and missing nuts.
3.
During my field reviews I also frequently discovered problems due to design conflicts, where pipes couldn't move or even be installed as the drawjngs were supposed to reflect, due h fl N 'N f f M to piping $which-wee already in place.
mJh[c k WJu G 4.
Although specifically-identified problems were corrected, my supervisors responded by restricting the rate at which I could report inaccuracies through their instructions to stop making waves by reporting so much, although it was all right 2
k occasionally.
5.
' Subsequently, management responded with restrictions on the channels available to correct inaccurate drawings, by telling other draftsmen and myself not to report problems directly to the QA departmenti but rather simply -to tell our supervisor who would pass the information to DA.
6.
Finally we were told not to attempt correcting inaccuracies, not to check in the field, and not to tell our supervisert b'ut rather to simply draft what was requested.
7.
0:<c ause I was outspoken in critici:ing the restrictions on our ability to correct inaccuracies in the
- drawings, I
believe that I was denied promised pay raises and promotions.
G.
In general during my time at Diablo Canyon draftsmen worked on the basis of informal instructions rather than the Engineering Specifications-Diablo (ESD's),
even when the instructions conflicted with the ESD's.
9.
During my participation in an early 1982 PGLE-ordered field audit for the accuracy of a random sample of Unit i
drawings dating back to 1972, I found that approximately 85%
of the drawings were inaccurate.
10.
Management responded by refusing to expand the sample and terminated the program, although deficiencies were correcte'd that I had identified.
11.
The errors I found routinely had occurred in drawings which previously had been checked and approved, raising questions in general about both the accuracy of design quality assurance and the reliability of later engineering reviews based on these 3
o 4
mrawings during the seismic design review.
a 12.
Othcr - p ; r s c-n n e l L t.a T i mi d audi L r wwi. - T$ di d -act r _,__s
...-.7
.c
.....--.,~,.4,,
wun -
wr qi
.-..____...a
- u...a
,-a y
cc
- -ti.-
- t p a; % D :ti q -bou+
-k-*h=r the-w ie+- rier led t u-dr~ rper+ing nf +h:
.. r wr 13.
I can testify from personal experience that the draw;ngs I
had drafted subsequen tl y were falsified by altering them without any documentation er signature, particularly with respect to weld symbols.
14.
Management failed to investigate who had changed my drawings without docuenentation on each occasion that it occurred.
15.
Modifications were made to Unit 1 pipe supports without assessing the impact from prior modifications on the same pipe o
- support, which helps to explain the design conflicts discusset above.
16.
1tometric drawings were used as the primary vehicles for engineering r evi ew and analyses but did not reflect all the changos recorded on as-built drawings.
17.
An underlying cause of the outdated isometrics was a
loophole in the procedures to update the drawings, which did not require that the impact be noted how changes on up to five or six piping lines from different systems that could cross the same support would affect each other.
Mr.
Devino has informed me that the following concerns support prior allegations by other employees.
18.
One of the main problems was due to unqualified quality control (OC) personnel, who did not always have hig"
- chuws (or I 4
Idl I l
- _ = _
ey.,
familiarity with the requirements of ESD's, or the capacity to read drawings dimensionally, yet were checking the engineers' work.
19.
Although the NRC eventually required classes in ESD's for all personnel, there was no program to go back and check for errors that may have occurred before the training.
20.
There was no uniform standard for weld symbols on the drawings.
which were the subject of ongoing argument and debate among different groups on-site.
21.
Because the ESD's did not specify the correct weld
- symbols, employees brought and relied on their own charts from other jobs.
such as one that I saw from the American Petroleum Institute.
22.
Although as draftsmen we had to draw and interpret weld symbols daily. I never received any training in the subject.
I have read the above 5-page affidavit and it is
- true, accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.
%;m.
State of California
)
as county of San Inis Obispo)
On this 4th day of February,1985, before me, Marciana R. Rcmero, the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared (f"* *J ** A who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be he perscn whose nane is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowlalged that he executed it.
l WilhuS my hand and official seal.
j t
OFFICIAL SF[AL
@ NOTARY PVgLic. CAttroaNIA SAN LUl! 00f$P0 COUNTY My comm. espires JUL Jt, Igg;
._=_:_-_
5
.