ML20107C463
| ML20107C463 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 11/01/1984 |
| From: | Devine T GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT |
| To: | Asselstine J, Palladino N, Roberts T NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20107C466 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#484-873 OL, NUDOCS 8411020539 | |
| Download: ML20107C463 (3) | |
Text
$l!$
1
\\
e.,,
- 7 77 GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT
'A 1
1555 Connecticut Awnue, N.W., Suite 202 Washington, D.C. 20036
'84 mv -1 PS :10 (202)232 8550 November 1, 1984
[,'}.-
gg
~ X M,c y,
Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman Thomas Roberts, Commissioner James Asselstine, Commissioner Frederick Bernthal, commissioner Lando Zech, Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Re:
Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant O.L. Numbers 50-275 and 50-323 -C(._
Dear Commissioners:
This letter is to notify you of three affidavits that are material to the safe operation of Diablo Canyon, Unit 1.
The affidavits represent a portion of the results from an October 9-30 investigative trip.
During that period the three relevant witnesses all testified to the Office of Investigations.
I am enclosing these affidavits to insure that you each are per-sonally aware of serious developments.
Up to nine additional affidavits will be filed within the next two weeks on alleged
'alse statements, as supplements to the pending petition of f
Messrs. James McDermott and Timothy O'Neill.
The enclosed information concerns alleged flaws in the condition of Diablo Canyon, however. I deemed it necessary to bring them to your immediate attention prior to ascension.
(1)
The first affidavit (Attachment 1) is from Mr.
Michael Thompson, formerly a systems turnover engineer and lead engineer for Pullman Power Products at Diablo.
The most rele-vant allegations concern possibly fake welds on stanchions holding up the safety injection system lines in Unit 1.
The stanchions are located approximately 40 feet from the reactor.
The welds in question are required by design and under ANSI B31.7 Class I standards to be full penetration.
In June 1983 Mr. Thompson cut out the base plates and checked inside of four welded attachments to see if full penetration welds existed.
He took this action, because despite fillet caps on the out-side, he had been unable to verify with nondestructive exam-ination that there was anything on the inside.
When he looked inside, Mr. Thompson found only partial welds or none at all.
Corrective action was taken for Un'it 2; the welds were cut out and replaced.
Pullman and Pacific Gas and Electric B411020539 841101 PDR ADOCK 05000275 G
\\
i
n.
Commiscionsrs Novrmb3r'1,o1984
-i Page Two
.j T-j
("PG&E")- officials refused ' to allow him to check inside analo-gous welded attachments in Unit-1, however, although they came-from the same vendor and. looked identical on.the outside.
Dec..
Thompson also was instructed that it was unnecessary to'save 3
the original approved-for-construction drawings and process sheets that detailed the; deficiencies.
(See Attachment 1, paragraphs 5-13).
On July 21, 1983 PG&E and Pullman decided not to look at the'60 welds which could be affected in Unit 1.
The excuse was curious:- the stanchions _could have passed the surface level nondestructive examination normally used at Diablo Canyon, so the condition inside was irrelevant'and the. stanchions were ac-l ceptable.
(Attachment 2).
In'short,_the. licensee's position.
l was that if grossly deficient hardware can pass an inadequate nondestructive examination, the deficiencies do not count and the hardware itself is " acceptable."
I am not aware of any ex-clusionary rule to throw out evidence of. nuclear safety hazards.
On September 5, Mr. Thompson disclosed these problems to-the NRC resident inspector, who last week assured Mr. Thompson that he was still investigating this " serious" issue.
I am concerned about the pace of the investigation.
Any necessary repairs should occur prior to ascension.
(2)
I authored the second affidavit (Attachment 3) as a-conduit on behalf of an anonymous alleger.
The affidavit in part discloses the employee's concerns that the Reactor Vessel Level Instrumentation System (RVLIS) may not provide reliable readings.
The witness stated that shortly before the Commi-ssion's August licensing vote, Westinghouse' informed PG&E that the fill for capillary tubing in the instrumentation lines had been improperly installed and tested.
This notification was consistent with an abnormally high failure rate of instru-I mentation lines due to leaks.
Although the plant was supposed to be in operable condition, the witness stated that the lines were being repaired to some degree during the period of the court stay.
(3)
The third statement is an October 29, 1984 affidavit from Mr. Steven Lockert (Attachment 4).
The affidavit in part concerns' the use of A-307B bolts with the heads cut off, which i
were used as welded studs on the containment liner and other safety - related work.
Mr. Lockert, Mr. O'Neill and other em-ployees have protested this practice.
In July the Appeals l
Board conditioned the operating license upon successful reso-lution of this issue.
At the August, 1984 Commission vote, Commissioner Asselstine asked about this issue.
Region V of-ficial Thomas Bishop replied that the " concern on that particu-lar issue went away" due to ASME Code Case Number N-71.
(Transcript, pp. 52-4). -This response mirrored an earlier PG&E l
L
-Commic31cntre November 1, 1984 Page Three position'(DCL-84-195, at 226 and 241).
Mrl Lockert carefully studied ASME Code Case N-71.
In his affidavit he reports that the'first paragraph of the ASME code case makes it obviously irrelevant for nearly all the work at Diablo Canyon.
Apparently, Mr. Bishop either intentionally j
deceived the Commission, or failed to read PG&E's citations be-fore endorsing them.
Either way, an issue which is undisputedly material to the license has been resolved on the basis of a false or misleading statement.
As a result, it is not resolved.
This information is disclosed in the hope that the Commis-sion will promptly act to protect the public, and forthrightly inform the Court of Appeals of the development.
That is your duty.
Unfortunately, since the August 17 stay, the Commission has adopted an adversary position with respect to the public.
Now that the stay is lifted, perhaps the Commission again will recognize its public service mission--before it is too late.
Respectfully submitted, J~
Thomas Devine Legal Director n.,
.