ML20099H663

Affidavit of Jl Mcdermott Supporting Jl Mcdermott & Tj O'Neill 840731 Petition Re NRC Mishandling of Previous Allegations.Fifteen New Allegations Listed

ML20099H663
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	01/21/1985
From:	Mcdermott J GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT
To:
Shared Package
ML20099H479	List: ML20099H476 ML20099H502 ML20099H527 ML20099H559 ML20099H574 ML20099H606 ML20099H626 ML20099H649 ML20099H663 ML20099H728 ML20099H754 ML20099H775
References
2.206, NUDOCS 8503190452
Download: ML20099H663 (5)

Text

..

7 Exhibit 8 UNITED. STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the matter of )

)

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC ) Docket Nos. 50-275 COMPANY ) 50-323

)

(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power )

Plant, Units 1 and 2) )

)

C AFFIDAVIT OF JAMES L. MCDERMOTT II

's State of California )

) ss County of San Luis Obispo )

City of San Luis Obispo )

The above being duly sworn deposes and says:

My name is James L. McDermott II. On January 8, 1985 the NRC staf f interviewed me to close out four allegations. In the process, the staff revealed that it had mischaracterized two out of the four charges, violated its own internal rules, ignored rolevant portions of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, and accepted licensee rcponses uncritically that were based on material false otatements. As a result, I have 15 new allegations, which are listed below:

1. The NRC staff mischaracterized allegation #262 as " Pullman management instructs inspectors to violate contract specifica-tions by stamping on the weld because it was not prohibited",

wnen in reality my point was that of two Pullman related ongineering specifications, one did prohibit weld stamping and O

l$k DO {5 Q

the other did not , but when I had tried to alert management to the potentially destructive inconsistencies, the Pullman quality cssurance/ quality conttp1 (QA/QC) manager stopped me on the basis of the procedural loophole ( February 25, 1984 Affidavit, @ Page 5 cnd Exhibit 7).

2. The NRC f ailure to properly define my allegation is due to the staff's f ailure to send a letter or other communication confirming that it accurately understood the charge, contrary to internal NRC rules.

3. I protest that the staff f ailed to discuss -- either in its inspection report or our closeout interview -- a significant portion of allegation #262 -- whether Pullman's management acted properly by vetoing my challenge of procedural inconsistancies as to weld s tamping, which is contrary to well-known practices of cound construction, merely because the Pullman procedures do not discuss the subject.

4. The s taf f's f ailure to f ollowup meaningfully explains why on Jcnuary 8,1985, af ter Region V had closed out the allegation, that Yhspector Dennis Kirsch told me in the closecut interview that he was ignorant of whether my concern involved paperwork or any particular weld; since my allegation involved both and during our interview I offered to point out a specific example on a plant tour.

t

5. The NRC staff improperly wasted my time by calling me for a Jcnuary 8,1985 closecut interview on allegation #278 -- stain-4 less s teel tool control -- when the staff was unprepared to 2

c inform me why the NRC had accepted PGandE's response to the issue.

6. The NRC staff prematurely closed out allegation #278, since in June and October 1984 I alleged that the licensee's response was based on material f alse s tatements, and the Office of Investigations has not yet finished its probe.

7. The NRC staff improperly f ailed to examine a major portion of my allegation on tool control -- why Pullman waited over a year to act on the Deficien,t Condition Notice that I authored on the misconduct I had observed.

8. The NRC staff wasted my time by calling me to a closeout meeting on allegation #279 -- concerning the removal of a hold tag -- by " explaining" its reason for rejecting the charge through reading from an Inspection and Enforcement Report that already

• had been published and then refusing to answer substantive questions about holes and ambiguities in the inspection report.

9. The staff resolution of allegation #2,79 permits management to remove hold tags entirely that are allegedly overbroad, which is improper, since it means that corrective action against illegal conditions can be thwarted as well with impunity merely because part of the work covered by the hold tag is acceptable.

10. The staf f mischaracterized the underlying quality dispute behind the retaliation charge in allegation #280 by saying that I had challenged the inaccessibility of a weld; since I had not raised that issue at all but rather had challenged unacceptable 3

't curf ace preparation through reliance on a totally inadquate tool called a peanut grinder, and f ailure to use the. recommended

~

ourface preparation methodr listed in the procedure.

11. The weld process sheet provi'ded by the licensee to the staff on allegation #280 is false according to the staff; since the staff claims in part to have defined my allegation on the basis of the process sheet when improper weld preparation rather than inaccessibility was the practice I had challenged at the site.

12. The staff's failure to define allegation #280 properly in part is due to its f ailure to send a letter or otherwise ~

communicate with me to assure that it properly understood the ollegation and its basis.

13. The staff's review of the dispute underlying allegation

1. 280 was incomplete, since it only looked at paperwork on one weld out of the approximately dozen welds where I had found the surf ace prepartion inadequate (February 25, 1984,- Affidavit 9 Pages 9 and 10, and Exhibits 14 and 15).

14. The staf f improperly published an inspection report on ollegation #280, which charged retaliation; since under the NRC's internal rules reprisal issues are under the jurisdiction of the Of fice of Investigations, which operates independently from the otaf f and has not yet issued its findings on the charge.

15. I protest that the NRC staff has only interviewed me to followup or have closeout interviews on a small percentage of my 4

'l

total allegations, and has skipped dozens of the most significant issues, including the training inadequacies I challenged just before my July layoff [y~ .

I have read the above five page affidavit and it is true, accurate cnd complete to the be'st of my knowledge and belief. ,

w cl James. L. McDermott II y STATE oF CA A :ss a couNiv orN_n_NT.,uig_Qhi,apo ' .

5 o, 1/21/85 ...,o,. n,,in. uno.,,,gn a.a uo,8,, ,,oi,e ,a anoio,

$ .:.o stai. o.r.onais, son.areo_ JES h .McDERMQTJ II .

I _ . . _ .__ _..... _ .. ..._ _ .

1 o.rionany kno.n to m.ior oro .o to m. on in. eas.: ce istis. '

j e:ciory .vio.ne.iio e. ine o.rionm onoie nam.< s> >izare sue-SUSAN HAWkI'N 1, serie.o io in. ..in n .nsirumeni ano ackno.i.og.o to m. ina' NOTARY PUGUC<,AUFORNIA g ne,ia. fin.y ...cui.o in. **=.

PsiNetPAL. OFFICE IN 4 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY WITNESS my mano and officist s.at i nor Commiest.a Empero. Jan St.1984l

$ gnaiu h/g@ Ik . ifnet area for ofisClef notarial S.al) 5