ML20138Q034
Text
'
r t b 011983
)
MD:0?>SD','M FOR:
Carl E. Al der sen, Director, Trogrc: Suppert Staff
.IfA. J. Ignatonis, Acting Chief, Keactor Projects Section 2.A THT.U:
TROM:
P. K. Van Doorn, Senior Resident Inspector, Cstawba SU5J ECT:
ALLECAT1055 CONCEFNIPC QC VELDIN'; INSPECTION AT CATAV3A NUCLEAR SIAIION (Case No. 2G022)
I have cc=pleted cy review of the Duke Fever Cc:~;any (DPC) task force ef fort addressing the subject concerns.
My investiEation has included a review of each concern and resultant evaluation and recomendations.
In addition I interviewed 9 QA/QC supervisors and 19 QC velding inspectors.
These personnel included all these QA/QC personnel who had expressed or been involved with concerns. A list of persons interviewed is attached as Enclosure (1).
I have reported this inspection effort in NRC Report Nos.
I13/62-21, 414/52-19, 413/82-32, 414/82-30, 413/82-33, and 414/82-31.
DPC has retained detailed records of the task force investiEation which will be retained by DFC and =ade available for any further review that we dec=
necessary.
My conclusion is that the DPC investigation was co=plete and that resultant recomendctions and actions taken or planned appear adequate to address the concerns.
I discussed both harass =ent and falsification during the interview process. Although there appear to have been occasional disagreemerts between QC and craf t personnel, I conclude that harass =ent is not a legiticate concern at Catsuba.
I further conclude that falsification is not a concern at Catauba.
So=e inspectors have signed for ite=s which they did not agree were acceptable.
However, they did so at the, direction of a supervisor who had made an honest judge =ent that the ite= vas acceptable.
DPC has now ingle =ented a policy preventing so=eone signing for an item which he/she dees not agree is acceptable.
M/ reco=endation is that we consider Case No. 20022 closed.
,!-1 K. Va D o n, 4
Enclosure (1) List of Persons Interviewed (Confidential) cc: J. Y. Vorse, Director, Office of Investigations 0511140329 851017 PDR FDIA GILINSKBS-437 PDR n
p' L' -
'47
,j' g y, $,g i.UOLE/R R E GU' M O.'.Y CO:.9 '.;;N..
3 g
REGON I x c_,
.I in w.rTTA ET, w w, recTt nap t
n.7'-
aram cr:> a :. :
v*****/
Tebruary 22, 1983 Dacket Nes. 50 4J3 and 50 414 MD!OFAND.TM TOR:
C. E. Johnson Office of ELD 77.0y.:
P. K. Van Deern, Senior Resident Inspector Catauba Nuclear Station SUE.TICT:
INF0FF.ATION F".AITVE 10 VII.DI!C INSFICIOR CONCEF.';S AT CATAr:A ITJCI.TAE STATION As stated in previous correspendence, concerns were expressed to lath D.:ke 7:ver Co. (DPC) and NRC regarding velding inspection at Catevbs.. Tae concerns expressed to NRC by L?r-@ps 2 were also expressed to DPC of ficials and included in the DPC task force review.
I have completed niy review of this catter hnd have cencluded that the DPC task force effort has resulted in satisfactory actions taken or planned to address the concerns.
Results of c:y inspections are included in NRC reports and ee oranda.
Ihese ce=:randa, along with copies of the concerns expressed to NRC, are contained in the NRC RII case file. A copy of this file is being for arded to you directly from NRC:RII per C. E. Alder::en.
Additienal docu=entation utilized by me to perfor= u.y review is held by DPC in the form of docu=entation of the DPC task force review. I t i s :..y understanding that this caterial has been released to the Paleetto Alliance per DPC: A. V. Cstr, Jr.
/.4.~
u V..n Doorn act A. J. Ignatonis, NRC:RII K. N. Jatbour, NRR
? ?f f$52 O
e M g
..,::. in el C. :.i...: ' 5.v ce l
2.
~~
~~
3, 4.
1.'e also have nur.erous (.approxir.atelyp, concerns of intic.idation (thrc ts.
curses, hur.iliation, nonsupport) of the Inspe: tors which c:uld lead us to question their independent and integrity.
\\u
~
WilliamJ. Thin afd1 d.
.N 4
e e
e DO NO1 D153 *.J*
C c..f.s' u !! eth a i.e m