ML20138Q072

Rept of 820823 Interview W/R Irby Re Possible Falsification of Documents & Possible Harassment or Intimidation of Util Employees.Nrc Position on Nonconforming Items Should Be Stronger

ML20138Q072
Person / Time
Site:	05000000, Catawba
Issue date:	08/31/1983
From:	Philip Mckenna NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTOR & AUDITOR (OIA)
To:
Shared Package
ML20136E247	List: ML20136E662 ML20136E801 ML20136E831 ML20136E993 ML20138P801 ML20138P934 ML20138P956 ML20138P977 ML20138P987 ML20138Q013 ML20138Q034 ML20138Q043 ML20138Q069 ML20138Q072 ML20138Q093 ML20138Q382 ML20138Q522 ML20138Q558 ML20138Q832 ML20138Q859 ML20138Q888 ML20138R015 ML20138R105 ML20138R241 ML20138R492 ML20140B796
References
FOIA-85-437 NUDOCS 8511140454
Download: ML20138Q072 (1)

Text

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Inspector and Auditor o m o, ir,a... Fi..,, August 31, 1983 Report of Interview Richard Irby, Inspector, Duke Power Company (DPC), who comenced his employment with DPC in May(SRI), Catawba Nuclear Power Station (CNPS),

1977, upon interview in the office of the NRC Senior Resident Inspector provided the following information concerning the possibility of falsification of documents. He had no knowledge or involvement of any such fraudulent activity. Regarding possible harassment or intimidation of DPC employees as a result of having contacted the NRC, he similarly advised he was unaware of any such instances.

The only other information he wished to relate to the Office of Inspector and Auditor pertained to the technical issue which he felt NRC might better have taken a strong stand on.

He explained that the incident in question was referred to the DPC Task Force as Item K-2 which focused on a dome plate he was involved in inspecting. On July 31, 1980, he observed an excessive pitting in the dome plate which had already been installed in the ground.

However, he would not authorize a certification for that weld and wrote a Non-Confonning Item (NCI).

His point of concern was that although this particular weld issue was rectified as a result of the DPC Task Force, his stance on not passing that dome plate from an inspection stand point took approximately two years.

He felt that if the NRC position regarding the NCI's had been stronger his position as the inspector would have been upheld at the time the NCI was written. However,. based upon the procedures, his judgment was not accepted and it took approximately two years;for DPC to eventually agree to correctinc a problem which he had identified during his initial inspection. The NCI in question was No. 9092 which DPC Task Force eventually closed out on April 3, 1982, 21 months after it was written.

He was aware of various other alleged problem areas with DPC employees and some issues with NRC. However, he was unaware of any specific incidents which he could relate and other than locker room or parking lot hearsay conver-sations of no importance.

Irby could provide no further information.

8511140454 851017 IP 5-437 PDR August 23, 1983 Rock Hill, S.C 83-52 F u. =

t ck McKenna o,,,,,,,,,,, Augus t 31, 1983 THIS DOCUMENT IS PROPE RTY OF N RC. IF LOANED TO ANOTHE R AGENCY IT AND ITS CONTENTS ARE OUTSIDE THE RECEIVING AGENCY WITHOUT PE RMISSION OF THE OF FICE OF INSPECTOR AND AUDITOR.

110-82)