IR 05000445/1979010
| ML19249A589 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 07/05/1979 |
| From: | Crossman W, Renee Taylor NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19249A588 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-445-79-10, 50-446-79-10, NUDOCS 7908230666 | |
| Download: ML19249A589 (4) | |
Text
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO>DilSSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION IV
Report No. 50-445/79-10; 50-446/79-10 Docket No. 50-445; 50-446 Category A2 Licensee: Texas Utilities Generating Company 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 Facility Name: Comanche Peak, Units 1 & 2 Investigation at:
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Glen Rose, Texas Investigation conducted: April 6 through June 1, 1979
[/f R. G. Taylor, Resident Reactor Inspector, Projects Section Da'te '9 Inspectors:
4.---
W
-
S W. A.
Crossman, Chief, Projects Section Date Approved:
8 W. A. Cros sman, Chief, Projects Section Date Investiation Summary:
Investigation April 6 through June 1, 1979 (Report No. 50-445/79-10; 50-446/79-10)
Areas Investigated:
Investigation of an allegation of the generation of false Quality Assurance records by a person employed at the construction site in a responsible Quality Assurance position.
The investigation involved thirty-four inspector-hours by the Resident Reactor Inspector (RRI) and the Chief, Projects Section.
_Results:
The allegation could not be substantiated.
No items of noncompliance o.- deviations were identified.
774230 79082s sa o
INTRODUCTION Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES), Units 1 and 2, are under construction in Somervell County, Texas, near the town of Glen Pose, Texas.
Texas Utilities Generating Company is the Construction Permit holder with Brown and Root, Inc., as the constructor and Gibbs & Hill, Inc., as the Architect / Engineer.
REASON FOR INVESTIGATION The Rerion IV Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch office receivei a telephone call from a newspaper reporter stating that he had information indicating that a present CPSES employee involved in certain Quality Assurance activities was known to have been unavailable for work at the site on specific dates and any records of tests or inspections generated on those dates by the employee would had to have been falsifi-cations.
SUMMARY OF FACTS On April 6, 1969, the Region IV Reactor Construccion and Engineering Support Branch office received a telepone call from a party who identified himself, and was known to be, a newspaper reporter.
During the conversation, the caller stated that he had received information indicating that a CPSES employee involved in certain Quality Assurance activities of a responsible nature was not at the site on specific dates when the employee allegedly generated important Quality Assurance records.
The alleger concluded that the records had to be considered falsifications.
CONCLUSION Based upon an extensive review of time-keeping records and pertinent Quality Assurance records in conjunction with data concerning the employee's alleged whereabouts, the allegation could not be substantiated.
-2-774231
DETAILS 1.
Jersons Contacted Nonlicensee or Contractor Persons The Alleger - a newspaper reporter Various law enforcement agencies were also contacted to obtain infor-mation related to this investigation.
Principal Licensee Employees TUGCO/G&H Product Assurance Supervisor TUGC0 Site Quality Assurance Supervisor 2.
Investigation During the telephone conversation, the alleger indicated that an employee who held a responsible position in the on-site Quality Assurance organization had falsified certain Quality Assurance records to apparently coverup the fact that he had been detained by law enforcement authorities. The alleger identified the employee and provided five specific dates of detention. The alleger also indicated that he was reasonably sure that the employee had been detained in other jurisdictions but could not provide specific infor-mation as to wherc~or when.
The Resident Reactor Inspector (RRI) at Comanche Peak Station (CPSES) was assigned the responsibility for conducting the investigation.
The RRI visited the sheriffs' offices in both Somervell and Hood Counties on the pronise that arrests of this nature of ten occur near home or work.
The named employee had no arrest records in either county.
Records were also reviewed and other contacts utilized to verify the five dates originally offered by the alleger and to develop information on what may have occurreu in other jurisdictions.
This investigation and records review verified that four of the five dates provided by the alleger were accurate but also indicated that the party had been released before noon of the day following each arrest.
Two additional arrest dates were found in other jurisdictions, one of which involved several days of detention.
The records of detention in the jurisdictions involved do not routinely indicate time of release from detention, but the law enforcement agency representative indicated that it is normal practice to make such releases early on the day of release so as not to interfere with the persons' job more than necessary.
-3-D'NM
.
The RRI obtained and carefully analyzed certain payroll records main-tained by the site.
These records covered the entire period germaine to the allegation; i.e.,
late 1975 through 1976.
Neither the allegation nor the subsequent law enforcement agency search indicated any arrests since the end of 1976.
The payroll records, available to the RRI, indicated the number of hours a given employee was paid for on a given day but did not indicate the specific time span in which he worked. The payroll records show that in each instance of arrest and/or detention that either the employee did not work at all, or that he could have worked during hours of a given day af ter early release from detention.
The RRI reviewed applicable Quality Assurance records during the progress of the investigation to see if there was any possible evidence that the person might have performed a test or made an observation that could only have been made during the discrete peried of absence.
In no instance was the RRI able to develop evidence that this had happened.
Based on the above findings, it was concluded that the allegation could not be substantiated.
...
s
'i"/4233-4-