ML20029C160
| ML20029C160 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 01/24/1979 |
| From: | Crossman W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Seidle W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20029C132 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-90-361 NUDOCS 9103260331 | |
| Download: ML20029C160 (2) | |
Text
s ' ' c g#o U*dit 0 51 Al t s j
gV l
g ~
[N I
^
NUCL C AM Rf CUL AtoRY CovMIS$10N n
AE CiON IV I
611 RY AN PLAZ A ORIVE, $Uill 1000
', 3 c '
- j t
A R LINGT ON. i t A AS 4011 s, - /
t Janua ry 24, 1979 Docket No. 50-498 50-499 MEMORANDUM FOR:
File THRU:
W. C. Seidle, Chief, RC&E5 Branch FROM:
W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section
SUBJECT:
HLEDHONE CONVERSATION WITH A FONEI+ xM EMPLOYEE REGAPOING ALLEGED FORGERY A. D FALSlFICAll0N OF QC RECORDS AT THE SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT I received a telephone call from a formerr--SJ-'=
proximately 7:45 p.m. on friday, January 9,1979,a15:mployeeatap-91ng forgery and falsification of quality control records at the South Texas Project.
The alleger claimed that contacts h had rade with site personnel in-formed him that original inspection checklists turned in to the QA lead inspector were being changed before sending them to the document storage vault. Msaid that there is an informal checklist made out by each
~
inspector and turned in with the inspector's remarks in regard to re-jectable items.
The 1_ead QC inspector reviews the checklist and the alleger stated that g has proof of specific cases where the checklist has been copied over onto an Examination Checklist (EC) by the-lead inspector and then put the QC inspector's initials on the EC.
The alleger stated that one of the specific cases shows an inspection checklist by a known inspector made out in someone else's handwriting and initialed with the inspector's initials.
The other case is an -
authentic checklist made out by-the same inspector.
The authentic checklist contains a remark concerning a Cadweld which had no bottom witness mark and another remark concerning a Cadweld with no number.
The alleger stated that on the final EC, the first rerrark was marked
" acceptable" and the second remark was marked " verified on 11/8."
y[
\\. $-
/
_Informstlon In thh reeng In accordam,,,y v..
g w3, gg, qed 4Cl, exemp[l;;;;3
'CIIOD FOIA.Mg I
fjY 9103260331 910314 PDR FOIA KOURY90-361 PDR
h
-.,.1 file - DN 50-498; 50-499 January 24, 1979 h'ilfP tated that there are many nore cases of the above practice c6d the s
le'ad inspector had kept all of the inforral checklists in a folder in dllPcpersonal f.ile and could not suggest how the NRC would be able to
-see them;- dllPsaid that there has been a revision to the Examination Checksheet wh' ch incorporatas the informal checklist on the backside.
or submit the lolriginal. Msaid that the case exists where both sid of the form had been cop 1W-and initialed (with the inspector's initials) by the lead inspector, dv_-4 W. A. Crossman, Chief Projects Section cc:
W. G.-Hubacek W.-C.ESeidle C. E. Wisner 4
f c-,
'