ML20126D399
Text
s
,," l,, # * ** %.,
UNITED ST ATES
, [.,
,g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
Y i,.
REGloN IV g{.
ty, M t
- [
611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE. SUITE 1000 ARLINGTON. TEXAS 76011
~*'3' bO MEMORANDUM FOR:
Richard Herr, Director Office of Investigations FROM:
G. L. Constable, Senior Resident Inspector, Waterford 3
SUBJECT:
CALL TO AN EBASCO QA ENGINEER FROM AN INDIVIDUAL WHO CLAIMED TO BE AN NRC INVESTIGATOR FROM WASHINGTON, D.C.
b
.u 5
On I was contacted of LP&L QA (C struction) wh6 informed me that
_ an Ebasco Q engineer, was contacted by someone claiming to work for NRC.
)
I talked to in private and he told me he had received a call geone named " Basi ' who said he werked for NRC in Washington D.C.
could not remember if that was a first or last name.
He thinks the in ividual said he was an investigator, but is not sure.
He said he was shook up by the call and didn't ask many questions. The conversation lasted 10-15 minutes.
I asked h ) 5f he was involved in any on goi allegationsgat Waterford.
He said at a e time he had worked next to land that he believed ad mentioned h' partofani'ntimidation allegatio'n.
3This was apparently not related to t e phone call.
The individual who called refer pd fiercury NCR's 7560 nad 7579 and said that he understogd, thgti 6d removed and destroyed attachments from these NCR's. CM!said that the caller said that everything in an NCR should remain attached and asked him if he realized that he had comitted a criminal act.
S I
told me he had removed attachments from the NCR's last Wednesday, 3 e was at his nonnal work location at the time in the H
bast
>uilding QA cubical q the corner. He said that his supervisor,
~
Ynew he did it.
(He also said it was common (nowledge in his group.) He comented that the infonnation he took out of the NCR was redundant and superfluous and didn't need to be there. He said he did not destroy the information and that it is now back in the NCR.
85061500 DR PhDE84-A-55 o
D M-$V-VA8lV
\\
Richard Herr.,
['M, natter related to tnis,(Allegation 4-84-A-31), NRC was c nt cted b )3 In a who gave the resident inspector [ ies were (560)f indicating.that the two cop 7wo copies of the same N different. At the time the individuals asked that NRC hold off doing anything they had had neeting on ubject the,next day.
I contacted dednesda,
and he said the problem had been solv d that, s wri ing a memo on the subject. This individual a o informed LP&L QA of my call to him.
It is my understanding, based on a phone conversation with you, that 01 is not investigating this matter.
It is my intention, unless otherwise directed, to include this information in 4-84-A-31 and have an NRC construction inspector review the technical content of the issue.
It is nty impression that we have enough information to close the allegation, assuming a review doesn't identify further problems.
G. L. Constable Attachments cc:
W. A. Crossman T. Westerman J. Gagliardo
_ _,