ML20137C368

Responds to 841126 Request for Consideration of Whether Util Made Matl False Statement Warranting Enforcement Action Re U-bolt Supports.Ofc of Investigation Action & Views Required Re Util Deliberateness,Willfulness & Intent

ML20137C368
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	03/21/1985
From:	Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
To:	Noonan V NRC - COMANCHE PEAK PROJECT (TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM)
Shared Package
ML20136F556	List: ML20136F552 ML20136G199 ML20137A035 ML20137C368 ML20137C403 ML20137C427 ML20137C447 ML20137D123
References
NUDOCS 8508220247
Download: ML20137C368 (1)

Text

_ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

5"

• Enclosure 2

1. o UNITED STATES

[} N- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g q) e.: ~gg n gg~s yv/.....

MEMORANDUM FOR: Vincent S. Noonan, Director Comanche Peak Task Force James M. Taylor, Director FROM:

Office?of Inspection and Enforcement

SUBJECT:

POSSIBLE MATERIAL FALSE STATEMENT CONCERNING U-BOLT SUPPORTS AT COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION Your memorandum dated November 26, 1984 requested my consideration of whether Texas Utilities Electric Company (" Applicants") had made a " material false statement" warranting enforcement action in a statement Applicants made to

.the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board concerning U-bolt supports at the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station. The staff has determined that although the question is a close one, the statement could be viewed as a material false statement. The statement in question is, "To determine the range of torques which exists in the ' field, applicants inspected the torque of a randomly

~

selected representative sample of cinched down U-bolt supports." The statement could be viewed as false because the " field" refers to Comanche Peak Unit I and Unit 2, but the Applicants took the " randomly selected representative sample" only from Unit 2. The statement could be viewed as material because if the.NRC had known that the " randomly selected representative sample" had been taken only from Unit 2, it would have required additional information to show why the sample was representative of U-bolt supports in Unit 1 as well.

O An investigation by the Office of Investigations (01) is needed for the Office of Inspection and Enforcement (IE) to determine what enforcement action, if any, is appropriate. In addition to verification of the circumstances surrounding the submission of the statement, IE needs OI's expert views on the issues of deliberateness, willfulness and intent. I have recommended that the Executive i Director for Operations request OI to conduct such an investigation. 1

//k  ;

l

&f es M. Tay r, Director l

fice of I pection and Enforcement )

• 1 cc: l

! B. Hayes, 01 H. Denton, NRR G. Cunningham, ELD J. Lieberman, ELD J. Axelrad IE l

8508220247 850820 5 PDR ADOCK 050

- . _ _.