ML20207G924

Partially Withheld Memo Forwarding Partially Withheld Investigation Rept 4-84-047 Re Alleged Falsification of Test Results at Facility.Investigation Did Not Establish Falsification of Repts or Deception by Engineer

ML20207G924
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	09/03/1986
From:	Hayes B NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI)
To:	Martin R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
Shared Package
ML20207D010	List: ML20207D006 ML20207G924 ML20207H016
References
NUDOCS 8701070427
Download: ML20207G924 (1)

Text

1

1. c .

1. osecy (

Io .

UNITED STATES o 8 ,- o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -

.p WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

%,,,,,# September 3, 1986

/

MEMORANDUM FOR: Robe D. Martin, Regional Administrator p Reg on IV I

FROM: an Hayes, Director ffice of Investigations

SUBJECT:

1M TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY:

ALLEGED FALSIFICATION OF TEST RESULTS (4-84-047)

Enclosed is an Office of Investigations'(OI) Report of Investigation. In August 1984, Texas Utilities Gene' rating Company (TUGCO) introduced evidentiary depositions to the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (ASLBP) which indicated that a former 6 M mployee, who had previously worked as a start-up engineer (STE) at the CPSES, had deceived a Quality Assurance (QA) technician causing a false entry to be made on a preoperational test report. The former STE had previously appeared as an intervenor witness at the ASLBP hearings. The evidentiary depositions contained the, testimony of utility employees who reported that in 1982 the former STE admitt.ed to them that he had deceived a QA technician causing a false entry to be made on a preoperational test report.

When questioned about this allegation during the ASLBP hearing and during an i

interview as part of this investigation, the former STE denied having decetved

, a QA technician and denied having told the utility employees he had . deceived a QA technician. When the utility's witnesses were interviewed during this investigation, one recanted his testimony and another employee qualified his earlier testimony which had implicated the former STE. The results of this investigation did not establish that the former STE deceived the QA technician nor did it establish that a preoperational test report was falsified.

Enclosures:

As stated

• l YtR. Herr, 01:RIV WM 8701070427 861229 PDR ADOCK 05000445 0 PDR 3

._ _ - _.