ML20215K722
| ML20215K722 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 10/15/1986 |
| From: | Johnson E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Counsil W TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8610280277 | |
| Download: ML20215K722 (6) | |
Text
F In Reply Refer To:
Dockets:
50-445/86-12 OCT 15 E 50-446/86-10 Texas Utilities Generating Company ATTN: Mr. W. G. Counsil Executive Vice President 400 North Olive, L.B. 81 Dallas, Texas 75201 Gentlemen:
This refers to the investigation conducted by Mr. H. Brooks Griffin of the NRC Office of Investigations, Region IV Field Office of activities authorized by NRC Construction Permits CPPR-126 and CPPR-127 for the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station.
This investigation was initiated at the request of the NRC Executive Director for Operations to determine if Texas Utilities Generating Company (TUGCo) had improperly withheld a Management Analysis Company (MAC) audit report in responding to discovery interrogatories requested in conjunction with the Comanche Peak Atomic Safety and Licensing Board hearing.
The NRC staff is reviewing the OI findings. Any enforcement action on this matter will be handled separate from this letter.
Should you have any questions concerning this investigation, we will be pleased to discuss them with you.
Sincerely, ca, = ? signed By.
- a Jenson E. H. Johnson, Director Division of Reactor Safety and Projects
Enclosure:
Appendix - NRC Investigation Report Cover Page and Synopsis (Case Number 4-85-008) cc:
(see next page)
RIV:CPGk RSBd E0 DRSP M IBarnes:gb TFWesterman DPowers EHJohnson
[9/4/86 (0/v/86 loby/86 c/d /86 j
0610280277 861015 PDR ADOCK 0000 5
1 l
c Texas Utilities Generating Company 2
cc:
Texas Utilities Electric Company ATTN:
G. S. Keeley, Manager Licensing Skyway Tower 400 North Olive Street Lock Box 81 Dallas, Texas 75201 Juanita Ellis President - CASE 1426 South Polk Street Dallas, Texas 75224 Renea Hicks Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division P. O. Box 12548 Austin, Texas 78711 - 2548 Administrative Judge Peter Bloch U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 i
Elizabeth B. Johnson Administrative Judge Oak Ridge National Laboratory F. O. Box X, Building 3500 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom 1107 West Knapp Stillwater, Oklahoma 74075 Dr. Walter H. Jordan 881 Outer Drive Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Anthony Roisman, Esq.
Executive Director Trial Lawyers for Public Justice 2000 P. Street, N.W., Suite 611 Washington, D. C. 20036 Texas Radiation Control Program Director i
I
,._..,c.
r f
DISTRIBUTION:
bec to DMB (IE01) bec distrib. by RIV:
- RPB
- MIS System
- RRI-0PS
- RSTS Operator wRRI-CONST
- R&SPB
- RSB
- RIV File J. Taylor, IE
- D. Weiss, LFMB (AR-2015)
J. Konklin, IE
- I. Barnes, CPTG M. Emerson
- w/766 D. Powers i
3
}
Title:
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY:
MATERIAL FALSE STATEMENT Licensee:
Case Number: 4-85-008 Texas Utilities Generating Company Report Date: MARCH 27, 1986 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 Control Officc: 01:RIV Docket No: 50-445/446 Status: CLOSED Reported by:
Reviewed by:
19Y I
h l
~
H. Brooks Grif fin ~ //
Richard K.' Herr' Investigator, 01:RIV Director, 01:RIV A
db j
s JM
- Ben B. 'flayes tectqr Office of In igatfons WARNING e attache documen report h s not be reviewed rsuantth10C..R.
- 62. 90(a) ex ptions n r has an exempt erial been eleted.\\Do no diss minate o discuss
's conten outside RC. Treat s "0FFITQAL U
'\\
\\
ONLY.T
\\
The attached synopsis for 01 Case 4-85-008 has been approved for release by 01 ar.d Region IV has completed a 10 CFR 2.790(a) review.
SYN 0PSIS In 1978 Texas Utilities contracted with the Management Analysis Company (MAC) to perform an audit'of Texas Utility Generating Company's (TUGCO) Quality Assurance (QA) program for Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES).
During 1978 MAC representatives conducted an audit of the QA program at the corporate office and at the Comanche Peak site. MAC produced a written report which MAC representatives presented to the utility's upper management. The MAC report contained findings which in some instances reported noncompliance with provisions of Appendix B.
- In 1980 the intervenor for CPSES filed interrogatories through the Comanche Peak Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) for the production of numerous documents which included third party audits related to Contention 5.
After the utility requested and received clarifications of the intervenor's request, the utility agreed to make the requested documents available for viewing by the intervenor.
The utility's licensing group sent requests for file reviews to the affected divisions of the utility and collected their responses in an effort to assemble the documents requested in response to the ASLB order. During this review, a TUGC0 Corporate QA Supervisor notified a licensing group representative of the existence of the 1978 MAC report and expressed the opinion that it was within the scope of the intervenor's request. The licensing official responsible for collecting the requested documents obtained a copy of the MAC report and specifically questioned a TUGC0 Executive Vice-President as to whether the MAC report should be included in the response. The Executive Vice-President, without consultation with other utility officials and without the knowledge that certain QA supervisors believed the MAC was producible, made a decision that the report was confidential and should not be produced. When the inter-venor subsequently reviewed the requested documents in the utility's office, the 1978 MAC report was not among the reports made available.
In 1985 during a prudency audit conducted by the utility, the 1978 MAC report was discovered. Utility corporate management officials ultimately decided that the report was within the scope of the intervenor's 1980 interrogatories related to Contention 5.
The utility sent a copy of the 1978 MAC report to the ASLB and notified the NRC that the report had not been produced in 1980 based on a decision of the Executive Vice-President and absent the advice or input of other scnior utility officials.
The utility subsequently conducted an internal investigation as to why the 1978 MAC report had not been produced in 1980. Affidavits were taken from utility employees, and the utility management again concluded the decision to withhold the report was made solely by the Executive Vice-President and this was an error in judgement.
Certain senior management officials also testified that j
the review perfonned by MAC in 1978 had been intended for use as a management tool to evaluate their program and had not been intended as an audit of the QA l
program.
During the time the utility was conducting its internal investigation, the NRC Office of Investigations (01) investigation was in progress. Many of the same utility employees were interviewed and provided testimony consister.t with the Case No. 4-85-008 1
testimony contained in their affidavits taken during the utility's internal investigation. A Vice President (VP) who assumed responsibility for licensing soon after the Executive Vice-President made tne decision not to produce the MAC report, testified that he was aware of the Executive Vice President's decision and said he chose not to revisit the decision.
The 01 investigation concludes that the decision to withhold the MAC report was made solely by the Executive Vice-President. The investigation further determined that certain QA officials believed that the report was within the scope of the intervenor's request, but their belief had not been communicated to the Executive Vice-President.
This investigation also concluded that the senior utility officials who negotiated the MAC review intended that the
- resulting report be used as a management tool.
It was further concluded that these senior officials had not intended that the MAC review be used as a QA audit to determine compliance with Appendix B.
However, the 1978 MAC report concluded that there was noncompliance with Appendix B related to certain areas of the utility's QA program. The intervenor's 1980 request was suffi-ciently well defined to reach the MAC report as an outside evaluation, study, or audit related to Contention 5.
The utility made a material false statement by the omission of the MAC report in response to the intervenor's request; i
however, this omission was not made with the intention of violating the ASLB's order.
I
)
Case No. 4-85-008 2
~
-