Text

Supplemental Answer of Rl Dickherber.* Advises That Certain Statements from 900413 Answer Re Time Worked Preceeding Incident Should Be Withdrawn & Misleading Implications from Statements Corrected.W/Proof of Svc & Svc List
	ML20043C719
Person / Time
Site:	Quad Cities, 05505043
Issue date:	06/01/1990
From:	Dickherber R; DICKHERBER, R.L.
To:	; NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20043C704	List: ML20043C703; ML20043C719;
References
	EA-90-031, EA-90-032, EA-90-31, EA-90-32, OM, SC, NUDOCS 9006060100
	Download: ML20043C719 (13)
	v • d • e

..

-<t {

DOCKETED UNITED STATES USHP.C NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j

.n JUN -4 P 4 :00 - ;

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

License' No. SOP-2365-8

)

Docket No. 55-5403 g,g y E y'E 9 ]

R. L. DICKHERBER

)

EA 9.0-031 41 "" -

______________________________)

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

License Nos. DPR-29'& DPR_30 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY

)

Docket Nos. 50-254-& 50-256-QUAD CITIES. NUCLEAR POWER

.)

EA 90-032 STATION

)

SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER OF ROBERT L.

DICKHERBER-I, Robert L.

Dickherber,. _hereby; submit this Supplemental

~

Answer, under oath, to the Answer that:I previously filed on. April ~

l 13, 1990.

My reason for submittingo this answer z is that. further-information has come to my attention which -I believe1 requires - a-withdrawal of-certain statements previously;made"and'a correction of misleading implications that may flowt from those statements.

Specifically, in Section IIJ C, appearing on p.

13 of ' my Answer, I made certain statementscregarding' time-worked preceding 1

the incident.

The statements made were ~ based-on my- -best J

recollection and memory without having' reviewed any-time records, with one exception hereafter noted.

As a result of the Commission's directive to Commonwealth Edison to comment. on. the hours I' worked, that company developed l

hours information based upon its computer showing entry access and exit to and from the Cordova Station.

Commonwealth has now made y

i L

1

+

9006060100 900601 gDR ADOCK 05000254 M' # -

i PDR e

fi%s

-2K this information available to me and my attorney.I After reviewing this information, I find it necessary to withdraw and disavow the statements in the first two paragraphs ~1n Section II C appearing on p.

13, except the first sentence which concludes that the incident "was probably occasioned by stress" and the middle sentence of the second paragraph rel'ating : to the cleaning of the fuel pool.- A study of the hours information from the computer simply' does not support my recollection oflthhe average amounts-of time I said I was. working prior to ' the incident ' in question.'

y It should be noted, however, that my estimates'of work-hours in those two paragraphs were. offered only-as ' background 1 information, and not as _ a cause of my conduct on the' day. of ? the,

incident.

Unfortunately,- because I ~did not, regard 'my; hours as a reason for my actions, verification of theme did not. loom as an '

~

I Commonwealth Edison and. its' counsel have 'been most cooperative in honoring reasonable' requests..for pertinent documents.

Undoubtedly, _had time ^ records.. covering the ~ periods mentioned in my Answer been_ requested; commonwealth 1 would? have L

supplied them.

Indeed, prior to preparing my_ Answer and without l-any request, the Company had provided documents relating to my i

overtime hours from October 9 through October. 21,_

1989,.and a computer report showing the times of my' entrances 'and exits to-and from the security area of.the Cordova Station covering the, period t

of October 2 through October 19,~1989. (Ex. 2 attached).

I 2

The hours information developed from. the computer, shows time spent at the Cordova Station within. the protected area,J btit not work hours as such.

Attiched as Exhibit -1 is a summary of information taken from the computer relating - to the specific-l statements on p. 13 which I am now withdrawing.

While I believe my hours worked were greater than-the hours I was: shown to be. in the protected area, since at times I worked outside the protected area (again, see Ex. 1 ), these additional hours are 'not sufficient to substantiate my initial statements appearing in my Answer.

9 3-important consideration in preparing my: Answer.

-However,.upon further review of the-first' paragraph on p. 13, I can see how the proximity of the statements regarding my 1989 hours0.023 days 0.553 hours 0.00329 weeks 7.568145e-4 months 'to the sentence' i

that "the incident... was probably occasioned by stress" could:

. convey an impression that the stress resulted from -those hours.

I am therefore specifically disavowing any such impression c that might have been inadvertent 1y' created.3. I apologize to the-Commission and express my deepest regrets for having possibly created this impression and for relying on what is now-shown to1be-a faulty memory with respect 'to my > hours when they could 'and should-have been verified, at least to the extent possible.4 I continue to believe,.as previously stated, that " stress't a

"probably occasioned" the incident -in question essentially.because.

of the reasons set forth in the last paragraph commencingcon p.:13 of my Answer.

To a minimal extent my hours within the protected ~.

5 area in the immediate days and week.before the incident- (which.-

[

were 72.5 instead of 81, - Ex.

2 - attached) may ' possibly have influenced my conduct.

My misstatement that I worked 81' hours in the week.immediately -

before the incident instead of 72.5, which is the number shown on.

3-Note my statement. in the last paragraph on p.

12 of my.

Answer relating to a dropped fuel bundle - occurring ~ in. Septembsr 1989 which was handled accordfng to proper. procedures, obviously, neither stress nor prior hours worked af fected' my performance on that occasion..

4 See notes 1 & 2, supra.

5 16 hours1.851852e-4 days 0.00444 hours 2.645503e-5 weeks 6.088e-6 months on October 15 and 13 hour1.50463e-4 days 0.00361 hours 2.149471e-5 weeks 4.9465e-6 months sion October 16.

,4

-i 4

the computer, results from an incorrect reading and-impression of

(

'a station management document ( Ex. 2 ) first seen' by me. shortly after the incident.

It was.my impression that the 81 hours9.375e-4 days 0.0225 hours 1.339286e-4 weeks 3.08205e-5 months figure-1 shown on the document represented the number' of hours that I had-5 worked during the week preceding the incident.

Since filing my Answer on April 13,.1990, I have determined-that the 81 hours9.375e-4 days 0.0225 hours 1.339286e-4 weeks 3.08205e-5 months .

l figure, which appears next to arrows drawn between days,- is-the total hours I was in the protected area for 8 days prior to the incident instead of 7.

My attorney and I had a copy of Exhibit 2 available prior '.to preparing my Answer.

Unfortunately,- we failed to ' critically-examine it and instead simply relied on my mistaken impression that:

n it represented the hours Lfor :the week preceding - the incident.

My-attorney and I both apologize.for having-not detected this l

incorrect impression when we had'an opportunity.to do so.

In attempting to assess-the reasons-for my inaccurate memory and recollection, I assume that I.was influenced'by hours worked during the month of September and that with. respect to that month i

and earlier months I focused on the days where I-worked long hours, and that those days then became exaggerated in my mind as the norm.

For example, on September 13 I was in the protected area for 14 hours1.62037e-4 days 0.00389 hours 2.314815e-5 weeks 5.327e-6 months and in the 7-day period from Saturday, September 16 through

Friday, September 22, the computer shows 'that I. was in tee protected area for 82.5 hours5.787037e-5 days 0.00139 hours 8.267196e-6 weeks 1.9025e-6 months , with-a 13.5 hour5.787037e-5 days 0.00139 hours 8.267196e-6 weeks 1.9025e-6 months day on Saturday, a 13 hour1.50463e-4 days 0.00361 hours 2.149471e-5 weeks 4.9465e-6 months day on Sunday, a 13 hour1.50463e-4 days 0.00361 hours 2.149471e-5 weeks 4.9465e-6 months day on Thursday, a 12.5 hour5.787037e-5 days 0.00139 hours 8.267196e-6 weeks 1.9025e-6 months day on Friday, and all days in that period at least 10 hours1.157407e-4 days 0.00278 hours 1.653439e-5 weeks 3.805e-6 months .

.t k

5 In the days immediately preceding the day of the incident the -

computer shows I was in the protected area for 16 hours1.851852e-4 days 0.00444 hours 2.645503e-5 weeks 6.088e-6 months on Sunday, October 15, and 13 hours1.50463e-4 days 0.00361 hours 2.149471e-5 weeks 4.9465e-6 months on ' Monday, October 16.

My inaccurate perception that-I had worked 81 hours9.375e-4 days 0.0225 hours 1.339286e-4 weeks 3.08205e-5 months in the week preceding the incident probably also contributed to my incorrect' statements about t

average hours.

Similarly,-in earlier months I had a few days which were quite-long. On August 7, 8, and 9, the computer shows my presence at the station for days of 18 hours2.083333e-4 days 0.005 hours 2.97619e-5 weeks 6.849e-6 months ,11 hours, and 10 hours1.157407e-4 days 0.00278 hours 1.653439e-5 weeks 3.805e-6 months , respectively.-

My memory failed me in that I did not recall that for each of these f

long days I had numerous shorter days which reduced my overall-average hours.

(Again, see Ex. 1).

One final correction should also be noted.

'In Section I:B,

p. ' 3, I commented on a reduction in. radiation exposure..This was based on my memory.

Commonwealth has advised me of: certa'in inaccuracies in these comments. The exposure drop between.1976 and-4 i

1977 was only 48%, not 62%, and from 1974 through 1977. the. exposure-rate had not exceeded-4

Rem, as I

believed.and l stated.

Additionally, while not discussed in my Answer, exposure ' rates -

l returned to high levels for several years after 1977.

This.was because of new work that had not been previously required.~

~

Radiation exposure at high levels continued because-of repair-work i

done' to tools and fuel handling equipment, especially.the refuel-bridge, and because of other work assignments.

From 1985 through the present radiation exposure rates again dropped dramatically-when contaminated materials were discarded.

i I

~

k 9

6 Once again, my incorrect statements'should have been subjected 1

to critical verification before filing my. Answer.

At this time all I can do is set forth the actual facts as they have' been brought to my attention and offer my sincere apologies' to the Commission for these inaccuracies.

Respectfully submitted,.

Robert L. Dickherber STATE OF ILLINOIS

)

) SS.

COUNTY OF ROCK ISLAND

)

Robert L. Dickherber, being first' duly sworn on oath, states that he has read the foregoing statement.- and. that. all'. factual -

statements made in the same are true and. correct to the best of his knowledge and belief.

/

6 Robert L..Dickherber

~

Signed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public, this-1st day of June, 1990.

1

\\.

=___ n

.e. :: z

,[

Notary Public. State of Illinois 0

Notary @ublic

, My Commission L pire: Jan.10,1993 l

h..

sw Stuart R. Lefstein KATZ, McANDREWS, BALCH, LEFSTEIN & FIEWEGER, P.C.

Attorneys for' Robert L. Dickherber 1705 Second Avenue, Suite 200 P.O. Box 3250 Rock Island, IL 61204-3250:

1 Phone:

309/788-5661 1

l s

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:

)

License No. SOP-2365-8

)

Docket No. 55-5403 R. L. DIC1GIERBEP,

)

EA 90-031 IN THE MATTER OF:

.)

)

License Nos. DPR-29 & DPR-30 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY

)

Docket Nos. 50-254 & 50-256 QUAD CITIES NUCLEAR POWER

)

EA 90-032 STATION

)

EXHIBIT 1 TO SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER OF ROBERT L.

DICKHERBER J

3 The following information, developed from Commonwealth Edison's security

computer, is set forth to corre'c t

.the misstatements appearing in my Answer:

i The fuel outage occurred on or abcut September 10, 1989.

.I had been on. vacation from_ September 1 through September _10.

'From September 11 through September '23 I was within the computer access -

area every day, including two Saturdays and.one Sunday at an average of _10.8 hours9.259259e-5 days 0.00222 hours 1.322751e-5 weeks 3.044e-6 months per day with my longest day.at 14' hours.

I From September 24 through September 30 I had one Sunday-off-and my 1

average hours within the protected area were -10.67 per-day ~ with my.

longest day at 13 hours1.50463e-4 days 0.00361 hours 2.149471e-5 weeks 4.9465e-6 months .

From October 1 through. October _17, which was the day of the incident, I had two Sundays off.

My average hours in the protected area were 9.7 hours8.101852e-5 days 0.00194 hours 1.157407e-5 weeks 2.6635e-6 months with my longest: day at 16 hours1.851852e-4 days 0.00444 hours 2.645503e-5 weeks 6.088e-6 months .1 s

l-i I

Also, and necessarily, the computer shows that generally my I

starting times were somewhat later. than initially stated and my I

exit times were generally earlier than I had recalled' and stated in the Answer.

Sometimes there is approximately a 5 minute wait' to gain access.

1 EXHIBIT 1-(CONTINUED) 2 In the eight months prior to the f uel ; outage, the security, computer shows my_ presence on the following weekends only:

Sunday, February 19; Saturday, March. 4; Saturday, March 11;- Saturday,- July 15; Sunday, July 30; Saturday, August 5; Sunday, August. 6; and 1

Saturday, August 12..My presence is not shown on any other weekend dates by the ' security computier during those months..

The average daily hours of my presence shown by the-computer for the eight months priorsto the outage was approximately eight..

However, my_ average hours actually = worked during' those months.-is '

i necessarily higher, although undoubtedly':less than.what;I' stated.

The 8 hour9.259259e-5 days 0.00222 hours 1.322751e-5 weeks 3.044e-6 months average was arrived at by-taking~ an average hours; per.

[

day for each of 32 weeks of 1989 through the end'of August, except the week of May 1,2 as shown by th'e ~ security-computer.

Certain weeks entering into this average contained average- ' days substantially less than eight hours, such as.-2, 4.3', 3.8, and 5.5.

These numbers contributed. to bringing the average ' down:- to 8, as reported.

1 However, it is highly probable that for most week days where the security computer shosed me with an average of less than-eight I was on job assignments elsewhere performing at least 8 hours9.259259e-5 days 0.00222 hours 1.322751e-5 weeks 3.044e-6 months of

~

work for the entire day.

As an example, during the summer of 1989, I spent approximately 3 weeks in license requalification-training outside. of the protected area.

These hours do not show on tfie.

computer but are factored into the 8 hour9.259259e-5 days 0.00222 hours 1.322751e-5 weeks 3.044e-6 months daily average based'anly 2

i I was in a management training program during that week outside of the protected area.

EXHIBIT 1 (CONTINUED) 3 on the computer.

Additionally,'when I was taking this training I would usually spend several hours at home in-the evening studying, which, of course, 13 not contained in tihe e.verage.

Besides taking training, other. work was-performed outside of the protected area.

During the fuel outage-I wrote approximately five or six different fuel-ha'ndling procedures at-home.-

Commonwealth had never asked or suggested that I do. this work:at home but I did so in order to'get the job done.

Also, I have escorted on several occasions Commonwea1th:

~

personnel to medical offices in Rockford for alcohol.and' drug, k

testing.

A trip to Rockford from the Cordova Station 1 and back with waits -at the medical of fices averages 1 approximately six hours, 'and'-

I probably was involved in such escorts' during the eight' month-a period prior to the incident approximately five' times.

I also had:

- t meetings with contractors outside 'of the station which are not; l

shown on the computer records.

I' possibly lhad such meetings-l approximately three or four times during 'the periods involved with

~

a range of time from two to'four-hours.

Since there is no documentation for th'e precise number of hours worked outside the protected area in the eight' months prior to the outage, and based on the above information, it is reasonable to conclude that I was working an average of more than 8 hours9.259259e-5 days 0.00222 hours 1.322751e-5 weeks 3.044e-6 months per day.but not 10'to 12 hours1.388889e-4 days 0.00333 hours 1.984127e-5 weeks 4.566e-6 months per day as stated, nor was I regularly working 6-day weeks.

1

Finally, I

was substantially mistaken

'regarding my recollection of holidays worked.

In addition to Memorial Day and

't

.i i

~

v, *'lg 'f_

' ~

cs a,

,; f :

7, - -

T

^

i

+;s s

E'XNIBIT 21'-i CONTINUED )

l 4

.-i Independence. Day mentioned in' my? Answer,f the computer shows me. off is

. i g

. on New. Year.'s. Day, Tincoln.'s ' Birthday, President 's Day, ' Good-Fridayf 1

J a'nd Labor Day,'which fell: during' mylvacation.

A holidap,for?which 1

?

I am shown-present'istcolumbus Day,

'I 1

a

?

6 5

t

.i

..g i

I a;

O. h

4

's.

T v

~ l[

~.{

t

q-I

.y

[=.

s

! [5 c

1:-

- r t-L' t,

,I l -

t

.(

^1j r

C

':r lI

t. -

s E

cj t

.-7 v--,

.l

+ F i.

1

..f i

t

- i.:

4 ; 4. w

,1,..

--s--s,

,-s<

v-

~~'

O E

n ' ' ' " '

t,anioit 4

l l

r g r-vi gn t.

1 5

es r-e.

n r.

l i-c r. r a m. < 3 f g e,

,, g r e-t 12:16:10

{

g 10R PERSONS EXIllNG DETWEEN-10/01/89 00:00 AND 10/20/89 12:12 i

i s

I i

b c ^ o r, c a r_. p p n e p r p crnrrnu crarynu guTo^uce Evyt rvur r timy-NO.

HAME NUMDER DEPT DATE TIME DATE TIME SPENT LATIVE 01856 DILhilERDER ROBER 128 FUEL 10/02/89 06:20 10/02/89 15:27 9:06:33 9:06:33 O!"55 PIriuroggo onpro 399 ryr 3nin7 ion 93 35 3nen7fgo 33.gn o.ma.74 en.=3.n, 01856 DIChilERDER ROBER 128 FUEL 10/04/89 06:27 10/04/89 16:41 10:13:55 29:05:02 O!956 PICFuropgp c:gpro 37o rygt 39fg5foo 95:77 39fg7fgo 35:53 a;io 37 7agga;no 01856 DICKilERBER RODER 128 FUEL 10/06/89 06:31 10/06/99 15:33 9:01:48 47:26:07 i

01056 DIEN81ERSED DOPED 12o CUE 8_

50/^co O!!'! 10/07'no 15!!?

o*?*?^?

55'5'*5^

01856 ItichHERBER ROBER 128 FUEL

.10/09/89 06:33 10/09/89 15:05 8:32:45 64:30!35/ 5 01056 9!rkuronro oppro igo ryr-3n/39/oo ng.75 *ne3nroo 37 7, gn.53.nn

,c.,3.i=

01856 DICKilERDER ROBER 128 FUEL 10/11/89 06:36 10/11/89 16:15 9:39:02 85:00:37 J k

.i n i M M I.

n T f' k H r o r-t r o DnDro 19a

' rt f rl 1A/17/00 n1*17 in/t9/no a7*17 1 n.10, *17 OM*an?na dI btbb6 b[ChilkRbdR R0bdR-Abb FUbl kb/[3/b9 b6*36 IO/[3/b9 I5:i5 8:59: I2 104:39!14 q ['

~

ginsx reirruropEn onpEn 1,n retri snesa/co n4tio sn/tafoo got49 rtost17 inatn, tao 01856 DIChilERBER ROBER 128 FHEL 10/14/09 22*36 10/15/89 14:50 4 6:13:48 124:16:37 ni nenni nTrvuronco onnro imo riiri i n / s t /co nr.on eniszeno so.on i,.co.s1

,23.sc.=4% I b10b6 blChilEP b RbbER 12b FUEL Ib/57/b9.06: I7 lb/i7/b9 54:56 b!39234 545 55!2Y b G

E-.

01n54 9Irengt a oppEo igo ringt igeto/no 95;;7 Infiofoo 34,94 o.cgtan 155,antny E

y 01856 DICKilERBER RODER 128 FUEL 10/19/89 06:32 10/19/89 15:17 8:45:03 164:33:10**

x" 17 RECORD (S) SELECTED f.Ns E t V G O b 5Y C0bOh i

4 k

O

+

a A

.n..

2 m

s i

UNITED-STATES p;n t;to

)

NUCLEAR REGULATORY-COMMISSION.

05NRC IN THE MATTER OP:

.)

License No.'~ SOP-9065pg-4 P4 :00

)

Docket No. 55-5403 R. L. DICKHERBER

)'-

EA 90-031--

'g g y ncarlAgv

______________________________)-

.foggttiNGsSt%vlCI IN THE MATTER OP:

)

BRANCH i

).

License Nos. DPR-29'& DPR-30 COMMONWEALTH' EDISON COMPANY

)

Docket Nos. 50-254 &.50-256 QUAD CITIES NUCLEAR POWER

)

EA 90-032 STATION

)

PROOF OF SERVICE I

I, Stuart R. Lefstein, an' attorney:f'or Robert L.

Dickherber, having been sworn on oath, state that copiesiof Supplemental Answer of Robert L. Dickherber were-served upon.

the agencies and persons:on the attached' Service: List _by_

-j United States Mail, postage prepaid, con Junefl':1990..

j Additionally, copies.of that Supplemental ~ Answer were. served by Fax on June 1, 1990'to the-first'six. agencies or persons.

- named on the attached service list.-

4 h

i

(

Stuart R. - Lef stein \\

l-Signed and sworn to before;me, a Notary Public, this j

lst day of June, 1990.

1 l

. Notary Public 1

Stuart.R. Lefstein l

KATZ, McANDREWS, F- - - "'"

l 1 Sl l.

BALCH, LEFSTEIN & FIEWEGER, P.C.

[

" OFFICIAL SEAL" L

200 Plaza Office Building MARILYN L HACKER -

' h i

P. O. Box 3250 Notary Public. State of. Illinois-l; Rock Island, IL 61204-3250 l l My commission Enru jan,10.1993

.l Telephone:

309-788-5661

~~~~~~ - --~

l L

Lu a

i I

SERVICE LIST Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman of Administrative Judges

]

. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4350 E-W Highway J

Bethesda, MD 20852 l

Director Office of Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Assistant General Counsel Attn:- Eugene J. Holler, Esq.

Hearings and~ Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.'

20555 a

Regional Administrator Attn:

Bruce Berson, Esq.

Regional Counsel, U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory Commission Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Sheldon L. Trubatch, Esq.

Sidley & Austin Attorneys for Commonwealth Edison Company.

1722 I(eye) Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20006 Michael Miller, Esq.

Sidley & Austin Attorneys for Commonwealth Edison Company l

One First National Plaza

[

Chicago, IL-60603 Secretary Attn:

Chief,' Docketing and Service. Station Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Senior Resident ~ Inspector Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station

.22715 - 206th Avenue North Cordova, IL 61242 b

l l.

l'

!

ML20043C719

Text

Navigation menu

Search