ML20066K325
| ML20066K325 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 02/01/1991 |
| From: | Kovach T COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | Davis A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20066J278 | List: |
| References | |
| RIII-90-A-116, NUDOCS 9102270149 | |
| Download: ML20066K325 (4) | |
Text
b, 1.0 cc.C W /
g j
~
. Fw k.
' ~..
M.7 -
C:mmin~ ealth Edisin
)
(1
- 1400 Opus Piaco -
i*
'. Downere Grove, Illinois 60515--
(l
+
_ _/
I, h
rebruary 1, 1991 s)
.Mr. A. Bert Davis
. j-i Regional. Administrator U.S. Nuclear' Regulatory Commission 799. Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn,. IL - 60137
Subject:
Quad -Cities Station Investigation of NRC Allegation RIII-90-A-116 NRC Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265
Reference:
C.E.
Norelius to Cordell Reed letter
. dated December-18, 1990.
Mr. Davis:
The referenced letter requested that Commonwealth Edison provide a-summary and conclusion of our investigation for the allegation! contained:in the referenced letter (NRC Allegation RIII-90-A-0116).
The attached-provides the requested information.
After thorough investigation, commonwealth Edison determined
.that the allegation did not constitute a credible threat to the-facility., In addition to the investigation,-Commonwealth Edison reviewed the working hours for the Shift-Engineer (SE).
The review demonstrated that the SE worked a normal work schedule during:the period-10/29 11/10/90.
The SE was on vacation on 10/31/90 and:11/1/90; The infomation contained in the attached contains no personal. privacy,-proprietary or safeguards information.
Please address any questions to this office.
Very truly yours,
'l G,
f-f, 6),
V
/
9102270149 910214 y
T.J< Kovach DR-ADOCK 050 4
Nuclear Licensing Manager cc:
W.D. Shafer, Branch Chief, Region III t
T. Taylor, Senior Resident Inspector RS:TK:1mw i,, un.n n,
FEB 61991
ATTACHME11I Response to NRC Allegation RIII-90-A-0116 Introduction This responds to your request regarding the subject allegation.
Several actions were taken in response to e allegation:
1.
On November 10, 1990, the subject of the allegation was temporarily transferred from his Shift Engineer duties until the allegation could be investigated completely and a sound determination of its disposition made, 2.
the allegation was investigated thoroughly by interviewing the alleger, individuals with whom he had spoken and the subject of the allegation, 3.
the work and health record of the shift enginee; were professionally reviewed and a psychologica'. evaluation was j
completed which demonstrated that he w=0 emotionally
- stable, 4.
the overall circumstances of the allegation were evaluated and.it was determined that the allegation was not credible; accordingly, 5.
the individual was returned to his duties on November 14, 1990.
In reaching the conclusion that the allegation did
>t constitute a credible threat, CECO was sensitive to the presence of facts which could support a finding that the subject of the allegation might have been under stress.. Accordingly, CECO not only reviesed all available documentary evidence bearing on this issue but also performed a psychological evaluation of the individual.
The evaluations showed that the individual was emotionally stable and, thus, corroborated his denial of ever L
having-made a threatening statement.
Moreover, the circumstance
^
of the alleger's relationship with the subject of the allegation cast substantial doubt on the credibility of the allegation.
Accordingly, the individual was returned to his duties.
The details supporting this decision follows.
4 Facts The allegation under consideration was made to the NRC by the brother of a CECO employee who is a shift engineer (SE) at Quad Cities.
The circumstances leading to the allegation are summarized below.
On Friday, November 9, the alleger and his brother, the SE, had argued by telephone over family matters.
During that argument, the alleger claimed the SE made threatening statements about the nuclear facility where he worked.
1swt3NLD424/20 s
.r--
1
.,,w,
,,m-
~ -
a
' ~
V
.g-t The alleger took this threat seriously because he believed that the SE was under stress from his job.
Accordingly, the alleger called an old acquaintance who worked at a nuclear power plant to find out to whom he should report his concerns.
The plant worker suggested calling the state poli'ce.
The alleger called:the police and was told that they would not act until something-had actually occurred.
Thereupon, the alleger called the plant worker a second time.
This time the. worker-responded by calling the NRC Resident Inspector (RI) at the plant were he worked.
The NRC/RI called the alleger and then called NRC Headquarters.
Thereafter, slightly after midnight, the NRC/RI and the NRC Duty Officer called the On-Duty SE at Quad Cities.
The On-Duty SE then notified the Quad Cities Station Security
-Administrator (SSA) of the call.
The SSA put an administrative hold on the SE's badge.
Senior station and corporate management and the NRC/RI for Quad Cities were notified of this precautionary action.
The SSA called the NRC/RI for more information on the morning of November 10th.
A joint investigation was then begun by the SSA and Corporate Security Department.
Investigation
, CECO's investigation of the allegation is summarized below.
That investigation raised significant doubts about the credibility of the source of the allegation.
Nevertheless, because certain facts could have indicated that the allegation might have some bases, CECO also investigated the substance of the allegation.
That investigation showed that the allegations were unfounded.
Accordingly, CECO concluded that the threat was not credible.
CECO's investigation began on November 10 when the Quad Cities SSA contacted the NRC/RI for details about the allegation.
The NRC/RI reported that the alleger had stated that he had an argument with the SE only a few hours before making-the allegation.
The CECO investigation identified that the-SE had required a second attempt-to complete the license qualification test.
Because these circumstances indicated a potential for stress, the -shift engineer's interview on November 12 focused on his views of the allegation.
He acknowledged the disagreement with the alleger but denied having made any of the statements identified by the_ alleger as the cause for concern.
Inv e strLD42 4 /21
mr
_.3-A retrospective review of the,SE's records showed that he had been a long-standing and loyal employee with a good work:
record.
His medical records were-reviewed by the-Medical Review Officer (MRO) and re'vealed nothing unusual.-
Additional investigations into the nature and validity of the allegations were conducted on November 13.
The midwest nuclear power plant worker was contacted and interviewed.
The worker related his two phone conversations with the alleger.
Because the worker could not determine the validity of the alleger's allegation,-he called the NRC/RI.
CECO again contacted the 1:RC/RI.
The RI stated that the alleger had-expressed concern over his brother's statements and that he appeared tQ be under stress.
The NRC/RI concluded that the alleger and his' brother had quarreled, and-their relationship was strained.
With this background in hand, the alleger was interviewed on November 13.
He acknowledged the disagreement with his
-brother.
He also stated his belief that his brother had been under stress and that his personality bed changed lately.
During the interview,_ he focussed on t..e circumstances regarding his argument with his brother.
The disagreement was centered on disposition of family assets.
To evaluate the interview statements by the alleger, the SE was interviewed again on November 13.
The SE acknowledged that he and his brother had strained relations and that he may have told his brother about failing the requal test.
The SE again denied ever having made the threatening statements which is the statement of concern.
The SE was co-operative and offered any assistance which would be required to resolve this issue.
Once again, because the facts indicated a potential for stress,fthat issue was investigated further.
On' November 14, the SE was interviewed by an MRO and a psychological evaluation was performed.
No evidence of emotional instability was found.
The results of this inte" view and evaluation reinforced the SE's prior record and indicated that his situation-at the time of the allegation would-not have led him to make the claimed statements.
Further, the overall circumstances; indicated a significant doubt.regarding the credibility of the allegation.
For these reasons, no threat was considered credible and the SE was returned to duty.
Since then,-no further ellegations have been delivered regarding the SE's statements.
ZNLD624/19-21 1mw 36fLD42 4 /2
.