ML20127J759

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Partially Withheld Memo Summarizing 870409 Rept of Allegation of Potential Sabotage of Plant Equipment
ML20127J759
Person / Time
Site: Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png
Issue date: 04/16/1987
From: Pirtle G
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To: Creed J
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
Shared Package
ML20127J714 List:
References
FOIA-92-252 NUDOCS 9301250249
Download: ML20127J759 (5)
v • d • e


Text

'"%y ,A Ri W )

  • ;\ NUCLE Arc nEGULATORY Commission i g REGION lit

[ '

799 ROOSEV E L.T mO AD 7 f

. (g .'% g otts a tty s. scusois soi n Apa i s im MEMORANDUM FOR: James R. Creed, Chief, Safeguards Section FROM: Gary L. Pirtle, Physical Security Inspector

SUBJECT:

ALLEGATION AT BIG ROCK POINT (VALVE TAMPERING)

(00CKET NO. 50-155)

(AILEGATION NO. Rill-87-A-0042)

At approximately noon on April 9, 1987, J. Grobe talked to me and advised me that a person would be calling NRC Region 111 at about 1:00 p.m. (CST). The individual's question was if a utility had to report sabotage of plant equipment to the NRC. The person did not provide his name or other identifying data to J. Grobe. I made arrangements to be available at the of fice at 1:00 p.m. to receive the call.

The person called again about 1:00 p.m. and I talked to him. The person initially declined to provide his name or any other irformation about himself.

He asked me if a utility had to report sabotage of plant equipment to the NRC.

I defined " sabotage" to him as it is defined in 10 CFR 73.2 and told him that sabotage in that context had to be reported, incidents of equipment tampering may or may not have to be reported depending on the type of equipment, safety significance, extent of tampering and other factors. The caller was advised that I could make a better judgement if he would describe the incident to me, or at least identify his corcerns.

The caller said that he had knowledge of a valve being sabotaged at Big Fcck Foint and the event was not reported to the NRC. I asked him if he had G rst hand kncwledge of the incident or if he was passing on information he was told -

by someone e'se. He said he had first hand knowledge of the incident, and the incident involved him. The caller then nrovided it.'orniat. ion pertaining to himself and identificd hiinseif as Mr.pdiffM.

Mr.@$3)provided the follog &TEJYTEQw1C#dB]as Mr. h ka has worked member of ftheg%p Mr nsumers M M C R:E'tds& Pcwer megCompany forh This group trJvelr @] general to Consumer Power plantsinformation as a kind of mobile maintenance group. Mr. $ D was working at Big Rock Point during the recent outage and was assigned tF do s'ome maintenance work on valve CV4050 (in the recirculation pump room) on February 6,1987. The valve is a afety related valve for the position control system of the reactor. Mr.

SQ) maintenance job was to remove the pipe plug on the valve, drill out the ase the pa fi4 in, retap/ rethread the drilled out area, and insert the lube plug. Mr. C,5ystated that he completed the job and noted on the maintenance work order at a possible crack was noted in the valve body.

9301250249 921013 PDR FOIA 1&P in th 3 necd ?m de!eted TUTAK92-252 PDR an

. ah C WC$03 j a m , 4r f(tyc./,

f0iA..f d a d O - R.M,: (, ?. 2 ncLC f,/i/ i, Aa t. n 3 tj Q

ff f '

f gpR16 W James R. Creed 2 Subsequent to the Mr. hdg ccepletion of the work described above, alleged deficiencies were fou Td pertaining to t val e (CY4050) that included loose nuts and packing within the valve. Mr. $ - alleges that Consumers Power wrongly accused him of deliberately "sa taging" or " tampering" with the valva.

Mr. g3 stated that the terms " sabotage" and " tampering" were words used by Ccnsumers Power to describe his alleged actions. Mr. M yas also being inve tigFed for allegedly writing some graf fiti in t ciEculation pump room.

Mr. GED stated that he did not write any graf fiti in the recirculation pump -

roon or tamper with any equipment, including valve CY4050.

Mr. @@hreceised written notice of employrent temination by Consur urs Power on et rua ry 20, 1987 tased upon verbal c rottations with a supervisor and stated that he did have a verbal putting grafitt! on the plant wall. Mr. -

ccnfrontation with a supervisor in which c sctr.e language was used but it was in reference to denial of work because of his radiation dose received while working at the site. He feit it was ursarranted and was angry when he discussed the issue with the supervisor.

Mr. requested a hearing in reference to the adverse personnel action and ear n was ccnducted on March 18 TFa hearing was attended by the Mr. g a members of his union, Fr..@  % and several Consunrs Power 6 [987.

pers rnel. Curing the hearing proce s, Mr  % alleges that he was given an unsigned letter that implied that a basis for his ecployir,ent tennination also included the allegation that he may have taken action on an alleged threat he made in that valve CV4050 was found to have defects that riay have rendered the valve unable to function if challenged and caused urngessyy increased adiaticn .egposure to plar t workers in the area. Mr.if y g also alleges that

,f as the primary spokespersan at the tearing, also stated that he F.MC)Ty veliberateta rpered with the selve cr (houlp ha,e roted the defects and reported them to plant management. Mr. TQ cenied that he tartpered with any equipr ent and that he was una are of any obvious defects in the s alve, except for the possible crack in t e valve housing that te noted on the February 6, 1987 work order. Mr . @t alleged that if Consurers Pcwer suspected him of equipment tampering cr sab age of equipnent, as tr.ey st ated, to the degree that it was consideration for termination of employment, then Consumers Power had a respor.sibility to report the incident to the NRC. Mr. Qb also alleges that Consumers Pcwer falsified wcrk orders to support their c6hten ion that he tampered with or sabctaged equipment, and that Ccnsumers Power fabricated a case against him in order to fire him for unsubstantiated charges (graffiti and sabotagirg a safety related valve). He implied that such actions raised management integrity issues.

Mr.h.D also stated that he has contacted legal representatives and has been advised t ,at if he was guilty of deliberate tampering or sabotaging of plant equ' cen he may te subject to investigation and crinital prosecution.

Mr. xpressed his innocence several times and stated that he wculd cooperate ith any agency that may investigate his concerns. He stated ha would also willingly take a polygraph, truth serum, or any other tests a Federal agercy felt would be appropriate. He also stated during our conversation that he was angry with Consumers Power, wanted his . job back, and wanted his r.ame cleared of wrongdoing.

Ybhk 1??

fh **  ? '

l James P. Creed 3 APR 16 m

I advised Mr. (*d;, that the NRC could not, by Charter, address his adverse personnel act ons or order reinstatement of employment. Other U.S. or state agencies may be able to assist him in those matters. He stated that he i understood our role and was aware of options available to him in reference to l appe31s for the employment termination.

I also advised Mr.[31ktbat I could not grant him fonnal written confidentiality, but the Agency would, by policy, not identify him as the specific source cf information unless overriding safety corcerns arose. He was also advised that, tecause of the nature of his allegation, we may make contact with the licensee in referer.ce to the valve and work perfonned on i , and that I the licensee may assume he was the source of infonnation. Mr.@ stated that he understood and that his primary concern was to clear his name o any wrongdoing.

eferenced several docrents during our conversation. I requested Mr.h$Q)i&i1 that he Ir to us copies of the documents he had relating to the alle our address to him. I closed the He agreed to by conversation do asking so and Mr.

I pr Gayi videgif he has bcen subject to disciplinary actions I in the past or involvement ithi rugs. He stated his work record was free of l any previous disciplinary action or drug related incidents. l The following administrative infonration was provided by Mr.hkat my request:

r

(- m i

c 1 y

a. w k ,

Subsequent to try conversation with Mr.(#. iib) you and C. Weil were advised of the substance of the allegation and a meeting was held with W. Guldemond, r

J Grobe, C. Well, N. Jackiw, myself and yeu. The results of that meeting are known to you so they Will not be addressed in this nemorandum.

I I attempted April 10, 1987. Ito lef contact t a messageMrhdhn on Mr. the 3D #

hternSon answering oftoApril machine call me9,1987, as a3 soon as he c:;1d.

On April 10, 1987, S. Guthrie (SRI) called rce and stated that W. Guldemond had contacted him and requested that he start collecting infonnation about maintenance work perforted on valve CV4050. Steve requested the name of our contact so he could develop a chronolo,qy of maintenance actions in reference to the salve. I provided Steve with Mr % name and the date the alleged sabotage or tarpering of th v Steve was advised not to disclose Mr. @ name @alve] as the source of information6,or1987).

occurred (February ackacwledge, at this time, hat our information was in the form of allegations.

Steve faxed a copy of his preliminary results to NRC Region 111 which I received late Friday ( Api 11 10,1987). You Fave a copy of the material so I will not. address their contents. Steve will be continuing his followup actions and providing us summaries from time to tir.e.

R 0 D

i U LMPT FROM D:LCLO W E 10 Cf R 2.790 INr0Rml10M 4

James R. Creed APR 16 im Cn Ponday Upril 13) morning Mr. @l.I ret raed ry telephone call. I reviewed the substance of the inforvation .r. QEMprovided to me on pril 9, 1987.

The primary purpose of my follo up c(ontact'was to advise Mr. % of our initial contact with the site and to confirm that he had receive a letter allegedly f rom Consumers Power that stated that he was considered responsible for alleged tampering with or sabotage of a safety-related valve.

Mr.$e'd]during rec the MarchMJlabor read from what relations relatedhehearing.

described as an eight page l The letter 18,(1987 was unsigned acccrdina to Mr.[re".'"J.%

attEpted toThe passage carry read from out a threat the letter strongly by deliterately implied il 3t Mr.g,@d may ba tampering with a safe y-related valve that could irtpact on safe operation of the plant and caused increased esp sure to plant personnel working n the area where the sahe was located. Mr. C also stated that{IMEC'fA verbally st3ted the same conclusio' during he meeting.

I advised Mr.(6.Mthat we had r.ade contact with the site in reference to alleged tampering cIr sabotage of a valve on February 6 or 8,1987 and was continuing our inquiry. Mr.

as as source of info ratics,[GIr,}as also advised but the licensee that that may assume he was notour he was identified source of information. P r. %@f$ js t a t ed tha t h und rstood the situation and had no ccncerns about it. agair, advised Mr. Q that we would not confirm his identity as an alleger unless significan{ sa ty issues arc se. Under such conditions, we would advise him, prior to notifying the lic4nset , that we had to specifically reveal his identity to the licensee. Mr .hgid, said that was understood but requested that we also advise him of the name of*any licensee rersonrel who have teen advised of his identity as a scurce of inforvation to the NRC.

Mr. $j asked it we could or would pro.ide him a copy of any documents we received f rom Consumers Pow (r in n ference to his allegati.ns. I advised him we could not do so as a matter of policy. He was also advised that he has a right to request such information under the freedom of Information Act and if he did so, we would have to release infonnation that was not exempt by law. He was advised that we normally send a copy of the inspection report pertaining to allegaticos J,0,the person that raised the allegations (s) if their identity is Inewn. Mr. Q in the future an%

stetedif tht t asked he was there probably would a unique male an FOIA identification request sametime for his allegation. He was advised that he could request the information in a narrative form ( .e. , alleged valve tampering at Big Fock Point).

Mr.h was asked if he had mailed copies of the documents he had in reference to the allegation. He stated that he had not because the copying and malling fees would probably cost $10 or more and, since he was unemployed, he preferred not to ince the expense. He agreed to deliver the docurrents to the Federal Building in Grand Rapids if they could copy them and forward them to us or release the documents to NRC representative if he was personally contacted. I advised Mr. that I would contact him later and let him know hcw we would accept custo af he documents.

EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE 10 CFR 2.790 INFOIHM103

_. i EXmriiRCHDJMtC!ES  !

10 U R 2p<r IM MW ION i i

u Jan.es R. Cr(ed 5 APR 16 W I then advised Mr.h that we were responding to his concerns based on the assumption that the information he provided was complete and factual and asked him if he wanted to change, add, or delete any information he had provided so far. He stated that he was telling the truth, repeated his willingness to submit to a polygraph, and stated that he would cooperate fully with any

, agency, public or private, that would investigate his concerns. He further stated that he could not afford to have such unsupported charges as equipment tampering or sabotage exist against him Lecause he has worked several years at pcwer utilities and may seek emplognent at a public utility in the near futurs.'

Mr.f$f2f was again advised that the NRC has not granted him fonnal written  ;

confidentiality, but we would attempt to protect his identity as a source of '

information. if his identity as a source of inforvation ad to be disclosed, he would be advised beforehend. I also advised Mr. % s. that the State of '

Pichigan has sece strict statutes per taining to release of information for adverse personnel actions. I asked him if he would be agreeable to signing releases perta'ning to such correspondence if-the course of the investigation indicated such a need. He stated he would.

l of my second conta:t with Mr.hd A You were meeting bric t ed pertaining to on Mr. theiiCM su .stant] concerns was held the afternoon ,

of April 19P7 wit 1 E . Pa wl 1 L , E . C r'c usa n , W. Guldemond, C. Weil, myself and you. You are Af ter the meCling, I Called Mr.p,awareoftheresultsofthatmeEting.and left a ruessage on his answeri Another meetir.g en Mr.hM[ concerns was held Tuesday (April 14) morning in K. Guldemond't of fice with C. Weil, yourself, me and 5. Guthrie. Steve's participation w3s by phone. Again, you are aware of the rodeting results, i

This memoJandu n is prepared to provice you detailed informotion of my contacts with Mr.4fD and a genera' chronology of actions up to the time this >

vemorandur. was prepared (April 14,1987). If subsequent informaticn or documents _phange significantly the perspective of my initial contacts with Mr.(tg  ! will brief you on such items.

I t% b+

G a ry L . irtle Physical Security inspector cc: C. Weil I

r l

l -

FXDIPT FPOM.9 C405DhE '

! 1C CTR 2 INF0fdWi103

_. -- , _ _ _ _ _ ._ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . - _ . . _ _ _ _ . - _ _ . _ _ . . . _ _

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20127J759&oldid=2901125"