ML20214L436

Partially Deleted Suppl to 770311 Memo Re Complaints Made by Contract Guard Re Activities at Plant Site.Analysis of Guard Complaints Do Not Indicate Major Problems.Licensee Recommended to Conduct Physical Security Insp

ML20214L436
Person / Time
Site:	Quad Cities
Issue date:	03/25/1977
From:	Donahue J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
Shared Package
ML20213D432	List: ML20213D430 ML20214L366 ML20214L436 ML20214L507 ML20214L510 ML20214L528 ML20214L909
References
FOIA-86-894 NUDOCS 8705290300
Download: ML20214L436 (2)

Text

Ta d 0e76pj/} }p gr's S l "

go as eu q.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

l. {h nccson en t, i}yM,E,f, a[. - l t, ty rss noostvcu nono cten cttvu. itunois soiar

% ;. ~. . ' y,p .

Harch 25, 1977 HEMORANDUM FOR: RIII Files FROM: J. F. Donahue, Chief, Security and Investigation Section

SUBJECT:

COMPLAINTS MADE BY CONTRACT GUARD RELATING TO ACTIVITIES AT THE QUAD-CITIES SITE This supplements my memorandum of March 11, 1977, same subject, and will summarize my comments on the content of the results of the licensee's check-out of the complaints made by the guard. This guard has never contacted RIII directly and, according t of Commonwealth Edison, EC, possibly may not do so since he prefers to deal only with CE and Pinkerton.

The report of complaint check-out was received by RIII on March 11, 1977.

, In their letter dated March 10, 1977, CE committed to providing RIII with an interim report of an investigation, currently being conducted by Pinkerton, by Fbrch 28, 1977. I will follow this matter to assure timely submittal of the report.

The licensee has concluded, from its investigation, that the guard was concerned about occurrences at the site "because he was not generally informed of actions being taken," (by CE), to correct what he viewed as being wrong. Also, the licensee advised that the ongoing investigation by Pinkerton includes close observation of all members of the guard force, including the complaining guard, to determine the existence of unusual behavior or illegal or improper activity.

Although the licensee was initially requested to look into anc report back to RIII on only those complaint items (14 of 28) which could have a safety

)

or security connotation, their report covers all 28 complaints. (See attached CE letter dated March 10,1977 with Mar n 9, 1977 report of l

investigation). My remarks on each of the ir@ s pear in the lef t margin 1 of the report. The licensce's findings srett,' si sfactory for the listed i

items; however, some items will bear lookm,y er , hen we do our next i security inspection. These items are identified as 2,6,7,9,10,16,17,21 and 26. Although many of these items are covered as part of the routine inspection effort, with no serious problems disclosed in the past, we should zero-in and check th2n thoroughly during our next inspection.

s 8705290300 85dI27 .C Information in this record was dele AY 94 PDR In accordance with thefrcAd0m

-l' art. gy90(dLInforce.tlon.. Act, exemptions d f_ c >

F0lA 4 @ l _

i i . *

.,1 l' art 2.790(d) Inforcation RIII files 2. - March 25, 1977 -

1 Analysis of the guard complaints do not indicate _ major problems. They do, however, corroborate 'what we've known all along, that guards don't -

last too long at this site. The anonymous postal card points our a generic problem with contract guard forces .that of low pay and little or no fringe benefits. This site, if it continues to opt for contract-guard services. will be hard-pressed to recruit, train and retain the caliber of guard' envisioned in new 73.55. The turn-over rate for this site appears higher than that experienced elsewhere. Possibly the report of the Pinkerton Investigator, when it is providedlto us, will b

give greater insight into.the guard problems at the site, j At this time, I can see no basis for an investigation by RIII. I recommend, however, tha.t the physical security inspection, which was tentatively scheduled for July,1977 be conducted sooner, either late April or early May. Our presence on the site sooner than this may adversely affect the-efforts by the Pinkerton Investigator to determine the possible existence-of unusual behavior or illegal or improper activities. Perhaps we should defer ' judgment on our next course of action and the time . frame until.we can -

evaluate the Pinkerton investigation, due~in our office by March 28, 1977. .

sek <. y V J. F. Donahue; Crdef Security and Investigation

Attachment:

1. CE Itr dtd 3/10/77

2. CE Rpt of Investigation 3/9/77

[

f Part 2.790(d] Information l

--,e . - _,___--,.w.w r - - -., -

.,w,-- , - . - .y., ,, 7 ,- ,.------------.-~7'vt' - + + - ~=