IR 05000344/1993001
| ML20044D379 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/16/1993 |
| From: | Martin J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | Cross J PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20044D380 | List: |
| References | |
| EA-92-223, NUDOCS 9305190065 | |
| Download: ML20044D379 (6) | |
Text
.
,
,
%
f UNITED STATES
?"
t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'a 3. N,' $
REGION V
kf 1450 MARIA LANE
..../
WALNUT CREEK, CAUFORNIA 94596-S368
APR 16 bD Docket No. 50-344 License No. NPF-1 EA 92-223 Portland General Electric Company ATTN:
Mr. James E.
Cross Chief Nuclear Officer /Vice President Nuclear Division 121 S.
W.
Salmon Street, TB-17 Portland, Oregon 97204 SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION (NRC INVESTIGATION REPORT NO.
5-91-008)
(NRC ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE MEETING REPORT 50-344/93-01)
This refers to an investigation conducted by the NRC Office of Investigations (OI) from June 20, 1991 through September 23, 1992, at the Trojan Nuclear Plant.
A synopsis of the OI report was sent to you in a Region V letter dated December 23, 1992.
As noted in that letter, the investigation identified apparent violations of NRC requirements prohibiting employment discrimination.
Specifically, licensee security management actions had the effect of discouraging Trojan security officers from raising concerns to management and the NRC.
This matter was discussed with you during an enforcement conference held-in the Region V Office on February 2, 1993.
Our discussion during the enforcement conference was summarized in Report No. 50-344/93-01, transmitted to you on February 12, 1993.
As stated in the enclosed Notice of liolation (Notice), licensee security management violated 10 CFR 50.7, which prohibits discrimination and agreements that would discourage employees from raising safety concerns.
Certain security management instructions to security force members between November 1989 and August 1991 indicated that the security officers should let their presence be known when checking on security posts and firewatches, creating the impression among security staff that they were not to find or report sleeping / inattentive individuals.
In addition, there were attempts on the part of security management to determine, through questioning of security officers, the identity of the author (s) of an anonymous letter to the NRC, creating the impression that management would retaliate against the author (s).
These actions violate 10 CFR 50.7 in that they demonstrate a condition of employment that security officers should not raise safety concerns under penalty of adverse action.
,
?
9305290065 930416 PDR ADOCK 05000344 I',
G PDR
.
,
=
-
.
.
Portland General Electric Co.
-2-Many security personnel interpreted these management directions and actions to mean that they were not to report sleeping / inattentive individuals or other security concerns to management or to the NRC.
Such an interpretation created an atmosphere at the Trojan Nuclear Plant site that discouraged security force members from maintaining open and honest communications with the NRC and PGE management.
As noted in the report on the Enforcement Conference, you
'
concluded, based on your own investigation, that your former security managers had not discriminated against or intimidated the security force, basing this conclusion in part on your July 1991 determination that 65% of your uniformed officers had expressed no hesitation to report incidents to PGE management and/or the NRC.
However, the NRC does not, and PGE should not, take comfort in the knowledge that up to 35% of the security force may refuse to come forward with reports of safety issues.
The actions by licensee security managers created a chilling effect that discouraged employees from raising concerns.
Such an environment cannot be tolerated if licensees are to fulfill their responsibility to protect public health and safety.
It is i
imperative that managers and supervisors of licensees and their contractors avoid actions that suggest discrimination against
individuals who raise or who wish to raise safety concerns.
Instead, the actions of licensees and their contractors must create an environment conducive to the reporting of safety issues.
Your failure to ensure appropriate actions by your managers between November 1989 and August 1991, including the
'
then-Acting Security Manager, two of your Security Watch Supervisors, and a Smith security manager, is cause for significant regulatory concern.
Therefore, this violation has been categorized at Severity Level III.
In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions" (Enforcement Policy), 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C, a civil penalty is considered for a Severity Level III violation.
The mitigation and escalation factors in the Enforcement Policy were considered in deciding whether to issue a civil penalty in this case and, normally, a civil penalty would have been proposed.
However, in this case, pursuant to Section VII.B.6 of the Enforcement Policy, the staff has concluded a civil penalty is not warranted.
This decision was due to several factors, including: steadily improving performance both during and after the violation, culminating in a rise from SALP 3 to
.
SALP 1 in security; reorganization of the security force, l
including replacement of the manager responsible for creating the atmosphere discussed above, and evidence that the new managers have made progress in this area; and a decline in the number of allegations, evidencing a clearly improved atmosphere for raising
,
safety matters.
r
.. ~
. - -
-
_
-
--
-
-- -
-. -.
-
..
,
.
i
!
[
!
-
.
i
Portland General Electric Co.
-3-
,
"
!
The staff is aware of the recent decision to immediately and l
permanently shutdown Trojan.
The operating status of the plant i
did not affect this enforcement decision becausa, although the l
plant is currently shutdown, the activities are still licensed j
and must be performed in compliance with the regulatory l
requirements and an atmosphere for raising safety concerns must j
be maintained.
Future similar violations may result in
,'
additional enforcement action, including civil penalties.where appropriate.
!
,
In addition to the two examples of discrimination discussed
,
I above, evidence was found of management actions that might have intimidated employees and discouraged them from reporting safety l
Specifically, these examples included licensee j
concerns.
!
security managers:
(a) directing security force members to change reports concerning sleeping officers, (b) telling officers j
they had overreacted when reporting sleeping / inattentive
officers, and (c) making statements to an officer relating his j
firing, after the fact, to his contacts with the NRC.
Although j
these cases are not included in the Notice of Violation, you l
!
should take appropriate action to ensure that employees are not chilled by these and similar incidents.
j
l You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the j
instructions specified in the enclosed Notice of Violation
(Notice) when preparing your response.
In your response, you l
'
!
should document the specific actions taken and any additional actions you plan to prevent recurrence. -After reviewing'
your response to this. Notice, including your proposed corrective
actions and the results of future inspections, the NRC will-l determine whether further NRC enforcement action is necessary to i
ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirements.
,
In accordance with 10 CPR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice,"
i a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be placed in the NRC j
.
Public Document Room.
"
I The responses directed by this letter and the enclosed Notice are
!
not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act
[
of 1980, Pub.
L. No.96-511.
I
Sincerely, l
!
u O
!
Regional Administrator l
I
-
!
Enclosure:
.
!
i
$
i
-..-..
-
. - -
.
--...
.
.
..... _...
- l
-
s
i'l
'
,
i
-
!
.
'
Portland General Electric Co.
-4-
I I
cc:
W.
Robinson, Vice President Nuclear, PGE R. Machon, Plant General Managcr, PGE
C. K. Seaman, General Manager, Nuclear Plant Engineering l
T. Walt, General Manager, Technical Functions, PGE
!
D. Hicks, General Manager, Plant Support, PGE L. Girard,.Vice President and General Counsel, PGE
!
W.
Williams, Manager, Compliance, PGE L. Houghtby, Manager, Nuclear Security, PGE D.
Stewart-Smith, Administrator, Nuclear Safety and Energy
[
Facilities Division, ODOE
!
W. Bishop, Chair, Washington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council
!
L. Marbet, Boring, Oregon l
i J. Wilson, Hillsboro, Oregon E. Rosolie, Portland, Oregon
R.
Pollard, Washington, D.C.
l
!
!
h
'
i
i
i
!
!
,
!
I D
,
.
,
.+
>-
-.
. - - _
._
__ _
_ _. - -
__
.
. _
_
.-...
,
,
..
l
>
!
a
.
I
=
t Portland General Electric Co.
-5-
-
i DISTRIBUTION PDR LPDR
SECY
.
y CA J. Taylor, EDO j
H. Thompson, DEDS l
J. Sniezek,.DEDR
- i J. Lieberman, OE
. [
I J. Martin, RV T. Murley, NRR J.
Partlow, NRR J. Goldberg, OGC l
D. Rosano, OE
.;
Resident Inspector Project Inspector
}
-
Enforcement Coordinators
!
RI, RII, RIII, RIV, RV OE:Chron j
OE:EA(2)
,
l B. Hayes, OI
-
D. Williams, OIG E. Jordan, AEOD j
F.
Ingram, PA
,
!
EA File f
'
Day File l
DCS f
R. Scarano, RV G.
Cook, RV M.
Smith, RV
{
J.
Zollicoffer, RV
RSB/ Document Control Desk (RIDS)
RV:OI B. Faulkenberry RV Docket File f
,
l
!
l
,
i l
.
i l
)
i
, i
.
,
w n
n r-
=