ML17254A176
| ML17254A176 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna  |
| Issue date: | 01/21/1985 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17254A175 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-244-1-83-031, 50-244-1-83-31, NUDOCS 8501280495 | |
| Download: ML17254A176 (19) | |
Text
OBIce ef lInvestigations Reported by Ol: Region i r
850128OC~
05pppp4+
~L i'
SYNOPSIS On October 31, 1983, the NRC's Senior Resident Inspector (SRI) at the Ginna Nuclear Generating Station received a memorandum from a guality Assurance (gA) auditor for Rochester Gas 5 Electric (RGSE), alleging that he had been pres-sured to delete audit findings from his reports and instructed not to communi-cate adverse information to the NRC.
The alleger cited three specific Audit Findings Corrective Action Reports (AFCARs) that management was attempting to suppress in Audit Report 483-36:SB.
He requested confidentiality for fear of being penalized on his performance review and associated pay increase.
NRC Region I requested that the Office of Investigations (OI) conduct an investigation of alleged intimidation of gA personnel at Ginna.
Subsequent to that request, Region I advised OI that the alleger had inadvertently disclosed his identity to management, thereby negating the need for confidentiality.
From February 13, 1984, through March 1, 1984, NRC Region I conducted a
special safety inspection at Ginna of allegations "that certain gA audit findings identified violations of Technical Specifications, but were not documented, evaluated, or corrected by the licensee."
In an interview on February 14, 1984, the gA alleger reiterated the charges in his memorandum to the SRI, discussing the three findings previously mentioned and a similar problem with a finding from Audit Report 883-19:SB.
During this interview he related that he had filed a complaint with the Department of Labor (DOL),
charging discrimination regarding his performance appraisal and subsequent pay raise.
NRC Inspection Report ~50-244/83-03, issued March 21, 1984, stated:
"Alle-gations appear to be substantiated in two instances in that PORC quorum requirements were determined not to have been met-,
and an unapproved procedure was used.
There are also indications that there was a failure to take ade-quate corrective actions on these findings in accordance with Ginna Station requirements."
An Enforcement Conference held on April 6, 1984, identified the findings regarding violations of PORC quorum requirements and the use of an unapproved procedure as Severity Level V violations.
The finding regarding
>>P
the lack of prompt identification and correction of conditions adverse to quality was rated a Severity Level IV violation.
In July l9B4, Region I advised OI that the alleger's claim with 00L was denied as ungrounded with his appeal of that decision scheduled for August 7, 1984.
On August 3, 1984, the alleger settled with RGSE and received a transfer from gA to Corporate Auditing.
The investigation did not disclose sufficient evidence to corroborate the alleger's claims of intimidation and harassment against gA personnel by company management, although one former individual did state that the alleger had received smaller raises than he had when their job performances appeared equal.
All the gA engineers/auditors and gC inspectors, denied receiving instructions prohibiting them from communicating adverse information to the NRC or directing them to delete or reduce the number of their audit/inspection findings.
They also denied being threatened with adverse personnel actions in connection with the performance of their duties.
The gA/gC supervisors affirmed that they had neither been intimidated nor harassed in the performance of their duties and had not subjected their subordinates to such actions.
The gA manager admitted to taking action against one auditor for a tardiness problem and against the alleger for poor performance.
All of the supervisory personnel interviewed in the course of this investi-gation denied issuing instructions prohibiting their subordinates from communicating adverse information to the NRC.
However, the Plant gC Inspec-tion Supervisor stated that the Nuclear Assurance
- Manager, the individual administratively responsible for gC, verbally advised him to document with the Plant Superintendent any phone conversations with the NRC.
The Nuclear Assurance Manager denied issuing any such instructions.
The Plant Superin-tendent stated that there was no directive to document telephone calls with NRC representatives, but advised that some plant personnel do so as a matter or practice when discussions impact on technical issues.
The gA Manager did recall criticizing the alleger for going to the SRI with a problem in 1979,
Y
'I
because he did not first attempt to resolve the matter by taking advantage of management's open door policy.
When discussing the alleger's situation with both his peers and supervisors, the two most recurring themes used to describe his job performance were his insistence on concentrating on problems of minor importance (i.e. "nit-picking") and his inability to communicate with the individuals he was audit-ing/inspecting.
The majority of the alleger's peers neither supported his claim of management impropriety in the gA/gC program nor believed that he had been persecuted by management.
- However, one individual opined. that a person-ality problem exists between the alleger and the gA Manager and that dis-pleasure with the alleger extends to other management personnel who view him as a constant source of headaches.
Another exception was an individual who thought that the alleger had been "railroaded" in his 1979 transfer from gC to gA, because he was a constant source of irritation to management.
This individual related that he had been approached by the Operations Engineer, currently the Nuclear Assurance
'anager, who asked him about signing things relative to ousting the alleger as gC Engineer.
The Operations Engineer also advised him that he was backing "a
dead horse" and stated that "they" were getting together and going to get rid of the gC Engineer.
The Nuclear Assurance Manager denied having been involved in any discussions which led to the alleger's removal as gC Engineer.
The gA Manager advised that the alleger was rated below "fully satisfactory" while assigned as a gA auditor because:
he was poor at communicating with Ginna managers regarding audit 'findings and the corrective actions needed; was very slow in acknowledging audit replies; was poor at clarifying the nature of an audit finding with sufficient examples; did not utilize the audit check list; did not conduct comprehensive audits and got lost in the paperwork;
- and, "hassled" a clerk during the conduct of one of his audits.
The gA Manager could only recall one instance where he directed a
gA auditor to delete findings from a report and that involved the alleger's findings.
He directed the deletion of the PORC quorum finding because it was out-of-scope, but instructed the alleger to make certain a Corrective Action Report (CAR)
was issued by the gC Engineer to cover the finding.
He wanted the procedural currency finding deleted because it was out-of-scope and based on insufficient investigation.
Despite the NRC citing RGEE for a violation on the finding regarding the implementation of a procedure before its approval, he remains unconvinced that it is a valid finding.
The gA Manager admitted that he has advised gA auditors to concentrate their efforts on the time period under review.
He opined that looking for findings which may have existed prior to the last audit result in duplication of effort.
He stated, however, that such a deficiency should be handled as a
finding and brought to the attention of the appropriate manager.
The gC Engineer would be advised of any out-of-scope finding, enabling him to create a
CAR to track the deficiency.
gA auditors and gC inspectors did voice concerns regarding both the amount of support they receive from management and management's responsiveness to their findings.
All four gA Auditors expressed satisfication with the management support they receive while implementing the gA program, but advised that management was occasionally untimely in responding to their findings.
In contrast, eight of the thirteen gC inspectors expressed some degree of dissatisfication with the support they receive at Ginna.
Numerous examples of this lack of support were cited, including the following: the placement of unqualified and unsupportive individuals in the positions of gC Engineer and Nuclear Assurance Manager; the need for more RGKE employees in gA; the exis-tence of an anti-gA/gC attitude in the Maintenance Department, particularly among the Instrumentation 8 Control (IKC) technicians, pipefitters and mechanics; and a pervading plant attitude that gC is a necessary evil.
Similarly, seven of the thirteen gC inspectors questioned management's responsiveness to findings.
Many felt that management was often untimely in responding to findings and cited the lack of a requirement for a response within a certain time as contributing to the problem.
The existence of an anti-gA/gC attitude 'in certain shops within the plant was acknowledge by gC supervision and other plant managers, but was not viewed as having a major impact on gC's effectiveness.
I
')
2,
The Assistant Chief Engineer, the individual to whom the gA Manager reports, expressed confidence in the gA Manager and stated
- that, he believes plant management is becoming more responsive to audit findings.
He opined that the alleger was unrealistic in his approach to auditing and did not "cut the mustard" compared to the other gA personnel.
He theorized that some of the alleger's findings could have been resolved by suggestions rather than being made into AFCARs.
His supervisor, RG&E's Vice President and Chief Engineer, believes that the gA/gC personnel have adequate authority and freedom to perform their duties, but expressed the opinion that overall, the program seemed to get "tangled up" with paperwork rather than dealing with real safety concerns.
RGSE's Vice President for Electric E
Steam Production described the alleger as losing sight of the objective of the gA program, concentrating instead on "crossing t's and dotting i'."
He be')ieves the alleger's
.,low performance ratings were justified based on poor job performance and his faith that the gA Manager would not engage in harassing or discriminatory activities.
He opined that a better public relations job can be done, both within and outside
- RGRE, by emphasizing upper management's commitment to the gA program.
He also stated it appears gA and the entire organization are too concerned with the "paperwork trail," instead of having gA concentrate on whether the plant is operating safely and in the public interest.
The SRI at Ginna from November 1980, through March 1984, and currently the SRI at Palo Verde, believes the gA/gC program at Ginna is relatively weak but buoyed by the strength of the other departments.
With the exception of the alleger approaching him in November 1983, complaining of management pressure to delete findings from audit reports, the SRI did not experience any similar complaints from gA/gC personnel during his tenure at Ginna.
The alleger, when interviewed a second time at the conclusion of all the field interviews, stated that he had not heard of any of the interviewees being pressured by management relative to their responses during this investigation.
He opined that, if that had been the case, he would have known about it.
He also indicated that he was not completely satisfied with the settlement of his DOL complaint, but advised that he did not want to get into a detailed
J
discussion of it.
Subsequent to that interview he forwarded two letters to Region I discussing the possibility of continued harassment by the gA Manager in connection with the deletion of three rad waste AFCAR's from an as yet un-issued audit report.
He also advised that he settled with RGIIE because he needed the money and felt somewhat pressured on the issue of his transfer.
BASIS FOR INVESTIGATION On November 9,
- 1983, NRC Region I requested that the Office of Investigations (OI) conduct an investigation of alleged intimidation of guality Assurance (gA) auditors at Rochester Gas 5 Electric's (RGSE) Ginna Nuclear Generating Station.
The allegation centered on claims that a gA auditor had been pres-sured to delete audit findings from his reports and prohibited from contacting the NRC with adverse information.
The alleger requested confidentiality for fear of being penalized on his performance review by RGLE management.
In a memorandum from Region I to OI, dated February 2,
- 1984, OI was advised that the alleger had inadvertently disclosed his identity to corporate management, thereby negating the need for confidentiality.
~,
A I
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Regarding. the allegation of gA intimidation at Rochester Gas 8 Electric's Ginna Nuclear Generating Station.
Code of Federal Regulation, Title 10, Chapter I.
Part 50.7.
a)
"Discrimination by a Commission licensee, permittee, an applicant for a Commission licensee or permit or a contractor or subcontractor of a Commission licensee, permittee, or applicant against an employee for engaging in certain protected activities is prohibited.
Discrimination includes discharge and other actions that relate to compensation,
- terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.
The... Act."
(I)
The protected activities include but are not limited to:
(i) providing the Commission information about possible violation of requirements imposed under either of the above statutes; (ii) requesting the Commission to institute action against his or her employer for the administration or enforcement of these requirements; or (iii) testifying in any Commission proceeding.
d)
"Actions taken by an employer, or others, which adversely affect an employee may be predicated upon nondiscriminatory grounds.
The prohibi-tion applies when the adverse action occurs because the employee has engaged in protected activities.
An employee's... considerations."
Part 50, Appendix B - guality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants.
I.
Organization "The applicant shall be responsible for the establishment and execution of the quality assurance program.
The applicant... functions.
The quality assur-ance functions are those of (a) assuring that an appropriate quality assurance
4 ~
0 4h,
program is established and effectively executed and (b) verifying, such as by checking, auditing, and inspection, that activities affecting the safety related functions have been correctly performed.
The persons and organiza-tions performing quality assurance functions shall have sufficient authority and organizational freedom to identify quality problems; to initiate, recom-mend, or provide solutions; and to verify implementation of solutions.
Such persons... this function."
10
l 1 ~I I
Y