ML17306B023
| ML17306B023 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 09/30/1992 |
| From: | Martin J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17306B022 | List: |
| References | |
| EA-92-139, NUDOCS 9210090028 | |
| Download: ML17306B023 (6) | |
Text
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTIES Arizona Public Service Company Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Company Docket Nos.
-. 50-528, 50-529 and 50-530 License Nos.
NPF-41, NPF-51, and NPF-74 EA-92-139 Based on the results of investigations and hearings conducted by the U.S.
Department of Labor (DOL)
(DOL cases 89-ERA-19 and 91-ERA-9) and the resulting decisions by DOL Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) dated April 13, 1989 and July 2, 1992, respectively, the NRC has determined that violations of its regulations occurred.
In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions,"
10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C, the violations are listed below:
10 CFR 50.7 prohibits discrimination by a Commission licensee, permittee, an applicant for a Commission license or,permit, or a contractor or subcontractor of a Commission licensee, permittee, or applicant against an employee for engaging in certain protected activities.
Discrimination includes discharge and other actions that relate to compensation,
- terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.
The protected activities include, but are not limited to, providing the NRC or licensee information about possible violations of NRC requirements.
A.
Contrary to the above, Sarah C. Thomas, who was employed by APS as an engineering technician, was unlawfully discriminated against as described in the DOL ALJ Recommended Decision and Order issued April 13,
- 1989, 89-ERA-19.
Specifically, Ms. Thomas was reassigned to another position, was denied a promotion, was treated differently from another employee in being consider ed for another promotion, was required to complete unnecessary
- training, and had her certifications for certain procedures suspended, all in retaliation for engaging in protected activities.
The protected activities included raising safety concerns to licensee management and the NRC regarding problems with a computer system and the testing of certain valves.
This is a Severity Level III violation (Supplement VII).
Civil Penalty
$50,000 B.
Contrary to the above, Linda E. Mitchell, who was employed by APS as an Electrical Engineer II, was unlawfully discriminated against as described in the DOL ALJ Recommended Decision and Order issued July 2,
- 1992, 91-ERA-9.
Specifically, Ms. Mitchell was subjected to a series of actions which comprised a hostile work environment in
'retaliation for engaging in certain protected activities.
The protected activities included raising various safety concerns to licensee management and the NRC, including concerns regarding problems with emergency lighting at Palo Verde.
9210090028 920930 PDR ADOCK 0500052S 6
PDR I
Notice of Violation This is a Severity Level II violation (Supplement VII).
Civil Penalty
$80,000 Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, APS is hereby, required to submit a-written statement or explanation in response to this Notice of Violation'nd Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties (Notice) to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, within 30 days of the date of a final decision of the Secretary of Labor on each of the respective cases.-
A separate response is required for each case.
Each reply should be clearly marked as a "Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include for each alleged violation: (1) admission or denial of the alleged violation, (2) the reasons for the violation if admitted, and if denied, the reasons why, (3) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results
- achieved, (4) the corrective steps, that will be taken to avoid further violations, and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved.
If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an or'der may be issued to show cause why the license should not be modified, suspended, or revoked or why such other action as may be proper should not be taken.
Consideration may be given to extending the response time for good cause shown.
Under the authority of Section 182 of the Act, 42 U.S.C.
- 2232, each response shall be submitted under oath or affirmation.
Within the same period as provided for the response required above under 10 CFR 2.201, the licensee may pay the civil penalties by letter addressed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, with a check, draft, money order, or electronic transfer payable to the Treasurer of the United States, in the amount of the civil penalty proposed
- above, or the cumulative amount of the civil penalties if more than one civi 1 perialty is
- proposed, or may protest the civil penalties,'n whole or in part, by a written answer addressed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
- Again, a separate response is required for each case.
Should the licensee fail to answer within the time specified, an order imposing the respective civil penalty will be issued.
Should the licensee elect to file an answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 protesting the civil penalties, in whole or in part, such answer should be clearly marked as an "Answer to a Notice of Violation" and may:
(1) deny the violations listed in this Notice, in whole or in part, (2) demonstrate extenuating circumstances, (3) show error in this Notice, or (4 show other reasons why the penalties should not be imposed.
In addition to protesting the civil penalties, in whol'e or in part, such answer may request remission or mitigation of the penalties.
In requesting mitigation of the proposed penalties, the factors addressed in Section V.B in 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C should be addressed.
Any written answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 should be set forth separate from the statement or explanation in reply pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201, but may incorporate parts of the 10 CFR 2.201 reply by specific reference (e.g.,
citing page and paragraph numbers) to avoid repetition.
A separate response is required for each case.
The attention of the licensee is directed to the other provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, regarding the procedure for imposing civil penalties.
l J
Notice of Violation Upon failure to 'pay any civil penalties due which subsequently has been determined in accordance with the applicable provisions of 10 CFR 2.205,. this matter may be referred to the Attorney General, and the penalties, unless compromised, remitted,, or mitigated, may be collected by civil act'ion pursuant to Section 234c of the Act, 42 U.S.C.
2282c.
The responses noted above (Reply to Notice of Violation, letter with payment of civil penalties, and Answer to Notice of Violation) should be addressed to:
Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN:
Document Control Desk,= Washington, D.C. 20555, with a copy to the U.S; Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regional Administrator, Region V, 1450 Maria Lane, Walnut Creek, California 94596-5368, and a copy to the NRC Resident Staff at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION John B. Martin Regional Administrator Dated at Walnut Creek, California this g~
day of September 1992
Arizona Public Service Company DISTRIBUTION:
PDR SECY CA
- JSniezek, DEDR JLieberman, OE
- TMurley, NRR
- JPartlow, NRR Enforcement Coordinators RI, RII, RIII, RIV, RV
- FIngram, PA
- BHayes, OI
- MBlume, RV
A:RV 09/25/92*
D:OE JLieberman 09/25/92*
DEDR JSniezek 09/25/92*
- See previous concurrences Doc Name:
G:)OECASES)92139RV2.CH