ML19301F072
| ML19301F072 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 03/04/1986 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19301F071 | List: |
| References | |
| EA-84-137, NUDOCS 8603120288 | |
| Download: ML19301F072 (7) | |
Text
.
t UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the matter of
)
)
Docket No. 50-320 GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION
)
License No. DPR-73 (Three Mile Island, Unit 2)
)
EA 84-137 ORDER IMPOSING CIVIL MONETARY PENALTY I
General Public Utilities Nuclear Corporation (GPU Nuclear or licensee),
Parsippany, New Jersey is the hold'r of Licen;? No. DPR-73 issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
The license authorizes the licensee to operate the Three Mile Islar.d Nuclear Station, Unit 2 in Middletown, Pennsylvania, ir accordance with conditions specified therein.
The license was issued cn February 8,1978 and modified by Order on July 20, 1979.
II During the period between February 23, 1983 and Parch 24, 1983, Richard D. Parks, a Bechtel erployee, was discriminated against for engaging in protected activities in reporting safety concerns to his nanagerent, reauestir,g assistance from the NRC, and conmencing a proceeding witn the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL).
The acts of discrimination were descr1ced in a DOL irvestigation (DOL Case 83-ERA-E) that was reviewec curing an NRC 01 investigation (OI Peport H-83-002) and discussec in Section 10 of NUREG-0680, Supplement 5.
As a result of the NRC staff's review of these reports, an apparent violation of NRC requirerents aos identified.
Consequently, a written Notice of Violatior and Proposec Imposition of Civil 8603120288 860304 PDR ADOCK 05000320 G
2 Penalty (NOV) was served upon the licensee by letter dated August 12, 1985.
The Notice stated the nature of the violation, the NRC requirement that the licensee had violated, and the amount of civil penalty proposed for the violation.
An answer dated October 21, 1985 to the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty was received from tne licensee.
III After ccnsideration of GPU Nuclear's response and the statements of fact, explanation, and denial of the violation contained therein, as set forth in
'5e Appendix to this Order, the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement has determined that the Sixty-Four Thousand Dollar (564,000) penalty proposeo for the violation designated in the Notice of Violation and proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty is proper and should be imposed.
IV In view of tne foregoing and pursuant to Section 23A of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2282, PL 96-295), and IC CFR 2.205, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT The licensee pay the civil penalty in the amount of Sixty-Four Thousand Dollars ($64,000) within thirty days of the date of this Order, by check, draft, or money order, payable to the Treasurar of the United States and mailed to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enfortement, U. 5.
Nuclear Regulatory Conmission, Washington, D. C. 20555.
3 V
The licensee may recuest a hearing within thirty days of the date of this Order. A request for a hearing shall be addressed to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, U.S. huclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C. 20555. A copy of the hearing request also shall be sent to the Executive Legal Director, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission, Washington, D. C. 20555.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of the hearing.
If the licensee falls to request a hearing within thirty days of the date of this Order, the provisions of this*0rder shall be effective withcut further proceedings.
If payment has not been made by that time, the matter may be referred to the Attorney General for collection.
In the event the licensee requests a hearing as provided above, the issues to be consicered at such hearing shall be:
(a) whether the licensee violated NRC requirements as se. forth in tne Notice of Violation and Proposed Impositior, of Civil Penalty referenced in Section II above and (b) whether, on the basic cf such violaticn, this Orcer snould be sustained.
FOR THE NUCLEAR PEGULATOPY COMMISSION
/.
s47<<
uanes M. Taylo, Director r fice of Inspection and Enforcement Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 4 day of March 1986
APPENDIX EVALUATION AND CONCLUSICN The licensee's October 21, 1985 response to the August 12, 1985 Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty for the Three Mile Islano Nuclear Station, Unit 2 (TMI-2) denies that the violation occurrec as statec in the Notice.
The violation involved acts of discrimination against Ricnard D.
Parks, a Bechtel employee, for raising safety concerns associated with the TMI-E polar crane refurbishment.
A statement of the violation, a surrary ::f the licensee's response, and the NRC evaluaticn and conclusion are es follows:
Statement of Violation 10 CFR 50.7 prohibits discriminaticn by a Cornission licensee, or a contractor er subcontractor of a licensee, against an employee for engaging in certain protected activities.
Discrimination includes distrarge and other actions that relate to compensation, terms, ccnditions, anc privileges of emplojment The activities prctected include but are not limited to providing the NRC information about possible violati::ns of NRC recuirements and requests to the NRC to take action against an emDlojer for enforcement of NRC recuirements.
Ccntrary to the above, Richard D. Parks 3 Eechtel employee, was discriminated against for engaging in protected activities in reporting safety problems to his management, recuesting assistance from the NRC, and correncing a proceedir; witn the Department of Labor.
Parks reported safety concerns to his managenent on Februa ry 17, 1983.
Parks contacted the TMI cr-site office of the NRC cn February 15, 1953 anc on Marcn 10, 1983, ccmplainir; first that his management oas inreatening to nave n1m transferrec anc tnen that GPU Nuclear managemert was trying to implicate him in a conflict-of-interests cnarge tecause he had rcported safety concerns.
He also initiated a proceecing pursuant to Secticn 2 0(b)(1) of the Energy Reorganizaticn Act of 1974, 42 J.S.C. 5851, FL 93-438, on arch 23, v
1983.
At leas + ::artly cue to these activities, Mr. Par 6 s, curing the pericd between February 23, 1953 and March 20, 1953 -as (1) re oved as Alternete Startup anc Test Superviscr, (2) subjected to improper anc intiricating 'nterrogaticn
- 3) rencved as tre primary Site Operaticns Department representative for tre Test acrking Grcup, arc (4) ultimately placed cn leave o# a0sence.
These acts of discrimineticr were descrited in a U.S. Departrer,t c' tetor irvestigaticn (DOL Case E3-ERA-2) anich was reviewed curing an ',;C O! investigaticn ;0! ;eport H-83-DC2), anc ciscussed in Section 10 of % ;ES-CEEC, Suppierent 5.
This is a Severity Level II viclation (supplement /II:
(Civil Fenalty - 5E4,000)
Summary of Licensee's ;esconse Ine licensee centes the allegations in the Notice of /iolaticn.
Tre licensee states tnat tne ellegations of discriminaticn ::j Richarc D. ; eras were incrougnij investigatec by GPU Nuclear (TMI-2 ;eport, Panacement and Sefety Allegations, November 16, 1983) and by Eechtel (;eport of Eechtel Scrth Arericen ;cwer Corporation ;egarding the Allegaticns of Picnard D. Parks, October 19c4)
(tereinafter the Stier Report and the Eechtel Peport, respectively).
Appendix 2
Further, the licensee emphasizes that these investigations tock place after tre DOL investigation anc inat they were substantially more cetailed inan the D0t investigation. On the basis cf the Stier and Eechtel recorts, it,e licensee believes that none of the acts cescrioec in t.he Notice cf iTolation ccnstitutec reprisal, narassment, or intimidaticn.
Instead, the licensee takes the pcsition that each act was properly motivatec bj ccncerns for the proper functioning of the TMI-2 organization.
Spec:fically, the licensee argues that tre DOL investigation and the NRC review of inat investigation f ailed to retcgr.1:e the legitimate motives underlying the organizational changes that affectec Parns.
Evaluaticn of Licensee's Pesocnse and Ccnclusion The M C staff has carefully reviewed the licensee's respcnse and nas conciuced that the licensee has not provicec any infer aticn that was not alreedy ;cnsidered in cetermining tnat the violation nec cccurred.
The Stier Peport, which Of the licensee's own acmission did not address the cuesticning of Parks by Eecttel employees or the suspensicn of Parks, was consicerec by the steff in pre p ring the staff's findings regarcing inis natter in k;EG-C680 Supplement 5.
T ie Eechtel Report, which conta1nec no new informaticn except a f fidav i ts ta ke.1 De ween September 2E and October 2,19E4 of several Bechtel perscrnei end a Eechtel synopsis of tne case, was reviewec Dy tre staff in October 1954.
At that time the staf# fcund that the report certained ro information rot.Ireacj consicered in cetermining that tne violeticn nad occurred.
Tne infor aticr contained in tre Eechtel report was again revienec tj the staff in April 19E5 together with infcr aticn cevelcped Dy Stier Dased cn his review of the pubilc reco r:: anc his 19E3 rescrt.
Again, tre staf' fcunc no resis :c cnange its cerclusions regarding the discrimaration agairst Paris.
The licensee's resperse simply interprets tho i n f o rra :1 o n elready ccnsidered by the staff to justify its positicn.
In st-eral respects the statf 01sagrees witn t e 'icensee's interpretation or cnaracterizatico uf :ne events.
Fcr h
- example, ne licensee asserts that :ne replacement cf Feras Ln ecruerj 2, r
aE3 cy Dwign: D. nelxer 3s Al*ernate Startup enc Tes: Su;ervisor was done because an cppcrtunity presented itsel' ic res:cre the syste of che:ts anc talarces anc :, assure tnat Site Engineer 1rg was crxerij representec.
o ever, Mr. Walker nac been assigned to the TMI s1:e since earij h n.,ary ;923 arc it was not until the day a f ter Parks put n1s safei f concerns in wel:1rg inat tre replacement took place.
The licensee asserts trat tre v arcn 14, 1983 interview c' Parks by Messrs. Hofmarn and areeler was ccrcu;ted in a ;rtfessicral arc rcrintimicating "lanner and that the 1rpartial w1: ness at tre Teetirg telectec by Parks ccrf1rms this fact under cath.
Yet the affid3v1: of *re impartial wiiniss states cnly that Mr. Wofmar.n from tne Becntel Internal Auditing Groa; a5ked his OLesticns in a prcfessicnal narrer arc *.;re of scite.
tre fact *%dt Questions were asked in a professi nal manner ard tcne c# voice does rc offset C
the cbvious intimicating effect caused by ccr. cutting inis unusual meeting in sucn Close proximity to Paras having raiseC his safety ccrcerns.
Appendix 3
After reviewing the matter once more, the staff still coes not believe tnat he acts described in the Notice of Violation that occurred within a fcur-weer period of time and in close proximity to the time of Parts' corplaints to authorities were unrelated management actions taken without regard to Parks having raised safety concerns.
Instead, the staff remains convincec tnat tne facts show that Parks' complaints were collectively the common factor wnich motivatec the management actions regarding him.
Those actions were acts of discrimination taken in retaliation for Parks having raised his safety concerns. The licensee's assertion that the Notice appears precicated cn the assumption that once a safety concern has been v01ced any subsecuent change affecting the incividual who raised the concern cenonstrates retaliatory animus is wrong.
Petaliatory action is inferred when a pattern of changes subsequent to the voicing of a safety concern give evidence that the reasons for the changes are pretextual.
The staff believes such a pattern was present here.
Therefore, the staff conciuces that the violation is correct as stated in the Notice of Violation anc the civil penalty snould be imposed.
W 0 4 79?S GPU Nuclear Corpcration Distribution PDR LPDR NSIC SECY CA AJRS tTaylor, IE RVollmer, IE TMurley, RI JAxelrad, IE EHoller, IE JLieberman, ELD JSniezek, DED/ROGR FIngram, PA GJohnson, RM HDenton, NRR RStark, NRR SHayes, OI GEdles, 01A JCrooks, AEOD EJordan, IE JPartlow, IE BGrimes, IE WTravers, NRR WRussell, NRR ES File EA File EDO Rdg File Public Utility Commission Ms. Mary Southard, Co-Chairman Citizens for a Safe Environment T. H. Gerusky, Director Bureau of Radiation Protection Harrisburg, PA 17120