ML20059E572
| ML20059E572 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fort Saint Vrain  |
| Issue date: | 01/06/1994 |
| From: | Crawford A PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF COLORADO |
| To: | Gray J NRC OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT (OE), NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| P-94002, NUDOCS 9401120044 | |
| Download: ML20059E572 (6) | |
Text
I l,
l l
t Public Service' EOt"L_
P O BOX 840 DENVER CO 80201-0840 A. Clegg Crawford Fort St. Vra.m vic, p,,,io nt Electric Producten P-94002 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission A'ITN: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 ATrN:
Mr. Joseph R. Gray, Deputy Director Office of Enforcement Docket No. 50-267
SUBJECT:
RESPONSE TO NRC NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED l
IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY
REFERENCES:
1.
NRC letter from J.R. Gray to A.C. Crawford, dated December 7,1993 (G-93194) 2.
NRC letter from J.L. Milhoan to A.C. Crawford, dated October 13,1993 (G-93162) 3.
PSC letter from A.C. Crawford to Director, Office of Enforcement, dated November 10,1993 (P-93105) 4.
NRC letter from S.J. Collins to A.C. Crawford, dated March 11,1991 (G-91048)
Dear Mr. Gray:
This letter provides mitigation details as requested in Reference 1 to assist the NRC staff l
in making a final determination on the subject matter.
Public Service Company of Colorado (PSC) denies the violation listed in Reference 2, in whole. The basis for this denial is contained in Reference 3. Facts, explanations, and arguments relating to this matter were presented in part at an Enforcement Conference held on May 10, 1993, in Arlington, Texas. PSC feels that the finding of a violation l
l with a proposed penalty in this circumstance is wholly inappropriate and fails to serve i
I the objectives of 10 CFR Part 50.7 to protect persons who raise legitimate safety concerns and to penalize intentional violations. At most, the basis of the alleged i
violation appears to rest on a series of separate and unrelated events which, due to their proximity in time, created the perception of wrongdoing, albe;t entirely inadvertent.
1000ty 9401120044 940106 h
eDR ADOCK 05000267 a
eDR o
p
r*'
P-94002 January 6,1993 Page 2 l
i At the very least, mitigation of the proposed civil penalty is warranted. We have diligently pursued open communications and cooperation in the workplace and sought to
)
maintain a stable workforce and safe operations during a period of precedent-setting transition. Such accomplishments have been specifically recognized and commended by the NRC during this period in periodic inspection reports by the Senior Resident l
Inspector. Further, the clearly unintentional nature of any violation, especially in light of the Complainant's own questionable conduct throughout the process, renders a civil penalty unjustified and without function, and sends the wrong message to this and other l
licensees who have expended considerable effort to enhance communication and the necessary reporting of safety issues, i
l PSC's actions in this matter were largely influenced by and in response to a severe programmatic breakdown of the radiation protection program in September 1990 that j
resulted in an Enforcement Conference in October 1990. This incident had at its root l
the failure of radiation protection department personnel to act correctly both in a technical and interpersonal (team) manner. In addition, in February 1991 an hTC inspector recognized teamwork concerns in the radiation protection department. The inspector observed at the exit meeting and in his inspection report that staff morsle was on the decline, and expressed strong recommendations that the licensee take action in order to prevent safety concerns from developing. The current radiation protection manager had made his own observations of the workplace when hejoined the department in September 1990. He determined that teamwork, employee / contractor communications, and the technical basis of the radiation protection program reauired immediate attention.
Teamwork and open communications between the workforce and management were identified as priorities to meet these objectives. Several programs were developed and implemented including the creation of an action item list with specific assignments, responsibility, authority, and accountability. This action item list was discussed among the employees and management at staff meetings on a periodic basis and tracked for followup. Each employee was encouraged to discuss individual progress, and the team was encouraged to offer and implement suggestions for improvement or identify areas of concern. A daily issues meeting was also initiated which included the radiation protection manager and both PSC and contractor health physics technicians, which successfully encouraged suggestions and efficiencies in the performance of the work.
These programs developed a sense of ownership and participation in the radiation i
protection program on the part of all department employees, which was recognized by an NRC inspector in February 1991 (Reference 4) when he noted that "...a strong, dedicated effort by the licensee had increased the performance level by the latter part of January 1991."
ll
P-94002 1
January 6,1993 Page 3 Another problem area identified involved the PSC employees' feelings of under appreciation and insecurity which had induced several to begin leaving the site for other opportunities, thus reducing the source of knowledge and expertise available to complete the shutdown. In response, PSC determined that a retention program calling for f'mancial incentives for PSC employees to remain for the completion of operation and decommissioning was necessary. One component of this plan called for the release of contractor employees before PSC employees to reduce perceptions of job insecurity.
)
l The preceding discussion provides some background regarding PSC's philosophy in the time period shortly before Complainant's complaints.
In early 1991, downsizing became necessary due to the inability of PSC to ship spent j
reactor fuel to the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. The objectives of maintaining j
morale and continuing development of teamwork were integrated into the downsizing i
analysis. It was determined that several contract health physics technicians would be released in early 1991. Initially, PSC did not intend to release Complainant due to his i
perceived technical skill.
However, during this period we began to experience complaints by coworkers regarding Complainant and problems with his willingness or ability to work within the team framework. In response to these complaints, and based on more focused personal observations of Complainant, management arranged several meetings with Complainant to discuss the concerns and modifications to his interpersonal behavior which were deemed necessary to ensure harmony among the work team. In these meetings, although Complainant acknowledged that several of his behavioral traits were likely offensive to others, he flatly refused to make any accommodations in his style of interacting with his team members.
Complainant's clear expression of non-cooperation was perceived as a genuine threat to the team concept and objective of progress through cooperation. This disturbing attitude prompted management to undertake an objective canvass of Complainant's peers, both PSC and contractor, after which the decision was made to release Complainant based on his unacceptable behavior and his unabashed unwillingness to change, despite counseling.
It should be noted with scrutiny equal to that which has been applied to PSC's conduct, that Complainant's charges nrround his interactions with the very PSC employee who accused him of insulting and offensive conduct, which prompted the meetings described earlier in this letter. It should also be noted that the " safety" issues which form the basi:,
of Complainant's charges were determined at the time of the events by both the radiation 1
protection department and independently by the quality assurance department and the NRC Senior Resident Inspector, to be procedural deficiencies and not safety issues.
These determinations were made without regard to the personnel involved.
1 9
i l
I I
P-94002 January 6,1993 Page 4 PSC believes that it is important for the NRC to take into account the delicate balance a licensee must maintain between taking appropriate personnel actions in support of its
]
management of the workforce and safe operations, and avoiding the perception of discrimination. Arguably, every task, procedure and activity at a nuclear site is safety related. Proper distinction must be made between an employer's legitimate and necessary management actions taken to maintain a cooperative, high morale environment and those actions which clearly thwart the open communications necessary to ensure exposure of legitimate safety concerns. PSC believes that such distinction has not been made in this In light of Complainant's expressed refusal to cooperate with management in case.
developing a team approach to work at Fort St. Vrain, PSC believes it made an appropriate management decision to release Complainant.
Since PSC sincerely believes that no violation of 10 CFR Part 50.7 occurred, and i
because it believes the foregoing demonstrates its good faith and diligent efforts to develop teamwork and communications in furtherance of the purposes of 10 CFR Part 50.7, no civil penalty should be imposed.
PSC has also reviewed the factors addressed in Section VI.B.2 of 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C.
The factors enumerated in tnis section clearly warrant substantial i
mitigation of the proposed civil penalty based on the following:
I Section VI.B.2.(c), Licensee performance, states "The purpose of this factor is to recognize and encourage good or improving licensee performance... Therefore, the base 4
l civil penalty... may be mitigated by as much as 100% if the current violation is an isolated failure that is inconsistent with a licensee's outstandingly good prior j
performance." This is clearly the case with respect to the performance of Public Service Company of Colorado in this area. The NRC in Reference 2 indicates that "We recognize that the licensee's prior performance in this area has been good and that this might be an isolated incident." A review of the Fort St. Vrain destaffing experience shows conclusively that this is indeed the case.
Prior to August of 1989, when Fort St. Vrain was permanently shut down, PSC had never received any 10 CFR 50.7 complaints. Since August of 1989, Public Service Company of Colorado has destaffed from 771 (counting company and contractor personnel) to 110 (counting company and contractor personnel) with no 10 CFR 50.7 complaints other than this alleged violation.
PSC feels that this is a remarkable accomplishment and reflects the many hours of planning and sense of caring that accompanied the staff reductions.
This unprecedented and outstanding level of performance when faced with such a difficult situation as permanent shutdown of a nuclear generating station, demonstrates that 100% mitigation is warranted.
i a
P-94002 January 6,1993 Page 5 Reference 2 indicates that "... mitigation would be inconsistent with the regulatory message intended by this Severity Ixvel II action, i.e., to emphasize the need for you to eliminate discrimicion and foster an environment in which all employees at Fort St.
Vrain and in yot 'anization feel free to raise safety concerns without fear of retaliation." We w y I agree with the premise that discrimination or fear of retaliation have ever existed at Fort St. Vrain, and we feel that our operating and destaffing experience demonstrates conclusively that an appropriate environment for raising employee concerns has been established and continues to be in place. PSC has been aggressive in establishing several employee complaint mechanisms, and I personally established an all-employee stop work authority policy in 1989 within the first six months I was at Fort St. Vrain. This authority has been exercised by members of the plant staff i
on more than one occasion, and no complaints of reprisal have ever been raised.
Since 1966, we've processed over 30,000 corrective action instruments of various types at Fort St. Vrain - we want to do it right. Although not all of these situstions were associated with safety, it demonstrates a diligent pattern of identifying hsues and resolving them. Programs such as the Standard Infraction Report and Radiological Occurrence Report have been developed specifically to provide vehicles for reporting safety concerns to management. We believe that the sum of all our actic,ns clearly demonstrates that we have established an atmosphere that encourages the raising of perceived safety concerns and handles these concerns in an appropriate manner. PSC i
believes that imposition of a civil penalty in this situation is not warn.ated because we j
are not guilty: but even if the NRC finds that a violation occurred, such violation was i
clearly unintentional, and was an isolated incident that is inconsistent with our good prior performance in this area.
We believe that imposition of a civil penalty would send an inappropriate message to the industry, i.e., that prior good performance, lack of willful vio!ation, and an isolated failure will not be considered as mitigation factors, contrary to the intent of 10 CFR Part l
2, Appendix C. In fact, PSC believes that mitigation might actually send a very positive l
message to the industry: where an otherwise exemplary licensee makes diligent and successful efforts to enhance open communications, it stands to avoid certain damage to the licensee's reputation in circumstances where violations are based on unintentional and inadvertent acts.
The remaining civil penalty adjustment factors in 10 CFR Part 2 were reviewed and PSC feels that no further adjustment factors apply.
l w
vrer-
P-94002 January 6,1993 Page 6 PSC maintains its position that 10 CFR 50.7 was not violated; however, if your office continues to believe that such a violation did occur, we appreciate your willingness to consider the above mitigation details in making a fm' al staff determination on this matter.
If we can provide additional information or if you have any questions, please contact the Fort St. Vrain Decommissioning Program Director, Mr. Don W. Warembourg, at (303) 620-1009.
Sincerely, h fNRJ lv A. Clegg Crawford Vice President Electric Production cc: Regional Administrator, Region IV
,