ML20125C238
| ML20125C238 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 12/08/1992 |
| From: | Martin T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Danni Smith PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20125C239 | List: |
| References | |
| EA-92-164, NUDOCS 9212110106 | |
| Download: ML20125C238 (5) | |
Text
_._ _ _
l DEC 0 81992 Docket No. 50-352 License No. NPF-39 EA 92-164 Mr. D. M. Smith Senior Vice President -
Nuclear Philadelphia Electric Company Nuclear Group Headquarters Correspondence Control Desk Post Office Box 195 Wayne, Pennsylvania 19087-0195
Dear Mr. Smith:
-1
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY - $25,000 (U.S. Department of Labor Case No. 92-ERA-27)
This letter refers to the results of an administrative proceeding conducted by the U.S.
Department of Labor (DOL), consisting of an investigation and hearing, regarding a complaii.t filed January 30,1992, by an employee of Protection Technology Inc. (PTI), a contractor for the Philadelphia Electric Company (PECO) at the Limerick Generating Station, Limerick, Pennsylvania. Ip this case, a DOL Administrative Law Judge (AU) issued a Recommended Decision and Order finding that PTI discriminated against the employee because he engaged in protected activity, in violation of Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act (recently changed to Section 211 by the Energy Policy Act of 1992). In this case, FTI has filed an appeal with the Secretary of Labor.
Based on the AU's decision, the NRC has concluded that a violation of the Commission's regulations has occurred. On October 22, 1992, an enforcement conference.was held with Mr. D. Helwig, and other members of your staff, to discuss this occurrence, the apparent violation, its cause and your corrective actions.
CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REOUESTED 1000@
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY p: PROP-LIM. DOL I
92121gho$h$52 i
PDR PDR f;
.G-
DEC 0 81992 Philadelphia Uectric Company 2
The violation dewribed la the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty concerns the finding of discrimination in violation of 10 CFR 50.7, " Employee Protecfe:.
h rcifically, according to the A ~ J decision, shortly after the employee engaged in i
protected activities, his tupervisor retaliatr inst him be ise of that activity. The evMence showed that the primary motivating fac: w n PTPs decision to refer the employee ro a psy&bgical evaluation and, ultimately, te discharge him was his Protected conduct in nmring
, A*
bis su. ament of January 1,1992, concerning Limerick's security precedures. The.ALJ based
@ (p his decision in par' en the latt that the employec was suspended the day after raising these 1.; "
safeguards concerns without explar.ation and without displaying any aberrant behavior. In ai addition, there was no documented evidence of prior behavioral / disciplinary problems with the employee. The NhC tecognizes and fully supports your need to aggrerively pursue physical t
patectioa of your facility under 10 CFR Part 73 and to assu.e fitness-for-dely for persons granted unescorted access to protected areas under 10 CFR Part ?6. Nonetheless, you must also agtassively assure that individuals are not discri.ninated against for engaging in pro'.ect:d activities, as the ALJ found in this case.
C' Under 10 CFR 50.7, discrimmation by a Commission licensee, or a contract f a Commissir licensee, against an employee for engaging in certain protected activities a s chibited. r r
activities which are protected include, but are not limited to, reporting of quality discrepan and safety and safeguards concerns by an erapy to his employer or the NRC, providing Commission information about possa - viotwr. of requirements imposed ur. der either me Atomic Energy Act or the Energv gar aa W ; :t. requesting the Commission to institute or vment action against his or
.nplor.. tur the administration or enforcement of these it.nents, or testifying in any Commission procceding.
The vic!ation concerning the employee has been categorized as a Severity Leve1 Ill violation
..imarily because the discriminatory actions involved tb persor, who was at thr t time the PTI site captain. Those actions are of particular concern because, at the site captin, he shot:id havc been responsible for pmtecting persons who raised concerns from harassment ar.d s
intimidation. Such an cavironment is necessary if licensees are to fdfill their responsibility to protect the public health and safety. Thus, licensee management and licensee contractors must avoid actions tnat discriminate against individuals for raising safety concerns, and must promptly and effectively remedy actions that constitute dish nination.
Therefore, to emphasize the importance of maintaining an envitonment in which employees are free to provide information or raise safety and safeguards concerns without fear of retaliation or discrimintion, I have been authorized, after consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, and the Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Regional Operations, and Research, to issue the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Impo.;ition of Civil Penalty in accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Ac' ions," (Enforcement Policy) 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C.
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY p: PROP-LIA1. DOL 4
-w m n-
~
1 DEC 0 81992 Philadelphia Electric Company 1
The base value of a civil penalty for a Severity Level III violation is $50,000. The escalation and mitigation factors set forth in the enforcement policy were considered and, on balance, the base civil penalty was mitigated by 50 percent to $25,000. ' With respect to past performance, you received a SALP Category I rating in the area of Security and you have had no violations relating to discriminaCon in the past two years; therefore,100 percent mitigation of the base civil penalty on this factor is warranted. However, your corrective actions, subsequent to the identification of the violation, were not comprehensive in that your assessment of the event failed to include an independent review of the case to determine if the event was correctly characterized by your contr*.etor (PTI), and therefore, 50 percent escalation of the base civil penalty. on this fcctor is warranted.
The other factors were considered and no further adjustments were warranted.
Although the NRC is proposing a civil penalty for this case, payment or appeal of the civil penalty may be deferred until 30 days after a final decision by the Secretary of Labor en PTI's appeal which is still pending. Therefore, you are not required to provide a formal response pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201 and 2.205 until 30 days after the Secretary has issued a final decision in the case. However, notwithstanding your past corrective actions documented in your response of May 8,1992, to our " chilling effect" letter dated April 9,1992, regarding the actions agvinst the employee, please respond in writing within thirty days of your receipt of this Noti;e of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty, describing any additional actions you have taken or plan to take to minimize any potential chtlling effect crising from the circumstances related to the employee that might inhibit or prevent your employees or coctmeters from raising
(
safety concerns to either your own organization or the NRC.
Finally, any decisien to restore the employee to duty should assure that the appropriate requirements of 10 CFR Part 26 and Part 73 have been met, la accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy f this letter and the enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
Sincerc;y, Od:ind sig 9 y id 'es I. l.u;6 Thomas T. Martin Regional Administrator
Enclosure:
Notice of Violation and Proposed I'mposition of Civil Penalty OFFICIAL RECORD COPY p: PROP LIM. DOL
D EC.0 81992. '
)
Philadelphia Electric Company 4
cc w/ encl:
R. Charles, Chairman, Nuclear Review Board D. Helwig, Vice President - Limerick Generating Station G. Beck, Manager - Licensing Section G. Madsen, Regulatory Engineer - Limerick Generating Station Secretary, Nuclear Committee of the Board Public Document Room (PDR)
Imal Public Document Room (LPDR)
Nuclear Safety Information Certer (NSIC)
K. Abraham, PAO-RI (2)
NRC Resident inspector Commonwealth of Pennsylvania l-d l.
l
[
l' l
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY i-p: PROP-LIM. DOL o
Philadelphia Electric Company 5
]llSTRIBUTION:
PDR SECY CA JSniczek, DEDR JLieberman, OE-TMartin, RI JGoldberg, OGC TMurley, NRR JPaulow, NRR Enforcement Coordinators RI, RII, RIII, RIV, RV Fingram, GP/ 'PA Bilayes, 01 VMiller, SP DWilliams, OIG IUcrdan, AEOD DRosano, OE Day File EA File DCS
[RI:OE RI:
k RSS RI:DRP
^
RI:OE Caslick IIolody Ke f C-A r3on Q,
O 6
f 10g92
,10 /92 l$/3/92 1f/3/92 10N92 t\\y
/
IpRy R!:DRP RI:RQ l
[
R [-
\\ ggge ;;({[j,
Fichl [tp Smitik j
(
hj
'#S/
2 M
M//92 14/r/92 10p'92 y
y/w/p a3 Oc /
,/) Rw V
pp '.I y
f Lieberman Sniezek p
1 h
10/ /92 10/ /92 j
wa~a,, am an;aa"a,L"p' aaer g
nukka-n A.] ' p:. 7%y b y yy cm<nn
- - - - -.