ML20127B254
| ML20127B254 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/23/1992 |
| From: | Scarano R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | Cross J PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| References | |
| EA-92-223, NUDOCS 9301120216 | |
| Download: ML20127B254 (5) | |
Text
,
l)
.f UNITED STATES y*
l',,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,E REGION V
{
s 1450 MARIA LANE
%g WALNUT CREEK, CAUFORNIA 945W5368 o,,,,,
DEC 231992 Docket No. 50-344 License No. NPF-1 EA 92-223 Portland General Electric Company 121 S.W. Salmon Street, TB-17 Portland, Oregon 97204 Attention: Mr. James E. Cross Chief Nuclear Officer /Vice President Nuclear Division
SUBJECT:
INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED BY THE NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (CASE NO. 5-91-008)
This refers to an investigation conducted by the NRC Office of Investigations (01) from June 20, 1991, through September 23, 1992, at the Trojan Nuclear Plant. The investigation was in response to complaints by several members of the Trojan security force that they were being intimidated by security-management concerning the reporting of security concerns, especially regarding the identification of security officers found asleep or inattentive while on duty. This investigation consisted of interviews of personnel and review of selected documents, and appears to confirm, as indicated in the enclosed synopsis, that from May 1989 to August 1991, there was an environment of intimidation caused by actions of Trojan security management.
While our recent inspections have found no indication that this condition now exists at Trojan, the situation identified during the investigation constitutes an apparent violation of 10 CFR 50.7, particularly 50.7(f), which is being considered for escalated enforcement action in accordance with the
' General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions" (Enforcement Policy), 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C.
Section 50.7(f) prohibits licensees from enuring into agreements that discourage employees from raising safety concerns to licensee management or to the NRC. The apparent violation in this case is based on actions and directions by Trojan security management that had the effect of discouraging security personnel from raising concerns to management or the NRC, as follows:
1)
PGE management gave instructions and took actions indicating that security officers should let their presence be known when checking on security posts and firewatches. Many security personnel reasonably interpreted this to mean that individuals who were sleeping and/or inattentive should be alerted and not be identified as such.
3 1
1 9301120216 921223
~
A PDR ADDCK 05000344 Il S
l.'
DEC 23199%
2 2)
PGE management created and tolerated the impression on the part of security officers that they were not to report sleeping / inattentive individuals, nor othei security concerns, to the NRC or to management. This second concern is based on security management directions to security personnel to change reports concerning sleeping / inattentive individuals, on security management treatment of those who identified sleeping / inattentive individuals, on security management comments implying that one of the reasons for firing an officer was that he had threatened to go to the NRC, and on security management's efforts to identify the author of a letter to the NRC.
As a result of these actions, many of your securf ty officers were reluctant to:
(1) discover and report sleeping / inattentive security officers to security management; and (2) report security concerns to the NRC.
Because this matter is being considered for escalated action, no Notice of Violation is presently being issued for this investigation finding.
In addition, please be advised that the number and characterization of apparent violations may change as a result of further NRC review.
While we recognize, as noted above, that this problem seems to have been corrected, an enforcement conference to discuss this apparent violation has been scheduled at the NRC Region V Office, Walnut Creek, California, for January 13, 1993. The purposes of this conference are to discuss the apparent violation, its causes and safety significance, and to discuss any other information that will help us determine the appropriate enforcement action in accordance with the Enforcement Policy, including the level of PGE management that may have been aware of the conditions underlying the apparent violation.
You will be advised by separate correspondence of the results of our deliberation on this matter. No response regarding this apparent violation is required at this time.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
Should you have any questions concerning this letter, we will be glad to discuss them with you.
Sincerely, FAf Ross A. Scarano, Directo'r Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards
Enclosure:
Synopsis of Investigation, Case No. 5-91-008
3 cc w/ enclosure:
W. Robinson, Vice President Nuclear, PGE R. Machon, Plant General Manager, PGE C. Seaman, General Manager, Nuclear Plant Engineering, PGE T. Walt, General Manager, Technical Functions, PGE D. Hicks, General Manager, Plant Support, PGE L. Girard, Vice President and Genera' Counsel, PGE W. Williams, Manager, Compliance, PGE L. Houghtby, Manager, Nuclear Security, PGE D. Stewart-Smith, Administrator, Nuclear Safety and Energy Facilities Division, 000E W. Bishop, Chair, Washington State Energy Facility, Site Evaluation Council L. K. Harbet J. Wilson, Do It Yourself Committee E. Rosolie, Northwest Environmental Advocates R. Pollard, Union of Concerned Scientists e
e
t utd 7.3 SE
,s 4
bec w/ enclosure:
Docket File Resident Inspector Project inspector G. Cook RV Enforcement Officer RSB/ Document Control Desk (RIDS)
RV:01 Allegation File, RV-91-A-0028 and RV-91-A-0044 B. Faulkenberry J. Martin f
i D Sc aefer R
te F Wens 1 R Hue Nulty
/-
2 I2 /p/92 fy,hc/92
/W///92 khffN h,
/
0 f
N N
v v
R gut 2/92 79/42/92
!hf h0 N
L/
0 PDR Sr.ND 10 DCS ES;// NO YES / NO e
w mr a---.iv i-m.
--1
--r'ue m--
-m-
- m a
a
.A
.-a--
=.
SYNOPSIS On June 20, 1991, the Regional Administrator, Region V (RV), U.S. Nuclear l
Regulatory Commission (NRC), requested an investigation (Exhibit 1) to l
determine whether securit; officers (S0s) at Trojan Nuclear Plant (TNP) were:
- 1) being discouraged from discovering and reporting inattentive S0s, and 2) being intimidated from bringing concerns about TNP security operations to the NRC.
The Office of Investigations (01) investigation found that TNP security officers were reluctant to discover and report inattentive security officers.
Management denied that supervisors and S0s were directed to make noise while conducting rounds so that other officers would not be found sleeping /
- nattentive, but indicated that officers have been told not to sneak up on anyone. The evidence indicated that several officers believed the policy was to make noise and it was supported by statements that there would not be any sleeping / inattentive officers at TNP. Several officers have not reported sleeping officers and others indicated a reluctance to report sleeping /
inattentive officers on post. A work environment was created at TNP which discouraged the finding and reporting of slee i g or inattentive security of ficers. This is a violation of 10 CFR 50.7 a.
This investigation also found that TNP security officers hlieved there would be retaliation by security management if management learr..; the officer (s) went to the NRC with concerns / allegations. Management reinforced this belief through the termination of a security officer for a security violation after the o'ficer stated he would go to the NRC if not treated fairly concerning the security violation. This incident was cited by other officers as evidence of retaliation by management for going to the NRC.
The investigation found that a work environment was allowed to exist at TNP which discouraged security employees from raising security concerns to the NRC. The treatment of security personnel at TNP has a chilling effect on the ability of security officers to go forward to the NRC with allegations of wrongdoing. This is a violation of 10 CFR 50.7(a).
Case No. 5-91-008