ML20128H466

Response to Graterford Inmates 850513 Proposed Revised Contentions Re Radiological Emergency Planning.Contentions Lack Requisite Specificity & Bases Under 10CFR2.714 & Should Be Rejected.Supporting Documentation Encl

ML20128H466
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	05/24/1985
From:	Ferkin Z PENNSYLVANIA, COMMONWEALTH OF
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20128H457	List: ML20128H453 ML20128H466
References
NUDOCS 8505300521
Download: ML20128H466 (22)

Text

.

~

DSCKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA "

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board '85 MAi 28 A11 :08 ITi the Matter of ) jfFfkE gC GS jC5 J,j{

)

PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC-COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-352cLggAncs

) 50-3538L-(Limerick Generating Station, )

Units 1 and-2) ) ,

t l

COMMONWEALTH RESPONSE TO PROPOSED REVISED CONTENTIONS OF THE GRATERFORD INMATES _

In accordance with 10 C.F.R. 2.714(c), the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania hereby responds to the Graterford inmates' May 13,

_ 1985 proposed revised contentions with respect to radiological emergency plannin~g.

For the reasons stated below, the Commonwealth believes -

these contentions lack the requisite specificity and bases under 10 C.F.R. 2.714(b) and should be rejected.

Background

1 In ALAB-806, 21 NRC (May 1, 1985) the Appeal Board ,

i  !

reversed this Board's March 22, 1985 oral ruling denying the l request of the Graterford inmates to submit revised contentions, 4

i- l t

• 'and its Memorandum and Order of April 12, 1985 dismissing the Graterf ord inmates' ori'ginal proposed contentions. The Appeal j- Board ruled that the Graterford inmates be allowed to file

[ revised emergency planning contentions supported by specific 1 1 8505300521 850524 PDR ADOCK 05000352 G PDR 4

<I bases. In ruling on the revised contentions, the Appeal Board directed this Board t.o " determine only whether <the revised contentions > have adequate bases and specificity." ALAB-806, 21 NRC at (slip opinion at 18).

Discussion Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.714(b), an intervenor must file "a list of contentions which petitioner seeks to have litigated in

-the matter, and the bases for each contention set forth with reasonable specificity." 10 C.F.R. 2.714(b); Commonwealth Edison Co. (Byron Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-80-30, 12 NRC 683, 686 (1980); Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-84-18, 19 NRC 1020, 1028 (1984). -

At the pleading stage of a proceeding, contenti6ns need only identify the reasons for each contention. See Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, . Unit 1),

ALAB-590, 11 NRC 542, 548 (1980). Furthermore, the basis stated for each contention need not " detail the evidence which will be offered in support of each contention." Mississippi Power &

Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-130, 6 AEC 423, 426 (1973). q,g y , ..

Nevertheless, the basis for contentions must be sufficiently detailed and specific (a) to demonstrate that the issues raised are admissible and further inquiry into the matter is warranted and-(b) to put the parties 2

-- -..\

.. = . . . . _ - - - -

~

{ on notice as to what they will have to defend against or oppose.

Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. (William H. Zimmer Nuclear Power .

[ St'ation), ALAB-305, 3 NRC 8, 12 (1976); Gulf States Utilities Co.

O. liver Bend, Units 1 and 2), AL AB-183, 7 AEC 222, 226 (1974).

The Graterford inmates' proposed revised contentions consist of a single " General Contention," accompanied by a number of proposed specific bases. 'With respect to the. inmates' " General Contention," the Commonwealth notes that the contention should be dismissed insofar as it purports to challenge the adequacy of the Graterford plan to protect the staff of the Graterford institution. The Graterford inmates' interest i n this

. proceeding, and accordingly their standing to raise issues of

' concern, i s limited solely to that of the institution's inmates

~

~

and does not _ include matte s affecting the interests of the prison staff. _

A. Manpower Mobilization The inmates assert that "<t>here is no reasonable assurance _

that the call up system to be utilized in the event of a nuclear 4

emergency in order to mobilize-the entire work force of the State Correctional Institute at.Graterford will achieve its designed purpose." In particular, the inmates assert that the call up system "could f ail" if the commercial phone lines relied upon are

~

" overburdened and unavailable." The . inmates further contend that

. the Graterford plan provide for a back-up system in the event commercial phone lines are inoperable. Proposed Revised Contentions at'2-4.

i i- 3 er e-*-w - r e-w.++y ---w e- 4--,er9 -epw.- g-wg- w w w - ,www w ,ymm-y3--gw9ma.- y.p -rer,m---,_.wt+

i Contrary to the inmates' assertion, there are adequate plans and procedures for' notifying, alerting and mobilizing emergency response personnel for Graterford in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 50.47(b) and NUREG-0654. The record established through the prehearing conferences which inmates' counsel and expert attended indicates ,that four (4) commercial telephone lines are available at Graterford fo~r notification of responsa personnel in a Limerick emergency. -There is nothing in NRC regulations or guidance that suggests commercial telephone lines are not an acceptable means of contacting response personnel. See 10 C.F.R. 50.47(b)(5),(b); NUREG-0654, Criteria E, F. In addition, the institution is connected directly by dedicated telephone line

_ with the Pennsylvania State Police. ,

Tr. 20,629-30, 20,672

~

(Jeffes).

If for any reason the co_mmercial telephone lines are unavailable,~the Pennsylvania State Police are reachable over the dedicated line and can undertake notification of additional manpower response. T r. 20,627 (Jeffes). Security personnel who will be used in the Graterford evacuation are already available on-site. These employees can begin preparation for an emergency evacuation of Graterford; thus it is not necessary that all additional off-duty personnel be contacted immediately. Cf. LBP-85-14, 21 NRC (May 2, 1985) (slip opinion at 271).

i In addition, the sole f actual basis cited by the inmates for this contention is the statement of a township supervisor to the

-effect that commercial phone systems hav'e been unreliable in i

4 -

1

' ~

emergencies. Proposed Revised Contentions at 2-3. This Board noted that testimony in its Partial Initial Decision on offsite

~

emergency planning. The Board said that this concern would be resolved "<o>nce the underlying planning principles regarding alert and notification...become clear to township officials..."

LBP-85-14, 21 NRC at (slip opinion at 271). Thus, this testimony does not constitute a proper basis for inmates' concern with the function of the notification system in place for the Graterford institution.

B. Input of_ the Correctional Officers Union The inmates of fer as basis for their challenge to the adequacy of the Graterford plan the alleged necessity for the union organization of correctional officers to have input into

~

the planning p'rocess._ The inmates efte NUREG-0654, Criterion A

~

as legal basis for requiring such input. -

This contention is deficient on several grounds. First, the inmates have proffered no basis for any doubt that the prison guards will in f act perform their designated roles in a Limerick emergency. The correctional officers are employees of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and as such are obligated to perform their designated functions. Indeed, Department's

" Code of Ethics," (provided here as Attachment A) states

, explicitly that, "n the event of an emergency, all-correctional employees may be utilized for custodial 5

i 4

services..." Further, there.is no requirement in NRC regulations

^

or guidance that a union of State employees provide input into

~

emergency planning.

C. Training -

The inmates challenge the nature of the response training offered to bus companies that have agreed to provide busses and drivers to evacuate Graterford in a Limerick emergency. The inmates argue these drivers should receive the training " offered to the school bus drivers" in the Limerick EPZ. The inmates contend further that training should be extended to "other support personnel which will be involved in a possible evacuation such as the ambulance drivers, rescue squad operators, hospital personnel, <and> police and fire departments..." Proposed

~ ~

Revised Contentions at 6-7.

This contention should be dismissed. The Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (PEMA) has notified civilian bus companies who will participate in a Graterford evacuation that PEMA will provide their employees with instruction in use of dosimetry in a radiological emergency. See' Commonwealth Answer to Proposed Contentions of the Graterford Inmates (Apr. 4, 1985),

Exhibit "B". Notably, use of dosimetry is. not required training for school bus drivers. Such individuals are not classified as emergency workers in the sense that plans call for this group to be evacuated prior to a radioactive rele~ase. Limerick, supra, .

LBP-85-14, 21 NRC at (slip opinion at 146). The Commonwealth is certainly willing to discuss with the inmates' 6

representative the possibility of providing more expansive training for the civilian bus companies than that offered to date. That representation notwithstanding, inmates have not demonstrated a need for further inquiry into the nature of training available for these personnel. There is therefore no litigable-issue presented here. ,

The Commonrtalth y

is also willing to offer to train employees' of private compal'giec that will be providing ambulance services to Graterford in-the event of a Limerick emergency. In contrast, the inmates' references to " rescue squad operators", and

" hospital personnel" as persons who should receive training are vague and, more importantly, have no basis in the Graterford

. p 1_a n. The plan similarly does not rely upon " police and fire

~

departments," other than the Pennsylvania -State Police. The State Police are already trained-in radiological emergency response. The inmates therefore have failed to state a viable contention with recpect to training of these organizations or individuals.

D. -Medical Services This contention relates to the inmates' general concern about the adequacy of arrangements for medical services for contaminated. injured individuals. Citing the April 4, 1985 Affidavit of Dr. Roger E. Linnemann supplied by Applicant with regard to the capability of Montgomery Hospital to care for such individuals, the inmates assert there is insufficient information 7

with respect to that hospital's " capacity", and equipment for treating such individuals, as well as means for transporting individuals to the h'ospital. The inmates also contend the Department of Corrections (" Department") has f ailed to designate a "back-up" facility for treatment of contaminated injured inmates. The inmates suggest treatment should be available "at

~

the relocation centers." Proposed Revised _ Contentions at 10.

Again the inmates have not stated a litigable issue with requisite specificity. The inmates have been provided substantial information with respect to arrangements for medical services for contaminated injured inmates. This includes the Af fidavit of Dr. Linnemann with respect to Montgomery Hospital.

Moreover, the Commonwealth provided this Board and the parties-

~

~

1,nformation indicating that hospitals with which-the Department _

has agreements to provide health care to its in_ mates meet the standard of the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Hospitals as to the treatment of radioactively contaminated individuals. See Response of the Commonwealth, Department of Corrections to Requests for Information (Mar. 15, 1985) at 5, Exhi b i t s "F", "G". There is no question, and inmates indeed do not challenge, the legal sufficiency of these arrangements as established by this Board's second partial initial decision. See LBP-84-31, 20 NRC 446, 531-36 (1984). Moreover, the agreements between the Department and various hospitals meet the terms of 10 C.F.R. 50.47(b)(12) as construed in the decision in Guard v. NRC, 753 F.2d 1144 (D.C. Cir.1985). The inmates' assertion that a 8

"back-up" facility must be designated thus does not present a litigable issue.

The inmates' f actual dispute with respect to the sufficiency of Dr. Linnemann's affidavit also does not constitute a sufficient basis. The inmates' inference that any one hospital must have capacity to treat 25 contaminated injured individuals is not

! supported by Commissio'n precedent. See Southern California Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and

, 3), CLI r ,10,17 NRC 528, 532, 535 n.10 (1983). Further, the

~

Affiday.6 . ' Dr. Linnemann specifically states (at 2) that Montgomery Hospital has " specific supplies and equipment set aside-for" contaminated injured patients. Finally, the

~

Graterford plan itself describes the ambulance-service for

~

-transporting patients from Graterford. Ambulances wil be equipped with dosimetry and KI for radio 1'ogical protection.

E. Estimated Time of, Evacuation

-The inmates assert there is "no reasonable assurance that the estimated time of evacuation if six to ten hours can be achieved" for the Graterford institution. As basis, the inmates acite the lack of a statement of a specific evacuation time estimate in the Graterford plan, and contend that there must be a il

" breakdown of the various sequential events necessary to accomplish" the evacuation time. The inmates claim NUREG-0654, specifically Appendix 4,as the legal basis for their contention.

9 i

, . .. . - . - . .- . - - = - - - - .

The inmates have f ailed to proffer litigable bases for this contention. The purpose of an evacuation time estimate -is to provide emergency planning decision-makers with an idea of the range of times needed to evacuate the EPZ so as to provide a

. basis for deciding what protective action recommendations are

- appropriate. See LBP-85-14, 21 NRC at ( 511p opinion at 32).

NUREG-0654, Criterion J.10, subpart 1, states that an organization's ~ plan shall i nclude Time estimates for evacuation of various sectors and distances based on a dynamic analysis for the plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone (See Appendix 4).

- While Appendix 4 of NUREG-0654 refers to evacuation time

- estimates lfor special f acility populations, it does not state .

. . that emergency plans must detail evacuation tjme estimates for , _

each individual l institution. The_Graterford plan is thus not -

~

- - inconsistent with NUREG-0654.

Further, the inmates .have f ailed to specify any reason to

. question the achievability of the. evacuation time estimate -for Graterford. The inmates indicate-they wish to testify as to -

incidents at Graterford where "similar measures" were taken; however the inmates f ail to note what it is about the " hostage siege of October 28, 1981" of the " power f ailure and resulting

Hriot on C-Block in 1983" that resembles the events described in the. radiological emergency evacuation plan for Graterford. The vague reference to a " lock up" procedure also does not fulfill i the specificity requirement of Section 2.714(b).

W

t 10

(

p, u-- a yn-,a,, ,,7-n,- --m,,ypg,.- ,n,-~e.,,-- ,. , 3 -m ge m + ,, ,gg e n. g g n 4 s e.--w m m g.e x >, m - m .pwm q+ . eg w--+gsym.,y, p p.s w .wge.,m_.ww-gen 4 r- s.s wn--,

F.. Monitoring The inmates indicate that they wish "one further assurance"

~

with respect to monitoring activities at the Graterford facility. Inmates presumably refer here to the response of U.S.

Department of Energy ("00E") teams which will monitor the radioactive plume in the event sheltering is implemented as a protective action for Graterford, an issue which inmates admit

. was extensively discussed in the two prehearing conferences in

't this proceeding. Proposed Revised Contentions at 14. Inmates

- ask that " laboratories which are prepared to assist in the

. monitoring of the conditions surrounding" the Graterford facility be' identified and their " capabilities be ascertained." Id.

The-Commonwealth radiclogical emergency response plan .

~

(" Annex E") pitvides information with respect to field monitoring l activit.ias-which are undertaken by various agencies, including capability of DOE support teams. See Annex E, pp. E-12-10 E 16 and E-12-43. A review of this information should allay the

. Inmates' concerns on this matter. In any event, the inmates have not particularized any deficiency in existing plume monitoring capabilities for Graterford and therefore do not state a litigable issue.

! G. Simulated Evacuation Plan Exercise The inmates challenge the suf ficiency of the March 7,1985 h " table-top" exercise of the Graterford plan with respe~ct to the provisions of NUREG-0654, Criterion N. The inmates assert that the March 7. exercise was required to include 11 u

l f'

. _ _ _ . .- - _ _ _ ..~. . . . _ _ _ - . _ - _ _ , . - . - _ _ _ . _ _ . , -._-- ~ -_.._.-.-_ ~ .--

~ . .

.J

...such things as simulated casualties, offsite fire derartment assistance, rescue of personnel, use of protective clothing, .

deployment of radiological monitoring teams.

and:public information activities...

Exercise scenarios are to be developed by the NRC and by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The purpose of a plan exercise is "to evaluate major portions of emergency ,

response capabilities." 10 C.F.R. 50.4 7 ( b ) (14 ). Exercise scenarios need only " simulate an emergency that results in 4 offsite radiological; releases which would require response by of fsite authorities." NUREG-0654, Criterion N.1.a. The March 7 exercise at Graterford included participation by the Department

of. Corrections and PEMA. These are the responsible state authorities which would respond to protect the Graterford inmates

, _ in a Limerick emergency. FEMA observed and graded the exercise, 1-.

and found "the Graterford authorities adequately demonstrated an -

understanding of the emergency response procedures and the ability to adequately implement them..." Memorandum from Richard W. Krimm, FEMA to Edward L. Jordan, NRC (March 27, 1985). The i

March 7 exercise therefore fully satisfied applicable NRC regulations and guidance.

Further, the exercise specifically involved Graterford j; institutional staff responsible for emergency decision-making.-

FEMA's report states specifically (at 1) that the " Commissioner.

Department of Corrections, coordinated the overall response while i

the Deputy Warden at Graterford was responsible for his 12 c _ _.._.._._._,_._ _ _ _. _ . _ . - . _ . , . _ . _ _ . _ _ ..

i n s t i t u t i o n." The inmates have thus not stated a basis for this contention and it s50uld be dismissed.

H. Panic Factor The inmates contend that there is no reasonable assurance that.the Graterford plan "will prevent a spontaneous evacuation on-either the guards or inmates part, i.e. panic." In support of this contention the inmates cite statistical data and other ~

information as to the size and nature of the Graterford population and previous incidents at the institution including a work storage, power f ailure, and an inmate escope. The inmates -

contend that these events suggest a potential for panic at the institution in a Limerick emergency.

The inmates' contention on this matter f ails in several

~

respects. The in_ mates do not point to any protision of the Graterford plan or any other document which suggests that _

Department authorities could not handle p~otential disturbances.

- Notably,-the plan clearly contemplates that security measures will be taken in an evacuation will be tailored to the particular classification level of the inmates. The contention therefore is not sufficiently specific.

Further, the inmates ask for_ a " limited appearance" by this l

Board at Graterford to provide "further evidence" in support of this contention. In essence the inmates are asking to make this contention sufficientl~y specific through discovery. That is contrary to the requirement of

. Section 2.714 that a contention be sufficiently specific at the i

13 I

J

outset. Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units -1 and 2),

ALAB-687, 16 NRC 460, 468 (1982).

Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the Commonwealth believes that the May 13, 1985 Proposed Revised Contentions of the Graterford inmates lack the requisite specificity and bases and should be denied.

Respectfully submitted,

.N D Zori G. Ferkin Theodore G. Otto

_ Counsel for Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Dated: May 24, 1985 14

ATTACHMENT A .

.f __

c u r a ,1 c a , a , .

i 1

, Code of Ethics s

Ronald J. Marks t

Commissioner ,

l I ,

Erskind DeRamus

, { Deputy Commissioner e

= *- e .-_

I t I

\

• I 1

i I

6

. . -.-_..n. .. . s a. . ..n.o.-

q

~

Foreword

' The Pennsylvania Bureau of Correction is dedicated to achieve two basic goals: to assure the safety of the public by providing safe and secure facilities for the housing of the criminal offender and to encourage the emotional and l intellectual maturity of inmates through i realistic, responsible programs and policies.

As a correctional employee, your professional deportment and attitude demonstrated through the performance of your duties contributes greatly to the respect, trust and confidence afforded our agency by the public and by the inmates themselves.

Read in context, this handbook will provide you with the basic principles, rules and regulations by which you as an employee of the Bureau of Correction are to conduct yourself. To a large degree, the success of any program and  ;

all programs in the correctional system depends  ;

upon adherence to these standards. j

' With every confidence in your ability to do the job. I wish you success as a professional in the Bureau of Correction.

Sincerely, k fankh N Ronald J. Marks l

' ' Commissioner

' May 1981 i

e e

9 9

9 I

, - - - - - -~ _ _ _ _ - - - - - -

- - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - , . . _ _ _ _

i I

s

~

i BUREAU OF CORRECTION CODE OF ETHICS l

' This handbook does not include every detail or situation involved in theoperationof aBureaufacility. I policy guidelines. ' Facilities will issue morespecific and I circumstances dictate. In no instance, however, will facility rules and regulations take pre-cedence over the policy contained herein.

! A. General Responsibility of Eureau of -

Correction Employees Consistent with the responsibility of all j correctional employees in the Commonwealth ofPe d

• integ*ity and impartial:tydand is to avoid situationswhere$

, influence official decisions, the following co e being promulgated.  ;

1. Discrimination The responsibility of all Bureau of Correction

• employees is to act in relation to all citizens of the 1

s Commonwealth without regard to age, race, I  ; color, ancestry, creed, sex, we marital status, national o i 4 necessarily includes the inmates whom l

s I .

h t

'- - - ' - - - _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ = - - - - - ~ _ , _ _

t 4

supervise and fellow employees with whom we shall not accept or distribute any gifts, money, work. loans to or from inmates.

2. Conflicts of Pecuniary Interest . 5. Information No Bureau employee shall, for personal gain No Bureau employee shall engage directly or or the gain of others, use information not indirectly in any personal business transaction i or private arrangements for personal profit . ,

available to the public a,t large, or divulge which accrues from or is based upon his/her confidential information without its authorized official position or authority. The scope of this I'.ase; nor shall the employee receive compen-

' sation for consultation which substantially

- provision shall include prohibition against ' draws upon official ideas or data which have not entering into any' type of business transact.cn or been disclosed to the public.

private arrangement with. inmates. Honora, riums paid to Bureau officiais for speaking on

6. Private Employment official topics shall be deposited in the Inmate No Bureau employee shall engage in or General Welfare Fund. accept private employment or render private services when such employment or service is

3. Representation of Interests incompatible or in conflict with the discharge of l No Bureau employee shall represent or act as the employce's official duties or would tend to an agent for any private interest, whether impair the employee's independent judgement compensable or not, which could be reasonably or action in the performance of his/her official expected to result in a conflict between the duties. Employees must report any employment private interest of the employee and his official which may involve a conflict of interest to their state responsibility. This includes but is not immediate supervisor.

limited to representing the interest of inmates. B. Specific Rules and Regulations- Bureau of Correction

4. Gifts and Favors 1. Each employee in the correctional system Employees and their families shall not

• is expected to subscribe to the principle that directly or mdirectly solicit, accept, or agree to ' something positive can be done for each inmate.

' accept any gift of money or goods, loans or This principle is to be applied withoutexce ption.

services for personal benefit which would This . .

involves an intelligent, humane a l

l influence the performance of their work duties . impartial treatment of inmates. Profan,nd ity

,,. decision making. Correctional employees

= t a

• p e d N " * ' * * ' ' ~ " "

._y_ . . .. . i e t 9* *

'y{ 3 '9

8 l

s l

directed to inmates, or vengeful,- brutal, or but is not limited to, trading, bartering or

! receiving gifts, money and favors from either the discriminatory treatment of inmates will not be inmate or the inmate's friends, relatives, or l tolerated. Corporal punishment shall not be utilized under any circumstances as a disci- representatives.

plinary measure.

-l . .

7. The personal property of inmates will be handled with extreme care and disposed of only

2. Only the minin)um amount of force }

necessary to defend oneself or others, to prevent by properly designated authority in a manner

• designated by official Bureau of Correction escape, to prevent serious injury or damage to policy. Similarly, no employee may assume the personal property or to quell a disturbance or right of ownership of property owned by fellow riot will be used. Excessive force or violence will employees or by the state: theft or abuse of not be tolerated. Fighting or horseplay while on property or equipment is prohibited.

duty is prohibited.

8. No employee shall leave his assigned post

3. In event of an emergency, all correctional or leave the i,nstitution or grounds without bem,g employees may be utilized for custodial services pro,perly reheved and receivmg proper authors-under the direction of the superintendent or his zation from a supervisor. Proper relief involves designee. communicating any special observations or

4. Each employee is to assist in preventing an orders to the relief personnel, escape or in pursuing an escapee as directed by 9. Lawful orders by a supervisor to a the superintendent or his designee. , subordinate must be executed promptly and

5. In the event any official or employee has faithfully by the subordinate even though the been seized, no employee or official shall employee may question the wisdom of such disregard, alter, modify, or change in any order 4 The privilege of formally appealing the manner the prescribed duties, responsibilities, order may be done at a later date through either or obligations on demand by the prisoner or plea the supervisory command structu re, civil service between hostages, regardless of consequences, appeal, or the grievance machinery.

unless on orders from the commissioner or 10. All security keys issued to an officer or higher authority.

l employee will remain in his possession at all

6. There shall be no fraternization or private j times. Under no circumstances are keys ever to be unguarded, mislaid, unaccounted for, taken relationship of staff with inmates. This includes, i .

J' y

• 0

I i i s

• 4 e .

f  ;

i i

! from the institution. or turned over to an inmate. 15. Employees shall not testify in any civil j

11. Employees in uniform are required to case i'n which the Bureau of Correction may have keep said uniforms in a clean and neat condition. .

an interest without informing the commissioner.

free from decoration, other than those officially unless under court order.

I' prescribed. Non-uniformed employees will be 16.i An employee shall not use a Common.

required to meet the standards of n6atness and i wealth vehicle for personal business or for any grooming as established by their institution or other reason except as authorized. When facility. involved in an accident while operating a state

12. Employees may use their identification vehicle, all employees will p.omptly notify their as an employee of the Bureau of Correction only supervisor, and follow the,guidelinesestablished

"*' f A inistrativeCircular 76-for identification in performing the duties and ,

$, Mr responsibilities required m the scope of their employment. Bureau identification will not be , 17. Employees shall not read books, maga.

used where an employee may have other zines, newspapers, or other non-job related ,

employment or in representing other interests. printed material while on official duty. Em. -

playees are required to remain alert while on

13. Employees will promptly report to their duty: sideping or the appearance thereof is supervisor any information which comes to their prohibited.

attention and indicates violation of the law, ru!,es, jg{ b aa isor b m@

and/or regulations of the Bureau of Correction or an inmate, and will grou nds to believe that a su bordinate employee is by eitherfam,liarity mamtam ani employee,th wi the provisionsofsuch being influenced by a medical or psychiatric directives. condition, which is effecting or is likely to effect the employee's ability to perform assigned

14. Alcoholic beverages and controlled duties, the superintendent, division director, or substances shall not be carried, stored, or regional director shall direct such employee to consumed in any state facility or vehicle. When a undergo reasonable examination, at the expense ,

controlled substance or nonpropriety drug is

• of,the Bureau, to determine the employee's prescribed by a physician, the employee shall . fitness for duty.

, notify his/her supervisor. An employee shall not i . An employee who has sustained an injury,

report for duty under the mfluence of intoxi- . illness, or any other condition incurred in the line cants. of duty, which could affect the employee's ability j , _7_

l-i I

i

[

e

. __, ._- _,_ - _1m, . , _ _ . . _ . . _ = _ _ - u__u=____ _ _ _ . _

1 i

injuries. An cmployee who becomes ill while on duty and finds it necessary to be relieved from an .

to perform assigned duties may be required by assigned, post or duty shall report this fact to l the commissioner to undergo reasonable eyami- l his/her immedia,te supervisor; comply with #8 nation, at the expense of the Bureau, to de- (above), and wie estaWshed insmuttonal ,

• termine the employee's fitness for duty. procedures.

20. An employee shall submit any necessary An employee who has suffered an injury, and/or requested reports in a timely manner and '

illness, or any other debilitation condition not in accordance with existing regulations. Reports incurred in the line of duty which could affect ' submitted by employees shall be truthful and no his/her ability to perform required duty employee shall knowingly enter or cause to be assignments, may be required by the commis- entered any inaccurate, false, or improper sioner to obtain and submit a complete medical information or date, or misrepresent the facts in report from his/her physician concerninK #

any Bureau record or report.

his/her physical and/or mental condition. The report shall include a detailed, diagnosis and i, 21. During off-duty hours, employees will prognosis of the employee's injury, illness.,or conduct themselves in such a manner so as to condition and any other pertinent information ' demonstrate the public's trust and confidence

! inherent in their position as a public servant.

which would aid the Bureau's medical officer m Any conduct which brings discredit to their evaluating the situation prior to the employee's i return to active duty. profession, responsibilities, the Bureau of 1 Correction, or public service at large, shall be

19. An employee who knows th:t he/she will subject to immediate disciphne.

be unable to report for duty due to illnc:s, 22. Allindividuals,includingemployees,are emergency, or injury shall immediately notify subject to search upon entrance or egress from a his/her supervisor, advising the supervisorof the state facility or at any time while on state nature of the injury. emergency,9r i!! ness, nhere property owned by the Bureau of Correction.

he/she will be recuperating, and the espected date of return to duty.The supervisor shall also , 23. All employees shall participate in be advised of a change in any conditions which . training that is mandated or required by the msy occur after the crismal notification was Bureau of Correction.

given. An employee injured while on duty shall 24. Gambling on official duty is strictly report such injury to his/her supervisor as soon . prohibited.

as possible and shall comply with the provisions _g_

of existing regulations pertaining to such l .

e I

- - . ~ - . _

i e v 4,

t i

25. All employees have the responsibility to provide their supervisor with their current address and telephone number. ,

26. All employees shall comply and co-operate with internal investigations conducted under the authority of the Bureau of Correction. ,

and respond to questions completely and truthfully. Procedure in cases that may result in

' criminal prosecution will include those rights accorded to all citizens of the Commonwealth.

27. No employee shall permit an inmate to be in control or exercise authority over other '

j inmates.

C. Enforcement i These rules and regulations have been written in the best interest of the Bureau of Correction, its employees sind the public which ,

we serve and protect. In ev.nt of a conflict involved in interpretation, the best interest of public policy shall be served.

Any employee who violates the provisions of this code shall be subject to immediate disci- '

plinary action by the appointing authority.

Nothing herein shall abridge the remedies or  !

responsibilities of employees covered under the i Civil Serrier Act. applicable Collertire Bar- ,

gruining Agreements. Governor's Cotfe of Contfurt

1. 1980-l#. or the laws of the Commonwealth. I i

h kh, hh,k ;'.c .. .

4 ' g 8

.