ML20133A421

Forwards Notice of Violation & Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties of $80,000 Per OI Repts 1-94-006R & 1-94-053 on 940218-960430 & 941121-960425.Enforcement Conference Held on 960911 to Discuss Violations Noted

ML20133A421
Person / Time
Site:	Salem
Issue date:	12/11/1996
From:	Miller H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:	Eliason L Public Service Enterprise Group
Shared Package
ML20133A424	List: ML20133A421 ML20133A434
References
EA-96-177, NUDOCS 9612310088
Download: ML20133A421 (5)

Text

\

w g uco

• )g UNITED STATES

, [b

% ;j g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGloN 1 o, g 475 ALLENDALE ROAD KING oF PRUSslA, PENNSYLVANIA 19406-1415

% . . . + ,d December 11, 1996 EA 96-177 Mr. Leon R. Eliason Chief Nuclear Officer and President Nuclear Business Unit Public Service Electric and Gas Company Post Office Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038

SUBJECT:

NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTIES -

$80,000 (Office of Investigations (01) REPORTS 1-94-006R and 1-94-053)

This refers to the two investigations, Ol Reports 1-96-006R and 1-94-053, conducted from February 18,199^ to April 30,1996 and from November 21,1994 to April 25,1996, respectively, at the Salem Generating Station. These investigations found that an Onsite Safety Review Engineer (OSRE) and a Safety Review Engineer (SRE) were harassed, intimidated and discriminated against by a former manager of the Nuclear Safety Review (NSR)

Group as a result of raising safety concerns. Specifically, as noted in the synopses of the two subject reports, forwarded to you with our letter, dated July 1,1996,01 found that this former Manager, NSR, had (1) discriminated against the OSRE by virtue of negative comments in the OSRE's performance appraisals due to the individual's involvement in events associated with a December 3,1992, incident involving two of his subordinates (both of whom were Safety Review Engineers) (01 Report 1-94-006R, hereafter 01 Report No. 1); and (2) discriminated against an SRE by virtue of his transfer to the Hope Creek Safety Review Group (SRG) from the Salem SRG (OI Report 1-94-053, hereafter Ol Report No. 2). On September 11,1996, the NRC conducted a predecisional enforcement conference with you and members of your staff in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, to discuss the findings of the two subject Olinvestigations.

With respect to 01 report No.1 (sent to you on July 1,1996), Ol found that the former Manager, NSR, provided negative comments in an interim performance assessment of the OSRE in November 1993, and in a subsequent final appraisal in May 1994. One of the negative comments criticized an April 7,1993, memoranda that the OSRE had written to each of the two SRE subordinates who were involved in a December 1992 discrimination inci, dent that the NRC dispositioned on April 11,1995 by the issuance of a Severity Level 11 violation and an $80,000 civil penalty (EA 94-239). In the April 1993 memoranda, the OSRE was supportive of the two subordinates with respect to their roles in the December 1992 incident.

Another negative comment in the former Manager, NSR's appraisals of the OSRE criticized an October 12,1993, memorandum that the OSRE had sent to the former Manager, NSR, di: cussing a concern with the former Manager, NSR, on October 4,1993, regarding SORC members anticipating criticism for acting in support of safety after a system engineer presented a temporary modification to the SORC. The OSRE had entitled the memorandum, 4

" Atmosphere of intimidation". The former Manager, NSR, included both of these examples in the OSR6's appraisals as examples of poor judgement by the OSRE. With respect to 01 9612310088 961211 i PDR ADOCK 05000272 G PDR

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

/ o  ;

I  !

p .

4 i Public Service Electric and 2 ,

l Gas Company -

i l Report No. 2, Ol found that the SRE, by virtue of his transfer to the Hope Creek Safety Review i j Group (SRG) from the Salem SRG, against his wishes, was harassed and discriminated against 1 by the former Manager, NSR, as a result of raising a safety issue.

l 1

Atthe predecisional enforcement conference, your staff contended thattheseindividuals were  ;

not discriminated against, noting that the former Manager, NSR's actions were motivated by valid, non-discriminatory reasons. However, the NRC does not agree with your contentions j- and believes that discrimination had occurred. For example, the April 1993 memoranda for ,

l which the OSRE was criticized in his assessment, was sent by the OSRE to his two SRE l i subordinates at a time when the former Manager, NSR, was not yet the OSRE's supervisor, l and at a time which was outside the performance assessment period. In addition, the former

Manager, NSR, criticized the OSRE for terminology used in the October 12, 1993, j memorandum which was written by the OSRE after the Manager, NSR, specifically asked the OSRE to put his views in writing for the benefit of senior management, following a discussion l

l

regarding the SORC issue. The former Manager, NSR did not directly communicate his l criticism of the terminology of the October memorandum until the November,1993 interim i performance assessment. Lastly, with respect to the SRE, the Manager, NSR, included this individual in a termination list prepared at the request of the then Vice President, Nuclear, a

few days after the former Manager, NSR, approved the SRE's involuntary transfer to the Hope

! Creek SRG. The then Vice President, Nuclear, promptly removed the individual's name from l the termination list on the basis that it would send the wrong message to the organization.

4 The SRE was subsequently transferred back to the Salem SRG by the new Director-QA/NSR after the new Director assumed his position. '

1 i

As stated to you in the April 11,1995, letter, transmitting a civil penalty for the discrimination of two SREs who attempted to process a safety issue in accordance with station procedures l l by submitting an incident report at the Salem Station (EA 94-239), your organization has the  ;

responsibility to ensure that a work environment exists such that employees feel free to raise j safety concerns. The actions of the former Manager, NSR,in late 1993 and early 1994, did j not adhere to these standards, and did not provide an appropriate examp!e for management,  !

! supervisors, or staff within their line organization, nor for the other PSE&G organizations with which they interfaced. Given the management status of the former manager, NSR, these actions constitute violations of NRC requirements classified in the aggregate in accordance i

with the NRC Enforcement Policy, " General Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC -

Enforcement Actions," NUREG-1600 (Enforcement Policy), as a Severity Level ll problem.

3

In accordance with the Enforcement Policy, a base civil penalty in the amount of $80,000 is j considered for a Severity Level ll problem. For Severity Level ll violations, the NRC considers

j. whether credit is warranted for identification and Corrective Actio.n in accordance with the c. ...

j penalty assessment process in Section VI.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy. Credit was not given for identification since the NRC identified the violation. However, the NRC recognizes that subsequent to the identification of the violation by the NRC, actions were taken to correct the

violation and prevent recurrence. The corrective actions were described at the enforcement conference, as well as in your July 21,1995, responso to a chilling effect letter sent to you 1 on June 21,1995, concerning the DOL Area Director finding of discrimination in the case filed j with DOL by the OSRE. These corrective actions included, but were not limited to (1) the

President and Chief Nuclear Officer personally expressing his expectations to all employees 1

i a

. \

, Public Service Electric and 3 Gas Company i

that they should feel free to resolve their concerns through line management ar'd existing  !

procedures; (2) creation of the Employee Concerns Program ca r, art of the February 1995 reorganization of the QA/NSR Department, and a subsequent revision to the program after conducting a benchmark survey at other plants; and (3) institution of a more comprehensive  !

employee training program which includes explaining some of the more subtle forms of discrimination which can hinder or frustrate the process of employees bringing concerns to be dealt with. Based on these actions, credit is warranted for your comprehensive corrective {

action in this case, in addition, the NRC recognizes that the adverse actions in this case occurred in the 1993 and i 1994 time period and happened under a different management team. The NRC also recognizes that a settlement agreement was entered between you and the OSRE in the DOL proceeding, and that the SRE was transferred back to the Salem SRG. Nonetheless, to l emphasize the significance that the NRC attaches to any finding of discrimination, as well as the importance of current management ensuring a safety-conscience environment where  !

employees feel free to raise safety concerns, I have been authorized, after consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, and the Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Reactor Regut tion, Regional Operations, and Research, to issue the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the base amount of $80,000 for a Severity Level ll problem stemming from violations of 10 CFR 50.7.

You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the enc!osed Notice when preparing your response. In your response you should include, for the i docket, your corrective actions to improve and monitor the overall program for raising safety )

concerns at the Salem and Hope Creek f acilities. The NRC will use your response, in part, to determine whether further enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, and your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR).

Sincerely,

/rpOL Hubert J. Miller Regional Administrator Decket Nos. 50-272; 50-311 License Nos. DPR-70; DPR-75

Enclosure:

Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty 1

1 1

1

/ .

Public Service Electric and 4 Gas Company cc w/ encl:

L. Storz, Senior Vice President - Nuclear Operations E. Simpson, Senior Vice President - Nuclear Engineering E. Salowitz, Director - Nuclear Business Support C. Schaefer, External Operations - Nuclear, Delmarva Power & Light Co.

D. Garchow, General Manager - Salem Operations J. Benjamin, Director - Quality Assurance & Nuclear Safety Review D. Powell, Manager, Licensing and Regulation R. Kankus, Joint Owner Affairs A. Tapert, Program Administrator R. Fryling, Jr., Esquire M. Wetterhahn, Esquire P. MacFarland Goelz, Manager, Joint Generation Atlantic Electric Consumer Advocate, Office of Consumer Advocate W. Conklin, Public Safety Consultant, Lower Alloways Creek Township Public Service Commission of Maryland State of New Jersey .

State of Delaware o f t

l 4

I l

l i

l l

j Public S:rvica El:ctric cnd G:s -

Company i

DISTRIBUTION: i PUBLIC

, SECY ,

CA JTaylor, EDO JMilhoan, DEDR JLieberman, OE HMiller, RI FDavis, OGC FMiraglia, NRR RZimmerman, NRR 1 Enforcement Coordinators  :

RI, Ril, Rlli, RIV '

BBeecher, GPA/PA GCaputo, 01  :

DBangart, OSP i HBell, OlG EJordan, AEOD OE:Chron i OE:EA DCS DScrenci, PAO-RI (2) l NUDOCS  ;

Nuclear Safety information Center (NSIC) i LTremper, OC l

n r.e.iv. e copy of thle document, indi9ete in the bos: 'C' = Co%ygthout ettechment/ enclosure 'E' = Copy attachment e e o ure OFFICE RI:E0 4)# RI:DRPffffEJ RI:RC JO RIAM Jg l OE t"U NAME DHolody/mfc RCoop6f'" KSmith fQ )m HiijVmf JLieberman /l DATE 10/14 /96 10//f /96 10/165)I'" 1 10/ W /96 09/ /0$3- 42/d /t (

a l0FFICE '

DJOR ) l l l l l lNAME JMilhoan lDATE \ 10/ /96/

Y( l F OFFICIAL RECORD COPY p a: PROP-SAL.REV (k [-

310025 l

!