A05046, Responds to NRC Re Allegation Program.Corrective actions:full-time Consultant Hired to Aid in Establishing Effective Onsite Facility,Designated as Quality Concern Ofc, Where Allegations Can Be Expressed

Responds to NRC Re Allegation Program.Corrective actions:full-time Consultant Hired to Aid in Establishing Effective Onsite Facility,Designated as Quality Concern Ofc, Where Allegations Can Be Expressed

ML20133M814
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	07/19/1985
From:	Opeka J NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO., NORTHEAST UTILITIES
To:	Starostecki R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
Shared Package
ML20133M793	List: A05046, Responds to NRC Re Allegation Program.Corrective actions:full-time Consultant Hired to Aid in Establishing Effective Onsite Facility,Designated as Quality Concern Ofc, Where Allegations Can Be Expressed ML20133M790
References
A05046, A5046, NUDOCS 8508130272
Download: ML20133M814 (62)

Text

i e'

N05tTHEAST UTILtTIES o.nor.i Ome... s.io.n su

t. s.rnn. conn.ci,cui ca c, cur to

.awa cm,-

g 1

=esee.

anacmenni nnewc cm*~

P.O. BOX 270 HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06141-0270

,..,, m,,'.

co k

L J

(203) 66s-5000 July 19,1985 Docket No. 50-423 A05046 Mr. R. W. Starostecki, Director Division of Reactor Projects Region i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406

References:

(1)

R. W. Starostecki letter to 3. F. Opeka, " Allegations at Millstone 3," dated May 17,, 1935.

(2)

3. F. Opeka letter to R. W. Starostecki, " Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No.

3, Schedule for Response to Allegations," dated June 19, 1985.

l Gentlemen:

l Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3 Response to Allegations This letter is in response to Reference (1) and our schedule for response contained in Reference (2). On July 9,1985 we met with you and your staff to discuss, among other items, our overall plans to modify and solidify our Allegation Program for Millstone Unit No. 3 to be responsive to the comments provided by your staff.

As you requested, we have reevaluated our system for receiving and responding l

to allegations regarding Millstone Unit No. 3. As a result of this, we have hired a full-time consultant to work with us in establishing an effective, visible, on-l site facility designated the Quality Concern Office (QCO), where allegations i

regarding project safety can be expressed with an individual independent of i

Project management with a guarantee of anonymity. In addition, the process will track all allegations registered.and provide that a response be given to the individual who raised the concern. The consultant we retained has been involved with worker allegations in the past and is f amiliar with procedures being used at other sites. The consultant will have direct access to our Vice President--

Generation Engineering and Construction, who is also the Millstone Unit No. 3 Project Officer and is stationed full-time at the Millstone Unit No. 3 site. The Vice President - Generation Engineering and Construction is the company officer responsible for implementing our Allegation Program.

g8130272850006 A

ADocK 050004p3 PDR

e

(-

r e

O-L.

In addition, an Allegation Review Team (Review Team) has been established to review safety concerns raised and to determine whether or not there is any basis for the allegation. The Review Team responsibilities are delineated in a specific project procedure (copy attached) as well as in a specific charter which has been i

established (copy attached). The Review Team is comprised of key management i

personnel who have a wide range of backgrounds and extensive experience in the nuclear industry. ~ Four of the members have been or are currently involved with our Nuclear Review Bcards.

As a result of recommendations made by the Review Team, a full-time administrator responsible for providing ovaall coordination for our allegation reviews has been appointed. This indivich.al also has extensive experience in the nuclear industry.

He will report di9ctly to our Vice President-Generation Engineering and Construction and le located on site.

Responsibilities will include coordinating the daily activities of the QCO and providing assistance to the Review Team.

We are also in the process of putting together an Independent Review Board (refer.to attached Millstone Unit 3 Project Procedure) which will be responsible for conducting an independent and detailed investigation of any allegations which have been determined by the Review Team to potentially have substance. This Board will be comprised of one or more individuals who have expertise in the areas of labor relations, law, nuclear construction, and quality assurance / quality control.

c One of the concerns that we share with your staff is the fact that the majority of the allegations on Millstone Unit No. 3 continue to be directed to NRC Region I and not to the Project or the Review Team. We believe that the availability of the QCO in a field trailer will. provide a more effective, approachable method for workers who might be reluctant to register their concerns with management.

As noted to you during our July 9,1985 meeting, a letter to all Millstone Unit No. 3 empl_oyees will be sent in the near future which will again explain the i

extent of our program and highlight the establishment of.the QCO.

l As you requested in Reference (1), we have evaluated the safety merits of the allegations forwarded to us.

The results and conclusions of our evaluation for each allegation is provided in Enclosure I to.this letter. Please note that we have broken one allegation into two components for completeness in evaluation.

l As you can see, we have taken extensive actions on the subject of allegations t

over the past few months and will continue to pursue actions which will make our

~

t process more effective. We have reviewed the experiences of other sites which

[

have responded to allegations and incorporated that insight into our program, t

I t

I lu

- - - - ~ -

t e

4 -

We consider our program, which will soon be fully implemented, to be an effective mechanism for responding to allegations raised on Millstone Unit No.

3.

We remain available to further discuss our Allegation Program with you or your staff.

Very truly yours, NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY

. FAA_

3. F. Opeka U

Senior Vice President

i

.- e P

o.

ENCLOSURE!

MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 3 RESPONSE TO ALLEGATIONS MADE TO THE NRC AND IDENTIFIED TO NNECO IN NRC LETTER DATED MAY 17,1985 e

s O

O e

V

a O'

MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATIO%. UNIT.NO. 3 RESPONSE TO ALLEGATIONS INTRODUCTION An investigation of the allegations made to the NRC and reported to Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO) in a letter dated May 17, 1985 has been conducted. This report summarizes the results of this investigation.

An investigatory plan was prepared which identified seven issues related to the six allegations noted by the NRC. No objective evidence of the identities of the individual (s) making the allegations was available to the invesGgators, nor was any specific attempt made to identify'them. Therefore, it was not possible to determine, if the individual (s) making the allegations were among those interviewed during the course of the investigation.

The following is the list of items that were investigated.

1.

Inadequate training of FQC weld inspectors in that they are not shown examples of welding problems but are only qualified "on paper." This issue relates primarily to the inspection of cable tray supports.

2.

Because of inadequate FQC inspector training, cable tray support welds received inadequate QA inspection.

3.

There was a strong emphasis on work quantity, with FQC inspectors being

" pushed" to sign off on work items.

4.

Due to item 3 above, safety concerns involved are not being given sufficient emphasis. A specific example of this is a thin layer of concrete was noted in several cases presumably crumbling from tray support bolt stress.

5.

The HVAC ducting pop rivets are too short for full penetration.

6.

The HVAC FQC supervisor adds to or deletes from inspection reports based on his opinion.

7.

FQC personnel are not able to speak candidly with the NRC.

Throughout the course of the investigation, documentation was reviewed, personnel were interviewed and current work practices evaluated. Personnel in the following organizations were interviewed:

I

. o Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC) Quality Assurance o

SWEC Field Quality Control Management i

o SWEC Electrical and HVAC Inspection Supervision l

SWEC Electrical and HVAC Inspectors o

o Contract Electrical and HVAC Inspectors o

U.S. NRC Resident inspector l

mma-se

,w

,m-

-_m u~-

l 1

DETAILED DISCUSSION OF ALLEGATIONS Allegation No.1 This allegation concerned the adequacy of training, in the.

visual inspection of welds.

The allegation related primarily to cable tray support welds.

As part of this inspection, the programmatic and procedural requirements for welding inspector training were reviewed to determine their adequacy. The training records of a sample of the cable tray support inspectors were also reviewed, it was determined that the electrical inspector training

)

program does not require that welding inspectors be shown examples of welding problems. As a result of this reylew, it was concluded that training requirements were met, and that the program is adequate for the purpose intended.

Allenation No. 2 This allegation concerns the adequacy of weld inspections performed on cable tray supports and is based on the presumption that Allegation No.1 is factual and significant.

Weld inspection results for the past several months were reviewed to determine if the rejection rate for welding inspections performed by electrical inspectors might be indicative of inadequate inspection. If the premise of this allegation were true, then unsatisfactory welding conditions would be accepted and accordingly, the reject rate would be expected to be abnormally low. The rejection rate for this time period averaged 13.6 % which is higher than the i

rejection rate for any other welding activity during the same time frame.

l A sample of representative welds on cable tray supports utilizing power strut or tube steel was also examined. These included examples of strut welded to building steel, embedded plate, tube steel, steel channel, surface mounted plate, and end plates. Only a limited number of examples of i

tube steel used as a cable tray support could be found and l

were also examined. Of the two (2) cases fcund where tube steel was used, one had been inspected and found satisfactory.

I and other had not yet been inspected. All welds examined which had received and passed final inspection met the appropriate acceptance criteria.

A sample of inspection reports documenting the FQC inspection of these welds was also reviewed and found to be in order.

l The inves'tigation determined that some configurations of 4

supports, primarily those which had been stiffened by the addition of tube steel, had not yet been inspected. These j

could be the basis for the allegation. We are aware of the t

need to inspect those supports and final inspections are currently scheduled.

l i

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

Electrical support welds,were also checked during the recent CAT inspection on site. (

Reference:

Construction Appraisal Team Inspection Report, 50-423/85-04, dated May 21, 1985, page IV-6, 7.)

During-the CAT review, approximately 434 electrical support welds were visually inspected and found to be acceptable.

The investigation concluded that there is no evidence that any safety issue exists.

Allegation No. 3 This allegation concerns the amount of time allocated for the performance pf inspections.

While it is understood that inspectors must not be pressured to complete assignments in an unreasonably short period of time, prudent management dictates that personnel in any job category, including quality, control / quality assurance, cannot

.be permitted to practice poor work habits. Personnel must recognize that on-time delivery is one element of a ~ quality job. The difference between allowing an individual adequate time to perform a task and requiring that a task be performed in an unreasonably short period of time is obviously judgmental..

While none of the personnel interviewed claimed to have been subjected to pressure to -

perform inspections in an unreasonably short period of time, most felt that the heavy overtime schedule was a form of pressure to meet " schedule," 1.e., emphasizing " quantity" of work.

1 Our investigation did not reveal any indication of pressure to not document unsatisfactory conditions or to accomplish an inspection in an unreasonably short period of time to meet scheduled commitments.

Accordingly, the investigation concluded that there is no evidence that a safety concern exists.

Allegation No. 4 The allegation concerns a specific physical condition alleged to exist and implies that the condition was not fully investigated and evaluated because of allegation No. 3. The example given pertains to concrete crumbling from stress exerted by cable trc y. support bolts.

The potential for this condition was identified at another site and brought to the attentien of FQC at Millstone Unit No. 3.

The cable tray support inspectors were informed of the condition and directed to inspect for this condition. A small number of occurrences were noted by inspection personnel and all were documented as unsatisfactory inspection reports.

-~p-e u -,. m.

v.

.%.e., - - -

~

^

1 1

Two (2) Engineering and Design Coordination Reports (E&DCR) were later generated to clarify the acceptance criteria concerning attachments to struts embedded in concrete. Several instances of areas where this condition had been identified were examined and those requiring repair had been repaired.

Personnel in the electrical discipline, which is the discipline which identifies such conditions during electrical equipment installation inspections, are knowledgeable of the potential for this problem and were able to demonstrate that the situation had been handled properly.

The investigation concluded that there is no evidence that any safety issue exists.

Allegation No. 5 This allegation concerns a specific physical condition regarding HVAC pop rivets alleged to exist at a discrete identified location.

The investigation included a review of inspection acceptance criteria for pop rivets and inspection reports for the identified location.

In addition, the installation at the identified location and numerous other examples of similar construction where examined.

Prior to May 25,1985, the acceptance _ criteria for pop rivet length was the manufacturer's recommended range for each size rivet. In i

most cases, this would result in a minimum of 1/4" projection of the rivet through the parts being joined. Nonconformance and Disposition (N&D) Report No.12309, dispositioned May 25, 1985, provided more definitive criteria for acceptable pop rivet length.

The disposition states:

"A rivet shall be considered properly installed as long as-the end of the

_ mandrel is approximately flush or slightly sunk relative to the rivet sleeve and the rivet sleeve curls over end of mandrel to ensure _ lts positive retention."

Under this acceptance standard, no short rivets were in evidence in any of the duct work inspected.. The basis for the allegation may have been the change in acceptance criteria effected by N&D No.12309.

The investigation could - find no evidence that quality or safety requirements were comprised.

Allegation No. 6 This allegation concerns the. proper handling of inspection results ~ and implies that inspectors' findings are not accurately reflected in the inspection Reports (IR).

The investigation included a review of the system for review and approval of irs by inspection supervision prior to issuance.

Interviews were conducted with inspectors and I

inspection supervisors in the HVAC discipline. _The review of irs by the inspection supervisor is required by current procedures. None of the personnel interviewed stated that they thought that their irs had ever been inappropriately changed or altered.

All sti corrections were necessary, pulated that when changes or they had been contacted, the natu:e of the change or correction discussed with them and their concurrence obtained. We reviewed examples of the type-of IR corrections that are made by inspection supervision.

The majority of the corrections made were grammatical or editorial. There were a few instances of correction of. numerical mistakes and one case of incorrect interpretation of' acceptance criteria by the inspector.

Documentation is on file dealing with several more cases of correction of irs resulting from clarifications to specifications or inspection requirements.

The investigation concluded that the system is functioning properly and that there is no evidence that any safety issue exists.

Allegation No. 7 This allegation concerns the degree of freedom afforded inspectdrs in communicating with the NRC.

Interviews were conducted with SWEC inspectors as well as the NRC Resident Inspector and SWEC FQC management to determine if this perception was shared by any of the involved parties. None of the parties interviewed stated that they felt there was any basis for this allegation.

The allegation may have resulted from the way SWEC FQC organized for the recent CAT inspection.

During the inspection, each NRC inspector had available a SWEC FQC individual (usually the discipline supervisor) to provide information, arrange for access to items selected for inspection, and to respond to questions. As a result, most of the SWEC FQC. inspectors' contacts with NRC inspectors during the CAT were in the presence of a SWEC FQC supervisor. The NRC Resident inspector has free access to, any personnel he may. wish to speak with.

All SWEC personnel we interviewed were aware that they may speak with the NRC Resident candidly and without supervisory personnel present.

The investigation concluded that there.is no evidence of management interference or constraints regarding' FQC personnel discussions with the NRC.

W

,a y.w.

po m s.

6 e.e '* y 9 1

t-V 4

---_-.,A------

- - - - - - - < - ~ -

t 4

4 i,

4 MILLSTONE UNIT 3 PROJECT PROCEDURE MP3 6.12 INTERNAL INVESTIGATION AND' RESOLUTION OF WORKER ALLEGATIONS l:.

APPROVED h ^ ~^

A lce President Generation Engineering and Construction Division REVISION O

~

DATE March 22.1985 e

• W e

e

o MP3 6.12 INTERNAL INVESTICATION AND RESOLUTION OF WORKER ALLEGATIONS 1.0 PURPOSE The purpose of this procedure is to use the manpower resources of Northeast Utilities Service Company and Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (together, " Northeast") and impartial third parties efficiently and wi'thout interrupting the Millstone 3 project schedule to investigate rnd resolve worker allegations regarding nuclear safety issues at the Millstone 3 site.

- Specifically, the objectives of this procedure are:

1.1. To determine whether an allegation is true;

(

1.2. To assess the significance of the allegation with respect to overall plant safety';

1.3. To determine any remedial actions required; and 1.4. To determine any actions needed to comply with reporting or other regulatory requirements.

Rev. 0 Date: March 22,1985

,Page 1 of 45 O

d*

6.12-1 v

~

MP3 6.12 INTERNAL INVESTIGATION AND RESOLUTION OF WORKER ALLEGATIONS 2.0 APPLICABILITY t

2.1.

This procedure will be implemented solely with re.?.pect to allegations regarding nuclear safety at Millstone 3.

Concerns of workers regarding other matters (e.g., per,sonnel

~

issues) will be addressed through separate Northeast and/or Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation ( S&W ) procedures.

2.2.

This procedure will apply regardless of the initial source of the allegation, i.e.,

whether it is received by

,_ telephone, in writing or in person by Northeast or S&W personnel and whether the individual is identified or not.

Allegations made to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ( NRC-) are beyond the scope of this procedure and are subject to NRC rules and procedures regarding worker allegations, unless the'NRC advises Northeast of the allegation in sufficient detail (in the sole judgment of Northeast's Vice President - Generation Engineering and Construction ( VP-GEC*)) to permit an investigation by'

' Northeast pursuant to this procedure.

Rev. O Date:

' March 22 1985 3

Page 2 of 45 I

6.12-2 O

Of MP3 6.12 INTERNAL INVESTIGATION AND RESOLUTION OF WORKER ALLEGATIONS 2.3.

This procedure will not apply, in the first instance, to allegations made directly to the independent Nuclear Review Team which has been established by Northeast.

However, upon receipt of the Nuclear Review Team's report on a particular allegation, this procedure will become applicable if the VP-GEC determines that further review pursuant to this procedure is warranted.

3.0 REFERENCES

3.1 NEO Policy Statement No. 22 - Employee Protection.

c

(

3.2 NEO Policy Statement No. 23 - Investigations by Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Invest'igations.

3.3 NEO 2.01 - Reporting of Defects and Noncompliances per Part 21 of Title.10, Code of Federal Regulations.

3.4 NEO 2.15 - Nuclear Complaints and Concerns.

Rev. O Date: March.22,1985 Page 3 of 45 h

6.12-3

o MP3 6.12 INTERNAL INVESTIGATION AND RESOLUTION OF WORKER ALLEGATIONS 3.5 NUP 23 - Northeast Utilities System Personnel Policy and Procedures - Employee Grievances and Complaints.

4.0 DEFINITIONS As used in this proced'ure, " worker allegations" includes allegations made by any personnel involved in the Millstone 3 project in any discipline at any level, including craft, manual,

'non-manual, supervisory, eng neering and other personnel.

However,'" allegations" includes only complaints, comments or inquiries which the VP-GEC determines are potentiall'y 1

substantive.

" Allegations" do not include all differences of opinion or expressions of dissent voiced by workers on the Millstone 3 project, and it is recognized that some assertions by workers may be too preliminary, unfocused or lacking in potential substance to warrant investigation under this procedure. -

Rev. O Date:

Marcu 22,1985 Page 4 of 45 9

6.12-4

t O

MP3 6.12 INTERNAL INVESTIGATION AND RESOLUTION OF WORKER ALLEGATIONS 5.0 RESPONSIBILITY The VP-GEC and the Northeast Senior Vice President - Nuclear Engineering and Operations ('SVP-NEO ) shall have primary responsibility to implement these procedures as outlined in Section 6.

6.0 INSTRUCTIONS 6.1.

All allegations reported to Northeast or S&W personnel shall be referred to the VP-GEC.

The VP-GEC shall make a determination at that time whether the NRC's resident inspeetor f? '.

shoulo be informed of the allegation and whether any reports

- should be filed with the NRC pursuant to 10 CFR 550.55(e) or 10 CFR Part 21.

The VP-GEC should review Part B of Attachment 8.B to this procedure in making that determination.

6.2.

The VP-GEC will determine whether Information received about a possible deficiency is substantive enough to constitute an " allegation" to be investigated under this procedure.

Rev: O Date: March 22,1985 e

Page 5 of 45 I

6.12-5

-.., - -. ~. -.

0 o

MP3 6.12 INTERNAL INVESTIGATION AND RESOLU"' ION OF WORKER ALLEGA"' IONS 6.3.

If the VP-GEC determines th'at the allegation warrants investigation, the VP-GEC shall establish a team (the " Team") to conduct an init,ial screening investigation of the allegation.

The Team shall have the following responsibilities:

6.3.1.

To conduct a preliminary examination, through interviews, ' document examination and/or physical tests, in order to substantiate the allegation, and specifically, to determine whether there is sufficient evidence in any form to indicate that the allegation has some basis in fact or, alternatively, whether the allegation is wholly li' lacking in factual basis.

~

6.3.2.

To prepare a written report of the allegation, the investigation conducted by the Team to determine if there is any substance to the allegation, the results of the investigation and the-

\\

recommendations of the Team.

l Rev. O Date: March 22,1985 Page 6 of '45 e

O s,_.

~

6.12-6 4

- ~. - -

.,v-n-.-

I

~

MP3 6.12 INTERNAL INVESTIGATION AND RESOL _UTION.0F WORKER ALLEGATIONS 6.4.

The VP-GEC shall have sole' discretion and responsibility to choose Northeast, S&W or other contractor or subcontractor personnel to serve on a Team, considering the nature of the allegation, subject to the following conditions:

6.4.1.

No Northeast, S&W, or other contractor or subcontractor employee may serve on a Team which is investigating an allegation implicating or otherwise involving such employee in any way; 9

6.4.2'.

Each Team shall be headed by a Northeast representative.

l3.

6.5.

Before beginning the initial screening of an allegation, the Team shall determine the scope of the screening investigation and report to the VP-GEC regarding the proposed scope and how that scope was determined.

Normally, the Team will provide such report to the VP-GEC, orally or in writing,

~ within 5 calendar days of being appointed to conduct the investigation of the allegation.

The VP-GEC shall have sole Rev. O Date: March 22,1985 Page 7 of 45 p.

i s

6.12-7

o INTERNAL INVESTIGATION AND RESOLUTION.0F WORKER ALLEGATIONS MP3 sn responsibility and discretion to modify the scope of the investigation in any manner.

6.6.

The Team's report, which will normally be completed within 14 calendar days from the date the allegation is referred to the Team by the VP-GEC, will include at least the following information:

6.6.1.

A description of the allegation;

'6.6.2.

A description of the scope of the initial screening;

(. :,; -

6.6.3.

How the Team determined what the scope of the initial screening should be (as to interviews conducted, documents examined and physical tests performed), including whether any-changes to the Team's initial recommendations were made by the VP-GEC; Rev. 0 l

Date: Naren 22,1985 Page 8 of 45 6.12-8

P MP3 6.12 INTERNAL INVESTIGATION AND RESOLtCION OF WORKER. ALLEGATIONS 6.6.4.

Except where,anonyinity has been requested, the names of personnel' interviewed, including names of all those present at each interview and the time and place of the interview; 6.6.5.

A description of physical tests performed, includirig a description of the types of material and equipment examined, the reasons for the sampling selected, who performed the tests, the time and place of each test and the results of each test;

~

6.6.6.

A' description of documents examined, including the type of document, who prepared (and/or approved) the document, how the document relates to the worker allegation, who examined the document and the nature of the examination; Rev. O Date: March 22,1985 Page 9 of 45 e

h M

6.12-9 n-. --

l MP3 6.12 INTERNAL INVESTIGATION AND RESOLUTION OF WORKER. ALLEGATIONS 6.6.7.

The Team's conclusions rega'rding whether the i

allegation has some basis in fact or is wholly lacking in factual basis; 6.6.8.

The Team's evaluation of the potential safety significance of the alleged deficiency in i

terms o'f whether, if it remained uncorrected, it could adversely affect the safety of plant operations; NOTE:

For purposes of this evaluation, the Team should assume that the allegation is true, f k: '.

1 6.6.9.

The Team's evaluation of whether any l

individual is guilty of wrongdoing in connection with the alleged deficiency and its recommendations regarding the need for disciplinary action, including its analysis of why such disciplinary action would not violate Section 210 of the Energy l

Reorganization Act of 1974 (the "Act") and 10 CFR 550.7 promulgated thereunder; i

Rev. O Date's March 22,1985 Page 10 of 45

(

6.12-10

o MP3 6.12 INTERNAL INVESTIGATION AND RESOLLTION OF WORKER' ALLEGATIONS NOTE:

Section 210 and 10 CFR $50.7 prohibit retaliatory actions against employees who report or otherwise participate in investigations of violations of the Act or the Atomic E,nergy Act of 1954.

The Team should consult Attachment 8.A, Part A of

..B and Attachment 8. D to this procedure in connection with its analysis.

6.6.'10.

The Team's evaluation of whether the allegation represents a reportable event under NRC rules and regulations; and 6.6.11.

The Team's recommendations regarding whether a further, more comprehensive investigation should be conducted, including further investigation of possible wrongdoing by any individual.

Rev. O Date: March 22,1985 Page 11 of 45 9

6.12-11 a.-

i-

~

MP3 4 39 INTERNAL INVESTIGATION AND RESOLUTION OF WORKER. ALLEGATIONS 6.7.

In making any recommendation rega-ding additional investigation of an allegation, the Team should consider the following:

6.7.1.

,The potential safety significance of the alleged deficiency; 6.7.2.

The scope of the initial screening; and

'6.7.3.

The potential benefit of further review by an indep'endent board with respect to future

,(.-

• implications of the allegation (e.c.,

possible NRC investigation or public relations).

6.8.

Upon request of a Team or on the VP-GEC's initiative, Northeast may assign a Northeast staff attorney and/or an outside attorney as a consultant to the Team and the VP-GEC if the nature of the allegation indicates that legal advice may'be

,,v Rev. O Date: March 22,1985 Page 12 of 45 t

6.12-12

L.;

~--

e 7

.p.

~

~

MP3 41s.

INTERNAL INVESTIGATION AND RESOLUTION OF WORKER ALLEGATIONS necessary or' advisable or,to advise the Team regarding possible,

NRC regulatory compliance

• required in connection with the allegation.

t 6.9.

The VP-GEC shall review all reports and recommendations of each Team.

If the Team concludes, and the VF-GEC concurs, that the allegation'is wholly lacking in factual basis, normally no further action will be taken.

If the Team and/or the VP-GEC conclude that the allegation has some factual basis, the VP-GEC shall, a5ter consultation with the SVP-NEO:

6.9.1.

Require further review, arialysis and/or re--

z

(,y evaluation by the Team t:enducting the initial screening; O.9.2.

Without further investigation, initiate remedial action by Northeast and/or S&W, including disciplinary action against individuals guilty of, wrongdoing; Rev. 0 Date: March 22,1985 Page 13 of 45 e

9 6.12-13

i r.

r MP3 6.12 INTERNAL INVESTIGATION AND RESOLITI' ION OF WORKER ALLEGATIONS 6.9.3.

After considering'the factors set forth above in Sections 6.7.1-6.7.3, tequire that a further, more comprehensive investigation be conducted by an independent review board.

6.'O.

With respect to recommendations of disciplinary, action, the VP-GEC shall i'ncluds an analysis, or may concur in the Team's analysis, of why such action would not violate Section 210 of the Act and 10 CFR $50.7 promulgated thereunder.

6.11.

The VP-GEC, after consultation with the SVP-NEO, shall have the sole responsibility and discretion to decide upon g'.

the appropriate disposition of the allegation.

The VP-GEC shall prepare a written report setting forth conclusions and the actions which he, after consultation with the SVP-h20, has determined are appropriate for disposition of the allegation.

Among other things, the VP-GEC, in consultation with the SVP-NEO, may order disciplinary action against any Northeast employee who As found to have been involved in wrongdoing.

In addition, the VP-GEC, in consultation with the SVP-NEO, may Rev. O Date: March'22,1985 Page 14 of 45 G

6 s

y S

6.12-14 L

4 MP3

'6.12 INTERNAL INVESTIGATION AND RESOLdTION F WORKER ALLEGATIONS recommend to S&W or any contractor that S&W or such contractor take disciplinary action against any of its employees who is found to have been involved in wrongdoing.

S&W or such contractor shall have the final authority to decide upon any disciplinary action to be taken against its employees.

The VP-GEC, after consultation with the SVP-NEO, shall also decide whether to inform the NRC's resident inspector of the allegation and the status of the investigation and shall decide whether any reports should be filed with the NRC pursuant to 10 CFR 550.

55(e) or 10 CFR Part 21.

i., -

6.12.

If the VP-GEO, after consultation with the SVP-NEO, determines that a more comprehensive investigation is I

appropriate, the VP-GEC will assign the responsibility for l

conducting that investigation to an Independent Review Board (the " Board") comprised of individuals from-the following groups:

6.12.1.

An independent engineering consul' ting firm with expertise in the relevant engineering Rev. O Date: March 22,1985 Page 15 of 45 6.12-15

,MP3 6.12 INTERNAL INVESTIGATION AND RESOLUTION OF WORKER ALLEGATIONS disciplines, as well as in quality assurance and quality control; 6.12.2.

An independent engineering / construction firm l

l with experience in nuclear construction; 6.12.3.

A libor' expert (e.q'.,

a professor with labor background or a former government employee in the labor area); and

'6.12.4.

An outside attbrney.who has no prior relationship with Northeast or S&W.

.I,-

6.13.

The Board may be comprised of one or more individuals

~

from each of the foregoing groups, depending on the nature of the allegation.

The VP-GEC shall keep a list of individuals from each of the above groups who will be available to' serve on the Board from time.to time.

6.14.

The VP-GEC and the member 5 of the Team who per. form'ed the initial screening investigation shall be available to the Rev. O Date: March 22,1985 Page 16 of 45 "e#

gg 6.12-16

O

{

MP3 6 12 INTERNAL INVESTIGATION AND RESOLU. TION OF WORKER. ALLEGATIONS Board at all times to provide additic'nal backgroun'd, information and advice.

6.15.

Upon the request of the Board or on the VP-GEC's initiative, Northeast may assign a Northeast staff attorney and/or an outside attorney as a consultant to the Board, in addition to any attorney who may be sitting on the Board, if the nature of the allegation indicates that legal advice may be necessary or advisable or to advise the Board regarding possible NRC regulatory compliance required in connection with the allegation.

[,

6.16.

The responsibirlities and duties of the Board will be substantially the same as those of the Team described in Sections 6.3, 6.5 and 6.6.above with respect to conducting an investigation and preparing a report, except that the scope of the investigation shall be much more extensive 2nd the report shall be much more detailed.

In addition, i.nstead of determining whether an allegation has some basis in f act or is Rev. O Date: March 22,1985 Page 17 of 45.

t eme

• 6.12-17 4

ww..,

?

MP3 c.12 INTERNAL INVESTIGATION AND RESOLUTION'OF WORKER ~ ALLEGATIONS

~

wholly lacking in factual basis, the Board will determine and report on whether and to what extent the allegation is true.

6.17.

Prior to commencing its investigation, the Board will determine the scope of the investigation which it intends to i

conduct and will obtain the VP-GEC's approval of the estimated

)

costs associated with that investigation.

The cost of the Board's investigation may not exceed the amount approved by the VP-GEC without the VP-GEC's prior approval.

6.18.

The Board's report will normally be completed within 45 calendar days from the date the allegation, including the Team's final report, was referred to it for"furt:ter 1

investigation.

6.19.

The VP-GEC shall review all reports and recommendations of the Board.

The VP-GEC shall act as liaison

~

between the Board and the SVP-NEO and shall report all findings and recommendations of the Board to the SVP-NEO.

Based on the findings and recommendations of the Board, the VP-GEC shall recommend the final disposition of the allegation to the SVP-Rev. 0 Date: March 22,1985 Page IS of 45 t'

~s 5

6.12-18

i 6

MP3 6.12 INTERNAL INVESTIGATION AND RESOLUTION OF WORKER. ALLEGATIONS NEO, including any remedial or disciplinary action which the VF-GEC considers appropriate.

With respectJto recommendations of disciplinary action, the VP-GEC shall include an analysis of why

~

such action would not violate Section 210 of the Act and 10 CFR 550.7 promulgated thereunder.

6.20.

The SVP-NEO shall have the ultimate responsibility and discretion to decide whether to inform the NRC's resident inspector of the allegation and the outcome of the Board's investigation and to decide whether any reports should be filed with the NRC pursuant to 10 CFR $50.55(e) or 10 CFR Part 21, if such acts have not already been performed.

i 6.21.

The SVP-NEO shall have the ultimate responsibility i

and discretion to decide upon the final disposition of all

[

allegations reviewed by the Board, including the remedial

-act' ion, if any, to be taken based on the findings of the Board

_and the recommendations of the VP-GEC.

Among other things, the SVP-NEO may order disciplinary action against any Northeast l

employee who is found by the Board to have been involved in' l.

\\

Rev. O Date: huarch 22 1985 Page 19 of 45 W

6.12-19 l

MP3 6.12 INTERNAL INVESTIGATION AND RESOLUT. ION OF WORKER. ALLEGATIONS wrongdoing.

In addition, the SVP-NEO'may recommend to S&W or any contractor that S&W or such contractor take disciplinary action against any of its employees who is found by the Board to have been involved in wrongdoing.

S&W or such contractor shall have the final authority to decide upon any disciplinary action 4

to be taken against its employees.

7.0 FIGURES 7.1.

Flow Chart e

[]t.

8.0 ATTACHMENTS

/

Attachment No.

Attachment Title 8.A Copies of Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 and 10 CFR

$50.7 8.B Legal Considerations 8.C Copy of Form NRC-3.

Rev. O Date: March 22,1985 Page 20 of 45 ed 6.12-20 e

e

MP3 6.12 INTERNAL INVESTIGATION AND RESOLUT. ION OF WORKER ALLEGATIONS 8.D' Evaluation of Employee Discipline under Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974.

5 I

t.

~

Rev. O Date: March 22,1985 Page 21 of 45 E

e= #

6.12-21 6

=6

+

g wee

Fl.O W C ilA R T m

. J.1 co Figure m.

e-o e

N

.C m ue Reporting Requiremente Final action based on Final action based on g%

under 10 CPR Part 21 Team report (including Board report (including yO and 10 CFR $50.55(e) reporting requiremente repor$8ns requirements N

0 N

under to CFR Part 21 under 10 CFR Part,21 y

and $50.55(e))

and $50.55(e))

gg&

j g

/\\

Re p.<

j g I

VF-CEC, in

.)

Ind*Fendent 45 A11ssition SW Northeast g Initial 14

'~

3* P - [

VF-CRC Screening Calendar Seview Board Calendar

,,,,,gg,ggo, l

Team Days with SWF-NEO Dayas i

NR'C '

follows NBC procedures A

I n

I t

n LJ 6

s 0

9 e

l

,9

~

3 w'

7-

w I

ese sumE Enterr Reorganisti'siiAct of N74 3369-3

-- - t h w

[f2121b]

3;MPLOYEE PROTECTION 4!lA C-.%_

Sec. 21D. (ai No empheyrr, inilu. ling a Csanmir L.n lie enwr'. an

-c_

aplilicant for a Cennmiwkm hsense.est a emntracia or a pakuntractor em ed a Commission heen ce or appheant, may discharge any empivyee or m

C otherwise discriminate against any employee with resin-rt to hn twn-

=-

pensatinn, terms cunihtkens or privileges of employment because the

~M" employer (or an,y pr*cn a,cting pursuant to a request e4 the ci.a-ployer)-

i L

h I-9._

(I) esamsmswa sl. rau s el in lee countnesseed, or is alout tu corn-p@W sience or cause to be einnmemed a proceeding under this Act o the Atomic Energy Act of 19M. as amended.,or a pmceedm: for the ad-

-Mc mmistration or enforcement of any terluirement anyare*l und r il...

"W

= --

Act nr the A orni. F.ung3 Ait of p>;-1.n ainendel:

{

(2) testined or is about to testify in any such proerrling or:

(3) assisted or participated or is abuut to asidst tw g.articipate ia any manner in such a procreiling tw in any oth.r ansnn-r in suti.

proceeding or in any other action tu carry uut the purpon cf thi. Act or the Atomic Energy Act of 195 3,as amended.

nw

-,.:Mii[2 (b)(1) Any emplayce who laelit ves that bt han beeir dahstged

'^

cr otherwise descriminated against by any person in violation of sub-section a may have an(y p) erson, within thirty da3 s af ter auch vin!stion senirs,6le (o-Ele on his behalf) a carnplaint with the Secretary of W

Labor (hereinalter in this subsei: tion referred ti. as the "heretary")

alleging such discharge or discrimination. Upon receipt af such a complaint, the Secretary shall notify the_persor named ir. the con.-

k plaint of the Sling of the complaint and the Curnmioinn.

'~

O Secre(2)(A) Upon receipt of a complaint Ele.! smdes paragraph (1), the 4

tary shafl conduct an investigation of the violation alleg:d in the

(

complaint. Within thirty days esi the receipt of such ev.n plaint. the Secretary siall completc such in estication an I i.1w11 notih it. writin;;

3 the complais ant (and any.pernon acting in his beh.ill) an.l th person C-

~

alleged to have committed sneh vi..lathne of the results of tin investiga-h tion eunducted pursuant to this saibpsrarrapi. Within nim ty days of the receipt of such complaint the.E cretary sl all, an! css the pniecediny f

a c

on the complaint is terminated by the Secretary on the hads of a settle snent entered intu by the Secretrry an.1 the perw.n alle..cd to havt j

y committed such violation, innue an ordtr either pinviding the relief prescribed by subparagraph (It) ce denying the cuesplaint. An order of the Secretary shall be made em the r.ried after notice ami oppur-

[$

tunity for puhhc hearing. The Sc.retars may not inter int. a settle-anent'termmating a procetding on a eur!.plaiht wi'lamat the ]articips-h t>on and consent of the complainant Secre(tary determines that a violatine of subs. etics. (a) lu Q*g B) If, in respon c to a comp 1sint filed :n.ler f arscraph (IL the the Secretary shall order the perum win. committed weh vklation to (i) tske affirmative' action to ahate the vi..lati.e and (ii) reis -t. ate the [i complainant to his.former positiem together with the compensstion i

(including back pay), terms, enndhions, and 3 rivihges of hi einphi i9 ment, and the Secretsrv mar nrder such perna.n to punide co npen<y-

[d s-tory damages to the danp!'ainant. If an erile is i suni on ht thi-paragraph, the Secretary, at the regnest of the complainant shAl assess

";;::1 agamst the person against whom the order is asued a sum eqn a to the ed e

aggregste amount of all costs and expmsr4 (iueludin: attorney,' and Neckar Rerulation Reparu

$ 210 T2321h y~

L.-

6.12-23 N

.t Rev. O

~

Date:

March 22,1905 t

Page 23 of 45 6

,1 erQDgg M A D.

.g;

nctNL.

.o nw<e-

- ' ' ' ' ' ' ~

'~" ? *~

_ _-3 ' -

{O_-b^

.1w ann =

f__-

_ ~ -

-e n-, -- -

a 48'10 2.awi see si.ai.rs expert witness fees) reamunably inevered, as determined by the.54ere.

tary, by the complainant for, or in connection with,the brmgin; ut the complaint upon which the order wasi.sved.

(c)(1) Any person adverse 13 afterted or ag: rieved by an order assued under subsectiem (h) mav tJet:iin rniew of thr neelci in the United States euuit of appeal-f.a time eisruit in which the vi..' ii.sn, s

~ ~

with respect to which the older was i. sued, alleg-dly os curred. The petition for review must be filed within sixty days from the i suar.cr of the Secretary's order. Review shall ner.a m t.. chat.t -r 7 e.f i:il. 5 5.

of the United States Ciste. *lhe.nnenri ccment i.I pr.:suling-en lcr this subparagraph shall not, unlen nedered h,. the coun t. operi.ts at s.

stay of the Secretary's order.

(2) An order of thi Sceretary wit 1. restet to which rnia.uuld have been obtained under paragraph (1) shall not 1.e subp et to ju. :e:al review in any criminal or other civil proceeding (d) Whenever a person ham failed t.. eumply with an order i *ved ander subsection (b)(2), the Secretary mav ide si civil action it the United States district court for the distiiet in which the violatior. wa.

found to ocent to enforce such order. In actions brou::t t end.r this sub.ection, the district courts shall have jurisdiction to crent all b

appropriate relief including. but not limited t... injur.etive rehef. or.i-

~

3 pensatory,and exemplary damages.

(e)(!) Any person on whose behalf an.ede was inus-d u*r paragraph (2) of subsection (b) may n.mmen.e a civil sitoim a:Nin:t the person to whom such order was'iuu:d tu seguire comphance with such order. The appropriate United States d stri t court shall h.ne jurisdiction, without regard to the amenmt in.vnt o,er9 or the cit -

,f.~

aenship of the parties, to enforce such order.

' ~

(2) The court, in issuing any final orden mini.r thi-sub-icti n,

may award costs of litig:. tion (inclu lin:. reas whl attinnn ai-1 >-

pert witness fees) to any party wiienn r 11n cou t deie niine,i e r h

award is app'ropriate.

(f) Any nondiscretinuit duts imp. n11 th,. i,ci t in alr.i he i

enforceable in a snandamus ;irocetding 1 rou;;ht un !c s. cts..:t 1.:r.1 el

~

4 title 28 of the United State 4 Code.

i t

. (g) Suh cetion (a) shall not apply with r:-pes t..o :: y emp toe:

who, acting without directs.m from hb ar het nn: 1. 3 c ur ths..i-player's agent), deliberately cani.s a viciati n v.f a.33 rty premi. c'

,3 this Act or of the Atomie 1.nergy Act of l' 54,:.51me ahd.

J5ec. 210 as added by I'uhlic Law 9.40., ni.rxtd Non#e-2 6,1978.]

Q

[

.0 Historical comment.

c.I al.c Act by 3.tleic as sta. d the.e.,

4 571 Amn4= rats: Pubhc 1.sw 9*-401. st*

ser ocetieu 214.

s.

? "'

. l-prend November 6,1978, amended Title 31 r

a TITLE Ill.-AUSCELLANEOUS AND TP.ANSITIONAL l'RMl!.lONS

~

q

?"E -

[f 2322]

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS P

Sec. 301. (a) Except as otherwise penvided in thir. Act, whenever d

all of the functions or programs of an agency, or other lu.dy, or at.y i

component thereof, aficeted by this Act, have been trantierred fr.im f

that agency, or other body, or any component thtreof by this Att,

~

the agency, ce other body, or ccmy= ment thei-o! Shall lapse. If an w

1 2322 $ 341 g

c ten.camu. aree ct:arist H, se.1 ie.

l i

M 6.12-24 Rev. O Da

liarch 22,1985

'r y

b<.

e I#

Chapter b-Eclear teguloiery Commiaslea Y

tex 1)The Commtaston has delegated owned uttitues, incJuding renerauon or dutribuuon subsidiaries. public uul. to the Regional Aaminutrator of ity datnets, anuntelpalttles, rural elee. Region W authority and remporutbility d-Sne cooperatives. and state and federal for implemenung selected parts of sta agencies. including nasociattoru of any muelear rea.etor incerutng program for of the foreroms, are included within the Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Generstmg n-F the sneaning of electrse utility."

iStation.

(2) Any app 16 cation fDed under the b

tace 181. as ameneed. Pub 1. as-tos. es regultuons in Lhu part a.nd any m-ti.at 948 442 D.E C. 23013. en Sol. as eutry, communication, int ormation. or at amenaed Pub L ss-434. as stat. Ika sa2 report relating to the Pon St. Vram t.s c.sa43 n Muclear G.enersting Station snust be 211 (31 FR 355. Jan 1s. ItH. as amended at 36 submitted to 1.he Regional Adminutra-8.1Mo 28 FR 4D90 June s.

IM1. 3s FR 31M Aor. 3. IM3. 31 F7t 16sil, ter. Region W. U.S. Nuejear Rervla.

ad FR leit. Pet Dn 2. IMs. 33 FR la411. Dn 11. IM4 as tory Commission. 811 Ryan Pia.:a FR 23424. June 12. Isla. 39 TR esta. Feb s.

Drive. Eulte 1000. Arlington. Texa.s la.

sn.

asis. 40 FR siss. war 3. toin. es FR sess. 16011.Upon receipt.the RegionaJ Ad-Pen 11. asis en FR 3a200. war s. Isso 45 ministrator of Region W or hu desig.

,3, Isso, war. 34.1940. 41 FR 131H. Mar.

wD1 R

D cor of Nuclear Reactor Regulauen any not 3aatter which as not within 1.he scope tin-

$ 34.3 1ste. 7. & _-_

of e ermnal Adminutrator's de6 heept as specifically authorized by Es cenamt au Mty.

the Commission in writing. Do inter. 141 rR 55204.Dec. 4.1M23 pretation of 1.he mean.ing of the resu-E3'P om P'**cO*al lations in 1.his ps.rt by any officer of k8 bC1 l

the employee of the Commission other

- and._

tha.n a s*ritten interpretation by the tal Dacrimantuon by a Cornmission re-GeneraJ Counsel wD1 be recognhed to lleenset, permittee, an appilcant for a sent

[.

_ and be binding upon the Commasson..

Commission incense or permit e-a contrsetor or subcontractor of a com-8 M.4 Commumlestions.

Inission liceraee permittee, or typh-gent ta)Escept there otherMae specified cant a. gainst an employee for engasms

-A #1 or except as prodded tasder a regional in certain protected activsues is pro-hibited. Ducrimination includes au-eent

2. L beensing prorrarn identified in para-charge and other acuens that relate to 31 et staph (c) of this section. ar.y commu. compensation terms conditioru. and Sart-sucation or report concerning the res-privileges of employment.Tne proteet-spre-ultuons in this part and any apphea-ed actinties are established in accuen tson filed under these rerulation.s may pom-l be submitted to the Commission as 101-310 of the Energy Reorganisation Act yier-i of 1914. as arnended, and in general ofit herr are related to the administration or grred (1)By ms!! addressed to-Director of enforcement of a recuirement imposed l De-7tueles.! Reactor Re 9.11stion. U.E. Nu-f i th' clear Berulatory Commission. Wash-under the Atomic Derry Act or the 8

Derry Reorgan.zation Act.

8 3 8

htton. D.C. 20555.

(1) The protected scurities include 187 0 (213y delivery in person to the Coto. but are not limited to:

8 b 3-saiulon offices at-(1) Providing the Commission infor-M U11111 E Street. NW ' Washington. snation about poss!ble violanora of re-f IPff#

D.C.: or guirements imposed under either of U117920 Norfolk Avenue. Bethesda, the above statutes:

8"

Etryland.

till Requesting the Comminston to

- *1 -

(b) Refore making any submitta.1 in institute action against hu or her em-

&1l,

aucrofor:r., the apphca.nt or licensee shall contact the Davision of Technical player for the.administrauon or en.

I IPJormauon and Document Control, forcement of these requirements:or I

3 US Nuclear Rerulatory Commisalon.

(1111' Testifying in any Commission

'L.aihinnon. D.C. 2055b, Telephone proceeding.

(2) These activities are protected 4018 452-8581. to obtain specificauons even if no iormal proceedmg is actual-p3

, "h8 toDy requirementa,

• ..,,i c, 393 I

}

/

6.'12-25 Rev. O Date: 14ard.22,19G5 Page 25 of 45

..~v

e i

.)

{80.8 ym. } g_3 n.,, y i

ly initiated as a rssult of the employee o6ent 'to permit employees protected maststance or participation by this secuan to obserbe a copy on (3)This section hu no application to the way to or from their place of work.

any employee allegmg discrimination Premtses snust be posted not later prohibited by this acetton who, actmg than 30 days af ter an appheation is without direction from his or her em-dockeLed and remain posted ahile the player ior the employer's agent). deltb. apphesuon is pending before the Com.

I.ed.

erstely causes a vsolation of any re.

mission, during the term of the li-1 outrement of the Erierry Reorgantza. ornse, and for 30 days follos1ng is.

Uon Act of 1914, as amended, or the cense terminauon.

Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amend-i 3soee Cop 6es et Form 3rRC 3 mer he ob (b) Any employee who believes that saines Dr.swuna so me Resional Aamina j

he or she hu been discharged or oth-

'#** ** 'I '# '#"'* U'E ""r' bee lat ed j

m)aton Comminaion Regiona) O erwise dtseriminated against by any person for engaging in the protected an Apoencia D. Part 30 of thu chapter er the Direesor. Othee of Inspection ans En methsties speelised in pararraph taxi) sorrement. U.s Pf ucksr Rerutatory com.

of this section may seek a remedy for asiassen. Wuhanaten. D C. acS15 the dtscha.rge or dtscrimmation through an administrative proceeding _841 TR 30454. July 14. la421 in the Department of 1. Abor. The ad.

j solnistrative proceedmg must be miti. g go,,

g,,,,g;ng,,,,,,q w,;,g,,,4 sted within 30 days af ter an alleged plication requirementa: OMH appresal.

violation occurs by fihng a complaint (a) The Nuclear Regulatory Commis.

allegmg the violation sith the Depart, alon has submitted the information 1

anent of labor. Employment Stand. collection recuirements contained in ards Administration. Wage and Mour this part to the Office of Management Division. The Department of labor and Budget IOMB) for approval as re.

anar order reinstatement, back pay, eutred by the Papersork Redurtion j

and compensatory damages.

Act (Pub. L.96-511). OMB approved (c) A violation of paragraph (a) of the information collection recutre.

1 this meetion b) a Commlulon licensee, snents on October af 1WC1.

permittee, an appheant for & Commu.

(1) The OMB approval number is alon license or permit, or a contractor 3150-0011.

j or.subcontracter of a Commission li-(2) OMB approval expires AprI2 30.

censee, permittee, or applicasat may be 3982.

STounds for:

4 (b) The approved information coller.

(1). Denial revocation. or susunzion tion recuirements include the appbca.

of the license.

(2) Imposition of a civ!} penalty on tjon, recordkeeping. and reporting re.

autrernents contained in. 51 50.30.

the ticensee or apphtant.

(3) Other enforcement acUon.

30.33, 50.33a 30.34 gh). (c). Ed). (fl.

50.34a. 50.35th). 60.36, 50.36a. 50 48.

Id) Actions taken by an employer. or 60.54 (!). (pl. (e). t r), ts ). (1). t u ).

ethers, which adsersely affect an em.

playectnay be predicated upon nondas. &c. sate) 60.554. 50.59 Ib). (c). 50.71 ta).

(bl. tel. (d), ten.-bc.12 ta). (b). 50.30.

asiminatory grounds. The prohibition 50.32.50.90, and Appendsees A. B. C. E.

applies when the adserse action occurs O. H. J. K. and R.

because the employee has engaged in protected activities. An employee's en.

Its F1t 53033.Dec.30.1931) gagement in protected actinties does not automatica3!y render him tir her Rroutatxtxt or Lienst. Exer.rTaons immune from discharge or discipline for legitimate reasons or from adverse I 38 I' E'3""*'"

action dictated by rionprohibited son.

(a) Except as provided in 150.11. no alderations.

person withm the Ifnited States shall te) Each licensee, permittee and transfer or recette in interstate com.

I each apphcant shall post Form NRC.

sneret. manuf acture. produce, traru.

g

3. " Notice to Employees." on its prem. fer, arguire possess. or use any pro.

1aea. Posting must be at locations suffi. duction or utthzation !mellsty racept as Rev. 0 6.lb Date: marci. 22,1905 Page 26 of 45

f

^

...../'

ATTACHMENT 8.B LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS A.

NRC regulations - Emolo' vee Protection With respect to any recommendations of employee discipline by a Team or the Board and.any decisions in that regard by Northeast, S&W or any contractor, it should be noted that under Section 210 of the Act and 10 CFR 550.7 promulgated thereunder, an employee may not be discharged, nor may the compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of the employee's job be

~

adversely affected, in retaliation for an employee's providing j,.,,

information to the NRC, Northeast, S&W or any contractor regarding possible violations of NRC requirements or for otherwise participating in investigations or proceedings relating to alleged violations of NRC requirements.

Section 210 of the Act empowers the Secretary of Labor, if he finds that a s--

violation has occurred, to order (1) an. abatement of the

~

i violation,.(2) reinstatement of the employee to his former position with back pay, and ('3) the payment of compensatory

.. u Rev. O Date:

llarca h,1935 Page 27 of 45 i

\\ _.

6.12-27 l

~

~

y

.y "

damages and costs incurred by the employee in making the complaint, including attorneys' fees'and expert witness fees.

In addition, violations of this section by Northeast, S&W or any contractor can result in denial, revocation or suspension of the Millstone 3 construction permit or operating license and/or the imposition of civil penalties or other enforcement actions against Northeast.

If, however, actions by Northeast, S&W or a contractor with respect to a particular employee are based on nondiscriminatory grounds (e.e.,

documented evidence of poor work quality, insubordination or other unacceptable employee behavior f

unrelated to the fact that the employee has reported or f

participated in an investigation of alleged violations of NRC requirements), and the employer can demonstrate that such actions would have been taken.even if the employee had not been engaged in protected activities, no violation of Section 210 or 10 CFR 550.7 will have occurred.

As set forth in 10 CFR 550.7(d), "An employee's engagement in protected activities does j

l not automatically render him or her immune from discharge or discipline for legitimate reasons or from adverse action Rev. O Date: liarch 22,1985 Page 28 of 45

\\ ~-

6.12-28

O

.J i

l i

dictated by nonprohibited considerations."

(emphasis added).

The burden of proving a nondiscrimina' tory basis for employee l

discipline in a case brought by an employee before the Department of Labor under Section 210 of the Act is on the employer, however.

Furthermore, an employee will not be protected from discharge or other action under Section 210 of the Act if the

~

employee has deliberately violated NRC requirements without direction from the employer, even if that violation is subsequently reported by the employee.

See 10 CFR 550.7(a)(3).

g',

Under 10 CFR 550.7, Northeast must post a Form NRC-3 " Notice to Employees" advising employees of these' rights in locations where employees can see it when they are coming to and leaving their place of work at the site.

A copy of the Form is attached as Attachment 8.C.

B.

NRC Regula'tions - Reporting Recuirements

' Pursuant to 10 CFR Part 21 promulgated under Section 206 of

~

the Act, any individual director or " responsible officer" of a Rev. O Date: klarcli 12,19o5 Page 29 of 45 9

6.12-29 n

m

' firm owning, constructing or supplying conp nents of a licensed

-facility must report to the NRC w ti hin two days any information which " reasonably" indicates (1) that the facil'ity fails to comply with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 ("AEA") or the NRC's rules and regulations or (2) that the facility contains a defect which could create a " substantial safety hazard."

A knowing and conscious failure to comply with this requirement can result in the imposition of civil penalties on such director or responsible officer.

Under this section, S&W, Northeast and certain other contractors are under a legal obligation to notify the NRC when

(, If the information obtained from an allegation " reasonably indicates" a violation of the AEA or the NRC's rules and regulations or a defect in certain parts of the facility which could create a " subs.antial safety hazard."

With respect to worker allegations regarding nuclear safety, in many instances the obligation to report probably will not arise until after the Team's initial screening of the allegation to determine whether-there is some factual basis for the allegation and to evaluate 7.ev. O Date: liarch 22,1985 Page 30 of 45

\\

\\ we 6.12-30

I i

the safety significance of the alleged deficiency, since only then can it be deterr.ined whether infoEmation " reasonably" indicates the possibility of a violation or defect.

In addition, under 10 CFR 550.55(e), deficiencies in design or construction must be reported to the NRC within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> if they could adversely affect the safety of plant operations and if they represent (1) a significant. breakdown in quality assurance; (2) a significant deficiency in final design such that the design as built does not conform to the safety analysis report or the construction permit; (3) a significant deficiency in construction or significant damage to a structure, system or component which requires extensive evaluation, redesign or repair; or (4) a significant deviation from performance specifications which requires extensive evaluation, redesign or repair.

With respect to worker allegations, 1n those instances in which it is not immediately apparent that a reportable deficiency exists, Northeast may look to the results of the Team's screening-to determine if there is a reportable deficiency and may coordinate its present 550.55(e) review with the Team's investigation.

Rev. O Date:

March 22,1985

~

Page 31 of 45 6.12-31

t In those cases where a $50.55(e) report is made, there is no requirement to make an additional repor't under 10 CFR Part 21 since 10 CFR Part 21 provides an exception where the individual has actual knowledge that the NRC has already been informed of a violation of the AEA or the NRC's rules and regulations or of a defect in the facility.

C.

Labor law consideratio'ns It should be noted that while labor law considerations are gene' rally outside the scope of this procedure, Northeast should consider whether and when to advise and/or involve union representatives in investigations of worker allegations.

In 1

( D. -

j conducting interviews of Northeast and S&W personnel, there is no legal obligation to include union represe'ntatives.

However, if in,the course of the investigation employees should refuse to be interviewed without a union representative present, and if

'12e employee has reasonable grounds to believe the matters to be discussed in the interview may lead to disciplinary action against such' employee, a union representative should be permitted to be present or the employee should not be

-interviewed at all.

Rev. O Date:

March 22,1985 Page 32 of 45-

~

6.12-32

il a

i g

g illiy'II!$}{Iflli!TIIh!'/~'~

i

{

m,,.p!ifi.tw+,h!I(p r

h qM I

I h'"~'

hhf'j!fhffrq e; Liiti is ap ;

l

.r

1 [ yf!LI -I!!ii,1l (fI.!f 7*L* O li l

7r

)

I

. - {ii I

i s!'/ JII g l.p:

l E

'Of la

'1 t

,s tr

- rr r

i:!

l['

t)

IIj!!!rtr[.rf"I!ur;II [I.! Il!Il!

j E'gi i

e l

h 5

t

.i rs h,2 l

47

!!d

[rs i

" list!! U!P; ~" i ;,

ni r, s..., m ^.., i u H i:i, npimi 5!"! O !

' i,3 t

r "i

l tiA i

JE I:t in ~rI sS l

=i H g i r1, 11ng[!!-s :" ir i.:as_ T, p,.I t

.I" !=" O t.

p..{

j p.xi

12{1

g 1

S g

-r l

"IE.!l,p,,:;jyl-L si I,r a, j.- a:gm ct:

4-a a

f!" ! li

!! Hi8 8 ;riilfif Ej l]'.I,jr!. J5! O{!

?.

is l

k!([_i'l i

Ajj *'

l J

!! m i m Ihi~-

i u =g,9 1

t l a, t, o.,ir i n,..rra, i; irie r I u,u t i,i 1

"'..il u g :,:rld = r neijlidatr,ti{3 r5 gr tr >

l ya g.

o jE=<

si m i

.a ip s )I Irit'Iliiti 4 s i.fi!!! 1h 4 ',)

j.tlitt[ 't. ; gg Q si i

i I

i m"p(E Ibpgmmiiv' !,;!

!, !'rj{l,f. lil.?r'l' h

I,, i

L1,p.,i!,!l,.

I!

/

ii n

1

• I.:.,.I *i q gr :

b e

)

r.sIit

b' t:

p, '.

,;,. r f;

r =

ggMr,a inIHil I g((a I"

. [>

j o

=

{i g

I I

H...i i

'l r: I E

l t

g n

~

!}lIl I13!!

i Ill!!!!!@Pi;adilr rr is 4

gel' E

Ih!rhr jlji pail ~ - p I ' i F; } I I I '? i 3 ;

r ri s,

'r a

n.:

l or I AI" l I 5I 2

z I

a e

=

S i

i i

i I l 41 !-

r Il it r

x s rrt

, I,.

rg i Ir r

m 6.12-33

[

0 *.D I

s EVALUATION OF EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINE UNDER SECTION 210 OF THE ENERGY REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1974 The following elements should be considered before any disciplinary action is taken with respect to employees of Northeast Utilities Service Company and Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (together, " Northeast") who are involved with Millstone 3.

This discussion is intended to supplement the procedures

~

regarding worker allegations and assumes that, in the case of such allegations, (1) the investigation conducted by the Team and, if' applicable, the Independent Review Board has resulted in I

~

a recommendation of employee discipline, and.(2) the Vice

.c President - Generation Engineering and Construction and the Senior Vice President - Nuclear Engineering and Operations have concurred in that recommendation.

I.

Elements of Section 210 Violation In. order for the employee to prevail in a legal action brought under Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (the "Act"), the following elements must be present:

Rev. O Date:

March 22,1985 Page 34 or45 s-6.12-34 O

__m

f'

.a >

I 1.

The employee has engaged in protec-ted "whistleblowing" activities; 2.

Certain types of disciplinary action have been taken against the employee, which the employee can prove were motivated at least in part by the employee's whistleblowing activity; and 3.

The employer has no defense to the employee's claim that Section 210 has been violated.

If any one of these elements is missing, the employee will n,ot prevail in a Section 210 action.

The following steps should I

be taken, therefore, to establish whether each of these elements exists.

II.

Nature of Disciolinarv Action Section 210 of the Act prohibits an employer from discharging or "otherwise discriminating" against an employee l_

with respect to compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of Rev. O Date: March 22,1985 Page 35 of 45 O

Y

't=**'

1 6.12-35 l

se_ e

-e m-

s*

cmploym3nt in retaliation for the employee's engaging in certain protected activities.

Section 210 will apply, therefora,.only if the disciplinary action proposed is,a discharge, pay cut,.

transfer, demotion or similar action.

If only a warning, notice, or similar action is proposed, no further evaluation of the applicability of Section 210 need be performed.

III.

Protected "Whistleblowine" Activities When any disciplinary. actions described above are proposed against an employee of Northeast, it should be determined whether such employee, during the, term of'his or her employment, has engaged in any protected activities under Section 210 of the Act; i.e.,

whether the employee made any reports of possible violations of NRC requirements to Northeast, S&W or the NRC or

' ~

whether the employee participated in any investigation or proceeding regarding such possible violations.1,2 1

If the employee.'s job is quality assurance or quality control, this element will automatical_'y be satisfied.

V below.

See Part

~2 There is presently a split of authority among the U.S.

Circuit Courts of Appeal on the issue of whether reports made by employees to their own employers, as distinguished from reports (CONTINUED)

Rev. O Date: ;,; arch 22,1985 Page 36 of 45

' MN 6.12-36 O

" * ^ ~

I To make this determination, an initial determination should

(

be made regarding whether the individual, considering the nature of his employment, is likely to have made a report or participated in an investigation of possible violations of NRC requirements.

For example, if the individual is involved in personnel or administrative duties, as compared with construction, quality assurance, quality control or other nuclear safety-related work, it is less likely that the employee engaged in protected activities.

In that case, a less intensive review would be warranted.

If, however, it is concluded that there is a possibility the employee at some period during his employment engaged in protected activities, then the employee's past and present

(.

supervisors, if available, should be interviewed to determine whether.the employee has, to their knowledge, engaged in 2 (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED) made to the NRC, are entitled to protection under Section 210.

The majority view at present is that such reports are protected by the statute.

In evaluating whether an employee has engaged in protected whistleblowing activity, therefore, it should be assumed that reports made to Northeast or S&W are the equivalent of reports made to the NRC.

Rev. O Date March 22,1985 Page 37 of 45

• eesp 6.12-37

(

?*

protected activities.

In addition, to the extent feasible, all reports of possible violations made to Northeast, S&W and -the

.NRC during the period of the employee's employment, within the employee's area of responsibility, should be reviewed and all reports of investigations by Northeast, S&W and the NRC during that period, within the employee'siarea of responsib$lity, should be reviewed to determine who participated in such investigations.

It is recognized that for a project the magnitude of Millstone 3, the relevant documentation might be so voluminous that it would be impractical to attempt to determine in this manner whether the employee ever engaged in protected activities.

In that case, it may be'necessary to rely on interviews with the employee's past and present supervisors.

Another approach, which must be utilized with caution, is to conduct an interview with the employee to inquire whether he has engaged in protected activities.

This approach involves the

. risk that the employee, recognizing the reason for the inquiry, may be encouraged to state that he has engaged in protected activities in order to invoke the protection of the Act.

Regardless of the method used to determine whether the employee has engaged in protected activities, it should be Rev. O Date: March 22,1985 Page 38 of 45

• aum 6.12-38 6

-.c.-

-._.._.__.,_,_.,_.v

f s.J a

4 recognized that the Secretary of Labor, the NRC and the courts are all unsympathetic to the argument that the employer was unaware of the fact that the employee was engaged in such activities.

Therefore, whenever it is unclear whether the employee has engaged in' protected activities, the conservative approach would be to assume that he has done so and proceed with the next step of the evaluation.

IV.

Defenses If the first two elements of a possible Section 210 action have been met,. the employee will have established a prima facie that Section 210 has been violated and the burden of proof case will shift to the employer to demonstrate that it has a defense i

which will defeat the claim.

w There are two defenses set forth

.in 10 CFR 550.7 promulgated by the NRC under Section 210.

3 In conducting these reviews, reports made by anonymous informants.the employer need not consider In order to sustain a Section 210 action, the employee would have to establish that the employer knew he or she was the anonymous informant company has procedures to protect anonymity, If the and if such' procedures were utilized, this burden of proof.

it is unlikely the employee could meet Rev. O Date:

licrch 22,19e5 1

Page 39 of 45 l

6.12-39 W

t A.

Employee Violations of the Act or the Atomic Energy Act Without Employer Direction 1

Regardless of whether an employee has engaged in protected activities and is subsequently discharged or otherwise 1

disciplined, no Section 210 action may be maintained if disciplinary action is taken against the employee for violations by the employee of HRC rules or regulations, proyided the employee was not acting pursuant to the direction of his or her employer in violating NRC requirements.

In order to establish this defense, a determination may be made on the basis of the investigation and cenclusions of the Team or the Independent Review Board regarding employee wrongdoing and whether the emplovee was acting at the direction

(

of his employer.

With respect to an employee who becomes s

subject to disciplinary action but has not been the subject of such investigations, a separate investigation would have to be conducted to establish whether such employee. violated NRC requirements without the direction of his employer.

To avoid conducting a separate investigation, if it is not immediately i

apparent that the reason for discharging the employee is his or

. her violation of NRC requirements, the employer should look to the second Section 210 defense described below.

Rev. O Date:

1.! arch 22,19G5 Page 40 cf 45 o g d

6.12-40

i B.

Independent Grounds for Disciolinarv Action No Section 210 violation will occur if the employer can demonstrate that the disciplinary action would have been taken even if the employee had not engaged in protected activities.

To determine whether this defense is available, the employee's past and present supervisors should be interviewed and, if appropriate, a report should be. prepared indicating the following:

1.

The reasons for disciplinary action, e.c.,

poor work quality, absenteeism, insubordination, tardiness or other unacceptable employee behavior; I

2.

The dates such behavior was reported; and 3.

The person making the complaint.

Furthermore, to support the claim that the employer's action is non-retaliatory and would have occurred even if the employee had not engaged in protected activities, consideration should be given to the following factors:

Rev. O Date: Merch 22,1953 Tage 41 of 45 6.12-41

v-

. s.

~

('

l.

The date of the employee's whistl,e, blowing report or participation in a Northeast, S&W or NRC investigation (the more time elapsed between the whistleblowing activity and the disciplinary action, the less likely a section 210 violation will be found); and 2.

The nature of the employee's activities (i.e.,

was the employee the whist.leblower or did the employee participate in an investigation, and if so, what role

~

did the employee play in the investigation?)

V.

Special Considerations - Disciplinary Action with Respect to Emplovees Involved in OA/OC

(

Because the. nature of a QA/QC employee's job is inherently v_

the type of activity which is protected under Section 210, the Department of Labor and the NRC have taken the position that the first of the three elements of the Section 210 violation (i.e., a finding that the employee was engaged in protected 1

activities) will always be present with respect to such employees.

Consequently, disciplinary action may be taken l

against such employees without potential Section 210 liability only in the following instances:

Rev. O Date:

March 22,1%s Page 42 of 45

.e s..

6.12-42

f,-

P 1.

The disciplinary action involves only a war ~ning.or notice, not discharge or change in compensation, privileges, ete; or l

2.

The employer has evidence to show that the employee 1

l violated NRC requirements without the direction of his c

l employer; or 3.

The disci.plinary action is being taken for reasons I

J completely unrelated to his QA/QC responsibilities; e.e., absenteeism, tardiness, insubordination (which does not include reporting superiors for QA/QC violations), etc.

VI.

Protection of "Whistleblowers" There is some evidence at other facilities that employees who have been identified as "whistleblowers" or who have otherwise cooperated in connection with NRC or utility investigations of safety' allegations have been subjected to threats and other forms of intimidation, including physical violence, from supervisors or other personnel.

In each instance-Rev. O Date:

Maren 22,1985 Page 43 of 45 0

=

6.12-43 I

,p

,g.

• .e-e

• "*4"9*

in which an evaluation is performed under this procedure, Northeast and S&W should consider whether special measures to provide protection to such employees may be warranted, including involving Northeast or S&W security personnel or the state or local police.

I VII.

Conclusion h

(

1 Employee disciplinary action may be taken without potential Section 210 liability if:

1.

The nature of the disciplinary action does not involve discharge or changes in the compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of the employee's job; 2.

The nature of the euployee's job is not QA/QC or the employee has never made any reports to the NRC, Northeast, S&W or a contractor regarding possible l

violations of NRC requirements, participated in an investigation of such violations, or otherwise engaged l

in activities pretseted under Section 210; 3.

The employee is disciplined for violating.NRC requirements not at the direction of his employer; or 1

Rev. O Date: March 22,1985 Page 44 of 45 6.12-44

-e

- - ~ ~

i 4

I 4.

The employee is disciplined on th9.. basis of documented evidence of poor work quality, insubordination absenteeism, tardiness or other unacceptable employee behavior unrelated to whistleblowing, and the employer can demonstrate that he would have taken such disciplinary action even if the whistleblowing activities had not taken place.

In all other case.s there is potential Section 210 liability which must be weighed against the desirability of taking disciplinary action.

k..

Rev. O Date: 1-larch 22,1985 Tage 45 of 45 e

h 9

'ow" 6.12-45

l

%e ls 4e ATTACHMENT 8.E NORTHEAST UTILITIES, ALLEGATION REVIEW TEAM

~ '

CHARTER a

Approved:

E- -

R d. Werner Vice President - Generation Engineering & Construction 5'3-93

/

o Date Rev.

l CHARTER FOR ALLEGATION REVIEW TEAM

~

1.0 PURPOSE This Charter outlines the functions of the Allegation Review Team (ART) as required by Millstone Unit 3 procedure 6.12.

2.0 INTRODUCTION

In order to efficiently investigate and resolve worker allegations regarding nuclear safety issues at the Millstone Unit 3 site, the ART will respond to specif.ic requests of the Vice President - Generation Engineering and Construction (GE&C), and conduct an initial screening investigation of the allegation. The ART will not investigate allegations made directly to the independent Nuclear Review Team or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission unless deemed appropriate by the Vice President - GE&C.

For the purposes of this charter, " worker allegations" include allegations made by any person involved in the Millstone. Unit 3 project in any discipline at any level, including craf t, manual, non-manual, supervisory, engineering and other personnel. However,

" allegations" include only complaints, comments or inquiries which the Vice President - GE&C determines are potentially substantive.

" Allegations" do not include all differences of opinion or expressions of dissent voiced by workers on the Millstone Unit 3 project, and it is recognized that some assertions by workers may be too preliminary, unfocused or lacking in. potential substance to warrant investigation under this procedure.

4 9

[* --

'Allcgstion Rcvicw Team Chartar Pega 3 3.0 MEMBERSHIP As required by MP-3 procedure 6.12, an Allegation Review Team has been established, consisting of the following:

)

i Chairman: Director - Generation Construction i

Member:

Director - Generation Engineering and Design l

Member:

, Manager - Generation Facilities Licensing Member:

Manager - Quality Assurance

~

Member:

Generation Construction Consultant In cases where a regular member is unavailable to participate in an investigation, the Chairman may appoint an alternate. In cases where the Chairman is unavailable to participate in an investigation, the Vice President - GE&'., will appoint an alternate Chairman. The ART membership may be supplemented with other Northeast Utilities (NU) personnel as dictated by the nature of the allegation under review.

Under no circumstances shall a person involved with an allegation serve as a member of the ART.

4.0 SCOPE OF ART TUNCTIONS Upon notification by the Vice President - GE&C of an allegation warranting an investigation, the Team will exercise the following:

4.1 ' Conduct a preliminary examination through interviews, document examination, or physical tests in order to substantiate the allegation, and determine whether there is sufficient evidence in any form to indicate that the allegation has some basis in fact.

t

7...

Allegatica R2visv Tcam Chcrtcr Peg 2 4 b

e

,./ -

4.2 Prepare a written report of the allegation, the investigation conducted by the Team, th,e results of the investigation, and the recommendations of the Team.

5.0 CONDUCT OF BUSINESS 5.1 Upon notification by the Vice President - GE&C that an allegation warrants an investigation, the Chairman shall assemble the ART to receive information.and develop a scope. Based on information received, a plan of action will be developed, including

' identification of individual task assignments.

5.2 The scope of the investigation shall be reported to the Vice President - GE&C prior to the start of the investigation. The report shall include the methodology used to determine the scope, and shall be transmitted by the Chairman, in writing, within five (5) calendar days of being appointed to conduct the investigation.

5.3 The Vice President - GE&C shall have responsibility to review, modify and approve the scope of the investigation. Upon acceptance of the scope by the Vice President - GE&C, the investigation will begin.

5.4 During the course of the investigation, the Team members will maintain accurate documentation of all conversations, documents examined, or physical tests performed.

5.5 If, during the course of the investigation, it is deemed necessary to supplement the Team with additional technical I

expertise or legal advice, the Chairman will arrange for the required assistance.

l 5.6 Upon completion of the investigation, the Team will prepare a report for submission to the Vice President - GE&C. The Team l

l

Allagstien R:vicv Tcam Chertar Pega 5 4

report will be completed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the allegation referralc-The Team will agree on the report content prior to submission to the Vice President - GE&C.

Any disagreements will be so noted in the report. The report will include at least the following information:

5.6.1 A description of the allegation; 5.6.2 A description of the initial screening; 5.6.3 How the Team determined what the scope of the initial screening should be (as~to interviews conducted, documents examined and physical tests performed),

including whether any changes to the Team's initial recommendations were made by the Vice President - GE&C; 5.6.4 Except where anonymity has been requested, the names of personnel interviewed, including names of all those present at each interview and the time and place of the interview; 5.6.5 A description of physical tests performed, including a description of the types of material and equipment examined, the reasons for the sampling selected, who performed the tests, the time and place of each test and the results of each test; 5.6'6 A description of documents examined, including the type of document, who prepared and approved the document, how the document relates to the worker allegation, who examined the document and the nature of the examination; 5.6.7 The Team's conclusions regarding whether the allegation has some basis in fact;

ff Allcg;tica Ravicw Tcam Chirecr

~

~

Peg 2 6 (,

5.6.8 The Team's evaluation of the potential safety

/

significance of the alleg'e'd deficiency; 5.6.9 The Team's evaluation of whether any ihdividual is guilty of wrongdoing in connection with the alleged deficiency and its recommendations regarding the need for disciplinary action, including its analysis of why such disciplinary action would not violate Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (the "Act")

and 10 CFR $50.7 promulgated thereunder (See Note);

NOTE:

Section 210 and 10 CFR 550.7 prohibit retaliatory actions against employees who report, or otherwise participate in.

investigations of violations of the Act or the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. The Team should consult Attachment 8.A, Part A of.B and Attachment 8.D of Procedure 6.12.

5.6.10 The Team's evaluation of whether the allegation represents a reportable event under NRC rules and regulations; 5.6.11 The Team's recommendations regarding whether a further, more comprehensive investigation should be conducted.

5.7 Upon acceptance of the report by the Vice President - CE&C, the' following actions may occur:

5.7.1 The allegation is accepted as being wholly lacking in factual basis and no further action is required.

5.7.2 If the allegation is deemed to have factual basis, the Vice President - GE&C may:

e.

EI'

-- ~ -

)o Allegaticn R;visw Tcam Chartar Pegs 7

-s a).

Require additional review, analysis or reevaluation by the T'eam, or b).

Initiate remedial action by NU and/or Stone &

Webster (S&W), including disciplinary action against individuals guilty of wrongdoing, or c).

Require a more comprehensive investigation be conducted by an independent review board.

5.7.3 Should.an independent review board be assigned to conduct a more comprehensive review, the ART will remain available to provide additional background.

information and advice.

6.0 ADMINISTRATIVE REOUIREMENTS 6.1 All correspondence, reports, documents, etc. relating to an allegation and/or investigation shall be tracked with an independent serial number. The Chairman shall ensure that a number is assigned, and Team members shall utilize the designated number on all documents.

All seralized documents shall be handled as confidential documents, and shall be properly filed in the Corporate confidential file.

6.2 All meetings associated with an investigation shall be documented. The Chairman shall designate a Secretary to document Team meetings.

6.3 Meetings held for the purpose of' formulating a final report and/or recommendations shall be attended by a quorum. The Chairman or Alternate Chairman plus two (2) regular or alternate members shall constitute a quorum.

m.-