ML20138M795

Transcript of 960719 Interview of Wf Kane in King of Prussia,Pa.Pp 1-29.Related Documentation Encl

ML20138M795
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	07/19/1996
From:	NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:
Shared Package
ML20138M747	List: ML20138M742 ML20138M771 ML20138M778 ML20138M784 ML20138M792 ML20138M795 ML20138M802
References
CON-NRC-776 NUDOCS 9702260214
Download: ML20138M795 (65)

Text

_- _ __ . . - . - . . . . - - _ . _. . . -

v,- --

1 i.

Official Transcript of Proceedings I

l 4

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i

Title:

Interview of

! William F. Kane i

Docket Number: (not assigned) 4 a

l Location: King of Prussia, Pennsylvania

! Date: July 19,1996 i

i,

! Work Order No.: NRC-776 Pages 1-29

. Eve.vg431 G i .

i (EAlb) i NEAL R. GROSS AND CO.,INC. .

Court Reporters and Transcribers l

1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

! Washington, D.C. 20005

( -

DR ADOCK050hbh45 T PDR

i.

,l ADDENDUM TO Dm!AVEW OP b'lll% M. k _

! (Name/Fosidog i

! 233g Llg t%raedan and R**ma far c=='--

! O lC Add

• fAr.

• bo k ,

• vt a v

J tt c% ,..m* s << m so

, P /3 add

• 1%

• da M ' ~e/ w >

l iY

• A-//a co-r '.s 1 S4s rf a te v aflo r.ers" 1I 4 h d' e L.12 L + L u s 's i

i i

i i

l l

0 I

i e

I i

4 I

l j

i i

~

l l

1

! ras. L ,or. J., si p a mre O y N Dam 2/Rf.14 1

i j Page 3 4

i

.i i

l i

- (Pf..

F  % .s.

i J

J i

ADDENDUM TO DfrERVEW OP $i\ (LM L

(Name/Fosition)

fags Ligg fJursdaa and R***aa far cc.;_ "-- '

i l

2- 'L3 I'p sW lae. wo( ' l

.I /  % rhmdA la. '. "G ef~ />s & % c, 'T I

v

}O I 2. Mtas.f " e n a fless a.}fu /Jo rs o' bit

i 0 W '

\ 2- 9 j

1s /M R H AN Alo A) is ss & ,ue hem not 1 i - -

f 1

3 N he Y I

i i

l i

l

^

i

}

l 4

(

l 1

i j ,

Page[of St [ Dats2/

i /,

1 Page 3 4

i 1

a 1

l - __

4 J

1 4

1  ?.l ;':pNJTED; STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 +++++

4 OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION ,

j

. 5 INTERVIEW 6 ------------------------------x 7 IN THE MATTER OF:  :

8 INTERVIEW OF  : Docket No.

a 9 WILLIAM F. KANE  : (Not Assigned) a 10 ------------------------------x 11 Friday, July 19, 1996  %

12 ~..

13 Conference Room 14 475 Allendale Road 4

15 King of Prussia, Pennsylvania j 16 17 The above-entitled interview was conducted at 18 9:30 a.m.

4 4

19 BEFORE:

20 JOHN N. HANNON Team Leader

+

i 21 CARL MOHRWINKEL 22

\

23

' 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRtSERS 1323 RMODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

Gom 2364433 wASMINGTON D C. 20006 (202) 234-8433

2  !

.- l 1

P EJP S._5_.E D I E G S I

2

! (9:25 a.m.) i 3 MR. HANNON: Good morning. It is now about 1

4 9:30 a.m. Today is July 19, 1996. I 4

My name is John Hannon,  !

} 5 and I'm here at Region I in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, l

! 6 i with Carl Mohrwinkel, continuing with the interviews of the .

I 7

NRC staff with regard to the handling of employee concerns  !

8 i and allegations at Millstone during the last ten years.  !

9 it We have been on a fact-finding mission. We've

! 10 i conducted a number of interviews over the last several i

i 11 weeks.

I I've been involved in all those interviews as a way se )

l 12 of trying to be consistent and fair with all the people 1

i awa l i

13 we've talked with. We are attempting to develop a factual l

! 14 record that we can use to help understand what the probable

! 15 root causes are and identify potential corrective actions

l

16 i that could be taken or recommended for both NRC and '

i 17 Northeast Utilities to improve the process for future

, 18 concerns and allegations.

j 19 We are transcribing the interview with Mr. Kane

{ 20 this morning for two reasons. One, we want to have to not j 21 be diverted by notetaking and pay attention to what he's

22 saying and make sure we ask the right follow-up questions, I

i 23 an the other is we would like to have a clear record of a

[ 24 what was said so we can use it in our deliberations for 4

2 25 root causes and proposed corrective actions. j i

NEAL R. GROSS q COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRefR$

l 13r3 RM00E ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

(mm m wasM80GTON, O C. 20ss (202) 23m33 m- ,

3

,, 1 The accuracy of your transcript is important.  !

2 We will afford you the opportunity to review it for  !

3 clarifications and corrections, as we have everyone else, 1

4 and I will hand you a handout at the end of the interview 5 that will describe the process we are going to use for 6 that.

7 The information we're getting in the transcript

, 8 will be put in the public domain at the conclusion of our 9 review, and will be redacted to remove any privacy type i

j 10 information.

t 11 Do you have any questions before we begin? 7& i

. 12 MR. KANE: No. 90-

{

13 MR. HANNON: Okay. Let me ask Carl if he would 14 start the questions.

15 MR. MOHRWINKEL: Bill, if you could just 16 briefly describe for us your academic and work background 17 that allowed you to get to your current position today.

18 MR. KANE: Graduated with a degree in Bachelor  ;

19 of Science in mechanical engineering, had graduate work in ,

i 20 nuclear engineering while I was in the Washington area. I 21 Spent all of my career in the nuclear area, except for that 22 amount of time I was in the Army. Joined the Agency in 23 1973 and spent most of that time in NRR, some time in EDO's 24 Office. Since 1985, I've been here in Region I.

25 MR. MOBRWINKEL: And your current position is NEAL R. GFK)SS COURT REPORTERS AND TMANSCRSERS 1323 RMODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

(302) 3344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20006 (202) 2M 4433

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

4

• ':da L ?

i.* . . . . r :e i

2 MR. KANE: Deputy Regional Administrator.

) 3 MR. MOHRWINKEL: We gave you a list of nine, I i

4 guess we would call them " draft process issue findings" 5 that our team has come up with as possible areas that NRC 6

6 could improve in or possibly think about changing its 1

, 7 policies or its views. Because you are a senior manager, I

8 we will not get into the day-to-day operations of the i

9 Allegations Program, which I think we understand fully from i

l 10 a lot of folks we've talked to already, but we want to ask i

11 you some of these nine and get your views on some of these 90

)i 12 nine, from a senior regional manager position. So, lot me 4De  ;

}

l 13 just get into some of the questions that we want to get to.  !

I j 14 As you know, we talked to a number of l f 15 allegers -- nine, to be specific -- that we picked out for f 16 our in depth case analysis, and we interviewed them. They i  :

j 17 gave us a lot of good information on their own cases and i 18 their views of the NRC process, as well as the problems i 19 they saw with NU. We also spoke to quite a few NU

! 20 officials, management people, Quinn report staffers, and

! 21 regular employees who volunteered or were put forth to come 22 and speak to us. So, we've quite a bit of good l

4

! 23 information, and our job is to pursue some of the concerns b

l 24 and complaints that people had about the NRC in terms of j 25 coming up with more definitive process issue findings.

I NEAL R. GROSS

< OOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCMGERS 1323 RMODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W WASHINGTON. O C. 20006 (202) 2344433 (atm 3344433 i

)

Q d

5 i 1 Co, w.ith that as bae'< ground, one of the i

2 concerns that was put forth to us by an alleger was the 3 fact that in his view, Region I allowed NU to cancel a 4

public appearance at a scheduled enforcement conference, 5

yet the Region accepted and considered written input from 6 the licensee about the same subjects that were scheduled to 7

have been discussed at the enforcement conference that the 8 company did not attend.

9 The meeting in question pertained to a 10 significant harassment and intimidation issue for which a 11 _$100,000 civil penalty was recently issued.

i The concernee W ,

t 12 feels that Region I policy allows NU to duck public and '** l l

13 press scrutiny, it still allows NU to provide input to the 14 NRC's regional enforcement decisions.

15 What is your view on what the NRC policy is on 16 accepting written input from licensees when they decline to 17 attend public enforcement conferences?

18 MR. KANE: What is my view on what the policy 19 is and am I satisfied with the current policy?

20 MR. MOHRWINKEL: Right, do you think it is the 21 correct one, or should be changed?

22 MR. KANE: No, I think I'm comfortable with the 23 current policy which provides for that input to be 24 provided. I mean, we certainly need to -- you know, policy 25 provides us an option for the licensee to attend, and --

NEAL R. GROSS (X)URT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRGERS 1323 '4M00E ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

(3 4 234 4433 WA&MINGTON, D C. 20006 (202) 234 4 33

6 1

But not required, correct?

MR. MORRWINKEL:

2 MR. KANE: --

but not required. And it alsO 3

i provides for us to seek information from the licensee in 4

order to make our decision. I think I'm comfortable with 5 thst process.

6 MR. MOHRWINKEL: To pursue that a little bit

7 4

more and be perhaps more specific about this particular

) 8 concernee's complaints --

9 MR. KANE: Well, you know, I can'only assume 10 who you're talking about, but the complaint was -- if we're 11 talking about the same person, the complaint was filed with o-12 the Chairman, and the Chairman response went back to the N 13 individual, and I'm sure you have a copy of that response.

t 14 MR. MOHRWINKEL: No, we never got that one.

15 MR. KANE: Okay. Well, I know it's upstairs, 16 and Tim Martin -- I know Dan Holody had prepared that 17 information, and that issue was asked and answered and, if 18 I recall correctly, the Chairman reviewed the response 19 before it went out. I don't recall who signed it out, but 20 it was -- but if it's the same issue or if it's a different 21 issue, the same person, it really doesn't matter because it 22 answers all the questions that you asked.

23 MR. KANE: Right, that's good. I should have 24 mentioned that before. If the questions we're asking have 25 already been answered, if you would just refer us to where NEAL R. GROSS court REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RMODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, O C 20006 (202) 234 4433

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

4 4

7 3 1 they arc - '

i 2

2 MR. MOHRWINKEL: We won't pursue that any  :

3 further if we can get a written response.

4

} MR. KANE: The information is upstairs. I

! 5 didn't bring it with me because I assumed that these

, 6 questions you were also going to ask Tim. I know we had 7

4 researched them in advance, and had collected the documents 8 and they are available to you.

9 MR. MOHRWINKEL: I'll switch gears a little bit I

j 10 and go to one of these other questions that have to do with i

11 civil penalties impositions -- l as soon as I find it. '<' '

,' 12 The NRC issued NU a severity Level 2 violation '"*

i

13 and a $100,000 civil penalty in May of 1993 for

l 14 discrimination against a certain high profile concernee. In !  !

I

]

15 view of the alleger, the NRC does not appear to have j 16 responded to NU's vehement disagreement with the violation 17 and penalty or implemented any effective follow-up review l i

J 18 or evaluation of licensee corrective action.

i 19 In light of NU's subsequent history of l 4

20 continued discriminatory conduct in the alleger's view, and 21 lHJ':s continued vehement disagreement with more recent NRC's 22 findings of violations and imposition of civil penalties, 23 what do you consider would have been an appropriate 24 response and/or follow-up to the original enforcement 25 action?  !

NEAL R. GROSS l COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS t, 1323 RM00E ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(30r) 2lkd433 WASMINGTON, O C. 20005 (2C2) 2344433

8 1 MR. 25 t Yot'd b m to refresh my memory on 2 the particular issue. 4 That wasn't one of the things that -

3 -

4 MR. MOHRWINKEL: The particular issue was the '

5 licensee paid the $100,000 civil penalty and, at the'same ,

6 time they did, they issued a press release saying they had i 7 done nothing wrong. In our review of the files, we were I 8 unable to determine any NRC response to that suggested '

t 9

corrective action, corrective action follow-up, or anything 10 that addressed the fact that the licensee was continuing to j 11 say we did nothing wrong. we  ;

12 In the alleger community's view, allowing that EM*

13 sort of " spin doctoring" to exist by NU, in view of the  !

14 alleger's, continues to foster a chilling effect on other 15 people because they say, look, NRC' imposed a $100,000 civil  :

16 penalty in Mr. X's case, and the licensee issues a press i l

17 release saying they did nothing wrong at the same time they '

18 are paying a $100,000 civil penalty, therefore, they are 19 viewing it just as the cost of doing business and they are 20 going to continue doing what they are doing, and NRC is a 21 " toothless tiger" that doesn't take any action.

22 Then that's followed up by the more recent case 23 in which they paid the $100,000 civil penalty again in the 24 case we were just making reference to, and they issued a 25 press release the very same day, again saying we did NEAL R. GFH3SS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRSERS 1323 RHODE ISt.AND AVENUE, N W.

(20m 236 east WASMINGTON. O C. 20006 (202) 2344433

9 I

nothing wrong, at the came time they arc telling the NRC 2 it's a new day and we're going to treat allegers 3 differently. And the alleger's bottom line is, nonsense, 4 it's the name old song, and NRC is allowing them to 5 continue running this scam and does nothing about it. So, 6 what is --

7 MR. KANE: Well, I guess there are two issues.

8 one is, do we regulate their press releases, and the answer 9 to that is no. Should we -- you know, I don't think so.

10 Was there a follow-up, was there attention paid to the 11 licensee relative to those kind of issues? I think the gw-12 record indicates that we were very sensitive to how that deum 13 management was conducting their business, and we did, I 14 think, follow that up. Whether more could have been done -

15 you know, I can probably always look back and say yes, we

.16 could have done more.

17 But as far as the press releases are concerned, 18 I certainly -- while that may have an effect on how people 19 view what the licensee projects to the outside world, what 20 we have to measure is what the licensee is doing. I mean, 21 we have to still inspect in a way that we can determine 22 whether, in fact, corrective actions have been taken and 23 that they are effective.

24 MR. EANNON: But there is a common sense logic 25 problem here. You've got the enforcement action being NEAL R. GFH3SS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRGERS 1333 RM00E ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(alm 33M433 WASHINGTON. O C. 30005 (2C2) 2344433

,e i- 10 i

,,. I taken -- v- o i

2 MR. MOHRWINKEL: Let's take a break for a 3 second.  !

4 ,

(Off the record.)

5 MR. HANNON: Let's go back on the record. I 6

want to try to understand from a common sense standpoint.

7 We have the charge of H&I being, let's say, ascertained and i

) 8 verified by OI, Office of Investigation. We take an 9 enforcement action against a utility and, as part of that, 10 we go verify that they have taken what we concluded were 1

l 11 adequate measures to remedy the climate of harassment and Mc-( 12 intimidation that took place in this particular case. '"5 4

1 13 We ultimately issue a civil penalty. They

14 respond to the civil penalty saying, here's a check but we 1

15 didn't do anything wrong, and we don't follow-up on that.

16 We didn't follow up on their assertion that they didn't do 17 anything wrong, so the common sense issue that we're J

l 18 getting from the alleger community is, yeah, you might have '

19 looked at specific changes or process controls they 20 instituted for that H&I determination, but the fact that 21 they disagreed in responding to the civil penalty that 22 anything was done wrong, never gets followed up. So that 23 leaves the chilling effect in place and, therefore, the 24 Agency isn't doing its job under 50.7, to assure that 25 proper environment is being maintained.

NEAL R. GFH3SS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCNSERS 1m3 RMODE ISLAND AVENUC, N W.

gg g WASHINGTON. O C. 2cces (202) 2p33

11

.1 That's what the issue is herc, HL'Le trying to 2 get your understanding of what your view is.

3 MR. KANE: Well, I would say that certainly 4

there was -- the picture that's painted here was that there 5 was nothing done but, you know, I think there was

)

6 l continuity of actions and attention relative to Northeast, 7 and the whole issue of H&I. You know, what the Region is 8

doing when it gets one of these enforcement actions, 9 there's a process that we go through and we follow.

10 I would point out that we have oversight from 11 the Program Offices that do a periodic review of how we're v l 12 doing, how we do our job from an enforcement standpoint, --* '

13 from an inspection standpoint, and it's -- you know, I'm 14 not aware that that was pointed out as a - you know, the  !

15 way we're handling these cases was incorrect. You know, I l 16 think you have to --

17 MR. HANNON: Well, I'm not suggesting it was.

18 MR. KANE: I think you have to put it into some 19 sort of a context and say, okay, the region does the job 20 the way the Program Offices outline. The Program Offices 21 audit what we do and, if we're doing something that's 22 inconsistent with that guidance, then we expect to hear 23 about that and address it.

24 MR. EANNON: I'm not -- you missed my point.

25 I'm not suggesting that you did anything outside the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR$ERS 1323 RMODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 236 4433 wASMtNOTON. D C. 20006 (202) 234 4 4 3

12 1 guidance. What we're trying to understand is your view 2 with regard to this concern that's been raised by the 3 alleger conununity that the appearance that is left by not 4 responding to the correspondence that we get with the civil 5 perialty payment, that asserts that no wrongdoing was --

6 they didn't do anything wrong, leaves a chilling effect in 7 place.

8 What's your view of that? Do you think that's 9 off-base?

10 MR. KANE: Well, if there is a chilling effect 11 left in place, then obviously we need to do something w 12 different, you know. I mean, the information that you've w 13 got says the chilling effect is still there. You know, I 14 accept that for what it is. You know, if people made the {

l 15 statements, I'm sure they believe that's the case.  ;

16 If, in fact, that's a piece that we need to 17 look at and address, I'm sure that we need to take a look 18 at it and, if there's something that we can do differently, 19 I think we ought to address it. But, you know -- I mean, 20 the bottom line of what the reason that we issue 21 enforcement, any enforcement, is to achieve corrective 22 action, and lasting corrective action. And if that's not 23 occurring, then we have to consider more significant 24 enforcement action, to the point of, you know, causing 25 plants to shutdown and get the situation corrected, whether NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCASERS 1323 MH00E ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.

(act) 23M433 WASHINGTON. O C. 30005 (202) 234 4 33

~

. 13 1

it's a technical;iscue w.i.th progr==matic controls of 2

operation, or maintenance, or whatever, that's the whole j 3 purpose of enforcement.

4 And so if there's something that's not causing 3

I l 5 it To be corrected in a more rapid fashion, then the i

j 6 process is that we escalate.

i If.this is a hole in the 7 process, I'm certainly fo. addressing wherever there are s

j 8 holes.

,i '

1 9 MR. HANNON: Well, that gets to really two of 10 the bullets we have on the sheet in front of you, the j 11 corrective action follow-up one, and also the severity v

4

12 level. Let's talk a little about the severity level for

• J 13 the HEI violations.

i 14 One of the issues in our question set had to do s

j 15 with the appropriateness of a Level 2 violation because I

-i 16 there were some high-level individuals involved, and a 1

j' 17 strict interpretation of the policy would have suggested it 4

{ 18 might should have been a Level 1.

l i

19 Do you believe the severity level for HEI a

l 20 violations is appropriate and being administered l 21 appropriately in Region I?

22 MR. KANE: Yes, I think so, as you -- placed in 23 context with the remainder of the enforcement policy, I do.

24 MR. HANNON: One of the issues having to do 25 with that is the fact that we haven't alwrgs taken act. ton NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCNSERS 1:35 RMOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

(30m 3364433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 30005 (202) 23m33

_._ . _ _ _ . - .__ _ _ . _ _ . . _ . . _ . _ _ _.___.__._..__.._.__._.m_.. -

>- 14 1 against the perpetur. tors of the harassment and 2 intimidation. What is your view on that? Do you think our 3 process is adequate to deal with individuals who are 4 responsible for the H&I?

5 MR. KANE: You'd have to look at the individual 6 cases, but I don't have anything at this point where I 7 would suggest that there should be changes. Based on my 8 understanding of the policy, we can certainly -- certainly 9 there's enough flexibility to take the required actions 10 against individuals, depending upon the nature of the case. l 11 I think each one has to be viewed separately %c.

12 and the facts considered, and the actions have to be based .mme j 13 on those facts. I can't -- in my understanding of the i

14 policy, there's enough flexibility in there to be able to 15 take the right action.

16 MR. MORRWINKEL: Have we ever taken an action 17 against a person in Region I for having been the 18 responsible party for H&I? We didn't find it in the cases 19 we reviewed. '

20 MR. KANE: I'd have to go back and research 21 that question. I'm not prepared to give you something off 22 the top of my head.

23 MR. MOBRWINKEL: Just as anecdotal evidence, 24 one of the allegers said to us that if a manager was to go 25 out -- an NU manager was to go out und have a beer or two NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TMANSCReERS 1323 RM00E ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

gm WASHINGTON. D.C. 30008 @2) 23'd'33

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

j

, 15  ;

1 at lunch and goron the site.and be found to have had a beer

] 2 or two, they'd walk him off the site. Yet somebody who is

! 3 responsible for a first-class HEI action sometimes gets i

, 4 promoted. And this particular alleger just found that to )

i j 5 be incomprehensible to him.

i So, as I said, in the cases we 6

reviewed, we didn't find any actions directed against  !

l 7 responsible parties for H&I.

1

! 8 e

So, if you could, without too much effort, dig 4

9 i

up one or two of those just as examples, that probably

10 would be helpful, if they exist.

11 MR. KANE: Be happy to look into that. M-12 MR. HANNON: I won't name names, but I can be a W 13 little specific. Maybe this could jog your memory.

14 There's one case where an individual has identified that l 15 3 the person who was found to be responsible for the H&I in 16 his particular case, still works at Northeast Utilities.

17 In fact, is employed in the oversight group there, and he's 18  !

in a responsible position, responsible decisionmaking l 19 position. And he asked the question, how can that be? Do 20 you remember that particular case, Carl?

21 If you could find anything on that -- '

22 MR. KANE: Yes, I do have one that comes to 23 mind recently. I'll get you the paperwork on it. It 24 happened to be at another utility.

25 MR. HANNON: Okay. The next item there having NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

(sN) 33644M WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234.s433

.-. -- - - . . _- , . _ . _-..-,.,..n, ,

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

i 1 .

i

16 l

t.o dn with inspection techniques and integration, I'd like i 2 to get your' comments on that, particularly with regard to 3 the three noted team inspections that took place over the i i

4 last five years at Northeast Utilities, and that came back {

5 with kind of a little bit of a rosy picture with regard to 6

the handling of employee concerns and allegations. There i

7 were recognized certain pockets of problem areas, but it 8 was not considered to be that overall in such bad' shape as 9 what it was painted to be in the more recent self-critique 10 done by the utility, the so-called Quinn Report that came 11 out in January of '96.  :. .

12 Can you comment on, you know, your view of the + <a 13 inspection techniques that we're using to look at this 14 area, and are there any things you could offer that we 15 might be able to suggest for improving our ability to 16 assess this area?

17 MR. KANE: Well, there's -- you know, inherent 18 in the question is an assumption that the conditions have 1

19 been exactly the same for all three inspections, but they j 20 were separated in time, so I --

21 MR. BANNON: Well, we have evidence to believe 22 they were the same.

23 MR. KANE: -- you have to take that into 24 consideration.

25 MR. HANNON: I understand that, but we have NEAL R. GFH3SS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSOMSERC 1323 AMODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.

(2t2 2344433 WASMcNGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 23u.33

l j

$., 17 1 also.s 1990 report that predated these three issues that 2 was confidential and, in fact, was part of the second team i

3 inspection report, which indicated there were serious 4

problems with the management first level sensitivity to 5 handling employee concerns and a serious problem with the l 6 trust of management.

l

}.

7 That was evident in 1990, and it has continued 8 to be the case throughout the duration. So, it appears to 9 us that there are some potential improvements that we can I 10 make in our techniques. I just thought I'd ask you to j l

11 comment on that. gin 12 MR. KANE: I understand the question, and I ***

{ 13 don't doubt that it's an area that does need to be looked 4

14 at to see if we can make improvements. Certainly, it's not 15 -- when you look at improvements, you certainly need to i 16 look at background, training techniques, et cetera. It's 1

17 not a matter of simply rewriting a module and sending out l l 18 people to do the inspection.

19 I think in every case that I can think of,

20 people were some of our top people. They went out and I

21 think did a very credible job that we asked them to do, and 3

22 they came back with results that I an absolutely sure were j 23 not structured to a certain outcome. They, I'm sure, were I 24 all approached honestly and fairly, but I'm sure the.re's a 1

j 25 lot that we can learn about techniques to do those kinds of a

NEAL R. GROSS CX)URT REP 0ftTERS AND TRANSCml0ERS I 1323 AMODE ISLAND AVENUE N.W.

(ItN)23 M 433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433

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

. 18 1- inspections ~vhich cre admittedly.different than what 2 inspectors normally involve themselves with.

3 We tend to be -- by training and background, 4 tend to be better equipped to deal with technical issues 5 such as ALP, alignment and procedure problems and, you 6 know, typical things that we inspect. and so anytime you 7 conduct one of these inspections, you put together a 8 separate module, you try to put some of your best people on 9 it, your best communicators and so forth because a lot of 10 the information is based on talking to people, drawing them 11 cut, getting information that you can then use in your h 12 assessment. +=

13 Those interview techniques, of course, are also 14 used for the way we normally do business, but the issues 15 and the types of findings that you are trying to make tend 16 to be of a different variety than what we normally get into 17 in inspections. So, I'm sure there's a lot that we could 18 learn and do in that area.

19 MR. HOBRWINKEL: Just one overview question.

20 The last item on there which we've gotten quite a bit of  !

21 input on is the recordkeeping. Specifically, do you have l

22 any thoughts on how well the Region is tracking inspector 23 time spent on allegation' follow-up?

24 MR. KANE: I don't believe that it's being 25 clearly reflected in the numbers that we're putting up. It NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRGERS 1323 RHOOE 18LANO AVENUE, N W.

(SW) 234443B WASHINGTON. O C. 20006 (202) 234-4433 4

l 19 1 tende to Ec r. D,t 0 eriv:' than what the numbers would 2 represent.

3 We have -- over the years, it's been a 4 challenge to assure that the time that's -- that we're l

5 accounting for is, in fact, charged against allegations, 6 and I'm sure a lot of it ends up in direct inspection and -

7 - you know, it's a problem, and it's been one that has been

8 fairly long-standing.

9 MR. MOHRWINKEL: We've been focusing here 10 primarily on the NRC process issues. We've touched upon 11 most of them. -v-v 12 MR. EANNON: I have one other possible for you, ***

13 just real quick. One of the issues on here has to do with 14 NRC responsiveness, and we had one whole set of questions 3

3 15 that dealt with that. For example, do you believe NRC was i l 1

16 slow in addressing the Rosemount safety issue because we've I

17 gotten some criticism on that point, and also the MOV 18 design issue, even the BWR condensate pot problem. There 1

19 were some suggestions that we didn't respond quickly enough

- 20 on those issues.

4 21 What's your view from where you sit, as to how 1

22 we did?

i 23 MR. KANE: Of the three, looking back, I guess l

24 would have the most criticism of how long it took on the 25 Rosemount issue. On the other two issues, I believe that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRSERS 1323 RMODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(302) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20006 (202) 234-4433

4

. 20

}, 1 our actions have been approp::le,tr cad timely.

I 2 The issue with BWR water level instrumentation, 3 which is basically what you call the condensate pot issue, 4 that worked its way through the system, ultimately went to i 5 CRGR, and a position was issued, as were the MOV issues.

i i 6 Each case, the Agency looked at the safety

7 impact of what was being done, you know, how long it was

, 8 takir.c :o get the job done, and I'm comfortable with the

~

{ 9 pace '. which they went. Even the Rosemount issue, while l 10 it took a long while, I think it was -- all of these were 1

11 relatively complex iceues and, as I said, the only one I a>w j 12 thought dragged a little bit was the Rosemount issue. The +r*

4 4

13 others, from my perspective, seemed to go about the pace 14 that they should have gone based on what we were finding i

4 15 and what we knew about them, if that's what you're looking i

16 for.

't 17 MR. BANNON: But my understanding, even in the

]

] 18 Rosemount issue is, while it may not have been as timely as ]

i j 19 some would have hoped for,'that the safety significance j l

j. 20 really was not that serious in the final analysis.

, \

21 MR. KANE: Yeah, I think that's a fair I i

L 22 statement, but I think the overall time to complete the  ;

l 23 action from wire-to-wire, it just -- my perspective, it 1 24 was slower than the others, and probably could have gotten i

25 there faster -- probably should have gotten there faster.

NEAL R. GROSS f COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1333 RMODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.

(Its) 236443 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 (202) 2344433

a --- ,A 4: -,La6,. - -- -- a s 4

.. 21 1 MR. MOHRWINKEL: Just as sort of a follow-up 2 question, I guess it primarily comes from the spent fuel 3

pool issue is, do you believe the training received by the 4

residents have been adequate, specifically in the area of 5 the knowledge of the FSARs?

6 MR. KANE: Well, training is -- I'm comfortable i

7 with the training relative to their knowledge of FSARs. I

8 think if there's a criticism, it would be in the area of 9

the emphasis and the use of the FSARs in terms of preparing 10 for inspections and, you know, that's already been looked 11 at, and we're doing some different things in that area. 2^

12 It's more of a process issue than it is a knowledge issue. -*

13 And I feel that any of our inspectors who don't understand 14 what an FSAR is and how it fits in the overall application ,

2 15 and the body of evidence that exists relative to the 16 inspection of plants.

l 17 I think the issue is in the sensitivity to 18 what's in it, what does it say, and how is that reviewed 19 and carried forward and used in the inspection process. 1 i

20 MR. MOBRWINKEL: Do you feel -- let's back up a l

, 21 second. As you certainly are aware, there's an awful lot s l 22 of NRC folks looking at issues at Millstone, and I think 23 that's what drives the question I'm about to ask.

24 Do you feel the NRC may have reached a point 25 where there are so many task forces and inspectors NEAL R. GROSS ODURT REPOR.'Em3 AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 AM00E ist.NdD AVENUE, N W.

gg WA$MINGTON. O C. 20006 @2) 23m33 4

22 1

stationed at or visiting Millstone and seeking information, 2 that this overwhelming NRC presence may, in fact, be 3 hindering the licensee from focusing on the problems I 4 delaying restart?

5 MR. KANE: Well, the units are shut down at 6

this' point, and if the units were operating, certainly I i

7 would have a different response. It certainly would have, 8

I think, en impact, but given the condition of the units, I 1

9 don't think there's a safety concern by looking at the 10  !

number of people involved there and what they are looking 11 4

at. As far as delaying restart, that's an issue that the

{

4 12 Agency has to make. Whether restart is viable if this P.

l 13 impacts the licensee's ::estart schedule, then so be it, but!

14 j we have to collect the information that permit us to do our ,

i 15 job and determine when the licensee says he is ready to 1 t

' t 16 restart the plant, that we can take a position and say yes 17 or no. I don't see it as a problem.

4 18 MR. MOBRWINKEL: Do you feel that having 19 Millstone placed on the " Watch List" has delayed the 20 licensee's implementation of their full re-engineering i

21 effort to more fully utilize their resources?

22 MR. KANE: It likely has.

23 MR. MOHRWINKEL: Does that give you a problem, 24 or do you think that's a problem?

25 MR. KANE: No.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR4SERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

(302) 23u433 wASHesGTON. O C. 20006 (202) 23m33

, 23

. 1 MR. MOHRWINKEL: Why?

2 MR. KANE: Well, they're not going to --

3 they're not going to restart the facility until everything 4 is in place and we're satisfied with it. That's the answer 5 to why. The extent to which any of this delay's the 6 licensee's restart, as I said before -- you know, it is i

7 what it is. But this Agency has to be satisfied that it's 8 comfortable with the restart of those facilities. So, I 9 however long that takes, you know, that's what's necessary 10 in order for us to be prepared to arrive at a decision. l I

11 MR. MOHRWINKEL: Several of the allegers have  %'5 12 expressed to us concerns about the responsiveness of Mr. ""*

Lanning as well as the current and past NRC resident 13 14 inspectors at Millstone. What is your view on the general 15 responsiveness and the knowledge of plant operations that 16 the NRC people on-site have? Do you feel we're being 17 responsive enough to concernees?

18 MR. KANE: Given what the -- given the workload 19 on the inspectors, given the responsibility that they have 20 to deal with people coming to them with allegations and 21 dealing with the day-to-day activities that are involved 22 with assuring safe operation of the plant, you know, I 23 think we've been responsive.

24 I think as far as the knowledge of the people 25 that there have been on that site over the years, I think NEAL R. GFH3SS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANsCMGERS 1323 RH00E ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.

WASHINGTON, D C. 20 DOS (202) 234-4433 (alm 23644M 4

1:

24 1

theyscertainly are, you know, certainly some of our bee:t 2

and most knowledgeable and experienced inspectors. If you ,

3 just take a look at how that site has been staffed, 4 particularly at the eenior level.

5 I have not run across or am aware of a 6

situation where the inspectors have not been sensitive to '

7 allegations raised, and been responsive to those t

8 allegations raised.

It is possible that individual people '

9 raising allegations may not have considered that they've 10 given them their full time, but certainly you'have to 11 appreciate the people's responsibility that they're there "a 12 doing those inspections they have, with multiple activities +=

13 that confront them, and they have to deal with all of them '

14 and they have to deal with them, you know, in the right way  !

15 and with the right priority. I

~

l 16 MR. MOHRWINKEL: To shift gears for a second, 1 17 our primary purpose was to speak to you about the NRC 18 process issue, but just to shift gears for a second and i

19 take a look at an NU issue, you've got a long, historical I 20 perspective -- having bean in Region I in a senior i l

21 management position for quite a few years, you have that 22 historical perspective. And I'm just wondering, what is 23 your view on the effectiveness of the employee concerns 24 program that NU has there at Millstone.

25 Do you think they are making improvements in NEAL R. GROSS  ;

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RMODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.

(200 2344433 WASHWGTON. D C. 20006 (202) 234m33

1 f

)

25  ;

1 1

their eliraa te for people coming forth with safety concerns?

4 l

1 2

Do you think the NSCP up there, the Nuclear Safety Concerns 3 Program, is moving in the right direction or not?

4 MR. KANE: Well, the program itself, I think, l

5 you know, structurally is, I think, a program that is 6 designed to be effective and, you know, should be, but 7

the -- it was introduced -- I guess what I'm getting at is 8 the timing of the program and it's introduction seems to me 9 to have been a problem because it was - you know, if you 4

10 can have a sound program in place, working well prior to a

{

11 large number of problems, it has, I think, a better chance 4-*

12 than one that's sat down in the midst of problems with a "ne i 13 lot of history that exists. So, I'm aware of the 14 significant element of distrust by many of the employees 15 with the use of that program, so that, I think, is part of 16 the difficulty with that program being effect'ive.

17 Is it working well? Well, we're still -- you 18 know, that's something we're measuring and we'll have to 19 make a decision on certainly, as part of the restart of 20 these facilities.

i 21 MR. RANNON: Okay. Just to close up, I think 22 we've pretty much exhausted the questions we had for you.

23 Do you have any additional comments or thoughts you want to 24 share with us about the process and potential improvements?

25 MR. KANE: Well, from a -- I think from a NEAL R. GROSS court REPORTERS AND TRANSCRitERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

gg m WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 2M-u33

26 1

global standpoint, you know, we need to look at, I think, i

2 the inspection techniques in this area, and perhaps even --

3 you know, so that our inspectors are equipped as well as 4 they can be to deal with these kinds of issues. I think 5

that there may be a need for more in the area of training, i 6

and even some of our techniques.

7 1 think the other issue is that we need to look  :

8 at staffing. We need to look at how we apply our 9 inspection resources to respond to these kinds of '

10 situations. I think that's another area, but the other one 11 which you haven't touched on in here is the DOL /NRC ein 12 interface, and I think that needs to be looked at carefully vus 13 to make sure that there is consistency in how we, as a 14 Federal entity -- not just the NRC, but the Federal 15 Government -- approaches these kinds of issues.

16 You've got two agencies involved here, and how 17 they are coordinated and the extent.to which these 18 activities can be conducted coherently so that everybody 19 understands beyond just where the NRC fits, where DOL fits, 20 how they interface, and I think that's probably a very 21 difficult area that I still think needs to have some 22 further looking, particularly as we take actions to 23 licensees.

24 As you are aware, you know, there's three steps 25 in the process at DOL. You have the Area Director's  ;

NEAL R. GFH3SS CoumT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR6SERS 1333 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N.W.

(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 234 4 33

27 1

1 decision, which is basically around the 30-day decision, 1

2 which provides the first decision point. Then if it'c

} 3 appealed beyond that, it goes to an ALJ, and then that's 4 the point at which the Agency takes its action. But then 5 onc'e having taken the action, it allows for -- if the 6

matter is still under appeal, it allows for deferral of the 7

civil penalty until -- although it's announced, it's

8 deferred until such time as the Secretary cf Labor 9

decision, which may he further on down the road by a pretty j 10 significant time.

11 So, you know, the two complications there.

I e' 1

12 mean, if the ALJ decision is reversed, we've already -ma

13 announced our action and basically it can get retracted and 14 go the other direction.  !

i j 15 So I think there's still an issue there to be  :

16 resolved and dealt with, so that whole thing --

17 MR. HANNON

That's independent of what OI has 4

18 found.

19 MR. KANE

Yes.

2 20 MR. HANNON: In other words, OI says there's

! 21 been harassment and intimidation, and that goes up through 4

22 the ALJ level and you've taken enforcement action, and then 23 it gets reversed at the Secretary of Labor level. Even 24 though OI said there was, we would still reverse --

25 MR. KANE: I don't recall that particular NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRs0ERS 1323 m'400E ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

1 (alm 234.44aB WASM6NGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433

a ,

)

l 4

28

,,, 1 vituation occurring, but what I'm pointing our is that I

! 2 think that interface and how we apply it still needs to be l j 3 examined carefully so it's coherent, particularly when the 4

Secretary of Labor reverses an action that we've already 5 taken in response to their ALJ decision. Or, in some i

6 cases, of course, it works the other way, where the ALJ 7

decides, you know, in the favor of, say, the company, and l 8 then the Secretary of Labor, on appeal, you know, overturns 9 that, at which point we come into the process and act on 10 the Secretary of Labor's decision, but that is a long way 11 down the road. w, 12 And so,-you know, whatever corrective actions tw 13 that need to be taken in response to that can be many, many i

14 months, maybe even years down the road. ,

15 MR. MOHRWINKEL: And the fourth step, though, 16 is the person or the company can take it to Federal Court 17 after the Secretary of Labor issues a decision. That has 18 happened a few times, too.

19 MR. KANE: Right.

20 MR. MORRWINKEL: So that delays the process 21 even more, or subjects us to having to reverse ourselves if 22 the court finds against whatever position we've taken.

23 MR. KANE: Okay. Well, unless you have any 24 further comments, Bill, we'll wrap this up. Here is the 25 handout I showed you that we would govern review of your NEAL R. GROSS (Xpti REPORTERS AND TRANSCASERS 1323 RMODE ISt.AND AVENUE. N W.

(3g) m WASM4NGTON. D C. 2000g (202) 2M3 3 3

4 29 1 transcript by. The Custodian's name is at the bottom. She 2 will be getting in touch with you as soon as we get it back 3 so we can get it reviewed and placed into the process of 4 our review.

5 I want to thank you for spending the time with 6 us, I know your schedule is tight today, and you've been 7 very helpful. We will conclude the interview now. Thank l 8 you.

9 (Whereupon, at 10:17 a.m., the interview was 10 concluded.)

11 #M 12 w4 13 14 15 4 16 1

17 18 19 d

20 4

21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS (X)URT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRetERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

(g m WA&M6NGTON, D C. 2000g (202) 2M*33

CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attached j

proceedings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:

Name of Proceeding: INTERVIEW OF WILLIAM F. KANE Docket Number: (NOT ASSIGNED)

Place of Proceeding: KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and, thereafter reduced to m )

typewriting by me or under the direction of the court  !

reporting company, and that the transcript is a true and l l

accurate record of the foregoing proceedings.

n.

[* /'h w PHYLLIS YOUNG l I official Reporte'r Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT N AND MMSCRBER8 1323 RHoOE ISLAND AVENUE NW (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4433

8

• 1 FY 1994 i

I TIME SPENT - PERCENT TOTAL DIE TOTAL ALLEGATION SITE HOURS HOURS ALLEGATIONS VS DIE Millstone '8,542 1,130 If.2%

Beaver Valley 5,341 44 0.8%

Calvert Cliffs 4,524 77 1.7%

i FitzPatrick 4,311 66 1.5%

Ginna 3,104 4 0.1%

Haddam Neck 3,479 23 0.7%

Hope Creek 2,486 81 '3~B +

Indian Point 2 2,867 17 0.6%

Indian Point 3 5,703 393 6.9%* _

! Limerick 3,464 225 6.5%

. Maine Yankee 3,022 7 0.2%

Nine Mile Point 4,956 112 2.2%

Oyster Creek 3,855 30 0.8%

Peach Bottom 4,198 91 2.2%

Pilgrim 3,964 26 0.7%

5,706 TS%*

Salem 428 f

1 Seabrook -

3,804 55 1.4%

Susquehanna 3,394 205 6.0%

l Three Mile Island 3,888 16 0.4% l l

Vermont Yankee 3,570 45 1.3%

4 J

1 4

4

1 67.19.1996 12:11 P. 1 f[

{,

• UMTs0 STATES

, , q

• g 'g g' **

g, g i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

• AsotoNi

• **** KWo oF PAU s A NN LVAN A 194081416 April 11, 1995

{

IA g5-00g Mr. Calvin Vondra  !

' HpME ADDRESS DELETED '

, UNDER 2.790 i i . .

l SU8 JECT: NOTICE OF VIOLATION i

i '

(ENFORCENENT CONFERENCE (NRC 0! INVESTIGATION 1 l

t

Dear Hr. Vondra:

i j ' On February 24,1995,

Region I office in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, to discuss the ci

' associated with your alleged harassment and intimidation (H&l) of two Pub ic

{ i Service Electric and Gas (PSE&G) Safety-Review Group ($RG) engineers.

he

. Investigations conference was (01based on the finding of an NRC investigation by the Office .of l

, Safety Review Group) which concluded that you took action that involved HAI of two

! SRG) engineers who were engaged in protected activities:en

< December 3,1992. A(similar finding was made by PSE&G A copy :of in April Igg

{ the 0! synopsis of the investigation was forwarded to you on January 11, 1995.

f d !0n December 3,1992, the two SRG engineers attempted to process a safety iss

in accordance with station procedures, by submitting an incident report (IR) at the Salem Station. The IR questioned whether the commercial grade air supply i

l 3 pressure setpoint regulators, which control service water flow to the safety-

'related containment fan cooling units, were qualified seismically, configured j

iproperly, and classified properly as safety-related components. A heated

! discussion on this issue subsequently developed during a meeting in your office.

i

During this meeting, you attempted to persuade the engineers that either an

! incident report was not warranted, or information which would demonstrate i

operability of the components, and which you believed existed, should be included on the incident report. in addition, you discouraged the submittal of the incident report by strongly recommending tto submittal of a Deficiency Evaluatipn Form.

After one of the engineers indicated that he would consider filing.a quality / Safety concern on the matter, you became angry.and told the individuals to get out of your office and threatened to have security officers remove the two

,$RG engineers. '

'In addition, upon deliberation, you directed that a memorandum be written to the khose organization the SRG engineers ,within Manag reported. wGeneral In this memorandum, signed on December 4,1992, you indicated that the two SRG engineers had a lack of professional understanding and displayed aberrant behavior, and you requested that they be removed from any direct or indirect involvement with Salem Station.

At the enforcement conference, you admitted that you harassed and intimidated these two individuals by your actions, which caused PSE6G to violate 10 CFR 50.7 61though you contended that you did not do so deliberately. Notwithstanding your contention that you did not harass and intimidate the SRG engineers deliberately, v

t.ou nevertheless sent the December 4,1992 memorandum to the GN-QA/NSR even hough (1) you consulted with the then General Manager-Hope Creek, who cautioned l

, ev.2,.te,6 sassa P. 3 1 . .

i  : Mr. Calvin Vondra l 2

signed you regarding the implications of sending the memorandum, and the memorand 2) althou

0 erations Manager (um rior to 901 ON did not ma I on vacation on Doce r 4,1992,ghy6ur you  ;

L l '

! f 110 wing your vacation on December 14,19g2the memorandum but returned ou it to opportunity to reconsider the a> pro >riateness o,f your action.which provided you an i; . opportunities to reconsider the ' De its these

send the memorandum to the GN-QA/N A on Decem,ber 14< cations ision youtopersisted in o 1992. Furt er, ou took no i

)

. Senior Vice President-Electric became aware of these after the events:

i The NRC believes '

j , violate 10 CFR $0.7 and, therefore, constitute a violatio  ;

j

senior to the SRG engineers, the violation is classified at i

(

i

IAs the conferred uponthen you trustGeneral and confidence in

, promote the safe operation of that facility.

Manager your abi you were ofin aaposition nuclearthat faci i

responsible for the appropriate resolution of all In that position, you were tantial safety concerns, as i

well concerns.as professional treatment of all individu 1s who bring forward those an Your actions did not adhere to these standards and did not provide

individuappro riate example for those individuals under y,our supervision, er s of PSE&G s organization with which you interfaced.

actions in this matter contributed to the creation of a hostile work environmentRather, y for these two individuals at the Salem Station and a potential chilling effect towards other station personnel identifying sa,fety-concerns.

Given the significance of your actions, I have decided, after consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, and the Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Reactor nelosed Notice o Violation.ulation, Regional Operations and Research, to issue to ycu th

! also gave serious consideration as to whether n Order should be issued that would preclude you from any further involvement in NRC licensed activities for a certain period of time. However, I have decided, after consultation with the Director Office of Enforcement, and the Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Reactor lation, Regional Operations and Research, that this Notice of Violation is suffi tent since (1 PSE&G took prompt disciplinary action after its own internal investigation at he time, including issuance of a reprimand latter to you requiring you to give a presentation  !

tegarding deneral the events toOthe senior mana,gers, subsequently replacing you as the Manager-Salem i NRC licensed activities,perations, and assigning you to a position not involvin'g which resulted in a reduction in your pay grade, and 2 you were candid and remorseful at the enforcement conference during which y(ou) acknowledged that you had erred and had exercised poor judgement in this matter.

Based on the results of the transcribed enforcement conference and in view of the actions already taken in regard to your performance, no r,esponse to this letter and the enclosed Notice is required. However, should you become involved in NRC licensed activities in the future, you should provide a response to the NRC regarding this Notice at that time to include your reasons as to why the NRC should future. Any havesimilar confidence that conduct onyou would not engage in such activities in the ehforcement action against you. your part in the uture could result in further J

l MON gr,gg,gggo gas 33 p, 3 j

l , , ,

Mr. Calvin Vondra 3

1 i

1 letter will be placed in the NRC Public Document Ro 4 '

A copy is also being provided to the President and Chief Executive Officer of PSEAG.

I

The enclosed Notice is not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of j Management L. No. g6-511. and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980.j

- Sincerely, I

fj!'4 i

1 Thomas T. Martin .

; Regional Administrator i

i  :

Enclosure:

Notice of Violation  !

}

1 I l 4 1 d l i 1 1

l I

i

. . i

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

FROM 97.19.1996 82813 P. 9 i .

l

' Nr. Calvin Yondra

' 4 i

i cc w/ enc 1: i I

L. Eliason, President-Nuclear Business Unit E. Forland, President and Chief Executive Officer

PU8LIC

'NuclearSafetyInformationCenter(NSIC)

NRC Resident Inspector iState of New Jersey iState of Delswers I I

• l e

\

i t

{

l l

4 . .

s

F00M 87.19.1096 18113 P. 9 p

ENCL 050RE NOTICE OF VIOLATION

' Mr. Calvin Vondra

! IA 95-00g' Public Service Electric and Gas j Company j , violation of NRC requirements was identified.During an NRC investiga i In accordance with the ' General j Appendix C, the violation is set forth below: Statement of Policy and Pro i

i 10 CFR 50.5 requires, in part, that any employee of a licensee may not engage in deliberate misconduct that causes a licenses to be in violation of any regulation.

10 aCFR by 50.7, Employee Protection, subsection (a), prohibits discrimination Commission

! protected activities. iconsee against an employee for engaging in certain i Discrimination conditions, includes actions that relate to and privile I

compensation, activities include, terms,but are not limited to,ges Protected of employment.

i providing information to en employer on potential violations or other matters within the NRC's j

t regulatory responsibilities.

3

contrary to the above, you deliberately caused Public Service Electric and i Gas Company employees for(PSE&G) en to violate 10 CFR 50.7 by discriminating against two Mr. Bert Williams, gaging in protected activities. The employees, i and Pr. Paul Craig, who were Safety Review Group SRG) engineers, were engaged in a protected activity in that they attempte(d to i file an incident report at Salem concerning whether commercial grade air supply pressure setpoint regulators, which control service water flow to the containment fan cooling units, were qualified seismically j classified in an information system as safety-related, and properly properly configured. Beginnin December 3,1992, as the then General i Manager-Salen Operations,g on you subjected Mr. Williams and Mr. Craig to discrete actions which created a hostile work environment affecting the conditions of their employment, as evidenced by the followings i 1.

During your meeting with the SRG engineers on December 3,1992, you i

were unsuccessful in convincing the SRG engineers to modify, amend i

or otherwise revise the IR. You angrily told the SRG engineers to get out of your office after one of them indicated to you that he would consider filing a safety concern if an incident report was not i

processed, Your actions contributed to a hostile work environment directed to the two SRG engineers because your actions could have i

3 had a chilling effect on those employees (or other employees who may have become aware of or witnessed this event) raising safety l concerns; I

1 I

.i 4

1. 8 '

' A

er.19.1996 12:14 P. 6 f i* .-

!' Enclosure i g 2.

i You directed the ON to prepare a memorandum to the GN-0A/NSR for i

your signature, requesting that the SRGs be removed from any involvement

! behavior evaluated.in Sales licensed activities, and their aberr6nt i Your actions contributed to a hostile work i

' environment involving the two SRG engineers because your intention

those caployees or other employees who may haveto s witnessed this e(vent) raising safety concerns; become awar 3.

Yw signed the memorandum to the GM-QA mailed it on December 14, 1992 upon/NSR returnon December from 4,1992, vacation, even and j though in the interim, a.

The then General Manager, Hope Creek, cautioned you about the

sending of the memorandum; and

b.

i The 0N did not mail the memorandum on December 4 but 1992 held it until you returned from vacation on Decembe,r 14 l which provided you an opportunity to reconsider the ac, tion

! 1 i The memorandum contributed to the hostile work environsant becau it had the potential to inhibit the SRG engineers, an( any other i

j employees safety concerns;who and may have become aware of the memorandum, %a raising i-1 4.

) You did not retract the memorandum until February 8,1993 after the

! Senior Vice President-Electric became aware of the , issue and initiated an investigation, even though the GN-QA/NSR had a number

] of meetings or telopione calls with you to resolve the issue.

This is a Severity Level II Violation (Supplement VII).

No response is required unless you become involved in NRC licensed activities.

i If you become involved in such activities, you must provide a resjonse which includes your reasons as to why the NRC shou'd have confi<ence that you would not engage in activities that would create a hostile work environment or result in violation of NRC requirements in the i

future.

4 I

Dated at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania ,

this lith day of April,1995 l e i i

FROM 97.19.1906 13814 P. 7 I

' Mr. Calvin Yondra j JISTRIBi1 TION:

iPUBLIC SECY

CA

,JTaylor, E00 iOH11hoan D

IJLieberma,n,OEEDR

!TMartin, RI I'JGoldberg, 0GC Stewis OGC WRussell N lRZimmerma,n,RR i

NRR Enforcement Coordinators

, RI, RII RIII, RIV RH4ey,WCf0 i

dBdecher,GPA/PA l

1C guto 01 I angart, OSP t

1 1111ams, 0!G iJordan, AE00 HSatorius, OE (fA B CS JSt e NRR SDesbek NRR V4ctree,, OEDO C 4111er M 5hannon,ILPB NRR W .anning,, RI f

e 4

I 8 1 4 . II eeeEND***

_.m._.__. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . -_

^ 7 3 *

• g y )

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION wasmorou. o.c. mes.oooi l

4 j .

JUL 2 3 ES3

(

Docket No. 50-423 i License No. NPF-49

, EA 92-212 i

Northeast Nuclear Energy Company

! ATTN: W. Ellis Chairman of the Board l Post Office Box 270 -

Hartford, Connecticut 06141-0270 1

l Gentlemen:

i

]

This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated June 3, 1993 and your check for $100,000 in payment for the civil penalty i

' proposed by NRC in a letter dated Nay 4, 1993. We have carefully j reviewed both your corrective actions for the violations cited in the Notice (Notice) and of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty the information you provided in response to the Demand for Information (Demand). We note that while you' paid the-i

civil penalty, you remain of the view that senior management of Northeast Utilities (NU) acted properly and prudently"with regard i

.to the events cited in the Notice. You did note that NU could i

have been more sensitive to perceptions and appearances and could have exhibited better interpersonal and communications skills.

j We further note that you have chosen not to further debate or litigate this enforcement action, and have, therefore, not

requested a hearing.

i j

In your response to violation I, concerning discrimination against an employee for engaging in protected activities,1Riu' provided a detailed discussion of your views and interpretation i of the events that were cited in the Notice as evidence of the hostile work environment. After full consideration of those

! views, the NRC has determined that the violation occurred as stated and additional discussion of the specific points involved will serve no further purpose.

With regard to your corrective actions, we note that you have taken a number of initiatives that included enhancements to NU's

! Nuclear Safety Concerns Program (NSCP) and employee training with i

respect to employee protection issues. You also indicated that you would monitor the effectiveness of those programs and

! implement refinements as necessary. Please provide us with the results of your review of the program effectiveness, including the methodology used to conduct the review. This information should be submitted to us within 90 days of the date of this

! letter. If your review will not be completed by that time,

}

please provide us with the schedule for completion. Subsequent 1

l I

l l

Northeast Nuclear  ; Energy company 1

1 NRC inspections will.be conducted.to. determine whether you are maintaining compliance with MRC regulatory requirements. .

t i With regard to Violation II concerning the alleged failure to properly identify, evaluate and report a substantial safety 1

hazard, the NRC notes that you have provided information that was j previously unknown to the staff. Specifically, you indicated  ;

that Mr. McGuinness, acting for the Manager, Generation Facility i Licensing, recalls being informed that the evaluation of the i Rosemount transmitter failures would take longer than the 10 days

' specified as the suggested processing time. Therefore, it .

appears that Mr. Shaffer complied with the provisions of Nuclear

. Engineering and Operations Procedure 2.01 for implementing 10 CFR Part 21 requirements. Based on this additional information, l l Violation II is withdrawn.

In regard to your response to this violation, your July 6, 1993, correction of page 49 is appreciated. However, we would expect that in the future when responses to the NRC are dependent on conversations between two persons, especially those occurring several years in the past, you will discuss the statements with both parties to the conversation before ,

g gard, we will assume that both i Mcall the conversation about th eval ons t ng  ;

onger an the suggested 10 days. If our assumption is not correct, please notify me.

The Demand for Information required you to explain: (1) why the NRC can have confidence that NU will ensure an environment that is free from harassment, intimidation and discrimination, both in general ization, and in particular with Messrs. tinuing to be involved with safety-re ted ially in light of their actions related to' 989, and (2) why, after senior management of; s be me a re of the Ly gssment and intimidation concerns involvin W was ineffective,Jn prom gy6 terminating the ho ile work vironment to which was subjected. In your resp to the,q q tnd, you as'serted th the situation with respect t Was unique, it involved individuals whose style a approacW,to resolving technical issues differed strongly at times, and that the NRC's finding in this case was not indicative of the overall atmosphere and

" culture" of your nuclear program.

To support those views, you stated that the NRC has consistently found the environment for employees to raise safety issues either within NU's organization or to the NRC to be healthy, as evidenced by the findings of the Special NRC Inspection Report Nos. 50-245/90-81, 50-336/90-81, 50-423/90-82 and 50-713/90-82, dated october 24, 1990, and the NRC Special Review Group findings

. _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ __ _ . _ _ _ _

i.

!, Northeast Nuclear j Energy Company

transmitted to NU ong$$ri'l' 6,1992;'as well as the comments contained in other NRC inspection reports. You also maintained

that th pendent consultant to NU which had concluded j that # subject to harassment and attempts at l inti ation b is management, had also concluded that a i generally healthy safety attitude existed throughout NU's nuclear program in 1989.

i In addition to the above, you contend that you have taken a

! number of management initiatives during the past four years to ensure a work environment that is conducive to employees' freely j raising safety issues. Those initiatives included: a broad

management reorganization resulting in a shorter chain of I command; enhancement of the Nuclear Safety Concerns. program; l reinforcement of the nuclear safety priority to all NU employees; the Performance Enhancement Program initiated in 1991 in response to the concern that NU's performance was no longer meeting management expectations; efforts to improve team building and communications within the nuclear organization; increased

training with respect to employee protection issues; and a number

. of positive experiences with employees identifying safety issues.

a 21G

With regard to Messrs. although you indicated that your review of even g no lead you to the conclusion that they subjected a hostile work environment, you

) viewed the NRC find ngs regard with the utmost l seriousness. In arriving at your conclusion that they should j continue to be involved with safety-related activities, you cited i their past emplo t hi , their subsequent professional i

interaction with aMs their overall performance with j other safety, te ical an ersonnel issues during the last four l l years as evidence of their ability to foster a positive work '

environment. You also indicated that senior MU management j . conducted separate face-to-face meetings with them to confirm l their current fitness as managers in NU's nuclear pr a ose meetings, you determined that Messrs

ed the findings seriously and they unders he

lessons learned from the experience, including the need for more 4

' effective communications and more cohesive teamwork (for which additional training was provided). Each of these individuals had also been counseled on their performance in 1989. You further stated that, based on the above, both managers can and will actively foster a positive work environment, free from harassment, intimidation and discrimination, and can and should continue to be involved in safety related activities at NU.  !

In response to the Demand, you expressed strong disagreement with the NRC's assertion that senior corporate management was i tiv q terminating the hostile work environment to which af subjected. You discussed the letters of reprimand

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

i ..l l

,. Northeast Nuclear  : Energy Company Cib i that were issued to Messrs. nd i subsequently withdrawn as n' result of NU's internal grievance

! process; the differences between the preliminary and final I

! conclusions of the third step review of that review process; and l I what information was available to the senior managers named in l the Demand. n t senior management took steps to

! assura tha ld continue to play a role in the i resolution osemount transmitter issue and that members of l the work force were well aware of his continued involvement. You also asserted that the actions of NU's management, rather than i being ineffective or passive in ferreting out and dealing with

! potentially inappropriate attitudes towards employees raising l safety concerns, indicated a proactive attitude toward the issue.

l A detailed discussion of the actions taken by NU's management in i response to the LRS findings was chronicled. You emphasized that upon learning of the potential employee protection issue, senior

management determined at the outset that the matter warranted I attention and ensured that this occurred. You further stated l that your front line management was expected to marshal the facts i and contend with them, and that this is what happened; that the  !

j record shows that each member of NU senior management went to '

appropriate lengths to do what was reasonable and responsible for j l a difficult situation with complex issues and personalities. l Finally, you again noted that an extraordinary amount of senior i management time was devoted to this issue and that the "effectiventss" of management's actions should be judged in that light.

l I

j Tht'NRC has carefully considered your response along with the

{

information that was obtained through our investigation. As a  !

' result, et ob t fig fallowing the conticaed involvement of

Messes. L6js.afety,-related activities at NU, and j sonoide a por on o the Demand to have been satisfactorily

addressed.

l As to the second part of the Demand, notwithstanding all of the above information regarding the actions taken by senior corporate management, the NRC continues to view those efforts as having j been in fective terminating the hostile work environment to whic subjected. However, we recognize the j subst al corr ctive actions that you have since implemented to 4 ensure that employees feel free to raise safety concerns to their i management. In light of those actions, the NRC has decided that i further enforcement action is not necessary at this time. Had i

i l

I i

I J

1 i

Northeast Nuclear l Energy Company 1

'you the foresight to have effectively implemented.those programs parlier, the hostile work environment might have been avoided.

Sincerely, g

James Lieberman, Director Office of Enforcement cc: T. Martin, RI l

. El 2 31993 Northeast Nuclear Energy Company l DISTRIBUTION

, JLieberman, OE WTroskoski, OE DHolody, RI Day File EA File

' DCS 4

\

OE f/ f" RA:RI (.4, f/I D:h DF,.pR f WTroskoski T M a r t i n p "r /v. A. J e erman J M ek 07/J/ /93 07/4 /93 07k\/93  ? 0'f /j,,)h93 U V' Doc Name: Gr\OECASE8\92212A-R.WT s

~ ~ ~

~

' G-J, - H i ..... ~^ ^ .J4 L, ~ . . . . L. . ~;. . : ; e, , ~ J ;1 ,l',,,

. ~,~,,'i~~'--'

e f LE:%

l k, UNITED STATES I NUCLEAR RECULATCRY COMMISSION

i. il namoN i s es AuanoAtt noAo KING OF PnUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA 194t&141s

'i 9

DATE: s/7/96

MFA%GE TO: JOHN HANNON i

s

)

TELECOPY NUMBER: 301-415-2102 NUMBER OF PAGES: 20 l (INCLUDING REQUEST FORM)

MESSAGE FROM: WILLIAM MNE

! US NRC, REGION I

KING OF PRUSSIA, PA  ;

l

TRANSMHTED BY

GINA DATE & TIME:

VERIFIED BY:

• • Attached are examples of information I agreed to provide you..during our July 19 interview, regarding examples of enforcement act. ions against individuals based on H&I issues.

1. Level II Notice of Violation against individual

2. Letter of Reprimand to an individual

3. NOV and Civil Penalty to Licensee

y i ,' w a.;Q, 5 fi W ~ ~ Q 3 W W ; [ d ~ ~ ~ ]$h33& $ $l[

j k, p( %k UNITEo states 5 NUCLEAR RESULATORY COMMISSICN REoCN i

)'

j oNo of Pa$sfA,YeNN 47A A Iset1415 April 11,1995 IME N DIS W M M*

1 TMartin WKane

IA 95-009 KSmith RCooper JWhite DHolody Mr. Calvin Vondra DChawaga HONE ADDRES8 DELETED tacER t.790 4/11/95 - MJC

SUBJECT:

NOTICE OF VIOLATION (ENFORCENENT CONFERENCE (NRC O! INVESTIGATION 1-93-021

Dear Mr. Vondra:

On February 24,1995, the NRC conducted an enforcement conference with you in the Region I office in King of Prussia, pennsylvania, to discuss the circumstances associated with your alleged harassment and intimidation &I) of two Public Service Electric and Gas conference was based on the(PSE&G) Safety-Review Group ( engineers. The Investigations (01 hich concluded finding of an NRC investigat on by the Office of that you took action that involved H&I of two Safety Review Group) w(SRG)lar finding December 3,1992. A simi engineers who were engaged in protected activities on

. A co was mad the 0! synopsis of the investigation was fomarded to you on January 11, py 1995. of On December 3,1992, the two SRG engineers attempted to process a safety issue, in accordance with station procedures, by submitting an incident report (IR) at the Salem Station. The IR questioned whether the causercial grade air supply pressure setpoint regulators, which control service water flow to the safety-related containment fan cooling units, were qualified seismically, configured properly, and classified properly as safety-related components. A heated discussion on this issue subsequently developed during a meeting in your office.

During this meeting, you attempted to persuade the engineers that either an incident report was not warranted, or information which would damonstrate operability of the components, and which you believed existed, should be included on the incident report. In addition, you discouraged the submittal of the incident report by strongly recommending the submittal of a Deficiency Evaluation Fom. i After one of the engineers indicated that he would consider filing a l Quality / Safety concern on the matter, you became angry and told the individuals to get out of your office and threatened to have security officers remove the two SRG engineers. l In addition, upon deliberation, you directed that a memorandum be written to the General Manager-Quality Assurance and Nuclear Safety Review (GM-QA/NSR), within whose organization the SRG engineers reported. In this memorandum, which you signed on December 4,1992, you indicated that the two SRG engineers had a lack of professional understanding and displayed aberrant behavior, and you requested that they be removed from any direct or indirect involvement with Salem Station.

At the enforcement conference, you admitted that you harassed and intimidated these two individuals by your actions, which caused PSE&G to violate 10 CFR 50.7, although you contended that you did not do so deliberately. Notwithstanding your contention that you did not harass and intimidate the SRG engineers deliberately, you nevertheless sent the December 4,1992 memorandum to the GM-QA/NSR even though (1) you consulted with the then General Nanager-Hope Creek, who cautioned

- . , - - - ~ - - , , - - ,.n , - - , , - - , - -, ,a .,,-------v,--- -, , ,

gy- g_g---- ggm i.

i

4

- Mr. Calvin Vendra 2 I you regarding the implications of sending the memorandum, and (2) although you i signed the memorandum i operations Manager (CM) didprior not to mailgoing theonmemorandum vacation on December but returned4,1992,it to youyour following your vacation on December 14, 1992, which provided you another j opportun ty to reconsider the a>propriateness of your action. Despite these

! opportunities to reconsider the 'ap11 cations, you persisted in your decision to send the memorandum to the GM-QA/NSR on December 14, 1992. Further, you took no

{ action to resolve or retract the memorandum until February 8,1993, after the j

Senior Vice President-Electric became aware of these events. The NRC believes that these actions were deliberate on your part and caused the licensee to i

violate 10 CFR 50.7 and, therefore, constitute a violation of 10 CFR 50.5. Since you were the senior person onsite at the time and several supervisory levels I senior to the SRG engineers, the violation is classified at severity Level II.

As the then General Manager of a nuclear facility, you were in a position that conferred upon you trust and confidence in your ability to effectively manage and i

promote the safe operation of that facility. In that position, you were responsible for the appropriate resolution of all potential safety concerns, as

! well as professional treatment of all individuals who bring forward those l concerns. Your actions did not adhere to these standards, and did not provide j an appropriate example for those individuals under your supervision, or i

individuals of PSE&G s organization with which you interfaced. Rather, your actions in this matter contributed to the creation of a hostile work environment i for these two individuals at the Salem Station, and a potential chilling effect i towards other station personnel identifying safety-concerns, J

j Given the significance of your actions, I have decided, after consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, and the Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Reactor Regulation. Regional Operations and Research, to issue to you the

! enclosed Notice of Violation. I also gave serious consideration as to whether I an order should be issued that would preclude you from any further involvement in NRC licensed activities for a certain period of time. However, I have decided, after consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, and the l Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Regional Operations and Research, that this Notice of Violation is sufficient since (1) PSE&G took prompt i disciplinary action, after its own internal investigation at the time, including i

issuance of a reprimand letter to you, requiring you to give a presentation i regarding the events to the senior managers, subsequently replacing you as the

General Manager-Sales O

! NRC licensed activities,perations, which resulted and assigning in a reduction you to apay in your position grade, not andinvolving (2)

! you were candid and remorseful at the enforcement conference during which you i

J acknowledged that you had erred and had exercised poor judgement in this matter.

l Based on the results of the transcribed enforcement conference, and in view of i

the actions already taken in regard to your performance no rssponse to this

! letter and the enclosed Notice is required. However, should you become involved 3

in NRC licensed activities in the future, you should provide a response to the

! NRC regarding this Notice at that time to include your reasons as to why the NRC

should have confidence that you would not engage in such activities in the future. Any similar conduct on your part in the future could result in further enforcement action against you.

I I _, _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _, _ _ _ . _ _ _ __

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

AUG-07-1996 15813 U!NEC O!/DFC OF REG ADM 6103375241 P.94/2B

!( .

l Mr. Calvin Vendra 3 1

{ In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice " a copy of this letter will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room with your, address deleted.

i A copy is also being provided to the President and Chief Executive Officer of PSE&G.

i The enclosed Notice is not subject tc the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Papemork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub.

l L. No.96-511.

Sincerely, l &

Thomas T. Martin Regional Administrator

Enclosure:

Notice of Violation l

i J

l I

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

AUGHr?-8996 85: 14 U9RC RI/OFC OF REG RDM 6103375241 P.EEV20 '

i .

Nr. Calvin Vondra 4 cc w/ enc 1:

L. E11ason, President-Nuclear Business Unit E. Forland, President and Chief Executive officer PUBLIC Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)

NRC Resident Inspector State of New Jersey State of Delaware l

l 4

l l

I l

)

)

- . ...- . - . . - - .avo-e7-19ss 15:14 usrec Rwc u- kao aan ete337x4x r. w 2e

'd ,

i  ;

Mr. Calvin Vondra

! DISTRIBUTION: i j SECY j CA JTaylor ED0 1

JMilhoan, DEDR

JLieberman, DE i TMartin RI

! JGoldber,g, 0GC i

! SLewis, OGC l

1 WRussell, NRR l l RZimmerman, NRR l'

! Enforcement Coordinators i RI, RII, RIII, RIV l RHuey, WCF0 l W8eacher, GPA/PA

GCaputo, 0!

DBangart, OSP i DW1111ams, 016 l EJordan, AE00 l OE:EA I

OE:Chron

! DCS NUDOCS i

d I

i t

V i a n . .,* % ,w i. w e.n ~ -

.r.o.r...

! 0FFICE RI:E0 YM l ST:WT RI*ASI RI:RC ~ A/J RI;DBS/ I i NAME DHolody/Cc JIEftF RCo W N K$aith ff U / _ .. WM" i DATE 03/(#/95 07/ /95 03/rA /95 03//#79F 03/ & /95 u

OFFICE

. .n .sw.s v .s RI;lg// V

s. .Y Fy,\t)1 a M k hn,ha m m r.. n l OE DEDR W d\bV [ l__

! MAME TPM4Th Y JLieberiaan'F ' JM11ho4n i i DATE 03/lb /95 03/4 /95 04/ g/95 03/ /95 03/ /95 4

0FFICIAL RECORD C0FY a: PROP-SAL.HIO

AUG-F7-1996 15 24 USMtC RI/OFC OF REG ADM 6103375228 P.07/20 l

i l

ENCLOSURE i l

l NOTICE OF VIOLATION i i

! Mr. Calvin Vondra IA g5-00g i Public Service Electric and Gas l Company I During an NRC investigation conducted by the NRC Office of Investigations, a l violation of NRC requirements was identified. In accordance with the " General {

j Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions,' 10 CFR Part I, j Appendix C, the violation is set forth below:

i i

10 CFR 50.5 requires, in part, that any employee of a licensee may not engage in deliberate misconduct that causes a licensee to be in violation j of any regulation.

, 10 CFR 50.7, Employee Protection, subsection (a), prohibits discrimination j by a Commission licensee against an employee for engaging in certain protected activities. Discrimination includes actions that relate to i compensation, tones, conditions, and privileges of employment. Protected j activities include, but are not limited to, providing information to an i employer on potential violations or other matters within the NRC's 4

regulatory responsibilities.

Contrary to the above, you deliberately caused Public Service Electric and

Gas Company (PSE4G) to violate 10 CFR 50.7 by discriminating against two

employees for engaging in protected activities. The employees.

l Mr. Bert Williams, and Mr. Paul Craig, who were safety Review Group (SRG) i engineers, were engaged in a protected activity in that they attempted to file an inciden: report at Sales concerning whether commercial grade air supply pressun setpoint regulators, which centrol service water flow to ,

the containment fan cooling units, were qualified seismically, properly I

{ classified in an information ' system as safety-related, and properly i configured. Beginning on December 3,1992, as the then General  !

l Manager-Sales Operations, you subjected Mr. Williams and Mr. Craig to  !

discrete actions which created a hostile work environment affecting the '

conditions of their employment, as evidenced by the following: '

1. During your meeting with the SRG engineers on December 3, Igg 2, you were unsuccessful in convincing the SRG engineers to modify, amend or otherwise revise the IR. You angrily told the SRG engineers to get out of your office after one of them indicated to you that he would consider filing a safety concern if an incident report was not processed. Your actions contributed to a hostile work environment directed to the two SRG engineers because your actions could have had a chilling effect on those employees (or other employees who say have become aware of or witnessed this event) raising safety concerns;

!] .- -

l, Enclosure 2 i

2. You directed the GM to prepare a memorandum to the GM-QA/NSR for

' your signature, requesting that the SRGs be removed from any involvement in Salem licensed activities, and their aberrant behavior evaluated. Your actions contributed to a hostile work environment involving the two SRG engineers because your intention i

to submit such a memorandum could have had a chilling effect on j

j witnessed this e(vent) raising safety concerns;those employees o

3. You si mailed'nedit onthe memorandum December to theupon 14, 1992 GN-QA/NSR return from on December 4,1992, and vacation, even

though in the interim,

{ a. The then General Manager, Nope Creek, cautioned you about the j sending of the memorandum; and i

I b. The OM did not mail the memorandum on December 4, 1992, but i held it until you returned from vacation on December 14, 1992,

! which provided you an opportunity to reconsider the action.

! The memorandum contributed to the hostile work environment because l it had the potential to iahibit the SRG engineers, and any other i employees who may have become aware of the memorandum, from raising

safety concerns; and i 4. You did not retract the memorandum until February 8,1993, after the i Senior Vice President-Electric became aware of the issue and j initiated an investigation, evoli though the GM-QA/NSR had a number of meetings or telepione calls with you to resolve the issue.

l This is a Severity Level II Vio16 tion (Supplement VII).

No response is required unless you become involved in NRC licensed j activities. If you become involved in such activities, you must provide

! a response which includes your reasons as to why the NRC shou' d have i confidence that you would not engage in activities that would create a

! hostile work environment or result in violation of MRC requirements in the j future.

Dated at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania this lith day of April,1995 l

l l

I

.[

j,,

a NUCLEAn nE T kY COMMISSION maoion i

k,*****/ mwo or PauTsfI.Nw'NAw A isems April 11, 1995 l IA 95-010 t

i Mr. Vincent Polizzi HOME ADDRESS DELETED i U W ER t.790 i

SUBJECT:

LETTER OF REPRINAE (ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE (NRC 0! INVESTIGATION 1-93-021R))

Dear Hr. Polizzi:

On February 8,1995, the NRC conducted an enforcement conference with you in the Region I office in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, to discuss the ctratestances associated with your potential harassment and intimidation (H&I) of wo Public

! Service Electric and Gas (PSE&G) Safety-Review Group (SRG) engineers. The i conference was based on the finding of an NRC investigation by the Office of

Investigations (01) which concluded that you took action that involved N&I i against two SRG engineers who were engaged in protected activities. A co j the 01 synopsis of the investigation was forwarded to you on January1995. 11, py of

! On December 3,1992, two SRG engineers attempted to process a safety issue, in 4

accordance with station procedures, by submitting an incident report IR) to you.

! The IR questioned whether the safety-related qualibcation of conse(rcial grade i air supply pressure setpoint regulators, which control service water flow to the safety-related containment fan cooling units, were qualified seismically, l configured promrly, and classified properly as safety-related components.

Subsequently, ouring discussions with the two SRG engineers, you attempted to either convince the $RG engineers that an IR was not warranted, or have them incorporate information into the IR, which you believed existed, to demonstrate that the c onents were operable. Subsequently, you prepared a memorandum, for the Genera anager-Sales Operations' (GM-50) signature, which was signed by the i

GM-50 on December 4,1992, requesting that the two SRC' engineers be removed from '

the site.

At the enforcement conference, you admitted that you harassed and intimidated these two individuals by your actions on December 3,1992, including the creation of a hostile work environment, and you caused PSE&G to violate 10 CFR 50.7 by your actions in this matter, although you contend that you did not do so deliberately. Notwithstanding, your actions contributed to a chillir; effect for the SRG engineers and staff. Previously, in an internal memorandum to the then Chief Nuclear Officer on April 29, 1993, you admitted that your behavior on December 3,1992 was inappropriate and unprofessional, and effectively created a hostile environment which was rightfully perceived to be a form of intimidation that could jeopardize the independence of the safety review group.

y , , , , . , - . , ,- - ,,..--.-.-.,,y.. .-

,m 3,, p p.

i .

! Mr. Vinc:nt pelfrzi

- 2 As a senior employee at a nuclear power plant, in particular as the then Operations Manager, you were placed in a position where your pe,rformance I i

I expected to be above reproach. This includes appropriate resolution ofwas all potential safety concern l who raise those concerns.s, as well as professional treatment of all individuals

Your actions in December 1992 did not adhere to these i

standards and were particularly significant since you se,t a poor example not onl!

for those whom you you supervised, but also for individuals of other organizations with interfaced.  !

I I l Accordingly, be taken against I have you. given serious consideration as to what specific action should i I have decided, after consultation with the Director, Cffice of Enforcement, and the Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Reactor Re su ulation,since ficient Regional Operations and Research that this letter of reprimand is ,

GM-50's direction (1) although you drafted the, December 4,1992 memorandum at the i to request that the two SitG engineers be removed from any '

involvement in Salem Station, you subsequently did not send the memorandum after l the GM-50 signed it on December 4,1992, but held the memorandum until the GM-50 j returned from vacation, thereby providing him an opportunity to reconsider his decision in this matter; (t) PSE&G took prompt disciplinary action, after its own 1  ;

i internal investigation at the time which included removing you from involvement '

with the Salem Station, as well as, requiring you to develop an improvseont plan, and make a presentation on the events to your peers and management appeared candid and remorseful with the NRC during the enforcemen;t conferenceand (3 during the which you admitted that you contributed to a violation of 10 CFR 50.7 at facility. However, any siellar conduct on your

• result in significant enforcement action against you.part in the future could l i  !

' ' In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's 'Rhles of Practice," a copy of this letter will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room with your address deleted.

In addition, a copy of this Letter of Reprimand is also being provided to the

{ President and Chief Executive Officer of PSE&G.

Sincerely, I i

i

-)

Thomas T. Martin Regional Administrator l

l 4

i l

1

j y y~~k UNITEo STATES

a NUCLEAR RESULATORY COMMIS$1CN Ta 475 AL EROAD INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION

%,***** ONG oF PRUSslA. PENNSYLVANIA 18405 1415 IMartin WKane

KSmith DCooper

April 11, 1995 JWhite DHolody l EA 94-239 DChawaga 1

! Mr. Leon R. E11ason 4/11/95 - MJC l Chief Nuclear Officer and President Nuclear Business Unit Public Service Electric and Gas company 4

Post Office Box 236 l Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038 l

SU5 JECT: NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL

! PENALTY - $80,000 -

j (Office of Investigations (01) Report 1-93-021R) f

Dear Mr. Eliason:

t

! This letter refers to the NRC investigation conducted at the Sales Nuclear of two safety Generating Review Group Station (SRG)concerning engineers harassment (a Senior staff and intimidation Engineer and a(H&I) Safety Review Engineer) after they attempted to file an incident report (IR) at the facility on December 3,1992. You conducted an internal investigation of this matter, and found, in part, that certain nuclear department managers engaged in actions of l H&I or failed to respond to such actions effectively, as noted in the Executive j Sussaary of your Task Force Report of Investigation, dated April 2,1993. In j ' addition to your internal investigation, the NRC's Office of Investigations (01) perfomed an investigation into this matter. On February 8,1995, an enforcement conference was conducted with you and members of y W staff to discuss the H&I activities, its causes, and your corrective actions. In addition, separate enforcement conferences were held with Messrs. Reiter and Polizzi on February 8 j 1995, and with Mr. Vondra on February 24, 1995.

Based on the NRC O! investigation (the investigation synopsis was sent to you on January 11,1995), as mell as a review of your internal investigation and the results of enforcement conferences with you and individuals mentioned in the previous paragraph, the NRC determined that H&I did occur relative to the two SRG ongineers. More specifically, the NRC concludes that the former General Manager-Sales Operations (GM-50), Mr. Calvin Vondra, and the former Operations Manager (0M), Mr. Vincent Polizzi, engaged in a number of discrete acts, that, taken together, created a hostile work environment for the two SRG engineers. These actions by the GM and GM-50 against the two SRG engineers constitute a violation of the employee protection provisions set forth in 10 CFR 50.7.

Our investigation also initially implicated the former General Manager-Quality Assurance and Nuclear Safety Review (GN-QA/NSR). However, subsequent review of this individual's performance and the clarification he presented at an enforcement conference on February 8,1995, indicates he did not violate, or cause you, the licensee, to violate, any regulatory requir: ant relating to employee protection. Consequently, we do not intend te take further actions relative to this fndividual.

UNIT 80 STAfss u

s ] NUCLEAR nEQULA70nY CCMMisDON l 475 ALLENoALE noAo 9g M OF PAusWA, PeewayLVANIA 19400 1415

{. -

} April 11, 1995 , .  :

!; EA M-t39

! Mr. Leon R. E11ason i Chief Nuclear Officer and President

' Nuclear Business Unit

- Public Service Electric and Gas Company Pust Office Box 234 l Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038 '

$UBJECT:

NOTICE OF VIOLATION Afe PR0 posed IMPOSITION 0F CIVIL PDIALTY - $40,000 *  !

l l (OfficeofInvestigations(01) Report 1-93-021R) l

Dear Mr. E11ason:

i This letter refers to the NRC investigation conducted at the Salen Nuclear  !

{

Generating Station concerning harassment and intimidation H&I) of two Safety Review Group (SR$

I engineers Engineer) al'ter the)y attempted (a Senior Staff Engineer an(d a to file an incident report (IR) at the facility en December 3,1992. You conducted an internal investigation of this matter, and i

found, in part, that certain nuclear department mana 4

1 H&I or failed to respond to such actions effectively,gers as engaged in actions noted in the of Executive i

i Summary of your Task Force Report of Investilation, dated April 2,1993. In i

addition to your internal investigation, the NIC's Office of Investigations perfomed an investigation into this matter. On February 8,1995, an enforcem(01) ent

conference was conducted with yov Snd members of your staff to discuss the H&I activities, its causes and your corrective actions. In addition, separate enforcement conferences,were held with Messrs. Reiter and Polini on February 8, 1995, and with Mr. Vondra on February 24, 1995.

Based on the NRC 0! investigation the investigation synopsis was sent to you en j January 11,1995), as well as a r(eview of your internal investigation and the j results of enforcement conferences with' you and individuals mentioned in the g

previous paragraph, the NRC determined that H&I did occur relative to the two SRG j enpineers. More specifically, the NRC concludes that the former General Manager-

Se em Operations (GM-$0), Mr. Calvin Vondra, and the former Operations Man I r i

(CM), Mr. Vincent Pollut, engaged in a number of discrete acts, that,

' together, created a hostile work environment for the two SRG engineers. These actions by the GM and GM-30 against the two SRG engineers constituts a violation of the employee protection provisions set forth in 10 CFR 50.7.

I i

Our investigation also initially implicated the former General Manager-Quality l Assurance and Nuclear Safety Review (GN-QA/NSR). However, subsequent review of i

this individual's performance and the clarification he presented at an enforcement conference on February 8,1995, indicates he did not violate, or cause you, the Itcensee, to violate, any regulatory requirement relating to employee protection. Conse

relative no this individual.quently, we do not intend to take further actions I

4 i

j

}

l i . __ . - - _ . . _

l*

Public service Electric and Sas Company t

I i

The specific events which led to the creation of the hostile work environment i

began on December 3,1992, when the two SRG engineers attempted to process a j safety issue in accordance with station procedures via an IR. The IR questioned whether the commercial grade air supply pressur,e setpoint regulators, which j control service water flow to the safety-related containment fan cooling units, were qualified seismically, configured properly, and classified properly as safety-related components. After the engineers raised the issue to the ON, the i OM angrily attempted to convince the SAG engineers that either the IR should not i

be issued, or should include information that the OM believed existed, that would support operability of the components. When it was evident to the GM that the j SRG engineers would not agree to this approach, the GM escalated the matter to 3 the EM-50.

i j

After the OM and GM-50 set privately for approximately 15 minutes, the two SRG engineers were called into the meeting. During the meeting, the GM-50 became frustrated as he was unable to convince the SRG engineers to modify, amend, or i otherwiso revise their proposed IR. When matters reached an impasse, one of the i

engineers indicated that he (the engineer) could document the matter as a safety concern. The 650 took this statement as a threat, became more angry, ordered the two SRG engineers to get out of his office, and threatened to have site i security officers remove them.

)

I The next day, December 4,1992, the GM-30 signed a memorandum, that he previously i requested the OM to prepare, to the GM-QA/NSR (within whose organization the two 5Rs engineers reported). The memorandum requested that the two individuals be removed from any direct or indirect involvement with the salem Station. While i the GM-50 signed the memorandum and intended that it be issued immediately, the i

i 0M 1992. held the memorandum until the GM-$0 returned from vacation on December 14 i i

Although the GM-50 sought the advice of a peer manager (the General '

j Manager-Hope had an opportunity Creek Operations) der his actions, in to reconsi he this did notmatter, changewho adv i

his mind. Accordingly, the GM-30 sent the memorandum, dated December 4, 1992, when he returned from vacation on December 14, 1992, and he did not retract it until February 8,1993, after the Senior Vice President-Electric became aware of the issue and initiated an investigation.

These discrete actions by the former GM-50 and OM created a hostile work

environment for the two SRG engineers, as sore fully described in the enclosed l Motice, and constitute a violation of the employee protection provisions in 10 f

CFR 50.7. At the enforcement conference, your Vice President-Nuclear operations, admitted that a violation of 10 CFR 50.7 occurred. The GM and GM-50 made similar admissions during the enforcement conferences held with them, although they both denied that they deliberately took any action to violate this requirement. A hostile work environment is not conducive to the raising of safety concerns by individuals, and can potentially have an adverse impact on the safe operation of the facilities. As such, a hostile work environment at a licensee facility cannot be tolerated.

I Public service Electric and

!. tas company 3

l i As a NRC licensee, your organization has the responsibility to ensure all safety i concerns raised by staff are addressed in a manner that does not create a hostile

! work environment for those individuals who bring forth such concerns. The i actions of the former GM-50 and the former GM in late 1992 and early 1993 did not adhere to these standards i management, supervisors, or, staff within their line organization, nor for

other Public Service Electric and Gas (PSE&G) organizations with which they

. interfaced. Given the senior level of plant management involved in the creation i of this hostile work environment, the related violation is classified at Severity Level II in accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedures for

{ NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C, (Enforcement Policy).

f In addition to the violation the NRC is concerned that senior management did not resolve these issues promptiy and effectively after becoming aware of them in late December 1992 and early January 1993. As noted in your internal investigation report, the former Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer initially failed to recognize the significance of the issues and to monitor j resolution, and the former Vice President-Nuclear Operations exercised poor 4

judgement by abstaining from any involvement in the resolution of the issues.

l The NRC recognizes that this violation fr.itially was identified by PSE4G during I j an investigation initiated at the direction of senior corporate management, after l

they became aware of the events. The NRC also recognizes that subsequent to the l 3 identification of the violation, actions were taken to correct the violation and  !

j prevent recurrence including disciplinary action against the responsible individuals and sub, sequent removal of the GN-50 and ON from any involvement at l the Salem $tation. These corrective actions, which were described at the I enforcement conference, included, but were not limited to: (1 prompt initiation I

! of an investigation in early 1993 after the Senior Vice Preside)nt-Electric became j aware of the events; 2 the then Chief Nuclear Officer meeting with the SRG

engineers in February (an)d April 1993, and sending them a letter to assure t 4

that their actions were appropriate; (3) issuance of letters of apology to the 4 review of the event with Salem manatiers; SRG (5) issuanceengineers of a letter fromtothe GM-50 and GN;l(ea)r departmentsing all nuc personnel safety concerns; 6 employee rights and(re)sponsibilities; and (7) revision of appropriate proc

! However, notwithstanding your investigative efforts and corrective actions, a

! significant NRC action is warranted, given the senior levels of plant management l involved in this case, so as to emphasize the importance of continuously assuring

' a work environment that is free of any harassment, intimidation, or discrimination against those who raise safety concerns. Accordingly, I have been authorized, after consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, to issue the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed leposition of Civil Penalty (Notice) in the amount of $80,000 for the Severity Level II violation set forth in the Notice.

}

)

, __ .- 4

e l,-

} Public Service Electric and 4 )

sas Company

{.

i The base civil penalty amount for a Severity Level !! violation is $80,000.

! Application of the escalation and mitigation factors in Section VI.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy was considere6, and on balance, no adjustment to the penalty 1 is warranted. NRC determined that there is,a basis for 505 mitigation of the i civil penalty based on your identification of the violation and an additional 505 i mitigation of the civil penalty as a result of your prompt and comprehensive i corrective actions taken after the violation was identified. However, 1005 l escalation of the civil penalty is warranted based on the fact that you had a i prior opportunity to preclude continuance of the hostile work environment which 2

existed over a two month duration. This prior opportunity existed because the then Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer, as well as the then Vice

} President, Nuclear Operations, were aware, soon after the December 3,1992 event, i that a confrontation had developed between the two SRG engineers and senior

! members of your management staff, yet failed to take action to prevent the i violation from continuing. The other escalation / mitigation factors were l considered and no further adjustment was warranted.  ;

! You are required to respond to this letter and the enclosed Notice and should i follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. In your response, you should document the specific actions taken and i any additional actions you plan to prevent recurrence. After reviewing your l response to this Notice, including your proposed corrective actions and the results of future inspections, the NRC will determine whether further NRC enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory -

requirements. j In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's ' Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, its enclosure (s), and your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR). To the extent possible, your response should not include l any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be '

placed in the PDR without redaction. However, if you find it necessary to ,

include such information, you should clearly indicate the specific information I that you desire not to be placed in the POR, and provide the legal basis to support your request for withholding the inforsation from the public.

The responses directed by this letter and the enclosed Notice are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. No.96-511.

Sincerel h&Jf h Thomas T. Martin Regional Administrator Docket Nos. 50-272; 50-311 Licence Nos. DPR-70; DPR-75

Enclosure:

Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty

aut,-e7-8996 15820 USNRC RI/OFC OF REG ADt1 6803375241 P.16/2B i Public Service Electric and 8

, tas Company i

! cc w/ enc 1:

J. Hagan, Vice President - Operations

5. La8runa, Vice President - Engineering and Plant Betterment i

C. Schaefer, External 0>erations - Nuclear, Delmarva Powei & Light Co.

R. Burricelli, General ;4anager - Infomations Systems & External Affairs

J. Summers, General Manager - Salen Operations i

J. Benjamin. Director - Quality Assurance & Safety Review i F. Thomson, Manager Licensing and Regulation i

R. Kankus, Joint Owner Affairs A. Tapert, Program Administrator i R. Fryling, Jr. Esquire

M.Wetterhahn, Esquire P. Curham, Manager, Joint Generation Department Atlantic Electric Company i Consumer Advocate, Office of Consumer Advocate i

W. Conklin, Public Safety Consultant, Lower A110 ways Creek Township l Public Service Comission of Maryland i

State of New Jersey State of Delaware ,

~ Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC) i D. Screnci, PAO-R! (2 l NRC Residont Inspector) l i

f t

l

. l j.'

' Public Service Electric and Sas i

Company i

1 DISTRIBUTIM: 1 l

i SECY

! CA  !

! JT lor. EDO  !

! JN1 hoan, DEDR i

JLieberman, OE 1 i TMartin, RI i JGoldberg, 0GC ,

SLewis OGC .

l IntusseII, NRR l RZimmerman, NRR  :

l Enforcement Coordinators i RI, Ali, RIII RIV 1

{ RHuey, WCF0 8Beecher, GPA/PA l GCaputo 0! ,

D3angart, OSP DWillinas, CIG EJordan AE00 DE:Chron OE:EA DCS JStone, NRR SDesbek, NRR VMcCree, OEDO CM111er, NRR .

t MShannon, ILPS NUD0CS i68 Vl u . w - ~ . ,,ve . % +- sr.c,=.

OFFICE RI:E0 ff"/F l RIfDR , F l Rith [ RI:RC ,;A RI; K l NAME DHolodyA ( V$Wir . RC$obe7 K$aith M b WKh F DATE 03/I,/95 Of/ Nf95 .) 03/bh/95\ 03// g/9 7 03/II, /95 M N OFFICE RIMI w' I E0

~

DEDR ' ~ Q# l 1 I l NAME TN#p'nV JLieberman JM11hoan J l DATE 03/ h /95 03/ M /95 03/ h /95 03/ /95 03/ /95 I l q,-

0FFICIAL RECORD COPY a: PROP-SAL.HID I

J

4 t

1 1

1 j

EELME NOTICE OF VIOLATION 1

AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY Public Service Electric and Gas Company Docket Nos. 50-272; 50-311 Salem Nuclear Generating station License Nos. DPR-70; OPR-75

! Units 1 and 1 EA 94-139 As a result of an NRC OI investigation at Sales, the report of which was issued

on November 4,1994, a violation of NRC requirements was identified. In i accordance with the ' General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions " 10 CFR Part 2 Ap>endix C, the Nuclear Relulatory l Commission proposes ,to impose a civil , penalty pursuant to Section 230 of the 3

Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended (Act), 42 U.S.C. 2282, and 10 CFR 2.205.

1 The particu ar violation a,nd associated civil penalty are set forth below:

10 CFR 50.7, Employee Protection, subsection (a), prohibits discrimination j by a Commissie9 iconsee against an employee for engaging in certain i protected activities.

j Discrimination includes actions that relate to compensation, t9 ries, conditions, or privileges of employment. Protected i

i activities include, but are not limited to, providing information to an employer on potential violations or other matters within the NRC's j regulatory responsibilities.

J l

contrary to the above, the licensee discriminated against two employees

! for enga and Mr. ging in protected activities. The employees Mr. Bert Williams, Paul Craig, who were safety Review Group SRG) engineers were i

engaged in a protected activity in that they raise (d safety concer,ns by attempting to file an incident report (IR) at Sales concernine whether 1

commercia grade air supply pressure setpoint regulators, which control j

service water flow to the containment fan cooling units, were qualified seismically properly classified in an information system as safety-related, an,d properly configured. Beginnin licesse through. the then General ManagergSalem on December Operations3,1992, the (GM-50),

Mr Calvin Vondra, and the then Operations Manager (ON), Mr. Vincent Pull 221 subjected Mr. Williams and Mr. Craig to discrete actions which created a hostile work environment affecting the conditions of employment, as evidenced by the following:

1. The ON, during his initial meetings with the two SRG engineers on December 3, 1992, angrily attempted to convince the SAG engineers that either the IR should not be issued, or should include information, that the ON believed existed, that would support operability of the components. The actions of the ON contributed to a hostile work environment directed to the two SRG engineers because his actions could have had a chilling effect on those employees (or other employees who may have become aware of or witnessed this  ;

event) raising safety concerns;

- -