ML20149J278
Text
.-
i*
...,%*\\
ventao states
,f n,
NUCLEAR REQULATORY COMMISSION I
aseo os m s A.
vtvAs, A teens t4is e...e f.. p ary 9. 1,H 6 EA 95-250 Mr. Robert 6. Syraa senter Vice President - lowclear Pennsylvanta Power & Light Company i North Ninth Street Allentown, Pennsylvania 18101 SUBJ(CT:
NOTICE OF V!0LAT!0ll M0 PROPOSED INP0$1TI0ft 0F CIVIL PENALTY -
$100.000 (secretary of Labor's Decision and Order of Resand ERA-032) l
Dear Mr. Byram:
This letter refers to the Secretary of Labor's (Sol) Decision and order of Assand, dated October 20, 1995, which found that an employee of Pennsylvania Power & Light Company's (PP&L) security staff at Susquehanna had proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that an adverse action was taken by PP&L against his and that the action was activated by the individual's rotected I
activity. The individual had raised concerns to the NRC in 1992 fch were substantiated during a subsequent Office of Investigations (01) Investigation.
and these concerns were the subject of a previous enforcement action (Severity Level !!! violation) to you in May 1995 (Reference EA 94-212).
Based on the NRC review of the 50L decision, the NAC finds that a violation of the Commission's regulations set forth in 10 CFA 50.7, ' Employee Protection,'
has occurred. Under 10 CFA 50.7, discrialnation by a Commission licensee agatast an employee for engagine in protected activities is prohibited. On January 4,1996, a predecisional enforcement conference was held with you and members of your staff, to discuss this occurrence, the apparent violation, its cause and your corrective actions. The violation is described in the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed laposition of Civil Penalty (flotice).
According to the 50L decision, the evidence shows that: (1) after the individual (a Senior Security Officer concerns to the Nit", he received lower (550) at the facilityi raised his fractional ratings from his Security Shift Supervisor than the other two $50s on his shift for his 1992 performance appraf sal in March 1993 and his 1993 performance appraisal in March 1994 (although the overall ratings were the same); (2) the lower ratings led to a lower salary increase and the then-Manager of Security indicated that the i
Iower fractional ratings could affect the 550's job retention if the company were faced with a reduction in force; and (3) the normal everyday interaction between PP&L staff and the affected 550 changed af ter he identified his i
concerns to the NRC.
i
^
[
NUREG-0940, PART II A-103
)
(
HAVENST97-223 PDR
f.
1 4
Mr. Robert G. Syras 2
Patected activities include providing the Cossalssion information about possible violations of requirements japosed under either the Atoste Energy Act i...... o...,.on Me Energy Reytantra.ttra Act,.rsemting.the Coentssion.te int-titute
- l enforcement action against his or her employer for the administration or enforcement of these requirements, or testifying in any Coeustssion proceeding.
The actions taken against the 550 after he raised concerns to the NRC constitute a violation of 10 CfR 50.7 which is categorized at Severity Level !!! in accordam:e with the ' General Statement of Policy and Procedure 1
for MAC [nforcement Actions * (Enforcement Policy), (60 FA 34381, June 30, 1995). Such violations are significant because they could have a chilling effd im other licensee or contractor personnel in that it alght l
deter then < rom identifying and/or raising safety concerns.
)
J Under the Enforcement Policy, a base civil penalty in the amount of $50,000 is considerW for a Severity Level III violation. As already noted, Susquehanna has been tie subject of an escalated enforcement action within the last two years (Refs ence, EA 94-212). In accordance with the Enforcement Policy, the MRC considerd whether credit was warranted for identification and corrective
]
action in accordance with the civil penalty assessment process in Section VI.S.2 of the Enforcement Policy.
Credit was not given for IdentIffeation because the violation was identified by the Senior Security Officer in his complaint flied with the Department of 2
Labor. Credit was considered for Corrective Action, which you described at the enforcement conference to include (1) reinforcement of a climate for individuals to raise concerns; (2) personnel actions against responsible individuals; (3) senior management holding discussions with the security shifts; and (4) discussions with the affected individual to settle the Department of Labor (DOL) complaint. However, credit was not given for your i
corrective actions because the discriminatory actions were clearly identified by the SOL Decision that was issued in October 1995 and the corrective actions l
were not initiated untti recently, even though the discriminatory actions started shortly after the individual raised his concerns in 1992. For example, you noted at the enforcement conference that the training of supervisors regarding sensitivity to employee issues was not started until December 29, 1995.
Therefore, to emphastze the taportance of saintaining a work environment in which employees are free to engage in protected activities without fear of retallation, I have been authorized, after consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, to iss a the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed i
i laposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $100,000 which is twice the base amount for a Severity Level !!! violation.
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. In your response, you should document the specific actions taken and any additional j
actions you plan to prevent recurrence. In addition, your response should address the concerns raised in the NRC's July 14, 1995 letter regarding the NUREG-0940, PART II A-104
(
d j
I Mr. Robert G. tyraa 3
perceived chilling effect of the supervisor's actions, a letter for which you j
have been given an extension on your reply untti after the enforcement
' confer ~ ente was heVd. Further, since thd time'of' tht/enfcNetssat cinference.
- * * + ~
l we have spoken with several individuals at your facility who have expressed concern regarding a chilling effect continuing to exist at Susquehanna.
I Therefore, you should also address additional plans developed subsequent to 1
the conference to elisinate any cht111ng effect at the factitty, as well as the actions you have taken or plan to take to assist first-line supervisors in j
dealing with conflicts in the workplace. After reviewing your response to i
this Mottee, including your proposed corrective actions and the results of j
future inspections, the NRC will determine whether further NRC enforcement I
action is necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirements.
j 4
i In accordance with 10 CFA 2.790 of the NRC's 'Aules of Practice,' 4 copy of 1
this letter, its enclosure (s), and your response will be placed in the NRC 4
Pubite Document Room (POR). To the extent possible, your response should not l
1 Include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be placed in the POR without redaction. However if you find it necessary to include such information, you should clearly indi:ste the j
specific information that you desire not to be placed in the POR, and provide the legal basis to support your request for withholding the information from i
the public, i
The response directed by this letter and the enclosed Motice is not subject to j
the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by j
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pubite Law No.96-511.
Sincerely, h.
__a.
Thomas T. Martin Regional Administrator
Enclosure:
i Motice of Violation and Proposed laposition l
of Civil Penalty i
Dx ket Mos. 50-381;50-388 1
I i
l i
l i
l l
NUREG-0940, PART !!
A-105
-2 e
T--m-r
Mr. Robert G. Syras 4
cc w/ enc 1:
H. G. Stanley, Vice President - Nuclear Operations J. M. Kenny, Nuclear Licensing G. T. Jone:, Vtce ProsIdent - Muclear Engineering G. Kuczynskt. Plant Manager R. R. Wehry, Nuclear Licensing e-3.-.. M.-MM:'4ette..hActMarvtto SWnager,'Genef at ETectrIc' ~
C. D. Lopes Manager - Nuclear Security W. Burchill, Manager, Assessment Services H. D. Woodeshlck, Special Office of the President i
J. C. T11 ton, !!!, Allegheny Electrie Cooperative, Inc.
Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)
Commonwealth of Pennsylvanta i
)
i
{
i I
i i
I 1
l t
i i
i l
j i
i f
i i
I I
NUREG-0940, PART II A-106 i
i