ML20205B960

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Seventh Partial Response to FOIA Request for Documents. Records in App N Already Available in Pdr.App O Records Being Released in Entirety & App P Records Being Withheld in Part (Ref FOIA Exemptions 7C,2 & 5)
ML20205B960
Person / Time
Site: Browns Ferry, Sequoyah, Vogtle  Tennessee Valley Authority icon.png
Issue date: 03/24/1999
From: Racquel Powell
NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To: Gunter P
NUCLEAR INFORMATION & RESOURCE SERVICE
Shared Package
ML20205B966 List:
References
FOIA-99-76 NUDOCS 9904010037
Download: ML20205B960 (11)
v • d • e


Text

- - o

~

NRC FORM 464 P.rt i \ U.S. NUCLEAR RE[60N " UMIS$10N PUIA/P'A RESPONSE NuMIER o

ji m, , g I #

/* "' QC 99-076 7 RESPOh-_ TO FREEDOM OF E

INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) / PRIVACY RESPONSE QA AL k*...*h}

REQUESTER ACT (PA) REQUEST TYPE DATs.

Mr. Paul Gunter WAR 2 41999 PART 1. -INFORMATION RELEASED

~

] No additional agency records subject to the request have been located.

~

] Requested records are availabl3 thiough another public distribution program. See Comments section.

,"APPE Agency S records subject to ti ? '9 quest that art, identified in the listed appendices are already available for N ND'lCEi publac inspect.L,1 and copying at the NRC Putilic Document Room.

" APPENDICES

[ 1 Agency records subject tu the request that are identified in the lided appendices are being made available for O public inspection and c)pying at the NRC Public Document Room.

p F ~ Enclosed is information on how you may obtain access to and the charges for copying records located at the N'RC Public

- Document Room,2120 L Street, NW, Washington, DC.

' -- APPENDICES

_, Agenq records subject to the request are enclosed.

E Yecords subject to the requed that contain information originated by or cf interest to another Federal agency have been

- referred to that agency (see comments section) for a disclosure determination and direct response to you.

Q We are continuing to process your request.

~ See Comme.its.

~

PART 1.A - FEES AMOUNT * - You will be billed by NRC for the amount listed. None. Minimum fee threshold not met.

, f You will receive a refund for the amount listed. Fees waived.

L coynts_ ~~

s PART l.B -INFORMATION NdT LOCATED OR WITHHELD FROM DISCLOS[lRE

] No agency records subject to the request have been located.

g- - the reasons stated in Part 11.Certain ir' formation in the requested records is being withheld from disclosure oursuant to th y- This determination may be appealed within 30 days by writing to the FOIA/PA Officer. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Clearly state on the envelope and in the letter that it is a *FOIA/PA Appeal."

PART l.C COMMENTS (Use attached Comments continuation page if required) r r

9904010037

~ f f PDR FOIA 990324 '"

, OUNTER99-76 PDRi

\ f\ N SiqMiuncr r.E D IFoRMAld N ACI AND PhivACY ACl OHILER Ruu e I

NRC FORM 464 Part 1 (6-1998) PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER This form was designed using informs 990Vefae37

~

NRC FORIJ 464 Part 11 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$lON FOIA/PA Dm j %SPONSE TO FREEDOM OF INFORMATION m p iggg ACT (FOIA) / PRIVACY ACT (PA) REQUEST l PART ll.A - APPLICABLE EXEMPTIONS I 4.PPEND Es_ Records subject to the request that are desenbed in the enclosed Appendices are being withheld in their entirety or in part under l

~ . _ . _ . . _ _ the Exemption No.(s) of the PA and/or the FOIA as indicated below (5 U S C. 552a and/or 5 U S C. 552(b)). i Exemption 1: The withheld information is property classified pursuant to Executive Order 12958.

g Exs,mption 2: The withheld information relates solely to the intemal personnel rules and procedures of NRC.

{] Exemption 3: The withhe81information is specifically excmpted from public disclosure by statute indicated.

6ections .. -145 of the Atomic Energy Act, which prohibits the disclosure of Restricted Data or Formerly Restricted Data (42 U.S C.

2161-2165). .

I Section 147 of the Atomic Energy Act, which prohib!ts the disclosure of Unclassihid Safeguards information (42 U S C. 2167).

410 S C., Section 253(b), subsection (m)(1), prohibits the disclosure of co stractor proposals in the possession and control of an

= executive agency to any person us, der section 552 of Title 5. U S.C. (the FOIA), except when incorporated into the contract between the agency and the submitter c' the proposal.

Exemption 4: The withheld information is a trade secret or commercial or financial information tha, is being withheld for the reasen(s) i indicated. l

- The information is considered to be confidential business (propnetary) information.  !

" The information is considered to be propnetary becaut,e it concerns a licensee % or applicant's physical protection or material control and

- accounting program for special nuclear matenal pursuant to 10 CFR 2.790(dW) I

~

The information was submitted by a foreign source and received in confidence pursiant to 10 CFR 2.M0(d)(2)

~y Exemption 5: The withheld information consists of interagency or intraagency records that are not available through discovery dunng V litigation. Applicable privileges:

~r V

Deliberative process: Disclosure of predecisionalinformation would tend to inhibit the open and frank exchange of ideas essential to the deliberatwe process Where records are withheld in their antirety. the facts are inextncably intertwined with the predecisional information. There also are no reasonably segregable factual portionF because the release of the facts would permit an indirect inquiry into the predecisional process of the agency.

[ Attorney work-product pnvilege. (Documents prepared by an attorney in contemplation of litigation)

Attorney-ci.ent pnvilege. (Confidential communications between an attorney and his/her client) )

Exemption 6: The withheld information is exempted from public disclosure because its disclosure would result in a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal pnvacy.

J Exemption 7: The withheld information consists of records compiled for law enforcement purposes and ir, being withheld for the reason (s)

V indicated.

(A) Disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with an enforcement proceeding (e g., it would reveal the scope, direction, and focus of enforcemeht effons, and thus could possibly allow recipients to take action to shield potential wrongdoing or a violation of NRC requirements from investigators),

y (C) Disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal pnvacy.

~ (D) The information consists of names of individuals and other informatinn the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to reveal identities of confidential sources.

(E) Disclosure would reveal techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or guidelines that could rp.Sonably be expected to nsk circumvention of the law

~ (F) Disclosure could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of an individual.

OTHER (Speuy)

( PART ll.B - DENYING OFFICIALS Pursuant to 10 CFR 9.25(g),9.25(h), and/or 9 65(b) of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulation 1 it has been determined that the information w,thheld is exempt from production or disclosure, and that its production or disclosure is contrary to the public j int: rest. The person responsible for the denial are those officials ident:fied below A denying officials and the FOIA/PA Officer for any denials that may be appealed to the Executive Director for Operations (EDO).

~ ' DENYING OFFICIAL TITLE / OFFICE RECORDS DENIED ((f5 Y W

~

~

dpp~eal must be made in writ 5g within 30 days of receipt of this response. Appeals should be mailed to the FOIA/ Privacy Act Officer, U S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, for action by the appropriate appellate official (s). You should clearly state on the envelope and letter that it is a *FOIA/PA Appeal."

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER This form was aesignea using inF orms j NRC FO5tM 464 Part it (61998)

e, A+

Re: FOIA/PA-99-076 APPENDIX N RECORDS ALREADY AVAILABLE IN THE PDR I

ACCESSION NO. DATE NUMBER DESCRIPTIONHPAGE COUNT)

I l

1. 04/16/9? 9304300030 Letter to M. Medford P. Fredrickson; re: l Notice of Violation (NRC Inspection Report l Nos. 50-259/93-07,50-260/93-07 and 50- l 296/93-07) w/ enclosures (23 pages)

]

1

2. 01/27/97 9702110044 Letter to O. Kingsley from M. Lesser; re: l Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant: Alleged j Discrimination Against A former Stone &  ;

Webster iron Werker (Office of Investigation l Case Number 2-96-008) w/ enclosure (5 l pages) l

3. 03/14/97 9704150280 Letter to O. Kingsley from J. Jaudon; re:

Notice of Violation (NRC Office of Investigations Report No. 2-96-009) (7 pages)

4. 04/02/97 9704080152 Letter to J. Jaudon from R. Adney (3 pages)
5. 05/09/97 9705200050 Letter to O. Kingsley from J. Jaudon; re:

NRC Office of investigations (01) Report No.

2-96-009 (4 pages)

6. 06/09/97 9706170028 Letter to Document Control Dt . from R.

Adney w/ enclosure (6 pages)

7. 08/15/97 9708250374 Letter to O. Kingsley from J. Jaudon; re:

NRC Office of Investigations (01) Report No.

2-96-009 (3 pages)

8. 12/18/97 9712240224 Letter to J. Lieberman from J. Bailey (2 pages)
9. 12/29/97 9712310301 Letter to O. Zeringue from J. Lieberman (1 page)

L .

Re: FOIA/PA-99-076 l APPENDIX O RECORDS BEING RELEASED IN THElR ENTIRETY NO. DATE DESCRIPTION /(PAGE COUNT)

1. Undated - Draft letter to D. Smith from H. Miller, NRC Region, " Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty" (OI Rpt No.1-96-033) (8 pages)
2. Undated Draft letter to S. Kelly, "NRC Investigation Rcport 1-96-033" (3 pa0es)
3. Undated Index of Concems; R;l-1996-A-0063 (1 page)
4. Undated Allegation Report Rll-96-A-0063 (1 page)
5. Undated Domestic Return Receipt w/ attachment (2 pey,) I
6. Undated Domestic Return Receipt w/ attachment (2 pages) -
7. ' Undated EICS Enforcement Worksheet (4 pages)
8. Undated EICS Staff Notes (1 oge)
9. Undated Handwritten Note (1 page)
19. Undated Handwritten Note (1 page)
11. Undated TVA Letter (1 page)
12. Undated EA Number Request Form (1 page) 1
13. Undated Case Chronology; Rll-93-A-0096 (1 page) i
14. Undated Handwritten Notes (1 page)
15. Undated . Facsimile Transmittal (1 page) l
16. Undated Handwritten Notes (1 page) i l
17. Undated Chronology (2 pages) {

18, Undated TVA News Release (2 pages)

19. Undated Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (2 pages) i

Re: FOIA/PA-99-076 APPENDIX O (continued)

RECORDS BEING RELEASED IN THEIR ENTlRETY N_Q DATE DESCRIPTION #PAGE COUNT)

20. 03/30/93 Letter to DOL from D. Harrison (2 pages)
21. 05/27/93 Allegation Review Panel; Ril-93-A-0096 (1 page)
22. 05/27/93 Allegation Review Summary; Ril-93-A-0096 (1 page) l 23. 06/21/93 Master (1 page)
24. 07/01/93 Unnamed - Various attachments (5 pages)
25. 07/01/93 Fact Sheet for Discrimination Cases (2 pages)
26. 11/26/93 Note to D. Hinton from B. Uryc; re: Harrison v. Stone & Webster 93-ERA-44 (2 pages)
27. 11/26/93 TVA (1 cage)
28. 06/01/94 Facsimile Transmittal w/ attached 6/1/94 note to D. Hinton from B.

Uryc (3 pages)

29. 11/08/94 Recommended Decision and Order (33 pages)
30. 01/04/95 Fact Sheet for Discrimination Cases (2 pages)
31. 05/16/95 Annotated memo to E. Merschoff from B. Uryc; re: 01 Report No.

2-93-030, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant; Alleged Demotion of Stone  !

and Webster Engineering Corporation...(Ril-93-A-0096) (1 page)

32. 05/16/95 Annotated memo to E. Merschoff from B. Uryc; re: 01 Report No.

2-93-030, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant: Alleged Demotion of Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC)...(1 page)

33. 05/16/95 Annotated memo to E. Merschoff from B. Uryc; re: 01 Report No.

2-93-030, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant: Alleged Demotion of Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC)...(1 page)

34. 05/24/95 Fact Sheet for Discrimination Cases (2 pages)

L --

Re: FOIA/PA-99-076 APPENDlX O

(continued) l RECORDS BEING RELEASED IN THEIR ENTIRETY 1 M DATE DESCRIPTION /(PAGE COUNT)
35. 05/25/95 Letter to A. Perry from B. Uryc; re: Request for Access to DOL Case File (no. 93-ERA-44)(2 pages)
36. 07/28/95 Case Chronology; Rll-93-A-0096 (1 page)
37. 07/28/95 Allegation Management System; Ril-93-A-0096 (1 page)
38. 07/28/95 Index of Concerns; Ril-93-A-0096 (1 page)
39. 09/08/95 E-mail from A. Boland to Various Addressees; re: Harrison DOL Case (1 page)
40. 09/15/95 E-mail from N. Sanford to B. Uryc; re: CE'Sndar item (1 page)
41. 09/22/95 E-mail from A. Boland to Various Addressees; re: Harrison /BFN DOL issues (1 page)
42. 10/06/95 E-mail from L. Watson to D. Rosano; ra: Harrison Case (1 page)
43. 10/06/95 E-mail from L. Watson to M. Lesser; re: SWEC address for Browns Ferry (1 page) l
44. 10/10/95 EA Number Request Form (1 page)
45. 10/18/95- Letter to S. Ehele from E. Merschoff; re: Predecisional I Enforcement Conference w/ enclosure (8 pages) l l
46. 10/18/95 Letter to O. Kingsley from E. Merschoff; re: Predecisional  ;

Enforcement Conference w/ enclosure (7 pages)

47. 10/18/95 Letter to R. Kelly from E. Merschoff; re: Predecisional 9nforcement Conference w/ enclosure (7 pages) ,
48. 10/18/95 Letter to O. Kingsley from E. Merschoff; re: Predecisional ,

Enforcement Conference w/ enclosures (23 pages)

49. 10/25/95 EICS Staff Notes (2 pages) l l

Re: FOIA/PA-99-076 APPENDIX O (continued)

RECORDS BEING RELEASED IN THEIR ENTIRETY NO. DATE DESCRIPTION /(PAGE COUNT)

50. 10/25/95 E-mail from M. Lesser to L. Watson; re: Attendees at Harrison Enf

' Conf (1 page)

51. 10/30/95- Handwritten Notes (3 pages)
52. 10/30/95 ElCS Staff Notes (5 pages) l
53. 11/01/95 E-mail from L. Watson to D. Rosano re: Harrison Case (1 page)
54. 11/07/95 E-mail from L. Watson to Various Addressees; re: Harrison Case l (1 page)
55. 11/16/95 TVA Log Sheet (1 page)
56. 11/21/95 E-mail from L. Watson to Various Addressees; re: Proposed Enforcement on BF Discrimination (1 page) l 57. 12/13/95 Handwritten Notes (1 page) l
58. 12/18/95 Order Denying Application for Stay (5 pages)
59. 12/21/95 E-mail from A. Boland to Various Addresses (1 page)
60. 01/04/96 Facsimile Transmittal (1 page) 61, 01/04/96 Letter to E. Merschoff from M. Medford, re: Consideration of NRC Enforcement Action Regarding DOL Case No. 93-ERA-044 (3 Pages)
62. 01/09/96 2-Way Memo to C. Evans (1 page)
63. 01/29/96 Handwcitten Note (1 page)
64. 01/29/96 E-mail from B. Uryc to Various Addressees; re: EA 95-120 (1 page)
65. 02/08/96 E-mail from B. Uryc to D. Rosano; re: EA 95-220 (1 page)

I

n

Re
FOIA/PA-99-076 APPENDIX O (continued)

RECORDS BEING RELEASED IN THEIR ENTIRETY NO. DATE DESCRIPTION /(PAGE COUNT)

66. 02/14/96 E-mail from A. Boland to Various Addressees; re: Final Harrison Actions EA 95-190 and IA 96-005 (1 page)
67. 02/14/96 Letter to R. Kelly from S. Ebneter; re: Notice of Violation (7 pages)
68. 02/14/96 Letter to S. Ehele from S. Ebneter; re: Department of Labor Case No. 93-ERA-044 (2 pages)
69. 02/15/96 Facsimile Transmittal (1 page)
70. 02/15/96 News Release (1 page)
71. 03/07/96 ARB Meeting; Ril-96-A-0038 (1 page)
72. 03/13/96 ARB Bieeting (1 page)
73. 03/13/96 ElCS Staff Notes (2 pages)
74. 04/30/96 Fact Sheet for Discrimination Cases (2 pages)
75. 05/21/96 Letter to A. Perry from B. Uryc; re: Request For Access to DOL Case File (3 pages)
76. 06/27/96 Facsimile Transmittal w/ attached 6/27/96 note to J. Kaczak from B. Urye (2 pages)
77. 08/13/96 DOL Document Processing Sheet (1 page)
78. 08/15/96 TVA Log Sheet (2 pages) '
79. 10/02/96 Letter to G. Huddleton from L. Slack; re: Discrimiretory i Employment Practices Complaint, Rll-96-A-0038 (1 page)
80. 10/07/96 Order of Dismissal (4 pages) 4
81. 10/07/96 DOL Document Processing Sheet (1 page)
82. 01/02/97 EICS Routing Sheet (4 pages) l

Re: FOIA/PA-99-076 APPENDIX C (continued)

RECORDS BEING RELEASED IN THEIR ENTIRETY NO. DATE DESCRIPTION 4PAGE COUNT)

83. 01/06/97 EICS Staff Notes /1 page)
84. 01/22/97 Letter to G. Huddleton from O. DeMiranda; re:Ril-96-A-0038 -

Discriminatory Employment Practices w/ enclosure (2 pages)

85. 01/22/97 Memo to M. Lesser from O. DeMiranda; re: Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant: Alleged Discrimination Against A Former Stone & Webster Iron Worker (Case No. 2-96-008/Ril-96-A-0038) w/ attachment (2 pages)
86. 01/22/97 Index of Concerns; Ril-96-A-0038 (1 page)
87. 01/22/97 CHRON (1 page)
88. 02/11/97 Memo to J. Jaudon from B. Uryc; re: Office of Investigations Report No. 2-96-009 - Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (2 pages)
89. 02/17/97 Case Chronology; Ril-1996-A-0063 (1 page)
90. 02/26/97 EICS Enforcement Worksheet (4 pagos)
91. 04/08/97 ElCS Staff Notes (2 pages)
92. 04/08/97 Transmit Conf. Report w/ attachments (3 pages)
93. 04/08/97 Note to M. Satorious from B. Uryc; re: EA 97-092, Ol investiga' ion Case No. 2-96-009 w/ attachment (1 page)
94. 07/02/97 E-mail to B. Uryc from J. Lieberman w/ attachment (2 pages)
95. 07/16/97 Memo to Docket File from M. Lesser; re: Typog.aphical Error Notice of Violation (EA 95-220) (2 pager!/
96. 07/30/97 PANEL (3 pages 97, 08/01/97 E-mail from C. ivans to Various Addressees; re: Telecon with Ed Vigluicci of TVA (1 page)
98. 08/14/97 Checklist (1 page)

L_ __

Re: FOIA/PA-99-076 AFDENDIX 0 (continued)

RECORDS SEING RELEASED IN THEIR ENTIRETY NO. DATE DESCRIPTIONHPAGE COUNT)

99. 09/23/97 Action item No.97-134 (1 page) 100. 12/24/97 E-mail from A. Boland to Various Addfassees; re:

Acknowledgment letter in Harrison Case (1 page) i I

[

g __

1 *

! Re: FOIA/PA-99-076 APPENDIX P RECORDS BEING WITHHELD IN PART NO. DATE DESCRIPTION /(PAGE COUNT)/ EXEMPTIONS l

'1. 01/17/94 Letter to Individual from B. Uryc w/ enclosure (3 pages) EX. 7C

2. 02/26/97 ElCS Enforc'ement Worksheet (4 pages) EX. 7C
3. 05/13/95 Letter to Individual from O. DeMiranda (1 page) EX. 7C l
4. 07/28/95- Letter to Individual from B. Uryc (1 page) EX. 7C.
5. 07/28/95 Alleger Identification Sheet (1 page) EX. 7C
0. 09/28/95 ElCS Staff Notes (3 pages) EX. 2
7. 10/30/95 ElCS Staff Notes (2 pages) EX. 5 l
8. 01/03/96 Letter to E. Merschoff from R. Kelly; re: NRC Consideration of Enforcement Action...w/ enclosures (12 pages) EX. 7C i
9. 10/18/96 Letter to Individual from E. Merschoff; re: Predecisional Enforcement Conference w/ enclosures (24 pages) EX. 7C t

i l

4

NINh4 lit:Mj ff-o74 CaseNo:

o. ,[ DaleM /;t .a 4_ p g s' .

/cc di ACOOnOf:

( @Ijg,

( C~

Related0ase:

<65 cm:

L

-= _ _;_

, 8i . .n n. pc n 4 sw w, ,o ,, ,,,,,,,,,

December 21,1998 Russel Powell, Chief FOIA-LPDRBranchDivision of Freedom ofInformad Office of Adminitradon U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington,DC 20555

Dear Mr.Powell:

t the

/

On behalf of Nuclear Information and Resource make Servicl Freedom ofInformation Act,5 U.S.C. 552(b), et. seq., I C mmissionOffice

  • I available copies of all documents in the U.S.fiNuclear Regulato ofInvestigation's (OI) possession, which describe or discuss:

!) [ Case Number 1-96-033] fMNon of a surveillance OI on protection technician at Limerick Unit i fe:r 1 and "anha 2/19/97.

2) [ Case Number 2 96-008] alleged c 01 on 11/20/96.

watches at Browns Ferry Unit I and "ucch*=ntiated" by

3) [ Case Number 2-96409] alleged falsi5 cation Sequoyah 2 and" unsubstantiated" d ndby OI on 01/24/97 OIon
4) [CaseNumber4-97-003]failuretocond ction ili 04/11/97.
5) [CaseNumber 4-97-027] falsi5 cation dsat of1berm 6)records

[ Case at Comanche Number 1-95-012] Peak potential Unit 1 and"unsub falsificat Fitzpatrick and deemed " Higher Priority" by

7) [ Case Number 2-93-030]ic pmtection c~u *ms at Bro foremanfor urAfl i i against an

" unsubstantiated' by 01 on 12/15/94.

8) ICase Number 3 93-001]h alleged employment d l Science,Inc..

i f the OI employee for his refussi to falsify record I

g.g

-- ! ' ^.:. -

r' . -5 a

investigation is identified as "Other" and no referral was made to the Depamnent ofJustice by the 01 as dated 03/30/95.

9) [ Case Number 3 94-059] alleged deliberate falsification of fire watch records at Cook Unit 1 and deemed " Higher Priority" by OI on 01/18/95.

10)[ Case Number 3-94-060] alleged deliberate falsification of fire watch round records at Quad Cities Unit I and @anad " Higher Priority" by OI on 10/25/95.

I 1) [ Case Number 4-95-013] alleged dehbrate falsification of fire watch records at Arkansas Nuclear One Unit I and " substantiated" by 01 on 05/25/95.

12)[ Case Number 3-96-032] falsification of fire watch logs at Cook Unit I and determined by a " lack of regulatory requirement" by OI on 09/30/96.

13)[ Case Number 4-95-004] alleged discrimination and termination for refusal to falsify work steps (fire protection seals) at Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 1 and determined as a " lack of regulatory regih.:" by OI on 02/26/96.

14) (Case Namber 4-95-032] alleged false statements by fire watches to NRC inspectors at Wa=hinavaa Nuclear Unit 2 and deemed " Higher Priority" by OI on 10/05/95.

15)[ Case Number 4 E035] alleged deliberate falsification of fire watch records at Waterford Unit 3 aM deemed " Higher Priority" by OI on 01/17/96.

16)[ Case Number 4-95-044] alleged debbrate falsification of fire watch records at Waterford Unit 3 and " substantiated" by OI on 02/08/96.

17) [ Case Number 4-95-047] alleged discrimination for reporting fire watch concems to site management at Wei,id 3 and " unsubstantiated" by OI on l

01/31/96.

18)[ Case Number 4-95-070] alleged discrimination against fire watch for l refusing to violate site security procedures at Waterford Unit 3 and  !

"na htiated" by OI on 04/03/96. l This request covers but is not limited to all draft and final reports, couei,yondence, memoranda, notes, records of telephone contacts, electronic communications including .

j fax transmissions and Email, or other written records, whether in paper or computer

. files.

Pursuant to this request, please provide all documents and communications v .ei d or utilized by, in the possession of, or routed through the NRC related to items 1-18.

For any portion of the request that you deem appropriate to deny, NIRS requests that you describe the information that is denied identify the exception to the FOIA on which you rely, and explain how that exception applies to the withheld information.

Pursuant to NRC regulations at 10 CFR 9.41, NIRS requests that any searching and copying fees incu Ted as n result of this search be waived, und piovides the following information in response to the eight criteria listed in Section 9.41(b):

2

1) Purpose of request:

1 The purpose of the request is to gather information on the long-term reliance of compensatory ny,asures specifically hourly roving fire watch personnel. for inoperable 1 fire barriers ceaertly deployed throughout the nuclear power industry. This informatic6 cunently not available in the NRC's Public Document Room.

2) Extent to which NIRS will extract and analyze the substantive content of the records:

I NIRS is qualified to make use of the requested information. The staff has demonstrated the ability to accurately interpret information and communicate that information in a form comprehensible to the general public. Members of the NIRS staff have published articles in such nationaljournals as The Pmeressive. H1ElGar Times. Newsday and Bullerin of Atomia bimia'a NIRS is quoted as a reliable source ofinformadon on nuclear safety issues in new.wis across the country, including the New York Times. %e Weahinaton Post. and he San Francisco a Chronicle.

NIRS has a working relationship with attomeys, physicists, nuclear engineers, industry fire protection consultants, Congress and other tv~i professionals who contribute to the full understanding of technical records, investigations and the public health and safety impact. l l

i

3) Nature of the specific setivity or research in which the records will be used and NIRS's qualiScations to utilize the information for the intended use in such a way that it will contribute to public understanding:

)

NIRS seeks the requested information solely to contribute to and help shape the public debate on adequate fire protection at nuclear power stations and the public health and safety. NIRS intends to use the information in order to advance these concems for the I

public's understanding, health and safety.

4) Likely impact on the public's understanding of the subject as compared to the level of understanding of the subject prior to disclosure:

NIRS seeks to translate the requested information into the layperson's understanding of fire protection issues at nuclear power stations. The added attendon will increase the public understanding and further a national debate on fire protection standards.

Size and nature of the public to whose understanding a contribution will be  !

5) made:

NIRS has an active subscribing membership of over 1500 throughout the United States.

Several thousand additional members periodically receive mailings from NIRS.

3 j

c .~

s.

NIRS provides resource material to electronic and print media outlets with very broad outreach to a safety conscious audience. Additionally, NIRS has a web site i

(www.nirsnet._org) which receives on average of 250-300 visitors per day where postings on this issue will be made available.

6) Means of distribution of the requested information:

NIRS will use its own newsletter publication The Nuclear Monitor , i our media contacts in both the electronic and print media outlets to provide very broad outreach to the safety conscious public. Additionally, NIRS will post information on its web site l j

(www.nirsnet.orn) which receives on average of 250-300 visitors per day, l

7) Whether free access to information will be provided: l 1

NIRS will provide the information without charge to all members of the public. {

Information prepared from the FOIA requested will be posted on the web site for downloading free of charge. NIRS will also provide infonnation to traditional media outlets without charge. .

I

8) No commercial interest by NIRS or any other party:

NIRS has no commercial interest in obtaining the wested information. This l '

information is provided to all public requests without enarge. The sole interest of NIRS is to promote a policy debate on appropriate and adequate fire protection at iMear power stations for the sake of public health and safety. '

Sin ,

J Paul Gunter, Director .

Reactor Watchdog Project Nuclear Information and Resource Service j Cc:  ;

Congressman Edward Markey Mr. David Walker, OAO l

l i

i 4

L

r o ..

Q2 EAs97-050 97-115 Mr. D. M. Smith, President ~~ ^

_._ P.ECO. Nuclear _ -

Nuclear Group Headquarters

, Correspondence Congot Deck .._ . .._ ._ .. :. ..

7 -- y -

_ _ . _ Post Office Box 195 _# _ _ _ .

Wayne, Pennsylvania 19087-0195

SUBJECT:

NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY - $80,000 (NRC Office of Invest *gation Reports Nos. F96-006 and 1-96-033)

Dear Mr. Smith:

This letter refers to two NRC investigations conducted by the NRC Office of Investigations (OI).

The investigations were conducted after you had identified and investigated instances of record falsification at Limerick, and reported your fmdings to the NRC. The synopses of the 01 investigations were forwarded to you with the NRC letter, dated, April 29,1997. Based on the investigations conducted by your staff and OI, the NRC has concluded that records were, in fact, falsified at the facility. Falsification of records required to be maintained by NRC regulations or license conditions constitutes an apparent violation of 10 CFR 50.9, as also noted in the NRC April 29,1997 letter. As a result, a predecisional enforcement conference was conducted with 1

Mr. G. Rainey and other members of your staff on June 2,1997, to discuss the violation, its 1 causes, and your corrective actions.

Based on the information developed during the investigations, and the information provided during the June 2,1997, conference, violations of NRC requirements are being cited. The violations are described in detail in the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice). The violations involve instances of records falsification at Limerick. In one case, a chemistry technician and a former chemist, at the direction of the former Primary Chemistry Manager, deliberately falsified a record of the time a grab sample was taken from the Reactor Enclosure Cooling Water (RECW) system. The Primary Chemistry Manager r.lso pressured the technician and chemist to lie about their actions to your security personnel investigating the I

matter. In another case, a fire protection technical assistant deliberately failed to perform a fire hose station visual inspection surveillance test, yet falsified the surveillance test document to indicate the test was performed.

With respect to the first violation (OI Report 1-96-006), the technical specifications require that with a radiation monitor inoperable, at least one grab sample needs to be taken at least once every 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. On February 7,1996, the sampic was approximately I hour and 15 minutes late, yet the record was changed to indicate that the sample was taken within the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> period. Further, the investigation, in addition to confirming falsification of the sample documentation, also concluded there was a conspiracy and subsequent coercion of the chemistry technician by the Primary Chemistry Manager in an attempt to cover up the late sample.

g\a,\

1 v

_ .$f "i '

L __ _ll ' ~

4 q

With respect to the second violation (O1 Report 1-96-033), a fire protection technical assistant deliberately failed to properly perform a fire hose station visual inspection surveillance test and falsified the surveillance test document. Your investigation found tigt: (1) the individual _

deliberately failed 1o do the test in question, yet-falsified the document; and (2) the individual ~~

deliberately failed to perform other such tests, yet falsified the related documentation on five other

~

occasions; and (3) the individual lailed to enter a specific area necessary to compNe a fire suppression water systern spray _and sprinkler visual inspection for which he had signed documentation indicating that the vishal inspection had been mecessfully completed. _,

Not performing required actsitidyet documenting on records that the activities were performed, constitutes a significant regulatory concern. The NRC has previously issued documents '

emphasizing the importance of maintaining complete and accurate records of activities performed, such as in NRC Information Notice 92-30 issued on April 23,1992, and NRC Generic Ixtter 93-03 issued on October 20,1993. Those documents describe similar occtuTences at other facilities. While the NRC is clearly concerned with the individuals who engage in these activities at Limerick, the NRC is also concerned whether the situation involving the Primary Chemistry  ;

Manager is evidence of a culture at Limerick in which the staffis fearful of raising probbms when they occur.

Even though the RECW sample was not contaminated, and all affected fire protection equipment was operable, the NRC considers record falsification a significant regularity concern. Given the number of record falsifications and given that the RECW record falsification was directed by the former Chemistry Manager, a licensee official, who subsequently coerced subordinates to lie to PECO investigators regarding this matter, the violations are categorized in the aggregate as a Severity Level II problem in accordance with the

In accordance with the Enforcement Policy in effect at the time these violations occurred, a base civil penalty in the amount of $80,000 is considered for a Severity Level Il problem. Since this issue constitutes a Severity Level II problem, the NRC would normally consider whether credit was warranted for Identification and Corrective Action in accordance with the civil penalty assessment process in Section VI.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy. Credit would ncrmally be warranted for both factors because you identified both violations and your corrective actions were considered prompt and comprehensive. Those corrective actions included: (1) taking disciplinary action against responsible individuals; (2) verifying that there was not a more widespread integrity issue within the chemistry and fire protection departments; (3) conducting a meeting with chemistry personnel during which integrity expectations were communicated to staff; (4) reenforcing expectations within the Fire Protection group; (5) briefing the Site Directors regarding the events; and (6) issuing a letter from the Vice President to all site personnel with reenforcement of expectations during the group meetings. However, notwithstanding the normal civil penalty assessment outcome, in accordance with Section VII.A.1 of the Enforcement Policy, civil penalties are normally proposed for Severity Level II problems and for willful violations to ensure that enforcement actions reflect the significance of the circumstances.

Therefore, to emphasize the importance of performing activities as required, and maintaining accurate records of such activities, and holding staff accountable to these standards, I have been authorized, after consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement and the Deputy Executive L

[ .

a y

Director for Regulatory Effectiveness, to exercise enforcement discretion in accordance with Section VII.A.1 of the Enforcement Policy and issue the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice) in the amount of $80,000 for the Severity level II j problem. .

~

~ hie NRWtreating'tlifailure to"talitiEnece'sh grab sample as a Non-Cited Violation in

,, , , _accordance with Section VII.B.1 of the Enforcement Policy. - -- ~

l. .-

~' ~

l You are required to respond to tliis letter and should follow the instructions specified in the l enclosed Notice when preparing your response. _ Given your staff's efforts to avoid documenting that the grab sample was late, your response should describe what actions you intend to take in l light of this matter, to ensure that employees are comfortable properly dispositioning issues when l errors are identified. The NRC will use your response, in part, to determme whether further enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.

l In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, its l ,

enclosures, and your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR).

l Sincerely, i

l t Hubert J. Miller Regional Administrator Docket Nos. 50-352: 50-353 License Nos. NPF-39; NPF-85

Enclosure:

Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty l

1 l

l l

l l

l 4

'I

\ )

r__

.4 . .s. . . _

10 .

. - .~

cc w/ encl:

G. Hunger, Jr.', Chairman, Nuclear Review Board ad Director - Licensing , _ _, __

W. MacFarland, Vice President - Limerick Generating Sation J. Kantner, Manager, Experience Assessment Secretary Nuclear Committee of the Board ~- -

Commons & of Pennsylvania

_ 7

-- . . - , .. -4 . ,. _

9 i

i i

l 1 l

i

r -

,) -

l DISTRIBUTION:

PUBLIC SECY CA

~~

LCallan..EDO ~~l

_... 99 g_ - - . . . . - . - . .. --.

.m

--- . JLieberman, OE ~~~

~'

HMiller, RI ~ -

FDavis, OGC SCollins, NI1R - -

RZimmerman, NRR Enforcement Coordinators i RI, RII, RIII, RIV  !

BBeecher, GPA/PA i GCaputo, OI DBangart, OSP HBell, DIG Dross, AEOD OE:Chron OE:EA DCS NUDOCS DScrenci, PAO-RI NSheehan, PAO-R1 Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)

NRC Resident Inspector - Limerick LTremper, OC To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment / enclosure "N" = No copy OFFICE RI: ORA RI:DRP l RI:RC tRI:RA NAME DHolody/mjc WHehl BFewell HMiller DATE / /97 / /97 / /97 /7 97 L

OFFICE OE DEDO l NAME JLieberman EJordan DATE / /97 / /97

ENCLOSURE

-~- ~

NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY _ _ _ _ _

__ __x ._ ._. _-

~~ ~

PECO Energ(Coinpany Docket Nos! 50-3'52;

~ '

50_.__

353 Limerick Units 1 & 2 License Nos. NPF-39; NPF

-85 EA Nos.97-050; 97-115 As a result ofinvestigations conducted by the NRC Office ofInvestigations, and PECO Energy Company, violations of NRC requirements were identified. In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions,"

NUREG-1600, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes to impose a civil penalty pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (Act),42 U.S.C. 2282, and 10 CFR 2.205. The particular violations and associated civil penalty are set forth below:

10 CFR 50.9 requires, in part, that information required by the Commission's regulations or license conditions to be maintained by the licensee shall be 1 complete and accurate in all material respects.

Technical Specification (TS) 6.10.2.d requires, in part, that records of surveillance activities required by TSs be retained for at least 5 years.

1.

Contrary to the above, a record of a TS surveillance activity required to be maintained by the licensee at Limerick, was not complete and accurate in all material respects. Specifically, on February 7,1996, while l

' a Reactcr Enclosure Cooling Water (RECW) radiation monitor was inoperable, the licensee was required, in accordance with TS 3.3.7.1, ACTION 72, to obtain and analyze at least one grab sample from the RECW system at least once per 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. On that date, the sample needed to be taken by 11:00 a.m. to meet that requirement. Although the sample was not taken until 12:15 p.m. on that date (approximately 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 15 minutes after the time it was due), the record of the RECW Surveillance Test (ST-5-026-570-1, *Inop Reactor Enclosure Cooling Water Rad Mon Grab Sampling and Analysis"), signed by a chemistry technician and the chemist (as chemistry supervision), was inaccurate because: (1) page one of attachment 1 of the test record indicated that the time of the sample was 11:00 a.m., and (2) the attached computer

%%M7) i

O 6

~

I

)

l printout of the Gamma Spectrum Analysis (required by step 4.3.1 of th surveillance test) also indicated that the sample was taken at 11:00 a.m.

This record was material because it provides evidence as to whether !

licensee met the grab sample requirement.

2.

Contrary to the above, certain surveillance records required to be

- ^

maintained by the licensee at Limerick, were not complete and a in all material respects. Specifically, on three occasions betwee 3,1995 and June 28,1995, tfie records for fire protection surveillance l I

tests required by TS 4.7.6.2.c and TS 4.7.6.5.a were not accurate in that certain fire hose and sprinkler system inspections were recorded a having been completed, even though plant security data indicates that i

technician was not present in the vicinity of the equipment to perform the inspection. These records were material because they provide evidence as to whether the licensee met the fire protection surveillance 9 requirements.

l This is a Severity level 11 problem. (Supplement VII) 1 Civil Penalty - $80,000 Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, PECO Energy Company (License hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the Director, Off Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, within 30 days of the this Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice).

should be clearly marked as a " Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include each alleged violation:

(1) admission or denial of the alleged violation, (2) the reasons for the violation if admitted, and if denied, the reasons why, (3) the correctiv that have been taken and the results achieved (4) the corrective steps that will be to avoid further violations, and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved. If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an Order or Demand for Information may be issued as to why the license should not be modi suspended, or revoked or why such other action as may be proper should not be taken.

Consideration may be given to extending the response time for good cause showTi.

Under the authority of Section 182 of the Act 42 U.S.C. 2232, this response shall submitted under oath or affirmation.

Within the same time as provided for the response required above under 10 CFR the Licensee may pay the civil penalty by letter addressed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, with a check, draft, money o or electronic transfer payable to the Treasurer of the United States in the amount of the civil penalty proposed above, or may protest imposition of the civil penalty, in who in part, by a written answer addressed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Should the Licensee fai! to answer within the time specified, an order imposing the civil penalty will be issued. Should the Licensee elect to file an answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 protesting the civil penalty, in whole or in part, such answer should be clearly marked as an " Answer to a Notice of Violation" and may: (1) deny the violations listed in this Notice, in whole or in par

v 4

~

~'

(2) demonstrate exienuating ci'rcumstances, (3) show error in this Notice, or (4) show other reasons why the penalty should not be imposed. In addition to protesting the civil penalty in whole or in part, such answer may request remission or mitigation of the p . _ _ . _ _ . _ . . . .

In requesting mitigation of the proposed penalty, the factors addressed is Section VI.B.2 of the Enforc_ement Policy should be addressed. Any written answer in

  • ' accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 should be set forth separately from the statement or explarntion in reply pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201, but may incorporate parts of the 10 CFR 2.201 reply by sycific reference (e.g., citing page and paragraph numbers) to avoid repetition. The attention of the Licensee is directed to the other provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, regarding the procedure for imposing a civil penalty.

Upon failure to pay any civil penalty due that subsequently has been determmed in accordance with the applicable provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, this matter may be referred to the Attorney General, and the penalty, unless compromised, remitted, or mitigated, may be collected by civil action pursuant to Section 234c of the Act,42 U.S.C. 228h.

The response noted above (Reply to Notice of Violation, letter with payment of civil penalty, and Answer to a Notice of Violation) should be addressed to: James Lieberman, Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co:nmission, One White Flint North,11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852 27?,8, with a copy to the Regional Administrator, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region I, and a copy to the NRC Senior Resident Inspector at the facility that is the subject of this Notice.

Because your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), to the extent possible, it should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be placed in the PDR without redaction. If personal privacy or proprietary information is necessary to provide an acceptable response, then please provide a bracketed copy of your response that identifies the information that should be protected and a redacted copy of your response that deletes such information. If you request withholding of such material, you must specifically identify the portions of your response that you seek to have withheld and provide in detail the bases for your claim of withholding (e.g., explain why the disclosure of information will create an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy or provide the information required by 10 CFR 2.790(b) to support a request for withholding ccnfidential commercial or financial information). If safeguards information is necessary to provide an acceptable response, please provide the level of protection described in 10 CFR 73.21.

1 I

Dated at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania this day of June 1997

_ _ _ _ _ _

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20205B960&oldid=3328589"