ML20211B693
| ML20211B693 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 02/13/1987 |
| From: | Grimsley D NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | Higham S MORNING CALL, ALLENTOWN, PA |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20211B699 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-87-22 NUDOCS 8702190509 | |
| Download: ML20211B693 (3) | |
Text
t U.S. NUCLEAR CE1ULAToRY CoMMISSloN NLC f otA REQUEST NUM8E!a$1 f'"% - F01A-87-22
- RESPON$E TYPE RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF yIF'h^' l l rs;4Ter 5 )
lNFORMATION ACT (FOlA) REQUEST "^'$ 1 ;,1987 k*e.e / e DOCKET NUMBERt$3 up oppgem REQUESTER Scott J. Higham PAR 71.-RECORDS RELEASED OR NOT LOCATED ISee checked boxes)
No agency records subt ect to the request have been located.
No addmonal egency records subtect to the request have been located.
Agency records subpect to the request that are identifed in Appendix A are already avaiiable for pubiec mspection and copying in the NRC Publ.c Document Room, y 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, DC.
Agency records subject to the request that are identifed in Appendix D are being rnade available for pubig: inspecten and copying in the NRC Psblic Document y Room,1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, DC, in a folder under the FOlfnurnber and requester name.
The nonproonetary vers.on of the proposatts) that you agreed to accept in a telephone conversation with a member of my staff is now being made avalable for public inspecten and coying at the NRC Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, DC. in a folder under the FOIA number and requester name.
X Enclosed is information on how you my obtani access to and the charges for copying records placed in the NRC Public Docuoent Room,1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, DC.
Agency reccrds subject to the request are enclosed. Any applicable charge for copes of the records provided and payment procedaes are noted in the comments section.
Records subject to the request have been referred to another Federal agency (ies) for review Ond direct response to you.
In view of NRC's response to the request. no further action is being taken on appeal letter dated PART li.A-INFORMATION WITHHELD FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE Certain informaton in the requested records is being withheld from public disclosure pursuant to the FOIA exemptions described in and fo the reasons stated in Part 11, sec-toons B. C, and D. Any released portions of the documents for which only part of the record is teing withheld are being made aveAatte for public inspection and copying in <
the NRC Public Document Room.1717 H Street, N.W., Washing'a,. DC, in a folder under this FOIA number and requester name.
Comments During your telephone conversation with Mr. E. Shomaker, you narrowed the scope of.
your request to certain records already available in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR),1717 H. Street, Was'aington, D.C. Additional records not mentioned in that conversation are also in the PDR in folder FOIA-85-700 under the name of ZURAS.
i SIGNU DIRECTON LON pF RULES AND REC RDS ,
A__^ p
!!!dli! ~W ; 66 f pp 8702i3 HIGHAMB7-22 pm NRC FORM 464 (Part I) tit 68
Re: F01A-87-22 APPENDIX A RECORDS MAINTAINED AMONG PDR FILES
- 1. 7/27/83 Region I, PNO-TMI-83-06, Accession No. 8307280381 (1 page).
- 2. 7/31/84 NUREG-0680 Supp. 05,. TMI-1 Restart. An evaluation of the Licensee's management integrity as it affects restart of Three Mile Island Unit 1, Docket 50-289.
Accession Nun:ber: 84080E0413. (179 pages)
- 3. 8/12/85 Region I, EN ES-54, Accession No. 8508140055'(1page).
- 4. 9/17/85 Inspection Report No. 50-278/85-31. Accession No. 8509300287 (7 pages) 5 9/25/85 Letter from Thomas T. Martin, RI to Philadelphia Electric Company.
Subject:
Inspection Report No. 50-278/85-31, w/ attachment. Accession No. 8509300283 6, 10/25/85 Letter trom Philadelphia Electric Company to Thomas T.
Martin, RI, reference Inspection Report No. 50-278/85-31.
Accession No. 8511040198, (3 pages)
- 7. 3/5/86 Region I, EN 85-54A, Accession No. 86C3060152 (1 page).
- 8. 5/6/86 Synopsis of 01 Report I-85-019 and Redocketed version of 01 Report 1-85-019. Accession humber 8606090434. (4 pages)
- 9. 5/20/86 Letter from Richard W. Starostecki, RI, to Philadelphie Electric Company, subject: Investigation to. 50-278/1-85-019.
Accession No. 8606090423 (16 pages) l l
I
Re: F01A-87-22 APPENDIX B RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE PDR UNDER THE ABOVE REQUEST NUMBER
- 1. E/12/85 Press Release I-ES-78 from Regicn I. (1 page)
- 2. 8/12/85 From Jaries Taylor to GPU Nuclear Corporation, subject:
Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (NUREG 0680, Supplement 5) (2 pages) w/ enclosure, Notice of Violation and Proposeo imposition of Civil Pera.lty.
(4 pages).
- 3. S/27/85 James Taylor to GPU Nuclear Corporation,
Subject:
Correction to Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty Issued August 12, 1985. (2 pages)
- 4. 3/4/86 James Taylor to GPU Nuclear Corporation,
Subject:
Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty (EA E4-137). (1 paSe) w/ enclosure, Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty, (55 pages)
- 5. Uncated Notice of Licensee Meeting,
Subject:
Enforcement Conference on the Termination of En,ployment of a Worker Following Engagement in Activities Protected Under 10 CFR 50.7. (2 pages)
- 6. 9/22/86 William Kare, to Philedelphia,
Subject:
Investigation 50-278/1-P5-019. (2 pages)
- 7. 10/22/86 Response to 9/22/86 letter. (4 pages)
- 8. 11/7/66 Notice of Licensee Meeting,
Subject:
Enforcement Conference on the Termination of Employment of a Wcrker Following Engagement in Activities Protected Under 10 CFR 50.7. (2 pages)
F -
z
, ((on:v%,, , ,
h UNITED STATES NUCf. EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 .g CASHINGTON. D, C. 20555
,) AUG 12 mR Docket No. 50-320 !
License No. DPR-73 EA 84-137 GPU Nuclear Corporation ATTN: Mr. P. R. Clark, President 100 Interpace Parkway Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 Gentlemen:
Subject:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY (NUREG 0680, SUPPLEMENT 5)
The NRC Office of Investigations (01) conducted nine investigations into allegations of various matters involving General Public Utilities Nuclear Corporation (GPU Nuclear) management integrity. The NRC staff reviewed the reports of investigations and concluded that several violations of Comission regulations by GPU Nuclear had occurred. The NRC review and a list of the reports of the investigations are documented in Supplement 5 to the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) on TMI-1 Restart (NUREG-0680, Supplement 5). One of the violations is described in the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice). The other violations will be dealt with in separate correspondence.
The violation in the enclosed Notice involves acts of discrimination against Richard D. Parks, a Bechtel employee, for raising safety concerns associated with the TMI-2 polar crane refurbishment. These safety concerns were related to various failures to follow GPU Nuclear approved procedures during refurbish-ment of the crene. GPU Nuclear was subseq M tly cited for failures to follow procedures in a Notice of Violation issued on Febaary 3,1984. Mr. Parks l
claimed that as a result of his exposing the safety concerns to his management
' and the NRC, he was (1) relieved of his duties as Alternate Startup and Test Supervisor at TMI-2, (2) subjected to improper and intimidating interrogation by his management, (3) removed as the primary Site Operations Department representative for the Test Wor' king Group, and (4) ultimately placed on leave of absence.
The Department of Labor (DOL) conducted an investigation into the complaint filed by Mr. Parkt. 01 also investigated Mr. Park's allegations of discrimination.
After reviewing the D0L and 01 investigation reports, the NRC staff determined that a violation of the Commission's regulations occurred. Specifically, the i
four discriminatory acts against Mr. Parks are a violation of 10 CFR 50.7.
CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED IO30 ~ g 7..] 2.
a jfP e l u, ~d i & ,-
,e
c .
GPU Nuclear Corporation Acts of discrimination, whether comitted directly or through contractor personnel, against an employee who raises safety concerns or who comunicates with the NRC, will not be tolerated. To emphasize this, I have been authorized, after consultation with the Commission, to issue the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of Sixty-Four Thousand Dollars ($64,000) for the violation involving the acts of discrimination against Richard D. Parks. In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2 Appendix C, 47 FR 9989 (March 9,1982), which was the policy in effect at the time of the violation, (Enforcement Policy) the violation has been categorized as a Severity Level II violation. A civil penalty of $64,000, the base civil penalty for a Severity Level II violation at the time the discrimination occurred, is being proposed to make clear the significance which the Commission places on any violation involving employee discrimination. The escalation and mitigation factors in the Enforcement Policy were considered and no adjustment has been deemed appropriate.
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 actions you plan to prevent recurrence. After reviewing your response to this Notice, including the corrective actions you have taken, the NRC will determine whether further NRC enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirements.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.
The responses directed by this letter and the erclosed Notice are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 95-511.
Sincerely, J es M. Tay1 Director ffice of Ins ection and Enforcement
./
Enclosure:
Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty l
f
.~ .
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITI F 0F CIVIL PENALTY GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION Docket No. 50-320 !
Three Mile Island, License No. DPR-73 '
. Unit 2 EA 84-137 l The NRC's Office of Investigations (01) conducted nine investigations into allegations dealing with various items involving management integrity at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station. The NRC staff subsequently reviewed the reports and other pertinent materials and documented its review in Supplement 5 to the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) on TMI-1 Restart (NUREG 0680, Supplement 5).
As a result of the review, an apparent violation of NRC requirements was identified.
In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C, 47 FR 9989 (March 9, 1982),
which was the policy in effect at the time of the violations, the Nuclear Regulatory Connission 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, PL 96-295, and 10 CFR 2.205. The particular violation, and the associated civil penalty, are set forth below:
10 CFR 50.7 prohibits discrimination by a Commission licensee, or a contractor or subcontractor of a licensee, against an employee for engaging in certain protected activities. Discrimination includes discharge and other actions that relate to compensation, tenns, conditions, and privileges of employment. The activities protected include but are not limited to providing the NRC information about possible violations of NRC requirements and requests to the NRC to take action against an employer for enforcement of NRC requirements.
Contrary to the above, Richard D. Parks, a Bechtel employee, was discriminated against for engaging in protected activities in reporting safety problems to his management, requesting assistance from the NRC, and commencing a proceeding with the Department of Labor. Parks reported safety concerns to his management on February 13, 1983. Parks contacted the TMI on-site office of the NRC on February 18, 1983 and on March 10, 1983, complaining first that his management was threatening to have him transferred and then that GPU Nuclear management was trying to implicate him in a conflict-of-interests charge because he had reported safety concerns. He also initiated a proceeding pursuant to Section 210(b)(1) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. 5851, PL 93-438, on March 23, 1983. At least partly due to these activities, Mr. Parks, during the period between February 23, 1983 and March 24, 1983 was (1) removed as Alternate Startup and Test Supervisor, (2) subjected to improper and intimidating interrogation, (3) removed as the primary Site Operations Department representative for the Test Working Group, and (4) ultimately placed on leave of absence. These acts of discrimination were described in a U.S. Department of Labor 9 # 72 Vui o b p p
'l
- -,, --.---..-,.,,,-..,,--.._-.,-..-.n . - - - , - . . _ . - - - - - - -
Notice of Violation investigation (DOL Case 83-ERA-8) which was reviewed during an NRC OI investigation (OI Report H-83-002), and discussed in Section 10 of NUREG-0680, Supplement 5.
This is a Severity Level II violation (Supplement VII).
(Civil Penalty - $64,000).
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, GPU Nuclear Corporation is hereby required to submit to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission, Washington, D.C. 20555, within 30 days each alleged violation: (1) admission or denial of the alleged violation, (2) the reasons for the violation, if admitted, (3) the corrective steps which have been taken and the results achieved (4) the corrective steps which will be taken 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, the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, may issue an order to show cause why the license should not be modified, 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 shown.
Under the authority of Section 182 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2232, this response shall be submitted under oath or affirmation.
Within the same time as provided for the response required above under 10 CFR
- 2.201, GPU Nuclear Corporation may pay the civil penalty by letter addressed j to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, with a check, draft, or money order payable to the Treasurer of the United States in the cumulative amount of Sixty-Four Thousand Dollars ($64,000) or may protest imposition of the civil penalty in whole or in part by a written answer addressed to the
- Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement. Should GPU Nuclear Corporation 1
fail to answer within the time specified, the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, will issue an order imposing the civil penalty in the amount proposed above. Should GPU Nuclear Corporation elect to file an answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 protesting the civil penalt". such answer may:
(1) deny the violation listed in this Notice in whole or in part, (2) demonstrate extenuating circumstances, (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 penalty.
In requesting mitigation of the proposed penalty, the five factors addressed in Section V.B of 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C should be addressed. Any written answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 should be set forth separately from the statement or explanation in reply pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201, but may incorporate part of the 10 CFR 2.201 reply by specific reference (e.g., citing page and paragraph numbers) to avoid repetition. GPU Nuclear Corporation's attention is directed to the other provisions of 10 CFR 2.205 regarding the procedure for imposing a civil penalty.
Notice of Violation Upon failure to pay the penalty due which has been subsequently determined 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. 2282.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- /
/ [
mes M. Tay1 , Director ffice of Ins ection and Enforcement Dated aj Bethesda, Maryland this la day of August 1985
, - . - , , , , - - . - - - , , , - , -.-..n, - - -. , , - - - , . - . - , - - - - , - -
GPU Nuclear Corporation Distribution PDR LPDR NSIC SECY CA JTaylor, IE RVollmer, IE JAAxelrad. IE EHoller, IE JLieberman, ELD JGoldberg, ELD VStello,DED/ROGR FIngram, PA HDenton, NRR RStark, NRR BHayes OI SConnelly, OIA JCrooks, AE0D TMurley, RI Enforcement Coordinators RI, RII, RIII, RIV, RV EJordan, IE JPartlow, IE BGrimes, IE BSnyder, NRR WTravers, Deputy Program Director TMI Program Office ES File EA File EDO Rdg File DCS Public Utility Commission Ms. Mary V. Southard, Co-Chairman Citizens for a Safe Environment T. H. Gerusky, Director Bureau of Radiation Protection Harrisburg, PA 17120 4
m-- ir, , - - - - , - - -,-m-- w -- ---- ,, , ,-- - - -- - ,y -
,_ ~
./ I, UNITED STATES y[TD!vid
[ '?g ,- g ?; NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.4 .$,*gi 2 WASHINGTc N, D. C. 20555
- ,. W V'" AUG 2 71985
+
s . . . . . .f Docket No. 50-320 License No. DPR-73 EA 84-137 GPU Nuclear Corporation ATTN: Mr. P. R. Clark, President 100 Interpace Parkway Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 Gentlemen:
Subject:
CORRECTION TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY ISSUED AUGUST 12, 1985 The purpose of this letter is to correct a typographical error in the Notice of Violation issued GPU Nuclear Corporation on August 12, 1985.
In the third paragraph of the Notice which begins with, " Contrary to the above," the date appearing on line 5 should be " February 17, 1983" instead of " February 13, 1983."
Sincerely,
\l Ne '.aylor, Director ffice Inspection and Enforcement 7 p Y ~1 - 2 d B/s.
n rr/A d2 Af r ,"
t l g sr f r 49 J J
AUG 2 71985 GPU Nuclear Corporation Distribution PDR LPDR NSIC SECY CA JMTaylor, IE RVollmer, IE JAAxelrad, IE EHoller, IE JLieberman, ELD JGoldberg, ELD VStello, DED/ROGR FIngram, PA HDenton, NRR RStark, NRR BHayes, 01 SConnelly, OIA JCrooks, AE00 TMurley, RI Enforcement Coordinators RI, RII, RIII, RIV, RV EJordan, IE JPartlow, IE BGrimes, IE BSnyder, NRR WTravers, Deputy Program Director TMI Program Office IE:ES File IE:EA File EDO Rdg File DCS T. H. Gerusky, Director Bureau of Radiation Protection Harrisburg, PA 17120 IE:ES ELDdl / 'E IE:DD [:
EHoller JLieberman J elrad RVollmer JHT ylor 8/.: /85 8/h/85 .
/g/85 f38/ /85 6/g/85
h/kh4
,f[ 'o,, UNITED STATES
, ,y, g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- 7. E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 1
h pl NAR 0 41986 Docket No. 50-320 License No. DPR-73 EA 84-137 GPU Nuclear Corporation ATTN: Mr. P. R. Clark, President 100 Interpace Parkway Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 Gentlemen:
Subject:
ORDER IMPOSING CIVIL MONETARY PENALTY (EA 84-137)
This refers to the letter dated October 21, 1985 from General Public Utilities Nuclear Corporation (GPU Nuclear) to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement in response to the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty sent to you on August 12, 1985. The letter and Notice described a violation involving acts of discrimination against Richard D. Parks, a Bechtel employee, for raising safety concerns.
I have carefully considered your response in which you deny the violation and have det. ermined that you have provided no additional information that would change the staff's basis for either the violation or the proposed civil penalty. Accordingly, I hereby serve the enclosed Order on GPU Nuclear imposing a civil penalty in the amount of Sixty-Four Thousand Dollars ($64,000).
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (1985), a copy of this letter and the enclosure will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.
Sincerely, f'
s ey -~
& b?
JamesM.TayloY.' , Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Enclosure:
V' Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Fo1N ~ S ?- 2
- DN s,,
w'2 s a 2p g ,ys
' ' UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the matter of )
Docket No. 50-320 GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION l License No. DPR-73 (Three Mile Island, Unit 2) ) EA 84-137 ORDER IMPOSING CIVIL MONETARY PENALTY I
General Public Utilities Nuclear Corporation (GPU Nuclear or licensee),
Parsippany, New Jersey is the holder of License No. DPR-73 issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The license authorizes the licensee to operate the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 in Middletown, Pennsylvania, in accordance with conditions specified therein. The license was issued on February 8, 1978 and modified by Order on July 20, 1979.
II During the period between February 23, 1983 and March 24, 1983, Richard D. Parks, a Bechtel employee, was discriminated against for engaging in protected activities in reporting safety concerns to his management, requesting assistance from the NRC, and commencing a proceeding with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). The acts of discrimination were described in a 00L investigation (DOL Case 83-ERA-8) that was reviewed during an NRC 01 investigation (0! Report H-83-002) and discussed in Section 10 of NUREG-0680, Supplement 5. As a result of the NRC staff's review of these reports, an apparent violation of NRC requirements was identified.
Consequently, a written Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil h
i e < L. y
2
, i Penalty (N0V) was served upon the licensee by letter dated August 12, 1985. The Notice stated the nature of the violation, the NRC requirement that the licensee had violated, and the amount of civil penalty proposed for the violation. An answer dated October 21, 1985 to the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty was received from the licensee.
III After consideration of GPU Nuclear's response and the statements of fact, explanation, and denial of the violation contained therein, as set forth in the Appendix to this Order, the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement has determined that the Sixty-Four Thousand Dollar ($64,000) penalty proposed for the violation designated in the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty is proper and should be imposed.
IV In view of the foregoing and pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2282, PL 96-295), and 10 CFR 2.205, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
The licensee pay the civil penalty in the amount of Sixty-Four Thousand Dollars (564,000) within thirty days of the date of this Order, by check, draft, or money order, payable to the Treasurer of the United States and mailed to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcenent, U. S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C. 20555.
4 3
V The licensee may request a hearing within thirty days of the date of this Order. A request for a hearing shall be addressed to the DirectoY, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C. 20555. - A copy of the hearing request also shall be sent to the Executive Legal Director, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C. 20555.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of the hearing. If the licensee fails to request a hearing within thirty days of the date of this Order, the provisions of this Order shall be effective without further proceedings. If payment has not been made by that time, the matter may be referred to the Attorney General for collection.
In the event the licensee requests a hearing as provided above, the issues to be considered at such hearing shall be:
(a) whether the licensee violated NRC requirements as set forth in the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty referenced in Section II above and (b) whether, on the basis of such violation, this Order should be sustained.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
- 4
-y -
N A?i
.es M. Taylo , Director fice of Inspection and Enforcement Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 4 day of March 1986
, , APPENDIX EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION The licensee's October 21, 1985 response to thc August 12, 1985 Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty for the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 (TMI-2) denies that the violation occurred as stated in the Notice. The violation involved acts of discrimination against Richard D.
Parks, a Bechtel employee, for raising safety concerns associated with the TMI-2 polar crane refurbishment. A statement of the violation, a summary of the licensee's response, and the NRC evaluation and conclusion are as follows:
Statement of Violation 10 CFR 50.7 prohibits discrimination by a Commission licensee, or a contractor or subcontractor of a licensee, against an employee for engaging in certain protected activities. Discrimination includes discharge and other actions that relate to compensation, terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.
The activities protected include but are not limited to providing the NRC information about possible violations of NRC requirements and requests to the .
NRC to take action against an employer for enforcement of NRC requirements.
Contrary to the above, Richard D. Parks, a Bechtel employee, was discriminated against for engaging in protected activities in reporting safety problems to his management, requesting assistance from the NRC, and commencing a proceeding with the Department of Labor. Parks reported safety concerns to his management on February 17, 1983. Parks contacted the TMI on-site office of the NRC on February 18, 1983 and on March 10, 1983, complaining first that his management was threatening to have him transferred and then that GPU Nuclear management was trying to implicate him in a conflict-of-interests charge because he had reported safety concerns. He also initiated a proceecing pursuant to Section 210(b)(1) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. 5851, PL 93-438, on March 23, 1983. At least partly due to these activities, Mr. Parks, during the period between February 23, 1983 and March 24,1983 was (1) removed as Alternate Startup and Test Supervisor, (2) subjected to improper and intimidating interrogation, (3) removed as the primary Site Operations Department representative for the Test Working Group, and (4) ultimately placed on leave of absence. These acts of discrimination were described in a U.S. Department of Labor investigation (DOL Case 83-ERA-8) which was reviewed during an NRC OI investigation (0! Report H-83-002), and discussed in Section 10 of NUREG-0680, Supplement 5.
This is a Severity Level II violation (Supplement VII).
(Civil Penalty - S64,000)
Summary of Licensee's Response The licensee denies the allegations in the Notice of Violation. The licensee states that the allegations of discrimination by Richard D. Parks were thoroughly investigateo by GPU Nuclear (TMI-2 Report, Management and Safety Allegations, November 16,1983) and by Bechtel (Report of Bechtel North American Power Corporation Regarding the Allegations of Richard D. Parks, October 1984)
(hereinafter the Stier Report and the Bechtel Report, respectively).
, . Appendix 2 Further, the licensee emphasizes that these investigations took place after the D0L investigation and that they were substantially more detailed than the 00L investigation. On the basis of the Stier and Bechtel reports, the licensee believes that none of the acts described in the Notice of Violation constituted reprisal, harassment, or intimidation. Instead, the licensee takes the position that each act was properly motivated by concerns for the proper functioning of the TMI-2 organization. Specifically, the licensee argues that the D0L investigation and the NRC review of that investigation failed to recognize the legitimate motives underlying the organizational changes that affected Parks.
Evaluation of Licensee's Response and Conclusion The NRC staff has carefully reviewed the licensee's response and has concluded that the licensee has not provided any information that was not already considered in determining that the violation had occurred. The Stier Report, which by the licensee's own admission did not address the questioning of Parks by Bechtel employees or the suspension of Parks, was considered by the staff in preparing the staff's findings regarding this matter in NUREG-0680 Supplement 5. The Bechtel Report, which contained no new information except affidavits taken between September 28 and October 2, 1984 of several Bechtel personnel and a Bechtel synopsis of the case, was reviewed by the staff in October 1984. At that time the staff found that the report contained no information not already considered in determining that the violation had occurred. The information contained in the Bechtel report was again reviewed by the staff in April 1985 together with information developed by Stier based on his review of the public record and his 1983 report. Again, the staff found no basis to change its conclusions regarding the discrimination against Parks.
The licensee's response simply interprets the information already considered by the staff to justify its position. In several respects the staff disagrees with the licensee's interpretation or characterization of the events. For example, the licensee asserts that the replacement of Parks on February 18, 1983 by Dwight D. Walker as Alternate Startup and Test Supervisor was done because an opportunity presented itself to restore the system of checks and balances and to assure that Site Engineering was properly represented. However, Mr. Walker had been assigned to the TMI site since early January 1983 and it was not until the day after Parks put his safety concerns in writing that the replacement took place. The licensee asserts that the March 14, 1983 interview of Parks by Messrs. Hofmann and Wheeler was conducted in a professional and nonintimidating manner and that the impartial witness at the meeting selected by Parks confirms this fact under oath. Yet the affidavit of the impartial witness states only that Mr. Hofmann from the Bechtel Internal Auditing Group asked his questions in a professional manner and tone of voice. The fact that questions were asked in a professional manner and tone of voice does not offset the obvious intimidating effect caused by conducting this unusual meeting in such close proximity to Parks having raised his safety concerns.
Appendix 3 After reviewing the matter once more, the staff still does not believe that the acts described in the Notice of Violation that occurred within a four-week period of time and in close proximity to the time of Parks' complaints to authorities were unrelated management actions taken without regard to Parks having raised safety concerns. Instead, the staff remains convinced that the facts show that Parks' complaints were collectively the common factor which motivated the management actions regarding him. Those actions were acts of discrimination taken in retaliation for Parks having raised his safety concerns. The licensee's assertion that the Notice appears predicated on the assumption that once a safety concern has been voiced any subsequent change affecting the individual who raised the concern demonstrates retaliatory animus is wrong. Retaliatory action is inferred when a pattern of changes subsequent to the voicing of a safety concern give evidence that the reasons for the changes are pretextual. The staff believes such a pattern was present here.
Therefore, the staff concludes that the violation is correct as stated in the Notice of Violation and the civil penalty should be imposed
- =, , - - . . . . - - - - -.-_--_ _ ._ _ ,_ _ ,_ -- . . , _ _ . - - - - - -
f
. NOIMI GPU Nuclear Corsmration 100 interpace Parkway Parsippany. New Jersey 07054-1141 (201)263-6500 TELEX 136 482 Writer's Direct Dial Number:
October 21, 1985 4410-85-L-0209 Mr. James M. Taylor, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 In the Matter of GPU Nuclear Corporation Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2 Docket No. 50-320, EA No.84-137 j
Response to Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty
- ~
Dear Mr. Taylor:
By letter dated August 12, 1985, the NRC Staff issued a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (EA 84-137) against GPU Nuclear. The notice alleged acts of discrimination against Richard D. Parks, a Bechtel employee, for raising safety concerns associated with the TMI-2 polar crane refurbishment, and directed GPU Nuclear to respond under oath or affirmation. On September 9,1985, GPU Nuclear requested that it be provided with an unredacted version of the Department of Labor compliance officer's report which formed the basis for the Notice of Violation (and with any other material on which the staff was relying), and also requested an extension of time in which to respond. By letter dated September 20, 1985, the NRC Staff Branted GPU Nuclear thirty days to respond, but declined to provide CPU Nuclear with a complete (unredacted) version of the compliance officer's report. In accordance with the NRC's instructions, GPU Nuclear herewith responds.
GPU Nuclear's Response to the Notice of Violation in Accordance with 10 C.F.R. % 2.201 GPU Nuclear denies the allegations in the Notice of Violation. GPU Nuclear views such allegations with the utmost seriousness. Harassment and intimidation have never been and are not now tolerated by GPU Nuclear. Such conduct is inconsistent with the Corporate Mission and Corporate Objectives and Goals. GPU Nuclear has longstanding formal mechanisms, such as its Ombudsman program specifically designed to ensure that any employee of GPU Nuclear or of its subcontractors feels free to raise any safety concern
,a, >- <-
n k GPU Nuclear Cercorat.cn is a sutscary of General Pubhc Utihties Corporation
- a _ _ _ _ . 2.__ - . - - . . - -. 2 6m._. .a._., o.m. _.m.. ..a ,.2 _ . .s.m . .
.?
i
, , Mr. James M. Taylor 10ctober 21, 1985 Page 2 without fear of reprisal. This objective has been emphasized and reemphasized j by GPU Nuclear management, both before and after Mr. Parks' allegations. See Intter from P. R. Clark, . President, GPUNC, to Darrell G. Eisenhut, (June 29, 1984) (Exhibit A hereto).
t Mr. Parks' allegations were thoroughly investigated by Bechtel and GPU Nuclear. GPU Nuclear retained Edwin H. Stier, an attorney and former -
prosecutor, initially to conduct an independent investigation of related j
allegations and later to evaluate Bechtel's investigative report and to
- identify evidence relevant to Parks' harassment allegations not cited by the Staff in Supplement 5 of NUREG-0680.
i efforts have been provided to the NRC.The results of the Stier and Bechtel i Management and Safety Allegations (Nov. See, for example, THI-2 Report, 16,1983) (Stier Report); Report of Bechtel North American Power Corporation Regarding the Allegations of Richard i
D. Parks (Oct. 1984); Memorandum dated Nov.1,1984, from E. Stier to P.
Clark; Dec. 26,Intter 1984dated January 3,1985, from P. Clark to H. Denton (transmitting letter and Nov. 9,1984 ' affidavit of K. Richardson, Bechtel's counsel); Intter dated March 8,1985, from P. Clark to H. Denton (transmitting a report dated Feb. 27, 1985, by Edwin Stier on TMI-2 polar crane procedural violations); letter dated March 6,1985, from K. Richardson to P. Clark (transmitting supplemental .information); Memorandum dated March 29, 1985, from E. Stier to P. Clark.
Based on the results of these investigative efforts, GPU Nuclear believes that the allegations in the Notice of Violation are untrue.
The Notice of Violation appears to be based on the Staff's review of an j
01 investigation, which in turn was based upon a Department of Iabor (DOL) compliance officer's 30-day investigation. Though the results of that i
j investigation have not been fully disclosed, we question the completeness of the DOL compliance officer's preliminary review and the Staff's reliance
! thereon.
i Firs t , the compliance officer's findings were preliminary and hurried.
Because Parks' complaint was subsequently settled -- resulting in the dismissal of the complaint "with prejudice" in exchange for Parks' transfer to l
a Bechtel neither project innor adjudicated California reviewed. -- those preliminary and cursory findings were necessarily reliable.
Consequently, those findings are not
{
i Second, the DOL compliance officer's report predates a substantial body i
of new and additional relevant evidence, including the Stier report of November, October, 1983, and the affidavits provided by Bechtel representatives in 1984.
i GPU Nuclear believes that this evidence demonstrates that the DOL compliance officer's preliminary findings are simply incorrect, and tnat l
l t
a .
Mr. James M. Taylor October 21, 1985 Page 3 both the 01 report and the current enforcement action lack an adequate factual and legal basis.
We believe that the total evidence indicates the following with respect to the four alleged retaliatory acts:
(1) The Purported retaliatory Removal of Parks' Duties as Alternate Start-up and Test Supervisor.
This purported act of retaliation was in fact a proper organizational change designed to restore the membership of the TMI-2 Test Working Group (T.W.G.) to the composition called for in the governing procedure (AP 1047).
The T.W.G. was established in January 1981 as an interdisciplinary committee comprised of representatives of the Start-Up and Test ("SU&T"), Plant Operations ("P0"), Plant Engineering ("PE"), Site Engineering ("SE", at one time called Recovery Engineering) and Quality Assurance ("QA") departments at THI-2.
P0 and PE were and are part of Site Operations; SU&T was initially part of Site Operations, but was made a part of Site Engineering in 1981.
In late 1982, Mr. Kitler, the SU&T supervisor, needed an alternate SU&T supervisor to act in his absence, but there was no one assigned to SE (other than Kitler) qualified to be the alternate. Parks, who was assigned to Site Operations, was qualified and was therefore appointed on December 6,1982 as alternate SU&T supervisor. As SU&T supervisor, one of Kitler's duties was to chair the T.W.G. , and as Kitler's alternate, Parks would have chaired the T.W.G. in Kitler's absence. (In fact, there were no T.W.G. meetings held during Parks' tenure as alternate SU&T supervisor.) This arrangement, however, unfortunately would have skewed balanced departmental representation in T.W.G., by increasing Site Operations' representation and decreasing Site Engineering's representation when Kitler was away. An opportunity to restore the system of checks and balances and to assure that SE was properly represented presented itself a short time later, when Mr. Walker, a qualified test engineer, was assigned to SE; and in February,1983, af ter consultation with the SE department head, Kitler replaced Parks with Walker as alternate SULT supervisor. Kitler expected at the time that Parks would remain on the T.W.G. as a Site Operations representative appointed by Mr. King, Director of Site Operations. In fa c t , Parks was immediately appointed as a member of T.W.G. by King, providing Parks with virtually continual opportunity to present his concerns to the T.W.G.
At the time Parks was replaced as alternate SU&T supervisor, he made no complaints of retaliation and did not express dissatisfaction with this logical and appropriate organizational change. The concerns that Parks had previously voiced to his colleagues regarding polar crane refurbishment had been aired and were being addressed. This sequence of events simply does not constitute retaliatory or discriminatory conduct.
Mr. James M. Taylor October 21, 1985 Page 4 (2) The Purported " Improper and Intimidating Interrogation" of Parks Regarding His Involvement with Quiltec.
This purported act of discrimination was in fact a resonable and appropriate investigative measure undertaken to ensure compliance with Bechtel conflict of interest policies. In approximately late February,1983, GPU Nuclear's upper management became aware of the activities of Mr. King, Parks' supervisor, on behalf of Quiltec Inc. King was terminated on March 23, 1983 due to the obvious and serious conflict of interest between Quiltec and GPU Nuclear, and the NRC Staff has found that King's termination was justified and non-discriminatory. Prior to King's termination, it had come to light that, at Parks' request, a secretary at the TMI plant offices had performed some typing for Quiltec. GPU Nuclear's loss of valuable engineering personnel to Quiltec was of great concern to GPU Nuclear, and it was likewise of utmost importsnce to Bechtel that none of its personnel engage in improper activities conflit ting with the interest of its client GPU Nuclear. Because of Bechtel's concern as to possible violations of its conflict of interest policies based on the clear evidence of Parks' involvement with Quiltec, and in support of GPU Nuclear's ongoing investigation of King's activities, Parks was asked to attend a meeting with Mr. Wheeler, his administrative supervisor, and Mr. Lee Hofmann, from the Bechtel Internal Auditing Group in San Frtucisco. One of the functions of the Bechtel San Francisco Internal Auditing Group is to investigate such potential conflicts of interest. All persons other than Parks who attended the March 14, 1983 interview, including Mr. Kobi, the impartial witness selected by Parks, have confirmed under oath that Mr.
Hofmann conducted the interview in a professional and non-intimidating manner. The March 15 meeting requested by Parks with Wheeler, Hofmann and Mr.
Sandford, a Bechtel vice president, was likewise conducted in a professional and non-intimidating manner, and Mr. Sandford explained that Parks' conduct violated Bechtel conflict of interest policies. During the investigation, Parks claimed to be unfamiliar with.Bechtel conflict of irterest policies, explained that his involvement with Quiltec was limited to the one request for clerical assistance, and maintained that he had received no pecuniary gain from Quiltec. Within one week of his interview, Parks was promptly informed by Bechtel that no disciplinary action would be taken against him.
Thus, the evidence shows that the investigation of Parks' possible involvement with Quiltec was appropriate, reasonable and conducted in a professional, non-intimidating and non-discriminatory manner.
(3) The Purported Retaliatory " Removal" of Parks as Site Operations Representative or T.W.G.
This purported retaliatory act was in fact initiated and voluntarily undertaken by Parks himself. On Maren 17, 1983, Parks approached Mr.
Chwastyk, GPU Nuclear's Panager of Plant Operations at IMI-2 and at the time Acting Site Operations Director, to discuss his concerns regarding the reactor
Mr. James M. Taylor October 21, 1985 Page 5 building polar crane. During this discussion, Parks stated that he had become too close to the polar crane project to distinguish betweea real and perceived problems. Chwastyk suggested that one possible solution would be to remove Parks from the T.W.G. for the polar crane project only. Parks readily volunteered to be removed from that role in the polar crane project and, in fact, participated in preparation of the memorandum announcing his removal f rom the T.W.G. for that project. Chwastyk informed Mr. Kanga, Director of Til-2, of his plan for issuing a memorandum replacing Parks as a Site Operations member on the T.W.G. for polar crane testing. Mr. Kanga, who knew from a prior discussion that Parks claimed to have felt intimidated, personally met with Parks to make sure.that Parks agreed with the removal and would not view it as an act of harassment. Parks indicated to Kanga that he understood the memorandum, had no' concerns about it and did not consider it as a reflection on his performance or as an act of intimidation. Parks' removal from the T.W.G. for the polar crane project was voluntary, was based on his own assurances that he agreed and did not view it as harassment, and can in no way be viewed as an act of retaliation.
(4) The Purported Retaliatory Suspension with Pay.
On March 23, 1983, Parks held a nationally publicized press conference at which he released a 56 page affidavit prepared with the assistance of the Government Accountability Project. In the news conference and affidavit, Parks went far beyond his alleged safety concerns and made sweeping and malicious personal attacks on his co-workers, supervisors and managers.
Parks' ad hominem public statements unrelated to any safety concern are perhaps best exemplified by Parks' unsupported and irresponsible accusation that George Kunder, Chairman of the Plant Operations Review Committee and Safety Review Committee, was the supposed " mystery man" who ordered the safety injection pumps shut off during the March 1979 accident. As demonstrated by the Bechtel Report (at pp. 35-38) and the Stier Report (Volume II), this accusation was frivolous (there was no mystery man) and bordered on maliciousness.
By making such inflammatory personal attacks at a carefully staged and widely publicized press conference, Parks destroyed his credibility with his colleagues and created a poisonous atmosphere. His continued presence threatened to stifle communication and cooperation, and was therefore deleterious to the TMI-2 organization's ability to protect the public health and safety. Bechtel's suspension of Parks with pay pending investigation of his charges was not a retaliatory act in response to safety complaints, but rather was a reasonable personnel action which was necessary (1) to assure the continued and necessary effective functioning of the TMI technical and management team, (2) to facilitate the investigation of Parks ' safety-related allegations by establishing a dispassionate and unemotional atmosphere in which to conduct the investigation, and (3) to prevent even the appearance of harassment or retaliation against Parks.
Mr. James M. Taylor October 21, 1985 Page 6 Based on the facts described above, GPU Nuclear believes that none of the four alleged retaliatory acts constitute reprisal, harassment, or intimidation. Each of the acts was properly motivated to ensure the proper functioning of the THI-2 organization. The Notice of Violation appears predicated on the assumption that once a safety concern has been voiced (and regardless of how that concern is greeted), any subsequent organizational change affecting the individual who raised the concern demonstrates retaliatory animus. GPU Nuclear, however, cannot subscribe to this view. GPU Nuclear has an obligation to ensure that its divisions function effectively; indeed, such proper functioning is required to protect the public health and safety. Necessary actions, including personnel actions, must be carried out.
GPU Nuclear submits that the compliance officer's report, and hence the Notice of Violation, failed to properly recognize these legitimate motives, and, thus, are in error.
In addition to admission or denial of the allegations, the Notice of Violation required GPU Nuclear to address the reasons for the violations if admitted, the corrective steps which have been taken and the results achieved, the corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further violations, and the date when full compliance will be achieved. Because GrU Nuclear denies the allegations in the Notice of Violation, these items are inapposite. Since there is no acknowledged violation, GPU Nuclear does not characterize any of its actions as " corrective steps." As described below, however, GPU Nuclear has from its inception taken a number of actions to ensure that all safety concerns may be freely raised.
As discussed in Exhibit A, GPU Nuclear has established a variety of formal groups within the Corporation whose purpose is to seek out, identify, and obtain resolution of safety issues. These include the General Of fice Review Board, whose primary responsibility is to investigate potentially significant nuclear and radiation safety matters -- including management aspects of those matters -- and to report the results of their investigation to the Office of the President; the Safety Review Group (SRG), a full time onsite group of engineers on the TM1-2 staff, which has authority to report any unresolved safety issues directly to the Office of the President; and the Nuclear Safety Assessment De partment , which is located at GPU Nuclear Headquarters and which reports to the Vice President Nuclear Assurance. These groups are available to all employees as an avenue to identify safety concerns, and the existence of these groups have been made known throughout the organization. All of these groups were in place prior to the end of 1982.
GPU Nuclear also operates an Ombudsman Program, which provides a method for employees to raise safety concerns in confidence. The Ombudsman Program is explained in General Employee Training and is publicized by posters and by articles in newsletters. In addition, GPU Nuclear's corporate policy and the legal prohibition against reprisal are emphasized during training. Contractor
Mr. James M. Taylor October 21, 1985 Page 7 emplo'yees who work on-site are also notified of the corporate policy and legal requirements and are informed of the Ombudsman Program as part of the same General Employee Training given to GPU Nu' clear's employees. In addition, GPU Nuclear has reemphasized its policy in a number of memoranda, including:
Memo from R. C. Arnold to employees dated October 9,1981 Memo from R. C. Arnold to TM1-2 personnel dated April 13, 1983 Memo from P. R. Clark to employees assigned to nuclear activities dated February 27, 1985 Memo from P. R. Clark to Directors dated May 21, 1985 Memo from P. R. Clark to Directors of GPUN Divisions dated July 6, 1984 Memo from B. K. Kanga, Director TMI-2, to TMI-2 Division Managers and supervisors dated July 12, 1984 GPU Nuclear's overall performance over the last several years has demonstrated the effective implementation of these policies and its strong commitment to open communication and safety. In the NRC's November 15, 1982 SALP Report for TMI-2, GPU Nuclear achieved a Category 1 rating in five of the ten functional areas, including QA as well as surveillance (which covered preoperational testing). Similarly, in the NRC's May 15, 1984 Performance '
Appraisal Inspection Report at TMI-2 conducted as a direct result of these safety allegations, GPU Nuclear achieved a Category I rating in quality assurance and fully satisfactory ratings in the other functional areas evaluated. In addition, the NRC inspection team stated that it ". . .wa s favorably impressed with the licensee's support and commitment to upgrade programs.,
GPU Nuclear's Response to the Proposed Civil Penalty in Accordance with 10 C.F.R. 9 2.205.
GPU Nuclear protests the proposed civil penalty. As discussed ab ve (which discussion is incorporated herein by reference) GPU Nuclear denies the allegations on which the proposed civil penalty is based.
m .. .
, , Mr. James M. Taylor October 21, 1985 Page 8 Conclusion liarassment and intimidation are anathema to GPU Nuclear. Because of their seriousness, the allegations in the Notice of Violation have been extensively investigated. The vast bulk of the evidence from these investigations indicates that the allegations are not true. Based on the investigations, GPU Nuclear believes that Mr. Parks was not retaliated against for having raised safety concerns. The investigations confirm that management actions with regard to Mr. Parks were responsible, appropriate, and do not constitute retaliation. Accordingly, GPU Nuclear denies the allegations in the Notice of Vioilation and protests the proposed civil penalty.
We have addressed above the specific activities which are the subject of the Notice of Violation. In a broader context, it is our opinion that the NRC reliance on preliminary DOL findings threatens to deter future settlements in Section 210 proceedings. If a preliminary report contains adverse findings, licensees and their contractors may well not dare settle -- even as in this case on the basis of a dismissal with prejudice -- lest the unrebutted preliminary findings be used by the h1C against them. GPU Nuclear therefore believes that such Staff reliance on preliminary findings of a DOL compliance officer tends to promote protracted litigation and to hinder speedy remedy of employee's complaints, and thus seems contrary to sound public policy.
of my knowledge.
I affirm that the matters stated herein are true and correct to the best Respectfully submitted,
...e.,,.,e
. i e, , *.,
- \ i , ,'i \
fff.
P. R. Clarn
&,k )
/. 1,'
~
g',, l, ,;
\. .* \* PRC/cak l
. , g , l . . ll, ,:
'l..,p
,e
.q'./ ar Subscribed and sworn to before me this of/o_f day of October,1985.
M Commis ion expires
- 7 -
- 7?/
- W2 Y /h/Q*k wavascr n. vinsu. agrat? PUBut Enclosure IN00ms speo. DAUPMla CM ET CONNit310N IIPllf$ NASCM 20.1981 Nr%et.Peassyksma Assocation of Netertos /
cc: Regional Administrator, Region 1 - T. Murley t
EXHIBIT A 3
G 1 Nuclear GPU Nuclear Corporatfor gjs g p ie g ozosa TELEX 136 482 Writers Direct DialNumber:
June 29,1984 (201) 263-6797 5211-84-2164 Mr. Darrell G. Eisennut, Director Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
Dear Mr. Eisennut:
Three Mile IslandLicense Operating Nuclear.No. Station DPR-50 Unit 1 (TMI-1)
Docket No. 50-289 Employee Protection and Company Communications Your letter of June 14, 1984 Investigation investigation reports received to date concerning matte related to the issue of GPU management integrity with respect to the restart of Three Nile Island Unit I and requested a. response that addresses each of the questions in the enclosure to your letter.
The requested response is enclosed.
As to: shown therein, it has been and is the policy of GPU Nuclear Corporation 1.
Protect its employees and those of its contractors and subcontractors from discrimination as a result of raising safety concerns (including activities covered by 10 CFR 50.7) and to take needed disciplinary action to enforce that policy.
2 Ensure that communications between its officers, employees, and contractors and the NRC are complete and accurate.
, j pgeit 6FF' GPU Nucicar CorporaSon is a sutsiciary of the General Public Utilities Corporation
. . Mr. Darrell G. Eisenhut Page 2 Employee Protection and Company Communications June 29,1984 As discussed in the enclosure, this policy has been b'roadly promulgated and implemented in a variety of ways. We continue to look for and act on ways to increase the understanding of and compliance with all of our policies.
Very truly yours,
/ . j P. R. Clark President Enclosures cc: J. Axelrod R. Conte J. Gutierrez ^
T. Murley
- W. Russell J. Stolz J. Van Vliet Sworn and subscribed to before me this
&9 day of_ w , 1984 C o- ,-o 9 O Cf.ROL DISPOTO '
NOTARY PUBLIC 0F NEW JfASEY my ce==same hee Jem 30, taas
THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 5U-289 RESPONSE TO INFORMATION REQUEST OF JUNE 14, 1984 LETTER FROM DARRELL G. EISENHUT TO PHILIP R. CLARK The NRC questions address.GPUW policies in two general areas:
1 Protection of' employees of GPUN and its contractors and subcontractors frct1 discrimination as a result of engaging in activities covered by 10 CFR 50.7.
- 2. Assurance that comunications between GPUN, its officers, employees, or contractors and the NRC are corptete and accurate.
The NRC questions also address the GPUN response to Mr. Parks' allegations of harassment.
GPUN Policies with Regard to 10 CFR 50.7 and Communications with NRC:
Establishment and effective implementation of policies within GPUN are carried out in a variety of ways. Because the two areas addressed in NRC's questions on GPUN policy are the subject of laws and NRC
. regulations, they are generally addressed by the following documents which are central to GPUN activities an.d widely disseminated within the company.
A. Organization Plan of the Corporation:
This document defines the organizational responsibilities within the Corporation. The responsibility of the operating divisions (TMI-1, THI-2, and Oyster Creek) and the technical support divisions (Technical Functions, Radiological & Environmental Controls, and Nuclear Assurance) includes the requirement to carry cut all activities, "in accordance with corporate policies and applicable laws, regulations, licenses, and technical requirements".
B. The Corporate Mission:
This document states, "Hanage and direct the nuclear activities of
~
the GPU System to provide the required high level of protection for the health and safety of the public and the employees.
Consistent with the above, generate eIectricity from the GPU nuclear stations in a reliable and efficient manner in confomance with all applicable laws, regulations, licenses, and otner requirements
- and the directions ana interests of the owners."
- Empnasis added I
l l
1 j _ _
RESPONSE TO INFORMATION REQUEST OF JUNE 14, 1964 Page 2 LETTER FROM DARRELL G. EISENhuT TO PHILIP R. CLARK June 29,1984 The essentials of this Mission statement for GPUN were first enunciated in March 1980 as a statement of responsibilities applying to the GPU Nuclear Group, the predecessor to GPUN. They have been unchanged since then and were repuDlished in 1982 and 1983 in conjunction with the Objectives and Goals of the Corporation. Thus, tney were in effect during the January through June 1983 time period.
C. Corporate Objectives and Goals:
The Corporate Objectives for 1984 were expanded to include objectives specifically related to information flow within the company and to public officials. These are:
o Assure absolute openness of infomation availability and exchange within GPUN so as to assure that all information which might affect safety of nuclear activities is available to responsible company officials.
o Provide infomation in a timely and trustworthy manner on the
- activities and operations of THI-1 and TMI-2 and Oyster Creek to the various publics of GPU; i.e., public officials, the media, the general public, employees, shareholders, and governmental agencies.
In addition to the promulgation of these broaa policy statements, we have established a number of fomal mechanisms by wnich employees can identify safety concerns and have them addressed. These mechanisms have been implemented by fomal procedures which were put into place by the GPU Nuclear Group before GPUN was formed and then were carried forward by the new GPUN Corporation when it was establishea in January 1982. They provide processes for evaluation ano disposition of any concerns identified. These include:
I
- a. Preliminary Safety Concerns
- b. Radiological Deficiency Reports
. c. Radiological Incident Reports
- d. Quality Deficiency Reports .
l
- e. Material Non-Conformance Reports Any employee may raise concerns using these taethods.
GPUN also has established a variety of fomal groups within the Corporation whose purpose is to seek out, identify, and obtain resolution of safety issues. These include:
RESPONSE TO INFORMATION REQUEST OF JUNE 14, 1984 Page 3 2 - -
LETTER FROM DARRELL G. EISENHUT TO PHILIP R. CLARK June 29,1984 A. General Office Review Board (GORB) which was originally established in 1969 and then reorganized for the GPU Nuclear Group in August 1980. The GOR 8's primary responsibility is to investigate potentially significant nuclear and radiation safety matters including management aspects of those matters and to report the results thereof along with appropriate recommendations, if any, to A
the Office of the President of GPUN.
B. Inoependent On-Site Safety Review Group (IOSRG) which was authurized by a change to the plant technical specifications in April 1982 and became fully functional in August 1982. This is a full-time onsite group of engineers, independent of the THI-l staff that reports to
! the Nuclear Safety Assessment Director.
C. Nuclear Safety Assessment Department (NSAD) which was formed in late 1979 and became fully functional in early 1980. NSAD is located at j
GPUN headquarters and reports to the Vice President, Nuclear Assurance. ,
The existence of these groups has been widely publicized and is known ,
throughout the organization. They are available to employees as an added avenue to identify safety concerns. The members of these organizations have and often exercise free access to employees at all levels to identify and then address safety concerns.
In adoition to these formal mechanisms, employees are encouraged to raise any safety concerns with their inmeciate supervisors. If employees are not satisfied with the results ootained through normal supervisory channels, or have good reason not to use normal channels, GPUN has established the Omoudsman Program. This program was initiatea in early 1980. .It provides a method for employees to raise safety concerns in confidence. The program is governed by a formal procedure which contains provisions for preserving the confidentiality of indiviouals (Enclosure 1).
We have also establisned a formal corporate policy on individual employee contact with NRC. Employees are explicitly directea to be straight-forward, open, professional, and truthful in their dealings with regulatory agencies, even if they have information that is potentially l embarrassing to GPUN. This policy was promulgated by written communication to all employees in October 1981 and was formally incorporated into the Corporate Policy & Procedure Manual in November l 1982 (Enclosure 2). It is periodically communicated in writing to company employees.
I In addition, with regard to protection of employees from discrimination, the atmosphere created by management on a day-to-day basis is an important determinant in assuring that safety concerns will be freely
. .- -- - - - . . - . - - . .. -. . -~ _ - .-_- -
.. l RESPONSE TO INFORMA ON REQUEST OF JUNE 14, 1984 Page 4 LETTER FROM DARRELL G. EISENHUT TO PHILIP R. CLARK June 29,1984 identified and aired without fear of discrimination. To this end, the need to identify and address safety concerns is discussed in meetings by the GPUN President with his staff and by that staff with their managers.
The Ombudsman Program is explained in General Employee Training and is ,
publicized by postings at various locations around the plant and other l work locations, and by articles in company newsletters. Form NRC-3 is !
posted at the plant site and other work locations. The TMI-l Plant Director specifically solicits safety concerns and emphasizes the l Corporate Policy and legal requirements on these matters in annual individual meetings with each licensed operator. He also discusses this policy with members of the plant staff during their scheduled training period at least annually.
Additional examples of specific steps we have taken to emphasize our policy on these matters include:
A. Memo from R. C. Arnold to THI-2 personnel dated April 13, 1983 (Enclosure 3). ,
- 8. Memo from P. R. Clark to employees assigned to nuclear activities dated February 27, 1984 (Enclosure 4).
C. Newo from P. R. Clark to Directors ' dated May 21,1984 (Enclosure 5).
D. Memo from P. R. Clark and H. D. Hukill to TMI-l Shift Supervisors dated March 2,1984 (Enclosure 6). Similar memos have been issued approximately annual 1y since late 1979.
This body or information which has been made available to employees, taken in conjunction with the attitudes fostereo by management, makes it clear that discrimination against individuals for' engaging in the protected activities under 10 CFR 50.7 is prohibited.
The company would exercise administrative sanctions against any individual who discriminates against employees or contractor personnel for 10 CFR 50.7 activities. These sanctions range from reprimand to time off without pay to discharge depending upon the severity and other circumstances associated with the particular case.
Specifically with regard to contractor personnel, we have as a general condition of GPUN contracts:
Contractor, its employees and representatives shall at all times comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, statutes, rules or regulations including but not limited to those relating to wages, hours, fair employment practices, equal opportunity, antidiscrimination, safety, fire prevention and working concitions. .
i
RESPONSE TO INFORMATION REQUEST OF JUNE 14, 1984 Page 5 LETTER FROM DARRELL G. EISENHUT TO PHILIP R. CLARK June 29,1984 In addition, contractor employees who work on-site are provided with copies of the R. C. Arnold letter (Enclosure 2) and informed of the Ombudsman Program as part of the same General Employee Training given to GPUN employees. In the event GPUN were to determine that a contractor had discriminated against an employee for engaging in protected acts under 10 CFR 60.7 sanctions up to and including termination of the contract would be exercised depending upon the circumstances involved in
- any specific case.
Continued attention will be applied to this area to ensure that our practices and policies on these matters will remain effective.
With regard to the issue of accuracy and completeness of communications with NRC, the broad policies articulated above, coupled with the day-to-day attitude and professionalism of our management promote adequate assurance of full and accurate connunications. Specific S
examples of management's attitude and attention to this matter are P. R. Clark's memo of December 8,1983 identifying the need for full and open communications within the company and witn regulators (Enclosure 7), '
P. R. Clark's memo of September 1,1583 on the need for clarity and explicitness (Enclosure 8), and P. R. Clark's memo of May 15, 1964 and reference memos on reportacility of information relative to issues under review by licensing boards or NRC staff'(Enclosure 9).
In adoition, we have instituted a Corporate procedure that oefines the
' system of management and the. organizational elements responsiDie for review of regulatory correspondence. This procedure was promulgated in August 1981 to apply to the GPU huclear Group and has been incorporated into tne Corporate Procedure Manual for GPUN. Engineering or tecnnical information that is developed to support regulatory correspondence is subject to internal peer review and comment by formal procedure.
Adnerence to procedures is in turn auditable in accordance with the
- Corporate Quality Assurance Plan.
l The company would exercise administrative sanctions against any '
individual who willfully violates policy on these matters. These sanctions range from reprimana to time off without pay to discharge depending upon the severity and other circumstances of the particular case.
1 With regard to contractors, we have as a general condition of GPUN contracts:
Contractors shall conduct the work in a systematic manner and shall establish a quality assurance program and control procedures which will provide a systematic independent check and confirmation of data collected and analyses made therefrom and the recorcing of the quality control efforts.
RESPONSE TO INFORMATION REQUEST OF JUNE 14, 1984 Page 6 LETTER FROM DARRELL G. EISENHUT TO PHILIP R. CLARK June 29, 1984 l
GPUN reviews or audits most infomation provided by its contractors.
Errors or omissions are corrected and steps taken when appropriate to assure accuracy of submissions. GPUN would exercise sanctions for willful, flagrant, or continuing failure to supply complete and accurate information. Depending upon the severity of the particular case, the contract could be terminated.
In summary, it is the policy of GPUN to:
- 1. Protect its employees and those of its contractors and subcontractors from discrimination as a result of raising safety concerns (including activities covered by 10 CFR 50.7) and to take.needed disciplinary action to enforce that policy.
- 2. Ensure that coramunications between its officers, employees, and contractors and the NRC are complete and accurate.
GPUN's Response to the Parks' Allegations of Harassment:
Edwin H. Stier was retained by GPUN to investigate and report on the t -
Parks' allegations, among others. Stier reported on Parks' allegation i
that he was replaced as alternate startup and test supervisor at page 79-81 of Volume IV of his report und on~ Parks' allegation that he had been removed as the primary site operations representative on the Test Working Group at page 81-84 of Volume IV. Stier found those two allegations unsupported.
Stier also investigated and reported on Parks' allegations that Ed Gischel, Lawrence King, and Joyce Wenger, all GPUN employees, had been
- harassed and found these allegations unsupported.
Since Parks was an employee of Bechtel North American Power Corporation and not of GP.UN and Bechtel was performing its own inquiry to defend the US Department of Labor proceeding Parks had initiatea, GPUN agreen with Bechtel that Stier would not independently investigate the relationship between Parks and Bechtel except to the extent Parks' safety allegations overlapped that relationship. Stier, therefore, did not investigate the questioning of Parks by Bechtel employees or the suspension of Parks.
It was expected, however, that these two allegations would be thoroughly airea in the D0L proceeatng. That proceeding was settled witnout attribution of fault or liability and Parks withdrew his harassment complaint. GPUN was not a party to the settlement but was kept inforraed of its negotiation by Bechtel and executed a mutual release with Parks.
GPUN believes that Parks' allegations of harassment have been adequately addressed.
l
. Enclosure 1 tr UlNualear GPu Nuciear Corporate Policy and Procedure Manual Numb;r
. Iitte 1000-POL- 1020.01 Revision No.
Use of the Ombudsman Function for Resolving Nncione or Radtation Safety Concerns 2 Applicabihty/ Scope Responsible Office All GPU Nuclear Corporation Employees and all Net-Ed -
and 1CPLL Emolovees Workino Under GPUNC Supervision NSt.0 - 6300 This document is important to safety C Yes C No Etf active Date List of Effective Pages N y 3, 1982 Pace Revision 1.0 2 2.0 2 3.0 2 4.0 2 I
l i
CONTROLLED DISTRIBUTION DOCUMENT SERIAL NUMBER _ 9 l
I 1
Signature f, Concurnng organizational Element Date 0"9'" * ' ' I h 4 [ 7/.'/ d [v d Muelear Sa fety Assessment Director 27 /ff!!
concuned by ggg7[gg, Director, Nuclear Assurance / a,, g/2l
., I,,- '
-4fanager, Management Service. [' / 7 ~ 8 3- f
)
/ l I
l l
I I
E 5 l 6 -
h
'; APP' " bY fMJ/> [. U w j of fice of the President 1/2 7/f/ d
. k t);f yj, _j ?j ACOO1Cs1 38:
% t y t- ~ o- y Ji ff
Numcer
[r r.J1Nu21 ear GPU Nuclear Corporate Policy and Procedure Manual 1000-POL -1020.01
. . Title Revision No.
Use of the Ombudsman Function for Resolving Nuclear or Radiation Safety Concerns 2 1.0 Purpose '
l.1 The purpose of this policy statement is to:
1.1.1 Define the responsibilities of the Ombudsman, and 1.1.2 Describe the steps to be followed when an employee identifies a nuclear or radiation safety concern.
2.0 Applica bility/ Scope This policy applies to all GPU Nuclear employees and all Met-Ed and JCP&L employees working under the direction of GPU Nuclear. Nothing in this policy shall limit or otherwise preclude an individual's rights or obli-gations under state or federal laws or regulations.
3.0 Definitions None 4.0 Policy 4.1 GPU Nuclear Corporation recognizes that there may be activities in our company, in addition to those defined as " safety related," which could impact the safety of our nuclear power plants.
4.1.1 Accordingly, the Nuclear Safety Assessment Department (NSAD) has been directed to assess both the importance of these activities and their impact on nuclear or radiation safety, and to recommend improvements where deficiencies are believed to exist.
~ 4.2 All lipe functions of GPUNC are responsible for assuring that the activities they control are done properly to protect the health and safety of, Company employees and the public.
4.2.1 In addition, various organizational elements and committees within GPUNC (e.g., the Quality Assurance Department and the General Office Review Board) are charged with reviewing designated nuclear and radiation safety related aspects of our nuclear power plants.
5 E
5 5
f
- I_
- gjgp GPU Nuclear Corporate Policy and Procedure Manual Nume;r 1000-POL-1020.01
' E"'
Use of the Ombudsman Function for Resolving Rewoon No. 4 Nuclear o'r Radiation Safety Concerns 2 4.2.2 To promote an even higher degree of access for any individual concerned about nuclear or radiation safety, the position of Ombudsman has been established within the NSAD. The Onbudsman will receive, review and make aoorocriate recommendations on employee concerns about nuclear or raoiation safety. In tnis way, an employee with a concern about nuclear or radiation safety may make a positive contribution.
4.2.2.1 Employees are strongly encouraged to raise their concerns through normal supervisory channels and to have them resolved in that manner.
4.2.2.2 However, employees are invited to bring their con-cerns regarding nuclear or radiation safety to the Ombudsman if they are not satisfied with the results obtained through normal channels or have ocod reason to not want to use normal channels. >
4.2.3 By definition, an Ombudsman is one who investigates reported complaints, reports findings and helps to resolve the concern.
4.2.3.1 As applied to NSAD, this role is essentially the same except that the Ombudsman will address the resolution of nuclear or radiation safety concerns.
4.3 Such concerns should be communicated to the Ombudsman (in care of the Nuclear Safety Assessment Director) at GPUNC Headquarters. The basic information required to investigate the concern should be presented as clearly and as completely as possible.
4.3.1 The confidentiality of the communicator will be maintained except to the extent the identification of the communicator is lawfully required by a governmental body or agency. When such governmental body, or agency requires the identification of the communicator, the Ombudsman will use his/her best efforts to
, maintain the public anonymity of the communicator.
4.3.2 The Ombudsman will review all initial correspondence (or record of telephone conversation) and provide the originator, if identified, with an acknowledgement of receipt. This will include a target date for initiation of the review.
5 2
3 I
E C
S
b, GPU Nuclear Corporate """*C' ES NI Policy and Procedure Manual 1000-POL-1020.01 Use of the Ombudsman Function for Resolving Revision No.
Nuclear or Radiation Safety Concerns 2 4.3.2.1 The Ombudsman may appoint a NSAD staff member to conduct the review and pre' pare a presentation of the facts.
4.3.2.2 A suggested resolution of the concern will be defined by discussion with the appropriate functional organizational element (s). If the concern is determined to have no impact on nuclear or radiation safety, the individual will be so informed and no further action will be taken by NSA0. The appropriate functional organization will be responsible for resolution of the concern.
4.3.2.3 The results of the review plus the suggested resolution will then be forwarded to the division or specific organizational element having respon-sibility for the concern. This group will then be responsible for implementing corrective action. ,
4.3.2.4 Results of the review and corrective action taken, if required, will be communicated to the employee who submitted the original concern to the Ombudsman.
4.4 Summary reports of significant Ombudsman activities will be developed periodically and submitted to the Chief Executive Officer, GPUNC and the Director, Nuclear Assurance.
5.0 Resoonsibilities As defined above.
6.0 References 6.1 GPU Nuclear Organization Plan
- 6.2 GPU Nuclear Policy Regarding Cheating, Fraud and Misrepresentation, ,
Procedure #1000-POL-2604.01.
7.0 Atta chment s, None 5
3 k
5 E
i 5
,, Enclosura 2 i
%gglg7 GPU Nuc lear Corporate Number Policy and Procedure Manual 1000-POL-1740.01 Title Revision No Employee Contact With Reculatory Agencies 0 Apphcability, Scope
. Responsible Of f ace All GPUNC Employees Office of the President - 1000 This document is important to safety C Yes[No Effective Date List of Effective Pages Pace Revi sion 1.0 0
- 2. 0 0 El-1 0 El-2 0 CO'NTROLLED DISTRIBUTIO DOCUMENT SERIAL NUMBER-Signature Ccncurnn9 Organcational E:ement Date Onginator ll , ,,p j l
, Concurred ',
(h[hb -- -
l Manager of Management Services / / - /2 -pu
, J/ I s t/ l I
l
' l I
I I I
, I I
5 l l
l
~
l! - // .n g Approvec Oy ll f l President // f p Q
/" '
A0001051 3.g:
1.0 -
& ;pQy!w'^@ t '?'
Number
[r &~J INu'2Iear GPU Nuclear Corporate "
Policy and Procedure Manual 1000-POL-1740.01
. Tetb R; vision N2.
_ Employee Contact With Regulatory Agencies 0 1.0 PURPOSE To establish a GPUNC policy regarding standards for GPUNC employees to follow when dealing with a regulatory agency.
2.0 APPLICABILITY / SCOPE This Policy shall apply to all GPUNC employees.
3.0 DEFINITIONS REGULATORY AGENCY - A department of the United States, state or local government charged with investigation / enforcement of laws governing the nuclear power industry to protect the public health, safety or environment.
4.0 POLICY 4.1 It will be the policy of GPUNC to require openness, candor, and
- honesty from its employees in regards to their dealings with representatives of the various regulatory agencies.
4.2 This Policy is explained in detail in the attached exhibit.
5.0 RE SPONSIBILITIES As defined in the attached exhibit.
6.0 REFERE NCES GPUNC Policy,1000-POL-1020.01, "Dnbudsman - Nuclear Safety."
7.0 ATTACHME NTS -
Exhibit 1, R. C. Arnold 10/9/81 Memo to Employees.
l E
e w
s
?
Y ACO31C50 3 82 2.0
(UClear GpU Nuclear Corpora poiicy one proc eure x,teno i Proceduro No.
icoa. pot.i740.01 Title -
Employee Contact With Regulatory Agencies
) h3EM1 www P a
opu m .i r 100 Intergace Parmway Pars coany New Jersey 0705a 201 263 6500 TELEX 136 a82 Wnter s Direct Dial NumOer October 9.1981 Mr. . .
.u' . ..
!* p :.'.
.~...' ...., K1 U .' . .
De a r Mr . .t . . a.l t The special demands inherent in the utilisation of nuclear technology impose upon the Company additional responsibilities and needs not generally found in other industrial situations. secause of the potential for the facilities to af fect the surroundlag communities, our employees have a broader responsibility for diligent, capable and professional performance than just their obligation to the Company. For these same reasons, a large body of regulatory requiresents beve developed.
The obligation for compliance with these various requirements esteeds to all of us.
As the goverrusent regulators carry out their responsibilities for assuring compliance, they interact throughout the organization.
Under these circumstances, we think it is helpful to remind you of the Company policy on the relationship with the regulatory agencies and to provide-you with explicit guidance on this subject. Although what we are discusstag are legal requirements, please remember the objectives of the requirements -
protection of public and employee health and safety. All of us, the Company inc.luded, have a self-interest with regard to those objectives. Indeed, the Compary's interests are best served when it is clear to everyone that we are sincerely cou titted to fulfilling all of our obligations. Including those that
, are embodied in regulatory requirements.
With that background, we request you consider the followingt
- 1. We have a legal as well as a sotal obligation for our activities to be in compliance with all relevant lave and regulations. It is the policy of the Company to be in full compliance with these requitecents as a minisua and actively strive to achieve full compliance where they have not been set.
- 2. Our status relative to Company and legal requirements needs to be clear and easily visible within the organisation. To this end,
- eeployees are responsible for reporting to their supervision l
conditions or situations that are not in accordance with Corpany or 1egal requirements which they have reason to believe that appropriata
[ manage men t personnel are not aware of.
2 These cocaunications
[ GPU Nwc ear is a ca t of tne Geaerat Neoc utu.t.es Sys:em 1
GgU Nucle.r Corporate Numlear s poiicy .oa proccoure s.nu.i hocasure N A icoo-got-i740.01
. . Title i
Employee Cont.ct With Reguiatory Agencies ,
Page 2 will flow most reliably when there is generally an atmosphere of openness and candor. I alght note that we recognise circusatences and personal considerations any occasionally sees to hamper communications within the organiastion. Because of this, the CPU Aclear organization, established in September 1980, lacludes the function of Osbudsman within the kclear Safety Assessment Department for reporting of information er concerne la such tastances. hem appropriate, reports to the ombudsaan are confidential.
- 3. It is Company policy, and in same instances a legal requirement as well, that we provide complace and timely disclosure when circumstances prevent full compliance with the requirements.
Similarly, the Company will coopwrate with the regulatory agencies in any inspections or other reviews directed toward determining the status of compliance. Employees should be straightforward, open and professional in their interfacing with regulatory agency employees.
An employee may have inforsation that is potentially embarrassing to the Campa ny , bu t that should not inhibit providing that information to a representative of an outside agency that has a legitimate interest in it. ,
- 4. Een a representative of a regulatory agency wants to talk with an Individual employee about matters of interest to the agency, the representative has the right and the authority to pursue discussions, with the employee. In the course of any discussions, the employee is legally responetble for being truthful. The agency should not carry out those discussions at a time or in a manner that hinders the employee free fulfilling assigned work responsibilities. The employee must exercise his judgment as to the circumstances and respond 4,ccordingly (checking with supervision if appropriate). Also, when a private interview with an esployee has been requested by a repre-sentative of a regulatory agency. It has frequently been their policy to permit the employee to be accompanied by someone of the employee's choice during the interview, to record the interview, or to consider other requests by an employee that will facilitate proceedings with the interview. If a representative of a regulatory agency aska an employee for an interview, the employee should not hesitate to request from the agency representative an arplanation of the availability of these or other options prior to proceeding with the interview. This
! request should be made if the employee has any concern as to the purpose or reason for the interview.
Aasin, the intereste of the Comparre, its emplevees, and the public are best s erve d be an open and cooeera ttve a ttitude and hones ty in our lateractices with the governmental ateneise responsible for regulatiet our various activities. We errect Tour settve support in fulfilling these espects of our pv*>lle and corpora te responsibilities.
Sincerely, R.C. unold Chief Operating Executive D.
e f
I l Revision l
Ei-2 No. 0
IntarEffica Momcrcndum Enclosure 3 Date April 13, 1983 ,
subject To TMI-2 Cleanup Program Personnel As you probably are aware, Ed Gischel has provided me with an affidavit ex-pressing his concerns about TMI-2 operations and the recovery efforts. He also asked me to give the NRC staff a copy of the affidavit and I have done so. The subject matter of his concerns has been routinely raised and dis-cussed throughout the year. ,
All of us, including the GPU Nuclear Board of Directors, myself and our senior officers, recognize the right and the obligation all have to advise us promptly of problems that could affect the health and safety of the pub-lic or personnel at TMI-2. We urge all of you to share this recognition of Mr. Gischel's rights on these matters which he believes were not being ad- a dressed.
This event highlights the fact that if anyone in the GPU Nuclear organiza-tion has concerns about health and safety matters, those concerns should be promptly passed on to others in the organization so they can be addressed.
Usually this can be done, as it was in this case, through the regular super visory channels. If, for any reason, you think this might not be effective, you should not hesitate to get in touch with the Office of the Ombudsman, Mr.
Kanga, Mr. Clark, or myself about the matter.
Our cormion objective is to Ct.EAN UP Three Mile Island Unit 2 IN A SAFE MANNER so that any potential threat to public and worker health and safety is removed.
I am confident we all share a broad comitment to this objective. This confi-dence is based upon the excellent results achieved to date by the dedicated and very capable perfonnance of so many.
I Inherent in the comitment we have is the necessity for everyone to address safety concerns raised by any member of the organization promptly, profes-sionally and on the merits of the issues. A major reason for Mr. Gischel's conclusion that he had to give voice to his concerns in the manner in which l he did, was his sense that issues raised by Site Operations were not ad-dressed objectively and on their merits. While, based on the information I have at this time, I do not share his concerns as to the issues he has raised, the Company will be investigating fully the concerns raised by Mr. Gischel as well as those recently expressed by others. It is essential that every mem-aoooos4a (over)
1 ber of the organization behave in a professional manner in all their activi- !
ties here at Three Mile Island. Anything less reduces the credibility and effectiveness of the organization even if it does not result in any activity belnd done in an unsafe manner.
/
0 l,"A .
R. C. old President sim 4
9 h
I e
o t
e e
e e
- 1 Enclosure 4 GPU Nuclear Corporation
- yi EE ys 100 lnterpace Parkway Mw
'7' a Parsippany. New Jersey 07054 1 201 263 6500 1 TELEX 136 482 Writer's Direct Dial Number:
February 27, 1984 (201) 263-6797 T0: ALL GPU SYSTEM EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN NUCLEAR ACTIVITIES
SUBJECT:
SOME IMPLICATIONS OF THE INDICTMENT OF METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY FOR PREACCIDENT ACTIVITIES AT THI-2 The recent Federal indictment of the Metropolitan Edison Company on charges relating to preaccident activities at TMI-2 points up important lessons and leads me to write this letter to each of you. As we look forward, I want to reemphasize our policies in areas related to the charges in the indictment. ' '
Since the estabitshment of GPU Nuclear, its Mission has been clear:
"Hanage and direct the nuclear activities of the GPU System to provide the required high level of protection for the health and safety of the public and the employees."
Each and everyone of us is responsible and accountable to carry out this Mission faithfully. A major purpose.of faithfully discharging this re-sponsibility is to warrant public trust. Such trust cannot be retained if our compliance with procedures and limits is uncertain.
Basically, the indictment charges that this responsibility was not fulfilled by Metropolitan Edison Company with regard to Reactor Coolant Inventory Balance Testing at TMI-2 in 1978 and early 1979.
To understand the indictment, it is helpful to consider the structure of our NRC Operating License.
- 1. The License requires that we abide by or meet Federal laws, NRC l regulations, and the License itself including the Technical Specifications. -
- 2. NRC regulations and our License require that we have and comply with procedures for many activities.
The indictment of Metropolitan Edison Company makes three general charges which have important implications to our current and future activities:
l l
l GPU Nuclear Corporation is a subsidiary of the General Public Utilities Corporation
1
- 1. o They were required to meet a specified limit or to take correc-tive action. (The specific limit was related to unidentified leakage but that is just an example of the general case).
o They established a procedure to determine if this limit was met, o
They knew that the procedure was inadequate to do the job, i.e.,
it gave such widely varying results that it could not show -
whether the requirement was met or not.
o They did not resolve the issue by either improving the procedure or getting the requirement changed.
The point for us is:
o Whenever any of us believes that something we are doing is in-proper or incapable of meaningfully achieving its purpose, it must be identified and we must get the question resolved. We must not " live with" or continue questionable practicles. We .
have established in GPU Nuclear a variety of means for identify-ing any such problems and must use them. They include Procedure Change Requests, Radiological Deficiency Reports, Preliminary Safety Concerns, and for safety issues, if the other mechanisms do not work, the Ombudsman.
2.
They did not follow the administrative procedures which were deve-loped and issued to implement the regulations and our License.
Specifically:
o They did not enter in the logs the start and end of each Reactor Coolant Inventory Balance Test.
o They did not keep all test data.
o For tests they considered invalid, they did not docuuent why it was considered invalid.
, The point for us is:
~
o We will follow our procedures. This has been emphasized time I and again. We also have defined how to change a procedure which is believed to be unworkable or' wrong.
- 3. They did not inform the NRC:
o That they were having difficulty getting good test results, and o Of the conclusion (by some or many) that the test was not meaningful. '
The point for us is:
o In addition to identifying issues internally, b will kee fully informed of problems, difficulties, and questions. p the NRC None of these points is new--all of them have been stated and emphasized
- repeatedly over the last several years.
Complying safely. with them is important to help ensure we operate our plants It is also our obligation under our License. In many cases, failure to comply can result in civil or criminal penalties on the company or on individuals.
Separately and independent of any action by the government, failure to comply may be cause for disciplinary action by the company. Willful ,
knowing failure to comply will make the individual subject to discharge.
P. R. Clark President cc: Mr. R. O. Keim, Vice President, Human Resources Meted Mr. J. J. Westervelt, Vice President, Human Resources, JCP&L 0
0 0
Enclosure 5 Nualear momerandum
Subject:
Date:
Lessons Learned from Situation At TMI-2 May 21, 1984 (Subject of Stier's 'Whistleblowers')
From: P.R. Clark, President Location:
To:
Chairman, GORB Director, Administration Director, Cormunications Director, Human Resources Director, Maintenance & Construction Director, Nuclear Assurance Director, Oyster Creek Director, Radiological & Environmental Controls Director, Technical Functions Director, TMI-1 Director, TMI-2 Attached for your information and discussion with your staff is a paper developed on the above subject.
P.R.Cl ark PRC/mak attachment cc: Executive Vice President
~
A0000648 8-83
Nuslear momerandum
Subject:
Lessons Learned from Situation At THI-2 Date: May 21, 1984 (Subject of Stier's Report 'Whistleblowers')
From: P.R. Clark, President Location:
To: GPU Nuclear Board of Directors At its November 1983 meeting, the Board requested that we reflect on general lessons to be learned from the situation which existed at TMI-2 in late 1982 into early 1983. The attached paper was developed in response to that request.
It is being distributed to all Division Directors who will discuss it with their Staff. With regard to item 8, a policy has been issued calling for return to work examinations in appropriate cases. ,
In regard to item 9, we'have retained new separate contractors for psychological screening and enployee assistance. Written guidelines on confidentiality are part of the arrangments with these contractors.
P.R. Clark PRC/mak attachment '
i AOOOO648 S.83
-. _ . . _ . ~ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __. __. _
LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE EVENTS AND SITUATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE STIER REPORT
- 1. Management must-be alert to the overall attitudes and interactions of J the organization and must assure that organizational and people issues are being effectively addressed. Cont:inuing conflicts and disputes within the organization need to be understood, dealt with, and resolved openly and promptly. Appropriate resources are to be made available for resolution of all such issues. Areas of concern include 2, 3, 4, and 5, below:
- 2. BACKGROUND: One of the more difficult lessons learned is that there is a judgment to be exercised by all supervisors and managers in accepting different opinions, allowing discussions, and then termi-nating the debate or dispute and going ahead with appropriate actions.
SUMMARY
- Open discussion on technical issues is to be encouraged.
However, each employee must understand his role and the limits of that position. The appropriate manager has the ultimate responsi-bility to exercise control, tenninate a dispute, and take appropriate action including advising those involved of the basis for such action.
- 3. BACKGROUND: A number of misunderstandings and disputes in the working ,
relationship between several groups may have been avoided if the
. groups had a proper understanding of their responsibilities and the -
procedures under which the particular task would be performed. As an example, if all groups had had a proper understanding cf how the work would be perfomed for refurbishment of the polar crane and the pro-cedures that would be used for that work, almost all of the major problems could have been avoided.
SU!UtARY: The various groups involved in a task should have a common understanding of the applicable procedures under which the task will be perfomed and what the procedures require. If they do not, the misunderstanding must be identified and resolved before proceeding.
- 4. BACKGROUND: In the past there have been problems associated with individuals belonging to GPU kuclear and Bechtel organizations view-ing each other more from an organizational background rather than as individual s. GPU Nuclear and Bechtel Executive Management have insti tuted, through the Organizational Development- Program, a
-management direction to overcome these differences.
SU!EARY: Individuals from different organizations need to work in close cooperation with each other with open, unambiguous communica-tions. Where differences of opinion arise, such differences must be recognized and resolved on their merits in a cooperative manner.
They must not be characterized or treateo as differences due to their organizational background or personality conflicts.
ie
)
- 5. BACKGROUND: !
Some of the concerns of voiced by certain personnel may have been caused due to their personal perception of other parts of the organization competing heavily against them personally, or their group's.
SUMMARY
- A certain amount of competition between groups is to be expected ject. and, inceed, encouraged for overall efficiency of the pro-However, excessive competition or "oneupmanship" between groups should not be toleratec.
- 6. BACKGROUND:
An employee had indicated his dissatisfaction of working in the THI-2 organization and his lack of acceptance in the integrat-ed organization as early as sumer 1982. During that time, he was encouraged to interview with different divisions in Parsippany.
SUMt%RY:
Management should identify employees who are not satisfi.ed with assigned positions or the conditions of work. Management should have such employees define their problems (orally or in writing, as appropriate). If, after discussions and review of the concerns such employees continue to be dissatisfied, appropriate personnel action .
should be taken.
- 7. BACKGROUND:
All employees need to clearly understand and appreciate the problems created by written communications that are not written in a professional manner. *
SUMMARY
Both internal and external communications such as letters, i memos, reports, etc. must be written in a professional, unambiguous manner are expressed.
stating facts and clearly identifying opinions where opinions Under no circumstances should such communications in-clude attacks on an individual's motives, personal capabilities, lack of knowledge, etc. If there is concern about such items, it should ifbeappropriate, brought to the attention of appropriate management where will be taken. -
~
action,
- 8. BACKGROUND:
Any differences in treatment of employees after returning from major illnesses, unless properly documented and justified, could result in misunderstandings.
SUMMARY
An appropriate corporate policy should define the type of fitness check, doctor's certificate, etc. that should be required of an employee who returns to work after.a major illness. Such a policy should be applied to all employees. It may be necessary to make certain distinctions in terms of the requirements based upon reason-able differences in the employee's position and work.
- 9. BACKGROUND:
Mr. Stier has indicated the problems created by comments from Stress Control to certain employees and by referral of employees to Stress Control. -
SutNARY: Appropriate policy and guidelines should be issued regarding the confidentiality of information and the dissemination of informa-tion to GPU Nuclear by organizations such as Stress Control. The guidelines should also define to whom and in what manner those organ-izations will comr.iunicate such infomation to GPU Nuclear. Such a statement should then be published and avail'able to all employeer, who avail themselves of the services of these organizations. Guidelines clarifying the circumstances under which employees should be referred to organizations such as Stress Control need to be issued to those in supervisory positions.
- 10. BACKGROUND: There were instances in which personnel failed to follow through en relevant information made known to them.
SUMMARY
- All employees have an obligation to discharge their duties in a thorough, professional manner. Failure of an employee to act accordingly is unacceptable.
May 7,1984 I# =
O 4
e O
O
, . , . , , .y - _ , , _ _ , . _ _ _ _ . , , - , . , _ _ __ _ _ . - - - ,
Enctosure 6 UhgM 5 GPU Nuclear ConH> radon Post Office Box 460 Route 441 South
_ Micc:etown. Pennsylvarna 17057 717 944 7621 TELEX 84 2386
- Writers Direct Dial Number:
File: Procedures /
Policies 3000-84-096 March 2,1984 .
TO: TMI-I SHIFT SUPERVISORS
SUBJECT:
COMMAND Resp 0NSIBILITIES Nuclear generating facilities have the potential to significantly impact the health and safety of the public. This potential impact places a special burden and responsibility on those who manage and command operations at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station. .
The first line of defense in protecting and assuring the health and safety of the public and the safety of personnel within the plant is the safe operation of all plant systems and components. You, as the Shift Supervisor, hasa the primary management responsibility until, properly relieved, for the safe operation of the plant uncar all conditions occurring on your shift.
Accordingly, you are directly charged with both the responsibility and the command authority over all shift operations, and maintenance activities, and implementation of radiological controls under normal and abnormal conditions. Both the supervisor coming on shift and the supervisor being relieved shall make certain they review, convey and understand plant status and on-going activities and that the activities are deemed to be in accordance with safety requirements.
Your responsibilities require you to constantly maintain th'e broadest perspective of operational conditions potentially affecting the general public, TMI personnel, and the safety of the plant. Maintenance of this .
broad perspective shall be your highest priority at all times when you are on **
duty. In this regard, in times of emergency, you should be sure never to become so involved in any single operation that you are preoccupied to the extent that you might not provide adequate direction when multiple operations are required in the Control Room. During accident situations while functioning as Emergency Director you shall remain in the Control Room to manage and direct the activities of the Shift Foreman, Control Room Operators, Shift Technical Advisor, Radio'ogical Controls Personnel, other plant operators and required support personnel in accordance with the approved Emergency Plan until properly relieved.
GPU Nuclear Corporation is a sucsic.ary of tne General Puolic Utilit.es Corporation
- February 2,1984 3000-84-096 i
An essential element of protection of public health and safety is timely notification of State, local, NRC and Company officials in the event of an accident. There should be no reluctance on your part to initiate the notifications called for by the Emergency Plan if conditions indicate a potential threat to public health or safety even if more evaluation is necessary to confirm the existence of such a threat. Further, it is imperative that you provide the opportunity for guidance and direction from the line management to which you report by prompt notification to them of the existence of abnomal conditions. In making these reports both to the State, local, NRC and Company officials the following principles must be observed:
Promptly report all facts and other infomation concerning plant conditions and the potential threat to the public.
. Be thoroughly and totally candid in your reports and do not withhold any information.
. Answer any questions asked to the best of your ability, whether or not they appear to you to be pertinent to the situation at hand. '
, . Make every reasonable effort to convey infomation so that the recipients have an understanding of the significance of the report including the degree of uncertainty that may exist as to plant conditions and the prospect for further degradation in the situation.
In any abnormal event or unusual occurrence, whether or not it falls into one of the emergency event classifications, it is also of the utmost importance that the Comunications Division's Duty Representative be infomed as soon as possible. It is essential that the Communications Division receive early j notification so they may be prepared to respond to public and press inquiries.
Constant, vigilant recognition of your management role to maintain a comand overview of the situation, to make decisions and to direct operations is the .
t I
most important element in executing your responsibility to protect under all conditions, the health and safety of the public, the personnel on your shift, l and the safe operation of plant systems and components under noma 1, off normal, and accident conditions.
, This letter replaces and supersedes our letter to you, same subject, dated May 25,1983.
[.
H. D. huxiil P. R. Clarx Vice President & Director, TMI-I President PRC/HDH/NR/dds cc: M. J. Ross, Manager, Plant Operations TMI-I R. J. Toole, Operations and Maintenance Director TMI-I CARIRS - TMI
, Enclosure 7 s
- \
09U Nuclear Q gf 100 Interpace Parkway Parsrecany. New Jersey 07054 201 263 6500 TELEX 136 482 Wnter's Detect Dial Nurneer:
December 8, 1983 (201) 263-6797 TO:
GPU SYSTEM EMPLOYEES ASSIGNED TO NUCLEAR ACTIVITIES and the Office of the President of GPU Nuclear Corporation.L I know all of you share with me deep appreciation for '
since the accident at THI-2. Bob Arnold's unstinting effortsveand yearsleadership d staffing of GPU Nuclear Corporation and placed us 15 push forward to reach the ma3cr goals we have set. o a sound po steps taken during the last four years are intended to stre ability to perform in a professional manner and to provide to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission a sound basis for authorizing the Restart of TMI-l without awaiting Comassion Staff. resolution of the "open issues' identified by the
' responsibility of the NRC. Action on authorizing Restart of Unit 1 as the We will continue to urge them to act promptly However, as I begin my assignment as president of GPU Nuclear orporation.
C .
I want to reemphastze the importance of meeting our responsibilit zes.
meeting all of our responsiblitties.GPU Nuclear Corporation must continue to ofour of our activities employees. so as to protect the health and safety of nthe public a d Under our license, and our agreement with the owners of GPU's nuclear plants, GPU Nuclear Corporation and the Metropolita n Edison and Jersey sobering Central responsibility. employees assigned to our nuclear sites have that or herself to meeting that responsibility.Each of us must fvily accept and devote h that we have chosen to engage in nuclear power generation wtth itIt comes direc potential s inherent to assure forthatserious risk is kept consequences to public health and safety acceptably low. .
Cur Job is GPU Nuclear is a part of the General Pubhc Utihties hem
o - . .
overriding importance they place on fulfilling Mission states: responsibility. Our thatThe owners and
" Manage and direct the nuclear activities of the GPU System to provide the required high level of protec-tion for the employees. health and safety of the public and the Consistent with the above, generate electricity from the GPU nuclear stations in a reliable and efficient manner in conformance with all applicable laws, regu-lations, licenses and other requirements and the directions and interests of the owners."
Many things are involved in carrying ou't this Mission.
However, I want to draw your attention today to three which are vital They have all been the subject of prior guidance but they deserve reemphasis.
e ones in keeping with the responsibility we bear.The first is that we must exceed the regulatory requirements.
~ They must encompass and We must actively seek excellence.
both within the comThe second is the need to have fg l and open communications--
problems, concerns,pany and between us and our regulators. In particular.
openly. and uncertainttes need to be identified and addressed believe is not being adequately addressed.I stand ready to discuss with a requirements and standards as a minimum.The third is rigorous and faithful a responsibilities. Our success depends on everyone faithfully fulfilling their In accepting election to the position of president, GPU Nuclear do so. I Corporation, ask each of you I have to docommitted likewise. myself to the Board of Directors o
t have promssed their full support.The members of the GPU and GPU Nuclear B joint me in pledging to you our very best efforts.Mr. Kintner, Executive Vice President, Very truly yours,
- 4 P. R. Clark i President
4
+
Enclosure 8 Nualear memorandum
~
CLARITY AND EXPLICITNESS OF
Subject:
PLANS AND COMMITMENTS Date: Septaber 1, 1983 Frrm: P.R. Clark,ExecutbreVicePresident Location: Headquarters Ts: P. B. Fiedler, Director, Oyster Creek I. R. Finfrock, Chairman, GORBs W. L. Gifford, Director, Communications
~
Re W. Heward, Director, Radiological & Environmental Controls H. D. Hukill, Director, TMI-l )
B. K. Kanga, Director, TMI-2 E. E. Kintner, Director, Administration R. L. Iong, Director, Nuclear Assurance F. F. Manganaro, Director, Maintenance & Construction D. G. Murray, Director, Human Resources R. F. Wilson, Director, Technical Functions o
e Recently I have been involved in two situations where we had made commitments where what was understood and intended by those writing them was substantially different (and less meaningful) than most, if not all, readers (including me) would have understood.
This is of considerable concern to me and should be to you. We must be able to tell from what our: people write what really is planned or meant. In many cases, other parties, such as the NRC, must also be able to understand what we mean. Please discuss this matter with your staffs along with the needed action. -
The examples are as follows:
- 1. As part of our response to a fine at Oyster Creek, we decided to erect an additional section of security fence at the intake. Our letter said the fence would be installed by the end of July. I,
~ much of our nanagement, and the NRC all believed this meant an operable security barrier. What those directly involved say they meant was a fence (only) and that the rest of the security barrier, such as reaiming cameras, was to be done later. However, our letter was silent on that.
2.
We described our fire brigade training program for all fire brigade members as a two-year program with training given quarterly. The straightforward reading is, I believe, that all fire brigade members will be given training quarterly. What was done (but was not explicitly stated) was to offer training quarterly but only require that each person take one of two sessions on a given topic.
a
.' While we can always have something be unclear we must make a conscious effort to prevent _ that and be specific and unambiguous. The basic responsibility is with each of you. In addition, for the special case of Licensing subnittals, I have charged Licensing & Regulatory Affairs to particularly look for this and require appropriate corrections.
,'.b'~,4 ! i
. 'V ' !
P. R. Clark
, Executive Vice President pk -
cc: Mr. R. C. Arnold a
6 O
I l
0
I' plNualear Enclosure 9 ucmerandum
Subject:
REPORTABILITY OF'INFORMATION RELATIVE TO Date: May 15,1984 ISSUES UNDER REVIEW BY LICENSING BOARDS OR NRC STAFF -
Rom: P. R. Clark, President Location: HQ To:
R. P. Fasulo, Director, Administration P. B. 'Fiedler, Director, Oyster Creek I. R. Finfrock, Chaiman,-GOR 8s W. L.~ Gifford, Director, Comunications R. W. Heward, Director, Radiological & Environmental Controls H. D. Hukill, Director, TMI-l B. X. Kanga, Director, TMI-2 R. L. Long, Director, Nuclear Assurance F. F. Manganaro, Director, Maintenance & Construction D. G. Murray, Director, Human Resources R. F. Wilson, Director, Technical Functions
References:
My memorandum dated July 22, 1983, Obligation to Report to the NRC BETA and RHR Reports My memorandum dated October 19, 1983, Obligation to Report to the NRC/ Additional Guidance The references provide guidance relative to reportability of infomation on issues pending before Licensing Boards or the NRC Staff on THI-1. While the specific issues discussed therein relate to THI-1, the general requirements, of course, apply to all of our licensed activities--T1II-1, THI-2, Oyster Creek, and Saxton.
Accordingly, 1
l
- 1. Please assure that all of your managers and professional staff are
, familiar with the NRC position on this subject.
- 2. Assure that they understand that the preparer of any document and his manager are responsible to make the initial detemination of reportability.
- 3. Confim to them that the Licensing Manager for the plant involved is to be provided copies of any documents they consider reportable.
A0000648 S 83
-g.
j In addition, it is requested tnat the Director, Technical Functions develop Corporate policy and procedure guidance for this matter in accordance with l
Corporate Policy 1218.01. -
b P. R. Clark
<_.)
President P
. Pfk ,
cc: E. E. Kintner, Executive Vice President l
e O
Nuclear ucmcrendum !
l TMI-1 RESTART PROCEEDI.NGS: at October 19, 1983 08 LIGATION TO REPORT TO THE NRC --
l ADDITIONAL CUIDANCE P. R. Clark Locaton:
HQ Distribution
' This memorandum provides additional guidance for implementing my memorandum dated July 22, 1983 on the same subject.
Preliminary legal review indicates that for information to be reportable, it must be both " relevant" and " material". Working definitions of these terms are Reisvant - means to relate to the issue.
Material - means to have probative weight, i.e., reasonably likely to "
influence the tribunal in making a determination requirsJ to be made.
A statement may be relevant but not asterial.
With regard to the THI-1 Restart Hearing, the issues un be summarized as follows:
l A. Emersency Planning Issues l 1 Organization of emargency response organization l 2 Accident assessment and dose projection l 3 Public education, warning and emergency instructions 4 Protective action and decision making 5 Training drills and audits 6 Facilities B. Management Issues
.. 1. Organization (GPUN Corporate and TMI-1)
- 2. Training of licensed and non-licensed operator (content, i administration and facilities) 3 Maintenance (Safety Related) 4 Safety review and operational advice *
- 5. Quality Assurance
- 6. Key personnel
- 7 Operating experience review
'TMI-1 RESTART PROCEEDINGS: Octob2r 19, 1983 QBLICATION TO REPORT TO THE NRC Page 2 ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE C. Plant Modification / Design Issues -
Modifications to the plant design described in the TMI-l Restart Report and/or the ASLB Partial Initial Decision on Plant Design and Procedures and Separation Issues.
Relevance and Materiality relative to the Restart Hearing should then be -
. Judged against those issues and the Hearing Record on them.
For any oth'er item where we have a pending issue before the NRC (such as a license amendment) the relevancy and materiality are to be measured against the particular licensing conditions involved and the basis for them.
While each document must be reviewed by the cognizant people, preliminary review of a variety of documents indicates:
I. Documents with the greatest likelihood of being reportable and the position responsible to assure initial review and deternination of '
reportability are:
- 2. Reports of any audit or review by outside organizations (except internal financial audits) - Responsibility - Division Director
- 3. Radiological Assessor Reports - Responsibility - Manager, Rad Con, TMI-l 4
Documented Differing Professional Opinions - Responsibility -
t Department Director
- 5. TDRs - Responsibility - Director, Technical Functions 6 GORB Developed Document - Responsibility - Chairman, GORBs
- 7. B&W Letters or other outside correspondence - Responsibility -
Director, Engineering Projects and Director, Engineering & Design For docu=ents in Category I developed hereafter, there should be a means I
provided to show on the docu=ent that reportability has been evaluated.
l A stamp with spa:e to initial as "Not Reportable", " Reportable", or
" Referred to Licensing" would be one such means.
II. Documents less likely to be reportable include:
1 1. Nor=al workirg papers - Proceduresc' Analyses, Specifications, l Drawings, etc.
- 2. Limited scope items - MNCRs, receiving reports, etc.
- 3. Preliminary Safety Concerns 4 Draft docu=ents where a final is reasonably expected in a short ti=e.
The preparer and his line management are responsible to make the initial determination of reportability.
l
, , TMI-1. RESTART PROCEEDINGS : Octob2r 19, 1983 OBLICATION TO REPORT TO THE NRC Page 3 a
- ADDITIONAL CUIDANCE Where the review described above shows some indication o,f reportability, the document should be forwarded to the Licensing and Regulatory Affairs Department for final determination. Documents in Types 11-14 should be sent to TMI-1 Licensing (C. W. Smyth) and all others sent to PWR Licensing in Parsippany (J. S. Wotmore). The area of concern should be clearly identified.
/
P. R.' Clark
+
Executive Vice President pfk 6
O i
e O
l s s DISTRIBUTION R. C. Arnold, President E. Blake, Esquire, Shaw Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Richard J. Conte, Senior NRC Resident, THI-1
- 1. R. Finfrock, Chairman, GORBs W. L. Gifford, Director, Communications R. W. Heward, Director, Radiological & Environmental Controls
, .H. D. Hukill, Director, TMI-1 E. E. Kintner, Director, Administration R. L. Long, Director, Nuclear Assurance '
F. F. Manganaro, Director, Maintenance & Construction J. R. Thorpe, Director, Licensing & Regulatory Affairs C. W. Smyth, TMI-l Licensing Manager J. S. Wetmore, Manager, PWR Lietusing R. F. Wilson, Director, Technical Functions
In20r-@ffico Mamerandum C ale JuAy 22, 1983 g.
Subject TMI-l RESTART PROCEEDING 3:
OBLIGATION TO REPORT TO THE NRC h
BETA AND RHR REPORTS To '
location Headquarters /Parsippany Directors: Communications Radiological & Environmental Controls TMI-l Administration Nuclear Assurance Maintenance & Construction Technical Functions Otairman, GORBs The enclosed memorandum from Guy H. Cunningham, III, Executive Legal Director to Harold Denton discusses the obligations we have to report information to the NRC. It provides Mr. Cunningham's legal opinion as to the general basis for the obligations and the conclusion that we were obliged to provide both the BETA and RHR Reports.
The memorandum seems to define an obligation substantially broader i (i.e. , encompassing many more documents) than we had understood heretofore.
Further, the obligation relates not only to issues before the ASLB/
ASLAB but to other issues before the NRC Staff. A primary considera-tion in the determination seems to be whether it changes information previously provided.
We have been and will continue to seek clarification of the criteria.
In particular, we understand that the Commission in a decision some years ago on a VEPCO matter directed the Staff to develop guidance.
We are requesting that guidance.
However, in the interim, the following steps are to be taken:
1.
The attached opinion is to be provided to and discussed with your managers and professional staff.
2.
'D4I-l Licensing is assigned responsibility to review documents they are aware of and any others brought to their attention and make'a determination regarding the obligation to provide. '
3.
All ccpies of TMI-l related documents of the following classes are to be provided to TMI-l Licensing for reviews o QA Audits o Reports of any audit or review by outside organizations o Radiological Assessor Reports o TDRs o GORB Minutes Accoosta 1
TMI-l RESTART PROCEEDINGS: . Paga 2 GsLIGATION TO REPORT TO THE NRC
,, , BETA AND RHR REPORTS July 22, 1983 g =$ *
- 4. Any other document you or your staff considers potentially reportable under the opinion is to be provided to TMI-1 Licensing for review and determination. Your staffs should be particularly sensitive to the need to screen technical correspondence (such as, Bsw letters, etc.)
for reportability to the Appeal Board or the NRC Staff.
I recognize that this will involve effort and likely result in the formal suhnittal of more information than in the past-and likely in more than is useful to the NRC. However, in the absence of better guidance, this
. process should help us and the NRC to reach agreement on criteria.
'0$ 0 d-4b C P. R. Clark Executive Vice President Pk
Enclosures:
Guy H. Cunningham, III, Executive Imgal Director Memorandum Dated June 14, 1983 William J Dircks, Executive Director for Operations Memorandum Dated June 22, 1983 cc: Mr. R. C. Arnold, President Mr. Richard J. Conte, Senior NRC Resident, TMI-l United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission PO Box 311 -
Middletown, PA 17057 O
O O
e
- _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ -