ML20212M568

Responds to Notice of Violation & Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in Amount of $50,000.Corrective Action: Supervisory Personnel Instructed to Follow Customary Practice for Laying Off Temporary Contractor Personnel

ML20212M568
Person / Time
Site:	Peach Bottom
Issue date:	03/06/1987
From:	Gallagher J PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC
To:	Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM), NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
References
NUDOCS 8703120078
Download: ML20212M568 (5)

Text

,

Dc3 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY 2301 MARKET STREET P.O'. BOX 8699 PHILADELPHI A. PA.19101

' (215) 841 5001 sosars w.ontoaowan March 6, 1987

. m . . .~.,m...

Docket No. 50-278 Mr. James M.. Taylor, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555

SUBJECT:

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Unit 3 Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty dated February 9, 1987 EA 87-05

Reference:

Letter, T. E. Murley, USNRC, to J. S. Kemper, PECo, dated February 9, 1987

Dear Mr. Taylor:

The referenced letter transmitted a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (" Notice")

relative to Investigation Report No. 1-85-019 for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Unit 3. A civil penalty of $50,000 was proposed.

l A violation was identified in the Notice which does i

not appear to be in full compliance with Nuclear Regulatory Commission requirements. This item is restated below followed by l

Philadelphia Electric Company's response to the Notice in accordance with Section 2.201 of the Commission's regulations and the instructions in the Notice. As discussed below, Philadelphia l Electric Company does not intend to protest the civil penalty imposed. Accordingly, please find enclosed the Company's check in the amount of $50,000 in payment of the assessed Civil l Penalty.

! 0703120078 870306 l PDR ADOCK 05000278 g PDR lO -

J Mr. Jam 2a M.LTaylor- .

March 6, 1987 Page 2

. Restatement of' Violation:

- 10 'CFR 50.7 prohibits ' discrimination ~ by' a licensee. or . licensee _

- contractor against an employee for:engagingJin certain protected activitiesifincluding raising safety. concerns to his management:

and providing the; Commission with information about possible violations ofirequirements imposed under~eitherithe Atomic-Energy

~

Act.or the: Energy Reorganization Act'of 1974. Discrimination includes discharge and other. actions that relate to compensation,-

terms, conditions and~ privileges of' employment.

Contrary'to the ab'ove, on' October 4,.1985, George A. Field, an

, Jemployee of Bartlett: Nuclear, Inc., a contractor performing health physics oversight. functions at-the Peach Bottom Atomic Power _ Station, was discriminated against by PhiladelphiE Electric

- Company (PECo)-for' engaging in~a protected activity as a Health

-Physics Technician. Specifically, the employment of Mr. Field at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station was terminated by-Bartlett

. Nuclear,-Inc., at the-direction of the PECo Field HP' Supervisor, because he persisted.in raising concerns regarding whether.he might have received a radiation exposure in excess of the regulatory' limit while-he was working in the Unit 3 offgas tunnel in March 1985 and because of a belief by certain PECo supervisors-

-  : that Mr. Field had informed the Commission-of his concerns.

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

i Civil Penalty - $50,000.

I. Admission or-Denial of Alleged Violation:

Considering the importance of the. policy that supervisory  ;

employees must not perceive problems in workers who report safety concerns to the NRC, as well as to their management, l the Company recognizes that, despite the beliefs of first-line supervision to the contrary, the Health Physics Technician's' persistent actions in bringing his concern to the attention of supervision may have been one element in the decision as to the timing of Mr. Field's layoff; and on j this-basis, the Company admits the violation. It must be l emphasized, however, that as a temporary employee, Mr.

' Field would have been terminated within a short time in any event.

l i'

e-n--- e4 w w*,- #9-w wr r-+w---me--,ew--w-+w.-wynwwww-eM%vv g - e .m m 9 m y-pmyrgw,we.-- ,. u-yywwwi.g.g,y y-yrgwpqyyvw-g 9g gvtetg-%v y e W/. v r-y Pgf

J

^

• ' -Nr.,Jcm32 M. T ylor March 6, 1987 Page 3

- II. Reasons for the Violation:

With regard to the perceived overexposure to radiation, there was not an adequate technical evaluation made in a'

~

timely manner. On a personnel basis, the frustration and continuing concern of Mr. Field as to.the possible overexposure was not adequately taken into account.by his supervisors. While the personnel involved in his layoff

-believed that they had adequate reasons for his discharge independent of the events associated with the reported e overexposure, and indeed acted openly and only after having informed the NRC Resident Inspector, they did not follow the customary procedures regarding the routine layoffs of temporary Health Physics Technicians which necessarily occur when the maintenance work performed during shutdown is nearing completion.

III. Corrective Steps Taken and Results Achieved:

As stated in the investigative report, Company supervisors met with Mr. Field several times after the incident in an effort to allay his fears by explaining the adequacy of his dosimetry and by providing a technical explanation as to why he could not have received the exposure spuriously indicated by the survey meter. The last meeting took place at approximately the time he was notified of termination.

The actual cause of the sporadic indication of the survey meter'was determined to be immersion of the meter into a noble gas cloud.

When advised by the Department of Labor representative in November 1985 of his error in ordering Mr. Field's termination, the Company Supervisor reinstated Mr. Field and arranged for him to return to work immediately. Mr.

Field in fact reported, but then voluntarily decided to go elsewhere. The Company's contractor, Bartlett Nuclear, Inc., as a result of the Department of Labor investigation, compensated him for his lost time from work and also arranged to reinstate him. As a result, Mr. Field executed a release dated November 5, 1985 and the Department of Labor terminated its investigation as stated in its letter dated November 22, 1985.

~

" Mr. Jcm:s M.fTeylor March 6, 1987 Page 4 IV. Corrective Actions Taken to Prevent Future Violations:

Company supervisory personnel have been instructed to follow the customary practice for laying off temporary contractor personnel. Specifically, they will not designate contractor employees by name but will merely notify the contractor of the number of positions to be reduced.

With regard to the rights of employees, Company or contractor, to seek corrective action, we advised you of the modifications in our A-86f" Administrative Procedure for Corrective Action" in our letter dated December 16, 1986.

As stated, the revised procedure will permit the person identifying or becoming aware of an event, malfunction or problem to initiate a discrepancy report in addition to notifying a plant supervisor. To ensure that each A-86 report which is initiated by such person gets entered into the A-86 tracking program and is.dispositioned in a formal manner, the revised procedure will provide that the initiator will obtain a report serial number as the report enters the administrative process. To ensure that all supervisory personnel onsite are aware of the reporting requirements in A-86, the revised procedure has been issued to them with a cover letter emphasizing the mandatory aspects of the procedure.

l As a result of this incident, HPO/CO-600 has been prepared and approved. The purpose of this procedure is to provide instructions for reporting radiological occurrences and to describe actions to be taken to prevent their recurrence.

The procedure provides an appropriate mechanism for resolving radiological concerns in a timely manner.

Depending upon the deficiency level of the identified

radiological concern, the approvals of specific levels of l station management are required in order to close out a l

deficiency report. Closure of the deficiency report ensures that corrective actions taken or to be taken adequately resolve the identified concern.

V. Date When Full Compliance Will Be Achieved:

l l

l It is our position that full compliance has been achieved.

l l

l

~

1. ' Ar. -Jrmse M. Taylor . March 6, 1987 Page 5

,If you have'any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to-contact us.

Very truly yours, b

cc: Dr. T. E. Murley, Administrator, Region I, USNRC T. P. Johnson, Resident Site Inspector l-l

--,- - - - . - . , - - - + -