ML20215H443
| ML20215H443 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 06/23/1986 |
| From: | Bernero R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20215H421 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-87-228 NUDOCS 8706240106 | |
| Download: ML20215H443 (4) | |
Text
-
~
'), (
fr '
k [,,*,
r} !%,
2
~
ff UNITED STATES bb NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
a 5
I wasmNG TON, D. C. 20$56 ft M
JUN 2 31986 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation I
FROM:
Robert M. Bernero, Director Division of BWR Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l
SUBJECT:
OFFICE OF INVESTIGATION (01) REPORT NO.
1-85-019:
NRR STAFF REVIEW AND ANALYSIS I
We have reviewed the above subject 01 Report and, in accordance with 4
NRR Office Letter No. 50, we are forwarding to you the enclosed review and comments.
o ett M. Bernero, Director Division of BWR Licensing
Enclosure:
As Stated l
8706240106 870619 PDR FOIA RUBINT086-228 PDR i
[o 3 /)- 2 7 ~ 1g sA a
4
../ ';
Enclosure LIMITED DISTRIBUTION PLANT:
Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3 01 CASE No:
1-85-019
Title:
Alleged Threats to Employee to Prevent Disclosure to NRC of Possible Overexposure A.
Summary of Office of Investication (01) Report The investigation by the Office Of Investigation (OI) sought to determine if the employment of a contract employee at the Peach Bottom sitewasterminatedasaresultofenjagingintheaprotectedactivity as defined in 10 CFR 50.7 and also to determine if the contract employee was " blackballed" following termination at the Peach Bottom site when that individual attempted to gain employment at other nuclear facilities.
The OI Report concluded:
1.
The contract employee has legitimate radiological health concerns involving an incident which took place at Peach Bottom; 2.
The Licensee's investigation into the matter was inadequate; 3.
It was common knowledge that the contract employee had contemplated taking these concerns to the NRC due to dissatisfaction with the Licensee's investigation; 4.
The Licensee had contemplated and even directed that the contract employee be laid off prior to the incident being reported to the NRC by a confidential source; 5.
Following NRC inspection into this matter, Licensee's management and supervisory personnel wrongly assumed that the contract employee had contacted NRC; 6.
The contract employee was subsequently terminated at the direction of the Licensee for the reason of excessive use of sick days; 7.
The contract employee's termination was selective in that it was contrary to past and current reduction-in-force methods.
The OI Report concludes that, but for the protected activity, the contract employee's employment at Peach Bottom would not have been terminated. The Report found insufficient evidence to substantiate the i
second allegation that the contract employee had been " blackballed" in attempts to gain employment at other licensed facilities.
)
LIMITED DISTRIBUTION
m
..y LIMITED DISTRIBUTION B.
psessmentoftheConclusionsReachedByOI I
It is our assessment that the evidence contained in the OI Report and supporting Exhibits may be so interpreted as to support the Report's basic l
conclusion that the alleger's employment would not have been terminated if the individual had not engaged in activity protected under 10 CFR 50.7.
This position is further supported by OELD's written analysis of the OI report which concludes:
Based upon the circumstantial evidence developed in the OI Report, the staff should be able to establish by a preponderance that (the contract employee's) discharge was motivated in part by his engaging in protected activity, or his employer's belief that he was engaging in protected activity.
Thus, the OI Report provides sufficient bases to make out a violation of 10 CFR 50.7.
However, we wish to state that it is our opinion that the evidence does not overwhelmingly point to this conclusion.
Timing of the alleger's termination of employment appears to be a major contributor to the Report's conclusion, since there was an apparent reduction-in-force program and actual timing of termination (earlier rather than later) in the reduction-in-force program was merely coincidental.
C.
Identification and Assessment of Safety Sionificance of the Technical and Managerial Issues Raised by the Report We have reviewed the technical issues in the report and conclude that there are no technical issues of safety significance raised in the report which have not been adequately identified and addressed by the Region's inspection of the event.
We do wish to point out that there -is evidence in the OI Report to indicate that managerial problems exist at the site concerning resolution of contract employee's problem by the Licensee's management.
It is evident i
that the contract employee had a legitimate radiological health concern which was neither addressed by the Licensee's management in a timely manner nor in an entirely professional manner.
(This issue was raised by the NRC staff at an Enforcement Conference discussed below).
D.
Plan and Schedule for Addressing the Issues Raised by the Report The Region has held an Enforcement Conference on this subject (i.e.,
potential violation of 10 CFR 50.7) in which NRR participated. Our I
concern about the routine disposition of contract employee's concerns was noted at this conference as a follow-up item and the Licensee has LIMITED DISTRIBUTION P
i 1
C.
f'.
',p.-
LIMITED DISTRIBUTION j
indicated that action was underway to improve communication access'between PEco and contractor management as well as to assure that all. employee's are aware of their protected activity rights under 10 CFR 50.7.
A follow-up j
Enforcement Conference / meeting is being planned on this subject in order to j
permit the Licensee to further investigate this event. We will continue to i
be involved in the oversight of the Region's action in this area, E.
The Impact of the Report on Continued Plant Operation or on Pending Licensina Decisions There is no impact of this report on continued plant operation or pending licensing issues.
LIMITED DISTRIBUTION l
i