ML20237G317
| ML20237G317 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 01/14/1987 |
| From: | Murley T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20237G010 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-87-228, FOIA-87-A-50 NUDOCS 8708240043 | |
| Download: ML20237G317 (17) | |
Text
- se UNITEo STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N s
REoced i g
t.
est PAan AvgNUS MtNo op Pavss A, Pe=NsvLvANrA isees JAN 141 "
MEMORANDUM FOR:
James M. Taylor, Director. IE FROM:
Thomas E. Murley, Regional Administrator, RI
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY - PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC (PECO)/ PEACH BOTTOM, UNIT 3 l
Enclosed for your review and concurrence is a proposed enforcement action (letter and Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty for a violation at Peach Bottom involving discrimination against a contracto health physics technician who raised concerns to his employer.
are based on an investigation conducted by the Office of Investigations
(
Reference:
01 Report 1-85-019) Although the technician had filed a com-plaint with the Department of Labor (DOL) after his employment was term a mutually agreeable settlement was reached between the parties prior to determination by DOL regarding whether discrimination had occurred pdential source who alleged that a contractor healt Iwas threatened with dismissa'l if he continued to pursue Urtain radiolo(T' cal concerns regarding an incident that occurred while the HP technician was working in the recombiner offgas tunnel in March 1985 HP technician had been concerned that he might have received an overe The while performing those activities, and he had already discussed his conce sure with licensee and contractor health physics supervision at the time of the,
allegation.
In response to the allegation, an NRC inspection was conducted at Peach Bottom in August 1985 during which the technician informed the N concerns.
Subsequently, his employment at Peach Bottom was terminated.
results of the August 1985 inspection were documented in Inspection Rep (The
{
50-278/85-31.)
j gation, OI conclude that the employment of the indivi for engaging in a protected activity, ntra to the e
etection revisions set forth in 10 CFR 50.7.
violation is c1&ssified at Severity Level III since the 1
the technician' ment was directed by the first line PECO supervisor.
Accordingly, a i
civil penalty is proposed.
tion factors set forth in the enforcement policy were consideredThe escalation and m t
(1) the violation was not identified by the licensee: adjustment
, but any
)
corrective actions were not viewed as sufficiently comp (2) the Itcensee's the NRC underlying concern that the radiation protection program is n rehensive to address Inioimation in this acg de; ied B708240043 870819 oi ntctmation
[0%4 *I7 4W PDR FOIA n accordance With I h RUBINT87-A-SO PDR hh
, et, exemp on
(
Docket No. 50-278 License No. OPR-56 EA 87-Philadelphia Electric Company ATTN:
Mr. John S. Kemper Senior Vice President 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 Gentlemen:
Subject:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY On May 6,1986, the NRC Office of Investigations (01) provided to the NRC staff their report of an investigation conductec at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station in response to an allegation received by this office.
The source alleged that a centractor health physics (HP) technician was threatened with dismissal if he continued to pursue his radiological concerns that he might have received an overexposure while working in the Unit 3 offgas tunnel in March 1985.
A copy of the 01 Investigation Report synopsis was sent to you on May 20, 1986, and a redacted version of the entire 01 report was sent to you on September 22, 1986.
As a result of the evidence obtained during the OI investigation, the NRC has determined that your Field HP Supervisor terminated the employment of the con-tractor HP technician for engaging in a prctected activity.
This termination constitutes a violation of the NRC employee protection provisions set forth in 10 CFR 50.7.
On May 20, 1986 and November 28, 1986, ed t i uraent conferences were conducted with Messrs. S. L. Daltroff, V. S. Boyer and other members of your staff to discuss this violation, its cause, and your corrective actions.
Although the Field HP Supervisor indicated that he directed that the HP tech-nician's employment be terminated because of excessive absenteetsa, the NRC concludes, based on the evidence obtained during the O! investigation, that this stated reason for termination was a pretext for dismissing the technician for engaging in a protected activity.
In particular, the following evidence
{
is persuasive:
(1) the technician apparently had never been counseled regard-ing excessive absenteeism; (2) there was no mention of such absenteeism in the technician's personnel file; (3) although seven employees were designated for layof fs due to excessive absenteeism, only three employees were discharged; and (4) termination based solely on absenteeism apparently was inconsistent with
)
the then current and past practices at Peach Bottom.
The importance of allowing employees sufficient freedom to report their perceived safety concerns to the NRC must be reinforced. While the NRC encour-ages licensees to adopt an "open door policy" which encourages employees and contractor employees to report problems to their supervision, it must be made
)
clear to employees that they have the right to contact the NRC whenever they 4
perceive a safety problem exists.
Further, they must be informed that they will not be harassed, intimidated or discriminated against for bringing such concerns to supervision or to the NRC.
0FFICIAL RECORD COPY CP PB3 015 - 0003.0.0 05/15/86 l
l Q
philadelphia Electric Company 2
This incident also demonstrates the need for prompt and effective resolution of perceived safety issues raised by your staf f, or contractor personnel.
In this instance, the technician was concerned, based on a survey measurement, that he might have received an overexposure in March 1985. However, his concerns were not satisf actorily resolved.
In fact, although the individual had been told that his survey meter had malfunctioned due to moisture and high humidity, subsequent analysis indicated that was not the case.
The NRC considers this failure to promptly provide satisfactory resolution of an employee's concern, and the resultar.t termination of the individual's employment, as being indicative of the need for more effective management control of the radiation protection program.
To emphasize this need, I have i
been authorized, after consultation with the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, to issue the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Impo-j sition of Civii' penalty in the amount of $50,000 for the violation described
)
in the enclosed Notice.
In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1986)
(Enforcement Policy), the violation has been categorized at Severit el III.
The base civil penalty amount for a Severity level III violation 'is The escalation and mitigation factors were considered and no adjustmen civil penalty amount was deemed appropriate.
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow tFe 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 your proposed corrective actions, the NRC will deter-eine whether further enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with j
regulatory requirements.
j In accordance with Section 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 Public Document room.
i The responses directed by this letter and the enclosed 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 96-511.
Sincerely,
~
Thomas E. Murley Regional Administrator
Enclosure:
Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty c
0FFICIAL RECORD COPY CP PB3 DIS - 0004.0.0 4
05/15/06
Philadelphia Elect-ic Company 3
cc w/ encl:
R. S. Fleischmann, Manager, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esquire W. H. Hirst, Director, Joint Generation Projects Department, Atlantic Electric G. Leitch, Superintendent Nuclear Generation Division Eugene J. Bradley, Esquire, Assistant General Counsel (Without Report)
Raymond L. Hovis, Esquire Thomas Magette, Power Plant Siting, Nuclear Evaluations (Without Report)
W. M. Alden, Engineer in Charge, Licensing Section Public Document Room (PDR)
Local Public Document Room (LPDR)
Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)
NRC Resident Inspector Commonwealth of Pennsylvania bec w/ encl:
Region I Docket Room (with concurrences)
SECY CA J. Taylor, IE J. Axelrad, IE T. Murley, RI D. Holody, RI J. Lieberman, OGC J. Sniezek, DED/ROGR Enforcement Directors RII-III Enforcement Officers RIV-RV F. Ingram, PA J. Crooks, AEOD B. Hayes, 01 S. Connelly, OIA V. Miller, NMSS D. Nussbaumer, OSP IE/ES File IE/EA File j
E00 Rdg File OCS kh RI:ESh.
R P
r RI,0RP
- DRP RI:DRSS RI Holody/ms GA1e Es $roth M111ns ane g"g; Gu er 11/Js /86 11h86 11M/86 11/@/86 11/@86 11hb/86 1M k%6 OGC IE:ES IE:0D IE:0 b
4 s
A n
ey Lieberman Beach Starostecki Taylor IJ/h6 IIl 11/ /86 11/ /86 11/ /86 11/ /86 i
I 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY CP PB3 DIS - 0005.0.0 05/15/86 l
AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY i
Philadelphia Electric Company Peach Bottom, Unit 3 Docket No. 50-278 License No. OPR-56 EA 87-As a result of an investigation conducted by the NRC O technician was terminated for engaging in a protected activity.
t This termina-tion constitutes a violation of NRC requirements.
In accordance with the
" General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions " 10 CFR Port 2, Appendix C (Enforcement Policy) (1986), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes to impose a civil penalty pursuant to section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1984, as amended ("Act"), 42 U.S.C. 2282, PL 96-265, 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 licensee or l'icensee contractor against an employee for engaging in certain protected activities, includ-ing providing the Commission information about possible violations of Reorganization Act of 1974. requirements imposed under either the Atomic Ene Discrimination includes discharge and other actions that relate to compensation, terms, conditions and privileges of employment.
i of Bartlett Nuclear, Inc., a contractor performing health oversight functions at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, was dis-criminated against by Philadelphia Electric Company (PECO) for engagin I
in a protected activity as a Health Physics Technician.
Specifi-cally, 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 the regulatory limit while he was working in the Unit 3 o March 1985.
This is a Severity Level III Violation.
(Supplement VII)
Civil Penalty -
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY CP PB3 DIS - 0006.0.0 05/15/86 i
Notice of Vie ation 2
Pursuant to the provision of 10 CFR 2.201, Philadelphia Electric Company is hereby recuire:' to submit to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforce-ment, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, USNRC Region I, 631 Park Avenue, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406, within 30 days of the date of this Notice, a written statement of explanation in reply, including (1) admission or denial of the alleged violation, (2) the reasons for the violation, if admitted, (3) corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved, (4) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations, and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved.
If an adequate reply is not
)
received withir the time specified in this Notica, the Director, Office of
.I Inspection and Enforcement, may issue an order to show cause why the license should not be sodified, suspended, or revoked or why such other action as may be proper should not be taken.
the response time for good cause shown. Consideration may be given to extending Under the authority of Section 182 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2232, this response shall be submitted under oath or i
s affirmation.
Within the same time as provided for the response required above under 10 CFR 2.201, Philadelphia Electric Company may pay the civil penalty by letter addressed to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, with a check, j
draft, or r
able to the Tr rer of the United States in the j
amount of or may protest imposition of the j
civil pena ty in whole or in part yaw tten answer. Should Philadelphia Electric Company f ail to answer within the time specified, the Director, Office 1
j of Inspection and Enforcement, will issue an Order imposing the civil penalty in the amount proposed above.
Should Philadelphia Electric Company elect to i
1 file an answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 protesting the civil penalty, such answer may:
(1) deny the violations listed in this Notice, in whole or in i
part, (2) demonstrate extenuating circumstances, (3) show error in this Notice, or (4) show other reasons why the penalty should not be imposed.
1 In addition to protesting the civil penalty in whole or in part, such answer may request remission or mitigation of the penalty.
In requesting sitigation of the proposed penalty, the five factors contained 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 by specific reference (e.g., citing page and paragraph numbers) to avoid repetition. The attention of Philadelphia Electric Company is directed to the other provisions of 10 CFR 2.205 regarding the procedure for imposing a civil penalty.
's 1
0FFICIAL RECORD COPY CP PB3 DIS - 0007.0.0 05/15/86 i
1 i
Upon f ailure to pay any civil penalty due, which has been subsequently determined in accordance with the applicable provisions of ]O 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 Thomas E. Murley Regional Administrator Dated at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania this day of January 1987 1
I 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY CP PB3 DIS - 0008.0.0 05/15/86
g 8LADIATMl>W WORY PIRMII maiar r.tv. in
- j soo R.W.P. ACCESS and EXPOSURE CONTROL.,;',;-MM-phYM,,
inou $8 3 /0 2 U~3~Sr$ S A* ]u M E NW
- ~~ O
.s...;.
]6-&,$d UZ":.N.S PfC & SVR VEY-T5 L oC L * ". a:c.+iMU' hi f.*l i.:MM T vouR uAuf iNo Carts SDER$7ANCtNO AND COMPLIANCE WITH JOB Ac h (,. y 5 4
..op QUIRE MT5 2.-7 T.
Tiuf'? W M @h
.oe
'3W-a w P READ b AvTa
$OCIAL SECURITY I P9 L'IM TO 8;.7W
~
E F
NT ests (TAsx TO ($E PERFORMED)
MASK TIME
'DOSEE
,otrte 80; yCus av WPC. COMP.
=m coof out f
Oil
.5 m
& j.22
.~~
h 'S h
' A/A: 09/O
?.P.s,2.) - h Jeo:"oss M,2by pm
~
N lp}g_%
'_k '..-%
&g or 3 era of.x ik Q. AM T
W ea.w a
ms
'A p
o M_sp_+f___ 2y V.:f s
blI[ $n
__s s211_ _.y g y'
Suss ggyp2_gp_h a
- M
-ro r ofs to g 4Wst,9ph e a
^
p
-g
'2G.s n h 2.D 4 L25~_go_
H_Jfg gjp see lllIC y
nsr 'N JSQ h% *w- 't-
., l~/ts
/--------- w/i-F r 5 crP f h-a ar-O3
- h:2..
Eb hf h D.
?
?
CA W
Oh;
[*'
( BAv vf..
... M 132e $
b 1
y't di GO:% W L11__1.o_
1
&b
/,t'A4 ny AO' 'g' 260 illf _ '_'.gg.
- ~
rf nis P W' U.V.<5
'too IO l
300 f/25
=
sb~
AlA-.12Q2 rr a
gzin a c e v ft JOB OROUP O
BA1.ANCE GROUP BA INSTRUMENT LAB
.Aw
. ohkdfi" E
OP CODES:
BotLER GROUP 90 INSERvCE IN$PECTION
' " PtPEF[TTER ISI r2 PF
.6 CARPENTERS CA INSPECTOR
'd-- ', IN OUALfTY ASSURANCE. ',
OA FILTER RESPIRATOR ELECTRICIANS EL JANtTOR Q7.f0f0 If 00 l i EAS RI AIRLINE RESPIRATOR GENERAL ELECTAC GE LABORER kff$$hI[f as. deleted TE RF SELF CONTAINED HEALTH PHY$1CS HP MACHINIST IA 3CC4fdabCCTitiflhfffelfd0in Of InformI[I0
'%E di ora uF Mt. exemptions b
/'
% M D FolA 5 2 - W k t fl?
I
^
t u.2\\,as av DOC T T P( $47 R.W.P. ACCESS and EXPOSURE CONTROL LocATsON W3
/02 '
M*3 4 ms DF xeF R.W.P. NO. - 3 ' E 00 T a
e i X)B DESCRIPTION b TNO
- hts f* v e V -
fod k I
PAGE A 0F
/
YOUR N AA4E INDICATES UNot R$7ANDING AND COMPLIANCE Wl?H JOS AEOUIREMENT$
Q.wf. RE A0 8Y SOCI AL SECURITY 0 p
$PECIFIC RE A50N AUTH. TIME DOSE pagg C E F OR ENTRY E XP.
IN IN y
TOTAL iscr
( TA5K TO BE PERFORMED )
MASK TIME DOSE E X P.
' COUP or m CODE OUT (0-OUT 3D toums av
.WYY ' E-
%L Wj 'kS(A N A I m
<>.r o
C. O. L.
w bo Sb sl v
3
,Iu-dUE T
j ') i t n 5 7e. < Y o ve yc pk p6 g
soo Miis
/P r.sco er six g.2S 80 3so n y re 6f e
[
4/A
- 9/8
_t El*)
JC lb
,)f,.Q, W
-- !R12-------
- 22.a-11.2c' SJha-$<
h\\
Ac</
tg A
- iCo
^
&w#
1W)$
k Y
Ip So* / o L
$-J $
O 500 fy0D T
P G".& RT Arn ghg(
\\
I* b
\\
f*O
/70b L
]
2AT mo f.2/2.
WS s
h lI f
N/$ 11/6
..e.
t
- lN
/fO (Q
)
~/
. /.
w...,
w"2Cx,n.-a.
}
t 1"
5 32 P1 tao 0)14 l
"F Y
L 2/A. OAM V
M ot2r f
INl' Rb.
S----__
ime pao 3oees1s o
- r 9W
.L0 0 8!b -.
!il =
MM+
/
1044rE___E17'salis,.sLi JOB CROUP $ CODE 5
/
s ALA=Cr Croup BA sksTRuucNT Lee IL PE OR OP MASM CODES:
so,LER Group BO Inst RvlCE INSPECTION l$1 PIPE F 8 7 Tg m PF C ARP(h TE R$
CA INSPECTOR lN Q UALITY A$$yRANCC QA F - FIL1ER RESPIRATOR E LECTR fCI AN$
EL JA NITOR JA RIGGE R $
Rt O - AIRLINE RESPIRATOR ctmERAL ELECTRIC GE LABORER 5. SELF CONTAINED M( ALTN PHYSIC $
Hp M ACHINIS T MA TUR81NE GRovP TG LA TEST ENGINEERS TE NA-NONE "fL'("
HE
- E'0E"5
- E
vu, u n 3c2.
s R.W.P. ACCESS and EXPOSURE CONTROL LOCA780N_ T. vNE lO fl. t 0
GM L14'ue ) R w.P. No._ d 5 O C 4-
~
JOB DESCRIPTION
"$~b PAGE JZ_ _OF t
YOUR N AMt INDOf tl UND:RST ANDING AND COMPLI ANCE WITH JOB mf 0VIREMENTs Q W.P. QE A0 BY SOCIAL stCURlTV gg p
$PE CIFIC RE A$0N AUTM T!ME DOSE (PQiN7 NAMil OATE NUupt R CODE F OR ENTRY
'N p
.g7 TOTAL Stg i T A$K TO BE PE RF CRMED 1 M A5x TIMt DO$E EXP
@[.
MPC COVP CODE OUT /$8'l OW em av 3cr 09lo R
W 6)' S OP oc U Uk OWk
)
f t"A f l
$O0
$OEN E$. NQ Qh l
n-m rrrggt v-y 4
}ff__ _Sy_gfg_y bAuss od n U
f
__$cb~ Ol kS
'WV I
,At h..
i -90Mm} ~ '
g g
p 0O l-l Q
,\\ r 5 ge ~h Cn LN Al C.Y & ?_
r or
/
.WJ Cf.25 i*.,
_([))_g CL
'[ /F men UL
')/ VbAW
[pf' L OO
- ClLS, f
'SuA SP& G Y
~A//W[t#0h.
1g O
%4
/) gC N
ltlkb
/WA /
/ (vr I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
.=_
l l
I I
l l
JOB CROUPS CODES c$ K CODES:
eALANCE group BA
' f S T RUMEN T L A 9 l(
CPERA1DR OP acetta t,mouP B0 ihstavict iNseccTioN ist P4 Pt r T TE R PF CAmptwitat CA lh5PEcTOR
. FILVER RESPIRATOR titcTaiciAns IN C U ALITY ASSURANCE QA
. AIRLINE RESPIRATOR EL 4AntTom JA meccc as Rt Ctat RAL tLtcTaic ct LAscatR
. $ ELF CONTAINED LA TEST ENGlkttas TE NE AL f M PMY5 6CS HP MACHih t S T MA TURBINE GROUP TG Q. NONE "E LP E R HE
- ELDERS WE
d BRIEFING PAPER ON HEALTH PHYSICIST (GEORGE FIELOS) TERMINATION AND 10 CFR 50.7 VIOLATION BACKGROUND 3/1/85 HP George Fields was in the Unit 3 off gas pipe tunnel during a transient which caused radiation levels to increase. He was concerned about being overexposed.
PECO was not able to satisfy his concerns of overexposure.
8/2/85 Allegation (85-A-084) rak by someone other than Fields about potential overexposure.
Region I inspection found no overexposure (Inspection Report 50-278/85-31).
Region requested 01 investigate intimidation.
9/25/85 Inspection Report'85-31 mailed to PECO i
10/2-3/85 Fields came to resident inspector about being fired because PECO thought he had talked to NRC.
(Allegation 85-A-0103)
Fields was still concerned about being overexposed. He was provided additional information about event of 3/1/85 and his exposure.
10/25/85 PECO response to Inspection Report 85-31.
l 4/3/86 ABC News Allegation (86-A-0041) about destroying HP records dealing with 3/1/85 event.
5/20/86 Region sent O! report ~ summary (Attachment 1) to PECO and requested Enforcement Conference.
5/30/86 Enforcement Conference 6/6/86 8/27/86 ona specialists investigated an reported on these alleg ons in combined Inspection Report 86-18 and 86-19. (Attachment 3) information in this record was deletcd
[038*27" in accordance with the freedom of information Act, exemptions 6//
yy,. J 7-d-5?.__
b
f 9/22/86 Region sent complete 01 report to PECO and requested second Enforcement Conference.
PECO requested that O! report be witheid from public disclosure.
( Attachment 4)
Conclusion
..w-I h
01 REPORT ON HP INTIMIDATION / TERMINATION (FIELDS)
I.
Background
- 3/1/85 HP Fields in the Unit 3 off gas pipe tunnel during power transient which cuased radiation levels to increase
- HP Tech sees 50r/hr reading on Survey meter
- PECO says exposure was approximately zero mres based on Harshaw Dosimetry and survey meter failed due to moisture - (high humidity)
- Survey meter OK before and after event II.
NRC Inspection (Kottan & Beall) 8/6-7/85 (50-278/85-31
- No high exposure,
- Meter not calibrated / designed for noble gas cloud immersion
- Low energy beta correction factor for survey meter not deve'eoed to quantify exposure five months af ter event
- PEC0 " moisture" answer not credible
- PECo's answers to HP Tech's questions were incorrect III. 01 Report
- HP Tech "did have legitimate radiological concerns"
- PECo's investigation "was inadequate"
- HP Tech termination 'resulted from his protected activity
- Insufficient evidence that Fields was " blackballed" l
l IV.
Conclusions I
i
' s, f 074 -[fl U $
inform 3 tion in this record.tas dele:ed
~~
m accorda.nce with the freedom of information Act, exemr' ions f F0iA.22-(2~d g
7
'p, A-66 Pagt 7 of 10, Rev. 2 DISCREPMCI REPCRI'
/'
1_ O Report }b. :
Part I - Identification:
Date of Q:currence: J///[
Time of Occurrence:/,/,,f o /.400 a
Iccation of Q:currence: v/T crf f o a 3 o,'o g toane(
foy 'f/
v i i Individual identifying the discrepancy) 6po'coe Reld MPrint)
Persor.nel lved isor
-h k
T, -
S cr. Reld
. -cesdriptica 4 epancy:
3 f oh o,o,neo Y.
1200 1 wac escock;sa 2 YES lm be, azh aCS ogs
-.a a
p.' e fus, nel 6 ln s,o a cIcccrec\\
clea, a. T was show.'.,3
.n ma
/c o.2 c o q d e C/A T 4 ken aofleeck mv meter e44 l
lncreas:so onev 4s4 T sw.%kd 4o 4Le rif scoje 40e nee #clie skead 4.f R T +clA 4ke.
(
4 3 e4Ler oeoole 4e leava 4k e acect T 4 Lea me,'fekeck fo ne 509 soJe a w d c p e.s ecA 4 L e Ge h w'noloo) wa weIer 4Len wes ! isCC sca e oerv -Gcl
~.C uct s ese or +Le +vnwei i sheet Immediate oxrective Action:n et ocs/a e fo6*e+,~;',%e A tae.d +o 4, gp cfflce c-a Aua.s u (
w y,ros.ech. 7t.b 1 - sorw r-t y eso*>. sess senacca s-t it. =<. srb sous,ns j
x s-wr Ap* ('J T oo 3 1 ' > <t-oot.s c. ) s.sen O A to Ar. ft, e.//u e TLD's wr to Ger/s e Cary /M **Ma*Me / ** 4 Evows* r od.
1D2'4 '/J(c / '~ t U)t b s f fECL,3 /r,T.36 cf Ott atAtact. OJ J 4
- 85 sr LJn3 </CCkt) ef Z!C recswxa.
i
'Se s., gree. sem '7 secv*cauch cotArcut is n Lou sack.G y p soates og ryg
.50, </A, se.aa. Iswb.oc) cesseatf ru s sai.' caces1 I,seux et ou som mc r
sA%, f so e/4,.seAu.s (usas< s~vses.0 c<.ac.cox). Fe c
wn a ov.siv r..a / am me < w a p mrox.
/hJ !
2f~';'
<st ros.<t or casatseasc Q 3 1ar ig'
- D#
b*
Information in this record was deleted
- gk/MgM7 in accordance with th freedom of Infor..n"M 4tio'r PlanEStaff Act, exemgtiens,,
F0IA 4 " r -
g w.
Investigation assigned to 77_ ff-S$
nate
1 APP 12OIX 1 s
-A-86 Page 8 of 10, Rev. 2 Part II - Investigation (cmpleted by Investigator)
Personnel Contacted Organization / Group Wa N<f S*s i A / r> fis/ l'n h cl,% J2l>v eftv-y
<- x
-2 I
I Investigation Results:
[br//ne ncdib tyver al/ CN3/ N /devabeer YW -
%6 ;w h,%/ ii, < L...,/ ws <
sn,u d ern>.
a.rsaf'f d Mr h /><wlb W l'
Oc t u rvver<
h, s si f wu a
w I,n A r ur u l
><a N - / s < n.: L - 1. A n,,,, x /y &
.s is kJ id. W w, wh / nw>Nbf,. h.y,'s AdMd b d sWrs 19krnrm m< n.
Jr.e rw s <
I
/s. S i l b /J m ri d k h, Y Y M d 4 6 3/2-W/J.
Rep 6tt Investigator (Prin )
Signature
,/
Date ganizations Involved:
j PE00:
VenSors:
. Operations
. EER
. Catalytic int.
. Stores Div.
. Security Div.
. Henkels & RCby 4
stry
. IGC
. Beactor
. Trainirg
. Test Engineers i
l
~
A-86
)
Page 9 of 10, Rev. 2 i
Part III - Corrective Action:
Discrepancy Cause:
//g/[u,eI,h,'e fgf/,,w,w,[
I
. Reocrtmended Corrective Action:
(Use additional sheets for additional items)
Action Item J [- d [ 7 d
/:
Th c n ov c/s< sinnbe
}s.rvu / l+
ln s&g}
N/w 44 r/ /:AD A,% e spr v is h e, e p
/
Individual or group responsible for Action:
M[
Date actioni to be cartpleted:
s/29/h ~
Action Item Approval. 8
'~
J.
Action Item l
Individual or group responsible for action:
Date action to be catpleted:
Action Itern Approval:
Action Item 4
1 Individual or group responsible for Acticm:
Date actica to be ampleted:
Action Itan Approval:
AaoeP 3/Yz/f]'
~
lor Plant Staff Date
(.
l l
I i
A-86 Page 10 of 10, Rev. 2 3
Part IV - n,110w-up & Closure (cxrpleted try Engineer-CA)
)
Categorization:
Activity Code:
Cause Code:
intenance
. Pro dural Deficiency ification
. Iack of or iraiequate
. HP Administrative Controls i
. Chemistry
. Design Deficiercy by:
. Surveillarat hsting
. Elec. Prod.
. Plant Operation
. PEEo (other than EP)
. Routine operation
. Vendor
. Transient Response p.Ipnent failure
. Radwaste
. Fabrication, Installation
. Sec1rity or Mafat. Error
. Fire Protectiory/
. Personnel Error Housekeeping
. Failure to follow established
. Training Procedural controls
. Emergercy Plans
. Lack of awareness or training
. Trouble shooting in pro dural controls
. Pre-Op Testing
. Iack of or inadequate
. Procurement communication
. Fuel Handling
. Lack of or inadequate
. Other equipnent identification
/
Specify
. Other
\\.
Specify l
Status / Closure:
l i
Closed h
_ m-a oate,
e l
y
--n.Lv response to but CP - l discrimination of contrac.i HP technician at Peach B ttom PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANJaid fine 2301 MARKET STREET
--DRP to evaluate adequacy ~c' P.O. BOX 6699 y
acdons.
R will acknowledge check.
PHIL ADELPHI A. PA.19101 cc:
T. M ey taisi e45.sooi J. Allan
- w. g,4.
sa March 6, 1987 mese J. Gutierre:
W. Kane Docket No. 50-278 S. Collins R. Gallo T. fiartin Mr. James M. Taylor, Director R. Bellany 3, Shanbakv i
Office of Inspection and Enforcement T. Johnson I
~
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN:
Document Control Desk K. Abraham Washington, D.C.
20555 P. Lohaus Docket Room DJH-03/11/87
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 l
J. S. Kemper, PECo, dated February 9, 1987 1
Dear Mr. Taylor l
The referenced letter transmitted a Notice of Viol 4t an and Pitoposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (" Notice")
relati/e to Investigation Report No. 1-85-019 for Peach Bottom i
i Atomic Power Station Unit 3.
A civil penalty of $50,000 was l
propas ad.
A violation was identified in the Notice which does not appear to be in full compliance with Nuclear Regulatory Commission requirements.
This item is restated below followed by 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 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 Penalty.
/f T4 - 7 7 ' A M o
G/r wm vm m w J.--c( W i Qf.
y 0