ML20237L808
| ML20237L808 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 08/25/1987 |
| From: | James Keppler NRC OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS |
| To: | Counsil W TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| References | |
| EA-83-064, EA-83-132, EA-83-64, EA-86-063, EA-86-63, NUDOCS 8708280262 | |
| Download: ML20237L808 (8) | |
Text
7-1)CCGT FfL&,
(S,+ sesmWQ
- p uauq
[{g [M jo UN!TED STATES g
8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 9
e b
r, E
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555
\\,*****/
August 25,-1987 j
Docket Nos.
50-445 and 50-446 Construction Permit Nos. CPPR-126 and CPPR-127 j
EA 83-f4, EA 83-132, and EA 86-63 Texas Utilities Generating Company ATTN: Mr. William G. Counsil Executive Vice President 190 North Olive Street Lock box 81 Dallas, Texas 75201 Gentlemen On August 29, 1983 (EA 83-64), December 22, 1983 (EA 83-132), and May 2, 1986
)
(EA 86-63), the NRC proposed civil penalties against Texas Utilities Generating Company et al. (later changed to Texas U'cilities Electric Company ("the Licensee"))
for violations of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion I regarding five Quality Control inspector intimidation incidents alleged to have occurred at the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) from April 1982 through March 1984.
In 3
letters dated April 9, 1986, April 17, 1986, and June 2, 1986, the Licensee acknowledged two of the violations (EA 83-132 and Violation A of EA 86-63) and paid civil penalties totalling $80,000 for these two violations. The purpose of this letter is to take final action on the three remaining alleged vichtions (EA 83-64 and Violations B and C of EA 86-63).
For the reasons set forth in the enclosed Appendix to this letter, I have determined, after consultation with the Deputy Executive Director for Regional
)
Operations, that the violation set forth in EA 83-64 should be withdrawn and that Violations B eno C of 86-63 occurred as stated.
The Licensee has paid $80,000 in civil penalties for two of the five violations for which it has been cited, and has initiated corrective actions to address intimidation and harassment at Comanche Peak. These corrective actions have included substantial management and organizational changes and a number of programs to ensure that all employees can report safety concerns without fear of reprisals. The programs have been in effect for some time and appear to have been effective.
For example, in an incident described in Board Notification 86-22, dated November 13, 1986 concerning alleged harassment and intimidation of "walkdown engineers" for the Unit I cable tray hangers, the Licensee took prompt and effective action.
The purposes of the NRC enforcement program - ensuring compliance with regulations, obtaining prompt correction of violations, deterring future violations, and encouraging improvement of licensee performance - have been substantially achieved through the Licensee's acknowledgement that intimidation and harassment have occurred at Comanche Peak, the Licensee's payment of $80,000 IW CTFfoon;syma?
original documett not 1rm.11ahle toe 8708280262 870825 V
^*ca **8M*
o.,t w m,r g w d > 0 m. d o s
i Texas Utilities Generating Company August 25, 1987 in civil penalties for other intimidation and harassment incidents, and implementation of corrective actions.
The staff does not believe that further deliberation on the specific circumstances of violation B and C of EA 86-63 would serve the purposes of the Commission's Enforcement Policy and, therefore, will not impose civil penalties for these violations. The NRC will continue to review the effectiveness of your corrective actions in subsequent inspections and if other intimidation and harassment incidents occur, appropriate enforcement action will be taken.
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 the enclosures will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.
Sincerely,
>wLb M James G. Keppler, Director Office of Special Projects cc:
See next page
{
W. G. Counsil Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Texas Utilities Electric Company Units 1 and 2 f
cc:
Themas G. Dignan, Jr.
Asst. Director for Inspec. Programs Ropes & Gray Comanche Peak Project Division 225 Franklin Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Boston, Massachusetts 02110 P. O. Box 1029 Granbury, Texas 76048 Robert A. Wooldridge, Esq.
Regional Administrator, Region IV Worsham, Forsythe, Sampels &
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wooldridge 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 2001 Bryan Tower Suite 2500 Arlington, Texas 76011 Dallas, Texas 75201 Lanny A. Sinkin I
Mr. Homer C. Schmidt Christic Institute l
Director of Nuclear Services 1324 North Capitol Street Texas Utilities Electric Company Washington, D.C.
20002 Skyway Tower 400 North Olive Street, L.B. 81 Ms. Billie Pirner Garde Dallas, Texas 75201 Government Accountability Project Midwest Office Mr. Robert E. Ballard, Jr.
104 E. Wisconsin Avenue Director of Projects Appleton, Wisconsin 54915-8605 Gibbs and Hill, Inc.
11 Pen Plaza New York, New York 10001 David R. Pigott, Esq.
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe 600 Montgomery Street Mr. R. S. Howard San Francisco, California 94111 Westinghouse Electric Corporation P. O. Box 355 Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Suite 600 1401 New York Avenue, NW Renee Hicks, Esq.
Washington, D.C. 20005 Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division Robert Jablon P. O. Box 12548 Capitol Station Bonnie S. Blair Austin, Texas 78711 Spiegel & McDiarmid 1350 New York Avenue, NW Mrs. Juanita Ellis, President Washington, D.C. 20005-4798 Citizens Association for Sound Energy 1426 South Polk George A. Parker, Chairman Dallas, Texas 75224 Public Utility Committee 1
Senior Citizens Alliance Of j
Ms. Nancy H. Williams Tarrant County, Inc.
CYGNA Energy Services 6048 Wonder Drive P121 N. California Blvd., Suite 390 Fort Worth. Texas 76133 Walnut Creek, CA 94596
W. G. Counsil Comanche Peak Electric Station Texas Utilities Electric Company Units 1 and 2 cc:
Joseph F. Fulbright Fulbright & Jaworski 1301 McKinney Street Houston, Texas 77010 Mr. John W. Beck Vice President Texas Utilities Electric Company Skyway Tower 400 North Olive Street, L.B. 81 Oallas, Texas 75201 Mr. Jack Redding c/o Bethesca Licensing Texas Utilities Electric Company 3 Metro Center, Suite 610 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 William A. Burenette, Esq.
Counsel for Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas Heron, Burchette, Ruckert & Rothwell Suite 700 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW Washington, D.C.
20007 James M. McGaugby GDS Associates, Inc.
Suite 450 2525 Cumcerland Parkway j
Atlanta, Georgia 30339 Administrative Judge Feter Bloch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
Washington, D.C.
20555 Elizabeth B. Johnson Administrative Judge Oak Ridge National Laboratory P. O. Box X, Building 3500 Gak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom 1107 West Knapp Stillwater, Oklahoma 74075 Dr. Walter H. Jordan Administrative Judge 881 West Outer Drive Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
I APPENDIX EA 83-64 On August 29, 1983, a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (NOV), EA 83-64, was issued for a violation of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion I. The violatica was based on the results of an investigation and hearing by the Department of Labor (DOL) and the resulting Decision and Final Order of the Secretary of Labor dated June 10, 1983 which concluded that a Brown and Root Quality Control (QC) inspector had been transferred and discharged on April 12, 1982 for filing non-conformance reports identifying quality problems.
l The NOV alleged that the Brown & Root Quality Assurance Program did not provide Quality Control Inspectors sufficient organizational freedom to identify quality problems.
The Licensee responded to the NOV on September 28, 1983, denying the violation
{
and requesting the NRC to stay further enforcement action pending an appeal of the DOL decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals. On December 10, 1984, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fif th Circuit vacated the Secretary of Labor's. decision holding as a matter of law that no discrimination had occurred because the QC
{
inspector was not engaged in protected activity within the meaning of Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act. The court did not address the facts of j
the case. On April 9, 1986, the Licensee renewed its denial of the violation.
I In its denials, the Licensee argued that the QC inspector was terminated for lawful and justified management reasons regarding the QC inspector's integrity and not for identifying non-conformances at Comanche Peak. The Licensee pointed out that the NRC action was based on facts developed in a D0L action regarding alleged discrimination against the discharged QC inspector. The Licensee argued that because the Secret 6ry of Labor's decision in that case was vacated by the Court of Appeals, the NRC should not base its enforcement action on those j
facts.
l The NRC did not conduct its own investigation of the facts associated with the dileged discrimination. This is an old matter.
It Concerns events that occurred in April of 1982.
It would take a considerable amount of effort for the NRC to establish through its own investigation the facts supporting the alleged violation especially considering that over five years have passed since the violation allegedly occurred.
Even if the violation was established by the investigation, it is likely that the NRC would be required to go through the resource-intensive effort of proving that the violation occurred in a hearing before the $40,000 penalty could be collected.
During the time this matter was under consideration by DOL and the Court of Appeals, other examples of violations of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion I were identified at Comanche Peak, acknowledged by the Licensee, and corrective actions were initiated.
Significant management changes have also occurred since 1982.
The purposes of the NRC enforcement program - ensuring compliance with regulations, obtaining prompt correction of violations, deterring future violations, and encouraging improvement of licensee performance - have been substantially achieved through the Licensee's acknowledgement that intimidation 4
and harassment have occurred at Comanche Peak, the Licensee's payment of $80,000
)
in civil penalties for other intimidation and harassment incidents, and l
)
1 1
Appendix implementation of corrective actions.
Therefore,.the staff has concluded this matter should not be pursued further, and that the violation should be 1
withdrawn.
EA 86-63 On May 2, 1986, an NOV was issued for three violations identified during an NRC sfaff review of Office of Investigation (01) reports and an NRC " Report of the Review and Evaluation of Allegations of Intimidation and Harassment of Employees at Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2."
The Licensee responded l
I to the NOV on June 2, 1986 by paying the proposed civil penalty, $40,000, for one of the violations (Violation A) and requesting the staff to revisit the f
l question of whether the other two alleged violations occurred (Violations B and C).
The Licensee also requested the staff to revisit the question of whether mitigation l
of the proposed civil penalties for the remaining violations is appropriate.
Regarding Violation B of EA 86-63, the NOV alleged that the Licensee's Quality Assurance (QA) Program did not provide QA personnel sufficient organizational freedom to identify problems in that in early 1983, a TUEC QC Supervisor made a statement before the QA audit groups that physical or potential harm could come to an auditor as a result of his audit activities.
The NOV asserted that this statement was reasonably likely to improperly influence audit findings.
In its response to Violation B, the Licensee argued that it was not provided a copy of 01 Report 4-84-050 which provided the basis for this violation.
Although the Licensee acknowledged receiving a synopsis of the OI report, it argued that the synopsis did not disclose a number of material facts, sach as who alleged the QC supervisor had threatened and attempted to intimidate QA auditors. The Licensee acknowledged, however, that it conducted its own investigation of the incident which included the actions of the QC supervisor and the perception of his actions by the QA auditors and the Licensee did not deny that the intimidating statement was, in fact, made by the QC supervisor.
l The Licensee's denial of the violation was based upon the fact that none of l
the QA auditors the Licensee investigated stated he or she would have been prevented from doing his or her job because of the action of the QC supervisor.
The Licensee viewed the issue as whether the statement made by l
the QC supervisor improperly influenced audit findings.
Because the Licensee discovered no improperly influenced audit findings, it concluded that the QC supervisor's remarks did not interfere with the organizational freedom of the QA auditors and no violation occurred. Thus, the Licensee had sufficient information to admit or deny the violation and did so.
l The Licensee's argument that a violation did not occur because none of the QA auditors were prevented from carrying out his or her job, incorrectly construes the requirement for a finding of a violation of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion I.
The Licensee would seem to require demonstration of an actual failure by a QA auditor to carry out his or her dutiss as a result of the threatening remarks of the QC supervisor.
However, actual impact is not a prerequisite to a violation. A violation with actual impact on QC Mspectors or auditors would be viewed as a more serious violation but a licensee may be l
1
~
I 1
I Appendix cited for a violation if sufficient facts are established to show that the actions were reasonably likely to interfere with the inspectors' freedom to 3
report safety concerns.
In this case, the statement by the QC supervisor was reasonably likely to improperly influence audit findings. That the statement may not have actually influenced the QA auditors is to their credit as pro-l fessionals but does not alter the fact that in making the statement, the QC supervisor failed to adhere to the standard of conduct required by the regula-tions. Because of this, the NRC finds that the violation occurred as stated.
Regarding Violation C of EA 86-63, the May 2, 1986 NOV alleged that, in early 1983, the Brown & Root QA Program did not provide QC Inspectors sufficient organizational freedom to identify quality problems in that a Brown & Root QC Inspector was instructed by her supervisor te sign off a number of liner plate travelers which the inspector believed were inadequately documented.
I In its response to Violation C, the Licensee argued that it had not seen a l
i copy of the testimony taken by 01 regarding this alleged violation and, therefore, could not assess whether the finding by 01 was supported by the weight of the evidence. The Licensee pointed out that the 01 conclusion appeared to rest on the statement of an unidentified inspector who claimed he or she heard a QC supervisor give improper instructions and that the statement was contradicted by statements of at least two other witnesses who gave testimony before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
In view of these l
discrepancies, the Licensee urged the staff to reconsider whether the alleged violation occurred.
l The staff has reviewed the testimony given before the Licensing Board and given l
to 01 regarding the alleged violation. The staff acknowledges that there is conflicting testimony.
However, the principal conflicting testimony, already in the licensee's possession, is that of the two QC supervisors who, it is alleged, gave the improper instruction to the QC inspector.
On the other hand, the testimony of peripheral witnesses, the statements of the QC inspector, and the corroborating testimony of another QC inspector, some of which the licensee has, support the conclusion that the improper instruction was given by one of the QC supervisors. Based on its review of the testimony and of the conclusions of the NRC Comanche Peak Intimidation Panel and 01 regarding the matter, the staff has I
concluded that the independence and organizational freedom of a QC inspector I
was interfered with by at least one of the QC inspector's supervisors and that the violation occurred as stated. Although the staff believes the licensee hos sufficient information to admit or deny the violation, since the staff does not intend to pursue the civil penalty, this issue is moot.
The Licensee has acknowledged that intimidation and harassment was a problem at Comanche Peak, has paid $80,000 in civil penalties for two of the five violations for which it has been cited, and has initiated corrective actions to address the problem. These corrective actions have included management changes and a number of programs to ensure that all employees can report safety concerns without fear of reprisals. The programs have been in effect for some mne and appear to have been effective.
For example, in an incident described in Board Notification 86-22, dated November 13, 1986, concerning alleged harassment and intimidation of "walkdown engineers" for the Unit I cable tray hangers, the Licensee took prompt and effective action to resolve the situation, w_________-_____
.r 6
Appendix The staff does not believe that further deliberation on the specific circumstances of these pending cases would serve the purposes of the Commission's enforcement policy and, therefore,,will not impose civil penalties for these violations..
The NRC will continue to review the effectiveness of the Licensee's corrective actions in subsequent inspections and if other intimidation and harassment incidents occur, appropriate enforcement action will be taken.
i l
l f
- _ _ _ _ - _ - __