ML20199K922
| ML20199K922 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Three Mile Island  |
| Issue date: | 07/03/1986 |
| From: | Johnson G NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#386-880 CIV-PEN, EA-84-137, NUDOCS 8607090277 | |
| Download: ML20199K922 (108) | |
Text
/ UNITED STATES 8 o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O p WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 C
..... July 3,1986 000XETED USNRC Ivan W. Smith, Esq. 86 Ji -7 P1 :57 Administrative Law Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission 0FFICE 00CMET:NGOFi 'G khlhg Washington, DC 20555 BRANCH In the Matter of GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Ugit No. 2 Docket No. 50-320 PK tcO , 41 License No. DPR-73 EA 84-137
Dear Judge Smith:
As you requested by telephone yesterday, I am forwarding to you copies of the following documents pertinent to the referenced subject matter: -
- 1. Notice of Violation and Proposed Inposition of Civil Penalty, dated August 12, 1985.
- 2. Letter from GPU Nuclear Corporation, dated September 9, 1985, requesting documents and additional time to respond.
- 3. GPU Nuclear Corporation Response to Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty, dated October 21, 1985.
- 4. Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty (EA 84-137) issued to GPU Nuclear Corporation, with cover letter from James Tay-lor, Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, both dat-ed March 4,19ES.
- 5. GPU Nuclear Corporation Request for Hearing in Response to Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty, dated March 20, 1986.
Sincepely, ,
Czu j, QL h
. ge B J nson Counsel or NRC Staff
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/ encl: Service List p 8607090277 860703 (
PDR ADOCK 05000320 j
Q PDR \
(
y LL
\ . $
~ [p ut o g UNITED STATES
- h'l(
I, 8 g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p 39
- E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20$55 #,
3(
.) * .<*
,/
AUG 12 INE
~
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 th.e reports of investigations and concluded that several violations of Commission 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 1 Evaluation Report (SER) on TMI-1 Restart (NUREG-0680, Supplement 5). One of I 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-c ment of the crane. GPU Nuclear was subsequently cited for failures to follow procedures in a Notice of Violation issued on February 3,1984. Mr. Parks 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 THI-2, (2) subjected to improper and intimidating interrogation by his management, (3) removed as the primary Site Operations Department representative for the Test Working Group, and (4) ultimately placed on leave of absence.
The Department of Labor (DOL) conducted an investigation into the complaint filed by Mr. Parks. 01 also investigated Mr. Park's allegations of discrimination.
After reviewing the DOL and 01 investigation reports, the NRC staff determined that a violation of the Commission's regulations occurred. Specifically, the four discriminatory acts against Mr. Parks are a violation of 10 CFR 50.7.
/
CERTIFIED MAIL
) RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
'\
I' .
. GPU Nuclear Corporation -
2-Acts of discrimination, whether committed 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 3 NRC regulatory requirements.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, l 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 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,
/
' -,f/
l J .es M. Tay1 Director
, ffice of Ins ction and Enforcement V
Enclosure:
Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty l
'i
. O t'.
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND
}
PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION ), Docket No. 50-320 Three Mile Island, ) License No. DPR-73 Unit 2 ) EA 84-137 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 Commission 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 j 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 1. abor. 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 duetotheseactivities,Mr. Parks,duringtheperiodbetweehFebruary23, 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
!l
1
- y
- i
- r. i Notice of Violation investigation (DOL Case 83-ERA-8) which was reviewed during an NRC OI investigation (0I 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 Commission, 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.
i 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 Corporatior.
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 penalty, 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.
/ .
c--, - -- v,.-,- ,-, - .- , - . - . - - - - - - - - - - ,. - , . . - - _ - _ _ - . . .
- - - g I',
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 n. y 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 y s f
'mes M. Tay1 , Director ffice of Ins ection and Enforcement Dated af Bethesda, Maryland this la day of August 1985
)
=
4
/
' 8 f ,
V.
GPU Nuclear Corporation Distribution PDR .
LPDR NSIC SECY CA JTaylor, IE RVollmer IE JAAxelrad, IE EHoller, IE JLiebennan, ELD JGoldberg, ELD VStello,DED/ROGR FIngram, PA HDenton, NRR RStark, NRR BHayes, 01 SConnelly, OIA JCrooks, AEOD 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 Ccmnission Ms. Mary V. Southard, Co-Chairman Citizens for a Safe Environment T. H. Gerusky, Director Bureau of Radiation Protection i
Harrisburg, PA 17120
$4O
..j gv 6
GPU Nuclear Corporation
? y gf 100 interpace Parkway Parsippany.New Jersey 07o54-1145 (201)263 6500 TELEX 136 482
.- Writer's Direct Dial Number:
September 9,1985 gp /37 '
4410-85-L-0190 Office of Inspec' tion & Enforcement ,,
Attn: James M. Taylor, Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 70555 Re: Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty, Dated August 12, 1985 (Alleged Discrimination Against Richard D. Parks)
Dear Sir:
We have reviewed the referenced Notice of Violation
("NOV"). We have noted that the NOV refers to an investigation by the NRC Office of Investigations ("01") and to an investigation by the Department of Labor (" DOL"). It also refers to a list of the reports of the 01 investigations in NUREG-0680, Supplement 5; the latter refers to 01 Report H-83-002 as the 01 Report relevant to the subject NOV.
We have also reviewed the letter, dated May 18, 1984, of the Director of OI to the Commissioners forwarding 01 Report of Investigation H-83-002 and what appears to be a copy of that 01 Report of Investigation. There are attached as Appendices 1 and 2 respectively, the only portions of those documents (as distinguished from the Exhibits to the OI Report) which relate to Mr. Parks. The 01 Report refers to a report by a DOL compliance officer and states that that report and its attachments are annexed as Exhibit 102 to the 01 Report. There .is annexed as Appendix 3 to this letter the redacted version of Exhibit 102 (without its attachments) which we received with the 01 Report. Unless there are additional materials related to that 01 Report which we do not have, it would appear that 01 did not make an independent investigation of Parks' complaint.
This appears to be confirmed by the statement at page 12 of the OI Report that:
1 "The scope of the DOL investigation of PARKS' compl aint, which found for PARKS, was deemed sufficient for NRC purposes and is included in ,
this report for regulatory and enforcement i
! consideration."
t 2
We recently received another redacted version of Exhibit 102 to the 01 Report, a copy of which is annexed as Appendix 4. While that second redacted version includes some additional material that was not contained in the first redacted version, it is still not complete. That second redacted version of the DOL report sets forth conflicting accounts of events relating to Parks which transpired in February and March 1983. In many instances the identity of the individual to whom statements are attributed (or even of his employer) is not set forth. Moreover, that second redacted version does not set forth with any clarity which accounts the DOL compliance officer believed or what co.rroborative or conflicting evidence was available to him. The final three pages, which presumably reflect the conclusions and recommendations of the DOL compliance officer, are omitted from both the first and second redacted versions. Consequently, we respectfully suggest that the two redacted versions of the DOL compliance officer's report do not substantiate the violations charged in the NOV.
In the discussion of this matter in NUREG-0680, Supple-ment No. 5, it would appear that the conclusions reached are largely based on the DOL report. At page 10-5 of Supplement 5, there appear quotations from pages 11 and 13 of the DOL report which, as noted above, are missing from the two redacted versions of the DOL report. We are unable to put those quotations in context or to ascertain their factual predicate.
The 01 Report states (at p d Bechtel reached an agreement regardingDOLParks, age complaint and 77) that Parks that Parks an withdrew his complaint and DOL dismissed the matter. This would appear to undemine whatever probative force the DOL report may have had. In other words, the NOV appears to be predicated on the accuracy and assumption that the DOL had established the completeness cf the charges made by Parks, whereas the dismissal of the DOL proceeding would indicate that it did not result in an adjudication and that any conclusions reached in that proceeding have no binding and possibly no evidentiary effect.
Against this background, we are not in a position either to affim or deny the violation al-leged in the NOV. We, therefore,
- request that a complete copy of the DOL report (and,the if there are upon which NOV is other material s not identified above predicated, a copy of such materials) be made available to us and O
g.
that we be granted an extension of time for good cause to respond to the NOV as. required by 10 CRF 2.201 and to file an answer to the proposed pinalty as provided in 10 CRF 2.205 to a date thirty days after those materials are made available to us.
Very truly yours, gt. M P. R. Clark mak 0555 cc: E.Blake, Esquire, Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge H.W.Wahl, Bechtel Power Corporation Enclosure
-1 l
- s. .
O
, 1 September 9, 1985 4410-85-L-0190 Notice of Vielstion ar.d Proposed
. Imposition of Civil Penalty Dated Augur,t 12, 1985 Appeniix 1 to GPU Nuclear Letter to NRC, dated September 9,1985:
NRC memorandum from Ben. B. Hay,e s , Director, Office of Investigation to Chairman Palladino, et.al, dated May 18, 1984; subject: THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT 2, ALLEGATIONS REGARDING DISCRIMINATION FOR RAISING SAFETY RELATED CONCERNS (H-83-002).
556/4 e
o e
-,-v- - -- , .. - - - , , , - . - - - - _ , _ _
- g. .
a,gy e#p o g UNITS 0 STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMESION s,g,g;
, ei
[
. u s e atow.o.c.nossa y *cv **** ; May 18, 1984 MEMORANDUM FOR: Chaiman Palladino Comissioner Gilinsky Comissioner Roberts Comissioner Asselstine
, Comissioner Bernthal ,.
FROM: [ Bon B. Hayes, Director
'fice of Investigations
SUBJECT:
THREE MILE ISLAND NGS, UNIT 2, ALLEGATIONS REGARDING DISCRIMINATION FOR RAISING SAFETY RELATED CONCERNS (H-83-002) -
Enclosed is the Report of Investigation on this subject. The OI investigation concerned allegations made by the fomer Three Mile Island, Unit 2 (TMI-2) >
Plant Engineering Director, Mr. Edwin H. Gischel; the fomer THI-2 Site Operations Director, Mr. Lawrence P. King; and a fomer Bechtel start-up and test engineer working at TMI-2, Mr. Richard D. Parks. This report closes 01's investigation of this matter. ,
-The investigation established that Corporate Stress Control Inc. (Stress Control), a contractor to General Public Utilities Nuclear (GPUN) provided GFUN cor.fidential medical infomation furnished to the clinic psychologists by Mr. Gischel. Stress Control notified GPUN of both Mr. Gischel's medical condition and their opinion that Mr. Gischel should be required to undergo a neuropsychological examination. Stress Control claimed this action was justified because Mr. Gischel implicitly waived his confidential status by seeking to have GPUN pay for the neuropsychological exam. The examination was required by Stress Control since their concerns regarding Mr. Gischel's post-stroke physical condition and his emotional reaction to that physical condition had called into question his ability to maintain unescorted access to the facility. This was ostensibly done to meet the security requirements for " unescorted access". to the facility. However, the investigation revealed that no such exigency existed. Further, testimony furnished by the two !
physicians indicated Mr. Gischel's medical condition was of a physical nature l (stroke) rather than psychological. As stated above, Stress Control notified i GPUN without attempting to either contact or to seek Mr. Gischel's permission '
i to discuss his medical issues with the company. 1 i .- 1 l The fomer GPUN President, Mr. Robert C. Arnold and General Public Utilities l
! Corporation (GPU) Chaiman, Mr. William Kuhns upon the reconnendation of l Stress Control also required Mr. Gischel to take the neuropsychological '
examination in order to detemine if the stroke-imposed conditions affected Mr. Gischel's ability to perfom his assigned duties. Arnold added that.the l
! issue was not one regarding any " apparent abberant behavior." Coincidentally, ,
this did not become a requirement until after Mr. Gischel raised safety issues j
0 .
O r
Comission *2 May 18. 1984 i
. despite the fact that Mr. Gischel's supervisors did not consider that his physical impaiments seriously affected his work perfomance. The examination requirement was also in conflict with the medical opinions furnished by both Mr. Gischel's personal physician and a GPUN contract physician. Both doctors examined Mr. Gischel and concluded that he was fit to perfonn his assigned duties at TMI-2. The neuropsychological examination issue was never resolved since Mr. Gischel accepted another position within GPU. Mr. Gischel was also told by Mr. Arnold that his attendance..and possible testimony at an upcoming congressional hear.ing could negatively affect his TMI-2 relationships.
The investigative evidence on this matter disclosed:
(1) Stress Control did not keep Mr. Gischel's post-stroke medical condition confidential, or stand by the original agreement to have Mr. Gischel submit voluntarily to the examination.
(2) Testimony from supervisors and two physicians described Mr. Gischel as being able to perform his duties satisfactorily.
(3) The requirements to take the neurophychological examination appears to be more in response to something other than plant safety conctrns
. and coincidentally follows Mr. Gischel's raising safety issues concerning the TMI-2 recovery program.
The investigation also revealed that the fomer TMI-2 Site Operations Director, Mr. King, was suspended without pay and eventually terminated by Mr. Arnold for not infoming GPUN of his association with an er.gineering consulting fim, and the fact that this fim had hired GPUN employees. The termination came after Mr. King raised safety concerns regarding the THI-2 recovery program. In addition, the temination action was the result of inquiries into Mr. King's outside business affiliations by Mr. Thiesing. Mr.
Thiesing, Manager of Recovery Programs, was the individual in charge of the program that was the subject of Mr. King's safety concerns.
Mr. Arnold predicated the suspension and temination action against Mr. King i on the infomation described above. Although this action may have been appropriate based on infomation developed during an internal investigation initiated after Mr. King's temination, the evidence of alleged impropriety which was known at the time of the temination was not irrefutable. Mr.
Arnold's suspension of King became inmediately effective even though Mr. King could have been confronted on this matter in a scheduled meeting the next day with GPUN Executive Vice President Philip Clark.
l This investigation disclosed that the outside affiliation with the consulting l
fim was not in conflict with any written GPUN policy or GPUN's Conflict of l
Interest Statement. Interviews also disclosed that there was no evidence of Mr. King utilizing his GPUN position to proselytise GPUN employees. Infoma-tion obtained from fomer GPUN employees hired by Mr. King's consulting fim revealed that they were not solicited and had voluntarily sought employment with the fim. -
9
- y. -
t Commission 3 May 18, 1984 On the other hand, information obtained during the course of the investigation did reveal that the subsequent GPUN internal investigation discovered that Mr.
King had directed two GPUN employees, to conduct business for the consulting firm. These individuals took, leave from their GPUN duties, and did in fact provide consulting services at the request of Mr. King. As stated above, this information only became available after Mr. King's termination.
'The Bechtel start-up and test engineer, Mr. Parks, alleged that he was dis-criminated against by Bechtel for raising safety concerns on the TMI-2 Recovery Program. This allegation was investigated by the Department of Labor (DOL) pursuant to a complaint filed by Mr. Parks. Labor's investigation substantiated the allegation. An agreement was reached during the recon-ciliation process between the company and Mr. Parks that resulted in Park's reinstatement elsewhere in the company. The DOL Report of Investigation on this matter is Lubmitted as an exhibit to this report.
The DOL Report on the Park's matter (exhibit 102) as well as the DOL Report on the King allegation (exhibit 85) are included in this Report of Investigation and cannot be released outside the NRC without DOL permission.
Neither this memorandum nor report may be released outside the NRC without the permission of the Director. 01. (nternal NRC access and dissemination should be on a need and right-to-know basis.
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/er.c1:
W. J. Dircks, EDO (3 copies)
T. E. Marley, RI R. K. Christopher. 01:RI .
b l
l 1
4
y.
September 9, 1985
- 4410-85-L-0190 Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty Dated August 12, 1985 Appendix 2 to GPU Nuclear Letter to NRC., dated September 9,1985
Pages, 9,10,11,12, 77 and 78 of NRL OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS REPORT OF INVESTIGATION H-83-002, dated May 18,1984;
Title:
Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2, Allegations Regarding Discriminatory Acts For Raising Safety Concerns On Safety Related Modification, Quality Assurance Procedures And Use Of Polar Crane.
556/5 3
e D
3
=
s suspended Mr. KING without pay because Mr. KING admitted to an association
-- with an outside engineering fim and acknowledged that the firm employed
~
fonner GPUN employees. Mr. ARNOLD suspended Mr. KING, even though he did not condone Mr. THIESING's action in this matter, because, if in fact Mr. KING was involved in recruiting GPUN employees, this represented a serious breach of Mr. KING's responsibility to GPUN. Mr. ARNOLD did not consider it viable to personally consult with Mr. KING about'his version of involvement with Quiltee for Mr. ARNOLD was in Parsippany, New Jersey at the time. Mr. ARNOLD was aware that Mr. Philip R. CLARK, GPUN Executive Vice President was to meet with Mr. KING at TMI-2 the following day.
Mr. ARNOLD stated that he was not concerned with the specific role that Mr.
KING had in recruiting the fonner GPUN employees. Mr. ARNOLD stated that Mr.
KING's March 23 temination was due to Mr. KING's failure to report to GPUN
! his association with Quiltec and Quiltec employment of fortner GPUN employees.
- Mr. Arnold stated the temination was based on Mr. KING's responsibility to
- protect and enhance GPUN resources and Mr. KING's unwillingness or failure to I
recognize that his association with Quiltec created a conflict with this
! \ responsibility. Mr. ARNOLD acknowledged that there was no written policy or regulation that required Mr. KING's disclosure of Quiltec but felt that Mr.
KING's position as Site Operations Director required the promotion of GPUN resources, thus making such disclosure necessary.
Mr. KING was teminated on March 23, 1983. A GPUN investigation into, among others, Mr. KING's Quiltec activities, was initiated on March 25, 1983.
Start-uo and Test Enoirieer Mr. Richard D. PARKS, fonner start-up and test engineer for Bechtel North knerican Power Corporation at THI-2, submitted a March 21, 1983 affidavit and subsequent statements to NRC, alleging that he was discriminated against by Bechtel for raising safety concerns on the polar crane refurbishment program.
Mr. PARKS also submitted a complaint, with accompanying affidavits, to the Department of Labor, alleging discrimination for engaging in protected activ-ities on the polar crane.
- b. .
Labor's investigation of Mr. PARKS' complaint found that Bechtel had discrim-insted against Mr. PARKS. Pursuant to the NRC and Department of Labor Memorandum of Understanding, the 00L Report of Investigation was reviewed by OI and is being submitted for NRC regulatory and enforcement consideration on the PARKS' allegation.
D O'
.e e
4 0
0
\ .
a .
l
. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Investigation Regarding the Allegations of Harassment and Intimidation for Raising Safety Concerns on the Polar Crane Refurbishment Program raised by Messrs. GISCHEL, KING, and PARKS.
Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations:
Part 50.7 Employee Protection (a) Discrimination by a Comission licensee, permittee, an appli-cant for a Comission license or permit, or a contractor or subcon-tractor of a Comission licensee, permittee, or applicant against an employee for engaging in certain protected activities is prohibited.
Discrimination includes discharge and other actions that relate to compensation, terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. The protected activities are established in section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and in general are related to the administration or enforcement of a requirement imposed under the Atomic Energy Act or the Energy Reorganization Act.
(d) Actions taken by an employer, or others, which adversely affect -
an employee may be predicated upon nondiscriminatory grounds. The prohibition applies when the adverse action occurs because the s employee has engaged in protected activities. An employee's engage-ment in protected activities does not automatically render him or her irxnune from discharge or discipline for legitimate reasons or from adverse action dictated by nonprohibited considerations.
Part 50, Appendix B--Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants I. Organization . . . The persons and organizations performing
, quality assurance functions shall have sufficient authority and organizational freedom to identify quality problems; to initiate, reccernend, or provide solutions; and to verify implementation of solutions. Such persons and organizations performing quality assurance functions shall report to a management level such that this required authority and organizational freedom, including sufficient independence from cost and schedule when opposed to safety considerations, are provided . . . Irrespective of the organizational structure, the individual (s) assigned the respon-sibility for assuring effective execution of any portion of the quality assurance program at any location where activities subject to this appendix are being perfonned shall have direct access to such levels of management as may be necessary to perform this function.
h
s .
l
- . i DETAILS
- On Septerter 1,1983, the NRC Office of Investigations (01) issued a pending
, Report of Investigation for this investigation. That report dealt with alle-l gations concerning the noncompliance of technical procedures, administrative l- .
controls and management failures in the Three Mile Island, Unit 2 recovery
~
program. The Se'ptember report mentioned the pending investigation of allega-i tions by Messrs. GISCHEL, KING and PARKS concerning GPU Nuclear and Bechtel 4
management reprisals against them for raising these safety and management con-J ca rns . This report details the investigative findings concerning those alle-
- gations of reprisal. ,
j Messrs. KING and PARKS filed complaints with the Department of Labor's (DOL)
Wage anc Hour Divie% alleging the management's reprisals were in violation of Department of Labei . J NRC laws and regulations. Pursuant to NRC and Depart-ment of Labor's Memorandum of Understanding, the Office of Investigations re-viewed the Wage and Hour Division's Reports of Investigation concerning the KING and PARKS complaints. The scope of the investigation of KING's complaint was not I \ , broad enough to be sufficient for NRC purposes. However, the DOL King Rep' ort j of Investigation, which fot.nd against King, is included and referenced in this
- re po rt. The scope of the DOL investigation of PARKS' complaint, which found for PARKS, was deemed sufficient for NRC purposes and is included as part of this report for regulatory and enforcement consideration.
- l -
l This Report of Investigation references exhibits from an independent investiga-tive report requested by GPU Nuclear on the allegations of Messrs. GISCHEt,
! KING and PARKS. The report is entitled TMI-2 Report, Management and Safety j Allegation and was prepared by Edwin H. STIER, November 16, 1983. This 01 Report of Investigation only references from the Stier report sworn statements ,
and documents of record with the GPU Nuclear Corporation. These referenced exhibits are not included with this Report of Investigation, but are on file, i
as part of Mr. STIER's report, in the NRC Pubite Document Room, the Offices of Inspection and Enforcement, Nuclear Reactor Regulation and Region I Regional >
! Administrator. Copies of Mr. STIER's report have also been furnished by GPU Nuclear to each of the NRC Comissioners and to the Appeal and Licensing l
. _ _ Boards _. __ _ _ , . _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ _ _ _ _ . _ _
INVESTIGATIVE FINDINGS REGARDING THE PARKS' ALLEGATIONS OF DISCRIMINATORY ACTIONS FOR RAISING SAFETY CONCERNS ON THE TMI-2 RECORVERY PROGRAM Pursuant to the NRC and Department of Labor (DOL) Memorandum of Understanding, the DOL' Wage and Hour Division's Report of Investigation (Ex.102) of Mr. PARKS' 00L complaint is submitted, with attachments, for NRC regulatory consideration.
Mr. PARKS' March 23, 1983 letter to DOL,, lodging the complaint, and his April 22, 1983 letter to DOL with attached supplemental affidavit are included as exhibits 103 and 104. Mr. PARKS' March 21, 1983 affidavit, which give his initial account of alleged reprisal activities, are listed in the September 1,1983 Report of
- Investigation under this file, attachment D-1. Mr. PARKS' statement of July 25, 1983, further clarifying certain aspects of the reprisal matter, are included in this report as exhibit 97.
O e
- m. ~ . - - , _ . _ _ - . . - , _ . . - . _ . _ - . __ _ . _ _ ,
1
(
. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION In August 1983 the Departnent of Labor notified the Office of Investigations
. that Mr. PARKS and the techtel North American Power Corporation reached an agreement concerning Mr. PARK's DOL complaint and consequently Mr. PARKS withdrew his complaint and DOL dismissed the matter (Ex 105).
In late January and early February 1984, Mr. PARKS and his attorney Thomas DEVINE notified Mr. Meeks and related that Mr. PARKS was to be released from Bechtel employment. They explained that part of the settlement between Mr.
PARKS and Bechtel North American Power Corporation was the reassignment of Mr.
PARKS to work at a Bechtel project in southern California. Mr. PARKS was reassigned to this project in early August 1983. Messrs. PARKS and DEVINE stated Mr. PARK 5' subsequent dismissal from this project was under suspicious circumstances and a violation of the settlement terms, and therefore another discriminatory act by Bechtel.
Mr. PARKS related tha't he was not going to refile with the Department of Labor' because he needed to pursue future employment opportunities right away and did not want the edditional grief and turmoil that a refiling would bring. Mr.
PARKS related that he would make a formal allegation to NRC in the future about this alleged additional discriminatory act by Bechtel.
On July 25, 1983, Mr. PARKS submitted a statement (Ex 98) to O! about the missing TMI-2 master punch list for open items on pre-operation tests before TMI-2 was on line. Also alleged to be missing were the original procedures documentation on pre-operation tests. This statement by Mr. PARKS was forwarded to NRR.
During February 1984 Mr. Meeks had several phone conversations with Mr. and Mrs. KING regarding documents which in their view indicated that Mr. ARNOLD was discriminatory in his handling of the Quiltec matter. Mr. and Mrs. KING stated that they were in possession of the documents but could not locate them because of a pending household move that was in progress. They explained that the documents were packed away but would attempt to locate them during the
9 September 9, 1985 4410-85-L-0190 Notice of Yiolation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty Dated August 12, 1985 Appendix 3 to GPU Nuclear Letter to NRC, dated September 9.1985:
Page 1 through 13 of Exhibit 102 of NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS REPORT OF INVESTIGATION H-83-002, dated May 18,1984;
Title:
Three F.ile Island Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2 Allegations
- Regarding Discriminatory Acts For Raising Safety Concerns On Safety Related Modification, Quality Assurance Procedures And Use Of Polar Crane. .
T.
~
55E/6 t
i p 8 a#
I a
6
--,---h'. - . , . - - , - . , .- -..---
6 e
O 13 .
) e 9
4 b
6 O
e O
b S
6 O
e l g l ..
l l
l l
00*
eur i
1 I
- em M
e 04:1c fetr.ce g tv ;1tance Officer O
O 9
r t
stent-e D. ea -es' whistiet e-ee Co-31aint (EU) assinet gemu , i.:-t- aeasur. Po-e ue::ca:ssa at Tn ee r.ne Island ,
s reoc-t c:n=e-ni the conct1tation effort and the investigation conducted f;-g,,g r.,
u CTK 13. Far". !& in *.he etu;1aint of Signart C. Parks. .Cated 3/I;/13. ang tis sw::ieranul coe=1aint, satec 4/I2/12.
Iae're- vndl .
. p.e. sa ru was hiree by lechul korth seeHean Fever Corporation (I,ec.htal)
- as tenice sur ip Engineer, Erase 15. en 5/24/12. is the he $sarte was given Enginee-ing various .
Lot-:-ant at tne ihree Mile Islanc (TMI) jopsite, .
res::nsitOities in:1scing Alternate Sursue anc Test 50'pe viser for me Sechtal His begine.ing salary wu T21CD monthly.
ca. rated Dr.it !! reac tar. acts as a cor.tracur er subczntratter for General Public Utilitie (3>.*:). a licensee of ine hutiear Kegulatory Carstission (K1*); anc techu) ou 2-=wgnt in u erfvel the rescur. In 9/42 theat was a management re: ; ant:stian pw *)ng techul in chaage of an integratet program win the sita evner, SPJh. for citanvs activities. Pa-ts was ascitionally assigned .
as e>eratians engineer in the site Operations Deprment (50). headet by tu Oirecter. La rence P. King. who later aptcinted Parks 3Mmery 30 rt; tser.utive on de irst Warking Gesup (T ) for the laatter SgOding Pelar Crane Pr;je.t.- Parks' tvites inc196ed eve-sight and review of plant m:c:fication an: ne. syster:3 anc inte-f acing with task groves to ensure c:. lian:e vitn stancaru, curational casatuities, anc wu rules. Unser GP3's NP.: license. 50 is directly responsible for the safe shut down ,
can:itics dsHng us suve y preg *sta. Ns. Parts' jet inestved revier cf t s eulcyer. Se:. el's, n pape weet ta meet stHeturas and requiremenu.
Pa u' seleen n by ctr; for this werk involvet. King sutes. Parts' integrity."
T-:r 11/t2. 3: sa ticipated in ce Head '.if t Tast Tsets inte sesari:senul .
g-:c. rupersi:le far plannint the rencval sf the reecut vessel heed.
- stu v: u 17* :*s we*e ta be.lif ted by me rentter's 'pc*ar crane'.
f y. c;e atec hirn en trave saale supperu rvaning fully arewns the a:u- b iiring. ine crane ecvet laterally er. a tr:11er enssing the S. ctaratar cf ne tedetag. thus P':viding car:1sta psitional ac:ess belos.
Thert weat disagree eau betweer. $3 and tther Head Lif t Task Feace marthe=1
- er. need for en .fe -sty with pengesses manaals en sogtficatten of Unit !!
I p* ar.: systa-s (AJ.iN3). an! Unit !! tasting ( AP.1047). Furu er pregerss beum u .setties fs11:<ing a 1/6/t2 te:nr.ical momerance reporting greater entistice vr.ce* tne *eatur vessel head than previewsly estimated. The l
polar craft ristiness cate was advancet u peNit its useA in esaarte.ing swestion artse tMs ra cia 1er pes:ie=. SC dispstet this advance. .
wutwr the er.1ar crane, having been turned over u lechul to fia. eu a pr je:: giver ther:. and retwiMeg 50's appatval af ter the crane's return te .?."t.
anc ret recuiHng 50's everview in the prs:ess of reMir. (LaA.
The polar craneigain became an issue is -
5-1. Friene men inta-view) 1/8.! w$en ap;* tral was soppht far a safety [veluation lepert ($C1) en reverifying de radiation level under the rescur heat by use of the crana.
Pa*t.a. with SC. hat stjectier.s te cisteet progras and engineering asfic-ite:Iss and rvfwsef *.8 a:;rtve the $IR. (Lah. C.3) The=t was The sukseeuent claimed
> F.: cisa: proval en seversi polar crane asucts (Lah. C-4).
tisc-scir.at=ry a:tions usen against Parts arise frsa his reactions to Ats perceivet pressvers ss yield, andHe hishad vnvillingness to se se en such received a perfsreance evaluatten all,ed , safety relates isswas. .
y e
e
?
( . .
o 2
C.tT51 a i n*J I ,*
\ Facts, in-owgh his stumy Thomas Devine, of the &crernn.ent &c::ve.tabilit;y Pr: ject, fiieg a en ;1 air.: wie ce 1e:retary of Labor by letter satac 3/23/c and further ts :le er.tet by letter datec 4/22/13. Parts' cae-plainu claimec he was discrieisstet against in the ten:s. concittens and privileges of his er.ple, ment as follows:
e
. 1. On 2/23/83 he was infomed he had bes.. rilieved of his duties as Antamate startu; anc Tes: Supervisor at TM14 nit 11.
- 2. On 3/14/U be was interrepated by a lech *.a1 aanutive and an
- internal awaitor as par: of an investigation iets violations of alleget empicyet c nflict-cf-intarest sunaart.s. -
- 3. On 3/17/O he wu re laced as De primary $0 De;,ariment rs=res.
enutive en the Ya'". fer ut teact:r Builting >slar Crane Project.
4 On 3/24/t.3 he was placet on leave of thsenca with 3.ay and prohib-1tst er.try tc the jt25ita erithout perTission fros lec.htal ,
- C:m:411stica Effe-tt Parks aN his aturney. Thon.ts Devine wished to cory:(liate Parts' return u his jet fr:m the ineefinite leave of absen:e with pay sutus he me.11 s.
The Cae::11 ante Officer (c3) met at TM! on 4/27/13 with Mr. Ea'inedy P.
Richartson. Atu"ney for bet.*tel and Mr. Achali Freeme man, techul's te::,e y 7-ograr. Directa* fello 'insffort for ar. earlier smitally satis-f a tu ry met ing da ta. Neitner Mr. Parts nor his att:rmey we e rmer:t kr. Fa rss ' */27/t3 *s. ate v$:le* pest ton (Lah. A-3) was preser.'.ed by the l c:. se: t:1. erswgh tu resmenutives rtjeted the position. Atumer Richamer. su tes sna ne en:le satter involving Fa-ts was under inu-nal i
. st.ey by scentel, anc at:mingly he rifectec t'.ese pr:p:sals thst had
.i
. h.er,sw nt:ted. Mr.11cna-:sen f arta=* ""s m' nachtal **wla amt N. ee: ace in any blacklistint cf Ia"ES- ~
i /
i 1* vet t(ta t4 tra!
- 1. On !fD/1.3 Parts was infC*Ted he had beer. relieved Of his dv*.ies as Als.amate Surtg; and inst $wpervisor at TR!Wnit !!.
Parts' c:m=;1aint relatas a se-its of evenu he believes led ta the abeve.
i as fo11ews. Parts sutas in his car:staint est en 2/17/83 he was asked by $0 cirr;ur King te revie the polar trane lead test pro:ecure. With *
! King's contwrrence he isswet his enernenu t: Rite tat.3111. Pclar Crare Tua Terce leader, cer.ta ing en lack of conformity with the procedgres
~
i as pesvised for ty ,A7,.1043 and A71047. , f arts relatas manage:nent rejec.ed l L i t
i i
l
,l
o
- '.3 o
and test preg-ma.
ap;1ica:{11ty for tha ent'.re pciar c-ant hfwrtis%r.
J
- s. he eng othe-s ne's not seen me instevetion befert nor had signed it.
It wewid ne.e ore-rigen the er. tire G*a syste. of Owality Assurance (OA) conte:Is, an: riciates AP's 1N3 and 1N7 an circe,entee the entire review and c;;anval cycles. Pa-ts argweg the as:11cMt ui11tysays he peinted of tAs the A7's, anc the need ta co-aly with the % sanwa11.
est a le;al seens te approve the polar crane *.ast via vst of a Td3 to eva1wata the procadLure. *
'avetings, and hat the attitude that if ;tv did your job carrectly and pe n e v e-t in the t vth about it, all wow 1d wert agt all right, ,
~~
1 i
6
, 7D lec;e of both test and ed.-ir.istrative procedures, Sc the two respor.sibh lities for hie wert su::lementa1f
.. , D
- r i
. 4 .
. ~
is that 41though te:hnically -
)
V :
ir. cire:ti[$3 which has chage of approving the saw ac mentice.s alsc sisilariv dual confrontatier.41 jobs held by , _ _
~
- 2. Or 3/14/E3 Part.s was int.er?P58ted by a lech 1 executive and an internal auctur as part cf an investigation inu violation of unidentified ac;1cve, ccaflict-cf-intarts t standarts.
his c:r.;1aint aelst.es := the af tamth cf the tississal from r#.mKing empley.
had 4 ment oe. U2&/E3 cf Sitt Operations Direcur Lawrtnca ' P. King.
' ~
- Uv 3 e e n F a ts ' bcs s i n, thi s o v e rs,il h.t I. ".CW3, fc11pwing his reaeval as alta-nata Parts Lu :.. su andtes that Tes Supeon U24/t3.
riser for the day!!. ting a:pciated his t.ht primary Unit site 0;eratier.s restater.utive on et 71 for the pclar crane pr: Ject.
~
- Fa-rs, as sll rt;nse .utive, sutes he continvec u voice his safety conce-.s at cettings tr.at fello-ec, anc en 2/21 sought u inc1 wee a va-tety e isswes d en the agenca of a *t1we * *
- rih >cn Readiness Keview Carwit.ee .
- ' ' ~
- fer the p:lar trane. I
~
. only a pe-ser. of limited tintaliigence wcw1c thint otherwise.'
- belief is that the pelusion of the cable was beuwse it was tse late up fully ir.spect it withest retering it car *41etaly from the drw. On 3/4
- at the first p:1ar crane Tai Meting the CA people e.aplained various defic.
- f isncias fosnd in their review. Parks sutas he identified various open l ite=s in the crane's no-load test processee, and along with others raiset nww-ows actitiemal concerns, incIvcing the use of 'd.eg fuses" *
- instead of cperatier.a1 futs.
( Part.s s,utes that on 3/$. Lawren:e Kins called his, fc11owing a discussion i
.\0
- f. -
! t e . .
. g .
fr:e Ow11ta:h..her had any business invc1vreent wi2 it. Two friensts.
inciuging ting oe ce coscany. Parts sutet he was v: set that GP1m a r.: lecAttl wtJIC t y t: estant such a *pettestual, snatby senar" tm -
- ssi-=y his career, w$tn he was n:t even a part sf Owiltach.
On 3/11/E3. Parts went tc the NR: to fiscuss the 6 Ne suteg it was ancther mana$t."4nt act to intisiCatt hie. Or raccre ata *
. f riht the island, he Pvtuested a special investigatien. Parts States L*.a t Mr. Jcs e:n ktibt ,8f MRO Save the Dt;af.Dtnt Si LLhar's adtf rt15 and .
talt;hent nur:Def* te him, aM statti NR Could not $tt invtived && 13eis . .
is an er:cicyt!-a ;1oyet matter, and he show1d to tithe DOL. .
I I
~
sarts ette .s t.*.at cr. 3/14/E2. his swatrier frat Sechtt1's regional f ir Gaithe-sbweg. PC. Ancy Whetler. and Let heffmar.. af' Sechtal
\. .' h e t e:w a rte -5 f r.it - .a '. Af f a i rs . f r:rt the San Francisc: sain effica, wert on sita to
% Parcs wanted an it:;sr.ial witness, rejected the suggestices ,
i r.te -vi ew h1=. Mt was r.e c e t: ha ve gc - f --
P"_g of the Gaithersbw?g of fice thtet._ of Secatel C & C. who had ., pre finally aliewec 1: bring
/ . L, c:ge.se e Pa rts t*.s t he was res ecte< an needet. On 3/14 Parts was i n ta--e p ted , - He r:1stes the sein tcple ses his alleget inv:1.emer.: with Wiltech. He tzplaimed net being par. cf Duiltec. -
He e.x;1ained k.t had has a pe-iphe-al canuct via frieneship with aa immer.
t..is c:ruct invcived his finding an em-sita typist for King te do some af tar.heses ty;in;. for w".ich he received nc firancial Sain. Parts relatas S >
i 6
4
g.
. 5 .
~
k
)
Law-ince Eins, in his 4/26/E3 stateer.t before ths House Intarier and
- Insular Aff airs C.cruittee (E.sh. F-1), suted he never made any secrvt of Owiltan's exisunce during the previcus 1.5 years the c.ne.pany mes in .
Like Paru, he staus, he received so business w+.ile he was at TMI.
training or cwnselini at TM1 on conflicts af ir,tlirest, and that une of his wert wiu Ogiltech viciated pux's u-itten twidelines, Hewhic.h relates Frohibit .
relatior. ship with c-c;anies that da business with E7UK.
that the c.ay befers his dismissal a techttl ea,1cyee maet several calls he '
te offer Osiltech a jet at TMI. which he disuined te respond ts.
alse expressed the feelies of intimidation abest his safety contaris.
Farts w-eta tue leturs te lechtal a.best the Ogi1 tech intarrogation . .
J fc-e that se ves'as lectta5's ccr.flict-cf-ir.terdt documr.t. a54 that Pars.s cinius had not beer. p asented until af ter the Owiltech san =inatten.
, A
--'E U = l it is techtel's pclity te look inte conflict- ,
%Tr.tari:st pr.:*.e-s via ue special intamal,,pn based in Sar. Frant'sc=.
'g ci l
Parts, in his 5/2/E3 tr.te-view (E.xh. B-7) clatus that the investi5 ation was a form of harrassrent. An isclated innocent incident wes seized N R.*
upon four days af ter he had co=;1ained s:
Persistant twestier.ing about Paru' kr.o. ledge of Quiltach's attivities m
=
O .
- ( (
o . a.
7
- 3. On 3/17/E3 harts was rerlated as the primry Site Operations Depart ==r.t-s .
es; tsenutive on the Test Wort Gree; for the Resciar lutiging Polar Crane Prcject.
ary Three cars af ter his tr.temf ation by lechtel rt;nsentatives abest in,c),mr.1 in the Quilte:.n satter, Parks lost his rendining aa.ior rescenstatitty in the Unit 11 reactor cleanus.
- S -
J
) I
) .
' Parts haf already." before this meeting siped t.-e cis:.tet pire:gre *Deseg on te:hnitti c:ntent of the protegure only".
,- Ws n t i=;iying cx:;11ance with te;it.41 coverage or quality analysis.
c
- gr;
- se of stifling his c je:tiens to pclar crane pme- ,
eds e. ints 4 sed on P.is own chervation t. hat for a scnth satte-s eert getting pretty bestes about the p:1ar crane, and that the at:;1cyer had M set tne tone for this, not Parts. . . _
. U 1 &
) .
O
g _
i
. g .' l i
.. - -l i
s l I
I l
~
- )
\.
4 Dr. 2/24/E2 Pans was pla:ed en an indefir.ita leave of absen:e with py ang fortisten ent.y 1: the jchsite witA:st pemissior, fras Ee:.'.t.e1.
Parts ' -
This actior. usa.s uker a weet af ter the prict c:n:laint incident.
I L -
his wMstlebleving On 3/23/E3. Pa-ts held a patss car.fenn:e. releasin$sttar from Richard A.
afficavit of tAat gate. On 3/24/E3 he was sent a neeler. Chief Stam; E.ngineer (Exa. 3 appendee ts E.xh. A-2). ackr.o.lecging
. .. e L
- 9-being infomed af Parts' D7. con 51aint about harrasssent and intietda, tion, and serying tu occurrence. It states. "In creer to insulate you from i~ even the appearance of such condwet. and to asswet the continued effective.
ness of all pe-sonnel at the site, we are placing you on an incefinita leave of shsende with pay. effective imediately, until we have had the -
e;ocetunity tc review this matter fur.her." A letter dated 3/25/E3 f ror *.eraid CAtenef f. Est. . Washingtsn. C.C. wra.te strilarly about Parts 2: .TJ. Secreury Es.=mc Donovan.
) -
I ~
- (,
l l
- %~ ~ ~ = _ L-j snee'ets f roc tat House CDezittes, iri which Mr. Kanga , when asked why Mr. Parts was suspended stated.*Rr.
Part.s was suspended because it became rather-difficult for hir te operate at Three Mile Islandaf ter he went public with EU*. Sechtal's Mr. Sanford .
is aise shown on this exhibit to have stat.e4 then. *Thert were nJmerous prt.fessional pecsle that he associates wit.h and werts with on the Island.
- and there were allegations e.ade that have created an at-espbert up thert .
tAat wegld be very diffievlt Ter vs te conduct ourselves in an effective -
sanner, if he as seeng tAat g ovp.*
It is noted that ireediately fc11)<ing conclusion of the conciliation effert on 4/Z7/E3, the CC initiated the investigation, and indicated to Mr. Richardson the need for seS1cyet ir.terviews in private on TM1 precises.
Mr. Richa-dson soon af ter advised that lechtal insists that he be present at such interviews. The CD stated this arrangerent is not administrat-ively pessible, and peinted out CFR 24.4 (b),(c) provisions concerning inte rviews. The CD advised that if, when privately irtiarviewed and a stata-ment taken, the c:loyet rec.,cs a espy it would be given. M*. Richarcson asked if the CD . auld give advance notice of who will be inte-viewed on the precises , so that the espicyer can have discussior. with the employet
~
' . ja o
p -
( .
. }c .
- -ic- se the inte-view. The C suteg this would ret be conducive Ib c
- ;ectivt inte-views and aevised that if aff-pitnt ir.teMews became
( '
necessa y be:ause of segleyer co*Hfitions en tita intarviews, they sould have u be lietter in view cf the 1*.autt y strictures on duration of Z'. hetion. CtfI sitt iratrviewing wts $ 1&nnel T0r.13 begin On I/3/E2 Pt , P.icha-ds=n netting tc rturn t: his principal office. On 5/3 he met :.x C at the TY.* gate u afvise his praatnet Caring plant intervies is s:ill insistet upon. It wer deciced te affort techtel the opporkeity in the reutr.ing time ta rt;*tsent iu view,ctou threvgh tricloyett.
Wthegt se::ing 3 t:cstnt, ty its selection of twc ranking er:;1cytes
- fer jgint inte-view udth the CO and Mr. Richartson. Mr. Richartsen ngreeg and tele:te< Mr. lthman E. KAngt, anc Mr. tan Freemersar..
o e
me D
m s
i l
l .
.s g 1 .
O e g .
- *o* . . . . . _ * = = *** = = . . . o ,
2 e
- 11 * ,
O C:-*.1vsiera one tere-remdatient:
N .
l p
l O W 6
4 l
I e
7 _
M
\. - .
O h
9
- ?
F
- , W e
^ ,
C' - .__ _
- w e
O 9 e O
e O . .
t g
. u. .
O e
N 9
O e 8 0 O M 8
- @n ' M as I
g_.
~
I s
r.
I l
l l
I h
e-O N l -. . . _ - ..__
1
. . l p , 1 -
t
. u. ~
G
\ .
a- -
e
~.
m u a r.<..,
W1tanta Officer e
e G
1 e l
L
s September 9,1985 4410-85-L-0190 Notice of Violation and Proposed
~
Imposition of Civil Penalty Dated August 12, 1985 i
Appendix 4 to GPU Huclear Letter to NRC, dated September 9,1985:
Presumed copy of redacted version 'of U.S. Department of Labor Report on conciliation effort and the investigation conducted pursuant to CFR 29, Part 24 in the complaint of Richard D. Parks, dated 3/23/83, and his supplemental complaint, dated 4/22/83.
556/7 b-e
e .. . .* . j. . ,
. T*. - r....,
etchard D. Parts' Whistleblower Complaint (tRA) Against becntel horta amescan Fo.er Corporation at Ihree mile Island This report concerns the conciliation effort and the investigatirsn conducted pursuant to CFR 2g. Part 24 in the car. plaint of Richard D. Parks. dated 3/23/83, and his supplemental complaint, dated 4/22/83.
Eackground: b Mr. Parts was hired by Bechtel'horth American Power Corporation (Bechtel)
.as Senior Startup Engineer. Grade 25. on 5/24/82. in the Startup Engineering Department at the Three Mile Island (TMI) jobsite. He was given various responsibilities including Alternate Startup and Test Supervisor for the damaged Unit !! reactor. His beginning salary was 53100 monthly. Bechtel
~.
- acts as a contractor or subcontractor for General Public Utilities Nuclear (GPUN), a licensee of was brought in to defu)el the reactor..he InNuclear Regulatory 9/82 there Cornission (RRC)t an was a management reorganization putting techtel in charge of an integrated program with the site owner GPUN. for cleanup activities. Parks was additionally assigned as operations engineer in the Site Operations Department (50). headed by its Director. Lawrence F. King. who later appointed Parks primary 50 representative on the Test Working Group (TWG) for the Reactor Building Folar Crane Freject. . Parks' duties included oversight and review of plant ectification and new systems, and interfacirig with task groups to ensure compliance with standares. operational capatilities, and NRC rules. Under GPUN's hRC license. 50 is directly responsible for the safe shut-down
\
condition during the recovery program. Thus. Parts
- job involved review
-:- of his eeployer Sechtel's, paperwork to meet strictures and requirements.
Farks' selection by King for this work involved. King states. Parks' integrity.
(
s From 11/82. 50 participated in the Head Lift Task Force inte-departmental secup, responsible for planning the removal of the reactor vessel head.
Loacs up to 170 tons were to be lif ted by the reactor's ' polar crane".
which cperated high on traversable supports running fully around the reacter building. The crane ecvec laterally on a trolley crossing the i diameter of the balding, thus provicing complete positional access below.
There were disagreemnts between 50 and ether Head Lif t Task Force members on need for confcmity with procedure ransals on acdification of Unit !!
plant systees ( AF-IDa3), anc Unit Il testf ac ( AF-1047). Further progress became unsettlee following a 1/6/E3 technical memorancue rexrtin5 Sreater racia tion uncer the reactor vessel neac than previousiy esticated. The polar crane readiness date mas advances tc permit its use in examining this raciatien prcble .. 50 disputet this ac ance. A question arcse
= nether the pclar crane, having beer. turnec over tc Sechtel tc fim, was a
- reject given ther, anc recuiring 50,'s a
- proval after the crane's return to GrUN. and act reesiring 50's overvie= in he process of repair.
The pelar crareagein became ar. issue"ir.
2/E2 when appreval mas sought for a Safety Evaluation Report (5ER) on reverifying t*.e radiation level under the reactor head by use of the crane.
Farts, with 50; had etjections to claimed pengra= and engineering defic-iencies and refusec tc a: prove the SIR. (Emn. C-3) There was subse:uent HEC disapproval on several polar crane aspects (Exh. C-4). Tne claimec discririr.atory actices taken against Farts arise from his reactions to .1*s
_. Perceivet pressures to yield, and his unwillingness to do so on such
.. alleget safety relatec issues. He has received a perforvance evaluation
.on E/27/E2. incicating ne ret or esteece: all recuirements. haeng the
- escrecs cate; cries were ;cb kno lecge, fleshility. coope ation, client relations, initiative, anc creblee analysis. Overall he was rated Eaceecs Re irecents". (See Exh. D-1).
- - J
P . .
Cor.;1aints :
Parks, through his attorney Thords Devine. of the Goverrument Accountability i Prtject, filed a complaint with the Secretary of Labor by letter dated j 3/23/E3 and further supp1snented by letter sated 4/22/83. Parks' can. i plaints claimed he was discriminated against in the terus, conditions and privileges of his employment as followss
- 1. On 2/23/E3 he was inf'orned he had been relieved of his duties as Alternate Startu; and Test Supervisor at TMI Unit 11,
- 2. On 3/14/83 he was interrogated by a lechtel esecutive and an internal auditor as part of an investigation into violations of al,1egee employee conflict-of-interest standards.
~
- 3. On 3/17/83 he was replaced as the prieary 50 Department repres.
entative on ths TW for the Reactor Building Polar Crane Project.
4 On 3/24/E3 he was placed on leave of absence with pay and prohib-ited entry to the jobsite without permission from Sethte).
Conciliation Effort:
Farks and his atterney, Thocas Devine wished to conciliate Parks' return te his job from the indefinite leave cf absence with pay status he was in.
The Com;11ance Of ficer (CD) met at TM1 on 4/27/83 with Mr. Kennedy P.
A Richarcson, Attorney for Bechtel and Mr. Ecnald Freenerran, techtel's t Recovery Frograr. Director, followingeffort for an earlier mJtually satis-f actory meeting cate. heither Mr. Parks nor his attorney were present.
Mr. Parks' 4/27/E3 " rake whole" position (Inh. A-3) was presented by the
., CD. Eechtel, thecugh its representatives rejected the position. Attorney Richartsc,n statec that the whole ratter invahing Parks was unoer interr.41 study by Bechtel, and accacingly he rejectec these propesels that had been swbrittet. Mr. Richarcsen further stated that lechtel would not engage in any blacklisting of Farks. he provicec the CD a letter dated 4/27/El, respencing to the com;1aint issues, anc describin5 Sechtel's views of the acticns of Mr. Parks. (See Esh. A-4)
!nvestication:
- 1. On 2/23/E3 Farks mas infcmet he hac been relieved of his duties as Alternate Startut anc Test Superviscr at iM:-Unit II.
Parks' co.:1aint relates a series of events he believes les to the ateve, as fellows. Paras states in his com: aint that on 2/17/i3 he was askee ty 50 Directer Kir's te revien tne pelar crane teac test p-:ce:are, s:in King's cancwerence he issued his Co"r.4tts to Mike tactill, Folar Crane Task Force lescer, centering on lack cf conferr.ity with the procedures as proviced fer by AF 1043 anc AF-1047. Parks relates r4nage ent rejectec these coarients, and that on 2/16. Ec titler, Supervisor of startup anc test, cwestionet what Ferks was coin 9ene inficated u;per managecent's dissatis-l faction te the peint that he (Kitler) net been askee what has to be cene l te get Parks transferrec cff the site. Farms states Kitier repeated the threat before twc ether persons, inclucing King, and Kitle* attributed it to Rick Ga11agner, Assistant Director of Site Enginee-ing. Parks say:
he felt threatenec, anc that merning asket an on-site NRC official hcw to repcrt a reprisal threat. Per advice receivec. Parks states he socke l to Joel keibe of NR: Inspection and Infercement, who expressec A cie vie.-
l cf transfer and the pessibility of I & E investigation.
Parks states that on 2/22 he was Callec 1C a meeting with Jim Theising.
w anager of Recevery Frograms, anc Ear:4n E. Kanga. ::tretter cf Unit ::,
to ciscuss Parks' pelar crane coments. The following say, ancther i neeting, vicely attencec, was held to ciscuss AP-3043 and AP 1047 l
t
= .
3 applicability for the entire polar crane refurbishment and test program.
Parks states Freemreen argued the AP's did not apply and distributed copies of a F782 Construction Dept. Project Instruction for all to sign prgraptly, saying all departments had previously agreed this document governed all Sechtel worki including the polar crane. But. Parks consents, he and others had not seen the instruction before por had signed it.
J .
It would have overriden the entire EPu8i system of Quality Assurance (QA) controls, and violated AP's.1043 and 1047. and circumvented the entire review and approval cycles. . Parks argued the applicability of the two AP's, and the need to comply yith the QA manuals. He says he pointed out a legal means to approve the polar crane test via use of a TWG to evaluate the procedure.
Parks states that during the meeting he had said that in his current role as alterr. ate startup and test supervisor he was still eesponsible to identify pctential Qt audit deficiencies; that Theising inte*jected to inform him he no longer had te worry about thats a mencrandum had just been issued appcinting a new alterr. ate. thus relieving Parks (Exh. A-1) when interviewed, stated Parks always spoke his eind at teetings, and had the attitude that if you did your job correctly and persevered in the truth about it, all would work out all right. He described Parks' cor.petence and knowledgeability. He said that he had cautioned Parks that since he worked for Bechtel. whc were pressing for shortcuts he was resisting. his ec;;lcyer would make trouble for him.
c
,also notes the disagreement Parts had with Bechtel en the pelar crane load test i program. He states Parks was objecting to the administrative aspects invciving safety, but Sechtet was seeking to use authorization documents lacking officiality.
Bechtel's atterney Richardson, in his complaint response denies any causal
- connection between Parks' relief as alternate startup and test supervisor, and any expression by Parks of his previously espressed views. Richert.
Sen states that Parks was assigned to the 50 Department perfor1cing the duties of an operatices engineer, re=ceting Caily to the P.anager of Platt Oper ations. At the sane time he was assigned to the Recovery Progra.r.s Department under the scervision cf Ed arg ci*1er. Startup and Testing Saperviser. anc ir this capacity Kitler hac aesignatte Parts as his alter-nate during absences. tnd that in Jar ary or early February. Kitler's Site Engineering superiors aevised hir. that Parks' designation as alterr. ate mace no sense from an cesani:stienal view:cint. and shoulc de corrected by sc:stituting acetner engineer. Nigt.t kalker. as alternate supervisor.
On 2/16 Kitler mace the change. It =es af ter this crganizationai change that the NRl inte* vie-ed Eechtel wit'iesses about a tessible transfer cf an ea.;1cyee ef f TP.I. but the empicyee =as not identified.
. states that Farks' working as an oper-atices engineer in 50 eid net in any wey conflict organizationally or otherwise with his assignment as alterr. ate startue and test superviser.
Tne twc assign .ents were fully comsatible, since Parts nac ir.timate know-1ecge of be n test anc ac-inistrative p:*ocecures, se the two responsibi-
- lities for him were su;plemental.
states that Parts
- ec;1cyer wantee to take away Farts' authcrity in approving the werk aspec.s because of his objections to protecural anc testing plans.
states that Parks' re= oval as alternate startup anc test sucerviscr hac the parecse cf elietnating a source cf procedural objectiers being e.ade.
~
- 4 .
I Parks' further explanation of this change is that although technically he did have bcth sides to represent, he was sought out by titler at the .
end of 1982 se be his alternate, titler eventually planning to leave. and {
= anting soneene te take over as supervisor. Also, a year earlier. Parks <
=as Startup and Test Supervisor for the Unit 11 Sutraerged Dominera11 ation Systen, and thus was esperienced. Parks states enany others have dual duties-
_ strikingly the rar.agenent of ficial John Barton, who is now Deputy Director cf Unit 11. and thus in charge of all work done here. and also has duties in directing 50, which has charge of ap; roving the same work. Parks sentions also similarly dual confrontational jobs held by Ron Warren and Butta Marshall. Parks states his relief as alternate startup and test supervisor came without any prior indication and that no other such reshuffling has been done.
. 2. On 3/14/E3 Parts was interrogatec by a lechtel executive and an internal
, aucitor as part cf an investigation inte viciation of unidentified employee confitet ,cf. interest standards.
This complaint relates to the af terinath of the dismissal from EPUM employ-rent on 2/24/E3 of Site Operations Director Lawrence P. King. King had been Paris' bcss in this oversight group, anc bcth had censistently opposed what they perceived as a steady derogatten of concern for prs,cedural and technical principles including safety in the Unit 11 cleanup.
Parks states that ed 2/24/E3. the day fc110 wing his removal as alterr. ate Startu; anc Test Supervisor for Unit II. King appointed him the primary s Site Operations representative on the Ter.' for the polar crane pecject.
~
He states that at cuitting time that day. John Earton asked King if he -
was President of Ogiltech Company, anc being so advised. Earton suspended cing. Outltech is a "jcb shop
- for the nuclear power incustry. akin to agencies that furnish labor to em;1cyers. GPUN. Farks states.saw this activity as a conflict of interest.
Parts, as 50 representative, states he continued to voice his safety
- concerns at meetings that fcilo-ec anc en 2/2E sought to include a
-- variety of issues on the agenca cf a blue ribbon Readiness Review Corr-ittee for the polar crane. Further, en 3/1. he and King's replace' vent. Joseph Ch-astyk. rejected the fincings of the startup anc test supervisor thi.t the pelar crane loac test procecure =es exec;t from the actinistrative ra nuals. Parts states they issuee a meacranc.re incicating the concurrence of the hese of OA in this, and effering several sugges* ions for procecural sclutien to the ;rc lem. In a 3/3 meeting to ciscuss the agenca for a polar ciane presentation cry run for the Reaciness Review Comittee tnat
=as to meet. =.r. Theising statec the preser.tation shoule explain =<hy the str uctural r.ature cf the crane anc its teck are coverec ty04 anc C centrc1 rules. tut tr.at the crane's catie that lif ts the acok is net. Farks states he cuestienet teis, ez;14tning wny the wn:le apparatus =as ie;ortant to safety; anc Mr. Theising repliec only the trene's structure was, anc cnly a perscn cf limitec intelligence wo.,1c think otherwise, parks' telief is it.at the exclusion of tne cable =es because it was tot late to fully inspect it witnout removing it coccletely frarr the crum. On 3/4 at the first polar crane *sG meeting the GA pec;1e explainec various cefic-iencies fcune in their review. Darks states ne ioer.tified various cper.
ite*s in the crant's no-loac test proceciere anc along witn otners raiset neercus aceitional concerns, inclucing tne use cf *cwTy fuses
- insteac cf c;erational fuses.
. Farks states that on 3/g. callec nit. following a discussion with Rctert Arncic President cf GPUh, saic he thought Mr. Arncle was atte".; ting to implicate parks with Duiltech in order to fire him as well. Saic Arncle had askee about these at TM* with prior knowltcge cf Quiltech. Inst reccetecly. Arnoic astec. "What about parts?* anc centinvec te = ell on that aspect, rescCrse. repcetecly, was tnat he .as unaware enetner Parts knew Cf 7w11 ecn. Parks states he then acrisec that he shoulc have inclucec nie on tne list because a fear age he eac helpec King fine a typist on site wne would so scoe typing Jcb after hcues. Farks states he never rectivec any fir.ancial gain
~$
, . s .
from QuiltecL nor had any business involvecent with it. Two friends.
including ting, own the concany. Parks stated he was upset that GPUN and lechtel would try to extend such a 'pretextual, shabby sasar* to destroy his career, when he was not even a part of Quiltech.
On 3/11/83. Parks went te 'the NRC to discuss the Arnold conversation.
he stated it was another e.anagement act to intimidate him or remove him from the island. He requested a special investigation. Parks states that Mr. Jeseph Weibe of NRC gave the Departrent of Labor's adedress and telephone necer te him, and stated hRC could not get involved as this is an eenployer.empicyte retter, and he should go to the DOL.
Parks further states that phoned him in the evening to advise that called to say he was worried about Parks because his
- wife was trying to get some dirt on (hie) that could be used to take away custody of (his) children". Parks' wife had died three years previcusly, and he says he took this call as a cos ,any threat affecting
., his two sons. He states that until then he had treen struggling within the system, but would now seek counsel from the Goverreent Accountability Prcject.. It is noted that Parks states that af ter a subsequent break.tn to his acart.ent and rifling of his papers he sent his sons te live with a distantly located relative, s
Parks repcrts that on 3/14/E3 his sweerior from Rechtel's regional headewarters in Gaithersburg, MD. Andy Wheeler. and Lee Mcffs.an, of Eechtel Internal Affairs, frort the San Francisco main office, were on site to intervie- hir.. Parks war.ted an im;artial witness, rejected the suggestions
~
_ made to have Mr. Langa or the head of the Laithersburg of fice there. He was finally allo ed to brinc Mara Kebi cf Sechtel R3 & D.
. On 3/14 Parks was tr.terrogatec, with K:bi as a mitness. He relates the r.ain ic;1c was his allege inv:1veter.t witn Osiltecn. Ha ex;1ained ret being part of Owiltecc.,
but nac hac a pericheral centact via frieresti; with ar. o-r.er. He ex-laine-this :cntact involvec his fincing ar. on. site ty?ist for King to co so e af ter.nowrs typing, for which he received ne finencial gain.
11 is ncted that on 5/4. the CD sought an ir.terview with Kcti. who advisee he hac been a;pecached for ir.terviews with various parties, and'io te fair to all he manted to clear the CD's retwest with his em:1cier. Be:htel. The e mas n res;cnse to later calls to Ksbi.
Parks' co :laint states that en balance he believes the irtemgation was a further attem;t to retaliate anc intimicate nic anc to force him to back of f cf his safety concerns about the polar crane.
r J
o
. 6 -
advises that there is a constant eovement of esiployees in this industry fror one contractor to another- Me believes there were other persons besides King who acted at times as job sherpers to accomodate these sovmnts, he stated his belief that the full-scale investigation of Parks for his alleged connection with Quiltech was an act of intield-ation against Parks. .
- Lawrence King, in his 4/26/83 statement before the House Interior and Insular Af fairs Coreittee ' . . stated he attir made any secret of Osiltech's existence during the previo_us 1.5 years the compasqr was in business while he was at TM).* Like Parks, he staten he received no
. training or counseling at TM1 'on confifcts of interest , and that none of his work with Quiltech violated GPUM's written guidelines which prohibit relationship with comparies that do business with GPUN. He celates that the day before his dismissal a Bechtt1 employee made several calls to ef fer Owiltech a jcb at TM) which he distainec to respond to. He also expressed the feeling of intimidation about his safety concerns.
Parks wrote two lettfrs to Bechtel abcwt the Quiltech interrogation -
on 3/16/E3 (tzh. I appented to Enh. A-1), and on 3/21/83 (Ezh, I appended to Exh. A-2). In the fermer letter he sought reconciliation with Bechtel, stating he appreciated their sensitivity to conflicts-of-interest. declared he has not and will not seek gain frus this source, and requested a copy of the conflict-of ir.terest standard. sie also effered to reconsider his challenges to procehre, but that until responded to he finds it difficult tc et so, or to respond to pressures without explar.ation of the flaws in his analysis. In the second letter, tc Mr. Kanga. he refers to Ranga's cpen door invitation to report continued acts cf harrassment and lists the *pretextual investigation
- of his sucpesed involvement with Oviltech. *
.- Exh. 2. Appended to A-2. is an 'Agreemer-t and Acknowledgecient of Oblig-ation* form that serves as Bechtel's cer:flict-of-interest document, and that Parks claims hac nct been preser.te: until af ter the Quiltech esamination.
Mr. Kanga stated it is Bechtel's policy to look into conflict.
of interest problems via the special ir.ternal group basec in San Francisco, anc are not originated in the Gaithersturs office he reports to. He said Parks had asked hir. why such a big deal is being race of this issue.
Kanga states he is net coing this - he seeks understanding and to be ensured Eetntel empicyees cc ncthing to ecanss clients.
Attceney Richarcson's corrients (Can. A-3) ez: lair. that in the course of investigatin5 King's
- flagrant conflict of intr'est* it was learnec that Parks, a c1cse friene. r.ay have hac some invc1vec.ent, and it was detereintd his rcie shcult be investigated to see if any becntel policies had been i
viciatec. Further, in accercance with stancard protecares. Bechtel I r.tnagement askee the :nternal Aweit grs== for investigation of its ee;1cyees wnc may have had invc1ve ent. Richarcscr. relates parks' being advised of his rignt to cecline to cccperate witncut retaliation or re:risal, anc l anc that Parks was questiened in a~non-tnraaiening and peciessior.a1 manner.
The Internal Asgiter fcung Parks may nave viclatec Eechtel's poTicy, bwt there were eritigating circu* stances and vic discis:lir.ary action should be taken. Ricntreson states Farks cannot su;;crt his inference that his participation in prclected conduct was the mctivating facter in the decision to intervie him. he said there is nc evitence connecting the inter-ropation cf him with any retaliation for having gone to tne h20. Alse.
tnat the events af ter the 3/14 meeting are devcid of any Bechtel harrass:ner.t or retaliatien against Parts for engagit:; in prc*.ected co m et . he was given prompt access te senior Bechtel managemen*, and responsible perscnnel were mace availacle to review and explain nis concerns.
Farks, clait=s t'.at the investigation i
was a form of harrassment. An isolated. innocent incident was seized
} ucon fewr cays af ter he had complainec :s SR; about Rcbe't Arnold's l persistent chesti0ning aLcut Parks' knodefgt of Dwiltecn's 4Cliv1 ties.
l l
, -7 3.
On 3/17/83 Parks was replaced as the primary 5tte Operations Department representative Crane Project. on the Test Work Group for the Reactor Building Polar Three days after his intarrogation by techtel representatives about aev involvement in the OJ11 tech matter, Paris lost his remaining major responsibility in the Unit'!! reactor cleanup. The 3/17 discussion with Mr. Langa, reported above, concerning the alleged conflict-of-ietterest <
aatter occurred in early scening. Paris' complaint reports a further )
discussion at that setting in,which Kanga spoke of his available open door if Parks should feel threatened or intimidated. Also, Parts reports that Mr. Kanga warned him not to go public with his concerns, and that once before things had gotten much worse for an employee who had tried that and ,was
- humiliated".
Parks, in his 5/2/E3 6terview with the CD advises that on 3/17, Mike Rattill, Polar Crane Task Force leader, accused his of a " personal vendetta" against the test procedures on the polar crane. Parks' consplaint states that he later discussed with Jcseph Ch.astyk, the new acting 50 head, the eefic.
iencies in the procedure's test cycle.
he Parks states that in late af terncen was called back to Mr. Kanga's of fice for. a meeting together with Ch=astyk.
He was there given an interoffice memo from th=astyk stating that Mr. Bubba Marshall would replace his as the primary 50 meeber on the
\ 1WO, only for the polar crane pecject, and that this action is appropriate for the present sitwation and is not a negative reflection on Parks. At
-- that meeting. Parks writes, Kanga asked hw, twice to agree that his receval was not an act of intimication, anc Parks responded,*In ery opinion the intent is well-cefined." Parks hat already, before this setting signed g
the disputed precedure
- based on technical centent of the procecure only",
. thus not im;1ying compliance with tc;ical coverage or quality analysis.
expresses his belief this removel cf Parks had the purpose of stifling his objections to polar crane proc.
ecure, this basec on his own cbservatier. that for a month matters were getting pretty heated about the polar crane, and that the employer hac set the tone for this, not Parks.
attorney Richareson's reply to this cor:1aint (Ezh. A-3) er: anes tne ea:lanation of events leacing to Parks' secction. He states that on 3/17/83, Perks came te see Chwastyk, Actirrs 50 Director, te ciscuss the Kolar crane catter, and it became apparent to CNastyk that this sectram was causing Farks
- severe emeticnal strain" - so cuch so that Ch-astyk fearec that Pa-as right cuit enc leave TM'. Ch=astyk then, reportecly, suggested to Parks crc::ing hte as $D representative on that TWG, but cnly with Parts' consent, anc in a zar.ner not te reflect aeversely on Parks, whc af ter a while agreet this was a meritorious solution. And then Ch=astyk wrote a craft announcecent of tne action, en which Parks nace some minor changes. Then, af ter typing anc before l his signing, Chwestyk revieweg the catter erith Mr. Kansa, esturing him cf the mstwality cf a: Proval anc then CNastyk signed the ment. But on 3/22, Parks gave canga his 3/21 letter claiming harrassment or intisw testion bcth as te the 3/17 action and the Dailtech investigation.
Richereton continses, Kanga askec Farks wey he has act previously indic-
. atte feeling threatened, and Parks repliec he "has time to think about it".
~
Richarcson ceserves that what dic ha: pen was that Parks had submitted to the attorneys for the Geveenment tcccuntability Freject the complaint "afficavit on wnica this investigation is tesed. Richarcson states Part is unable te cennect the TWG chaage witn the protectef condset. He stateC to the CD tnat =nat ha;;enec was nc* even a personnel action, much less an act of Ciscrimination.
t l
l
. 3 .
Relative to Ch=4styk's clais of Parks' showing of
- severe emotional strain" in discussing the project, we have the general observation of that *5ite Operations is a small group erith little resources, and the others can muster a large force - it is necessary for us, including Parks to "
sound off to overcome this imbalance.* Also.
the observation of that
- Parks and Chwestyt and Barton all had the tendency to esprest themselves loudly and somewhat profantly and colorfully. when they wanted to express disagreseent about the work....This behavior was not uncemen at meetings on the island...
I noticed that Parks, however, maintained his camposure more and more as the situation got nastier.' '.It is of interest that . 4 aulti.
degreed engineer, has now resigned his TM1 job
' His statement relates. "It was getting to be like a madhouse to get anything done. Sechtel seemed to want to neuter Plant Engineering and Site Operations *. -
Richard Parks' version of the 3/17/83 events. In his 5/2/83 statement.
is that in reaction to Mike Radtill's accusation of his having a " personal vendetta
- he went to th astyk to explain why he could not sign the polar crane procedure, and Ch=astyk said he emuld try to figure out a solution.
Parks says he suggested that perhaps his alternate. Bubba Marshall, would sign the procedure. Ch=astyk said he would write up something to take
. care of it. Then he wrote a memorandas:. telling the secretary to type it, and bring it to Kanga's office. Then Chwestyk lef t the room, and Parks asked the secretary to let him read it which he did. Parks cor.tinues.
he was called tc Kanga's office. but was met cuiside by Ch=astyk who said the meme woule take care of the probier Kanga then read the meno to
\
Parks and asked if he agreed he was not being harrassed, and repeated the cuestion. Parks states he had just filed the DOL complaint and was unsure
-:: ho. to reply. He neither wished to alleviate his problems by jespordizing his complaint, ner to abanden the coc:laint. He did want to keep his
.' job. he said he realized that Ch=astyi. who three weeks before had agreed he would net sign of f on the polar crane procedure, was now abandoning hir..
This was a com:11cating event and he had no icraediate access tL his attorney.
Mr. Devine. Thus, he said, he ga ve the truthful but non-comittal ar:swer to Kanga's cuestion.*The intent is clear". He said he cid call Devine that cay an: it was decided to incluce this demotion in the cocplaint.
l S. On 3/21/23 Farks was olaced on an ince e inite leave cf absence with pay anc for:iccen entry sc ne jetsite witnout per=issior, fro- Eecntet.
1 l
- nis action mas taken a =eet after tne prict con:pisint incicent. carks' i
co .;1aint accencut of 4/22/E3 (Esh. A-21 relates that on 3/22. af ter he had giver. Mr. Kanga his written co r.ents on the 3/17 meetir.g.1::iset11ary c4 events occur' red. Gaitnersburg cf fice represer.tatives visite: te rep:rt his ez:neration on the Quiltech utter, and he could renin at TP.! as long as he wishec. Further they assurec Farts nc " fur *her re:risals* woule occur. anc asket for a list cf his safety concerns. Parks cor.tinues that tney estec if he ear.tet an Internal Affairs investigation of management.
anc tnat he agreeC tnis wCuld be a33rcpriate. Farks states that Mr. Arn:lc hac previcusly Confirmec to him inat nis r.ame was on a list for Ccngressicr.4-in wiry. about whien a rieeting was scheca.lec for later that Cay. Parks
. relates the feeling at the mee*ing tha* ine incairy concerned Lawy cing's cistissal. Parks states that just af te ware Mr. Kanga asked r.is. te re:ce to his of fice. where wheeler ano a o.tisc relations cf ficer. Resell, were present - that Secell asked if Farks nec a news conference schedsled the next cay. Parks states ne c:nfir ed tSis. and that he =4s filing a 00L ccm:1aint. This was nts first cisclosure of that fact.
On 3/23/E3. Parks held a press conference, releasing nis wnistlebbing af ficavit of that cate. On 3/24/E3 ne esas sent a .etter f-om Richarc 1 Wheeler. Chief 5tartus Engineer (Enh. 3 appenced to Exh.1-2), ackno.leegin.
O
. 's
s . .
being informed of Parks' DOL complaint about harrassment and intimidation.
and eenying jts occurrence. it states, "In oriser to insulate you from even the appearance of such conduct, and to assure the continued effective-ness of a11 personnel at the site, we are placing you on an indefinite leave of absence with pay, effective issnediately. until we have had the opportunity to review this matter further.' A letter dated 3/25/83
_~ from Gerald Charnoff. Esg. . Washingen. D.C. wrcte similarly at9ut Parks to DOL 5ecretary Raymond Donovan.
. relates that when Parks filed his complaint.
M'r. Arnold. GPUN Prest 6ent. called a meeting attended by tanga. Barton.
Bechtel people. and the entire senior staff, totalling 25 to 3D persons.
He said Mr. Arnold and Mr. Kanga explained what was happening; that Mr.
Barton became angry and reconenended firing Parks. They spoke of eestricting Parts' activities, and later decided to suspend him with pay.
The justification fog suspending Parks with pay is urged by Attorney Richards:
in his 4/27/83 letter (Enh. A.3) on the basis that " Parks made grave accus-ations concerning the professional competence and integrity of several of his coworkers and colleagues at TMI." He states these accusations to public news media enjoy no statutory protection. and have caused severe harm to the individuals involved. He concludes Parts has lost his attitty to function as a member of a professional organisation on this project.
Mr. Richardson's coments about Farks' accusa* ions focus on his comments s on pages 36 and 37 of his 3/23/P.3 complaint, concerning Mr. George Kunder.
whose clained weakness as chairr.an of the PORCy5afety Review Group in not 5 cbjecting to violations was attributed by Parks to Kunder's avoisance of involvement. Parks further identifies Kuncer as the runcred "siystery ran* who ordered the safety injection pumps tar-ned off during the 3g7g
' accident at Unit 11. and who was responsible for the stoppage of coolant that caused a great portion of the damage. Richardson states a law firm is investigating Paras' claims and has, as yet. found no supporting evidence against Lunder; and he points to Larry. King's statement before the House Corr-ittee on page 24. *1 cannot toentify who the 'systery man' was whc shut off the p m?s." -
Mr. Cevine has furnisned ([sh. F.2) encer;ts fear: the House Cour.ittee.
in which Mr. Kanga , wher. asttC wny Mr. Parks was suspence stated.*Mr.
Farts was suspenced because it became rather cifficult fer him to coerate at ihree Mile Islandaf ter he went public with EAP". Eechtel*-s Mr. Sanferd is also shown on this exhibit te have stated then. *ihere were numerous reciessienal people that he associates with anc works with on the Island, and there were allegations r.ade that have created an atrnesthere up there that would be very difficult for us to conduct curselves in an effective sanner. if he was among that group.*
t is ncted that inreciately fc11owing conclusion of the conciliation effort en 4/27/23. the CD initiated the investigation anc indicated to Mr. Richardson the need for employee interviews in private on TM premises.
Mr. Richardson soon af ter advised that lech *.el insists that he be present at such interviews. The CD stated this arrangesent is act ass::inistrat-ively passible. and r:inted out CFR 24.a (b),(c) provisions concerning interviews. ine CD advised that if. when privately interviewed and a stat sent taken, the employee requets a ccpy it .emld be given. Mr. Richards:r asked if the CD wculd give advance notice of weo will be intervie.ed on the premises, so that the employer can have discussion with the eecloyee J.
s
s .
~
4
- 10 prior to the interview.
- e CD stated this would not be conducive to objective interviews. And advised that if off. plant interviews became i necessary beisuse of eagleyer conditions on site faterviews, they would have to be lie.ited in view of the statutory strictastes on duration of 00L action. On. site interviewing was planned for. to begin on 5/3/83, Mr. Richardson needing to return to his principal of fice. On 5/3 he
~ '
- set the CD at the TM1 gate to advise his presence during plant interviews is still insisted upon. It was decided to afford techtel the opportunity in the remaining time to represent its viewpoints through employees, without setting precedent, by its telection of two ranking encloyees for joint interview with the CQ and Mr. Richardson. Mr. Richereson agreed and selected Mr. 84Pran K. Kange. and Mr. Ron Freemerman.
O
\.
l l
t I
4
- 11 Cenelusions and Recomendations:
e e
G 4
=
O O
0 W
6 en e
9
\.
i S
I i
I l
e O
t.
6 i
O e
I l
1 l
l
.- l
s__ a.
O I e i 9 9 l e . I 7
e e
- 12 -
l e
l l
1 l
a l
l
. =
l e
t 9
e' l r
o
\ .
e e
e l
(
.b 4
e e
e I
i l
l r
i 1
eo O _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _
shWsVi'inil Un~L.~.. tiP1D tDirVXUbi'/JENT /\ -
-- j g.- u;e .
w.sa - ,
l t x ~
' ' OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIR.
' U.S. NUCLE AR REGUL ATORY COMM. .
j .: ..:.. .v. .. -. :, .D s I'.r,..
v:.- 85- Licensee
!*, .KE A 1lE).' T3 tE . .
OY Subject OfV
- n Es- Date
'?.
E5 - Addressee Y,;. E5 -
Author OI 85 - .
FREY}0 sty CDI:TEDLLED Key Words
! C 0 lit 7:D'.
t.ssien :::
JL/SB ,
Due date: 30 b4-[5 FILE A.7 64 IY' O .
r : -t
.ic: .1 r.
EE SC LC KC RH WP ALL
! F.e '.e-cr KOUTE TO:
- e;i:.I' ::..sei (! )
~.
t? r.t. ;. ;;i;.;.. ;.... p :n .. .
., u. g- . . .
.v:.
. t. s r. .d.
." ' .s . 5 L i r.-.i t r.
~
1 *: L t. .
.r._,a. .v . h. _a D .
~
[ U -is:sr.-'.: y
- >tirnd 859550
.s..... .. e ,
- a,
.s.. ...e_..._ -" - . _. _
i
. g .
GPU Nuclear Conxwation 100 Interpace Parkway I U M I. Parsippany,New Jersey 070541149 (20 0 263-6500
~
TELEX 136-482
- Writer's Direct Dial Number.
October 21, 1985 4410-85-L-0209 Mr. James M. Taylor, Director Of fice 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 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 P.ichard 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 witn an unredacted version of the Department of Labor compliance of ficer'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 grantsd GPU Nuclear thirty days to respond, but declined to provide GPU 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 witn 10 C.F.R. 9 2.201 GPU Nuclear denies the allegations in the Notice of Violation. GPU Nuclear views such allegations wita 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 f ree to raise any safety concern l
l l
l 1
GPU Nuclear Corporaticn is a subs 4ary of General Puthe Utilities Corporation L
1 l
Mr. James M. Taylor October 21, 1985
(
- Page 2 without fear o( reprisal. This objective has been emphasized and reemphasized by GPU Nuclear management, both before and after Mr. Parks' allegations. See Letter from P. R. Clark, President, GPUNC, to Darrell C. Eisenhut, (June 29, 1984) (Exhibit A hereto).
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 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. The results of the Stier and Bechtel ef forts have been provided to the NRC. See, for example, TMI-2 Report, Management a:.d Safety Allegations (Nov. 16,1983) (Stier Report); Report of Bechtel North American Power Corporation Regarding the Allegations of Richard D. Parks (Oct. 1984); Memorandum dated Nov.1,1984, from E. Stier to P.
Clark; Letter dated January 3,1985, from P. Clark to H. Denton (transmitting Dec. 26,1984 letter and Nov. 9,1984 af fidavit of K. Richardson, Bechtel's counsel); Letter 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 allegatiohs in the Notice of Violation are untrue.
The Notice of Violation appears to be based on the Staff's review of an 01 investigation, which in turn was based upon a Department of Labor (DOL) compliance officer's 30-day investigation. Though the results of that investigation have not been fully disclosed, we question the completeness of the DOL compliance of ficer's preliminary review and the Staf f's reliance thereon.
First, the compliance of ficer's findings were preliminary and hurried.
Because Parks' complaint was subsequently settled -- resulting in the dismissal of the conplaint "with prejudice" in exchange for Parks' transfer to a Bechtel project in California -- those preliminary and cursory findings were neither adjudicated nor reviewed. Consequently, those findings are not necessarily reliable.
Second, the DOL compliance of ficer's report predates a substantial body of new and additional relevant evidence, including the Stier report of l November,1983, and the af fidavits provided by Bechtel representatives in October, 1984. GPU Nuclear believes that this evidence demonstrates that the DOL compliance officer's preliminary findings are simply incorrect, and tnat r
.o Mr. James M. Taylor
( October 21, 1985 ,
Page 3 both the OI 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 TM1-2 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 TMI-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 ein 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 SU6T supervisor. As SU6T supervisor, one of Kitler's duties was to chair the T.W.G. , and as Kitler's alternate, Parks would have chaired the
( (In fact, there were no T.W.G. meetings held T.W. G. in Kitler 's absence .
during Parks' tenur'e 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 SU&T 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 fact, 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.
9
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 Staf f 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 importance to Bechtel that none of its personnel engage in improper activities conflicting 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 Francisco. 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 nanner, 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 interest 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 l professional, non-intimidating and non-discriminatory manner.
l (3) The Purported Retaliatory " Removal" of Parks as Site Operations Representative of T.W.G.
This parported retaliatory act was in fact initiated and voluntarily I undertaken by Parks himself. On March 17, 1983, Parks approached Mr.
Chwastyk, GPU~ Nuclear's Manager of Plant Operations at TMI-2 and at the time Acting Site Operations Director, to discuss his concerns regarding the reactor a
f l
e
i * .
?
Mr. James M. Taylor October 21, 1985 ,
4 t .
Page 5 building polar crane. During this discussion, Parks stated that he had become
- too close to the polar crane project to distinguish between 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 i from the T.W.G. for that project. Chwastyk informed Mr. Kanga, Director of
- I41-2, 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 j a reflection on his performance or as an act of intimidation. Parks' removal i f rom 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 af fidavit prepared with the assistance of the l Government Accountability Project. In the news conference and affidavit,
'( Parks went far beyond his alleged safety concerns and made sweeping and '
I malicious personal attacks on his co-workers, supervisors and managers.
Parks' ad hominem public statements unrelated to any safety concern are 1
perhaps best exemplified by Parks' unsupported and irresponsible accusation
! that George Kunder, Chairman of the Plant Operations Review Committee and j 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 j 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 l 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 conduet the investigation, and (3) to prevent even the appearance of harassment or retaliation against Parks.
4 l
l -
Mr. James M. TayloE'
(
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 '
intimida tion. Each of the acts was properly motivated to ensure the proper functioning of the TMI-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 Huclear, however, cannot subscribe to this view. GPU Nuclear has an obligati$n to ensure that its divisions function effectively; indeed, such proper functioning is required to protect the public health and safety. Necessa'ry actions 7-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, e the corrective' steps which will be taken to avoid further violations, and the date when full compliance will be achieved. Because GPU Nuclear denies the allegations in the Notice of Violation, these items are inapposite. Since there is no acknowledged vio1'ation, 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 fre'ely 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 Office Review B,oard,' 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 TMI-2 staff, which has authority to report any unresolved safety issues directly to the Of fice of the President; and the Nuclear Safety Assessment Department, which is located at GPU Nuclear Headquarters and bhich 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 1 raining and is publicized by posters and by articles in newsletters. In addition, GPU Nuclear's corporate policy and the legal prohibiflon against reprisal are emphasized during training. Contractor e
1
1
- Mr. James M. Taylor October 21, 1985 ,
Page 7 t employees who work on-site are also notified of the corporate policy and legal requirements ana are informed of the Ombudsman Program as part of the same General Employee Training given to GPU Nuclear'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 TMI-2 personnel dated April 13, 1983
- Memo from P. R. Clark to employees assigned to nuclear activities dated February 27, 1985
- Memo f rom P. R. Clark to Directors dated May 21, 1985
- Memo from P. R. Clark to Directors of GPUN Divisions dated July 6, 1984 t'
1
- Memo f rom 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 s'everal years has demonstrated the effective implementation of these policiec 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 I 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 "...was favorabry 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. 6 2.205.
GPU Nuclear protests the proposed civil penalty. As discussed above (which discussion is incorporated i.erein by reference) GPU Nuclear denies the allegations on which the proposed civil penalty is based.
4 S c-~
s . .
6 .
Mr. James M. Taylor-October 21, 1985 '
Page 8 :
e Conclusion Harassment 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 2 eport 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 findin'gs be used by the NRC against them. GPU Nuclear therefore believes that such Staf f relia 6ce 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.
I affirm that the matters stated herein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Respectfully submitted,
~'
}
P. R. Clark PRC/cak ' .
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ef/a2' day of October,1985.
? 0A Egn3TanCE R.stmett.yOTAff PUBUC Enclosure sum NN. ma cm WT C05ansslM (IPitts BARCH N.1989 Woumba, Poessyhene Assodation of Boteries cc: Regional Administrator, Region 1 - T. Murley I r
r 4 EXHIBIT A i
NUCIMr GPU Nuclear Corporation 100 lnterpace Parkway Parsippany,New Jersey 07054 201 263 6500 TELEX 136 482 Writer's Direct Dial Number:
June 29,1964 (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
- J
Dear Mr. Eisennut:
Three Mile Island Nuclear. Station Unit 1 (TMI-1)
I Operating License No. DPR-50 Docket No. 50-289 Emp'loyee Protection and Company Communications t
Your letter of June 14, 1984 advised that you are reviewing the Office of Investigation investigation reports received to date concerning matters related to the issue of GPU management integrity with respect to the restart of Three Mile Island Unit I and requested a. response that l
addresses each of the questions in the enclosure to your letter.
Tine 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, employ ~ees, and l
contractors and the NRC are complete and accurate.
e ,
l i
GPU Nuclear Corporation is a subsidiary of the GeneralIsDhc McMm Rssrvrea
l l e
Mr. Darrell G. Eisenhut Page 2 i
Employee Protection and Company Communications June 29,1984 As discussed in the enclosure, this policy has been broadly 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, (l . j P. R. Clark President Enclosures cc: J. Axelrod R. Conte J. Gutierrez T. Murley , '
W. Russell J. Stolz J. Van Vliet I Sworn and subscribed to before me this RC) day of fu ,1984.
CJ O cf.ROL DISPOTO '
NOTARY PUBLIC OF NEW JERSEY "Y km Esseu Je= so, toss m
i l
i THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-289 RESPONSE TO INFORMATION REQUEST OF JUNE 14, l!v84 LETTER FROM DARRELL G. EISENHUT TO PHILIP R. CLARK The NRC questions adoress GPUN policies in two general areas:
- 1. Protection of employees of GPUN and its contractors and subcontractors from 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 complete and accurate.
The NRC quastions 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 and widely disseminated within the
(~ company.
- 4. . Organizatiori 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 out all activities, "in accordance with corporate policies and applicable laws, regulations, licenses, and technical requirements".
B. The Corporate Mission:
This document states, " Manage 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 efectricity from the GPU nuclear stations in a reliable and efficient manner in confomance with all a pplicable laws, regulations, licenses, and otner requirements
- and t se directions and interests of tne owners."
- Emphasis added ,
ev- ,
RESPONSE TO INFORMATION REQUEST OF JUNE 14, 1964 Page 2 j g 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 198U as a statement of respor.sibilities applying to the GPU Nuclear Group, the predecessor to GPUN. They have been unchangea since then and were republished 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 infomation flow within the company and to public officials. These are:
o Assure absolute openness of infomation availability and 4
exchange within GPUN so as to assure tnat all infomation which might affect safety of nuclear activities is available to responsible company officials.
, o Provioe information in a timely and trustworthy manner on the activities and operations of THI-l and TMI-2 and Oyster Creek to
( the various publics of GPU; i.e., public officials, the media, I the general public, employees, shareholders, and governmental agenci,es.
In addition to the promulgation of these broad policy statements, we have established a number of fomal mechanisms by which employees can identify safaty concerns and have them addressed. These mechanisms have Deen implemented Dy fomal procedures which were put into place by the GPU Nuclear Grcup before GPUN was formed and then were carried forward by the new GPUN Corporation when it was established in January 1982. They provide processes for evaluation and disposition l of any concerns identified. These include:
- a. Preliminary Safety Concerns
- b. Radiological Deficiency Reports
- c. Radiological Incident Reports
- d. Quality Deficiency Reports .
- 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:
q t
RESPONSE TO INFORMATION REQUEST OF JUNE 14, 1984 Page 3 LETTER FROM DARRELL G. EISENHUT TO PHILIP R. CLARK June 29,1984 I :
A. General affice Review Board (GORB) which was originally established in 1969 and then reorganized for the GPU Nuclear Group in August 1980. The GORS'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 reconnendations, if any, to the Office of the President of GPUN.
B. Incependent On-Site Safety Review Group (IOSRG) which was authorized 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 TMI-1 staff that reports to the Nuclear Safety Assessment Director.
C. Nuclear Safety Assessment Department (NSAD) which was fomed in late 1979 and became fully functional in early 1980. NSAD is located at 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
! I have and cften 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 immeciate supervisors. If employees are not s4tisfied with the results ootained through nomal supervisory i channels, or have good reason not to use nomal 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 indivicuals (Enclosure 1).
We have also established a fomal 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 embarrassing to GPUN. This policy was promulgated by written communication to all employees in October 1981 and was fomally incorporated into the Corporate Policy & Procedure Manual in November 1982 (Enclosure 2). It is periodically communicated in writing to company employees.
In addition, with regard to protection of employees from discrimination, the atmosphere created by management on a day-to-day basis is an important deteminant in assuring that safety concerns will be freely ,
2 i .
RESPONSE TO INFORMATION 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 work locations, and by articles in company newsletters. Fonn NRC-3 is posted at the plant site and other work locations. The TMI-l Plant Director specifically solicits safety concerns and emphasizes the Corporate Policy and legal requirements on these matters in annual .
individual meetings with each licensed operator. He also ciscusses 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 TMI-2 personnel dated Ap.*il 13, 1983 (Enclosure 3). .
B. Memo from P. R. Clark to employees assigned to nuclear activities dated February 27,1984 (Enclosure 4).
C. Memo from P. R. Clark to Directors' dated May 21, 1984 (Enclosure 5).
D. Memo from P. R. Clark and H. D. liukill to TMI-l Shift Supervisors dated March 2,1984 (Enclosure 6). Similar memos have been issued approximately annually since late 1979.
This . body of infonnation which has been made available to employees, taken in conjunction with the attitudes fostereo by management, makes it clear that discrimination ailainst individuals for engaging in the
, protected activities under 10 CFR 60.7 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 complyyith 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 '
conditions.
l
I RESPONSE TO INFORMATION REQUEST OF JUNE 14, 1984 Page 5
- LETTER FROM DARRELL G. EISENHUT TO PHILIP R. CLARK June 29,1984 i
In addition,2 contractor employees who work on-site are provided with copies of the R. C. Arnold letter (Enclosure 2) and infonned 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 tennination 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, coupleo with the day-to-day attitude and professionalism of our management promote adequate assurance of full and accurate comunications. Specific 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 comunicat1ons within the company and with regulators (Enclosure 7),
~
P. R. Clark's memo of September 1,1983 on the need for clarity and explicitness (Enclosure 8), and P. R. Clark's memo of May 15,1984 and reference memos on reportability 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 responstDie for review of regulatory correspondence. This procedure was promulgated in August 1981 to apply to the GPU kuclear Group and has been incorporated into tne Corporate Procedure Manual for GPUN. Engineering or tecnnical infonhation that is developed to support regulatory correspondence is subject to internal peer review and conraent by fonnal procedure.
Adnerence to procedures is in turn auditable in accordance with the Corporate Quality Assurance P1an.
The company would exercise administrative sanctions against any individual who willfully violates policy on these matters. These sanctions range from reprimano to time off without pay to discharge depending upon the severity and other circumstances of the particular Case.
With regard to contractors, we have as a general condition of GPUN contracts:
Contractors shall conduct the work in a systematic manner ano 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 recoraing of the quality control efforts. ,
l 1
\
RESPONSE TO INFORMATION REQUEST OF JUNE 14, 1984 Page 6 LETTER FROM DARRELL G. EISENHUT TO PHILIP R. CLARK June 29,1984 I .
GPUN review $ or audits most information 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 communications between its officers, employees, and contractors and the NRC are complete and at. curate.
GPUN's Response to the Parks' Allegations of Harassment: .
~
Edwin H. Stier was retained.by GPUN to investigate and report on the Parks' allegations, among others. Stier reported on Parks' allegation tnat he was replaced as alternate startup and test supervisor at page 1
( 79-81 of Volume IV of his report and 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 GPUN and Bechtel was performing its own inquiry to defend the US Department of Labor proceeding Parks hac initiatea, GPUN agreed with Bechtel that Stier would not independently investigate the relationship between Parks ana 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 aired in the DOL proceeding. 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 informed of its negotiation by Bechtel and executed a mutual release with Parks.
GPUN believes that Parxs' allegations of harassment have been adequately addressed.
._.__-,,______,_-__.___m,_.c___,m____m. . - . _ _ . . _ _ ,_
. j Enclosure 1 Nuclear Ggu Nuciear Cor,or te Policy and Procedure Manual Number 1000-POL-1020.01 l
Title Revision No.
Use of the Ombudsman Function for Resolving '
Nnelaar er Radiation Safety Concerns 2 Apphcabihty/ Scope Respons@e Office All GPU Nucleaf Corporation Employees and all Met-Ed and ,1CPLL Emolovees Workino Under GPUNC Supervision NSAD - 6300 This document is important to safety 0 YesO No Effective Date List of Effective Pages May 3, 1982 Page Revision 1.0 2 2.0 2 3.0 2 ,
4.0 2 l 6
( CONTROLLED DISTRIBUTION DOCUMENT SERIAL NUMBER 9 I
Signature Concumng Organizational Element g, Date Onginator Q4p[p, //gf8e[ Noelear Sa feev Assessment Director /W./[ 27]ff !
0"C""'d DY M[ (9 / Director, Nuclear Assurance f5 ff/2 '
"anater. Manager.ent Service 8- b-fL l
/ I
/ .
l I
l I
I g . .-
l
! #UD' "'O Y d[/. [* -
Of fice of the President f/27/p>c__
! M // l
e _ _ _ _ ._
N' umber Nuclear GPU Nuclear Corporate Policy and Procedure Manual 1000-POL-1020.01 Title Revision No.
Use of the dmbudsman Function for Resolving .
Nuclear or Radiation Safety Concerns 2 1.0 Purpose 1.1 The purpose of this policy statement is to:
1.1.1 Define the responsibilities of the Onbudsman, and 1.1.2 Describe the steps to be followed when an employee identifies a nuclear or radiation safety concern.
2.0 Acolicability/ 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.
I i
4.1.1 Accordingly, the Nuclear Safety Assessment Department (NSAD) has been directed to assess both the importance of these activitles and their impact on nuclear or radiation safety, and to recommend improvements where deficiencies are believed to exist.
i 4.2 All line 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.
se ii f '
I
l Number
". gggy GPU Nuclear Corporate Policy and Procedure Manual 1000-POL-1020.01
"* Use of the mbudsman Function for Resolving .
ReWeson No.
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 tha NSAD. The Ombudsman will receive, review and make appropriate recommendations on employee concerns about nuclear or radiation safety. In tiiTs 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 good reason
, to not want to use normal channels. '
4.2.3 By definition, an Chbudsman 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 i
except that'the Ombudsman will address the resolution of nuclear or radiation safety concerns.
4.3 Such ccncerns 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 tc 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 conversatiorr) and provide the originator, if identified, with an acknowledgement of receipt. This will include a target date for initiation of the review.
O
!2
Nurnber Nuclear GPU Nuclear Corporate goiicy and ,,oceeure sanuai iOOO p0t iO20.0i T.u.
Use of the Ombudsman Function for Resolving R avision No.
, Nuclear or Radiation Safety Concerns ,
2 i 4.3.2.1 The Ombudsman may appoint .a NSAD staff member to conduct the review and prepare 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 NSAD. 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. . i 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.
l 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 Resocnsibilities i
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 .
O 2 !
i a
Enclosure 2 Number Nuclear GPU Nuc lear Corporate Policy and Procedure Manual 1000-POL-1740.01 Title Revision No Employee Contact With Regulatory Agencies O Apphc.oihty, Scope ' Responsible Office Office of the All GPUNC Employees President - 1000 This document is import.nt to s.fety Cyes /No Ef fective D.te List of Effective P.ges 11/18/82 Page Revi sion 1.0 0 2.0 0 El-1 0 El-2 0 4
( CONTROLLED DISTRIBUTIO DOCUMENT SERIAL NUMBER-I s.on.ture ccncu,, ins o,..,,at,on.icem ,n, o.ie o,...n.to, n, ,,,., i concurr /WM -
Manager of Management Services / / - n -pg
- a u 7
i 1
A ll i s // .n j
Approvecer j President // f r f(
~
^*o 'a ' m 3,f f(D/(UdMu AYrlr
Number Nu21 ear GPu sociear Cor, orate Policy and Procedure Manual 1000-POL-1740.01 Title Revision No. .
Employee Contact Wi.th Regulatory Agencies 0 1.0 PURPOSE To establi'sh 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 DE FINITIONS 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 pe 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 SPONSIBILITIE S As defined in the attached exhibit.
6.0 RE FE RE NCE S GPUNC Policy,1000-POL-1020.01, " Ombudsman - Nuclear Safety."
7.0 ATTACHE NTS Exhibit 1, R. C. Arnold 10/9/81 Memo to Employees.
l 5
2 -
i l r l
l A0001050 3 8:
2.0
GPU Nuclear Corporate " #-
MUClear Policy and Procedure Manual 1000-POL-1740.01 Title -
Dnployee Corttact With Regulatory Agencies SOU Noeieer GPU 1uctear p'a
"'~<'~
ers'.coamy New Jo's"ey 070$a 20 2334 500 TELD 136 432 wnte's Direct Dias Nurmer October 9, 1931 Mr.. ..d* .. . . .
7.* ! ; a :. .
.'... .. . . , lU C14..
r
Dear Mr. .:
. ...a.l t The special deoends taherent in the utt11:stien of nuclear technology f lepose upon the Company additional responsibilities and asede not generally found in, other industrist situations. Because of the potential for the facilities to af fect the surrounding commnities, our erployees have a broader re sponsibility for diligent. capa ble and professional performance than just their obligation to the Company. For these same reasons, a large body of regulatory requiremente have developed.
i The obligation for compliance with these various requireensts esteeds to all et us. As the goverresent regulators carry out their responsibilities for assuries compliance, ther interact throughout the organisation.
Under these circumstances, we think it is helpful to reeind you of the Company policy on the relatteeship with the regulatory agencies and to provide you with esplicit guidance se this subject. Although what we are discuestag are legal requirements, please remember the objectives of the requiresents -
protection of public and employee health and safety. All of us, the Ceepeny tec.luded, have a self=1sterest with regard to these objectives. Indeed, the Caepony's interests are best served when it le clear to everyone that we are sincerely committed to fulfilling all of our obligattees inc.luding these that are embedled is regulatory requireeests.
With that background, we request you consider the following:
- 1. We have a legal as well as a moral *ebligettoe for our activities to be la compliance with all relevant laws and regulations. It le the pe!!cy of the Company to be la full eempliance with these requirements as a minimas and actively strive to achieve full compliance where they haw set been set.
- 2. Our status relative to Company and legal requiremente seeds to be clost and easily visible withis the ergentsation. To this end, employees are responsible for reporting to their supervisica conditione er situations that are not la accordance with Cot peny er legal requirements which they have ressen to believe that appropriate "
,, annagearnt personnel are set aware of. These censunications t
g GPU Nuctes' is a ca't of tne Geastai Puosic utisities Srsism I.
P**d"'s Na Nuclear GPU Nuciear Corporate pou cy ana proc or u noa, iooa.got-iuo.n Title Empioyee Contac~t With Reguiatory Agencies l
page 2 will flew acet reliably when there le generally as stasephere of openness and eaador. I alght sete that we recogatae circusatsases and personal considerations may occastosally sees to hamper comatestions withis the organisattee. Because of this. the CPU helear ergsatsation, established la Septsaber 1980, f aciudes the functies of Ombudsman withis the helear Safety Assessment Departeest for reporttag of taformaties or concorse la such tastances. has appropriate, reports to the Cabudsman are confidential.
- 3. It is Coopsey policy, and is some lastances a legal requiraamat as well, that we provide couplete sad timely discleevre when circwastaacea preveet full esepliaace vith the requironeata.
similarly, the Ceepsey will cooperate with the regulatory agencies la any ictpectisas er other reviews directed tenerd determistag the eratus of compliance. Employees aheald he straightforward, eyes and profeestenal la their interfacing with regulatory agency employees.
An esplayee may have taformaties that is potentially embarrassias to the Campany, but that should set inhabit providing that information to a representative of an outside agency that has a legittaste interest ,
la it.
- 4. He a represastative of a regulatory agency enants to talk with sa f adividual esployee about matters of interest to the agency, the representative has the right and the authority to pursue discussions, with the esployee. la the course of say disenestems, the employee is 3 less11y respessible for belas truthful. Se aqeacy should set carry
( est those discussicas at a time er to e asaser that kleders the esployee from fulf1111ag assigned work respeaathilities. Se esplayee suet esercise his judgment as to the cartunatances and reopend !
accordingly (checking with supervieles if appropriate). Aloe, whos a l private asterview with en employee has been requested by a repre- j eestative of a regulatory agency it has frequently been their policy ;
to permit the esplayee to be accompanied by someone of the employee's I choice during the interview, to record the interview er to consider other requesta by an esployee that will facilitate proceedtage with the laterview. If a representative of a regulatory agency aska en employee far as interview, the employee should met besitate to request from the agency representative as esplanation of the availability of these er other options prior to proceedlag with the 1starview. Sie regneet should be made if the employee has any esacern se to the purpose er reason for the interview.
4aste, the interests of the Caseene, its emplevees. sad the public are best s e rve d by an open and cocoerettre attitude and honesty la our interactions with the severnmental eteneses respeastble for terulatica eur vertous activittee. We espect your active support la fulfilling these espects of our pubite and corporate respoesittitties.
Stacerely.
1.C. Arnold j .
Oilef Operattag Enocutive
.e.
a Revis 0n Ei-2 No. 0 l
IntcrOffico Mcmarcndum Enclosure 3
' Date April 13,1983 g Subject T3 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 Of rectors, 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- e 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 common objective is to Ct.EAN UP Three Mile Island Unit 2 IN A SAFE MANNER t 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 performance of so many.
t Inherent in the commitment 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 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 Cogany will be investigating fully the concerns raised by Mr. Gischel as well as those recently expressed by others. It is essential that every mem-p (over)
l I
ber of the organizati'on behave in a professional manner in all their activi- I 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 beind done in ~an unsafe manner.
f '.
I v L,H .
R. C. ld -
President slm
' e e
o O
em O
- - - . - - . - - , , , , . - - - - - _ . , .- ...n-- --n--
1 o
Enclosure 4 j i
s i
OPU Nucleat Corporation j 100 interpace Parkway Q gf Parsippany,New Jersey 07054 201 263 6500
- TELEX 136 482 Writer's Direct Dial Number:
February 27, 1984 (201) 263-6797 TO: ALL GPU SYSTEM EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN NUCLEAR ACTIVITIES
SUBJECT:
SOME IMPLICATIONS OF THE INDICTMENT OF METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
- FOR PREACCIDENT ACTIVITIES AT TMI-2 The recent Federal indictment of the Metropolitan Edison Company on charges relating to preaccident activities at THI-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 establishment of GPU Nuclear, its Mission has been clear:
{
" Manage 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.
j 1. The License requires that we abide by or meet Federal laws, NRC ringulations, 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 .
I r
I -
2-
- 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 detemine 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 is-
' proper or incapable of meaningfully achieving its purpose, it must be identified and we must get the question resolved. We i
must not " live with" or continue questionable practicies. 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 n'ot 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 1 . Coolant Inventory Balance Test.
o They did not keep all test data.
o For tests they considered invalid, they did not document & it was considered invalid.
The point for us is: .-
o We will follow our procedures. This has been emphasized time and again. We also have defined how to change a procedure which is believed to be unworkable of wrong.
- 3. They did not infom the NRC:
o Jhat they were having difficulty getting good test results, and 0 Of the conclusion (by some or many) that the test was not meaningful. ,
I
-3 The point for us is:
o In addition to identifying issues internally, we will keep the NRC fully iaformed of problems, diff,1culties, and questions.
None of these points is new--all of them have been stated and emphasized !
repeatedly over the last several years.
Complying with them is important to help ensure we operate our plants safely. 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. Will ful, knowing failure to comply will make the individual subject to discharge.
kb- ,
P. R. Clark President cc: Mr. R. O. Keim, Vice President, Human Resources Meted
[ Mr. J. J. Westervelt, Vice President, Human Resources, JCP&L 9
1 e
i
- i ,
~, , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . - . -
Enclosure 5 Nuclear memorandum hwcet: Lessons Learned from Situation At THI-2 Date: May 21,1984 (Subject of. Stier's 'Whistleblowers')
FGm: P.R. Clark, President Location:
To: Chaiman, GORB Director, Administration Director, Consnunications Director, Human Resources Director, Maintenance & Construction Director, Nuclear Assurance Director, Oyster Creek Director, Radiological & Environmental Controls Director, Technical Functions Director, THI-l Director, THI-2 Attached for your information and discussion with your staff is a paper developed on the above subject.
P.R. Clark PRC/mak attachment cc: Executive Vice Presidenc O
m h 8
Nuclear memorandum .
~
..oject: 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 THI-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 employee
( assistance. Written guidelines on confidentiality are part of the arrangments with these contractors.
P.R. Clark PRC/mak attachment l
Ao000648 903
- i LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE ~
EVENTS AND SITUATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE STIER REPF.T
- 1. Management must be alert to the overall attitudes and inte'ractions of the organ.iaation and must assure that organizational and people issues ar.e being effectively addressed. Continuing conflicts and disputes within the organization need to be understood, dealt with, 1
- and resolved openly and promptly. Appropriate resources are to be i 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 i
is a judgment to be exercised by all supervisors and managers in accepting different opinions, allowing discussions, and then temi-nating the debate or dispute and going ahead with appropriate actions.
SUINARY: Open discussion on technical issues is to be encouraged.
4 However, each employee must understand his role and the limits of
! that position. The appropriate manager has the ultimate responsi-bility to exercise control, terminate a dispute, and take appropriate j action including advising those involved of the basis for such action.
- 3. BACXGROUND:,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 perfomed. As an y example, if all groups had had a proper understanding of 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.
I SU!!!tARY: The various groups involved in a task siould have a common
! understanding of the applicable procedures under which the task will l
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 huclear and 8echtel organizations view-ing each cther more from an organizational background rather than as individuals. GPU Nuclear and Bechtel Executive Management have ,
instituted, through the Organizational Development Program, a management direction to overcome these differences.
f SU!EARY: Individuals from different organizations need to work in close cooperation with each other with open, unambiguous coramunica-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 treatea as differences due to their organizational background or personality conflicts.
i
' ,/
- l .-
i 4
- 5. BACKGROUND: Some of the concerns of voiced by certain personnel may have been causa' d due to their personal perception of other parts of the organization competing heavily against them personally, or their j g roup 's. -
I
SUMMARY
- A certain amount of competition between groups is to be expected and, inceed, encouraged for overall efficiency of the pro-i ject. However, excessive competition or "oneupmanship" between j groups should not be tolerated.
- 6. BACXGROUND: 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.
SUMttARY: 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 .
l should be taken.
- 7. BACKGROUND: All employees need to clearly understand and appreciate the problems created by written comunications that are not written i ( in a professional manner. '
i
SUMMARY
- Both' internal and external communications such as letters, -
l memos, reports, etc. must be written in a professional, unambiguous i raanner stating facts and clearly identifying opinions where opinions are expressed. Under no circumstances should such comunications in-I clude attacks on an individual's motives, personal capabilities, lack l of inowledge, etc. If there is concern about such items, it should be brought to the attention of appropriate management where action, j if appropriate, will be taken.
- 8. BACKGROUND: Any differences in treatment of employees after returning ,
from major illnesses, unless properly documented and justified, could
! result in misunderstandings.
l
- SultttARY
- An appropriate corporate policy should define the type of i 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 coments from Stress Control to certain employees and by referral of employees to Stress Control. ,
u________.. . _ _ _ _ .. _
i SU!EARY: 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-12ations wil.1 comr.iunicate such infomation to GPU Nuclear. Such a statement should then be published and available to all employees 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. BACKGROUl10: There were instances in' which personnel failed to follow through on relevant infomation made known to them.
SUtNARY: All employees have an obligation to discharge their duties in a thorough, professional manner. Failure of an employee to act accordingly is unacceptable.
i May 7,1984 f
? .
I m
--._____._,___..,-......,_.---.-__.m_
i M Enclosure 6 GPU Nuclear Corporation FtjNuclear .
- =c,tn= s Mica:etown.Perinsylvarus 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 RESPONSIBILITIES Nuclear generiting 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 comand 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, ha w the primary management responsibility until. properly relieved, for the safe operation of the plant uncer 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 abnomal 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 the 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 i 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 subsic:ary of the General Pubhc utilities Corporation i
l
February 2, 1984
. 3000-84-096 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. Furtner, 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 I conditions and the prospect for further degradation in the situation.
In any abncmal event or unusual occurrence, whether or not it falls into one of the emergency event classifications, it is also of the utmost importance l that the Communications Division's Duty Representative be informed as soon as possible. It is essential that the Comunications Division receive early notif,1 cation 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 .
most important element in executing your responsibility to protect under all conditions, the health and safety of the public, the personnel on your shift, and the safe operation of plant systems and components under noma 1, off I normal, and accident conditions.
, This letter replaces and supersedes our letter to you, same subject, dated May 25,1983.
' [.
N. D. Hux111 P. R. Clark Vice President & Director, TMI-I President PRC/HDH/KIR/dds cc: M. J. Ross, Manager, Plant Operations TMI-I R. J. Toole, Operations and Maintenance Director TMI-I CARIRS - TMI
Enclosure 7 GPU Noeiear
(
U s any. ew Je s y 07054 201 263-6500 i TELEX 13&a82 Writer's Direct Dial Numeer:
December 8, 1983 (201) 263-6797 TO:
GPU SYSTD4 D(PLOYEES ASSIGNED TO NUCLEAR ACTIVITIES Last week Mr. Kuhns announced changes in the Board of Directors and the Office of the President of GPU Nuclear Corporation.
I know all of you share with me deep appreciation for
- Bob Arnold's unstinting since the accident efforts and leadership during the nearly five years at TMI-2. That period has seen the establishment and staffing of GPU Nuclear Corporatten and placed us in a sound position to push forward to reach the major goals we have set.
l The changes Mr. Kuhns announced. when added to other major l steps taken during the last four years, are intended to strengthen our ability to perform in a professional manner and to provide to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission a sound basis for authorizing the Restart of TMI-1 without Commissionawaiting Staff. resolution of the "open issues identified by the
' responsibility of the MRC. Action on authorizing Restart of Unit 1 is the We will continue to urge them to act promptly.
However, as I begin my assignment as president of GPU Nuclear Corporation.
I want to reemphasize the importance of meeting our responsibilities.
meeting all of GPUourNuclear Corporation must continue to be fully committed to responsibsittzes.
ofour of ouremployees.
activities so as to protect the health and safety of the public andPrimary Under our license, and our agreement with the owners of GPU's nuclear plants. GPU Nuclear Corporation and the Metropolitan Edison i
and Jersey sobering Central employees assigned to our nuclear sites have that very responsibility.
or herself to meeting that responsibility.Each of usdirectly It comes must fully fromaccept the factand devote him that we have chosen to engage in nuclear power generation with its inherent potential for serious consequences to public health and safety. Our Job is to assure that risk is kept acceptably low.
O .
i l
The owners and our Board of Directors have made clear the ~
overriding Missten states: importance they place on fulfilling that responsibility. Our "M'anage and direct the nuclear activities of the GPU System to provide the required high level of protec-tion for the health and safety of the public and the employees.
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 out 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.
The first .
ones in keeping With the responsibility we bear.is that we must set our own standa They must encompass and exceed the regulatory requirements. We must actively seek excellence.
both within the Thecomsecond is the need to have fg 1 and open communications--
[ problems, concerns,pany and between us and our regulators. In particular.
openly. and uncertainties need to be identified and addressed I stand ready believe is not being adequately to discuss with any of you any safety concern you addressed.
The third is rigorous and faithful adherence to all of our requirements and standards as a minimum.
Our success responsibilities. depends on everyone faithfully fulfilling thete In accepting election to the position of president, GPU Nuclear do so. ICorporation, I have committed myself to the Board of Directors to ask each of you to do likewise.
have promised Thetheir members of the GPU and GPU Nuclear Boards of Directors full support. Mr. Kintner, Executive Vice President, joins me in pledging to you our very best efforts.
Very truly' yours, R l' .
P. R. Clark President
l Enclosure 8 i MuClear .
Memorandum
~
CLARITY AND EXPLICITNESS OF Subj:ct: PLANS AND COMMITMENTS Date: SepteTber 1, 1983 From: P. R. Clark, Executive Vice President Location: Headquarters Tc: P. B. Fiedler, Director, Oyster Creek I. R. Finfrock, Chairman, GORBs W. L. Gifford, Director, Communications R. 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. T.cng, Director, Nuclear Assurance F. F. Manganaro, Director, Maintenance & Construction D. G. Murray, Director, Human Resources R. F. Wilson, Director, Technical Functions r
Recently I have been -involved in two situations where we had made
/. commitments where what was understood and intended by those writing
\ the:n was substantially different (and less meaningful) than most, if not all,readdrs (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 management, 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 membert 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.
2. .
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 sularittals, I have charged Licensing s.magulatory Affairs to particularly look for this and require appropriate correcticrts.
P. R. Clark
(?
- Yr Executive vice President Pk cc: Mr. R. C. Arnold b
J O
WD 9
0
Enclosure 9 M. Nuclear memorandum .
2 .ct: REPORTABILITY OF INFORMATION RELATIVE TO Date: May 15,1984 ISSUES UNDER REVIEW BY LICENSING BOARDS OR NRC STAFF Fr m : P. R. Clark, President Location: HQ To: R. P. Fasulo Director, Administration P. B. Fiedler, Director, Oyster Creek I. R. Finfrock, Chaiman, GORBs W. L. Gifford, Director, Comunications R. W. Heward, Director, Radiological & Environmental Controls H. D. Hukill, Director, THI-l B. K. Kanga, Director, THI-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:
Mf 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
(
l 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 l requirements, of course, apply to all of our licensed activities--TMI-1, THI-2, Oyster Creek, and Saxton.
Accordingly, 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 tnitial detemination of reportability.
l
- 3. Confim to them that the Licensing Manager for the plant involvec is to be provided copies of any documents they consider reportable.
A0000648 8 83
I ,
j i
. .g. .
6 In addition, it is requested tnat the Director, Technical Functions develop '
Corporate policy and procedure guidance for this matter in accordance with Corporate Policy 1218.01.
0-<)
P. R. Clark President pfk cc: E. E. Kintner, Executive Vice President
. e e
m 9
Nuclear memorandum
~
I Date: October 19, 1983 TMI-1 RESTART PROM DINGS:
OBLIGAT10N'TO REPOET TO THE NRC -
ADDITIONAL CUIDANCE ,
ENNM: Locaton:
F. R. Clark HQ Distribution This memorandum provides additional guidance for implementing my memorandus dated July 22, 1983 on the esse subject. .
Preliminary legal review indicates that for information to be reportable, it must be both " relevant" and " material". Working definitions of these terms are Relevant - means to relate to the issue. .
Materiaf - means to have probative weight, i.e., reasonably likely to a influance the tribunal in making a determination required to be made.
(' A statement may be relevant but not asterial.
With regard to 'the TMI-1 Restart Hearing, the issues can be summarised as follower A. Energency Planning issues
. 1. Organisation of energency response organisation
- 2. Accident assessment and dose projection
- 3. Public education, warning and energency instructions 4 Protective action and decision asking
- 5. Training drills and audits
- 6. Facilities
- 3. Management Issues
. 1. Organisation (GPUN Corperate and TMI-1)
- 2. Training of licensed and non-licensed operator (content, administration and facilities) 3 Maintenance (Safety Related) 4 Safety review and operational advice '
- 5. Quality Assurance
- 6. Key personnel 7 Operating experience review a
4 i
, l l
l 1
i TMI-l RESTART PROCEEDINGS: October 19, 1983 ~ !
OBLIGATION TO REPORT TO THE NRC Page 2 )
ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE-i I
C. Plant Modification / Design Issues l 1
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.
Ralevance and Materiality relative to the Restart Hearing should then be judged against those issues and the Hearing Record on them.
For any other item where we have a pending issue before the NRC (such as a license amendment) the relevancy and materiality are to be sessured 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 resppusible to assure initial review and determination of a 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 -
Department Director
- 5. TDRs - Responsibility - Director, Technical Functions
- 6. .GORB Developed Document - Responsibility - Chairman, GOR 3s l 7. B&W Letters or other outside correspondence - Responsibility -
Director, Engineering Projects and Director, Engineering & Design For documents in Category I developed hereafter, there should be a means provided to show on the document that reportability has been evaluated.
A stamp with space to initial as "Not Reportable", " Reportable", or
" Referred to Licensing" would be one such means.
II. Documents less likely to be reportable include:
- 1. Normal working papers - Proceduresf Analyses, Specifications, Drawings, etc.
- 2. Limited scope items - MNCRs, receiving reports, etc.
- 3. Preliminary Safety Concerns 4 Draf t documents where a final is reasonably expected in a short time.
The preparer and his line management are responsible to make the initial ,
determination of reportability.
/
/ TMI-l. RESTART PROCEEDINGS: October 19, 1983
' OBLIGATION TO REPORT TO THE NRC Fage 3 -
ADDITIONAL CUIDANCE, Where the review described above shows some indication of 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 TAI-1 Licensing (C. W. Smyth) and all others sent to FWR Licensing in Parsippany (J. S. Wetmore). The area of concern should be clearly identified.
P. R. Clark Executive Vice President pfk 1
l 9
. ~
DISTRIBUTION
.- R. C. Arnold, President E. Blake, Esquire, Shaw Fittman, Fotts & Trowbridge Richard J. Conte, Senior NRC Resident, TMI-1 I. R. Finfrock, Chairman, GORBs W. L. Gifford, Director, Communications R. W. Heward, Director, Radiological & Environmental Controls E. D. Mukill, 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, TKI-l Licensing Manager J. S. Wetmore, Manager, FWR Licensing
- 1. F. Wilson, Director, Technical Functions O
l' O
O m
S
m . Intor-@ffico Momerendum Oqte JuAy 22, 1983 gm -
TNI-l RESTART PROCEEDINGS:
St GLIGATION TO REPORT TO THE NRC BETA AND RRR REPORTS To J Location Headquarters /Parsippany Directors: Ccamunications Radiological & Environmental Controls TMI-l Administration Nuclear Assurance Maintenance s cotatruction Technical Functions Osairman, GORBs The enclosed memorandum from Guy H. Cunningham, III, Executive legal Director to Harold Denten discusses the obligations we have to report information to the NRC. It provides Mr. Cunningham's le.yal opinien as to the general basis for the obligations and the conclusion that we were obliged to provide both the BETA and RHR Reports.
The menorandum seems to define an obligation substantially broader (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.
1 However, in the interim, the following steps are to be taken l 1. The attached opinion is to be provided to and discussed with your i managers and professional staff.
- 2. TMI-l Licensing is assigned responsibility to review documents they are aware of and any others brought to their attention and make a l determination regarding the obligation to provide. *
- 3. All copies of TMI-1 related documents of the following classes are to be provided to TMI-l Licensing for review:
o QA Audits ,
o Reports of any audit or review by outside organizations o Radiological Assessor Reports '
o E Rs o CORE Minutes 400oossa
-~ =
/o
- TMI-l mzSTART PROCEEDINGS:
WLICATICN TO REPORT TO DIE NRC P293 2 BETA AND RHR REPORTS July 22, 1983 I 4. Any other doctament you or your staff considers potentially reportable under the opinion is to be provided to TMI-1 Licensing for r'eview 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 submittal 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$ Of d.Lb )
P. R. Clark Executive Vice President Pk
Enclosures:
Guy E. 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 eum O
4' i ^
^-
t
$4 Kf Gg 0 . _
D f o, UNITED STATES
,f, !"
Q j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- w Asm NGTON. D. C. 20555 t a g- p~ -
NAR 0 41986 _ j37 Docket No. 50-320 License No. OPR-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 MONETM Y 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 determined 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 (S64,000).
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 l
s Jdme [s [M. Tayl N,[ Director l Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Enclosure:
'/
, Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty ,
CERTIFIED MAIL RETIRN RECEIPI REQUESTED l .
l l
.7 UNITED STATES
(
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the matter of
~
)
) Docket No. 50-320 GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION ) 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 Comission (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 20,19'/9.
II 1
j 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, I
and commencing a proceeding with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). The acts '
of discrimination were described in a DOL investigation (00L Case 83-ERA-8) that was reviewed during an NRC 01 investigation (OI 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 l
l
~'
C i
i I Penalty (N0h)wasserveduponthelicenseebyletterdatedAugust 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 (564,000) penalty proposed for the violation designated in the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty is proper and should be imposed.
l 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 Enforcement, U. S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C. 20555.
L i
.r. -
( 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 Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, D. C. 20555. A copy of the hearing request also shall be sent to the Executive Legal Director, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, D. C. 20555.
If a hearing is requested, the Comission 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'0rder I
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.
r 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
//
.es M. Taylo , Director fice of Inspection and Enforcement Dated at Bethesda, Maryland 2 1a 4 (49ru R7_ D re e E%d
.?
?
j APPENDIX EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION The licensee's October 21, 1985 response to the 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 Comission 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 comencing 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 i
trying to implicate him in a conflict-of-interests charge because he had reported safety concerns. He also initiated a proceeoing 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 (00L Case 83-ERA-8) which was reviewed during an NRC OI investigation (OI Report l H-83-002), and discussed in Section 10 of NUREG-0680, Supplement 5.
I This is a Severity Level II violation (Supplement VII).
(Civil Penalty - 564,000) l 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 investigated 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)
I (hereinafter the Stier Report and the Bechtel Report, respectively).
e
) -
(
Appendix 2 Further, the licensee emphasizes that these investigations took place after the D0L investigation and that they were substantially more detailed than the DOL 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 THI-2 organization. Specifically, the licensee argues that the 00L 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 Becht?l 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 h 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 l 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 I 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.
I
O d ( Appendix 3 After reviesing 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.
(
l l
Q e
l GPU Nuclear Corporation 4'
( Distribution PDR LPDR ~ '
NSIC -
SECY CA ACRS JTaylor, IE RVollmer, IE TMurley, RI JAxelrad, IE EHoller, IE JLieberman, ELD JSniezek, DED/ROGR FIngram, PA GJohnson, RM HDenton, NRR RStark, NRR BHayes, 01 GEdles 0IA JCrooks,, AE0D EJordan, IE JPartlow, IE BGrimes IE WTravers, NRR WRussell, NRR
( ES File EA File ED0 Rdg File Public Utility Commission Ms. Mary Southard, Co-Chairman Citizens for a Safe Environment T. H. Gerusky, Director Bureau of Radiation Protection Harrisburg, PA 17120 1
I i
.-.-r - - - - --- r - -r -- - - - - - - - - " - - --- -
l
/'
k f
' 7 L.
s:
e e GPU Nuclear Corporation 100lnterpace Parkway Parsippany.New Jersey 07054
( NUCI F 201 263 6500 TELEX 136 482
. Writer's Direct Osal Number.
March 20, 1986 (201)263-6797 4410-86-L-0054 Mr. James M Taylor, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
Dear Mr. Taylor:
~
THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NO. 2
SUBJECT:
DOCKET N0. 50-320, EA N0.84-137 REQUEST FOR HEARING IN RESPONSE TO ORDER IMPOSING CIVIL MONETARY PENALTY Your Order of March 4,1986 requires that GPU Nuclear Corporation pay a civil penalty for alleged violation of NRC requirements or request a hearing on whether the alleged violation occurred and whether the March 4
( Order should be sustained.
The violation alleged was discrimination in 1983 against Richard D. Parks, As I a Bechtel employee assigned to TMI-2, for raising safety concerns.
stated in my October 21, 1985 letter:
"GPU Nuclear denies the allegations in the Notice of Violation.
i GPU Nuclear views such allegations with the utmost seriousness. .
Harassment and intimidation have never been and are not now Such conduct is inconsistent with the tolerated by GPU Nuclear. GPU Corporate Mission and Corporate Objectives and Goals.
Nuclear has longstanding formal mechanisms, such as its Ombudsman program, specifically designed to ensure that any l
employee of GPU Nuclear or of its subcontractors feels free to l
' raise any safety concern without fear of reprisal. This objective has been emphasized and reemphasized by GPU Nuclear management, both before and after Mr. Parks' allegations."
Our letter of October 21, 1985' stated that, "the vast bulk of the evidence" persuades us that the allegations of discrimination were untrue.
and that management actions concerning Mr. Parks were responsible and appropriate. In supporting that view, we summarized and analyzed substantial evidence provided largely by our contractor, Bechtel, and l
(
ORG @Gneral Public Utihties Corporation
l A Mr. Jamcs M. T aylor Page 2
(
supported 'uy 6r. outside investigator, Edwin Stier. We have reviewed the evaluation and conclusion accompanying your March 4 Order and remain convinced tirat our prior assessment was valid. Therefore, since we are
'mable in good conscience to agree that the alleged violations occurred, we hereby request the hearing afforded by your March 4,' 1986 Order.
In requesting the hearing, we are, of course, fully cognizant of the fact that a full-scale adjudicatory proceeding, following document and other discovery, is likely to impose personnel and economic burdens upon the Commission and GPU Nuclear out of proportion to the civil penalty involved. On the other hand, we cannot accept responsibility for a charge which in our view is unsubstantiated. We would welcome an opportunity to discuss the matter in any appropriate manner in an effort to narrow and resolve our differences if feasible either before or after this matter is assigned to a presiding officer for hearing.
Respectfully submitted, Sf.
P. R. Clark President l pfk 1207 cc: Guy H. Cunningham, Executive Legal Director, USNRC H. W. Wahl, Bechtel Power Company 4
i