ML20198R004

Investigation Rept 50-278/1-85-019 on 851016-1203.Violation Noted:Health Physics Technician Terminated Due to Allegations Made to NRC of Overexposure to Radioactivity

ML20198R004
Person / Time
Site:	Peach Bottom
Issue date:	05/06/1986
From:	Hayes B, Matakas R, Charlotte White NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI)
To:
Shared Package
ML20198Q951	List: ML20198Q947 ML20198R004
References
50-278-1-85-019, 50-278-1-85-19, NUDOCS 8606090434
Download: ML20198R004 (4)

Text

_ __ _ _ _ - - _ _

ATTACHMENT 2

Title:

PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION:

ALLEGED THREATS TO EMPLOYEES TO PREVENT DISCLOSURE OF POSSIBLE OVEREXPOSURE TO NRC Licensee: Case Number: 1-8S-019 Philadelphia Electric Conpany Report Date: MAY 6, 1986 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 Control Office: 01:RI Docket No.- 50-278 Status: CLOSED Reported By: Reviewed By:

A Richard A. Matatas, Investiaator Chester W. Whita, Director

(  ;

Office of Investigations Office of Investigations Field Office, Region I Field Office Ragion I

]

Approv y:

I J

'F l OfficeofInvestig{atonsBen b. Hayes, Dire ;/ ~ r 1

8606090434 G60b20 PDR ADOCK 05000278 G PDR

(

SYNOPSIS On September 13, 1985, the Regional Administrator, Region I, requested that an Inquiry be initiated concerning alleged intimidation of a Bartlett Nuclear, Incorporated (BNI), Senior Health Physicist (HP) technician involved in protected activity at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), Delta, Pennsylvania. The Philadelphia Electric Company (PECO) is the licensee who ~

contracts with dNI for HP technicians. The Inquiry was changed to a full investigation after the technician's employment was terminated at the PBAPS on October 4,1985, allegedly as a result of his involvement in protected activity.

The allegation was received by the NRC on August 2, 1985, from a source (CONFIDENTIALITY GRANTED) employed at the PBAPS. The source identified a BNI HP technician, hereinafter referred to as the alleger, as being involved in an incident on March 1,1985, in the PBAPS, Unit 3, recombiner offgas tunnel wherein he may have received an overexposure. The source indicated the alleger, after discussing his concerns with both BNI and PEC0 supervision, was threatened with dismissal if he further pursued his radiological concerns.

In response to the allegation, the NRC Region I conducted a special unannounced inspection at the PBAPS, Unit 3, on August 6-7, 1985, addressing, among other things, the technical aspects of the March 1,1985, incident in the Unit 3 recombiner offgas tunnel. As part of the inspection, the Region I Inspectors interviewed the alleger and subsequently informed 0I:RI that there may be some substance to the intimidation allegation. The inspector said the alleger appeared to be very apprehensive about the interview and refrained from making any direct charges.

The Region I Inspection Report documented that no overexposure occurred during the March 1,1985, incident. However, the Inspection Report noted that "no evidence" was found to support the conclusion in the licensee's Discrepancy Report that the alleger's survey meter had malfunctioned due to moisture and high hu'nidity and no overexposure had occurred.

Subsequent interviews with the alleger, BNI, and PECO supervisors determined that several days prior to the NRC unannounced inspection, PECO supervision and management met with the alleger and his supervisor on two occasions to discuss his concerns. At the second meeting, the PECO Senior HP told the allager that he had not received an overexposure and that his survey meter had gone offscale as a result of a temporary malfunction caused by moisture and high humidity. The alleger testified he thought the explanation "was a bunch of bull" but did not dispute the explanation because he " thought he might get fired over the whole matter." The PECO Field HP Supervisor testified that he reviewed the Discrepancy Report in early August 1985, and he did not think the evaluation was accucate. However, he said he did not dispute the evaluation with the PECO Senior HP, his boss.

The PECO ALARA Supervisor (who also reports to the PECO Senior HP) testified that after the departure of the alleger and his BNI supervisor during one of the July meetings, a discussion ensued between himself, the PEC0 Field HP Supervisor, and the PECO Senior HP. According to the ALARA Supervisor, they discussed the " chances" of the alleger going to the "Connission" and the Case No. 1-85-019 1

( .

" bottom line result of the discussion" was that they would not terminate the alleger's employment "at this time." The ALARA Supervisor further stated that during this same time period, he was present when the PECO Senior HP questioned whether PEC0 could use the alleger effectively as an HP if he did go to the NRC with his concerns.

The BNI Assistant Site Coordinator testified that shortly after the afore-mentioned meeting, the PECO Senior HP told him, "I want [the alleger] to go in ] I the first group of lay offs." The PECO Senior HP testified he did not "think" he made the above statement. However, he said he did question the alleger's I

technical ability with his subordinates, the Field HP Supervisor and/or the  !

ALARA Supervisor, and told them that he was not so sure that the alleger was what PECO needed at the PBAPS.

In mid September 1985, PECO held a third meeting with the alleger and the BNI '

Site Coordinator. Testimony from those who attended this meeting indicates l that PECO management infomed the alleger that he should take his concerns through his chain of comand before taking them to the NRC. >

The alleger testified that within days following the above mentioned meeting, the BNI Site Coordinator infomed him that he was being laid off effective October 4, 1985, because of "too many sick days." The alleger opined that his lay off was a result of his pursuing his exposure concerns. The BNI Site  ;

Coordinator testified that the PECO Field HP Supervisor directed him to lay  !

off the alleger and one other BNI technician for "too many sick days."

A review of BNI personnel records and interviews with PECO supervision / I!

management determined that the PECO Field HP Supervisor had targeted seven BNI technicians to be laid off for, what he identified as, excessive sick day absenteeism (11 days or more during a nine month period). The PEC0 Field HP Supervisor termed 11 days of sick leave during a nine month period as "a glaring excess of absenteeism." However, only three of the seven technicians were laid off. Between September 8 and November 1, 1985, 28 BNI technicians left employment at the PBAPS. Only three of these tenninations were based solely on excessive use of sick leave. -Interviews with onsite BNI supervisors and the PECO ALARA Supervisor determined that PECO lay offs of Bartlett technicians based solely on sick leave was inconsistent with the current and past reduction-in-forces (RIF) at the PBAPS.

The NRC Resident Inspector at PBAPS advised that sometime prior to the current RIF, the PECO Field HP Supervisor infomed him that the upcoming RIF of BNI HP technicians would be based on job performance. The BNI Assistant Site Coordi-nator testified that sometime during the Sumer of 1985, the PEC0 Field HP Supervisor questioned him about the alleger's work performance and he described the alleger as "a good HP" who missed more than the normal amount of work days. He testified that he could not recall ever having to counsel the alleger about absenteeism and there was nothing in the alleger's personnel file to indicate absenteeism had been identified as a problem. Additional interviews of BNI and PECO HPs did not produce any derogatory information relating to the alleger's job performance.

The PECO Field HP Supervisor testified that when the current RIF began in early September 1985, his goal was to lay off two to four people per week.

BNI personnel records reflect, for the most part, this goal was followed with Case No. 1-85-019 2

I l an exception being the week of September 29 through October 6, 1985, the week the alleger and one other BNI technician were terminated for excessive use of sick days. During this week, eight other BNI HP technicians were either terminated for cause, resigned, or accepted a voluntary lay off. Two other i BNI technicians attempted to resign but agreed to work one additional week at the request of the PEC0 Field HP Supervisor. In addition, fourJnew BNI technicians were hired by the PEC0 Field HP Supervisor. ,

The PECO Superintendent of Plant Services testified that during September 1985, the Field HP Supervisor informed him "that when HP technicians either resigned or were otherwise terminated, they would not be replaced unless there were some special qualifications" the new hire possessed which PECO needed at the time. He said he was not aware that four new technicians were hired or the specifics of the other personnel changes which took place during the week

the alleger was laid off. Interviews determined that the four 1ew technicians did not possess any special qualifications.

Testimony of the Field HP supervisor indicated he. knew the PECO 3enior HP did not want the alleger working at PBAPS and on one occasion heard him refer to the alleger as an " asshole" who should not be working at PBAPS. However, he said the alleger's lay off was his decision and he did not "believe" that the alleger's termination was a disciplinary act for engaging in NRC protected activity. The Field HP Supervisor indicated he directed the alleger's lay off due to his strong feeling about " absenteeism and punctuality," despite his failure to follow through with the lay offs of four other BNI technicians who also had what he termed " excessive" absentgeism.

The PECO Senior HP testified that it was " conceivable" that his subordinate, the PEC0 Field HP Supervisor, directed the alleger be laid off because he knew the PECO Senior HP was dissatisfied with the alleger's " technical ability or inability."

Testimony by PEC0 management indicates the alleger's employment termination was due, in part, to their perception that the alleger had contacted the NRC which left them with the impression that the alleger was not capable of understanding basic technical aspects of his job because they felt they had

addressed his overexposure concerns prior to the inspection. However, as -

! already pointed out in the NRC inspection report, the licensee's Discrepancy Report failed to show evidence supporting their conclusion that no overexposure occurred. Additionally, testimony from both a PECO supervisor and the BNI Assistant Site Coordinator document that PECO had contemplated terminating the alleger's employment prior to being notified of the unannounced NRC inspection on August 6-7, 1985.

i The testimony and documentary evidence obtained during this investigation conclude 'that, but for his " protected activity," the alleger's employment at the PBAPS would not have been terminated by BNI (at PECO's direction) on October 4, 1985, in violation of 10 CFR 50.7.

During the course of this investigation, a second allegation was brought to the NRC's attention concerning possible discriminatory acts directed at the alleger by PECO relating to his attempts to gain employment at another nuclear facility. There was insufficient evidence developed to substantiate this allegation.

Case No. 1-85-019 3

. , - , , -_. ._ , ,_.__._.__________._..__,_..__,.d_ _ , _ _ _ . _ _ . _ - , ._. . _ _ , . - - _ , . , - _ . , _ _ _ _ . , _ _ _ . _ , , _