ML20234F313
| ML20234F313 | |
| 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 | |
| ML20234F281 | List: |
| References | |
| 1-85-019, 1-85-19, NUDOCS 8707080176 | |
| Download: ML20234F313 (153) | |
Text
. . _ / . . . , . , . . .; ._ m .,.___ . . . . _ . . '~ ;. _ _ . a a.a . . . . .. w <. a . . 2 ;
I . J i
~
Title:
PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION:
. -s \
ALLEGED THREATS TO EMPLOYEES TO PREVENT DISCLOSURE OF POSSIBLE j l OVEREXPOSURE TO NRC j
i Licensee: Case Number: 1-85-019 !
i l Philadelphia Electric Company Report Date: MAY 6, 1986 2301 Market Street 1 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 Control Office: 01:RI Docket No.: 50-278 Status: CLOSED 1
Reported By: Reviewed By:
h Richard A. Matakas, Investigator
\,
Chetter W. White, Director i Office of Investigations Office of Investigations Field Office, Region I Field Office Region I Approv y:
i Beh B. Hayes, Dir -
- F 7
Office of Investi t ons I,
WARNING The attached document / report has not been reviewed pursuant to 10 CFR subsection 2.790(a) exemptions nor has any exempt meterial been deleted. Dn not disseminate or discuss its contents outside NRC. Treat as "0FFICIAL USE ONLY."
87070soj76 860922 PDR nDDCK 05000277 O PDR
~ . . ,.....; ......:, ' -
m:r. - . . . . -. . . . a ;
)
ACCOUNTABILITY l
The following portions of this ROI (Case No. 1-85-019) will not be included in !
the material placed in the PDR. They consist of pages 4 through 32 .
1
.i.
i i
1' s
f l,
l i
l O
1 l
l i
l l
o l
i
, 4 l _____.______-._________________J
~ .) '
1 SYNDPSIS On September 13, 1985, the Regional Administrator, Region I, requested that an )
Inquiry be initiated concerning alleged intimidation of a Bartlett Nuclear, i 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 li & nsee who contracts with BNI 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 1 activity. , _ . , ,
The allegation was received by the NRC on August 2,1985, from a source (CONFIDENTIALITY GRANTED) employed at the PBAPS. Th'e source identified a BNI HP technician, hereinafter referred to as the a11eger, 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 PECO 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 a11eger and subsequently informed 01: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 l any direct charges. l The Region ! Inspection Report documented that no overexposure occurred during the March 1, 1985, incident. However, the Inspection Report noted that."no e'vidence" 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 humidity and'~no overexposure had occurred. '
Subsequent interviews with the a11eger, BNJ, and PECO supervisors determined that several days prior to the NRC unannounced inspection, PECO supervision and management met with the a11eger and his supervisor on two occasions to discuss his concerns. At the second meeting, the PECO Senior HP told the alleger 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 accurate. 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 PECO 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
n .
)
" bottom line result of the discussion" was that they wc9d not terminate the .
i alleger's employment "at this time." The ALARA Su%rvisor further stated , ,
that during this same time period, he was present when the PECO Senior HP .
questioned whether PECO could use the alleger effectively as an HP if he did -
go to the NRC with his concerns. p.
The BNI Assistant Site Coordinator testified that shortly after the afore- ~~ '
mentioned meeting, the PECO Senior HP told him, "I want [the a11eger] to go in 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 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 a11eger and the BNI Site Coordinator. Testimony from those who attended this meeting indicates that PECO management informed 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 informed him that he was being laid off effective l October 4, 1985, because of "too many sick days." The a11eger 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 a11eger and one other BNI technician for "too many sick days."
A review of BNI personnel records and interv'iews with PECO supervision /
management detemine'd 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 PECO 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 l were laid off. Between September 8 and November 1, 1985, 28 BNI technicians 4 left employment at the PBAPS. Only three of these terminations were based Ll solely on excessive use of sick leave.-Interviews with onsite BNI supervisors and the PECO ALAIM Supervisor detemined that PECO lay offs of Bartlett technicians based solely on sick leave was inconsistent with the current and 1 postreduction-in-forces (RIF)atthePBAP.S. !: l The NRC Resident Inspector at PBAPS advised that sometime prior to the current RIF, the PECO Field HP Supervisor informed him that the upcoming RIF of BNI HP technicians would be based on job perfomance. The BNI Assistant Site Coordi-nator testified that sometime during the Sumer of 1985, the PECO 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 nomal 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 infomation relating to the alleger's job perfomance.
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
- a, ,
. ul , c : 2 ...._2 . . .. a.. n;.m , d 2. m .. ~ . ..a
)
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 BNI technicians attempted to resign but agreed to work one additional week at {
the request of the PECO Field HP Supervisor. In addition, four new BNI technicians were hired by the PECO Field HP Supervisor. ,, j The PECO Superintendent of Plant Services testified that during SUtember 1985, the Field HP Supervisor infomed 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 techtdcians were hired or the specifics of the other personnel changes which took place during the week the alleger was laid off. Interviews detemined that the four new technicians l l did not possess any special qualifications. .
i Testimony of the Field HP supervisor indicated he knew the PECO Senior 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 4 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" absenteeism.
The PECO Senior HP testified that it was " conceivable" that his subordinate, the PECO 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 PECO management indicates the alleger's amployment termination was due, in part, to their perception that the alleger Tad contacted the NRC which left them wtth the impression that the alleger was not capable of
_ smderstanding 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 leverexposure 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 l
unannounced NRC inspection on August 6-7, 1985. j The testimony and documentary evidence obtained during this investigation conclude the PBAPSthat, wouldbut notfor hisbeen have " protected teminatedactivity," the by BNI (at alleger's PECO's ' employ) direction on ment at October 4, 1985, in violetice of 10 CFR 50.7. ,
During the course of this inver,tigation, a second allegation was brought to the NRC's atter. tion cor cerning possible discriminatory ac,ts directed at the
, alleger by PECO relating to nis attempts to gain employment at another nuclear facility. There was insufficient evidence developed to substantiate this allegation.
Case No. 1-85-019 3
(
.n.u. . . .. ;. . w -- w . . .; . . -
. ...~ .
I 1
. 1
.l
~>
1 l
l l
1 (THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY) . j 1 1 i
l l
Case No. 1-85-019 4 i 1
. l
- < 2 ,m ., _ ._ _--~ .
, _ . , n. ...; . .e
) ,
TABLE OF CONTENTS Pace l
SYNOPSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -1
~
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -).7 ORGANIZATIONAL CHART . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 9 LIST OF INTERVIEWEES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11 DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Purpose of Investigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . 13 Allegation No. 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4 Initial Interview of A11eger. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 !
Interviews with BNI Supervisors . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Interviews Relating to FIELD's Job Performance. . . . . 18 Interviews of PECO Supervisors. . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 l Interviews with PECO Management Personnel . . . . . . . 21 1
Review of BNI Personnel Records with STAFFORD . . . . . 23 Allegation No. 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .*. . . 25 Interview of A11eger. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Interviews with BNI Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 W111 fulness / Intent Section. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Agent's Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Status of Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 1
. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 LIST OF EXHIBITS,. . . . . . . '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
. 1
)
l l
l 1
I l
I i
l I
Case No. 1-85-019 5
. . ., . _ _ _ _. . . . _ . _. ~ _. . . .
. )
.),
(THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY) .
l l
i 1
l t
I l
I 1
)
Case No. 1 85-019 6 I
.. ,....a n.. . ...~.:r .. - . :.. a nw ~ . . . ... 2 .~ ... . . . . . ; a. . , ....
- )
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS i
Allegation No. 1: Discrimination Against Contractor Employee i 10 CFR 50.7: Employee protection (Exhibit 1) ,
I
~ ~~
Allegation No. 2: Discrimination Against Contractor Employee ,,
10 CFR 50.7: Employee protection l d
l 1
l i
l l
. l a
1 Case No. 1-85-019 7
.a .: . -. ~. ._ : .
. .)
. .. . -. + .
s l
- k
.>. \
(THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY) .
1 l
1 .
e 1
1 1
l l
.. \
l 1
Case No. 1-85-019 8 i
,. u... .: . ;> .. m . . =. . 3 . a . - T . .= ,. z. . ,
..PEAru BOTTOLWWre Nf 0N.- .
' I
_, i PBAPS Richard S. Fleishmann
. ilanager, ?IpBAP5" /
.I.
Jack E. 'Winzenried Superintendent . . . . .
Plant Services .
Allen E. Hilsmeier ..
Sr. Health Physicist --
4
- C. Stuart Nelson George P. McCarty *Norbert F. Gazda -
Field HP Supervisor Support HP Supervisor ALARA Supervisor J
)
- PECO Field HPs ** Thomas A. Stafford Bartlett Huclear Site ;
Coordinator ' i Bartlett Nuclear '
Field HPs
- George Field
- Switched positions July 1, 1985 j
- Took over from Daniel V. Ipoletta on September 2,1985, at which time Ipoletta became the Assistant Site Coordinator ,
- Allege.r .
Case No. 1-85-019 _ 29 *
. .'..-. .s.... . . . . . . . :.
. :.. ...:. . 2. . :.. ~. ,, .a. . :.a. u .. .
O (THIS PAGE LEFT BLANX INTENTIONALLY) .
1 I
Case No. 1-35-019 10
. ... ~ . . . . . . '>:... .- w. . . .w.a a.:,- . z .
.:.~.-. .....:.u....w...=..>
)
LIST OF INTERVIEWEES I
Exnibit i BARTLETT, Bruce R., BNI President 15 .
BUCKLEY, Robert H., BNI Senior HP Technician 17 3, ~~
DAVIS, Lonnie D., BNI HP Technician 18 ,
l FIELD, George A., (Alleger), Fonner BNI Senior . . . . I HP Technician 9 &.29 i FLEISHMANN, Richard S., PECO Manager, PBAPS 5 GAZDA, Norbert F., PECO ALARA Supervisor 20 GIBBS, Carol P., BNI Site Coordinator at PNGS 31 HILSMEIER, Allen E., PECO Senior HP 22 IP0LETTA, Daniel V., BNI Assistant Site Coordinator, PBAPS 12 & 26 -
KOTTAN, James J., NRC Radiation Laboratory Specialist 2 l McCARTY, George P.,'PECO Support HP Supervisor 19 McISAAC, Paul, BNI Vice President 14 .
I NELSON, Conrad S., PECO Field HP Supervisor 21 SMITH, Gary M., PECO Senior HP Technician 16 STAFFORD,Thomask.,BNISiteCoordinator,PBAPS 11 & 27 WINZENRIED, Jack E., Superintendent of Plant Services 23 Case No. 1-85-019 11
~... .E:
, _ a .;.
- ::: . }
? . .. . ~ - .-
l l
l
) l l
J.
l l
l I
i
. (THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY) . !
s
! 1
)
1 I
. 1 j
i l' ,
I 8
i i
i l
i i
)
i
- i I
j l
i Case No. 1-85-019 12 l l.
l
. . ~ . . . :: .- . s. .. w ~ . u. . .. .. a :.. . . .. a . . - 1. a .u.- .
)-
DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION Purpose of Investigation This investigation was initiated to determine if the employment of George FIELD (A11e Physicist (ger),BartlettNuclearIncorporated(BNI),contractSeniorHealth HP) Technician, was terminated at the Peach Bottom Atontic Power i Station (PBAPS) as a result of his engaging in protected activity. {
1 A second objective of this investigation was to detemine if the licensee l attempted to " blackball" FIELD following his termination,when he attempted to gain employment at another nuclear facility. -
~
,B_ackground On August 2, 1985, the NRC, Region I, received an allegation from a source (CONFIDENTIALITY GRANTED) employed at the PBAPS concerning a possible over-exposure which took place in the PBAPS, Unit 3, recombiner offgas tunnel on March 1,.1985. The source identified George FIELD, BNI Senior HP Technician, ,
as one of the individuals involved in the incident. The source related I conversation with FIELD indicating FIELD had been intimidated in that his job q at PBAPS had been threatened if he pursued his radiological concerns with the l NRC. At his request, the source's confidential sworn statement is being -
1 maintained in 01:RI files.
On August 6-7, 1985,*the NRC Region I conducted a special unannounced inspection -l at the PBAPS, Unit 3, addressing, among other things, the technical aspectsr of the March 1, 1985, incident in the Unit 3 recombiner offgas tunnel. As part of the inspection, the Region I inspectors interviewed FIELD and infonned ,
OI:RI that there may be some substance to the intimidation allegation.. The 1 inspector opined that FIELD appeared to be apprehensive during the interview and refrained from making any direct charges. A Report of Interview with NRC Inspector James KOTTAN is Exhibit 2.
Regarding the technical issues, the Region I Inspection Report (Exhibit 3) documented that no overexposure occurred d.uring 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 (Exhibit 4) as to why no overexposure had occurred. 1 On September 13, 1985, the Region 1 Regional Administrator requested an OI Inquiry be initiated concernin protected activity (Exhibit 5)g alleged intimidation of FIELD for engaging in The OI:RI subsequently learned that FIELD was laid off from the PBAPS on 1 October 4,1985, allegedly for engaging in protected activity, and the Inquiry was changed to a full. OI investigation.
Allegation No. 1 The following investigative activity relates to the allegation that FIELD's employment at the PBAPS was tenninated on October 4,1985, as a result of his engaging in protected activity.
I Case No. 1-85-019 13 1
. \
. = ~ . . u .- .= a ,w- .... .aw a. - . + .- . - . . . ., m 4 1 i
The following is a sequential list of pertinent events based on information provided by the interviewees (some of_the. dates are approximate). .)
.1 March 1, 1985: George FIELD and three other PBAPS personnel were involved l in 'an incident in the PBAPS, Unit 3, recombiner offgas tunnel wherein the -
l survey meter FIELD was carrying went offscale on the 0-50 R/llr scale. -l All four personnel promptly evacuated the area. FIELD initiated a ..
Philadelphia Electric Company (PECO) A-86 Discrepancy Report (Exhibit 4) which was assigned to Allen E. NILSME!ER, Senior HP, for inv)e,stigation and disposition. FIELD also reported the incident to his supervisor, Daniel IP0LETTA, who at the time was the BNI Site Coordinator.
April 23,1985: At HILSMEIER's request, Norbert GdZD , who, at the time, i was the PECO Field HP Supervisor, interviewed FIELD about the March 1, '
1995, incident. The documented interview was signed by both GAZDA and FIELD before being given to HILSMEIER by GAZDA.
July 1, 1985: Stuart NELSON took over as the PEC0 Field HP Supervisor from GAZDA, who became the ALARA Supervisor.
Approximately July 21, 1985: FIELD asked GAZDA what was being done about the information he provided to GAZDA in April. GAZDA approached HILSMEIER.
about the matter who infomed him he had thrown the document away because he thought the matter had been resolved. -
Summer of 1985: According to IP0LETTA, on separate occasions, both 4 NELSON and GAZDA asked him about FIELD's job performance and he advised them that FIELD was a " good" HP but missed "more than a nomal amount of attendance." .
Sumer of 1985 (subsequent to July 1,1985): NELSON infomed Herb WILLIAMS, PBAPS NRC Resident Inspector, that the lay offs during the /
upcoming reduction-in-force (RIF) would be based on perfomance which t would be evaluated based on input from the Senior PECO HP Technicians and the Bartlett-Site Coordinator (Exhibit 28).
~
July 1985: IP0LETTA infomed HILSMEIER that FIELD was going to the NRC if he did not get answers to his overexposure questions.
July 25, 1985: FIELD took his unresolved concerns to Thomas STAFFORD, BNI Supervisor, who advised him to document (Exhibit 6) what had taken place to date. STAFFORD requested a meeting with NELSON to discuss FIELD's concerns.
July 30, 1985: NELSON held a meeting with FIELD, STAFFORD, and George McCARTY, PECO Support HP Supervisor, and all present were provided with a written copy of FIELD's concerns (Exhibit 6). NELSON gave HILSMEIER a copy of the statement and HILSMEIER agreed to meet with FIELD.
Approximately July 30-31, 1985: HILSMEIER held a meeting with FIELD, NELSON, GAZDA, McCARTY, and IP0LETTA. HILSMEIER digcussed PECO's resolu-tion of FIELD's concerns as documented on PECO's Discrepancy Report GAZDA testified that after the departure of IPOLETTA and (Exhibit 5).
FIELD from the meeting, a discussion ensued concerning the possibility of i Case No. 1-85-019 14 l
l
q . , .. ~~~Te .. s .
. '. . . .. - ~ ..
)
FIELD going to the NRC. His testimony indicates FIELD's employment termination was contemplated at this time. According to IP0LETTA, within two days following the meeting, HILSMEIER told IP0LETTA he wanted FIELD to be laid off in the first group of lay offs during the upcoming RIF.
August 2, 1985: An allegation was received by the NRC, Region I, from a source concerning a possible overexposure of FIELD and others regarding ute March 1, 1985, incident in the PBAPS recombiner offgas tunnel. ~!
August 6-7, 1985: NRC, Region I, conducted an unannounced special inspection (Exhibit 3) into the March 1, 1985, incident.
August 1985: ' NELSON was in HILSMEIER's office and lITSMEIER was on the phone. HILSMEIER exclaimed that FIELD was an " asshole" and should not be at the PBAPS. ,
August 29, 1985: HILSMEIER and Jack WINZENRIED, Superintendent of Plant '
Services, told NELSON he must cut back from 125 HP technicians to 97 HP technicians. NELSON's goal was to lay off two to four technicians per week to reach his goal of 97 technicians.
September 2, 1985: STAFFORD replaced IP0LETTA as the BNI Site Coordinator.
Second week of September 1985: BNI HP technician lay offs tiegin. 1 Mid September 1985: WINZENRIED held a meeting with FIELD, ILSMEIER, NELSON, and STAFFORD. Testimony of those in attendance indicates the purpose of the meeting was to let FIELD know that if he had concerns that were not being addressed by BNI/PECO supervision, he should take them up ,
through his chain of comand to PECO upper management before taking them i to the NRC.
Mid September 1985, following the aforementioned meeting: NELSON requested i and received from STAFFORD, a list of all BNI employees documenting their absenteeism back to January 1, 1985 (Exhibit 7).
September 1985: NELSON returned the list to STAFFORD which targeted; seven BNI HP technicians to be laid o.ff for excessive use of sick days tructs STAFFORD t la off LATRELL, a BN HP hnician with and FIELD, whose were the .in the ,
- ' I September 1985
- STAFFORD informed FIELD he was being laid I off for excessive use of sick days effective October 4,1985.
October 3, 1985: WINZENRIED called Herb WILLIAMS, NRC PBAPS Resident Inspector (RI), and identified seven individuals who were targeted to be laid off in October 1985 for excessive use of sick days as part of a RIF.
WILLIAMS record of this conversation is Exhibit 8.
October 4, 1985: FIELD's employment at the PBAPS is tenninated for excessive use of sick days. ,
Case No. 1-85-019 15
. .m. .nn s. z. . 'a., :.-. , . n x.- - . . . w. can a n.~ .=.-
)
Initial Interview of Allecer .
George Arthur FIELD, BNI Senior HP technician, was interviewed'on October 16, 1985. He stated he was involved in an incident on March 1,1985, in the PBAPS recombiner of.fgas tunnel at which time he thought he received an overexposure ..t that should have been reported to the NRC in accordance with 10 CFR Part 20. .
He said he initially documented the incident on a PEC0 Discrepancy Report. ~~,
(Exhibit 4). He described a series of contacts and meetings with BNI super- ;
visors and PECO supervisor / managers over the following seven months, which 4 were a result of his attempts to get answers to his radiological 6oncerns steaming from the March 1,1985, incident. He said he was interviewed about the incident by NRC inspectors during an inspection into.the matter on August 6-7, 1985, and was later wrongly accused of reporting the matter to the NRC by ' '
I HILSMEIER. He said the accusation occurred during a meeting in WINZENRIED's office on or about September 23, 1985. He said a day or two following the meeting, STAFFORD told.him he had been. directed by NELSON to lay him off for i excessive use of sick days, effective October 4. 1985. FIELD alleged his lay off was a result of his involvement in protected activity following the March 1,1985, incident in the PBAPS recombiner offgas tunnel. FIELD's sworn statement is Exhibit 9.
Interviews with BNI Supervisors .
Thomas Allan STAFFORD, current BNI Site Coordinator, was interviewed on October 29-30, 1985. STAFFORD advised he first became aware of FIELD's '
radiological concerns on July 25, 1985, when FIELD infonned him of the March I, 1985, incident. .He said FIELD sought his help because he had not been able to get his overexposure concerns satisfactorily addressed by PECO over a period of five or sfx months. STAFFORD said he instructed FIELD to document everything (Exhibit 6 pertains) that had taken place. STAFFORD said he then
- contacted NELSON for a meeting with FIELD to discuss the matter. The meeting took place on or about July 30, 1985, and was attended by STAFFORD, FIELD, NELSON, and McCARTY. STAFFORD said both NELSON and McCARTY were provided with copies of FIELD's written account of the incident and events following the incidant (Exhibit 6). STAFFORD said FIELD was infonned by NELSON and McCARTY that his Harshaw. badge had read "0" for the day of the incident and that he had not received an overexposure.
J STAFFORD said he took over as the BNI Site Coordinator on September 2, 1985, l and sk. ~1y thereafter was contacted by HILSMEIER to arrange a meeting with FIELD. ine meeting took place in mid September and was attended by STAFFORD, FIELD, HILSMEIER, NELSON, and WINZENRIED. During the meeting, STAFFORD said WINZENRIED essentially told FIELD that he should give PECO a chance to resolve his problems before taking them to the NRC. STAFFORD said FIELD denied going ;
to the NRC and HILSMEIER responded, "I can't understand why anyone would want !
to set you up like this." i STAFFORD said that sometime following the above meeting, NELSON, without explanation, requested that he make up a list of all BNI HP technicians documenting their absenteeism back to January 1,1985. STAFFORD said he drafted the document (Exhibit 7) which, in one column, documented the indi-viduals'. vacation days, requested days off without pay and days the individual *
"just did not show up for work." He said a second column documented the individuals' " sick days." He said the list did not reflect the individuals' Case No. 1-85-019 16
. ; , . . .: O '
. ~ ~ -
)
date of employment which, in some cases, was as late as September 1985.
STAFFORD said that several days after providing' the document to NELSON, the document was returned by NELSON who instructed him to lay off BNI technicians LATRELL an of sick days (the list showed LATRELL as i having the hy FIELD). STAFFORD said there was no _
discussion oncerning ei er inoividual's job perfomance.
~~
STAFFORD said he laid off both LATRELL and FIELD effective October 4,1985.
He said he documented FIELD's termination as a " lay off" (Exhibitt10) but i verbally infomed the BNI office in Plymouth, Ma'ssachusetts, that he was terminating FIELD's employment at PECO's request for excessive use of sick days. STAFFORD's sworn statement is Exhibit 11. . . . . .
Daniel Vincent IP0LETTA, BNI Assistant Site Coordinator, was interviewed on .
October 29-30, 1985, concerning FIELD's employment termination. IP0LETTA l stated that on March 1,1985, FIELD infomed him of the incident in the PBAPS i
Unit 3 recombiner offgas tunnel. He said FIELD was worried about his exposure and the exposure received by the individuals who.were.with him at the time. ,
l He said, based on the information provided by FIELD, he calculated FIELD's I potential exposure at approximately six rem. As a result, he said he recognized that the incident may be a NRC reportable event and he reported it to GAZDA, who at the time was the PECO Field HP Supervisor. He said that about six weeks later, FIELD approached him about his possible overexposure, requesting I
answers to his concerns. IP0LETTA said he approached GAZDA a second time and l
explained to him that FIELD wanted answers to his concerns and was contemplating going to the NRC if he did not get a response. FIELD said that by this time, he detached himself from the matter since he had turned all the infomation he had over to GAZDA, his supervisor. He (IPOLETTA) said it was also around this time period that he learned the matter had been resolved by PECO who determined that FIELD had a faulty meter on March 1, 1985.
On or about July 30-31, 1985, IPOLETTA attended a meeting with FIELD, HILSMEIER, GAZDA, McCARTY, and NELSON to discuss FIELD's concerns.
IP0LETTA testified that within a day following the above meeting. HILSMEIER told him that, "T'want George FIELD to go in the first group of lay offs."
IP0LETTA said he telephonically infomed Paul McISAAC, BNI Vice President.
Plymouth, Massachusetts, of HILSMEIER's request and told McISAAC he would not follow HILSMEIER's request.
i IP0LETTA said STAFFORD took ovsr his job as the BNI Site Coordinator on September 2, 1985, at which time he became the Assistant Site Coordinator. He l said that during the sumer of 1985, while he was still the BNI Site Coordinator, both NELSON and GAZDA (on separate occasions) asked him about FIELD's work performance. IP0LETTA said he described FIELD as a good HP who missed "more than a normal amount of attendance."
IPOLETTA said that during the time he was the BNI Site Coordinator, he was not aware of any lay offs which were based solely on absenteeism. He said BNI lay offs were, for the most part, based on job performance of which " absenteeism" l
was one of several factors. He said he did not recall ever addressing the issue of absenteeism specifically with FIELD. He described e BNI policy (Exhibit 12) addressing how problem absenteeism should be addressed and documented.
Case No. 1-85-019 17
a, = . , . .. . :: . .. = : a.. =....~. . . . :.; : .. u.
)
INVESTIGATOR'S NOTE: A review of FIELD's BNI personnel file by the reporting investigator reve,aled no record of either a verbal or written warning concerning absenteeism. .
IP0LETTA testified he had no input into FIELD's lay off and despite FIELD's absenteeism, if the BNI HP lay offs would have been left up to him, he would not have laid FIELD off. IPOLETTA's sworn statement is Exhibit 13. ,,1 Paul McISAAC, BNI Vice President / Controller, was interviewed on November 20, !
1985, concerning the telephone conversation referred to by IP0LETTA, supra. ,
McISAAC advised that during the time IP0LETTA was the BNI Site Coordinator at the PBAPS, he had telephone conversations with IPOLETTA daily. McISAAC did not recall the exact time period or other details but did recall receiving a telephone call from IP0LETTA concerning impending lay offs of BNI personnel.
According to McISAAC, IPOLETTA said "someone" did not like FIELD and he was inquiring about other employment for FIELD in case FIELD was laid off by PECO.
A Report of Interview with McISAAC is Exhibit 14.
Bruce Robert BARTLETT, BNI President, was interviewed on November 20, 1985, ;
concerning FIELD's employment temination from the PBAPS. BARTLETT said he !
did not become aware of the March 1, 1985, incident involving FIELD until late July or early August 1985. He said IPOLETTA infomed him that HILSMEIER had allowed . FIELD's overexposure concerns to " fester" and had not answered his concerns in a timely manner. Accordingly, he said he had a BNI V. ice President and a BNI Radiological Instructor meet with FIELD about his radiological .
concerns. He said it was subsequently reported back to him that FITLD had not received an overexposure and he was left with the impression that FIELD was !
" satisfied" with the, answers he received. BARTLETT did not have any pertinent information relating to FIELD's temination from the PBAPS. A Report of ,
Interview with BARTLETT is Exhibit 15.
Interviews Relating to FIELD's Job Perfomance The following PECO and BNI HP technicians were interviewed concerning FIELn's job perfomance. They were identified by STAFFORD as being responsible senior HP technicians who either worked with or supervised FIELD on the job:
Gary M. SMITH, PECO Senior HP Technician-(Exhibit 16)
Robert H. BUCKLEY, BNI Senior HP Technician (Exhibit 17 Lonnie D. DAVIS, BNI Senior HP Technician (Exhibit 18) )
During the interviews, FIELD was' described as a " good technician " " adequate "
" satisfactory" and "a competent senior H.P." SMITH, who occasionally monitored FIELD's performance as an HP, said the only problem be noted with FIELD was that he had a desire to go home when the job at his specific work area was completed instead of patiently waiting to see if he was needed somewhere else in the plant.
None of the interviewees expressed any dissatisfaction with FIELD's job perfomance. -
Case No. 1-85-019 18
..c~.. -- .; w .. .- , - ~ . - = ~ . -
J Interviews of PECO Supervisors George Patrick McCARTY, PECO Support HP Supervisor, was interviewed on November 13, 1985. McCARTY described two meetings he attended (believed to be the July 30 and 31, 1985 meetings) for the purpose of addressing radiological concerns expressed by FIELD. He said that following the second meeting, FIELD appeared to be satisfied with tha answers to his concerns. McCARTY did not provide any additional pertinent information. A Report of Interview is .. l Exhibit 19. A i Norbert F. GAZDA ALARA HP Supervisor, was interviewed on November 13, 1985.
GAZDA said HILSMEIER informed him of the March 1, 1985 Jncident in the Unit 3 recombiner offgas tunnel within days of the event. GAZDA said he designated HILSMEIER to be responsible for the resolution of the PECO Discrepancy Report (Exhibit 4) prepared by FIELD. GAZDA said he interviewed FIELD about the incident on April 23, 1985, at HILSMEIER's request. He said he recorded FIELD's account of the incident on a document signed by both he and FIELD, before providing the document to HILSMEIER. GAZDA stated that several weeks later (subsequent to July 1, 1985, when NELSON took over as the Field HP Supervisor), FIELD approached him wanting to know "where things stood." GAZDA -
said he approached HILSMEIER who informed him he had thrown the document away because he thought the matter had been resolved. GAZDA said he related this information to FIELD.
On July 30-31, 1985..GAZDA attended a meeting with HILSMEIER, NELSON, McCARTY
- IP0LETTA, and FIELD whereat HILSMEIER addressed FIELD's concerns. GAZDA stated that following the above meeting (after the departure of IP0LETTA and FIELD) a discussion ensued between himself, NELSON and HILSMEIER at which time they discussed the " chances" of FIELD going to the "Comission." He said the
" bottom line result of the discussion" was that they would not terminate FIELD's employment "at this time." He further stated he was present during this same time period when HILSMEIER expressed his feeling that if FIELD went to the Comission, he (HILSMEIER) questioned whether PECO could use him-effectively as an HP. GAZDA concluded stating that he had "no way of knowing" if FIELD's " absenteeism" was the real reason behind FIELD's employment i temination. GAZITA's sworn statement is Exhibit 20. j Conrad Stuart NELSON, PECO Field HP Superv.isor, was interviewed on November 11 and 12, 1985. NELSON took over as the Field HP Supervisor on July 1, 1985.
He said he first became involved in the FIELD matter as a result of STAFF 0AD calling him and requesting a meeting. He said he met with both STAFFORD and FIELD on July 30, 1985. He said that during the meeting, he received a copy of FIELD's concerns (Exhibit 6) which were documented on an undated and unsigned seven-page statement. He said that after reading the statement,.he became very concerned over its' implication and was surprised that the matter had not been resolved prior to July 30, 1985. He said that based on the statement, he concluded that FIELD was considering going to the NRC regarding his concerns. NELSON said he took either the statement, or the information contained in the statement, to his Supervisor, HILSMEIER, who left him with the impression that he w'as aware of the problem and thought the matter had been resolved.
Case No. 1-85-019 19 i
w x.a. a s. w a a .u.
. . -.. - . . ~ . .w - . -
D As a result of the above contact, HILSMEIER met with FIELD on or about July 30-31, 1985, to discuss FIELD's concerns. GAZDA, IP0LETTA, McCARTY, and NELSON also attended the meeting. NELSON said HILSMEIER discussed the PECO Discrepancy Report -(Exhibit 4) which set forth his evaluation of the March 1, 1985, incident. NELSON said that during the August 6-8, 1985 NRC inspection concerning the incident, he had an opportunity to review HILSMEIER's evaluation.
- He advised that he did not think the evaluation was accurate but did not ..
dispute the matter with HILSMEIER.
.h NELSON related that on another occasion, believed to have taken place in August 1985, he was in HILSMEIER's office when HILSMEIER exclaimed over the
. telephone, " George. FIELD is an asshole and shouldn't be.here." NELSON stated -
that he did not know who HILSMEIER was speaking to and he did not question HILSMEIER about the telephone call or the statement.
4 NELSON stated that on August 29, 1985, ~HILSMEIER and WINZENRIED informed him that he must run his department during an outage period with 97 HP technicians which was 28 technicians below his department's current status. Accordingly, he said his goal was to lay off between two and four HP technicians each week until he reached the goal. He said that after laying off four BNI HP techni-cians for poor job performance, he instructed STAFFORD to provide him with a list of all BNI employees identifying how many days they had missed work back to January 1, 1985. He said he subsequently received *the list which, in one column, identified the amount of each individual's " requested days off" and in a second column identified the amount of " sick days." He said that after -
receiving the list, he targeted all individuals with 11 or more sick days to be laid off. He said that he felt very strongly about absenteeism and punctuality and described 11 days of' sick leave during a nine-month period as a " glaring excess of absenteeis:n." He said that sometime later, he directed STAFFORD to "get rid of" LATRELL and FIELD, the two individuals listed as having the most absenteeism due to sick days. The document. Exhibit 4, showed that seven BNI technicians missed work 11 or more days which were recorded as
" sick days." However, NELSON admitted that he had laid off only three of the s'even individuals. NELSON acknowledged that the document did not take into ( .
account the employment starting dates for each individual and it may have been '
a poor mechanism t~o use for lay offs. NELSON rationalized his use of the list
- stating that it gave him some type of mechanism to identify people that he could terminate in order to reach his goal,of 97 HP technicians. NELSON testified that prior to notifying FIELD that he would be laid off, he attended a meeting in WINZENRIED's office with WINZENRIED, HILSMEIER, STAFFORD, and !
FIELD. NELSON stated that there was a "p that FIELD had gone to the NRC with his c,erception oncerns which amongst resulted injust the about NRC everyone inspection in August." He said the meeting was very " low key" and WINZENRIED was giving FIELD other avenues to take his concerns, other than through HILSMEIER, if his concerns were not resolved by HILSMEIER. NELSON stated that he did not recall HILSMEIER stating words to the effect that, "Why would anyone want to set you up," referring to FIELD causing the NRC inspection; however, he said the quoted phrase is a phrase that is used by HILSMEIER.
NELSON said his decision' to lay off FIELD was based on FIELD's excessive use of sick days. He said he was not directed by anyone to lay off FIELD. He
, said he was aware that HILSMEIER preferred not to have FIELD working at the
- plant. However, NELSON said he did not believe that FIELD's lay off was based i
Case No. 1-85-019 20 I
.. ~
s
)
on this awareness. He further stated that he did not believe that FIELD's
. employment termination was a disciplinary act as a result of the perception by PECO that FIELD had contacted the NRC regarding his concerns over the March 1, 1985, incident. NELSON's sworn statement setting forth additional details is Exhibit 21.
Interviews with PECO Management Personnel -
Allen E. HILSMEIER, PECO Senior HP, was interviewed on Decemberd.1985.
HILSMEIER stated that he first became aware of the March 1,1985, incident involving George FIELD within two days after the event when he received the Discrepancy Report.(Exhibit 4) written by FIELD. HILSMEIER stated that based on the information he had, he concluded FIELD's instrument was in error and FIELD had not received an overexposure. He indicated he later requested GAIDA to interview FIELD about the incident because FIELD had continued to express concerns about an overexposure. He said GAZDA subsequently provided him with a documented interview of FIELD which led him to cenclude that FIELD had received some contamination during the March 1, 1985, incident. HILSMEIER
- said he subsequently disposed of the documented interview because he thought the matter had been resolved.
1 On July 30 or 31,1985, HILSMEIER had a meeting with FIELD concerning his i
perceived overexposure relating to the March 1,1985, incident. HILSMEIER, FIELD, McCARTY, GAIDA, NELSON, and IPOLETTA attended the meeting. HILSMEIER ,!
said the purpose of the meeting was to explain to FIELD why PECO believed that he had not received an overexposure. HILSMEIER did.not recall any discussion with his staff immediately following the meeting concerning the possibility of FIELD going to the NRC. Additionally, he did not recall any discussion about terminating FIELD. !
l J
HILSMEIER stated that in early August 1985, the NRC conducted an inspection at ,
the PBAPS, the subject of which was the March 1, 1985, incident involving FIELD.
He said during the exit interview, he got the impression from the NRC l inspector incident. that FIELD was the one who had contacted the NRC about the March 1 HILSMEIER testified that because of this, he got the impres% ion i that FIELD did not understand the technical aspects of what had taken blace !
_ during the March 1, 1985, incident.
He said that he did not "think" he told anyone that FIELD "should go in the first. group of lay offs" as a result of his perception that FIELD had contacted the NRC. HILSMEIER stated that he aid tell NELSON and/or GAIDA that he questioned FIELD's technical ability as a HP and was not so sure that FIELD was what PECO needed at the PBAPS. HILSMEIE did not recall referring to FIELD as an " asshole" but stated that he probably did say something to that effect as a result of his questioning FIELD's technical ability. HILSMEIER explained to FIELD that he was not satisfied with FIELD's technical ability becaute he felt he had sufficiently explained to FIELD that he had not received an overexposure and that FIELD still felt it was necessary to contact the NRC about the matter. HILSMEIER said he was upset with FIELD. HILSMEIER said he let his subordinates know that he was upset with FIELD for contacting the NRC. HILSMEIER said he felt that FIELD was a liability to PECOl technically, and wanted to get rid of him. However, he said he was afraid to "get rid of" FIELD because he thought he was the one who a contacted retaliation thegoing for his NRC to and thehe did not went FIELD's termination to be viewed as NRC.
Case No. 1-85-019 21
- .c n . :. u. u . m w ,v , w m. m w ,. m . a ..: - - - ;a c . : a,.a m;w x . . ..
J L HILSMEIER said that sometime in' September 1985, he attended a meetin with ~
FIELD, either STAFFORD or IP0LETTA and WINZENRIED in WINZENRIED's of ice. He said the purpose of the meeting was to explain to FIELD that he (FIELD) should go through channels before going to the NRC. HILSMEIER said that FIELD denied that he had contacted the NRC. In response to FIELD's denial HILSMEIER did ^..
not recall stating words to the effect that "why.would someone want to set you -
up like this?" However, HILSMEIER said that if he did make the connent, he ,,
did not mean it in a derogatory or threatening manner. .
. ].
HILSMEIER stated that during the sunner of 1985, he and WINZENRIED were working on NELSON's performance goal and decided that one of his goals would
. be to operate his department during outage conditions with.97 HP technicians.
He said this goal was presented to NELSON who was not given any direction or advice on.how he should reach the goal. He said NELSON subsequently informed or implied to him that he was going to. lay off about three or four individuals each week in order to reach his goal. He said he was aware that during the weet FIELD was laid off, NELSON hired four new people for." green tagging" equipment to be released from the site. He said he was also aware of a large number of BNI technicians who left the PBAPS during the same week that FIELD was laid off. He said he could not explain why NELSON hired and laid off BNI technicians during the same week. He said it was his impression that NELSON's lay offs were a result of NELSON trying to meet his g7 HP technician goal.
However, he said it was conceivable that NELSON laid off FIELD because NELSON knew that he (HILSMEIER) was dissatisfied with, what HILSMEIER perceived to be, FIELD's technical ability or inability. HILSMEIER's sworn statement is
- Exhibit 22. -
Jack Edward WINZENRIED, PECO Superintendent of Plant Services, was interviewed on October 16, 1935. WINZENRIED indicated that he first became aware of the
-George FIELD issue around the time of the NRC inspection on August 6-7, 1985.
He said HILSMEIER informed him of FIELD's concerns and explained that he had provided FIELD with a technical explanation regarding those concerns which FIELD was not satisfied with. He said information was subsequently related to him that led him to assume that. FIELD was the one who had contacted the NRC which resulted in the NRC inspection. Following the NRC inspection, WINZENRIED said he learned Gat FIELD had been telling people that if he got laid off, he was going to the NRC. As a result WINZENRIED said he requested that FIELD be brought to his office for a meeting. He said the meeting took place sometime in September 1985 and was attended by hims' elf. FIELD, HILSMEIER, NELSON, and IP0LETTA or STAFFORD. WINZENRIED said the reason for the meeting was that he felt there was a right way and a wrong way to handle complaints. He said he wanted FIELD to know that he could come to either him or his boss, FLEISHMANN, with problems instead of complaining about them in the lunchroom.- WINZENRIED said his feelings were that he would have liked FIELD to contact PEC0 before going to the NRC with this type of problem because going to the NRC was the long hard way to resolve a problem. He said he told FIELD that he had the right to go to the NRC at any time, but would like him to come to PECO first if lower level supervision was not solving his problems. WINZENRIED stated that FIELD denied contacting the NRC and HILSMEIER responded in words to the effect that, who else would call the NRC about the problem.
WINZENRIED stated that subsequent to the aforementioned meeting, NELSON approached him and told him that he would be laying off HP technicians who Case No. 1-85-019 22
.,_.~ w . ._ s.c = M .2 X +. L uc.m e X _ L.m . ~ -
m i
were not showing up for work. WINZENRIED testified that NELSON's actions seemed reasonable to him in that NELSON had been given a goal to reduce his staff during the current outage. WINZENRIED stated that NELSON further infomed him that when HP technicians either resigned or were otherwise terminated, they would not be replaced unless there were some specific qualifi-cations that a person had that PECO needed at the time. WINZENRIED stated that NELSON showed him a list of BNI HP technicians that he intended to lay ~
off based on absenteeism and that list included FIELD's name. WINZENRIED said he took NELSON's notes and called Herb WILLIAMS, NRC Resident Ins'pector, to 1 inform him of the impending action.
WINZENRIED was shown Exhibit 8 notations made by Herb WI(LIAMS based on a telephone conversation with WINZENRIED on October 3, 1985. WINZENRIED acknowledged that WILLIAMS' notes accurately reflected their conversation -
which was based on the information that was presented to him by NELSON.
WINZENRIED testified that he was not aware that three other people on the list were still working at Peach Bottom as BNI HP technicians as of October 29, 1985. He further stated that he was not aware that some BNI technicians were :
hired during the same week that FIELD was laid off. '
WINZENRIED concluded stating that he had not received any information from any of his subordinates indicating that FIELD's lay off was a direct result of his contacting the NRC concerning his perceived overexposure. He indicated he was told that FIELD had failed to understand the technical explanation provided to him concerning his perceived overexposure by PECO and therefore' went to the ~
NRC to resolve his complaint. WINZENRIED's sworn statement is Exhibit 23.
Richard S. FLEISHMANN, II, Manager, PBAPS, was interviewed on December 3, 1985. FLEISHMANN advised that he first became aware of the March 1,1985, incident involving George FIELD around the time of the NRC inspection in August 1985. He said he did not learn of FIELD's employment temination until FIELD had already been laid off. He did not relate any information deemed pertinent to this investigation. A Report of Interview with FLEISHMANN is Exhibit 24. ,
Review of BNI Personnel Records with STAFFORD
~
BNI personnel records were reviewed by the reporting investigator with STAFFORD at the PBAPS throughout this investigation,. The following observations were made:
The current RIF commenced in early September 1985. At the time, BNI employed 82 HP technicians and as of November 1, 1985, twenty-eight BNI technicians left employment for a variety of reasons as follows:
Between September 8-14, 1985, four technicians were laid off by BNI at NELSON's request for " poor performance."
Between September 22-28, 1985, two technicians accepted voluntary lay offs and one technician resigned.
Case No. 1-85-019 23
. l
.m . .. . .m . s- _ . , ..w.e .< .a m 7 7.m E . .T l
1 Between September 29 and October 6,1985, four technicians were terminated for cause, three technicians resigned, one technician accepted .j a voluntary lay off, FIELD and one other technician were terminated at .!
. HELSON's request for excessive use of sick days. Two other technicians :
- ' (DEAN and GAINES) put in resignations effdctive during this time period, -l' but agreed to work one additional week at NELSON's request (Exhibit 25).
This was acknowledged by NELSON (Exhibit 21) who said he requested both technicians to withdraw their resignations because he felt there was a j!
"need to retain" them. In addition, NELSON hired four new Bpl techni- i ciaris as part of a new concept (green team concept) where the individuals I would work directly for the PECO day shift Senior Technician for the purpose of releasing items of equipment from the site.which had been exposed to radiation.
Between October 7-13, 1985, one individual was at' NELSON's request for excessive use of sick days (SMITH, Exhibit 13), two ~!
individuals resigned and DEAN /GAINES supra acc offs. j
. )
Between October 14-20, 1985, two technicians resigned.
Between October 21-27, 1985, two technicians resigned and one technician was terminated by NELSON for poor job performance.-
On November 1, 1985, one technician resigned.
Exhibit 8 identifies eight BNI HP technicians scheduled for lay offs between '
October 4 and October 14, 1985, due to excessive use of sick days. The !
document was prepared by the PBAPS NRC Resident Inspector (WILLIAMS) based on )
information from WIkZENRIED on October 3,1985. WINZENRIED testified (Exhibit -
- 23) that NELSON provided him with the infonnation as documented by WILLIAMS.
Personnel records and discussion with STAFFORD confirmed that only three (LATRELL, FIELD, and SMITH) of the individuals were terminated from the PBAPS for excessive use of sick days. SIDORA was terminated for cause when he
. failed to show up for work on twelve consecutive days during which time he did not call in. McMURRY resigned on October 17, 1985, and the remaining three individuals were..still employed at the PBAPS as oJ November 1,1985.
~
NELSON (Exhibit 21) testified he did not lay off PEFFLEY for excessive use of sick days based on " protest [s]" from some of his senior technicians who identified PEFFLEY as a " good performer." A review of PEFFLEY's December 1985 performance appraisal, prepared by STAFFORD, identified PEFFLEY as an
" average +" technician on a below average, average, above average performance scale. .
INVESTIGATOR'S NOTE: BNI performance appraisals were not made a part of their administrative system until December 1985. 1 Concerning the four BNI technicians NELSON hired during the week of September 29 - October 6, 1985, for his " green team concept," IPOLETTA advised he was not familiar with the concept (Exhibit 26)
Case No. 1-85-019 24
2 . J a.. m.. .:.x- ... ~. .
. w... A n:d & n h:... M :axcx i & L b . =. = .K i
STAFFORD was interviewed (Exhibit 27) and said he was aware that NELSON hired the four individuals for the purpose of ." green tagging" items of equipment.
However, he said one of the individuals quit after one week in the field and two other individuals were reassigned to other routine HP functions after
. approximately two weeks in the field.
SMITH, Acting PECO Senior HP Technician (Exhibit 16), said that each shift has from two to fifteen HP technicians assigned to the Senior Shift HP to respond to " pressing" needs. He said that on a given day.,any HP who is 4ssigned to.
the Senior HP's office may be called upon to green tag items of equipment, as well as any other tasks a HP technician nomally performs. .
~
Allegation No. 2 ~'
The following investigative activity relates to the, allegation ' hat t PEC0
" blackballed FIELD in his attempt to gain employment at another nuclear .
facility following his employment temination from the PBAPS.
Interview of A11eger During the course cf this investigation FIELD related that following his employment temination from the PBAPS, he attempted to gain employment as a HP !
technician at the Pilgrim Nuclear, Generating Station (PNGS), Plymouth, '
Massachusetts. He said that after receiving favorable encouragement about his chances for employmedt, Bruce BARTLETT, BNI President, informed him that his '
resume had been turned down by Pilgrim Nuclear due to a report from someone at the PBAPS who described FIELD as a poor performer. A Report of Interview with FIELD is Exhibit 29.-
Interviews with BNI Personnel Bruce BARTLETT, BNI. President, was interviewed (Exhibit 15) and generally )
acknowledged the conversation related by FIELD supra. However, he said he told FIELD he assumed his resume had been turned down at the Pilgrim Station i due to a bad recommendation or reference from the PBAPS. He said he subsequently learned from Carol GIBBS, BNI Site Coordinator at the PNGS, that she actually rejected FIELD's !,' resume in favor of other applicants.
Carol P. GIBBS, BNI Site Coodi[nator at th'e PNGS, was interviewed on November 20, 1985. She acknowledged receiving FIELD's resume along with four or five other resumes for four HP technici.an openings at the PNGS. She explained that she forwarded the resume to variou's PNGS personnel for review and approval.
She said before an individual can be hired, their resume must get six approval i
signatures from PNGS personnel. .She said in this case, four other resumes were approved before the necessary signatures were obtained on FIELD's resume l
and she hired those four technicians. She' stated that FIELD's resume received '
three approval signatures and was placed in her " active file" for future '
employment consideration. She said FIELD's resume was not rejected by any employee of Boston Edison and provided Exhibit 30 FIELD's resume bearing three acceptance initials of Boston Edison employees. GIBBS concluded stating that neither PECO nor Boston Edison had anything to do with FIELD not receiving employment as a BNI technician at the PNGS. A Report of interview with GIBBS is Exhibit 31.
Case No. 1-85-019 25
~~:.. a , x . a :.. .. s .- . . ~ - .
~ ;. . um.~ .;;.nz. 2. w,;. a.. . .x u, , . 3 I
W111 fulness /Intant Section-Allegation No. 1: ,
(a) FIELD testified (Exhibit 6) he was involved in an incident in the PBAPS, .
Unit 3, recombiner offgas tunnel wherein he suspected that he received an -
overexposure. He testified he continually pursued his concerns with BNI ~~i
. and PECO and after receiving unsatisfactory answers, his empToyment was terminated by BNI at PECO's request for, what he believed to@e, his
~~
engagement in protected activity.
(b) GAZDA testified (Exhibit 20) that HILSMEIER was respo.nsible for resolving FIELD's concerns as documented on a PECO Discrepancy Report (Exhibit 4).
(c) HILSMEIER testified (Exhibit 22) that he was. dissatisfied with FIELD's ,
technical ability based on the fact that he thought FIELD contacted the
- NRC with his radiological concerns after he (HILSMEIER) had addressed
. them. He admitted relating his dissatisfaction with FIELD to his sub-ordinates, NELSON and GAZDA.
(d) NRC Inspection Report 50-278/85-31 (Exhibit 3) documents that there was no evidence to support the licensee's conclusion reached in their -
Discrepancy Report (Exhibit 4) drafted by HILSMEIER. L (e) NELSON testified (Exhibit 21) that he reviewed HILSMEIER's conclusions .
documented in PECO's Discrepancy Report (Exhibit 4) and did not think they were accurate.
(f) NRC Inspector K'OTTAN, who drafted Exhibit 3 supra, concluded that the i licensee did not adequately address FIELD's concerns (Exhibit 2). 1 (g) GAZDA and IP0LETTA testified (Exhibits 20 and 12) to discussions with and statements by HILSMEIER prior to the NRC inspection indicating HILSMEIER's j desire to terminate FIELD's employment at the PBAPS.
(
(h) NELSON testWied (Exhibit 21) to statements made by HILSMEIER to the i
_ effect that FIELD should not be working at the PBAPS. l (i) WINZENRIED (Exhibit 23) HILSMEIER (Exhibit 22), and NELSON (Exhibit 21) testified that they felt FIELD had contacted the NRC thus, causing the August 6-7, 1985, NRC inspection.
(j) WINZENRIED testified (Exhibit 23) that just prior to. FIELD's employment temination (in the presence of NELSON, STAFFORD, and HILSMEIER) he requested FIELD to bring his concerns to PECO management before taking them to the NRC.
(k) NELSON testified (Exhibit 21) that he instructed STAFFORD to lay off FIELD for excessive use of sick days and that it was his decision based on his strong feelings about absenteeism and punctuality.
Case No. 1-85-019 26
...~ > . i .. , . a. 2.:. ;.%.- .x,... ,
. . :.0 ..a.
- 1 (1) STAFFORD testified (Exhibit 11) that NELSON had identified seven BNI
, technicians (from a list of BNI technicians', Exhibit 7) to be laid off for excessive absenteeism. However, he was instructed to lay off only j three of seven technicians.
(m) WINZENRIED (Exhibit 23) can corroborate the fact that NELSON had identi-fied technicians to be laid off for excessive use of sick days. ,,;
(n) IP0LETTA(Exhibit 12)andGAZDA(Exhibit 20)cantestifythaIlayoffs based on absenteeism were contrary to past lay off practices at the PBAPS.
(o) IP0LETTA (Exhibit 16) can testify that he infomedlELSON that FIELD was l a good HP who missed more than a nomal amount of attendance.
{
(p) WILLIAMS can testify (Exhibit 28) that prior to FIELD's temination.
NELSON infomed him that the upcoming lay off would be based on job
,perfomance after consultation with PECO Senior HPs and BNI supervision.
I (q) Both IP0LETTA (Exhibit 12) and STAFFORD (Exhibit 11) can testify that, based on their supervision of FIELD, he was a good HP.
(r) SMITH (PECO Senior HP, Exhibit 16), BUCKLEY, and DAVIS (BNI Senior Technicians) were interviewed and described FIELD as a satisfactory / good ,
HP technician.
(s) NELSON testified (Exhibit 21) that it was his intention to lay off two to f four BNI HP technicians each week until he reached his 97 HP technician operating goal.
(t) WINZENRIED testified (Exhibit 22) that NELSON infomed him that when HP technicians either resigned or were laid off, they would not be replaced. l l
(u) During a BNI personnel record review by the reporting investigator and STAFFORD, it was determined that NELSON hired four new BNI technicians during the w'e'ek FIELD was laid off. In addition, two technicians attempted to resign but stayed on one additional week at NELSON's request i (Exhibit 25). .
(v) NELSON (Exhibit 21) corroborated infomation contained in the record review supra.
Allegation No. 2: "
(a) FIELD (Exhibit 29) related that following his employment temination from 1 the PBAPS, he attempted to gain employment as a HP technician at the PilgrimNuclearGeneratingStation(PNGS), Plymouth, Massachusetts. He said that after receiving favorable encouragement about his chances for employment, Bruce BARTLETT, BNI President, informed him that his resume had been turned dow'n by Pilgrim Nuclear due to a report from someone at !
the PBAPS who described FIELD as a poor performer.
Case No. 1-85-019 27
. . . .- : :. . ... .a.w.....:......-..-... . . . . .,..c~ . =
)
(b) BARTLETT (Exhibit 15) generclly acknowledged the conversation related by FIELD supra. However, he said he told FIELD he assuned his resume had
- been turned down at the Pilgrim Station due to a bad recommendation or reference from the PBAPS. He said he subsequently learned from Carol GIBBS, ,
BNL Site Coordinator at the PNGS, that she actually rejected FIELD's -
resume in favor of other applicants. -
(c) GIBBS (Exhibit 31) can testify that she rejected FIELD's emp.foyment resume in favor of four cther applicants whose resumes were. approved prior to gaining the necessary PNGS approval signatures on FIELD's -
resume. She can further testify that FIELD's resume (Exhibit 30) was not rejected by the PNGS. ..
Agent's Conclusions Allegation No. 1:
Based on the testimony and documentary evidence obtained during t!'is investi-gation, it is the Investigator's conclusion 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.
Allegation No. 2:
There was insufficient evidence developed to substantiate this allegation. -
l Status of Investigation This investigation is CLOSED.
1
. i
.. i Case No. 1-85-019 28
,,.x,._-.- , 1-
.. , , , . , m, _ ,.,
)
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION In February 1985, two weeks prior to the incident with FIELD, NRC conducted an inspection at the PBAPS looking into Health Physics concerns. PECO l
subsequently received a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties amounting to $25,000. The letter of transmittal noted licensee
" deficiencies in contractor planning, supervision, surveilla'nce. ..
communication, radiological controls and training." (Exhibit 32) y, ,
l Case No. 1-85-019 29 6
--~. ,._
,. . . . ~ . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.q i
i 1 1
i ,
l
\
1 1
1 1 1
1 (THJS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY) i l
l i
i l
1 l
l Case No. 1-85-019 30 l
l
m.z.mumz r a - _ ,_v.--
. . 1 ..c. . - , . - .. .. , , , , . mu;.;m u., . _ .m LIST OF EXHIBITS '
4 I
Exhibit '
No. Description 1 NRC Regulation 10 CFR 50.7, undated. (1page) . ..
. ?.
i 2 Report of Interview with KOTTAN, dated October 26, 1985.
(2pages) ,
3 NRC Region I Inspection Report No. 50-27.8/85-31, dated j September 25, 1985. (12 pages) -
j 4 PECO Discrepancy Report No.85-087, ' dated March 1,1985.- , 'f (4 pages) 5 Region I Request for Investi i September 13, 1985. (3 pages)gation No. RI-85-006, dated 6 Seven page document by FIELD, undated. (7 pages) 7 BNI employee absentee' list, undated. (3 pages) )
8 WILLIAMS' notation of conversation with WINZENRIED, dated October 3, 1985. (2pages)
'~
9 Sworn statement of FIELD, dated October 24, 1985. (16 pages) )
1 10 BNI (1 pageemp)loyment termination, RE: FIELD, dated October 4,1985.
11 Sworn statement of STAFFORD, dated December 16, 1985. (5 l pages) 12 Sworn statement of IP0LETTA, dated November 7, 1985. (7 pages) 13 BNI document addressing abse'nteeism, undated. (1 page) i 14 Report of Interview of McISAAC, dated November 20, 1985.
(2pages) 15 Report of Interview of BARTLETT, dated November 20, 1985. 1 (2 pages) 16 Report of Interview of SMITH, dated November 7,1985. (2 !
pages) 17 Report of Interview of BUCKLEY, dated October 30, 1985. (1 page)
, .' 18 ReportofInterviewofDAVIS, October 30,k985. (1page)
Case No. 1-85-019 31
.s , , .;n ; <i.. -... . C~. . . .. :~ i.. ' . :. ~ . .- .
r
)
Exhibit .;
No. Description ,
19 Report of Interview of McCARTY, dated November 13, 1985. *
(2 pages) ,
~'
20 Sworn statement of GAZDA, dated November 26,1985.y,(4pages) 21 Sworn statement of NELSON, dated December 3, 1985. (8 pages) 22 Sworn statement of HILSMEIER, dated December 9, 1985.
(6 pages) 23 Sworn statement of WINZENRIED, dated December 20, 1985.
(4 pages) -
24 Report of Interview of FLEISHMkNN, dated December 3,1985.
(2 pages) 4 25 BNI lay off document, undated. (1 page) 26 Report of Interview of IPOLETTA, dated November 7,1985. 1 (1page) . j l
27 Report of Interview of STAFFORD, dated November 7,1985. l (2 pages) l 28 Memorandum, WILLIAMS to MATAKAS, dated November 1,1985.
(1 page) 29 Report of Interview of FIELD, dated November 7, 1985. (1page) ;
I . 1 30 FIELD's resume for employment at the PNGS, undated. (2 pages) U
..(Document Withheld: PRIVACY ACT)
~
31 Report of Interview of GIBBS, dated November 20, 1985.
(2 pages) 32 NRC Inspection Report, under letter of transmittal, dated May 30, 1985. (12pages) l Case No. 1-85-019 32
.v . :: :.... ;..
- . .. .= ca;. w . . , . . .
- ~ . . . . .w , . . ~ . - ;
y
+ ,)
4 10 CFR 50.7, Employee Protection states:
'\' (a) Discrimination by a Commission licensee, permittee, an 4 l
applicant for a Commission License or permit, or a contractor or {
subcontractor of a Commission licensee, permittee, or applicant against j en employee for engaging in certain protected activities is prohibited.
Discrimination includes discharge and other actions that relate to ,
compensation, terms, conditions, and privileges of employmen.f. 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.
(1) The protected activities include but are not limited to:
(i) Providing the Commission information about possible violations ' i of requirements imposed under either of the above statutes; j (ii) Requesting the Commission to institute action against his or i her employer for the administration or enforcement of these requirements; or 1 (iii) Testifying in any Commission proceeding.
(2) These activities are protected even if no formal proceeding is actually initiated as a result.of the employee assistance or participation.
J I
l l
(25) -
i 1
1 p
& O .O
. i l
e 0
EXHIBIT 1
. TO-59-!R O
..a.
m _ .; . r_ .p A s . .. _ a u. . .e g .2.. u .n w. . . .
~ mc.o
)
REPORT OF INTERVIEW
(' Report Number: 1-85-019 l James J. KOTTAN, NRC Radiation Laboratory Specialist, was interviewed by the reporting Investigator on October 26, 1985, at the Region I Field.,0ffice. The purpose of the interview was to discuss a Region I inspection corMucted on August 6-7, 1985, concerning a potential overexposure to p.lant personnel .
during an unplanned Unit 3 shutdown on March 1, 1985. ;
l KOTTAN stated that on August 2, 1985, Region I received an allegation reporting )
a potential overexposure to George FIELD, Bartlett Health Physicist (HP)
Technician, in the Unit 3 offgas tunnel on March 1,1985. KOTTAN stated he j interviewed FIELD during the course of his August 6-7, 1985 inspection and determined that FIELD did have legitimate concerns regarding a perceived
- overexposure to his person and personnel whom he was escorting in the offgas tunnel on the day of the event. He said FIELD's concerns were a result of his. ,
survey meter going offscale while he and three other personnel were in the ]
h offgas tunnel. KOT. TAN said that FIELD was concerned because he felt the licensee had not adequately addressed his perceived overexposure. K0TTAN said l
his inspection determined that the licensee did not do an indepth analysis of the incident. He said basically, all the licensee did was to state that their Harshaw badges were correct and the survey meter, which FIELD was carrying during the incid. tnt, had malfunctioned. He said the NRC analysis of the
,. incident did determine that the utility's assumption that FIELD did not receive an overexposure was correct; howeyer, he said their reasoning as to j why the meter malfunctioned was incorrect. He said the licensee's resolution
! of the discrepancy report concluded that the instrument was in error as a result of moisture and high humidity which caused the instrument to temporarily malfunction. KOTTAN said he could find no evidence to support this conclusion.
KOTTAN said that during his interview with FIELD, FIELD seemed very apprehensive l about speaking with him and gave the impression that he (FIELD) did not want to say anything directly against anybody. KOTTAN stated that based on his conversation with FIELD, and based on information he received from the individual whc reported the allegation, he (KOTTAN) felt,there may be some substance to the allegation that FIELD had been intimidated by the licensee for pursuing his perceived overexposure concerns.
-- w ...a... . .
.a.,~ ... ...-..e,.a...
-' .. . - . 2 l u .) ;
KOTTAN did not provide any additional pert,inent information.
(
End of Report of Interview with James J. KOTTAN dictated on December 17, 1985. ]
1
. l 4
.. >[
Reported By: v -
R. V. MataKas, InSestgater Office of Investigations Field Office, Region I .
);
s 1
1 1
1 I
e G . ..
. .. )
- I i
1
. l 1
..?,.,
,, , . ; .. _ , . ......_w..m.. ,- i .u .w
.~.~c < ' - - > - -
' . . # unma suns l
+
/ '
NUCLEAR F.EGULATORY CotAW$stOP ) /[hrd I g .- neaeow a l g asi PAan Avsmut y
- euwe or estussaa, sammsvLvAmeA n*es V ....* SEP 2 51985 i
Docket No. 50-278 License No. DPR-56 Philadelphia Electric Company -- i ATTN: Mr. S. L. Daltroff .
Vice President .A Electric Production I 2301 Market Street .
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 I Gentlemen: .
Subject:
Inspection Report No. 50-278/85-31 -
1 A special allegation inspection was conducted by Mr. J. J. Kottan of this l office on August 6-7, 1985, at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit 3, of '
i activities authorized by NRC License No. DPR-56. Our findings were discussed l with Mr. R. Fleischmann and others of your staff at the conclusion of the l inspection.
Areas examined during this inspection are described in the NRC Region I l Inspection Report which is enclosed with this letter. Within these areas, the ;
inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative 1 records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the inspector.
6 Within the scope'of this inspection, no violations were observed.
l 1
However, a concern was identified relative to an incident which involved the !
exposures to gaseous radioactivity of individuals who entered the Unit 3 ;
recombiner offgas tunnel on March 1, 1985. You are requested to provide us, '
within thirty days of the date of this letter, your analysis of that incident including the final beta dose to the individuals, the radiation survey meter response to noble gases and i.he resolution of Discrepancy Report 85-087 .
regarding the difference between the survey meter and the TLD results.
~
The response requested by this letter is not subject to Office of Management and Budget restrictions as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
Your cooperation with us in this matter is appreciated.
Sincerely, h.h Aq $
Thomas T. Martin, Director
, , Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards
[
Enclosure:
NRC Region I Inspection Report No. 50-278/85-31 6 8,M 3
'1-85 o19 O
" ..: . . . . . . . , . .. .. ...a..- .- . O -
~..~ Ti. . - '
,. . . . a . :.... ;
I I
~ '
Philadelphia Electric Company 2
.. 8 i
N cc w/ encl: j R. S. Fleischmann, Station Superintendent .
i John S. Kemper, Vice President, Engineering and Research j Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esquire A.Electric J. Pietrofitta, General Manager, Power Production Engineering,A Atlantic Eugene J. Bradley, Esquire. Assistant General Counsel (Without Report)
Raymond L. Hovis, Esquire .
Thms Magette, Power Plant Siting, Nuclear Evaluations (Without Report)
Public Document Room (PDR)
Local Public Document Room (LPDR) .
Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)
NRC Resident Inspector -
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania bec w/ enc 1: -
Region I Docket Room (with concurrences)
Senior Operations Officer (w/o enc 1)
Section Chief, DRP R. K. Christopher, Director, Office of Investigations, Philadelphia Field Office f i
l I
~
/
. LJ I
- ; i
- . I il '
l i !
i i
1
. j i
e l
1 i
l y<) M. / 2. I l'
~
- ' ~~
- . . , .. .: . . a.a : hu - .- .
, i 1
-l' N
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I -
Report No. 50-278/85-31 --
. . J Docket No. 50-278 3-License No. OPR-56 Priority -
. Category C .
Licen'see: Philadelphia Electric Company 2301 Market Street ' '
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 Facility Name: Peach Bottom Atomic power Station. ' Unit 3 Inspection At: Delta, Pennsylvania Inspec, tion Conducted: August 6-7. 1985 Inspectors: d .N * /77/M 9 /e [
J. J. Kottan
- Radiation Laboratory Specialist
. / date J. E. B A o_ $$ 85~
, Project Engineer date Approved by: JYV)I's (Ab Nsciak, Chief, BWR Radiological
$ 11 $$
- idate Protection Section Inspection Summaty* i i
Insoection on Auoust 6-7,1985 (Inspection Report No. 50-278/85-31)
Areas Inspected: Nonroutine, unannounced
- inspection of allegation RI-85-A-0084 involving a potential overexposure during an unplanned reactor shutdown of Unit 3 on March 1, 1985. The inspection involved 20 inspector hours on-site by two NRC regionally-based inspectors.
Results: No violations were identified. No individual appeared to have received doses in excess of regulatory limits.
( .
30 4 /A
.a ... . - ..: ..u u: . ~.w . ~ . . . .aw. , '~ . = .:. -~ . . ~:
)
- s. DETAILS
- 1. Individuals Contacted
~
- R. Fleischmann, Manager, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station .
- A. H11smeir, Senior Health Physicist A
- Denotes those present at the exit interview. .
The inspector interviewed other personnel not identified in the report for I reasons of confidentiality. -
1
~
1
- 2. Background - '
On August 2, 1985, Region I received an allegation regarding a potential overexposure during an unplanned Unit 3 shutdown on March 1, 1985. A regionally-based NRC inspector was dispatched to the, site on August 6 and 7, 1985, in order to review the allegation.
Two licensee and two licensee contractor personriel entered the Unit 3 j recombiner offgas tunnel at approximately 1130 hours0.0131 days <br />0.314 hours <br />0.00187 weeks <br />4.29965e-4 months <br /> on March 1, 1985.
W O At initial entry, the general area radiation exposure survey meter )
i (Eberline Instrument Company Model RD-2A air ionization chamber) readings were approximately 80-100 mR/hr as expected. During the entry. the survey meter went offscale on the 0-5 R/hr sc.nle.. When switched to the 0-50 R/hr, scale, the survey meter registered approximately 5 R/hr. When the beta shleid of the instrument was opened, the instrument went offscale on the
' 0-50 R/hr scale. All four personnel evacuated the Unit 3 recombiner offgas tunnel promptly. At approximately the same time, friskers through-cut the turbine building were alarming. Licensee personnel present in the turbine buiTding were contaminated, and particulate air samples were taken throughout the turbine butiding. The tir sample results indicated the presence of noble gas particulate daughters: Rb-88 and Cs-138. Specific areas of the Unit 3 turbine building were cleared of personnel by the licensee and posted as airborne radiation areas. Because the personnel contamination was short lived, after sufficient decay and monitoring, personnel could leave the area and the site. -
The gas releases and the change's in radiation fields were. caused by a Unit 3 plant transient which occurred at 11:50 a.m. on March 1, 1985 due to the failure of the 3B offgas recombiner compressor. The equipment i
failure, together with air leakage into the main condenser, caused a loss of condenser vacuum. Control room operators responded to the transient by
, attempting to reduce power and recover condenser vacuum. These efforts
- were unsuccessful and the unit scrammed on loss of main condenser vacuum at 12
- 03 p.m. A Licensee Event Report (LER) was submitted regarding this unplanned reactor shutdown (LER No.85-007). ,
J. .
44I9
_ m, . - - < u . c.;c.; - . .a: . ..a.c 4 m.a._. m.~ .. n.m . 4. . M a r. s ., ~_.u._.R
- I
.l l 2
\
- 3. External Exoosure .
The personnel entering the Unit 3 recombiner offgas tunnel were wearing "
two TLD badges, one which is read daily by the licensee., end one read '
monthly by a vendor. On March 1, 1985, the daily TLD read less than 10 mR gamma for all individuals in the recombiner offgas tunnel. With the exception of one of the four persons, the daily TLD surface dose results of March 1,1985, were also less than 10 mR. The one. exception had an apparent surface dose of 12.5 mR. The vendor TLDs for three of the four individuals were sent to the vendor on March 6,1985, and indicated 0 surface dose and 0 gamma close. The radiation survey meter indicated an exposure of approximately 5 R/hr, and with the beta shield open, the -
instrument went offscale (0-50 R/hr). ;
i i
Based on interviews with personnel who were in the offgas recombiner I tunnel, the inspector determined that at least one person was concerned .
about the discrepancy between the survey meter and the TLD results, and the potential for.y overexposure. The inspector reviewed a licensee discrep-ancy report (85-087) which was issued regarding the difference between the survey meter and the TLD results. The instrument calibration was checked ,
l on March 5, 1985, and found to be within calibration and functioning i properly. The H.P. technician who used the survey meter stated that the - l meter responded to a radioactive source before entry into the Unit 3 offgas recombiner tunnel. .
The licensee's' resolution of the discrepancy report concluded that the instrument was in error as a result of moisture and high humidity which l
caused the instrument to temporarily malfunction. The instrument cali-
~ bration perfonmed on March 5,1985, was acceptable because the instrument '
.had " dried out" by that time. The inspector could find no evidence to support this conclusion, such as moisture found inside the instrument which would cause the instrument to over-respond.
~~
An NRC Inspection Report, (Report Nos. 50-277/85-19 and 50-278/85-15) which contained the results of performance tests of the licensee's inhouse e.nd vendor TLDs used in their personnel dosimetry program, indicated that both the inhouse and vender TLD systems underrespond to lower eneFgy (T1-204) beta radiation. Licensee personnel stated that a large part of the noble gas mixture beta energy spectrum would fall into this lower energy category. The licensee would, therefore, multiply the surface dose by a correction factor to obtain a corrected surface Bose. At the time of this inspection, the licensee had yet to determine the correction factor to be used in this calculation. .
The NRC inspector performed calculations based on an offgas sample taken on March 4,1985, at 90% power. (On March 1,1985, Unit 3 was at approxi-mately 25% power prior to shutdown.) The calculated beta dose and the gamma dose bracket'the Itcensee's TLD values. See Appendix A. The assumptions made by the inspector were based on the following: (1) No radioactive decay of the offgas sample, (2) dilution, based on the ratio of the gamma survey meter (approximately 5 R/hr), with the beta shield closed, 5sa .
- m. .
- - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - ~ - - ~ - - - - -
a - - = ~ . . . .. . . . . . . . . . - . . . ~
- ~ .
)
3
]
i k
to the calculated body dose of approximately 450 R/hr, and'(3) dilution based on the ratio of Cs-138 concentrations in air samples taken in the turbine butiding to the Cs-138 concentration in the offgas sample. , These ratios are approxime.tely 100 and 100,000 respectively. Althoqsh not in equilibrium with Xe-138 (the daughter half life is greater thsh the parent l half life), the Cs-138 air sample Jata was decay corrected to the counting time of the offps vial, approximately one hour after sample time in order ]
j to approximate the dilution factor. The dilution. factors give boundary conditions for the dose calculation. -
- 4. Conclusion t
Based on the results of this inspection, it appears that no,1icensee personnel were exposed in excess of NRC regulatory limits. ' .The TLD gamma ,
dose results appear to be a valid estimate of the gamma dose:obtained by the individuals in the recombiner offgas tunnel. The beta doses'have yet to be finalized by the Itcensee since the licensee has not yet decided on !
- a final correction factor for the system underresponse.- NRC calculations, based on conservative dilution factors and to radioactive decay,' bracket ,
the TLD results. The radiation survey meter appears to have been working correctly in the offgas tunnel, and the licensee's resolution of the dis- )
M- crepancy report, appears to be incorrect. The Itcensee, at the time of this inspection, had no information regarding the survey instrument response in noble gas clouds including the potential for leakage into the )
instrument by the noble gases. The inspector stated that this issue would-
.' be an inspector follow,up.. item (50-278/85-31-01) untti the beta dose had been finalized, the instrument response to noble gases was determined, and
. the release points of offgas into the offgas tunnel.and the turbine butid-ing was detemined. - ,
The inspectoIalso review'eYthe results of air samples taken in the Uait 3 turbine building and noted that these values were below 10 CFR 20.MPC values. A review of the Unit 3 roof vent effluent release point for*
i March 1,1985, indicated an elevated release for approximately two' hour .
- period,1230 hrs, to 1430 hrs., but within Technical Specification limits. )
In addition, the inspector note'd that interviewed individuals expressed l i
concern regarding the difference between survey instruinent beta results ;
and beta results from TLDs used to measure beta dose rates for various
! 'aintenance jobs in contaminated areas. The inspector discussed the m
method of calibration versus the actual method of us's for the survey instruments with the licensee. The inspector stated that this area would
, be an inspector follow-up item untti the discrepancy could be resolved.
3 (50-278/85-31-02) ,
t
( ,
6 M / 3-
,' amega
- m a
-- =a an.=.- . , .
- e= , e-me ,s==w= m=== e me-==me=***=*==*-******""*****"-****a=== = = = . - * *
+ .m r
a w.~ . ; :.. . :.- = -. x.- . ..
, . .c. :... .
- ... .. . .. a
) \
4
(. )
- 5. Exit Interview l The inspector met with the licensee representatives denoted in Paragraph I at the conclusion of the inspection on August 7,1985. .The inspector !
summarized the purpose and scope of the inspection and the inspection findings. . A i
I
. \
g_
i I
i I
1 k .
i
,i ', .
l l
i
.S O
g .
l' -
i l
i 6
i .
e 0
- D a ) QL .
w.~ m e = u ,.,c.. m- .r .. ---e
. . . . -. . .w.. . - - . - . - - - - - - - . -.--- .- -.
m . . u. : .. . v a. , > z..
.. . . .r .-.; -
I
.(.
APPENDIX A l Offgas Sample ..
l uti/ml pC1/m' *
.).
I Kr-85m 2.04E-2 = 2.04E+10
! Kr-87 5.37E-2 = 5.37E+10 Kr-88 5.41E-2 = 5.41E+10
, Xe-133 1.06E-2 = 1.06E+10 .
l Xe-135 8.80E-2 = '8.80E+10 Xe-135m 1.47E-1 = 1.47E+11 Xe-138 2.51E-1 = 2.51E+11 6 Skin Dose (rem /hr)
- Body Dese frem/hr)
Kr-85m 3.40 2.72 Kr-37 59.57 36.24 Kr-88 14.62 90.66
~
Xe-133 0.37 0.36 Xe-135 18.66 Ott Xe-135m -
11.91 18.16 52.28 Xe-138 118.18 252.66 226.64 15T35 l l ..
/
Dose factors taken from Reg. Gu.ide 1.109. Stay time is 1 min. C This assumes-a semi-infinite cloud of offgas. This is nnt the case. !
_ A ' dilution factor must also be considered.
Dilution factor of ~100 based on gamma survey meter readings. (See Paragraph 3)
Dilution factor of ~105 based on Cs-138 air particulate values. (See Paragraph 3) 226 Rad I hr 1 min 1 Therefore beta skin dose = hr x 60 min x x IDD - = 38 arem I to 226 Rad I hr 1 min 1
= hr x 60 min x x 100,000 = 0.04 arem
- $P of 1;L
- - +- *
.,,'...r. --, . . . '. . . : . I , .iv.v .w 'J Gr.,wpe r. t . 7J ~~~~ ~ ~ ' ' ~ '~ ~' ~~~
'J-,..... @T 5 ~"** '** * .
e
m m- ;- ;_; ;,__
. i
. 1 Appendix A .
2 t,
l'ain l
l- 453 Ree 1 het'. 1 Gamma body dose = hr x 60 min x. x T55 = 7s er q to 453 Rem I hr I-I sin 1
= hr x 60 min x x T5D"555 = o.os seen ;
1 i
1 .
l l
l !
I i
1
. se
- d
)
i 1
t J
l 9
a s
3 of /2.
. ~ .. . . . . . . ; ... . . . . . . .- .=,
. . . -~. , ~s ;. m. w3. ,. . . . - . . - - . -
u a i _ _t le eP t e oM M __ l ti s
g D l r
,i Db a
a Dl
_M Bl e M n .
i w a 1 t _ # I #
i e
t 1 e _ t I t
I v
e p
R 1 s p Rl
- p I nh R l R - 4 t I t - t - -
t _-
u A* u l u l o I oI o s s s I -
i c
I t
e _ _i C -
1 i C
1
/ l -
/l _/ l
)r Ao t
ap I
,b l _ t d
p I
=
t d
pI e t ul - .
UI U Aan i -
i i g g I g a ,
t 1
Tis y h y 7or t
t e fY l
, eI Ll
, eI I
l' e
.I a.I y
D a
l oY i e _ t aI AY t
a i
t t
a y
O - t, f D - , . b 1 e
e g _
, - I
/.K~ u AD y
_ e I
) ,
el l
r D D u , _ u I g e 1
d ,c D f
n I D , t _
l aD ,
, e _ D e D D o , n , s n 1 i l
- l _ o - _ o - D s o -
t c l
/ e _
i t
J
? M l o _ i t
l M I t M p _ c eM I
I A / H 1 l
- c. _ A cI M cI AI M I
i _A 1
t _
]
o _
/ E r _
I .I s
p1
/ pF e p4 E.-
. I W
el R r h sP n s
e 1 e
s/
.l I
D I
n
=
ReW R I Rl e
i N
A T
l i -
t S a i o _I t _
l 6 t a
_I -I T e a a I _l e I 1 U r _
Ab r e rE i a I
_ r e O l AI r s .
r _ _Ai r _ r 1
e sI 1
k _ _ -
l
. s e I s _
_I e1 Al .-
o s
- i. _ I l
=
l o , _
o1 C l_ I l l
- h. _ C C1
_ _, c l
ab e rI [ _
o l
/
I 7 fl 1/ l rI e I e
s fI
_I
/
rI e
J
_I
/
el f I bf i f r m
i ul ?
t dI o
t ._ _e7 l
I t
d I
o' l eI i1 d 1 e
d du 5 o I d o t
e y e i o il M l
<- _ 1 M I n d u I M
1 d
1 n
I r t e
r t
r _
_l
'n i _o
_M 9 o I M_ I 1
t K e i 1 . I w d o
l -
l i
a _1 I 2 e M M D 1 _I
_3 r ,
_e4
, I e1 _I i I
sE _ a e e
_I p4 r p l l pI hE e l p
OU. y t t i r o
I I tc T y fF
_t r
I
- y TI l "y t 1 6 = rI e r _I rl o
l c
e a
~
l i l n 4 e. ef l
J! tM e
n pe _
I tl a
nl i t
a n
e l f i o l i i
_ l g
r 17 I
l gl l
O 7 t -
r l o i r 17 r s _ l i
r l
f t
_ 7 r i
- 1 s e - O u _ - r l - O l
r l r e t I l - O b
a e i 1
I h t b e l
& a b l
- b. 3 b m #
t ^
n o 1 _l a
s t M h l _
_l
/ t a I s
i L m u
i Ml h m-
- I e -
i c Q mfs i i
e1 a ml NH n
D o
F t ei i_ M lp t 5 I
.1 1
6 r I
l I
e tI I
e t l I-9% ~P j;i.
l
) J. -.}'; .'
gp ~ :
li
. ' ),3). l- - . d!H4N
.. ....o . , .
l l
, gne m n, , u.E.feUCLEAA A* CULATORY CO.duts$40.d -
s.e cf sena en mm..aram.m. ,
'EE g g ,$ REPORT ^ "
Office of~ihapeenon and Enforcement h.b /
/ '
um u - '"**** ***' **'****"
l us =
co.rse uch.,see"
.E ,f eD. n vR. il O f* Mob bf2 ')lBI l l l l al.fttil * - - -
f
" -"88'"
I Ii I i i l I iI I
-._ . - urt I i i i i l i l 1iI i l I si i i e
,1 g _...
g* _ _ . _ _
I
.,I ,.
., m x .- -
,,._, . _m QM. OJb)3 p 28 pl AK 8 ****."*m
- EE in-.MM ----
. . c. -
g
.- , .. = , , .
K -% _ .
. . ,, .--,.e,. ,
6_ _ _ ._ : .2. _ - mg e .
,,=,,,, . -
2-- ==i ,_..
w .. ,,,,,,,,,,,,
,-,,,,,,,, =r=== . .e=
- s. mam . g. e ; o ;.g. c;. .;.lcg.l lg,g[l,;.
a-*****"'*" M, .,t , - v.*
t , - v.s
. . E, , 4 . . .; J I 7
l .. ... ; .
~
~
- As -aaa-a ,.=
- c . . 1,-
= _ . . _ _ . mas _ . c on
. _ _ _ = _ _ _ _ _ _ .
hi,p o n o
..ip 1 1 1 11 5 4,5l 7,0,cNB ll i i l liiil a
li! ! i ll lI !!! ill ll i i l liiil lii ! Ill 11: ;
s e i2,0 , ,
i i l,,l . .' i I,iI ^
i i i i i Ie i l i
" ,,- , , , I,,1 = , , , , , I,,I e
e , ,, , lie l e
=
, , , , , Iiii 1
, , ,, , li,1 -
= , , , , , le , I
. , , Iiii *
, , ,, , I,il . , , I,,I a
, , , , , I,,I
- ,, , , l , I,,1 = , , , , , I,,I c
i , ,, , I,,1 c
, , , , , I,,I
=
I,,1 l I =
, , , I,,I
. i iliil *
, , , , , I,,1 . i! , I,il' a ,, ,e i I,,I
. i , , i Ie il a i i e , , I,,I i I,,I
- l,,I .l l Ii,l +
(d ii , , , i . ,, ,,
i I iI l
,, , , , I.,I + ,, ,, . , Ii,I I
,, , , , I,,1 * ,, ,, , li,I
- a:S',P4't... o U",,""2!!!llE!!!!-l ,
l N EMI- E MME,
- _ , , . . , . . . , I
~ __
a .' '. M.* ;J : .e a . .j .g . . y ,, ,
a s*I _ -.. . . U :E. L ...-... i 8
. . , . . .6, .; ..' , .5 4 . ' ..l'<. . .lw
, , m :- lid . ..
s... , , . -- . . . , -
~
) '
POST-INSPECTION COVER SHEET ~
DATE SUBMITTED: 7!/M65 ,19h WA d 6P3/ e d -MB T
~
FROM: y T . RE: n (Reporting Ins ctor) (Inspection No.) (Dates off Inspection)
TO: M . T rasceq[c (Reporting Inspector's Supervisor) he,cM bNe> - k=[ $
(Facility Identification)
/>2' The facility resident / senior resident inspector has been infomed of the inspection results.
K/ The facility profeet section chief has been informed of the inspection results.
l /j(( Lead inspector's section chief has been infomed of the inspection results. I P Feeder Reports have been completed and are attached - List:
1.
2.
- 3. i
- f/' Inspection Report is completed and ATTACHED.
AQ' Documentation letter or Region I Form 29 is completed and _ attached (a standard form with new or modified paragraphs desired). .
/(/ List of updated outstanding items (Region I Foin 6) completed. For Materials, license folder ateached (list will be with it).
' $ / Statistical Data Sheet (766) completed and ATTACHED.
p nspection Plan (Region I Fors 1) as corrected, ATTACHED for Branch Files, i~ SALP: input submitted for Division files.
h AdditiondlComments:
O ] // -
.Y
- f (Reporting Inspector)
.' File:
Reporting In'spector's Branch -
- NOTE
- Cross out and initial sections not applicable.
,( '
REGION I Form 2 (Aevised March 1985) 1 Ia e /R 2, . _ _ _ ,_
, - - - - - - . .;-- :: :.--- ;-~ -
I a
m .. - .. . ;: . _ . ._ . .. . a . . . . u. .. 1 . . . . . . . . _ .
APPEtCIX 1 1 A-86
"""~"~~"~ Page 7 of 10, Rev. 2 )
t' .
i
\
f[ DISCREPAN"Y REPoRP Report No. _. 5o7
/' I i
,f/ m w iand e ng.- w <
F Part I - Identification: -- ,
1 nate of ocx:urrence: M/# me of oocurrenoe: A,roy /aoci.
Icoaticn of occurrence vhe,# ees .o.b +od /co 's/ - i Indirmal identifying the discrepancy: orsroe Reid MPrint) -
Persennel i Imolved -
" ZEE D E.M E N
ceseripb et epancy: en 3' ' s' d a onne si
- v. !
taco .2 wec esceek,% e 2 TESlde ah A ons -
a .
p,'n e k n el 6 l,, s.o e elacaeet aa cW s . 'i~ was show.% $ .
too-acenekr. c/A Z 4 ken ub:ceel uv wher was
- . i
.% e reesLe +c v Cl s4- T w LL nl b -/-Le r R -l n i secle 4Le. needle skead 4.f R t %IA h 3 e4L er- o. r a. ir 4e leau, 4ke acect r 4Lem scM4ck,c(.
4e 4he J'o # wa(e ewd eco.seel Ske Gek w.%docJ i
.- ,ea we+cr shen we A d-C senf e oeev -Cocl ~C cJa s cdr c-F Twaa" ate+ke Correctivetoaset Acticn in et acc Obeun f s%cn fra#rd4. +;%e erd $,uw+
rio e w+c y +ke ya.QQ:ce I m oJ.sove.b . 7t.M - sorwg- i r caon - neM serwaa c r is. ~. snu aaawss s:c , / sf &3.r.co s v '.>.es oara c ) s.>u.e o s io -e. ELu/.,, rtM ><ar to out,ae corp. m on-c.0. ore p . 6 cenwarrea. J:0,nA mst was web si f ncous.ana.
ficts sr ros e cf enc a.twet . OJ 3 s*- t! tr <Jas ca eert*o r 21 I C 7, c recrgA: = _ -. ne.,voad cb co.~.ot.cr1o' n A s.es.) m y y .w os.s.t. oa w e 53w/s,. staa . /sinoca cw. tem' n s ,Mo' earrsY T .w.>n.x t ou & mc r
SK/k 150 C//,, : casts (saws .Wst.*b C* *C'*r*A)
- T"C . s**s "*
- cavaiv r.ea i out m ca.nes. p increr 15#2 .! .
nr ras.e or oesatosessc.g paar Copy of Jte;crt forwarda5 to:
YY/t Ngenio'r ' Plane staff Merte.ru G7 3 Imestigaticn assigned to Date
. .6xh.b.+ 4 E 10 8 5.-- 019 jjq
. . a . .,.. .iO M . d . .. . =a . . ..w
.a u: w; m...e ;.. ..... . ;. ;p. , ,, .a ., ,;:. ;. a, . -
. ... x,;
- APPENDIX 1 4 A 46 j t ,.) Page 8 of 10, Rev. 2 .j Part II - Irwestigation (cruplated by Investigator) h .$5 r g r - e=nes e.d - .
l
,b U/s/h< A's w.s ,-
ts' ,,, M.J r<ah e/w, P,%he
.),
i Investigation Results: .
E ~dyr- O n e re r s / /3 kN r e a./ c/su N U r3 bea r Y W -
r Aa hw f;i,eL .J wn s n ., <. J een>.
De t en rwe se L sa f seu .vsn/f Ib l' 1 V
e hw h hswlb W- t _ _~f A p, I u tI, h ls eav l ha few / h < ? la. la +m usw,*/h
- V' Anis de' d w Y W evuneb / m e <
. k 'r'J /'
)
~
h.e Mu en s.e */ th'rs s Arr,rm n o . .
s .
i I
1 q
~
- W }~i N lJ m ti W f 3/3-W/J Repcet Investigator (Print) Signature Date organizatisms Involved:
PED: Den 8ars: .
. Oparations . EEJL . Catalytic
. t. . Stores Div. . General E1 metric
. security Div. . aankels a Mao:y
. IEC . .
. . Reactre .. ~~
. . Training
. Test Engineers
. o 0 & L-l E
.b :. ;,.. : .-, a-~ ..
- ..- - - ~- ... '" ., -
s..
, . ... . - . ~ -- ~. -
M 1.. ___.
A-86
. s. ,
J Page 9 of.10, Rev. 2 Part III - 0:rrective Actions
(~
oiserepeney cause: A /4u, d;N ,y, ;nrfa ,-*#~
P
,' .t) '
- I ll (Use additional sheets for *y, h[ amoannended additional itans)ctrrective Actions .
I Actim itam _.8. [ ] f_ 1 O_._.l._t m . o .. , .
chersu d , a n / r, / >, dvA Re > W s m h /* W n d n LA <
e Are?r'.6 n y -
Indivi&aal oc group responsible for Action:
Data action to be ocupleted: 5 /21//3'~
Action Itam Approval: [ . i
' l Action Item _ ,,,,,,, _,,_ _ ,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,, _t ,.
t I
Iftlivihaal Or grOLg3 ISSplmsible fCC acticE1:
.Date action to be canpleted:
- Acticm Item by.yal -
l
~
Action Itam _ ,,,,,,, ,,,_,, ,,,,,,,,, _ ,,,,,,,, _ ;, ,
- e #
e*
i- :
! l
. t l
Individual Cr M respCmEible for ActiGli ;
Date action to be ocupleted: , , _ . l Action Item % wv.1:
I wyd h Benice Plant Staff Musber 3lYr/ W Date 3sy
% y 4
< aes=m se e e asp n.
- . . ... . . . . :. . . . . . . . . , . . w.. u,...L .
. - :w. . . . . . . x , : > .1 APPDCIX 1 A-86
.. 8 Pag) 10 cf 10, .Rev. 2 r Part IV - Policw-up & C1csure (ccmpleted by Engineer @)
( Categorization:
l Activity Cbdes Cause Q:de:
.. 4 tenance . Procedural Deficiency i
3
[ .e ification
. Iack of or inadequata ->
amninistrative controls' l
- q. . - 4 ery . n.aign oafict.ner by: i
. airveillance twting . xlac. Pred j _ h,g . Plant Operaticr2 . 7E00 (other than EP)
. It:sutine Operation . Vendoc
')V . Transient Response p.puent failure
. andweste . Fabricatica, Installation
. Security or Maint. Erroc
. Fire Addor/ . Personnel Error M-P=,n' ag . Failure to follow esenh14mh.A
. Training Procedural controls
. Etnergerx:y Plans . Lack af awareness or training
. Trouble shooting in k h al controls
. Pre-Op Testing . Ia::k of cr inadequate *
. Pra:surement ccumunication
. Fuel Bandling -
. Lack of or inadequate
. Other equipannt identificatico -
t specify . Other
. 8P*cifY 1
1 Status /C1csure: 1 1
=
0 m
W 9
0
$ Close$ by: - -
k .
Signature 4 Date '/
- e.'
, t* #
e i
i l . . .- .. - .. . ... . .
p .w . . . . . - a. .~ . ~ . w. . ..i.a.. ,x.a . .. . ~.=..,~.a..... ;2.rmasWE.X.D LIMITED DISTRIBUTION -- NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE Request No. .RI-85-006 TO: R. K. Christopher, Director, Office of Investigations, Philadelphia '
Field Office .).
FROM: T..E. Murley, Regional Administrator, Region ! ,
REQUEST FDR INVESTIGATION . ,
Psiladelnhia Electric Company 50 278 L9censee/ Vendor / Applicant
~
Docket No. '. .
i.
Peach Bottom Unit 3 '
l Facility or Site Location
. :. Murlev SEP 13 IBM ]- ,
C.. I,eg'onal Administrator / Office Director Date M.F
.h..
y
- A:;. :
A. Reevest {" 3[
What is the matter that is being requested for investi ation (be s Il specific as possible regarding the underlying incident $
. Region I received an allegation on 8/4/85 involving an overexposure incident.
The a11eger claims that the Hp technician who was involved in the incident -
(and who is the source of the alleger's infomation) was told by his management (Bartlett)andPEConotto 1) talk about the incident and 2) -
talk to the NRC, using the threat of dismissal as a deterrent.
B. Purpose of Investigation .
- 1. What wrongdoing is suspected: explain the basis for this view (be as specific as possible).
Intimidation of an individual involved in protected activities is suspected. This suspicion is based on information supplied by the alleger and his source.
l e a,.w.4 5 l ' .~
6
- . . . . la . . . .. a . . . . : ,. . -. ~. . - . u . : ~ ;. . u=u...,
{
LIMITEtrsISTRIBUTION - NOT FDR PUBLIC L.sCLOSURE
, 2 s
- 2. What are the potential regulatory requir'ements
- hat may have been violated?
10 CFR Part 50.7 Employee Protection
..v.
- 3. If no violation is suspected, what is the specific regulatory concern?
N/A
- 4. If allegations are involved, is there a view that the allegation occurred? likely occurred , not sure X , If likely, explain the basis for that view.
Region I has already detemined that no overexposure occurred. What has not been determined is whether the HP technician was indeed intimidated. .
h' C. Recuester's Priority
- 1. Is the priority of the investigation high, normal, or low? 1nw j
- 2. What is the estimated date when the results of the investigation are needed? 9/30/85 for results of initial interview withjhe a11eger and his
. source
- 3. What is the basis for the date and the impact of not meeting this date?..(For example, is there an immediate safety issue that east be addressed or are the results necessary to resolve any ongoing ,
regulatory issue and if so, what actions are dependent on the i outcome of the investigation?) . '
The above date was decided upon during discussions between R. Christopher.
01, and S. Collins, DRP, at an Allegation Panel Meeting on 9/4/85.
~
No immediate safety issue exists and there wil1 be minimal impact if this date is not met. ,
l I
bi-85-019 .
. . . _ _ - . . . . . . . . . . _ =. ..L M. :. J
^'
~- ... . . . , . .. . . ... ..= :.. . . :: _ .. .. = =:z.
(
.~ ~, / . . ... . .
LIMITED D']RIBUTION - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISP' .. .. . -
. __ .. ._ . . . g i \ '
T.sntact D. ..
- 1. Staff members: R. Gallo .
~~ '
T. Johnson N. Bicehouse ~y,'
J. Kottan
- 2. Allegers identification with address and telephone number jf l
not confidential. Indicate if any confidential sources are l
involved and who any,_be, contacted for the identifying deta11st) _ _ _ _ _ ,
A11eger has requested confidentiality. -
T. Nhnson (Peach Bottom Senior Resident Inspector) can contact the al'Aeger onstte. Home address and telephone number are not known.
F. Other' Relevant Infomation Inspection Report 50-278/85-31 provides documentation of the followup of the alleged overexposure and concludes that no overexposure occurred.
[ 3 T. E. Murley cc: "
, B. Hayes, O! -
j W. J. Dircks EDO ..
, J.~ Taylor, IE i- G. Cunningham, DELD A. Shropshire, RI . .
. R. Gallo, RI '
S. Collins, RI W. Pasciak, RI T. Johnson, SRI PB ,
t 4
l s . .
i .
If r, .3 3.. - :-
. .. . . . . . . - . . - . . - - - - . . .- ----. .. . .? k-. . . .-
_m -
p ., ,, 81
. k, . ,s.o,.. . :... . .c.- .
,-y_,,, . _ _
. . -- j. .: ~ 4.,4 . . . a * . . - s s.'
s@;g.g* .:,p.,k}6?.=~.
fc j,
.. . p j 's,, . ,L.-g m>-.- ,
- ,,, 4,y > ( .p.s
,,a . ~ , c;.g g , ~..
g.. .s.
g,
- f. pp
, R-p .*
' ':.. ~->WL ; * .W;i,nv.L * - ~3' , a. % - L .: J'. -
- *WQ'% . ,
- r. ,7 ,*
. ,~; ' -&,.
4 :. . M , ; m W ~f ." 49 , rw m ,. a . f . e r m,
~
. .~ +( .p . :1...- 5,
.r'$'
. L - - -
e.mnw .
c-'? Y .
7-hh,.~ ",,y
} '
m, ,e n n~
- ~'
, -G, ..:l.;**;[
. o,~,":! % .W. h . -
s.c ,
'?
. .' - . ' '., fifgY* ' p.,.
b' b'$
- ~'
.h '
- es 1 . .
g' , , f'[ , ,, , ,
4..
y g * / rj v.c .'. t, t .;tti
- %.La.a.:ws:.0 ! .. . . m.b. =km.dr.2, :% %.w . . n v'*gr q, c
g 11a&=, -
- ' murmammm==newamu,.yn.r.ast,2,.,;:s.mm: -e -..-.y-.r u.,,e,.xrssu,isr.,r m .w.m m t..a.mncu
,, . g gy .
- ., .m
.... y , y ar y g ;y.,m e n-w #g -
,s ' - > . . , .,
u,f
.. . . tg . .
g .r
.; ; : ' ", ~._, b " ' p.dQast.4
.. .-~
, y. f. y
+ .
~T b 5
- Wm. 7"?' ,,
r c. c : ':
. ..c .s w. . .
e< .z-} ,g 6le g,.. .,w m, 9. e,r;Y:: p.# m ,. +! :- -g. >r i - 3':
,w + .m, 4 p7
' ~ -' * '
g.
- f. f. . ; '+ ' * - ' -- . ;~*:r4fR,-~-).
'rt 9 a. '-
.s
- ' .w f,.h"l h'*[ .. ,.
.p'll w.[ ';l b 2 " '"g - .-
-~; ' ' , . .. .
'W% ~~"!.'* Jk R.'s .
y, % .mq
- % s .
,s. ) =. g ,eh.,.a w f.;L:.m;.-). t t , a.? ;. t } % ;,y;~.-ph-lg?'g&
.g / *
~.a
% p_ a4 s p ,
~ g.. . f "' ; ' . ';[ , . ' s . -
- -. ~ -
s- . . ..:, s. st*s 9[
MI b Dk 'h 7
,'!. is a .-
4 .1 d ~- ' ' l' 4 %.. g 2 , it -w g.;g,, ,
.~ , ; . . q wTorw .c .
j .-
~
y, .
.. . . . ... -'.. , . . y.p, .%.: ; ,3.gg _ / f '- . f. .gjQ: LK%,
. ~ ..
+. ,
' ' '^ '
/, - ._,* . .
- . s a. '.
. -. . . , a .- ,- ..
. .w-Q:...
=e r my3a g-J.. *
.~w . ~ , -
, , [ . c.'
.e 6- .
6,. e . . ~ ~ ,,;..
' ~
f,{... .,.. $2ft % vW M?*~' L h & " W W W' W x W + ~ I Jjt .&
f h %.
r.~~: ,, ,,, v . al l w$ h &
, . f l l [
f A,
- mm";/'Nk '..&
', Jr
- ~*.w*
7.;s ../
. ' , ~. x .- -. ' " .
.u -
- i .. 7 ' . AQ~j'M ' , # ' # < ' .b < ' - a
. '. y , i " .,g ... . ,.' =
t,
, p .- .. .- . ;,- - ... ;,p
- 2. ' 7 .. ; ;, %@.
A Q, %;* .rred . 4, m%."[ c ),.<.. . '
y ,
_ . .., .. s er ,.
N':,;;;A.-
2.2 , ~ ..;. y- W . .; -
- -* ' ? . ; ? f., q-% . '
yJ3,k. ... , .I}
.n c .; , .,i - ,
. ... .- T, ,;
4 .
- , . . ,p. d .
f.
m aw. ,?
. ,, _;... . ~~ - S ,
y .
m m .. -.
. ,.a;+ - w - ~.mm' .. . . s
. . , I,ays e'
bhLY.,,.
J2. .
, w.
, ,q ,.. . , '.N.'
' 4 db
- p., m 1,
.f' Y ^*'V
- M :.'^% %.* f M:s - y v b' h L '- .h _ ,{
i, .
.' P* . , , , .
,.4 .r % ,* - '1 1 L. *
- :L'
^
^ on& W ~ - -
. + . . . .w .: . -.
.O
. *~ %- . or , . . .#
f Y
f -
's ~' I ~ ,r . . i -
Nh'hhN g7e.., e,, .s e n "M .
m D 7
$hhNh-
- . ) 4' 'g
- ,. e** ; + ' l%,e .n n .- _ ,, \
. ; , +.:.
- %.w, ?. .. . . . -;n e
. ' gn . t;p,9. m ;. - , j, . ,,,. "l * '~,. -
- - .. 2 - ' ;
- .y. . . ' :r %y . . , .,.,,;
.~ ,..
&3 . .?,.s:
~? .
. QC .'.. J'n .' ;' . ' 4~*
..n.
- ~ .
',.g: .
y$ek.$* - '.
c;;$y~~
' i 7 : ', R , Y 5 d y....
-tL.' g g w 1.. M i b.* y a.. _y .' . -.-
%r
? -.x. S. :-9QQh.f,[,th 1
.,. ,. ^y %
e nr .. .. L. ,p.g ..*
.w. ..e g .. _ :
- -, -3 !
}$l s.;e ' Y
- YsW *'- Sb
- s : ,k l
LJ' **=,f; .Te"*t3. o S {* - ' y , - . ,.f '.'. ?,Y k;-b M' , . g _
.vs 1 . - -
.s m .-
TQ4hg .-L t i ,k ; : i m. .m.g.
P. ' ,;.,..i w,-~. :.x..g 4 ',0 M>,,#,7
~~ ~,- i,j t, g
- _ f , l'.ffY.'l'**"t '.'~
y
[]ff~;.y y
'.' .( N[ M., M$i['.SM}$ $ d ' i.O.joi,,;;w
. - T,bnMQM ... - 4 .264, % , MI m mj a. -2" #
.. .:. . a=. a . . .= u . . =. ...
- z. .: .. . a. . a... .
- , m .....~ .. ... a,
.o ;
'. ld Oferel /W Z was fo/d A TV.E'wou]d..
he down to go in+o Un,'+.3 off pas @e fynraeI ,
-For inspecfjon. '
I / Me A/P / os .Z~reca//also si ned ouf +Ae -fa'd kef a/so. ! . +Aex called orro .fram a,+,/y/,'c .cafly end. asked han +o ;
po w,+A vs +o sc<ffy checW F4e,a,b Af o dressed,o,orox mr myse/60Koia r/Fauf, de a//c ;
I,ph+.s, +Aese where needed because a/lE/ec.
was +urned onc,n n e r ,,,7 ,
i
.T .cef u,o an a,7.cao.p/er. and uslocked G fAe door,7~4e do'se ek+es a/ He a%rwkre no hr*g h er -fAan ! had expeefeof anol tro ben was d *h ;
07r0. YAe,oresen+. I walk'ihsi e w, fa,e was safe chaop, e enuch. The wafer k +he. furexel l inou,'y was s/ow:
was Ue &~oc rnoved6asihehes Gv:cW deep,ly as ' '
possible bekee i sqHy walls becau.se +his is er Hi-foolanca.. '
Gen. en a close (kfes af fAe drain where-90-too ner/hr Gama i Ah bela. The / /EF hfc tJhere -In/Eiap, . T was sh 'no'nj o m +my'l}ove jo .T u>n my svi cAed +eriefer scales and+o i+ Me sleefeEl te/sc scale an,A ,
i +he T/ES + hey had +o leave +4e funne /
, t<9ht noa due fo an thereese ik dose .N _ g g _
1 rafes. orro + hen 10dced at m f ask' what +4e dose rc,fe was.y.nre Z So/deran hak i+ wa.s noo a/mosf D/'he anc/ ue had to !
leave +Ae arec<., bl$4+U
m .=
..m.
. . m .. . m m. . _. .. . . m .. . m .2... .m m .
.q
. g> .. >
I su,'+ched my mefer +o +1.e .50 du ;
scale, +Ae inefer s+arfed doun h befam f.i ot f/sr .T+ hen opened +he defa ;
w :n d o a . M l av;cK but s+y eadyexeferen+e +;Il rieed/e.'f aen+swoueof oH scale. ada 1
By -+Als +:me +he a r/E' wheie pusf +he shield walls and o7ro was mov;p
+he sh; eld walls, I moved as av:cl<pasf ly as poss;ble
+he +vun e ,/ by/he 2 -r/KT where ouf of fhe %e Ipofoot o F
+he area.' on +h e eleae, side. .L d,dA see i-F oTro hadgone &rfo 0/2 +vnnelorleff so .r went ido ola +vnne ( af+er +elIin3
+he r/ES to ga to +ke im' Elev,
_Q .I couIdnT Gnd OYo so I wen + +o ll6' Elev, ahen 'I~ 3a+ near +ke .Prisk'eH+ 1 began +o alace . .a_ +old +he T/ES to !
po +o 4ke H.P. oGC;ce becao.se af %a+ +ime Z d:=IM Knoa. wha + + hey hadgoifee on '
+heon, I wen + +o +he conirsl po, n + +o see iC orro kad signeat ovf*. Iwent
+o a friske' r near f%e H.R office i+ +o '
e l a farmed as .Ig+o +he f near 9, MR d +Aedderk i% Z~as/c' er passerby fo ye fo come ou h Woffmas/er came ouf .r-lo/c/
hlm 1 a.s ;.i +he +vnneI aad evp,/e;uea{,
(X cad + recal( ifI faIIeo( 4 he H,'-Vei beGre oc affer r wer+ to +he H.9 ofRee,)
.r went +o +he caye for pos% s3 f+kis f t;me
! IIVE~ lev,
-Fr:skees wkere 9o:s3 o FF on ,
&f j
- "~
-. -....A__ _ ._ . ..__.. .. ..__ _ ..... ,
.. u ,
- u. . . . ~ ~ . = . - ,. .. . .
y \
~.
i we.d b +he noefh door asdposfen' l+ eirBorn no en alVer do,'e so I wea + back ,+o +he !? and + I'd' dofhasfer
+hef r hadpasled +he door wd.5feH Z shouldposf +he .Gwf door vdiTise e bea who f +he e.v/edaf+he a?'r a.4 was. He h/d me +4a+ no one +o/d me '
+o pasf +he+ a'oor and +o hke' /Aepo.cnn) '
clawn unfll. t was h/d h forf ih r+ was e+ +Ary -h;,re 2~ asMed ,*f we should be body? counted, hik responce woS Sha+ if was nof needed.
.:Z~ we.d -k +4e Aloefh door and remowd w we d h
+he
+o -fke poday,2 1o 'Z nofo*ced fkat p.osfBob+he.s/u.'cway as/er -
'Q had refu'med from Lanck and u)as skud.f r yeHed +o a+
h;m +ke +o come conico\ op. AG+er gc:n+ exp clesk,la;n.n3 +o G ke \ ~~e f+: +o 3 o . Fr ;s k'.
_~L- pulled a M - l/ol on 4Le tic,' E)ev.
new he (0.dk cloor and fooK i F-to+ke couwt room, I noWeed +kok +ke wonkerS l u]kere c.om;aq ia -From \ vnck . . L n +he count roons w'Kere severa.l K 8 4eck's, one was 13ob Casler, I as k'ed whed de fr/sker-reao in was on him, he 4old me he was
.s o, coo c9m of tkd 4ime. _t was asked wha + I + hen +orned on +ke f ris k eLr- .a had nd , i+ av; cl<ly werf off sca.le.
I b)b
- . - .- - . ... - . . .= . ~ - . . .: . . ~ .
..j
. O ,
ktf he4A2/d BMhk 'lbe CoVdf t%oM1,5
+old h:m X as in 4Ae u/.s offpas kne/
and my aefer wenf from 20-too mr/hc%a.
+o a/most W,4,r l wesf of.f sca/exn -fhe
.ro f aske/i,e rea/e cos'fh -H,e wisdoo o,oer
' me, . .r d Arf i f soweane shculof suru'eylCed aS 4Aere tJhere ol}er of,.4rf af -fhe same kme, //e h aurs/sbMS beij/d me he waded whaf hadme happend-fo fry +lo e.xpla:n +o the wori
+he power block. X wenf k +Ae 1%' Torus i dressou/ area. and hyed k calm down +he croad af wotKees +ka+ ksa bmed. . L 4cl& *
%e work'ees na4%ey.shauld nof,'fy -fJ,ere \
Super'W.'Ss on af Ub f4WQ.S l,0 en 1 fes3 fed and was s/,'f7rhnoo cem .
Ics/ led ~+4e oGRce and qsked wkd +o do abouf mg //arrbao badge add was Jo/d
'ust a f if , % +he hvek'cf i f wov/d ef fo$d.Yefm re no+ share who 4alot wte +kb-
~
ha+ l+ was -from Ae H,f. ofRce feople could noca / eau & /-hepowerblock buf .
could4+ / ease +he phnf: The avaraye worlcer UJQS SCO O - lo,0CD C Pmj'dit-ect St-Esh.
i am sof SAure ulhaf +,*me .r lef+ -fAe power block but +kere apperd k be a/most every bady sknding in -fLe ya<d.
( -
6
.. ...,s........... _,,3.,..,_,_... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
+ . . . - . . . . . . x .~ .. . . - a.
. . . , . ~ . . . .. ~ . . . . .
I
~ 1 i
~ -
Z sa+ doua w:% some o+ker Battleif Tecks i and fold %em wha + had h9 pea 4 %ey sala l r skov d +en Dan 1.pofek and lf ke !
+klaq +o call %e NRC. )
d;dd+ do any h FRi.J end ude some t kd -h% e . '
i papewer on +Le maffer af +Ais %e ;
.r' calf reme, ber if.V i.Ja.s a n A-8C or i a I?eA form , TAen .T hllCed+o C6n !
in He kallway and +old hik whaf had I 1
hapj>end % told me he ujov/d checV4fo '
i? a nd to f me KnoiJ, l AMeg +he Laeekend .T was work;ng ~ l w;n Gbb Casle'e a+ % loa' cKys 1
$ Con + col polof Wken e. man came down,keo(
14e +otcL vs he was em opereder, i e as i
wha + happend on --he le of marck So i I alcl h;m wheh had peacA t / 4 h /ol l Bob Cacier end.myself a+ +he Akcon%er we s b7pessed a n d +kaf allpreferr l Gas j l' ._
v3a5 0awped 'on %e 042fy+ s ko(ed could afno+ Qi ko o(fc. !
un}-ll hey tef\iseot 4%+ n' l
+ke pressunt'. He +old us +ka+ %;s hog (eaf l cn Asch t f Swh;le we wLere J.a the JvnoeL,
. 't ddnt k'now wko +L: s man as I.
I caIIed Oxn Ipo(eb fa -Se side and
+old him h+ L back calco a+eo6y exposure a+ almosi . g rem. and hi- l+ sLooId be k % +ke cdtencloa af he N.QC.,
1 broo3++
An o ldme Ae woulclyet &ck'w,%e on #:s m dec 5w1
. . . . . . . * +*.s .
u .=. .. s . . . ..m _ .m . . a m s . c .. m. . 2.: mm.. . z. m . u . . ._. m . . :.
.. y ,
i 4J wen? A3po/efa Oa/leclme h Ne ve oc - 8tig. 4a(\ wcq.. a nd. +olck -
me +ka+' Peco . d;.ol no +..wan b m e +o 4al.<' fo .
an o+k e r tecks or anybody, 'about +L:s
' m =y+
l e r. i as also 414 at-hthd byr i
A A d Peco was,poin3 b have someone .
4 Gran k%er;ct' com e caer and catcols+e my o,ose, I csked when als was.Sokf +o -
i he hid, me he would. lek me Woo, ~
%uptac.e,l L. asWeo Dan wka+ was an .m.f .Ssrs%4 he dieu + Knoe. I e+e +ke names of
+ke .2 r/E*, O'TTb j Mfself on s pico.e 09 oaper and went +o doskelry and ask'ed i OO our- Befoy dose vM Car ~~he I"af -
\
man:L. ., I was bid sa+ we had _a Ge4v,. l O dose . a- was -+ ald. +ka+ iG a. H:- Bel-s. md; \
came up N- would oroba.bly be d,'stegard i t ASIer bei +ald +h:s L wed +o +he H.0 \
T~/Ac6/kn l asked krf Beard if any'A '3
- l. was be;nq '
done; W( our Eberl.'ne's anolhe +old m l Where cr',w3 I
( send +{kem 4ohp he read.
I
^ ThAe week's went by end sf/ll no ;
vord -fooiw feco or A, -f~ke Baetlet +eck's
- '1~~ sov]d ca.\l l 1
! rRe. 4eid/0RC, aboo?I %:s mat
+otA Dm &&i {ersalct,f r do'a+ bear- l l 90% ~ Peco scon I was, go; ng +o c.at . +ke '
4 Qe, b told vne he .kad also coiculoked rwy dese o.t .'?.E' ne,n whole body. ( Aco RJ for 2-3 a) i .
G o+ *1
. . ..-. , ,---- n.:,7 ' ~~ - ~ ~
-,,_.- - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - -
~
~
. < . . . . . ..... ..m _;..........
1 .m. . . . ._._
B of
/9 L ll gefw.'h yoa ' *
, #n>,fe.v 2 monN s Peco s 9.ctle# wet + by.
)
X +%lkeol +o: s Erled +ka+ ca.~e 4a .
f R:acW GoA +e drK +L.e. DryveS bi +61d j me r souIcl be eonsern'ed becaos& v/1%d' i
bad Guel.-
- De ned claf Z'~ -h(ked-h> egq<<y l he sar'd he wouid 9o over;and . l Akeb Gasde abod9he"ma//erog.}ar/k*+o dln .
Xrese, bed a.a<if -Pram sJub kda. -ls
'co,me ouer sffee',%f s%T4. ide klked aban +ke wkale maner from skri-+o 9:ntsQ as I +old h;m whd- b=ppend he wrote. i+-
oill clo o n . T h e n he aske' d me a ld of Goesbs .
and ucde +Lem clovn also. After he was C3 oloa es t;n me C9ues4: ens ke 4ald me
.r A d re [elveel s whole body emenskon dose, 60e botk sipeal +ke sper he wrote !
X w e n +- 4 e /lkob G-acdak APP Appro>< '
0 one weeE m3e(7/Arprr) anol etsk'ed akr.,of f-ke
~
P"P2r we speA amA we +old me rac if: Ism:er
, had all of 4he paper wotton -Ws make. -
l Ile sold me he was no'lonSer in volver +o
! falk +o Sfee (Oclson .
i 4
1
)
{
q .H 7
..__ . . ~ .--.--_
$5ARTLETT ~).
,,, .a. m ia ."' ' * *"*"'
I. NUCLEAR:INC. .
, P.O. 90X 1800
,' 8%8N OFFICE:60 GMOUSTRAAL PARK ROAD w.vneount INDUSTRIALPARK -@ ~4b
, n.vneDuTH,au a m o ,
RDO h '
41 C.E f
\ m m .h 4)<a8 min %.,
L o
~
- o. O VI -
Wil
- l. 1 ~8
~
/ O I 1 11 lll 2 3 5
_lill fRI 4 5 9 1 Hij ll1 '7 3 to
\l 1 1 l 2.
I t o 1 l i ll - '
I 2, 3 O o O l l 11 2 . 1 4 i 1 Ml I .k '7
! ! f*tRil 1
- 01) 12 t ill l 3 1 4 O' O
. O O O ~l O I
1 O I 11 Illi 1 A ' ca ,
o oI o IRI ISIMfRillt 5 14er-jiI ZE !
Mil -
lill 1
'7 4 l'Ti~~l ll 2 3i5 Ill l O O I !O o o ~o ._.
~.
~
o o o -
l -
O O ,
O o o o :
O o O llli -
\\tl 4 4 i 8 I 11 1 . I 3 I T~~ '
7 7r7%hh .n Air,4e. h3 nee _ tane+< i LL
..,...>.:..,,..........,,.....,s,....b u /od- 4me( 4 '
1-85-019
. f ... ,
s...s... )
1
.. .< :3
- ..1 . ; .,
., < L. a > ....';. u. ..<.- .
. ..l a . .. . .ac ..a 1.. L. ' ....A, . ld :.. .Mi ~.x:u.. J u ,:, :, .
- . nT. I
- E.
.r ., .. .c ~
EdWQ 3AR INC.
(s " '
. P.O.DOX1800 MAIN OFFICE: 60 INDUSTRAAL PAftX ROAD Pt.YMOUTH INDU5TRtAL PARK PLwoum.mAemo ,
l TIME IN TIME OtFF 3 N88# W NIl 5. gt 9 t. l%
^
l 1
1 i 1 ll ll 2 1 4 g S I (,
I II. I 2. *b l I o i Ill Null 3 9 iO
. O o o lll '
Ill 3 3 (o
. U O L. L W W M llli MI ICI <
- 5. 24 I lil' I 3 4 11 Il[I - 2. 4 b I ll. I 1- 5
~
o- o o
- H! (MMlf%lNNit (, =@ 33
! Ill I .s i 4 il 2. o 2. ~~ ~
Nil ! 7 i_ l 8 l HMh I eMi'13
- o oIo lli _
ll 2. 2. i 4 El I ml c. G I 12.
All a itual
'7 qlBgil8
- o o o 11 .
l 2 i 3 4 lHillN 5 9 14 11 o 2. 2.
ll ll! 1 S s A
. !hU ljlIll! ,
5 9 lIC~
N Y L D.7_ T D.th & 2 n
- N es N ' fi.s) ,!,q ?- C** @t M i \11>> Ec r ~Cn lOO b vM ', A '
.. . . . . . :..: , ..r .. i .. . :
3 :- ')
,_u. . .. . . . -, . ,. .w .
~
~
.r,,
- <.m m.""
BARTLETT i. **"""'
NUCLEAR INC. l 1
- P.O.90X1800
- MAIN OFFSCE:40 INDUSTRAALPARK RCMD FLYRIOUTH IfeU5 TRIAL PARK nyesouTH,anassaso .
18HE Set TENE OUT
~~
MC M' Illi 11 .'t 4 2 -
C.
4 5 llll Ill '7 1
o I i Mii)\ flull 9 '7 14 11 INMilli 2 7 le til Il 3 2 5 l I o i ll' A Il
- 2. 2
_f( lli
- 2. 3 5 l i . o t lil IM 3 5 8 W ll .
S .2. i '7 All hti1811 3 4 i) 14 {
. o- e o -1
. . - o- o jo i Il 1 2. 3 lill Mll 4 ;
il__
11 o 2. I ,__2.
1
. .. j ----
i I.-
v i
l 8
L ..
1 I
( %. L.cr Trub h e.E.edc__ya.ts::._ re.F+
< i bl-
. . . . , . . . .. . YWIn/.N+4wc*
4.n ....i.........:...
(.
_ .;- , _ . Ja;. } ** , r>
' '~*
,s 'y '
.. s /
j '
' ~_ *
'~
.d .
i
.1 0 3 C.d. .
- i. . .\ .fe,fu.e.l
[g :. .
- 9A-UC bluL, D -
y dea (w/ bc. .U,,- fa.,m.s< /s him on . ,uix ),;/u 4 /.s: ,rr one.,.,
. ;, ink; s.ypt,x y f.cs , g,,g,, ,5 , ; ..
s .-
V j,,, k . M#
3s wsu E 2 mWW A 9 m 9,7
.f , "
-)E- S k tr f;i
'l. '
- p, W-ie 9
(LHf2 pp s q-# -G
- M MO N pl -
vag'$
Mf j :I -
mo
) l-l c
j
.. -N #? %^.:. a, ,,sa aldm)
, (D[4/ - g7
.: 1. .
/f
/f g/gfs ,Gnis $Wl$*iS sx4 n m.e & uit :. ~'" . b+ $Ys.'Wrif.W &
1
. Wh -
1+
ei
- t( . i
$$ l$ = l2 i
i : Lt i
'0 bo Se*5 - $nia f if.mpct?t'l l /&$.lgr /f h . l h
- f3 '
- -F5-0: W g2dfiq_7% -
D e
. .i u . u. a a .. . . , -
.. x - . :. . . . .u.. .w- ,-
F )
e v
FOLLOWUP CONVERSATION WITH GEORGE FIELDS, BARTLETT NUCLEAR Tom Johnson and Herb Williams met with George Fields at 7:00 a.m. on 10/~'./85.
Mr. Fields was given a copy of NRC Inspection Report 85-31 dealing with the 3/1/85 incident. He had questions about fission product daughters Rb-OS and CS-138 and what radionuclides were present in the off-gas tunnel during the incident. His questions were answered. He was given Jim Kottan's name and phone number and told to call him if he had any questions about the inspection raport. We gave Mr. Fields information about filing a discrimination complaints with the U. S. Dept. of Labor and the address and phone number of the York, PA office. We also gave Mr. Fields a copy of Part 24 -
" Procedures for the Handling of Discrimination Compl aints Under Federal ' Employee Protection Statutes". We asked Mr. Fields if anyone at the plant had specifically told him that he shouldn't tal k to the NRC. He would not say that anyone told him not to talk to the NRC, although he said that he was discouraged f rom talking to the NRC and just this week another HP said that PECo was going to make,it hard for him to get another job. Mr. Fields said he felt like had been penali:ed f or asking questions about his e::posure during
'he 3/1/85 event and for tal king to the NRC.
Mr. Fields was informed that O! would contact him in two weeks. His address is:
l l \
l
- 31so, Tom Staf f ord was present during Mr. Fields' meetings with the licensee. _
Notes Jack Win:enr2ed (Peach Bottom Supt. of Plan 4 Services) called later today (10/0) to tell the NRC that rumor s were goi ng a7-'ound that Bartlett HP's ware going to the NRC. He wanted to inf orm us what PECo was doing. PL'Co had 93 HP positions authori:ed and had about l'OO HP (40 PECo, 60 Bartlett). i Because of decreasing workloads they were letting 8 Bartlett HP's go over the i no:< t three weeks. These HP's had from 11 to 27 sich days since the first of a i the year. (Inf ormation on plans to let some Bartlett HP's go because of l decreased workl oads was gi ven to the residents about one month ago.)
- A 9
es .
l
. . . . v - _ , _
Page 1 of 9 Place id
- Date : /XT. ZAT,19ff ;
1 STATEMENT f
, George Arthur FIELD, hereby make the following voluntary statement to Mr.
Richard A. MATAKAS, who has identified himself to me as an Investigator with l the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission. Imakethisstatementw(thno f threats having been made or promises having been extended to me. "I originally I provided Mr. MATAKAS this information on October 16, 1985.
,and currently qualify as a Senior Health Physic st echnician. I worked at i both Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3 beginning in October 1984 and was layed off on October 4, 1985. I was told that Bartlett had 74 health physicists (HPs) working at Peach Bottom on October 4, 1985, when I was laid off. I actually worked for Bartlett, who contracted my services to Philadelphia Electric Company (PECO), While working at the Peach Bottom sites, my supervisor was ,
Dan IPPOLETTA, who was the Site Coordinator for Bartlett at Peach Bottom. Tom STAFFORD took his place as Site Coordinator in approximately September of
' ~
1985. My PECO supervisor was Bill McCALLISTER (phonetic), who was a Senior Tech Assistant employed by PECO. For the first six months of my employment, I was assigned to the off gas system control point on the Unit 2 side. I worked j with Bob CASLER who has since quit working at Peach Bottom and is now working j at Three Mile Island. After my first six months at Peach Bottom, I went to work for Bechtel" Decontamination (Decon) Support for about three months.
~
After this, I went back to work on the off gas system control point, for the off gas tunnel, on the Unit 3 side. I once again worked with Bob CASLER. Bob and I were pulled off of this job in about September 1985.,Vern TAYLOR, Bartlett Tech, used to work the drywell area at Peach Bottom but volunteered for a lay off in about mid-September 1985, at which time I went to work in the drywell.
My problems with Philadelphia Electric and Bartlett started on March 1, 1985, when I was involved in, what I thought, was an overexposure. I believe that my lay off was directly related to this incident. I believe that I was laid off due to my attempts to get a satisfactory answer about, what I thought, was an overexposure to my person and coments that I made to my supervision that d > ! n L .+ 'l 1-55-019 /y Ju
- .a -
i
> j. g 2 . : 9. . ,, - - -- - - - - ar- .7 --
1 )
l if I did not get a satisfactory answer, I would go to the NRC. As I said, the l incident took place on March 1, 1985, in the Unit 3 off gas pipe tunnel. The alleged overexposure took place as I was escorting two PECO technical engineers and Otto SOLKANY, a Catalytic employee, through the off gas pipe j tunnel. The tunnel is about 400 feet long and runs from one end of the plant ]
to the other. I had previously identified a water problem in the off gas i tunnel about one month earlier (February 1985). I identified the problem when Unit 3 was down (not operating). I noted water on the floor.in the tunnel which I believe was a result of a problem with the drains in the tunnel. I ]
felt the water in the tunnel was a safety problem in that people were working l in the tunnel on electrical components and had to stand in the water while I working. On one occasion, I had to take an air sample in the Unit 2 tunnel and had to stand in the water to plug in the air sampler. Later that day, I told Glen FADDEN, PECO Technical Assistant, that I would not stand in water l and pull air samples again. I wrote my concerns down about the water in the tunnel,in the PECO HP log book. The purpose of my escorting the two PECO technical engineers down into the tunnel on March 1, 1985, was so they could ,
evaluate the water problem. The tunnel was posted as a high radiation area )
, because the unit was operating, t was an incident that took place in the tunnel wherein I thought myself and j the three individuals that I was escorting became overexposed. The incident took place on a Friday and I believe that on that day or on the following q Monday, I documented what had taken place on a radiation discrepancy report E (PECO Form A-86). I did this because I was concerned about my exposure and the exposure of the people that were with me in the Unit 3 off gas pipe tunnel. On the day of the incident, I sat down with some of the other Bartlett technicians and told them what had taken place. They advised me that '
I should tell Dan IPPOLETTA of the incident and if he did not do anything, that I should call the NRC. It was after I had time to think about the incident that I wrcte the A-86 documenting what had taken place. Later that afternoon, I got Dan IPPOLETTA aside and told him what had taken place in the off gas pipe tunnel. I believe on the following Monday, while in the Bartlett
'HP office, I again took Dan IPPOLETTA aside and told him that I had calculated my March 1, 1985, exposure at almost 8 rem. I further told him that because of this, the incident should be brought to the attention of the Nuclear
)r /f.
l
u .w. +:2 ~. .
. . 'a ,. w . .
m L ' . o Page 3 of 9 i .
l 4[ Regulatory Commission. Dan told me that he would get back with me concerning l
l the incident. I do not believe that anyone heard this conversation between )
Dan and myself. I believe that it was on the following Tuesday morning that I )
had another conversation with Dan IPPOLETTA about the incident. That morning IPPOLETTA called me out into the vendor building hallway and told me that PECO did not want me to talk to any of the other technicians or anybody about the March 1, 1985, incident. We then walked back into the Bartlett office and Dan i calculated my dose for'the March 1, 1935, incident at appr'oximateiy 7.8 rem.
Dan further told me at this time that PECO was going to have someone from !
Limerick come over and calculate my dose. I asked him when this'was going to take place and he told me that he would let me know. After this conversation with IPPOLETTA, I told Bartlett techs Edmond Moky YOUNG, Mike HL QY, and j George BLACKARD what IPPOLETTA had told me. On another occasion, during the week following the incident, I asked IPPOLETTA what the reading was on my Harshaw badge and he told me that he did r'ot know. I then went down to the dosimetry room and inquired into what my beta dose was for March 1, 1985. I was told that myself and the three individuals that I escorted into the off - !
- . gas tunnel, all had a *0" beta dose reading. I then went to the HP technical '
assistant office and asked Art BEWARD, PECO Technical Assistant, if anything was being done concerning the March 1, 1985, incident. He told me that they j were going to pull the Eberline badges for the four individuals involved in '
the incident and send them to be read.
About three wee,k,s went by ard I had still not heard any word from either PECO l
or IPPOLETTA about my exposure. I again discussed the incident with several I of the other Bartlett technicians and was, told that I should contact the NRC about the matter. After becoming very frustrated and receiving no responsa concerning my exoosure questions, I again approached IPPOLETTA and told him that if I did not hear from PECO shortly, I was going to call the NRC about the March 1, 1985 incident. I believe that Scott TORREY, Bartlett Tech, was present when I confronted IPPOLETTA. At this time, IPPOLETTA told me something like, " Don't cause anymore problems," which was the same thing that he told me just about everytime that I questioned him about the incident. On the following day, I again talked to IPPOLETTA about the matter and he told me that he would talk to Norb GASDA, PECO HP Supervisor for ALARA.
IbelieveitwastowardstheendofApril19'85,thatIreceiveda J r / L.
z, n -r .,;,;, _ ..,,, u ,, ,--;._ -
_ _ , _ , _.7, . , . _ ., ._ .
Page 4 of 9
\
I elephone t call from Norb GASDA who wanted me to come over to his office at the end of.my shift and talk. I believe this was a Saturday morning because no one else was in the office. I believe the exact date was April 20, 1985, that ,
this conversation took place. Basically, I told GASDA everything that had j g taken place concerning the March 1,1965 incident and that I had not been able }-. x to get any satisfaction concerning what my exposure really was. {toldhim ~
- E everything that had happened and he wrote it all down. He then as'ked me a lot d of questions which he also documented. Both of us then signed the paper on which he had documented our conversation.
dfg sp During the May/ June 1985 time period, I had many cony rsatio concerning the incident and advised him that I woul be going to the NRC if I q did not get an answer about my exposure. By this ime it was pretty common i knowledge that I was going to the NRC if I did get any sat _isfication.
) Mike CAMPASINO, former Bartlett Tech {'DobYETTER,former i Bartlett Tech who quit the organization, Edmond Moky YOUNG' former Bartlett Tech, may have been present during different times when I had conversations ,
with IPPOLETTA about going to the NRC if I did not get satisfication from PECO concerning my expo,sure.
4 :
On July 21, 1985, I went to Norb GASDA's office and asked him about the paper
)
we had signed in April documenting the March 1 incident, and he told me that l Mr. HILLMEIER, PECO Senior Health Physicist, now had all of the paperwork concerning the matter and that he (GASDA) was no longer involved in handling the incident ant that I should talk to Stu NELSON, PECO Supervisor for Applied
~
Health Physics, about the matter. During my first conversation with GASDA in late April 1985, he told me that "the peo*ple downtown (to me, this meant the Philadelphia Corporate office) were very concerned about this." At the time (April 1985), GASDA was PECO Supervisor for Applied Health Physics and in the sumer of 1985, traded places with Stu NELSON who was the former PECO HP Supervisor for ALARA. During that first meeting with GASDA, basically what he told me was that the people downtown may want to talk to me and he would get back with me. Attached to this statement that I have provided Mr. MATAKAS is a written statement stating essentially everything that was on the April statement that I provided to GASDA and that I had documented on a PECO A-86 report which I wrote following the March 1, 1985,, incident.
Lj ~-lt.
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ M
uu::MfuGia .; .' L == .. .. .,s.,~..~. w - "
Page 5 of 9
)
After talking to GASDA on July 21, 1985, I got back with IPPOLETTA and asked him if he could get me a copy of the paper that I had provided to GASDA in April documenting everything that had taken place. IPPOLETTA said that he
.w ould do that for me and asked me if there was some type of problem. I told him that I wanted a copy because I was not going to let this matter be thrown into the garbage can. Within the next day or so, IPPOLETTA told y that he had talked to HILLMEIER and that HILLMEIER had thrown the documen~ signed by both GASDA and myself away. This conversation with IPPOLETTA took place in i the Bartlett office and I believe that I told him that I was going to the NRC because I was really mad about the incident. I believe that Tom STAFFORD was present during this conversation with IPPOLETTA. This is why I rewrote my statement which is attached to this statement that I have provided Mr. MATAKAS.
It was also during this time period (late July 1985) that I talked to Tom STAFFORD, Bartlett Supervisor, about the whole incident. I also told him that I wanted to go to the NRC. He advised me that I should document the whole incident on paper (which is the reason for the attached statement), which I did, and provided STAFFORD with a copy. I told STAFFORD that I was going to ,
the NRC after I got everything written out and clear in my mind. He asked me to give him a day or so to check things out but that I could go to the NRC if Y I wanted to. A couple days later (early August), I was in the hallway of the j power block talking to STAFFORD when I was paged by IPPOLETTA to call him at his office. I called him and we engaged in approximately a thirty second
, conversation. He was really mad and told me that I was to deal with no one else but him and that "STAFFORD was out of the matter." As IPPOLETTA was
-telling me these~ things, I was repeating them to STAFFORD. I also asked
~
IPPOLETTA if PECO was going to fire me over this matter and he told me he did not think so, but " George, there comes a " time for every road tech to hit the road." When he told me this, I thought that he was going to either fire me or lay me off so that he could save face with PECO. STAFFORD then asked me to j repeat the whole conversation to him again and I did. I then went back to work.
Later, still during the early part of August, STAFFORD called me up to Stu NELSON's office becaus.e NELSON wanted to talk to me. The three of us went !
over to HILLMEIER's office (HILLMEIER was out) and NELSON showed me where the NRC had exposed PECO's Harshaw badges and found them to be accurate. NELSON G? :
l
. ... w .. . w . = . .o. a . 2 lL . . . Q s 25.WM & , ~ L.- . . . ~ ~ a .:,.- . : ~ .. .-. :. . .
Page 6 of 9 l 1
1 -
~
said to the effect, that if the NRC was called to investigate this matter, they would not find anything because they would not go against their report that was issued. Basically, that was the whole context of the conversation I had with NELSON and STAFFORD on that day.
i
, day or two later, IPPOLETTA talled me and said that HILLMEIER wanted to meet with both he and I. PriortogoingtoHILLMEIER'soffice,Imet$ithDanwho i
told me that he was sorry about the incident and that he should have been "on PEC0" to get my exposure results quicker. We then proceeded to the meeting.
Present at the meeting were HILLMEIER, GASDA, NELSON, IPPOLETTA, McCARTY (a PECD employee and a support health physicist), and myself. HILLMEIER was the spokesman and told me that he had thrown the paper that I had provided to GASDA in April 1985 away. He further asked me if IPPOLETTA had told me not to f talk to anyone about the March 1, 1985, incident and I told him, "Yes."
Everyone present at the meeting had a copy of the statement attached to this statement, which STAFFORD had provided to them. I assume that the meeting was o
an attempt by HILLMEIER to explain my March 1, 1985, exposure. His response was essentially that my instrument had been in error as a result of moisture and high humidity which caused the ins'trument to temporarily malfunction.
('
This really made m'e mad because I knew that my meter was working fine and fc11owing the March 1, 1985, incident, my meter was sent to the shop and a report came back saying that the meter was functioning properly and there was no moisture problem. I knew their response to me was a bunch of " bull" but I did not respond to their finding because I felt something was geing on and I thought I might get fired over the whole matter if I did not watch myself. I Just before the meeting, I had told Stu NELSON, in front of his secretary, that I felt I might be going to get fired over heincident.k Several days later (August 6 or 7, 1985), the C alled me into their office at Peach Bottom to speak with two inspectors about the March 1, 1985, incident.
I do not know who notified the NRC over the incident. !
The NRC subsequently conducted an inspection and came out with an inspection report dated September 17, 1985. Following the issuance of the report, STAFFORD called me and told me that HILLMEIER wanted to talk to me once again.
STAFFORD called me at my house on this occasion or he had called me and I c .. - ! .
_ _ u
u-;.. .. .. . c== .- --;
._ . .a _ n . .m. _ . ,.. w .; . .
a.,_...._._._..... w e
.m. .<.u.. .s. v. -.u... . .. _
4 Page 7 of 9 l- I eturned his call. I cannot recall. I had been in a car accident on )
September 19, 1985, and was on sick leave for five days. I came back to work on or about September 23 or 24, 1985. I believe that the meeting which
~
STAFFORD informed me of was held on either September 23 or September 24, 1985.
j Prior to the meeting, I met with STAFFORD in the Bartlett office.and went to 4 the meeting with STAFFORD. *The meeting was in Jack WINZENREID's','Superinten- !
dent of Plant Services, office and was attended by WINZENREID, HILLMEIER, l 1
STAFFORD and myself. WINZENREID asked me what my chain of comand was if I J
had a problem at the plant. I told him IPPOLETTA, hELSON, HILLMEIER, and if ;
HILLMEIER was M aware of the problem and nothing had been done, I would go to the NRC. That is when HILLMEIER asked me if I was the one that went to the j
~
NRC about the March 1, 1985, incident. I told him "no." HILLMEIER then said, j "Why would someone want to set you up like that." I told him that I did not !
know and he asked me if I had any idea who did call the NRC. I told him that I did not think it was a Bartlett Tech, that I thought it was probably a PECO technician. HILLMEIER then asked me what I thought a PECO employee would gain.
by going to the NRC and I told him that I did not know. He said, " Rumor has 5-it that you were the one who called the NRC," and I told him that ! vas not j the one who called'and again, he asked me why "someone would have wanted to set me up like this." HILLMEIER further asked me if any PECO management '
person had told me not to go to the NRC. I told him that PECO management kept j brushing me off and was giving me a "go away kid" attitude. I further told them that IPPOLETTA had told me essentially, not to stir things up. A ss ..
W e
(
. x,:m w. , .. - . ~... = :.- , :. m .. w . a . a -
. . . . . ~ .
Page 8 of 9 I
On the following day, in the presence of STAFFORD, I confronted Stu NELSON about my lay off. I told him that I did not think it was fair that I was being laid off. I explained to him that the ratio of sick days I had taken
. during the year, were less than other Bartlett techs. In addition, I told him that five of the sick days involved an auto accident'and another four or five sick days was granted to me in advance for the removal of some wisdom teeth.
I further informed him of all the " call-in" days I had accepted and volun-teered for. STAFFORD did not say anything. NELSON said there was nothing he could do as he was supposed to be cutting down to 65 personnel from 74 personnel and that he had to lay Bartlett people off. Curt LATTREL and myself .
got laid off. Curt feels he got laid off because he had more sick days than me so they had to lay him off. No one else that I know of got laid off. I was told that Bartiert brought four technicians in after I left. The four were in PEC0 General Employee Training during my last week. STAFFORD told me this and Dawn was present when he informed me. I also told STAFFORD that there were Bartlett technicians onsite that had missed up to 60 days for car accidents and they did not get laid off. George BLACKARD missed two months .
N because of a car accident and I know there were other tecuicians that missed days for similar excusable incidents.
3 On October 6, 1985, I.went to a barbecue and some other Bartlett techs were at g the, barbecue. Dean SMITH, Bartlett tech, told me it was common knowledge that Bartlett was going to have to lay off technicians with sick days less than me ]
to cover up for,my lay off. He told me that he went to Stu NELSON about his 'I lay off and that NELSON said he would reconsider and would get back to him.
Buck PEFFLE, Bartlett tech, was the next,one below me in sick days and Dean '
toldmeStuhadinformedPEFFLEthathewouldnotbegettinglaidoff.g F The bottom line is that I feel the March 1,19B5, exposure incident was a Part 20 deportability issue and I initially told IPPOLETTA that it should be reported in accordance with NRC guidelines. I feel that my pursuit of this issue and of my exposure was the reason that I was laid off from Bartlett at PeachBottom.h~I would also VMe to aclk lA ne year I hwe worked a+ Peack Gob &re has never been a Ltid 4eck layoM %+ w baseck on Eck leavp.I % cwe of H oc5 Sar+\en LafcRS c~er +ke Pek yet. g 5 - ! t..
. . .: : . : - 2:, a ., .t.. . . . . . . . ..k un n =:L. w .. w..:.;.<....s .a.-:,,,a: w , a.. ..
a...1 Page 9 of 9 w
J F 1 have read over this Ar9 page statement which Mr. MATAKAS had typed for me at my request. I have acknowledged its contents with my initials and this statement is the truth to the best of my knowledge and belief, f SIGNATURE: / /0 #I8[ .
ya <
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2[ day of (( ,
l 19((at.IML/{4/). .
INVESTIGATOR: ff I f /g y.jf ff,a WITNESS:
l l
e !
l o
e .
- _. . . . ..m .m.._ .m .._. .. _ . m _ . ..c m . .m2 m . . 4. _. .m .m = - .. .
O
/7/arcA / # Z was f./d a f/s'wou/ol. -
he down togo info Un,*f.3 off pas ppe fynneI for <*nspection.
I / /Ae POPi os .Trecalle/so si ned -
ouf #Ae$-fad key a/so. T +Aen called orro ham 6J./y/;c sefly'end asked A,k fo yo w,fA us fo sefff check +Ae aih -
Af approx; mr ,,17se/6 0710.4 2 Y/f' dressed out, de a// check *our n<efer.s i flask-I,ph+s, +Aese whece needed because a//E/ec.
was +urned offin #Ae %,re/
'T~ ref up an ai>. comp /er oord uarlocked fAe dooe. T2e Ase ra+es a/ He do'orJAere N- no he her #l,an T haci e>pec/ed ano( rro '
Be e waspresen f. ~r walk'ihside wi M 07r0. YAe a,*e was sefe and dose rates did,(f chenye nsuch. The uafer ih fhe fu,urel was for4 &ches deep,j nou ng w Ue nooved as Q v:ck' as;jp ossla.s ble bekeen s/ca sqf+y wa//s hecause +hy s is a /C-Bd area.
Gen. en a e/ose raks at +Ae dra:a where-90-Ico mr/hr Gama i Ado bek. The 7~/EF myl hfon Uhere eneferklEin;and. i X
+ was sfer-fe s4.'nin)5/ -fo m}ov'e vj), .
my/+ched sv scales to +he IR/sr scale anA
+he T/ES +hef h ed fo leave +4e kne /
rl9h+ noo a've to an iksteese ik dose tafes, orro + hen loolced af my n1ehtano(
ask' what +he dse rafe War. .T -fold A;wt i+ was now almosf Ef/hr anc/ We hac/ fo le-t ve -fA e avec<. , ,,.,..,, ..
p ,
I sw,Vehed my mefer -fo +1,e .50 #Ai- 1 scale, +Ae enefer s+arfed doun to beh.em f.ita f/hr I +4en openeol +he /feda w:n dou). W/
av,'cK bu+ ead s+y exefer rieed/e woueof ata
+y ca+e +ill lf aen+ oFf scale.
By -+Ais +:me he a r/E' where p>as+ +he '
shield calls and 0770 was inovi e
+Ae sh; eld walls, Z moved os avYcklypas/ '
+A e +vu n eby fAe %e IpofoutoF
,/as
-fAepass;blea r/Kr wi,ere ouf of .
+he area on +h e elean rate. I d,Wf see
- f orro had so I went- in+ opose 4fo u/2 +unnelorleff
+he T/ES to go +o0/2 +ke +vnne 116' iElev, af4er +ellin3 '
I couldnT -Raol 670 so I wen + +o N- IIG' Elev,' when T~ 3a+ near +ke frisk'er i&
began +o alace . L +olol +be T/ES to go +o 4he }4. 9. office becav.se at na+ he 2 d:oIM 1&o0 wha & + hey had poffeu on
+ hem, I wen + +o +h e con kl go n + +o .
see iC oiro kad signeol auf. Iwent
+o a fetske' r near Be H.R office l+ +o alormed as Tg+o f+Ae neari%.cc, .Z~es/te' N.'/? e HAe ol c,dirk i passetby fo come ou +6o9e Woffmos/er came ouf I-lo/c/
I,;a .r a.s :s +he +vnneI aad exp,/e;ued
(.I can'+ recal( if Z puIIeo( +he H:-vai befece oe affer Z wen + +o +ke H.R ofRce,)
_ l
.r went +o +he cage for p>skm3sWhis %e
-Fr:skers wkere po n3 o FF on II6Tiev, ll -
F
.- - . g . .- . . ~ . .. _
~i~ we.d +o +he no</h c/cor a nd pos/ed
,+ a,'chorn no en+cy afler clo,d so r wem+ back ,+o +he il14 and +o/W //offmasfer
+6af r had pos/ed +Ae door wolX4e/+
r shov/dpos+ +he -frosf dc' or ud,Tbe '
bec.a who f +h e ex+e.do f+he air 6.d was. //e fo/d rae +4a+ no ose +o/d are
+o pasf +haf dow and +o hke' +4e down unf;lI was h/d +o porf <*Aposby \
.1+ was a+ +Aiy -hke 2~ ask'ed if we k should be body counted hes responce woS
.+h a + if was nof neeb'ed.
.3~ wed +o +4e Aloefh door a ad remowd
+he posMha. 22-'r wed -fo -
+o 4ke nokced +p.esf +4e slu.*cway Aat &b as/er C=- had reMned from Luck and was shnd.f Y yeIled h a+
h;m +ke+o come codro\ go:,~+
op. AC+er exp etesk,la;a: 3 +o G he le ff to q e Gisk'.
.I~ pulled ~a W : - Ucl on 4Le lir. ' Oev, new he (bth door and 4ook' i+ +o +ke covd room, I no+/ced +ked +ke wonkers u)kere com:aq la Gom \ v nck . L n +ke cou4 room wKere seveto.\ H, R 4eck's, one was Gob Casler, T as ked whd ne fr/sler-rea ch vaas on hi m, h e 4 o ld m e he was 3o,ooo eem est tht +ime . _t was askeA what J_ hack I + hen +vened on +ke
-fclsker d n4, i+ ev;ekly wed off Scale.
l5 .- /
- n.= - .
~.., x ==. a . < .. u . . .. =.a.. ...:.. w .a
, )
Arf BewaNI enfeM +Ae coud room Y
+o/d h';m 7 was in +Ae u/.s offpas +,ae/
u and. icy Me/er Wen / frows SD -/00 mr/hr* Ga eq
+o al,uosf .ff to RAr sea w,fA/e-lhe /8e d we.d wisdou cpen.off .r rea/e b
' we, asted /9ef f someone shcolo/ suev'ey/ced as .
4Aere where o/Aer ofAr+ q/ -h4e same 4,*ee. //e fo aves.
+<bns beiy/d Me he o expla:n +o the woticer
, waded whaf hadme 1o +ry +i why +4ey cou/oldf ka bappesd
+he jpower block. T wed lo +Ae 1%'Torvs ,
dressou/ area. and fryed +v ca/m down +Ae croad of workets ha+ ksa Corneol.1 ka .
%e wark'ers Kaf Key.should nof,'fy +here g supera:s, on af aL<<f was Aoppen,'n3,
.1 -fe'sked and was s/,'il v.cfoco cem.
reslied +Ae oGRce and qsked whd /o
. do abouf mg //arrAao badje add was Jo/d s+ if , % +4e hvcKef iY wou/d ef ;
+o reajust
- d. f*ep% no+ share who 4vici me %p+ s i ks+ l+ was -Fron Ae H f, ofRee
~
1 feople could noca leave -FAepowerblek buf !
coulotAf lease +he phnf: The avaraye worlcer was 5000 - 1q000 c Pm/d;cect Fb'sf.
.i. am sd sAvre uh f +,*me .r lef+ +Ae power bJocW but +4ere apped /o be a/,,1ost i every bodf. .s h n diny I,1 4he yard.
l9 :
l
..g
& ; l l
T sa+ doca w: 4k some o+ker Garfleif Tech's gad fold +kem Wha + had h4 pend Mey said I skoold + ell DanIpoleA anel,lF 6e ,
didS d'o any hinq +o cqI( Re NRC.
i
.I' kJ Rae ++o fk k' and arafe some popewatc on +4e ma fler af His Hm e
.r calf remenber if.4 we.s a n A-8C or
. a t?cA foc~ . T~Aen -.1- %IIced+o Dan in He hallwa happenci /% toldy meand ie +old wov/dhih whof had checb;do '
H a nd le f me KnocJ,
.4/W +he weeltend .T wa.s wod;q ~
l wlA Gob Casle'r a& %c lo' offpas
~g Con + col polnt 14e +old as %euken was ema man opera came
+ec.down,Ked l+e ets ;
i w ha.+ happend on 4ke l# of mourck So I Gob
-+taldCacier h;m whek had happ+eacA t // e 6 /ol and myself na -lhe acom%ec -
we s bjipessed a n el naf a//presee l Ga5 v3as dauped an %e off ns ko(ed vp pipc.
unNI + key te cMsed %E+ ;3+ could no+ ko4 \
4ke geessure. Ife +old vs Ra+ +h;S hoggend .
on Weck \U wh;le we wLece Ja the tv nne ,
't do'nt k'noa wko +ki s man kxt s I,
'C caIIe 4 Dar cr ;
+o ld him A+ a_ pole A fo +he side an d cci al~os e rem, and %4- l+ skoold(>bebad ca brougk4- % +ke et+rencion af +ke N.QQ,,
% +oldne Ae woulciyet Wack'w,'th me :
an #:s medec ;
/ '/ - / (..
. ~. . . ?. . .c. . . . . . - .. e . m . ... .~. ...x-....~.. w =. :.- -
~
i4J uorn' L ~Z
+c He vek, oc Stig.po/efa. Hat \way and +old Oallec/ me me &+ ' Peco d:d no t wad m e +o h IV&o any o+L e r t e c k 's o r a n m a+fe r, i as also folc(ybody, af htabout be . R;s by S
A h+ Pece was, po;n3 +=> h ve someone from uer;ct com e over ord culcolde m.y dose, Y asked when Als was gob3 ' +o ,
he told, me he woulcllek me Kaoo.
+deplace,d
.J- aske .
he d;el,l+ Know. % wkd was an mf 14arskaa. ,
r~ weo+e +ke names c#
+Le .2 T/z', oTro i myself on a. pico.e.of pa per and wen + +o doskel ry'-heand ask'ed
\ "af wka+ ouc- Beks. dose wa.s Cor .
mek , I a.ns fold +ka we ked _a Ge+% )
(.i dose . r .was +oIc( &+ if a. 14l- Sebendinq l Came up ;l4- would arabably be dlSregarde[
Aflee be +old +h;s L ued h +he 80
. Y/~ A cNikn $ asked krf Beweed if anyNin3 was be;n done, he folcl me Ma+ 4 hey'
~
Where c@).w3 4e pull our Eberline's anel send + hem 6 he reacl.
Yhree u>eek'e wen + by maal s+:I( no kzed from Peco or A, ne (Actlet +eck's r rsov]dr ca.ll
+o f
+L e /bR C. T +old A. %4- ; a aboo+ +h:s mq4ersald,f cle'n+ bear 90% ' Pe co scon I wo.s, So; ng +o c.o.tl +ke N QC, b hid rne he had also ca\culated my dose cd ').f( ae,4 whole body. (.200 M -for.2 3 a) i 6 :- ..
_..m_..m_ .
_ .m. . .z _. m .
Apo.v ;2 mo d s o f L ll g e f w. % y o s
, l
' Pro m Peco ? 9arfleit wes4 by.
1 I +hlked 4e % -frie.d +kof came o !
Peach GoA +o eccK M.e D7veSLeto-Id rne r soutcl be conserned becaose" v/s .had i bad fuel. 1 The ne>& day .Z~ -hf/cedh 0m e 9ln, he sa,d he <oouid bo over and . o A)och Gasda aboJ +he madereq.z%lk ci;n .
Xreceived a.cett -Prom slwh kdn ,%
sme ouer sGfer'inf sLT4. Ide klkco( )
a%a +ke wkole makter from skr++o P:n:sk, i as ._L +old Mn vahd- happend he wrote. i+- j i all down . ~Then M asked me a id of Goes%ns ~ )
- and orde +kem cAovn also. /4ffer he was '
(- done es t;n3 me Queskens %e 4cld me
.I N.d re6.eive d a whole bod emenskon dose, 6de both si ned %e pape(r he wNte 3
X w e n 4- 4 e /va>ob Gacdo.s of-P Appro>r ~
ase aeed m3e C1/wps-) anot aske' d asa+ +ke
~
%ger we s'3, red and he told me n1e it: Ism;ec bo d all o f 4 h e P*Per "o^ E o ^ N S ""f+er- i lie %Id me he was no lon3er in volveu +o falk +o .Sfeo Me lson. . l
(
1
[t / u' l
f
. - -.+.
. - -.,_..; 2 .. h . ~ ~ . . . . . c'. : .:a . ., : ,. ~.a. .......:. a ..-
Fice --
1
=,3 A Ra Lu =mm-:aar. uu ' ' " " " " "
f NOCLEA A INC.
.P.O.UOX1h00 MAIN OFFICL: us INDUSTRIAL PARK f(OAD
'~ 4 l'LYMOUTH INDUb'il(I AL PARK j
- . . PLYMOUTil. MA 02360 ..
l g
.).
Director - Sec.:rity Philadelphia Electric Ctrnpany . ,- ,
Peach Bottern Atanic Gene. rating Station I m #1 Dr. ara, PA 17314 Att: Coordi..ator - Nuclear Access Progre Detr Sir:
It is 1 - that 46(D, 660Af G6 A. , Social Sec.:ri~.y N ' eyed tr/ Eartlet: Nuclear, 2.nc.of P1vruath, !'A ,
.. be a phia Electne ccar:pany's Peach acetam Atanic ,
'_ -:< Ge .cratiJg Staticn. '
Revccation of Clearance Previously Acercred w=er w -. . < ~. .
Di&---tc .L-rri =a:
om- -- - < r e - 4 4-,:
~
other: 4 N6D- OM .
J Clca.rance 'Pfpehb:
h l
n J a.&J _ n
' /o 85~
date
) ,
'?
rc o:.c1cv tc: cc f f xhib;+ / './
' 1 ~ 0 1 9 1os\
i
't . .-- - . . . . . . . . . . .. . . _ . . . . . . . . , _ . .. .. .
- * . se em e.eae. . , , ,,
a---- __ -
~
.a
=
. . . . . . .. .w . --- . .. . . a.: . . . i.. . . : - .
.' Page 1 of S C L *1~ A p#
Date : /].-. - m -9s l
STATEMENT EI, Thomas Allan STAFFORD hereby make the following voluntary statement to Mr.
i RichardA.Matakas,whohasidentifiedhimselftomeasanInvest{gatorwith l the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission. I make this statement with no threats having been made or promises having been extended to me. $ j I
i 0 b 1
I l
m currently registered with the National
' Registry of Radiation Protection Technologist. I have worked as a Health Physicist (HP) for approximately 11 years and I have worked for Bartlett {
Nuclear, Incorporated as a HP for five to six years. I have worked for Bartlett at the Peach Bottom Nuclear Station for three years in various positions. I took over as the Bartlett Site Coordinator on September 2,1985.
Before this, I worked as an HP Technical Assistant, Senior HP Tech, Supervisor of Operational HP Group, Unit 2, and I worked on the ALARA Engineering Staff
~s Pipe Replacement Project. My current supervisor is Stu NELSON, PECO Field HP R Supervisor.@
{
s On July 25, 1985, George FIELD approached me and told me that he wanted to discuss a matter with me concerning an event which took place on March 1, ]
~
1985. He said that on the aforementioned date, he and three other individuals j may have been exposed to radiaticn in excess of the Federal Regulations. He }
described an incident which took place in the Peach Bottom Unit 3 recombiner off gas pipe tunnel. Based on the facts that FIELD provided to me, I calcu-lated based on station procedure that his dose should have been somewhere
, l between approximately six and nine rem. He said that he had brought the !
incident to the attention of both Dan IPOLETTA, Bartlett Site Coordinator, and )
Norb GAZDA, PECO Field HP Supervisor. He indicated that he had not received satisfactory answers regarding his concerns about his possible overexposure I and wanted to know if I could help him. He indicated that he had been pur-suing the matter for the previous five or six months wi,th no results. He told meGAZDAhadinterviewedhimanddocumentedhis(FIELD) concerns.@
II
. ; _ 3 :; 0 !~ " '
O
3 3 ... ~. . , ~3.>.. a. . 3 g. . aw. w=w. q c . W& - i.:
.: . . ;3. +_ _ =..- ,
I
. Page 2 of 5 1
9 I believe it was later that same day that I called Stu NELSON, who had taken I over GAIDA's position as PECO Field HP Supervisor, and requested a meeting with him to discuss the circumstances described to me by FIELD. I did not tellNELSONwhyIwantedtotalktohim.Ijustrequestedthemeeging. NELSON agreed to the meeting and I then called my supervisor, Dan IP0LETTA, and l
requested his-presence at the meeting with NELSON to discuss FIELD's concerns.
IP0LETTA got very upset and told me not to talk to NELSON about the incident involving FIELD. He told me that NELSON did not know anything about the incident and he didn't want.him to know about the incident. IPOLETTA said ,
HILSMEIER was aware of the incident, had looked into the matter, and that he (IP0LETTA) was going to talk to HILSMEIER and get back to FIELD. IP0LETTA subsequently advised me that he had spoke with HILSMEIER, who had " cleaned bff .
his desk" two days earlier and had accidentally thrown the paperwork with FIELD's dose assessment into the trash. IPOLETTA further told me that HILSMEIERhadareportfromtheNRCshowingthatthePeachBottomdosime{try Y program,relativetobetadosetracking,wasgoodandFIELyhadnothingto )
worry about. Somewhere around this time, I told FIELD to a' gain document everything he knew about the incident for my review. FIELD had contacted me several times during this time period, including phone calls to my residence,
( and I could tell that he was genuinely concerned about the incident and was concerned about his job. Sometimes during the same time period (July 1985) i FIELD and I attended a meeting with Stu NELSON and George McCARTY, PECO Support HP Sup'e'rvisor. The meeting lasted about ten minutes and George
~
brought the written statement he had prepared to the meeting and'both NELSON and McCARTY made copies of the statement and gave the original back o FIELD.
Mr. Matakas has shown me a copy of this statement. NELSONhadsome;papyrwork l stating that the NRC had looked into the PECO beta dosimetry progrN and that it was a'n acceptable program. They told FIELD that his Harshaw badge had read "0" on the day of the incident and that he had nothing to worry about.. The only mention about the NRC during that meeting, that I can recall, is when either NELSON or McCARTY mentioned the NRC beta program inspection report. @
@ FIELD subsequently advised me of a meeting that he attended with IPOLETTA, l NELSON, and HILSMEIER. He said that HILSMEIER implied.to him that he (FIELD) did not have enough evidence to go to the NRC with his allegations. I did not talk to anyone about the meeting except FIELD. Q l
2 , . _ . . . .u
--" E' I
. Page 3 of 5 n September 2, 1985, I took over as the Bartlett Site Coordinator from Dan 1POLETTA.
Shortly after taking over as Site Coordinator, HILSMEIER #
called me on the phone and told me that he wanted to have a meeting with FIELD. FIELD had been in a car accident so the meeting did not take place until he. returned sometime,in early to mid September. The meeting was '
attended by myself, FIELD, HILSMEIER, and Jack WINZENRIED, PECO Superintendent of Plant Services. The meeting took place in WINZENRIED's office. WINZENRIED said something to the effect that if he.(addressing FIELD) had a problem, h'e should take it to his superv.isor and if he (FIELD) did not receive any satisfaction that he should take it up the chain of comand, 'sp to himself (WINZENRIED) before taking it to the NRC. Essentially, I think he was telling FIELD that he should first give PECO a chance to correct a problem before a problem is taken to the NRC. FIELD denied going to the NRC stating that neither I nor IP0LETTA went to the NRC either. FIELD said that he thought a PECO employee went to the NRC. Apparently, HILSMEIER did not believe FIELD stating, "I can't understand why anyone would want to set you up like this."
( I do not recall all of the conversation but the jist of the meeting, or the ,
reason for having FIELD there, was to put across to FIELD that he should go up C his chain of comand before going to the NRC with a problem. HILSMEIER and WINZENRIED did mest of t'he talking. It was a short meeting. @
@SometimeafterthemeetingthatIattendedwithHILSMEIER,WINZENRIED,and FIELD, NELSON requested that I make up a list of all Bartlett employees onsite and document their absenteeism. I made up the list noting in one column, each individual employee's requested days off which include vacation days, requested days off without pay, and days that the individual just did not show up for work. The second column documented each individual's sick days. Each indi-vidual's total absenteeism was totalled in the far right hand column. NELSON had requested that the list reflect days off for each individual going back to January 1, 1985. He did not say why he wanted the list. I gave him the list and a few days later, both of us went over the list notirig the days off for each individual. Thelistdidnottakeintoaccountthestartingdatefor@
1
- a
RTE.i:EM&:~ a .h L .:... . a . a. ~ .. + . ..:vG..b.wum o w a 32. a R
~
.)'
- Page 4 of 5 each individual. Some individuals had started their employment prior.to January 1, 1985, some started their employment as late as September 1985 and some had broken employment during the year 1985 wherein they had quit'for one reason or another and returned to work. There was no discussion o.f this fact when I gave the list to NELSON. The days off were recorded from t,he Bartlett ,
- billing sheets" which I keep in my office for payroll purposes. ~At the second meeting with NELSON, where we went over the absenteeism list, he told me that PECO wanted to start. cutting back on employees due to the upcoming and of the outage. He showed me the list which now,.had several notations next to '
certain individuals' names. He told me'that on the following Friday, or the Friday thereafter, that I should lay off LATRELL, FIELD and that I should try I and get one more volunteer for lay off. I.did as I was told and added Jeff CALDWELL to the list as he (CALDWELL) volunteered to resign. NELSON had comented that LATRELL and FIELD had the most sick days. There was no I
discussion concerning the job performance of either LATRELL or FIELD. It' would be hard for me to accurately evaluate FIELD's performance as he only .
worked for me for a short time. However, my observations and conversations l with FIELD concerning the March 1, 1985, incident, indicate to me that FIELD wasagoodHP.k D If we terminate someone for cause, we state the reason on a Bartlett Termina-d tion Form. In the case of FIELD, I noted on the form that he was terminated due to lay of.f; however, I verbally informed our Bartlett office in Plymouth,
] Massachusetts tfiat PECO terminated FIELD for too many sick days. Since taking
~~
over as the Bartlett Site Coordinator, I have terminated approximately five individuals "for cause." As soon as I th11 eve someone from his position, I call our home office and verbally inform them of the reason. I inform the j
secretary, Susan SAWYER *, of who I am letting go and the reasons behind the termination. As I have said, I told the Bartlett office that the reason I was i laying FIELD off was for excessive sick days, the reason that was given to me by NELSON. Prior to NELSON instructing me to lay off LATTRELL and FIELD for too many sick days, he instructed me to lay off Bartlett techs, Barbara l STEEVES, Randy ORBACH, Wade MELDRUM and Mike WRIGHT.for " poor job performance." These were the first people to be laid off in the current-reduction and they were laid off between September 11-1),1985.@
l 1
j
- .e.:.. .: . .K ,a. . . .. s. . . a... .~ a . ... ~ . , a . z =.. . . , .. ::. u. :.s a,.:,u. a ..
I of
.Page 5 5 very Monday morning, I give NELSON a status list of Bartlett employees showing how many people are onsite and the upcoming resignations of individuals as I receive them. In other words, as soon as someone tells me that they are resigning as of a certain date, I reflect this status on the aforementioned status list provided to NELSON. A couple of days ago, NELSON requ,ested that I makeupanotherlistshowingabsenteeismfromJuly1985throughapproximately.
October 22, 1985. He did not give me the reasons behind his request other thanhewantedanupdatedlist.h ,
kI have read over this five page statement and discussed its contents,with Mr. Matakas'who had it typed for me. I have had the opportunity to make corrections and I have acknowledged the contents of this statement with my*
initials and signature. This statement is the truth to the best of my knowledge and belief and may be used by the NRC as t 0.h y see fit h g SIGNATURE: ). O. vv '
y Subspribe ad orn to before me this /[ day of d C. - ,
19L,at 1 4- JQ7 .
/ (_
e .
WITNESS:
O e
e
- 1 [ s
. . . ~. .. -. < L .:a
.x -
. - - , - . . ~. an
. Page 1 of 7 I Date : //- 7 dfJ' STATEMENT l
hI,DanielVincentIPOLETTA,herebymakethefollowingvoluntarystatementto j Mr. Richard A. Matakas, who has identified himself to me as an' Investigator with the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I make this sta'tement with no j threats having been made and no promises having been extended to me. I l originall ' i' h 1985 b .y provided this information to Mr. Matakas on October 29 and 30 B
bIhaveworkedatthePeachBottomNuclearGeneragigt ions for Bartlett Nuclear, Incorporated since approximately M Iry 19S2. rom September 2, 1985, to the current time, my position has been that of Assistant Site -
Coordinator. From approximately January 1983 up to
~
the Bartlett Site Coordinator. From approximately :ry L..pegy985, I was T S2 up to January ,
{
1983, I worked at Peach Bottom for Bartlett as a Senior Health Physicist (HP) j Technician. Prior to this time, I had approximately seven years of experience h working as an HP. O k George FIELD worked for me as a Bartlett Senior HP at the Peach Bottom Stations forapproximately one year. I would describe FIELD as a good HP with
- I the exception of his attendance. He did miss more than a normal amount of attendance. However, he did a nice job for me and I did not have any prob 1. ems with his work performance. Recently, Bruce BARTLETT, President of Bartlett Nuclear, Incorporated, asked me about FIELD's work performance and I told him essentially, the same thing that I have stated above. Additionally, sometime last sumer, both Stu NELSON and Norb GA2DA (on separate occasions) asked me about FIELD's work performance. Again, I told them essentially the same thing as I have stated above. I would also state that despite FIELD's absenteeism, if the recent lay off would have been left up to me, I would not have laid FIELD off. However, I hed nothing to do with and had no input into, the recent lay off of Bartlett personnel. Curt LATTRELL, %artlett HP Technician who worked for me for over one year, was laid off with FIELD and I would 1 describe his work performance as satisfactory. M idg j%
1 -85.-019 EXH3iT .-
g 'o '
Pages
~ . at . .>. ,.- = .
a 1. a .=.x t .w., a: . .z -_ v..x ~ - . - --
s ., .
.; {
. Page 2 of 7 I N I first became aware of FIELD's concern over his perceived March 1,.1985, overexposure shortly after the incident took place. After the incident, George came to me and told me that he had been working in the Unit-3 off gas tunnel, escorting three individuals, when his meter " pegged out." He further stated that he had received information that noble gas had passed through the off gas tunnel during the time the incident took place. Heto18methathe was concerned and worried about his exposure and the e'xposure received by the individuals who were with him at the time. I do not know, at that time, if FIELD mentioned that he thought t ig g g an NRC reportable event, or','
in my mind, I was thinking that it was a NRC reportable event. Based on the information that was reported to me by FIELD, I did some calculations and determined that FIELD's exposure may have been as high as six rem as a result of his reported incident. Anyway, I recognized that the incident may be a reportable event and I reported it to Norb GAZDA, who at the time, was the Philadelphia Electric Company (PECO) Field HP Supervisor. Sometime in the summer of 1985, GAZDA switched places with Stu NELSON and took over as the
~
, PECO ALARA Supervisor and NELSON took over his position as the PECO Field HP Supervisor. Later, I found out from I believe, FIELD, that GAZDA had callec ,
him (FIELD) up to his office and documented FIELD's concerns. In addition, d1
- , FIELD filled out a PECO A-86 Radiation Discrepancy Report which routinely goes
{
to the PECO Field HP Supervisor so that he can make a decision as to the 1 1
event's deportability. If the incident is determined to be a reportable j incident, the A-86 report would then go to Engineering and receive a PECO incident number,and receive additional followup attention. In this case, I
{
. believe that the report never went to Engineering and was resolved by, or at
)
the level of, the PECO HP section.. As a. result, the A-86 report would be k filed with the Field HP Supervisor. b O. I would like to point out that I was never told by anyone to tell FIELD not to j talk to anyone about the incident. Sometime after FIELD reported the incident ]
to me, I did tell him in effect, that I had turned the incident over to PECO '
and that we should let them have a chance to look into it. I told him this because I knew that FIELD was concerned about the incident and I was aware that his fellow workers were prodding him to " raise a big stink" about the incident. Basically, the incident was causing problems within the ranks of my 1subordinatesandIfeltthatPECOshouldhaveachancetoresolvetheissue.h ryu!Bli
- .y
- o1 rus**
- t ..;_, x
~~: , ' l.a .:.a.-
. 2 . :.. ~, . , a
}
. Page 3 of 7 )
bSometimeinapproximatelySeptember1985,IwasmadeawarethatFIELDhad written another document concerning the March 1, 1985, incident wherein he I stated that I told him, "PECO did not want me to talk to any other techs or anybody about this matter." I was concerned about this, and I spoke with FIELD about the statement. Mr. Matakas showed me a copy of the statement that I am referring to. ThecontentsofthedocumentupsetmebecaushIfeltthat was not what I had told FIELD. I explained to FIELD that I did not feel I made such a statement or any other statement inferring that either I or PECO did not want FIELD to talk to anyone about the March 1, 1985, incident. I thought that we (FIELD and I) had cleared the matter up because he acknowledged i that he may have taken the statements I made to him out of context and indicated j thathewouldclearthematterupwiththeNRCInspectorswtowegugently onsite looking into the matter. I do not feel that at any tino, 44 T threaten l
4FIELDconcerninghisrighttodiscusshisperceivedoverexposurewithanyone.h
- 6. Approximately six weeks following tfie March 1,1985, incident, FIELD came to
, me and expressed his concern about his possible overexposure and stated that - l he wanted some answers. At this time, he mentioned that if he did not get any I
(. answers, he was going to report the incident to the NRC. It was at this time that I went to Norb GAZDA a second time and explained to him that FIELD l
" wanted answers" and that FIELD had mentioned going to the NRC if he did not get any answers. I expressed to GAZDA that we should address FIELD's concerns and he told me to send FIELD up to see him. I really do not recall the sequence of eve,nts, but this was the occasion that I advised FIELD to go see
, GAZDA and that I later learned that GAZDA had documented FIELD's description of the March 1, 1985, exposure incident., Up to this time, I do not recall specifically any conversation with other PECO supervisors about the matter.
)
Up to the mid-summer 1985 time period, I do not recall receiving any feedback l from PECO concerning the March 1, 1985 incident. During all my contacts *with GAZDA about the incident, he never appeared to be upset over the information I was telling him and there was no discussion that I should discourage FIELD from going to the NRC. Sometime later, again I do not recall the exact time period, I became aware that FIELD went to see GAZDA about his statement or l information, that he had previously provided GAZDA, but by this time, I had detached myself from the incident since I felt I had done the right thing by NturningtheinformationovertoPECO(GAZDA). I was awlire of FIELD's action b EXHIBIT Page of Pages
.w. XJ.Z . .
.j u . . _ . ..
i
. . ~ . . . . . . . . . . _ .
@becauseIhaddiscussedthematterwithFIELDandIbelieveitwasonthis occasion that FIELD mentioned that he wanted a copy of his statement because he was going to tne NRC. I was aware that FIELD was considering his option of goingtotheNRCandIbelieveitwasdurigthisconversationmentionedabove that he advised me that he r N $;t ; W ; to the NRC; however, I cannot recall for sure. I do know that he was genuinely concerned about,his perceived overexposure and wanted some answers. He did ask me if I would get the statement he provided to GAZDA for him and I went to GAZDA who advised me that he had turned the document over to Alan HILSMEIER, PECO Senior HP. I don't recall exactly how, but I was informed by either GAZDA or HILSMEIER that HILSMEIER had seen the statement and thought the issue was resolved and that HILSMEIER had thrown the document away. It was also about this time that I had learned that HILSMEIER had resolved the March 1, 1985, overexposure incident by determining that FIELD had a faulty meter. It was also about this time that I asked HILSMEIER about the documented information which FIELD had
,,provided to GAZDA and HILSMEIER informed me that because he thought the issue was resolved, he had thrown the document away. I don't recall for sure, but I belig during this conversation with HILSMEIER, I told him.that FIELD +8[Y G gMr.gtotheNRC,1fhe(FIELD)didnotgetanswerstohiso' overexposure s questions. It was also around the same time period that, for some reason, I learned that FIELD went to Tom STAFFORD, my assistant, to see if he xould get the matter resolved. STAFFORD called me and told me about FIELD's concerns
. and that he (STAFFORD) was going to to talk to Stu NELSON (who at this time j
had taken GAZDA's place as the PECO Field HP Supervisor) about the incident. L I discussed the incident with STAFFORD and told him that PECO was aware of the
~
incident. I do not recall if I told him specifically that HILSMEIER was aware of the incident. I was upset about FIELD going to STAFFORD about the incident j and on one occasion I paged him in the plant about the matter. I do not recall our exact conversation, but I do recall telling him, in effect, that there does come a time when a road tech must hit the road. I did not mean my statement in a threatening ma m r., M tgt gen {was { rfsp g e to his inquiry as to being able to k:;p a s w . i.e.,beikletdoDreither J Bartlett or PECO. Essentially, he was asking me if he was going to get fired and what I was trying to tell him was that he was not going to get fired over this incident but his position at Peach Bottom was only temporary in that the ,
doutagewascomingtoanendandmanyBartletttechswouldbelaidoff.
i EXHIEIT Page - 01 Ed8" 1
l
. u. . ., .: , .e . .. .. 1 -
- )
, Page 5 of 7 .. I b Shortly thereafter, I attended a meeting at NELSON's request with HILSMEIER, GAIDA, McCARTY, NELSON, and FIELD. During the meeting, HILSMEIER essentially explained to FIELD that he had not received a significant amount of exposure as a result of the March 1, 1985 incident. I have previously referred to a second document which FIELD had drafted wherein he accused me of' telling him that he should not talk to anybody about the March 1, 1985, incident. In this document, FIELD also expressed that he was being urged by the other Bartlett ,
, techs to go to the NRC if he did not get any action concerning his overexposure I concerns. Everyone at tiie meeting had a copy of this statement. At the l meeting,someoneaskedFIELDifI(IP0LETTA)hadtold'himnottodiscuskther. w u m.y -. w J m b d.
MarchQ19&5,incidengithanyoneandFIELDresp6nded,"Y;;." : ths trud MM - b T LLC h. y...y. di n 7:; :: thU =tt:r :: ? h"-
- 2 % ndy *ar % eer I believe at the meeting FIELD explained to everyone that )
he may have misunderstood what I had originally told him. That is just about IA- all that I can recall regarding the meeting. b so e he. OL 1 I believe, It was W"t;'y follovring the meeting, when no one else was -
og g tgg h evjrgypisggroupoflayoffs, i
r g gesent, that HIgSMEIE (M ' George FIELD .she644 go. Like I have previously stated, I am not real sure about exact dates when incidents occurred, and HILSMEIER may have told me this s 4 3 little later in the day or even~the following day', but there is no,do g in 21 ,Mm mind %i mex, that the above st
.w. a eg:
h ell h MW re c.me(u;h,:4.nb ".'"c b,4
. 1%a e. . g .+. uuda ement is exactlya5,u.m.m~. =
Ax
. a a. s+d at he di Le d S During the time that I was the Bartlett Site Coordinator, we had one major outage prior to the current outage. At this time, we laid off about 30 i i
people. The lay offs started approximately four weeks prior to the end of the outage. Also, during the time that I was the Bartlett Site Coordinator, we had several minor lay offs due to " lack of work." In the latter instance, it was not unusual to lay a person off and hire him back a short time later when the work load increased. In these instances, it was Norb GAZDA who would come to me.and tell me to lay people off. For the most part, it was my decision as to who should be laid off and why. However, it was not totally my decision.
There were several instances when PECO was aware of a person who was doing "somewhat less than a. satisfactory job." I was also aware of who these kindividualswereandonoccasion,GAZDAoranotherPECOsupervisorwould EXHib,T . - -
Page ni Paa n
. .g g=;; ,
.3 , ._ . : _,
v , _. .; _ _
,3
. Page 6 of 7 I
. )
hsuggestthatIgetridofthatparticularindividualalongwiththeother individuals who I determined should be laid off. For the meet part, lay offs were based on job performance, or the lack of job performance, of which absenteeism was one of several factors relating to job performance. The last )
~
lay off that I was involved in occurred approximately six months ago and the )
lay off was requested by Norb GAIDA. GAZDAaskedmetodrawupdlistof potential personnel to be laid off. I did so, and gave the list to him. He had no input into that list but I was aware of certain people that both PECO and I felt fell into the "somewhat less than satisfactory" category. These-people were on the list. On this occasion I proceeded to lay off three j individuals at which time GAZDA cancelled the lay off and requested me to hire I b e individuals back. A th
~
I am not aware of any lay offs which occurred while I was the Bartlett Site Coordinator which were based solely on absenteeism; however, it was not j uncomon for an unsatisfactory person to have missed an excessive amount of
- btime.b '
7 blwouldalsoliketopointoutthataroundthebeginningof1985,Bartlettput
, out a notice to all Bartlett technicians at the Peach Bottom Atomic Generating Station addressing unscheduled absences. The letter addressed when verbal I warnings would be given and when written warning notices would be given in
,, relation to missed work. ,I believe one of the purposes of the letter was to get the attent,i,on of the Bartlett technicians and let them know that missed
, work days was becoming a problem and that if it continued to be a problem, certain consequences would result. This,is my opinion because j directinstructionstofollowthecontentsoftheletter.Non}sequently,Iwgsg gg
/.H used the contents of the letter when I felt tha {I had g u g ,$i g t f g w the contents of the letter uniformally. N NInot recall ever issuing a written warning notice to FIELD concern g his absenteeism and there is no i such" letter in his file. I may have told FIELD that he had been missing an excessive amount of time but I do not recall doing so. If I did address
@ FIELD'sabsenteeismwithhim,Ididnotmakearecordofit.k bFIELDstartedworkatthePeachBottomAtomicGeneratingStationonOctober 29, 1984 and worked under my supervision until September 2, 1985. We do not QLhave a formal evaluation process for employees and I do not recall ever givingb EXHIBIT ..-
Page nt Pa8es
. w. wa '.. .w
. -- :.: . n .. . c...: .n.: ; .s L. . .u.
. O
,. Page 7 of 7
)
FIELD a written evaluation. We do have disciplinary action letters but I did D--not have any occasion to issue such a letter to FIELD.b 1
bIhavereadoverthissevenpagestatementandhavediscusseditscontents with Mr. Matakas who had this statement typed for me. I have had the i opportunity to make corrections to this statement. Ihaveacknoyledgedthe cor4 tents of this statement with my initials and signa re and tiifs statement is the truth to the best of my knowledge and belief.
SIGNATURE:
d // ~2-3 7 /f W ,
Subscribed And sworn to before me this 7II day of / /8 M ,
19g,at /)ff[# , 24 .
INVESTIGATOR: /,
/
(A- L l a .
s -
v WITNESS: ,
90 1
E a 1
- I
! 4
! l i
/
EXHlaT 4 " -
Page d D *'
4
R;. ;;7.:h s . ei.au%% !.Xl T al T ~ -. ! " c C :. ; .n. . a.:. u. ....- . . .
e- apr:- )
pym.,uit, . . . ; .,4 de00 s254ss5
PLYMOUTil. MA 02360 .
f)
.>. )
To: Bartlett Tec.nicians at Peach Bottom Atomic Generating Station Our employer,Pl111adelphia Electric feels very strongly that Bartlett should make sure there is no abuse in the area of technicians taking excessive t,ime off. The nutober of unscheduled absences by Bartlett technici.ans have created severe scheduling problems for fellow Bartlett technicians and for PECO. technicians.
According te the Bartlett Nuclear, Inc. Personnel Polic technicians shall be allowed paid sick days at the rate of %y,day.per Senior month with a maximum of.five days per year, The policy also states those who don't take it.teceive a 20% bonus at the end of the job or sick pay year. . .
- Any person missing *2 nonconsecutive [ work days in a two month I
~
period shall be reminded that he/she has.* no more sick time available. l Unless support'ed by/P.'s. written doctor's note, any person missing 3 nonconsecutive work days in a.tvc month period shall be issued a verbal warning nu i.:e which will also be documented in the employee's
- ~ ~
file.
- Any person 6 ssing 4 nonconsecutive work days in a two month l period shall be issued a second verbal warning notice which will also l
~
be docu=ented in the employee's fi e.
Anv person eissing 5 nonconsecutive work days in a two month period 'shall be is6ued a _wri.tten warning notice.
Any person missing more than 5 nonconsecutive work days in a two month period or any person that has received three verbal warning notices or any person that misses more than 10 days in a year's time will be considered a candidate for termination.
Also, the pgcpie that habitually call off work immediately pre-ceding or fo11ow2n3 a scheduled day off could lose their daily sub- .
sistence allowance for the day missed and the scherluled days off at I the sole discretiW' of the Home Office.
- ( , d io , cc it Id h\<-I b1E85-01 0
,, .s: . ..,- . ...v.
- ' * * * " * * ' ' - * .=*+ee6 emp.een e a v= pa- +, e mees. as e .& .es , , . ,
9
.. . u.2.:.i. . 0.t , n. , a. w. G i : c u: a 2, : :. . . .. .
g ~ #.
i s
l REPORT OF INTERVIEW :
. Report Number:
1-85-019 PaulMcISAAC,VicePresident/ControllerofBartlettNuclearIncofpbrated,was interviewed by the reporting Investigator on November 20,1985, .itt Bartlett Headquarters, 60 Industrial Park Road, Plymouth, Massachusetts. The purpose of the interview was to discuss an alleged telephone conversation that McISAAC had with Dan IP0LETTA, Bartlett Site Coordinator at the Peach Bottom Nuclear Generating Station (PBNGS), wherein IPOLETTA allegedly informed'McISAAC that -
HILSMEIER wanted IP0LETTA to lay off George FIELD,* Bartlett HP Technician at PBNGS.
McISAAC advised that during the time IPOLETTA was the PBNGS Site Coordinator, he had telephonic contact with IPOLETTA at least once each day. He said that basically, he is in charge of financial matters relating to the Bartlett
. organization but because the organization is so small, he also handles other -
matters brought to his attention by the Site Coordinators.
McISAAC did not recall the exact date; however, he did recall one telephone call from IP0LETTA wherein IP0LETTA informed him of the impending lay offs at the Peach Bottom site and mentioned George FIELD's name along with five other i individuals who were to be laid off. He recalled IPOLETTA mentioning that someone (McISAAC could not recall who) did not like FIELD, or words to that I
. effect. McISAdCsaidhecouldnotrecallallthedetailsoftheconversation but that IP0LETTA did inquire into the possibility of employment for FIELD at l the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Generating Station if FIELD was laid off by l Philadelphia Electric. McISAAC recalled that IP0LETTA informed him that FIELD had a boat and the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Generating Station would be a desirable place for FIELD. McISAAC could not recall any other details of the telephone conversation or further discussions he may have had regarding the matter.
i l , i 1
85-019 E xMA Il
w..;. .- . .. .:. . .c.u . =... .a:L r ::.. . u. ..w:..: a:c a a:.
. x. w. - - .. . . . . .c . .:. . .
.. 2 s
McISAAC did not provide any additional pertinent information. End of Report
{ of Interview with McISAAC.
This Report of Interview was dictated on November 25, 1985. -
i.
. / /
Reported By:
~
R. A. Matakasi Investigator 1 Office of Investigations Field Office, Region I '
i h ,
J A
(!
l i
( ,
EXhiCT.11/
- s , . .d 2*. A % M
~
. ..;run. = u .- 2.. . . . m ::. = . m ...; m .u a . .s0 a;xc. : ., a . . e :a.: a.. . . . .
t' )
REPORT OF INTERVIEW
( '
Report Number: 1-85-019 Bruce Robert BARTLETT, President of Bartlett Nuclear Incorporated; was inter-viewed by the reporting Investigator on November 20, 1985, atBa{tlett Headquarters, 60 Industrial Park Road, Plymouth, Massachusetts. ' The purpose of the interview was to discuss alleged discriminatory acts against George FIELD, a former Bartlett Nuclear Technician. )
9 BARTLETT indicated that in late July or early August 1985 Dan IP0LETTA, Bartlett Nuclear Site Coordinator at the Peach Bottom Nuclear Generating Station (PBNGS), infomed him that George FIELD was' concerned over a perceived
. overexposure which took place at PBNGS on March 1, 1985. BARTLETT said IP0LETTA related that Alan HILSMEIER, PECO Senior HP, had let the problems relating to FIELD's concerns " fester" and that PECO had not answered FIELD's i, concerns in a timely manner. Accordingly, Bartlett said he dispatched Bill .
j BARLEY,VicePresidentBartlettNuclear,fromPlymouth,MasIachusettstothe h'
~
PBNGS to meet wit,h FIELD. BARTLETT said that BARLEY reported back to him
- advising that FIELD did have legitimate concerns but that FIELD had not i received an overexposure. BARTLETT said that during this same time' period, at Stu NELSON's (PECO Field HP Supervisor) request, Pat DUNN. Bartlett Radiological !
. HP who is an instructor at the Peach Bottom plant, also spoke with FIELD about his concerns. BARTLETT said that as a result of the aforementioned contacts !
withFIELD,hIwasleftwiththeimpressionthatFIELD'sconcernshadbeen resolved and that FIELD was " satisfied."
BARTLETT stated that prior to the Bartlett HP lay offs at the PBNGS, which began in September 1985, he had no further contacts from either PECO or the ,
Bartlett Site Coordinator regarding FIELD.'
BARTLETT said that after FIELD was laid off from the Peach Bottom site in j October 1985, he forwarded FIELD's resume to the Pilgrim Nuclear Station for l possible employment.. He said h'e later learned that FIELD's resume had been I
turned down and had subsequent conversation with FIELD abgut the matter.
l
( '
1 "1-05.019 g g,g y j f' i
_ -. . - . - - . - - . . . . . . . . . - . . . - . . . . . - ..,-.--....--....-....s . .. .- -.
=. .ap.
.x. . . . ua. . . :: - . , - . . . . . . ... :.a..: d :.2 :. a % .>. w :d . c,~ G.. ...w.w. .:D l. , : =: : = : z :;- ~ E o -
- 2
)
BARTLETT said he told FIELD that he assumed that his resume had been turned
{- down due to a bad recommendation or reference from the Peach Bottom site. He said he later learned from Carol GIBBS, Bartlett Site Coordinator at the Pilgrim Nuclear Station, that she was the individual who actually rejected FIELD's resume iri favor of other applicants.
..i.
BARTLETT did not provide any additional pertinent information. End of Report of Interview with BARTLETT.
This Report of Interview was dictated on November 25, 1985.
~
), / /-
Reported By: '
R. A. Matakas Investigator Office of Investigations Field Office, Region I -
' ~
l .
i
.- .c i .
= ee t
?
i i
\.
I EXHIBIT. D, .
Page /d' Pages L--__.-..___.._____________ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _,
' ' .:;. ;m :. w L , ~i. . w e . '. .. . M.:;.i= d k a 21 % =.. i .u.c n.w ~ & :x <
. . .u ;
, .. j
^
j REPORT OF INTERVIEW l Report Number: 1-85-019
)
Gary M. SMITH, PECO HP Techn'ician, was interviewed by the reporting Investigator ]
atthePeachBottomNuclearGeneratingStation(PSNGS)onNovembyr7.1985. ]
SMITH has been a PECO HP since March 1980, and has been functioning as a PECO i
- i Senior Technician since July 15, 1985. -
l l
SMITH knew George FIELD on a professional basis during FIELD's employment at , l P8NGS. He said that on various occasions, he monitored FIELD's performance as an HP. SMITH described FIELD as a satisfactory HP. He described FIELD as always being at the job site noting that his surveys were " adequate" and he -
had "no problems" with FIELD's paperwork. He said the only problem he noted withFIELDwasthatFIELDdidhaveatendencytowanttogohomewhenthUork at his specific work area was completed instead of patiently waiting for SMITH to determine if FIELD was needed anywhere else in the plant. ,
SMITH said that to his knowledge, he was not aware of any Bartlett technicians who were hired solely to green tag items of equipment. He said that he expects every Bartlett technician assigned to the $bnior Technician's office I to be able to perform any task that an HP technician normally performs. He said when a piece of equipment is green tagged, it is no longer radioactive and can be unconditionally released from the plant. He said that on a given I day.,any HP whtr is assigned to the Senior Technician's office may be directed to work green tagging of equipment. SMITH said on this day,, November 7, 1985, he assigned three individuals, Mike SHULER, Jerry KINDRED, and Mike KEELEY, to work green tagging. SMITH said that for the past two or three years, the-Senior Technician has always had a number of field office HP technicians j assigned to him. He said that, especially during outages, there is a need for field office technicians to immediately respond to something that needs to be i completed. He said that these field office technicians also do "non-outage" work. He said that currently the PECO Senior Technician has from 12 to 15 i field office technicians assigned *to him on the day shift, four or five field office technicians on the afternoon shift, and two or three field office
( technicians assigned to him on the night shift. ,
bhk.7 10 i
b i - 8 5 -- 019 ,
{
. . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . -. ~ . . . . - - - - - - - . - . - .
l
. . ::. ' . a. . . . .; . .a : .. . . : , ~ . : - . . . ... = , c s:; i m .a: . .w s. .. :x. . .-,;, . , ,
4 2
1 He said that ASHBES, Bartlett technician, is currently on the afternoon shift l
[' and has been working as a Reactor Systems HP. He said that NOLAN, Bartlett technician, was one of the recent Bartlett hires who was assigned to the shift l Senior Technician. SMITH did not know in what capacity HOUTZ,' Bartlett l technician, was working. --
l
.).
SMITH did not provide any additional pertinent information.
// -
\
Reported By: b -
K, A. Matakas, Investigator !
Office of Investigations j Field Office, Region I {
b a
O .
l l ,
1 e9
- k w
3 1
1
( ,
1 ,,
4 l
)
J
.m 2.-. . . _; m. ., , : .-.. .._.m_ .T.i. . . . h .T E , : >.w .
i
{ REPORT OF INTERVIEW Report Number: 1-85-019 e
Robert H. BUCKLEY, Senior HPITechnician for Bartlett Nuclear, was-interv'iewed bythereportingInvestigatoratthePeachBottom'NuclearGenera{ingStation (PBNGS) on October 30, 1985. After the reporting Investigator identified himself, BUCKLEY provided essentially the following information:
BUCKLEY has worked for Bartlett Nuclear as a Senior HP Technician at the PBNGS for approximately 15 months. During this time, he knew George FIELD for approximately one year when FIELD also worked at the Peach Bottom site as a Senior HP Technician. BUCKLEY never worked with FIELD on a specific job; however, he did have occasion to follow-up FIELD's work in certain areas during the time they both worked for Bartlett at the PBNGS. In addition, BUCKLEY had almost daily contact with FIELD and in some instances, had verbal interaction with FIELD concerning various HP matters at the site. .
A W Based on the above contact with FIELD, BUCKLEY described FIELD as a " good
~~
technician" who was very " thorough."
End of Report of Interview with Robert H. BUCKLEY.
~~
Reported By:
R.'A. Matakas, Investigator
. Office of Investigations Field Office, Region I i
1 i i
( -
I
_- 1-85-019 exhn)d II
- ,, g J
I
( REPORT OF INTERVIEW Report Number: 1-85-019 Lonnie D. DAVIS,' Bartlett Nuclear HP Technician, was interv'iewed U the reporting Investigator on October 30, 1985. Afterthereportin.gknvestigator identified himself DAVIS provided essentially the following information:
DAVIS has worked at the Peach Bottom Nuclear Generating Station ,(PBNGS) since Marc.h 1984 and has known George FIELD since FIELD's arrival onsite ir apprcxi-mately October 1984. DAVIS worked with FIELD "occa'sionally" when they were both directed to perform certain surveys. On occasion, DAVIS filled in for l FIELD at FIELD's control point at which time, DAVIS reviewed the paperwork generated by FIELD at the control point. On several occasions, DAVIS engaged in " professional conversations" with FIELD. DAVIS' professional observations were that FIELD "seemed to be knowledgeable," a ' competent senior HP," was
" good at relating to people," and struck DAVIS as *being able to get along
- with people at control points."
DAVIS did not provide any additional pertinent information.
End of Report of Interview with Lonnie D. DAVIS. ;
s V
~
y ) _
Report.ed By: k R. A. Matakas, Investigator Office of Investigations Field Office, Region I
( ,
i E l E8 5.- 019 6thibit lf IsI
F ;..- "
. . .. . a. ~ .; .w., . .... . . . . . . . .: : ..;
I REPORT DF INTERVIEW j
(. Report Number: 1-85-019 George Patrick McCARTY, PECO Support HP Supervisor, was interviewed by the reportingInvestigatoratthePeachBottomNuclearGeneratingStayion(PBNGS) on November 13, 1985.
l McCARTY provided biographical infomation stating that he has a Bachelor of Science Degree in Biology and has been in his current position as Support HP ,
Supervisor since July 1, 1985. He stated that as Support HP Supervisor, he is in (M rge of the PECO Dosimetry Program. He said he has been employed by PECO ]
for approximately five years.
He said that in late July or August, 1985, he attended a meeting with his Supervisor Alan HILSMEIER, PECO Senior HP, Stu NELSON, PECO Field HP Supervisor, and George FIELD, Bartlett HP Technician. He said the meeting was )
held to discuss FIELD's concerns over an incident which took place on March 1, 1985, when FIELD perceived that he had received a possible overexposure. i
- McCARTY said he generally knew of FIELD's concerns based on previous
~
i conversation.s that he had with Stu NELSON. McCARTY said he was invited to-the meeting by HILSMEIER to present dosimetry information to FIELD. At the g
meeting, McCARTY said he was given a copy of a seven page handwritten statement by FI, ELD. McCARTY said FIELD presented his concerns at the meeting indicating that he had calculated his exposure during the March 1, 1985, incident at over 4 REM. McCARTY said FIELD could not understand why his dosimetry (Eberline and Harshaw badges) had read out at such a low exposure reading contrary to his calculations. McCARTY said that he showed FIELD the NRC report which documented that PECO's Harshaw badges were accurate at higher energy levels but that they could be off as high as a 5 to 1 ratio at lower levels. -
McCARTY said he did not recall any discussion concerning the NRC either during or following the meeting and at the time of the meeting, he did not believe that FIELD was going to go to the NRC regarding his concerns.
l
( '
E kbd Ih
- 1-S5 -019 m ** eh 3
..=. x e,, .w - T , .
. :. ?. 2 , .w . . ._:. . u.-.. ~ x :.:.l.. X .~ -. . .._.a =,
2 McCARTY said he did have occasion to read the A-86 report (concerning the March 1, 1985, incident) prepared by FIELD and the subsequent evaluation that was documented on the form by HILSMEIER. McCARTY said that HILSMEIER's evaluation was a plausible explanation of the-incident. He added that to his knowledge, FIELD's meter, which he was carrying during the March 1. 1985, incident, was never tested under the same conditions that existed gon March 1, 1985.
McCARTY said that in late August or early September 1985, he attended another meeting with HIL5MEIER, Stu NELSON, Norb GAZDA, ALARA Supervisor Tom '
STAFTORD, Bartlett Site Coordinator, Dan IP0LETTA, Bartlett Site Coordinator.
and FIELD. He said the purpose of the meeting was for PECO to present the conclusions of their investigation into the March 1. 1985, incident. McCARTY l
said that HILSMEIER presented the findings to FIELD and_that FIELD appeared to accept the findings. He said he did not recall attending any subsequent f
meeting after FIELD had been presented with PECD's conclusions. McCARTY said he did not recall ever hearing HILSMEIER say anything derogatory about FIELD .
l L .
and he (McCARTY) did not know if FIELD ever went to the NRC with his concerns.
McCARTY added that he felt FIELD was very concerned about the March 1, 1985,
! incident and *was looking for some answers.'
McCARTY said he has never been contacted by any potential employer regarding l
George FIELD. He further stated that he did not know anything about l
Technicians being hired during the same week that George FIELD was laid off.
1-McCARTY said he never heard of the tem
- green team concept.'
McCARTY did not provide any additional pertinent information.
y n>
Reported By:
R. A. Plat 4Kas, Investigator -
t Office of Investigations
- Field Office, Region I i .
EXHlBlT '
Page nf Prpe-
- a. m n :v ., s ... :
~-
. . . . _ . . . . . .- . .. :3 , . 3 , ,. . 3. ... __y Placet / M, M Date ) #//-M rr i 1
( STATEMENT i
'I, Norbert F. GAZDA, hereby make the following voluntary statement to Mr. Richard A. Matakas, who has identified himself to me as an' Investigator with the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission. I make this statemprjt with no threats having been made or promises having been extended to me. I originally !
provided Mr. Matakas with this information on November 13,1985.J, )
i I have been working for PEC0 for approximately 22 years and I have been a ]
i Supervisor since approximately 1964. My current position is that of Nuclear Health Physicist and my job assignment since July 1, 1985, has bpen that of ALARA HP Supervisor. From January 1982 until July 1985, I was the Applied HP j Supervisor and my job assignment was that of Field HP Supervisor. During the time I was the Field HP Supervisor, I was responsible for the supervision.of the Bartlett contract HPs. In effect, the Site Coordinator rted to me. j also had a role in selecting responsible Bartlett Technicians. ar let )
Site Coordinators, who reported to me during this time period, were Warren j
~ !
R0GERS and Dan IP0LETTA.
._ As the Field HP Supervisor, I was involved in at least one major reduction in force each year th'at I was in the position. My criteria for a reduction in s force was that I would request the Bartlett Site Coordinator to give me a list identifying Technicians he wanted to keep. I tried to give the HP personnel at least a one or two week notice before laying them off. However, this was
( \ not always possible. As I said, the Site Coordinator would give me a list of '
ople who he wanted to keep and I would give him a number representing th~e nt of people that had to be laid off by a certain date. It would be up to l the Bartictt Site Coordinator to identify and notify the personnel of the actuni lay off. There were exceptions to this procedure, such as voluntary resignations or on occasion, either the Bartlett Site Coordinator or I would identify a person with what I would call, an " unhealthy work ethic" and/or a
. person who did not perform his job adequately. I would describe elements of an unhealthy work ethic as absenteeism, chronic lateness, a person who tries to leave work early, either excused or unexcused, alcohol problem or a person who accepts an overtime assignment and then reneges. I would describe elements of a person's job performance as the way they perform their healt
( '
O g,,3 Pase6 1-85.:01.9. , .g j
.. .. > .. pi.a v. . . . . _ u..~..,. _ , . . ., u_u.> m .., . _ . , n . . u. _ ,. . ,.y
)
ghysics practices from a technical standpoint. From my point of view, the
(,, person who causes the most problems is that person who does not call in and does not show up for work. We refer to this as "no call no show" (NCNS) and I for a supervisor, this person causes a traumatic scheduling pro,blem.
Either the day after or several days following March 1, 1985, I was informed '
i byAlanHILSMEIER,mySupervisor,thattherehadbeenanoccurredeinvolving a number of people in the Unit 3 off gas tunnel. I was infomed that the )
occurrence involved a possible overexposure and that an A M report had been written. I suured a QA tracking number for the A-86 and designated Alan ,
HILSMEIER, a Senior Engineer, to be responsible for the resolution of the ,
A-86.
Stu NELSON and I meet with HILSMEIER in his office about three times a week to inform HILSMEIER of what's going on in our respective areas. We usually meet j in HILSMEIER's office. Sometime following the March 1, 1985, incident, HILSMEIER told me on several occasions that Walter KNAPP, PECO Director of Radiation Protection, was concerned over the details of the March 1 incident,~ l andHILSMEIERwantedme[oconductaninterviewwithFIELD. HILSMEIER did not !
tell me what KNAPP's concerns were and I do not know why I was told to inter- l view only FIELD and not the other parties involved in the incident. On April 1 23, 1985, I came onsite very early in the morning to interview FIELD. He was qnthenightshiftandwasjustcompletinghistourofduty. He provided me With the actual details of the incident. At.this time, I do not believe that d
k said anything which indicated to me that he was going to make the March' i ident a Comission matter. I attempted to document our discussion and ter doing so, both of us signed the docume'nt acknowledging its accuracy.
Later that morning, I gave the document to HI'LSMEIER, although I don't recall
~
anyspecificconversationbetweenHILSMEIER'andfabouttheinterview. At the conclusion of the interview with F;IELD, I told him that the report would be sent to HILSMEIER and I may have indicated to him that someone would be getting back to him. The interview did not leave me with any negative feelings toward FIELD and I thought I had answered as many of his concerns as I could. I tried to let him know that the interview was not a punitive matter. Usually when'I call a person into my office, it is not to give him a
- medal." If the interview would have been a punitive type matter, I would
( '
have had FIELD's Supervisor, Dan IP0LETTA, accompany him.
g 3$
D np h Pa#
aa 3 gy . .. e -aa s _ . . . c. . m .. .a.L.2 . ' -. ua u l
1 everal weeks later, I learned that FIELD was still having problems over the
(, March 1,~1985, incident and he was pursuing answers elsewhere. I do not recall how I made this determination. Sometime after July 1, when I was no longer in the position of Field HP Supervisor, FIELD came to me,and wanted to know "where things stood." I told him that I would find out but that I was no
~
longer involved in the matter because of my change of job assignmen'ts with the company. ItoldhimthatheshouldtakeanyfurtherconcernstoAuNELSDN, the new FIELD HP Supervisor. I approached HILSMEIER who told me that he thought the matter had been resolved and that he had thrown away the document that I prepared, documenting my interview with FIELD. I got back with FIELD and informed him of my conversation with HILSMEIER and I believe he requested a meeting with HILSMEIER. I am not sure exactly what took place next, it was either the NRC started their August inspection or I a.ttended a meeting where FIELD was present. To the best of my recollection, I believe the meeting proceeded the NRC inspection. The meeting was attended by FIELD, myself, Stu NELSDN, Dan IPDLETTA, and HILSMEIER. At the meeting, FIELD restated, fairly
( verbatim, his concerns which he previously expressed to me and which I
~
I thought, I had answered. The meeting was essentially between HILSPEIER and FIELD to discuss FIELD's concerns. I would characterize the meeting as a non-adversary meeting. Mr. Matakas has shown me a copy of a document prepared y FIELD which I recall reading but I do not know if I got the document before O or during the meeting discussed t.bove. The document does indicate to me that FIELD was contemplating going to the NRC with his concerns. After the meeting,
. i i
TTA and FIELD departed and HILSHEIER said something to the effect that, L
. hat . o you think the chances are of George FIELD going to the Comissionia Someone at the meeting expressed their thoughts stating it was a " good" possibility that FIELD may go to the KRC. I do not recall the exact details e e iscussion; however, my own feelings, although not expressed, were that j this was not a time to consider terminating George FIELD's employment. I felt i that his concerns were sincere and that he was not a trouble maker. The bottom line result of the discussion during this meeting was that we would not terminate FIELD's employment at this time. Sometime during this time period, i and I really cannot put the time into the proper sequence of events, I was j present when HILSMEIER expressed his feeling that if FIELD went to the Commission, he questio'ned whether we could use him effectively as an HP. '
( ..
p .jma Pare '
. eoe e 1
i
.;...- u. .u > ....>;_. < .a ..,n .2. . L TTZ ~.-
. Page 4.. _ of 4 i
Following the NRC inspection in August 1985,'I had very little involvement
.iconcerning the FIELD issue due to my new job assignment. Sometime later, either STAFFORD or NELSON informed me that a reduction in force was iminent and that George FIELD's employment would be terminated in the ".second wave" due to absenteeism. I do not know and have no way of knowing if this '
(absenteeism) was the real reason or a " shadow reason" for termin,ating FIELD's employment. {
l Prior to the March 1, 1985 incident, I had no doubts about George FIELD's technical ability to function as an HP at Peach Bottom. I did question his j technical ability somewhat during the discussions that I had with him about j q
the incident. He did not seem to be able to grasp some of the technical l issues that I tried to explain to him. l l
I.have not been contacted by any potential employers concerning George FIELD.
I have read over this four page statement and discussed its contents with Mr. Matakas who had it typed for me. I have acknowledged its contents with my initials, have had the opportuni make corrections, and this statement is yetruthtoth st of my k ed nd belief. -
IGNATURE: [ !
j 19 ribed at d worn MJV re h N day of /l ,
(
)
- .. f {f -
- INVESTIGATOR: ( M ( ( _ ,N l WITNESS:
/
[/fO((
, (fv-
[]
^
I l
( .
EXHIBIT. '
Page "' d d *Wn
.-s.
O
. a.:
22.~ . _ a. 2. m o. w. a. .m . .a =.. , a.w u_,2 - c.2 aux . c. , .- #m. .. .. j I"I' 1 *f 8
) /z -J -yJ"
[
Datt STATEMENT ,
)
I, Conrad Stuart NELSON, hertby make the following voluntary statement to Mr.
/ Richard A. Matakas, who has. identified himself to me as an Investigator with-the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission. I make this statement with no threats having been made'or promises having been extended to me.
'1 IhaveaB.S.DegreeinChemistryandIhavebeenemployedbythfPhiladelphia ElectricCompany(PECO)forthepast7) years. Since approximately July 1, 1985, my position with PECO has been that of the Applied Health Physic 19t, which is also known as the Field HP Supervisor. Prior to this, I was the PEC0 g Support HP/ALARA Coor'dinator. In my current position, problems'within the Bartlett organization, relating to PEC0's Radiological Protection Program, are 4 '
2 brought to my attention. I attempt to resolve each problem or pass it up my A chain of comand to Alan HILSME!ER, PECO Senior HP.' Jack WINZENRIED, g Superintendent of nt Services, and/or eventually t O $ p ..
a+=
)
i Station O -' FA Aus A .
As the PECO F HP Supervisor, I become involved in.the lay offs of be e ,
! Bartlett e p HP personnel. In approximately September of this year, we i started cutting back on HP personnel due to the upcoming end of the current l f outage. However, as a result of the recent Depsrtment of Labor investigation of the complaint made by George FIELD, I no longer have lay off responsibil-ities of Bartlett personnel, except to inform the Site Coordinator how many
.~
" bodies" he has to let go. To my knowledge, prior _to the recent lay off which '
began in September 1985, lay offs were based on ormance evaluations con-
~
wrn.gesam m s.
. ducted by PECO and the contractorjp g P" personnel. I would define j
elements of a person's performance as: , adequacy of his surveys; how an individual documents his activities; his attitude; and, absenteeism.
C I first met George FIELD on July 30, 1985 when he<related his concerns regarding a March 1, 1985, incident at Unit 3. I became involved in the
- matter as a result of the Bartlett Site Coordinator, Tom STAFFORD, calling me and requesting a meeting. I met with both STAFFORD and FIELD at approximately 12
- 00 noon - 12:30 p.m. on July 30, 1985. At this meeting, I received a copy of FIELD's concerns which he documented on an undated and unsigned seven page-r' statement. This is the same statement which was shown to me by Mr. Matakas
- k. during this interview. FIELD's concerns involved a perceived overexposure to 8 5 r- 019 i xhib. t al b1 S
3..u- '
- . u.- ~ . , < . . . . .- . a.s . ~ . a .. .. m.w.m. a w .. . . < ~ . w Page 2 of 8
) !
his person and three other individuals, as a result of an incident that took place on March 1, 1985. I read the statement and became very concerned over its' implications. I was, frankly, surprised that the matter had not been resolved prior to July 30, 1985, and I was further surprised over the I implication that the forn.er Bartlett Site Coordinator, Dan IPOLETTA, had told FIELD not to talk to anyone about the March 1, 1985, incident. perall,I y regarded the matter as a very serious allegation. I wanted to get the matter l b resolved as soon as possible because I realized that if true, FIELD could not function as an HP due to the exposure he alleged to have received during the 3
Q March 1, 1985, incident. Based on the statement. I concluded that FIELD was considering going to the NRC about the matter, and I did not blame him. I do 1 not believe that anyone should be left ' hanging" who thinks that he has received an approximate 8 rem exposure.
I believe I took the statement to Alan HILSMEIER, PECO Senior Health Physicist and my supervisor. I know that I at least took the " problem" to HILSMEIER-p even if I did not provide him with a copy of FIELD's statement. HILSMEIER ,
q left me with the impression that he was aware of the problem and that the p I believe it was on that same day that HILSMEIER V ,
h problem had been resolved. 1 agreed to meet with FIELD about the incident. I believe it was around 4:00
. p.m. that a meeting was held with FIELD, Norb GAZDA. ALARA Supervisor, Dan IP0LETTA, George McCARTY, PECO Support HP Supervisor HILSMEIER, and myself.
I I attended only part of the meeting due to an ongoing unrelated NRC matter which I was involved in. I believe the meeting lasted approximately 30-35 minutes and I attended approximately 5-10 minutes of the meeting. At the 1
= beginning of the meeting, there was a discussion regarding the A-86 report generated by FIELD relating to the incident and HILSMEIER's evaluation of the incident which was documented on the A-86 report. Towards the end of the meeting, I recall IP0LETTA asking FIELD about the consnent in FIELD's statement *
~
referring to IP0LETTA telling FIELD not to talk to anyone about the March 1, 1985, incident. FIELD said something to the effect that the obvious implications of the statement was not what he really meant. I did not perceive any hostility between FIELD and IP0LETTA over the matter. I do not specifically recall any other statements made in the meeting
.I ,
8 h
Pa8e - -~~*'
l
. . .a m;.2 a ' nz;iz;; : 1_ .a.:. . A._ .- s..m . . , ,. .. w _ca:...i o a ,-. ..;o...,.m. . . , ;
Page 3- of 8 On Thursday August 2, 1985, Bill BARLEY, Vice President Bartlett Nuclear, came to the site to talk to FIELD about the March 1, 1985, incident. I provided BARLEY with details of the event and I thought that BARLEY did talk to FIELD about his concerns on that day but I am not really sure.
On August 6-8, 1985, the NRC conducted an inspection at Peach Bottom ,
concerning the March 1, 1985, incident with FIELD. During the' exit meeting, they advised those in attendance that there were no overexposure as a result of the March 1, 1985, incident. I believe that it was during the NRC inspection that I had an opportunity to review HIL5fEIER's evaluation of the I March 1, 1985, incident. Candidly, I did not think the evaluation was accurate. I did not discuss the details of the evaluation with HILSMEIER, k although, I did ask him if he really thought his eva.luation was accurate and 4
! i he responded, "Yes." With that response I just dropped the matter.
M
- s a.
Ongust9,1985,IhadameetingwithFIELDandPatDUNNgBartlettNuclear
- N,whoworksinourTrainingDepartment. The purpose of this meeting was to deterairie if FIELD had anymore concerns and to detemine if he fully
- h l {
understood what had actually happened on March 1, 1985. Dan IPDLETTA was also N at the meeting. I presented FIELD with the information presented by the NRC 3
/
2 and I had DUNN explain the exposure calculations. The reason for DUNN being l
at the meeting was that DUNN is very good at simplifying complex HP terms and I felt he could more r'eadily explain to FIELD what had taken place on March 1 1985. I recall that during tMs meeting, FIELD volunteered that he was not
> ' () ' the one who reported the incident to the NRC. During the meeting, I felt that
~
FIELD was not grasping the technical / theoretical concepts of radiation dosage and exposure. However, when FIELD left'the meeting I thought the matter had h
- been fully resolved.
( * . .
. Dn one occasion in, I believe, August 1985, I was in HIL$MEIER's office when a HILSMEIER was on the phone talking to someone. As I was waiting to speak with him, he threw down his pencil and stated, " George FIELD is an asshole and i D shouldn't be here." I do not know who he was speaking to and I did not question him about the cal
(- -
l EXHIBIT.< '
page .ni Pages G
.a. .. . :. . . . . :. -x . . . . . . .u . .::., .u.. s. . :.:. w . . .m .. .a .-. u ....-
( (
On August 29, 1985, HILSMEIER and WINZENRIED gave me my personal evaluation
( report. I was told that in order to get my next salary increase, I had to reach three goals. One of the goals was to operate my department within g budgetary restraints. As one part of this, they said I must run my department g during the outage period with 97 HP Technicians. At the time, I.had 93 Bartlett Technicians and 32 PECO Technicians. IarguedaboutthgstupidityofI such a fixed number but, lost the argument. I then. called Tom STAFFORD and w Bill MacALLISTER, Senior HP Technical Assistant..and informed them about my 3 discussion with HILSMEIER and WINZENRIED and indicated to them that I would T b not lose any pay. I told them that I had to cut 28 people immediately from my r i
h staff. I told them to start looking for " poor performers." 'In my mind, what h' we call *no call no show" (NCNS) incidents by HP personnel caus'e,the greatest 3 f difficulty concerning HP operations. I would say of all types'of ab'senteeism, k I this is the greatest cause of scheduling problems. I told both 'TAFFORD S and f
{ MacALLISTER that I would get back with them, that I wanted to try.to avoid such a mass lay off but I wanted them to start thinking about such a situation t
{
if I had to lay off 28 people at one time.
=
Shortly thereafter, I got back with HILSMEIER and WINZENRIED and again argued my case against laying off 28 people innediately. WINZENRIED conceded to my f
g argument and allowed me to lay off HP personnel gradually, a's the workload 5
.. permitted. E D
Mr. has also questioned me regarding a conversation that I'had with
~
Herb WILLIAMS,'
tInspectcptPeachBottom,concerningthecurrent j
~
1ay off. I do recall, sometime a king over as the PEC0 Field HP g.
Supervisor, telling WILLIAMS that we wou'Id be a reduction in^ staff i towards the end of the current outage and that the lay o uld be based on ;
O job performance after consultation with the Bartlett Senior Techn nd my y Senior PECO Technicians.
As far as lay offs go, my goal was to lay off between two and four people per week. The first four individuals that I laid off were Barbara STEEVES, Randy ORBACH, Robert MELDRUti, and Mike WRIGHT, all Bartlett HPs. I instructed Tom STAFFORD to lay these people off for poor job performance. Sometime during the e'arly or middle part of September 1985, I requested,STAFFORD to provide
{ }
EXHIBIT .
Page '# nf_7 page,
_ ;,. m . . .a. .,
- e. _ .m - m 2,_ . . ,. .u. o ., sw - o.,
Page 5 of .8 l
N with a list of all Bartlett Nuclear exployees and to identify how many days k they had missed work, going back to January 1, 1985. STAFFORD provided me with a list, a copy of which is now in Mr. Matakas's possession, identifying each individual's " requested days off" and " sick days." I bel kve that I requested the list in approximately the second week of September pnd I was not instructed to obtain the list from either HILSMEIER or WINZENRIEDg When I i
received the list from STAFFORD, I noted the people with 11 or abre sick days because 11 days during a nine month period, to me, seemed. excessive. I realire that without the starting dates, this may have been a poor mechanism to use. When I received the list, in the case of Bartlett Technician KROLL, I
( ,
"* noted he had quite a few requested days off and I asked STAFFORD if he could Q fully explain the reasons behind these absences. I never did get an answer
.m eareas en nena.
4 from STAFFORD until sometime in October 1985. e getting the list from N STAFFORD, neither HILSMEIER nor WINZENRIED indicated to me, either directly or indirectly, that they wanted me to get rid of FIELD. I wanted the list to ,
( give me some type of mechanism to identify people that I would terminate in i
order to reach my goal of 97 HP Technicians. I did not have a date for this ,
goal but the implication by WINZENRIED and HILSEIER was that I was to be sick days
] somewhat expeditio,us. The people that I targeted for lay off due
- A were LATTRELL, FIELD, McMURRY, EFFLEY, Dean SMITH, and WETIELp ..;. ..
. ' r e r ; r' m x ...nv. p en I n. . e .,wv.iy . .i,-w Waevoe.1 thought
! - that 11 days of sick leave during a nine month period, was a glaring excess of
$ b absenteeism. Sometime after this I got back with STAFFORD and told him that we would take the two worse offenders (LATTRELL and FIELD), get rid of them, g and we would wiIrk from there. I told him that we would continue right down 5 the list. I then went to HILSMEIER and WINZENRIED and explained tc, them who I was getting rid of and why. They did no't coment. Normally, I would not have
~
to explain to HILSMEIER or WINZENRIED who I was laying off but in this case, I o thought that because of the sensitivity of the feeorge FIELD issue, that I should let them know. I showed them the list, told them'why I was releasing V the individuals and there was no further discussp n. I do geg ree g er askingeitherIP0LETTAorSTAFFORDaboutFIELD'sperformancebeforgreceiving the aforementioned list. / d
. . r Prior to becoming aware of the Office of Investigations' and Department of
[ Labors investigations involving FIELD, I did not attend or I was not-aware of
/
EXHIBITO'.
Page %i ' Pases
. , , :.. u . % - :. .: - a ..~ - -...~n-. .. u. s.a QT.U Page 6 ef 8
) 1
. any specific meetings regarding the George FIELD lay off issue. Subsequent to
( becoming aware of the 01/ DOL investigations, I did have a meeting in my office with Tom STAFFORD and Alan HILSMEIER. .HILSMEIER requested the meeting to review the ' absenteeism / lay off list to determine what criteria.I was using to )
lay people off. HILSMEIER indicated that he wanted to be knowledgeable regarding this matter so that he had the ssme information everyone else had.
I do not recall any statements at this meeting by HILSMEIER indic'ating that we should either avoid the truth or stretch the truth if questioned by investigators.
~
aAl. '
Cf ji:rMr.
ic e.m.w Mat,aka I felt that if HILSMEIER had his was w g _-- _1 $ ;i "drethers," he would 5= i+A,_:0hdFIELDgrkingattheplant;however, j' g I do not believe that FIELD's lay off was done by design by HILSMEIER based on P q this feeling. FIELD's lay off was based on sick days and was my decision and l t I was not directed by anyone to lay him off.
R
' Mr. Matakas has pointed out to me that during the week of the lay off of '
LATTRELL and FIELD, 8 Bartlett Technicians were either teminated for cause.
hJ resigned, or accepted a voluntary lay off. In addition, he has pointed out that during th) same week, I hired four new Bartlett Technicians and requested two Technicians (GAINES and DEAN) to withdraw their resignation and work one more week. I can only say that I feel very strongly about absenteeism and punctuality. I do not think that I was under any duress or pressure to get .
I rid of FIELD. I do not think that I laid off FIELD because I thought L]
, HILSMEIER wanted him laid off. I obviously thought there was a need to retain
(.) DEAN and GAINES and that is why I asked them to stay one more week. I think I
.. that I may have asked someone if there were any negative things about DEAN's and GAINES' perfomance htfore I requested them to stay one more week. I do
( not recall receiving any negative comments about their performance. I subsequently requested STAFFORD to lay off PEFFLEY but later cancelled that request because of pretest by some of my Senior Technicians who identified -
PEFFLEY as a " good performer." I believe that Dean SMITH was the last person l that I laid off directly as a result of absenteeism. Again, when I speak of absenteeism, I am actually speaking of sick days as I do not know all the factors that went into " requested days off" as documented on the list STAFFORD
( gave me. I had also scheduled McMURRY to be laid off due to his 12 document EXHIBIT o -
page 4 m% Faun l
.=z:.....~n':.: .w w.. -a . c : - - ~. . .. , .
}
~
Page 7 of 8 )
. (
1 Vnury sickdaysbutIallowedhimtoresignashehadacceptedJaob at another
- nuclear site. I suspect th'at .I had also asked ST'AFFDRD about LATTRELL's and FIELD's performance prior to laying'them off but I.am not sure.
\ \., , ..
The reason that I hired the four new Bartlett Technicians during .the same week that I laid off FIELD and LATTRELL..,was because I was trying a new concept. I referred to this concept as the " green team concept", M' ": h __ 'y
^
Basically, I hired these four individuals to work.direc for the W 5H' M I wanted people who would be only to the l Senior k Technician.
Senior Technician and I told the Senior Technician that these people would be
( assigned directly to them. Since the majority of the delays during the end of j
% the outage related to the " green tagging" of equipment, I expected that these 2 individuals would be used mainly to acconqplish that ' effort; hence, the reason kformygreenteamconceptidentification. Ididnotwanttouseexisting personnel due to the loyalties they may have already established and the idea was to have these four individuals establish loyalty only to the Shift Technical Assistant. I realize that after a cougf weeks that these "
viduals, in fact, have been used wherever t echnical Assistant has Saw Sometime in September, prior to notifying FIELD that he would be laid off, I attended a meeting in Jack WINZENRIED's office with WINZENRIED, HILSMEIER, STAFFORD, and FIELD. My recollection of this meeting was that WINZENRIED
. wanted the opportunity to explain to FIELD that FIELD had other avenues to O take his conce'r'ns, other than through HILSMEIER, if his concerns were not
~
resolved at the HILSMEIER level. I think essentially, WINZENRIED was telling FIELD that he could personally bring his'concerr4 to WINZENRIED. I think i there was a perception amongst just about everyone that FIELD had went to the l NRC with his concerns which resu'1ted in the NRC inspection in August. I do not think that this was the reason for the meeting in September and I do not recall hearing HILSMEIER state words to the effect that, "Why would anyone fwanttosetyouup,"referringtoFIELDcausingtheNRCinspection. However, Q the quoted phrase is a phrase that is used by HILSMEIER. I believe that this meeting was actual.ly. called because I had gotten wind that FIELD was having another problem understanding technical aspects of the job. As I recall, the
( meeting was a very low key meeting and WINZENRIED was giving FIELD anoth EXHlBIT f '
p,,e rr - Pa @
e
-..c
- .g.., ,
. . . . . . - . ~ . . .~ . . .
o I ,
route in which he could bring his problems. Essentially, I think WINZENRIEp
(. was saying that if you (FIELD) have.a problem, give me a chance to resolve it.
I have not received any employment inquiries from any other uttlities concerning George FIELD. Normally, either myself or Tom STAFFORD would get ,
t such inquiries.
.).
" I would like to reiterate that when I requested the absentee list from o
A STAFFORD, I had no idea of what I was going to find. Additionally, I do not
\ believe that FIELD's termination was a disciplinary act as a result of the perception that he contacted the NRC regarding his , concerns over the March 1 1985 incident.
I have read over this eight page statement and discussed its contents with Mr. 1 Matakas who had it typed for me. I have acknowledged its contents with my j initials, have had the opportunity to correct errors, and this statement is j the truth to the best of my knowledge and belief. I provided this information 1
g tofr.MatakasonNov er11and12,1985p C SIGNATURE: - b #' ^
a 2. -63 6 WN s .
i
- 3 Subsj:ribed and sworn to before me this 3Xk day of b, 19p_,at hf/ 7/ /# -
. l INVESTIGATOR: .! l Q WITNESS:
~~
[ (( _
/ VV~
b i ! i
( -
EXHIBIT. * -
Page h h
.....--...._..............._. = . _ _ . . . . . . . _ . . _ . . . . _ _ . _ , . _ , . . . . . . . , _ _ _ _ , . . . , . . . . .
4
Qi?T .,I. .lf :u . : a . . <
- 2. . ~ .. L O.a w -- -
- -- - - f
.. , Page 1 cf 6 .
. _pr i Dat b J2~ f-Tr STATEMENT j
. f I, Allen E. HILSMEIER, hereby make the followin voluntary statement to Mr.RichardA.Matakas,whohasidentifiedhims!1ftomeasanInvestigator with the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission. I make this statement with no threats having been made or promises having been extended to'me...I provided Mr. Matakas with this information on December 3, 1985.
~
's IhaveaB.S.DegreeinPhysics,aM.A.DegreeinTheology,andihavebeen
{
employed by the Philadelphia Electric Company (PECO) as the Senior Health Physicist of the Peach Bottom Station since 1981. My supervisor is Jack WINZENREID. I am supervisor over the Site ALARA Group, the App 11ed Health Physicists (HP) Croup, and the Technical Support Group Basically, my respon-sibility is to provide the overall direction for the onsite radiation protection program. -
i
/
I have had no contact from other utilities regarding possible employment .
opportunities concerning George FIELD.
~, , ,
l Currently, both Unit 2 and Unit 3 are in outages. The Unit 2 outage is due to end within about three weeks and the Unit 3 outage is due to finish up some-time during either the end of December or the month of January. '
During this past sumer, Jack WINZENREID and I were working on Stu NELSON's _;
, performance goals for the period of June 1985 to July 1986. Based on cutage conditions, we set 97 HP Technicians as a goal for NELSON to work with, a -
During the latter part of August or early part of September, WINZENREID and I ;
presented this goal to NELSON. I believe it was just a short time later l l
(during early September) that NELSON began cutting back on Bartlett HP Technicians. I did not give NELSON any direction or advice on how he should reach his goal of 97 HP Technicians. I do not recall giving him any type of time limit in which he had to reach his goal. I am not really familiar with !
what basis the Field HP Supervisor uses to lay off contractor HPs. I would i assume that the contractor personnel are laid off based on job performance.
That is the way that I would conduct such a lay off.
if ~
I am aware of a March 1, 1985, incident wherein George FIELD perceived that he
( and three other individuals received an overexposure while working in the Unit 3 offgas tunnel. I was aware of the event within one or two days of March 1, i l -- 8 5 .- 019 E U0d #
. ~ . u e:! < > . .
a . . . . . .= . :. ._. i a. :2.. . .^2~ . . .
.}
. Page 2 of 6 .
.y 4 8
^
1985, and r'eceived FIELD's A-86 report documenting the incident. Initially,
, we.sent both the Eberline and.Harshaw badges of all individuals involved in the incident to.be read. .The badge readings for all individuals involved were N11aboutthesameandindicatedthatnoone,hadreceivedan' overexposure. l Based on this, I concluded that instrument error was the' reason ELELD per- l ceived that he had received an overexposure. Sometimelater,Iyequestedthat ;
Norb GAZDA, who at the time was the Field HP Supervisor, to interview FIELD i
and based on that interview, I believe I learned that George FIELD had received some contamination during the March 1, 1985, incident. I am not sure about i
4 the date but I believe it was approximately June 1985 when I asked GAZDA to ,
j
, interview FIELD. I'm really not sure why, but possibly it was because FIELD
\ had been expressing concerns that he had received an overexposure. Based on all the facts that' I had at the time, I concluded that FIELD's concerns stenmed from a faulty instrument which he had been carrying with him in the Unit 3 offgas tunnel. I had conversation with Walter KNAPP, from PECO Head-quarters in Philadelphia, who informed me that he had been involved in a similar incident where it was later determined that the meter went offscale due to moisture which had gotten into the instrument. Based on the informa-tion that I had, this is what I believed happened with FIELD's instrument during the March 1, 1985, incident. I subsequently threw away the document provided to me by GAIDA whereon he had reported the results of his interview with FIELD. I did this because I thought the matter had been resolved.
I believe that it was sometime in July when Stu NELSON told me that George FIELD still had some concerns regarding what he perceived to be an overexposure
.- relating to the March 1, 1985, incident. NELSON told me that we ought to talk to FIELD about the incident and I told NELSON to set up a meeting in the Conference Room. By this time, July 1985 Stu NELSON had taken over GAZDA's position as the Field HP Supervisor. I do not recall the exact date of the meeting; however, GAZDA, FIELD, Dan IPDLETTA (Bartlett Site Coordinator), and myself were in attendance. Stu NELSON was also at the meeting but he was "in and out" due to ai.ner business. At the meeting, I tried to explain to FIELD whatIbelievedhapp,egedgrgtheMarch1,1985,incidentintheUnit3
( offgas tunnel. , him the NRC Certification of PECO's Eberline and ,
Harshaw badges. The purpose of the meeting was to explain to FIELD why we
[ believed that FIELD had not received an overexposure. 2 may have told him EXHIBITp ,
Page cf U Pages
C :m.u. .
.;< m. - 1 c. , , , f. . . ; .e
._ . . . f. . ~ ~ ~ T;
.t _
'l
. ,, *- Page 3 of 6 .
. )
.?
[thatthemeterhadmoistureinthechambercausingittomalfunction.
r Prior l
..k to the meeting I do not recall anyone mentioning that George FIELD was considering going to the NRC. Mr.-Matakas has shown me a seven-page hand-
. written statement (undated and unsigned) which I believe thatl got from Norb GAZDA during the time period of the meeting with FIELD. The' document was identified to me as being written by FIELD. Myimpressionwas.t),atFIELDwas sincere regarding his concerns and I thought that he felt we were trying to )
cover something up. I did not interpret his handwritten statement to mean
]
that he was going to the NRC with his concerns. I do not recall any discussion j with my staff immediately following this meeting concerning the* possibility of l George FIELD going to the NRC. I do not recall any discussion about terminating j J
George FIELD. Additionally, I do not recall any discussion with anyone I concerning the feasibility of being able to use. George FIELD effectively as an HP if he did go to the NRC.
1 i
Sometime following the meeting I was aware that Bill BARLEY, Bartlett HP, had t also explained to FIELD that he had not received an overexposure. F'11owing b .
thisexplanationbyBARLEY,Ireceivedfeedbackthatit!appearedthatFIELD h still did not undprstand, or was not grasping, what had happened during the March 1, 1985, event.
j In early August 1985, the NRC conducted an inspection at Peach Bottom, the
. subject of which was the March 1, 1985, incident involving George FIELD.
During the exit interview, I got the impression from Jim KOTTAN. NRC Inspec-
' ' ~
s ' tor, that Geor~ge FIELD was the one who had gone to the NRC concerning the March 1, 1985, incident. Because of this, I further got the impression that FIELD was not grasping what had taken p1' ace during the March 1, N85;inci-dent. However,Idon'tthinkthatItoldanyonethatFIELD"shohdhointhe first group of lay offs," or words to th'at affect. Ididtell'StuNkLSON and/or Norb GAZDA that I questioned cr rge FIELD's technical ability and that .
I was not so sure that he was wb t we needed here at the Peach Bottom' Station regarding his ability to think correctly regarding HP matters.
Mr. Matakas has asked me if I tver called George FIELD an " asshole" or told, anybody that he should not be he.ee at the station. I probably did say this
( but I do not know when or who I told it to. Again, the' reason for this was EXHIBIT.;b
% o oi c - ee m
. . - - . . . . . - - = -
,. - -- - --. --- - . .;. n. -
. a.; - ,
m . ., ; . ;j g ;c . , , , y. . .
.. ? ' -
i
! decauseIquestionedFIELD'stechnicalability. When the NRC inspection took place in August 1985 I assumed that George FIELD was the one who went to the j NRC and I believe that Dick FLEISC MAN told me that he saw George FIELD going 6 into the NRC office. Because of this, both FLEISCHMAN and I falt that FIELD was still concerned regarding his perceived overexposure and.I bel,ieve that l FLEISCHMAN told WINZENREID to contact FIELD for a meeting. FLEISCHMAN felt .
that FIELD should know what his rights were regarding radiological matters which he felt may not have been properly addressed by Management up to my i t
level. FLEISCHMAN wanted FIELD t> know that he could go to WINZENREID or to himself (FLEISCHMAN) if he was not satisfied with the answers he got from me.
Based on my conversation with FLEISCHMAN, the mess, age I got was that FIELD
'- should go through these channels before going to the NRC. I don't recall the exact date, but a meeting with FIELD followed sometime in August or September.
The meeting was attended by myself, WINZENREID, FIELD, and either Tom STAFFDRD or Dan IPDLETTA. Sometime during this period, STAFFDRD took over from IPDLETTA as the Bartlett Site Coordinator. At the meeting, we wanted to get across to gg4f FIJLgatheshouldgothroughchannelsbeforegoingtotheNRC. . I feel that Manaff --
47FIELDshouldhavegivenManagementanopportunitytoexplainandanswerhis h questions before he decided to go to the NRC. This is what WIhIENREID con-veyed to him at the meeting and I believe that FIELD denied that he'was the
.R one who contacted the NRC. In response to his dental. I do not recall stating words to the effect, "Why would someone want to set you up like this?"
However, this is a phrase that I use and I may have said it but I do not j recall. If I did say it, I did not mean it to be a derogatory or threatening y
} . statement. I .k.now that FIELD does have a right to go to the NRC.
Technically, I was not sat u fied with FIELD because I thought I had suffi-ciently explained to him thrt he had not received an overexposure prior to the NRC inspection. This occurred just prior to the NRC inspection and he indicated to me that he was satisfied with my explanation. The explanation that I gave him was different from the explanation that I had documented on j the A-86 report and was based en additional infomation that I received up fo that time. It was the same explanation that the NRC came up with during their inspection. Accordingly, when the NRC did show up, I was upset with FIELD
.i thinking that FIEL'D did not understand what I had told him and felt it neces-(. sary.to go to the NRC. I did let my subordinates know that I was upset with ,
EXHIBIT'M u nt/ - Pages g
'......... . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . _ , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..... .... . . . . .
ermes.
wy .m : -' ^
~. .. .. .m : - w. -
l
,, s . ' -
(IELDforgoingtotheNRCduetothefactthatIhadalreadyexplainedwhat had happened concerning his perce ve g e g g g did let Stu NELSON know that I was dissatisfied with FIE 's ee64 ens. Additionally, I believe that I told NELSON that I s coycyrngyggagilg to dgeggtg ya sitebasedonslyperep(tonkhatFIELI)pasttotheNRCafter~Ihadalready 8l explained to him that his overexposure concerns were unwarrantedy I did feel ,f that George FIELD was a liability to us technically and I wanted to get rid of him. However, I was afraid to get rid of him because I thought he was the one who went to the NRC (which was his right) and I did not want his termination to be viewed.as a retaliation for his going to the NRC. This was not the case. In fact, I questioned his technical ability based on what I perceived as his inability to understand what I had explained to him, which caused him
. to contact the NRC with his concerns. .
)
Sometime following the second meeting with FIELD, Stu NELSON showed me a list '
of Bartlett Technicians noting their sick days and requested days off for the year 1985. Mr. Matakas has shown he a copy of this list. NELSON told me that he wanted to lay off Bartlett Technicians based on absenteeism. I believe hq that he brought this to my attention because George FIELD was near the top of
, V the list of people to be laid off. He thought that there could be a misinter-pretation of FIELD's lay off as a result of what we perceived to.be his contact with the NRC. I informed WINZENREID of the reasons behind NELSON's
, anticipated lay off of FIELD. When NELSON showed me the list, I questioned him about KROL, Bartlett Technician, who had missed a lot of time under the requested day off column. NELSON informed me that he did not know what the requested day off column entailed in that he was laying off based on sick days. The list did not indicate when ea6h individual started his employment I and this fact did not enter my mind and was not a consideration at the time.
Back when I first gave NELSON his goal to operate his group with 97 HP Techni-cians, he indicated to me that he was going to immediately lay off that amount of people which would bring him down to his goal of 97 Technicians. I thought it was a bad idea to employ such a mass lay off and it was decided that he would lay off gradually. I believe that he told me or implied to me that he was going to lay off about three or four individuals each week and he subse-
{ quently provided me with documentation' showing me how many people he did in 91 EXHIBIT,?'^ -
Peee n nt .Pagn G
a.@.ew.5 , . . .. :a ' ~-
.w am :.O ~ ..- -- '- -
.. Page 6 of. 6 , .
I
,;:y 6 act lay off each week. I was aware that during the week he laid off Gecrge FIELD, he hired fcur people to work in the area of " green tagging" items of equipment which could be released from the site. I was also aware of the large number of Bartlett Technicians who left Peach Bottom during the same week that FIELD was laid off. I cannot explain why NELSON did this (hired and laidpeopleoffduringthesameweek)andIdidnotdiscussitwjthhim. I had the impression that NELSON's lay offs were a result of his trying to meet ,
his 97 HP Technician goal but it is conceivable that he laid off FIELD because he knew that I was dissatisfied with what I perceived to be FIELD's technica ability or inability. -
l 1
I hvia read over this six-page statement and have discussed its contents with !
Mr. Matakas who had it typed for me. I have acknowledged its contents with my '
initials, have had the opportunity to correct effort d this statement is g the truth to the best of my knowledge and belief. g SIGNATURE:
[A N/ 24 /2////93' /3 I Sub ib day of .
ISf>,
.A4 at$Edhandsworntobeforemethis .
~
l
\
INVESTIGATOR: ,
y l WITNESS: /[
, e ..
em 9
e t
e[ &
8, NSD e a ee e.. em e g em e t e e e = epp. ._ g engum eos ee e e e e .
I
-..L.
4 4.w~.u=: %:a9.:. ~ awnxKa.~a aw L. :..::. i a.e. . . ; e
. ..~ . - ..
.a ' Page 1 of 4 .
Dats : n .m.o .J f , l STATEMENT M
y I, Jack Edward WINZENRIED, hereby make the following voluntary statement to Mr. Richard A. Matakas, who has identified himself to me as an Investigator with the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I make this statement with no threats having been made or promises having been extended to me. Pty current position with the Philadelphia Electric Company (PECO) at the Pahch Bottom site is that of Superintendent of Plant Services. The Health Physicist Group.
Maintenance Group, and Outage Planning Group are all under my supervision.
I first became aware of the George FIELD, Bartlett HP Technician, issue when
(' !
NRC Inspector KOTTAN called Peach Bottom to infom us that he was coming t'o
, ,. investigate an exposure issue involving FIELD. I believe that Allen HILSMEIER, '
-QECO Senior HP, received the call from KOTTAN and' verbally infomed me of the up' coming inspection. HILSMEIER explained to me that FIELD had been in one of I
the offgas. {pnnels earlier in the year and became surrounded in a cloud-of l radioactive $s. HILSMEIER informed me that FIELD questioned Bartlett super-vision about his exposure, and the exposure of ti eh individuals whom he was i working with in the tunnel. In turn, Bartlett brought the concerns to the .
attention of PECO. HILSMEIER informed me that he had investigated the matter O' and determined tt}at neither FIELD'nor the other individuals involved in the j incident had received a high exposure or an overexposure. HILSMEIER informed me that PECO had provided FIELD with a ical explanation regarding his pra n cart. y ],
- concernsandthatFIELD[tillwasnot ied with the explanation. HILSMEIER j
. did not go into great detail with me concerning the technical aspects of the j George FIELD matter. I do not recall any specific conversation with HILSMEIER, or anyone else", concerning an explanation as to'why the reading on FIELD's
~
Harshaw badge was very low despite his survey meter going off scale.
I do not recall attending the NRC exit interview; however, conversation during the inspection with KOTTAN, as related to me by other people, led me to assume that George FIELD was the one who contacted the NRC which resulted in the NRC l inspection. I do not recall either HILSMEIER or Stu NELSON, PECO Field HP I Supervisor, expressing any dissatisfication about FIELD going to the NRC.
-)( ggg p o p c o co m m E k r w P s, B .
( '
.85.-019 b hi M M S
u ., . . . . . .. .G w. a n w.a -. w.- . .w. :. . . . ..
- . J f w ... L t.
7 I do not recall the time period, but I learned from NELSON that FIELD had been in the lunch room telling people that if he got laid off, he was going to the NRC. Apparently, some of the Bartlett technicians had informed our technicians '
of FIELD's alleged statements and, as a result. I requested that FIELD be brought up to my office for a meeting. I do not recall who, but-someone duringthistimeperiodsaidwordstotheeffectthatGeorgeFIE(Dwasnota
" great technician." This is the only statement that I recall be1'ng made about p FIELD which could be construed as a derogatory statement. According to my hvM'['
appointment book, the meeting was at 8:30 a.m. on September 4, 1985 T f%#
attendanceatthemeetingwereFIELD,myself,HILSMEIER, NELSON;DanIP0LETTA,yr#g former Bartlett Site Coordinator, and/or Tom STAFFORD, Bartlett Site ,
Coordinator. The reason for the meeting was that I felt there was a right way [g*/'
and a wrong way to handle complaints and I wanted FIELD to know that he could come to either me or my boss (FLEISCHMAN, Site Manager) with his problems instead of complaining about them in the lunchroom. The problem as I saw it was that FIELD was not satisfied with the way th,ings were being handled concerning his perceived overexposure. As I understand it, he was not ,
satisfied with the explanation that was given to him by my subordinates, i.e.,
h HILSMEIER, and I wanted him to und'erstand that he was free to come to me with his problems. My' feelings were that I would like him to contact us (PECO) before going to the.NRC with this type of problem. The reason for this is,-it seems to me, that going to the NRC is the long, hard way to resolve a problem. I The result of going to the NRC is that it takes up everybody's time, etc.
)
i At the meeting,-I told FIELD that he had the right to go to the NRC at any time but that I would like him to come to me or FLEISCHMAN first if he feels that lower level supervision was not so191ng his problems. I told him that we could solve his problem a lot faster and a lot more sily. He stated that he I hu M was not the one who went to the NRC about yeer per ived overexposure.-
- HILSMEIER responded words to the effect that, who else would call the NRC '
about your (FIELD's) problem. I do not recall HILSMEIER's exact wo'rds but I did not perceive this or other statements made at the meeting as being antagonistic towards FIELD. Sometime during the same time period NELSON came to me with a list of Bartlett HPs, noting their absenteeism. He told me that I would probably recognize one of the names on the list which was that of
'( George FIELD. He said he wanted to show me the list because FIELD was talkin EXHIBIT ,' ? ,
p, ! nt H Preet 4.
e
,C:.ubfu&u.. .=. . ~ . ~. n;:.:' =Gdk Al+ -1
. wswa M a .2 . . 'Ts : rwa .
. . f. Page' 3 of 4 . .
I t going td the NRC and he wanted me to be aware that there may be sub-sequent problems. He went on to inform me that there had been problems in the past with HP technicians not calling in and not showing up'for work. He informed me that this type of absentaeise was the reason why We was laying off the people identified on the list. His actions seemed reasonable-to g that he had been given a goal by me to reduce his staff during[chge e64we- r
- C:. He further informed me that when HP technicians either resigned or were otherwise teminated, they would not be replaced unless there were tome special qualifications that a person had which we (PECO) needed at the' time.
It seems to se that he indicated he was attempting to lay off about. Et emple each week in order to meet his goal set for outage situations. I based 0.3 assumption on the list which he showed me during this meeting. Mr. Matakas i has shown me some notes which he has identified as belonging to Herb WILLIAMS, i
- the NRC Resident Inspector onsite. .These notes accurately reflect the HP technicians and lay off dates which NELSON presented to me. I assume ~that the
- reason for this is that when NELSON infomed mer,of the lay offs based on absenteeism, I took the list and called Herb WILLIAMS to infom him what we. .
were doing. The reason for calling WILLIAMS was that during our last SALP g
]
meeting with the. Region, Dr. MURLEY, Regional Administrator, infomed us that dus
{'- were not making enough effort to keep the NRC Resident Inspectors aware of routine things that were going on in the plant. I did not question NELSON .
concerning his reasoning for using sick days as a basis.for laying HP I
. technicians off.
~
~
Mr. Matakas has informed me that three of the people on the list were still
~
working at Peach Bottom as Bartlett HP technicians as of October 29, 1985. He j further informed me that during the same week which LATRELL and FIELD were laid off for absenteeism, four new Bartlett technicians were hired. I,was not aware of this information.
I have had no conversation nor have I received any infomation from any of my subordinates indicating that FIELD's lay off was a direct result of his contacts with the NRC concerning his perceived overexposure, k/E O'sessnad**,
kone,e os, aer e,Z) ruous e r RB.D nn O fnse.ro re arao rarrawa THc reewarent Emoean rs ed rea r of wa s d e r M.derserto A
' * *.G E ' G n !*2uA: s n po racer ret t wckr to 7"H f N AC' T'*
C* N 0 50 a. V 6 M is 4*k ne pg, n sMT. 7" pes d. # 9 er c' 110 spar gg rse H 'M i 2 T6' C N HI e M t. & S 8 L ETaf to PfMP'eMos M t X d S.ts& N r p US* M K / N T'N f P t. n n r i r *< e c ,o ,,r e r un o coe ar.en a rw r rew n o ese niera n Of foff 6K f'd M M M rr e A, e s s Hl61T / 2
- of Peges
. . . . . . . .. . _ _ ..... .. _ .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . bee O
- . !:. :. . . , q. . 1. >:c.u = . .:... . - . z:. s i. , , wn:. . L x.,=.a c:2,, ..; . . ,
, ;- ~ Page 4 cf 4 i
, I have read over this four page statement and hayk' discussed its contents with i
( Mr. Matakas who had it typed for me. I have had the opportunity to make j corrections and this statement is the truth to the best of my knowledge and I belief. l g1 ..
)
SIGNATURE: [ g d w les/ / a[p[-2/.'f0 PM.
i
-f Sub ribed and sworn to before me this /ON day of ]fC , 19 8 [ I at. Eb3 /d .
^
l h
INVESTIGATOR: , y WITNESS: [ 1
/g 4
t
(
)
j - ..
6
~
i i
(
- ) '$
I
~
9 M Pages
- a ., .- 3: . a. .e u .1..u k .
. a.;.... . = . .J :d & :a k k u: s.: -c. a & cu :.. . - - .
< d. .
I REPORT OF INTERVIEW
( '
Report Number: 1-85-019 Richard S. FLEISCHMANN, II, Manager, Peach Bottom, was interviewe.d.by the reporting Investigator on December 3, 1985 ,at the Peach Botton. > Atomic Station (PBAS). FLEISCHMANN provided essentially the following infomatTon:
As Manager, Peach Bottom, he is responsible for all units onsite. He as a B.S. Degree in Chemical Engineering.
He cannot recall the exact date or time period, but he first became aware of the March 1, 1985, incident involving George FIELD's (Bartlett HP Technician) l l perceived overexposure sometime just prior to a NRC inspection in early August 1985. The inspection reviewed the March 1, 1985, incident which occurred in the Unit 3 offgas tunnel involving FIELD. FLEISCHMANN did not learn of l
FIELD's employment termination until FIELD had left the site. In all likeli-
- I hood, FLEISCHMANN was informed of the FIELD matter by Allen HILSMEIER, PECO
! Senior HP; however, he could not recall specific conversation. The next thing lh i
FLEISCHMANN recalled is either a Birtlett employee or one of his "own ptople" informing him of an NRC investigation involving a discrimination complaint by i
E George FIELD. FLEISCHMANN subsequently spoke with either Stu NELSON, PECO Field HP Supsevisor, Allen HILSMEIER, or both, about the matter and was-l advised that FIELD's employment was terminated, along with other Bartlett, I
~
technicians, fBr absenteeism. FLEISCHMANN was advised that the terminations
~
were a result of a manpower reduction, which in this case, was based on-l absenteeism. He was not aware that additional Bartlett technicians were hired during the same week of FIELD's termination and he was not awa.e of any conversation indicating that George FIELD's employment at Peach Bottom was
! terminated as a result of suspected contacts with the NRC relating to FIELD's perceived overexposure. FLEISCHMANN explained that he would not condone ;
anyone being fired for engaging in NRC protected activity and he does not have any information indicating this was the case in the George FIELD matter.-
However, he has not , investigated the matter in detail.
$,.a hibd M t1:85-019
~- -
. . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . , . . . ~ . . . . . . . . - . . . . . ----,-..
e
. . :. . = . . .:_ . .. . . . .w . : . . : .a a . . -.- a-. . . . . . ., 7:.: ...:.. ,.i ). u = A . u b: d:.: . ~.c. u . & : x x ..h .J a.. . t.
- . .** 2
)
End of Report of Interview with Richard S. FLEISCHMANN, II, dictated on
(
Decen6er 10,1985.
/ / -
Reported By: '
[f /
R.s K; natakas, investigator y
Office of Investigations Field Office, Region I l
. 1
. 1
. 4 i
1 4 1 1 l
'. l I
_ l
( '
EXHIBIT,8 ,
Page nt - Pages we
.y r. . :. ..
E' ARTLETT . 1 . <<
""~*
NUCLEAR INC. r#p. i~=r==9hj O
9, y,M """ '/T" gr
/
$8;5.f
- jf .
. v.O. .ax ,a MAIN OFFICE:80 INDUSTRIAL PARK ROAD L.
- I] . 4 oM > h ep04 g j PLYMOUTuINDUSTRIALPARK ,
.,A[
6 PtvMouTu.MA .2m i . -
wwr i s.ne-tw w W' N Rennt~r Grer. ' ~
ihiekolz (M Ue. -
9 -t*L'-B 5 ' N- O
- __ ._
Wilw, founnn ~
~~ ~ "
. & m/ho ken Rinel-A Gentne j
.9muns draer Nc.aA -
l
..dyk
~
hj W Resisus.O t o tf WM @Aysohtr
. Cn' M ll "Je M RE.516M E D 10-4-85 j
_ Cmeen bnx p e.st e,u eo - t o-s-as
. bry' b den t. M u- j rhtnAAk, Tne -
0\re4-% [ss'ero e !
A9lr e c64rs PXi rse*tiunte:D to-t- Br Ynn$re T.)l ' '
RE&ie>N# men .- 'O LLI W kdC
- frfs&d LArcy
. hm Ldnae ! -
Mn 'SliMaA RE.s tr.4ED ( gr .1K-35 % wpgg h
. hAU kneed -
h P5dvalc 'TA 4 .
l
? M 13OhAt #Cwest Il 't - T C 9Es st.wtb . ,
l .
. " Field boe! ;-
,l 10 85 L AY- ofF- -
"i-~"
.T=hed. % "- - -
i
. W r 4 ?v # hk e i -
- a. negw -
3
. Linet A,. t t ,
Resi6_se.o c to ,4-es ioliolar > ,
t _ @iods brtV REstG '9ED te . - 66 to neltf.
- 7. ban h ' .
v.1% 'S4e# \ o- (8- tr - eestsa w . .. .-
t b eJ w - . ct-2.7- 85 teow i y MCM# '
Od# - !
I k k __
M 1 s.i.... .. . . . . . e v.d . u s. .. i n .vi n n esist u.. i u :n nv. v.. I m e i si : 1 * -
. Q,xhkA 50 85-019 /d I
...M:.. a .:
~
.s ..
~
. . . a . ., . ~. L . .. ..-.. -.:.u.. . . . .
. L .
)
REPORT OF INTERVIEW C Report Number: 1-85-019 Daniel Vincent IPOI.E1TA, Assistant Site Coordinator, was interviewed by the reportingInvestigatoronNovember7,1985,atthePeachBottom,$ clear Generating Station (P8NGS). The purpose of this interview was to discuss the '
term " green team concept" referred to by Stuart NELSON, PECO Field HP Supervisor, during an earlier interview with MELSON by the reporting Investi-gator on November 7, 1985. IP0LETTA provided essentially the following information: - ~
i IP0LETTA was not familiar with the term " green team concept." However, the j tern may be referring to the green tagging of equipment by Health Physicists (HP). The green tag, which is signed by an HP, allows a certain piece of equipment to be taken off the site. HPs are assigned to release items of l equipment belonging to contractors and, in some cases, station persornel. The. i items of equipment must be released by HP personnel because the equipment has h been exposed to radiation and it is the HP's responsibility to assure that the item of ecuipment has been cleaned up and is safe to be released outside the station. A green tog is attached to those items of equipment which are safe to be released from the station. The green tagging function is completed by
, the HPs who are assigned to the PECO Senior Technician on duty. This function has been completed in this manner for the last couple of years. .
IP0LETTA did not provide any additional pertinert information.
^*
/ .
Reported By: .
W k.-
R. A. Matakas, Investigator Office of Investigations Field Office, Region I
( '
a
! { d.g,4 d i-91-05-019 jj1
. __ . ~ _
- 1. . d 5.#
. .- . .u . w . . u ._ .. _ _ s c.n . i.u.
i REPORT OF INTERVIEW
( .. Report Number: 1-85-019 l
Thomas Allan STAFFORD, Bartletti Site Coordinator, was interviewed.by the reportingInvestigatoronNovember7,1985,atthePeachBottomjuelaar j Generating Station {pBNGS). The purpose of the interview was to discuss the q
" green team concept" referred to by Stuart NELSON, PECO Field HP Supervisor, during an earlier interview with the reporting Investigator on this date.
NELSON had identified. Bartlett HP technicians ASHBES NOLAN, HOUTZ, and Bruce . ;
SMITH as technicians hired on October 2 and 3, 1985, for the sole purpose of what NELSON referred to as the " green team concept." STAFFORD provided essen-tially the following information:
STAFFORD was not familiar with the tern " green team concept" but he was informed by NEL50N that the aforementioned individuals were to be hired for the sole purpose of green tagging items of equipment. However, since the fou,r individuals have started their employment, they have been g 6en assignments other than green , tagging. Bartlett records indicate that HOUTI quit Bartlett Nuclear after working approximately one week in the field. SMITH was assigned to the Senior Technicians office for a couple of weeks; however, this week, and as far as STAFFORD knows, from now on, SMITH will be working as a Scaf-
. folding Support HP on the swing shift. ASHBES has also been working out of
, the Senior Technicians office but this week and next week he will be working as a Reactor S~ystems HP in various locations in the power block. NOLAN, as l~ far as STAFFORD knows, had been working out of the Senior Technicians office )
during the entire term of her employment; however, her employment was recently j terminated at NELSON's request due to the anticipated return of George FIELD to the PBNGS. FIELD was offered his job back as part of an agreement between I the Department of Labor and Bartlett Nuclear, Incorporated. i Regarding another matter, STAFFORD said that he did not recall NELSON ever asking him to explain KROL's, Bartlett technician, requested days off as shown on the list he provided to NELSON, until approximately October 28, 1985, when he went over the list with NELSON a'dnAlan HILSMEIER, PECO Senior HP.
c- 1 I
- 1 = c~p . 0 1 g E. xhw dl ;
N4
. ' :: w. i:. .. . . . u:,
~
,. ..x,L.=.. T^..x. . ~ .. . . a > . .: .-. 2 w. . . a - . . . > .. . . . , . . .: . -.
-e g 1
STAFFORD did not provide any additional pertinent information.
{ / s Reported By:
R. A. Matatas,.lpvestigator b bb- '-
Office of Investigations Field Office, H..egion I.
i
- 3- .
4 t
- j ji s.
- t. -.
f 1
)
. s
(-
.t I EXHIBlTc ' . !
Page
- ot- Page: !
- !I
. s- - - ,
m- ,__
m . ... w. . . . . _ . .. . . .u. ._ . , . . _2,,,,. _x,, , . ____________
i
)
(
^
November 1,1985 --
.I.
MEMORANDUM FOR: Rich Matakas FROM: Herb Williams
SUBJECT:
Discussion With Stu Nelson .
In a discussion with Stuart Welson sometime after he became the Field H. P.,
but weLL before the Bartlett NP reduction started in' October, he described how he was planning to reduce the HP staff to levels required in non-outage situations. Stuart said the-way they would decide on which Bartlett HP's to keep would be to get PECo senior HP techs and Bartlett's senior man'in a room and go down the list of names of Bartlett HP techs. For each name, anyone in the room could comment on their performance. If the person got good comments, he stayed. If he got negative.Cor maybe no comments) he would be let go. .
-(Original Signed By)
Herb Williams ,
1 I
l G
. .. l M
9 e
- 4
. - E xhib + d6
- 1 .2 o p .-- 0 1 g ldI
.c...--..----......-
a J ... .iL . . . , := ..n ;:. . .. w:.a. . .~ .u. . . z.: ~ . : ...=. x. . a : -.. w. i eM.: , ....~.;}
, REPORT OF INTERVIEW l 1
Report Numbers 1-85-019
(
4
~. . . .
. . George Arthur EIELD 'fomir Bartlett HP Technician, was interviewed ,by the . -
re'orting p Investigator.on, November 7, 1985, at Street, Maryland.' The purpose ' {
.- of the interview was to.obtain'additiorial information from FIELD cbncehting -
' ' )
possibli'discriminatoryactiono,nthepartofthe,PhiladelphiaElektric .
. Company (PEC0). FIELD provided essentially,the following information: - -
)
\
During'the week of September 30, 1985 FIELD had his resume sent ,to.the ~
', l
. PilgrimN"uclearIsenera'tingStationbfBartlettNucleah,Incorporatedfor ,
l
~~ '
simployment. .He was informed by Cindy-(last name unknown) Bartlett Personnel,
. that Pilgrim needed seven HPs by October,7, 1985. FIELD also. called Carol ;
. GIBBS, the Bartlett Site Coordinator at Pilgrim, and inquired about a job at j Pilgrim. GIBBS informed FIELD that she had three of six signatures needed to hire FIELD at the Pilgrim site. She indicated to FIELD that he would have the job no later than November 15, 1985. During the week of October 28, 1985, .
FIELD discussed his Pilgrim employment possibilities with Bruce BARTLETT, l President of Bartlett Nuclear, Incorporated. BARTLETT informed FIELD that his h resumehadbeenturneddownbyPilgrimNuclearbecausethey(PT1grimNuclear) -
~
! had received aj ep, ort from someone at the Peach Bottom Nuclear Generating ]
' l Station (PBNGS) who described FIELD as providing a " poor work performance"
! during FIELD's employment at PBNGS. FIELD talked to Tom STAFFORD, Bartlett
" Site Coordinator at PBNGS, who informed FIELD that he had not been contacted
- ,by the Pilgrim Nuclear Generating Station for a reference.
In FIELD's original statement dated October 24, 1985, hs endicated that he had been intimidated by Dan IP0LETTA, Bartlett Supervisor, when pursuing his
- ]
exposure concerns; however, on this date FFELD advised that his feelings may j have been a result of a misunderstanding on his part concerning statements made to him by IP0LETTA, FIELD did not provide any additional pertinent information.
End of Report of Iriter' view with George Arthur FIELD.
(~ o '/
t Reported By:
VW \l b xh' N I .
R1 A. Matakas, Investigator Office of Investigations j ,7 l - i _ g 5 ,_, g y 9 Field Office, Region I
=.
e e . ee - . t
c c.. m a. ..*
. . u. . 2 .. . w . .,a _.. n . m t... _ . 1.cm._ ca.._ m , .: J. ..O
, I
)
REPORT OF INTERVIEW l
( Report Number: 1-85-019 Carol P. GIBBS, Bartlett Site Coordinator at the Pilgrim Nuclear. Generating j Station (PNGS), was interviewed by the reporting Investigator on November 20, 1985, at Bartlett Headquarters, 60 Industrial Park Road, Plymout . Massachusetts. l GIBBS has been the Bartlett Site Coordinator at the Pilgrim site for approxi- i mately two years. GIBBS was interviewed concerning the circumstances surrounding the rejection of FIELD's resume foF employment at Pilgrim following his lay , l off from the Peach Bottom Nuclear Generating Station.
1 GIBBS advised that the procedure for hiring Bartlett Technicians at the PNGS is for her to review incoming resumes and once accepted, she submits them to the utility for approval. She said each ' resume must receive six signatures 1 from various Boston Edison personnel before an individual ~is accepted for I employment at the site. She said that after the six signatures are obtained.,
Jim CANE, Boston Edison Acting Chief Radiological Engineer, usually makes a h pre-employment chect: on the individual submitting the resume.
~
GIBBS said she currently has 50 technicians working for her at the Pilgrim site and at the time FIELD submitted his resume for employment, she had four ,
openings. She said she had submitted FIELD's resume to the utility along with I four or five other resumes. She said that prior to getting the six required I Boston Edison sign offs, she had already obtained the necessary signatures on four other resumes. As a result, she said FIELD's and one.or two other resumes were put into her active file for possible future employment. She said FIELD's resume had three of the necessary six sign offs and that FIELD's resume had not been turned down by Boston Edison. She said, to her knowledge, no one had been contacted at the Peach Bottom site as a pre-employment reference for FIELD. ,
GIBBS said that during the time she was trying to fill the four openings for Bartlett Technicians at the Pilgrim site, she did have conversations with several Bartlett Technicians who had previously worked with FIELD regarding
( .
f sh,bd 3I
-- 1 =. c3 . 0 1 9
. 8 . . .
. - . . . . ~ . n. . :.i.~ . . . . u. ... R .. .. :.w = :.u a:. ; c..;; r..:.s ....,. .w. . . : : .. c .. a.
. [ 2
)
[ FIELD's work habits. She said she did not receive any "real bad" comments but '
i
\
~
that a couple coments were made that FIELD was *hard to find" when his services were needed. She emphasized that these comments would not distract from her hiring FIELD if a new opening should come up and that' FIELD's resume l
- was still on file. .
..'t GIBBS said that when the utility rejects an individual's resume, the person rejecting the individual documents the reason on the resume and returns it to her. She said that in FIELD's case, she has received three acceptance signa- 1 tures and that neither Boston Edisonn' or Philadelphia Electric fiad anything to j do with FIELD not receiving employment as a Bartlett Technician at the Pilgrim site.
GIBBS did not provide any additional pertinent information. End of Report of Interview with GIBBS.
This Report of Interview was dictated on November 25, 1985. .
' ~
i@ .
/ / /
i Reported By:
- K. A. Matakts Investigator # .
' Office of Investigations
. Field Office, Region I
. l 4
4
(' ,
EXHIBIT )
p,pe oiM ##
+ .
m, sved. vda.n* mu g/)***** )
NAY 3 01965
[ '
Docket Nos. 50-277 1 50-352 License Nos. DPR-44 NPF-27 .
EA 85-42 .
Philadelphia Electric Company .
ATTN: Mr. V. Boyer .}.
Senior Vice President Nuclear Power 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 Gentlemen: ,
Subjects: A. Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil , Penalties /*
Peach Bottom (NRC Inspection No. 50.-277/85-11)
! B. Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties /
Limerick (NRC Inspection No. 50-352/85-12) i During recent inspections conducted in February, 1985 at the Peach Botton Atomic Power Station and the Limerick Generating Station, violations of NRC requirements were identified involving inadequate performance of licensed r
activities by contractor employees. The violations raise serious questions" regarding the adequacy of management oversight provided by Philadelphia Electric Company (PEco) to monitor and control the perfomance of contractors j
, engaged in licensed activities at your nuclear power plants.
~
The first inspection was conducted at Peach Bottom Unit 2 on February 13-15,
. 1985 during an extended refueling outage for Recirculation Systen and Residual i j Heat Removal System pipe replacement. The inspection wa: condu:. .ed to review l radiological concerns involving two related radio *ogica* *ncidera in which l
, contractor employees were contaminated with radiccctive ruerial and received
- unplanned occupational radiation exposures. Althtagh the exposures were 5
determined n6E to be in excess of regulatory limits, a potential for such l exposures existed. These personnel exposures may have been prevented had licensee management provided an effective administrative radiological control
, system to ensure that personnel responsible for providing radiological controls were made aware of the scope of the maintenance activities.
PEco's management oversight of the radiological activities was inadequate in that deficiencies in contractor planning, supervision. surveillance, !
communications, radiological controls, and training were not identified prior to the first incident, nor corrected in time to prevent the second incident.
In addition, a licensee supervisor approved the Radiation Work permit which did not ade:pately control the radiological hazards associated with either incident.
CERTIFIED MAIL
, RETURN RECEIPT RE00ESTED
[
E.A M M s
._ g . oin / > l '^
- - - ' - - --- -- * - " - * " ~ * * * '
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - . - . . - . - - ----i-
.~.
.n-. . . ~ .
w
, _ _____.~ - , _ ___
i These deficiencies were discussed at on enforcement conference with Mr. J. C:oney and other. members of the PECo staff en March 4,1985. The specific violations associated with these incidents are documented in an inspection report sent to your staff on February 27, 1955, and are described in Appendix A.
3 LThe second. inspection was conducted at Limerick on February 4-8 and 13,1985, during which five violations of NRC physical protection requirements were identified. The results of the inspection were discussed with you and other ,
members of the PEco staff during an enforcement conference held on March 11, 1985. The violations, which were documented in an inspection .riport sent to your staff on March 4,1985 and which are described in Appendix B, represent a significant degradation in the security program at the Limerick site. PECo's management oversight of these activities was inadequate in that deficiencies in '
contractor guard force personnel training, supervision, communication, and performance were not promptly identified, allowing adverse conditions to exist for several days without impleme.ntation of required contingency measures, '
notifications and corrective actions.
In addition to our discussions of the security violations at Limerick during the enforcement conference on March 11, 1985, we also discussed our concerns which developed as a result of the NRC's investigation of alleged guard force training records falsification by contractor employees in 1984. This issue was discussed with your staff at the enforcement conference to reinforce our concern that PEco has not provided adequate oversight of the Limerick guard force contractor and to obtain assurance that corrective actions for known problems are promptly initiated. This ma.ter may be the subject of further enforcement action in the future.
These violations and those at the Peach Bottom facility demonstrate that inadequate oversight and control of contractor activities is not limited to the particular facility management, but also involves corporate management. Further, the violations at Limerick represent the second instance in a year of PEco's inadequate control of contractor guard force activities. On October 25, 1984, a Notice of Violation was issued for several violations of physical protection e requirements by the contractor guard force at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power L Station. On previous occasions, the NRC has expressed concern regarding the adequacy of your control of contractors. For example, in the Systematic
~ Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) Report for Peach Bottom covering the period March 1,1983 through December 31, 1953, the NRC described several i
incidents which indicated the need for improvement in control of contractors.
In your March 27, 1984 response to the SALP Report, you acknowledged the need for additional overview of contractor work, and you indicated that certain actions were taken to improve performance in this area. The recent events at Peach Bottom and Limerick indicate that your actions apparently were not e effective in improving management oversight of contracte performance.
,1 M / G.
O
u..xJ . - -.. - . . . . . . _ . . _ . .. U ..- T_ H G . ...s... .33 Philadelphia Eloetric c ompany M 30 25 1
To emphasize the need for increased.PEco management oversight and control of !
7- contractor performance of licensed activities, I have been authorized, after I
( consultation with the Director, Of fice of Inspection and Enforcement, to issue the enclosed Notices of Violation and Proposed Impositions of Civil Penalties in the cumulative amount of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars (576,000) for the violations set forth in Appendices A and B. In each case, the violations have been categorized in the aggregate as Severity Level III problems-.in accordance .
with the. General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions,* .
10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1985). The base civil penalty for a.5everity Level III l violation or problem is 550,000. As set forth in Appendix A, the penalties associated with the health physics violations at the Peach Bottom facility have been reduced by 504' because of your comprehensive corrective actions. However, as set forth in Appendix B, the penalties associated with the security violations at Limerick do not warrant mitigation. -
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notices when preparing your response. In addition, to enable NRC to determine what actions, if any, should be taken with respect to your license, you are required to submit within 30 days, under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.54(f), a report of your investigation of the incidents of Limerick guard force training records falsification; an explanation of whether these incidents occurred without PEco knowledge, and if so how; a determination of the causes of the falsification, including the responsible individuals; and a description of the actions taken or planned to prevent recurrence of similar incidents. Your written reply to this letter and the results of future *
. inspections will be considered in determining whether further enforcement action is appropriate.
i '
Sections of Appendix B contain details of your security program that have been determined to be exempt from public disclosure in accordance with either'10'CFR 73.21 (Safeguards Information) or 10 CFR 9.5(a)(4) (Commercial or Financial i
Information). Therefore, the sections so identified will not be placed in the l
NRC Public Document Room and will receive limited distribution. In your response to this letter and Appendix B, place all Safeguards Information and
, Commercial or Financial Information in a separate enclosure so that your letter
,,, may be placed tm the Public Document Room.
The response directed by this letter and the enclosed Notices are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Offide of Management and Budget, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, FL 96-521.
Sincerely Thomas E. Mu ey Regional Admin . or 3fa
- - - . - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - ~
...-..-...:.-..-.7 -
. . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . t. : . .::. .:. . . .
...a , , ..,. :~ ..
Philadelphia E1;ctric Company -
4 gg 3 0.W . .. . j
Enclosures:
i
- 1. '~
Appendix A (Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil q
(' 2.
Penalties - Peach Bottom)
Appendix B (Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil 1
Penalties - Limerick) (Contains Safeguards, Commercial or Financial i Information) -
cc w/encls (w/o Safeguards, Commercial or Financial Information):-
R. S. Fleischmann, Station Superintendent, Peach Bottom .
Shields Daltroff, Vice President, Electric Production #- -
j Raymond L. Hovis, Esquire '
Thomas Magette, Power Plant Siting, Nuclear Evaluations John 5. Kemper, Vice President, Engineering and Research G. Leitch, Station Superintendent, Limerick * <
Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esquire (w/ entire Appendix B) ]
Eugene J. Bradley, Esquire, Assistant General Counsel j Limerick Hearing Service List NRC Resident Inspector / Peach Bottom (including entire Appendix B)
NRC Resident Inspector / Limerick (including entire Appendix B) 1 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania l
1
~
e .
l l
l i 1 i
( -
q ,; m a ee e. 4s.e. .m l
- .= '
?.. . - . . .. u b . . w . u = ... ....=..~.. :. :._,.: .. x .=. u .. T i
. APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATIO_N PROPOSE 0 IMPOSITIOR"6F CIVIL PENALTIES Philadelphia Electric Company Docket No. 50-277 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station I.icense No. DPR-44 Unit 2 EA 85,,42
' ~
On February 13-15, 1985, an NRC special safety inspection was. ic5hducted to review the circumstances associated with two incidents involving radioactive contamination of contractor employees performing work on weld joints inside a -
valve and associated piping in the drywell. Although the contamination levels and associated radiation exposures were not in excess of the re.gulatory limits, a substantial potential for such exposures did exist. -
In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1985) and pursuant to Section i 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, ("Act"), 42 U.S.C. 2282, PL l 96-295 and 10 CFR 2.205, the violations and the associated civil penalties are set forth below:
A. Technical Specification 6.12 requires adherence to radiation prottetion I procedures for all operations involving personnel radiation exposure.
- 1. Radiation protection procedure HP0/CD-4, " Radiation Work Permits,"
requires, in part, a radiation work permit containing specific requirements for radiological exposure controls whenever work is performed in high radiation areas.
Contrary to the above, on Febrary 10, 1985, work was performed on the interior of valve 81A in the Residual Heat Removal Syst.em, a high radiation area, and Radiation Work Permit No. 02-10-5008, " Fit and Weld RHR Pipe and Valves," did not provide specific requirements for radiological exposure control for work performed inside the valve. ,
- 2. ALARA'~ Program Instruction 2, a radiation protection procedure, requires, in part, that radiological controls personnel ensure that workers are aware of the radiological status (radiation, contamination and airborne radioactivity levels) of the work area.
Contrary to the above, on February 3 and 10,1985, at least 7 workers performed inspection, welding, grinding and other activities on weld joint 206 while inside valve 81A or adjacent piping, and. radiological controls personnel did not ensure that these werkers were aware of i the radiological status of that area. This occurred because the radiological controls personnel were not aware of the radiological status within the valve or adjacent piping ur.til af ter the completion of the work activities.
(' .
5 'S 1
, a. . 1u u-.- "'a " " " " "~ " ~
'h Appendix A j
\ i
- 3. Radiation protection procedure HP0/CO-100, " Health Physics Guide Used in the Control of Exposure to Radioactive Material," requires, in
(.- part, that individuals wear a filter respirator if removable contamination levels are greater than 15 mrad'hr per square foot.
Contrary to the above, on February 10, 1985, a worker inserted his head and torso into valve 81A where removable contamination levels up to 24,000 mrad /hr per square foot were present, and tM worker was not wearing a filter respirator. y
{
l B. Technical Specification 6.13 requires, in part, that personnel be made knowledgeable of predetermined dose rate levels if an audible-alarming dosimeter is used to provide primary radiological exposure control during entries into high radiation areas. i Contrary to the above, on February 3 and 10.1985, audible alarming dost-meters were used to provide primary radiological exposure control during entries into valve 81A, a high radiation area. The dose rates were not
~ established until the completion of the work activities and thus workers i were not made knowledgeable of the dose rates prior to their work activities. -
{
i C. 10 CFR 20.201(b) requires each licensee to make or cause to be made such surveys as (1) may be necessary for the licensee to comply with the regulations in 10 CFR Part'20, and (2) !are reasonable under the .
circumstances to evaluate the extent of radiation hazards that may be present. 10 CFR 20.201(a)t defines a survey as an evaluation of the l
h radiation hazards incident,' among other things, to the presence of radioactive waterials under a specific set of conditions.
i l
l Contrary to the above, on February 3 and 10,1985, repeated entries were made by workers into valve 81A to complete work on weld joint 206 and, prior to the entries, an evaluation was.not performed of the radiation '
hazards incident to the presence of radioactive material inside valve 81A.
D.
- 10 CFR 20.103(a)(3) requires, in part, for purposes of determining complianc7 with that section that the licensee use suitable measurements of the concentrations of radioactive, materials in air for detecting and evaluating airborne radioactivity tN. restricted areas.. ;
Contrary to the above, suitable measurements of the concentrations of-radioactive materials in air in the. valve bonnet of valve 81A were not made during the entries by workers on February 10, 1985. Specifically, the air sample taken from' 0810 to 1415 on February 10, 1985 (1) was not representative of the breathing zones of workers; .snd (2) it averaged air concentrations during periods cf inactivity as well as during grinding and welding operations and thus did not record peak concentrations potentially present during those operations.
( -
9 .y )%
l
. . . _ _ . . . . . . . . - . . - . - . . . . . . . - . . - . . ~ . - . . - . - .-
9 .
O
w u. 2 . . _ _ _ .
.g. . .; a. 2 2._a . b , a.. ,au..
)
E. 10 CFR 20.202(a)'(1) requires, in part,. that the licensee supply appro-priate personnel monitoring equipment to and require the use of.the
'C
- equipment by each individual who enters a restricted area under such circumstances that he receives, or is likely to receive a dose in any calendar quarter in excess of 25* of the applicable value specified in -
paragraph (a) of 10 CFR 20.101. .
' s j
t Contrary to the above, appropriate personnel monitoring equipment was not -
supplied and used during grinding and welding of weld joint 206 on l February 10, 1985 and workers were likely to receive a doef in excess of ,
25?; of the applicable value specified in paragraph (a) of 10 CFR 2.101, in the following instances: .
{
j (1) Extremity monitoring equipment was not supplied to four workers j grinding and welding the weld joint; and '
i (2) Supplemental monitoring equipment was not supplied to monitor exposure to the lens of the eyes of those workers.
4 These violations have been categorized in the aggregate as a Severity Level III problem (Supplement IV). l i
(Cumulative Civil Penalties - $25,000 - assessed equally among the violations) l Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Philadelphia Electric Company is, hereby required to submit to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, with h a copy to the Regional Adn'inistrator, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region I, 631 Park Avenue, King of Prussia, PA 19406, within 30 days of the date of this Notice, a written statement or explanation, including for each q alleged violation: (1) admission or denial; (2) the reasons for the i J
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 l
Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement, may issue an Order to show l cause why the"Ticense should not be modified, suspended, or revoked or why such i _
other action as may be proper should not be taken. Consideration may be given to extending the response time for good.cause shown. Under the authority of Section 182 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2232, this response shall be submitted under oath or affirmation.
I Within the same time as provided for the response required under 10 CFR 2.201,
' Philadelphia Electric Company may pay the civil penalties by letter addressed 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 amount of
$25,000 or may protest imposition of the civil penalties, in whole or in part, by a written answer addressed to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement. Should Philadelphia Electric Company fa ' to answer within the time specified, the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, will issue an Order imposing 'the civil penalties proposed above. Should Philadelphia
(' .
S l I$-
. . . . - . - - , . . . . - , . . . . . - - - - - - . - ~ " -
. --------~._-_-~~
h
~ .; . _ , F , _ 2 .
. ~ , . . . . 1. .- . s. _ _ . , ;r . x, '
Appendix A )
Electric Company elect to flie an answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205
( protesting the civil penalties, such answer may: (1) deny the violations f-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 penalties.should not be imposed. In addition to protesting.the civil, penalties. in whole or in part, such answer may request mitigation of the proposed penalties.
- 2 In requesting mitigation of the proposed penalties, the five .faittors contained '
l in Section V(B) of 10 CFR part 2, Appendix C (1985) sheald 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 I incorporate statements or explanations by specific reference (e.g., citing page l and paragraph. numbers) to avoid repetition. Philadelphia Electric Company's .
attention is directed to the other provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, regarding the procedures for imposing a; civil penalties. -
~
Upon failure to pay any' civil penalties due, which have been subsequently determined in:accordance with the applicable provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, this matter may be referred to the Attorney General, and the penalties unless compromised, remitted, or mitigated, may be collected by civil action pursuant to Section 234c of the Act 42 U.S.C. 2282.
t' FOR THE NUCLEAR PEGULATORY C0f911SSI0N Thomas E. Murley Regional Administrator .
Dated at King of prussia, Pennsylvania this30" day of May 1985 /
t i
e 1
c -
g :/ / 2-
an :.. : , , :.. . a . - . . . . . .: = - .- . . . . . .. . . . . .
-p APPENDIX 8 ,
.N.01.]_CE .OF VIOLATION I PROPOSED IMPOSITIOR OF Civ!L PENALTIES
(, Philadelphia Electric Company Limerick Generating Station Docket No. 50-352 Unit 1 License No. NPF-27
,.IA 85-42 On February 4-8 and 13,1985, the NRC conducted an inspection of the physical ~
protection program at Limerick. During the inspection, five v%olations of NRC {
requirements were identified. Collectively, the violations indicate inadequate performance by the contractor guard force, including inadequate supervisory ,
response to degraded conditions, and they further demonstrate inadequate man- l agement oversight of the guard force by Philadelphia Electric Company (PEco). , ,
In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC l Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2. Appendix C (1985), and pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended ("Act"), 42 U.S.C. 2282, PL f i
96-295 and 10 CFR 2.205, the violations and the as.sociated civil penalties are set forth below:
A.
l l
l THis Pa AF.MP'-; r.nNT AIN$ 59tGUA8%
~
inFF:.u.10 * :.)i;. ;;Ti DR Pi.idLIC Dl!ClD'J UL.11 &!:lENiiONALLY LIFT BLANK. j
~
1 1
- 8. l THIS FARAGRAPH CONTAINS 2.790(d)
Ih70RF.AIION AND IS NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSIF2. 27 IS INIINIIO : ALLY LITI L? *fK.
i l -l l l
. . . . . . . . . _ , . . , . . . . . . . . . . - . . . - - - - - - - - - - ~ '-' * * * - -
1
.i'if. ! ~. t e < . ~4w .2' .. . . .
. .i .. :. . . .r . - - - .u k:. n: . ...r.. i e s
. Appendia B -
2- .
s }
\
( '
U:1! ~ t.'"r::.'" :M176i3 SMEf;Ut.T,
- ': :i" b". : "") 15 N31 FDR PUBLIC I;;.~.T.! *ii$:1.1113 !NTENT*ON!LtY .. ;
LErl M ANK. . .
. >. {
C. Philadelphia Electric Company Limerick Generating Station Physical Security Plan, Chapter 12, dated October 1984 states, in.part, " Records and reports required by 10 CFR 73.71(c) will be generated.-maintained and forwarded to the NRC as mandated by the regulations." . I 10 CFR 73.71(c), Reporting of Physical Security Events states, in part, "Each licensee under either a specific or general license shall notify the NRC operations Center via the Emergency Notification Systes as soon as possible, and in all cases within one hour, of any event which signifi- I cantly threatens or lessens the effectiveness of a physical security l system as established by regulations in this chapter, or by the licensee's approved physical security, contingency, and security personnel qualifi- I cation and training plans, or by both." -
l l
Contrary to the above, on February 2,1985, an event occurred which ;
, significantly lessened the effectiveness of the physical security plan, j
- and as of February 4,1985, the NRC Operations Center was not notified via 1 the Emergency Notification System of the occurrence. l CDNTAINS 2.790(d) INFOR. INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK thereby
' lessening the effectiveness of the physical security plan, and telephone notification was not made to the NRC Operations Center.
D. Philadelphia Electric Company Limerick Generating Station Physical Security 4 - Plan, Chapter 1, dated August 1984, states, in part, "All commitments con-tained in... Safeguards Contingency Plan will be in place and fully imple-mented by the date of receipt of the Limerick Generating Station (LGS)
Operating License."
TEIS PAF.ACRAPH CONTAIES 2.790(d)
I::DR'.'AIIO : AfD IS liO! TOR PUI* IC LISOLOSUKI. IT IS I::: :::10::;r yIr: 21s7..
a
] O .~+ ) 2-
_ - --- _. ---- -- 3 -- - -- - ---: ;3 -
QSiAui . G.:.. :.:. .
= .:-.: - u :a.. c. aw . =. ~ .w. . .. . . . . ... . . .
Appendia 8 '
)
THIS PARACRAPH CONTAINS 2.790(4)
(- -
IITOTWATION AND IS NOT 70R .
PUBLIC DISCLOSUKI. IT IS --
IN!IN720 :.*.LLY LIT ELA!:x.
.). .-
THIS TARI.CRAPH CONTAINS 2 790(d)
INT 0E::ATION AND IS NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLO3 UKE. If IS .
IIIINTICHALLYIJJ2 BLANK.
These violations have been categorized in the aggregate as a Severity Level !!!.
probles (Supplement Ill). '
(Cumulative Civil Penalties - 550,000 - assessed equally among the violations.)
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Philadelphia Electric Company is hereby required to submit to the Director, Dffice of Inspection and Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555,
- with a copy to the Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, h Region 1, 631 Park Avenue, King of Prussia PA 19406, within 30 days of the date of this Notice, a written statement or explanation, including for 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 i 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.
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 under 10 CFR 2.201, Philadelphia Electric Company may pay the civil penalties by letter to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, with a check, draft, or money ceder payable to the Treasurer of the United States in the amount of $50,000 or may protest imposition of the civil penalties, in whole or in part, by a written answer addressed to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement.
Should philadelphia Electric Company fail to answer within the time specified, the Director. Office of Inspection and Enforcement, will issue an Order imposing the civil penalties , proposed above. Should philadelphia Electric Company elect
( -
\
1 i
)I .v I L
.._._....7....__.... . _ _ _ . . . . . _ .
l l
_a . . ., .. .-...o.-...u. . . ....=.:...a..
- = = = ---- a :- m t
to fileanswer such an answer may: in accordance with 30 CFR 2.205 protesting the civil penalties,
(. .
(1) deny the violations 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 penalties should not be impesed. In addition to protesting the civil penalties, in whole or in.part, such answer may request mitigation of.the proposed penalties. -
In requesting mitigation of the proposed penalties, the five fattors contained ..
in Section V(B) of 30 CFR Part 2. Appendix C (1985).should be apdressed. Any written answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205.should be set 'feth separately ~
i from the statement or explanation in reply pursuant to 30 CFR 2.201, but may .
incorporate statements or explanations by specific reference (e.g., citing page and paragraph numbers) to avoid repetition. philadelphia Electric Company's attention is directed to the other provisions of 30 CFR 2.205,, regarding the procedures for taposing civil penalties.
)
Upon failure to pay any civil penalties due, which have been subsequently t determined in accordance with the applicable provisions of _10 CFR 2.ES, this .
matter may be referred to the Attorney General, and the penalties unless com-promised, remitted, or mitigated, may be collected by civil action pursuant to p
- j Section 234c of the Act 42 U.S.C. 2282.
FOR THE ELEAR REGULATORY CtpttIS$10N I I -
l
\
- Thomas E. Murl i Regional Administrator Dated a King of Prussia, Pennsylvania thi ay of May 1985 .
1
.* . i
.b l l
1 . .
4 -
+ :
l
,, .j i i
C '
/.2 . i/a
_ . . . . = . . . , . - - - - - - - --
-- " ~ ~ '
. . --- - ~
_