ML20237G317

Forwards Partially Withheld Enforcement Action Ltr & Notice of Violation & Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty for Review & Concurrence.Partially Deleted Briefing on Health Physicist G Fields Termination & Other Related Info Encl

ML20237G317
Person / Time
Site:	Peach Bottom
Issue date:	01/14/1987
From:	Murley T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:	Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
Shared Package
ML20237G010	List: ML20237G008 ML20237G135 ML20237G317
References
FOIA-87-228, FOIA-87-A-50 NUDOCS 8708240043
Download: ML20237G317 (17)

Text

• • • se UNITEo STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N s REoced i g

t. est PAan AvgNUS MtNo op Pavss A, Pe=NsvLvANrA isees JAN 141 "

MEMORANDUM FOR:

James M. Taylor, Director. IE FROM:

Thomas E. Murley, Regional Administrator, RI

SUBJECT:

PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY - PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC (PECO)/ PEACH BOTTOM, UNIT 3 l

Enclosed for your review and concurrence is a proposed enforcement action (letter and Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty for a violation at Peach Bottom involving discrimination against a contracto health physics technician who raised concerns to his employer.

are based on an investigation conducted by the Office of Investigations

(

Reference:

01 Report 1-85-019) Although the technician had filed a com- .

plaint with the Department of Labor (DOL) after his employment was term a mutually agreeable settlement was reached between the parties prior to determination by DOL regarding whether discrimination had occurred pdential source who alleged that a contractor healt Iwas threatened with dismissa'l if he continued to pursue Urtain radiolo(T' cal concerns regarding an incident that occurred while the HP technician was working in the recombiner offgas tunnel in March The 1985 HP technician had been concerned that he might have received sure an overe while performing those activities, and he had already discussed his conce with licensee and contractor health physics supervision at the time of the ,

allegation.

In response to the allegation, an NRC inspection was conducted at Peach Bottom concerns. in August 1985 during which the technician informed the N Subsequently, his employment at Peach Bottom was terminated.

results of the August 1985 inspection were documented in (The 50-278/85-31.) Inspection Rep{

j gation, OI conclude that the employment of the indivi for engaging in a protected activity, ntra to the e etection revisions set forth in 10 CFR 50.7.

1 violation is c1&ssified at Severity Level III since the the technician' Accordingly, a ment was directed by the first line PECO supervisor. i civil penalty is proposed.  !

tion factors set forth in the enforcement policy were consideredThe , but any escalation and mt (1) the violation was not identified by the licensee: adjustment ) '

corrective actions were not viewed as sufficiently comp (2) the Itcensee's rehensive to address the NRC underlying concern that the radiation de; ied protection program is n Inioimation in this acg B708240043 870819 oi ntctmation PDR FOIA RUBINT87-A-SO PDR n accordance With I h [0%4 *I7 4W

, et, exemp on hh (

Docket No. 50-278 License No. OPR-56 EA 87-Philadelphia Electric Company ATTN: Mr. John S. Kemper Senior Vice President 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 Gentlemen:

Subject:

NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY On May 6,1986, the NRC Office of Investigations (01) provided to the NRC staff their report of an investigation conductec at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station in response to an allegation received by this office. The source alleged that a centractor health physics (HP) technician was threatened with dismissal if he continued to pursue his radiological concerns that he might have received an overexposure while working in the Unit 3 offgas tunnel in March 1985.

May 20, 1986, A copy of the 01 Investigation Report synopsis was sent to you on on September 22,and a redacted version of the entire 01 report was sent to you 1986.

As a result of the evidence obtained during the OI investigation, the NRC has determined that your Field HP Supervisor terminated the employment of the con-tractor HP technician for engaging in a prctected activity. This termination constitutes 10 CFR 50.7.

a violation of the NRC employee protection provisions set forth in On May 20, 1986 and November 28, 1986, ed t i uraent conferences were conducted with Messrs. S. L. Daltroff, V. S. Boyer and other members of your staff to discuss this violation, its cause, and your corrective actions.

Although the Field HP Supervisor indicated that he directed that the HP tech-nician's employment be terminated because of excessive absenteetsa, the NRC concludes, based on the evidence obtained during the O! investigation, that this stated reason for termination was a pretext for dismissing the technician ,

for engaging in a protected activity. In particular, the following evidence {

is persuasive: '

(1) the technician apparently had never been counseled regard-ing excessive absenteeism; (2) there was no mention of such absenteeism in the technician's personnel file; (3) although seven employees were designated for layof fs due to excessive absenteeism, only three employees were discharged; and (4) termination based solely on absenteeism apparently was inconsistent with )

the then current and past practices at Peach Bottom.

The importance of allowing employees sufficient freedom to report their perceived safety concerns to the NRC must be reinforced. While the NRC encour-ages licensees to adopt an "open door policy" which encourages employees and ,

contractor employees to report problems to their supervision, it must be made )

4 clear to employees perceive that they a safety problem have the right to contact the NRC whenever they exists.

Further, they must be informed that they will not be harassed, intimidated or discriminated against for bringing such concerns to supervision or to the NRC. -

0FFICIAL RECORD COPY CP PB3 015 - 0003.0.0 -

05/15/86 l

l

- ______--________-____.-_________Q

philadelphia Electric Company 2 This incident also demonstrates the need for prompt and effective resolution of perceived safety issues raised by your staf f, or contractor personnel. In this instance, the technician was concerned, based on a survey measurement, that he might have received an overexposure in March 1985. However, his concerns were not satisf actorily resolved. In fact, although the individual had been told that his survey meter had malfunctioned due to moisture and high humidity, subsequent analysis indicated that was not the case.

The NRC considers this failure to promptly provide satisfactory resolution of an employee's concern, and the resultar.t termination of the individual's employment, as being indicative of the need for more effective management control of the radiation protection program. To emphasize this need, I have i been authorized, after consultation with the Director, Office of Inspection j and Enforcement, to issue the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Impo- I sition of Civii' penalty in the amount of $50,000 for the violation described )

in the enclosed Notice. In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy i

and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1986)

(Enforcement Policy), the violation has been categorized at Severit el III.

The base civil penalty amount for a Severity level III violation 'is The escalation and mitigation factors were considered and no adjustmen civil penalty amount was deemed appropriate.

You are required to respond to this letter and should follow tFe instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. In your response, you should document the specific actions taken and any additional actions you plan to prevent recurrence. After reviewing your response to this Notice, including your proposed corrective actions, the NRC will deter-eine whether further enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with j regulatory requirements.

j In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document room. i The responses directed by this letter and the enclosed Notice are not subject  !

to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required I by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.

I Sincerely, ~

Thomas E. Murley '

Regional Administrator i

Enclosure:

Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty

' c 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY CP PB3 DIS - 0004.0.0 4

05/15/06 '

i

Philadelphia Elect-ic Company 3 cc w/ encl:

R. S. Fleischmann, Manager, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Troy B. Conner, Jr. , Esquire W. H. Hirst, Director, Joint Generation Projects Department, Atlantic Electric G. Leitch, Superintendent Nuclear Generation Division Eugene J.L.Bradley, Raymond Esquire, Assistant General Counsel (Without Report)

Hovis, Esquire Thomas Magette, Power Plant Siting, Nuclear Evaluations (Without Report)

W. M. Alden, Engineer in Charge, Licensing Section Public Document Room (PDR)

Local Public Document Room (LPDR)

Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)

NRC Resident Inspector Commonwealth of Pennsylvania bec w/ encl:

Region I Docket Room (with concurrences)

SECY CA J. Taylor, IE J. Axelrad, IE T. Murley, RI D. Holody, RI J. Lieberman, OGC J. Sniezek, DED/ROGR Enforcement Directors RII-III Enforcement Officers RIV-RV F. Ingram, PA J. Crooks, AEOD B. Hayes, 01 S. Connelly, OIA V. Miller, NMSS D. Nussbaumer, OSP IE/ES File ,

IE/EA File j E00 Rdg File OCS RI:ESh.

Holody/ms R

GA1e P

RI,0RP :DRP kh RI:DRSS RI r

Es $roth M111ns ane g"g; Gu er 11/Js /86 11h86 11M/86 11/@/86 11/@86 11hb/86 1M k%6 A

s n b ey4 OGC Lieberman IE:ES Beach IE:0D Starostecki IE:0 Taylor IJ/h6 IIl 11/ /86 11/ /86 11/ /86 11/ /86 i

I 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY CP PB3 DIS - 0005.0.0 05/15/86 l

NOTICE OF VIOLATION i

AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY i

Philadelphia Electric Company '

Peach Bottom, Unit 3 Docket No. 50-278 License No. OPR-56 EA 87-As a result of an investigation conducted by the NRC O technician was terminated for engaging in a protected activity. This termina- t tion constitutes a violation of NRC requirements.

In accordance with the

" General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions " 10 ,

CFR Port 2, Appendix C (Enforcement Policy) (1986), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes to impose a civil penalty pursuant to section 234 of the Atomic 10 CFR 2.205. Energy Act of 1984, as amended ("Act"), 42 U.S.C. 2282, PL 96-265, and set forth below.The particular violation and the associated civil penalty are 10 CFR 50.7 prohibits discrimination by a licensee or l'icensee contractor against an employee for engaging in certain protected activities, includ-ing providing the Commission information about possible violations of Reorganization Act of 1974. requirements imposed under either the Atomic Ene Discrimination includes discharge and other actions that employment. relate to compensation, terms, conditions and privileges of i

of Bartlett Nuclear, Inc. , a contractor performing health oversight functions at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, was dis-  !

I criminated in a protectedagainst activity by as aPhiladelphia Health PhysicsElectric Company (PECO) for engaging Technician. Specifi-cally, the employment of Mr. Field at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station was terminated by Bartlett Nuclear, Inc., at the direction of the PECO Field HP Supervisor, because he persisted in raising concerns the regulatory limit while he was working in the Unit 3 o March 1985.

This is a Severity Level III Violation. (Supplement VII)

Civil Penalty -

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY CP PB3 DIS - 0006.0.0 05/15/86 i

Notice of Vie ation 2 1 Pursuant to the provision of 10 CFR 2.201, Philadelphia Electric Company is hereby recuire:' to submit to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforce-ment, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, USNRC Region I, 631 Park Avenue, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406, within 30 days of the date of this Notice, a written statement of explanation in reply, including (1) admission or denial of the alleged violation, (2) the reasons for the violation, if admitted, (3) corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved, (4) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations, and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved. If an adequate reply is not

)

received withir the time specified in this Notica, the Director, Office of .I Inspection and Enforcement, may issue an order to show cause why the license should not be sodified, suspended, or revoked or why such other action as may be proper should not be taken.

the response time for good cause shown. Consideration may be given to extending Under the authority of Section 182 s 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 above under 10 CFR 2.201, Philadelphia Electric Company may pay the civil penalty by letter j draft, or to the Director, addressed r Office of Inspection and Enforcement, with a check, able to the Tr j amount of rer of the United States in the j or may protest imposition of the civil pena ty in whole or in part yaw tten answer. Should Philadelphia 1 l

Electric Company f ail to answer within the time specified, the Director, Office j of Inspection in the and Enforcement, amount proposed above. will issue an Order imposing the civil penalty 1 Should Philadelphia Electric Company elect to i file an such answer answer may:in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 protesting the civil penalty, i (1) deny the violations listed in this Notice, in whole or in  ;

part, (2) demonstrate extenuating circumstances, (3) show error in this Notice, 1 or (4) show other reasons why the penalty should not be imposed. In addition to protesting the civil penalty in whole or in part, such answer may request remission or mitigation of the penalty.

In requesting sitigation of the proposed penalty, the five factors contained in Section V.B of 10 CFR Part 2. Appendix C, should be addressed. Any written answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 should be set forth separately from the statement or explanation in reply pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201, but may incorporate by specific reference (e.g., citing page and paragraph numbers) to avoid repetition. The attention of Philadelphia Electric Company is directed to the other penalty.provisions of 10 CFR 2.205 regarding the procedure for imposing a civil

's I

1 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY CP PB3 DIS - 0007.0.0  ;

05/15/86 i

Notice of Violation 3 1

i Upon f ailure to pay any civil penalty due, which has been subsequently determined in accordance with the applicable provisions of ]O CFR 2.205, this matter may be referred to the Attorney General, and the penalty, unless compromised, remitted, or mitigated, may be collected by civil action pursuant to Section 234c of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2282.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Thomas E. Murley Regional Administrator Dated at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania this day of January 1987 1

I 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY CP PB3 DIS - 0008.0.0 05/15/86

g , ' .

8LADIATMl>W WORY PIRMII maiar r.tv. in *j ,

soo .

R.W.P. ACCESS and EXPOSURE CONTROL.,;',;-MM-phYM,,

inou $8 3 /0 2

. . . . . . . - .s.. .; .

U~3~Sr$ S A* ]u M E NW **~~ O

]6-&,$d UZ":.N.S PfC & SVR VEY- T5 L oC L * ". a:c.+iMU' hi '

Ac h (,...op y54 f.*l i.:MM T vouR uAuf iNo Carts SDER$7ANCtNO AND COMPLIANCE QUIRE MT5 WITH JOB -

. 2.-7 T .

' .oe a w P READ b ' " AvTa '3W-Tiuf'? I P9W M @h8;.7W

$OCIAL SECURITY ' .

~

E F NT L'IM TO ests (TAsx TO ($E PERFORMED) MASK TIME

=m coof out .., -

'DOSEE

,otrte 80; yCus WPC . COMP.

av h 'S h m

Oil

& j.22

.5 f.~~

' A/A: 09/O  ?.P.s,2.) - h -

N Jeo:"oss M,2by pm ~

or &g '_k ' . .-% .

3 era of.x lp}g_% ik W

Q. AM '

T a

M_sp_+f___

ms 'A o 2y V .:f ea.w p

M s

__s s211_ _.y g Suss ggyp2_gp_h blI

[ $n y'a --

-ro r ofs

^

4Wst,9ph to g e a

'2G.s n H_Jfg gjp L25~_go_

p h-g2 % .D 4

& see lllIC JSQ *w-

'N

., l~/ts

---

/--------- y nsr h% r 5 't-crP f w/i-F h- a ar- O3

h:2. . .

Eb

?

hf h D.  ?

CA W Oh;

& ( BAv vf . . . . . M /,t'A4 132e $ 1 b [*' '

y't &b ny' AO' di GO:% W L11__1.o_ _ '_' 1

'g' -

260 illf .gg. -

..  :~

rf nis P W' U.V .<5 'too IO l 300 f/25 =

AlA-.12Q2 sb~

ft rr a JOB OROUP gzin acev O

BA1.ANCE GROUP ' *'

• BA .Aw E CODES: BotLER GROUP 90 INSTRUMENT LAB

. ohkdfi" OP INSERvCE IN$PECTION .6- ISI ' " PtPEF[TTER r2 PF CARPENTERS CA INSPECTOR FILTER RESPIRATOR 'd-- ' , IN OUALfTY ASSURANCE . ' , OA ELECTRICIANS EL JANtTOR i EAS '

AIRLINE RESPIRATOR RI SELF CONTAINED GENERAL ELECTAC GE LABORER Q7.f0f0

'* If 00 l kff$$hI[fRFas. deleted TE HEALTH PHY$1CS HP MACHINIST

'%E di ora uF IA 3CC4fdabCCTitiflhfffelfd0in Of InformI[I0 Mt. exemptions

^

b /'

% M D FolA 5 2 - W k t fl? I

t ' .

u .2\ ,as av * *-

DOC T T P( $47 R.W.P. ACCESS and EXPOSURE CONTROL

! LocATsON W3 /02 ' M*3 4 ms DF xeF a e i _

R.W.P. NO. - 3 ' E 00 T -

X)B DESCRIPTION b TNO - hts f* v e V - fod k I

/ PAGE A 0F -

YOUR N AA4E INDICATES UNot R$7ANDING AND COMPLIANCE Wl?H JOS AEOUIREMENT$

Q.wf. RE A0 8Y pagg SOCI AL SECURITY 0 p $PECIFIC RE A50N AUTH. TIME DOSE

1. " ' C E F OR ENTRY E XP. IN IN TOTAL , y iscr or m ( TA5K TO BE PERFORMED ) MASK TIME DOSE E X P. MPC ' COUP CODE OUT (0- OUT 3D toums av

.WYY Wj 'kS(A

' E- %L m <>.r- .,

NA o I

C. O. L. 3 w bo Sb o ve ,Iu-dUE T sl v j ') i t n 5 7e. < Y pk yc p6  % g soo Miis

/P r.sco er six g .2S 80 3so n y re e

6f

_ 4/A

_t El*)

1. 9/8 JC lb

[ ,)f,.Q, W

-- !R12------- 22.a-11.2c' SJha-$<

h\

Ac</ tg A

• iCo #

^

' 1W)$ k Y Ip So* &w# / o L

$-J 500 fy0D

$ O T

P G".& RT Arn f*O /70b ghg( I* b \

\

] L 2AT mo f.2/2 . WS

.s.e.

h lI f N/$ 11/6 *lN /fO (Q )  %

t

~/ . /.

1"

,n.-a. P1 t

w . . ., , w"2Cx tao 0)14 5 32 L "F

}

Y 2/A. OAM V l

INl' M ot2r f Rb. S----__

r ime pao 3oees1s o 9W .L0 0 8!b -. !il =  %

MM+

/

1044rE___E17'salis,.sLi JOB CROUP $ CODE 5 _

/

s ALA=Cr Croup BA '

MASM CODES: sksTRuucNT Lee IL PE OR so,LER Group BO OP C ARP(h TE R$

Inst RvlCE INSPECTION l$1 PIPE F 8 7 Tg m PF F - FIL1ER RESPIRATOR CA INSPECTOR lN E LECTR fCI AN$ Q UALITY A$$yRANCC QA O - AIRLINE RESPIRATOR EL JA NITOR JA RIGGE R $

ctmERAL ELECTRIC GE LABORER Rt 5 . SELF CONTAINED M( ALTN PHYSIC $ Hp LA TEST ENGINEERS TE M ACHINIS T MA NA- NONE "fL'(" TUR81NE GRovP TG HE *E'0E"5 *E

vu, u n 3c2 . s R.W.P. ACCESS and EXPOSURE CONTROL LOCA780N_ T. vNE lO fl. t 0

4-GM $ L14'ue ) ~R w.P. No._ d 5 OC JOB DESCRIPTION

"$~b PAGE t JZ_ _OF YOUR N AMt INDOf tl UND:RST ANDING AND COMPLI ANCE WITH JOB mf 0VIREMENTs Q W.P. QE A0 BY SOCIAL stCURlTV gg p $PE CIFIC RE A$0N AUTM T!ME DOSE (PQiN7 NAMil OATE NUupt R CODE F OR ENTRY * 'N p

.g7 TOTAL Stg i T A$K TO BE PE RF CRMED 1 M A5x TIMt DO$E EXP

, MPC COVP

' CODE OUT /$8'l OW @[. em av 3cr 09lo R W 6)' S OP oc U t"A f l Uk

$O0 OWk @ )

f

$OEN E$. NQ n- m Qh l

, 4

}ff__ _Sy_gfg_y rrrggt bAuss od v-y n U f I __$cb~ Ol kS 'WV g g i -90Mm} ~ '

,At p ,*

h .. 0O l-l Q ,\ r 5 ge ~h r Cn LN Al C.Y or / -

.WJ Cf.25

& ?_

• . ,i CL

[pf'

'[ /F men UL ')/ VbAW L OO ClLS,

_([))_g

'SuA SP& G Y ~A//W[t#0h.

f1g O

%4 /) gC ,&

N ltlkb

, /WA /

/ (vr I I I I I I I I I I

.=_

l l I I l l JOB CROUPS CODES eALANCE group BA c$ K CODES: ' f S T RUMEN T L A 9 l( CPERA1DR acetta t,mouP B0 OP CAmptwitat ihstavict iNseccTioN ist P4 Pt r T TE R PF

. FILVER RESPIRATOR CA lh5PEcTOR IN titcTaiciAns EL 4AntTom C U ALITY ASSURANCE QA

. AIRLINE RESPIRATOR Ctat RAL tLtcTaic JA meccc as Rt

. $ ELF CONTAINED ct LAscatR LA NE AL f M PMY5 6CS HP MACHih t S T TEST ENGlkttas TE Q. NONE MA TURBINE GROUP "E LP E R HE TG

• ELDERS WE

d ,

BRIEFING PAPER ON HEALTH PHYSICIST (GEORGE FIELOS) TERMINATION AND 10 CFR 50.7 VIOLATION BACKGROUND 3/1/85 HP George Fields was in the Unit 3 off gas pipe tunnel during a transient which caused radiation levels to increase. He was concerned about being overexposed.

PECO was not able to satisfy his concerns of overexposure.

8/2/85 Allegation (85-A-084) rak by someone other than Fields about potential overexposure.

Region I inspection found no overexposure (Inspection Report 50-278/85-31).

Region requested 01 investigate intimidation.

9/25/85 Inspection Report'85-31 mailed to PECO i

10/2-3/85 Fields came to resident inspector about being fired because PECO thought he had talked to NRC. (Allegation 85-A-0103)

Fields was still concerned about being overexposed. He was provided additional information about event of 3/1/85 and his exposure.

10/25/85 PECO response to Inspection Report 85-31.

l 4/3/86 ABC News Allegation with 3/1/85 event. (86-A-0041) about destroying HP records dealing 5/20/86 Region sent O! report ~ summary (Attachment 1) to PECO and requested Enforcement Conference.

5/30/86 Enforcement Conference 6/6/86 8/27/86 ona specialists investigated an reported on these alleg ons in combined Inspection Report 86-18 and 86-19. (Attachment 3) information in this record was deletcd in accordance with the freedom of information

[038*27" Act, exemptions yy,. J 7-d- 5? .__

6//

b

f 9/22/86 Region sent complete 01 report to PECO and requested second Enforcement Conference. PECO requested that O! report be  !

witheid from public disclosure.

( Attachment 4) I Conclusion l

..w-I h

01 REPORT ON HP INTIMIDATION / TERMINATION (FIELDS)

I. Background

- 3/1/85 HP Fields in the Unit 3 off gas pipe tunnel during power transient which cuased radiation levels to increase

- HP Tech sees 50r/hr reading on Survey meter

- PECO says exposure was approximately zero mres based on Harshaw Dosimetry and survey meter failed due to moisture - (high humidity)

- Survey meter OK before and after event II. NRC Inspection (Kottan & Beall) 8/6-7/85 (50-278/85-31

- No high exposure ,

- Meter not calibrated / designed for noble gas cloud immersion

- Low energy beta correction factor for survey meter not deve'eoed to quantify exposure five months af ter event

- PEC0 " moisture" answer not credible

- PECo's answers to HP Tech's questions were incorrect III. 01 Report

- HP Tech "did have legitimate radiological concerns"

- PECo's investigation "was inadequate"

- HP Tech termination 'resulted from his protected activity

- Insufficient evidence that Fields was " blackballed" l l

IV. Conclusions I

i

' s, f 074 -[fl U $

~~

inform 3 tion in this record .tas dele:ed .

m accorda.nce Act, exemr' ions f with the freedom of information .

F0iA .22-(2~d g

'p, 7 A-66 Pagt 7 of 10, Rev. 2 DISCREPMCI REPCRI' /'

Report }b. : 1_ O Part I - Identification: '

Date of Q:currence:a J///[

Time of Occurrence:/,/,,f o /.400 Iccation of Q:currence: v/T crf f o a 3 o ,'o g toane( foy 'f/

v i i Individual identifying the discrepancy) 6po'coe Reld Persor.nel MPrint) lved .

isor

-h T, - S k

• cr . Reld

. -cesdriptica 4 epancy: 3 , f oh o,o,neo Y. -

1200 1 wac escock;sa-.a2 YES lm be, azh aCS ogs a p.'

. .n e fus, nel 6 ln s,o a cIcccrec\ clea, a . T was show.'.,3 ma

/c o .2 c o q d e C/A T 4 ken aofleeck mv meter e44 .

l lncreas:so onev 4s4 T sw.%kd 4o 4Le rif scoje 40e nee #clie skead 4.f R T +clA 4ke. ( )

3 e4Ler oeoole 4e leava 4k e acect T 4 Lea me,'fekeck 4

fo ne 509 soJe awd c p e.s ecA 4 L e Ge h w'noloo) wa weIer 4Len wes ! isCC sca e oerv -Gcl ~.C uct s ese or +Le Immediate +vnwei oxrective i Action:n sheet c-aet ocs/a e fo6*e+,~;',%e Aua.sAutae.d ( +o 4, gp cfflce w y,ros.ech . 7t.b 1 - sorw xr- t y eso*> . sess senacca s- t it. =<. srb sous,ns j s-wr Ap* ('J T oo 3 1 ' > <t-oot.s c. ) s.sen O A to Ar . ft, e.//u e TLD's wr to Ger/s e Cary /M **Ma*Me / ** 4 Evows* r od. 1D2'4 '/J(c / '~ t U)t b s f fECL,3 /r,T.36 cf Ott atAtact . OJ J 4

• 85 sr LJn3 </CCkt) ef Z!C recswxa. i

'Se s., gree. sem '7 secv*cauch cotArcut is n Lou sack.G y p soates og ryg

.50, </A, se.aar

. Iswb.oc) cesseatf ru s sai.' caces1 I ,seux et ou som mc sA%, f so e/4, .seAu.s (usas< s~vses.0 c<.ac.cox). Fe c

wn a ov.siv r..a / am me < w a p mrox. /hJ ! 2f~';'

<st ros.<t or casatseasc Q 3 1ar ig'

• D# b* *

1. gk/MgM7 ,

Information in this record was deleted in accordance with th freedom of Infor..n"M

, 4tio'r PlanEStaff  ; Act, exemgtiens, ,

w.

F0IA 4 " r -

g Investigation assigned to nate 77_ ff-S$

1 s .

APP 12OIX 1

-A-86 Page 8 of 10, Rev. 2 Part II - Investigation (cmpleted by Investigator)

Personnel Contacted Organization / Group Wa N<f S*s i<- A / r> fis/ l'n h cl,% J2l>v eftv-y x <

-2 I

I Investigation Results:

[br//ne ncdib tyver al/ CN3/ N /devabeer YW -

%6 ;w h,%/ ii, < L .. .,/ ws < sn,u d ern>.

Oc t u rvver< h, s si f wu a ""

a.rsaf'f d Mr h /><wlb W l' w I,n A r ur u l ><a N - / s < n .: L - 1. A n , ,,, x /y &

.s is kJ id. W w, wh / nw>Nbf,, . h.y ,'s AdMd b Jr.e & rw s < d sWrs  ;

19krnrm m< n . .

I I

/s . S i l b /J m ri d k h,YYMd46 3/2-W/J.

Rep 6tt Investigator (Prin ) '

Signature -

Date

,/

ganizations Involved: j l

PE00: VenSors: I

. Operations . EER . Catalytic

. int. . Stores Div. . General Electric

. Security Div. . Henkels & RCby 4 stry . .  !

. IGC . .

. Beactor . .

. Trainirg

. Test Engineers i

~

l

.. .. . A-86 )

Page 9 of 10, Rev. 2 i Part III - Corrective Action:

Discrepancy Cause: //g/[u,eI,h,'e fgf/,,w,w,[

I

. Reocrtmended Corrective Action: (Use additional sheets for additional items)

Action Item J [- d [ 7 d /:

Th c n ov c/s< sinnbe }s.rvu / l+ ln s&g}

N/w 44 r/ /:AD A,% e spr v is h e, e p '

/

Individual or group responsible for Action:

Date actioni to be cartpleted:

M[

s/29/h ~

Action Item Approval. 8

'~

Action Item - - J. :

l .

Individual or group responsible for action:

Date action to be catpleted: ,

Action Itern Approval:

Action Item - -

4 1

Individual or group responsible for Acticm:

Date actica to be ampleted:

Action Itan Approval: - __

AaoeP 3/Yz/f]'

lor Plant Staff

~

Date

(.

l l

I i

• **

• A-86 Page 10 of 10, Rev. 2 3 Part IV - n,110w-up & Closure (cxrpleted try Engineer-CA) )

Categorization:

Activity Code: Cause Code:

. intenance . Pro dural Deficiency ification . Iack of or iraiequate

. HP Administrative Controls i

. Chemistry . Design Deficiercy by:

. Surveillarat hsting . Elec. Prod.

. Plant Operation . PEEo (other than EP)

. Routine operation . Vendor

. Transient Response p.Ipnent failure

. Fabrication, Installation

. Radwaste

. Sec1rity or Mafat. Error

. Fire Protectiory/ . Personnel Error Housekeeping . Failure to follow established

. Training Procedural controls

. Emergercy Plans . Lack of awareness or training

. Trouble shooting in pro dural controls

. Pre-Op Testing . Iack of or inadequate

. Procurement communication *

. Fuel Handling . Lack of or inadequate

. Other equipnent identification * *

/ Specify . Other

\. Specify l Status / Closure:

l i

. Closed

. h <

_ m-a -

oate ,

e -

l

y

--n.Lv response to but CP - l discrimination of contrac.i HP technician at Peach B ttom PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANJaid fine 2301 MARKET STREET --DRP to evaluate adequacy ~c' P.O. BOX 6699 y acdons. R will acknowledge check.

PHIL ADELPHI A. PA.19101 taisi e45.sooi cc: T . M ey mese w. sa March 6, 1987 J. Allan

,,, g ,4. J. Gutierre:

W. Kane Docket No. 50-278 S. Collins R. Gallo T. fiartin Mr. James M. Taylor, Director R. Bellany 3, Shanbakv i Office of Inspection and Enforcement ~

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission T. Johnson I ATTN: Document Control Desk K. Abraham Washington, D.C. 20555 P. Lohaus Docket Room DJH-03/11/87

SUBJECT:

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Unit 3  !

Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty dated February 9, 1987 EA 87-05 ,

Reference:

Letter, T. E. Murley, USNRC, to '

l J. S. Kemper, PECo, dated February 9, 1987 1

Dear Mr. Taylor l

The referenced letter transmitted a Notice of Viol 4t an and Pitoposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (" Notice")  :

i relati/e to Investigation Report No. 1-85-019 for Peach Bottom i Atomic Power Station Unit 3. A civil penalty of $50,000 was l propas ad.

A violation was identified in the Notice which does not appear to be in full compliance with Nuclear Regulatory Commission requirements. This item is restated below followed by Philadelphia Electric Company's response to the Notice in accordance with Section 2.201 of the Commission's regulations and the instructions in the Notice. As discussed below, Philadelphia

' Electric Company does not intend to protest the civil penalty imposed. Accordingly, please find enclosed the Company's check in the amount of $50,000 in payment of the assessed Civil Penalty.

/f oT4 - 7 7 ' A M .

G/r wm vm m w J .--c( W i 0 .

Qf.

y