ML20235A155

From kanterella
Revision as of 16:39, 6 October 2021 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Advises That Unless Util Provides Sections of Investigation Rept 1-85-019 That Contain Info of Intimate Personal Nature, Rept Will Be Placed in PDR within 20 Days,Per Util 861022 Application for Withholding Rept.Nrc Press Release Encl
ML20235A155
Person / Time
Site: Peach Bottom  Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 12/22/1986
From: Murley T
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To: Gallagher J
PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC
Shared Package
ML20234F407 List:
References
FOIA-87-228 NUDOCS 8707080334
Download: ML20235A155 (9)
v • d • e


Text

'

pa' UNITED STATES h

', , jf . *,, NUCLEAR REGULATCRY COMMIS$10N e

a; ctrlON i e s31 PARM AVENUE

, sumo or PRussi A.PsNMsVLVAM4 A iMOS e...*

DEC22 M Docket Nos. 50-277 .

50-278 Philadelphia Electric Company ATTN: Mr. J. W. Gallagher Vice President, Nuclear Operations 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19101

Dear Mr. Gallagher:

Subject:

Application for Withholding of Report of Investigation from Public Disclosure .

This refers to the PECO application for withholding Investigation Report No.

1-85-019 from public disclosure for the reasons set forth in your affidavit dated October 22, 1986.

The gist of the position more fully set forth in the affidavit signed by Mr. S. L. Daltroff, is that the release of the report would subject individuals interviewed in the course of the investigation or otherwise identified in.the report to embarrassment within the small community in which they live and would be an unwarranted invasion of their personal privacy, and that therefore the report should be withheld in its entirety under 10 C.F.R. 2.790(a)(6). In the alternative, the affidavit requests that the names and identifying information related to the interviewees be deleted prior to the report's public release.

The affidavit further states that the individuals who participated in the investigation had a reasonable expectation of privacy. The assertions in your affidavit are conclusory and broad, and you provided no particularized factual basis relative to each.

It is the practice of the NRC to withhold from public disclosure only segregated parts of documents under 10 C.F.R. 2.790(a)(6) that contain medical information or other intimate personal information the disclosure of which would be a clear unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Examples of such  !

information include social security numbers, home addresses or telephone numbers or the names of family members. Sta11arly, allegations of a personal nature concerning family disputes or personal habits are appropriate for withholding under subsection (a)(6). Facts or allegations concerning how an individual did or did not conduct themselves in the course of their professional responsibilities are generally not considered personal and therefore not appropriate for segregation and deletion from a report by reason of subsection (a)(6).

The affidavit cites no specific, personal information, but rather makes a broad request to withhold the entire document or all identifying information related to interviewees. Consequently, unless PECO provides this office with specific 8707080334 070701 FOIA F a n- ' "

PDR RUBINTDB7-228 PDR hb

l -

\ .

Nr. J. y Gallagher 2

unrelated to an interviewees' jobmate justification warranting nondisclosure n responsibilitiesse personal nature, or provides other I the NRC public document room 20 days af ter ththe subject report will b i

e date of this letter.  !

Sincerely, k

\

i

{ W') N '

Thomas E' Nurley \

Regional Administrator -

-. ...-.. n ______ l l

4

'1 1

e i

I 9

4

. 6 9

9 9

9

,.' & s,

.' Are, e am e. # se,' *y'***, *

,. **e

  • a s- '~? 4' ee ** ~'**'
s. 9. , *

..: J S* 9 9

9

. \

v. *

~ _ -... m ., .,

r. ~

r II... ..,?*s l  !, @8 ,;

\ , ****- (/ NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO Office of Public Affairs Washington, D.C. 20555 No. 87-20 Tel. 301/492-7715 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE (Tuesday, February 10,1987)

HRC STAFF PROPOSES TO FINE COMPANY $50,000 CH BOTTOM PLANT Electric Company for allegedly causing e Philadelphiathe dismisTh physics technician because the technician expressed ,

overexposure to radiation at the Peach County Company, Pennsylvania.

Bottom concern about Atomic Psalk his possible (PECO), which operates Peach Bottom, ectric

$50 000The sta!

i express concerns about their safety to rights'to ustry workers' employersNRj l

,.or to the NRC.

On October 4 1985 {

terminated the emp,loymen,t of George Aa Peach Bottom contractor, Bartlett\

, Inc.

giving as its reason that he allegedly had excessive. Field, a healti '

alleges that Mr. Field was fired bytheBartlett uary 9,1987, NRC staff "at thin Field HP Supervisor" because Mr. Field "persioft the d PECO whether he might have received aseradiation e direction in raising exposu concerns regarding limit while because he was of a belief by cer working in the Unit re in3excess offgas t regulatory of the Commission of his concerns.tain PECOunnel

" in March 1985 supervisors thatand Mr. Field had inf ormed the l NRC staff believes that, while MrA on special inspectiun, as well :as his work in the offgas tunnel were perfomed and the  !

such exposures set in NRC the amount regu,lations. of exposure was withinI th s of Dr. Thomas E. Murley, Regional activity."

n to PECO,Administrator of HR ,

staff had determined that Mr. Field was termin the termination, Dr. Murley said that the v r engaging in protected NRC by four findings of the investigation: on, other reasons for was persuaded of its conclusion I

foZfx.-f 7 U T E/3.s

~

2 essive i

1.

The technician apparently wPs rever counseled regarding exc absentee 1sm; h ician's

2. There was no mention of such absenteeism in the tec n personnel file; due to excessive Although teven employees were designated d for layoffs
3. absenteei',m, only three employees were l discharge ;

as inconsistent 4.

Termination based solely or absenteeism Peach Bottom. apparent y w with the then current and past practices at to bring their freedom "The importance of allowing i employees sufficientof licensees, their contra "While the NRC encourages perceived safety concerns to the attent l on ges employees and l the NRC must be reinforced," said Dr. Mur ey. perv.ision, it must also be i

licensees to adopt an.'open door policy' which encouraight to c contractor employees to report problems to the made clear to employees that they have the r r suh t they will not their .

i they perceive a safety problem exists and t adiscriminated against for b intimidated, er supervision or to the NRC." i f the need for Dr. Furlev concluded that these events were "indicat ve odiation pro more effectivs management control of the ra t in writing that part PECO has 30 days either to pay the fine to giveor to requesThe its reasons for company also itd c- all of it be withdrawn by the NRC staff. hieved, steps taken to r.dmit or deny the alleged violation and, ifliance admwill t ebe, achieved.

its haopening, corrective stepsf this takenproposedand results aca The Corrornalth of Pennsylvania has been informed o enforcener.t action. # (

}

.ha *%, UNITED STATES l

^) NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i

S OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION I

'% , , , , , / 631 Park Avenue, King of Prussia, Pa.19406 Tel. 215 337-5330 i

No. I-87-21 i

Contact:

Karl Abraham February 10, 1987 NRC STAFF PROPOSES TO FINE THE PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY $50,000 FOR AN ALLEGED WRONGFUL DISCHARGE OF A WORKER AT PEACH BOTTOM PLA The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff has cited the Philadelphia Electric Company for allegedly causing the dismissal of a contractor's health physics technician because the technician expressed concern about his possible i overexposure County, to radiation at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station in York Pennsylvania.

The $taff proposes to fine the Philadelphia Electric Company (PECO), which operates Peach Bottom, $50,000.

NRC regulations specifically protect nuclear industry workers' rights to express concerns about their safety to employers, or to the NRC.

On October 4, 1985, a Peach Bottom contractor, Bartlett Nuclear, Inc.

terminated the employment of George A. Field, a health physics technician, giving as its reason that he allegedly had excessive absences from work.

allegesIn a " Notice of Violation" sent to PECO on February 9,1987, the NRC staf f 1 t

that Mr. Field was fired by Bartlett "at the direction of the PECO Field HP Supervisor" because Mr. Field " persisted in raising concerns regarding 1 whether he might have received a radiation exposure in excess of the regulatory limit while he was working in the Unit 3 offgas tunnel in March 1985 and i because of a belief by certain PECO supervisors that Mr. Field had informed the '

Commission of his concerns."

.A special inspection, as well as an investigation, were performed, and the NRC staff believes that while Mr. Field received some radiation exposure during his work in the offgas tunnel, the amount of exposure was within the limits of such exposures set in NRC regulations.

In a letter transmitting the Notice of Violation to PECO, Dr. Thomas E. Murley, Regional Administrator of NRC Region I, said that the NRC staff had determined that Mr. Field was terminated "for engaging in protected activity."

Although PECO provided, during the investigation, other reasons for the termination, Dr. Murley said that the NRC was persuaded of its conclusion by four findings of the investigation:

h10 Vl4 A (more)

E/s6

h >>

i

1. The technician apparently was never counseled regarding excessive absenteeism; -
2. There was no mention of such absenteeism in the technician's personnel file;
3. Although seven employees were designated for layoffs due to excessive absenteeism, only three employees were discharged;
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 bring their perceived safety concerns to the attention of licensees, their contractors, and the NRC must be reinforced," said Dr. Murley. "While the NRC encourages licensees to adopt an 'open door policy' which encourages employees and contractor employees to report problems to their supervision, it must also be made clear to employees that they have the right to contact the NRC whenever they perceive a safety problem exists and that they will not be harassed.,

intimidated, or discriminated against for bringing such concerns to their supervision or to the NRC."

Dr. Murley concluded that these events were " indicative of the need for more effective management control of the radiation protection program."

PEC0 has 30 days either to pay the fine or to request in writing that part or all of. it be withdrawn by the NRC staff. The company also has 30 days to admit or deny the alleged violation, and if admitted, to give its reasons for its happening, corrective steps taken and results achieved, steps taken to avoid further violations, and the date when full compliance will be achieved.

The Corrmonwealth of Pennsylvania has been informed of this proposed enforcement acsion.

a

"%' UNITED STATES l

!T i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I i  ! OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION I

%,, ,/ 631 Park Avenue, King of Prussia, Pa.19406 )i Tel. 215 337-5330 No. I-87-21

Contact:

Karl Abraham February 10, 1987 i

NRC STAFF PROPOSES TO FINE THE PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY $50,000  !

FOR AN ALLEGED WRONGFUL DISCHARGE OF A WORKER AT PEACH BOTTOM PLAN  !

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff has cited the Philadelphia Electric Company for allegedly causing the dismissal of a contractor's health  ;

physics technician because the technician expressed concern about his possible  !

overexposure County, to radiation at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station in York Pennsylvania.

The Staff proposes to fine the Philadelphia Electric Company (PECO), which operates Peach Bottom, 550,000. '

HRC regulations specifically protect nuclear industry workers' rights to express concerns about their safety to employers, or to the.NRC.

On October 4,1985, a Peach Bottom contractor, Bartlett Nuclear, In:.

terminated the employment of George A. Field, a health physics technician, giving as its reason that he allegedly had excessive absences from work.

alleges In a " Notice of Violation" sent to PECO on February 9, 1987, the NRC staff that Mr. Field was fired by Bartlett "at the direction of the PECO  ;

Field HP lupervisor" because Mr. Field " persisted in raising concerns regarding whether he might have received a radiation exposure in excess of the regulatory limit while he was working in the Unit 3 offgas tunnel in March 1985 and because of a belief by certain PECO supervisors that Mr. Field had informed the '

Commission of his concerns."

.A special inspection, as well as an investigation, were performed and the NRC staff believes that while Mr. Field received some radiation exposur,e during his work in the offgas tunnel, the amount of exposure was within the limits of such exposures set in NRC regulations.

In a letter transmitting the Notice of Violation to PECO, Dr. Thomas E. Murley, Regional Administrator of NRC Region I, said that the NRC staff had determined activity." that Mr. Field was terminated "for engaging in protected Although PECO provided, durir.g the investigation, other reasons for the termination, Dr. Murley said that the NRC was persuaded of its conclusion by four findings of the investigation:

I

&]0 fS (more)

&/s6 l l

1

1. The technician apparently was never counseled regarding excessive absenteeism; -
2. There was no mention of such absenteeism in the technician's personnel file;
3. Although seven employees were designated for layoffs due to excessive absenteeism, only three employees were discharged;
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 bring their perceived safety concerns to the attention of licensees, their contractors, and the NRC must be reinforced," said Dr. Murley. "While the NRC encourages licensees to adopt an 'open door policy' which encourages employees and contractor employees to report problems to their supervision, it must also be made clear to employees that they have the right to contact the NRC whenever they perceive a safety problem exists and that they will not be harassed, intimidated, or discriminated against for bringing such concerns to their supervision or to the NRC."

Dr. Murley concluded that these events were " indicative of the need for more effective management control of the radiation protection program."

PECO has 30 days either to pay the fine or to request in writing that part or all of it be withdrawn by the NRC staff. . The company also has 30 days to admit or deny the alleged violation, and if admitted, to give its reasons for its happening, corrective steps taken and results achieved, steps taken to avoid further violations, and the date when full compliance will be achieved.

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has been informed of this proposed enforcement action.

NNN 1

l s

nnAa e o -

e ns nooow f

Y s n -

s .e ii s l - .

e s s c ar e

c uropa mdma-i s et os "g s e s. --

s n s e

e e 'teie a cp e ohte ef h n 'no e

n "r oe "sa

,w m t e or t

Aipu e aer e o ee inga a n egJc cko 2 t r ,si e nnb noLe_n av e etae r t

t s eis set nhc .s heU*wl h p k

oemhso,e y.r pes h h ;.eth oe awac ct o f t

r ut i-s - .

ay eane s p f

t uc ed ee f t o synt ph em t .

n s dim s a g deye r .

e eh p t ss eir e t.

dr u .

rds wht e t s nie atcso et ysedrde cdmt e ee ntrs e e

t s .

ee a et r n beol o

@lp s i ndm aeond.s a nl cowe h .~

. esys n

a

,t n yd t rt l

endm t e ac a

o m d r "s d m o

tmdmtwom oe i

an ue hl st a

p adsh nt I t ee op no e pr r t u cm e &}

heiue ct o o ch m i

l l is e

.mnee*

t e e ma.rt s i

isc c co agtb t n e ewmtso a i

s t /

dceeWs-i

.aenmt m uied6 u ol wa c r e pre e f Z

i i dy t r m od e es ehe crs cM p6 a mhs ica fo&mo nl r t a u e m e S a "la* dl crNhit a t al e ir J hf i t e h p mniw ot t t

.Jyerdf t se sid ce i r eskc ees e peot* m e ao hd s t t t dcaddsn s w yT e h li e i v ,e t

@edm c o goae nci cl tI e

lpe mth d

Te nhnrun t ee t c et e eo" s e uhnr e Fs t e e hc th y 8-et e afg .rw sd o e nh e,eeT g e f

,y et v

i er n m e c g d pfes-n a de .e l

[O wI ad He eeutd8 t t rl t d e s eflef rie e e eebc- cJre l o I s p a

bfBs p ee oesnWe" o ero o a h a ** A csemhs rees ipiee t t p f rCer JmfFt s' t e e U orev gst t d oM sdi Aapneu

- - set ey s e pT de, .dt t

e nfieseeb a i Sem s set t

. ntewhd m Q p*

t s ct e c m deen".

nhvwt et

.a e

ie do t fs,3 o

e 'o d n

p Rhg

.e is es wer ~~een cnosd ec oh f a Uthr e

l e

t a. h N tyWetlesp e ei t sn k r )r g P ac u ri o teee sc e ,

ct o ,u Ses t st uc ma o

tp** g r.hawi re o

t g

fsf i i e

mPr .e&ss s

n emn oc rui- n o se s A yMuo a n Nchaeo

(

l dt n asp u

e e s i un p.&W* .['"

c mele ea orB sf t aii rat dm ser 7, pe s lseredeerthet esspe r

e ee ges r s s o g dum i

r o

cn a e c i O vd o eNCdh a rm ot n des t

i

.ntehat ee et e

rhaC*d. s e u "

" ~ eodahhaem a

hrr t

eoaiotHrnmq D Trt ct t u

s sr r s ea blh hrh t e ii eot ct cr e

pae nn eps s

a ht

e.

wh< t e e s Cl cat NremrC Tads e ie eeoecnwEr gs efk e sf i o l we n

_"pMCaPn Re co e n uf o ghrt aoerf s freo s c e rpHd e arah ne e roeade t

r a s.

stteeli s r

lo at m eobdi o& aNr r. n ag s R u h SoaC i f

l ea o cy h eeerldoe 6

nl su e Ua pb srck t

,ht dn

,rneiv riewrheor e

eadi s t re eeof nt oru r&a emmWnede es c neimea es aa pR t s i

s r

sgchrao r

e r

edpwu

.a N n s Wt f ntowgr ,

eemes eTb .m a T i d o o

  • I. $",No,m,Ht Andy- tsw e dh deucb, t e ar o gh e b e re une essAwt e o nut e arhe o f shd pwmaSaouet ek e oa smschbn sosrI P a ,, ecr nireHe=

wtuh t t

t e

'. M/

g o n y* n y. t o l'e n o, aei p / d' mr

- l it n t dr st e y 9

. v oi scoieaa odna r ul rr i w a e wl s t / fM g be rie r ales e rC m eRsei rn dae rs f2 t a .n I into u w th e b oment, tset. o 'ec M M r,O D N a t e

yt f enhdee Fr l

ieBe s e

pf3 d ( c, rnn l

_ l ocs u h0s t det r 5

~ p .T I f adeyc ems ti oet a ad dent a t t t3 t t ey oc r

p a et l

sakle fy f "

ef rfenCmhnNeit e r nhr E erose se / f

-PE er n. e e ^a

- esodene e G ct snNh c t A nn f e Ta eec I dpne ee tihe a rwc o O e ti r n nhhrsy P r c .ohil pes t t es esr y F o

/ ref i n t ke m o smsedh e ar .s epf edeshk is e pt ce r 7

8 - co u in ah s e sstggp o ct 6

e h ue hwt". sa d faf 4 h s V 9 s na i w

1 s ensdWl ie sesec r e s

1. e she s, r.esti or "d r ci e c.

eO e

1 iT h" ,#

eearRuPce ccCnEt i s". r rt o cpTe d s' iwdehntue sec su c f

A.s tt tfhroNso de i

ece&ap &

se W -

o tb E*b af a

_ f A

fn <

U R

B E

F o

p ,l ,

n e

.et e oihr fhht e e rp u hnge Tteov s es i

e e' met ei pf s oM t

d e

r t

Wi et ne ge-n e ._f Mt nhs r e' etefda e y_by r. e

.et a i l s

a O

/ L

/

a; f oer Ers uc mrht e oes t e iehm o

Y, s t s

--i e w

_ t a

A O )

mle0o FeMhb actan a hd .a sn e re .  ;

S E r 0 Pmf0p A

o0i= cr on e l t drep Wt e g at e t otse vh t p 0 r dwrefendf r

pw pe N

O (C0r= 0. t sof c

e i i eo ed E

0g y5 asr a r3l o5E a

r.dalA d

e dWdv cem cs s

eme m -

W W, C m da awer ed e o

=dMm17g.aa M. rd geo ers r

e edca s s 06Re6feor

- g st .ne egl adeAoh v R e atompd I t U ed -

C s o

e coe We B='My =

n ih r sh a

R ep o eal e et ch i

sd eimhr's=e0u=

E M N8 .

m e

trt o c pp fth t

i w Ts v 8 a ""

iGP' '8

,ngom c

i nl ea se er E

H T

e) .l ,

t..':': '

. ,I.

, )

  • y
Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20235A155&oldid=3294533"