ML20207D720

Forwards Comanche Peak Intimidation Panel Rept.No Correlation Found Between Intimidation & Poor Quality of Work at Plant

ML20207D720
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	10/28/1985
From:	Gagliardo J NRC - COMANCHE PEAK PROJECT (TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM)
To:	Jordan E NRC
Shared Package
ML20205D361	List: ML20205D355 ML20207D480 ML20207D546 ML20207D568 ML20207D602 ML20207D631 ML20207D697 ML20207D720 ML20207D750 ML20207D759 ML20207D777 ML20207D822 ML20207D852 ML20207D859 ML20207D877 ML20207D903 ML20207D918
References
FOIA-85-799 NUDOCS 8607220168
Download: ML20207D720 (3)

Text

___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - __

psM'%q s

jog io rs 19 [O L ITo ..

+1 UNITED STATES CS)

e a NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I E TECHNICAL TRAINING CENTER S '

4 oSBoRNE OFFICE CENTER, sulTE 200 CHATTANOOGA. TN 37411

+9 . . . . /'

OCT 2 81985 MEMORANDUM FOR: E. L. Jordan, Chairman Comanche Peak Contention 5 Fanel FROM: J. E. Gagliardo, Chairman Comanche Peak Intimidation Panel

SUBJECT:

REPORT OF COMANCHE PEAK INTIMIDATION PANEL The attached report is the product of the Comanche Peak Intimidation Panel and the Study Team which served as its consultants.

As noted in the report, no correlation was found that links the actual incidents of intimidation to poor quality of work at CPSES.

If you or your panel have any questions regarding the efforts and findings of the Intimidation Panel, we would ep ased to discuss them with you.

L E. gliardo, Chairman Comanche Peak Intimidation Panel cc: Intimidation Panel Advisors to Intimidation Panel R. Martin, RIV 8607220168 FOIA 860715 PDR PDR -

GARDE 85-799 1

_ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ }

d Y'"\

b jts $'c i

L 16650'. mao A ,g UNITED STATES i -- ( 3 Ea NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E TECHNICAL TRAINING CENTER S

of osBoRNE OFFICE CENTER, SUITE 200

%, '...../ CHATTANOOGA, TN 37411 OCT 2 81985 t

MEMORANDUM FOR: E. L. Jordan, Chairman Comanche Peak Contention 5 Panel FROM: J. E. Gagliardo, Chairman Comanche Peak Intimidation Panel

SUBJECT:

REPORT OF COMANCHE PEAK INTIMIDATION PANEL The attached report is the product of the Comanche Peak Intimidation Panel and the Study Team which served as its consultants.

As noted in the report, no correlation was found that links the actual incidents of intimidation to poor quality of work at CPSES.

If you or your panel have any questions regarding the efforts and findings of the Intimidation Panel, we would.be p ased to discuss them with you.

t) '

E. gliardo, Chairman Comanche Peak Intimidation Panel Cc: Intimidation Panel Advisors to Intimidation Panel R. Martin, RIV

_ l I

3/w

i l

POSSIBLE DEFINITIONS OF INTIMIDATION, HARASSMENT, AND DISCRIMINATION I.

EG&G Definition (EG&G Report, September 24, 1984, p. 4)

Intimidation - Inducing an individual to do something or refrain from coing something because of fear or apprehension. Includes three major components: 1) the incident, action or statement which induces the effect;

2) the resulting feeling or emotion experienced by the recipient; and 3) the ensuing. action on the part of the recipient who, because of fear, is forced into behavior that otherwise would be rejected, or is deterred from

} actions that would otherwise be taken.

A arassment and Discrimination - Not defined in EG8G Report ..

II. Proposed Response to TUGC0 in Williams Enforcement Action (EA 83-132)

Does not specifically define " intimidation, harassment, or discrimination" because it deals with a violation of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B involving

" organizational freedom." The proposed response states that whether a violation of Appendix B occurred depends upon the totality of the circumstances.which must be judged by a standard of reasonableness. The circumstances considered include the perceptions of the QC inspectors ta'<en as a whole, the motivations of the QC inspectors, and the actions and intent of the persons alleged to have restricted the organizational freedom of the OC inspectors. It is not necessary to show that a QC ir.spector actually failed to report a safety-significant non-conforming condition to prove a violation of Appendix B. Thus, element 3 of the EG&G definition need not be present.

III. Other proposed definitions Intimidation: Incidents, statements or other actions that are reasonably likely to influence employees to refrain from identifying or reporting quality discrepancies or safety problems.

Harassment: To repeatedly take actions or make statements that are reasonably likely to influence employees to r efrain from identifying or report'tg quality discrepancies or safety problems.

(

Discrimination: The showing of prejudice in the treatment of employees who report cuality discrepancies or safety problems to supervision t

or to the NRC. Includes discharge or other actions that relate to the terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.

l m -Bo M 3 So i