ML20202H769

Partially Withheld Ltr Responding to 930210 & 0308 Ltrs Re Inadequacy of Quality Control Receipt Inspector Staffing & Harrassment & Intimidation,Based on Unfair Performance Appraisal & Threats by Mgt

ML20202H769
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley
Issue date:	11/02/1993
From:	Vito D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:	AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
Shared Package
ML20202H668	List: IA-97-387, Partially Withheld Ltr Referring to Discussions with Lw Rossbach on 930210 & 0308,expressing Concern W/Staffing of Receipt Inspection Area & Harassment of Quality Insurance Personnel.Actions Initiated to Examine Concerns ML20202H663 ML20202H682 ML20202H735 ML20202H769 ML20202H802
References
FOIA-97-387 50-334-93-05, 50-334-93-5, 50-412-93-05, 50-412-93-5, NUDOCS 9712100358
Download: ML20202H769 (8)

Text

_ __

e.

p*H

1. - 9, UNITEo STATES

] 8 g NUCLEAR RECUL.ATCRY COMMISSION t) ;e REGloN l 475 ALLENDALE ROAD

\..... KING OF PRUsStA. PENNSYLVANtA 194061415 Docket Nos. 50-334/50-412 File No. RI-93-A-0027

~

SUBJECT:

QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES AT BEtWER VALLEY POWER STATION The NRC Region I office has completed its follow up in response to the concerr.= you brought to our attention on February 10, 1993, and March 8,1993, regarding the inadequacy of the

, Quality Control receipt inspector staffing. Additionally, you stated that you were harassed and intimidated, based on an unfair performance appraisal and threats by management.

The NRC concluded that the concern regantling the inadequacy of the Quality Control receipt inspector staffing was unsubstantiated. During NRC Inspection No. 50-334/9345 and 50-412/93-05, conducted from March 29, 1993 through April 2,1993, the receipt inspection of materials for maintenance activitics was reviewed. Although the NRC noted that a backlog existed between December 1992 and March 1993, the NRC concluded that the Quality Control

. receipt inspector staffing was adequate, and identified no safety concerns in the area of receipt inspection. I have enclosed the pertinent portions of the inspection report.

The NRC's Office of Investigation reviewed pertinent information regarding your concerns of harassment and intimidation, including an interview with you conducted on June 24,1993. The NRC Office of Investigations and NRC technical staff concluded that there was no violation of NRC requirements. Additionally, the NRC understands that the Duquesne Light Company had initiated an investigation separately, and had provided you with the results.

We appreciate you informing us of your concerns and feel that cur actions in this matter have been responsive to those concerns. If you have any questions, or ifI can be of further assistance in this matter, please call me collect at (215) 337-5222.

- Sincerely, David J. ito Senior Allegation Coordinator

Enclosure:

As Stated CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REOUESTED

'\

9712100358 971204 Y

PDR FOIA XANDER97-387 PDR //g j g

l

) '

November 2, 1993 Eh_,~){ 2 bec:

Allegation File No. RI-93-A-0027 D.Iew,DRP f

J 4

i i

4 RI:DRP RI: IP  : RI A beo L v ![e fu oe Vit 10/25/93 Cf $ U 43 jp1.j}

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY "

MEO (K, { .

/

I p1 R8%

8

\-g .

UNITED STATES NUCt. EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

' [ j REGloN I rn

• , 475 ALLENDALE ROAD KING of PRUS$tA. PENNSYLVANIA 1.WA 4415

%e...+[4 November 2, 1993 Docket Nos. 50-334/50-412 File No. RI 93 A-0027 bf. b Dear @

- - , (W. %

SUBJECI': QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES AT BEAVER VALLEY POWER ST/.TJON The NRC Region I office has completed its follow up in response to the concerns you brought to our attention on February 10, 1993, and March 8,1993, regarding the inadequacy of the

' Quality Control receipt inspector staffmg. Additionally, you stated that you were harassed and intimidated, based on an unfair performance appraisal and threats by management, The NRC concluded that the concern regarding the inadequacy of the Quality Control receipt inspector staffing was unsubstantiated. During NRC Inspection No. 50-334/93 05 and 50-412/93-05, conducted from March 29,1993 through April 2,1993, the receipt inspection of materials for maintenance activities was reviewed. Although the NRC noted that a backlog existed between December 1992 and March 1903, the NRC concluded that the Quality Control receipt inspector staffmg was adequate, and identified no safety concerns in the area of receipt inspection. I have enclosed the pertinent portions of the inspection report.

The hRC's Office of Investigation reviewed pertinent information regarding your concerns of harassment and intimidation, including an interview with you conducted on June 23,1993. The NRC Office of Investigations and NRC technical staff concluded that there was no violation of NRC requirements. Additionally, the NRC understands that the Duquesne Light Company had initiated an investigation separately, and had provided you with the results.

We apprep,iate you informing us of your concerns and feel that our actions in this matter nave been responsive to those concerns. If you have any questions, or if I can be of further assistance in this matter, please call me collect at (215) 337-5222.

Sincerciv.

David J. ito Senior Allegation Coordinator

Enclosure:

As Stated CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REOUESTED N

m)

!q/ca@ L 8 *,

, /

_ . _ _ - . - . _ . _ . . . . - . _ _ _ . . . _ . _ . . _ _- . _ . ~ . _ . . . - - _ _ - . . . _ . .

b[ lb 2 bec:

Allegation File No. RI-93-A-0027 D. Lew, DRP t

P i

4 i

1

( RI:DRP R1 1:0 hh i tvire b ni Vitg 93 g y $$

1 OFFICIAL RECORD COf MEO @~

., MAR 68 '93 12t28 HRC., BV 1 P02 s

e Allegation Receipt Report (Use also for sta.ff suspected wrongdoing)

C te/ Time [ b Received:

• Jd/9J /a !1 =AA

'~f" y10_

Allegation No. AI 73"A-0027 Name of Alleger:

Address: *

(leave t:Innk)

Phone

• Confidentiality

• City / State /Iips

• was it requested?

was it initially granted? Yes No _&(,

Yes no ._v was it fically grantwo by the allegation panel Yes No v Does a confidentiality agreement need to be sent to allager? Yes _

Hart No a confidSntiality agreement been signed? Yes No 46amo documenting why it was granted is attached? Yse # H6 -

Alleger's 4 Employers

• fq w s m_ lr~ l /- G Alleger's Position /Titlet

• recility dd.*ve rt VA#e4 Docket No.: fd - 7_? Y w J Wt.

Allegation sumanary or staff suspected wroagdoing (brief description of concern (s):

l" wa b A Ha- sllogna agA.L 4s du. , a 4 k.s er s e rf a- J L a. (n w.'d od -_.e -. se rY

!L + 4M , i elf.nuAA Number of Concerns _ Jw, af (gA,,

Employee Receiving Allegation or suspecting "rongdoing (first two initials and last name):

L . t *.$ s>Lsek Type of Regulated Activity (a) _v' Reactor (d) _ Safeguards (b) vendor (c) [ Materials (e) ~ Others (specify)

Materials License No. (if. applicable):

Functional Arem(s): /(a) Operations (e) Emergency Preparednese c) Safeguards (f) Onsite Health and Safety

[(((b) Construction d) Transportation (g) Offsite Health and Safety

_ (h) others .

e These identifLedsectLone by NRCare not completed for instances of potential wrongdoing staff.

b, 0Wlt'.l

,, d.08 '93'12:29 NRC BV 1 P03 1,

Page of i ._

Detailed peecription of Allegation or-staff suspected wrongdoings.

. hekt 8ewA t.uJ c a.dA fl lpa b Aht.de blE

v. k Af!de-4 At,96ee.' b b

. s

-_4 u s Ti.a L1 w.t a ua sn i v -"-[ _

d

./ .a J m L ,.v .

W L:- -

'D .a u u u n. 1.1s  : f.a-..t t. ,~,

[ s'nd.f4,.' .%

4,'s M 14y - e..,J.lig Amt_

t.m n w a lla ,R . .

s

na. k GwJ. ',2.n a R. aba.--

' sL ae a s -a ar,& L alla - I. a , el , 4a. :Ja Ja k E/. ,L

. L alla. x 2, J La : AL.

sak e k k U J L:s Lm n a >

a -

a .k v u L.u a t

~

h- L :u La ne.w Ja.t 11 4&.~ 6 /J u + L . f- n ,. s 1 2 . c u h k r , -

a 7 . h ,- , . t.41 AL i vNt $n eP_ *. L.u +L. I,aksis ' 4e; v <

i ~

J s allq-ha <esti>I . Ite. L . a LtJ A

_a lve. ' r h A. ' EAA bA A un sa u W 3 .

1-lsle- a J l.ea su r e. Sn e. Is A V ds d el N A h A I _ Caw us o's e a, Il L u nd saa? rF L L , ,

i. i 4

t1 i

TL hek aar u .- L V r,. La <.a.d---La, J.,

s L, /a a

e, Laa L a..'J- l iseef y b t $s . . ) $ 1 a, . su9 l,54. sit 6 - e a o e s. nLFt 1 i

, ua tad $ 'n*> A f A Ad. A s. - , esas a-4 m.d oa.], S .c , v - n.& c$sh, on,J,Bt - &

4 i 1 4/h- .,x .a ca nw . / . 4u .. A h 4#,. 4, x / M M 1 ,1 I n ', J.,J.es e

v n.

tv s -

15Mf ul o k his detwb n ent ha n - a-- en A.egnAirs/ novit.u emne la aansa., Gt I si A.s l L'u u.4 w.:2.v n.e. CuJa sr.w J a

l L4e w,A .f u a ll.-- M .,

i Ld e-

c a nne.cf ed & allo.- < - u - Jase L. di , a . J i alla.bs.',.s 4. hs. R>d7a . A 1- AI R c w . // or ,se a f i i.r

s .

i l _

al 4

)

i

.. - . . - . - -.- . - . - - - . - . .- - . _ - ~_ - -.~.- --

. . MAR 88 '93'12:31- HRC BV '. F08 l Ig ,.

g

$' DUQUESNE IdGHT COMPANY i Nuclear Group Quality Services Unit TO: J. J. Baumler i

FROM: K. D. Grada SUBJ ECT: Receipt Inspection - Survey Feedback and Warehouse- ,

Tour I

DATE: July-7, 1992

The following itans were provided through the subig.7t initiative, as recommendations.for improv.ingiperformance in tuo receipt inspection area:

1. There should be periodic meetings with the cuordinator and senior inspector in the warehouse to discuss issues and resolve concerns.

!i 2. Schedule company employees for overtina prior to using contractor overtime.

3. Eliminate training that does not enhance job

performance and-provide training that will.

j 4. Eliminate re%iew of repeat cards.

5. Automate tagging systems instead or tilling them out j; manually, b 6. Provide conditional release procedures and controls to avoid oc inspector presence during commercial dedication testing.

7. Eliminate duplicate files that have been micrpfilmed. ,

8. Why do we save hold tags that have been famoved after issue is resolved?

9. Provide tools necessary to perform job.

10. Provide a parking space for receipt inspector's use during outages to serve the plant better.

11. Several reports could be optimized if the computer had ability to generate them, e.g. deficiency reports.

Please review these issues and discuss them with me at one of our staff meetings in August.

~

,i1AR 08 '93 124 32 NkCBV1 P10 l

PETITION In support of PENM5YLV4NIA ENERGY FOR ECONCKIC REVITATJEATION 1

a we the undersigned, upport t.he revitalization of Penns Ivania's cconomy, through the promo ich and sale of Pennsylvan;,a enera to new

, markets and tne construct on of the necessary transm;.ssion i frastructure er the ower. Specifica11 rt the power sale and Pubfic 9e needed tp to deliEne namission 1 nron med by Gancral Ut$u$

1 as Corn and Duquesne Light Company which vi I crekte jobs stroncithen our electh, cal delivery t

cystem ana provide for economic g M acroAs the state of Pennsylvania.

, NAME (Please Print) Signature Address Data i ~

r l - _

4 l

~

j Name of Signature Collector RETURN TO:

PEER, 606 North 2nd Street, suite 303, Harrisburg, PA 17101-1001.