|Person / Time|
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
BALTIMORE GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
|Download: ML20246Q178 (3)|
m w w
.:. p ?y ,q g .
SEP 051989 m
Docket Nos. 50-317
-: Baltimore Gas and Electric Company <
-ATTN: .Mr. George'C. Creel Vice' President J
. Nuclear- Energy-Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant.
MD Rts 2 & 4 '
Post. Office Box 1535 Lusby,' Maryland 20657-Gentlemen:
. Compe 1' tion of NRC Investigation No. 1-89-003
- At the request:of. NRC Region I, the: NRC 0ffice of Investigations performed an investigation at Calvert . Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant to determine if Quality Control (QC) inspectors were being harassed and intimidated by craft personnel int violation of' employee' protection . regulations (10 CFR 50.7). This investi-'
gation'was initiated as the result of information received from an alleger dur-y , ,
ing March 1989. The synopsis' of the; investigation' report is' attached.
~ As -- a result of this' investigation, NRC has concluded that 'although there appears to have been' a number of incidents in which excessive verbal arguments,
- conflict. and confrontation has occurred, there is -insufficient evidence to conclude that the incidents constitute a violation of.10 CFR 50.7- or other potential-licensee reporting requirements. No QC inspector reported any action on the part of craft personnel which swayed them from performing their. job, nor L
'did they report being subject-to any adverse employment actionc
' Nevertheless, we are concerned that a certain amount of "cnnflict apparently existed between QC and' craft personnel. QC personnel interviews ~ indicated that L' this L was - caused,j in part, by the following. There was the perception that craft personnel were more knowledgeable about the job than QC inspectors. QC l'
training was said to be deficient in that more specialized QC training was -
" It was also indicated that maintenance procedures were poor. This situation apparently increases the potential for conflict between QC and craft personnel because each individual has his own interpretation of how the job is to be accomplished.
iy We are . aware that many ' of these issues are not new. For example, similar issues were identified in the NRC. Special- Team Inspection (89-200). We also acknowledge that recent organization changes and initiatives such as those described in the Performance Improvement Plan are intended to address the above
.o . issues. However, you are requested to submit to this office within thirty days i
TRIPP 573 8/24/89'- 0001.0.0 e 08/24/89 /
8909i10372 890905 ADOCK0500g7
Baltimore Gas and Electric ' Company 2 SEP 051989 of the date of this letter, a written statement or explanation in reply to describe ~ an overall summary of steps that have been taken and the results achieved as well as planned actions that address the concerns and issues as stated above that arose during the course of this investigation.
Your cooperation with us is appreciated.
Sincerely, Original Signed By:
William F. Kane, Director Division of-Reactor Projects
As Stated cc w/ attachment:
W. J. Lippold, General Supervisor, Technical Services Engineering T. Magette, Administrator, Nuclear Evaluations Public Document Room (PDR)
Local Public Document Room (LPDR)
Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)
NRC Resident Inspector State of Maryland (2) bec w/ attachment:
Region I Docket Room (with concurrences)
'NRR 9N '
SLeDRP R .P ripp/mjd/grm RCapra DHolody Q Wiggins ' P' 8a/89 8/M/89 8/g/89 8k/89 8/Jl/89 O
TRIPP 573 8/24/89 - 0002.0.0 111.GWG 08/24/89 escoFB96
L., , . & ATTACHMENT SYNOPSIS l
By written reouest dated March 31, 1989, the Regional Administrator, Region I, NRC, requested an investigation be init1ated to determine if Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Flant (CCNPP)' Ouality control (OC) inspectors are teing harassed anc ir.timidated by craf t personnel in violation of employee protection regulations (10 CFR 5C.7). Further, if true, Office of Investigations (01) was requestet to document management's knowledge and action. CCNPP, Units 1 and 2, are et rated ir Lusby, Marylano, by Baltimore Gas and Electric (BG&E),
1 The request for investigation was precipitated by information from an alleger to tt4 CCNPP Senior Resident inspector (SRI) and members of an NRC Special l Team Inspection during March 1989.~ The alleger did not have first hand I information regarding the harassment and intimidation, but identified four alleged victims. He further identified both the CCNPP Panager and the General Supervisor of QA as being aware of several of the reports of QC inspector harassment and intimidation.
l Twenty (20) EG&E QC inspectors ard three (3) contract QC inspectors were interviewed alorg with six (6) BG&E supervisory / management personnel during the course of this investigation. Although there appears to have been several L incicents where CC personnel felt they were harassed and intimidated, there is l insufficient evidence to conclude that the incidents were serious enough to ccr.stitute a violation 10 CFR 50.7 or other potential licensee reporting
- requirements (50.72/50.73). No QC inspector reported any action on the part l of craf,t personnel which swayed them from performing their job nor did they report being subject to any adverse employment action. In addition, in those instarces where CCNPP management were made aware of the herassment and intimidation complaints, they took action to address the concerns. The ir.cicents involved OC irspectors and either first line craf t supervisors or ,
craft laborers. The incidents occurred over a two or three year time period. d
.QC personrel interviews indicate that a certain amount of " conflict"' exists i l
between Oc and craft personnel caused, in part, by the absence of defined QC l inspection procedures and the lack of a formal, ongoirg QC training program. i It appears that the latter deficiency may have an impact on the QC inspector's technical proficiency in that they are viewed by craft personnel as being technically oeficient.
Case No. 1-89-003 1 L______________