IA-87-371, Forwards Summary Documenting 870615 Meeting Re V English 2.206 Petition.Addressing of Listed Issues in Response to GE Response to 2.206 Petition Requested
| ML20235E514 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/23/1987 |
| From: | Thompson H NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Roisman A ROISMAN, A.Z. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235E440 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-87-371 2.206, NUDOCS 8707110094 | |
| Download: ML20235E514 (1) | |
Text
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
1 4
i ROISMAN/1 DATE TYPED IN ERROR Should be 6/23/87 1-July 23, 1987-DISTRIBUTI0fl NMSS R/F JHolonich Mr. Anthony Z. Roisman Directors R/F Richard J.
1401 New York Ave., N.W. LThompson Goddard Suite 600 R. E. Cunningham J. Taylor Washington, D.C. 20005 Glen J. Sjoblom PDR Euoene J. Holler
Dear Mr. Roisman:
Susan S. Chidakel Enclosed is a copy of the summary I have prepared to document our June 15, 1987, meeting on the Vera English 2.206 petition. The purpcse of.this letter is to provide you with a copy of this summary.
1 In addition, during the meeting, you indicated that you intended to file a reply to the General Electric (GE) response to the 2.206 petition. It would help the staff in reachir,g resolution of this matter if you would address in your reply the following issues raised in the GE response:
(1) GE's contention that the Department of Labor Adjudicatory Law Judge's " pretext" conclusion regarding the removal of Ms, nglish '
i from the Chemet Lab is based on errors of fact and a faulty legal conclusion. GE Response at 17-22. In particular, your comments would be helpful regarding GE's position that action against Ms.
English was different than that taken against other employees who violated safety requirements because Ms. Er.glish's actions were I deliberate. GE Response at 21. '
(2) GE's position that Subsection 210(g) precludes the application of Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act to Ms. English's discharge because of her deliberate failure to clean up a radioactive spill. GE Response at 23-30.
(3) GE's arguments that the NRC is without authority to provide a remedy to an employee. GE Response at 32 and at 46 48.
l (4) GE's position that there was no continuing violation in this case.
GE Response at 37-41.
Sincerely, 8707110094 870707 PDR FOIA JORDANB7-371 PLR Hugh L. Thompson, Jr., Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Enclosure:
As stated 0FC :AMS. : : : : : :
NAME :HLTaompson : : : : : :
.... :..___ ......:............:............:.......c....:............:............:-..
DATE :06/22/87 : : : .: : :
t . .. )
I ROISMAN/2 ,
]
June 23, 1987 MEMORANDUM FOR: File ;
FROM: Hugh L Thompson, Jr., Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
SUBJECT:
MEETING WITH MR. ROISMAN RE: VERA ENGLISH 2.206 PETITION On Monday, June 15, 1987, I held a two (2) hour meeting with Mr. Roisman, attorney for Ms. Vera English at his request. The following people were in attendence: Anthony Z. Roisman, Richard E. Cunningham, Glen J. Sjoblom, Eugene J. Holler, Susan S. Chidakel, Joseph J. Holonich, Richard J. Goddard and myself.
Mr. Roisman summarized the status of various legal proceedings including Ms.
English's appeal of the Secretary of Labor's ruling, her arguments for why she.
believes the Secretary of Labor was wrong, and her tort action in the State court. Mr. Roisman was interested in the steps that NRC would be taking to respond to Ms. English's petition and emphasized his belief that strong.
enforcement action by NRC in this case was not only essential to protect the work force at GE Wilmington but was also needed to send a strong message to the world that NRC will not tolerate the harassment of individuals who raise safety issues. Mr. Roisman described the recent conversation he had with an employee at GE Wilmington who stated two (2) labaratory technicians, despite signing statements that they would strictly follow procedures, were not following pro-cedures at the direction of their supervisor because they were afraid not to do what their supervisors had told them to do. Mr. Roisman used-this as an indication of the ongoing chilling effect that the Vera English discrimination had had. Mr. Goddard stated that he thought that the allegation was being pursued by Region II because the individual had also talked to Region 11 people. Mr. Roisman also identified the Commission's decision in the Callaway ,
case which had taken enforcement action for discrimination against a contractor )
employee, Mr. Smart, as further_ support for Ms. English's requested action. ;
At my request, Mr. Goddard is also to identify any action GE Wilmington has l taken to minimize any potential chilling effects of the current employees.
The staff stated the general steps that would be taken in addressing the 2.206 4 petition, our agreement that NRC needs to carefully evaluate this petition, l that it raises some complex issues and stated that we would plan to act within ;
e sn
$ v,y n/^sy>1 pp.
E 1
> . . . . - j i
R0!SMAN/2 a reasonable timeframe. We also stated that a specific schedule was not possible due to the extent and complex issues involved, including the relation- ,
ships to the ongning litigation,. i l Mr. Roisman was asked when he expected to respond to the GE Wilmington reply to I the 2.205 petition. He stated it would probably be within 2-3 weeks. We stated that our response would await his filing.
Pugh L. Thompson, Jr., Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards cc: Attendees PDR J. Taylor DISTRIBUTION Nl1SS R/F Directors R/F HLThompson RECunningham GJSjoblom EJHoller SSchidakel JHolonich RJGoddard PDR l
l i
i i
e OFC: NM55 ,
3
,ac .............................................................
NAME:HThq(lon: : : : : :
DATE: 6/23/87 : : : : : :
OttlGIAL RELUKD COPY
,