ML063480084
| ML063480084 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 12/13/2006 |
| From: | Carpenter C NRC/OE |
| To: | Nazar M Indiana Michigan Power Co |
| Ghasemian S | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML063480075 | List: |
| References | |
| ALJ 02-ERA-30, ARB 04-147, EA-06-295 | |
| Download: ML063480084 (5) | |
Text
December 13, 2006 EA-06-295 Mr. M. Nazar Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Indiana Michigan Power Company Nuclear Generation Group One Cook Place Bridgeman, Michigan 49106
SUBJECT:
APPARENT VIOLATION OF 10 CFR 50.7 EMPLOYEE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS (U.S. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD, ARB CASE NO.04-147, ALJ CASE NO. 02-ERA-30)
Dear Mr. Nazar:
This is in reference to an apparent violation of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requirements prohibiting discrimination against employees who engage in protected activities, i.e., 10 CFR 50.7. The apparent violation involves the Indiana Michigan Power Company (I&M) discriminating against a former test engineer at the Cook nuclear plant on October 5, 2001. This apparent violation was discussed with you on December 13, 2006.
The apparent violation is based on the findings of fact by an Administrative Law Judge in a U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) proceeding (ALJ Case No. 02-ERA-30). The presiding ALJ issued a Proposed Decision and Order on June 29, 2004, concluding that I&M had discriminated against the former test engineer in violation of Section 211 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended (the ERA). On September 30, 2004, the NRC sent you a letter informing you of NRCs concern that, because of the ALJ decision, there existed the potential for a chilling effect on the safety conscious work environment at the D.C. Cook plant.
In its letter, the NRC sought information regarding the actions I&M had taken, was taking, or planned to take to prevent the event from having a negative effect on the willingness of D.C.
Cook employees to raise safety concerns. On October 30, 2004, you responded to the NRC letter. Subsequently, the ALJs findings of fact and conclusions were reviewed by the DOLs Administrative Review Board (ARB) (ARB Case No.04-147). On September 29, 2006, the ARB issued its Final Decision and Order affirming the ALJs findings of fact and conclusions. A copy of the ARBs Final Decision and Order is enclosed.
Based on information developed by the NRC and the DOL decisions, NRC concludes that the former test engineer engaged in protected activities when, on a September 26, 2001, (1) he refused to report to work without management approval of his excessive hours, (2) he
M. Nazar 2 complained to his supervisor and other members of I&M management about him working hours in excess of the work hour limitations as set by the plants technical specifications and (3) later requested that management sign a deviation approval form for his hours of work consistent with NRCs Generic Letter 82-12, Nuclear Power Plant Staff Working Hours. Mid-level to senior plant management knew of the former test engineers protected activities which were a contributing factor in I&Ms decision to terminate his employment. Therefore, this apparent violation is being considered for escalated enforcement action including imposition of a civil penalty in accordance with the General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions - Enforcement Policy, as amended which can be obtained at http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/regulatory/enforcement/enforc-pol.pdf.
Before the NRC makes its enforcement decision, we are offering I&M the opportunity to either:
(1) attend a pre-decisional enforcement conference (PEC), (2) request alternative dispute resolution (ADR) or (3) respond in writing to the apparent violation within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter.
If a PEC is held, it will be open for the public observation. The NRC will also issue a press release to announce the conference. The purpose of the PEC would be to obtain information to assist the NRC in making an enforcement decision. Please be advised that the number and characterization of the apparent violation may change as a result of further NRC review. You will be advised by separate correspondence of the results of our deliberations on this matter.
Instead of a PEC, I&M may request ADR with the NRC. ADR is a general term encompassing various techniques for resolving conflict outside of court using a neutral third party. The technique that the NRC has decided to employ is mediation. In mediation, a neutral mediator with no decision-making authority helps parties clarify issues, explore settlement options, and evaluate how best to advance their respective interests. The mediators responsibility is to assist the parties in reaching an agreement. However, the mediator has no authority to impose a resolution upon the parties. Mediation is a confidential and voluntary process. If the parties to the ADR process (the NRC and I&M) agree to use ADR, they select a mutually agreeable neutral mediator and share equally the cost of the mediators services. Additional information concerning the NRCs ADR program can be obtained at http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/regulatory/enforcement/adr.html. The Institute on Conflict Resolution at Cornell University (ICR) has agreed to facilitate the NRCs program as an intake neutral. Intake neutrals perform several functions, including: assisting parties in determining ADR potential for their case, advising parties regarding the ADR process, aiding the parties in selecting an appropriate mediator, explaining the extent of confidentiality, and providing other logistic assistance as necessary. Please contact ICR at (607) 255-1124 by January 5, 2007 if you are interested in pursuing resolution of this issue through ADR.
Whether you choose to attend a PEC or engage in ADR, neither should be deemed to be an opportunity for I&M to contest the DOL decisions. Therefore, we do not expect you to discuss the DOL decisions in any detail. Rather, our primary interest is the action(s) I&M has taken, or is planning to take, to address the environment for raising concerns at the Cook nuclear plant, and to correct the apparent violation of 10 CFR 50.7.
Should you choose to respond in writing, your response should be clearly marked as a Response to An Apparent Violation and should include for the apparent violation: (1) admission or denial of the apparent violation, (2) the corrective steps that have been taken and
M. Nazar 3 the results achieved, (3) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations, and (4) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Your response should be submitted under oath or affirmation and may reference or include previously docketed correspondence, if not received within the time specified, or an extension of time has not been granted by the NRC, the NRC will proceed with its enforcement decision. Any written response should be sent to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop O-14E1, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, NRC Region III, 2443 Warrenville Road, Suite 210, Lisle, Illinois 60532-4352.
Please contact Shahram Ghasemian at (301) 415-3591 by January 5, 2007 to notify the NRC of your selection.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRCs Rules of Practice, a copy of this letter, its enclosures, and your response (if you choose to provide one) will be made available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the NRCs document system (ADAMS), accessible from the NRC website at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Should you choose to submit a written response, to the extent possible, your response should not include nay personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be made available tot he Public without redaction.
Sincerely, Cynthia A. Carpenter, Director Office of Enforcement Docket Nos.: 50-315; 50-316 License Nos.: DPR-58; DPR-74
Enclosure:
ARB Final Decision and Order, dated September 29, 2006 cc w/encl:
M. Peifer, Site Vice President L. Weber, Plant Manager S. Simpson, Regulatory Affairs Manager G. White, Michigan Public Service Commission L. Brandon, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality -
Waste and Hazardous Materials Division Emergency Management Division MI Department of State Police State Liaison Officer, State of Michigan
M. Nazar 3 the results achieved, (3) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations, and (4) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Your response should be submitted under oath or affirmation and may reference or include previously docketed correspondence, if not received within the time specified, or an extension of time has not been granted by the NRC, the NRC will proceed with its enforcement decision. Any written response should be sent to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop O-14E1, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, NRC Region III, 2443 Warrenville Road, Suite 210, Lisle, Illinois 60532-4352.
Please contact Shahram Ghasemian at (301) 415-3591 by January 5, 2007 to notify the NRC of your selection.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRCs Rules of Practice, a copy of this letter, its enclosures, and your response (if you choose to provide one) will be made available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the NRCs document system (ADAMS), accessible from the NRC website at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Should you choose to submit a written response, to the extent possible, your response should not include nay personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be made available tot he Public without redaction.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Cynthia A. Carpenter, Director Office of Enforcement Docket Nos.: 50-315; 50-316 License Nos.: DPR-58; DPR-74
Enclosure:
ARB Final Decision and Order, dated September 29, 2006 cc w/encl:
M. Peifer, Site Vice President L. Weber, Plant Manager S. Simpson, Regulatory Affairs Manager G. White, Michigan Public Service Commission L. Brandon, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality -
Waste and Hazardous Materials Division Emergency Management Division MI Department of State Police State Liaison Officer, State of Michigan DISTRIBUTION (w/out enclosure): (see next page)
ADAMS:-Yes G Publicly Available G Non-Publicly Available G Sensitive G Non-Sensitive ML063480075 DOCUMENT NAME: C:\FileNet\ML063480084.wpd ES DD:OE OGC D:OE SGhasemian JLuehman BJones(NLO) CCarpenter 12/01/06 12/05/06 12/11/06 12/ /2006 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
M. Nazar 3 DISTRIBUTION:(w/o enclosure)
Letter to M. Nazar, Dated: December 12, 2006 ADAMS (PARS) SECY OCA L. Reyes, EDO W. Kane, DEDR M. Virgilio, DEDMRS C. Carpenter, OE J. Luehman, OE S. Ghasemian, OO N. Hilton, OE J. Caldwell, RIII G. Grant, RIII M. Satorius, RIII S. West, RIII L. Chandler, OGC B. Jones, OGC G. Longo, OGC J. Dyer, NRR D. Holody, Enforcement Officer, RI C. Evans, Enforcement Officer, RII K. OBrien, Enforcement Officer, RIII G. Shear, Acting Enforcement Officer, RIII K. Fuller, Enforcement Officer, RIV R. Pascarelli, Enforcement Coordinator, NRR Resident Inspector E. Brenner, OPA H. Bell, OIG G. Caputo, OI R. Paul, OI;RIII S. Kryk, OI:RIII N. Hane, OI:RIII C. Lipa, RIII C. Weil, RIII J. Strasma, RIII:PA R. Lickus, RIII J. Lynch, RIII OEWEB OEMAIL OAC3 TEB PST RidsNrrDirsIrib BJK1 CAA1 DRPIII DRSIII PLB1 TXN