ML20029C541
| ML20029C541 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 07/15/1993 |
| From: | Lieberman J NRC OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT (OE) |
| To: | Blanch P AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20029C539 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9402220029 | |
| Download: ML20029C541 (3) | |
Text
1 i
5 UNITED STATES i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20066 0001 JUL 151953 Paul M. Blanch 135 Hyde Road West Hartford, Connecticut 06117
Dear Mr. Blanch:
This refers to your letter, dated June 4, 1993, concerning the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice) and Demand for Information (Demand) issued to,the Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (licensee or NU) on May 4, 1993 (Enforcement Action 92-212).
I_. your letter you indicated that an attorney representing NU advised you that any objections which you might make to the NRC concerning this enforcement action may violate the Settlement Agreement you reached with NU.
I have reviewed the letter dated June 15, 1993, which was sent to you by Mr.
N. Reynolds, attorney for NU, and which states that notwithstanding some possible confusion resulting from a
conversation he had with you, the Settlement Agreement clearly leaves you free to communicate with the NRC regarding any concern related to the nuclear workplace and public safety.
I wish to emphasize that you are free to communicate any such concern to the NRC, as well as to comment on enforcement actions.
Please contact me immediately should an incident occur which you believe suggests otherwise.
In your letter, you questioned (Nos. 1, 2,
3, 4, 5, 7, 13 and 14) why the NRC did not take action against certain individuals, and l
why the NRC chose to categorize violations at Severity Lovel II rather than a Severity Level I.
I note that the examples in the Enforcement Policy are neither exhausting nor controlling and that on balance, the Severity Level II classification was appro,priate in this case.
In your letter, you also asserted that there were specifics related to your allegations of harassment and intimidation that were not addressed by the enforcement action.
In our view, the Office of Investigations (OI) conducted a
thorough and comprehensive investigation of this matter.
The OI Report and all of the associated evidence were reviewed in considerable detail by the
- staff, including representatives from Region I,
the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, the Office of the General Counsel, and the Office of Enforcement. It was only after careful consideration of all of that evidence that the staff arrived at its conclusions and decided on a course of action, which was reviewed and approved by the Commission.
The NRC considers this enforcement action a significant action which appropriately emphasizes the importance of the licensee providing a work environment that is free of 9402220029 940209 PDR ADOCK 05000423 O
PDR N
d Paul M. Blanch '
harassment, intimidation and discrimination against those who raise safety issues, and which is consistent with the requirements of the Enforceaant Policy of the Commission (Nos. 10 and 11).
You questioned (No. 2) what assurance NU employees, the general 4
public and the NRC have that this type of action will not continue.
The NRC directly addressed this concern in the Demand for Information, to which the licensee responded on June 3, 1993.
The licensee's response and corrective actions, along wit.h the results of future NRC inspections, will be reviewed by the NRC to ensure that the work environment at NU will be free from harassment, intimidation and discrimination against anyone raising safety concerns.
Based on the results of that review and NRC inspections, the NRC will determine whether further enforcement action is
]
necessary to ensure compliance with NRC requirements.
l You also questioned (Nos. 8 and 15) what actions the NRC was considering for two other issues, namely the Rosemount Inc.
involvement in this matter, as well as the departure of Messrs, Donald DelCore and Tim O'Sullivan from NU.
These issues are still being investigated and reviewed by the NRC.
With respect to yotr question (No. 5) whether attorneys are exempt from being cited fer i
violations due to their position, even if their actions were 1
directed by Corporate Management, there is no such exemption.
With respect to your question (No. 6) whether the NRC considered retaliation against subordinates and possibly family members as fair targets as long as there is no direct retaliation against the individual involved in protected activities, clearly such retaliation, if it occurred, would be unacceptable.
However, the i
further remov6d from the protected activity that a perceived retaliatory act occurs, the more difficult it may be to prove a nexus to the employee's engagement in a protected activity.
This is because 10 CFR 50.7, Employee protection, prohibits discrimination against an emolovee who engages in certain protected activities.
Discrimination is defined as including discharge and i
other actions that relate to compensation, terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.
It might be very difficult to prove that I
an adverse action against someone who was not engaged in a protected activity was prompted by the' intent to retaliate against someone who was engo.ged in a protected activity, especially when it is not clear as to how that adverse act affects the compensation, terms, conditions and privileges of employment of the protected individual.
With respect to your request for the total cost of the investigation and whether NU is responsible for those costs (No.
12), I note that the exact cost has not been itemized and NU was not held directly responsible for it.
However, the fees charged to licensees do cover the cost of NRC activities.
I r
Paul N. Blanob Finally, you expressed a concern with the time it took to resolve this case.
We chare your concern and are considering what action can be taken to improve the timeliness of our handling of harassment and intimidation cases.
Sincerely, Tames Lieberman, Director Office of Enforcement i
5
)
I i
/
o UMTED STATES 83 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
N
.. I WASWNQTON, D. C. 20606
%.....,/
November 9, 1993 Mr. Paul M. Blanch 125 Hyde Road i
West Hartford, Connecticut 06117
Dear Mr. Blanch:
This letter acknowledges receipt of three of your letters that sought consideration under 10 CFR 52.206 and were referred to my office for evaluation and response. Two of these letters were addressed to the Executive Director for Operations (dated August 12, 1993, and September 13, 1993); the other one was addressed to the Chairman, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (dated September 17,1993).
Your petition of August 12, 1993, requested that each licensee of a boiling-water reactor (BWR) either conclusively demonstrate the operability of the condensate pots and associated level instruments, interlocks, and ECCS functions or be provided a plant-specific license exemption with a plant-specific safety analysis.
This petition also stated that if operability cannot be demonstrated and/or the NRC fails to grant plant-specific relief from these regulations, each plant must comply with the action statements of the technical specifications for inoperable level instruments. These issues will be addressed as petitions under 10 CFR 52.206.
Your petition of September 13, 1993, requested, under the provisions of 10 CFR 52.206, that an enforcement conference with Northeast Utilities regard-ing operability determinations be opened to the general public and that you be allowed to participate.
This request does not fall within the purview of 10 CFR 52.206, because it does not request a proceeding pursuant to 10 CFR 52.202 to modify, suspend, or revoke a license, and does not otherwise request enforcement action. We have, nevertheless, considered your request for opening the enforcement conference to the general public and your additional request to participate. The NRC's current policy on enforcement conferences is addressed in 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C, Section V, which states that " enforcement conferences will not normally be open to the public." This policy notwithstanding, the Commission has undertaken a trial program, as described in the Federal Recister (57 FR 30762-3, July 10, 1992) to determine whether to maintain the current policy with respect to attendance by the public at enforcement conferences. This trial program does, however, specifically exclude from public participation potential enforcement actions that are based on the findings of an NRC Office of Investigations COI) report.
As stated in the letter of September 10, 1993, from T. Martin, Regton I, to J. Opeka, Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, the potential enforcement action is based on an 01 report and, as such, is not eligible for public attendance.
Another NRC policy stated in the Federal Reoister discussion of the trial program and related to your request is that "[t]he enforcement conference will continue to be a meeting between the NRC and the licensee. While the ny
!C
. / p ??
\\
l Ofi
/ U 4 VG j jf, i
i 3
i I
i Mr. Paul M. Blanch November 9, 1993
)
i enforcement conference is open for public observation, it is not open for public participation" (57 FR 30762-3). Thus, the enforcement conference with Northeast Utilities will not be open to the public, and only the licensee and j
appropriate NRC personnel will participate.
Your letter of September 13, 1993, contained the following additional requests that do not fall under the provisions of 10 CFR 52.206 and that we will respond to under separate correspondence. These requests are:
- 1) "a response as to which regulations are '... minimally acceptable for adequate protection on the public health and safety.' and '.. regulations which go beyond that and 4
require or add useful safety improvements on top of that.'" and 2) "a j
clarification as to which plants need to comply with which Regulations as it j
is very apparent that NU must perform Operability Determinations within 30 days (and receive a Violation for a delay of 7 days) while all other BWR's are not ever required to initiate any Operability Determinations."
{
Your petition of September 17, 1993, requested responses to a specific set of j
questions under the provisions of 10 CFR 52.206. Again, this reques?. does not fall within the purview of 10 CFR 62.206, because it does not request a pro-ceeding pursuant to 10 CFR 52.202 to modify, suspend, or revoke a license, or otherwise request enforcement action. We will, however, provide a response to these questions along with the additional requests from your letter of September 13, 1993.
i Your letter of September 17, 1993, contained an additional request not submitted under the provisions of 10 CFR 52.206. You requested an explanation as to why NRC comitments to keep you informed of all meetings on the BWR reactor water level instrumentation issue and to provide you and your attorney copies of all correspondence on this subject that are not confidential or otherwise protected, seem to have been ignored. Your letter of September 17, 1993, also requested a copy of all internal and external comunications related to the BWR condensate pot issue. This request was made based, in your words, on "the fact the Commission has intentionally kept information from the interested public." We disagree with this characterization of the dissemination of information related to the reactor water level instrumentation issue. The document to which you referred was a Commission Policy paper, SECY-93-223, ' STATUS OF THE STAFF'S ACTIVITIES REGARDING BWR WATER LEVEL INSTRUMENTATION.* This paper was made publically available through the normal Commission process of distribution to the NRC Public Document Rooms (PDRs) in Washington, D.C. and at local PDRs throughout the country, ten days after the Commission Paper was sent to the Comission by the NRC staff. Thus, this information was made available to the interested public through normal means. Your concern appears to be with the special arrangement you have with the NRC to provide you and your attorney personal copies of specific correspondence related to the BWR reactor pressure vessel water level j
issue, among others. We acknowledge that this Comission Paper should have 1
been provided to you and your attorney as part of this special arrangement and apologize for this oversight.
i
i i
i i
j Mr. Paul M. Blanch November 9, 1993 Since you stated in your September 17, 1993, letter that you have a copy of j
this Commission Paper, we will not provi_e additional copies. We had interpreted this letter to request documents relating to BWR level instrumentation for all plants. However, as discussed in a telephone i
conversation on October 18, 1993, between you and Ted Quay and Jim Clifford of l
my staff, we understand that your letter was not intended to request documents beyond the current agreement. We will continue to strive to keep you informed of generic correspondence, and plant specific correspondence related to Pilgrim and Millstone Unit 1, on the BWR reactor vessel water level instrumentation.
We will provide a Director's Decision regarding your specific petition that falls under the provisions of 10 CFR f2.206 within a reasonable period of j
time. We will, by separate correspondence, address your additional questions.
i j
For your information, I have enclosed a enpy of the Notice of Receipt of your i
petition that is being filed with the office of the Federal Reaister for publication.
Sincerely, r#
Thomas E. Murley, Director g
}
i Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Federal Register Notice I
cc: See next page l
i i
1 i
)
J i
~
~
-_..-,,,-w. - -..
I i
Boiling Water Reactor Owners Group cc:
Mr. George J. Beck, Chainaan Regulatory Response Group Boiling Water Reactor Owners' Group c/o Southern Nuclear Operating Company P. O. Box 1295, Bin B052 Birmingham, Alabama 35201 Mr. Ernest Hadley 414 Main Street P. O. Box 3121 l
Wareham, Massachusetts 02571 j
1 s
1 P
f
{
. ~...
i 7590-01 1
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COPMISSION, j
IN THE MATTER OF: ALL BOILING WATER REACTORS (BWRS) i RECEIPT OF PETITION FOR DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 62.206 1
Notice is hereby given that, on August 12, 1993, September 13, 1993, and t
j September 17, 1993, Mr. Paul M. Blanch submitted petitions on his own behalf f
to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.206
)
regarding BWR reactor pressure vessel level instrumentation condensate pots, j
as discussed in NRC Generic '.t.Mer 92-04, " Resolution of the Issues Related to i
l Reactor Vessel Water Level Inst m ntation in BWRs Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f)," dated August 19, 1992, at:; NRC Bulletin 93-03, " Resolution of j
Issues Related to Reactor Vessel Wat,r Level Instrumentation in BWRs,' dated May 28, 1993. The Petitions t
. we referred to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation for preparaticn of A response.
\\
Petitioner requested in his August 12, 1993, letter that each operating I
BWR either conclusively demonstrate the operability of the condensate pots and
}
i associated level instruments, interlocks, and ECCS functions or be provided a i
i j
plant specific license exemption with the plant specific safety analysis.
l l
Petitioner further stated that if operability cannot be demonstrated and/or i
the NRC fails to grant plant specific relief from the regulations, each BWR must comply with the Action Statements of the Technical Specifications for
)
inoperable level instruments.
Petitioner requested in his September 13, 1993, letter that an enforcement conference, to be conducted between the NRC staff and Northeast 4
l Utilities to discuss a potential failure to perform a timely analysis of a known operability concern on the Feedwater Coolant Injection System at Millstone Unit 1, be opened to the general public and that Petitioner be
,/m r/ -
Lj
(-
~A "l a l l l
[
U'~f L
! allowed to participate. While Petitioner requested this action under the q
provisions of 10 CFR 6 2.206, the NRC staff has determined that this request 4
does not fall within the scope of 10 CFR 5 2.206.
Petitioner was informed in the NRC acknowledgement of the petitions of the Commission policy on public, attendance at enforcement conferences.
Petitioner further requested a i
response to two questions related to a discussion on the NRC's regulations that occurred at a workshop on Section 2.206 petitions held in July 1993 by the NRC staff with the public. These questions again did not fall within the scope of 10 CFR f 2.206, and Petitioner was informed that the NRC staff would address his questions by separate correspondence.
Petitioner requested in his September 17, 1993, letter that the NRC staff, under the provisions of 10 CFR f 2.206, provide responses to six specific questions.
The NRC staff has determined that this request does not fall within the scope of 10 CFR S 2.206, and so informed Petitioner in the NRC acknowledgement of the petitions.
Petitioner was further informed that the NRC staff would address the questions by separate correspondence.
By letter dated November 9, 1993, the Petitioner was informed of the referral of these petitions to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, and was further informed of the determinations regarding what aspects of the Petitions fell within 10 CFR 5 2.206, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs. As provided by Section 2.206, appropriate action with regard to the specific requests made in the Petitions that are within the scope of Section 2.206 will be taken within a reasonable time.
c 1
! i j
A copy of the Petitions are available for inspection at the Comission Public Document Room at 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20555.
i Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 9th day of November,1993.
)
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COPMISSION
___ _ S j
Thomas E. Murley, Director 1
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 3
4 I
1 i
i 1
i i
)
1 I
i 4
I h
1
)
i 4
)
1 J
i
\\
4 i
T_idififMWMGs1RdWM DISTRIBUTION:
Docket File (50-397)
A. Thadani, SE2 NRC/ Local PDRs (w/ incoming letter)
R. Jones, 8E23 A. Cubbage, 8E23 W. Russell, 12G18 ED0f 9240/9342 D. Crutchfield, 11H21 T. Murley/F. Miraglia, 12G18 F. Gillespie, 12G18 J. Partlow, 12G18 J. Taylor, 17G21 J. Roe J. Sniezek, 17G21 E. Adensam H. Thompson, 17G21 T. Quay J. Blaha, 17621 J. Clifford J. Lieberges,(E, 7H6 E. Barnhill J. Knubel, OEDO, 7G21 OPA, 2G5 T. Martin, RI OCA J. Scinto, OGC, 15B18 NRR Mail Room (ED0f 9240/9342), 12G18 P. Boenhart, ACRS PDV Reading File J. Goldberg, OGC, 15B18 W. Butler, 1401 D. Grimsley, FOIA R. Cooper, RI K. Perkins, RV See previous concurrence:
/
CFFlu PDV/LA PDVN PDV/D OGC*
TECH ED*
EBarnh111@ JClifford TQuayY SHLewis um
,0 oFFIE REGION I PDI-3/Q 0@oes. g.,
NRR/DSSA ADD /DRPW um TMartin WButler JNYn AThadani EAkam 2
/ d.L..hi9./.f./23 tud!'-@EdQ o
0FFIM DIDEPW ADP/NRR)a)*O ADT/NRL
,L
[D/MtR
/
Jhe JPartlow\\d WRusN11 Nurley JTabr
/
/ %93 l0//J/93 10 /3#/93 h 8/d/93
[/ k3 l
DME 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY IMCUMENT NA CH2.206 b 4' 0
D
\\
_ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _.... _ _ _ _