ML20044C327
Text
l' a,
4 i
r t
u.AY 2 1 1991 i
The NRC Region I office has conpleted its followup of the concerns that you brought to our attention in telephone conversations of January 2, with Mr. Kolaczyk, a Millstone Resident Inspector; February 25, with Mr. Raynond, the Millstone Senior Resident Inspector; and February 28, 1991, with Mr.
i Dexter, a Region I security inspector and Mr. Stewart, a Region I Project Engineer.
Our resolution of these concerns is discussed below.
s i
1991, you raised a cuestion of whether a six nonth On January 2, extension or grace period could be provided to security guards
.f When the required to take the yearly stress test / physical exan.
issue was raised by the Burns secarity union during discussions the union was inforned that an extension would with management, be allowed since it would violate NRC regulations.
You not Mr.
questioned whether this was an accurate response by NNECO.
Eolaczyk was correct when he told you that security personnel requalify in accordance 10 CFR Part 73, Appendix B at least must every 12 months and a six nonth extension would violate this requirenent.
In the sane telephone conversation, you asserted that two events had occurred involving security officers which were not properly reported to the NRC.
The first occurrence was when a security guard brought beer into the protected area.
We inspected the occurrence as documented in combined NRC-Inspection Report 91-Section 8.0 (attached).
Your assertion that the 05/07/06, licensee failed to conply with the reporting requirenents for this occurrence is true and your allegation is considered substantiated.
The NRC issued a Severity Level IV violation for j
this natter.
With regard to the second event, you asserted that NNECO had
~;
failed to perforn a Fitness-for-Duty, for-cause-test on-a security officer whose behavior was considered disruptive by Also the officer was not escorted hone after being supervision.
sent home by supervision and was not Fitness-for-Duty tested until 5 days later.
As you were told by Mr. Kolaczyk, we were aware of this natter and were conducting an inspection at the time of your call.
The issue is documented in conbined NRC Inspection Report 90-25/28/27, Section 6.0, (attached).
Although UWkn in iMs igcc79 y;35 gugg t
di in acc:Z lm" "3 I$ 902m of Mcrmatica
, n, c
OFFICIAL RFLORD COPY
[r
,ng. C.
.c
_p C
- f. L. [f__g y, h W g 7 921217
~-
HUBBARD92-162 PDR -
m
s the facts as you stated them to us were true, we determined that the actions of the licensee in this instance were appropriate.
On February 25, and again on February 28, you asserted that a named Burns security officer gave a concern to the NRC last year, but had never received a response.
The officer was subsequently contacted, but did not substantiate that he had any concerns.
Your issue in this case is unsubstantiated, and we intend no l
further action in this matter.
l Also in the February 25 and February 28 conversations you asserted that, on February 18, a " pool" security officer was directed not to respond to a perimeter fence alarm because he was a holdover on overtime and he was not being paid the overtime pay rate for an armed responder.
We have determined that the licensee's actions in this matter were within the regulatory l'
requirements, and therefore consider this matter closed.
During your February 25, and February 28, conversations, you asserted that there is a fitness-for-duty issue concerning two
[
Burns security sargeants who are married to each other and are having marital problems, which may be affecting their work performance.
Additionally, you asserted: NNECO has made it known that security officers should not take concerns to the NRC; that communications between NNECO and security officers were not good; t
that there are numerous problems that are not being addressed because the NRC is either not looking or not asking the right questions.
We reviewed these issues during on-site interviews as documented in combined NRC Inspection Report 91-05/07/06, Section 10.0 (attached).
The results of this review indicated that there were no adverse behavioral observation i; sues on any shift, that morale in general was good, that the security officers were knowledgeable of the Nuclear Safety Concerns Program, that they had no concerns with supervision, and that they did not feel that their jobs would be jeopardized by bringing concerns to NRC inspectors.
Your claims are therefore unsubstantiated, and we i
consider these issues closed.
Finally, you contacted the resident office by telephone on April 12, and again on April 17, 1991, apparently to provide additional Because the residents were unable to clearly identify concerns.
the nature of your additional concerns, and because you expressed some displeasure in the nature of your dealings with the resident j
inspectors, two regional personnel were tasked to contact you to This i
discuss any issues that you may have wanted to discuss.
followup call was made on May 1, 1991, and at that time you were l
unwilling to discuss the nature of your concerns.
We appreciate you informing us of your concerns during the February conversations and remain willing to discuss any additional issues that you may want to raise.
Please feel free to contact us i
should you wish to speak with any agency representative or me on Please call me directly at (215) these or any other matters.
337-5225, or any of the resident inspectors at the Millstone site at (203) 447-3179.
Additionally, the Senior Allegation l
i
/
1 337-Coordinator in Region I can be contacted by calling (215)
We will gladly accept your collect call.
5000, extension 5222.
I t
i Sincerely; c
_ ~.yx _
'*-a.
i Edward Wenzinger, Chief Reactor Projects Branch 4 Attachments: As stated Y
t 1
6 b
5 f
L i
i n
4 I
. 3 w
i l
k i
i
t I
o i
L bec:
R.
Fuhrmeister RI-91-A-003",007L closecut i
i J.
Stewart W.
Raymond-T.
Shedlosky, Millstone E. Wenzinger
- l t
i i
i
' t i
RI:DRP RI:DRP RI:DRSS RI:DRP
~
i Stewart Kelly Keinig Wenzinger r
_C f_
tmtbMwld C ' W \\CVS l
- i 6
t OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 4
}
' f
+
' I I
P y e y-
~
i bec:
R. Fuhrmeister RI-91-A-0035,0071, closecut J.
Stewart W.
Raymond i
T.
Shedlosky, Millstone t
L
-r i
I t-RI:DRP RI:DRP R.I:DRSS RI:DRP
,c
") Stewart Ke_lly Keinig Wenzinger e gh o. / 1 o OFFICIAL RECORD COPY i t 'l L e i
0'. ..y g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGloN I
- ~ - r 475 ALLEND ALE ROAD
- A KING oF PRUSSIA. PENNSYLVANIA 19406 MAY 211991 t
[ y The NRC Region I office has completed its followup of the concerns that you brought to our attention in telephone with Mr. Kolaczyk, a Millstone conversations of January 2, with Mr. Raymond, the Millstone Resident Inspector; February 25, Senior Resident Inspector; and Terruary 28, 1991, with Mr. a Region I Dexter, a Region I security instector and Mr. Stewart,is discussed Our resolution of these concerns Project Engineer. below. you raised a question of whether a six month l On January 2,
- 1991, extension or grace period could be provided to security guards When the required to take the yearly stress test / physical exam. issue wasl the union was informed that an extension would l
You ~ with management, not be allowed since it would violate NRC regulations. Mr. questioned whether this was an accurate response by NNECO.when he to Kolaczyk was correct Appendix B at least must requalify in accordance 10 CFR Part 73, l every 12 months and a six month extension would violate this t requirement. l In the sane telephone conversation, you asserted that two events security officers which were not properly had occurred involvin:The first occur: ence was when a security reported to the NRC. We inspected the guard brought beer ir.to the protected area. occurrence as documente j 91-05/07/06, Section 8.0 (attached). Your assertion that the i licensee failed to comply with the reporting requirerents for this occurrence is true and your allegation is considered The NRC issued a Severity Level IV violation for ~ i substantiated. i this matter. f With regard to the second event,-you asserted that NNECO had failed to perform a Fitness-for-Duty, for-cause-test on a .i security of ficer vnose oehavior was considerer disruptive tyAlso tl i supervision.sent home by supervision and_.was not Fitness-for-Duty tested i As you were told by Mr. Kolaczykl, j we were until 5 days later. aware cf this matter and were conducting an inspection at the The issue is documented in combined NRC Inspection Report 90-25/28/27, Section 6.0, (attached). Although l time of your call. i I hh $N $$$ U $ bb'. b g S 1 M j in r=6m ;;P; e.e F:,;:c.m$ ecm:ma f i Mt. La:n?:r.s..)y' 7 m.$7g A # i
1 f i ~ ~ .I the facts as you stated them to us were true, we determined that the actions of the licensee in this instance were appropriate. [ and again on February 28, you asserted that a On February 25, named Burns security officer gave a concern to the NRC last year, The officer was subsequently but had never received a response. contacted, but did not substantiate that he had any concerns. Your issue in this case is unsubstantiated, and we intend ~no' further action in this matter, i Also in the February 25 and February 28 conversations you asserted that, on February 18, a " pool" security officer was directed not to respond to a perimeter fence. alarm because he was a holdover on overtime and he was not being paid the overtime pay. rate for an armed responder. We have determined.that the i i licensee's actions in this ratter were within~the regulatory requirements, and therefore consider this matter closed. l and February 28, conversations, you' t During your February 25, asserted that there is a fitness-for-duty issue concerning two j Burns security sergeants who are married to each other and are l having marital problems, which may be affecting their work Additionally, you asserted: NNECO has made it known l performance. that that security officers should not take concerns to the'NRC; I communications between NNECO and security officers were'not good; that there are numerous problems that are not being addressed because the NRC is either not looking or not asking the right We reviewed these issues during on-site interviews as questions. documented in combined NRC Inspection Report 91-05/07/06, Section i i 10.0 (attached). The results of this review indicated that there f were no adverse behavioral observation issues on any shift, that morale in general was good, that the security officers were knowledgeable of the Nuclear Safety Concerns Program, that they l ~i had no concerns with supervision, and that they did not feel that l their jobs would be jeopardized by bringing concerns to NRC Your claims are therefore unsubstantiated, and we inspectors. consider these issues closed. ) Finally, you contacted the resident office by telephone on April and again on April 17, 1991, apparently to provide additional j 12, i Because the residents were unable to clearly-identify the nature of your additional concerns, and because you expressed l concerns. some displeasure in the nature of your dealings with the resident I two regional personnel were tasked to contact-you to f inspectors, This discuss any issues that you may have_ wanted to discuss.' followup call was made on May 1,-1991, and at that time you_were -) unwilling to discuss the nature of your concerns.: We appreciate I you informing: us of your concerns during the Feoruary 1 conversations and remain willing to discuss'any additional issues f that.you may want to raise. Please feel free to contact us should you wish to speak with any agency _ representative'or me on Please call me.directly at (215) these or any other matters. or any of the resident inspectors at'the Millstone site 337-5225, at (203) 447-3179. Additionally, the Senior Allegation 1 i i ( 3 J.-- u,- -a. ~f
.e 337-Coordinator in Region I can be contacted by calling (215) We will gladly accept your collect call. 5000, extension 5222. erely;-,! S' ) / Edward Weizinger, ai f Reactor ProjectsiBra h4 O Attachments: As stated A bec: R. Fuhrmeister RI-91-A-0035,0I71, closecut J. Stewart W. Raymond T. Shedlosky, Millstone E. Wenzinger 1
a. t f/ 7 ## e; s ~ rlYA f0_^0) ( Hgw1p f i {tu n cco)ccT r -,- ) i / I 6094 ( R I-Stt-A- 7( ) t 3 ~"~~M ~ , a mm. -- - eo*/.. d -e -= cy e t ? we** f i .t i i i 7 l ..- / p M _-',y i i a f t / 1 f "s, ' / >g ' ~' M, jn ~ j_l r: '... - t 2 ,l f)) f,x f' ' t.-};, l ^~ g. s a N' ..l*#')y, 1 I I i l }- l 1 j l i' 1 1 l 4 a 1 !..; ?'lifD:'//_" l -.; m, .t l i j -- ~ .f
- !A
!,j),_ l N? ? !0 O' "' - bl& a j l 1 n ,t c c ' 'u X L C, %C J'O "C ov1xV ( i sp m m 26 n m - q %c (O-Dd k Ce f&f her bh wce,9 4 Ed L v4p ] i i I. Ik. b I( CI U.)b. 'h ia at: &c: >.cith the Fr:& elin!:rm3 Son
- m[
t 4 1. e r : R ns a e. s ee n g{ -p s r ,-,,--,,,,ve-n. a -,v
s>* *'Cu [p
- 'fg UNITED STATES i
W NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f REGION I 476 ALLENDALE ROAD %,*****,8 KING OF PRUSSIA. PENNSYLVANIA 19406 JUN O 7 BM MEMORANDUM FOR: David C. Williams, Inspector General Thomas T. Martin, Regional Administrator, Region I FROM: CONCERNS WITH NRC HANDLING OF ALLEGATIONS
SUBJECT:
AT MILLSTONE AttachcJ is a chronology between January 1991 and the present, assembled by my staff, regarding the handling of concerns provided by an individual, with regard to activities a Millstone Station. I have directed my staff to look into this matter further and determine the facts and whatever corrective actions, if any, are necessary and appropriate. Upon completion of that review, I will notify you of the results and conclusions. I am providing this information to you in the meantime for whatever action you deem appropriate. h Thomas T. Martin Regional Administrator Attachments:
- 1. Chronology Between January 1991 and Present
- 2. Memorandum dated May 21,1991 cc:
J. Taylor, EDO bec w/inc1 S. Stewart R. Fuhmeister i T.-4(-A 007l \\ &a e e4.* ,9 in ::ctdante with OE Frd.g. a':ention i ev n:a ns_ 4 M 2 _ _. _ _ _ _ M 4 3D1l103 H- /k o:ta .fX-/gs. p r ! A-4
,.40Tp'UBI:lfm15CIAS On January 2.1991 an NRC Millstone Resident Ins)ector received a te hone call from a with two questions regarding secunty issues at e Millstone site. The Resident Inspecto dealt l with the questions during the call, and did not (at that time) consider the questions to be allegations. On February 25,1991[@ ion-based inspectors telephonedMFebmar recontacted the Resident office with concerns about l security at Millstone. Two reg 1991, seeking more information, and specifics regarding his concerns. A subsequent-inspection of Millstone security was performed by NRC Region I specialist inspectors on March 4-8.1991, wiich identified three violations of regulatory requirementsM MT@. f p T Mg., @ 5 On April 12,1991,M211ed the resident office, saying he was being accused l (either by Burns Security or Northeast Utilities) of a federal offense for discussing security _ concerns, which might contain Safeggardgormation, without an appropriate clearance. 7 n~ Biscussed this issue for approximately 20 minutes with the Resident Inspector and, while no indicating any specific safeguards concerns, indicated that, since he had numerous previous discussions over the past year with the Senior Resident, he would like to discuss the same I issue with the Senior Resident. The Resident Inspector discussed the April,12 phone cal! i with his Regin.nl Serdon Chief that same afternoon. Because there were no specific safeguards concerns apparent at that time (other than the general issue related to talking about safeguards information outside of the plant), and because there was a history of a continuing 2 I rapport between%yd the resident staff, no immediate recontact ofM was attempted either over the weekend or in the ensuing three working days. Also, smce the l Resident Ins tor had rovided with his Section Chief's name and phone number,. for the Senior Resident to call him back was not clearly l understood, adequately communicated nor ultimately fulfilled. 1 i On April 17,1991 ontacted the resident office again. He was in a highly j agitated state, and stated that he felt the NRC was unresponsive to his concems, and thought this was a joke" (since no recontact by the Senior Resident was apparently "Mfurther stated that a conspiracy existed to prevent him from br attempted). concerns to the NRC. On May 1,1991, a Region I Section Chief telephone to a empt to clarify the source of the alleged " conspiracy". During that call, 'at the NRC l resident ins fors are "stu " *arr ant" and that a " blatant conspiracy
- exists. He stated for his union, and that he has tapes of unspecified '
that he is the conversations at that time, to discuss the issues further. A letter was n May 1,1991 (attached) delineating the status of our work on Several attempts to contact @}y phone since May 29 have nt been unsuccessful. I NOT'FOR PUBLIC DISCI:OSUREp l'
D) [ REOloN I 478 ALLENDALE ROAD KINO oP PRUSSIA PENNSYLVANIA 19406 9,, MAY B 11m
- }Q.h T ?
k[&j,[. ' &g :' L -w.r.ns- ' Yff[ (Y
Dear Q M;;,
f The NRC Region I office has completed its followup of the concerns that you brought to our attention in telephone conversations of January 2, with Mr. Kolaczyk, a Millstone Resident Inspector; February 25, with Mr. Raymond, the Millstone Senior Resident Inspector; and February 28, 1991, with Mr. Dexter, a Region I security inspector and Mr. Stewart, a Region I Project Engineer. Our resolution of these concerns is discussed below. On January 2, 1991, you raised a question of whether a six nonth extension or grace period could be provided to security guards required to take the yearly stress test / physical exan. When the issue was raised by the Burns security union during discussions. with nanagement, the union was inforned that an extension would not be allowed since it would violate NRC regulations. You questioned whether this was an accurate response by NNECO. Mr. Kolaczyk was correct when he told you that security personnel must requalify in accordance 10 CFR Part 73, Appendix B at least every 12 nonths and a six nonth extension would violate this requirenent. In the same telephone conversation, you asserted that two events had occurred involving security officers which were not properly reported to the NRC. The first occurrence was when a security guard brought beer into the protected area. We inspected the occurrence as documented in conbined NRC Inspection Report 91-05/07/06, Section 8.0 (attached). Your assertion that the licensee failed to comply with the reporting requirements for this occurrence is true and your allegation is considered substantiated. The NRC issued a Severity Level IV violation for this matter. With regard to the second event, you asserted that NNECO had failed to perform a Fitness-for-Duty, for-cause-test on a security officer whose behavior was considered disruptive by supervision. Also the officer was not escorted home after being sent hone by supervision and was not Fitness-for-Duty tested until 5 days later. As you were told by Mr. Kolaczyk, we were aware of this matter and were conducting an inspection at the tire of your call. The issue is documented in conbined NRC Inspection Report 90-25/28/27, Section 6.0, (attached). Although 3g 9% m o10+ sp
the facts as you stated them to us woro truo, wo datermined that the actions of the licensee in this instance were appropriate. On February 25, and again on February 28, you asserted that a named Burns security officer gave a concern to the NRC last year, i' but had never received a response. The officer was subsequently contacted, but did not substantiate that he had any concerns. Your issue in this case is unsubstantiated, and we intend no further action in this matter. I Also in the February 25 and February 28 conversations you asserted that, on February 18, a " pool" security officer was directed not to respond to a perimeter fence alarm because he was a holdover on overtito and he was not being paid the overtime pay rate for an armed responder. We have determined that the licensee's actions in this matter were within the regulatory requirements, and therefore consider this matter closed. During your February 25, and February 28, conversations, you asserted that there is a fitness-fo';-duty issue concerning two Burns security sergeants who are =arried to each other and are having marital problems, which may be affecting their work performance. Additionally, you asserted: NNECO has made it known that security officers should not take concerns to the NRC; that communications between NNECO and security officers were not good; that there are numerous problems that are not being addressed because the NRC is either not looking or not asking the right questions. We reviewed these issues during on-site interviews as documented in combined NRC Inspection Report 91-05/07/06, Sectic 10.0 (attached). The results of this review indicated that there were no adverse behavioral observation issues en any shift, that morale in general was good, that the security officers were knowledgeable of the Nuclear Safety Concerns Program, that they l had no concerns with supervision, and that they did not feel that their jobs would be jeopardized by bringing concerns to NRC inspectors. Your claims are therefore unsubstantiated, and we consider these issues closed. Finally, you contacted the resident of fice by telephone on April 12, and again on April 17, 1991, apparently to provide additional Because the residents were unable to clearly identify l concerns. the nature of your additional concerns, and because you expressed some displeasure in the nature of your dealings with the resident inspectors, two regional personnel were tasked to contact you to discuss any issues that you may have wanted to discuss. This followup call was made on May 1, 1991, and at that time you were l unwilling to discuss the nature of your concerns. We appreciate you informing us of your concerns during the February i conversations and remain willing to discuss any additional issues that you may want to raise. Please feel free to contact us should you wish to speak with any agency representative or me on these or any other matters. Please call ne directly at (215) 337-5225, or any of the resident inspectors at the Millstone site at (203) 447-3179. Additionally, the Senior Allegation l
i 337- 'boordinatorinRegionIcanbe'contactCdbycalling'(215)We will gladly acc l 5000,, extension 5222. S erely; g, f P I Edward We zibger, 11 f Reactor Projects S1 Oh 4 i s Attachments: As stated h l L ~! i h e l f f i -} closeout bec:Fuhrmeister RI-91-A-0035,0071, R. J. Stewart W. Raymond T.-Shediosky, Millstone E. Wenzinger i .i l F -,}}