ML20044G025
| ML20044G025 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/18/1993 |
| From: | Sniezek J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Ferguson M OREGON, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9306010337 | |
| Download: ML20044G025 (2) | |
Text
-
gne f
UNITED STATES
(
j
., j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
WASHINGTON, D.C. 2065E4001 Y
'% * * * *
- J May 18, 1993 Mr. Mel Ferguson, Chairman Energy Facilities Siting Council 625 Marion Street, N.E.
Salem, OR 97310
Dear Mr. Ferguson:
I have read the April 21, 1993 article in the OREGONIAN indicating that you considered the April 6 letter from Dean Kunihiro of our Region V office to be nonresponsive to certain issues associated with the agency's handling of the Hopenfeld DPO matter.
Since the agency desires to be responsive to issues raised by State representatives, I decided to personally examine the issue.
I agree that Mr. Kunihiro's letter was not responsive to the oral questions you asked him during the January 21, 1993 meeting.
Unfortunately, Mr. Kunihiro responded based on his recollection of the issues discussed since he did not receive written questions resulting from the January 21 meeting.
On April 12, Adam Bless of the Oregon Department of Energy sent a Note to the NRC Project Manager, including a tape recording transcript of pertinent oral questions asked of Mr. Kunihiro during the January 21 meeting.
As I understand it, the key thrust of the issue to which you did not receive a responsive reply centers about whether an NRC employee can take his or her dissenting opinion to the public.
There is no prohibition against an NRC employee taking his or her Differing Professional View or Differing Professional Opinion to the public.
The NRC encourages the staff to identify to supervision and management whenever they disagree with an agency position or decision.
To this end, the agency has promulgated two Management Directives to ensure all employees understand it is their right, even their duty, to make known their best professional judgements on any matter related to the mission of the agency.
The agency is adamant that there be no retaliation of any sort because of a differing opinion expressed by a staff member.
Enclosed for your perusal is Management Directive 10.160 regarding the agency's OPEN DOOR POLICY and Management Directive 10.159 regarding DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL VIEWS OR OPINIONS.
You will note that an employee may submit differing opinions anonymously or request confidentiality if so desired.
Pages 2 through 6 of Handbook 10.159 (Appendix to Management Directive 10.159) provide a succinct description of the agency's 200056 9306010337 930518
YO
+
Mr. Mal Fergucen May 18, 1993 O.
.\\
process for handling Differing Professional Views (DPV) and Differing Professional Opinions (DPO).
The DPV is an informal process which is normally recolved at the Office Director level, whereas the DPO is a formal process which is initiated by an employee who is not satisfied with the Office Director's resolution of the issue.
The DPO resolution is decided by the Executive Director for Operations or the Commission, as appropriate.
You should note that the agency makes completed case files (or appropriate portions thereof) for Differing Professional Opinions available to tre public in accordance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.
Since the DPV process is an informal agency process, DPVs are not normally placed in the Public Document Room.
The agency is reevaluating its current policy of not placing DPVs in the Public Document Room.
In the case of Mr. Hopenfeld's December 23, 1991 correspondence entitled, DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL OPINION, the issue raised by Mr.
Hopenfeld was correctly handled as a DPV by the Office of Research.
Mr. Hopenfeld did not elevate the issue to the level of a DPO pursuant to the procedures set forth in Management Directive 10.159 and Handbook 10.159.
Consequently, Mr.
Hopenfeld's issue was not placed in the Public Document Room.
In retrospect, because of the State's interest in the Trojan steam generator issue, the Hopenfeld matter should have been included in the technical discussions the NRC staff had with representatives of the State.
I trust that the foregoing adequately responds to the fundamental questions you posed to Mr. Kunihiro on January 6.
I apologize for any inconvenience you have experienced due to tP5 tardiness of a complete response to your questions.
If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me or the Region Administrator.
Sincerely' Original signed by James H. Srkzek James H. Sniezek Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Regional Operations and Research
Enclosure:
Management Directive 10.159 and 10.163
-DISTRIBUTION: (w/oenclosure)
EDO rf(GT8812) i DEDR rf JTaylor JSniezek HThompson JBlaha JMartin, RV O
i EBeckjord, RES zek lor i
JFouchard, OPA
/93
/
I PDR
.