ML20056D275
| ML20056D275 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 07/23/1993 |
| From: | Lieberman J NRC OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT (OE) |
| To: | Ellis W NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO. |
| References | |
| EA-92-212, NUDOCS 9308110272 | |
| Download: ML20056D275 (6) | |
Text
{
l
~,, L.
y+
~
UNITED STATES 3
i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 8
WASHINGTON, D.C. 2056SM1 j
JUL 2 3 563 Docket No.
50-423 License No.
NPF-49 i
EA 92-212 c
Northeast Nuclear Energy Company ATTN:
W.
Ellis Chairman of the Board Post Office Box 270 Hartford, connecticut 06141-0270 Gentlemen:
This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated June 3, 1993 and your check for $100,000 in payment for the civil penalty proposed by NRC in a letter dated May 4, 1993.
We have carefully reviewed both your corrective actions for the violations cited in the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of* Civil Penalty (Notice) and the information you provided in response to the Demand for Information (Demand).
We note that while you paid the civil penalty, you remain of the view that senior management.of Northeast Utilities (NU) acted properly and prudently with regard to the events cited in the Notice.
You did note that NU could have been more sensitive to perceptions and appearances and could have exhibited better interpersonal and communications' skills.
We further note that you have chosen not to further debate or litigate this enforcement action, and have, therefore, not requested a hearing.
In your response to Violation I, concerning discrimination against an employes for engaging in protected activities, you provided a detailed discussion of your views and interpretation of the events that were cited in the Notice as evidence of the hostile work environment.
After full consideration of those views, the NRC has determined that the violation occurred as stated and additional discussion of the specific points involved will serve no further purpose.
With regard to your corrective actions, we note that you have taken a number of initiatives that included enhancements to NU's Nuclear Safety Concerns-Program (NSCP) and employee training with respect to employee protection issues.
You also indicated that you would monitor the effectiveness of those programs and implement refinements as necessary.
Please provide us with the results of your review of the program effectiveness, including the methodology used to conduct the review.
This information should be submitted to us within 90 days of the date of this 1
letter.
If your review will not be completed by that time, please provide us with the schedule for completion.. Subsequent i
+
150017 M
cecsanr> n w
\\\\0
I 3
Northeast Nuclear,
Energy Company l
NRC inspections will be conducted to determine whether you are maintaining compliance with NRC regulatory requirements.
With regard to violation II concerning the alleged failure to properly identify, evaluate and report a substantial safety hazard, the NRC notes that you have provided information that was previously unknown to the staff.
Specifically, you indicated that Mr. McGuinness, acting for the Manager, Generation Facility Licensing, recalls being informed that the evaluation of the Rosemount transmitter failures would take longer than the 10 days specified as the suggested processing time.
Therefore, it appears that Mr. Shaffer complied with the provisions of Nuclear Engineering and Operations Procedure 2.01 for implementing 10 CFR Part 21 requirements.
Based on this additional information, violation II is withdrawn.
In regard to your response to this violation, your July 6,
- 1993, correction of page 49 is appreciated.
However, we would expect that in the future when responses to the NRC are dependent on conversations between two persons, especially those occurring several years in the past, you will discuss the statements with both parties to the conversation before submitting your response.
In this regard, we will assume that both Messrs. McGuinness and Shaffer recall the conversation about the evaluations taking longer than the suggested 10 days.
If our assumption is not correct, please notify me.
The Demand for Information required you to explain: (1) why the NRC can have confidence that NU will ensure an environment that is free from harassment, intimidation and discrimination, both in general throughout its organization, and in particular with Messrs. Roby and Johnson continuing to be involved with safety-related activities, especially in light of their actions related to Mr. Blanch in 1989, and (2) why, after senior management officials became aware of the harassment and intimidation concerns involving Mr. Blanch, NU was ineffective in promptly terminating the hostile work environment to which Mr. Blanch was j
subjected.
In your response to the Demand, you asserted that the i
situation with respect to Mr. Blanch was unique, it involved i
individuals whose style and approach to resolving technical issues differed strongly at times, and that the NRC's finding in this case was not indicative of the overall atmosphere and
" culture" of your nuclear program.
To support those views, you stated that the NRC has consistently found the environment for employees to raise safety issues either within NU's organization or to the NRC to be healthy, as evidenced by the findings of the Special NRC Inspection Report Nos. 50-245/90-81, 50-336/90-81, 50-423/90~82 and 50-213/90-82, dated October 24, 1990, and the NRC Special Review Group findings
r Northeast Nuclear Energy Company transmitted to NU on April 6, 1992; as well as the comments r
contained in other NRC inspection reports.
You also maintained that LRS, the independent consultant to NU which had concluded that Mr. Blanch was subject to harassment and attempts at intimidation by his management, had also concluded that a generally healthy safety attitude existed throughout NU's nuclear program in 1989.
In addition to the above, you contend that you have taken a number of management initiatives during the past four years to ensure a work environment that is conducive to employees' freely raising safety issues.
Those initiativer included: a broad management reorganization resulting in a shorter chain of command; enhancement of the Nuclear Safety Concerns program; reinforcement of the nuclear safety priority to all NU employees; the Performance Enhancement Program initiated in 1991 in response to the concern that NU's performance was no longer meeting management expectations; efforts to improve team building and communications within the nuclear organization; increased training with respect to employee protection issues; and a number of positive experiences with employees identifying safety issues.
With regard to Messrs. Roby and Johnson, although you indicated that your review of the events did not lead you to the conclusion that they subjected Mr. Blanch to a hostile work environment, you viewed the NRC findings in this regard with the utmost seriousness.
In arriving at your conclusion that they should continue to be involved with safety-related activities, you cited their past employment history, their subsequent professional interaction with Mr. Blanch, and their overall performance with other safety, technical and personnel issues during the last four years as evidence of their ability to foster a positive work environment.
You also indicated that senior NU management conducted separate face-to-face meetings with them to confirm their current fitness as managers in NU's nuclear program.
As a result of those meetings, you determined that Messrs. Roby and Johnson viewed the findings seriously and they understood the 1essons learned from the experience, including the need for more effective communications and more cohesive teamwork (for which additional training was provided).
Each of these individuals had also been counseled on their performance in 1989.
You further stated that, based on the above, both managers can and will p
actively foster a positive work environment, free from j
harassment, intimidation and discrimination, and can and should i
continue to be involved in safety related activities at NU.
In response to the Demand, you expressed strong disagreement with the NRC's assertion that senior corporate management was ineffective in terminating the hostile work environment to which Mr. Blanch was subjected.
You discussed the letters of reprimand-s
L Northeast Nuclear Energy Company that were issued to Messrs. Shaffer, Roby and Johnson and subsequently withdrawn as a result of NU's internal grievance process; the differences between the preliminary and final conclusions of the third step review of that review process; and what information was available to the senior managers named in the Demand.
You noted that senior management took steps to assure that Mr. Blanch would continue to play a role in the resolution of the Rosemount transmitter issue and that members of the work force were well aware of his continued involvement.
You also asserted that the actions of NU's management, rather than being ineffective or passive in ferreting out and dealing with potentially inappropriate attitudes towards employees raising safety concerns, indicated a proactive attitude toward the issue.
A detailed discussion of the actions taken by NU's management in response to the LRS findings was chronicled.
You emphasized that upon learning of the potential employee protection issue, senior management determined at the outset that the matter warranted attention and ensured that this occurred.
You further stated that your front line management was expected to marshal the facts and contend with them, and that this is what happened; that the record shows that each member of NU senior management went to f
appropriate lengths to do what was reasonable and responsible for a difficult situation with complex issues and personalities.
Finally, you again noted that an extraordinary amount of senior management time was devoted to this issue and that the
" effectiveness" of management's actions should be judged in that light.
The NRC has carefully considered your response'along with the information that was obtained through our investigation.
As a result, we do not object to allowing the continued involvement of i
Messrs. Roby and Johnson in safety-related activities at NU, and consider this portion of the Demand to have been satisfactorily addressed.
As to the second part of the Demand, notwithstanding all of the above information regarding the actions taken by senior corporate management, the NRC continues to view those efforts as having i
been ineffective in terminating the hostile work environment to which Mr. Blanch was subjected.
However, we recognize the I
substantial corrective actions that you have since implemented to ensure that employees feel free to raise safety concerns to their i
I management.
In light of those actions, the NRC has decided that further enforcement action is not necessary at this time.
Had 4
4
~
8 Northeast Nuclear Energy Company you the foresight to have effectively implemented those programs j
earlier, the hostile work environment might have been avoided.
Sincerely, f47th -
James Lieberman, Director Office of Enforcement J
cc:
T. Martin, RI 5
r f
t 1
1 4
6 i
l s-e
2 3 1993 Northeast Nuclear Energy. Company DISTRIBUTION:
JLieberman, OE WTroskoski, OE DHolody, RI Day File EA File DCS P D /L l
\\
OE 4/ f RA:RI g f/I D:h DE.DR WTroskoski TMartin M'/v. A, J h rman JNQhek 07/.7/ /93 07/,7s /93 07/f\\ /93 M
07/jj$93 M
V' Doc Name:
G \\0ECASE8\\92212A-R.WT-
.