ML20058L718
| ML20058L718 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone, Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/21/1993 |
| From: | Nericcio M AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058L710 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9312170160 | |
| Download: ML20058L718 (10) | |
Text
..
I I
11 Old Carriage Road Portland, Connecticut 06480 i
August 21,1993
}
Mr. James Taylor Executive Director for Operations U. S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 2055-0001
Dear Mr. Taylor,
I am formally requesting accelerated enforcement action against Northeast Utilities in accordance with the provisions set forth in 10 CFR 2.206,' citing willful violation of the employee l
protection provisions of10 CFR 50.7.
I wou' ld request and expect that your of5ce will expedite the investigation of the following I matters and address them appropriately andjustly. They are as follows:
)
1.
In January 1993, David Heritage and Bryan W. Cook,'a Fitness for Duty Administrator -
i for Northeast Utilities, proposed a new computer system to be used in the execution of the Fitness for Duty program. I, in conjunction with the medical staffs from Northeast Nuclear Energy Company and the NU corporate medical unit, tested the new system with the direct instruction i
i from Mr. Heritage, *...use it while it's in the test mode. Try to violate it. Try what you will...
.. This program was tested and subsequently, numerous aspects of the proposed program we identi6ed to be problem areas to my management, Donald Ray, Michael Quinn, David Herit and Bryan Cook. I was told repeatedly to "..just get it done the best you can as ' his will be i
going into production by March 1,1993." Training, understandirng of the methodology of j
t implementation of the new computer program, and management responsiveness to problems therein were (and are) nil-questionably in violation of 10 CFR part 2, supplement VII-Severity Categories, and ptrt 26,26.21 (aXI).
i 2.
Without exception, I have felt that there is the possibility of data corruption and confidentiality breach by those with computer savvy. The FFD Program is built into the PMMS i
core system and supposedly password protected, yet I was aware that my co-worker had -
breached that password protection on April 13,1993. Iidenti6ed this breach to my director, Michael Quinn and was told, " Ill get in touch with Bob on that." David's response was, "I question your timing, Candy " (The new program was due to ao into production on April 15, 1993.) He said that to Candy in front of all at the meeting w, ere attendirng. He did not have a clear understanding of the significance ofthe security violation that had mn4, and it had to be shown to him on the computer system, which he does not understand how it works in the first -
place, in order for him to grasp the concept ofwhat had been done. Again, a significant breakdown in management response thereby compromising the integrity of the Fitness for program.
po
.- 009 296 93- ' M / /--4 d
{
9312170160 931207 PDR ADOCK 05000213
.P PDR
3.
During an NRC Security Audit ofConnecticut Yankee Atomic Pow 1.
1993, Ed King, an NRC inspector for Region I, called a meeting with the discuss the problems that had been identified to him by myself and Carme
}
for Duty Administrators be present at the next d
^
i David Heritage, questioned my authoritiy to call such a meeting. I explai calling on the direction ofMr. Eg. When I walked into said meeting o W. Cook, Robert J. Factora, and David Hedtage were sitting tog i
them", and ALL THREE ofthem turned their heads away and did not spea i
Robert Factora. I addressed her fears with Mr. K ny i
that if anyone said anything to me or Candy, or made us feel intimidated c 1
.". Issues and concerns about cenain aspects of the computer system that ha
- y..
i several months pdor to this meeting, and ahown to Mr. Kingjust the day bef not able to be accessed. Intimidation is much too mild a word for the way their actio I
feel. I was, and continue to be, afraid for myjob.
4 i
4.
On June 8,1993, at a staffmeeting at NU Corporate headquaners, Candy (Carmela i
Maden) and I again voiced our concerns about the new fitness for duty computer pr the possibility of data corruption and confidentiality breach. Candy was verbally Bryan W. Cook, who screamed, red faced and. shaking, at her, "Ifyou hadn't gone to l
and all those outside agencies you wouldn't have these problems. You deserve get." I tried to reason with David Hedtage and Bryan Cook, and was accused by calling the NRC. Twice he accused me ofinitiating the call to the NRC that prompte j
unplanned examination of the Fitness for Duty program, and twice I corrected him l
I did not call the NRC, they came to me. To be chastised for engaging in a prot 4
chilling, intimidating, harrassing violation of my rights, which, only four days prior to th meeting, was disclaimed by this company as not acceptable. In fact, David Hedtage are the ones in Human Resources that address these actions. I have no doubt in rights under the Energy Reorganization Act, Section 210 have been violated, nor d doubts that the whole episode and the subsequent actions by NU management have had a f j
chilling effect on me, my peers at that meeting, and the staff which I supervise.
5 6.
On June 24,1993, Carmela Marien and I filed formal allegations with the NRC i
Mr. Ed King. He indicated that we would be headng from a Mr. Roy Furmyster tel to do next. To the day of this letter, there has been absolutely no response or investi l
part of the NRC.
1 i
7.
After I filed a complaint with the U.S. Depanment ofLabor, Wage and Hour Divis received a whistle in the interoffice mail.
4 While I understand that my request for immediate investigation and subsequent ac have significant impact on your resources, you in the NRC Enforcement section
];
that can do something to stop the " chilling effect", harassment, and intimidation practiced at Nonheast Utilities. Believe me, the Fitness for Duty program is not the o l
that could be addressed as possiNe nuclear safety concerns. In my capacity as the Occupational Heahh Administrator, I have seen and heard things that should, could, and have been investigated to no obvious avail despite that fact that I have brought it up to the appropriste nianagement personnel.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely, 0$/ATA
/EU Marianne W. Nericcio, R N.
i Occ. Health Administrator -
Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company MWN.bb 1
I 1
I l
t Docket No. 50-245 B14695 D
l t
I
. Attachment C Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No.1 l
l l
l
. 1 i
December 1993 1
l
l s
I
\\~,.
(
b U.S. Department of Labor Employment Standards Administration j
Wage and Hout Division k -l
' j i, ' i Fl j
4 414 Chapel Street - Room 201 New Haven. Connecticut 06511 l
a i
i l
- i July 29. 1993 CERTIFIED MAIL No.
P.265 281 581 t
t l
l Ms. Carmela V. Marien, R.N.
Re: Carmela V. Marien vs.
48 Muller Drive Northeast Nuclear-Westbrook. CT 06498 Energy company File #93-107-08621
-l 1
4 I
Dear Ms. Marian:
s i
This letter is to notify you of the results. of our compliance actions in the above case.
In a previous letter from this office.
you were advised that your complaint was received on June 23, 1993.
We enclosed copies of Regulations. 29 CFR Part 24 and the pertinent section of the Act with the letter.
Our initini efforts to conciliate the matter did not result in a mutually agreeable settlemer.t.
A fact-finding investigation was then conducted.
Our investigation did not? verify that-discrimination was a factor in - the actione comprising your complaint.
Consequently, it is our conclusion-that your allegations cannot be substantiated for the following reasons:
5 While there appeared to have baen a. significant consrunications problem among those present at the June 8 1993 meeting,. the.
investigation could not confirm that alleged harassing statements; were made to you at that meeting.
Those. Persons present.atithis i
meeting other than another complainant.- did not - confirm your.
allegations of harassing statementa made to you and - therefore violations under the Whistlebicwer protection provisions of the Energy Reorganization Act could no be proven.
~his letter is notification to you that, if you,wish to;-appeal the.
above findings, you have a right, to a formal; hearing 'on the record.
4'
,f g
4 *-
e f6 s
a
~ +
. - - ~., ~,
i l
Carmela V. Marien vs. Northeast Nuclear Energy Company File #93-107-08621 To exercise thie right you must, within five (5) calendar days.of receipt of this letter, filo your request for a hearing by telenram to:
The Chief Administrative Law Judge U
S. Departnern of Labor Suite 400 Techvorld Building, 800 K Street N.?f.
Washington. DC 20001-8002 Unless a telegram is receivec by the Chief Administrative Law Judge within the five-day period. this-notice of determination will become the final Order of the Secretary of Labor diesisming your complaint.
By copy of this letter, Northeast Nuclear Energp.
Company is being advised of the determination in this case and the right to a hearing.
A copy of this letter has also been sent.to the Chief Administrative Law Judge with your complaint.
If you-decide to request a hearing. it will be necessary for you to send copies of the telegram to Northeast Nuclear Energy Company and to me at U. S. Department of Labor - Wage & Hour Division, 414 Chapel' Street Room 201. New Haven. Connecticut 06511; telephone (203)773-2249.
After I
receive the copy of your' request, appropriate preparations for the hearing can be made.
If you have any questions do not heritate to call me.
It should be made clear to all parties that the U. 'S.
Department of Labor does not represent any ef the parties in a hearing.
The hearing is an adversarial proceeding in which the Parties will be allowed an opportunity to present their evidence, testimony, and-arguments Presented by the parties at the hearing.
The Final Order of the Secretary will then be issued after consideration.of the Administrative Law Judge's recommended. decision and the record.
developed at the hearing and will either provide for appropriate relief or dismiss the complaint.
Sine rel.
b ichard Sansene Assistant District Director cc:.\\'o rtheast Nuclear Energy Ceepany Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chief Adidinistrative Law Judge Regional /Administr'ator - Ee~gional Office
- 0. 5: DCL 3olicLtor*s Qif1:e; i-
U.
U.S. Department of Labor Empeymen:sianome Aaministation
' l Wege and Hour Division l
d 1
414 Chapel Street - Room 201 New Haven, Connecticut 08511 July 2S. 1993 CERTIFIED MAIL.NO.
P 091~716 378-Ms. Marianne W. Norriccio R.N.
Re: Marianne Norriccio vs.
11 Old-Carriage Road Connecticut Yankee
~
Portland. CT 06480
- Atonio Power Company File #93-107-08622-
Dear Ms. Nerriccio:
This letter is to notify you of the results of our compliance actions in the above case.
In a previous letter from this' office, you were advised hat your complaint was received on June 28. 1993.
We enclosed copies of Regulations, 29 CFR Part 24 and the pertiser.s section of the-Act with the *stver.
Our initial efforts to conciliate the' anther did not result in a mutually agreeable settlement. ;A fact-finding investigation was then conducted.
Our. investigation did not verify 'that discrimination was a factor. In the actions. comprising your-complaint.
Consequently.
it-is: our conclusion that your-allegations cannot be substantiated fcr the-following reasons:
While there appeared t:5 t e.ve bnn a significan communications problem among those p..a'eus it,the June - 8 1993 : meeting.
the-investigation could not acn?M e that alleged harassir.g statements were made to you at thn mesting._ These persons present at chis meeting other than' ang & n ecaplair. ant,
did not confirm ' your q
allegatiens cf harassing stacaments made ' tc you and E stefore violationa under the Whistleblower protection provisions-of the Energy Reorgani:::ation Act ceu*.o not oe-preven.
-l This letter is notification to you that, if you wish'to appes'l the abcVe findings, you have a right to a formal' hearing on the record.
I q
4 4
d i
y
.r--
,m.,
3
,.--,,m_. - -,,
-..m v
a J
. ~ -
j t
t i
i i
i
.Marianne Norriccio vs. ~
j Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company File #93-107-08827 i
l To axercise this right you must, within five (5) calendar days'of j
receipt of this letter, file your request for a hearing by talarram j
to:
2 i
j The Chief-Arkinistrative Law Judge j
U. S. Department of Labor i
l Suite 400 Techworld Building i
800 K Street N.W..
Washington DC 20001-8002 i
l
'Unless a telegram is received by the Chief Administrative Law Judge within the five-day. period.. this notice of determir.ation-.will i
~
become the final Order of the. Secretary of ~ Labor. dismissing your 4
complaint. By copy of this letter. Connecticut' Yankee Atomic Power =
company is being advised'of the determination in this caso and the i
right to a hearing.
A copy of this letter has also-been sent to
)
the Chief Adminletrative Law Judge with your costplaint..
Ifxyou-decide to request a hearing, it will be necessary for you to send copies of the telegram to Connecticut Yankee Atonio Power. Company and to me at U. S. Department of Labor - Wage A Hour.~ Division ~,.414 Chapel Street - Room 201, New Haven, Connecticut 08511: telephone -'-
(203)773-2249.
After I. receive the copy
~of-your
- request, i
l appropriate preparations for the hearing can be made.
If you have any questions. do not hesitate.to call *me.
l It should be made clear to al'. parties thas the U..,S. Department of.
i Labor does not represer.t any of the parties - ini m ' hearing.
-The.
j
[
hearing is an adversarial p'oceeding in which the-parties.will1be I
allowed an opportunity to present their evidence. testimony.-and arguments presented by the parties at the hearing.- The Final Order j
of the Secretary will then be issued after consideration cf the Administrative Law Judge's recommend (.d decision and the record; 1
developed at the hearing and will either provide for appropria.te relief or dismies the complaint.
,4 aineerely.
i H
i
.;2A. -
i chard
. Sansone
{
.ssistant District Director 4
0 j
cc: Oonnecticut Yankee A,omie Power Company Nuc'. ear Regulcory Ccmmission Chief Administrative Law Judge
(
, Regional Administresor
. Regional Office i
U. 5. DOL. Solicitor's Office' -
i I.
i 1
~.,
..w
...-.----..,,r..,,,
r
-p
l Docket No. 50-245 l
B14695 l
t I
l Attachment D Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No.1 l
December 1993 l
l l
IHMt'I5IEAST UTERXi'IHS M
1 "7ET""""
E m
N
= = = - -
L a_""""=="".,~_"
o September 2,1993 To:
D. E. Welch From:
S. S. Mirabella (x4521)
Internal Audit Department
Subject:
Fitness For Duty Program - Special Review Attached is our report resulting from our review of selected activities involving NU's Fitness For Duty Program. Our conclusion appears on page two of the report. The results have already been discussed with you and appropriate action plans are included in the report.
We appreciate the efforts made and the courtesies extended to us throughout this review.
If you have any questions or comments, please call.
BC Attachment c:
R. V. Ahlstrand R. E. Busch T. O. Dixon R. J. Factora C. W. Gris(
G. R. Hallberg D. J. Heritage R. M. Kacich J. W. Noyes M. D. Quinn Arthur Andersen (2)