ML20066L457
| ML20066L457 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 08/02/1993 |
| From: | Blanch P AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20029C539 | List: |
| References | |
| 2.206, NUDOCS 9402100110 | |
| Download: ML20066L457 (3) | |
Text
- r e r f'
\\
9 > 7bb
~
August 2k993 Docket No. 50-423 File No, RI-89-A-0133 l
Nir.. lame < Tay lor Executive Director for Operation <
I ~nited States Nuclear Regulatorv Commi<sion Wachmpton, D: C. 20555-0001 i
Subject:
10 CFR 2.206 Request for Enforcement Action
Reference:
Notice of Violation and Proposed impo<ition of Civil Penalty and Demand for Information. Jated Slay 4.1993 Dear.\\ f r.1 a3 L r-I have receive a letter from.\\Ir. Jame< l.ieberman, NRC Director of Enforcement dated July 15.1993 responding to my letter of June 4,1993.
requesting appropriate enforcement action for Northeast l'tilities (Nil violations of 10 CFR 50.7. I consider Nlr. I.ieberman's letter unresponsive and evasive to my request and therefore I am requesting the following action pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206.
Alleged Violation 1. The NRC Office of Investigation (01) identified thi NI' Vice President of Nuclear and Environmental Engineering as one of
".those.esponsible.. " for the actions taken resulting in the HI&D dirma acainst ne.
Requested Action 1. I request that enforcement action as specified bs !'
CFR Part 2 be taken against Dr. Charles F. Sears, former Nt ' Vice President of Nuclear and Environmental Engineering for willful violation of 10 CFR 50 ' and Deliberate Niisconduct as defined hv 10 CFR 50.5.
Alleged Violation 2. Two of my subordinate < u ere suspended as a forn; HI&D directed at me. This information was reported to the OI Investigat.
and he stated to NIr. Caccavale and to my other employee that they were n.s directly involved in protected activitie<. and therefore u ere not covered bv the provisions of 10 CFR 50.7. These retaliatory actions were directed by an NU Corporate Officer above the position of Senior Vice President of NE&G The implications here are significant in that this implies that it could be "open season" on subordinates and family members. as they are not directiv involved in protected activities.
m
^
0
Requested Action 2. Impose a Severity I.evel I violation upon the N1' Corporate Officer responsible for directing thi.< retaliatory action in violation of 10 CFR 50.7 and Deliberate Niisconduct a< defined by 10 CFR 50.5.
Alleged Violation 3. The Office of Inve<tigation concluded that three NI ~
Corporate Officers were ".tho<e responsible,..either directly or indirectly. Jand that I)..was the victim of various incidents of HI&D and attempted HI&D as a result of (my) stand on the issue."
Requested Action 3. Impo<e three Severity !.evel I violations upon these Nil Corporate Officers for violation of 10 CFR 50.7 and Deliberate N!isconduct as defined by 10 CFR 50.5.
Alleged Violation 4. According to the enforcement letter, Nl' attorney, Nir.
Ed Richters and NU.\\lanager Thomas Shaffer, acting on behalf of N1 ~
Corporate.\\lanagement, threatened individuals with letters of reprimand if they did not talk with NL' contract attorneys prior to being interviewed by the Office ofInvestigation. These individuals Harry Scully and Gilbert Olsen, were about to " Testify in a Commission proceeding" which is defined as a protected activity by 10 CFR 50.7 This is a clear violation of 10 CFR 50.7 as determined by the NRC Office of Investigation. This sends a clear message to the other Nt ' employees that the NRC exempts attorneys from enforcement action.
Requested Action 4. Issue a Severity 1.evel 1 for Nir. Richters actions of harassing individuals who were about to " Testify in a Commission proceeding" and a Severity Level 2 Violation to Alr. Shaffer for " Action by plant management above first line supervisor in violation of 10 CFR 50.7.. ".and Deliberate NIisconduct as defined bv 10 CFR 50.5.
Alleged Violation 5. The NI' NIanager of Internal Auditing, NIr. Allen r'..llack, responsible for conducting the audit of my engineering group, was found by the Office of Investigations to be using falsified credential <,
coming to invalid conclusions based on invalid documentation. This Nianager of Intemal Auditing was fully aware the audit was retaliatory and in violation of 10 CFR 50. i.
Requested Action 5. This SI' hianager is above the position of first line supervisor and was aware that his actions were in violation of 10 CFR 50.7 and 10 CFR 50.5 therefore a minimum of a Severity I.evel 2 Violation should be issued.
I realize that the NRC's Director of Enforcement recently stated to the Inspector General's Office that the most realist.e and effective way of 2
4
"getting a licensee's attention" is through negative publicity involving an.
enforcement action. After my review of 10 CFR Part 2. Appendix C. I fail to see this type of enforcement action even discussed. I strongly disagree with.\\lr. Lieberman's opinion as I have had significant feedback from NI' employees about the total ineffectiveness of the enforcement action and the apparent reluctance of the NRC to take any meaningful enforcement action.
From the recent Inspector General's report I leamed that Nl.' was third in the nation for number of harassment complaints (50) and that more have been filed since this report was completed. IJniess the NRC is willing to take some action which uill serve as a meaningful deterrent to this continued harassment, the numkr of complaints will continue to increase. If the NRC is going to ignore the Enforcement action recommended by 10 CFR Part 2.
Appendix C, what is the purpose of this section of the Regulations?
I look forward to your prompt responce.
Sincerely.
k/ #1 AfA~/
Paul N1. Blanch l35 Hvde Rd.
West Hartford Ct. 06117 cc:
Senator Liebennan Chairman Selin
.\\lr. Ben Hayes
.\\fr. David Williams
.\\fr. William Raymond Atty. Ernest Hadley n
]
em
.