ML20087F047
| ML20087F047 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 11/03/1992 |
| From: | Gutterman A NEWMAN & HOLTZINGER |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL (OIG) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20087E977 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-93-642 NUDOCS 9508150099 | |
| Download: ML20087F047 (3) | |
Text
g j
3 m ;) _ } [
a NzwxAN & Horrzmoza, P.C.
' ATTORNEYS AT LAW ISIS L STREET, N.W.
T
/
WASHINGTON D.C. 20036-S610 TELEPHONE: (202) 859 6600 FAK:(202)872 0581 November 3, 1992 Q. ~SupervisorySpec}alAgent u.
..a i
Office of the Inspector General-Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dear OnSeptember29,whenyouandh'~
9 interviewed several Houston Lighting & Power Company (RL&Fj wmployees at the South Texas Project STP,
information fpr you r(egar) ding two matters.-I. agreed to obtain additional lyouaskedf First,'after your
. interview of
. open at STE ouring tne time that(or a, list of positions that were
"")1ooked for openings for which thel isalistofPer]sonnelRequests(PR) personnel were qualified.
that the STP Human Resources records identify.as having been open at some point during the period March 1 through May 15,.1992.
During this'. period, there were no openings for Security personnel and other openings at the time did not match the qualifications of the NSD employees.
The period March 1 through may 15 was
. selected to assure.that it captured all'of the openings during that period.
As a rpault, it includes more openings than existed at the precise timeL jdid~hisreviews.
Second, after your interview of f
~
' you asked forthe,SafeguardsIncidentReport(SIR)c6hcarninganl incident that occurred on June 27, 1991 and the report of HL&P's associated investigation. is the SIR and Attachments 3 and 4 are, respectively, the associated Station Problem Report and the investigative file.
During our discussion on September 29, you mentioned the. potential for the reduction in force of the NSD to have a
" chilling effect" on the reporting of safety concerns by other STP employees.
A similar question was posed by the NRC Region IV Administrator in a letter to HL&P on August 4, 1992, concerning an earlier employment action.
In response, HL&P looked for evidence of a " chilling effect" by examining the rate at which the.Speakout program was contacted by STP personnel before and after that employment action.
reduction in the number of contacts with Speakout after theThe review found that t M
t laformation in this reecrd m.: dMed
- f f in accordacc 't;ith the h% ma ci!nictma!,on Act, exempSons 7/E 2'
9508150o99 95o316 ft. / o.I
- F0!A -
AS-I
- dO$-642 PDR
~ ~ - ~
~- -
"i
[.*y;f (.
p r
- }
NawuAw & Hos.rzzwot P. C.
ember 13,'1992 Page 2 earlier employment action. is a copy of HL&P's August 21, 1992, response to the Regional Administrator.
The evaluation. encompassed the period in which the NSD was.
reorganized, and it did not find any reduction in the rate of Speakout contacts after the reorganization.
In addition, an updated. graph including data for the subsequent months, is enclosed as' Attachment 6.
Attachments 5 and 6 indicate that the reduction in force of MSD has not had any noticeable chilling
~
effect on the frequency of contacts with Speakout.
l When complaints are filed with the Department of Labor under Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act, BL&P's l
practice has been to refer the complaints to Speakout for l
investigation.
This was done with the two complaints related to the.NSD reorganization.
The reports of the Speakout j
f investigations are included as Attachments 7 and 8..
The investigations'found that the assertions in $ hose complaints were not substantiated.
Speakout reports are normally kept in confidence by HL&P, and made available for HL&P management review only on a nsed to know" basis.
The reports included in Attachment 7 and 8 a
3 have been disclosed to the Department of Labor investigator, but otherwise have been held in confidence by HL&P.
Disclosure of these reports to the public.could reveal statements made in confidence to Speakout under circumstances that indicated that the statements would be confidential and " private" and.not disclosed to the public.
Therefore, disclosure of these' reports would constitute an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individuals'who were interviewed by Speakout.
In addition, Attachments 7 and 8 discuss the performance of certain present and former HL&P personnel, and the. disclosure of these reports; would constitute an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of these personnel.. Therefore, HL&P requests that Attachment 7 and 8 be withheld from public disclosure pursuant to 10 CFR $$ 2.790(a(6) and 2.790(a)(7). 1/
1/
In addition, public disclosure of Attachments 7 and 8 could cause hare to HL&P and the public.
In order to operate-the STP safely, HLEP relies upon employees to come forward with safety concerns.
These concerns cannot be addressed unless L
they are made known, and in many cases employees are more I
comfortable bringing forward concerns on a confidential basis so that their identities are protected.
Without'such protection, concerns might go unreported.
This could l.
(continued...)
i-k-Ib2
q L.
Q) c'.
1
-g._
j 4
Nawiux & Box.Tzzwoza, P.C.
j ovember.3,1992)
I r
l '~
i Page 3 L
r If you have any further questions,.please call me.
., Sincerely,-
l 1'
,/
m i
1
/
~
/ \\
)s/Alvin H. Gutterman
. l
/faj j
j Enclosures A e-
~
.cc:
William J. Jump (
i
..g i
II d
el u
i i
1/(... continued)
'! i adversely affect safety and HL&P's commercial position.
Therefore, these records also should be withheld from public disclosure pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.790(a)(4).
l
/;-Ib0 e
f a
._