ML20126A970

Responds to Requesting NRC Take Action Re Proposed Settlement Agreement.No Further Actions Planned Re Settlement Agreement.Complaint of Violations of Rights Per Listed Insp Repts Will Be Addressed Under Separate Cover

ML20126A970
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	06/11/1989
From:	Wenzinger E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:	AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
Shared Package
ML20126A943	List: A09318, Responds to Allegation RI-90-A-0225 Re Disposition of Ncr 290-063 B13559, Responds to NRC 900606 Request for Investigation of Employee Concerns Re Adequacy of Computer Software Testing Methods at Unit.Revised Quality Software Manual Procedures,Effective Oct 1989,fully Incorporate Applicable Industry Stds IA-91-162, Forwards Details of Allegation RI-90-A-225 for Review & Followup within 30 Days of Ltr Receipt ML20126A940 ML20126A950 ML20126A958 ML20126A970 ML20126A972 ML20126A986 ML20126B001 ML20126B004 ML20126B010 ML20126B016 ML20126B029 ML20126B034 ML20126B047 ML20126B068 ML20126B118 ML20126B123 ML20126B132 ML20126B233 ML20126B240 ML20126B246 ML20126B272 ML20126B278 ML20126B289 ML20126B299 ML20126B304 ML20126B307 ML20126B313 ML20126B324 ML20126B327 ML20126B356 ML20126B361 ML20126B378
References
FOIA-91-162 NUDOCS 9212210321
Download: ML20126A970 (2)

Text

_

l 4 ,

i JUN I 3

( .

Docket No. 50-336 ,

Allegation File No. RI-87-A-0113

Dear This letter is in response to your letter dated October 27,

1989, requesting that the NRC take action with respect to a proposed settlement agreement offered to you by Connecticut Light and Power Company and W. J. Barney Cor-poration. You claimed that the proposed agreement contained a restrictive provision, i.e., a provision which would have restricted you from bringing safety concerns to the NRC.

In the first half of 1989, the approximate time frame of the proposed agreement you refer to, the NRC concluded that a number of executed settlement agreements l contained restrictive provisions. The NRC concluded that these provisions were void and unenforceable. The NRC took steps to assure that parties to such l

agreements were aware that they could freely come to the NRC with their safety

, concerns. Further, the NRC amended its regulations in this area, such as 10 l

CFR 59ttion 50.7, to explicitly prohibit such restrictive provisions. Because l the industry was sent a clear message that restrictive provisions are void and j unenforceable, and in light of the above revision to the Commission's require-l ments, no further action was deemed necessary regarding past restrictive agree-l ments. For these same reasons, no action by the NRC is appropriate in the case ,

! you pose chere a restrictive agreement may have been proposed during settlement '

negotiations in 1989.

With respect to the blacklisting issue you raise again based on proposed settlement agreement language, neither that language nor any other information in your letter supports a finding that blacklisting against you was ever attempted.

Concerning your complaint that your rights were violated under 10 CFR Part 50 l

and 29 CFR Part 24 based on findings documented in Inspection Report 50-336/

88-13 and we presume Inspection Report 50-336/89-13, we will address this issue in a separate correspondence.

Information in this record was deleted in accordance with t e fre of Information Act, exemption  ! L FolA Rl'l >

0FFICIAL RECORD COPY RI-87-A-0113 ALLEGATI0 -

nnn, nn 9212210321 920608 03/15/90 PDR FDIA OUILD91-162 PDR

O

s. f ,

. 2 C

We plan no further action concerning the proposed settlement agreement. If you have any additional information or questions, please contact me directly.

Sincerely, Chi';..; L 5:u.:;r -- ,

CDV.%RD C. WENilt.utn Edward C. Wenzinger, Chief Reactor Projects Branch 4 Division of Reactor Projects Tel: (215) 337-5225 i

9%8

...eaw

- _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ ___ _ __ _ _ _ __ __.