ML20126B281
| ML20126B281 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 12/09/1992 |
| From: | Banerjee M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Juliano V WATERFORD, CT |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9212220038 | |
| Download: ML20126B281 (77) | |
Text
pn MGug I
/
UNITED ST ATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[
iu r -
/- E uf G10N i k
[
45 Alti NDALE ROA[)
/
MNG Of PRUSSI A P(NNSYLVANI A 1M061415 DEC 0 91M9 Waterford Public Library ATFN: Mr. Vincent Juliano 49 Rope Ferry Road Waterford, CT 06385
Dear Mr. Juliano:
SUBJECT:
TRANSCRIli OF NOVEMBER 5,1992, PUBLIC MEETING REGARDING NLPs PERFORMANCE ENIIANCEMENT PROGRAM To obtain comments from the public on Northeast Utilities' (NU's) Performance Enhancement Program (PEP), the NRC conducted a public meeting at the East Lyme Community Center on November 5,1992. To facilitate public review of the PEP document, you agreed to maintain a copy of the PEP in a location which would allow access to it by members of the public. Furthermore, in our advertisement for the meeting, your library was identified as one of the locations at which this document was available for public review.
Thank you for your efforts to support this public meeting. We considered the meeting a success and gained some valuable insights on the implementation of the PEP. Also, as stated in our original letter to you in this matter, this public meeting was transcribed. We request that you place the attached copy of the transcript of the meeting with your existing copy of the PEP Please retain these copies for public access as long as you like, but preferably through at least March of next year.
If you have any questions in this matter, please contact me directly at (215) 337-5246. Your interest and cooperation in this matter are appreciated.
Sincerely, 9212220038 921209 PDR ADOCK 05000245 P
PDR Maitri Banerjee Acting State Liaison Officer
Attachment:
Transcript of the November 5,1992, Public Meeting in East Lyme, CT cc w/ attachment:
Local Public Document Room cc w/o attachment:
State of Connecticut SLO
- P( ls1
V 1
i J
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 EEG 11 E Ma hlG_M E gilEQ_TQ_ REC gly E _C QMM E NT E_QN 12 E9EIEE&gT_MIlklTIEgi 13 E EE E ORM & Eg fi_ E N E &EG E M E NT_EEQ ER &M 14 15 East Lyme Community Center 16 East Lyme, Connecticut 17 November 5,
1992 18 7:30 p.m.
19 20 NRC Members Present:
21 Jacque Durr, Paul Swetland, Randy Blough, 22 James Wiggins, Lawrence Doerflein, Dave Jaffe 23 24 25
2 T
1 MR. WIGGINS:
Good evening, my name in Jim 2
Wiggins.
I represent the Nuclear Regulatory 3
Commission.
I work out of the office in King of 4
Prussia, Pennsylvania.
That office oversean nuclear 5
plants and other type'of activities that occurr in the 6
northeastern part of the United States.
With me I 7
have other individuals that are from the NRC office 8
that are here to hear from you this evening, and hear 9
your comments with regard to a plan that the utility 10 that runs the Millstone station has put together in 11 order to enhance its performance.
12 What 1 would like to do before we start 13 the meeting is to introduce the people here from the 14 NRC staff, and that are up at the table.
We will talk 15 a little bit about the background in terms of why we 16 are here, what we are interested in doing, why we came 17 here to hear your comments.
We will talk to you about 18 what we have done to-date with regard to the 19 Enhancement Program that the utility has offered, and 20 talk a little bit about the format for this meeting, 21 set:.up some rules and guidelines to make sure that 22 people can have a fair and adequate opportunity to 23 speak, and we can keep the meeting moving.
I would 4
24 like to thank you for coming out on this poor night.
25 I think that shows that there is interest in the
. =__
3 9
1 community about what is going on at.the plant.
L, 2
So first let me start by introducing 3
the NRC staff.
We w i l l. (U) around the table.
4 MR. DURR:
Jacque Durr of the engineering
_5 department in the branch of r.eactor safety.
I:have a-6 staff of engineers who go to the various power' plants 7
in the northeast and do safety inspections to make 8
sure that the plants are complying with rules and 9
requirements and regulations.
10 MR. SWETLAND:
My name is Paul Swetland.
I 11 am the Senior Resident Inspector here at the Millstone 12 Station.
I work for the NRC.
I have a staff of five f
13 inspectors who do daily oversight of the utilities' 14 activities at Millstone.
15 MR. BLOUGH:
Good evening, my name is Randy 16 Blough.
I am Chief of Projects Branch 4 in NRC Region 17 1.
I manage the inspection programs for Millstone, 18 Haddam Neck and several other facilities in the 19
. northeast.
20 MR. DOERFLEIN:
My name is Larry Doerflein.
21 I am a Project Section Chief in the King of Prussia 22 office.
I am responsible-for the managing of: the 23 inspection program at the Haddam Neck and' Millstone
{
24 sites.
25 MR. JAFFE:
Good evening, my name is Dave i
e,
4 1
Jaffe.
I am senior project manager in the office of 2
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
We are involved in the 3
licensing process for the Millstone unit, including 4
such things as issuing license, relief from code, and
-5 other administrative activities.
6 THE CHAIRMAN:
Thank you.
For your 7
information there are several other individuals in the 8
audience we would like to recognize.
These 9
individuals work either in the local area or work for 10 the State of Connecticut.
Mr. Thomas Benedict and Mr.
11 Ed Woollacott are commissioners for the public utility 12 control.
Mr. Ben Scoloway from the State of I
i.
13 Connecticut ia here; and a representative of the 14 Waterford Emergency Manager is also here.
I 15 With that, let me briefly go over'what c
16 it is we are here about this evening.
What we want to 17 discuss, we want to receive comments on is comments-on 18 the plan that has been put together-by the Northeast 19 Utilities organization to enhance its performance at 20-principally the Millstone Station, but also'there-is 21 some cpplicability to Haddam Neck.
22 Let's first go over why this plan came 23 to be from our perspective at least as a' federal l
24 regulator.
In our, in the NRC's 1991 overall 25 performance assessment for the Millstone Station we
?
5 7
1 noted declines in the performance in several areas at LJ 2
the plant, although overall the plant performed well 3
and plant opera ti on was considered to be safe there
)
4 were some trends that we saw of declining performance 5
in some of the fundamenta1' basic areas that are 6
important to operating a nuclear power plant.
In 7
addition, there were other issues that were emerging 8
at the facility that we were aware of that we thought 9
demanded the Northeast Utilities' continued increased 10 attention.
These included a significant increase in il the number of concerns raised by the workers at the l
12 station that were at least in the minds of the workers 13 not being dispositioned the way they thought they 14 should or t.
their satisfaction.
And that represented-i 15 a concern to us.
There were many of these concerns l
16 that wer important to us.
We didn't understand why
(
17 they were being dispositioned'the way they were.
18 In addition, there were a series of 19 technical problems identified both by the utility 20 staff and NRC staff at the facility that raised some l
i l
21 questions with regard to the adequacy of certain 22 programs at the facility.
23
-As a result of those performance 24 problems the u t i'. i t y elected to form four internal 4
25 task groups to look over various aspects of how they i
l
6 1
did business.
These task. forces completed their 2
assignments and reported back to the company in the 3
latter stages of 1991.
. /. n d the company discussed the 4
results of those taska reviews with us in September i
5
-and October of 1991.
We looked at that as we look at 6
a number of internal assessment activities that go on 7
in each station.
We concluded they were rather a
8 thorough reviews.
There were a number of 9
recommendations that came out.
And the 10 recommendations seemed to be worthwhile.
- However, 11 both the NRC staff and eventually Northeast management 12 concluded there was a need for a more integrated 1
13 effort to resolve these recommendations.
To build on 14 their findings, and develop some integrated approach 15 the company engaged the assistance of an external 16 consultant to help him develop that plan.
And they 17 did so, and that plan is what-is called the Northeast l
18 Utilities Performance enhancement Program that was 19 prepared through the spring of 1992, and was provided 20 to the NRC in June 1992 as-the staff had requested.
21 We have subsequently gotten anot'her 22 submittal in October of 1992 that basically brought 23 the program to completion, described the complete j
24 program.
So as of October 1992 we have a complete 25 program description for that Performance Enhancement I
7 y i 1
Program.
The program is basically conducted or was
&J j
2 conducted or is being conducted by the utility in j
i 3
three phases.
4 The first phase which has been S
completed to date was designed to determine'the 6
underlying causes of Northeast Utilities' performance 7
deficiencies at the station.
Phase II was designed to 8
develop Action Plans for those programs that were 9
found in Phase I.
And the third phase-was to work 10 through the Action Plans and conduct a validation 11 effort to make sure that whatever actions they did 12 take were effective in solving the programa they were 13 originally going after solving.
14 That la a brief description of what the 15 Performance Enhancement Program in.
Ag in, the 16 Performance Enhancement Program is particularly aimed 17 at problems identified by the utility and by us as 18 applied to the Millstone Station, and in' addition some 19 programs at the corporate-office.
However,Jas you 20 might suspect there are certain issues among those 21 actions that are generic to the entire company's 22 operat-lons, so there is some applicability.to Haddam 23 Neck.
And the company has indicated to us that~the
(
24 Haddam Neck facility-is also being looked at, and the 25 Action Plans are also being applied to Haddam Neck.
8 1
That is basically the background on the Performance
(
2 Enhancement Plan.
3 Let's talk about what we as the Nuclear l
~4 Regulatory. commission have done with this plan to S
date.
We have been asked as a staff by the_five 6
commissioners of the agency to review this plan and to-l 7
perform an acceptance review.
We have been asked to l
8 accept the plan, in other words, look at it, and l
9 decide whether it is a worthwhile plan.
We have in i
l-10 order to do that, and oversee that review, in order'to 11 receive the performance at the facility in a more 12 detailed manner we have organized a panel.
We ca)) it j
13 the Millstone Assessment Panel.
Which is run out of i
14 the King of Pr ussi a office principally, although there 15 is a significant involvement from our headquarter's 16 office.
In fact, the people you see up here at the g
l l
17 podium are part of that panel.
There are some others 18 that weren't able to make it today.
19 Since that panel was established we i.
l 20 have met with Northeast in a public forum. -In July we 21 discussed activities that we had planned to undertake 22 to review their Performance Enhancement Plan.
As part j
l l
23 of that review, we, the NRC, provided to Northeast I
24 Utili ti es a list of approximately 23 performance l
l 25 concerns that we had at Millstone.
We used our i
I
_, _ _ _.. -.. ~.
9 h1 1
annessment tools that we have been using over time in 1;
2 the nyntematic performance.
We used our inspection 3
reporta to develop a net of circumstances.
We 4
provided those to Northeast Utilities with the intent 5
of asking the company to tell us where the Performance 6
Enhancement Plan addressen thene particular issues.
7 The company responded in Augunt of R
1992.
In order to look at the appropriateness and 9
adequacy of that response and to take a more careful 10 look at the company's enhancement plan this panel, 11 which all of un here are a member of, chartered a 12 review t e a ra, NRC technical employees to determine if 4
13 that plan actually addressed the underlying cause of 14 Northeast Utilities' problemn; contained Actionn Plans 15 which were reasonable methods of obtaining the 16 performance improvementa desired, and whether that 17 plan contained a comprehensive and reasonable 18 independent verification and validation program that 19 ensured that the plans would be effective.
-That team 20 has-conducted its initial review of Millstone and 21 iladdam, in addition Northeast Utilities' corporate 22 office.
The results of that team are currently under 23 review, and when their efforts are complete we will f
24 release the results of those efforts.
25 In addition we had determined quite
10 1
early on in our review that we were interested i n 2
obtaining comment, and those people in the general 3
public that were affected most by the operation of the 4
facility, and made a determination to hold a meeting 5
such as the one today to'give an opportunity to'the i
I 6
public in the area to provide any comments they would 7
have on the Utility Performance Program and the 8
Enhancement Program.
We sent copies of the Northeast 9
Utilities' Performance Enhancement Plan to the State 10 and to local governments within the emergency plan 11 zone and around Millstone and Haddam Neck in lat e 1
12 September asking for written comments.
1 i
13 In addi ti on, we placed copies of that 14 plan in several libraries around Millstone and Haddam 16 Neck sites so they would be available for the public 16 to review.
And we indicated that we would be 17 interested in receiving comments in wri ti ng, or if the 18 person so chose they could come to this meeting and 19 provide the comments orally.
To make sure people 20 would have some better chance of knowing that this 21 meeting was going to be taking place we went a step 22 beyond what we would normally do for an NRC meeting.
23 We-would typically prior to meetings issue press-24 release, those press releases go to local media l
25 outlets, newspapers, but certainly it la up to the
^n'-'*w 7
11 1
newspapers and media to inake the determination whether
. i u.;
2 to run the story.
Not all press releanen make it into 3
the newspapera.
We actually went out and purchased 4
advertising in papero that we thought from our point
.S of view sorved the local area or areas where we 6
thought there would be nome interest.
So that is what 7
brings un to this meeting here.
8 Following this meeting we will take the 9
oral comments we receive, and any written comments 10 that we would get, and we will consider them an we 11 complete our activit.ien to determine whet her the 12 Performance Enhancement Plan in acceptable to the NRC.
13 The resulta of that entire review will, an I said 14 carlier, be made public when they are complete.
And 15 that nhould happen sometime early next year.
We will 16 at leant be in the position to comment where our 17 conclusions are.
That is basically background for 18 thin meeting.
19 bet me take a brief minute to go over 20 some ground rules and some mechanica.
As'I said, the 21 purpose of the meeting is to solicit comments on the i
22 Northeast Utilities' Performance Enhancement" Program.
23 We really did not come here prepared to address issues 24 beyond that.
There are normally comments in any area 1
25 about what is going on at the facility that are about
12 1
problems that are associated with the program directly 2
or peri phe r a l l y.
We did not come here prepared 3
specifically to addreas a)) those issues.
We have 4
determined the best way to approach it to identify S
people, ask them to come up, ask them to provide ~their 6
comments, but to maintain a ground rule that we.will 7
look at a five-minute. limit'for that individual in a 8
given time that that perann is here.
I may ask that 9
the person and the presentation bring the current 10 comments to an end so we can move on to the next 11 person.
If there are some residual commenta an 12 individual may have, you are certainly free to remain 13 around and get back in the key again, and come back 14 and talk again.
It would be helpful as we go through 15 thin to ask you to, if you are interent.ed in making a 16 comment, and you haven't already provided your name on 17 a card, to do no.
We will use those cards to call 18 people to the mike, We are trying to make sure it is' 19 an orderly progression.
Again, we are going to try to 20 limit people to five minutes per round on-the 21 discussion.
22 In addition, we are not here with the 23 intent to take up your comment time with o u'r answera
{
24 to the questions.
If it is a short answer we can 25 provide we w i.1 1 try an heat we can to do that.
If l
i
---__--_.___-.u__L__
.~.
13' i
1 not, we think it is better to just allow more people J
2 to have an opportunity to speak.
Let's move through.
3 As you see the-meeting is being 4
transcribed.
The reason we'are transcribing it is to S
convenience.to ourselves.
We want to listen to the 6
comments.
We function better if we concentrate on the 7
comments rather than write down what they said.
The 8
transcript is for our benefit.
It is not a legal 9
record or anything like that, but we do intend to take 10 a copy of the transcript and provide that copy to the 11 same libraries that we provided copies of the 12 Performance Enhancement Program.
If anyone would like 1
13 to refer to the proceeding they can go to the 14 libraries and do that.
15 As a matter of courtesy we would ask 16 that anyone who would seek to make a comment, we would 17 ask you that you behave courteously to the speaker, 18 and allow the speaker _to get through with their 19 comments without a lot of disruption.
That+would be 20
. helpful, 21 In terms of the timing of the meeting,
~2 2 as we had-advertised we intend to be here from 7:30 to 23 10:30.
We can remain a little later, but there is a j
24 hard and fast end time of 11:00 tonight.
That is 25 because we have to get out of the room, and allow the
14 1
custodial staff to clean up and set up for whatever is 2
going to occur here tomorrow.
So basically we 3
couldn't go much beyond 11 even if we wanted to.
And 4
we v i'11 go as long as there is interest up.until that
'S time.
6 With that, I think we are ready to 7
start.
And we can have the first speaker.
8 MR. JAFFE:
As Mr. Wiggins indicated, 9
approximate.ly five minutes per person that wanta to 10 address the panel.
To help you in that regard I am 11 going to let you know when you have about one minute 12 left.
We have ordered this approximately in the order i
1 13 that the people have arrived.
We will have Joe 14 Carter, followed by Paul Blanch, Denny Galloway and 15 Jay Sullivan.
16 Mr. Carter, do you care to address the 17 vanel?
18 MR. CARTER:
I wanted to be a lot later 19 because the whole thing can stop right here.
You 20 gentlemen have some very impressive credentiales'but I 21 think you are a terrible waste of taxpayern*' money.
I 22 was laid off from Millstone Polut in 19P' when 1 23 informed my employer that-I'had contrac._, leukemia.
{
24 The reasons stated on my layoff slip was I was unable 25 to meet physical requirements even though I had been
1*
15 1
on-site for the past 10 years.
When I notified money
". J 2
counters in King of Prussia, Mr. Wiggins, of my 3
si tua ti on, and where the corruption was on-site and 4
who the corrupt people were the first response I got
-5 wa s a.l et ter in 1990 which stated that I would have to 6
submit my claim in writing within 30 days to the 7
Department of Labor.
I-submit, sir, that is a cruel 8
joke.
9 MR.
JAFFE:
Mr. Carter, would you please 10 help us in telling us how your c om.;n e n t s relate to the 11 matter at hand right now, that is the Performance 12 Enhancement Program?
i 13 MR. CARTER:
I am saying when 14 representatives of NRC are n o t. i f i e d of the hazard of 15 that ball over there that is going to go noth'ing is 16 done, you guys sit on your hands.
Northeast, how are 17-you going to cover your butt?
I have documentation la that is going to bury the whole panel.
Now, I would 19 love to have about an hour to continue this.'-
20 MR. JAFFE:
You have more time.
Do you care 21 to specifically address the Performance Enhancement 22 Program?
23 MR. CARTER:
When I sat down with the 24 hearing officer the lat of September I got my job back 25 after five and a half years, after being run out of m.
16 1
that place for being honest I got back on site within 2
a week.
I was railroaded out again after talking with 3
Mr. Swetland, within 10 days of talking to Swetland I 4
was bounced again on a bogus charge which I now.have
-5 in the process.
I am persona nongrata at Millstone 6
Point.
7 And where it deals with you 8
specifically is that you are not doing a damn-thing 9
except covering your tracks and trying to sound 10 impressive.
The net result of what you guys do is 11 waste my taxpaying money.
As I said, when I contacted 12 the NRC in July of
'87 and don't get a response 3I 13 until'92?
I thought I recognized Dempsey here.
14 Special Agent Judy Idy out of the New Ilaven branch of 15 the FBI requested that I talk to Doug Dempsey.
I took 16 Dempsey a copy of a transcript that had been produced 17 by the security department of Northeast Utilities in 18 Berlin in July of
'87, and his first response, which 19 is typical NRC behavior was, A,
he lost part-of.-the 20
-document in-a. Northeast copier.
That is :how ' inept 21 your whole outfit is.
I had to retrieve pages of my
'22 document from a Nor-theast. copier.
Then ahe -sen t i t to 23-King of Prussia.
g 24 MR. WIGGINS:
You have one~ minute.
25 MR. CARTER:
As I said, we can do this for M
I
17 l
i l
.i 1
hours.
What I am telling you is that anybody that i
k; 2
wants the truth, which no newspaper in Connecticut 3
will publish, I can give it
-t o them.
And I would like 4
to give you my correct address.
It is 180 Boston 5
Turnpike in Bolton,rzip code 06043, because the 6
address that NRC uses is a composite of an address I 7
had in '87 and my current address.
And that, 8
gentlemen, is what will bury you, thank you.
9 MR. JAFFE:
Paul Blanch.
10 MR. DELCORE:
Are we allowed to ask 11 questions?
It appears to me you have four or five 12 speakers, and you have two or three hours.
ti 13 MR. WIGGINS:
lie can come back.
14 MR.
BLANCH:
I was going to ask the same 15 question as Don De1 Core raised.
We have two and a 16 half hours, why limit un to five minutes?
I do have a 17 prepared statement.
I do have copi e s of~my prepared
~
18 statement.
I would like to have adequate time to-19 complete my prepared statement, and not be limi-ted to l
20 five minutes.
I might take six,- possibly~seven I
21 minutes.
I am not sure.
I haven't gone over~that.
I i
22 will assure you it will not take more than seven.
23 minutes.
I would like to read my prepared statement.
24 MR. WIGGINS:
That will be fine, i
25 MR. BLANCH:
I will make copies available t o'
_ =.. _ -.
I 18 I
the panel and othern membern of Northeast. Utilities.
2 MR. WTGGINS Before we atart, in order to 3
m a l. e it novo, if you would present your prepared 4
statement, and if it is beyond the five minute time b
frame we will go
- t. o the next individual.
6 MR. BLANCH:
I twink we are going'to lone 7
the train of thought, but 1 :. is your show.
8 Good evening, my name is Paul Elanch.
9 1 am Supervisor of Instrumentation and Control 10 Engineering for Northeast Utilities at the home office 11 in Berlin.
I am making this ntatement as a private 12 citizen and my opinions may or may not be consintent i'
13 with those of Northeant U t. i l i t. i e n.
I am here to 14 express my concerne about nuclear performance, not 15 only Mi11 atone, but the rest of the industry as they 16 relate also to the performance of plants, and 17 performance of the Nuclear Regulatory Comminaion.
18 Last spring I was requested by the 19 NRC's Inapector. General's Office to provide my 20 pernpective about the NRC=Special Review Group which 7
21 was transmitted to Mr. Ellis on April 6,
1992,-
22 chairman of Northeast-Utilities on: April 6',
1982.
23 This in the initial document which eventually resulted
(
24 in the acceptance of the Performance Enhancement 25 Program.
19 7
1 On April 20, 1992, my comments were
(;
2 formalized to the Inspector General in writing.
T 3
felt an though the recommendations for a Performance 4
Enhancement Program completely minned the t a r g e t..
In 55 my opinion the Performance Enhancement Program will 6
renuit in an e n o r m o u.n, a mti u n t of paperwork, demoralize 7
employenn, which it han already done and, divert.
8 c r i t. i c a l manpower renourcen from the more critical 9
nafety innues.
An I ntated to the Inspector 10 General...
"The nolution to NU'n problemn in not a 11 paper exercine related to the Performance Enhancement 12 Plan nor a reorganization that nhuffien four Vice 13 P r e s i d e n t.n.
It must be an e n t.i r e cultural change that 14 restoren the trunt a nel integrity at the uppermont 15 leveln within Northeant U t i l i t. i e n. "
16 After my communication with the NRC 17 Innpoctor General I had the opportunity of meeting 18 with Mr. Ellin to provide him with my viewn as to how 19 Northeast U t i l i t. d e n could bent improve our performance 20 without the large expenditure of vital manpower and l
21 ratepayer'n dollars.
In my opinion, there in3.M y one l
22 way to improve the performauce of NU pernonnel, and t
.23 that in to reinntill the morale, faith and trust in g
24 management.
With thin will come a significant 25 increase in productivity and a desire to become a team
,w g
a m
--p-.
~
v--
- - _ ~ - -. _
20 1
player, eventually-resulting in increased performance f
t.
2 and a true improvement in nuclear nafety.
Unlonn our
.3 PEP program in founded on a strong foundation of 4
trunt, i ntegrity and renpoct for our management a tid 5
NRC regulators, our true performance and safety'will 6
continue to deteriorate.
From my underntanding of the 7
PEP program, I have neon no sincere offor'. to attempt 8
to addreon
- t. h i n morale issue as a high priority and
-9 therefore, I see the entire progran an a complete 10 wante of money and manpower.
i 11 Due to the limited manpower available 12 to Northeast Utilition we can only react to the I
13 desiren of the NRC, whatever they happen to be at thin 14 particular moment.
An a renuit of thin reactionary 15 mode of operation we are not able to addreas the real 16 innuen, but only produce more meaninglens papqrwork 17 which will be lost in the filen forever.
18 With respect to the NRC'n ability ~ to 19 properly regulate the industry, they have been and 20 still are a complete failure.
We have a regulatory 21 organization concerned only about prov_iding an 22 illusion of action, and assuring that all paperwork is y
23 in order to' create good feeling in the eyes of the
~
4 24 general public.
It appears to many people that the 4
- 25 NRC's measurement of safety in based solely upon the~'
w m
-. -w.--.
w
.-p_,yy
,__.-t,_,
_rcy__7-..
21 l
1 amount of paper and not on t.h e actions of the J
t
?
licennee.
3 1 can provide many examples of thin
{
4 failure, but the two most prominent examples occurred 5
during the laat few months.
In May of thin. year, 6
Millstone Unit 3 personnel identified a potential i
7 error on one instrument which could have renulted in a 8
one-ha.lf inch (0.5 percent) error.
I was personally 9
criticized in an NRC inspection report because it took 10 me 13 whole dayn to finally resolve thin problem.
In l
l 11 the end there was no additional error, however, the 12 NRC still issued thin strong cri ti ci sm of my f
13 portormance.
To my knowledge, the NRC han still not 14 requested any other utility to address this problem.
15 Now contrant thin with a potential 30 16 foot (100 percent) error for the most vital instrument 17 on a boiling water reactor (BWR), and the NRC refuses 18 to require utilities to address'this particular 19 problem.
In June of this year, at the request of the 20 NRC, I personally identified the fact that reactor 21 level monitoring nystems and boiling water reactors 22 (BWR) would not function during~ accident conditions 23 for which they are required.
1-immediately reported
(
24 this to NU management, and prompt and r e s pon s'i bl e 25 action waa' taken to resolve this critical deficiency E
t w
m-e c
,.ey y-ge.----
.,m ies-r e
a-e-
'n.r e
m--
.y--
r-my-w
-%ye--rw-w r
MT1
'-1--
--7ew---'
--9-r 9P vi-w'--N'
"'*t' T
t-W'
22 I
at Hillatone Unit 1.
I applaud the people at 2
Millstone for this responsible action.
3 A t.
the name time, I reported this' 4
problem to the NRC which included personal discunnion 5
with Mr. William Runnell, the Director of Nuclear 6
Regulation in Wanhington, D.C.
This conversation 7
occurred i n mi d -J u n e'-o f this year.
After Mr. Runnell 8
ignored my plean to take action to notify other 9
utilition, a letter wan written on my behalf to the 10 Chairman of the NRC with copico to news media and 11 varioun memborn of the Congrena.
Only after
- t. h i a 12 drastic action did the NRC renpond.
13 Mr. Russell eventually called a meeting 14 on July 29th, 1992, approximately a m o n t. h and a half 15 atter my initial discunnionn this meeting was held in 16 Wanhington, D.C.
and he stated that he had junt become 17 aware of the magnitude of this inaue nine-days prior 18 to thin meeting.
This in a material false statement, 19 an I had two phone conversations with him in mid-June 20 about this very topic.
I alao met with members-of his 21 staff and your ataff related to.these identical 1
22 problem for PWR's.
If it-were a licennee making thin 23 type of faise statement there would be criminal oStion
(
24 brought against the licennee and individuals.
Becaune-25 there is accountability for this agency, the NRC, I
~
23
'p 1
don't expect any action an a result of thin
&J 2
intentional falne statement.
3 To f u r t h ri r demonatrate the 4
inettectivenean and total dinregard for nuclear safety
'S by the NRC, I have pleaded with them to determine'if 6
thene water level measuring devices are connidored 7
" operable" an defined by the plant licensee.
The NRC 8
han a b s o l u t. e l y refuned to even renpond to my written 9
requentn, which include requenta to the chairman, 10 becaune I believe they know that the responne to thin 12 q u e n t. i o n may result in the temporary abutdown of many 1
12 nuclear p l a n t. n.
13 The Millstone Unit I reactor level 14 measurement problem in one of the mont significant 15 nafety problemn identified over the pant few yearn.
16 This in the most vital instrument used during accident 17 conditions and in required by the plant technical 18 opecificationn.
Millatone's action was to 19 immediately declare these devices inoperable, and they 20 determined that the problem munt-be resolved ~priorsto 21 rentart.
Atter designing, installing and tonting a 22 technical colution to this vital issue, t'h e " N R C then 23 decided to inaue a violation because I personally 24 authorized a contractor to commence work prior to 4
25 formal innuance of a purchase order.
I
~
l 24 1
This in like a fireman risking hin life 2
naving to people from a burning building, only to have 3
the iire inapoctor innue a violation to him beenune 4
hin fire hone had not been tented in the last 30 dayn.
5 This.is the only, enforcement action taken'by4the NRC 6
on thin innue while 36 other boiling water reactorn 7
violate their licunne requirements and the NRC refunen 8
to requent any operability determination.
9 The reason I am bringing thene points
't 10 to the public attention in to demonstrate that the NRC 11 han no real int erent in nuclear naftey, but in only 12 interented in their public image.
The NRC holdn each i
13 licenne and individual renponsible for falne 14 statementa and wrongdoing but it appearn that no one 15 in will.ing to require any accountabili t.y of the NRC.
16 I am not alone in my views, and, in 17 fact, many NRC technical and management pernonnel have*
18 exprenned their fruntrationn to me with renpoct to 19 thin ineffective regulatory climate and actual 20 coverupa of nignificant natety innuen.
23 While the PEP program at NU wi11 have 22 nome benefits in arean requiring additional 23 documentation, I believe that it completely'minnen the'
(
24 target, which in inspire the NU individuala 25 renponsible for nuclear safety.
o i
I 25 m
1 It in the NRC that denperat.ely needn a
.3 2
Program to improve Mangement Performance to review all 3
potential nafety innues and entablish a p r i or i t.y ior 4
renolving thene major innuen.
They need to i
5 concentrate less on the perfection of paperwork >and 6
aggrenively addrenn the real nafety programn.
Do we 7
have any organization which will require a program Ior 8
the NRC or have they already achieved p e r f e c t. i o n an 9
they profenn?
10 I pray that the new administration will 11 recognize the potential vital contribution of nuclear 12 power and provide nome real leadernhip and direction 4^
13 for the Nuclear Regulatory Comminnion and the rent of 14 the induntry.
Thank you very much.
15 MR. W1GGINS:
-Thank you for your comments.-
16 Can 1 ank a question hefore you leave?
17 MR. f)LANCH:
Yen.
18 MR. WIGGINS:
On the banic topic of the 19 meeting you indicated that you believe that the' PEP 20 ought to focun more on building morale, building 21 loadorahip; in that an accurate characterization?
22 MR.
BLANCH:
That in my biggest problem wit.h '
23 the sntire Performance Enhancement. P r o g r a m.--
I realize l
24 it in a nmall part of the program.
An 1 nald to Mr.
25 Ellin last May. I believe t.h a t the entire program
-.. _. -...,. -.,~_
. _ _ _ ~ _ _. _ _ -.. -
26 1
needs
- t. o be based on a foundation, very atrong 2
foundation baned on t.r u n t and integrity, without that 3
we will have no improvement in performance in my 4
opinion.
- 5 MR. WIGGING:
In there in your mind any i
6 opecific t.h i n g s i t.
aught ~to have in it that it doesn't 7
have in order to approach thoac problems?
8 MR. BLANCll There have been a l o t.
of 9
studien done by varioun tankn forces within Northeast 10 Utili ti es which have identified po s i t.i v e and negative 11 aspects of things that contribute to morale and 12 performance.
There are various lists around.
I don't 13 have the namen of these tanks torces, but I think 14 there were nome very talented people that undertook 16 thin offort to look at the positive-negative thinga 16 with respect. to morale, how it could be improved.
17 Obviously there are very many human resource studien 18 how to improve morale, and the affect of morale.'
No.
19 I am not asking we get a 50 percent pay r a i s e'.
I 20 think the employees need recognition.
They'need*to 21 have total trust and confidence.
I am not an export.
22 I know there areiways to improve morale, and it la not 23 by rewarding our directors and additional bonus for a 24 Performance Enhancement Plan that does very, very 4
25 little for the morale of the working employees, my
~
- -J
27 I
employeen.
. -)
. a 2
MR. 111 000111 1 had a question really along 3
the name lines.
You said earlier i n your statement 4
that the PEP had already contributed to demoralizing 5
employeen.
I wondered how, i n 9 hat way in your 6
opinion.
7 MR. Ill, A N C il :
It io my belief, and my opinion 8
may be nomewhat biased, I admit that nome of the 9
people I have talked i. o. for instanen, this reward 10 program that was announced ior the directorn, and 11 above, who will get a bonun that in extremely 12 demoralizing to working people.
13 Some of the people 1 have talked to are 14 iecling that they are, again, perusing a lot of 15 meaninglenn paperwork just to provide the 16 documentation which will demonntrate to the pubide, 17 and to the NRC that our performance 10, in fact, 18 improving.
Performance to me in the increase in our 1
19 nafety ethic, and how nafely we can operate these 20
. plants, not how much yaperwork we can produce,~ not how ~ b 21
. much documentation we can-produce.
We apend hundreds 22 of millions of dollars every year, taxpayer's, 23 ratepayer'n dollars producing documentation which han 24 little or no benefit.
We have many programs that_'I 25 see contribute little to nuclear' safety.aa compared to l
w w-e-
wir
.w
--',w-r
- w n - rk'-
s-
-7 v
e Mr
'T'Y
28 1
the cost of running these programa.
2 MR.
111200 G11 :
Thank you.
3 MR. WIGGINB:
Thank you.
4 Donald W.
DelCore, Sr. followed by 5
Danny Galloway and Jay Bullivan.
6 MR. DEbCORE:
My name in Donald DelCore, Sr.
7 I reside at 4 Griawold Drive, Uncasville," Connecticut.
Il 1 am here on behalf of mynolf, and I don't reprenent 9
any particular entity.
I think as a former employee 10 of Northeant Utilition and one who has I guesn been 11 involved enough to be able to speak reanonably and 12 knowledgeable about the effects of enhancement i
13 programa, and what they should contain, I think that 14 it in important to note that, an Mr. Blanch did, that 15 I think probably the most. important aspect of any 16 Enhancement Program and I think a major emphanin in 17 that program should be on trust.-
And I will touch on 18 that in a few minuten to give you nome idean.
I don't 19 believe this particular program is doing much. ' ~
20 The other issue, and there are 21 banically two issues involved, one of them da 22 intimidation._
And I think people generally feel 23 intimidated, and become intimidated unon any situation j
24 where they determine the discrepancy to be, they 25 become aware of a discrepancy, and at that point they*
29 1
are intimidated
- t. o the point that. if they have noen
.J 2
ofher people hefare them being chantined, being ftred, 3
any iorm at a)) of any kind of intimidation or 4
diacrimination being displayed upon them, certainly it 5
chilin them to'the point that they will not c ois e 6
forward with the innuen that need to come forward to 7
enhance nuclear safety.
R And I think
- t. h a t in the pant becaune 1 9
rained many, many innuen in the past, and, in fact, am 10 a victim of thone circumntancen, I believe that the 11 people who are there now have to nee nome pu ni n hin en t,
12 and nome change in the organization, both the plant 13 administration, and the corporate administration, no 14 that they can again regain the confidence that if they 15 came forward with a problem, and nomebody intimidated 16 them, dincriminated against them, haranned them, 17 whatever, that they would feel the,prennure for doing 18 that to a pornon, and could be themnelven fired or 19 nome form, nome particular form of punishment put. to 20 that.
At thin point I don't think any of that han 21 taken place; and nurely over over the lant four yearn, 22 ponnibly five yearn that I am aware of, there have 23 been an enormoun amount of people that have come
~
24 forward and identified harannment, intimidation, 25 discrimination of all norta and formn.
I have,-an'Mr." *L
30 1
Sullivan no eloquently pointed out, watched-the 2
Nucinar Regulatory Commianion nit on i ts hands.
3 17, closing I would like t.o point out, 4
A, 1 think the Performance Enhancement Program needs 6
to be applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission _no 6
that they better accomplish their job, and hopefully 7
Senator Lieberman in this state who has antelatively 8
good clonenenn to the prealdent-elect Clinton would 9
possibly be able
- t. o exercine some of that pressure, 10 and get the NRC to knuckle under and start doing their 11 job.
12 As far as the enhancement program at 1
13 Millstone one of the issuen I think in very, very 14 important, and that you should hear, la that I have 15 communication, I continue to have communication with a 16 number of people who I formally worked with, and who I 17 formally have known as work acquaintancea at 18 Millstone, and many of them have come to me in my 19 recent communications with them,* and said, "Donny, 20 nothing ao changed.
We have this great' big 21 Performance Enhancement Program that i sscosting'the i 22 ratepayers, and the i ndividuals within the company
-23 enormous amounts of money and nothing han changed.
We
{
24 ntill don't have any confidence in the people who 25 kicked you out of there, and who are responalble for e
7
-r,-
m 3-r-w--
mea m
,-me-w__--
p ey
--m p
w
31 1
intimidating other people."
I personally have had
.p ia 2
calin ! rom a number of people who have been 3
i n t i in i d a t e d and I pornonally routed t h e rn to agencies 4
and individuals who I believe who can nupport them and 5
help them'without the public disclosure that I
(>
ouffered through the NRC.
7 80, gee, I think you need to do your 8
job.
I am not trying to publicly criticize you.
I am 9
just. saying that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission han 10 to t.a k e a ponition to protect. the whistle-blowers, han 11 ta take a pon d t.i on to a b n ol u t. e l y without qu es t i nn 12 annure t h a t.
there are no chilling offectn at those 13 plants no these people don't h e n i t.a t e to come forward.
14 When they don't see any action by the Nuclear 15 Regulatory Commiandon, and they don't see any I f>
puniahment to thone who inflicted it on too people in 17 the p a n t.
they are going to come forward.
I spent. 13 18 years at that ple qt I have been in the nuclear plant 19 at 30 years.
I ai a nupporter for nuclear power.
My 20 nupport for nucle \\r power has waned very, very 21 ntrongly against nuclear power becaune of the 22 nonregulation thst I see going on at the Nuclear 23 Regulatory Comminaion, especially in my particular 24 nituation.
Thank you for your time.
(
25 NR. WIGGINS:
Can I ask a question?
t 32 1
MR. DELCORE:
Sure.
(
2 MR. W1GGING:
You mentioned in your 3
discunnion you said that you need to-see change 1 4
think you said in the plant in the corporate 5
organization.
It-was unclear to me whether you were 6
auggenting change in behavior or changing, an actual 7
physical change of people.
Ilow sharp -in your view?
8 MR. DELCORE:
What you are saying in true in 9
both cases.
There needs to-be nome changen in 10 management all the way up that ladder, and changen in 11 the attitude of some of those people.
I think once 12 that in accomplinhed, and ao Paul pointed out, once i
13 you start to begin to bring back the t.r u n t in people, 14 the rent of the programa will take care of themnelves, 15 and everything wi)) get back to normal.
16 I have been in this buninonn for a long 17 time, while I haven't been a manager in a civilian 18 nuclear program, I was a manager in the Navy nuclear 19 program for many, many years.
'The key is trust and 20 communication.
And unfortunately when I first went to o 21 Millatone I had the trust and I had the communication.
22 But at some point around 1987 I saw them putting money 23 first and c u t. ti n g cornors.
And, incidentally, while T-24 am up here, and in response to your question it'is my 25 understanding from talking to two or three people that- :
t
~ _. _. _.
33 1
Unit 2 ia going to
(., on the line on the 22nd of 1 ;j 2
December come hell or high water.
And there are going 3
to be changen in personnel if those people can*t get 4
the plant on the line by the 22nd of December.
Let me b
- t. e l l you this, I went through this in 1988,
-I. watched 6
people have scheduled when that plant wan going to 7
come forward.
I brought up some problems with 8
radiation monitors in the control room.
That was the 9
beginning of my demise.
10 in my opinion nothing has changed from 11 1988, because the same thing in still going on.
And I l
12 think you'need to look at that, and addreas that.
We t'
13 have a Performance Enhancement Program.
It. doesn't 14 neem to be doing anything.
I think it is important 15 you people look into that.
16 MR. JAFFE:
Denny Galloway.
I 17 MR. GALLOWAy My name is Denny Galloway. I l
18 am from the Department of Environmental Protection 19 radiation control.
I want to say any time there is a 20 problem with performance we are naturally concerned.
21 And we are happy to see the NRC is happen take an 22 interest in this issue.
We. understand there'are some 23 improvements, and we hope there are more improvements 24 in the near future.
That in all I have to say.
25 MR. WIGGINS:
Thank you.
l l._
34 1
HR. JAFFE:
Mr. Jay Sullivan.
2 MR. GULLIVAN:
11 1.
I have been following 3
thin nuclear issue for quite a while.
Recently when 4
they tried putting a low level waste dump in town, 5
come to find out-that the high level waste dumps were 6
becoming chock full over at H111 stone I decided to 7
continue following this.
8 Now, I have been really surprised at 9
how many different panels did I have to go
- t. o that to 10 tell me that there is only a little fragment of this 11 problem that they can tackle, and that all the other 12 piecen lie with another panel or another cammittee, k
13 and I have been involved with this Unit 2 fuel pool 14 design change.
And we were down in New llaven today at 15 a prehearing conference on this issue.
And they are 16 trying to narrow this down to ket readingn and nuclear 17 fuel pool.
This wasn't even supposed to be there.
18 And over the yearn they have added more and more 19 nuclear material to what is'now a stockpile of apent 20 fuel pools.
And I don't fool that a Performance 21 Enhancement Program'that 18 just designed to make 22 everybody feel good is going to do anything.
Okay if 23 it is not going to protect'the public safety, l'f they 24 are going to still continue to release radiation at my
(
2h children's school when school is in session, if
't h e y '
l 1
_. _ _. _. _. _ _ ~ _. _ _ _ _._-
36
'7 1
don't tell me when thone radiation releanen are going b;
2 on no that if I choone 1 can leave town thin in junt a 3
nham.
1 feel that my rightn are being violated.
1 4
feel thin in a nevere abune of power.
Okay.
And T S
. fool that you are part of the peopl e = that-are' nupposed 6
to be protecting the citizenn from thin abune of power 7
not naking me feel good about it.
8 Some of the quentions that I anked I g
haven't been able to get much of an annwer.
Ilow the 10 heck do I get out down by Ocean Beach when the wind in 11 blowing out of
- t. h e southwest if there in an accident?
12 There in no way I can get out without being nont right 13 through the radiation cloud if thin ever did happen, 14 if thene guys don't have it together and ntart 15 releaning radiation.
Okay, I feel that an evacuation 16 plan that te11n me that they might send my children 17 home, they even might nond them to Wetherafsold, they 18 might. keep them at the school.
I don't know what they l
.19 are going *to do.
They nay don't call, don't go to the l
20 nchool.
They might nond me to Wetheraffeld.
They 21 might. nond my kida home.
I can't imagine going to 22 Wethernfield on an evacua tion plan and finding-out 23 they did nomething eine with my kida.
I feel that the
{
24 whole innue han to be conno11 dated instead of creating
~'
25 all these different committeen to do a little^ piece.
36 1
'They need to get one King of Prussia to deal with
- l 2
thin, addrons all thene insues at the same time and 3
not splinter them.
4 I feel Northeast c'a n run a competent 5
plant over there.
I know many people that workeover 6
there.
I feel confident what,I hear from them.
^7 Unduly burdening them, Northeast Utilities with all 8
thin wante.
It in not a finished technology until you 9
do this job and get this waste somewhere safe, 10 reprocean it, put it away.
11 One of the things I have bnen looking 12 into with all of this defense divernification, can't 13 they get some of these contractors to detine and build 14 something for this nuclear waste?
I know EB is 15 starting to get involved in that.
Are you guys 16 involved in trying to take care of this waste that 17 wasn't supposed to happen?
We are now arguing about 18 kof factors, and things like that about something that 19 nhouldn't even have been here.
I* feel *that:you,have 20 to addrean all these issues and not splinter them out.
21 And I feel that we can get.together on'this/ rand make 22 that a safe place.
I live here, but';I don'.t:like to 23 go sailing or be out around that plant.when.'they are 24 releasing radiation.
I feel I should know that.
If I g
25 feel it is a hazard to be there or my children I can
37 1
1 leave, take them out of nehool.
If the wind is
.J 2
blowing at the ochool I don't want them releasing it 3
at my kida, if I can pull them out of school I will do 4
it.
1 don't know when they are doing it.
I need the i
S information.
Why can't we be provided it?
-C a n' '
6 somebody tell me that?
Why can't we be informed when 7
they are releasing radiation at me, or when bhose 8
batch releases are going on so I can leave town for a 9
day?
In there nomething wrong with that?
10 MR. WIGGINS:
Nothing wrong with it.
Il MR.
HUhLIVAN:
With being involved an to 12 when they'are releaning ini'ormation, and radiation, 13 and what direction the wind da blowing, if it in 14 blowing at me or nomebody eine they can leave town if 15 they want.
That ja performance.
Make it safe for us.
16 Don't make it a feel good thing going around the plant 17 and not do anything to protect the public interest.
18 You have a major nuclear waste pit sitting on'an 19 entuary on bong Island Sound.
Do you plan on @ ing 20 that?- There is.another panel or board that41s 21 eventually going to clean.up this waste.
Unti") you do 22 it nuclear power is not. controlled, it is only 23 contained.
The whole object of nuclear power is to l
24 control it.
10,000 years is a long time.
Countless' I
25.
civilizations have disappeared in 10,000 years which l
-. - -. ~. _
38 i
1 would put that, stuff in a half life, llo w do you 2
expect that world to go on?
The United States han i
3 been here for 200 yearn, and now you have to keep 4
nomething.
Who in going to do this?
When are you 5
going to get started onti t?
When is somebody+ going to y
6 get their heads out of the aand and do something?
7 MR. WIGGINS:
Let me.take a second and nee 8
if I understand what you are saying and how it applien 9
- to what. we are doing here tonight.
I guesa 1 heard a 10 comment with regard to abould there be nome type of Il mechaniam to notify the public of releason.
I annume 12 you are talking about planned releasen of --
/
I 13 MR. SULLIVAN:
Planned releases.
14 MR. WIGGINS:
It should be no mystery to 15 anybody here that the nuclear power plants do releane, 16 planned releanes.
Certainly if there are accidental 17 releason that are made they are reportable'to un.
If 18 it in of a high enough level to be a public problem 19 there are emergency planning provisions to take care 20 of it, which bringa me to the next statement you made.
21 You brought to light a concern with regard to' 22 emergency planning provisions.
-You talked about 23
- evacuation from Ocean Beach.
You talked about the
{
24 evacuation of the people.
I guesa you are saying l
25 there may be a difference between plann for people en--y---e..<e---i-_r
.---w
+
w
.r y
e--
,-ww"-
--w w
y mm
--- --. *----h-
_ _. - ~
39 1
living in the commu n i t.y, and the plans for the school i
La 2
children in the community, such that individuals could 3
end up in two different places.
4 MR. SULLIVAN:
There is that, that is part
- 5
-of it.
6 MR. WIGGINS:
You brought up a concern about 7
the waste, nuclear waste situation.
That is clear to 8
me what your points are.
Do you have anything else 9
with regard to the En h a n c ern e n t Program itself?
10 MR. GULLIVAN:
I am more concerned is it l
11 really an Enhancement. Program?
Does it address all 12 the nafety issue or just a feel good thing to make k
13 people feel good about what t.h e y are doing and keep us 14 public in the dark so we don't know what is going on?
15 Because I feel that my rights are being coinpromised 16 here.
I live about. three miles west of that.
So 1 am 17 in jeopardy, and 1 believe that there should be water 18 evacuation bcats.
There could be one down by Ocean-l 19 1 Beach where they have that Alewife, program.'7There L
20 should be large amounts of people out of'-there.
They 21 have ferry boats.
They have the" Navy down There.
22 They need to get those people out.
If it was an 23 easterly' wind they need someplace at Black Point to 24 get those people out.
25 And we are talking about flawed ^plantu
4 40 1
that don't work.
We are talking about buses that 2
aren't at the school that couldn't be brought there if 3
there was a plant emergency,'because nobody would 4
drive them into that cloud.
In order to have an 5
evacuation plan that works you have to have buses at 6
the nearest schools, and teachers that could drive 7
them to get the kids out of there.
I know they are 8
out of there.
Not that somebody would drive a bus 9
into radioactive cloud and bring them home.
That 10 alarm goes off you hear that guy gurgling over_the PA 11 system every Saturday or once a month.
You can't 12 understand what that thing is saying.
If there was an l
A 13 actual emergency people would think it was just a
~"
~
14 test.
1S MR. WTGGIN8:
We can spend a lot of time i
16 going over how emergency planning provisions work 17 that--
18 MR. SULLIVAN:
I want to know you are doing-19 your job to protect my interest.
20 MR. WIGGINS:
There is more than you and us -
21 in this issue here.
22 MR. SULLIVAN:
Excuse me?
23 MR. WIGGINS:
There=are a number of parties
{
24 involved in the emergency planning process.
25 MR. SULLIVAN:
I know, they are all y
-e.-
.,,-7.. _... - -.
,p-
.s,--
-,..--,.....-.y
41
- 77 1
fragmented, a different panel for them.
Is nomebody 5J 2
in charge of this whole mean or in-it delegated out to 3
a million people?
4 MR. WIGGIN8:
We don't need to get anto that 5
today here, that wasn't the purpose of the. meeting.
6 Are there any other commento you have with regard to 7
.the plan?
8 HR.
SULLIVAN:
I think they are doing a 9
reanonable job.
I think Northeast is doing a 10 reasonable job.
Try to prove the performance of these il planto, 1 think they can be run safely if they are not 12 taking all this nuclear garbage.
They nhouldn't have 13 to be responsible for the nucioar waste.
You have a 14 site that isn't safe.
It should be taken care of.
15 They abould be making canistera a t.
E I) to contain this 16 no we have a future, to prove nuclear power is safe, 17 that 3t could be be controlled, not just contained, 18 controlled for a long time, 10,000 years.
i 19 MR. CHAIRMAN:
Thank you very auch..T We"have 20 no further cardo.
Any other individuals in#the 21'
. audience that would be interested'in speaking?
22 A VOICE:
I was curious why his first 23 question wasn't answered why you cant let the public 24 know there will be a release?
25 MR. WIGGINS:-
Let me see if there are any
42 1
other comments, and maybe we can try -to respond to 2
that.
I was going to take that as a comment on the 3
program.
4 MR. CARTER:
I would like to make one 5
statement, if -there-are'any; questions, call Chernobyl.
6 This in not a case of it, it is when.
7 MR. WIGGINS:
In answer to the' question 8
about public notification of release let me give you 9
the ntraight answer and tell you right now you 10 probably aren't going to like it.
I will tell you 11 what the rules are.
We have taken some shots here 12 tonight from people, that is fine.
People are due 1*
13 their opinion about things, including how the utility 1
14 performs and how we do our job.
And we take what you 15 say seriously.
You may or Nay not believe that.
16 There are a number of us that are sitting right here 17 that take our jobs serious.ly, and take public 18 criticism seriously.
We don't shove it off.
I will 19 just state that, 'and. leave Lit at that.
20 In term of the question about public 21 notification of releases, let's start at-the high end, 22 and work down to.the low end.
Again, if the' release 23 is of'a nature ~that da a significant h e a l th = h~a z a rd, a -
g 24 significant hazard to the people in the area those 25 releases are high enough they start in the emergency
43 3
procean.
There are reporting requirementa that
- g i
&J 2
utilitien have that require them to tell it to us, 3
tell us what is going on, require them to talk to the 4
state so the stato can talk to your local people.
And S
your local management, your local emergency personnel, 6
police, fire people can be engaged in actions needed 7
to provide reasonable annurance of protection.
'That 8
to real high end-type stuff.
9 you get down into the lower end of dt, 10 thone plants are given a licenne to operate.
That in 11 how the legal system han been given to us by Congrens 12 an the framework that we operate under.
Part. of that I
13 licenne includen limits of release.
]f the releanen 14 are within thone limits there are no requiremento that 15 we have that they notify un as the release in
~
~
16 occurring or notity anyone else.
They just aren't 17 there.
The requirements aren't in'the regulationn, 18 they aren't in the license.
There are requirementn t19 for reports over broad periods of time.
Six-months 20 there la a semi-annual report that is available to 21 you.
All you have to do is go to*the l ocal + public 22 library-and read that.
23 MR. BULLIVAN:
I don't understand"vky*they 24 can't delay the stuff until the wind changes, if it is j
25 blowing at my kids school I can't accept-that.
I know"
~
44 1
how much they can release without having to report it 2
to the public.
I sure wouldn't want to be around it.
3 HR. WIGGINS:
They have to report releases 4
that they make on'at least a semi-annual basis in a
'S composite report to us.
And that report is made -
6 publicly available.
That is r c i.11 y not response to 7
the concern you'have.
The concern.you have as I 8
underst.and it is if they are ready to make a release 9
you would like
- t. o have some vehicle where you would to know that is about to occur; in that not the case?
I 11 MR. SULLIVAN:
That would be a nice way to 12 test out the planning system to see if it really works k
13 11 people choose 11 they want to leave, test it out, 14 don't just say it works.
15 MR. WIGGINS:
That p a r t.
is not one of the 16 requirements that we place on any piant.
That is just 17 nat in our set of requirements.
18 MR. DEhCORE:
The real answer to his 19 question, in terms'of a: boiling water reactor they are 20 discharging all the time,'365 days a year.
They are 21 discharging every day.
You can't avoid it.
22 MR. WIGGINS:
For one of the units / yes.
23 HR. DELCORE:
The other units ~ discharge, the 24 boilers always discharge.
g 25 MR. SULLIVAN:
I learned something.'
They
45 1
have been keeping that information from me for how iJ 2
many yearn?
3
~MR.
WIGGINS:
It is not a sectet.
The type s
1 4
of release in not, the type of release that in made 5
and the amount that in released in moct is not 6
expected to have a nignificant pubjic health hazard.
7 MR.
S U l; L I V A N :
You are saying that in an 8
allowable limit of the amount of poinon you can put in 9
nomebody'n coffee?
10 MR. WIGGINS:
There in an allowable releano 11 at power plantn.
12 MR. SULLIVAN:
In there any way it can't be i
i 13 releaned more often no I can leave?
14 MR. WIGGINS:
It in not required.
15 MR, S ilL L I V A N :
What are you guys doing?
16 MR. W1GGINS:
It in not needed.
17 MR.
StiLLIVAN:
3f you can't change the I
18 rulen--
.11 9 MR. WIGGINS:
It in not needed.
l; 20 MR. 8 tfL L I V A N :
I think'it ^in needed,"tou are
~
L 21 afraid you are going to panic the public.
I
.22 MR. BLANCH:
May I try to respond in'a' 23 ponitive manner?
24 MR. WIGGINS:
Yen.
25 MR. B L A N C il :
Again, I am one of the first m
46' 1
persons who were'wi11ing to criticize the Nuclear 2
Regulatory Commission.
I hope this gentleman wil, 3
believe what I said.
I have been with Northeaut 4
Utilities over 20 years.
-I worked on Millstone Unit S
1, Unit 2 and Unit 3.
Approximately 15,418 years ago 6
Millstone Unit 1,
which is the only plant that ever 7
releases any signifi-cant amount of ra d ioa c ti vi ty into~
8 the atmosphere, and it is in the form primarily of a
9 noble gas activity, which does not have any harmful 10 effect, low concentrations.
11 Back in the mid
'70's I believe it was y
12 a significant modification was made to Millstone Plant i
13 1 in the form of an off-gas s y o '. e m, which I believe 14 relerned the amount of radioactive material that was 15 released from the plant by a factor of at leas
- a 16 thousand, probably greater than that.
Even pr 3r to 17 that modification-there was no measurable radiation 18 down wind except under certain wind conditions.
Once
- r
-19 in a-while Electric-Boat picked up some on-their 20 radiometers.
It was very, very insignificant.s If this gentleman is really' concerned
-21 22 about-radiation, the amount that is released and its
-23 affect is immeasurable with respect to the general
(
24 public under normal conditions.
There are no 25 i n s t. r u m e n t s that can measure any of this r a d i-a ti on,
47 1
1 gasecun radiation outside of the pl ant boundarden ba 2
during normal conditions.
If he has really a concern 3
I think he needs to study the effects of radiation, 4
and the amount of radiation actually being released.
5 An I say, if there is cri ti ci sm to come out of thin 6
meeting I wi14 he the first one to come forward.
As 7
far an the dangers of the r adi a ti on due to the noble 8
gases being releaned from the plant I r:n r.io n a l l y don't 9
noe any danger.
I hope that comforts him a l i t.tl e 10 bit.
11 MR. SUbblVAN:
What about all the nuclear 12 fuel poole?
I have been t.o l d by Northeast officials 4
4 13 they have do, they have filtering systems when they 14 get out. of the pools they release
- t. o the atmosphere.
15 The problem in you are going to ke7p more and more 16 there.
They are going to keep releaning a little.
In 17 that how they are going to get rid of it?
W is c n are 18 they going to finish the job of controlling the atom?
19 When are you going to finish your job of control.ng 20
~the atom?
Are you going to-let it leak"out~somehow, 21 and tell everybody it is oafe?
22 MR. WIGGINS:
Any other comments?.
23 Sir, state your name so we can 24 recognize you.
j 25 MR. FONTAINE:
Raymond Fontaine.
I retired
)
48 1
from Northeast Utilities about two and a half years 2
ago after 21 years in Unit 1 here in Millstone.
For 3
the first six years I was in the operations 4
department.
And then I was never nuclear-trained so I 5
went into thexmaintenance' department as electrical 6
maintenance, and then later maintenance technician
=
7
.doing paperwork.
8 Now, you are talking about morale.
In 9
the beginning when you wanted to do something repair a 10 job or whatever, made out a little one-page il maintenance request, gave it to the mechanics, 12 electricians, out they went, did tha job
- nd you 13 tested equipment, okay.
That was it.
You would file
~
14 the paper away.
Now, if something goes wrong the 15 operationa deparment has to make out a work order, 16 which in several pages, that goes down to the-17 maintenance department, another work >out order is made.
18 out.
The last.I knew there was not three pages, but 19 four'pages of'each page.
Then you'have'to'go get the 20 control room =to sign it,. approve of it, get equipment 23 tagged out, which is' logical, a safety t hi ng, r bu t i
22 getting pretty involved to do your jobsover there.
23 That is one of the reasons tha? I g
24 decided to leave.
It was just getting, the paperwork 25 was getting too involved.
And if you are-talking
49 i
1 a b o u t. morale and trust, all right, you call a guy up J
2 at 2:00 in the morning, night like this, raining, 3
anowing, whatever.
lie geta up.
11e come n in.
He 4
figuren, well, he can get that job done in a half an
,-5 hour. - Phen you heve to wait for HP to check out'the 6
area, which I go along with, some arean are hot, 7
radiation, everything else, some areas are pret ty 8
clean.
You go in with your street clothes on, no 9
problem.
But then a l o t.
of times you have 1o waii for
^
10 necurity to come in and unlock the gate or nomething, 13 and let you in.
Now, if they t.r u s t you enough to come 12 in and repair a piece of equipment, vital equipment, J
13 no m a t t. e r what it is, nome of thene guarda in the 14 necuiity department, some of them can even write their 36 own name, and some of them are not too amart., and I am ~
16 talking from experience.
So then you have to wait for 17 these guys.
In the meantime, whatever ia broken down 18 in just nitting there.
And then, well, then you have 19 the whole job done, and in and out of your work
. 20 clothes, and everything else.
And then before you can 21 go home, maybe five, 6:00 in the morning,'you;have to 22 Iinish all of this paperwork, because;as the old story 23 goes "That is the way the NRC wants i t '. *
~'
4 24 The NRC is the hoogeyman of nuclear 25 energy or so-called boogeyman.
The name way-with the '
- - - =.
50 1
security department.
You want to go in somewhere?
2 "Oh, you can't go in there."
' "Why not?"
"Well, the s
3 NRC regulations say you can't go in there, their 4
rules."
"het me read the rule book."
"Oh, no, you 5
can*t see that, that is security."
You are beating 5
your head against the wall over there.
7 It is a good place to work.
I enjoyed 8
it.
I enjoyed every year I was there.
And it is just 9
getting where a lot of these men who are very devoted 10 to the company, Northeast Utilities, are getting very 11 discouraged, because I have talked to them recently.
12 And you are going to lose an awful lot of good people I
13 over there with a lot of knowledge.
What it is going 14 to do, it is going to hurt the plant, because you are 15 going to have to get new people in there to replace 16 them.
And these people don't know where all the 17 little ni t ty-gri tty corners, and everything else are.
18 And so I think if you maybe try and cut 19 down some of this-paperwork that everything'hascto be 20 documented.
You can't go to the men's room without 21 being documented almost.
And it'is just getting out l
22 of hand.
The definitlon of an elephant is a mouse i
23 built to government speci-fications.
And the same way 1
(
24.
here, then the paperwork goes up to nuclear' records.
25 And they microfilm it all.
And then it gets sent up
51 q
1 to Berlin.
That in another added cost.
l_J 2
And then another thing about the public 3-fear.you should do more to educate the public on 4
nuclear energy.
You mention'you work at a nuclear
.,5 power house the'first thing people rthink'of is the big 6
mushroom cloud.
That in what they figure this thing 7
in.
It la not.
It is controlled power.
8 And I don't know if you any of you 9
people read the Hartford Courant, that is the paper 10 that I get every day.
Whenever something happena 11 either at Millstone or at Haddam Neck it la always on 12 the obituary page, seems that either they hate 13 Northeast. Utilities or they just don't understand 14 nuclear power, but that seems to be where they put-it 15 all the time.
16 And I think that Northeast Utilities, 17 and NRC could flo m o r e to educate the general public,
'eople who work there know what it is.
T 18 becaune the p
19
.mean, they-work vith-it all the time, respect : i t.
And 20 because I have been in overy part of that plant, 21 radiationwise, and everything eine, I-am not aware of 22 it, but'I respect it.
It never killed m e,- and no I'
.2 3 think that to do more for the public and the morale of '
24 the people working there, do more about making it 4
25 easier for the person to do his job, not'to-hinder
52 I
him,- because you have to go through so many different
(
2 channels, and everything else, to get your job done.
3
'And if this gentleman back here who was 4
concerned, if he looks in his phone book there is a 5
section in there, -Bouthern -New England Telephone' phone 6
book, two or three pages which tell what to do in a 7
nuclear power emergency within a 10-mile radius.
And 8
also there are the alarm systems mounted on strategic 9
power line poles around which give an alarm in case.
10 Also, 1 guess there are radio stations, and stuff, il that wi11 inform the public.
12 So if you want the morale over there, 13 all through M i l l s t.on e, and other plants to improve put 14 more truct in the workers.
They are going to go out 15 and do a job.
Let them do i t..
Don't hinder them with 16 a bunch of rules and regulations, you can't do this or 17 you can't do that.
Let them do the dob, and get the 18 plant running.
I have been"through every kind of 19 shutdown over there.and-we"have always managed to get 20 it going again.
We never killed anybody.
21 MR. CARTER:
That is not true.
22 MR. WIGGIN8:
Excuse me.
Wait.
We are 12 3 interested in what you said.
Let me see if I'can g
24 understand the thrust of the comments that you made, 25 basically something that I think may be meaningful for ~~
53 7
1 what. We are here tonight, you. talked of a lot of.
b 2
paperwork, and a lot of interfacon you have to go 3
through in order to get work done.
I t.
sounds'to me 4
the concern you are addronning something along the 54
.line the officiency of Lthe work process, 'and the'<:f a ct 6
it in hard to get work done with all the 7
administ.rative things that have to be done, a 8
motivating influence in the work force.
9 MR. FONTAINE:
R i g h t..
I t.
wouldn't. reduce 10 the officiency it would just speed up
- t. h e repair of 11 whatever the job han to be done.
12 MR. WIGGINS:
Thank you.
Any additional i
13 commentn?
14 MR. SULLIVAN:
I would like to comment on 15 that a little about the warning.
I was outside I 16 believe Monday they iired off a tent niren in Eant 17 Lyme here.
I couldn't understand a word he >w a n 18 naying.
You can't even hear.
You are lucky enough to 19 hear somebody saying this in a test.' Then that'is l
20 great.
I f-it in an - actual emergency-you can hardly i
21 hear jt.
How do you know if-they say it is at e n t.
or l
22 not?- The other thing about this emergency l
23 instructions in the yellow page front of t.h e - p h o n e 24 book, two and.three of the yellow pagen.
I flipped
{
25 through 32 pagen of yellow index.
What are people-L
G4 1
going t.o do when that says two and three and it is on 2
33 and 34?
4 3
MR. WIGGINS:
Back to that siren.
Can you 4
give~us-an approximate address or location?
5 MR. SULLIVAN:
I was in East Lyme'by Mr.
P's
+
6 Package Store.
7 MR. WIGGINS:
Do you have a street?
8 MR. SULLIVAN:
Flanders R o a d tur 'Tr a v e ]
9 Lodge, and I believe they fired it off Saturday.
I 10 could hear it from where I was in Waterford, but'over 11 there I couldn't hear it.
All I could hear is a bunch 12 of gurgling, barely make out somebody's name and I
13
" tent."
14 MR. WIGGINS:
Do we know where that is?
15 Flanders Road by the Travel Lodge in 16 Eant Lyme.
Any other comments?
17 MR. CARTER:
I have a couple of responses.
18 One about the Hartford Courant and where they-publish.
49 If a story is= pro Nor tth e a s t ' U t-i l'i ti e s it is-written up 20 by Sue Kinsman and it gets front'page" coverage
,2 1 s t a t e w i~d e.
If-it is negative, if it is negative'it
?
-22
.gets written-up by a cubareporter, in my case-it was 23 Ellen Nachashema., and;gets-buried in:Section~D page
{
24 six local news and bulletin.
As far as 25 MR. WIGGINS:
- So what sho"?d we take.away o*I
55 1
from that?
Surely you don't expect us to control the i
kJ 2
editorial part_of a newspaper, do you?
3 MR. CARTER:
I am stating that NRC, 4
Northeast Utilities in in collusion to bury the truth
'5~
'. o f tu h a t - i s going on wi'thithe attempt +by Northeast 6
Utilities to monopolize the energy system in New 7
England.
And in answer to Mr. Sullivan's -question 8
about escape routes, you won't see an escape route in 9
New Isondon because Northeast Utilities which just 10 acquired Seabrook, which is as hazardous as this dump 11 over here, Northeast in not going to provide an escape 12 down here because there is none at Seabrook.
And l
13 Seabrook, gentlemen, is your backup for the north when 14 this place doen go.
So don't expect --
15 MR. WIGGINS:
I don't understand that p o i n t~. '
16 I don't understand how Seabrook in the backup for 17 Millstone.
I don't understand that.
Can you t el l -m e 18 what that is?
W49 MR. CARTER:
I am sorry-you don't understand 20 that-since' yon, Mr. Wiggins, are~such'ancofficial in 21 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
22 MR. WIGGINS:
Can you restate it why it is a 23 backup for it?
24 MR. CARTER:
What I am stating is that g
25 Northeast Utilities is very aware -of the hazards at
' 1"
56
-I Millstone Point.
They are aware of the corruption in 2
management and labor and they are quite happy with i t ',
3 because this place in making money for them, enough 4
money to buy off politicians and attorneys and
-5 newspapers.
I said I wanted to respond to some.of the 6
questions.
I would love Sue Kinnman to publish my 7
story on the front page of the-Hartford Courant.
I
~
8 attempted to get a reporter from the Hartford Courant 9
thin past week and was threatened with arrent if
'I 10 didn't leave.
And Sue Kinnman told me at that time 11 that nhe would attempt to corrobolate nome of my 12 allegations.
I would love nome renponse.
Thank you.
13 MR. WIGGINS:
Any further commenta?
14 MR. BENEDICT:
In your opening comments you 15 said that the NRC would danne a responne and 16 evaluation of the DEP.
Can you give un an approximate 17 time frame?
18 MR. WIGGINS:
Early next year, very early, c
l'9 MR. BENEDICT:
- January, February?"
20 MR. WIGGINat In that time frame.
That in 21 what I would anticipate.
I~ don't'say that;to'suggest 22 we already know the' answer.
That would be what 1 23 would think to be the" earliest time we would be in a 24 position to say that we accepted the plan if we
'~
.25 accepted it.
Our normal proccan is'if we had some
'/
l l
57 1
questions or problems with what has been offered to us g i
&J 2
by the utility there would be a deliberative process 3
that would go over time, and it would delay 4
acceptance, just like any other licensing act.
But
.S' our schedule, the schedule we*are internally-keeping 6
for our reviewn assuming the reviews come up favorably 7
would indicate a report early next year, January,
~
8 February.
9 MR. WIGGINS:
Yes, sir, Mr. DelCore.
10 MR. DELCORE:
Is there going to be some kind 11 of a renponne?
You took our name and addrees.
12 MR. WIGGINS:
There wasn't an intent to 13 respond individually, no.
What we would intend to do 14 is to take the transcript, and to review it.
There 15 are some good comments that have been provided here, 16 and we, as I naid earlier, have provided some issues
~
17 to Northeant Utilities tu a letter, and we asked, 18 "Here are our issues as we see them, tell us-how your 19 plan addressas those?"
What we determined was to 20 decide whether.there were-no issues we'vould propose 21 or do nome looking ourselves.
Certainly when we issue
.2 2 a report on our accents plan what we happened'here 23 would be considered, here is what we looked at, here 24 is what we included.
t 25 MR. DELCORE:
The reason I ask I--
58 1
MR. WIGGINS:
You don't have to worry about 2
that.
We have done this type of thing before.
We are J
-going to put the tra n scrd pt in the libraries where we 4
put the plan.
We are going to put our report in-the
.5 13brary also.
. Hopefully"the Idbraries will
-k e e p ed t.
6 We have gone out beyond normal.
You know we have the 7
document at--the library.
We went:beyond the five 8
libraries so these attendant documents would be 9
available.
If you can't 1ind it if you want to see i t-10 if you get in touch with us we will try to make 11 arrangements.
12 MR. BLANCH:
I would like to make another II 13 constructive comment.
14 MR. WIGGINS:
Sure.
15 MR. BLANCH:
And this relates to 16 performance, not only performance at our nuclear power 17 plants, but also comments within the Nuclear
~~
18 Regulatory Commission.
All of us are working by 10 t
19 CPR 19 to-bring issues of deficiencies 4 forward to 20 either management or to the NRC's attention.
"W e have
]
21
.a legal obligation to' bring these issues ~ forward,- and 22 we bring them forward with.the understanding-that s'
23 t h e r e. :w i l l be no retaliation for bringingt any_of these 24 issues forward, no matter how small or big these 4
25 issues happen to:be.
We are provided supposedly
59 1
protected under 10 CFR Title 57.
If you are working i
,bJ 2
for another manpower licensee it is 30.7.
3 I have had many discussions with 4
members of the U.S.
Congress and Senate about this, 5
and also the Inspector General.
The process 6
paperworkwine looks real good.
It says if,you
'7 perceive that you have received harassment, 8
intimidation, retaliation or bringing forth a safety 9
concern one may, and I stress the word "may" go to the 10 lederal department or U.S.
Department of Labor, not an 11 absolute requirement.
12 The reason that that provision was put 13 in there is for those people who have suffered damage 14 an a result of being terminated from their employer.
15 Only the Department of Labor has the authority to 16 reinntate them.
That in a reason that provision in
[
17 put in there.
There is no requirement to go to the 18 Department of Labor.
1.9 In my situation I perceived &and'wlleged 4
20 I had been retaliated against, but I did not suffer 21 any punitive damages from a result of being demoted 22 other than I had definitely received retallation.
I 23 was told by what's his'name here, Mr. Raymond here, go 24 to the Department of Labor.
Well, the Department of 25 Labor investigated my situation, even though they do
l 60 1
not have professional investigators, they are not 2
trained.
They happened to find in my favor that I 3
'was, in fact, retaliated against for raising =a safety 4
concern.
And then after that decision came down from
-b the*Federe1' Department o f - La bor, '3 N or t h e a s t _sUt i l'i ti e s 6
decided to appeal this.
7 This was about two and a half years 8
ago.
That whole process has still not been acted on 9
by the Secretary of Labor.
I am still hanging in 10 limbo waiting for a decision from the Secretary ot Il Labor to sign a document.
She refuses to do ao even 12 after Senator Lieberman has sent letters.
This 13 process does not work.
Congress has recognized it 14 does not work.
15 The energy bill just signed by 16 President Bush within the last two weeks, part o f~
a 17 provision of the new energy bill which is one-step 1-8 licensing was a provision wh3ch strengthened the 19 provision for whistle-blowers.
It lengthened the time
-20 from 30 days to I'believe i t-i s - n ow t18 0 ~ d a y s.
Jomeone 21
-h a s to apply to the Department of Labor.
22
'The most important. provision-Ib 90 tid-
.23 advocate to both Senator Lieberman'and other 24 congressmen and also in the Inspector General is to' g
25 require the NRC to investigate these particular I
I
1 6
(
'7 1
allegations of retaliation against individuals.
It k;
2 doen happen.
This in the only regulation that I am 3
aware of within 10 CFR that the NRC sends it over to 4
another totally ineffective bureaucratic agency called 5
<theiDepartment of babor,.which will-neverado5anything.
6 Why can't the NRC enforce its own regulationn?
It in 7
only NRC internal policy that providea them'from 8
looking into retaliation?
Yes, I got big 9
investigation because retaliation in the inventigation 10 was oc severe.
Three years later I am waiting for a 11 decision from the NRC and Department of 1, a b o r.
12 The point I am trying to get at, it we I
13 want to stop this chilling offect, and people to come 14 forward with nafety concerna, let's make the procean 15 work.
If they do receive retaliation Int'the NRC come 16 in and investigate that retaliation in a timely 17 fashion because of apparent pressure from the NRC.
18 This provision of the energy bill that was recently
~ 19 signed, the provision 7that requiredrt'he-NRC to
.420 inventigate was removed from'the bill.
- Now,
.I don't i
i 21 know who removed i=t.
It4was probably somebody, a l
l 22 utility lobbyint or NRC ; influenced.
We no longer have l
__2 3 that provision.
The'NRC a ti ll h a s mo responsi bi'i i-ty~
^
24 by their internal policy to investigate retaliation.
g E
MR. WIGGINS:
That la^not true.
I can 25
\\
62 1
understand that you may disagree with how things 2
transpired in your case, and how things transpire in 3
-general. -The stateloont you-made is not true.
4 MR. BLANCH:
They investigate some.
S t
-NR.
WIGGINS:
The statement -you'just'made'is 6
not true.
The NRC, there are provisions as Mr. Blanch 7
says, regulations that talk to how-we deal with those 8
that we regulate, not the individual who feels 9
aggrieved by the company.
We have as you said, t h e r e' 10 are two regulations they cited 50.7, 30.7.
Those 11 regulations say that a company, a licensee of the NRC 12 cannot retaliate in terms of harassment, fi 13 discrimination for one of its employees, c o n t r a c t o r's,
14 whatever, the reason that that individual brought up a 15 safety concern, either to them or to us.
That is 16 basically what it is getting at.
That is what the 17 rule is.
18 Now, where do we come out?
What the 19 NRC. contract is looking at thesuti=11 ties company, if 20 the individual is subject to -intimidation or 21 dincrimination or retaliation there is another' federal 22 agency, the Department of Labor, that makes^that 23 individual whole.
That is their purpose to make the d
24 individual whole.
The NRC deals with the company 25 naying if you are found to have exhibited this type of 4
63 4.
I an act you violated our requirements and you -go after
y ;
iJ 2
the company.
There are two investigations that take
.3 place.
.I t is'not in our regulatory authority to" s
4 require a company to do anything with regard to any
.5 employees.
We can't order a reinstatement.
4 Ttv is 6
illegal for us to do that.
However, if the act.that 7
occurred is a violation of our requirements thatnthe 8
company committed We would go after the company.
We 9
would investigate acts that we:believe -- we would 10 investigate instances that we believe were more likely 11 than not the result of retaliation and intimidation.
judgment in terms of 12 We don't do them all.
We make a i
13 what is the case we have at hand.
And the test we 14 provide is given the information we have is it more 15 likely than n o t. that the retaliation and 16 discriminatory act occurred?
17 As you accurately said our process =is '
+
18 to tell the ~ individual he has personal rights with the 19 Department of-Labor.
And the Department of Labor acts 20 first with.the individual,-then we come to the' 21 individual.
I understand your concerns about how long 22 the process takes.
You bave-to understand we are 23 required to investigate cases of retalfatlon, and 24 intimidation, but it is those cases that we find that
(
25 it passes more likely than Act.
64
'l MR. BLANCH:
It might take four years while 2
the guy is losing his house.
In conclusion, I would 3
like to say as a result of having to comply-with 4
federal regulations in bringing forth safety concerns
'S the re,<a re 1 d terall y shundr ed s,of 'vi cti ms ' out' there' who 3
6 have sacrificed their entire life, and the:NRC has 7
failed to provide any protection whatsoeverofor:any of 8
these individuals I am aware of.
There are some cases 9
going on out in Palo Verde out in Arizona right now.
10 The individual is waiting for a Department of Labor 11 decision, probably will take years.
The individual is 12 probably going through hell, and destroying his life, j
13 probably costing him or her 50, 100,000 to go through 14 the court system to protect themselves an a result of 15 raising safety concerns required under law.
What the 16 NRC needs to do is get that process straightened out.
.17 MR. WIGGINS:
The -process is close^to what 18 you just described.
As I said, if there is a case 19 that-an individual feels that a di~scritmina tory ca c t
.20 occurred against him or herself we ask or-we inform 21-the. individual that the individual write to the 22 Department of--Labor.
And you are right our process is 23 if that individual goes to-the Department-of Labor, we 24 wait for the Department of Labor to conduct the
{
.25 investigation.
However, we do act at aspoint earlier""
65 1
than you are nuggesting.
We act substantially befor,e
+
- J 2
the Secretary of Labor deciaion in some way.
We would 3
act in an area directly, which in the first area of 4
review.
We would would write what la termed a 5-chilling effect letter.
We write.the u t i l i t y -, thia 6
thing happened, the record came out with this 7
concluodon.
8 MR. BLANCH:
Tell me why that doesn't have a 9
chilling effect of all the other individuals'in your 10 organization?
I understand what you are saying la 11 true too, that you wait until the actual Secretary of 12 Labor process works through it could be a long period ii 13 of time.
You nave in other forums described your 14 feelings with regard to that.
15 MR. WIGGINS:
Yes, sir.
16 MR.
DELCORE:
A comment on that.
I think in 17 the case of Sullivan and-myself there were letters,
~
18 seven.or nine letters going back and forth of chilling 19 e f f e c t., =and nothing has beenidone.
I think'that is 20 important to point out.
21 MR.-WIGGIN8:
Nothing has"been done"in~ terms 22 of what?
MR. DELCORE:
Some restriction to -the 23 24 licensee so that<he doesn't do that anymore.
I think 4
25 level one, two or three penalty I believe.
66
'l MR. WIGGINS:
You.are talking enforcement 2
action?
3 MR. DELCORE:
-Some enforcement action, yes.
4 MR. WIGGINS:
SI~believe that is accurate.
5 MR. DELCORE:
I' know:-i t is-accurate.-
6 MR. WIGGINS:
A g ai n.,
if that is the~right 7
thing to do when it is time for it'to occur it will 8
occur.
But 3 understand your comments about the' time 9
it takes for the process to work.
10 MR. DELCORE:
It is a huge deterrent.
The 11 guy in forced to settle.
He is going to be ruined 12 financially if he doesn't.
What he is saying, what I t
13 tried to point out to you before, it removes the 14 trust.
15 MR. WIGGINS:
Even at that point, although 16 it may not be very visible the Department of Labor, 17 you know how the process works, the-Department of 18 Labor first.tries to-negotiate a settlement between 19 the parties.
The way they do' business doesn't r20
.necessarily first end up at a* finding onf one' side or
' a 21 the other.
They first try to negotiate a settlement.
22~
We knowethatxthat happened.
Wesget intormed'of7the 23 outcome of those' cases.
Even in those cases in which 24 there is a negotiated settlement we still look into
{
25 it.
The NRC still looks into it.
We-look to -- I a
-.y
67 -
1 i
1 tell you how it works, we get a negotiated setttement.
i ka 2
We get the settlement agreement.
We get documents 3
from the Department xit Labor.
The.way.we do it'in 4
King of Prussia, we have the liason concerning tho' 5
+ Department of Labor,..whatever-field notes-exist, case 6
officer, pepartment of Labor, we try to-find out where 7
that individual was -- conclusions on the 'me ri ts.
8 Sometimes there are no conclusions.
We try to find 9
out what was learned in the investigation.
Then we 10 make our own determination what to do.
Even in the Il face of settlement between two partles if in the 12 information we can collect from the individual, the 13 Department of Labor case in our mind, if it is'more 14 likely than not that a discriminatory act occurred we 15 will still pursue that with the licensee.
You can 16 make the detail if we make the more likely than not 17 call correctly.
That is the process.
l 18 MR. DELCORE:
Its effect on what we-are 1
19 considering, performance enhancement is-very 20 detrimental to the trust, performancelof the--
21 Performance Enhancement Program.
What-happens is 22 those people who sense that chilling effect they don't l
.2 3 see all this p e ri ph e ra l s t u f f -h app e n i n g, ' a nd -- ~ ~
l 24 consequently it destroys any credibility that you may 25 try to come forward with on a Performance Enhancement
68 3
Program.
That is what my p oi n t.
is.
2 MR. C ll A T R M A N :
Your point has a lot of 3
merit., At least the people that understand what in a
4 going on are the parties' involved, which;are the
-S company, thesNRC'and the individual..Butf1 hat 6
individual's peers, what they feel or don't feel with 7
regard to what in going on would be a concern.
That 8
is what we attempt to try to get to in the chilling 9
etfect letters.
You may auggest that we are not 10 ultimately totally effective.
You may be correct.
11 You understand that. is why we send those letters.
12 MR. DELCORE:
The ensuing investigation that k
13 in conducted on that person's behalf by your 14 organization further intimidates.
15 MP. WIGGINS:
Intimidates?
16 MR. DELCORE:
The individuals who are at 17 that particular site, because essentially they are 18 questioned at the site.
It really magnifies again the j
19 chi-114ng problem,-and it magnif>ies the distrust that -
- ?l 20 the individual begins to have with the whole system.
l j
21 My comments strict 1'y are related to performance-22 enhancement and the trust.
23 MR..WIGGINSF That la an interesting'polnt
+ ^
l 24 ff we go to investigate, and do the investigation
-2 5 on-site that may have a chilling effect.
69 1
MR. DELCORE:
Yes, I have been telling the i
kJ 2
Department of Labor and NRC that for five years.
It 3
has an adverseteffect.
I have talked to the FBI.
i 4
They come to my home.
I talk to OSHA.
They deal with 5
me a w a y.rt r o m the site. -They-dealt with me in a common 6
ground site in a library.
Nobody knew we were 7
talking.
I think that is very,' very important.
I 8
think that is one of the effects that the Nuclear 9
Regulatory Commission can do to enhance again the 10 trust issue.
11 MR. WIGGINS:
That is a good point.
I 12 understand your point.
I see where you are coming i*
13 from.
It probably wouldn't do us much good to have 14 any more of a detailed discussion.
Anything else?
15 MR. THEMING:
Yes, sir.
Jim Theming,
,16 T-h-e-m-i-n-g.
I would like to speak in support of 17 the Performance Enhancement Plan.
I think they have a
la hit the nail'~on the head with a lot of issues, 19 specifically I t 'n i n k the one most important thing they 20 have identified a di-l emm a -th a t re al l y hi ts home', rand 21 that is that a lot of managers at the site of 22 Northeast Utilities are verycoutstanding'. technical 23 people, that doesn't necessarily make them very' good l
24 in terms of managing people.
I think we have seen 25 evidence of a lot of individuals here this evening, A
e h
l
'7 0 3
and I think the fact that they recognize that they 2
have thone problems in very good.
I think maybe they 3
could have stated it a little more clearly 1.n s i d o the 4
plant, but it 10 definitely in there.
14 wanted to-just. say'ono more< thing',uand s5
.1 t
6 that in not really stated in the plan, and it han to 7
do with NU's position within the_ industry.
'I-know 8
back in 1987 they were trying to contain conta.
And 9
perhaps we are heading more towarda a middle of the 10 pack approach to resolution in the industry, perhaps il the goal of thin program is to becomo more of an 12 industry leader.
Thone are t.h e only comments I have, f
i 13 Thank you.
14 MR. WIGGINS:
My sence of the matter in we 1S are about done with the m e e t. i n g.
So if that in, 16 unloon there in anyone that has a serioun objection --
17
-MR.
SULLIVAN:
I would like'to ank one more
~
~
18 question.
39 MR. WIGGINS: ' Qu'i c k l y.
20 t
MR. SULLIVAN:
I would like to know what the 21 NRC i n >doing about the decommissioning of *the-Yenkes.
22 Row.
MR. WIGGINS:
The~ pace of the 23 24 decommionioning in not our decision.
We wouldn't
{
l 25 hasten it.
l l
I y
71 1
A VOICE:
What is the schedule?
i bJ 2
MR. WIGGIN8:
We don't have a schedule.
3 They have asked for what is called'a decommissioning 4
order.
That is what' takes the plant formally from an
-S-operating status ~to.what they have now, posi.tionnonly
=
6 license.
They aren't al-lowed to operate the facility.
7 A formal decommissioning order which requires a renew 8
of plan.
I don't have any first-hand information what 9
the plan has it in or schedule.
10 MR. SULLIVAN:
Do they still plan to return 11 to?
Whether this is just. going to be signed or 12 whether something is going to be done about that?
I i
13 believe if you would look into that, and pursue, find 14 out what the cost is, the total cost of nuclear power 15 you would arrive at a f t. e r you decommissioned.
Is that 16 too much of a figure?
Would that make the whole thing 17 a bad gamble to begin with 11 you did decommission
~~
18 this?
Is that why there is a problem doing that, it-39 would.make nuclear
- power totally uneconomical?
20 MR. WIGGINS:
The whole issue of
.21.
decommissioning is one :several shours l o n g.-
The" Yankee
. 22 Row plant they have applied for a decommissioning 23 order.
In thatsapp11 cation you will'getamuch crf the 24 information you just asked for.
4 MR. BULLIVAN:
I understand t h e r e =a r er.o th e r" f
7
. 25
72 1
plants around the country that have been left, and 2
they haven't been cleaned up.
Is there any emphasis 3
being placed on this to do what was supposed to be
-4 done in the first place when they are.done instead of 3
just deaving these giant grave stones?~~u 6
MR. WIGGIN8:
The emphasize is to make sure
.7 the plant activity is appropriate.
There is no "
8 emphasis to apply any extensive pressure to clean it 9
up immediately.
You have to understand when you are 10 looking at a nuclear power plant like Yankee Row with 11 a long operating history it may be best not to do 12 anything quickly.
You have to look at the plan.
13 MR. DtlR R :
I know a little. bit about 14 decommissioning, but not a great deal.
'You have to 15 understand there are multiple ways that plant can be 16 returned back to the environment.
One is entombment, 17 you are content making a tombstone out of this.
I 18 wouldn't use that analogy, but it is similar to that, 29 or they can restore-it to'its' original pristine 20 condition.
But so until they decide how-they' intend 21 to do't' hat facility; and i't,- c o u l d be-entombment an Mr.
22 Wiggins pointed out, or it could be restore the site,
_n 23 until :they make a submittal,.and-we approve ~it,
-n o b o d y : 0 24 can answer your question.
g l
'2S MR. SULLIVAN:
Are there any*cdst t
73 i
1 projectionn being drawn up on this?
L J
2 MR. WIGGINS:
Again, you should first try to 3
neo if the answers.to your questions are i n their 4
application for d e cola m i s a l o n i n g.
- S MR.
SULLIVAN:' I'am trying to underntend 6
what happens to thin area.
7 MR. WIGGINS:
If you want to use that>for a 8
moment, if you want to use Yankee Row for a moment.
9 MR. SULLIVAN:
I believe i t.
does tie in with 10 Performance Enhancement Program.
11 MR. WIGGINS:
We are not prepared to discuss 12 decommissioning.
We didn't do any homework to have i
13 any relevant answers
- t. o it.
We don't know what 14 Northeast Utilition has in mind for these plans.
15 There are various options that. are foreseeable or 16 doable.
We don't know anything more about it.
17 MR. SULLIVAN:
I fee) you have to complete 18 the technology.
You have to finish it.
You have to 19 not just contain i t,. you have to control ti t.and put it 20 back to the way it was, or just nay, hey, financi' ally 21 we are just going to leave it, we are going to'go 22 broke if we have to clean it up.
All the benifit of 23 nuclear power l a %1d ac te be liability in the future.
y 24 Every kilowatt is going to wind up costing an 25 antronomical amount of money when i t. is finally said*
~
i
74'
,1 and done, and nobody is wilting to face up to that 2
innue, and you are splintering into fragmenta.
I want 3
to get to address the<real issues, and work on the 4
real problemn-instead of just-trying to create all S
thin confusion.
6 MR. WIGGINS:
Thank you.
I appreciate as 1 7
said everyone coming out here to provide comments.
I 8
think we have gotten some good comments.
We have had 9
several of these types of meetings in ot.her instances.
10 This in one of the better ones in terms of the Il qualition of nome of the comments we have gotten.
W e "-
12 will, an I said, study the transcript, make sure we 13 got the comments as they woro provided, consider'them 14 in what we are doing here, and, ao I mentioned in 15 response to some questions, we will come out in 16 writing with our conclusion, and that will be made 17 available to you.
You can see how this all came out.
18 There have been a number of comments 19 here with regard to how we do our job, how the NRC 20 does its job overall, how some of the individuals here 21 do their job.
I think we have elected not to addrens
^
22 that for a couple reasons, one, it wasn't the purpone 23 of.the. meeting; secondly,'we' don't need-to'get"into!a 24 dehn'e like that.- in thin forum.
-1 will tell you for-q 25 the benefit of those that are'here, there' ~ wore issues ~ ~
i I
75 1
rained with regard to what we do, and we are doing on 7
2 certain technical innuen.
The innuen we have heard we 3
know what thone concerns are.
We take the concerna 4
seriounly, and take them what we believe they are, the d.;
disagreernent with the decindons ve"have re a d e ' f o r' v h a t 6
han to occur in the induntry.
We think we made thone 7
decinionn in a way that in in the bent interent.s for 8
all involved, to include p r o v i d i rig a reasonable level 9
of protection to the pu. 'ic in the arcan in thene I
10 plantn, and at the name time remaining within our 11 requiatory and statutory limited authoritien.
We have 12 to work within the rulon that are entablinhed for un i
13 by Congrens and by our own regulationn.
We have to 14 behave by thone regulations also.
An 1 nald, we 1S didn't come here to defend ourselves, so we are not 16 going to really get into a large dincunnion about why 17 we think what we are doing in acceptable, and why 18 maybe your v'inwn we don't agree with.
Let'n leave i t.
19 at t.h a t.
20 Again I appreciate the time andreffort
~21 of the people t h a t. = h a v e como here.
1 thank you for 22 your attention and interent.in the matter.
This will 23 clone <the ra e e t i n g, thanks.
24 9:30 p.m.
25
76 J
l l
1 C E R T I F 1 C AT E
(
2 3
1 hereby certify that I am a NotaryrPublic,
,4 in-and for the State of Connectfuct, d u l y' 'com m i s si on e d l
4 5
and qualified to administer oatha.
i 6
1 f u r t. h e r certify that the foregolng" hearing 7
wan taken by me atenographically and reduced to 8
typewriting under my d i r e c t. i on, and the foregoing i n a l
[
9 true and accurato tranneript.of the heaH ng.
j i
10 Witnoon my hand and nual an Notary Public 11 thin 12th day of November, 1992.
12
(
13 i
(
)4
_ ].!G 2 k R $U L 15 Notary Public
~'
16 17-v i
1 19 7 18
'1 9 20 21
,2 2 1
23 24 g
25 k
.,.n--.n--c.,,,
,...