ML20133K918
| ML20133K918 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/02/1984 |
| From: | Lieberman J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Ratner M RATNER, M.G. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20132C953 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-461 NUDOCS 8508120420 | |
| Download: ML20133K918 (1) | |
Text
.
November 2, 1984 Mozart G. Ratner, Esq.
1900 M Street, N.W.
Suite 610 Washington, D.C.
20036
Dear Mr. Ratner:
I am in rece3pt of your letters to me of September 20, 1984, and October 10, 1984 requesting an NRC staff opinion concerning the legality of a February 15, 1984 letter issued by the General Electric Company (GE) to your client, Ms. Vera English. You should be aware that my views contained herein are not to be considered an interpretation binding on the Commission in accordance with 10 CFR 70.6.
The GE letter directs your client to apprise GE management of information related to violations of established work procedures and practices within the Chemet Laboratory of GE's Wilmington facility. The letter concludes with a statement to the effect that failure on the part of your client to comply with the direction could result in severe disciplinary action.
The Conmission's regulations require that workers be instructed in their responsibility to promptly report to the licensee any condition which may lead to or cause a violation of Commission regulations and licenses or unnecessary exposure to radiation or radioactive material. See 10 CFR 19.12.
Implicit in the regulation is that employees should provide such information to their employers.
If any employee also wishes to communicate concerns as-sociated with radiation health and safety directly to the NRC, he or she must have the freedom to do so without the fear of reprisals. Such reprisals are specifically prohibited by 10 CFR 70.7.
The materials attached to your September letter, including excerpts from the GE Employee Handbock, do not appear to establish on their face a violation of Commission requirements.
Whether actions of the employer in any given case were in retaliation for an employer coming directly to the NRC with information and therefor in vio-lation of Ccnmission requirements, or were motivated by the legitimate needs of an employer is of course dependent on the circumstances of the particular matter.
I am not in a position to offer a niore definite view as to whether there are circumstances surrounding the February 15, 1984 letter that demon-strates that such a letter was in violation of Conmission requirements.
As you are aware, Section 210(b) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5051) establishes a mechanism before the Department of Labor (DOL) for resolving disputes in this area.
Sincerely,
/Al James Lieberman Chief Counsel 8508120420 850703 Regional Operations and Enforcement Qh@61 Office of the Executive Legal Director PDR cc:
N. Jensen, OGC l 0FC
- 0 0
- 0EL
_ m ____:.... ______:_________..:____________:._____._____:-______--___:-__________
.NAME : o ing/cb :Li nan DATE :11/2/84
- 11/2/84
~
bM 'O
'k' 4
UNITED STATES it
( ( h
't PN h
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 k,%[/
.j WASHING TO N, D. C. 20555
(.,
JAN 10 BB5
.+
Mozart G. Ratner, Esq.
Suite 610 1900 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20036
Dear Mr. Ratner:
This letter acknowledges receipt of the Petition of Ms. Vera M. Engli.,:
filed on her behalf by yourself and Mr. Arthur M. Schiller on December 13, 1984. The Petition makes reference to five Inspection Reports reviewing activities at the Wilmington, North Carolina facility of the General Electric Company (Licensee).
The Petition asserts that these Inspection Reports are deficient for failing to identify a variety of deviations and violations in the activities of the Licensee at its Wilmington facility.
The Petition requests that all five Inspection Reports be withdrawn, that new Inspection Reports be issued correctly documenting the alleged violations and deviations at the Wilmington facility as identified in the Petition and its attachments, that Notices of Violation be issued, and that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission commence appropriate enforcement action, including the assessment of civil penalties, consistent with the Commission's General Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions, 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C, as revised, 49 Federal Register 8583 (March 8, 1984). The Petitioner also requests the institution of proceedings pursuant to 10 CFR 6 2.202 and the scheduling of hearings on the matters raised in the Petition.
The Petition, which has been referred to my Office for action, is being treated under 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission's regulations. The NRC staff will review the Petition and I will issue a formal decision with regard to it within a reasonable time. A copy of the notice that is being filed for publication for the Office of the Federal Register is enclosed for your information.
Sincerely, f
~
\\
~
Y mes M. Tay1
, Deputy Director ffice of In ection and Enforcement
Enclosure:
as stated cc w/ encl.:
Arthur M. Schiller, Esq.
Suite 1300 1000 Connecticut Avenue, NW
(-
Washington, DC 20006 t
l General Electric Company Appendix 1 Wilmington, NC R >qL..L.6 p d5 Y
,1 :. * ~ l:.
[7590-01]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Docket No. [70-1113]
^
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (Wilmington, North Carolir3 Facility)
RE0 VEST FOR ACTION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 REGARDING ACTIVITIES AT THE WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA FACILITY OF THE GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY Notice is hereby given that, by her Petition of December 13, 1984, Ms. Vera M. English (Petitioner) requests that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission review and withdraw certain Inspection Reports which allegedly improperly dismiss certain alleged violations and/or deviations associated with the activities of the General Electric Company at its Wilmington, North Carolina facility. The Petition requests that new Inspection Reports be issued properly documenting violations and deviations in the activities carried out at the Wilmington facility. The Petition also requests that the Commission issue Notices of Violation and take enforcement action as appropriate including the imposition of civil penalties.
Petitioner further requests the institution of proceedings pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 and the scheduling of hearings on the matters raised in the Petition.
The Petition is being treated pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission's regulations and appropriate action will be taken on the i
e
2 request withio a reasonable time. A copy of the Petition is available for inspection in the Commission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20555, and at the local Pubic Document Room for the Wilmington facility located at [ insert address ].
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this '
day of January 1985 FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/
/
r a es M. Tay1
,'Beputy Director 0
ice of In pection and Enforcement e
6 e
+
7 4
-