ML20138M771
| ML20138M771 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 07/19/1996 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138M747 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9702260190 | |
| Download: ML20138M771 (110) | |
Text
-
w a
01-%@
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Interview of Thomas T. Martin Docket Number:
(not assigned)
Location:
King of Prussia, Pennsylvania Date:
July 19,1996 Ax b
%,h4C)
(s Work Order No.:
NRC-776 Pages 1-56 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 1
l[g22ggok050h245 I
}
PDR j
T
_.___m.
s
- e l
1.C l
4 i
i i
t 3
ADDENDUM TO DfTERVEW OF 7e TMM/:Pd, h MA1, (Name/Posidon) '
i
\\
F. Ass Lins corraedan and R**=aa for c.3. ;-s J
es s.
s, f
l$
401d3 Ale q & *:
\\
V
/4
%.s/Sas W :
-t /E & %.Sc e sah i "d,sSec.af-
\\
1 1
N s/o t
- Ms. Muha '
\\
/2, M
' V' MAP A!n f Ar fin!'s,P "
is i,
u ~
.e w -
l M
zy
AosJf.e m s. % w,n n
i
/ ~)
/
- Cast *f " asf % nana?*
l J9 2L AAe J"'
- AnW. J fserr/sa
- i l
2t 21
'% sam.aod " nof- % "
21 s
% A A ussst"m>* % N
- I 22" 4
- Mw.
- n f '6 Iv 4.ex '
l 31 x:
m YdA.,J
- af
'j'ne.,%,,1m "
l 33 Ad>~/ 7 A
.2" Ara /La A*d n v .sieff [
{
l t
,s f "
1
- ohaw/* c52*- ~*use/d h 4h r~
k dek*" von >* A naMe. ~ % =- n2 so e
~ u w~s s, +
>w..., *
- w. f t
4D g
"a,
's '>s *
- Ar *
,om.
s 1
4h Ac
" Arc V a es** "AAcd
- r 4ded'de */._r *
- 4 45-s l
fo Ac
- '1s*
~ st'uo//swsWf m r.; & a S-Atig "
t.
rWe.raL.'
+ a =_* 1%n- - > & /wk "'
l so, a s n._4 y s.
i 9/
/
% f A 20 % " a s s'
" A m 4r "
l n
sr
_-* *Are Massa
i
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
i
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
i l
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
I
/
/
/
/
/
- I
/
l
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
l
/
/
/
/
/
/
I
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
1 i
Page ),ot) Signature _b:e $~
Dnee79])f 4
i
)
1 l
Page 3 i
e 2
l 4
a I
..-.-..-m,
- ,.m4 6-
-m2_
a ge de 4E &
-MMe&34 e 5 6.A.Seer----6,,hm6.4AEL4
_ht
- 4Aa
-44_.4,._5
.h4J_
A 4A -
42+aDA 4
-dd.__4a.JW..
s.
., ya
- WA
-6 4
4 ADDENDUM TO DCF.RYEW OF YM M
th a
j (Name/Posiden) b N
OS U
b]i- ^~
01 Il M r. bm wu t/uh. n ot-Mr mAh m rns;e.g.s' l
Ha nna n g
(9 vn w = =. L _...s t
,an r oe.+%. n ot i
- v /Y\\uhV
=>
indienkd u"
i B
k I
49 IV (W.
k um,, > ca vpe n W n oT NC N N nIAtLA M AA'e d t b.
U l
)
v.
i e
i i
l l
4 I
1
(
i
. Ax caZu-r.
.e un
&V 5
Page 3 e
i
.)
t k,
4
. _ -. -.. -.. -.. - ~. - - -.. - - - - - - -. _ -..
l.
=ygg Anomeou to nmavmw or fbe f. M% 4, M e dae l
M.
h Parracelam ad Rem-fler P.---
a--
j i
%I,,_
't I "lede S(.s Gf 4e c ;a **
13,.,.
88
'C4
' r 6,u 4,
, u, 4 b
.,,%bl
,a IA
- wn **
9 h.a /J L, sua o-J
/
i
- e
(
l 4
i l
.v e I
i i
3 9
,~
i, I
i j
i l
l I
1 l
l I
l j
e l
a i
1 6
1.
i 1
i 1
a l
h as Lot L sis m =* 1 /
D*2fM T(
)
i J
j Page 3 a
i
- e h
8 4
1
)
2
e a
1 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 4
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
+++++
4 OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 5
i INTERVIEW i
6
x i
7 IN TRE MATTER OF 8
INTERVIEW OF Docket No.
a 9
THOMAS T. MARTIN (Not Assigned) l 10
x 11 Friday, July 19, 1996 12 i
13 Conference Room 14 475 Allendale Road 15 King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 16 17 The above-entitled interview was conducted at 18 10:30 a.m.
19 BEFORE:
1 20 JOHN N. HANNON Team Leader 21 CARL MOHRWINKEL 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRNtSCReERS 1333 RMODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(acm 2lM 4433 wASMONGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
2 1
PROCEEDINGS 2
(10:40 a.m.)
3 MR. HANNON:
Good morning.
It's July 19, 1996, 4
and it's approximately 10:40.
My name is John Hannon.
I'm i
5 here in Region I today with Carl Mohrwinkel.
We're talking 6
with' Tim Martin, the Regional Administrator, continuing 7
with our evaluation of the employee concerns and 8
allegations at Millstone during the last ten years.
9 Our group has been on a fact-finding mission 10 for several weeks now.
We've done a number of interviews, 11 I've been involved in all of them.
The purpose for that 12 was to make sure we were being consistent and uniform and 13 handling individuals fairly.
14 We are attempting to discover what may have I
15 gone wrong with the process and try to identify probable
{
16 root causes and potential corrective actions that could be 17 recommended for the NRC and the Northeast Utilities to 18 improve the process for future employee concerns and 19 allegations.
20 We are transcribing the interview for two 21 reasons.
One, so we can concentrate on what you're saying 22 and ask the right kind of follow-up questions and not have 23 to be diverted by notetaking and, second, to have a record, 24 a clear record, that we can refer to as we deliberate on 25 the root causes and corrective actions.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRGERS 1323 RMODE SLAND AVENUE. N W.
(24 4 236 6433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20006 C',C2) 2344433 J
1 e
i i
3 1
The accuracy of the transcript is important i
2 and we would like to have you review it after we.get it a
3 back, and there's a process we've been using for that and i
4 I'll give you a handout at the end of the interview that i.
5 expl'ains how that works.
6 We would intend to have the transcripts placed 7
in the PDR, the Public Document Room, at the conclusion of
\\
8 our review Process.
If there's any privacy type of 4
9 information included in them, it would be redacted before i
10 that occurs.
4 11 I believe that's pretty much the preamble.
Do N
}
12 you have any questions, Mr. Martin, before we begin?
Sr-j 13 MR. MARTIN:
No, I do not.
14 MR. RANNON:
Okay.
Let me just characterize a
15 the purpose of our discussions with you.
During the course 1
16 of our d.nterviews with both concernees and NU officials and 17 employees, various questions were raised about the t
18 management of allegations in Region I, and about the e
19 performance of resident inspectors at Millstone as well as l
20 about the performance of other region-based personnel, i
21 The focus of this interview is to permit you to l
22 share with us improvements and modifications, if any, you a
j 23 may have already made or are planning to make in reaction 24 to these expressed concerns, and to determine their 25 implementation ststus.
)
NEAL R. GROSS l
count neno=rnas ANo inaaecaesas i
1333 RM00E ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(alN) 3364433 WASMm0 TON. O C. 30005 (202:29 4 33
. _ - - =
e 4
1 It's recognized that some of the questions may 2
have already been addressed during previous NRC reviews and t
l 3
investigations and, to the extent our questions would revisit those topics you feel have already been adequately 4
5 addressed in the public domain, we are interested in any 6-additional or different thoughts you may have developed 7
since those reviews and investigations were completed, but 8
would ask if you could just refer us to the right document, l
9 that would be helpful.
10 And if you have any other cosunents that you may
)
11 think are related to how the recommendations of those 12 previous reviews and investigations have been implemented, e
13 that would be also helpful.
14 So, with that as an introduction, let me ask 15 Carl if he would begin the questions.
16 MR. MOHRWINKEL:
Tim, if you would, by way of 17 general introduction, if you could just briefly run through 18 your educational background and your work experience that 19 allowed you and qualified you to be in your current 20 position.
21 HR. MARTIN:
I graduated from Georgia Tech with 22 an electrical engineering degree in June of '93.
23 MR. MOHRWINKEL:
Of '937 24 MR. MARTIN:
Yes -
'63 -- excuse me.
Thanks 25 for the correction.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRGERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
QGE) M WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
e J
5 1
MR. MOHRWINKEL:
I didn't think you were that 2
young.
3 MR. MARTIN:
I went right into the Navy since.I 4
was an NROTC scholarship individual.
Served in the Navy 5
till February _of '70, qualified on the S1W, S5W, and DIG 6
power plants as Engineering Officer of the Watch, also was 7
an instructor for the Navy at their site catside of b
Saratoga for the DIG prototype, qualified as Naval nuclear ship engineer for the DIG power plant in late '69 or y
10 early -- no, I guess it was '68.
Final assignment in the 11 Navy was as Director of the Navy's school in Groton, 12 Connecticut, teaching others how to become nuclear ship's e
13 engineer.
14 After leaving the Navy, I joined public service 15 electric and gas, initially at the Mercer Generating 16 Station, serving in various staff positions for a coal-17 fired fossil plant, subsequently transferred to the Salem 18 Plant to train operators to become control room operators, 19' joined the Atomic Energy Conunission in August of '74, as a 20 reactor inspector, subsequently assigned as an inspector 21 for the Performance Assessment Branch which was run out of 22 Headquarters 6 That was '78, I believe.
In '79 was one of 23 the individuals assigned to be on the Office of Inspection 24 and Enforcement Investigation of the TMI accident, 25 subsequently picked up as a section chief in Region I, NEAL R. GROSS COURT MPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1333 RM00E ELAND AVENUE, N W.
(ace 2364438 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4 33
6 1
. branch. chief,.then division direction in Region I, was 1
division director of the technical side which later would 2
t 3
spinoff to the Division of Reactor Safety and the Division 1
4 of Nuclear Material Safety, but that would be down the way.
3-5 Had' roles in both those divisions.
In '89, I was sent down 6
for seven months to NRR to act as the Associate Director s
7 for something -- I forget what it was -- Technical and j
8 Inspection -- DETI, whatever that -- Division of
^
9 Engineering and Technical Inspection, or something like I
10 that.
Subsequently came back, became Deputy Regional i
i 11 Administrator.
And then in April of '90 became the m
1 12 Regional Administrator of Region I.
So that's my l
e 1
l 13-background.
14 MR. MORRWINKEL:
Thanks.
We provided you with 15 a list of nine NRC process issues that is our first
{
16 thoughts or first-cut at what we identifled as probable or i
j 17 possible areas that NRC needs to take a look at, possibly 4
18 improve or modify, and we developed this list prior to i
19 beginning our Region I formal interviews.
This list l
20 certainly is subject to change as a result of the folks 21 we've talked to so far and may, in fact, change.
We have t
22 one addition in mind and we have some condensations in 4
23 mind.
But we would like to address most of these with you 24 during our time together, from a senior management 25 perspective.
j NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCReERS 1323 RM00E ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(M 2m WASHmGTON. O C. 20006 (202) 234 4433 b
\\
7 I
1
.co, we wil? Just. walk through some of these items and try -- I think the questions we're going to ask 2
3 you will tie back to some of these nine items.
j 4
We received complaints durir,g our interviews 5
with allegers that Region I has allowed NU to cancel public 6
appearances at scheduled enforcement conferences, yet still 7
accepted and considered written input from the licensee 8
about the same subjects scheduled to have been discussed at 9
the; enforcement conference.
10 The meeting in question pertained to a 11 significa'nt H&I issue for which a $100,000 civil penalty 12 was recently issued.
The concernee feels that Region I
- r 13 policy allows NU to duck public and press scrutiny by not 14 appearing.at the public enforcement conferences, yet still 15 allows NU to provide input to the NRC Regional enforcement 16 process decisionmaking.
17 The question then as a result of this view from 18 the concernee is, what is NRC's policy on accepting written 19 input from licensees when they decline to attend public I
20 enforcement conferences?
21 MR. MARTIN:
I'm surprised at the question.
22 The NRC's policy, which was issued June 30, 1995, clearly 23 articulates what NRC's policy is.
It's not Region I 24 policy, it's NRC's policy.
And in fact, these questions 25 have been answered on the record to one particular i
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRSERS 1323 RMODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(ace N wASMMOTON. D C. 20006 (202i 234 4433 j
6 8
1 concernec, end e.t'll cc:t.sinly be able to provide those to 2
you.
3
.But if you go to the -- under the Pre-Decisional Enforcement Conference, Roman numeral V Item, 4
5 the NRC may provide an opportunity for pre-decisional 6
enforcement conferences with the licensee.
We're not 7
required to.
We have actually communicated back to the individual indicating that there is no legal requirement B
9 for an enforcement conference.
The licensee in this 10 particular case chose not to come to the enforcement 11 conference.
it 12 The NRC policy then goes on to say if there is 13 not an en!orcement policy, we should request a written 14 responso, and so we requested a written response.
And in 15 fact, the language of the letter gong to the licensee 16 canceling the enforcement and asking for that response was 17 drafted with the Office of Enforcement's involvement, so 18 that we made sure it was legally correct.
19 So, the policy is out there.
NRC Region I was 20 following the policy with close coordination with Office of 21 Enforcement, and these answers have been responded to 22 directly back to the individual following his concerns.
23 Region I is not the only one that has 24 experienced this, there are multiple examples in other 25 regions.
The most recent one in Region I I might point to NEAL R. GROSS cous menomma$ aNo ramScantas tars aMODE IS(.AND AVENUE. N W.
( M 3364433 WASMINGTON, O C. 30005 (202) 2344433 I
9 1
is *: 5 3 National Instituts of Healtl, rhich also refused to 2
participate in an enforcement conference.
It is their 3
privilege.
It is not required.
It is something the NRC 4
offers to gather additional information so that we make 5
sure that our enforcement decision is based upon all the 6
facts.
7 If a licensee feels, or even if the NRC feels, 8
that there is no need for such conference because all the 9
information is available, then we move forward and make our 10 decision based upon the information we have at-hand.
11 MR. MARTIN:
Just to follow up on that point, 12 the availability of an open enforcement conference would 13 appear to offer an opportunity for a licensee to restate 14 their' case, even though it might have already been decided 15 by DOL at some level, and it would enable them, in a public forum, to spin-doctor it, to put it in the best light for 17 their company.
Do you think that's appropriate, for us to 18 afford them the opportunity to do that for HEI cases?
19 MR. MARTIN:
The purpose of an enforcement l
20 conference is not to get public participation, is not to 21 give the licensee an opportunity to put their best foot 22 forward. But if an enforcement conference is held, it's 23 purpose is to gather as much information as we can on the 24 facts of the case so that we make appropriate enforcement 25 decisions.
NEAL R. GFH3SS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCReERS 1323 RMODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
Gem 33uess wASNeNOTON. O C. acons RC2) 2344433
l 10 l
i 1
I can tell you.f.r,om. experience that when the 1
2 licensee, any licensee, starts to pontificate on issues l
3 that are not part of things we need to consider, we just i
4 let the licensee talk.
T mean, they can use that forum for 5
whatever they want to but, if they fail to communicate to 6
us critical information, they do so at their own hazard.
7 The policy is what the policy is.
And I don't see anything 8
else to say about that.
9 MR. HANNON:
You don't have any views as to 10 changing the policy, or you think it's adequate as it 11 presently is being enforced?
w 12 MR. MARTIN:
I guess the other point I would or 4
13 make is that the open enforcement conference, again, is not l
l 14 meant to provide the licensee a forum.
It's not provided l
15 to allow public participation.
The purpose is to allow the I
16 public to observe their civil servants in action in dealing 17 with a regulated entity and, unfortunately, you don't see 18 that much participation by the public because I think we do 19 a dann good job in those enforcement conferences.
20 Now, at the same time, although we open them, 21 we do not normally hold them in the vicinity of the 22 regulated entity because of the large number of people we 23 would have to bring along and the cost of implementing such 24 a policy.
25 We are -- if you focus just on the purpose of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRGERS I
1333 RMODE 19 LAND AVENUE, N W.
I (3ggg m WASMINGTON, O C acons (202) 234 4 33
-~-- - - -
~ ^ ~
4 q
i 11
}
1 the enforcement conforcnce, it' wur%ev ao purpose of just
]
having it up there in the public, other than'to giva 2
3 3
individuals, you know, first-hand knowledge of what was i
"4 said, and they can certainly do that by. coming down to the 5
Region.
It's certainly easier for them to do it if it was 6
held in the local area, but I don't feel that the expense e
7 of moving all the decisionmakers to the local area is 8
justified in all cases.
9 In some cases, the Agency has decided it is 10 beneficial because of the concerns, and in those cases we 11 have moved it.
44 12 MR. MORRWINKEL:
Continuing on questions having 13 to do with H&I civil penalties, the NRC issued NU a 14 severity Level 2 violation.and a $100,000. civil penalty in 15 May of '93, for discrimination against a certain high-16 profile concernee.
17 In the view of the concerneo community, the NRC 18 does not appear to have responded to NU's vehement 19 disagreement with the violation and penalty, or implemented 20 any effective follow-up review or evaluation of licensee 21 corrective actions relative to HEI.
22' In light of NU's subsequent history of 23 continued discriminatory conduct and NU's continued 24 vehement disagreement with more recent NRC findings of 25 violations and imposition of civil penalties, what do you NEAL R. GROSS couar naaoareas me ramecaesas taas aM00E ELAND AVENut. NE (3W)336m 3B wASM0NGTON, D.C. 30005 (202) 234 4 33
d 12 1
consider would have been an appropr.i. ate rerpourc. cnd/or 2
follow-up to the original enforcement action?
3 MR. MARTIN:
Well, first, I'd disagree with the 4
assertion that we did not do the right thing originally.
I 5
also disagree with the assertion that we didn't do any 6
follow-up.
The follow-up was not -- uell, let me give you 1
7 some of the sequence, and I'll refer to some notes here.
i 8
We issued the Notice of Violation in May of 9
'93.
In June of '93, the licensee responded.
And you're 10 right, the licensee expressed the view that they had done 11 nothing wrong, and that there was no wrongdoing on any part j
^
12 of senior management.
They also responded to the demand w
13 for information about the roles of specific individuals.
14 In July of '93, we evaluated that response --
l l
?
15 there's a document on the record that talks to the --
16 recognized the contrary review.
We understand what they I
17 have stated, but state that we determined there would be no 18 value of further discussion of that contrary view.
We 19 believe the violations occurred, and so be it.
20 We focused on the corrective actions that had 21 been taken, and we recognized that they were promising a 22 number of corrective actions but we had no confidence that 23 they were effective, so in that response letter we asked 24 them to get back to us with their assessment of the 25 effectiveness of their particular corrective actions.
NEAL R. GROSS 00URT REPORTERS AND TMANSCRSERS 1323 ftHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(20m 2344433 WASHm0 TON. O C. 20006 (202) 2)am33
s 13 1
In October of '93, they provided that 2
additional information on their assessment of the 3
effectiveness.
In our July '93 document, we committed to a 4
follow-up inspection specifically focused on the Nuclear 5
Safety Concerns Program.
We intended to do that inspection 6
fairly quickly, but every time we were about to launch it 7
the licensee was making another major change in their 8
Nuclear Safety Concerns Program, so that inspection did not 9
occur until December of '95.
10 It was a Headquarters-run inspection, and it 11 clearly articulates this is follow-up of that earlier item.
34 12 So there was follow-up.
Now, part of the allegation is, 13 well, you weren't effective.
We've acknowledged that we 14 have not been effective in rooting out the examples, or 15 heading off some of these examples of harassment and 16 intimidation.
For instance, the following year, in '94, we 17 issued another NOV/NCP for another engineer who we believed 18 had been harassed and intimidated.
There had been a number 19 of further allegations and there's other enforcement action i
20 in process right now dealing with that issue.
21 Bad we been effective back then and really 22 routed it out, you would expect those to not have occurred.
23 Well, they did occur.
So the bottom line is the NRC was 24 not effective, we've acknowledged that we were not 25 effective in rooting out and causing permanent prevention i
NEAL R. GROSS cou.
o m ANor = cRes=
j 13E3 RMODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
J (2cm 2344438 WASMINGTON, O C. 30005 (202) 234 4433 l
- ~
i 14
}
1 or recurrence of this type of event.
.2 Now, in June of '93, the concernee asked 1
3 specifically, you know, what about this.
The severity 4
level is not right.
Why aren't you removing people, et 5
cetera.
And there's a letter of response from the Office d
6 of Enforcement that clearly articulates why each one of L
7 those things was done the way it was done, and why we j
8 believed it was appropriate.
9 I would also tell you that that Notice of j
l_
10 Violation and CP were approved all the way up to the j
11 commission.
So, this was not just a unilateral staff DL 4
12 action, this was a commission-level decision that this was l
13 the appropriate thing to do.
All that is on the record and~
I
^
j 14 available in documents, and the communications to the 15 concernee is also available and signed by the Director of J
l 16 Office Enforcement.
l l
17 so, again, I'm a little surprised that that we j
18 again rehash this same stuff, but the response is out j
19 there, with the IG investigations already being completed 20 on these things.
We believe we did the right thing about j
l 21 the thing.
4 22 I'll tell you, there is no B&I case that is i
i 23 completely black and white.
We will have a set of 24 allegations and we'll have a set of findings, and it's a i
j 25 preponderance of evidence.
And some of the specific i
NEAL R. GROSS count mEpontsms no inANseneEms 1383 RMODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(acm 3346e33 WASHINGTON O C. 20005 (202) 2344413 4
a.
. _._. _ _ __ _ _ _._.m.
1 s
15 la allegations we won't be able to demonstrate that there's a 2
preponderance of evidence for.
3 We must focus on those things we believe we can 4
substantiate, and that's what we move forward with.
And 5
we use the enforcement policy with a lot of concurrence of 6
the various parts of the Agency.
NRR reviews what we 7
propose, Office of Enforcement reviews what we propose, the 8
ultimate package is developed.
It sees review and 9
concurrence by the EDO's office and, in many cases, it goes 10 up to the Connaission level on these high visibility issues.
11 So these are not isolated things where individual staff w
12 members are making decisions.
,a 13 MR. MORRWINKEL:
That was a very thorough 14 answer.
I just have two quick follow-up questions.
The 15 December '95 NSCP, Nuclear Safety Concerns Program follow-16 up, was that the Anil Goutan report?
17 MR. MARTIN:
Yes.
And if you look at the cover 1
18 letter, it clearly says, this is the follow-up of that 19 earlier commitment, the July '93 commitment, that said 20 we're going to follow-up this program.
And when we made 21 that commitment, it became an outstanding ites on our 22 inspection fol' low-up list.
And every time we were about to 23 l'aunch it, they made a major change in their Nuclear Safety 24 Concerns Program, and so we put it off.
25 And finally we said, you know, it's time to go NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCNSERS IMS RM00E ISLAND AWSNUE. N.W.
(3MI3364e38 WASMMGTON, O C. 30E05 (202) 2W33
s a
16 1
out there, and we got NRR commitment.
They actually did i
2 the inspection.
And the inspection report speaks to what 3
the inspection report said.
4 MR. MOHRWINKEL:
I just want to hone in a 5
little bit more.
When you -- did you say that in response a
6 to their sending us a check with a letter that said we 7
didn't do anything wrong, did we specifically write back 8
and say we disagreed with that self-serving statement they 9
gave us or not?
t 10 MR. MARTIN:
What we noted -- we said we noted i
11 your contrary view.
We ne,ted your recounting of facts.
I 4
12 think our specific words -- I don't have them with me, I
13 don't think -- but the specific words were we determined l
t 14 there was no value of added discussion on it because we 15 believed the preponderance of evidence, that which they 16 presented and the rest of the stuff we had, led us to i
17 conclude that they had, in fact, harassed and intimidated 18 this individual, and that it was appropriate that we take j
19 enforcement action.
20 And so Mr. Lieberman, in putting this 21 together -- and obviously there was staff input from the 22 Region, there was NRR review of what we were proposing, and 23 the EDO's office review, too -- but we didn't believe there 24 was anything useful in arguing these ponds of view because 25 we believed that, again, although it was not black and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRSERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(308) 2364433 wASMtNGTON. O C 20006 (202) 234 4433
l 17 white and we can prove that this happened exactly this way, 1
~
what did happen we regarded as harassment and intimidation, 2
3 and felt that the action was supported.
4 MR. MOHRWINKEL:
The reason the question is on 5
here, although it's clear you've addressed it previously, 6
is the alleger community comes to our team and presents the j..
7 feeling that despite the exchange of letters that may have j
8 taken place, the allegers or potential allegers at the site
}
9 see the licensee's action in response to the NRC as i
j 10 furthering the chilling effect on other employees, by which 4
11 they mean the company pays a $100,000 civil penalty, at the v
l l
12 same time writes to us, the NRC, and says we really didn't l
3
\\
j 13 do anything wrong, and issues a press release saying we c
i 14 really didn't do anything wrong, so other potential i
i 15 allegers'say there's no sense in getting involved in this, 4
16 look what they're doing to Mr. X over here.
17 Then the point of the allegers is now, two or 18 three years after the '93 incident -- as you know, just a d
\\
19 couple of months ago the NRC issued another $100,000 civil 20 penalty in this more recent case, and they did the same
{
i l
21 thing.
The day they paid the fine, they issued a press 4
1 22 release saying we're doing this because we want to just be
,r 23 nice guys and not litigate it anymore, but we really don't i
~
24 think we did anything wrong.
And the person about whom the 25 penalty was assessed is claiming to us that he is 1
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCNSERS tles R>e00E ELAND AVENUE N W.
(3W)abseeal WASHINGTON. D C. 30005 (202) 234 4433 I
s
. -_ ~
s; a
18 1
continuing to be harassed.
1 j
2 So, this is the underlying problem we wanted to i
3 get your views on, and that's where this question comes 4
from.
They're saying that we really have been ineffective i.
5 in stopping H&I by not perhaps being harder with the I
i 6
company.
You've touched upon it, but I wanted to clarify 7
why the question is here.
j l
8 MR. MARTIN:
I understand the concern and, l
y 9
again,_as a regulatory agency, we have certain tools to j.
10 use.
And one of those does not deny the licensee the 11 opportunity to speak to the media in any manner he chooses.
W 12
=
l 13 Our focus has clearly got to be on corrective i
14 action, and one of those corrective actions is designed 15 clearly to lessen the chilling effect on others because we 16 want those safety concerns brought forward.
As I've 17 acknowledged before, we have not been effective up here at 18 Millstone site in turning things around.
That's been 19 acknowledged in many.different forums, and we have been 20 somewhat frustrated that we have not been effective.
21 That's in part why these guys are on the 22 Problem Plant List right now.
It was certainly one of the
]
23 key issues that we provided to the licensee's board of 24 trustees when we met with them in March of '95 and told 3
1 j
25 them that we wanted these things fixed.
It was clearly j-NEAL R. GROSS oouar
.re.e.no r wemes e ines woos eumo avenus. N W.
l m ase.aese wasneeron, o.c. soons Goa nwn
1 19 1
part of our decir. ion on putting them on the Problem Plant 2
List in January of '95.
And more recently, I'm sure it
{
3 played into the Commission's decision to make them a 4
Category III.
5 So, it's not that we said, well, we're not 6
effective, we're not going to do anymore about it.
We 7
continue to beat on these issues, and we continue to get 8
large volumes of allegations, some of which have harassment 9
and intimidation element.
There's multiple investigations
'10 going on on harassment and intimidation, but we have not 11 found "the keys" necessary that would stop this yet.
1rc l
12 Right now, the plants are shut down, and we're
+
13 going to have to have confidence that's resolved before we 14 allow them to. start up.
Now, will it be resolved in such a 15 way that we can guarantee in the future there will never be 16 another example?
I don't think I can reasonably say we can 17 do that.
i i
18 But for those examples we'll find, we will go 19 to the maximum extent of our regulations to prosecute i
20 those, and cause corrective action that would appear to 21 prevent recurrence.
22 MR. MARTIN:
Let me ask on one of the process 23 issues severity level for H&I violations, do you feel --
24 you've made a fair indication that you feel the actions 25 we've taken in the past were consistent with policy and the NEAL R. GROSS CX)URT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(3 W 2 M 4433 wASHtNGTON. O C 20006 (202) 234-4433
1, 4
4 20 i
i 1
right thing to do, 2
In hindsight now, do you feel the severity i
3 level for the violations that have been taken at Northeast 4
Utilities were adequate to get the message across and, if 1
5 not, is our policy capable of getting the right message to 2
6 them, as it is currently being implemented?
j g
7 MR. MARTIN:
The policy and the severity level 4
8 were appropriate to the information we felt we could 9
substantiate.
It did not give us the ability, as I know a
{
10 number of concernees have indicated, that.we didn't remove 4
j 11 specific individuals.
We did not think we had the s
12 preponderance of evidence necessary to do that.
4 3
13 Had we been able to develop that kind of i
j.
- 14 information, than we would have taken those actions.
We 15 are not afraid to take those actions.
We have taken those 16 actions elsewhere.
But without the facts, without the
}
17 preponderance of evidence to support such an action, we 4,
i j
18 lose.
t 19 So, the policy, I think, it adequate.
The l
20 severity level was appropriate to what we could 21 substantiate.
but we and OI, I'm sure, is also frustrated l
j 22 that we were not able to develop more definitive i
j j
23 information that would allow us to take more aggressive 4
24 enforcement action than we were able to.
And there are 25 cases where we have ultimately, working through DOJ, caused 4'
NEAL R. GROSS court REPORTERS AND TRANSCReERS tats RM00E ELAND AVENUE, N.W.
tact) 23 Heal WASMm0 TON, O C. 30006 (202) 234.a433 4
,n.,
.s E
21 1
people to go t'o jail.1
".'are are other cases where we have g
2 removed individuals from any further involvement 1" quclear 3
power for periods of time.
i n
4 We are not afraid to take those kinds of 5
ac't' ions, but we don't take those actions without 6
substantive information upon which we can act. And without
)
7 that, we are obligated by due process -- the accused there 5
8 has some rights, too, and we won't push an issue that we 9
don't feel we have substantive
- and even if we had 10 substantive information, the accused has the right to
(
11 defend themselves.
Y:
l 12 And, again, in this case in particular, the l
13 concernee got specific response from the Director of Offica
~
{
i 14 of Enforcement that articulated why specific individuals 15 were'not taken or. in that enforcement action.
So, it's l
16 laid out.
And that was in June of '93.
l 17 MR. MORRWINKEL:
Just to touch upon the
{
18 inspection techniques and integration item that's next on 19 the NRC cross-list which ties into the item we're talking 20 about here, we're a little concerned, or maybe seeking a 21 better understanding of your review of the techniques that 22 were used to assess the employee concerns program there.
23 We haven't talked to Gene Kelly yet, as you 24 know, but he did the study in the '89 '90 timeframe.
Anil 25 Goutan did one just the end of last year,
'95, that we just NEAL R. GROSS COURT MEPomTERS AND TRANSCAeERS 1323 MH00E ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(209) M WASMesGTON. O C. 20006 (202) 234m33
[.:
e l
22 1
made reference to' a winute agu; and both of those came to 1-
}
2 reasonably positive cone'lusions about the employee concerns 3
program up there -- very different information than we are 4
gettir.g, yet sim'ultaneous to both of those studies, the i
i 5
so-called Dick Schmidt Report vos done at Millstone in the i
6
'90-91 timeframe, more or less the same time frame that i..
7 Gene Kelly was looking, and the so-called Mike Quinn Report 4
)
8 was recently issued in January of '96, that went back a few j
9 months in their study period and was being done i
10 approximately the same time Anil Goutan was doing his look, t
11 and they cam up with very negative findings internally
' DC-12 within the company, both Schmidt and Quinn, and we've come a
13 up with very hegative findings in terms of how people 14 perceive the employee concerns program.
Yet these two NRC 4
i l
15 audits, if you will, at'the approximately same time as i
p 16 Quinn and Schmidt, came up with very different and almost j
17 glowing results about the saployee concerns program.
j 18 I'm just wondering'what your thoughts are on i
19 that, and how we got such divergent views at approximately i
20 the same time.
i l
21 MR. MARTIN:
The reason you got so much
{
22 divergent views is that the Nuclear Safety Concerns Program i
23 is not the problem.
The principal problem at Northeast is p
24 how individual supervisors deal with individual members of q
j 25 their organization in responding to them when they bring I'
NEAL R. GROSS OOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCReERS 1333 RMODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
i (SEN) 23M433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20006 (202) 23m33 4
i
23 1
forth safety concerne, and lel a drv: those firet-line i
2 supervisors not stepping in when they get wind of a 3
professional disagreement or a safety concern that is not being properly handled, that creates this large volume of 4
individuals who have safety concerns and find they are not 5
6 being addressed in a timely manner.
7 The Nuclear Safety Concerns Program, even if it 8
was perfect, would only be used after that frustrating i
9 experience which has already turned off, and may well have 10 chilled, an individual, and he may.not even choose to go to i
11 the Nuclear Safety Concerns Program even then because he's y,
12 so frustrated.
-er 13 That first interaction is the key thing that 14 this licensee has not dealt with.
This licensee has done a 15 great deal to improve the Nuclear Safety Concerns Program, 16 and if you compare their Nuclear Safety Concerns Program --
17 this thing that sits off to the side, the thing which is 1
18 supposed to relieve the steam after you've already caused 19 the explosion in the plant -- this thing is not regarded 20 highly by those who have been frustrated because they 21 haven't seen the Nuclear Safety Concerns Program come in 22 suddenly make everything okay.
They are still dealing with 23 the same supervisor.
They are still dealing with the same 24 frustrations.
25 Now, the Nuclear Safety Concerns, Program, for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TMANSCRetERS 1323 R>eODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(305) 234 4433 WASHeNGTON. D C. 20006 (202) 234 4433
~. - _ ~.
-... ~ -._.
i 24 i
i those packages that we have selected -~ and we he*.e a
2 sampling inspection program.
We'll go in and we'll interview the individuals, and what you find out if you 3
4 interview all the individuals, the majority of them will 5
tell you, I am comfortable with going to my supervisor and 6
bringing an issue, I don't need the Nuclear Safety Concerns l
7 Program.
8 So, whether the Nuclear Safety Concerns Program l
l 9
is perfect or not for those individuals doesn't matter, i-10 they don't have any first-hand experience with it.
They 1
11 hear what others have to say.
m.
12 For those who have already had the frustration j
13 of dealing with a supervisor who is not responding 14 appropriately and in a timely fashion to safety concerns, f
15 they arrive already emotionally involved in the Nuclear i
16 Safety Concerns Program, and the Nuclear Safety Concerns 4
17 Program takes time to work through because they have to 18 deal with upper levels, get all the facts, and then try to.
i 19 deal with it.
a 20 For those cases that we have then reviewed what 21 the Nuclear Safety Concerns Program has done, although it i
22 hasn't always been timely and in some cases we would 23 disagree with their final conclusion, they generally do a 24 pretty good job.
And each year, they continue to seem to 25 do better.
NEAL R. GROSS oOuar aponrEas A=O rn Necaeans 1333 aHOOE 18 LAND AVENUE. N W.
(act) 3364433 WASHINorON. O C. 30006 (202) 234m33
25 1
Early on, they didn't have individuals that 2
could interact well with individuals.
They added the peer j
individuals so that people could come to people they knew 3
4 and talk about it.
That helped.
{
5 Then they provided additional training.
They 6
restructured the program, and each time it got better.
In 7
fact, today I'd have to tell you it's probably the best in 8
the Region, but it's a bandaid over a real sore, and that 9
sore continues to be aggravated by the culture that exists i
10 at Millstone.
And it's that culture we haven't been able 11 to rout out.
Dr 12 Now, I wish I could tell you just one or two 13 individuals in the organization are the source of these 14 frictions.
It seems to happen all through the 15 organization.
And there's not enough there that we can 16 say, aha, that supervisor needs to be removed.
We haven't 17 been able to get to that level.
We've come close a couple 18 of times, but we haven't gotten to the point where we can 19 remove an individual.
20 Some individuals have been moved aside by the 21 licensee after being embarrassed by at least what we have 22 been able to. find.
So, the Nuclear Safety Concerns 23 Program, the '90 review, the more recent '95 review, the 24 SRG review which was '92, I guess, and the interactions 25 we've had on the Nuclear Safety Concerns Program is part of NEAL R. GROSS court REPORTERS AND TRANSCm0ERS 1323 MH00E tR.AND AVENUE. N W.
(200 234 4433 WASHMGTON 0 C. 20006 (M) 2344433
26 l
1 our normal inspection program.
It's a pretty good program, 2
but it is a bandaid over a real sore that has yet to be 3
resolved.
4 MR. RANNON:
That corroborates our findings 5
wit'h regard to NU, I appreciate your explanation.
I have a 6
couple of points I wanted to say for your discussion, Tim.
7 One had to do with the collusion with the industry, and 8
another having to do with the perception on the part of i
9 certain individuals that the NRC doesn't want to enforce
\\
10 regulation on the industry that would financially j
11 jeopardize.
at 12 What is your view and what can you say to us j
13 that would put that concern in its proper perspective?
14 MR. MARTIN:
I do not believe there is 15 collusion with the industry.
I believe that the NRC is 16 very strongly motivated to do the right thing for safety, 17 at the same time we recognize that we should not cause 18 unnecessary costs.
Those who would take exception to what 19 we do, that feel that we are not aggressive enough, I 20 understand their concern.
I understand their frustration 21 when we are not successful in turning some of these things 22 around.
23 But we try to have a measured response to 24 identify problems, and sometimes that's not always 25 effective in rooting out the problem.
Northeast Utilities, NEAL R. GROSS court REPORTERS AND TRANSCReERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2364433 wASHtNGTON. O C. 20006 (202) 234 4433
i f
27 for instance, has for years had a problem with informality 1
2 in the way they implement their procedures, implement their
]
3 processes, implement their requirements, and when we have i
4 discovered these individual issues we have taken action we 5
thought was appropriate and, with most other licensees,
'i 6
resolves the issue.
i 7
What we have failed to do in some cases, 8
though, is to integrate enough of these individual findings j
9 to take a more aggressive action.
It takes time for us to build up that backlog of information before we say, all 10 11 right, now we've got enough, we can do more.
If you follow WD 12 the history of Northeast, it took us a while -- I think it l
13 was like I want to say '91, early '91 -- let me look here 4
1 14 at something -- (perusing documents) -
yes, it was early 15
'91, we gave them a SALP that clearly pointed out problems 16 we had in operability, reportability, procedural adherence, 17 and a large number of allegations of harassment and 18 intimidation.
19 We finally had enough that we felt confident 20 and could make our case ard, in that SALP, we made a very 21 strong case.
They then came back with task forces that 22 confirmed it and ultimately evolved into a performance 23 improvement program, and it appeared to address the right 24 things and to be headed in the right direction.
25 Did we have enough to take big escalated NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRSCRS 13r3 MMODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) N =
WASHINGTON. O C. 20006 (202) 234-6433
t l
28 1
enforcement action?
No, we didn't.
We had some data 2
points spread over large areas of performance that we l
l 3
assessed as representing informality in the way they did 4
procedures, nonresponsiveness to individuals breaking for 5
safety concerns, and untimely operability and reportability i
6 concerns.
And we had several examples, enough that we felt i
7 we could make our case.
8 We saw signs of improvement.
We saw really a 9
very good self-critical assessment on their part of what 10 their problems were, and the articulation of what they 11 needed to do and were going to do seemed appropriate.
e-12 The thing that they really balked at was our as 13 forcing them to put a final step in that corrective action 14 which validated that it worked.
But we finally got that 15 into their process, and so then it went through the process 16 and, as you might expect, their validation didn't show that 17 they were effective either.
18 So, there were several iterations.
We were 19 probably -- not probably -- we were more patient with their 20 progress than we should have been. How would we have 21 created additional heat?
Probably mounted a larger 22 inspection effort like a DET earlier, but the improvements 23 were such that by spring of '93, the things that we were 24 inspecting and looking at, the performance had improved 25 enough that in June of '93 we concluded that they weren't NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(302) 234 4433 wASMtNGTON O C. 30005 (202) 234 4 33
1 29
~
1 going to be discussed at the senior management meeting.
2 So, you know, they've been discussed since June of '91,
{
3 January, and et cetera, but by June of '93, they had done 4
enough that we felt that, hey, they're on the right path, 5
they are implementing their PEP, things seem to be i
6 improving.
i
)
7 Well, I think we all know what happened in i
8 August of '93.
They had the event on Unit 2 where they had 9
the unisolable leak on the 442 valve as a result of failing 10 to follow their procedure -- ring a bell? -- and inadequate l
11 management oversight, and maybe inadequate operability wf 12 determination on the valve.
w.
13 Subsequent to that, the then plant manager i
14 admitted that he was more focused on continued production 15 than he should have been, and we had failed to intercept j
16 that and acknowledge it.
But they immediately put in a new 17 management team.
They brought in Don Miller from Peach 18 Bottom, they made some major organizational changes, there 19 was renewed effort, and by January of '94 we had seen some 20 additional improvements, and we saw a more aggressive 21 management team working on these things.
22 So, we allowed them to continue to implement 23 their improvement programs, given the first indications 24 that performance was improving.
In fact, for those things 25 that we do inspect and were inspecting during this period NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER $ AND TRANSCRitERS taas RMODE 18 LAND AVENUE, N W.
gm WA$McNGTON. O C. 20 Cog (202) 234a433
._ ~_~
4 30 3
1 of time,' performance was improving.
2 What we were not inspecting because it was not i
3 part of the inspection program at the time, were these in 4
depth engineering inspections, we were not doing the design l
]
5 verifications, we were not digging back into those.
We had 6
stopped those in the late '80s.
Had we, we probably would i
7 have gotten on top of the design issues earlier, but by 8
January of '95 we were very frustrated that this licensee 9
continued to have these problems, and we still saw 10 harassment and intimidation problems.
We still saw a large 11 number of allegations.
We still saw procedural adherence 12 informality and, based upon that, at the January senior 13 management meeting we made a decision we were going to go
- 14 to the board of trustees and read t' hem the riot act.
We 15 were going to tell them what we were seeing here, to make 16 sure they hear it from the horse's mouth.
17 And we had that meeting, and they asked good 18 questions, and we felt that we had adequately communicated 19 to them.
Overall performance remained about the same, 20 maybe a slight improvement, by June of '95.
We felt we 21 really hadn't given the board time enough to make the major 22 changes, so we continued to observe and closely watch it.
23 But by the fall of that year and later on into the winter, 24 we were starting to identify additional major concerns.
25 And so in December, of course, the spent fuel pool -- the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCmeERS l
f tas MMODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(alm M WASMMOTON, O C. 30005 (202) 23m33 i
n
a e
31 l
1 IG report car. out and confirmed what we knew at that point because we had done the inspection back in July, Ken 2
a Jennison had done that inspection, and we knew that at that 3
1 point they had been moving the fuel too quickly.
So, by 4
5 January, we concluded they should be on the Problem Plant 6
List.
And if you looked at the ar*.iculation of why we put 7
it on there, very clearly, it the same issues.
8 It's the same issues that go back to '91.
- Now, 9
they are a little different color, little different i
10 emphasis in different areas.
Sure, there's been 11 improvements in procedural adherence in some places, and n$
12 there's been improved procedures over here, and there's a 13 brand new Nuclear Safety Concerns Program that's probably a 14 lot better than it was back then, but had they really 15 gotten down to and rooted out the problems?
No.
16 And we were frustrated, and continue to be 17 frustrated that this licensee has not rooted out these root 18 causes to their problems.
And the bottom line is, we 19 haven't been effective as a regulator.
It forced us to put 20 them on the Problem Plant List to get there.
21 MR. MOHRWINKEL:
As a result of them being on 22 the Problem Plant List, and the various Millstone task 23 forces and everything that are functioning, including our 24 own here, do you feel that NRC may have reached the point 25 where there are so many task forces and inspectors NEAL R. GROSS court REPORTERS AND TMANSCRSERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N.W.
gg m w ASHINGTON. O C. 30006 (2c2) 234433
l 32 stati9ned at or visithe Mil.1 stone and seeking information, 1
2 that this overwhelming NRC presence may, in fact, be hindering the licensee from focusing on problems delaying
~
3 4
restart?
5 MR. MARTIN:
There are clearly a large number 6
of task forces going on, a large number or amount of inspection ~that is incurring, but this licensee doesn't 7
8 seem to be able to glean what it's going to take to fix it.
9 And we have got to be in a position that we will know what 10 it takes to fix it, so that when they bring us their 11 solution, we are confident that it will be properly ei 12 implemented and, when implemented, will resolve these
+
13 issues.
14 I have no doubt that were we to stand back, 15 they would be able to do all the things they currently 16 think they need to do to get restart in a fairly quicker 17 time.
So, does our inspection activity delay, distract s
i 18 them?
I'm sure it does.
But without this inspection j
19 activity, I don't think we would be in a position to I
20 clearly know what needs to be done up there to fix it, 21 since it seems to be a very intractable problem for them, 22 and we need this information to assure this licensee gets 23 back into a condition where the public and the NRC can have 24 confidence those plants can be operated safely.
25 If that means they are going to be shutdown for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRGERS 1323 RMODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(act 3344430 WASHINGTON. O C. 30006 (202) 2344 4 3
e i
i 33 1
years, so be it.
Wefve got to be confident that they meet j
2 the licensing basis, that their staff is ready to implement i
3 license and regulatory requirements, and that that i
4 management is going to make sure that it does.
And until i
5 we are confident that the plant is ready to operate, that
{
6 their processes and procedures are the right ones that meet i
7 all the regulatory requirements, and that their staff is j
8 trained, and that their management and staff are ready to 4
9 operate that plant in accordance with our regulations, 10 we're not going to allow them to start up.
11 And we really don't care how long it takes.
wb i
i 12 They are either going to meet the regulations or they are 4
m 13 not and,-if they don't, they are not going to operate.
14 MR. MOHRWINKEL:
Do you think at some point in 15 the future they will be able to meet the requirements?
16 MR. MARTIN:
That remains to be seen.
Remains 17 to be seen.
They haven't demonstrated it to us yet.
18 MR. MOHRWINKEL:
As a follow-up question to the 19 one I just asked, this one comes from a company official.
I 20 Do you feel having Millstone placed on the Watch List has i
21 delayed the licensee's implementation of their full re-22 engineering effort to more fully utilize their resources?
i 23 MR. MARTIN:
Same answer as the previous one.
24 Clearly, you know, we have caused them to focus on issues 25 that they were not focusing on in the timeframe that we NEAL R. GFU3SS COURT REPORTERS ANO TAAN4CRISER$
1333 RMODE ISLANO AVENUE, N.W.
(M 2344433 WA&M6NGTON, O C. 30003 (202) 234 4433
i 34 e
believed they.had to to focused'on." We could not tolerate, j,
1 2
once we recognized that.they were on a broad basis 4
i j
3 operating outside their-licensing basis.
We can't tolerate d
4 continued operation under that situation.
I 5
Aad once we -had the two or three examples we i
i 6
had bach in the December timeframe that caused us to issue i
a 7
the Millstone 1 50.54(f), and then continued to develop 8
more on Millstone 1, and then as we started identifying l
additional problems on Millstone 2 and Millstone 3, you can 9
l 10 look at how the 50.54(f) letters evolved.
I 11 First, it was a request for do you have the 12 same kinds of problems, and then as we started -- you know, l
13 why should we have confidence that you have identified all 14 the problems, and ultimately now they are being torced to j
f 15 scrub the whole thing -- to surface all th61r problems.
16 And we are going to have to come in after to be confident 17 that they have.
So, we have some additional inspections 18 that are down the road and haven't been announced yet.
j 19 MR. HORRWINKEL:
Do you feel that NU plants may 20 be getting an inordinate amount of attention at the expense
~
j 21 of other plants that may also have similar problems that j
22 the NRC may be inadvertently overlooking due to resources 23 being concentrated at NU?
4 4
24 MR. MARTIN:
There's no question that the NRC i
1 25 is spending a lot of their resources on Northeast NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCheERS 1323 4 6 ISLAND AVENUE N W.
GOf) 23M433 WASM8NOTON. O C. 20006 (202) 2344433 t
35 1
Utilities, and we don't have cc infinitc pot of resources.
2 So we have to wield resources from areas which are less 3
safety significant, from licensees that are performing 4
better, to focus on the problem plants.
Millstone is not 5
the only problem plant.
There's an NRC Watch List that 6
articulates a number of plants that are getting increased 7
NRC attention.
8 We are not knowledgeable of other plants that 9
have problems to the degree that Millstone has in the area 10 of design basis and licensing basis compliance.
We're 11 mounting inspections now to get more of that kind of T
12 information because, again, since the late '80s, we have 13 not done those kinds of inspections.
An overt management 14 decision was made to not continue those because we were not 15 getting the kind of payback on some of those inspections 16 that the resources that we had to spend to do it would seem 17 to call for.
18 So, are we -- have we reduced inspections 19 elsewhere?
Yes.
Have we reduced licensing focus 20 elsewhere?
Yes.
We've had to to free up resources to do 21 these in depth reviews of Northeast Utilities.
Could we be 22 missing something elsewhere?
Yes, we could.
I would 23 remind people, though, that under the Atomic Energy Act, 24 once the plant is licensed, it is the licensee's 25 responsibility to operate safely, and it is ours then to NEAL R. GROSS count nemisas ANO wasca esas t333 aMOOf ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
(ace) 33a.4430 WAsMINGTON, D.C. 30006 (202) 234 4 33
36 4
come in behind that and verify they are discharging their 1
2 responsibilities.
3 So, where we find a licensee who is performing 4
very'well, SALP I category, we have established for 5
soMetime now a process of backing off on the level of 6
inspection there, to focus on the problem plant.
We all 7
require a core level of inspection at all the plants, and 8
then as our concerns are developed or problems.are 9
identified, we expand the level of inspection for those i
10 plants.
11 With Northeast Utilities, we are clearly 2:
12 spending a lot of our resources where we feel it is t
13 necessary to fully understand the extent of their problems l
l 14 and, as part of your review also, to focus on what we, NRC, 15 should have done better in the past so we avoid these kind 16 of things in the future.
So, we need to do both focus on 17 what their problems are, we need to also understand what we 18 need to fix in our programs to do a better job in the 19 future.
20 MR. MOHRWINKEL:
If I could go back for a 21 second to the concern that we've heard about the collusion 22 between NRC and you, understanding that the former NRC 23 employees who now work at NU are within their employment 24 rights to do so -- they have waited the appropriate 25 required amount of time to begin outside employment with a NEAL R. GFH3SS court REPORTERS AND TRANSCRSERS 13t3 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N.W.
(202) 234 6433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20006 (202) 234-a433
s l
1 37 1
licensee, NU or whoever -- how do you address the critics 1
j 2
who have told us their concern that the optics of it, at a i
3 minimum, don't appear very well when-these former NRC 4
people are all working there and the concernees'then make I
5 the jump that the next generation of near-retirees from NRC 6
are going to be concerned that they are feathering their 7
nest with NU or other utilities to get future employment 8
with those utilities?
9 MR. MARTIN:
When we established the resident 10 program many years ago, we recognized that the training we 11 provided the individuals, the experience we gave them, t;
12 would make them very valuable to the outside world.
We saw e
13 that as a plus, to be quite frank, because we had the i
14 chance to endow them with the safety philosophy that we 15 wanted the licensees to have.
i l
16 And so when licensees picked up those 17 individuals, not only did they get a hardworking 18 professional, but they also got an individual who was 19 knowledgeable of what we intended by our regulations and 20 was endowed with a safety philosophy we thought was 21 appropriate.
22 I recognize that a number of people have 23 charged that allowing these individuals to leave the NRC 24 and go to work for the regulated industry,'even with the 25 restrictions on what they can be involved in in terms of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCReERS l
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(SEs'J N WASMNGTON D C. 30005 (202) 234 s433 1
I 38 1
representing the utility back to the NRC, that they feel 2
that's inappropriate.
M 3
I have not come to that same conclusion and, in 4
fact, I see some benefit to licensees better understanding 5
what the regulations mean and what we expect of them in 6
terms of meeting their regulatory requirements.
7 I also think that if you look at parallel 8
regulatory activities, you will find that NRC is not 2
9 unique.
In fact, in some ways, NRC is probably more i
10 restrictive than other entities.
I mean, you go to --
f 11 well, other entities.
And I would not support additional at g
12 restrictions on individual performance.
+
y 1
13 Now, that does not mean that there might be 14 some individuals in the NRC that have that thought in their 15 mind, that down the road, if they back off on a licensee on 16 a particular thing, that that licensee will later on reward 17 them with some type of employment.
1 18 I would remind people that NRC's regulatory 19 actions are very rarely done by individuals, but by i
20 organizations with multiple concurrences up and down.
The 1
21 enforcement process is a beautiful example.
You know, we 22-have the Enforcement Panel which has NRR and residents and 23 regional staff.
We propose, it goes to the Office.of 24 Enforcement, they review it for consistency against all the 25 other similar type things across the nation in the NEAL R. GROSS J
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRGERS 1383 RHOOE SLAND AVENUE.N.W.
(atW) 33 Man WASHINGTON. D.C. 30006 (202) 2344413 l
,..---,.. - --~
v
,m--,.
i i
39 1
implementation of the policy.
It then goes up to the EDO's 2
office, who makes a decision on whether this is appropriate 3
and, in some cases, all the way up to the Commission.
4 So, when it comes to important regulatory e
5 actions, an individual who was trying to lessen a negative 6
impact on a licensee in hopes of some future employment, 7
really has very little opportunity.
And we have a very i
8 good IG who will follow-up those things, anybody who brings s' -
9 that allegation.
And having been subject to a number of IG 1
l
-10 investigations, I can tell you, they are tough.
I don't 11 think that's a problem.
si i
12 I think the appropriate controls are in place.
13 I. recognize the optics but, to be quite frank, the s
j 14 Government does not compensate our staff well enough to put '
4 l
15 permanent restrictions on their employment.
And I also i
s
\\
16 think that the benefit of a licensee acquiring an j
i i
17 individual who really knows what our regulations require, 18 and really understands the safety philosophy we would like 19 all licensees to adopt, that's a positive thing, that's not s'
20 a negative.
21 MR. MOBRWINKEL:
And the last question in this j-22 general area we're pursuing is, how good of a job do you 23 feel that the NRC does in documenting why issues of low l
24 safety significance but possible regulatory significance 1
L 25 are okay as is, without ordering fixes?
j NEAL R. GROSS i
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCReERS 1323 RMOOE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
GtW) 236443B wASMm0 TON. O C. acces (2021 2344433 a
.I
,v.
l 40 1
MR. MARTIN:
I wish I understood better what 2
that concern was.
The amount of paper we generate relative 3
to an issue is hopefully proportional to its safety 4
significance and, where things are of very low safety 5
significance, I wouldn't be surprised that you could you 6
show a correlation there's very little paperwork generated.
7 That does not mean that if it is required by regulations, 8
that we expect a licensee to implement it.
And the. degree 9
of documentation of corrective action in our follow-up will 10 very likely be less for low safety significance.
I'll give
.11 you an example, and it's in the procedural adherence area.
i 12 If we find an isolated example of failure to 13 follow procedure, clearly that's a violation.
It's a 681 14 violation and, if the licensee has not dealt with it and i
15 identified it themselves and is moving to correct it, we 16 will -- it will result in some type of NCB -- in that 17 particular case, it would probably result in a severity 18 level 4 violation, but the follow-up will not be 19 broadbased.
It will not look at for all examples of 20 procedural adherence because, supposedly, when they made 21 that call, they looked and found that it's an isolated 22 situation.
An isolated situation does not always engender 23 a generic response.
24 So, I really don't fully understand the context 25 of the question, but I wouldn't be surprised if you could NEr.. R. GROSS COURT REM 1R$ AND TRANSCRSERS 1323 RMODE ISL.AND AVENUE, N W.
Gem 2364433 WASHINGTON. O C, 20005 (202) 23m33
o
\\
41 show a correlation little documentation for low safety 1
f 2
significance.
3 MR. MORRWINKEL:
I believe that's what the question from the alleger was trying to get at, and I think 4
5 you've answered it.
You made reference before -- just as a 6
last* follow-up on the spent fuel question -- what was the timeframe that you said Inspector Jennison found -- was 7
j 8
that the first time that NRC identified that issue?
Is 9
that what you said?
10 MR. MARTIN:
The inspection of the allegation 11 on the spent fuel pool, the one that really documented the 95!
12 results of a detailed inspection, came out in July of '95.
- e 13 It's the Ken Jennison inspection report.
And I think he 14 did a good job.
He clearly articulated how the licensee 3
15 was not in compliance with their commitments at the time.
16 MR. MOHRWINKEL:
So that was an inspection 17 report issued by the NRC in that time from July '95, that 18 went to the licensee, I take it, right?
i 19 MR. MARTIN:
Well, sure, because that was the l
20 inspection -- recognize that that inspection was the 21 follow-up of the earlier allegation which we had received, 22 I guess, in '94.
I don't have the actual time.
We were 23 not timely in the follow-up of that earlier allegation.
i 24 MR. MOHRWINKEL:
The reason I ask that 25 question, to be quite --
NEAL R. GFN)SS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 AMODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
Got) 2364433 WASMNvGTON, O C. 20005 Q02) 2344433
o 42 s
1 t'e : MR. MARTIN:.And there's a reason why.
You 2
know, we had LERs.
There was other inspection activity 3
going on.
f 4
MR. HOBRWINKEL:
LER is?
5 MR. MARTIN:
Licensee Event Reports.
And there 6
was inspection activity going on relative to that, but the i
J 1
7 real full look at the allegation didn't occur until the 8
July timeframe.
9 MR. MOHRWINKEL:
The reason I ask for that 10 claritication -- and we've been doing pretty good here 11 today, sticking at the NRC process issues, which is c;
12 primarily what we are talking to you about -- but in
?
13 talking to NU officials, and going back to,the fact that t
y 14 sometimes we all have the feeling they're not getting the 15 problem picture, we were told by Mr. Miller, when we were 16 up there, that he was unaware of the spent fuel issue i
17 problem until approximately the time of the Time Magazine I
l 18 article, and even other NU officials found that to be 19 difficult to accept.
20 MR. EANNON:
But we were also told in that same 21 context, that other managers thought they were getting 22 after the spent fuel -- notwithstanding the fact that Mr.
23 Miller didn't know anything about it -- but that based on 24 the feedback they were getting from the NRC, that they were 25 on the right track, and for it to come unraveled the way it NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISER$
1333 RMODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(302) 234 4423 WASH 6NGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 23m3J
I 83 1
did at the end w::.0 a surprise to.them, based on the i
2 feedback they ' sere getting from the NRC.
3 MR. MARTIN:
If you go back -- and I've got 4
some notes here relative to that -- but they issued us a 5
License Event Report in '93, which talked about spent fuel 6
pool cooling capacity.
We believed that that LER was 7
misleading, that it did not acknowledge that they had not 8
been following the FSAR. description for years, and that, in 9
fact, they were moving the fuel too early.
The fact that 1
10 particular LER would have come out just about the time Mr.
11 Miller arrived on-site because he joined -- rejoined yyj 12 Northeast Utilities in the Fall of '93, and the LER, as I
-e-13 remember, was about that timeframe.
r 14 Mr. Miller should have been aware.
- Now, 15 whether he sat in on the exit -- the exit meeting of Mr.
16 Jennison's inspection was on the 26th of July '95.
That 17 certainly precedes the Time's article.
18 MR. MORRWINKEL:
By about ten months.
19 MR. MARTIN:
Well, it wasn't ten months.
20 MR. MOHRWINKEL:
It wasn't in Time Magazine 21 about April?
22 MR. MARTIN:
No, I think it was closer to 23 February timeframe.
24 MR. MOBRWINKEL:
Oh, it was that far back?
25 Okay.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER $ AND TMANSCASER$
1333 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
(30s) m wAsMINGTON. D C. acces (202) 2W33
44
'1.
MR. MARTIN:
But, again, part of this may come 2
from -- when we do an inspection on an alleger's concern, 3
we do not tell them that's why we're.there.
In fact, we do 4
everything we can to mask the fact that we're following up 5
an alleger's concern. -I'm sure that to the extent we 6
could, we would have focused on the LER.
We got this LER, 7
we're following it up.
And then the areas we would look into would be those that the alleger had pointed to in 8
9 addition to trying to do the closeout.
10 So, he may have not been aware that we were 11 following up an allegation, and he may not have been aware er 12 of the level of concern of the alleger relative to this Ne*
issue, but he certainly should have been when very shortly 13 14 after that the 2.206 petition came forward and, if he chose 15 not to -- and that's like in August timeframe of '95 -- and 16 if he still doesn't recognize it until the Times article, 17 you can draw your own conclusions.
18 MR. BANNON:
How do you respond to the point 19 about the NRC not -- the feedback that the utility was
-20 getting from the NRC did not indicate that they were off-21 track.
Was that part of the masking effort that was going 22 on to try to avoid fingerprinting the alleger?
23 MR. MARTIN:
I don't know what the licensee 24 would -- what the licensee says or means when he says they 25 were off-track.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCReERS 1M3 RMODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(atW)2 M 4e33 WASMNGTON. O C. 30006 (202) 23m33
. ~.
.__ ~..
i 45 1
MR. HANNON:. They thought they were doing 2
everything that should be being done to deal with the spent i
3 fuel pool issue, based on the feedback they were gecting 1
4 from NRC.
5 MR. MARTIN:
Unfortunately, the licensee is 6
assuming that.our response, the 50.54(f) is fundamentally l
7 based on the spent fuel pool.
It was not.
That was one of i
8 five issues that had come out in our inspection activities
}
9 that clearly showed this example, this example, this 1
1 10 example, and this example, where the licensee has become 11 aware of problems in meeting their licensing basis and has 12 not dealt with it in a timely and appropriate fashion.
t i
13 We had additional allegations well beyond the A
i 14 spent fuel pool issue, that talked about how concerned l
15 employees were being dealt with within the NU organization.
16 So, the licensee may have believed they were moving 17 appropriately on the spent fuel pool issue because they got 18 an amendment, but that was but one of some very significant 19 concerns that caused the NRC to react the way they did.
20 MR. MOHRWINKEL:
What about this one down here, 21 this one right here.
22 MR. HANNON:
We've already touched on that.
23 MR. MORRWINKEL:
Okay.
I wasn't sure if we got 24 that one or not.
25 MR. HANNON:
The last issue that I had was the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER $ AND TRANSCRSER$
1323 RMODE SLAND AVENUE. N W.
(20m 236 4433 WASMINGTON. O C. 20005 (202) 234-6433
1 46 1
overview, unless you have any other details.
2 MR. MOHRWINKELt-No.
I think from this first 3
list, Ste've asked him kind of in pyramidal order, so I think a lot of these have been dealt with by people working 4
5 for you.
So, if you want to just go to the overview.
6 MR. HANNON:
What thoughts do you have for 3
1 7
establishing some way to monitor our performance in l
8 handling employee concerns?
Do you think we're doing
\\
9 enough now, or is there more that could be done to improve
(
i 10 our performance in that area?
l 11 MR. MARTIN:
I believe there's more to be done, C#
12 and that's the reason I was also in favor of the task force 13 that you guys are involved in :right now to develop lessons 14 learned of ways we could do a better job.
15 If you go back and you review the audit reports 16 on the NRC', and specifically Region I, of how we 17 implemented our allegation prograa, you will find that we 18 are not as timely as we should be, absolutely agree; that 19 we have not effectively communicated with the concerned 20 individuals in a timely fashion and in an adequate fashion, 21 and I agree, and that's -- in part, it's the way we write 22 agd the way we talk; in part, it is the large number of 23 priority one things we always seem to have to do and, in 24 part, it's because we very frequently find ourselves placed 25 in an adversarial role and we're attacked, and the NEAL R. GFH3SS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCMSERS 1323 RMODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344 433 wASHweGTON O.C. 20006 (2c2) 23m33 I
1 47 1
individual who is subject of that attach has to work real 2
hard to be objective and nonemotional in the response to 3
the attack.
3 4
Unfortunately, we hire engineers.
We hire l
5 individuals that are investigative type, they are t
j 6
analytical.
We're not as adept at communicating with a 7
hostile individual which, unfortunately, after these individuals have been inappropriately responded to by the 8
4 9
licensee, we frequently are the subject of the abuse.
And 10 our staff has to work real hard -- and I think they do a 11 pretty good job -- and naturally we select individuals to
?>
12 be -- you know, you're going to be the point individual to sm 13 talk to this individual, to develop a rapport, and it's 14 gotten now back to a good communications.
That's why we've.
15 selected individuals for that, but we find that we're l
16 burning those individuals out, and we're adding additional
{
i 17 people to that staff.
18 So, we need to be more timely.
We need to 19 continue to work on making sure our communications with 20 concerned individuals is totally objective and not 21 emotional.
We need to work harder in resolving these 22 issues, but any major changes in the program other than 23 doing the things we've already committed ourselves -- I 24 think Management Directive 8.8 is a good one.
I think it 25 describes a very strong process and, in large part, I think NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRGERS 1323 RMODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(302) M WASHMGTON. D C. 20006 (202) 234 4433
'8 4
i 48 I
we implement it very well.
But when you get -- I guess it 2
was in '93, we got over 160 allegations that came out of i
l
.3 Millstone.
It's like standing in front of a fire hose.
4 And sometimes we didn't handles some of those as well as we 2
5 shod 1d have, and we all would like to have perfection, but j
6 we're not there.
1 7
If you'll look at in '93, we launched our 8
quality improvement team because we recognized the i
i 9
allegation process wasn't meetin,g our standards.
And we 10 developed what we thought were a good set of proposals for 1
11 improvement.
We sent those proposals forward.
We 3>
12 implemented a pilot program that we knew would meet the
+#=
i 13 existing requirements plus some of the new attributes we 14 felt were appropriate.
15 We presented the results of that to NRR senior 16 management, discussed it at a number of senior management 17 meetings, NRR Executive Team meetings.
We have made some 18 changes to our program and then, with the new Management 19 Directive, we made some additional changes.
We're 20 providing training almost twice a year now to almost all of 21 the staff who is likely to receive allegations.
We include 22 it as part of our fundamentals of inspection program, but 23 there is still plenty of room for improvement.
A lot of it 24 is in how well we implement what is already a pretty well 25 described program.
We need to devote more resources to it.
NEAL R. GFH3SS court REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1333 RM00E ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
(20m 2364438 WASH *sGTON. O C. 30D08 (202) 2344J33
_. _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ ~ _. _ __ _ ___ __
a 4
49 1
For instance, last year, we added an administrative support t
2 for the allegation coordinator because he was just dying.
i 3
He was being buried under the stuff.
And that was an i
4 additional dedicated individual.
And then more recently, I directed posting -- or directed the selection of a new 5
4 6
allegation coordinator, so we have now two aJlegation 1
7 coordinators working with -- that position has not been s
8 selected yet, but hope ao have it selected very soon.
1 9
But it's because of the volume of work that
?
1 10 those individuals have to handle.
And, principally, our 11 untimeliness has been in the communications with the i
w j
12 allegers and in getting the documentation done, the AMS, 4
e.
13 the Allegation Management Systen, updated and tracking the l
14 system.
1 4
15 MR. MARTIN:
I want to thank you for spending i
this -- most of the morning with us, Tim, it's been very 16 1
i 17 helpful.
It's been illuminating for us, the number of 18 things you've told us.
19 Before we close, I'd just ask if there's I
20 anything else you wanted to add or discuss with us that 21 might help us more fully understand the Region's position, 22 views, and so forth.
23 MR. MARTIN:
One of the things I would ask you 24 guys to make a copy of this document, which has been put 25 together by my enforcement coordinator, that explains how -
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCReERS 1333 RHOOE ISLANO AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 2344433 WA&MINGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 234 4433
j 4
e i
f 50 l
]
1
- what we did to ask Northeast Utilities to come to an 2
enforcement conference.
When they indicated they didn't i
j 3
want to, what the policy said, why we believe that's what 4
the policy said, the communications back to the concerned i
5 employee.
There are highlighted sections of the i
6 enforcement policy here so you can see where the quotes 7
come out of.
And so I'll ask you to make a copy of this 8
and return it to me, but this clearly shows th,e answer to 9
that series of questions.
l 10 MR. MOHRWINKEL:
Does that package contain the l
l 11 letter in response to that concernee's complaint about your
.c j
12 actions to the Chairman that Mr. Kane said recently was
.e -
13 issued?
Is that in there?
Because that was the one
~
14 document we really would like to have.
15 MR. MARTIN:
This is it.
16 MR. MOBRWINKEL:
Thank you, that's going to be 17 very helpful.
Mr. Kane assured us that you have it.
18-MR. BANNON:
Okay.
Here's the --
19 MR. MARTIN:
Wait a second, haven't finished 20 yet.
21 MR. HANNON:
I'm sorry.
You guys will get that 22 one back.
23 MR. MARTIN:
Thank you.
I assume that you have 24 seen our Allegation Performance Indicator, the report that 25 comes out on this?
That is one of the products of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRGERS 1323 RMOOE ISLANO AVENUE. N W.
(20m 2364435 WASHIDsGTON. O C. 30006 (202) 234-a433
C..
4 1
51 i
Quality Improvement Team, was a recognition that we need 1
2 better metrics to follow it up.
And one of the things that 3
is included in that is our oldest allegations that are 4
still within the staff's capability to deal with.
4 5
We recognize that when an allegation comes in 6
to us, it involves Office of Enforcement, or Department of i
7 Justice, or Department of Labor issues, we're somewhat 8
thwarted in finishing the process, so they stay around a 1
9 while.
But then when they are returned to us, we then have 10 an obligation to fairly quickly bring them to conclusion.
I j
11 Others, because of pending responses from licensees, t
or n
-1d i
12 requests for additional information, we end up taking too
,e 13 much time in closing this.
i 14 As a result, one of the initiatives we took was i
15 to require that on a monthly basis, we publish the status g
I 16 of the five oldest so that I can have an opportunity to sit i
l 17 down with the responsible party to' find out what they were 18 doing to resolve those.
And if you look over the last j
19 couple of months, going bac'k to I guess like the December i
j 20 timeframe, they fairly quickly move through this list.
So i
21 it shows that people are anxious to not come back and talk 22 to me about why they have not been resolved.
23 But, unfortunately, if you look at the j
24 timeframe, some of these are 180, 200,.00 -- they've 25 beyond our 180-day goal that we try to always implement.
{
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRGERS
]
1333 RMODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(ace) 33ue33 wASMm0 TON. O C. 30005 (202) 23m33
}
o 4
4 4
52 1
So, you have seen that.
2 Have you seen a copy of the Quality Improvement 3
Team presentation to Bill Russell?
4 MR. HANNON:
No.
i 5
MR. MARTIN:
Well, again, I'll ask you to make 6
a copy and provide it back to me, but that's the series of 4
7 recommendations that we made to him.
Have you seen -- with 8
regard to the individual that was harassed and intimidated 9
by Northeast Utilities, in which we took enforcement action 10 in '93.
Have you seen the letter to that individual from 11 the Director, Office of Enforcement?
st 12 MR. MORRWINKEL:
I believe Randy has that in 13 that package.
14 MR. MARTIN:
I would ask that -- maybe you guys' i
15 want to read it specifically, but it will point out to you 4
16 is a consideration -- it really answers many of those 17 questions.
Unfortunately, it's highlighted in pink.
You 18 need to use the Xerox machine on this floor, down at the 19 end.
It's a different kind of machine.
It will see 20 through the red.
21 MR. MOHRWINKEL:
I believe we do have this, but 22 just to be on the safe side we'll xerox it.
23
.MR. MARTIN:
Because it particularly addresses 24 the questions that you have, and that's a document that was 25 available to the individual.
He may have chosen to feel NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRGERS 1323 RMODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
4 (202) 234 6433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20006
(?o2)2344 43
53 1
that it still was not responsive to his concerns and, if 2
that's the case, I understand also.
3 I guess the final thing I would point cut to 4
you, these are statistics that you may not have focused in 5
on.
We went back and looked at the time that we're 6
spending on allegations at Northeast Utilities versus other 7
plants, and to give you an example, in '94 we spent over 13 8
percent of our time, inspection time, versus direct 9
inspection effort at Millstone on allegations whereas if 10 you look at all the other plants in the Region, it's 11 nowhere near that.
In fact, the closest you come to is at 12 about 7 percent at one of our other facilities that's sa l
13 having difficulty.
14 MR. MOBRWINKEL:
You said 13 percent for 15 Millstone?
16 MR. MARTIN:
13.2, and you can see what some of.
17 the other -- what the high ones are.
18 MR. HANNON:
That was of the direct inspection i
19 at Millstone?
l 20 MR. MARTIN:
It basically takes the number of 21 hours2.430556e-4 days <br />0.00583 hours <br />3.472222e-5 weeks <br />7.9905e-6 months <br /> we spent in allegations, number of hours we spent in
]
22 DIE, and then does a comparison.
23 MR. MOHRWINKEL:
DIE is direct inspection l
24 effort, for the record.
25 MR. MARTIN:
If you look in '95, you'll see NEAL R. GROSS cOum muonrEns AND mNacaesas 1323 RMODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
(302) 2H4433 WASHtMGTON. O C, 20005 (202) 2M4433 2
54 i
1 that, again, one of our other plants that's having f,
2 difficulties comes close at 14 percent, but Millstone is at j
3 15 percent.
Now, this is in a year, '94-95 I think we had 4
on the order of 34-35 allegations, not 160 like we had in 5
'90.
If you look at --
6 MR. MOHRWINKEL:
Of course, an interesting i
7 statistic here is at Seabrook, FY95, you had five hours 8
spent on the total allegation effort, and that's an NU 9
plant.
And yet at Millstone you had 1487 hours0.0172 days <br />0.413 hours <br />0.00246 weeks <br />5.658035e-4 months <br /> spent on 10 allegation follow-up.
11 MR. MARTIN:
You can see it stands out.
We're
==
12 doing a lot of effort up there to understand and resolve 13 allegations, and not all of them come up substantiated.
2 14 The fact that an allegation is made frequently is the 15 result of just a misunderstanding, and it takes us a while 16 to find out the information and get back with the concerned 17 individual and show them what we found, and get some 18 feedback from them.
And sometimes it turns out 19 unsubstantiated, other times it turns out as a disagreement 20 on what was the appropriate way to deal with something, but 21 what the licensee did was adequate.
And then there's other 22 cases where there has been true harassment / intimidation, or 23 the licensee has not dealt with something properly, and l
24 those are the ones that get into the enforcement world.
25 This is some statistics that came out of NRR.
This is all NEAL R. GROSS count mEPORTims wo TnesemeERS 1323 mHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(MS N wAsNeNGTON O C. Socos 902) 2W33 l
i i
i i
55 1
focusing on Hillatone, and you can see the lighter bar is a 2
DIE bar, the bigger bars are allegation-related effort.
3 Now, what it doesn't include'is the amount of l
4 time spent by an individual accepting-the complaint, 5
sitting down and talking to the individual so there can be l
6 a clear understanding of what the concern is that is 7
followed up.
So there is actually more here.
But you look 8
at it, and that turns out to be about 15 percent of the l
9 total bar.
10 When you look at it in this way, it says, wait l
11 a minute, that's not taking it -- but when you compare it 12 to other plants and how much effort is being spent on va l
13 allegations, you can see how Millstone stands out as 14-different.
(
15 MR. MOHRWINKEL:
We'll be happy to take this 16 document and xerox it and get it back to you, if you'd
~
17 like.
Would you like us to do that?
18 MR. MARTIN:
Why don't you get the original of 19 this out of NRR on this one, and I'll certainly give you i
20 these two.
So, you can go ahead and make copies of these 21 two.
22 MR. HANNON:
We have that already.
23 MR. MOHRWINKEL:
I think we have that.
That's 24 something that Milhoan has used.
Yeah, we have that one, 25 but this one is good here.
I'll get all this back to you NEAL R. GROSS I
om -- S A,co 1, eE.
13t3 m>eODE ISLAND AVENLE. N.W.
(304 33W3B WASHIN0 TON, D C. 30006 (202123m33 l
~
4 56 1
before we leave.
2 MR. MARTIN:
Is there anything else I can 3
answer for you?
4 MR. HANNON:
No.
Here's the instruction on how 5
were going to have the transcript reviewed, and the 6
Custodian will be getting in touch as soon as we get it 7
back, so we can get that processed.
8 I think that concludes the interview.
Thank 9
you very much.
10 MR. MOHRWINKEL:
Thank you, Tim.
11 MR. MARTIN:
Thank you.
w 12 (Whereupon, at 12:13 p.m., the interview was 13 concluded.)
i 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TPANSCASERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(2tW) 2364433 wASMm0 TON, D C. 3WNE (202) 234 4433
l i
g '
e 8,..
e.S CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attached i
j proceedings before the United States Nuclear l
Regulatory Commission in the matter of:
Name of Proceeding:
INTERVIEW OF THOMAS T. MARTIN Docket Number:
(NOT ASSIGNED)
Place of Proceeding:
KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear ram Regulatory Commission taken by me and, thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing, proceedings.
i
. 4 y Y,.L
,,-W$
PHYZ1TS YOUNG!
E.
Official Reporter Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.
l NEAL R. GROSS court REPORTERS AND TRANsCRBERB t3as nHooE ISLAND AVENUE. NW (302) as+ m as wAsWNGToN. D.c. 30006 (202) 234 4433
l 34386 Federal Regleter / Vgl. 60, No.126 / Friday, June 30, 1995 / Notices factors in arri et the appropriate is not held,the kr=nama wul normany le a matter of lic record,such as en 4
esverity lowl be '---
-t on the be q,: J ' to provide a written adjudicatory by the ciramstances of the vioktion.
response to en laspection if Department of 1.ebor. la addidos, with However,if a licensee refuses to correct issued,as to the licensee's y on the the approval of the F.xecutin Director i
a minor violation within a reasonable apparent violations and their root for Operations, conferences wul not be j
time such that it willfully continues, the causes and a description of planand or open to the public where good ceues has l
violation should be categorised at least implementedcorredive action.
been shown eher belencingthebeneSt et a Sevwity InvelIV, During the g-i ' * -- - renforcement of the public observados agelnet the i
l D. YJolWJons ofhpordng "'-
^ conference, the Hma=, vendor, or potentlalimped on the
- s other pareces willbe givna en enforcement action la a cess.
b NRC expects licensees to provide opportunity to provide informellom As soon as it is that a co*P ate, accurote, and timely
-at.
ewith the purpose of the coalorencewiube "1opublic l
i information and reports.,Accordingly, conferemos,laclueng en uphnaden W obrwuon,Gw NRTMH am Gm in the the NRC of the t===d5='a corncsive uma=== that the conference be unless otherwise levelof a j
supplenants,the severity acdoes (if eay)that were takaa oPen to observation a part of the violadon involving the Isilure to make leHowlegideouBcades ddw pmandat trial program. r'maar==arwie p*s policy on open enestin a required to to the NItC willbe vidados or===,==8'i mace ad de "Stan Meetings Opsa to Pubuc," gs, band upon signi8cance of and the long-term corsprobemelve aceta== that' ciremstances surrounding the matter were taken er willbe teksa to prevent Published emner 30,1994 (50 PR that abould have beenreported, mih==== vendon,eabw 48340),Gm inmods W=======
Howowr,the severitylevelof en persons wulbe told whca a meetlag is
- Pen confomacos monnally atleast to j
unumely report, la contreet to no report,, pw'.i,=abaforcemem h working (days in dvance dconferences may be reducell depending on the Az
' enforconsent through t) mattama posted in the PubHc ciremstances surrou the matter.
, sLeece is a between the na,m===t Room,(2) a toll-free j
A licenses will not y be died for NItC and the Beeness. = ' - - are h
et 800 853 4874, teleP )one and (3 a tou-free bulletin e failum to mport a condition or event r.orswlly held la the regicaal ofBees unlem dm licenew was eauaDy aware and are act nonnelly open to puhuc board at 300-es2-4876. In addition, the of the condition or event that it failed abruden.Howoww,a trial pegum is NItC wiH also lesus a press relenes and j-to report. A licenses will, en the other being conducted to approximately notify appropriate State llaleon of5eems hand, normally be cited for a failun to 25 ofau conferemens for that a prededstonalenforcement j
report a condition or event if the pu obeuvados,
,every fours codorosos has been schduld and that licensee knew of the tafonnation to be eligible conference lavolving one of it is oPen to public observetloa.
h public attendingopen reported, but did not recognies that it era caugwies d Masam (rnder, conferences under the trial may 1
- *1uired to snake a report.
hospital, and other esatorials m====a) u l
V. Fredecisional Enfor====r wul be open to the public. Conferemens observe but act participate
~,
confmoos.It is acted that the Conferences will not normally be open to the public j
Whenever tlw NRC haslearned of the if es enforcement actionbelag cung gg mi L
"di
! * "f= 2 '*c"a:
~8-7ei1,t-g tl,u,,not Et"m* tF.".tr*,"r'on."g*
~*
w with opportuddes Wb f
appears to be warranted, or recurring wn m,gg a
NRC acdvities is connatible with the l
nonconfonnance on the part of a whnber e.n inevidualhas coaudug NILC's abiHty to exercles he a vendor,the NRC may provide en
- m --
and safety re.sponsibuities.'1
"(2)lavelies s
- erefore, oP{meaney for a pe=dacI=laaal unit fanmes wi.,s.ignia. cent pereennel l
e N C has memb.re
.,ubuc wH be aHowa co *e-wa me l
license, wndor, or other perona befom ed heineMh h
access to the NRCregionaloploss W taking enforcement action. The purpo" present et the confeneas:
attend open enfor==ar confomenos la of the conference is to obtain (3)is bened on the Andings of an NRC accordance with the' Standard f
Operatin ProcedwesForProviding information that will assist the NRCin Of5cm d '
^' --
w determining the appropriate (4)lavolves sa'leguards taa Security For NitC Hearings And enforcement action, such as:(1) A Privacy Act infonasties, or infonnation Meetings" liebed November 1,1991 common understanding of facts, root which copkl be considered pn,prietary; (56 FR 56251).These procedures l
causes and missed opportualties In edenen,confereness wulnot provide that visitors may be to
. associated with the apparent violations, nonnelly be to the pubucif:
Personnelscreening,that signs, 1
(2) a common understanding of (5)'the involves medical posters, etc..notlarger than 18"be alead= tale vadoes or overexposures perrnftted, and that disruptive persons corrective action taken or planned, and r
1 (3) a common understanding of the and the conference cannot be conducted may be removed.
1 significance ofissues and the need for without disclosing the exposed Members of the public attending open 1
lasting comprehensive cornctive action. Individual's name;or contwences wf!!be reminded that (t) j If the NRC concludes that it has (6)The conference willbe conducted the apparent violations diar-med at sufficient information to make an by teleph%e or the conferona will be predecisional enforcement confuences informed enforcement decision, e
' conducted et a relatively small are subject to further review and may be conference willnot normally be held licensee's facilitv.
subject to change prior to any resulting unless the licensa requests it. However, Notwithstanding nweting any of these enforcement action and (2) the f
an opportunity for a conference will criteria, a conference rney still be open statements of views or expressions of normally be provided before issuing an if the conference involves issues related opinion made by NRC employees at order based on a violation of the rule on to an ongoing adjudicatory proceeding predecisional enforcement confuences, Deliberate Misconduct or a civil penalty with one or more intervenors or where or the lack thereof, are not intended to i
to an unlicensed person. lf a conference the evidentiary basis for the conference represent final determinations or beliefs.
i NUREG 1600 g
i 1
8 i
4
Federal insister / Val. so. Ns.126 / Friday. JunD 30, 1995 I Noucos 34327 Persons att+nding stpen conferences will 13 he under oath. Normall.
naes manigem:nt invtiv ment in hcensed be provided an opportunity to submit under oath willbe requir i ont in activium and a decrease in protection of wdtten comments concerning the trial connection with Severity 14vell. E.or the public health and safety.
f program anonymously to the soglonal ID violations or orders.
- 1. Bam Ovil Penahy l
omes.These somments willbe N NRC uses the Notice of Violation es the usual method for formalisi the N NRCim dillmentlevels of l
subsequently lorwarded to the Director existence of a violation,lesuanceh a penelum for d rent sevwity level of the Office of Enforcement for review and consideration.
Notics of Violation is normany the only violations and different classes of When needed to; rotect the public enforament action taken.except in licensees, vendors, and othw persons.
heshh and safety or coremon defense cases where the criteriarlor lasuance of Tables 1A and 1B show thebase civil j
and security. escalated enforcement dvil penalties and orders, as set forth in penalda for velous reader, fud cyde.
action, sud as the issuance of an Sections VI.B and VI.C. respectively, are materials.and vendor p (Ov11 l
1mmedletely effective order, will be sost. However, special clea==ana====
are ian-before ae coaerena.in eese rega mo dasoon andings may g,e,lties issued to indiv mined.,m,e
.e., asis.) os mess.a confance may be held aftw the wanant ~
on being exercised such structure of these table, generally takes esmlated enforament action is taken.
that es NRCsofrains fresa a
into account the gravity of the violation l
Notice of Violation.(See Secuan e a pnmey considwoum ud to V1. Enforcement Acums a Hty as
-M l
%is section describes the Ho not y
enfor.me..ancuens evanabi. to died,o,vida.enseesons,esuiong o invo u.
-u-greata nuclear r*os r
NRC and specifies the conditland under mattwo not within thdr control, such as 8'**'"
which each may be used.%e basic i ment failures that were not fvoidable by :==dle licenses quality 7"**"e"
- enformment sanc6ans are Notices of P
cmg genagmeg-a.
L, wointion. civii,onshies. and ord.rs of a,su,ance measu,es,o,,nana,ementweve,. i-va,i.us t As susam.d,ure.r in
.ont,ousoerau,le for the ans of thdr
,,,of ability of wious classes of j
Section
,related adadalstrative are hdd responsib
"-'m'n"n ". N U
-Jg::be cons,r.'et,*' A"=r n C"N CMu'o2"a" ""
"'" d
^a- * '
Nor o ooeda...
s
====tc impea of a civu pensky be so
)
Confirmatory Action 14tters.14tters of personnelerrors.
amm that it puts a Heense out of Reprimand, and Demands fe,
}
Informadon are used to su lement the 5.OvilPenalty business (orders,rather than dvil i
enforcement program.In se ng the A civilpenahy is a monetary penalty Penaltim.an und who the intent is to enforarnent sanctions or administrative that may be imposed for violation of (1) suspend or terminate licensed edivities) actions.the NRC willconsider certain specified licensing provisions of er advemely sheds alicensm's abihty 3
enforcement actions taken by other the Atomic Act or to soldy conduct Hosneed salvidas.
Federal or State regulatory bodies supplementary rules.or ceders;(2) ne deterrent eDect of civil penalties is having concurrent jurisdiction, such as any t for whida a license best mmd when the amounts of the in transportation mattas.Usually.
tneybsIrevoked; or (3) reporting Penalties take into accout a licesee's whenever a violation of NRC
+'-- ts under =adian 206 of the abihty to pay.in determining the requirements of more than a minor Reorganisation Act.Qvil amount of dvil penahles for licensees concern is identified. enforcement are to deter future for whom the tables do not reflect the action is taken. De nature and extent of olations both the involved tir===ma ability to pay orthe gravity of the the enforcement amionis intended to as well as by tir=== conducting violagon.the NRC win considw as reflect the seriousness of the violation similar activities and to emphasise the necessary an increase or decrease on a involved.For the vast majority of need for Ita==- to identify violations mee-by case basis. Normany.lf a licensee can demonstrate financial violations. a Notice of Violation or a and take prompt compmbansive hardship,the NRC will consider Notice of Nonconformance is the normal corrective anion, action.
Qvu penalues are considwed for Pe is over time. including irderest.
Sewwity 14 vel BI viddiens. In addition. re than redudag the amount of the A.Nodce of Violation dvil penalties will normally be assessed dvil penalty. However, where a licensee A Notics of Violation is a written for Severity Imvel l and R violations and claims financial hardship, the licensee notice setting forth one or more knowing and conoclous violations of b will normally be required to address violations of a legally binding reporting requirements of section 20s of why it has sufficient resources to sefely "h Act.
conduct licensed activitiu and pay requirement.no Notice of Violaden the Energy lties suo used to encourage license and inspemion fees.
normally requires the recipient to Ovilpena provide a written statement describing proropt identification and prompt and 2.Qvil Penalty Assessment (1) the reasons for the violation or,if comprehensive corro#,on of violations, contested, the basis for disputing the to emphasise compliancein a roanner Inan effortto(1)emphaslae the violation:(2) corrective steps that have that deters future violations, and to importance of adherence to been taken and the results achieved:(3) serve to focus limns,ns' attention on requirements and (2) reinforce prompt corrective step 1, that will be taken to violations of significant regulatory self. identification of problems and root prevent recurrence; and (4) the date concem.
muses and prompt and comprehensive when full compliance will be achieved.
Altbough management involvement.
correction of violations,the NRC
%e NRC may waive all or portions of direct or indirect. in a violation may reviews uch proposed civil penalty on a written response to the extent relevant lead to en increase in the civil penalty.
Its own merits end, after cuidering all information has already been provided the lack of rnanagement involvement ~
mlevant circumstances. may adjust the to the NRC in writing or documented in may not be used to mitigate a civil base civil penalties shown in Table 1 A an NRCinspection report.The NRC may penalty. Allowing mitigation in the ar'd IB for Severity LevelI II.and III require responses to Notices of Violation latter case could encourage the lack of violations as described below.
[
g NUCLEAR REG T Ry COMMISSION y.
clocN s J
E
[
475 ALLENDALE CCAD
/
KING OF PRUSSIA. PENNsVLVANIA 194061415 i
i Harch 15, 1996 1
1 EA 96-059 l
Mr. Robert E. Busch President - Energy Resources Group Northeast Utilities Service Company P. O. Box 128 l
Waterford, CT 06385
SUBJECT:
1.
NU DECLINATION OF OPPORTUNITY FOR A PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE i
2.
NRC REQUEST FOR INFORMATION PURSUANT 1010 CFR 50.54(F) j l
Dear Mr. Busch:
l This is in reference to the March 14, 1996, letter of your Director of Nuclear Licensing Services by which Northeast Utilities (NU) and Bartlett Nuclear, Inc.,
i declined the opportunity to attend a predecisional enforcement conference nd i
concerning the Department of Labor Administrative Law Ju D,
Decidon and Order in the discrimir.ation complaint filed NU, t.pparently, does not believe that a conference is needtrd to provide l
j views on the Recommended Decision and Order and NU will provide by March 20, 199f, "a written submission addressing, as appropriate, the matters addressed
- 1 1
in our March 13, 1996 letter inviting you to the conference.
It was further stated that Bartlett will provide its views by March 20th. Accordingly, since you are not legally required by the NRC Enforcement Policy to attend a Predecisional Enforcement Conference, we are cancelling the conference.
A predecisional enforcement conference was scheduled because we sought further information from you to reach an appropriate enforcement decision in this matter.
In light of your decision to forgo the conference, you are hereby required l
pursuant to 10 CFR 2.204 and 50.54(f) to provide in your planned March 20, 1996 submission to the Commission, in writing un t
gnation, a description 1
of actions taken to provide a remedy to Thfluding actions to implement the Secretary's immediately effe ary Order and Order of Remand, dated February 21, 1996, and broader actions that might be needed, including actions by your contractors, to address the environment for raising concerns. This is of particular importance because of the previous findings of discrimination involving employees at the Millstone site.
i This letter will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR). Your response include any personal privacy, proprietary, should not, to the extent possible,it can also be released to the pubite and or safeguards information so that i
placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
If personal privacy information is necessary to provide an acceptable response, then please provide a bracketed copy of your response that identifies the personal privacy-related information and a redacted copy of your response that deletes the personal privacy-related information. Identify the particular portions of the response in question which, if disclosed, would create an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, identify the individual whose privacy would be invaded in each instance, describe the 1
a 4
Mr. Robert E. Busch 2
.(,
nature of the privacy invasion, and indicate why, considering the public interest i
in the matter, the invasion of privacy is unwarranted.
If you request j
withholding on any other grounds, you mut specifically identify the portions of your response that you seek to have withheld and provide in detail the bases for your claim of withholding (e.g., provide the information required by 10 CFR 2.790(b) to support a request for withholding confidential commercial or i
financial information).
l Sincerely, m
Thomas T. Martin Regional Administrator cc:
M. H. Brothers, Nuclear Unit 3 Director L. M, Cuoco Esquire F. R. Dacino, Vice President, Nuclear Operations D. B. Miller, Senior Vice President, Nuclear W. D. Meinert, Nuclear Engineer N. S. Reynolds. Esquire i
S. E. Scace, Vice President, Reengineering E. A. DeBarba, Vice President, Nuclear Technical Services F. C. Rothen, Vice President, Maintenance Services S. B. Conley, We The People State of Connecticut SLO a
)
0 1
l June 4, 1996 i
Dear" th i
I am responding to your letters, dated April 15 and May 23, 1996, to Chairman Jackson regarding letters I sent to Northeast Utilities Company (NNECO) and Bartlett Nuclear, Inc. (Bartlett), dated Harch 15, 1996. My letters were sent to both companies after they declined an opportunity to attend a t
predecisional enforcement conference regarding the Recommended Decision and Order by a Department of Labor (DOL) Administrative Law Judge that found that you were l
discriminated against by both companies for raising safety concerns.
In my March 15, 1996 letters, NNECO and Bartlett were requested to )rovide the NRC a i
description of actions taken to provide a remedy to you, including actions to i
implement the Secretary of Labor's immediately effective Preliminary Order and j
i Order of Remand, dated February 21, 1996, as well as broader actions that might be needed to address the environment for raising concerns.
j In your April 15,1996 letter to Chairman Jackson, you expressed concern with the NRC for allowing the companies to express their views through written submissions, rather than via an open pubite conference, and you indicated that i
this decision was not in the public's best interest. Yon also asked that the i
companies' responses, dated March 15,1996 (from Bartlett) and March 20, 1936 (from, NNECO), be disallowed as mitigating evidence because this allows the l
companies an easy-out of future conferences. While it was the NRC intention to j
conduct an enforcement conference in this case, the NRC rotes that licensees are i
not required to attend enforcement conferences. Rather, as noted in Section Y of the NRC Enforcement Policy, licensees are provided an opportunity for a I
conference.
Licensees can decline a conference if they so choose, as the i
companies did in this case.
Further, licensees are always free to provide written submissions to the NRC on any matter.
The principal reason for sty 1
March 15, 1996 letters, prepared after the companies declined to participate in an enforcement conference, was to understand what action the companies had taken, or planned to take, to implement the remedies for you that were described in the Secretary of Labor's Preliminary Order and Order of Remand.
In your April 15, 1996 letter to Chairman Jackson, you also referenced my l
April 6,1996 letter to you, in which I stated that both companies declined an opportunity for an enforcement conference, but did not make reference to the 1
written submissions provided by the companies. You questioned why S. B. Comley of "We The People" was sent copies of my March 15, 1996 letters at the time they were issued to the companies, but you were not provided a copy at that time. The i
letters were sent to Mr. Conley as the representative for "We The People" because l
that organization is on the NRC distribution list for all correspondence with i
j OFFICIAL RECORD C0pY g:GT96289.MS l
A
_W-
2 NNECO, based on its request. Although you are not on the NRC distribution for NNECO correspondence, we agree that you also should have been provided a copy of the March 15, 1996 letters at the time they were issued. We apologize for this oversight. After you brought this concern to the attention of Mr. David Vito, Senior Allegation Coordinator, Region I, in a telephone conversation on April 15, 1996, Mr. Vito sent you a letter, dated April 16, 1996, which enclosed the companies' responses to av Mhrch 15, 1996 letters.
In your April 15, 1996 letter to Chairman Jackson, you also expressed concern that the decision on enforcement action in this case will be made based only on information that is available in the absence of an enforcement conference. You stated that this information in the companies' responses appears to be one-sided, noting that you have not been interviewed by the NRC investigators regarding your complaint in a long period of time, nor have you been asked for written submissions. You requested a meeting with an NRC investigator, to discuss recent i
events under oath. You note that another DOL investigation has again found in your favor regarding discrimination at the recent Millstone Unit 1 outage, and that NNECO and Bartlett management did not follow the Preliminary Orders from the Secretary of Labor for weeks. As noted in the April 16, 1996 letter sent to you by Mr. Vito, the NRC indicated that if you had any comments on the companies' responses, you were requested to provide those comments to the NRC within 30 days of the date of that letter.
s In a telephone conversation with Ms. Judith Joustra, NRC Region I,
on May 13,194. ' >u again requested an interview with an " enforcement investigator" to provide a -line-by-line" review of the NNECO and Bartlett responses. At that time, the NRC was considering escalated enforcement action based on the DOL 4
Administrative Law Judge findir.g and after monitoring the DOL process.
l Therefore, the NRC did not see a need for such an interview. However, you were informed in a subsequent telephone conversation between you and Ms. Joustra on i
May 15,1996, that the NRC would consider any written response you would like to provide, if the response was received by May 31, 1996.
l You provided a written response in a letter to Chairman Jackson dated May 23, 1996. The NRC staff has reviewed your letter and has considered your proffered comments. After having reviewed the DOL Administrative Law Judge's recomended 1
decision, the written submissions by Bartlett and NNECO, and your comments, the 1
NRC has decided that enforcement action is warranted in this matter.
The i
enforcement action, consisting of a Severity Level III violation with a proposed civil penalty of $100,000 to NNECO, and a Notice of Violation to Bartlett, was j
issued on June 4,1996. A copy of this enforcement action is enclosed for your information.
In your April 15, 1996 letter to Chairman Jackson, you further requested, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), copies of all correspondence between the NRC, and NNECO and Bartlett, regarding your case.
Your FOIA request has been provided to the NRC FOIA Branch for review and processing.
i l
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY g:GT96289.MS 4
.. =
3 In your April 15, 1996 letter, you also requested that NRC enforcement conferences be held locally.
Regarding your request, I note, as I did in my April 6, 1996 letter to you, that it is NRC's policy to hold enforcement conferences in the NRC regional offices, given resource constraints. The purpose for holding public conferences is to conduct regulatory activities in a public manner. However, in light of the level of NRC participation at each conference, to routinely conduct such meetings locally would significantly impact NRC's ability to conduct operations.
I believe that this letter has been responsive to your April 15 and May 23,1996 letters to Chairman Jackson. If you have any further questions on the matter, please contact Mr. Vito via the NRC Safety Hotline at 1-800-695-7403.
SITftf$lft1 SIGNED BY:
WILUAM F. KANE i
Thomas T. Martin Regional Administrator
Enclosure:
As Stated OFFICIAL RECORD COPY g:GT96289 MS
I l
DISTRIBUTION w/ Enc 1:
JTaylor, EDO JMilhoan, DEDR HThompson, DEDS JBlaha, OEDO WRussell, NRR GCaputo, 01 JLieberman, OE EDO Control GT96289 (Ref. 96153)
THartin, RI WKane, RI WLanning, RI DHolody, RI RCooper, RI l
KSmith, RI l
DVito, RI l
i i
n-s...,.,u.u
~ m w.e-c.,,
r-cv. M -
v-n.-
0FFICE RI/ ORA l
RI/ SAC l
RI l
RI/01 l
RI l
NAME DHolody/mjc DVito WLanning BLetts TMartin*WKane DATE 05/31/96 05/01/96 05/02/96 05/02/96 05/06/96 now.
,,.,w.
me me wm c c,
c -
r-c.,,.= m :._ m v -m OFFICE DE l ADV l
Chairmah l
l l
NAME JLieberman
/ 2 Taylor SJackson
'\\
DATE
- Received by f
05/
/96 05/
/96 05/
/96 05/
/96 phone from 1
Lieberman/ Gray (
05/03/96 w
/
plf f
hp.)MOFFICIALRECORDCOPY g:GT96289.MS l-
4 DISTRIBUTION:
JTaylor, EDO JMilhoan, DEDR HThompson, DEDS JBlaha, OEDO WRussell, NRR i
GCaputo, 01 JLieberman, OE EDO Control GT96289 i
TMartin, RI WKane, RI WLanning, RI DHolody, RI j
RCooper, RI KSmith, RI J
1 1
n wm.c.c.
.c.c.,,.
u r
OFFICE RI/0RA hf-RI/ SAC n)lC RI L
l RI/M l
RI,,(fd #
l NAME DHolody/mic DVito l3 W WLanif)hg B BlitF TMhW.lin l
l) ATE 05/02/96 05/ l /96 05/g./96 05/ > /96 05/6 /96 u
..n.,
wmc.c.,,
v r.c.n.
,v n.
OFFICE DE
- M 1/-
l EDO l
Chairman l
l l
~
JTaylor SJackson NAME JLieberman i
DATE 05/Q2/96 05/
/96 05/
/96 05/
/96 05/
/96 h
W V
'l>/*#
i i
l OFFICIAL RECORD COPY g:GT96-289.DH j
i i
_ ~ _ -.m.
- *(
8 UNffED STATES p,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
t j
A csoiou s e
475 ALLENDALE noAo e...* f owo or rnussiA. rewusnvAmA monats 4
June 4, 1996 EA 96-059 Mr. Ted C. Feigenbaum Executive Vice President - Nuclear j
Northeast Nuclear Energy Company
}
c/o Mr. Terry L. Narpster i
Post Office Box 128 Waterford, Connecticut 06385
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL a
PENALTY - $100,000 (Administrative Law Judge's hecommended Decision and Order -
95-ERA-18 and 95-ERA-47) l D-ar Mr. Feigenbaum:
1 t
This letter refers to the Department of Labor (DOL) Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) Recommended Decision and Order, dated December 12, 1995, which found that a former employee of Bartlett Nuclear, Inc. (Bartlett), a contractor at your i
Millstone facility, was discriminated against by Northeast Nuclear Energy Company i
(NNECO) and Bartlett for raising safety concerns at the facility. Based on the NRC review of the ALJ Recommended Decision, the NRC finds that a violation of the Comminion's regulations set forth in 10 CFR 50.7, " Employee Protection," has occurno. Under 10 CFR 50.7, discrimination by a Commission licensee against an e
)
employee or contractor employee for engaging in protected activities is prohibited. Although both you and Bartlett were offered the opportunity for an i
enforcement conference, you both declined such a conference, and instead, submitted written responses to the apparent violations.
Although you denied, in your March 20, 1996 letter, that you discriminated i
i against the individual and have filed a motion for reconsideration of the DOL ALJ i
Decision and Order, the NRC adopts the findings of the D0L ALJ and concludes that a violation of NRC requirements occurred in cases 95-ERA-18 and 47.
The i
violation is described in the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed
{
Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice).
t Protected activities include providing the Commission information about possible violations of requirements imposed under either the Atomic Energy Act or the i
i
~ Energy Reorganization Act, requesting the Commission to institute enforcement action against his or her employer for the administration or enforcement of these i
requirements, or testifying in any Connission proceeding.
The actions taken j
against the former contractor employee (who was a Senior Health Physics
~
Technician) after he raised concerns to line management and the NRC, constitute l
a violation of 10 CFR 50.7. The violation is categorized at Severity Level III i
r i
l; i
l 4
1 e t g
.N:rtheast Nuclear Energy Company 2
1
!)
in accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC i
Enforcement Actions" Enforcement Policy 60 FR 34381 June 30,1995). Such violations are signif(icant because they )c,ou(ld have a chilling effec i
licensee or contractor personnel and deter them from identifying and/or raising safety concerns. The violation takes on even more significance because the NRC has issued two civil penalties to you since May 1993 for violations involving j
discrimination against employees who raised safety concerns.
I f'
Under the Enforcement Policy, a base civil penalty in the amount of $50,000 is considered for a severity Level III violation.
Millstone Nuclear Station has been the subject of several escalated enforcement actions within the last two years involving all three units (for example, a Severity Level III violation with a $50,000 civil penalty was issued on May 25,1995, for a violation involving the failure to identify and correct a potential degradation of certain motor-operated-valves at Unit 2).
Therefore the NRC considered whether credit was warranted for identification and correc,tive action in accordance with the civil penalty assessment process in Section VI.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy.
Credit was not given for Identification because you did not identify the violation.
Credit was considered for Corrective Action,ded:
which you described in your letter, dated March 20, 1996. Those actions inclu a single officer, reportable to the Chief Nuclear Officer, re(1) designation of sponsible for the overall implementation of the program for handling employee concerns; (2) plans ta develop a set of actions to address among other things Nuclear Safety Concerns Program enhancements, as well as,the contractor program,s; and (3) plans to revise certain group policies, and related training. However, credit was not given for your corrective actions because many of these actions are still in the planning phase even though the 00L had concluded, as early as the District Director's Decision on July 27, 1995, that discrimination occurred.
Therefore, to emphasize the importance of maintaining a work environment in which employees are free to engage in protected activities without fear of retallation, I have been authorized, after consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, to issue the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the cumulative amount of $100,000, consistent with the Enforcement Policy because credit was not provided for identification or corrective action.
4 hou are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. Since the NRC enforcement action in this case is based on the Recommended Decision and Order of the D0L ALJ, which is still being reviewed by the Secretary of Labor, you may delay payment of the civil penalty and submission of certain portions of the response as described in the enclosed Notice until 30 days after the final decision of the Secretary of Labor.
Notwithstanding your past corrective actions, as most recently documented in your response of March 20, 1996, in that portion of your response which describes corrective steps you have taken, you are required to describe any additional actions that you plan to take to minimize any potential chilling effect arising not only from this incident but other instances of discrimination that have occurred at your facility for which civil penalties have been issued in the past. After reviewing your response to this Notice,
4 j
l-
' Northeast Nuclear Energy Company 3
1 including your proposed corrective actions and the results of future inspections, i
i the NRC will determine whether further NRC enforcement action is necessary to
{
ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirements.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's ' Rules of Practice," a. copy of this letter, its enclosure, and your response will be placed in the NRC Public i
Document Room (PDR). To the extent possible, your response should not include l
any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be placed in the PDR without redaction.
However, if you find it necessary to include such information, you should clearly indicate the specific inforsation that you desire not to be placed in the POR, and provide the legal basis to l
support your request for withholding the information from the public.
4 The response directed by this letter and the enclosed Notice are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by i
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Public Law No.96-511.
Sincerely, i
I Thomas T. Martin j
Regional Administrator
Enclosure:
Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty Docket Nos. 50-245; 50-336; 50-423 License Nos. DPR-21; DPR-65; NPF-49
e i..
Northeast Nuclear Energy Company 4
cc w/ enc 1:
D. Miller, Senior Vice President, Nuclear Safety and oversight 1
i S. Scace, Vice President, Reengineering E. DeBarba, Vice President, Nuclear Technical Services a
F. Rothen, Vice President, Maintenance Services W. Riffer, Nuclear Unit 1 Director P. Richardson, Nuclear Unit 2 Director i
M. Brothers, Nuclear Unit 3 Director L. Cuoco Esquire W. Meinert, Nuclear Engineer V. Juliano, Waterford Library State of Connecticut SLO Designee We the People
ENCL 0SURE NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND i
PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY 4
Northeast Nuclear Energy Company Docket Nos. 50-245; 50-336; 50-423 i
Millstone Nuclear Power Plant License Nos. DPR-21; DPR-65; NPF-49 EA 96-059 Based on the Recomended Decision and Order by a D0L Administrative Law Judge, dated December 12,1995, (
Reference:
DOL cases Nos. 95-ERA-18 and 95-ERA-47), a i
violation of NRC requirements was identified. In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions,' NUREG-1600, the Nuclear Regulatory Comission proposes to impose a civil penalty pursuant to Section 230 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (Act), 42 U.S.C. 2282, and 10 CFR 2.205. The particular violation and associated civil penalty is set forth below:
10 CFR 50.7 against an(a), in part, prohibits discrimination by a Comission licensee i
employee or contractor employee for engaging in certain protected activities. Discrimination includes discharge and other actions that relate to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. The protected activities are established in Section 211 of 4
t the Energy Reorganization Act (ERA) of 1974, as amended, and in general are related to the administration or enforcement of a requirement imposed under the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) or the Energy Rearganization Act. The protected activities include but are not limited to providing the Comission information about alleged violations of the ERA or the AEA or i
4 possible violations of requirements imposed under either of these 3
statutes.
]
Contrary to the above, as determined in the DOL Administrative Law Judge's Recommended Decision and Order in case 95-ERA-18 and 47, dated December
~ 12 199 Northeast Nuc1 C
criminated against I
gaging in protected
" ac es.
This is a Severity Level III violation (supplement VII).
j Civil Penalty - $100,000 l
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Northeast Nuclear Energy Company 1
(Licensee) is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, within 30 days of the date of the final decision of the Secretary of Labor. This reply should be clearly marked as a " Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include for each alleged violation: (1) admission or denial of the alleged violation, and (2) the reasons for the violation if admitted, and if denied, the reasons why. In addition, also pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, the Licensee is required to submit a written statement or explanation within 30 days of the date of this Notice of Violation and should include for each alleged violation:
i (1) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved, (2) the
)
. ~
q s,
l*
' Enclosure 2
l corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations, and (3) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Your response may reference or include previous docketed correspondence, if the correspondence adequately addresses the required response.
If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an order or a Demand for Information may be issued as to why the license should not be modified, suspended, or revoked or why such other action as may be proper should not be taken. Consideration may be given to extending the response time for good cause shown. Under the authority of Section 182 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2232, this response shall be submitted under
}
oath or affimation.
Within 30 days of the final decision of the Secretary of Labor in this case, the l
Licensee may pay the civil penalty by letter addressed to the Director, Office t
of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cosnission, with a check, draft, money i
order, or electronic transfer payable to the Treasurer of the United States in i
the amount of the civil penalty proposed above, or the cumulative amount of the civil penalties if more than one civil penalty is proposed, or may protest imposition of the civil penalty in whole or in part, by a written answer i
addressed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory i
i Commission.
Should the Licensee fall to answer within the time specified, an i
order imposing the civil penalty will be issued. Should the Licensee elect to file an answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 protesting the civil penalty, in whole or in part, such answer should be clearly marked as an " Answer to a Notice of Violation" and say:
(1) deny the violation listed in this Notice, in whole or in part, [2 demonstrate extenuating circumstances, 3 show error in this Notice, or (4))show other reasons why the penalty shoul(d)not be impos In addition to protesting the civil penalty in whole or in part, such answer may j
request remission or mitigation of the penalty.
In re uesting mitigation of the proposed penalty, the factors addressed in l
Section VI.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy should be addressed. Any written answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 should be set forth separately from the statement or explanation in reply pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201, but may incorporate parts of the 10 CFR 2.201 reply by specific reference (e.g., citing page and paragraph l
numbers) to avoid repetition. The attention of the Licensee is directed to the other provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, regarding the procedure for imposing a civil j
penalty.
Upon failure to nay any civil penalty due which subsequently has been detemined in accordance with the applicable provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, this matter may be referred to the Attorney General, and the penalty, unless compromised, remitted, e
or mitigated, may be collected by civil action pursuant to Section 234c of the
. Act, 42 U.S.C. 2282c.
9-v.
_~
c Enclosure 3
The response noted above (Reply to Notice of Violation, letter with sayment of civil penalty, and Answer to a Notice of Violation) should be addressed to: James Lieberman, Director, Office of Enforcement, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, One White Flint North,11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-2738, with a copy to the Regional Administrator, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Region 1, and the NRC Resident Inspector at the facility that is the subject of this Notice.
Because your response will be plac?d in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), to the extent possible, it should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be placed in the POR without redaction.
However, if you find it necessary to include such information, you should clearly indicate the specific information that you desire not to be placed in the PDR, l
and provide the legal basis to support your request for withholding the information from the public.
Dated at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania this 4th day of June 1996
j i
j April 23, 1996 i
EA 96-027 i
Dr. Michael M. Gottesman i
Deputy Director for Intramural Research j
Department of Health and Human Services National Institutes of Health NIH Building 1, Room 114 j
9000 Rockvi le Pike Bethesda,10 20892 f
Dear Dr. Gottesman:
i i
I as writing to acknowledge an April 16, 1996 letter from Ms. Harriet S. Rabb, General Counsel, Department of Health and Human Services to Mr. James Lieberman, Director, Office of Enforcement.
In her letter, Ms. Rabb states that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is declining to attend a predecisional enforcement conference, portions of which were to be open to public observation as appropriate, to address apparent violations described in sty letter to you dated January 29, 1996. Ms. Rabb proposes instead to address the apparent violations in a written submission to NRC on May 24, 1996.
Given the time that has elapsed since the NRC letter of January 29, 1996, when you were put on notice.that the apparent violations were being considered for escalated enforcement action, it is important that NRC receive the written submission from NIH by or on May 24, 1996.
If your response is not received by that date, the NRC staff intends to go forward with its enforcement 4
decisions concerning the apparent violations.
Your response should be clearly marked as a " Response to Apparent Violations in Inspection Reports Nos. 030-01786/95-002 (Redacted) and 030-01786/95-203" and should include for each apparent violation: (1) the reason for the apparent violation, or, if contested, the basis for disputing the apparent violation, (2) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved, (3) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid furti.er violations, and (4) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Your response should be submitted under oath or affirmation.
j In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, the incoming letter from Ms. Rabb, and your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR). To the extent possible, your response should not include any personal privacy or proprietary information so that it can be placed in the PDR without redaction. However, if you find it
o -,
M. Gottesman National Institutes of Health necessary to include such information, please provide a bracketed copy of your response that clearly indicates the specific infomation that you desire not be placed in the PDR and a redacted copy of your response that deletes the information desired to be withheld. For each portion of your response you desire tc, withhold, please provide the legal basis to support your request for withholding the information from the public.
Sincerely, Original Signed By:
Charles W. Hehl, Director Division of Nuclear Materials Safety Docket No. 030-01786 License No. 19-00296-10 cc:
State of Maryland l
R. Zoon, Radiation Safety Officer, NIH Harriet S. Rabb The General Counsel Department of Health and Human Services Washington, D.C.
20201
M. Gottesman National Institutes of Health DISTRIBUTION:
RI Docket Room (w/ concurrences)
PUBLIC Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)
C. Paperiello, NMSS J. Lieberman, OE T. Martin, RI W. Kane, RI C. Jones, NMSS D. Cool, NHSS j
J. De1 Medico, OE L. Fay Davis, DGC 4
A. Nicosia, DGC D. Holody, RI i
K. Smith, RI J. Joyner, RI M. Shanbaky, RI J. Dwyer, RI C. Gordon, RI M. Campion, RI EA File 4
Day File r
1 DOCUMENT NAME: S:\\nih\\ nth n %.
.ea u - =, - m 422 i
. wm c. em r - em m m - w..e OFFICE DNMS
/
/
l DNHS
/
l l
NAME Del Medico Lieberman Hehl l
DATE 04/25/96 s/4/23/96 by s/04/24/96 telephone per Hehl 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY i
1 4
.. _. ~. - _ _..
1 J.
/gW tg'o,7, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/ l[
8 REGION N
- e e
5 g
1o1 MARIETTA STREET. N.W., SUfTE 2000 i
ATUURA, GEORGIA 3capetse
\\...../
May 29, 1996 4
i i
Georgia Power Company t
ATTN: Mr. W. George Hairston, III I.
Executive Vice President Post Office Box 1295 Sirmingham, Alabama 35201 1
SUBJECT:
(DEPARTMENT OF LABOR CASE NOS. 90-ERA-30, 91-ERA-001, AND l
91-ERA-Cll) 1 j
Dear Mr. Hairston:
On August 4,1995, the Secretary of Labor issued a Decision and Remand Order 1
in Department of Labor (DOL) Case No. 90-ERA-30, Marvin 8. Hobby v. Georgia i
Power Company.
The Secretary of Labor found that, in 1990, senior managers of i
Georgia Power Company (GPC or licensee) discriminated against Mr. Hobby, former General Manager of GPC's Nuclear Operations Contract Administration (NOCA), when Mr. Hobby's position was eliminated and he was forced to resign 4
from GPC.
In addition, the Secretary of Labor found that other acts of i
discrimination occurred such as relocation of Mr. Hobby's office, restrictions on his access to the building, and revocation of his executive. parking i
privileges. The Secretary of Labor determined that GPC terminated Mr. Hobby i
for engaging in protected activities, which included his raising safety concerns related to the operation of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in an April 27, 1989 memorandum that Mr. Hobby provided to GPC's Vice President i
of Bulk Power. In the meno and during meetings, Mr. Hobby expressed concerns i
that the actual organizational structure governing operation of the licensee's nuclear facilities violated NRC requirements. This Decision and Romand Order i
rejected the Department of Labor's Administrative Law Judge's Recommended Decision and Order issued on November 8,1991, which found that actions taken against Mr. Hobby were not motivated by his engaging in protected activity.
Our concerns regarding the apparent violation of NRC requirements and a copy l
of th Secretary of Labor's Decision and Remand Order were transmitted to you j
by letter dated September 1,1995.
A predecisional enforcement conference regarding this matter was conducted in i
the Region II office on Octcher 4,1995, to discuss the apparent violation, i
the root cause, and your corrective actions to preclude recurrence. This conference was open for public observation in accordance with Section V of the j
NRC Enforcement Policy, NUREG-1600. A report summarizing the conference was sent to you by letter dated October 11, 1995.
i By Decision and Remand Order, dated November 20, 1995, in DOL Case Nos.
3 91-ERA-001 and 91-ERA-Oll, Allen L. Mosbaugh v. Georgia Power Company, the 4
i 6
Georgia Power Company,
i i
Secretary of Labor concluded that GPC discriminated against Mr. Mosbaugh when GPC terminated him.
In his decision, the Secretary of Labor concluded that i
Mr. Mosbaugh had engaged in protected activity "by making lawful tape 4
recordings that constituted evidence complaint" and that other employees' gathering in support of a nuclear potential unwillingness to communicate with Mr. Mosbaugh was not a legitimate reason for discharging him. This Decision and Remand Order rejected the DOL Administrative Law Judge's Recommended Decision and Order issued on October 30, 1992, which found that Mr. Mosbaugh did not establish that GPC violated the Energy Reorganization Act. A copy of the Secretary of Labor's decision was sent to you under separate cover on December 12, 1995, i
On December 11, 1995, during a telephone conversation between you and Messrs. Ellis Merschoff and Bruno Uryc of my staff concerning Mr. Mosbaugh's case, you advised that a predecisional enforcement conference was not required at that time. On December 12, 1995, a letter w:,s sent to you requesting that 4
you provide an explanation of your views on the apparent violation, its root causes, and a description of planned corrective actions.
In addition, you i
were given an opportunity to point out any disagreement with the facts and/or findings presented in the Secretary of Labor's decision. You also were asked to address the potential chilling effect that Mr. Mosbaugh's termination may have had on other employees. On December 13, 1995, GPC filed a Motion to Reopen the Record and for Further Hearings with DOL in this case.
In your December 21, 1995 response to the NRC's December 12 letter, you requested that the NRC allow GPC to defer its response to the apparent violation until its Motion to Reopen is ruled upon. After review of GPC's Motion to Reopen and the December 21, 1995 request, the NRC concluded that deferral of the response to the apparent violation was not warranted. By letter dated January 12, 1996, the NRC requested that you provide a full response to the apparent violation and potential chilling effect by January 19, 1996. Your response of January 19, 1996 denied the apparent violation and addressed the potential chilling effect associated with the Secretary of Labor's findings.
Based on the Decision and Remand Orders issued by the Secretary of Labor, the
' We note that, in the Motion to Reopen, GPC has argued that Mr. Mosbaugh deliberately violated NRC requirements and that, as a consequence, pursuant to Section 211(g) of the Energy Reorganization Act, the protections of section 211 do not apply to Mr. Mosbaugh. The NRC recognizes that it found that Mr.
Mosbaugh was involved in some of the performance failures that resulted in the submittal of inaccurate or incomplete information to the NRC -- see Modified
~
Notice of Violation C.3 (EA 93-304, NRC letter dated March 13,1995):
the Acting Assistant General Manager - Plant Support, the General Manager for Plant Support, and the Technical Support Manager failed to clarify and verify the starting point of the successful consecutive DG starts reported in the April 19, 1990 LER...." However, the NRC did not there find that Mr.
Mosbaugh deliberately violated any requirement.
It is the NRC's view that, but for Mr. Mosbaugh's activities in raising concerns and taping meetings and conversations among GPC personnel, the evidence to support the enforcement actions with regard to GPC's submittals of inaccurate and incomplete information would not have been obtai.ied.
l
l-Georgia Power Cos'pany,
i violations involve the failure to adhere to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.7, 1
Employee Protection, which prohibits discrimination against employees engaging i
in protected activities. During the predecisional enforcement conference and i
in your letter of January 19, 1996, GPC denied the violations involving t
Messrs. Hobby and Mosbaugh. Despite those denials, it is our view, based on the Secretary of Labor's decisions, that the facts support the conclusion that i
GPC violated the regulations applicable to employee protection as stated above. Therefore, the NRC adopts the Secretary of Labor's decisions in these cases and finds that the actions taken against Messrs. Hobby and Mosbaugh were acts of discrimination for their having engaged in protected activities.
l These violations are of very significant regulatory concern because they l
involved acts of discrimination by senior corporate management. The NRC l
places a high value on the freedom provided to nuclear industry employees to 1
raise potential safety concerns to licensee management or to the NRC. Section 210 (now 211) of the Energy Reorganization Act and 10 CFR 50.7 establish strict requirements for the protection of employees against discrimina; ion for raising nuclear safety issues and the NRC Enforcement Policy calls for significant enforcement action in cases where senior corporate management violate these requirements. Therefore, these violations have been categorized in accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC 3
l Enforcement Actions" (Enforcement Policy). NUREG-1600, at Severity Level I.
J In accordance with the Enforcement Policy, a t'ase civil penalty in the amount of $100,000 is considered for Severity Level I violations. Because the l
Statute of Limitations for imposing a civil penalty has expired, no civil e
j penalty is being proposed for the violations. Had the Statute of Limitations not expired, we would have considered the circumstances surrounding these matters, including corrective actions and efforts to avoid a chilling effect, to determine whether to impose civil penalties to the full extent of NRC's j
statutory authority in these cases.
i j
To emphasize the importance of ensuring that employees who raise real or perceived safety concerns are not subject to discrimination for raising those concerns and that every effort is made to provide an environment in which all i
employees may freely identify safety issues without fear of retaliation.
harassment, intimidation, or discrimination, I have been authorized, after I
consultation with the Commission, to issue the enclosed Not'ce which includes j
two violations, each categorized at Severity Level I.
You are required to respond to the enclosed Notice and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response.
In your response, you should document the specific actions taken and any additional actions you plan to prevent recurrence. Although we recognize that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia recently ruled that the Secretary's Order with regard to Mr. Hobby is not final or now immediately enforceable, we are, nevertheless, concerned that your decision in the Hobby and Mosbaugh cases -- that GPC would not immediately reinstate Messrs. Hobby and Mosbaugh as stated in the Decision and Remand Orders of the SOL -- may itself have a chilling effect on other employees. Therefore, in your response to this letter, you should describe any steps you intend to take to ensure that this decision by GPC will not create a chilling effect. After
Georgia Power Company,
reviewing your response to the Notice, including any actions you have taken to address the potential chilling effects, and the results of future inspections.
the NRC will determine whether further NRC enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirements.
i In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, its enclosure and your response will be placed in the NRC Public Occument Room.
To the extent possible, your response should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be placed in the PDR without redaction.
Sincerely, Stewart D. Ebneter Regional Administrator Docket Nos. 50-424, 50-425 License Nos. NPF-68, NPF-81
Enclosure:
Notice of Violation cc'w/ encl: (See next page)
Georgia Power Company,
cc w/ encl:
Mr. C. K. McCoy Office of the County Commissioner Vice President Burke County Commission Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Waynesboro, GA 30830 Georgia Power Company P. O. Box 1295 Harold Reheis, Director Birmingham, AL 35201 Department of Natural Resources 205 Butler Street, SE, Suite 1252 J. D. Woodard Atlanta, GA 30334 Senior Vice President Georgia Power Company Thomas Hill, Manager P. O. Box 1295 Radioactive Materials Program Birmingham, AL 35201 Department of Natural Resources 4244 International Parkway J. 8. Beasley Suite 114 General Manager, Plant Vogtle Atlanta, GA 30354 Georgia Power Company P. O. Box 1600 Attorney General Waynesboro, GA 30830 Law Department 132 Judicial Building J. A. Bailey Atlanta, GA 30334 Manager-Licensing Georgia Power Company Ernie Toupin P. O. Box 1295 Manager of Nuclear Operations Birmingham, AL 35201 Oglethorpe Power Corporation 2100 E. Exchange Place
- ~
Nancy G. Cowles, Counsel Tucker, GA 30085-1349 Office of the Consumer's Utility Council Charles A. Patrizia. Esq.
84 Peachtree Street, NW, Suite 201 Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker Atlanta, GA 30303-2318 10th Floor 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue Office of Planning and Budget Washington, D. C.
20004-9500 Room 615B 270 Washington Street, SW Atlanta, GA 30334
l 3
)
Georgia Power Company Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425 1
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant License Nos. NPF-68 and NPF-81 i
Units 1 and 2 EA 95-171 and EA 95-277 1,
i As a result of Secretary of Labor decisions dated August 4, 1995 (90-ERA-030) j and November 20,1995 (91-ERA-001 and 91-ERA-011), violations of NRC requirements were identified.
In accordance with the " General Statement of j
Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," NUREG-1600, the violations are listed below:
l 10 CFR 50.7 prohibits discrimination by a Commission licensee against an i
employee for engaging in certain protected activities. Discrimination l
includes discharge or other actions relating to the compensation, terms, j
conditions, and privileges of employment. Protected activities are described in Section 210 (now 211) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and in general are related to the administration or j
i enforcement of a requirement imposed under the Atomic Energy Act or Energy Reorganization Act.
t A.
Contrary to the above, in January and February 1990, Georgia Power l
Company (Licensee) discriminated against Mr. Marvin B. Hoey, then i
an employee of the Georgia Power Company, as a result of his i
having engaged in protected activities. The protected activities j
included Mr. Hobby's expressed concerns that the actual i
organizational structure governing operation of the Licensee's nuclear facilities violated NRC requirements. The Licensee terminated Mr. Hobby on February 23, 1990 and took other adverse actions as a result of his having engaged in these protected activities. The Secretary of Labor issued a Decision and Romand j
Order in Department of Labor case 90-ERA-30 on August 4, 1995, which found that Mr. Hobby's discharge as well as his office j
relocation, the denial of executive parkir.g privileges and loss of access were acts of retaliation for engaging in these protected activities.
(01011) a i
This is a Severity Level I violation (Supplement VII).
l B.
Contrary to the above, in September and October 1990, the Licensee l
discriminated against Mr. Allen L. Mosbaugh, then an employee of the Georgia Power Company, as a result of his having engaged in j
protected activities. The protected activities included making tape recordings that constituted evidence gathering in support of i
a nuclear complaint. The Secretary of Labor issued a Decision and Remand Order in Department of Labor cases 91-ERA-001 and 91-ERA-i 011 on November 20, 1995 finding that Mr. Mosbaugh's suspension
]
and discharge were acts of retaliation for engaging in protected j
activity. (02011) 1 i
This is a Severity Level I violation (Supplement VII).
I i
e m
i Notice of Violation Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C. 20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region II, and a copy to the NRC i
Resident Inspector at the facility that is the subject of this Notice, within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice of Violation
]
(Notice). This reply should be clearly marked as a " Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include for each violation: (I) the reason.for the violation, or, if contested, the basis for disputing the violation, (2) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved, (3) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations, and (4) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Your response may 4
reference or include previously docketed correspondence if the correspondence i
adequately addresses the required response. If an adequate reply is not i
received within the time specified in this Notice, an order or a Demand for j
Information may be issued as to why the license should not be modified, suspended, or revoked, or why such other action as may be proper should not be taken. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending j
the response time.
Under the authority of Section 182 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2232, this response shall be submitted under oath or affirmation.
Because your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (FDR), to the extent possible, it should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be placed in the PDR without redaction. However, if you find it necessary to include such information, you should clearly indicate the specific information that you desire not to be placed in the PDR, and provide the legal basis to support your request for withholding the information from the public.
Dated at Atlanta, Georgia this 29th day of May,1996
~..___ ______._._ _
l ij J
conow ev k...../
sin p reses4 4 gnwg,,,,,,,,,
i Ammorow.Yax4s mn.eeu March 7, 1996
/
I EA 93-159 I
Arizona Public Service Company 4
i ATTN: William L. Stewart i
i Executive Vice President, Nuclear i
P.O. Box 53999 5
i l Phoenix, Arizona 85072-3999 1
1
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION & PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY - 5100,0 j
(NRC 0FFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS REPORT 5-93-023R) f
- This is in reference to your January ll,1996 letter which provided Arizond i
. Public Service (APS) Company's reply to my November 27, 1995
! APS's response to an apparent violation of 10 CFR 50.7 at the Palo Verdeletter request; Nuclear Generating Station (Palo Verde).
Thisexchangeofcorrespondencedas i
in lieu of a predecisional enforcement conference, which neither APS nor NRC felt was necessary given the history and documentation surrounding this case.
8 As discussed in more detail in say letter, an NRC investigation concluded that
} an APS supervisor caused APS to be in violation of 10 CFR 50.7 when he decided l
! in December 1991 not to hire a contract instrumentation and control (ILC) '
i i technician for an upcoming Palo Verde Unit 1 outage. This 01 finding i
i followed a conclusion by a Department of Labor Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) on May 10, 1993 that APS had discriminated against the I&C technician (DOL i
Case Number 92-ERA-030).
In August 1993, the APS supervisor admitted to ARS
- attorneys that he made the decision not to hire the technician because he had
- learned that the technician had raised concerns at other nuclear facilities t
i i and while esployed at Palo Verde.
i i
i In your January 11, 1996 letter, you did not contest the NRC's position tha't a i violation had occurred but requested that the NRC consider a number of points j
' in making its enforcement decision, including, but not Ilmited to: the 5 discovery by APS in August 1993 that the supervisor had not been truthful 8
about his reason for not hiring the technician; APS's promptly infoming the t
I NRC of this discovery.and cooperating with NRC's investigation; the
! supervisor's statement, which has not been disproved, that he acted on his own i
l without any suggestion by higher level management that he discriminate agal.nst i
the technician; APS's prompt action to suspend the supervisor and subsequent j
decision to terminate his employment; APS's settlement with the technician,who i
! was discriminated against; APS's comprehensive corrective actions directed.at i
- concerns without fear of retaliation; and.the apparent success of those t
l
' actions based on statistical evidence and surveys of employees.
With regard i
! to enforcement policy issues APS stated that the NRC should exercise j
- discretion and assess no civil penalty based on the factors discussed above.
, The NRC has reviewed all of the information associated with this case, l
, including your January ll,1996 submittal and information obtained in a November 2, 1995 predecisional enforcement conference with the former l
i 4
4 g
- l l
8 e
.. m...
l 2
e
^
4 i
-e e-_,-,--
r,.y 6
--*r--
j '.
ALLEGATION PROCESS l
IMPROVEMENT TEAM PRESENTATION TO i
WILLIAM T.
RUSSELL DIRECTOR, NRR SEPTEMBER 21, 1994
(
gb b g v
4 i
o 3
+C
~
O l
4 l
e eum ciecx LU O
b O
4 g
F g
M O&
/+
+o' Yi
I I
i I
l l
l e
PURPOSE IS TO PRESENT:
l e
ALLEGATION PROCESS l
IMPROVEMENT TEAM FINDINGS i.
i e
ALLEGATION PROCESS IMPROVEMENT TEAM PROPOSED SOLUTIONS j
e MANAGEMENT SUPPORT j
NEEDED FROM NRR PROGRAM l
OFFICE i
l d
4 i
i f
I THE ALLEGATION PROCESS t
IMPROVEMENT TEAM i
l t
Rich Barkley - DRP Alan Shropshire - DRMA Mary Jo Campion - ORA Tracy Walker - DRS Joe Carrasco - DRS John White - DRP Jim Dwyer - DRSS Jimi Yerokun - DRP Jim Joyner - DRSS Michelle Evans - DRP Team Leader Bob Gross - DRMA Team Facilitator t
I
ALLEGATION PROCESS IMPROVEMENT TEAM l
The Mission of the Team was to Evaluate and Improve the Region I Allegation Process from Receipt to Closure.
The Team's Efforts included:
Developing an Understanding of the Current Process Analyzing the Process and Determining the Root i
Causes of the Identified Problems
\\
Identifying and Piloting Solutions l
I P
-?
PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED 1? Human and Material Resources are Not Managed f
and Utilized Efficiently.
1 2? Followup on Allegations is Not Well Planned and Coordinated.
l
- 3) Resource Expenditures are Not Captured Sufficiently for Accounting and Measuring Performance.
l f
- 4) Response to Allegers is Not Timely.
i
[
5? Allegation Process Time is Too Long.
- 6) Large Backlog of Open Allegations Exists.
t
+
i i
i 1
PROBLEM STATEMENT l
t "THE PROBLEM IS THAT HUMAN AND MATERIAL RESOURCES ARE NOT MANAGED EFFICIENTLY, RESULTING IN A LENGTHY AND CUMBERSOME ALLEGATION PROCESS AND A LARGE BACKLOG OF ALLEGATIONS."
i i
f i
h i
ROOT CAUSES l
1? REGIONAL INSTRUCTION IS TOO VAGUE No Criteria to Screen Out Non-Allegations No Criteria to Prioritize Based on Resources l
Accountability is Lacking l
Allegation Panel Responsibilities are not Defined 2D PROCESS FLOW IS CUMBERSOME 1
- 3) FOLLOWUPS NOT WELL PLANNED OR COORDINATED i
t 4? REGION DOES NOT REFER ENOUGH ALLEGATIONS l
TO LICENSEES t
I t
ROOT CAUSES (continued) i 1
5? PROBLEMS WITH COMMUNICATIONS 6? TRACKING SYSTEM IS NOT ADEQUATE
- 7) SENIOR ALLEGATION COORDINATOR FUNCTION j
IS TOO ADMINISTRATIVE l
- 8) TRAINING IS LACKING j
- 9) RITS TRACKING IS NOT SUFFICIENT l
l I
I I
.1 i
-i
SUMMARY
OF PROPOSED SOLUTIONS
- 1) Standard Acknowledgement and i
Acknowledgement /Closecut Letters l
- 2. Disposition Some Allegations Without Panel Meetings i
- 3) Emphasize the Use of Other Available Options for l
i the Disposition of Allegations
- 4) Provide Additional Options to Document Closeouts
- 5) Assign ~ Closeout Responsibilities
- 6) Track Additional Performance Indicators i
2
i 4
)
i-t h
IMPACT OF PROPOSED SOLUTIONS l
k.
4
- 1) IMPROVING CUSTOMER SATISFACTION t
i 2D SHIFTING ACCOUNTABILITY TO A LOWER LEVEL
- 3) USING RESOURCES MORE EFFICIENTLY f
[
i 3
t MANAGEMENT SUPPORT NEEDED j
FROM PROGRAM OFFICE 4
}
- 1) Ensure Management Directive Does Not Preclude Implementation of Proposed Solutions and Future Program improvements j
Standard Acknowledgement Letters i
4 Closeout w/o Followup for Issues of Low Safety Significance t
I Optional Panels
(
l 2? Consider Revision of AMS to Allow Tracking of Additional Performance Indicators
[
t l
[
6 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
[
l i
- 1. RECEIPT TO ACKNOWLEDGEMENT LETTER SENT
- 2. RECEIPT TO ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE ESTABLISHED (DISPOSITION DETERMINEDD
- 3. ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE TO INSPECTION / FOLLOW-UP COMPLETION
- 4. INSPECTION / FOLLOW-UP COMPLETION TO ALLEGATION CLOSEOUT (LETTER / MEMO SENT?
a.
.m
m
-.---e
--~--
a.-
am--
a a
s s
m--
e4 8
509
$WE
, m an m - eum amm en _ _ _ am, _ _ een _ em - _ _ em aus _ _
%b W
sg 85 6
mg O
4 8-i O
Z 4
H l
W U
6E5 7
v l
kCEO c5 n
gw-<
w~,
1
=
=
a.-
g e
m_
O U
S M
le ~
"8 9g g um cr Wg M
M ul U
O E
r g
- ~
Z O
H H<
0 m
d Q'
W
! 5-E a
ss cgb e1 a
a a -g M$
mg a
O g
ER W
O M
5 O
C u
L 0
4 m
am G
G 5-OS 1
oc i
)
i ALLEGATION ROCESS DATA f
MATERIALS REACTORS RECEIPT TO ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT TO PANEL 4
8 i
i RECEIPT TO DISPOSITION 53 114 COMPLETED i
DISPOSITION COMPLETED 18 86 l
TO CLOSURE TOTAL PROCESS TIME 71 200
- DATA NOT AVAILABLE i
i t
PILOT ALLEGAT:
N PROCESS DATA i
l i
MATERIALS REACTORS I
i RECEIPT TO 43 42 i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT e
l RECEIPT TO 6
8 DISPOSITION DETERMINED RECEIPT TO 59 50 DISPOSITION COMPLETED 1
i DISPOSITION COMPLETED 16 14 r
TO CLOSURE t
TOTAL PROCESS TIME 66 64 l
i r
f
AILEGATION CI! POSITION RECORD Rev. 2 10/5/94 Citos COcticn Chisf (AOC):
Allegation No.:
Date Received f.
Acknowledged:
Receipt Report to SAC CONFIDENTIALITY GRANTED:
Yes No OI Informed:
IS THERE A HARASSMENT / DISCRIMINATION ISSUE:
Yes No (If yes, complete HEID section on reverse)
DOES THE ALLEGATION INVOLVE POTENIIAL WRONGDOING:
Yes No DOES THE ALLEGATION EAVE POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS:
Yes No i
DOES THE ALLEGATION REQUIRE RESOURCES TO RESOLVE WHICH CAN NOT BE OBTAINED BY THE AOC:
Yes No If yes to any of the above, the allegation needs to go to an Allegation Panel.
4 Otherwise, document disposition actions below.
ALLEGATION PANEL (AP) DECISIONS Date Previous APs on issues Yes / No Chair -
Branch Chief -
Section Chief (AOC)
SAC -
(Others) -
OI Rep. -
DISPOSITION ACTIONS:
(State specific action required for closure (including i
special concurrences), responsible person, ECD and expected closure documentation) 1)
Responsible Person ECDs 4
Closure Documentation:
Completed:
2)
Responsible Person ECD j
Closure Documentation:
Completed:
3) i 1
i Responsible Person ECD:
Closure Documentations Completed:
4)
Responsible Persons ECD:
Closure Documentation:
Completed:
Safety Significance Assessment:
J
AILEGATION EICPOSITION RECORD Rev. 2 1D/5/94 Cito S2ctien Chief (AOC):
1 Allegation No.:
Date Received:
Acknowledged:
Receipt Report to SAC CONFIDENTIALITY GRANTED:
Yes No OI Informed:
IS THERE A HARASSMENT / DISCRIMINATION ISSUE:
Yes No (If yes, complete H&ID section on reverse)
DOES THE ALLEGATION INVOLVE POTENTIAL WRONGDOING:
Yes No DOES THE AILEGATION HAVE POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS:
Yes No DOES THE ALLEGATION REQUIRE RESOURCES TO RESOLVE WHICH CAN NOT BE OBTAINED BY THE AOC Yes No If yes to any of the above, the allegation needs to go to an Allegation Panel.
Otherwise, document disposition actions below.
1 AllaGATION PANEL (AP) DECISIONS Dates Previous APs on issue Yes / No Chair -
Branch Chief -
Section Chief (AOC) -
SAC -
(Others)
OI Rep. -
DISPOSITION ACTIONS:
(State specific action required for closure (including special concurrences), responsible person, ECD and 1
expected closure documentation) 1)
Responsible Person:
ECD Closure Documentations,
Completed:
2) i Responsible Person ECD Closure Documentations Completed:
3)
Responsible Perrons ECD Closure Documentation:
Completed:
4)
Responsible Person:
ECD:
Closure Documentation:
Completed:
Safety significance Assessments
d i
ACTION ITEM 96-127 i
FY 1995 TOTAL DIE TOTAL ALLEGATION TIME SPENT - PERCENT SITE HOURS HOURS ALLEGATIONS VS DIE Millstone 9,784 1,487 M'
Beaver Valley 4,855 113 2.3%
Calvert Cliffs 5,331 66 1.2%
FitzPatrick 3,271 158 4.8%
1 Ginna 2,609 23~
0.9%
Haddam Neck 3,429 31 0.9%
Hope Creek 3,032 78 2.6%
Indian Point 2 3,662 38 1.0%
Indian Point 3 6,564 269 4.1%
Limerick 3,758 61 1.6%
Maine Yankee 3,364 41 1.2%
Nine Mile Point 4,424 127 2.9%
Oyster Creek 3,352 10 0.3%
Peach Bottom 4,218 74 1.8%
Pilgrim 2,876-19 0.7%
Salem 6,169 896 EW3%'
Seabrook 2,881 5
0.2%
Susquehanna 3,252 78 2.4%
Three Mile Island 2,919 8
0.3%
Vermont Yankee 4,100 14 0.3%
w
O t
Number of Allegations Received 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 MP HN MP HN MP HN MP HN MP HN MP HN MP HN MP HN MP HN MP HN January 0
0 2
0 0
0 1
0 7
0 2
0 3-0 1
1 2
1 3
3 February 0
0 2
0 0
0 2
1 4
0 2
0 1
1 4
1 2
1 14 2
March 0
0 2
0 2
0 4
1 6
0 3
1 2
0 3
1 2
2 5
1 April 0
0 2
0 2
0 2
0 8
0 4
0 2
2 2
0 1
1 6
1 May 1
1 1
0 1
1 1
0 25 0
2 0
4 0
1 0
5 0
7 1
June 2
3 1
0 1
0 3
0 34 0
2 0
3 1
2 0
2 0
6 0
Jufy 1
0 0
0 1
0 2
0 21 0
1 0
3 2
2 0
2 0
August 1
0 0
0 1
0 3
0 12 0
0 3
1 6
1 5
0 September 2
0 1
0 1
0 4
0 10 1
1 12 0
7 1
1 0
October 0
0 1
0 3
0 9
1 14 0
4 3
3 5
0 2
0 November 1
0 1
0 1
0 5
0 10 1
1 0
4 0
2 1
7 1
December 0
0 1
0 3
1 4
0 7
0 0
1 4
0 -
6 0
1 0
Annual Totals By site:
l 8 1
ll14 0 ll16 2 ll 40 3 ll158 2 ll 22 3 ll 44 10 ll 41 6 ll 32 6 ll 41 8 l Annual Total 9
14 18 43 160 25 54 47 38 49 De's es of Jbry ff. f f96 G wswnt wn 4
~. -.
i e
4, UNiltD B SAIEU NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMM10SION WASmNSTCN. o.C. sesu est aus an i.
7 N
Dear (h
l This refers to your letter, dated June 4, 1993, concerning the i
Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty i
(Notica) and Demand for Information (Demand) issued to the Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (licensee or NU) on May 4,1993 (Enforcement Action 92-212).
In your letter you indicated that an l
attorney representing NU advised you that any objections which you might make to the NRC concerning this enforcement action may violate the Settlement Agreement you reached with NU.
i j
l i
I have reviewed the letter dated June 15, 1993, which was sent to you by Mr. H. Reynolds, attorney for NU, and which states that notwithstanding sone possible confusion resulting from a
i conversation he had with you, the settlement Agreement clearly leaves you free to communicate with the NRC regarding any concern i
related to the nuclear workplace and public safety.
I wish to emphasize that you are free to communicate any such concern to the NRC, as well as to comment on enforcement actions.
Please contact me immediately should an incident occur which you believe suggests i
otherwise.
4 j
In your letter, you questioned (Nos.
5, 7, 13 and 14) f why the NRC did not take action agai.1, 2, 3, 4, nst certain individuals, and why the NRC chose to categorize violations at Severity Ievel II
{
rather than a Severity Level I. % note that the examples in the i
Enforcement Policy are neither exhausting nor controlling.and that on balance, the severity Level II classification was appro,priate in j
this case.
In your letter, you also asserted that there were specifics related to your allegations of harassment and intimidation that were not hddressed by the enforcement' action.
In our view, the Office of Investigations (OI) conducted a
thorough and comprehensive investigation of this matter.
Whe*UIlleport and all of the associated evidence were reviewed in ~ considerable detail by the staff, including representatives from Region I, the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, the Office of the General Counsel, and
$he Office of Enforcement.g,Et was only after careful consideration of all of that evidence tha't the ' staff krrived at its conclusions pnd decided on a course of actionibich was reviewed and approved by the Commission.
The NRC considers this enforcement action a significant action which appropriately emphasizes the importance of the licensee providing a work environment that is free of
e
~
i harassment, intialdation and discrimination against those who raise i
safety issues, and which is consistent with the requirements of the Enforcement Policy of the Commission (Nos.10 and 11).
1 You questioned (No. 2) what assurance NU employees, the general j
public and the NRC have that this type of action will not continue.
i The NRC directly addressed this concern in the Demand for j
Information, to which the licensee responded on June 3,1993. The
]
licensee's response and corrective actions, along with the results of future NRC inspections, will be reviewed by the NRC to ensure i
i that the work environment at NU will be free from harassment, l
intimidation and discrimination against anyone raising safety i
concerns. Based on the results of that review and NRC inspections, i
the NRC will determine whether further enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with NRC requirements.
4 You also questioned (Nos. 8 and 15) what actions the NMC was i
considering for two other issues, namely the Roseno t Inc.
involve in this na as the departure of NU.
These issues a 1
b ng nyes an rev eve the NRC.
With respect to your question (No. 5) whether attorneys are exempt from being cited for j
violations due to their position, even if their actions were j
directed by Corporate Management, there is no such exemption.
f i
With respect to your question (No. 6) whether the NRC considered l
retaliation against subordinates and possibly family members as d
fair targets as long as there is no direct retaliation against the 1
individual involved in protected activities, clearly such j
retaliation, if it occurred, would be unacceptable.
However, the i
further removed from the protected activity that a perceived retaliatory act occurs, the more difficult it may be to prove a i
~ nexus to the employee's engagement in a protected activity.
This
{
is,because
'10 CFR 50.7, Employee. protection, prohibits discrimination again'st an emploves who engages in certain protected i
activities.
Discrimination is defined as including discharge and i
other actions that relate to compensation, terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. It might be very difficult to prove that i
an adverse act,on aga' inst someone who was not engaged in a i
protected activity was prompted by the intent to retaliate against i
someone who was engaged in a protected activity, especially when it i
is not clear as to how that adverse act affects the compenration, terms, conditions and privileges of employment of the protected individual.
i With respect to your request for the total cost of the investigation and whether NU is responsible for those costs (No.
12), I note that the exact cost has not been itemized and NU was i
not held directly responsible for it. However, the fees charged to i
licensees do cover the cost of NRC activities.
1 1
i i
w.
ti 3
Finally, you expressed a concern with the time it took to resolve this case.
We share your concern and are considering what action can be taken to improve the timeliness of our handling of harassment and intimidation cases.
sincerely, a
4 1
Q, rames Lieberman, Director
't >ffice of Enforcement i
5 4
6 1
4 l
~
l e
l l
4 i
I i
i 5
1 i
1 I
,