ML20149L548
| ML20149L548 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 02/22/1996 |
| From: | Callan L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Paleologos N AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| IA-96-006, IA-96-6, NUDOCS 9602270093 | |
| Download: ML20149L548 (3) | |
Text
...
g E8%q UNITE D STATES
[1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7
{
- g REGION IV k
611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE, SUITE 400 T
%*****/
AR LINGTON, TEXAS 76011 8064 February 22, 1996 IA 96-006 Mr. Nicholas C. Paleologos
[HOME ADDRESS DELETED PURSUANT T0 10 CFR 2.790]
SUBJECT:
JANUARY 16, 1996, PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE (INVESTIGATION CASE N0. 4-95-011)
Dear Mr. Paleologos:
This refers to the transcribed predecisional enforcement conference held with you and TU Electric on January 16, 1996, at the NRC's Arlington, Texas office.
The conference was held following an investigation conducted by the NRC's Office of Investigations (01) at the Comanche Feak Steam Electric Station I
(CPSES) to determine whether a former employee was retaliated against for contacting the NRC. The investigation was prompted by TV Electric informing the NRC in February 1995, that an employee's access to the protected area of the station had been suspended after he telephoned the NRC with concerns about reductions in staffing in his area of responsibility.
The NRC has also considered the information that was provided in writing after the conference, including TV Electric's January 22, 1996 letter to the NRC and the January 26, 1996 letter from Donald P. Irwin, of Hunton & Williams, the law firm representing you and other managers who were requested to attend the conference.
Consistent with TV Electric's January 22, 1996 letter, your position at the enforcement conference was that you did not violate 10 CFR 50.5 because your action of revoking the individual's access to the plant was designed to safeguard the plant, not to retaliate against the employee for potentially reporting a concern to the NRC.
Nonetheless, it was indicated at the l
conference that the potential that the employee had called the NRC with a L
concern was one factor in your consideration of the employee's behavior to
)
l determine whether to suspend the individual's access.
In fact, you even l
ordered that the employee's telephone records be reviewed to verify whether l
the employee had indeed contacted the NRC. When yce informed the Group Vice
{
President of your actions the next morning, he reversed the access suspension action by issuing an order reinstating the suspended unescorted access, stopped any telephone records check, counseled all involved managers about the potential chilling effects, informed NRC, issued a Division wide memo reiterating the company policy against even the appearance of retaliation, and l
initiated an investigation. Because of TV Electric's prompt and comprehensive l
l actions, the employee's access was restored before the employee required access to the protected area of the facility and the employee was unaware that i
the suspension had occurred. The NRC has detarmined, for the reasons that are explained in the enclosed letter to TV Electric, that the decision to suspend this employee's access to the protected area was a violation of 10 CFR 50.7, which prohibits discriminating against employees who engage in protected 9602270093 9602?2 PDR ADOCK 050C0445 G
PDR i-
l 4
t Mr. Nicholas C. Paleologos '
activity. However, as indicated in the enclosed letter, NRC has determined that the application of Enforcement Discretion is warranted in this case and neither a Notice of Violation nor a civil penalty has been proposed with regard to TV Electric.
NRC has also determined that enforcement action against you is not warranted and no action is being taken against you or any of the other involved managers.
However, we believe that you and the other involved managers did not adequately balance potential concerns about safeguarding the plant from an employee who exhibits aberrant behavior with protecting employee's rights to raise safety concerns.
You should understand that the NRC considers that connecting an employee's action of raising a safety concern to the NRC with aberrant behavior is simply unacceptable.
Since NRC is taking no action against you, you are not required to respond to this letter.
However, if you choose to provide a response, please provide it to me within 30 days at U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region IV, 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington, Texas 76011.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," records or documents compiled for enforcement purposes are placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR).
A copy of this letter with your address removed, and your response, if you choose to submit one, will be placed in the PDR.
Sincerely, L.
. Itall an, Reg 1 al Administrator
Enclosure:
February 22, 1996 letter to TU Electric cc w/o encl:
TV Electric ATTN:
C. L. Terry, Group Vice President Nuclear Production Energy Plaza 1601 Bryan Street, 12th Floor Dallas, Texas 75201-3411
4 Mr. Nicholas C. Paleologos DISTRIBUTION:
PDR LPDR SECY CA JTaylor, EDO JMilhoan, DEDR LChandler, OGC JGoldberg, 0GC WRussell, NRR RZimmerman, NRR/ADP SBloom, NRR Enforcement Coordinators RI, RII, RIII JGilliland, PA LNorton, OIG GCaputo, 01 EJordan, AE00 LTremper, OC/LFDCB OE:ES OE:EA (2) (07H5)
-NUDOCS RIV DISTRIBUTION:
LJCallan SJCollins GSanborn > EAFile RWise BHenderson CHackney WBrown LWilliamson JDyer > AHowell TPGwynn > KBrockman WJohnson TGody, SRI /CPSES RIV Files MIS Coordinator DOCUMENT: G:\\EA\\ FINAL \\lA96-006.FNL f
OE 0
1 DEDR MS us J
6 11 JLi an JMilhoan 2/l 96 2/ /96 2/[{/96 2//1/96 2/d/96 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY 27000g
.