ML20149L549
| ML20149L549 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 02/22/1996 |
| From: | Callan L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Terry C TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9602270096 | |
| Download: ML20149L549 (5) | |
Text
- 8%
g Q
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{
REGION IV 6
8 611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE, SUITE 400
=
k,
,8 AR LINGTON, TEXAS 760118064 February 22, 1996 EA 95-271 TU Electric ATTN:
C. L. Terry, Group Vice President Nuclear Production Energy Plaza 1601 Bryan Street, 12th Floor Dallas, Texas 75201-3411
SUBJECT:
EXERCISE OF ENFORCEMENT DISCRETION (Office of Investigation Report No. 4-95-011)
Dear Mr. Terry:
This refers to an investigation conducted by the NRC's Office of Investigations (01) at the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) to determine whether a former employee was retaliated against for contacting the NRC &nd whether there was any deliberate misconduct on the part of the managers involved in this matter.
The investigation was prompted by TU Electric informing the NRC in February 1995, that an employee's access to the protected area of the station had been suspended, and subsequently restored, after he may have telephoned the NRC with concerns.
Follwing completion of our investigation, a transcribed predecisional enforcement conference was held with you and members of your staff on January 16, 1996, to discuss the circumstances related to the suspension of the employee's access.
The NRC has also considered the information that was provided in writing after the conference, including TU 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 the three managers who were requested to attend the conference.
Consistent with your January 22, 1996 letter, TV Electric's position at the enforcement conference was that no violation of 10 CFR 50.7 occurred, and that the managers involved in the action to suspend the employee's access did not violate 10 CFR 50.5 because their action was designed to safeguard the plant, not to retaliate against the employee for potentially reporting a concern to the NRC.
It is noteworthy that, apparently, no effort was made to determine what an employee meant when he said that there was "something going on" or what another employee meant when he said that "if this gets ugly," he had nothing to do with it.
Rather, the TU managers who were involved in the initial action focused on whether the employee contacted the NRC and they felt it necessary to review his telephone records (an action that was initiated but not carried out) to determine whether he had in fact called the NRC.
- Thus, the concern that these managers had that the employee had called the NRC is difficult to separate from any concern these managers had in making the decision to suspend his access due to a perceived security risk posed by this employee. The NRC is concerned that these managers, one of whom was a high 9602270096 960222 PDR ADOCK 05000445 F
PDR h@
y a
i TV Electric,
level manager, i.e., the acting Vice President for Operations, would lack j
sensitivity to, and a sufficient understanding of, the right of the employee to contact the NRC and the potential chilling effect that might result from action against the employee based, at least in part, on his possibly 1
exercising that right.
We are particularly concerned that these managers considered an employee's contacting the NRC as evidence of aberrant behavior.
i The NRC considers that any attempt to connect an employee's act of calling the NRC with the employee exhibiting aberrant behavior is simply unacceptable.
The NRC concludes that the action taken to suspend the employee's access to the CPSES protected area, albeit temporarily and without the employee's knowledge, was an adverse action that affected the terms and privileges of his employment and demonstrates that certain TU Electric managers were motivated to take the adverse action as a result of the employee having potentially reported a concern to the NRC. Therefore, the NRC has determined that under these circumstances 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 activities.
In recognition of the importance that NRC places on this issue, a violation of 10 CFR 50.7 involving an action by plant management above first-line supervision is considered to raise a very significant regulatory concern, and as such, is normally classified at Severity Level II (see Supplement VII to the General Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions (Enforcement Policy), NUREG-1600).
However, TV Electric identified this issue when one of the involved managers made the Group Vice President aware of the suspension. Additionally, we are aware of the temporary nature of the adverse t
action against the employee'.
We note that the employee's access was restored before he required access to the protected area and that he was not aware that his protected area access had been temporarily suspended.
We also noted that the corporate security manager refused to check the telephone record, concluding that there was not a proper basis, and promptly notified the Group Vice President who by then was aware of the matter and had begun taking corrective action.
Further, the Group Vice President immediately ordered that any attempt to review phone records be cancelled, counseled the involved managers, and issued a letter to CPSES employees reaffirming their right to contact the NRC.
Although not required, you also informed NRC of this matter the same day it was discovered.
Therefore, to recognize your considerable efforts to take action to quickly rectify a situation which had the potential to chill your staff's willingness to approach the NRC with concerns and to encourage prompt identification and comprehensive correction of violations, I have been authorized, after consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, and the Deputy
'Upon being informed of the suspension, senior licensee managers immediately reversed the suspension, which apparently was in effect for less than 10-hours.
k TV Electric Executive Director for Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Regional Operations and Research, to exercise enforcement discretion in accordance with the guidance set forth in Section VII.B.(6) of the Enforcement Policy, and not to propose a civil penalty or Notice of Violation in this case.
The hRC has also determined that enforcement action is not warranted and no action is being taken against the involved managers.
However, we believe that the involved managers did not adequately balance potential concerns about safeguarding the plant with protecting employees' rights to raise safety concerns directly to the NRC.
Furthermore, with respect to the manager that was in an acting capacity, the NRC holds licensees responsible for maintaining the same standards for all plant management, including loaned or contract executives, and for ensuring that all licensee managers are sufficiently sensitive to this issue ar.d other applicable regulatory requirements. NRC will inform the individual managers of its decision not to pursue individual enforcement action by separate correspondence.
No response to this letter is required In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
Sincerely, L. J. Callan, Re onal Administrator Docket Nos. 50-445; 50-446 Licenses Nos. NPF-87; NPF-89 cc:
TV Electric ATTN:
Roger D. Walker, Manager of Regulatory Affairs for Nuclear Engineering Organization Energy Plaza 1601 Bryan Street, 12th Floor Dallas, Texas 75201-3411 Juanita Ellis President - CASE 1426 South Polk Street Dallas, Texas 75224
i TU Electric TU Electric Bethesda Licensing 3 Metro Center, Suite 610 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius ATTN: George L. Edgar, Esq.
1800 M. Street, NW Washington, D.C.
20036 Texas Department of Licensing & Regulation ATTN:
G. R. Bynog, Program Manager /
Chief Inspector Boiler Division P.O. Box 12157, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 Honorable Dale McPherson County Judge P.O. Box 851 Glen Rose, Texas 76043 Texas Radiation Control Program Director 1100 West 49th Street Austin, Texas 78756 Office of the Governor ATTN:
Susan Rieff, Director Environmental Policy P.O. Box 12428 Austin, Texas 78711
- DISTRIBUTION:
PDR LPDR SECY CA JTaylor, EDO JMilhoan, DEDR LChandler, 0GC JGoldberg, OGC 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 e
DOCUMENT: g:\\ea\\ final \\ea95271.fnl f
OE 0(:
1 DEOR MS un J4, 11 JLi n JMilhoan i
2/l 66 2/Q/96 2/g/96 2/d/96 2/d/96 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY 27001g