ML20195E456
| ML20195E456 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 05/25/1999 |
| From: | Lochbaum D UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| References | |
| 2.206, NUDOCS 9906110127 | |
| Download: ML20195E456 (2) | |
Text
$%!D
.c summmme--mass -a
}
UNION OF N'
CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
't May 25,1999 Executive Director for Operations Umted States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 0001
SUBJECT:
PETITION PURSUANT TO 10 CFR 2,206: !LLEGAL ACTIVITIESAT PERRY Good Day:
The Union of Concemed Scientists (UCS) submits this petition pursuant to the 'other actions' provision of 10 CFR 2.206. Specifically, we request that the individual who was the Radiation Protection Manager at the Perry Nuclear Power Plant be banned by the NRC from participation in licensed activities at and for any nuclear power plant for a period of at least five (5) years.
Background
j According to NRC News Announcement R!l! 99-31 dated May 24,1999, the NRC proposed a $110,000
(-
fine asamst First Energy Nuclear Operating Company for violation of the employee protection requirements of 10 CFR Part 50.7. The announcement stated that an NRC investigation found that the Radiation Protection Manager at the Perry Nuclear Power Plant discriminated against a supervisor in 1997 for testifymg in a United States Department of Labor hearing involving possib!c discrimination against another plant worker. The NRC has banned individuals in the recent past for five (5) years for retahation.'
Basis for Requested Action UCS is an established. longstanding non profit, public interest organization concemed about safety at nuclear power plants in the United States.
UCS is concemed about the clear and repeated indications that nuclear plant owners are not providing an environment conducive to employees freely raising safety issues without fear of retaliation. The NRC has proposed a strmg of civil penalties against plant owners without apparent effect in preventing retaliation and discrimination. '!he requested action would hold the individual who violated 10 CFR 50.7 accountable for that illegal act. Given all the attention thet employees' rights to freely raise safety
' Nuclear Regulatory Comnussion, Press Release No. !! 97-08, "NRC Staff Proposes $100.000 Fine Against Tennessee Valley Authority - NRC Steff Also Prohibits TVA Executive from involvement in NRC. Licensed Activities.** January 14,1997, I
f '.7 0 9
'..a.~
Weehmeten Office: 1616 P Street NW Suite 310. Washington DC 200361496 202432 0900 e FAX: 202 332 0a05 Cembridge Headquarters Two Brattle Square. Cambreope MA 02236 9105 617 547 5552. FAX: 617-664 9405 CaWorme Office 2397 Shattuck Avenue Sulio 203. Berkeley CA 947041567 510843-1872. FAX: 510-6434765 9906110127 990525
/
/r30. My OlMZd-
/
PDR ADOCK 05000440 H
PH y
- r May 25,1999 Page 2 concerns has received smcc the TIME cover story of March 1996, it is inconceivable that this individual would be unaware of his responsibilities with respect to 10 CFR 50.7. Even if he indeed was unaware, ignorance of the law is not an excuse outside nuclear plant fences and it must not'6e an excuse inside the fences either. By banning this individual from licensed activitics for a period of five (5) years, he will not be in a position to repeat this illegal act during that time. In addition, the requested actions would send a clear message that other persons violating 10 CFR 50.7 in the future may also be held personally accountable. The Petitioner believes that sanctions against the responsible individual are necessary because sanctions against plant mvners have not curtailed - or seemingly even reduced - the illegal retshotory practices.
Under 10 CFR Part 26, the NRC can ban individuals from working at nuclear power plants if they violate the fitness for duty requirements. The NRC has imposed such sanctions even when the fitness for duty offenses have not been Imked to actual or potential safety degradations. In order for the NRC to conclude that the supervisor at Perry was discriminated against, the agency had to determine that the individual's work was a protected activity under 10 CFR 50.7 and that the discriminatory actions were in direct response to the mdividual testifying about e safety concern.1hus, retaliatory actions involve a closer nexus hetween offending act and adequate protection of public health and safety. Hence, comparable sanctions agamst the ofrending individual in this case is clearly warranted.
This requested action is based on the implicit, good faith assumption that the findings in the NRC's mvestigation are valid. If the NRC staff confirms these findings, then the Petitioner desires that the requested action be taken. If the NRC staff determines that these findings lack merit, then the Petitioner f..
will withdraw the petition.
Reouested Actions The Petitioner requests that the NRC ban the mdividual implicated in the apparent discrimination against the supemsor at Perry from working on licensed activities at any nuclear power plant in the United States for at least five (5) years.
Sincerely, haulo0-David A.Lochbaum Nuclear Safety Engineer Union of Concemed Scientists
.