ML20198C325

Responds to ,Responding to NRC Ltr Re Concerns Raised About Potential Chilling Effect from Temp Denial of Site Access to Employee Raising Safety Issues to Util Senior Mgt

ML20198C325
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	12/11/1998
From:	Hehl C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:	James Knubel POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (NEW YORK
References
EA-98-496, NUDOCS 9812220043
Download: ML20198C325 (3)

Text

.t fptly 4 UNITED STATES g p, . NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '

5 j REGloN I Q c 475 ALLENDALE ROAD

%*****,8 KING OF PRUSslA, PENNSYLVANIA 194N1415 December 11, 1998 EA 98-496 Mr. James Knubel Chief Nuclear Officer and Senior Vice President New York Power ftuthority 123 Main Street White Plains, NY 10601

SUBJECT:

NOVEMBER 25,1998, RESPONSE TO OUR POTENTIAL CHILLING EFFECT LETTER OF OCTOBER 23,1998

Dear Mr. Knubel:

This letter is in response to your November 25,1998, letter, responding to the NRC's letter dated October 23,1998. The NRC's October 23 letter raised a concern about the potential chilling effect from the temporary denial of site access to a NYPA employee who had previously raised safety issues to NYPA senior management. Your November 25, 1998 letter provided the results of an investigation into this matter by your newly created Office of Inspector General (IG) as well as your understanding of the events that led up to

. and immediately followed the temporary revocation of the employee's site access on October 9,1998. The results of this investigation attributed the temporary denial of an individual's site access to a miscommunication. We understand that NYPA's actions as a result of this event were to promptly restore the individuals unescorted site access, conduct an independent investigation of this event, initiate a deviation event report documenting the safety issues, and plan a nuclear safety culture assessment by an independent organization to evaluate the safety conscious work environment at IP-3 in the near future.

In your letter, you asserted that it was unlikely that this event had a chilling effect on employees and contractors at Indian Point 3. However, some employees have expressed such concerns in communications with the NRC. This is particularly significant in this case since it appears that many employees on the site know that the employee in question has raised safety concerns in recent months, and are also aware of the incident that occurred on October 9,1998. Based on communication from some employees, we believe a potential chilling effect exists as a result of this incident. Therefore, we need to understand your plans on how you intend to communicate with IP-3 staff to ensure {

employees understand that they are free to raise safety concerns. I O I

We request that you reevaluate your actions in this matter and supplement your November 25th response to address the potential chilling effect on the willingness of employees to raise safety concerns.

/

g nW- 0' 9812220043 981211 PDR ADOCK 05000286 F 9)

G PDR

.. . . = . . . . - - . . - - - - . . . . - . . _ . -. .- -. ..

.s James Knubel- 3 Distribution: i H. Miller, RA/W Axelson, DRA, RI B. Boger, ADPR, NRR J. Goldberg, OGC J. Lieberman, OE (OEMAIL)

D. Holody, RI )

T. Walker, RI D. Vito, RI L. Manning, Rl C. Hehl, RI P. Habighorst, IP3

' PUBLIC Region 1 Document Room (w/ concurrences)

Nuclear Safety information Center (NSIC) I 1

P l

l l

i

~

l