ML20203B109

Discusses Issues Related to Chilling Effects & Requests in Writing & Under Oath or Affirmation within 45 Days of Receipt of Ltr Assessment of Ability of Gaseous Diffusion Plant Employees to Rept Problems W/O Fear of Retaliation

ML20203B109
Person / Time
Site:	Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, 07007001
Issue date:	12/08/1997
From:	Beach A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	Timbers W UNITED STATES ENRICHMENT CORP. (USEC)
References
NUDOCS 9712120337
Download: ML20203B109 (4)

Text

- .

December 8, 1997 i

Mr. William H. Timbers, President U.S. Enrichment Corporation Two Democracy Center 6g03 Rockledge Drive Betheads, MD 20817 t

SUBJECT:

RECOGNITION OF lSSUES RELATED TO CHILLING EFFECTS i

Dear Mr. Timbers:

As you may know, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has operated an

Allegation Management System (AMS) for many years. One of the pr;ncipal purposes of ,

j- the AMS is to track allegation trends at NRC regulated facilities. Our analysis of recent ,

! AMS issues concerning the Paducah and Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plants disclosed  ;

~

i allegations concoming employment discrimination. Such allegations, if true, along witle a

! fear of retribution for raising aafety concerns, could indicate a " chilling effect" or a

" chilled" work environment in which employees believe they may suffer adverse  ;

employment action if they raise a safety question, i

j Concems from employees of regulated activities are an important source of information in

determining whether there are safety lasues that need to be addressed in the interest of

! public health and safety. ' Given the number of allegations from employees and contractors

! at the gaseous diffusion plants (GDPs), it is important for the NRC to understand what the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC) is doing to ensure that employees feel free i to raise such concoms without fear of retribution and that such concems are appropriately

, prioritized, investigated, and resolved with feedback to the employees.- Such an

{ environment has been described by the Commission in its May 14,1996, policy

, statement, " Freedom for Employees in the Nuclear Industry to Raise Concerns Without 2

Fear of Hetaliation." in addition, the number of recent allegations involving USEC and its I contractors could indicate that a problem may exist in communications among employees, i supervisors, and managers at the gaseous diffusion plants. These allegations may j demonstrate that a " chi' ling effect" has developed, or could be developing.

. wing recent inspections at the gaseous diffusion plants we have focused our inspection

[ acibity on assessing the implementation of 10 CFR Part 76.7 addressing protection from discrimination resulting from reporting safety concems. Interviews with managers in the i

}'

Quality Assurance, Problem Reporting, and Employee Concern Programs, and other staff personnel have shown a lack of understanding the responsibilities and obligations to perform duties in compliance with NRC regulations. Also, there appears to be a lack of

, understanding responsibilities regarding the rights of individuals to raise safety concems j without fear of retaliation or discrimination, in December of 1996, your staff published t

9712120337 971200 PDR ADOCK 07007001 C PD 1 ars,R p f

~ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _._ _ _ . _ _ _ _

t W. Timbers 2-the results of an anonymous employee survey which indicated that some respondents believed retaliation or retribut!on would occur at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Mant.

These interviews and survey results may indicate training has been insufficient to p operly sensitize management representatives in the recognition of discrimination issuec (pr )tected activities) and rotated chilling effects as indicated by a number of individuals regard %g their ability to address and report safety issues without fear of retaliation or discrimination, A fundamental expectation of the NRC is the ability of a licensee or certificate holder to self identify problems. Your Quality Assurance Program meets 10 CFR 76.g3 and provides the NRC assurance that the basic quality requirements are in place. Additionally, you have an established Problem Reporting and Employee Concem Program at both the GDP sites.

A work environment must be created that promotes and encourages the raising of safety issues as required by 10 CFR Part 76.7. The NRC is concerned that a violation of the employee protection provisions set forth in 10 CFR 76.7 may occur and that the actions taken egainst individuals may have a chilling effect on other regulates or contractor '

personnel in that it might deter them from identifying any safety related concems they might have. Of particular concern is the ability of all employees to freely communicate perceived problems directly to their management; through use of the Problem Reporting Process, or through the Employee Concems Program.

Accordingly, pursuant to sections 161c,161 0,182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of '."J54, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.204 and 10 CFR Part 76.7,in order for the Commission to determine what actions to take,if any, to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requiremente, you are agguired to provide this '

office, within 45 days of the date of this letter, a response in wrlag and under oath or affirmation that describer:

1.- Your assessment of the ability of gaseous diffusion plant omployees to report problems without fear of retaliation. The basis for your assessment may include an independent review by an individual (s) not normally assigned responsibilities involving the gaseous diffusion plants. If an independent assessment requires an extended period of time to fully evaluate this issue, an extension of the response time may be granted where good cause is shown; ,

2. Your position regarding whether any actions affecting individuals, violated 10 CFR 76.7 and the basis for your position, including the results of any independent investigations you may have conducted to determine whether a

violation occurred; and I

3. Actions you have already taken or plan to take to assure that the matters noted above are not having a chilling effect on the willingness of employees to raise safety and compliance concerns within your organization and, as discussed in NRC Form 3, to the NRC.

l-

W. Timbers 3- )

Your response should not, to the extent possible, include any personal privacy, proprietary, or Safeguards Information so that it can be released to the viblic r.ed placed in the NRC Public Document Room. If personal privacy information is neccury to provide an acceptable response, then please provide a bracketed copy of /cor 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 nature of the privacy invasion, and indicate why, considering the public interest in the

! matter, the invasion of privacy is unwarranted, if you request withholding on any other l grounds, you mua1 specifically identify the portions of your response that you seek to have l withheld and provide in detail the bases for your claim of withholding (e.g., provide the informatka tequired by 10 CFR 2.790(b) to support a request for withholding confidential I

commercial or financiaiinformation). l t

in accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter l ai,d your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.

Please contact Mr. Patrick Hiland, Chief, Fuel Cycle Branch, at (630) 829 9603 if you or your staff have any questions. We appreciate your cooperation in this matter, m

Sincerely, Original Signed by A. Bill Beach Regional Administrator Docket Nos: 70 7001 70 7002 Certificate Nos: GDP 1; GDP 2 See Attached Distribution DOCUMENT NAME: G:\SEC\GDP\DNM to r.c.h. . e.,y .t is. 4 um.ni. indu. m ih. b.. c c ,, with.ui .it.ch/.nes t c.,, wah .et.ch/.nci N - N. e.,,

OFFICE Rlli E Rlll ph h 3 _

, [ Rill k NAME Hiltnd:ib f16 Pede$n Ishb Bd M DATE 12/J/97 12A/97 12/597 12/(s/97 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

~

W. Timbers 4 cc: S. Polston, Pad;cah General Manager W. Skyss, Paducah Regulatory Affairs Manager S. Toolle, Manager, Nuclear Regulatory Assurance and Policy, USEC J. Hodges, Paducah Site Manager, DOE J. Morgan, Portsmouth Acting General Manager R. Gaston, Portsmouth Regulatory Affairs Manager R. DeVault, Portsmouth Site Manager, DOE Paducah Resident inspector Office Portsmouth Resident inspector Office bec: R. Pierson, NMSS P. Ting, NMSS W. Schwink, NMSS P. Harich, NMSS M. Horn, Pro}ect Manager Paducah, NMSS Y. Faraz, Project Manager Portsmouth, NMSS R. Bellamy, RI E. McAlpine, Ril F. Wenslawski, RIV/WCFO J. Caldwell, Rlli PUBLIC (IE 07)

^