ML20207M101
| ML20207M101 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 03/09/1999 |
| From: | Miller H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Necci R, Danni Smith NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20207M105 | List: |
| References | |
| EA-97-461, NUDOCS 9903180381 | |
| Download: ML20207M101 (6) | |
Text
.
gu4 UNITED STATES
[
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION u
j REGION I o
475 ALLENDALE ROAD
,o#
KING oF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19406-1415 f
March 9,1999 EA 97-461 Mr. R. P. Necci, Vice President, Nuclear Oversight and Regulatory Affairs c/o Mr. David A. Smith, Manager, Regulatory Affairs for Millstone Station NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY Post Office Box 128 Waterford, Connecticut 06385
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION 0 : CIVIL PENALTIES - $88,000 (Office of investigations Report 1-97-039)
Dear Mr. Necci:
This refers to the subject investigation conducted by the NRC Office of Investigations (OI) at Northeast Nuclear Energy Company's (NNECo; Millstone Station after you had informed the NRC, in September 1997, that separate investigations by your Employee Concerns Program, as well as b'y your contractor, Little HarborConsultants, had found that two contractor employees in your Motor Operated Valve (MOV) department, had been retaliated against for engaging in protected activities.
j The O1 investigation confirmed those findings, refng that the terminations of the two contractor employees constituted discrimination. The syncrsis of the subject Ol report was forwarded to you with our letter, dated August 26,1998. Although that letter offered you the opportunity for an enforcement conference, you declined a conference and instead sent the NRC a response, dated September 30,1998, in which you admitted that the violation occurred, and also described the causes and corrective actions.
The termination of the employment of the two contractor employees occurred in August 1997, after the two individuals had raised concems about the MOV program manual and the process by which the manual was being reviewed. The terminations were recommended by the then MOV Supervisor, and were supported by the then MOV Manager, both of whom were also contractor employees. Further, the recommendation was neither questioned nor objected to by the Recovery Officer involved with management oversight of the MOV program activities, after the MOV Manager briefed him on the recommendation, nor was it questioned by other Departments within NNECo, including the Contracts or Legal Departments during their reviews, as you acknowledged in your September 30,1998, letter to the NRC.
One of the contractor engineers, who had raised questions regarding the adequacy of the MOV program manual, requested a copy of the manual for his review on or about July 22,1997.
Although the MOV Supervisor had indicated, in a meeting with his staff that day, that he would j
provide the manual for review the naxt day after incorporating some revisions, the individual was not provided a copy by the MOV Supervisor, and the supervisor had sent an email to his department 9903190381 990309 PDR ADOCK 05000245 G
F' Northeast Nuclear Energy Company 2
6 indicating that no one had requested to review the manual. In a telephone conversation on July 23, 1997, the individual questioned the MOV Supervisor about the process for review of the manual.
The supervisor requested that the individual come to the MOV Managers office to discuss the issue. After the individual refused to come to the MOV Managers office despite repeated requests, the supervisor considered the individual's actions to be insubordinate. The supervisor contends this insubordination was the principal basis for recommending termination of the individual's employment.
The MOV Supervisor also contended that he had additional performance-related reasons to recommend termination of the contractors employment. He contended that the contractor employee had not completed an assignment and had worked on several projects outside the scope of his assigned duties without approval. However, there was no evidence documenting such problems at the time they occurred, nor was there evidence that the MOV Supervisor brought such issues to the contractor employee's attention.
The second contractor engineer had also expressed a desire to the MOV Supervisor to complete a review of the MOV program manual for adequacy and accuracy. He had principal responsibility for a critical item that would be incorporated in the manual, and had raised issues relating to the completion of the manual. The MOV Supervisor sought this contract employee's termination because of an alleged failure to meet deadlines and because of an incident in which the employee had allegedly raised his voice with the MOV Supervisor and threatened to quit. Similar to the first 1
contractor employee, the MOV Supervisor had not documented perceived performance problems involving the second contractor employee at the time of occurrence.
Notwithstanding the MOV Supervisors articulated reasons for seeking the termination of the two contractor employees, the NRC has concluded that the terminations were motivated, at.least in part, by the individuals' engagement in protected activities. The recommendation for termination that was made was close in time to the protected activities. Further, although the supervisor stated that he had other concems regarding the individuals' performance since at least June 1997, as noted, these concerns were not discussed with the individuals nor were they documented in the supervisors log book until July 22,1997, two days before the MOV Supervisor recommended the terminations to NNECo's Contracts Department. In addition, Ol's investigation elicited evidence that the MOV Supervisor and Manager felt pressure to complete the MOV program manual in accordance with NNECo's schedule s.nd perceived the two contractor employees as roadblocks in that effort.
While the NRC is cencemed with the termination recommendations made by the then MOV Supervisor, and the support for them by the then MOV Manager, the NRC is equally concerned with the failures by the responsible Recovery Officer, as well as other departments within NNECo, including the Contracts and Legal Departrnents, who had the opportunity to question the appropriateness of the recommended terminations but failed to do so. As noted in the Littb Harbor report, both the Contracts and Legal Departments failed to recognize the potential for retaliation during the termination review process. The Little Harbor report also noted that neither Department asked for any substantiation of the alleged performance issues that were the basis for the terminations, even though the Contracts Department had been provided some knowledge about problems within the MOV Department, in fact, the ectual letters releasing the individuals were prepared by NNECo's Contracts Department. Further, as also noted in the Little Harbor report, your senior management was slow in recognizing and responding to the indications of retaliation.
\\.
l Northeast Nuclear Energy Company 3
The NRC recognizes that subsequent to these findings, you took significant action to reverse the terminations, as well as improve the climate at the Millstone station to ensure that a work environment exists such that employees feel free to raise safety concems. Nonetheless, the actions by the then MOV Supervisor and MOV Manager in recommending the terminations, and the lack of questioning the appropriateness of the terminations by the responsible Recovery Offmer, as well i
as other NMECo Departments, resulted in a significant violation of the employee protection standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.7. Given that individuals above a first line supervisor contributed to the violation, the violation is categorized at Severity Level ll In accordance with the NRC l
l Enforcement Policy, " General Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions,"
NUREG-1600 (Enforcement Policy).
In accordance with the Enforcement Policy, a base civil penalty in the amount of $88,000 is considered for a Severity Level ll violation. Since this case involves a Severity Level ll violation, the NRC considered whether e edit was warranted for Identification and Corrective Action in accoraance with the civil penalty assessment process in Section VI.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy.
Credit is warranted for identification since the violation was initially identified by your Employee Concerns Program. Credit is also warranted for Corrective Actions which were considered
- comprehensive. These actions, which were described in your March 31,1998, and September 30, 1998 letters to the NRC, included, but were not limited to: (1) rescinding the terminations, retracting the termination letters, and offering reinstatement to the two individuals whose employment was terminated; (2) conduct of en Employee Concems Oversight Panel survey in September 1997 to -
ensure that there was no lingering effect in the MOV department; (3) conduct of a self-assessment by the Contracts Department in October 1997 to preclude repetition; (4) conduct of a meeting of all first line and above supervisors to discuss the topic of a safety conscious work environment; and (5) creation of an Executive Review Board to review all proposed discipline more severe than a verbalwaming.
However, the enforcement policy also states that Severity Level I or ll violations should normally result in a civil penalty regardless of the consideration of identification and corrective action.
Consistent with the policy, and to emphasize the significance that the NRC attaches to any finding of discrimination, as well as the importance of current management ensuring a safety conscious work environment where employees feel free to raise safety concems, a civil penalty is warranted in this case, particularly given: (1) the failures by the responsible Recovery Officer and the
- Contracts and Legal Departments to question the basis for the proposed terminations, despite the opportunities to do so; (2) the failures by senior management in not identifying the management problems in the MOV Department in sufficient time to prevent the terminations, and in being slow in recognizing and responding to the indications of retaliation, as noted in the Little Harbor report; (3) the failure by tr,anagement to provide training to its contractor supervisors relating to the NRC's employee protectien regula3on, notwithstanding the Commission's Order dated October 24,1996, concoming the need to address actions involving a lack of a safety conscious work environment, and to ensure that employees can raise safety concems without fear of retaliation; and (4) the past history of discrimination violations involving the Millstone station, as evidenced by the three discrimination civil penalties issued tntween 1993 and 1996. Therefore, I have been authorized, after consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, and the Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Regional Operations, and Research, to propose a base civil penalty in the amount of $88,000 for the violation set forth in the enclosed Notice. But for your identification of the violation in September 1997, as well as your prompt rescission of the terminahns of the two individuals, the civil penalty amount would have been higher.
l Northeast Nuclear Energy Company 4
l The NRC has concluded that iniormation regarding both the reason for the violation, and the corrective actions taken and planned to correct the violation and prevent recurrence, are already
)
adequately addressed on the docket in your September 30,199G letter. Therefore, you are not
]
l required to respond to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201 unless the description therein does not L
accurately reflect your corrective actions or your position.- In that case, or if you choose to provide additional information, you should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice. The NRC i
. will use your response, in part, to determine whether further enforcement action is necessary to l
ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, and your
- resporre i will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR).
Sincerely, s
k Hubert J. Miller l
l Reg onal Administrator Decket Nos. 50-245; 50-336; 50-423 Licanse Nos. DPR-21; DPR45; NPF-49
Enclosure:
Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty t
I
Northeast Nuclear Energy Company 5
cc w/6ncl:
B. Kenyon, President and Chief Executive Officer - Nuclear Group L. Olivier, Senior Vice President & Chief Nuclear Officer J. Carlin, Vice President - Human Services F. Rothen, Vice President, Work Services M. Brothers, Vice President - Operations R. Necci, Vice President - Nuclear Oversight and Regulatory Affairs D. Amerine, Vice President - Human Services E. Harknese, Director, Unit 1 Operations L Cuoco, 'isquire
)
G. Hicks, Director - Nuclear Training Services (CT)
J. Price, [Wrector - Unit 2 Operations C. Schwarz, Director - Unit 3 Operations S. Sherman, Audits and Evaluations J. Egan, Esquire N. Burton, Esquire V. Juliano, Waterford Library J. Buckingham, Department of Public Utility Control l
S. Comley, We The People D. Katz, Citizens Awareness Network (CAN)
- R. Bassilakis, CAN J. Block, Attomey, CAN S. Luxton, Citizens Regulatory Commission (CRC)
T. Concannon, Co-Chair for NEAC E. Woollacott, Co-Chairman, NEAC Representative G. Hamm State of Connecticut SLO Designee l
r I
l l
4 k'
l 8
.c l' D Q Northeast Nuclear Energy Company DISTRIBUTION-l SECY CA PUBLIC.
l WTravers, EDO l
. MKnapp, DEDE FMiraglia, DEDR JLieberman, OE HMiller, RI-
)
l SCollins, NRR l
BBoger, NRR JGoldberg, OGC Enforcorraint Coordinators RI, Rll, Rill, RIV BBeecher, OPA HBell, OlG l
PLohaus, OSP l
GCaputo, Oi OE:EA OE:Chron NUDOCS Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)
DScrenci, PAO-RI NSheehan, PAO-RI NRC Resident inspector-Millstone LTremper, OC l
j i
g%
\\
.k.
1
._