ML20211A388

Supplements Re NRC Incomprehensible Enforcement Inactions.Understands That NRC Claiming Hands Tied in Matter Re Discrimination Violation at Perry Npp.Requests That NRC Take Listed Two Actions

ML20211A388
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	06/30/1999
From:	Lochbaum D UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
To:	Knapp M NRC
References
NUDOCS 9908240033
Download: ML20211A388 (3)

Text

I

' f o

( [ 6LJ

- PDQ UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS June 30,1999 Dr. Malcolm R. Knapp Deputy Executive Director for Regulatory Effectiveness United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

SUBJECT:

BACKGROUND FOR INCOMPREHENSIBLE ENFORCEMENT INACTION

Dear Dr. Knapp:

This letter supplements my June 28,1999, letter regarding the NRC's incomprehensible enforcement inactions.

By letter dated June 23,1999, the NRC Director of the Office of Enforcement essentially informed me that ignorance of the law is indeed an excuse for condoning illegal activities by nuclear plant workers.

The case in point is that of the Radiation Protection Manager at the Perry Nuclear Power Plant. The NRC imposed a $110.000 fine on the, Perry licensee after determining that the Radiation Protection Manager had discriminated against a plant worker, thus violating the employee protection requirements of 10 CFR 50.7. The NRC elected not to impose sanctions against the Radiation Protection Manager because,"The NRC determined, however, that the Manager was not familiar with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.7."

I heard from a reporter that the NRC is claiming its hands are tied in this matter. That may be true, but it is with imaginary string. A small dose of reality would free the NRC's hands and permit the agency to properly discharge its responsibilities.

I call you attention to the following three recent letters:

)

D April 30,1999, letter from Mr. Hubert J. Miller to Mr. David Branham: D "Of concluded that you deliberately falsified sections of the procedure by indicating that two independent verifications of the Radioactive Liquid Release Rate calculation had been done, when you knew that they had not been completed." ,\ \M "During our interview by 01 on May 14,1998, you contended that three independent verifications were actually performed by a Chemistry Technician, yourself, and a Control Room Supervisor.

//

Notwithstanding your contention, the NRC main'ains that the only verification done was by the technician."

9908240033 990630 6 PDR ADOCK 05000440 0 PDR Washington Office: 1616 P Street NW Suite 310 . Washington DC 20036-1495 202-332 0900 . FAX: 202-332 0905 Cambridge Headquarters: Two Brattle Square . Cambridge MA 02238-9105 617-547 5552 . FAX: 617-864-9405 California Office: 2397 Snattuck Avenue Suite 203 . Berkeley CA 94704-1567 510443-1872 . FAX: 510-843-3785

te June 30,1999 Page 2 of 3 l

I i

l "You personally violated 10 CFR 50.5(a) which specifies that any employee of a licensee may not I engage in deliberate misconduct that causes, or but for detection, would have caused, a licensee to be in violation of any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission."

"Because you were a supervisor and deliberately failed to comply with regulatory requirements, the NRC considers your falsifying the record of the release rate calculation certifications to be a significant violation." -

"The licensee [Public Service Electric & Gas Company] too significant disciplinary action against you by terminating your employment."

O May 12,1999, letter from Mr. Hubert J. Miller to Mr. Michael Thomas "The NRC has concluded that you engaged in deliberate misconduct which, but for detection, would have caused CYAPCo to be in violation of NRC requirements."

"During your interviews with 01 in June and August 1997, as well as at the enforcement conference, j you denied that you deliberately attempted to conceal the release of contaminated equipment, or that you otherwise engaged in wrongdoing. Notwithstanding your denial, the NRC has concluded that you did engage in wrongdoing, in violation of 10 CFR 50.5."

"The licensee [ Connecticut Yankee Atomic Company] has already taken significant disciplinary action against you."

o May 12,1999, letter from Mr. Hubert J. Miller to Mr. Joseph M. Foley "The NRC has concluded that you engaged in deliberate misconduct which, but for detection, would have caused CYAPCo to be in violation of NRC requirements."

"During the conference, you denied that you willfully or deliberately violated requirements.

Notwithstanding your denial, the NRC concluded that you did engage in wrongdoing, in siolation of 10 CFR 50.5."

"The licensee [ Connecticut Yankee Atomic Company] has already taken significant disciplinary action against you."

Please note that the two CYAPCo letters, even though issued on the sam: date, actually involve two separate events by two separate individuals. The NRC did not contend that these two individuals conspired.

3 In the case of the Peny Radiation Protection Manager and in these three other cases, the accused t individuals denied that their actions constituted deliberate misconduct. In only the Perry case, the NRC J accepted this denial. In the other three cases, the NRC rejected the denials.

In the Perry case, the NRC claimed that it was unable to prove that the Radiation Protection Manager knew that his actions - which the NRC detennined violated 10 CFR 50.7 - were improper. "Ihat lack of knowledge apparently saved the Perry Radiation Protection Manager from an individual sanction.

I 1

e June 30,1999 Page 3 of 3 In the other three cases, the NRC has not provided any evidence that the accused individuals knew that their actions - which the NRC determined violated its regulations - were improper. The NRC charged these individuals with deliberate misconduct despite an apparent lack of proof that the individuals knew beforehand that their deeds were illegal.

The NRC did not provide any indication that the Perry licensee took any disciplinary action - significant or not - against the Radiation Protection Manager for his illegal actions. The NRC reponed that significant disciplinary action, including job termination in at least one case, was taken against all three individuals in the other cases.

The disparity between these NRC actions is made more distressing because the only case in which the agency pulled its punches involved employee protection issues. The NRC has a pitiful track record of meekly standing by as conscientious nuclear professionals are discriminated against for simply doing theirjobs and raising safety concems. By its inactions such as in this Perry case, the NRC is making it abundantly clear that it is not prepared to lift a finger to protect employees who raise safety concerns.

I respectfully request that you take the following two actions:

1. Arrange a public meeting between yourself and members of public interest groups to discuss the NRC's obligations and actions in employee protection cases.

2. Formally request an evaluation by the NRC Office of the Inspector General into the agency's

! handling of the Perry Radiation Protection Manager's case and the three other cases cited above. In at least one of these four cars, the NRC staff appears to have violated its own procedures and l policies.

1 Sincerely, i Mlada0-David A. Lochbaum Nuclear Safety Engineer l