ML20248F683
| ML20248F683 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/19/1995 |
| From: | Tschiltz M NRC |
| To: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20248F498 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-COR98-114 NUDOCS 9806040384 | |
| Download: ML20248F683 (4) | |
Text
_ - _ _ _ - _ _
(\\/fhIi\\DQfl'
-+
w[h h
I October lo, 1995 1
i NOTE TO:
Chairman Jackson FROM:
Michael Tschiltz 1
3 i
COORDINATED WITH:
Annette, Kath n,
Subject:
Meeting with Paul Blanch
)
This meeting was requested by Mr. Blanch in a letter dated May 26, 19952 Mr. Blanch asserted in the letter that he had two major concerns regarding the NRC's failure to fulfill its obligation to protect the general public.
In the letter Mr.
Blanch criticized the NRC's handling of whistleblower issues as well as the NRC's portrayal of the risks of operating reactors to the general public.
J Mr. J yhn Zwolinski is the staf f point of contact for Mr. Blanch and p..ans to attend the meeting.
On Friday, October 20, 1995, M r.- Zvolinski received an E-mail message frcm Mr. Blanch rhich 2
listed the issues that Mr. Blanch intends to cover during the j
meeting.
The issues are outlined below.
DISCUSSION TOPICS and POTENTIAL ISSUES
{
I NRC's Mission Economics vs. Safety - Balance Mr. Blanch asserts that economics not safety are the overriding concern of the NRC.
Mr. Blanch contends that the NRC's reaction to concerns is based on the financial impact of backfits.
Mr. Blanch has asserted that the NRC will not enforce any regulation or take any enforcement action that could negatively impact the economic viability of more than one nuclear plant or utility.
Mr. Blanch contends that less serious violations that pose no threat to the economic viability of plants are acted upon swiftly and severely by the NRC to dupe the general public by presenting an " Illusion of Action."
Mr. Blanch was contacted by b)( b 6 ower operatioirresumed after a recent outage with b
more than 9. of the work undone.
The concern was raised that f
the economic policies of the state and local regulatory
}{
j agencies may have an adverse impact on the safe operation of the f acilit v 9806040304 980528 i
- tootnotes indicate the tab in which the reference document is '.iled.
1m u h./'s 1
' ro. d m d & cd
(> m w%m, %.m e,m%
g l in :::.crf:rc; wh the Rccdom of Information ie st.ca en CJ Mt, cum Mr.s SI7 L 4 b"'
[014.kTM l WLiGBKo39t
- ___A 1
Mr. Blanch's Perception of Major Issues Steam Generators - Mr. Blanch is skeptical of the sleeving of SG tubes being performed at Maine Yankee. He believes that sleeving is not a proven method for dealing with SG tube cracking. In the past he has raised concerns regarding SG tube cracks at Haddam Neck.
Spent Fuel Pool - Mr. Blanch is concerned about the adequacy of spent fuel pool designs.
He believes that spent fuel pool accidents pose a significant hazard to the general public.
Mr. Blanch has voiced concerns about the offsite dose associated with a postulated spent fuel pool accident.
Certain beyond design basis spent fuel pool accidents result in offsite doses greater than 10 CFR Part 100 limits.
l
\\
.?
1 l
h
,Q b
f '
Due to the going NRC reviews Mr. Blanch has indica that he will not pursue discussion of this subject at the meeting.
Motor Operated Valves - After the industry identification of the MOV pressure locking issue Mr. Blanch questioned the operability of MOVs at several plants.
His concerns were reviewoi and determined to be without basis.
A year prior to the problam identification at Millstone pressure locking had occurred during testing at EPRI and the industry was informed.
Mr. Blanch feels that the industry response to resolve MOV issues has taken too long.
j Responsiveness to Public vs. Licensee's Mr. Blanch has been displeased with the C's re nse to
{Jf ](_,
l }; p.
neerns raised by the eneral public.
W' Mr. Blanch contends that the NRC a ows many nuclear power ants to operate in violation of NRC regulations.
Response to Letters - Mr. Blanch has requested numerous specific questions be answered / analyzed.
In order to manage the response to Mr. Blanch's concerns Mr. Zwolinski was l
assigned as the staff point of contact to coordinate response to Mr. Blanch's concerns.
l A,h
/
k&
Li. cense Amendment Requests vs. Safety Concerns 2.206 vs. NOED's - Mr. Blanch strongly disagrees with the Enforcement Discretion process and fundamentally helieves E
~
that the licensees should always conform to their Technical l
Specifications.
Integrity and Public Perception.of NRC Operability Determination OIG Investigation Mr. Blanch asserted in a letter dated September 9, 1994, that Mr.
William Russell falsely stated that "The staff did not review any formal operability determinations."
In a reply letter dated March 9, 1995', Mr. Zwolinski stated in error that the IG had investigated Mr. Blanch's concern when it had not.
Mr. Blanch questioned the reply and was later informed by Mr. Zwolinski that the statement was incorrect and that the IG had ne investigated the' alleged false statement.
Mr. Zwolinski later informed the IG
'and the IG chose not to investigate.
Allegations Mr. Blanch asserts that the NRC'has failed to investigate l
significant allegations and that this creates a chilling effect at plant sites.
Mr. Blanch has questioned, "If the NRC refuses to investigate serious violations then why would any individual risk his career and bring any allegation to the licensee or NRC?"
d
\\
Whistleblower Protection Mr. Blanch contendsi that retaliation frequently occurs and the NRC abrogates its responsibilities to the Department of Labor and to the Courts.
Mr. Blanch has asserted that the NRC refuses to enforce its own safety regulations and endorses retaliation
-against those individuals requesting compliance by its inaction.
April 30, 1993 Letter to SECY - Mr. Blanch has voiced his i
disagreement with the NRC's draft statement of policy, Freedom of Employees in the Nuclear Industry to Raise Safety Concerns Without Fear of Retaliation, which encourages 5
employees voice their concerns through licensee employee concerns programs.
DOL Process -
The length of time to resolve issues of harassment and intimidation is too long (3-5 yrs).
1 I
_D
e
(
e l
I l
Whistleblowers can not survive in the interim during che l
process.
l l
Generic Spent Fuel Pool Issues
[
l Mr. Blanch is concerned about the adequacy of design of the spent l
fuel pool and associated supporting systems.
He believes that the design basis events are not sufficiently bounding and that the NRC should require more extensive design features to mitigate l
beyond design basis events.
Mr. Blanch contends that there have been several recent precursors to an event involving uncovering spent fuel and that it must be considered a credible accident.
l 10 CFR Part 100 - Mr. Blanch believes that Part 100 only applies to the licensing of new plants and that the agency should have operational limits.
Mr. Zwolinski has informed Mr. Blanch that the NRC staff does use the Part 100 guidelines in evaluating issues that may affect design basis dose consequences at operating reactors.
The staff does not perform or expect the licensee to perform a revised design basis accident dose consequence analysis for each issue, however, it is expected that the licensee will compare the potential safety issues with the assumptions in the initial analysis to ensure the initial analysis remains bounding.
In addition, since Part 100 is incorporated into the design basis whenever the licensee performs a change to the facility it must be evaluated (10 CFR 50.59).
Risk Based Regulation Population Density -
When considering risk Mr. Blanch has noted that the risks associated with the operation of a nuclear facility located near a large metropolitan area are much greater than a plant located in a remote area.
This difference in risk is not accounted for in the regulations.
Public Property Damage Not Considered - Mr. Blanch has contended that the value of the damage to property has not been adequately considered in the event of an accident involving a release.
There are estimates in NUREG-1353, Regulatory Analysis for the Resolution of Generic Issue 82, "Beyond Design Basis Accidents in Spent Fuel Pools," which estimate property damage in the event of an accident in excess of 20 billion dollars.
Mr. Blanch feels these estimates are unrealistically low.
1 I
-._----.-____._.-______--_______J
43.O
[,*
. y
% clog
,. k' UNITED STATES
[
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20665-4001
%..... #o February 22, 1996 i
,J. Paul M. Blanch
Dear Mr. Blanch:
I am replying to your letter of December 26, 1995, to Chairman Jackson in which you expressed concerns that (1) the NRC does not fully enforce its i
regulations concerning the harassment and intimidation of, and discrimination against whistleblowers, (2) the NRC's inaction creates a chilling effect on potential whistleblowers, (3) the NRC's approach toward its current review of employee concerns at Northeast Utilities is not appropriate, and (4) the time allotted for your meeting with the Chairman was insufficient for meaningful discussion. The following information is being provided to address your concerns.
As you are aware, the responsibility for responding to employee claims of 2
discrimination is split between the NRC and the Department of Labor (DOL).
If an individual wishes to pursue a personal remedy under Section 211 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, he or she must file a complaint with D0L.
Only D0L can provide a personal remedy for discriminatory acts.
I If someone files a complaint of discrimination with the NRC, our procedures require that the individual be informed that if they wish to pursue a personal remedy, they must file a complaint with DOL. Whether or not a complaint is filed with D0L, the individual will normally be interviewed by an investigator from the NRC's Office of Investigations (01). Based on the information provided in the original complaint and the interview, a decision is made regarding whether the investigation should be pursued. Because of 01 resource limitations and competing investigatory needs, a priority system is used to assist in determining which investigations should be pursued.
On October 12, 1995, the Executive Director for Operations issued a revision to the priority system that raised the priority for investigating allegations of discrimination. On. a scale of high, normal and low, allegations of discrimination are assigned a priority of either high or normal.
Discriminatory acts that are considered a high priority include discrimination as a result of providing information directly to the NRC, discrimination caused by a manager above the first-line supervisor, discrimination where a history of findings of discrimination by the NRC or D0L or settlements suggests a programmatic problem, and discrimination that appears particularly blatant or egregious. All other allegations of discrimination are assigned a normal priority.
l l
Informatica in this recd w:s d tad in =crdre with the Freehm of Information kl, mm;Ucr.s 6 g
[ paw 9 1 -80 4' x A GhuA
i s.
t-Mr. Paul Blanch 2
If an allegation of discrimination is assigned a high priority, it will usually be investigated by 01.
If an allegation is assigned a normal priority, it may not be investigated by the NRC, depending on the investigative workload at that time. While an NRC investigation may not be conducted in every case, especially if 00L is investigating the matter, the NRC will monitor the DOL process. This is consistent with the working arrangement under our Memorandum of Understanding with 00L that provides that the NRC will not normally conduct an investigation if D0L is conducting one.
If either the facts developed in an NRC or D0L investigation meet the standards of evidence necessary to substantiate that a discriminatory act occurred or discrimination is found as a result of the DOL adjudicatory process, the NRC will initiate enforcement action against the licensee.
Decisions on appropriate enforcement actions have been, and will continue to be, considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy.
In addition to actions taken under the NRC Enforcement Policy, violations of 10 CFR 50.7 are also referred to the Department of Justice for its consideration for criminal prosecution.
You indicate that the NRC has created a chilling effect by its inaction on allegations of discrimination.
The NRC has issued civil penalties to I
licensees and enforcement actions against individuals found to have committed acts of discrimination against those who have raised concerns. The NRC believes that appropriate enforcement action has been taken consistent with our Enforcement Policy (NUREG-1600) to emphasize the importance of identification and prompt comprehensive corrective action. Our enforcement actions are intended to emphasize the need for licensees to improve their performance through lasting corrective action.
l You also presented your views regarding the December 12, 1995, tasking of the NRR staff by the Executive Director for Opentions.
Specifically, the staff was tasked to conduct an independent evaluation of the history of the licensee's and the staff's handling of employee concerns and allegations related to licensed activities at the Millstone station. NRC staff members met with you on January 22, 1996, and discussed the scope of this activity.
Our prime regulatory authority is contained in 10 CFR 50.7, " Employee Protection." While p.ast reviews focused on Northeast Utilities' basic administration of its-Employee Concerns Program as one means for employees to raise issues to management, the current NRC review will probe deeply into a few selected cases. The NRC will be examining selected concerns in depth from the time that the concern was first raised until it was considered closed.
The staff will, in particular, be looking for common causes and lessons 1
learned from past licensee and NRC handling of employee concerns and allegations. The common causes and lessons learned will be used to assess the i
need for revision of licensee and NRC procedures for handling employee 1
l concerns and allegations.
l
.__-_-_________________-______a
1
.d
'Mr.. Paul 81anch 3
You have stated that the current review should be conducted by the NRC's Office of the Inspector General, and we note you have provided Mr. Norton with a copy of your letter. The NRC staff has taken steps to ensure the objectivity of its review by selecting personnel who have no prior involvement with any activities at the Millstone station.
L With respect to your' letter of April 30, 1995, in which you comment on the NRC's draft Policy Statement on the " Freedom of Employees in the Nuclear Industry to Raise Safety Concerns Without Fear of Retaliation," the NRC staff is considering your comments ~in its review of the draft Policy Statement.
With respect to your broader issue about NRC enforcing its regulations, the staff has communicated its policies _to you in the past.
Licensees.are required to meet all applicable regulations and requirements regarding. their.
licenses.. NUREG-1600, " General Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions," states.that the NRC recognizes that there are violations of negligible or minor safety or environmental concerns that are below the level of significance of Severity Level IV violations-(the lowest level violation). These minor violations are not the subject of formal enforcement action, and may or may not be described in inspection reports. To the extent such violations are described, they are noted as noncited violations. The purpose of exercising this discretion is not to minimize NRC findings or reduce the number of enforcement actions. The purpose of this discretion is:
to encourage licensees to identify and correct violations and, at the same time, reduce the NRC's efforts in addressing less si'gnificant issues that have been corrected, so that efforts can be focused on more safety-significant issues. However, the NRC reviews potential violations before deciding on a course of action. Whether or not formal enforcement action is taken, the licensee is required to take corrective action.
The staff has undertaken a number of initiatives in recent months which are related to NRC enforcement of-its regulations and license requirements. One initiative, which is now complete,: addresses changes to staff guidance regarding the_ issuance of Notices of Enforcement Discretion (N0EDs).
In accordance with the revised guidance, the staff will apply criteria similar to those in 10 CFR 50.91' for emergency and exigent license amendments specifically whether the condition for which an N0ED has been requested was reasonably avoidable-or was caused by the licensee.
If so, the NRC would normally not grant an N0ED. Granting an NOED does not preclude taking enforcement action for the underlying root causes of the conditions for which an N0ED was granted.
Another ongoing initiative is our development of a database to identify all exemptions granted to power reactor licensees. On the basis of the information derived..the staff will consider and make recommendations, as appropriate, to change or modify existing regulations to remove unnecessary requirements so as to minimize the need for future exemptions; the thrust being that NRC expects licensees to conform to all rules and regulations. The NRC will continue to assess the licensee's conformance with the rules and regulations through our inspection program and the associated enforcement process.
o
- Mr. Paul Blanch 4
i You also commented that you have not received a response to your May 1995 letter to the Chairman. No formal written reply has been sent to you because your letter was viewed only as a letter of introduction to the Chairman, and the only specific action that you sought was a response to your request for a meeting with her.
In this regard, you noted in your December 26, 1995, letter that a meeting had been scheduled. However, when the time allotted for the meeting was limited to 30 minutes, you cancelled the meeting.
The Chairman's office believed that the time allowed was reasonable, especially in light of your continuing dialogue with the staff and other constraints on the l
Chairman's schedule.
1 l
I recognize that you have worked with the staff, especially Mr. Zwolinski, in raising issues for consideration by the Commission and the NRC Inspector General, although all matters may not have been resolved to your complete satisfaction.
I believe the avenues you have been using to raise issues have l
been effective in having your concerns addressed. Concerning your request to meet with the Chairman and discun certain issues, it would seem prudent for you to prioritize your proposed agenda topics so that they could be easily discussed at a meeting of forty-five minutes' length with the Chairman.
If you wish to schedule this meeting, her staff will work to arrange a meeting with you.
In closing, I want to assure you that the NRC takes very seriously the issues that you have raised.
I encourage you to continue to raise concerns related to nuclear safety through the pre-established NRR management contact, Mr.
Zwolinski of my staff.
Sincerely, l
Original signed by R. Zimmerman for:
l l
l William T. Russell, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc:
Senator Joseph I. Lieberman l
Senator Christopher J. Dodd l
Representative Sam Gejdendson l
Leo J. Norton, NRC Acting IG DISTRIBUTION:
See next page DOCUMENT NAME: ED0932.GRN
- Approved with changes per Comm. 2/16/96.
- See Previous Concurrence To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box:
"C" - Copy without attachment /enclosjare "E" - Copy with attachment / enclosure "N" - No copy 0FFICE DRPE:DD g l E DRPE:D lEl NRR:ADP lE' Opfpg)F) lE I TECH EDITOR lN NAME J2wolitw4d/
$Varga*
RZinsnerman*
JGr M '
BCature*
2 /4 y96 2 /2 /96 2 /5 /%
IV2/%'/96 1 / 18 /96 _
DATE t
0FFICE OGC E! NRR: DIRECTOR, lC EDO lC' OCM lEl l
NAME JMoore*
WRussell h f 7 Jiaylor*
SJacksord DATE 2 / 6 /96 g
2 /p)/96 2 / 8 /%
2/16/96 y
Official Record Copy I
?-
Paul M. Blanch U
F2 4 in av
~
i Energy Consultant n 0 j trl l
e j
December 26,1995 The Honorable Shirley Jackson Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington. D.C. 20555-0001
Dear Chairman Jackson:
L In May 1995. I wrote you requesting a meeting to discuss some vital issues that affect the overall safety of nuclear power plants in the United States.
While I never received any formal response from your office, I did work with Mr. John Zwolinski of NRR to schedule a meeting with you. This meeting was initia!!y scheduled for October 24,1995, at 3 PM. I was informed by Mr. Zwolinski that you had left the remaining portion of that day open such that we could discuss all the issues I had proposed. On Friday.
October 20.1995 Mr. Zwolinski requested I send him a list of topics I proposed to discuss with you. The proposed topics teopy attached) were transmitted via e-mail the same day to Mr.
Zwolinski.
After receiving a list of topies. Mr. 7m olinski informed me via e-mail that my time may be limited due to your schedule. I received this e-mail on October 23.1995. I then phoned Mr.
Zwolinski to inquire w hat amount of time I was allotted for the meeting. I was informed that I was limited to 30 minutes.
When I was infonned that my time was to be limited to thirty minutes after I transmitted the topics for discussion. I believed that your office had little or no interest in engaging in any meaningful discussions about nuclea'r safety with members of the public. Little has transpired in the last two months to change my opmion.
I recently received a copy of a letter from Mr. Taylor
' fr. Russell requesting yet another investigation to detennine why there are so many "whistleblo s" at Nonheast Utilities. I believe this same type of investigation took place in 1991 and also ear 6 r this year. The outcome of this investigation will likely be the same. and the problem is ". caused by the attitude of the management of NU." While this may be partially correct, the root cause of the problem lies with Mr. Taylor's organization. NU will continue their systematic process of " Ethic Cleansing" as long as the NRC actively encourages this process by their inactions by failing to enforce the most significant regulations. NU's and other utility's whistleblower problems are the direct result of the NRC's failure to enforce its regulations.
An investigation led by Mr. Russell's or Mr. Taylor's organization can not be objective because the problem is within his organization and Office of Investigations. The only way to obtain an objective assessment is through the NRC's Office of the Inspector General or some consulting organization with the integrity and total independence from the NRC.
Rather than spending more of our taxpayer and ratepayer dollars on one more investigation.
Within this letter is the solution to I suggest you review my letter to SECY dated April 30.1995.
the whistleblower problem not only at Northeast Utilities but throughout the country. This le~tter was sent on behalf of the National Nuclear Safety Network (NNSN) and reflects the opinions of numerous "whistleblowers" from around the country. The consensus of our organization is that if the NRC was willing to enforce their regulations. the number of allegations of harassment and lrdnintimidatinr>yjoglMgrepse significantly. The " Chilling Effect"is created by the NRC itself.
j
,in a; cord mce with 14 f e m of information ngM9&dbnnc> ' a:n.
~
'...o cemc. aecers.
n m rnne'n;w"e oe te a " ' 7... coxs te cs<m...!!NSBERG OCC ST s
r pr ennsr '.;HH uTHRP
t l.
t One of the primary problems with the Conunission historically is that it views its constituency as licensees. Past chairmen have failed to realize the true constituency of the NRC is the public that they were appointed to serve. Such service only can take place if the public is included in some significant way by the Comnussion in its deliberations. I hope that, under your watch, the Commission can begin this process of inclusion and I suggest that a starting point would be to set aside adequate time for a meaningful diseassion of the important issues i proposed to discuss with you in October.
l i
Si r lv,
//Y s~ f
_ au M. I anch I
Senator Lieberman Senator Dodd l
Representative Gejdedsen Mr. Leo Norton OlG Mr. Richard Kaeich NL' l
l l
l l.'
Topics for Meeting with Dr.,lackson NRC's Mission t
Economics vs. Safety - Balance Dr. Jackson's perception of major issues Reactor Vessel Integrity Steam Generator Spent Fuel Pool Motor Operated Valves Responsiveness to public vs. licensees l
Response to letters License Amendment Requests vs. Safety Concerns 2.206 vs. NOED's Integrity and Public Perception of the NRC Operability Deterininations OIG Investigation Letters of 3/29 and 9/28/95 Alle ations l
$X, h,
., 2 Whistleblower Protection April 30,1995 letter to SECY DOL Process Generic Spent Fuel Pool Issues 10 CFR Part 100 Only applies to new plants Risk Based Regulation Population Density Public Property damage not considered i
l
__