ML20206M220: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
| Line 270: | Line 270: | ||
==Dear Bob:== | ==Dear Bob:== | ||
I asked Jerry Krueger, Director HRD-Nuclear, to assist me in reviewing the concems expressed in your letter dated February 28,1994. | I asked Jerry Krueger, Director HRD-Nuclear, to assist me in reviewing the concems expressed in your {{letter dated|date=February 28, 1994|text=letter dated February 28,1994}}. | ||
Indeed the initial evaluation made by Jim Spadafore did not place you on the list of employees to be assessed by the Review Board process, nor was your position abolished as a result of the staff reductions within the ISEG group. | Indeed the initial evaluation made by Jim Spadafore did not place you on the list of employees to be assessed by the Review Board process, nor was your position abolished as a result of the staff reductions within the ISEG group. | ||
However, in a subsequent Senior Management planning session, a decision was made to rotate members of the ISEG group on a periodic basis. ' Ibis rotation process would provide development opportunities, as well as bring new gr.sgetives to the ISEG group. | However, in a subsequent Senior Management planning session, a decision was made to rotate members of the ISEG group on a periodic basis. ' Ibis rotation process would provide development opportunities, as well as bring new gr.sgetives to the ISEG group. | ||
Latest revision as of 07:08, 6 December 2021
| ML20206M220 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 04/05/1999 |
| From: | Norway R AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | Travers W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206M208 | List: |
| References | |
| 2.206, DD-99-13, NUDOCS 9905140220 | |
| Download: ML20206M220 (26) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:n- -. . April 5,1999 ' Mr. William D. Travers ' Executive Director for Operations - U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- Washington D.C. 20555-0001 Re: PETITION PURSUANT TO 10 CFR 2.206, NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR UNIT 1 & 2, DOCKET NO. 50-220,50-410.
Dear Mr. Traven:
' As former member of the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation's (NMPC) Nine Mile Point Unit 2 Independent Safety Engineering Group (ISEG), I had been discriminated against in Violation of 10 CFR 50.7. This has been proven before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)in Discrimination Case 95-ERA-005 and had resulted in a 1996 Severity Level II Violation by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission against the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. NMPC did not appeal the decision made by the Administrative Law Judge and the contents of our settlement agreement
' in the Discrimination Case and the ALJ's findings had been affirmed by the United States Secretary ofLabor.
This petition is not intended to address that proven case of discrimination. The basics of this l petition is to address the deliberate violation of NRC Regulations and potential criminal violation of federal laws on the part of senior nuclear and corporate managers of the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation and the deliberate violation of NRC Regulations and potential criminal violation of federal laws and/or extreme negligence on the part of members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The combined actions of the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission resulted in the placement of a confidential and fraudulent employee evaluation along with a fraudulent listing of the findings of the Administrative Law Judge in Discrimination Case 95-ERA-005 and confidential information pertaining to my work performance into public record (into the Public Document Room). i Since the actions taken by the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was performed to permanently destroy my credibility within the Nuclear Industry and ; was involved with my original discrimination complaint, it constitutes a additional act of discrimination in Violation of 10 CFR 50.7. Since the actions taken by NMPC and the NRC to
~ fraudulently document NMPC's position in my discrimination case does contain ' provisions' that destroys my credibility within the Nuclean industry, which would " restrict or otherwise 4 discourage" my employment within the Nuclear Industry, it is also in direct Wlation of 10 CFR l 50.7.(f). ;
The above actions may be directly connected to my continued efforts to address my original NMP2 RHR Alternate Shutdown Cooling Safety Concern by my questioning of the credibility of the NMP2 Safety Evaluation 94-091 and its conclusion that the alternate ASC did not need to meet the requirements of RG 1.139 to perform its intended safety function within 36 hours (even 9905140220 990510 PDR ADOCK 05000220 0 PDR Enclosure !
l m.. .. . i PETITION PURSUANT TO 10 CFR 2.206. NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR UNIT 1 & 2, DOCKET NO. 50-220, so-410 Page 2 Apn!5,1999 though it was a licensed commitment in the NMP2 UFSAR) solely on the basis that this RG requirement is listed as a 'should' and not a 'shall', and that they had an (54 Hr) method available. l I had also questioned the credibility of the corresponding NRC Inspection Report 50-220/97-04 !
& 50-410/97-04 (pg. 8) several times and the NRC refuses to give a response to this issue.
' PETITION -
I submit this petition pursuant to 10 CFR 2,206 requesting the to take immediate action to issue a - Show Cause Order or Civil Penalty against the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation and it's senior nuclear and corporate management (Enforcement Sanctions) for 1) submitting a altered i iemployee record, under fraudulent pretences, to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on May 10 1996 and 2) for their actions for placing confidential and fraudulent statements pertaining to my work performance, a false written record of what the Administrative Law Judge had determined in Discrimination Case 95-ERA-005 and the confidential and fraudulent 1994 employee ) evaluation (which the Administrative Law Judge had found to be altered) into federal custody and l into public record. , These actions are in clear Violation of 10 CFR 2.790.(a). and 10 CFR 50.9. Specifically by 'being involved', ' participated in', 'had-knowledge-of' or ' allowing' the following 1 to be submitted to the NRC during the Enforcement Conference under false pretences and perjury
' and in violation of NRC regulations and potential criminal violation of federal laws: !
.1) Placing documentation pertaining to confidential and unproven allegations of my prior (1993) work performance that is based upon ' secret' employee records (that I wasn't even allowed to see and that had no bearing on the 1994 termination) into federal custody and into public record.
- 2) Placing documentation into federal custody and into public record pertaining to confidential and false allegations of my 1994 work performance and my 1994 termination, 'without accurately documenting the findings made by the Administrative Law Judge upon those allegations'.
- 3) Placing fraudulent statements pertaining to what the Administrative Law Judge had determined in Discrimination Case 95-ERA-005 (and what was affirmed by the Secretary of Labor) into public record. Specifically the contents of the Handout page entitled ' Findings of the Administrative Law Judge'.
- 4) Placing the confidential and fraudulent 1994 employee document (my 1994 Rightsizing record) into federal custody and into public record as ifit was an authentic document. Especially since the Administrative Law Judge had found that this record was of no value, conflicted with outer
- evidence and ' altered' without my former supervisor's knowledge and this finding had never been appealed 'and it had been affirmed by the Secretary of Labor. NMPC has no legal basis for placing this record into the PDR.- In addition, this is especially significant since this employee evaluation is different from the copy that was submitted to the Administrative Law Judge in 1994.
The fraudulent documentation is located in the NMPC Docketed "Q" file in Inspection Report 50-
PETITION PURSUANT TO 10 CFR 2.206, NINE MILE P0lNT NUCLEAR UNIT 1 & 2, DOCKET NO. 50 220,50410 Page 3 Apnl5,1999 l
- 220/96-06 50-410/96-06 and is located at PDR film location 89130: 156 to 254. My ' Secret',
' ' Confidential' and ' fraudulent' employee evaluation in at film location 254.' The difference between the 1994 proceeding evaluation and the 1996 Enforcement Conference is significant and -
- virtually impossible, except by a deliberate act of falsification. The former Manager of the ISEG group's name had apparently fallen off the Manager (line) in the 1996 copy.
I submit this petition pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 requesting the staff to take immediate action and issue a Show Cause Order or Civil Penalty against the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation and it's senior nuclear and corporate management (Enforcement Sanctions) for Discrimination in Violation of 10 CFR. 50.7,10 CFR 2.790 and 10 CFR 50.7,(f) for their actions of'being invo!ved', ' participated in', 'had-knowledge-of' or ' allowing' confidential, false and fraudulent documentation that is disparaging, deleterious and damaging to my goodwill, integrity and reputation to be placed into permanent public record, i
~ Significance of these issues These issues are extremely significant because they constitute deliberate violation of NRC Regulations and potential criminal violation of federal laws. These actions could have only been performed by the combined efforts of the senior management team ofa licensed nuclear power station along with corporate oversight, while under legal counsel (i.e. a organized criminal conspiracy). And for what? To minimize the financial responsibility due to an unlawful termination and to minimize personal accountability due to the termination?
The real significance of these actions are not concerned with this discrimination case alone, but what actions would these same individuals take pertaining to a significant safety issue, which would have the potential to cost millions of dollars or possibly shut down the station. Once it is proven that an individual can not be trusted to obey federal laws and NRC regulations, they have
- no right to work within the nuclear industry, And these acts had been committed by several high ranking nuclear managers.
These issues could also only have been accomplished due to either the deliberate misconduct or extreme negligence on the part of members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission ignored my complaints pertaining to the alleged falsification of that 1994 Rightsizing document and ignored the findings of the Administrative Law Judge that this record had been altered without my former supervisor's knowledge or consent. The NRC had never even interviewed the former manager of the Independent Safety Engineering Group prior to their 4 decision of Enforcement Actions in this discrimination case. The final result was that the senior and corporate managers of a licensed Nuclear Power Plant lied to the PUBLIC pertaining to a Regulatory Affairs of a LICENSED NUCLEAR POWER STATION by placing confidential, false and fraudulent documentation into public record in Violation of NRC Regulations. If this could happen in this discrimination case, it could happen on
. issues pertaining to NUCLEAR SAFETY. Regulatory is warranted until all personnel that was
' involved', participated in', 'had knowledge of' or ' allowed' the falsification this 1994 employee record, the presentation of fraudulent records into federal custody and the placement of
ms' ;. . ~# ~ PETITION PURSUANT T0 to (FR 2.206, NINE MLE POINT NUCLIAR UNIT 16 2, DOCKET NO. 50 220,50-410 ~ Page 4 Apnl5,1999 ' confidential, false and inaccurate documents into public record are identified.
- In addition, since this issue had been identified by the ' victim' of Discrimination and not by the licensee or members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, it must be assumed that these same individuals could have made other fraudulent and/or falsified ' licensed' submittals to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Therefore all docketed files associated with the involved licensee personnel need to be confirmed to be truthful and forthright.. I
( These issues are also significant since the same type of' secret' employee evaluation that contams ! inaccurate downsizing numbers, altered and presented into federal custody in my discrimination ! case was used to termhate hundreds of employees from Nine Mile Point during NMPC 1993 and ; 1994 Downsizing Process. NMPC's handout did state that it was "Conunon for Board to I conclude differently than supervisors" ' If the NMPC Senior Management Board had developed or tampered with other downsizing documentation the same way that my downsizing records were treated, there could be hundreds of other discrimination cases successfully covered-up. i
Background
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation's senior nuclear management are responsible for submitting ! a Employee Record, a 1994 Rightsizing Document to a Administrative Law Judge, Gerald M. Tierney in the 1994 Discrimination Proceeding 95-ERA-005. In addition this same Rightsizing document had been submitted to the EEOC (Charge No.165940564) and previously subn"tted to the NRC. The same record had been submitted by NMPC personnel to the NRC during the May l 101996 Enforcement Conference. However, there is one major difference in the 1996 record. The record submitted to the NRC in 1996 did not contain the former Manager of the Independent Safety Engineering Group's name on the line of Manager. The prior submittals in 1994 to the DOL, EEOC, NRC and to the ALJ all contained my former supervisor's name on the Manager's line. ; 1 Considering that my authentic 1994 Rightsizing document could not exist in both conditions,
'with and without' my former supervisor's name on the Manager's section, the existence of different copies of the document in 1996 provides absolute proof that this document had been altered without my former supervisor's knowledge or consent. The existence of this record in 1996 also provides absolute proof that the former Manager of the Independent Safety Engineering Group's name was ' forged' onto this document without his knowledge or consent (in the prior
'1994' submittals) at some point in time. This is significant because the former Manager of the Independent Safety Engineering Group was blamed by NMPC senior managers for creating this record during the NMPC 1994 Downsizing process and lying about my downsizing ranking during that downsi:.ing process. In any case. NMPC had no lenal right to place a different emolovee record than what was entered into evidence before a Administrative Law Jud_e n in Discrimination Case 95-ERA-005 into federal custody and into oublic record.
Since the Administrative Law Judge had found that this 1994 Rightsizing Document was of'no value', that it conflicted with other credible evidence, that it was in 'different handwriting' and that there was 'no indication that this document was communicated to the Complainant or to his
- q. x PEfiTION PUR$UANT TO 10 CFR 2.206, NINE Mid POINT NUCLEAR UNIT 1 & 2, DOCKET NO. 50 220,50410 Page$ 4ni5,1999 immediate supervisor', it is a violation of NRC Regulations and a criminal violation of federal laws to submit this record as an authentic document. This fraudulent record had been submitted to the NRC as an authentic record and is currently located in public records in the Public Record Room (PDR). The ALJ had indicated within his findings that the intent of the Rightsizing record was changed from 'ISEG ROTATION' to 'being considered on the 40% list' and this alteration -
was in 'different handwriting' without the knowledge or consent ofmy former supervisor. NMPC representatives could not submit this document to the NRC on May 101996, without an specific objection _to the ALJ finding. At no time during the May 101996 Enforcement Conference (as indicated by the transcript and the NMPC Handout) did any NMPC representatives object to the findings of the ALJ pertaining that this record had been altered without my former supervisor's knowledge or consent. This document was submitted to the NRC by NMPC representatives under the pretense that it was solely created by my former
' supervisor and deceived the NRC in regards to the ALJ findings pertaining to its credibility Because the Administrative Law Judge. had found that this 1994 employee evaluation had been altered without the responsible individual's knowledge or consent and that this findina had never been disputed or aopealed. NMPC had no lenal right to olace this document into public record.
It is especially significant that my 1994 performance evaluation was placed into public record since NMPC's 1994 downsizing program had kept this evaluation a ' secret' from me. In this case NMPC took a ' altered', ' personnel' and ' confidential' employee record, that they had developed and maintained a secret from their own employee, and place them into public record. Both the NRC and NMPC also had kept the fact that this record had been placed into the PDR a ' secret' from me. This is a clear aniBLATANT Violation of 10 CFR 2.790.. committed by both the NRC and NMPC
. The handout submitted to the NRC during the 1994 Enforcement Conference contained a page titled " Findings of the Administrative Law Judge" that contained specific statements that are fraudulent presented as being part of the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) findings. -These statements were admitted by NMPC representatives (as indicated in the transcripts from the conference as being NMPC opinion of where the ALJ had made an error in his findings) and are not the ALJ's documented findings. This document was submitted to the NRC with the full knowledge that it would be made a public document and placed into the Public Document Room (PDR).
The submittal of these fraudulent records to the NRC for placement into public record constitutes a deliberate act intended to destroy my credibility within the nuclear industry. Carl Terry. Ralph Silvia and Richard Abbott are personally resoonsible for submittina this fraudulent written record to the NRC. in violation of 10 CFR 50.9. and failing to comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 2.790 by allowinn it to be plac+d into public reard. As a member of the Nine Mile Point Independent Safety Engineering Group (ISEG), I was not identified under the NMPC 1994 downsizing process for termination. I had been selected, along ll with another NMPC ISEG (nuclear safety) engineer to be included in a new training program
[%_...
^3 PETITION PURSUANT TO 10 CFR 2.206, NINE MLE POINT NUCLEAR UNIT 1 & 2, DOCKET NO. 50 220, 50410 Page 6 Apnl5,1999 called 'ISEG ROTATION'. _Under this program, I had been rotated into the transition group identified for terminated under the NMPC 1994 downsizing process. Although NMPC later presented this ' secret' employee record, a Rightsizing Form, that they claimed to show that I was
+ ~ on their 40% list (and therefore subject to termination by downsizing) this record was determined .
to be of no value and altered by the ALJ. The reasons behind the ALJ findings are irrefutable. This rightsizing form did contain a statement that placed me on the 40% list. However, this statement was found by the ALJ to be in different handwriting than the originator (assumed to be the former Manager oflSEG) and inconsistent with all testimony. The rightsizing form also conflicted with other credible evidence such as a letter signed by Mr. B. Ralph Silvia, the former NMPC chief nuclear officer, that clearly stated
~
that I was not on the 40% list, that I was being terminated under this ISEG ROTATION program and that my downsizing form indicated that my " inclusion in the group was due to the decision to rotate ISEG positions". f In addition, although not known by the ALJ, the downsizing numbers are also inaccurate. This document contains downsizing numbers that are lower than what I had been entitled to under the j downsizing process. In other words, the downsizing numbers themselves are fraudulent. ! Specifically, the RESULTS downsizing number is the average of the RESULTS section of the i 1994 employee performance evaluation, and that the 3.0 RESULTS score shown on my downsizing record is less than the average of the RESULTS on my performance evaluation These numbers show that I had been cheated out of credit during the ISEG downsizing process that was under direct and personnel control by Carl Terry, the former VP of Nuclear Engineering. However. it'doesn't matter who is responsible for the creation of a document that contain a fraudulent emimlation. What is important is that NMPC senior nuclear managers willfully placed
' a document that they knew contain fraudulent numbers into public record (and the NRC allowed
~
this to occur even thouah they were aware of the numbers were fraudulent 1 Does the NRC also allow documents based upon fraudulent calculations into public record on issues pertaining to safety?. Although my downsizing record is marked as being 6 of 8, which NMPC claims is proof that my fonner supervisor had placed me on the 40% list, this marking only represents the fact that my employee evaluation was the sixth employee evaluation form that my former supervisor had created and is not a representation of my downsizing ranking. It is obvious that the direct control that Carl Terry, the former VP of Nuclear Engineering had over the step by step downsizing process and his misrepresentation of the downsizing process to my former supervisor was directly responsible for the errors that exists in the ISEG downsizing records. The direct control that Carl Terry had over the ISEG aroup's downeiring records resulted in fraudulent and inaccurate records. Therefore. NMPC presented mv 1994 downsiring record to the NRC at the Enforcement Conference under fraudulent oretences. It also marks extreme negligence on the pan of the NRC for failing to discuss the origin of this employee record with, my former
- supervisor.
' It is obvious that my 1994 Rightsizing record that was presented to the NRC on May 101996 had been altered by the placement of the statement that I had been on the lower 40% list. It is now v
- e. . , ,, ,
PETITION PURSUWf TO 10 CFR 2 206, NINE MILE PolNT NUCLEAR UNIT 1 & 2, DOCKET NO. 50 220,50 410 Page 7 Apnl5,1999 known that even my supervisor's name was placed on this record without his knowledge or l consent. These alterations can not be considered as part of the normal downsizing process, since there was no NMPC provisions that would allow the alteration of this employee record. As such, this constitutes a deliberate act of falsification and a Violation of 10 CFR 50.5. Based upon the facts: 1) Finding of the Administrative Law Judge that this Rightsizing record had
' been altered,2) NMPC had not appealed or disputed this finding, and 3) NMPC did not object to this finding during the Enforcement Conference,4) there are discrepancies in the document's physical appearance and the downsizing numbers contained on this employee record 5) the NOV was not denied and the fine was paid, a violation for the falsification of this record is warranted.
Personnel Enforcement Sanctions are also warranted for the responsible individuals. Based upon the facts there can be no question that it is a direct and blatant Violation of NRC Regulations and potential crimination violation of federal laws to place a confidential, inaccurate and altered employee evaluation into public record. This is especially significant since a ALJ had ! already found that this document was of no value, conflicted with other evidence and was altered. It is also significant since, it appears, that once documents are in public record there is no way to ! remove it or to identify who has seen it. Therefore a violation for the placement of this document into public record is warranted and personnel Enforcement Sanctions are also warranted for the responsible individuals. The placement of this downsizing record into public record was a deliberate act ' performed or allowed' by members of the NMPC senior management board that attended the May 101996 Enforcement Conference. They are all responsible and accountable for this crime.
- And based upon the facts, it is a direct and blatant Violation of NRC Regulations and potential crimination violation of federal laws to place a false listing of what the Administrative Law had determined in Discrimination Case 95-ERA-005 along with confidential employee information that are based upon secret and unproven 1993 downsizing records, into public record. Therefore a violation for the placement of this document into public record is warranted and personnel-Enforcement Sanctions are also warranted for the responsible individuals.
Considering number of senior management personnel involved in this fraud that are still retained within the NMPC senior nuclear management team and the fact that the removal of these personnel would subject these units to a dangerously low level of senior management oversight, { their removal shall be considered a direct Risk to Nuclear Safety at Nine Mile Point. It would 1
- also be considered a direct Risk to Nuclear Safety to retain personnel involved in the deliberate
- violation of NRC Regulations and in potential Criminal Violation of federal laws within a position of authority in a licensed activity. In addition, considering that NMPC had been represented by l
. legal console (in Discrimination Case 95-ERA-005 and at the May 101906 Enforcement !
Conference) and monitored by NMPC at a corporate level, it is imperative that the staff takes ! sufficient action to ensure Nuclear Safety at the Nine Mile Point Nuclear facility, i Requested Actions I l 1
9 PETITION PURSUART TO 10 CFR 2.206, NINE MtLE POINT NUCLEAR UNIT 1 & 2, DOCKET NO. 50 220,50-410 l Pageit Apri;$,3999 l l Issue a Show Cause Order or Civil Penalty against the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation and 1 it's senior nuclear and corporate management (Enforcement Sanctions) against, as a minimum, l Ralph Silvia, Carl Terry and Richard Abbott for ' participated in', 'had-knowledge-of or l allowed' the falsification of this 1994 employee record (as indicated by the ALJ Findings) and/or its submittal, under fraudulent pretences, into federal custody on May 101996 and/or for placing it into public record in Violation of 10 CFR 50.9,10 CFR 2.790 and 10 CFR 50.5. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall forward these issues to the Department of Justice for consideration ofcriminal prosecution. I
- Issue a Show Cause Order or Civil Penalty against the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation and Enforcement Sanctions against, as a minimum, Ralph Sihia, Carl Terry and Richard Abbott for
' participated in', 'had-knowledge-of or ' allowing' the presentation of a written document into federal custody that falsely lists their position in Discrimination case 95-ERA-005 as being i supported by the Administrative Law Judge and allowing it to become public record in Violation of 10 CFR 50.9 and 10 CFR 2.790. And for ' participated in', 'had-knowledge-of' or ' allowing' the placement of confidential employee information that constitutes an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy into public record in violation of 10 CFR 2.790. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will forward these issues to the Department of Justice for consideration of criminal prosecution.
i Perform a review and verification of all Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation's docketed fdes associated with the individuals that were ' involved-in', participated-in', 'had-knowledge-of' or
' allowed' the [ improper alteration of this employee record, its submittal into federal custody under fraudulent pretences and into public record and the fraudulent written presentation of the Administrative Law Judge's findings in case 95-ERA-005] are completed by independent review.
The NRC will forward a complaint to the Office of the Inspectors General for an investigation of possible deliberate misconduct or negligence on the part of members of the NRC for failing to take proper action in this discrimination case, allowing NMPC representatives to place false and l fraudulent documents in NRC custody and for allowing these documents to be placed into pubhc l record. i A Independent Oversight Group shall be established to provide oversight of the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation's Human Resources Department and Employee Concerns Program. This group will ensure that the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation does not develop or maintain employee records that are a ' secret' and/or different that what the employee is told. The group will also ensure that all prior ' secret
- employee records are forwarded to their corresponding owners (current or former employee) and provide a media for resolving complaints of fraud. The group will also provide nuclear safety oversight, specifically, perform the job function of the
. Independent Safety Engineering Group for both Unit 1 & 2 and provide for the future verification
- (Nuclear Compliance and Independent Verification) of all licensee submittals to any federal agency and into NRC docketed files.
A public meeting shall be held to obtain public comment pertaining personal accountability, j discrimination, the placement of fraudulent documentation into public records and the i i
U - l c,.... . j.* PETITION PURSUANT TO 10 CFR 2.206, NINE MILI POINT NUCl. EAR UNIT 1 & 2, DOCKET NO. 50-220, 50-410 Page 9 Apnl5,1999 vulnerability of the NRC' in being deceived by deliberate acts of misconduct in its regulatory
. affairs along with the fmdings of the Office of the Inspectors General in this discrimination case. 1 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will publicly post NMPC's NMP2 RIIR ASD Safety t
- Evaluation 96-091 (along with its associated sections from IR 50-410/97-04, under SELECTED l REPORTS on the internet) to make it available for public comment OR require NMPC 60 days to re-perform this safety evaluation in order to thoroughly review and document this issue to the NMP2 Licensing basis. Ifit is NMPC's intention not-to-have any RHR alternate shutdown cooling methods available to meet the 36 hour requirement specified in RG 1.139 (i.e. not to meet this USAR/ Reg. Guide Licensing Basis Requirement), then NMPC shall follow the appropriate regulatory process to take an exception to this Reg. Guide licensing requirement, provide adequate engineering and safety evaluations (to demonstrate that all previously analyzed accidents limits are not exceeded) and Modify their License accordingly.
All future placement of documentation into public record for this discrimination case 95 ERA-005 shall be in conformance with the ' Settlement Agreement' and the ' Findings of the Administrative Law Judge' (both of which was affirmed by the Secretary of Labor) and in compliance with the l NRC Enforcement Manual for Enforcement Conferences as it was amended by NUREG-1600. l Specifically, no future documentation will be placed into public record pertaining to this discrimination case without the complainant's knowledge and a written response on any submittal will be allowed as indicated by NUREG-1600. ' Issue a Show Cause Order or Civil Penalty against the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation and i it's senior nuclear and corporate management (Enforcement Sanctions) for Discrimination in
; Violation of 10 CFR 50.7 and 10 CFR 50.7.(f) for 'being-involved', ' participated-in', 'had-knowledge-of' or ' allowing' the placement of false and fraudulent documentation that is disparaging, deleterious and damaging to my goodwill, integrity and reputation into public record.
. Sincerely yours,
?. f Robert T. Norway L
(I [ f I . ATTACIRENTINDEX l l~*. l
)
#- Tiile I : Applicable Sections of 10 CFR <
l
' 2' Section " Discussion and Findings" of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in Discrimination Case 95-ERA-005.
3 ~ Letter from Ralph Silvia to R. Norway dated March 15,1994. 4 Partial May 101994 Enforcement Conference Handout. PDR File Location 89130: 156 to 254. 5 1994 Employee Performance Evaluation as it was submitted to the ALJ. 6 Blowups ofManager's line of both the 1994 and 1996 employee evaluation. i j
r l .* , , . , , Attachment i 10 CFR Sections impacted J l 1 APPLICABILITY OF 10 CFR to PETITION . Section b of 10 CFR 2.790 places the owner of the information regnnele for the contents. Since this l information is in NMPC docketed files, specifically, S220/50-410 V files, they are the owners and are responsible for its contents, The NRC pnmary vehicle to implement this responsibility is to re-present the information slated to be put into public record back to the liansee. This handout wts presented to NMPC As an atemehment to Incpution Report 50-220/96-06; 50-410/96-06 as an attachment along with another Enforcement Conference Handout on the NMPI Blowout Pancis NMPC had a period of time to implement the provisions of 10 CFR 2.790.b to remove any and all unwstranted matenal Therefore, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation is fuDy responsible and s-: =*2e for the information contained in public record in their V files. The only exmption would be Government Required documentation such as the contents of the Inspection Report that was written by the NRC. It is hkely that NMPC had used their authority under the prmisions of 10 CFR 2.790.b. to remove Mr. Sihia's March 1994 ISEG RCrfATION letter (evidence CXil) from public disclosure. l 1 Personnel and similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy are prohibited from being placed into public reconi Although NMPC did have the right to present personnel notes and files to the NRC, it disclosure on a Handout cyc**!!y intended to be placed into public record is a Violation of 10 CFR 2.790.a.2.6. In addition section (b) contains: Whether the informabon has been held in confidence by its owner, whether the information is of a type customarily held in confidence by its owner and whether the information was tramitted to and received by the Commission in confidence; whether the information is anilable in public sources; and whether public disclosure of the information sought to be withheld is likely to cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the owner of the information are reqmremente that were , violated by the release of personnel informauon on the PDR. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission also has j accountabdity in their failure to enforce these provtssons. A violauon of 10 CFR 2.790. (b) is especudly sigmficant for my 1994 performance evaluauon since their 1994 downnnns program had kept this evaluation a ' secret' from me. In this case NMPC took personnel record 'that they had developed and mamramed a secret from their own employee' and place them into pubhcsecorcL Information that a reasonable person could misinterpret, (their discretion) as being inaccurate in any material way is a violation of 10 CFR 2.790.a.3. and 10 CFR 50.9. As such, the pr== Man of Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation's complamts pertauung to the Admimerative IJw Judge's Findings as being part of the Adnumstrative Law Judge's Findings is a violation of those secuons in addition, since my 1994 Personnel Evaluation had been found by the Admirustratne Law Judge to be of no value, conflicted with credible evidence and altered ("in different handwriting" wnhout Mr. Spadafore's knowledge), NMPC has plamd a shered (or falafied) document into public record in Violation of 10 CFR 50.9 and 10 CFR 2.790. As per sections of 10 CFR 50.7.f. since NMPC had taken acuan in violation of 10 CFR 50.9 and 10 CFR 2,790 that places M=aatation that 'contain any prmision which would prohibit, restnct, or otherwise discourage an employee from participating in protected activity as defined in paragraph (a)(1) of this section", their actions constitute another Violation of 10 CFR 50.7 l
]
~
i 10 CFR Sections impacted Applicable Sections of 10 CFR (2,790 Public inspections, esemptions, requests for withholding. t (a) Subject to the pnmsions of paragraphs (b), (d), and (e) of this section, final NRC records and documents,(8) including but not limited to correspondence to and from the NRC regar&ng the issuance, denial amen &nent, transfer, renewal, moddication, suspension, revoution, or violation of a
- license, permit, or order, or reganhng a rule making proceeding subject to this pan shall not, in the absence of a ocmpelling reason for non&sclosure after a MMag of the interests of the person or agency urging nondisclosure and the pubhc interest in disclosure, be exempt from disclosure and will be made availabic for inspectson and copying in the NRC Public _rhW Room, except for maters thatare:
(3) S,a=*My exempted from disclosure by statute (Mber than 5 U.S.C.) 552(b), pnmded that such statute (i) requirn that the maners be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no 4screuon on the issue, or (ii) estabbshes particular cratcria for withholding or refers to particular types or matters to be wihid 1 (5) Interagency or intraagency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a puty other than an agency in litigation with the Commission; (6) Personnel and medical Gles and similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clerty unwammicd invasion of personal pm1ncy; (7) Records or information mmpiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the exten' that the production of such law enforcement records or information. (iii) Could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; (bXI) A person who proposes that a darmmem or a part be withheld in whole or part from public disclosure on the ground that it coauuns trade secrets or privileged or confidential mmmercial or financial information shall submit an application for withholding accompamed by an affidmit which-(ii) Conman a full statement of the reasons on the basis of which it is claimed that the information should be withheld from public disclosure. Such statement shall address with specificity the mnsiderations listed in puragraph (bX4) of this section. In the use of an affidavit submitted by a company, the affidmit shall be executed by an officer or upper level m-aman' official who has been specifically delegated the function of reviewing the information sought to be withheld and authorized to apply for its withholding on behalf of the company. The affidmit shall be executed by the owner of the information, even though the informahon sought to be withheld is eewmnart to the Commission by another person. The application and afBdmit shall be submitted at the time of filing
. the infonnation sought to be withheld. The information sought to be withheld shall be incorporated, as ihr as possibic, into a scparate paper. The affiant may designaic with appropnate markings information submitted in the affidsvit as a trade secret or confidec*ial or privileged w r-wial or financial information within the meamng of $9.17(a)(4) of this chapter and such information shall be subject to disclosure only in accordance with the provisions of 69.19 of this chapter (3)1he Commission shali determine whether information sought to be withheld from public disclosure pursuant to this paragraph: (i) is a trade secret or confidential or privileged commercial or finaaml
' information; and (ii) if so, should be withheld from public disclosure.
l (4) In mahng the determination required by purugraph (b)(3)(i) of this section, the Commission will (i) Whether the information has been held in confidena by its owner, u_______
Attachmen! 1 10 CFR Sections impacted (ii) Whether the information is of a type customanly held in confidence by its owner and whether , there is a rationalbasis therefor, l (iii) Whether the information was transmitted to and recched by the Commission in conSdence; (iv) Whether the information is available in public sources, , (v) Whether public disclosure of the information sought to be withheld is likely to cause suhsenraial l harm to the competitive position of the owner of the information, taking into account the value of the l information to the owner, the amount of effort or money, if any, expended by the owner in developing the information; and the case or difficulty with which the information could be properly acquired or I duplicated by others. I
$50.9 Completeness and accuracy of information.
(a) Information presided to the Commission by an applicant for a license or by a licensee or information required by statute or by the Comminion's regulations, orders, or license conditions to i be maintamed by the applicant or the licensce shall be completc and accurate in all matenal respects. I
$50.7 Employee protection.
(a) Disenmmation by a Commission licensee, an applicant for a Commission license, or a contractor ; or subcontractor of a Commission licensee or applicant agamst an employee for engaging in cartan ' protected aethities is prohibited. Discrimmmion includes discharge and other actions that relate to compensation, terms, mnditions, or privileges of employment. The protected aethities are i established in section 211 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as =eadai and in general are l related to the adnumstration or enforcement of a requaement imposed under the Atomic Energy Act or the Energy Reorgamzation Act. (f) No agreement affecting the compensation, terms, conditions, or prmleges of employment, , including an agreement to settle a complaint Aled by an employee with the IWTs.t of Labor ! pursuant to section 211 of the Energy ReorganuAion Act of 1974, as M, may contain any , provision which would prohibit, restrict, or otherwise discourage an employee from participating in protected acthity as dermed in paragraph (a)(1) of this section including, but not limited to, prmiding information to the NRC or to his or her employer on potential siolations or other matters within NRC's regulatory responsibilities.
t pe . - Attachment 2 g Judge's Discussion and Findings in Discrimination case 95-ERA-005 bnpl/www.oalj del gov /public/wblower/decsn/95cra05a.htm i The-initial threshold in proving his case is easily met by
- the Complainant. His position as a member of the ISEG was required by the licensing basis that allowed Niagara Mohawk to operate Unit No. 2. This unit was created solely for the purpose of discovering and discussing potential safety
. problems. The name of the' group itself recognizes its -
independence.and purpose. To take adverse action against a member offthe group for performing his job is the prototypical action protected by the statute. Such action would be interference with the basis on which the
-Respondent's license was granted.
There is no dispute that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant's safety complaints. In fact, the Respondent had a procedure for' dealing with these-complaints. The PR and procedure recognize the importance of safety issues raised by members of the ISEG. The history of the Respondent's action taken in response to the Complainant's PR on the RHR system in 1993 are well documented and verified by all' witnesses. That the Respondent took adverse action against the Complainant is also not in dispute. He was terminated by the Respondent in 1994. The Complainant's explanation of why he was terminated supports his contention that his persistence in pursuing his safety complaints was the reason for the adverse action. The PR filed in 1991 is by itself proof of such action. The Complainant's continued pursuit of this safety problem was supported by his immediate. supervisor Jim Spadafore. The Complainant relates in detail a discussion he had' l with Mr. Abbott as a result of his persistence. This confrontation in which the Complainant was threatened with termination if he did not drop the complaint is not denied by the Respondent. Mr. Abbott merely' stated he does not recall any such confrontation; this cannot be considered a denial. The action taken against the Respondent starting after he again raised 1 essentially the same issue in 1994 indicates a direct link between the warning and the termination action. l 1 t l m.....,, I
r Attachment 2 Judge's Discussion and Findings in Discrimination case 95-ERA-005 hnp //www oalj del gov /public/wblower/decsn/95 era 05a.htm These actions constitute proof of a prima facie case by the Complainant. The burden therefore shifts to the Respondent. The Respondent's counter argument is that the termination was motivated by a nondiscriminating action. In support of this the Respondent stated that there was a general downsizing called rightsizing that took place in 1993-1994 in an effort to streamline the utility and make it competitive with others in the power business. The fact that a general downsizing took place in the years 1993-1994 is not in dispute.
, According to the published criteria the targeted group consists of employees whose performance evaluations were in the lower 40%. In 1993-1994 the goal was to reduce the I number of nuclear engineers. If an employee was not in the l lower 40% he was not in danger of termination. '
The evidence establishes that the Complainant was repeatedly told.that he was not in the targeted group. Any i time he asked any of his superiors he was told he was not in jeopardy. No one ever told him he was in this group. The Respondent counters with several arguments. They say that the Complainant was in the lower 40% and was terminated strictly in accordance with the stated criteria. J A second not wholly consistent position is that there wero l other nonpublished criteria that justified the firing of j the complainant. l The first of these arguments is based on performance evaluation that shows the Complainant in the lower 40%. ! These evaluations were prepared during the last stage of I the downsizing. There is no indication that they were ever l communicated to the complainant. They also include j different handwriting. Most importantly they are totally i inconsistent with the verbal assurances given to the Complainant. ; i The document in question is RX6. A close look shows
]
that there is no indication that this document was ! communicated to the Complainant or to his immediate l l supervisor. It includes the statement that the position is not being right sized. m_-, ,, t I
A .- -
- Attachment 2
, Judge's Discussion and Findings in Discrimination case 95 ERA-005
- f . http://wwwoalj dol gov /public/wblower/decsn/95 era 0$a.htm f
-The record is consistent in showing that the Complainant was told he was not in the lower 40% of the rankings. (TR 61, 62, 126). The question remaining is whether there is any other legitimate reason for
' terminating the Complainant.
'The Complainant received a letter.from Mr. Sylvia dated March 15, 1994. (CX 11). Mr. Sylvia confirmed that the Complainant was not in the lower 40%. He stated the termination was~due to the Complainant being included in an ISEG rotation. It noted that the decision to rotate employees was made after the downsizing was in progress.
The' Complainant received another explanation from Kathy
. Mills, a member of the Respondent's Human Resources Department. This letter said the Employee was being terminated because his position has been abolished.
l Ultimately the question in this case is one of ! credibility. The Complainant has shown that he raised l important safety issues with which the Respondent { disagreed. As a result he was threatened with loss of his l position. The Respondent doesn't' deny this, but merely j states he can't recall the conversation. The Complainant has shown that he was repeatedly assured he was not in the group-eligible for termination. The testimony of all witnesses confirms this position. l l The Respondent, on the other hand, has not shown why j the Complainant was terminated. They have suggested several i reasons, none of which is supported by the evidence. The j record'shows there was no rotation plan for ISEG engineers, j There is also no evidence that the Complainant's job was ! abolished..The only performance evaluation showing the
' Complainant is in the lower 40% for 1994 is of no value because of its lack of consistency with other evidence.
Based on the above the Complainant has proved his case and is entitled to damages. b i-m , ,, u.
~
ri' e/MCHfAWK mwAM -
'.+ \
NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION /NINE MILE POIN f. P O BOX 63. LWOMING, NY 13093/ TELEPHONE (315) 349-2882 B. Ralph SyMa Esecutwo Wee President
** March 15,1994 Robert T. Norway W -
P
Dear Bob:
I asked Jerry Krueger, Director HRD-Nuclear, to assist me in reviewing the concems expressed in your letter dated February 28,1994. Indeed the initial evaluation made by Jim Spadafore did not place you on the list of employees to be assessed by the Review Board process, nor was your position abolished as a result of the staff reductions within the ISEG group. However, in a subsequent Senior Management planning session, a decision was made to rotate members of the ISEG group on a periodic basis. ' Ibis rotation process would provide development opportunities, as well as bring new gr.sgetives to the ISEG group. As a result of this change, you were included in the group to be reviewed. As further explanation, your assessment worksheet indicated that your inclusion in the group to be reviewed was due to the decision to rotate ISEG positions. As part of the Review Board process, another employee was selected for placement into . the ISEG group. Unfortunately, the Board was unable to match your experience and background to displace a lesser. qualified employee, which resulted in your being placed in the transition program. In reviewing the circumstances outlined above, I have concluded the rightsizing process was followed, even though the decision was made to rotate members after the initial process had
-besun.
I trust this will provide satisfactory explanation to your concerns. Sincerely, l B. Ralph S Ivia Executive Vice President - Nuclear BRS/bwr
ATTACHMENT 4 Y NRC ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE EMPLOYEE DISCHARGE
. May 10,1996 Niagara Mohawk Presentation 1
0
~
li
1
-AGENDA Introduction . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. R. Sylvia Status of the Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. R. Sylvia Rightsizing Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . K. M. Miles Facts of the Case . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. D. Terry I
. Discussion of Findings of C. D. Terry /
>the Administrative Law Judge . . . . . . . . R. B. Abbott l
Climate for Raising Safety Issues ................... R. A. Hall Corrective Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. B. Abbott Enforcement History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. R. Sylvia Closing Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. R. Sylvia
1 .,.a l FACTS OF THE CASE
- Mr. Norway was hired in'1982 as a startup engineer l
* : Joined ISEG in 1989; was one of 9 individuals in group
- Duties identical to other ISEG engineers
- Investigation
- Identify Issues
- Evaluation
- Issue prs /DERs ;
l
- Rightsizing program began in 1993 l
. Eliminate 10% of all positions
- Lower ranked 20% ofindividuals on a site basis identified for consideration
- In 1993, Mr. Norway was ranked in bottom 20% of group
- Considered in rightsizing pool e Retained
- In 1994, a second round of rightsizing was begun
- Eliminate 20% of all positions
- Lower ranked 40% ofindividuals on a site basis identified for consideration
FACTS OF THE CASE (cont'd) i APPLICATION OF PROCESS TO ISEG i i Unit 2 Technical Specification requirement for 5 degreed - engineers in ISEG would be satisfied
)
Supervisor position would be counted against degreed ! engineer requirement { Three individuals were technicians and did not meet the ! degree requirements for retention in ISEG !
'* One engineer's position would have to be eliminated l
'* Supervisor evaluated all engineers and selected three for consideration by the review process '
Supervisor informed Norway that he was submitted for rotation (non-specific) only Supervisor submitted Board evaluation forms - noting Norway ranked in lower 40%
'* Review panel considered all candidates separately
- Candidates given opportunity to provide feedback for Board's consideration (Norway did so)
- Secret ballot
- Selected Norway for transition O
m FINDINGS OF THE l' ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 4
'* Agree that Mr. Norway was a protected employee l
'* - Mr. Norway, as well as all other ISEG members, was - 4 directed by management to raise and evaluate safety issues and all did so e Persistence and dogged pursuit ofissues are positive l attributes for ISEG
'* Four issues discussed in Judge's decision:
- 1991 PR
- 1993 DER Evaluation of Operating Experience reviews Containment Spray Systems - repeated safety evaluations
'* Mr. Norway was not threatened with termination by Mr. Abbott
'* Mr. Norway's termination process was non-discriminatory
= 1993 DER was not a consideration of Board; senior managers not aware of DER
- Notified of consideration for transition
- Feedback form submitted by Norway
- Norway's supervisor actions unfortunate
- Board evaluation based on performance
- Common for Board to conclude differently than supervisors 1
7:
... - ~ * " "
. S,
* " ', ~' - I * ' l' ,%,.*'*. ... . . . . . . .,
~~'
\', Q ' ,
,, .c. t , i
. ,. a l ?!! ". . . .
l ? .; 1! , \ \' f 'i'.\ 7 ll1/l't.O) (.l. AS$l.$ V.tlll.\ y( u
. s. .....s._t.. n. -.
. . . . x. . ? , .
. . . . s.u. s . . x . .
linus.h \l.in.:g. r II.t.it.isg u llliin group: L peit;on twing right.iicd< b __X, j S., Franch St..napr r.2:ommend.:t ., c (cha.ne nnc}
..._b'...of_..b._.
~-'
-. Place in TratWii..n Pne;.am l* _,_ ___.,X . . Retain in current onn.ri At.ind p. 4ei .n l
Retain within anather branch .%, Ni.... l y .
- 7. .. : . . . .. ..
.- ._.._.....w....,..,s
. . :. .. . . . ...u. .
. .ww .. m :w , . ? n.a .
. . . . . . t
*]~.5(4r R.d7hTeo4 At YCSITso M I, Eill'1 (WEl' N A%fr- _
[OB TITLE: G.6 lWu. 3 [thecGcat-)
!!MANCi1: . .Q t b.t.g (A 8. f,46 ft. ,(. ___ . .. . AIANACER: _ . . . _ , . . _ . . _ , , ,
199.t 1.t groRstrM E E VAL.l ATION 1.6 VEL: E..^:uep c491th'Y3 (currently h,ing c<.inpi,ted) 4;wss tha c:ty!.;;tt b,:otel on ec:tprits bel.*w using thefollowing mting scalt: $ HIGIIEST / I L0tYEST; INSTRUCTIO\S: Is Cur.t.:t perfann.:nct ratforgs sh.:!! mcicln the annualperfarm.tnce em!uation bring perfanntJ. 2) Finibilig and;)) Pc.rta:i.:!
\
sha!! k contpx:is t ratings tra c:htrs in your work group. l e tt Cf8iO.~(.o.EEinuff 8fftOLnqE e! RF$L'Lis ACl!!LVED 5 4 Q7# 2 I ht SKILt. AS3EsS>lrNT $ 4 6 3 2 1 28 f.011.PAIDIDTJ.tMIMJIyi A read! cupability to adapt to new, d!!Terent nr 5 %,o 3 2 I changing ruguirement , Capable of ' fulf*l'ing snultip!c <6pon<iSi!! tie. I l A fm.lb.M1.0LNH.Q7Bla 5 4 7
- 3 2 1
% e.c the esperbnce and'ur capah'litici ed uillingn. 4 to take on additional re.pomibility to fulli!! immedi tr hu ineu net d <.
l __._ l
. ... .., ,_m.TOTA 1. OF RATINGS:,m._._.,_.,,.-,3..._._. / Y._'. .-_- n.rur toru. uttsm emnwr
. . .. . m,-._.,...-.~.n_. .
rt.r Ast raovirit AtmiTiosAt. Co\isim s:
~ . . , . v.,,. ..., :.. _,c. -
.. . =_-r . .. m .,=;.: . ..- g .g _mr.g.,Ji15.nrt.It.;nu.,[3
. . m.m. m.-.==. r__ _. .s.= 1
. S.TRENGTil5: ~G..f ..I c.a.c..t_ _(.e.R_. he_ s,1C,'th j w,r.5,5 -7ec.l aic_.u._.cJ.___
- t - - . .
n....._ .. s....of. ..f_&. it< si sv. 7~ e ci e und. n- o d o.. k. h- _ ._
-- e L_ . . /. .-...._c....c < .<v.etc .. L_ F(e d [ oe.
joul a /~ ,e et ep._ce ..,t.oJ - i
, . .. _._.9..[.n_s. r <p..j . 7. . [_C.,+.-o __ A ee t w ,cp/ ArcAS . Y.o ev' fin oh.IL eA
-_ - - - - - _ _ _ . l \
g ,
!.. _._ A;I.0fh . b.. S.M5 - !
i t.1silTATIONS: f(Lh_S._m- . t'o.m. #7. hr. # _e,A, -- .fo. . . 5d[W M5 l l
! .a.h .Wr3 s e nG<3 4,4,ct.T) '
-- . l i
__.. ra .b. ... ._w... __.._ -~ Mcmm&L Posmo J . vin exmert l ' W __G.e-ett.e % 1 ec G '4*.' ast's<-4 0>Ad t'LAS
- a O s ), n, He,,) f. -}A 's. Oon<N A eates) f**
- c es3' .- .l l
.h.t9,.,,"r%s3.*N'
. :. F ..:,m f""?'**='-J..m_ V M*t,l' 7*m.. "_i 4.d**8"."
v**273.i _.:. i. .**Jn'TE.s.**.".*' - i _ -. m a .. ,. ~ ... .i. mg... - ,..* ..< M N - r ,..
, &.a - '_0 (4, s**sy s .T W . C: h. 7 ~l5Lb I
-- -. }y% ,. ,
v* C ** $ ) _ . l l ___ -... _._--.- --__ l. i , l g_ _ - - - . ; ( 1 l
)
- s. Attachment 4 Evaluation submitted to NRC on May 1019% and in Pubhc Record
[ J
; ..nMpW.R..n .WT.. sM,.. '.+r.....
.sr., cv.w. :.. .- a. n.. 3. m.. r ,. .a . ..?..__a Q &. 9,.t % F. .' q. 6p.M. ,., .W~..m,y..'
w, g ,- s.. . ~. .
\ .e y , .. . n.m.
t_ e m e m %; es r- .. , n c _ +;. w ,. ..c #..2 u.p2gj.go a g. .gt,.
;;;.s r,,.a .v _
g 7 f. .s u _
- t. , e D n .
mm j p c l g.,, ( , , .. ,s f ~ pl;.. . . . . , [
, b .
1.o..
- . :.!,u .,.; o m.,mi:
f u ,u..h M .r.'y s' IL: .. Irg, e 'ilei i pcr p
< < < . w.; n q ,. . ..
- . _ . . ~ .
- 4. p..I.'..a I.e *J rW.seJ _._ . Ye .M) '.
c.: (is l h.. r...u ,..,- .<c.r,~. . 3 n... :,5 < .:.u % q 6 e .. 6 .. . . _ _ . ___.x. w. .. . ... ?;..
,l .
. w. . ;,,:. e. : n. w {
. , ,,. ~ .. . ;
- v. : - .
- . .. , ..- .-: u=.m _w .-. wTeo.1 a- wM . .cafsw 4 : . 8 t 15c615 TP:
Dit"1 FMJ *. ' ' tY C'N CM7t M C U y.rm.., Joe TITLF.: .,(.A.3.Mg,O. h.sh.,,d a i v.wi.. . .e.w w. < e.) . . u mcu, . _ . _ . _ . . _ .. pt ,w) j I F. n 4 '( i<.'4 W*r r t 411 als0% (1 t Et.: EA.Aeg.tupTe'.Tfgd_.,m.,..fcurteestfy
. . . . . ' .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ . A3.g . ...._.
~1
.t. ** o.r;* . o r k .I e. .v'r; wire N*..' nt sg htl dan'*Z rso:sg str*r ! h*K,0:C5T ** I LQt'4 57; IS$7tC(7'hl:
4 7 aut<4 she etape!fs*f aisser9 fva.* ssibwe $s.4; perf.seerd. JJ f*ts'il?yl.b. a. f, 8 6.. 0a at; .12 F . .
.h(**".
~ A e.r .. .ff, vi.
* *.eo e re'!y, r s.s sei!q,
#<. r. 84_.4_'e_; e_s
. . . . ~. *
- w tJr . w
- __ - . _ . _ . . . . .. ,,.
f h, .
'. O. 4 Q.'? 0.' D \11 7.14 lW.O'.L. .__ , . . , , - . . . . . . , ,, , , , . . . _ . . . . . .
.f
;$ g .'.' . .
.6 4 .. ....;... . . a.
;j . ..v. .P l $.'it. 13. 4.t*1_'It.4 . . . .t'_ t.e _ _ . . . . .
_4 h_ ..' ) .._..I._......t_ h I b., .S W I. M.il M.u.s* N.'l .. .. . -. .I - . -
~
lT g r 2. f Aill.4Il 41li(,ILiill*',,.fiY: c.; A..y t. 4s8. pe tw rwa. d.f's e.eJ ce l A few*) 3 he
- 2 4
( r el I
,d P sk.psig rn **ver.ent Cap.her el l l
fw!..D.a.gt.so.wlti.pl ...t.. sear.m *.;8 i % ... -.- . . . .
"g.,
. h.h.
s 3 2 . : 3 t A 9 w( k Y (fD'.I43,019.10.
. . . . . . s ..
J it!' .gr f;Y.II.4
.1.. LA e an egd tionnal L: m ,
rr=Jb .iJNii , 1,**stf.'lirt.m ale hwd#tc a { seg . _ . :r . .. _'s _... - m,. r
. . . Tom. .. or n. ,n:s.c.
T s: __ . ._/., . . __%
. 3.. .. ___ _im.,i,,.,....
~ ~ . . . , . . . .
b.q,,.W n .i _ist r4.u : a.. .u, . . .trirm,a ....,s..c.om...:m.ros ..v.v.. ,. m _.y s... .y q,.. .irceu. ,I id .. m
,r... ~
pg
) M ":'*?! * ._'"6r 6 M..C qa 'usih. / &~_q.61..fsdefas5_.._..__.. .I Y Gh ....CApH L 2.. . M.. A!..'.w.!.G.. . &:. .Tyf* d M ^-*
ee*% a h.1. ..... kI p . _ -.a. n.c. W < &t:_.Sn __h5 d mcm.u.
. .. . sre.m.,, =.fc . .e.a. _. u.wat sas_y9 f w.g.\'e o .__...._ s
..Iy M
v .r c,A ( I .w y,
* ,m. v.* 7. m. F e,L, 64., s,s:trf /.$._A. .vl s k.fis ,V..
_u. u.n mn s. _. -
. _m , l e, :u _ . - _u. .. . w u s. .
~. _4: , m. _i.e- -
t./I To'/ h,WTir$,,. d.-
.y4 i
hTIdY i.
..O.p_ s.A M e'. f0W/Oh) ; l f b.
- h. -. .
I' t /')M be' l*$*h*em$ OplS f _ ._ ll 9'. .'d e _ beg. f,pf.9) ef (*JG
- ni ed fIe'4 u i.
.s p .%,) 4 .fd . 0e Ard Re ese.J /b oenss' --
I .l
%,p M *-}j wer s".mt s' war' *
- h
.. m s.. m-- u. .~. o
- s r--
r !
.. . --.m r.*. e _:.- <.s*..r v--m aa = a==
..-e.-
('4* T . f_,.,..r .s a .,..,,...a
- b. _
39 h> % 4 .Biea MT+fC j C % E b 1 ....
%pi f j ,
~
eg4 q . ___.l _- g F M.I . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b k hbkNkkh
i; , , v a . P.\ H.. . . :.':. i. ,\ l. l *l. l A R ,$ h'l .
. j Ntj A? /. W G,0 H OlU.M it .) .
t h.A MUn*lIN!s!. ly).l,tt.tm;;;.tII:M E.'.\ll'LOYEl. ASSI.55.\ll:.VT
. . . . ..v u .. . . . . , . , . . . . ex:,a :s..w .u .n.v.a. . ~ .. w.,s . .. -:. n : . r.w . w. . . ... v. . .s... . . .. . . , r.,. . . v
;.d.tneh I .
\l.inapr R inking uittiin group:
. , t< peitWn being righuind: _,,_ ,, b _ , X _ , No
!!r.nich 31.erupr recornruendati.,n: (chame nne)
# N Place in Tratuition Pug; ram
. .. P. . . o f _ . . .U. _ ._ _ .
' . _ _ . . . . . .....X.____, Retain in curtsnt non.r12ht.ies d p.. ! 14 r-
___....__ __. . Retain within anothir bransh .% t.1,,ie .
. . ... *" ., ... ,.. ...#...../.
, . . , .. ,P M 4 ,. r.4.,'%/ g.. . .. . .'. ' ..
.. . i . . A . . . l. . ;
.iste.a J m Wi'.*-
C '3~5(f9,., A . Rd~/h'T
. . . . ,ise o,> stchAs.cc.1*.Myc.,.a.
L. 1 ..1.#..6 I T1o ' rJ_.. 1 E \ ll'LO YE C N A s t F : . M_.N_.o..N._ . _o_ld. .. _M._\____ __. _... __.C.[0._fM..i B Tf.dE.E_._R_.i1 L E: 3.. [ps.e.c..h$.. .da...l-) ~ I:R \ N C il: .A. .. .cM. a.d.. O. .tt.. ( ~_4..._6Q. ..___ ...._ ___. ._ .__ M AN A G ER:
.. ~"T. 61%MF#6 . . .
l 199.1 l' ERROR.\l ANCE EVAll'ATION LEVEL:
. . _ . . . ...__....... _... . . . . _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ Eq_c.oyfeld.'.[ur')...N 3. (currently being ci.nipleted) 1 Asuss the employet bwd on ccuprits bela'c using thtfallowing rating scale; 5 filGill'ST / I LOWEST; i.VSTRUC7lO\S:
- 1) Current perjonncnct ratings shallmakh the annualperformance evaluation britig performed. 2) Flexibility and; 3) Port:cial sloati be cum;aratis e ratiny to others in your wort group. ,
I' fA R RES.T.O.R4 M.1 PJ,RJ.O.B.\J.,MC a) Rf5t'L1$ ACillEVEll 5 4 Qf'" 2 1 b) Skill.
... ... .. A.SSI:$53!E VI 5 4 h
. . . _ _ . . . . _ _ . . . . _.3 . . . . .
.2 1
i h f.03.lJ'AJD.1J)TJI f Stj:JllJ.y; A ready capability to adapt in neu, ditTtrint nr 5 ho 3 2 1 j 1 s.hategitij rsquirsments. Capable of , j fulfilling mu.lt.ipls c<pon.ihilitiss. i i 33 [Q\ll'A PA1.l.Y.f..l'Ol .LS! !. A].; 5 4 7 >~ 3 2 i Pm t%ts the espsrisucc and'n. capabilitic. und willlngoss. to late on addition.d rs ponsibility tu fulf.fiimmtdiats hu incu usuls. TOTAL. OF lt ATINGS:., .. __. .,. /. v.V 3. ., . . _ . . .. __. . .. !
. . . . m . . . .. . , .v. . . a.s. 1-. , m .c.s .r m i u >.e.m emim i,
,.. .. ,,.. .r. . . , . .a. .
.. . , v. .. ....u . .....
P1I\'l: PRO \li!.At:DITION AI. CO\l\ LEV 1 $: f.1 A51'PRIN1 l.fG J
' * . ") ' . .\lt.iT ' pi " ""lII:T' t
- .. . r v
. ..s.,. ..,s. . i. . .n.n. r. r.r..s : .a. v .a , w. . .:}" .;
1
...o..c. g . . (. .m r s..m. i m.... . _. . 9 f h
_.,_ m.. _ m.. . . .. > m.. 3 .h. . . . . . . . . ...w. __... .[., s_.. . n....c. , g. . ., .m.q..
. . . O L E.. o.f. . .(.2. e. .a_s.e.s * /.rg , , n,, r,s_ .. ,T, s77, ,, e,,,,,o,f,, ,,t,a,,,/, M,,,., , , n, r.o,, , c o,n7k J,r,.
. . .) .. a.. .c ~ <<.?..s. . .%d. G a.
.. f.mt o..f..~. J f e.. t M c.e.. .i a_..
..A..e.c,A..;q..c.r./-__Ar_c.4.5.. l
. 51. ..:w. . .-r..y.g+.4.. /.C... ..+ .o. . .K..r. .<_g _f.b. . . . .,.t .I. i_. .i .a. . . .
. ... 9.. yJ3.<.s.
. . .e. k. _ .fe.5. _. _ _ . . __ . . . . _ ._ _. . .._ .
- 1. l.\l1.1 A.l..l o.w. .. .. 0. ,h. 4. . . m- .t..o_.m.
.. . . . ... .. . 't6. . __h_ . . ..". # . . .M. .... 3 .~. . . .~. ..s..M._ _E. ... -..M.
. .IS. . .. .4..
. 8 w , %... .<. %.. )
s 'e nW3. .._4.4C...c,
- t. T..RO*Dr'T<0s/A L-/klo1MY2_
..........T..D....b._.%~. .. . ..a. . ._~. . ..._a.
17 <orJ _....&...._._.._..... vi . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . ~
. .__. .... . . 0.2*> et.t.h.~.f'r.o.r.)... ..%
- . . _ (_._J
.C .s..r.f A. 2..f.t.._ . .-_.f..'_o $1l~io
_ rd.0../.
^
h _J lf. __.t' L..t..S..e_r_J . .-.e_ -_ . .. _ _ .
. . . . . . . _ _ . 3*Y.'h.rse.hW-f . f.. ._h t...b_oh. rt -=._f. t s!l_l.s ) hf eC4}_ _ . .
e . .~ . t ~
- e
- n. .. . ~.y: , m.y . . .- u.:. o rm.g e;y :a .u :,.r. g., :.e ...r.g.: s.v. ._.*. r . ' ,~. :. c .i :w . .. . s e. # *
** jf p..it .a Io tig t.h rel sr I se. i.e eu n ta:i..e 1. Pet 4a in en.4hrt T.rsn.b. pleite es/.in ubt Pr ash anJ %* . _. 3y..n.... .._ . ' %
4 _( . _. . <_.k._ , _.'.0._ ._.~. _T___ . _ _.)__.. . 2~ _ (0.._.p. G. b. _j 5... l}.. ....O.._ -
. ..__...__...._......___....__..___.....w.. --_ .. ..... ...._ - .. -.. ......._...- .
. . . . . . _ . _ . . . . _ . . . _ . . . . _ - _ _ _ . . . . - _ . . _ _ . . . . _ _ . _ _ _ ..._. = . _ . . _ _ . . _ . . _ . . . . - . . . . .- _.....
. . . .-,u
. . . ...:r u : .r..n.n. c rm .z.,.r.r.w.ru _m..e.v.n. . n.., s . m. . . c . . - . .
.o.~. .
E 0 0 e; n 1
1 a _ -a mm ; e I I i$: 7, : p e J, i :. .a .: . i 4 -4
&-i 3 .
t'G S' l# E 8 , ,g! -
;ga ;, gi -
igg' l 3, '
- z. :. .
jo.l .l l', ,I i s
. 31 oi l
lCe- , 5! h wd! l; .2$ C= bI @ $! pEY , L j o9 v i - s a. ' .$ s ,< ifl
.s .
s M IunWb ! ! p ?.- ' i c
.i -d !
djs1 s I2 vii{ 3 m]i ; .s a at
- 8. .j..c ts' . l .i. o,s nt i
4 3
, '4Jmw1.h - O qq j
,0 }s di jfg%e t '
p'.4 %m e j %,J!4..f
% j Vi p {.f
=
e . 1 .,O - ). . l a l "_ c ' l sq:$F *g*
, a!!r '
i % E 1 i 4 1Fq i ,, '1: !~# ! i E ',$ ! ; dS !w$ W,.' .. O M' :c M .=% ! Cl@ in:.!5 142' l s w< . .c L=it.,I i 3 I f.
- 4 .' r ,
h* % *4 i :' ; ' 4 p: Q%g ; ii j ,; 46 t F< g '14 H4 is ! i .. = , i - s . a ; .' &
> ,ss .
e I i H4 n,.e M i Je E . :- c e aE" 'E ' g; I na l B E C '
- l, e
E
;.. w' C gn 4
n
-2 * ,+4 1 i-i
- n: = l
@ I Ls W & a. p 1 Eg
~)EE Ih d,1 h U*! :
t s:; Y( i g llr sp ) i 0 %>4 iW I'le]d,j% L!. c
- i4 9 1
_,al..s;g
> 3' it i ! n :e> :.51 M >=...
DA' : REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON 10 CFR 2.206 PETITION , NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR l STATION, UNIT NOS.1 AND 2 (TAC NOS. MA5378 AND MA5379) l l 1
.m Docket Fif l PUBLIC PDI-1 Reading J. Zwolinski/S. Black S. Bajwa S. Little D. Hood OGC ACRS A. Blough, Region I ,
J. Lieberman I R. Subbaratnam S. Rothstein M. Stein l l 1 cc: Plant Service list : l l l
May 10,1999 J. Mueller If you have questions regarding this letter, contact me by phone at (301) 415-3049 or by electronic mail at dsh@nrc. gov. Sincerely, ORIGINAL SIGNED BY: i Darl S. Hood, Sr. Project Manager, Section 1 l Project Directorate l l Division of Licensing Project Management I Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
~
Docket Nos. 50-220 and 50-410
Enclosure:
Letter to EDO dated April 5,1999 cc w/ encl: See next page I l DISTRIBUTION-See attached page l I DOCUMENT NAME: G:\NMP1\LTRA5378.WPD To rec:lve a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment / enclosure "N" g No copy 0FFICE PM:PDI-1 , lEl LA:PDI-1,6\) l SC:PDI-1 , l l l l l NAME DHood/rst M If Sli tt lF SBajwa M DATE 05/ (f /99~ 05/\0/99 05/ y /99 Official Rec 6rd Copy}}