ML18102A845

Submits Response to 961211 Ltr Re NRC Decision Not to Initiate Individual EA Against B Hall Concerning OI Repts 1-94-006R & 1-94-053

ML18102A845
Person / Time
Site:	Salem
Issue date:	01/10/1997
From:	Briggs W AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Miller H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
Shared Package
ML18102A844	List: ML18102A843 ML18102A845
References
NUDOCS 9702190205
Download: ML18102A845 (3)

Text

..

STUA..T PHILIP ..OSS Ross, DIXON s MASBACK, c:l;iLUAM H. ISRIGGS, .JR. ";) 601 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.

L.L.P.

SETH D. llERUN f'A .. HANA. Y. KHER.A*

MES l. CAosseERG CHARLES T, SL.AIR OfU LW GARY V. DIXON WALi.ACE A. CHRISTENSEN CHARLES I. HADDEN NORTH BUILDING .JAY WA.AO BROWN THOMAS T. LOCKE*

1 WILLIAM £, 0 8RIAN1 JR. LISA A. BURNS MICHELE L. LYNCH*

w.i>,SHl!llGTQN, D.C. _20P04~2688

.JOHH R. GERSTEIN

. LONA TRIPL.£1'T ~CRAY .JODI L. CLEESATTLE ~ WENDY G. MA.CY*

CURTIS EMERY VON KANN ANDREW L.- SHAPIRO ALYS I. COHEN*' CY NTH IA R. MATH EA*

CATHY A. SfMON (202) 6.62-2000 CELESTE pttlWPs* R. DA.Rfn'L COOPER STACEY L. McGRAW DAVID M. GISCHE RICHARD A. SIMPSON EUZAl!!IETH C. KOCH FACSIMILE (202) 662-2190 PASCAL w. DI P'RONzo* TERRENCE R. MclNNIS MERRIL .J. HIRSH JOHN W. DUCHELLE UZA*M. MU .. PHY*

LEE LEVINE DANIEL .J, STANDISH JEP'P'REY H. DYGlt:RT* RICHARD .J. PIU.TT SEAN M. HANIFIN MARTIN*G, HACALA EUZA!lr=TH 1!1. FITCH MICHAEL 'D. ROTHeERG.

.aER G. THOMPSON CALIFORNIA OFFICE

.JOEL s. TOWNSEND JOHN R. GIRIFP'ITHS ERIK J. SALOVA.AfU.

IEUZAlllCTH SARAH GERE WIL..UAM D. HOPKINS SPARK PLAZA GARRICK P. GROllLER ftOLAND G. SCHftOEDEft aARBAl'A E. ETKIND DAVID R, DWAlllES ERIC M * .JAF'P"E* RICHA.ftD C. SEA.VEY*

RO*E"T M. "°ZIN SUITE 1200 THOMAS J. JUDGE* .JEREMY S. SIMON REl!!IECCA L. ROSS LESLIE S. A.HARi MICHAEL D. SUWVAN _ DAVID L. PERRY IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92614-8529 LEWIS K. LOSS (714) 622-2700

'Of° C0'1NSEL HAROLD E. MASBACK, *Ill FACSIMILE (714) 622-2739 ALEC M. l!IARINHOLTZ*

DEE LORD .

WfUTE .. "S 01 .. ECT DIAL * ..;OT ADMITTED IN o.e.

(202) 662-2063 January 10, 1997 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS Mr. Hubert J .. Miller Regional Administrator

u. S. *Nuclear Regula~ory Commission Region 1 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia,. PA 19406-:-1415 Re: December 11, 1996 letter to Bruce Hall Enforcement conf ere~ce OI Reports 1-94-006R*& 1-94-053

Dear Mr. Miller:

Your December 11, 1996 letter advised Mr*~ Bruce Hall of the NRC's decision not to initiate individual enforcement action against him. The. letter also discussed certain*allegations*

against Mr. Hall and invited him to submit a response -if he chose to do so. At Mr. Hall's request and as Mr. Hall's attorney,.! am submitting this brief response to your letter of December 11, 1996.

Mr. Hall appreciates the NRC's decision not to institute individual enforcement action against him. Furthermore, he is grateful that the NRC recognizes that he was candid and remorseful in discussing his role in the *incidents that led to the September 11.enforcement conference. The decision not*to take enforcement action against Mr. Hall is the right decision; and the NRC is entirely correct in recognizing Mr. Hall's candor and reinorse.

OU9593*.01 970219AOD20g~

PDR 6§8~b~72 PDR H

• • }

I ROSS, DIXON ~

MASBACK, L.L.P.

Mr. Hubert J .. Miller January 10, 1997 Page 2 As you know, and as your December 11 letter correctly noteE, Mr. Hall has consistently admitted that he may have made management mistakes* in supervising the.two individuals involved in this matter; however, he has also consistently an~

emphatically denied that he deliberately retaliated against anyone because they raised a safety concern. .The purpose of this letter is to respond briefly to the comment in your December li letter which notes that "the NRC*has evaluated your contentions but does l)Otfind them persuasive."

Obviously we have limited, if any, control over what the NRC may or may not find persuasive. Mr .. Hall's position is set forth in detail in the Declaration and accompa:rwing memo:J?andum that he filed with the NRC on September 5, 1996 and that he h~s asked to be included in any files the NRC maintains on this matter.

However, by this letter we wish to e;mphasize one fact which distinguishef? the allegations of retaliation in this matter from the overwhelming majority of such allegations, in other* cases --

Mr. Hall had absolutely ~o motive to retaliate against anyone for

.raising the safety concerns that are at issue here. Because Mr.

Hall had no re~son to retaliate against the individuals involved

• in this matter, it is difficult to imagine why he would do so.

In fact, as Mr. Hall has consistently maintained, he did not retaliate

• aga:j.nst anyone. because of* the D*ecember 3 incident or its aftermath or because safety concerns were raised in an October 12 memorandum ..

Mr. Hall was not the subject of the. concerns raised by the

• December 3 incident and its aftermath or the October 12 memorandum; his actions, his authority, and his standing in the company was in no way threatened by these events. The undisputed record reflects that *the safety concerns related to the December 3 incident were raised before Mr. Hall even came to work at Salem

• and were entirely unrelated to any actions that he took or had any need or desire to defend. The undisputed record reflects that the safety concerns raised in the October 12 memorandum were also entirely unrelated to any action taken by Mr .. Hall; even*

more importantly, the October -12 memorandum wa.f:? written because Mr. Hall asked that *the concerns raised in that memorandum be put in writing. In view of these undisputed facts, Mr. Hall plainly had no motive* to re~aliate against anyone for raising the safety concerns at issue here, and he did not do so*.

The record in this matter is also clear that the two individuals who have accused Mr. Hall of retaliation had perfor;mance shortcomings.and were quick to obje~t to any attempt.

0119593.01

.J . ROSS, DIXON s. MASBACK, L.L.P.

Mr. Hubert J .. Miller January.10, 1997 Page 3 to corr~ct these shortcomings. As Mr. Hall has consistently admitted, he may have m*ade mistakes in trying to handle this difficult management situation. Indeed, the reasons why the NRC was apparently not persuaded. by Mr. Hall's contentions. g.o directly to Mr. Hall's possible management mistakes, *not to proof of some deliberate action to retaliate. But there is a world of difference between management mistakes and deliberate violations the law. Mr. Hall did no.t deliberately. violate the* law.

Mr~* Ha.11 respectfully requests that this* letter be .attached to the NRCs December 11 letter and be placed into t~e PDR along with the December 11 letter. *In addition, Mr. Hall also requests that his September s., 1996 Declaration and supporting* memorandum be included in the PDR with these materials.

Very truly yours, ROSS, DIXON & MASBACK, L.L.P.

WHB/jmh 0119593.01

.'.*