ML20029A432

Complains of Pattern of Events in Treatment & Resolution of Whistleblower Complaints at Facility.Requests NRC to Find Immediate & long-term Solutions to Vital Areas of Concern

ML20029A432
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	12/11/1990
From:	Delcore D AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Carr K NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML19339D969	List: ML20029A432
References
NUDOCS 9102220091
Download: ML20029A432 (3)

Text

._ . . _._ _._ . - - _ . _ . . . __

4 Driscoll Drive Uncasville, CT 06382 December 11, 1990 Kenneth M. Carr, Chairman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Dear Chairman Carr:

A disturbing pattern of events in the treatment and resolution of whistleblower complaints at the Millstone Unit 2 Nuclear Power Station in Waterford, CT prompts this letter. The facility is owned and operated by Northeast Nuclear Energy Co. a division of Northeast Utilities.

Because of the nature and critical importance ot such issues to public and nuclear safety, we request that you brinq both the prestige and power of your orrice and position as Chairman to bear on both the immediate and long-term solution to these vital and important creas of concern.

The nature of the problems are as follows:

1. Since July 1987 we have been subjected to a sophisticated  !

program of intimidation, harassment and discrimination by our employer simply for raising Nuclear and public safety concerns. These concerns and issuee are well documented in both=the Federal D.O.L. and NRC Region I files as well as the Office of Inspector General and O/I Staff Inspectors.

2. These issues and their resolution have apparently fallen on deaf-ears at least as far as NRC Region I, O/I, Inspector General and local NRC Resident Inspectors are concerned.

3. Some illustrative cases in point may be helpful.

July 1989 - 130 allegations reviewed by an NRC Task Force of which approximately 75% were substantiated.

Of the-130 allegations, 18 were referred to your. Office

of investigation and Mr. Chester White.

While Mr. White did assign Mr. Ricnard A. Matakas to investigate the 18 allegations, no interviews were i

conducted between him and the tour whistle blowers involved and no answers have been received from Mr.

White, i

Continued .....

l t

9\en'kco% p l

Page Two December 11, 1990 In addition, Mr. Smith, an investigator from the Inspector General's Ot tice conducted sworn testimony interviews with the tour whistleblowers approximately one ye,ar ago. In spite or our most deliberate attempts to obtain answers, we have bean side-stepped, short-changed, double-talked, delayed and in general shuffled down the avenues ot Dureaucratic nightmares and i bottomless quagmires.

All or this has resulted in the expenditure of approximately l

l 340,000. by the undersioneJ in their battle to preserve public sarety, maintain their Constitutional Rights of free speech and motivate letharqic NRC Officials into doing the job the public tax payer subsidizes.

I Most disturbing of all are a recent chain of events involving your Resident Inspectors and Mr. Donald Haverkamp, Chief Division i

of Reactor Projects, Section 4B Region 1.

On August 13, 1990 at a meeting involving Mr. Wenzinger, Mr.

Haverkarp, Mr. Raymond all of the NRC and Mr. Don DelCore and Tim O'Sullivan, Mr. Haverkamp made the following statement:

i "We may be compelled to force you to bring safety. items directly to the Company " (See enclosed memos and l responses) l This attitude signifies that we the whistleblowers are now being looked at as an unpleasant nuisance by NRC Officials.

The NRC Investigators continue to substitute democracy for scientific method by not challenging the status quo. Their l

Insistence on we, the whistleblowers, having to justify every minute detail of our complaints without their accompanying investigation is simply a subtle variation and misuse of the peer review principle as a discrediting tactic.

! By limiting and restricting debate to oral arguments and as Mr.

Haverkamp threatened mandatory interaction with company otficials 5

accountability is difficult in case of a TMI type catastrophe.

In a letter dated November 27, J990 Docket #50-336 (enclosed) trom Mr. Haverkamp to-Tim O'Sullivan the following statement

-appears "... and therefore, your requests for confidentiality are denied."

Continued .....

{

Page Three December 11, 1990 The continued policy of NRC residents to allow the company to answer our allegations of violations has turned into a legalized dirty tricks tactic which identlfles already wounded dissenters seeking help. This, coupled with the employers tactics of discrimination, intimidation and harassment, successfully finishes the whistleblower off and relegates him to the dust bin of unemployment, meaningless work assignments and tne unrelenting destain of his co-workers.

In your local office of NRC Residents, we teel we are exposed to an obsessively hostile environment and biased treatment which essentially butchers the confidentiality aspect of whistleblower complaints. This is particularly true of your Senior Resident, Mr. Raymond and Resident Inspector, Mr. Stewart.

The obvious destain for our efforts, coupled with their cozy relationship with the licensee combines effectively to overwhelm the whictleblowers in their struggle for self-preservation, careers, families, bank accounts, and even sanity until the point of dissent is either forgotten or replaced.

Could you please forward timely responses outlining exactly the status, plans and disposition of these items with accompanying reasons for the delays and lack of action.

Please do not provide us with the standard bureaucratic and political double-talk type answers so routinely supplied by the Region 1, O/I or 1/G Statf Members. We looX forward to an immediate answer.

Ver y truly yours,

/ ,

(4 W ptGg a d W. De Core r. Timothy O'Sullivan cc: Senators Breaux & Lieberman U. S. Congress Representative Kostmayer NRC Commissioners Rogers, Curtiss, Remick Forrest State of Conn Representative Joyce

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _