ML20149M235
| ML20149M235 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 10/25/1996 |
| From: | Blanch P AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | Wald M NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20149M049 | List:
|
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9612130162 | |
| Download: ML20149M235 (8) | |
Text
__
From:
PAUL M. BLANCH <PMBLANCH91x.netcom.com>
To:
MATT WALD <MATTWALD9nytimes.com>
Date:
10/25/96 1:55am l
Subject:
.TODAY'S NEWS 1
The following is the top headline from the Hartford Courant NRC faults its response to Millstone complaints By MIKE McINTIRE and MICHAEL REMEZ 1his story ran in the Courant October 25, 1996 Federal regulators mishandled safety complaints at the Millstone nuclear l
power plant, viewed whistle-blowers as a i
burden and were generally unqualified to respond to harassment allegations, a new report concludes.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission delivered that harsh verdict of its own performance Thursday as part of a lengthy critique of how whistle-blower concerns have been handled at Millstone.
The report sharply criticizes Northeast Utilities for fostering * *an unhealthy work environment, which did not tolerate dissenting views.
The NRC also issued an order requiring NU to hire an independent review team to oversee a revamping of its employee concerns program before any of the three Millstone plants can be restarted. NU already is under orders to have the rest of its operations scrutinized by outside experts before the NRC will allow i
a restart.
The requirement of yet another independent review puts a new roadblock in the way of restarting the plants, which are shut down and were added to the NRC's list of troubled plants this January.
NU spokeswoman Debra Beauchamp said the utility has begun to make improvements, adding that the new vice president of nuclear operations has a special red phone in his office reserved for employees with safety concerns.
This is a very serious order, Beauchamp said. It's a positive 4
development in this area; we welcome it.
The report, by a team from the NRC's Rockville, Md., headquarters, is the_ first in a long line of inquiries into events at Millstone to offer a detailed criticism of the NRC's own response to whistle-blowers.
It found that inspectors seemed to view them as a necessary burden i
that drew NRC attention from more important matters.
The most significant impact of this attitude appeared to result in an l
'under-reaction to allegations of discrimination [against whistle-blowers), the report said.
~
9612130162 961210 PDR ORG NRRA
)
l "The team conclu'ded that, historically, allegations have not always received the level of NRC attention that was warranted,'
the report said. " Examples included inadvertent compromise of alleger identity, inappropriate priority for investigations, inadequate independent verification of licensee responses to referred allegations, and untimely or incomplete response to alleger concerns.'
Despite the strong language, the report includes no recommendations for l
changes at the agency itself. It does say that many l
of the problems identified could be found agency-wide, and lessons learned from Millstone are likely to be applied to NRC l
operations all over the country.
Joe Gilliland, an NRC spokesman, said the agency will eventually release a separate set of recommendations for changes in its own operations.
Ernest Hadley, a Boston attorney who represented six of the whistle-blowers interviewed by the team that wrote the report, said he was encouraged by the blunt self-criticisms. But, he said, the agency should submit to the same tough improvements that it is requiring of NU.
"The NRC has to do something similar to the independent review it is imposing on Millstone,' Hadley said. They need to clean house.'
Some Connecticut lawmakers agreed.
While praising NRC Chairwoman Shirley Jackson for the decision to force NU to bring in an independent party, Sen.
Joseph I. Lieberman, D-Conn., said the agency needs to go further.
"The Millstone Independent Review Group report issued today contains i
very troubling findings about the total failure of the NRC and NU in properly handling employee concerns at the Millstone nuclear power station," Lieberman said in a statement. We now await the recommendations to improve the NRC's handling of employee concerns."
The NRC team reviewed thousands of pages of documents, interviewed dozens of NU employeees - both managers and whistle-blowers, as well as NRC officials at headquarters here and in the regional office outside Philadelphia.
The authors of the report concede that the findings about efforts to silence whistle-blowers within NU are not new.
Numerous reports in recent years have detailed what is known as "the l
chilling effect' of management practices at the l
Millstone plants and the fears of workers that raising safety concerns could cost thea their careers.
And the report said that both NU and the NRC have begun to make
4 i
improvements in the way each handles employee Concerns.
But, for the first time, the report outlined how insensitive or lax regulatory oversight played a key role in allowing a bad situation at Millstone to get worse.
For example, the report pointed out that the NRC's regional office twice issued reports concluding that there was no overall J
chilling effect from NU's poor handling of employee allegations
)
even though NU's own internal reviews had reached the opposite conclusion.
Furthermore, the agency never admonished NU for undermining NRC enforcement actions by repeatedly putting out public statements contradicting the agency's criticisms. NU senior management's arrogant attitude or refusal to admit mistakes,'
the report said, discouraged employees from raising safety concerns.
Within hours of receiving notification of discrimination findings, management has consistently issued memoranda to its l
employees and the public denying or minimizing NU culpability,' the report said. Similarly, following findings of discrimination, NU has hired a succession of consultants in apparent efforts to refute [the] findings.
Overall, the review team concluded that NRC inspectors, in general, are not qualified to effectively detect or assess potential discrimination environments at licensee facilities." NRC inspectors interviewed by the review team complained about having to deal with what one called the soft, mushy areas of employee relations and corporate culture.
Paul Blanch, one of the former NU employees whose experiences are recounted in the report, said the findings are an honest portrayal of problems at the agency and NU. Blanch, who has complained that inspectors ignored or downplayed concerns he raised over the years, said the NRC needs to do more to reform its own operations.
I'm extremely satisfied with the report and, in particular, with the order requiring third-party verification at NU, he said. But problems at both NU and the NRC persist today. It's a good first step, but that's all it is.
Paul M. Blanch Energy Consultant 135 Hyde Rd.
West Hartford CT 06117 Voice 860-236-0326 Fax 860-232-9350
h From:
PAUL M. BLANCH <PMBLANCH91x.netcom.com>
To:
ED ABBOTT <ABZ9 patriot. net >
i Date:
10/25/96 11:36am
Subject:
Latest NRC Order Don Soeken
~
Ed Abbott Joe Carson Attached is the latest from the NRC regarding NU. NU will have to obtain contractors for this work. I have given your names to Rick Kacich of NU for possible involvement in this work.
Rick will have some involvement in selecting people for this work. Expect a call or e-mail from Rick.
Subjwet:
96-154 PR-Millstone Report; Requires Third Party Oversight
'Sent:
10/24/96 10:00 PM Received:
10/24/96 5:23 PM From:
PUBLIC AFFAIRS, OPA9nrc. gov Reply-To:
pr-opa9nrc. gov To:
Multiple recipients of list, pr-opa9nrc. gov
----- 154. TXT fol l ow s --------------------
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Public Affairs Washington, DC 20555 Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234 Internet:opa9nrc. gov j
No.96-154 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE-(Thursday, October 24,1996)
J i
NRC ISSUES REPORT ON MILL 1;CNE ALLEGATIONS; REQUIRES THIRD-PARTY OVERSIGHT OF EMPLOYEE CONCERNS An independent Nuclear Regulatory Commission review has concluded that the work environment and failures of licensee management are primary reasons i
for continuing employee concerns problems in the employee concerns program at the Millstone nuclear station in Connecticut.
Concurrent with issuing the NRC team's report, the NRC has issued an order that directs Northeast Utilities (NU) to device and implement a comprehensive plan for handling safety concerns raised by Millstone employees and for assuring an environment free from retaliation and discrimination.
The NRC also ordered NU to contract for an independent third party to oversee its corrective action plan for the employee concerns program.
The independent third-party must have expertise necessary to audit reviews of employee concerns, monitor corrective actions, recognize weaknesses in approaches, audit investigations into discrimination complaints, and conduct employee surveys.
Further, the members of the independent third-party organization must not have had any direct previous involvement with activities at the Millstone Station, and the team members' technical qualifications must be approved by the NRC, along with its oversight plan.
Findings and recommendations of the third-party organization will be reported in parallel to the licensee and to the NRC.
Oversight by the third-party group will continue until the licensee demonstrates, by performance, that the conditions leading to the NRC order have been corrected.
When developed, both NU's and third-party oversight plans will be available for examination at the local Public Document Rooms for Millstone: the Three Rivers Community Technical College, Thames Valley Campus, 574 H e London Turnpike, Norwich, CT; the Waterford (CT) Public Library; and at the NRC's Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
The plans will also be discussed in one or more public meetings to allow members of the public to review and comment on the plans before implementation.
The basis for today's order is that, notwithstanding the NRC regulatory l
actions over the past several years, the licensee has not been effective in 1) its review and dispositioning of safety issues raised by its employees, and 2) ensuring that employees who bring safety concerns to its management can do so without fear of retaliation.
i The NRC review found that for several years dissenting views were not tolerated or welcomed at Millstone.
"This poor environment has resulted in j
repeated instance: of discrimination and ineffective handling of employee concerns, and contributed to Millstone being placed on the NRC's Watch List," the team reported.
It added:
1 "None of the findings of this team are new.
Every problem identified during this review had been previously identified to NU management... yet the same problems were allowed to continue."
Recent licensee internal reviews have made similar findings for which corrective action has not yet been effectively implemented.
The NRC review also criticized the NRC's own process for handling allegations at Millstone.
Six main problem areas were cited:
inadequate sensitivity and responsiveness, inadequate discrimination follow up, unclear enforcement, ineffective inspection techniques and performance measures, cumbersome NRC/ Department of Labor interactions and ineffective implementation of an allegation program.
Recommendations to improve NRC processes are being evaluated in a separate paper and will be publicly released following Commission review.
Any person adversely affected by the order to Northeast Utilities may request a hearing within 20 days of its issuance. The request i
should be submitted to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555.
The text of the order has been posted on the Internet at this address:
http://www.nrc. gov /0PA/ reports.
An executive summary of the NRC review group report is attached.
News media may obtain a copy of the report by contacting the NRC's Office of Public Affairs.
l
Attachment:
As stated EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Since the late 1980's Millstone Nuclear Power Station (Millstone Units 1, 2, and 3) has been the source of a high volume of employee concerns and allegations related to safety of plant operations and harassment and intimidation (H&I) of employees. NRC has conducted numerous inspections and investigations which have substantiated many of the employee concerns and allegations. The licensee has been cited for violations and escalated enforcement has been taken. Notwithstanding these NRC actions, the licensee has not been effective in handling many employee concerns or in implementing effective corrective action for problems that have been identified by concerned employees.
On December 12, 1995, the NRC Executive Director for Operations (ED0) established a review group 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 Millstone Station. A copy of the Millstone Independent Review Group's (MIRG's) charter is attached as Appendix 9.1.
The charter directed the MIRG to critically evaluate both the licensee's and NRC staff's effectiveness in addressing Millstone-related employee concerns and allegations. The MIRG was requested to identify root causes, common patterns between cases, and lessons learned and recommend both plant-specific and programmatic corrective actions.
The MIRG determined that in general, an unhealthy work environment, which did not tolerate dissenting views, and did not welcome or promote a questioning attitude, has existed at Millstone for at least several years.
This poor environment has resulted in repeated instances of discrimination and ineffective handling of employee concerns. The vast majority of employee concerns and allegations that were submitted at Millstone represented little safety significance; however, many involved potentially important procedural, tagging, or quality assurance (QA) problems, and a few were ultimately determined to have safety significance.
The unhealthy work environment combined with the significance of substantiated allegations contributed to Millstone being placed on the
i NRC's watch list in January 1996.
Many of the cultural issues that lie at the root of the company's problems had been recognized by NU management as early as August 12, 1991. An NU Allegations Root Cause Task Group issued a report on that date which highlighted the lack of respect and trust between employees and their management, and indicated insufficient management sensitivity to routine employee concerns.
Subsequently, an Independent Third Party Evaluation contracted by NU, issued a report on May 1, 1995.
The report revealed that the old culture of the 1980's had not been completely replaced by a culture encouraging the identification of problems and a questioning attitude, and attitudes impeding effective problem identification and resolution persisted. Most recently NU's Millstone Employees Concerns Assessment Report dated January 29, 1996 reiterated many of the same problems.
The report highlighted an " arrogant" management style which had further eroded Millstone employee trust and confidence and which had i
contributed to hU's repeated failure to correct clearly identified problems.
The MIRG identified seven principal root causes for continued employee concern problems at Millstone.
Specific root causes included: ineffective i
problem resolution and performance measures, insensitivity to employee needs, reluctance to admit mistakes, inappropriate management style and support for concerned employees, poor communications and teamwork, lack of accountability, and ineffective NSCP implementation.
The team concluded that these root causes underscored a common theme of top management failure to provide the dynamic and visible leadership needed to bring about required, basic attitude changes.
None of the findings of this team are new.
Every problem identified during this review had been previously l
identified to NU management, often by its own self-assessments, yet the same problems continue. This single failure is viewed as being at the core of Millstone's continuing employee concerns.
The team noted an increased management awareness of the need for improvement in some of these areas, and was impressed with the level of 1
employee commitment to making significant positive changes in the Millstone work environment, as evidenced by many of the individuals interviewed.
The MIRG also identified six principal problem areas associated with NRC processes for the past handling of allegations at Millstone.
Specific process problem areas included inadequate sensitivity and responsiveness, inadequate discrimination follow-up, unclear enforcement, ineffective inspection techniques and performance measures, cumbersome NRC - Department of Labor 4
(DOL) interface, and ineffective allegation program implementation.
Each of these problems appeared to involve one or more of the following elements:
an inappropriate attitude that allegations were a necessary burden which 4
detracted from more important responsibilities, an under-reaction to discrimination claims, ineffective methods for assessing licensee environments for raising safety concerns, and insufficient appreciation of the potential
i e
for a chilling effect at Millstone. The MIRG concluded that the process problem areas identified with the past handling of allegations at Millstone have the potential to apply agency-wide.
1 The team noted that many initiatives had been taken by NRC to improve the i
process for handling allegations.
Examples included policy changes, improvements in enforcement guidance, and other initiatives by OI and the l
l Agency Allegation Advisor.
2 The team's preliminary findings were discussed in a private meeting with i
representatives from the alleger community on the morning of August 7, 1996, Following this meeting the team's findings were discussed in a public exit t
meeting at the Millstone site with NU officials in the afternoon of August 7, 1996, and duplicated in an evening session held at the Hilton Inn in Mystic, i
Connecticut on August 8,1996 to accommodate individuals who could not or did not attend the afternoon session. These meetings solicited comments and were i
transcribed to facilitate consideration of comments before completing the
]
report.
The MIRG will send its recommendations for corrective action to the EDO by separate correspondence for both NU root causes and the potential agency-wide NRC process problems.
It is the team's understanding that the staff will consider this material in evaluating the adequacy of NU recovery i
activities and future improvements in the NRC process.
t i
Paul M. Blanch i
Energy Consultant 135 Hyde Rd.
West Hartford CT 06117 i
Voice 860-236-0326 Fax 860-232-9350 CC:
RICHARD M. KACICH <KACICRM@gwsmtp.nu.com>
j 5
i
.