ML20216K096
| ML20216K096 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 11/13/1990 |
| From: | Martin R, Partlow J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Ellis J, Garde B Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9011200048 | |
| Download: ML20216K096 (8) | |
Text
_
I v"' *%,
UNITED STATES j
y%
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5i'
'I REGloN IV D
611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE, SUITE 1000
- %,,*l,,/
ARLINGTON, TEXAS 79011 NW I3 510 Mrs..Juanita Ellis Billie Pirner Garde, Esq.
Citizens Association for Sound Energy 1426 S. Polk Dallas. Texas 75224
Dear Mrs. Ellis and Ms. Garde:
This letter is_in response to your September 10, 1990, letter to Mr. Christopher Grimes of the Nuclear Regulatory Consnission (NRC) in which you expressed concerns about the effect of "the interpretation of the NRC's new-Manual Chapter on Management of Allegations" on your organization's ability to ensure the proper resolution of allegations about Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station that have been brought to the NRC,
'In particular, your letter expressed concern that NRC's allegation management policy, and the NRC staff's interpretation of it, may impede the ability of CASE to provide NRC full infonnation in regard to a matter which NRC may be reviewing, and suggested that NRC's new policy has changed the processes upon which CASE relied to make the Joint Stipulation. work. You also expressed concerns about NRC's confidentiality policy, our policy for referring allegations to licensees, and our policy in regard to allegations involving occupational safety.
Let us assure you that NRC, both at headquarters and in the Region IV office, supports CASE in fulfilling its role at the Comanche Peak facility, as defined
'in the Joint Stipulation. As you know from your long involvement in the Comanche Peak facility, NRC's management of allegaticns must be carried out with due regard for the rights of the individuals who bring allegations to NRC.
It must be clear to all who have an interest in this matter that NRC's policies are intended to protect the identity of individuals who raise safety issues and ensure the proper resolution of allegations brought to our attention.
I While the protection of the identity of the source of an allegation may be secondary to ensuring the safety of licensed activities. it has been a cornerstone.of NRC's allegation management policy, as originally issued on June 20, 1987. The April 1990 revisions to NRC's Manual Chapter 0517, which were provided to you and to which you referred in your letter as.the new policy, did not fundamentally alter this tenet, it did, however, introduce additional precautions to provide greater assurance that the identity of ellegers would not. inadvertently or unnecessarily be revealed.
NRC's policy, which we apply to our interactions with licensees and the
~
public, prsvides _that we generally should not reveal that an inspection Mb 9011200040 901113 PDR ADDCK 05000445 P
PNV
[
l
..-L
Letter to Mrs. Juanita Ellis NOV 23ago Billie Pirner Garde, Esq.
is based in whole, or in part, on allegations, that our inspection reports normally not contain information which would reveal the identity of an alleger, and that, if asked, we will neither confirm nor deny that a particular individual is an alleger. Your comments about NRC's confidentiality policy focused on formal agreements of confidentiality, which are admittedly reserved for special situations and not entered into routinely by the NRC. However, your stated concern misses an important tenet of f4RC's policy contained in the Commission's Policy Statement on Confidentiality and MC 0517, Section 054.
This Section of the Manual Chapter provides for the protection of the identity of the source of an allegation, even without a confidentiality agreement.
Further, NRC has and will take action against a licensee who discriminates against employees bringing safety concerns to the NRC under 10 CFR 50.7.
Therefore, our obligation to protect the identity of allegers will make it difficult for NRC to discuss specific allegations with CASE. This is particularly true if CASE approaches NRC with the names of individuals who have arought allegations to the NRC or with allegation file numbers which would imply that CASE knows the identity of the allegers.
However, we do not think that NRC's allegation management policy precludes NRC from discussing with CASE any issue that NRC has reviewed provided that the results of NRC's review is complete.
Nor do we interpret our policy to preclude CASE from providing NRC additional information relative to an issue NRC is reviewing.
As a result of the July 18, 1990, meeting, during which this matter was discussed, we have developed a regional policy guide for the comunications with CASE that we believe will permit CASE to pursue its interest in monitoring the resolution of allegaticns. That policy guide will also help assure that NRC personnel are not in conflict with or in violation of the agency's allegation management policies. A copy of this policy, which has been finalized and will be distributed soon, is enclosed. We would be pleased to discuss with you any questions you may have about this policy.
Your comments about forwarding allegations to licensees also appear to miss import 6nt tenets of NRC's policy. There are specific criteria in Section 0510 of Manual Chapter 0517 that must be applied in deciding whether an allegation may be referred to a licensee.
In some cases, such as when it would be impossible to provide a licensee sufficient information without identifying the source of the allegation, or in cases involving potential wrongdoing by licensee management, such a referral will not be made.
In addition, the policy provides that the alleger should be contacted prior to referring an allegation to a licensee. Allegations, where appropriate, are referred to licensees in recognition of their inherent responsibility for the safety of their activities and in recognition of limited NRC resources. This does not, as you suggested in your letter,. conflict with what you were told during the recent meeting with the staff. The net effect of these several constraints results, in Region IV,
-in a few allegations being forwarded to licensees.
This practice is similar to your approach to handling employee concerns.
In those cases where NRC refers I
an allegation to a licensee, the NRC normally requests a reply from the licensee and informs the alleger of the resolution of the allegation.
Letter to Mrs. Juanita Ellis D' 13 1930 Billie Pirner Garde Esq.
Your letter also refers to promises by NRC staff to CASE to investigate allegations without licensee ir,volvement. While, for the reasons noted above, we expect to review the majority of allegations usino NRC staff, after discussions with the attendees at the meetings on July 18, 1990, we do not recall such a promise.
Perhaps you could clarify that for us at a later date.
Your letter also states that NRC has an obligation to ensure that allegations are " resolved in the eyes of the employee." While NRC always hopes that an objective review and evaluation of an allegation will alleviate the employees' concerns, we recognize that that may not always occur. NRC has an obligation to assess the safety sionificance of an allegation and assure appropriate corrective action is taken.
Further hRC action would not necessarily occur based only on an individual's disagreement with the NRC resolution of a concern.
In regard to allegations solely related to occupational safety, NRC's policy to exclude such allegations from our normal allegations tracking system does not imply that NRC does not care whether such allegations are substantiated. This policy is based on the fact that normally such allegations do not fall within NRC's statutory authority. As provided in Inspection Manual Chapter 1007, these allegations are referred to the licensee for resolution or, as appropriate, to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
If, however, there were a direct link between an occupational safety issue and nuclear safety, NRC would track the issue in its allegations management system.
In sumary, NRC does not believe that its allegation management policy is an obstacle to full communication on issues of importance or that it conflicts, in any way, with the spirit or the details of the Joint Stipulation.
If CASE has obtained information in regard to a safety or compliance issue, NRC exnects that such information would be conveyed to the licensee or, if that is impractical or impossible, to the NRC. We are sure that you will agree that we can not afford to permit differences over such policy interpretations to stand in the way of promptly addressing and resolving questions about the s6fety of NRC-licensed facilities.
Sincerely.
O b gas Jartes G. Partlow Assbciate Director for Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation g
b.c obert D. Martin.
c?
a Regional Administrator NRC Regicn IV
Enclosure:
Regional Office Policy Guide 0611 cc w/
Enclosure:
(see next page) l l
l Letter to Mrs. Juanita Ellis NOV 13 1990
~ Billie Pirner Garde. Esq.
bec:
J. Sniezek, DEDRO J. Montgonery G. Sanborn R. Wise W. Brown S. Collins D. Chanberlain L'. Callan A. Beach J. Gilliland-
, R,8AADYi ^!M L
1 i
l l
1 l
1 t
- Previously concurred
- 'j C RIV:E0
- GFSanborn
- RWise
- WLBrown *DChamberlain *SJCollins -
RD tin
'\\
m 10/1/90
/- /90
~/ /90
/~/90
,/ /90 ff///90
??"*g 4
wu r e uaa nRR pam. nos aac>e e,.
1
o 10V : 3 ca letter to Mrs. Juanita Ellis,
Billie Pirner Garde. Esq.
CC*
Mr. W.G. Counsil Vice Chainnan TV Electric 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 1900 Dallas, Texas 75201 Mr. W.J. Cahill Jr.
Executive Vice President-TU Electric 400 North Olive St. LB 81 Dallas, Texas 75201 George L. Edgar.-Esq.
Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.
1615 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Ms. Susan Palmer, Stipulation Manager CPSES
.P.O. Box 1002 Glen Rose. Texas 76043
' Mr. : James Liebennan, Director
/
Office of Enforcement Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop OWFN-7H5 Washington, D.C. 20555-Mr. T.P. Gwynn, Deputy Director t
-Division of Reactor Projects NRC Region IV 611 Ryan Fiaza Drive. Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76011 i
l l-
c;#," *%
UNITED STATES p"
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSICN 5
f REOloN IV ENCLOSURE D
/
011 RYAN PLAZA oRIVE. SulTE 1000
\\-
ARLINGTON. TEXAS 70011 g
NOV - 51990 Regional Office Policy Guide (0611)REGIONALC0lHUNICATIONSWITHCASEPERSONNEL A.
Purpose:
1 To establish procedures for the Region IV staff to respond to inquiries from representatives of the Citizens Association for Sound Encr y (CASE) i regarding the. status of issues brought to NRC's attention by al egers, while maintaining compliance with the policies of Manual Chapter 0517.
These procedures stem from the unique relationship between CASE and TU Electric and, therefore, only apply to Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES).
B.
Discussion:
Under the terms of the Joint Stipulation, CASE has a unique relationship with the licensee of CPSES, TV Electric. As specified in the Joint Stipulation, CASE personnel also have unique access to certain licensee information regarding activities at CPSES. Their principal activity involves participation in QA audits. CASE also continues its traditional role advising concerned utility employees. Through these activities, CASE may identify issues to be presented to the NRC.
During the course of these activities, CASE also identifies specific issues which they present to the utility for response and are tracked (by CASE and TV Electric) as " CASE Concerns." Their charter compels CASE to verify the esolution of identified issues.
While CASE is obligeo, under the terms of the Joint Stipulation, to give their concerns to TV Electric for resolution, the terms also acknowledge CASE's existing rights to comunicate directly with the NRC.
In addition to satisfying the specific obligations NRC has under the terms of the Joint Stipulation, Region IV will maintain effective communications with CASE so that Region IV activities do not inadvertently impede CASE's efforts. These comunications are not expected to alter the manner by which the NRC accomplishes its regulatory responsibilities with respect to CPSES.
Accoroingly, in order to ensure that the safeguards regarding individuals providing infonnation to the NRC are maintained in accordance with Manual Chapter 0S17, the following comunication procedures will apply.
L
Regional Office Policy Guide 0611 C.
Action:
CASE personnel have been requested to refer routine questions regarding the status of issues to either the Chief, Project Section B or the Deputy Director, Division of Reactor Projects (or their designees). Specific L
questions regarding allegations should then be referred by these individuals to the regional Allegations Coordinator. These individuals will serve as the primary Region IV contacts for CASE and will conduc+
their communications as follows:
1.
If CASE personnel inquire about matters related specifically to allegers (by name) or allc;ations (by file number), such details cannot be discussed; however, the status or disposition of the related " issues" may be discussed. CASE personnel should be so advised if they indicate that they want to discuss an allegation or a k6 specific alleger.
These discussions shall be limited to information we would be willing to share with the licensee. No predecisional conclusions shall be given.
)l 2.
If CASE personnel inquire about an issue for which the HRC has no action pending, then:
a.
Inform CASE that the NRC has no actioa pending on that specific matter, and ask whether TU Electric has been informed of the
-issueandifitisbeingtrackedasaCASEConcern(orifnot, why not),
b.
Determine whether separate NRC action is warranted to address an immediate safety problem.
L i
c.
- Confirm whether TV Electric is taking action.
!l i
3.
If CASE personnel inquire about issues that relate to a pending investigation or potentially involve wrongdoing matters, the CASE representative should be referred to 01.
1 4
If CASE personnel inquire about potential enforcement acticns regarding an issue, the CASE representative should be informed that enforcement actions cannot be discussed until the proposed enforcement action is made public.
D.
Contact:
l Questions or comments concerning this Policy Guide should be oirected to the Chief, Project Section B or the Deputy Director, Division of Reactor Projects.
e.-
'., ' f,
- Regional Office Policy Guide 0611 E.
Effective Date:
This Policy Guide will remain in effect for the period specified in the Joint Stipulation.
'/
'N f 1/a n//
Robert D. Martin Regionai Administrator cc:
. Distribution-List C Marylee Slosson, OEDO Staff n.;
e