IR 05000282/1993018
| ML20149D518 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Prairie Island  |
| Issue date: | 09/10/1993 |
| From: | Jorgensen B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20149D501 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-282-93-18-EC, 50-306-93-18, NUDOCS 9309210056 | |
| Download: ML20149D518 (16) | |
Text
.
.
.
!
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
e Reports No. 50-282/93018(DRP); 50-306/98018(DRP)
Docket Nos.:
50-282; 50-306 Licensee: Northern States Power Company 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, MN 55401 Meeting Conducted:
September 1, 1993 Meeting At:
Region III Office, Glen Ellyn, Illinois Type of Meeting:
Enforcement Conference
!
ApprovedBy:/
- U B. L. Jorgensen, Acting Chief Date Reactor Projects Branch 2 Enforcement Conference Summary Enforcement Conference September 1. 1993. (Reports No. 50-282/93018(DRP):
50-306/93018(DRP))
Areas Discussed:
, oiential " chilling effects" from a complaint filed with the
'
>
Department of Labor alleging that a security guard's employment was wrongfully
,
terminated for contacting the NRC.
Licensee measures to avoid such effects were reviewed.
'9309210056 930910
~~
PDR ADGCK 050002B2
'
O PDR,
.
_
_
.
_
_
.
,,
,
- j
.
.
!
DETAILS 1.
Present at the Enforcenient Confere.0g
f Northern States Power Company
D. D. Antony, Vice President Nuclear D. Mendele, Director, Nuclear Qual. Department i
G. Miserendino, Manager, Corp. Security
!
F. D. Evitch, Superintendent Security j
E. L. Watzl, Prairie Island Site General Manager
Nuclesr Reaulatory Commission l
'
'
H. J. Miller, Deputy Regional Administrator 3. L. Jorgensen, Acting Chief, Reactor Projects Brmch 2 C. N. Weil, Enforcement Specialist B. A. Berson, Regional Counsel
!
2.
Enforcement Confereng An Enforcement Conferer.ce was held in the Region ill office on f
September 1, 1993, to review licensee measures to avoid possible
" chilling effects" on station workers resulting from the termination of j
a security guard's employment in apparent violation of 10 CFR 50.7.
The a
termination occurred during the third quarter of 1992 and the technician's original discrimination complaint was not substantiated by
a Department of Labor (DOL) reviewer. This Enforcement Conference was
scheduled following the appeal ruling of June 24, 1993, by a DOL
!
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), that the guard had been engaged in
'
'
protected activity on two occasions and her employment was wrongfully terminated.
I l
Licensee's representatives stated that their review indicated that a
!
chilling effect did not exist at the plant..The licensee randomly l
interviewed 34 individuals who had access to the protected area at
'
Prairie Island.
Those individuals represented a cross section of
!
licensee and contractor employees, including 4 guards, and the licensee
found that none of the individuals felt constrained about raising safety.
!
concerns.
The licensee also operates a " hot line" that employees can
'
call about various concerns. The licensee representatives at the
Enforcement Conference indicated that about 30 calls are received each-
!
-l month.
Licensee representatives described additional measures to mitigate
potential chilling ' effects taken after learning of the ALJ decision.
!
They included'an August 13, 1993, letter from the Vice' President of
Nuclear Generation confirming there would be no reprisals for raising L
safety issues.
At the' conclusion of the conference, the licensee was informed that it wculd be notified in the near future of the NRC's enforcement action.
i Attachment:
Licensee Presentation Slides
!
!
.
t y
,
,
- -...
,
-
-
mmmu
!
NRC REGION 111
.
ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE EMPLOYEE PROTECTION (DOL CASE No 93-ERA-12?
,
i Sept 1,1993
,
Slide No 1
_
.
.
-
.
. -
I PRESENTATION
.
AGENDA
.
INTRODUCTIQN............Doug Antony
,
,
LEGAL HIGHLIGHTS.....Doug Antony
i
'!
NSP/NRC INTERACTIONS
........
-
.
'
George Miserendino
'
-
I INVESTIGATIONS /RESULTS....
-
>
' Dave Mendele
'
ACTIONS TAKEN/ PLANNED....
-
.
Ed Watzl
-
.
S U M M ARY....................Doug Antony
-
.
Slide No 2
-
i
- -
-
.
. -
.-. ~
.
--.
.
,,-,-e
,
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
INTRODUCTION
,
,
t
i DOUG ANTONY
-
.
!
- VP NUCLEAR GENERATION
- GEORGE MISERENDINO
- MANAGER CORPORATE SECURITY DAVE MENDELE
- DIRECTOR NUCLEAR QUALITY
,
ED WATZL
- GENERAL MGR PRAIRIE ISLAND SITE I
Slide No 3
'
J
.
-.
.
.
'
,
LEGAL ASPECTS
'
9/8/92
-
- Date of Termination Letter
- Charges Filed with NLRB 10/30/92
-
,
- NLRB Charges Dismissed
.
11/5/92
-
- Charges Filed with DOL 12/4/92
-
- DOL finds Burns would have taken same action w/o " protected activity" by Complainant i
12/11/92
~
-
,
- Appeal filed with ALJ 6/24/93
-
- ALJ's Recommended Decision and Orderin favor of Complainant 8/5/93
-
- NRC letterinforms NSP of apparent
]
violation-l
.8/12/93
)
- Burns filed Appeal on ALJ Decision j
Slide No 4
.
.
-
__
-
.
.
.
_
.
NSP/NRC RELATED ASPECTS 10/8/92
- Letter sent to NRC by Terminated Employee 10,11/92 y
.
- NRC conducts Security inspection at PI i
- NRC Security inspector verbally informs NSP that security concerns have been raised Security Force morale specifically identified
- Pl Mgmt requests QA to investigate morale j
12/2/92
- A copy of 10/8/92 letter to NRC is voluntarily obtained 12/4/92
-
- QA report on Security Force morale 12/9/92
!
-- NSP initiates an investigation of the other security concerns raised in 10/8/92 letter Slide No 5 i
.
.
.
-.
.
s NSP/NRC RELATED ASPECTS ' Cont.)
.
12/14/92
-
- NRC initiates an investigation into the-security concerns raised in 10/8/92 letter j
1/5/93
-
- QA interim report on security concerns raised in 10/8/92 letter
'
1/22/93
-
!
- NRC letter transmitting results of their investigation of the security concerns 2/3/93
-
l
- PI Site Gen Mgr and two NSP Security
Mgmt personnel met at NRC Region lll t
Offices to discuss Pl security issues
.
3/17/93 i
-
- QA final report on security concerns raised
,
in 10/8/92 't 'ter j
.
Slide No 6
-.
.
-
.
f
NSP INVESTIGATIONS
'
THREE INVESTIGATIONS
-
- CONDUCTED PRIOR TO ALJ ORDER INVESTIGATED l
-
- SECURITY FORCE MORALE
- CONCERNS RAISED BY TERMINATED EMPLOYEE
,
.
DATES OF INVESTIGATION
'
-
REPORTS
- 12/4/92
- 1/5/93
- 3/17/93 l
t t
'
Slide No 7 l
,
. - -.
.
., _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - _ - _ _ - _ _ - _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
-
.
i
'
.
,
CONCLUSIONS OF INVESTIGATIONS
TERMINATED EMPLOYEE HAD
-
INCOMPLETE OR INACCURATE
INFORMATION
.
,
NO VIOLATION OF
-
REGULATORY REQMTS THAT
HAD NOT BEEN SELF
'
IDENTIFIED
'
- NRC INVESTIGATION ISSUED ON 1/22/93 i
REACHED SAME GENERAL l
CONCLUSION NO EVIDENCE OF INTIMIDATION
-
I l
Slide No 8
.
.
... _,
..
- _ _ _.
_
.
.
-
l l
FOLLOW - UP SURVEY CONDUCTED 8/27/93 FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF INTIMIDATION Slid 3 No 9
-
f
$
ACTIONS TO MINIMlZE CHILLING EFFECT
.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS
- Employee concerns notices had been posted by NSP prior to and independent of the termination
- General Employee Training (GET)
'
discusses NRC Form-3 and encourages reporting to NSP organizations and to the NRC if employee satisfaction not obtained
- Employee Plant improvement Program allows employees to report any concerns to mgmt and obtain resolution feedback l
q
- Security Force crew team building was
'
completed
,
Slide No 10
!
,
<
n,
-
-
.
.-
.
.__
.
.
.
i
-
ACTIONS TO MINIMlZE CHILLING EFFECT
.
(Cont)
PRESENT ACTIONS
.
.
- Letter issued by V P Nuclear Generation (8/13/93) confirming no reprisal for raising safety issues
- Training on NRC Form-3 for site
'
supervisory & mgmt personnel recently completed
- Quarterly mgmt/ employee meetings are held for the Security Force-I Slide No 11
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
ACTIONS TO MINIMlZE
,
CHILLING EFFECT (Cont)
.
'
FUTURE ACTIONS
- Improve GET encouraging employees to identify & report safety concerns without
fear of retribution
!
,
- Place terms and conditions into vendor contracts requiring no retribution to employees for raising safety concerns
!
- Encourage employees to raise and
.
report safety issues at scheduled safety meetings and stress no reprisal for their actions
.
- Formalize the methods and programs that are available to promote employee
concern resolution.
Periodically review these methods and programs for effectiveness
!
Slide No 12 I
.-
..
.
-
-
.
.-
-
-
.
.
ACTIONS W/ RESPECT TO INTIMIDATION
.
.
NO EVIDENCE OF INTIMIDATION PER 3/17/93 QA REPORT NO EVIDENCE OF INTIMIDATION
<
PER 8/27/93 SURVEY
.
FUTURE ACTIONS DESCRIBED
'
TO MINIMlZE CHILLING ARE ALSO APPLICABLE FOR INTIMIDATION
-
Slide No 13
..
. _.. -,
.
.
.
.
.
.
SUMMARY
IDENTIFICATION
-
- Based on ALJ ruling Charges dismissed in two prior rulings i
ALJ ruling under appeal CORRECTIVE ACTION
-
- Strong, positive action taken and is
-
continuing LICENSEE PERFORMANCE
!
-
- Long history of excellent performance at PI
PRIOR OPPORTUNITY TO
-
IDENTIFY
- No prior opportunity j
MULTIPLE OCCURRENCES
-
,
- No prior occurrence
!
DURATION
-
- All employees were encouraged to report
.
concerns PRIOR to this termination
- Prompt action was taken upon notification of apparent violation
-
Slide No 14 w::
-
..
._.
--
-