ML022320271

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Letter, Dated July 26, 2002, to Mr. John T. Conway - OI Initiated Investigation (Case 1-2001-005) to Determine Whether NMP Management Gave a SRO the Opportunity to Voluntarily Resign or Have Their Employment Terminated
ML022320271
Person / Time
Site: Nine Mile Point  Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 07/26/2002
From: Blough A
Division Reactor Projects I
To: Conway J
Nine Mile Point
References
1-2001-0005 RI-2001-A-0008
Download: ML022320271 (4)


Text

July 26, 2002 RI-2001-A-0008 Mr. John T. Conway Site Vice President Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC P. O. Box 63 Lycoming, New York 13093

Dear Mr. Conway:

The Region I Field Office of the NRC Office of Investigations (OI), initiated an investigation (OI Case #1-2001-005) on January 25, 2001, to determine whether NMPC management gave a senior reactor operator (SRO) the opportunity to voluntarily resign or have their employment terminated on October 2, 2000, because the SRO engaged in protected activity. Specifically, because the SRO raised questions about delinquent Job Performance Measures (JPMs) for a reactor operator. Based on the evidence developed during the investigation OI did not substantiate that NMPC management gave the SRO the opportunity to voluntarily resign or have their employment terminated because the SRO engaged in protected activity. A copy of the synopsis of OI Report 1-2001-0005 is enclosed for your information.

The SRO filed a discrimination complaint with the U. S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration (DOL/OSHA) in late December 2000. The DOL/OSHA investigation also concluded that NMPC did not take any action against the SRO in retaliation for engaging in protected activities. Based on our review of the findings of the investigations conducted by OI and DOL/OSHA, the NRC has concluded that discrimination did not occur in this instance.

Please note that final NRC documents, such as the OI report described above, may be made available to the public under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) subject to redaction of information appropriate under the FOIA. Requests under the FOIA should be made in accordance with 10 CFR 9.23, Requests for Records, a copy of which is enclosed for your information.

Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please feel free to contact Ms. M. Evans, of my staff, at (610) 337-5224.

Sincerely,

/RA/

A. R. Blough, Division Director Division of Reactor Projects

Enclosures:

As Stated CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Mr. J. T. Conway RI-2001-A-0008 2

Distribution:

F. J. Congel, OE D. Vito, SAC ADAMS (Docket Nos. 50-220 and 50-410)

D. Screnci, PAO Region I Docket Room (w/concurrences)

DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\ALLEG\\LICENSEE\\20010008LIC.WPD To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment/enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment/enclosure "N" = No copy OFFICE ORA/SAC DRP/RPB1 OI:RI/FOD DRP/DD NAME DVito/slj Mevans Perry for Letts ARBlough DATE 07/19/2002 07/23/2002 07/25/2002 07/26/2002 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY OFFICE ORA/RC NAME BFewell DATE 07/23/2002 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

SYNOPSIS On January 25, 2001, the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRC) Office of Investigations (OI), Region I (RI), initiated this investigation to determine whether Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station (NMP) management gave a senior reactor operator (SRO), NMP, the opportunity to resign or to be terminated on October 2, 2000, because he/she engaged in a protected activity. Specifically, the SRO raised questions about the completion of a reactor operators Job Performance Measures (JPMs) and the reactor operators working qualifications (i.e., ability to stand shift) because the JPMs were incomplete.

Based on the evidence developed during this investigation, OI did not substantiate that NMP management gave the SRO the opportunity to resign or be terminated because he/she questioned the completion of a reactor operators JPMs and the reactor operators working qualifications (i.e., ability to stand shift) because the JPMs were incomplete.

Case No. 1-2001-005