ML053220394
| ML053220394 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem, Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 01/22/2004 |
| From: | Vito D NRC Region 1 |
| To: | Chandler L, Dambly D, Dyer J, Rani Franovich, Miller H, David Nelson NRC/OE |
| References | |
| 1-2002-A-0113, 1-2003-001, 1-2003-008, 1-2003-010, 1-2003-010S, 1-2003-015F, 1-2003-017, FOIA/PA-2004-0191 | |
| Download: ML053220394 (2) | |
Text
e-mail for 01 Cases 1-2003-010, 010S 008 001 Page 11 iP !~--eee-alfr 01Css i-030 0 15 008 oh~ 01F and 01
_a From:
David Vito To:
David Nelson (HQ-OE); Dennis Dambly; Hubert J. Miller; Jim Dyer; Lawrence Chandler; OEMAIL; Rani Franovich Date:
1/22/04 2:17PM
Subject:
3-week e-mail for 01 Cases 1-2003-010, OIOS, 008, 001, 015F, and 017 Place:
OEMAIL Closure of 01 Case 1-2003-010 (relates to Allegation RI-2002-A-01 13 - Salem/Hope Creek)
On January 9, 2003 01 Region I initiated case #1 -2003-01 0. to determine if al PSEG Nuclear, working at Salem/Hope Creek, was discriminated against fo en aging In protectelactivity.
Specifically, the 4elieved that[ ias suspended, had ite access removed, and was threatened with `eceiving a poor performance appraisal and termination in August 2002, because I
raised a concern via the Artificial Island cor.ective action program in July 2002. about the adequacy of the transient review (TARP) procedure and sown qualifications to be on TARP. The 01 investigation revealed that a pivotal issue was relatedto the fact thatL did not want to accept, as part of' Linormal work activities, the duties of a TARP. responder, which Included the occasional need to respond4o the site-at-abnormal hours and times. As such, site managements actions toward theL refusal to accept a position on the TARP appeared to be actions in respon e to a matter of work performance, rather than engagementLin protected activity. The as given administrative leave (paid) to reconsiderF Aefusal of the assignment, anc e site a: ess was also put on administrative hold at the time. The then took a week Of ck leave, and whenrT returned to the site,'
site access was still on hold. asi fppervisor assumed gas continuing to refuse the TARP ass-1igement. When the supervisor leamea that theL had acce9ted the assignment, the suspension was rescinded and the supervisor apologized to the J Ultimately, the lI Kid not have to participate on the TARP due to a medical condition.
A Region I ARB on September 3, 2003 agreed with 0 's conclusions, and recommended closure of the allegatioj1. However, shortly thereafter, before the allegation closure could be processed, the rovided additional Information to Region I, wh'cl-believed indicated that an unsatsfactory perfor ce appraisal on August 28, 2003, demonstrated continuing discrimination againsf { A subsequent Region I ARB on September 22, 2003, directed Ol to open a supplemental inve'ligation to determine if the newer information would have any bearing on the earlier conclusions.
On September 22, 2003, 01 Region I initiated supplemental case #1-2003-010Sto determine if PSEG was engaged in a continuing pattern of discrimination against theF including the issuance of an unsatisfactory mid-year performance appraisal In August 2003. because thfe fraised concerns through the CAP in July 2002 regarding qualifications for and procedural compliance associated with the transient assessment response plan (TARP).
It was Ol's view that th(
possibly misrepresentedf inid-year performance appraisal to the NRC by not providin the complet-ppraisal for context The Jonly provided the NRQ with an excerpt frorrn nid-year appraisal which reflected one "utnsatisfactory" rating, when, In fact, had received an overalid-year evaluation of "satisfactory." By providing only selected information, the L
-3s credibility was called into question. Furthermore, the mid-year review was found to be specifically designed to identify weaknesses in performance and provide opportunities for improvement.
rhe end of the performance appraisal becomes the official rating of record.
Contrary to thEE is'assertion that lreceived an unsatisfactory mid-year performance evaluation in 2003, 01 deemed the Engineerin§`Supervisor's testimony that the purpose of the appraisal was to identify areas for improvement and that the senior engineer was rated satisfactory overall, to be credible. Based on testimonial and documentary evidence, 01 opined that the'Engineeripg Supervisor's mid-year review of the
. s performance was a good faith effort to help the/
]
focus on the one area tiat needed inprovement.
Based on the results of this supplemental investigation, 01 reaffirmed its conclusion that the, Intormation In this record was deleted in accordance w FIb~reedof d 6 aonf Axt, esesxifmm /
avdVt 3-week e-mail for Ol.Casesl1-2003-010,0OlOS,008,001,015F and 017
'Pa e 2 Iwas not discriminated against for having engaged in protected activities.
The 01 (supplemental) report was distributed to the staff on December 23, 2003. An ARB was held on January 8, 2004, to discuss the mater. The ARB agreed with the conclusions of the O case and directed that a closeout letter be sent to the -
and that a letter be sent to the licensee describing the conclusions of the Ol invespgation,ending any further comments. If no other views are received within 3 weeks of the date of this e-mailt, these letters will be distributed.