ML14188A691
| ML14188A691 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Robinson  |
| Issue date: | 06/15/1989 |
| From: | Ebneter S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Eury L CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| EA-88-179, NUDOCS 8906280307 | |
| Download: ML14188A691 (3) | |
Text
JUN 15 189 Docket No. 50-261 License No. DPR-23 EA 88-179 Carolina Power and Light Company ATTN:
Mr. Lynn W. Eurv Executive Vice President Power Supply P. 0. Box 1551 Raleigh, NC 27602 Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION (DEPARTMENT OF LABOR CASE NO. 86-ERA-4, BLACKBURN VS METRIC CONSTRUCTORS)
This refers to the decision of the Department of Labor (DOL) regarding a discrimination complaint filed by Mr. Paul A. Blackburn on September 16, 1984, against Metric Constructors, Inc.
(Metric),
a licensee contractor which, at the time of the complaint, was engaged in outage work at the H. B. Robinson Nuclear Plant.
As a result of the DOL finding, NRC concerns relative to this matter were discussed in an Enforcement Conference held on April 27, 1989. The letter summarizing this conference was sent to you on May 4, 1989. The viola tion in the enclosed Notice concerns discrimination against an employee for engaging in a protected activity.
Under 10 CFR 50.7, discrimination by a Commission licensee or contractor against an employee for engaging in certain protected activities is.prohibited.
In his DOL complaint, Mr. Blackburn alleged that on September 5, 1984, he was assigned to a maintenance crew which was to perform electrical work in contain ment.
Mr. Blackburn stated in his complaint that he was aware that shielding had been removed from containment which was the issue constituting his concern.
He said he reviewed health physics surveys and noted the radiation levels to be higher than on previous occasions.
He also stated in his complaint that he talked with a Quality Control Technician who informed him that the containment hatchway was reading 180 mR/hr and that the last time he was through the hatchway there was little or no radiation.
Mr. Blackburn stated that he expressed his concern about the shielding being removed to his foreman; however, there apparently was no attempt by any Metric supervisors to address Mr. Blackburn's concern about the possible safety issue involved with the removal of the shielding.
As a result of refusing to enter containment to perform his assigned work, Mr. Blackburn was terminated by Metric.
By letter dated October 25, 1985, the DOL Area Director, Wage and Hour Division, Columbia, South Carolina, found in favor of Mr. Blackburn in that his refusal to work was a legitimate concern for his safety due to lead shielding having been removed.
Furthermore, the Area 8906280307 890615 PDR ADOCK O5000261
JUN 15 1989 Caroli;a Power and Light Company 2
Director found nothing to indicate the company officials made any effort to determine whether there was, in fact, an immediate safety concern.
This finding was appealed by Metric and on December 16,
On June 13, 1986, the ALJ issued a recommended decision and order finding that, although Mr. Blackburn's safety complaint to his foreman was protected activity within the scope of the Energy Reorganization Act, the record did not support a finding that Mr. Blackburn's discharge was intended as retaliation against a safety complaint.
The ALJ recommended that the complaint be dismissed.
The ALJ's decision was forwarded to the Secretary of Labor, and on June 21, 1988, the Secretary of Labor issued a decision on this matter.
Citing the Secretary's decision in Pensyl v. Catalytic, Inc., 83-ERA-2, the Secretary of Labor found that when Mr. Blackburn raised his concern about shielding he was engaged in protected activity and that Metric violated the Energy Reorganization Act in discharging Mr. Blackburn.
The Commission views all violations of 10 CFR 50.7 as serious, and such viola tions are normally categorized at a Severity Level III.
However, the focus of this case was Metric's failure to adequately investigate and explain the matter to the employee before terminating him. Had such an investigation and explana tion been made there would not have been an adverse finding by the Department of Labor nor a citation for discrimination by the NRC.
Under the circumstances of this case, it is appropriate to categorize the violation as a Severity Level IV.
You are required to respond to this letter and the enclosed Notice and should follow the instructions specified therein when preparing your response.
In your response, you should document the specific actions taken and any additional actions you plan to prevent recurrence. After reviewing your response to this Notice, including your proposed corrective actions and the results of future inspections, the NRC will determine whether further NRC enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirements.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and its enclosures will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
The responses directed by this letter and its enclosures are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. No.96-511.
Carclina Power and Light Company JUN 15 1989 Should you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact us.
Sincerely, ORIGINAL SIGNED BY JPStohr/for Stewart D. Ebneter Regional Administrator
Enclosure:
Notice of Violation cc w/encl:
C. R. Dietz, Manager Robinson Nuclear Project Department R. E. Morgan, Plant General Manager State of South Carolina bcc w/encl:
NRC Resident Inspector Document Control Desk RRH OE:HQ RI 8s G Jen ins f JLieberman MLErnst
/89 6 //
9 6/1t1-1f8 9 6//Sf/89