ML18057A371
| ML18057A371 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 08/09/1990 |
| From: | Davis A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Hoffman D CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9008130318 | |
| Download: ML18057A371 (5) | |
Text
.
r:
__ __.1.,._ _____ _
Docket No. 50-255
- Consumers Power Company ATTN:
David P. Hoffman Vice President Nucl~ar Operations
- 1945 West Parnall *Road Jacks~n, MI 49201 Gentlemen:
August 9, 1990
. AMS No. RIII-90-A-0062.
On April 13, 1990, the' U. S.
Depirtm~nt of Lab6~'s (DOL) Wage and Hour Division in
~rand Rapids, Michigan, recei~ed a complaint from a former employee of Consumers Power Company;.*The former employee alleged that she was dismissed because she had raised 'safety concerns while performing her du.ties at the Palfsades Nuclear Plant. *In resp6nse to that complaint, th~ ~age and Hour Division conducted an investigation, and in the enclosed let_ter dated July 23, 1990, the Area.Director of the Wctge a_nd Hour Division found that the. evidef]ce obtained "during the Division's investigation indicated that th~ employee w~s engag~d.in a protected:,
activity within th~ ambit of the Energy Reorganizat1on Act and ~hat.discrimination as.defined and prohibited by.the statute_ was a_ factor in the actions which comprised her complai_nt.
Based on a re~iew of the complaint filed with ~OL, a violatio~ of 10 CFR 50.7 may have occurred which could have a chilling effect on other license~ or contracto~ personnel.
Therefore, 'you *ar:e requ~st~d to pr.ovide this office, within'30 days of the date 'of this letter, a response which: *
- 1.
Provides* the basis for the employment *action regarding the former employee and includes a copy of any investigation reports:yo_u-have
. regarding-the circumstances of the action; and _ *
- 2.
Describes the actions, if any, taken or planned.to.assure that this employment action.does not have a chilling effect in discouraging.
other licensee or contractor employees. from raising perceived sa_fety concerns.
.I After reviewing your response, the N~C will *determine \\'{hether enforcement action is necessary at this time to ensure 'compliance with regulatory re_quirenients.
.e Consumers Power Company ~ugust 9, 1990 In accordance with Sect.ion 2.790 of the NRC's "R.ules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulat~ons, a copy of th~s letter_will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
The respons~ requested by this letter is not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget ~s required by the Paperwork Reduction
.Act of 1980, Pub". L. *No.96-511.
Enclosure:
.As state.d cc w/enclosure:
' Mr *. Kenneth W. Berry, Di rector Nuclear Licensing.
- Gercild B. Slade, Gen~r~l Maniger DCD/DCB (RIDS)
Licensing Fee Management Branch Resident Inspector; RIII '
James R. Padgett, Michiga~ P~blic Service Commissio~.
- Mi~higan Department'of Pub l i c Health Pa 1 i sad.es, LPM,. NRR
. bee w/enclosure:
J. Taylor, *mo*..
J. Lieberman, OE J. Goldberg, OGC F. Miraglia~ NRR
£)
~
or~
Funk/db
. 08/ i. /90
- Sincerely,*
[h-j;:*~*::.:* >','...,,:; q
- {
- .*.*.I
- P..: Bert Davis Regional Adm~~istratoi
)
RI~'(),
Gree,r;ma(
08/ 'b /9~
~.*
- RI I I Jd_..
Davis
- 08/ j /90.
U.S. Department cf Labor
- r-**
~*~
.-/~-~\\
2920 Fullc~ ~.E. Suite 100 Grand Rnrids, Ml 49505-3409 C1G/45G-2183
---~:.-)*
- q.
\\*&~./*
1
- I I '
'~*
. Jul y.2 3 ' 1 9 9 0 Mr. Mirce Nestorovski, Attorney Consumers P_ower Company 212 W.
Mi~higan Avenue Jacksori, _MI 49201 Dear Mr.
~estoro~ski:
RE:
Ursula K6sciuk
~s_ Consumers Power Co.
This letter is to notify you of the results _of our compliance
- act ions in the_ above. case.
As you kno\\..*, Vrsula 'Kosci uk filed a complaint with' the Secretary of. Labor. '*under _ the Energy Reorganization Act 6n 4/13/90~
A co~y of,ihe complai~t; a copy of Regulations, 29 CFR Pa~t 24; and~ ~opy 6f the*p~rtinent section of the statute ~ere fu~nished to you in. a ~revious letter from this o.ffice.
Our initial efforts to conciliate th~*matter did not r~s~li in.a mutually agree~ble settlement. : A fact-finding ~nvesti~ation was
- then conducted.
-Bas_ed. upon our. lnves-tigation,' the weight_ of evidence to date indica,t.es - -that_, Ms.. Kosciuk was a
prote~ted -
. employe~ engaging i~ a protected~activ~ty within the scope of.the __
'.* En*ergy, Reorganization~_.Act and that discrimination as defined *and prohibited by the_ -statute \\..*as - a factor* -in the actions whiph
- comprise her complaint.
The following information supported this determina tf*on_.
- . -Ms. *Kosciuk-was -given an assignment to analyze the SIT. Level and
~ompleted in-9/89._ This analysis was rev{ewed by an enginee~ w{th*
more _than. 30 years experience who had received - an.overall "exceeded" arl,d _ "excepti.onal", in knoi.:ledge *and experience.iri his perfo~mance a~pr~isal.; He agieed-~ith the analY~is, but was Jater dii:;credi ted **by Ms~--
Kos'ciuk' s supervisor~ and considered-- a*s *not qua)ified.to perf.orm this.-review.
Ms. Kosciuk attem~ted to bri~g her safety ~ohcerns rel~ting to the SIT Analysis to the attention-of her management team from Septe~b~r 1989 through March 1990, when she was terminated.
She was dir~cted to *break up the analysis,*. - and -<work only on the SIT *Level, and
- ignore the Boron Concentration.
She proceeded to work -0n the SIT*
Page 2
.--_.=July_ -2 3, 19 90 Consumers Power Company Level, but did not ignore the Bordn Concentration, as directed.
The day befor~ she was fired, she reqv~sted information relating to her assignment.
Her supervisor assumed she wanted the information for the Boron Concentration Analysis, and at first refused to allow her to see the information. She wa~ terminated the following day, before the end of her 90 day performance program.
Her performance rating dropped *dralnaticaliy in October *19.89, when she.received -a n~w supervi~or, and continued to push the is~ue of the SIT Level *Analysis.
Her performance* problems continued to center around *the completion of this ahalysis, l-*hich ~he alleges raises ~afety concerns for plant operatioh, arid subsequently filed a
com~l~int with NRC regarding this and another concerri (Hydogen.
Generation Analysis).
Based on
~he evidence uncovered during the fact finding investfgation; the. 'complainant's.desir~ for a resol1,1tion of her_*
plant safety concerns,
~nd her action to resolve those concerns, were factors i~.her termination.
This letter is notification to you ihat the following aciti6ns are reAuired to remedy* the viol~tion:
Complainant shall be made whble for all losses incurred as a result.
bf her t~rmi~ation~ intluding bu~ not limited to:
- 1.
Reinstatement to her former*positio~. if availa~le, or a comparable reinstatement if the former position is not available.
- 2.
Back* pay, and front pay.to.. the extent applicable.
- 3.
Retroactive seniority, reinstatemen*t of fringe benefits.
- 4.
Attorney fees p~rstiant ~o statute.
- 5.
Completely purge personnei files of unsatisfactory performance review~ relating to discri~inatory treatment.
This letter is also notification t0 you that, if *you wish tb app~al the above findings and remedy,. you have a right ~o a formal hearing
Page 3 July 23, 1990 Consumers Power Company on the record.
To exercise this right you must, within five (5) calendar days of receipt of this letter, file your request for a hearing by te.l egram to:
The Chief Administrative Law Judge U.S. Department of *Labor Suite 700, Vanguard Building 1111 -
20t~ Str~et, NW Washington, D.C.
20036 Unless a telegram is r~c~{ved by th~ Chief Administrative La~ Judge within the
- five-d<,3.y period,* this notification of findings and remedial act,ion will become the Final :.. order of the. Secretary of Labor which must be implemented within !0 days.
~y*copy of this letter~ Ms. Kosciuk is ~eing advi~ed of the determination and right to a hearing.
A copy of this letter and complairtt have also been
- sent to the Chie{ Administrat.ive. Law *Judge. *If.you.decide to reques~ a hearing, it will be necessary for yo~ to send copies of th~ telegra~ to Ms. Kosciuk ~nd to me at 2920 Fulle~ N.E. *suit~
- 100, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49505-3409,. telephone 616/456-2183.
Aft~r* I.. recei~e the copi.of yotir ~eqUest, appropriate prep~r~ticins
. *for. the *hearing can be made.
If you have any questions,.. do not hesitate.to call.me; I~ sho~ld be m~d~ ~lear t6 all parties that the U~S. D~pa~trnetit of Labor. does not represent any of the parties. in a_ hearing.
Th.e hearing :is an adiersarial proceeding in which the parties will ~e.
allow~d an* opportunity *to prese~t. the if *evidence 'for the record.
- The Admini~trative Law Judg~ who c6nducts the hea~ing will issue a recommended decision to the Secretary based. *on the eyidence, testimony,. and arguments. presented by the' pa.rties* at the hearing.
The Fin'al Order *of the Secretary* will then be is$ued. after consideration of
- the**. Administrative Law Judge's recommended.
decision and the record developed ~t the hearing and will *eith~r
- provide f~r appropriate reli*ef oi dismiss th~ co~pl~int:
Sincerely,
~*
rj_
Daniel H.. Ocharzak District Di~ect6r cc:
Ursula Kosciuk A
hn T. Burh Nuclear Reg~latory Commission Chie A m1n1s ra ive Law Judge Regional Solicitor Regional Administrator/WH