ML18057A455

Forwards Proprietary Info Re Dept of Labor Decision on Discharge of Former Employee of Util,Per NRC 900809 Request. No 10CFR50.7 Violation Occurred Since Job Performance Was Reason for Discharge.Encl Withheld (Ref 10CFR2.790(a)(6))

ML18057A455
Person / Time
Site:	Palisades
Issue date:	09/06/1990
From:	Slade G CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.)
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
Shared Package
ML18057A456	List: ML18057A455
References
NUDOCS 9009170005
Download: ML18057A455 (3)

Text

~-

GB Slade General Manager l'OWERINli

• MICHlliAN'S l'ROliRESS Palisades Nuclear Plant: 27780 Blue Star Memorial Highway, Covert, Ml 49043 September 6, 1990 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 DOCKET 50-255 - LICENSE DPR PALISADES PLANT INFORMATION CONCERNING THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR DECISION ON EMPLOYEE DISMISSAL This is in response to the NRC's request for information made in the August 9, 1990 letter to Consumers Power Company regarding the discharge of a former employee of Consumers Power Company. Consumers Power Company was requested to provide a response which:

1. Provides the basis for the employment action regarding the former employee and includes a copy of any investigation reports Consumers Power has 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 safety concerns.

The response to the first request is contained in the enclosed attachments.

In summary, the employee was placed in a 90 day Performance Improvement Action Plan after receiving an unsatisfactory Performance Appraisal in January of this year. Because the employee did not show an improvement in job performance during this Plan, employment with Consumers Power was terminated on March 16, 1990. In accordance with Company policy, the employee was allowed to appeal the decision at l~o levels of management within the Company (Plant Manager and Presidential hearings). Also in accordance with Company policy, the employee was provided assistance for these hearings by a Human Resource Department representative of the employee's choosing, from anywhere within the Company, outside of the Palisades Nuclear Plant. The Human Resource representative presented the discharged employee's case to the hearing officers and was acting as the discharged employee's advocate at the hearings.

The attached documents include the brief and all exhibits prepared by the Palisades staff, the brief prepared by the employee's representative and the decision letters of both the Plant General Manager and the Executive Vice President. Also attached are summaries of the safety injection tank boron concentration and hydrogen generation issues. The employee was discharged ;l't t!c/.

,----- *=-1nn9 t 70005 9()<::i90;;*-- ---- -,

• f-:*tiF: ..*~:OOCI< 0~50002!~5 '

Ae0\ J,J **

llCMftr*

vu. f6rod £.. / /

A/ 1I i=* Pt11..: A CMS ENERGY COMPANY *~ *

• AJl.l(Lfrs~ J.ee ~ 1 I

solely because of unsatisfactory job performance. Since job performance was the reason for discharge, no discrimination was involved, and therefore, no violation of IOCFRS0.7 has occurred.

The response to the second request is as follows: Within the department in which the employee worked there has not been evidence of a "chilling effect" on other employees since it has been widely known that the employee was discharged for performance reasons only. In fact, several examples of Licensee Event Reports submitted to the NRC could be cited, one originating from the same department, which were generated as a result of employee discoveries at the Palisades Plant since the discharge of the employee in question. The discharge of the employee was not discussed with other Plant staff (immediately after the discharge or subsequent to the appeal hearings),

beyond those individuals who were required to know. This is because, as stated previously, the employee was discharged for unsatisfactory job performance reasons, other employees did not have a need to know under such circumstances, and this information was considered confidential. The commitment by Consumers Power management to safe operations of the Company's nuclear facilities is widely known by all employees.

The recent events concerning the DOL decision and the subsequent media attention, however, have necessitated Consumers Power to provide additional information to all Plant employees. In the very near future, a statement will be provided to all Nuclear Operations Department employees and their contract employees, restating their rights under the Energy Reorganization Act as well as the Company commitment to safe operations. It is not considered appropriate to provide significant details to employees concerning the circumstances around the employee's discharge because the discharged employee has filed a civil lawsuit against the Company, which is pending in Van Buren County Circuit Court, Paw Paw, Michigan, the information concerning the events leading to the discharge of the employee is confidential, and also because the DOL case is still in the appeals process.

In accordance with IOCFR2.790 Subsection (a)(6), we request that the attached information be exempt from disclosure as it contains personnel files which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.

~~

Gerald B Slade General Manager CC: Administrator, Region Ill, USNRC NRC Resident Inspector, Palisades Attachments I_

Attachment 1 Letter Dated June 8, 1990 To Employee From MG Morris (2 pages)

Attachment 2 Presidential Hearing Dated May 31, 1990 (7 pages)

Attachment 3 Letter Dated March 16, 1990 To Employee From T A Buczwinski (1 page)

Attachment 4 Letter Dated May 8, 1990 To G J Dobler From G B Slade (2 pages)

Attachment 5 Chronology Of Events For Employee (6 pages)

--- Attachment -Letter Dated November 24, 1987 To Employee From KM Haas; KHM87-042 "Late Reporting To Work" (1 page)

Attachment 7 Consumers Power Company Executive, Administrative And Professional Performance Appraisal For Review Period Dated September 2, 1986 To September 1, 1987 (4 pages)

Attachment 8 Consumers Power Company Executive, Administrative And Professional Performance Appraisal For Review Period Dated September 4, 1987 To January 1, 1989 (4 pages)

Attachment 9 A&TA Section Meeting Agenda Dated October 2, 1989 (1 page)

Attachment 10 Consumers Power Company Executive, Administrative And Professional Performance Appraisal For Review Period Dated December 31, 1989 (11 pages)

Attachment 11 Letter Dated January 15, 1990 To R M Rice From Employee (6 pages)

Attachment 12 Letter Dated January 18, 1990 To File From R MRice (2 pages)

Attachment 13 Letter Dated January 8, 1990 To Employee From K MHaas (2 pages)

Attachment 14 Letter Dated February 26, 1990 To Employee From R J Gerling, "Performance Improvement Action Plan Progress" (3 pages)

Attachment 15 Letter Dated March 9, 1990 To R MRice From Employee, "Response To The Letter By R J Gerling Dated February 26, 1990 On The Performance Improvement Action Plan Progress" (21 pages) -

Attachment 16 Letter Dated March 15, 1990 To R J Gerling From Employee, "Meeting With R J Gerling On March 14, 1990" (1 page)

Attachment 17 Plant General Manager Hearing, Revision May 23, 1990 (8 pages)

Attachment 18 Safety Injection Tank Licensing History (7 pages)

Attachment 19 Hydrogen Generation Analysis Summary (2 pages)