ML18059B103
| ML18059B103 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 07/18/1994 |
| From: | Grant G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Thomas J. Palmisano CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9407250049 | |
| Download: ML18059B103 (4) | |
Text
Docket No. 50-255 Consumers Power Company ATTN:
Mr. T. Palmisano July 18, 1994
- Acting General Manager Palisades Nuclear Generating Plant 27780 Blue Star Memorial Highway Covert, MI 49043-9530 Dear Mr.
P~lmisano:
SUBJECT:
- NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATION REPORT SYNOPSIS On January 31, 1994, the NRC Office of Investigation (OI) issued its report concerning a violation of Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 for discrimination against an employee for engaging in a "protected activity".
The 01 investigation determined that Consumers Power did not discriminate against the employee. A copy of the 01 synopsis is enclosed.
No response to this letter is required.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 *of the Commission's regulation, a copy of this letter will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
We will gladly discuss any*questions you ha~e concerning this lette~.
Sincerely, original signed by G. C. Wright/for/
G. E. Grant, Director
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/enclosure:
R. A. Fenech, Vice President Nuclear Operations David W. Rogers, Safety and Licensing Director OC/LFDCB Resident Inspector, Riii James R. Padgett, Michigan Public Service Commission Michigan Department of Public Health Palisades, LPM, NRR
.SRI, Big Rock Point G. E. Grant, Riii S. Stein, SRS bee w/enclosure:
~a"/
Langstaff /cg
. 07 /IG' /94 PUBLIC-IEOI RL1f!
B~~s 01I1~ /94
("... (.
.~ -*
i-...
t;.*
- ...*~._. \\...J..... \\J 9407250049 940718 PDR ADOCK 05000255 p
PDR Division of Reactor Safety
- UIJI,
~.
07I1'!194
~ft!
Pawlik 07/fi/94 t~~
' tty
~
I eFayette 07 I /K/94
//,~I I o
((
)
u Docket No. 50-255 Consumers Power Company ATTN:
Hr. T. Palmisano July 18, 1994
- Acting General Manager Palisades ~uclear Generating Plant 27780 Blue Star Memorial Highway Covert, MI 49043-9530
Dear Mr~ Palmisano:
SUBJECT:
NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATION REPORT SYNOPSIS On January 31, 1994, the NRC Office of Investigation (01) issued its report concerning a violation of Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 for discrimination against an employee for engaging in a "protected activity".
The OI investigation determined that Consumers Power did not discriminate against the employee. A copy of the OI synopsis is enclosed.
No response to this letter is required.
- 1 In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulation, a copy of t~~~
1 letter will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this letter.
Sincerely, original signed by G. C. Wright/for/
G. E. Grant, Director
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/enclosure:
. R. A. Fenech, Vice President Nuclear Operations David W. Rogers, Safety and Licensing Director OC/LFDCB Resident Inspector, Rill James R. Padgett, Michigan Public Service Commissio~ -
Division of Reactor Safety Michigan Department of Public Health Palisades, LPM, NRR SRI, Big Rock Point G. E. Grant, Riii S. Stein, SRS bee w/enclosure:
PUBLIC-
~If'/
R~
Langstaff /cg B rg~s 07 JIG' /94 07 I 1. /94 IEOl
~
n E
'U2.1 I~
btr Gran:
Pawlik
/94 07 I 1J"/94 07/(b/94 Iv~
jW,b--
~ette 07 I 'g/94
i J
~* -.
SYNOPSIS On April 11, 1991, the Regional Administrator, U;S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission CNRC), Region III (Rill), requested that an investigation be initiated concerning the alleged failure of NRC licensee, Consumers Power Company CCPC) (License No. OPR-20), to properly resolve the technical *concerns of a senior engineer employed in the nuclear engineering department at the licensee's Palisades Nuclear Plant CPNP) Docket No. 50-255). These technical concerns, primarily related to boron concentration in the plant's safety injection tanks and hydrogen generation within plant containment, were alleged.
by the employee to have significant implications for the safe operation of the facility and thus the public's health and safety.
Based on an interview of the alleger, the NRC Staff identified three general categories of potential technical violations at the PNP related to the employee's stated concerns. It was alleged that the licensee:
Cl)
Failed to provide means for controlling hydrogen gas generated by a postulated loss of coolant accident in violation of 10 CFR 50.44.
(2)
Failed to meet quality control assurance criteria for the PNP in vtolation of 10 CFR Appendix B. Criterion Ill and Criterion XVI.
(3)
Failed to meet NRC reporting requirements in*violation of 10 CFR Sections 50.9, 50.59(b)(l), 50.71(e). and 50.73(a)(2)(v)(A).
During her employment by the licensee the significance of the employee's technical concerns was disputed by plant supervision and management who disagreed with the assumptions and technical analysis on which the concerns were based. Coincident.to the period of time she was pressing for management acknowledgment or resolution of her technical concerns. the employee received a very unfavorable job performance evaluation. was placed on a "performance improvement program," and was ultimately discharged by the licensee.
purportedly for unsatisfactory job performance and failure to respond positively to the performance improvement program.
According to the alleger, her discharge by the licensee was, in fact. in retaliation for her engagement in "protected activity* as defined under Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (as amended).
NRC staff thus identified an additional pot~ntial violation in that the licensee;
- (4) -discriminated against an employee engaged in protected activity in violation of 10 CFR 50.7.
During the course of the investigation by Ol, NRC:RIII. the Division of Reactor Safety (DRS) staff conducted additional inspection activity and review of the safety significance of the allegations Nos. 1. 2. and 3 from a technical standpoint.* Upon further review by DRS and assessment by NRC management, it was determined that the technical violations cited in the request for investigation were considered by ORS to have been fully examined and closed with one Severity Level IV Violation of 10 tFR 50.59(6)(1). cited against the licensee with no wrong doing issues being identified. The remaining allegation that the licensee may have violated Section 210 of the Case No. 3*91-005 1
v j
~--.~
Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (as amended) and 10 CFR 50.7 (Employee protection) became the primary focus of the investigation.
The DI investigation of the remaining issue determined that Consumers Power
- Company did not discriminate against the employee in violation of Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (as amended) and. 10 CFR 50.7.
- i.
Case No. 3*91-005 2