ML20058A204
| ML20058A204 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 10/15/1990 |
| From: | Kovach T COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9010250329 | |
| Download: ML20058A204 (5) | |
Text
'x Commonwealth Edison
- /
) 1400 Opus Place l C 7 Down ss Gtov3, libnois 6061b i
t
\\
/
Nd
{
October 15, 1990 i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conunission Ofc. of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington, DC 20555 Attn Document Control Desk i
Subject!
Braidwood Station Units 1 and 2 Response to Notice of Violation NRC Office of Investigations Report No. 3-85-0185 t
Referencest (a)
A.B. Davis Letter to C. Reed dated September 14, 1990 Notice of Violation (b)
II.E. Bliss Letter to A.B. Davis dated June 20, 1988 (c)
A.B. Davis Letter to C. Reed dated May 20, 1988 Allegation No. RIII-85-A-0142 (d)
J.J. Harrison Letter to C. Reid dated May 13, 1986 Gentlement Reference (a) transmitted the Notice of Violation which refers to the investigation by the NRC Office of Investigations conducted between t
November 7, 1985 to April 22, 1988 and November 1, 1988 to April 16, 1990, and subsequently reported on April 16, 1990. The Consnonwealth Edison (Edison) response to the Notice of Violation is provided in Attachment A.
As agreed via telephone consnunications with the Region III staff on August 24, 1990, an enforcement conference between the NRC and Edison was not considered necessary.
The issues surrounding the allegation addressed in reference (c) were originally brought to the attention of Edison in August, 1985. At that time, the Braidwood Quality First Group conducted a very comprehensive investigation of the concerns expressed by the former Sargent fu Lundy employe.
Inspection Report 456/86-020, concluded that the allegation could not be substantiated.
Edison understands the significance of this violation and took immediate and appropriate actions once this concern was identified. Since 1985, when this event occurred, Edison has demonstrated that we do not condone discrimination against employes for engaging in certain protected activities.
In fact, the further development of our Quality First Program and application of that philosophy to all of our Nuclear Stations demonstrates our desire to
[gk0 h
6 Q
AC/ecl1343t1
.\\
- ,4.
Bert D; vie Octob:r 15, 1990 t
maintain an environment free of discriminatory actions. Considering that this event took place five years ago and Edison's good performance cince that time, we believe that we have successfully addressed this concern and that the violation should not be considered a reflection of Braidwood Station's current performance.
l Please address any questions regarding this response to this office.
Very Truly yours,
,/(
ach Nucle I Licensing Manager Attachment i
cc NRC Resident inspector - Braidwood A. Bert Davis-RIII AC/aelt343t2
ATTACHMENT A Commonwealth Edison Company REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION NRC OFFICE OF 1NVESTIGATIONS REPORT No. 3-85-01BS y_in1ationt 10 CFR 50.7 prohibits discrimination by a Commission licensee, permittee, an applicant for a Comission license or permit, or a contractor or subcontractor of a Comission licensee, permittee, or applicant against an employe for engaging in certain protected activities. Discrimination includes discharge or other actions relating to the compensation, terins, conditions, and privileges of employment. The activities protected include, but are not limited to providing the NRC, the licensee, or a contractor or subcontractor of the licensee, information about possible violations of NRC requirements.
Contrary to the above, a concrete technologist who was an employee of the Sargent and Lundy Company, a contractor at the Braidwood Nuclear Plant construction site, was discriminated against for engaging in protected activities. During his assignment at the Braidwood Plant, January 8-15, 1985, the concrete technologist identified potential deficiencies in concrete structures and brought these deficiencies to the attention of the Gus K. Newberg Company, the licensee's civil / structural contractor.
This led i
employee of the Gus K. Newberg Company to believe that the concrete technologist might identify additional deficiencies with the concrete work.
The Gus K. Newberg Company then arranged, through the Comonwealth Edison Company, to have the Sargent and Lundy Company transfer the concrete technologist from the Braidwood Site on January 15, 1985.
Reas.on for tite _ Vicia.tioni Comonwealth Edison Company (Edison) acknowledges that a representative of the Cus K. Newberg Company requested that Edison contact Sargent & Lundy (S&L) to have the concrete technologist removed from the Braidwood Station construction site. As stated in reference (a) "The Braidwood Project Manager unknowingly acted upon the misinformation provided by Newberg and requested that S&L remove their concrete technologist from Braidwood".
Edison acknowledges the I
statement made in reference (a) that even though " Commonwealth Edison Company did not knowingly discriminate against the concrete technologist, the Comonwealth Edison Company should have questioned the motives of the Newberg Company for requesting the concrete technologist's removal." Edison believes this to have been an isolated instance and the statement made in reference (a) that "no other enforcement actions for discriminatory practices have been
)
taken against Commonwealth Edison Company since this violation occurred" is l
evidence that a programatic problem did not exist.
A review of this event by Edison has indicated no adverse effects on the health and safety of the public.
i 1
1 AC/sel:343:3
1 2
s
.e CorrettiYt_ittps_Llat_ hay 1 httn_laken and the_Atsulis_Achievedt heference (b) outlines the specific corrective steps taken by Edison on the initial event. Additionally, based on resultant interviews from the Quality First investigation, Edison concluded that Sargent & Lundy, as well as G.K.
Newberg personnel, understood that the concrete technologist's reassignment irom Braidwood Station was due to the potential to create a disruptive working environment. No concerns or questions regarding the concrete technologist's reassignment were initiated by either contractor's management or craft personnel. Therefore, Edison believes that the reassignment did not discourage other employe,es from raising safety concerns.
Continuing improvements to reduce the potential for discriminatory practices have been implemented. Nuclear Operations Directive, NOD-OP.81 ConLIActor'.A Employes_ Rights _and. A oitations was approved ior use in April of 1988, and i
revised in November of 1989. The NOD outlines the responsibilities of contractors working for Edison for complying with all federal laws which j
prohibit discrimination against workers who have engaged in certain protected activities as defined in Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act (ERA) of 1974, as amended, 100FR50.7, NRC Form 3, 29CFR24.1 and 29CFR24.2 of the
)
Department of Labor regulations.
The NOD serves as the corporate policy which requires that each contractor notify Edison before either terminating certain i
I of its employes, or taking other significant adverse employment actions which the contractor has reason to believe may result in a claim of discrimination j
for engaging in protected activities.
Exhibit A of NOD-OP.8 requires a review to be performed by the Quality First Superintendent to assess each reported incident and its resniting actions for the potential development of a reluctance among the contractor's remaining employes to raise safety concerns.
Exhibit B of NOD-OP.8 regt'. ires a contractor's site manager to certify that the employes under his control have not been prohibited from contacting the NRC i
through the use of restrictive clauses or any other type of agreements.
l l
Further, the requirements of NOD-OP.8 were incorporated into Item 1 of Station Contract Requirement (SCR) 18 for Engineering specifications and item 307 of craft labor specifications.
In either case, the inclusion of the item in the work specification prohibits any vendor or contractor performing work for one of Edison's nuclear facilities from restricting their employes communications with the NRC through the use of contracts or any other type of employment agreement. SCR 18 or Item 307 have been included in work specifications since-December, 1989, and will continue to be included in future work specifications for nuclear facilities.
)
l AC/cel:363:6 t
i
c..
!'.l.
'.l..
-s-L.
Correctlya_ Reps that will be Taken to Avoid Further Violatianat No additional corrective actions are planned at this time based on acceptable performance in'this area since the time that the violation occurred.
Date When Full Cgspliance will be Achinygdt Full compliance has been achieved. No further action is warranted by Edison.
4 l
l AC/relt343:5