ML20059M155

Notice of Violation from Investigation Conducted Between 851107-880422 & 881101-900416.Violation Noted:Contractor at Plant Site Discriminated Against for Engaging in Protected Activities

ML20059M155
Person / Time
Site:	Braidwood
Issue date:	09/14/1990
From:	Davis A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20059M153	List: ML20059M151 ML20059M155
References
EA-88-294, NUDOCS 9010030202
Download: ML20059M155 (3)

Text

._ _ __. _ _ ._ _. _. _ ___ _ _ . _ - _ .

4 I

NOTICE OF VIOLATION l Comonwealth.. Edison Company ~

Docket Nos. 50-456 an' 50-457 i

Braidwe

• Nuclear Station License Nos. NPF-72 a d NPG 77 Construction Permits: *'R-132

' -- and CPPR-133 EA 88-294

! During an NRC investigation conducted November 7, 1985 to April 22, 1988 and from November 1, 1988 to Apri1~16','1990, a violation of NRC requirements was~ ,

identified. In accordance with-the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure l

i for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR"Part 2, Appendix C (1985), the violation

~ is listed below

_ f,,,

10 CFR 50.7 prohibits discrimination by a Comission licensee, permittee, an j applicant for a Comission license or permit, or a contractor or subcontractor 4 of a Comission licensee, permittee, or applicant against an employee for l engaging in certain protected activities. Discrimination includes discharge or other actions relating to the. compensation, terms, 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 j

activities. During his assignment at the Braidwood Plant, January 8-15, 1 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 '

employees of the Gus K. Newberg Company to beliue 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.

%is is a Severity Level III violation (Supplement VII).

Pursuant to the provisions. of 10 CFR 2.201, the Comonwealth Edison Company is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the U.S.  ;

Neclear Regulatory Comission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C.

20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory ,

Comission Region III, 799 Roosevelt Road, Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137, and a copy to the U.S Nuclear Regulatory Comission Resident Inspector at the Braidwood Plant, within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this NoticeofViolation(Nct. ice). This reply should be clearly marked as a

• Reply to a Notice of Violation' and should include for each violation: (1)the reason for the violat fon, or, if contested, the basis for disputing the violation, (2) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results

! achieved, (3) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations, and (4) the date when full compliance will be achieved. If an I

i 9010030202 900914 PDR ADOCK 05000456.

G PNU,

o. Notice of Violation _

adequate reply is not received with the time specified in this Notice, an order m y be issued to show cause why the license should not be modified, suspended.

Or revoked, or why such other actions as may be proper should not be taken.

Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the ]

response time. Under the authority of Sectior,182 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2232, this response shall be submitted unde',' oath :B 5 or affinnation.

~

h, fg &

Jg A. Rert Davis '-

Regional Administ-ator d

Dated at Glen Ellyn, Illinois this fpday of September 1990 EE 3

i

%" e is, m A

=-

31 as B

5 E

Y  ;

A

- aa, _

svNoPSis r ?. . J . ',,

On November 7,1985, the NRC Region 111 (NRC* Rill) Reg onal Administrator requested that the NRC Office of Investigations (01: Rill)investigatean allegation that a Sargent and Lundy ($4L) engineer empic?*d at the Braidwood P

Nuclear Power Station (Braidwood) was tenninated at s tr '.sentifying deficiencies at that feellity. 01:Rll! opened a case on November 18, 1985, and administratively closed that case on April 22, 1988, due to a lack of investigative resources.

NRC: Rill then requested that Commonwealth Edison Company (Ceco) respond to the alleged employment discrimination'at Braidwood. On July 20, 1988,-Ceco.

provided an internal investigative report of the discrimination matter prepared in September 1985, which concluded that no discr'imination occurred with regard to the employment termination. ,,

On November 1,1988, the NRC:RI!! Regional Administrator requested that O!: Rill reopen the investigation of the employment discrimination allegation.

The 01: Rill staff concluded after reviewing the CECO internal investigation of the allegation, that although it appeared the~ termination was not discriminatory, it did appear the transfer of the S&L engineer from the Braidwood project may have been retaliatory and was done at the request of the Braidwood station manager.

This investigation has developed evidence indicating ^that employment discrimination did occur when the S&L engineer was removed from the Braidwood project because of that engineer's identification of deficiencies with the concrete structures at Braidwood. Apparently some contractor personnel held the view that the S&L engineer would possibly identify numerous other concrete defects because of that individual's expertise in concrete technology and concrete repair program ,

This investigation has developed evidence which suggests that three or more Newberg Construction Company (Newberg) employees conspired to arrange for the removal of the S&L engineer from Braidwood by proposing to Ceco management that a personality conflict existed between the S&L engineer and certain Newberg engineers, and that a nonproductive environment would exist as long as that $&L engineer continued to work at Braid, wood. The investigation disclosed that the S&L engineer had recently identified a number of concrete deficiencies while assigned to review the adequacy . f the concrete at Braidwood. It appeared to those particular Newbert employees that unless the S&L engineer was removed from the project, that engineer s actions might lead to identification of additional deficiencies.

The Ceco Braidwood project manager unknowingly acted upon the misinformation provided by Newberg and requested that S&L remove their concrete technologist from Braidwood. .

[ ,

Case No. 3-85-0185 1

)\

e