ML20077E369
| ML20077E369 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fort Saint Vrain  |
| Issue date: | 06/10/1991 |
| From: | Crawford A PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF COLORADO |
| To: | Martin R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20077E332 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-93-600, FOIA-93-610 NUDOCS 9412120256 | |
| Download: ML20077E369 (4) | |
Text
.
?
f
~
- p:
(
hPublic Service-3 7c P.O. Box 840
' oenver co 80201. osso.
y June 10,.1991 A. Clegg Crawford Fort St. Vrain Vice President Unit No.' 1-P-91192 1
Mr. Robert D.~ Martin Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region IV
)
611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 l
Arlington, TX 76011
SUBJECT:
ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION AGAINST AN EMPLOYEE FOR HAVING ENGAGED IN PROTECTED ACTIVITIES j
REFERENCE:
NRC Letter, Martin to Crawforr: dated May' 10, 1991
Dear Mr. Martin:
In the referenced letter, you requested a response within thirty days of May 10, 1991, addressing two areas regarding the above subject.
~
This letter is intenried to be responsive to your request.
1.
Provide the basis for the employment action regarding the former employee and include a copy of any ' investigation reports you have regarding the circumstances of the action.
The individual in question was a contract Health Physics technician. employed by Applied Radiological Control (ARC) at Fort St.
Vrain.
Themt 165 y
tamudukumamennenethi'Yll Tfl All -of these individuals were released'as a result of the inability. of Fort St.
Vrain to begin shipments of spent reactor fuel to Idaho as scheduled in early - February.
N ?'
lIFdetts1Mi%releassathtpacMidad18119aBEF
- E N 9R! M i$d M 1FS*'
The indi/idual involved asserts that he was released because of a brief conversation he had with -Quality Assurance personnel on March 14, 1991. As I have stated, l~..._., _:.s 4004#480heeSM1e464..thI$ Contr4ct Hea1thJ)W6(shM443g, asJwasn Me.other fourucontractsNealWs*wehrt448 =
techniciena.edad, already. been.made w.pssteegy.as wi.4htae catweneet6eeweer: batistg.: place..
9412120256 940112 '
PDR FOIA (j Z OMALLEY93-600 PDR
1 P-91192 Page 2 June 10, 1991 With respect to your request for investigative reports, material prepared at the request of our legal counsel cannot be released at the current time.
As an alternative, I suggest that we continue our discussions on the status of this matter with the Senior Resident Inspector, Mr. J. B.
Baird. We have been advised that the hearing date before an administrative law judge of the Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, has been scheduled for July 11, 1991.
ggg64 y
$7.
p
' M Z') h.,
..)
^
'm, 2.
Describe 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.
As you know, safety is the first core value of Nuclear Operations at Fort St.
Vrain.
To this end, Nuclear i
Directive 10 of the Fort St. Vrain Conduct of Business Manual, " Employee Stop-Work Authority," has been formally in i
place since October 25, 1990, and delineates the following:
"Each Nuclear Operations employee will comply with all Fort St. Vrain Safety Policies and Procedural requirements.
If it is determined that you cannot comply, or you must go beyond the procedural requirements, then the job will be i
stopped until satisfactorily resolved.
Moreover, if an J
individual observes unsafe work practices / conditions or unauthorized deviations from procedures, that individual must notify the individuals involved and ask that the job be stopped."
Nuclear Directive 10 has been an effective neans for clarifying my expectation for employees to exercise their responsibility to "stop work."
In no case has any employee experienced negative consequences as a result of following the requirements of this directive.
Lh r.
'P-91192 Page 3 June 10, 1991 Following the allegation by the individual that he was released from Fort St. Vrain for raising perceived safety
- issues, I personally informed employees at one of my meetings held in late. March that the individual in question was not released for raising perceived safety, issues and reiterated the requirements in Nuclear Directive 10 as described above.
This subject has also been discussed at Health Physics staff meetings on March 29, and April 1,
1991.
At the latter
- meeting, the Quality Assurance inspector involved attended and stated that, in his opinion, the issues raised were not safety issues, but rather productivity issues.
In addition to the above actions, I sent a memo to all Nuclear Operations employees on April 18, 1991, restating my position with respect to the responsibility of each individual to raise perceived safety issues. A copy of this memo is enclosed for your information.
Nuclear Operations management has continued to reiterate the Fort St. Vrain position with respect to the reporting of perceived safety issues.
It is my observation that there has been no chilling effect as a result of the employment action taken with respect to the contract Health Physics technicians.
As you are aware, we have implemented a Service Excellence program within Nuclear Operations.
The three key points of our program are improved communications, enhanced trust, and a customer focus.
I have met personally with all employees in Nuclear Operations to discuss these issues, and we have established task teams to address barriers in the areas of communications and empowerment.
I believe that communications and trust have improved as a result of our Service Excellence initiatives, and that employees continue to feel free to openly discuss any concerns with the management staff.
P-91192 Page 4 June 10, 1991 i
My management staff and I will continue to monitor this very important area as we proceed with the defueling and decommissioning of Fort St. Vrain.
Sincerely, j
Ghe W J/E/sA.C'.dwww.
A. Clegg Crawford Vice President, Nuclear Operations ACC/FJ8:bj Enclosures cc: Regional Enforcement Officer l'