ML20154E401

Partially Deleted Response to Request for Review of Transcript of OIG Interview with Alleger (Former SONGS Employee).Believes That There Was Insufficient Indication of Section 50.7 Violation to Merit Further Investigation

ML20154E401
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	02/12/1997
From:	Brown W NRC
To:	Wise R NRC
Shared Package
ML20154D336	List: IR 05000361/1995010 ML20154D331 ML20154D348 ML20154E396 ML20154E401 ML20154E473 ML20154E478
References
FOIA-98-183 NUDOCS 9810080171
Download: ML20154E401 (2)

Text

. -- - ._

ggCEW EO CV O From: Willia Brown,. M To- RXW - NAM lu(I./

l 9'l ffO gg p}\@ N Date: 2/12 97 10:4Bam Subjects Discrimination Allegation: Former SONGS Employee,OI 4-96-056 Russ, pursuant to your request, I have reviewed the transcript of OI's interview with the subject alleger. The alleger was a senior engineer at SONGS. pisjemployment was terminated by Southern California Edison do%3any in M as par.trof a ,

l general RIF which included 3 engineers, one of them bein he alleger, who were all at the same level in the all I W The permanent positions within the were apparently abolished while the temporary contractor positions ,

! were retained. l l

Sincetheallegerwaseligibleforearlyretirement,hwasgiven the retirement package for which; was eligible. In addition, h was offered 51 weeks of sala signed a release.

se not to sign the release, 'wapoferedonly8weeksofIfgey s

salary. The release did not pre ude A from making any nuclear safety complaints. The alleger signe .e release and took the l

better package. flednow contends that employment termination was in retali.atidTM or havi raised sa ginning two years earlier about the I furthercontendedthathe]washarassedafter issues in that ra sed t e safety periodic appra o wasappraisedasbeing"beowstandard"inpig although this appraisal was subsequently upgraded to a " standard" appraisal.

Basically, other than ki suspicions, the alleger offered no evidence that the claihe discrimination was in retaliation for

$isiearlier indicated as protected,hia much tg tivity Itnor is did noted, {e} Ts claim that anyone a matter of even

, information, that the eger filed a Sec. 211 complaint with DOL and h 'was turned down at the district level and in a subsequent Rec nded Order and Decision by the AL7.

In my opinion, there is not a sufficient indication of a Sec.

50.7 violation to merit further investigation of this matter.

Please let me know if I may be of any further assistance. Bill CC: JED2, ELW1 i

l

( 9810080171 980930 '

PDR FOIA KNUDSON98-183 PDR EXHIBIT 7 4-96-U56 CASENO. / /

Page / of / pages l  % 00400l /

e l ,

1 EXHIBIT 10 Information in this record was deleted in accordance with the freedom of Information Act, exemptions f6 F0lA 9 f - / 78 UHIBM CASEtl0. 4-96-056 -

$ ) a