ML20154F445

Informs That Allegation RIII-87-A-0050 Considered Closed Based on Encl Submittals Concluding That Alleger Was Fired for Just Cause.No Violations of NRC Requirements Identified

ML20154F445
Person / Time
Site:	Byron
Issue date:	05/16/1988
From:	Forney W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	Reed C COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
Shared Package
ML20154F448	List: ML20154F445 ML20154F467
References
NUDOCS 8805230238
Download: ML20154F445 (1)

Text

l oco  !

1 MAY t 61988 i

l Docket No. 50-454 Docket No. 50-455 Commonwealth Edison Company i ATTN: Mr. Cordell Reed i Senior Vice President i Post Office Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 l Gentlemen-L We have reviewed your submittals regarding an allegation which we received and l forwarded to you by letter dated October 8,1987 (attached), and for which we requested supplemental information in a meeting on February 1, 1988. The alle- ,

gation concerned the complaint of a former pipe fitter (contractor employee), l who alleged that his employment at Byron Nuclear Station was terminated because he raised safety concerns while performing his duties. Your attached responses, dated November 9, 1987 and March 18, 1988, document your conclusions that the l alleger was fired for just cause, that he did not raise radiological concerns at the time of his employment was tenninated, and that there was no resulting "chilling effect" for other workers at Byron. No violations of NRC requirements ,

were identified. Weconsiderthisallegation(RIII-87-A-0050) closed. '

Sincerely.

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY W. L FORNEY William L. Forney, Chief c Reactor Projects Branch 1 Attachments: As stated cc w/ attachments:

T. J. Maiman, Vice President, PWR Operations H. Bliss, Nuclear Licensing Manager R. Pleniewicz, Station Manager DCD/DCB (RIDS)

Licensing Fee Management Branch Resident Inspector, RIII Byron Resident Inspector, RIII Braidwood D. W. Cassel, Jr., Esq.

Richard Hubbard J. W. McCaffrey, Chief, Public Utilities Division Diane Chavez, DAARE/ SAFE L. Olshan, NRR LPM H. S. Taylor, Quality Assurance Division pbg e

RIII RIII jos RIII RIII RIII ekle/jp ch Ms F 05230238 800516 M 4"N p

R ADOCK 05000454 I/(f PDR

O 00T 8 19 9 Docket No. 50-451 Docket No( @

Comonwealth Edison Company ATTN: Mr. Cordell Reed Senior Vice President Post Office Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Gentlemen:

On April 27, 1987, the U. S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Wage and Hour Division in Madison, Wisconsin, re;eived a complaint from a former pipe fitter who had been employed by a Commonwealth Edison Company contractor.

The former pipe fitter alleged that his employment at Byron Nuclear Station was terminated because he raised safety concerns while perforrning his duties.

In response to that complaint, the Wage and Hour Division arranged a mutually agreeable settlement between the pipe fitter and Hunter Corporation, the contractor.

Notwithstanding this settlement, the NRC is concerned that a violation of the employee protection provisions set forth in 10 CFR 50.7 may have occurred.

Regardless of whether or not a violation of 10 CFR 50.7 occurred, the NRC needs assurance that the actions taken against the forTner inspector have not had any "chilling" effect on other licensee or contractor personnel.

Therefore, you are requested to provide this office, within 30 days of the date of this letter, a written statement, signed under oath or affinnation, which:

1. Provides the basis for terminating the employment of the former inspector and includes a copy of any investigation report you have regarding the circumstances of the terminatior., and j

2. Describes the actions taken or planned to assure that this termination does not have a "chilling" effect in discouraging other licensee or contractor employees from raising perceived safety concerns.

Af ter reviewing your response, the NRC will determine whether enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.

In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NF.C's "Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.

@ (n{ C3 E,c a .:/ 9

_- / Off on- , u .nn w w

a s Corronwedith Edison Company 2 9CT 8 19 0 The response requested by this letter is not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. No.96-511.

Sincerely, f V

/. A. Bert Davis

' Regional Administrator cc: T. J. Maiman, Vice President PWR Operations D. Butterfield, Nuclear Licensing Manager i R. E. Querio, Plant Manager DCD/DCB (RIDS)

Licensing Fee Management Branch Resident Inspector, Rill Byron Resident inspector, Rlll Braidwood D. W. Cassel, Jr., Esq.

Richard Hubbard J. W. McCaffrey, Chief, Public Utilities Division Diane Chavez , DMRE/ SAFE L. Olshar., NRR LPM H. 5. Taylor, Quality Assurance Division I

1 69 Rlli b 1 RIII D

Rlll o -. 'tf1 R11 RIl S. was g,c a Ver.Sicile/jr Hirds f o r r.ey Nge R . '1 f

R11

s. us Green.ar- .1 ot, P is f 'i+

. t'le (clc31;_,

.  % Qd71M/:? QW vhM

Comm:nwealth Edis:n

• One Far NaSone' Piaza Chogo Dnos CT Add ess Reply to Pos' QMc/ Boa 767 Chape. Enos 60690 0767 November 9, 1987 Mr. A. Bert Davis Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission .

Region III i 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, IL 60137

Subject:

Byron Station Units 1 and 2 Pipefitter Ccroplaint Regarding Termin3 tion of Employment NRC Docket Nos. 50-454 and 50-455

Dear Mr. Davis:

This is in response to your letter of October 8,1987 requesting Commonwealth Edison to provide information regarding the employment termination of a pipefitter. This pipefitter was employed by Hunter Corporation, a mechanical contractor at Byron Station.

determined Ccramonwealth that the actions Edison has reviewed this matter in detail and of Hunter Corporation were appropriate and did not violate 10 CPR 50.7. In addition, our review has concluded that the circumstances of this termination do not appear to create the potential for a

• chilling" effect on other workers at Byron Station.

Enclosed with this letter is our response to your questions concerning the basis for termination of the employee and the potential for the "chilling" effect.

To the best of my knowledge and belief, the statements contained in this letter and enclosure are true and correct. In some respect these statements are not based on my personal knowledge, but obtained information furnished by other Commonwealth Edison managers or contractor employees.

Such information has been reviewed in accordance with Ccepany practice, and I believe it to be reliable.

Please direct any further questions regarding this matter to this office.

Very truly yours, Ca K. A. Ainger Nuclear Licensing Administrator Enclosure SUBSCRIBED and SVgRN to befor me this '/ *- day of L O L' r { l-t i ,, 1987

( Dik f 0:f Notary'public \

3625K '

1 1

BWCLOSURE l

l 1

. I l

Question 8)

Provide the basis for terminating the employment of the former inspector and include a copy of any investigation report you have regarding the circumstances of the termination.

Response

The person who filed the complaint with the Department of Labor was employed on the night shift by the Hunter Corporation in the capacity of a pipefitter workman, not an inspector. The circumstances surrounding this termination are explained as follows: On March 28, 1987, the crew to which this pipefitter belonged was assigned to work in the Byron Unit I containment building. Members of the crew were directed to wait outside the missile shield wall while the crew foreman went to check the status of scaffolding at the specific work location. When the foreman returned, this pipefitter was not present with the remaining crew members. The pipefitter was eventually found in the construction worker lunch room. At this time, he was asked by his foreman whether he planned to return to work for the balance of the shift. He indicated he would not be working anymore that shift, but would be returning on Monday night, his next scheduled shift, if he still had a job. At this time, the Hunter Corporation project Manager was contacted at home ar.d agreed that this pipefitter should be terminated for refusing to work and failing to follow his foreman's instructions.

Although the pipefitter states in his letter to the Department of Labor that he felt he was unjustly treated because he did not want to receive unnecessary radiation exposure, interviews with Hunter Corporation personnel show no evidence such concerns were raised to either his foreman or the general foreman during the preceding sequence of events.

This pipefitter had received Commonwealth Edison Nuclear General Employee Training (NGET) prior to working in radiation areas. Included in 1 this training is a detailed explanation of a radiation work permit (RWP), a document which informs the worker of the radiological conditions and <

protective equipment requirements for the job. This training emphasizes the l individual's responsibility to read, understand, and sign the RVP. The '

pipefitter was working under a Type II RWP for this containment job. He i signed the RWP on a daily basis and we have no indication that he was concerned with the radiological conditions associated with this job prior to signing the RWP.

Beyond the provisions of the RWP, the NGET course also describes an smployee's rights described in NRC Form 3. NRC Form 3 is posted throughout Byron Station.

We have no indication this pipefitter attempted to express his concern about unnecessary radiation exposure through the channels discussed cbove.

.. - .-- - - - . - . . _. . _ . - . 0

2 Question #2 Describe the actions taken or planned to assure that this termination does not have a "chilling

• effect in discouraging other licensee or contractor employees from raising perceived safety concerns.

E.e sffg.s.e Because the circumstances of this termination do not appear to create the potential for a "chilling" ef fect on other employees at Byron, commonwealth Edison plans to take no further actions on this matter. The circumstances supporting this conclusion are as follows:

The pipefitter was terminated for refusing to work and failing to follow instructions. At no time before writing to the Department of Labor did the pipefitter state that he had concerns regarding radiation exposure.

Thus, any fellow workers who may have witnessed the pipefitter's termination or who say have subsequently learned of it would have no reason to believe that the pipefitter's belated expression of concern for his personal safety was in fact the cause of his termination. Rather, the pipefitter's departure from the work site to the lunch room and his refusal to return to the work site would be the only reasons that fellow workers would be aware of as the reasons for the pipefitter's termination. Since those objectively observable actions of the pipefitter do not constitute protective behavior under 10 CFR 50.7, there would be no reason to believe that the pipefitter's fellow workers concluded that he was fired for raising safety concerns.

Accordingly, Commonwealth Edison believes that no further consideration of this matter is warranted.

Nothing about the settlement of this claim modifies the previous conclusion. The following description of that settlement shows that it did not involve any matters of protected activity. After his termination, the pipefit ter applied to the Illinois State Unemployment Fund for unemployment cocpensation benefits. The Fund, following its usual procedures, asked Hunter Corporation the reason for the pipefitter's termination. Hunt er Corporation, relying on the f acts stated above, reported that the pipefitter had been terminated for cause. Thereafter, the pipefitter and Hunter Corporation agreed to settle their differences by dropping their respective claims, i.e. the pipefitter withdrew his Section 210 claim in exchange for Hunter Corporation no longer contesting the pipefitter 's eligibility for .

unemployment compensation benefits. Nothing about this course of events l implicates any protected activities or in any way cause fellow workers, l assuming that they knew of these events, to experience a "chilling

• effect  ;

on their ability to raise perceived safety concerns.  ;

I 3625K

_ _ _ _ , __ . - _ . _ _ _