ML20154F467
| ML20154F467 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 03/18/1988 |
| From: | Butterfield L COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | Davis A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20154F448 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8805230250 | |
| Download: ML20154F467 (2) | |
Text
me j
C< & Y lp,,,,_..V< m. Z
/
N Comm:nwealth Edison
[
O V One First N1 onat Plaza. Chcago. Uhnois O 7 Address R ply to Pos: Offee Box 767 1
i j Chicago,10:00s 60690 0767 n
/
M /(
March 18, 1988 i'd j %
tu s
b---
h Mr. A. Bert Davis g
e Regional Administrator FIL Ed_s/
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III
~199 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, IL. 60137
Subject:
Byron Station Pipefitter Complaint Regarding Termination of Employment NRC Dockets 50-454 and 50-455
Reference:
Letter from K.A. Ainger to A. Bert Davis dated November 9, 1987
Dear Mr. Davis:
This letter provides supplemental information concerning the termination of a Hunter Corporation Pipefitter at Byron Station (NRC allegation 87/A-0050).
This information was requested at a meeting held on February 1, 1988 in your offices with Mr. L.D. Butterfield and other Commonwealth Edison (Edison) representatives.
The information discussed below was developed through conversations held with Edison Project and Construction Services personnel and the Hunter Corporation (Hunter) project Manager.
Termination of the pipefitter occurred immediately after the event which took place on March 28, 1987, as discussed in the referenced letter.
The pipefitter had a history of minor work problems so that, when the Hunter project manager was called late at night about the pipefitter's refusal to work on March 28, the decision to terminate him was considered to be a logical evolution to the Hunter project manager.
There was no discussion of radiological concerns at that time. The pipefitter filed for unemployment compensation and, when refused, filed a complaint with the Department of Labor.
The complaint was dropped and Hunter agreed not to contest the unemployment compensation request in early May, 1987.
Because there was a lapse of over a month between the event and the radiological concein, no immediate specific actions were taken by Hunter to look for any "chilling" effects or to develop any extra documentation concerning the pipefitter's termination. As discussed in the referenced report, subsequent interviews were held with the terminated pipefitter's foreman, the shift pipefitter steward, and a co-worker (journeyman pipefitter).
They wera *sked if they believed that the termination of the 8805230200 8805i6 PDR ADOCK 0500 4
P
e pipefitter would affect their ability to raise a radiological concern or other issues to the attention of their superiors. All interviewed indicated that the termination of this pipefitter would not affect their abilities to raise concerns. Based on these interviews, the Hunter project saanager, in concert with the Edison project and construction services construction manager, concluded that there was no "chilling" effect.
As a result of the request for supplemental information, the Hunter project manager has determined that there are presently five pipefitters, on the shift at the time of the event, still at the Byron site.
- t. meeting has been held with them by the Hunter project manager and they concur that there was no "chilling" effect. Notes from the interview are in the Hunter files.
There are no other co-workers available to be interviewed.
I hope that this information respond adequately to your questions.
If you have further guestions, please contact me.
Very truly yours, d
j L. D. Butterfield Nuclear Licensing Manager
/klj cc:
W.
Forney-RIII NRC Resident Inspector-Byron 4374K
.