ML20155H085

Requests Response Providing Basis for Employment Action Re Employee & Copy of Investigation Repts Concerning Employee Reassignment Due to Raising Safety Concerns While Performing Duties as Plant

ML20155H085
Person / Time
Site:	Fermi
Issue date:	05/27/1988
From:	Davis A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	Sylvia B DETROIT EDISON CO.
References
NUDOCS 8806200185
Download: ML20155H085 (4)

Text

DC 0 UNITED STATES I

.. ,p 6 4 e# 88!Og',, NUCLEAR REdULATORY COMMisslON (J /

g S nEcion m o

U a f 799 ROOSEVELT ROAD otan attvu,itunOis soin f

f

• • • • • May 27, 1988 Docket No. 50-341 AMS No. RIII-83-A-0001 The Detrcit Edison Company ATTN: B. Mlph Sylvia Group Vice President Nuclear Operations 6400 North Dixie Highway Newport, MI 48166 Gentlemen:

On April 7,1988, the U. S. Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division in Grand Rapids, Michigan, received a complaint from an employee of Detroit Edison Company. The former employee alleged that he was improperly reassigned because he had raised safety concerns while performing his duties at the Enrico Fenai Nuclear Plant. In response to that complaint, the Wage and Hour Division conducted an investigation, and in the enclosed letter dated May 4, 1988, the Area Director of the Wage and Hour Division found that the evidence obtained during the Division's investigation indicated that the employee was engaged in a protected activity within the ambit of the Energy Reorganization Act and that discrimination as defined and prohibited by the statute was a factor in the actions which comprised his complaint.

The NRC is concerned that a violation of the employee protection provisions set forth in 10 CFR 50.7 may have occurred and that the actions taken against the employee may have had a 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 response which:

1. Provides the basis for the employment action regarding the employee and includes a copy of any investigation reports you have regarding the circumstances of the action; and

2. Describes the actions, i# any, taken or planned to assure that this l

employment action does not have a chilling effect in discouraging other licensee or contractor employees from raising perceived safety Concerns.

i After reviewing your response, the NRC will determine whether enforcement action is necessary at this time to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.

In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," Part 2, l

Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter will be placed l in the NRC Public Document Room.

8806200185 890527 PDR ADOCK 05000341 P DCD

The Detroit Edison Company 2 May 27, 1988 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, h O&

A. Bert Davis Regional Administrator Enc 1osure: As. stated cc w/ enclosure:

Patricia Anthony, Licensing P. A. Marquardt, Corporate Legal Department

. DC.0/DCB.1(RIDS)'

Licensing Fee Management Branch Resident Inspector, RIII Ronald Callen, Michigan Public Service Conunission Harry H. Voight, Esq.

Michigan Department of Public Health Honroe County Office of Civil Preparedness i

l

ep Employment Standards Adr. ..stration

'U.S. Department of Loar Wage and Mcur Division

. , j ,1 2920 Fuller N.E. Suite 100

• Grand Rapids, >1ichigan 49505-3409 \ . ,, ,'",,, /

616/456-21S3 Reply to the Attention of: DHO:pm

}!ay 4, 1988

}!r. Ralph Sylvia Vice President Nuclear Operations Detroit Edison Company 6400 N. Dixie Highway Newport, ?!ichigan 48166 RE: Jaafar >!. Hanka vs.

Detroit Edison Company

Dear ?!r. Sylvia:

Th is letter is to notify-you of the results of our compliance actions in the above case. As you know Jaafar >!. Hamka filed a complaint with the Secretary of Labor under the Energy Reorgani::ation Act (ERA) on April 6, 1988.

A copy of the complaint, a copy of Regulations, 29 CFR Part 24, and a copy of the pertinent section of the statute were furnished in a previous letter from this office.

Our initial ef forts to conciliate the matter revealed that the parties would not at that time reach a mutually agreeable settlement. An investigation was then conducted. Based on our investigation, the weight of evidence to date indicates that Jaafar bl. Hamka was a protected employee engaging in a protected activity with the ambit of the Energy Reorganization Act, and that discrimination as defined and prohibited by the statute was a factor in the actions which comprise his complaint. The following disclosures were persuasive in this determination:

>!r. Hamka received a less than satisfactory performance appraisal and loss of job responsibilities after expressing concerns regarding certain procedures in his department and indicating that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would be l

contacted regarding the matter. After contacting the Nuclear l

Regulatory Commission, Fir. Hamka was forced to go on medical I leave because of dif ficult working conditions.

t This letter will notify you that the following actions are required to abate l the violation and provide eppropriate relief:

1 l

l Reinstatement to Mr. Hamka of the job responsibilities of the position of lead engineer; and reissuance of his performance appraisal with a satisfactory rating with the appropriate pay raise based upon this rating.

l NAY6 ssp 'n

)BQGBf 9000/

ifg@

F[ . . ;.5.; 5

,." g,.'. ..

s -? .

( r'e' _e ..

2 May 4, 1988:

Detroit Edison Company

.This letter.will also notify you that if you wish to appeal the above findings . and remedy, you have a right to a formal hearing on the record.

To. exercise this ~ right ,you must, within' five (5) calendar days of receipt .

of this let er, file your request for a heatir.g by telegram to:

The Chief Administrative Law Judge U.S. Department of Labor Suite 700, Vanguard Building Illi - 20th Street NW Washington, D.C. 20036 Unless a telegram request is received by the Chief Administrative Law Judge within the five-day period,- this notice of determination and remedial action will. become final order of the Secretary of Labor. By copy of this letter I am advising Jaafar M. Hamka of the determination and right to a hearing.

A copy of this letter and the complaint have also been sent to the Chief Administrative Law Judge. If you decide to request a hearing it will be necessary to send copies of the telegram to Jaafar M. Hamka and to me at 2920 Fuller N.E. Suite 100, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 49505-3409, telephone 616/456-2183. ' After 'I receive the copy of your request, appropriate preparations for the hearing can be made. If you have any questions do not hesitate to call me.

It should be made clear to all parties that the role of the Department of

-Labor is not to represent the parties in any hearing. The Department would be neutral in'such a hearing which is simply part of the fact-development process, and only allows the parties an opportunity to present evidence for the record. If there is 'a hearing, an Order of the Secretary shall be based upon the record made at said hearing, and shall either provide appropriate relief or deny the complaint.

Sincerely, i Opsq,b k. bLY .

Daniel H. Ocharzak Area Director cc: -Jaafar M. Hamka Atty Ronald Reosti Atty Stanlev Stazinski

@ uclear Regulatory Conun % J

,