ML20196F660

Discusses Investigation Rept 3-97-040 Re Apparent Violation Involving Util Discriminating Against One Employee Contacting NRC About Various safety-related Issues.Violation Being Considered for Escalated Ea.Synopsis Encl

ML20196F660
Person / Time
Site:	Clinton
Issue date:	11/10/1998
From:	Dapas M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	Walter MacFarland ILLINOIS POWER CO.
References
EA-98-464, NUDOCS 9812070098
Download: ML20196F660 (5)

Text

)

• 1

<p UNITED STATES '

1. g %q% NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 8 o REGION lil d* y 801 WARRENvlLLE RoAo

% LISLE. ILUNOts 60532-4351

?: r ' *~ r1 1

November 10,I<998J D ();j EA 98-464 iUDLIC 000U%,7 g Mr. Walter G. MacFariand, IV Senior Vice President Clinton Power Station i

I!!inois Power Company Mail Code V-275 ,

P. O. Box 678 Clinton,IL 61727

SUBJECT:

NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS REPORT NO. 3-97-040

Dear Mr. MacFarland:

\

This letter is in reference to an apparent violation of the NRC requirement prohibiting discrimination against employees who engage in protected activities, i.e.,10 CFR 50.7, .

" Employee Protection." The apparent violation involves the Illinois Power Company (IPC) I discriminating against one of its employees at the Clinton Power Station.

On May 6,1997, an IPC representative advised the NRC resident inspectors that a potential violation of 10 CFR 50.7 existed at the Clinton Station, and the NRC Office of Investigations (OI) conducted an investigation of the matter. The investigation determined that during the approximate period of December 1996 to January 1997, a supervisor in the Clinton Quality j Verification (QV) Department discriminated against a QV inspector in retaliation for the i' inspector's previous contacts with the NRC about safety-related issues known to the QV department. The QV supervisor did not select the inspector for a promotion due, in part, to the inspector's earlier discussions with the NRC. A copy of the Ol report synopsis is encio. sed (Enclosure 1).

IPC also conducted an investigation into the matter. As a result of the IP investigation, the  ;

inspector was retroactively promoted and the supervisor was disciplined. 1 Based on the results of the investigations, an apparent violation was identified and is being /

considered for escalated enforcement action in accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions"(Enforcement Policy), NUREG-1600. The /

circumstances surrounding the apparent violation, the significance of the issue, and the need for lasting and effective corrective action were discussed with you on November 5,1998. As a result, it is not necessary to conduct a predecisional enforcement conference in order for the NRC to make an enforcement decision This letter supersedes the NRC's letter dated October 29,1998, and the predecisional enforcement conference scheduled .ar December 3, '] .

1998, in the NRC Region ill office is cancelled. py Before the NRC makes its enforcement decision, we are providing you an opportunity to either (1) respond to the apparent violations addressed in this inspection report within 30 days of the date of this letter..or (2) request a predecisional enforcement conference. If a conference is held, it will be closed to public observation. Please contact Mr. James Gavula at 9812070098 981110 PDR ADOCK 05000461 -

G PDR

m e

W. MacFarland (630) 829-9755 within seven days of the date of this lettar to notify the NRC of your intended response. Should you choose to respond in writing, your response should be clearly marked as a " Response to An Apparent Violation in Office of Investigations Report No. 3-97-040." Your written reply or predecisional conference presentation should include

(1) the reason for the apparent violation, or, if contested, the basis for disputing the apparent violation, (2) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved, (3) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations, and (4) the date when full compliance will be achieved. The NRC e!so asks that you respond to the issues outlined in Enclosure 2. Your written response should be submitted under oath or affirmation and may reference or include previous docketed correspondence,if the correspondence adequately addresses the required response. If an adequate response is not received within the time specified or an extension of time has not been granted by the NRC, the NRC will proceed with its enforcement decision.

In addition, please be advised that the number and characterization of the apparent viciations may change as a result of further NRC review. You will be advised by separate correspondence of the results of our deliberations on this matter.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, its enclosures, and your response (if you choose to provide one) will be placed in the NRC Public Documant Room (PDR). To the extent possible, your response should not include any personal privacy, oroprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be placed in the PDR without

, redaction.

Sincerely, Marc L. Dapas, Deputy Director Division of Reactor Projects Docket No. 50-461 License No. NPF-62

Enclosures:

1. Ol Report Synopsis l 2. List of Issues I cc w/encts: G. Hunger, Station Manager R. Phares, Manager, Nuclear Safety and Performance Improvement J. Sipek, Director - Licensing M. Aguilar, Assistant Attorney General G. Stramback, Regulatory Licensing Services Project Manager General Electric Company Chairman, DeWitt County Board State Liaison Officer Chairman, Illinois Commerce Commission

t , -

i

{r l

l W. MacFarland r 1-DISTRIBUTION:

l PUBLIC IE-01 SECY CA WTravers, EDO MKnapp, DEDE LChandler, OGC

, JGoldberg, OGC SCollins, NRR RZimmerman, NRR l Enforcement Coordinators Rl, Ril and RIV Resident inspector, Clinton JHopkins, NRR (Licensing Project Manager)

! JGilliland, OPA HBell, OlG GCaputo, Of TMartin, AEOD OE:ES OE:EA (2) l . RAO:Rlli l SLO: Rill l PAO:Rlll

! OCFO/LFARB w/o encl.

DRP

' Docket File RPaul, OI:Rlli '

l Rlli Allegation Coordinator t

i i

l l

l 1

i-i

EA 98-464 Enclosure 1 Synopsis 01 Case No. 3-97-040 This investigttion was initiated by the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Office of Investigations, Region lil, on October 28,1997, to determine if a Quality Verification (QV)

Inspector at the Clinton Power Station (CPS) was discriminated against for bringing safety concerns to the NRC.

Based on the evidence developed during this investigation, it is concluded that the QV inspector at CPS was discriminated against by her supervisor for raising safety concerns to the NRC.

Also, based on the evidence developed during this investigation, it is concluded that the QV Inspector was not the subject of continued discrimination for bringing safety concerns to the NRC.

i

r ~

. EA 98-464 Enclosure 2 l Issues Please,

{

A. Describe the near term actions taken by the Quality Assurance Director to address the I apparent violation during the period April 10 to May 2,1997; l

B. Describe the near term actions taken by the Human Resources Department to address ,

the apparent violation during the period April 11 to May 2,1997; l C. Describe the job reference Illinois Power Company will give should the company receive l an inquiry about the employment of the former quality verification supervisor; D. Describe the Illinois Power Company's position regarding whether the actions affecting

! this individual violated 10 CFR 50.7 and the basis for your position; E. Describe the actions the Illinois Power Company has already taken or plans to take to assure that this matter is not having a chilling effect on the willingness of other employees to raise safety and compliance concems within your organization; and F. Formally submit on the docket the information contained in the Illinois Power Company's  !

l letter to the NRC dated August 25,1997. 1 We recognize that you may not believe that unlawful discrimination has occurred. Regardless of your answer to item D above, we request that you consider the need to address the possible chilling effect that an ongoing issue of this type may have on other employees.

l 1

I 1

l l

l 4

w 4

_