ML20205C257
| ML20205C257 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 05/16/1995 |
| From: | Uryc B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Merschoff E NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205B966 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-99-76 NUDOCS 9904010126 | |
| Download: ML20205C257 (3) | |
Text
r
/pm arc 0g,'o, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7'
REGloN 11 e
101 MARIETTA STREET. N.W.. SUITE 2900 j
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 303234199 8
g-.....,o May 16, 1995 HEMORANDUM T0:
E. Herschoff, DRP FROM:
B. Uryc, Director, EICS
SUBJECT:
01 REPORT N0. 2-93-030, BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT:
ALLEGED DEMOTION OF STONE AND WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION (SWEC) GENERAL FOREMAN FOR EXPRESSING FIRE PROTECTION CONCERNS (ALGTN.NO. RII-93-A-0096)
The enclosed 01 report is provided for your review. 01 closed this case finding that SWEC did not discriminate against a alleger for engaging in protected activity.
By memo dated December 22, 1994, the Office of Enforcement (0E) informed the Regional Administrator that a review of the case indicated that enforcement action was not warranted.
It is my view that this case should be closed without further action.
I have also enclosed a letter to the licensee that transmits the OI report synopsis and advises the licensee that we plan no action.
If you do not have a different view regarding closure, we will close the case.
i i
Attachment:
01 Report 2-93-030 I
cc w/o att:
- 0. DeMiranda 7
,g 4 e
A. Ignatonis y
L. Watson k
M. Lesser 1
e l' f
(
~
9904010126 990324 L'
PDR FOIA ff (f./OL, OUNTER99-76 PDR
rs May 24,1995 FACT SHEET l
FOR DISCRIMINATION CASES 1
COMPLAINANT [ COMP]: HARRISON, DOUGLAS ERA NO.: 93-ERA-44 LICENSEE / FACILITY: TVA/ BROWNS FERRY CONTRACTOR: STONE & WEBSTER DESCRIPTION OF PROTECTED ACTIVITY: COMP was
.,eral Foreman and identified concerns related to fire protection at the faci.
and the fact that Stone
& Webster were not adhering to fire protection require. ants.
I DESCRIPTION OF ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION: COMP was demoted from General Foreman to Foreman ostensibly because of a cut back. COMP did not want to go to a foreman position because it would have meant that one OF his two foreman would be demoted. COMP requested that he be cut back to laborer.
l DATE OF DISCRIMINATION: 04/02/93 DATE OF COMPLAINT: 03/30/93 DATE COMPLAINT RECEIVED BY DOL: 05/17/93 LICENSEE'S EXPLANATION OF ACTION:
DISCUSSION:
ACTIONS TAKEN TO MAKE COMPLA!NANT WHOLE:
CULPABLE LICENSEE MANAGER (S) [CLM]: Contractor supervisors were i
l Wayne Tennyson, Steve Ehele, Joe Fonte, and Butts.
ACTIONS TAKEN AGAINST CLM: After raising safety concerns to TVA management and the NRC associated with the inappropriate fire watches in the drywell, the COMP was demoted from general foreman to fnreman; however, he chose to be reduced to a journeyman.
SETTLED: N/A DATE SETTLED: N/A i
J
[
THIS DCCLuENT CONTAINS FRE.CCCISIONAL INFORMATION l
17 CAN NOT BE RELEASED OUTSIDE THE NRC i
WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE trC10NAL ADMIN!STRATOR A[
9 L
[
k SETTLEMENT CONDITIONS: N/A DISTRICT DIRECTOR'S DECISION: On 06/16/93, DD found "It is felt that Stone &
Webster Engineering Corporation has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that your reassignment was found to be part of a normal reassignment of personnel due to work load and manpower requirements and that same action would have taken place in absence of the ' protected activity' you alleged occurred."
DOL ALJ DECISION: On 11/21/94, the ALJ issued an order recommending dismissal of the case. The decision stated that in consideration of all of the evidence the COMP failed to set forth a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge.
Although the COMP was demoted and transferred to an outside work crew, the COMP failed to prove that his protected activity was the likely reason. The ALJ determined that the demotion was based on a legitimate, non-discriminatory manpower review and was, in part, due to the COMP's opting to take a Journeyman position rather than the foreman on another crew. In addition, the transfer to an outside crew, if not made at the COMP's request, was a result of the COMP's unprotected activities (i.e., assembling of iron workers causing a work stoppage) i J
SECRETARY OF LABOR DECISION:
1 DOL ALJ REVISED DECISION ar AerticAstr>:
NRC ACTIONS TAKEN:
DISCUSSED WITH Ol?: 01 opened and investigation under Case No. 2 030. On 12/15/94, the report was issued and the allegation of discrimination was not substantiated.
CHILLING EFFECT LETTER (CEL] SENT?: No. 01 Report Synopsis sent the licensee on 5/17/95.
)
ENFORCEMENT ACTION ISSUED nucworre no./: No. In a 12/22/94 memorandum Gray to Ebneter, et. al., OE recommended that enforcement action was not appropriate for this case.
CLOSEOUT ACTION tornes inAntnronceuturi-REMARKS:
THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS FRE DECISIOhAL INFORMATION IT CAN NOT BE RELEASED OUTSIDE THE NRC W!T CJT T&E APr#0 VAL OF THE REG 10NAL ADMINISTRATOR 1