ML20205C649

Discusses Decision & Order,Issued on 950822 Which Found That Stone & Webster Engineering Corp Discriminated Against D Harrison & Forwards NOV Re Concerns Raised Concerning Firewatch Requirements

ML20205C649
Person / Time
Site:	Browns Ferry
Issue date:	02/14/1996
From:	Ebneter S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:	Kelly R STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORP.
Shared Package
ML20205B966	List: ML20205B960 ML20205C246 ML20205C251 ML20205C257 ML20205C267 ML20205C284 ML20205C290 ML20205C299 ML20205C338 ML20205C474 ML20205C491 ML20205C503 ML20205C537 ML20205C546 ML20205C563 ML20205C576 ML20205C599 ML20205C605 ML20205C613 ML20205C627 ML20205C642 ML20205C649 ML20205C658 ML20205C664 ML20205C704 ML20205C710 ML20205C719 ML20205C730 ML20205C740 ML20205D959 ML20205D965 ML20205D976 ML20205D987 ML20205E279 ML20205E291 ML20205E321 ML20205E326 ML20205E336 ML20205E359 ML20205K789
References
FOIA-99-76 EA-95-190, NUDOCS 9904010295
Download: ML20205C649 (3)

Text

3

[e ato\ t UNITED STATES t

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGloN 11  !

[ Q 101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W.. SUITE 2900 I

E ATLANTA, GEoPGlA 303234199 g, e

'% [, , g *

• oruary 14, 1996 EA 95-190 l Strae & Webster Engineering Corporation ATTN: Mr. R. E. Kelly l

President 245 Summer Street Boston, Massachusetts 02240

SUBJECT:

NOTICE OF VIOLATION (Department of Labor Case No. 93-ERA-044)

Dear Mr. Kelly On August 22, 1995, the Secretary of Labor issued a Decision and Order, in i Department of Labor (DOL) Case 93-ERA-044, which found that Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC) discriminated against Mr. Douglas Harrison, a former ironworker general foreman at Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, when Mr. Harrison was demoted because he raised concerns related to firewatch requirements. In addition, the Secretary of Labor found that the removal of Mr. Harrison to an outside work crew was also discriminatory and that Mr. Harrison's discussion with other ironworkers regarding management's lack of response to the fire protection concerns constituted protected activity. This Decision and Order overturned the DOL Administrative Law Judge's Recomended Decision and Order issued on November 8, 1994. The apparent violation and a copy of the Secretary of Labor's Decision and Order were transmitted to you by letter dated Octob & 18, 1995.

The information reviewed in this case included the record developed by the NRC Office of Investigations. A closed transcribed predecisional enforcement conference was conducted in the Region II office on October 30, 1995 to discuss the apparent violation, the root causes, and your corrective actions to preclude recurrence. The predecisional enforcement conference was a joint conference with TVA, SWEC, and the individual supervisor involved in this case. The report summarizing the conference we:. sent to you by letter dated November 8, 1995. '

Based on the Secretary of Labor's decision, the information developed during our review and the information you provided during the conference, the NRC has determined that a violation of NRC requirements occurred. The violation is

i. cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice). The violation involved i discrimination against Mr. Harrison by management above first line supervision. Under 10 CFR 50.7, discrimination by a contractor of a Comission licensee against an employee for engaging in activities protected by Section 211 of the Energy Reorganization Act (ERA) is prohibited. The activities which are protected include, but are not limited to, reporting of' safety concerns by an employee to his employer.

A While discrimination against any person for engaging in protected activities l is cause for concern to the NRC, this . violation is considered to be a ,

\

s

~

9904010295 990324 ,

PDR FOIA >

QUN ,

,TER,99-7.6

- , PDR m ,

V L .

SWEC significant regulatory concern because it involved discrimination a employee by management substantially above first line supervision. gainst an

' During the conference, your staff denied the violation. The Secretary'of Labor disagreed with your argument that Mr. Harrison did not engage in protected activity when he communicated the fire protection concerns of his crewfire TVA to your Chiefmanager.

protection Construction Supervisor after discussing the issue with the The NRC concurs with the Secretary of Labor's

. final Decision and Order in this case finding that actions taken against Mr.

Harrison were in retaliation for his having raised safety concerns. We cor:clude that the facts support the conclusion that your Chief Construction Supervisor violated the regulations applicable to employee protection in the wrongful demotion and transfer of Mr. Harrison.

Therefore, I have been authorized, after consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, and the Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Regional Operations and Research, to issue the enclosed Notice categorized at a Severity Level II to emphasize the importance of ensuring that empoyees who raise real or perceived safety concerns are not subject to discrimaation for raising those concerns and that every effort is made to provide an environment in which all employees may freely identify safety concerns without fear of retaliation or discrimination.

During the conference, your staff described those actions taken by SWEC as a result of this complaint was violation. Those filed included: actions taken in 1993 after Mr. Harrison's (1) a review by the SWEC em representative of the fire protection technical concerns;ployee concerns (2) a memorandum from SWEC management advising supervisors and managers of their responsibilities in the area of employee protection; (3) discussion at tool box safetymeetings and 4 concerns; in the SWEC " Heads Up" Bulletin of employee rights to raise of the employee co(nc) erns program; and (5) discussion of craft union awareness of methods to report concerns during a meeting with union representatives.

SWEC also conducted additional periodic surveys, issued memoranda to their staff, and included information on the employee concerns programs in meetings with their staff with the most recent mr.eting occurring after the Secretary of Labor's Decision and Order.

You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructtons specified in the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice) when preparing your response, in your response, you should document the specific actions taken and any additional actions you plan to prevent recurrence. Specifically, as a major contractor to Commission licensees, it is important that your supervisors and managers fully understand that employees should be free to raise concerns and that discrimination will not be tolerated. Therefore, you are required to provide a written response addressing the actions taken or planned to assure that your managers working on contracts for Commission licensees have received adequate training in implementation of the '

requirements of Section 211 of the Energy Reorganization Act and 10 CFR 50.7.

In addition, while the NRC has conducted surveys of SWEC employees in late 1993 and September'1995 which indicated that employees generally felt free to i

E-j SWEC .

raise safety concerns, your response should describe the action taken or

. planned to assure that this specific employment action did not have a chilling effect in discouraging other SWEC employees from raising real or perceived i safety concerns. Your response: should be submitted un' der oath or affirmation and may reference or include previously docketed correspondence, if the

. correspondence adequately addresses the required response. After reviewing your response to this Notice, including your proposed corrective actions and the results of future inspections, .the NRC will determine whether further NRC l enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory l

requirements.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, its enclosure, and your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR). To the extent possible, your response should not include

- any_ personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be placed-in the PDR without redaction. However, if you find it necessary to include such information, you should clearly indicate the specific information that you desir, not to be placed in the PDR, and provide the legal basis to I

support your request for withholding the information from the public.

We acknowledge that your staff stated that SWEC will appeal the Secretary of Labor's Decision and Order in this case. In the event the Secretary of La_bor's Decision and Order is reversed, reconsideration of this enforcement action l j

l would be appropriate.

The responses directed by this letter and the enclosed Notice are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L.90-511.

l Sincerely,

~

s.y p;,m Stewart D. Ebne Regional Admin ( trator Docket No. 9999

Enclosure:

Notice of Violation-cc:w/ encl:

Tennessee Valley' Authority ATTN: Mr.. Oliver D. Kingsley, Jr.

President, TVA Nuclear and Chief Nuclear Officer 6A Lookc7t Place '

1101 Market Street

- Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801

!: l L _