ML20205M126
| ML20205M126 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 10/23/1995 |
| From: | Linda Watson NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205M044 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-99-76 EA-95-190, NUDOCS 9904150116 | |
| Download: ML20205M126 (43) | |
Text
.;' s e
BRIEFING PAPER FOR THREE WEEK MULTI-OFFICE MEETING ALLEGED DISCRININATION BY STONE AND WEBSTER AGAINST ENPLOYEE WHO RAISED FIRE PROTECTION CONCERNS PREPARED BY: Linda J. Watson DATE: October 23, 1995 Revision 1 EA 95-190 Region II Licensee: Tennessee Valley Authority Contractor: Stone and Webster Engineering Group Facility: Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Unit (s): N/A Docket Nos: 50-259, -260 and -425 License Nos.: DPR-33, 5B, and 68 Inspection Report No: N/A Inspection Dates: SOL Decision and Order dated August 22, 1995 Lead Inspector: N/A Summary of Issue:
By Decision and Order dated August 22, 1995 in DOL Case 94-ERA-44, the i Secretary of Labor (SOL) reversed lower Department of Labor (DOL) {
decisions and found that Stone and Webster Engineering Group discriminated against Mr. Douglas Harrison (Complainant) when Stone and Webster demoted him because he had raised concerns related to firewatch requirements. (Note that the 50L decision does not name TVA as a Respondent in this case.)
Complainant was a general foreman working for Stone & Webster, a contractor employed by Tennessee Valley Authority at the Browns Ferry site. Complainant had raised an issue that adequate firewatch coverage was not being provided for work being performed in the Unit 3 drywell.
Complainant spoke to several managers at the site but the issue was not resolved. Complainant then complained to the NRC. The problem was eventually corrected. However, Complainant claims that he was demoted g to a foreman as a result of his raising the concerns. Complainant r) o subsequently requested that he be cut back to a laborer because if he O' took a foreman position, one of the current foremen would be demoted.
O o- Stone and Webster indicated that the demotion was part of a routine a$ reassessment of the foremen needed for the ironworker function.
The Department of Labor, Birmingham, Alabama, received the complaint on M May 17, 1993 and initiated an investigation. On June 16, 1993, the D0L District Director (DD) found that Stone & Webster demonstrated by clear gg$ )
ooD and convincing evidence that Complainant's reassignment was part of a e
- normal reassignment of personnel due to work load and manpower /
requirements and that same action would have taken place in absence of [gl the " protected activity". On November 8, 1994, the Administrative Law Q.
GPlotiICO ll6 _
)
r- ; 6 BRIEFING PAPER 2 EA 95-190 Judge (ALJ) found that it was unlikely the action taken was du~ e to the protected activity and recommended that the case be dismissed.
In the Decision and Order of August 22, 1995, the SOL concluded that even though Stone and Webster had offered the Complainant a lower grade foreman position, they discriminated against him by depriving him of the more desirable position. The SOL found no merit in the argument that the need for ironworker foremen was reassessed in that adjustments were not made to other foremen's duties, Complainant was the only foreman affected and the " reorganization" did not achieve the reduction described by Stone and Webster. The SOL also found fault with the timing of se a motion in that Stone and Webster waited six days after they indicated the decision on reducing the number of foremen was made to demote the Complainant. The demotion came two days.after the Complainant engaged in protected activities. The SOL concluded that the supervisor showed animus toward the Complainant by remarks made to others and by removing him from the drywell work duties. The 50L found that the removal of the Complainant to an outside work crew was also discriminatory and that Complainant's discussion with other ironworkers on the lack of response to the fire protection concerns was a protected activity.
Contractor supervisors involved in this case were Steve Ehele, Chief Construction Supervisor; Wayne Tennyson, a Senior Construction Supervisor; Joe Fonte, a Structural Supervisor, and James Butts, Stone and Webster's Field Manager. Per the ALJ decision, page 12, beginning at item 69, Butts was responsible for all field activities of Stone and Webster at Browns Ferry. Under Butts were Ehele, Sertway, Fonte, and Tennyson. Although not specific, it appears that Tennyson, who was Complainant's direct supervisor, reported to Ehele and Ehele reported to Butts. The SOL decision identifies Mr. Ehele as the supervisor who took discriminatory action and had animus toward the Complainant. Review of the remainder of the record indicates that although Mr. Tennyson informed Complainant that he was demoted, the discriminatory actions were probably prompted principally by Ehele.
The NRC Office of Investigations opened an 01 Case No. 2-93-030 on the discrimination issue on May 27, 1993. On September 13, 1993, 01 l coordinated with TVA/IG and determined that TVA/IG was investigating the l matter. 01 requested a summary of TVA/IG investigation when completed.
The TVA/IG report dated June 22, 1994, concluded that there was insufficient evidence of wrongdoing to substantiate the Complainant's !
allegation of discrimination. 01 reviewed the DOL DD and ALJ decisions '
and the TVA/IG report. On December 15, 1994, 01 closed the case and issued a report which relied on the TVA/IG and DOL findings to conclude that the Complainant's DOL allegations were unsubstantiated.
1 On December 22, 1994, in a memorandum from OE to Region II, OE found that inasmuch as 01 could not substantiate discrimination, enforcement action was inappropriate and considered the matter closed.
I PROPOSED ENFORCEMENT ACTION - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR <OE-
6 BRIEFING PAPER 3 EA 95-190 The 01 synopsis was transmitted to TVA by the NRC by letter dated May 17, 1995 indicating that the allegations of discrimination were not substantiated and stating no further action was planned on the case.
Two Region II allegations, RII-93-A-0031 and RII-93-A-0096 were opened on the technical concerns and the discrimination issue. By letter dated January 17, 1994, the NRC notified Complainant that his allegation concerning fire watch practices were not substantiated based on a March 5,1995 inspection of drywell fire watch provisions. (Note: In the review of the ALJ decision, page 19, item 118, it was indicated that the fire watch problem was resolved on February 8,1993 when laborers assumed fire watch duties.)
Based on the 50L Decision and Order, the NRC Enforcement Policy in Supplement VII, Miscellaneous Matters, B.4, indicates that a Severity Level I! violation is appropriate for violations involving action by plant management above first line supervision in violation of 10 CFR 50.7 or similar regulations against an employee. ;
TVA, as an NRC licensee, is responsible for the acts of its contractors.
TVA was fully aware of the alleged discrimination issue and a TVA/IG investigation was conducted; however, the TVA/IG found that the claim of discrimination could not be substantiated. Additional information may be provided by TVA that would support discretion depending on their actions after the discrimination took place. However, a Severity Level II violation appears to be appropriate both Stone and Webster and TVA based on the SOL Decision and Order. A draft violation is provided in Attachment 1.
In addition, under 10 CFR 50.5, Deliberate Misconduct, the individual supervisor is held accountable for his deliberate action to discriminate against an employee for raising safety concerns. Therefore, an appropriate enforcement sanction should be considered for the supervisor. The factors in Section VIII of the Enforcement Policy should be discussed during the predecisional enforcement conference to allow an informed decision on the appropriate sanction. A draft Notice i of Violation is provided as an attachment.
Basis for Severity Level (Safety Significance):
Severity Level II: Enforcement Policy, Supplement VII, B.4; Action by plant management above first line supervision in violation of 10 CFR 50.7 or similar regulations against an employee.
Previous Escalated Action Within 2 Years.
EA 93-003: Severity Level I and severity Level II violations issued on
' November 2, 1993 for TVA, all sites, for employee discrimination.
$200,000 civil penalty. (Apparent violations identified to TVA in letters dated January 20 and 25, 1993.)
PROPOSED ENFORCEMENT ACTION - NOT FOR PUBUC DISCLOSURE
\
WITHOU.T THE APPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR'OE
- s e
BRIEFING PAPfP, 4 EA 95-190 Non-Routine Issues / Additional Information:
There remains an issue to be addressed that relates to the memorandum sent to TVA on May 17, 1995, that transmitted the synopsis of the 01 investigation. In that memorandum, TVA was informed that " Based on the results of the investigation and our subsequent review, we plan no further action with regard to this matter." This will have to be addressed. Any correspondence to TVA regarding arrangements for a l Predecisional Enforcement Conference will have to address the fact although we planned no action as a result of the conclusions of the 01 investigation, the Decision and Order from the SOL required further '
review and evaluation of the matter in light of that Decision and Order.
l The predecisional enforcemant conference will be transcribed. 1 Attachments: 1. Draft NOV
- 2. Draft NOV for individual
- 2. Background documents l
l l
PROPOSED ENFORCEMENT ACTION - NOT FOR P'UBLic OISci.OSURE WITHOUT THE APliiOVAL OF THE DIRECTOR, OE
Attachment 1 NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY Tennessee Valley Authority Docket Nos. 50-259, -260 and -425 Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant License Nos. DPR-33, 58, and 68 Units 1, 2 and 3 EA 95-190 As a result of review of a Secretary of Labor decision dated August 22, 1995, a violation of NRC requirements was identified. In accordance with the
" General Statement of Policy and Procedure for WRC Enforcement Actions," (60 FR 34381; June 30,1995/NUREG-1600), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes to impose a civil penalty pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (Act), 42 U.S.C. 2282, and 10 CFR 2.205. The particular violation and associated civil penalty is set forth below:
10 CFR 50.7 prohibits discrimination by a Commission licensee, J permittee, an applicant for a Commission license or permit, or a .
contractor or subcontractor of a Commission licensee, permittee, or applicant against an employee for engaging in certain protected activities. Discrimination includes discharge or other actions relating to the compensation, terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.
Contrary to the above, Stone and Webster, a contractor to the Tennessee Valley Authority at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, discriminated against Mr. Douglas Harrison (Complainant) when Stone and Webster Engineering Group demoted the Complainant and transferred him to a different position because he raised concerns related to firewatch requirements. The Secretary of Labo issued a Decision and Remand Order (DOL Case 94-ERA 44) on August 22, 1995, which found that Complainant's discharge was an act of retaliation for engaging in protected j activities. I i
This is a Severity Level II violation (Supplement VII). J Civil Penalty -
l
[ REPLACE HEADING WITH " STONE AND WEBSTER ENGINEERING GROUP" FOR SECOND VI0lATION]
i
)
l l
l I
n f .
BRIEFING PAPER 6 EA 95-190 PROPOSED VIOLATION FOR INDIVIDUAL 10 CFR 50.5, (Deliberate misconduct), paragraph (a), in part, prohibits licensee employees from engaging in deliberate misconduct that causes a licensee to be in violation of a condition of any license issued by the Commission. Deliberate misconduct is defined by 10 CFR 50.5(c) as an intentional act or omission that the person knows constitutes a violation of a requirement, procedure, instruction or policy of a licensee.
10 CFR 50.7 prohibits discrimination by a Commission licensee, permittee, an applicant for a Commission license or permit, or a contractor or subcontractor of a Commission licensee, permittee, or applicant against an employee for engaging in certain protected activities. Discrimination includes discharge or other actions relating to the compensation, terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.
Contrary to the above, Mr. Steve Ehele, while employed as a Chief Construction Supervisor with Stone and Webster Engineering Group, a contractor to the Tennessee Valley Authority at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, deliberately discriminated against Mr. Douglas Harrison (Complainant) when Mr. Ehele demoted the Complainant and transferred him to a different position because he raised concerns related to firewatch requirements. The Secretary of Labor issued a Decision and Remand Order
.(DOL Case 94-ERA-44) on August 22, 1995, which found that Complainant's discharge was an act of retaliation for engaging in protected activities. ]
This is a Severity Level II violation (Supplement VII).
i
)
'PBOPOSEDTNFORCEMENTACIlON NOTTOR PUBLIO-DISCLO OkE
'd WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR, O J
a*, . t' .{
"7 i
NRC PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY STONE AND WEBSTER ENGINEERING GROUP INDIVIDUAL OCTOBER 30,1995 i
' ~~,
i l
}
' PROPOSED ENFORCEMENTACTION - NO C DISCLO$bRE jWITHOUT THE APPftOV&OFTHE DIRECTOR,Y
. . t
- NRC PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY STONE AND WEBSTER ENGINEERING GROUP INDIVIDUAL OCTOBER 30,1995 l I
IAE TITLE i
1 Predecisional Enforcement Conference Agenda j 2 Opening Remarks and Introductions 3 NRC Enforcement Policy !
4 Summary of the issues 5 Statement of Concerns / Apparent Violations '
6 Pertinent Information: Enforcernent Action Worksheet 7 Reference Material (A complete copy of the {
reference material was provided with the Enforcement Action Worksheet) ;
8 Secretary of Labor Decision 9 Expected Attendees, Meeting Announcement 10 Closing Remarks #
b (PROPOSED.5NPORCEMENT ACTMWPMOT
/WITHOUTQAPPROVAL OF ire LinifCTOR, OE FOR PUBUCDtSC
r-
.i r PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE AGENDA TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY STONE AND WEBSTER ENGINEERING GROUP INDIVIDUAL OCTOBER 30,1995, AT 1:00 P.M.
NRC REGION 11 OFFICE, ATLANTA, GEORGIA (THIS PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE WILL BE TRANSCRIBED)
- 1. OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS J. Johnson, Acting Deputy Regional Administrator ll. NRC ENFORCEMENT POLICY B. Uryc, Director Enforcement and Investigation Coordination Staff 111.
SUMMARY
OF THE ISSUES J. Johnson, Acting Deputy Regional Administrator IV. STATEMENT OF CONCERNS / APPARENT VIOLATIONS E. Merschoff, Director Division of Reactor Projects V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY PRESENTATION VI. STONE AND WEBSTER ENGINEERING GROUP PRESENTATION Vll. STATEMENT OF MR. EHELE Vill. BREAK / NRC CAUCUS i
IX. NRC FOLLOWUP QUESTIONS -
s X. CLOSING REMARKS J. Johnson, Acting Deputy Regional Administrator
- PROPOSED ENFQRCEMENT ACT)ON-NOTs FOR PU8ltt'O 98CCLoSURE
~~WITHOOT THE APPROVAL OF THE-OfRECToR. OE
st OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS '
(J. Johnson)
Good morning. I am Jon Johnson, Acting Deputy Regional Administrator for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Region 11 Off_ ice. This morning we will conduct a predecisional enforcement conference between the NRC and TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING GROUP, and MR. STEVE EHELE which is CLOSED to public observation. This conference is beirig transcribed.
The agenda for the conference is shown in the viewgraph. Following my brief opening remarks, Mr. Bruno Urye, the Director of the Region II Enforcement Staff, will discuss the Agency's Enforcement Policy. ,
I w.ill then provide introductory remarks concerning my perspective on the events to be addressed today. Mr. Ellis Merschoff, Director of the Division of Reactor Projects, will then discuss the apparent violation.
You will then be given an opportunity to respond to the apparent./
violation. In this regard, I wish to reiterate that the decision l
PROPo8ED EfWoRCEMENT,ACEDN - NOT FoRfUn LoSURE WITHOUT THE APPRoVALMIRECToR, oE
- u. .
tt OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS (J. Johnson) to hold this conference does not mean that the NRC has determined that a violation has occurred or that enforcement action will be taken.
This conference is, however, an important step in arriving at that !
decision.
Following the presentations, I plan to take about a 10-minute break so that the NRC can briefly review what it has heard and determine if we 4
have follow-up questions. Lastly, I will provide concluding remarks.
At this point, I would like to have the NRC staff introduce themselves and then ask the other participants to introduce themselves.
1 I
[lNTRODUCTIONS]
Thank you. Mr. Uryc will now discuss the Agency's Enforcement 1
Policy. - s ;
l PROPOSED ENfdRCEMENT ACTION T FOR PUSUC DISULOsURE
\- - WITHOUTYNE, APPROVAL OF WE DIRECTOR, OE
NRC ENFORCEMENT POLICY (B. Uryc)
After an apparent violation is identified, it is assessed in accordance with the Commission's Enforcement Policy, which was recently revised and became effective as of June 30,1995. The Enforcement Policy has been published as NUREG-1600.
The assessment process involves categorizing the apparent violation into one of four severity levels based on safety and regulatory significance. For ceses where there is a potential for escalated enforcement action, that is, where the severity level of the apparent violation may be at Severity Level I, ll, or Ill, a predecisional enforcement conference is held.
There are three primary enforcement sanctions available to the NRC and they are Notices of Violation, civil penalties, and orders. Notices of Violation and civil penalties are issued based on identified violations.
Orders may be issued for violations, or, in the absence of a violation, ,
because of a significant public health or safety issue. ~,
i PROPOSED ENFORCEMENT ACTION -NoT FOR PUBLCDiSCloSURE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OFTHE DIRECTOR. OE
a t' In this particular case, the decision to hold a predecisional enforcement conference is based on a Secretary of Labor decision which was issued on August 22,1995, in the matter of M'.r Douglas Harrison versus the Stone and Webster Engineering Group. A copy of the Secretary of Labor decision was enclosed with our letters dated October 18,1995 to Stone e-d Webster, Tennessee Valley Authority and Mr. Ehele, that made t .c initial arrangements for this conference.
In that decision, the Secretary of Labor concluded that Stone & Webster discriminated against Mr. Harrison. Such discrimination is prohibited by the Energy Reorganization Act. The apparent violation being considered in the case of Stone & Webster and the Tennessee Valley Authority derives from this decision. TVA, as an NRC licensee, is responsible for the acts of its contractors.
The Secretary of Labor decision identifies Mr. Ehele as the supervisor who took the discriminatory action. Under the Final Rule on Deliberate ,
2 Misconduct by Unlicensed Persons,10 CFR 50.5, effective September J.6, 1991, and as described in the NRC Enforcement Policy in Section Vill, Enforcement Action involving Individuals, individuals are subject to yOPoSEDf.NFORCEMENT ACJioN - NoT.FOR JSCLoSURE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR, oE
coforcement action for deliberate misconduct that causes a licensee to be in violation of any of the Commission's requirements. Discriminating l l
against any employee for engaging in certain protected activities is an apparent violation of 10 CFR 50.7 (Employee Protection). Engaging in
~
deliberate misconduct that causes the licensee to be in violation of any rule or regulation is an apparent violation of 10 CFR 50.5 (Deliberate Misconduct). Enforcement sanctions that could be considered include a Ictter of reprimand, a Notice of Violation and/or an Order prohibiting or restricting involvement in NHC lice:ised activities.
A predecisional enforcement conference is essentially the last step of the insoection process before the staff makes its final enforcement decision.
The purpose of this conference today is not to negotiate an enforcement sanction. Our purpose here today is to obtain information that will assist us in determining the appropriate enforcement action, such as (1) a common understanding of the facts, root causes and missed opportunities i i essociated with the apparent ciolations (2) a common understanding-of, l corrective actions taken or planned, and (3) a common understanding of 4
the significance of the issues ai.o the rv #d for lasting comprehensive !
pro ENFoRCEMEST ACTloN - NoT FoR PURUC DISCLOSURE WITHouT TH. ..Pf5 OVAL oF THE DIRECTOR,~0E
corrective action. At the predecisional enforcement conference stage of Ad LT W&
the process, we want to be sure the licensee understands the significance A
ef the issues and is taking effective corrective action. We are seeking information that may be relevant to either mitigation or escalation of any resulting sanction, as well as determining your position' relative to the decision issued by the Secretary of Labor in this case.
In addition, in the case of Mr. Ehele, we are seeking information on the application of the factors considered in determining the need for individual enforcement actions as described in Section Vlli of the NRC Enforcement Policy which was provided to you in our letter of October 18,1995. You are encouraged to provide any information you believe is relevant to an i enforcement decision in this case. 3
)
1 The apparent violation discussed at this conference is subject to further .
review and may be subject to change prior to any resulting enforcement i action. It is important to note that the decision to conduct this conference does not mean that NRC has determined that a violation has occurred ot.
that enforcement action will be taken. I should also note at this time that i
statements of views or expressions of opinions made by the NRC staff at PROPOSED ENFORCEMENT ACTio N
T EMC oV L OF THE DIREcTO JRE
this conferer.ce, or the lack thereof, are not intended to represent final determinations or beliefs.
I Following the conference, the Regional Administrator, in conjunction with the NRC Cffice of Enforcement and other NRC Headqua'rter's offices, will reach an enforcement decision for each party involved in this case. This process should take about four weeks to accomplish.
Predecisional enforcement conferences are normally closed to the public as is this conference. However, a trial program to conduct selected conferences as open conferences was initiated by the Commission in Ju;y 1992, and this program has been extended pending further evaluation.
Finally, if the final enforcement action involves a proposed civil penalty or an order, the NRC will issue a press release 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> after the enforceinent action is issued.
i
~,
I
)
PROPOSED ENFORCEMENT ACTION - NOT FOR PUBUC DISCLOSURE v WITHdWT THE APPROV$L OF THE DIRECToRMm
~
(- ,
i r
i
SUMMARY
OF THE ISSUES (J. Johnson)
Our_ review of the Secretary of Labor's decision in the Douglas Harrison 1 case indicates that in February 1993, Stone and Webster engaged in discriminatory actions by demoting Mr. Harrison and transferring him to another work group because he had raised concerns related to i firewatch requirements. The NRC places a high value on the freedom of nuclear industry employees to raise potential safety concerns to i
licensee management. Section 211 of the Energy Reorganization Act I l
1 and 10 CFR 50.7 establish strict requirements for the protection of l I
employees against discrimination for raising nuclear safety concerns j and the NRC Enforcemerst Policy calls for strong enforcement sanctions
!n cases where these requirements are violated. Our purpose today is to provide you an opportunity to discuss the basis for your decisions in l
this case. l l
l.
l I
l
~
PROPoJED.ENRoRCEMENT ACTION - NoT FoR PUBUC DISCLOSURE WITVOUT THE APPRoVdk,oF 1HE DIRECTORrOE,~_
v
e
SUMMARY
OF THE ISSUES (Continued)
(J. Johnson)
In addition, the NRC is concerned about the potential of a chilling effect that may have resulted from the employment action taken in this case. We expect you to address the actions taken or planned to assure that this adverse employment action does not have a chilling effect on other licensee or contractor employees raising real or perceived nuclear safety concerns.
The steps taken by licensees and contractor to ensure that managers are dware of their responsibilities to provide a work environment in j i
which als employees may freely identify safety concerns without fear of retaliation or discrimination are a key element in establishing an effective program to protect the rights of employees ur. der the Energy 4 i
Reorgani?.ation Act. Whether or not you agree that a violation occurred, you should acidress the actions you have taken to ensure inanagers are aware of these responsibilities. In addition, you should address the actions that you have taken with respect to the Secretary of Labor decision and the Order to offer Mr. Harrison compensation.
I l
i efRoPoSEO ENFORCEMENT ACTION - NoT FoRJ UBLgDISCLoSURE' N ylliW ARPRoVATOF_THE dlRECToR. V l
e (
STATEMENT OF CONCERNS / APPARENT VIOLATION (E. Merschoff)
By Decision and Order dated August 22,1995 in DOL Case 94-ERA-44, the Secretary of Labor found that Stone and Webster Engineering Group discriminated against Mr. Douglas Harrison (Complainant) when Stone and Webster demoted him and transferred him to another work groupt because he had raised concerns related to firewatch requirements.
The Secretary of Labor concluded that even though Stone and Webster had offered Mr. Harrison a lower grade foreman position, they discriminated against him by depriving him of the more desirable position. The SOL found no merit in the argument that the need for ironworker foremen was reassessed ... in that adjustments were not made to other foremen's duties. Mr. Harrison was the only foreman affected and the " reorganization" did not achieve the reduction described by Stone and Webster. The SOL also found fault with the timing of the demotion in that Stone and Webster waited six dayiafter
- s their decision to reduce the number of foremen to demote the Mr. Harrison; however, the demotion came two days after the Mr. Harrison engaged in protected activities. '
PROPOSED ENFORCEMENT ACTION - NOT FoR PUBUC2HSCloSURE
WITHouT THE APPROVAL OF THE DIRECT 6R. oE \
N
/K/
STATEMENT OF CONCERNS / APPARENT VIOLATION (Continued)
(E. Merschoff)
The SOL concluded that Mr. Ehele showed animus toward the Mr. Harrison by remarks made to others and by removing him from the drywell work duties. The SOL found that the removal of the Mr. Harrison to an outside work crew was also discriminatory and that Mr. Harrison's discussion with other ironworkers on the lack of response to the fire protection concerns was a protected activity.
This is an apparent violation of 10 CFR 50.7, Employee Protection, which prohibits discrimination against an employee engaging in protected activities such as providing an employer information about alleged violations of NRC requirements. This apparent violation is being considered for escalated enforcement action in accordance with the NRC's Enforcement Policy.
~, .
PRdEDSED ENFORCEMENT ACTION - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHouT THE APPROVALOFTHE OSECToR, oE v-
c STATEMENT OF CONCERNS / APPARENT VIOLATION (Continued)
(E. Merschoff)
The apparent violation was documented in our letters _ to each of you dated October 18,1995. At this conference we are affording you the opport' .aity to provide information which will:
provide a common understanding of the facts, root causes, significance of the issues the basis for the adverse employment action taken against Mr. Harrison whether or not a chilling effect resulted from Mr. Harrison termination and the recent Secretary of Labor decision the potential negative impact on the reporting of safety concerns due the level of management involved in this matter the severity of the violation any escalation or mitigation considerations your plans to implement corrective action. -
any other application of the Enforcement Policy relevant to this issue, h'oPoSED ENFORCEMENT ACTION - NoT FoR PUBU LoSURE wiTh0UT THE APPAoVALO
f EXPECTED ATTENDEES Tennessee Vallev Authority l
Mark Medford, Vice President, Engineering and Technical Services j Richard Machon, Site Vice President, Browns Ferry i Michael Harding, Manager, Concerns Resolution l Edward Vigluicci, Counsel Stone & Webster Enaineerina Corooration j
Bradley Dodson, Vice President, Nuclear Operations Peter Bishop, Site Director, Browns Ferry Steve Salowitz, Manager, Employee Concerns Steve Ehele, Construction Supervisor )
Robert Rader, Counsel {
l
- I Jons inson, Acting Deputy Regional Administrator, Region ll (Rll)
Joseph Gray, Deputy Director, Office of Enforcement Ellis Merschoff, Director, Division of Reactor Projects (DRP), Ril Bruno Uryc, Director, Enforcement and Investigation Coordination Staff J (EICS), Ril i Mark Lesser, Chief, Reactor Projects Branch 6 (RPS3), DRP, Ril Joe Williams, Project Manager, NRP Linda Watson, Enforcement Specia..st, EICS, RIl Carolyn Evans, Regional Counsel, Ril Joel Mundy, Resident inspector, Browns Ferry PsoPos oRCEMENT ACThoN - NoT FoR PUBLJICISClosURE,.
b WITH APfA0VAEoFQE DIRECTUR, oE
? e NRC PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY STONE AND WEBSTER ENGINEERING GR.OUP INDIVIDUAL OCTOBER 30,1995 Apparent violation:
10 CFR 50.5, (Deliberate misconduct), paragraph (a), in part, prohibits licensee employees from engaging in deliberate misconduct that causes a licensee to be in violation of a condition of any licenso issued by the Comrnission. Deliberate misconduct '
is defined by 10 CFR 50.5(c) as rn intentional act or omission l
that the person knows constitutes a violation of a requirement, procedure, instruction or policy of a licensee.
The Secretary of Labor issued a Decision and Remand Order (DOL Case 94-ERA-44) on August 22,1995, which found that Stone and Webster Engineering Group, a contractor to the Tennessee Valley Authority at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, discriminated against Mr. Douglas Harrison when Stone and Webster Engineering Group demoted Mr. Harrison and transferred him to a different position because he raised concerns related to firewatch requirements.
NOTE: The apparent violation discussed in this predecisional enforcement conference is subject to further review and is subject to change prior to any resulting enforcement decision.
PbPOSED ENFORCEMENT ACTION - R PUBUC DISC E
C 4 NRC PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY STONE AND WEBSTER ENGINEERING GROUP INDIVIDUAL OCTOBER 30,1995 Apparent violation:
10 CFR 50.7 prohibits discrimination by a Commission licensee, permittee, an appiicant for a Commission license or permit, or a contractor or subcontractor of a Commission licensee, permittee, or applicant against an employee for engaging in certain protected activities. Discrimination ine,ludes discharge or other actions relating to the compensation, terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.
The Secretary of Labor issued a Decision and Remand Order (DOL Case 94-ERA-44) on August 22,1995, which found that Stone and Webster Engineering Group, a contractor to the Tennessee Valley Authority at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, discriminated against Mr. Douglas Harrison when Stone and Webster Engineering Group demoted Mr. Harrison and transferred him to a different position because he raised concerns related to firewatch requirements.
NOTE: The apparent violation discussed in this predecisional enforcement conference is subject to further review and is subject to change prior to any resulting enforcement decision. !
l PROPOSED ENFORCEMENT ACTION - NOT FOR PUBUC DisCLQsURE jTHouT THE APNIDVAL xy OF THNDE
/
- , . \
CLOSING REMARKS (J. Johnson) )
After closing this enforcement conference, we will provide Mr. Ehele the opportunity to meet separately with the NRC staff if he desires.
1 In closing this enforcement conference, I remind the Licensee, Stone and Webster and Mr. Ehele of two things:
First, the apparent violations discussed at this enforcement conference are subject to further review and may be subject to change prior to any 1
resulting enforcement action.
Second, the statements of views or expressions of opinion made by NRC employees at this enforcement conference, or the lack thereof, are not intended to represent final agency determinations or beliefs.
~'
(
I e-(RoPoSED, ENFORCEMENT ACiloN NOT FoR PUBUC,DISeLOSURE s_. WITHouT THE APPftOVAtMTHELDLRECTOR, oE I
3
f r ,-
3 NRC PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE !
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY STONE AND WEBSTER ENGINEERING GROUP INDIVIDUAL l l
OCTOBER 30,1995 l
I 0
PROPOSED ENFORCEMENT ACTION - NOT FO BLIC DISCLOSURE 0\
\'
dTHQUyAPfR ORC
NRC PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY STONE AND WEBSTER ENGINEERING GROUP INDIVIDUAL OCTOBER 30,1995 i
IAB TITLE 1 Predecisional Enforcement Conference Agenda 2 Opening Remarks and Introductions 3 NRC Enforcement Policy 4 Summary of the issues 5 Statement of Concerns / Apparent Violations 6 Pertinent information: Enforcement Action Worksheet 7 Reference Material (A complete copy of the reference material was provided with the Enforcement Action Worksheet) 8 Secretary of Labor Decision 9 Expected Attendees, Meeting Announcement
-10 Closing Remarks PROPOSED ENFORCEMENT TION NOT FoR BLIC DISCLOSURE HE' APPROVAL oFJ IREC
PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE AGENDA TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY STONE AND WEBSTER ENGINEERING GROUP INDIVIDUAL OCTOBER 30,1995, AT 1:00 P.M.
NRC REGION 11 OFFICE, ATLANTA, GEORGIA (THIS PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE WILL BE TRANSCRIBED)
- 1. OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS J. Johnson, Acting Deputy Regional Administrator ll. NRC ENFORCEMENT POLICY B. Uryc, Director Enforcement and Investigation Coordination Staff Ill.
SUMMARY
OF THE ISSUES J. Johnson, Acting Deputy Regional Administrator IV. STATEMENT OF CONCERNS / APPARENT VIOLATIONS E. Merschoff, Director Division of Reactor Projects V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY PRESENTATION VI. STONE AND WEBSTER ENGINEERING GROUP PRESENTATION Vll. STATEMENT 'F MR. EHELE Vill. BREAK / NRC CAUCUS IX. NRC FOLLOWUP QUESTIONS X. CLOSING REMARKS J. Johnson, Acting Deputy Regional Administrator fRoPoSED E FoRCEMENI_ ACTION - NoT FoR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE
- v. WIT ETMPPRDV
OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS ,
(J. Johnson)
Good morning. I am Jon Johnson, Acting Deputy Regional 1
Administrator for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Region ll l Office. This morning we will conduct a predecisional enforcement conference between the NRC and TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING GROUP, and MR. STEVE EHELE which is CLOSED to public observation. This conference is being transcribed.
The agenda for the conference is shown in the viewgraph. Following my brief opening remarks, Mr. Bruno Urys the Director of the Region 11 Enforcement Staff, will discuss the Agency's Enforcement Policy. f l
1 will then provide introductory remarks concerning my perspective on J
{
the events to be addressed today. Mr. Ellis Merschoff, Director of the !
Division of Reactor Projects, will then discuss the apparent violation.
You will then be given an opportunity to respond to the apparent violation. In this regard, I wish to reiterate that the decision PRoPos$D ENFORCEMENT ACTION - NoT FoR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL ~DFTHE DIRECTOR, oE
~
OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS (J. Johnson) to hold this conference does not mean that the NRC has determined that a violation has occurred or that enforcement action will be taken.
This conference is, however, an important step in arriving at that decision.
Following the presentations, I plan to take about a 10-minute break so that the NRC can briefly review what it has heard and determine if we have follow-up questions. Lastly, I will provide concluding remarks. ;
At this point, I would like to have the NRC staff introduce themselves and then ask the other participants to introduce themselves.
[lNTRODUCTIONS]
Thank you. Mr. Uryc will now discuss the Agency's Enforcement Policy.
1 (PROPOSED ENFORCEMENT ACTION - NoT,EOEPUBUC DMCg-WITHoUT THE APPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR, oE
NRC ENFORCEMENT POLICY (B. Uryc)
After an apparent violation is identified, it is assessed in accordance with the Commission's Enforcement Policy, which was recently revised and became effective as of June 30,1995. The Enforcement Policy has been published as NUREG-1600.
The assessment process involves categorizing the apparent violation into {
1 one of four severity levels based on safety and regulatory significance. For cases where there is a potential for escalated enforcement action, that is, where the severity level of the apparent violation may be at Severity Level I, ll, or Ill,'a predecisional enforcement conference is held.
There are three primary enforcement sanctions available to the NRC and they are Notices of Violation, civil penalties, and orders. Notices of Violation and civil penalties are issued based on identified violations.
Orders may be issued for violations, or, in the absence of a violation, because of a significant public health or safety issue.
1 i
j l
~
" M M asoIneUT$n,
. r In this particular case, the decision to hold a predecisional enforcement conference is based on a Secretary of Labor decision which was issued on August 22,1995, in the matter of Mr. Douglas Harrison versus the Stone and Webster Engineering Group. A copy of the Secretary of Labor decision was enclosed with our letters dated October 18,1995 to Stone and Webster, Tennessee Valley Authority and Mr. Ehele, that made the initial arrangements for this conference.
In that decision, the Secretary of Labor concluded that Stone & Webster discriminated against Mr. Harrison. Such discomination is prohibited by the Energy Reorganization Act. The apparent violation being considered in the case of Stone & Webster and the Tennessee Valley authority derives from this decision. TVA, as an NRC licensee, is responsible for the acts of its contractors.
The Secretary of Labor decision identifies Mr. Ehele as the supervisor who took the discriminatory action. Under the Final Rule on Deliberate Misconduct by Unlicensed Persons,10 CFR 50.5, effective September 16, 1991, and as described in the NRC Enforcement Policy in Section Vill, Enforcement Action involving Individuals, individuals are subject to j RoPoS NFoRCEMEN T Ji - NoT FoR PUBUC DISCLOSURE
~
WI UT APPRo'v )
)
enforcement action for deliberate misconduct that causes a licensee to be in violation of any of the Commission's requirements. Discriminating against any employee for engaging in certain protected activities is an apparent violation of 10 CFR 50.7 (Employee Protection). Engaging in deliber'"a misconduct that causes the licensee to be in violation of any rule or regulation is an apparent violation of 10 CFR 50.5 (Deliberate Misconduct). Enforcement sanctions that could be considered include a letter of reprimand, a Notice of Violation and/or an_ Order prohibiting or restricting involvement in NRC licensed activities.
A predecisional enforcement conference is essentially the last step of the (
t inspection process before the staff makes its final enforcement decision, i
The purpose of this conference today is not to negotiate an enforcement j sanction. Our purpose here today is to obtain information that will assist us in determining the appropriate enforcement action, such as (1) a common understanding of the facts, root causes and missed opportunities associated with the apparent violations, (2) a common understanding of corrective actions taken or planned, and (3) a common understanding of the significance of the issues and the need for lasting comprehensive RoPoS NFoRCEMEN Tion - NoT FoR PUBUC SURE i WI P AL N OR E l
- d d~.
corrective action. At the predecisional enforcement conference stage of the process, we want to be sure the licensee understands the significance of the issues and is taking effective corrective action. We are seeking information that may be relevant to either mitigation or escalation of any resulting sanction, as well as determining your position relative to the decision issued by the Secretary of Labor in this case.
In addition, in the case of Mr. Ehele, we are seeking information on the application of the factors considered in determining the need for individual enforcement actions as described in Section Vill of the NRC Enforcement Policy which was provided to you in our letter of October 18,1995. You are encouraged to provide any information you believe is relevant to an enforcement decision in this case.
The apparent violation discussed at this conference is subject to further review and may be subject to change prior to any resulting enforcement action. It is important to note that the decision to conduct this conference does not mean that NRC has determined that a violation has occurred or that enforcement action will be taken. I should also note at this time that statements of views or expressions of opinions made by the NRC staff at 1
Pos RCEM JE T N - NOT F92-PU8EicDISCLOStfRE WITHou E APPRoVA E DIRECTOR. oE
this conference, or the lack thereof, are not intended to represent fina!
determinations or beliefs.
Following the conference, the Regional Administrator, in conjunction with the NRC Office of Enforcement and other NRC Headquarter's offices, will reach an enforcement decision for each party involved in this case. This process should take about four weeks to accomplish.
1 Predecisional enforcement conferences are normally closed to the public as is this conference. However, a trial program to conduct selected conferences as open conferences was initiated by the Commission in July 1992, and this program has been extended pending further evaluation. !
l l
i I
Finally, if the final enforcement action involves a proposed civil penalty or J an order, the NRC will issue a press release 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> after the enforcement action is issued.
I RoPoSED EN CEMENT ACTION NoT FoR PUBU SuRE WI APP HEDIR ,oE
SUMMARY
OF THE ISSUES (J. Johnson)
Our review of the Secretary of Labor's decision in the Douglas Harrison case indicates that in February 199[, Stone and Webster engaged in discriminatory actions by demoting Mr. Harrison and transferring him to another work group because he had raised concerns related to firewatch requirements. The NRC places a high value on the freedom of nuclear industry employees to raise potential safety concerns to licensee management. Section 211'of the Energy Reorganization Act and 10 CFR 50.7 establish strict requirements for the protection of employees against discrimination for raising nuclear safety concerns I
and the NRC Enforcement Policy calls for strong enforcement sanctions I
in cases where these requirements are violated. Our purpose today is I to provide you an opportunity to discuss the basis for your decisions in this case.
e
SUMMARY
OF THE ISSUES (Continued)
(J. Johnson)
In addition, the NRC is concerned about the potential of a chilling effect that may have resulted from the employment action taken in this case. We expect you to address the actions taken or planned to assure that this adverse employment action does not have a chilling i
effect on other licensee or contractor employees raising real or j l
perceived nuclear safety concerns.
The steps taken by licensees and contractor to ensure that managers are aware of their responsibilities to provide a work environment in which all employees may freely identify safety concerns without fear i I
I of retaliation or discrimination are a key element in establishing an effective program to protect the rights of employees under the Energy Reorganization Act. Whether or not you agree that a violation i
occurred, you should address the actions you have taken to ensure managers are aware of these responsibilities. In addition, you should address the actions that you have taken with respect to the Secretary of Labor decision ar.d the Order to offer Mr. Harrison compensation.
STATEMENT OF CONCERNS / APPARENT VIOLATION (E. Merschoff)
By Decision and Order dated August 22,1995 in DOL Case 94-ERA-44, the Secretary of Labor found that Stone and Webster Engineering Group discriminated against Mr. Douglas Harrison (Complainant) when Stone and Webster demoted him and transferred him to another work groupt because he had raised concerns related to firewatch requirements.
The Secretary of Labor concluded that even though Stone and Webster had offered Mr. Harrison a lower grade foreman position, they discriminated against him by depriving him of the more desirable position. The SOL found no merit in the argument that the need for ironworker foremen was reassessed ... in that adjustments were not made to other foremen's dutias. Mr. Harrison was the only foreman affected and the " reorganization" did not achieve the reduction described by Stone and Webster. The SOL also found fault with the timing of the demotion in that Stone and Webster waited six days after their decision to reduce the number of foreinen to demote the Mr. Harrison; however, the demotion came two days after the Mr. Harrison engaged in protected activities.
Y
_ i
1 i
STATEMENT OF CONCERNS / APPARENT VIOLATION (Continued) )
l I
(E. Merschoff)
The SOL concluded that Mr. Ehale showed animus toward the Mr. Harrison by remarks made to others and by removing him from the drywell work duties. The SOL found that the removal of the Mr. Flarrison to an outside work crew was also discriminatory and that Mr. Harrison's discussion with other ironworkers on the lack of response to the fire protection concerns was a protected activity.
This is an apparent violation of 10 CFR 50.7, Employee Protection, which prohibits discrimination against an employee engaging in protected activities such as providing an employer information about alleged violations of NRC requirements. This apparent violation is being considered for escalated enforcement action in accordance with the NRC's Enforcement Policy.
I l
POSED ENFORCEMENT ACTloN - NOT FoR PUBUC DISC SURE l THE F THE
1 STATEMENT OF CONCERNS / APPARENT VIOLATION (Continued)
(E. Merschoff) 1 The apparent violation was documented in our letters to each of you !
dated October 18,1995. At this conference we are affording you the opportunity to provide information which will: 1 provide a common understanding of the facts, root causes, J
significance of the issues the basis for the adverse employment action taken against !
Mr. Harrison whether or not a chilling effect resulted from Mr. Harrison termination and the recent Secretary of Labor decision the potential negative impact on the reporting of safety concerns !
due the level of management involved in this matter the severity of the vioistion any escalation or mitigation considerations your plans to implement corrective action.
any other application of the Enforcement Policy relevant to this issue.
EXPECTED ATTENDEES Tennessee Vallev Authority Mark Lesser to provide
.S. tone & Webster Enaineerina Corooration Mark Lesser to provide-Steve Ehele, title NBC Jon Johnson, Acting Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 11 (Ril)
Joseph Gray, Deputy Director, Office of Enforcement Ellis Merschoff, Director, Division of Reactor Projects (DRP), Ril Bruno Uryc, Director, Enforcement ar d Investigation Coordination Staff x (EICS), Ril Mark Lesser, Chief, Reactor Projects Branch 6 (RPS3), DRP, Ril Joe Williams, Project Manager, NRR Linda Watson, Enforcement Specialist, ElCS, Ril Carolyn Evans, Regional Counsel, Ril Joel Mundy, Resident inspector, Browns Ferry
i j
i i
CLOSING REMARKS (J. Johnson) <
l After closing this enforcement conference, we will provide Mr. Ehele j i
the opportunity to meet separately with the NRC staff if he desires.
l l
In closing this enforcement conference, I remind the Licensee, Stone and Webster and Mr. Ehele of two things:
First, the apparent violations discussed at this enforcement conference are subject to further review and may be subject to change prior to any resulting enforcement action.
Second, the stctements of views or expressions of opinion made by NRC employees at this enforcement conference, or the lack thereof, are not intended to represent final agency determinations or beliefs.
l l
l
~
e PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE AGENDA TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY STONE AND WEBSTER ENGINEERING GROUP INDIVIDUAL OCTOBER 30,1995, AT 1:00 P.M.
NRC REGION 11 OFFICE, ATLANTA, GEORGIA (THIS PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE WiLL BE TRANSCRIBED)
- 1. OPENING REMARKS AND INTHODUCTIONS J. Johnson, Acting Deputy Regional Administrator
- 11. NRC ENFORCEMENT POLICY B. Uryc, Director Enforcement and investigation Coordination Staff Ill.
SUMMARY
OF THE ISSUES J. Johnson, Acting Deputy Regional Administrator IV. STATEMENT OF CONCERNS / APPARENT VIOLATIONS E. Merschoff, Director Division of Reactor Projects V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY PRESErJTATION VI. STONE AND WEBSTER ENGINEERING GROUP PRESENTATION Vll. STATEMENT OF MR. EHELE i
Vill. BREAK / NRC CAUCUS i IX. NRC FOLLOWUP QUESTIONS I X. CLOSING REMARKS J. Johnson, Acting Deputy Regional Administrator 1
I NRC PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY STONE AND WEBSTER ENGINEERING GROUP OCTOBER 30,1995 Apparent violation: ,
10 CFR 50.7 prohibits discrimination by a Commission licensee, permittee, an applicant for a Commission license or permit, or a contractor or subcontractor of a Commission licensee, permittee, or applicant against an employee for engaging in certain protected activities. Discrimination includes discharge or other actions relating to the compensation, terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.
The Secretary of Labor issued a Decision and Remand Order (DOL Case 94-ERA-44) on August 22,1995, which found that Stone and Webster Engineering Group, a contractor to the )
Tennessee Valley Authority at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, discriminated against Mr. Douglas Harrison wilen Stone and l Webster Engineering Group demoted Mr. Harrison and transferred him to a different position because he raised concerns related to ,
1 firewatch requirements. l NOTE: The apparent violation discussed in this predecisional enforcement conference is subject to further review and is subject to change prior to any resulting enforcement decision.
=
NRC PREDE..SIONAL ENFORCEMENT CL ./ERENCE INDIVIDUAL OCTOBER 30,1995 !
Apparent violation:
10 CFR 50.7 prohibits discrimination by a Commission licensee, permitt6e, an applicant for a Commission license or permit, or a centractor or subcontractor of a Commission licensee, permittee, or applicant against an employee for engaging in certain protected activities. D!scrimination includes discharge or other actions relating to the compensation, terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.
10 CFR 50,5, (Deliberate misconduct), paragraph (a), in part, prohibits licensee employees from engaging in deliberate misconduct that causes a licensee to be in violation of a condition of any license issued by the Commission. Deliberate misconduct is defined by 10 CFR 50.5(c) as an intentional act or omission that the person knows constitutes a violation of a requirement, procedure, instruction or policy of a licensee.
The Secretary of Labor issued a Decision and Remand Order (DOL Case 94-ERA 44) on August 22,1995, which found that Stone and Webster Engineering Group, a contractor to the Tennessee Valley Authority at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, discriminated against Mr.
Douglas Harrison when Stone and Webster Engineering Group demoted Mr. Harrison and transferred him to a different position because he raised concerns related to firewatch requirements.
Specifically, Mr. Steve Ehele, while employed as a Chief Construction l Supervisor with Stone and Webster Engineering Group, a contractor to the Tennessee Valley Authority at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, deliberately discriminated against Mr. Douglas Harrison (Complainant) ;
when Mr. Ehele demoted the Complainant and transferred him to a different position because he raised concerns related to firewatch ;
requirements. l NOTE: . The apparent violation discussed in this predecisional cnforcement conference is subject to further review and is subject to !
change prior to any resulting enforcement decision,
NRC PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY STONE AND WEBSTER ENGINEERING GROUP OCTOBER 30,1995 Apparent v!alation:
10 CFR 50.7 prohibits discrimination by a Commission licensee, permittee, an applicant for a Commission license or permit, or a contractor or subcontractor of a Commission licensee, permittee, or applicant against an employee for engaging in certain protected activities. Discrimination includes discharge or other actions relating to the compensation, terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.
The Secretary of Labor issued a Decision and Remand Order (DOL Case 94-ERA-44) on August 22,1995, which found that Stone and Webster Engineering Group, a contractor to the Tennessee Valley Authority at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, discriminated against Mr. Douglas Harrison wher Stone and Webster Engineering Group demoted Mr. Harrison and transferred him to a different position because he raised concerns related to firewatch requirements.
NOTE: The apparent violation discussed in this predecisional enforcement conference is subject to further review and is subject to change prior to any resulting enforcement decision.
6
NRC PREDL,jSIONAL ENFORCEMENT CL.FERENCE
[i INDIVIDUAL OCTOBER 30,1995 Apparent violation:
10 CFR 50.7 prohibits discrimination by a Commission licensee, permittee, an applicant for a Cornmission license or permit, or a contractor or subcontractor of a Commission licensee, permittee, or applicant age!nst an employee for engaging in certain protected activities. Discrimination includes discharge or other actions relating to the compensation, terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.
10 CFR 50.5, (Deliberate misconduct), paragraph (a), in part, prohibits licensee employees from engaging in deliberate misconduct that causes a licensee to be in violation of a condition of any license issued by the Commission. Deliberate misconduct is defined by 10 CFR 50.5(c) as an intentional act or omission that the person knows constitutes a violation of a requirement, procedure, instruction or policy of a licensee.
The Secretary of Labor issued a Decision and Romand Order (DOL Case 94-ERA-44) on August 22,1995, which found that Stone and Webster Engineering Group, a contractor to the Tennessee Valley Authority at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, discriminated against Mr.
Douglas Harrison when Stone and Webster Engineering Group demoted Mr. Harrison and transferred him to a different position because he raised concerns related to firewatch requirements.
Specifically, Mr. Steve Ehele, while employed as a Chief Construction Supervisor with Stone and Webster Engineering Group, a contractor to the Tennessee. Valley Authority at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, deliberately discriminated against Mr. Douglas Harrison (Complainant) when Mr. Ehele demoted the Complainant and transferred him to a different position because he raised concerns related to firewatch requirements.
NOTE: The apparent violation discussed in this predecisional enforcement conference is subject to further review and is subject to change prior to any resulting enforcement decision.
r.
NRC PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY STONE AND WEBSTER ENGINEERING GROUP OCTOBER 30,1995 1
Apparent vioi+on: )
10 CFR 50.7 prohibits discrimination by a Commission licensee, permittee, an applicant for a Commission license or permit, or a contractor or subcontractor of a Commission licensee, permittee, or applicant against an employee for engaging in certain protected activities. Discrimination includes discharge or other actions relating to the compensation, terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.
The Secretary of Labor issued a Decision and Romand Order (DOL Case 94-ERA-44) on August 22,1995, which found that Stone and Webster Engineering Group, a centractor to the Tennessee Valley Authority at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, discriminated against Mr. Douglas Harrison when Stone and Webster Engineering Group demoted Mr. Harrison and transferred him to a different position because he raised concerns . elated to firewatch requirements.
NOTE: The apparent violation discussed in this predecisional enforcement conference is subject to further review and is subject to change prior to any resulting enforcement decision.
)
Ih
\
. t' NRC PREL_JISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CudFERENCE INDIVIDUAL OCTOBER 30,1995 Apparent violation:
10 CFR 50.7 prohibits discrimination by a Commission licensee,
_ permittee, an applicant for a Commission license or permit, or a contractor or subcontractor of a Commission licensee, permittee, or applicant against an employee for engaging in certain protected activities. Discrimination includes discharge or other actions relating to the compensation, terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.
10 CFR 50.5, (Deliberate misconduct), paragraph (a), in part, prohibits licensee employees from engaging in deliberate misconduct that causes a licensee to be in violation of a condition of any license ;
issued by the Commission. Deliberate misconduct is defined by 10 CFR 50.5(c) as an intentional act or omission that the person knows constitutes a violation of a requirement, procedure, instruction or policy of a licensee.
The Secretary of Labor issued a Decision and Romand Crder (DOL Case 94-ERA-44) on August 22,1995, which found that Stone and Webster Engineering Group, a contractor to the Tennessee Valley Authority at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, discriminated against Mr.
Douglas Harrison when Stone and Webster Engineering Group demoted Mr. Harrison and transferred him to a different position because he raised concerns related to firewatch requirements.
Specifically, Mr. Steve Ehele, while employed as a Chief Construction Supervisor with Stone and Webster Engineering Group, a contractor to the Tennessee Valley Authority at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, deliberately discriminated against Mr. Douglas Harrison (Complainant) when Mr. Ehele demoted the Complainant and transferred him to a different position because he raised concems related to firewatch requirements.
NOTE: The apparent violation discussed in this predecisional cnforcement conference is subject to further review and is subject to change prior to any resulting enforcement decision.
1 ge I NRC PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY STONE AND WEBSTER ENGINEERING GROUP INDIVIDUAL OCTOBER 30,1995 i
Apparent violation:
10 CFR 50.5, (Deliberate misconduct), paragraph (a), in part, prohibits licensee employees from engaging in deliberate misconduct that causes a licensee to be in violation of a condition of any license issued by the Commission. Deliberate misconduct I is defined by 10 CFR 50.5(c) as an intentional act or omission that the person knows constitutes a violation of a requirement, procedure, instruction or policy of a licensee.
The Secretary of Labor issued a Decision and Remand Order (DOL Case 94-ERA-44) on August 22,1995, which found that Stone and Webster Engineering Group, a contractor to the j 7ennessee Valley Authority at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Pit.nt, discriminated against Mr. Douglas Harrison when Stone and Webster Engineering Group demoted Mr. Harrison and transferred him to a different position because he raised concerns related to i
firewatch requirements.
NOTE: The apparent violation discussed in this predecisional enforcement conference is subject to further review and is subject to change prior to any resulting enforcement decision.
g(
NRC PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY STONE AND WEBSTER ENGINEERING GROUP INDIVIDUAL OCTOBER 30,1995 Apparent violation:
10 CFR 50.7 prohibits discrimination by a Commission licensee, permittee, an applicant for a Commission license or permit, or a contractor or subcontractor of a Commission licensee, permittee, or applicant against an employee for engaging in certain protected activities. Discrimination includes discharge or other actions relating to the compensation, terms, conditiona, and privileges of employment.
The Secretary of Labor issued a Decision and Remand Order (DOL Case 94-ERA-44) on August 22,1995, which found that Stone and Webster Engineering Group, a contractor to the Tennessee Valley Authority at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, discriminated against Mr. Douglas Harrison when Stc,ne and Webster Engineering Group damoted Mr. Harrison and transferred him to a different position because he raised concerns related to firewatch requirements.
NOTE: The apparent violation discussed in this predecisional enforcement conference is subject to further review and is subject to change prior to any resulting enforcement decision.
- NRC PREDcCISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CudFERENCE INDIVIDUAL OCTOBER 30,1995 Apparent violation:
10 CFR 50.7 prohibits discrimination by a Commission licensee, permittee, an applicant for a Commission license or permit, or a contractor or subcontractor of a Commission licensee, permittee, or applicant against an employee for engaging in certain protected activities. Discrimination includes discharge or other actions relating to the compensation, terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.
10 CFR 50.5, (Deliberate misconduct), paragraph (a), in part, prohibits licensee employees from engaging in deliberate misconduct that causes a licensee to be in violation of a condition of any license issued by the Commission. Deliberate misconduct is defined by 10 CFR 50.5(c) as an intentional act or omission that the person knows constitutes a violation of a requirement, procedure, instruction or policy of a !icensee.
The Secretary of Labor issued a Decision and Remand Order (DOL Case 94-ERA-44) on August 22,1995, which found that Stone ,
and Webster Engineering Group, a contractor to the Tennessee Valley Authority at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, discriminated against Mr.
Douglas Harrison when Stone and Webster Engineering Group demoted Mr. Harrison and transferred him to a different position because he raised concerns related to firewatch requirements.
Specifically, Mr. Steve Ehele, while employed as a Chief Construction Supervisor with Stone and Webster Engineering Group, a contractor to the Tennessee Valley Authority at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, deliberately discriminated against Mr. Douglas Harrison (Complainant) when Mr. Ehele demoted the Complainant and transferred him to a l different position because he raised concerns related to firewatch requirements. !
NOTE: The apparent violation discussed in this predec!sional )
enforcement conference is subject to fortner rev ew and is subject to l change prior to any resulting enforcement decision.
l
NRC PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY STONE AND WEBSTER ENGINEERING GROUP OCTOBER 30,1995 4
Apparent violation:
10 CFR 50.7 prohibits discrimination by a Commission licensee, permittee, an applicant for a Commission license or permit, or a contractor or subcontractor of a Commission licensee, permittee, l or applicant against an employee for engaging in certain protected activities. Discrimination includes discharge or other acilons relating to the compensation, terms, conditions, and privileges of f employment.
The Secretary of Labor issued a Decision and Remand Order (DOL Case 94-15HA-44) on August 2-2,1995, which found that Stone and Webster Engineering Group, a contractor to the Tennessee Valley Authority at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, discriminated 03ainst Mr. Douglas Harrison when Stone and
, Webster Eng.ineering Group demoted Mr. Harrison and tr'ansferred him to a differentposition because he raised concerns related to firewatch requirements.
. I I
NOTE: The apparent violation discussed in this predecisional i l
enforcement conference is subject to further review and is subject to change prior to any resulting enforcoment decision.
I PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE AGENDA TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY STONE AND WEBSTER ENGINEERING GROUP INDlVIDUAL OCTOBER 30,1995, AT 1:00 P.M.
NRC REGION ll OFFICE, ATLANTA, GEORGIA (THIS PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE WILL BE TRANSCRIBED)
- 1. OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS J. Johnson, Acting Deputy Regional Administrator
- 11. NRC ENFORCEMENT POLICY B. Uryc, Director Enforcement and investigation Coordination Staff Ill.
SUMMARY
OF TH ISSUES J. Johnson, ActW Deputy Regional Administrator IV. STAT 6 DENT- OF CONCERNS / APPARENT VIOLATIONS E. Merschoff, Director Division of Reactor Projects V. TENNESSEEVALLEY AUTHORITY PRESENTATION VI. STONE AND WEBSTER ENGINEERING GROUP PRESENTATION.
f . VII. STATEMENT OF MR. EHELE Vill. BREAK / NRC CAUCUS IX. NHC FOLLOWUP QUESTIONS -
1 X. CLOSING REMARKS J. Johnson, Act% Deputy Regional Administrator l
!