ML20205M151
| ML20205M151 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 11/20/1995 |
| From: | Ebneter S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Lieberman J NRC OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT (OE) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205M044 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-99-76 EA-95-190, EA-95-220, EA-95-229, NUDOCS 9904150139 | |
| Download: ML20205M151 (51) | |
Text
i
[
A i
h**#E4 UNITED STATES 9*
3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION M E
o 101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W..' SUITE 2000 En
<j ATLANTA, GEORGIA 3032H190 November 20, 1995 MEMORANDUM T0:
James Lieberman, Director Office of Enforcement FROM:
Stewart D. Ebneter
()
Wh (r ff Regional Administrator
SUBJECT:
EA 95-220: TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, BROWNS FERRY
- EMPLOYEE DISCRIMINATION: NOTICE OF VIOLATION, EXERCISE OF ENFORCEMENT DISCRETION TO REFRAIN FROM ISSUING A CIVIL PENALTY EA 95-190:
STONE AND WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION
- EMPLOYEE DISCRIMINATION: NOTICE OF VIOLATION EA 95-229:
INDIVIDUAL
- EMPLOYEE DISCRIMINATION: NOTICE OF VIOLATION Enclosed for your review and concurrence is our proposed enfcrcement action for Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC) and an individual resulting from the Secretary of Labor's (SOL) August 22, 1995 Decision and Order in Department of Labor Case No. 93-ERA-44.
This case involved alleged discrimination against Mr. Douglas Harrison, a general foreman working for SWEC, a TVA contractor at the E owns Ferry site.
Based on our review of the information in this case including the information provided by TVA, SWEC and Mr. Ehele during the predecisional enforcement conference, we found no additional evidence in this case that was not considered in the SOL's decision; and therefore, adopt the final SOL decision in this case.
A consensus on the proposed enforcement actions was reached in telephone conference; of October 30 and November 1, 1995. The calls resulted in agreement that this matter represented a Severity Level II violation of l
10 CFR 50.7, which prohibits discrimination against employees for engaging in activities protected by Section 211 of the Energy Reorganization Act (ERA).
Issuance of a Severity Level II violation is proposed for TVA and SWEC.
In the case of TVA, application of the factors of Identification and Corrective Action would have resulted in proposal of the base civil penalty for a l
Severity Level II violation, i.e., S80,000.
However, based on TVA's efforts L
to improve their emplo3ee concerns program, the results of reviews and j
inspections of the current program and their action to investigate this finding of discrimination, we agreed to exercise discretion and refrain from z
i l
2 @ proposing a civil pr.alty for TVA. With regard to the enforcement action for i
the contractor supervisor involved in this case, we considered an Order precluding his involvement in NRC licensed activities, but agreed that a e Severity Level II violation was appropriate for the reasons outlined in the yt;- attached letter to the individual.
- o-1
$0$
- W CONTACT:
B. Uryc
)
oz$
(404 331 4192)
)
$23 4os \\Go (V\\ yhtscuOo.comW-m r r.
toytm mzm
e l[
t J. Lieberman 2
Drafts of the proposed enforcement actions for TVA, SWEC and the supervisor who committed the discrimir.atory acts are provided in Attachments 1, 2 and 3, respectively.
Copies of pertinent documents were previously provided in the reference package for the enforcement panel.
Additional reference documents not previously provided, including the transcript of the enforcement conference, are included in Atthchment 4.
In accordance with the Enforcement Policy,Section VII.B. exercise of discretion in accordance with Section VII.B.6 requires the approval of the Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Regional Operations and Research.
In addition, the NRC Office of Investigation (01) in 01 Report No. 2-93-030 concluded that the Complainant's DOL allegations were unsubstantiated.
Therefore, in accordance with Section 2.ll.b.9 of the Enforcement Manual, Commission consultation may be required unless the Director. 01 agrees that it is not warranted.
On November 8, 1995, the Region II 01 Field Office Director informed the staff that the Director, 01, considered a Commission Paper unnecessary.
This case is exempt from the Office of Enforcement's timeliness requirements.
Attachments:
- 1. Draft Letter /NOV to TVA
- 2. Draft Letter /NOV to SWEC
- 3. Draft Letter /NOV to Individual
- 4. Additional Reference Material cc w/atts:
J. Goldberg, 0GC R. Zimmerman, NRR 4
PRpPetED ESCALATED EN
, ACTION NOT FOR wwLicorsctguREv APPROVAL E
m
a DRAFT DOCUMENT EA 95-220 Tennessee Valley Authority ATTN:
Mr-. Oliver D. Kingsley, Jr.
President TVA Nuclear and Chief Nuclear Officer 6A Lookout' Place 1101 Market Street Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND EXERCISE OF ENFORCEMENT DISCRETION (Department of Labor Case No. 93-ERA-044)
Dear Mr. Kingsley:
On August 22, 1995, the Secretary of Labor issued a Decision and Order, in Department of Labor (DOL) Case 93-ERA-044, which found that Stone and 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 prot _ tion concerns constituted protected activity.
This Decision and Order overturned the Department of Labor's Administrative Law Judge's Recommended 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 October 18, 1995.
The information reviewed in this case included documents in DOL's case record, including the Secretary of Labor's Decision and Order and the record developed by the NRC's Office of Investigation. A closed transcribed predecisional enforcement conference was conducted in the Region II office on October 30, 1995, to discuss the apparent violations, 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 ir. this case.
The report summarizing the conference was sent to you by letter dated November 8, 199r Based on the DOL case record, information developed during our review and the informction that you provided during the conference, the NRC has concluded that a violation of NRC requirements occurred in this case; specifically, a violation of 10 CFR 50.7 which prohibits discrimination against an' employee for engaging in activities protected by Section 211 of the Energy Reorganization Act (ERA).
The activities which are protected include, but are not limited to, reporting of safety concerns by an employee to his employer.
The violation is cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice).
After review of the information provided during the enforcement conference, we find no additional evidence in this case that was not considered in the Secretary of Labor's Decision and Order.
Therefore, the NRC adopts the final Secretary of Labor Decision and Order in this case and finds that the actions taken against Mr. Harrison in retaliation for his having raised safety PRDPoSED ESCALATED ENFORCEMENT ACTION - NoT FoR
' punuc otsclosuRE v/o APPROVAL OF THEp, oE Attachment I s
TVA 2
concerns. While discrimination against any person for engaging in protected activities is cause for concern to the NRC, this violation is considered to be a significant regulatory concern because it involved discrimination against an employee by a contract manager above a first line supervisor.
Licensees have a primary responsibility for ensuring that all employees engaged in or affiliated with licensed activities, including contract employees, can raise real or perceived safety concerns in a work environment conducive to such protected activity and free of fear from retaliation.
During the enforcement conference, your staff dented the violation.
We conclude that the facts support the conclusion that SWEC's Chief Construction Supervisor exhibited careless disregard for the regulations applicable to employee protection in the wrongful demotion and transfer of Mr. Harrison. Therefore, this violation has been categorized in accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions" (Enforcement Policy) NUREG-1600, at Severity Level II.
In accordance with the Enforcement Policy, a base civil penalty in the amount of $80,000 is considered for a Severity Level II violation.
Because your facility has not been the subject of escalated enforcement actions within the last 2 years, the NRC considered whether credit was warranted for Corrective Action in accordance with the civil penalty assessment process in Section VI.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy.
Your corrective actions included an investigation of the complaint by TVA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) at the time the DOL complaint was filed and a September 19, 1995 letter issued to SWEC requesting a written response regarding SWEC's actions to ensure no chilling effect resulted from the DOL finding.
In addition, the NRC conducted surveys of SWEC employees in late 1993 and the TVA/0lG conducted surveys in July 1994 and September 1995 with positive results.
SWEC also conducted additional periodic surveys, issued memorandum to its staff, and included information on the employee concerns programs in meetings with its staff with the most recent meeting occurring after the Secretary of Labor's Decision and Order.
Therefore, the NRC determined that credit was warranted for the factor of Corrective Action.
In accordance with Section VII.A.1 of the Enforcement Policy, the NRC considered exercising discretion by proposing a civil penalty for the Severity Level 11 violation even though the application of the factors would otherwise result in a zero monetary penalty.
However, the NRC has weighad the circumstances of this case and concluded that it is appropriate to exercise discretion and refrain from proposing a civil penalty in this case in accordance with Section VII.B.6 of the Enforcement Policy.
Discretion is warranted to recognize the significant efforts TVA has made to improve its employee concerns programs and ensure that employees feel free to raise safety concerns without the fear of discrimination.
Some of those actions include an active and aggressive employee concerns program, high visibility of corporate values and philosophy regarding open and candid communications, contractual requirements for the handling of contract employee safety concerns, and training for employees, supervisors and managers that includes the prohibition against any form of discrimination for raising safety concerns.
Our review of your program indicates that TVA has taken easonable steps to ensure compliance with 10 CFR 50.7 and the ERA.
FR0PosID T3CALAi[D ENFORCEMENT AC110N _ jai 4
)
PUBLIC DisclosuRfAf/o AfTR0 FAN)F-T11FDIRECloR. oE
.e a
TVA 3
Therefore, to emphasize the importance of ensuring that every effort is made i
to provide an environment in which all employees may freely identify safety concerns without fear of retaliation or discrimination, 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 of Violation with a Severity Level II violation. However, in light of your overall positive actions to address employee concerns at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, I have been authorized to exercise enforcement discretion pursuant to Section VII.B.6 of the Enforcement Policy and not issue a civil penalty in this case.
TVA must continue its efforts to ensure an environment in which all employees will freely identify safety concerns without fear of retaliation or discrimination.
You should also ensure that managers assigned to provide oversight of contractors are aware of their responsibilities to ensure and promote an environment free of discrimination and that any investigations that could result in adverse employee actions include thorough consideration of the requirements of 10 CFR 50.7 and the ERA.
Because of the information you provided to the NRC at the Enforcement Conference, a response to this letter is not required.
However, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, its enclosure, and any response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR).
If you choose to respond, 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 desire not to be placed in the PDR, and provide the legal basis to support your request for withholding the information from the public.
We acknowledge that SWEC has stated that they will appeal the Secretary of Labor's Decision and Order in this case.
In the event the case is successfully appealed at a later date and the Secretary of Labor's Decision and Order is reversed, you may request that the NRC reconsider this enforcement decision.
Sincerely, Stewart D. Ebneter Regional Administrator Docket Nos. 50-259, -260 and -296 License Nos. DPR-33, -52 and -68
Enclosure:
Notice of Violation cc w/ encl (See,next page) teceogDJscAMaroRctgmie I roR PUBLICDIsCloSUREW/o$PPR65ALofTHEDIR
TVA 4
cc w/ encl:
Mr. O. J. Zeringue, Senior Vice Mr. Pedro Salas President Site Licensing Manager Nuclear Operations _
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Tennessee Valley Authority Tennessee Valley Authority 3B Lookout Place P. O. Box 2000 1101 Market Street Decatur, AL 35602 Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801 Mr. R. D. Machon, Site Vice President Dr. Mark 0. Medford, Vice President Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Engineering and Technical Services Tennessee Valley Authority Tennessee Valley Authority P. O. Box 2000 3B Lookout Place Decatur, AL 35602 j
1101 Market Street Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801 TVA Representative Tennessee Valley Authority Mr. D. E. Nunn, Vice President 11921 Rockville Pike New Plant Completion Suite 402 Tennessee Valley Authority Rockville, MD 20852 3B Lookout Place 1101 Market Street General Counsel Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801 Tennessee Valley Authority ET llH Mr. P. P. Carier, Manager 400 West Summit Hill Drive Corporate Licensing Knoxville, TN 37902 Tennessee Valley Authority 4G Blue Ridge Chairman 1101 Market Street Limestone County Commission Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801 310 West Washington Street Athens, AL 35611 Mr. T. D. Shriver, Manager Nuclear Assurance and Licensing State Health Officer Browns Ferry Nuclear-Plant Alabama Department of Public Health Tennessee Valley Authority 434 Monroe Street P. O. Box 2000 Montgomery, AL 36130-1701 Decatur, AL 35602
)
r PROPOSED ESCALATED ENfDRCDIEllf'ACfloN - NOT rfoR PlmLIC DisclostRE W/0 APPROVAL 0F THF 01pFCifW OF
~
TVA 5
Distribution w/ encl:
PUBLIC JTaylor, EDO JMilhoan, DEDR SEbneter, RII LChandler, OGC j
JGoldberg, OGC j
EJulian, SECY BKeeling, CA Enforcement Coordinators j
RI, RIII, RIV JLieberman, OE JGray, OE OE:EA File (B. Summers, OE) (2)
DRosano, OE i
EHayden, OPA DDandois, OC LTemper, OC GCaputo, 01 EJordon, AEOD LNorton, OIG BUyrc, RII WMcNulty, RII KClark, RII RTrojanowski, RII AGibson, RII MLesser, RII JWilliams, NRR FHebdon, NRR JJohnson, RII SShaeffer, RII l
CEvans, RII LWatson, RII GHallstrom, RII IMS:RII NUDOCS NRC Senior Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 10833 Shaw Road Athens, AL 35611 PROP 0sEDTstALATED EMORCENENT ACT10N - NOT FoR PUBLIC DiscioSURF W/D APPROVAL'0F THrDIRifTiiRNf'
r t
NOTICE OF VIOLATION Tennessee Valley Authority Docket Nos. 50-259, -260 and -425 Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant License Nos. DPR-33, 58, and 68 Units 1, 2 end 3 EA 95-220 I
As a result of review of a Secretary of Labor Decision and Order dated August 22, 1995, a violation of NRC requirements was identified.
In accordance with the " General Statement of Pclicy and Procedure for NRC 1
Enforcement Actions," NUREG-1600, the violation is listed below:
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, on February 2 and 4,1993, the licensee failed to ensure that the provisions of 10 CFR 50.7 were implemented in that Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation, a contractor to the Tennessee Valley Authority at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, discriminated against Mr. Douglas Harrison (Complainant) for engaging in protected q
activities.
Specifically, Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation 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 Order (DOL Case 93-ERA-44) on August 22, 1995, which found that Complainant's demotion and transfer was an act of retaliation for engaging in protected activities. (01012)
This is a Severity Level 11 violation (Supplement VII).
No response is required to this Notice of Violation.
Dated at Atlanta, Georgia this day of November 1995 PROPOSE 0kA' LATED ENFORCDe[#LACTION - NOT FOR Pimlic DISCl0SURE W/o APPROVAL oF'THE-DIRECTOR,-4E- -
Enclosure
DRAFT DGCUMENT EA 95-190 Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation ATTN: Mr. R. E. Kelly 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 Department of Labor (DOL) Case 93-ERA-044, which found that Stone and 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 l
regarding management's lack of response to the fire protection concerns constituted protected activity.
This Decision and Order overturned the Department of Labor's Administrative Law Judge's Recommended Decision and Order issued on November 8, 1994. The apparent violation and a copy of the l
Secretary of. Labor's-Decision and Order were transmitted to you by letter dated October 18, 1995.
The information reviewed in this case included documents in D0L's case record, including the Secretary of Labor's Decision and Order and the record developed by the NRC's Office of Investigations.
A closed transcribed predecisional enforcement conference was conducted in the Region II. office on October 30, 1995, to discuss the apparent violations, 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 was sent to you by letter dated November 8, 1995.
Based on the D0L case record, the information developed during our review and I
the information you provided during the conference, the NRC has determined that a violation of NRC requirements occurred.
The violation is cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice).
The violation involved discrimination against Mr. Harrison by management above first line supervision. Under 10 CFR 50.7, discrimination by a contractor of a Commission licensee against an employee for engaging in protected 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.
While discrimination against any person for engaging in protected activities is cause for concern to the NRC, this violation is considered to be a significant regulatory concern because it involved discrimination against an employee by management above a first line supervisor.
Therefore, this violation has been categorized in accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions" (Enforcement Policy),
NUREG-1600, at Severity Level II.
- RoPoSED EsCALAi[D ENf oRCENENT' C7(oN - NoT roR Ptmlic DISciostmr Wn Appenval nr THr'4iterrTntr Nt' At t a c hmovit 7
SWEC 2
During the enforcement conference, your staff denied the violation. After review of the information provided in the enforcement conference, we find no additional evidence in this case that was not considered in the Secretary of Labor's decision.
In particular, we disagree with your argument that Mr. Harrison did not engage in protected activity when he communicated the fire protection concerns of his crew to your Chief Construction Supervisor after discussing the issue with the TVA fire protection manager. Therefore, the NRC adopts the final Secretary of Labor's Decision and Order in this case and finds that actions taken against Mr. Harrison were in retaliation for his having raised safety concerns.
We conclude that the facts support the conclusion that your Chief Construction Supervisor exhibited careless
. disregard for 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 employees who raise real or perceived safety concerns are not subject to discrimination for raising safety 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 enforcement. conference, your staff described those actions taken by SWEC as a result of this violation.
Those actions taken in 1993 after Mr. Harrison's compliant was filed included: (1) a review by the SWEC employee concerns representative of the fire protection technical concerns; (2) a memorandum from SWEC management advising supervisors and managers of their responsibilities in the area of employee protection; (3) discussion of employee rights at tool box meetings and in the SWEC " Heads Up" Bulletin; l
(4) conduct of a survey to test employee's knowledge and use of the employee l
concerns program; and, (5) discussion of craft unions' awareness of methods to report concerns during a meeting with union representatives.
In addition, the NRC conducted surveys of SWEC employees in late 1993 and the TVA Office of j
l Inspector General conducted surveys in July 1994 and September 1995 with positive results.
SWEC also conducted additional periodic surveys,' issued l
memorandum to their staff, and included information on the employee concerns
]
l programs in meetings with their staff with the most recent meeting occurring after the Secretary of Labor's Decision and Order.
I Because of the information you provided to the NRC at the predecisional enforcement conference, a response to the Notice of Violation is not required.
However, 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 Comraission licensees have received adequate training-in implementation of the requirements of Section 211 of the ERA and 10 CFR 50.7, In addition, your response should describe the actions taken or planned to assure that the subject employment action did not have a chilling effect in discouraging other SWEC employees from raising real or perceived safety concerns.
PROP 0 SED ESCALATED [NfoRCIMENT ACTION - NOT Fo2
[
e Pt1Rrir-ftttetntHer Wn appanvM nr THr niprrine nr-
m i
SWEC 3
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 l
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 desire-not to be placed in the PDR, and provide the legal basis to support your request for withholding the information from the public.
The response directed 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.
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 case is successfully appealed at a later date and the Secretary of Labor's Decision and Order is reversed, you may request that the NRC reconsider the enforcement decision.
Sincerely, i
Stewart D. Ebneter Regional Administrator Docket No. 9999
Enclosure:
j cc w/ encl:
Tennessee Valley Authority l
ATTN: Mr. Oliver D. Kingsley, Jr.
. President, TVA Nuclear and Chief Nuclear Officer 6A l.cokout Place l
1101 Market Street l
Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801 l
l l
r[mDNtohEoNobr TN
t' SWEC 4
Distribution w/ encl:
PUBLIC JTaylor, ED0 JMilhoan, DEDR SEbneter, RII LChandler, OGC JGoldberg, 0GC EJulian, SECY BKeeling, CA Enforcement Coordinators RI, RIII, RIV:
JLieberman, OE-JGray, OE OE:EA File (B. Summers, OE) (2)
DRosano, OE EHayden, OPA DDandois, OC LTemper, OC GCaputo, 01 EJordon, AE0D LNorton, OIG BUyrc, RII WMcNulty, RII KClark, RII RTrojanowski, RII AGibson, RII MLesser, RII JWilliams,.NRR FHebdon, NRR JJohnson, RII SShaeffer, RII CEvans, RII LWatson, RII GHallstrom, RII IMS:RII NUDOCS NRC. Senior Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 10833 Shaw Road Athens, AL 35611 iEkN6$N/n abE[0M$neYnr
4 f
NOTICE OF VIOLATION Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation Docket No. 9999 Boston, Massachusetts EA 95-220 As a result of review of a Secretary of Labor Decision and Order dated August-22, 1995, a violation of NRC requirements was identified.
In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions,"
NUREG-1600, the violation is listed below:
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, on February 2 and 4, 1993, Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation, a contractor to the Tennessee Valley Authority at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, discriminated against Mr. Douglas Harrison (Complainant) for engaging in protected activities.
S,necifically, Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation 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 Order (DOL Case 93-ERA-44) on August 22, 1995, which found that Complainant's demotion and transfer was an act of retaliation for engaging in protected activities. (01012)
This is a Severity Level II violation (Supplement VII).
No response is required to this Notice of Violation.
Dated at Atlanta, Georgia this day of November 1995 h _ SED ESCALATED ENFORCEMENT ACT!nitrintinor v/n apponvai r(Wr nuorr PROP 0 T FOR w.
Fnci ness, o
i e
i DRAFT DOCUMENT IA 95-???
Mr. Steve Ehele
[H0ME ADDRESS DELETED UNDER 10 CFR 2.790)
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION (Department of Labor Case No. 93-ERA-044)
Dear Mr. Ehele:
On August 22, 1995, the Secretary of Labor issued a Decision and Order, in 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 the lack of response to the fire protection concerns constituted protected activity.
This Decision and Order overturned the Department of Labor's Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) Recommended Decision and Order issued on November 8, 1994. The apparent violation, a copy of the Secretary of Labor's Decision and Order and copies of 10 CFR 50.5 (Deliberate Misconduct) and 10 CFR 50.7 (Employee Protection) were transmitted to you by letter dated October 18, 1995.
The information reviewed in this case included documents in D0L's case record, including the Secretary of Labor's Decision and Order and the record developed by the NRC's Office of Investigations.
A closed transcribed predecisional enforcement conference was conducted in the Region II office on October 30, 1995, to discuss the apparent violations, the root causes, and your corrective actions to preclude recurrence. The predecisional enforcement conference was a joint conference with you, TVA, and SWEC. The report summarizing the conference was sent to you by letter dated November 8, 1995.
i Based on the D0L case record, the information developed during our review and j
the information that you provided during the conference, the NRC has determined that a violation of NRC requirements occurred.
The violation is cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice).
The Secretary of Labor's Decision and Order indicated that, while you were employed by SWEC as a Chief Construction Supervisor at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, you discriminated against a subordinate supervisor, Mr. Harrison, with respect to the terms, conditions, or privileges of his employment as a direct and proximate result of his engaging in protected activities.
Specifically, you wrongfully demoted Mr. Harrison as a result of his protected activity and reassigned him to an outside work crew when he discussed his concern ath other workers.
10 CFR 50.5 prohibits licensee or contractor emp ayees from engaging in i
deliberate misconduct that causes the licensee to be in violation of any rule or regulation, and 10 CFR 50.7 prohibits the licensee from discriminating against any employee for engaging in certain protected activities.
Certified Mail'No:
????
MMr
.Nb ~o[cYn8nr attachmant 1
E L.
l r
i S. Ehele 2
As a member of management above first line supervision, you were in a position of significant responsibility that required you to resolve potential safety concerns and ensure that individuals bringing forward concerns were treated professionally and afforded the protection statutorily conferred by Section 211 of the ERA. While discrimination against any person for engaging in protected activities is cause for concern to the NRC, this violation is considered to be a significant regulatory concern because it involved discrimination by a manager above a.first line supervisor.
Therefore, this violation has been categorized in accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions" (Enforcement Policy)
NUREG-1600, at Severity level II.
During the enforcement conference, you denied the violation.
After review of the information provided during the enforcement conference, we find no additional evidence in this case that was not considered in the Secretary of Labor's Decision and Order.
In particular, we disagree with your argument that Mr. Harrison did not engage in protected activity when he communicated the fire protection concerns of his crews to you after discussing the issue with the TVA fire protection manager.
Therefore, the NRC adopts the final Secretary of Labor Decision and Order in this case and finds that the actions taken against Mr. Harri on were in retaliation for his having raised safety concerns. We conclude ). hat the facts support the conclusion that you exhibited careless disregard for the regulations applicable to employee protection in the wrongful demotion and transfer of Mr. Harrison.
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 Il to emphasize the importance of ensuring that employees who raise real or perceived safety concerns are not subject to discrimination for raising safety concerns.
Serious consideration was also given to issuing an Order to preclude you from involvement in NRC licensed activities for a certain per bd of time.
However, I have decided, after consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, and the Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Regional Operations and Research, that this Notice is l
sufficient given that (1) this incident appears to have been isolated, (2) you have fully cooperated in the investigation of the incident, (3) you indicated that the case has impressed upon you the need to communicate effectively with your employees and be sensitive to their concerns and questions, and (4) the l
Secretary of Labor's Decision and Order indicates that although your decision in taking the adverse employee actions was improper, it may have reen influenced by what you judged to be other legitimate motives.
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing you response.
In your response, you should document the specific actions taken and any additional actions you plan to prevent recurrence.
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 enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirements.
Any similar conduct on your part in the future could result in further enforcement action i
against you.
Pnoposto Escm 2 R isran %cr Acu a N ot ron mwu it nisnnuar wn am<nuNr rur nior' j
r-l S. Ehele 3
'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 responst 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 desire not to be placed in the PDR, and provide the legal basis. to support your request for withholding the information from the public.
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. No. 96.511.
We acknowledge that SWEC has stated that they will appeal the Secretary of Labor's Decision and Order'in this case.
In the event the case is successfully appealed at a later date and the Secretary of Labor's Decision and Order is reversed, you may request that the NRC reconsider the enforcement decision.
Should ycu have any questions concerning this conference, please contact Mr. Bruno Uryc at (404) 331 5505 or Mr. Mark Lesser at (404) 331-0342.
Collect calls will be accepted.
You may also contact us by calling 1-800-577-8510.
Sincerely, Stewart D. Ebneter Regional Administrator Docket Nos. 50-259, -260 and -296 License Nos..DPR-33, -52 and -68 EA 95-229
Enclosure:
Notice of Violation cc w/ encl:
Tennessee Valley Authority ATTN: Mr. Oliver D. Kingsley, Jr.
President, TVA Nuclear and Chief Nuclear Officer 6A Lookout Place 1101 Market Street Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801 Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation ATTN: Mr. R. E. Kelly President 245 Summer Street Boston, Massachusetts 02240 PU D
F n Mn F
5 n er
S. Ehele 4
Distribution w/ encl:
PUBLIC JTaylor EDO JMilhoan, DEDR SEbneter, Ril LChandler, OGC JGoldberg, 0GC EJulian, SECY BKeeling, CA Enforcement Coordinators RI, Rill, CIV JLieberman, OE JGray, OE OE:EA File (B. Summers, OE) (2)
DRosano, OE EHayden, OPA DDandois, OC LTemper, OC
{
GCaputo, 01 EJordon, AE0D LNorton, OIG BUyrc, RII
)
WMcNulty, RIl KClark, RII RTrojanowski, RII AGibson, RII MLesser, RII JWilliams, NRR i
FHebdon, NRR JJohnson, RIl SShaeffer, Rll CEvans, Ril
)
LWatson, RII GHalistrom, Ril IMS:Rll NUDOCS NRC Senior Resident inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 10833 Shaw Road Athens, AL 35611 P
r,rl e r DPD in u
F.
s
\\
NOTICE OF VIOLf'10N Mr. Steve Ehele IA 95-???
[h0ME ADDRESS DELETED
.UNDER 10 CFR 2.790]
As a result of review of a Secretary of Labor Decision and Order dated August 2.2, 1995, a violation of NRC requirements was identified.
In accordance with the
- General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions,"
NUREG-1600, the violation is listed below:
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 any regulation issued by the Commission.
Deliberate miscunduct is defined by 10 CFR 50.5(c) as an intentional act or emission that the person.knows constitutes a violation of a recuirement, procedure, instruction or policy of a licensee.
10 U R 50.7 prohibits discrimination by a Ccmmission 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 ir.cludes discharge or other actions relating to the compensation, terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.
Contrary to the above, on February 2 and 4, 1993, Mr. Steve Ehele, while employed as a Chief Construction Supervisor with Stone and Webster Engineering corporation, a contractor to the Tennessee Valley Authority at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, discriminated against Mr. Douglas Harrison (Complainant) for engaging in protected activities.
Specifically, 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 Decis~ ion and Order (DOL Case 93-ERA-44) on August 22, 1995, which found that Complainant's i
demotion and transfer was an act of retaliation for engaging in protected activities. (01012)
This is a Severity Level 11 violation (Supplement Vil).
Pursuant to the provisions of-10 CFR 2.201, Mr. Steve Ehele is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN:
Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C. 20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region II, and a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector at the facility that is the subject of'this Notice, within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice of Violation (Notice).
This reply should be clearly marked as a " Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include for each violation:
(1) the reason for the violation, or, if contested, the basis for disputing the 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.
Your response may reference or include previous nD$5sME7 rm.1 ~,..
l n
1
e r
docketed correspondence, if the correspondence adequately addresses the rqquired response.
If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an order or a Demand for Information may be issued as to why other action as may be proper should not be taken Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the r-
.ase time.
Under the authority of Section 182 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2232, this response shall be submitted under oath or affirmation.
Because your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), to the extent possible, it should not include.any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards infcrmation 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 desire not to be placed in the PDR, and provide the legal basis to support your request for withholding the information from the public.
Dated at Atlanta, Georgia this day of November 1995 1
1
)
oPoSprTsQLATED ENfDRefM(NT ACTIoWOT FoR 4
m 4rnnn nowr wn amnvannr me ntorew= nr ~
j
o a
J. Lieberman 2
Drafts of the proposed enforcement actions for TVA, SWEC and the supervisor who committed the discriminatory acts are provided in Attachments 1, 2 and 3, respectively. Copies of pertinent documents were previously provided in the referenu: package for the enforcement panel. Additional reference documents not previously provided, including the transcript of the enforcement conference, are included in Attachment 4.
In accordance with the Enforcement Policy, Section Vll.B, exercise of discretion in accordance with Section VII.B.6 requires the approval of the Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Regional Operations and Research.
In addition, the NRC Office of Investigation (01) in 01 Report No. 2-93-030 concluded that the Complainant's D0L allegations were unsubstantiated.
Therefore, in accordance with Section 2.11.b.9 of the Enforcement Manual, Commission consultation may be required unless the Director, 01 agrees that it is not warranted. On November 8, 1995, the Region II 01 Field Office Director informed the staff that the Director, 01, considered a Commission Paper unnecessary.
This case is exempt from the Office of Enforcement's timeliness requirements.
Attachments:
- 1. Draft Letter /NOV to TVA
- 2. Draft Letter /NOV to SWEC
- 3. Draft Letter /NOV to Individual
- 4. Additional Reference Material cc w/atts:
J. Goldberg, OGC R. Zimmerman, NRR
- SEE PREVIOUS PAGE FOR CONCURSERCE SEND TO PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOM 7 YES ((NO) l OFFICE Ril.DRP Ril.DRP V
RH.EICS /
Rit: ORA Ril(ORA Segnature JJbHr4 SON NAME MLESSER*
- DATE 11/
/95 111
/95 11AV/95 111
/95 11/f1 /95 COPY?
YES NO YES No pies /
NO YES NO
[ES )
NO OFFICIAL RECORD COPY DOCUMENT NAME: HMOPEN ENF\\95190 DOL.DtRMEMTOOE. DIS
]
W
e f
f 4
J. Lieberman 2
Drafts of the proposed enforcement actions for TVA, SWEC and for the supervisor who committed the discriminatory acts are provided in Attachments I, 2 and 3, respectively.
Copies of pertinent documents were previously provided in the reference package for the enforcement panel.
Additional reference documents not previously provided, including the transcript of the enforcement conference, are included in Attachment 4.
In accordance with the Enforcement Policy,Section VII.B, exercise of dise,retion in accordance with Section VII.B.6 requires the approval of the Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Regional Operations and Research.
In addition, the NRC Office of Investigation (01) in 01 Report No. 2-93-030 concluded that the Complainant's DOL allegations were unsubstantiated.
Therefore, in accordance with Section 2.)I.b.9 of the Enforcement Manual, Commission consultation may be needed unless the Director, 01 agrees that it is not warranted. On November 8, 1995, the Region II 01 Field Office Director, informed the staff that the Director, 01 considers a Commission Paper unnecessary.
This case is exempt from the Office of Enforcement's timeliness requirements.
Attachments:
I. Draft Letter /NOV to TVA
- 2. Draft Letter /NOV to SWEC and Webster
- 3. Draft Letter /NOV to Individual
- 4. Additional Reference Material cc w/atts:
J. Goldberg-, OGC R. Zimmermans NRR l
=
SEND TO PUBLIC DOCUMENT AOOM7 YES [NO /
l U"Rll ElCS All: ORA Ril: ORA OFFICE Ril:DRP Ril:DM S4gnature f
NAME MLESSER EMERSCHOFF BURYC CEVANS JJOHNSON DATE 11/ Q /95 11/,K
/95 11/
/95 11/
/95 11/
/95 COPY 7 YES NO YES' NO YES NO YES NO YES NO OFFICIAL RECORD COPY DOCUMENT N AME: H A1950 PEN ENF195190 DOL.DIRiMEMTOOE. DIS AL T
oE
EZcs a y i
ENFORCEMENT AND INVESTIGATION COORDINATION STAFF REGION II l
(
REFERENCE PACKAGE EA 95-220, EA 95-190, EA 95-229 i
BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT ENFORCEMENT ACTION FOR TVA, SWEC AND INDIVIDUAL DOL DISCRIMINATION CASE I
I REFERENCE DOCUEIENT CHECKLIST REGION 11 ENFORCEMENT AND INVESTIGATIONS COORDINATION STAFF ENCLOSURES EA 95-220: TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, BROWNG FERRY
- EMPLOYEE DISCRIMINATION: NOTICE OF VIOLATION, EXERCISE OF ENFORCEMENT DISCRETION TO REFRAIN FROM ISSUING A CIVIL PENALTY EA 95-190: STONE AND WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION
- EMPLOYEE DISCHIMINATION: NOTICE OF VIOLATION EA 95-229: INDIVIDup.L
- EMPLOYEE DISCRIMINATION: NOTICE OF VIOLATION 1.
Transcript of October 30,1995 Predecisional Enforcement Conference 2.
Licensee's Presentation Summary 3.
September 19,1995 letter from TVA to SWEC on Chilling Effect (STAMPED ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL) 4.
SWEC September 27,1995 response to TVA September 1F,,1995 letter (STAMPED ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL)
ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: LINDA WATSON (404) 331-4192
[A%
ry>ss&
y$k
/
Re REFEgyNCE PACKAGE ggg
- 9 R I ElCS NO: 95~E.034 ENCLOSURENo; j
e e
I t
REFERENCE PACKAGE Ril EA NOS: 95-220,190, 229 Ril/EICS NO: 95-E-034 1
ENCLOSURE NO:
PREDECISIONAL ENFORCFMENT CONFERENCE ATLANTA, GEORGIA OCTOBER 30,1995 POTENTIALVIOLATION OF 10 CFR @ 50.7 PRESENTATION OF
{
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT
PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE i
1.
INTRODUCTION R. MACHON 2.
TVA MANAGEMENT R. MACHON PERSPECTIVE STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION PRESENTATION 3.
TVA'S ASSESSMENT OF THE M.MEDFORD BFN WORK ENVIRONMENT 4.
CONTRACTOR REQUIREMENTS M.MEDFORD IMPOSED BY TVA
{
~
i 5.
ACTIONS TAKEN BY' TVA M.MEDFORD i
1 6.
SUMMARY
M.MEDFORD 1
1 l
1
1 TVA MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE
{
e TVAIS COMMITTED TO AN OPEN WORK ENVIRONMENT FREE OF INTIMIDATION AND HARASSMENT
= INDICATIONS POINT TO A POSITIVE WORK ENVIRONMENT AT BROWNS FERRY
= CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT NO DISCRIMINATION OCCURRED ON SWEC'S BEHALF 2
~
TVA'S ASSESSMENT OF THE BROWNS FERRY
{
WORK ENVIRONMENT e.RECENT DATA INDICATE THE ABSENCE OF ANY CHILLING EFFECT NRC SURVEY OF DECEMBER 1993 TVA OIG. SURVEY OF JULY 1994 TVA OIG SURVEY OF SEPTEMBER 1995 e WORK ENVIRONMENT NOT AFFECTED BY THE HARRISON CASE 3
i
9 CONTRACTOR REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY TVA e TVA REQUIRES CONTRACTORS TO PROTECT RIGHTS
)
OF EMPLOYEES MUST COMPLY WITH SECTION 211 MUST FULLY INVESTIGATE.'115GATIONS MUST COOPERATE WITH TVA'S OIG MUST DESCRIBE MANAGEMENT ACTION
- MAJOR CONTRACTORS MUST ESTABLISH THEIR OWN EMPLOYEE CONCERN PROGRAMS CONTRACTOR EMPLOYEE CONCERN PROGRAMS e
ARE AUDITED BY TVA'S OIG AND CONCERNS RESOLUTION STAFF FREQUENT COMMUNICATION BETWEEN e
CONTRACTOR CONCERN PROGRAMS AND TVA CONCERN PROGRAM 4
ACTIONS TAKEN BY TVA
- REQUESTED SWEC TO ADDRESS POTENTIAL CHILLING EFFECT OF SECRETARY'S DECISION
- ASSESSED SWEC'S RESPONSE AND REQUIRED FOLLOW-UP ACTION l
5
e
SUMMARY
- THE BROWNS FERRY WORK ENVIRONMENT IS OPEN i
TO THE EXPRESSION OF EMPLOYEE CONCERNS CIRCUMSTANCEE OF THE HARRISON CASE DO NOT o
POINT TO DISCRIMINATION ON BEHALF OF SWEC
- NO VIOLATION OF 10 CFR 50.7 EXISTS 6
j
NRC ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE
{
POTENTIAL VIOLATION OF 10 C.F.R. 50.7 RELATING TO DOUGLAS HARRISON CASE i
PRESENTATION OF STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PROJECT October 30,1995
NRC ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE AGENDA INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW B. DODSON VICE PRESIDENT-NUCLEAR SEQUENCE OF EVENTS C.R. BISHOP VICE PRESIDENT -
BROWNS FERRY SITE DIRECTOR STATEMENT OF STEVFN EHELE o
.. 23.~.S ~.'.25 i C ;. mocGED C.R. BISHOP DISCRIMINATION BY SWEC DEPARTMENT OF LABOR ACTIONS C.R. BISHOP SWEC PETITION FOR REVIEW OF R. RADER SECRETARY'S DECISION IN U.S.
WINSTON & STRAWN COURT OF APPEALS ACTIONS TO ENCOURAGE REPORTING C.R. BISHOP OF SAFETY CONCERNS ACTIONS TO VERIFY EFFECTIVENESS OF C.R. BISHOP SWEC EMPLOYEE CONCERNS PROGRAM e
NRC ENFORCEMENT CONSIDERATIONS B. DODSON
SUMMARY
AND CLOSING REMARKS B. DODSON _
NRC ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW SWEC PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES, ALONG WITH TVA, ASSURE CONTINUED ABILITY OF EMPLOYEES TO RAISE SAFETY CONCERNS FREELY.
PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE RESULTS FROM SECRETARY OF LABOR DECISION UNDER SECTION 211.
ISSUE IS WHETHER AN IRONWORKER LEAD FOREMA10AT BROWNS FERRY UNIT 3 WAS DEMOTED TO FOREMAN /5D REASSIGNED BECAUSE HE RAISED A CONCERN ABOUT
)
FIRE WATCH REQUIREMENTS.
FINDINGS BY SECRETARY OF LABOR DISAGREE WITH
)
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE AND WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION.
j e
SWEC HAS APPEALED TO COURT OF APPEALS, BASED ON SIGNIFICANT LEGAL ISSUES AND LACK OF EVIDENCE TO FIND j
DISCRIMINATION.
e FACTS IN THIS CASE LEAD TO A FINDING OF NO DISCRIMINATION.
i 3
c NRC ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE SEOUENCE OF EVENTS JUNE 1992 HARRISON HIRED BY SWEC AS JOURNEYMAN IRONWORKER.
OCTOBER 6,1992 HARRISON DESIGNATED SECOND LEAD FOREMAN FOR UNIT 3 DRYWELL IRONWORKERS; HARRISON SPECIFICALLY TOLD HE WOULD BE FIRST ONE CUT BACK IN F1.TURE REDUCTION OF LEAD FOREMEN. b ASED ON SENIOi1ITY NOVEMBER 11,1992 HARRISON CUT BACK FROM LEAD FOREMAN TO FOREMAN, BUMPING A MORE JUNIOR FOREMAN TO JOURNEYMAN.
JANUARY 6,1993 HARRISON REDESIGNATED LEAD FOREMAN FOR A SINGLE CREW OF IRONWORKERS; AGAIN ADVISED HE WOULD BE FIRST ONE CUT BACK DUE TO SENIORITY.
JANUARY 27-29,1993 SWEC FIELD SITE MANAGER ASKS STEVE EHELE AND OTHER CRAFT SUPERVISORS TO CONSIDER FOREMEN / LEAD FOREhEN CUTBACKS.
JANUARY 29-30,1993 EHELE hEETS WITH SUPERVISORS TO CFECK ROSTERS FOR CREWS
" TOP HEAVY" WITH FOREhEN/ LEAD FOREMEN.
NO PARTICULAR POSITION OR INDIVIDUAL SUGGESTED FOR REDUCTION.
1 SUPERVISORS hEET WITH EHELE S AME DAY AND RECOMMEND REDUCING HARRISON TO FOREMAN.
-4
r FEBRUARY 1,1993 EHELE LEARNS FROM HARRISON FOR FIRST TINE AT ROUTINE MEETING THAT IRONWORKERS ARE CUNCERNED ABOUT WHICH GROUP PERFORMS FIRE WATCH DURING THE COOL-DOWN PERIOD, BUT NO SAFETY CONCERN EXPRESSED.
FEBR~UARY 2,1993 HARRISON INFORMED OF HIS REDUCTION TO FOREMAN AS A RESULT OF SENIORITY, BUT REJECTS FOREMAN POSITION.
I HARRISON AND UNION REPRESENTATIVE APPROACH EHELE AND SUPERVISORS TO REQUEST HARRISON'S REASSIGNhENT TO AN
' L' "
'liEi, TI:AU U "T.' ".P.TVEU.
FEBRUARY 3,1993 HARRISON SPEAKS WITH IRONWORKERS IN DRYWELL BEFORE i
MORNING SHIFT; IRONWORKERS REFUSE TO ENTER DRYWELL "UNTIL PROBLEMS RESOLVED."
EHELE CONVENES MORNING hEETING WITH IRONWORKERS' BARGAINING UNIT REPRESENTATIVES ON REFUSAL TO WORK.
LATER, EHELE LEARNS FROM FIRE WATCH GENERAL FOREMAN OF i
LABORERS, FOR FIRST TIME, OF IRONWORKERS' CONCERN THAT LABORERS WERE NOT SIGNING ON TO HOT WORK PERMITS.
SWEC FIELD MANAGER FINDS NO EVIDENCE THAT LABORERS WERE j
FAILING TO SIGN ON TO HOT WORK PERMITS.
EHELE PURSUES DISCUSSIONS WITH LABORERS' SUPERVISION AND BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVES; NEW ARRANGEhENTS MADE TO COVER FIRE WATCH IN UNIT 3 DRYWELL STRICTLY WITH LABORERS.
I SWEC UNDERSTOOD IRONWORKERS AS CONCERNED ONLY WITH RELIEF FROM DRYWELL FEBRUARY 8,1993 LABORERS AGAIN ASSUME FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR FIRE WATCHES IN THE UNIT 3 DRYWELL.
NRC ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE SWEC INVESTIGATION FINDS NO DISCRIMINATION ON FEBRUARY 4,1993, HARRISON CONTACTS STEVEN SALOWITZ, MANAGER OF SWEC EMPLOYEE CONCERNS PROGRAM.
SALOWITZ INVESTIGATES FEBRUARY 4-12,1993 BY INTERVIEWING SWEC MANAGERS AND SUPERVISORS, WHO ADVISE OF ROSTER REVIEW AND DECISION TO ELIMINATE A LEAD FOREMAN.
e Sai
- Z s..
,,.R ' O 1
w.L. t UTB ACKS IN FROukhS5 HAD BEGUN PRIOR TO HARRISON'S DISCUSSING FIRE WATCH CONCERNS.
SALOWITZ ALSO CONCLUDES HARRISON REDUCED FROM LEAD FOREMAN TO FOREMAN B ASED ON SENIORITY, LIKE PREVIGU5 REDUCTION IN NOVEMBER 1992.
I e
4 SALOWITZ INVESTIGATES POSSIBLE FAILURE OF LABORERS TO SIGN HOT WORK PERMITS.
HE FIRST FINDS THAT HOT WORK PERMITS FOR FEBRUARY 3,1993 l
AND AFTERWARDS WERE SIGNED. LATER FINDS PERMITS FOR FEBRUARY l-2,1993 SIGNED, BUT ILLEGIBLE.
SALOWITZ CONFIRMS THAT EHELE HAD TAKEN ADEQUATE CORRECTIVE ACTION AFTER NEETINGS ON FEBRUARY 3,1993 TO ASSURE LABORERS WERE SIGNING PERMITS. SALOWITZ AND TVA QA CONCUR NO CORRECTIVE ACTION DOCUMENT NEEDED.
NO EVIDENCE FOUND THAT LABORERS IN DRYWELL FAILED TO COVER HOT SPOTS DURING ABSENCE OF IRONWORKERS.
ON APRIL 16,1993, WHEN HARRISON P ET!'P w t ;.DM EXTENDED SICK LEAVE, SALOWITZ INFORMS HARRISON OF INVESTIGATION RESULTS.
HARRISON TOLD HE HAD DONE GOOD JOB AS LE AD FOREMAN AND REDUCED ONLY FOR COST-SAVINGS, HARRISON RAISES NO CONCERN ABOUT HANDLING OF COMPLAINT OR SUBSTANTIVE FINDINGS.
7-
NRC ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR ACTIONS ON MARCH 30,1993. HARRISON FILES SECTION 211 COMPLAINT WITH DOL, RECEIVED BY SWEC MAY 28,1993.
DOL WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION FINDS ON JUNE 16,1993, BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVfDENCE, NO DISCRIMINATION OCCURRED.
STANDARD REVIEW OF PERSONNEL ASSIGNMENTS AND LABOR COSTS LED TO HARRISON'S DEMOTION; ONLY OTHER LEAD FOREMAN MAINTAINED HIS POSITION BECAUSE OF SENIORITY.
C 6. L... s T
~
.sGWN AND b *..
i 4IER CRAFTS MADL PRIOR TO HARRISON'b RAldfNG AM FIRE WATCH CONCERNS ON FEBRUARY 1,1993.
AFTER FULL HEARING WITH LIVE TESTIMONY, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE RICHARD A. MALAMPH y ISSUES RECOMMENDED DECISION ON NOVEMBER 8,1994, FINDING NO DISCRIMINATION OR RETALIATION AGAINST HARRISON.
COMPLAINANT MADE A LEAD FOREMAN TO FINISH THE " LOWER STEEL" PROJECT AT ELEVATION 563. WHEN NEAR COMPLETION, SWEC REVIEWED ITS ROSTERS AND DECIDED FEWER FOREMEN NEEDED. HENCE, NO DISCRIMINATION IN HARRISON'S REDUCTION FROM LEAD FOREMAN.
HARRISON'S " EDUCTION WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACCEPTED SENIORITY PRINCIPLES.
HARRISON'S SUBSEQUENT TRANSFER TO AN OUTSIDE CREW CAME EITHER AT HIS OWN REQUEST OR AFTER HIS MEETING WITH IRONWORKERS RESULTED IN WORK STOPPAGE.
DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF LABOR OF AUGUST 22,1995, REJECTS THE ALJ'S CONCLUSIONS.
t 8
O NRC ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE SWEC PETITION FOR REVIEW OF SECRETARY'S DECISION IN U.S. COURT OF APPEALS PETITION FOR REVIEW FILED OCTOBER 13,1995 WITH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT.
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES ON APPEAL RELATING TO " PROTECTED ACTIVITY."
NO EVIDENCE THAT EHELE AND SWEC SUPERVISORS UNDERSTOOD HARRISON'S CONCERNS TO INVOLVE SAFETY ISSUE.
SECRETARY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT IRONWORKERS INITIALLY COMPLAINED ABOUT FIRE WATCHES AS A DlVISION OF LABOR, BUT NEVER EXPLAINED HOW THIS CONCERN EVOLVED INTO PERCEIVED SAFETY ISSUE.
]
EVEN WHEN 1RONWORKERS' CONCERN WAS CLARIFIED, ONLY QUESTION OF ADEQUATE FIRE WATCH COVERAGE SO IRONWORKERS COULD LEAVE DRYWELL.
)
NO BASIS FOR SECRETARY'S FINDING THAT THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF FIRE PROTECTION PLAN.
l ERRONEOUS FINDING THAT COMMUNICATION TO CO-WORKER CONSTITUTES " PROTECTED ACTIVITY" UNDER SECTION 211.
i 9
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES ON APPEAL RELATING TO LACK OF " SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE" TO SUPPORT SECRETARY'S DECISION.
SECRETARY SUBSTITUTED HIS JUDGMENT ON WITNESS j
CREDIBILITY FOR THAT OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE, WHO ALONE HEARD THE WITNESSES' LIVE TESTIMONY. EXAMPLES BELOW.
CUTBACKS LEADING TO HARRISON'S DEMOTION STARTEO BEFORE HARRISON RAISED CONCERNS.
EHELE DID NOT SELECT OR SUGGEST ANY PARTICULAR FOREMAN / LEAD FOREMAN FOR DEMOTION.
SECRETARV " fDP OPERL Y n!WED'TED FIELD MANAGER'S TFSTl\\10NY OF " L':251P adLE F.hiNCRAFTSMAN RATIO SIMPLi bdCAUSE EXACT RATIO NOT ACHIEVED.
SECRETARY IGNORED EVIDENCE THAT SWEC CONSIDERED DEMOTIONS IN OTHER SKILLED CRAFTS AND SUPPORT CRAFTS EHELE SAID THAT HARRISON WAS ACTING LIKE " MOSES PARTING THE RED SEA" BECAUSE OF UNAUTHORIZED WORK STOPPAGE, NOT FIRE WATCH CONCERNS.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE FOUND THAT HARRISON'S TRANSFER WAS EITHER VOLUNTARY OR RESULT OF HIS INITIATING UNAUTHORIZED WORK STOPPAGE.
THE SECRETARY'S LEGAL CONCLUSIONS AND FACTUAL FINDINGS ARE ERRONEOUS.
i h
i NRC ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE SWEC PROGRAM ENCOURAGES REPORTING OF SAFETY CONCERNS SWEC EMPLOYEE CONCERNS PROGRAM (ECP).
ECP IMPLEMENTED TO INVESTIGATE SWEC EMPLOYEES' NUCLEAR SAFETY / QUALITY CONCERNS NOT RESOLVED BY SUPERVISOR OR MANAGER.
EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPRESENTATIVE (ECR) FUNCTIONS INDEPENDENTLY Or SWEC SITE ? '
~ ' " " "r "
' P c ' ' :' : ' QUA1.l fY '. ONCERNS INVESTIG A r" ' ~. ~ r ~ ~ V'
~
AND ALLEGATIONS OF INTIMIDATION / HARASSMENT.
SWEC ECR COORDINATES AND SHARES INVESTIGATIVE RESUL" '
WITH TV A SWEC ECP INVOLVEMENT IN HARRISON'S CASE.
ECR CONDUCTED THOROUGH INVESTIGATION AND OBTAINED TVA CONCURRENCE ON DISPOSITION OF FIRE WATCH CONCERNS.
HARRISON APPARENTLY SATISFfED BY REPORT OF ECR ON APRIL 16 1993.
1 t
NRC ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE l
EFFECTIVENESS OF SWEC EMPLOYEE CONCERNS PROGRAM VERIFIED SWEC ACTIONS TO IMPROVE QUALITY OF WORK ENVIRONMENT IN RAISING SAFETY CONCERNS IN RESPONSE TO NRC LETTER OF AUGUST 26, 1993 IN UNRELATED SECTION 211 CASE.
ISSUED MEMORANDUM OF SEPTEMBER 14,1993 FROM C.R. BISHOP TO ALL SUPERVISORS AND MANAGEP.S SUMMARIZING SWEC EMPLOYEE CON'rERN9 PROGRAM AND WITI ATING ROLL-DOWN TO CONDUCTED FOLLOW-UP SURVEY TO DETERMANE KNOWLEDGE AND USE OF ECP ON OCTOBER 6 AND 11,1993. RESULTS SHOWED NO EVIDENCE OF CHILLING EFFECT IN WILLINGNESS TO REPORT EMPLOYEE CONCERNS.
CPAFT AWARENESS OF AVAILABLE PROCESSES FOR REPORTING QUALITY / SAFETY CONCERNS REINFORCED AT MEETING BY SWEC FIELD MANAGER IN OCTOBER 1993.
INSPECTION ACTIVITIES BY NRC AUDITED EFFECTIVENESS OF SWEC ECP ON NOVEMBER 8-10 AND 22-24,1993 AND CONFIRMED SWEC PERSONNEL NOT RELUCTANT TO REPORT POTENTIAL SAFETY / QUALITY CONCERNS.
EMPLOYEES SURVEYED UNANLMOUSLY (EXCEPT ONE SWEC EMPLOYEE ON FIRST DAY AT BROWNS FERRY) STATE NO RELUCTANCE TO RAISE SAFETY / QUALITY CONCERNS TO SUPERVISION, SWEC ECP OR TVA CRS, OR NRC.
NRC CONCLUDES, BASED CN CURRENT AND EARLIER SURVEYS, THAT AWARENESS AND KNOWLEDGE OF CONTRACTOR AND LICENSEE PROGRAMS HAVE INCREASED.
l l l l
1 9
l SWEC PERFORMS ANOTFER RANDOM SURVEY TO EVALUATE POTENTIAL CHILLING EFFECTS, WHICH CONCLUDES THAT SWEC EMPLOYEES ARE WILLING TO REPORT SAFETY / QUALITY CONCERNS WITHOUT FEAR OF REPRISAL.
TVA OIG JULY 1994 SURVEY SHOWS THAT BROWNS FERRY EMPLOYEES
" OVERWHELMINGLY FELT FREE TO RAISE NUCLEAR SAFETY CONCERNS TO THEIR SUPERVISION AND MANAGEhENT."
SWEC DISTRIBUTES JANUARY 1995 MEMORANDUM TO ALL ONSITE EMPLOYEES SUMMARIZING iiCP.
TVA OIG ANNUAL REVIEW OF SWEC ECP ON SEPTEMBER 11-15, 1995 DEMONSTRATES THAT ALL BROWNS FERRY PERSONNEL SURVEYED Won D REP,/,T cAFF
'e f-" m"R's TO THEIR SUPERVISORS OR THROLOH uiliEh M AALncu. T?
fFCH OCTOBER 2,1995 TOOL BOX MEETING AND POSTINGS AT KEY SITE LOCATIONS RE-EMPHASIZE SWEC MANAGEMENT EXPECTATION THAT EMPLOYEES WILL REPORT SAFETY / QUALITY CONCERNS AND SHOULD FEEL FREE TO DO SO.
COMBINED SWECfrVA PROGRAM" PROVIDE EFFECTIVE ASSURANCE TO EMPLOYEES WISHING TO RAISE SAFETY / QUALITY CONCERNS. J
NRC ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE NO ENFORCEMENT ACTION IS WARRANTED IN THIS CASE NRC SHOULD FIND NO VIOLATION OF SECTION 50.7 OCCURRED FOR REASONS DISCUSSED.
EVIDENCE SHOWS NO SECTION 50.7 VIOLATION (ESL, LACK OF SWEC MANAGEMENT UNDERSTANDING OF ANY SAFETY CONCERN; TIMING AND SEQUENCE OF FOREMEN / LEAD FOREMEN RL' 'CTIONS BEFORE HARRISON RAISED CONCERN; AND EVIDENCE IL'.
SON TRANSFERRED BECAUSE OF VOLUNT ARY REQUEST).
$ DMINIST" ~ ~ ' ' "' T'f
,.,2 ruuSD EHELE AND OTFER SWEC MAhAGERS CREDIBLE AND ACTING IN GOOD FAITH WITH HONEST MOTIVES.
FvinFNrF SUPDORTS CONCLUSION THAT SWEC MANAGERS ACTED i
FOR VALID REASONS-SECRETARY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT DISCRIMINATION FINDING IS A "CLOSE QUESTION ~
OTHER INDEPENDENT SOURCES FOUND NO DISCRIMINATION.
INVESTIGATIONS BY SWEC AND TVA AND REVIEW BY NRC 01 FOUND NO DISCRIMINATION.
FINDINGS IN FAVOR OF SWEC BY WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE SHOW hERIT TO SWEC'S APPEAL.
AT A MINIMUM, CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE ENFORCEhENT ACTION SHOULD BE POSTPONED PENDING DECISION BY COURT OF APPEALS.
FAIR JESS DICTATES TH AT NRC WAIT UNTIL COURT OF APPEALS DEC10ES CASE NRC, TVA AND SWEC RESOURCES SHOULD BE CONSERVED PENDING APPEAL.
c EVEN IF A VIOLATION IS DEEMED TO HAVE OCCURRED, NO CIVIL PENALTY SHOULD BE IMPOSED.
SWEC EMPLOYEES CONCERN REPRESENTATIVE THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATED AND RESOLVED HARRISON'S SAFETY CONCERN AS WELL AS ALLEGATIONS OF DISCRIMINATION.
LACK OF ANY " CHILLING EFFECT" VERIFIED BY NRC, TVA AND SWEC.
SWEC HAS A GOOD ENFORCEhENT RECORD.
INCIDENT WITH HARRISON INVOLVED SINGLE ISOLATED OCCURRENCE THAT HAD NO IMPACT BEYOND THE COMPLAINANT FIMcP" NO VIOLATION OF T VA r1RE PROTECTION PLAN; NO SAFETY ISSUE EXISTS.
SECRETARY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT HIS REVERSAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S FACT-FINDING IS CLOSE QUESTION.
ENFORCEhENT DISCRETION IS WARRANTED IN A DISCRIMINATION CASE WHERE, AS IERE, THE EMPLOYER HAS TAKEN PROMPT, COMPREHENSIVE, AND EFFECTIVE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TO ADDRESS BOTH THE PARTICULAR SITUATION AND THE OVERALL WORK ENVIRONMENT FOR RAISING SAFETY CONCERNS.
EFFECTIVENEf S OF EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPRESENTATIVE REVIEW AS DISCUSSED.
ONGOING ACTIONS BY SWEC TO ASSURE WORK ENVIRONMENT CONDUCIVE TO RAISING SAFETY CONCERNS AS DISCUSSED.
NO FINDING OR EVIDENCE OF ANY PROGRAMMATIC DISCRIMINATION OR" BLATANT OR EGREGIOUS" ACTS OF DISCRIMINATION.
4 NRC ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE
SUMMARY
AND CLOSING REMARKS SWEC MANAGEMENT REMAINS COMMITTED TO FREE AND OPEN EMPLOYEE DISCUSSION OF SAFETY CONCERNS AT ALL LEVELS, AND WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY INTIMIDATION HARASSMENT OR DISCRIMINATION AGAINST EMPLOYEES.
SWEC MANAGEMENT HAS REPEATEDLY REINFORCED ITS EXPECTATION.
THE EFFECTIVENESS IN COMMUNICATING MANAGEMENT'S EXPECT ',~~""
C DFEN VERIFIER SWEC WILL LONTINUE 10 nivoliOA Li ca. 4. cNESS OF ITS ECP AND TO EMPHASIZE ITS AVAILABILITY TO ALL SWEC EMPLOYEES.
l-IN HARRISON'S CASE, THE SWEC ECP REPRESENTATIVE THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATED HARRISON'S FIRE WATCH AND EMPLOYMENT CONCERNS.
HARRISON EXPRESSED NO DISSATISFACTION WITH ECP'S HANDLING OF HIS CONCERNS.
TVA AND NRC 01 ALSG REVIEWED ALLEGATIONS AND FOUND NO DISCRIMINATION.
FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL DOL REVIEWS FOUND THAT SWEC MANAGERS AND SUPERVISORS REDUCED HAROJSON FROM LEAD FOREMAN POSITION FOR LEGITIMATE, NON-DISCRIMINATORY REASONS IN REDUCING MANPOWER COSTS.
SWEC APPEAL TO U.S. COURT OF APPEALS WILL DETERMINE VALIDITY OF EECRETARi"f DECGION i. "r 0;NG TP ArCEPT FM'T. FINDING BY
.Dl.!IN:ST ;. S'i :', E 1.,
1 IN THIS CASE, NO DISCRIMINATION OCCURRED. BUT IF NRC NOW DISAGREES, COMPELLING REASONS EXIST TO EXERCISE ENFORCEhENT DISCRETION OR, AT A MINIMUM, TO AWAIT COMPLETION OF DOL PROCEEDINGS THROUGH APPEAL.
s I
[ET-t O-t995 14842 FROl1 DFH (UCLEf47 ASE116tCE TO 912023715950 P.024 s.
o t
4 u
. 1
]
j O
1 NsY 50 September 20,1993 SWEC EMPLOYEE CONCERNS PROGRAM i
Stone & Webster is committed to implementing an effective employee concern program at Browns Ferry, and offers an uninhiliited opportunity to express employee concerns. Our policy at B,rowns Ferry Nuclear Plant provides SWEC employees with several options for expressing employee concems wJthoutJsar_ntintimidationdiaranment, or replisaJ.
Employee concerns are considered: Unresolved concerns regarding any condition, practice, or event that may adversely impact quality, deviate from technical / procedural requirements, or have the potential for degrading equipment, operating capabilities, or personnel's ability to accomplish assigned responsibilities.
The following surnmarizes our policy:
A. OPEN DOOR POLICY: Wo encourage open dialogue with supervision or management as the most effective way to handle employee concerns.
B. CONTACT SWEC EMPLOYFE CONCERNS REPRESENTATIVE: If not resolved through open dialcgue with supervision, bring your concerns to the attention of our Employee Concerns Representative, Steve Salowitz:
e By telephone, call (205) 729 4906; i
- Sy going to his office in the Personnel Services Building (same building as TVA Medical); or e By completing an Employeo Concerns form (found throughout the site), and malling it to Employee Concerns, PSB-1H-BFN.
C. ALTERNATIVE CONTACTS: All employees also have the option of contacting: (1) TVA's Concerns Resolution Staff by calling (205) 729-4750,(2) the NRC at the numbers listed on the NRC l'orm 3 posted throughout the job site, or (3) other govemmental agencies appropriate to the expressed concern.
D. EXIT INTERVIEWS: Prior to exiting BFN, all SWEC employees have the opportunity to express conce'rns either by filling out Section C of he SWEC Employee Concerns form, or by participating t
in an exit interview wnh the SWEC Employee Concerns Representative.
You are encouraged to take full advantage of these avenues for expressing your employee concerns, particularly the "Open Door Policy." All concerns will be handled without reorisal.
Sensitive or confidential issues will be handled with discretion in order to protect the ernployee.
I OCTOBER,1995 SWEC EMPIAYEE CONCERNS PROGRAM Stone & Webster is committed to imple nenting an effective employee conce and offers an wdnhibited opportunity to express employee concerns. Our po Nuclear Plant provides SWEC employees with several options for expressin fear of intinddano3. harassment. or reorisal.
Employee concems are considered: Unresolved concerns regarding any have the that may adversely impact quality, deviate from technical / procedural requirements li h potential for degrading equipment, operating capabilities, or personnel's abi assigned responsibilities.
De following summarizes our policy:
We encourage open dialogue with supervision or management as the A.
OPEN DOOR POLICY:
most effective way to handle employee concerns.
CONTACT SWEC EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPRESENTATIVE: If no open dialogue with supervision, bring your concerns to the attention o B.
Representative, Steve Saiowitz:
(
By telephone (205) 729-4906 or pager (205) 230-7770; f
l By going to his office in the CFC Building (west side behind SWEC Sa f
By completing an Employee Concerns form (feund throughout to SWEC Employee Concerns, CFC-ID-BIR All employees also have the option of contacting: (1) TVA's ALTERNATIVE CONTACTS:
Concerns Resolution Staff by calling (205) 729 C.
the expressed concern.
Prior to exiting BFN, all SWEC employees will have the opportun Concerns EXIT INTERVIEWS:
to express concerns by participating in an exit interview with the SWEC D.
Representative.
You are encotcaged to take full advantage of these avenues for expressi d with particularly the "Opra Door Policy". All concerns will be handled W provisions to maintain CONFIDENTIALITY in order to protect the employc f
i i
i i
l i
REFERENCE PACKAGE 'All EA NOS: 95-220, 190, 229 Ril/EICS NO: 95 E-034 ENCLOSURE NO: 3
a 3
I l
REFERENCE PACKAGE Ril EA NOS: 95-220,190, 229 Ril/ElCS NO: 95-E-034 ENCLOSURE NO: h 1
4 I