ML20207H612
| ML20207H612 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zion File:ZionSolutions icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/10/1999 |
| From: | Pederson C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Kingsley O TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| References | |
| EA-98-518, NUDOCS 9906180181 | |
| Download: ML20207H612 (5) | |
Text
.
M 870 UNITED STATES 9(
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
o REGION 111 y
801 WARRENVILLE ROAD
%...../*
LISLE. ILLINOIS 60532-4351 June 10,1999 EA 98-518 Mr. Oliver D. Kingsley President, Nuclear Generation Group Commonwealth Edison Company ATTN: Regulatory Services Executive Towers West 111 1400 Opus Place, Suite 500 Downers Grove, IL 60515
SUBJECT:
PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE (NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS REPORT NO. 3-1998-012)
Dear Mr. Kingsley:
1 This letter is in reference to an apparent violation of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requirement prohibiting discrimination against employees who engage in protected activities (i.e.,10 CFR 50.7, " Employee Protection"). The NRC Office of investigations conducted an investigation and concluded that employment discrimination against a senior reactor operator (SRO) had occurred at the Commonwealth Edison Company's Zion Station.
The synopsis of the Ol report and a summary of relevant facts are enclosed.
During August-September 1997, the SRO was told that he had been selected as a candidate for possible promotion to shift manager. During September-October 1997, the SRO placed a component cooling water pump "out-of service." According to the shift operations supervisor (SOS), the SRO could have declared the pump " inoperable." In a separate issue, at about the same time, the SRO raised a concern about the design performance of a safety related electrical component. The SRO contends that shortly thereafter the SOS removed him (the SRO) from the program for potential promotion to shift manager and the SOS lowered the SRO's annual performance evaluation. Based on the results of the C,1 investigation, an apparent violation was identified and is being considered for escalated enforcement action in accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions"(Enforcement Policy), NUREG-1600. This apparent violation was discussed with Mr.
Kenneth Ainger and Mr. Robert Godley of your staff on May 17,1999. Please be advised that the number and characterization of the apparent violations may change as a result of further review. Accordingly, no Notice of Violation is presently being issued for this finding.
A closed, transcribed predecisional enforcement conference has been scheduled for 1:00 p.m.
(CDT), Wednesday, July 7,1999, at the NRC Region 111 Office. The conference will be closed to public observation because the performance of Comed employees will be discussed. As 9906180181 990610 PDR ADOCK 05000295 G
PDR t
O. Kingsley previously discussed, we request the attendance of a certain specified Comed employee at the conference.
The NRC's Enforcement Policy, as amended by Policy and Procedure for Enforcement Actions: Policy Statement. 62 ER 13906 (March 24,1997), permits the individual who was the subject of the alleged discrimination to participate in the conference. Accordingly, the complainant will be invited to attend the conference. He may participate by observing the conference and if desired, following the presentation by Comed, may make a presentation to address his view on why he believes discrimination occurred and his views on the Comed presentation. Comed will then be afforded an opportunity to respond, and the NRC may ask some clarifying questions. In no case will the NRC staff permit Comed or the complainant to
- cross-examine or question each other.
The decision to hold a predecisional enforcement conference does not mean that the NRC has determined that a violation has occurred or that enforcement actions will be taken. This conference is being held to obtain information to enable the NRC to make an enforcement decision, such as a common understanding of the facts, root causes, significance of the issues and, if needed, plans for lasting and effective corrective action. In particular, we expect you to address: (1) Comed's position on the apparent violation, the basis for this position, and the reason for the apparent violation; (2) the purpose and intent of the adverse employment actions and the validity of such actions within the spectrum of the Comed appraisal and promotion processes; (3) the involved manager's position within Comed at the time of the actions under consideration, including his authority to perform the actions; (4) whether Comed has performed any independent investigation of the issue and the results of such an investigation, in addition, this is an opportunity for you to point out any errors in our investigation findings and for you to provide any information concoming your perspectives on:
(1) the severity of the violation; (2) the application of the factors that the NRC considers when -
it determines the amount of a civil penalty that may be assessed in accordance with Section VI.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy; and (3) any other application of the Enforcement Policy to this case, including the exercise of discretion in accordance with Section Vll. No response regarding this apparent violation is required at this time.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.270 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter will be
- placed in the NRC Public Document Room. The NRC will delay deciding whether to place a copy of Enclosure 2 in the PDR until a final enforcement decision has been made.
W
I c
O. Kingsley Please contact Mr. Bruce Jorgensen of my staff, who can be reached at (630) 829-9615, to obtain any additionalinformation regarding the enforcement conference or this letter.
Sincerely, hovsed L
\\
Cynthia. Pederson, Director Division of Nuclear Materials Safety Docket No. 50-295;50-304 License No. DPR-39; DPR-48 j
Enclosures:
- 1. 01 Report Synopsis
- 2. Summary of 01 Report cc w/encis:
D. Helwig, Senior Vice President H. Stanley, PWR Vice President C. Crane, BWR Vice President R. Krich, Vice President, Regulatory Services f
DCD - Licensing 1
R. Starkey, Decommissioning Plant Manager R. Godley, Regulatory Assurance Supervisor
F O. Kingsley 4
T l
ENCLOSURE 2 IS NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR. NRC OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT pistribution with Enclosures 1 and 2:
Office of Enforcement V. Beaston, OE D. Dambly, OGC S. Chidakel, OGC J. L. Caldwell, Rlli OE:EA(2)
Distribution with Enclos Jre 1 ONLY:
Public IE-07 f
Docket kle i
LEO (e-mail)
DOCDESK (e-mail)
Greens OAC: Rill Rill PRR S. Weiss, NRR M. Masnik, NRR SAR,NRR LPM,NRR I o i
ENCLOSURE 2 IS NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR. NRC OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
)
- \\
l c
[
ENCLOSURE 1 SYNOPSIS This investigation was initiated by the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of investigations, Region Ill, on March 10,1998, to determlne whether a Zion Generating Station I
Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) was discriminated against by the Shift operations Supervisor by being deselected as a candidate for promotion to Shift Manager and receiving an inferior performance evaluation after raising safety concerns on two separate occasions.
Based on the evidence developed during the investigation, it was concluded that the SRO was discriminated against by not being promoted to Shift Manager and receiving an inferior performance evaluation as a result of engaging in a protected activity.
Case No. 3-1998-012 l
,,