ML20210G601

Discusses 990415 Complaint OSHA Received from Employee of Wisconsin Electric Power Co Alleging That Employee Received Lower Performance Appraisal for 1998 Because Employee Raised Safety Concerns While Performing Duties at Point Beach

ML20210G601
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	07/30/1999
From:	Dyer J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	Reddemann M WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO.
References
EA-99-196, NUDOCS 9908030151
Download: ML20210G601 (4)

Text

,

i e UNITED STATES 8# g a49'o,i NUCLEAR RE'IULATORY COMMISSION REGION lli g g 801 WARRENV'LLE ROAD g  ! LISLE. ILLINOIS 60532-4351

%***++g July 30, 1999 EA 99-196 Mr. M. Reddemann Site Vice President Point Beach Nuclear Plant 6610 Nuclear Road Two Rivers, WI 54241

SUBJECT:

ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION

Dear Mr. Reddemann:

On April 15,1999, the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA)in Appleton, Wisconsin, received a complaint from an employee of the Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WEPCo) at the Point Beach Nuclear Power Plant. The employee alleged that he received a lower performance appraisal for 1998 resulting in the loss of a bonus under WEPCo's Variable incentive Pay Plan because he raised safety concerns while performing his duties at the Point Beach Nuclear Power Plant. In response to that complaint, OSHA conducted an investigation, and in a letter dated May 27,1999, the Area Director of OSHA in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, communicated his finding that the evidence obtained during the investigation indicated that the employee was engaged in a protected actidty within the scope of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 and that discrimination as defined and prohibited by the statute was a factor in the actions which cornprised his complaint.

The NRC is concerned that a violation of the employee protection provisions set forth in 10 CFR 50.7 may have occurred and that the actions taken against the employee may have had a chilling effect on other licensee or contractor personnel.

Accordingly, pursuant to sections 161c,161o,182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,  !

as amended,.and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.204 and 10 CFR 50.54(f), in order for the Commission to determine whether your license should be modified, suspended or -

revoked, or other enforcement action taken to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirements, you are required to provide this office, within 30 days of the date of this letter, a response in writing and under oath or affirmation that describes: j

1. Your position regarding whether the actions affecting this individual violated 10 CFR 50.7 and the basis for your position, including the results of any investigations you may have conducted to determine whether a violation occurred; and

2. Actions you have already taken or plan to take to assure that this matter is not having a chilling effect on the willingness of other employees to raise safety and compliance concerns within your organization and, as discussed in NRC Form 3, to the NRC.

O 9900030151 990730 PDR ADOCK 05000266 G PDR

l. ,

I

t l M. Reddemann We recognize that you may not agree that unlawful discrimination has occurred. Regardless of l your answer to item 1 above, we request that you consider the need to address the possible l chilling effect that an ongoing issue of this type may have on other employees.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and

, your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room. Therefore, your response l

should not, to the extent possible, include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards ,

information so that it can be released to the public and placed in the NRC Public Document l Room. If personal privacy information is necessary to provide an acceptable response, then l please provide a bracketed copy of your response that identifies the personal privacy-related I information and a redacted copy of your response that deletes the personal privacy-related information. Identify the particular portions of the response in question which, if disclosed,  !

would create an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, identify the individual whose privacy would be invaded in each instance, describe the nature of the privacy invasion, and indicate why, considering the public interest in the matter, the invasion of privacy is unwarranted. If you request withholding on any other grounds, you must specifically identify the portions of your response that you seek to have withheld and provide in detail the bases for your claim of l

withholding (e.g., provide the information required by 10 CFR 2.790(b) to support a request for withholding confidential commercial or financial information). If safeguards information is necessary to provide an acceptable response, please provide the level of protection described in 10 CFR 73.21.

l 1

i After reviewing your response, the NRC will determine whether enforcement action is  ;

necessary at this time to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.

l Sincerely, 1 l i

J E. Dyer ,

l Regional Administrator i

l Docket Nos. 50-266; 50-301 License Nos. DPR-24; DPR-27

{

i I

M. Reddemann cc: R. Grigg, President and Chief Operating Officer, WEPCO M. Sellman, Senior Vice President, Chief Nuclear Officer R. Mende, Plant Manager L. English, Corporate Counsel J. O'Neill, Jr., Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge K. Duveneck, Town Chairman Town of Two Creeks B. Burks, P.E., Director Bureau of Field Operations J. Mettner, Chairman, Wisconsin Public Service Commission S. Jenkins, Electric Division Wisconsin Public Service Commission State Liaison Officer George Yoksas, Area Director- Milwaukee U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration

l M. Reddemann 4 Distribution D. Dambly, OGC S. Collins, NRR

. B. Boger, NRR J. Caldwell, Rlli CAC (E-Mail)

RPC (E-Mail)

Project Manager, NRR SRI Point Beach Rill:DRP Rlll:DRS -

Rill:OAC Rlli PRR OE:ES '

' OE:EA (2) .

PUBLIC lii4F ~ l Docket F'ile GREENS LEO (E-Mail)

DOCDESK (E-Mail) l