ML20217H543
| ML20217H543 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 04/24/1998 |
| From: | Patulski S WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9804300006 | |
| Download: ML20217H543 (6) | |
Text
.
^'
Qggggggy s"
Electnc POWER COMPANY SCOTT A. PATULSKI SITE VICE PRESIDENT Point Beoch Nuclear Plant 6610 Nuclear Rd., Two Rtvers, WI 54241 (920) 755-6214 NPL 98-0315 April 24,1998 Document ControlDesk U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Mail Station PI-137 Washington, DC 20555 Ladies / Gentlemen-DOCKETS 50-266 AND 50-301 REPLY TO APPARENT VIOLATION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR CASE NOS. 97-ERA-34 AND ARB 98-016 NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS CASE NO. 3-97-013 POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT. UNITS 1 AND 2 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's March 25,1998, letter identified an apparent violation ofNRC requirements prohibiting discrimination against employees who engage in protected activities. The apparent violation involves an alleged discriminatory action by Morrison Knudsen Corporation (MK) against one ofits employees located at its corporate headquarters in Cleveland, Ohio. At the time of the alleged discriminatory action, Morrison Knudsen was concluding their work on our Point Beach Nuclear Plant (PBNP) Unit 2 Steam Generator Replacement Project.
The NRC's letter specifically required Wisconsin Electric t provide a written response by April 24,1998, which; 1) states our position regarding whether the actions affecting the Morrison Knudsen employee violated 10 CFR 50.7, and 2) describes actions which we have taken or plan to take to assure that this matter is not having a chilling effect on the willingness of employees to raise safety and compliance concerns. We believe this letter is responsive and fulfills the requirements of the NRC's March 25,1998 letter.
The NRC's March 25,1998, letter advised Wisconsin Electric of a scheduled predecisional enforcement conference. As noted in the letter, the NRC has not made a final determination on enforcement action regarding this apparent violation. During a teleconference on April 23,1998, NRC Region III informed us that the predecisional enforcement conference has been deferred pending the completion and NRC review of an independent event investigation which is being conducted by the law firm of Stier, Anderson & Malone. We appreciate the NRC's decision to defer the enforcement conference. The independent investigation report 9804300006 980424
'10 PDR ADOCK 05000266 O
G PDR
/
A.wbsswrdscwuin EmGepeaten
~
NPL 98-0315 April 24,1998 Page 2 should provide additional information to both the NRC and Wisconsin Electric and will better enable the NRC to make an informed enforcement decision. Wisconsin Electric will determine its participation in any future predecisional enforcement conference, should one be necessary, in light of the Stier, Anderson & Malone investigation. We will continue to fully cooperate with the NRC to assure timely disposition of the apparent violation.
The apparent violation deals specifically with, and is based upon, a Department ofLabor proceeding. The Department ofLabor proceeding resulted in a preliminary finding, now pending on appeal, that Morrison Knudsen's removal of one ofits employees from his position as Group Welding Engineer and reassignment to a different job constituted an adverse employment action. The alleged discriminatory action occurred in mid-January 1997, at j
Morrison Knudsen's Cleveland, Ohio offices, where the subject employee was based. To our knowledge, the subject employee visited our Point Beach Nuclear Plant on only two very brief occasions; once in December 1995 and again in July 1996.
Wisconsin Electric acknowledges that a safety-conscious work environment is critical to our ability to safely perform our licensed activities. As such, we strive to maintain a safety-conscious work environment in which our employees and our contractor employees feel free to raise concerns, both to their own management and to the NRC, without fear of retaliation. It is our expectation that our contractors will also assure a safety-conscious work environment.
Wisconsin Electric will not tolerate retaliation against employees who attempt to carry out their responsibility to identify potential safety issues. As noted in the NRC's March 25,1998, letter, although enforcement action is being considered against Morrison Knudsen, Wisconsin i
Electric fully understands its obligation and responsibility to ensure compliance with NRC requirements by contractor organizations and personnel.
Wisconsin Electric contracted with SGT Ltd. to perform the construction and engineering activities required for the replacement of the PBNP Unit 2 steam generators. SGT Ltd. is a limited liability company established by Morrison Knudsen and Duke Engineering & Services to perform steam generator replacement projects. The construction and engineering contract i
was awarded in the fall of 1994 and the actual replacement work was performed during our Unit 2 refueling outage that began in early October 1996. The vast majority of all the onsite i
construction and engineering work for the project was completed by the end of January 1997.
The employment action which is the subject of the apparent violation occurred in mid-January 1997.
Wisconsin Electric did not have knowledge of the employment action taken by Morrison Knudsen or the Department of Labor ruling until early March 1998. Following notification from the NRC of this apparent violation, Wisconsin Electric met on several occasions with Morrison Knudsen management during March and April of 1998. Morrison Knudsen retained the services of Stier, Anderson & Malone in November 1997 to perform an independent investigation of Morrison Knudsen's actions relative to the subject employee. We have had two personal meetings, as well as other telephonic discussions, with the Stier, Anderson &
NPL 98-0315 April 24,1998 PageI Malone attorneys and have been briefed on the preliminary fmdings of their independent investigation. During our briefings, Stier, Anderson & Malone addressed the terms of their retention by Morrison Knudsen, which authorized them to pursue, without restriction, the circumstances of the employment actions taken against Morrison Knudsen's Group Welding Engineer. Their investigation included on the record interviews of approximately twenty-five witnesses and the review of approximately 10,000 pages of documents.
Stier, Anderson & Malone is beginning preparation ofits report analyzing the evidence collected and documenting the bases for their conclusion. Wisconsin Electric has received a commitment from Morrison Knudsen that a copy of the Stier, Anderson & Malone report and supporting dccumentation will be provided to us as soon as avsilable. Stier, Anderson &
.)"
Malone has advised us that their investigation has led them to preliminarily conclude that there was no illegal retaliation against Morrison Knudsen's Group Welding Engineer, and that Morrison Knudsen had not taken adverse employment action against the employee for having engaged in a protected activity. Based on the information provided to date, Wisconsin Electric has reached the same preliminary conclusion. Wisconsin Electric will confirm this conclusion by a review of the Stier, Anderson & Malone report when it is made available.
Wisconsin Electric fully understands that such a violation, ifit occurred, could potentially have a chilling effect on other SGT Ltd. or Wisconsin Electric employees in that it might deter them from identifying nuclear safety related concerns they may have. We have reviewed the circumstances associated with this event and are confident that this matter did not have a chilling effect on the willingness of other Wisconsin Electric employees or SGT Ltd. employees associated with our PBNP Unit 2 Steam Generator Replacement Project to raise safety concerns.
We believe that policies and procedures administered by both Wisconsin Electric and.w, Ltd.
at the PBNP site during the replacement project established a work environment that included effective processes for the identification and resolution of problems, where employees felt free to raise concerns without fear of retaliation. The procedures included clear prohibitions against retaliatory conduct, and an avenue for addressing any concerns of this nature. The alleged discriminatory action taken against Morrison Knudsen's Group Welding Engineer did not likely adversely impact the safety-conscious work environment we believe effectively existed at the PBNP site throughout the duration of our Unit 2 Steam Generator Replacement Project.
NPL 98-0315 April 24,1998 Page 4 The employment action takd against the Group Welding Engineer occurred at Morrion Knud.en's Cleveland, Ohio offices in mid-January 1997. The Group Welding Engineer filed a complaint under the Energy Reorganization Act on February 18,1997, which was investigated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and found to be without merit. At the time of the employment action and complaint, a vast majority of the PBNP Unit 2 replacement project work had been completed and the SGT Ltd. replacement project work force had been reduced to a small number of site managens and craft laborers. We believe that any know".xige of the employement action taken by Morrison Knudsen and the resultant employee complaint was limited to a few SGT Ltd. site senior project managers. In fact, Wisconsin Electric had no knowledge of such actions until contacted in early March of 1998. From our briefing with Stier, Anderson & Ma. lone, we understand that those SGT Ltd. site employees who had
'q knowledge of the employment action believed the action to be appropriate and not retaliatory.
Because these actions occurred in Cleveland, with very limited knowledge by PBNP site located employees, we believe that such actions had no chilling effect on the small number of SGT Ltd. employees who remained employed at PBNP in February 1997, and who were tasked with the close-out of the replacement project. Since Wisconsin Electric had no knowledge of the employment action, none of our employees were or could have been adverselyimpacted.
The first preliminary ruling that employment action taken by Morrison Knudsen on January 15,1997, was retaliatory conduct did not occur until October,1997. On October 28, 1997, the presiding Administrative Law Judge in the Depa tment of Labor proceeding found that Merrison Knudsen's removal of the complainant from his Group Welding Engineer position constituted an adverse employment action in retaliation for his protected activities. In October 1997, Wisconsin Electric had no ongoing contractual relationship with Morrison Knudsen and all work on our Unit 2 Steam Generator Replacement Project was complete.
Therefore, the Department ofLabor ruling could not have chilled the replacement project work environment.
Although we believe the events associated with this apparent violation did not result in a chilling effect; nevertheless, Wisconsin Electric has' taken or plant to take actions that further reassure and maintain a safety-conscious work environment at Point Beach Nuclear Plant. Wc believe that these actions will also assure that the NRC's March 25, D98, notification to Wisconsin Electric of this subject apparent violation, and resultant knowledge of the apparent q
violation by our employees, will have no adverse impact on our safety-conscious work environment.
We are in the process ofexplicitly identifying 10 CFR 50.7 issues with our contractors. Under the terms of our existing contracts, our contractors are required to comply with all requirements of applicable federal, state, county, and municipal laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations. We are in the process of reinforcing with our contractors Wisconsin Electric's expectations regarding compliance with regulatory requirements. Specifically, by no later than May 15,1998, Wisconsin Electric will issue a letter to our existing contractors that emphasizes
1 l
A NPL 98-0315 i
^
April 24,1998 Page5 and reafHrms our expectations regarding their obligations under Section 211 of the Energy Reorganization Act,10 CFR 50.7, and the NRC's May 14,1996, Policy Statement on the
" Freedom of Employees in tie Nuclear Industry to Raise Safety Concerns without Fear of Retaliation " These letters will also reaffirm our expectation that each contractor maintain a safety-conscious work environment and will underscore the contractor's obligation to promptly contact Wisconsin Electric when an allegation of retaliatory conduct is received by a contractor from one ofits employees or subcontractors. This requirement of prompt notice enables both Wisconsin Electric and its contractors to address these significant matters in a timely and effectivt manner. This will avoid any potential chilling affect which might otherwise result, and demonstrate to all employees our commitment to maintaining an envitonment where :;afety centerns can be freely addre:: sed. Future Wisconsin Electric contracts with
_j contractors will include more explicit provisions specifically obligating the contractors to maintain a safety-conscious work environment and to promptly notify us of employee concerns or alleged retaliatory conduct.
In October 1997 Wisconsin Electric provided a formal 10 CFR 50.7 training program for our senior managers and group managers. We recently determined that Wisconsin Electric and contractor employees, including our own managers, require additional training to help maintain our safety-conscious work environment. A comprehensive training program, including a series of seminars and simulated case histories has been developed and implemented beginning on March 26,1998. This training is ongoing and is being conducted by a consultant who has instructed at numernus other nuclear facilities.
C 1 December 1997 Wisconsin Electric initiated efforts to upgrade our Employee Concerns I*cogram. Employee focus groups and management interviews were conducted in February 1998. As a result of this initiative, PBNP proceaure NP 1.6.7, " Safety Concerns Process," was revised and reissued on April 8,1998. This revised procedure reflects recent industry experience and good practices at top performing stations.
To assure that our revised Employee Concerns Program is effectively administered, we have recruited a full-time Employee Concerns Program Manager. This manager is experienced in the administration of employee concerns programs and began his tenure at PBNP on April 20,1998.
Wisconsin Electric's senior management team has recently reiterated their expectations regarding our safety-conscious work environment. By memoranda dated March 4,1998, Wisconsin Electric's President and Chief Operating Officer and our PBNP Site Vice President reiterated Wisconsin Electric's commitment to a safety-conscious work environment in which every Wisconsin Electric and contract employee takes ownership of rafety-consciousness as j
the top priority in operating the Point Beach facility. This message was reinforced by all-hands meetings on March 5,1998, during which our executives again explained Wisconsin Electric policy and expectations for employees in identifying and raising safety concerns, emphasizing
k
)
3..
NPL 98-0315 April 24,1998 Page 6 employee rights and responsibilities under the Wisconsin Electric Employee Concerns Program and 10 CFR 50.7, By memorandum dated March 18,1998, our ChiefNuclear Officer again reminded all PBNP employees that acts of retaliation or discrimination against employees for raising a potential safety concern adversely affects plant safety, violates federal law under 10 CFR 50.7, and will not be tolerated by Wisconsin Electric management.
A self-assessment of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant safety culture is currently in progress. The self-assessment will include an employee survey which will enable our management team to measure the degree to which we have acideved a positive wcrk environment in which
,q employees feel free and are encouraged to raise safety concerns. The 6ndings of the survey and lessons-learned from the self-assessment will be used as appropriate by our management team to further anh-c our programs.
These above described initiatives and actions, although taken for the purpose of strengthening our overall employee concerns program and safety-conscious work environment, will also assure that no chilling effect results from this apparent violation. Please contact us should you have questions regarding our response or require additional information.
Sincerely, d
W-tt A.Patulski i
Site Vice President Point Beach Nuclear Plant
- Subscribed end sworn before me on this 44 ' &y of g 12
,1998.
, MA,1 L otary Fublic, Stste ofWisconsin My comrr:ission expires September 16,2001.
cc:
NRC Regional Administrator, Region III NRC NRRProject Manager PSCW