ML20236X421
| ML20236X421 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 04/09/1997 |
| From: | Joukoff P, Williamson E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236X415 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-98-183 4-96-056, 4-96-56, NUDOCS 9808100004 | |
| Download: ML20236X421 (21) | |
Text
.
? .
CASE No.4-96-056 p** "%,
United States i I Nuclear Regulatory Commission '% , . . . + '#
}
l i
Report of Investigation ;
SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION:
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST SENIOR ENGINEER BY MANAGEMENT FO,R RAISING SAFETY CONCERNS i
l Office of Investigations Roported by 01: RIV 9egatogoo49eoeoa K.NUDSON98-183 PDR
Title:
SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION:
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST SENIOR ENGINEER BY MANAGEMENT FOR RAISING SAFETY CONCERNS Licensee: Case No. 4-96-056 Southern California Edison Company Report Date: April 9, 1997 23 Parker Street Irvine, CA 92718 Control Office: 01:RIV Docket No.: 50-361/362 Status: CLOSED Reported by: Reviewed and Approved by:
Philip y Joukoff, Sr.
1 Agent E. L. Williamson, Director Office of Investigate Cffice of Investigations Field Office, Region Field Office. Region IV OWAR NG:
N S ll / l, / ,S '
N0'hlSE NAT,,
RLAC \ P BLI D CUM T t0 D flS HE TS F IS EPORT .; N 0N C T E WIHQ AllT Y QF TH~ A 0. N OFF C TH S FEP RT. UN UTHOR Z$ 01 OSO Y gRE SU' I Adv
- k STRATI ACy0N AN / CRlM NA P{EC J l
) ) v l
l
SYNOPSIS This investigation was initiated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
Office of Investigations (01). Region IV (RIV). on October 15,1996, to determine if a former senior engineer, employed at Southern California Ediscn's (SCE) San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), was discriminated against by his management for identifying safety concerns.
Based on the evidence developed, a review of Department of Labor decisions, and reviews by the RIV technical staff and Regional Counsel, the allegation that the senior engineer was discriminated against for identifying safety concerns was not substantiated.
4 I
i I
l s /\ / 3 1 e < r n '
USL I$CLb RE/WITl40VT APPROVAL FIE OFFICE OF / DIRECY...,
/\JNT70 / 0(FAC OF(NlESTIGATIGNS(, 10tl RECV/ ,
\ > / ! ." ,
o j
\ 9
\
\l l y/
. t , 1, Case No. 4-96-056 1 i
(
l I
l THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY c,
, c,1mfj17 _gy g""
C se No. 4-96-056 2
9 TABLE OF CONTENTS Pace SYNOPSIS. .. .
1 DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION. . . . 5 Allegation (Discrimination Against Senior Engineer by Management for Raising Safety Concerns).. . 5 Applicable Regulations. . . . . . 5 Per)ose of Investigation. .. ... . 5 Baccground. . ........... . . . 5 Coordination with NRC Staff., .. .. 6 Interview with Alleger. ............. . . . ... 6 Additional Coordination with NRC Staff . . 7 Review of DOL ALJ Recommer.ded Order. .. 7 Results of NRC Regional Counsel Review. . . .. 7 Results of NRC Technical Staff Review. ... . . . 8 Review of SONGS Nuclear Safety Concerns Program Investigation. ..... . ... . . . 8 Conclusions. . . .
. 9 LIST OF EXHIBITS. . .
11 I
1 ) l f f 7 .i l N) FOR BLIC ISCLO UR THDLT AP OML/0 F LDOhFICEDIEco0k.
/ IV/ /
i FFIC TIVES{IGAT 45./REGI N /
Case No. 4-96-056 3 ( ( ,'
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
{
i I
I I
^
R LI DISC 05 E WI H A3PROVA 0F /F EL '2)FF ED k,
\ 0 10 f IVETG/gNS,R Case No. 4-96-056 4
> U
DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION
@ eoation Discrimination Against Senior Engineer by Management for Raising Safety Concerns Apolicable Regulations 10 CFR 50.7: Employment Discrimination (1993, 1994, and 1995 Editions) 42 U.S.C. Employee Protection Puroose of Investigation This investigation was initiated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
Office of Investigations (01). Region IV (RIV). on October 15, 1996, to determine if Laxmi KHANDELWAL. former Senior Engineer II, who was employed at Southern California Edison's (SCE) San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), was discriminated against by his management for identifying safety concerns (Exhibit 1).
Backaround On September 21. 1995. KHANDELWAL filed a complaint with the Department of Labor (DOL) alleging that he was the subject of employment discrimination for identifying safety concerns to his managemert. KHANDELWAL reported that in 1993 when he worked as an equipment group supervisor at SONGS. he first raised some perceived safety and compliance issues regarding the qualified life of Motor Driven Relays (MDR) and Agastat relays in use at the plant.
KHANDELWAL stated that the proper operation of these relays is critical for the safety of the plant and the general public. KHANDLLWAL. advised that he brought these issues to the attention of his superiors since he needed their approval to address the problem. KHANDELWAL reported that SONGS management ignored the problem for more than a year and then harassed and retaliated against him as he continued to pursue the concerns. KHANDELWAL alleged that SONGS management removed him from his supervisory position and gave him poor job performance appraisals until July 1995, when he was forced to accept an early retirement package or be terminated. KHANDELWAL reported that he chose to take the early retirement package rather than the proposed job termination, and he subsequently decided to file a complaint with DOL alleging em)loyment discrimination in retaliation for his whistle-blowing activities (Ex11 bit 2).
On October 2. 1995, the DOL Wage and Hour Division (WHD) acknowledged receipt of KHANDELWAL's letter and initiated an investigation into the alleged j employment discrimination issues (Exhibit 3).
1 O 8 WITH(kJT hPR L OflFIEl 0F8 CE SIR C 1 J\.OTIRPBICD S / l i i /\ l Case No. 4-96-056 V
v F(INfSTIA'I 5
}EGbOfI \/ V
/
Upon notification by DOL of KHANDELWAL's complaint. SONGS challenged his right to complain to DOL about whistle-blower employment discrimination as KHANDELWAL had voluntarily accepted a job retirement / severance package. This challenge by SONGS was reviewed by a 30L Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). who ruled that KHANDELWAL did have the right to file a DOL whistle-blower complaint despite his having accepted the severance package. Based upon this ALJ finding, the matter was remanded by DOL to WHD to proceed with an investigation of KHANDELWAL's complaint.
On October 3.1996. DOL WHD advised KHANDELWAL that the initial efforts to conciliate his complaint were unsuccessful and that a fact finding investigation was conducted. WHD reported that the investigation did not verify that discrimination was a factor in the actions comprising his complaint. WHD further advised that KHANDELWAL's termination was found to be part of a planned reduction in force (RIF) in which 134 SONGS management and administrative employees had their Jositions eliminated and their employment terminated. WHD found that in the RIF 13 senior engineer 11 positions were eliminated and that 59 employees, 1 of whom was KHANDELWAL. elected to take SCE's severance package and early retirement. The WHD investigation found no indication that KHANDELWAL was coerced or under duress to participate in the early retirement / severance program (Exhibit 4). KHANDELWAL subsequently filed a timely appeal of the WHD decision which remanded the matter to the offices of the DOL ALJs for further action.
Coordination with NRC Staff On October 11 and 28. 1996, the RIV Allegation Review Board (ARB) discussed the allegations made by KHANDELWAL to DOL and recommended that the Division of Reactor Safety (DRS). RIV. review the technical information provided by KHANDELWAL and requested that 01:RIV interview him to ascertain the full scope of his concerns (Exhibit 5).
Interview with Alleaer (Exhibit 6)
On January 9, 1997. KHANDELWAL was interviewed by OI:RIV in Dana Point.
California. and stated as follows.
KHANDELWAL advised that in approximately May 1993, he raised safety concerns to SONGS management about the nuclear qualifiea life of MDR and Agastat relays installed in SONGS Units 2 and 3. KHANDELWAL added that he consistently pursued this issue with management during meetings and discussions. but no action was taken to address the potential problem. KHANDELWAL reported that .
in November 1993, his supervisory position was eliminated and in May 1994. he I was. for the first time in his 22-year career with SCE. given a "below standards" job performance evaluation. KHANDELWAL added that he challenged this performance appraisal to SONGS management which resulted in the appraisal being changed to " meets standards" in October 1994. KHANDELWAL related that l in November and December 1994 and January 1995. he continued to pursue his l safe +v concecps with the SONGS Nuclear Safety Concerns (NSC) Program.
BI IC[0S EWITOUTA}P f )AL FI I.1) 0 IIC IROkOR.
4
({flCE F NV(ST/GA N$ EI1 V JJ Case No. 4-96-056 6
\
KHANDELWAL alleged that because of his raising and pursing the relay issues.
SONGS terminated his employment, and he was forced to take early retirement in July 1995.
During his interview. KHANDELWAL also made a series of technical allegations as follows:
- 1. SONGS does not have replacement requirements for certain MDR and Agastat Relays with a 5-year qualified life.
- 2. Certain auxiliary feedwater system safety-related relays used in accident mitigation systems were not evaluated for performance under
. high energy line break (HELB) conditions.
- 3. There are deficiencies in the seismic qualifications of some safety- j related relays.
Additional Coordination with NRC Staff On Jcruary 23. 1997, the transcript of interview with KHANDELWAL was provided by 01:RIV to Russ WISE. Senior Allegation Coordinator. RIV. for distribution to the RIV technical staff for a review of any safety / technical concerns and to William BROWN. Regional Counsel RIV for review of the alleged employment discrimination issues.
On January 28, 1997. the RIV. DRS. Maintenance Branch. advised that any technical issues identified in their review of the KHANDELWAL transcript would J be inspected during a SONGS inspection scheduled for the week of February 24 !
1997.
Review of DOL ALJ Recommended Order (Exhibit 7)
On January 17. 1997. DOL ALJ Henry LASKY issued a Recommend Order Granting Summary Decision and Dismissal of Complaint (Exhibit 7). In this recommended order. LASKY stated that he found that KHANDELWAL had not presented any affirmative evidence to show a genuine issue of material for a trial. LASKY further stated that KHANDELWAL's execution of the SONGS retirement / severance package constituted a settlement of the Energy Reorganization Act (ERA) claim, and KHANDELWAL had given no triable reason why this retirement / severance package should be voided. LASKY also pointed out that KHANDELWAL executed the retirement / severance package knowingly and voluntarily in exchange for a financial consideration that he was not otherwise entitled to, and the public interest was found not harmed by any of the provisions of the agreement.
LASKY ruled that the settlement conformed to normal contract principles and was ". . . therefore, inherently fair, adequate, and reasonable. " LASKY concluded that the ERA cause of action had been previously settled, and KHANDELWAL had stated no claim upon which relief could be granted.
'OfFR J LICbISCO)SURE'WITHbVT FICS Dl,EfTf0k.
E OF INV IG TIO , 10/IV PRCVALdF U()
F. ' LDz0 (OFFI Case No. 4-96-056
~
7
\
l I
Results of NRC Reaional Counsel Review On January 29. 1997 BROWN. reviewed the ALJ's Recommended Order Granting Summary Decision and Dismissal of Complaint and provided a review of the decision (Exhibit 8).
On February 12. 1997 BROWN provided his comments (Exhibit 9) based on his review of KHANDELWAL's transcribed interview with OI:RIV. BROWN stated.
" Basically, other than his suspicions. the alleger offered no evidence that the claimed discrimination was in retaliation for his earlier protected activity nor did he claim that anyone even indicated as much to him." BROWN reported that. in his opinion, there was not a sufficient indication of a
. 10 CFR 50.7 violation to merit further investigation of this matter.
Results of NRC:RIV Technical Staff Review (Exhibit 10)
On March 20. 1997 Paul GAGE, Reactor Inspector. DRS. Maintenance Branch.
NRC:RIV, reported the results of his inspection of KHANDELWAL's technical concerns. GAGE advised that he found that the SONGS programs for replacement of relays met the commitments of the SONGS Final Safety Analysis Report. GAGE further reported that the relays located in the auxiliary feedwater pump room would not be subjected to a harsh environment during normal or accident conditions. Consequently, the replacement interval of these relays, as implemented by SONGS was acceptable.
GAGE also examined the allegation that relays located in the auxiliary feedwater pump room were not designed to mitigate a HELB accident in the vicinity of the relays' location. GAGE concluded that the relays in question were not required to be qualified for HELB conditions as the relays were not required to function during a HELB accident.
On March 27. 1997. WISE provided a copy of the RIV:DRS Maintenance Branch's review of KHANDELWAL's concerns regarding the qualified life of MDRs and Agastat Relays in use at SONGS. The inspection determined, in part, the relays were not required to be qualified in accordance with 10 CFR 50.49. ;
A copy of the review of the allegation is shown in Exhibit 10. j Review of SONGS NSC Program Investigation (Exhibit 11)
On June 16. 1995, the SONGS NSC Program issued an investigative report of the results of their investigation of KHANDELWAL's allegations. A review of this report determined the following information that is pertinent to this investigation.
The NSC investigation found that SONGS had historically correctly evaluated and replaced the relays in question, and that no conditions of nonconformance or operability problems ever existed.
OT RPBLCDIS[LSUR$ H0tl[ APPRd L FI h 0F ICE /DIRdT R, 0 FI E IV I T ON . G V /
Case No. 4-96-056 8 .
l
. 1 The NSC investigation also investigated KHANDELWAL's allegation o,' employment discrimination in that his job performance evaluation was lowered Dy SONGS management in retaliation for his raising and pursuing the relay issues. The NSC Program concluded that the allegation could not be substantiated.
Conclusions Based on the evidence developed, a review of DOL decisions and reviews by the RIV technical staff and Regional Counsel. the allegation that KHANDELWAL was discriminated against for identifying safety concerns was not substantiated.
l l
l l
N0f
/
LIC!D CLOS'UEWIfHUTAP OVA ICE j JFF$LD F IR C R.
- O FICE F INVE TIG I NS, FEGION ,
Case No. 4-96-056 9 \'
l
l -
l THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY B T R PUB IC WIf10VT / PP /AL OFFE FF .Df.E r R, I ! NV ST GAT r:S, REGI IV (
Case No. 4-96-056 10 L '
b
LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit No. Description 1 Investigation Status Record, dated October 15. 1996.
2 KHANDELWAL's Initial DOL Complaint, dated September 21, 1995.
3 DOL Acknowledgement Letter, dated October 2. 1995.
4 00L/WHD Area Office Director Decision, dated October 3.
1996.
5 NRC:RIV ARB minutes, dated October 11 and 28. 1996.
6 Transcribed Interview of KHANDELWAL. dated January 9. 1997.
7 DOL ALJ Recommended Order. dated January 28. 1997.
8 Review of ALJ's Decision by BROWN. dated January 29, 1997.
9 Review of Transcribed Interview of KHANDELWAL by BROWN.
dated February 12. 1997.
10 Memorandum from GAGE to WISE. dated March 20. 1997.
11 SONGS NSC Program Investigation Summary, dated June 16.
1995.
1 l
l l
1
'N I NO F0 P LIC IS L U ITHD JT , A PROV 0F , ELD 1FFI d D <E OR,
! 0FFI 0F NVESTIGA' IONS, EGIC I$ I Case No. 4-96-056 11 l -'
l -
(/:o t 1
1 j
l L________-.___
t.
E l
i 1
l l
t 1
l I
l
' EXHIBIT 1 I
CASE tr 4-9-056 EXHIBIT k
I
( f .
i bli!'T D DIS RIBOTI N $ OR UBL'I DI C
{
, INVESTIGATION STATUS RE~ CORD i j Case No.: 4-96-056 Facility: SAN ON0FRE Allegation No.: RIV-96-A-0227 Case Agent: J0VK0FF Docket No.: 50-362 Date Opened: 10/15/96 l
l Source of Allegation: ALLEGER (A) Priority: H (L. J. CALLAN, RA:RIV) ,
Notified by: SAC:RIV (WISE) Staff
Contact:
N/A l '
l Category: IH Case Code: RP Subject / Allegation: DISCRIMINATION AGAINST SENIOR ENGINEER BY MANAGEMENT FOR l RAISING SAFETY CONCERNS l Remarks: 10 CFR 50.7 i Monthly Status Report: Page 1 10/15/96: On September 21, 1995, Laxmi KHANDELWAL, former Senior Engineer II, j at Southern California Edison's (SCE) San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), filed a complaint with the Department of Lt.bor ,
l (00L) alleging that he was the subject of employment discrimination 1 j for identifying safety concerns to his management. He said in 1993, as an equipment group supervisor, he raised some perceived safety and compliance issues regarding Motor Driven Relays and Agastat i relays. He said since raising these concerns, he'has been harassed l l
and retaliated against by his management through the performance )
i appraisal system. On July 11, 1995, KHANDELWAL was terminated and i chose to take an early retirement package and subsequently decided to file with DOL. The licensee challenged his right to complain to l
DOL about employment discrimination and to accept a severance j package. This challenge, by the licensee, was reviewed by an Administrate;ve Law Judge who found that KHANDELWAL did have the !
right to go to DOL in addition to accepting the severance package. l Because of this ruling, DOL has proceeded with KHANDELWAL's complaint. On October 11, 1996, the Region IV (RIV) Allegation l
Review Board reviewed the allegation and recommended that the l Division of Reactor Safety, RIV, review the background information i provided by KhANDELWAL and that 01:RIV interview him about his concerns. Status: Field Work in Progress (FWP) ECD: 01/97 (90-day) l gy nr _ ri :; [, Exhibit /
l m. n v.
,' ,t vpo Page / of /
LI TED/D'IShBUTI N -- N T F0 PUBL C DISCLOSUR ITH T I APPff0hkL j
.g 4
EXHIBIT 11
~
o CASE!iD. 4-96-056 EXHIBIT
Cf.3E CHRONOLOGY
..a
.f D 57c l n --. /o-/5-cy/ l ,-.DL20Fp un l _
um.n is/i1/96 &can 6me Raz Tw OT
- 2 N - detiiewiG fo b'/q6 Tc. Wiws Fbcz.@ So# - Siwd #m to' ws or SM6 w rm xamema %ws - o wax wrian iN fo Ird ELCT. Wusts
\\ ltTf 96 0\lh iNFD de r*'t WLLtd- hb kVJEco' uT7h - /Yffs t! IE%
'~
(2 w cro tonaz s y - e izi .g/z .
ulel%
kv nvFo Fw Pril A EP <ptw Am Teawat 1b'f UJH ITT51uats(KuTb - Ax<!)po @ .
WFW 6fJ n>cru in viuc c4+ on s/t.~ '
/
aho/96 invw LGQ .
sh'/% 1 072*2E 3'3C odok/97 ! rc: wnw Zavvbguac - Aeses .7e coeseview.
oUcAlv' i T0: we t'wstm - Asa r > ro innsdicu od oi/09/9 '
l D O I C ML704 - s trher /d ATTrgNc,en - /b/e.sF.s.
I A,vwvmns v>nu GLrs uhss Nscura rei. ivisivi.eu O\ lOb MI
- T C 5 6 ' N /\lL- T V2v,8 UJ O6 - )?60 c)G7/sr&- becnMFx 0llo1(O I TC cu trh 20 A u)37- ~ 1)o c o m c n ;~ S W \f1 A O fft.n/rf W J4
. 0\'o1/c i G- 4 a- Tenn Gin 3 \ - /w Nh'fAP wm+ innWU>wtJ o \ \ o1lct'll G - W1o+It- TD SCD L - AtGNcs W$W
\ E- VMIL p ;%%) /ksex'ft- AAer)se rsvi-aIc1{91 l 7~C ; & D f t H M C - K n 'tt - Wfn94v'15 6.K F~ot Ifi~ o n If4 of cd 47 iEC f9 % cs / ATincavtFra6 ) T'7 % v})SE~. 77 /07VAllR<D
- 0) ocl 91 i7 & L L v)C Vo ' 7 % / W rt- W . T H Y bb9dbfd WAL - -
r1 hoi 91 l M coa 1M ' N4IFA NSC- T'hSP F li. 2 T o c s onf(H&f>ft WAL ol 2Niq1 l (2cft> Tlf.'/Wsc4rrr 6T* dhWbfLtatt jdrr%fi ftO
$b55 /u w >=&& C;Pir f.'* C m c
' I I'.b 'M ll1Th'Dt-2ici!L ~~Ti % n W x
': i i: L7 lQm T>c L &L t-s%7 s:- % , w , vm %,u it' e: Gnk l t 'WY -T '
. m f,1 u p)
. u; ~
lD' n L. u ,, Q . ,. u .. x , L . , ccc & AL l'R2 Al I2 I9? l E-Wh or E/twid - $E?ct n $hsan /Syk.o c F 77 anus cei?T c@ /gr7 I ./WB p?75, t0 CTFS a men es.c. v. . ame as ===. n . m.u=== m .. - ... = = =
\
gygg CASE CHRONOLOGY
..u . .. - .
l ... . ,7saroff
</-. W D5% /Drr-9%>
un l _
os 99 Aa mre sus H'\9 qrl kCT \SSOEb - OfsE Toh CLOS 6%
X/XAew DL dNEw30if@ TdlEF" e
[is l 97 fi R 't1 TCL-GCC Br2 sf To Ru d esi n J a w y m
I I
i i
I I
I l
l I
l' I
i i
l l
I I
am v. . arm n.erw-aau -a-( ...o l
l
g L 8 10 -p j 0 C lE INVESTIGATION STATUS RECORD Case No.: 4-96-056 Facility: SAN ON0FRE Allegation No. : RIV-96-A-0227 Case Agent: J0VK0FF Docket No.: 50-362 Date Opened: 10/15/96 Source of Allegation: ALLEGER (A) Priority: H (L. J. CALLAN, RA:RIV)
Notified by: SAC:RIV (WISE) Staff
Contact:
N/A Category: IH Case Code: RP Subject / Allegation: DISCRIMINATION AGAINST SENIOR ENGINEER BY MANAGEMENT FOR RAISING SAFETY CONCERNS Remarks: 10 CFR 50.7 Monthly Status Reoort: Page 1 10/15/96: On September 21, 1995, Laxmi KHANDELWAL, former Senior Engineer II, at Southern California Edison's (SCE) San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), filed a complaint with the Department of Labor (DOL) alleging that he was the subject of employment discrimination for identifying safety concerns to his management. He said in 1993, as an equipment group supervisor, he raised some perceived safety and compliance issues regarding Motor Driven Relays and Agastat l relays. He said since raising these concerns, he has been harassed j and retaliated against by his management through the performance appraisal system. On July 11, 1995, KHANDELWAL was terminated and chose to take an early retirement package and subsequently decided to file with 00L. The licensee challenged his right to complain to DOL about employment discrimination and to accept a severance package. This challenge, by the licensee, was reviewed by an Administrative Law Judge who found that KHANDELWAL did have the 3 right to go to DOL in addition to accepting the severance package.
Because of this ruling, D0L has proceeded with KHANDELWAL's complaint. On October 11, 1996, the Region IV (RIV) Allegation Review Board reviewed the allegation and recommended that the Division of Reactor Safety, RIV, revtew the background information
! provided by KHANDELWAL and that 01:RIV interview him about his concerns. Status: Field Work in Progress (FWP) ECD: 01/97 (90-day) l Exhibit Page of
/ LMTEdD(STRB ION NOT' FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WI HOUT Ol' APPROVp t - - - _ _ - ._-- _ ___________--______ _ ____ _
t l
, n - n ,
Lliil DISRk'BUTIO /NbT OR UILICDISCLO E
INVESTIGATION STATUS RECORD Case No., 4-96-056 Facility: SAN ONOFRE Allegation No.: RIV-96-A-0227 Case Agent: JOUKOFF Docket No.- 50-361/362 Date Opened: 10/15/96 Source of Allegation: ALLEGER (A) Priority: H (L. J. CALLAN, RA:RIV)
Notified by: SAC:RIV (WISE) Staff
Contact:
N/A Category: IH Case Code: RP Subject / Allegation: DISCRIMINATION AGAINST SENIOR ENGINEER BY MANAGEMENT FOR RAISING SAFETY CONCERNS Remarks: 10 CFR 50.7 Monthlv Status Reoort: Page 2 i
10/31/96: The alleger will be interviewed this month to determine the exact nature and extent of his concerns. The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) district director ruled against the alleger stating the alleger was terminated as part of a reduction in force.
Status: FWP ECD: 01/97 (90-day) 11/30/96: Due to illness of the assigned agent, the interview of the alleger has been moved to December 1996. OI:RIV has obtained copies of the 11censee's investigation reports and is reviewing these documents.
Status: FWP ECD: 01/97 (90-day) l?/31/96: The alleger is scheduled to be interviewed on January 9,1997.
f about his allegation of discrimination. Status: FWP ECD: 01/97 (90-day)
Dl/31/97: The alleger was interviewed by 01:RIV on January 9, 1997, and a copy of the interview transcript has been provided to the RIV staff for review. On January 17, 1997, a DOL Administrative Law Judge issued a Recommended Order that dismissed the alleger's complaint, with
- prejudice, on the basis the alleger voluntarily accepteo early retirement from the licensee and was monetarily rewarded for this action. 01 has provided a copy of the ALJ's decision to the RIV Regional Counsel for review. Based upon the results of the above reviews, DI
- RIV will determine if further investigation of this case is warranted. Status: FWP ECD: 07/97 02/28/97: The RIV regional counsel has reviewed the DOL ALJ decision and the OI:RIV interview transcript and provided a legal opinion that further investigation of tnis case is not warranted. DI:RIV is reviewing this case for closure. Status: FWP ECD: 07/97
\ ,
I I '
i ffe ,
LIMITEDDISTRIBUT10N-ih0]FORPUBLIC;DISCLOSUREWITHOUT01APPR L
d IQlj f {R ON/ NOT P LICDSIL yE
'J INVESTIG'nTION STATUS RECORD Case No.: 4-96-056 Facility: SAN ONOFRE Allegation No.. RIV-96-A-0227 Case Agent: JOUKOFF Docket No. 50-361/362 Date Opened: 10/15/96 Source of Allegation: ALLEGER (A) Priority: H (L. J. CALLAN. RA:RIV)
Notified by: SAC:RIV (WISE) Staff
Contact:
N/A Category: IJ Case Code: RP Subject / Allegation: DISCRIMINATION AGAINST SENIOR ENGI,4EER BY MANAGEMENT FOR RAISING SAFETY CONCERNS Remarks: 10 CFR 50.7 Monthly Status ReDOrt: Page 3 03/31/97: ROI in F00 review. Status: RIO ECD: 04/97 04/30/97: Case F0D closed on 04/09/97.
l l
l l
Closed: 04/09/97 Issued: 04/09/97 Cicced Action: U N
/
s
'y , ;
i LI'ITEb M hISTfIB'UTION '- N0'T [0R'PUBLIC DI'SCLOSURE;WIlTHgUT Oj MPfjh AL t