ML20248C396
| ML20248C396 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry, Sequoyah, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 07/27/1989 |
| From: | Kingsley O TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8908090520 | |
| Download: ML20248C396 (5) | |
Text
- - _ - -
.u TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY CH ATTANOOGA, TENNESSEE 374o1 6N 38A Lookout Place July 27, 1989 Mr. Dennis M. Crutchfield Associate Director for Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Crutchfield:
NRC LETTER OF JULY 20, 1989 REGARDING SECTION 210 COMPLAINT BY JOHN W.
VON WEISENSTEIN This is in response to your July 20, 1989 letter about a complaint by John W. von Weisenstein under Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act.
hir. von Weisenstein questioned the distribution of a May 25, 1989 memora dtun to :me f rom TVA's General Counsel and suggested that it could be improperly used as a " blacklist" of individuals who have raised safety concerns.
Mr. von Weisenstein has misunderstood the purpose of the May 25 memorandum and the circumstances surrounding its distribution and intended use.
It was apparent to me soon after I came to TVA that our approach to Section 210 complaints needed improvement.
A series of discussions since then among Nuclear Power's Human Resource and Employee Concerns staffs and the General Counsel's Office focused more attention on the handling of these complaints at the initial investigation and conciliation stage.
A number of Section 210 complaints were pending against TVA, and our post experience indicates that reductions in force and organizational change result in increased complaints.
I perceived a need for directing greater management attention to (1) evaluating Section 210 complaints; (2) pursuing conciliation efforts where feasible; (3) ensuring that investigators under Section 210 are informed of the reasons for challenged management actions; and (4) pursuing appropriate additional corrective actions co avoid any chilling effect or perception of discrimination. This included implementing stronger internal procedures to help achieve these purposes and maintaining up-toedate information about the nature and number of Section 210 cases.
The May 25 memorandum and attachment were written as an integral part of this major effort.
In May and June Nuclear Power took a variety of steps that I felt were necessary to direct more management attention to the proper handling of Section 210 complaints, particularly in the early stages, including the appointment of a staff member specifically responsible for aggressively investigating, resolving, and following up on Section 210 matters.
These steps, which included many of the suggestions made in the May 25 memorandum, emphasized, among other things, that responsible senior-level Nuclear Power managers must stay informed and work closely in the conciliation, as well as the investigation, of complaints.
hOlk Pof PoMR 3%y
,)
e An Equal Opportunity Employer 4
- e
, J Mr. Dennis M. Crutchfield July 27, 1989
)
l 1
We do not interpret either your letter or Mr. von Weisenstein's complaint to say that. the General Counsel should not advise me about Section 210 cases involving my organization or suggest procedures for handling such complaints.
Indeed, such information about safety and personnel issues is important to my overall supervision of TVA's nuclear program, and I i
must have the ability to see that those managers who report directly to me, and others who may be involved as well, are also properly informed about these matters which are their direct concern.
With respect to the memorandum's distribution, it was unfortunately given routine handling.. Although the memorandum could have been marked confidential, the General Counsel frequently advises me and other managers _on the status of cases and other matters without such markings.
Because the memorandum contained new procedures in the handling of Section 210 cases, my support staff distributed it to those who report directly to me and, in one case, a Vice President's support staff, in his absence, in turn redistributed the memorandum.
As soon as we realized that the memorandum contained a list of cases and that it had received this level of distribution, we took immediate action to recall the copies that had been distributed. We have also removed the list of cases from our automated document filing and retrieval system.
In addition, I have specifically counseled with the vice president of the organization where the memorandum was distributed about the need for all concerned to be sensitive in handling these issues.
I have also instructed.my support staff to review the process for receiving, distributing. and filing correspondence of this type.
The following responds to the three specific requests for information in your letter.
1.
Basis for employment action regarding Mr. von Weisenstein.
Because Mr. von Weisenstein's complaint is still being investigated, no report has been prepared, and we are unable at this point to comment on the validity of his allegations about his nonelection.
- However, we would note several points.
Mr. von Weisenstein was only one of'a group of more than 60 employees in Engineering Assurance whose positions were eliminated in their entirety. This plan was discussed with the NRC in meetings on April 10 and June 9, 1989.
Mr,. von Weisenstein's complaint alleges that he applied for several positions but was not selected because he was blacklisted.
We have no knowledge _that this was the case. To the contrary, our inquiry thus far has disclosed no evidence that the list in question was even in the possession of the manager or managers making any of the selections which are the subject of Mr. von Weisenstein's complaint, much less tnat it was misused by them.
f Mr. Dennis M. Crutchfield July 27, 1989 2.
Actions taken or planned to assure that the publication of the memorandum and its enclosure did not, and will not, have a chilling effect in discouraging other licensee or contractor employees from raising perceived safety concerns. I have described above the steps that have been taken to focus more management attention on the proper resolution of Section 210 cases. These steps, either directly or indirectly, will help to avoid any chilling effect.
In addition, the following actions have been taken:
I o
Holding of a meeting on June 21 with the Department of Labor's District Director and his assistant about Section 210 matters.
During that meeting I discussed our new Section 210 procedures and introduced the staff member responsible for central l
management of Section 210 complaints.
I also explained the purpose of the May 25 memorandum and discussed my efforts to ensure that the May 25 memorandum would not be improperly used.
I personally expressed the importance TVA is placing onthese Letters.
Employee communications, including meetings between groups of o
employees and me, to emphasize employees' duty to express safety l
and quality concerns and to reaffirm TVA's policy that TVA will not tolerate discrimination against any employees who express such' concerns.
I have made that point again in a press release and internal employee communication issued on July 25.
o.
Initiation of additional specialized orientation to heighten sensitivity in managers and Human Resources personnel at Watts Bar Nuclear Plant because of the number of cases filed at Watts Bar..This orientation was planned'last month and is scheduled to start in August. This orientation will review those activities which are legally prohibited and demonstrate the danger of inadequate communications with employees.
Please note that this is in addition to the more general training already being conducted for all Nuclear Power supervisors which addresses this subject in a more abbreviated form.
Your letter also asks what actions are being taken to avoid any chilling effect on contractor employees. We have no knowledge that
[
the memorandum was distributed to any contractors, nor have we received any complaints or comments indicating any problems witn the memorandum.
In any event, we firmly believe that the foregoing actions are sufficiently comprehensive to avoid any chilling effects on any group.
)
I l
j.
l =
Mr. Dennis M. Crutchfield July 27, 1989 3.
Actions taken or planned to assure that the list will not be used to take action against the named individuals.
Although we had no reason to suspect that the list of cases attached to the May 25 memorandum had been or would be misused, as indicated above, when we became aware ot the allegation that the list was intended to be used as a blacklist. I immediately directed my immediate subordinates to make clear to all concerned that the list was not so intended and that it is not to be used for such a purpose. Moreover, since receiving your July 20 letter, I again issued the same instructions to my innediate subordinates. Of course, throughout our evaluation and reorganization efforts, we have repeatedly stressed in our discussions that reductions in force must not discriminate against protected classes of employees, including those who have filed Section 210 complaints.
Indeed, this point was specifically covered in our April 21, 1989 Organization and Staffing Plan.
Finally, we simply cannot agree that distribution of the May 25 memorandum and its attachment could by itself constitute a violation of Section 210 or 10 CFR 50.7, unless the memorandum was distributed for some unlawful purpose.
In any event, the memorandum was distributed for a number of lawful purposes, which I have described above.
However, TVA certainly recognizes that a lawful list of Section 210 complaints could be misused in violation of Section 210.
In the present instance, we have as yet found no evidence of such misuse.
TVA will certainly take prompt and appropriate action if it is determined thal such misuse has occurred.
In summary, we have invested a substantial amount of work and energy in ensuring and enhancing employee protection, and I take a great deal of pride in the improvements we have made and planned.
If you have any further questions or would like to discuss this matter, please call me.,
Very truly yours,
! Y AUTHORITY TENNEJ f. VAI s
i 1
. liver D.
- ngsl y Jr Senior Vice Pres'ae Nuclear Powers i
'i cc: See page 5
l ':1: ;.; f. ; s ?
h
_5_
Mr.-Dennis M. Crutchfield July 27, 1989-(
cc:
Mr.fB. D. Liaw, Director
'TVA Projects-Division One White Flint, North 11555'Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852 Mr. B. A. Wilson, Assistant Director for Inspection Programs TVA Projects Division U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 NRC. Resident Inspector Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Route 12, Box 637' Athens, Alabana 35609-2000 NRC Resident Inspector Sequoyah Nuclear Plant 2600 Igou Ferry Road Soddy-Daisy,.Tennesee 37379 NRC Resident Inspector Watts Bar Nuclear Plant P.O. Box 700 Spring City, Tennessee 37381 l
_