ML20128G457: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 2: Line 2:
| number = ML20128G457
| number = ML20128G457
| issue date = 02/02/1993
| issue date = 02/02/1993
| title = Discusses Licensee 921001 & 19 Ltrs Responding to NRC 920911 Ltr Re Alleged Discrimination of Employee for Engaging in Protected Activities.Based on Review of Complaint,Nrc Concluded That Employee Not Terminated for Raising Concerns
| title = Discusses Licensee 921001 & 19 Ltrs Responding to NRC Re Alleged Discrimination of Employee for Engaging in Protected Activities.Based on Review of Complaint,Nrc Concluded That Employee Not Terminated for Raising Concerns
| author name = Ebneter S
| author name = Ebneter S
| author affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
| author affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
Line 20: Line 20:


==SUBJECT:==
==SUBJECT:==
ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION AGAINST AN EMPLOYEE FOR HAVING ENGAGED IN PROTECTED ACTIVITIES This refers to your letters dated October 1 and October 19, 1992, in response to our letter dated September 11, 1992, concerning the alleged discrimination of an employee for having engaged in protected activities. The Complainant alleged that he had t'een terminated from his employment because he had been identifying problems related to the radiation safety program.
ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION AGAINST AN EMPLOYEE FOR HAVING ENGAGED IN PROTECTED ACTIVITIES This refers to your letters dated October 1 and October 19, 1992, in response to our {{letter dated|date=September 11, 1992|text=letter dated September 11, 1992}}, concerning the alleged discrimination of an employee for having engaged in protected activities. The Complainant alleged that he had t'een terminated from his employment because he had been identifying problems related to the radiation safety program.
Based on our review of the complaint, the information provided in your responses and NRC inspection findings and observations, we have concluded that the employee was not terminated for raising safety concerns, Accordingly, no enforcement action will be taken in this case.
Based on our review of the complaint, the information provided in your responses and NRC inspection findings and observations, we have concluded that the employee was not terminated for raising safety concerns, Accordingly, no enforcement action will be taken in this case.
No response to this letter is required. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
No response to this letter is required. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
Line 37: Line 37:


==SUBJECT:==
==SUBJECT:==
ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION AGAINST AN EMPLOYEE FOR HAVING ENGAGED IN PROTECTED ACTIVITIES This refers to your letters dated October 1 and October 19, 1992, in response to our letter dated September 11, 1992, concerning the alleged discrimination of an employee for having engaged in protected activities. The' Compl ainant -
ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION AGAINST AN EMPLOYEE FOR HAVING ENGAGED IN PROTECTED ACTIVITIES This refers to your letters dated October 1 and October 19, 1992, in response to our {{letter dated|date=September 11, 1992|text=letter dated September 11, 1992}}, concerning the alleged discrimination of an employee for having engaged in protected activities. The' Compl ainant -
alleged that he had been terminated from his employment because he'had been identifying problems related to the radiation safety program.                            ;
alleged that he had been terminated from his employment because he'had been identifying problems related to the radiation safety program.                            ;
Based on our review of the complaint, the information provided in your responses and NRC inspection findings and observations, we have ccncluded that the employee was not terminated for raising safety concerns. Accordi.ngly, no enforcement action will be-taken in this case, No response to this letter is required,          In accordance with 10 CFR 2,790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of.this letter will' be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
Based on our review of the complaint, the information provided in your responses and NRC inspection findings and observations, we have ccncluded that the employee was not terminated for raising safety concerns. Accordi.ngly, no enforcement action will be-taken in this case, No response to this letter is required,          In accordance with 10 CFR 2,790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of.this letter will' be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.

Latest revision as of 22:10, 21 August 2022

Discusses Licensee 921001 & 19 Ltrs Responding to NRC Re Alleged Discrimination of Employee for Engaging in Protected Activities.Based on Review of Complaint,Nrc Concluded That Employee Not Terminated for Raising Concerns
ML20128G457
Person / Time
Site: 07001201
Issue date: 02/02/1993
From: Ebneter S
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To: Carr C
FRAMATOME COGEMA FUELS (FORMERLY B&W FUEL CO.)
References
NUDOCS 9302160013
Download: ML20128G457 (3)
v • d • e


Text

,

lj tB 0 21m Docket No. 70-1201 License No. SNM-1168 B&W Fuel Company Commercial Neclear Fuel Plant ATTN: Mr. C. W. Carr Plant Manager Post Office Box 11646 Lynthburg, Virginia 24506-1646 Gentlemen:

SUBJECT:

ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION AGAINST AN EMPLOYEE FOR HAVING ENGAGED IN PROTECTED ACTIVITIES This refers to your letters dated October 1 and October 19, 1992, in response to our letter dated September 11, 1992, concerning the alleged discrimination of an employee for having engaged in protected activities. The Complainant alleged that he had t'een terminated from his employment because he had been identifying problems related to the radiation safety program.

Based on our review of the complaint, the information provided in your responses and NRC inspection findings and observations, we have concluded that the employee was not terminated for raising safety concerns, Accordingly, no enforcement action will be taken in this case.

No response to this letter is required. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.

Sincerely,

~

Odgnal Signed Dy:

Sicart D. Ebnete-Stewart D. Ebneter Regional Administrator cc: Robert B, Strobe, M.D., M.P.H.

State Health Commissioner Office of the Commissioner Virginia Department of Health P. O. Box 2448 Richmond, VA 23218 Commonwealth of Virginia bec: J. Lieberman, OE R. Cunningham, NMSS J. Goldberg, OGC Document Control Desk License Fee Management Branch i

9302160013 930202 1 l DR ADOCK 0700

B&W Fuel Company 2 bec: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: NRC Resident inspector Mail Code 42 P. O. Box 785 Lynchburg, VA 24505-0785

  • see previous page for concurrence RII* RII* Rll* Ril*

GRJenkins CFEvans JPStohr LAReyes 1/ /93 1/ /93 1/ /93 1/ /93

, ,1, IIB 021FF Docket No. 70-1201 License No, SNM-1168 B&W Fuel Company Commercial Nuclear Fuel Plant ATTN: Mr. C. W. Carr Plant Manager Post Office Box 11646 '

Lynchburg, Virginia 24506-1646 Gentlemen:

SUBJECT:

ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION AGAINST AN EMPLOYEE FOR HAVING ENGAGED IN PROTECTED ACTIVITIES This refers to your letters dated October 1 and October 19, 1992, in response to our letter dated September 11, 1992, concerning the alleged discrimination of an employee for having engaged in protected activities. The' Compl ainant -

alleged that he had been terminated from his employment because he'had been identifying problems related to the radiation safety program.  ;

Based on our review of the complaint, the information provided in your responses and NRC inspection findings and observations, we have ccncluded that the employee was not terminated for raising safety concerns. Accordi.ngly, no enforcement action will be-taken in this case, No response to this letter is required, In accordance with 10 CFR 2,790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of.this letter will' be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.

Sincerely.

Orhtrial S%ned Br.

sicwart D. EbneW Stewart D. Ebneter Regional- Administrator T p, -.evicus pege r concur +ence f+K RI -RII RII ,

RI /

GRJe ins CFEvans S 1 age 3 193;e3 1,g,93 lope..

es f

j
Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20128G457&oldid=3463708"