ML20059B178
| ML20059B178 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 10/22/1993 |
| From: | Gray J NRC OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT (OE) |
| To: | Ross A AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20059B181 | List: |
| References | |
| 2.206, NUDOCS 9310280070 | |
| Download: ML20059B178 (2) | |
Text
.
DM 00T 2 2 993 4
Mr. Anthony J.
Ross 165 Pruett Place Oakdale, Connecticut 06370
Dear Mr. Ross:
Subsequent to our receipt of your 10 CFR 2.206 Petition. dated August 7, 1993, we received an unsolicited letter dated October 12, 1993 from Northeast Utilities (NU), titled " Response to 10 CFR~
2.206 Petition", which referenced your Petition.
NU provided.two versions of this document, one of which is purported to contain confidential material that NU has asked to have withheld from public disclosure pursuant to 10 CFR 2.790, and a
second,.
" redacted" version for which confidential treatment has not been requested.
The NRC staff currently is reviewing the former document to determine whether it should be withheld under section 2.790.
In the meantime, we are providing the enclosed redacted version of this correspondence to you for your information and use.
You may, of course, respond to, or comment on the enclosure if'you wish.
s)
Joseph R. Gray, Deputy Director Office of Enforcement
Enclosure:
As Stated j
cc:
Ernest Hadley cc w/o encl.:
Northeast Utilities DISTRIBUTION:
T.Murley T. Martin B. Hayes J.Stolz J.Partlow Qh 01 1
L.Doerflein 9310280070 931022
??
DR ADOCK 05000245 I
s
- 00T 2 2 893 J.Lieberman, OE J. Gray, OE D.Rosano, OE 2.206 File Day File DCS - yes' PDR - yes DOCUMENT: G:\\ROSS.DR O
~ :hE RPR ano RGray 10/
93 10/2//93 t
4 1
t i
, t i
L e
4 s
e REDACTED VERSION OF THE ROSS RESPONSE RESPONSE OF NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY TO THE 10 C.F.R. 6 2.206 PETITION FILED BY ANTHONY J. ROSS INTRODUCTION On August 7, 1993, Anthony J. Ross filed a petition with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requesting " enforcement action and implementation" of 10 C.F.R. 5 50.7 and 10 C.F.R. 5 50.5 (Ross Petition).
A copy of the Ross Petition is included as Attachment A, hereto.
Mr. Ross requests, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206, that the NRC take escalated enforcement action consisting of the issuance of a Severity Level II violation against Mr. Ross' department manager and a Severity Level III violation against his first-line supervisor for violation of the provisions of 10 C.F.R. 5 50.7 (Employee Protection).
Mr. Ross further demands that sanctions be imposed against these individuals for engaging in j
deliberate misconduct within the meaning of 10 C.F.R. 5 50.5.
Finally, Mr.
Ross demands that the NRC remove his first-line l
supervisor until such time as a " satisfactory resolution of the problem can be achieved."
Ross Petition at 2.
The NRC published notice of Mr. Ross' 5 2.206 Petition in j
the Federal Recister on September 10, 1993.
58 Fed. Rec. 47,769.
Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO), the employer of the individuals referenced in the Ross Petition, submits the following
1 e
I Page 2 response to address the allegations of wrongdoing contained in Mr.
Ross' Petition.03 Based on its review of the matter, NNECO has concluded that the evidence is clear that Mr. Ross' assertion that he has been subjected to acts of discrimination by his first-line supervisor and department manager is wholly without a factual basis.
Mr.
Ross has been subjected to certain disciplinary measures, but these measures were both necessary and appropriate as l
.l a result of the conduct of Mr. Ross -- conduct unrelated to any l
protected activity. Moreover, as will be demonstrated below, NNECO has thoroughly reviewed Mr. Ross' technical concerns and has found no deliberate misconduct.
1 DISCUSSION J
I.
Lecial Standards The institution of a proceeding or the initiation of an enforcement action in response to a request for action under 10 i
l C.F.R.
5 2.206 is appropriate only when substantial health and safety issues have been raised.
Arizona Public Service Co. (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3), DD-92-1, 35 NRC 13 3, 143-44 (1992); Consolidated Edison Co. of New York (Indian Point, Units 1,
2, and 3),
CLI-75-8, 2 NRC 173, 176 (1975);
d)
NNECO recognizes that the decision on the 5 2.206 Petition is within the sole discretion of the NRC.
Because Mr. Ross has copy of his Petition to Senator Lieberman, however, sent a NNECO will also communicate with Senator Lieberman in order that he may understand NNECO's position in this matter.
l l
l l
1 l
l
O Page 3 Washinaton Public Power Supolv System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2), DD-84-7, 19 NRC 899, 923 (1984).
"A mere dispute over factual issues does not suffice." Northern Indiana Public Service C2 (Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear-1), CLI-78-7, 7 NRC 429, 433 (1978).
In the present case, Mr. Ross' Petition is based only on unfounded allegations of intentional discrimination in violation of 10 C.F.R. S 50.7 and individual deliberate wrongdoing subject to 10 C.F.R. 5 50.5.
The facts do not support these allegations.
'~
A.
Section 50.7 Prohibits Retaliation Section 50.7 prohibits a licensee from discriminating against an employee in reprisal for the employee having engaged in protected activity.
Section 50.7(d) provides, in pertinent part:
The prohibition
[against discrimination) applies when the adverse action [against the employee) occurs because the employee has engaged in protected activities.
An employee's engagement in protected activities does not automatically render him or her immune from discharge or discipline for legitimate reasons or from adverse action dictated by nonprohibited considerations.
Under the case law, an employer has not discriminated by taking disciplinary actions against an employee who has engaged in protected activities if such actions were motivated by legitimate business reasons and were not pretextual.
Egg St. Marv's Honor Center v.
- Hicks, 113 S.
Ct.
2742, 2746-47 (1993); Bartlik v.
Tennessee Vallev Authority, Case No. 88-ERA-15 (1993).
- Moreover, absent credible evidence showing a
causal link between the i
I
Page 4 l
employee's protected activitien,.and the adverse
- action, no presumption of discrimination can arise.
Bartlik; Hasan v. System Enerav Resources, Inc., Case No. 89-ERA-36; aff'd sub. nom. Hasan
- v. Reich, Case No. 92-5170 (5th Cir. 1993).
Management must remain free to resolve both technical and personnel matters in the manner it believes, in its collective judgment, to be correct.
Simply because an employee, such as Mr. Ross, engages in protected activities (such as raising a safety issue with his management or filing a petition with the NRC pursuant to Section 2.206) does not excuse the individual from, among other things, conducting himself in a professional manner while at the plant and complying with the licensee's personnel policies. To permit the standards of professionalism to be lowered under such circumstances would tear at the fabric of the organizational structure and create discontent and disharmony.
Such damage to any organization would necessarily have an adverse impact on its operation and efficiency.
This is especially significant in the nuclear area where public safety and welfare are of paramount importance.
An employee may disagree with the resolution of an issue by management, and is certainly free to elevate the issue up the management chain or even take the issue to the NRC.
But, an employee's disagreement with the resolution does not establish that the employer has violated Section 50.7.
It is the prerogative --
i indeed, the duty -- of licensee management to resolve issues in a i
Page 5 manner that it deems me st appropriate. Management must remain free to resolve technical natters in the manner it believes, in its collective judgment, to be correct.
It cannot simply yield to the person who speaks the loudest or is the most aggressive.
Finally, if an employee claims that he has been subjected to acts of discrimination, the employee's perception of those acts should be judged by an objective standard.
The Commission's Enforcement Policy states that " discrimination should be broadly defined, and includes intimidation or harassment that could lead a person to reasonably expect that, if he/she makes allegations about what he/she believes are unsafe conditions, the compensation, terms, conditions, and privileges of employment could be affected."
NRC Enforcement Manual 5 5.5.2 (pp. 5-13) (emphasis added).
B.
Section 50.5 Prohibits Deliberate Misconducte 10 C.F.R. 5 50.5 prohibits any deliberate act of misconduct; i.e.,
one taken intentionally, knowing the result to follow, and knowing that the result is contrary to regulatory requirements or procedures.
Deliberate acts do not include inadvertent mistakes.
Egg aenerally 56 Fed. Rec. 40,664 (1991).
According to the Supplementary Information to the rule, " deliberate misconduct" is the intent to engage in misconduct, and does not include misconduct resulting from careless disregard or negligence.
Sag Statement of Considerations, 56 Fed. Rec. at 40,675 and 40,677.
I
Page 6 II.
No Retaliatory Acts Have Been Taken Acainst Mr. Ross.
In his petition, Mr. Ross alleges that, since the raising of his issue on May 13, 1993, he has been " subjected to a daily program of Harassment, Retaliation, and Discrimination."
Ross Petition at 1.
Mr. Ross provides no specifics.
For this reason
)
alone, the NRC would be within its rights to deny the petition in its entirety.
S_qg 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206(a) ("The request shall.
set forth the facts that constitute the basis for the request.").
NNECO acknowledges that Mr. Ross has been the subject of disciplinary action. This action, which is documented in Mr. Ross' personnel file, was wholly appropriate and supported by clear evidence of misconduct on the part of Mr. Ross.
It does not constitute discrimination or any regulatory violation, and cannot support the extraordinary relief sought here.
By way of background, Mr.
Ross was hired as an Electrician "B"
with the Maintenance Department for Millstone Unit 1 in December, 1991.
Prior to that time, Mr. Ross was i
employed in the Maintenance Department for Unit 2.
At his request, Mr. Ross was transferred from Unit 2 to a position outside of j
i Millstone but still with NNECO.
When the position for an electrician opened up at Unit 1, Mr. Ross applied, and was accepted for the position.
He was hired as an Electrician "B"
and subsequently promoted to an Electrician "A" on September 23, 1992, i
based upon his above-average performance as an Electrician "B" 4
Page 7 during his first nine months with the Unit 1 Maintenance Department.
The initial relationships between Mr. Ross and Mr. Stevenson, his first-line supervisor, and Mr. Neil Bergh, his department manager, were cordial and professional, according to Mr.
Stevenson, Mr. Bergh, and others.
These' relationships began to deteriorate, however, starting around the beginning of 1993.
(2)
Since that time,
- however, Mr. Ross' performance and relationship with NNECO management deteriorated substantially.
The poor condition of the relationship became prominent around the beginning of May 1993, when NNECO promulgated its new overtime policy. This policy took almost a year to develop and was the result of considerable "give-and-take" by many parties.
Mr. Ross,
- however, objected to the new policy.(3) t (2)
(3)
While not at issue here, the principal intent of the new overtime policy is to provide relatively equal opportunity among all of the similarly situated employees such that no single employee will have been offered substantially more (continued...)
I
Page 8 Y
i (3){... continued) overtime opportunities than any other employee of similar qualifications.
Page 9 Mr. Ross became increasingly disgruntled, ' especially with his first-line supervinor, Mr. Stevenson.
Matters came to a head in July when Mr. Ross, in a
conversation with Mr.
- Bergh, referred to Mr. Stevenson several times as a
" liar."")
When Mr.
Bergh objected to Mr. Ross' name-calling, Mr. Ross made it clear that he had no intention of retracting his allegation and would continue to refer to Mr. Stevenson as a " liar" in the future.
NNECO thereafter issued a verbal reprimand to Mr.
Ross for his inappropriate behavior.
As set forth in the letter memorializing the substanee of the verbal reprimand, agg Attachment D,
- hereto, Mr. Bergh explained that Mr. Ross' refusal to treat fellow employees with respect and courtesy was unacceptable behavior for a NNECO employee and that such conduct served only to undermine the effectiveness of the Maintenance Department.
Mr. Ross has never denied the underlying basis for the disciplinary action -- specifically, that he found it necessary to engage in this unacceptable behavior and that he chose to continue despite management's specific disapproval of his conduct.
The verbal reprimand and letter issued to Mr. Ross on July 21, 1993, were in no respect retaliatory acts on the part of NNECO management.
")
Mr.
Ross' characterization of Mr.
Stevenson as a " liar" related to the incident discussed below in which Mr. Ross raised an issue concerning the caulk-used to seal the fasteners used to mount emergency lighting units.
As discussed below, NNECO found (and continues to find) no basis for Mr. Ross' characterization of Mr. Stevenson as a " liar."
O
Page 10 NNECO management issued a separate memorandum to Mr. Ross on September 14, 1993.
S_qg Attachment E,
hereto.
While this letter came after the filing of his petition, and, therefore, should not be considered part of his discrimination claim, it resulted from the continued unacceptable conduct of Mr. Ross and is covered in this response for completeness.
Specifically, during the week of September 6, Mr. Ross refused to sit down with Mr.
Stevenson, his first-line supervisor, in Mr. Stevenson's office, when requested.
Mr. Ross offered no legitimate explanation for his behavior.
Mr. Ross' refusal to meet with his supervisor in the supervisor's office was inappropriate.
It is imperative that supervisors have the ability to meet under reasonable terms with subordinates.
Mr. Ross cannot demand to set arbitrarily the terms and conditions of such meetings with him.
While more severe punishment may have been warranted, NNECO management, in recognition of some difficulties Mr. Ross may have been having both at work and outside werk. issued only the memorandum to Mr, Ross to clearly and unambiguously articulate management's expectations.cs)
(5)
Mr. Ross responded to the September 14 memorandum with a
. memorandum to Mr. Bergh, dated September 19, 1993.
In his response, Mr. Ross alleges, among other things, that he is being retaliated against for reporting safety concerns.
S_qs Attachment F, hereto. The shrill tone of Mr. Ross' memorandum demonstrates the extent to which the relationship between Mr. Ross and his management has deteriorated.
Interestingly, Mr. Ross admits that it is his position that he is not required to meet in private with his supervisor.
NNECO rejects Mr. Ross' logic that all managers must conduct meetings with their employees with third persons present.
Likewise, it is neither the policy nor the practice of the (continued...)
I
Page 11 In sum, the actions management has taken with regard to Mr. Ross were fully justified based upon Mr.
Ross' conduct.
Further, these action ~s were within the guidelines established by NNECO's Disciplinary Policy.
In neither case did Mr. Ross deny the factual basis for the actions taken by management.
There has been no discrimination against Mr. Ross for his engaging in protected activities.
Management has taken no other actions regarding Mr. Ross that could reasonably be construed or perceived to be discriminatory.
III. All of the Alleged Issues Raised By Mr. Ross Have Been Addressed Acoropriately by NNECO.
In his petition, Mr. Ross identifies an incident that occurred on or about May 13, 1993, as the alleged safety issue that he raised with management and the company's Nuclear Safety Concerns Program.
Ege Ross Petition at 1.
Mr. Ross has also previously raised other issues with management that have also been investigated.
Although Mr. Ross only mentions one incident in his petition, for completeness, we discuss all of the issues that have been raised by Mr. Ross.
- (... continued)
Company to routinely make available representatives of its Human Resources organization to attend meetings between supervisors and employees regarding the conduct of day-to-day business.
This position of NNECO management was discussed with Mr. Ross.
l i
Page 12 A.
The May 13 Emergency Light. Work Incident is not a Significant Safety Issue but, Nevertheless, it has Been Addressed by NNECO.
i Mr. Ross alleges that, on May 13, 1993, he " observed" Mr. Stevenson, his first-line supervisor, working on an Appendix R emergency light without a work order and that Mr. Stevenson lacked the qualifications and training to perform "such work."
Ross Petition at 1.
The Petition is vague as to the exact episode
" observed" by Mr. Ross and the subject of his concern.
NNECO has nonetheless reviewed this matter from a
broad perspective, examining any activities engaged in by Mr. Stevenson on emergency lights on May 13, 1993.
NNECO has found no deliberate misconduct by Mr. Stevenson, but did identify one incident (apparently not observed by Mr. Ross) in which Mr. Stevenson should have obtained a work order before engaging in a minor work activity.
The incident does not have safety significance.
Focusing on the incident that Mr. Ross did observe, Mr.
Ross is simply incorrect.
In this instance, Mr. Stevenson removed i
the cover on a spare emergency lighting unit and exercised the external test button for purposes of observing the operation of the relay.
Under existing maintenance procedures, this activity did i
nat require either a work order or any specialized training or qualifications.
The Appendix R emergency light at issue on this l
occasion was a spare light in the Maintenance Shop, not a fixture i
installed in the plant. NNECO Procedure ACP-QA-2.02C (Work Orders) defines the requirements for use of work orders.
The test i
l l
l Page 13 l
performed by Mr.
Stevenson was below the threshold of tasks 1
requiring a work order, gan Attachment G, hereto.
Moreover, contrary to Mr. Ross' vague assertion in his petition that Mr. Stevenson was " performing work" on the spare lighting unit while Mr. Ross was present, Mr. Stevenson was only testina the light.
The exercising of the external test button, as provided for in the inspection procedure, is not " work" on the emergency light.
(A copy of the Millstone General Operating Procedure for Emergency Light Inspection is Attachment H, hereto).
Nor is removing the cover of the unit to observe operation of the relay considered to be " work." For this reason also, no work order was necessary.(6)
The incident accordingly also raises no issue as to Mr. Stevenson's qualifications.
Since this incident was observed by Mr. Ross and was the focus of charges by him that day, it can be assumed that this at least originally was the focus of Mr. Ross' concern.
Looking at the issue more broadly, NNECO has determined that later that day, (6)
At the time Mr. Stevenson was " testing" the unit, or shortly thereafter, Mr. Ross confronted Mr. Stevenson concerning this incident and stated to Mr. Stevenson that in his (Ross')
opinion, removal of the cover plate constituted " work" on the unit.
The discussion that ensued between Mr. Ross and Mr. Stevenson concerned whether Mr. Ross was correct in his assertion that the removal of the cover plate constituted
" work" on the unit such that a work order would be required.
Mr. Stevenson made it clear that it was his position that the removal of the cover plate was not " work" but also agreed to take the issue to Mr. Bergh for final resolution.
It is NNECO's position that removal of the cover plate and exercising of the test button is not " work" such that a work order would be required in order to comply with applicable station procedures.
Page 14 after Mr. Ross had raised the icsue of whether a work order was required for removing the cover
- plate, Mr. Stevenson, in conjunction with some repair work he was performing with another electrician, removed the relay from the spare lighting unit and replaced it with another relay Mr. Stevenson obtained from some other partially complete units in the Maintenance Shop.
Mr. Stevenson performed this task for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the other relay worked.
Assuming the relay was satisfactory, his intent was to then identify and implement the appropriate procedures in order to install the other part in a lighting unit (installed in the plant) that was being repaired.
After testing the part, Mr. Stevenson replaced the original relay in the spare lighting unit and replaced the cover.(7)
Mr. Stevenson's removal and subsequent replacement of the original relay in the soare lighting unit without a work order is not consistent with NNECO's Quality Control Procedures. (s)
(7)
Ultimately, although the other relay did appear to operate properly in the spare unit, it was never used in the plant because when it was placed in the installed unit that was being repaired, the unit still failed to operate properly.
Subsequently, Mr. Stevenson was able to contact the vendor whom he had tried to call earlier for technical assistance.
The vendor informed Mr. Stevenson that the relay was not the cause of the failure of the installed lighting unit; rather, it was another component, the charging card. Upon replacement of the charging card, which occurred the next day and was done in accordance with an approved work order, the installed unit operated properly.
(a)
As a result of its investigation into this incident, NNECO has learned that there may have been other isolated incidents i
where Unit 1 electricians have " popped out" the relay in spare (continued...)
l i
i
Page 15 Mr. Bergh has discussed this incident with Mr. Stevenson.")
It is Mr. Bergh's judgment that Mr. Stevenson did not intentionally violate NNECO procedures.
Specifically, Mr. Bergh has determined that Mr. Stevenson's knowledge of the requirement that the spare lighting unit would be subjected to an eight-hour test prior to being installed in the plant led Mr. Stevenson to believe, albeit incorrectly, that a temporary replacement of the relay was of no (a)(... continued) and installed emergency lighting units to inspect the relay without a
properly authorized work nrder.
Given the simplistic nature of this task, NNECO recopizes how it might be viewed that a work order is not required; however, it is not consistent with NNECO procedures.
Mr. Stevenson has already been personally counseled by Mr.
Bergh on the necessity for obtaining properly authorized work orders for any relay replacement for the emergency lighting units.
Finally, as part of its follow-up actions in this matter, Mr.
Bergh will be conducting training on this issue to, among other things, ensure that the electricians understand that a written procedura is required to remove the relay.
")
It was Mr. Stevenson's position that his testing of the spare unit, removal of the relay in that unit, installation of another relay ir. that unit, testing of the unit with the other relay, removal of the other relay and replacement of the original relay, and, finally, testing of the unit to ensure it still operated as before -- a process that took only several minutes to complete -- did not constitute " work" on the unit.
Mr. Bergh believes that, while Mr. Stevenson's belief was
. genuine, it was also incorrect and has informed Mr. Stevenson that it is NNECO's position that these activities constituted
" work" such that a work order should have been obtained.
Another important point is that Mr. Stevenson has never denied, or otherwise attempted to cover-up, his temporary replacement of the relay in the spare lighting unit.
- Indeed, he replaced the relay and tested the other relay during normal working hours and in full view of anyone who was present in the shop. Mr. Stevenson did not recall Mr. Ross being present when he was testing the other relay; in fact, it is Mr.
Stevenson's recollection that he permitted Mr. Ross to leave early that day to go to an appointment.
i Page 16 consequence.00)
Mr. Bergh has counseled Mr. Stevenson on this matter
- but, based upon his judgment and knowledge of Mr. Stevenson's professionalism, has determinad that this incident does not warrant any formal disciplinary action against Mr.
Stevenson.
Finally, this matter is not safety significant.
The i
emergency light at issue here is a maintenance shop spare.
Although the Millstone Emergency Light Inspection Procedure identifies the maintenance shop spares as Appendix R emergency lighting units (Sag Attachment H, at 17), these spares are not performing any Appendix R function.
Appendix R requires, in pertinent part, that:
" Emergency lighting units with at least an 8-hour battery power supply shall be provided in all areas needed for operation of safe shutdown equipment and in access and egress routes thereto."
10 C. F.R.
Part 50, Appendix R,Section III.J.
The spares do not fall within this requirement for emergency lighting.
The maintenance shop is not used for operation of safe shutdown equipment or for operator access and egress routes during 00)
Importantly, Mr. Stevenson was aware that, in order to use the spara lighting unit in the plant, the unit would need to be disassembled in order to remove it from the mount in the shop
~
and to remount the unit in the plant.
This is because the mounting bolts are located inside the unit.
Therefore, to obtain access to the mounting bolts, the battery must be removed and certain electrical leads dirconnected.
Upon reinstalling the unit in the plant, the unit must be reassembled and, as a result of the disassembly, subjected to an eight-hour discharge test to ensure proper operation.
For this reason, Mr. Stevenson did not consider the spare units to be " ready" for use in the plant.
Page 17 an Appendix R fire.
To the extent that the spares may ultimately be used in an Appendix R location, the inspection procedures provide the means to ensure that the quality assurance requirements are satisfied prior to placing the unit in service. Egg Attachment H,
at 2.
NNECO has identified the spare emergency light units as Appendix R only as an administrative means of maintaining quality assurance pedigree.
Although other administrative means exist to upgrade spare components for use in fire protection applications, NNECO has designed a system to maintain these spares to be available for plant installation, from both a technical and administrative perspective.
From a technical perspective, the units are charged and periodically tested.
From an administrative perspective, the Appendix R pedigree is assured through the Hillstone Emergency Light Inspection Procedure and Work Order Program.
There is no requirement to do so.
These lights can be abandoned or ignored without violating Appendix R requirements, provided they do not get installed in the plant without first ensuring that the fire protection quality assurance requirements are satisfied.
Indeed, as noted previously, because the lighting unit would be disassembled in order to unmount it from the shop and to mount it in the plant, the unit would be required to be tested prior to relying on the unit to meet the Appendix R requirements.
4
Page 18 B.
The Issues Raised by Mr. Ross in an August 6, 1993, Memorandum do not Constitute Safety Issues but, Nevertheless, NNECO Management has Investigated the Issues.
As previously mentioned, Mr. Ross has raised other iscues with his management which, while not mentioned in his petition, l
have been referred to by Mr. Ross as " safety concerns" and/or acts of intimidation and harassment.
Ege Memorandum, dated August 6, 1993 (Attachment I, hereto).
Mr. Ross' failure to mention these three items in his petition is perhaps a result of recognition on his part that these items are not " safety concerns" or incidents of harassment.
Nonetheless, NNECO believes it appropriate to review the issues briefly for completeness.
The first issue raised in the August 6, 1993, memorandum to Mr. Bergh concerns the use of certain caulking material to seal the fasteners that are used to mount an emergency lighting unit.
Based on environmental qualification considerati.ons, Mr. Ross was provided with sealant that was black in color. Mr. Ross questioned the use of the black sealant based upon his observation that the other holes in the wall were sealed with a white sealant.
Mr.
Stevenson raised Mr. Ross' issue over the color of the sealant with Millstone Engineering which confirmed that, while it was not really necessary to seal the holes, good engineering practice dictated the use of the sealant.
Engineering also confirmed that the black sealant (used for fire barriers) was the preferred sealant for the task.
Mr. Ross then questioned the white sealant previously used.
NNECO pursued this issue and again determined that this was not a
Page 19 safety concern because no sealant is required.
Specifically, the Engineering justification for not requiring a sealant is based on a
technical assessment performed in 1992.
This assessment concluded that small openings (i.e., gaps) do not have an adverse impact on equipment operability from the bounding High Energy Line Break environment in the turbine building.
The suggestion to use sealant was based on good engineering practice, which dictates minimizing any known openings.
The second issue raised by Mr.
Ross concerned the greasing of a bearing on the vital AC motor generator set.
Thf's is based on Mr. Stevenson's inquiry of Mr. Ross whether he could apply grease to the " clacking" bearing on the Motor Generator Set without an Automated Work Order (AWO).
Mr. Ross insinuated in his August 6 memorandum that Mr. Stevenson was asking Mr. Ross to perform the task without such a work order.
NNECO's investigation of this incident did not confirm Mr. Ross' perception of i
Mr. Stevenson's inquiry.
The truth of the matter is that Mr.
Stevenson simply did not know if an AWO was required and was asking Mr. Ross for his assistance.
Mr. Ross is simply misguided in his attempt to use Mr. Stevenson's lack of knowledge as evidence-of an attempt at harassment.(")
("3 Mr. Bergh informed Mr. Ross that any suggestion - that the greasing could be done without a work order would be
" inappropriate."
Siq Attachment J,
at 1.
In addition, Mr. Bergh also approached each Maintenance Department supervisor personally to convey NNECO's policy that all work be conducted with an AWO in accordance with ACP-QA-2.02C. Id.
1 I
Page 20 i
l Moreover, to the extent that Mr. Ross believes that he was being put upon on this same occasion because he was asked to walk the paperwork (principally the AWO) through Operations, his perception is not justified.
As an initial matter, it was David Spence (a PMMS Technician with Nuclear Energy Services assigned to the Maintenance Department), not Mr. Stevenson or Mr. Bergh, who asked Mr. Ross to walk the paperwork through.
NNECO's investigation of this incident revealed that Mr. Spence was simply attempting to have the AWO approved expeditiously so that the grease could be applied to the bearing to prevent equipment damage.
Mr. Spence's request of Mr. Ross was based upon his des're to attend a planning meeting on time and not on any desire to pick on Mr.
Ross.
- Moreover, the practice of asking electricians or mechanics to walk through a wo' k order is 'not an uncommon r
occurrence.
The final incident raised by Mr. Ross in the August 6 memorandum concerned O leged missing work procedures from an AWO for installation and removal of the ground cart for the "C"
condensate booster pump motor.
The alleged " missing" procedures were.actually copies of a duplicate procedure for installing and then removing the ground cart.
The procedure is used as part of the work order to balance the electric motor for the "C" condensate pump.
Because balancing of the motor generally requires several separate adjustments or additions of weights, after which the ground cart must be used, it was common practice to include five or l
)
Page 21 more identical copies of the ground cart procedure in the work order for balancing the motor.
In this way, after each weight adjustment or addition, there were procedures on hand for the required subsequent installation and removal of the ground cart.
In this particular instance, in an effort to assist'the electricians, Mr. Stevenson removed the additional copies of the ground cart procedure so that only one blank procedure remained with the package.
In this way, the electricians would not be required to shuffle through the blank copies of the procedure in order to find the specific copy of the procedure that they were working on.
Upon completion of the procedure, Mr. Stevenson would
- provide, if necessary, another blank copy for subsequent installations and removals of the ground cart.
It was Mr. Stevenson's hope that this would avoid any inadvertent partial completion of the procedure, which could occur if there are multiple copies of a given procedure in a work package.
By no stretch of the imagination, however, can this incident be considered a safety issue.
The inclusion of the multiple copies of the procedure in the work package in the first place was simply a time-saving initiative.
At no time was any work performed without the required procedure.
If the ground cart was required to be installed and there were no blank procedures in the package, common sense would dictate that the electrician would obtain another blank copy of the procedure before proceeding with the work.
Indeed, if the balancing of the motor for the "C"
0 w
Page 22 condensate booster pump would have required a sixth use of the not an unlikely possibility -- the work package ground cart would not have had sufficient blank ground cart procedures even if Mr. Stevenson had not removed the extra copies.
^
C.
The Issue Raised by Mr. Ross in his August 27, 1993, Memorandum Concerning the Security Lighting is not a Safety Issue but, Nevertheless, NNECO Manacement has Investicated the Issue.
In another memorandum to Mr. Bergh dated August 27, 1993, Mr. Ross raised an issue relating to work being performed on a fuse panel for the security lighting system.
S.gg Attachment K, hereto.
The matter raised by Mr. Ross was primarily one of jurisdiction between electrical groups over certain work, which is not a safety concern at all.
Once again, however, we discuss this issue even though Mr. Ross has not identified it as relevant to his petition.
NNECO management has concluded, among other things, that a proper work order was authorized for the work and that the electricians who accomplished the work were, in fact, authorized to perform the work.
In response to Mr. Ross' concern as to the size of the fuses, as stated in a memorandum to Mr. Ross from Mr. Bergh, dated September 14, 1993 (Attachment L, hereto), this issue was investigated by the Engineering Department.
It has been determined that the lighting controller of concern, as well as other similar controllers, utilize a control fuse rated at three amps.
Use of this size fuse is consistent with the manufacturer's guidance and
Page 23 is appropriate for the application in which it is being used.
The Engineering Department has also reviewed the temporary use of a six-amp fuse in the lighting controller circuit.
Based on the application of this fuse, to isolate an internal fault in the controller, the Engineering Department has concluded that an internal electrical fault in the controller would be adequately isolated with either the three-or six-amp fuse.
In sum, the matters raised by Mr. Ross have been addressed and do not have safety significance.
CONCLUSION NNECO asserts that the events regarding Mr.
Ross demonstrate a measured and justified response by NNECO management to inappropriate conduct.
As demonstrated
- above, the only disciplinary action that has been taken against Mr. Ross relates solely to his conduct vis-a-vis his supervisor, Mr. Stevenson. The action taken was justified by Mr. Ross' disrespectful attitude toward, and Ad hominem attacks on, Mr. Stevenson.
Likewise, the memorandum from the department manager expressing management's expectation that employees meet with their supervisor-~ when requested was justified.
Mr. Ross' refusal to do so bordered on insubordination, and it was fully within management's prerogative to articulate its expectations for future conduct.
None of the actions of management with respect to Mr. Ross bears any relation to the issues raised by Mr. Ross.
Page 24 Indeed, we believe that the reco-4 1s clear that in every instance where Mr. Ross has raised an issue, NNECO has responded (or is in the process of responding) with the appropriate answers.
Management has taken no other actions relative to Mr. Ross that could be reasonably construed or perceived to be discriminatory.
NNECO recognizes that an atmosphere of friction has existed among the electricians in the Unit 1
Maintenance Department, rooted in the selection of Mr. Stevenson as the first-line supervisor, and has taken affirmative steps to address this management issue.
This issue is discussed in an Addendum hereto.
At bottom, however, Mr. Ross' petition appears to be an attempt by a disgruntled employee to inflict harm on and gain leverage over his supervisor and his department manager through sensational public allegations.
Mr. Ross obviously harbors a dislike for his supervisor and has openly exhibited his hostility.
This is clear in his reference to Mr. Stevenson as a " liar." The facts, however, simply do not support Mr.
Ross' current charges regarding discrimination by Mr. Stevenson or Mr. Bergh.
There is no evidence of anyone attempting to discourage Mr. Ross from raising issues with his management or the NRC,'or of any discrimination for having done so.
- Indeed, NNECO has encouraged, and will continue to encourage, all employees, including Mr. Ross, to report any and all safety issues preferably to line management, recognizing that the Nuclear Safety Concerns Program and the NRC are viable alternatives.
What is evident in
Page 25 this case, however, is the intention of NNECO's management, while remaining respectful of the rights of employees to engage in protected activity, to nonetheless take appropriate disciplir ary measures where warranted by improper employee conduct.
Ouch measures are necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the organization and, ultimately, the safe operation of the nuclear plant.
For the foregoing reasons, the NRC should deny Mr. Ross' Petition in its entirety.
~
6 1
I
l Page 26 ADDENDUM TO NNECO'8 RESPONSE TO THE ROSS PETITION Subsequent tio the initial preparation of this response, and for reasons unrelated to Mr. Ross or his petition, NNECO has made a final determination that it is appropriate to replace Mr. Stevenson as the first-line supervisor for the Unit 1
electricians.
The decision to replace Mr. Stevenson as the first-line supervisor has been under consideration by Mr. Bergh and Mr. Haynes (the Unit Director) since at least June of this year.
After six months of observing Mr. Stevenson and, more importantly, the treatment he was receiving from his electricians, Mr. Bergh began consideration of the possibility of replacing Mr. Stevenson.
This consideration began long before, and was unrelated to, the j
filing of Mr. Ross' petition in August.
As a brief background, Mr. Stevenson was selected as the first-line supervisor in November 1992.
Mr. Stevenson possesses strong credentials that support his selection to be the first-line supervisor.
He is a former U.S.
Navy Nuclear Electrician and previously worked in Northeast Utilities Nuclear Training ~ Center.
In addition, he is in the process of obtaining a Bachelor's Degree 1
in Mechanical Engineering.
Mr. Stevenson's selection, however, caused discontent among the Unit 1 electricians because, contrary to past selections, Mr. Stevenson was the first supervisor to be picked from outside of the Unit 1 Maintenance Department electricians.
Traditional
Page 27 company practice has been to promote from within, generally selecting the most senior member of the work group for the position of first-line supervisor.
As a result of the selection of grievance. 02)
Mr. Stevenson, three of the electricians filed a NNECO has since this time attempted to build teamwork and mutual respect within the group, including the step of e n g a g i n g..t h e services of an outside facilitator.
On this point, NNECO acknowledges and respects the grievants' continued sensitivity surrounding the selection of Mr. Stevenson.
More importantly, NNECO management recognizes tfie grievants' desire for a healthy and constructive team spirit among all the electricians and seeks to reinforce this spirit through constructive dialogue and open communication.
It was also NNECO's expectation, however, that, over time, the Unit i electricians would come to accept Mr. Stevenson as their supervisor.
That has simply not happened.
Despite a concerted effort by NNECO directed at this issue, Mr. Stevenson has never garnered the necessary support of his electricians.
For th's reason, and this reason alone, NNECO has made a final determint. ion that the replacement of 02)
Mr. Ross was not one of those to file this grievance.
The grievance was heard by the Department Manager, Neil Bergh, and denied in its entirety.
The subsequent appeal of the j
grievance was likewise denied in its entirety.
I
Page 28 Mr. Stevenson is in the best interest of the company and Mr. Stevenson.03) 4aus L
r t
03)
NNECO stands by it prior decision to select Mr. Stevenson as the first-line super risor. The company remains convinced that Mr. Stevenson possesses a high degree of professionalism and will continue to value his services.
Indeed, the events that led to his removal were not of his own doing but rather the result of hard feelings and previously unrecognized sensitivity to the selection of a younger - individual not previously assigned to the Unit 1 electricians. NNECO further -
expects that Mr. Stevenson will continue, as he has in the past, to be an outstanding performer for the company.
e r,
--n--
-