ML20247G526

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Discusses DOL Case 97-ERA-51 Re Investigation Initiated to Determine If SB Mcanena Was Discriminated Against for Reporting Safety Concerns to TVA Mgt
ML20247G526
Person / Time
Issue date: 05/04/1998
From: Boland A
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To: Zeringue O
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
References
NUDOCS 9805200273
Download: ML20247G526 (4)


Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - - - - - - -

I'

<l May 4, 1998 Tennessee Valley Authority ATTN: Mr. O. J. Zeringue Chief Nuclear Officer and Executive Vice President 1101 Market Street Chattanooga, Tennessee

SUBJECT:

DEPARTHENT OF LABOR (DOL) CASE NO. 97-ERA 51 (SUZANNE B. McANENA VS. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY)

Dear Mr. Zeringue:

On April 3,1997, the NRC's Office of Investigation (0I) initiated an investigation to determine if Ms. Suzanne B. McAnena was discriminated against for reporting safety concerns to Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) management.

Ms. McAnena claimed that while employed in TVA's Corporate Engineering Division, her performance appraisal had been downgraded, she was removed from her project engineering position and she was transferred to another position as a result of reporting deficiencies in training, equipment management computer systems, and drawing control. The OI investigation, documented in 01 Report 2-97 010, was completed on January 28, 1998. OI concluded that there was insufficient evidence developed during the investigation to substantiate discrimination.

On March 6, 1997, the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) OSHA Division in Atlanta, Geowia initiated an investigation of a complaint alleging discriminate; that w a filed by Ms. Lynne Bernabei of Bernabei & Katz on behalf of Ms. McAnena.

On June 10, 1997, a D0L Regional Supervisory Investigator issued a decision in this case and concluded that the investigation did not verify that discrimination was a factor in the actions comprising Ms. McAnena's complaint.

Ms. McAnena subsequently appealed this decision and action is pending before a Dol Administrative Law Judge.

The staff will hold its judgement on whether or not enforcement action is warranted in this matter until after issuance of a decision by a D0L ALJ.

We are providing the parties involved in the DOL hearing the results of the OI investigation. A copy of the synopsis of the OI report is enclosed.

You should note that final NRC documents, including the final OI report, may be made available to the public under the Freedom of Information Act (F0IA) subject to redaction of information as provided for under F0IA.

Requests under the FOIA should be made in accordance with 10 CFR 9.23, " Requests for Records."

\\

9805200273 980504 PDR ORG NE SEN

)

PDR fL g {J s

M

I l

TVA 2

Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please feel free to contact me at (404) 562 4421 or Mr. Scott E. Sparks (404) 562-4422.

Sincerely.

Original signed by Anne T. Boland Anne T. Boland, Director Enforcement and Investigations Coordination Staff

Enclosure:

Synopsis of 01 Report No. 2 97 010 cc w/ encl:

Ms. Suzanne B. McAnena

[HOME ADDRESS DELETED UNDER 10 CFR 2.790]

Ms. Lynne Bernabei Law Offices of Bernabei & Katz 1773 T Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C 20009 Micheal Subit Law Offices of Bernabei & Katz 1773 T Street N.W.

Washington, D.C 20009 1

)

i

)

l l

1

)

'L TVA 3

i Distribution w/ encl:

J. Lieberman, OE J. Goldberg OGC-C. Evans, RII B. Summers, OE

0. DeMiranda..'RII RII D0L File (97 ERA 51)

Public SEND TO PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOM?

Yes 0FFICE Ril:09 RII:EICS, RII:0RA Ril:01 Signature

~

NAME lisco ABolan CEven WHcNulty DATE 4/ M /98 4/_h/98 4/$0/98' 4/ @ '/98 COPY?, YES h

hS)

M NO NO NO 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY DOCDMENT NAME:H:\\ DOL 01.DIR\\MCANEks.DIR\\LTRTOTVA.WPD I

._______.__m.____

_m..

4 SYNOPSIS This investigation was initiated by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region II, Office of Investigations on April 3,1997, to determine if a former projects engineer, employed at the Tennessee Valley Authority's corporate offices, Chattanooga, Tennessee, was discriminated against for reporting safety concerns.

The testimonial and documentary evidence developed during this investigation did not substantiate the allegation of discrimination.

i APPROVED FOR RELEASE T0.THE PUBLIC BY THE FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, 0FFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS, REGION 11

{g{4 NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE V/ITIIn_d....nk.tOVAL OF T44E-!

FIELD OITICE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS, RECION-4 I

Case No. '2-97-016 1

Enclosure

_