IR 05000326/1980002
| ML19341C450 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | University of California - Irvine |
| Issue date: | 12/08/1980 |
| From: | Book H, Cillis M, Joukoff P, Wenslawski F NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19341C437 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-326-80-02, 50-326-80-2, NUDOCS 8103030507 | |
| Download: ML19341C450 (23) | |
Text
.
'.J.
':!T!.T '.n R"GilI.iTo".Y CC"'11C",IC:I
. - $
.
c, ;. - oc :';: rec :c:: t::a ni:rcacn"E:.r n::cio:: y neport ::o.
50-326/80-02 Docket ::o.
50-326 L a c o s..
.M.
R-116 safeguard, croup Licensee.
University of California, Irvine Irvine, California 92EG4
'
rae11ity :: ace:
TRIGA Park I Irvi Inspection at:
Inspection conduc t ed :. Cctcber 2,0-31, f980 N2/5'/JD Inspectors:
.['
4
/
P. '!.
Joukoff, Invesstiator Date sir,nec
/ h El
-
.n
!!. cjllis, Rad.iation Specialist U t o l iu""
>#
',X'.
!
j", /7/go N Cd; W W, Approved By: 4-
-
F. k'enslaws,1, Chiaf Reactor Radiation Safety Section
" c W " "
"
,%:
y Approved 2y : M',
-
La7'
'A/!NU F. E. Ecok, Chief Fuel Facilities and ltaterials Date sir,ned Safety Brancn s u:=a ry :
Investicaticn on Cnc::or 29-;0, 1980 (Renort 60-326/80-02)
Areas Inspectec:
F,io allegers were interviewed and two specific allegations
.
concerning radiaticn safety training and discrirnination were investigated at the licensee's facilities. The investigaticn included a tour of the facility, exanination of records, UC Investigative reports and logs of operations activities, radiation surveys, review cf procedures; and interviews with operators, the Chief Steward fren the California State Er.ployees' Association, workers frcn the Facility 'Managerrent Department, reactor supervisor, and University Staff with radiological safety responsibilities. The investigation involved 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br /> onsite by tuo fiRC inspectors.
Pes ul te.:
Of the tuo areas investigated; one iten of noncorrpliance identified hith 10 CFR 19.12 (described in paragraph 6).
.
'
RV Form 219 (2)
l
~'
l 8103030 9 07
-
.
.
.
. -
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted University of California, Irvine (UCI)
- G. Miller, Reactor Supervisor, Lccturer in Chemistry
- 0. Sherran, Director of Facilities Management
- R. Beveridge, Assoc, Director of Facilities Panagement
- N. Eolia, Envircreental Fealth & Safety Officer
- W. Swirl, Environnental Health & Safety Officer
- J. Tripodes, Radiation Safety Officer S. Ancy, Superintendent - Physical Plant W. Warren, Electrical Supervisor S. Cumstay, Lead Maintenance Electrician R. Lovell, Electrician A11ecers M. Lohse, Senior Building Maint. Worker R. Murray, Paintenance Electrician
- J. l' core, Chief Job Steward, California State Employees Assn. #186 (* Designates those individuals present at the exit interview conducted on October 30,1980.)
2.
Receict of Allecations by i4RC On October 22, 1980, the Region V office received a letter (Attachment A)
fron J. F.oore wnich alleged tnat two UCI employees. H. Lohse and R. Murray, had been uiscriminated against because they had raised questions regarding the safety and haalth hazards involved in working inside the reactor room of the UCI reactor.
On Cctober 23, 1980 contact was made via telephone with both J. Moore
/
and UCI personnel in order to arrange for an investigation of the allegations 5,
on Cctober 29 and 30,1980.
On the trorning cf October 29, 1980 the investigation team, a radiation specialist and an investigator, held an entrance interview with UCI canagement personnel, Environnental Health and Safety representatives, reactor personnel, and the California State Employees Assn. Steward.
The licensees representatives were provided with a copy of Attachment A letters received by Region V.
During the course of the entrance interview, the attendees were advised by the investigation team that initially two specific areas would be examined for compliance with 10 CFR 19 as a result of the letter of allegation. The two areas involved were 10 CFR 19.12, Instructions to Vorkers, and 10 CFR 19.16, Requests by Workers for Inspections, specifically 19.16(c) Discrimination
,
Against Uorkers.
'
.
..
-
-.. -.
.
.. -
- - -
-
- - _ -,
.
' '
-2 3.
Interview of Alleaers The two allegers were interviewed in the presence of their shop steward, J. Moore, on October 29, 1980 at UCI. Both allegers voluntarily ccepleted signed statements on October 30, 1980.
Lohse stated that he was an electrician and senior building maintenance worker employed by the University of California at Irvine. He stated that he has worked for the University for approximately 7 to 8 years the last 3 years of which he has been an electrician.
Lohse stated that he had no prior experience or formal training in nuclear reactors or radiation health.
Lohse stated that on approximately August 13, 1980 he was completing electrical work in the area of the UCI reactor but outside of the restricted areas of the reactor facility. He stated that he was approached by Warren, his electrical supervisor, at this time and told that he would have to go into the reactor room in the near future to perform electrical work in that area. Lohse stated that he told Warren that he didn't feel it was safe to enter the reactor room and Warren then summoned Miller, the reactor supervisor, wno oriefly talked informally with Lohse about the radiation levels in the reactor room.
At Lohse's request, he was provided with an orange jumpsuit to wear while working in the reactor room. Lohse stated he didn't think the jumpsuit would provide adequate protection as it did not cover his hands and feet.
Lohse stated he did not go into the reactor room at this time.
Lohse statcd that Murray, the other alleger, was with him on approximately August 14, 1980 when both men were approached by Harren. Warren asked Murray about his opinion in reference to '..Wking in the reactor room and Murray replied that he didn't know how safe it was and that he needed reassurancas.
As a result of his safety concerns, Lchse stated that he contacted his shop steward, Moore, who typed up an informal list of questions about radiation procedures which Lohse then discussed with Warren (see Attachment B).
Lohse stated that although this list referred him to contact the Environmental Health & Safety office, he did not do so. When Lohse discussed the list of concerns with Warren he was reported to have been told that he would be "sorry" he was refusing to enter the reactor room.
Lohse stated that he was subsequently given two one-page memorandums concerning the radiation levels in the reactor room on approximately August 18, 1980. One of these memorandums was prepared by Miller while the other was from the Environmental Health and Safety Office of the University of California at Irvine (see Attachments C and D). The second memorandum was given to Lohse by Warren and according to Lohse was supple-mented by a statemen' to the effect that Lohse was now in " trouble".
-
-
-
-3-Lohse stated that neither of the two memorandums were accompanied by any verbal instructions nor was any other training in radiation effects or radiation safety provided.
On approximately August 19, 1980 Lohse stated that he and Murray were both placed on " Investigatory leave" by R. Beveridge, Assos, Dir. of Facilities Managament.
Lohse said that no reason was given to him at that time for the leave nor was any information given to Moore who was also present at the meeting.
On approximately August 25, 1980, Lohse stated that he returned to work after being on leave without pay for 3 working days. Upon returning to work, Lohse stated that Cumstay told him that work had to be finished in tae reactor room. Lohse stated he oerformed the work as he was afraid that he would be terminated 1f he refused to do so.
On approximately Octooer 29, 1980 Lohse stated that Warren approached hi' and a large group of otner workers. Warren nao a newspaper article about the incideac unoer investication in his pocket and said to Lohse that he would be "sorry for this", pointing to the article.
Lohse concluded his signeo statement by alleging that he did not receive sufficient training in raciation health proceoures and was subsequently discriminated against for raising safety concerns. Lohse added that he at no time refused to work in the reactor room, only that he felt it was not safe in that area.
Murray stated that he was a raintenance electrician employed by the University of California at Irvine. He stated he has worked for the University for approximately 2 yaars in that capacity and has had no prior experience in nuclear reactors or radiation health.
Furray stated that he was first approached in reference to working in the reactor recm by Warren on approximately August 13, 1980 during a work braak. Murray stated that Lohse was with him at the time and made a statemer.t to Harren that he wanted protective clothing to work in the reactor room. Murray stated-that when Harren asked him about working in the reactor room he told Harren he needed reassurances that it was safe to do so.
Murray stated that on approximately August 18, 1980, he received the same two memorandums which Lohse had nentioned in his interview. Murray added that he received no other formal or informal training in radiation health but had been told by Warren that he was in " trouble" for refusing to work in the reactor room.
t I
Murray stated that he had never refused to work in the reactor rocm but had only wanted assurances, including those of an independent governmental agency, that it was safe to enter the area.
...
.. -
_
.
.
..-
-.~..
-
..... -.
_
.-
-_
__.
.
_4_
,.
On approximately August 19, 1980, Murray stated he was placed on investigatory leave with no reason being given to him or Moore for the action. Murray
'
advised that he was subsequently interviewed by Sherman, Director of Facilities-Management, and told that he was receiving three days off without pay for refusing to advise his supervision of whether or not he would complete the work in the reactor room.
l Murray concluded his statement by stating that he was present on approximately October 29, 1980 when Warren mada a statement to both he and Lohse that they would be "sorry" for the newspaper article that was printed on i
that date about the incident. Murray added that he felt he had been discriminated against by the University because he brought up safety concerns and alleged that he was not given proper radiation health training.
4.
Interviews of other involved persons Warren, the allegers' direct supervisor, was interviewed by the inve;tigation team on October 29, 1980. Warren stated he was an electrical supervisor and had been employed by U.C.I. for a period of 15 years. Warren advised of hav.ng no prior training in nuclear reactors on radiation health.
,
.
Warren stated that he had worked in and had on numerous occasions been inside the reactor room of the UCI reactor. Warren further stated that he would not send his men into any area that he felt was unsafe or that he would not enter.
Warren explained that in order to get into the reactor room every person must sign in and take a dosimeter. When read the provisions of 10 CFR 19.12, Warren stated that he had not received such training nor had his workers.
Warren stated that when Lohse first raised a safety concern he summoned Miller who spoke with Lohse about the radiation levels in the reactor
!
room. As a result of further concerns frcm Lohse and Murray, Warren stated that he had Miller and the Environmental Health and Safety Office prepare memorandums which were distributed to all the workers of the
'
electrical crew.
After the memorandums were distributed Warren added that the two allegers still for all intents refused to work in the reactor room which led him to advise Ancy, his superior, of the problem.
In reference to the comments Warren made to the allegers about the newspaper
article, Warren stated that he did tell them they would be "sorry" but that he did not mean the remark to be a threat, only that the entire incident was causing a great deal of trouble. When asked about the other statements made to Murray and Lohse about being "sorry" or "in trouble", Warren stated that he did not recall those incidents.
!
.,
~ - - - _ _ _.
_..,., _ _---_ ___ -_,
.. -, -.
.__.-,_. _ __
., _. _.. _.
-
.
.
..-
.-_
_
_ _
_ _
_ -..
,
I
-5-
.
)
Mr. Ancy, the allegers' second line supervisor, was also interviewed by the
investigation team on October 29, 1980. Ancy stated he was the superintendent j
of the physical plant and has been employed at UCI for 16 years. Ancy added j
that he has no prior experience in nuclear reactors or radiation health.
Ancy stated that he felt the two allegers were being insubordinate when l
they refused, or he was told that they were refusing, to enter the reactor room.
Consequently, Ancy requested that the Director of Facilities Management, Sherman, terminate the two allegers for insubordination.
i Sheman was interviewed on October 30,_1980. He stated he was the Director j
of Facilities Management and has been employed by UCI for 6 months.
Sherman stated that he has no prior experience in nuclear reactors or radiation heatlh.
Sherman stated that when the course of events came to his attention it was in the form of Aacy requesting that the allegers be terminated for insubordination. Due to his concern over the matter, Sherman stated i
that he conducted his own independent investigative survey of the reported willful insubordination by Lohse and Murray. This investigation involved
'
a multiple interviews of involvea individuals.
.
As a result of his survey, Sherman stated that he could not substantiate i
that the allegers were willfully being hsubordinate as they were raising i
safety concerns which management felt we e eventually addressed by the two memoranuuus obtained by Warren. Consequently, Sherman stated that he did not terminate the allegers for their safety concerns but did suspend them without pay for 3 days. Sherman stated that the reason for the suspensions was that the allegers, af ter receiving the memorandum and reading thcm, disrupted the operation of the facilities management division by not telling management specifically if they would or would not complete the assigned job.
Other interviews conducted concluded that the allegers, through statements made to their co-workers, were very adamant about not wanting to enter i
the reactor room because of fears of the radiation danger. These issues of concerns by the allegers did not reach the Reactor SJpervisor or Environmental
Health and Safety officer until after the fact with the exception of Attachments C and D which were prepared for providing general information.
,
The Reactor Supervisor or EH&S officer were not knowledgeable of the escalated i
situation underway.
,
)
5.
Padiation Safety Program
"
The radiation safety organization is one provided through the combined efforts of the Reactor Supervisor, other reactor operators and the Campus
Radiation Safety Officer and his assistant. Operators perform routine swipe and meter surveys of the facility and immediate surroundings.
!
The EH&S office provides surveillance of the radiation control program by the periodic surveys by the P,SO or his assistants and by audits of operator survey records. The RSO also provides technical assistance
n
,,~,
,-
--
w,,,-~..-
-
,-,v.
,,
,e-,--w--
,
,---,,r---
v~,,
,--,----en,w-mr-,---
-e-.,-----
r-
, r,
,~g-m-r----r
. - _ -
_
-
. _ _.
.
_ _
_ _
_
_ _
l
.
-6-and monitoring support when needed.
Routine continuous airborne monitoring of the reactor facility and monthly analysis of the reactor pool water are conducted.
a)
Orcanization
'
Mr. James G. Tripodes Campus Radiation Safety Officer and his assistant fir. W. Nabor are members of the Environmental Health and Safety Office (EHLS) and report to Mr. R. Smirl, Campus EH&S officer. Senior reactor operators and Dr. George Miller, Reactor Supervisor are responsible for the radiation safety and control functions performed in connection with routine operations of the reactor and experiments within the facility.
b)
Personnel Monitoring Personnel exposures are monitored using beta, gamma and neutron sensitive film badges wnich are changed on a monthly basis.
Personnel monitoring for visitors is provided by using self reading pocket dosimeters. Annual personnel exposures, as reflected in monitoring records are low. The annual range is normally 20 to 50 millirem for personnel who frequently enter the facility. The exposure for
'
visitors are normally zero to 1 millirem.
l c)
Posting, Exit Monitoring, Access Control A tour of the licensee's facilities was conducted on October 29, 1TO. The posting requirements of 10 CFR 19.11 and 10 CFR 20,203 i
were observed. All postings were acceptable.
Whole body monitoring for personnel exiting the reactor room is mandatory. All equipment and tools removed from the reactor room i
'
are F.onitored for radioactivity.
- Access to the facility is controlled by licensed operators who are issued keys through the Reactor Supervisor and access is limited
to personnel listed on an access list approved by the reactor supervisor t
and to escorted visitors. All operators are trained and qualified in radiaticn safety protection procedures and must, as a minimum, pass a written and oral examination. This training exceeds the requirements of 10 CFR 19.12, Instruction to Workers.
Reactor facility " users"
must also be qualified following an instruction period and passing of a written examination. The instructions and test program for
,
'
" users" are commensurate with the requirements of 10 CFR 19.12, Instructions to Workers.
Remaining campus personnel, which includes students, faculty members, management and Facilities Support Services
Division personnel of which Messers. Lohse and Murray are a part
--
-.,-,r,,
,,-,,,
.y,e,-e-9.-o-
-y--v.,-
-
,--,,,v
--n
+1
, -
w_,_m-m_.
~=-r.,--
r-wynm,.--,-..,r-.vvy y,-=g--gr----m,7,w-,
mvc
-7-
'3 e
of are considered as " visitors" and must be under the escort of a qualified cperator or " user" whenever entry is cade to the reactor rocm.
"isitcrs, regardless of their work assigrments are not provided instructicns cursuant to 10 CFR 19.12 requirements.
Operators have visual access to the entrance door, to the reactor room, and adjacent experirental facilities from the operators location at tha reactor's console.
Visitors are reauired to log in and out of the reactor room " entry log", must be escorted while in the facility and are issued self reading pocket dosimeters. The " entry logs" for the past several years were received during the investigation.
The locs revealed that fir. Lohse made his first entry to the reactor rosm on August 25, 1980. fio entries to the reactor room were made by.".r.. '.urray,
d)
Surveys Radiaticn, contamination and aircorne survey records reviewed for the terica tnat Mr. Lonse workea in the reactor room indicated levels weil below the limits of 10 CFR 20 for unrestricted arcas.
Pool 'ater samples countea witn a multicnannel analyzer and Geli detector fcr the same period showeo no significant contamination in the
- coi 'cra ter. Based on the record review and discussion with the licensee, che degree of surveys conoucted appeared to be corrmensurate eith de requirements of 10 CFR 20.201.
6.
/dditionai Observations and Findings The Facilities Janagement Grganization is a campus support activity which is essentially resoonsible fcr providing a wide variety of maintenance and constructica.,ork projects on the L'CI Campus. This includes the reactor facility.
?!crmally, most work projects in the reactor facility are acccmolished by the Reactor Operators, however, major maintenance and constructicn work projects that cannot be acccmplished by the Reactor Operators are assigned to perscnnel frcn the Facilitics fianagement Orcanization.
The nunter of naintenance operations accomplished in the reactor facility by Facility 'hnagement personnel is normally limited to approximately six assignments per year.
The " job descriptions" for mainten;nce personnel from this organization do not identify that job assignments may require working in the reactor facilities.
Personnel assigned to work within the reactor facility are treatcd as visitors which requires they retrain under the escort (see Paragraph 5) of a qualified Reactor Operator.
[
-.~
.
.
-
.
_- -
.
.
-
.-
.
.,
.
-8-The allegers' supervisors stated that the work assignment involved the l
installation of an electronic security system within the reactor room.
The job required that conduits with terminal boxes and wiring be installed on the reactor room overhead ceilinq. This required working adjacent
'
to the reactor pool on top of scaffolding. This work was eventually acccmplished by Mr. Lohse and-a co-worker after Mr. Lohse had returned i
from three days suspension on August 25, 1980. The reactor pool area l
had been covered with polyethylene sheeting to prevent foreign material
from fallino into the reactor pool. Mr. Murray, upon his return from l
three days suspension, was not assigned to assist with the installation of the security system. Neither Mr. Lohse or his co-worker had received instructions purcuant to 10 CFR 19.12 prior to accomplishing their work
l assignment in the reactor room on August 25, 1980.
Failure to provide instructions incioent to work in the reactor room by Facility Management maintenance personnel represents noncompliance with 10 CFR 19.12 Instructions to Workers (50-326/80-02-01).
Copies of the allegations (Annex "A") were provided to the EH&S Officer,
'
R.S.0., Reactor Supervisor ano Director of Facilities on October 29, 1980 with the permission of the allegers and their union steward.
The Director of Facilities provided the NRC inspectors with a copy. of an independent investigation (Attachment E) he had conducted into the allegations at the request of the allegers'. supervisors on charges of insbordination.
i
!
Copies of this investigation were also made available to the EH&S Officer, RSO and Reactor Supervisor. Copies of Attachments "A" and "E" had not been
!
seen by the EH&S Officer, RSO or Reactor supervisor prior to this investigation.
j Each of these individuals stated they were not kept informed on the status
!
of the problem and were not made aware the problem had escalated to the point it had at the time of this investigation.
The Reactor Supervisor and EH&S Officer stated they h.:d been requested
'
to prepare letters concerning the safety issue of Facilities Management personnel whose job assignment would require working within the reactor
This was acccmplished with the issuance of Annex "F" and "G" room.
on August 14 and 18,1980 respectively. The request had been made at the
'
request of the allegers' first line supervisor, Mr. Harren; however.
neither the EH&S Officer or the Reactor Supervisor were made aware of
'
the speci"c purpose for this request nor were they requested to pusonally
discuss the safety issue with the allegers,
t The allegers' union steward prepared a list of specific questions on August 18,1980 (Attachment B) for Lohse to personally ask the EH&S
.
'
office before beginning an assignment in the reactor facility. The alleger, however, did not contact the EH&S office to obtain the information
!
although both'allegers had gone directly to the EH&S office before this
incident to resolve safety issues of concern for previous work assignments that were not related to the reactor facility.
,
!
,
_
,_
_,._
.. _,. _. -.. _.
..,.-.....m.,,._.--
,_._-.._.-.-.-_......__.,__.--,_._,,...,,..___.m
-
_.
--
-~
. -
l
l
.
'
.
'
_g_
Section 710-11 of U of C Policy and Procedures !!anual encourages individuals
'
having complaints regarding health and safety to obtain the direct assistance of the EH&S Office. The investigation revealed that neither the EH&S office or the Reactor Supervisor had been formally contacted by the' allegers'
supervision, allegers' union steward, or the Director of Facilities to personally resolve the issue of concern with the two allegers when the problem was first identified.
The EH&S Officer and Reactor Supervisor i
stated they would have been able to collectively resolve the issue of concern had they been kept informed of the actual state of affairs.
'
7.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with the individuals identified in paragraph 1 of this
recort at the conclusion of the investication.
The inspectors summarized the i
scoce and findings of the investication.
The licensee was informed that failure to instruct the electrical workers orior to working in the reactor facility restricteo area would be considered in noncomoliance with 10 CFR 19.12.
I The individuals were informed that tne allegation pursuant to 10 CFR 19.16(C),
(discrimination aga1nst workers) could not, with reasonable assurance, be substantiated based on the results of the investigation.
The licensee was j
inforced that ultimate re olution of discrimination cases is the responsibility i
of the Secretary of LaN s required oy Public Law 95-601, dated November 1978.
i It was noted tnat the t representative had already sucmitted the case to the California Depar af Labor.
It was stressed that there were many
-
missed opportunities to n etheissueofconcern;inparticular,(1)by theallegers,(2)bythea mars' union representative, (3) by the allegers'
first ano second line supervision and (4) by the Director of Facilities, e.g.,
failure of the aforementioned individuals to directly resolve the issue of i
j concern directly with the Reactor Supervisor, Radiation Safety Officer or the Environmental Health and Safety Officer.
The union represencative and licensee recognized these problems. The licensee stated tney would consider the following actions:
a)
Developing a formal program for training maintenance and support activities personnel working cn and around equipment while under escort
i in restricted areas which are controlled for the purposes of protection l
of individuals from exposure to radiation and radioactive materials. The
{
orogran will provide documentation and verification of training.
b)
Review of various university maintenance personnel job descriptions to include a mention of requirements to work in radiological areas at
'
tires.
o
'
c)
The enactment of specific procedures to formalize the relationships i
tetween the Reactor Supervisor, the Radiation Safety Officer, the Environmental Health and Safety Office and the Facility Management
,
Division to ensure that similar situations will be properly addressed
by trained Radiation Specialists.
i l
l i
i
.
-
_,
_
_.-
-_
_... _.. _ _
..
,_ _
, _. -. _ _ _..,. _ _ _
., _ _ -, -.. _., _. -.
, _.
.
.
G
'
-
,
,
,
CALIFORNIA STATE EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION v
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNI A - IRVINE CHAPTER No.186 P.O. BOX 4966, IRVINE, CA 92716 17 October 1980 R E PR F%E N TIN G the people who serve the neacie Director, Region V, U. S. Nucle ar Regulatory Commission 1990 Boulevard, Suite 202,
'.s'a i n u t Creek, Cajlfornia 94596
Dear Sir:
I am forwarding to you a copy of the attached document because I have received conflicting and uncertain information as to whether the problem is in the jurisdiction of Cal-OSilA or NRC.
Two employees of University of California, Irvine, are the subject of retaliatory actions because of their requests for information on safety and health hazards involved in carrying out a work ass ignr.ient inside the Reactor Room in the Physical Sciences liullding on the Irvine Campus.
In our initial telephone call to Cal-OSIIA, we were told that this situation was under NRC jurisdiction.
Since that time we have been told (erroneously, I hope) that NRC can only investigate when injury or sickness has occurred.
The inportant issue is whether an employee (or, for that matter, student or faculty member) has the right to ask questions about possible safety or health hazards involved in a nuclear reactor, without being subject to totaliation.
It is to ensure that right that we send this information to you and ask that you inquire into the matter.
Picase if I may be of any assistance, and on the chance contact me of any future incidents, please let me know under what circumstances the NRC can be consulted.
Sincerelv, l\\4tf O!bl k
.Tane Emerald Moore
'
Chief Steward
=
.
_. j q"'.
g
=,,
,
a xl
q.
w 4.t v., \\..a
'
ATTACHMErlT A (1)
l
o.
.
-
.
.,.
CALIFORNIA STME EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION
'
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA - IRVINE CHAPTER No.186 P.O. BOX 4966, IRVINE, CA 92716 17 October 1980 n e nr s, n ri.m the people who serve the p* twt *
e
.
.
Daniel G. Aldrich, Chancellor, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California, 92717
Dear Dr. Aldrich:
This letter is notification of our intention to file complaint of discriminatory action with the California State Labor Cornissioner, Santa Ana District Office.
Michael Lohse and Richard Murray have been subject to retaliatory actions following their inquiry into questions of. health and safety hazards involved in working in the Reactor Room in Physical Sciences Building on campus.
Al thou;;h we have been attempting to seek remedy within raiversity channels, they continue to this date to receive actions which we believe to be in retaliation for " making
- n t sue" of safety.
'?" tre asking that their right of inquiry under Cal-OSilA protecced.
We also, to that end, have requested an inquiry
-
by the U.
3.
- uclear Regulatory Commission.
I ask you to note that Mr. Murray and Mr. Lohse did not, in the beginning, charge that there were any improper or unsafe procedures or practices going on; they merely asked what the safety / health hazards were.
Based on the
- trength of the threats they received and the fact that discriminator:/ actions continue, we feel they now have reason to :eonder about their safety.
Sincerely,
, Jane Emerald Moore Chief Steward cc: I.ahar Comm.
!;RC Region V'
L. Vierra G.
Radeleff ATTACHMENT A (2)
,
.
.
.
.. s v
-
,
ihM...
( Al.!!NiA SWE EMPL ~'Y :ES' ASSO MnON
.
'
gs ;-
v UNIVER S:I'.' OF C Al.iFORNI A - IRVINE CH APTER No.186
? C. GOX 4966, IRViNt, C A 92716 17 October 1980 n o a rm r o w.
. k
.
Q
$
in me., n w. v.c ;-
.
.fo nii State Lai'ar Com n issioner
' *ta Ana District Office
.
28 Ci'.ic Center Plaza l'oom !.29 Janta Ana, CA
'327Cl DeTr Sir:
':
c c:p I n in t of discrininatory actions taken against ca e :.n J c' ees o f Universit/ of California, irvine, for requesting infor.arion concarning possible hazards to health and safety on th jc:
.
.
incicent occurrea, in august
.
, c ~v,
.,tw
.-e trn Jering,.
.,
.
.
aa u
r e t a l i a r a r:.
.c ts con tin'.e to this day.
Althou:;h the two employe.
7 e.i initially to resolve t.he conflict through administrative ch<<;,
t!ese c M nels..ava not proved responsive and we now pr,t ect ion a f t.; i r ri;; hts under Cal-OSilA.
app a. ~ t s
- et
..% m m a2or u.c n-
,,ain tena ace,sor.ce r) and,.,.,ucaard
.
.
.
....
..,
.
Nrr :
- ai n e. o :e. cet.iciaa;, coplayeer. of Facilities Management intoraally questioned in Au:;ust Ir oe, were
't it
.t m.
u.
t aut
.n n ct:
.m rk a s s ac,n.ne n t te be performed inside the Reactc.r
- oom 1
- atea in t..e liy ;Ica Sciences Juilding on the Irvine Campus.
- u e s :..-
.. arnation concernin;; possible health and safety
,
_.
w ird: i c a '. c m the a s n i,;ren t.
P>efore they were given that
<r orac ica, t h.
vere verbilly threatened with firing. After they
.all rece ved t r.-
inf mtion (en Au;;ust 13, 1980), they were
..
':nnents but were a>;ain threatened with firing.
t ;i. n t i.e wa r:<
>
on w m, 19, 140, thoy,eere Laced on Investigatory Leave
'
r
,. cc Pernennel l'alic" 270.5.
. shen t,
as their ask"d the recson for the investination,
,loyco r.,, m
>
,
ed the duration of the leave, actual ras not told.
<a m..
.r e.
. :a t ed, I c. n.
not told.
m t i n-, 3tn; t
'l l eith Dvight Sheinan, Director of Facilities
.
'E w.e em t,
S Lohse and "r. Murray were separately informed bee. for the inve:tigation of that -.
. m.o r -or t;. leave y 2ardination, s p e c i f i.c a l l y, refusal to enter the n ar
.
P.e w t o en hen ordered to do so.
il: an larre' and Stanley Incy, ist-and 2nd-level ;upervisors,
s
?re i..
tor:dnation o! the two employees.
Mr. Sherman invited
': r. b ce and
'r.
- urray each to prer.cnt hi* nide of the story.
Tl; narration of events was "fficient to convince Mr. Sherman as Departrmat !icad not to proceed with tern.Ination.
l'o., e v e r, M r. Shernan did allow the supervisor Ancy to take
" unitive c c t. 'n, in the f orr' of t hm o
, suspension wit.hout pay, aj.ainst both ren for, an Mr. Sherman told me in an August 22d
,,
telephone conversation, making an lusue of it."
l ATTACHMENT A (3)
\\
10/17/80
....
-
,
p.2 e f-
D
- D 3~lh U w eu
.
wI S$m
'
Lohse and Murray have filed formal grievances on those actions, and we will pursue the matter to a hearing.
ilowever, the harrassment continues.
Last week Mr. Murra'y received notification that two lead electricians would henceforward sign his timecards - a procedure ghite outside usual practice. I!e and Mr. Lohse have been instructed by Mr. Ancy to fill in their timecards in pencil. Fearing improper actions on the part of supervisory personnel, I have advised Murray and Lohse to use ink.
Yesterday Mr. Sfurray received a letter of warning alleging that he has " developed a pattern of leaving (his) assigned work area during working hours..." and again threatening
"... corrective action up to and including dismissal..."
This letter or warnin.: neither includes, refers to, nor is accompanied by any time, place, instance or example of any nuch behavior, and could not, for Mr. Murray is a responsible employee who has not and is not behaving in any such manner.
I'oth of these men have, as their University Performance Evaluation records show, good work histories.
Despite this, they have both, since the safety incident, been receiving extremely, indeed ludicrously close supervision.
Mr. Ancy ha-: continued making verbal unsubstantiated threats and charges.
I :mk you to note that Murray and Lohse had not made charges of unsafe working conditions.
As they say, they are electricians
,nd not atomic scientists. They had merely requested information neut possible hazards.
If threats of firing, and carrying out of punit!ve action were management's response to anyone's inquiry whether there were safety or health hazards in the reactor Room, what would management's response be to anyone charminn safety or health hazards?
Ue feel it absolutely necessary that an employee (or, for that mtter, ;tudent or faculty member) have the right to request, (
v i t hout retallation, information concerning safety or health hazards on campus.
U.
request that you investigate this situation and take appropriate action to protect that right of inquiry.
If we may provide further infomation, or be of assistance in any way, please contact us at the above address, or you may contact me at the telephone numbers listed below.
We :re this day notifying the University in writing of our intent to file claim of discriminatory actions.
Sincerely, J,
,
'l W:'n s,!c w,, Lmu.f
,,
, v!i: /s t Jane Emerald Moore Chief Steward Work phone (714)833-7205 liome phona (714) 548-2794 ATTACHMENT A (4)
. _ _
- - -_-. _ -.
D'3'l)J D "l '" 5 a
S
o o
.
.
.s s~-
'
.
r
,
Be for" berinni:
vork nrnirnront incide the reictor facility,
The enpleve.a chould htva the fellavinc-information from n reliable ocurceb:raxmblyxEnvirnn.ent tl He ilth & S traty Office 1.
A clear decerirtionn of vint 3r,b duti+c.ill have to be pr.rformed.
-
y 2.
Accurance of tne s tfety conditions and cafety procedures during the work accir.ntent.
3.
Accurunce that cuoervicien ic kncvled:eable about the cafety issues
,1nvolv'2.
Clearly apelled-out emercency precautionc liFORE any work ic begun.
.
$
.
f%'.. *
Mr
.
f te e
a
1 fW
\\
ATTACHMErlT B
.
.
,,~-o/
s/-
.
D..., 7 f.
IRVINE C.uf PU5: IRVIN E. CALIFOR NI A
- f 2
-
,
August 14, 1980
. _-
....
-
-
<
.
.
t
..
t: ;.
,
m.; =
.
-..
D D M ii)~ 90
' T M Y{
-
AL M L Aul h
- -
' ' ~
'
-STA'I ANCY, FACILITIES MANACE"ENT
.9.-c ?
r--
-
m
-
o-
.. 4.. s.. '
-a-u
..
.
.
.
.
-
...
-
RE: Work in the Peactor Facility at UCI
......I.'
C " S-.
.
.
._.
.
>
.
-
.
..
-
- -
,
....
s.
'
Qu2stions have been raised about the safety of facilities canagement personnel
... '
-
.
orking within the reactor facility in the Physical Sciences B silding.
This area
.-
w
....containc the UCI nuclear reactor.
.
,;..,.,-.,. n w ;...,9:.,,-9..;;;.;;pgLv.: _..:s, p.,.g;.y.g,;.y,;g.g.
s,,g,p,"3
.
a'.-~.a;.~.,. m...
,c
.,...
.:
..~.-yc.
. -, r --m - ? -
...,.c
.
.
.,..y w ;,.. + 6 q.
>
.
-o
.
While there is no doubt that there is a' considerable potential hazard from the
',
~
' ' U~ reactor itself, if a serious problem with it or its shielding water should develop;
--
.:. c.r.under non-accident conditions, peisonnel within the facility are not exposed to any
,
-
"
hazards that they would not teet elsewhere in Physical Sciences.
These would be assumed to be the normal work place ';zards--ladders, electrical apparatus, tools, etc.
'
.,,. -
~.
,
In addition to this, we are alwaye careful to try to arrange our work schedule
,so that actual experimental work is at a minicus during facility management work
' oo that no additional hazard is created by laboratory work going on simultaneously.
,,
'
-
'Of course, we can only do this if we are apprised of planned work schedules several
.
J T'.' days in advance.
.
-
-
t :t.,
..,..,
.-
p;.-.
? '.,.
In su=:ary, the hazards of working within the facility are no greater than in m.
'other Campus locaticas. We will always nake sure that facility personnel are in
-
.
- - attendance to arn a unusual devices or precautions during any maintenance or instal-lation work.
As an additional ceasure, we are required under the terms of our license
_.
- ~
with the Nuclear Le.;ulatory Cumaission to aunitor each individual working in the
.,..
.,.
.
"
' facility for radia:.ica exposure delivered h11e inside.
So far, no one has ever
?,, ',
recorded a radiatian exposure greater th.n that gained by traveling to the mountains y
to go skiing'
,
..
~
'
.
>
-
,
. I would be pleased if you could convey this informatica to your sta'ff.,1f
...f E
'
'further infornatica or confirnation is desired, I would suggest you, or staff cembers,
.
4?./.. contact Jim Tripodes (Radiation Safety Officer for the Campus) or Bill Smirl.,..
..
.x.
-... m.,e.. :., ;.....
.
.
,:
-
.
=
..an. : -, -
<
'
~
^ y ^ : m. s..;, u. ' -
..
..
..
.s
.
g
.
%
--'
'h.
-
.-
.
.
G
'
George E. Miller
) 7.$.;
,
" ' '
Lecturer in Chemistry and
-
.
Reactor Supervisor
-
-
.
x
.~
-
.-. t..*:.:...
n.-
-
.
.
GEM /c,.s
.
.
.
.
- .
.
..<. s
~
-
r
.
,,
.
f,.
'. :., ;,,,. 7 -.
' *,,,,
.y y.* c
.-
~
..
,,
?-
-'. '? f >. ? '73 M 'l ~ -
- ' cc:
J. Tripodes
.
. '
-
- .
.q".w:q,yf.}.g;...fg
.
,
y, S 3, 7 y
,
.,
,.
c.q
" *a.P M k,4;,s.
~.
.
..
.+
i..
Director, Facilities Management
.
-.
.
.,
i.l3.[,'.'@$fp..Q..@.,
.J
.
.
.
-
,.
..
.;
, c.
.
.-
.-
W,.
..
. :.. w.w.. O..n.. y, e..
.,,'
c..
-
c
-
a.,:
-
.
.-
.
f ;f,j.
..,.y [. s $ygf,..; ; g,p,...
^
<
e e.f -
.
...
.-
..
p.,,.<,.,
-
.-i
....
f_- q
..
- ?-
,.
,,.r. W.,. ; !;r n,,.. ?... : q:..,.
- -
,e-
..*...r
.
...,..
.
...s q
.,
...
y.,..,
.
...,s.,
.
- ,.,..
.,
~. m m.c.q,po.:. m.,%, g.
r..
.-
.
_.,,
....
.
o
.-
,
o.
., :... m,
.
..
CW.%s{m.:.
- :,.,
.u
,
'..
..., :,.3..
.....t>,.. ~. A.TTACWtNT:
...g..,,.. -.q, g 5 W a % g '
.
.
.
.%
,<.
-?:
...:
,.., -
..
..
..
.,
g; g,
.....
.,,
,..
.
. r..
.
,
7,.
,
.
M #% L
'
-
-..... _ - -,.... _............................ _.
,
..e
,,.ar,, * s s ". * *
'
y
.
.-
' '
.
IRVINE: EN\\lRON\\tENTAL HEALTH & SAFETY OFFICE
' *
- '
.
'
August 18, 1980
.
.
.
A ee o
-
D
0 y
STICI 70Cl, SUPEPITTE TETT, FArTLTTIES IGSTEIE'7f aof
,
,
,j
,
^
RE: Safety Concerns of Facilities Management Perscnnel ibrking in' '
c.
,
'Ihe Peactor Facility
'Ihe UCI Peactor Facility in B54 Physical Sciences differs from other laboratories at UCI caly in the presence of the reactor itself at the bottcm of an approxi:rately 20' deep pcol, which has no outlets.
Oc.y. 'Ihis water provides all the shielding the reactor mquires, even tif.... + 7. g.:p,.
, :
i'; Y
- yso.neone sinuld fall in, provided he does not dive to the bottm. 'It
~ ~
...,,
is very hard to inngine any credible accident that would cause a
.
loss of this water shielding, but as a fail-safe nochanism there is
.
a Icw water alarm which wculd cound if the water level drcps a few feet (this would still provide the necessary shielding).
In addition, there are several alarc.s located at various locations in the facility
-
that will sound in the unlikely event that any "high" radiaticn levels are detected.
Everyone in the facility is required by the terms of our license fran the ::EC to war perscnnel conitors.
tb one has yet received a significant exposure. 03ntamination of clothing or perscnnel by radioisotcpas is also unlikely and will be detected by the portal p
nenitor near the door. A mcent (8/11/80) survey by mss revealed ro centa-ination atove allcuable limits.
'1herefore, the safety hazards in the reactor facility are no different than in any other cer: pus locaticn and should be rucognizable to anyone, the presence of a 20' deep pool of water being the nost noticeable (don' t wcrk cver the pcol with power tcols or dangle cords in the water, dsn' t fall in, etc. ).
I would appreciate it if you would explain this to your people or have
.
them contact ne, Jim Tripodes, Canpus Padiation Safety Officer, or any
'
. nenber of the reactor staff if you have any questions.
s..
.
b 6 /ddCN Dill I: abor li2alth Physicist B:hra
.
. -
'
cc Dr. Cs_orge fliller, Peactor Supervisor, Chcmistry
..
.
.
., ~...
.
.
.
. <.,
. ;g.
.
..
.. ~.,
.
s
.
.3,;q., :. i/,?,y. ;;.
.
- '.
,,
'
-.s...-.s
.
, n. z.g
+..
.
.v.
.
- .
. m..
w
- ,,a;a e.a.
- 9.'.: w.:,,
3...
.m
.
e
-
'..
..-
.
.
..
,
,
_.... - -
.[
,'
,-
.hTThC(NinT-bik & :Il.Y.Wi].-
'
=
'
-
..
_.
.
,
... -
.
Kh.w. -;:n g; 9.
..,..
._
-
.
.
.
. _.
-
.4
.,
..w. t
..
-
.-
.-
,
......
.
.
.
.
.-
.
.
../P.A
.
.
.
- - _
-. _
. - -
-- - - -
-
_..
'y[*
..
.. - Q.,;c@.gr@.f,.[.j.7
[,[j, W,*.}.{ h M N k
'I h
'
, V.. g[,x.,....,,:.f..) wn.. ~.Jbt.N Wa.9.tv.gg y,.
N,,.i '
--
J
,.c
,
%+"'. 9,,y80
,
,
3-
,j,
....
,
Mu. dda,QM, r Wy A
A b i,,,,,,
'. l.
1 _ 4
,
.s-S C, " 4 gi;lRVINE: FACIUTIES MANAGEMENT
= e'd fdh M; tty * j*:;fQh'pQw,P, * % e
,
3 > % # W M fr M W M M' @5,o1980 4.,MF1
"
,
L ch. N f*- - n. V M *,. o i p" M -.,..; '-
l;;
T.
d August.2.
tg
-,ny
. - h,-
j..r.M?,'u *A.. e.; N.,.s
.
a.,.
d*.K. m
-
..F
.,) < -% +4.
T9 >...rj ' q
- m ( <%r'y w :.,
,
,vw._..,
. e p p.
)
wy
- Mi
.m Y.g{'w,.yiM,
, 'Q ' A',4 r n %...,? h>=e M. &.@;,. *~ p?;
wb 1 S
\\ -
t
.'
-
. *
- .C '*
-
' Q.;.f.
t ga x +s 7,.M,.. w
,
m
. m,
,
,
- 2
.
p y
.~h.
.hs
'
^
- h M bN
'
i
+
., 4.w-=
c'
.
U.
',
"f e%; -d. MICHAEL. LO!!SE [@^** $ [s. 7 #.
'
a
..
--
<
][*. -j'.V,d;',,0$lk* ~hjd[* [pf.
'
M.- hh[N
,.
'
Jht
.
,
Qjy*j p%.:.yW 4.r.fg -~ 5' h41. +-
e
> *
...
.
,
.;.; __W,'. &M,,d'd.?h.f N h, j.
r ". -
e
'
' h-V.
.. ~.,.
9*j,r%,/,n "o.".3, ; *.a,,R, E.:.
~e Co rrec tive Act io n<.&,, t.a
.
s,-
,,.
'#
.3
~,
.
. a.
t < %ve: d wuspMW4",
.
r.. - -
W
. - <
% - /.e w. 4"w. w r-
+
~ws
.s
,pM y.;., p; - Lg..,
,.
G.afy.W W..
- . %
m a,<
v e.
. <
w X :.",.n y : x.t' p'# b ;; c:,.. y.
-
.
_, 7,.
.p> 1.:p,
-~~
f.p.
v.;
eq
...m.m;.n
,
-
.e
-
.. s.
..
,
,
. y., w.
U 'l' *9 y i J/
.b
- d. #'. k,;
- 1 % b *:., 'u
- %[ $,9
. c.' ' I '.
A k
>[.,7,.a#Mh;. s
-
?'
.J*
'p**.i,,'(v+. y, % # G : J;p..,
d L
.
s
&.s%WW g.
i e
s.
'
,. rm
'
'
-
- M
1.
.We,hereby intend to suspend you three days withmur. pay for refusalmvniyg,y@MW 1.)^2,'j d.g!{to carry out a work assignment.
,1
.
" Attached is a s.
mary of' the issue,?'.*'W-p n f, < ~_.wW,r. :. N. M c. %
m...s..,
w w.;0,o4.i.c w..c that led to this corrective action.
- --.<
.m
.
i
'
O W.4f.i e
, p _y p
7. ;,y
.
.
--e,. a.+g.c e.w
$'gi'7yourlvork assignments ~in~the' reactor area.41n the fu
<
_
.y.
wqy,..w
.
..... _.
. 4. ' 3.,%'m;.:.<J,.ou.h..av.e been pruvided with ? documentation of the safety of perf..
u.e g g A. -.
i
-... ~.,
..
'
.
,g+ q% id Cg $ gin n'an' assignment youtare expected to carry out th
.
p s
s
.
,
'
you are?: q T': Failure 'to do so would be considered ir. subordination and could
.
mentM*TCffM;..,h'd p5
),.
_
y; * m t Mh5
$d. 9:!.Nmin dismissal. "In the event you have any questions regarding assignmentsi..<_.M4:$
the proper procedure is to carry out the assignment and then file ah.uD$.Q"N{
&-
- *'
M N < d. y igr'levance later.
M ".,;. Q.::,;,; w ;;9 r
- e,
- e h. '
-
.
.
n[.:.x, L,Qn Q,,;,;w @,
'
,
- .W.
i
, o ;.
,a;.,m;Whmmiy ?t.'~i::
.,g
,
c;
e.*iq.W;;;:gYou have the right to respond either orally or in writing before: August mWem @;y.y@
.
.
.
%
'/M;;y.
to this intended corrective action.
.hiM;$(f.'28,1980.
ma,m y..;.a
'
M #J.yWMs.f y> n%'$,..@!kN@5bh!$bTh~Y@5"$@
$-?
.$$$I& %~ %.
. 4:
5b
-
-
~,
,
17. G ItTiF intended.that.the.three days of. leave without pay be thei
@
-ydht.Mof jugust 20,_21, 22...You will be paid for the (5) five hours.offa.M:EAf,ph. h}[
'
'
'W;f.ff; ?.: Augus t 19.,;,.:,
.a..,.c
,
. ~.a s w' '.w%mn&@y@%.g%gh:$aw.:p i:s n g
.
,,
,
,
- L. e:ae.&ye(v m:W review of _the intended correctiveqdtion.;d@,,,,.g.
w Q.w.
. ~
t -4.qp r u y..g 4 W u....:-. -
..
,,,
,.
.
.
. - :s m :.:
~.m
,
..
-
.mu:9WW@$dg. i 4 M M % You hl ave,the.right to request gMis "
-
WQ S 'dEun' der. Staff Personnel Policy'280 or 290.
.. -
...
a w
7D&@J t, eWic..r A n. R 8. *. -
'
'
~~-
' ' " '
- k' $ f
- M & "' R.: Q* & & &.f'
-' X u
'ikM w
M. >. b?.,yp!l :;
~ "
'
p p;;
Q'gd
.?
.hW j:QFQtlWidc.hk&
- % $
'
I'YhihhNW
/
,
TM.e m
-
-
mgMGM4,, 4 W Tgd W"@
. 2w.dc?.;.g % e,.m@-
-
<
i WQhM
,
- e.,
Stanley J cy-g m
%. e a T Supe rintenden t,, Fac il.y.ies'.wx 3u,A. ~.g;4 4ej -
.'.r.b-(',$ O.,.,W g
,
g,3!c,,WE.S. u.N,
-6
.
t
Ap;3 &
c
-
c.c-
.
.*
%y 3 ysqw
- ;y s;wa
.L
.v p'% * * r {y.;gt *%.,....
r
,,
r
. Managemen "t
.
p.,
%
'.. - >$ ~
'
"wh;.xsv%.a e,b.,sA.M
, -
>
.
- .
"
t& * '. N:
,
. y4,;.r.qrg.flp.,.
,7 y,,.. u
- m.'"i %m $' Q> e:%@yrgk W fj
\\
_~. O;"&t f
<
.w.i.: :::;',.c,4>ES.J.A:ck N.,W l.i :
~
J:~m +'i-V
.
- '
e
....
.
%
,.
-
M
^:., *W.?-+
4'
m;aW,c.s:m &h%v n o..
xr
~
.
s
,c.
ei.ersonnel ? m.
.' :
ap.~.
~... '
.@:?'W W:,,,.4..
W
- ' m '.'- %,k N M Y:. W"....
..,D,.. M..n. n...r. N" ~,$ E $ '
- . p
.
..
.
' %*~,:.;94~, MW.3 D. A. ' She rman...a.% %" " ~'P. A..
~
.
v.
w,:
<
A A
^*
<
e-y
-
^#
-
.y.W.' Watren
.
...
"
W~,.s
,.
4 ' 3R. Beveridge N 'w. 3 C-
-
&
%c a >..:. M ' M., 6. M,;o:q $
f M:.s. yNM y'
...4
'
<
~
,
-
\\,
,
-
.n,...,
.x w ;, %.p-ps
&y. y %n
,
.-
%w%s r
.t,,q,:S,
.,.
...
-.
-.s
.-
.. n. <.? 4
..
g
,
j r/.
Attachment
.., $ $$ $ 2 N.
.M.SM
..
s 2,
..r..,
- y
.,
i i ", rc.'.
. :..a :. u m
.w...
~
n.:. w : e. ~~ m. ve m M ; m m m, eewW 95&M e
- n :..
-
,..,n,,..~.,.
, y,.,.,
i w '..~r.: m e... 5
,
/.-
.
w m,w g
.
-. i.r.
~
.y#.
4 M7,4..
.
,
,. 6,.e r..,..z f.,m... ~'f; w.. /'ww
,, +.
.n.4-w
'
.
,,,,-
g pt".d.. w egg
..,
o,
.
Q,
.w. s
.s
.. +.,
'
C. '>. p, -.
- u: m.u.
<
t'.
r
/,./u.'**h s
,
..
~~
m ow...... $... + * t.;M+..";.g*,, i
.J;.g. ct,.
-
=
'y-
, :
- '
i
.
., y *
.i.
m,.
,..
c.. s.n,
. m.,
%., j[, Qd_Q'W;k.Q
..c. c.. -A.A.e.s y qr,*,
,
4 O ~3
.
yf f f 'w**
-
._
..c4 w
,
a
- -
x-.
e,.t y. ',.
f
s
,,,
,a
- -
.; <
j Q,*
,,'.j=
,
<
sn:y * \\ Q Jsr >};, y,':W.,
[.
e.'
(
s
.
,
- [q '"
'4?* e
%
iQ' Q g'('sQ s?lf, 'Gt L 's*){;pff
- ,
S.' ~
~
-
~
- .%;( '
- a u.g.:,;.: y 4.6 n.k k.. w $ &n&M%
Wi
.,
,
- y.?
- a n.,
.
.-
.a. m.
4m
..c e. e.
.-,~
m..x.m, ~.;.o.,m,m w. m.x w~ mm,
.
--._
-
. _.*'
.
.,..
.
,
'! 7.
- l
-
,..,J..
.
.e L U /Ely.M.,.# 4'J'...,r.@J',;'?, Q**e dGf,N *5 *.?,.3'
t
,N
..
.
. '. -
.
,.
,
,+.g
- p~ ' r A r.e g v.' I,. \\
,.,,
'
(>
er. ; n.
9.eQA<la.*4 * 4 * *'..U'w'dM5*%YI&.,4rW
'
twt.r
'r$ %.
t
- ..
,..g s.
.s
.
v s
< m. (:
') > M
.+.~; M.
wv,';c.r M t"., w. X '
r
-
'i' M * M.*".,t.M " 7.. Ng. w*. D A T N Y. U k D
DN, s :m'.*e,e.z l
g m h y.d'
I
- .-
,.
.w
-< -
.4..A.
f
.
3_ <.n... n..c...
.-- p<. p+ g.&w~ y.. w. *
.r-h
. +:.e.v. p g n.-
,
,,.
.,
.
a.
vm
-
.-
'*
i,g g.. **,,.,. ~..-
a
_
e, A. 'r.yr-ys.** At 9.t,,.,. P..a',..p.er.E,v**** %P"*@. 0,9P.df"~***"p'*sr.,p.. =*.,u w'*
MMV Ta
.
.,
p
't.,
s"q
'a
.
<,,
. f,,- a, n
.u.
-c
.
.we e
,
. { ff l *
p{.s
's
- ? l l %
d Y
, }* * [,, f,' O,*lf 9ll;4[G'R[f Y,g
)f*
,,,f-
,,, v:,.
, :Ql,.'f* j
,.
,,y, g
y -(*.?,2 ;- ~ - e O.. ;. 3.
/.
w.,
.n,a. <>,..am a :,
=mr s =r *an.=rw.me=.***rr=w4 eve v%-
L c y:~^^
eq p
,
.;N k e.wd pr#?. 69 f.y ;.ryQ*.We*W'7,W4W& MM:: 2+h<
-
-
t+
-
- . ;,. e +
,e x.
.
..
-.. -
,
,e
.
. -
. -
.
_
_
_
"
..
,
un N i u ts t iti s uw u i '.: s r
-
'
.
.
August 22, 19S0
-
,
STA:; A';CY WILTO:: 'iARRE:;
RE:
!ilchael Lohse (Case..indinas & Action).
r
.
.
Richard,ciurray
-
Tuesday, August 20, 1930 through Thursday the 21st an investi:ative survev was conducted by the Director of Facilities Management into allegations by supervisor '.?ilton Warren and Stan Ancy on charges of willful, open insub-ordination by referenced electrical department employees during safety related refusal to perform assigned workloads within the interior of Physical Sciences reactor room.
Staff personnel tiened in this action were, journeyman electrician Richard ::urray, trical trainee Michael Lohse, Superintendent Stan Ancy, Material Planner Suo.lorniak and Supervisor Wilton '?arren.
CSEA' representative Jane E. :: core was present during interregation processes with Messr. Lohse and 2'urray.
Piecin*.; to.; ether the various views and parts covering the total period of alleged insucordination content yield the following chronological spectrum
_
oi, events.
Events:
Tuesday, Jul:. 29, 19$9, Michael Lohse, trainee and jourr.cynan electrician Ron Lovell were assi.;ned electrical work in the Physical Sciences reactor roon (project :;o. E:033-1) wherein a portion the workload was located outside th2 reactor roca and uther parts were tasked to the interior.
Exterior workloads were accomplished by both craf tspersons up to Thursday, August l'., 1960 where upon 'tichael Lohse refused to perforn job operations inside the reactor roon expressing concerns on radiation hazards contained therein.
Dr. Geor;;e :iiller, Reactor Supervisor, while meeting on the job site, verbally informed the employee that there were no radiation risks i
associated with the area and that it was a safe location.
At that time, Supervisor 1:ilton '.Jarren offered to provide Michael Lohse with an approved protective suit in order to continue job tasks, however, employee continued to refuse work acceptance within the cited sector whereby supervisor varned that ref usal to do assigned projects could lead to I
diseipIinary action.
.
l' N I V E tt S IT Y O P c A !,t VOli N ! \\ -. t f a t'erbe n<f he le terd. ;-etmetient m. +1
!
ATTACHMrNT F (M I
.
-
__.
. -. - -
..- -.
.
_
.
.
-
om
)j r
/
D
-
D eu o
-
J
.;3
,
Ea?,e 4
?'anday. Au 'us t 13. 1930
!ichael Lohse and "icS ard " trrn < r e po r t.,d te t 2 2 ectrical t ailer for i neeting.ith Suaorvie.ar *.arr n f i'a h icznia tv in 1:tendance) te.iscuss a s s t.;nnen t a n d ne e d e d wo r'c'.
viedulin:; for reacto r raan and the saf et:.
thereof.
Safety
.s 'mrns were onpressed 'v hoth "ese.rs.
Lohse and 'Nrray coupled with some :'re of ea r k re j ec t ion,rior to a no-hacard con fi rnation f rom supervision, the men ce r e assinned other tasks.
Somewhere between 7 : 39 and 9 : 30 a.m.
Lead ':lectrician steve Cunstay passed out copies of Dr. George E. Miller's written statenent on reactor roon safety cond it ions.
Messrs. Lohse and !urrav received sane wherein they are quoted
.s statin?. thev still would not enter reactor rnen (see attachment 1).
Sunervisar 'la rren contactee rer.pansible narties in 53 subsequent to passing out a a;econd letter t ann ro n ina t e l'.
. t r.'t t a d.!;]9 p.n.) f i c a
'-I r. b i l l '.* abo r,
l!ealth Physicis t. !:i!S 3 (see attaennent na. 2).
Messrs. Lahse ana 'turrav vere hand carrted this document at the Connans area wherein sore d:scusston ensued between Suaervisor larren and enployees on tSe reactor project. ana., a t e t y.
ihe enniayees continued to indicate negative respanse to requesu d
.co r x lo au i n.;.
Tuo dw. \\unust
.0
'
.
Approxinatel:. 9:;.
a.m.
the :.w o so r r.nen eere placed on i nves t i.;a to ry leave for alleced tet si.asunaratnatica aaekee. with supervisorv request for terntaatica of c enent. run w:.
Findin:s:
_
The act of bc.',
it w orlinate as eraall Jetined b;. Staff Personnel Policy 7 '.0. i and 7 '.0.11 I r that the emloyee sa acin.; charned must know or reasonably e.hould ha.' F ' 1 th u the r a r f irn inc - ir
..t eas uneatisfactorv
,
These sta te: ant: i mp l-mal,volent intent n, an element of insubo rd in a t io n,
i.e.
1 1,.
vi,.,
e :m r e c t e m, te nrarv to a cpect:...te etrective 01. nana;;enen t.
.
..
..
.
.
Since personal p!estcal. a ; e t '.
as raised v: che predicatin.; ir. sue upon which enployees refused tu cenpl, Ith supervinar's wishes ( r es;3 e c t ive to work assiannent) it become. nost difficult :. 0 dinrern any expre s interchange
_ bet,oon : r. 'la r ren, ':-
I.u b s, and 'tr.
'!urrav clear!. i dent i f v ta:; that either craftsnen were nativated to op.nts flaunt job tasks solely by virtue of underninir* the authority of manar,enent.
ATTACHMENT E (3)
. _ _ _ -
-
-
-
.
.
.
.
.
o m-Q
t
' M D
S
-
s'
hk
a
..
Page 3
.
The feelings of supervision is one wherein 'tr. Warren es: presses opinion that both employees were basically testin.; his position to nanage and knew fully well they were establishing a trend of insubo rd inate ac t ivit'..
The employees on the other hand stated 1 desire onl:. to receive assurance of the safeness of working conditions >ithin aforenentioned section and were not cognizant of any reco ',ni t ion that act ivities,ere in effect insuhordinate.
The whole natter of intent to be insubordinate Secene haz e depending on who's view of the incident is measured and therefore demonstrates a subjective rather than objective nature for decisien making.
It is the opinion of the Director that the principal foundations of insubordination was not amply confitned and therefore the charge shall be dropped as a consideration for termination.
Case review does however precipitate other e tenents treated in detail as follows:
It is the right (and in fact the responsibility) c: all personnel to question the safet:. factorn surrounding a systen, locatian, a c t iv i t:. etc.
This r i ",h t or responsibility falls not only to the cratts personnel (as in the e >: amp l e of Facilit ies :tanagement) but administrative nanagers and supervisers to insure the welf are and. eel "eing of all parties suojected to assumed unsaf e practices, sectors or condicians.
When a craf tr:an raises a saf ety issue, it becones the priority-one responsibility of supervisors to correct and/or p rovide autSritat i.o
substanti tion that Eederal, State, City o r Ca un t:. codes and statutes are l
being adnered to anu all :acets under quentian are in compliance tnereof.
Employees instituting complaint (s) also have a reasenable responsibility to coma l:, ti th ori.;inal di rec t ives o f nana;;enen t upon receipt o f and assurance therein that presurea unsafe situations are in :act,
.eet in,; all regulatory code requirements for whatever element af concern may have been seen as
!
a discrepancy by the complaintee.
Case review clearl:. spells cut that sufficient and authoritative verbal and
,
written documentation was solicited by Supervisor Uarren and placed in the possession of 'dessrs. Lohse and !!urray
'
Dr. Goorge liller, i'eacto r Su;3ervi sor as ide fron neing a conpetent professional in his field is, as the primary responsible part:,, under severe constraints in meetin the requirenents and inspection of the reactor facilit, fren such the ::uclear Regulatory Conmission and other agust bcdies controll-agencies as ing radioactive systens in private or public use.
4 ATTACHMENT E (4)
.
_.
.
.
_
_.
.. _
.
_
_
__
l
.s.
-
,
,
.
,.
,
D""D
D 'T]M
'
.
-
_1]th we o
.
,,a ge t
.
Bill ': abor, Walth phv.icist and.'im Tripodes, Madiation Safetv Officer, both assicned to the En,ir r ental !ealth ind %fets Office.act ns -lirect thi.rd pa r t ier. in overs >>
tm al campus weds to eet a ll levels o f health, lif e endangerina and envirannental iesfunctions in accordance with i nown current re;ulatine agencies and stinulations.
During the investination process, both char:ed employees ( in the presence of Cc;EA ropresentat ica) displayed their knowle ize of receipt of both afore-nentioned letters and upon questionin.; by the Director, also expressed their understanding of what they read, but (as in the specific case of
- tr. ".urray) wanted
?. ore proof of reactor room conditions, preferably via an outside organication such as OS!!A, etc.
Ilad either craf tsnen known of a snec t: ic safet. tialatian not being p rope rl. treated by eitner Dr, "tller's r, t a f : o r Ei!'.3, then request for outstdc agency tav nave been approprtate, nowever, since.;eneral rad iation contaminant levels were the mainstav c: orinc ipal corment the request was Stiperf luoud.
Crc' asian and 3eem rencatter_o..
In consideratian of the pre;'oncerance of evidence nace available on the subject of reactar ccam rautatien ;a i e t:. co n f o r m.inc e coupl ea w i t':. supervisory of fers for erplovee epts.>n to utt.ize appravea protectrm suits and ear, it is
.
..
.
.
.
nv conc a :on :nat
.e s s r s. Lans e ana
..u r rav, ia ut act in reasonaate ana prujent :an ne r.
JJ.
_t ;n sure d is pute ecct. cr. In t h e :. h e r the craftsmen actuali:. ve raall;. ref us a te wor: af ter receipt o f attachments 1 and 2 (as mentioned by sunervi>ioni ar said nothing (as nainta ined by '!r. I. ohne)
does no; ::e lav a :act nat at. parties eencernea were aware ot. t.ne issues
.
..
.
.
.
and neeu
.>r rfarmance (i.
sone work must ce dcne inside reactor area),
,
and auperv;; en eas ; eft eith th2 implied understanding that the enployees in quest wa 1.' r e
't tillina to r.eet j ab tas'-
assignments (i.e, it 'ea s the responsibilit. of the.mployees to clearly identif to Supervision their a"reenent to uo ri in said nector af ter digestica of pertinent data - if they were so inctined.)
f
!
Their :inal actions (or Lad therof) dis rupt ed da il:. planning and scheduling proceaures, jeopardiaic N abilit; of r.upervision to efficiently r.anage the air: ira of the tin ive rs i t. and neet deadlines throu';h proper -atchin:; of
.
Men, Cine, T.a t e r i a l t,
.in i talents.
.
ATTACHMENT E (5)
._
-
_
..
,
.
.
,
.
.,
.
,
,
e D 99 0 *0'Yl b
(
,
.
D
~
'
'
Pa ;e 3 The employeen' failure in exercisine, natur.* respone.ible action in these matters in view of their awareness as to ti need int joirnev en and trainees
-
to r.e e t the den.inis placed *non the ir se : tion ir enlvina cooperation of all craft l ev.? l s, placed a severe detriment on t h c-.lectrical arcup as a whole causing financial and other resource las.cs durina the period of the
contention.
In li:;ht of previous conc lus ions.
w-r.eco end su-ervision discipline enployees Richard ".urray and.'tichael Lohse via no less than (3) days off without pay.
,
-
s
1,- -
.
~
%. 7 i,.
~h gwO'.Q.( !J /Vii t. cg (s
~ r
,
De i.;h t A.
She rna n Dire : tor o f F.tcilities DAS:ck cc:
R.
it eve r id'ge G.
!!a r r ie L. Graans
,_
ATTACHMEf1T E (6)
_.