ML052440330
| ML052440330 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem, Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 09/05/2002 |
| From: | Rzepka R NRC/OI |
| To: | |
| References | |
| 1-2003-033, FOIA/PA-2004-0191 RI-2002-A-0113 | |
| Download: ML052440330 (4) | |
Text
I, z
L
-6 EXHIBIT 2 Infowmathn In this record was deleted hI dan with the Freedom of Intoumse Aoemptlons rC ms:
'P
-9 Case No. 1-2003-010 Exhibit 2
WESTIGATION STATUS RECO1 Facility:
Case Number.
Docket Number(s):
SALEMIHOPE CREEK 1-2002-033 05000272. 05000311, 05000354 Case Agent Date Opened:
ECD:
^
Priority:
RZEPKA, ROBERT P (RPR2) 09105/2002 1212002 Normal Case Type:
Reactor Power Status:
Field Work In Pro Primary Alleg Source: Alleger Allegation Number(s): RI-2002-A-01 13 SubjectlAllegation:
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST A SENIOR ENGINEER FOR RAISING CONCERNS THROUGH THE CORRECTIVE ACTION PROCESS gress Monthly Status Report:
0910512002: On August 23, 2002, en a senior engineer at the Salem/Hope Creek facility, advised th RIC tha ben c iled/discriminated against for raising Aao Specificall:
claimed that questioned~upervisor regarding whethe m
was qualified to placed onthe nsi t Asse s ent Response Plan (TARP). h id not get satisfaction from ~supervisor5E1toolconcem to the next level of management, the Engineering Programs 'Manager, who reaue ted that the alleger document the ssueIn the corrective action rcess (CAP), whictilid via CA notificatio claims that on -
_upervisor threw the completed CA evaluation ar sk and a verbal confrontation ensued, resulting in the supervisor blurting out, "that's it,'re out of here" and proceedi to e cart the alleger off site. Upon returning to work afteron August 19thl~iould not access the protected area and discovered tat ad been administrativ oved from the site by Security (access denied), which has since been rectified.
On September 4, 2002, this cgncern was reviewed during an Allegation RevIew Board (ARB),
wherein It was determined thatIbad articulated a prima facie showing of discrimination that warranted the Initiation of a normal briority 01 Investigation. Due to the alleger's previously expressed interest in trying to work things out with the(LA Manager and Employee Concerns Program, it was agreed that 01 would interview the alleger to develop any additional relevant informaton, but not Initiate contact with the licensee on thIs matter until the alleger's Interview has been reviewed and considered at another ARB. Potential violations include 10 CFR 50.5 and 50.7. The statute of limitations tolls on, or around August 19, 2007. Status: FWP ECD (90 days): 12/02.
Completion Date:
Issue Date:
DOJ Action(s):
01 Violation(s):
Total Staff Hours:
3.0 Months Open:
0.0 DOJ Referral Date:
Statute of Limitations Date: 08/1912007 Harassment and Intimidation - No Result IboffaaUf In this record was-del in accordance wftthe Freedom ot I*n8mlot Ass qL 1 ofli EXHIBIT_____
PAGE.L./OFP~a1 PAGE(S)
:419Bi2AA0 0 1 0
-eipt\\2002011 3rcv.wpd Allegation eel ANVA.
Rl-2002-A-0113 deceived:
,eived via:
August 23, 2002
[XI In-person eimployee Receiving Allegation or suspecting wrongdoing (first two initials and last name): J G Schoppy
-ource of information (please check one box): [X] licensee employee
-I hi I L Alleger Name:
Home Phone:
Home Address City/State/Zip:
Alleger's Employer. PSEG Nuclear Alleger's Pos ittlel -
I Ie:
Docket No. or License No.: 501272, 50/311, 50/354 Facility: Salem/Hope Creek Was alleger informed of NRC identity protection policy?
Yes / No_
If H&l was alleged, was alleger-informed of DOL rights?
Yes / No__ N/A_
If a licensee employee or contractor, did they raise the issue to their management and/or ECP?
Yes / No -
N/A -
Does the alleger object to referral of Issues to the licensee? Yes / No _
Provide alleger's direct response to this question verbatim on the line below:
"I'd prefer waiting until I have a chance to talk to the QA Director and ECP before I determine if I would like the NRC to follow-up on site."
Was confidentiality requested?
Was confidentiality initially granted?
Individual Granting Confidentiality: N/A Yes_. No /
Yes _ No_ N/A /
Iteria'for determining whether the Issue Is an allegation:
it a declaration, statement, or assertion of impropriety or inadequacy?
Yes Is the impropriety or inadequacy associated with NRC regulated activities?
Yes Is the validity of the issue unknown?
'Yes If No to any of the above questions, the issue is not an allegation and should be handled by other appropriate methods (e.g. as a request for information, public responsiveness matter, or an OSHA referral).
Allegation Summary:
[1]
Potential violation of 50.7, Employee Protection, in that the alleger was discriminated against for raising safety concerns through the corrective action process.
Functional Area: [XI Power Reactor Discipline for each concern: [1] Discrimination EXH181T Va PAGE a;s~?
F_=3 _PAG r_(S)
2 ad Description of Allegation:
.ie alleger stated that the week of g
a Nas informed via email thatswas placed on the
'ansient Assessment Response Plan allout list for D TARP weeks. The alleger reviewed the
'.RP procedure (SH.OP-AP.?Z-0101).
mined that in ior w as not qualified to be a TARP team member, and informed I pervisor of such. WhenWdid not receive satisfaction from visor, the leger too concern the next I l of managemerit - the Engineering Programs The alleger outlined fo ny aspects of the TARP procedure that they appare nomeeting. According to the allege agreed that they do not follow the guidance as written, requested that the alleger docu m nt this issue in their corrective action process, and removed me
.rrm the TARP callout list onJuly 21S The alleger initiated corrective action notification~ won I Ot completed the evaluation of notificatio I
anid determined th redure sections were being followed. On
_h e alleger's supervisor threw the completed evaluation on the ally ee's desk and asked the alleger wha cision was. The alleger stated thaMlidn't understand what upervisor was referring to and askewupervisor for time to review the evaluation. According to the a' er, a low volume verbal confrontation ensued for approximately two minutes.
.. +
The supervisor suddenyI blurted out "that's It, you're out of here" and proceeded to es 4lleger off site..
[The alleger stated th a
t had later informe that had overheard their conversation and
_ believed that the su wr oas y unreasonable.]
Due to the alleger was he On August 19, the alleger could not accessj...'
the protected area and discovered th ad been administratively removed from site (access denied through security). Subsequently on August 19, the allegermet wit uperisor and Bob Settle, Engineering.Supervisor-Spar Parts Engineering, to discuss the alleger's performance. The alleger stated thaf'Wsupervisor told
- hat failure to o1n the TARP team could result in actions up to and including termination. The alleger stated tha 0told supervisor thaefelt discriminated against for.
ising the TARP team issue and thatEfelt that the experience
_a c ling effect orDbut thatE
'.could do whatever they wanted. At this point, the supervisor tolq as suspended but quickly recanted it.' The supervisor went on to say 0you can come back, you'll be on the D TARP team, but no more railing about safety indicators [the alleger is in charge of checking the performance indicator data for NRC and WANO input], no slamming management, just smile and be happy." The alleger agreed but was upset by th~encounter and definitely felt 'chilled.' The alleger does not feel comfortable discussing the issue withs management for fear of losing ob [a good performer for 12 years according to the alleger].
During the discussion with the resident, the alleger, stated thajplanned to discuss the Issue with the QA Director and the ECP. The alleger stated that(l prefer if we jRC) did not follow up on site uriti gave QA and the ECP a chance to helpIresolve thei sue._issue is not so much wi~tdbeing made to participate as a TARP team member, but howa yas treated for bringing up the procedure compliance issue.
EXHIBIT; PAGE 3 OF 3 PAGE(S)