ML052490289

E-mail from D. Vito of USNRC to D. Orr of USNRC, Regarding Salem Voicemail

ML052490289
Person / Time
Site:	Salem, Hope Creek
Issue date:	04/30/2004
From:	Vito D NRC Region 1
To:	Orr J NRC Region 1
References
FOIA/PA-2004-0314
Download: ML052490289 (2)

Text

.. J-VILA Vitt] - rIlt!!, nalL111 VUIUU 111WI P~qnA,1A

, - , - I t

From: David Vito le To: Daniel Orr Date: 4130104 9:01AM

Subject:

Re: Salem voice mail The Issues appear to refer to matters of industrial safety rather than nuclear safety. By definition, purely industrial safety Issues are not allegations. So, if he had come to us without contacting the licensee, we would have just told him that the issue was not under our purview, given him Information for contacting OSHA, and per Manual Chapter 1007, had the residents inform licensee management about the nature of the concerns (without providing the identity of the individual). Since the license already knows about the issue, you don't really need to pursue itfurther with PSEG. Ifyou can figure out a way to contact the individual to inform him that this is an industrial safety/OSHA issue and that we don't handle those, that's about all we can do. Another message on his cell phoen shoudl be fine. You could provide him with contact information for the local OSHA office if he wants it Marlton Area Office Mariton Executive Park, Building 2 701 Route 73 South, Suite 120 Marlton, New Jersey 08053 (856) 757-5181 (856) 757-5087 FAX I have assumed that he is referring to the need for respirators for painting due to a concern about inhaling paint fumes, rather than an concern about the inhalation of radiological contamination. If I'm wrong, all bets are off. We would then have to put the issue Inthe allegation system, and just follow the process.

>>> Daniel Orr 04/29/04 04:09PM >>>

Our secretary received a voice mail this last weekend from a tating that he had IC been laid off on Saturday, 4/24 and that he would like to gpea . attempted to reach the individual with the cell phone number he had left, but only reached his voice mail. He returned my call and left me a voice mail today on 41 9. The gist of his message was that he d-sincegotten-a-hold-of

,jPSEG's-ECP g m a e, and had left his concerns with him. In his voice maiLthe I suggested hat I get a hold ofIjom3'l would a preciate itand find out what's what." He added that omfhad more than enough details toollow through on the Issues.

I spoke with ~om Lakthis afternoon to get a sense of the issues. I will meet wit Tom tomorrow morning to review hi otes.7The issue started according to the concerned individual with agreement over respiratory protection form The Cl is a _i He believed that on some occasions proper respiratory equipment was not being assigned. one point he addressed the issue with'his NPS supervisor and it escalated to the point where the Cl told his supervisor to "Shut the f up and listen to me."

• Notlong after that incident the Cl was laid off. According to the Cl it was labeled as a RIF and included 7 or 8_ He believed he was being retaliated against for his respiratory concems.

The Cl also provided some concerns to om LakeSbased on events that he had seen during the outage and an issue going back to Hope Creek construction. PSEG is pursuing all technical issues with outage management and with ISI on the Hope Creek Issue. The salem issues mentioned included some sandblast sand that had fallen on some pumps. The Hope Creek issue had to do with some labeling in ide the torus that may have interfered with proper preparation for the inside coating or paint.

Ftom La:has advised the sit ead and the home office project manager that they need to investigate a retaliation case tends to review their investigation.

4S

,,orinaiion in [hus recufswas Oe;A inaccordance with the Freedom Of Information Act, exepin F01A----

Da7- - Re:Sa-lem voice mail

_Vito ---Panel 9 I CC: George Malone; James Trapp; Leanne Harrison; Mel Gray; Scott Barber, Sharon Johnson