ML052590561
| ML052590561 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 05/14/2004 |
| From: | Reynolds S Division of Nuclear Materials Safety III |
| To: | |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2004-0282 RIII-04-A-0061 | |
| Download: ML052590561 (6) | |
Text
A; ALLEGATION ACTION PLAN AMS NO. RIII-2004-A-0061 Licensee: Point Beach Docket/License No: 050-00266/301 Assigned Division/Branch: RPB 7 Allegation Review Board Membership:
Reynolds/ Ulie! Berson/ Heller/ Clavton/ Cameron/ Morris by phone GENERIC CONCERNS: If Yes Explain:
DISCUSSION OF SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE: No immediate threat to public health safety because no example of fatigued related problems have been identified; However the concerns indicate that the problems is ongoing OIACCEPTANCE: YES NO (Priority: Hi H NORMAL LOW)
Basis for 01 Priority:
01 has Accepted Concern( ignature ARB MINUTES PROVI TO: Caldwell/Berson/Louden AV-LI he ACKNOWLEDGMENT LETTER: PRINT INFINAL_X_ REVISE N/A Hold the acknowledgment letter until the arb for concern 2 Is conducted REFERRAL LETTER: A. Licensee YES__ NO X-B. State of YES . NO X-C. DOE YES NO X-date received May 14, 2004 due date of 1" ARB June 13,2004 due date of ACK Ltr June 13,2004 date -90 days old August 12, 2004 date -120 days old September 11, 2004 date -150 day old October 11, 2004 date -180 days old November 10, 2004 date -365 days old May 14, 2005 projected date for the 5 yr statue of limitation May 13, 2009 COMMENTS:
The individual (1)did not want his/her name released and (2) does not want the concerned referred to license.
Allegation Review oard Chairman D te in a=* WMft Roodomwofd Wet Page 1 of 6
- God_
AMS No. Rill-2004-A-0061 Each stated concern or NRC identified issue should be documented on a separate sheet. Each concern must be documented and written with enough detail to allow thorough follow up.
Concern No. 1: An individual is concerned that supervisors and maintenance crews are working beyond the 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> allowed and becoming tired enough that they are making mistakes. The individual stated that the supervisors and crews in the mechanical and electrical maintenance department have been charging excessive hours to turnover to avoid the need for a waiver or writing a CAP when the working hour limits was exceeded, Regulatory Basis: overtime guidelines
- 1. Action Evaluation: The following method of resolution is recommended (circle):
A. Send to Licensee Requesting Response in - Days. (Describe the general areas we expect the licensee to address.)
B. Priority Rill Follow up and Closure Memo to OAC C. Follow up During Routine Inspedtion Within 90 Days and Closure Memo to OAC due August 12,2004 D. Refer to 01. Recommended Priority: HIGH NORMAL LOW Recommended Basis:
E. Outside NRC's Jurisdiction. Describe Basis Below.
F. Too General for Follow-up. Describe Basis Below.
- 1. Other (Specify) -
Responsible for Action - RPB 7 Branch C,;LQ Yio\ odr Qoursc c. h4St Page 2 of 6
AMS No. RiII-2004-A-0061 Each stated concern or NRC identified issue should be documented on a separate sheet. Each concern must be documented and written with enough detail to all6w thorough follow up.
Concern No. 2: An individual is concerned about being fired for talking to the NRC but came to the NRC because of his/her concern for safe work practices. The Cl stated that s/he was afraid to go to management and the ECP coordinator because s/he believed that people who raise concerns are rmarked for termination. The Cl stated that xxxxxxxxx was fired because of the hot leg vent incident but xooooooxo had previously been marked for dismissal after raising dry cask storage concerns.
Regulatory Basis: Chilled work environment
- 1. Action Evaluation: The following 61 A. eral areas we B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
2.
Responsible for Action - RPB 7 Branch II. Special Considerations/instructions:
Page 3 of 6
t From: Brent Clayton To: JimH; Ken; OAC3 Date: 5/14/04 11:05AM
Subject:
Fwd: Point Beach Concern New allegation sent by Mike Morris.
From: R. Michael Morris To: Clayton, Brent Date: 5/14/04 11:03AM
Subject:
Point Beach Concern Attached is the infromation I received today for a memeber of the Point Beach staff.
R. Michael Morris 7C Page 4 of 6
The Ci stated his concern for the mechanical and electrical maintenance groups, but it is going on throughout the site.
- 5. Were there any witnesses?
Jhave expressed the same concerns to the Cll
- 6. What Is the potential safet Imnact? -
This could be a chilling environment and a safety Impact from mistakes by tired workers.
- 7. Ask the Cl what reauirement/regulation does the Individual believe governs this concern? (If the Cl does not have this Information, please document this response. If the Cl does not provide this Information and the individual receiving the allegation can obtain the Information within the 3 day deadline for forwarding the information to EICS, the Information should be provided by the NRC staff member)
The response to GL 82-12
- 8. Ask the Cl what records should the NRC review?
The Cl Indicated that the NRC should review the time cards for the crews and the reported time for the supervisors and other exempt personnel against the times people arrived and left the site. Also review the hours charged to turnover.
- 9. Ask the Cl what other Individuals could the NRC contact for Information?
l __ ~ _ _Jand any of.the electrical and mechanical maintenance personnel.
- 10. How did the Individual find out about the concern?
The Cl Is part of the group.
- 11. Was the concern brought to management's attention? If so. what actions have been taken: If not, why not?
Yes, there has been no action by management. Reason Is unknown.
- 12. Was a condition reoort (or other corrective action document) Initiated In response to the Issue? If so. what was the resolution?
No a CAP has not been written. Cl is now afraid that s/he will be marked for termination.
- 13. Is the individual satisfied with the licensee's response? If not. why?
No, people are making mistakes because they are tired and hours have not been reduced.
- 14. If the 1lcan'see has not responded. does the Individual wish to wait on the licensee's response before NRC pursues the Issue? if not. why? No, the Cl does not believe there will be anymore response from management.
- 16. What does the Individual believe NRC should do Inregard to this concern?
Verify the hours worked against the hours reported and evaluate the chilling environment.
I WI'ALF Full Name XXXXXXXXXX Employer ;:3e::o0onE lJs Mailing Address (Home) _xxxxxxxxxxx Occupation xxxxxxxxxxx.raXXX xI:Z:X.23J3CXXX:
Telephone xoomxxxxxxxxxxxx Relationship to facility )Oia0:ejaao0.
Preference for method Call home In the evening Was the Individual advised Yes and tirme of contact of limitations on Identity
._ protection e-vaIi4g t gtate Jie--s hni~r-oug-Ress-a;.s finVir ap~wrgesaoenyr~f eq ne~.>a~resJOweWllr~roidrffeCIs Pt th--e Wcckne~e,fftyne'wll Ienttyforfolosyp are p ontse,.'1If the w~oncpjrps-rev,t
_t tyir~e Fneem acr~emen annict ra o&,teE an-y~miitlk~t?4rag~~i~0 p, 1 'f b vF- 0' FrF H F.
Page 5 of 6
I Does the individual object to referral? YES Does the Individual object to releasing YES their Identity?
If the issue Involves another agency, NO Was the individual informed that YES does the individual object to referral to objecting to referral to another agency the agency and release of Identity to that might Impact review of the concern?
agency?
IDi scrmin ationnReilMt~ohsprohIbltNC iicens&es (yic'luddngcontr cto'rs;,adsubcotratos)1irom disclmatingagainst'lndividualswh oengagein l'protectediact'itis'i ii 'io'lations of reultory req'u ments,refusiiog to eng'agealeiipractices madu wfiby 'statues, etc;.
- 1. Does the concern Involve NO 2.Was the Individual advised of the DOL YES discrimination? If so, was the Cle80 process and the day restriction on informed that Identity will be released filing?
during an investigation?
- 3. What adverse actions have been taken? When?
- 4. Why does the Individual believe the actions were taken as a result of engaging Ina Protected activity?
N/A 5.What does the Individual believe was the protected activity?
N/A What safety Issues did the Individual raise? When? (DOCUMENT ABOVE)
N/A Did you contact the NRC about these safety Issues. Was/is your management aware that you Informed the NRC?
N/A Proviae'theCl with thiLeOAC.,-ntact Ii joratonat nes'of OACs) -andRli'WitchboardnWbOO0-.
52- 3025)Explan the.aiegationdprocess -ofr ('Cli ceive an acknbw~iedgent etter within3 ysand=
will 'be advised of NRC.'s iesoldion -of the 'issiuetsj via letter.)' ,rif* t ' -iiittl0 Lt fi Page 6 of 6