ML052590563

E-mail from James Heller to Jamnes Cameron, Micheal Kunowski, and Patrick Louder, RIII-2004-A-0061

ML052590563
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	06/07/2004
From:	James Heller Division of Nuclear Materials Safety III
To:	Jamnes Cameron, Michael Kunowski, Louden P Division of Nuclear Materials Safety III
References
FOIA/PA-2004-0282 RIII-04-A-0061
Download: ML052590563 (8)

Text

P-cie 11.

I iJA~es Woler -point bah Rlil-20040A061 roncern 2 - what are wgontoue .csPage V

1 .1I From: James Heller To: Jamnes Cameron; Kunowski, Michael; Louden, Patrick Date: 6/7/04 2:52PM

Subject:

point beach R11-2004-A-0061 concern 2 - what are we going to due the 5/14/04 arb tabled concern 2 of Rill - 2004-A-0061 untill the other scwe concerns 2004-A-0051 and 52 were ARB'd. of Ruil -

Was Ityour intent to included concern 2 of RilI -.2004-A-0061 with the scwe Inspections for the SCWE concerns of Rill - 2004-A-0051 and 52.

jim ha~rcbne0Xihoreekmofd orao Ai exapom bm ACLA

• ' ' hS3

Page 1 C:\Tr=MPkGW 0009 1.TMP C:\TEMP\GW)00001 .TM? I_ w x F _ £ l _ _ _ Ad_ a_ _ _ *v is

• _ Z _ + s_ _ _ #

• w i rem _ w_ e Page 1 1 Mail Envelope Properties (40C4C796.C8C: 2: 24444)

Subject:

point beach RIII-2004-A-0061 concern 2 - what are we going to due Creation Date: 6/7/04 2:52PM.

From: James Heller Created By: JKH(t@nrc.gov Recipients Action Date & Time ch po.CHDO Delivered 06/07/04 02:52PM JLC (Jamnes Cameron) Opened. 06/07/04 02:56PM nrc.gov ch po.CHDO Delivered 06/07/04 02:53PM MAK3 (Michael Kunowski) Opened 06/08/04 06:57AM PLL (Patrick Louden) Opened 06/08/04 06:25AM Post Office Delivered Route ch_po.CHDO *06/07/04 02:52PM ch_po.CHDO 06/07/04 02:53PM nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time 040061 1st ARB .wpd 62155 *05/14/04 03:04PM MESSAGE 950 06/07/04 02:52PM Options Auto-Delete: No Expiration Date: None Notify Recipients: Yes Priority: Standard Reply Requested: No Return Notification: None Concealed

Subject:

No Security: Standard To Be Delivered: Imnuediate Status Tracking: Delivered & Opened

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/ Clayton/ 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: HIGH NORMAL LOW)

Basis for 01 Priority:

01 has Accepted Concem(s) No(s). Signature ARB MINUTES PROVIDED TO: Caldwell/Berson/Louden ACKNOWLEDGMENT LETTER: PRINT IN FINAL _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 licensee Allegation Review Board Chairman Date Page 1 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 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, Regulatorv Basis: overtime guidelines I. 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 Inspection 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 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 allow 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 marked for termination. The Cl stated that xxoooooocx was fired because of the hot leg vent incident but xOooooOo had previously been marked for dismissal after raising dry cask storage concerns.

Regulatory Basis: Chilled work environment

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 Inspection Within Days and Closure Memo to OAC D. Refer to 0l. Recommended Priority: HIGH NORMAL LOW Recommended Basis:

E. Outside NRC's Jurisdiction. Describe Basis Below.

F. Too General for Follow-up. Describe Basis Below.

2. Other (Specify) -

Responsible for Action - RPB 7 Branch II. Special Considerations/Instructions:

Page 3 of 6

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: 5114/04 11:03AM

Subject:

Point Beach Concern Attached Is the Infromation I received today for a memeber of the Point Beach staff.

R. Michael Morris

.f-, _V.

kij-l A Received By, R. Michael Morris Receipt Date: May 14, 2004 Receipt Method (meeting, phone call, letter) Meeting Facility Name Point Beach Nuclear Plant Location Two Rivers, WI.

Docket(s) 266/301

1. What Is the'concem?

The Ci reported that the hours that the supervisors and maintenance crew are working are beyond the 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> allowed. The Cl Indicated that the supervisors and crews In mechanical and electrical maintenance have been charging excessive hours to turnover to avoid having to det a waiver and write a CAP documenting the actual hours worked. The Cl is concerned that the workforce is becoming tired enough that they are making mistakes. The Cl also stated that s/he came to the NRC only because his concern for safe work practices was greater than his concern ab6ut being fired for talking to the NRC. The Cl stated that the hours on the supervisor time sheets and the time they arrive and leave through the security gates will not match. The Cl was afraid to go to managemerit and the'EC because eoordinarslhe believes that people who raise concerns are marked for termination. s/he stated that as an example in that he was fired because of the hot leg vent Incident but had been marked for raing conrs about the dry storage casts while at Palisades earlier.

17c

2. When did the concern occur?

The abuse of hours has been going on since September 2003. The chilling environment has been going on since November of 2003.

3.1s this an onnoinc concern?

This Is currently a safety concern because of the continuation of the outage.

4. Who was Involved?

Page 4 of. 6

The Cl stated his concern for the mechanical and electrical maintenance groups, but It Is going on throughout the site.

5. Were there any witnesses?

i - ave expressed the same concerns to the Cl.

6. What Is the Potential safe mact? 7(

This could be a chilling environment and a safety Impact from mistakes by tired workers.

7. Ask the Cl what reauirementhreaulation does the Individual believe govern's 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 CGwhat other Individuals could the NRC contact-for Information?-

_ __)and any of the electrical and mechanical maintenance personnel.

10. How did the individual find out about the concem?

The Cl Is part of the group.

11. Was the concern brouaht to manaoement's attention? If so. what actions have been taken: if not. whv not?

Yes, there his been no action by management Reason is unknown.

12. Was a condition report (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 licensee has not resronded! does the Individual wish to wait on the licensee's resnonse 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 In reoard to this concern?

Verify the hours worked against the hours reported and evaluate the chilling environment.

LaNteWTM ME Full Name booo aooo . Employer zoocov Mailing Address (Home) xxoooomoaoo Occupation x 0_

Telephone x xxoo:oooooo ., Relationship to facility JX3o3ccXXXXXXG Preference for method Call home In the evening Was the Individual advised Yes and time of contact of limItations on Identity protection P3f

• Page 5of 6

pllet III 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?

discrimInafn9afiganst IndvJvduals-who ennigen

• ._ . "t_'sAa

_1 pro~tected aqtIites eqylrenmqs;rerussn!g~or engage ,n pwqp cesfpaaesunlaul:Dysr?2ues;;er j-li.....in violaions.freulatory i._ ;tS s > d i, A; ,$ -i

1. Does the concern Involve NO 2. Was the Individual advised of the DOL YES discrimination? If so, was the Cl process and the 180 day restriction on informed that identity will be released filing?

during an Investigation?

3. What adverse actions have been taken? When?

N/A

4. Why does the Individual believe the actions were taken as a result of encaging in a orotected 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. Wastis your management aware that you Informed the NRC?

N/A 522-3025) ii4laI fNRs wil disd e ithe iiegadlonp eo (es .vi prinoctelssues eci'v a ~ 6ckhoiv~gment wilbrece.>

Cfieer

~ ,. .0 Ietier.WlthlA oarloum e-,

day and Page 6 of 6