ML053220523
| ML053220523 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem, Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 08/23/2002 |
| From: | NRC Region 1 |
| To: | |
| References | |
| 1-2002-A-0113, FOIA/PA-2004-0191 | |
| Download: ML053220523 (2) | |
Text
- g\\Eilleg\\r&c.,Ript\\2002011 3rci.wpd Aleai Ece Date Received:
August 23, 2002 1:^162002-A-0113 Received via:
[XI In-person Employee Receiving Allegation or suspecting wrongdoing (first two initials and last name): J G Schoppy Source of information (please check one box ~l licensee employ
.e e
Alleger Name:l Home Address:
Home Phone:!
City/State/Zip:
Alleger's Employer:tEG Nuc Alleger's Position/Title:l Facility: Salem/Hope Creek Docket No. or License No.: 50/272, 501311, 501354 Was alleger informed of NRC identity protection policy?
Yes / No_
If H&l was alleged, was alleger informed of DOL rights?
Yes / No__ NIA 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?
Yes _ No/
Was confidentiality initially granted?
Yes _ No _ N/A /
Individual Granting Confidentiality: N/A Criteria for determining whether the Issue Is an allegation:
Is 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: [X] Power Reactor Discipline for each concern: [1] Discrimination lft.mntn#.;_
IJoL
,nvnwln au Ad recora was deleted In accrdance w9eeo of Int"bton F0l
-C~b 3-D}
$QIi qc
2 Detailed Description of Allegation:
The alleger stated that the week of July 1, 2002Lvwas informed via emai that*was placed on the Transient Assessment Response Plan (TARP) callout list for l TARP w-"ks. The alleger reviewed the TARP procedure (SH.OP-APZ2-0101), de ermined that tl oplniorw not qualified to be a TARP team member, and informe4WfUpervisor IM oo such. Whe wdid not receive satisfaction from his supervior, the alleger to concern o nextIel of managemeiit-the Engineering Programs Manager The alleger outlined fo he lay aspects of the TARP procedure that they were ap nt y no eeting. According to the allege
-greed that they do not follow the guidance as written, requested that the alleger document this Iss en the corrective action process, and removed the alleger form the TARP callout list on July 21. The alleger Initiated corrective action notification' on On August completed the evaluation of notificatioe()
On ugut,_4om letd he valaton f otiictiolj (evaluatior{,>
)and determined that all procedure sections were being followed. On Augur the alleger's supervisor threw the con teted evaluation on the al r's desk and asked the alleger wh ecision was. The alleger stated that didn't understand wha supervisor was referring to and aske supervisor for time to review the eva uion. According to the ai1eger, a low volume verbal confrontation ensued for approximately two minutes.
The supervisor suddenlourte 0
at's It, you're out of re' and proceeded to escort the alleger off site.
[The alleger stated tha hInform
.1 the alleger could not access e proctecd area and discovered tha had been administratively jejnove from site (access denied through security). Subsequently on
,the alleger met withtgsupervisor and Bob Settle, Engineerin Supervisor -Spa e rts lngineering, to discuss the alleger's performance. The alfeger stated tha supervisor told that failure to join ILe TARP team cop 1result In actions up to and including termination. The alleger stated hattold1 supervisor thalt felt discriminat raising the TARP team issue and thatWelt that the experience illing effect orjjbut thaIl) would do whatever they wanted. At this point, the supervisor told as suspendet quickly recanted it. The supervisor went aoL say you can come back, you'll e on the D TARP team, but no more railing about saf& Indicato no slamming management, just smile and be happy.' The alleger agreed but was upset by tllrsincounter and definitelyfelt 'ch~Le4.' The alleger does not feel com rtable discussing the issue witJWnmanagement for fear of losingg ob la good performier fo maccording to the alleger].
During the discussion with the resident, the all tated thaoplanned to discuss the issue with h A
Director and the ECP. The alleger stated t atsrefer if we N C) did not follow up on site nti1 gave QA and the ECP a chance to hel resolVe theIue4tssue is not so much witf being made to participate as a TARP team member, but hovas reated for bringing up the procedure compliance issue.
9&L