ML062160198

E-mail from Johnson to Reactors, Sensitive Allegation Material - Salem/Hope Creek ARB Forms from 1/19/05

ML062160198
Person / Time
Site:	Salem, Hope Creek
Issue date:	01/20/2005
From:	Johnson S NRC Region 1
To:	NRC Region 1
References
1-2003-045, FOIA/PA-2005-0194, RI-2003-A-0110
Download: ML062160198 (3)

Text

_Page_

From:

To:

Date:

Subject:

Sharon Johnson Cy Reactors 1/20/05 10:31AM

.... SENSITIVE ALLEG MATERIAL****

Attached are the Salem/Hope Creek ARB forms from 1/19/05.

Information in this record was deleted in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, exemptions -'2C, 9C FOIA- -

.2,.

0.r--/,,

I5

gAora\\alleg\\panel\\200301 I Oarb2201192005.wpd ALLEGATION REVIEW BOARD DISPOSITION RECORD Allegation No.: RI-2003-A-0110 Branch Chief (AOC): Cobey Site/Facility: Salem/Hope Creek Acknowledged: Yes ARB Date:

1/19/2005 Confidentiality Granted: No Issue discussed: 01 report for Case No. 1-2003-045 transmitted by RI 01 letter dated December 28, 2004.

01

Conclusion:

There is insufficient evidence to prove that the employment actions taken against the CI were in violation of the employee protection regulation.

Summary of Information from Report

1. There is substantial evidence to indicate that the employment actions were the result of other factors. [ARB agreed]

2. Management inadequate communications and inaction contributed to the Cl's perception that the employment actions were the result of raising safety issues. [ARB noted that this was Indicative of past (and recovering) SCWE problems.]

3. Are management's inadequate communication and inaction subject to NRC enforcement or regulatory action? {ARB conclusion..... likely not. Facility is still in SCWE recovery mode. Prior established corrective actions in response to the SCWE issue would appear to be sufficient to address any SCWE issues identified within context of H&I investigation report.]

ALLEGATION REVIEW BOARD DECISIONS Attendees: Chair -

Uhle Branch Chief (AOC) - Cobey SAC - Vito, Harrison 01 Rep. - Teator RI Counsel - Farrar Others - Wiebe, Lubinski, Arrighi, Zobler, Montgomery-White, Hilton, Jarriel, Holody, Urban, Kock, Holian DISPOSITION ACTIONS:

1)

As provided, ARB agrees w/OI conclusion that alleger was not discriminated against for engagement in protected activities.

Responsible Person:

ECD:

Closure Documentation:

Completed: 1/19/05

2) 0lto completl Nscheduled for week of 4/05. 01 to infor"mtech fstaf and SAC of results.

after 01 had completed the investigation report).

Allegation will be re-ARBYd i res Its*

ppear to have any significant bearing on current 01 conclusion.]

Responsible Person: WIlson/Teator ECD:

1/28/05 Closure Documentation:

Completed:

3)

Issue 3-week e-mail (itdo not alter 01 conclusion)

Responsible Person:

UrbanNito ECD:

215/05 Closure Documentation:

Completed:

4).

Develop closure letter to alleger and letter to licensee w/summary of 01 investigation results. Place pertinent personnel from other offices on concurrence. Consider including words that reaffirm SCWE coneven thougz[

was not substantiated. Also, based on status ofonoking into one issue which alleger claimed involved his/h'er protected activity, consult w/management to consider combining closure documents to include discussion of both H&I an Responsible Person:

Urban/SAC ECD: 2/27/05 Closure Documentation:

Completed:

5)

Issue closure letters (unless it is determined that distribution will awaint completed assessment of other wrongdoing issue).

Responsible Person:

SAC ECD: 3/7/05 Closure Documentation:

Completed:

SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT:

PRIORITY OF 01 INVESTIGATION:

If potential discrimination or wrongdoing and 01 is not opening a case, provide rationale here (e.g., no prima facie, lack of specific indication of wrongdoing):

Rationale used to defer 01 discrimination case (DOL case in progress):

ENFORCEMENT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS CONSIDERATION (only applies to wrongdoing matters (including discrimination issues) that are under investigation by 01.

DOL, or DOJ):

What is the potential violation and regulatory requirement?

When did the potential violation occur?

(Assign action to determine date, if unknown)

Once date of potential violation is established, SAC will assign AMS action to have another ARB at four (4) years from that date, to discuss enforcement statute of limitations issues.

Distribution: Panel Attendees, Regional Counsel, 01, Responsible Individuals (original to SAC)

ARB MINUTES ARE REVIEWED AND APPROVED AT THE ARB ARB MINUTES ARE REVIEWED AND APPROVED AT THE ARB