ML062680103

Sdp/Ea Request & Strategy Form, Sdp/Ea No.03-105

ML062680103
Person / Time
Site:	Kewaunee
Issue date:	10/07/2003
From:	Luehman J NRC/OE
To:
References
EA-03-105, EA-03-106, FOIA/PA-2006-0113, OI 3-2002-004
Download: ML062680103 (1)

Text

000 NOT FOR PUBUC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR, OE 000 SDP/EA REQUEST & STRATEGY FORM Case Data Disputed:[] Related Cases: O3-06.

SDPIE NoI: P3~nO Number: *l. Docket No.:i500305..

Request Date- 110WD Region: 13 Case Type. R Small Entity. E]No Qvest Licensee: ManyoeneftC i-w Fa FauyearI City m - .

License No.: DPRM3 Lae Day of hnp.. m Insp.Rp No.: *. . .O "4 ....... .. ES:" D Facts AsecuId meupeiis ofa b oIrp IItIhvh FDooncem Dtussion (idrewied): Deliberate violation of 10 CFR 2620 fr failure to require testing for a reported FFD concm for a foreman SDP r'*No [lY Assessment [j NOV [ Ye [ ] N]o Wrongdoing [-No [n]Yes 01Re. Date $2r0 01 Rpt No ~2Q.:OO4* bel"- 01 Rpt Date: W191O29 Da) Referral? LjNo [EYes Ref. Date MUM Action Date 11121M32 rloD-e

[Acpt Additional 01Status nvestigafti I-C~ 004 needsioti entified E dispute memo needed Wl~

F]Akmiional coorinktion needed []AmbVt~gDOJ ElNeeds wrdination w4th DOJ Escalated Action Consequence: lAdcudlEl Potenia E]Reg.hImat 0Wiruhiness Prior Esc. Action? [j]No El 'es EA. ____ Date:____________

IDCredit? [R]No []Yes E]TmD S&U  :

CA Credit E]No EO es ElTBD Sp~~

CP? []NoCw~j]ase Elooiteease Elcuier Discretion or Order? lX'No FlYesI Epla'T Future Action Coriedrence? OlNO MY.$ [ open E0 Closed Additional M/~OM Action?~ RAonP&dcae Revtew by M DEDR Revte l:Nv-t ConMnR,-n Cvnfki ~ -n NOV O d wAc tin?I Padrt Region B.Beison, C.Pederson, T. Madeda, B.Clayton OE J. Db=W-hr, N.Ilton OGC/O M Fahey, G.Longo Program Oflice 0(1w Rema r rotsLessons Learned: The panel determined that due to the nuiner of disagreements between the kdvidual statements, tka a deliberate violato could not be considered. Hcbever, there was testimony that two individuals had smelled a tinge of alcohol on the foreman's breath and enough klormation to determine that the i*criduals had hought itto their supervisors atenton Insome manner (ifoOly to bxing bward fie opinion that the indidual had a drinldng problem. The two togetr provided a basis r the supenvsor*to requir a fitness lfr duty test, but ftis test was nev per xmed. The supervisor was aware of tie reqtirements, so tie faure was considered as careless disregard.

ca J. Creed, J. Belanger, T. Vegel, J. Cameron, R.Paul, C.Well, F. LMngston, A.Sapountis, C.Nolan Approved, Dir. OE: /RA! J. Luehman Date: 10/7/03