ML062680204
| ML062680204 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Kewaunee  |
| Issue date: | 08/05/2002 |
| From: | NRC/RGN-III |
| To: | |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2006-0113, RIII-02-A-0114 | |
| Download: ML062680204 (9) | |
Text
(
SENSITIVE ALLEGATION MATERIAL AMS NO. RIII-02-A-0114 ALLEGATION ACTION PLAN Licensee:
Docket/License No:
Assigned Division/Branch:
Kewaunee 05000305 Security Allegiation Review Board Membership:
Ch2irman Ocai~t/
Peder~n/ Qreb~
G-r-.
Dags/Cantano/
r~e;;oids)
V Creed M~ded~
Creed Madeda GENERIC CONCERNS: If Yes Explain:
flIC~USRION OF SAFETY SIGNIFICAN(CE: Na imm~diatA threat to nublic health anid safety.
01 ACCEPTANCE:
NO (Priority:
0 NORMAL LOW)
Basis for 01 Priority: see concern 4 O has Accepted Concern(s) No(s).
4 Signature ARB MINUTES PROVIDED TO: Dver/Paul/Creed/
STATUS LETTER:
PRINT IN FINAL X
REVISE Cl THE STATUS OF CONCERN 3 AND 4 N/A PROVIDE THE REFERRAL LETTER:
A. Licensee B. State of C. DOE YES X_
YES YES NO Concern 2 NO NO date received July 3, 2002 due date of 1 1 ARB August 2, 2002 due date of ACK Ltr August 2, 2002 date -90 days old October 1, 2002 date -120 days old october 31, 2002 date -150 day old November 30, 2002 date -180 days old December 30, 2002 date -365 days old July 3, 2003 projected date for the 5 yr statue of limitation July 2, 2007 COMMENTS:
Allegation Review Boardthairman Information in this record was deleted in accordance with the freedom of Information Act exemptions &.
FOIA-Z-e'4 '-/?
Dafe Page 2 of 9 0"- I/ \\\\
SENSITIVE ALLEGATION MATERIAL AMS No. RIII-02-A-0114 Concern No. 3 An Individual is concerned that a supervisor lied to a licensee investigator about being told by you and several other employee about the smell of alcohol on an Individual Regulatory Basis:
Regulatory Basis: 10 CFR 26.24(a)(3) requires, In part, testing for-cause shall be initiated as soon as possible...after receiving credible information that an Individual Is abusing alcohol.
10 CFR 50.5 requires that a contract employee may not knowing engage in deliberate misconduct that is material to the NRC.
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 Days and Closure Memo to OAC 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.
G.
Other (specify)
Responsible for Action -
EICS II.
Special Considerations/Instructions:
Proposed Violation: Contrary to the above, on xx/xx/xx, a named Individual knowingly engaged in deliberate misconduct by lying to a licensee representative regarding his knowledge of the odor of alcohol on a plant employee. This action Is material to the NRC because it demonstrates that a for cause test was not conducted after receiving credible Information that an Individual was abusing alcohol. This action, if substantiated, Is contrary to NRC regulatory requirements.
We recommend this Issue, because of the alleged wrongdoing, be forwarded to 01 for their review and disposition.
The content of this memorandum, alleged wrongdoing and discrimination, were reviewed with Ms. M.
Fahey, 01, on July 22, 2002. During that review, It determined that the concerns noted above appeared to be related to previous allegation AMS 01-0176 that is currently under 01 review.
Page 3 of 9
SENSITIVE ALLEGATION MATERIAL AMS No. RIII-02-A-0114 Concern No. 4 An individual Is concerned that yolarethe subject of discrimination by not being rehired after providing information to the licensee's investigator about the smell of alcohol on an individual.
Regulatory Basis: 10 CFR 50.7 states that discrimination for engaging in a protected activity (raising a safety concem) is prohibited. The discriminatory action related to a condition and privilege of employment.
- 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.
Pdority Rill Follow up and Closure Memo to OAC C.
Follow up During Routine Inspection Wlthl ays and' Closure Memo to OAC D.
Refer to 01. Recommended Priority HIGH* Recommended Basis: MD 8.8 part III (B) (5) (a) (i) (b) allegation of discr Talt1tion cause by a mid lever manager or above, E.
Outside NRC's Jurisdiction. Describe Basis Below.
F.
Too General for Follow-up. Describe Basis Below.
G.
Other (specify)
Responsible for Action -
EICS II.
Special Considerations/lnstructions:
- 1.
What action was taken against the Cl? When was the action taken? Why does the Cl believe the action taken against herlhim was the result of raising these safety Issues?
P4,e The Cl stated that s/he had eenln ewed by the company Investigator (Hal Walker) who s.vll was looking at the alcohol sue. T Ie CI believes that because s/he had provided facts about the smell of alcoho sue was the reason s/he was not rehired. The CI, stated that 2 other Individual vere n e ewed by the Investigator were rehired because they stated to the licensee investigator that.they did not remember anything.
- 2.
What Issue did the Cl raise? When? Smell of alcohol on an individualr iiw sue In the Fall of 2001 and spdng of 2002
- 3.
Did the Cl Inform anyone from her/his management or the NRC of the concern? To her/his Supervisor, responsed to the licensee Investigator questions; and to the.ECP manager
- 4.
If the Cl Informed the NRC, was her/his management aware that s/he Informed the NRC?
No - Conversations with the NRC were after theCI was informed that s/he would not be rehired Page 4 of 9
SENSITIVE ALLEGATION MATERIAL FOLLOWUP ARB: RIII-02-A-0114 August 1, 2002 MEMORANDUM TO: James Creed, Chief, Security Branch, DRS FROM:
J Heller Rill - OAC
SUBJECT:
FOLLOWUP ARB FOR: Rill-02-A-0114 (KEWANUEE)
On July 1 lhand July 151h, Region III received additional concerns regarding individuals lying to the licensee and discrimination for raising a FFD Issue to the licensee and participating in the licensee's investigation of the FFD issue.
You staff has completed its evaluation of the conversation records and In a July 291h memo documented 2 additional concerns. The memo provided the regulatory bases and a recommended actions to evaluate each concern. I have reviewed this information and agree with your characterization of the concern and proposed actions.
I have scheduled an Allegation Review Board (ARB) for August 5, 2002 Please review the attached information to prepare for the ARB.
cc w/attachments:
ARB Copy 01 RC DRP Br Chief For Rx Cases-Lanksbury DRS Division Director For Rx Cases-Grobe Clayton for H&I or wrong doing Page I of 9
SENSITIVE ALLEGATION MATERIAL From:
James Heller To:
Allegations Region I1, Allegations Date:
Mon, Jul 29, 2002 4:39 PM
Subject:
Fwd: AMS 02-0114, KEWAUNEE From:
Terry Madeda To:
Andrea Kock; James Heller Date:
Mon, Jul 29,2002 12:37 PM
Subject:
AMS 02-0114, KEWAUNEE In accordance with our discussion this morning, attached Is my evaluation and recommended action in response to your memorandum of July 17, 2002 for the subject noted above.
July 29, 2002 MEMORANDUM TO:
H. Brent Clayton Enforcement/Investigation Officer THRU:
James R. Creed Safeguards Program Manager Division of Reactor Safety FROM:
Terry Madeda Physical Security Inspector Divsion of Reactor Safety
SUBJECT:
REVIEW OF CONVERSATION WITH A CI; RIII-2002-A-O1 14 (KEWAUNEE) AITS NO. S02-2270 This responds to James Heller's memorandum dated July 17, 2002, which forwarded a copy of a conversation record with a concerned Individual; (CI), and requested our review to Identify any new safety or regulatory Issues.
Our review focused on the Fitness-For-Duty concern and resulted In the Identification of two new Issues.
Concern No. 1: The Cl expressed that a named Nuclear Power System (NPS) forema had (ied to a I.censee Investigator (Hal Walker) about being told by several named personnel that a
.Atmmmmmsmelled of alcohol while working at the Kewaunee site.
OTE: the Cl an' several other named in ividuals had reported the smell of alcohol 0.
-to the named NIPS foreman).
('"
Regulatory Basis: 10 CFR 26.24(a)(3) requires, in.part, testing for-cause shall be initiated as soon as possible...after receiving credible Information that an Individual Is abusing alcohol.
10 CFR 50.5 requires that a contract employee may not knowing engage In deliberate misconduct that is material to the NRC.
Page 5 of.9
(
SENSITIVE ALLEGATION MATERIAL Proposed Violation: Contrary to the above, on xx/xxlxx, a named individual knowingly engaged in deliberate misconduct by lying to a licensee representative regarding his knowledge of the odor of alcohol on a plant employee. This action is material to the NRC because it demonstrates that a for cause test was not conducted after receiving credible Information that an individual was abusing alcohol. This action, if substantiated, is contrary to NRC regulatory requirements.
We recommend this issue, because of the alleged wrongdoing, be forwarded to 01 for their review and disposition.
Concern No. 2: The CI alleged discrimination against the licensee because he/she had not been rehired after providing information to the licensee that aV contractor foreman had smelled of alcohol while employed at the Kewaunee site.
Regulatory Basis: 10 CFR 50.7 states that discrimination for engaging In a protected activity (raising a safety concern) is prohibited. The discriminatory action related to a condition and privilege of employment.
We recommend that the Issue of alleged discrimination be forwarded to 01 for their review and disposition.
The content of this memorandum, alleged wrongdoing and discrimination, were reviewed with Ms. M.
Fahey, 01, on July 22, 2002. During that review, It determined that the concdms noted above appeared to be related to previous allegation AMS 01-0176 that is currently under 01 review.
From:
Paul Krohn, SRI, Point Beach To:
. James Heller; OaC3 Date:
Wed, Jul 11, 2002
Subject:
KEWAUNEE/POINT BEACH ISSUE. Follow-up Conversation with Cl by Paul Krohn on 7/11/02 Following Voice Mail Messages Left on 7/9/02 and 7/10/02 on Point Beach RIO Internal Phone Une
- Jim, Following our conversation on 7/11 at -1400, I called the Cl to respond to his voice mail messages to the PB RIO which had been left on 719 and 7/10. In the voice mail messages of 7/9102 and 7/10/02, the CI expressed the following concerns; The Cl stated that s/he wanted to know which persons were being Investigated.
The CI stated that s/he wanted to know why all the people Involved In his concern had not been Interviewed.
The Cl stated that it was hard to pursue the Issue wlthli till on-site.
When I talked to the Cl on 7/11/02, I provided the following Information concerning the allegations process and his concerns; the NRC received his concern relating to personnel being untrustworthg U
n 7/2/02. I explained to the Cl portions of our Allegations Process and told the C6 P age 6 of 9
I SENSITIVE ALLEGATION MATERIAL that the NRC would have an internal review board on his call to us on 7/2102 within 30 days, no later than 812/02.
I told the CI that s/he would receive formal acknowledgment of the NRCs receipt of his concern reported on 7/2/02.
I told the CI that an investigation was still ongoing concerning interviews with his co-workers and previous concerns.
I provided the Cl with the 1-800-522-3025 Rill number and direct dial numbers for yourself, Jim Heller, and Andrea Kock if further information on the status of investigations or questions on the Allegations process were required.
When I spoke to the Cl on 7/11/02, the CI provided the following additional information; The Cl stated that 5 people had made the same comment on one individual. The names surrounding the Cl's Issue were; 5 people In Same Work Group General Foreman In Question Ci The CI stated that s/he had not heard about the status of his concern relative for over 8 months and was wondering If the Investigation was still ongoing.
The CI stated that 3 of the 5 people In his work group had been denj=d ccessto nuwrmsites across the country when seeking further contract work. The 3 wer*LN
.c and the CI.
This Is all the information provided to me by the Cl. My conversation with the CI lasted 20 minutes.
Please call If you have any questions.
Paul Krohn, SRI Point beach 7/11/02 To Allegation file:
RIII-2002-A-01 14 From:
Jim Heller Page 7 of 9
SENSITIVE ALLEGATION MATERIAL
Subject:
Contact with the Cl On July 15, 2002, I talked to the Ci for approxima.ely 45 minutes. The Cl confirmed that s/he had._j,,
talked to Jim Guvula and that s/he would fax th
- Vol, The Cl stated that s/he is working as a welder fdoat a non-nucleamrfa-c ty and tat they would not object to his/her use of the fax machine.
The Cl discussed two examples of discrimination. The CI stat d.tA when s/he was em 10ed NPS at the facility s/he and other had rais..t smell. of thout a procedure to his/h CI stated t at s/he never pursued re al chol issue ancrs instructe ever the CI stated that s/he did not like' way activities were managed at the s e and quit. The CI stated that s/he and four other Individuals quit The Cl stated that the foreman has lied to the 'ensee's I vestigator and denied that he was ever 7 informed of the
.a ol. The CI statedthoss has stated many times that the Cl had Informe bout the smell of alcohol on an Ihdividuals breath.
I asked the Ci if it was normal too quit before the work assignment was complete. The Ci stated that s/he had worked for several contractors at the facility during the last 20 years and had quit several times to go to non-nuclear other jobs. The CI stated that s/he had been rehired each time. I asked the CI if the union was including his/her name on the rehire list. I told the CI that I had heard that some unions would not Include people on the next rehire list If the individual quit before the job was complete.
The Cl stated that the union had Included this name. When the union Included his/her name on the rehire list it wasinformed that s/he was red flagged which prevented re-employment.
The Cl stated that s/hehad bee Interviewed by the company Investigator (Hal Walker) who was looking at the alcohol0ssue.
The Cl rambled on for approximately 5 minutes about Inconsistencies In hisserstatements to the licensee's Investigator. I am speculating that the reason 4rlJ.,
for the red flagging was the Inconsistencies. The Cl stated that 2 of the 5 Individuals who had quit at the same time have been rehired. The Cl stated that these Individuals were rehired because they st.Pf.(,
stated to the licensee Investigator that they did not remember anything. The CI believes that because s/he had provided facts about the smell of alcohol11sue was the reason s/he was not rehired.
The Cl stated that s/he had raised the lcohol Issue in 11/01 and was Interviewed by the licensee's Investigator in 12101.
I informed the CI that we Investigation that we may Investigate claims of discrimination. However if we Investigate a claim of discrimination we will need to release his/her name to the licensee and contractor during the Investigation. The Cl did not ob the re of his/her name for the alcohol Issue but objected to the release of his/her name fo The Cl stated.that s/he was working with the licensee and believed tha, d
esolved soon.
I told the Cl that since s/he believed s/he was the subject of employment discrimination, s/he has 180 days from the date of the alleged discriminatory act to file a written complaint with the DOL under Section 211 of the Energy Reorganization Act. On July 17, 2002, I recontacted the CI and provided him/her the address and telephone number to the DOL.
Page 8 of 9
4 SENSITIVE ALLEGATION MATERIAL U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration 230 South
Dearborn Street,
Rm. 3244 Chicago, Illinois 60604 Telephone: (312) 353-2220 I informed the Ci that the NRC and DOL have differing responsibilities when evaluating employment discrimination. While the DOL can order personal remedies such as reinstatement of your job, back pay, and reverse disciplinary action, the NRC does not have that authority.
Page 9 of 9