ML062680264
| ML062680264 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 07/18/2005 |
| From: | NRC/RGN-III/DRP/RPB5 |
| To: | |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2006-0113, RIII-2005-A-0062 | |
| Download: ML062680264 (6) | |
Text
(
INITIAL ARB ACTION PLAN SENSITIVE ALLEGATION MATERIAL RIII-05-A-0062 (Point Beach)
Licensee: Nuclear Management Company, LLC Docket/License No: Docket Nos. 50-266; 50-301 License Nos. DPR-24; DPR-27 Assigned Division/Branch: DRP/Branch 5 Allegation Review Board Membership: Satorius/ Langan/ Berson/ Heller/ Louden/
Purpose:
Initial ARB to discuss the Cl concerns and approve the evaluation plan GENERIC CONCERNS: If Yes Explain:
DISCUSSION OF SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE: No immediate threat to Dublic health safety
_
- _ ii
Basis for 01 Priority:
01 has Accepted Concern(s) No(s). Signature ARB MINUTES PROVIDED TO: Grant/Paul/Louden ACKNOWLEDGMENT LETTER: PRINT IN FINAL X REVISE N/A REFERRAL LETTER: A. Licensee YES 10 CFR 2.390 NOX B. State of YES NO X C. DOE YES NO X date received June 20, 2005 due date of It ARB July 20, 2005 due date of ACK Ltr July 20, 2005 date -90 days old September 18, 2005 date -120 days old October 18, 2005 date -150 day old November 17, 2005 date -180 days old December 17, 2005 date -365 days old June 20, 2006 projected date for the 5 yr statue of limitation June 19, 2010 COMMENTS:
The CI did not object to having identity released.
The Cl did not object to having the concern(s) forwarded to the licensee.
Allegation Revie- o6rd Chairman
,SENSITIVE ALLEGATION MATERIAL V, Page 1 of 5 P /11 Information in this record was deqted in accordance yith the Freedom Of Information Act, exemptions 9(L-FOLk- - Zoo 4/3-
(
INITIAL ARB ACTION PLAN SENSITIVE ALLEGATION MATERIAL RIII-05-A-0062 (Point Beach)
Concern No. 1:
The concerned individual (CI) believes stated that s/he was discriminated against (site access denied) for reporting that s/he inadvertently dropped a wrench from a scaffold. The Cl is employed as a carpenter tor Day and Zimmerman, MPS, Inc.
Backqround Information On March 22, 2005, while a scaffold was being erected, the Cl inadvertently dropped a wrench. The CI reported the dropped wrench to the supervisor, a condition report was written, and the Cl's access was denied the same day. The Cl stated that s/he failed to use a lanyard with the wrench even though use of a lanyard was discussed during a pre-job brief. The Cl claimed, and the CAP states, that lanyards were in short supply. The Cl also stated that another employee had dropped a piece of diamond plate and site access was not denied.
The Cl requested review of his/her access denial on April 20, 2005, and has received no response from the licensee. The Cl did not object to having his/her identity released, and did not object to referring the issue(s) to the licensee.
Regulatory Basis:
10 CFR 50.7, Employee Protection, states, in part, that discrimination by a Commission licensee against an employee in engaging in certain protected activities is prohibited. The Branch was not able to determine from the information provided by the CI, whether they felt access was denied because they raised a safety issue (NRC jurisdiction), or whether access was denied for an insignificant mistake (DOL issue).
I. Action Evaluation: The following method of resolution is recommended (circle):
A. Send to Licensee Requesting Response in 30 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. Discrimination
- 1. Offer ADR.
- 2. Reason why ADR should not be offered
- 3. Priority for the 01 investigation if ADR is not used: HIGH/NORMAL/LOW Recommended Basis:
E. All other 01 referrals. Priority for the 01 investigation: HIGH/NORMAL/LOW Recommended Basis:
F. Outside NRC's Jurisdiction. Describe Basis Below.
G. Too General for Follow-up. Describe Basis Below.
H. Other.
Responsible for Action - OAC At the July 18,2005 ARB - Agreed with recommendation - EICS and technical staff call the Cl to obtain the Information due July 21, 2005 SENSITIVE ALLEGATION MATERIAL Page 2 of 5
SENSITIVE ALLEGATION INFORMATION AMS NO. RIII-2005-A-0062 II. Special Considerations/Instructions:
Because the Branch could not determine, from the information provided by the Cl, whether the concern of discrimination is within the NRC's jurisdiction, it is recommended that the Cl be contacted and questioned. It needs to be determined why s/he felt that they were discriminated against (access denied). Was it because they believed they raised a safety concern (NRC jurisdiction), or was it because they felt access was denied because they made an insignificant mistake (DOL issue)? If the Cl believes access was denied because they raised a safety issue, then ADR may be appropriate in cooperation with 01 and Regional Counsel. If the Cl believes access was denied after making an insignificant mistake, then a closure letter with emphasis on calling DOL would be appropriate.
Questions for Concerned Individuals (Cl) Who Allege Discrimination The following questions are intended to provide sufficient information for the ARB and 01 to determine if an 01 investigation is warranted. If the answers to these questions are not included in original documentation of a discrimination allegation, an allegation coordinator will attempt to call the Cl prior to an ARB to get the information.
The NRC's regulations protect people from discrimination for raising nuclear safety issues.
What issues did the CI raise?
The concerned individual (CI) believes stated that s/he was discriminated against for reporting that s/he inadvertently dropped a wrench from a scaffold. The Cl is employed as a carpenter tor Day and Zimmerman, MPS, Inc.
On March 22, 2005, while a scaffold was being erected, the Cl inadvertently dropped a wrench.
The CI reported the dropped wrench to their supervisor, a condition report was written, and the Cl's access was denied the same day. The CI stated that s/he failed to use a lanyard with the wrench even though use of a lanyard was discussed during a pre-job brief. The Cl claimed, and the CAP states, that lanyards were in short supply. The CI also stated that another employee had dropped a piece of diamond plate and site access was not denied.
The CI requested review by the licensee of his/her access denial on April 20, 2005, and has received no response from the licensee. The CI did not object to having his/her identity released, and did not object to referring the issue(s) to the licensee.
- When?
Access denied March 22, 2005. CI called Allegations Coordinator June 20, 2005.
Did the Cl inform anyone from management or the NRC of the concern?
The Cl requested review by the licensee of his/her access denial and has received no further response. The CI also, as stated above, contacted an NRC Allegations Coordinator with the concern.
If the Cl informed the NRC, was management aware that the Cl informed NRC?
Not enough information to determine whether licensee is aware whether Cl informed the NRC.
GAEICS\AMS-LTRS\05 AMS\050062.PointBeach\050062. Ist AR.B.wpd Page 3 of 5
(
SENSITIVE ALLEGATION INFORMATION AMS NO. RIII-2005-A-0062 What action was taken against the Cl? (e.g., fired, laid off, demoted, transferred)
Denied access to the site. The Cl is still employed by Day and Zimmerman.
- When was the action taken?
March 22, 2005.
- Why does the CI believe the action taken was a result of your raising these safety issues?
The Branch cannot determine whether the Cl believes that s/he was denied access to the site because 1) they raised a safety issue (dropped wrench, inadequate pre-job brief, etc.), which may be discrimination, or 2) because they made a mistake, which may be a DOL issue and outside NRC jurisdiction.
June 21, 2005 MEMORANDUM TO: Allegation File RIll-2005-A-0062 FROM: Paul Pelke, Office Allegation Coordinator, Region III
SUBJECT:
RECEIPT OF ALLEGATION (POINT BEACH)
On June 20, 2005, I received a call from a concerned individual (CI) who stated that s/he was discriminated against (access denied to the plant) for reporting that s/he inadvertently dropped a wrench from a scaffold. The Cl's name, address, and phone number are listed separately in the allegation file.
The Cl worked as a carpenter for Day and Zimmerman, MPS, Inc.
On March 22, 2005, while a scaffold was being erected, the Cl inadvertently dropped a wrench from the scaffold. The scaffold was being erected on the 26' elevation of the Unit 2 turbine hall near the water box. The wrench fell from the scaffold, through the 26' floor opening. and landed next to the water box on the 8' elevation.
The Cl reported the dropped wrench to the supervisor, a condition report was written (CAP 062966),
and the Cl's access was denied on the same day. CAP 062966 is attached. The CI was informed that s/he failed to use a lanyard with the wrench even though it was discussed during a pre-job brief. The Cl claims thbt lanyards were in short supply (not all tool pouches had them) and that it was not discussed during a pre-job brief. CAP 062966 states under the why did this occur section that, "Larnyards were not readily available and are in short supply.' The Cl stated that another employee dropped a piece of diamond plate and still worked at Point Beach.
The Cl requested a review of his access denial on April 20, 2005, and has received no response from the licensee.
-1L The Cl did not object to having his/her identity released, and did not object to referring issues to the G:\EICS\AMS-LTRS\05 AMS\050062.PointBeach\050062. 1st ARB.wpd Page 4 of 5
SENSITIVE ALLEGATION INFORMATION AMS NO. RIII-2005-A-0062 licensee.
Attachment:
CAP 062966 G:AEICS\AMS-LTRS\05 AMS\050062.PointBeach\050062. 1st ARB.wpd Page 5 of 5
(
INITIAL ARB ACTION PLAN SENSITIVE ALLEGATION MATERIAL RIII-05-A-0062 (Point Beach)
NEW ALLEGATION: Rlll-2005-A-0062 July 14, 2005 MEMORANDUM TO: Patrick L. Louden, Chief, Branch 5, Division of Reactor Projects FROM: Paul Pelke, Office Allegation Coordinator, Rill
SUBJECT:
RECEIPT OF NEW ALLEGATION: RIII-05-A-0062 (Point Beach)
On June 20, 2005, EICS received the attached allegation regarding potential discrimination. The EICS memorandum dated June 22, 2005, requested that the branch review the allegation. Your memorandum dated July 12, 2005, characterized the concerns, provided the regulatory basis, and recommended an evaluation plan. I have reviewed your memorandum and agree with your proposed course of action.
I have scheduled an Allegation Review Board (ARB) on Monday, July 18, 2005. Please review the attached information to prepare for the ARB.
Attachment:
As stated cc w/attachment:
ARB Copy Richard Paul Scott Langan Scott Kryk Craig Hayden Nancy Hane Bruce Berson (hard copy only)
Kenneth O'Brien Nick. Hilton, OE RIIIDRPADMIN SENSITIVE ALLEGATION MATERIAL