ML20136B206
| ML20136B206 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/22/1995 |
| From: | Mccormickbarge NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Funk D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20136A921 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-96-529 NUDOCS 9703100208 | |
| Download: ML20136B206 (15) | |
Text
lp r
- .. November 22, 1995 i.
l l
MEMORANDUM T0: D. E. Funk, Inspection and Compliance Specialist FROM: !
A W. McCormick-Barger, Chief, Decommissioning Branch
SUBJECT:
ALLEGATION N0. RIII-95-A-Oll7 i l ,
1 i
On October 24-25, 1995, we conducted an inspection of the Chevron facility in Cleveland, Ohio, in part, to follow up on the concerns raised in the above allegation. Attached is a copy of the inspection report, dated November 13, 1995, from that inspection. Overall, one issue was substantiated as a result of the inspection.
Item No.1. - Because all material that had been surveyed and free released as clean had already been removed from the site, we were unable to conduct -
i surveys of material that had been free released by the contractor. We, therefore, conducted a detailed review of all records of surveys on released material. The records showed that surveys were conducted, and where contamination was found in excess of release limits, these items were decontaminated and resurveyed until less than the release limits. Discussions with site management as to what items were surveyed and released were J l consistent with all records reviewed. No survey work was being conducted at {
the time of the inspection. Concerns raised under this item were not .
substantiated. (See Section 4 of attached inspection report.)
Item No. 2 - A review of the bioassay records and required sampling protocols was conducted. The program was determined to have been conducted as required.
However, on a related issue, the individual who had brought this concern to j
- our attention, had not been provided a copy of his dose record when he was .
terminated. The contractor agreed that the copy had not been provided. The i reason was the contractor believed they had until they received the final
' results of the individuals urinalysis. However, 10 CFR Part 19.13(e) requires them to provide at least an estimate of the dose upon termination if requested. Therefore, this aspect of the concern wm substantiated. (See j- Section 5 of attached inspection report.) ,
Because the contractor had just received the results of the urinalysis a few days earlier, he stated they would provide the dose to this individual as soon
- as possible.
4 Item No. 3 - Based on a tour of the site, an evaluation of the placement of radiation protection barriers and controls, the use of protective clothing,
{ - discussions with site management and staff, observation of activities being i
performed, and a review of records, it appeared all work practices were appropriate and consistent with their approved Health & Safety Plan. Concerns raised under this item were not substantiated. (See Section 4 of attached inspection report.)
- Informatica in this record vm Malad I in accordance with the fre; d g31g8970305 Act, exemptig g,,,
BABCOCK 96-529 PDR , __
1 D. E. Funk As a result of the above findings, we plan no further action on this issue.
We recommend closure of this allegation.
If you have any questions, contact Bill Snell at extension 9b71.
l i
1 i
i l
DOCUMENT NAME: A:\CHEVALL.MEM
- =, ..
1 .,.... -..iwi..i.. c.c.n... ....f c.c .. f n.
OFFICE RIII C RIII Om % E NAME Snel N N McBarger DATE II/2.t./95 ll/w/95 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
ALLEGATION ACTION PLAN ALLEGATION NO. RIII-2}-A-2)_12
==- _===.........------------------------== - __ _ --------
Licensees Chevron Docket / License Not None Assigned Divisions DNMS Pertinent Documents: 9/20/95 Telechone Loo by W. Snell l
-- _ _ - - = - .- __---------=. _.
1 I. Division Action i
A. Prepared by: 1 am Snel Oct 04. 1995
- Technical Staf f Date I B. &
Approved by: Jim McCorm ek-B roer n
Oct 04, 1995 l Branch Chief # '
Date II. Alleaation Review Board Action Allegation Review Board Membership 1
1
__, Approved As Is l
__ Approved with Modifications as Documented in Pl'an
-_ Disapproved for Following Reasons:
OI Referral Yes No Allegation Review Board Chairman Date ALLEGATION ACTION PLAN (cont'd) l
CONCERN / PERIPHERAL ISSUE ACTION PLAN Each stated concern or NRC identified peripheral issue should be documented on a separate sheet. Each concern must be documented for followup. Concerns and issues should be written with enough detail to allow thorough followup..
Item No. 1 Direct Concern / Peripheral Issue -
CONCERN: Material has been free released without being properly surveyed for radioactive contamination (e.g., material washed down a floor drain, copper wiring taken to junk yard).
I. Action Evaluation: The follow othod of resolution is recommended.
A. Send to Licensee. Response due in days with RIII evaluation.
_X_ B. Followup in Routine Inspection on Oct 24, 1995. (Within 60 days.)
C. Priority RIII Inspection on .
D. Refer to OI.
E. Refer to .
___ F. No Action - Outside NRC's Charter. Explain:
G. No Action - Without Merit. Explain:
H. Other Action. Explain II. Actions Planned: The following areas should be addressed by the inspector or licensee as a minimum.
A. Obiective of Reviews Determine if material is being properly surveyed for radioactive contamination prior to its free release from the site.
B: Review Methods: Conduct onsite inspection. Conduct independent surveys of material that has been surveyed by licensee and found clean.
Persons to be contacted: Site laborers, HP Techs, site coordinator.
Documents or activities to be revieweds Observe any work in progress.
Time period to be covered: July-September 1995 Locations / specific areas to visit: Chevron site, Cleveland, OH.
Other:
AMS RIII-2.5-A-Oll7_
5 l
1
. - .. . . - _.-.~ . . . . . -- . . . . _ . . .- .. .~ - . _ -
CONCERN / PERIPHERAL ISSUE ACTION PLAN
[ Each stated concern or NRC identified peripheral issue should be documented on
- a separate shebt. Each concern must be documented for followup. Concerns and issues should be written with enough detail to allow thorough followup..
Item No. 2 Direct Concern / Peripheral Issue -
CONCERN Workers are not being provided with bioassys as required.
]
I. Action Evaluations The following method of resolution is recommended.
4 A. Send to Licensee. Response due in days with RIII evaluation.
_X_ B. Followup in Routine Inspection on Oct 24, 1995. (Within 60 days.)
C. Priority RIII Inspection on .
D. Refer to OI.
i E. Refer to .
F. No Action - Outside NRC's Charter. Explain:
G. No Action - Without Merit. Explain ,
H. Other Action. Explains II. Actions Planned: The following areas should be addressed by the inspector or licensee as a minimum.
i A. Obiective of Reviews Determine if workers have received bioassays as required by the Health and Safety Plan.
B Review Methods: Review log-in sheets to determine when workers
, began working at the site, and compare against records of when they were given bioassays.
I Persons to be contacted: Site coordinator.
Documents or activities to be reviewed: Site log-in records.
Site bioassay records.
i Time period to be covered: July-September 1995 Locations / specific areas to visit: Chevron site, Cleveland, OH.
i Others d
l AMS RIII-21-A-0112 i
l
. . __ -- -. . - - . ._- - - - . -- . _- - _ - .- ~ ~. _- _ _ -
1 i
CONCERN / PERIPHERAL ISSUE ACTION PLAN Each stated concern or NRC identified peripheral issue should be documented on
, a separate sheet. Each concern must be documented for followup. Concerns and issues should be written with enough detail to allow thorough followup..
Item No. 3 Direct Concern / Peripheral Issue i
CONCERN Work not being performed in a manner that ensures the protection of the health and safety of the workers from radiation (e.g.,
4 inadequate use of respirators, inadequate air sampling, inadequate l HP coverage).
I. Action Evaluation: 77e 1.'. lowing method of resolution is recommended.
A. Send to LiceniJd. Response due in days with RIII evaluation.
4 _X_ B. Followup in Routine Inspection on Oct 24, 1995. (Within 60 days.)
C. Priority RIII Inspection on .
D. Refer to OI.
+
E. Refer to .
- F. No Action - Outside NRC's Charter. Explains
! G. No Action - Without Merit. Explain H. Other Action. Explains i
s II. Actions Planned: The following areas should be addressed by the inspector or licensee as a minimum.
I A. Obiective of Reviews Determine if proper and safe work practices are being employed.
! B: Review Methods: Conduct onsite inspection. Conduct interviews with workers.
3 Persons to be contacted: Site laborers, HP Techs, site coordinator.
Documents or activities to be reviewed: Observe any work in progress.
. Time period to be covered: July-September 1995
, Locations / specific areas to visit: Chevron site, Cleveland, OH.
I Others 4
f AMS RIII-21-A-Q112 i
k
1 i
TELEPHONE LOG i
Lo. 84 Call By: W. Snell
- Date
- September 20. 1995 Time: 4:25pm CDT i,
~
Caller: Name: ~~
Iltle: .. a orer --
SUBJECT:
CHEVRON REMEDIATION, HARVARD AVE, CLEVELAND, OH Discussion: I returned a call to this individual who had called Don Kasloff i at Perry Plant who then passed to Wayne Slawinski who passed it to me, all on ;
this date. j was just terminated because, apparently, he told them he was Elf interviewing at Perry Plant for outage. Previously had worked 4th refuel outage for Perry for his first foray into this kind of work, so had some HP training from Perry. At Chevron site was hired as laborer.
They have broken a lot of rules.
He is young and he challenged a lot of the safety aspects of what they were doing so he got yelled at a lot.
For example, they washed a lot of the loose material on the floor down the floor drain with a garden hose. He questioned this but was told just to do his job. People started to ignore this. Much of the floor dirt they did drum. They started out double bagging, and eventually stopped bagging and just through it into the drums. Time is money so they are cutting corners.
Confusion between HP and workers when he first arrived. He didn't get first bioassy until two weeks ago, but was on the job for two months--started in August. Was told there was loose and fixed contaminated--alpha contamination.
! They were not wearing respirators while cutting pipes with torches. Two workers cutting with both torches and saws. HPs were doing quick surveys beforecutting. Appears they need more HPs. HPs doing good job chnsidering 1
only two of them. .
2 They stole copper from Chevron--was a plate 10 feet long and more as wire.
The laborers figured out there was $2500 worth of copper and HPs surveyed some
- of it, but not all of it, and Joe Davis took it to junk yard in his pickup trunk to get the money. He is sure Joe kept all the money because he was buying them lunch several times.
4
Only two HPs and 15 laborers. He doubts they are collecting adequate air samples. Production cleanup is more in.portant that radiological concerns.
People are frisking out, generally, but with only two HPs, nobody is watching.
Some of the people only do their feet and no more, s# full body required, he i has seen it happen. 45 He said there was 300,000 counts when they were breaking up floor on first floor. He was breaking it up so he knew from HP who was monitoring his work.
Training he got when arrived was adequate. ~f
' 1 He had to demand a bioassy when he was fired. Joe Davis he couldn't~have gotten any dose. He doesn't believe them based on what he saw. He asked for
.i NRC Form 4. Joe said 30 days. said he wanted it today, so Joe said he could have it Friday when he ca e ack to pick up his c S(4 1 . Joe told him to _
not come f---ing back when he walked out. I did inform hat Davis was i:A4 obligated to provide him at least an estimate upon termi ion, and note it as such, and follow up within 30 days with the actual dose.
He can't believe what low down cheats these people are.
t He got contaminated on shoes one day, had to leave them behind. They were double bagged but bags got cut and he didn't know it. They bought him new pair after 3 weeks of hassle.
No-one hurt yet.
'Mworked to clean up room with bird droppings on second floor. re
" respirators and wetted it down But there was insulation on floor, li/ b thought was asbestos, and Joe Davis also said it was. They picked i up and threw it in a corner. They were wearing their respirators. There is also about 50 bags of asbestos sitting on the west side of the building. He looked b'ecause he was concerned for holes but didn't see any. Apparently came from
, overhead pipes, etc.
Suggested we check bloassys o and M something, couldn't bb remember rking in work gG and hot rooms. his last name, who,do sn't care abhave been doing t safety--has said all overhead is to -
. cautious. Also check an yE 4
Also, please do not use his name to the others there. He is frankly scared of i these people. j t
i l
i I
~
TELEPHONE LOG i
i f Call Taken By: W. Snell j Date: October 20. 1995 j Time: II:58am CDT Caller: Name: 7I b8 h 2
3 i
i
Title:
Contract La orer' n
gfh
SUBJECT:
CHEVRON REMEDIATION, HARVARD AVE, CLEVELAND, OH li Discussion: Mr. called to tell me he did not receive a written copy -
! of his dose record in 30 ays from Foster Wheeler. He stated day 30 was Ah today. . .
I i
i e
i 1
l 1
i
! l l
l i
l:
i I
1 j
TELEPHONE LOG i
LM SJ Call Taken By: W. Snell j
Date: October 12. 1995 Time: 10:00am CDT Caller: Name yp
Title:
ract L orer
SUBJECT:
CHEVRON REMEDIATION, HARVARD AVE, CLEVELAND, OH 4
Discussion: Mr. returned the phone call Don Funk and I had made to Nh him yesterday, on October 11, 1995. He was not home and we had left a message on his answering machine for him to call us.
I asked Mr. he following questions, and received the following Mh-responses:
- 1) Q - Do you have any evidence or witnesses to support your contention that you were " black-balled" by Foster Wheeler, which was why you did not get a job at Perry for their outage?
A -' No . It was a presumption he made when he didn't get rehired by Perry for the outage. He has no evidence that it is true.
- 2) Q - Do you have any reason to believe that you were terminated by Foster-Wheeler due to the fact that you had raised health and safety concerns?
A - No. He was terminated because they were mad at him because he told them he was going to interview for a job at Perry so was going to leave early one day. Officially he was told it was because he missed two days of work and came in late once.
- 3) Q - You stated that you requested a copy of your dose record when you were terminated by Foster Wheeler. They told you verbally you didn't get any dose.
You wanted a Form 4 anyway. They said they had 30 days to mail it to you.
Not providing you with at least a written estimate of your dose, upon request, when you were terminated, is a violation. But, for me to follow up on this, I
+ will have to use your name. In the past you requested we not use your name.
Can I use your name?
A - Yes. You can use my name.
- 4) Q - Will you call us if you do not receive a written copy of your dose record in 30 days?
A - Yes. I'll call you.
i 4
TELEPHONE LOG l l
W. SJ Call Taken By: W. Snell l
l Date: October 5. 1995 l Time: 11:00am CDT l
! Caller: Name: J Q [f
! J l
Title:
act Laborer '
Organizati n: co t acto to Foster Wheeler Phone No.
g
SUBJECT:
CHEVRON REMEDIATION, HARVARD AVE, CLEVELAND, OH l
Discussion: This individual called me to express additional concern about )
Foster-Wheeler. This was a followup to my September 20, 1995 telephone call with him.
- In September stated he had just been terminated because he told Foster-Wheeler that e w s interviewing at the Perry Plant for their outage. He reiterated that statement, and said that is what they told him verbally at the time. However, in a written letter, he was told he was terminated because he had missed several days of work. He didn't agree with that totally, although he did say he had missed a day or two. He went on to state that after he had interviewed at Perry, he didn't get the job. Perry told him by letter that l they had someo.;e else who was better qualified. He said how could someone be I
, better qualified for laborer work, especially since he had done it before. He l did indicate he didn't score very well on the Union test. His concern was I th'at Foster-Wheeler had " black-balled" him. He said they would have had to tell Perry bad things about him or he would have got the job, and he was thinking about hiring a lawyer. I told him we could not get involved in i employment discrimination unless it was related to health and safety concerns i he had raised. He did (LOI indicate that any of this was related to the fact '
he had raised health and safety concerns.
However, I asked him if he ever went back and got his pay check on Friday, September 22, 1995, as he said he was going to do. He said he did. I asked if he had received a record of his dose at that time as he had requested. He
- said no, he did not, and he stated he had asked for a copy of his NRC Form 4, and was told they had 30 days to send it to him. As of today, he still had 4 not received the dose record. I told him to please call me back if he did not receive it within the 30 days since September 20, 1995.
He also stated, after I asked, that his name not be divulged to Foster-Wheeler as the basis for our inspection.
i
LOl@ f& 4ppc
('f yc.J w2M4q & a qU S ALLEGATION ACTION PLAN ALLEGATION NO. RIII-95-A-0098 Licensees Chevron Docket / License Not Non-licensee Assigned Division: DRSS 4
Pertinent Documents: E-Mails from Jim McCormick-Barcer to Don Funk dated Auoust 23, 1995, at 11:53 AM and 12:50 PM.
I. Division Action
@ $ ,hh.
A. Prepared by: William Snell l/I!,AI i Technical Staff Date B. Reviewed by o're b oer / 'Ih' Secti Chief Date C. Approved by - rv __f! f!II~
Branch' chief Dad /
II. A11ecation Review Board Action Allegation Review Board Membership
__ Approved As Is
_ Approved with Modifications as Documented in Plan Disapproved for Following Reasons:
OI Referral Yes No Allegation Review Board Chairman Date
. - - - - _ - - - _ _ - . - -- .- - - . .~ . . - - - . . - - - - - . . -
N ALLEGATION ACTION PLAN (cont'd) i CONCERN / PERIPHERAL ISSUE ACTION PLAN i
j Each stated concern or NRC identified peripheral issue should be documented on a separate sheet. Each concern must be documented for followup. Concerns and issues should be written with enough detsil to allow thorough followup..
2 Item No. 1 Direct Concern /Perloheral Issue CONCERT: That proper health physics practices may not have been followed by electricians in a restricted area. The electricians were not wearing dosboetry or anti-contamination clothing.
I. Action Evaluations The following method of resolution is recommended.
- A. Send to Licensee. Response due in days with RIII evaluation.
j B. Followup in Routine Inspection on . (Within 60 days.)
l C. Priority RIII Inspection on . .
D. Refer to OI.
) 5. Refer to .
F. No Action - Outside NRC's Charter. Explain:
l G. No Action - Without Merit. Explains l X H. Other Action. Explains
! 4 4
Since an inspector was in the area the week the concern was !
q brought to the attention of the NRC, the inspector was requested j to visit the site. The inspector understood the concern to be l that an unauthorized individual was on the site taking pictures j and was asked to leave. The inspector was informed that the i unauthorized individual was asked to' leave by the electricians and was escorted to the control line. The unauthorized individual
- questioned what the electricians were doing en the site. The
! electricians and unauthorized individual were on the site on Sunday, August 6, 1995.
The Deputy Project Manager / Health and Safety Manager indicated that the electricians received training in the site health and safety plan, how to frisk for contamination prior to leaving the restricted area, that the contamination was from uranium, that dosimetry was not required for short stays in the restricted area, and that all equipment used in the restricted area will be 3
surveyed for release during the week.
1 AMS RIII-95-A-0098 4
T
AI. LEGATION ACTION PLAN (cont'd)
As a follow up, the project manager or deputy project managsr should be asked to provide a copy of the RWP and any surveys conductedintheareaNhretheelectricianswereworking. The electricians should be contacted to determine what type of training was provided to them and what protective clothing was worn while working in the restricted area.
II. Actions Planned: The following areas should be addressed by the inspector or licensee as a minimum. 1 A. Obiective of Review:
To determine if proper health physics procedures were followed, 1 including wearing appropriate protective clothing.
l B Review Nethods:
l
\
l Persons to be contacted: Electricians, Site Manager. l
. 1 Documents or activities to be reviewed: Training records, radiation work permits, radiological survey records. j Time period to be covered: August 1995 Locations / specific areas to visit Areas were electricians were i working in the restricted area. i Other:
l l
1 i
AMS RIII-95-A-0098 i
I
L l'
i-
! RECEIPT of ALLEGA TION i
AMS No. Rlli- $"b ~&$ f ACTION: ~ No. CONCERNS:
l REACTOR SAFETY l OTHER:
l (SPECIFY)
\ DA TE RCV.'D BY Rlll: Sl23l9 T
'//RONGDOING: Y or &
VIOLA TION Sec. 211: Y or @
A TTA CHMENT: $,l2Sf4( M 6 % ,
NOTE: An allegation Review Board (ARB) should be held within 30 calendar days of date received.
CC: OI:Rlli RC: Rill
-4RP h MOh