ML062680275: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
| issue date = 08/22/2005
| issue date = 08/22/2005
| title = 2nd ARB Action Plan, RIII-05-A-0062 (Point Beach)
| title = 2nd ARB Action Plan, RIII-05-A-0062 (Point Beach)
| author name = Pederson C D
| author name = Pederson C
| author affiliation = NRC/RGN-III
| author affiliation = NRC/RGN-III
| addressee name =  
| addressee name =  
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:A';2nd arb ACTION PLAN SENSITIVE ALLEGATION MATERIAL Ril-05-A-0062 (Point Beach) Licensee:
{{#Wiki_filter:A';
Nuclear Management Company, LLC Docket/License No: Docket Nos. 50-266; 50-301 License Nos. DPR-24; DPR-27 Assigned Division/Branch:
2nd arb ACTION PLAN           SENSITIVE ALLEGATION MATERIAL Ril-05-A-0062 (Point Beach)
DRP/Branch 5 Allegation Review Board Membership:
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:                   Pederson / Hayden/ Berson/ Heller/ Louden/
Pederson / Hayden/ Berson/ Heller/ Louden/ Kunowski / Pelke Purpose: ' "I ARB to discuss the Cl concerns and approve the evaluation plan GENERIC CONCERNS:
Kunowski / Pelke
If Yes Explain: DISCUSSION OF SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE:
 
No immediate threat to public health safety OIACCEPTANCE:
==Purpose:==
YES Basis for 01 Priority: NO (Priority:
' "I ARB to discuss the Cl concerns and approve the evaluation plan GENERIC CONCERNS: If Yes Explain:
HIGH NORMAL LOW )01 has Accepted Concem(s)
DISCUSSION OF SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE: No immediate threat to public health safety OIACCEPTANCE:               YES             NO (Priority: HIGH     NORMAL     LOW )
No(s). Signature ARB MINUTES PROVIDED TO: Grant/Paul/Louden lni A E6eeEN LETTER: PRINT IN FINA REVISE REFERRAL LETTER: A. Licensee YES 10 CFR 2.390 B. State of YES NO X C. DOE YES NOX N/A NOX date received June 20, 2005 due date of 13 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:
Basis for 01 Priority:
01 has Accepted Concem(s) No(s).                           Signature ARB MINUTES PROVIDED TO: Grant/Paul/Louden                                 lni A       E6eeEN               LETTER:         PRINT INFINA                  REVISE               N/A REFERRAL LETTER:                     A. Licensee               YES       10 CFR 2.390         NOX B. State of               YES                   NO X C. DOE                   YES                   NOX date received               June 20, 2005               due date of 13 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 CI did not object to having identity released.
The CI did not object to having the concern(s) forwarded to the licensee.
The CI did not object to having the concern(s) forwarded to the licensee.
Allegation Review Chairman Date SENSITIVE ALLEGATION MATERIAL Page 1 of 5 .1ýirination in this record was deleted in accordance with the Freed of Inormation Act, exemptions 26.4 T. .- -..... f0I-. -0(0--lo)N' I (2nd 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.
Allegation Review               Chairman             Date SENSITIVE ALLEGATION MATERIAL Page 1 of 5                                 lo)    N'
The Cl is employed as a carpenter tor Day and Zimmerman, MPS, Inc. Background 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 but claims use of a lanyard was not 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 of his/her access denial on April 20, 2005, and in a letter dated July 7, 2005, .e lýce e reversed the access denial. The CI is still concerned about the interim loss of an estimated 7wages. DOL declined the Ci's case but did not explain why. The CI did not object to having "" his/her identity released, and did not object to referring the issue(s) to the licensee.
      .1ýirination in this record was deleted in accordance with the Freed of Inormation Act, exemptions 26.4 T.             -.....
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.
f0I-.             -0(0--
I. Action Evaluation:
 
The following method of resolution is recommended (circle):
I                                         (
A. Send to Licensee Requesting Response in 30 Days. (Describe the general areas we expect the licensee to address.)
2nd arb ACTION PLAN       SENSITIVE ALLEGATION MATERIAL RIII-05-A-0062 (Point Beach)
Priority Rill Follow up and Closure Memo to OAC A .Follow up During Routine Inspection Within _30 Days conduct a followup arb D. Discrimination
Concern No. 1:
: 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.
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.
Priority for the 01 investigation:
Background 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 but claims use of a lanyard was not 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.
HIGH/NORMAL/LOW Recommended Basis: F. Outside NRC's Jurisdiction.
The CI requested review of his/her access denial on April 20, 2005, and in a letter dated July 7, 2005,
Describe Basis Below. G. Too General for Follow-up.
  .e lýce e reversed the access denial. The CI is still concerned about the interim loss of an estimated     7 wages. DOL declined the Ci's case but did not explain why. The CI did not object to having
Describe Basis Below. H. Other. Responsible for Action- EICS SENSITIVE ALLEGATION MATERIAL Page 2 of 5 SENSITIVE ALLEGATION INFORMATION AMS NO. RIII-2005-A-0062 II. Special Considerations/instructions:
""his/her identity released, and did not object to referring the issue(s) to the licensee.
At the August 22, 2005 ARB: 1. On August 22, 2005 Paul Pelke talked to the DOL Investigator and was Informed that the DOL has not declined or accepted the Cl claim of discrimination.
Regulatory Basis:
The Investigator stated that the Cl has not filed a written complaint; th Cl has only communicated to the DOL verbally. -f_, 2. --Rodi, ,r,4.npectr to obtain the conditiofiand the licensee investigatio  
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.
.Louden-t review the Information and re-ARB. L The ARB on July 18, 2005, recommended that the Concerned Individual (CI) be called to determine whether the concern of discrimination is within the NRC's jurisdiction.
I.     Action Evaluation: The following method of resolution is recommended (circle):
EICS subsequently discussed this issue with the CI on two occasions, July 22, and August 18, 2005. The Cl reported the dropped wrench in accordance with company policy, to report anything that goes wrong. Dropping anything in the plant always has a nuclear safety potential because the individual dropping it is not the person to evaluate the consequences.
A.     Send to Licensee Requesting Response in 30 Days. (Describe the general areas we expect the licensee to address.)
A condition report is written and an assessment is made as to whether anything safety-related was damaged, and whether retrieval is possible, etc. The licensee admits in their CR that lanyards were in short supply, and a conscious decision was made not to construct a lanyard. However, constructing your own lanyard is inappropriate because you would not be able to assure it could handle the tool loads, etc. The area below the individual was roped off for personnel Safety; therefore, the immediate personnel safety aspects of dropping the wrench were minimized.
A    D.
Questions for Concerned Individuals (QC) 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.
Priority Rill Follow up and Closure Memo to OAC Follow up During Routine Inspection Within _30 Discrimination Days conduct a followup arb
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.
: 1.     Offer ADR.
The NRC's regulations protect people from discrimination for raising nuclear safety issues. What issues did the Cl raise? The concerned individual (Cl) believes stated that s/he was discriminated against for reporting that s/he inadvertently dropped a wrench from a scaffold.
: 2.     Reason why ADR should not be offered
The Cl is employed as a carpenter tor Day and Zimmerman, MPS, Inc. On March 22, 2005, while a scaffold was being erected, the CI inadvertently dropped a wrench. The Cl reported the dropped wrench to their 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 C1 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 in a letter dated July 7, 2005, the licensee reversed the access denial. The CI is still concerned about the interim loss of G:\EICS\AMS-LTRS\05 AMS\050062.PointBeach\050062.2nd ARB.wpd Page 3 of 5 (SENSITIVE ALLEGATION INFORMATION AMS NO. RIII-2005-A-0062 71, an estimate 1 wages. DOL declined the Ci's case but did not explain why. The Cl did not object to ving is/her identity released, and did not object to referring the issue(s) to the licensee.
: 3.     Priority for the 01 investigation if ADR is not used: HIGH/NORMAL/LOW Recommended Basis:
When? Access denied March 22, 2005. Cl 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. The Cl also, as stated above, contacted an NRC Allegations Coordinator with the concern.
E.     All other 01 referrals. Priority for the 01 investigation: HIGH/NORMAL/LOW Recommended Basis:
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. What action was taken against the Cl? (e.g., fired, laid off, demoted, transferred)
F.     Outside NRC's Jurisdiction. Describe Basis Below.
Denied access to the site and an estimated loss n wages. The Cl is still employed by Day and Zimmerman.
G.     Too General for Follow-up. Describe Basis Below.
When was the action taken? March 22, 2005. Why does the Cl believe the action taken was a result of your raising these safety issues? The Cl reported the dropped wrench in accordance with company policy, to report anything that goes wrong. G:\EICS\AMS-LTRS\05 AMS\050062.PointBeach%050062.2nd ARB.wpd Page 4 of 5 SENSITIVE ALLEGATION INFORMATION MEMORANDUM TO: Allegation File RIII-2005-A-0062 AMS NO. RIII-2005-A-0062 FROM: Paul Pelke, Office Allegation Coordinator, Region III RECEIPT OF ALLEGATION (POINT BEACH)
H.     Other.
Responsible for Action- EICS SENSITIVE ALLEGATION MATERIAL Page 2 of 5
 
SENSITIVE ALLEGATION INFORMATION                                     AMS NO. RIII-2005-A-0062 II.     Special Considerations/instructions:
At the August 22, 2005 ARB:
: 1.     On August 22, 2005 Paul Pelke talked to the DOL Investigator and was Informed that the DOL has not declined or accepted the Cl claim of discrimination. The Investigator stated that the Cl has not filed a written complaint; th Cl has only communicated to the DOL verbally.                                     -f_,
: 2.     --Rodi, ,r,4.npectr     to obtain the conditiofiand the licensee investigatio . Louden-t review the Information and re-ARB.         L The ARB on July 18, 2005, recommended that the Concerned Individual (CI) be called to determine whether the concern of discrimination is within the NRC's jurisdiction. EICS subsequently discussed this issue with the CI on two occasions, July 22, and August 18, 2005.
The Cl reported the dropped wrench in accordance with company policy, to report anything that goes wrong. Dropping anything in the plant always has a nuclear safety potential because the individual dropping it is not the person to evaluate the consequences. A condition report is written and an assessment is made as to whether anything safety-related was damaged, and whether retrieval is possible, etc. The licensee admits in their CR that lanyards were in short supply, and a conscious decision was made not to construct a lanyard. However, constructing your own lanyard is inappropriate because you would not be able to assure it could handle the tool loads, etc. The area below the individual was roped off for personnel Safety; therefore, the immediate personnel safety aspects of dropping the wrench were minimized.
Questions for Concerned Individuals (QC) 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 Cl raise?
The concerned individual (Cl) 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 CI inadvertently dropped a wrench.
The Cl reported the dropped wrench to their 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 C1 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 in a letter dated July 7, 2005, the licensee reversed the access denial. The CI is still concerned about the interim loss of G:\EICS\AMS-LTRS\05 AMS\050062.PointBeach\050062.2nd ARB.wpd Page 3 of 5
 
(
SENSITIVE ALLEGATION INFORMATION                                   AMS NO. RIII-2005-A-0062 71, an estimate             1wages. DOL declined the Ci's case but did not explain why. The Cl did not object to ving is/her identity released, and did not object to referring the issue(s) to the licensee.
When?
Access denied March 22, 2005. Cl 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. The Cl 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.
What action was taken against the Cl? (e.g., fired, laid off, demoted, transferred)
Denied access to the site and an estimated loss               n wages. The Cl is still employed by Day and Zimmerman.
When was the action taken?
March 22, 2005.
Why does the Cl believe the action taken was a result of your raising these safety issues?
The Cl reported the dropped wrench in accordance with company policy, to report anything that goes wrong.
G:\EICS\AMS-LTRS\05 AMS\050062.PointBeach%050062.2nd ARB.wpd Page 4 of 5
 
SENSITIVE ALLEGATION INFORMATION                                   AMS NO. RIII-2005-A-0062 MEMORANDUM TO: Allegation File RIII-2005-A-0062 FROM:           Paul Pelke, Office Allegation Coordinator, Region III


==SUBJECT:==
==SUBJECT:==
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.
RECEIPT OF ALLEGATION (POINT BEACH)
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.
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 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 worked as a carpenter for Day and Zimmerman, MPS, inc.
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.
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 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 that 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, "Lanyards were not readily available and are in short supply." The CI 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.I-Ic-The Cl did not object to having his/her identity released, and did not object to referring issues to the licensee.
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 Cl 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 that 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, "Lanyards were not readily available and are in short supply." The CI 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.
I                                                                                                         -Ic-The Cl did not object to having his/her identity released, and did not object to referring issues to the licensee.


==Attachment:==
==Attachment:==
CAP 062966 G:\EICS\AMS-LTRS\05 AMS\050062.PointBeach\050062.2nd ARB.wpd Page 5 of 5


CAP 062966 G:\EICS\AMS-LTRS\05 AMS\050062.PointBeach\050062.2nd ARB.wpd Page 5 of 5 2n arb ACTION PLAN SENSITIVE ALLEGATION MATERIAL RIII-05-A-0062 (Point Beach) FOLLOWUP ALLEGATION REVIEW BOARD: Rill-2005-A-0062 August 18, 2005 MEMORANDUM TO: Patrick L. Louden, Chief, Branch 5, Division of Reactor Projects FROM: Paul Pelke, Office Allegation Coordinator, Rill  
2n arb ACTION PLAN       SENSITIVE ALLEGATION MATERIAL RIII-05-A-0062 (Point Beach)
FOLLOWUP ALLEGATION REVIEW BOARD: Rill-2005-A-0062 August 18, 2005 MEMORANDUM TO: Patrick L. Louden, Chief, Branch 5, Division of Reactor Projects FROM:                   Paul Pelke, Office Allegation Coordinator, Rill


==SUBJECT:==
==SUBJECT:==
FOLLOWUP ALLEGATION REVIEW BOARD: RIII-05-A-0062 (Point Beach) On June 20, 2005, EICS received the attached allegation regarding potential discrimination.
FOLLOWUP ALLEGATION REVIEW BOARD: RIII-05-A-0062 (Point Beach)
The initial Allegation Review Board (ARB) was held on July 18, 2005. The ARB recommended that the Concerned Individual (CI) be called to determine whether the concern of discrimination is within the NRC's jurisdiction.
On June 20, 2005, EICS received the attached allegation regarding potential discrimination. The initial Allegation Review Board (ARB) was held on July 18, 2005. The ARB recommended that the Concerned Individual (CI) be called to determine whether the concern of discrimination is within the NRC's jurisdiction. EICS subsequently discussed this issue with the CI on two occasions, July 22, and August 18, 2005. EICS proposes offering the Cl Alternate Dispute Resolution.
EICS subsequently discussed this issue with the CI on two occasions, July 22, and August 18, 2005. EICS proposes offering the Cl Alternate Dispute Resolution.
I have scheduled an ARB on Monday, August 22, 2005. Please review the attached information to prepare for the ARB.
I have scheduled an ARB on Monday, August 22, 2005. Please review the attached information to prepare for the ARB.


==Attachment:==
==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 Mike Kunowski RIIIDRPADMIN SENSITIVE ALLEGATION MATERIAL


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 Mike Kunowski RIIIDRPADMIN SENSITIVE ALLEGATION MATERIAL (From: Allegations Allegations Region III To: Allegations Region Ill, Allegations; Kunowski, Michael; Louden, Patrick Date: Fri, Jul 22, 2005 11:51 AM  
From:           Allegations Allegations Region III To:             Allegations Region Ill, Allegations; Kunowski, Michael; Louden, Patrick Date:             Fri, Jul 22, 2005 11:51 AM


==Subject:==
==Subject:==
RIII-2005-A-00.62 (Point Beach) At the July 18, 2005 ARB it Was agreed that EICS (pelke) and technical staff (Kunowski) will call the Cl to obtain the information due July 21, 2005. Mike and I tried to call the Cl and the Cl was not home. The CI subsequently called me on 7/22/05. We were to ascertain from the Cl whether the Cl felt access was denied because they raised a safety issue (NRC jurisdiction), or whether access was denied for an insignificant mistake (DOL issue). The CJ stated that DOL did not accept the Cl's concern.
RIII-2005-A-00.62 (Point Beach)
The CI stated that it is the policy to report any issue they identify at the plant. The access denial letter from the licensee stated that access was denied because the Cl failed to secure a tool with a lanyard causing a potential significant safety event.CC: Berson, Bruce; Heller, James}}
At the July 18, 2005 ARB it Was agreed that EICS (pelke) and technical staff (Kunowski) will call the Cl to obtain the information due July 21, 2005. Mike and I tried to call the Cl and the Cl was not home. The CI subsequently called me on 7/22/05. We were to ascertain from the Cl whether the Cl felt access was denied because they raised a safety issue (NRC jurisdiction), or whether access was denied for an insignificant mistake (DOL issue).
The CJ stated that DOL did not accept the Cl's concern.
The CI stated that it is the policy to report any issue they identify at the plant.
The access denial letter from the licensee stated that access was denied because the Cl failed to secure a tool with a lanyard causing a potential significant safety event.
CC:             Berson, Bruce; Heller, James}}

Latest revision as of 00:27, 23 March 2020

2nd ARB Action Plan, RIII-05-A-0062 (Point Beach)
ML062680275
Person / Time
Site: Point Beach  NextEra Energy icon.png
Issue date: 08/22/2005
From: Pederson C
NRC/RGN-III
To:
References
FOIA/PA-2006-0113, RIII-05-A-0062
Download: ML062680275 (7)
v • d • e


Text

A';

2nd arb ACTION PLAN SENSITIVE ALLEGATION MATERIAL Ril-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: Pederson / Hayden/ Berson/ Heller/ Louden/

Kunowski / Pelke

Purpose:

' "I ARB to discuss the Cl concerns and approve the evaluation plan GENERIC CONCERNS: If Yes Explain:

DISCUSSION OF SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE: No immediate threat to public health safety OIACCEPTANCE: YES NO (Priority: HIGH NORMAL LOW )

Basis for 01 Priority:

01 has Accepted Concem(s) No(s). Signature ARB MINUTES PROVIDED TO: Grant/Paul/Louden lni A E6eeEN LETTER: PRINT INFINA REVISE N/A REFERRAL LETTER: A. Licensee YES 10 CFR 2.390 NOX B. State of YES NO X C. DOE YES NOX date received June 20, 2005 due date of 13 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 CI did not object to having the concern(s) forwarded to the licensee.

Allegation Review Chairman Date SENSITIVE ALLEGATION MATERIAL Page 1 of 5 lo) N'

.1ýirination in this record was deleted in accordance with the Freed of Inormation Act, exemptions 26.4 T. -.....

f0I-. -0(0--

I (

2nd 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.

Background 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 but claims use of a lanyard was not 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 of his/her access denial on April 20, 2005, and in a letter dated July 7, 2005,

.e lýce e reversed the access denial. The CI is still concerned about the interim loss of an estimated 7 wages. DOL declined the Ci's case but did not explain why. The CI 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.

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.)

A D.

Priority Rill Follow up and Closure Memo to OAC Follow up During Routine Inspection Within _30 Discrimination Days conduct a followup arb

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- EICS SENSITIVE ALLEGATION MATERIAL Page 2 of 5

SENSITIVE ALLEGATION INFORMATION AMS NO. RIII-2005-A-0062 II. Special Considerations/instructions:

At the August 22, 2005 ARB:

1. On August 22, 2005 Paul Pelke talked to the DOL Investigator and was Informed that the DOL has not declined or accepted the Cl claim of discrimination. The Investigator stated that the Cl has not filed a written complaint; th Cl has only communicated to the DOL verbally. -f_,
2. --Rodi, ,r,4.npectr to obtain the conditiofiand the licensee investigatio . Louden-t review the Information and re-ARB. L The ARB on July 18, 2005, recommended that the Concerned Individual (CI) be called to determine whether the concern of discrimination is within the NRC's jurisdiction. EICS subsequently discussed this issue with the CI on two occasions, July 22, and August 18, 2005.

The Cl reported the dropped wrench in accordance with company policy, to report anything that goes wrong. Dropping anything in the plant always has a nuclear safety potential because the individual dropping it is not the person to evaluate the consequences. A condition report is written and an assessment is made as to whether anything safety-related was damaged, and whether retrieval is possible, etc. The licensee admits in their CR that lanyards were in short supply, and a conscious decision was made not to construct a lanyard. However, constructing your own lanyard is inappropriate because you would not be able to assure it could handle the tool loads, etc. The area below the individual was roped off for personnel Safety; therefore, the immediate personnel safety aspects of dropping the wrench were minimized.

Questions for Concerned Individuals (QC) 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 Cl raise?

The concerned individual (Cl) 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 CI inadvertently dropped a wrench.

The Cl reported the dropped wrench to their 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 C1 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 in a letter dated July 7, 2005, the licensee reversed the access denial. The CI is still concerned about the interim loss of G:\EICS\AMS-LTRS\05 AMS\050062.PointBeach\050062.2nd ARB.wpd Page 3 of 5

(

SENSITIVE ALLEGATION INFORMATION AMS NO. RIII-2005-A-0062 71, an estimate 1wages. DOL declined the Ci's case but did not explain why. The Cl did not object to ving is/her identity released, and did not object to referring the issue(s) to the licensee.

When?

Access denied March 22, 2005. Cl 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. The Cl 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.

What action was taken against the Cl? (e.g., fired, laid off, demoted, transferred)

Denied access to the site and an estimated loss n wages. The Cl is still employed by Day and Zimmerman.

When was the action taken?

March 22, 2005.

Why does the Cl believe the action taken was a result of your raising these safety issues?

The Cl reported the dropped wrench in accordance with company policy, to report anything that goes wrong.

G:\EICS\AMS-LTRS\05 AMS\050062.PointBeach%050062.2nd ARB.wpd Page 4 of 5

SENSITIVE ALLEGATION INFORMATION AMS NO. RIII-2005-A-0062 MEMORANDUM TO: Allegation File RIII-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 Cl 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 that 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, "Lanyards were not readily available and are in short supply." The CI 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.

I -Ic-The Cl did not object to having his/her identity released, and did not object to referring issues to the licensee.

Attachment:

CAP 062966 G:\EICS\AMS-LTRS\05 AMS\050062.PointBeach\050062.2nd ARB.wpd Page 5 of 5

2n arb ACTION PLAN SENSITIVE ALLEGATION MATERIAL RIII-05-A-0062 (Point Beach)

FOLLOWUP ALLEGATION REVIEW BOARD: Rill-2005-A-0062 August 18, 2005 MEMORANDUM TO: Patrick L. Louden, Chief, Branch 5, Division of Reactor Projects FROM: Paul Pelke, Office Allegation Coordinator, Rill

SUBJECT:

FOLLOWUP ALLEGATION REVIEW BOARD: RIII-05-A-0062 (Point Beach)

On June 20, 2005, EICS received the attached allegation regarding potential discrimination. The initial Allegation Review Board (ARB) was held on July 18, 2005. The ARB recommended that the Concerned Individual (CI) be called to determine whether the concern of discrimination is within the NRC's jurisdiction. EICS subsequently discussed this issue with the CI on two occasions, July 22, and August 18, 2005. EICS proposes offering the Cl Alternate Dispute Resolution.

I have scheduled an ARB on Monday, August 22, 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 Mike Kunowski RIIIDRPADMIN SENSITIVE ALLEGATION MATERIAL

(

From: Allegations Allegations Region III To: Allegations Region Ill, Allegations; Kunowski, Michael; Louden, Patrick Date: Fri, Jul 22, 2005 11:51 AM

Subject:

RIII-2005-A-00.62 (Point Beach)

At the July 18, 2005 ARB it Was agreed that EICS (pelke) and technical staff (Kunowski) will call the Cl to obtain the information due July 21, 2005. Mike and I tried to call the Cl and the Cl was not home. The CI subsequently called me on 7/22/05. We were to ascertain from the Cl whether the Cl felt access was denied because they raised a safety issue (NRC jurisdiction), or whether access was denied for an insignificant mistake (DOL issue).

The CJ stated that DOL did not accept the Cl's concern.

The CI stated that it is the policy to report any issue they identify at the plant.

The access denial letter from the licensee stated that access was denied because the Cl failed to secure a tool with a lanyard causing a potential significant safety event.

CC: Berson, Bruce; Heller, James

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML062680275&oldid=2662809"