ML062220611
| ML062220611 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 04/19/2005 |
| From: | - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2006-0187 | |
| Download: ML062220611 (4) | |
Text
-
- ALLEGATION REVIEW BOARD BRIEFING SHEET AND ALLEGATION REPORT RII-2005-A-FACILITY: St. Lucie UNIT NO(S): 1&2 DATE RCVD: 4119105ARB DATE:
PURPOSE OF ARB MEETING:
TYPE OF ARB RECEIVED VIA SOURCE IX I Initial ARB IX )TELEPHONE (I]LICENSEE EMPLOYEE I INEWS MEDIA I )Follow-up ARB I )LETTER IXIFORMER LICENSEE I )FEDERAL AGENCY EMPLOYEE I }Re-ARB I )EMAIL I ]NRC STAFF I )STATE AGENCY I uIN PERSON
( )CONTRACTOR I )LICENSEE ID
£I]FAX II)FORMER CONTRACTOR I )SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP 11 £ANONYMOUS I )PRIVATE CITIZEN NUMBER OF CONCERNS: 2 CONCERN DESCRIPTION: Concern 1: Terminated due to raising safety concerns. Those concerns involve the CI identifying and reporting several issues to his supervisor (Sam Bass). 1) the spent fuel pool level appeared below that of the heat exchanger nozzle (CI believes this may be a Tech Spec violation); 2) lack of emergency egress out of the spent fuel pool building during fuel movement given that the vital door was known to be frequently inoperable and required plant security assistance to unlock; 3) audible alarm going-off in spent fuel pool building (possibly due to low water level in the pool); and, 4) lack of emergency lighting in the spent fuel pool building.
Concern 2: The above issues brought to management attention were not adequately resolved to the Cl's satisfaction.
ALLEGATION CODE:
Ix I ALLEGATION I )NON-ALLEGATION I I OSHA REGULATORY REQUIREMENT AND POTENTIAL VIOLATION:
Concern 1 - Retaliatory and discriminatory actions against employees who raise saftey concerns is a violation of regulatory requirements (e.g., 10 CFR 50.7).
Concern 2 - CI believes possible TS violation for low spent fuel pool water level and/or OSHA personnel safety requirements. Potential criteria XVI.
During last Unit 2 refuel outage, around Jan. 30, 2005.
WHERE IS IT LOCATED?
St. Lucie Unit 2 Spent Fuel Building WHO IS INVOLVED/WITNESSED?
St. Lucie Unit 2 Spent Fuel Building HOW/WHY DID IT OCCUR?
Concern 1 -Cl believes termination resulted from CR 05-3296 issue with CI leaving door in spent fuel building unsecured and the raising of above stated safety issues a few days earlier.
^ I WHAT EVIDENCE CAN BE EXAMINED?
- ioALLEGATION REVIEW BOARD BRIEFING SHEET AND ALLEGATION REPORT DISCIPLINE
- Concern 1-Other; Concern 2 -Chilling, Operations SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE AND BASIS FROM TECHNICAL REVIEW:
1I NONE Ix I LOW I I MEDIUM I IHIGH 1 UN/A
[Provide basis of determined significance]
None of the technical issues are of very high safety significance. Spent fuel pool level is monitored daily and has alarms for low level. There is another door on the elevation below that where the door was stickina. Emergency lighting could be a safety Issue if power were lost.
ALLEGATION REVIEW BOARD BRIEFING SHEET AND ALLEGATION REPORT RECOMMENDED ACTION FOR ALLEGATION (PLEASE SEE ATTACHED SHEET FOR INFORMATION ON REFERRAL)
LICENSEE REFERRAL.
Concern 2 Ix JYES I INO LICENSEE RESPONSE REQUESTED.
Ix )YES I ]NO (PROVIDE RATIONALE FOR NO REFERRAL. FOR EXAMPLE, REFERRAL COULD FINGERPRINT THE ALLEGER AND ALLEGER IS CONCERNED ABOUT BEING IDENTIFIED TO THE LICENSEE OR THE ALLEGATION CAN BE PROMPTLY INSPECTED WITH MINIMAL EXPENDITURE OF RESOURCES.)
II REFERRAL TO ANOTHER NRC OFFICE (E.G. MATERIAL CONCERNS TO REGION 1, VENDOR, FEMA ISSUES TO NRR)
I I INSPECTION FOLLOW-UP (Provide Information on inspection schedule, responsible Branch, ECD)
Ix I FOR 01 CONSIDERATION.
Concern I I I TOO GENERAL. NEED MORE DETAILS.
(Provide specific recommendation. For example, OAC or Inspector contact alleger for details.)
I11 OUTSIDE NRC'S JURISDICTION
( ) OTHER -
Specify and provide any other recommendations such as closure of concern in acknowledgment or status letter.
I I GENERIC ISSUES (Technical issues affecting other facilities, referral to NRR)
ALLEGATION REVIEW BOARD BRIEFING SHEET AND ALLEGATION REPORT Mr/Ms:Mr: Kenneth Bowers EMPLOYER:
Bartlett-Nuclear ADDRESS:
OCCUPATION:RP Technician CITY/STATE:
WORK PHONE:
HOME PHONE:
CELL PHONE NO.fi J
ALLEGER'S IOTERVIEW Was alleger informed of NRC IDENTITY PROTECTION POLICY?
1x)YES0 INO If H&I was alleged, was alleger informed of DOL rights.
()YES (INO Did the alleger express a concern directly to the licensee or state and if so, what is x )YES1 ]NO the status?Yes. Status - Unknown.
Given the circumstances of the allegation, would transmittal of the concern for licensee Ix IYES( )NO follow-up action likely Identify the alleger as the (source of the information FINGERPRINTING)
Would the alleger object to the transmittal of the concern to the licensee for follow-up.
Ix JYESI )NO Yes, would rather seb NRC Investigate rather than licensee because not confident licensee will do a good job andlor substantiate Issue.
Does the alleger have a concern about being Identified to the licensee? If so, Why?
I IYES Ix )NO Does the alleger oblect to releasing their Identity in a referral to -the licensee, if Ix WESt INO necessary to adequately follow-up on the concern? Not sure Was confidentiality requested?
1 IYES Ix iNO PREPARED BY: Steve Sanchez/ Joel Munday DATE: 4/18/05