ML062680103
| ML062680103 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Kewaunee  |
| Issue date: | 10/07/2003 |
| From: | Luehman J NRC/OE |
| To: | |
| References | |
| EA-03-105, EA-03-106, FOIA/PA-2006-0113, OI 3-2002-004 | |
| Download: ML062680103 (1) | |
Text
000 NOT FOR PUBUC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR, OE 000 SDP/EA REQUEST & STRATEGY FORM Case Data Disputed:[]
Related Cases:
O3-06.
SDPIE NoI:
P3~nO Number: *l.
Docket No.:i500305..
Request Date-110WD Region: 13 Case Type.
R Small Entity. E] No Qvest Licensee:
Fauyear ManyoeneftC i-w Fa I City m
License No.:
DPRM3 Lae Day of hnp..
m Insp. Rp No.:
.O "4
ES:"
D Facts AsecuId meupeiis ofa b
IItIhvh oIrp FDooncem Dtussion (id rewied): Deliberate violation of 10 CFR 2620 fr failure to require testing for a reported FFD concm for a foreman SDP r'*No
[lY Assessment
[j NOV [
Ye
]
[
N]o Wrongdoing [-No [n]Yes 01Re. Date $2r0 01 Rpt No ~2Q.: OO4* bel"-
01 Rpt Date: W191O29 Da) Referral?
LjNo [EYes Ref. Date MUM Action Date 11121M32 rloD-e
[Acpt Additional 01Status I-C~
nvestigafti 004 needsioti e ntified Wl~
E dispute memo needed F]Akmiional coorinktion needed
[]AmbVt~gDOJ ElNeeds wrdination w4th DOJ Escalated Action Consequence:
lAdcudlEl Potenia E]Reg.h Imat 0Wiruhiness Prior Esc. Action?
[j]No El 'es EA.
Date:____________
ID Credit?
[R]No
[]Yes E]TmD S&U CA Credit E]No EO es ElTBD Sp~~
CP?
[]NoCw~j]ase Elooiteease Elcuier Discretion or Order?
lX'No FlYesI Epla'T Future Action Coriedrence?
OlNO MY.$ [ open E0 Closed Additional M/~OM Action?~
l:Nv-t ConMnR,-n RAon P&dcae Revtew by M DEDR Revte Cvnfki
~
-n NOV O d w A c tin ?I Padrt Region B. Beison, C. Pederson, T. Madeda, B. Clayton OE J. Db=W-hr, N. Ilton OGC/O M Fahey, G. Longo Program Oflice 0(1w Rema r
rotsLessons Learned: The panel determined that due to the nuiner of disagreements between the kdvidual statements, tka a deliberate violato could not be considered. Hcbever, there was testimony that two individuals had smelled a tinge of alcohol on the foreman's breath and enough klormation to determine that the i*criduals had hought it to their supervisors atenton In some manner (ifoOly to bxing bward fie opinion that the indidual had a drinldng problem. The two togetr provided a basis r the supenvsor*to requir a fitness lfr duty test, but ftis test was nev per xmed. The supervisor was aware of tie reqtirements, so tie faure was considered as careless disregard.
ca J. Creed, J. Belanger, T. Vegel, J. Cameron, R. Paul, C. Well, F. LMngston, A. Sapountis, C. Nolan Approved, Dir. OE:
/RA! J. Luehman Date:
10/7/03