ML052590555
| ML052590555 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 05/14/2004 |
| From: | Morris R Division of Nuclear Materials Safety III |
| To: | Beverly Clayton Division of Nuclear Materials Safety III |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2004-0282 | |
| Download: ML052590555 (3) | |
Text
I oV
=
From:
Brent Clayton To:
JAmH; Ken; OAC3 Date: 5/14/04 11:05AM
Subject:
Fwd: Polnt Beach Concern New allegation sent by Mike Morris.
From:
R. Michael Morris To:
Clayton, Brent Date: 5/14/04 11:03AM
Subject:
... Point Beach Concern.
Attached li the Infromation I received today for a memeber of the Point Beach staff.
R. Michael Morris M M*
a***
A**.********AA Received By.
R. Michael Morris
'Receipt Date:. May14, 2004 Receipt Method (meeiUng, phone call, letter).
Meeting Facility Name Point Beach Nuclear Plant Location Two Rivers, Wi.
Docket(s) 266/301
- 1. What Is the concem?
The Cl reported that the hours that the supervisors and maintenance crew are working are beyond the 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> allowed. The Cl Indicated that the supervisors and ciews In inechanical and electrical maintenance have been charging excessive hours to tumover'to avoid having to get a waiver and write a CAP documenting the actual hours worked. The Cl is concerned that the workforce Is becoming Ured enough that they are making mistakes. The C! also stated that s/he came to the NRC only because his concern for safe work practices was greater than his concern about being fired for talking to the NRC. The Cl stated that the hours on the supervisor time sheets and the time they arrive and leave through the security gates will not match. The Cl was afraid to go to management and the ECP coordinar because slhe believes that people, who raise concems 'are marked for termination. slhe stated thatl J was an example In that he was fired because of the hot leg-vent Incident but had been marked for ra sing concerns about the dry storage casts while at Palisades earlier.
- 2. When did the concein occur?
The abuse of hours has been going on since September 2003. The chilling environment has been going on since November of 2003.
3.is this an ongoing conbem?
icX
, This is currently a safety concern because of the continuation of the outage.
- 4. Who was Involved?
The CI stated his concern for the mechanical and electrical maintenance groups, but It Is going on throughout the site.
- 5. Were there any witnesses?
lhave expressed the same concerns to the Cl.
- 6. What is the Potential safety Impact?
This could be a chilling environment and a safety Impact from mistakes by tired workers.
- 7. Ask the Cl what reculrementlrequlation does the Individual believe governs this concern? (If the Cl does not have this Information, please document this response. If the Cl does not provide this Information and the individual receiving the allegation can obtain the Information within the 3 day deadline for forwarding the information to EICS, the Information should be provided by the NRC staff member)
The response to GL 82-12
- 8. Ask the Cl what records should the NRC review?
The Cl Indicated that the NRC should review the time cards for the crews and the reported time for the supervisors and other exempt personnel against the times people arrived and left the site. Also review the hours charged to turnover.
- 9. Ask the Cl what other Individuals could the NRC contact for Information?
nd_ any of the electrical and mechanical maintenance personnel.
fic.
- 10. How did the Individual find out about the concern?
The Cl Is part of the group.
- 11. Was the concern brought to management's attention? If so, what actions have been taken: If not. why not?
Yes, there has been no action by management Reason Is unknown.
- 12. Was a condition report (or other corrective action document) Initiated In response to the Issue? If so, what was the resolution?
No a CAP has not been written. Cl Is now afraid that s/he will be marked for termination.
I
- 13. Is the Individual satisfied with the licensee's rbsponse? If not. whN?
No, people are making mistakes because they are tired and hours have not been reduced.
- 14. If the licensee has not responded, does the individual wish to wait on the licensee's response before NRC pursues the Issue? If not. why? No, the Cl-does 'dt believe there will be anymore response from management.
- 16. What does the Individual believe NRC should do In regard to this concern?
Verify the hours worked against the hours reported and evaluate the chilling environment.
~
- 9t.A*
t
~.~
.~A
~W a
Full Name mx i
.kxxxx Employer xxX Mailing Address (Home)
_xxxc6oooo Occupation luoXofhXre'OXXX Telephone M0o0u0ox0000x(XXX Relationship to facility xxxxx:3uc:ooX:
Preference for method Call home In the evening Was the Individual advised Yes and time of contact of limitations on Identity protection
I.
RdfreiiI'lan ha If ttdc~sde derdt telcne, that lb R wil rview an nse epnsty or on owu agreemetnsat Does the Individual object to referral?
YES Does the Individual object to releasing YES their Identity?
If the Issue Involves another agency, NO Was the Individual Informed that YES does the Individual object to referral to objecting to referral to another agency the agency and release of Identity to that might Impact review of the concern?
agency?__
Si:,
tIhsdrqguftro
- 1. Does the concern Involve NO
- 12. Was the Individual advised of the DOL YES discrimination? If so, was the Ci process and the 180 day restriction on informed that Identity will be released filing?
during an Investigation?
- 3. What adverse actions have been taken? When?
N/A 4.Why does the Individual believe the actions were taken as a result of engaging In a protected activity?
N/A 5.What does the Individual believe was the protected activity?
N/A What safety Issues did the individual raise? When? (DOCUMENT ABOVE)
NIA Did you contact the NRC about these safety Issues, Was/Is your management aware that you Informed the NRC?
N/A i~KJ qa~e Rlls~I'~c~i6ardurnban.O-