ML052590553
| ML052590553 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 03/17/2005 |
| From: | Pirok D Division of Nuclear Materials Safety III |
| To: | Division of Nuclear Materials Safety III |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2004-0282 RIII-04-A-0051, RIII-04-A-0052, RIII-04-A-0061, RIII-04-A-0077 | |
| Download: ML052590553 (4) | |
Text
I
-l l-,\\
-\\
4 F) cod hat tvefJMIVAkCEdAJ1N MAb AL 040077.div evaluation of lic rsp.wpd
)
From:
Donna Pirok To:
Allegations Allegations Region Ill; Kenneth O'Brien i zU; 5.T-5 4 X
P7Z a
Date: Thu, Mar 17,2005 2:25 PM
)?JV tt kofi/
"'t:
Subject:
Review of Allegation No. RIII-04-A-0051;0052;0061;0077 PT. Beac4 The subject document has been completed. A wordperfect copy of die document has been attached.
Y I1 March 17, 2005 MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Region Ill Office Aliegation Coordinator Patrick Louden, Chief, Branch 5, Division of Reactor Projects
/RAI REVIEW OF LICENSEE INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR ALLEGATION NO. Rill-04-A-0051; RIll-04-A-0052; RIIl-04-A-0061; RIll-04-A-0077 (POINT BEACH)
In response to the memo from James Heller dated October 5, 2004, we have completed our review of the subject licensee investigation report to evaluate: 1) if the allegation concerns were substantiated, 2) identify any unresolved technical issues, 3) determine if there were any violations of NRC requirements; and 4) determine if the licensee's response was adequate and independently performed.
Attached with this memo is a brief summary of the original concerns, a summary of the licensee's evaluation, and our evaluation of the licensee's investigation. We concluded that the licensee's evaluation was appropriate and that no further action is necessary.
If you have any questions regarding the enclosed information, please feel free to contact me.
CONTACT:
P. Louden, DRP 630/829-9627
Attachment:
As stated DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\EICS\\AMS-LTRS\\04 AMS\\040077.point beach\\040077.div evaluation of lic rsp.wpd To receive a copy of this document. Indicate In the box: 'C' Copy without attachnmentlenclosure 'E = Copy with attachrnentlenclosure 'N'
- No copy
[OFFICE IRIII I JRII l
l I
I NAME I MKunowski:dtp I PLouden i
I Page I of 2
/40fl
V Attachment DATE 03/17/05 03/17/05 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
==
Introduction:==
As part of the Region's review of safety conscious work environment (SCWE)-related concerns in Point Beach allegations Rill-04-A-0051, Rill-04-A-0052, Rill-04-A-0061, and RIII-04-A-0077, we sent a letter to the Nuclear Management Company (NMC), dated September 14, 2004. This letter provided four examples where individuals were concerned with the SWCE at Point Beach; the letter requested that NMC evaluate them. In addition, the NRC requested that NMC discuss the actions taken or planned to address the lack of trust and other issues identified in a recent safety culture self-assessment.
The four individual concerns had previously been reviewed by NRC inspectors and were not substantiated. The results of the NRC review were submitted to EICS under separate cover for each of the four allegations and were discussed, in general, in a recent Problem Identification and Resolution team inspection report, 05000266/2004008; 05000301/2004008, dated November 26, 2004.
Licensee Evaluation: The results of the licensee's evaluation were documented in a letter to the NRC dated October 4, 2004. During its evaluation, the licensee did not substantiate the four concerns. Regarding actions to address trust and other issues identified in a self-assessment, the licensee committed to three actions:
- 1) brief operations shift managers on NMC's corporate policy on nuclear safety
- culture,
- 2) develop an action plan to enhance operational decision-making, increase management engagement with the workforce, and improve communications; and
- 3) review and enhance as necessary corporate human resources practices associated with mitigating the adverse impact on plant staff of high visibility employment actions.
The licensee committed to complete these actions by November 15, 2004.
NRC Evaluation: Region Ill, DRP, Branch 5 personnel reviewed the October 4, 2004, letter and concluded that the licensee's evaluation was appropriate. We identified no unresolved technical issues and no violations of NRC requirements. The evaluation was conducted by licensee Employee Concerns Program personnel, who typically review allegations referred to the licensee by the NRC, and was independently performed. NRC followup on the licensee's implementation of its actions to address trust and other issues identified in a self-assessment has not identified any significant deficiencies. No further action is necessary.
/Page2of 2
A 0
$****4 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-REGION III 2443 WARRENVILLE ROAD, SUITE 210 LISLE, ILLINOIS 60532-4352 March 17, 2005 MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Region III Office Allegatn Coordinator
- Patrii5, Division of Reactor Projects REVIEW OF LICENSEE INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR ALLEGATION NO. RIII-04-A-0051; RIll-04-A-0052; RIII-04-A-006l<RlII-04-A-0077 (POINT BEACH)
In response to the memo from James Heller dated October 5, 2004, we have completed our review of the subject licensee investigation report to evaluate: 1) if the allegation concerns were substantiated, 2) identify any unresolved technical issues, 3) determine if there were any violations of NRC requirements; and 4) determine if the licensee's response was adequate and independently performed.
Attached with this memo is a brief summary of the original concerns, a summary of the licensee's evaluation, and our evaluation of the licensee's investigation. We concluded that the licensee's evaluation was appropriate and that no further action is necessary.
If you have any questions regarding the enclosed information, please feel free to contact me.
CONTACT:
P. Louden, DRP 630/829-9627
Attachment:
As stated
Attachment
==
Introduction:==
As part of the Region's review of safety conscious work environment (SCWE)-related concerns in Point Beach allegations RIII-04-A-0051, RIII-04-A-0052, RII1-04-A-0061, and RlII-04-A-0077, we sent a letter to the Nuclear Management Company (NMC), dated September 14, 2004. This letter provided four examples where individuals were concerned with the SWCE at Point Beach; the letter requested that NMC evaluate them. In addition, the NRC requested that NMC discuss the actions taken or planned to address the lack of trust and other issues identified in a recent safety culture self-assessment.
The four individual concerns had previously been reviewed by NRC inspectors and were not substantiated. The results of the NRC review were submitted to EICS under separate cover for each of the four allegations and were discussed, in general, in a recent Problem Identification and Resolution team inspection report, 05000266/2004008; 05000301/2004008, dated.
November 26, 2004.
Licensee Evaluation: The results of the licensee's evaluation were documented in a letter to the NRC dated October 4, 2004. During its evaluation, the licensee did not substantiate the four concerns. Regarding actions to address trust and other issues identified in a self-assessment, the licensee committed to three actions:
- 1) brief operations shift managers on NMC's corporate policy on nuclear safety
- culture,
- 2) develop an action plan to enhance operational decision-making, increase management engagement with the workforce, and improve communications; and
- 3) review and enhance as necessary corporate human resources practices associated with mitigating the adverse impact on plant staff of high visibility employment actions.
The licensee committed to complete these actions by November 15, 2004.
NRC Evaluation: Region 111, DRP, Branch 5 personnel reviewed the October 4, 2004, letter and concluded that the licensee's evaluation was appropriate. We identifiedrno unresolved technical issues and no violations of NRC requiremernts. The evaluation was conducted by licensee Employee Concems Program personnel, who typically review allegations referred to the licensee by the NRC, and was independently performed. NRC followup on the licensee's implementation of its actions to address trust and other issues identified in a self-assessment has not identified any significant deficiencies. No further action is necessary.