ML060660089
| ML060660089 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem, Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 02/07/2006 |
| From: | - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2005-0194 | |
| Download: ML060660089 (10) | |
Text
utility guard force. The guard forces at each unit remail ed under separate bargaining units until the guard forces were consolidated in March 2003.
In 2002, a consultant completed an independent asses. ment for Entergy of guard force issues raised internally at Unit 2. After a number of security cc icerns were raised to the NRC and the media late in 2002, Entergy also completed an internal assessment in 2003 of guard force concerns at both units. Entergy evaluated the security oncems and initiated actions to address them.
Since the terrorist attacks, the NRC has issued several )rders and threat advisories to Entergy and all other nuclear utilities to enhance security capabi ities and improve guard force readiness. These orders required enhancements to thE security programs at all nuclear power reactors. The enhancements required by those orders addressed many of the issues that have been raised regarding the security program at Indian P(int.
The NRC conducted inspections of Entergy's implemen ation of the requirements in the orders, monitored Entergy's actions, and confirmed that the enl ancements were being effectively implemented and security has been strengthened. Add tional actions by the licensee have been taken recently in response to some substantiated Nllegations in this area. The NRC plans to continue inspections of the security program and mai itain a heightened level of oversight at Indian Point.
With regard to allegations of discrimination, of the eight raised in 2002, a prima-facie showing of potential discrimination was not articulated for five of hem and these allegations have been closed. Three, however, were open as of January 1, 2( )3 and under investigation. Of the four allegations of discrimination raised in 201, one remain id open at the time of this report. The NRC did not substantiate any allegation of discriminatio Iat either Indian Point facility in 2001 or 2002. The NRC staff will continue to monitor the open; legations of discrimination, as well as the general allegation trend at the Indian Point site.
Davis-Besse As indicated in Figure 27, there has been a significant r se in the number of allegations since the March 2002 discovery of the degraded reactor vess -1head and subsequent -shutdown. The licensee's analyses of this event identified weaknesses in its safety culture. The licensee also identified a lack of employee confidence in FIGURE 27 -AALLEGA1IONS RECEIVED BY CY their Employee Concerns Program. The licensee 30 '-__________]
25 - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
has initiated corrective action in both these areas. 20 -
The NRC issued a Confirmatory Action Letter 0 . =
documenting the licensee's commitment to not 4 - I l return the plant to service without NRC 1998 999 2000 2001 2z authorization. The agency's continuing oversight
- Raad Cled of Davis-Besse performance is being [] WINtatWd accomplished by an Oversight Panel under NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 0350, "Oversight of Operatii g Reactor Facilities in a Shutdown Condition with Performance Problems." That oversight ncludes consideration cf allegation 13
trends and the licensee's initiatives to address weaknes ;es in the safety culture and safety conscious work environment (SCWE).
Similar to other sites reviewed, a review of the discipline s that were the subject of the allegations received in 2002 showed an increasing trent in Security. Not surprisingly, considering the attention paid on the reactor vessel hea 1 issue, increasing trends were also indicated in Engineering and Health Physics. Lastly, the allegation data supported the licensee's concern with their SCWE.
There were fourteen allegations of discrimination in 20C ? concerning activities at the Davis-Besse site. As of January 1, 2003, ten of the fourteen vere closed because a prima-facie showing of potential discrimination was not articulated E id four remained open and were being investigated by the agency. Since mid-2001, the NRC I as issued one Severity Level IV Notice of Violation (NOV) for an act of discrimination that occu red in 2001.
The staff will continue to monitor the general trend of al 3gations, trends in the licensee's internal reporting programs, and the outcome of investi( ations into the allegations of discrimination.
D. C. Cook 1 & 2 Figure 28 displays a trend that is consistent with trends exhibited by other plants that have been through extended shutdowns. The increase in allegatio is from 1998 to 2000 was indicative of the effects of an increased workforce and subsequent workforce reductions.
&a F GURE 28-ALLEGATIONS RECEIE BYCY No discipline trends are evident in the allegation 2O- l __
data for 2002. However, the NRC continues to 16-j-f receive a high number of allegations of --
discrimination compared to other reactor sites; 5 six in 1999, six in 2000, five in 2001, and seven a' in 2002. Since mid-2000, the NRC has issued 1X 1999 2M00 2001 2002 two NOVs for discriminatory acts by contractors
- RaCeWd U C1W~d that occurred in 1998 and 1999. In both cases 8U bheulhatad the staff did not issue a civil penalty because of the broad and/or prompt corrective actions taken by the licensee. Of the seven allegations of discrimination received in 2002, one remained open as If January 1, 2003 pending completion of an NRC investigation and the remaining allegations e ther did not make a prima-facie showing for potential discrimination and were closed or vere investigated and insufficient evidence was found to substantiate the allegation.
At the time of this report, the NRC had three allegations of discrimination under investigation.
The staff will continue to monitor the outcome of the opt n discrimination allegations and the general allegation trend.
14
San Onofre 2 & 3 Although the number of allegations received from onsitf sources at the San Onofre site have notably increased from 2001 to 2002, over the 5-year period analyzed (1998 through 2002) FIGU IE 2 -ALLEGATIONS RECEIVED BY CY the trend is relatively flat. The number of allegations of discrimination remained fairly i__
14 -MJ steady (one to three) over this same period. 12-Of the two allegations of discrimination received by the NRC in 2002, one remained 10 e4
- A open at the time of this report pending 2 completion of the NRC's investigation, while 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 the other was investigated and closed after
- Rueoed Clowd insufficient evidence was found to El Subantlated substantiate the allegation.
A review of the subject disciplines of the allegations rec lived in 2002 revealed no trend, other than in the area of security. As with other sites around le country, security issues continue to be raised in response to heightened concerns at the pl its after the terrorism attacks of September 11, 2001.
The licensee continues to take actions to assess and in prove their work environment, including surveys of the safety culture and safety conscious work environment. The NRC will continue to monitor the licensee's initiatives to assess their impact
- n the general allegation trends as well as monitor resolution of the one open allegation of disci mination.
Salem/Hope Creek As indicated in Figure 30, there has been a significant r se in the number of allegations at the Salem/Hope Creek site in 2002. Similar to t other sites across the country, and particularly FK JRE 30 - ALLEGATIONS RECEIVED BY CY in the northeast, there is an uptrend in security-related allegations. Nearly 25% of allegations 1i2 received at the NRC concerning the 1o Salem/Hope Creek site were security-related.
No other trends were noted in the NRC data.
Discussions with the licensee indicate that security concerns were also the focus of their 2 internal program's increased activity. 19£ 1999 2000 2001 2002 Additional training is being conducted to
- Reaived
- Clued address the concerns in this area. n Stfttanfated The NRC issued one Notice of Violation in the last five, ears for a discriminatory act that occurred in 1998. Three allegations of discrimination w -re received by the NRC in 2002 and, as of January 1, 2003, all were still being investigated b ' the agency. The licensee conducted quarterly surveys of their safety conscious work environ nent in 2002 and got generally positive responses from the workforce. In the fourth quarter the ratings worsened somewhat, in response, the licensee believes, to increased safety per brmance expectations.
15
The NRC will continue to monitor the resolution of the o )en allegations of discrimination, their impact on the safety conscious work environment and ti e general trend of allegations.
North Anna 1 & 2 The majority of the allegations received by the agency i i 2002 from North Anna involve concerns associated with their reactor vessel head repl. cement. An increase in concerns associated with such a significant event is not unexpected and the licensee has also seen an Fl IURE 31 - ALLEGATIONS RECEIVED BY CY increase in concerns going to their internal 4z54I employee concerns program. The licensee also suspects that the purchase of Millstone ir mid-2001 and subsequent integration of processes 10-nL and cultures in 2002 may also have contributed to increased concerns in 2002. _-Is E411 5_ _
U .
There has only been one allegation of I I 2002 discrimination raised in the five-year period It e 19 2000 2001
- ROv4ed U Cmud reviewed, and it was received in 2002. This allegation was not raised by the person who ° was the subject of the alleged discrimination and therefore was not investigated further by the NRC k nd was closed.
The NRC will continue to monitor general allegation trer ds at the North Anna site.
Oyster Creek After declining for several years, the volume of allegatic is concerning the Oyster Creek site has increased each of the last two years. A review of tt e individual issues found no pattern or trend in the disciplines involved. However, with regard to allegations of discrimination, there has F 3URE32-ALLEGATIONSRECEIVERI BYCY been a notable increase from one each of the 10 last four years to four in 2002. The licensee underwent significant staff reductions in :2002 and concerns regarding the selection process may have contributed to the higher number of 8---
6-4_ _ _
2 -- -
_ _ L allegations of discrimination last year. 0 -.
1' e 19 200 2001 200 There has not been a substantiated allegation of
- Reced
- Cloed discrimination in the last five years at Oyster SubslaseWd Creek. However, in March 2002, the NRC found that an Exelon corporate manager deliberately discrimir 3ted against an employee of their Byron Station. The NRC exercised enforcement discre- on with regard to issuing an NOV and civil penalty, however, on October 3, 2002 the agency issued a Confirmatory Order that impacted all of the licensee's operating facilities, includi igOyster Creek. That order required, among other things, training for all levels of manageme it on the provisions of employee protection regulations. Two allegations of discriminatioi concerning Oyster Creek specifically were filed with the NRC in 2002. As of January 1, 2003 both remained open and under investigation.
16
DISCRIMINATION ALLEGATIONS RECE IVED - CY 99 - 03 June Site 1999 2000 12001 2002 2003 ARKANSAS 1 & 2 1 BEAVERVALLEY 1 &2 - 1 3- 1 BRAIDWOOD 1 & 2 1 1 -
BROWNS FERRY 2 & 3 2 2 _
BRUNSWICK I & 2 1 BYRON 1 & 2 4 3 2 2 1 CALLAWAY 2 1 3 _1 1 CALVERT CLIFFS 1 & 2 2 1 1 _
CATAWBA I & 2 2 __ -
CLINTON 1 3 1 COLUMBIA PLANT 1 1 3_ 1 COMANCHE PEAK I & 2 1 2 _
COOK 1 & 2 6 5 6 7 2 COOPER 3 - 1 CRYSTAL RIVER 1 1 DAVIS-BESSE 1 16 6 DIABLO CANYON I & 2 4 DRESDEN 2 & 3 1 4 11 1 DUANE ARNOLD 2 1 FARLEY I & 2 1 FERMI 2 1 FITZPATRICK 1 1 1 1 2 FORT CALHOUN 1 2 GRAND GULF 1 1 2 HARRIS 1 & 2 1 HATCH 1 & 2 1 2 __
INDIAN POINT 2 1 6 2 3 2 INDIAN POINT 3 2 2 2 4 3 KEWAUNEE I LASALLE 1 & 2 6 2 1 LIMERICK 1 & 2 1 2 2 MCGUIRE 1 & 2 1 MILLSTONE & 3 2 12 3 3 MONTICELLO 1 NINE MILE POINT 1 & 2 3 31 2 1 NORTH ANNA 1 & 2 1 OCONEE 1, 2, & 3 1 OYSTER CREEK 1 1 1 4 2 PALISADES 2 1 PALO VERDE 1, 2, & 3 2 1 1 PEACH BOTTOM 2 & 3 1 1 PERRY 1 3 2 PILGRIM 1 2 POINT BEACH 1 & 2 2 4 3 3 3 PRAIRIE ISLAND 1 & 2 2 1 QUAD CITIES I & 2 2 2 RIVER BEND 1 1 1 SALEM/HOPE CREEK - - 3 2 SAN ONOFRE 2 & 3 3 3 1 2 2 SEABROOK 2 1 SEQUOYAH 1 & 2 1 1 Page 1
DISCRIMINATION ALLEGATIONS RECI IVED - CY 99 - 03 June SOUTH TEXAS I & 2 9 6 1 = 1 ST LUCIE 1 & 2 4 22 -
SUMMER I SURRY I & 2 1 SUSQUEHANNA 1 & 2 1 2 23 1 THREE MILE ISLAND 3 1 TURKEY POINT 3 & 4 2 1 1_ -
VERMONT YANKEE 1 _ 1 WATERFORD 2 - 1 WATTS BAR 1 3 _ _
WOLF CREEK 1 1 __
Page 2
OPEN ALLEGATIONS - CY! 9 - 03 June Site 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Total ARKANSAS 1 & 2 1 1 BEAVER VALLEY 1 & 2 1 2_ 2 3 BRAIDWOOD 1 & 2 1 1 BRUNSWICK 1 & 2 1 1 1 3 BYRON 1 & 2 - 1 3 6 CALLAWAY 1 1 2 CALVERT CLIFFS 1 & 2 1 1 CATAWBA 1 & 2 2 _2 CLINTON _ 1 2 COLUMBIA PLANT 3 3 COOK 1 & 2 3 ___ 4=- 3 1 COOPER 4 4 DAVIS-BESSE 9 10 19 DIABLO CANYON I & 2 =-1 1 DRESDEN 2 & 3 2 2 6 DUANE ARNOLD 1 __ 3 4 FARLEY I & 2 _ 1 _2 FERMI 2 1 2 FITZPATRICK 1 7 1 FORT CALHOUN C - - 3 3 GINNA21 GRAND GULF - 1 4 HARRIS 1 & 2 16 HATCH T& 2 -__ _ 3 3 INDIAN POINT 2 2 __ 11 15 INDIAN POINT 3 _3_ 13 161 KEWAUNEE .1 2 3 LASALLE I & 2 __ 2 82 LIMERICK 1 & 2 2 2 I MCGUIRE 1& 2 0 _ 3 3 MILLSTONE 2 & 3 _ _ 1 21 3 NINE MILE POINT I & 2 = 1 = _ 2 31 NORTH ANNA I & 2, 2 OCONEE 1, 2, & 3 _ _ 4 4 OYSTER CREEK =_ 2 8 10 PALISADES _ _ _I 1 2 PALO VERDE 1, 2, & 3 = =_1 171 18 PEACH BOTTOM 2 & 3 ==_1 1 21 SPERRY I 3 2 6 PILGRIM _ _ 1 2 POINT BEACH I & 2 _ _ 1 1 6 8 PRAIRIE ISLAND I & 2 _ _ 2 2 QUAD CITIES I & 2 _ _ 1 1 RIVER BEND = _ 1 1 SALEM/HOPE CREEK = 2 71_
SAN ONOFRE 2 & 3 = = =_1 4 a1 SEABROOK_ 1 2 3 SEQUOYAH 1 & 2 _1 6 7 SOUTH TEXAS I & 2 1 IST LUCIE 1 &2 1 __9 ISUMMER 1 _
Page 1
OPEN ALLEGATIONS - CY 9-03 June SURRY I&2 l 1 2 3 SUSQUEHANNA I & 2 l u 1 4 THREE MILE ISLAND 3 r 2 WATTS BAR I 1l Page 2
ALLEGATIONS RECEIVED - C (99 - 03 June Site 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 ARKANSAS I & 2 3 7 4 3 2 BEAVER VALLEY 1 & 2 5 3 _ 2 BRAIDWOOD I& 2 15 15 5 8 BROWNS FERRY 2 & 3 6 5 3 _2 BRUNSWICK I & 2 3 2 _ 3 2 BYRON 1 & 2 25 17 20C1 5 4 CALLAWAY 5 10 7 8 2 CALVERT CLIFFS I & 2 6 3 3 3 2 CATAWBA 1 & 2 4 1 _ 1 CLINTON 12 11 1 3 1 COLUMBIA PLANT 5 1 14 7 3 COMANCHE PEAK I & 2 7 6 5 _2 COOK 1 & 2 22 25 13 16 3 COOPER 2 3 11 8 4 CRYSTAL RIVER 4 4 3 22 DAVIS-BESSE 3 - 2 42 15 DIABLO CANYON 1 &2 4 12 7 5 2 DRESDEN 2 & 3 3 12 35 13 2 DUANE ARNOLD 7 3 4_ 2 3 FARLEY I & 2 3 8 3 2 1 FERMI 1 5 4 4 2 FITZPATRICK 1 8 1 3 8 FORT CALHOUN 4 3 2 5 3 GINNA 2 1 1 2 2 GRAND GULF 4 3 5 6 HARRIS 1 & 2 4 2 1 7 2 HATCH 1 & 2 8 13 2 5 4 INDIAN POINT 2 4 13 17 21 14 INDIAN POINT 3 10 10 6 13 18 KEWAUNEE 2 1 5 4 4 LASALLE 1 & 2 13 4 2 3 3 LIMERICK I & 2 1 4 2 7 3 MCGUIRE 1 & 2 31 2 41 MILLSTONE 2 & 3 22 11 2 8 3 MONTICELLO 3 1 1 1 2 NINE MILE POINT I & 2 8 13 5 6 2 NORTH ANNA I & 2 2 5 1 10 2 OCONEE 1, 2, & 3 4 3 5 24 OYSTER CREEK 6 3 6 12 13 PALISADES 1 4 10 31 PALO VERDE 1, 2, &3 6 3 4 5 19 PEACH BOTTOM 2 & 3 2 5 3 2 1 PERRY 9 8 12 9 3 PILGRIM 6 4 6 4 1 POINT BEACH 1 & 2 8 6 9 98 PRAIRIE ISLAND 1 & 2 5 2 3 8 2 QUAD CITIES 1 & 2 6 7 1 4 3 RIVER BEND 10 3 2 1 ROBINSON 1 2 2 SALEM/HOPE CREEK 3 1 14 5 SAN ONOFRE 2 & 3 28 23 16 6 Page 1
ALLEGATIONS RECEIVED - C ! 99 - 03 June SEABROOK 3 3 5 10 2 SEQUOYAH I & 2 5 7 2 5 6 SOUTH TEXAS 1 & 2 14 13 4 = 6 2 ST LUCIE 1 & 2 37 11 25 11 13 SUMMER 1 3 3 2 2 SURRYI&2 5 2 5 2 SUSQUEHANNA I & 2 8 13 15 10 3 THREE MILE ISLAND 1 5 = 5 1 II TURKEY POINT3&4 13 13 15 4 1 VERMONT YANKEE 2 2 2 - 4 1 VOGTLE 1 & 2 4 2 4 WATERFORD 7 2 2 = 7 WATTS BAR 10 5 5 8 2 WOLF CREEK 10 7 4 _ 2 Page 2