ML060660361
| ML060660361 | |
| 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: ML060660361 (1) | |
Text
Review of PSEG Response of Feb. 27, 2004 General - Assessment
- 1.
One of the biggest challenges in your reviews, as we see it, is to make sure that individuals, throughout the organization and at all levels, will talk freely and in detail on these sensitive subjects. Please describe your efforts to ensure that you are able to get good information in your reviews.
Followup questions:
How are interviewees being selected, including former employees?
What role do union representatives play in the process?
How are interviews being done?
When are group interviews appropriate and when are they being used?
How do you make sure you get to issues that have created controversy?
How do you ensure people will not be intimidated by the process?
- 2.
How will PSEG determine the threshold which would necessitate significant action, such as a shutdown or work stoppage, if conditions found during their assessment were drastic and extensive enough?
PSEG Response Letter
- 1.
The PSEG response says in a couple places that you are trying to "enhance" the work environment -- "enhance" connotes efforts to improve something that is already a strength - please explain.
- 2.
Your letter (on pages 2 and 5) refers to immediate actions to emphasize the importance of a SCWE, including training of managers - please provide more detail on the training of managers. Also, how are you gauging the effectiveness of other immediate actions?
- 3.
On page 3, PSEG outlines four "basic elements of a SCWE." The fourth item is "management effectiveness in resolving retaliation and chilling affect issues". This description connotes a fairly high threshold for identifying issues as problems in this area. Please explain. Where would preventing such issues (retaliation and chilling effects) be addressed within the basic elements?
- 4.
How will the IAT determine which events to review? From what time period?
- 5.
Will the IAT be performing group interviews?
- 6.
Please give examples of the "hierarchy of metrics to evaluate the performance of departments and jobs." (Page 6)
- 7.
Please discuss the "seven working level interdisciplinary teams," which are reviewing the Synergy results and developing actions in response. How are they organized? How were the personnel selected?
General - Results
- 1.
How much detail will you be providing to NRC regarding the results of the Synergy, USA, and IAT reviews? How much will be on the docket?
- 2.
To what extent are results of your own assessments thus far (Synergy survey, USA review, other reviews) consistent with the NRC interim results provided in the January 28th letter?
3 What metric(s) will be used to determine the progress regarding SCWE? Giiven the reluctance of some people to raise issues based on previous corrective action program ineffectiveness, how will corrective action program effectiveness be measured?
G:Br.3\\Alleg-SCWE March 18 meeting\\Response Plan Review.wpd