ML062550056
| ML062550056 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse, Salem, Hope Creek, South Texas  (DPR-070, NPF-003, NPF-057) |
| Issue date: | 10/28/2003 |
| From: | Vito D NRC Region 1 |
| To: | Barber S NRC Region 1 |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2005-0194 | |
| Download: ML062550056 (2) | |
Text
u~v
-re:
Amt issues inis weeK. lana upoate o~n aiieger contacts)
Pag From:
David Vito if To:
SALEMHCSCWE; Scott Barber Date:
10/28103 8:18SAM
Subject:
Re: ARB Issues this week (and update on alleger contacts)
- Scott, I was also told by Randy B. that management wants to talk about the questions that are being asked in the interviews, during our next ARB/discussion of the Salem/HC SOWE matter. I am putting together a package of SCWE reference information that includes the questions I originally provided to you and 01 from the recent SOWE reviews at Davis-Besse and South Texas. If you (with 01) have established a distinct set of questions for the interviews that have been done thus far for Salem/HC, that should also be provided for the discussion. The information package will also include reference information about SECY 98-1 76 and the earlier (1996) N RC policy statement and proposed rulemaking on SCWE.
About the timing of the next AR B/discussion, I spoke with Eileen at length on Friday (10124). She will be out all this week, and expressed a desire to be in atten 'dance at the next discussion. Part of the reason she would like to attend is so that we can discuss technical staff resource needs for the review of the additional information that is being gathered. In addition to the transcripts of the interviews, support will be needed to review all of the documentation from the Winston and Strawn reviews of SCWE and H&l that were done subsequent to her departure from the site. Eileen showed me a Xerox box full of information she has been provided from the Winston and Strawn reviews.' Eileen will be back next week, so I thought next Monday or Tuesday might be a good time for an update ARB, if we can get the right people there.
For a n update on contacts with the alleger, she e-mailed Eileen and me several times over the weekend.
She wanted to let us know about a~negative trend in OSHA recordable events at'the site., In light of this, she provided information about an e-mail'that was sent to pertinent managers on 10/23/03, which scheduled a "Mid-Outage Safety Standown" meeting on 10/24/03. The intend of the meeting was to discuss the OSHA issues among other items. While the purpose of the e-mail appeared appropriate, the alleger wanted to make note of a sentence in the e-mail which stated "Please coordinate your ro'llouts appropriately so as not to hinder out outage schedule." The alieger thought it was interesting that such a statement would be made in a message that was supposed to to be conveying concerns about recent increases in (industrial) safety issues.
She also informed me about a Notification that was written recently b, 1
ir
~~jWIM J~iI~tatpurportedly details a lack of training for SORC mem be'rs TqM-sfions whethr SOR membrs are currently meeting regulatory requirements. The alleger indicated that she had urged the individual who provided the information to her, to contact me or the residents.
The alleger also indicated that she had received the Certified Mail pick-up slip for her acknowledgement letter but had not had time to pick it up. She asked that I provide the letter to her electrionically. I wifl do so this morning.
Regarding the comments in her e-mails,'I intend to tell her that we acknowledge the comments about the OSH-A issues, and will consider them within the context of our global SCWE review. Regarding her comments about the qualification of the SORC members, I inetnd to inform her that we will let the resident inspectors know about the Notification that was written so that they are aware and can review as appropriate. However, I also intend to tell her that unless the individual who provided her the information feels that it will not be addressed appropriately within the CAP, or knows of some other type of inapprpriate activity related to the review of this matter, we will not be processing it as an allegation (i.e., it is our expectation that potential problems are documented and processed via the CAP, which appears to be what has been done in this instance).
>>> Scott Barber 10/27/03 04:45PM >>>
Informatlon in thiJs Word WU* deWL4e in accordance with eý Freedom of information We hve wo ssus t conide ths wek:
Act, exemptions FOIA.
Dpavid Vito.,,e: ARB Issues this week (and update on alleger contacts) page 2]
- 1) A HC allegation came in last Friday fr He identifies a number of tech issues and talks about how the NEOs cover up sloppy work practices, etc. I would like to schedule an interview with him before he leaves the area. Ernie Wilson indicated that we could do this as a part of the ongoing SCWE assessment without the need for a panel. Regarding the tech issues, we can cover them at the panel.
- 2) The other issue has to do with the questions being used by 01 for the SCWE interviews. My understanding is that Hub would like to discuss them at a panel to ensure they are the right questions. I believe some of the managers may have a better idea what he's looking for. My intent was to get them from 01 and pro 'vide them for review. From the eight one-on-one interviews I have personally sat in on, I believe we are asking all the right questions to get to the bottom of the SCWE issue.
Since Glenn is out Tuesday and Wednesday, Thursday would be the best day for an ad hoc panel on these issues.