ML20044F966
| ML20044F966 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/29/1993 |
| From: | Bird P NRC OFFICE OF PERSONNEL (OP) |
| To: | Sniezek J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20044F925 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9306010265 | |
| Download: ML20044F966 (13) | |
Text
1(-29-93 07:21 AM FIOY KIC/0P F02 x..:,'
- s..
_r.
. 5 ;:., -
~
j# "%'q, UNITED STATES E
S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{
8
%...../
WASHINeTON, D.C,30MH001 APR 2 91993 MEMORANDUM FOR:
James H. Sniezek Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Regional Operations and Research FROM:
Paul E. Bird. Director Office of Personnel
SUBJECT:
DFV/DP0 PROCESS - NRC MANUAL CHAPTER 6.2 Attached is a response to your remorandum dated April 23, 1993, subject as above.
/
- ?& -
d Pau E. Bir.
1 rector Office of Personnel b'
Attachment:
As stated 6
9306010265 930510 PDR ADOCK 05000344 p
04-28-93 12:M FM: FROM H C/0P F02
,i
$UBJECT DPV/DP0 PROCESS - NRC MANUAL CHAPTER 6.2 This is in response to your memorandum dated April 23, 1993, subject as above.
The answers to the four questions posed are as follows.
1.
Does MC 6.2 require that a DPV and its resolution be placed in the PDR7 No, MC 10.159 (formerly MD 6.2) does not require that a DPV and-its resolution be placed in the POR. Paragraph (B)(12) of Handbook 10.159 states:
"To reduce the administrative burden and resource expenditures, only the minimum documentation necessary to preserve an accurate record 1
of the proceedings should be developed and maintained. These CDPV) records should be maintained and available only within the Regton or office."
i 2.
Does MC 6.2 require that a DP0 and its resolution be placed in the PDR7 MC 10.159 [ Handbook (C)(10_)]0 and Commission to the Office of Pe requires that, "All completed DP0 case files will be sent by the 2 i
which will make the flie or appropriate portions of the file available-to the public in accordance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act." Within the NRC, the standard way of making i
information available to the public is by placing it in the PDR.
3.
Regarding Director, Office of Personnel responsibilities sat forth in MC 6.2, at what time in the process are you to make sure DP0s and their disposition are made available to the public in accordance with the provisions of the FDIA?
After receipt of the com:1sted DP0 file from the Commission or the EDO, the Director, Office of 'ersonnel, forwards the file to the F0IA component for appropriate review prior to sending to the PDR.
4.
In implementing these responsibilities, what does the FOIA require?
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) does not ' apply unless a valid FotA request has been submitted for the DPO. Prior to receipt of a FOIA, the agency may release to the public any information it desires or withhold any information it desires. However, if a F0IA request is received, then all information must be released except that which is legally exempt under the F0IA.
.i i
i
't 4
i t
i i
t Oregon DOE 4/12/93 Correspondence
-i f
t l
t i
k a
n I
~l 1
i t
l
m e
SIF3 0 b2OJAN C002 (
Mike -
i Enclosed you should find 14 pages of text.
are from the transcript of an EFSC meeting in January.The first seven pages Dean was the sole NRC representative at that meeting.
The questions I am most concerned about are pages 4 and 5*
h an s respense really doesn't address th particular, Burke asked if there is stop an NR s aff i
With a dissanting opinion from taking h a r
The staff response alludes to several references.
I have not faxed them because the resulting fax would be too large, and because most of those references have been publicly available for several weeks, and because Burke had already,seen them by the time this meeting took place.
l 1 realize that you were not the Trojan P.M. at the time, and I hope I am not dragging you into some old history.
- However, mer.bers of ODOE and NRC staff have worked hard to build a good relationship between EFSC and the NRC, and I really appreciate your help in keeping it that way.
- Thanks,
/5O Adam Bless l
l t
n.
~
m m
W
,.,e Notes from 121-93 Troian Subcommittee Meetina Dean Inm'hiro, Reg State Timi-Officer - NRC Presentation Discuned
-Regulatory requirements
-POL
-Relief requests
- DecommMoning Plan
- NRC Resident Inspectors (NRC's iment is to keep 2 inspectors - schedule for removal not determined yet.)
Ouettions from the Subcommittee end Anewers from Mr. KnnNm Terry:
re: ' Draft Pir.n* - PGE plans to submit w/i 12 mos. (from DK's comments).
EFSC should review as ' Final Plan" w/ a dialogue process to reach some point where we get approval which may not be w/i 2 yrs. They're not required to submit plan for 24 mos, but they intent to start dialogue.
Dean:
With respect to the contents of plan the NRC has guidance. There is i
uncertaimy w/ respect w/ amt of detail staff wants in those p,lans - as the company develops their decom plan there will be on-going diumuions w/ the NRC. The NRC welcomes participadon of EFSC and DOE staff as those aiunuions take place.
An alternative for EFSC consideration is an independent review and approval of the PGE plan. The NRC staff would be willing to share its thoughts -
both before submittal and during the course of review. Conversely - staff wid be willing to accept DOE and EFSC as they resiew plan. (He envisions working relationships cimilar to that which was established in the past.
Bob:
What can PGE do pending approval of decom plan after 24 months to reduce expenses, etc.?
Dean:
The regulations specifically prohibits them from doing substantial work and that is not well-defined. There are a # of aedvides that company can undertake before actually implementing the decom plan. Pm not prepared now to idemify those specifics. The regulations are not so restrictive as to prohibit the company from doing some meinfnf work before approval of the decom plan. Things are set forth in the regalations - things that are not permitted while there not well-deEned they are defined in generic terms.
/
I
-*' ~
,,w
cu12/93 13:22 3503 356 7257 oDOE e TRo m 0 004 l
2-
~}
Bob:
Can they go ahead and do thess things or must they go to NRC for appm.1?
Dean:
Many are permitted under current regulations where they would not have to seek staff approval. Where there is some questions as to the permissibility of these actions I think the company would first consult w/the NRC to make sure these thin 6s are permMIe.
Terry:
What does memnNM work mean - gene:ically?
Dean:
(turned tape - missed a tad bit) If the company undertook work contrary to plans or mnh m' ore difficult the implementation of plans - I would say generically that it is in**ded to prevent the company from doing that work.
Terry:
Thore items are reviewed by your resident inspectors and thru the paper trail?
Dean:
Not all the work is reviewed - the residents review on-going work activities, but there could possBly be work undertaken for which the NRC would not be consulted and would not observe. The company is aware of regulatory restrictions governing what is and is not permissible and they would have to
' review and assess what actions are contemplated. If there were any questions, I would think that the company would consult the NRC before undertaking
(
that work.
Mel:
PGE has talked about seeking from the h7C relief from certain commitments and also talked abont their proposal to reduce certain # of staff and that they will be submitting plans to the NRC for review. What kind of procedures or process does the NRC go thru in determin% whether PGE's requests are ramneble and comply with regulations so that safety can be assured.
Dean:
Process much like an ordinary operating plant (gave example). In otherwords, FOE has submitted to the hTC license amendment requests dming its operating history - what will happen is very dmh - they will submit to the NRC - the NRC will go thru a review and approval process and very formally respond to those requests and chber deny or approve the amendment request.
As far as process goes there will be no change in what occured with respect to these actions in the past. I believe that NRC distritmtes all these kinds of correspondence to the ODOE and so you will be fully aware and I believe PGE also submits to EFSC these types of operating amendment requests.
Terry:
As you are probably aware we do have a state law that requires us to review the security plan and that is a commitment issue, so presumably we will be reviewing these in paralleLbut im not sure what that process will be or we have some indication from Tom's calendar what our calendar may be.
They're asking you to respond w/i a specific period of time - you don't have to comply with that request, but I presume we wiII entertain your schedule.
8 e
et'12'P3 13:23 0503 356 7257 CDOE 8 rRoJAN 4 o05 3~
(
Dean:
Right. We're not bond to respond to the licensee's request spaatly, but depending on NRC staff priorities they will try hard to accommodate the review timeframes INiM by the Ifeensee.
~
Terry:
Concurrently our staff wd! a looking at the same materials and through the monthly meeting process discuss these issues, but on a day to day basis with your resident what role do your resident inspectors play in this?
Dean:
The residents have very little role except where the anticipated operation reduction in requirements - they would have information that bnngs to bear the NRC decision. These raluests are acted upon by the hTC staff back east. So even the Regional Office, except where there are some specific areas for input by the Regional staff, we would have very Ifrde to do with the processing of these requests.
Terry:
We're going to mah our schedule mesh as much as posale in terms of roiew with PGEs schedule as is NRCs efforts?
Dean:
I would thi*
Terry:
The question is - how do you envision this cooperative working relationship most effec:ively happening given the tight time frames?
Dean:
I would envision it working in the following way_. cogni-t of DOE staff review the amendment request and provide as early input as possible to hTC staff who are also reviewing that request so if EFSC/ DOE staff have concerns about any particular request, that those concerns be made known to the NRC staff as early as possible.
Bob:
Will there be public hearings held?
Dean:
Not necessarily. There may be hearings held as a result. Most likely for the kinds of amendment requests we can anticipate at this time Iwould not envision hearings to be held.
Burke:
You say that the NRC residents will be removed sometime in the not t'oo distant future Dean:
At some point I believe it is highly likely that the residents will be removed -
yes.
Burke:
If they are removed is it in your opinion necessary for the state to go to the expense of maintaining a resident at the plant if the federal government doesn't feel it necessary to provide residents?
4 m
www amze>
t-wruxnwv OMtvaMS itooe 4
Dean:
(
Not being familiar with what requirements tliar the state has on PGE -it would be very difficult for me to give you a view or assessment as to whether i
or not you should to whe to maintain resident inspectors there notwithsamhg the NRC having withdrawn theirs. I think you have environmental restric:fons that we don't have so Pm afraid I couldnt comment on whether or not the state should continne.to Burke:
O.K. I have a couple more_Pm not sure that you are the right person for me to ask these questions of, but since you're the only NRC one here Pm going to ask them anyway. To be real frank, I found that the meeting that was held at the plant in the late day: of November 1992 was nothing short of a disaster. I was very disappointed in the way the NRC conducted their comments, and frankly I am wondering if their conduction of the matter im't the reason why hundreds of people are going to be out of work in the next few months and thousands in the months following that aren't to some ntent the responsibility of the NRC. Do you have any comment on that?
Dean-Unfortunately, I was not at those meetings -I don't have any knowledge what specifically transpired.
Burke:
Well, maybe you could walk me though a couple of questions.
k When something comes up like the steam generator problem at Trojan - how does NRC put together a group of people to work on that question? You have a pool of people - thousands of technicians and somehow you select certain people to work on that problem - is that right?
Dean-That's correct. Iwould say that it is dependent on the nature of the problem and the organization w/i the NRC that has cognizance to make a decision on that matter. It could call on all NRC resources and be based on the expertise of the NRC staff that might be availab!e to work on that particalar issue and I can't say that there is any single one way that the NRC goes about identifying who those individuals might be.
Burke:
I presume that in your group of people that you have different ratings when someone fresh out of school without any czperience may get a rating of i
maybe 1 and someone who is highly regarded may have a rating of 10 or so.
Is that a fair statement?
Dean:
The NRC has adopted the Federal Government-wide employee grade structure - it is not necessarily an end result because of that personnel system that an expert would have a correspondingly high grade in accordance with the government-wide grading ofits employees. In general the more experdse the longer longevity w/i the federal government the higher the grade, but I i
could easily envision us hiring a so-called expert that would not be as highly graded as someone else who might be working in the same field and not quite as erpert.
m.-
L.= =
~
cart!?t3 23:24 C303 556 7257 oDOE t n oJAN 0 007 Burke:
Part of the problem that arose at the November meeting came from some material written by a Mr. Hoppenfeld. Are you hmUfar with him?
Dean:
No. Not at sII.
Burke:
Do you know what group he v.orks with?
Dean:
No, I don't.
Burke:
Do you know whether he was on the team that us set up to evaluate the Trojan steam generator problem?
Dean:
No, I don't.
Burke:
Does the NRC have a mle that preveats someone who has a dissonant posidon in regard to some decision which is being reached by the NRC from publishing that publicly and saying publidy that he disagrees?
Dean:
The NRC has established a formal process for the addressing of what we call differing professional opinions - it has a set forth process. If a member of the NRC staff differs in view w/ any technical or policy judgement that's been made at any level of the NRC, that individual is free to tmdertake the a
submission of and invoke that process.
Burke:
Publidy?
Dean:
I don't know that_It's a public process Burke:
IfI was on the staff of the NRC and a dedsion us being made'that I disagreed with, would I be free to publidy denounce that decision in the Washington Post ifI could get their attention.
Dean:
I am not ante of any NRC polides or regulations that would predude any member of the staff from having any conversation regarding NRC business with the meAim-l Burke:
Pm bothered by the fact that this material was apparently kept under wraps for a # of months and then was essentially "icaked" to the press and to the public. That doesnt seem to me to be a rem _mnable way and certainly not a professional way of handling it, particularly if there's no reason why that individual couldn't publidy state at the very be6nning that be disagreed with the positions being taken. Would you agree with that?
Dean:
Iwould agree wnh that. I'm not fully famh with the circumstances where I could say that, in fact, occurred in this instance or did not occur.
4
pvives 23:2s Gsos s56 72s7 oDOE 4 D O M 0 006 6-
- (
Burke:
I appreciate that those are Nhl questions and I recognize that you are t
not a part of that group and perhaps it's unfair for me to ask them, but I don't have anyone che to ask.
Dean:
ht's why I a here and Iwill take these concerns back and share them w/
NRC management because they are legitimate concerns. Again, as to whether in this particular instance there was any attempt to cover up this individuals differing view -I can't comment on that b-e I don't know that to be the case.
Mel:
Appreciate the questions that Burke asked and requested that the NRC C
respond to these concerns in writing or verbally.
What reason would the NRC remove inspectors from the phnt as long as there is spent fuelon she?
Dean:
Reason is principzily related to potential for adverse health effects to the public. There is a great deal of difference between the risks in an operating plant and one that has spent fuel in a spent-fuel pool. The complexity of operating a plant safely requires more activity on the part of a Ifeensee and on the part of the NRC oversight program. It's reduction in oversight is based on the risk to wmhers of the public.
s Terry Now, you have no resident inspectors at the Rancho Seco plant?
Dean:
No.
Teny:
Was there public comment when the NRC removed inspectors from Rancho Seco. I presume there is a continuing visit scheduis of some sort.
Dean:
NRC continually sends inspectors to the Rancho Seco site. He is not aware of any adverse public reaction to that decision.
Mel:
How often are they sent to the Rancho site?
Dean:
He couldn't answer this. (I think it was Bill Robinron who responded).
About 35 inspections documented to file. (It was decided that it is not as frequent as once per month since RS shut-down).
Bob:
Are you in agreement with Mt. Walfs statements as to what worst possible things could happen to a shut-down plant?
j Dean:
Yes - the only risk posed to members of the public is that posed by the spent-fuel. One can envision just a myriad of accidents that could happen i
that would damage one or more of the spent fuel rods. It is the damnge of those rods that could 7t. lease radioacdve materials. There are safequards in l
uuo o -
1-place to minimf= the f of aeddents and also would decrease the risk posed by such an meddent o~ ming-Bob:
Are those accidents when the rods are being removed or is that when they are in the pool or when could those accidents happen?
Dean:
I would say that probabalistically that the greatest risk would be when the rods themselves are actually being moved that it would be very remote acddent when the rods were secure in the pool and there were no on-going acdvities.
Bob:
Will inspectors still be there sten the rods are being moved.
Dean:
Yes. Ibelieve (Adam added info on fuel movement and accident potential )
A little more discussion followed on risk of accidents.
Terry thnnied him for coming and asked that he come back on Friday in case there were a:ry further quad o ns.
i F:\\FacReg\\Nac-Adm\\mf\\Kunihiro.wS1 O
e e
6 O'
=
m
UNITED STATES j
fj NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20E6-0001
%*...+/
Mr. Nel Ferguson, Chairman Energy Facilities Siting Council 625 Marion Street, N.E.
Salem, OR 97310
Dear Mr. Ferguson:
I have read the April 21, 1993 article in the OREGONIAN indicating that you considered the April 6 letter from Dean Kunihiro of our Region V office to be nonresponsive to certain issues associated with the agency's handling of the Hopenfeld DPO matter.
Since the agency desires to be responsive to issues raised by State representatives, I decided to personally examine the issue.
I agree that Mr. Kunihiro's letter was not responsive to the oral questions you asked liin during the January 21, 1993 meeting.
Unfortunately, Mr. Kunihiro responded based on his recollection of the issues discussed since ho did not receive written questions resulting from the January 21 meeting.
On April 12, Adam Bless of the Oregon Department of Energy sent a Note to the NRC Project Manager, including a tapa recording transcript of pertinent oral questions asked of Mr. Kunihiro during the January 21 meeting.
As I understand it, the key thrust of the issue to which you did not receive a responsive reply centers about whether an NRC employee can take his or her dissenting opinion to the public.
There is no prohibition against an NRC employee taking his or her Differing Professional View or Differing Professional Opinion to the public.
The NRC encourages the staff to identify to supervision and management whenever they disagree with an agency
[
position or decision.
To this end, the agency has promulgated two Management Directives to ensure all employees understand it is their right, even their duty, to make known their best professional judgements on any matter related to the mission of the agency.
The agency is adamant that there be no retaliation of any sort because of a differing opinion expressed by a staff member.
Enclosed for your perusal is Management Directive 10.160 regarding the agency's OPEN DOOR POLICY and Management Directive 10.159 regarding DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL VIEWS OR OPINIONS.
You 4
will r.ote that an employee may submit differing opinions anonymously or request confidentiality if so desired.
Pages 2 through 6 of Handbook 10.159 (Appendix to Management Directive 10.159) provide a succinct description of the agency's
Mr. Mel Ferguson process for handling Differing Professional Views (DPV) and Differing Professional Opinions (DPO).
The DPV is an informal process which is normally resolved at the Office Director level, whereas the DPO is a formal process which is initiated by an employee who is not satisfied with the Office Director's resolution of the issue.
The DPO resolution is decided by the Executive Director for Operations or the Commission, as appropriate.
You should note that the agency makes completed case files (or appropriate portions thereof) for Differing Professional Opinions available to the public in accordance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.
Since the DPV process is an informal agency process, DPVs are not normally placed in the Public Document Room.
The agency is reevaluating its current policy of not placing DPVs in the Public Document Room.
In the case of Mr. Hopenfeld's December 23, 1991 correspondence entitled, DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL OPINION, the issue raised by Mr.
Hopenfeld was correctly handled as a DPV by the office of Research.
Mr. Hopenfeld did not elevate the issue to the level of a DPO pursuant to the procedures set forth in Management Directive 10.159 and Handbook 10.159.
Consequently, Mr.
Hopenfeld's issue was not placed in the Public Document Room.
In retrospect, because of the State's interest in the Trojan steam generator issue, the Hopenfeld matter should have been included in the technical discussions the NRC staff had with representatives of the State.
I trust that the foregoing adequately responds to the fundamental questions you posed to Mr. Kunihiro on January 6.
I apologize for any inconvenience you have experienced due to the tardiness of a complete response to your questions.
If you have any further questions 3garding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me or L.e Region Administrator.
Sincerely, James H. Sniezek Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Regional Operations and Research
Enclosure:
Management Directive 10.159 and 10.160 I
e s"&