ML20058P107
| ML20058P107 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Humboldt Bay |
| Issue date: | 08/25/1993 |
| From: | Cillis M NRC |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9312230069 | |
| Download: ML20058P107 (6) | |
Text
E 1
HUG-27-93 F* R I 10:39 USHRC-REG 5 P.06-'
~'
W g>/r /dm8 4
4 Attachment EMPLOYEE CONCERNS PROGRAMS
)
r PLANT NAME: Pacific Gas & Electric Company LICENSEE: Humboldt Bay Power Plant I
DOCKET No:
50-133 Y
i NOTE:
Please circle yes or no if applicable and add comments in the space provided.
)
i A.
PROGRAM:
1.
D s the licensee have an employee concerns program?
i Ye or No/ Comments)
)
l The licensee has four different types of ECPs.
They are as follows:
a.
" Instructions to Workers," training on NRC Form-3 instructions.
b.
Open Forum Program Guidelines c.
Employee Assistance Program (EAP) i d.
The Brraainina Union No. 1245 (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 2.
Has NRC inspected this program? ![o Report # !{A B.
SCOPE:
(Circle all that apply) j 1.
Is it for:
h,h/ Comments) a.
Technical?
The EAP and Barcaining Union programs are not designed to H
address technical issues. However, any technical issue that i
may be raised under these two programs.yould be referred to the 10 CFR Part 19.12 or the Open Forum m yrrams, h,hComments) b.
Administrative?
The resnonse to this quest __ would be the same as given in l
B.I.a. above._
{
c.
Personnel issues?
(Yes,No/ Comments)'
2.
D as it cover safety as well as non-safety issues?
l' Yes No/ Comments) 1 3.
Is it designed for:
a.
Nuclear Safety?
,h' Comments)
The response to this ouestion would the same as given under-200031 8 1 a and B 1 b-above-9312230069 930825 k
PDR ADOCK 05000133 g
s G
ppg
9 J a u c - 2 *r - 9 3 FR1 10:39-U S t 4 R C - R EI G 'S P.OT
.g'.'
.O I
2 1
b.
Personal Safety?
No/ Comments) c.
nnel issues - including union grievances?
No/ Comments) 4.
D ac the program apply to all licensee employees?
Yes No/ Comments) ments)
Contractors only participate in the licensee's 10 CFR Part 19.12 ECP.
6.
Does the licensee require its contractors and their subs to have a ar gram?
o,r Comments)
Yes - for 10 CFR Part 19.12 No for the other programs._
7.
Does the licensee conduct an exit interview upon terminating employe sking if they have any safety concerns?
(Yes o.r Comments) i None at this time.
C.
INDEPENDENCE:
E.
1.
What is the title of the person in charge?
Plant Manager (PM) and the Open Forum Program Administrator 2.
Who do they report to?
i The PM reports to the Senior Vice Pres,ident & General Manager, Nuclear Power Generation and the Open Forum Administrator reports to the PM l
3.
Are they independent of line management?
Yes 4.
Does the ECP use third party consultants?
The EAP may have on an as needed basis.
Currenth other licensee i
ECP's do not provide this kind of service.
5.
How is a concern about a manager or vice president followed up? -
No such concerns have been identified to date.
However, if such a
~
concern were raised, it would be carefully reviewed and processed accordinaly (e.o., case by case basis).
_y
AUG-2*T-93 fPI 10 39 U S H R C - r< E: G 5 P.OG
~
3 D.
RESOURCES:
.a 1.
What is the size of the staff devoted to this program?
a.
10 CFR Part 19.12 - 2 staff members I
b.
Open Forum Program - 2 staff members S
c.
EAP - 1 full time staff member p
d.
Barcainino Union has 4. staff members 2.
What are ECP staff qualifications (technical training, interviewing training, investigator training, other)?
a.
_10 _CFR Part 19.12 - This ECP program is administered by_the HBPP training staff and which is under the direction of the PM.
b.
The present Open Foruto Program Administrator holds a Bachelors Degree in Psycholooy with a minor in Communications.
c.
EAP - is administered by a fully trained professional who is certified by the State._
d.-
Bargainino Union ECP - the training and qualifications of this staff was not known.
E.
REFERRALS:
1.
Who has followup on concerns (ECP staff, line management, other)?
Plant Manaqcr and/or his delegate.
~
F.
CONFIDENTIALITY:
1.
Ara the gports confidential?
Ye pJCQN / Comments) i a.
10 CFR Part 19.12 - Only if concerns are reported directly to
_the NRC Form 3 instructions.
b.
Daen Forum Program - Only if it is requested.
c.
EAP - Only if it_ is reouested.
d.
3arcainino Union - No 2.
Who is the identity of the alleger made known to (senior management, ECP staff, line management, other)?
a.
10 CFR 19.12 - Senior management b.
Open Forum Program - The program Administrator c.
EAP - EAP counselor Union Stewards 3.
Can employees be:
a.
Anonymous?
No/ Comments) h No/ Comments) b.
Report by phone?
A U G - 2 7 - 9 25 FRI 10: 40 USNRC-REG 5 P.09
.y i
.1 4
r G.
FEEDBACK:
-7 1.
Is feedback given to the alleger upon completion of the followup?
(Yes Er No - If so, how?)
Directly or indirectly;_such as, by verbal-discussion or by posting information on a bulletin board.
2.
Does the program reward good ideas?-
Yes - this would be decided on a case by case basis.
3.
Who, or at what level, makes the final decision of resolution?
Plant Manager or his delegate.
4.
Are the resolutions of anonymous concerns disseminated?
Yes - they would be processed as indicated in Item G.1, above.
5.
Are resolutions of valid concerns publicized (newsletter, bulletin board, all hands meeting, other)7 Yes - they would be processed as indicated in items G.1 and G.4.
above.
H.
EFFECTIVENESS:
1.
How does the licensee measure the effectiveness of the program?
The licensee has not officially measured the effectiveness of the programs because of the small numbers of concerns that are raised.
However, the licensee's staff does maintain an awareness of the concerns that are raised and therefore are able to determine its j
effectiveness in this manner.
1 2.
Are concerns:
(Yesor(ffyComments) a.
Trended?
Not formally (see Item H.1, above)
Qff)orNo/ Comments) b, Used?
Yes, on an as needed basis.
\\
3.
In the last three years how many concerns were raised? 5 Of the concerns raised, how many were closed? 4 What percentage-were substantiated? 25%' of those evaluated.
1 - This was a non-nuclear related concern.
'b
a u c -:::rr-e z
=Rr 10 40 U S H R C - R E: C5 5 P.10 -
,ga o
5 4.
How are followup techniques used to measure effectiveness (random survey, interviews, other)?
r Throuah interviews.
5.
How frequently are internal audits of the ECP conducted and by whom?
The licensee has not established a formal audit program because of the small numbers of concerns that are raised. HBPP management staff are able to audit the success of the programs by through their trainina orograms and by maintainino a constant awareness of the workers concerns i
I.
ADMINISTRATION / TRAINING:
i 1.
Is ECP prescribed by a procedure?
(f)orlff/ Comments) a.
10 CFR 19.12 - Yes b..
No formal procedures have been established for the remaining three programs; however. all of the programs are covered b_y approved written documents.
2.
How are employees, as well as contractors, made aware of this i
program (training, newsletter, bulletin board, other)?
a.
10 CFR 19.12 - All employee's are trained annually.
Additionally.
NRC Form 3's and other information related to 1
.I.
this program are posted on bulletin boards.
b.
Open Forum Program - by way of an on-line electronic mail message that__was issued in 1992, c.
EAP - During initial employment and annuall_y thereafter, d.
Durino initial employment and by attendance at Union meetings.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
(Including characteristics which make the program especially effective, if any.)
Workers were interviewed durino'the inspection for the purpose of determining if they were aware of which programs were available for raising cenerally any type of concern-(e.o.. safety, technical. personal matters desian issues.
radioloaical. etc.). All workers were aware of reportina concerns-to the NRC usina the cuidelines on NRC Form-3 (e.o.
10 CFR Part 19.12). All workers were generally f amiliar with the EAP program but most felt it could only be used for personal matters.
Less than 10% of the workers cuestioned were familiar with the remaining two ECPs.
This observation was brouoht to the' licensee's attention.
t NAME:
TITLE:
PHONE #:
Hike Cillis /Sr. Radiation Specialist /(510) 975-0228 Date Completed: 8/25/93_
k i
Y'93 F" R I 10:36 USNRC-REO P.01
~
a UNITED STATES g
q)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION U
REGION V 1450 MAnlA LANE SUITE 210 -
WAthvT CREEK, CAUFORNIA SE96 5368
.e o
FACSIMILE TRANSMrrTAL REQUEST DATE:
6 27 e[.b6 (I [5
(
FROM:
j k
TO: A t -. To5ano 2
/O O
NUMBEROFPAGES(INCLUDINGCOVER):
a
- 30) 509-333i FAX NUMBER:
VERIFICATION NUMBER (If KN0h'N):
SPECIALINSTihCTIONS:
9 w
4uc-=v-9s
>= n 1 2e:sv usunc-necs e.or
.g.,
[
%e UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
.I n
E REGION V 1450 MARIA L.ANE
/
WAUJUT CREFK.CAUFORNLA 94596-5368
.e g
'gG 2 6 W' Docket No. 50-133 Pacific Gas and Electric Company Nuclear Power Generation, B14A77 77 Beale Street, Room 1451 P. O. Box 770000 San Francisco, California 94177 Attention:
Mr. G. M. Rueger, Senior Vice President and Generai Manager Nuclear Power Generation Business Unit i
SUBJECT:
NRC INSPECTION - HUMBOLDT BAY POWER PLANT UNIT 3 This letter refers to the inspection conducted by Mr. M. Cillis of this office on August 17, 1993, of activities authorized by NRC license No. DPR-7, and to the discussion of our findings held by Mr. Cillis with Mr. J. E. Molden and other members of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection.
Areas examined during the inspection are described in the enclosed inspection Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective report.
examinations of procedures and representative records, interviews with
^
personnel, and observations by the inspector, t
No violations of NRC requirements were found within the scope of this inspection In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and the enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
)
l Should you have any questions concerning this inspectlon, we would be glad to 1
discuss them with you.
l 5
- erely, b *es,
a tor Radiolo ical Protection Branch
Enclosures:
Inspection Report No.
50-133/93-03
Attachment:
Temporary instruction Questionnaire I
% 0 % 0 T\\ w?
f m
[M 1&lUL t
f
auc-=v-9s var io:zv osnac-ascas e.oz 4
cc w/ enclosures:
Christopher J. Warner, Esq., PG&E Chairman, Humboldt County Board of Supervisors Linda J. Brown, Esquire, Donohew, Jones, Brown & Clifford r-U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Michael R. Sherwood, Esquire Dr. James F. Davis, State Geologist Mr. Steven Hsu, Chief, Radiological Health Branch Dir., Energy Facilities Siting Division Gretchen Dumas, Esquire, Public Utilities of the State of California Office of Intergovernmental Management, State of California j
i 1
1 l
i i
a
.=
Y w
[I nuc-2 r-9s. FR 1 10:30 USHRC-RCG5 P.04 y
o U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION V Report No.:
50-133/93-03 License No.:
DPR-7 Licensee:
Pacific Gas and Electric Company 77 Beale Street San Francisco, California 94106 Facility Name: Humboldt Bay Power Plant (HBPP) Unit 3 Inspection at: Eureka, California inspection Conducted:
August 17, 1993 I!Ad[M Inspector:
i llis, Seni adiation Specialist Date Signed 8!26 93_
-Approved:
/ /fNll V
.6 H. Reese, Cliikf Ddte igned 4
Reactor Radiologicil Protection Branch Summarv:
to ns inspected:
P.s was an announced inspection to obtain information on the licensee's-indoyee concerns program. Temporary Instruction 2500/028 was addressed.
_ suits:
In the areas inspected, the licensee's programs appeared fully capable ci accompitshing of their safety objectives.
No violations or deviations were identified.
e e
,h y
yu c3 - 2 7 - se s fr R I 10:38 USHRC-RE:C5 P.05 4 -1 a
1 DFTAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- J. E. Molden, Acting Plant Manager
- R. Willis, Power Plant Engineer
- R. Parker, Senior Chemistry and Radiation Protection E,igineer (SC&RPE)
D. Peterson, Quality Control Supervisor (QCS)
- R. McKenna, Supervisor, Operations
- W. Montav10, Jr. Radiation Protection Monitoring Foreman
- P. Rasmussen, Senior Power Production Engit.eer
- J. Crow, Training Coordinator
- Derotes individuals attending the exit interview on August 20, 1993.
A In addition to the individuals noted ebov'e, the inspector met and held discussions with other members of the licensee's staff.
2.
The inspector interviewed licensee managers concerning the content of their employee concerns program (ECP). The questionnaire provided in Temporary Instruction 2500/028 was completed during the interview and the inspector interviewed workers for the purpose of determining their awareness of licensee ECPs that are available for expressing their concerns.
The completed questionnaire is included as an attachment to this inspection report.
No violations or deviations were identified.
3.
Exit Interview (11 2500/028)
The inspector met wi+-
Ne licensee represent &tives, denoted in Section 1, at the conclusion inspection on August 17. 1993.
The. scope and findings of the inspe;.L 4 -cre summarized.
The licensee was informed-that no violations or deviations were identified.
+
e 4
5
-