ML20058P108

Employee Concerns Programs Insp Questionnaire

ML20058P108
Person / Time
Site:	Waterford
Issue date:	08/31/1993
From:	Ford E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
References
NUDOCS 9312230075
Download: ML20058P108 (5)

Text

~

~~

~ g

o.. i E ENIPLOYEE CONCERNS PROGRAMS  !

- PLANT NAME: Waterford-3 l LICENSEE: Entergy  !

DOCKET 50-382 i

~i A. PROGRAM:

i

1. Does the licensee, have an employee concerns program? YES  ;

2. Has NRC inspected the program? Report #

Not in the past 3 years [

r B. SCOPE:

l

1. Is it for: .

a. Technical?

YES, farmed out to appropriate discipline for review and then back- i for closeout.

b. Administrative? YES

c. Personnelissues? YES i

2. Does it cover safety-as well as non-safety issues? YES  !

-?

3. Is it designed for:

a. Nuclear safety? YES

b. Personal safety? - YES - .;

c. Personnel issues.- dicluding union grievances? i

i!

NO for union, yes for all else. 1

?

4. Does the program apply to all licensee ' employees? YFS

@0054  !

l 9312230075 930831 _

f -l DR ADOCK O }

~t..

u.

5. Contractors?

YES, all contractors exposed to GET-1 would be aware of Quality Team Program (except certain specialized contractors such as intake structure divers).

6. Does the licensee require its contractors and their subs to have a similar pmgram?

NO - Other than a statement in general contracts, regarding the law and whist:e blower employee protection

7. Does the licensee conduct an exit interview upon tenninating employees asking ,

if they have any safety concerns?

YES, and a form is provided for after the interview.

C. INDEPENDFECE:

1. What is the title of the person in charge?

Technical Support Coordinator (George Wilson)

2. Who do they report to?

Director of Nuclear Safety (Ray Burski)

3. Are they independent of line management?

Yes - with access to VP if necessary.

4. Does the ECP use third party consultants?

No, they do not hire outside assistance

5. How is a concern about a manager or vice president followed up? .

For manager - would go to level above him and start there.

For VP - would go to immediate boss (if possible) and escalate to corporate if necessary. Actions would depend on the circumstances.  :

+

5 5

1

3;

e. .

D. RESOURCES:

1. What is the size of the staff devoted to this program?

Two full time plus the coordinator

2. What am ECP staff qualifications?

QA auditor training (approximately one week)

Informal training by corporate security Engineering support training (i.e. Technical (approximately three months) and Administrative Controls (approximately one month) training)

E. REFERRALS:

1. Who has followup on concerns?

ECP staff F. CONFIDENTIALITY:~

1. Are the reports confidential? YES "

2. Who is the identity of the alleger made known to?

ECP staff - Procedurally, if confidentiality requested it is maintained to greatest extent possible.

3. Can employees be:

a. Anonymous? YES

b. Report by phone?

• 24 hr/ day recorder

• Nation-wide 800 number G. FEEDBACK:

1. Is feedback given to the alleger upon completion of the followup?

YES, unless anonymous.

t ,

2. Does pmgram mward good ideas?

t NO - not addressed in directives. Good suggestions would be redirected to other appropriate programs.

3. Who, or at what level, makes the final decision of msolution?

Majority are at coordinator level, but could be escalated depending on circumstances.

4. Am the msolutions of anonymous concems disseminated?

Resolution of all concerns are disseminated to management via quarterly report.

t

5. Are resolutions of valid concerns publicized?

Generally, no. Occasionally items such as industrial safety issues are publicized to appropriate audience.

H. EFFECTIVENESS:

I'

1. How does the licensee measure the effectiveness of tl a rogram?

No official measurement tool but lack of repetition of items of concern and. :

allegations is an indicator (e.g. see Q 2.b).

2. Are concems:

l

a. Tanded?  !

YES - Trended by type of concerns.  !

I'

b. Used?

YES - See item G.5 with regard to industrial safety items. Following outage showed a decrease in this area. Scaffolding concerns also showed similar decrease.

3. In the last three years how many concerns were mised? 182 Of the concerns raised, how may were closed? 122 What percentage wem substantiated? 122 substantiated) 14%

)

a ,

[~

(.

4. How are followup techniques used to measure effectiveness?

Other than replying to concernee with regard to the disposition of the concern (substantiated or not, corrective actions) there would normally not be further contact unless initiated by the individual. .

5. How frequently are intemal audits of the ECP conducted and by whom? -

Other than normal supervisory oversight, audits are not procedurally required.

I. ADMINISTRATION / TRAINING:

1. Is ECP prescribed by a pmcedure? YES Site Policy W1.501 " Quality Reporting" Site Directive W5.606 " Employee Concern Program"

2. How are employees, as well as contractors, made aware of this program?

GET-1 training (and GET refresher)

Posted signs General information meetings prior to outages ADDITIONAL COhBIENTS: (Including characteristics which make the program -

especially effective, if any.)

L Independence of program enhances the effectiveness of the program. Plus, the ECP staff has collateral duties in plant which through exposure to the plant staff increases the ECP staff effectiveness. ,

NAME: E. J. Ford TITLE: SRI PIIONE: 783-6253 .

. DATE COMPLETED: August 31.1993 RE -

ATE: 7/[/ff DraECTOR. Dy L

5