ML20059B887

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Rev 0 to Validation Plan for Action Plan 4.4.3, 'Employee Concerns Program.'
ML20059B887
Person / Time
Site: Millstone Dominion icon.png
Issue date: 05/03/1993
From: Diedrick D
NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20059B881 List:
References
PROC-930503, NUDOCS 9310290134
Download: ML20059B887 (6)
v • d • e


Text

_.

i i

l

.i Docket No. 50-423 B14652 l

l Attachment 2 Validation Plan for Action Plan 4.4.3 t

r October 1993 9310290134 931021 SC PDR ADDCK-05000423 '4 S G PDR it!  !

Rev.0 Page 1 of 5 VALIDATION PLAN FOR ACTION PLAN 4.4.3 Action Plan

Title:

Employee Concerns Program Action Plan Managert David Diedrick Validation Start Date: May 5, 1993 Validation Plan Prepared by: s. i N. 7h Date: Q\vkO 3, tv.i.e.v.n T . t..o. i Validation Plan Concurrence: $[

(Acton M.m M.n. ped

~N

/ Date: p' .M ,8f' Validation Plan Approved by: . F. C y.6 Dete: sxs/;3 IPD*tMimit1 $pon.o#

Action Plan Scope and Objectives:

Scope:

This Action Plan consolidates the recommendations developed from the findings of the Allegations Root cause Task Group (ARCTG) to ensure a coordinated, proactive, integratsd approach to monitoring the effectiveness of the committed actions. The management initiatives (COC recommendations) associated with the employee concerns issues identified in the ARCTG are not part of this action plan (See Action Series 1.0) . .*

Objectives:

Address each of the following recommendations of the ARCTG.

1.

Increase the resource level available to the NSCP to support a greater field visibility and easier access. Locate personnel at Millstone, Connecticut Yankee and Berlin. (Ref. Recommendation B.3)

2. Effectively communicate the program to. assure employee awareness and demonstrate support from all levels of management.- (Re f. Recommendation - 8. 4)

Rev.O Page 2 of 5 P

VALIDATION PLAN FOR ACTION PLAN 4.4.3 Action Plan Scope and Objectives: (cont)

Objectives: (cont)

3. Staff the program with volunteers throughout NE&O who can relate to employees in their assigned locations and who will be accepted as employee peers. (Ref. Recommendation B.3 and 8.5)
4. Use the following characteristics for personnel selection and orientation. (Ref. Recommendations 8.5 & 8. 7) :

Be strong employee representatives Have strong interpersonal skills Be capable of being frank with management Be known and accepted by employees at all 1evels.

5. Evaluate eliminating the NRT from their role in the Nuclear concerns process once the recommendations concerning the NSCP have been successfully implemented. (Ref. Recommendation 8.10)

Validation Criteria Intended Effects of the Action Plan:

1.

To provide greater field visibility (i.e. , employee awareness) and easier access of the NSCP to personnel who want to use the NSCP.

2. To assure employee awareness of the NSCP and visibly demonstrate support for the NSCP by all levels of management.

3.

To gain greater employee acceptance of the NSCP by staffing it with volunteers who can relate to the i

employees.

4. To select personnel running the NSCP (i.e.,

{

management and peer representatives) having the following characteristics:

i

Rev.0' Page 3 of 5 VALIDATION PLAN FOR ACTION PLAN 4.4.3 Validation criteria (cont)

Be strong representatives of (employee) issues.

  • Have strong interpersonal skills Be capable of being frank with management Be known and accepted by employees at all levels. '

5.

To evaluate the continued need for the NRT option of the NSCP.

NOTE: Five recommendations of the Allegations Root Cause Task Group (ARCTG) were closed out through actions completed prior to issuing Action Plan 4.4.3.  ;

These this recommendations have also been included in '

Validation Plan as Intended Effects as follows:

6.

To structure the program as an employee concerns program and not limited to nuclear safety concerns.

7. To design the program to be employee advocate (peer) based.

t

8. To have the NSCP report to the Chairman of the  !

Board of Trustees, and provide periodic updates on )

overall status and unresolved issues to the entire  !

Board. Officer incentives should be based, to a degree, on the success of NSCP.

i j

9. To consider expanding the role of' the HPES coordinator to be a field resource and advocate for the NSCP. ,
10. To improve the level of employee awareness of the  !

NRT by effectively communicating the role of NRT.  !

[This Intended Effect has been superseded by  !

Intended Effect 2 and 5).

{

Validation Approach:  !

The following questions will be asked, on an individual basis, of a selected cross-section of NE&O personnel j directly impacted by the implementation of this Action l Plan. '

-l i

7....

e Rev.O Page 4 of 5 VALIDATION PLAN FOR ACTION PLAN 4.4.3 Validation Approach: (cont)

Objective evidence of the results of implementing this Action Plan may also be obtained through a review of relevant documentation effects, associated with specific Action Plan intended f

la. Are you more aware, just as aware, or less aware of the availability of the NSCP now than in the past?

lb. Is access to the NSCP easier, harder, or no-different now that it was in the past (i . e . , to contact a representative of the NSCP)?

Ic. What is the quarterly trend, from January, 1990 to present, in allegations received by the NRC vs. the NSCP - better, worse, or stayed the same? [ Review data available from the NSCP]

2a. Have communications about the NSCP been given sufficiently wide, too narrow, or too broad enough circulation to effectively inform employees of the existence of the NSCP?

2b. Does your management demonstrate active, passive, or no support of the NSCP?

3a. If you have a complaint, who would you go to get it resolved?

3b. Is this the same answer you would have given about 2 years ago? If not, who would have you contacted?

4a. Based on your knowledge of and contact with NSCP management and peer representatives, do you agree or disagree that these individuals possess the following characteristics as a group?

Are strong representatives of (employee) issues.

Have strong interpersonal skills

  • Are capable of being frank with management Are known and accepted by employees at ,

all levels.

, ~

r

Rev.0 Page 5 of 5 VALIDATION PLAN FOR ACTION PLAN 4.4.3 validation Approach: (cont)

The following questions are to be answered by the Validation Team based on their review of appropriate documents, and observations of the implementation of the NSCP.

Sa. Has the necessity for the NRT role in nuclear concerns been eliminated after the NSCP recommendations were implemented and found to be fully functional?

6a. Has the NSCP been structured as an employee concerns program and not limited to a nuclear safety concerns program?

7a.

Has the NSCP been organized to include employee representatives?

Ba. Does the NSCP report to the Chairman of the Board of Trustees, and provide periodic updates on overall status and unresolved issues to the entire Board?

Bb. Are Officer incentives based, to a degree, on the success of NSCP?

9a.

Has consideration been given to expanding the role of the HPES coordinator to be a field resource and advocate for the NSCP?

Decision Criteria:

The Intended Effects of this Action Plan will have been achieved if the Validation Team finds that the answers to the Validation Approach questions substantiate that the Nuclear Safety Concerns Program has been effectively designed and implemented.

.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20059B887&oldid=2692776"