ML20154G236
| ML20154G236 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 10/07/1998 |
| From: | Collins S NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Burrows F NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9810130097 | |
| Download: ML20154G236 (2) | |
Text
-
1 c.
October 7, 1998 MEMORANDUM TO: Fred: rick H. Burrows, Electrical Enginear Electrical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
- Samuel J. Collins, Director Original signed by:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
CONCERNS RELATED TO DYNAMIC TESTING OF INSTRUMENT CHANNELS AT BRAIDWOOD l
l l am responding to the memorandum you sent me on October 2,1998, regarding the resolution of the follow-up actions for the NRR differing professional view (DPV) panel on dynamic testing of instrumentation at Braidwood. In your memorandum you concluded that the staff's follow-up action efforts fell short of completely addressing your concems and provided specific comments for my consideration.
I have reviewed your comments and consider the review of this DPV by NRR to be concluded.
As you requested, I will ensure that your DPV and October 2,1998, memorandum be made public. The staff position is as indicated in the September 21,1998, memorandum from Lee l
Spessard to Brian Sheron and I intend to take no further actions based on this DPV. It is fully expected that not all DPVs wil1 be resolved to everyone's satisfaction and that reasonable people will occasionally disagree. The purpose of the DPV process is to provide a fair and open forum for this disagreement to be aired and an informed decision to be made. I would like to thank you for submitting your concerns.
I would also like to express the important part that the DPV and Differing Professional Opinions l-(DPO) process plays in our safety-conscious work environment. It !s the policy of the NRC and the responsibility of all NRC supervisory and managerial personnel to maintain a working environment that encourages employees to make known their best professior. I judgements even though they may differ from a prevailing staff view, disagree with a management decision I
or policy position, or take issue with proposed or established agency practices. Both the general public and the NRC benefit when the agency seriously considers DPVs/DPOs. In your memorandum you expressed frustration and implied detrimental effects resulting from the DPV/DPO process. As indicatad, this is not the intent of the DPV/DPO process, and as a result we are forwarding your concerns to the Office of the inspector General for appropriate action.
r l
Please do not hesitate to contact me or Brian Sheron if you have any questions.
cc: H. Bell, OlG P. Bird, HR t-Distribution
/ %
D SCollins/FMiraglia PFoust LSpessard BSheron ADT R/F Central Files SPeterson PDR Document Name:p:
- See previous page for cpffcuidpnce DhR[
/
OFFICE
- NRR
- A:ADT:NRR 3
NAME SPeterson BWSheron hJ I
DATE 10/6/98 10/6/98 10/ i /98 I
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 1anrnn W Un/
i 9810130097 981007 LW@a L Rc@ f' M ""'""'"" W "
- PDR ADOCK 05000456 un..u a ea W(~ 4 P
...<,-,.m.-
r.-
.:m.-.-
n 4,
m,-..
.-w.,.
~,,. _ _.
,m e
- -. =
a MEMORANDUM TO: Frtd: rick H. Burrows, Elsctrical Engineer Electrical Engineering Branch i
Divi $lon of Engineering Officehf Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
Samuel J. Collins, Director Office of N lear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
CONCERNS R, ELATED TO DYNAMIC TESTING OF INSTRUMENT CHANNELS AtBRAIDWOOD l am responding to the memorandum you ent me on October 2,1998, regarding the resolution of the follow-up actions for the NRR differin professional view (DPV) panel on dynamic testing of instrumentation at Braidwood, in your metporandum you concluded that the staff's follow-up action enorts fell short of completely addressi g your concerns and provided specific comments for my consideration.
I I have reviewed your comments and consider th teview of this DPV by NRR to be concluded.
s As you requested, I will ensure that your DPV andpctober 2,1998 memorandum be made public. The staff position is as indicated in the September 21,1998 memorandum from Lee expected that not all DPVs will be resolved to everyo%er actions based on this Spessard to Brian Sheron and I intend to take no fur ng's satisfaction and that reasonable people will occasionally disagree. The purpose of the Q open forum for this disagreement to be aired and an info,PV process is to provide a fair rmed decision to be made. I would like to thank you for submitting your concerns.
I would also like to express the important part that the DPV d Differing Professional Opinions (DPO) process plays in our safety-conscious work environmeqt. It is the policy of the NRC and the responsibility of all NRC supervisory and managerial personnel to maintain a working environment that encourages employees to make known their b'est professionaljudgements even though they may differ from a prevailing staff view, disagred with a management decision g
or policy position, or take issue with proposed or established agen practices. Both the general public and the NRC benefit when the agency seriously con ders DPVs/DPOs. In your memorandum you expressed frustration and implied detrimental eff, s resulting from the DPV/DPO process. As indicated, this is not the intent of the DPV/DPg process, and as a result we are forwarding your concerns to the Office of the Inspector General' or appropriate action.
Please do not hesitate to contact me or Brian Sheron if you have any qu tions.
cc: H. Bell, OlG P. Bird, HR Distnbution SCollins/FMiraglia PFaust LSpessard BSheron ADT R/F SPeterson PDR Document Name:p:
OFFlCE NRFjLg A:AhRR D:NRR NAME SPet'Non BWhron SJCollins e
DATE 10/Co /98 10/ [p
/98 10/
/98 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
_