ML20197K100
| ML20197K100 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 07/26/1985 |
| From: | Noonan V NRC - COMANCHE PEAK PROJECT (TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM) |
| To: | Eisenhut D, Martin R, Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV), NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20197K103 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-86-132 NUDOCS 8508070292 | |
| Download: ML20197K100 (4) | |
Text
[
jo, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.?
o t
5
-l WASHING TON. D. C. 20655
- s.,
/
JUL 2 61985 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Darrell G. Eisenhut, Deputy Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
' Robert D. Martin, Regional Administrator Region IV James M. Taylor, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement Ben B. Hayes, Director Office of Investigation FROM:
Vincent S. Noonan, Director Comanche Peak Project
SUBJECT:
PLAN FOR REVIEW 0F COMANCHE PEAK SAFETEAM Enclosed is the Comanche Peak Project staff plan for the review of the Comanche Peak SAFETEAM. This plan was prepared following a scoping review of SAFETEAM gilesatComanchePeakbyateamofrepresentativesfromNRR,01,IE,andRIV on June 14, 1985. This plan was prepared with Region IV, R. Denise who headed Q similar effort at Wolf Creek.
/
IamplanningtoimplementthisplanonAugust5,198J.
/M V
o an r
o anche Pea Pro ect
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
R. Denise J. Gagliardo J. Axelrad J. Liebennan D. Hunter O
r I
(A S Pt
I g
Plan for Review of Comanche Peak SAFETEAM The general approach to a review of the SAFETEAM program will be that the NRC conduct a review o.f programatic features as well as a sampling of allegation processing files covering hardware and wrongdoing matters under the licensee'::
program.
Team The team should be made up of at least one representative from NRR, 01, IE, and RIV. Region IV will assume lead responsibility.
Schedule Week of August 5-9, 1985.
Review 1.
Review of program description documentation to determine intended objectives, responsibilities, organization, organizational relationships, information flow, qualifications of personnel, etc.
2.
Review of program practices as they relate to the items noted in number 1 above, and note any differences between stated intentions and actual practices.
3.
Evaluation of intentions and practices as the NRC sees them. This would be a general comparison of TUGC0 practices to NRC practices if the NRC had received the worker concern as an allegation. This evaluation would include the consideration of concern classification, confidentiality, investigation / inspection completeness, documentation completeness, identification of corrective actions, corrective actions taken, consideration of root cause and generic implication when the allegation was substantiated, timeliness of actions, and feedback to the concerned worker.
4.
Selection and review of a sample of about 10% of SAFETEAM files in the 1
i classification Plant Safety to determine whether appropriate inspection / investigation corrective action and closure was taken. The samples should be selected based on the sumary description of the concern.
5.
Selection and review of a sample of about 10% of SAFETEAM files in the area of wrongdoing to determine whether appropriate action was'taken, usingtheNRCdefinitionofwrongdoing(i.e.,concernsrelatedto intimidation / harassment, falsification, unjust termination, etc.).
l
l 3
i Although the SAFETEAM does not have a classification of wrongdoing, a subset can be sorted from the computer listing of concerns. The Intimidation / Harassment Panel will review the subset sorted from the computer listing and it is anticipated that O! will also review this subset.
6.
In addition, the team will look at other such utility sponsored programs that have existed on site (e.g. Ombudsman, Hotline). All files of concerns collected by the Ombudsman program will be reviewed in the same manner as number 4 above. A determination of whether a review of Hotline files is necessary will be made once the team is on site.
Following this initial review, the staff should evaluate the information collected and inform the utility of our observations.
Follow-On Review Any follow-on review will be determined at a later time.
Documentation The reviewers should document the results of the review in a report issued by Region IV, a standard form containing evaluation points and comments will be used during the review, and a record kept of all files reviewed.
4 I
4 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Darrell G. Eisenhut, Deputy Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Robert D. Martin, Regional Administrator Region IV James M. Taylor, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement Ben B. Hayes, Director Office of Investigation FROM:
Vincent S. Noonan, Director Comanche Peak Project
SUBJECT:
PLAN FOR REVIEW 0F COMANCHE PEAK SAFETEAM Enclosed is the Comanche Peak Project staff plan for the review of the Comanche Peak SAFETEAM. This plan was prepared following a scoping review of SAFETEAM files at Comanche Peak by a team of representatives from NRR, 01, IE, and RIV on June 14, 1985. This plan was prepared with Region IV R. Denise who headed a similar effort at Wolf Creek.
I am planning to implement this plan on August 5, 1985.
Vincent S. Noonan, Director Comanche Peak Project
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
R. Denise J. Gagliardo J. Axelrad J. Liebennan D. Hunter IFC :CPP
- DL/LB1
- :CPP
- CPP
.....:............:............:............:....../.p/
LAME :AVietti
- JYoungblood :Cirammell
- VNoonal6
../.......:............:............:...........
IATE : / /85
- / /85
- / /85
/M&85 1
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
- SEE NEXT PAGE FOR PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE
\\
.