ML20235Y913
| ML20235Y913 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 07/20/1987 |
| From: | Kunkle R DETROIT EDISON CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235Y902 | List: |
| References | |
| 2.206, NUDOCS 8707270106 | |
| Download: ML20235Y913 (15) | |
Text
- 3-Attachment'A f
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA-NUCLEARJREGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE'THE-DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION In the Matter of- )
)
THE DETROIT EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-341
) (10 C.F.R. 5 2.206)
(Fermi-2) )
l l AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT G. KUNKLE County.of Wayne )
) ss.
State of' Michigan )
ROBERT G. KUNKLE, being duly sworn according to law, diposes and says as follows:
- 1. I am currently employed by SYNDECO, Inc., a wholly-owned: subsidiary of The Detroit Edison f.ompany, as Direc-tor, SAFETEAM, at Fermi-2. SYNDECO has operated concerns pro-grams (SAFETEAM) at four nuclear construction sites. SAFETEAM programs currently are operating at two construction sites (South Texas Project and Comanche Peak) and at Fermi-2. I was assigned to SAFETEAM as Supervisor of Investigators at Fermi in September, ,
1983. I was appointed Director of SAFETEAM at Fermi in January, 1984. In January, 1985, I became SYNDECO's Director of SAFETEAM, and became responsible for starting and monitoring the program at the Hope Creek, Clinton, South Texas Project and Comanche Peak nuclear power plants. SYNDECO was contracted to operate the f{RO727010b g
B70721 V ADOCK 05000341:
Fermi SAFETEAM program in March, 1986, and I undertook the retraining of interviewers and investigators at Fermi. I became the Ferni SAFETEAM Manager as well as SYNDECO Director of SAFETEAM in January, 1987.
- 2. My career with Detroit Edison Company began in 1947, after I aarned a B.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering f rom the Universit y of Kansas. In the 36 years with Detroit Edison prior to my ar:ociation with SAFETEAM, I was involved in numerous power plant engineering, design, operations and project management po-sitions.
- 3. The purpose of this affidavit is to respond to " Peti-tion of the Safe Energy Coalition of Michigan and the Sisters, Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary Congregation," dated May 7, 1987 In this affidavit I will describe the history of -
SAFETEAM at Fermi-2, how the program works, the relationship of SAFETEAM to the NRC and Detroit Edison, and the acc mplishments of the program.
History of SAFETEAM
- 4. Detroit Edison recognized that individuals involved in the construction and operation of Fermi-2 would have concerns about plant safety which should be promptly surfaced and fully investigated. Efforts to obtain such information included the Quality Concern Report program, which itself included on-site
a-posters, articles in the project newsletter, and staff meetings.
In 1983, as Fermi-2 neared completion and the time when large numbers of individuals involved in the construction would be leaving the project, Detroit Edison decided to make an additional effort to obtain safety concern information from individuals before they departed.
- 5. In establishing the SAFETEAM program in 1983, Detroit Edison sought to structure this voluntary program in a way that would encourage individuals to participate. Therefore, care was taken to provide an environment in which: (a) the individuals would feel comfortable; (b) the individuals would feel appreci-ated and supported by company management; (c) . individuals' ,
identity would be kept confidential; and (d) individuals would be talking to a lay person like themselves, rather than to a techni- -
cal person who might tend to evaluate and dismiss the concern in-stantly. It was also decided that, to promote individuals' con-fidence, SAFETEAM should maintain as much independence as l possible frcm the Fermi-2 organization.
- 6. Before I explain how the program works, it is important to recognize -- given the misunderstandings which underlie the petition -- what the program is not and was never intended to be.
l The SAFETEAM program was established entirely at the initiative of Detroit Edison. It is not required by the NRC, and is not relied upon to meet NRC requirements. Neither does the program supplant other means by which individuals may express safety con-cerns (for example, to the Quality Assurance organization, to su-pervision and management, to the NRC pursuant to posters dis-played on site), or the numerous, redundant and diverse checks on quality which are provided through the quality assurance program.
Further, the scope of the program has never included the pursuit of corrective or remedial action by SAFETEAM in response to a safety concern. The program is strictly a means of eliciting concerns which are then investigated and, if confirmed, referred to the appropriate organization for action. Corrective action is not the responsibility of SAFETEAM.
Procram Implementation
- 7. Because it is a voluntary program, SAFETEAM can func- -
tion only if individuals are aware of it and informed of the opportunities to participate. Effective communication to indi-viduals therefore is the necessary first step. While they may decline to attend, exiting individuals go to the SAFETEAM offices and are provided an opportunity for a SAFETEAM interview. In ad-dition, walk-ins are encouraged and periodic interviews with se-1ected groups on site have been scheduled. Individuals may pro-vide input to SAFETEAM by personal appearance at the SAFETEAM offices on site, by writing to SAFETEAM, or via local or toll-free "800" long-distance telephone numbers.
_4_
o
- 8. It is alleged that our communications to individuals about SAFETEAM are misleading because individuals are not told that utility personnel vill directly investigate many types of concerns, or that a management team reviews the investigation report and the response to the individual. Petition at 7, 17.
As I have stated, our communications to individuals are intended to encourage participation in this voluntary program. An invita-tion styled as a series of qualifying warnings to the individual would not promote participation and, more importantly, is not necessary. Contrary to the view expressed in the petition, it is clear'to participants that the SAFETEAM staff cannot check out a concern without contact with and cooperation from Fermi-2 person-nel, and that if the concern is verified, SAFETEAM staff cannot undertake the corrective action. We do not have duplicate engi- -
neering, construction, operations, maintenance and inspection forces. Individuals know that. While our invitations to partic-ipate in SAFETEAM do not mention the management review committee, as I explain below that committee's activities in no way compro-mise the anonymity of the individual or the independence of the program.
- 9. The petitioners also assert that our communications do not advise individuals that SAFETEAM will not investigate, but rather will turn over to the utility, allegations of harassment and intimidation, allegations of wrongdoing, concerns with
n e
industrial. safety'and miscellaneous personnel matters. -Petition at 7, 19-20. While it.is true that Nuclear Security investigates
- allegations of harassment and intimidation, and allegations of wrongdoing, SAFETEAM is responsible for overseeing.the com-pleteness of the -investigation, and prepares the subsequent re-sponse-to the individual. For the reasons I discuss below in 1
paragraph 11, the referral of concerns to' Nuclear Security for L
1 inquiry does not compromise the confidentiality of the SAFETEAM
- program.
- 10. Exiting individuals who come to the SAFETEAM office at Fermi-2 view a' videotape presentation of Detroit Edison senior management personally thanking them for their contribution'and encouraging them to share any concerns they may have about con-struction or operation. Following this presentation, they are --
asked if they would share any concerns they have about Fermi-2 in a confidential interview.. If no concerns are expressed, the l individual is given a postage paid " mail in" form for use if con-cerns are remembered at a later time. A toll-free telephone num-ber is offered for the same purpose. If an interview is re-quested, the individual enters a private room and is asked a series of carefully structured questions designed to be non-intimidating and to elicit concerns. The interview is tape recorded if the individual agrees. A Safety Concern Record of the interview is completed and retained.
l ..
I"
- 11. All records of individual concerns from this point (the interview) forward are nameless, to protect the anonymity of the individual. .The concern is assigned a code number, and is known only by that code number to the. investigator and anyone else sub-sequently involved in responding to the concern, except for the SAFETEAM" secretary who prepares the envelopes to mail the re-sponse to the individual. The petition states that SAFETEAM
". . . is a program which is designed and operated to . . . iden-tify to senior management those employees who are potential pub-lic whistleblowers so they can be terminated, laid-off-or other-vise discriminated against." Petition at 7. Petitioners go on to contend that "[i]n its current form the SAFETEAM program,does not, because it cannot, maintain confidentiality of sources
. . .". Petition at 15. Contrary to these assertions, the pro- -
gram is designed and operated to protect the individual's name, which is not revealed to management. Therefore the SAFETEAM pro-gram does not make the individual a target of retribution. Peti-tioners apparently conclude that confidentiality automatically is breached if and when SAFETEAM contacts those knowledgeable about the facts. -Petition at 18-19. Petitioners simply are wrong when they argue that "[t]his action -identifies the concernee to anyone who has the ability to master the skill of simple deduction."
Petition at 18. In a project the size of Fermi-2, where thou-sands are employed and work crews are common, it is quite I
feasible to determine the facts of a concern without suggesting who the concerned individual is. When it does not appear fea-sible to do so, the original SAFETEAM interviewer of the con-cernee will contact the concerned individual for permission to proceed with the investigation. I am not aware of any way to pursue an individual's concern other than searching out the rele-vant facts.
- 12. In reviewing a nuclear safety concern, the assigned SAFETEAM investigator studies the interview tape transcript and/or written report, checks relevant procedures, specifica-tions, drawings, files and documents, and interviews personnel involved in the concern. Research, applicable document and pro- ,
cedure numbers, interviews and conversations are to be fully doc-umented and logged in a complete back-up file. When the review -
l is complete, the investigator prepares a draft report that in-cludes a statement of the concern, findings, response and final or tentative dispositions.
- 13. The petitioners rely on the report from a 1985 OI re-view of SAFETEAM, and a 1985 I&E report, to criticize the training and qualifications of SAFETEAM interviewers and investi-gators, and the extent of the SAFETEAM file documentation. Peti-tion at 4-6 (on page 6, however, the functions of the interviewer and investigator are commingled and confused by tne petitioners).
The petitioners fail to report that I&E termed the " deficiencies"
listed on pages 4 and 5 of the petition to be " isolated exam-ples." I&E Report No. 50-341/85037 (DRP) (Oct. 25, 1985) at 15.
The I&E report proceeds to state:
Although some flaws were identified in the SAFETEAM, an overall good effort went into the SAFETEAM project. With the supple-mented and augmented inspection effort by both DECO and the NRC, we were able to reach the same conclusions, although the inspectors found it difficult for the SAFETEAM to reach their conclusions on some concerns based upon the originally avail-able documentation in the packages.
Overall the inspectors believe the packages were complete and well documented and the concerns were adequately addressed. The licensee has since committed to improve the weaknesses identified in the NRC and DECO inspections. ,
The results of this inspection and DECO inspection were provided to NRC Region III and were used as the basis for regional -
input to the Commission briefing on July 9, 1985.
Id. Subsequent to these reviews, Detroit Edison implemented a more effective program for screening and training SAFETEAM in-terviewers and investigators, and provided more detailed proce-dures for implementation of the SAFETEAM program.
- 14. The SAFETEAM investigator's report is reviewed by a Detroit Edison Review Committee, consisting of representatives from tne Legal Department and Public Affairs, and a technically qualified individual. Once the Review Committee is satisfied that the investigation is complete and any required corrective
_g_
actions are under way, a concern response letter is prepared i
(
stating what was found and what corrective action, if any, was t l
taken. The letter is also reviewed by the Review Committee. l Included in the letter to the individual are a toll-free tele-phone number, and invitations to submit questions about the re-sponse and to submit any additional concerns.
- 15. The petitioners imply that the role of the Review Committee compromises the independence of SAFETEAM and the con-fidentiality of the concerned individual. Petition at 6-7, 17-18. It simply is not true that "[t]hese individuals (com-mittee members] have access to the identity of each concernee."
Petition at 18. The Review Committee has access only to the ,
concern identification code number, and not to the individual's name. Neither does the committee, which is a part of the -
SAFETEAM program at other sites as well, compromise the integ-rity of SAFETEAM's work, To the contrary, the Review Committee is there to ensure that SAFETEAM has done a thorough job of checking out the individual's concern. The committee fre-quently sends the investigator back to gather additional in-formation. The attorney representative brings to the committee expertise on NRC regulatory policies and requirements, as well as an appreciation of the investigative fact gathering process and the necessary bases for conclusions reached. The Public Affairs member assists in the communication function of l
I
4 SAFETEAM, ensuring that the response will be understandable to the concerned individual. The technically qualified member contributes knowledge of the governing specifications, stan-dards, procedures and inspections.
Organizational Relationships
- 16. As I stated previously, SAFETEAM is not relied upon to meet NRC requirements. It is not the means upon which Detroit Edison relies to assure the quality of Fermi-2. Never-theless, Detroit Edison has the same regulatory obligation to report and to correct deficiencies identified through SAFETEAM as it does with respect to deficiencies identified by the QA organization, by individuals or their supervisors, or by NRC personnel. The petitioners appear to believe that because SAFETEAM is not a part of the formal Quality Assurance organi-zation, deficiencies identified by SAFETEAM may be ignored, and that SAFETEAM is accountable to no one. This repeatedly is termed a " loophole" in the regulatory process. Petition at 8, 11-14.
- 17. The petitioners completely misunderstand the situa-tion. The SAFETEAM Program Manual, at pages 40 and 41, states:
Reportable concerns - When an investigation reveals that the concern stated in the in-terview is reportable, a transmittal should be prepared; addressed to the Direc-tor / Manager of Quality Assurance. The l
transmittal should include the statement of the concern and the information gathered in I
l l
.de the-investigation-that draws.the conclusion that the-concern.is. reportable. The trans-
.mittal should request.a response;when the item is closed by Quality Assurance.
-Willful wrongdoing - Any concern that sug-gests willful wrongdoing is sentoto the
' resident NRC inspector, stamped "2.790(d)-
material withheld'from public disclosure."
.18. The SAFETEAM investigators have been provided with instructions, in the: form of procedures, directing that the shift supervisor be immediately notified when a concern h's a been identified as a technical specification violation. The shift supervisor-then will take prompt action, including the issuance of a Deviation Event Report. When an individual's concern is substantiated as a safety issue, SAFETEAM willoturn the matter;over to the responsible organization or to Nuclear
- Quality Assurance, which will issue a Deviation Event Report. -
In this way, the deviation is processed using the accepted cor-rective acti'on program, ensuring-that it is tracked and brought to a conclusion. This also puts the Fermi-2 organization in 6 pos'ition'to assess whether the concern should be reported to the'NRC. In addition,.SAFETEAM files other than those with concernee names are available for inspection by NRC personnel.
- 19. The SAFETEAM program at Fermi-2 is run by SYNDECO, ,
providing sufficient independence from the Fermi-2 organiza-tion, and reports through a Detroit Edison contract administra-tor to the-Vice President - Nuclear Engineering and Services.
L .-L - . - . -- - - . - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
e The President of Detroit Edison receives a monthly report on
'the SAFETEAM activities. Consequently, SAFETEAM is independent yet accountable to the Fermi-2 organization, corporate manage-ment, and the NRC. The very I&E reports referred to in the Pe-tition demonstrate the substantial oversight the Fermi SAFETEAM program has received from the NRC and Detroit Edison.
Conclusion i
- 20. SAFETEAM is a program designed to give individuals an attractive and voluntary opportunity to communicate concerns about safety. It is not intended to replace or in any way to relieve other organizations of any responsibilities. If the
~
NRC were essentially to take over SAFETEAM, as the petition ap-pears to suggest, the history of past licensee and government -
programs indicate that individuals would be less willing to come forward with their concerns, and program effectiveness would be greatly diminished.
- 21. SAFETEAM has contacted over 7,000 pecple and investi-gated over 2,200 individual concerns at Fermi. (Ir contrast, the Quality Concern Report program at Fermi, run by the QA or-ganization with a more regulatory atmosphere, received 87 indi-vidual concerns over the six-year period from 1980 through 1985.) The resolution of these concerns has resulted in many hardware and procedural changes, which have enhanced safety at the Fermi-2 facility. While SAFETEAM has not been perfect, in t
t l
{ _ _ __ _ _ _ _
my judgment it has been very effective. In January of this year GAP held a press conference at..which it disclosed 28 alle . ,
I gations which GAP' claims came from 49 individuals formerly as- i sociated with Fermi. SAFETEAM has investigated each concern and found that most were from one to four years old, and that-the concerns had.been addressed and dispositioned-in an_appro-priate manner. This review simply confirms the effectiveness of the program.
1 t ! 'r Robert G. Kunkle Subscrib d and sworn to before me '
thisJo - day of July, 1987.
>Y Notary Public My commission expires /2 -2 # ' O .
mMtCIA BUCK Notwy Putile, Washhnow County, MI My Commisslan Expless Dec.E, MN
L-ATTACHMENT B March 30, 1987 i
4 Ms. Jennifer E. Puntenney Director Safe Energy Coalition of Michigan
, P.O. Box 331 Monroe, MI 48161 ,
Dear Ms. Puntenney:
This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated February 15, 1987 and enclosures regarding the Fermi SAFETEAM. Apparently it was delayed in the mail, as it was not received in the region until March 9. Your letter essentially takes issue with the adequacy of. the Femi SAFETEAM and of the l
scope of NRC's: review of certain of the SAFETEAM files. One of the enclosures to your letter, the Government Accountability Project (GAP) .
l preliminary investigation on SAFETEAM, contains, among other things,.a list '
of 28 allegations it received from present and former plant workers. ,Your letter also states that you will be filing a. joint petition pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 with the Sisters, Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary in the I l
next few weeks addressing your concerns and the action NRC should be taking. -
We are in the process of reviewing your letter. However, you should be i aware that specific factual information is required for processing a 2.206 petition. The GAP investigation report referred to additional information concerning the allegations. Whether or not you desire to pursue this matter under the 10 CFR 2.206 process you should provide all information obtained by GAP related to safety issues so that they may be appropriately evaluated.
Sincerely, l
(;P;h,1 ein4 by Ai h.:t.rb.
A. Bert Davis Acting Regional Administrator cc: Monroe County Board of Commissioners l
1