ML20248J215
| ML20248J215 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant |
| Issue date: | 06/01/1998 |
| From: | Rifakes G UNITED STATES ENRICHMENT CORP. (USEC) |
| To: | Caldwell J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20013K053 | List: |
| References | |
| GDP-98-0114, GDP-98-114, NUDOCS 9806090034 | |
| Download: ML20248J215 (5) | |
Text
1 g p
~
fLLD]
v USEC A Global Energy Company GEORGE P. RIFAKES Cir; (301) 564-3301 EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, OPERATIONS Fax: (301) 571-8279 3
35 June 1,1998 GDP 98-0114 Mr. James L. Caldwell Acting Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III 801 Warrenville Road Lisle, Illinois 60532-4351 Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PGDP)
Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PORTS)
Docket Nos. 70-7001 & 70-7002 Response to December 8,1997 Letter Regarding the Recognition ofIssues Related to Chilling Effects
Dear Mr. Caldwell:
I On December 8,1997, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) notified the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC) of the NRC's recognition ofissues related to chilling effects l
(Reference 1). The NRC requested that USEC provide a written response that describes:
- 1. USEC's assessment of the ability of the gaseous diffusion plant employees to report problems without fear of retaliation.
- 2. USEC's position regarding whether any actions affecting individuals violated 10 CFR 76.7 and the basis for USEC's position, including the results ofany independent investigations USEC may have conducted to determine whether a violation occurred.
- 3. Actions USEC has already taken, or planned to take, to assure that the matters noted above are not having a chilling effect on the willingness of employees to raise safety and compliance concerns within USEC's organization and, as discussed in Form 3, to the NRC.
9806090034 980601 PDR ADOCK 07007001 C
pm
'l 0 0 r q 6903 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20817-1818 UU Telephone 301-564-3200 Fax 301-564-3201 http://www.usec.com OfHces in Livermore, CA Paducah, KY Portsmouth, OH Washington, DC A ljN 0 2 1998
Mr. James L. Cpidwell June 1,1998 GDP 98-0114, Page 2 This letter provides USEC's response to NRC's request. USEC engaged SYNERGY Consulting Services Corporation (SYNERGY) to independently characterize the nuclear sa.fety culture, including the environment for addressing employee concerns, at PGDP and PORTS. SYNERGY performed approximately 60 interviews at each plant site. These interviews were used to assist in the preparation of the Nuclear Safety Culture (NSC) Surveys that were subsequently provided to all Lemployees at the PGDP and PORTS sites. Survey responses were received from more than 2500 employees, which constitutes greater than 50% of the total number of employees at both sites.
The results of the NSC Assessment indicate ths composite perception of nuclear safety culture is acceptable. The results also indicate that a significant majority of responding employees (98%) feel a responsibility to identify potential nuclear safety concerns and would feel supported by their J
supervision for having done so (95%). A significant majority ofresponding employees (over 86%)
are not concerned about harassment, intimidation, or discrimination by peers, supervision, or managementkr pursuing a potential nuclear safety issue or concern. Collective evaluation of this 1
data indicates that a significant majority of the work force feels the plant environment supports individual willingness and likelihood of reporting potential nuclear safety issues. Therefore, USEC l
. concludes that gaseous diffusion plant employees would report nuclear safety problems without the i
fear of retaliation.
' Due to the complexity and volume of the data resulting from the NSC Assessment performed by SYNERGY, USEC requests a meeting with NRC to discuss the detailed results. USEC will contact l
NRC to arrange this meeting.
' The results of the NSC Assessment did identify the following issues:
l
- 1.. Confidence in the Employee Concems Program (ECP) is less than adequate, indicating potential
.)
weaknesses in the ECP.
l
- 2. There are localized pockets of concerns relative to the perceived work environment, indicating potential leadership issues or more generalized cultural weaknesses in specific organizations.
- 3. There are > opportunities to enhance selected technical programs and process:s (e.g., problem reporting, nuclear criticality safety, and procedures).
- 4. There are indications thatjob satisfaction and morale issues are impacting the general culture and work environment, h
USEC is in the process of developing an action plan to address the issues listed above. This action L
plan is not yet complete, and will be provided to the NRC once it has been completed.
, =.
Mr. James L. Caldwell June 1,1998 GDP 98-0114, Page 3 USEC has also responded to several individual specific employee concerns that were forwarded to USEC by the NRC (References 4 through 11). Based on the USEC investigations of these individual employee concerns and other potentially related matters, USEC management is not aware of any actions affecting individuals that violated 10 CFR 76.7.
Additionally, the NRC agreed to defer USEC's response to certain specific employee concerns as documented in References 10 and 11. USEC's response to these employee concerns are provided in Enclosure 1. does not contain proprietary information. However, USEC requests that NRC withhold from public disclosure pursuant to 10 CFR 2.790(a)(6), since disclosure ofinformation in Enclosure I could constitute an invasion of personal privacy.
~Any questions related to this subject should be directed to Mark Lombard at (301) 564-3248. New commitments' contained within this submittal are listed in Enclosure 2.
Sincerely, George P. Rifakes Executive Vice President, Operations
Enclosure:
As Stated 1
i I
Mr. James L. Caldwell June 1,' 19'98 -
GDP 98-0114, Page 4 REFERENCES
- 1. Letter from A. Bill Beach (NRC) to William H. Timbers (USEC), Recognition ofIssues Related to Chilling Effects, December 8,1997.
- 2. Letter from William H. Timbers, Jr. (USEC) to A. Bill Beach (NRC), Issues Related to Chilling Effects, USEC Letter GDP 97-0210, December 17,1997.
. 3. Letter from A. Bill Beach (NRC) to William H. Timbers (USEC), Meeting on Chilling Effects and Request for 120-day Extension of Response Time, January 29,1998.
- 4. ' Letter from James H. Miller (USEC) to Roy Caniano (NRC), Response to NRC Concerns Regarding Security Threats and Problem Reports, USEC Letter GDP 97-0163, September 12,
-1997.
- 5. Letter from James H. Miller (USEC) to Roy Caniano (NRC), Response to NRC Concerns, USEC Letter GDP 97-0173, September 26,1997.
- Letter GDP 98-0030, February 23,1998.
- 7. ' Letter from James H. Miller (USEC) to H. Brent Clayton (NRC), Response to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Letter Regarding Employee Concern at PGDP (98-A-0014),
l USEC Letter GDP 98-0050, March 23,1998.
I 1
- 8. Letter from James H. Miller (USEC) to Roy Caniano (NRC), Response to NRC Concern 98-A-0019, USEC Letter GDP 98-0076, April 6,1998.
- 9. Letter from James H. Miller (USEC) to Cynthia D. Pederson (NRC),
Reference:
NRC Tracking Number 98-A-0012, USEC Letter GDP 98-0079, April 20,1998.
' 10. Letter from Jaines H. Miller (USEC) to'H. Brent Clayton (NRC),
Reference:
NRC Tracking Number 98-A-0038, USEC Letter GDP 98-0080, April 20,1998.
. I1.' Letter from James H. Miller (USEC) to H. Brent Clayton (NRC),
Reference:
NRC Tracking Number 98-A-0018, USEC Letter GDP 98-0081, April 24,1998.
E
j
(,'
l OATH AND AFFIRMATION l
I, George P. Rifakes, swear and affirm that I am Executive Vice President, Operations, of the United States Enriclunent Corporation (USEC), that I am authorized by USEC to sign and file with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission this response to NRC's recognition of issues related to chilling effects contained in USEC Letter GDP 98-0114, that I am familiar with the contents thereof, and that the statements made and matters set forth therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.
~
George P. Rifakes On this 1st day of June,1998, the officer signing above personally appeared before me, is known by me to be the person whose name is subscribed to within the instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same for the purposes therein contained.
In witness hereofI hereunto set my hand and official seal.
/
Afd 11Jm aure M. Knisley, Notary Public State of Maryland, Montgomery Cou My commission expires March 1,2002
_