ML20202H073: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:}} | {{#Wiki_filter:_ _ _ _ - ,. . _ . . _ . . . _ . . __m - | ||
_ _ _ ~ _ . _ .____._~..m-- . . _ . ___ _ _ _ _ - _ . _ . . -.___ _ | |||
: e. . t - I From: B' f | |||
To: P ! | |||
Dese: 6/25/97 3:46pm , | |||
==Subject:== | |||
- Current PP&L Corporate Auditing Investigation ' | |||
On June 24,1997, I spoke with Mr. Marna Urban Manager - PP&L Corporate Auditing, regarding several ongoing invertigathas at the SSES site. Mr. Urban A==W a recent assignment regarding a concern that has to do widt non-licensed and licensed operators not performing alarm tests that they signed for. He specifically mentioned alarm tests ' | |||
for the ESS transformer local panels, control room overhead annunciators, and a panel in the radwaste area. He stated that | |||
,the issue was brought to PP&L by an *outside" entity (the attorney for a former NPO). | |||
As 'of June 24th, Mr. Urban was collectag data and conducting interviews. He had not reached any conclusions. I | |||
. However, he stated that his interview with Mr. Chamblis led him to believe that the ESS transformer alarm issue was previously addressed (CR 97-0289) and that Mr. Chamblis did not previously know about the other alarm test issues. | |||
) | |||
Mr. Urban stated that he would be attending the union arbitratiort hearing on June 25,1997, and would be looking for any supporting informatson provided by the former employees. | |||
Ken Jenison reviewed the ESS transfortrer issue in February 1997 and found the licensee's conclusion acceptable. A | |||
; re-evaluation of licensee data in June 1997 found the licensee has made four revisions of their report on the issue but made no substantial changes to the conclusion. | |||
CC: KMJ - * - | |||
i l | |||
1 I | |||
l l | |||
9902080003 990129 " | |||
PDR FOIA b' SORENSEN99--36 PDR_ ,u , | |||
aidin i a w o ro, e - - | |||
,' , ., - ALLEGATION DISPOSITION RECORD Rev. 10/01/96 4 | |||
' 'ANeg:ti:n No.: RI-97-A-0145 Br nch Chisf (AOC): Kelmig | |||
. Site:Susquehanna Acknowledged: Yes No._._ N/A _ | |||
Panel Date: 6/23/97 Confidentiality Granted: Yes _ No _ | |||
i | |||
. Issue discussed (if other than original allegation): | |||
Alleger contacted prior to referral to licensee (if applicable)? Yes No l | |||
ALLEGATION PANEL DECISI (Previous Allegation Panels on issue: Yes _ No _) l l | |||
Attendees: Chair - Hehl Branch Chief (AOC) -Keimig l SAC -Vito - | |||
I Of Rep. - Letts, Monroe ~ R1 Counsel - Fewell Others - Nicholson (DRS), I Walker (ORA), Swetland (DRP) | |||
Holody (ORA) | |||
:' DISPOSITION ACTIONS: (State actions required for closure (including special concurrences), | |||
rxp:nsible person, ECD and expected closure documentation) | |||
~ | |||
11 ) - Acknowledgement letters (if known) include IG notification paragraph for alleger dissatisfied i with allegation process; also include statement that involvement in union activities is not a 10 l CFR 50.7 issue. Request additional info. for alleger who stated that he advised his supervisor l about the other alarms not being tested (i.e. time periods, etc.). | |||
p Responsible Person: SAC ECD: July 20,1997 Closure Documentation: Completed: | |||
- 2) DRP/ Residents to contact allegers for more specific info; followup on alarm testing issues to | |||
, determine if there are required tests and if they are documented. | |||
Responsible Person: G. ' | |||
ECD: July 1,1997 | |||
~ | |||
Closure Documentation: Completed: | |||
o L3) Repanel. | |||
Responsible Person: SAC ECD: July 2,1997 Closure Documentation: Completed: | |||
2 Safaty Significance Assessment: TBD at 7/2/97 panel meeting. 4/ | |||
.Priarity of 01 Investigation: }4 JMM W | |||
NDI.ES:-(Include rationale for any referral to licensee and identify any potentially | |||
* generic allegations) ' | |||
y Issue not to be referred to licensee A. Region 1 should refer as many allegations as possible to the licensee for action and response unless any of the following factors apply: | |||
o Information cannot be released in sufficient detail to the licensee without compromising the identity of the alleger or confidential source (unless the alleger has no objection to his or her name being released). | |||
o The licensee could compromise an investigation or inspection because of knowledge gained from the referral. | |||
e The allegation is made against the licensee's management or those parties who would normally receive and address the allegation. | |||
o The basis of the allegation is information received from a Federal agency that does not approve of the information being released in a referral. | |||
Even if the above conditions exist. Region 1 shall refer the substance of the allegation to the licensee regardless of any factor if the allegation raises an overriding safety issue. using the guidance in Management Directive 8.8. | |||
' Factors to Consider Prior to Referral to a l.icensee | |||
~ | |||
In determining whether to refer eligible allegations to a licensee. The Region 1 Allegation Panel shall cons 1 der t'he ~ | |||
following: | |||
s o- Could the release of information bring harm to the alleger or confidential source? | |||
o Has the alleger or confidential source voiced objections to the release of the allegation to the licensee? | |||
o What is the licensee's history of allegations against it and past record in dealing with allegations. | |||
including the likelihood that the licensee will effectively investigate, document. and resolve the allegation? | |||
o- Has the alleger or confidential source already taken this concern to the licensee with unsatisfactory results? If the answer is "yes." the concern is within NRC's jurisdiction, and the alleger objects to the referral the concerns should normally not be referred to the licensee. | |||
o Are resources to investigate available within the region? | |||
Prior to referring an allegation to a licensee. all reasonable efforts should be made to inform allegers or confidential sources of the planned referral.- This notification may be given orally and subsequently documented in an acknowledgement. letter. If the alleger or confidential source objects to the referral, or does not respond within 30 | |||
, calendar days. and the NRC has considered the factors described above. a referral can be made despite the alleger's or | |||
, confidential source's objection or lack of response. In all such cases, an attempt will be made to contact the alleger by phone just prior to making the referral. | |||
Alsof referrals are not to be made if it could compromise the identity of the alleger, or if it could compromise an ! | |||
inspection or investigation. Note: Document the basis for referring allegations to a licensee in those cases where l | |||
, the criteria listed above indicate that it is questionable whether a referral is appropriate. ' | |||
Distributions. Panel Attendees, Regional Counsel, OI, Responsible Persons (original to SAC) | |||
Ootions for Resolution: | |||
1 Licensee Referral (Div. Dir. Concurrence Required (First Consider Factors Prior to Referral) / | |||
Document NRC Review of Response - Resp. - AOC) | |||
RefOrral to Another Agency (OSHA, etc. - Resp. - SAC) | |||
Referral to an Agreement State (MD,-ME, NH, NY, RI - Resp. - SAC) j | |||
;R*,fsrr:1.to Another NRC Office (OIG, NRR, Other Regions - Resp. - SAC) | |||
RequEOt for Additional' Info. (From alleger, licensee, others - Resp. - AOC) | |||
Cloceout Letter / Memo ' (If no further - action planned - Resp. - AOC) | |||
Inspection (Resident / Specialist routine or reactive) ll __ | |||
IF R&ID INVOLVED: | |||
;, - t | |||
' .1) has the individu?.1 beIn infermed of th7 DOL | |||
'. procera and tha n nd to filo a complcint within 180 d ys Yes No (has DOL information package been provided?) | |||
' 2) has the individual filed a complaint with DOL Yes No | |||
: 3) if the complainant filed directly with DOL, have they been Yes No contacted to obtain their technical concerns (Resp. - SAC) l | |||
: 4) io a chilling effect letter warranted: Yes No j (DOL finding in favor of alleger) j (conciliation w/ licensee prior to DOL decision) ' | |||
ADDITIONAL NOTES 1 | |||
l l | |||
l 1 | |||
1 l | |||
1 l | |||
l | |||
,}} |
Latest revision as of 13:49, 1 January 2021
Text
_ _ _ _ - ,. . _ . . _ . . . _ . . __m -
_ _ _ ~ _ . _ .____._~..m-- . . _ . ___ _ _ _ _ - _ . _ . . -.___ _
- e. . t - I From: B' f
To: P !
Dese: 6/25/97 3:46pm ,
Subject:
- Current PP&L Corporate Auditing Investigation '
On June 24,1997, I spoke with Mr. Marna Urban Manager - PP&L Corporate Auditing, regarding several ongoing invertigathas at the SSES site. Mr. Urban A==W a recent assignment regarding a concern that has to do widt non-licensed and licensed operators not performing alarm tests that they signed for. He specifically mentioned alarm tests '
for the ESS transformer local panels, control room overhead annunciators, and a panel in the radwaste area. He stated that
,the issue was brought to PP&L by an *outside" entity (the attorney for a former NPO).
As 'of June 24th, Mr. Urban was collectag data and conducting interviews. He had not reached any conclusions. I
. However, he stated that his interview with Mr. Chamblis led him to believe that the ESS transformer alarm issue was previously addressed (CR 97-0289) and that Mr. Chamblis did not previously know about the other alarm test issues.
)
Mr. Urban stated that he would be attending the union arbitratiort hearing on June 25,1997, and would be looking for any supporting informatson provided by the former employees.
Ken Jenison reviewed the ESS transfortrer issue in February 1997 and found the licensee's conclusion acceptable. A
- re-evaluation of licensee data in June 1997 found the licensee has made four revisions of their report on the issue but made no substantial changes to the conclusion.
CC: KMJ - * -
i l
1 I
l l
9902080003 990129 "
PDR FOIA b' SORENSEN99--36 PDR_ ,u ,
aidin i a w o ro, e - -
,' , ., - ALLEGATION DISPOSITION RECORD Rev. 10/01/96 4
' 'ANeg:ti:n No.: RI-97-A-0145 Br nch Chisf (AOC): Kelmig
. Site:Susquehanna Acknowledged: Yes No._._ N/A _
Panel Date: 6/23/97 Confidentiality Granted: Yes _ No _
i
. Issue discussed (if other than original allegation):
Alleger contacted prior to referral to licensee (if applicable)? Yes No l
ALLEGATION PANEL DECISI (Previous Allegation Panels on issue: Yes _ No _) l l
Attendees: Chair - Hehl Branch Chief (AOC) -Keimig l SAC -Vito -
I Of Rep. - Letts, Monroe ~ R1 Counsel - Fewell Others - Nicholson (DRS), I Walker (ORA), Swetland (DRP)
Holody (ORA)
- ' DISPOSITION ACTIONS: (State actions required for closure (including special concurrences),
rxp:nsible person, ECD and expected closure documentation)
~
11 ) - Acknowledgement letters (if known) include IG notification paragraph for alleger dissatisfied i with allegation process; also include statement that involvement in union activities is not a 10 l CFR 50.7 issue. Request additional info. for alleger who stated that he advised his supervisor l about the other alarms not being tested (i.e. time periods, etc.).
p Responsible Person: SAC ECD: July 20,1997 Closure Documentation: Completed:
- 2) DRP/ Residents to contact allegers for more specific info; followup on alarm testing issues to
, determine if there are required tests and if they are documented.
Responsible Person: G. '
ECD: July 1,1997
~
Closure Documentation: Completed:
o L3) Repanel.
Responsible Person: SAC ECD: July 2,1997 Closure Documentation: Completed:
2 Safaty Significance Assessment: TBD at 7/2/97 panel meeting. 4/
.Priarity of 01 Investigation: }4 JMM W
NDI.ES:-(Include rationale for any referral to licensee and identify any potentially
- generic allegations) '
y Issue not to be referred to licensee A. Region 1 should refer as many allegations as possible to the licensee for action and response unless any of the following factors apply:
o Information cannot be released in sufficient detail to the licensee without compromising the identity of the alleger or confidential source (unless the alleger has no objection to his or her name being released).
o The licensee could compromise an investigation or inspection because of knowledge gained from the referral.
e The allegation is made against the licensee's management or those parties who would normally receive and address the allegation.
o The basis of the allegation is information received from a Federal agency that does not approve of the information being released in a referral.
Even if the above conditions exist. Region 1 shall refer the substance of the allegation to the licensee regardless of any factor if the allegation raises an overriding safety issue. using the guidance in Management Directive 8.8.
' Factors to Consider Prior to Referral to a l.icensee
~
In determining whether to refer eligible allegations to a licensee. The Region 1 Allegation Panel shall cons 1 der t'he ~
following:
s o- Could the release of information bring harm to the alleger or confidential source?
o Has the alleger or confidential source voiced objections to the release of the allegation to the licensee?
o What is the licensee's history of allegations against it and past record in dealing with allegations.
including the likelihood that the licensee will effectively investigate, document. and resolve the allegation?
o- Has the alleger or confidential source already taken this concern to the licensee with unsatisfactory results? If the answer is "yes." the concern is within NRC's jurisdiction, and the alleger objects to the referral the concerns should normally not be referred to the licensee.
o Are resources to investigate available within the region?
Prior to referring an allegation to a licensee. all reasonable efforts should be made to inform allegers or confidential sources of the planned referral.- This notification may be given orally and subsequently documented in an acknowledgement. letter. If the alleger or confidential source objects to the referral, or does not respond within 30
, calendar days. and the NRC has considered the factors described above. a referral can be made despite the alleger's or
, confidential source's objection or lack of response. In all such cases, an attempt will be made to contact the alleger by phone just prior to making the referral.
Alsof referrals are not to be made if it could compromise the identity of the alleger, or if it could compromise an !
inspection or investigation. Note: Document the basis for referring allegations to a licensee in those cases where l
, the criteria listed above indicate that it is questionable whether a referral is appropriate. '
Distributions. Panel Attendees, Regional Counsel, OI, Responsible Persons (original to SAC)
Ootions for Resolution:
1 Licensee Referral (Div. Dir. Concurrence Required (First Consider Factors Prior to Referral) /
Document NRC Review of Response - Resp. - AOC)
RefOrral to Another Agency (OSHA, etc. - Resp. - SAC)
Referral to an Agreement State (MD,-ME, NH, NY, RI - Resp. - SAC) j
RequEOt for Additional' Info. (From alleger, licensee, others - Resp. - AOC)
Cloceout Letter / Memo ' (If no further - action planned - Resp. - AOC)
Inspection (Resident / Specialist routine or reactive) ll __
IF R&ID INVOLVED:
- , - t
' .1) has the individu?.1 beIn infermed of th7 DOL
'. procera and tha n nd to filo a complcint within 180 d ys Yes No (has DOL information package been provided?)
' 2) has the individual filed a complaint with DOL Yes No
- 3) if the complainant filed directly with DOL, have they been Yes No contacted to obtain their technical concerns (Resp. - SAC) l
- 4) io a chilling effect letter warranted: Yes No j (DOL finding in favor of alleger) j (conciliation w/ licensee prior to DOL decision) '
ADDITIONAL NOTES 1
l l
l 1
1 l
1 l
l
,