ML20203M588: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot change)
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Adams
#REDIRECT [[PLA-4652, Partially Withheld Package Consisting of Util Response to NRC RAI Re EA 97-139]]
| number = ML20203M588
| issue date = 02/26/1998
| title = Partially Withheld Package Consisting of Util Response to NRC RAI Re EA 97-139
| author name =
| author affiliation = PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT CO.
| addressee name =
| addressee affiliation =
| docket = 05000387, 05000388
| license number =
| contact person =
| case reference number = FOIA-97-473, FOIA-98-A-006, FOIA-98-A-6
| document report number = EA-97-139, PLA-46525, NUDOCS 9803090129
| package number = ML20203M510
| document type = ARCHIVE RECORDS, PACKAGE OF NONCODED MATERIAL
| page count = 9
}}
 
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:_ __                                    _    _ _.            _        _    __
Mr. C. W. Hehl FILE R41-2 PLA 4625 Item 1: Potential Violation of10 CFR 50.7 Nucle, r Department management requested PP&L Corporate Auditing (Auditing) to investigate the factual basis of a potential violation of 10 CFR 50.7.
On or about January 15, 1997, the NRC Senior Resident inspector (Resident) encountered dimculty signing onto a Radiation Work Pennit while utilizing a new computerized dosimetry      '/
system. The employee was unable to resolve the Resident's dimculty. The employee stated to        9 the Resident that [ ] was not sumelently trained in operating the new system and conununicated
[ ] concerns about a lack of training and the inability to handle daily problems as they occur with the new system.
[
                                                ]
Auditing concluded the following:
* Auditing was unable to determine whether or not the supervisor explicitly told the        /
employee that [ ] should not have talked to the NRC regarding ( ) concerns.            (;-
                * ' Die supervisor and the employee both indicated that the training and procedures relating to the computerized dosimetry system were inadequate.
[                                                                        ]
[                                                                        ]
I                                                                                /
[                                                                          ] Auditing could not conclude that the supervisor intended to retaliate against the employee for l                  engaging in a protected activity.
* Auditing found no evidence to conclude that the employee was subjected to improper employment actions as described to Auditing by the employee.
A copy of Auditing's report is available onsite for review.
I l
PP&L reviewed the following five elements in making our determination as to whether or not a 10 CFR 50.7 violation occurred:
9803090129 900226 l          PDR    FOIA l          SOREN98-A-006 PDR
* l    r ~ u :y y vi. y        _
 
l l
3-                          Mr. C. W.11ehl FILE R412 Pl.A-4625
: 1. The employer must be subject to the En:rgy Reorganization Act.
: 2. The employee must be engaged in an activity protected by the Act.
: 3. The employer must be aware of the protected activity.
: 4. The employer must have discharged or otherwise discriminated against the employee with respect to compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment.
: 5. The employer must have iaken this adverse action in retaliation for the employee having engaged in protected activities.
In this case, PP&L is subject to the Energv Reorganization Act, the employee was engaged in protected activity in that [ ] discussed certain issues of concern to ( ] with an NRC resident and PP&L was aware of the conversation. However, we concluded that the employee was not f:'
b'/
discriminated against with respect to the compensation, terms, condhions or privileges of ( )
employment.
During an interview with Auditing, the employee cited two events wluch [                    ] believed constituted adverse action resulting from ( ) interaction with the Resident. First, [ ] asserted that [ ] temporary promotion was not handled in accordance with current station practice.
Second, [ ] inferred that [ ] was intentionally excluded from receiving certain communications              [
from the supervisor relevant to ( ) job. Auditing reviewed these two events. Auditing concluded that the temporary promotion '.vas handled in accordance with the common practice; i.e., [ ] was pmmoted according to seniority. Auditing also reviewed the distribution of one of the supervisor's memos provided to them by the employee, and did not find evidence of discrimination. In addition to the employee, there were two other HP technicians who were temporarily promoted at the same time or later than the employee and were not included on distribution for the memo. None of the three employees had been given the specific work assignments made in the memo.
Based upon the interview results and data collected, we do not believe that the supervisor was        ,
retaliating against the employee for engaging in a protected activity. The accounts of both the [
1                      a
[                                                                                                W l'
                                                                            ) PP&L believes that although the interaction between the supervisor and technician was certainly not ideal, it did not constitute an adverse employment action against an employee for engaging in a protected activity as defined in 10 CFR 50.7.
 
Mr. C. W. Ilehl FILE R412 PLA 4625 Corrective Actions in response to the event, the following corrective actions have been taken:
[                                                                                        ]
      *                                                                        *                              /
[                                                                                            ] We have assured [ ] that [ ] should continue to feel free and ir encouraged to raise any concems
[ ] has to any Department Managers, Employee Concems Representatives, or the Nuclear              -
r'/
Regulatory Commission.
* Retraining of appropriate staff regarding the new computedzed dosimetry system is ongoing; the employee in question has received training. Associated procedures have been enhanced.
We are continuing to review the training and procedures for further appropdate enhancements.
* We have considered the broader implications; they are discussed tmder Item 2 below.
Item 2: PotentialCitIlline Effeet This is in response to your request for a description of the actions PP&L has taken or plans to take to assure that this matter is not having a chilling effect on the willingness of other employees to raise safety and compliance concerns within our organization and to the NRC.
We recognize that interactions like the one described in Item 1 above can be perceived by the employee and others within PP&L as discouraging them from engaging in a protected activity.
Clearly, in order to maintain a safety conscious work environment, it is important to correct any misperceptions that may exist and prevent the situation from being misconstrued by others. As a result, we have taken a number of actions in addition to those specific to the event. On a broader basis, we have communicated to the Nuclear Department. Specifically:
* A letter dated May 7,1997 was sent to all department supervisors from the Vice President-Nuclear Operations describing the interaction and reinforcing supervisory responsibilities when responding to employee concems.
* Another letter, dated May 14, 1997, was sent to all Department employees from senior management describing the interaction and reviewing Department policy and expectations.
* A meeting has been held among senior management and health physics personnel to discuss the event.
The letter to Department employees discusses PP&L's employee concerns policy, which states the following:
 
Mr. C. W. liehl FILE R412 PLA-4625 "The policy of Pennsylvania Power & Light is to address all concerns pertaining to the safety of the Susquehanna Station in a forthright manner and without reprisal. If anyone involved in the design, operation or maintenance of Susquehanna has a concern about nuclear safety, management needs to know so that it can be addressed. THE COMPANY WANTS TO HEAR YOUR NUCLEAR SAFETY CONCERNS. THE INTENTION IS TO CAPnJRE AND RESOLVE NUCLEAR SAFETY CONCERNS. Management is interested in any issue, that cou!d potentially affect the safety of Susquehanna. No one will be penalized for raising a nuclear > ..ety concern to your supervisor, Nuclear Safety Concerns Personnel, any level of PP&L management or to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)."
The PP&L procedure, " Nuclear Safety Concerns of Individuals," (NDAP 00-0109) states
        " Supervisors and managers ar esponsible for creating and maintaining an environment where employees are comfortable ir expressing concerns related to nucl ar safety." Employees are expected to bring forth any nuclear safety issue, and are ofrered several avenues in support of this objective.
PP&L has taken numerous aggressive actions to ensure that the work environment ct PP&L is conducive to employees being comfortable raising potential safety related concerns. These actions began in 1985 with PP&L's independent safety engineering group (ISEO) reporting employee concerns and allegations to the Sr. Vice President - Nuclear and the Susquehanna                                  l Review Committee. It continued with the estabil.slunent of the PP&L Nuclear Safety Concems Program (NSCP) In 1989. Since the formal Employee Concerns Program began, it has received                                  ,
regular, independent assessments in recognition of the need to monitor its effectiveness.                                  !
Independent contractor assessments in 1993 and 1995 confirmed that the overall environment                                ,
met PP&L's expectations; however, PP&L recognizes that the " local" environment in certain                                l work groups has required substantial management involvement.
l        On August 29,1996, PP&L met with NRC management to discuss the investigation performed                                    i and corrective actions taken in response to employee concerns in Health Physics; Reference 2                              l l
describes comprehensive actions taken to improve the work environment in the Security organization. We are continuing to monitor the effectiveness of these actions, and will enhance them as necessary to achieve our objectives in accordance with our policy. Reference 2 also documented our response to a previous NRC concern on the potential existence of a chilling effect (stemming from issues within our Security organization), which is discussed below.
Actions Taken: Response to Previous NRC Concern on Chilling Effect l
l        Reference 2 describes actions PP&L was taking in response to 1995 NSCP assessment recommendations. These actions, which have either been completed or are ongoing, are described below and indicate our recognition that such problems require responses that have department wide impact.                                      .
w                            ,=,-n ,
 
Mr. C. W. lichl FILE R41-2 ptA-4625 Communications: Our objective remains to continuously communicate the importance of fostering a work environment that supports the airing of employee concerns. We have:
Completed Senior Management briermgs of supervisory personnel on employee protection issues.
Continued to hold open communication forums between work groups and Senior Management. These discussions are with small groups, and are directed at issues ofinterest to employees. Issues raised receive further analysis and action as appcopriate.
    . Continuously reinforced our policy with employees and supervisors through various department communication vehicles and forums. They included:
Personalized letters from the Nuclear Department senior management to all Employees regarding Department policy and expectations
            - Announcements regarding the restructuring of the Nuclear Safety Coricems Program (NSCP) into the Employee Concems Program (ECP)
            - Articles in various Department conununications about employee concems, including a special edition of the Department newsletter devoted to this topic
            - Meetings to explain the ECP were held between the SSES ECP representative and each SSES work group
                " Nuclear Safety Concern Report" forms, a new vehicle that can be used by anyone to record / submit a concem, were placed in all Department newsstads
            - Establishment of an employee concerns electronic mail box Traininc:
    . Training Course MAlli, which covers management expectations concerning encouragement of raising concerns and dealing with people who raise concerns, as well as employee protection regulations and other lessons learned has been provided to onsite supervisors.
    . Training Course mal 12 develops the necessary behaviors to deal with conflict in the workplace and to support employees in raising concems. It has been provided to department managers and supervisors.
      . Our supervisory development programs have been enhanced to provide training that reinforces the importance and understanding of interactions with employees relative to their raising nuclear safety and other concerns.
      . Training Course mal 16 has been provided to non-supervisory personnel.              It covers employee protection regulations in addition to the importance of raising concerns and their avenues for doing so.
 
1
                                                                                                              \
Mr. C. W. l{chl FILE R412 PLA 4625 Assessment:
Periodic independent assessments of the Employee Concerns Program (formerly the Nuclear Safety Concerns Program) will continue to occur. These will include both the willingness of workers to raise concems and the satisfaction of those who have used the program to address concems. The next independent assessment is the Safety Culture Assessment described under " Future Planned Action" below.
* Nuclear Assessment personnel will utilize the Safety Culture Assessment results to focus their planned assessment activities.
Human Resources & Development: An experienced HR&D professional remains on the Susquehanna site in order to visibly reinforce this avenue for resolving personnel concems.
Additional Actions: PP&L has taken a number of actions in support of our employee concerns policy that are in addition to those taken in response to Reference 2. These include:
    . Lowering the threshold for entering issues into our Corrective Action process.
* Broadening the Employee Concems Program scope by defining a concem as an issue raised inside PP&L but outside the normal chain of command, and thereby not requiring nuclear safety implications.
    . Communicating and demonstrating a higher standard of accountability for compliance with our policy.
* Recognizing / rewarding employees who bring forth significant issues.
PP&L believes that all of the actions described above have contributed to an improvement in our environment for raising and resolving employee concerns, and thereby mitigating the potential for a chilling efTect throughout our organization. We recognize, however, the importance of reinforcing our employee concems policy and monitoring its effectiveness throughout the life of the plant. Therefore, communications, training, and essessment in this area will continue proactively as well as in response to situations on Svents. Our next substantial assessment in this area has been developed, and is described bela                        ,
Future Planned Action: Department-Wide Lafety C63 Assessment As part of our continuing efforts to fully understand where opportunities for improvement exist in maintaining a work environment where employees are comfortable raising concerns, PP&L has designed an independent " safety culture assessment" that will establish a baseline for our
'      future activities in this area. This assessment will be facilitated by the outside contractor that performed both the 1993 and 1995 assessments of our Nuclear Safety Concerns Program.
 
                                              . _ . ._                -      -- __          - =_    -
8-                          M r. C. W . liehl FILE R412 PLA-4625 Obiectives:
Assess the overall state of the culture in the Nuclear Department with respect to the willingness to identify concems of both a safety and non safety nature.
Identify any distinct segments of the Nuclear Department which differ significantly from the norm.
Evaluate the results of this assessment against prior cultural assessments to identify correlations and trends.
Benchmark the Nuclear Department culture against other nuclear plants.
      . Establish a baseline measurement for use in identifying future trends.
      . Establish a repeatable technique for conducting periodic future culture assessments.
Establish a plan for overall cultural improvement and for intervention in any areas found outside the Department nomi.
Scope: Survey input designed to support the above objectives will be obtained from Department workers including management, bargaining unit, and contractors. Non-Nuclear Department employees may be included if they have significant involvement in Department activities.
Schedule: The assessment is currently scheduled to be communicated to employees in May, with data gathering through an employee survey in June, and a final report issued by September 1, 1997.
Conclusion PP&L remains acutely aware of the importance of fostering a work environment in which employees feel that they can raise concerns without fear of reprisal. We believe that the actions we have described above will enhance our ability to maintain such an environment over the life of Susquehanna Steam Electric Station. PP&L recognizes that the effectiveness of our efforts is a function of management involvement and provision of resources for the long term; both will continue to occur. The results of our upcoming safety culture assessment will be made available onsite for NRC review upon its completion.                          ,
Very truly yours, (Signed) R. G. BYRAM R. G. Byram
 
==Enclosures:==
: 1. Affidavit of Robert G. Byram pursuant to 10 CFR 2.790
: 2. Affidavit of Robert O. Byram pursuant to 10 CFR 2.204 and 10 CFR 50.54 (f) e
 
Mr. C. W. liehl FILE R41-2 PLA-4625 Copics:
NRC Region I Mr. C. Poslusny, Jr., NRC Sr. Project Manager - OWFN Mr. K. Jenison, NRC Sr Resident Inspector - SSES 1
 
AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT G. BYRAM 1, Robert G. Byram, Sr. Vice President Generation and Chief Nuclear Off Pennsylvania Power & Light Company ("PP&L"), do hereby affirm and state:
: 1. I am an officer of PP&L authorized to execute this affidav further authorized to review information submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Comm apply for the withholding ofinformation from disclostue.
2.
PP&L requests that the document attached hereto ("PP&L Response")
withheld from public disclosure tmder the provisions of 10 C.F.R. 2.790(a)(4), (
(a)(7)(iii).
: 3. The PP&L Response contains the results ofinternal investigative activities tha constitute confidential commercial information that should be wi
: 4. nis information has been hsId in .onfidence by PP&L. To the extent that PP&L has shared this information with others, it has done so on a confidential basis.
5.
Here is a rational basis for holding this information in confidence.
Confidential treatment of such information encourages frank and open internal investiga
: 6. Disclosure of the attached document would result in the details of t investigation being revealed. Such disclosure would adversely affect the future effectiwa the Company's ability to investigate potential wrongdoing by its employees.
: 7. The employees interviewed did not expect publication of the results of their interviews to the public.
: 8. Individual employees would be reluctant to candidly discuss matters with the i
Auditing Department and other individuals conducting investigation which would in turn undermine the employees' trust in PP&L's internal auditors and other investigators.        The credibility of the Company's investigative process would also be diminished. As a result, the government's ability to obtain similar information in the future would be impaired. Such disclosure would have a chilling effect on future investigations.
l
'                          9. The PP&L Response also involves personal and privacy issues, the disclosure of which could unreasonably harm individual employees.
: 10. This information is being transmitted and received in confidence. It is not available from public sources and could not be ' gathered readily from other publicly available information.
l h          f
* 1 o                                                                                                .
11.
m Public disclosure of this ' formation would cause substantial h competitive position of PP&L, because such Information could be used by others to ha thereby gain a competitive advantage over it.
PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY Ro        . B Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public in and for the Commgweal            fPennsylvania this!!o hayo,thp/TV        ,1997.
kbtklh            ifL
                      ~Nctasial Si21~~
Martha C.St:: ort NegPubuc u,c=# MLan."3.$m ver.::w,Fernsywanseawwod Notsnes 6
4 m                                  _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -  _
 
l AFFIDAVIT
                                                                                                    , .. w COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA )
: ss COUNTY OF LEHIGH                                    )
I, ROBERT G. BYRAM, being duly sworn according to law, state that I am Senior Vice President - Generation and Chief Nuclear Officer of Pennsylvania Power & Light Company and that the facts set forth on the attached response to NRC's April 1,1997 letter to PP&L entitled " Alleged Chilling Effect" are true and correct to the best of my knowledge,information and bellsf.
4 Robert G. Byram Senid Vice President Generatio and Chief Nuclear Officer Sworn to and su                  bed bef r      e this I                  day of
                                                    ,  1997.
Y                        .
A lb    ]            1      $-
Notary Public
                                    'Notar.at Sett dien hg r $        c r.
My commission Ec ;a: Ja1h.1998 wa    .e.cnn    ,_.sw.
      . _ . _ .}}

Latest revision as of 08:45, 7 December 2021

Redirect to:

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20203M588&oldid=3330559"