ML20057C602
| ML20057C602 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000734 |
| Issue date: | 08/31/1993 |
| From: | Cillis M, Reese J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20057C597 | List: |
| References | |
| 70-0734-93-05, 70-734-93-5, NUDOCS 9309290150 | |
| Download: ML20057C602 (10) | |
Text
._
V. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION V Report No.:
70-734/93-05 Docket No.:
70-734 License No.:
SNM-696 Licensee:
General Atomics (GA)
P. O. Box 85608 San Diego, California 92138 Facility Name:
Torrey Pines Mesa and Sorrento Valley Sites Inspection at:
San Diego, California Inspection Conducte : August 16,-1993
~
2 M 13 Inspectors:
Mile illis, SeniBF Radiation Specialist Date Sighe'd Approved by:
/0)h/A fxw 6/3//93 A gesUi. Reese, Chidf Date signed Facilities Radiological Protection Branch Summary:
Areas Inspected: This was a special announced inspection to obtain information on the licensee's employee concerns program. Temporary Instruction 2500/028 was addressed.
Results: In the area inspected, the licensee's programs appeared fully capable of accomplishing of their safety objectives.
No violations or deviations were identified.
~
9309290150 930831 PDR ADOCK 07000734 C
PDR.
DETAILS-Persons Contacted 5
a.
Licensee
- L. R. Quitana, Manager, Health Physics' (HP)
W. Gilinsky, Manager, Employee Relations R. Clark, Manager Contracts P. R. Maschka, Health Physics Supervisor, Decommissioning Activities b.
National Resource Consultants, Inc.
N. Krnich, Counselor 7
i
- Denotes those individuals attending the exit interview on August 16, 1993.
In addition to the individuals noted above, the inspectors met and held discussions with other members of the licensee's and contractor's staff's.
I 2.
Employee Concerns Program (TI 2500/028) j The inspector interviewed licensee managers concerning the content of their employee concerns program (ECP).
The questionnaire provided in l
Temporary Instruction 2500/028 was completed during the interview and the inspector interviewed workers for the purpose of determining their awareness of licensee ECPs that are available for expressing their The completed questionnaire is included as an attachment to i
concerns.
this inspection report.
No violations or deviations were identified.
3.
Exit Interview (TI 2500/028) d The inspector met with the licensee representatives, denoted in Section 1, at the conclusion of the inspection on August 16, 1993.
The scope and findings of the inspection were summarized.
The licensee was informed that no violations or deviations were identified.
I 1
3 o
l r
i 4
l
.j 1
Attachment EMPLOYEE CONCERNS PROGRAMS l
PLANT NAME: General Atomics LICENSEE: General Atomics DOCKET No:
70-734
.i NOTE:
Please circle yes or no if applicable and add comments in the space provided.
A.
PROGRAM:
1.
Do the licensee have an employee concerns program?
Yes or No/ comments)
The licensee has three different types of ECPs. They are as i
follows:
a.
" Instructions to Workers," training on NRC Form-3 instructions b.
GA Employee Hotline c.
Employee Assistance Program (EAP) j
.l 2.
Has NRC inspected this program? fio Report # E B.
SCOPE:
(Circle all that apply)
I 1.
Is it for:
h,hComments) a.
Technical?
The EAP program is not designed to address technical issues.
The EAP is designed to mostly handle personal issues such as an illness (e.g., drug related, alcohol, emotional), relationship i
and other family problems, and financial and legal aid -
problems.
However, any technical issue that may be raised under this program programs would be referred to the 10 CFR Part 19.12 or the GA Employee Hotline programs.
h h Comments) b.
Administrative?
The response to this question would be the same as given in B.I.a, above.
j c.
Personnel issues?
(Yes, No/ Comments) 2.
it cover safety as well as non-safety issues?
Ye No/ Comments)
'l
.)
2 3.
Is it designed for:
h h Comments) a.
Nuclear Safety?
The response to this question would the same as given under
~
B.l.a and B.l.b, above.
b.
Personal Safety?
No/ Comments) c.
P nnel issues - including union grievances?
No/ Comments 4.
the program apply to all licensee employees?
Yes No/ Comments)
C ments)
Contractors only participa.te in the licensee's 10 CFR Part 19.12 ECP and the GA Employee Hotline programs.
6.
Does the licensee require its contractors and their subs to have a similar gram?
(Yes g Comments) 7.
Does the licensee conduct an exit interview upon terminating yees asking if they have any safety concerns?
E No/ Comments)
C.
INDEPENDENCE:
1.
What is the title of the person in charge?
a.
10 CFR Part 19.12 - Manager, Licensing, Safety, and Nuclear Compliance b.
GA Employee Hotline - Vice President General Counsel and Secretary c.
EAP - This program is contracted through a private consultant.
The consultants name is National Resource Consultants, Inc.
(NRCI).
Emergency assistance is available from NRCI to all General Atomics employees and their families, 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> a day.
f 2.
Who do they report to?
10 CFR Part 19.12, GA Employee Hotline program managers and NRCI would all report to the licensee's Administration Group Sr. Vice President
3 3.
Are they independent of line management?
i Yes 4.
Does the ECP use third party consultants?
The GA Employee Hotline and EAP may use third party consultants on an as needed basis.
Currently, the 10 CFR Part 19.12 program does not provide this kind of service.
l 5.
How is a concern about a manager or vice president followed up?
No such concerns have been identified to date.
However, if such a i
concern were raised, it would be carefully reviewed and processed accordingly (e.g., case by case basis).
t D.
RESOURCES:
1.
What is the size of the staff devoted to this program?
a.
10 CFR Part 19.12 - 2 staff members i
b.
GA Employee Hotline - 8 to 10 staff members c.
EAP - at least two staff members 2.
What are ECP staff qualifications (technical training, interviewing training, investigator training, other)?
a.
10 CFR Part 19.12 - This ECP program is administered by the Health Physics training staff and concerns / issues raised are generally reviewed by professional level individuals (see Item C.l.a).
The licensee indicated that they had not received a-concern under this program for approximately three years.
b.
The present GA Employee Hotline program is coordinated by professional staff members who work in the licensee's Law and 3
Contracts aroup - any concerns brought to the attention of this group are referred to the licensee's organization having the l
expertise to respond to the concern or issue that is raised.
No followup is performed by the Law and Contracts aroup to determine if the concerns or issues that are raise get i
resolved.
c.
EAP - is administered by a fully trained professionals who are certified by the State.
l l
I l
j
l
~
i I
i 4
i E.
REFEP.RALS:
1.
Who has followup on concerns (ECP staff, line management, other)?
It should be noted that the Law and Contract aroup do not record or maintain a record of calls that are received by way of the GA l
Employee Hotline. The person receiving calls made by way of the Hotline assions followup action to the group that would most likely j
be able to resolve the cor.cern that is raised.
No further action is taken by this group to determine the status of the concern or~to verify if any followup actions are taken to resolve the concern.
For 10 CFR 19.12, followup items would come under the responsibility of the Licensing, Safety, and Nuclear Compliance l
Manager.or his delegate.
Followup actions under the EAP program is l
generally assigned to the counselor reviewing the case.
F.
CONFIDENTIALITY:
1.
A the ports confidential?
Yes or No Comments) a.
10 CFR Part 19.12 - Only if concerns are reported directly to the NRC in accordance with NRC Form 3 instructions.
b.
GA Employee Hotline - Yes, if it is requested.
c.
EAP - Yes, if it is requested.
l 1
2.
Who is the identity of the alleger made known to (senior management, ECP staff,- line management, other)?
a.
10 CFR 19.12 - Eenior management I
b.
GA Employee Hotline - The program Administrator and the group assigned followup responsibility if confidentiality is not requested.
t c.
Can employees be:
a.
Anonymous? (
)No/ Comments)
-f b.
Report by phone?
(ff[)No/ Comments) t 1
- - _
s
~
l 5
G.
FEEDBACK:
1.
Is feedback given to the alleger upon completion of the followup?
i I
es or No - If so, how?)
Directly or indirectly: such as, by verbal discussion or by posting information on a bulletin board or providing the information in a newsletter.
l 2.
Does the program reward good ideas?
Yes - this would be decided on a case by case basis.
3.
Who, or at what level, makes the final decision of resolution?
a.
10 CFR Part 19.12 - As a minimum, the program administrator.
b.
GA Employee Hotline - The group manager assioned responsibility I
for followup action.
c.
EAP - Generally this would be the responsibility of the assigned counselor: however, it could vary, depending on the nature of the concern or problem.
4.
Are the resolutions of anonymous concerns disseminated?
Yes - they would Le processed as indicated in Item G.1, above.
5.
Are resolutions of valid concerns publicized (newsletter, bulletin board, all hands meeting, other)?
Yes - they would be processed as indicated in Items G.1 and G.4, above.
H.
EFFECTIVENESS:
1.
How does the licensee measure the effectiveness of the program?
The licensee has not officially measured the effectiveness of the 10 CFR Part 19.12 and GA Employee Hotline programs because no formal method has been established for tracking three types of concerns and i
because of the small numbers of concerns that are raised.
- However, l
the licensee's staff does maintain an awareness of the concerns that are raised under these ECP's and therefore are able to determine its effectiveness in this manner.
The EAP performs all kinds of statistical analysis and trending to determine the effectiveness of the program.
l
i l
)
6
)
2.
'Are concerns:
a.
Trended? (Yes _o_r No/ Comments)
Not formally (see item H.1, above)
-)
b.
Used? (Yes or No/ Comments)
Yes, on an as needed basis.
3.
In the last three years how many concerns were raised?' *.
Of the concerns raised, how many were closed?
What percentage were substantiated?
- j
- - No data was available for the 10 CFR Part 19.12 and GA Employee Hotline programs. The EAP program does maintain such data, however, all of it would apply to non-nuclear issues.
4.
How are followup techniques used to measure effectiveness (random j
survey, interviews, other)?
Through interviews for the EAP.
Not performed for the other two programs.
}
5.
How frequently are internal audits of the ECP conducted and by whom?
l The licensee has not established a formal audit program because of the small numbers of concerns that are raised through the 10 CFR Part 19.12 and the GA Employee Hotline programs.
NRCI staff members j
do perform periodic evaluations of the EAP.
I.
ADMINISTRATION / TRAINING:
i 1.
Is ECP prescribed by a procedure?
(Yes o_r No/ Comments) a.
10 CFR 19.12 - Yes b.
No formal procedures have been established for the remaining two programs; however, all of the programs are covered by.
i approved written documents and contracts.
2.
How are employees, as well as contractors, made aware of this program (training, newsletter, bulletin board, other)?
I a.
10 CFR 19.12 - All employee's and contractors are trained t
annually.
Additionally, NRC Form 3's and other information r
related to this program are posted on bulletin boards.
b.
GA Employee' Hotline - Through publications in the licensee's-l telephone directory, periodic publications in the licensee's l
news letter dated April 1989 and November 1990, licensee l
t
l
~
7 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
(Including characteristics which make the program especially effective, if any.)
1 Workers were interviewed during the inspection for the purpose of determininq if they were aware of which programs were available for raising generally any type of concern (e.g., safety, technical, personal matters, design issues, radiological, etc.).
All workers were aware of reporting concerns to the NRC using the guidelines on NRC Form-3 (e.g., 10 CFR Part 19.12).
Most workers were not familiar with the EAP program.
The few individuals who were aware (less than 2%) of this program felt it could only be used for addressing personal matters.
Less than 1% of the workers questioned were familiar with the GA Employee Hotline program.
The individuals that were aware of this program also felt that the program could only be used for addressing personal matters.
This observation was brought to the licensee's attention.
NAME:
TITLE:
PHONE #:
Mike Cillis /Sr. Radiation Specialist /(510) 975-0228 Date Completed: 8/25/93 I
l j
1 i
. i
. i l
- 8
}
4 I
l i
i rw i
i 2500/028 Attachment
. Issue Date 07/29/93 l
?
i f
e i
h
-I I
P
)
. t i
. e
?
E f
b h
I i
i i
f h
I i
u 9
D t
i f
3 i
t P
..n
---r.-
,..,.