ML022740401

Background

ML022740401
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	09/13/2002
From:	NRC/RGN-II
To:
References
FOIA/PA-2002-0361
Download: ML022740401 (1)

Text

Background DPV takes exception with the processing of a violation of 10 CFR 50.70 observed M'ur ey Point Resident Inspector on January 18, 2002, as an NCV. He contends that this issue, which involved announcing an inspector's presence contrary to the requirements of the regulation, would have been better processed as a violation.

c ntation- The team reviewed the DPV filed * "7jTTurkey PointAR i which documented the NCV in question, and the meeting minutes for the ARB of February 5, 2002 where the issue was presented for 01 consideration. AdditionaMf*C documentation such as the management directive associated with DPVs, the statements of consideration for 10 CFR 50.70 and 10 CFR 50.5, the enforcement policy, and selected regional office instructions was also reviewed by members of the panel. The panel also reviewed the licensee's corrective action document which captured the issue.

Interviews- The followin ersons were intervi wed by members of the panel:

Carolyn Evans - Regional CounseEIC Director Randy Musser- Acting Branch Chief Son Ninh- Project Engineer/Acting Branch Chief Victor McCree- Deputy Division Director DRP Len Williamson- Acting 01 Director Findings

1. The panel disagreed wit "assertions that processing this issue as an NCV instead of asaviolatio owgiminished the ability of the licensee to address the root cause of the issue. ----- cl'orrect, the licensee's investigation (as described in the condition report) did--arrive at a cfferent conclusion as to what happened than the residents did.

However, the corrective actions identified by the licensee are sufficient to address the situation and would probably address most reasonable causes.

2. The panel agrees that announcing the presence of NRC inspectors can impact the ability of NRC inspectors to monitor licensee activities. However, the panel did not find that processing the issue as an

3. The panel reviewed the criteria for processing an issue as an NCV instead of as a violation.

For the most part the criteria were satisfied. However, it was not clear to the panel how the NRC staff decided that the violation was not willful. It appears that some members of the staff assumed that 01 declining to investigate Information in this record was delted in accordance wIth thc -reedom of Information Act, exemptions ,

E-0,A-