ML022740452

Background

ML022740452
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	09/13/2002
From:	NRC/RGN-II
To:
References
FOIA/PA-2002-0361
Download: ML022740452 (2)

Text

Ii Background-In his DPV, akes exception with the processing of a violation of 10 CFR 50.70 observed by the Turkey Point Resident Inspector on Jaanuary 287;2-002, asan NCV.

He contends that the issue, which involved announcing an inspector's presence contrary to the ul should have been processed as a violation. In the discussion contained in the DPV, akes the following major points:

Processing this issue as an NCV has generic or broad implication§6'h the ability of the inspectors to monitor licensee activities as they normally occur.

The licensee's investigatio c II,*.d,dhhe event did not happen as described by the NRC.

• l'gg" sts that this different conclusion regarding what happened, allowed the licensee to downplay the issue, thereby stopping any enforcement action.

Processing an issue as an NCV based on entering the issue into the corrective action program, allows the licensee to take only token corrective actions and not address the underlying root cause or organizational culture which fostered the violation.

As a remedy, he suggests that the enforcement process be modified to require that the licensee address the issue.

61 Documentation-The viewed the DPV filed b Turkey Poin l

a*'Which doc ented the NCV in ciuestion, and the meeting minutes for the ARB of February 5, 2002, e the issue was presented for 01 consideration. Additional NRC 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 interviewed b members of the panel:

Carolyn vs i

Cousel/Enforcement Officer 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 agrees that announcing the presence of NRC inspectors can impact the ability of the inspectors to monitor licensee activities as they normally occur. However, based on the Information reviewed

, the panel does not agree that processing this issue as an NCV had broad programmatic Implications. The panel believes that a licensee should be able to effectively resolve issues such as this If its corrective action program is sound. The panel did not review any Information to suggest that the Turkey Point corrective action program Is not sound.

mnformation in this record was defleed in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, exemptions FQ IA-MD-52/

5.

During its revoted that the concurrence page for the inspection report, annotated o reflect his concerns with the processing of this issue as an NCV was hm-included the ADAMS version of the report. The provisions of ROI 2210 were not invoked since he did concur with the report. Further, it does not appear that the practice of retaining comments recorded during the concurrence process is explicitly required by existing Region II procedures. However, the panel felt that not including this information could result in losing information associated with the concurrence process for a report. The panel recommends that an existing-ROI be modified to identify the need to include comments on the concurrence page (as appropriate) in ADAMS.

6.

From its review of the Enforcement Policy, the panel also believes that the issue should

- have been processed through traditional enforcement as an issue that Impacted the regulatory process as a Severity Level IV issue instepgf as a No Color issue.

Conclusion-The panel does not support DPV, in that it does not believe that a change to the enforcement process is warranted. However, the panel feels that followup by the NRC is requiredt, ^,,,,h

,hn,, the,, -gu,,

,I n,

1"1r"

!1

'1