ML022740455

Background

ML022740455
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	05/31/2002
From:	NRC/RGN-II
To:
References
FOIA/PA-2002-0361
Download: ML022740455 (3)

Text

• . Meho~t( rnl-D VFN~~ Paoell rhrt C'rrcdI - DPV FINAwod Paae Ii

"* CA/ 5/31/2 Background- In his DPV, MUM ýttakes exception with the processing of a violation of 10 CFR 50.70 observed by the Turkey Point Resident Inspector on January 28, 2002, as an NCV.

He contends that the issue, which involved announcing an inspector's presence contrary to the regulati n w--uld yve been r handled as a violation. In the discussion containedl'fthe DPV, a es the fo owing major points:

Processing this issue as an NCV has generic or broad Implications on the ability of the inspectors to monitor licensee activities as they normally occur.

• The licensee's investigation nluqde. )at the event did not happen as described by the NRC Msggests 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.

Documentation- The team reviewed the DPV filed Tulrkey Pointl =,;

inl hNIM ich documented the NOV In question, and the meeting minutes for the B of ruy- 5, 2002, where 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 7.0 pnd_1O CFR 50.5, the Enforcement Policy, and selected regional office instructions ; a o reviewed by members of the panel. The panel also reviewed the licensee's corrective action document which captured the Issue.

Interviews- The following persons were interviewed by bers of the panel:

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 during its review, 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 corrective action program is sound. The panel did not review any information to suggest that the Turkey Point corrective action program is not sound.

or,,lation"in this record was de',:'ed in accordance with the Freadon, of nformation Act, exemptions A

"CioDert 6.arroll - DPVFINA.wpd Ir I

2: The panel agrees that the licensee's investigation arrived at a differ nt conclusion as to what happened than did the residents. HoweXveithe team did not/ind any evidence to suggest that this significantly impacted the d the issue. -theteam believed that the licensee's corrective actions were sufficient. Further, the team considedthat the licensee's actions to conduct an independent investigationland a phone call'Mde to Ul the Regional Administrator by the Site Vice President, do not support the contention that U

the licensee downplayed the issue. In addition, the panel noted that enforcement action Ole 3.

was taken when the NCV was issued.

The team agrees that the NCV criteria which requires only that an item be entered into the licensee's corrective action program, can lead to situations of inappropriate or marginal corrective actions. However, the team believes that the ROP addresses this issue through the problem identification and resolution inspection. If an inspector feels gly that the i nsee has somehow missed the mark on an issue, this should be J

F-v thePI i

nspection. In addition, if warranted, a violation for inadequate be issued. Whie not2odirectlapplicable to this issue, the panel also noted that the Enforcement Policy requires that compliance be restored as a condition of issuing an NOV. This helps decrease the likelihood of corrective actions wide of the mark.

2a

4. Though not part of the DPV, the panel reviewed the handling of this Issue against the NCV criteria identified in the NRCs Enforcement Policy. Fer th&rnc prt"thujmm I

,,Y d*. terrni*o a ., ........... ti. lu , the team had difficulty in Jfollowing the decision-making process used by the NRC to determine that the violation was not willful. The interviews conducted by the panel revealed that a consistent

-p decision-making process was not applied by key personnel In arriving at this decision.

VI-,17-K In addition, the panel noted that when this issue was taken to the ARB, it was done before the completionthe censee's investigation. Hence, it was not clear to the panel that the impact(o( ji'risee arriving at a direct conclusion as to what happened, was available for cons'ld ration by the ARB. The panel believes that this had the potential to impact the deliberations of the ARB.

In response, the panel Tecommends the following actions be taken:

A. The Enforcement Officer provide amplifying Information to the Region !1staff on what constitutes a willful violation. It is also recommended that this guidance address what mechanism should be used to determine ifwillfulness is Involved In a violation.

B. The A reconvene and review the licensee's Investigation of this Issue to

-dol~eine if additional Information is required by the NRC to determine ifthis violation was willful.

5. During its re -- n t at the concurrence page for the Inspection report,

1 annotated bý 'ect his concerns with the processing of this Issue as an NCV was Inud in the ADAMS version of the report. The provision 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

-- . IdU . U Pag,]Ee a iLjooern Liarroul - UrP F-._1.. . . .... .

"explicitlyrequired 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.

Conclusion- The team does not supporiIl DPVail does not believe thdLa change to the enforcement process is warranted. N,,,-,-,-C k- ..-

414 zk-' V-7prý

- A ,*-rb2weF 04- M;;

A' V* "7"Y4~4~

<:Z/a-I