ML050880166
| ML050880166 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 04/30/2004 |
| From: | Kenneth Lambert NRC/RGN-III |
| To: | Kenneth Riemer NRC/RGN-III |
| References | |
| AMS No. R111-2004-A-0046, AMS NO. RIll-2004-A-0047, FOIA/PA-2004-0282 | |
| Download: ML050880166 (4) | |
Text
NEW ALLEGATION: RilI-2004-A-0047 April 30, 2004 MEMORANDUM TO: Ken Riemer, Chief, Plant Support Branch, DRS FROM:
Ken Lambert, OAC, R1ut
SUBJECT:
RECEIPT OF NEW ALLEGATION: RIII-2004-A-0047 (Pt. Beach)
On February 25, 2004, EICS staff received concerns regarding three contract workers at Pt. Beach that knowingly entered containment to conduct work while signed onto an RWP that only allowed work in the Auxiliary Building and at least one of the three workers knowingly worked up to his/her dosimetry dose alarm limit of 50 mrem and subsequently received a dose of 51 mrem, which is in excess of the RWP limit of 50 mrem. Your staff is reviewing the concerns and per your request, the PSB will provide the allegation review results at the ARB.
I have scheduled an Allegation Review Board(ARB) on Monday, May 3, 2004. Please review the attached information to prepare for the ARB.
cc w/attachments:
ARB Copy Paul, 01 Hane, 01 Kryk, 01 Ulie, 01 Berson, RC Pederson, DRS Riemer, DRS Alexander, DRS Louden, DRP Kunowski, DRP RIIIDRSADMIN RIIIDRPADMIN Page 2 of 5
ALLEGATION ACTION PLAN AMS NO. Rill-2004-A-0047 Licensee: Point Beach Docket/License No:
050-00266/301 Assigned Division/Branch:
DRS/Plant Support Branch S*********..........
Allegation Review Board Membershia:
Paul/
Berson/ Heller/ Lambert/ Clayton Chairman -Grant/
Pederson/ Grobe Dapas/ Caniano/
Revnolds Riemer GENERIC CONCERNS: If Yes Explain:
DISCUSSION OF SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE: No immediate threat to public health safety O ACCEPTANCE:
YES NO (Priority: HIGH NORMAL LOW )
Basis for 01 Priority:
01 has Accepted Concern(s) No(s).
Signature ARB MINUTES PROVIDED TO: Caldwell/Berson/Riemer ACKNOWLEDGMENT LETTER:
PRINT IN FINAL__X REFERRAL LETTER:
A. Licensee YES _
B. State of YES _
C. DOE YES _
REVISE NO NO NO N/A date received April 9, 2004 due date of 1St ARB May 9, 2004 due date of ACK Ltr May 9, 2004 date -90 days old July 8, 2004 date -120 days old August 7, 2004 date -150 day old September 6, 2004 date -180 days old October 6, 2004 date -365 days old April 9, 2005 projected date for the 5 yr statue of limitation April 8, 2009 COMMENTS:
NRC Identified.
Allegation Review Board Chairman Date Page 3 of 5 9,,
AMS No. RIII-2004-A-0047 Each stated concern or NRC identified issue should be documented on a separate sheet. Each concern must be documented and written with enough detail to allow thorough follow up.
Concern No. 1: The NRC is concerned that three contract ISU/NDE workers knowingly entered Containment to conduct work while signed in on an Auxiliary Building ONLY Radiation Work Permit (RWP).
Regulatory Basis: 10 CFR 50.9, deliberate misconduct.
- 1.
Action Evaluation: The following method of resolution is recommended (circle):
A.
Send to Licensee Requesting Response in Days. (Describe the general areas we expect the licensee to address.)
B.
Priority Rill Follow up and Closure Memo to OAC C.
Follow up During Routine Inspection Within Days and Closure Memo to OAC D.
Refer to 01. Recommended Priority: HIGH NORMAL LOW Recommended Basis:
E.
Outside NRC's Jurisdiction. Describe Basis Below.
F.
Too General for Follow-up. Describe Basis Below.
G.
Other (specify) -
Responsible for Action -
EICS/OI/Branch II.
Special Considerations/Instructions: PSB to provide allegation review results at the ARB.
Page 4 of 5
AMS No. R111-2004-A-0046 Each stated concern or NRC identified issue should be documented on a separate sheet. Each concern must be documented and written with enough detail to allow thorough follow up.
Concern No. 2: The NRC is concerned that while the three contract ISI/NDE workers were conducting work in Containment on the incorrect RWP, at least one worker knowingly worked up to his dosimetry dose alarm limit (50 mrem), and subsequently received dose in excess of the allowed amount by the RWP (the individual received 51 mrem).
Regulatory Basis: Technical Specifications if work was performed in a high radiation area.
- 1.
Action Evaluation: The following method of resolution is recommended (circle):
A.
Send to Licensee Requesting Response in Days. (Describe the general areas we expect the licensee to address.)
9 B.
Priority RIII Follow up and Closure Memo to OAC C.
Follow up During Routine Inspection Within Days and Closure Memo to OAC D.
Refer to 01. Recommended Priority: HIGH NORMAL LOW Recommended Basis:
E.
Outside NRC's Jurisdiction.
Describe Basis Below.
F.
Too General for Follow-up. Describe Basis Below.
G.
Other (Specify) -
Responsible for Action -
EICS/Ol/Branch II.
Special Considerations/instructions: PSB to provide allegation review results at the ARB.
I Page 5 of 5