ML050880185

Memo from D. Pirok, Riii, to Allegations Region III, Division Review of Information: Allegation No. RIII-04-A-0048 (Point Beach)

ML050880185
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	05/05/2004
From:	Pirok D NRC/RGN-III
To:
References
AMS NO. R111-04-A-0048, FOIA/PA-2004-0282
Download: ML050880185 (3)

Text

From: Donna Pirok To: Allegations Allegations Region Ill Date: Wed, May 5, 2004 10:20 AM

Subject:

Memo to Rill Office Allegation Coordinator See Attached May 4, 2004 MEMORANDUM TO: Region Ill Office Allegation Coordinator FROM: Patrick Louden, Chief, Branch 7, Division of Reactor Projects IRA/

SUBJECT:

REVIEW OF INFORMATION: ALLEGATION NO. RIII-04-A-0048 (POINT BEACH)

In accordance with the April 14, 2004, e-mail request from Magdalena Dziedzic, we have completed our review of the information related to the corrective action program at Point Beach that was submitted anonymously to the NRC.

Regulatory Basis The NRC's review of the corrective action program is typically.done under Criterion XVI,

'Corrective Action," of Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 50.

Recommended Action Because the concerned individual provided no specific examples and because the corrective action program was found to be adequate during an extensive review during the Inspection Procedure 95003 supplemental inspection in 2003 and during the routine reviews by the resident inspectors, we recommend that these concerns be closed without further expenditure of NRC resources. Future routine reviews by the resident inspectors and the Problem Identification and Resolution baseline Inspection scheduled for September 2004 should provide for prompt identification of any significant performance problems in the licensee's corrective action program. We recommend that these concerns be forwarded to the licensee for information.

S S IV ALEGA N TE S-61 11

AMS No. R111-04-A-0048 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: An individual is concerned that the present over-emphasis on backlog reduction and arbitrary "Excellence Plan" items significantly reduces the Point Beach plant staff's ability to identify, evaluate, and resolve issues.

Regulatory Basis:

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 Ol. 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 -

II. Special Considerations/Instructions:

Basis: Without specific examples, a large number of NRC resources would be required to address this concern. The reference to backlog reduction is ambiguous: it could refer to a backlog in the corrective action program, a backlog in corrective or preventive maintenance, or a backlog in modifications, or procedure or calculation revisions.

The licensee's development and implementation of its Excellence Plan, in general, have been discussed with and reviewed by NRC inspectors and managers, particularly as part of the 95003 supplemental inspection and at public meetings. The priorities assigned to the Excellence Plan items have been set by the licensee and the items have been incorporated into the site's corrective action program, which has also been discussed with and reviewed by NRC inspectors and managers. The Excellence Plan and corrective action program have been found by the NRC to be acceptable.

2

AMS No. RIII-2004-A-0048 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: An individual is concerned that a widespread Ochilling effect" exists at Point Beach, in that, in fear of retaliation: a) workers do not perform thorough evaluations of corrective actions because of a negative perception associated with asking for a due date extension, and b) workers do not admit to or report personal errors. A consequence of this, is that the corrective action program is not being used and, as a result, is not effective.

Regulatory Basis:

1. Action Evaluation: The following method of resolution is recommended (circle):

A. Send to Licensee Requesting Response in Days. (Describe the general I areas we expect the licensee to address.)

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 -

11. SDecial Considerations/instructions:

Basis: Without specific examples, a large number of NRC resources would be required to address this concern. The licensee's corrective action program was reviewed by the NRC during the Inspection Procedure 95003 supplemental inspection. This review included an assessment of the thoroughness of selected evaluations and the willingness of plant staff to identify issues. In general, the corrective action program was found to be adequate. The effectiveness of the corrective action program is also reviewed as part of the resident inspectors' routine inspection efforts.

3