ML050880190
| ML050880190 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 05/18/2004 |
| From: | - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| AMS NO. R111-2004-A-0048, FOIA/PA-2004-0282 | |
| Download: ML050880190 (3) | |
Text
S E
AIO T
ALLEGATION ACTION PLAN AMS NO. R11-2004-A-0048 Licensee:
Point Beach Docket/License No:
050-00266/301 Assigned Division/Branch:
DRS/Plant Support Branch Allegation Review Board Membership:
Grobe/ Paul/ Berson/ Heller/ Lambert/ Kunowski GENERIC CONCERNS: If Yes Explain:
DISCUSSION OF SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE: No immediate threat to public health safety 01 ACCEPTANCE:
YES NO (Priority: HIGH NORMAL Basis for 01 Priority:
N/A 01 has Accepted Concern(s) No(s).
Signature ARB MINUTES PROVIDED TO: Caldwell/Berson/Louden fiwL ACKNOWLEDGMENT LETTER:
PRINT IN FINAL RE REFERRAL LETTER:
A. Licensee YES B. State of YES C. DOE YES LOW )
%4 4~AjSA itu 1o o
EVISE N/A NO _X_
NO__X_
NO__X__
x__
date received April 13, 2004 due date of 1t' ARB May 13, 2004 due date of ACK Ltr May 13, 2004 date -90 days old July 12, 2004 date -120 days old August 11, 2004 date -150 day old September 10, 2004 date -180 days old October 10, 2004 date -365 days old April 13, 2005 projected date for the 5 yr statue of limitation April 12, 2009 COMMENTS:
Anonymous
-;ellCJ 611,0q AW, o2-K-,.) /J4.
Date A60tion Review Board Chairman Page 3 of 5
AMS No. RIII-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.
Concem No. 1:
An individual is concerned that the licensee's over-emphasis on backlog reduction and arbitrary "Excellence Plan" items significantly reduces the plant staff's ability to identify, evaluate, and resolve issues.
Regulatory Basis:
Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 50
- 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 -
II.
Special Considerations/Instructions:
An attribute of the inspection plan for the 95003 supplemental inspection (IR 05-266/301/2003-07) included interviews with plant staff and managers; the interviewees indicated that they were willing to raise safety concerns. Another attribute included an assessment of the thoroughness of selected evaluations. In addition the effectiveness of the corrective action program is also reviewed as part of the resident inspectors' routine inspection efforts. In general, the corrective action program was found to be adequate. Lastly, the inspectors Identified that worker are being held accountable for the time it takes to complete corrective action evaluations which basically meant that extensions are no longer routinely granted. The Inspection team did not find examples where the failure to grant an extension resulted in an inadequate evaluation Our inspection/interviews did not substantiate that (1) workers are chilled or are not willing to raise issue and (2) workers do not perform thorough evaluations of corrective actions because of a negative perception associated with asking for a due date extension. Although not a specific attribute of the inspection plan, the Inspectors found no indication that workers do not admit or report personal errors The ARB determined that without specific examples, the concern is to general for the NRC to inspect and it is to general to refer the concern to the licensee and request an independent investigation. Since the concern is too general and based on our inspections to date the ARB determined that this concern should be closed Page 4 of 5
IIUAMI
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:
Regulatory Basis:
An individual is concerned that a widespread 'chilling effect" exists at the plant 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.
Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 50 and chilling effect
- 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 Ril 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 -
II.
Special Considerations/Instructions:
During the 95003 supplemental inspection (IR 05000266/2003007; 05000301/2003007) an attribute of the inspection plan included interviews with plant staff and manager; the interviewee indicated that they were willing to raise safety concerns. Another attribute included an assessment of the thoroughness of selected evaluations and the willingness of plant staff to identify issues. In addition the effectiveness of the corrective action program is also reviewed as part of the resident inspectors' routine inspection efforts. In general, the corrective action program was found to be adequate. The inspectors did identify that worker are being held accountable for the time it takes to complete corrective action evaluations which basically means that extensions are no longer routinely granted.
The inspection team did not find examples cases where the failure to grant an extension resulted in an inadequate evaluation Our inspection/interviews did not substantiate that (1) workers are chilled or are not willing to raise issue; and (2) workers do not perform thorough evaluations of corrective actions because of a negative perception associated with asking for a due date extension The ARB determined that without specific examples, the concern is to general for the NRC inspectors or to refer to the licensee. Since the concern is to general and based on our inspections to date the ARB determined that this concern should be closed.
Page 5 of 5