ML052490220

Allegation Review Board Disposition Record, Allegation No. RI-2002-A-0099

ML052490220
Person / Time
Site:	Hope Creek
Issue date:	08/08/2002
From:	NRC Region 1
To:
References
1-2002-A-0099, FOIA/PA-2004-0314
Download: ML052490220 (2)

Text

g:\alleg\panel\20020099arb.wpd ALLEGATION REVIEW BOARD DISPOSITION RECORD Allegation No.: RI-2002-A-0099 Branch Chief (AOC): Meyer Site/Facility: Hope Creek Acknowledged: No ARB Date: 8/8/2002 Confidentiality Granted: No Issue discussed: 1) Concerns Identified with the use of the Work Clearance Module (WCM) software for tapping oaperwork. 2) Improper use of the Tech Spec grace period for surveillance testing. 3) Discrimination against the alleger in 2000 for raising safety concerns Alleger contacted prior to referral to licensee (if applicable)? Yes ALLEGATION REVIEW BOARD DECISIONS Attendees: Chair - Clifford Branch Chief (AOC) - Meyer SAC - Vito 01 Rep. - Monroe. Neff RI Counsel - Others - Crleniak DISPOSITION ACTIONS: (List actions for processing and closure. Note responsible person(s), form of action closure document(s), and estimated completion dates.)

1) Acknowledgment letter to the alleger along with his DOL rights. Indicate that the alleged H&ID occurred over 1.5 years ago, so DOL may not take his case due to their statute of limitations for such filings.

Responsible Person: SAC ECD: 8/23/2002 Closure Documentation: Completed:

2) Residents to inspect the Tech Spec scheduling issue in the course of the baseline inspection program (ROP IPs 71111.22 (Surveillance Testing) & 7111.13 (Maintenance Risk Assessments and Emergent Work Control)) in the current quarterly inspection report that ends on September 30, 2002. DRP to provide copy of inspection report to SAC for file.

Responsible Person: Meyer/Schoppy ECD: 10/30/2002 Closure Documentation: Inspection Report Issuance Completed:

3) 01 to open up a case on H&l (1-2002-Responsible Person: Letts/Neff ECD: TBD Closure Documentation: Completed:

4) Following the interview, repanel to determine how technical issue related to WCM will be resolved (referral or inspection)

Responsible Person: SAC ECD: 9/30/2002 Closure Documentation: Completed:

ARB MINUTES ARE REVIEWED AND APPROVED AT THE ARB Information in this record was deleted inaccordance with the Freedom of Information Act, exemptions 2 ,

rOIA

=°° +-Any9

2 SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT: The risk significance of this allegation Is potentially moderate since PSEG was known to have signifrcant problems with the work clearance module Js 99-2000time frame an I n Mo l v e d in a protected activity. Regarding the TS scheduling practice, the risk significance is likely low as all required surveillance are being performed, but not at the optimum equal surveillance intervals.

PRIORITY OF 01 INVESTIGATION: High If potential discrimination or wrongdoing and 01 is not opening a case, provide rationale here (e.g., no prima facie, lack of specific indication of wrongdoing):

Rationale used to defer 01 discrimination case (DOL case in progress):

ENFORCEMENT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS CONSIDERATION (only applies to wrongdoing matters (including discrimination Issues) that are under investigation by 01. DOL, or DOJ):

What is the potential violation and regulatory requirement? 10 CFR 50.7 When did the potential violation occur? 12/2000 Once date of potential violation is established, SAC will assign AMS action to have another ARB at four (4)years from that date, to discuss enforcement statute of limitations issues.

NOTES:

Regional Counsel made determination that alleger has articulated prima facie case.

Distribution: Panel Attendees, Regional Counsel, 01, Responsible Individuals (original to SAC)