ML052590373
| ML052590373 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem, Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 06/03/2004 |
| From: | - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2004-0314, RI-2004-A-0020 | |
| Download: ML052590373 (2) | |
Text
..
N a:lallenXr)aneIX20040020arb2.wi)d ALLEGATION REVIEW BOARD DISPOSITION RECORD Allegation No.: I RI-2004-A-0020 l Branch Chief (AOC):
I Daniel Holody Site/Facility:
Salem/Hope Creek I Acknowledged:
l Yes I I No I X I N/A I I ARB Date:
June 3, 2004 1 Confidentiality Granted:
Yes II X
Issue Discussed:
- 1.
The Salem/Hope Creek notification process incorrectly codes corrective maintenance and exceeds corrective maintenancelpreventative maintenance periods. This affects safety related equipment and tech spec requirements.
The same issue could improperly influence equipment reliability decisions.
- 2.
Salem had a valve with a boron leak from the packing gland area that may not have been resolved timely manner after it was first identified in 2002.
- 3.
The failure to code and process notifications properly may discourage people from identifying concerns.
Alleger contacted prior to referral to licensee?
ALLEGATION REVIEW BOARD DECISIONS:
Attendees:
I Yes I
I No I I N/A I X Chair:
I Blough I Br. Chief (AOC):
l Barber I SAC:
I Vito, Harrison 01 Rep:
Wilson RI Counsel:
Farrar Others:
Passarelli Disposition Actions:
(List actions for processing and closure. Note responsible person(s), form of action closure document(s), and estimated completion dates.)
- 1.
Review after PSEG response to referral is received.
Responsible Person:
P13 ECD:
06/04/04 Closure Documentation:
Completed:
06103104
- 2.
Initial review of the licensee response. Questioned its adequacy. Resolve questionslc gems with PSEG through another written referral letter.
C Responsible Person:
l PB3 ECD:
ol0 m04 Closure Documentation:
Completed:
l
- 3. Await licensee response Responsible Person: P83 ECD:
7/12104 SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT l
E Provide narrative assessment of safety significance; should be commensurate with estimated action plan completion dates.
The initial safety significance of the issue is low to moderate because PSEG is aware of them and has taken some action to address them the effectiveness of which has yet to be determined. Many of these issues are related to the SCWE which is part of an ongoing review by NRC.
PRIORITY OF 01 INVESTIGATION High I
l Normal I
I Low l
If potential discrimination or wrongdoing and 01 is not opening a case, provide rationale here 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?
When did the potential violation occur?
(Assign action to determine date, if unknown)
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: (Include other pertinent comments. Also include considerations related to licensee referral, if appropriate. Identify any potential generic issues)
Distribution: Panel Attendees, Regional Counsel, 01, Responsible Individuals (origin-al to SAC)