ML052620046

Allegation Review Board Disposition Record, Regarding Allegation RI-2002-A-099 - Hope Creek

ML052620046
Person / Time
Site:	Hope Creek
Issue date:	10/02/2002
From:	NRC Region 1
To:
References
FOIA/PA-2004-0314, RI-2002-A-099
Download: ML052620046 (2)

Text

- aAB g:\alleg~panel\20020099arb1.wpd ALLEGATION REVIEW BOARD DISPOSITION-RECORD Allegation No.: RI-2002-A-0099 Branch Chief (AOC): Barklev (Acting)

Site/Facility: Hope Creek Acknowledged: Yes ARB Date: 10/2/2002 Confidentiality Granted: No Issue discussed: 1) Review of 01 transcript of alleger for new technical issues; 2) Decide how the Work Control Module issue should be handled (referral or inspection), and 3) Discussion of whether a protected activity clearly exists.

Alleger contacted prior to referral to licensee (if applicable)? N/A ALLEGATION REVIEW BOARD DECISIONS Attendees: Chair - Crleniak Branch Chief (AOC) - Barkley (Acting) SAC - Vito 01 Rep. - Teator RI Counsel - Others - Schoppy (by phone)

DISPOSITION ACTIONS: (List actions for processing and closure. Note responsible person(s), form of action closure document(s), and estimated completion dates.)

1) No new technical issues provided in the 01 transcript beyond those previously provided.

Responsible Person: Meyer ECD:

Closure Documentation: Completed: 10/2/02

2) Status letter to close tech spec surveillance issue and ask alleger if he has any current concerns about the WCM.

Responsible Person: SAC ECD: 10/31/2002 Closure Documentation: Completed:_

3) APM concluded that the alleger's involvement in raising concerns regarding the Work Control Module constituted an NRC protected activity. 01 investigation to continue; DRP to provide technical assistance as needed to identify those concerns with the WCM raised by the alleger that constituted an NRC regulated activity.

Responsible Person: Panel ECD: TBD Closure Documentation: Completed:_

SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT: The risk significance of these concerns appears medium as the issues raised by the alleger are historic and may or may not involve nuclear (versus industrial) safety issues; however, the alleger has provided a significant amount of information to support that he suffered H&ID for raising concerns to management regarding the WCM.

ARB MINUTES ARE REVIEWED AND APPROVED AT THE ARB I((

2 PRIORITY OF 01 INVESTIGATION: Medium 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): N/A Rationale used to defer 01 discrimination case (DOL case in progress):

N/A - However, DOL rights have lapsed due to the 180 day statute of limitations.

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 violation against PSEG for subjecting an employee to H&ID in response to raising safety concerns while engaged in the following NRC regulated activity - Equipment tagging of safety-related equipment. The NRC requirements governing tagging are listed in the following regulatory documents:

When did the potential violation occur? 1.5 - 2 years ago (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.

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