ML052620429

E-mail from S. Barber of USNRC to D. Vito of USNRC, Regarding Allegation Status Meeting Prep Issue

ML052620429
Person / Time
Site:	Hope Creek
Issue date:	04/22/2004
From:	Barber S NRC/RGN-I/DRP/PB6
To:	Vito D NRC Region 1
References
FOIA/PA-2004-0314
Download: ML052620429 (1)

Text

Page 1 12Glenn Re: Allegation Glenn Meyer - Re: Status Meeting Allegation Status Prep Issue Meeting Prep Issue Pal__

From:

To:

Scott Barber a 1 David Vito 4

Date: 4/22104 7:44AM

Subject:

Re: Allegation Status Meeting Prep Issue I appreciate your efforts and I said that in my earlier message. I'm just tired of explaining why some deadline was missed or some action had to be postponed. I take what I do seriously and I don't like to miss deadlines. I don't have a problem if others make mistakes. I make a ton of them myself. What I do object to is someone making a change like this without informing the affected Branch it's a bad practice, and it undermines teamwork.

>>> David Vito 04/22/04 07:30AM >>>

It is not backdating, it is called QA'ing the files and catching up with way too much stuff that this office is expected to keep track of. At an ARB on 1/29/04, an action was assigned for 3/5/04 to close the allegation after the completion of the 3-week e-mail comment period. For some reason, it wasn't put into AMS earlier. No criminal intent, just way too much crap on our plate. The action was really to be assigned to me, not you....and I need to change AMS to make it correct.

Since this is a staff-suspcted wrongdoing issue, the date is not that crucial. As for your comments, I don't operate that way. The input of data to AMS is a community affair here. Sharon does most of it, Leanne does a bit and is getting better with it each week, and I do it in their absence and as a QA function, primarily when issues are coming to a close. If you had to document everything you do, and think, and say in a database, you would understand how frustrating this can be.

Believe it or not Scott, this (allegation) office does waaaaaaaaay more for the tech staff any in any other Region. In the other regions, all they do is "coordinate." The tech staff writes and signs all the letters, and takes most of the crap for deadline issues. In Region I, we have always felt that it was important for the Allegation Staff to take as much burden off the tech staff as possible, and that's what we do. If you'd like that to change, I'll see what I can do.

>>> Scott Barber 04/21/04 05:15PM >>>

I have appreciated all the support that you and your staff have provided on the recent Salem allegations and the way that we complement each other in distributing correspondence. However, I came across something in the monthly status report that bothers me. Namely, backdating action items for Branch 3.

The recent April 9 status report shows an action item for Branch 3 to write a closeout for 2002-0160 (HC Chem monitoring equip install) by March 5. When I checked the March 18 status report to figure out how in the world I could have missed this item I discovered that action item was not there. The only possible explanation is that the backdated item was inserted between the two report dates. I do not condone nor support this practice. I have noticed other instances where dates were changed and have said nothing, but I can't ignore this. In the future, if a date is missed I would appreciate some honesty. I know that I have missed some dates and there may be justifiable reasons, but I still admit them as my mistake and not try to make somebody else's mistake.

(S.