ML073270097

ARB Disposition Record, Callaway, Discuss Concerned Individual'S Rebuttal Letter for Allegation Files RIV-2007-A-0028 and RIV-2007-A-0048

ML073270097
Person / Time
Site:	Callaway
Issue date:	09/27/2007
From:	NRC Region 4
To:
References
FOIA/PA-2008-0011, RIV-2007-A-0028, RIV-2007-A-0048
Download: ML073270097 (4)

Text

Facility CalwyDocket Number:

Nam e: ..I.................................................... Docket Functional Power Reactor Area:

Responsible Division: DRP ARB Date: 09/27/2007 Received Date 30 Days 150 Days 180 Days

08/30/2007 Purpose of the ARB

Discuss the concerned individual's (cl) rebuttal letter for alliega tion"

,files RIV-2007-A-0028 and RIV-2007-A-0048.

The Cl's rebuttal letter was addressed to a US Senator with a copy

.provided to the NRC SRI. Heller talked to the Cl on September 7, 2007 and was informed that the letter was been provided toa worker

assigned to the Senator's Springfield office on or about August 15,

2007. As of this ARB, RIV has not received any indication that the

letter has been forwarded from the Senator's office to the NRC.

.A potential reason for the delay is because the Cl addressed the rebuttal letter to a US Senator that does not represent the state where Callaway is located Basis for Another ARB:

Does Alleger Object to Referral r Yes r- No F N/A If any of the following factors apply, an allegation shall not be referred to the licensee.

F Information cannot be released in sufficient detail to the licensee without compromising the identity of the alleger of confidential source.

The licensee could compromise an investigation or inspection because of knowledge gained from the referral.

r The allegation is made against the licensee's management or those parties who would normally receive and address the allegation.

r- The basis of the allegation is information received from a Federal or State agency that does not approve of tha infnrmnfinn hainn rnit=lzr1 in n rmfrrn1 AVegel DChamberlain RDeese MPeck (Via Phone)

DWhite MVasquez KFuller JWalker JHeller AFairbanks DDumbacher (Phone) 1- - -i I Operations Operations II

[7 goperating crew (in 2003) lost control of core reactivity and left the control rods withdrawn for 1contention 1The 90 minutes. istrom CI believes Uoncern the 1 otcontrol rods were not tasicaiiy KIV-ZUU(-A-UU2b. inserted so tfethe u crew did not contents tnathave an to 11 i I

admit to upper management that the crew lost control of the reactor. The Cl has provided reasons why s/he believes that the crew's action should be the subject of an 01 investigation. However the Cl has not provided a reason why the crew's actions were unsafe or failed to comply with the licensee's procedures or NRC's requirements.

none - the results of the inspection for Concern 1 of RIV-2007-A-0028 demonstrated that the crew followed the licensee's procedures, there was not a violation of NRC regulations, and there was not a safety problem or a reactivity problem associated with leaving the control rods withdrawn for 90 minutes.

Isee discussion in regulatory requirements Check if question is applicable to the concern.

F Is it a declaration, statement, or assertion of impropriety or inadequacy?

F Is the impropriety or inadequacy associated with NRC regulated activities?

F Is the validity of the issue unknown?

If all of the above statements are checked, the Issue is an allegation.

Oh r(Describe) .. 14_el...

Orret! items for the arb to consider

1. RPBB has performed an independent review of the Ci's rebuttal letter and the previous inspection results, is a second inspection necessary

2. independence of the author preparing the response and the signature authority for the response to the concerned individual.

Othr (escibe RPB 09/24/200ý7 09/7/00

• ~RPBB to review how we addressed all concerns in RIV-2007-A-0028 adbigbctosecial ARB. .

(1) ACES to assign new allegation number (RIV-2007-A-0096).

(2) RPBB to draft violation and provide a copy to O/ACES (planned completion date: 10/5/07).

(3) 01 to investigate -High Priority [Rationale- MD 8.8 exhibit 3, (B) (ii)

(a)].

(4) In parallel with the 0I interview with alleger, ACES to discuss at Regional Panel, before discussing with: OE to determine if we are opening a previous enforcement action. (Inspection Report 2007003, page 35, issued August 2, 2007).

(5) RIV to do a self-assessment to determine how we missed bringing issue back (see June 18, 2007 ARB minutes for RIV-2007-A-0028).

(6) ACES to discuss,-as necessary, with OE the age of this potential violation to ensure that 5- year statue of limitations is highlighted.

Additional Comments

'~1 Note: transfer all concerns to the new allegation file, the date of the new allegation file is 9/27/07, which is the date that the region determined that we may not have completely answered the alleger's concerns.

2 r I Maintenance Modifications 11 II L;ontention Z is trom uoncern 1 OT I(IV-ZUU(-A-UU4?. basically tne uLi contents tnat tne licensee failed to implement timely corrective action for damage to the RHR suction relief valve following repeated opening of the pressurizer PORV. The CI provided several reasons why s/he believes that the licensee's untimely corrective action demonstrated that the staff is inderstaffed and under funded, ,.However the Cl has not provided any reasons why the Jelayed corrective action was unsafe or failed to comply with the licensee's procedures or NRC reauirements.

none - Basically the inspection for Concern 1 of RIV-2007-A-0048 determined that the delay Jid not increase the risk to the plant. ..

'I I

II discussion in regulatory requirements Check if question is applicable to the concern.

I Is it a declaration, statement, or assertion of impropriety or inadequacy?

1V Is the impropriety or inadequacy associated with NRC regulated activities?

V Is the validity of the issue unknown?

If all of the above statements are checked, the issue is an allegation.

Asige 84nhAsgeqOte MneO, e,'

• ACES r ACES

,09/24/2007 I I ACES/RPBB to contact alleger, to discuss previous NRC actions taken on this issue including basis for our conclusions and provide opportunity for the CI to provide additional information.

Additional Comments 1(1) In a phone call to the alleger on 9/26/07, ACES/RPBB explained/provided *an overall summary of the NRC's assessment of the licensee's actions related to the RHR suction relief valve.

(2) Response letter to alleger is final action on this Concern. (Director DRP to sign letter)

3 DsAieRat t Od Select.,.

Select... II iuontention ýi was not previously capturea in tne allegation program or tne subject ot a written response to the Cl. The Cl is using a problem associated with a non-safety related system that was retired in place as an example that the licensee corrective action system is not functioning properly. Since the licensee implemented only one corrective action system, the problem was documented within the corrective action problem and apparently not fixed. The Cl contends that the failure of the corrective action program to fix a non-safety related system problem demonstrates the corrective action program is not functioning properly.

none - Basically when this issue was first discussed with the resident inspector, the Cl was informed that we do not use the failure of the corrective action program to fix a non-safety related system as demonstration that the corrective action program is not functioning DroDerlv.

w 4/A

ee discussion in regulatory requirements Check if question is applicable to the concern.

F Is it a declaration, statement, or assertion of impropriety or inadequacy?

F. is the impropriety or inadequacy associated with NRC regulated activities?

F7 Is the validity of the issue unknown?

If all of the above statements are checked, thle issue is an allegation.

ther (Describe) ACES 09/24/2007 t ACES/RPBB to provide a written response that captures the information verbally provided by the resident inspector and provide an overall

, Z, summary Program (PI&R NRC's assessment of the crosscutting of theinspection issue, PI&R Corrective Action licensee's results).

Discuss this with Concern 2, when contacting the alleger.' ...........

Additional Comments ii)I hn al.t h lee n92/7 ACES/RPBg explained*/pr:ovided an overall Isummary of the NRC's assessment of the licensee's Corrective Action Program.

(2) Response letter to alleger is final action on this Concern. (Director DRP to sign letter).