ML20202G673

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Responds to Telcon with G Jones Discussing Delay in Completing Corporate Audit Re Allegation
ML20202G673
Person / Time
Site: Susquehanna  Talen Energy icon.png
Issue date: 12/11/1997
From: Anderson C
NRC
To: Kathy Modes, Vito D
NRC
Shared Package
ML20202F480 List:
References
FOIA-99-36 NUDOCS 9902050245
Download: ML20202G673 (5)
v • d • e


Text

. . _ . - . _ . - , - _ . - . . - . - . ._-... - -- . _ - - - -

1

-4

! From: C ord nderson

! To: JV, D '

Date: 12/11/97 2:54pm

Subject:

SUSQUEHANNA RI 97-A-0145 - TELCON WITH G. JONES I called George Jones (Susquehanna VP) today to discuss their delay in completing their corporate audit related to this allegation. I told him that we were concerned about their continued delays to complete the last phases of the audit. Their current completion date is scheduled for 2/1/98. Jones staed that he was unhappy with that late date. He has commited additional resources to assist the corporate audit review.

He assured me that PP&L is working aggressively to complete the review in advance of 2/1/98. I told him that I will regularly monitor their progress on completing this audit.

CC: CWH i

l

/V '

l h20gj5990129

  • SORENSEN99-36 PDR yJ2'caAV/ "(' .

qQO2OSb ZW '

j .1 s

e ALLEGATION DISPOSITION RECORD Rev. 6/6/97 Allegation No.: RI-97-A-0145 and Branch Chief (AOC): CAnderson )

RI 97-A-0282 l Site: Susouehanna Acknowledged: Yes (97-145) Not yet (97-282)  !

Panel Date: 12/10/97 Confidentiality Granted: No l l

lssue discussed (if other than original allegation): Licensee's request for another two month extension for their own internal investigation (97-0145) and new allegation with three allegers (97-0282).

ALLEGATION PANEL DECISIONS (Previous Allegation Panels on issue: Yes (97-145) No (97-282))

Attendees: Chair - BHehl Branch Chief (AOC) - CAnderson SAC - Vito/KModes 01 Rep. - Letts RI Counsel - Others - PSwetland DISPOSITION ACTIONS: (stet. etion r.quir.d for cio.or. Onesuding .p.cial concurr.ne ), r ponsibs. p.r.on.

ECD and .ap.et.d clo ur. doeurn.ntation) NOTE: if filling out .4.ctronically, us. a larg.r, bold font to aid indvidual. In r.edng this m t. riel.

l1) Acknowledgment letters to all three allegers (97-02s2)

'} l Responsible Person: SAC ECD: 12/24/97  !

Closure Documentation: Completed:

2) 01 upgrade assist to full case (no.1-97-048)-includes PCO issue.

This refers to both allegation files 97-0145 and 97-0282. Ol will interview all three allegers from 97-0282.

i Responsible Person: Lett_s ECD: TBD i Closure Documentation: Completed:

/ 3) DRP to contact Jones (licensee management) about delay in licensee's investigation regarding alarm test panels. Need to re-emphasize that the NRC is concerned about the licensee's slow handling and lack of closure of this matter. Need for the licensee to take a more aggressive role in resolving allegations promptly.

Obtain commitment to have final report in our hands by 2/1/98 at the latest (no more extensions). Provide SAC with a copy of telecon record for inclusion in allegation file.

Responsible Person: CAnderson/PSwetland ECD: 12/20/97 Closure Documentation: Completed:

1 RI-97-A-0145 & -0282 1

&g se u. -

4)

i

~

1

4) DRP to draft status / update letters to both allegers (97-0145)

Informing them that their allegation was substantiated, NRC issued enforcement action, inform allegers about meetings with ,

the licensee, and that the licensee continues to conduct internal )

investigation. State that this internal investigation has uncovered other areas that substantiate the alleger's concern about widespread problem. Inform allegers that the NRC is monitoring the licensee's progress and will address the identified deficiencies via the NRC enforcement process. Also inform allegers that the u one remaining open technical concerns is the radwaste panel issue. ,

Responsible Person: CAnderson/PSwetland ECD: 12/20/97 I

. Closure Documentation: Completed: )

1

5) DRP to review transcripts to determine if there are any new ~

technical issues that the NRC needs to address (97-0282).

Responsible Person: CAnderson/PSwetland ECD: 3/15/98 ,

Closure Documentation: Completed:  :

l' Safety Significance Assessment: Alleged falsification is historical, true, and NRC is aware of this issue. NRC's regulatory significance of widespread problem and wrongdoing issues is of much greater significance as evidenced by 01 involvement and continuing discussions with licensee. The NRC is concerned about licensed operators not performing duties as required and that this is not an isolated issue, but appears to be widespread throughout the company.

Priority of 01 Investigation: High based on the falsification by a licensed operator. The interviews of the three allegers from 97-0282 is of normal priority, but is being incorporated in Ol's ongoing investigation associated with 97-0145.

ARB MINUTES ARE REVIEWED AND APPROVED AT THE ARB NOTES: (include rationale for any referral to licensee, and identifv any ootentially ceneric alleaations)

RI-97-A-0145 & -0282 2

i f

Issue not to be referred to licensee l A. Region 1 should refer as many allegations as possible to the licensee for action and response unless any of the following factors apply:

e Information cannot be released in sufficient detail to the licensee without compromising the identity of the alleger or confidential source (unless the alleger has no objection to his or her name being released).  !

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

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

e The basis of the allegation is information received from a Federal agency that does not approve of the information being released in a referral.

Even if the above conditions exist, Region 1 shall refer the substance of the -

allegation to the licensee regardless of any factor if the allegation raises an overriding safety issue, using the guidance in Management Directive 8.8.

Factors to Consider Prior to Referral to a Licensee in determining whether to refer eligible allegations to a licensee, The Region 1 Allegation Panel shall consider the following:

e Could the release of information bring harm to the alleger or confidential source?

e Has the alleger or confidential source voiced objections to the release of the allegation to the licensee?

e What is the licensee's history of allegations against it and past record in dealing with allegations, including the likelihood that the licensee will effectively investigate, document, and resolve the allegation?

e Has the alleger or confidential source already taken this concern to the licensee with unsatisfactory results? If the answer is "yes," the concern is within NRC's jurisdiction, and the alleger objects to the referral, the concerns should normally not be referred to the licensee.

e Are resources to investigate available within the region?

Prior to referring an allegation to a licensee, all reasonable efforts should be made to inform

- allegers or confidential sources of the planned referral. This notification may be given orally l and subsequently documented in an acknowledgment letter. If the alleger or confidential j RI-97.A-0145 & 0282 3

._ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _-..____m_ . _._ ____. _ . _ _ . . _ ._ ___ ___

l ,.

l '.

'a source objects to the referral, or does not respond within 30 calendar days, and the NRC has considered the factors described above, a referral can be made despite the alleger's or confidential source's objection or lack of response. In all such cases, an attempt will be l made to contact the alleger by phone just prior to making the referral.

Also, referrals are not to be made if it could compromise the identity of the alleger, or if it could compromise an inspection or investigation. Note: Document the basis for referring allegations to a licensee in those cases where the criteria listed above indicate that it is questionable whether a referral is appropriate.

Distribution: Panet Attendees, Regional Counsel, 01, Responsible Persons (original to SAC)

Ootions for Resolution:

Licensee Referral (Div. Dir. Concurrence Required (First Consider Factors Prior to Referral) / Document NRC Review of Response - Resp. - AOC)

Referral to Another Agency (OSHA, etc. - Resp. - SAC)

Referral to an Agreement State (MD, ME, NH, NY, RI - Resp. - SAC)

Referral to Another NRC Office (OlG, NRR, Other Regions - Resp. - SAC)

Request for Additional Info.(From alleger, licensee, others - Resp. - AOC)

Closeout Letter / Memo (if no further action planned - Resp. - AOC)

{

inspection (Resident / Specialist routine or reactive)

IF H&lD INVOLVED:

1) has the individual been informed of the DOL '

process and the need to file a complaint within 180 days Yes No  !

thas DOL informa+ ion package been provided?)

2) has the individual filed a complaint with DOL Yes No
3) if the complainant filed directly with DOL, have they been Yes No contacted to obtain their technical concerns (Resp. - SAC)
4) is a chilling effect letter warranted: Yes No (DOL finding in f avor of alleger)

- (conciliation w/ licensee prior to DOL decision) l

j. ADDITIONAL NOTES:

1 l

RI-97-A-0145 & -0282 4 i

.-. ,

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20202G673&oldid=3071378"