ML20236D015

Concurs W/Proposed Enforcement Action Identified in AB Davis 870626 Memo.Program Ofc Comment Form Transmitted in J Lieberman 870630 Memo Encl for Completeness

ML20236D015
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	07/23/1987
From:	Miraglia F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Lieberman J NRC OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT (OE)
References
EA-87-095, EA-87-95, NUDOCS 8707300271
Download: ML20236D015 (2)

Text

- s. c. 2xb JUL 2 31987 MEMORANDUM FOR: James Lieberman, Director DISTRIBUTION:

Office of Enforcement ,* Td h t Files d NRC PDR~

FROM: Frank J..Miraglia Local PDR Associate Director for Projects PDIII-3 r/f Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation GHolahen DWagner

SUBJECT:

POINT BEACH ENFORCEMENT ACTION 87-95 PKreutzer On June 18, 1987, an Enforcement Conference was held in Region III offices to discuss two violations identified on a recent inspection of Point Beach.

A memo to you from A. Bert Davis, Regional Administrator, Region III, dated June 16, 1987, included a copy of the proposed Notice of Violation. I' Collectively, the violations were evaluated as a Severity Level III problem.

However, due to the licensee's prompt corrective actions, a civil penalty j was not proposed.

We have reviewed the proposed enforcement action as identified in tir. Davis'  !

June 26, 1987 memo and agree with the proposed action. For completeness, the enclosure'to this memo is the " Program Office Comment Form" recently transmitted to me in your memo dated June 30, 1987. j Original signed by Frank J, lliragli8 ,

Frank J. Miraglia Associate Director for Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

As stated

Contact:

D. Wagner, X28158 i

8707300273 9707g3 PDR i

t 0 ADOCK 05000266 PDR

• See previou:; concurrence Office: PM/PDIII-3 NRR/DREP PD/PDIII-3 fir / SP Surname: DWagner/tg* FCongel* DWigginton* GHolahan Date: 07/9/87 07/13/ 7 07/20/87 07/p /87 Office: NR AT Surname: RStarostecki P

DCrutchfield A.

[

FM r glia  !

Date: 07/W87 07/v/87 07g87

- - % k

't

.: /

1;/ :

L[ t

... , i Enclosure '

.'. PROGRAM 0FFICE CONMENTS ON

. REGIONAL ENFORCEMENT 9ICOMENDATION

~

\' EA q/;'- %

Were the violations technically accurate and factual?

Meji adequacy of corrective actions?Did the region properly e assess the Y3 The Region assessed the root cause of the violations to sden frc in the HP progran. weaknesses In response to the Region, the licensee is changingl procedures, increasing training and increasing the HP staffing

.. -~ Wert the violations licensee's properly reflected?prior and current performance and prior notice j

5 '

Point' Beach has had a history of low occupational exposure rat been properly reflected.

es and this has. ,

Is the regulatory evaluated? significance'of the violations ori ,

root causes properly i s

Is the licensee's reflected? position, if known, regarding the violations prope Yes Is the message given to the licensee appropriate to the situation?

The message given to the licensee was that the violzitiods cativelof are the level of HP staffing. l Is a significant Suspension, etc.)y different type of enforcement action appropriate (Order No and if so, why? [not amount of penalty or severity glevela. >

1 Without the corrective actions indicated by the licensee have been appropriate. ,

enforcement action may to the two events. However, the licensee took agressive actions in re Any other comments on factual or technical issues-N.Ae.,

t g \_ s LA-

• I