ML052550351
| ML052550351 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 04/01/2004 |
| From: | Engineering Region 1 Branch 1 |
| To: | |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2004-0314, RI-2004-A-0036 | |
| Download: ML052550351 (2) | |
Text
_ a4 g:\le anl20006r~p ALLEGATION REVIEW BOARD DISPOSITION RECORD Allegation No.: RI-2004-A-0036 Branch Chief (AOC): Glenn Meyer Site/Facility: Salem Acknowledged: Yes I I No I X I N/A I ARB Date: April 1, 2004 j Confidentiality Granted: I Yes liNo lZx Issue Discussed:
- 1) PSEG has had history of overpressurizing and damaging the Salem steam generator blowdown process radiation monitors (R19's). The alleger contends that tagging process inadequacies have been at the root cause of the problem but management's attention has been inappropriately focused on just changing the underlying system procedure. The alleger also described a concern for inadequate extent of condition review for the tagging process inadequacies and that PSEG does not have adequate personnel or contract resources to resolve issues. The alleger has been working this issue through the corrective action process and employee concerns program.
- 2) On February 27, 2004, control room operators incorrectly entered an ODCM action statement for an inoperable plant vent process radiation monitor, I R41. The action statement for an inoperable vent stack flow rate monitor should have been entered. Notification 20179286 was initiated in the corrective action program. The Alleger was approached by his supervisor to implement corrective actions and revise all l&C radiation monitor work procedures to include specific technical specification and ODCM action statement references. The intended corrective action is to assist operators In applying accurate TS and ODCM requirements. The alleger stated that his supervisor also believed the procedure revisions to be editorial in nature, requiring less manpower to implement. He/she disagreed with that the procedure changes would be editorial and nature and indicated that PSEG does not have the resources to implement the corrective actions or procedure revisions in a timely manner. The alleger also stated that the supervisor suggested to another procedure writer that he perform a station qualified review for a particular procedure/equipment issue that he/she was not qualified to perform. According to the alleger, this review was not performed. The alleger believed the affected procedure was HC.MD-PM.BF-0010. The alleger did not want to involve the procedure writer in his allegation. The alleger intended to take his concerns on this Issue to ECP. ,7c
- 3) The alleger tated that he had less fear of retaliation compared to his coworkers because he is The alleger has been maintaining a PC notebook for the last several years in defense of potential harassment nd intimidation issues. The alleger did NOT allege any current H&l. The alleger referenced a potential H&l issue from several months ago and stated that it was satisfactorily resolved through ECP. The alleger referenced a H&l Issue from 1994 In that he was excluded from becoming a qualified I&C technician because of his wn high maintenanc standards which would interfere with production. The alleger was then assigned to the iHe did not pursue the H&l at the time. The alleger spoke highly of his involvement with
_CP but believe atom Lake, the ECP manager is overwhelmed.
Alleger contacted prior to referral to licensee? I Yes I I No I IN/AI X ALLEGATION REVIEW BOARD DECISIONS:
Attendees:
I Chair: I Blough l Br. Chief (AOC): I Meyer I SAC: I Vito 01 Rep: Wilson RI Counsel: Farrar Others: Barber, Crienjak Disposition Actions:
(List actions for processing and closure. Note responsible person(s), form of action closure document(s), and estimated completion dates.)
- 1. Acknowledgment letter - include DOL rights, as a courtesy. ( G l a L*
Responsible Person: SAC ECD: 4/6004 I
Closure Documentation: JIA CompletCmpleed:
r2 Refer issu 5 t to provide PEG words for Enclosure 1 to referral letter.gi M75-rmatlo 5I 111s recoru Vfid aUGILU_l Respp ftlf Free ItnfoTMzU011 ECD: l 4/20104 AC014SU
Closure Documentation: I Completed: l
- 3. Repanel after PSEG response.
Responsible Person: SAC ECD: 6/04/04 Closure Documentation: Completed:
SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENTl Provide narrative assessment of safety significance; should be commensurate with estimated action plan completion dates.
The initial safety significance of this issue is low because the important aspects of the underlying technical condition(s) have been addressed.
PRIORITY OF 01 INVESTIGATION H High Normal Low 3 3 If potential discrimination eor wrongdoing an d 01iIs not opening a case, provide rationale here (e.g. no prima facie. lack of specifi indication of wrongdoing):
Rationale used to defer 01 discrimination case (DOL case in progress): E-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?
When did the potential violation occur?
(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.
NOTES: (Include other pertinent comments. Also include considerations related to licensee referral, if appropriate. Identify any potential generic issues)
Distribution: Panel Attendees, Regional Counsel, 01, Responsible Individuals (original to SAC)