ML052490140

Allegation Review Board Disposition Record, Allegation No. RI-2002-A-0160 (SSW)

ML052490140
Person / Time
Site:	Hope Creek
Issue date:	01/29/2004
From:	- No Known Affiliation
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
FOIA/PA-2004-0314, RI-2002-A-0160
Download: ML052490140 (2)

Text

Gi-ALLEG\PANEL\20020160arb2.wpd ALLEGATION REVIEW BOARD DISPOSITION RECORD Allegation No.: RI-2002-A-0160 (SSW) Branch Chief (AOC): Meyer Site/Facility: Hope Creek Acknowledged: NIA ARB Date: 01/29/04 Confidentiality Granted: N/A Issue discussed:- The resident inspectors identified one potential safety issue and two potential staff suspected wron doin'SW) issue based on information brought out during their conversation withi as not presenting the issues as allegations, as suspec ed wrongdoing matters, or as issues requiring followup. Rather, he was discussing matters in the context of management's interface with union workers.] The SSW issues relate to (1) a potential unauthorized installation of commercial grade equipment to assist in chemistry monitoring and (2) the apparent failure to document the issue in the corrective action system once it was raised to management in August 2002. The technical issue relates to the installation of commercial grade computer equipment that could be used to improve monitoring capability. The technical concerns relate to making additional penetrations through existing fire barriers and/or installing power supplies in parallel with existing monitoring equipment.

Through inspection, the SRI determined that the existing installation did penetrate fire barriers and was not approved for installation by the existing work control processes. However, 01, in Investigation Report 1-2003-012, confirmed, after discussion with various licensee personnel and DRS-EB (Fuhrmeister), that the fire barriers that were penetrated were not NRC required fire walls. Based on that fact, 01 determined that the allegation was not a violation of an NRC requirement, and, therefore, was not substantiated.

Alleger contacted prior to referral to licensee (if applicable)? N/A ALLEGATION REVIEW BOARD DECISIONS Attendees: Chair - Blouph Branch Chief (AOC) - Meyer SAC - Vito 01 Rep. - Neff. Wilson RI Counsel - Farrar Others - Wingfield, Barber, Holody, Crleniak DISPOSITION ACTIONS:

1. DRP completed review of the 01 case and determined that no new technical issues were identified.

Responsible Person: Barber ECD: 1/29/04 Closure Documentation: Completed: 1/29/04

2. 3 Week OE Memo Responsible Person: SAC ECD: 2/13/04 Closure Documentation: . Completed:_

3. Closeout memo and letter to licensee with 01 summary after expiration of 3 week OE memo.

Responsible Person: SAC ECD: 3/5/04 Closure Documentation: _ Completed:

SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT: The risk significance of this concern appears low since personnel that might be involved with any future tagging evolutions or work on the installed chemisry ne would be knowledgeable of the equipment installation. Thus, any personnel hazard would be limited.

Information in this record was deleted inaccordance with the Freedom of Informatlot Act, exemptions FolhAformatio-gin Lkisnt~was deleted in acCordd6AtIAlfeiTg AfkdIr IEWED AND APPROVED AT THE ARB Act exemptions -iC

_ 2 PRIORITY OF 01 INVESTIGATION:

If potential discrimination or wrongdoing and 01 is not opening a case, provide rationale here (e.g., no prima facie, lack of specific indication of wrongdoing):

Rationale used to defer 01 discrimination case (DOL case in progress):

Although SSW is usually of concern because of it involves personal integrity, the low significance of the underlying technical issues lessens this inherent priority.

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)