ML050880183

Memo from J. Heller, Riii, to P. Louden, Riii, Subj: Receipt of New Allegation: RIII-2004-A-0048 (Point Beach). Attachment Allegation Action Plan

ML050880183
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	04/30/2004
From:	James Heller NRC/RGN-III
To:	Louden P NRC/RGN-III
References
FOIA/PA-2004-0282, RIII-2004-A-0048
Download: ML050880183 (4)

Text

- I NEW ALLEGATION: RilI-2004-A-0048 April 30, 2004 MEMORANDUM TO: Pat Louden, Chief, Reactor Branch 7, DRP FROM: Jim Heller, OAC, Rill

SUBJECT:

RECEIPT OF NEW ALLEGATION: RilI-2004-A-0048 (Pt. Beach)

On April 13, 2004, the NRC received a letter from anonymous individual. Your staff has reviewed the letter and established evaluation plan.

I have scheduled an Allegation Review Board(ARB) on Monday, May 10, 2004. Please review the attached information to prepare for the ARB.

cc w/attachments:

ARB Copy Paul, 01 Hane, 01 Kryk, 01 Ulie, 01 Berson, RC Pederson, DRS Louden, DRP Kunowski, DRP RIIIDRSADMIN RIIIDRPADMIN S IV LI Page 2 of 5 6r-2i 4

ALLEGATION ACTION PLAN AMS NO. RIII-2004-A-0048 ALLEGATION ACTION PLAN AMS NO. RIII-2004-A-0048 Licensee: Point Beach Docket/License No: 050-00266/301 Assigned Division/Branch: DRS/Plant Support Branch Allegation Review Board Membership: Chairman -Grant/ Pederson/ Grobe Paul/ Berson/ Heller/ Lambert] Clayton Dapas/ Caniano/ Reynolds Riemer GENERIC CONCERNS: If Yes Explain:

DISCUSSION OF SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE: No immediate threat to public health safety O ACCEPTANCE: YES NO (Priority: HIGH NORMAL LOW )

Basis for 01 Priority:

01 has Accepted Concem(s) No(s). Signature ARB MINUTES PROVIDED TO: Caldwell/Berson/Riemer ACKNOWLEDGMENT LETTER: PRINT IN FINAL REVISE N/A _X_

REFERRAL LETTER: A. Licensee YES NO B. State of YES NO C. DOE YES NO date received April 13, 2004 due date of I " ARB May 13, 2004 due date of ACK Ltr May 13, 2004 date -90 days old July 12, 2004 date -120 days old August 11, 2004 date -150 day old September 10, 2004 date -180 days old October 10, 2004 date -365 days old April 13, 2005 projected date for the 5 yr statue of limitation April 12, 2009 COMMENTS:

Anonymous Allegation Review Board Chairman Date ZErTsM Of Page 3 of 5

AMS No. RIII-04-A-0048 Each stated concern or NRC identified issue should be documented on a separate sheet. Each concern must be documented and written with enough detail to allow thorough follow up.

Concern No. 1: An individual is concerned that the licensee's over-emphasis on backlog reduction and arbitrary Excellence Plan" items significantly reduces the plant staff's ability to identify, evaluate, and resolve issues.

Regulatory Basis: Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 50

1. Action Evaluation: The following method of resolution is recommended (circle):

A. Send to Licensee Requesting Response in __ Days. (Describe the general areas we expect the licensee to address.)

B. Priority RIII Follow up and Closure Memo to OAC C. Follow up During Routine Inspection Within Days and Closure Memo to OAC D. Refer to Ol. Recommended Priority: HIGH NORMAL LOW Recommended Basis:

E. Outside NRC's Jurisdiction. Describe Basis Below.

F. Too General for Follow-up. Describe Basis Below.

G. Other (specify) -

Responsible for Action -

II. Special Considerations/Instructions:

Basis: Without specific examples, a large number of NRC resources would be required to address this concern. The reference to backlog reduction is ambiguous: it could refer to a backlog in the corrective action program, a backlog in corrective or preventive maintenance, or a backlog in modifications, or procedure or calculation revisions.

The licensee's development and implementation of its Excellence Plan, in general, have been discussed with and reviewed by NRC inspectors and managers, particularly as part of the 95003 supplemental inspection and at public meetings. The priorities assigned to the Excellence Plan items have been set by the licensee and the items have been incorporated into the site's corrective action program, which has also been discussed with and reviewed by NRC inspectors and managers. The Excellence Plan and corrective action program have been found by the NRC to be acceptable.

Page 4 of 5

AMS No. RIII-2004-A-0048 Each stated concern or NRC identified issue should be documented on a separate sheet. Each concern must be documented and written with enough detail to allow thorough follow up.

Concern No. 2: An individual is concerned that a widespread 'chilling effect" exists at the plant in that, in fear of retaliation: a) workers do not perform thorough evaluations of corrective actions because of a negative perception associated with asking for a due date extension, and b) workers do not admit to or report personal errors. A consequence of this, is that the corrective action program is not being used and, as a result, is not effective.

Regulatory Basis: Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 50 and chilling effect Action Evaluation: The following method of resolution is recommended (circle):

A. Send to Licensee Requesting Response in __ Days. (Describe the general areas we expect the licensee to address.)

B. Priority RIlIl Follow up and Closure Memo to OAC C. Follow up During Routine Inspection Within Days and Closure Memo to OAC D. Refer to 01. Recommended Priority: HIGH NORMAL LOW Recommended Basis:

E. Outside NRC's Jurisdiction. Describe Basis Below.

F. Too General for Follow-up. Describe Basis Below.

G. Other (specify) -

Responsible for Action -

Special Considerations/Instructions:

Basis: Without specific examples, a large number of NRC resources would be required to address this concern. The licensee's corrective action program was reviewed by the NRC during the Inspection Procedure 95003 supplemental Inspection. This review included an assessment of the thoroughness of selected evaluations and the willingness of plant staff to identify issues. In general, the corrective action program was found to be adequate. The effectiveness of the corrective action program is also reviewed as part of the resident inspectors' routine inspection efforts.

~ Page 5 of 5