ML022740406

Background

ML022740406
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	09/13/2002
From:	NRC/RGN-II
To:
References
FOIA/PA-2002-0361
Download: ML022740406 (3)

Text

.7 Background- In his DPV in j1akes exception with the processing of a violation of 10 CFR 50.70 observed by the Turkey Point Resident Inspector on January 28, 2002, as an NCV.

He contends that the issue, which involved announcing an inspector's presence contrary to the regulation, s o I ave been processed as a violation. In the discussion contained in the DPV, 1es the following major points:

Processing this issue as an NCV has generc or broad implications on the ability of the inspectors to monitor licensee activities as they normally occur.

- The licensee's investigaliqnhat the event did not happen as described by the NRC. - Wggests that this different conclusion regarding what happened, allowed the licensee to downplay the issue, thereby stopping any enforcement action.

Processing an issue as an NCV based on entering the issue into the corrective action program, allows the licensee to take only token corrective actions and not address the underlying root cause or organizational culture which fostered the violation.

As a remedy, he suggests that the enforcement process be modified to require that the licensee address the issue.

Doc m tion- The panel reviewed the DPV filed by.-WM I1 Turkey Poinli;.

"which documented the NCV in question, and the meeting mihutes for the ARB of February 5, 2002, during which the issue was presented for 01 consideration. Additional NRC documentation such as the management directive associated with DPVs, the statements of consideration for 10 CFR 50.70 and 10 CFR 50.5, the Enforcement Policy, and selected regional office instructions was also reviewed by members of the panel. The panel also reviewed the licensee's corrective action document which captured the issue.

Interviews- Thif iiý,gewe embers of the panel:

Carolyn Evans - Regional CounseVEnforcement Officer Randy Musser- Acting Branch Chief Son Ninh- Project Engineer/Acting Branch Chief Victor McCree- Deputy Division Director DRP Len Williamson- Acting 01 Director Findings

1. The panel agrees that announcing the presence of NRC inspectors can impact the ability of the inspectors to monitor licensee activities as they normally occur. However, based on the information reviewed, the panel does not agree that processing this issue as an NCV had broad programmatic implications. The panel believes that a licensee should be able to effectively resolve issues such as this if its corrective action program is sound. The panel did not review any information to suggest that the Turkey Point Information in tlr[&-P'i ogram is not sound.

plJ inaccordance rith the Freedom of Information Act, exemptions 6 F,01A- ,.,=o=..**

2. The panel agrees tht the licensee's investigation arrived at a different conclusion as to what happened than did the residents. However, the team did not find any evidence to "suggestthat this significantly impacted the resolution of the issue. Specifically, the team believed that the licensee's corrective actions were sufficient. Further, the team considered that the licensee's actions to conduct an independent investigation (though it did not initially include interviews of the residents) and a phone call made to the Regional Administrator by the Site Vice President, do not support the conten*ion that the licensee downplayed the issue. In addition, the panel noted that enforcement action was taken when the NCV was issued. (The panel noted that this sent a clear message to the licensee that the NRC concluded that the event occurred as described by the residents.)

3. The panel agrees that the NCV criteria which requires only that an item be entered into the licensee's corrective action program, can lead to situations of inappropriate or marginal corrective actions. However, the panel believes that the ROP addresses this issue. Ifan inspector feels strongly that the licensee has somehow missed the mark en an issue, the issue can be included as the subject of the identification and resolution bf problems portion of the appropriate baseline inspection procedure or as part of a formal problem identification and resolution inspection. In addition, if warranted, a violation for inadequate corrective actions can be issued. While not directly applicable to this issue, the panel also noted that the Enforcement Policy requires that compliance be restored as a condition of issuing an NCV. This helps decrease the likelihood of corrective actions wide of the mark.

4. Though not part of the DPV, the panel reviewed the handling of this issue against the NCV criteria identified in the NRC's Enforcement Policy. With respect to the NCV criteria related to willfulness, the team had difficulty in following the decision-making process used by the NRC to determine that the violation was not willful. The interviews conducted by the panel revealed that a consistent decision-making process was not applied by key personnel in arriving at this decision. The panel felt that the nature of the violation and the fact that a supervisor was involved warranted the NRC having a clear basis to make the call regarding willfulness.

In addition, the panel noted that when this issue was taken to the ARB, it was done before the completion of the licensee's investigation. Hence, it was not clear to the panel that the impact of the licensee arriving at a different conclusion as to what happened, was available for consideration by the ARB. The panel believes that this had the potential to impact the deliberations of the ARB.

In response, the panel recommends the following actions be taken:

A. The Enforcement Officer provide amplifying information to the Region IIstaff on what constitutes a willful violation. It is also recommended that this guidance address what mechanism should be used to determine if willfulness is involved in a violation.

B. The ARB reconvene and review the licensee's investigation of this issue to discern if additional information is required by the NRC to establish if this violation was willful. I

Zý

5. During its review, the team noted that the concurrence page for the inspection report, annotated b -n 16-o reflect his concerns with the processing of this issue as an NCV was no included' the ADAMS version of the report. The provisions of ROI 2210 were not invoked since he did concur with the report. Further, it does not appear that the practice of retaining comments recorded during the concurrence process is explicitly required by existing Region II procedures. However, the panel felt that not including this information could result in losing information associated with the concurr-nce process for a report. The panel recommends that an existing-ROI be modified to identify the need to include comments on the concurrence page (as appropriate) in ADAMS.

6. From its review of the Enforcement Policy, the panel also believes that the issue should have been processed through traditional enforcement as an issue that impacted the regulatory process as a Severity Level IV issue instead of as a No Colorissue.

Conclusion- The panel does not supportiir-PV, in that it does not believe that a change to the enforcement process is warranted. However, the panel feels that followup by the Region regarding willfulness is required.

Ia