ML20147G573

Advises of Closure of Listed Allegations Re Facility. Documents Discussing Bases for Closeout of Each Listed Allegation Encl

ML20147G573
Person / Time
Site:	05000000, Shoreham
Issue date:	04/02/1986
From:	Strosnider J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:	Shropshire A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
Shared Package
ML20147G281	List: ML20147G278 ML20147G573 ML20147G623 ML20147G697 ML20147G730 ML20147G749 ML20147G909 ML20147G936 ML20147G962
References
FOIA-88-56 NUDOCS 8803080267
Download: ML20147G573 (4)

Text

^*

v APR 21986 MEMORANDUM FOR: Alan Shropshire, Region I Allegation Coordinator FROM:

Jack Strosnider, Chief, Reactor Projects Section 18

SUBJECT:

CLOSURE OF ALLEGATIONS AT SHOREHAM By this memorandum, I am closing out the following allegations related to Shoreham:

RI-84-A-180 RI-85-A-8 RI-85-A-26 RI-85-A-17 RI-85-A-48 RI-85-A-S1 Attachments I through VI discuss the bases for the closecut of each of the listed allegations.

Idibd Jack Strosnider, Chief Reactor Projects Section IB cc:

H. Kister J. Berry E. Conner F. Fuhrmeister i

l l

8803080267 080303 PDR FOIA PALASTBB-56 PDR g

3 1

(

RI-85-A-37 INSUFFICIENT SCOPE OF READINESS ASSESSMENT TEAM INSPECTION The allegation, relating to the adequacy of the Readiness Assessment Team

( RAT).

Inspection, was received as part of an allegation involving Nine Mile Point Unit 2 on 12 March 1985.

The alleger stated that the scope of the RAT Inspection was too narrow and confined, and that it should have been based on statistical sampling.

A letter was drafted stating the purpose and results of the RAT Inspection and sent to the alleger on 9 July 1985 (copy enclosed).

Inspection report number 50-322/83-13 was included as an attachment to that letter, as a demonstration of documentation of NRC followup on RAT inspection findings.

Based on this action, the allegation is closed, f

?-

ALLEGATION PANEL DECISIONS Priority:

Low 1

An allegation panel met on 3/27/85 regarding RI-85-A-0037 which was received by the OAC on 3/27/85.

Those in attendance were:

R. Starostecki Panel Chairman H. Kister Branch Chief J. Strosnider Action Office Contact E. Kelly Project Engineer A. $hropshire Office Allegation Coordinator FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS:

1)

Write a letter to the addressing why the inspection was conducted the way it (signed by R. Starostecki) (ECD 4/5/85).

The letter should express the NRC's consideration of the method he suggests but was not used because it was not consistent with the purpose of this inspection.

This will close the allegation.

Division Director concurrence reo,uired for closecut.

/ Sw 6R 0,

A. Shropshirfe, OAC

. Strosnider, AOC R. Starostecki Panel Chairman cc:

J. Allan J. Gutierrez R. Christopher, 01:RI D. Caphton H. Kister J. Strosnider Allegation File; Y

ALLEGATION DESCRIPTION Shoreham 50-322 l

(Site or Licensee)

(Docket No.)

l Allegation RI-85-A-0037 was received on 3/12/85 (this allegation was broken out from RI-85-A-0012 at the Panel Meeting held on 3/27/85) by W. Lazarus.

Characterization of the concern:

NRC's R.A.T. Inspection of two years was inadequate Confidentiality: No Name:

Employer:

Address:

Position:

Phone:

l Type of Regulated Activity:

Reactor Functional Area (s):

Construction-DETAILS:

(Timeframe of Allegation:

R.A.T. Inspection of 2 years ago)

At an interview conducted by W. Lazarus, the alleger stated that the NRC's Readiness Assessment Team Inspection conducted two years ago was not adequate. He based this on the scope of the inspection by stating that it was too narrow and confined. The alleger believes that random sampling based r

statistics should have been used to conduct a thorough assessment at Shoreham, i

J l

l 1

2 l

i l

?

4 1

-