ML020300347
| ML020300347 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 01/14/2002 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2001-0256 | |
| Download: ML020300347 (2) | |
Text
[Davi.Vit llqaio rvewbord-eenfatosip rae i The degree of knowledge that the communicator should have had, reg4 in view of his or her position, training or experience.
(2...
(3)
The degree of intent or negligence, if any, involved.
The staff does not have a conclusion on this matter because it has not yet be whether the licensee had identified and confirmed the PWSCC flaw at the tim call.
(4)
The formality of the communication.
The phone cal (5)
The re4 These phone Occasionally t and repair plai only source of any regulatory accurate infori (6)
The im I was informal.
asonableness of NRC reliance on the information.
calls provide the staff an opportunity to identify potential issues he staff recommends that licensees adjust inspections, in situ r ns. Licensees provide information through these phone calls th valuable SG inspection information. The staff did not rely on ti action (e.g., license amendment review). The licensee provid mation in its July 1997 report to the staff on inspection results.
portance of the information which was wrong or not provided.
The information was relevant to the February tube failure. However, given th of the causal factors that led to the tube failure, it is not clear that by providin during the phone call, subsequent events would have significantly changed.
(7)
The reasonableness of the explanation for not providing complete an information.
- r~.~
(1)
The primary communicator for this phone call is unknown (could check with thi or he recorded this in her or his notes). Based on staff experience, the primar for licensees are generally experienced technical managers with excellent und steam generator issues.
(2)
The opportunity and time available prior to the communication to assur completeness of the information.
Again, it is unknown when we notified the licensee that we would like to have to discuss the outage results. It is possible that the licensee did not have eno summarize and subsequently communicate to the staff the most up-to-date in the staff had given the licensee plenty of time to prepare, it is possible that the go to the trouble of obtaining the most up-to-date information prior to the phor because SG inspection work is typically in progress during these types of pho possible that information may exist in the licensee's organization that the licen representatives participating in the phone call are not aware of.
V
- -age 1 !
VDay d Vito - allegation review board - seven factors.wpd arding the matter, e PM to see if she y communicators lerstanding of re the accuracy or a conference call ugh time to obtain, formation. Even if licensee did not ie call. Also, ne calls, it is see's en determined e of the May phone in a timely way.
ressure testing, lat are often our his information for ed complete, e complex nature g this information d accurate L/
Davi Vito-allegation review board - seven factors.wpd age 2 The staff does not have a conclusion on this matter because it has not yet been determined whether the licensee had identified and confirmed the PWSCC flaw at the time of the May phone wcall.