ML052580152
| ML052580152 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 04/01/2004 |
| From: | NRC Region 1 |
| To: | |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2004-0314, RI-2004-A-0027 | |
| Download: ML052580152 (2) | |
Text
A W
gftallegN aneII20040027arb.wpd ALLEGATION REVIEW BOARD DISPOSITION RECORD Allegation No.:
RI-2004-A-0027 Branch Chief (AOC):
Glenn Me Site/Facility:
Hope Creek Acknowledged:
Yes ARB Date:
April 1, 2004 Confidentiality Granted:
Yes
,yer Issue Discussed: The USA (Utility Services Alliance) reported in a March 5 exit meeting that the condition of the Hope Creek CRD (control rod drive) system represents a major issue. The CRD system and its hydraulics are being operated in a condition that other facilities would not accept.
Alleger contacted prior to referral to licensee?
Yes No N/A X
ALLEGATION REVIEW BOARD DECISIONS:
Attendees:
Chair:
Blough j Br. Chief (AOC)
Meyer SAC:
Vito 01 Rep:
Wilson RI Counsel:
Farrar Others:
Barber, Crlenjak Disposition Actions:
I (List actions for processing and closure. Note responsible person(s), form of action closure document(s), and estimated completion dates.)
- 1.
Document that the alleger has refused to provide an address, doesn't want written feedback and is not returning phone calls. Therefore acknowledgment is not necessary.
Responsible Person:
SAC J
ECD:
Closure Documentation:
Completed:
4/2(04
- 2.
Observe the next operation of the CRD system during the forced outage restart and document the results..
Responsible Person:
MeyerIHC Resident Inspector ECD:
4/6/04 Closure Documentation:
l Completed:
- 3.
Repanel after Item 2 is complete to consider possible referral with respect to the long term plan for the CRD system.
Responsible Person:
SAC ECD:
4/30/04 Closure Documentation:
l Completed:
l SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT Provide narrative assessment of safety significance; should be commensurate with estimated action plan completion dates.
The initial safety significance of the issue is low to moderate because PSEG is aware of it and has taken some action to address them the effectiveness of which has yet to be determined. This issue is related to the SCWE which is part of an ongoing review by NRC.
PRIORITY OF 01 INVESTIGATION i
High I
I Normal I
I Low I
l-_
J11Y 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):
Q
Rationale used to defer 01 discrimination case (DOL case in progress):
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)