ML052620145

E-mail from M. Ferdas of USNRC to Various, Regarding Iat Inquiries

ML052620145
Person / Time
Site:	Hope Creek
Issue date:	04/20/2004
From:	Marc Ferdas Reactor Projects Branch 3
To:	Blough A, Mel Gray, Meyer G, Orr J Reactor Projects Branch 3, Division of Reactor Safety I, Engineering Region 1 Branch 1
References
FOIA/PA-2004-0314
Download: ML052620145 (1)

Text

- __ - - __ .. . -- . , . . 3 IGlenn Meyer - FYI - IA I Inquiries Page I1 I GlnnMyer- - A] nquiiesI'ag 1 From: Marc Ferdas 51W /

To: A. Randolph Alough; Daniel Orr; Glenn Meyer; Mel Gray Date: 4/2/04 10:15AM

Subject:

FYI - IAT Inquiries Randy, Recently I have received 2 phone calls (one just minutes ago) from members of the IAT asking questions on what the NRC is doing or has done w/ respect to issues/events at HC. In particular I was asked about the following:

1. HC RHR Vibration (Call received early wk of 3129)

I was asked if we have heard of anything suspicious (ie work environment issues) in regards to the above event, and what we were doing. I informed the IAT member that the residents and the region were interested in the issue in terms of its technical merits (ie, operability and restart issue)

2. Reactor Level Control Post Scram Going Into RF1I (April 15,2003). - Call received today See below for brief description from inspection report 2003004 Section 1R20. Also I attached the report to this email.

PSEG did not properly implement procedural guidance associated with post-scram reactor water level control on April 15. While implementing EOPs following the reactor scram to begin the refueling outage, reactor water level was controlled in a manner which conflicted with EOPs. The water level control addressed planned outage activities but for which no pre-approved basis existed. The inspectors determined that this performance deficiency was of very low safety significance (Green) and a non-cited violation of TS 6.8.1.

The IAT asked if 01 was investigating this issue and if this was being treated as wrongdoing. I informed them that I cannot comment on inquiries on that subject. I believe the basis for the question stems from their review of the inspection record (as they stated they would do in their letter).

Any further inquiries from the IAT on specific issues I am going to refer them to the region. I have no problems discussing items that developed from the review I lead, but I think the IAT is using me as a point of contact for all their questions.

I think if we get another question, we should discuss with them that the inspection record speaks for itself and contains all necessary information w/ a risk significance. Additionally, if they believe concerns exist then they need to investigate and not depend on us to develop the issue.

If you have any questions please let me know.

CC: Scott Barber (I/