ML060580541
| ML060580541 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem, Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 03/15/2004 |
| From: | Miller H NRC Region 1 |
| To: | Vito D NRC Region 1 |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2005-0194 | |
| Download: ML060580541 (1) | |
Text
I David Vito - Fwd: R~e: Allegations regarding Sa lem G oeCreek SaeyCulture Paae 1 a U _
U.S David Vito - Fwd: Re: Allegations regarding Salem I Hope Creek Safety Culture Paae 1 1 From:
Hubert J. Miller To:
David Vito Date:
3/15/04 7:38AM
Subject:
Fwd: Re: Allegations regarding Salem / Hope Creek Safety Culture Dan H./[)ave V.
Pis see me. I had a long conversation with Dave L. at the RIC that I would like you to capture.
Hub
>>> David Vito 03/10/04 07:30AM >>>
Since Mr. Lochbaum is working in consort w/Dr. Harvin on this matter, I don't believe that addressing this in a separate file is appropriate. The more files we create, the more complicated it will be. Since I believe we "know' the answer as to whether this is really a 50.9 issue or not (it isn't), I don't believe it should be processed as an allegation. I understand the point Mr. Lochbaum is trying to make, but I beleve it is more intended as a vehicle to charactrize his skeptcism that PSEG will do the right thing vs. just trying to sweep things under the rug and make them go away from a regulatory standpoint, than to get the NRC to issue a 50.9 violation. PSEG's 1/27/04 letter answered what was asked. I personally would have liked them to have been more forthright by characterizing their own impressions of the current situation there, but unfortunately, they chose to say as little as possible. I think Jim is right that Mr. Lochbaum should be responded to in some way, but it could possibly be less formal, i.e., via a phone call from Region I management, or possibly via a side conversation at the 3/18/04 meeting next week.
Regarding ADAMS, since it is a letter commenting on a PSEG public document that was in response to an NRC public document, I see no way it can or should be kept out of ADAMS. If that, by definition, would prompt a written response, then one should be scheduled by way of a Regional Admininstrator Action Item.
>>> James Wiggins 03/10/04 07:06AM >>>
This needs to go in the allegation file. Also, consider if Lochbaum's 50.9 assertion is something that needs to be handled separate from the main allegation....l would think not, but it would have to be addressed to him in some way.
Get with Karl to determine the ADAMS status of the Itr... Is it a Itr that needs to be put into ADAMS and made publicly available or is it allegation material and off the ADAMS books...
Jim CC:
A. Randolph Blough; beh; Daniel Holody; Glenn Meyer; jtwl; Karl Farrar; Scott Barber