ML072680178
| ML072680178 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 10/23/2003 |
| From: | Cwalina G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Calvo J, Quay T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2007-0255 | |
| Download: ML072680178 (2) | |
Text
VEvangelos Marinos - Re: Letter with questions to Westinghouse concerning challenges to the Crossflow instrument desiglage 1/7 From:
Gregory Cwalina To:
Calvo, Jose; Quay, Theodore Date:
Thu, Oct 23, 2003 6:55 AM
Subject:
Re: Letter'with questions to Westinghouse concerning challenges to the Crossflow instrument design Jose, I want to comment of your email and statements about our adherence to the "process". With regard to the acknowledgment letter, the MD requires that the letter contain the allegations as written and recorded in the Allegation Management System. The allegations provided by the alleger were recorded in AMS and provided to the alleger in accordance with our requirements. Since in many cases, this one included, the allegations may be general in nature the process allows for discussions with the alleger to further refine and understand the issues. Although the alleger has provided clarification and the basis for the allegation, the discussions have not altered the underlying allegation. Therefore, there was no need to send another letter to the alleger. In addition, the staff is free and (I would say required by our mandate) to identify any additional issues that may be related to the allegation. In this case, during the review of the Westinghouse information the reviewers were able to identify specific instances where the documents provided by Westinghouse did not appear to be sufficient to support the Westinghouse accuracy claims. It is the staffs discussion of the issues with the alleger and their own review that identified the specific items that needed to be sent to Westinghouse.
Further, MD 8.8 also states that a personal interview of the alleger by NRC staff may be warranted. In this case, that was identified as needed and your staff was asked to attend that interview, which your staff declined.
Also at the ARB it was decided that the staff would inspect Westinghouse if necessary and the technical staff (your branch) would perform a technical review of the Westinghouse submittal. That meeting was attended by Ahmed and he did not disagree with the action plan. Since the NRR Office Instruction requires section leaders or branch chiefs to attend ARBs and be empowered and prepared to commit resources, it was the assumption of the board that Ahmed was action on your and Marinos' behalf. If he was not empowered in that manner, then you and your staff did not adhere to the Office Instruction.
If you have provided your email in a blind cc to any other individuals or organizations, I would appreciate if you would also send my response.
- Thanks, Greg
>>> Jose Calvo 10/21/03 06:18PM >>>
I concurred with your latest proposed letter and accompanying questions to Westinghouse with the comments listed below which should be considered to be an integral part of my concurrence. These comments reflect the results of EEIB's staff review of your proposed letter and I am in agreement with them.
Since all of the comments relate to the allegation process and you are the champion of that process, I leave up to you to handle these comments as you deem appropriate.
Have a good dayl!
The attachment to the subject letter contains 8 questions that belong to three categories as follows:
A) -----------
1 thru 5 are about the claimed accuracy of Crossflow in CENP-397 (subject of allegation number ---- 0003)
B) ------
6&7 are about table 1 and other statements in WCAP-1 5689 (subject of allegation number ---
0007)
Evangelos Marinos - Re: Letter with questions to Westinghouse concerning challenges to the Cr ossflow instrument desigRage 2 C) ------
8 is about the signal contamination at Byron ( no part of any of the two Caldon allegations)
Category A and B questions, though did not follow DIPM instruction no. OVRST-200 and MD.8.B directive in exhibits 4 and 6 for acknowledgment and status, are the subjects of the two NRC approved documents regarding the claimed accuracy of Crossflow instrument as mentioned in the first paragraph of your proposed letter. If exhibit 4 and 6 were followed, the staff would have the document listing the alleger approved concerns and its agreement for sending those concerns to Westinghouse.
Question 8 is the subject of a TIA and will be closed or be open for an unknown period of time, irrespective of the two allegations. With this policy, an allegation may never be closed. NRC has to draw a line somewhere, in order to complete a task. Caldon will keep on adding to the two allegations. Asking question 8 may delay Westinghouse response to the first 7 questions.
The second last sentence in the first paragraph of the letter states," However, upon further review of the information provided thus far -------.
" The letter listed two Westinghouse documents and our information should be from those documents. Either we revise the sentence or be ready to answer if asked the source of" the information provided thus far."
CC:
Marinos, Evangelos; Thatcher, Dale