ML20044F954
| ML20044F954 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/27/1993 |
| From: | Speis T NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | Sniezek J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20044F925 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9306010256 | |
| Download: ML20044F954 (2) | |
Text
,....
- s aeg\\
e UNITED STATES 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a
r, a
wAsHmcTom,0. c. 20t45 s.,.....f April 27, 1993 MEMORANDUM FOR:
James H. Sniezek Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Regional Operations and Research FROM:
Themis P. Speis Deputy Director for Research Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research j
SUBJECT:
RESPONSE TO YOUR APRIL 23, 1993 MEM0 REGARDING THE HOPENFELD 12/23/91 CORRESPONDENCE ENTITLED " DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL t
OPINION" Per your request, I am providing you below with responses to the five ques-tions you raised in the subject memo:
1.
The December 23, 1991 Hopenfc1d correspondence was handled in accordance with the guidance provided in NRC Directive 10.159 (replacement to Management Directive and Handbook 6.2).
The RES panel members (T. Speis and E. Oklesson) first met on January 9, 1992 to determine if enough information had been provided for a more detailed review of the issue. Because the issue raised involved sub-issues spanning the spectrum of technical expertise in RES, the panel decided to invite to this first meeting, Messrs. Minners, Bosnak and Sheron. The panel members and the invitees concluded that there was not enough information to decide in what direction to proceed, and more specifically, it was not clear whether Dr. Hopenfeld's 12/23/91 corre-spondence took issue with existing positions or positions that were under review and in the process of being formulated. Therefore, it was decided to contact Dr. Hopenfeld to' further discuss with him his 12/23/91 correspondence.
j The meeting with Hopenfeld took place on January 24, 1992,.and in addition to myself was attended by R. Bosnak, J. Muscara, B. Sheron, P. Norian, and L. Gallagher (for E. Oklesson). The discussion which took place and the agreed upon follow-up actions of the meeting are documented in the February 19, 1992 memorandum, Speis to Hopenfeld. As the 2/19/92 memo indicates, the discussion of the subject meeting concluded that Dr. Hopenfeld was recommending the development of a new staff positicn [Dr. Hopenfeld's concern arose during the then on-going discussions with industry on their proposal to the staff for "new steam generator tube plugging criteria").
In summary, it was concluded that Dr. Hopenfeld's concern could be evaluated and resolved by designating it as a generic issue with the first step being to prioritize it. Dr. Hopenfeld was further informed 9306010256 930520-PDR ADOCK 05000344 i P
PDR.-
~
James H. Sniezek 2
April 27, 1993 about some additional work that needed to be done to facilitate the prioritization process, and in my memo, I also referenced the RES Office Letter (#1) which describes the procedures for identification, priort-tization, and tracking of the resolution of generic issues.
Dr. Hopenfeld agreed with the recommendation and proceeded to do the additional work--some of it thru contractual assistance by INEL.
Upon completion of this additional work, Dr. Hopenfeld provided it to Mr. Beckjord in a memorandum dated March 27, 1992 entitled "A New Generic Issue: Multiple Steam Generator Leakage."
2.
As indicated in item 1, the subject correspondence was reviewed by the RES DPV panel (Spets and Oklesson) plus by the other RES personnel who participated in the meeting with Dr. Hopenfeld; the RES panel comprised of membership as specified in NRC MD. 10159.
3.
Dr. Hopenfeld was provided with the memo, Speis to Hopenfeld, which as discussed in item 1 documented the meeting discussions with him and his agreement to proceed to do some additional work in order to facilitate the generic issue process.
4.
To the best of my understanding, Dr. Hopenfeld was satisfied that his concerns described in his 12/23/91 correspondence should be evaluated in the context of a new generic issue and as indicated in item 1, he did additional work and provided the results to the RES Office Director in his March 27, 1992 memorandum entitled "New Generic Issue: Multiple Steam Generator Leakage."
5.
The issue was agi included in the Weekly Information Report. My reason-ing at that time was that since the issue (with Dr. Hopenfeld's concur-rence) was proceeding along the new generic issue route, upore completion of the prioritization process the issue would be included in NUREG 0933 which the Commission, the ACRS, and the public have access to it on a continuing basis.
In retrospect, since this new generic issue originated as a result of a differing view by a staff member, it should have been included in the Weekly Information Report.
LL q
Themis P. Speis Deputy Director for Research Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research cc: EBeckjord E0klesson
.-