ML20107B230
Text
.
s.
^.
.~
1
- y,,\\
- fl1 UNITED OT ATES p
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
/
/
,IQ OtHECTOM ATE OF HCGULATORY OPER ATIONS c.
i N.;
"c*'*"'
1.
M 970 sROAD STREc7
- 9,
/
[
NEWARK. NEW JERSEY 07102
~,,, e MAY 3 1973
- 11. D.' Thornburg, Chief, Field Support and Enforcement Branch Directorate of Regulatory Operations, HQ FS6EB ACTION REQUESTS (FSE6B ACTION CONTROL FORM)
~ The Region I Facility Operations Branch recently received its
.first action request issued by you-under this new system, i.e.,
Action Code RO:I/73-8, Apparent Uncoupling of Control Rods.
As indicated to.you in our telephone discussion on April 26, 1973, receipt'of'the first of these new Action Requests without prior alert and guidance left this office somewhat perplexed as to i
purpose and procedure. Your words provided some clarification.
As I now understand it, this should be a good control system and will fit in well with the system already in effect within Region I.
I also understand from our discussion that you do plan to issue
' instructions to'the field on the Action Request system.
{
One area that in my judgement requires a little m' ore careful attention by you and/or your staff is the assignment of completion-requested-by dates.
In the example cited, which was received in Region I on April 23, 1973, a completion by May 1, 1973 was speci-fled. - Examination of the originating Action Request by the Operations Branch, HQ (attached to your request) reveals that they recommended that the information be obtained during the next inspection of the subject facilities (operating BWRs--0yster Creek and later).
It would be fortuitous indeed if the routine inspection schedule for the five operating BWRs in Region I would allow completion of the requested action by the specified Mav 1 date.
This is not the case.
As presently scheduled, two of the facilities are set to be inspected in Ma;, two in June and the most distant (Pilgr'm) in July. 'As pre-sently planned, and unless your needs dictate otherwise, this office will submit the separate memorandum requested by Keppler summarizing our findings on this action request immediately following the Pilgrim inspection. You indicated in our discussion that the completion-requested-by dates were negotiabic, which is as it should be.
- However, in the interest of avoiding unnecessary communications, I suggest that more reasonable completion dates be assigned where ebvious. A phone call by the assigned responsible 4
m 9604'160140 960213 PDR FOIA DEKOK95-258 PDR
. c r
(
i
.~
m f.
member of your staff could determino the best gungstimate by the responoible regina if needed.
I would encourag.. hat a similar i
procedure be followed for thoac Action Requests requiring more immediate response. This could also serve to alert the Rogion in advance of receipt of the documented request, thus allowing imnediate incorporation 1nto plans for inspections scheduled for the interim.
4 l
The above comments aro' intended to be constructive and to serve the needs of both HQ and the Regions.
Please call if you have any ques-tions.
R. T. Carlson, Chief j
Facility Operations Branch cc J. G. reppler, R0 bec:
J. P. O'Reilly R0:1 Branch Chiefs D. L. Caphton H.
L'. Crocker I
1 s
i e
I J
9 e
i I
i i
l
s.
s
~. -
.s (a
I
}
i j
1 l
MM 3 1973
/
F. A. Dreher, Senior Construction Engineer, Field Support &
Enforcement Branch Directorate of Regulatory Operations, RO:llQ
'"~'
EVELYN J. BARNES Returned herewith is a copy of the undated letter received from Evelyn J. Barnes, a copy of our reply and a copy of Form HQ-32 USAEC. We consider this matter closed.
James P. O'Reilly Director l
,o y
1-
. ' /-~.
j f
...'. ( N
!-('i h^
o-W
...(.
,- /
-.'s
- +..
r (r
- o
(
^ ^ '
,p r'
r s
l
'G ~'
a N y.
Y3D5/?%-&
f v \\x 1
CRESS: I
/
~'
omet >
Ryan: pac 0'Reilly su m ut >
...,,N...,,,,,,,,.
5/2/73
/
Det>
Form AEC,)ts gRe,. 9,33) ALCM 0140
.