ML052490443: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:Sc ttBarber week e-mail fo6?           e_ 2031 (Ho         Creek Al-egatihl 2002:A0160)'                           -
{{#Wiki_filter:Sc ttBarber week e-mail fo6?
From:               David Vito I To:                 David Nelson (HQ-OE); Dennis Dambly; Hubert J. Miller; Jim Dyer; Lawrence Chandler; OEMAIL; Rani Franovich Date:               2/6104 10:54AM
e_ 2031 (Ho Creek Al-egatihl 2002:A0160)'
From:
David Vito I To:
David Nelson (HQ-OE); Dennis Dambly; Hubert J. Miller; Jim Dyer; Lawrence Chandler; OEMAIL; Rani Franovich Date:
2/6104 10:54AM


==Subject:==
==Subject:==
3-week e-mail for 0! case 1-2003-012 (Hope Creek Allegation RI-2002-A-0160)
3-week e-mail for 0! case 1-2003-012 (Hope Creek Allegation RI-2002-A-0160)
Place:               OEMAIL 01 Region I initiated case no. 1-2003-012 or January 24, 2003, to determine if commercial-grade nonitoring equipment at Hope Creek was Installed ih-plant b         rpersonnel without approvallor installationb the existing work control process. The equipment was purportedly installed in parallel with existin     i   m onitoring equipment and may have Involved making additional penetrations through existing fire barriers. A second issue regarding the apparent failure of licensee management to document the equipment issue in the corrective action system was also to be addressed during this investigation.
Place:
Based on evidence developed during this investigation and after review of this issue by the technical staff, it was determined that installation of the cables for th_1       1monitoring equipment did not penetrate NRC-regulated fire walls and that the issue was not a violation of NRC requirements. As such, 01 concluded that this allegation was not substantiated. Although the investigation did not address the work control process aspects regarding configuration control, discussion with the Senior Resident Inspector who received and inspected this allegation revealed that there was no adverse impact on safety-related plant components and that licensee management did capture this issue in the corrective action program for review and resolution.
OEMAIL 01 Region I initiated case no. 1-2003-012 or January 24, 2003, to determine if commercial-grade nonitoring equipment at Hope Creek was Installed ih-plant b rpersonnel without approvallor installation b the existing work control process. The equipment was purportedly installed in parallel with existin i
m onitoring equipment and may have Involved making additional penetrations through existing fire barriers. A second issue regarding the apparent failure of licensee management to document the equipment issue in the corrective action system was also to be addressed during this investigation.
Based on evidence developed during this investigation and after review of this issue by the technical staff, it was determined that installation of the cables for th_1 1monitoring equipment did not penetrate NRC-regulated fire walls and that the issue was not a violation of NRC requirements. As such, 01 concluded that this allegation was not substantiated. Although the investigation did not address the work control process aspects regarding configuration control, discussion with the Senior Resident Inspector who received and inspected this allegation revealed that there was no adverse impact on safety-related plant components and that licensee management did capture this issue in the corrective action program for review and resolution.
The 01 report was distributed to the staff on January 2, 2004. An Allegation Review Board (ARB) was held on January 29, 2004, to discuss the matter. The ARB agreed with the conclusions of the 01 case and directed that a closeout memo to file and a letter to the licensee be sent, pending any further comments. If no other views are received within 3 weeks of the date of this e-mail, a closeout memo to file and letter to the licensee will be sent.
The 01 report was distributed to the staff on January 2, 2004. An Allegation Review Board (ARB) was held on January 29, 2004, to discuss the matter. The ARB agreed with the conclusions of the 01 case and directed that a closeout memo to file and a letter to the licensee be sent, pending any further comments. If no other views are received within 3 weeks of the date of this e-mail, a closeout memo to file and letter to the licensee will be sent.
CC:                 Daniel Holody; Ernest Wilson; Glenn Meyer; Leanne Harrison; Scott Barber; Sharon Johnson
CC:
    .nformation in this record was deleted in accordance with the Freedom of IntormatiOU Act, exempti ns         .
Daniel Holody; Ernest Wilson; Glenn Meyer; Leanne Harrison; Scott Barber; Sharon Johnson
FOIA-}}
.nformation in this record was deleted in accordance with the Freedom of IntormatiOU Act, exempti ns FOIA-}}

Latest revision as of 15:37, 15 January 2025

E-mail from D. Vito of USNRC to Various, Regarding 3-Week E-mail for OI Case 1-2003-012 (Hope Creek Allegation RI-2002-A-0160)
ML052490443
Person / Time
Site: Hope Creek PSEG icon.png
Issue date: 02/06/2004
From: Vito D
NRC Region 1
To: Chandler L, Dambly D, Dyer J, Rani Franovich, Miller H, David Nelson
NRC/EDO, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC/OGC
References
FOIA/PA-2004-0314, RI-2002-A-0160
Download: ML052490443 (1)
v • d • e


Text

Sc ttBarber week e-mail fo6?

e_ 2031 (Ho Creek Al-egatihl 2002:A0160)'

From:

David Vito I To:

David Nelson (HQ-OE); Dennis Dambly; Hubert J. Miller; Jim Dyer; Lawrence Chandler; OEMAIL; Rani Franovich Date:

2/6104 10:54AM

Subject:

3-week e-mail for 0! case 1-2003-012 (Hope Creek Allegation RI-2002-A-0160)

Place:

OEMAIL 01 Region I initiated case no. 1-2003-012 or January 24, 2003, to determine if commercial-grade nonitoring equipment at Hope Creek was Installed ih-plant b rpersonnel without approvallor installation b the existing work control process. The equipment was purportedly installed in parallel with existin i

m onitoring equipment and may have Involved making additional penetrations through existing fire barriers. A second issue regarding the apparent failure of licensee management to document the equipment issue in the corrective action system was also to be addressed during this investigation.

Based on evidence developed during this investigation and after review of this issue by the technical staff, it was determined that installation of the cables for th_1 1monitoring equipment did not penetrate NRC-regulated fire walls and that the issue was not a violation of NRC requirements. As such, 01 concluded that this allegation was not substantiated. Although the investigation did not address the work control process aspects regarding configuration control, discussion with the Senior Resident Inspector who received and inspected this allegation revealed that there was no adverse impact on safety-related plant components and that licensee management did capture this issue in the corrective action program for review and resolution.

The 01 report was distributed to the staff on January 2, 2004. An Allegation Review Board (ARB) was held on January 29, 2004, to discuss the matter. The ARB agreed with the conclusions of the 01 case and directed that a closeout memo to file and a letter to the licensee be sent, pending any further comments. If no other views are received within 3 weeks of the date of this e-mail, a closeout memo to file and letter to the licensee will be sent.

CC:

Daniel Holody; Ernest Wilson; Glenn Meyer; Leanne Harrison; Scott Barber; Sharon Johnson

.nformation in this record was deleted in accordance with the Freedom of IntormatiOU Act, exempti ns FOIA-

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML052490443&oldid=5377207"