ML052620138
| ML052620138 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 02/20/2004 |
| From: | Marc Ferdas Reactor Projects Branch 3 |
| To: | Meyer G Engineering Region 1 Branch 1 |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2004-0314 | |
| Download: ML052620138 (1) | |
Text
I Ie;-nM&7r-F-R- -
A gainF I6l civii'- HoeCreL.
i _
_Page1
[Glii MyeV-Re: Allegation Followup Activities - Hope Creek l-'age i
From:
Marc Ferdas To:
Glenn Meyer Date:
2/20/04 1:52PM
Subject:
Re: Allegation Followup Activities - Hope Creek Just wanted to close the loop on this activity. The work week risk assessment for Hope Creek assumes allequipment planned to be worked is unavailable at the same time for a 7 day period. If the risk remains green no additional actions are performed. If the risk becomes greater then green, then the outage times are managed to ensure that the risk returns to green or controlled in some fashion. If new equipment becomes unavailable, then the risk assessment is suppose to be revised.
For this specific issue, the work was originally scheduled for 2 days, however due to added work the outage time was extended for additional 3 days. The risk assessment was not revised, because the original risk assumptions bounded the analysis (i.e., the extended outage did not change risk value).
-Marc S. Ferdas
>>> Glenn Meyer 02/17/04 01:41PM >>>
Marc - Good review and writeup; I saved to G:\\Br.3Allegation SCWE\\chiller job review.wpdA The writeup seems to suggest that generally, improper processing could result in an inadequate risk assessment. The review does not seem to substantiate anything similar - is my reading correct? If there
(
was some effect \\ inadequacy, a finding on the MRule is possible.
Glenn
>>> Marc Ferdas 02/12/04 03:54PM >>>
- Glenn, I completed the allegation followup concerning the in-progress maintenance work on the A control room chiller (AK400). Please see attached file.
If you have any questions please let me know.