ML051780327
| ML051780327 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 09/24/2002 |
| From: | Jocelyn Craig NRC/EDO |
| To: | Landsman R NRC/RGN-III |
| Pedersen R, OE | |
| References | |
| DPO-2003-100 | |
| Download: ML051780327 (1) | |
Text
,rffabelliFSchoen(,3Id - Re: DPO Dresden Page 1 rIbIlSch6eMId
- Re: DPO Dresden Page lii From:
John Craig O&5 To:
Ross Landsman
-\\\\
Date:
9/24/02 6:18PM
Subject:
Re: DPO Dresden
- Ross, Thanks - my point was a process one: the issue of the capacity of the crane was part of the DPV/DPO -
so it's not being amended. That's a good thing. Giving them the additional info will help focus their discussions.
John
>>> Ross Landsman 09/24/02 05:49PM >>>
John, it's the single failure proof rating(100 tons)that I was refering to not the capacity of the crane(125),
but thanks for sending it over to the panel, I'll explain it to them.
(4U00
>>> John Craig 09/24/02 04:34PM >>>
- Ross, As a general practice, amending DPO's to include issues that were not included in the DPV raises a number of process questions and isn't done. It doesn't really save time and often results in changing the scope or adding new issues beyond those that have been reviewed in the DPV.
Having said that, the info. in your. e mail focused on the capacity/rating of the crane. Your e mail has been provided to the DPO Panel for consideration.
This info does not appear to amend the issues raised in the DPO which included issues related to the rating of the crane. Your DPO stated that "...the crane load cell was not operating for over 20 years...the maximum rated capacity of 125 tons was exceeded numerous times without any analysis."
If you have any questions please give me a call.
John
>>> Ross Landsma( 09/23/02 02:13PM >>>
In an effort to save man power, I decided to just amend the original DPO and not write another one. In as much as this is shorter, please read the attached.