ML15110A430
| ML15110A430 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 04/19/2015 |
| From: | Tom Gurdziel Time Warner Cable |
| To: | Stephen Burns NRC/Chairman |
| Shared Package | |
| ML15110A431 | List: |
| References | |
| LTR-15-0217 | |
| Download: ML15110A430 (1) | |
Text
CHAIRMAN Resource From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Good morning, Tom Gl,Jrdziel <tgurdziel@twcny.rr.com>
Sunday, April 19, 2015 8:36 PM CHAIRMAN Resource AIM 2020 Comments for April 19, 2015 During last week's meeting with the Senate Committee, the discussion turned to a preference for qualification {I think), or quantification. Those two words always tend to confuse me but, I think I understood that the NRC currently prefers quantities.
There is an example of why this is a good idea, which I think would have made the point.
Suppose that, in shipping a very large piece of important equipment, the attached accelerometers ALL read, say, 1.23 g. So, if the inspectors had then compared these values to a (previously determined) maximum acceptable value, there would be no question if the piece of equipment was damaged. In fact, the leaking SONGS replacement steam generator is a perfect example of this. There would have been no need for an Unresolved Item if comparison to an actual and already determined limit could have been done.
Thank you, Tom Gurdziel (A reference would be line 19, page 18 of NRC Augmented Inspection Team Follow-up Report 05000361/2012010 and 05000362/2012010.)
1