ML20101J178

Informs of Growing Concern About Closure of Issues & Mgt of Plan/Schedule to Reach Fda

ML20101J178
Person / Time
Site:	05200003
Issue date:	03/22/1996
From:	Bruschi H WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP.
To:	Russell W NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
Shared Package
ML19355D020	List: ML20101J178
References
NUDOCS 9604010325
Download: ML20101J178 (2)

Text

ymskusmwww arwe#wsw ~. < ~ . - ~ . . -w -

t*

March 22, 1996 Bill Russell

Dear Bill,

Because we were unable to talk together yesterday, you are out today, and I an out next week, I wanted to make a few comments about the TOPNUX '96 Conference and our meeting last Tuesday.

I have heard from the Program Committee that you received a

" form" istter with regard to their assuminct you had accepted i

their invitation.

It would be great if you could attend since the 1icensing process and licensing of theInABNR, addition, Systen 80+, and AP600 are of great interest.

l j

the move by some ruropean countries to consider severs accident scenarios as part of their design basis needs to be l

j counter balannad with the U.S.'s point of view.

With regard to our recent " senior Management" meeting on the 1

i AP600, I have a growing concern about closure of issues and the management of the plan /nehadule to reach FDA.. As you have stated, we need to identify the key issues and work toward resolution. I have instructed my people to prepare 1

{ for and arrange meetings with your technical staff to resolve issues such as containeont socident management. I

! have beenIftold that certain NRC individuals are difficult to that is the case, the matter should be oontact. l escalated. I Notwithstanding your comments about scarcity of i

i resources, expect Westinghouse people to be abla to make j contact with the appropriate NRC personnel to support this, certification program in a more timely manner.

4 s

4 I find the management of the plan / schedule to be frustrating. We need to make sure that we work proactively l

j to identify hard spots up front and avoid a process that is j

1 too serial. Westinghouse has made phased submittals to Yet the schedules dinounced last Tuesday j

avoid surprises.

do not appear to consider any " credit"I sense Furthermore, for such an approach a reluctance to to future activities.

move ahand to the point of some personnel appearing to look  ;

for exuuses to avoid closure.

I i

{

i 4

i I l

4

%oe6( Du 5 ;

Attachment

/

J' = N ~ - - . ...

e.

! - . 2 --

IAt me cite two 4Xamples. In the area of T/M Uncertainty, j

Westinghouse was under the impression that the February 29 presentation sufficiently outlined the success The aptc path and response, on sought feedback on the plan presented.

4 March 19, was that the approach.is conceptual and needs documentation. To wait 19 days and have to have a " seniorIt Management" meeting to get that feedback is unnecessary.

makes me wonder that if we hadn't had our Tuesday meeting, how long would it have taken for Westinghouse people to understand that the NRC was not planning on feedback until I

more documentation was sent.

A second example is in the area of Tech spoo. It took a " senior Management" meeting for both Westinghouse and NRC project people to learn that the statf reviewer is being put on rotational assignmar.t, and because of this assignment the review may be 1 or 2 eenths delayed. Once again, to lesrn of this in a " senior but further, such a

, Management" meeting isgiven delay for the reasons unnecessar,is sias ly unacceptable, j

We collectively nand to better manage the process. We need focus on key issues and to ensure that in key review areas dedicated reviewers are manigned at appropriate times.

I will be out of the country next week, but would like to discuss this matter further with you.

md Howard 1

4