ML20150B971
| ML20150B971 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 09/11/1987 |
| From: | Scinto J NRC |
| To: | De Agazio A NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20150B969 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-61468, TAC-875336, NUDOCS 8803170215 | |
| Download: ML20150B971 (2) | |
Text
i ENCLOSURE k.ed d
\\
f // h 7 m.
Note to Al De Ag a: i o' From Joe Scinto he. Uava< ITwe Uroan Lhanget u ? b f. X Thtu has a r.u mb e.-
of problems:
- 1) The srb does not review procedure or hardware changes to determine whether thoy insalve an unreviewed sM ety question be(ore thev sro implemented They would review them atter the fact to "verliy" that the chance did not insolve an unreviewed sa f ety quest i ori.
The reviews t' or unreviewed safety questions batare ihe c h ai sm t-
- n. cs d e It by tuo people who can be !i om the s a ni-or uaiii c at i cai wi t h the her c1 ware and admin 2rtrative p occdurce c L. a md by the ! tt and ottier procedures ol ned "as delineated" b, t t.o I ( 1.
Ih:
it iet i6' di > t et ent t han i t tie btd Ih. We rt:.a n t 1 y out a iW
- l. is l ai3 :. ; 1 u.1 1.,. ii.
- t. c r ir. 3 to thlu (>ut there at leact i. lie s t wu i n u t a i t s e.i t s i a, t.h e.t in. t ow ui the m a t. E l
< n n' r o i t oi
~
. eci)llit i tJc ( 1 t'a i Wer 1 il u l a i Q On a' i hi)S c p 1 aint,. Li ne - s'Uld 14 + d
....m[..~ti mui i t.i t wc.S c.
bette:
wb.
to 1 01 th) L m ai w.1
- 1 i iia t : <,...
s ;l, it D
D' i.. ; i a i w I I:s ie.
te(.
j>l O. A f. l ot i ! cr c l* D._. all E C 1(.I a iie' i O,1 L 6 J i.! O( C sj i ii e s..
i. n c i1 i r O.1, thc di r ect 3 ori nt thc IL!!.
b-I think thia is not :.* cood way tc go, t-I tii s woutd tequire an cbplacit discussion in the Cele w ta why (ne e l i m a n ci t i on 01 a cross discipline review (by 1 a t-uianaoer s i be f or e the tact pr ovi des an adequate assurance vi safet,.
ihe SER suoqects that the change merel, el i mi n a tm Shli review of ihe "stract1y i echris c al ont ent " of the chanqer but tetain SHD cestew of the catety related espects b lii t I i 1 1.
r( V1ew woUld he ini { H' t h.' t hanQe liai btifi. nude
.irisi 1.Ll; j 3m: n ted the j,1 a l. t.
- 1 IIit
!I ' ) i t ' i '.I
!iat si,i'
[,t f.s 1 L a a i 1. t. O vii j
,c1( i i
i i
,, i s
f t I s t. t.ii "
'ii.60Ltt'Qu.
,y t t t.sh 4 Altd C c iT.p Qi.eii t %.
Ihis 1a s1 Qis t i A i cd ii di cliit t on f l' ()m lint
- bi d l b cd e(1 1E Ti O T bui()t')ent tQ Sift 1%I>
b'.i. u9 ihis in not acceptable.
- 4) t h e.- Gl?tt 2E to rev2ew t h e: chenue det er m2 r.rit i on t e t t ei ti e l a r. t i to vertly that it did not insolve an unreviewed salet/ questlori.
6.L.1.6b.
b L R p..'.
What do they do 1i they coiic1ude that the review was wronq?
They don't rcoort that the f t1 since 6.5.1./
only pf 'r o.i t h r ec on.a or id at i ori a ri wit 2no that tiev' ac t t ori did iial C on S t i t t i t C-ali uill'e N it'tJe d sit t O t V
- q. nHs t 10fi.
Ilia t ' G t laQinQ llie c ai r d b e 3 ni ' t 11' 8803170215 880311 PDR ADOCK 05000346 p
..i e ~
v.unk E. s c
4.u
3
.a
/. -
N Thas is set up so that we should trust the t,.5.3 review to peimit the 2 man review tc of.av changes before there in cr oss-di scipline revi ew by the bRD but the two man r evi ew is not a l l ow:: d to start the pecce<is of Gettinc !JPC approvel ior t.h o s e t h i r.cc the-t hi ni ar t-uris c;v i ewed u ai e t., quat i can without cetting CliU review.
Why aren't they trusted for thicJ 1e the S!tD's functaon to save the NRC steii work?
This needs a meetino with Ed Dutcher and Gam Dr,an.
Please set one up, cc: Citarth E!;utcher G:: yan a
J e