ML20150B971

Discusses Plant Organizational Changes.Meeting W/E Butcher & Bryan Should Be Set Up

ML20150B971
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	09/11/1987
From:	Scinto J NRC
To:	De Agazio A NRC
Shared Package
ML20150B969	List: ML20150B967 ML20150B971
References
TAC-61468, TAC-875336, NUDOCS 8803170215
Download: ML20150B971 (2)

Text

i ENCLOSURE k .ed -

d .

' \

m. .

f // h 7 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 s.. i.! O( C sj i ii e 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 i

. !iat si,i' [,t f.s 1 L a a i s .'. i i 1. t . O vii j , , i ,c1( i 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. l 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 PDR

..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

1 J

e