ML20217E699
| ML20217E699 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/28/1999 |
| From: | Kugler A NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Shawn Campbell, Anton Vegel NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20217E572 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-99-323 NUDOCS 9910200043 | |
| Download: ML20217E699 (1) | |
Text
Andrew Kugler - TIA p;g) $
l l From:
To:
Andrew Kugler [N k Anton Vegel, Stephen Campbell ( AM i
Date: Mon, Jun 28,1999 9:31 AM i
Subject:
TIA SteverTony, .
The attached is the response from the Tech Spec Branch to the TIA. I had a look at it before i left on vacation and Claudia Craig faxed it to Tony on 6/22.
The response does not address the individual arguments made by the licensee. But it does cut to the I basics. There are no supporting approved staff positions for the position taken by the licensee. While the arguments are interesting, other arguments could be made. The staff considers the TS Action 3.8.1.1.c to l apply to the equipment covered by the TS. . l By the way, in a discussion with Bill Beckner, he made an interesting observation. An altemate view of 50.36 Criterion 4 is that, although they did not meet Criterion 3, we felt that selected systems / components were important enough (i.e., critical) that we developed a whole new criterion just to make sure they were retained.
A l will prepare a memo forwarding the TSB position. I don't know if we will get it out this week. But it
, shouldn't take long.
If you have any further questions, let me know.
4.
Andy X2828 9710200043 991014 PDR FOIA CHAPMAN 99-323 PDR 1
{/7 /C 2. COD _