ML091690637
| ML091690637 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 11/15/2008 |
| From: | Richmond J NRC Region 1 |
| To: | Geoffrey Miller Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2009-0070 | |
| Download: ML091690637 (5) | |
Text
Elizabeth Keighley From:
John Richmond I PLT Sent:
Saturday, November 15, 2008 4:45 PM To:
Ed Miller Cc:
Richard Conte; David Pelton; Doug Tifft
Subject:
FW: 0C and NJ DEP Insight Attachments:
0C Regional Administrator BriefPostMtg (10-1-08).doc 0-Outside of the scope John Richmond From: Richard Conte Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 7:11 AM To: John Richmond; Robert Summers Cc: Diane Screnci; Ed Miller; David Pelton; Marjorie McLaughlin; Nancy McNamara; Neil Sheehan; Ronald Bellamy
Subject:
RE: OC and NJ DEP Insight Ed Miller I understand you have an action in this area. Please call, I will be back in the area on Thursday PM and Friday AM only of this week.
Expanding cc due to interest in this topic and need to brief EDO or deputy on the matter. The impetus statement to the daisy chain email here is as follows:
Rich didn't really have much to say, but he seemed to believe the NRC could "enforce" commitments, and could [or should be able to] change commitments and require a licensee to implement a new commitment He or the state of New Jersey may need to be calibrated in order to increase their understanding of what we can and can not do legally vs regulatory tools. Before we approach the state we might want to get our own act together by answering the following quesitons again from a legal vs regulatory tools viewpoint:
- 1. Since commitments are not requirements and therefore unenforceable, what then is the industry's and NRC's definition of a commitment and how is it used?
- 2. In the licensing process, exactly how does the agency rely on commitments and how do they get converted.
into requirements by license or license conditions.
- 3. In the inspection process and, again, if commitments are unenforceable, how does the agency hold the licensee or applicant accountable to those commitments.
- 4. How can the NRC initiate a change to a licensee commitment after the current licensing basis has been approved such as by a renewed license and on what basis can the agency take that action.
6I0mcsm wlihermedom of elon A-&/,
FOINiPA ID
- 5. For Oyster Creek and in light of the hold on the new license and the change in the current licensing basis, can the NRC hold Amergen accountable for the commitments through the inspection process for commitments made in the license renewal licensing process.
3A. And the boss question of all, does the NRC have reasonable assurance that Amergen can continue to
- )perate into the period of extended operations without the renewed license and change in the current licensing
-)asis to reflect the many condition and commitments made during the license renewal process OR 6B. Has that reasonable assurance changed since the agency issued its exemption for timely license renewal.
An orderly answer to these questions would help - part of Comm Plan for April 9, 2009.
Richard J. Conte Chief, Engineerin Branch No. 1, DRS, Reg. I tL (b)(6)
.i Off. 610-337-5183
[The information contained in this e-mail, including any attachment(s), is intended solely for use by the named addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to disclose, copy, distribute or retain this message, in whole or in part, without written consent from the sender. This e-mail may also contain confidential or privileged information so consult with the sender before disclosing. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
From: John Richmond Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 9:32 AM To: Robert Summers; Richard Conte Cc: Diane Screnci
Subject:
RE: OC and NJ DEP Insight Bob, you're comments are on target. Commitments are NOT enforceable.
rN (b)(5)
Commitments are proposed by the licensee in their LR Application. During the Application review and approval process, the licensee will revise and add additional commitments, in response to NRC questions (RAIs, regional inspection, ACRS). When the SER is written, the list of commitments, from the licensee's Application is cut & pasted into the SER. Short of a supplemental SER (as in the case of OC), there is no mechanism for the NRC to change a specific license renewal commitment.
From: Robert Summers Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 4:59 PM To: Richard Conte Cc: Diane Screnci; John Richmond Subject. RE: OC and NJ DEP Insight beyond commitments, if a state feels that a safety issue has not been adequately addressed by a licensee, they ought to provide a 2.206 petition/request.
2
(b)(5)
From: Richard Conte Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 8:41 AM To: Diane Screnci; John Richmond; Marjorie McLaughlin; Neil Sheehan; Ronald Bellamy Cc: Robert Summers; Darrell Roberts
Subject:
RE: OC and NJ DEP Insight Bob I have been anxious to talk with you about commitments in the CLB this is another twist to the commitments issue; if the NRC pressured by the state feels a.commitment is inadequate.
Richard J. Conte Chief, Engineerin Branch No. 1, DRS, Reg. I L
(b)(6)
-t Off. 610-337-5183
[ The information contained in this e-mail, including any attachment(s), is intended solely for use by the named addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to disclose, copy, distribute or retain this message, in whole or in part, without written consent from the sender. This e-mail may also contain confidential or privileged information so consult with the sender before disclosing. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately.]
From: Diane Screnci Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 7:48 AM To: John Richmond; Richard Conte; Marjorie McLaughlin; Neil Sheehan; Ronald Bellamy
Subject:
RE: OC and NJ DEP Insight Guess I wouldn't mind a little tutorial on the same information.
DIANE SCRENCI SR. PUBLIC AFFAIRS OFFICER USNRC, RI 610/337-5330 From: John Richmond Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 7:22 AM To: Richard Conte; Marjorie McLaughlin; Diane Screnci; Neil Sheehan; Ronald Bellamy
Subject:
OC and NJ DEP Insight An insight as to where the State of NJ may be headed, regarding the current OC drywell coating issue.
Yesterday, during the day, Rich Pinney asked about how the NRC would change a "commitment" if Exelon needed to do more than a current commitment required. We talked, in general, about commitment management, SERs, enforceability, and what might constitute a violation of a requirement.
3
Rich didn't really have much to say, but he seemed to believe the NRC could "enforce" commitments, and could [or should be able to] change commitments and require a licensee to implement a new commitment.
During the 4 pm telecom with Exelon, near the end, Rich showed me a note that he'd written. "Increase sand bed inspections to every 2 years." The current commitment is to inspect the drywell shell, in the sand bed bays, every other outage [every 4 years].
I'll update if more comes to light.
John R.
4
Received: from RlCLSTR01.nrc.gov ([148,184.99.7]) by R1MSO1.nrc.gov
([148.184.99.10]) with mapi; Sat, 15 Nov 2008 16:44:43 -0500 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef; name="winmail.dat" Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary From: John Richmond <John.Richmond@nrc.gov>
To: Ed Miller <Ed.Miller@nrc.gov>
CC: Richard Conte <Richard.Conte@nrc.gov>, David Pelton
<David.Pelton@nrc.gov>, Doug Tifft <Doug.Tifft@nrc.gov>
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 16:44:43 -0500
Subject:
FW: OC and NJ DEP Insight Thread-Topic: OC and NJ DEP Insight Thread-Index:
Ack+d97zQQT87FF7TEG+vZ3A6P+xjwAA5b4wAAHS5JABPr8H4AAid2VwAC 1 DTXAAq lthkA==
Message-ID:
<2856BC46F6A308418F033D973BBOEE72AA545E3A09@R1CLSTRO1.nrc.gov>
Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-Exchange-Organization-SCL: -1 X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
<2856BC46F6A308418F033D973BBOEE72AA545E3A09@R1 CLSTR01.nrc.gov>
MIME-Version: 1.0