ML12038A252
| ML12038A252 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 09/16/2011 |
| From: | Howe A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Scott Burnell Office of Public Affairs |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2011-0357 | |
| Download: ML12038A252 (4) | |
Text
Boyle, Patrick A From: Howe, Allen Sent: Friday, September 16, 2011 5:03 PM To: Burnell, Scott Cc: Karwoski, Kenneth; Manoly, Kamal; Li, Yong; Hiland, Patrick; Glitter, Joseph; Boyle, Patrick; Martin, Robert; Khanna, Meena; Croteau, Rick; Jones, William
Subject:
RE: interview request Scott - here are the responses. Many thanks to Meena, Kamal, Ken and RII for their support.
- 1. Is the NRC satisfied that Dominion's inspections so far are sufficient? Is NRC concerned that Dominion is doing too many visual inspections, particularly regarding spent fuel? How does NRC guarantee that Dominion's inspections are satisfactory?
Response: The NRC is currently assessing the acceptability of the licensee's actions following the earthquake.
Immediately after the event, an Augmented Inspection Team was sent to the site in order to assess the circumstances surrounding the loss of offsite power, the reactor trips, and the emergency diesel generator failure. Prior to resuming operations, the plant operator, Dominion, will submit information to the NRC to demonstrate that no functional damage has occurred to those features necessary for continued operation without undue risk to the health and safety of the public. The basis for determining the acceptability of Dominion's inspections will be documented in the NRC's publically available evaluation of the information provided by Dominion. At this time, the NRC has not made its determination regarding the acceptability of the licensee's actions for supporting plant restart.
- 2. Dominion says it will have Unit 1 "physically" ready for re-start by Sept. 22? Is that too ambitious? What is a likely re-start timeframe? (Even a ballpark estimate is OK.)
Response: The NRC's responsibility is to assess the licensee's determination regarding its acceptability to restart the plants. The NRC will take the appropriate amount of time necessary to be satisfied that there is reasonable assurance that public health and safety will be maintained.
- 3. From NRC's perspective, what happens in the process after Dominion says the plant is ready to re-start?
(I.e. what needs to happen from a regulatory perspective?)
Response: The NRC will review the information provided by Dominion. If additional information is needed for the staff to conclude that there is reasonable assurance that public health and safety will be maintained, then additional information will be requested of the licensee. In addition to the review of information provided by Dominion, NRC will conduct the appropriate on-site inspections to provide a measure of the completeness and effectiveness of the licensee's activities to demonstrate readiness to restart. Once sufficient information is available, the staff will document its basis for its conclusion.
- 4. Dominion has said North Anna is the "test case" for G1-199. Do you agree? How important is the North Anna review to the entire G1-199 process? Could the GI-199 process delay re-start for North Anna?
- 5. It may take a year or more--please correct me if I'm wrong here-to update seismic risks at nuclear plants as part of the GI-1 99 process. If that's the case, how does NRC know the seismic analysis at North Anna, which is now ongoing, is going to be sufficient?
Response to questions 4 and 5: As discussed in response to the above questions, the NRC is currently developing its approach to evaluate those actions that the licensee is taking to demonstrate that no functional damage has occurred to those features necessary for operation and that operations may resume without undue risk to the health and safety of the public.
Information in this record was deleted in accordance wit the Freedom of Information Act, e~t-pmato*
From: BRIAN WINGFIELD, BLOOMBERG/ NEWSROOM: [bwingfield3@bloomberg.net]
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2011 2:56 PM To: Burnell, Scott
Subject:
RE: interview request just checking in. any luck?
Original Message ----
From: Scott Burnell <Scott.Bumell@nrc.gov>
To: BRIAN WINGFIELD (BLOOMBERG/ NEWSROOM:)
At: 9/16 12:00:55 OK, I'll see what I can get today. Thanks.
From: BRIAN WINGFIELD, BLOOMBERG/ NEWSROOM: [bwingfield3@bloomberg.net]
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2011 11:58 AM To: Burnell, Scott
Subject:
RE: interview request Just trying to close it out today, so about 5:00PM
--- Original Message -----
From: Scott Burnell <Scott.Burnell@nrc.gov>
To: BRIAN WINGFIELD (BLOOMBERG/ NEWSROOM:)
At: 9/16 11:57:17 Brian; Having trouble tracking down the latest - what's your deadline? Thanks.
Scott From: BRIAN WINGFIELD, BLOOMBERG/ NEWSROOM: [bwingfield3@bloomberg.net]
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2011 9:23 AM To: Burnell, Scott; Ledford, Joey; Hannah, Roger
Subject:
RE: interview request Sure. A few of my questions:
- 1. Is the NRC satisfied that Dominion's inspections so far are sufficient? Is NRC concerned that Dominion is doing too many visual inspections, particularly regarding spent fuel? How does NRC guarantee that Dominion's inspections are satisfactory? -
- 2. Dominion says it will have Unit 1 "physically" ready for re-start by Sept. 22? Is that too ambitious? What is a likely re-start timeframe? (Even a ballpark estimate is OK.)
- 3. From NRC's perspective, what happens in the process after Dominion says the plant is ready to re-start?
(I.e. what needs to happen from a regulatory perspective?)
- 4. Dominion has said North Anna is the "test case" for GI-199. Do you agree? How important is the North Anna review to the entire GI-199 process? Could the GI-199 process delay re-start for North Anna?
2
- 5. It may' take a year or more--please correct me if I'm wrong here--to update seismic risks at nuclear plants as part of the G1-199 process. If that's the case, how does NRC know the seismic analysis at North Anna, which is now ongoing, is going to be sufficient?
thanks,,
Brian
Original Message ----
7 -
From: Scott Burnell <Scott.Burneli@nrc.gov>
To: Joey.Ledford@nrc.gov, Roger.Hannah@nrc.gov, BRIAN WINGFIELD (BLOOMBERG/ NEWSROOM:)
At: 9/16 8:24:20 Brian; Can you give us a better idea of what you'd like to cover? That'll help us figure out who's best-equipped to answer. Thanks.
Scott
Original Message---
From: BRIAN WINGFIELD, BLOOMBERG/ NEWSROOM: [1]
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 4:49 PM To: Burnell, Scott; Ledford, Joey; Hannah, Roger
Subject:
Re: interview request Thanks.
Roger/Joey: If you can help out at all, I'd be grateful.
- best, Brian Original Message ---
From: Scott Burnell <Scott.Burnell@nrc.gov> x To: Joey. Ledford@nrc.gov, Roger. Hannah@nrc.gov, BRIAN WINGFIELD (BLOOMBERG/ NEWSROOM:)
At: 9/15 16:48:23 Hi Brian; I've asked Eric and Jack for their availability, but perhaps the folks in Atlanta who are running the North Anna inspection might be a decent alternative? Roger and Joey would be able to help you there. Thanks.
Scott Sent from an NRC Blackberry Original Message From: BRIAN WINGFIELD, BLOOMBERG/ NEWSROOM: <bwingfield3@bloomberg. net>
To: Burnell, Scott Sent: Thu Sep 15 16:43:38 2011
Subject:
interview request 3
- Scott, Would Eric Leeds or Jack Grobe be available for a phone interview tomorrow to talk about NRC review of North Anna and GI-199? I'm planning a story for next week and would like to get fresh comment from NRC staff if possible.
My schedule is open tomorrow.
- Thanks, Brian Brian Wingfield Bloomberg News 1399 New York Ave., NW Washington, D.C. 20005 202-654-7318 offire (b)(6) I cell 4