ML12044A281
| ML12044A281 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 08/30/2011 |
| From: | Gitter J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Martin R Plant Licensing Branch II |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2011-0357 | |
| Download: ML12044A281 (2) | |
Text
Martin, Robert From:
Giitter, Joseph Sent:
Tuesday, August 30, 2011 4:45 PM To:
Martin, Robert Cc:
Kulesa, Gloria; Lund, Louise
Subject:
FW: Questions on AIT Please schedule some time on my calendar so we can discuss.
-Original Message----,,*\\(
From: Grobe, Jack Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 4:06 PM To: Hiland, Patrick Cc: McCree, Victor; Croteau, Rick; Dean, Bill; Wert, Leonard; Leeds, Eric; Boger, Bruce; Giitter, Joseph; Evans, Michele; Virgilio, Martin; Williamson, Edward
Subject:
RE: Questions on AIT
- Pat, I spoke with Region II folks.
I am concerned that we are not "starting with the end in mind" regarding the restart decision.
It seems that the approach to North Anna will work best if we have clear alignment internally, and then with the licensee, on what information is sufficient for us to conclude that "...NO FUNCTIONAL DAMAGE HAS OCCURRED TO THOSE FEATURES NECESSARY FOR CONTINUED OPERATION WITHOUT UNDUE RISK TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC" (words from Part 100).
Could you get the tech experts in HQ (NRR, NRO and RES) and in Region II pondering on this question and develop a recommendation for Vic and Eric on what information we would need from the licensee and how we would evaluate it and write the basis/justification for restart, along with what form it would take since, we have never done this before.
After we agree internally on what it will take for a restart decision, we then need to share this with the licensee and, once they align with it, it might be good to generate an "agreement", i.e., maybe a CAL? Don't know whether this would be a HQ document since it is Eric's final decision, or a Region II document since it is "their" licensee.
I understand that the licensee is currently intending to follow the Reg Guide and EPRI guidance, but they are not committed to it and it would be a backfit for us to "impose" it. Notwithstanding, the Reg Guide and EPRI guidance are the best thinking on how to approach this issue. The worst thing that we could have would be to get to the last minute and the licensee to be ready to restart and not have agreement on the foundation for the decision.
Please get on telephone with the DRP and DRS directors in the Region and pull this together. This needs to be done quickly since the licensee is moving forward.
Keep me posted on how this progresses. Thanks.
-Original Message -----
From: Wert, Leonard,
Sent: Tuesday, August *0, 2011 1:20 PM To: Grobe, Jack 27
Cc: McCree, Victor; Croteau, Rick; Dean, Bill
Subject:
Questions on AIT
- Jack, We're ready to talk here. I agree that we need to be working towards a firm understanding of what the licensee and agency needs to do prior to restart of N. Anna. The AIT will gather info that will be considered, but we're not looking at the AIT to be addressing the readiness for restart (in fact, IP 93800 specifically excludes readiness for restart from AIT responsibilities). We're thinking additional inspection to verify restart readiness will be needed, probably in parallel or after the SE is written.
Len This email is being sent from an NRC Blackberry device.
28