ML18241A262
| ML18241A262 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  (NPF-091, NPF-092) |
| Issue date: | 01/17/2019 |
| From: | Williams J Office of New Reactors |
| To: | John Segala Office of New Reactors |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18256A400, ML18235A029, ML18247A034, ML18241A218 | List: |
| References | |
| LAR 17-037 | |
| Download: ML18241A262 (3) | |
Text
From:
Williams, Joseph Sent:
Wednesday, January 17, 2018 7:34 AM To:
Segala, John
Subject:
RE: Question: NRO Schedule Milestones for Vogtle LAR 17-037 Some things that come to mind:
- 1. Branch chiefs and staff have not yet been clear guidance on standards to be applied to the review. Specifically, any criteria used to screen out Tier 2* changes from requiring prior NRC approval must clearly demonstrate the change does not affect Tier 1-equivalent information (i.e., Tier 2* that meets the intent of the designation).
Communicating that expectation is a prerequisite for providing schedule and resource estimates. Otherwise, people dont know what they are buying into.
- 2. The schedule milestones DNRL proposes are overly aggressive. For example, an RAI milestone should not be established until the standard for the review is defined, including management buy-in.
- 3. It is a bad idea to provide a schedule in the acceptance letter assuming a Commission paper will not be written. I personally think that decision should be made before the letter is issued.
- 4. Joe Colaccinos branch should be involved, given the effect this topic has on various bits of guidance (e.g., NEI First Principles, SRP, 50.59-like reviews, etc.). Traditionally, organizations like his have had active roles in similar topics, such as when 50.59 was revised in the late 1990s.
- 5. I think the proposed criteria are inadequate, as they are vague, somewhat redundant to 50.59, and (perhaps most importantly) do not clearly determine Tier 1 equivalence (plus, they arent anything like the NEI First Principles). Given those considerations, I think we must assume at least 2 rounds of RAIs: one set to identify shortcomings in the initial proposal and a second set for clarifications and adjustments based on an improved set of criteria.
These are the first things that Ive come up with. Ill let you know if I come up with anything else.
Joe From: Segala, John Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 5:25 PM To: Williams, Joseph <Joseph.Williams@nrc.gov>
Subject:
Fwd: Question: NRO Schedule Milestones for Vogtle LAR 17-037 Thoughts?
Original Message --------
From: "Habib, Donald" <Donald.Habib@nrc.gov>
Date: Tue, January 16, 2018 5:08 PM -0500 To: "Jung, Ian" <Ian.Jung@nrc.gov>, "Mitchell, Matthew" <Matthew.Mitchell@nrc.gov>,
"Lupold, Timothy" <Timothy.Lupold@nrc.gov>, "Samaddar, Sujit" <Sujit.Samaddar@nrc.gov>,
"Rivera-Varona, Aida" <Aida.Rivera-Varona@nrc.gov>, "Segala, John"
<John.Segala@nrc.gov>, "Jackson, Diane" <Diane.Jackson@nrc.gov>, "Karas, Rebecca"
<Rebecca.Karas@nrc.gov>
CC: "Dixon-Herrity, Jennifer" <Jennifer.Dixon-Herrity@nrc.gov>, "Bradford, Anna"
<Anna.Bradford@nrc.gov>, "Akstulewicz, Frank" <Frank.Akstulewicz@nrc.gov>, "Patel, Chandu" <Chandu.Patel@nrc.gov>, "Carpenter, Cynthia" <Cynthia.Carpenter@nrc.gov>,
"Caldwell, Robert" <Robert.Caldwell@nrc.gov>, "Monninger, John"
<John.Monninger@nrc.gov>
Subject:
Question: NRO Schedule Milestones for Vogtle LAR 17-037 To: Branch Chiefs Reviewing LAR-17-037 Ian Jung (ICE)
Matthew Mitchell (MCB)
Tim Lupold (MEB)
Aida Rivera-Varona (HOIB)
John Segala (ARPB)
Diane Jackson (SCVB)
Rebecca Karas (SRSB)
To develop a review schedule for the LAR, I need your input on key milestones by COB Friday, 1/19:
Assumptions
- The LAR will be accepted on 1/21
- While the decision to prepare a SECY paper is still pending, assume that SECY paper preparation would not affect the SER schedule (we will make a uniform assumption (e.g., +3 months, +6 months) to account for a SECY paper.
- Please provide any other key assumptions support your schedule (e.g., 2nd RAI) o [ ]
o [ ]
o [ ]
Milestone Your Proposed Date Date Tech Branch provides RAIs to DNRL (DNRL Proposes 2/23)
[ ]
Date Tech Branch provides SE input (if any) to DNRL (DNRL Proposes 5/4)
[ ]
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Thanks Don Don Habib Project Manager NRO/DNRL, Licensing Branch 4 O-8D13 301-415-1035