ML18248A040: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| document type = E-Mail | | document type = E-Mail | ||
| page count = 1 | | page count = 1 | ||
| project = | |||
| stage = Other | |||
}} | }} | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:**}} | {{#Wiki_filter:From: Coyne, Kevin Sent: Monday, June 18, 2018 9:42 AM To: Bradford, Anna Cc: Monninger, John; Segala, John | ||
==Subject:== | |||
Tier 2* LAR for Vogtle Attachments: Tier 2* RAIs Importance: High Hi Anna - | |||
John and I circled back with Joe following our conversation on Friday. Joe will be reaching out to Don Habib, but I wanted to give you a heads up on the issues Joe is concerned with: | |||
* It would be good if SNC was prepared to talk about both (1) Joes RAI (on how their method comports with previous Commission guidance on Tier 2*) and (2) how the various examples provided with the application were selected and if they fully address the method that SNC is proposing to apply to Tier 2* information. The second issue is basically Joes 4th RAI that was not issued but instead was deferred to a public meeting discussion. Ive attached an early version of Joes questions for reference - my understanding is that only the first one was issued with some modifications; questions 2 and 3 were discussed at a previous public meeting (though there may still be some need for additional dialogue), and question #4 on the examples in the LAR fell off the radar and is still awaiting discussion (and we hope this can be added to Thursdays agenda). | |||
Since Joe will be out of the office for two weeks starting on Friday, it would be best if we could cover both SNCs approach on the RAI as well as a discussion of the LAR examples. However, Joe would need any materials SNC intends to reference ahead of time (i.e., within the next day) in order to adequately prepare for the discussion. | |||
* We still need alignment on the overall basis for the staffs regulatory finding on the LAR. | |||
Joe has some thoughts, so it would be good if Don and other key parties could meet this week to try to make headway on what ultimately would be the basis for approving the LAR (e.g., what would the conclusion of the SE ultimately state). One of the main issues is that we still lack objective guidance on what constitutes Tier 1 information - this ultimately is what the Vogtle LAR should be protecting (in other words, in order for the process laid out by SNC to protect Tier 1 equivalent information, we need to have a shared, objective understanding of what Tier 1 information is). This was a to do item noted in SECY 17-0075, but since this LAR has moved ahead of the queue, we need to make sure whatever precedent we set with this amendment will be consistent with our ultimate thinking of what is Tier 1 information. | |||
As noted, Joe will be reaching out to Don, but I wanted to put this on your radar since it looks like a number of things need to fall into place this week to make headway on Joes issues. | |||
Thanks! | |||
Kevin}} | |||
Latest revision as of 14:28, 15 November 2019
| ML18248A040 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 06/08/2018 |
| From: | Coyne K NRC/NRO/DSRA |
| To: | Anna Bradford Office of New Reactors |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18256A400, ML18235A029, ML18247A034, ML18241A218 | List: |
| References | |
| Download: ML18248A040 (1) | |
Text
From: Coyne, Kevin Sent: Monday, June 18, 2018 9:42 AM To: Bradford, Anna Cc: Monninger, John; Segala, John
Subject:
Tier 2* LAR for Vogtle Attachments: Tier 2* RAIs Importance: High Hi Anna -
John and I circled back with Joe following our conversation on Friday. Joe will be reaching out to Don Habib, but I wanted to give you a heads up on the issues Joe is concerned with:
- It would be good if SNC was prepared to talk about both (1) Joes RAI (on how their method comports with previous Commission guidance on Tier 2*) and (2) how the various examples provided with the application were selected and if they fully address the method that SNC is proposing to apply to Tier 2* information. The second issue is basically Joes 4th RAI that was not issued but instead was deferred to a public meeting discussion. Ive attached an early version of Joes questions for reference - my understanding is that only the first one was issued with some modifications; questions 2 and 3 were discussed at a previous public meeting (though there may still be some need for additional dialogue), and question #4 on the examples in the LAR fell off the radar and is still awaiting discussion (and we hope this can be added to Thursdays agenda).
Since Joe will be out of the office for two weeks starting on Friday, it would be best if we could cover both SNCs approach on the RAI as well as a discussion of the LAR examples. However, Joe would need any materials SNC intends to reference ahead of time (i.e., within the next day) in order to adequately prepare for the discussion.
- We still need alignment on the overall basis for the staffs regulatory finding on the LAR.
Joe has some thoughts, so it would be good if Don and other key parties could meet this week to try to make headway on what ultimately would be the basis for approving the LAR (e.g., what would the conclusion of the SE ultimately state). One of the main issues is that we still lack objective guidance on what constitutes Tier 1 information - this ultimately is what the Vogtle LAR should be protecting (in other words, in order for the process laid out by SNC to protect Tier 1 equivalent information, we need to have a shared, objective understanding of what Tier 1 information is). This was a to do item noted in SECY 17-0075, but since this LAR has moved ahead of the queue, we need to make sure whatever precedent we set with this amendment will be consistent with our ultimate thinking of what is Tier 1 information.
As noted, Joe will be reaching out to Don, but I wanted to put this on your radar since it looks like a number of things need to fall into place this week to make headway on Joes issues.
Thanks!
Kevin