ML102980523: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:~Doerfleirli, Lawrenice-From: Roberts, Darrell Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 2:32 PM'To: Lew, David; Wilson, Peter; Clifford, James; Dentel, Glenn; Gray, Mel; Burritt, Arthur; Krohn, Paul; Jackson, Donald; Bellamy, Ronald; Powell, Raymond; Khan, Cheryl Cc: Doerflein, Lawrence; Hansell, Samuel; Trapp, James; White, John; Conte, Richard; Rogge, John | {{#Wiki_filter:~Doerfleirli, Lawrenice-From: Roberts, Darrell Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 2:32 PM' To: Lew, David; Wilson, Peter; Clifford, James; Dentel, Glenn; Gray, Mel; Burritt, Arthur; Krohn, Paul; Jackson, Donald; Bellamy, Ronald; Powell, Raymond; Khan, Cheryl Cc: Doerflein, Lawrence; Hansell, Samuel; Trapp, James; White, John; Conte, Richard; Rogge, John | ||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
RE: Biweekly Director's Counterpart Call (Inculuding Actions for BCs)Dave, No additions to what you captured. | RE: Biweekly Director's Counterpart Call (Inculuding Actions for BCs) | ||
I'll just mention that GI-199 is the generic issue associated with seismic activity studies affecting the Northeastern US and the potential implications for our plants. I'm not sure how far along the 50.54(f) letter idea is, but Tim McGinty mentioned that approach as an option considered by RES and NRR for this issue. However, given the Commission's recent push-back on that approach for the closure of the sumps issue, I'm not sure how much it'll fly. Hence, I would caution folks against mentioning the possibility of 50.54(f) letters to any stakeholders at this point.DJR | Dave, No additions to what you captured. I'll just mention that GI-199 is the generic issue associated with seismic activity studies affecting the Northeastern US and the potential implications for our plants. I'm not sure how far along the 50.54(f) letter idea is, but Tim McGinty mentioned that approach as an option considered by RES and NRR for this issue. However, given the Commission's recent push-back on that approach for the closure of the sumps issue, I'm not sure how much it'll fly. Hence, I would caution folks against mentioning the possibility of 50.54(f) letters to any stakeholders at this point. | ||
DJR From: Lew, David Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 1:01 PM To: Roberts, Darrell; Wilson, Peter; Clifford, James; Dentel, Glenn; Gray, Mel; Burritt, Arthur; Krohn, Paul; Jackson, Donald; Bellamy, Ronald; Powell, Raymond; Khan, Cheryl | |||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
Biweekly Director's Counterpart Call (Inculuding Actions for BCs)Darrell, Let me know if you have any additions. | Biweekly Director's Counterpart Call (Inculuding Actions for BCs) | ||
I intentional left of the comments on document accessibility to digital city, as this seems to be a temporary issue and DIRS will look into it. Also, I omitted the details of the Exelon guidance to their staff on MC 0620, since no new info was provided that Region I was not already aware of. Dave 2010 Cross-Regional Inspection Report Self Assessment | Darrell, Let me know if you have any additions. I intentional left of the comments on document accessibility to digital city, as this seems to be a temporary issue and DIRS will look into it. Also, I omitted the details of the Exelon guidance to their staff on MC 0620, since no new info was provided that Region I was not already aware of. Dave 2010 Cross-Regional Inspection Report Self Assessment | ||
* The regions and HQs Directors agree to adopt the six of the seven recommendations in the self-assessment. | * The regions and HQs Directors agree to adopt the six of the seven recommendations in the self-assessment. | ||
* Regarding recommendation | * Regarding recommendation #6 on performing another assessment of security findings, the DRS's will work with NSIR to ensure alignment of expectations on inspection finding documentation, include FOF inspections. Additionally, the DRS's will consider if there should be some corrective actions identified and implemented before conducting another assessment of security findings. | ||
#6 on performing another assessment of security findings, the DRS's will work with NSIR to ensure alignment of expectations on inspection finding documentation, include FOF inspections. | * Regarding Recommendation 2 to perform to perform another self assessment on inspection report attributes, Regions 1,11 or IV were asked if there was a volunteer for the lead. (Action: TSAB - Please provide your recommendation on whether we should volunteer. Alternatively, we may want to swap reliability initiatives.) | ||
Additionally, the DRS's will consider if there should be some corrective actions identified and implemented before conducting another assessment of security findings.* Regarding Recommendation 2 to perform to perform another self assessment on inspection report attributes, Regions 1, 11 or IV were asked if there was a volunteer for the lead. (Action: TSAB -Please provide your recommendation on whether we should volunteer. | Director's Counterpart (June 28, 29 and possibly 30) | ||
Alternatively, we may want to swap reliability initiatives.) | " Counterpart will be in Region Ill. | ||
Director's Counterpart (June 28, 29 and possibly 30)" Counterpart will be in Region Ill.* Provide topics for the counterpart (Action: DRP BCs to provide topics to TSAB for consolidation) | * Provide topics for the counterpart (Action: DRP BCs to provide topics to TSAB for consolidation) | ||
MC 0620 The Directors agree that a more comprehensive plan/effort for revising MC 0620 should be pursued. This would include a working group (which will include the regions) to consider legal and technological issues. A 1/s cross-regional group should be put together, which also focuses on implementation and roll out to the staff.This~does NOT-impactthe progress on working with Exelont-b6stablish a | MC 0620 The Directors agree that a more comprehensive plan/effort for revising MC 0620 should be pursued. This would include a working group (which will include the regions) to consider legal and technological issues. A 1/s | ||
.. | |||
This degradation is of particular interest because the vast majority of safety related buried piping has been low pressure applications. | cross-regional group should be put together, which also focuses on implementation and roll out to the staff. | ||
However, this piping can see as much as 1275#. DIRS has the action to engage DCI. One of the questions outstanding is whether there are other plants with high pressure safety related buried pipes. Action: While I am hesitant to add to our work load, I would like DRP BCs to make a recommendation on whether we should proactively seek the answer to this question. (Note: this is not an action that came out of the call)GSI-199 DORL and DPR continues to engage NEI on this issue to get additional information. | This~does NOT-impactthe progress on working with Exelont-b6stablish a protbcol.,,*.*r* . | ||
If there are delays, DPR may consider a 50.54 letter to licensees. | ýTe--..., . - | ||
Risk Initiative As many folks are aware, Melanie Galloway is leading a group on this initiative. | Salem Piping Deqradation While DCI was not on the call, the Directors believe that we should consider placing a higher priority on the implications of the Salem. AFW degradation. This degradation is of particular interest because the vast majority of safety related buried piping has been low pressure applications. However, this piping can see as much as 1275#. DIRS has the action to engage DCI. One of the questions outstanding is whether there are other plants with high pressure safety related buried pipes. Action: While I am hesitant to add to our work load, I would like DRP BCs to make a recommendation on whether we should proactively seek the answer to this question. (Note: this is not an action that came out of the call) | ||
Pete Wilson is the Region I representative. | GSI-199 DORL and DPR continues to engage NEI on this issue to get additional information. If there are delays, DPR may consider a 50.54 letter to licensees. | ||
A question is whether it is appropriateto sunset the group and mover the current communications and alignment to other normal processes. | Risk Initiative As many folks are aware, Melanie Galloway is leading a group on this initiative. Pete Wilson is the Region I representative. A question is whether it is appropriateto sunset the group and mover the current communications and alignment to other normal processes. DRS will have the lead. | ||
DRS will have the lead.David C. Lew Director, Division of | David C. Lew Director,Division of ReactorProjects USNRC, Regioh I 610-337-5229 2}} | ||
Latest revision as of 14:25, 11 March 2020
| ML102980523 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 04/23/2010 |
| From: | Darrell Roberts NRC Region 1 |
| To: | Clifford J, David Lew, Wilson P Division of Nuclear Materials Safety I |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2010-0334, GSI-199 | |
| Download: ML102980523 (2) | |
Text
~Doerfleirli, Lawrenice-From: Roberts, Darrell Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 2:32 PM' To: Lew, David; Wilson, Peter; Clifford, James; Dentel, Glenn; Gray, Mel; Burritt, Arthur; Krohn, Paul; Jackson, Donald; Bellamy, Ronald; Powell, Raymond; Khan, Cheryl Cc: Doerflein, Lawrence; Hansell, Samuel; Trapp, James; White, John; Conte, Richard; Rogge, John
Subject:
RE: Biweekly Director's Counterpart Call (Inculuding Actions for BCs)
Dave, No additions to what you captured. I'll just mention that GI-199 is the generic issue associated with seismic activity studies affecting the Northeastern US and the potential implications for our plants. I'm not sure how far along the 50.54(f) letter idea is, but Tim McGinty mentioned that approach as an option considered by RES and NRR for this issue. However, given the Commission's recent push-back on that approach for the closure of the sumps issue, I'm not sure how much it'll fly. Hence, I would caution folks against mentioning the possibility of 50.54(f) letters to any stakeholders at this point.
DJR From: Lew, David Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 1:01 PM To: Roberts, Darrell; Wilson, Peter; Clifford, James; Dentel, Glenn; Gray, Mel; Burritt, Arthur; Krohn, Paul; Jackson, Donald; Bellamy, Ronald; Powell, Raymond; Khan, Cheryl
Subject:
Biweekly Director's Counterpart Call (Inculuding Actions for BCs)
Darrell, Let me know if you have any additions. I intentional left of the comments on document accessibility to digital city, as this seems to be a temporary issue and DIRS will look into it. Also, I omitted the details of the Exelon guidance to their staff on MC 0620, since no new info was provided that Region I was not already aware of. Dave 2010 Cross-Regional Inspection Report Self Assessment
- The regions and HQs Directors agree to adopt the six of the seven recommendations in the self-assessment.
- Regarding recommendation #6 on performing another assessment of security findings, the DRS's will work with NSIR to ensure alignment of expectations on inspection finding documentation, include FOF inspections. Additionally, the DRS's will consider if there should be some corrective actions identified and implemented before conducting another assessment of security findings.
- Regarding Recommendation 2 to perform to perform another self assessment on inspection report attributes, Regions 1,11 or IV were asked if there was a volunteer for the lead. (Action: TSAB - Please provide your recommendation on whether we should volunteer. Alternatively, we may want to swap reliability initiatives.)
Director's Counterpart (June 28, 29 and possibly 30)
" Counterpart will be in Region Ill.
MC 0620 The Directors agree that a more comprehensive plan/effort for revising MC 0620 should be pursued. This would include a working group (which will include the regions) to consider legal and technological issues. A 1/s
cross-regional group should be put together, which also focuses on implementation and roll out to the staff.
This~does NOT-impactthe progress on working with Exelont-b6stablish a protbcol.,,*.*r* .
ýTe--..., . -
Salem Piping Deqradation While DCI was not on the call, the Directors believe that we should consider placing a higher priority on the implications of the Salem. AFW degradation. This degradation is of particular interest because the vast majority of safety related buried piping has been low pressure applications. However, this piping can see as much as 1275#. DIRS has the action to engage DCI. One of the questions outstanding is whether there are other plants with high pressure safety related buried pipes. Action: While I am hesitant to add to our work load, I would like DRP BCs to make a recommendation on whether we should proactively seek the answer to this question. (Note: this is not an action that came out of the call)
GSI-199 DORL and DPR continues to engage NEI on this issue to get additional information. If there are delays, DPR may consider a 50.54 letter to licensees.
Risk Initiative As many folks are aware, Melanie Galloway is leading a group on this initiative. Pete Wilson is the Region I representative. A question is whether it is appropriateto sunset the group and mover the current communications and alignment to other normal processes. DRS will have the lead.
David C. Lew Director,Division of ReactorProjects USNRC, Regioh I 610-337-5229 2