ML12045A039

From kanterella
Revision as of 22:48, 5 December 2019 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
OL - Talking Points for the Meeting on Thursday
ML12045A039
Person / Time
Site: Watts Bar Tennessee Valley Authority icon.png
Issue date: 01/30/2012
From:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Division of Operating Reactor Licensing
References
Download: ML12045A039 (2)


Text

WBN2Public Resource From: Poole, Justin Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 3:58 PM To: Arent, Gordon; Bryan, Robert H Jr Cc: WBN2HearingFile Resource; Milano, Patrick

Subject:

Talking points for the meeting on Thursday

Gordon, Below are the talking points that the staff would like to cover during the meeting on Thursday. Thanks.

Justin C. Poole Sr. Project Manager NRR/DORL/LPWB U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (301)415-2048 email: Justin.Poole@nrc.gov Discussion bullets for the 2/2 meeting with TVA

  • Regarding the sample 2.9 deviations:

NRC Staff first impression: Lots of detail; But upon examination: A lack of connection between the text and conclusions.

Expected something more like the OMA evaluations in FPR Part VII, Section 8 Description of condition being evaluated Why III.G.2 in not currently met (i.e., redundant trains are installed)

What OMAs are being eliminated Explanation of why its OK Nonetheless, there are good parts and this is a good step forward

  • Discuss the technical justification for the use of random failures in the sample 2.9 deviations.
  • Is the sentence: These [Unit 1] OMAs remain applicable pending further evaluation. (pg. 6) intended to be a commitment for Unit 1?
  • Discuss how Unit 1 / Unit 2 differentiation is handled in the sample 2.9 deviations.

Unit 1 equipment Unit 1 OMAs

  • How will the new 2.9 deviations interact with the rest of the FPR?

Part III; Part VI, Part VII, Sections 3.1, 4.5, and 8

  • Steps taken/to be taken to resolve on-going information quality issues. (That is, what will TVA be doing differently. More reviews has not worked so far.)
  • Apparent inconsistency between Part II Table 14.1, Zone 118 entry New Fuel Storage Area (4 detectors) and Part VII, Section 4.5 evaluation (no detectors).

1

Hearing Identifier: Watts_Bar_2_Operating_LA_Public Email Number: 656 Mail Envelope Properties (19D990B45D535548840D1118C451C74DC8B85832EB)

Subject:

Talking points for the meeting on Thursday Sent Date: 1/30/2012 3:57:43 PM Received Date: 1/30/2012 3:57:43 PM From: Poole, Justin Created By: Justin.Poole@nrc.gov Recipients:

"WBN2HearingFile Resource" <WBN2HearingFile.Resource@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Milano, Patrick" <Patrick.Milano@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Arent, Gordon" <garent@tva.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Bryan, Robert H Jr" <rhbryan@tva.gov>

Tracking Status: None Post Office: HQCLSTR02.nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 1820 1/30/2012 3:57:43 PM Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:

Recipients Received: