ML23003A170
| ML23003A170 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 12/15/2022 |
| From: | Bhagwat Jain NRC/NRR/DORL/LPL4 |
| To: | Constellation Energy Generation |
| Sreenivas V, NRR/DORL/LPLI, 415-2597 | |
| References | |
| EPID L-2022-LLA-0140 | |
| Download: ML23003A170 (28) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Meeting with Constellation Energy to Discuss the Exceptions Described for the Independence and Operating Bypass with IEEE-603 of the Proposed Plant Protection System in the Limerick Station, Units 1 and 2 Digital LAR
Docket Number: (n/a)
Location: teleconference
Date: Thursday, December 15, 2022
Work Order No.: NRC-2208 Pages 1-26
NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1716 14th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 234-4433 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
+ + + + +
MEETING WITH CONSTELLATION ENERGY TO DISCUSS THE
EXCEPTIONS DESCRIBED FOR THE INDEPENDENCE AND
OPERATING BYPASS WITH IEEE-603 OF THE PROPOSED
PLANT PROTECTION SYSTEM IN THE LIMERICK STATION,
UNITS 1 AND 2 DIGITAL LAR
+ + + + +
THURSDAY,
DECEMBER 15, 2022
+ + + + +
The meeting was convened via
Videoconference, at 10:00 a.m. EST, Bhagwat Jain,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, presiding.
NRC STAFF PRESENT:
BHAGWAT JAIN, NRR/DEX/ESEB
ERIC BENNER, NRR/DEX
MICHAEL MARSHALL, NRR/DORL/LPL1
RICHARD STATTEL, NRR/DEX/EICB
MICHAEL WATERS, NRR/DEX/EICB
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 2
ALSO PRESENT:
GEORGE BONANNI, PECO Energy
JOHN CONNELLY, Constellation Nuclear
MARK DIRADO, Constellation Nuclear
WARREN ODESS-GILLETT, Westinghouse
ASHLEY RICKEY, Constellation Nuclear
MARK SAMSELSKI, Constellation Nuclear
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 3
P R O C E E D I N G S
10:00 a.m.
MR. JAIN: Hello, good morning,
everyone. My name is BP Jain, and I'm a Senior
Project Manager in NRR's Division of Operating
Reactor Licensing. Along with Mike Marshall, we
perform the project management function for all
things digital in NRR.
A little background for today's meeting.
On December 9, the staff issued acceptance letter to
Constellation Energy to review the Limerick Digital
I&C LAR dated September 26. In the LAR,
Constellation Energy had identified potential
compliance issues with certain clauses in IEEE
Standard 603, 1991.
The purpose of today's meeting is to
discuss those compliance issues further and to gain
a better understanding of the issues and eventually
identify a regulatory path forward.
Today's meeting is scheduled for one and
a half hours. If you have comments or feedback on
any aspect of the meeting, please contact me or
Michael Marshall. We'll provide the necessary forms.
And our contact information is provided on the public
meeting notice posted on the NRC website.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 4
So we'll display the presentation
Constellation will be making today. Those who do not
have access to Teams video portion, you can download
the Constellation presentation using ADAMS ML number
for the presentation. Its ML number is 22347A153.
I'll repeat, the Constellation presentation ML number
is 22347A153.
That information is also provided in the
chat, and you can access that from the public meeting
notice.
Now, I'll go over a couple of point of
etiquettes. Please allow the presenter to make the
presentation. There will be an opportunity to ask
questions or provide comments after the presentation.
If you are not speaking, please keep your
cellphone on mute. And when you speak, please
identify yourself.
We have a court reporter taking -- making
the transcript of the conversation, so please
identify yourself so it reflects correctly on the
meeting notes.
I will start with a few introductions.
We have executives from NRC in the meetings. Eric
Benner, the Director, Division of Engineering and
External Hazards. Then we also have several other NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 5
NRC staff online. As they contribute to the meeting,
they will introduce themselves.
I will now request Eric Benner to make
opening remarks, please. Eric.
MR. BENNER: Okay, thank you, BP.
So I want to start. BP, can you change
your window?
MR. JAIN: I will.
MR. BENNER: It seems duplicative.
Okay, thank you.
I think a real important thing I want to
start with the messaging today is we have accepted
the Constellation LAR for review. While we were
doing our acceptance review we had a public meeting
where we discussed a number of issues to determine
whether those issues were acceptance review issues.
There was one issue that was an
acceptance review issue. Constellation has
subsequently provided sufficient information for us
to resolve that issue, and that has allowed us to
move forward with acceptance.
During that previous public meeting, we
raised this same potential compliance issue, and it
was left sort of open as to when and how that issue
would be resolved. As we completed our acceptance NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 6
review, we wanted to make sure that Constellation was
aware that this issue remained a challenge.
We had enough to start our detailed
technical review, but it was an issue that was going
to need to be resolved before we would be able to
approve the license amendment.
So we put that information in our
acceptance letter, and we really appreciate
Constellation's willingness to have this quick
discussion with their -- regarding their proposal as
to how to address the compliance issue. Because on
its face, what we've seen in Constellation's
presentation appears reasonable.
We don't make regulatory decisions in
public meetings, but we have looked at the
information and we look forward to the presentation.
And we look forward to having, you know, having
clarity on how this issue's going to be resolved in
a manner that would allow us to subsequently approve
the license amendment request.
So with that, I look forward to the
discussion. I think it continues the good discussion
we were having in the pre-application phase and
during the acceptance review. So that I think bodes
well for the success of the review.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 7
And with that, I will turn it over to
Constellation to see if they wish to make any opening
remarks or jump into their presentation.
MR. JAIN: Mark, Constellation, please?
MR. DIRADO: Sure.
MR. JAIN: Make any opening remarks.
MR. DIRADO: I will. This is Mark
DiRado, I am the Director of the Centralized Design
Organization for Constellation. Appreciate the
opportunity to provide some opening remarks here, and
thank you for the kind words, Director Benner.
And we also appreciate the NRC staff
completing the acceptance review in a timely fashion
and providing us the opportunity to work with the NRC
to resolve emergent questions expeditiously.
So with that, we agree, we're not asking
for a regulatory decision to be made on this phone
call. However, we would like to information related
to the compliance issue that was raised on our path
forward for resolution.
I will add that the issue itself is being
captured within our corrective action program, the
vendor's corrective action program, as well as our
vendor oversight program. And we'll be to speak to
additional actions there.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 8
And as far as our compliance issues go,
the item of concern is the only exception that we can
for this. We don't believe there's an extended
condition beyond this particular issue.
And with that, I'll end my opening
remarks there. And we look forward to a good open
discussion. Thank you.
MR. JAIN: Thank you, Mark. Now I'll
ask Ashley of Constellation to make your
presentation.
Ashley.
MS. RICKEY: Sure. Good morning,
everyone, this is Ashley Rickey. I am filling in for
Frank Mascitelli today as --
MR. JAIN: Can share a screen?
MS. RICKEY: Licensing from
Constellation. Yup, I'm sharing my screen right now
if you can --
MR. JAIN: Yes, perfect.
MS. RICKEY: Please let me know when you
can see that, okay. So thank you to Eric and Mark.
We have completed our opening remarks. So with that,
we will go into the presentation, and we will start
with our first slide here.
And John Connelly, please take it away.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 9
MR. CONNELLY: Actually, this will be
Mark Samselski.
MS. RICKEY: Oh, okay, thank you. Mark,
go ahead.
MR. SAMSELSKI: Good morning, everyone,
this is Mark Samselski, the responsible engineer. I
just want to do a quick mic check. Can everyone hear
me?
MR. CONNELLY: Yeah, we can hear you.
MR. SAMSELSKI: Great, thanks,
everybody.
So on this slide, we really wanted to
capture and reiterate what we took away from the
acceptance review letter. And I want to highlight
the last bullet. And I think everyone so far has
brought this to our attention. And today's
conversation, I just want to reiterate.
So we're here to discuss the issue at
hand for the IEEE-603 compliance exceptions that were
identified in our license amendment request. And
we're going to go over the next few slides here to
cover the position for Constellation. Next slide,
please.
On this slide, on slide No. 4, I'd like
to just reiterate the vendor oversight and the Vendor NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 10
Oversight Plan that was executed during our review
process for documents developed by our vendor,
Westinghouse, for this project and the license
amendment request.
Our plan, our Vendor Oversight Plan,
requires the project team to follow the Constellation
Owner's acceptance review process for external
technical products. And this is a process and
procedure that we have in place at Constellation.
We provided, when we reviewed the
documents we provided comments to ensure emergency
operating procedures and severe accident guidelines.
And their overrides were described appropriately in
the licensing technical report.
Additionally, there was another typo that
was self-identified or identified earlier from IEEE- 603 Clause 5.6.1, and this was not identified by
reviewers. So as following our Vendor Oversight
Plan, we've taken the following actions to ensure
high quality in the system that's being developed.
We entered a supplier fundamental
management system entry. We've identified and -- the
following corrective actions as part of the Vendor
Oversight Plan in our action tracking system, as well
as the vendor provided an entry into their corrective NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 11
action program and issued a report for that, and we'll
issue a report.
And we will review those reports and the
results of those reports and ultimately ensure that
the licensing technical report is revised
appropriately. And this is all in accordance with
our Vendor Oversight Plan and our corrective action
process at Constellation. Next slide, please,
Ashley.
So on slide 5, we're going to dig into
some of the details on IEEE-603, Clauses 6.6 and 7.4.
As I indicated on the previous slide, we provided
comments to ensure emergency operating procedures and
our severe accident guidelines overrides are
described appropriately in the licensing technical
report during the review process.
Subsequent to the first acceptance review
meeting that we had, I believe it was last month, the
Constellation team reached out to industry experts to
aid in the understanding of your -- of the operating
bypass definition in the context of emergency
operating procedures and severe accident guidelines.
We had several discussions with IEEE
standard working group members, and that identified
that the operating bypasses by definition really are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 12
there to permit plant mode changes, as described in
IEEE-603 1991 and IEEE-279.
We went back and we performed an
additional review of how we applied logic in the
system for the emergency operating procedures and
severe accident guidelines in the plant protection
system. And it really revealed to us that these
features are not there to enable plant mode changes.
The logic that was developed to support
the emergency operating procedures and severe
accident guidelines are overrides to ensure that the
appropriate safety function can be executed in the
system.
So when we performed our review and we
reached out to all the industry working group members
for the IEEE standards that were referenced here, we
miscategorized our overrides as operating bypasses.
And subsequently our plan will be to correct this
miscategorization, and we'll discuss that further and
how we're correcting those in later slides. But in
an -- in a subsequent LTR revision.
I'll open it up to any questions that we
may have at this time.
MR. STATTEL: This is Rich Stattel, can
you hear me?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 13
MR. SAMSELSKI: Hi, Rich, yes.
MR. STATTEL: Okay, I don't have any
questions, I understand your change in this position.
And we had had similar discussions internally at the
NRC and we understand this position. So we think we
can go forward with evaluating the revised
justification that you would be providing.
Thank you.
MR. SAMSELSKI: Okay, thank you, Rich, for
that information. Anything else? If not, I'll turn
it over to Warren for slide No. 6.
MR. ODESS-GILLETT: Good morning, this
is Warren Odess-Gillett. I'm the licensing lead for
the Limerick project from Westinghouse. And this is
just going into more detail to what Mark had just
summarized.
And that after further evaluation of IEEE
Standard 603, 1991, and the definition of what an
operating bypass is, we see in the note, and it's
highlighted here, that specifically operating
bypasses are used for mode changes.
So to Mark's point, the overrides that
were described for this clause in the LTR don't really
fall under that category because we're not actually
doing mode changes when those overrides take place.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 14
But they're in case of a -- of an emergency or a
severe accident situation.
So with that, keeping that in mind, in
fact, the PPS operating bypasses do meet -- do meet
the criteria of 279 to 603. And that the bypass will
be removed automatically whenever the permissive
conditions are not met.
And these -- and the overrides that Mark
referred to in the EOPs and the severe accident
guidelines are not operating bypasses, as he said,
per this definition.
So with this decision of full compliance,
we are -- Constellation is not going to take action
to request an alternate compliance to 50.55 -- per
50.55(a)(z), as discussed during the previous
acceptance review meeting held in November 10. Next
slide.
MR. STATTEL: Warren, this is Rich
Stattel.
MR. ODESS-GILLETT: Yeah, Rich.
MR. STATTEL: Couple quick questions.
This note that you have on the slide here, is -- I
don't see that note in the clause of IEEE-603, 1991.
Is that -- is that taken out of the standard?
MR. ODESS-GILLETT: This is a -- this is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 15
a cut-and-paste from the standard in the definition
section of the standard.
MR. STATTEL: Oh, okay, I see, it's in
the definition section.
MR. ODESS-GILLETT: Yeah.
MR. STATTEL: Okay, thank you. I just
wanted that clarification. And go ahead and
continue. I have another question, but I'll wait
'til you finish.
MR. ODESS-GILLETT: Okay. So changes to
the licensing technical report. So accordingly,
based on the two issues, one being classifying those
overrides as operating bypasses in 603 compliance and
also the typographical error for partial compliance
for independence in the clause for 603 in that table,
those will be changed so that the partial compliance
will indicate a complete compliance.
And for Section 7 for the operating
bypass, Clauses 6.6 and 7.4, those will change from
exception to comply, to C. And then the Section 3328
that explains why those exceptions were there
originally, we're going to revise that section, and
we'll show what that looks like on the next slide.
And we're expecting -- so we're expecting
that as the NRC goes through its review process, we NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 16
anticipate there will be other clarifications or
other, maybe other issues with the LTR. I mean, the
NRC has just begun their review now. And so it's
kind of expected that the -- there might be some
issues that might arise as the review continues on
the LTR.
So we anticipate that there'll be other
changes as the NRC review proceeds. This does not
mean that we're -- now, the statement here that says
the LTR during the final design process, additional
changes. But that's not really planned at all.
There are no planned design changes to impact the
LTR.
But the, it's more the expectation that
there'll be other changes due to the RAI process that
other changes to the LTR will be made.
And based on I guess where things are in
the spring, we would consider a process in which the
NRC could see how the revision looks like as we
progress through the review process what the -- what
the LTR changes will look like in the Westinghouse
portal system. We can talk more about that if you
wish.
But when the -- when both the NRC -- when
the NRC feels that it's completed its review NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 17
sufficiently to not anticipate any other changes to
the LTR, that's when we would like to submit the LTR
on the docket to minimize the number of revisions
that would be necessary to have the LTR revised and
reflect a complete description of the modification.
Any questions on this slide?
MR. MARSHALL: Yes, Warren, I have a
couple -- actually more comments, I guess, than
questions. With regards to providing us a revised
LTR, we're probably going to -- well, we're not
probably, we're going to need to set a deadline for
any additional documents you plan on submitting to
the docket like that.
And we can handle that through the normal
scheduling discussions between the licensing part of
the NRC and the licensing part of Constellation. But
we need to make sure the dates for anything that
you're adding to the docket supports the completion
date that we've communicated to Constellation.
And the spring of 2023 is a little too
broad of a window, and we probably need a much more
specific deadline for the LTR revision to be
provided.
The other comment is my understanding is
that instead of using the RAI process, as part of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 18
open item audit, my understanding, and someone from
Constellation please correct me, is that
Constellation intends to supplement the docket with
this LTR revision prior to the NRC sending RAI. So
we wouldn't necessarily even enter the RAI process at
this point.
So is my understanding correct that in
lieu of us sending you RAIs, that Constellation
intends to revise the LTR as it based on our
discussions and interactions that we've had today and
will have in the future on the open item audit process
that we're currently in?
MR. ODESS-GILLETT: Yeah, we would like
-- this is Warren Odess-Gillett -- we would like to
follow that format because it worked very well for
the Waterford Core Protection Calculator review where
we, in the open item list, we specified exactly how
the LTR will be revised to address the open item.
And then we put on the Westinghouse
portal a draft of the LTR showing how it will look as
we proceed through the item issue -- open items. And
then at the point in which, as you say, Michael,
there's a deadline where you need this thing
docketed, that would be the time that we would
actually do that.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 19
MR. MARSHALL: Okay, understand. That's
the only feedback I had or points I wanted to raise
on this slide. Thank you.
MR. ODESS-GILLETT: Okay, so this slide
is showing basically how this section in the LTR about
operating bypasses and compliance will be revised,
basically striking out the description about the
overrides for the emergency operating procedures
severe accident guidelines as a context for operating
bypasses.
And just make simply the statement that
the operating bypasses, using the definition from 603
1991, that the PPS is going to be in compliance with
that clause. Next slide.
And then for the table itself, the
changes would be reflected here, with 5.6.1 with the
partial compliance indicated originally for between
redundant portions of a safety system.
This is under the clause independence.
That that would be changed to fully comply as to be
consistent with the description in 3.5.14.1 in the
LTR that describes how the PPS is compliant with that
clause.
And then for 6.6 and 7.4 with the changes
that we -- that I described in the previous slide, we NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 20
would change the Es of exception to Cs for compliance
for those two sections in the conformance table,
compliance conformance table. So that's what the LTR
revision would look like.
And I think that is the -- that concludes
the technical portion of the presentation.
MS. RICKEY: That's correct, thank you,
Warren. We'll open it up at this point for any
questions that anyone has that haven't been addressed
or raised already.
MR. STATTEL: Okay, this is -- this is
Rich Stattel. I have just a couple of questions.
It's more for the licensee, though.
So can you confirm that essentially this
revised position, the compliance position, you -- the
existing system on your existing licensing basis,
that also is compliant. Do you consider that to be
the case?
MR. SAMSELSKI: Hey, Rich, this is Mark
Samselski. Yeah, when we went and looked back, we
are in compliance with the clauses as it stands right
now.
MR. STATTEL: Okay. So the functionality
that you have in your current systems, your current
license systems, that is being carried over directly NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 21
into the revised BPS. So the functions will be the
same, is that correct?
MR. SAMSELSKI: The ability to perform
the functions that we administratively control in the
new system are being carried over, correct.
MR. STATTEL: Okay. But they -- but you
have, in your current system you have automatic
bypass removal of some operational bypasses, and
those functions are also being carried directly over
into the new system.
MR. SAMSELSKI: Yes.
MR. BONANNI: Rich -- go ahead, Mark.
MR. SAMSELSKI: No, go ahead, George, if
you.
MR. BONANNI: Rich, the answer to your
question is yes, operating bypasses that support mode
switch position changes. For example, you know,
reactor power for bypassing the turbine trip. Do
that based upon our main steam line pressure, and
that signal will be automatically removed when it is
no longer applicable.
That's the way it is now in the current
system, and that will be carried over to the future
system.
MR. STATTEL: Okay. I thought that was NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 22
the case. I just wanted to get that confirmation.
Thank you very much.
MR. SAMSELSKI: Thanks, George,
appreciate that.
MR. JAIN: With that, are there other
questions or comments or feedback for Constellation
or for NRC staff from anyone? You can all --
MR. WATERS: This is Mike Waters. And
it seems like there's a great comfort level for the
path forward on this. I guess in terms of what's the
proposal from the Constellation the next steps is to
formally put this response and issue into the current
open item list. Is that the next step that's being
proposed?
MR. SAMSELSKI: Yeah, I think -- Mike,
this is Mark Samselski again. Yeah, we'll put it in
the open item list. I'd like Pareez to make sure
that that's the appropriate location based on the
agreements that we had. And then we'll track this
as Warren described and update the documents
appropriately.
MR. MARSHALL: Hey, Mark, this is Michael
-- Mike, this is Michael Marshall, and for Mike
Waters. I think with regards to the review, at the
very least at least the appropriate open items needed NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 23
to be added to this if they're planning on closing
these as open items and doing that through the revised
LAR.
Because right now, well, we don't have
open items on these two items right now. So we
probably need to track that to make sure this doesn't
fall through the cracks when they update the LTR.
MR. WATERS: Absolutely.
MR. MARSHALL: That's where I think as
far as the review project itself, that's where that
type of tracking needs to occur.
MR. STATTEL: Hey, Michael, this is
Richard Stattel, we do -- we did write open items.
MR. MARSHALL: But we haven't
transmitted it to them yet, Rich. So they don't have
them.
MR. STATTEL: Oh, we haven't sent them.
MR. MARSHALL: Sorry, yeah, sorry.
MR. STATTEL: Just so we're clear, I
wrote open items on these, and we will resolve those
through the open item process. And just to confirm,
there's no need for me to write an RAI, a formal RAI
on these.
MR. MARSHALL: No. There's no need for
you to change that open item you have. It's internal NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 24
to the NRC. We have not transmitted that to the
licensee yet.
And with the way we set up the open list
process, they can't add stuff to the open items list.
That has to come -- be sent from us to them. And so
we haven't had that step yet. So when I was talking,
I was talking with regards to what Constellation has
access to.
MR. STATTEL: Okay, thank you very much.
MR. MARSHALL: No problem.
MR. SAMSELSKI: And Michael, I
appreciate you discriminating between those, because
I have my own open items list that I have in our
corrective action program that's tracking these. So
I appreciate you differentiating that. Thank you.
MR. JAIN: So if there are no other
questions for the Constellation or the NRC staff, and
I'll ask Michael or Mike to recap the meeting, today's
meeting.
MR. MARSHALL: BP, before you do a recap
of the meeting, since we're well ahead of schedule,
I think now might be a good time to open the floor up
to -- for the NRC to receive any questions or public
comments.
MR. JAIN: Oh, yes. Yeah, I was going NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 25
to say that you can also provide your feedback in
writing or after the meeting via email or myself.
And the floor is open for public or anyone really to
provide their comments.
So I guess I don't hear any question or
comment, so Michael, you want to recap the meeting?
MR. MARSHALL: Okay. Yes, I will. With
regards to the issues that we have discussed before
with the exceptions with regards to IEEE-603, we have
a clear understanding of the path forward and the
resolution to those questions we had raised.
And at this point we think the only thing
needed going forward is for that -- those changes to
the LTR or in the larger sense the license amendment
request that Constellation submitted to us, that does
have to be submitted to us and on the docket at a
certain point.
And we've talked about that occurring as
part of the open item audit process, when the licensee
will be revising the LTR. And the only thing that's
outstanding there is the need to set an actual
deadline for when that will occur. And we will do
that through the normal discussions between
Constellation and the NRC on the schedule for this
review.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 26
But again, this is a very helpful
discussion. And as Eric and Mark said at the
beginning of this meeting, I think these exchanges
are very helpful, especially in getting to resolution
of issues that we identify as quickly and as early as
possible.
And going forward, I know the NRC staff,
and from talking with Constellation and their
leadership, I think that's one thing both parties
wants to do is identify issues early, resolve those
issues early so they don't linger and possibly
disrupt this review later down the path.
And I think this is a fine example of our
mutual commitment to that approach for this licensing
action.
MR. JAIN: Thank you. Constellation
would like to make any closing remark? Or any of the
participants?
MR. DIRADO: Michael summed it up well
and we agree. Expeditious closure of comments is
paramount to us having a good outcome and safe outcome
with this project. And we appreciate the opportunity
to dialog further as any other issues arise.
Thank everybody for their time.
MR. JAIN: Well, thank you for your time.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 27
If you have any comment on the meeting, please contact
us and we'll provide the forms. If there are no
other questions or comments, meeting is adjourned.
Thank you.
(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter
went off the record at 10:33 a.m.)
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com