From: Sheron, Brian
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 2:08 PM
To: Johnson, Michael; Holahan, Gary
Cc: Leeds, Eric; Virgilio, Martin; Borchardt, Bill; Grobe, Jack; Boger, Bruce; Williams, Donna; Wiggins, Jim
Subject: RE: Recommendation for proactive action by NRC in light of Japan events
It would be nice if the industry was even more proactive, by having NEI send us a letter says something to the effect that in the wake of the Japanese disaster here is a list of all the things the commercial U.S. nuclear licensees are doing. Hopefully this would be the kind of stuff Gary mentioned, and maybe other stuff as well.
From: Johnson, Michael
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 2:02 PM –
To: Holahan, Gary
Cc: Leeds, Eric; Virgilio, Martin; Borchardt, Bill; Grobe, Jack; Bocwer, Bruce; Sheron, Brian; Williams, Donna; Wiggins, Jim
Subject: RE: Recommendation for proactive action by NRC in light of Japan events.
Thanks Gary. NRR’s lead of course. I like the idea using ‘this as an opportunity to highlight the importance of previous requirements/actions as a proactive step. We will need to think about the correct vehicle. I also like having industry involved up front in whatever we decide to do.
From: Holahan, Gary
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 1:55 PM
To: Johnson, Michael
Cc: Leeds, Eric; Virgilio, Martin; Borchardt, Bill; Grobe, Jack; Boger, Bruce; Sheron, Brian; Williams, Donna; Wiggins, Jim
Subject: Recommendation for proactive action by NRC in light of Japan events
The events in Japan reinforce the importance of preparedness for the unexpected. In that light, I suggest that NRC take some form of proactive step to reinforce both the Severe Accident Management Guidelines and the 50.54 (hh) (formerly B.5.b) protection for “Loss of Large Area of the plant from fires and explosions”.
50.54 (hh) seems particularly relevant, stating “Each licensee shall develop and implement guidance and strategies intended to maintain or restore core cooling, containment, and spent fuel pool cooling capabilities under the circumstances associated with loss of large areas of the plant due to explosions or fire…”
The NRC could issue Orders, Bulletins, or letters on an expedited basis (in the next few days) to require or encourage licensees to confirm their readiness to implement the severe accident management guidance and strategies under 50.54 (hh). This would not involve any new requirements, but would simply reinforce the existing requirements.
I recommend that we coordinate this activity with the industry to ensure their full and early cooperation. This would be similar to the level of cooperation we undertook for the security bulletins following 9/11.
- March 14th 2011 – Confirmation of names for Japan (enformable.com)
- March 12th 2011 12:52 PM FOAI Communication – Reactor 1 Water level was known to be below top of active fuel (enformable.com)
- March 11th, 2011 – Eric Leeds Update on Problems at Fukushima Daiichi (enformable.com)
- March 15th, 2011 UPDATE: 2000 EDT Telecon on Fukushima Daiichi – Unit 4 New Fire Broken Out – Doses in Area around 30R/hr (enformable.com)
- March 12th, 2011 UPDATE on Fukushima Daiichi – 15:30 telecon – NRC unsuccessful so far in lead role (enformable.com)
- NRC No. 11-046 March 13, 2011 – NRC SEES NO RADIATION AT HARMFUL LEVELS REACHING U.S. FROM DAMAGED JAPANESE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS (enformable.com)
- March 15th 2011 – Table of BWR’s Mark I (enformable.com)
- NRC High Importance Notice Responding To Fukushima Disaster on March 11th (enformable.com)