ML13056A122

Email from M. Franovich, NRR to J. Circle, NRR Et Al. FW: Status of the Oconee 50.54(f) Letter

ML13056A122
Person / Time
Site:	Oconee
Issue date:	07/21/2008
From:	Mike Franovich Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Jeff Circle, Vail J NRC/NRR/DRA/APOB
References
FOIA/PA-2012-0325
Download: ML13056A122 (2)

Text

Circle, Jeff From: Mike Franovich Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 5:45 PM To: Jeff Circle; James Vail

Subject:

FW: Status of the Oconee 50.54(f) letter Crime and punishment come to mind..... the saga continues.

From: Mike Franovich Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 5:41 PM To: Sher Bahadur; Michael Case; Robert Nelson; Tim McGinty; Leonard Wert; Melanie Galloway Cc: Melanie Wong; Joseph Glitter; Mark Cunningham; Jon Thompson

Subject:

RE: Status of the Oconee 50.54(f) letter Sher, et. al, I'm afraid that the letter is temporarily in a parking lot. Jack instructed me this morning to move forward with two alignment meetings; one at the OE, OGC, NRR, and Region II senior management level and another alignment meeting at the EDO level. The purpose of alignment is not so much about the letter, but more if there is agreement that an Order may be on the horizon unless Oconee makes commitments. If alignment is achieved at these levels, the letter would be issued after it is changed to be more specific to support a potential Order should the NRC decide to move in that direction. He indicated that issuing a 50.54(f) letter in advance of a backfit was not in process (?) and that a 50.54(f) letter should be used if the NRC is contemplating an immediately effective Order.

Regarding specific questions for the 50.54(f) letter, below was the general theme. The purpose of the questions is to get specific licensee responses that is confirmatory of what we believe to be true and to leave no doubt that flood protection against Dam hazards is an NRC regulatory expectation. It was clear to me that more is being asked of the staff regarding details and language for the next revision of the 50.54(f) letter and consideration of other matters regarding licensee potential compensatory measures (e.g., lower Jocassee lake level which is something we already discussed at our working level meetings).

Tomorrow afternoon there is a staff working-level meeting to discuss the action items from the July 16 NRR ET briefing and our other action items from the July 17 backfit meeting. I'll let you know where we stand after tomorrow's meeting.

Types of questions/info required of licensee as follows:

In your response, you shall address the following specific issues:

1) Explain the validity of the Inundation Study and consequential results to the Oconee site.

2) Explain why a postulated Jocassee dam failure and consequences is not part of the Oconee current licensing basis.

3) Discuss the nuclearsafety implications of floods in excess of 5 feet above the SSF grade level.

4) Discuss the bounding external flood hazard to Oconee and.basis for exclusion of other external flood hazards as the bounding case.

Mike 1

From: Sher BahadurL(

Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 2:47 PM To: Mike Franovich

Subject:

Status of the Oconee 50.54(f) letter Mike - Please let me know the status of the Oconee 50.54(f) letter. Thanks.

- Sher From: Melanie Galloway Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008110:35 AM To: Jack Grobe; Bruce Boger Cc: Michael Case; Mike Franovich; Sher Bahadur; Robert Nelson; Melanie Wong; Leonard Olshan; Mark Cunningham; Jim Wiggins; Joseph Giitter

Subject:

Proposed revisions to Oconee 50.54(f) letter in response to Jack and Jim comments Jack and Bruce, For efficiency sake, I am providing this via e-mail for you to review the letter and the recent changes to it in response to comments received from Jack and Jim (noted in bold in the attached letter). Once you are satisfied, we will "recycle" (as in put through another cycle) of concurrence with OE, OGC and Region I1.

These proposed changes have been coordinated with those that have already concurred (DE, DRA, DORL, and DPR; OE; OGC; and Region II) and they agree.

In his absence today, Jim had suggested that the letter go to Eric. Again, for expediency, I can provide it to Eric concurrent with or subsequent to your review--whichever you prefer.

The goal is to obtain agreement on the content of the letter through you both so we can negate the need for the meeting Monday to discuss the content of the letter and move to obtaining Eric's agreement so we can move to an alignment meeting with Bruce Mallett.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Melanie 2