|
---|
Category:E-Mail
MONTHYEARML23349A0272023-12-15015 December 2023 Acceptance of Requested Licensing Action License Amendment Request to Revise Technical Specification 5.5.2 ML23284A3322023-10-11011 October 2023 Request for Additional Information Alternative Request (RA-22-0174) (L-2022-LLR-0060) ML23270B8362023-09-26026 September 2023 Code Case N-752 Audit September 26, 2023, E-mail Providing Additional Information Regarding the Use of Owner'S Requirements and Engineering Judgment in Lieu of Code and Standards ML23267A0032023-09-21021 September 2023 RP Inspection Document Request ML23269A0412023-08-22022 August 2023 Code Case N-752 Audit; August 22, 2023, E-mail Providing Additional Information Regarding Design and Quality Program Requirements ML23172A0132023-06-20020 June 2023 Duke Fleet - Correction to June 2, 2023, Request for Additional Information Proposed License Amendment Request to Revise Restrictive Surveillance Requirement Frequencies ML23153A1892023-06-0202 June 2023 Duke Fleet - Request for Additional Information Proposed License Amendment Request to Revise Restrictive Surveillance Requirement Frequencies ML23151A3482023-05-30030 May 2023 Duke Fleet - Request for Additional Information Proposed Alternative for Pressurizer Welds in Accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a(z)(1) ML23144A0862023-05-24024 May 2023 Acceptance of Requested Licensing Action Proposed Relief Request (RA-23-0018) to Use ASME Code Case 853 ML23142A2732023-05-22022 May 2023 Duke Fleet - Request for Additional Information Proposed Alternative for Steam Generator Welds in Accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a(z)(1) ML23125A1452023-05-0505 May 2023 Change in Estimated Review Schedule and Level of Effort for Proposed Alternative to Use Code Case N-752 ML23124A1212023-05-0404 May 2023 Acceptance of Requested Licensing Action Duke Fleet Proposed Alternative for Pressurizer Welds in Accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a(z)(1) ML23095A0052023-04-0404 April 2023 002 Radiation Safety Baseline Inspection Information Request ML23086C0362023-03-27027 March 2023 Request for Additional Information Steam Generator Tube Inspection Report (03R31) ML23073A2282023-03-13013 March 2023 Duke Fleet- Adoption of TSTF-554, Revision 1, Revise Reactor Coolant Leakage Requirements - Acceptance Review ML23058A0562023-02-27027 February 2023 Acceptance of Amendment to Revise Surveillance Frequencies for RCS Pressure Isolation Valve Operational Leakage Testing and Reactor Trip System Instrumentation ML23048A1512023-02-16016 February 2023 Acceptance Review - Proposed Alternative for Steam Generator Welds (L-2023-LLR-0003) ML23038A1832023-02-0707 February 2023 Request for Additional Information Alternative Request (RA-22-0174) to Use ASME Code Case N-752 ML23031A1552023-01-17017 January 2023 1/17/2023 Email from John Moses, Deputy Director, Division of Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial Support, to Diane Curran, Counsel to Beyond Nuclear and the Sierra Club, Request for Extension of Scoping Comment Period for Oconee EIS ML22294A0812022-10-21021 October 2022 Nrc/Duke Steam Generator Inspection Call for November 8, 2022 NRC-2100-2022, EN 55999 Valcor Coil Shell Assemblies Final Notification (004)2022-09-12012 September 2022 EN 55999 Valcor Coil Shell Assemblies Final Notification (004) ML22251A2902022-09-0808 September 2022 Request for Additional Information Additional Mode Change Limitations Applicable to the Adoption of Technical Specifications Tasks Force Traveler (TSTF) No. 359, Revision 9 ML22235A6552022-08-23023 August 2022 Acceptance of Requested Licensing Action Proposed Alternative to Use ASME Code Case N-752 NRC 2110-2022, EN 55999 - Valcor Engineering Corporation (009)2022-07-18018 July 2022 EN 55999 - Valcor Engineering Corporation (009) ML22234A1262022-07-0808 July 2022 Email from NRC to Duke - Feedback on Trp 76 RAI Responses - July 8, 2022 ML22234A1272022-06-14014 June 2022 Email from NRC to Duke - Feedback on Trp 76 RAI Responses - June 14, 2022 ML22154A2142022-06-0101 June 2022 Email from NRC (Angela Wu) to Duke (Paul Guill) - Oconee SLRA - 2nd Round RAI B2.1.7-4b ML22157A0012022-06-0101 June 2022 Email from NRC (Angela Wu) to Duke (Paul Guill) - Oconee SLRA - Additional NRC Comments on RAI 4.6.1-1a ML22124A2052022-05-0404 May 2022 Summary of May 4, 2022, Clarification Call with Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Application to Revise TS 3.7.7, Low Pressure Service Water (LPSW) System ML22124A1612022-05-0303 May 2022 Email from Angela Wu (NRC) to Steve Snider (Duke) - Oconee SLRA - 2nd Round RAI B2.1.7-4a ML22122A0192022-04-28028 April 2022 Email from Angela Wu (NRC) to Steve Snider (Duke) - Oconee SLRA - 2nd Round RAI B2.1.9-2a ML22122A1322022-04-27027 April 2022 Email from Angela Wu (NRC) to Steve Snider (Duke) - Oconee SLRA - 2nd Round Requests for Additional Information (FE 3.5.2.2.2.6 - Irradiation Structural) ML22115A1412022-04-25025 April 2022 NRR E-mail Capture - Duke Common EOF Relocation - Request for Addition Information ML22130A0112022-04-25025 April 2022 Email: Oconee SLRA - RAI 4.6.1-1a - NRC Staff Comments ML22112A1892022-04-22022 April 2022 Acceptance Review for Additional Mode Change Limitations Applicable to the Adoption of TSTF- 359, Revision 9 ML22112A0072022-04-20020 April 2022 Email from Marieliz Johnson (NRC) to Steve Snider (Duke) - Oconee SLRA - Request for Confirmation of Information 3.5.2.2.2.6-L ML22113A0082022-04-20020 April 2022 Email from Marieliz Johnson (NRC) to Steve Snider (Duke) - Oconee SLRA - Request for Additional Information 3.1.2-1 ML22088A0452022-03-28028 March 2022 Radiation Safety Baseline Inspection Initial Information Request Inspection Report 2022002 ML22081A0052022-03-21021 March 2022 Email from Angela Wu (NRC) to Steve Snider (Duke) - Oconee SLRA - 2nd Round RAI B4.1-3 ML22080A0792022-03-16016 March 2022 Email from Angela Wu (NRC) to Steve Snider (Duke) - Oconee SLRA - Requests for Additional Information - Set 4 (2nd Round Rais) ML22075A2032022-03-11011 March 2022 Email from Duke to NRC - Follow-Up Items from March 7, 2022 Public Meeting ML22074A0022022-03-11011 March 2022 Email from Duke to NRC - Follow-up Item from March 7, 2022 Public Meeting - SSW Tendon AMP ML22069A0022022-03-0808 March 2022 Email from Angela Wu (NRC) to Steve Snider (Duke) - Oconee SLRA - Requests for Confirmation of Information - Set 4 ML22063A4502022-03-0404 March 2022 Request for Additional Information Application to Revise TS 3.7.7, Low Pressure Service Water (LPSW) System, to Extend the Completion Time for One Required Inoperable LPSW Pump ML22063A1152022-02-23023 February 2022 Email from Duke to NRC - Follow Up Item from February 17, 2022 Public Meeting ML22038A1572022-02-0707 February 2022 NRR E-mail Capture - Duke Energy Fleet - Acceptance of License Amendment Request Regarding Adoption of TSTF-541, Revision 2 ML22035A1892022-01-31031 January 2022 Email from NRC (Angela Wu) to Duke (Paul Guill) - Oconee SLRA - Request for Public Meeting ML22018A0272022-01-18018 January 2022 2022 All RFI Responses - Exercise and Program Inspections - Revl ML22019A1032022-01-18018 January 2022 Email from Angela Wu (NRC) to Steve Snider (Duke) - Oconee SLRA - Requests for Additional Information - Set 3 ML22012A0432022-01-11011 January 2022 SLRA - Requests for Additional Information - Set 2 2023-09-26
[Table view] |
Text
See, Kenneth .
From: Melanie Galloway Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 3:16 PM To: Kenneth See
Subject:
RE: Oconee Flood Issue Thanks, Ken.
So when I talk about 3 problems with their analysis, there's really only (!) two since the saturated soil issue is wholly reflected in the curve number, right?
From: Kenneth See Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 1:28 PM To: Melanie Galloway
Subject:
RE: Oconee Flood Issue
- Mellanie, Some technical info.....curve number are used to quantify the amount of storm runoff. These curve numbers are estimated based on soil type (HSG - Hydrologic Soil Group), landuse (wooded, residential, agricultural, etc.) and moisture conditions (ARC - Antecedent Runoff Condition). The curve number is usually determined using the soil type (which determines the HSG) and landuse assuming average soil moisture conditions. the curve number is then adjusted to fit the appropriate design conditions. For Jocassee, the area upstream is wooded, so a curve number of 55 is OK with me under average moisture conditions, but NOT OK under PMP/PMF conditions. Under near saturated conditions, a curve number of 74 is much more appropriate.
Here is my suggested rewording.
While the NRC staff agree that a curve number of 55 is representative of the area above Jocassee dam under average runoff conditions, there are two aspects of the analysis that would underestimate the amount of storm runoff and the potential for overtopping the dam.
- 1. Justify why you did not include any antecedent precipitation in your model.
- 2. Provide a reevaluation of the impacts of a PMP on Jocassee reservoir and dam by adjusting the curve number to reflect the saturated soil conditions during the PIVIP/PMF event.
From: Melanie Galloway Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 12:36 PM To: Kenneth See
Subject:
RE: Oconee Flood Issue thanks much, Ken. I will read it and get back to you.
In addition to the table, I want to include your more specific overtopping concerns in the letter and specific questions in the attachment. Please let me know how you would improve these first attempts below. Thanks.
Something like, "You will note that the senstivity analysis requested includes an assessment across possible NRCS curve numbers. Because your chosen curve number does not appear reflective of the precipitation and runoff expected during a probable maximum precipitation (PMP) event, we need a better understanding of the 1
sensitivity of this value, along with other related information regarding the PMP event as noted in Attachment 1, to draw a conclusion as to whether overtopping of the dam is possible." (following the table)
In addition to the apparent low curve number used in your PMP/PMF analysis, there are two other aspects of the analysis that would underestimate the amount of storm runoff and the potential for overtopping the dam.
- 1. Justify why you did not include any antecedent precipitation in your model.
- 2. Provide a reevaluation of the impacts of a PMP on Jocassee reservoir and dam by accounting for saturated soil conditions during the PMP/PMF event.
From: Kenneth See Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 11:17 AM To: Melanie Galloway Cc: Scott Flanders; Nilesh Chokshi; Andy Campbell
Subject:
Oconee Flood Issue
- Melanie, I have attached the word file with my writeup on the Oconee flood issue. This paper discusses all of my technical concerns, not just the breach issue.
Ken 2
Key Issues Bullets for Oconee Discussion:
" The licensee has failed to adequately to explain how they derived their dam breach parameter values. These parameter values greatly affect the flood height at the SSF I. Calculations performed by the NRC staff using currently accepted methods conflict with the values chosen by the licensee for their dam breach analysis.
- 2. Since the licensee has used non-conservative values for their dam breach analysis parameters, they need to perform a sensitivity analysis on these parameters to assess the impact on flood height at SSF.
- The licensee proposes to use HEC-RAS, a one-dimensional model to estimate the flood height at the SSF.
- 1. The NRC staff believes that a two-dimensional model should be used for this purpose and that the use of HEC-RAS to estimate the flood height is inappropriate for this site because it is incapable of accurately predicting the flood height at the SSF.
- The licensee has not adequately explained the bases for their estimate of runoff and the potential for overtopping of the Jocassee Dam.
- 1. The NRC staff believes that this parameter value directly impacts the ability of the Jocassee Dam to safely pass the PMF without overtopping and also impacts the flood height at the SSF.
- 2. The NRC staff requests that a sensitivity study of this parameter be included as part of the previously mentioned sensitivity studies.
- 3. Additionally, the staff requests the licensee to provide a copy of the HEC- 1 model used to model the PMP/PMF for Jocassee Resevoir.
- In addition, the licensee has failed to address the effects of wind-waves occurring at the SSF.
- 1. The NRC staff believes these impacts must be considered to ensure adequate safety of the SSF.