ML14058A024

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
E-mail from M. Franovich, NRR to M. Wong, NRR on Query: Draft Pop for July 18th Briefing of Grobe and Boger
ML14058A024
Person / Time
Site: Oconee  Duke energy icon.png
Issue date: 07/03/2008
From: Mike Franovich
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To: Olshan L, Melanie Wong
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML14055A421 List: ... further results
References
FOIA/PA-2012-0325
Download: ML14058A024 (3)
v • d • e


Text

Circle, Jeff Mike Franovich \

k""\..

From:

Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 4:41 PM To: Melanie Wong; Leonard Olshan Cc: Melanie Galloway; Mark Cunningham; Jeff Circle

Subject:

RE: QUERY: Draft POP for July 18th briefing of Grobe and Boger As is the standard practice in DRA, I will have to run this by the DRA front office. Here are my tentative changes. I've cast my die on where I think we need to be headed given certain constraints.

POP & AGENDA FOR OCONEE FLOOD BRIEFING On JULY 18, 2008 PURPOSE: Brief Bruce Boger and Jack Grobe on the status of the two optione und"*....y for the Oconee flood issue and the generic efforts OUTCOME: Understanding of staff s current effort and provide guidance on path forward PROCESS: Discuss be4h Oconee options and the generic efforts using the following bullets.

Agenda:

I. itredu-tie,!Brief Background and 50.54(f) Letter for Brucoc ef (Mike Franovich)

A. Qpti,,R-1 50.54(f) letter purpose and concurrence status

  • Provides the licensee an opportunity to submit Duke's official position on the Issue

" Questions whether Oconee adequately protects public health and safety from consequences of failure of Jocassee Dam

  • Cites plant licensing basis that states that Oconee was designed to withstand flooding conditions States

§ f,,t Jocassee Dam Failure Inundation btuay inaicates flood heignt or 12. b6 i16.8 reet above grade, which is greater than 5-foot walls around SSF entrances

  • Letter with OGC. Expected uate ot concurrence ??.
  • DORL Division Director, ADRO and ADES remain to concur.

ConcOncuS 6taff opinion profreF this option B. Regulatory backfit evaluation Option 1 - "Cost justified backfit" that is a substantial increase in safety (cost-benefit analysis)

  • Preliminary analysis Indicates by*PRA-modifications up to $13 million could be justified 0 Estimated preliminary cost of modifications (higher walls, water-proof doors, etc.) approximately

$3 million

  • Analysis to be completed and initiate management review by July 21 Option 2 - "Adequate protection backfit" may be issued without cost justification
  • OGC provided Insights and discussions regarding adequate protection in regulatory practice and from a Atomic Energy Act perspective
  • Staff are working on a documented adequate protection evalution Option 3 - "Compliance backfit" may be issued without cost justification 0 NRR has issued this type of backfit recently for D.C. Cook

II. Staius of Generic Aspects and Other Support Efforts

" Surveyed FSARs and IPEEEs of potentially affected plants to understand scope of issue; Drafted Information Notice regarding Dam failure frequency estimates (Jim Vail, DRA)

" Draft Communication Plan (Leonard Olshan)

  • OGC Backfit training projected in July 2008 (Leonard Olshan)
  • LIC-504 training was conducted on May 30, 2008 Ill. Recommendations and Path Forward -
  • Issue 50.54(f) letter
  • Form a backfit review panel - Appoint a chair person; Division Directors and OGC representation on the panel From: Melanie Wong  ? 'IL-Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 1:40 PM To: Leonard Olshan Cc: Mike Franovich

Subject:

QUERY: Draft POP for July 18th briefing of Grobe and Boger Looks good, Lenny. Let's get some comments from Mike before we send out for comments to tier I team (Kamal, Jake and technical staff).

MW From: Leonard Olshan ( .

Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 11:03 AM To: Melanie Wong

Subject:

Draft POP for July 18th briefing of Grobe and Boger POP & AGENDA FOR OCONEE FLOOD BRIEFING On JULY 18, 2008 PURPOSE: Brief Bruce Boger and Jack Grobe on the status of the two options underway for the Oconee flood issue and the generic efforts OUTCOME: Understanding of staffs current effort and provide guidance on path forward PROCESS: Discuss both Oconee options and the generic efforts using the following bullets.

Agenda:

I. Introduction/Brief background for Bruce's effort (Mike Franovich)

A. Option 1 - 50.54(f) letter

  • Questions whether Oconee adequately protects public health and safety from consequences of failure of Jocassee Dam
  • Cites plant licensing basis that states that Oconee was designed to withstand floodinq conditiornc states that"Jocassie Oam Failure Inundation S0l-,Tn'dicates flood neight ot 12,5 to 16.8 te'-et S

above grade, which is greater than 5-foot walls around SSF entrances 2

    • Consensus staff opinion prefers this option B. Option 2 - Regulatory backfit analysis (cost-benefit analysis)
  • Indicates by PRA modifications up to $13 million could be justified
  • Estimates preliminary cost of modifications (higher walls, water-proof doors, etc) $3 million I1.Status of Options A. Option 1 - 50.54(f) letter (Leonard Olshan)

" Letter with OGC. Expected date of concurrence ??.

  • DORL Division Director, ADRO and ADES remain to concur.

B. Option 2 - Regulatory backfit analysis (cost-benefit analysis) (Brian Richter)

  • Provide certainty to cost estimates
  • Expects analysis to be completed and initiates management reviews the week of July 21st Ill. Status of Generic Efforts
  • Surveyed FSARs and IPEEEs of potentially affected plants to understand scope of issue; Drafted Information Notice (Kamal Manoly)

" Draft Communication Plan (Leonard Olshan)

" Backfit training projected in July 2008 (Leonard Olshan) 3

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML14058A024&oldid=2052818"