|
---|
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
,-
Mitman, Jeffrey From: Zoulis, Antonios \(' (Li, Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 11:14 AM To: Mitman, Jeffrey Cc: Cunningham, Mark; Ferrante, Fernando; James, Lois; Galloway, Melanie
Subject:
RE: Comments on the NRR Draft Memo: "Supplement to Tech Basis for Allowing ONS to Remain in Operation Jeff, Your comments seem to indicate that the original memo was not appropriate and that Oconee should not have been allowed to continue to operate. My understanding is the second evaluation was conducted to determine the validity of the original memo. If you believe the original evaluation is invalid then Oconee should not be allowed to continue to operate and this second memo should document those reasons.
If you do not believe that, then I suggest the second memo re-affirm the first and allow the site to operate until November 2010 eliminating the extraneous information and lengthy discussion. Currently the memo is 3 pages long and regurgitates many of the same points with inappropriate twists. It would be more appropriate to simplify the second memo since re-hashing the details and word "smithing" is not productive and does not add any value to the Oconee evaluation.
Regards, Antonios From: Mitman, Jeffrey j\U. -
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 10:58 AM To: Galloway, Melanie Cc: Cunningham, Mark; Ferrante, Fernando; James, Lois
Subject:
RE: Comments on the NRR Draft Memo: "Supplement to Tech Basis for Allowing ONS to Remain in Operation Importance: High Melanie, I don't have a copy of the memo at this point. I had only a hard copy and I gave that back to Meena.
My answers are based on my notes and recollections.
In response to the first question: The memo does not quantify the risk increase, it simply makes this qualitative statement "... the staffs assessment to allow a slight increased risk until Duke's implementation schedule i. .in-place ." I don't know what the basis for this qualification is M)y assessment is that the internal events CDF is
'about 1-E-6 p5ryear ana that the CCDF from a .uQca-see Dam failure is about 2E-4 per year. In my opinion this is not a "slight" contribution to the total risk per year.
Second: This new draft memo reaffirms the decision that was made back in 2008 (and documented in Memo ML090570117 from Cunningham, Hiland and Giitter to Evans, McCree and Boger dated August 12, 2009) allowing continued operation for two years through November 2010. This new draft memo does not extend the date beyond 11/2010.
To your final point: The basis for the new memo, and I assume the old, is twofold. The risk increase is acceptable and there is adequate defense in depth. Based on the criterion of LIC-504 the risk increase is acceptable. However, ONS has limited defense for core damage and containment failure given a dam failure which inundates the SSF. The limited defense is a single draft "mitigation strategy" writen to prevent core damage which in my opinion will not work. This mitigation strategy does not address containment failure. This does not meet the basic principles of defense in depth quoted below from RG 1.174.
Thus the problem with the draft memo is not one of wording. The draft memo as written does not make the case to allow continued operations.
Jeff Mitman From RG 1.174: Consistency with the defense-in-depth philosophy is maintained if:
" A reasonable balance is preserved among prevention of core damage, prevention of containment failure, and consequence mitigation.
" Over-reliance on programmatic activities to compensate for weaknesses in plant design is avoided.
" System redundancy, independence, and diversity are preserved commensurate with the expected frequency, consequences of challenges to the system, and uncertainties (e.g., no risk outliers).
" Defenses against potential common cause failures are preserved, and the potential for the introduction of new common cause failure mechanisms is assessed.
- Independence of barriers is not degraded.
- Defenses against human errors are preserved.
- The intent of the General Design Criteria in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50 is maintained.
From: Galloway, Melanie vlý ý (,--
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 9:42 AM To: Mitman, Jeffrey; James, Lois Cc: Cunningham, Mark; Ferrante, Fernando
Subject:
RE: Comments on the NRR Draft Memo: "Supplement to Tech Basis for Allowing ONS to Remain in Operation
- Jeff, In conversation with Mark this morning on this, he raised the question of whether your reference to the increased in core damage frequency was based on incremental risk (per year). And also whether the memo indicated a timeframe to which it would now apply. Your clarification of these points this morning would be appreciated.
Note that I did pass your summary comments onto Dave Skeen and note that you were working with Meena.
He seemed to suggest that ifissues were not presented correctly itwould be a simple matter to change the wording (suggestions welcome) or delete it.
Melanie From: Mitman, Jeffrey Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 6:14 PM To: Galloway, Melanie; James, Lois Cc: Cunningham, Mark; Khanna, Meena; Ferrante, Fernando
Subject:
RE: Comments on the NRR Draft Memo: "Supplement to Tech Basis for Allowing ONS to Remain in Operation Melanie and Lois, I talked with Meena today about my concerns with the memo as written. She is planning to take these back to her management to discuss and will probably be setting up a discussion with DRA management. My comments are documented in the attached document.
Jeff From: Galloway, Melanie Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 9:38 AM To: Mitman, Jeffrey
Subject:
RE: Comments on the NRR Draft Memo: "Supplement to Tech Basis for Allowing ONS to Remain in Operation Yes.
Mark and I also need further info on the Oconee Risk comparison. Mark was out yesterday, I didn't think what you provided yesterday fit the bill, I talked with him regarding what I thought he/we needed and have just 2
conveyed that to JCircle, who will convey to you. That's a task for today so hopefully you'll have time for the JCO also today or tomorrow.
From: Mitman, Jeffrey Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 9:27 AM To: Galloway, Melanie
Subject:
RE: Comments on the NRR Draft Memo: "Supplement to Tech Basis for Allowing ONS to Remain in Operation Melanie, Meena is asking for input into the subject memo. Do I have permission to share with her my comments and work with her to resolve them?
Jeff 3