ML19087A341
| ML19087A341 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 03/19/2019 |
| From: | Richard Ennis - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Craig Erlanger, Gregory Suber Division of Operating Reactor Licensing |
| References | |
| NRC-2018-0109 | |
| Download: ML19087A341 (13) | |
Text
1 NRR-DMPSPEm Resource From:
Rick Ennis <ennis.rick@verizon.net>
Sent:
Tuesday, March 19, 2019 7:19 PM To:
Erlanger, Craig; Suber, Gregory Cc:
Markley, Michael; Lamb, John; Blamey, Alan
Subject:
[External_Sender] NRC review of 50.59 for use of LTAs at Vogtle Unit 2 Attachments:
Ennis 07-02-18 comments on NEI letter - ML18184A378.pdf; Ennis 07-13-18 comments on NEI letter - ML18199A097.pdf Craig/Gregory, This email is to express my opinion that the NRC needs to review SNCs 50.59 related to installation of LTAs for Vogtle Unit 2 during the current refueling outage. This should be done ASAP and before plant startup from the outage.
Note, based on: (1) the comments Harold Chernoff and I provided in our 3/22/18 memo to the General Counsel (ADAMS Package ML18078A010 and specifically Enclosure 2 to the memo (ML18078A013)); (2) Harolds 5/4/18 non-concurrence on the draft NEI letter (ML18151B016); and (3) the 7/2/18 comments I submitted on the draft NEI letter, as a member of the public, after I retired from the NRC (ML18184A378, copy attached); I believe the licensee needs an amendment as well as an exemption to legally install the LTAs. However, as noted in John Lambs memo to Mike Markley dated 3/7/19 (ML19064B379), I understand the licensee is installing the LTAs at Vogtle Unit 2 under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59.
Based on recent conversations, I understand that the licensee has just recently completed the 50.59 and that the NRC has not reviewed it. Given the Vogtle Unit 2 outage has already started, I find this troubling since, based on past experience, I would have expected the 50.59 to have been completed long ago, in case the evaluation resulted in a conclusion that prior NRC approval was needed via license amendment (i.e., the 50.59 should have been completed over 1 year ago). This makes me wonder whether a truly unbiased 50.59 would be performed.
Given the current circumstances, the least the NRC can do is make sure the 50.59 supports use of the LTAs without prior NRC approval. I personally believe that a properly done 50.59 would result in a need for an amendment (see Section 6.0 of Enclosure 2 to the 3/22/18 memo to the General Counsel (ML18078A013)). As further proof that an amendment would likely be needed, see the attached 7/13/18 comments I submitted on the draft NEI letter. As noted in my comments, Westinghouse, in commenting on the guidance in the draft NEI letter, indicated that:
- 1) "The guidance does not address the fact that for these material concepts, the design basis limits for fission product barriers are not yet known and would be expected to be different than those already established for the plant."
- 2) "As acknowledged in the guidance document, performance of the LTAs will necessitate the use of not yet licensed codes and methods, which equates to a change in the method of analysis specific to analyses performed for the LTAs."
Based on either one of those statements by Westinghouse, a properly done 50.59 for use of LTAs with different cladding and pellet material (as is the case for Vogtle Unit 2) would result in the conclusion that prior NRC approval would be needed via a license amendment.
Finally, in Section 5 of Enclosure 2 to the 3/22/18, memo to the General Counsel (ML18078A013), Mr. Chernoff and I argued that the LTA guidance provides new interpretations of regulatory requirements that has a substantial effect on licensee activities (i.e., would eliminate the need for licensees to submit certain license amendment requests and exemption requests). In addition, the guidance would also have a substantial effect on public stakeholders (i.e., would eliminate the publics ability to request hearings or provide comments on licensee use of LTAs if amendment requests were no longer required). Based on these considerations, the guidance should be considered a rule. Furthermore, since
2 the guidance should be considered a rule, the guidance should be processed in accordance with the NRCs procedures established to meet the requirements of the Congressional Review Act (CRA). It is my understanding that the NRC staff is processing the draft letter to NEI, containing the LTA guidance, in accordance with the CRA. Since these activities are not yet complete, the NRC should be treating licensee use of LTAs consistent with longstanding precedent (i.e., use of exemptions and revisions to TS 4.2.1). Any attempt to implement the new guidance before it is finalized would be a violation of the requirements of the CRA.
If you would like to discuss any of these issues further, please send me an email and we can set up a time to talk.
Thanks, Rick
Hearing Identifier:
NRR_DMPS Email Number:
891 Mail Envelope Properties (000001d4deaa$295a0900$7c0e1b00$)
Subject:
[External_Sender] NRC review of 50.59 for use of LTAs at Vogtle Unit 2 Sent Date:
3/19/2019 7:19:11 PM Received Date:
3/19/2019 7:38:38 PM From:
Rick Ennis Created By:
ennis.rick@verizon.net Recipients:
"Markley, Michael" <Michael.Markley@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None "Lamb, John" <John.Lamb@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None "Blamey, Alan" <Alan.Blamey@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None "Erlanger, Craig" <Craig.Erlanger@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None "Suber, Gregory" <Gregory.Suber@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None Post Office:
verizon.net Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 4283 3/19/2019 7:38:38 PM Ennis 07-02-18 comments on NEI letter - ML18184A378.pdf 1061481 Ennis 07-13-18 comments on NEI letter - ML18199A097.pdf 95660 Options Priority:
Standard Return Notification:
No Reply Requested:
No Sensitivity:
Normal Expiration Date:
Recipients Received: