NRC-2018-0109, (External Sender) NRC Review of 50.59 for Use of Lead Test Assemblies at Vogtle Unit 2: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Adams
#REDIRECT [[NRC-2018-0109, NRR E-mail Capture - (External_Sender) NRC Review of 50.59 for Use of Lead Test Assemblies at Vogtle Unit 2]]
| number = ML19087A342
| issue date = 03/27/2019
| title = (External_Sender) NRC Review of 50.59 for Use of Lead Test Assemblies at Vogtle Unit 2
| author name = Ennis R
| author affiliation = - No Known Affiliation
| addressee name = Erlanger C G, Suber G F
| addressee affiliation = NRC/NRR/DORL
| docket = 05000425
| license number = NPF-81
| contact person =
| case reference number = NRC-2018-0109
| document type = E-Mail
| page count = 15
}}
 
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:1 NRR-DMPS-ECapture 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:==
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, ThisemailistoexpressmyopinionthattheNRCneedstoreviewSNC's50.59relatedtoinstallationofLTAsforVogtleUnit2duringthecurrentrefuelingoutage.ThisshouldbedoneASAPandbeforeplantstartupfromtheoutage.
Note,basedon:(1)thecommentsHaroldChernoffandIprovidedinour3/22/18memototheGeneralCounsel(ADAMSPackageML18078A010andspecificallyEnclosure2tothememo(ML18078A013));(2)Harold's5/4/18nonconcurrenceonthedraftNEIletter(ML18151B016);and(3)the7/2/18commentsIsubmittedonthedraftNEIletter,asamemberofthepublic,afterIretiredfromtheNRC(ML18184A378,copyattached);IbelievethelicenseeneedsanamendmentaswellasanexemptiontolegallyinstalltheLTAs.However,asnotedinJohnLamb'smemotoMikeMarkleydated3/7/19(ML19064B379),IunderstandthelicenseeisinstallingtheLTAsatVogtleUnit2undertheprovisionsof10CFR50.59.Basedonrecentconversations,Iunderstandthatthelicenseehasjustrecentlycompletedthe50.59andthattheNRChasnotreviewedit.GiventheVogtleUnit2outagehasalreadystarted,Ifindthistroublingsince,basedonpastexperience,Iwouldhaveexpectedthe50.59tohavebeencompletedlongago,incasetheevaluationresultedinaconclusionthatpriorNRCapprovalwasneededvialicenseamendment(i.e.,the50.59shouldhavebeencompletedover1yearago).Thismakesmewonderwhetheratrulyunbiased50.59wouldbeperformed.Giventhecurrentcircumstances,theleasttheNRCcandoismakesurethe50.59supportsuseoftheLTAswithoutpriorNRCapproval.Ipersonallybelievethataproperlydone50.59wouldresultinaneedforanamendment(seeSection6.0ofEnclosure2tothe3/22/18memototheGeneralCounsel(ML18078A013)).Asfurtherproofthatanamendmentwouldlikelybeneeded,seetheattached7/13/18commentsIsubmittedonthedraftNEIletter.Asnotedinmycomments,Westinghouse,incommentingontheguidanceinthedraftNEIletter,indicatedthat:
1)"Theguidancedoesnotaddressthefactthatforthesematerialconcepts,thedesignbasislimitsforfissionproductbarriersarenotyetknownandwouldbeexpectedtobedifferentthanthosealreadyestablishedfortheplant."2)"Asacknowledgedintheguidancedocument,performanceoftheLTAswillnecessitatetheuseofnotyetlicensedcodesandmethods,whichequatestoachangeinthemethodofanalysisspecifictoanalysesperformedfortheLTAs."
BasedoneitheroneofthosestatementsbyWestinghouse,aproperlydone50.59foruseofLTAswithdifferentcladdingandpelletmaterial(asisthecaseforVogtleUnit2)wouldresultintheconclusionthatpriorNRCapprovalwouldbeneededviaalicenseamendment.
Finally,inSection5ofEnclosure2tothe3/22/18,memototheGeneralCounsel(ML18078A013),Mr.ChernoffandIarguedthattheLTAguidanceprovidesnewinterpretationsofregulatoryrequirementsthathasasubstantialeffectonlicenseeactivities(i.e.,wouldeliminatetheneedforlicenseestosubmitcertainlicenseamendmentrequestsandexemptionrequests).Inaddition,theguidancewouldalsohaveasubstantialeffectonpublicstakeholders(i.e.,wouldeliminatethepublic'sabilitytorequesthearingsorprovidecommentsonlicenseeuseofLTAsifamendmentrequests
 
2 werenolongerrequired).Basedontheseconsiderations,theguidanceshouldbeconsideredarule.Furthermore,sincetheguidanceshouldbeconsideredarule,theguidanceshouldbeprocessedinaccordancewiththeNRC'sproceduresestablishedtomeettherequirementsoftheCongressionalReviewAct(CRA).ItismyunderstandingthattheNRCstaffisprocessingthedraftlettertoNEI,containingtheLTAguidance,inaccordancewiththeCRA.Sincetheseactivitiesarenotyetcomplete,theNRCshouldbetreatinglicenseeuseofLTAsconsistentwithlongstandingprecedent(i.e.,useofexemptionsandrevisionstoTS4.2.1).AnyattempttoimplementthenewguidancebeforeitisfinalizedwouldbeaviolationoftherequirementsoftheCRA.Ifyouwouldliketodiscussanyoftheseissuesfurther,pleasesendmeanemailandwecansetupatimetotalk.
Thanks,Rick}}

Latest revision as of 22:56, 1 December 2019

Redirect to:

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=NRC-2018-0109,_(External_Sender)_NRC_Review_of_50.59_for_Use_of_Lead_Test_Assemblies_at_Vogtle_Unit_2&oldid=2221873"