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)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Adams
#REDIRECT [[NRC-2018-0109, Comment (111) of Karen Clagett on Draft Letter to Nuclear Energy Institute Regarding Clarification of Regulatory Paths for Lead Test Assemblies]]
| 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, Suber G
| 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}}

Revision as of 01:22, 17 June 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=1649259"