NRC-2018-0109, (External Sender) NRC Review of 50.59 for Use of Lead Test Assemblies at Vogtle Unit 2: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Adams | |||
| 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 00:49, 12 July 2019
ML19087A342 | |
Person / Time | |
---|---|
Site: | Vogtle |
Issue date: | 03/27/2019 |
From: | Richard Ennis - No Known Affiliation |
To: | Craig Erlanger, Gregory Suber Division of Operating Reactor Licensing |
References | |
NRC-2018-0109 | |
Download: ML19087A342 (15) | |
Text
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