ML20115E449

NRC-2020-000129 - Resp 1 - Interim, Agency Records Subject to the Request Are Enclosed. (Part 2 of 3)

ML20115E449
Person / Time
Issue date:	04/24/2020
From:	NRC/OCIO
To:
Shared Package
ML20115E445	List: ML20115E447 ML20115E448 ML20115E449 ML20115E450
References
FOIA, NRC-2020-000129
Download: ML20115E449 (114)

Text

From: Thomas, George Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 1:52 PM To: Lehman, Bryce

Subject:

RE: Draft FRN on Recommended NRC response to PRM 50* 109 Thanks , Bryce -!.'.

0_1'6_1_ _ _ _ _ _ j 1r you waht to be the tech lead , you can let Jessica know.

From: Lehman, Bryce

~nt: Ftlday, July 31, 2015 9:32 AM To: Thomas, George

Subject:

RE; Draft FRN on Recommended NRC. response to PRM 50-109 Thanks for your effort on this George . I am 'basically out of the office for the next two weeks but when I get back I should be able to devote more time to this . If Jessica h_a sn't selected a new technical lead before then I can probably fill in.

Thanks, Bryce From: Thomas, George Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 2:55 PM To: Lehman, Bryce

Subject:

RE: Draft FRN on Recommended NRC response to PRM 50-109 Thanks, Bryce. This was very helpful, and I have sent out to Jessica a substantially complete (from my part) version. It will need to be edited and made more concise to read better.

Thanks .

George From: Lehman, Bryce Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 5:01 PM To: Thomas, George

Subject:

RE: Draft FRN on Recommended NRC response to PRM 50-109

George, I did something but I am not sure how helpful you will find it and unfortunately I didn't complete it. As you noted , it is very slow going.

I was having difficulty working with the file you sent me so I accepted all changes and started fresh . The attached fife shows everything I changed from the fife you sent on Wednesday.

I pasted Jessica's comment response input over what you already had (she sent it in email 7/23) . I don't necessarily th ink her format/ approach is better, but she said she was going to do that section and she grouped the comments ... I suggest leaving it her way and not worrying about it.

1

(b)(5)

Thanks for taking the lead on this and for putting so much effort in already. Hopefully my edits will help a little bit ... sorry I couldn't do more.

Thanks, Bryce From: Thomas, George Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 10:45 AM To: Lehman, Bryce

Subject:

Draft FRN on Recommended NRC response to PRM 50wl09 Bryce - Attached is the latest version. Appreciate your help in developing, as much as you can, the NRC response to each of the petitioner's assertions in support of the petition . When working with the file, please use the review format with "no markup" so that you have a clean file when working on it.

Thanks for your help.

~T~

Senio1r Structural Engineer NRR/DLR/RASB; 0-11E21 301-415-6181 George.Thomas2@nrc.gov 2

From: Thomas, George Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2015 12:55 PM To: Mizuno, Geary; Love Blair, Angella

Subject:

FW: FW: PRM 50- 109 Comment Resolution Meetin : Comment 8 Attachments: PRM 50-109 Draft Staff Position Recommending (b)( (Rev 2) 7-30-15 clean.docx; PRM 50-1 09 Draft Staff Position Recommending (b \5) (Rev 2) 7-30-15 redline.docx ....__ _ _ _.....

Note: The 42-page draft clean attachment and 61-page draft redlined attachment are withheld in their entirety under FOIA exemption 5.

FYI.

From: Thomas, George Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 2:53 PM To: Kratchman, Jessica Cc: Lehman, Bryce; Fuhrmann, Mark; Philip, Jacob; Neuhausen, Alissa

Subject:

RE: FW: PRM 50-109 Comment Resolution Meeting: Comment 8 Hello Jessica - Attached is the Revision 2 of the Draft FRN which is substantially complete from my part (with Bryce's help) and incorporates your template for comment responses. I have attached a clean version and a redline version. I suggest the WG work from the clean version. From hereon, it will be the responsibility of the other WG members to first complete their part, then review, edit, revise the document, and take it forward.

Because of my very heavy work load with matters of high priority, I will not be able to devote much time at all on this for the next 2 to 3 months. So, please have some one else on the WG be the technical lead on this.

Thanks.

George From: Kratchman, Jessica Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 10:55 AM To: Thomas, George Cc: Lehman, Bryce; Fuhrmann, Mark; Philip, Jacob

Subject:

RE: FW: PRM 50-109 Comment Resolution Meeting: Comment 8 George/ Bryce, We are currently becoming significantly behind schedule with this project. If it is difficult to make this work a priority please let me know and I can chat with management about a path forward. I certainly do not want this project or any of your others to suffer as a result.

I will reschedule this meeting but please let me know if we need to have discussions about reorganizing working group, perhaps RES can take the technical lead position if it is too burdensome, etc? *

-Jessie From: Thomas, George l

Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 1:14 PM To: Kratchman, Jessica Cc: Lehman, Bryce

Subject:

RE: FW: PRM 50-109 Comment Resolution Meeting: Comment 8 Hello Jessie -As indicated by Bryce, I suggest that we postpone this meeting to Aug 6 or 7. I have not made much progress in the preparation of the response due to being very busy with Seabrook and Davis-Besse LRA reviews, and will be on travel tomorrow thru Fri.

Thanks.

George

---

Original Appointment----

From: Lehman, Bryce Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 12:55 PM To: Kratchman, Jessica Cc: Thomas, George

Subject:

Tentative: FW: PRM 50-109 Comment Resolution Meeting: Comment 8 When: Monday, July 27, 2015 1:00 PM-2:00 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).

Where: HQ-OWFN-12802-12p

Jessica, I am out of town next Monday and will be unable to attend the meeting. Additionally I have been very busy and have not been able to help George with preparation of the response. Would it be possible If we delayed this meeting until August 6 or 7? I would be able to participate at that point and it would give me a bit more time to help finalize the response.

Thanks, Bryce 2

From: Kratchman, Jessica Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2015 9:52 AM To: Thomas, George Cc: Lehman, Bryce; Fuhrmann, Mark; Philip, Jacob; Neuhausen, Alissa Subjed: RE: FW: PRM 50-109 Comment Resolution Meeting: Comment 8

George, Thank you for following up. I have been out for the past few daysi._P_lff_,i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____.

I will attach both versions of your documents below to tomorrow's scheduler. Please attend tomorrow's meeting so we can chat about your updates. I will also add, as a discussion item. the nomination of a new technical lead.

-Jessie From: Thomas, George Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 2:53 PM To: Kratchman, Jessica Cc: Lehman, Bryce; Fuhrmann, Mark; Philip, Jacob; Neuhausen, Alissa

Subject:

RE: FW: PRM 50-109 Comment Resolution Meeting: Comment 8 Hello Jessica - Attached is the Revision 2 of the Draft FRN which is substantially complete from my part (with Bryce's help) and incorporates your template for comment responses. I have attached a clean version and a redline version. I suggest the WG work from the clean version. From hereon, it will be the responsibility of the other WG members to first complete their part, then review, edit, revise the document, and take it forward.

Because of my very heavy work load with matters of high priority, I will not be able to devote much time at all on this for the next 2 to 3 months. So, please have some one else on the WG be the technical lead on this.

Thanks.

Georg,e

<< File: PRM 50-109 Draft Staff Position Recommendin 1°)(5) (Rev 2) 7-30-15 dean.docx ;>> << File: PRM 50-109 Draft Staff Position Recommending " 1( 1 Rev 2) 7-30-15 redllne.docx >>

From: Kratchman, Jessica sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 10:55 AM To: Thomas, George Cc: Lehman, Bryce; Fuhrmann, Mark; Phllip, Jacob

Subject:

RE: FW: PRM 50-109 Comment Resolution Meeting: Comment 8 George/ Bryce, We are currently becoming significantly behind schedule with this project. If it is difficult to make this work a priority please let me know and I can chat with management about a path forward. I certainly do not want this project or any of your others to suffer as a result.

1

I will reschedule this meeting but please let me know if we need to have discussions about reorganizing working group, perhaps RES can take the technical lead position if it is too burdensome, etc?

-Jessie From: Thomas, George Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 1:14 PM To: Kratchman, Jessica Cc: Lehman, Bryce

Subject:

RE: FW: PRM 50-109 Comment Resolution Meeting: Comment 8 Hello Jessie -As indicated by Bryce, I suggest that we postpone this meeting to Aug 6 or 7. I have not made much progress in the preparation of the response due to being very busy with Seabrook and Davis-Besse LRA reviews, and will be on travel tomorrow thru Fri.

Thanks.

George

---

Original Appointment-----

From: Lehman, Bryce Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 12:55 PM To: Kratchman, Jessica Cc: Thomas, George

Subject:

Tentative: FW: PRM 50-109 Comment Resolution Meeting: Comment 8 When: Monday, July 27, 2015 1:00 PM-2:00 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).

Where: HQ-OWFN-12802-12p

Jessica, I am out of town next Monday and will be unable to attend the meeting. Additionally I have been very busy and have not been able to help George* with preparation of the response. Would it be possible if we delayed this meeting until August 6 or 7? I would be able to participate at that point and it would give me a bit more time to help finalize the response.

Thanks, Bryce 2

From: Kratchman, Jessica Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 3:38 PM To: Fuhrmann, Mark; Inverso, Tara; Lehman, Bryce; Love Blair, Angella; Mizuno, Geary; Neuhausen, Alissa; Philip, Jacob; Thomas, George

Subject:

PRM 50-109 Meeting Summary Attachments: RE: REQUEST: PRM 109; NRC-2014-0257; RE: REQUEST: PRM 109; NRC-2014-0257 ATTACHED: Regional Allegations Coordinator email determination of potential allegations/ OGC response.

LINKS: SharePoint link to draft FRN with RES comments DISCUSSION:

• Bryce Lehman (NRR) identified as new technical lead to accommodate shifting workloads in NRR.

• Discussed the updated draft FRN. The current draft (link above) reflects input from OGC discussed at last meeting. Draft contains NRR issue responses/ RES comment responses, and RES comments on the draft.

• Group agrees on the general layout of the FRN/ responses.

• Group agrees on the general technical responses provided.

o RES comments were discussed and all were resolved.

• Next steps:

o Update draft to reflect RES comments/ group discussion (minimal updates).

o Finish remaining comment responses: Comments1-3, Comment5.

o ADMIN/ OGC informal review.

ACTIONS:

• Jessie: schedule next WG meeting to occur in one month.

• Bryce: address RES comments/ discussion from meeting.

• Comment responses o Jessie: Comments 1-3 o Bryce: Comment 5

• Geary/ Angella: plE;iase review the version of the FRN on the SharePoint site and provide input. We do not want to get too far ahead without having your continued consideration.

You will see a scheduler from me shortly. Thanks for everyone's hard work, we made great progress today.

-Jessie Jessica Kratchman, candidate DrPH Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301-41S-5112 1

From: Deborah Grinnell 4 !b)(b)  !>

Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 4:22 PM To: Warnek, Nicole

Subject:

[External_Sender] Hello Attachments: Ml12020A186 Dean.pdf Note: The attached C-10 letter is publicly available in ADAMS as ML12020A186.

Hello Nicole, I found the reference for the "responsible engineer" in the C-1 O Petition . I am not at the office and will need to send to you and letter to William Dean from C-10. It appears on page 3-4, 1

From: Erickson, Alice <IMCEAEX-_O=USNRC_OU=EXCHANGE+20ADMINISTRATIVE+

20GROUP+20+28FYDIBOHF23SPDLT +29_CN=RECIPIENTS_CN=AKP1

@usnrc.onmicrosoft.com >

Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 8:48 AM To: Thomas, George

Subject:

FW: REQUEST: Support needed for PRM 50-109, ASR Concrete Degradation FYI From: Marshall, Michael Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 4:48 PM To: Kratchman, Jessica Cc: Diaz-Sanabria, Yoira; Erickson, Allee

Subject:

RE: REQUEST: Support needed for PRM 50-109, ASR C.Oncrete Degradation Hello Jessie ,

Alice Erickson will be assigned to support the disposition of the PRM. Alice is a structural engineer that is familiar with the standards listed below and ASR.

Best Regards, Michael L. Marshall, Jr.

Chief Ag ing Management of Structures. Electrical , and Plant Systems Branch Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 301-415-2871 Email: michael.marshall@nrc.gov From: Diaz-Sanabria, Yoira Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 3:46 PM To: Marshall, Michael

Subject:

FW: REQUEST: Support needed for PRM 50-109, ASR C.Oncrete Degradation Michael, This seems right in your alley. I think they need a technical expert from DLR rather than a PM. What do you think?

Yoira From: Kratchman, Jessica Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 3:33 PM To: Ott, Wllllam; Lupold, Timothy; C.Olacdno, Joseph; Bladey, Cindy; Diaz-Sanabria, Yoira Cc: Inverso, Tara; Beall, Robert; Philip, Jacob; Fuhrmann, Mark

Subject:

REQUEST: Support needed for PRM 50-109, ASR C.Ongrete Degradation Branch Chiefs, 1

I am the NRR PM managing a recent petition issued under 10 CFR 2.802, petition for rulemaking (PRM), regarding the use of visual inspection in the identification of alkali-silica reaction (ASR) concrete degradation. The petitioner is C-10 Research. C-10 has petitioned the NRC to require that all licensees comply with ACI 349.3R, and ASTM C 856-11. They feel the current reliance on a visual inspection does not adequately identify ASR or provide the current state of ASR damage. While the petitioner refers to Seabrook within the petition, they have identified this as a fleet-wide concern.

I would like to request a member of your staff to be on my working group to resolve this petition. The working group will normally meet once or twice a month, support the Petition Review Board presentation, and write various sections of the FRN to disposition the PRM.

The C-10 petition is attached to this e-mail for your review. We are currently sending out the FRN to formally notice the acceptance and docking of the petition. We are also asking for public comments on the PRM at the same time. Please let me know who you believe should be the lead technical organization for this effort.

Please let me know who from your staff will be participating in the PRM working group by COB December 3, 2014. I have included individuals from RES/DRA/ETB, "NRR/DE/EMCB, NRR/DLR/RPB1, NRO/DARR/NARGB, ADM/RADB.

let me know if you have any questions.

-Jessie Jessica Kratchman, candidate DrPH Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301-415-5112 2

From: Erickson, Alice <1MCEAEX-_O=USNRC_OU=EXCHANGE+20ADMIN1STRATIVE+

20G ROUP+20+ 28FYD1BOHF23SPDLT +29_CN=RECIPIENTS_CN=AKP1

@usnrc.onmicrosoft.com >

Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 7:32 AM To: Thomas, George

Subject:

FW: HEADS-UP: Support needed for PRM 50-109, ASR Concrete Degradation Attachments: seabrook ASR petition for rulemaking 2.802.pdf Note: The attached petition is publicly available in ADAMS as ML14281A124.

I should have sent you this email with the PRM attached © From: Marshall, Michael Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 4:49 PM To: Erickson, Alfce

Subject:

HEADS-UP: Support needed for PRM 50-109, ASR Concrete Degradation from: Diaz-Sanabria, Yofra Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 3:46 PM To: Marshall, Michael

Subject:

FW: REQUEST: Support needed for PRM 50-109, ASR Concrete Degradation Michael, This seems right in your alley. I think they need a technical expert from DLR rather than a PM . What do you think?

Yoira From: Kratchman, Jessica Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 3:33 PM To: Ott, William; Lupold, Tlmothy; Colacclno, Joseph; Bladey, Cindy; Diaz-Sanabria, Yofra Cc: Inverso, Tara; Beall, Robert; Philip, Jacob; Fuhrmann, Mark

Subject:

REQUEST: Support needed for PRM 50-109, ASR Congrete Degradation Branch Chiefs, I am the NRR PM managing a recent petition issued under 10 CFR 2.802, petition for rutemaking (PRM), regarding the use of visual inspection in the identification of alkali-silica reaction (ASR) concrete degradation. The petitioner is C-10 Research. C-10 has petitioned the NRC to require that all licensees comply with ACI 349.3R, and ASTM C 856-11. They feel the current reliance on a visual inspection does not adequately identify ASR or provide the current state of ASR damage. While the petitioner refers to Seabrook within the petition, they have identified this as a fleet-wide concern.

I would like to request a member of your staff to be on my working group to resolve this petition. The working group will normally meet once or twice a month, support the Petition Review Board presentation, and write various sections of the FRN to disposition the PRM.

The C-1 O petition Is attached to this e-mail for your review. We are currently sending out the FRN to formally notice the acceptance and docking of the petition. We are also asking for public comments on 1

the PRM at the same time. Please let me know who you believe should be the lead technical organization for this effort.

Please let me know who from your staff will be participating in the PRM working group by COB December 3, 2014. I have included individuals from RES/ORA/ETB, NRR/OE/EMCB, NRR/DLR/RPB1, NRO/DARR/NARGB, ADM/RADB.

Let me know if you have any questions.

-Jessie Jessica Kratchman, candidate DrPH Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301-415-5112 2

Frorn: Erickson, Alice <IMCEAEX-_0=USNRC_OU =EXCHANGE+20ADMIN1STRAT1VE +

20GROUP+20+28FYDl80HF23SPDLT +29_CN=RECIPIENTS_CN=AKP'1

@usnrc.onmicrosoft.com >

Sent: Monday, January OS, 2015 8:37 AM To: Thomas, George

Subject:

FW: SharePoint Site established: PRM 50-109 ASR Concrete degradation FYI From: Kratchman, Jessica sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 11:14 AM To: Erickson, Alice; Fuhrmann, Mark; Inverso, Tara; Lehman, Bryce; Love-Blair, Angella; Mizuno, Geary; Neuhausen, Alissa; Philip, Jacob Cc: Kratchman, Jessfca

Subject:

SharePoint Site established: PRM 50-109 ASR Concrete degradation To anyone still left in the office!

I have established and populated the SharePoint site for PRM 50-109, regarding ASR concrete degradation.

When you have a moment please look over the documents and save this site for our future use.

Thanks and I look forward to working with everyone in the New Year!

-Jessie Jessica Kratchman., candidate DrPH Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301-415-5112 1

From: Kratchman, Jessica Sent: Monday, January 05, 2015 9:07 AM To: Erickson, Alice Cc: Thomas, George

Subject:

RE: IUPDATE: Kickoff Meeting: PRM 50-109: ASR Concrete Degradation Thank you. I will rnake note.

-Jessie

---

Original Appolntment-----

From: Erickson, Alice Sent: Monday, January 05, 2015 8:24 AM To: Kratchman, Jessica Cc: Thomas, George

Subject:

Declined: UPDATE: Kickoff Meeting: PRM 50-109: ASR Concrete Degradation When: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 10:30 AM-11:00 AM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Tirne (US & Canada).

Where: HQ-0WFN-12B02-12p

Jessica, I am no longer in DLR, so my role has been reassigned to George Thomas. I have forwarded him the invite, but please include him in future correspondence.

Thank you, Alice 1

From: Thomas, George Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 5:41 PM To: Kratchman, Jessica

Subject:

RE: Kickoff Meeting: PRM 50-109: ASR Concrete Degradation Jessica - I have a schedule conflict for this meeting. I will be at NIST for the morning of Jan 14 participating in an ACRS visit of the ASR Research Project at NIST in support of a NRR User Need Request to RES. Thanks.

George

---

Original Appointment-----

From: Erickson, Alice On Behalf Of Kratchman, Jessica Sent: Monday, January 05, 2015 8:22 AM To: Thomas, George

Subject:

FW: Kickoff Meeting: PRM 50-109: ASR Concrete Degradation When: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 10:30 AM-11:00 AM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & canada).

Where: HQ-OWFN-12B02-12p

---

Original Appointment----

from: Kratchman, Jessica Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2014 10:57 AM To: t<ratchman, Jessica; Erickson, Alice; Fuhrmann, Mark; Lehman, Bryce; love-Blair, Angella; Neuhausen, Alissa; Philip, Jacob; NRR_DPR.._PRMB Resource; Mizuno, Geary Cc: Inverso, Tara; Beall, Robert

Subject:

UPDATE: Kickoff Meeting: PRM 50-109: ASR Concrete Degradation When: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 10:30 AM-11:00 AM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & canada).

Where: HQ-OWFN-12B02-12p Update due to conflict. Thanks!

<< File: PRM-50-109.pdf >> << File: C-10 Petition - Notice of Docketing and Request for Comments.doc:x >> << File:

KRATCHMAN 09 2014 SUFFICIENY REVIEW ASR concrete PRM revl.doc>c >>

Bridge line: 888-469-2_0_59_ _

Participant passcode:)...lb-1(b_ 1_ __.

Hello everyone!

Welcome to the PRM 50-109 ASR Concrete Degradation Working Group. You have been identified by your management as an expert in some aspect of this issue and we will be working together to address a recent petition that has oome through on this matter. I am requesting this meeting so we can kick-off the issue, introduce ourselves, and discuss our roles and responsibilities.

Prior to our meeting please review the attached materials .. This includes the petitic?n (PRM 50-109) issued by C- 10 with support from UCS; note that whfle the petitioner cites Seabrook , they also identify this as a fleet wide 1

issue, and we are treating it as suclh. I have also included the draft Notice of Docketing FRN (being issued for public comments); hopefully this will be issued soon after the New Year. And finally, for your background, I attached the sufficiency determination that I provided to ADMIN regarding this petition.

Feel free to call-in to the kick off meeting, bridge line information is provided. And if you have any questions prior to the meeting feel free to contact me.

Thanks and I look forward to working with everyone!

-Jessie Jessica Kratchman, candidate DrPH Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301-415-5112 2

From: Fuhrmann, Mark Sent Wednesday, February 03, 2016 9:12 AM To: Kratchman, Jessie~; Inverso, Tara; Lehman, Bryce; Love Blair, Angella; Mizuno, Geary; Neuhausen, Alissa; Philip, Jacob; Thomas, George; Doyle, Dan

Subject:

RE: SLIDES ATTACHED: PRM 50-109 PRB dry-run HI Jesse; Slides look good. Two small suggestions:

slide 10, spell out OE slide 12 bullet 2; "NRG is providing oversight" ... change past tense to present.

Thanks Mark Mark Fuhrmann, Ph.D.

Geochemist Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop TWF 10 A-12 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 mark.fuhrmann @nrc. gov Phone: 301-415-0879

---

Original Appointment-----

From: Kratchman, Jessica Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 10:27 AM To: Fuhrmann, Mark; Inverso, Tara; Lehman, Bryce; Love-Blair, Angella; Mizuno, Geary; Neuhausen, Alissa; Philip, Jacob; Thomas, George; Doyle, Daniel

Subject:

SLIDES ATTACHED: PRM 50-109 PRB dry-run When: Thursday, February 04, 2016 1:00 PM-2:00 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada}.

Where: HQ-OWFN-12B06-12 p

<< Message: PRM 50-109 PRB Presentation: attached >>

<< File: PRM-50-109 PRB FINAL slides 1-13-15.pptx >>

Working Group, Per my attached email, the purpose of this meeting is to practice our PRB presentation and prepare for our PRB. Please plan to attend.

Near term schedule:

01/18/2016: Bryce to provide technical content for presentation and send to the group for review 01/25/2016: Working Group provide any comments on the presentation to Jessie 1

02/01/2016: Final Working Group Meeting to run through presentation (to be sent out) 02/11/2016: PRB convenes Thanks.

Passcodes/Pin codes:

Participant passcode:j....

,h-)(1.l_l _ ....

For security reasons, the pas.scode wlll be required to join the conference.

Dial in numbers:

Toll Freephone/

Country N b Toll Free um ers Number 888-USA 390-1523

-Jessie 2

Nole: The latter two attachments are publicly From: Thomas, George available in ADAMS in the package under Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 5:45 PM ML14281A124.

To: Wittick, Brian

Subject:

FW: MATERIALS: 02 16 PRB for PRM 50-109 ASR Concrete Degradation Attachments: PRM-50-109 PRS FINAL slides 2-11 -1S.pdf; seabrook ASR petition for ru\emalcing 2.802.pdf; Seabrook ASR Petition for Rulemaking-2.docx FYI - The PRB for this ASR-related petition for rulemaking will be held next Thurs (2/11 , 1Oam-11 am , 0-12802).

From: Kratchman, Jessica Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 4;31 PM To: Bladey, Cindy; DeJesus, Anthony; Ross-Lee, MaryJane; Spencer, Mary; Mohseni, Aby; Correia, Richard; MIiier, Chris; Tappert, John Cc: Fuhrmann, Mark; In\!erso, Tara; Lehman, Bryce; Love-Blair, Angella; Mizuno, Geary; Neuhausen, Alissa; Philip, Jacob; Thomas Wilt; Thomas, George; Doyle, Daniel

Subject:

MATERIALS: 02-11-16 PRB for PRM 50-109 ASR Concrete Degradation

~etition Review Board (PRB) Members, In this email you will find materials for your review in preparation for the 02-11-2016 PRB related to PRM 50-109: Improved Identification Techniques against Alkali-Silica Reaction Concrete Degradation at Nuclear Power Plants. As per the NRC rulemaking procedures you are receiving these materials one-week prior to our PRB; your concurrence review will be requested following the PRB. Included in this email:

1. Background materials:

a. PowerPoint slides developed by the PRM 50-109 Working Group regarding our recommendations.

b. The original PRM materials submitted by C-10 Foundation

2. Link to ADAMS to review the final package: LINK to PRM 50-109 Package

a. letter to the petitioner b.SECY c.FRN

d. Congressional letters.

As a reminder, the PRB is composed of division directors/ deputy division directors from each technical area affected by the petition and represented on the working group. The Chair of the PRB will by the NRR/ DPR Deputy Division Director, Aby Mohseni. The PRB may decide to:

1. Approve the recommended closure approach

2. Specify a different closure

3. Request additional information or further briefing Please let me know if you have any further questions. Thank you for your participation.

-Jessie Jessica Kratchman, candidate DrPH Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301 -415-5112 l

From: Lehman, Bryce Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 3:12 PM To: Lupold, Timothy

Subject:

F\/V: PRM 50-109: Successful PRB Attachments~ PRM-50-109 PRB FINAL slides 2-11-15.pdf; seabrook ASR petition for rulemaking*

2.802.pdf; Seabrook ASR Petition for Ru emaking-2.docx Note: The latter two attachments are publicly available in ADAMS in the oackaae under ML14281A124.

FYI From: Kratchman, Jessica Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 3:03 PM To: DeJesus, Anthony; Ross-Lee, MaryJane; Spencer, Mary; Mohseni, Aby; Correia, Richard; Miller, Chris; Tappert, John; Inverso, Tara; Fuhrmann, Mark; Lehman, Bryce; Love-Blair, Angella; Mizuno, Geary; Neuhausen, Alissa; Philip, Jacob; Marshall, Jane; Thomas, George; HQ-OWFN-12B02-12p; caldwell, Robert; Mayfield, Michael; DE_calendar Resource; Doyle, Daniel; Wlttick, Brian; Vera, Marieliz; OGC_CAL_RFC Resource

Subject:

PRM 50-109: Successful PRB PRM 50-109 Working Group and PRB, I first wanted to thank everyone for a successful PRB yesterday regarding PRM 50-109: Improved Identification Techniques for ASR Concrete Degradation. The meeting was a success and we met our objective of informing the PRB of our recommended approach for resolution of this PRM. At the conclusion of the meeting the PRB, without exception, accepted the recommended denial of the PRM and the logic provided by the Working Group.

In the next couple of weeks PRB members will receive a concurrence package and instructions. In the meantime, if you would like to review the package you may use the following links to access our final documents: LINK to PRM 50-109 Package I have also attached backgro~d materials for you including the materials presented at the PRB and the original petition issued by C-10 Foundation.

Thanks again and if you have any questions please feel free to contact me.

-Jessie Jessica Kratchman, candidate DrPH Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301-415-5112 l

Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-109 Petition Review Board Meeting February 11, 2015 OWFN-12802 10:00 am -11 :00 am f )( l Bridge Line: 888-390-1523 Passcode:

1

"~<.::.*~ Working Group Members

• Jessica Kratchman- Project Manager, NRR/DPR

• Bryce Lehman- Technical Lead, NRR/DE

• George Thomas- NRR/DLR

• Alissa Neuhausen- NRO/DEIA

• Mark Fuhrmann- RES/ ORA

• Jacob Philip-RES/ ORA

• Geary Mizuno- OGC/GCLR

• Angella Love-Blair- ADM/DAS 2

2

Purpose

Purpose:

Obtain Petition Review Board (PRB) direction on the working group (WG) recommended resolution of PRM-50-109.

• Outcome: PRB understands issues raised by the petitioner and (bi)

• Process: Discuss PRM-50-109 and WG recommendations.

3 3

Agenda

• Petition Background

• Summary of Petitioner's Requests

• NRC's Interpretation of PRM Argument

• Issues for Evaluation by the NRC

• Staff Technical Evaluation

• Working Group Recommendation

• Next Steps 4

4

Petition Background September fJanuaty 12, 25,2014 2015 Notice of docketing review Ms. Sandra Gavutis, C-10 with opportunity for Foundation, submits comment published in the WG analyzing petition to petition Federal Register offer a recommendation (ADAMS Accession No. ML14281A124)

(80 FR 1476) 5 5

Summary of Petitioner's Requests

• Amend regulations to improve identification techniques against alkali silica reactior:i (ASR) concrete degradation

- Stating that visual inspection does not "adequately identify Alkali-Silica Reaction (ASR), does not confirm ASR, or provide the current state of ASR damage (if present) without petrographic analysis under current existing code."

• Requested the NRC amend its regulations to require compliance with:

- American Concrete Institute (ACJ) Standard 349.3R, "Evaluation of Existing Nuclear Safety-Related Concrete Structures"

- American Society for Testing & Materials (ASTM) C856-11, "Standard Practice for Petrographic Examination of Hardened Concrete ."

6 6

NRC's Interpretation of

"'* ...... . PRM Argument The working group reviewed t_he petition and identified three issues for evaluation *by the NRC:

• Issue #1: Visual inspections are not adequate to detect and confirm ASR

• Issue #2: Standards exist that more properly address the detection and evaluation of ASR

• Issue #3: Regulations should require compliance with the standards 7

7

Staff Technical Evaluation Issue 1 Issue #1: Visual Inspections Cannot Detect I Confirm ASR

• Petition Points:

- NRC has stated that ASR can only be confirmed through petrographic examination

- Visual indications of cracking may be suppressed by heavy reinforcement

- Visual inspections cannot identify degradation In inaccessible areas

• Working Group Evaluation:

- (b)(fi 8

8

Staff Technical Evaluation Issue 2 Issue #2 : Codes and Standards Exist to Detect/ Evaluate ASR Damage

• Petition Points:

- ACI 349.3R provides a means for managing ASR degradation and includes quantitative acceptance criteria

- ACI 349.3R is endorsed by the NRC in IN 2011-20

- ASTM C856-11 describes an acceptable means of conducting petrographic examination

• Workina Groun Evaluation*

_ (011;:i) 9 9

Staff Technical Evaluation Issue 3 Issue #3: Regulations Should Require ACI 349.3R and ASTM C856-11

• Petition Points:

- NRC endorses both standards but does not require their use

- Seabrook degradation would have been identified earlier If the NRC required compliance

• Working Group Evaluation:

- (ti)(:,/

10 10

Staff Technical Evaluation Summary of Public Comments

• NRC Received 10 Comments:

- Five comments in support of the rulemaking

- Two comments outside the scope of the ruiemak.ing

- Three comments saying rulemaking was unnecessary

• Comments Supporting Rulemaking:

- Two commenters stated that visual inspection is inadequate with no additional basis

- Three commenters stated that existing inspection techniques wlll not adequately detect ASR and the proposed solutions are appropriate

• Staff Response -, l

- ti)(5) 11 11

Staff Technical Evaluation Summary of Public Comments

• Comments Against Rulemaking:

- Two commenters noted that industry is already taking appropriate action to address ASR and that existing regulations properly address degraded .concrete

- Seabrook noted that the referenced documents have been used during the ASR investigation and they also question the validity of claims made in the petition

• Seabrook specific issues are outside of the scope of the petition; however, the comments were addressed In the denial document

• Staff Response -I I b J('i) 12 12

0

~/~--* .. ~ \

. i Working Group

\ .. '.. ~/ Recommendation (b)(tl) 13 13

Next Steps

• PRB decision will be documented by the project manager in a non-public meeting summary within 30 days.

• Finalize SECY paper and draft FRN within 4.5 months and provide to the Commission .

• Commission vote is needed tor_0)_'5'_ _ _ __

• Publish FRN documenting PRM disposition .

14 14

Questions?

15 15

From: Kratchman, Jessica Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 9:33 AM To: Lehman, Bryce; Thomas, George; Fuhrmann, Mark; Philip, Jacob; Mizuno, Geary Cc: Carneal, Jason

Subject:

FW: 2/11/2016 - Summary Petition Review Board PRM 50-109 Meeting and Slides FYI- PRB summary has been issued (below).

Next step is the concurrence package, which is being reviewed by the NRR regulatory specialist and expected to enter concurrence this week.

-Jessie From: Entz, Kathleen Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 9:27 AM To: Spencer, Mary <Mary.Spencer@nrc.gov>; Correia, Richard <Richard.Correia@nrc.gov>; Miller, Chris

<Chris.Miller@nrc.gov::>; Bladey, Cindy <Cindy.Bladey@nrc.gov>; Marshall, Jane <Jane.Marshall@nrc.gov>; Lubinski, John <John.Lubinski@nrc.gov>; Ross-Lee, MaryJane <MaryJane.Ross-Lee@nrc.gov>; Tappert, John

<John.Tappert@nrc.gov>; Mayfield, Michael <Michael.Mayfield@nrc.gov>; Doyle, Daniel <Daniel.Doyle@nrc.gov>;

Lehman, Bryce <Bryce.Lehman@nrc.gov>; Mizuno, Geary <Geary.Mizuno@nrc.gov>; Kratchman, Jessica

<Jessica.Kratchman@nrc.gov>; Lappert, Glenna <Glenna.Lappert@nrc.gov>; Gavrilas, Mirela <Mire\a.Gavrllas@nrc.gov>

Subject:

2/11/2016 - Summary Petition Review Board PRM 50-109 Meeting and Slides Please follow the link below for the electronic distribution of:

DATE: April 18, 2016 TO: Lawrence E. Kokajko FROM: Jessica Kratchman

SUBJECT:

2/11/2016 - Su.mmary Petition Review Board PRM 50-109 Meeting and Slides View ADAMS P8 Properties ML16102A085 Open ADAMS P8 Package (2/11/20 16 - Summary Petition Review Board PRM 50- 109 Meeting and Slides.)

The Summary follows this email; the Kathv Ent z slides appear earlier in this package.

Administrative Assistant (DPR/PGCB)

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Phone: 301-415-8501 Email : Kathleen.Entz@nrc.gov Location: 0-12019 Mai!stop: 0 -12020 1

April 18, 2016 MEMORANDUM TO: Lawrence E. Kokajko, Director Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM: Jessica Kratchman, Project Manager IRA/

Rulemaking Branch Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUMMARY

OF PETITION REVIEW BOARD MEETING ON PETITION FOR RULEMAKING PRM-50-109 (TAC NO. MF4971)

On February 11 , 2016, the Petition Review Board (PRB) met with the petition for rulemaking (PRM)-50-109 working group to determine the course of action that the working r roup will follow to resolve this PRM. The working group recommended !(0 l(5l The petitioner requested that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) amend its regulations to improve identification techniques against alkali silica reaction (ASR) concrete degradation.

They stated that visual inspection alone does not "adequately identify ASR, does not confirm ASR, or provide the current state of ASR damage (if present) without petrographic analysis under current existing code." They further requested the NRC amend its regulations to require compliance with:

1. American Concrete Institute (ACI) Standard 349.3R, "Evaluation of Existing Nuclear Safety-Related Concrete Structures"

2. American Society for Testing & Materials (ASTM) C856-11, "Standard Practice for Petrographic Examination of Hardened Concrete."

(b)(5) __,

The meeting summary is enclosed. The slides from the meeting are available in the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System under Accession No. ML16102A107

Enclosure:

Meeting Summary CONTACT: Jessica Kratchman, NRR/DPR 301-415-51 12

April 18, 2016 MEMORANDUM TO: Lawrence E. Kokajko, Director Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM: Jessica Kratchman, Project Manager IRA/

Rulemaking Branch Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUMMARY

OF PETITION REVIEW BOARD MEETING ON PETITION FOR RULEMAKING PRM-50-109 (TAC NO. MF4971)

On February 11 , 2016, the Petition Review Board (PRB) met with the petition for rulemaking (PRM)-50-109 working group to determine the course of a~tion that the working group will follow to resolve this PRM. The working group recommended (b)( l IThe petitioner requested that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) amend its regulations to improve identification techniques against alkali silica reaction (ASR) concrete degradation.

They stated that visual alone inspection does not "adequately identify ASR, does not confirm ASR, or provide the current state of ASR damage (if present) without petrographic analysis under current existing code." They further requested the NRC amend its regulations to require compliance with:

1. American Concrete Institute (ACI) Standard 349.3R, "Evaluation of Existing Nuclear Safety-Related Concrete Structures"

2. American Society for Testing & Materials (ASTM) C856-11 , "Standard Practice for Petrographic Examination of Hardened Concrete."

(b)(S)

The meeting summary is enclosed. The slides from the meeting are available in the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System under Accession No. ML 16102107

Enclosure:

Meeting Summary CONTACT: Jessica Kratchman, NRR/DPR 301-415-511 DISTRIBUTION:

AMohseni JMarshall DDoyle MSpencer JLubinski BLehman RCorreia MRoss-Lee GMizuno CMiller JTappert JKratchman CBladey MMayfield Glappert JKratchman ADAMS Access1on No: Pk:g: ML16102A085 Memo: ML16102A098 Sl"d 1 es: ML16102A107 OFFICE NRR/DPR/PRMB/PM NRR/DPR/PRMB/RS NRR/DPR/PRMB/ABC NRR/DPR/PRMB/PM NAME JKratchman GLappert DDoyle JKratchman DATE 4/11/2016 4/12/2016 4/15/2016 4/18/2016 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY ENCLOSURE 1

MEETING

SUMMARY

Petition Review Board Meeting on PRM-50-109, February 11 , 2016 The Petition Review Board (PRB) met on February 11 , 2016, to review petition for rulemaking (PRM)-50-109. The project manager, Jessica Kratchman, and the technical lead, Bryce Lehman, supported by the working group, presented the following information that comprised the basis to the working group's recommendation l<bl(5l I Summary of Petition The C-10 Organization submitted PRM-50-109 on September 24, 2014 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML14281A124). The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published a notice of docketing, with the opportunity for public comment, in the Federal Register on January 12, 2015 (80 FR 1476). The petitioner requested that the NRC amend regulations to improve identification techniques against alkali silica reaction (ASR) concrete degradation, stating that visual inspection does not "adequately identify Alkali-Silica Reaction (ASR), does not confirm ASR, or provide the current state of ASR damage (if present) without petrographic analysis under current existing code." They further requested that the NRC amend its regulations to require compliance with:

1. American Concrete Institute (ACI) Standard 349.3R, "Evaluation of Existing Nuclear Safety-Related Concrete Structures"

2. American Society for Testing & Materials (ASTM) C856-11, "Standard Practice for Petrographic Examination of Hardened Concrete."

The working group reviewed the petition and identified three issues identified in the PRM for evaluation:

Issue #1: Visual inspections are not adequate to detect and confirm ASR.

Issue #2: Standards exist that more properly address the detection and evaluation of ASR.

Issue #3: Regulations should require compliance with these standards.

Working Group Recommendation The working group structured their responses to the PRM and presentation to the PRB by addressing each above identified issue, a summary of which is provided below.

Issue #1: Visual inspections are not adequate to detect and confirm ASR concrete degradation.

Workina Grouo Evaluation:

• (b)(5)

Enclosure

Issue #2: Codes and Standards Exist to Detect/ Evaluate ASR Damage WT inn Groun Evaluation*

(b)(5)

Issue #3: Regulations should require ACI 349.3R and ASTM C856-11

T(~? Qrouo Evaluation:

Petition Review Board Comments (b)(5)

Petition Review Board Decision (b)(5)

List of Meeting Attendees PRB Members:

Aby Mohseni, PRB Chair, NRR/DPR Christopher Miller, NRR/DLR Cindy Bladey, ADM/DAS Jane Marshall, NRR/DLR Anthony DeJesus, AMO/DAS John Tappert, NMSS/DUWP Mary Jane Ross-Lee, NRR/DE Michael Mayfield, NRO/DEIA Mary Spencer, OGC/GCLR Robert Caldwell, NRO/DEIA Richard Correia, RES/ORA Working Group Members:

Jessica Kratchman - Project Manager, Mark Fuhrmann - RES/ ORA NRR/DPR Jacob Philip - RES/ ORA Bryce Lehman - Technical Lead, NRR/DE Geary Mizuno - OGC/GCLR George Thomas - NRR/DLR Angella Love-Blair - ADM/DAS Alissa Neuhausen - NRO/DEIA Other Attendees:

Daniel Doyle, NRR/DPR

From: Lamb, John Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 9:14 AM To: Poole, Justin

Subject:

FW: PRM 109 From: Carneal, Jason Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 8:55 AM To: Lamb, John <John.Lamb@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: PRM-50-109 ML16l66A429 From: Lamb, John Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 4:14 PM To: Carneal, Jason <Jason.Carnea l@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE : PRM-50-109 Ok. Thanks. Please provide me the ML# when you get it.

From: Carneal, Jason Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 4:12 PM To: Lamb; John <John.Lamb@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: PRM-50-109 John:

The last correspondence was an email on June 1, 2016. I am awaiting an ML from PMDA ecapture .

v/r, Jason From: Lamb, John Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 3:29 PM To: Carneal, Jason <Jason.Carnea l@nrc.gov>

Subject:

PRM 109

Jason, When was the last correspondence with C- 10 regarding PRM-50-019? Do you have an ML#?

Thanks.

John

From: Bower, Fred Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 3:25 PM

'ro: Kratchman, Jessica Cc: Carneal, Jason; Khanna, Meena; Lorson, Raymond; Krohn, Paul; Cataldo, Paul; Taylor, Robert; Poole, Justin; ENNIS, Rick B; Kratchman, Jessica; Inverso, Tara; Lamb, John; BANIC, MERRILEE J; STUCHELL, SHELDON D; Gray, Mel; Wittick, Brian; Broaddus, Doug; Poole, Justin; Draxton, Mark; SCOTT, MICHAEL L; Pelton, David

Subject:

RE: 2.206/2.802 Owners - Seabrook Annual Assessment Meeting (MM) Questions Attachments: Seabrook - 2016 AAM Meeting Summary Rev 1.docx; 2016 Seabrook Annual Assessment Meeting Questions From Attendees.docx Jessica, At the Seabrook AAM on June 21, 2016, the Executive Director of C-1 O energetically expressed frustration with the petition process and asked the following questions:

• Why do petitions take so long?

• What is the status of our petitions? (Sandra - Director of C-10)*

We (Region I) want to be responsive to the public, so we are planning to address them in the meeting summary (draft attached). I believe that John Lamb has no concerns with how I characterized that status of the current Seabrook 2.206 petition for which he Is the PM.

It has been suggested that I contact you regarding the characterization of the status of the two Rulemaking Petitions. Would the following status information be acceptable for the two rulemaking petition items below described:

For PRM-72-6: Can I use the second sentence in the first paragraph on the second page of the Secy Letter (ML15272A373) that states: "The docket for the petition for rulemaking, PRM-72-6, is now considered closed by the NRG."

For PRM-50-109: Instead of saying it is "working," can paraphrase the second half of the second paragraph of Jason Carneal's email (ML16166A429) that states: "Regarding status of the review, PRM-50-109 is currently in the determination step d~scribed in § 2.803(h) of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, specifically in the box labelled "Petition Determination and Petition Docket Closure" in ML14259A474. In this step, the NRC's technical staff rs finalizing its recommendation to the Commission, which is the final decision authority on petitions for rulemaking."

My draft meeting summary is attached for info.

All questions asked during the meeting (as recorded by the resident inspector, Chris Newport) are also attached for information.

Please let me know.

Thanks, Fred From: LAMB, JOHN G Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 2:06 PM 1

To: Bower, Fred l <Fred.Bower@nrc.g.ov>; BANIC, MERRILEE J <Merrilee.Banic@nrc.gov>; STUCHELL, SHELDON D

<Sheldon.Stuchell@nrc.gov>

Cc: CARNEAL, JASON B <.Jason.Carneal@nrc.gov>; KHANNA, MEENA K <Meena.Khanna@nrc.gov>; LORSON, RAYMOND K

<Raymond.Lorson@nrc.gov>; KROHN, PAUL G <Paul.Krohn@nrc.gov>; CATALDO, PAUL C <Paul.Cataldo@nrc.gov>;

TAYLOR, ROBERT M <Robert.Taylor@nrc.gov>; POOLE, JUSTIN C <.lustin.Poole@nrc.gov>; ENNIS, Rick B

<Rick.Ennis@nrc.gov>; KRATCHMAN, JESSICA A <Jessica.Kratchman@nrc.gov>; Inverso, Tara X <Tara.lnverso@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: 2.206 Owner

Fred, I am fine with PRM-72-6 and the 2.206 petition.

I would check with the Rulemaking people on PRM-50-109 and how they want the current status categorized.

Thanks.

John From: Bower, Fred L Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 1:26 PM To: LAMB, JOHN G <John.Lamb@nrc.gov>; BANIC, MERRILEE J <Merrilee.Banic@nrc.gov>; STUCHELL, SHELDON D

<Sheldon.Stuchell @nrc.gov>

Cc:: CARNEAL, JASON B <Jason.Carneal@nrc.gov>; KHANNA, MEENA K <Meena.Khanna@nrc.gov>; LORSON, RAYMOND K

<Raymond.Lorson@nrc.gov>; KROHN, PAUL G <Paul.Krohn@nrc.gov>; CATALDO, PAUL C <Paul.Cataldo@nrc.gov>;

TAYLOR, ROBERT M <Robert.Taylor@nrc.gov>; POOLE, JUSTIN C <Justin.Poole@nrc.gov>; ENNIS, Rick B

<Rick.Ennis@nrc.gov>; Bower, Fred L <Fred.Bower@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: 2.206 Owner

John, Below is what I plan to include in an enclosure to the Seabrook AAM Meeting Summary. Do you believe that it is accurate?

Status of Petitions for Rulemaklng (10 CFR 2.802) Submitted by C-10 Research and Education Foundation. Inc. (C-10) to the NRC:

• Docket No. PRM-72-6; NRC-2008-0649, "Dry Cask Storage of Spent Fuel": The docket for the petition for rulemaking, PRM-72-6, is now considered closed by the NRC. The closure notification was communicated in a letter to Ms. Sandra Gavutis, Executive Director of C-10, dated June 20, 2016 (Ml15272A373)C11.

• Docket No. PRM-50-109; NRC-2014-0257, "Improved Identification Techniq.ues Against Alkali-Sillca Reaction Concrete Degradation at Nuclear Power Plants": As described in an e-mail to C-10, dated June 1, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. Ml16166A429), the NRC staff published PRM-50-109 in the Federal Register for comment on January 12, 2015, and is currently being worked finalizin~ its recommendation to the Commission on the petit.ion.

Note: the status of open petitions for rulemaking dockets can be found on the NRC's website at:

http://www.nrc.gov/readinq-rm/doc-collections/rulemakinq-ruleforum/petitions-by-year/open-petitions-all-years.html. Additionally, subscriptions to updates of this webpage can be requested by following the "subscribe to page updates" link at the top of the webpage linked above.

2

Status of Enforcement Petitions (10 CFR 2.206) Submitted by C-10 Research and Education Foundation, Inc. (C-10) to the NRC:

• OE00-16-00007 (ML~6006A002) "Improved Identification Techniques Against Atkall-Silica Reaction Concrete Degradation at Seabrook":

By e-mail dated March 23, 2016 (ML16083A245), C-10 was notified of the Petition Review Board's (PRB's) initial recommendation that that the petition meets the fourth criteria for rejection in accordance with MD 8.11, Section 111.C.2 , "Criteria for Rejecting Petitions Under 10 CFR 2.206." Specifically, the fourth criteria for rejection is, that ~[t]he request addresses deficiencies within existing NRC rules."

On June 6, 2016, C-10 had a public meeting with 1he PRB in the NRC's Rockville, Maryland offices that provided C-1 O a second opportunity to discuss this petition. The final determination regarding this petition is pending, but is expected to be issued soon.

The quarterly status reports of enforcement petitions under review.are publically available on the "Status Reports of Public Petitions Under Review," webpage on the NRC's public website at:

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/petitions-2-206/monthly-reports.

From: LAMB, JOHN G Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 12:13 PM To: BANIC, MERRILEE J <Merrilee.Banic@nrc.gov>; STUCHELL, SHELDON D <Sheldon.Stuchell@nrc.gov>

Cc: CARNEAL, JASON B <Jason.Carneal @nrc.gov>; KHANNA, M'EENA K <Meena.Khanna @nrc.gov>; LORSON, RAYMOND K

<Ra ymond.Lorson @nrc. gov>; Bower, Fred L <Fred.Bower@nrc.gov>; KROHN, PAUL G <Paul.Krohn@nrc.gov>; CATALDO, PAUL C <Paul.Cataldo @nrc.gov>; TAYLOR, ROBERT M <Robert.Taylor@nrc.gov>; POOLE, JUSTIN C

<Justin.Poole@nrc.gov>; ENNIS, Rick B <Rick.Ennis@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: 2.206 Owner Importance: High

Lee, C-10 is referring to a petition for rulemaking ,(PRM) and not a 2.206 petition. C-10 uses the word petition interchangeably for each process, which is incorrect; these are 2 separate processes. Below is the story of the PRM submitted by C-10 in 2008.

By letter dated November 24, 2008 (ADAMS Accession No. ML083470148), C-10 submitted a petition for rulemaking regarding an upgrade to interim dry cask storage requirements. A notice of receipt of the petition was published in the Federal Register on March 3, 2009 (74 FR 9178), with the comment period ending May 18, 2009. Specifically, the petitioner requested 12 rule changes concerning dry cask safety, security, transferability, and longevity. The requested rule changes would address concerns about failure of cask materials over: long periods of time, the ability to detect these failures and assess storage cask construction material$ with respect to long-term storage; the need for dose rate and temperature monitoring on storage casks at Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSls); and storage cask vulnerability to weather-related deterioration and sabotage.

The NRC published a Federal Register Notice (FRN) on October 16, 2012 (77 FR 63254), acknowledging that the petition would be partially considered in the rulemaking process. The FRN stated that the Commission denied nine of the petitioner's requests (Requests 1, 2, 3, 5 through 8, 10, and 12), as listed in the "Petition Summary,* and would consider Request 11 in the proposed rulemaking titled "Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Security Requirements for Radiological Sabotage" (NRC-2009-0558; 3150-Al78). The FRN stated that the NRC was deferring action on two requests (Requests 4 and 9) for future rulemaking determinations.

3

Regarding Request 11, the NRC staff submitted a recommendation to the Commission in COMSECY-15-0024, "Proposed Rulemaking on Security Requirements for Facilities Storing Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-fevel Radioactive Waste," dated September 11 , 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. Ml 15230A009), to delay the rulemaking related to ISFSI security requirements. The Commission approved the recommendation in Staff Requirements -COMSECY-15-0024, "Proposed Rulemaking on Security Requirements for Facilities Storing Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-level Radioactive Waste," dated October 6, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15280A105).

By letter dated May 6, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16131A593), the NRC informed C-10 that the NRC staff is continuing to evaluate the remaining two issues of the PRM-72-6 petition.

Thanks.

John From: BANIC, MERRILEE J Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 11:57 AM To: STUCHELL, SHELDON D <Sheldon.Stuchell@nrc.gov>

Cc: LAMB, JOHN G <John.Lamb@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: 2.206 Owner I'll bet she's referring to her petitions for rulemaking. Will get the details.

I don't have any other 2.206s from her.

From: STUCHELL, SHELDON D Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 11:17 AM To; BANJC, MERRILEE J <Merrilee.Banic@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: 2.206 Owner Please do the research and give me info so I can respond for us.

Thanks From: LORSON, RAYMOND K Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 10:08 AM To: STUCHELL, SHELDON D <Sheldon.Stuchell@nrc.gov>

Cc: Bower, Fred L <Fred.Bower@nrc.gov>; KROHN, PAUL G <Paul.Krohn @nrc.gov>

Subject:

2.206 Owner Sheldon - I hear that you are the lead for 2.2.06s within the agency. FYI- last week, during the Seabrook Annual Assessment Meeting, Sandy Gavutis from the C-10 organization provided a statement to the effect that she has filed multiple 2.206 requests with the agency has never heard back or if she did hear back it was very late after the initial filing. For example, she alleged a 2.206 was filed in the 2008 and she didn't get a response until 2016. Do you have a master list of 2.206 requests and can you search to see if you have any information related to responses to Sandy at C-10? I would like to be able to close the loop to at least let her know what, if anything, we have open and are working on? If there is any truth to taking several years to closing one of her requests would be interested in any insights as to why the process seemed to take so long.

Thanks Ray

tiJ Designation in parentheses refers to an Agencv-wide Documents Access and Management System \ADAMS} accession number.

Unless otherwise noted, documents referenced in this meeting summary are publicly available via the NRC's website http://www.nrc.govusing the accession number In ADAMS.

5

Date MEETING

SUMMARY

LICENSEE: NextEra Energy, Seabrook, LLC FACILITY: Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1

SUMMARY

OF PUBLIC MEETING On June 21, 2016, at 5:30 p.m .* the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) conducted a public open-house at the Best Western Plus, The Inn at Hampton in Hampton, New Hampshire.

The NRC conducted the open-house to discuss its annual assessment of the safety performance at Seabrook for 2015. Following the 2015 annual assessment open-house and at the same location, the NRC staff presented an update on the NRC's ongoing reviews (inspection, licensing, and license renewal) of the effects of the Alkali-Silica Reaction (ASR) in concrete structures at Seabrook and conducted a question and answer (Q&A) session to respond to inquiries from the public. .

A notice of the open-house and the ASR Q&A session was issued on June 1, 2016, and was posted on the NRC's external (public) webpage: www.nrc. gov. The meeting notice (ML16153A065)1 can be found in ADAMS and is accessible from the NRC webpage at:

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.

During the open-house, NRC staff presented poster boards and were available to discuss its assessment of the safety performance of Seabrook for the period of January 1 through December 31, 2015, as documented in our letter dated March 2, 2016 (ML16061A439). The NRC poster boards presented included background on the Reactor Oversight Process (ROP).

Prior to the Q&A session, the staff presented sl\des on Seabrook's 2015 performance assessment and NRC's ongoing and planned reviews in the areas of inspection, licensing, and license renewal. Additional information relative to the NRC's Annual Assessment Process and the safety performance of Seabrook can be found on the NRC's web site at:

www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/index.html.

Members of the public, State and local officials, staff for Federal elected officials and members of the media attended the open-house and were offered the opportunity to question the NRC staff during the Q&A session regarding NextEra's performance, the role of the agency in ensuring safe plant operations, and the NRC's reviews of NextEra's actions to address the effects of ASR in concrete structures at Seabrook. Some of the questions required additional research with technical experts within the NRC. The answers regarding these topics are included as an enclosure to this letter. Additional information on the NRC's special oversight of concrete* degradation at Seabrook can be found on the NRC's website at:

www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/concrete-degradation. html. Additional 1 Designation in parentheses refers to an Agency-wide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) accession number. Unless otherwise noted, documents referenced in this meeting summary are publicly available via the NRC's website http://www.nrc.tl.ovusing the accession number in ADAMS.

@ Non-Sensitive @ Publicly Available SUNSI Review D D Sensitive D Non-Publicly Available OFFICE RI/DRP RI/DRS NRR/DORL NRR/DLR RI/DRP NAME MDraxton MGray DBroaddus BWittick FBower DATE I /16 I /16 I /16 I /16 I /16 RidsRgn1 MailCenter DDorman, RA Dlew, ORA MScott, DRP DPelton, DRP Rlorson, DRS PKrohn, DRS FBower, DRP RBarkley, DRP MDraxton, DRP RVadella, DRP PCataldo, DRP, SRI CNewport, DRP, RI JVazquez, DRP, RI ACass, DRP, AA MGray, DRS WCook, DRS ABuford, DLR DBroaddus, DORL BWittick, DLR JBowen, RI, OEDO DScrenci, RI, PAO NSheehan, RI, PAO NMcNamara, RI, SLO DTifft, RI, SLO

Seabrook Annual Assessment Meeting Public Topics of Interest Status of Petitions for Rulemaking Submitted by C-10 Research and Education Foundation, Inc. (C-10} to the NRC:

1. Rulemakinq Petitions (1 O CFR 2.802}

• Docket No. PRM-72-6; NRC-2008-0649, "Dry Cask Storage of Spent Fuel": The docket for the petition for rulemaking, PRM-72-6, is now considered closed by the NRC.

The closure notification was communicated in a letter to Ms. Sandra Gavutis, Executive Director of C-10, dated June 20, 2016 (ML15272A373)2.

• Docket No. PRM-50-109; NRC-2014-0257, "Improved Identification Techniques Against Alkali-Silica Reaction Concrete Degradation at Nuclear Power Plants": As described in an e-mail to C-10, dated June 1, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16166A429), the NRC staff published PRM-50-109 in the Federal Register for comment on January 12, 2015, and is currently finalizing its recommendation to the Commission on the petition.

Note: the status of open petitions for rulemaking dockets can be found on the NRC's website at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/rulemaking-ruleforum/petitions-by-year/open-petitions-all-yea rs.html. Additionally, subscriptions to updates of this webpage can be requested by following the "subscribe to page updates" link at the top of the webpage linked above.

2. Enforcement Petitions (10 CFR 2.206)

• OED0-16-00007 (ML16006A002) "Improved Identification Techniques Against Alkali-Silica Reaction Concrete Degradation at Seabrook":

By e-mail dated March 23, 2016 (Ml 16083A245), C-1 O was notified of the Petition Review Board's (PRB's) initial recommendation that that the petition meets the fourth criteria for rejection in accordance with MD 8.11, Section Ill. C.2, "Criteria for Rejecting Petitions Under 10 CFR 2.206." Specifically, the fourth criteria for rejection is that "(t]he request addresses deficiencies within existing NRC rules."

On June 6, 2016, C-10 had a public meeting with the PRB in the NRC's Rockville, Maryland offices that provided C-10 a second opportunity to discuss this petition. The final determination regarding this petition is pending, but is expected to be issued soon.

The quarterly status reports of enforcement petitions under review are publically available on the "Status Reports of Public Petitions Under Review,* webpage on the NRC's public website at: http://www.nrc. gov/readinq-rm/doc-collections/petitions 206/monthl y-re ports.

2 Designation in parentheses refers to an Agency-wide Documents Access and Management Sy tem (ADAMS) accession number. Unless otherwise noted, documents referenced in this meeting summary are publicly available via the NRC's website !mp://www.nrc.!?ovusing the accession number ill ADAMS.

Requests Regarding the Location and Recording of Future Seabrook Annual Assessment Meetings (AAMs ):

The NRC issues reports on performance for each nuclear power plant twice a year: a mid-cycle assessment report that covers the 12 months ending at the mid-point of the year, and an annual assessment covering the calendar year. Following the release of the annual assessment letters each March, the NRC meets with the public to discuss our assessment of plant performance and other issues of interest. Seabrook was in "Column 1" of the NRC's oversight action matrix for all of 2015. Column 1, referred to as "Licensee Response", signifies that a plant is operating satisfactorily and only the baseline level of inspection is warranted by the NRC's Reactor Oversight Process (ROP).. Additional information on the ROP can be located here:

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/

For plants, such as Seabrook in 2015, that have been in Column 1 during the entire assessment period, our process allows several options for the type of outreach effort to be conducted near the site. Open houses and community outreach events are typically held for plants in this category. They are designed to provide local officials and residents who live near the plant an opportunity to have one-on-one conversations with the NRC staff. When identifying ai location to hold annual assessment meetings, the agency considers a number of factors, including the type of meeting, expected number of attendees, availability of facilities that can accommodate the meeting, and ease of access to the facility for all interested individuals. The NRC normally selects meeting facilities that are located near the plant so those individuals most affected by plant operation can easily attend. Such a central location also avoids putting an excessive burden on any member of the public, whatever direction they may live from the plant. For these reasons, Seabrook annual assessment meetings have typically been held in Hampton, New Hampshire. Its centralized location and proximity to major roadways has provided effective access for residents from all the communities surrounding Seabrook to attend prior annual assessment meetings and should not present an impediment to any interested citizens living in the emergency planning zone (EPZ) from attending the meeting. The NRC has not recorded the Seabrook AAMs in the past and typically does not record AAMs. The format and location of the AAM to discuss Seabrook's 2016 performance assessment will be determined and communicated shortly after the release of the annual assessment letter in March 2017.

2016 Seabrook Annual Assessment Meeting Questions From Attendees

• How does the NRC expect to predict ASR progression without testing? (Diane)

• Can meetings be recorded? (Joanne)*

• Why do petitions take so long? What is the status of our petitions? (Sandra :- Director of C-10)*

• What is the extent of core acquisition and corrosion of the rebar? (Ted Vanhall)

• Indicated questions which the NRC verbally agreed to respond to

From: Khanna, Meena Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 6:33 PM To: Bower, Fred Cc: Carneal, Jason; Lorson, Raymond; Krohn, Paul; Cataldo, Paul; Taylor, Robert; Poole, Justin; ENNIS, Rick B; Kratchman, Jessica; Inverso, Tara; Lamb, John; BANIC, MERRILEE J; STUCHELL, SHELDON D; Gray, Mel; Wittick, Brian; Broaddus, Doug; Poole, Justin; Draxton, Mark; scan, MICHAEL L; Pelton, David; Kratchman, Jessica

Subject:

RE: 2.206/2.802 Owners - Seabrook Annual Assessment Meeting (AA.M) Questions Hi Fred, what you have written for PRM-50-109 looks good, thanks. Just an internal update for the staff--- the package associated with this PRM is going thru the concurrence process and we are on track to deliver the package to OEDO by August 25th.

With regard to PRM-72-6, your inforrmation seems accurate, however, that PRM belongs to NMSS; please contact Sheena Whaley for final confirmation .

Thanks so much for allowing us the opportunity to review and comment and pis advise if you need anything else.

Meena From: Bower, Fred L Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 3:25 PM To: KRATCHMAN, JESSICA A <Jessica.Kratchman@nrc.gov>

Cc: CARNEAL, JASON B <Jason.Carneal@nrc.gov>; KHANNA, MEE NA K <Meena.Khanna@nrc.gov>; LORSON, RAYMOND K

<Raymond.Lorson@nrc.gov>; KROHN; PAUL G <Paul.Krohn@nrc.gov>; CATALDO, PAUL C <Paul.Cataldo@nrc.gov>;

TAYLOR, ROBERT M <Robert.Taylor@nrc.gov>; POOLE, JUSTIN C <Justin.Poole@nrc.gov>; ENNIS, Rick B

<Rick.Ennis@nrc.gov>; KRATCHMAN, JESSICA A <Jessica.Kratchman@nrc.gov>; Inverso, Tara X <Tara.lnverso@nrc.gov>;

LAMB, JOHN G <John.Lamb@nrc.gov>; BANIC, MERRILEE J <Merrilee.Banic@nrc.gov>; STUCHELL, SHELDON D

<Sheldon.Stuchell@nrc.gov>; Gray, Mel K <Mel.Gray@nrc.gov>; WITIJCK, BRIAN D <Brian.Wittick@nrc.gov>;

BROADDUS, Doug A <Doug.Broaddus@nrc.gov>; POOLE, JUSTIN C <Justin.Poole@nrc.gov>; Draxton, Mark S

<Mark.Draxton@nrc.gov>; SCOTI, MICHAEL L <Michael.Scott@nrc.gov>; Pelton, David L <David.Pelton@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: 2.206/2.802 Owners - Seabrook Annual Assessment Meeting (AAM) Questions

Jessica, At the Seabrook AAM on June 21, 2016, the Executive Director of C-10 energetically expressed frustration with the petition process and asked the following questions:

• Why do petitions take so long?

• What is the status of our petitions? (Sandra ~ Director of C-1 O)*

We (Region I) want to be responsive to the public, so we are planning to address them in the meeting summary (draft attached). I believe that John Lamb has no concerns with how I characterized that status of the current Seabrook 2.206 petition for which he is the PM.

It has been suggested that I contact you regarding the characterization of the status of the two Rulemaking Petitions . Would the following status information be acceptable for the two rulemaking petition items below described:

1

For PRM-72-6: Can I use the second sentence in the first paragraph on the second page of the Secy Letter (ML15272A373) that states: "The docket for the petition for rulemaking, PRM-72-6, is now considered closed by the NRC."

For PRM-50-109: Instead of saying it is "working," can paraphrase the second half of the second paragraph of Jason Carneal's email (ML16166A429) that states: "Regarding status of the review, PRM-50-109 is currently in the determination step described in§ 2.803(h) of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, specifically in the box labelled "Petition Determination and Petition Docket Closure" in ML14259A474. In this step, the NRC's technical staff is finalizing its recommendation to the Commission, which is the final decision authority on petitions for rulemaking."

My draft meeting summary is attached for info.

All questions asked during the meeting (as recorded by the resident inspector, Chris Newport) are also attached for information.

Please let me know.

Thanks, Fred From: LAMB, JOHN G Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 2:06 PM To: Bower, Fred L <Fred.Bower@nrc.gov>; BANIC, MERRILEE J <Merrilee.Banic@nrc.gov>; STUCHELL, SHELDON D

<She ldon.Stuchell @nrc.gov>

Cc: CARNEAL, JASON B <Jason.Carneal@nrc.gov>; KHANNA, MEENA K <Meena.Khanna@nrc.gov>; LORSON, RAYMOND K

<Raymond.Lorson@nrc.gov>; KROHN, PAUL G <Paul.Krohn@nrc.gov>; CATALDO, PAUL C<Paul.Cataldo@nrc.gov>;

TAYLOR, ROBERT M <Robert.Taylor@nrc.gov>; POOLE, JUSTIN C<Justin.Poole @nrc.gov>; ENNIS, Rick B

<Rick.Ennis@nrc.gov>; KRATCHMAN, JESSICA A <Jessica.Kratchman @nrc.gov>; Inverso, Tara X <Tara.lnverso@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: 2.206 Owner Fred, I am fine with PRM-72-6 and the 2 ..206 petition.

I would check with the Rulemaking people on PRM-50-109 and how they want the current status categorized.

Thanks.

John From: Bower, Fred L Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 1:26 PM To: LAMB, JOHN G <John.Lamb @nrc.gov>; BANIC, MERRILEE J <Merrilee.Banic@nrc.gov>; STUCHELL, SHELDON D

<Sheldon.Stuchell @nrc.gov>

Cc: CARNEAL, JASON B <Jason.Carneal @nrc.gov>; KHANNA, MEENA K <Meena.Khanna @nrc.gov>; LORSON, RAYMOND K

<Raymond.Lorson@nrc.gov>; KROHN, PAUL G <Paul.Krohn @nrc.gov>; CATALDO, PAUL C <Paul.Cataldo@nrc.gov>;

TAYLOR, ROBERT M <Robert.Taytor@nrc.gov>; POOLE, JUSTIN C <Justin.Poole@nrc.gov>; ENNIS, Rick B

<Rick.Ennis@nrc.gov>; Bower, Fred L <Fred.Bower@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: 2.206 Owner John, 2

Below is what I plan to include in an enclosure to the Seabrook AAM Meeting Summary. Do you believe that it is accurate?

Status of Petitions for Rulemaking (10 CFR 2.802) Submitted by C-10 Research and Education Foundation, Inc. (C-10) to the NRC:

• Docket No. PRM-72-6; NRC-2008-0649, "Ory Cask Storage of Spent Fuel": The docket for the petition for rulemaking, PRM-72-6, is now considered closed by the NRC. The closure notification was communicated in a letter to Ms. Sandra Gavutis, Executive Director of C-10, dated June 20, 2016

{ML15272A373)111* .

• Docket No. PRM-50-109; NRC-2014-0257, "Improved Identification Techniques Against Alkali-Silica Reaction Concrete Degradation at Nuclear Power Plants": As described in an e-mail to C-10, dated June 1, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16166A429), the NRC staff published PRM-50-109 in the Federal Register for comment on January 12, 2015, and is currently being worked finalizin!iJ its Fecommenelation to the Commission on the petition.

Note: the status of open petitions for rulemaking dockets can be found on the NRC's website at:

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/rulemaking-ruleforum/petitions-by-year/open-petitions-all-years.html. Additionally, subscriptions to updates of this webpage can be requested by following the "subscribe to page updates" link at the top of the webpage linked above.

Status of Enforcement Petitions (10 CFR 2.206) Submitted by C-10 Research and Education Foundation, Inc. (C-10) to the NRC:

• OED0-16-00007 (ML16006A002) "Improved Identification Techniques Against Alkali-Silica Reaction Concrete Degradation at Seabrook":

By e-mail dated March 23, 2016 (ML16083A245). C-10 was notified of the Petition Review Board's (PRB's) initial recommendation that that the petition meets the fourth criteria for rejection in accordance with MD 8.11 , Section 111.C.2, "Criteria for Rejecting Petitions Under 10 CFR 2.206." Specifically, the fourth criteria for rejection is that "[t]he request addresses deficiencies within existing NRC rules."

On June 6, 2016, C-10 had a public meeting with the PRB in the NRC's Rockville, Maryland offices that provided C-10 a second opportunity to discuss this petition. The final determination regarding this petition is pending, but is expected to be issued soon.

The quarterly status reports of enforcement petitions under review are publically available on the "Status Reports of Public Petitions Under Review," webpage on the NRC's public website at:

http://www.nrc.gov/readinq-rm/doc-collections/petitions-2-206/monthly-reports.

From: LAMB, JOHN G Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 12:13 PM To: BANIC, MERRILEE J <Merrilee.Banic@nrc.gov>; STUCHELL, SHELDON D <Sheldon.Stuchell@nrc.gov>

Cc: CARNEAL, JASON B <Jason.Carneal@nrc.gov>; KHANNA, MEENA K <Meena.Khanna@nrc.gov>; LORSON, RAYMOND K

<Raymond.Lorson@nrc.gov>; Bower, Fred L <Fred.Bower@nrc.gov>; KROHN, PAUL G <Paul.Krohn@nrc.gov>; CATALDO, PAUL C <Paul.Cataldo@nrc.gov>; TAYLOR, ROBERT M <Robert.Taylor@nrc.gov>; POOLE, JUSTIN C

<Justin.Poole@nrc.gov>; ENNIS, Rick B <Rick.Ennis@nrc.gov>

3

Subject:

RE: 2.206 Owner Importance: High

Lee, C-10 is referring to a petition for rulemaking (PRM) and not a 2.206 petition. C-10 uses the word petition interchangeably for each process, which is incorrect; these are 2 separate processes. Below is the story of the PRM submitted by C-1 O in 2008.

By letter dated November 24, 2008 (ADAMS Accession No. ML083470148), C-10 submitted a petition for rulemaking regarding an upgrade to interim dry cask storage requirements. A notice of receipt of the petition was published in the Federal Register on March 3, 2009 (74 FR 9178), with the comment period ending May 18, 2009. Specifically, the petitioner requested 12 rule changes concerning dry cask safety, security, transferability, and longevity. The requested rule changes would address concerns about failure of cask materials over long periods of time, the ability to detect these failures and assess storage cask construction materials with respect to long-term storage; the need for dose rate and temperature monitoring on storage casks at Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSls); and storage cask vulnerability to weather-related deterioration and sabotage..

The NRC published a Federal Register Notice (FRN) on October 16, 2012 (77 FR 63254), acknowledging that the petition would be partially considered in the rulemaking process. The FRN stated that the Commission denied nine of the petitioner's requests (Requests 1, 2, 3, 5 through 8, 10, and 12), as listed .i n the "Petition Summary," and would consider Request 11 in the proposed rulemaking titled "Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Security Requirements for Radiological Sabotage" (NRC-2009-0558; 3150-Al78). The FRN stated that the NRC was deferring action on two requests (Requests 4 and 9) for future rulemaking determinations.

Regarding Request 11 , the NRC staff submitted a recommendation to the Commission in COMSECY-15-0024, "Proposed Rulemaking on Security Requirements for Facilities Storing Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-level Radioactive Waste," dated September 11 , 2015 (ADAMS Acces.sion No. ML15230A009}, to delay the rulemak\ng related to ISFSI security requirements. ihe Commission approved the recommendation in Staff Requirements- COMSECY-15-0024, "Proposed Rulemaking on Security Requirements for Facilities Storing Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-level Radioactive Waste," dated October 6, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15280A105).

By letter dated May 6, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16131A593), the NRC informed C-1 O that the NRC staff is continuing to evaluate the remaining two issues of the PRM-72-6 petition.

Thanks.

John From: BANIC, MERRILEE J Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 201611:57 AM To: STUCHELL, SHELDON D <Sheldon.Stuchell@nrc.gov>

Cc: LAMB, JOHN G <John.Lamb@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: 2.206 Owner I'll bet she's referring to her petitions for rulemaking . Will get the details.

I don't have any other 2.206s from her.

From: STUCHELL, SHELDON D Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 201611:17 AM To: BANIC, MERRILEE J <Merrilee.Banic@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: 2.206 Owner 4

Please do the research and give me info so I can respond for us.

Thanks From: LORSON, RAYMOND K Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 10:08 AM To: STUCHELL, SHELDON D <Sheldon.Stuchell @nrc.gov>

Cc: Bower, Fred L <Fred.Bower@nrc.gov>; KROHN, PAUL G <Paul.Krohn @nrc.gov>

Subject:

2.206 Owner Sheldon - I hear that you are the lead for 2.2.06s within the agency. FYI - last week, during the Seabrook Annual Assessment Meeting, Sandy Gavutis from the C-10 organization provided a statement to the effect that she has filed multiple 2.206 requests with the agency has never heard back or if she did hear back it was very late after the initial filing. For example, she alleged a 2.206 was filed in the 2008 and she didn't get a response until 2016. Do you have a master list of 2.206 requests and can you search to see if you have any information related to responses to Sandy at C-1 O? I would like to be able to close the loop to at least let her know what, if anything, we have open and are working on? If there is .a ny truth to taking several years to closing one of her requests would be interested in any Insights as to why the process seemed to take so long.

Thanks Ray Ill Designation in parentheses refers to an Agency-wide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) aiccession number.

Unless otherwise noted, documents referenced in this meeting summary are publicly available via the NRC's website http:l/www.nrc.govus\ng the accession number in ADAMS.

5

From: Vadella, Robert Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 3:37 PM To:

• Poole, Justin

Subject:

RE: Seabrook AAM Meeting Summary Attachments: Seabrook - 2016 AAM Meeting Summary Rev 2.docx Of course. My fault. Here you go.

From: POOLE, JUSTIN C Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 3:31 PM To: Vadella, Robert <Robert.Vadella@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Seabrook AAM Meeting S11Jmmary I don't have access to your G drive. Can you send it to me directly?

Justin C. Poole Project Manager NRR/DORL/LPLl-2 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

{301)415-2048 From: Vadella, Robert Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 3:30 PM To: POOLE, JUSTIN C <Justin.Poole@nrc.gov>

Subject:

f-W: Seabrook AAM Meeting Summary Hey Justin, .

Could you take a look at the meeting summary for the Seabrook meeting and let me know if you concur? The linK is in a previous email in this thread. Thanks!

Rob From: Bower, Fred L Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 12:45 PM To: RlWORKFLOW Resource <R1WORKFLOW.Resource @nrc.gov>; Vadella, Robert J <Robert.Vadella @nrc.gov>; Powell, Gerry M <Gerrv.Powell@nrc.gov>

Cc: BARKLEY, RICHARDS <Richard.Barkley@nrc.gov>; Draxton, Mark S <Mark.Draxton@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Seabrook AAM Meeting Summary

Rob, Can. you get concurrences on this once it is ready?

Gerry,*

Please prepare the concurrence package for Revision 2 instead.

G :\DRP\8 RANCH3\Communications\Public Meetings\2016 Annual Assessment Meeting\Seabrook\Meeting Summary\Seabrook - 2016 AAM Meeting Summary Rev 2.docx 1

Thanks all, Fred From: Draxton, Mark S Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 9:44 AM To: Resource, RlWORKFLOW <RlWORKFLOW.Resource@nrc.gov>

Cc: Bower, Fred l <Fred.Bower@nrc.gov>; BARKLEY, RICHARDS <Richard.Barkley@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Seabrook MM Meeting Summary Please process attached and at location (G:\DRP\BRANCH3\Communications\Public Meetings\2016 Annual Assessment Meetinq\Seabrook\Meetinq Summary\Seabrook - 2016 AAM Meeting Summary

.Rev 1-.docx)

If you should have any questions, please don't hesitate to email or call me.

Thanks.

Mark Mark Draxton Project Engineer Region I Division of Reactor Projects - Branch 3 (610) 337-5375 (W) l(M(fi) I(C) 2

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I 21 00 RENAISSANCE BLVD.

KING OF PRUSSIA, PA 19406-2713 MEETING

SUMMARY

LICENSEE: NextEra Energy, Seabrook, LLC FACILITY: Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1

SUMMARY

OF PUBLIC MEETING On June 21, 2016, at 5:30 p.m., the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) conducted a public open-house at the Best Western Plus, The Inn at Hampton in Hampton, New Hampshire.

The NRC conducted the open-house to discuss its annual assessment of the safety performance at Seabrook for 2015. Following the 2015 annual assessment open-house and at the same location, the NRG staff presented an update on the NRC's ongoing reviews (inspection, licensing, and license renewal) of the effects of the Alkali-Silica Reaction (ASR) in concrete structures at Seabrook and conducted a question and answer (Q&A) session to respond to inquiries from the public.

A notice of the open-house and the ASR Q&A session was issued on June 1, 2016, and was posted on the NRC's external (public) webpage: www.nrc.gov. The meeting notice (ML16153A065}1 can be found in ADAMS and is accessible from the NRC webpage at:

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.

During the open-house, NRC staff presented poster boards and were available to discuss its assessment of the safety performance of Seabrook for the period of January 1 through December 31, 2015, as documented in our letter dated March 2, 2016 (ML16061A439). The NRC poster boards presented included background on the Reactor Oversight Process (ROP).

Prior to the Q&A session, the staff presented slides on Seabrook's 2015 performance assessment and NRC's ongoing and planned reviews in the areas of inspection, licensing*, and license renewal. Additional information* relative to the NRC's Annual Assessment Process and the safety performance of Seabrook can be found on the NRC's web site at:

www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/index.html.

1 Designation in parentheses refers to an Agency-wide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) accession*number. Unless otherwise noted, documents referenced in this meeting summary are publicly available via the NRC's website http://www.nrc.L!ovusing the accession number in ADAMS.

2 Members of the public, State and local officials, staff for Federal elected officials, and members of the media attended the open-house and were offered the opportunity to question the NRC staff during the Q&A session regarding NextEra's performance, the role of the agency in ensuring safe plant operations, and the NRC's reviews of NextEra's actions to address the effects of ASR in concrete structures at Seabrook. Some of the questions required additional research with technical experts within the NRC. The answers regarding these topics are included as an enclosure to this letter. Additional information on the NRC's special oversight of concrete degradation at Seabrook can be found on the NRC's website at:

www.nrc.gov/reactors/o perating/o ps-experience/concrete-degradation .html. Additional information on the NRC's review of the Seabrook license renewal application is available at:

www.nrc. gov/reactors/o peratinq/licensin g/renewal/a pplications/seabrook.html Fred L Bower Ill, Chief Projects Branch 3 Division of Reactor Projects Docket No. 50-443

Enclosures:

1. NRC Presentation (ML16176A054)

2. Annual Assessment Meeting Public Topics of Interest (attached)

SUNSI Review 0 Non-Sensitive ltJ Publicly Available D D Sensitive D Non-Publicly Available OFFICE RI/DRP RI/DRS NRR/DORL RI/DRP NAME MOcaxton MGray JPoole FBowec DATE 7/ /16 71 /16 7/ /16 7/ /16 Enclosure 2 Seabrook Annual Assessment Meeting Public Topics of Interest Status of Petitions for Rulemaking (10 CFR 2.802)Submitted by C-10 Research and Education Foundation, 'Inc. (C-10} to the NRC:

• Docket No. PRM-72-6; NRC-2008-0649, "Dry Cask Storage of Spent Fuel": The docket for the petition for rulemaking, PRM-72-6, is now considered closed by the NRC. The closure notification was communicated in a letter to Ms. Sandra Gavutis, Executive Director of C-10, dated June 20, 2016 (ML15272A373)2. As published in the Federal Register (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2016/06/24/2016-14998/petition-for-rulem aking-submitted-by-c-10-research-and-ed ucation-foundation-inc) the docket for the petition for rulemaking, PRM-72-6, is closed on June 24, 2016.

• Docket No. PRM-50-109; NRC-2014-0257, "Improved Identification Techniques Against Alkali-Silica Reaction Concrete Degradation at Nuclear Power Plants": As described in an e-mail to C-10, dated June 1, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16166A429), the NRC staff published PRM-50-109 in the Federal Register for comment on January 12, 2015, and is currently finalizing its recommendation to the Commission on the petition.

Note: the status of open petitions for rulemaking dockets can be found on the NRC's ,

website at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/rulemaking-ruleforum/petitions-by-year/open-petitions-all-years.html. Additionally, subscriptions to updates of this webpage can be requested by following the "subscribe to page updates" link at the top of the webpage linked above.

Status of Enforcement Petitions (10 CFR 2.206) Submitted by C-10 Research and Education Foundation, Inc. (C-10) to the NRC:

• OED0-16-00007 (ML16006A002) "Improved Identification Techniques Against Alkali*

Silica Reaction Concrete Degradation at Seabrook":

By e-mail dated March 23, 2016 (ML16083A245), C-10 was notified of the Petition Review Board's (PRB's) initial recommendation that that the petition meets the fourth criteria for rejection in accordance with MD 8.11, Section 111.C.2, "Criteria for Rejecting Petitions Under 10 CFR 2.206." Specifically, the fourth criteria for rejection is that "[t]he request addresses deficiencies within existing NRC rules."

On June 6, 2016, C-10 had a public meeting with the PRB in the NRC's Rockville. Maryland offices that provided C-1 O a second opportunity to discuss this petition. The final determination regarding this petition is pending, but is expected to be issued soon.

The quarterly status reports of enforcement petitions under review are publically available on the "Status Reports of Public Petitions Under Review," webpage on the NRC's public website at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/petitions-2-206/monthly-re ports.

2 Designation in parentheses refers to an Agency-wide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) accession number. Unless otherwise noted, documents referenced in this meeting summary are publicly available via the NRC's website htl 1://www.nrc. ,o using the accession number in ADAMS.

Enclosure 2

Requests Regarding the Location and Recording of Future Seabrook Annual Assessment Meetings (AAMs):

The NRC issues reports on performance for each nuclear power plant twice a year: a mid-cycle assessment report that covers the 12 months ending at the mid-point of the year, and an annual assessment covering the calendar year. Following the release of the annual assessment letters each March, the NRC meets with the public to discuss our assessment of plant performance and other Issues of interest. Seabrook was in "Column 1" of the NRC's oversight action matrix for all of 2015. Column 1, referred to as "Licensee Response", signifies that a plant is operating satisfactorily and only the baseline level of inspection is warranted by the NRC's Reactor Oversight Process (ROP). Additional information on the ROP can be located here:

http://www.nrc.qov/N RR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/

For plants, such as Seabrook in 2015, that have been in Column 1 during the entire assessment period, our process allows several options for the type of outreach effort to be conducted near the site. Open houses and community outreach events are typically held for plants in this category. They are designed to provide local officials and residents who live near the plant an opportunity to have one-on-one conversations with the NRC staff. When identifying a location to hold annual assessment meetings, the agency considers a number of factors, including the type of meeting, expected number of attendees, availability of facilities that can accommodate the meeting, and ease of access to the facility for all interested individuals. The NRC normally selects meeting facilities that are located near the plant so those individuals most affected by plant operation can easily attend. Such a central location also avoids putting an excessive burden on any member of the public, whatever direction they may live from the plant. For these reasons, Seabrook annual assessment meetings have typically been held in Hampton, New Hampshire. Its centralized location and proximity to major roadways has provided effective access for residents from all the communities surrounding Seabrook to attend prior annual assessment meetings and should not present an impediment to any interested citizens living in the emergency planning zone (EPZ) from attending the meeting. The NRC has not recorded the Seabrook AAMs in the past. The NRC's plans regarding the format (open-house, town hall and/or other), location and recording of the AAM to discuss Seabrook's 2016 performance assessment will be determined and communicated shortly after the release oft.h e annual assessment letter In March 2017.

Enclosure 2

From: Lamb, John Sent Thursday, July 07, 2016 1:40 PM To: Deborah Grinnell (grinnelldebbie2@gmail.com)

Cc: Taylor, Robert; Broaddus, Doug; Poole, Justin; Cataldo, Paul; Bower, Freer

Subject:

Letter to C 2.206 Petition for Seabrook Attachments: LTR

• 07-06-2016.pdf Note: The attached NRC letter is publicly available in ADAMS as ML16169A172.

Importance: High

Debbie, The attached letter was issued via ListServ electronically yesterday at 3:51 pm. So, any interested stakeholder who signed up for UstServ received the document electronically yesterday. The hard copy of the letter was also placed In the mall and was sent via the U.S. Postal Service, which you should receive early next week.

Thanks.

John 1

• From: Lehman, Bryce Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 7:59 AM To: Carneal, Jason

Subject:

RE: Help with addressing OEDO comment on PRM 50-109 Jason, I contacted a couple sites that I thought would have addressed this issue and I was unable to find any documented evidence of them making changes. That doesn't mean the industry didn't properly address the IN, just that there isn't documented evidence on the docket. Sorry I couldn 't find anything.

Let me know if there is anything else I can do.

Thanks, Bryce From: Carneal, Jason Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2017 4: 12 PM To: Lehman, Bryce

Subject:

Help with addressing OEDO comment on PRM 50-109 Bryce:

PRM 50-109 made its way up to the OEDO, and we received a few comments back.

Can you help me with a comment from OEDO on page 10 of the attached FRN , regarding "more generic examples of industry compliance given the general nature of the comment"?

Do we have any generic examples outside of the Seabrook example that we mention.

v/r, Jason Jason Carneal Project Manager NRR/DPR/PRMB 301-415-1451 l

From: Lehman, Bryce Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 8:51 AM To: Carneal, Jason

Subject:

RE: help with final OGC comments Attachments: DRAFT FRN PRM 50-109 £DO Comments Addressed Clean_OGC rev 2 - JBC BCl.docx.

Note : The 37 -page draft attachment is withhe ld in its entirety under FOIA exemption 5.

Jason, My responses are attached. Please review and let me know if you want to meet to discuss.

Thanks, Bryce From: Carneal, Jason Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 3:30 PM To: Lehman, Bryce

Subject:

help with final OGC comments Bryce:

Do you have some time available to help out with the final comments from OGC? I got through as many as I could , but in the attached I replied to OGC comments in several spots with "Need help from technical staff."

Could you take a look and suggest changes to resolve the comments where I need some help? I was hoping to get this back to OGG next week if possible.

FYI the TAC for PRMs is TM3019.

v/r, Jason Jason Carneal Reactor Operations Engineer NRR/DIRS/IOEB 301-415-1451 1

From: Lehman, Bryce Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 10:42 AM To: Carneal, Jason

Subject:

RE: DRAFT FRN PRM 50-109 EDO Comments Addressed Clean_OGC rev 2 - JBC BCL 2.docx Attachments: DRAFT FRN PRM 50-109 EDO Comments Addressed C\ean_OGC rev 2 - JBC BCL 2.docx Note: The 37-page draft attachment is withheld in its Jason, entirety under FOIA exemption 5.

Addressed in attached . Let me know if you need more or would like to discuss further,

Thanks, Bryce From: Carneal, Jason Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 9:46 AM To: Lehman, Bryce

Subject:

DRAFT FRN PRM 50-109 EDO Comments Addressed Clean_OGC rev 2 - JBC BCL 2.docx Bryce:

I missed tagging a couple of comments on page 7.

Please let me know if you can address these two remaining comments on page 7.

v/r, Jason 1

From: L~hman, Bryce Sent: Tuesday. April 18, 2017 5:03 PM To: Ghosh Naber, Anita; Harris, Brian; Wachutka, Jeremy Cc: Thomas, George; Buford, Angela; Quichocho, Jessie; Poole, Justin

Subject:

Attorney Work Product - Seabrook Contention Attachments: Cof\tention Response '2..docx; ORAF1 FRN PRM S0* 109 EOO Comments Addressed Clean_OGC rev 2 - JBC BCL 2..... docx Note: Both draft attachments , 3 and 37 pages ,

respectively, are withheld in their entirety un der FOIA exemption 5.

All, Attached is the document we discussed today along with the referenced DRAFT FRN.

Ill)(:))

Please feel free to contact me if you need any additional information or want to talk through any other aspects of the contention.

Thanks, Bryce Lehman NRR/DE/EMCB (301) 415-1626 1

From: Lehman, Bryce Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2017 8:57 AM To: Kratchman, Jessica Cc: Carneal, Jason

Subject:

RE: UPDATE: PRM 50-109 Jessie, Please see my proposed changes below. I did not make the changes in the documents. Please Jet me know if you have any questions or need additional support.

Thanks, Bryce From: Kratchman, Jessica Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 2:50 PM To: Carneal, Jason <Jason.Carneal @nrc.gov;>

Cc: Khanna, Meena <Meena.Khanna @nrc.gov>

Subject:

UPDATE: PRM 50-109

Jason, I made the changes directly in ADAMS. Thanks in advance. We are almost done!

-Jess jessica. Kratchman, Dr.PH Project Manager/ Reactor Systems Engineer U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1

From: Lehman, Bryce Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 10:12 AM To: Carneal, Jason

Subject:

RE: PRM 50-109 Status

Jason, Are you still working on this project? If so do you know the status?

Thanks, Bryce From: Carneal, Jason Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 9:21 AM To: Lehman, Bryce <Bryce.Lehman@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: DRAFT FRN PRM 50-109 Status Ugh, almost out the door. I think we have one comment left to address and then we are good to go.

From: Lehman, Bryce Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 9:13 AM To: Carneal, Jason

Subject:

DRAFT FRN PRM 50-109 Status

Jason, Just curious .. . what is the status of this ru lemaking petition?

Thanks, Bryce 1

From: Lehman, Bryce Sent: Wednesday, January 241 2018 11:05 AM To: Thomas, George Note: The 2-page draft attachment is withheld in its entirety under FOIA exemption 5.

Subject:

PRM Attachments: Response to DEDO Comments - lehman.docx

George, Attached is the portion of the FRN that I edited. Please take a quick look and see if you think this change is appropriate and addresses the question, Thanks.

Bryce Lehman NRR/DE/ESEB (301) 415-1626 1

From: Lehman, Bryce Sent: Monday, January 22, 2018 8:48 AM To: Kratchman, Jessica

Subject:

RE: UPDATE: PRM 50-109 Jessica ,

Do you know the status of this petition for rulemaking , or who I can talk to find out?

Thanks, Bryce From: Kratchman, Jessica Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 201711:55 AM To: Lehman, Bryce <8ryce.Lehman@nrc.gov>

Cc: Carneal, Jason <Jason.Carneal@nrc.gov>; Khanna, Meena <Meena.Khanna@nrc,goV>; Lappert, Glenna

<Glenna.Lappert@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: UPDATE: PRM 50-109

Bryce, As I understand it you ere still the technical lead for PRM 50-109, Is that correct? Assuming so, if you have a moment would you mind giving a quick check to the ADAMS package to see all OGG comments have been appropriately addressed, specifically the ones I outlined in my email below? I am no longer working in NRR and Jason Carneal is 111)1(1)1 !so for consistency sake it ls probably good to have you look over things as a final check.

You can make changes directly in ADAMS, or if you do not have access please send me or Glenna any updates you may have in a downloaded version. The ADAMS package is: ML15301A002.

Let me know if you have any questions.

-Jessie Jessica Kratchman, Dr.PH Project Manager/ Environmental Scientist Division of Site Safety a*nd Environmental Analysis U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301-415-5112 From: Kratchman, Jessica Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 2:50 PM To: Carneal, Jason <Jason.Carneal @nrq w v>

Cc: Khanna, Meena <Meena.Khanna @nrc.gov>

Subject:

UPDATE: PRM 50-109 1

Jason, For PRM 50-109 (SECY, FRN and letter to the petitioner) I have addressed the remaining OGC comments with the (t*)(5)

Tmade the changes directly in ADAMS. Thanks in advance. We are almost done!

-Jess Jessica Kratchman, Or.PH Project Manager/ Reactor Systems Engineer U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2

From: Lehman, Bryce Sent; Wednesday, January 24, 2018 1:16 PM To: Khanna, Meena Subject Rf; hi Bryce, sorry to bug you, do you think that you could get back to me ...

Meena ,

(h)(:i)

Please let me know if you need any additional support.

Thanks, Bryce From: f<hanna, Meena Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 12::50 PM To: Lehman, Bryce <Bryce.Lehman@nrc.gov>

Subject:

hi Bryce, sorry to bug you, do you think that you could get back to me ...

On the 2 items on PRM 50-109 by cob, today, thanks! i want to finally get this off of our plate © 1

From: Benner, Eric Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 9:21 PM To: Wittick, Brian; Lehman, Bryce; Buford, Angela Cc: Helton, Shana

Subject:

Fwd: Request for Re-Concurrence - Denial Package on C-10's PRM on Alkali Silica Reaction (50-109) (2/16)

Attachments: PRM-50-109 SECY Paper Compare.docx; PRM 109 SECY Paper Clean.docx; PRM-50-109 FRN Compare documentdocx; PRM-50-109 FRN Clean.docx; PRM 109 Ltr to Petitioner Clean.docx Note : Each of the 5 draft attachments , 5, 4, 49 , 35 , and 2 pages , respectively, is withheld in its entirety under FOIA exemption 5.

Can you provide a recommendation for concurrence?

From: "Khanna, Meena" <Meena.Kha,nna @nrc.gov>

Subject:

Request for Re-Concurrence - Denial Package on C-10's PRM on Alkali Silica Reaction (50-109) (2/16)

Date: 12 February 2018 19:58 To: "Bladey, Cindy" <Cindy.Bladey@n,rc.gov>, "Benner, Eric" <Eric.Benner@nrc.gov>, "Carpenter, Cynthia"

<Cynthia.Carpenter@nrc. gov>, "Regan, Christopher" <Christopher.Regan@nrc.gov>, "Spencer, Mary"

<Mary.Spencer@nrc.gov>

Cc: "Lehman, Bryce" <Bryce.Lehman@nrc.gov>, "Helton, Shana" <Shana .Helton @nrc.gov>, "Caldwell, Robert"

<Robert.Caldwell @nrc.gov>, "Thomas, Brian" <Brian.Thomas@nrc.gov>, "Campbell, Tison" <Tison.Campbell @nrc.gov>,

"Ghosh, Anita" <Anita.Ghosh @nrc.gov>, "Lappert, Glenna" <Glenna.Lappert@nrc.gov>

Cindy, Eric, Cynthia, Chris, and Mary:

Good evening, ORM is requesting your re-concurrence of C-10's petition for rulemaking (PRM), whereby they requested the NRC to amend its regulations to provide improved identification techniques for better protection against concrete degradation due to alkali-silica reaction (ASR) at U.S. nuclear power plants. Speciflcally, the petitioner requested that the NRC require all licensees to comply with ACI 349.3R, "Evaluation of Existing Nuclear Safety-Related Concrete Structures" and ASTM Standard C856-11 , "Standard Practice for Petrographic Examination of Hardened Concrete."

The staff had placed this document into concurrence a while back, and received quite a bit of comments from OEDO, and due to other high priority workload, was not able to work on this until recently. Because there are quite a few changes that were made to address OEDO's comments, we are asking for the appropriate organizations to re-review and re-concur. In order to help with your review, we have provided compare and clean versions from the time that the package was reviewed , previously.

We'd appreciate any comments and your concurrence by Friday, 2116. We will then request NRR and RES FO concurrence.

Please contact me or Bryce Lehman .if you have any comments or concerns.

Thanks, Meena l

From: Benner, Eric Sent Tuesday, February 13, 2018 7:27 AM To: Lehman, Bryce; Wittick, Brian Cc: Helton, Shana; Buford, Angela l(tJlt:i)

Subject:

RE: Request for Re-Concurrence l 1on C-10's PRM on Alkali Silica Reaction (50-109) (2/16) .___ _ ___,

No questions ... great job!

from: Senner, Eric Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 7:12 AM To: Lehman, Bryce <Bryce.Lehman@nrc.gov>; Wlttlck, Brian <Brian.Wittick@nrc.gov>

Cc: Helton, Shana <Shana .Helton@nrc.gov>; Buford, Angela <Angela.Buford@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Request for Re-Concurrer1ce f 6,t5: !on C-lO's PRM on Alkali Silica Reaction (50-109) (2/16)

Thanks! I'll take a look this morning and let you know if I have any questions.

From: Lehman, Bryce Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 6:57 AM To: Benner, Eric <Eric.Benner @nrc.gov>; Wittick, Brian <Brian.Wittick @nrc.gov>

Cc: Helton, Shana <Shana.Helton @nrc.gov>; Buford, Angela <Angela.Buford @nrc.gov>

Subj~ct: RE: Request for Re-Concurrence -l(tJ >(til !on C-lO's PRM on Alkali Silica Reaction (50-109) (2/16)

I have been involved in all the changes to address the OEDO comments and I recommend concurring. I will gladly answer any questions you have or can set up a short brief if you want to discuss.

Thanks, Bryce From! Benner, Eric Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 9:21 PM To: Wittick, Brian <Brian .Wittick @nrc.gov>; Le,hman, Bryce <Bryce.Lehman @nrc.gov>; Buford, Angela

<~n gela.Buford @nrc.gov>

Cc: Helton, Shana <Shana.Helton @nrc.gov>

r. .

Subject:

Fwd: Request for Re-Concurrence _... *)r.,...

_ ,- - - -r n C-lO's PRM on Alkali Silica Reaction (50-109) (2/16)

Can you provide a recommendation for concurrence?

From: "Khanna, Meena" <Meena.Khan~~1 , nrc.µoy>

Subject:

Request for Re-Concurrence - ~ t& i pn C-1 O's PRM on Alkali Silica Reaction (50-109)

(2/16)

Date: 12 February 2018 19:58 o: "Bladey, Cindy" <ClnJy.Bladey(c'tJnrc. 6ov-:,, "Benner, Eric" < *.ric Benncrro nrc. ,ov>, "Carpenter, Cynthia"

<Cyntbia.CarpenLer(tn,nr -.g v>, Regan, Christopher" <Clmsto1 hcr.R 1.:.anr11 mc ..!Ov>, "Spencer, Mary

<Mary.Spenrer@nr

• gov>

1

Cc: "Lehman, Bryce" <Bryce.Lehman@21rc.gov>, "Helton, Shana" <Shana.Helton{!Vnrc.gov>, "Caldwell, Robert" <Robert.Caldwell~v,nrC.!!OV>, "Thomas, Brian" <Brian.Thomas(f_l,J]fc.gov>, "Campbell, Tison"

<Tison.Campbell~unrc.gov>, "Ghosh, Anita" <Anita.Ghosha1nrc.gov>, "Lappert, Glenna"

<Glenna.Lappert@nrc.gov>

Cindy, Eric, Cynthia, Chris, and Mary:

Good evening, ORM is requesting your re-concurrence of C-10's petition for rulemaking (PRM), whereby they requested the NRC to amend its regulations to provide improved identification techniques for better protection against concrete degradation due to alkali-silica reaction (ASR) at U.S. nuclear power plants. Specifically, the petitioner requested that the NRC require all licensees to comply with ACI 349.3R, "Evaluation of Existing Nuclear Safety-Related Concrete Structures" and ASTM Standard C856-11, "Standard Practice for Petrographic Examination of Hardened Concrete."

The staff had placed this document into concurrence a while back, and received quite a bit of comments from OEDO, and due to other high priority workload, was not able to work on this until recently. Because there are quite a few changes that were made to address OEDO's comments, we are asking for the appropriate organizations to re-review and re-concur. In order to help with your review, we have provided compare and clean versions from the time that the package was reviewed, previously.

We'd appreciate any comments and your concurrence by Friday, 2/16. We will then request NRR and RES FO concurrence.

Please contact me or Bryce Lehman if you have any comments or concerns.

Thanks, Meena 2

From: Wittie!(. Brian Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 11:26 AM To:

Subject:

Lehman, Bryce l/bHS) I RE: Request for Re-Concurrence - .__ _ _ __. on C-10's Petition for Rulemaking on Alkali Silica Reaction (PRM 50-109)

Thanks, Brian Wittick BC/ESEB, DE, NRR 301-415-2496 From: Lehman, Bryce Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 10:21 AM SubJect: RE: Request for Re-Concurrence (PRM 50-109) f'l To: Wittick, Brian <Brian.Wittick@nrc.gov,..,.

5) jon C-lO's Petition for Rulemakingon Alkali Silica Reaction

Brian, Ray was OK with the changes. I am making the changes in the official package now and wlll email Meena when I am done.

Thanks, Bryce From: Lehman, Brvce Serit: Thursday, March 01, 2018 1:43 PM To: Khanna, Meena <Meena.Khanna @nrc.gov>

Cc: Wittick, Brian <Brian.Wittick@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Request for Re-Concurren,ce ~(h)("l !on C-lO's Petition for Rulemaking on Alkali Silica Reaction (PRM 50-109) .___ _ __,

Meena, Ray had a few more comments he wants to discuss with me. We plan to meet Monday. I will let you know as soon as I resolve the comments and will keep you in the loop If it looks I ke Its going to take longer than a day or so.

Thanks, Bryce From: Khanna, Meena Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 12:35 PM To: Lor.son, Raymond <Raymond.Lorson@nrc.gov>; Lehman, Brvce <Bryce.Lehman @nrc.gov>

Cc: Walker, Sandra <Sandra.Walker@nrc.gov>

l

l(bl(5) I

Subject:

RE: Request for Re-Concurrence -_ _ _ _ __.on C-lO's Petition for Rulemaking on Alkali Silica Reaction (PRM 50-109) -

Thanks Ray and Bryce .

Ray, once we obtain NRR FO's concurrence, the package should please be provided back to Sandra Walker and she will take care of any final document processing issues and will then deliver to the EDO's office . I provided Larry Burkhart with a heads-up that he should be expecting the package soon.

Please advise if you need any further information.

Thanks, Meena From: Lorson, Raymond Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 201811:38 AM To: Khanna, Meena <MeenaJ<hanna ru nrc. >* ryce <Bryce.Lehman@nr'c.gov>

Subject:

RE: Request for Re-Concurrence - (l))(:i n C-lO's Petition for Rulemaking on Alkali Silica Reaction (PRM 50-109) _ _ _ __.

Meena - provided my comments to Bryce - there were a few , should get a revised copy by tomorrow and then I amok with moving forward . What happens to the document next?

Ray From: Khanna, Meena Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 11:19 AM To: Lorson, Raymond <Ra mon .Lorso a1nrc. ov>

Subject:

RE: Request for Re-Concurrence_ ibH-S, on C-lO's Petition for Rulemaking on Alkali Silica Reaction (PRM 50-109)

Hi Ray, I apologize for not getting ih touch with you yesterday. Pis let me know when you have a few minutes to discuss PRM-50-109--thanks much.

Meena X2150 From: Khanna, Meena Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 11:32 AM To: Lorson, Raymond <Ra ymond .Lorson @nrc.gov>

Cc: Evans, Michele <Mlchele.Evansrainrc.gov>; Wertz, Trent <Trent.Wertz.@nrc. gov>; Lappert, Glenna

<Glenna .Lappert@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Request for Re-Concurrence - I Lw 1 Ion C-lO's Petition for Rulemaking on Alkali Silica Reaction (PRM 50-109) *

• Good morning Ray, as promised, attached are the compare versions of the SECY Paper and the FRN from the version that NRR FO concurred on, about a year ago, versus what we have now in the final concurrence package that addresses OEDO's comments. Pis note that based on the staff's review to ensure that the FRN is publication ready, there were a few additional changes that we made in the package that you have for concurrence, that are not identified in the attached compare version.

Please contact me if you have any questions.

2

Thanks so much for your support to us, Meena 3

From: Lehman, Bryce Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 1:53 PM To: Khanna, Meena Cc: Walker, Sandra; Lorson, Raymond*

• k Brian

Subject:

RE: Request for Re-Concurrence - ( on C- 10's Petition for Rulemaking on Alkali Silica Reaction (PRM 50-109)

Attachments: PRM 109 SECY Paper Lorson Edits.docx; PRM-50-109 FRN Lorson Edits.docx Note : The two draft attachments, 4 and 35 pages , respectiv,ely, are withheld in the ir Meena, entirety unde r FOIA exemption 5.

The attached files show the edits made to address Ray's comments. J have made the changes in the ADAMS version as well. Ray noted that he concurred based on these changes and we could consider this email his concurrence. I will drop the hardcopy package off with Sandra Walker this afternoon. Please let me know if you need anything else.

Thanks, Bryce From: Khanna, Meena*

Ser'lt: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 12:35 PM To: Lorson, Raymond <Raymond.Lorson@nrc.gov>; Lehman, Bryce <Bryce.Lehman@nrc.gov>

Cc: Walke,, Sandra <Sand1c1.Walker@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Request for Re-Concurrence _*-rb....)(-~- - - - , Ion C-lO's Petition for Rule making on Alkali Silica Reaction (PRM 50-109)

Thanks Ray and Bryce.

Ray, once we obtain NRR FO's concurrence, the package should please be provided back to Sandra Walker and she will take care of any final document processing issues and will then deliver to the ED O's office. I provided Larry Burkhart with a heads-up that he should be expecting the package soon .

Please advise if you need any further information.

Thanks, Meena From: Lorson, Raymond Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 11:38 AM To: Khan na, Meen a <Meena .Khanna nrc. ov>* Lehman Bryce

Subject:

RE: Request for Re-Concurrence - {t,)(B ) on C-lO's Pet ition for Rulemaking on Alkali Silica Reaction (PRM 50-109)

Meena - provided my comments to Bryce - there were a few, should get a revised copy by tomorrow and then I am ok with mov~ng forward . What happens to the document next?

Ray 1

From: Wittie!<. Brian Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 4:01 PM To: Benner, Eric; Helton, Shana ,b....(o...._ - - -....

Subject:

FW: Request for Re-Concurrence ~ 1 f n C-10's Petition for Rulemaking on Alkali Silica Reaction (PRM 50-109!

FYI. PRM denial moving forward to OEDO Thanks, Brian Wlttick BC/ESEB, DE , NRR 301-415-2496 From: Khanna, Meena Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 3:40 PM To: Lehman, Bryce <Bryce.Lehman@nrc.gov>; Lorson, Raymond <Raymond.Lorson@nrc.gov>

Cc: Walker, Sandra <Sandra.Walker@nrc.gov>; Wittick, Brian <Brian.Wittick@nrc.gov>; Lappert, Glenna

<Glenna.Lappert@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Request for Re-Concurrence -j°iHtii Ion C-lO's Petition for Rule making on Alkali Silica Reaction (PRM 50-109) *

• Ray and Bryce, thank you so much-this all looks great, thanks again. Bryce, pis advise if you need anything else from us and thanks again for helping us to get this to OEDO!

Meena From: Lehman, Bryce Sent: Monday, March 05, 20181:53 PM To: Khanna, Meena <Meena .Khanna@nrc.gov>

Cc: Walker, Sandra <Sandra .Walker@nrc.gov>; Lorson, Raymond <Ray mond.Lorson @nrc.gov>; Witticlc, Brian

<Brian .Wittick@nrc. gov>

Subject:

RE: Request for Re-Concurrence - l (r,)('.l, I on C-lO's Petition for Rulemaking on Alkali SIiica Reaction (PRM 50-109) *'-- - - - *

Meena, The attached files show the edits made to address Ray's comments. I have made the changes in the ADAMS version as well. Ray noted that he concurred based on these changes and we could consider this email his concurrence. I wilt drop the hardcopy package off with Sandra Wall<er this afternoon. Please let me know if you need anything else .

Thanks ,

Bryce From: Khanna, Meena Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 12:35 PM To: Lorson, Raymond <~mond.Lorson @nrc.gov>; Lehman, Bryce <Bryce .Lehman @nrc.gov>

Cc: Walker. Sandra <Sandra.Walker(@ nrc...sov>

Subject:

RE: Request for Re-Concurrence r \(Sl Ion C-lO's Petition for Rulemaking on Alkali Silica Reaction (PRM 50-109) L - -- - -...1 Thanks Ray and Bryce.

Ray, once we obtain NRR FO's concurrence, the package should please be provided back to Sandra Walker and she will take care of any final document processing issues and will then deliver to the EDO's office. I provided Larry Burkhart with a heads-up that h_e should be expecting the package soon.

Please advise if you need any further information.

Thanks, Meena From: Lorson, Raymond Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 11:38 AM To: Khanna, Meena <Meena.Khanna@nrc.gov>; Lehman, Bryce <Bryce.Lehman @nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Request for Re-Concurrence -lit.ii(~ 1 Ion C-lO's Petition for Rulemaking on Alkali Silica Reaction (PRM 50-109)

Meena- provided my comments to Bryce - there were a few, should get a revised copy by tomorrow and then I am ok with moving forward. What happens to the document next?

Ray 2

From: Lehman, Bryce Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 11:17 AM To: Lorson, Raymond

Subject:

RE: Questions on PRM 50-1 09 Attachments: PRM 109 FRN Lorson Edits.dooc; PRM-50-109 SECY Paper Lorson Edits.docx Note : The two draft attachments, 35 and 4 pages ,

respectively, are withheld in the ir en itrety unde r Ray , FOIA exemption 5.

The resolution of your comments is in the attached files (pg. 2 in SECY paper, pgs. 8, 16, and 18/19 in FRN) .

Once you are OK With the changes I will have Meena incorporate them into official version .

Please let me know if you prefer a hardcopy or if you need anything else from me to concur Thanks, Bryce From: Lorson, Raymond Sent: Monday, FebrUal"f 2.6, 201& 5:15 PM To: Lehman, Bryce <Bryce.Lehman@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Questions on PRM 50-109 Bryce - no problem - we have the eng stand-up from 8-8:30 - perhaps you could stop by at 8:30?

Ray From: Lehman, Bryce Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 4:14 PM To: Lorson, Raymond <Raymond.Lorson t@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Questions. on PRM 50-109

Ray,

-109. Unfortunately, I was in training all day and I have to leave the office

~.1,11,,,;~~~o!..liil.J~,l,l,,.L,.J..llll.l..>,j:.w.;;.,

I spoke with your secretary and she suggested giving you a call around 8 AM to ' -m

- o-rr_o_w-. -w-,- p- an_ o_n_c_a...1_n_ g...,you then. Please let me know if there is a better time for me to reach you (I do have training again tomorrow but am free most of Wednesday).

If you have time to summarize your questions via email I can try to respond to them tonight; otherwise, I will call you tomorrow morning.

Thanks, Bryce Lehman NRR/DE/ESEB (301) 4 15-1626 1

From: Doyle, Dan Sent: Monday, March 05, 201812:15 PM To: Lehman, Bryce

Subject:

RE: Quick, Random Question

Bryce, In the FRN, those words should be lowercase. That is the OFR style, so we follow that there. But in documents following NRC style (like SECY papers ... ) we capitalize those words.

Dan From: Lehman, Bryce Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 10:59 AM To: Doyle, Daniel <Daniel.Doyle@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Quick, Random Question

Dan, In FRN notices do we capitalize "part" and "appendix" when discussing a regulation? In other words should it be "10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A" or " 10 CFR part 50, appendix A"

Thanks, Bryce Lehman NRR/DE/ESEB (301) 415-1626 1

From: Lehman, Bryce Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 1:24 PM To: Lorson, Raymond

Subject:

RE: Questions on PRM 50-109 Attachments: RE: Quick, Random Question Ray, I was making the changes to the FRN regarding capitalizing "Part 50" and realized that this had been through concurrence in the rulemaking branch and should have been caught already. I double checked with a rulemaking PM (see attached) and he informed me that in an FRN the words should be lowercase b/c it is the OFR style. In the SECY the words should be capitalized. I will apply the guidance that way to the SECY and the FRN and move it forward like that (i.e. lowercase in the FRN and capitalized in the SECY). Please let me know if you have an issue with that approach.

Thanks, Bryce From: Lorson, Raymond Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2018 9:22 AM To: Lehman, Bryce <Bryce.Lehman@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Re: Questions on PRM 50-109 Bryce - pis stop by with a hard copy on Monday - I wou ld llke to discuss briefly.I (1))(5)

I thanks ray From: Lehman, Bryce Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 11:16:30 AM To: Lorson, Raymond

Subject:

RE: Questions on PRM 50-109 Ray ,

The resolution of your comments is in the attached files (pg. 2 in SECY paper, pgs . 8, 16,. and 18/19 in FRN).

Once you are OK with the changes I will have Meena incorporate them into official version.

Please let me know if you prefer a hardcopy or if you need anything else from me to concur.

Thanks, Bryce 1

From: Lorson, Raymond Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 5:15 PM To: Lehman, Bryce <Bryce.Lehman@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Questions on PRM 50-109 Bryce - no problem - we have the eng stand-up from 8-8:30 - perhaps you could stop by al 8:30?

Ray From: Lehman, Bryce Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 4:14 PM To: Lorson, Raymond <Raymond.Lorso n@nrc.gov>

1

Subject:

Questions on PRM 50-109

Ray, I got your messa: e about PRM 50-109. Unfortunately, I was in training all day and I have to leave the office npw rit.)16) 11spoke with your secretary and she suggested giving you a call around 8 AM tomorrow. I will plan on calling you then. Please let me know if there is a better time for me to reach you (I do have training again tomorrow but am free most of Wednesday).

If you have time to summarize your questions via email I can try to respond to them tonight; otherwise, I will call you tomorrow morning.

Thanks, Bryce Lehman NRR/DE/ESEB (301) 415-1626 2

From: Lehman, Bryce Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 1:53 PM To: Khanna, Meena Cc: Walker, Sandra; Lorson, Raymond; Wittick, Brian

Subject:

RE: Request for Re-Concurrence -r){ 5) Ion C-10's Petition for Rulemaking on Alkali SIiica Reaction {PRM 50-109 Attachments: PRM-50-109 SECY Paper Lorson Edits.docx; PRM-50-109 FRN Lorson Edits.docx Note: The two draft attachments, 4 and 35 pages , respectively, are withheld in their entirety under FOIA exemption 5.

Meena ,

The attached files show the edits made to address Ray's comments . I have made the changes in the ADAMS version as well . Ray noted that he concurred based on these changes and we could consider this email his concurrence. I will drop the hardcopy package off with Sandra Walker this afternoon. Please let me know if you need anything else .

Thanks, Bryce From: Khanna, Me*ena Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 12:35 PM To~ Lorson, Raymo.nd <Raymond.Lorson@nrc.gov>; Lehman, Bryce <Brvce.Lehman@nrc.gov>

Cc: Walker, Sandra <Sandra.Walker@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Request for Re-Concurrence _.l(b-1(::.

... "'"J_ _ _ _!on C-lO's Petition for Rulemaking on Alkali Silica Reaction (PRM 50-109)

Thanks Ray and Bryce .

Ray, once we obtain NRR FO's concurrence, the package should please be provided back to Sandra Walker and she will take care of any final document processing issues and will then deliver to the EDO's office. I provided Larry Burkhart with a heads-up that he should be expecting lhe package soon.

Please advise if you need any further information.

Thanks, Meena From: Lorson, Raymond Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 11:38 AM To: Khanna, Meena <Meena.Khanna @nrc.gov>; Lehman, Bryce <Bryce.Lehman@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Request for Re-Concurrence - l(b)15) Ion C-lO's Petition for Rulemaking on Alkali Silica Reaction (PRM 50-109)

Meena - provided my comments to Bryce - there were a few, should get a revised copy by tomorrow and then I am ok with moving forward . What happens to the document next?

Ray 1

From: Weil,Jenny Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 8:39 AM To: Khanna, Meena; Weil, Jenny; Poole, Justin

Subject:

Re: fW: Re: petition for rulema king (PRM-50-109)

Thanks Meenal

---

Original Message - ------

From : "Khanna, Meena" <Meena.Khanna@nrc.gov>

Date: Tue, April 17, 2018 7:43 PM -0400 To: "Weil, Jenny" <Jenny.WeO@nrc.gov>, "Poole, Justin" <Justin.Poole@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: Re: petition for rulemaking (PRM 109)

Jenny and Justi n, pis note that Larry confirmed that the PRM 1.... "t>_H0_' _ _ ___,! on 50-109 regarding ASR was delivered to the Commission at the end of February .. thanks much!

Meena From: Burkhart, Lawrence Sent: Tuesday, Aprll 17, 2018 4:33 PM To: Khanna, Meena <Meena .Khanna@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Re: petition for rulernaking (PRM-50-109}

Meena, T he staff's memo went to the Commission on 2/28/20 18 (or it might have been the day before) .

Larry From: Khanna, Meena Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 4:22 PM To: Burkhart, Lawrence <Lawrence.Burkhart @nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: Re: petition for rulemaking (PRM-50-109)

Hi Larry, I'm assuming this went to SECY? Thanks!

Also, Dan is getting ready to send you the decotnrn proposed rule package.

Finally, i wi ll drop off the draft memo re: EW firearms guidelines ... thanks!

Meena From: Weil, Jenny Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 4:11 PM To: Khanna, Meena <Meena.Khanna @nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: Re: petition for rulemaking (PRM-50-109)

Hello Meena, I'm also passing this inquiry along to you, in case you have any information on it.

Thank you!

Jenny From: Weil, Jenny Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 3:21 PM To: Carneal, Jason <Jason.Carneal @nrc.gov>

Subject:

Re: petition for rulemaking (PRM 109)

Hello Jason, Do you know if the SECY paper on petition for Seabrook ASR rulemaking petition (PRM-50-109) was sent up to the Commission?

1

Thanks, Jenny 2

From: Lehman, Bryce Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 9:22 AM To: Kratchman, Jessica

Subject:

RE: MEETING

SUMMARY

PRM 50-109 (4-16-2015)

Jessica ,

At this time, I do not believe I need specific working group meetin gs for my comme!lts (5 & 6),.

Have you posted an example document on the SharePoint site for us to use when drafting our responses? I looked on the site and didn't see anything but there is a good chance I just missed it.

Thanks, Bryce From: Kratchman, Jessica Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 10:56 AM To: Fuhrmann, Mark; Inverso, Tara; Lehman, Bryce; Love-Blair, Angella; Mizuno, Geary; Neuhausen, Alissa; Philip, Jacob; Thomas Wilt; Thomas, George Cc: Beall, Robert

Subject:

MEmNG

SUMMARY

PRM 50-109 (4-16-2015)

Working Group Meeting (WG): PRM 50-109: Comment/ issue resolution assignments Thank you to everyone who attended today's meeting. We spent the majority of the meeting discussing the Comment Summary Matrix (SharePolnt ). If you have been identtfled as a lead for a comment/ issue response please begin reviewing and working on your comment resolution.

REMINDER: the purpose of the petition review is not to make a decision on whether rulemaking should take place but to determine if this Issue should enter the rulemaking _process. Please keep this in mind throughout your review.

DISCUSSION:

ACTIONS:

WG members should review their assigned comments/ issues and determine which require a dedicated WG meeting. If the comment response appears to be straightforward, the responses may be circulated to the WG for discussion instead of holding a WG meeting.

o Respond to Jessie COB April 23.

Jessie will develop a schedule for comment/ issue resolution WG meetings- send to the WG by COB April 28.

o First comment/ issue resolution working group meeting will take place in early May.

As WG members identify background documents- send them to Jessie.

o Jessie will post to SharePoint site.

WG members should regularly check SharePoint site for updates.

o All materials will be updated to reflect today's meeting- please work off the most current versions.

Jessie will post an example of FRN that includes comment responses to the Share Point site.

Reminder: SharePolnt site link: http ://fusion .nrc.gov/ nrr/ team/ d pr/prmb/ rulemaking/PRM 109/ SjtePages/ Home.aspx This meeting summary will be added to the file: Meeting summary document on SharePoint Site.

Thanks to everyone for your participation and support!

-Jessie Jessica Kratchman., candidate DrPH Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301-415-5112 2

From: Lehman, Bryce Sent Tue-sday, May 22, 2018 9:58 AM To: Nazario, Tomy

Subject:

RE: .ASR FRN - Comment 9 Tomy, J'"'I Let me know if you want to discuss anything else.

Thanks, Bryce 1

From: Inverso, Tara Sent Tuesday, June 05, 2018 2:10 PM To: Giitter, Joseph; Danna, James; Poole, Justin

Subject:

FYI: Vote Registered {JMB, SECY-18-0036, D'enial of Petition for Rulemaking Submitted by the C-10 Research and Education Foundation (PRM-50-109))

Attachments: JMB-SECY-18-0036.pdf Note: The attached vote is publicly available in ADAMS as part of Ml 19291A127.

FYI - Please see Commissioner Saran's vote on the C-10 RPM related to ASR. (I think this is the second vote; we saw Commissioner Burns' vote earlier this week ... )

Tara Inverso Acting Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing (Rotation) 08-E16 / 301-415-2999 F~om: Laufer, Richard Sent: Tuesday, June OS, 2018 1:4S PM To: SECYOPS_EDO-Votes <SECYOPS_EDO-Votes@nrc.gov>

Cc: Khanna, Meena <Meena.Khanna@nrc.gov>; Lehman, Bryce <Bryce.Lehman@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: Vote Registered (JMB, SECY-18-0036, Denial of Petition for Rulemaking Submitted by the C-10 Research and Education Foundation (PRM-S0-109))

From: adamso8 icm service @nrc.gov icm service @nrc.gov

Sent: Tuesday, June OS, 2018 1:40 PM To: ICM_STARS_KLS <ICM STARS KLS @nrc.gov>; ICM_STARS_JMB <ICM STARS JMB @nrc.gov>; ICM_STARS_SGB

<ICM STARS SGB @nrc.gov>; ICM_STARS_SECYVoting <ICM STARS SECYVoting@ nrc.gov>

Subject:

Vote Registered (JMB, SECY-18-0036, Denial of Petition for Rulemaking Submitted by the C-10 Research and Education Foundation (PRM-50-109))

On 06/05/2018 JMB Vote Record was updated by Schumann, Stacy (sms9).The Vote Record information can be found below D

Vote Record Info Document Number SECY-18-0036 Denial of Petition for Rulemaking Submitted by the C-10 Research and Education Subject Foundation (PRM-50-109)

Originating Executive Director for Operations Organization Due Date 06/13/2018 Vote Approved/Edits Vote Date 06/05/2018 Edits? Yes 1

Comments? Yes Vote Comments Commissioner Baran's vote with comments and edits attached.

Assignee RGK 2

From: Wittick. Brian Sent: Friday, October 04, 2019 4:35 PM To: Colaccino, Joseph Cc: Khanna, Meena; Thomas, George; Lehman, Bryce; Smith - NRR, Brian

Subject:

Fwd: Draft SRM - SECY-18-0036: Denlat of Petition for Rulemaking Submitted by the C-10 Research and Education foundation {PRM 109)

Attachments: 18-0036.srm.encl2 - NMSS - RASB.docx; 18-0036.srm.encl1 - NMSS -RASB.docx Note: The two draft attachments , 3 and 39 pages , respectively, are withheld in their entirety under FOIA exemption 5.

Joe, for awareness only .... once we get the final SRM for review we will want a quick review by George and Bryce as I think this is the one they worked.

Thanks Brian From: "Khanna, Meena" <Meena.Khanna @nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: Draft SRM - SECY-18-0036: Denial of Petition for Rulemaking Submitted by the C-10 Research and Education Foundation {PRM-50-109)

Date: 04 October 2019 15:07 To: "Wittick, Brian" <Brian.Wittick@nrc.gov>

Cc: "Soto Lugo, Soly" <Soly.SotoLugo@nrc.gov>, "Carusone, Caroline" <caroline.carusone @nrc.gov>

Pis advise if you have any comments on the SRM .... pis let us know how much time your folks need to review, this is a short turnaround--

From: Carusone, Caroline Sent: Friday, October 04, 2019 3:05 PM To: Khanna, Meena <Meena.Khanna@nrc.gov>

Cc: Soto Lugo, Soly <Soly.SotoLugo@nrc.gov>; Malave-Velez, Yanely <Yanely.Malave-Velez@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: Draft SRM - SECY-18-0036: Denial of Petition for Rulemaking Submitted by the C-10 Research and Education foundation (PRM-50-109)

This is what I'm calling you on.

From: Bladey, Cindy Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2019 6:03 PM To: OeJesus, Anthony <Anthony. DeJesus@nrc.gov>; Carusone, Caroline <caroline.carusone @nrc.gov>

Cc: Soto Lugo, Soly <Soly.Sotolugo@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: Draft SRM - SECY-18-0036: Denial of Petition for Rulemaking Submitted by the C-10 Research and Education Foundation (PRM-50-109)

Hi Caroline, This is due tomorrow and Jill has a few edits - do you want us to reply to SECY? Is anyone else reviewing for DRM or NRR?

From: Shepherd, Jill Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2019 5:35 PM To: Bladey, Cindy <Cindy.Bladey@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Draft SRM - SECY-18-0036: Denial of Petition for Rulemaklng Submitted by the C-10 Research and Education Foundation (PRM-50*109)

My edits are attached.

Thanks, Jill

From: Bladey, Cindy Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2019 6:20 PM To: Shepherd, Jill <Jill.Shepherd-Vladimir@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: Draft SRM - SECY-18-0036: Denial of Petition for Rulemaking Submitted by the C-10 Research and Education Foundation {PRM-50-109)

Please take a look.

From: Moore, Wendy Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2019 4:45 PM To: Bladey, Cindy <Cindy.Bladey@nrc.gov>; DeJesus, Anthony <Anthony.DeJesus@nrc.gov>; Borges Roman, Jennifer

<Jennifer.BorgesRoman @nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: Draft SRM - SECY-18-0036: Denial of Petition for Rulemaking Submitted by the C-10 Research and Education Foundation (PRM-50-109)

FYI From: Moore, Wendy Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2019 3:42 PM To: Averbach, Andrew <Andrew.Averbach @nrc.gov>; Baran_Distribution <Ba ran Distribution@nrc.gov>;

Caputo_Distribution <Ca puto Dlstrlbutlon@nrc.gov>; Clark, Brooke <Brooke.Clark@nrc.gov>; Spencer, Mary

<Mary.Spencer@nrc.gov>; Svinicki_Distribution <Svinicki Distribution @nrc.gov>; Wright_Distribution

<Wright Distribution @nrc.gov>; Zobler, Marian <Marian.Zobler@nrc.gov>

Cc: Bavol, Rochelle <Rochelle.Bavol @nrc.gov>; Bush, Tyesha <Tyesha.Bush @nrc.gov>; Chazell, Russell!

<Russell.Chazell @nrc.gov>; EDO_ETAs <EDO ETAs@nrc.gov>; Ficks, Ben <Ben.Ficks@nrc.gov>; Hudson, Sharon

<Sharon.Hudson@nrc.gov>; Laufer, Richard <Richard.Laufer@nrc.gov>; McGovern, Denise

<Denise.McGovern@nrc.gov>; Moore, Wendy <Wendy.Moore@nrc.gov>; Shea, Pamela <Pamela.Shea@nrc.gov>; Vietti-Cook, Annette <Annette.Vietti-Cook @nrc.gov>; Whited, Jeffrey <Jeffrey.Whited@nrc.gov>; Wylie, Maureen

<Maureen.Wylie @nrc.gov>

Subject:

Draft SRM - SECY-18-0036: Denial of Petition for Rulemaking .Submitted by the C-10 Research and Education Foundation (PRM-50-109)

Good afternoon, As provided in the Internal Commission Procedures, the staff is " ... afforded an opportunity to review the SRM to ensure that the Commission decision is clear and understandable and that resource, schedular, and legal constraints are properly considered."

Draft Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM), SECY-18-0036: Denial of Petition for Rulemaking Submitted by the C-10 Research and Education Foundation (PRM-50-109). Your response to this draft SRM is requested by COB, Friday, October 4, 2019. Commission offices should reply all with their responses.

Any staff comments regarding this draft SRM should be addressed to Richard Laufer, Jeffrey Whited, Pam Shea, and Denise McGovern. Comments from OEDO offices should be provided by the OEDO.

Thank you, Wendy W~M()Of'e, A~CMIILL~Ar\ao/~('R.~)

0/f{,<;etofthetSecremry NR.C OW,=N

• l 61316 MIS OWFN-161333 301-415-1969 2

From: Malave-Velez, Yanely Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2019 8:53 AM To: Philip, Jacob; Lehman, Bryce; Thomas, George

Subject:

Awareness: PRM 109, Improved Identification Techniques against Alkali-Silica Reaction Concrete Degradation at Nuclear Power Plants Good morning!

I just want to make you aware that we might receive soon an SRM fo r the denial of PRM-50-109, "Improved Identification Techniques against Alkali-Silica Reaction Concrete Degradation at Nuclear Power Plants."

Here are the links to ADAMS *and SharePoint in case you need to refresh your memory

• ADAMS Packa ge (SECY-18-0036)

• Share Point Site When we receive the draft SRM, I will send it so that you can review the proposed edits and let me know if there is any unintended consequence(s).

Please keep in mind that this will be a short turn around request.

Have a nice day and don't hesitate to contact me if you have any question.

Thanks

~~~~

• yanely.malave@nrc.gov

~ 301 -415-1519

From: Malave-Velez, Yanely Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 2:26 PM To: Philip, Jacob; Lehman, Bryce; Thomas, George Cc: Soto Lugo, Soly Subjed: FW: SRM-SECY-18-0036: Denial of Petition for Rulemaking Submitted by the C-10 Research and Education Foundation (PRM-50-109)

Importance: High Good afternoon Please find below the SRM for the denial of PRM-50-109.

Please let me know by 3pm tomorrow, if you have any concern with the proposed edits.

My apologies for the short-turnaround.

Thanks

~~~~

Project Manager US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material and Safeguards Division of Rulemaking

@ yanely.malave@nrc.gov f'! 301c415-1519 From: Bush, Tyesha Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 1:25 PM To: Averbach, Andrew <Andrew.Averbach @nrc.gov>; Baran_Distribution <Baran Distribution@nrc.gov>; Blake, Kathleen <Kathleen.Blake @nrc.gov>; Bollwerk, Paul <Paul.Bollwerk @nrc. gov>; Caputo_Distribution

<Ca puto Distribution @nrc.gov>; EDO_ETAs <EDO ETAs @nrc.gov>; Hudson, Sharon <Sharon.Hudson @nrc.gov>;

Jimenez, Patricia <Patricia.Jimenez @nrc.gov>; Mayberry, Theresa <Theresa.Mayberry@ nrc.gov>; NRC_ODs_DODs

<NRC ODs DODs @nrc.gov>; OCA Distribution <OCADistribution @nrc.gov>; OPA Resource <OPA.Resource @nrc.gov>;

RidsEdoDraftSrmVote Resource <RidsEdoDraftSrmVote.Resource @nrc.gov>; RidsOcaaMailCenter Resource

<RidsOcaaMailCenter.Resource @nrc.gov>; RidsOcfoMailCenter Resource <RidsOcfoMailCenter.Resource@nrc.gov>;

RidsOgcMailCenter Resource <RidsOgcMailCenter.Resource @nrc.gov>; RidsOigMailCenter Resource

<RidsOigMailCenter.Resource @nrc.gov>; RidsOlpMailCenter Resource <RidsOipMailCenter.Resource @nrc.gov>;

Spencer, Mary <Mary.Spencer@nrc.gov>; Sprogeris, Patricia <Patricia.Sprogeris@nrc.gov>; Svinicki_Distributlon

<Svinid; Wriglht_Distribution <Wright Distribution @nrc.gov>

Cc: Bavol, Rochelle <Rbchelle.Bavol @nrc. gov>; Borges Roman, Jennifer <Jennifer.BorgesRoman @nrc.gov>; Chazell, Russell <Russell.Chazell @nrc.gov>; Laufer, Richard <Richard.Laufer@nrc.gov>; McGovern, Denise

<Denise.McGovern @nrc. gov>; NMSS Rulemaking <NMSSRulemaklng@ nrc.gov>; Shea, Pamela <Pamela.Shea @nrc.gov>;

Sola, Clara <Clara.Sola @nrc.gov>; Whited, Jeffrey <Jeffrey.Whited @nrc.gov>; Khanna, Meena

<Meena.Khanna @nrc.gov>; Lehman, Bryce <Bryce.Lehman @nrc.gov>

Subject:

SRM-SECY-18-0036: Denial of Petition for Rulemaking Submitted by the C-10 Research and Education Foundation (PRM-50-109)

Good afternoon, l

In an effort to keep the NRC staff informed of Commission decisions in a timely manner, attached for your information ls Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) SECY-18-0036: Denial of Petition for Rulemaking Submitted by the C-10 Research and Education Foundation (PRM-50*109) (ADAMS No.: ML192898966),

signed by the Secretary, Wednesday, October 16, 2019. Please make additional distribution to interested staff members in your office.

Please note: This will be released to the public 5 working days after the dispatch of the letter to the Petitioner.

Thank you.

Tyesha Y. Bush Program Assistant U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Secretat*y of the Commission Office: (so 1)-+ 15-1969 Location: OWFN- 16B14 2

From: Mal ave-Velez, Yanely Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2019 2:22 Pr-.:1 To: Thomas, George

Subject:

RE: SRM-SECY-18-0036: Denial of Petition for Rulemaking Submitted by the C- 10 Research and Education Foundation (PRM-50-109)

No problem .... call to the following number 415-7528 Thanks From: Thomas, George Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2019 2:20 PM To: Malave-Velez, Yanely <Yanely.Malave-Velez@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: SRM-SECV-18-0036: Denial of Petition for Rulemaking Submitted by the C-10 Research a111d Education Foundation (PRM-50-109)

Yanely - Have a conference call in few minutes. will call after that around 3 pm. Thanks .

From: Malave-Velez, Yanely Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2019 2:18 PM To: Thomas, George <George.Thoma s2@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: SRM-SECY-18-0036: Denial of Petition for Rulemaking Submitted by the C-10 Research and Education Foundation (PRM-50-109)

Hi George Please give me a call Thanks yanely From: Thomas, George Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2019 10:21 AM To: Malave-Velez, Vanely <Yanely.Ma lave-Velez @nrc.gov>

Cc: Sot o Lugo, Soly <Soly.Soto l ugo@n rc.gov>; Philip, Jacob <Jaco b.Philip@ nrc.gov>; Lehman, Bryce

<Bryce .Lehman @nrc.gov>; Colaccino, Joseph <Joseph.Colaccino @nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: SRM-SECY-18-0036: Denial of Petition for Rulemaklng Submitted by the C-10 Research and Education Foundation (PRM-50-109)

Hello Yanely, I reviewed the proposed edits in the SRM. I recommend making the changes as highlighted and commented on pages 13, 15 and 20. The reason for the recommended edits are provided in the comment box therein .

Thanks, George From: Malave-Velez, Vanely Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 2:26 PM 1

To: Philip, Jacob <Jacob.Philip@nrc.gov>; Lehman, Bryce <Bryce.Lehman@nrc.gov>; Thomas, George

<George.Thomas2 @nrc.gov>

Cc: Soto Lugo, Soly <Soly.SotoLugo@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: SRM-SECY-18-0036: Denial of Petition for Rule making Submitted by the C-10 Research and Education Foundation (PRM-50-109)

Importance: High Good afternoon Please find below the SRM for the denial of PRM-50-109.

Please let me know by 3pm tomorrow, if you have any concern with the proposed edits.

My apologies for the short-turnaround.

Thanks

<w~~~

Project Manager US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material and Safeguards Division of Rulemaking W yanely.malave@nrc.gov

'f:J 301-415-1519 From: Bush, Tyesha Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 1:25 PM To: Averbach, Andrew <Andrew.Averbach@nrc.gov>; Baran_Distribution <Baran Distribution@nrc.gov>; Blake, Kathleen <Kathleen.Blake@nrc.gov>; Bollwerk, Paul <Paul.Bollwerk@nrc.gov>; Caputo_Distribution

<CaQuto Distribution@nrc.gov>; EDO_ETAs <EDO ETAs@nrc.gov>; Hudson, Sharon <Sharon.Hudson @nrc.gov>;

Jimenez, Patricia <Patricia.Jimenez@nrc.gov>; Mayberry, Theresa <Theresa.Mayberry@nrc.gov>; NRC_ODs_DODs

<NRC ODs DODs@nrc.gov>; OCA Distribution <OCADistribution@nrc.gov>; OPA Resource <OPA.Resource@nrc.gov>;

RidsEdoDraftSrmVote Resource <RidsEdoDraftSrmVote.Resource@nrc.gov>; RidsOcaaMai/Center Resource

<RidsOcaaMailCenter.Resource@nrc.gov>; RidsOcfoMailCenter Resource <RidsOcfoMailCenter.Resource@nrc.gov>;

RidsOgcMailCenter Resource <RidsOgcMailCenter.Resource@nrc.gov>; RidsOigMailCenter Resource

<RidsOigMailCenter.Resource@nrc.gov>; RidsOipMailCenter Resource <RidsOipMailCenter.Resource@nrc.gov>;

Spencer, Mary <Mary.Spencer@nrc.gov>; Sprogeris, Patricia <Patricia.Sprogeris@nrc.gov>; Svinicki_Dlstribution

<Svinicki Distribution@nrc.gov>; Wright_Dlstribution <Wright Distribution@nrc.gov>

Cc: Bavol, Rochelle <Rochelle.Bavol@nrc.gov>; Borges Roman, Jennifer <Jennifer.BorgesRoman @nrc.gov>; Chazell, Russell <Russell.Chazell@nrc.gov>; Laufer, Richard <Richard.Laufer@nrc.gov>; McGovern, Denise

<Denise.McGovern@nrc.gov>; NMSS Rulemaking <NMSSRulemaking@nrc.gov>; Shea, Pamela <Pamela.Shea@nrc.gov>;

Sola, Clara <Clara.Sola@nrc.gov>; Whited, Jeffrey <Jeffrey.Whited@nrc.gov>; Khanna, Meena

<Meena.Khanna @nrc.gov>; Lehman, Bryce <Bryce.Lehman@nrc.gov>

Subject:

SRM-SECY-18-0036: Denial of Petition for Rulemaklng Submitted by the C-10 Research and Education Foundation (PRM-50-109)

Good afternoon, rn an effort to keep the NRC staff informed of Commission decisions in a timely manner, attached for your information is Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) SECY-18-0036: Denial of Petition for Rulemaking Submitted by the C-10 Research and Education Foundation (PRM-50-109) (ADAMS No.: ML192898966),

signed by the Secretary, Wednesday, October 16, 2019. Please make additional distribution to interested staff members in your office.

Please note: This will be released to the public 5 working days after the dispatch of the letter to the Petitioner.

2

Thank you.

Tyesha Y. Bush Program Assistant U.S. Nuclear ReguJatory CommissiorJJ Otlice of the Secretary of the Commission Office: (so 1)-415-1969 Location: OWFN-I6Bl4 3

From: Malave-Velez, Yanely Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2019 11:24 AM To: Colaccino, Joseph Cc: Thomas, George

Subject:

FW: SRM-SECY-18-0036: Denial of Petition for Rulemaking Submitted by the C-10 Research and Education Foundation {PRM-50-109}

~---------------

Attachments: SR M 0036.encl 1 GT edits.docx Note : The 39-page draft attachment is withheld in its entirety under FOIA exemption 5.

Importance: High Good morning Joe We recently received the final SRM related to PRM-50-109 .

This SRM was process a little different and we didn't received the request via email to provide comments on the draft SRM.

When we received the final SRM and forward it to the technical staff to make sure that there were no technical concern or unintended consequence due to the edits.

George Thomas provide the attached comments.

NMSS/REFS contacted EDO and below is their response after they consulted with SECY.

Please let me know if you will like to pro~eed with the changes or if we should communicate to EDO to not move forward with them.

Don't hesitate to call me if you have ainy question.

Thanks Yanely From: Mccoppin, Michael Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2019 8:56 AM To: Malave-Velez, Yanely <Yanely.Malave-Velez@nrc.gov>; Carusone, Caroline <caroline.carusone@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: SRM-SECY-18-0036: Denial of Petition for Rulemaklng Submitted by the C-10 Research and Education Foundation (PRM-50-109)

Importance: High

Yanely, I reached out to Rich Laufer of SECY. We both reviewed the suggested edits and are questioning how substantial they are verses the process for getting them in from of the Commission. Since they are late, they will need EDO approval. The first question will be ... why are they late along with why are they substantive? Do they add enough value to warrant the change and bring attention to your division? It's a denial for rule making ... therefore may not warrant the effort. Let me know your thoughts and if you want to answer the questions and proceed .

Michael Mccoppin Executive Technlcal Assistant - NRR Office of the Executive Director for Operations United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1

~ mlch ael.mccoppin@nrc.gov

!f 301.415.6533

'e!cell:!...(L_*H_o _ ___.

-Mail Stop: 016-C38

-Office: 016-C32 From: Malave-Velez, Yanely Sent: Friday, October 18, 2019 4:39 PM To: Mccoppin, Michaer <Michael.McCoppin@nrc.gov>

Cc: Carusone, Caroline <caroline.carusone@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: SRM-SECY-18-0036: Denial of Petition for Rulemaking Submitted by the C-10 Research and Education Foundation (PRM-50-109)

Importance: High Hi Mike Caroline and I tried to talk with you but you were on another call.

We wanted to share with you some comments that we received from the technical staff on the SRM for PRM-50-109.

There was a miscommunication during the process and the technical staff was not able to review the draft SRM last week. We can discuss later.

The proposed edits (see attached ..... pages 13, 15, and 20) will provide clarity to the items discussed.

Please let us know what is the best approach to address these edits. Can we add them to the SRM response with a justification?

Thanks for your help Yanely From: Thomas, George Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2019 10:21 AM To: Malave-Velez, Yanely <Yanely.Malave-Velez@nrc.gov>

Cc: Soto Lugo, Soly <Soly.SotoLugo@nrc.gov>; Philip, Jacob <Jacob.Philip@nrc.gov>; Lehman, Bryce

<Bryce. Lehma n@nrc.gov>; Colaccino, Joseph <Jose ph.Colaccino@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: SRM-SECY-18-0036: Denial of Petition for Rulemaking Submitted by the C-10 Research and Education Foundation (PRM-50-109)

Hello Yanely, 2

I reviewed the proposed edits in the SRM. I recommend making the changes as highlighted and commented on pages 13, 15 and 20. The reason for the recommended edits are provided in the comment box therein.

Thanks, George From: Malave-Velez, Yanely Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 2:26 PM To: Philip, Jacob <Jacob.Philip@nrc.gov>; Lehman, Bryce <Bryce.Lehman@nrc.gov>; Thomas, George

<George.Thomas2 @nrc.gov>

Cc: Soto Lugo, Soly <Soly.SotoLugo@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: SRM-SECY-18-0036: Deni1al of Petition for Rulemaking Submitted by the C-10 Research and Education Foundation (PRM-50-109)

Importance: High Good afternoon Please find below the SRM for the denial of PRM-50-109.

Please let me know by 3pm tomorrow, if you have any concern with the proposed edits.

My apologies for the short-turnaround.

Thanks cw~~~

Project Manager US Nuclear Regulatory Commission .

Office of Nuclear Material and Safeguards Division of Rulemaking

@ yanely.malave@nrc.gov

~ 301-415-1519 From: Bush, Tyesha Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 1:25 PM lo: Averbach, Andrew <Andrew.Averbach@nrc.gov>; Baran_Distribution <Baran Distribution@nrc.gov>; Blake, Kathleen <Kathleen.Blake@nrc.gov>; Bollwerk, Paul <Paul.Bollwerk@nrc.gov>; Caputo_Distribution

<Caputo Distribution@nrc.gov>; EDO_ETAs <EDO ETAs@nrc.gov>; Hudson, Sharon <Sharon.Hudson @nrc.gov>;

Jimenez, Patricia <Patricia.Jimenez@nrc.gov>; Mayberry, Theresa <Theresa.Mayberry@nrc.gov>; NRC_ODs_DODs

<NRC ODs DODs@nrc.gov>; OCA Distribution <0CADistribution@nrc.gov>; OPA Resource <OPA.Resource@nrc.gov>;

RldsEdoDraftSrmVote Resource <RidsEdoDraftSrmVote.Resource@nrc.gov>; RidsOcaaMailCenter Resource

<RidsOcaaMailCenter.Resource@nrc.gov>; RidsOcfoMailCenter Resource <RidsOcfoMailCenter.Resource@nrc.gov>;

RidsOgcMailCenter Resource <RidsOgcMailCenter.Resource@nrc.gov>; RidsOigMailCenter Resource

<RidsOigMailCenter.Resource@nrc.gov>; RidsOipMailCenter Resource <RidsOipMailCenter.Resource@nrc.gov>;

Spencer, Mary <Mary.Spencer@nrc.gov>; Sprogerls, Patricia <Patricia.Sprogeris@nrc.gov>; Svinicki_Distribution

<Svinicki Distribution@nrc.gov>; Wright_Distribution <Wright Distribution@nrc.gov>

Cc: Bavol, Rochelle <Rochelle.Bavol@nrc.gov>; Borges Roman, Jennifer <Jennifer.BorgesRoman @nrc.gov>; Chazell, Russell <Russell.Chazell @nrc.gov>; Laufer, Richard <Richard.Laufer@nrc.gov>; McGovern, Denise

<Denise.McGovern@nrc.gov>; NMSS Rulemaking <NMSSRulemaking@nrc.gov>; Shea, Pamela <Pamela.Shea@nrc.gov>;

Sola, Clara <Clara.Sola @nrc.gov>; Whited, Jeffrey <Jeffrey.Whited@nrc.gov>; Khanna, Meena

<Meena.Khanna @nrc.gov>; Lehman, Bryce <Bryce.Lehman@nrc.gov>

Subject:

SRM-SECY-18-0036: Denial of Petition for Rulemaking Submitted by the C-10 Research and Education Foundation (PRM-50-109)

Good afternoon, 3

In an effort to keep the NRC staff informed of Commission decisions in a timely manner, attached for your information is Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) SECY-18-0036: Denial of Petition for Rulemaking Submitted by the C-10 Research and Education Foundation (PRM-50-109) (ADAMS No.: ML192898966),

signed by the Secretary, Wednesday, October 16, 2019. Please make additional distribution to interested staff members in your office.

Please note: This will be released to the public 5 working days after the dispatch of the letter to the Petitioner.

Thank you.

Tyesha Y. Bush Program Assistant U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Secretary of the Commission Office: (SOl)-+l.5-1969 Location: OWFN-16B14 4

From: Malave-Velez, Yanely Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2019 7:07 AM To: Colaccino, Joseph Cc: Thomas, George; Marshall, Jane; Carusone, Caroline; Tappert, John; Soto Lugo, Soly

Subject:

RE: SRM-SECY-18-0036: Denial of Petition for Rulemaking Submitted by the C-10 Research and Education Foundation (PRM 109)

Good morning Joe On 10/4 we received an email requesting comments on the subject SRM (due the same day, 10/4); but the attached document format looked different. There were unresolved working comments from Commission staff and the document did not appear ready for distribution. Nonetheless, given the extremely short turnaround time, Caronne Carusone contacted Meena Khanna and Brian Smith to determine if NRR has any comments. Both Meena and Brian agreed that the document did not look like a "final" draft for comments.

NMSS/REFS quickly contacted the person that sent the email requesting action in SECY (Wendy Moore). Wendy confirmed the document that we had received. with the open Commissioner staffs comments was a working document and not intended for Office action. We were informed that the official draft SRM would be sent out the week of October 7th with a formal request for commenits. However, on 10/16, we received the final SRM.

There were significant edlts to the package and we wanted to make sure that the technical aspect of the denial was preserved and there were no unintended consequences due to the edits so we reached out to OEDO to find out how best to handle any potential comments given the irregular process. We will follow up with SECY to minimize the possibility ofthls situation happening again in the future.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you for your understanding and thank you to your staff for taking the time to review the documents.

Thanks, cw~~~

Project Manager US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material and Safeguards Division of Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial Support

• yanely.malave@nrc.gov 301-415-1519 From: Colaccino, Joseph Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2019 2:45 PM To: Malave-Velez, Yanely <Yanely.Malave-Velez@nrc.gov>

Cc: Thomas, George <George.Thomas2@nrc.gov>; Marshall, Jane <Jane.Marshall@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: SRM-SECY-18-0036: Denial of Petition for Rulemaking Submitted by the C-10 Research and Education Foundation (PRM-50-109)

Yanely,

I have considered the three comments that George added on Pages 13, 15, and 20. Given the feedback you received from OEDO, I agree that there is not an absolute need to include these comments. Therefore, please proceed .

I would appreciate if you atl in the division of rulemaking could have further discussion on how It came about that we were not able to comment on this in the appropriate time.

I have cc'd George and Jane for their awareness.

Thanks, Joseph Colaccino Chief, Structural Engineering Branch (ESEB)

Divisio n of Engineering and External Hazards Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301 -415-7102

!(t,)(6,  !(Mobile)

From: Malave-Velez, Yanely Sent: Tuesday, Oct ober 22, 201911:24 AM To: Colaccino, Jo$eph <Joseph.Colaccino@nrc.gov>

Cc: Thomas, George <George.Thomas2@nrc.g<av>

Subject:

FW: SRM-SECY-18-0036: Denial of Petition for Rulemaking Submitted by the C-10 Research and Education Foundation {PRM-50-109)

Importance: High Good morning Joe We recently received the final SRM related to PRM-50-109 .

This SRM was process a little different and we didn't received the request via email to provide comments on the draft SRM.

When we received the final SRM and forward it to the technical staff to make sure that there were ho technical concern or unintended consequence due to the edits.

George Thomas provide the attached comments.

NMSS/REFS contacted EDO and below is their response after they consulted with SECY.

Please let me know if you will like to proceed with the changes or if we should communicate to EDO to not move forward with them.

Don't hesitate to call me if you have any question.

Thanks Yanely From: McCoppin, Michael Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2019 8:56 AM To: Malave-Velez, Yanely <Yanely.Malave-Velez@nrc.gov>; Carusone, Caroline <caroline.carusone@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: SRM-SECY-18-0036: Denial of Petition for Rulemaking Submitted by the C-10 Research and Education Foundation (PRM-50-109)

Importance: High Yanely, 2

I reached out to Rich Laufer of SECY. We both reviewed the suggested edits and are questioning how substantial they are verses the process for getting them in from of the Commission. Since they are late, they will need EDO approval. The first question will be ... why are they late along with why are they substantive? Do they add enough value to warrant the change and bring attention to your division? It's a denial for rulemaking ... therefore may not warrant the effort. Let me* know your thoughts and if you want to answer the questions and proceed.

M ichael Mccoppin Executive Technical Assistant - NRR Office of the Executive Director for Operations United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

• michael.mccoppin@nrc.gov m301.41s.6s33

~ Cell:!._

(b_){6.*),,,.,,..,,..,,,.,..,.._,

-Mall Stop: 016-C38

-Office: 016-C32 From: Malave-Velez, Yanely Sent: Friday, October 18, 2019 4:39 PM To: McCoppin1 Michael <MichaeLMcCoppin@nrc.gov>

Cc: Carusone, Caroline <caroline.carusone<@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: SRM-SECY-18-0036: Denial of Petition for Rulemaking Submitted by the C-10 Research and Education Foundation (PRM-50-109)

Importance: High Hi Mike Caroline and I tried to talk with you but you were on another call.

We wanted to share with you some comments that we received from the technical staff on the SRM for PRM-50-109.

There was a miscommunicat ion during the process and the technical staff was not able to review the draft SRM last week. We can discuss later.

The proposed edits (see attached..... pages 13, 15, and 20) will provide clarity to the items discussed.

Please let us know what is the best approach to address these edits. Can we add them to the SRM response with a justification?

Thanks for your help Yanely 3

From: Thomas, George Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2019 10:21 AM To: Malave-Velez, Yanely <Ya nely.Malave-Velez@nrc.gov>

Cc: Soto Lugo, Soly <Soly.SotoLugo@nrc.gov>; Philip, Jacob <Jacob.Philip@nrc.gov>; Lehman, Bryce

<Bryce.Lehman @nrc.gov>; Colaccino, Joseph <Joseph.Colaccino@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: SRM-SECY-18-0036: Denial of Petition for Rulemaking Submitted by t he C-10 Research and Education Foundation (PRM-50-109)

Hello Yanely, I reviewed the proposed edits in the SRM. I recommend making the changes as highlighted and commented on pages 13, 15 and 20. The reason for the recommended edits are provided in the comment box therein.

Thanks, George From: Malave-Velez, Yanely Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 2:26 PM To: Philip, Jacob <Jacob.Philip@nrc.gov>; Lehman, Bryce <Bryce. Lehman @nrc.gov>; Thomas, George

<George.Thomas2 @nrc.gov>

Cc: Soto Lugo, Soly <Soly.SotoLugo@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: SRM-SECY-18-0036: Denial of Petition for Rulemaking Submitted by the C-10 Research and Education Foundation (PRM-50-109)

Importance: High Good afternoon Please find below the SRM for the denial of PRM-50-109.

Please let me know by 3pm tomorrow, if you have any concern with the proposed edits.

My apologies for the short-turnaround.

Thanks

~~.~~

Project Manager US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material and Safeguards Division of Rulemaking G:J yanely.malave@nrc.gov

'[, 301-415-1519 From:Bush, Tyesha Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 1:25 PM To: Averbach, Andrew <Andrew.Averbach @nrc.gov>; Baran_Dtstribution <Baran Distribution@nrc.gov>; Blake, Kathleen <Kathleen.Blake @nrc.gov>; Bollwerk, Paul <Paul.Bollwerk@nrc.gov>; Caputo_Distribution

<Ca puto Distribution@nrc.gov>; EDO_ETAs <EDO ETAs@nrc.gov>; Hudson, Sharon <Sharon.Hudson @nrc.gov>;

Jimenez, Patricia <Patricia.Jimenez@nrc.gov>; Mayberry, Theresa <Theresa.Mayberry@nrc.gov>; NRC_0Ds_D0Ds

<NRC ODs DODs @nrc.gov>; OCA Distribution <OCADistribution@nrc.gov>; OPA Resource <OPA.Resource@nrc.gov>;

RldsEdoDraftSrmVote Resource <RidsEdoDraftSrmVote.Resource@nrc.gov>; RidsOcaaMailCenter Resource

<RidsOcaaMailCenter.Resource@nrc.gov>; RidsOcfoMailCenter Resource <RidsOcfoMailCenter.Resource@nrc.gov>;

RidsOgcMailCenter Resource <RidsOgcMailCenter.Resource@nrc.gov>; RidsOigMailCenter Resource

<RidsOigMailCenter.Resource @nrc.gov>; RidsOipMailCenter Resource <RidsOipMailCenter.Resource@nrc.gov>;

4

Spencer, Mary <Mary.Spencer@nrc.gov>; Sprogeris, Patricia <Patricia.Sprogeris@nrc.gov>; Svinicki_Distribution

<Svinicki Distribution@nrc.gov>; Wright_Dlstrlbution <Wright Distribution@nrc.gov>

Cc: Bavol, Rochelle <Rochelle.Bavol @nrc.gov>; Borges Roman, Jennifer <Jennifer.BorgesRoman@nrc.gov>; Chazell, Russell <Russell.Chazell@nrc.gov>; Laufer, Richard <Richard.Laufer@nrc.gov>; McGovern, Denise

<Denise.McGovern@nrc.gov>; NMSS Rulemaking <NMSSRulemaking@nrc.gov>; Shea, Pamela <Pamela.Shea@nrc.gov>;

Sola, Clara <Clara.Sola@nrc.gov>; Whited, Jeffrey <Jeffrey.Whited@nrc.gov>; Khanna, Meena

<Meena.Khanna @nrc.gov>; Lehman, Bryce <Bryce.Lehman@nrc.gov>

Subject:

SRM-SECY-18-0036: Denial of Petition for Rulemaking Submitted by the C-10 Research and Education Foundation (PRM-50-109)

Good afternoon, In an effort to keep the NRC staff informed of Commission decisions in a timely manner, attached for your information is Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) SECY-18-0036: Denial of Petition for Rulemaking Submitted by the C-10 Research and Education Foundation (PRM-50-109) (ADAMS No.: ML192896966),

signed by the Secretary, Wednesday, October 16, 2019. Please make additional distribution to interested staff members in your office.

Please note: This will be released to the public 5 working days after the dispatch of the letter to the Petitioner.

Thank you.

T yesha Y. Bush Program Assistant U.S. N uclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Secretary of the Commission Office: (301)-1*J5- I969 Location: OWFN-16Bl4 5