ML14058A024: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| issue date = 07/03/2008 | | issue date = 07/03/2008 | ||
| title = E-mail from M. Franovich, NRR to M. Wong, NRR on Query: Draft Pop for July 18th Briefing of Grobe and Boger | | title = E-mail from M. Franovich, NRR to M. Wong, NRR on Query: Draft Pop for July 18th Briefing of Grobe and Boger | ||
| author name = Franovich M | | author name = Franovich M | ||
| author affiliation = NRC/NRR | | author affiliation = NRC/NRR | ||
| addressee name = Olshan L, Wong M | | addressee name = Olshan L, Wong M | ||
| addressee affiliation = NRC/NRR | | addressee affiliation = NRC/NRR | ||
| docket = 05000269, 05000270, 05000287 | | docket = 05000269, 05000270, 05000287 | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:Circle, | {{#Wiki_filter:Circle, Jeff From: | ||
Sent: | |||
To: | |||
Cc: | |||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
Mike Franovich | Mike Franovich \\ | ||
k""\\.. | |||
I've cast my die on where I think we need to be headed given certain constraints. | Thursday, July 03, 2008 4:41 PM Melanie Wong; Leonard Olshan Melanie Galloway; Mark Cunningham; Jeff Circle RE: QUERY: Draft POP for July 18th briefing of Grobe and Boger As is the standard practice in DRA, I will have to run this by the DRA front office. Here are my tentative changes. I've cast my die on where I think we need to be headed given certain constraints. | ||
POP & AGENDA FOR OCONEE FLOOD | POP & AGENDA FOR OCONEE FLOOD BRIEFING On JULY 18, 2008 PURPOSE: Brief Bruce Boger and Jack Grobe on the status of the two optione und"*....y for the Oconee flood issue and the generic efforts OUTCOME: Understanding of staff s current effort and provide guidance on path forward PROCESS: Discuss be4h Oconee options and the generic efforts using the following bullets. | ||
Brief Bruce Boger and Jack Grobe on the status of the two optione for the Oconee flood issue | Agenda: | ||
Understanding of staff s current effort and provide guidance on path | I. itredu-tie,!Brief Background and 50.54(f) Letter for Brucoc ef (Mike Franovich) | ||
Discuss be4h Oconee options and the generic efforts using the following bullets.Agenda:I. itredu-tie,!Brief Background and 50.54(f) | A. | ||
Letter for Brucoc ef (Mike Franovich) | Qpti,,R-1 50.54(f) letter purpose and concurrence status Provides the licensee an opportunity to submit Duke's official position on the Issue Questions whether Oconee adequately protects public health and safety from consequences of failure of Jocassee Dam Cites plant licensing basis that states that Oconee was designed to withstand flooding conditions | ||
A. Qpti,,R-1 50.54(f) letter purpose and concurrence status | § States f,,t Jocassee Dam Failure Inundation btuay inaicates flood heignt or 12. b6 i16.8 reet above grade, which is greater than 5-foot walls around SSF entrances Letter with OGC. Expected uate ot concurrence ??. | ||
§ States f,,t Jocassee Dam Failure Inundation btuay inaicates flood heignt or 12. b6 i16.8 | DORL Division Director, ADRO and ADES remain to concur. | ||
ConcOncuS 6taff opinion profreF this option B. | |||
??. | Regulatory backfit evaluation Option 1 - "Cost justified backfit" that is a substantial increase in safety (cost-benefit analysis) | ||
Preliminary analysis Indicates by*PRA-modifications up to $13 million could be justified 0 | |||
Estimated preliminary cost of modifications (higher walls, water-proof doors, etc.) approximately | |||
$3 million | $3 million Analysis to be completed and initiate management review by July 21 Option 2 - "Adequate protection backfit" may be issued without cost justification OGC provided Insights and discussions regarding adequate protection in regulatory practice and from a Atomic Energy Act perspective Staff are working on a documented adequate protection evalution Option 3 - "Compliance backfit" may be issued without cost justification 0 | ||
NRR has issued this type of backfit recently for D.C. Cook | |||
II. Staius of Generic Aspects and Other Support Efforts Surveyed FSARs and IPEEEs of potentially affected plants to understand scope of issue; Drafted Information Notice regarding Dam failure frequency estimates (Jim Vail, DRA) | |||
Draft Communication Plan (Leonard Olshan) | |||
OGC Backfit training projected in July 2008 (Leonard Olshan) | |||
LIC-504 training was conducted on May 30, 2008 Ill. Recommendations and Path Forward - | |||
Issue 50.54(f) letter Form a backfit review panel - Appoint a chair person; Division Directors and OGC representation on the panel From: Melanie Wong | |||
? 'IL-Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 1:40 PM To: Leonard Olshan Cc: Mike Franovich | |||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
QUERY: Draft POP for July 18th briefing of Grobe and Boger Looks good, Lenny. Let's get some comments from Mike before we send out for comments to tier I team (Kamal, Jake and technical staff). | |||
QUERY: Draft POP for July 18th briefing of Grobe and | MW From: Leonard Olshan | ||
( | |||
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 11:03 AM To: Melanie Wong | |||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
Draft POP for July 18th briefing of Grobe and Boger POP & AGENDA FOR OCONEE FLOOD BRIEFING On JULY 18, 2008 PURPOSE: Brief Bruce Boger and Jack Grobe on the status of the two options underway for the Oconee flood issue and the generic efforts OUTCOME: Understanding of staffs current effort and provide guidance on path forward PROCESS: Discuss both Oconee options and the generic efforts using the following bullets. | |||
Agenda: | |||
I. Introduction/Brief background for Bruce's effort (Mike Franovich) | |||
A. | |||
Option 1 - 50.54(f) letter Questions whether Oconee adequately protects public health and safety from consequences of failure of Jocassee Dam Cites plant licensing basis that states that Oconee was designed to withstand floodinq conditiornc S states that"Jocassie Oam Failure Inundation S0l-,Tn'dicates flood neight ot 12,5 to 16.8 te'-et above grade, which is greater than 5-foot walls around SSF entrances 2 | |||
Consensus staff opinion prefers this option B. | |||
Option 2 - Regulatory backfit analysis (cost-benefit analysis) | |||
Indicates by PRA modifications up to $13 million could be justified Estimates preliminary cost of modifications (higher walls, water-proof doors, etc) $3 million I1. Status of Options A. Option 1 - 50.54(f) letter (Leonard Olshan) | |||
Letter with OGC. Expected date of concurrence ??. | |||
DORL Division Director, ADRO and ADES remain to concur. | |||
B. Option 2 - Regulatory backfit analysis (cost-benefit analysis) (Brian Richter) | |||
Provide certainty to cost estimates Expects analysis to be completed and initiates management reviews the week of July 21st Ill. Status of Generic Efforts Surveyed FSARs and IPEEEs of potentially affected plants to understand scope of issue; Drafted Information Notice (Kamal Manoly) | |||
Draft Communication Plan (Leonard Olshan) | |||
Backfit training projected in July 2008 (Leonard Olshan) 3}} | |||
??. | |||
(Brian Richter) | |||
Latest revision as of 23:00, 10 January 2025
| ML14058A024 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 07/03/2008 |
| From: | Mike Franovich Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Olshan L, Melanie Wong Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML14055A421 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2012-0325 | |
| Download: ML14058A024 (3) | |
Text
Circle, Jeff From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
k""\\..
Thursday, July 03, 2008 4:41 PM Melanie Wong; Leonard Olshan Melanie Galloway; Mark Cunningham; Jeff Circle RE: QUERY: Draft POP for July 18th briefing of Grobe and Boger As is the standard practice in DRA, I will have to run this by the DRA front office. Here are my tentative changes. I've cast my die on where I think we need to be headed given certain constraints.
POP & AGENDA FOR OCONEE FLOOD BRIEFING On JULY 18, 2008 PURPOSE: Brief Bruce Boger and Jack Grobe on the status of the two optione und"*....y for the Oconee flood issue and the generic efforts OUTCOME: Understanding of staff s current effort and provide guidance on path forward PROCESS: Discuss be4h Oconee options and the generic efforts using the following bullets.
Agenda:
I. itredu-tie,!Brief Background and 50.54(f) Letter for Brucoc ef (Mike Franovich)
A.
Qpti,,R-1 50.54(f) letter purpose and concurrence status Provides the licensee an opportunity to submit Duke's official position on the Issue Questions whether Oconee adequately protects public health and safety from consequences of failure of Jocassee Dam Cites plant licensing basis that states that Oconee was designed to withstand flooding conditions
§ States f,,t Jocassee Dam Failure Inundation btuay inaicates flood heignt or 12. b6 i16.8 reet above grade, which is greater than 5-foot walls around SSF entrances Letter with OGC. Expected uate ot concurrence ??.
DORL Division Director, ADRO and ADES remain to concur.
ConcOncuS 6taff opinion profreF this option B.
Regulatory backfit evaluation Option 1 - "Cost justified backfit" that is a substantial increase in safety (cost-benefit analysis)
Preliminary analysis Indicates by*PRA-modifications up to $13 million could be justified 0
Estimated preliminary cost of modifications (higher walls, water-proof doors, etc.) approximately
$3 million Analysis to be completed and initiate management review by July 21 Option 2 - "Adequate protection backfit" may be issued without cost justification OGC provided Insights and discussions regarding adequate protection in regulatory practice and from a Atomic Energy Act perspective Staff are working on a documented adequate protection evalution Option 3 - "Compliance backfit" may be issued without cost justification 0
NRR has issued this type of backfit recently for D.C. Cook
II. Staius of Generic Aspects and Other Support Efforts Surveyed FSARs and IPEEEs of potentially affected plants to understand scope of issue; Drafted Information Notice regarding Dam failure frequency estimates (Jim Vail, DRA)
Draft Communication Plan (Leonard Olshan)
OGC Backfit training projected in July 2008 (Leonard Olshan)
LIC-504 training was conducted on May 30, 2008 Ill. Recommendations and Path Forward -
Issue 50.54(f) letter Form a backfit review panel - Appoint a chair person; Division Directors and OGC representation on the panel From: Melanie Wong
? 'IL-Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 1:40 PM To: Leonard Olshan Cc: Mike Franovich
Subject:
QUERY: Draft POP for July 18th briefing of Grobe and Boger Looks good, Lenny. Let's get some comments from Mike before we send out for comments to tier I team (Kamal, Jake and technical staff).
MW From: Leonard Olshan
(
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 11:03 AM To: Melanie Wong
Subject:
Draft POP for July 18th briefing of Grobe and Boger POP & AGENDA FOR OCONEE FLOOD BRIEFING On JULY 18, 2008 PURPOSE: Brief Bruce Boger and Jack Grobe on the status of the two options underway for the Oconee flood issue and the generic efforts OUTCOME: Understanding of staffs current effort and provide guidance on path forward PROCESS: Discuss both Oconee options and the generic efforts using the following bullets.
Agenda:
I. Introduction/Brief background for Bruce's effort (Mike Franovich)
A.
Option 1 - 50.54(f) letter Questions whether Oconee adequately protects public health and safety from consequences of failure of Jocassee Dam Cites plant licensing basis that states that Oconee was designed to withstand floodinq conditiornc S states that"Jocassie Oam Failure Inundation S0l-,Tn'dicates flood neight ot 12,5 to 16.8 te'-et above grade, which is greater than 5-foot walls around SSF entrances 2
Consensus staff opinion prefers this option B.
Option 2 - Regulatory backfit analysis (cost-benefit analysis)
Indicates by PRA modifications up to $13 million could be justified Estimates preliminary cost of modifications (higher walls, water-proof doors, etc) $3 million I1. Status of Options A. Option 1 - 50.54(f) letter (Leonard Olshan)
Letter with OGC. Expected date of concurrence ??.
DORL Division Director, ADRO and ADES remain to concur.
B. Option 2 - Regulatory backfit analysis (cost-benefit analysis) (Brian Richter)
Provide certainty to cost estimates Expects analysis to be completed and initiates management reviews the week of July 21st Ill. Status of Generic Efforts Surveyed FSARs and IPEEEs of potentially affected plants to understand scope of issue; Drafted Information Notice (Kamal Manoly)
Draft Communication Plan (Leonard Olshan)
Backfit training projected in July 2008 (Leonard Olshan) 3