ML102180013

Electronic Transmission, Draft Request for Additional Information Regarding License Amendment Request Related to Containment Emergency Air Cleanup System

ML102180013
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	08/05/2010
From:	Geoffrey Miller Plant Licensing Branch 1
To:	Chernoff H Plant Licensing Branch 1
Miller G, NRR/DORL, 415-2481
References
TAC ME3988
Download: ML102180013 (3)

Text

August 5, 2010 MEMORANDUM TO: Harold K. Chernoff, Chief Plant Licensing Branch I-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM: G. Edward Miller, Project Manager /ra/

Plant Licensing Branch I-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT:

SEABROOK STATION, UNIT NO. 1 - ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION, DRAFT REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST RELATED TO CONTAINMENT EMERGENCY AIR CLEANUP SYSTEM (TAC NO. ME3988)

The attached draft request for additional information (RAI) was provided via electronic transmission on August 5, 2010 to Mr. Michael OKeefe, at NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC (NextEra). This draft RAI was transmitted to facilitate the technical review being conducted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff and to support a conference call with Exelon in order to clarify the licensees amendment request dated May 14, 2010 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML101390041), to create a requirement that if both trains of the Containment Enclosure Emergency Air Cleanup System are inoperable, at least one train must be returned to operable status within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. The draft questions were sent to ensure that they were understandable, the regulatory basis was clear, and to determine if the information was previously docketed. Additionally, review of the draft RAI would allow Exelon to evaluate and agree upon a schedule to respond to the RAI. This memorandum and the attachment do not represent an NRC staff position.

Docket Nos. 50-443

Enclosure:

As stated

ML102180013 LPLI-2/PM NAME GEMiller DATE 8/5/10 DRAFT REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SEABROOK STATION, UNIT NO. 1 LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST CONTAINMENT ENCLOSURE EMERGENCY AIR CLEANUP SYSTEM DOCKET NO. 50-443 By letter dated May 14, 2010 (Agencywide Document Access and Management System Accession No. ML101390041), Exelon Generation Company (Exelon or the licensee) requested an amendment to Technical Specification (TS) 3.5.6.1, Containment Enclosure Emergency Air Cleanup System, for the Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1 (Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1).

Specifically, the proposed change would insert a requirement that if both trains of the system are inoperable, at least one train must be returned to operable status within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> or begin a shutdown of the reactor. Currently, since there are no limiting conditions for operation proscribed actions in the event two trains are inoperable, TS 3.0.3 requires shutdown within 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />. To complete its review, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff needs the following information.

1. The application cites TSTF-287-A as a supporting basis for allowing the intermittent opening of the containment enclosure under administrative control. The NRC staff does not concur that TSTF-287-A is applicable to opening of boundaries such as the containment enclosure. Provide an independent justification for addition of this note in the Seabrook TSs.

2. Page 5 of Attachment 1, Paragraph 1 states that for entry and exit through doors, the administrative control of the opening is performed by the person(s) entering or exiting the area. Please describe the actual actions these person(s) will be taking as part of the administrative control while passing through the doors. Include a discussion of the method of informing the control room operators that the containment was or will be intermittently opened and confirming it was rapidly and appropriately closed.

3. Page 5 of Attachment 1, Paragraph 1 discusses stationed individuals for monitoring openings other than doors. Please indicate whether a dedicated individual will be stationed at each opening or if a single individual will be assigned to monitor multiple openings.

4. Justify that the administrative control of openings in the containment enclosure building will not impact the results of any dose analyses that assume a leak-tight containment enclosure with respect to both offsite and control room dose.

Enclosure