ML16055A333
| ML16055A333 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba, McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 03/01/2016 |
| From: | Geoffrey Miller Plant Licensing Branch II |
| To: | Capps S Duke Energy Carolinas |
| Miller G, NRR/DORL/LPL2-1, 415-2481 | |
| References | |
| TAC MF7224, TAC MF7225, TAC MF7226, TAC MF7227 | |
| Download: ML16055A333 (5) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 March 1, 2016 Mr. Steven D. Capps Vice President McGuire Nuclear Station Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 12700 Hagers Ferry Road Huntersville, NC 28078
SUBJECT:
MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 AND CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1AND2 - SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION NEEDED FOR ACCEPTANCE OF REQUESTED LICENSING ACTION RE: LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST FOR CONTROL ROOM CHILLED WATER SYSTEM TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS (TAC NOS. MF7224, MF7225, MF7226, AND MF7227)
Dear Mr. Capps:
By letter dated January 7, 2016, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke or the licensee), submitted a license amendment request for McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (MNS 1 and 2) and Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (CNS 1 and 2). The proposed amendment would modify the Control Room Area Chilled Water System Technical Specifications to allow a finite time to address a loss of both trains provided Control Room temperature remains below 90°F.
The purpose of this letter is to provide the results of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff's acceptance review of this amendment request. The acceptance review was performed to determine if there is sufficient technical information in scope and depth to allow the NRC staff to complete its detailed technical review. The acceptance review was also intended to identify whether the application has any readily apparent information insufficiencies in its characterization of the regulatory requirements or the licensing basis of the plant.
Consistent with Section 50.90 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), an amendment to the license (including the technical specifications) must fully describe the changes requested, and following as far as applicable, the form prescribed for original applications. 10 CFR 50.34 addresses the content of technical information required. This section stipulates that the submittal address the design and operating characteristics, unusual or novel design features, and principal safety considerations.
The NRC staff has reviewed your application and concluded that the information delineated in the enclosure to this letter is necessary to enable the staff to make an independent assessment regarding the acceptability of the proposed amendment in terms of regulatory requirements and the protection of public health and safety and the environment.
In order to make the application complete, the NRC staff requests that Duke supplement the application to address the information identified in the enclosure by March 17, 2016. This will enable the NRC staff to begin its detailed technical review. If information responsive to the NRC staff's request is not received by the above date, the application will not be accepted for review pursuant to 10 CFR 2.101, and the NRC will cease its review activities associated with the
S. Capps application. If the application is subsequently accepted for review, you will be advised of any further information needed to support the staff's detailed technical review by separate correspondence.
The information requested and associated time frame were discussed with Mr. Lee Hentz of your staff on March 1, 2016. A draft version of the information insufficiencies was provided on the same date, to ensure that you were able to include the appropriate technical staff on the call. If you have any questions, please contact me at (301) 415-2481.
Since~ly( . }
D'""J/1-1 G. Edward Miller, Project Plant Licensing Branch 2-1 M~ager Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-369, 50-370, 50-413, and 50-414
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/encl: Distribution via ListServ
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION NEEDED LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST CONTROL ROOM AREA CHILLED WATER SYSTEM DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-369 AND 50-370 CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-413 AND 50-414 By letter dated January 7, 2016 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML16029A077), Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke or the licensee), submitted a license amendment request for McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (MNS 1 and 2) and Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (CNS 1 and 2). The proposed amendment would modify the Control Room Area Chilled Water System Technical Specifications to allow a finite time to address a loss of both trains provided Control Room temperature remains below 90°F.
The NRC staff has reviewed your application and concluded that the information delineated below is necessary to enable the staff to make an independent assessment regarding the acceptability of the proposed amendment in terms of regulatory requirements and the protection of public health and safety and the environment.
For MNS and CNS:
- 1. With both trains of the Control Room Area Chilled Water System inoperable, the effects of heat stress due to the rising temperature, under some circumstances, may impede the operators' ability to take actions required to safely operate the nuclear power unit. From a human factors perspective, please describe any effects that the proposed change may have on the control room operators. In this description, include a justification that any impacted persons will still be able to successfully perform their job role.
- 2. The submittal indicates that the current licensed design temperature of the Control Room equipment is 90°F or less, verified every 12 hours0.5 days <br />0.0714 weeks <br />0.0164 months <br />. This value was determined assuming that at least one train of the Control Room Area Chilled Water System was available for active removal of heat. When in the proposed Condition B, the ability to remove heat from the Control Room would be significantly reduced. Although it appears that the increased frequency of verification of Control Room temperature (i.e., every 4 hours0.167 days <br />0.0238 weeks <br />0.00548 months <br />) is meant to account for this, the submittal does not address why it is adequate.
Please provide a quantitative justification for the 4 hour4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> surveillance interval and how the 90°F limit remains valid given potentially increased Control Room heat-up rates.
Enclosure
For CNS:
- 3. The submittal indicates that the current licensed design temperature of the Control Room equipment is 90°F or less. The submittal also indicates that, while the temperature control band for MNS is 75°F to 90°F, the band for CNS is 72°F to 85°F.
Please clarify the apparent discrepancy between the CNS licensing basis and system design.
ML16055A333 *Via E-mail OFFICE DORL/LPL2-1 /PM DORL/LPL2-1 /LA DSS/STSB/BC* DSS/SCVB/BC* DE/El CB/BC*
RDennig MWaters NAME GEMiller SFigueroa RElliott (RKaripieni for)
DATE 3/1/2016 2/25/2016 2/26/2016 2/26/2016 2/26/2016 OFFICE DRA/APHB/LA* DORL/LPL2-1 /BC DORL/LPL2-1 /PM NAME SWeerakkody MMarkley GE Miller DATE 2/26/2016 3/1/2016 3/1/2016