ML16215A097

Email - McGuire Units 1 and 2: Acceptance REVIEW- LAR for TS 3.6.14, Divider Barrier Integrity - Hatch to Be Open for Up to 48 Hours

ML16215A097
Person / Time
Site:	McGuire, Mcguire
Issue date:	08/01/2016
From:	V Sreenivas Plant Licensing Branch II
To:	Capps S Duke Energy Corp
Sreenivas, V, NRR/DORL/LPLII-1, 415-2597
References
CAC MF8058, CAC MF8059
Download: ML16215A097 (1)

Text

From: Sreenivas, V Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 3:20 PM To: steven.Capps@duke-energy.com Cc: Robertson, Jeffrey N; Richards, Brian H; Vu, Phong T; Murphy, George M; Miller, Ed; Woodyatt, Diana

Subject:

McGuire Units 1 and 2: ACCEPTANCE REVIEW- LAR for TS 3.6.14, Divider Barrier Integrity - Hatch to be Open for up to 48 hours2 days <br />0.286 weeks <br />0.0658 months <br /> (CAC Nos. MF8058 and MF8059)

By letter dated June 30, 2016 (Agencywide Documents and Access Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML16193A656), Duke Energy (the licensee) requested to modify existing Technical Specification 3.6.14 to allow a steam generator enclosure hatch or a pressurizer enclosure hatch to be open for up to 48 hours2 days <br />0.286 weeks <br />0.0658 months <br /> to facilitate potential inspections and maintenance and to enhance personnel and radiation safety.

The purpose of this e-mail is to provide the results of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staffs acceptance review of this relief 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 is 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.

The NRC staff has reviewed the submittal and concluded that it does provide technical information in sufficient detail to enable the NRC staff to complete its detailed technical review and make an independent assessment regarding the acceptability of the proposed request in terms of regulatory requirements and the protection of public health and safety and the environment. Given the lesser scope and depth of the acceptance review as compared to the detailed technical review, there may be instances in which issues that impact the NRC staffs ability to complete the detailed technical review are identified despite completion of an adequate acceptance review. If additional information is needed, you will be advised by separate correspondence.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

V. Sreenivas, Ph.D., CPM.,

Project Manager NRR/DORL/LPL2-1 301-415-2597