ML19308B398
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| ML19308B398 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/04/2019 |
| From: | Division of Operating Reactor Licensing |
| To: | |
| Venkataraman B, 415-2934 | |
| References | |
| Download: ML19308B398 (1) | |
Text
COM 106 Technical Assistance Request (TAR) Process-Table Top example discussion thought process template (Use this template with the Powerpoint Slides and the TAR Action Step Summary included with the notice)
- 1. Hypothetical Plant X-Issue Summary Example A licensee has implemented continuous long-term operation of a single train of the Residual Heat Removal (RHR) system in the Suppression Pool Cooling (SPC) mode to mitigate the impact of safety relief valve (SRV) leakage. In this configuration, if the plant were to experience a loss of offsite power (LOOP) followed shortly by a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA), a water hammer induced failure could occur in the train aligned for SPC. Licensee1 contends that LOOP coincident with LOCA, is not within plant X license basis and no action is required to demonstrate acceptable loading or to preclude a water hammer event within the RHR system in SPC mode. Inspectors believe this scenario is within the plants license basis, and the safety significance cannot be confirmed to be of very low safety significance using the NRC Significance Determination Process, so the issue is documented as an unresolved item (URI) in an NRC inspection report. The inspector works with his branch chief and reaches out to NRR to process a TAR and submits an intake form.
- 2. What is the proposed unresolved question documented in the intake form?
Example: Is the licensee required by 10 CFR 50.71(e) to update to the plants Safety Analysis Report, to define a "short operational period" limit for the SPC mode of RHR as described in the design basis Code for the RHR piping systems?
- 3. What are the supporting facts gathered in the intake phase in the intake form? (See Slide #
24 for what an intake form does)
- 4. What inputs did the external stakeholders provide in the intake phase? Was there a differing view? How did the requestor record it in the intake form?
- 5. How did the issue meet the TAR acceptance criteria (Slides 21, 22, 23)?
- 6. How was the issue referred to the Screening & Evaluation(S&E) phase?
- 7. How was the question reframed in the S&E phase?
Example: Does the Plant X licensing basis have a specific requirement for a short operational period limit in the SPC mode of the RHR?
- 8. How was safety significance assessed and what were the results and how were the results used?
- 9. What did the integrated team (IT) do with the facts collected and how did it determine the licensing basis standing of the issue and which facts were true?
- 10. How was the external stakeholder engaged in the S&E phase?
- 11. How were recommendations made by the integrated team?
- 12. Did the issue go to the in-depth review phase? Why or why not?
- 13. What is the licensees role in the in-depth review phase?
- 14. How does TAR provide a fact-based response or recommendations?
1 Assumption: Licensee provides informal position paper to the requestor