ML17205A034: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:1NRR-PMDAPEm | {{#Wiki_filter:1NRR-PMDAPEm Resource From:Klett, Audrey Sent:Wednesday, June 28, 2017 3:08 PM To:Wasik, Christopher J; Shingleton, Boyd | ||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
Draft Oconee Public Meeting | Draft Oconee Public Meeting Summary Attachments: | ||
MF9754-56 Oconee Public Meet ing Summary Rev02.docxHi Chris, Hi Boyd, Attached is a draft of the meeting summary. It has not gone through NRC management concurrence yet. If you have any comments or clarifications on how I captured what was discussed during the meeting, please let me know. Please also let me know if it contains any proprietary information. | |||
Thanks, Audrey | |||
Hearing Identifier: NRR_PMDA | Hearing Identifier: NRR_PMDA Email Number: 3616 Mail Envelope Properties (Audrey.Klett@nrc.gov20170628150700) | ||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
Draft Oconee Public Meeting Summary Sent Date: 6/28/2017 3:07:31 PM Received Date: 6/28/2017 3:07:00 PM | Draft Oconee Public Meeting Summary Sent Date: 6/28/2017 3:07:31 PM Received Date: 6/28/2017 3:07:00 PM From: Klett, Audrey Created By: Audrey.Klett@nrc.gov Recipients: "Wasik, Christopher J" <Christopher.Wasik@duke-energy.com> Tracking Status: None "Shingleton, Boyd" <Boyd.Shingleton@duke-energy.com> Tracking Status: None Post Office: Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 332 6/28/2017 3:07:00 PM MF9754-56 Oconee Public Meeting Summary Rev02.docx 38867 Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date: Recipients Received: | ||
LICENSEE: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC FACILITY: Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 | LICENSEE: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC | ||
FACILITY: Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 | |||
==SUBJECT:== | ==SUBJECT:== | ||
SUMMARY OF JUNE 27, 2017, MEETING WITH DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC TO DISCUSS PROPOSED LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST FOR OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 REGARDING THERMAL MARGIN FOR THE STANDBY SHUTDOWN FACILITY (CAC NOS. MF9754, MF9755, AND MF9756) | SUMMARY OF JUNE 27, 2017, MEETING WITH DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC TO DISCUSS PROPOSED LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST FOR OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 REGARDING THERMAL MARGIN FOR THE STANDBY SHUTDOWN FACILITY (CAC NOS. MF9754, MF9755, AND MF9756) | ||
On June 27, 2017, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff held a Category 1 public meeting with representatives from Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (the licensee) at NRC Headquarters, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss a proposed license amendment request regarding thermal margin for the Standby Shutdown Facility (SSF) at the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 (Oconee). The meeting notice and agenda, dated June 14, 2017, are available in NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System under Accession No. ML17165A377. A list of attendees and the meeting presentation material are enclosed. The licensee gave a presentation of its planned license amendment request to modify the Oconee Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). Enclosure 2 of this meeting summary contains the presentation slides, proposed UFSAR changes, and other background information that the licensee provided to the staff. The licensee gave a brief overview of the purpose and requirements of the SSF. The licensee explained that during a review of the SSF in 2011, it identified that an unanalyzed condition exists during some limited operating conditions that exist during startup and shutdown (i.e., in conditions involving lower decay heat) in plant modes when operability of the SSF is required by Technical Specifications. During those conditions, one of the UFSAR success criteria for use of the SSF cannot be met, and the licensee has to declare the SSF inoperable per its Technical Specifications. The licensee proposed to use previously approved thermal-hydraulic methodologies to justify revising the UFSAR success criteria to permit water solid conditions in the pressurizer without water relief through the pressurizer safety valves and to credit ambient losses, makeup, and letdown (after plant modifications to enhance letdown capability) for decay heat removal. The licensee also stated that it wishes to use operation of atmospheric dump valves to enhance SSF event mitigation. The licensee also discussed plant modifications to support SSF capability during a turbine building flooding event. The licensee stated that it was not proposing any changes to the Technical Specifications, including those for the atmospheric dump valves. | |||
On June 27, 2017, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff held a Category 1 public meeting with representatives from Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (the licensee) at NRC Headquarters, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss a proposed license amendment request regarding thermal margin for the Standby Shutdown Facility (SSF) at the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 (Oconee). The meeting notice and agenda, dated June 14, 2017, are available in NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System under Accession No. ML17165A377. A list of attendees and the meeting presentation material are enclosed. | |||
The licensee gave a presentation of its planned license amendment request to modify the Oconee Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). Enclosure 2 of this meeting summary contains the presentation slides, proposed UFSAR changes, and other background information that the licensee provided to the staff. The licensee gave a brief overview of the purpose and requirements of the SSF. The licensee explained that during a review of the SSF in 2011, it identified that an unanalyzed condition exists during some limited operating conditions that exist during startup and shutdown (i.e., in conditions involving lower decay heat) in plant modes when operability of the SSF is required by Technical Specifications. During those conditions, one of the UFSAR success criteria for use of the SSF cannot be met, and the licensee has to declare the SSF inoperable per its Technical Specifications. The licensee proposed to use previously approved thermal-hydraulic methodologies to justify revising the UFSAR success criteria to permit water solid conditions in the pressurizer without water relief through the pressurizer safety valves and to credit ambient losses, makeup, and letdown (after plant modifications to enhance letdown capability) for decay heat removal. The licensee also stated that it wishes to use operation of atmospheric dump valves to enhance SSF event mitigation. The licensee also discussed plant modifications to support SSF capability during a turbine building flooding event. The licensee stated that it was not proposing any changes to the Technical Specifications, including those for the atmospheric dump valves. | |||
The staff asked the licensee questions about its ability to safely shut down the plant during water solid conditions in the reactor coolant system and whether pressurizer safety relief valves were qualified for liquid discharge. The staff also asked the licensee how it intends to use thermal-hydraulic analyses in its justification of the proposed changes. The licensee stated that thermal-hydraulic analyses would be performed using NRC-approved RETRAN-3D models for Oconee, and that the RELAP5/MOD2-B&W analysis will serve as a benchmark of the RETRAN-3D analyses. The intent of the benchmark is to provide additional support for RETRAN-3D analyses that result in water-solid conditions in the pressurizer. The licensee stated it would support a staff audit of such analyses if needed. The staff also asked the licensee whether the bases for any technical specifications requirements (e.g., limiting conditions for operation, surveillance requirements, or completion times) would be affected by the proposed changes. | The staff asked the licensee questions about its ability to safely shut down the plant during water solid conditions in the reactor coolant system and whether pressurizer safety relief valves were qualified for liquid discharge. The staff also asked the licensee how it intends to use thermal-hydraulic analyses in its justification of the proposed changes. The licensee stated that thermal-hydraulic analyses would be performed using NRC-approved RETRAN-3D models for Oconee, and that the RELAP5/MOD2-B&W analysis will serve as a benchmark of the RETRAN-3D analyses. The intent of the benchmark is to provide additional support for RETRAN-3D analyses that result in water-solid conditions in the pressurizer. The licensee stated it would support a staff audit of such analyses if needed. The staff also asked the licensee whether the bases for any technical specifications requirements (e.g., limiting conditions for operation, surveillance requirements, or completion times) would be affected by the proposed changes. | ||
The licensee plans to submit its license amendment request in August 2017 and request the staff to complete its review in 12 to 18 months | The licensee plans to submit its license amendment request in August 2017 and request the staff to complete its review in 12 to 18 months fr om the submittal date. The staff will provide its projected review schedule as part of its acceptance review of the submittal. The staff did not make any regulatory decisions or commitments at the meeting. No members of the public were in attendance at the meeting nor announced over the telephone. | ||
Any inquiries can be directed to Ms. Audrey Klett at 301-415-0489 or Audrey.Klett@nrc.gov. | Any inquiries can be directed to Ms. Audrey Klett at 301-415-0489 or Audrey.Klett@nrc.gov | ||
. | |||
Audrey Klett, Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch II-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation | Audrey Klett, Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch II-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation | ||
Line 45: | Line 52: | ||
: 2. Meeting Presentation Material | : 2. Meeting Presentation Material | ||
cc w/encls: Distribution via Listserv | cc w/encls: Distribution via Listserv | ||
ML17179A347 | |||
*by email OFFICE DORL/LPL2-1/PM DORL/LPL2-1/LA DSS/SRXB/BC* DSS/SNPB/BC* NAME AKlett KGoldstein EOesterle RLukes DATE / /17 / /17 / /17 / /17 OFFICE DSS/SBPB/BC* DSS/STSB/BC (A)* DORL/LPL2-1/BC DORL/LPL2-1/PMNAME RDennig JWhitman MMarkley AKlett DATE / /17 / /17 / /17 / /17 Enclosure 1 LIST OF ATTENDEES JUNE 27, 2017, MEETING WITH DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 PROPOSED LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST REGARDING THERMAL MARGIN FOR THE STANDBY SHUTDOWN FACILITY U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Michael T. Markley Eric Oesterle Reed Anzalone | |||
Robert Beaton | |||
Jerome Bettle Matthew Hamm Audrey Klett, | |||
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Chris Wasik Boyd Shingleton Philip North Greg Byers Adam Bingham | |||
David Wilson Dave Baxter Tracy Saville* | |||
Mark Handrick* | |||
Scott Thomas* | |||
Jeff Abbott* | |||
Lee Kanipe* | Lee Kanipe* | ||
Ken Grayson* Paul Mabry* Tim Brown* | Ken Grayson* | ||
Paul Mabry* | |||
Tim Brown* | |||
Jeremy Moyer* | Jeremy Moyer* | ||
*Participated by phone Enclosure 2 | *Participated by phone Enclosure 2 | ||
Meeting Presentation Material}} | Meeting Presentation Material}} |
Revision as of 18:39, 29 June 2018
ML17205A034 | |
Person / Time | |
---|---|
Site: | Oconee ![]() |
Issue date: | 06/28/2017 |
From: | Klett A L Plant Licensing Branch II |
To: | Wasik C J Duke Energy Carolinas |
References | |
Download: ML17205A034 (7) | |
Text
1NRR-PMDAPEm Resource From:Klett, Audrey Sent:Wednesday, June 28, 2017 3:08 PM To:Wasik, Christopher J; Shingleton, Boyd
Subject:
Draft Oconee Public Meeting Summary Attachments:
MF9754-56 Oconee Public Meet ing Summary Rev02.docxHi Chris, Hi Boyd, Attached is a draft of the meeting summary. It has not gone through NRC management concurrence yet. If you have any comments or clarifications on how I captured what was discussed during the meeting, please let me know. Please also let me know if it contains any proprietary information.
Thanks, Audrey
Hearing Identifier: NRR_PMDA Email Number: 3616 Mail Envelope Properties (Audrey.Klett@nrc.gov20170628150700)
Subject:
Draft Oconee Public Meeting Summary Sent Date: 6/28/2017 3:07:31 PM Received Date: 6/28/2017 3:07:00 PM From: Klett, Audrey Created By: Audrey.Klett@nrc.gov Recipients: "Wasik, Christopher J" <Christopher.Wasik@duke-energy.com> Tracking Status: None "Shingleton, Boyd" <Boyd.Shingleton@duke-energy.com> Tracking Status: None Post Office: Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 332 6/28/2017 3:07:00 PM MF9754-56 Oconee Public Meeting Summary Rev02.docx 38867 Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date: Recipients Received:
LICENSEE: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
FACILITY: Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY OF JUNE 27, 2017, MEETING WITH DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC TO DISCUSS PROPOSED LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST FOR OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 REGARDING THERMAL MARGIN FOR THE STANDBY SHUTDOWN FACILITY (CAC NOS. MF9754, MF9755, AND MF9756)
On June 27, 2017, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff held a Category 1 public meeting with representatives from Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (the licensee) at NRC Headquarters, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss a proposed license amendment request regarding thermal margin for the Standby Shutdown Facility (SSF) at the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 (Oconee). The meeting notice and agenda, dated June 14, 2017, are available in NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System under Accession No. ML17165A377. A list of attendees and the meeting presentation material are enclosed.
The licensee gave a presentation of its planned license amendment request to modify the Oconee Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). Enclosure 2 of this meeting summary contains the presentation slides, proposed UFSAR changes, and other background information that the licensee provided to the staff. The licensee gave a brief overview of the purpose and requirements of the SSF. The licensee explained that during a review of the SSF in 2011, it identified that an unanalyzed condition exists during some limited operating conditions that exist during startup and shutdown (i.e., in conditions involving lower decay heat) in plant modes when operability of the SSF is required by Technical Specifications. During those conditions, one of the UFSAR success criteria for use of the SSF cannot be met, and the licensee has to declare the SSF inoperable per its Technical Specifications. The licensee proposed to use previously approved thermal-hydraulic methodologies to justify revising the UFSAR success criteria to permit water solid conditions in the pressurizer without water relief through the pressurizer safety valves and to credit ambient losses, makeup, and letdown (after plant modifications to enhance letdown capability) for decay heat removal. The licensee also stated that it wishes to use operation of atmospheric dump valves to enhance SSF event mitigation. The licensee also discussed plant modifications to support SSF capability during a turbine building flooding event. The licensee stated that it was not proposing any changes to the Technical Specifications, including those for the atmospheric dump valves.
The staff asked the licensee questions about its ability to safely shut down the plant during water solid conditions in the reactor coolant system and whether pressurizer safety relief valves were qualified for liquid discharge. The staff also asked the licensee how it intends to use thermal-hydraulic analyses in its justification of the proposed changes. The licensee stated that thermal-hydraulic analyses would be performed using NRC-approved RETRAN-3D models for Oconee, and that the RELAP5/MOD2-B&W analysis will serve as a benchmark of the RETRAN-3D analyses. The intent of the benchmark is to provide additional support for RETRAN-3D analyses that result in water-solid conditions in the pressurizer. The licensee stated it would support a staff audit of such analyses if needed. The staff also asked the licensee whether the bases for any technical specifications requirements (e.g., limiting conditions for operation, surveillance requirements, or completion times) would be affected by the proposed changes.
The licensee plans to submit its license amendment request in August 2017 and request the staff to complete its review in 12 to 18 months fr om the submittal date. The staff will provide its projected review schedule as part of its acceptance review of the submittal. The staff did not make any regulatory decisions or commitments at the meeting. No members of the public were in attendance at the meeting nor announced over the telephone.
Any inquiries can be directed to Ms. Audrey Klett at 301-415-0489 or Audrey.Klett@nrc.gov
.
Audrey Klett, Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch II-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-289
Enclosures:
- 1. List of Attendees
- 2. Meeting Presentation Material
cc w/encls: Distribution via Listserv
- by email OFFICE DORL/LPL2-1/PM DORL/LPL2-1/LA DSS/SRXB/BC* DSS/SNPB/BC* NAME AKlett KGoldstein EOesterle RLukes DATE / /17 / /17 / /17 / /17 OFFICE DSS/SBPB/BC* DSS/STSB/BC (A)* DORL/LPL2-1/BC DORL/LPL2-1/PMNAME RDennig JWhitman MMarkley AKlett DATE / /17 / /17 / /17 / /17 Enclosure 1 LIST OF ATTENDEES JUNE 27, 2017, MEETING WITH DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 PROPOSED LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST REGARDING THERMAL MARGIN FOR THE STANDBY SHUTDOWN FACILITY U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Michael T. Markley Eric Oesterle Reed Anzalone
Jerome Bettle Matthew Hamm Audrey Klett,
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Chris Wasik Boyd Shingleton Philip North Greg Byers Adam Bingham
David Wilson Dave Baxter Tracy Saville*
Mark Handrick*
Scott Thomas*
Jeff Abbott*
Lee Kanipe*
Ken Grayson*
Paul Mabry*
Tim Brown*
Jeremy Moyer*
- Participated by phone Enclosure 2
Meeting Presentation Material