RA-19-0004, Response to NRC for Additional Information (RAI) Regarding License Amendment Request Proposing Changes to the Technical Specifications 3.8.1 for Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter: | {{#Wiki_filter:6WHYH6QLGHU | ||
6&KXUFK6WUHHW | |||
&KDUORWWH1& | |||
0DLOLQJ$GGUHVV | 0DLOLQJ$GGUHVV | ||
(&+32%R[ | (&+32%R[ | ||
&KDUORWWH1& | |||
6WHYH6QLGHU#GXNHHQHUJ\FRP | 6WHYH6QLGHU#GXNHHQHUJ\\FRP | ||
6HULDO5$ | |||
6HULDO5$ | |||
&)5 | |||
0DUFK | 0DUFK | ||
861XFOHDU5HJXODWRU\&RPPLVVLRQ | 861XFOHDU5HJXODWRU\\&RPPLVVLRQ | ||
$771'RFXPHQW&RQWURO'HVN | |||
:DVKLQJWRQ'& | :DVKLQJWRQ'& | ||
&$7$:%$18&/($567$7,2181,7126$1' | |||
'2&.(7126$1' | |||
5(1(:('/,&(16(12613)$1'13) | 5(1(:('/,&(16(12613)$1'13) | ||
0&*8,5(18&/($567$7,2181,7126$1' | 0&*8,5(18&/($567$7,2181,7126$1' | ||
'2&.(7126$1' | |||
5(1(:('/,&(16(12613)$1'13) | 5(1(:('/,&(16(12613)$1'13) | ||
68%-(&7 5(63216(7215&5(48(67)25$'',7,21$/,1)250$7,21 5$, | 68%-(&7 | ||
5(63216(7215&5(48(67)25$'',7,21$/,1)250$7,215$, | |||
5(*$5',1*/,&(16($0(1'0(175(48(67352326,1*&+$1*(672 | 5(*$5',1*/,&(16($0(1'0(175(48(67352326,1*&+$1*(672 | ||
7+(7(&+1,&$/63(&,),&$7,216)25&$7$:%$18&/($5 | 7+(7(&+1,&$/63(&,),&$7,216)25&$7$:%$18&/($5 | ||
67$7,218QLWVDQG | 67$7,218QLWVDQG | ||
5()(5(1&(6 | 5()(5(1&(6 | ||
'XNH(QHUJ\\OHWWHU/LFHQVH$PHQGPHQW5HTXHVW3URSRVLQJ&KDQJHVWR&DWDZEDDQG | |||
0F*XLUH7HFKQLFDO6SHFLILFDWLRQ³$&6RXUFHV2SHUDWLQJ'GDWHG0D\ | 0F*XLUH7HFKQLFDO6SHFLILFDWLRQ³$&6RXUFHV2SHUDWLQJ'GDWHG0D\\ | ||
$'$06$FFHVVLRQ1R0/$ | |||
'XNH(QHUJ\\OHWWHU6XSSOHPHQWWR/LFHQVH$PHQGPHQW5HTXHVW3URSRVLQJ&KDQJHVWR | |||
&DWDZEDDQG0F*XLUH7HFKQLFDO6SHFLILFDWLRQ³$&6RXUFHV2SHUDWLQJ'GDWHG | |||
-XO\\$'$06$FFHVVLRQ1R0/4 | |||
'XNH(QHUJ\\OHWWHU6XSSOHPHQWWR/LFHQVH$PHQGPHQW5HTXHVW3URSRVLQJ&KDQJHVWR | |||
&DWDZEDDQG0F*XLUH7HFKQLFDO6SHFLILFDWLRQ³$&6RXUFHV2SHUDWLQJ'GDWHG | |||
1RYHPEHU $'$06$FFHVVLRQ1R0/$ | 1RYHPEHU$'$06$FFHVVLRQ1R0/$ | ||
'XNH(QHUJ\\OHWWHU6XSSOHPHQWWR/LFHQVH$PHQGPHQW5HTXHVW3URSRVLQJ&KDQJHVWR | |||
&DWDZEDDQG0F*XLUH7HFKQLFDO6SHFLILFDWLRQ³$&6RXUFHV+/-2SHUDWLQJ'GDWHG | |||
2FWREHU $'$06$FFHVVLRQ1RV0/$ | 2FWREHU$'$06$FFHVVLRQ1RV0/$ | ||
15&(0DLO5HTXHVWIRU$GGLWLRQDO,QIRUPDWLRQ+/-&DWDZED1XFOHDU6WDWLRQ8QLWVDQG | |||
+/-(636/$5GDWHG-DQXDU\\$'$06$FFHVVLRQ1R0/$ | |||
( ~ DUKE ENERGY | |||
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission RA-19-0004 | U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission RA-19-0004 | ||
| Line 80: | Line 83: | ||
Ladies and Gentlemen: | Ladies and Gentlemen: | ||
In Reference 1, as supplemented by References 2, 3, and 4, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy) submitted a License Amendment Request (LAR) for Catawba Nuclear Station (CNS), Units 1 and 2. The proposed change would extend the Completion Time for an inoperable diesel generator in Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.1, AC Sources - Operating at the station. The proposed change would also alter the AC power source operability requirements for the Nuclear Service Water System (NSWS), Control Room Area Ventilation System (CRAVS), Control Room Area Chilled Water System (CRACWS) and Auxiliary Building Filtered Ventilation Exhaust System (ABFVES) (i.e., shared systems). | In Reference 1, as supplemented by References 2, 3, and 4, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy) submitted a License Amendment Request (LAR) for Catawba Nuclear Station (CNS), Units 1 and 2. The proposed change would extend the Completion Time for an inoperable diesel generator in Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.1, AC Sources - Operating at the station. The proposed change would also alter the AC power source operability requirements for the Nuclear Service Water System (NSWS), Control Room Area Ventilation System (CRAVS), Control Room Area Chilled Water System (CRACWS) and Auxiliary Building Filtered Ventilation Exhaust System (ABFVES) (i.e., shared systems). | ||
By correspondence dated January 9, 2019 (Reference 5), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff requested additional information from Duke Energy that is needed to complete the LAR review. provides Duke Energys response to the NRC RAI. Attachment 2 contains proposed markups of CNS TS 3.8.1, which supersede all previous submittals. Attachment 3 contains proposed markups of CNS TS 3.8.1 Bases, which supersede all previous submittals. provides the comprehensive list of regulatory commitments that are associated with the LAR. Attachments 5 and 6 contain proposed markups of the CNS Renewed Facility Operating License (FOL) for Units 1 and 2, respectively. Commitment numbers 4 and 10 have been added to the CNS FOL markups as proposed license conditions. The proposed CNS TS 3.7.8 Bases provided in the October 8, 2018 letter (Reference 4) are still valid. The proposed CNS TS Bases 3.8.2, 3.7.10, 3.7.11, and 3.7.12 provided in the May 2, 2017 letter (Reference | By correspondence dated January 9, 2019 (Reference 5), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff requested additional information from Duke Energy that is needed to complete the LAR review. | ||
: 1) are also still valid. provides a supplement to the McGuire Nuclear Station (MNS), Units 1 and 2 letter in reference 6. The Attachment 7 supplement provides proposed markups of the MNS Renewed Facility Operating License (FOL) for both units, a comprehensive list of MNS regulatory commitments that are associated with the LAR, and additional information regarding PRA model changes and ESPS diesel generator (DG) failure rates. Commitment Numbers 4 and 10 have been added to the MNS FOL markups as proposed license conditions. Attachment 8 contains proposed markups of the MNS TS 3.8.1 Bases, which supersedes all previous submittals. | provides Duke Energys response to the NRC RAI. Attachment 2 contains proposed markups of CNS TS 3.8.1, which supersede all previous submittals. Attachment 3 contains proposed markups of CNS TS 3.8.1 Bases, which supersede all previous submittals. provides the comprehensive list of regulatory commitments that are associated with the LAR. Attachments 5 and 6 contain proposed markups of the CNS Renewed Facility Operating License (FOL) for Units 1 and 2, respectively. Commitment numbers 4 and 10 have been added to the CNS FOL markups as proposed license conditions. The proposed CNS TS 3.7.8 Bases provided in the {{letter dated|date=October 8, 2018|text=October 8, 2018 letter}} (Reference 4) are still valid. The proposed CNS TS Bases 3.8.2, 3.7.10, 3.7.11, and 3.7.12 provided in the {{letter dated|date=May 2, 2017|text=May 2, 2017 letter}} (Reference | ||
: 1) are also still valid. | |||
provides a supplement to the McGuire Nuclear Station (MNS), Units 1 and 2 letter in reference 6. The Attachment 7 supplement provides proposed markups of the MNS Renewed Facility Operating License (FOL) for both units, a comprehensive list of MNS regulatory commitments that are associated with the LAR, and additional information regarding PRA model changes and ESPS diesel generator (DG) failure rates. Commitment Numbers 4 and 10 have been added to the MNS FOL markups as proposed license conditions. Attachment 8 contains proposed markups of the MNS TS 3.8.1 Bases, which supersedes all previous submittals. | |||
The conclusions of the original No Significant Hazards Consideration and Environmental Consideration in the original LAR are unaffected by this RAI response. | The conclusions of the original No Significant Hazards Consideration and Environmental Consideration in the original LAR are unaffected by this RAI response. | ||
In accordance with 10 CFR 50.91, Duke Energy is notifying the states of North Carolina and South Carolina of this LAR by transmitting a copy of this letter and attachments to the designated state official. Should you have any questions concerning this letter, or require additional information, please contact Art Zaremba, Manager - Nuclear Fleet Licensing, at 980-373-2062. | In accordance with 10 CFR 50.91, Duke Energy is notifying the states of North Carolina and South Carolina of this LAR by transmitting a copy of this letter and attachments to the designated state official. Should you have any questions concerning this letter, or require additional information, please contact Art Zaremba, Manager - Nuclear Fleet Licensing, at 980-373-2062. | ||
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission RA-19-0004 I ~ | U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission RA-19-0004 I ~lare under penalty of J)erjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on o..rc.h, "?, cl_61C\\, | ||
Sincerely, Steve Snider Vice President, Nuclear Engineering NDE Attachments: | Sincerely, Steve Snider Vice President, Nuclear Engineering NDE Attachments: | ||
: 1. Response to NRC Request for Additional | : 1. Response to NRC Request for Additional Information | ||
: 2. Revised Catawba Technical Specification 3.8.1 Marked Up Pages | : 2. Revised Catawba Technical Specification 3.8.1 Marked Up Pages | ||
: 3. Revised Catawba Technical Specification | : 3. Revised Catawba Technical Specification Bases 3.8.1 Marked Up Pages | ||
: 4. Catawba Regulatory Commitments | : 4. Catawba Regulatory Commitments | ||
: 5. Markup of Proposed Renewed Facility Operating License - CNS Unit 1 | : 5. Markup of Proposed Renewed Facility Operating License - CNS Unit 1 | ||
: 6. Markup of Proposed Renewed Facility Operating License - CNS Unit 2 | : 6. Markup of Proposed Renewed Facility Operating License - CNS Unit 2 | ||
: 7. McGuire Nuclear Station Supplemental Information | : 7. McGuire Nuclear Station Supplemental Information | ||
: 8. Revised McGuire Technical Specification | : 8. Revised McGuire Technical Specification Bases 3.8.1 Marked Up Pages | ||
861XFOHDU5HJXODWRU\&RPPLVVLRQ | 861XFOHDU5HJXODWRU\\&RPPLVVLRQ | ||
5$ | 5$ | ||
&+DQH\5HJLRQDO$GPLQLVWUDWRU8615&5HJLRQ,, | |||
FF | |||
DOOZLWK$WWDFKPHQWVXQOHVVRWKHUZLVHQRWHG | |||
&+DQH\\5HJLRQDO$GPLQLVWUDWRU8615&5HJLRQ,, | |||
-'$XVWLQ8615&6HQLRU5HVLGHQW,QVSHFWRU | -'$XVWLQ8615&6HQLRU5HVLGHQW,QVSHFWRU | ||
00DKRQH\1553URMHFW0DQDJHU | 00DKRQH\\1553URMHFW0DQDJHU | ||
/*DUQHU0DQDJHU6&'+(& | /*DUQHU0DQDJHU6&'+(& | ||
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission RA-19-0004 Page | U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission RA-19-0004 Page 1 Response to NRC Request for Additional Information | ||
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission RA-19-0004, Attachment 1 Page 2 NRC Request for Additional Information: | U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission RA-19-0004, Attachment 1 Page 2 NRC Request for Additional Information: | ||
By letter dated May 2, 2017 (Agencywide Documents Access management System (ADAMS) | By {{letter dated|date=May 2, 2017|text=letter dated May 2, 2017}} (Agencywide Documents Access management System (ADAMS) | ||
Accession No. ML17122A116), as supplemented by letters dated July 20, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17201Q132), November 21, 2017 (ADAMS ML17325A588), and October 8, 2018 (ADAMS Accession No. ML18281A010), Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy, the licensee), requested an amendment to Renewed License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52 for Catawba Nuclear Station (Catawba), Units 1 and 2. The proposed amendment would revise the Catawba Technical Specifications (TS) 3.8.1, AC [Alternating Current] Sources - Operating, to allow the extension of the Completion Time (CT) for an inoperable diesel generator (DG) from 72 hours to 14 days, and to ensure that at least one train of shared components has an operable emergency power supply. The proposed changes to TS 3.8.1 in the October 8, 2018 letter superseded the proposed TS 3.8.1 changes in all other letters. | Accession No. ML17122A116), as supplemented by letters dated July 20, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17201Q132), November 21, 2017 (ADAMS ML17325A588), and October 8, 2018 (ADAMS Accession No. ML18281A010), Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy, the licensee), requested an amendment to Renewed License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52 for Catawba Nuclear Station (Catawba), Units 1 and 2. The proposed amendment would revise the Catawba Technical Specifications (TS) 3.8.1, AC [Alternating Current] Sources - Operating, to allow the extension of the Completion Time (CT) for an inoperable diesel generator (DG) from 72 hours to 14 days, and to ensure that at least one train of shared components has an operable emergency power supply. The proposed changes to TS 3.8.1 in the {{letter dated|date=October 8, 2018|text=October 8, 2018 letter}} superseded the proposed TS 3.8.1 changes in all other letters. | ||
The proposed TS changes in the October 8, 2018 letter would revise Catawba TS 3.8.1 by adding 1) new LCOs for the opposite unit AC power sources to supply power for the required shared systems; 2) new Required Actions (RAs) and CTs associated with Condition B (inoperable DG); and 3) new Conditions and associated RAs and CTs to address new the LCOs for shared systems. To support the 14-day extended CT request, Catawba will add a supplemental AC power source (i.e., two supplemental diesel generators (SDGs) per station) with the capability to power any emergency bus. The SDGs will have the capacity to bring the affected unit to cold shutdown. The supplemental AC power source will be referred to as the Emergency Supplemental Power Source (ESPS). | The proposed TS changes in the {{letter dated|date=October 8, 2018|text=October 8, 2018 letter}} would revise Catawba TS 3.8.1 by adding 1) new LCOs for the opposite unit AC power sources to supply power for the required shared systems; 2) new Required Actions (RAs) and CTs associated with Condition B (inoperable DG); and 3) new Conditions and associated RAs and CTs to address new the LCOs for shared systems. To support the 14-day extended CT request, Catawba will add a supplemental AC power source (i.e., two supplemental diesel generators (SDGs) per station) with the capability to power any emergency bus. The SDGs will have the capacity to bring the affected unit to cold shutdown. The supplemental AC power source will be referred to as the Emergency Supplemental Power Source (ESPS). | ||
The LAR for Catawba, Units 1 and 2, dated May 2, 2017, states that the proposed change to the TS completion time (CT) has been developed using the risk-informed processes described in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.174, Revision 2, An Approach for Using Probabilistic Risk Assessment in Risk-Informed Decisions on Plant-Specific Changes to the Licensing Basis" ADAMS Accession No. ML100910006), and RG 1.177, Revision 1, An Approach for Plant-Specific, Risk-Informed Decisionmaking: Technical Specifications (ADAMS Accession No. ML100910008). Based on Section 2.3.1 of RG 1.177, the technical adequacy of the probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) must be compatible with the safety implications of the TS change being requested and the role that the PRA plays in justifying that change. The RG 1.177 endorses the guidance provided in RG 1.200, Revision 2, "An Approach for Determining the Technical Adequacy of PRA Results for Risk-Informed Activities (ADAMS Accession No. ML090410014), | The LAR for Catawba, Units 1 and 2, dated May 2, 2017, states that the proposed change to the TS completion time (CT) has been developed using the risk-informed processes described in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.174, Revision 2, An Approach for Using Probabilistic Risk Assessment in Risk-Informed Decisions on Plant-Specific Changes to the Licensing Basis" ADAMS Accession No. ML100910006), and RG 1.177, Revision 1, An Approach for Plant-Specific, Risk-Informed Decisionmaking: Technical Specifications (ADAMS Accession No. ML100910008). Based on Section 2.3.1 of RG 1.177, the technical adequacy of the probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) must be compatible with the safety implications of the TS change being requested and the role that the PRA plays in justifying that change. The RG 1.177 endorses the guidance provided in RG 1.200, Revision 2, "An Approach for Determining the Technical Adequacy of PRA Results for Risk-Informed Activities (ADAMS Accession No. ML090410014), | ||
on PRA technical adequacy. The RG 1.200 describes a peer review process utilizing American Society of Mechanical Engineers/American Nuclear Society (ASME/ANS) PRA standard RA-Sa-2009, "Standard for Level 1/Large Early Release Frequency Probabilistic Risk Assessment for Nuclear Power Plant Applications, Addendum A to RA-S-2008," as one acceptable approach for determining the technical adequacy of the PRA once acceptable consensus approaches or models have been established for evaluations that could influence the regulatory decision. | on PRA technical adequacy. The RG 1.200 describes a peer review process utilizing American Society of Mechanical Engineers/American Nuclear Society (ASME/ANS) PRA standard RA-Sa-2009, "Standard for Level 1/Large Early Release Frequency Probabilistic Risk Assessment for Nuclear Power Plant Applications, Addendum A to RA-S-2008," as one acceptable approach for determining the technical adequacy of the PRA once acceptable consensus approaches or models have been established for evaluations that could influence the regulatory decision. | ||
The NRC staff conducted an audit at Duke Energy offices in Charlotte, North Carolina from May 8 - 10, 2018 (ADAMS Accession No. ML18249A046). The Duke Energy staff was provided a set of audit questions that were discussed during the audit. NRC staff provided a verbal brief to Duke Energy at the end of the audit about what changes it intended to make to audit questions to develop requests for additional information (RAIs). Subsequent to the audit, Duke Energy submitted an LAR supplement, the October 8, 2018, addressing a majority of the Catawba, Units 1 and 2, audit questions. The NRC staff reviewed the material provided in the October 8, 2018 letter and determine that the supplemental information did not address all of the concerns raised during the audit. | The NRC staff conducted an audit at Duke Energy offices in Charlotte, North Carolina from May 8 - 10, 2018 (ADAMS Accession No. ML18249A046). The Duke Energy staff was provided a set of audit questions that were discussed during the audit. NRC staff provided a verbal brief to Duke Energy at the end of the audit about what changes it intended to make to audit questions to develop requests for additional information (RAIs). Subsequent to the audit, Duke Energy submitted an LAR supplement, the October 8, 2018, addressing a majority of the Catawba, Units 1 and 2, audit questions. The NRC staff reviewed the material provided in the {{letter dated|date=October 8, 2018|text=October 8, 2018 letter}} and determine that the supplemental information did not address all of the concerns raised during the audit. | ||
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission RA-19-0004, Attachment 1 Page 3 Regulatory Requirements The NRCs regulatory requirements related to the content of the TS are contained in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) at 10 CFR 50.36. For Limiting Conditions of Operation at 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(i), Limiting conditions for operation are the lowest functional capability or performance levels of equipment required for safe operation of the facility. When a limiting condition for operation of a nuclear reactor is not met, the licensee shall shut down the reactor or follow any remedial action permitted by the technical specifications until the condition can be met, (emphasis added). | U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission RA-19-0004, Attachment 1 Page 3 Regulatory Requirements The NRCs regulatory requirements related to the content of the TS are contained in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) at 10 CFR 50.36. For Limiting Conditions of Operation at 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(i), Limiting conditions for operation are the lowest functional capability or performance levels of equipment required for safe operation of the facility. When a limiting condition for operation of a nuclear reactor is not met, the licensee shall shut down the reactor or follow any remedial action permitted by the technical specifications until the condition can be met, (emphasis added). | ||
| Line 122: | Line 128: | ||
10 CFR, Appendix A of Part 50, General Design Criterion (GDC) 17, Electric Power Systems, requires, in part, that an onsite electric power system and an offsite electric power system be provided to permit functioning of structures, systems, and components important to safety. The safety function for each system (assuming the other system is not functioning) shall be to provide sufficient capacity and capability to assure that (1) specified acceptable fuel design limits and design conditions of the reactor coolant pressure boundary are not exceeded as a result of anticipated operational occurrences and (2) the core is cooled and containment integrity and other vital functions are maintained in the event of postulated accidents. The onsite electric power supplies shall have sufficient independence, redundancy, and testability to perform their safety functions assuming a single failure. | 10 CFR, Appendix A of Part 50, General Design Criterion (GDC) 17, Electric Power Systems, requires, in part, that an onsite electric power system and an offsite electric power system be provided to permit functioning of structures, systems, and components important to safety. The safety function for each system (assuming the other system is not functioning) shall be to provide sufficient capacity and capability to assure that (1) specified acceptable fuel design limits and design conditions of the reactor coolant pressure boundary are not exceeded as a result of anticipated operational occurrences and (2) the core is cooled and containment integrity and other vital functions are maintained in the event of postulated accidents. The onsite electric power supplies shall have sufficient independence, redundancy, and testability to perform their safety functions assuming a single failure. | ||
The NRC staff also considered the following guidance document to evaluate the LAR: | The NRC staff also considered the following guidance document to evaluate the LAR: | ||
Branch Technical Position (BTP) 8-8, "Onsite (Emergency Diesel Generators) and Offsite Power Sources Allowed Outage Time Extensions," was developed to provide guidance to the NRC staff for reviewing license amendment requests for Allowed Outage Time (AOT) or CT extensions for the onsite and offsite power AC sources to perform online maintenance of the power sources. In the May 2, 2017 letter, the licensee stated that the LAR provides a deterministic technical justification for extending the CTs and has been developed using the guidelines established in NUREG-0800, Branch Technical Position (BTP) 8-8. | Branch Technical Position (BTP) 8-8, "Onsite (Emergency Diesel Generators) and Offsite Power Sources Allowed Outage Time Extensions," was developed to provide guidance to the NRC staff for reviewing license amendment requests for Allowed Outage Time (AOT) or CT extensions for the onsite and offsite power AC sources to perform online maintenance of the power sources. In the {{letter dated|date=May 2, 2017|text=May 2, 2017 letter}}, the licensee stated that the LAR provides a deterministic technical justification for extending the CTs and has been developed using the guidelines established in NUREG-0800, Branch Technical Position (BTP) 8-8. | ||
Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.93, Availability of Electric Power Sources, Revision 1, which provides guidelines that the NRC staff considers acceptable when the number of available electric power sources are less than the number of sources required by the limiting conditions for operation (LCOs) for a facility. | Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.93, Availability of Electric Power Sources, Revision 1, which provides guidelines that the NRC staff considers acceptable when the number of available electric power sources are less than the number of sources required by the limiting conditions for operation (LCOs) for a facility. | ||
In order to complete its review, the NRC staff requests the following additional information. | In order to complete its review, the NRC staff requests the following additional information. | ||
Please provide your response to the following requests for additional information (RAIs) within 30 days of the date of this correspondence. | Please provide your response to the following requests for additional information (RAIs) within 30 days of the date of this correspondence. | ||
RAI Safe Shutdown Facility Credit for High Winds Section 4.2 of RG 1.200 states that the LAR should include, [a] discussion of the resolution of the peer review findings and observations that are applicable to the parts of the PRA required for the application. This [discussion] should take the following forms: | RAI Safe Shutdown Facility Credit for High Winds Section 4.2 of RG 1.200 states that the LAR should include, [a] discussion of the resolution of the peer review findings and observations that are applicable to the parts of the PRA required for the application. This [discussion] should take the following forms: | ||
* A discussion of how the PRA model has been changed | * A discussion of how the PRA model has been changed | ||
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission RA-19-0004, Attachment 1 Page 4 | U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission RA-19-0004, Attachment 1 Page 4 | ||
* A justification in the form of a sensitivity study that demonstrates the accident sequences or contributors significant to the application decision were not adversely impacted (remained the same) by the particular issue. , PRA Peer Review Findings and Resolutions, of the LAR provides PRA peer review facts and observations (F&Os) and dispositions for the Catawba PRAs. | * A justification in the form of a sensitivity study that demonstrates the accident sequences or contributors significant to the application decision were not adversely impacted (remained the same) by the particular issue. | ||
, PRA Peer Review Findings and Resolutions, of the LAR provides PRA peer review facts and observations (F&Os) and dispositions for the Catawba PRAs. | |||
Catawba F&O WPR-C3-01 addresses questions about eight model assumptions used in the high winds PRA. The disposition in the LAR for this F&O stated that four assumptions were removed from the analysis and the other four were revised and enhanced. During the May 2018 audit, given that modeling assumptions can have a significant impact on core damage frequency (CDF) and large early release frequency (LERF) results, the staff requested further information about how the assumptions were revised and justification that the revisions resolved the F&O. | Catawba F&O WPR-C3-01 addresses questions about eight model assumptions used in the high winds PRA. The disposition in the LAR for this F&O stated that four assumptions were removed from the analysis and the other four were revised and enhanced. During the May 2018 audit, given that modeling assumptions can have a significant impact on core damage frequency (CDF) and large early release frequency (LERF) results, the staff requested further information about how the assumptions were revised and justification that the revisions resolved the F&O. | ||
The October 8, 2018 supplement, in response to audit Question 01.b, describes how the four remaining assumptions were revised to address the F&O. Regarding Assumption 1 in Appendix A Section B.1 (Revision 0) concerning Standby Shutdown Facility (SSF) accessibility following high wind events, the October 8, 2018 supplement states that the assumption in Revision 0 (i.e., straight line or tornado wind conditions will not prevent access to the SSF after one hour) was enhanced to explain that the duration of the high wind events is expected to be less than one hour, that multiple travel pathways are available for the operators to take to the SSF, and debris from F1 wind events are not expected to block access to the SSF. In contrast, the response to audit Question 14.d states, [m]inimal credit is given in the high winds case for the SSF due to operator action feasibility. Based on these statements, it is unclear to the NRC staff how SSF is credited, including SSF accessibility, in the high winds PRA model used for this application and the basis for the assumed credit. Also, it is unclear whether the treatment of SSF accessibility in the high winds PRA could potentially challenge the risk acceptance guidelines (i.e., key source of uncertainty and assumption in accordance with NUREG-1855, Revision 1). | The October 8, 2018 supplement, in response to audit Question 01.b, describes how the four remaining assumptions were revised to address the F&O. Regarding Assumption 1 in Appendix A Section B.1 (Revision 0) concerning Standby Shutdown Facility (SSF) accessibility following high wind events, the October 8, 2018 supplement states that the assumption in Revision 0 (i.e., straight line or tornado wind conditions will not prevent access to the SSF after one hour) was enhanced to explain that the duration of the high wind events is expected to be less than one hour, that multiple travel pathways are available for the operators to take to the SSF, and debris from F1 wind events are not expected to block access to the SSF. In contrast, the response to audit Question 14.d states, [m]inimal credit is given in the high winds case for the SSF due to operator action feasibility. Based on these statements, it is unclear to the NRC staff how SSF is credited, including SSF accessibility, in the high winds PRA model used for this application and the basis for the assumed credit. Also, it is unclear whether the treatment of SSF accessibility in the high winds PRA could potentially challenge the risk acceptance guidelines (i.e., key source of uncertainty and assumption in accordance with NUREG-1855, Revision 1). | ||
Considering the observations above, the NRC staff requests the following additional information: | Considering the observations above, the NRC staff requests the following additional information: | ||
a) | a) Provide clarification of the assumptions and associated bases for the accessibility to and credit for the SSF for all high winds events (i.e., F1 and higher high winds initiated events for straight winds, hurricanes, and tornados). | ||
b) | b) The treatment of SSF accessibility during high wind events is a source of model uncertainty. Provide qualitative or quantitative justification for why this source of model uncertainty does not change the conclusions of the LAR (e.g., provide description and results of an aggregate sensitivity study in accordance with NUREG-1855, Revision 1; or identify compensatory measures that will be implemented to reduce the risk and provide an assessment of the risk impact of these measures). | ||
Duke Energy RAI-1 Response a) | Duke Energy RAI-1 Response a) The credit for the SSF is extended to F1 and F2 straight-line wind and tornado high wind-initiated events only if an EDG run failure occurs after one hour of successful EDG operation. No credit is taken for the SSF in hurricane events. No credit is taken for the SSF in straight line wind or tornado events higher than F2. Because the SSF is credited | ||
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission RA-19-0004, Attachment 1 Page 5 only in sequences with an initial success of an EDG, all of the SSF PRA functionality is credited, including prevention of a reactor coolant pump seal LOCA (RCPSL). The bases for this assumption is that high wind events are expected to be less than one hour, multiple travel pathways are available for the operators to take to get to the SSF, and debris from F1 and F2 wind events are not expected to block access to the SSF. | U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission RA-19-0004, Attachment 1 Page 5 only in sequences with an initial success of an EDG, all of the SSF PRA functionality is credited, including prevention of a reactor coolant pump seal LOCA (RCPSL). The bases for this assumption is that high wind events are expected to be less than one hour, multiple travel pathways are available for the operators to take to get to the SSF, and debris from F1 and F2 wind events are not expected to block access to the SSF. | ||
Thus, SSF accessibility in F1 and F2 windspeeds is not a significant source of uncertainty. | Thus, SSF accessibility in F1 and F2 windspeeds is not a significant source of uncertainty. | ||
b) | b) An additional sensitivity study was not performed and the current treatment of the SSF accessibility does not change the conclusions of the LAR. The SSF is located in an open area, such that there are multiple pathways from the control room to the SSF. The yard is kept free from debris and storm preparations involve tying down equipment. | ||
Additionally, work control monitors the weather forecasts while scheduling maintenance. | Additionally, work control monitors the weather forecasts while scheduling maintenance. | ||
As described in Commitment 1 (Attachment 4), extended EDG maintenance will not be scheduled if high wind weather is anticipated. As described in section 7.2.3.3 of NUREG-1855 Rev.1, a conservative bias is used in this analysis for crediting the SSF during a high wind initiating event. A conservative assumption is that credit for the SSF is available only for F1 and F2 high wind-initiated events, straight-line winds and tornadoes, after the first hour of the initiating event. This conservative assumption leads to a higher risk estimate than if a more realistic assumption was adopted. | As described in Commitment 1 (Attachment 4), extended EDG maintenance will not be scheduled if high wind weather is anticipated. As described in section 7.2.3.3 of NUREG-1855 Rev.1, a conservative bias is used in this analysis for crediting the SSF during a high wind initiating event. A conservative assumption is that credit for the SSF is available only for F1 and F2 high wind-initiated events, straight-line winds and tornadoes, after the first hour of the initiating event. This conservative assumption leads to a higher risk estimate than if a more realistic assumption was adopted. | ||
RAI ESPS High Wind Fragility Determination The LAR states that Emergency Supplemental Power Source (ESPS) is intended to be the backup power supply for the 4160 volt bus whose emergency diesel generator (EDG) is removed from service and that, by design, the ESPS diesel generators (DGs) can also be readily connected to any of the four 4160 volt busses. The cutset and importance results provided in LAR Tables 7-31 through 7-36 show that crediting the ESPS for high wind events is risk important. Because of the risk importance of the ESPS and that the PRA modeling of the ESPS has not undergone an independent peer review, the NRC staff requires additional information about the modeling of the ESPS. Address the following: | RAI ESPS High Wind Fragility Determination The LAR states that Emergency Supplemental Power Source (ESPS) is intended to be the backup power supply for the 4160 volt bus whose emergency diesel generator (EDG) is removed from service and that, by design, the ESPS diesel generators (DGs) can also be readily connected to any of the four 4160 volt busses. The cutset and importance results provided in LAR Tables 7-31 through 7-36 show that crediting the ESPS for high wind events is risk important. Because of the risk importance of the ESPS and that the PRA modeling of the ESPS has not undergone an independent peer review, the NRC staff requires additional information about the modeling of the ESPS. Address the following: | ||
a) | a) The LAR states in Section 3.5.1, in relation to the Catawba ESPS system description, [a]ll three weather enclosures (along with separately mounted components) will be designed to meet commercial International Building Code (IBC) and ASCE 7-10 criteria, including rain, snow, seismic and wind loading up to 130 mph gusts. Discuss how ESPS is credited for each of the high wind categories and provide justification for this credit. Specifically justify the credit for high wind category F2-2 considering the design wind loading of 130 mph. | ||
b) | b) Section 6.1.5.4 of the LAR states that, conservative straight line, and tornado specific, wind pressure fragilities were developed for the ESPS. It provides further clarification in that, the wind missile fragility values used for ESPS were those developed in the high winds PRA for the Main / Auxiliary transformers. This was based on the fact that these transformers are relatively large, outdoor, electrical equipment, similar to the ESPS system. Provide a more detailed justification that the use of main / auxiliary transformer fragilities is appropriate for the ESPS enclosures. Include in this discussion a description of additional SSCs or features (e.g., concrete walls) that provide additional wind pressure and missile protection to the transformers and the equivalency of these features to those being provided for the ESPS enclosures. | ||
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission RA-19-0004, Attachment 1 Page 6 c) | U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission RA-19-0004, Attachment 1 Page 6 c) The SSF and ESPS wind structure failure rates provided in Tables 7-31 through 7-36 of the LAR appear to demonstrate the ESPS structure is more robust than the SSF structure and are modeled somewhat differently. Table 7-35 of the LAR identifies two different failure probabilities for the ESPS for high wind interval 3-1 (i.e., basic events JESPS_HWP_31, Wind Pressure Failure of ESPS due to High Wind Interval F3-1, with a probability of 2.41E-01, and JESPS_HWT_31, Wind Pressure Failure of ESPS due to Tornado Interval F3-1, with a probability of 6.73E-01). For the SSF structure, however, the wind pressure failure probabilities in Tables 7-31 through 7-36 appear to be the same for straight winds, hurricane, and tornado events for the same high wind category. Provide justification for the different modelling approaches for the ESPS and the SSF. Specifically address the basis for using different failure probabilities for the same ESPS structure and wind category (e.g., JESPS_HWP_31 and JESPS_HWT_31) and the reason the SSF high wind failure rates appear to not make this distinction. Also, discuss the significance of these different modeling approaches. | ||
d) | d) If the response to this RAI results in a change to the high winds PRA model, use the high winds PRA model that incorporates the appropriate and consistent treatment of SSF and ESPS structural failure in the aggregate analysis requested in RAI-13. | ||
Duke Energy RAI-2.a Response The fragility of the ESPS system was assumed to be limited by the failure of the enclosures as their failure would be required before exposing the ESPS equipment to the high winds. The fragility was estimated by using the specified design wind speed and then removing the conservatism due to the safety factors following the guidance of EPRI 3002003107. High-Wind Risk Assessment Guidelines. The fragilities based on the wind intervals are: | Duke Energy RAI-2.a Response The fragility of the ESPS system was assumed to be limited by the failure of the enclosures as their failure would be required before exposing the ESPS equipment to the high winds. The fragility was estimated by using the specified design wind speed and then removing the conservatism due to the safety factors following the guidance of EPRI 3002003107. High-Wind Risk Assessment Guidelines. The fragilities based on the wind intervals are: | ||
Straight Winds - Discretized Failure Probabilities for Ten Wind Speed Intervals for CNS | Straight Winds - Discretized Failure Probabilities for Ten Wind Speed Intervals for CNS Wind Speed Interval Lower Wind Speed (MPH) | ||
Upper Wind Speed (MPH) | |||
F1-1 | Representative Wind Speed By Arithmetic Mean (MPH) | ||
Interval Fragility for Representative Wind Speed Error Factor (EF) | |||
F1-1 73 85 79 1.40E-11 1.23 F1-2 85 98 92 2.03E-08 F1-3 98 112 105 5.57E-06 F2-1 112 126 119 3.40E-04 F2-2 126 141 134 6.51E-03 F2-3 141 157 149 5.38E-02 F3-1 157 177 167 2.41E-01 F3-2 177 206 192 6.51E-01 F4 206 260 233 9.74E-01 F5 260 320 290 1.00E+00 | |||
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission RA-19-0004, Attachment 1 Page 7 Tornado - Discretized Failure Probabilities for Ten Wind Speed Intervals for CNS | U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission RA-19-0004, Attachment 1 Page 7 Tornado - Discretized Failure Probabilities for Ten Wind Speed Intervals for CNS Wind Speed Interval Lower Wind Speed (MPH) | ||
Upper Wind Speed (MPH) | |||
F1-1 | Representative Wind Speed By Arithmetic Mean (MPH) | ||
Interval Fragility for Representative Wind Speed Error Factor (EF) | |||
F1-1 73 85 79 1.17E-06 1.27 F1-2 85 98 92 1.05E-04 F1-3 98 112 105 2.93E-03 F2-1 112 126 119 2.93E-02 F2-2 126 141 134 1.36E-01 F2-3 141 157 149 3.67E-01 F3-1 157 177 167 6.73E-01 F3-2 177 206 192 9.18E-01 F4 206 260 233 9.97E-01 F5 260 320 290 1.00E+00 Therefore, the use of the representative fragilities across the entire high wind hazard curve (including for high wind category F2-2 and greater) for ESPS is acceptable and is in alignment with the high wind PRA used for the evaluation. | |||
This information was provided as part of one of the calculations provided for the onsite audit. | This information was provided as part of one of the calculations provided for the onsite audit. | ||
(Reference Appendix L of calculation CNC-1535.00-00-0218.) The failure of the ESPS system also includes the fragility of the Turbine building to account for electrical distribution equipment required for the ESPS system to supply a Safety Bus. Also note that the missile fragility contribution for ESPS is applied separately and not included in the previous two tables. | (Reference Appendix L of calculation CNC-1535.00-00-0218.) The failure of the ESPS system also includes the fragility of the Turbine building to account for electrical distribution equipment required for the ESPS system to supply a Safety Bus. Also note that the missile fragility contribution for ESPS is applied separately and not included in the previous two tables. | ||
| Line 164: | Line 175: | ||
Given the proximity to the Turbine Building, the ESPS is expected to see a similar missile field as for the Main / Auxiliary Transformers. Additionally, the ESPS design includes weather enclosures which would potentially afford some protection from the missile field and the ESPS cables will be routed to the Turbine Building via trenches rather than exposed as is the case with the Main / Auxiliary Transformers (considered the primary vulnerability for transformers). | Given the proximity to the Turbine Building, the ESPS is expected to see a similar missile field as for the Main / Auxiliary Transformers. Additionally, the ESPS design includes weather enclosures which would potentially afford some protection from the missile field and the ESPS cables will be routed to the Turbine Building via trenches rather than exposed as is the case with the Main / Auxiliary Transformers (considered the primary vulnerability for transformers). | ||
The ESPS high wind pressure fragilities were developed separately and do not rely on the McGuire Main / Auxiliary Transformer fragility values. | The ESPS high wind pressure fragilities were developed separately and do not rely on the McGuire Main / Auxiliary Transformer fragility values. | ||
The assumption of using the McGuire Main / Auxiliary Transformer missile fragility values is conservative and bounding for the Catawba ESPS. | The assumption of using the McGuire Main / Auxiliary Transformer missile fragility values is conservative and bounding for the Catawba ESPS. | ||
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission RA-19-0004, Attachment 1 Page 8 Duke Energy RAI-2.c Response The ESPS high wind fragilities are based only on the required design limits on the weather enclosure and applied as separate factors. The fragilities of the SSF system are based only on the structure housing the equipment and combined into a single fragility for each of the wind hazard intervals. The fragility of the SSF structure is based on the weighted average of various failure modes identified as part of the evaluation of the existing structure and include separate factors for the frame, roof and wall structural elements as well as the louvers. The results of the minor difference in the application of the fragilities are functionally equivalent. The difference between the HWP and HWT fragilities is that tornado loads include a delta pressure due the hazard in addition to the Bernoulli effect lift and drag pressures due to air flowing around and over the structure. | U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission RA-19-0004, Attachment 1 Page 8 Duke Energy RAI-2.c Response The ESPS high wind fragilities are based only on the required design limits on the weather enclosure and applied as separate factors. The fragilities of the SSF system are based only on the structure housing the equipment and combined into a single fragility for each of the wind hazard intervals. The fragility of the SSF structure is based on the weighted average of various failure modes identified as part of the evaluation of the existing structure and include separate factors for the frame, roof and wall structural elements as well as the louvers. The results of the minor difference in the application of the fragilities are functionally equivalent. The difference between the HWP and HWT fragilities is that tornado loads include a delta pressure due the hazard in addition to the Bernoulli effect lift and drag pressures due to air flowing around and over the structure. | ||
| Line 170: | Line 181: | ||
RAI Modeling Alternative Alignments The LAR for Catawba, dated May 2, 2017, states that the proposed change to the TS CT has been developed using the risk-informed processes described in RG 1.174, Revision 2, and RG 1.177, Revision 1. Based on Section 2.3.1 of RG 1.177, the technical adequacy of the PRA must be compatible with the safety implications of the TS change being requested and the role that the PRA plays in justifying that change. RG 1.177 endorses the guidance provided in RG 1.200, Revision 2, on PRA technical adequacy. The RG 1.200 describes a peer review process utilizing ASME/ANS PRA standard RA-Sa-2009 as one acceptable approach for determining the technical adequacy of the PRA once acceptable consensus approaches or models have been established for evaluations that could influence the regulatory decision. The PRA standard Supporting Requirement (SR) SY-A5 requires that both the normal and alternate alignments be modelled to the extent needed for core damage frequency (CDF) and large early release frequency (LERF) determination. | RAI Modeling Alternative Alignments The LAR for Catawba, dated May 2, 2017, states that the proposed change to the TS CT has been developed using the risk-informed processes described in RG 1.174, Revision 2, and RG 1.177, Revision 1. Based on Section 2.3.1 of RG 1.177, the technical adequacy of the PRA must be compatible with the safety implications of the TS change being requested and the role that the PRA plays in justifying that change. RG 1.177 endorses the guidance provided in RG 1.200, Revision 2, on PRA technical adequacy. The RG 1.200 describes a peer review process utilizing ASME/ANS PRA standard RA-Sa-2009 as one acceptable approach for determining the technical adequacy of the PRA once acceptable consensus approaches or models have been established for evaluations that could influence the regulatory decision. The PRA standard Supporting Requirement (SR) SY-A5 requires that both the normal and alternate alignments be modelled to the extent needed for core damage frequency (CDF) and large early release frequency (LERF) determination. | ||
Based on the review of the LAR, as supplemented, the following provides NRC staffs observations on modeling alternate alignments and asymmetries for this application: | Based on the review of the LAR, as supplemented, the following provides NRC staffs observations on modeling alternate alignments and asymmetries for this application: | ||
y | y Section 6.1.4.2 of the LAR states that the Catawba internal events model consists of separate models for each unit and accounts for multiple trains, whereas the internal flooding, high winds, and fire models are single unit that generally assumes Train-A operating. | ||
y | y NRC staff notes, based on the incremental conditional core damage probability (ICCDP) and incremental conditional large early release probability (ICLERP) risk results reported in LAR Attachment 6, that even small changes in the PRA modeling need to reflect either asymmetries or the most limiting alignment that could potentially impact the conclusions of the LAR. It is not clear to NRC staff that the most limiting configurations (i.e., alignments) are always modeled in the PRAs from the point of calculating ICCDP and ICLERP. Because the LAR indicates that the | ||
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission RA-19-0004, Attachment 1 Page 9 ICCDP and ICLERP for the proposed TS change meet the risk acceptance guidelines in RG 1.177 by a small margin, uncertainty in modeling assumptions could impact the conclusions of the application. | U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission RA-19-0004, Attachment 1 Page 9 ICCDP and ICLERP for the proposed TS change meet the risk acceptance guidelines in RG 1.177 by a small margin, uncertainty in modeling assumptions could impact the conclusions of the application. | ||
y | y Tables 6-3, 6-4, 6-26 through 6-33, and 6-38 through 6-45 of the LAR show that for each unit the same base case CDF and LERF values were used for both plant operating alignments (i.e., ESPS aligned to Train A bus, ESPS aligned to Train B bus) for internal events; whereas, the CDF and LERF values for the CT case (as well as for the non-CT case) are different between plant operating alignments. The 15&VWDIIQRWHVWKDWWKH,&&'3,&/(53&')DQG/(5)FDOFXODWLRQVVKRXOG use the same alignment for all the calculated cases (i.e., base, CT, and non-CT). | ||
y | y During the May 2018 audit, the NRC staff identified concerns about not including alternate alignments in the internal flood, high winds, and fire PRA models. NRC staff notes that the internal events results provided in Tables 6-26 through 6-33, and 6-38 through 6-45 of the LAR indicate differences of up to 23 percent for different train alignments. Given that the internal events PRA model provides the underlying basis for the internal flood, high winds, and fire models, issues associated with modelling asymmetries in these PRAs could significantly impact the application. | ||
To address the observations above, the NRC staff requests the following additional information: | To address the observations above, the NRC staff requests the following additional information: | ||
a) | a) Provide updated risNUHVXOWVLH,&&'3,&/(53&')DQG/(5)IRULQWHUQDO events, internal flooding, high winds, and fire PRA) for the most limiting configuration (based on ICCDP/ICLERP and using the same plant operating alignment for the base case, CT case, and non-CT case) that aggregate the PRA updates requested in RAI-13. | ||
b) | b) Provide justification that the plant operating alignment(s) used for the internal events, internal flooding, high winds, and fire PRA models in part (a) is the most limiting configuration in terms of calculating the ICCDP and ICLERP for the EDG CT. | ||
Duke Energy RAI-3.a Response Duke Energy provides updated risk results below in Tables 2 through 7 (i.e., ICCDP, ICLERP, | Duke Energy RAI-3.a Response Duke Energy provides updated risk results below in Tables 2 through 7 (i.e., ICCDP, ICLERP, | ||
&')DQG/(5)IRULQWHUQDOHYHQWVLQWHUQDOIORRGLQJ, high winds, and fire PRA) for the most limiting configuration (based on ICCDP/ICLERP and using the same plant operating alignment for the base case, CT case, and non-CT case) that aggregate the PRA updates requested in RAI-13. The internal events and high winds PRA model revisions used to provide the updated risk results model both Train-A and Train-B equipment in either the running or standby mode of operation using split fractions. The internal flooding and fire models assume Train A is the running train and Train B is in standby (NOTE: the internal events model used to support the original LAR dated May 2, 2017 previously assumed Train A is the running train and Train B is in standby). Table 1 summarizes the alignments for the various hazard groups as follows and should be considered when reviewing the updated risk results of Tables 2 through 7: | &')DQG/(5)IRULQWHUQDOHYHQWVLQWHUQDOIORRGLQJ, high winds, and fire PRA) for the most limiting configuration (based on ICCDP/ICLERP and using the same plant operating alignment for the base case, CT case, and non-CT case) that aggregate the PRA updates requested in RAI-13. The internal events and high winds PRA model revisions used to provide the updated risk results model both Train-A and Train-B equipment in either the running or standby mode of operation using split fractions. The internal flooding and fire models assume Train A is the running train and Train B is in standby (NOTE: the internal events model used to support the original LAR dated May 2, 2017 previously assumed Train A is the running train and Train B is in standby). Table 1 summarizes the alignments for the various hazard groups as follows and should be considered when reviewing the updated risk results of Tables 2 through 7: | ||
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission RA-19-0004, Attachment 1 Page 10 Table 1 Alignments in Catawba PRA Hazard Models Hazard | U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission RA-19-0004, Attachment 1 Page 10 Table 1 Alignments in Catawba PRA Hazard Models Hazard Train A Train B Internal Events Modeled with split fractions as being either the running or standby train Modeled with split fractions as being either the running or standby train High Winds Internal Flooding Modeled as the running train Modeled as the standby train Fire In addition to the alignments in Table 1 above, industry generic station blackout (SBO) failure rates were used in the PRA models that provide these updated risk results. Finally, point-estimate values were calculated and ACUBE was run on the associated cutsets to improve the accuracy of the Boolean quantification. | ||
Table 2 RG 1.177 ICCDP Summary, ESPS to Train 2A Hazard | Table 2 RG 1.177 ICCDP Summary, ESPS to Train 2A Hazard 14 Day CT Base Multiplier ICCDP Internal Events 5.20E-06 3.95E-06 14/365 4.79E-08 Internal Flooding 2.03E-05 1.66E-05 14/365 1.42E-07 High Winds 2.02E-05 5.60E-06 14/365 5.60E-07 Fire (limiting Unit) 2.85E-05 2.27E-05 14/365 2.22E-07 Sum = | ||
Internal Flooding | 9.72E-07 Table 3 RG 1.177 ICLERP Summary, ESPS to Train 1A Hazard 14 Day CT Base Multiplier ICLERP Internal Events 2.95E-07 2.03E-07 14/365 3.53E-09 Internal Flooding 2.99E-07 4.46E-08 14/365 9.76E-09 High Winds 1.88E-06 7.18E-07 14/365 4.46E-08 Fire (limiting Unit) 2.05E-06 1.54E-06 14/365 1.96E-08 Sum = | ||
Fire (limiting Unit) | 7.74E-08 Table 4 351 Day ICCDP Risk Contribution Summary, ESPS to Train 2A Hazard ESPS credit Base Multiplier ICCDP Internal Events 3.27E-06 3.95E-06 351/365 | ||
Sum = -4.02E-06* | -6.54E-07* | ||
Internal Flooding 1.66E-05 1.66E-05 351/365 0.00E+00 High Winds 2.40E-06 5.60E-06 351/365 | |||
-3.08E-06* | |||
Fire (limiting Unit) 2.24E-05 2.27E-05 351/365 | |||
-2.88E-07* | |||
Sum = | |||
-4.02E-06* | |||
*ICCDP is negative since ESPS adds an additional power source to the base case model. | |||
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission RA-19-0004, Attachment 1 Page 11 Table 5 351 Day ICLERP Risk Contribution Summary, ESPS to Train 1A Hazard | U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission RA-19-0004, Attachment 1 Page 11 Table 5 351 Day ICLERP Risk Contribution Summary, ESPS to Train 1A Hazard ESPS credit Base Multiplier ICLERP Internal Events 1.36E-07 2.03E-07 351/365 | ||
-6.44E-08 Internal Flooding 4.46E-08 4.46E-08 351/365 0.00E+00 High Winds 1.54E-07 7.18E-07 351/365 | |||
Table 6 CDF For Entire Change, ESPS to Train 2A Hazard | -5.42E-07 Fire (limiting Unit) 1.50E-06 1.54E-06 351/365 | ||
-3.85E-08 Sum = | |||
-6.45E-07 | |||
*ICLERP is negative since ESPS adds an additional power source to the base case model. | |||
Table 6 CDF For Entire Change, ESPS to Train 2A Hazard 14 Day CT 351 Day | |||