ML14231A950: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
==Dear Mr. Capps:== | ==Dear Mr. Capps:== | ||
By letter dated May 20, 2014, to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML 14161A232), Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, the licensee, submitted its response for William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, to the NRC's Request for Information issued on March 12, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML 12053A340) pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (1 0 CFR), Part 50, Section 50.54(f) regarding Near-Term Task Force [NTTF] Recommendations 2.1, 2.3, and 9.3. The NRC staff is reviewing the information submitted and has determined that additional information is needed to complete its review. The specific questions are found in the enclosed request for additional information (RAI). A response to these RAis within 30 days from the date of issuance will facilitate a more efficient review of your staffing submittal related to NTTF Recommendation 9.3. | By letter dated May 20, 2014, to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML 14161A232), Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, the licensee, submitted its response for William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, to the NRC's Request for Information issued on March 12, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML 12053A340) pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (1 0 CFR), Part 50, Section 50.54(f) regarding Near-Term Task Force [NTTF] Recommendations 2.1, 2.3, and 9.3. The NRC staff is reviewing the information submitted and has determined that additional information is needed to complete its review. The specific questions are found in the enclosed request for additional information (RAI). A response to these RAis within 30 days from the date of issuance will facilitate a more efficient review of your staffing submittal related to NTTF Recommendation 9.3. | ||
S. Capps | S. Capps If you have any questions related to the enclosed RAis or the requested submission date, please contact me at (301) 415-2277 or via email at Brian.Harris2@nrc.gov. Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370 | ||
==Enclosure:== | ==Enclosure:== | ||
Request for Additional Information cc w/ encl: Distribution via Listserv Brian K. Harris, Project Manager Hazards Management Branch Japan Lessons-Learned Division Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NEAR-TERM TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION 9.3 STAFFING ASSESSMENT PHASE 2 DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS. LLC WILLIAM B. MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION. UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-369 AND 50-370 On March 12, 2012, (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML 12053A340), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a letter entitled "Request for Information Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations [1 0 CFR] 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendations 2.1, 2.3, and 9.3, of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident." The requested information associated with Recommendation 9.3, Emergency Preparedness, focused on Communications and Staffing and this request for additional information focuses on the information requested for the Phase 2 staffing assessment. By letter dated May 20, 2014, to the NRC (ADAMS Accession No. ML 14161A232), Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, the licensee, submitted its response to the NRC's Request for Information for William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2. In your Phase 2 Staffing Assessment dated May 20, 2014, you provided information related to your security plan to identify the documented on shift security personnel. The following items were noted: 1. In the "ELAP [Extended Loss of alternating current Power] On-Shift Staffing Task Timetable," security is tasked to evaluate a dam failure. However, it is unclear whether security personnel have received site-specific training for evaluating dam failure. 2. In the implementation of the Core Cooling/Decay Heat Removal Strategy, security has been tasked to provide six individuals to implement specific actions simultaneously for two units. It is unclear how the staffing analysis determined that these duties would not cause an overlap with the security tasks assigned in the site security plan. 3. It is unclear whether site procedures have been established per Appendix C to Part 73, Section II.B.5(i), that provide specific guidance and operating details that identify the actions to be taken and decisions to be made by each member of the security organization who is assigned duties and responsibilities required for the effective implementation of the security plans and the site protective strategy. Enclosure The NRC staff has reviewed your Staffing Assessment dated May 20, 2014, and requests the following information to complete its review: 1. Provide clarification as to whether security has received site-specific training for evaluating dam failure. What are the main components of this training? How often is this training provided to security personnel? 2. Describe in detail how the normal on-shift security personnel are allocated to provide the six individuals to support Emergency Preparedness functions simultaneously, while continuing to maintain their tasks related to the security plan. This description should address the tiered approach of the use of security personnel that is discussed in the Nuclear Energy Institute's security document that is referenced in the licensee submittal. The response to this question should be reviewed for applicability with 10 CFR Part 70, Section 73.21 "Protection of Safeguards Information: Performance requirements". 3. Provide clarification as to whether site procedures have been developed for how security personnel are released from supporting beyond design basis event activities, which would include the priority of their dismissal. Are detailed security site procedures developed to return security to a normal posture after beyond design basis events? | Request for Additional Information cc w/ encl: Distribution via Listserv Brian K. Harris, Project Manager Hazards Management Branch Japan Lessons-Learned Division Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NEAR-TERM TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION 9.3 STAFFING ASSESSMENT PHASE 2 DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS. LLC WILLIAM B. MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION. UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-369 AND 50-370 On March 12, 2012, (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML 12053A340), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a letter entitled "Request for Information Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations [1 0 CFR] 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendations 2.1, 2.3, and 9.3, of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident." The requested information associated with Recommendation 9.3, Emergency Preparedness, focused on Communications and Staffing and this request for additional information focuses on the information requested for the Phase 2 staffing assessment. By letter dated May 20, 2014, to the NRC (ADAMS Accession No. ML 14161A232), Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, the licensee, submitted its response to the NRC's Request for Information for William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2. In your Phase 2 Staffing Assessment dated May 20, 2014, you provided information related to your security plan to identify the documented on shift security personnel. The following items were noted: 1. In the "ELAP [Extended Loss of alternating current Power] On-Shift Staffing Task Timetable," security is tasked to evaluate a dam failure. However, it is unclear whether security personnel have received site-specific training for evaluating dam failure. 2. In the implementation of the Core Cooling/Decay Heat Removal Strategy, security has been tasked to provide six individuals to implement specific actions simultaneously for two units. It is unclear how the staffing analysis determined that these duties would not cause an overlap with the security tasks assigned in the site security plan. 3. It is unclear whether site procedures have been established per Appendix C to Part 73, Section II.B.5(i), that provide specific guidance and operating details that identify the actions to be taken and decisions to be made by each member of the security organization who is assigned duties and responsibilities required for the effective implementation of the security plans and the site protective strategy. Enclosure The NRC staff has reviewed your Staffing Assessment dated May 20, 2014, and requests the following information to complete its review: 1. Provide clarification as to whether security has received site-specific training for evaluating dam failure. What are the main components of this training? How often is this training provided to security personnel? 2. Describe in detail how the normal on-shift security personnel are allocated to provide the six individuals to support Emergency Preparedness functions simultaneously, while continuing to maintain their tasks related to the security plan. This description should address the tiered approach of the use of security personnel that is discussed in the Nuclear Energy Institute's security document that is referenced in the licensee submittal. The response to this question should be reviewed for applicability with 10 CFR Part 70, Section 73.21 "Protection of Safeguards Information: Performance requirements". 3. Provide clarification as to whether site procedures have been developed for how security personnel are released from supporting beyond design basis event activities, which would include the priority of their dismissal. Are detailed security site procedures developed to return security to a normal posture after beyond design basis events? | ||
ML 14231A950 *via email OFFICE NRR/JLD/JHMB/PM NRR/JLD/LA NRR/DORL/LPL 1-2/PM NRR/JLD/JHMB/BC NRR/JLD/JHMB/PM NAME BHarris SLent EMiller SWhaley (NDiFrancesco BHarris for) w/ comments DATE 08/18/14 08/20/14 08/21/14 08/22/14 08/25/14}} | |||
}} | |||
Revision as of 23:44, 26 June 2018
| ML14231A950 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 08/25/2014 |
| From: | Harris B K Japan Lessons-Learned Division |
| To: | Capps S D Duke Energy Carolinas |
| Harris B K, NRR/JLD, 415-2277 | |
| References | |
| TAC MF4314, TAC MF4315 | |
| Download: ML14231A950 (5) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 Mr. Steven D. Capps Vice President -McGuire Site Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC McGuire Nuclear Station 12700 Hagers Ferry Road Huntersville, NC 28078-8985 August25, 2014
SUBJECT:
WILLIAM B. MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2-REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING TITLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULA T/ONS PART 50, SECTION 50.54(f) RECOMMENDATION 9.3 PHASE 2 STAFFING ASSESSMENT (TAC NOS. MF4314 AND MF4315)
Dear Mr. Capps:
By letter dated May 20, 2014, to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML 14161A232), Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, the licensee, submitted its response for William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, to the NRC's Request for Information issued on March 12, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML 12053A340) pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (1 0 CFR), Part 50, Section 50.54(f) regarding Near-Term Task Force [NTTF] Recommendations 2.1, 2.3, and 9.3. The NRC staff is reviewing the information submitted and has determined that additional information is needed to complete its review. The specific questions are found in the enclosed request for additional information (RAI). A response to these RAis within 30 days from the date of issuance will facilitate a more efficient review of your staffing submittal related to NTTF Recommendation 9.3.
S. Capps If you have any questions related to the enclosed RAis or the requested submission date, please contact me at (301) 415-2277 or via email at Brian.Harris2@nrc.gov. Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/ encl: Distribution via Listserv Brian K. Harris, Project Manager Hazards Management Branch Japan Lessons-Learned Division Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NEAR-TERM TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION 9.3 STAFFING ASSESSMENT PHASE 2 DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS. LLC WILLIAM B. MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION. UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-369 AND 50-370 On March 12, 2012, (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML 12053A340), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a letter entitled "Request for Information Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations [1 0 CFR] 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendations 2.1, 2.3, and 9.3, of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident." The requested information associated with Recommendation 9.3, Emergency Preparedness, focused on Communications and Staffing and this request for additional information focuses on the information requested for the Phase 2 staffing assessment. By letter dated May 20, 2014, to the NRC (ADAMS Accession No. ML 14161A232), Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, the licensee, submitted its response to the NRC's Request for Information for William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2. In your Phase 2 Staffing Assessment dated May 20, 2014, you provided information related to your security plan to identify the documented on shift security personnel. The following items were noted: 1. In the "ELAP [Extended Loss of alternating current Power] On-Shift Staffing Task Timetable," security is tasked to evaluate a dam failure. However, it is unclear whether security personnel have received site-specific training for evaluating dam failure. 2. In the implementation of the Core Cooling/Decay Heat Removal Strategy, security has been tasked to provide six individuals to implement specific actions simultaneously for two units. It is unclear how the staffing analysis determined that these duties would not cause an overlap with the security tasks assigned in the site security plan. 3. It is unclear whether site procedures have been established per Appendix C to Part 73,Section II.B.5(i), that provide specific guidance and operating details that identify the actions to be taken and decisions to be made by each member of the security organization who is assigned duties and responsibilities required for the effective implementation of the security plans and the site protective strategy. Enclosure The NRC staff has reviewed your Staffing Assessment dated May 20, 2014, and requests the following information to complete its review: 1. Provide clarification as to whether security has received site-specific training for evaluating dam failure. What are the main components of this training? How often is this training provided to security personnel? 2. Describe in detail how the normal on-shift security personnel are allocated to provide the six individuals to support Emergency Preparedness functions simultaneously, while continuing to maintain their tasks related to the security plan. This description should address the tiered approach of the use of security personnel that is discussed in the Nuclear Energy Institute's security document that is referenced in the licensee submittal. The response to this question should be reviewed for applicability with 10 CFR Part 70, Section 73.21 "Protection of Safeguards Information: Performance requirements". 3. Provide clarification as to whether site procedures have been developed for how security personnel are released from supporting beyond design basis event activities, which would include the priority of their dismissal. Are detailed security site procedures developed to return security to a normal posture after beyond design basis events?
ML 14231A950 *via email OFFICE NRR/JLD/JHMB/PM NRR/JLD/LA NRR/DORL/LPL 1-2/PM NRR/JLD/JHMB/BC NRR/JLD/JHMB/PM NAME BHarris SLent EMiller SWhaley (NDiFrancesco BHarris for) w/ comments DATE 08/18/14 08/20/14 08/21/14 08/22/14 08/25/14