ML14188C065

Summary of Meeting with Tennessee Valley Authority Regarding the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2, Operating License Application

ML14188C065
Person / Time
Site:	Watts Bar
Issue date:	07/24/2014
From:	Justin Poole Plant Licensing Branch II
To:
Dion J
Shared Package
ML14188C032	List: ML14188C065
References
Download: ML14188C065 (9)

Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 July 24, 2014 LICENSEE: Tennessee Valley Authority FACILITY: Watts Bar Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2

SUMMARY

OF JUNE 26,2014, MEETING WITH TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY REGARDING THE WATIS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 2 OPERATING LICENSE APPLICATION On June 26, 2014, a Category 1 public teleconference was held between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and representatives of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) via teleconference. The purpose of this teleconference was for TVA staff to discuss issues related to the operating license application review for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN), Unit 2. The discussion focused primarily on TVA's plan to demonstrate feasibility of all operator manual actions (OMAs) taken in response to a fire in accordance with the guidance in NUREG-1852 "Demonstrating the Feasibility and Reliability of Operator Manual Actions in Response to Fire,"

(Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML073020676). A list of attendees for the teleconference is included in Enclosure 1. The handouts discussing the OMAs and control room abandonment procedures provided by TVA is .

During the meeting, TVA described a potential change to the fire protection report from what had been previously submitted to and that the NRC had documented in Supplement 26 to NUREG-0847 "Safety Evaluation Report [SER] Related to the Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2." TVA's potential change was that the Main Control Room abandonment OMAs demonstrated performance times would be less than or equal to 80 percent of the allowable time (25 percent margin). What was previously submitted by TVA, and NRC had documented in Supplement 26 to the SER, was that all OMAs would demonstrate performance times less than 50 percent of the allowable time (1 00 percent margin).

The NRC staff suggested the following points be considered prior to making any changes:

1. Are all available auxiliary unit operators (AUOs) being used, or can staffing be augmented to have more AUOs available, to meet the approved 100 percent margin criteria?

2. Has the cost impact of schedule delays related to the additional NRC review of the 25%

margin criteria been considered?

3. Would additional training, labeling, or other timing enhancements, help to meet the 100 percent margin criteria?

4. Determine whether only operator manual actions included in the analysis of Part VI of the Fire Protection Report should be governed by the 100 percent margin criteria. If this assumption can be justified, other operator manual actions may be evaluated to another standard without impacting the fire protection report.

5. Since the current report is approved the staff suggested that TVA minimize the scope of the changes to the Fire Protection Report. Robust analysis for significant changes like this one will be required.

6. Scheduling an additional, face to face, public meeting.

No regulatory decisions were made during the teleconference.

Two members of the public participated. One member of the public asked why Sequoyah Nuclear Plant and WBN Unit 1 do not have to adhere to the guidance in NUREG-1852. The staff explained that NUREG-1852 was issued after Sequoyah and WBN Unit 1 received their operating licenses. The current licensing bases for those plants differ from the licensing basis for WBN Unit 2. For plants that do not follow the NUREG-1852 methodology, the NRC ensures compliance with inspection of OMAs using the agency's Reactor Oversight Process (http://www.nrc.gov/NRRIOVERSIGHT/ASSESS/).

Please direct any inquiries to me at 301-415-2048 or via e-mail at Justin.Poole@nrc.gov

~ q>* ~f-ey Justin C. Poole, Senior Project Manager Watts Bar Special Projects Branch Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-391

Enclosures:

1. List of Attendees

2. TVA Handouts cc w/encls: Distribution via Listserv

MEETING ATTENDANCE LIST Applicant: Tennessee Valley Authority Plant: Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2

Subject:

Construction Status Date: June 26, 2014 Location: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Time: 9:30 a.m. - 11 :00 a.m.

Headquarters, Room 0-4B6 NAME TITLE ORGANIZATION NRC/NRRIDORUWatts Bar Special Jessie Quichocho Branch Chief Projects Branch NRC/NRRIDORUWatts Bar Special Justin Poole Sr. Project Manager Projects Branch NRC/NRR/DORUWatts Bar Special Siva Lingam Project Manager Projects Branch NRC/NRRIDORUWatts Bar Special Jeanne Dion Project Manager Projects Branch NRC/NRRIDORUWatts Bar Special Michael Miernicki Project Manager Projects Branch Alex Klein Branch Chief NRC/NRRIDRAIAFPB Senior Fire Protection Daniel Frumkin NRC/NRRIDRAIAFPB Engineer Charles Moulton Fire Protection Engineer NRC/NRRIDRAIAFPB Bob Haag* Branch Chief NRC/Region 11/DCP Enclosure 1

NAME TITLE ORGANIZATION Scott Shaeffer* Branch Chief NRC/ Region II/DRS Omar Lopez* Sr. Reactor Inspector NRC/ Region II/DRS Gordon Arent* Director, WBN Licensing TVA Rusty Stroud Licensing TVA Bill Crouch* Engineering TVA Steven Hilmes* Electrical and I&C Manager TVA Bob Bryan* Licensing TVA Charles Brush* Fire Protection EPM Supervisor, Nuclear Site Gerry Bushnell TVA Licensing Don Safer* Member of Public Sierra Club Brian Paddock* Member of Public Sierra Club

NAME TITLE ORGANIZATION Jack Roe Member of Public

• via teleconference

Part I - Operator Manual Action (OMA) Feasibility and Reliability Key Elements Applied to Feasibility and Reliability Criteria (Based on NUREG 1852):

A. OMA demonstrated performance times are less than 50% of the . .aiiGwable time (1 00% margin).

B. Main Control Room abandonment actions are excluded froiJI NUREG 1852 (Refer to note on the following slide.)

C. For Main Control Room abandonment, demonstrated pe-rformance times less than or equal to 80% of the allowable time are acceptable.

II. Additional Considerations:

A. Use of SCBA and entry to Radiological Gq..ntrol Area (RCA) ,cfre p ot required.

B. As an alternative to II.A (above) and the,demonstrated

... ~

performance

. ..... time (I.A above), the following uncertainty allowances may be added to demonstrated P,erformance t1me:

1. Two (2) minute delay to gain access tb~ RCA.

2. Three (3) minute de'laytor"human centered uncertainties (size, physical strength, cognitive differences and exp~rience tsvel).

3.

1 15 percent penalty (based on Regulatory Guide 8.15) in lieLJ of actually wearing an SCBA during performance demonstrations.

C. Additional Factors Considered:

1. Rec(uired...equipment, support'-equipment and~ssociated cables are not affected by the fire.

2. N~eded instrumentatioo, protective equipmentJ and tools are available and staged.

3. For a Control Buildi~ Fire:

a. Required actions are performed in the Auxiliary Building.

b. Large time allowances for environmental uncertainties are not needed.

Enclosure 2

Ill. Supporting Information from NUREG 1852, "Demonstrating the Feasibility and Reliability of Operator Manual Actions in Response to Fire:"

A. The following excerpts are from Section 1, "Introduction" of NUREG 1852:

" ... To provide those assurances, at least in part, many plants plarl"to or already rely on local operator manual actions 1 (i.e., actions outside the main control room (MCR)) to maintain hot shutdown capability ...

1. "Operator manual actions" are defined in ttle <Jiossary of this report. For this report, they do not include any actions within the MCR or the action(s) associated with abandoning the MCR in the case of a fir-e. Further, while the April2001 edition of Regulatory Guide 1.189, "Fire Protection for Operating Nuclear Power Plants," had details on what constitutes hot shutdo.wn-,.for pressurized- water reactors (PWRs) and boiling water reactors (BWRs), including the required systems, 8evision 1 of Regulatory Guide 1.189, "Fire Protection for Nuclear Power Plants," issued March 2007 [Ref. 61, excludes that discussion and just identifies the Technical Specifications of each plant providing the definitions of hot shutdown and cold shutdown. This document is applicable to only those actions to achieve,and maintain hot shutdown ...,( emphasis added)

Part II - NRC Approval of OMAs I. Questions Regardlngthe need for NRC Approval ot OM As:

A. Unit 1 OMA 727 (Green. Box) apP.ears~o ~~ve not b~~n approved by NRC in a Supple~ental Safety Ev~luation Report (SSER). '-There 1s no equ1v..alent OMA for Un1t 2. Is NRC approval on OMA 727 1n a SSER requ1red?

B. Unit 1 OMA 612 (Green Box) was approved in SSER 18. Unit 1 OMAs 1397, 1398, 1598 and 1599 (Green Box) perform the same fu~tion as OMA 6~12 but accomplish it in a different manner. Does the change in performance method require NRC approval?

C. Unit 1 OMA 110 (Green Box) was approved in SSER 18. The scope of OMA 110 was expanded to include Unit 1 OMAs 1614, 1411and 1447. Is NRC approval required for the expansion of OMA 110?

PKG ML14188C032 Meetmg Not1ce:

. ML14167A413 Meet"m~ Summary: ML14188C065 OFFICE DORULPWB/PMiT DORULPWB/PM DORULPWB/LA DRA/AFPB/BC DORULPWB/BC DORULPWB/PM NAME JDion JPoole BCiayton AKiein (DFrumkin for) JQuichocho JPoole (Slingam for)

DATE 7/9/14 7/13/14 7/9/14 7/15/14 7/16/14 7/24/14