ML13235A246: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:RfGUi o?!. | {{#Wiki_filter:~p.1\ RfGUi UNITED STATES | ||
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 | ~v" "l; | ||
">~_~ o?!. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION | |||
<< | |||
t: (")0 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555*0001 | |||
';n i | |||
~ ~ September 4, 2013 | |||
~ ~ | |||
"'''} ",,0 | |||
****1' LICENSEE: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC FACILITY: McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 | |||
==SUBJECT:== | |||
==SUMMARY== | ==SUMMARY== | ||
OF AUGUST 7,2013, PRE-APPLICATION TELECONFERENCE WITH DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC TO DISCUSS PROPOSED LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST (TAC NOS. MF2435 AND MF2436) On August 7, 2013, a Category 1 public pre-application teleconference was held between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and representatives of Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke, the licensee) at NRC Headquarters, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. | OF AUGUST 7,2013, PRE-APPLICATION TELECONFERENCE WITH DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC TO DISCUSS PROPOSED LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST (TAC NOS. MF2435 AND MF2436) | ||
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss Duke's proposed license amendment request (LAR). The meeting notice and agenda, dated July 15, 2013, is available in the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) at Accession No. ML13191A959. | On August 7, 2013, a Category 1 public pre-application teleconference was held between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and representatives of Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke, the licensee) at NRC Headquarters, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss Duke's proposed license amendment request (LAR). The meeting notice and agenda, dated July 15, 2013, is available in the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) at Accession No. | ||
The licensee's slides are available in ADAMS at Accession No. ML13218B227. | ML13191A959. The licensee's slides are available in ADAMS at Accession No. ML13218B227. | ||
A list of attendees is provided as Enclosure | A list of attendees is provided as Enclosure 1. | ||
DISCUSSION The proposed action is a LAR to Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.4 Condition A to allow replacement of the existing shared 125 VDC vital batteries while at power. By letter dated August 9, 2012, the licensee submitted a similar one-time LAR to revise TS 3.8.4 Condition A, which was a risk-based LAR. During the review, the staff expressed concerns with the Fire Probabilistic Risk Assessment portion of the LAR. By letter dated January 17, 2013, the licensee withdrew the August 9,2012, LAR. The proposed LAR discussed during the August 7, 2013, public teleconference will replace the risk-based evaluation with a more deterministic engineering justification. | |||
The battery replacement would be accomplished while at power and the licensee stated that it cannot be accomplished within the current 72-hour Completion Time allowed by TS 3.8.4. Therefore, the licensee is proposing to extend the Completion Time to 14 days for each battery channel. The reason for replacing the batteries is due to cracking on the battery cells caused from nodular corrosion. | The battery replacement would be accomplished while at power and the licensee stated that it cannot be accomplished within the current 72-hour Completion Time allowed by TS 3.8.4. | ||
The licensee has determined that the batteries are operable but the physical degradation will eventually start to accelerate or reduce the service life of 20 years as a result of the corrosion phenomenon. | Therefore, the licensee is proposing to extend the Completion Time to 14 days for each battery channel. The reason for replacing the batteries is due to cracking on the battery cells caused from nodular corrosion. The licensee has determined that the batteries are operable but the physical degradation will eventually start to accelerate or reduce the service life of 20 years as a result of the corrosion phenomenon. The batteries were last replaced in 1997. The NRC staff inquired if a Part 21 evaluation has been completed. The licensee indicated that they view the issue as an age related issue, not a manufacturing issue, so a Part 21 evaluation was not performed. The staff also questioned the amount of time needed to complete the evolution of the battery replacement and for the licensee to consider including a schedule for completing the evolution in its application. The licensee stated that they will include a 10-day and 14-day schedule. In addition, the licensee plans on providing an end date to complete the replacement of all four channels of batteries. | ||
The batteries were last replaced in 1997. The NRC staff inquired if a Part 21 evaluation has been completed. | No members of the public were in attendance, and no feedback forms were received. No commitments or regulatory decisions were made by the NRC staff during the meeting. | ||
The licensee indicated that they view the issue as an age related issue, not a manufacturing issue, so a Part 21 evaluation was not performed. | |||
The staff also questioned the amount of time needed to complete the evolution of the battery replacement and for the licensee to consider including a schedule for completing the evolution in its application. | -2 Please direct any inquiries to me at 301-415-5888, or Jason.paige@nrc.gov. | ||
The licensee stated that they will include a 10-day and 14-day schedule. | ason C. Paige, Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch 11-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370 | ||
In addition, the licensee plans on providing an end date to complete the replacement of all four channels of batteries. | |||
No members of the public were in attendance, and no feedback forms were received. | |||
No commitments or regulatory decisions were made by the NRC staff during the meeting. | |||
-2 Please direct any inquiries to me at 301-415-5888, or Jason.paige@nrc.gov. | |||
ason C. Paige, Project Plant Licensing Branch Division of Operating Reactor Office of Nuclear Reactor Docket Nos. 50-369 and | |||
==Enclosure:== | ==Enclosure:== | ||
: 1. List of Attendees cc w/encls: Distribution via Listserv LIST OF AUGUST 7,2013, MEETING WITH DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, REGARDING PROPOSED LICENSE AMENDMENT U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Bob Pascarelli Jason Paige Roy Mathew Prem Sahay Gary Cooper Gerald Waig DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC Jeff Robertson Julie Olivier Steve Kirksey Tom Byrne Lee Hentz Brian Casey Enclosure | : 1. List of Attendees cc w/encls: Distribution via Listserv | ||
LIST OF ATTENDEES AUGUST 7,2013, MEETING WITH DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC REGARDING PROPOSED LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Bob Pascarelli Jason Paige Roy Mathew Prem Sahay Gary Cooper Gerald Waig DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC Jeff Robertson Julie Olivier Steve Kirksey Tom Byrne Lee Hentz Brian Casey Enclosure | |||
Meeting Notice ML13191A959 MeetlnQ | |||
. Summary ML13235A246 Handouts ML132188227 OFFICE NRR/DORULPL2-1/PM NRR/DORULPL2-1/LA NRR/DORULPL2-1/BC NRR/DORULPL2-1/PM NAME JPaige SFigueroa BPascarelli JPaige DATE 09/3/13 08/28/13 09/4113 09/4/13}} | |||
Revision as of 14:19, 4 November 2019
| ML13235A246 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 09/04/2013 |
| From: | Jason Paige Plant Licensing Branch II |
| To: | |
| Paige Jason, NRR/DORL 415-5888 | |
| References | |
| TAC MF2435, TAC MF2436 | |
| Download: ML13235A246 (4) | |
Text
~p.1\ RfGUi UNITED STATES
~v" "l;
">~_~ o?!. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
<<
t: (")0 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555*0001
';n i
~ ~ September 4, 2013
~ ~
"} ",,0
- 1' LICENSEE: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC FACILITY: McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF AUGUST 7,2013, PRE-APPLICATION TELECONFERENCE WITH DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC TO DISCUSS PROPOSED LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST (TAC NOS. MF2435 AND MF2436)
On August 7, 2013, a Category 1 public pre-application teleconference was held between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and representatives of Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke, the licensee) at NRC Headquarters, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss Duke's proposed license amendment request (LAR). The meeting notice and agenda, dated July 15, 2013, is available in the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) at Accession No.
ML13191A959. The licensee's slides are available in ADAMS at Accession No. ML13218B227.
A list of attendees is provided as Enclosure 1.
DISCUSSION The proposed action is a LAR to Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.4 Condition A to allow replacement of the existing shared 125 VDC vital batteries while at power. By letter dated August 9, 2012, the licensee submitted a similar one-time LAR to revise TS 3.8.4 Condition A, which was a risk-based LAR. During the review, the staff expressed concerns with the Fire Probabilistic Risk Assessment portion of the LAR. By letter dated January 17, 2013, the licensee withdrew the August 9,2012, LAR. The proposed LAR discussed during the August 7, 2013, public teleconference will replace the risk-based evaluation with a more deterministic engineering justification.
The battery replacement would be accomplished while at power and the licensee stated that it cannot be accomplished within the current 72-hour Completion Time allowed by TS 3.8.4.
Therefore, the licensee is proposing to extend the Completion Time to 14 days for each battery channel. The reason for replacing the batteries is due to cracking on the battery cells caused from nodular corrosion. The licensee has determined that the batteries are operable but the physical degradation will eventually start to accelerate or reduce the service life of 20 years as a result of the corrosion phenomenon. The batteries were last replaced in 1997. The NRC staff inquired if a Part 21 evaluation has been completed. The licensee indicated that they view the issue as an age related issue, not a manufacturing issue, so a Part 21 evaluation was not performed. The staff also questioned the amount of time needed to complete the evolution of the battery replacement and for the licensee to consider including a schedule for completing the evolution in its application. The licensee stated that they will include a 10-day and 14-day schedule. In addition, the licensee plans on providing an end date to complete the replacement of all four channels of batteries.
No members of the public were in attendance, and no feedback forms were received. No commitments or regulatory decisions were made by the NRC staff during the meeting.
-2 Please direct any inquiries to me at 301-415-5888, or Jason.paige@nrc.gov.
ason C. Paige, Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch 11-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370
Enclosure:
- 1. List of Attendees cc w/encls: Distribution via Listserv
LIST OF ATTENDEES AUGUST 7,2013, MEETING WITH DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC REGARDING PROPOSED LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Bob Pascarelli Jason Paige Roy Mathew Prem Sahay Gary Cooper Gerald Waig DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC Jeff Robertson Julie Olivier Steve Kirksey Tom Byrne Lee Hentz Brian Casey Enclosure
Meeting Notice ML13191A959 MeetlnQ
. Summary ML13235A246 Handouts ML132188227 OFFICE NRR/DORULPL2-1/PM NRR/DORULPL2-1/LA NRR/DORULPL2-1/BC NRR/DORULPL2-1/PM NAME JPaige SFigueroa BPascarelli JPaige DATE 09/3/13 08/28/13 09/4113 09/4/13