ML17262A080
| ML17262A080 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 09/19/2017 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | NRC/NRO/DNRL/LB4 |
| References | |
| Download: ML17262A080 (5) | |
Text
1 Vogtle PEmails From:
Hoellman, Jordan Sent:
Tuesday, September 19, 2017 8:35 AM To:
Vogtle PEmails
Subject:
ICN and UIN Comment Status Sheet for 9/21/2017 Public Meeting Attachments:
2017-09-21 ICN UIN Comment Status Sheet.docx Please see the attached ICN and UIN Comment Status Sheet for discussion at the Thursday, September 21, 2017, public meeting.
Hearing Identifier:
Vogtle_COL_Docs_Public Email Number:
153 Mail Envelope Properties (d58dbc91eaa44d298f8a242dd31cb424)
Subject:
ICN and UIN Comment Status Sheet for 9/21/2017 Public Meeting Sent Date:
9/19/2017 8:34:57 AM Received Date:
9/19/2017 8:34:58 AM From:
Hoellman, Jordan Created By:
Jordan.Hoellman2@nrc.gov Recipients:
"Vogtle PEmails" <Vogtle.PEmails@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None Post Office:
HQPWMSMRS03.nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 141 9/19/2017 8:34:58 AM 2017-09-21 ICN UIN Comment Status Sheet.docx 29811 Options Priority:
Standard Return Notification:
No Reply Requested:
No Sensitivity:
Normal Expiration Date:
Recipients Received:
1 VOGTLE ICN/UIN ISSUES TRACKING SHEET Date ITEM #
ICN UIN TOPIC ITAAC INDEX #
ISSUE Licensee Comment 6/29 1
ICN RCP Elect.
Pwr for 3 V3 676 Issues resolved waiting for resubmittal.
Date ITEM #
ICN UIN TOPIC ITAAC INDEX #
ISSUE Licensee Comment 6/29 2
Draft UIN Test RCP BKR trip Function V3 64 The 2nd paragraph 1st sentence can be interpreted in two ways,
- 1) the signal was simulated at the detectors themselves by using a test rig to increase the pressure the detector senses or 2) by inserting a dummy signal at the PMS cabinet, please clarify how the containment pressure signal was simulated.
Date ITEM #
ICN UIN TOPIC ITAAC INDEX #
ISSUE Licensee Comment 9/5 3
UIN Calculation of flow resistance V3 & V4 177 178 Please clarify the difference in parameters measured as compared to Demo 4 to calculate flow resistance from the CMT and ACC to the RV.
Date ITEM #
ICN UIN TOPIC ITAAC INDEX #
ISSUE Licensee Comment 9/5 4
Draft ICN Various ASME Items V3 355 post LAR 17-006 Staff combined comments provided on separate sheet.
2 Date ITEM #
ICN UIN TOPIC ITAAC INDEX #
ISSUE Licensee Comment 9/5 5
UIN Real or simulated signals into DAS 213 Explain the chosen methodology to utilize the DAS Manual actuation circuit in-place of using a real or simulated signal into DAS. (i.e. plant process signals)
Date ITEM #
ICN UIN TOPIC ITAAC INDEX #
ISSUE Licensee Comment 9/11 6
ICN Off-site power analysis V3 672 Third paragraph of the IDB - Clarify why the component(s) with the highest rated load(s) was/were not utilized to determine the ampacity rating of each circuit from the switchyard?
Fourth paragraph of the IDB - Clarify why MVAs were not directly calculated since the loads of each switchyard circuit include capacitance and inductance in addition to resistance?
3 Staff Comments on Draft ITAAC Closure Notification on ITAAC 2.3.06.02a (Index Number 355)
(Based on Vogtle, Units 3 and 4, LAR 17-006)
- 1. The ITAAC Statement of the draft ITAAC Closure Notification (ICN) is inconsistent with the wording in the ITAAC and should be corrected. For example, DC items 3.a and 3.b are not consistent with App. C wording in LAR 17-006.
- 2. The ITAAC Determination Basis (IDB) needs to include an affirmative statement that the ASME BPV Code,Section III certified design reports exist for the as-built components and piping identified in Tables 2.3.6-1 and 2.3.6-2 as ASME BPV Code,Section III that meet the requirements of NCA-3550 for the Design Report.
- 3. The ITAAC Determination Basis in the second paragraph notes several restrictions on the piping design. However, the draft ICN does not indicate that these restrictions were addressed in the design. In addition, these additional restrictions are only mentioned in regards to the Design Reports. The draft ICN should also address these additional restrictions with respect to the Data Reports.
- 4. The ITAAC Determination Basis repeats the wording of the ITAAC without affirmatively stating which specific licensees activities satisfied the acceptance criteria of the ITAAC.
- 5. The ITAAC Finding Review does not indicate that ITAAC 2.3.06.02a (355) includes 2a (355), 2b (356),
3a (357), 3b (358), 4a (359), 4b (360), 5b (364), and 6 (365) such that any findings related to those ITAAC can be located in previous inspection reports and licensee documents.
- 6. The References list should specify the report numbers to allow NRC staff to access those reports.
- 7. Attachment A should be clarified. For example: It is unclear what
- indicates. The purpose of the Report column is unknown. The RNS Suction Line from CVS does not have functional capability requirements per Table 2.3.6-2, but is shown to have a Functional Capability Report per Attachment A.
The components listed on Attachment A do not include the complete set to close out this ITAAC.
- 8. Attachment B referenced on page 4 is not attached to the draft ICN.
- 9. The draft ICN should indicate whether the ASME Code Design Report has been inspected. If inspected and determined to be in compliance with the ASME Code, the ICN should reference this Design Report in Attachment A.
- 10. Each acceptance criteria should correspond to the specific design commitment and the IDB should clearly state how the inspection, tests, analyses performed demonstrate that the acceptance criteria are fully met. More specifically, the IDB provides no information on the functional capability and LBB methodology. Others reference ASME Code,Section III.
- 11. On Page 3/6, the 2nd paragraph of the IDB seems to be incorrect as written. ASME Code design reports do not verify construction. SNC needs to reorder the sentence.
- 12. On Page 4/6, 1st paragraph, first line should include a clarification that the hydrostatic tests of the components are vendor hydro tests. The next statement in the same section, which only pertains to the hydrostatic tests of piping, should also include components. As written, the ICN is not acceptable.
- 13. For the hydro tests, the ICN IDB should affirmatively state that there was no pressure boundary leakage or deformation and for the NDE, it should state that there were no unacceptable indications present.