ML18008A254

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search

COL Docs - Request for RAI Related to LAR 17-030 (Human Factors Engineering Resolution Verification Process Revisions (Vogtle Units 3 and 4)
ML18008A254
Person / Time
Site: Vogtle  Southern Nuclear icon.png
Issue date: 01/08/2018
From:
NRC
To:
NRC/NRO/DNRL/LB4
References
Download: ML18008A254 (3)


Text

Vogtle PEmails From: Comar, Manny Sent: Monday, January 08, 2018 1:20 PM To: Amy Aughtman (agaughtm@southernco.com)

Cc: Haggerty, Neil; Patel, Chandu; Dixon-Herrity, Jennifer; Kallan, Paul; Kent, Lauren; Rivera-Varona, Aida; Vogtle PEmails

Subject:

REQUEST FOR RAI RELATED TO LAR 17-030 (HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING RESOLUTION VERIFICATION PROCESS REVISIONS (VOGTLE UNITS 3 and 4)

Attachments: RAI_17_030 .docx To All:

By letter dated September 29, 2017, Southern Nuclear Company submitted License Amendment Request No.17-030 to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4, Combined License Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17272A957). The NRC staff is reviewing the request to enable the staff to reach a conclusion on the safety of the proposed changes.

The NRC staff has identified that additional information is needed to continue the review. The staffs request for additional information (RAI) is contained in the attachment to this email.

To support the review schedule, you are requested to respond within 45 days of the date of this email. If changes are needed to the final safety analysis report, the staff requests that the RAI response include the proposed wording changes.

If you have any questions or comments concerning this matter, you may contact me at 301-415-3863.

Thanks Manny Comar Senior Project Manager Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of New Reactors 301-415-3863 Manny.comar@nrc.gov 1

Hearing Identifier: Vogtle_COL_Docs_Public Email Number: 196 Mail Envelope Properties (DM2PR09MB06220BBE6812CAA8252CF4D3FC130)

Subject:

REQUEST FOR RAI RELATED TO LAR 17-030 (HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING RESOLUTION VERIFICATION PROCESS REVISIONS (VOGTLE UNITS 3 and 4)

Sent Date: 1/8/2018 1:19:31 PM Received Date: 1/8/2018 1:19:39 PM From: Comar, Manny Created By: Manny.Comar@nrc.gov Recipients:

"Haggerty, Neil" <X2NHAGGE@SOUTHERNCO.COM>

Tracking Status: None "Patel, Chandu" <Chandu.Patel@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Dixon-Herrity, Jennifer" <Jennifer.Dixon-Herrity@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Kallan, Paul" <Paul.Kallan@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Kent, Lauren" <Lauren.Kent@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Rivera-Varona, Aida" <Aida.Rivera-Varona@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Vogtle PEmails" <Vogtle.PEmails@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Amy Aughtman (agaughtm@southernco.com)" <agaughtm@southernco.com>

Tracking Status: None Post Office: DM2PR09MB0622.namprd09.prod.outlook.com Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 1136 1/8/2018 1:19:39 PM RAI_17_030 .docx 24426 Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:

Recipients Received:

RAI request for LAR-17-030 (Vogtle Units 3 and 4) 1-8-2018 Additional Information Requested

1. Please explain whether test participants who will form the crews for ISV retesting will also meet the selection criteria in APP-OCS-GEH-320, Section 4.1.1.

2 Please explain the specific changes that will be made to the ISV scenarios that meet the requirements for ISV retesting in APP-OCS-GEH-320, Section 7.3, and explain what, if any, impact the changes will have on the ability to draw conclusions that the changes implemented to address HEDs are effective.

3 Please explain why scenarios used for retesting will meet the criteria in NUREG-0711, Section 8.4.6.2 for performance-based testing instead of the criteria in NUREG-0711, Section 11.4.3 for validation testing.

4. Please explain whether APP-OCS-GEH-320, Section 6.3.1 needs to be revised to align with Section 7.3. If so, please revise APP-OCS-GEH-320, Section 6.3.1.
5. Please identify the specific scenarios that require retesting in accordance with APP-OCS- GEH-320, and the changes that have been implemented to resolve the significant HEDs identified in these scenarios.
6. Please explain how reducing the required number of successful retest results needed to determine the design is validated provides a logical basis for determining the design supports safe plant operation.