ML112070459: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
| number = ML112070459
| number = ML112070459
| issue date = 04/26/2011
| issue date = 04/26/2011
| title = Columbia Generating Station - Draft Request for Additional Information EAL Upgrade
| title = Draft Request for Additional Information EAL Upgrade
| author name = Johnson D A
| author name = Johnson D
| author affiliation = NRC/NSIR
| author affiliation = NRC/NSIR
| addressee name = Williams L L
| addressee name = Williams L
| addressee affiliation = Energy Northwest
| addressee affiliation = Energy Northwest
| docket = 05000397
| docket = 05000397
| license number = NPF-021
| license number = NPF-021
| contact person = Thadani M C, NRR/DLPM, 415-1476
| contact person = Thadani M, NRR/DLPM, 415-1476
| case reference number = TAC ME4589
| case reference number = TAC ME4589
| package number = ML112070405
| package number = ML112070405
Line 19: Line 19:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:Columbia Generating Station U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Request for Additional Information (RAI) Emergency Action Level Scheme Change to NEI 99-01, Revision 5 Format DRAFT RAI # EAL Question 1  General  Due to recurring issues within the industry, please confirm that all stated values, set points, and indications provided are within the calibrated range of the applicable instrumentation and that the instrumentation is appropriate for the specific EAL.  
{{#Wiki_filter:Columbia Generating Station U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Request for Additional Information (RAI)
Emergency Action Level Scheme Change to NEI 99-01, Revision 5 Format DRAFT RAI #         EAL                                       Question Due to recurring issues within the industry, please confirm that all stated values, set points, and indications provided are within the 1          General calibrated range of the applicable instrumentation and that the instrumentation is appropriate for the specific EAL.
Please provide documentation on the two new 618-11 site-specific Emergency Action Levels that were approved for addition to the 2          General site emergency plan as outlined in License Amendment No.218 in response to the licensees application dated April 28, 2010.
This section does not contain information on the treatment of Section 2.0  multiple events and classification upgrading as outlined in the 3
Discussion  endorsed guidance. Please provide justification for this inconsistency, or revise accordingly per endorsed guidance.
Initiating Condition lists Unexpected rise in plant radiation which is inconsistent with the endorsed guidance that lists this Initiating 4          RU2.1      Condition as Unplanned rise in plant radiation. Please provide justification for this inconsistency, or revise accordingly per endorsed guidance.
Initiating Condition in Technical Bases document lists Unexpected rise in plant radiation which is inconsistent with the endorsed 5          RU2.2      guidance that lists this Initiating Condition as Unplanned rise in plant radiation. Please provide justification for this inconsistency, or revise accordingly per endorsed guidance.
Emergency Action Level lists Any unexplained RPV leakage indication, Table C-1 which is inconsistent with the endorsed 6          CG3.2      guidance that lists this EAL as Unplanned level rise in (site specific sump or tank). Please provide justification for this inconsistency, or revise accordingly per endorsed guidance.
The Emergency Action Level states, Multi Purpose Container (MPC) CONFINEMENT BOUNDRY breach. As worded this EAL would require an actual breach of the boundary versus damage to 7          EU1.1      the confinement boundary for EAL declaration. Please provide justification for this inconsistency, or revise accordingly per endorsed guidance.


2  General  Please provide documentation on the two new 618-11 site-specific Emergency Action Levels that were approved for addition to the site emergency plan as outlined in License Amendment No.218 in response to the licensee's application dated April 28, 2010.
Columbia Generating Station U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Request for Additional Information (RAI)
3  Section 2.0 Discussion This section does not contain information on the treatment of multiple events and classification upgrading as outlined in the endorsed guidance. Please provide justification for this inconsistency, or revise accordingly per endorsed guidance.
Emergency Action Level Scheme Change to NEI 99-01, Revision 5 Format DRAFT Clarify if Table C-4/S-2, Communications Systems, includes the CU5.1 8                  Health Physics Network, communication systems as required by SU6.1 the endorsed guidance.
4  RU2.1  Initiating Condition lists "Unexpected rise in plant radiation" which is inconsistent with the endorsed guidance that lists this Initiating Condition as "Unplanned rise in plant radiation". Please provide justification for this inconsistency, or revise accordingly per endorsed guidance.
HU1.4 HU2.1 HA1.2    Table H-1 uses the term in vicinity of associated with the 9        HA1.4    referenced structures which is inconsistent with endorsed HA1.3    guidance. Please provide justification for this inconsistency, or HA1.5    revise accordingly per endorsed guidance.
5  RU2.2  Initiating Condition in Technical Bases document lists "Unexpected rise in plant radiation" which is inconsistent with the endorsed guidance that lists this Initiating Condition as "Unplanned rise in plant radiation". Please provide justification for this inconsistency, or revise accordingly per endorsed guidance.
HA2.1 HA3.1 Clarify the process / instrumentation used to perform the calculation to subtract reactor building closed cooling water from 10        SU8.1    the unidentified leakage total and the timeliness of this process.
6  CG3.2  Emergency Action Level lists "Any unexplained RPV leakage indication, Table C-1 which is inconsistent with the endorsed guidance that lists this EAL as "Unplanned level rise in" (site specific sump or tank). Please provide justification for this inconsistency, or revise accordingly per endorsed guidance.
The Initiating Condition uses the term Security Defined Owner IC HA4    Controlled Area which is inconsistent with the endorsed guidance.
7  EU1.1  The Emergency Action Level states, "Multi Purpose Container (MPC) CONFINEMENT BOUNDRY breach". As worded this EAL would require an actual breach of the boundary versus damage to the confinement boundary for EAL declaration. Please provide justification for this inconsistency, or revise accordingly per endorsed guidance.
11                  Please provide justification for this inconsistency, or revise EAL HA4.1 accordingly per endorsed guidance.
 
: 1. Fuel Clad Barrier L.1 lists PC flooding required (SAG entry) due to either: which is inconsistent with the endorsed guidance. Please provide justification for this inconsistency, or revise accordingly per endorsed guidance
Columbia Generating Station U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Request for Additional Information (RAI) Emergency Action Level Scheme Change to NEI 99-01, Revision 5 Format DRAFT 8 CU5.1 SU6.1  Clarify if Table C-4/S-2, Communications Systems, includes the Health Physics Network, communication systems as required by the endorsed guidance.  
: 2. Containment Barrier PL.1 lists PC flooding required (SAG Fission            entry) due to either: and lists two entry requirements which 12        Product            is inconsistent with the endorsed guidance. Please provide Barrier            justification for this inconsistency, or revise accordingly per Matrix            endorsed guidance.
 
: 3. Containment Barrier L.3 removed the endorsed guidance wording after primary containment isolation signal which is inconsistent with the endorsed guidance. Please provide justification for this inconsistency, or revise accordingly per endorsed guidance.}}
HU1.4 HU2.1 HA1.2 HA1.4 HA1.3 HA1.5 HA2.1 HA3.1     Table H-1 uses the term "in vicinity of" associated with the referenced structures which is inconsistent with endorsed guidance. Please provide justification for this inconsistency, or revise accordingly per endorsed guidance.
10 SU8.1 Clarify the process / instrumentation used to perform the calculation to subtract reactor building closed cooling water from the unidentified leakage total and the timeliness of this process.
11 IC HA4 EAL HA4.1 The Initiating Condition uses the term "Security Defined Owner Controlled Area" which is inconsistent with the endorsed guidance. Please provide justification for this inconsistency, or revise accordingly per endorsed guidance.
12  Fission Product Barrier Matrix  1. Fuel Clad Barrier L.1 lists "PC flooding required (SAG entry) due to either:" which is inconsistent with the endorsed guidance. Please provide justification for this inconsistency, or revise accordingly per endorsed guidance  
: 2. Containment Barrier PL.1 lists "PC flooding required (SAG entry) due to either:" and lists two entry requirements which is inconsistent with the endorsed guidance. Please provide justification for this inconsistency, or revise accordingly per endorsed guidance.  
: 3. Containment Barrier L.3 removed the endorsed guidance wording "after primary containment isolation signal" which is inconsistent with the endorsed guidance. Please provide justification for this inconsistency, or revise accordingly per endorsed guidance.}}

Latest revision as of 18:04, 12 November 2019

Draft Request for Additional Information EAL Upgrade
ML112070459
Person / Time
Site: Columbia Energy Northwest icon.png
Issue date: 04/26/2011
From: Dante Johnson
Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response
To: Linda Williams
Energy Northwest
Thadani M, NRR/DLPM, 415-1476
Shared Package
ML112070405 List:
References
TAC ME4589
Download: ML112070459 (2)


Text

Columbia Generating Station U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Request for Additional Information (RAI)

Emergency Action Level Scheme Change to NEI 99-01, Revision 5 Format DRAFT RAI # EAL Question Due to recurring issues within the industry, please confirm that all stated values, set points, and indications provided are within the 1 General calibrated range of the applicable instrumentation and that the instrumentation is appropriate for the specific EAL.

Please provide documentation on the two new 618-11 site-specific Emergency Action Levels that were approved for addition to the 2 General site emergency plan as outlined in License Amendment No.218 in response to the licensees application dated April 28, 2010.

This section does not contain information on the treatment of Section 2.0 multiple events and classification upgrading as outlined in the 3

Discussion endorsed guidance. Please provide justification for this inconsistency, or revise accordingly per endorsed guidance.

Initiating Condition lists Unexpected rise in plant radiation which is inconsistent with the endorsed guidance that lists this Initiating 4 RU2.1 Condition as Unplanned rise in plant radiation. Please provide justification for this inconsistency, or revise accordingly per endorsed guidance.

Initiating Condition in Technical Bases document lists Unexpected rise in plant radiation which is inconsistent with the endorsed 5 RU2.2 guidance that lists this Initiating Condition as Unplanned rise in plant radiation. Please provide justification for this inconsistency, or revise accordingly per endorsed guidance.

Emergency Action Level lists Any unexplained RPV leakage indication, Table C-1 which is inconsistent with the endorsed 6 CG3.2 guidance that lists this EAL as Unplanned level rise in (site specific sump or tank). Please provide justification for this inconsistency, or revise accordingly per endorsed guidance.

The Emergency Action Level states, Multi Purpose Container (MPC) CONFINEMENT BOUNDRY breach. As worded this EAL would require an actual breach of the boundary versus damage to 7 EU1.1 the confinement boundary for EAL declaration. Please provide justification for this inconsistency, or revise accordingly per endorsed guidance.

Columbia Generating Station U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Request for Additional Information (RAI)

Emergency Action Level Scheme Change to NEI 99-01, Revision 5 Format DRAFT Clarify if Table C-4/S-2, Communications Systems, includes the CU5.1 8 Health Physics Network, communication systems as required by SU6.1 the endorsed guidance.

HU1.4 HU2.1 HA1.2 Table H-1 uses the term in vicinity of associated with the 9 HA1.4 referenced structures which is inconsistent with endorsed HA1.3 guidance. Please provide justification for this inconsistency, or HA1.5 revise accordingly per endorsed guidance.

HA2.1 HA3.1 Clarify the process / instrumentation used to perform the calculation to subtract reactor building closed cooling water from 10 SU8.1 the unidentified leakage total and the timeliness of this process.

The Initiating Condition uses the term Security Defined Owner IC HA4 Controlled Area which is inconsistent with the endorsed guidance.

11 Please provide justification for this inconsistency, or revise EAL HA4.1 accordingly per endorsed guidance.

1. Fuel Clad Barrier L.1 lists PC flooding required (SAG entry) due to either: which is inconsistent with the endorsed guidance. Please provide justification for this inconsistency, or revise accordingly per endorsed guidance
2. Containment Barrier PL.1 lists PC flooding required (SAG Fission entry) due to either: and lists two entry requirements which 12 Product is inconsistent with the endorsed guidance. Please provide Barrier justification for this inconsistency, or revise accordingly per Matrix endorsed guidance.
3. Containment Barrier L.3 removed the endorsed guidance wording after primary containment isolation signal which is inconsistent with the endorsed guidance. Please provide justification for this inconsistency, or revise accordingly per endorsed guidance.