IR 05000443/2011007: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
(18 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 17: Line 17:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:Heater, Keith From: Sent: To: Gray, Mel Wednesday, July 30, 2014 4:58 PM Heater, Keith Subject: FW: Email Regarding NRC Inspection Report 05000443/2011-007 email to close Rl-2014-0216. Also in ADAMS remove her email address from From: Gray, Mel Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 4:56PM To: Debbie Grinnell > Subject: RE: Email Regarding NRC Inspection Report Mel From: Gray, Mel Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 4:53PM To: * 1 ;; * *} . * ** . . . Cc: Mlchaei'lodes; Wilham Cook ( ]I * p; Dentel, Glenn; Sheehan, Ne1l; ScrenCI, D1ane Subject: Email Regarding NRC Inspection Report 05000443/2011-007 Debbie, I am responding to your email below rather than the recipient, Angie Bufford of our NRC Division of License Renewal. The reason being is your email is in reference to NRC Inspection Report 05000443/2011007, dated May 23, 2011 (ADAMS ML 111360432). This is a document issued from the NRC Region I Office. This inspection report documents NRC review of NextEra's scoping of non-safety related structures, systems and components and aging management programs related to NextEra's license renewal application for the Seabrook Station. Page 16 of this report discusses inspector conclusions related to work order#0844358. NRC inspectors concluded this document incorrectly compared the testing of anchors submerged in raw water in a manhole with the anchors supporting the RHR piping inserted into a calcium carbonate degraded wall and concluded, based on the submerged bolting, that the bolting in the RHR anchors were acceptable. The inspectors further noted this comparison did not take into account the additional concern of a "recently discovered alkaline silica degradation" associated with the calcium carbonate degraded wall and that the issue of anchor bolting integrity was not revisited subsequent to the discovery of ASR. Your email inquired as follows: "My question to you is from ML 111360432. It is in reference to (AR 01633206) where the testing of anchors in raw water with the anchors supporting the RHR piping inserted into the carbonated degraded wall and concluded based on submerged bolting that the bolting in the RHR were acceptable. This was not revisited after ASR concrete degradation was discovered. Has it? W00844358 was translated into Condition report 08-15902. The implications of NRC Bulletin 70-02 anchor bolt integrity program were not considered. We want to know if this has been done correctly and when." NRC Response: * AR 01633206 was the revised analysis that corrected the initial error of drawing a conclusion about bolts in calcified concrete from the degradation of bolts in raw water. 1
{{#Wiki_filter:Heater, Keith From: Gray, Mel Sent:  Wednesday, July 30, 2014 4:58 PM To:  Heater, Keith Subject: FW: Email Regarding NRC Inspection Report 05000443/2011-007 email to close Rl-2014-0216. Also in ADAMS remove her email address from From: Gray, Mel Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 4:56PM To: Debbie Grinnell   >~
* WO 0844358 translation into CR 08-15902 preceded AR 01633206 and was part of Seabrook staff's initial error in closing the issue. The WO and CR preceded the identification of ASR. Therefore ASR was not considered. * NRC Bulletin 79-02 is referenced in our inspection report. This document was not initially considered but, became part of the revised analysis. Except for the effect of ASR the analysis was correctly implemented in the AR. * Regarding ASR, our inspection report cover letter and "Overall Findings" section state: "Except for the silica reaction issue, the inspection results support a conclusion of reasonable assurance with respect to managing the effects of aging in the systems, structures, and components identified in the application." Review of ASR and managing the aging effect on concrete, including anchor performance, remains an open item in our review of the Seabrook license renewal application. NRC Safety Evaluation Report with Open Items (ML 12160A374) includes NRC Open Item 3.0.3.2.18-1, which concerns the enhancement to the Seabrook Structures Monitoring aging management program to manage the effects of A SR. * Since issuance of the referenced NRC inspection report in May 2011, NRC inspectors have reviewed NextEra's evaluations and conclusions that that ASR-affected structures at Seabrook Station remain capable of performing their intended safety functions regarding anchorage capacity. We have determined these evaluations to be adequate and the conclusions supported (ADAMS ML 12338A283, Section 3.2.6 for anchors) Inspectors have also reviewed NextEra's plans to address this non-conforming condition involving anchorage and found them to be adequate (ADAMS ML 13221A172, Section 8.0).
Subject: RE: Email Regarding NRC Inspection Report Mel From: Gray, Mel Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 4:53PM To: *~ailto* * 1 ;; * *} . ** *   . . .
Cc: Mlchaei'lodes; Wilham Cook ( ]I * p; Dentel, Glenn; Sheehan, Ne1l; ScrenCI, D1ane Subject: Email Regarding NRC Inspection Report 05000443/2011-007 Debbie, I am responding to your email below rather than the recipient, Angie Bufford of our NRC Division of License Renewal. The reason being is your email is in reference to NRC Inspection Report 05000443/2011007, dated May 23, 2011 (ADAMS ML111360432). This is a document issued from the NRC Region I Office. This inspection report documents NRC review of NextEra's scoping of non-safety related structures, systems and components and aging management programs related to NextEra's license renewal application for the Seabrook Station.


Sincerely,Mel Gray Chief, Engineering Branch 1 ************************************************************************************************************************************** *************************** From: Debbie Grinnell [mailtog I 1 7 as I 3 I 1 rt Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 9:33AM To: Buford, Angela Subject: Re: Question Hi Angie, It was a pleasure to meet you. Yes. My original question is evident in your email exchange with me. From my email sent to you on April 24th 2014. "My question to you is from ML 111360432. It is in reference to (AR 01633206) where the testing of anchors in raw water with the anchors supporting the RHR piping inserted into the carbonated degraded wall and concluded based on submerged bolting that the bolting in the RHR were acceptable. This was not revisited after ASR concrete degradation was discovered. Has it? W00844358 was translated into Condition report 08-15902. The implications of NRC Bulletin 70-02 anchor bolt integrity program were not considered. We want to know if this has been done correctly and when" It has been two month and should be a yes or no easy question for SAITT to answer. 2 My Best, Debbie 3
Page 16 of this report discusses inspector conclusions related to work order#0844358. NRC inspectors concluded this document incorrectly compared the testing of anchors submerged in raw water in a manhole with the anchors supporting the RHR piping inserted into a calcium carbonate degraded wall and concluded, based on the submerged bolting, that the bolting in the RHR anchors were acceptable. The inspectors further noted this comparison did not take into account the additional concern of a "recently discovered alkaline silica degradation" associated with the calcium carbonate degraded wall and that the issue of anchor bolting integrity was not revisited subsequent to the discovery of ASR.
 
Your email inquired as follows:
"My question to you is from ML111360432. It is in reference to (AR 01633206) where the testing of anchors in raw water with the anchors supporting the RHR piping inserted into the carbonated degraded wall and concluded based on submerged bolting that the bolting in the RHR were acceptable. This was not revisited after ASR concrete degradation was discovered. Has it? W00844358 was translated into Condition report 08-15902. The implications of NRC Bulletin 70-02 anchor bolt integrity program were not considered. We want to know if this has been done correctly and when."
 
NRC Response:
* AR 01633206 was the revised analysis that corrected the initial error of drawing a conclusion about bolts in calcified concrete from the degradation of bolts in raw wate * WO 0844358 translation into CR 08-15902 preceded AR 01633206 and was part of Seabrook staff's initial error in closing the issue. The WO and CR preceded the identification of ASR. Therefore ASR was not considere * NRC Bulletin 79-02 is referenced in our inspection report. This document was not initially considered but, became part of the revised analysis. Except for the effect of ASR the analysis was correctly implemented in the A * Regarding ASR, our inspection report cover letter and "Overall Findings" section state: "Except for the alkali-silica reaction issue, the inspection results support a conclusion of reasonable assurance with respect to managing the effects of aging in the systems, structures, and components identified in the application." Review of ASR and managing the aging effect on concrete, including anchor performance, remains an open item in our review of the Seabrook license renewal application. NRC Safety Evaluation Report with Open Items (ML12160A374) includes NRC Open Item 3.0.3.2.18-1, which concerns the enhancement to the Seabrook Structures Monitoring aging management program to manage the effects of A S * Since issuance of the referenced NRC inspection report in May 2011, NRC inspectors have reviewed NextEra's evaluations and conclusions that that ASR-affected structures at Seabrook Station remain capable of performing their intended safety functions regarding anchorage capacity. We have determined these evaluations to be adequate and the conclusions supported (ADAMS ML12338A283, Section 3.2.6 for anchors)
Inspectors have also reviewed NextEra's plans to address this non-conforming condition involving anchorage and found them to be adequate (ADAMS ML13221A172, Section 8.0).
 
Sincerely, Mel Gray Chief, Engineering Branch 1
**************************************************************************************************************************************
***************************
From: Debbie Grinnell [mailtog I 1 7as I 3I 1rt Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 9:33AM To: Buford, Angela Subject: Re: Question Hi Angie, It was a pleasure to meet you.
 
Yes. My original question is evident in your email exchange with me.
 
From my email sent to you on April 24th 2014.
 
"My question to you is from ML111360432. It is in reference to (AR 01633206) where the testing of anchors in raw water with the anchors supporting the RHR piping inserted into the carbonated degraded wall and concluded based on submerged bolting that the bolting in the RHR were acceptable. This was not revisited after ASR concrete degradation was discovered. Has it? W00844358 was translated into Condition report 08-15902. The implications of NRC Bulletin 70-02 anchor bolt integrity program were not considered. We want to know if this has been done correctly and when" It has been two month and should be a yes or no easy question for SAITT to answe My Best, Debbie 3
}}
}}

Latest revision as of 20:11, 19 March 2020

Email to Debbie Grinnell Reference Anchor Bolts Inspection at Seabrook Station Documented in the NRC Inspection Report 05000443-11-007
ML14212A597
Person / Time
Site: Seabrook NextEra Energy icon.png
Issue date: 07/30/2014
From: Mel Gray
Engineering Region 1 Branch 1
To: Grinnell D
C-10 Foundation
Gray M
References
Download: ML14212A597 (3)
v • d • e


Text

Heater, Keith From: Gray, Mel Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 4:58 PM To: Heater, Keith Subject: FW: Email Regarding NRC Inspection Report 05000443/2011-007 email to close Rl-2014-0216. Also in ADAMS remove her email address from From: Gray, Mel Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 4:56PM To: Debbie Grinnell >~

Subject: RE: Email Regarding NRC Inspection Report Mel From: Gray, Mel Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 4:53PM To: *~ailto* * 1 ;; * *} . ** * . . .

Cc: Mlchaei'lodes; Wilham Cook ( ]I * p; Dentel, Glenn; Sheehan, Ne1l; ScrenCI, D1ane Subject: Email Regarding NRC Inspection Report 05000443/2011-007 Debbie, I am responding to your email below rather than the recipient, Angie Bufford of our NRC Division of License Renewal. The reason being is your email is in reference to NRC Inspection Report 05000443/2011007, dated May 23, 2011 (ADAMS ML111360432). This is a document issued from the NRC Region I Office. This inspection report documents NRC review of NextEra's scoping of non-safety related structures, systems and components and aging management programs related to NextEra's license renewal application for the Seabrook Station.

Page 16 of this report discusses inspector conclusions related to work order#0844358. NRC inspectors concluded this document incorrectly compared the testing of anchors submerged in raw water in a manhole with the anchors supporting the RHR piping inserted into a calcium carbonate degraded wall and concluded, based on the submerged bolting, that the bolting in the RHR anchors were acceptable. The inspectors further noted this comparison did not take into account the additional concern of a "recently discovered alkaline silica degradation" associated with the calcium carbonate degraded wall and that the issue of anchor bolting integrity was not revisited subsequent to the discovery of ASR.

Your email inquired as follows:

"My question to you is from ML111360432. It is in reference to (AR 01633206) where the testing of anchors in raw water with the anchors supporting the RHR piping inserted into the carbonated degraded wall and concluded based on submerged bolting that the bolting in the RHR were acceptable. This was not revisited after ASR concrete degradation was discovered. Has it? W00844358 was translated into Condition report 08-15902. The implications of NRC Bulletin 70-02 anchor bolt integrity program were not considered. We want to know if this has been done correctly and when."

NRC Response:

  • AR 01633206 was the revised analysis that corrected the initial error of drawing a conclusion about bolts in calcified concrete from the degradation of bolts in raw wate * WO 0844358 translation into CR 08-15902 preceded AR 01633206 and was part of Seabrook staff's initial error in closing the issue. The WO and CR preceded the identification of ASR. Therefore ASR was not considere * NRC Bulletin 79-02 is referenced in our inspection report. This document was not initially considered but, became part of the revised analysis. Except for the effect of ASR the analysis was correctly implemented in the A * Regarding ASR, our inspection report cover letter and "Overall Findings" section state: "Except for the alkali-silica reaction issue, the inspection results support a conclusion of reasonable assurance with respect to managing the effects of aging in the systems, structures, and components identified in the application." Review of ASR and managing the aging effect on concrete, including anchor performance, remains an open item in our review of the Seabrook license renewal application. NRC Safety Evaluation Report with Open Items (ML12160A374) includes NRC Open Item 3.0.3.2.18-1, which concerns the enhancement to the Seabrook Structures Monitoring aging management program to manage the effects of A S * Since issuance of the referenced NRC inspection report in May 2011, NRC inspectors have reviewed NextEra's evaluations and conclusions that that ASR-affected structures at Seabrook Station remain capable of performing their intended safety functions regarding anchorage capacity. We have determined these evaluations to be adequate and the conclusions supported (ADAMS ML12338A283, Section 3.2.6 for anchors)

Inspectors have also reviewed NextEra's plans to address this non-conforming condition involving anchorage and found them to be adequate (ADAMS ML13221A172, Section 8.0).

Sincerely, Mel Gray Chief, Engineering Branch 1

From: Debbie Grinnell [mailtog I 1 7as I 3I 1rt Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 9:33AM To: Buford, Angela Subject: Re: Question Hi Angie, It was a pleasure to meet you.

Yes. My original question is evident in your email exchange with me.

From my email sent to you on April 24th 2014.

"My question to you is from ML111360432. It is in reference to (AR 01633206) where the testing of anchors in raw water with the anchors supporting the RHR piping inserted into the carbonated degraded wall and concluded based on submerged bolting that the bolting in the RHR were acceptable. This was not revisited after ASR concrete degradation was discovered. Has it? W00844358 was translated into Condition report 08-15902. The implications of NRC Bulletin 70-02 anchor bolt integrity program were not considered. We want to know if this has been done correctly and when" It has been two month and should be a yes or no easy question for SAITT to answe My Best, Debbie 3

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=IR_05000443/2011007&oldid=2633635"