ML11308A739: 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)
Line 14: Line 14:
| page count = 2
| page count = 2
| project = TAC:ME6288
| project = TAC:ME6288
| stage = Other
| stage = Request
}}
}}


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:1NRR-PMDAPEm ResourceFrom:Feintuch, KarlSent:Thursday, November 03, 2011 4:28 PMTo:'jack.gadzala@dom.com'Cc:Lapinsky, George
{{#Wiki_filter:1 NRR-PMDAPEm Resource From:Feintuch, Karl Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 4:28 PM To: 'jack.gadzala@dom.com' Cc: Lapinsky, George


==Subject:==
==Subject:==
ME6288 - RE: Kewaunee CCW mod - IHPB request for clarificationReviewer Lapinsky has requested a clarification (an email response would be acceptable.) regarding the procedural and automatic actions associated with the subject process.  
ME6288 - RE: Kewaunee CCW mod - IHPB request for clarificationReviewer Lapinsky has requested a clarification (an email response would be acceptable.) regarding the procedural and automatic actions associated with the subject process.  


Routinely, Emergency Operating Procedures (EOPs) contain directions to confirm that automatic actions that occur as a result of a safety injection (SI) signal have initiated as expected from that signal. Reviewer Lapinsky requests that you clarify whether this is done at Kewaunee for the Bypass Flow Control Valves that are taking over the automatic function of the Service Water (SW) main return valves? If so, is it (1) done by memory via training, or (2) documented in a revision to the relevant EOPs? (provide details or a copy of the procedure) This question is in recognition that a procedural step associated with an automatic action implies a second action whereby the accomplishment of the automatic action is verified.   
Routinely, Emergency Operating Procedures (EOPs) contain directions to confirm that automatic actions that occur as a result of a safety injection (SI) signal have initiated as expected from that signal.
Reviewer Lapinsky requests that you clarify whether this is done at Kewaunee for the Bypass Flow Control Valves that are taking over the automatic function of the Service Water (SW) main return valves? If so, is it (1) done by memory via training, or (2) documented in a revision to the relevant EOPs? (provide details or a copy of the procedure)
This question is in recognition that a procedural step associated with an automatic action implies a second action whereby the accomplishment of the automatic action is verified.   


If a subsequent response more formal than an email is needed , I will inform you.  (For example, if a formal supplement needs to be submitted.) Please respond to this request for a clarification by email on or before November 9, 2011.  
If a subsequent response more formal than an email is needed , I will inform you.  (For example, if a formal supplement needs to be submitted.)
Please respond to this request for a clarification by email on or before November 9, 2011.  


Hearing Identifier:  NRR_PMDA Email Number:  192  Mail Envelope Properties  (26E42474DB238C408C94990815A02F0968B69C4B8C)  
Hearing Identifier:  NRR_PMDA Email Number:  192  Mail Envelope Properties  (26E42474DB238C408C94990815A02F0968B69C4B8C)


==Subject:==
==Subject:==
ME6288 - RE: Kewaunee CCW mod - IHPB request for clarification  Sent Date:  11/3/2011 4:27:51 PM  Received Date:  11/3/2011 4:27:00 PM From:    Feintuch, Karl Created By:  Karl.Feintuch@nrc.gov Recipients:    "Lapinsky, George" <George.Lapinsky@nrc.gov>  Tracking Status: None  "'jack.gadzala@dom.com'" <jack.gadzala@dom.com>
ME6288 - RE: Kewaunee CCW mod - IHPB request for clarification  Sent Date:  11/3/2011 4:27:51 PM  Received Date:  11/3/2011 4:27:00 PM From:    Feintuch, Karl Created By:  Karl.Feintuch@nrc.gov Recipients:    "Lapinsky, George" <George.Lapinsky@nrc.gov>  Tracking Status: None  "'jack.gadzala@dom.com'" <jack.gadzala@dom.com>
Tracking Status: None Post Office:  HQCLSTR01.nrc.gov Files    Size      Date & Time MESSAGE    1191      11/3/2011 4:27:00 PM Options  Priority:    Standard  Return Notification:    No  Reply Requested:    No  Sensitivity:    Normal  Expiration Date:      Recipients Received:      
Tracking Status: None Post Office:  HQCLSTR01.nrc.gov
}}
 
Files    Size      Date & Time MESSAGE    1191      11/3/2011 4:27:00 PM
 
Options  Priority:    Standard  Return Notification:    No  Reply Requested:    No  Sensitivity:    Normal  Expiration Date:      Recipients Received:}}

Revision as of 14:29, 2 August 2018

2011/11/03 NRR E-mail Capture - ME6288 - Kewaunee CCW Mod - Ihpb Request for Clarification
ML11308A739
Person / Time
Site: Kewaunee Dominion icon.png
Issue date: 11/03/2011
From: Feintuch K
Division of Operating Reactor Licensing
To: Gadzala J
Dominion Generation
References
TAC ME6288
Download: ML11308A739 (2)
v • d • e


Text

1 NRR-PMDAPEm Resource From:Feintuch, Karl Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 4:28 PM To: 'jack.gadzala@dom.com' Cc: Lapinsky, George

Subject:

ME6288 - RE: Kewaunee CCW mod - IHPB request for clarificationReviewer Lapinsky has requested a clarification (an email response would be acceptable.) regarding the procedural and automatic actions associated with the subject process.

Routinely, Emergency Operating Procedures (EOPs) contain directions to confirm that automatic actions that occur as a result of a safety injection (SI) signal have initiated as expected from that signal.

Reviewer Lapinsky requests that you clarify whether this is done at Kewaunee for the Bypass Flow Control Valves that are taking over the automatic function of the Service Water (SW) main return valves? If so, is it (1) done by memory via training, or (2) documented in a revision to the relevant EOPs? (provide details or a copy of the procedure)

This question is in recognition that a procedural step associated with an automatic action implies a second action whereby the accomplishment of the automatic action is verified.

If a subsequent response more formal than an email is needed , I will inform you. (For example, if a formal supplement needs to be submitted.)

Please respond to this request for a clarification by email on or before November 9, 2011.

Hearing Identifier: NRR_PMDA Email Number: 192 Mail Envelope Properties (26E42474DB238C408C94990815A02F0968B69C4B8C)

Subject:

ME6288 - RE: Kewaunee CCW mod - IHPB request for clarification Sent Date: 11/3/2011 4:27:51 PM Received Date: 11/3/2011 4:27:00 PM From: Feintuch, Karl Created By: Karl.Feintuch@nrc.gov Recipients: "Lapinsky, George" <George.Lapinsky@nrc.gov> Tracking Status: None "'jack.gadzala@dom.com'" <jack.gadzala@dom.com>

Tracking Status: None Post Office: HQCLSTR01.nrc.gov

Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 1191 11/3/2011 4:27:00 PM

Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date: Recipients Received:

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML11308A739&oldid=938052"