ML102571776: 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 15: Line 15:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:1 WBN2Public Resource From: Crouch, William D [wdcrouch@tva.gov]
{{#Wiki_filter:WBN2Public Resource From:                       Crouch, William D [wdcrouch@tva.gov]
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 1:10 PM To: Poole, Justin; Milano, Patrick; Wiebe, Joel Cc: Grim, Kenneth R; Elton, Thomas L
Sent:                       Friday, September 10, 2010 1:10 PM To:                         Poole, Justin; Milano, Patrick; Wiebe, Joel Cc:                         Grim, Kenneth R; Elton, Thomas L


==Subject:==
==Subject:==
FW: Excerpt from 08/27 NRC Letter Attachments:
FW: Excerpt from 08/27 NRC Letter Attachments:                 image001.gif Justin/Joel, We need a little help understanding the below RAI from the 8/27/10 letter. We are not sure how to answer the question for contamination control areas. All of the other areas are clear.
image001.gifJustin/Joel, WeneedalittlehelpunderstandingthebelowRAIfromthe8/27/10letter.Wearenotsurehowtoanswerthequestionfor"contaminationcontrolareas".Alloftheotherareasareclear.
The term contamination control areas comes straight out of Reg Guide 1.70 Section 12.3.1. If it is the overall radiological control areas (RCA), it seems like a trivial question/answer since the RCA is big enough to go around both units. Common systems/features within the RCA are already in use and have been demonstrated by many years of operation to be adequately sized for maintenance access, personnel access, etc. Operating two units (as opposed to one unit) does not change the design of the common features and thus there should be no impact on the size/design.
Theterm"contaminationcontrolareas"comesstraightoutofRegGuide1.70Section12.3.1.Ifitistheoverall"radiologicalcontrolareas(RCA)",itseemslikeatrivialquestion/answersincetheRCAisbigenoughtogoaroundbothunits.Commonsystems/featureswithintheRCAarealreadyinuseandhavebeendemonstratedbymanyyearsofoperationtobeadequatelysizedformaintenanceaccess,personnelaccess,etc.Operatingtwounits(asopposedtooneunit)doesnotchangethedesignofthecommonfeaturesandthusthereshouldbenoimpactonthesize/design.Wemayhavetoperformanactioninacommonareamorefrequentlywithtwounitsoperating,butnoadditionalspacewouldberequired.Unitspecificsystems/featuresinUnit2arethesamesize/designasinUnit1andhavealsobeendemonstratedtobeadequatelysized/designedbyyearsofoperation.Additionally,thetwounitoperationoftheSequoyahfacility(whichisessentiallyanidenticaldesign)hasdemonstratedtheacceptabilityoftheoveralldesign.
We may have to perform an action in a common area more frequently with two units operating, but no additional space would be required. Unit specific systems/features in Unit 2 are the same size/design as in Unit 1 and have also been demonstrated to be adequately sized/designed by years of operation. Additionally, the two unit operation of the Sequoyah facility (which is essentially an identical design) has demonstrated the acceptability of the overall design.
Ifwearemissingthepointofthisquestion,pleaseprovideadditionalinsight.
If we are missing the point of this question, please provide additional insight.
ThanksWilliam D. (Bill) Crouch(423)365 2004WBN(256)777 7676CellExcerpt from 08/27 NRC Letter RAI#7:   The response to RAI # 7 is unresponsive to the request. In lieu of layout drawings as requested (consistent with Section 12.3.1 of Regulatory Gu ide 1.70), identify which of the following radiation protec tion facilities are common to Watts Bar Unit 1 and indicate whether they are sized and situated properly to support two operating units. The facilities are:
Thanks William D. (Bill) Crouch (423) 3652004 WBN (256) 7777676 Cell Excerpt from 08/27 NRC Letter RAI#7:
2-2 1. Controlled access areas,
The response to RAI # 7 is unresponsive to the request. In lieu of layout drawings as requested (consistent with Section 12.3.1 of Regulatory Guide 1.70), identify which of the following radiation protection facilities are common to Watts Bar Unit 1 and indicate whether they are sized and situated properly to support two operating units. The facilities are:
: 2. personnel and equipmen t decontamination,
1
 
                                                              -2
: 1. Controlled access areas,
: 2. personnel and equipment decontamination,
: 3. contamination control areas,
: 3. contamination control areas,
: 4. in plant traffic patterns to radiologically controlled areas,
: 4. in plant traffic patterns to radiologically controlled areas,
: 5. health physics facilities (including dosimetry iss ue and maintenance, respirat ory protection issue and maintenance, in-vivo and in-vitro bioassay, protective clothing and radiation survey instrument issue, Radiation Protection Manager and technical staff office/work space),
: 5. health physics facilities (including dosimetry issue and maintenance, respiratory protection issue and maintenance, in-vivo and in-vitro bioassay, protective clothing and radiation survey instrument issue, Radiation Protection Manager and technical staff office/work space),
: 6. onsite laboratory for analysis of chemical and radiological samples, and
: 6. onsite laboratory for analysis of chemical and radiological samples, and
: 7. radiological counting room.
: 7. radiological counting room.
 
For each of these facilities not shared with Unit 1, demonstrate they are sized and situated properly to support Unit 2 operation.
For each of these facilities not shared with Unit 1, demonstrate they are sized and situated properly to support Unit 2 operation.
2


Hearing Identifier: Watts_Bar_2_Operating_LA_Public Email Number: 94   Mail Envelope Properties   (B75BE6D61CDE4A468D264343045CAC4F084990F2)
Hearing Identifier:     Watts_Bar_2_Operating_LA_Public Email Number:           94 Mail Envelope Properties       (B75BE6D61CDE4A468D264343045CAC4F084990F2)


==Subject:==
==Subject:==
FW: Excerpt from 08/27 NRC Letter Sent Date:   9/10/2010 1:09:43 PM Received Date: 9/10/2010 1:10:14 PM From:   Crouch, William D Created By:   wdcrouch@tva.gov Recipients:     "Grim, Kenneth R" <krgrim@tva.gov>
FW: Excerpt from 08/27 NRC Letter Sent Date:               9/10/2010 1:09:43 PM Received Date:           9/10/2010 1:10:14 PM From:                   Crouch, William D Created By:             wdcrouch@tva.gov Recipients:
Tracking Status: None "Elton, Thomas L" <tlelton@tva.gov>
"Grim, Kenneth R" <krgrim@tva.gov>
Tracking Status: None "Poole, Justin" <Justin.Poole@nrc.gov> Tracking Status: None "Milano, Patrick" <Patrick.Milano@nrc.gov> Tracking Status: None "Wiebe, Joel" <Joel.Wiebe@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None "Elton, Thomas L" <tlelton@tva.gov>
Tracking Status: None Post Office:   TVANUCXVS2.main.tva.gov
Tracking Status: None "Poole, Justin" <Justin.Poole@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None "Milano, Patrick" <Patrick.Milano@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None "Wiebe, Joel" <Joel.Wiebe@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None Post Office:             TVANUCXVS2.main.tva.gov Files                            Size                    Date & Time MESSAGE                          2643                    9/10/2010 1:10:14 PM image001.gif                    927 Options Priority:                        Standard Return Notification:            No Reply Requested:                No Sensitivity:                    Normal Expiration Date:
Recipients Received:


Files    Size      Date & Time MESSAGE    2643      9/10/2010 1:10:14 PM  image001.gif    927 Options  Priority:    Standard  Return Notification:    No  Reply Requested:    No  Sensitivity:    Normal  Expiration Date:      Recipients Received:
Page 1 of 1 file://c:\EMailCapture\Watts_Bar_2_Operating_LA_Public\94\attch1.gif  9/14/2010}}
Pa ge 1of 1 9/14/2010file://c:\EMailCa p ture\Watts
_Bar_2_O p eratin g_LA_Public\94\attch1.
g if}}

Revision as of 14:17, 13 November 2019

2010/09/10 Watts Bar 2 OL - FW: Excerpt from 08/27 NRC Letter
ML102571776
Person / Time
Site: Watts Bar Tennessee Valley Authority icon.png
Issue date: 09/10/2010
From:
- No Known Affiliation
To:
Division of Operating Reactor Licensing
References
Download: ML102571776 (4)
v • d • e


Text

WBN2Public Resource From: Crouch, William D [wdcrouch@tva.gov]

Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 1:10 PM To: Poole, Justin; Milano, Patrick; Wiebe, Joel Cc: Grim, Kenneth R; Elton, Thomas L

Subject:

FW: Excerpt from 08/27 NRC Letter Attachments: image001.gif Justin/Joel, We need a little help understanding the below RAI from the 8/27/10 letter. We are not sure how to answer the question for contamination control areas. All of the other areas are clear.

The term contamination control areas comes straight out of Reg Guide 1.70 Section 12.3.1. If it is the overall radiological control areas (RCA), it seems like a trivial question/answer since the RCA is big enough to go around both units. Common systems/features within the RCA are already in use and have been demonstrated by many years of operation to be adequately sized for maintenance access, personnel access, etc. Operating two units (as opposed to one unit) does not change the design of the common features and thus there should be no impact on the size/design.

We may have to perform an action in a common area more frequently with two units operating, but no additional space would be required. Unit specific systems/features in Unit 2 are the same size/design as in Unit 1 and have also been demonstrated to be adequately sized/designed by years of operation. Additionally, the two unit operation of the Sequoyah facility (which is essentially an identical design) has demonstrated the acceptability of the overall design.

If we are missing the point of this question, please provide additional insight.

Thanks William D. (Bill) Crouch (423) 3652004 WBN (256) 7777676 Cell Excerpt from 08/27 NRC Letter RAI#7:

The response to RAI # 7 is unresponsive to the request. In lieu of layout drawings as requested (consistent with Section 12.3.1 of Regulatory Guide 1.70), identify which of the following radiation protection facilities are common to Watts Bar Unit 1 and indicate whether they are sized and situated properly to support two operating units. The facilities are:

1

-2

1. Controlled access areas,
2. personnel and equipment decontamination,
3. contamination control areas,
4. in plant traffic patterns to radiologically controlled areas,
5. health physics facilities (including dosimetry issue and maintenance, respiratory protection issue and maintenance, in-vivo and in-vitro bioassay, protective clothing and radiation survey instrument issue, Radiation Protection Manager and technical staff office/work space),
6. onsite laboratory for analysis of chemical and radiological samples, and
7. radiological counting room.

For each of these facilities not shared with Unit 1, demonstrate they are sized and situated properly to support Unit 2 operation.

2

Hearing Identifier: Watts_Bar_2_Operating_LA_Public Email Number: 94 Mail Envelope Properties (B75BE6D61CDE4A468D264343045CAC4F084990F2)

Subject:

FW: Excerpt from 08/27 NRC Letter Sent Date: 9/10/2010 1:09:43 PM Received Date: 9/10/2010 1:10:14 PM From: Crouch, William D Created By: wdcrouch@tva.gov Recipients:

"Grim, Kenneth R" <krgrim@tva.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Elton, Thomas L" <tlelton@tva.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Poole, Justin" <Justin.Poole@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Milano, Patrick" <Patrick.Milano@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Wiebe, Joel" <Joel.Wiebe@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None Post Office: TVANUCXVS2.main.tva.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 2643 9/10/2010 1:10:14 PM image001.gif 927 Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:

Recipients Received:

Page 1 of 1 file://c:\EMailCapture\Watts_Bar_2_Operating_LA_Public\94\attch1.gif 9/14/2010

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML102571776&oldid=2127698"