|
---|
Category:E-Mail
MONTHYEARML23320A1122024-01-18018 January 2024 NRC to Fws, Concurrence with Endangered Species Act Determinations for North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Subsequent License Renewal, Issuance of Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, and Opportunity for Public Comment ML23355A2722023-12-21021 December 2023 NRR E-mail Capture - Schedule Revision for Emergency Preparedness Staff Augmentation Times License Amendment Request ML23318A1172023-11-13013 November 2023 NRR E-mail Capture - Formal Issuance of RAIs for North Anna Technical Support Center (TSC) License Amendment Request (LAR) (L-2023-LLA-0006) ML23257A2092023-09-14014 September 2023 NRR E-mail Capture - Formal Issuance of 2nd Round RAIs for Surry Units 1&2 and North Anna Units 1&2 Emergency Plans LAR ML23243A9862023-08-31031 August 2023 NRR E-mail Capture - Draft RAIs for EP Staff Augmentation Times LAR (L-2022-LLA-0166) ML23219A1602023-08-0707 August 2023 003 Radiation Safety Baseline Inspection Information Request ML23171B0522023-06-20020 June 2023 NRR E-mail Capture - RAI for Review of Appendix F to DOM-NAF-2-P (Redacted) ML23075A0232023-03-15015 March 2023 NRR E-mail Capture - RAI - License Amend Req (LAR) to Revise Tech Spec (Ts) 3.6.8 Limiting Condition for Operation to Remove Refueling Water Chemical Addition Tank and Replace the Containment Sump Buffer North Anna, 1 and 2 (L-2022-LLA-0162 ML23067A2162023-03-0707 March 2023 NRR E-mail Capture - RAI for North Anna, 1 & 2, Surry 1 & 2, Millstone, 2 & 3, Request for Approval of App. F Fleet Report DOM-NAF-2-P, Qual of the Framatome ORFEO-GAIA and ORFEO-NMGRID CHF Correlations in the Dominion VIPRE-D Computer Code ML23060A0932023-03-0101 March 2023 NRR E-mail Capture - Formal Issuance of RAIs for Surry/North Anna Emergency Plans LAR ML23059A2282023-02-28028 February 2023 NRR E-mail Capture - Draft RAIs for Containment Buffer Change to Natb (L-2022-LLA-0162) ML23039A1712023-02-0808 February 2023 NRR E-mail Capture - Acceptance Review for Technical Support Center (TSC) Relocation (L-2023-LLA-0006) ML23018A0352023-01-17017 January 2023 NRR E-mail Capture - Acceptance Review for Fleet Report Re Appendix F of DOM-NAF-2-P (L-2022-LLT-0003) ML22342B1472022-12-0808 December 2022 NRR E-mail Capture - Acceptance Review for LAR Re NAPS Post LOCA Buffer Change (L-2022-LLA-0162) ML22335A4842022-12-0101 December 2022 NRR E-mail Capture - Acceptance Review for LAR North Anna Power Station - Units 1 and 2 and Surry Power Station - Units 1 and 2 Emergency Plan Staff Augmentation Times (L-2022-LLA-0166) ML22242A0452022-08-23023 August 2022 NRR E-mail Capture - Dominion GL 04-02 Response Draft RAIs (L-2017-LRC-0000) ML22174A3552022-06-23023 June 2022 NRR E-mail Capture - Acceptance Review for Dominion Fleet LAR to Implement TSTF-554 (L-2022-LLA-0078) ML22104A0252022-04-14014 April 2022 NRR E-mail Capture - Dominion Presentation Slides for April 21, 2022 Public Meeting on Emergency Preparedness Submittal for the North Anna Power Station and the Surry Power Station ML22083A2102022-03-24024 March 2022 NRR E-mail Capture - Draft RAI - Relief Request N2-14-LMT-003 Fourth Ten Year Inservice Inspection Interval ML22032A0962022-02-0101 February 2022 002 Radiation Safety Baseline Inspection Information Request ML22018A0272022-01-18018 January 2022 2022 All RFI Responses - Exercise and Program Inspections - Revl ML22007A2672022-01-0707 January 2022 NRR E-mail Capture - North Anna, Unit 2, ASME Section XI Inservice Inspection Program Relief Request N2-14-LMT-003 Fourth Interval Third Period Limited Examinations (L-2021-LLR-0088) ML21335A0812021-12-0101 December 2021 NRR E-mail Capture - Acceptance Review for OMN-28 Request Alternative to ISTC-3700, Position Verification Testing (L-2021-LLR-0086) ML21334A1922021-11-30030 November 2021 NRR E-mail Capture - Audit Plan for Reactor Core Thermal-Hydraulics Using the VIPRE-D Appendix E Review ML21327A3652021-11-23023 November 2021 NRR E-mail Capture - Draft RAI for TSTF-577 LAR ML21326A1502021-11-22022 November 2021 NRR E-mail Capture - Acceptance Review for Relocation of Unit Staff Requirements to the QAPD LAR (L-2021-LLA-0195) ML21322A0962021-11-18018 November 2021 Final Request for Additional Information Set 5 - North Anna SLRA Safety Review (EPID No. L-2020-SLR-0000) - Email ML21312A0082021-11-0404 November 2021 Enclosure 2 - NAPS Draft SER Table A.1-1 Markup ML21312A0112021-11-0404 November 2021 Enclosure 3 - NAPS Draft SER Section 3 Comments ML21312A0012021-11-0404 November 2021 Comments on North Anna Draft SER ML21306A3302021-11-0202 November 2021 NRR E-mail Capture - Acceptance Review for TSTF-569 LAR ML21286A7372021-10-13013 October 2021 Additional Element Included in the Implementation Plan for the Surry Fuel Melt Safety Limit (SL) LAR ML21274A0022021-09-30030 September 2021 NRR E-mail Capture - Acceptance Review for TSTF-577 LAR (L-2021-LLA-0158) ML21312A0022021-09-21021 September 2021 Enclosure 1 - E-mail - NAPS SLR SER Appendix a for Dominion Review ML21312A0072021-09-21021 September 2021 Enclosure 1 - E-mail - Enclosure B - NAPS SER App a - Dominion Comments 9-21-2021 ML21312A0032021-09-21021 September 2021 Enclosure 1 - E-mail - Enclosure a - Dominion Table A4.4-1 Clean Version ML21256A0672021-09-13013 September 2021 Final Request for Confirmation of Information Set 2 - North Anna SLRA Safety Review (EPID No. L-2020-SLR-0000) - Email ML21152A1722021-09-0707 September 2021 NRC to Fws, NRC Issuance of Draft Environmental Impact Statement for North Anna Subsequent License Renewal, Opportunity for Public Comment, and Endangered Species Act Determinations ML21238A0942021-08-25025 August 2021 Draft Request for Additional Information Set Z - North Anna SLRA Safety Review (EPID No. L-2020-SLR-0000) - Email ML21225A5512021-08-13013 August 2021 Discussion Point for Public Meeting Regarding Fire Protection Piping Cyclic Loading - Transmittal E-mail ML21195A2442021-07-13013 July 2021 NRR E-mail Capture - Draft RAI Appendix E to Topical Report DOM-NAF-2 Qualification of the Framatome BWU-I CHF Correlation in the Dominion Energy VIPRE-D Computer Code ML21188A1632021-07-0707 July 2021 Final Request for Additional Information Set 4 - North Anna SLRA Safety Review (EPID No. L-2020-SLR-0000) - Email ML21154A0152021-06-0101 June 2021 NRR E-mail Capture - Acceptance Review for Primary Grade Water LAR (L-2021-LLA-0082) ML21140A3682021-05-20020 May 2021 Response to North Anna Hardship (Temporary Staff Guidance Additional Guidance for FOF Inspections During the PHE) ML21140A3712021-05-19019 May 2021 FOF Discussion ML21123A2972021-05-0303 May 2021 Final Request for Additional Information Set 3 - North Anna SLRA Safety Review (EPID No. L-2020-SLR-0000) - E-mail ML21091A0022021-04-0101 April 2021 Final Request for Additional Information Set 2 - North Anna SLRA Safety Review (EPID No. L-2020-SLR-0000) - Email ML21076A4622021-03-17017 March 2021 NRR E-mail Capture - Draft RAI for Versatile Internals and Component Program for Reactors Vipre Code Review (L-2021-LLT-0000) ML21075A0032021-03-12012 March 2021 Emergency Preparedness Exercise Inspection Request for Information for - Brunswick, Catawba, North Anna, Oconee, Vogtle 1 & 2 ML21069A3522021-03-10010 March 2021 NRR E-mail Capture - Acceptance Review for Topical Report DOM-NAF-2 VIPRE-D 2024-01-18
[Table view] Category:Response to Request for Additional Information (RAI)
MONTHYEARML23346A0972023-12-11011 December 2023 License Amendment Request to Revise the Emergency Plan Relocation of the Technical Support Center - Response to NRC Request for Additional Information ML23208A0922023-07-26026 July 2023 Request for Approval of Appendix F of Fleet Report DOM-NAF-2-P Qualification of Framatome ORFEO-GAIA and OORFE-NMGRID CHF Correlations in the Dominion Energy Vipre-D Computer Code Response ML23136A8832023-05-16016 May 2023 Responses to Request for Additional Information and Request for Confirmation of Information Regarding Environmental Review of Subsequent License Renewal Application L-04-002, Stations - NRC Generic Letter 2004-02, Potential Impact of Debris Blockage on Emergency Recirculation During Design Basis Accidents at Pressurized-Water Reactors Fleet Response to Request for Additional Information2023-05-0808 May 2023 Stations - NRC Generic Letter 2004-02, Potential Impact of Debris Blockage on Emergency Recirculation During Design Basis Accidents at Pressurized-Water Reactors Fleet Response to Request for Additional Information ML23103A2752023-04-13013 April 2023 Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Proposed License Amendment Request for Removal of Refueling Water Chemical Addition Tank and Replacement of Containment Sump Buffer ML23096A2982023-04-0606 April 2023 Units 1 and 2 and Millstone Power Station, Units 2 and 3 - Request for Approval of Appendix F of Fleet Report DOM-NAF-2-P Qualification of the Framatome ORFEO-GAIA and ORFEO-NMGRID CHF Correlations in the Dominion ML23089A3542023-03-30030 March 2023 Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Proposed License Amendment Request to Revise Emergency Plan Staff Augmentation Times ML22312A4432022-11-0707 November 2022 NRC Generic Letter 2004-02, Potential Impact of Debris Blockage on Emergency Recirculation During Design Basis Accidents at Pressurized-Water Reactors Fleet Response to RAI ML22115A1752022-04-25025 April 2022 ASME Section XI Inservice Inspection Program - Relief Request N2-14-LMT-004 - Fourth Interval Third Period Limited Examinations - Response to Request for Additional Information ML21350A4082021-12-16016 December 2021 Application to Revise Technical Specifications to Adopt TSTF-577, Revised Frequencies for Steam Genera Tor Tube Inspections, Rev 1, Using the Consolidated Line-Item Improvement Process Response to RAI ML21341B4372021-12-0606 December 2021 (Naps), Units 1 and 2 - Subsequent License Renewal Application Responses to NRC Request for Additional Information Safety Review - Set 5 ML21258A3542021-09-15015 September 2021 (Naps), Units 1 and 2 - Subsequent License Renewal Application (SLRA) Response to NRC Request for Confirmation of Information Set 2 Safety Review ML21259A0852021-09-15015 September 2021 North Ann, and Surry, Units 1 and 2, Millstone, Units 2 and 3, Request for Approval of Appendix E of Fleet Report DOM-NAF-2-A Qualification of the Framatome BWU-I CHF Correlation in the Vipre-D Computer Code Response to Request for Addition ML21210A3962021-07-29029 July 2021 (Naps), Units 1 and 2 - Subsequent License Renewal Application (SLRA) Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Safety Review - Set 4 and Supplement 3 ML21147A2932021-05-27027 May 2021 (Naps), Units 1 and 2 Subsequent License Renewal Application (SLRA) Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Safety Review - Set 3 and Administrative Change to SLRA Table A4.0-1, Item 25 ML21133A2852021-05-13013 May 2021 Stations, Units 1 & 2 and Millstone Power Station, Units 2 and 3 - Request for Approval of Appendix E Fleet Report DOM-NAF-2-A Qualification of the Framatome Bwui CHF Correlation in the Dominion Energy VIPRE-D Computer Code ML21126A3152021-05-0606 May 2021 Proposed License Amendment Request to Battery Surveillance Requirements - Response to Request for Additional Information ML21119A2872021-04-29029 April 2021 (Naps), Unit 1 and 2 - Subsequent License Renewal Application (SLRA) Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Safety Review - Set 2 and Flow Accelerated Corrosion Program Enhancement Completion ML21091A1872021-04-0101 April 2021 Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Regarding Safety Review - Set 1 & Clarification to Aging Management of Fire Protection System Lined Ductile Iron Valves ML21084A1822021-03-24024 March 2021 Subsequent License Renewal Application Response to NRC Requests for Confirmation of Information for the Safety Review - Set 1 ML21056A5572021-02-25025 February 2021 NRC Generic Letter 2004-02, Potential Impact of Debris Blockage on Emergency Recirculation During Design Basis Accidents at Pressurized-Water Reactors Final Supplemental Response ML21053A4332021-02-22022 February 2021 (Naps), Units 1 and 2 - Subssequent License Renewal Application (SLRA) Environmental Review - Response to NRC Request for Additional Information ML21042B9042021-02-11011 February 2021 Subsequent License Renewal Application, Response to NRC Requests for Confirmation of Information for the Environmental Review ML21033A3022021-01-25025 January 2021 (NAPS) Units 1 and 2 - Subsequent License Renewal Application (SLRA) - Provides Requested Documents in Response to Environmental Audit. Part 1 of 2 ML21022A1752020-12-16016 December 2020 Steam Generator Tube Inspection Report RAI Response ML20296A6672020-10-22022 October 2020 ASME Section XI Inservice Inspection Program Proposed Inservice Inspection Relief Request N1-I4-LMT-003 Response to Request for Additional Information ML20296A7272020-10-22022 October 2020 Stations Units 1 & 2 - Proposed License Amendment Requests Addition of Analytical Methodology to the Core Operating Limits Report for a Small Break LOCA Supplement to the Response to Request for Additional Information ML20268B1872020-09-24024 September 2020 ASME Section XI Inservice Inspection Program, Proposed Inservice Inspection Alternative N1-I5-NDE-002, Response to Request for Additional Information ML20156A2872020-06-0404 June 2020 Inservice Testing Program Plan for Pumps, Valves, and Snubbers Fifth 10-Year Interval Update for Units 1 & 2 Request for Alternatives to Requirements of ASME OM Code - Response to RAI ML20149K6942020-05-28028 May 2020 Response to Request for Additional Information, to Proposed License Amendment Requests Addition of Analytical Methodology to the Core Operating Limits Report for a Small Break Loss of Coolant Accident ML20140A3362020-05-18018 May 2020 Revised Reactor Vessel Materials Surveillance Capsule Withdrawal Schedules - Response to Request for Additional Information ML20021A0052020-01-17017 January 2020 Inservice Testing Program Request for Alternative to Requirements of ASME OM Code Relief Request P-9, Response to Request for Additional Information ML19249B7672019-08-29029 August 2019 Enclosure 1 - Millstone, Units 2 and 3 and ISFSI; North Anna, Units 1 and 2 and ISFSI; and Surry, Units 1 and 2 and ISFSI - Response to EAL Scheme Change RAIs ML19248B7622019-08-22022 August 2019 Supplement to Proposed License Amendment Request - Flood Protection Dike Modification - Response to Onsite Audit Questions ML19225D1302019-08-0808 August 2019 Response to Request for Additional Information (Follow-Up) Regarding Open Phase Protection Per NRC Bulletin 2012-01 - Proposed License Amendment Request ML19196A1102019-07-0909 July 2019 Attachments 2, 3 & 4 - Response to NRC Request for Additional Information and Correction of SBLOCA Analysis Error and Revised Marked-Up/Typed NAPS and SPS Technical Specifications Pages ML19156A2072019-05-24024 May 2019 Response to Request for Additional Information on Proposed License Amendment Request Open Phase Protection Per NRC Bulletin 2012-01 ML19071A1142019-03-0707 March 2019 Response to 03/12/2012 Information Request, Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment Supplement for Recommendation 2.1 ML18267A0682018-09-18018 September 2018 Attachment - Response to Request for Clarification on Proposed Consolidated Emergency Operations Facility License Amendment Requests ML18257A2272018-09-14014 September 2018 SPRA (Fukushima 50.54f) Audit (Clarification) Questions - Plant Response ML18169A2262018-06-13013 June 2018 Attachment 1 - Response to Request for Additional Information ML18169A2272018-06-13013 June 2018 Attachment 3 - Proposed NAPS Emergency Plan Changes ML18093A4452018-03-28028 March 2018 Ad 2, Response to 03/12/2012 Information Request Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment for Recommendation 2.1 ML18092A0812018-03-26026 March 2018 Supplement to Proposed License Amendment Request to Revise Technical Specifications to Adopt TSTF-522, Revise Ventilation System Surveillance Requirements to Operate for 10 Hours Per Month ML18037A7042018-01-31031 January 2018 Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Proposed License Amendment Request for Spent Fuel Storage and New Fuel Storage ML17354A1602017-12-14014 December 2017 Response to March 12, 2012 Information Request Spent Fuel Pool Seismic Evaluation for Recommendation 2.1 ML17241A0452017-08-24024 August 2017 Proposed ISI Alternatives NI-14-NDE-010 and N2-14-NDE-005 Reactor Pressure Vessel Nozzle Weld Inspections Response to Request for Additional Information ML17171A2302017-06-14014 June 2017 Response to Request for Additional Information ASME Section XI Inservice Inspection Program Request for Proposed Alternative N1-I4-009 and N2-I4-NDE-004 ML17065A2502017-02-28028 February 2017 & Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) - Submittal of Response to Request for Referenced Information Related to RAIs 2-2, 3-5, and 3-8 ML17025A1282017-01-20020 January 2017 Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation - Response to Request for Additional Information for License Renewal Application (CAC L25121) 2023-07-26
[Table view] |
Text
From: Valentin-Olmeda, Milton To: "Diane Aitken" Cc: Titus, Brett; Sebrosky, Joseph; Reisi Fard, Mehdi; St. Peters, Courtney
Subject:
North Anna SPRA (Fukushima 50.54f) Audit (Clarification) Questions - Plant Response Date: Friday, September 14, 2018 9:51:00 AM
- Diane, As part of the ongoing audit of the seismic probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) submittal (ADAMS Accession No. ML18093A445), here are clarification questions related to plant-response portion of the submittal. Each question is associated to a topic in the technical checklist (ADAMS accession No. ML17041A342) used for this review; Question 1 - Topic #12 - Selection of Dominant Risk Contributors that Require Fragility Analysis Using the Separation of Variables Methodology (SPID Section 6.4.1)
Section 4.4.2 of the seismic PRA submittal states that the conservative deterministic failure margin (CDFM) approach was initially used for most structures, systems, and components (SSCs) in the seismic equipment list, but that a more refined fragility analyses using the separation of variables (SOV) approach was used for the top risk-important SSCs. The submittal further states that the CDFM approach was performed in one of two ways, by using variabilities from the Seismic Evaluation Guidance (SPID) or by using detailed plant specific structural response variabilities. Sections 5.4 and 5.5 and Tables 5.4-2 and 5.5-2 of seismic PRA submittal show this to be the case but also indicate that rather than the SOV approach, a third approach was used to determine the fragility of certain risk-significant SSCs based on guidance from the EPRI Seismic PRA Implementation Guide issued in 2013 (EPRI 30020000709). Describe the approach (or approaches) from the EPRI guidance document used to determine the fragility of certain risk-significant SSCs and justify that this substitute approach for the SOV approach provides a refined fragility determination compared to the CDFM approach.
Question 2 - Topic #14 - Peer Review of the Seismic PRA, Accounting for NEI 12-13 (SPID Section 6.7)
Topic 14 in the technical checklist has an item to verify that peer reviewers focusing on seismic response and fragility analysis have successfully completed the Seismic Qualification Utility Group (SQUG) training course or equivalent (SPID section 6.7).
Please confirm that the seismic PRA peer reviewers who focused on the seismic response and fragility aspects of the review have successfully completed the SQUG Walkdown and Seismic Evaluation Training Course or equivalent available at EPRI from the SQUG. If equivalent training was completed, or if there is sufficient professional experience, demonstrate the equivalency.
Question 3 - Topic #15 - Documentation of the Seismic PRA (SPID Section 6.8)
Section 5.7 of the seismic PRA submittal describes the results of sensitivity studies performed on key PRA model uncertainties consistent with guidance from the SPID. Among these studies, there is a sensitivity study on FLEX diesel generator (DG) failure rates to determine the impact on seismic risk if the failure rates are
higher than they are assumed to be in the seismic PRA. The NRC staff notes that, while industry failure rates for portable FLEX equipment are not yet available, they are expected to be different from (e.g., greater than) the failure rates for permanently installed equipment. In addition, NRC staff notes that the failure rates for the safety related emergency diesel generators (EDGs) are less than the failure rates for the Station Blackout DGs, which are not safety related. The submittal indicates that the failure rates used in the seismic PRA for the FLEX DGs are based on industry failure rates for EDGs. In light of these observations:
a) Justify that the sensitivity study is sufficient to show that the uncertainty caused by using EDG failure rates for the FLEX DGs does not affect the submittal conclusions regarding no seismic hazard vulnerabilities and no need for plant improvements.
b) Explain why using a multiplication factor of 5 is sufficient for the sensitivity analysis, even though the FLEX DGs are neither safety related or permanently installed.
c) Also, since the conclusions the submittal depends on the importance values generated from the seismic PRA, discuss how the sensitivity study (using an appropriate multiplication factor) impacts the importance values generated to identify risk-significant contributors.
Question 4 - Topic #16 - Review of Plant Modifications and Licensee Actions, If Any Table 5.6-1 of the seismic PRA submittal presents the mean seismic core damage frequency (SCDF) and seismic large-early release frequency (SLERF) values for both reactor units showing there is a relatively significant level of seismic risk at the plant. The table indicates that the mean SCDF is 6.32E-5 and 6.34E-5 per year for Units 1 and 2, respectively; and the mean SLERF is 1.934E-05 and 1.94E-05 per year for Units 1 and 2, respectively. Sections 5.4 and 5.5 of seismic PRA submittal present importance values for the risk-significant SSC seismic fragility failure groups, random component failures, and operator failures. It appears to NRC staff, based on this information, that there may be cost-justified substantial safety improvements that could reduce the SCDF by 1E-05 per year or the SLERF by 1E-06 per year. The following failure events, or their combination, identified in the seismic PRA submittal appear to have the potential to significantly reduce seismic risk:
- SEIS-LOOP - Seismic-induced loss of offsite power
- SEIS-SSLOCA - Seismic-induced Small-Small loss of coolant accident (LOCA)
- SEIS-EE-BKR-HJ8-RLY - 4Kv to 480V bus breaker relay chatter
- SEIS-CH-P-IABC-RLY - Charging pumps relay chatter
- SEIS-SLOCA - Seismic-induced Small LOCA
- SEIS-VB-INV-1234 - 120 VAC Vital bus inverter (Unit 2 only)
- HEP-C-OSW-CHP-ALT - Restore cooling to the Charging Pumps from the Fire Protection or Primary Grade Water systems
- SEIS-RS-P-1AB-RLY - Inside RS pump relay chatter In light of these observations:
a) Explain whether event SEIS-LOOP separately represents the occurrence of seismically induced LOOP within and outside the plants jurisdiction. Include information on whether separate fragilities can be assigned to seismically induced LOOP contributors within and outside the plants jurisdiction. If SEIS-LOOP separately represents seismically induced LOOP that can occur due to failures within the plants jurisdiction, explain whether cost-justified improvements associated with plant switchyard equipment can significantly reduce seismic risk (as defined above) either alone or in combination with other potential plant modifications.
b) Explain whether cost-justified plant improvement possibilities exist that would reduce the SCDF contribution by 1E-05 per year or reduce the SLERF contribution by 1E-06 per year by eliminating or decreasing the risk associated with the following:
- i. a single failure event (e.g., SEIS-LOOP, SEIS-SLOCA, or SEIS-RS-P-1AB-RLY) ii. a combination of two failure events iii. a combination of three of more of the failure events identified in the list above In the response to item b, explain how combinations and cost of plant improvements were considered.
c) Describe the evaluation performed for plant improvements (single or combined) considered to have the potential to significantly reduce seismic risk. Include identification of the plant improvements that were evaluated and the results of evaluating those improvements.
d) Many failure modes are listed as functional. Please describe what the functional failure mode is and what kind of improvements can be done to address the functional failure mode. Explain if any generic modifications could be made to address this failure mode.
Question 5 - Topic #14 - Related to NAPS SA.7 R2, Attachment 5 (Internal events PRA F&Os)
The following questions pertain to finding-level Facts and Observations (F&Os) presented in NAPS SA.7 R2, Attachment 5 provided on the document portal during the audit. The table in Attachment 5 presents the internal events PRA F&Os for Supporting Requirements (SRs) not met at Capability Category II along with dispositions of the F&Os for the seismic PRA submittal. The dispositions provided for the following F&Os were not sufficient for NRC staff to conclude that the F&Os either individually or in the aggregate did not have an impact on the conclusions of the submittal. The NRC staff notes that the seismic PRA incorporates the plant response model from the internal events and internal flooding PRAs and that the conclusions of the submittal depend on the importance values generated from the
seismic PRA.
a) The table in Attachment 5 indicates that a number of PRA model updates were performed to resolve internal events PRA F&Os but the table does not indicate what additional modelling or assessment was performed. For each of the following F&Os, describe PRA model update, or assessment, that was performed and explain how does it resolves the F&O:
- i. F&O AS-A10-1 regarding the impact of loss of condenser vacuum on the transient initiating event group ii. F&O DA-B2-01 regarding including outliers in the definition of component groups iii. F&O HR-G2-01 regarding inclusion of recovery actions in the dependency analysis of post-initiator Human Failure Events (HFEs) iv. F&O SC-B1-01 regarding large break LOCA success criteria b) The table in Attachment 5 indicates that the resolutions for a number of F&Os only require updates to documentation, but remarks by the peer reviewers in the F&Os indicate that further review or evaluation was needed.
The same remarks stated that some of these further review or evaluation might necessitate updating the PRA models. For each of the following F&Os, justify that the resolution only requires an update to the documentation or confirm that further review or evaluation was performed and it was determined that no model update was needed:
- i. For F&O AS-B6-01, it appears that a review needs to be performed on plant configurations and maintenance practices for dependencies among system alignments.
ii. For F&O IFQU-A6-01, based on the peer reviewers recommended resolution provided in the NAPS containment integrated leak rate test (ILRT) LAR (ADAMS Accession No. ML14183B318), it appears that a review was needed of the time-related inputs to the human reliability analysis (HRA) calculator for consistency with the PRA notebook.
iii. For F&O IFSN-A8-01, based on the peer reviewers recommended resolution provided in the NAPS ILRT LAR, it appears that a more detailed investigation of door failure due to water accumulation is needed or that the beneficial assumption that the doors fail during flooding needs to be removed.
iv. For F&O IFSN-B2-02, based on the peer reviewers recommended resolution provided in the NAPS ILRT LAR, it appears that evaluation was needed of the flow rates for a full-diameter pipe breaks and a comparison was needed of the rates against corresponding maximum pump runout rates.
- v. For F&O IFSN-B2-02, based on the peer reviewers recommended resolution provided in the NAPS ILRT LAR, it appears that the identification of electrical dependencies may be incomplete.
c) For certain F&Os, the sixth column of the table in Attachment 5 indicates that resolution of the F&O pertains only to documentation, but the eighth column indicates that a PRA model update was performed. For each of the following F&Os, describe the PRA model update that was performed and explain how it resolves the F&O:
- i. For F&O DA-C14-01, it appears that an evaluation of historical maintenance schedules was needed and based on this an update of the PRA model may be needed.
ii. For F&Os DA-D8-01 and DA-D8-02, it appears that an evaluation of the impact of plant modifications on the data and possible update of the failure rates used in the PRA model is needed.
iii. For F&O QU-B8-01, it appears that a review and possible correction is needed for the cited mutually exclusive logic.
d) The table states that plugging of manual valves will not impact the seismic PRA and, because they are seismically rugged, they are not modeled in the seismic PRA. It is not clear how this assertion resolves F&O SY-A14-01.
F&O SY-A14-01 concerns the plugging of manual valves in standby trains that may have a long exposure rate between tests or alignments. Justify why the exclusion of this failure mode cannot have an impact on the seismic PRA.
Question 6 - Topic #14 - Related to Appendix A of the Seismic PRA Submittal (Seismic events PRA F&Os)
The following questions pertain to finding-level F&Os documented in Appendix A of the Seismic PRA submittal, which presents the seismic event PRA F&Os for SRs not met at Capability Category II along with dispositions of the F&Os for the SPRA submittal.
a) F&O 25-9 states that the seismic PRA model includes modeling of the low-leakage reactor coolant pump (RCP) Flowserve seals but also cites the internal events PRA notebook which states the logic for the Flowserve seals is disabled until the seals are replaced in all of the RCPs. Based on these statements, it is not clear whether the seismic PRA model credits the Flowserve RCP seals. The disposition also states that North Anna Flowserve RCP seal modeling has not been peer reviewed, but that the Flowserve seal in the North Anna PRA (and SPRA) is nearly identical to the Flowserve model in the Surry PRA, which had undergone a peer review in 2013. In light of these observations:
- i. Confirm whether the low-leakage RCP Flowserve seals have been completely installed and whether they are credited in the seismic PRA.
ii. If the RCP seals are credited in the seismic PRA, then perform a
sensitivity study that removes credit for the Flowserve low leakage RCP seals and discuss whether exclusion of credit for these seals affects the conclusions of the submittal. The discussion should include the effect on the importance values generated by the seismic PRA for the risk significant contributors.
iii. If the inclusion of credit for the Flowserve RCP seals can affect the conclusions of the submittal, then justify that the updated modeling to reflect the new seals does not constitute a PRA upgrade as defined by the ASME/ANS SA-Ra-2009 PRA standard.
iv. If the updated modeling to reflect the new seals constitutes a PRA upgrade as defined by the ASME/ANS SA-Ra-2009 PRA standard, then provide the results of a focused-scope peer review on the RCP seal modeling that justifies its use in the NAPS seismic PRA.
b) F&O 25-13 states that surrogate values are used to capture the contribution for the unique nature of the actions taken in FLEX that are outside the scope of the HRA calculator. Based on this brief explanation, it is not clear how FLEX Human Error Probabilities (HEPs) were estimated. Section 5.7.4 of the seismic PRA submittal explains that a sensitivity study was performed in which the FLEX HEPs were raised by a factor of 5, but it is unclear whether the sensitivity study was sufficient to justify the finding to address the surrogate approach. In light of these observations:
- a. Describe the surrogate approach, include discussion of the parameters for which surrogates were used and what values were assigned.
- b. Justify that the sensitivity study (i.e., the factor of 5 increase) is sufficient to show that the uncertainty associated with surrogate values used for failure of FLEX actions does not affect the conclusions of the submittal. Justifications should discuss how the sensitivity study affects the importance values generated by the seismic PRA for the risk significant contributors.
Document request via ePortal:
In addition, please make the following documents available for audit:
- NAPS PRA Model Notebook MC.1, Rev.2
- NOTEBK-PRA-NAPS-SA.4, Rev 2, PRA Model Notebook Volume SA.4
- PRA Model Notebook SA.1, Seismic PRA Quantification Results We are available to discuss our questions.
Please give me a call to discuss further.
Respectfully,
Milton Valentín, PM US NRC Division of Licensing Projects Beyond Design Basis Management (Fukushima)
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Milton.Valentin@nrc.gov 301-415-2864