ML12005A037

E-mail from M. Franke, Region II to L. Suggs, Region II; FW: North Anna EALs

ML12005A037
Person / Time
Site:	North Anna
Issue date:	09/01/2011
From:	Mark Franke NRC/RGN-II
To:	Rolonda Jackson, Ladonna Suggs NRC/RGN-II
References
FOIA/PA-2011-0357
Download: ML12005A037 (3)

Text

From: Franke. Mark TO: Suggs, LaDonna; Jackson, Rahsean

Subject:

Fw: North Anna EALs Date: Thursday, September 01, 2011 3:01:05 PM This email is being sent from an NRC mobile device.

From: Munday, Joel To: Croteau, Rick; Jones, William; Wert, Leonard; Franke, Mark Cc: Christensen, Harold Sent: Tue Aug 30 05:58:03 2011

Subject:

Fw: North Anna EALs Below are the results of Brians work regarding the EAL call. This isn't good and I would bet generic. I suppose the team will have to determine if these would have worked if they had been powered up.

This email is being sent from an NRC Blackberry device.

From: Bonser, Brian To: Munday, Joel; Christensen, Harold Sent: Mon Aug 29 17:07:15 2011

Subject:

RE: North Anna EALs

Joel, A seismic monitoring panel in the back of the control was supposed to be used to make the determination of the magnitude of the earthquake. There are amber and red lights that would have indicated the magnitude of the quake. The emergency manager would have used this indication to make emergency classification. Since power was lost to the panel there were no seismic indications or readings available. Hence the Alert call made on judgment of the emergency manager.

Brian R. Bonser Chief, Plant Support Branch 1 Division of Reactor Safety, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 404-997-4653 From: Munday, Joel Sent: Monday, August 29,.2011 4:13 PM To: Bonser, Brian

Subject:

RE: North Anna EALs Please determine what instruments the SM would use to make the declaration due to a seismic event. Then what was it reading?

From: Bonser, Brian Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 4:01 PM To: Munday, Joel; Christensen, Harold

.. 'i

Subject:

RE: North Anna EALs North Anna uses the NEI 99-01 Rev. 4 EAL scheme.

Based on feedback from Mark Speck the EP inspector on-site at the time of the event, the initial North Anna Alert declaration was based on EAL HA6.1. This is an Alert declaration based on the judgment of the Emergency Manager that events are in progress or have occurred that involve an actual or potential substantial degradation of the level of safety of the plants or a security event that involves life threatening risk to site personnel or damage to site equipment because of hostile action. My understanding is that with both the trip of both units and an apparent earthquake the emergency manager concluded that a significant event had occurred and help was needed. An Alert was declared to get the support needed.

Brian R. Bonser Chief, Plant Support Branch 1 Division of Reactor Safety, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 404-997-4653 From: Munday, Joel Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 10:59 AM To: Bonser, Brian

Subject:

FW: North Anna EALs Importance: High Can you check into this?

From: Wert, Leonard Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 10:48 AM To: Munday, Joel Cc: Christensen, Harold

Subject:

FW: North Anna EALs Importance: High Question for the EP Branch as well as DRP .... Another reason to add reportability review to the AIT charter...

From: Sanfilippo, Nathan Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 10:25 AM To: McCoy, Gerald Cc: Jones, William; Croteau, Rick; Wert, Leonard

Subject:

North Anna EALs Importance: High Gerry, There has been some question coming from the Chairman's office about the emergency declaration at North Anna for the earthquake. I know the NUREG-0654 EAL scheme would have an SSE be declared as a SAE, but the NEI-99-01 scheme it would only be an SAE if damage to vital areas was discovered. Which EAL scheme do they use? And if it

is 0654, should they have made a report as such? Could you help clear this up?

Thanks, Nathan