ML12038A138

E-mail from R. Martin NRR to G. Mccoy, Region II; Subject: Reactor Systems North Anna Questions

ML12038A138
Person / Time
Site:	North Anna
Issue date:	09/13/2011
From:	Martin R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Gerald Mccoy NRC/RGN-II
References
FOIA/PA-2011-0357
Download: ML12038A138 (3)

Text

Kulesa, Gloria From: Martin, Robert , ( .

Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 3:27 PM To: McCoy, Gerald Cc: Hiland, Patrick; Khanna, Meena; Glitter, Joseph; Howe, Allen; Kulesa, Gloria; Boyle, Patrick; Jones, William; Franke, Mark; Kolcum, Gregory

Subject:

RE: Reactor Systems North Anna Questions I agree with your perspective. I think it represents an NRR-Region I coordinated approach that recognizes that both organizations are interested in many of the same-titled issues, but from somewhat different perspectives. And I think we will do our best to handle the coordination issue with constant continued C_

communication.

From: McCoy, Gerald  %

Sent: Tuesday, September 6l, 2011 3:11 PM To: Martin, Robert; Kulesa, Gloria; ]ones, William Cc: Franke, Mark; Kolcum, Gregory

Subject:

RE: Reactor Systems North Anna Questions From my perspective, Dominion, NRR and Region 2 have different functions in this process. Dominion has the responsibility to provide sufficient information to provide adequate the plant is safe to operate. NRR. has the engineering expertise to determine if the plan is acceptable. Region 2's responsibility is to provide information on the adequacy of the licensee's inspections by inspecting a sample of the inspections, either through witnessing the inspection or reviewing completion data. If NRR has an issue with Dominion's proposed evaluation of a system, I think that they should address it directly to Dominion.

For the issues raised here:

1. How has the licensee evaluated, inspected, or analyzed the steam generators to ensure SG tube integrity?

What further work is planned in this area?

The licensee should describe the process they used to ensure the SG tube integrity. Region 2 has plans to witness some of the SG ISI inspections that the licensee has planned.

2. What assurances does the licensee have that system pressure relief capabilities are maintained?

Again, the licensee should describe the process. Once we hear about how they intend to test the reliefs, we will see if there is anything that can be inspected.

3. How will licensee ensure overall RCS pressure boundary integrity? What have the licensee's observations been so far?

Licensee should describe what testing (if any) they have planned. NRR decides if that Is acceptable, Region 2 will see what is available for review.

4. How has the licensee inspected, examined, and evaluated the ECCS? How does the licensee know it will still perform as intended? Can it continue to perform its ECCS functions under simultaneous design basis earthquake loading per the ECCS design basis seismic requirements?

Again, the process should be described in the licensee's submittal. NRR needs to judge whether the plan is acceptable. Region 2 currently plans to observe selected surveillance tests when we know about them,

5. Were there any complications in residual heat removal following the earthquake? Did all RHR equipment perform as intended?

Iniormatior in this record wns deel'ed in accordance with he Freedom of Information Act, exemptions 1,...

FOIA-

There have been no issues reported with the RHR system. The RHR system was not put into service until several days after the earthquake.

6. How has the licensee assessed the reactor trip system, including its actuation circuitry and its mechanical components? How will the licensee ensure the RCCAs and the guide tubes retain their required functionality?

The licensee needs to describe how they will assess the RPS (reactor protective system). NRR needs to determine whether the proposed plan is acceptable. Region 2 plans on observing selected tests.

We are planning to observe tests that we know about as they occur. Once we see Dominion's submittal, we will see what else we need to inspect.

Do you agree with my perspective on this process?

Gerald J. McCoy Chief, Reactor Projects Branch 5 Division of Reactor Projects, Region 2 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Offic- 404-97-4551 Cell :*()6) ) ~

From: Martin, Robert \\ "-

Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 7:59 AM To: McCoy, Gerald; Kolcum, Gregory; Franke, Mark Cc: Kulesa, Gloria; Boyle, Patrick; Ulses, Anthony; Parks, Benjamin; Khanna, Meena

Subject:

Reactor Systems North Anna Questions We are preparing questions to send to Dominion. Which of the following Reactor Systems branch questions do you regard as being within Region Il"s scope - either as covered by the AIT or other Regional actions?

Even if within the Region's scope and NRR/Reactor Systems has the Q, how should we proceed with getting.

the answer? Region II to provide the answer or should we ask it of Dominion anyway?

From: Mendiola, Anthony Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 3:18 PM To: Martin, Robert

Subject:

FW: North Anna Questions Fyi...

From: Parks, Benjamin X .

Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 12:56 PM To: Mendiola, Anthony; Miranda, Samuel

Subject:

FW: North Anna Questions These were sent for Tony's-consideration. --bp

7. How has the licensee evaluated, inspected, or analyzed the steam generators to ensure SG tube integrity?

What further work is planned in this area?

8. What assurances does the licensee have that system pressure relief capabilities are maintained?

2

11.

9. How will licensee ensure overall RCS pressure boundary integrity? What have the licensee's observations been so far?

10. How has the licensee inspected, examined, and evaluated the ECCS? How does the licensee know it will still perform as intended? Can it continue to perform its ECCS functions under simultaneous design basis earthquake loading per the ECCS design basis seismic requirements?

11. Were there any complications in residual heat removal following the earthquake? Did all RHR equipment perform as intended?

12. How has the licensee assessed the reactor trip system, including its actuation circuitry and its mechanical components? How will the licensee ensure the RCCAs and the guide tubes retain their required functionality?

Benjamin T. Parks Reactor Systems Branch, NRR 01 O-D2 415-6472 3