NRC Requests Long List Of Technical Testing And Analysis

After the September 8th short notice NRC meeting, the NRC has sent a response to the North Anna nuclear plant asking them for a long list of technical analysis of their reactors. While the list is comprehensive it is a good overview of all the critical systems and reactor core contents that Dominion Energy failed to even consider in their plant review. Dominion was ready to restart the plants without any serious review of the condition of the inside of the reactors, the control rods or the fuel. Failure in these items could result in inability to control the reactor or other dangerous conditions.

The entire NRC letter below, original was sent out through the NRC email system to the public.

 

UNITED STATES 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555·0001 
September 14,  2011 
Mr.  David A.  Heacock 
President and Chief Nuclear Officer 
Virginia Electric and Power Company 
Innsbrook Technical Center 
5000 Dominion Boulevard 
Glen Allen, VA  23060-6711 
SUBJECT: 	 NORTH ANNA POWER STATION, UNIT NOS.  1 AND 2,  REQUEST FOR 
INFORMATION REGARDING THE EARTHQUAKE OF AUGUST 23,2011  (TAC 
NOS. ME7050 AND ME7051) 
Dear Mr.  Heacock: 
On September 8,  2011, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff held a public meeting in 
Rockville,  Maryland with the Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCO) to discuss the 
earthquake of  August 23,  2011,  and its effect on the North Anna Power Station (NAPS). 
We have reviewed the information provided in the slides provided by VEPCO for the meeting and 
find that we need additional information as identified in the enclosure. 
Sincerely, 
Uober t  
!2G~/J1~ E.  Martin, SeAlor Project Manager 
Plant Licensing Branch 11-1 
Division of  Operating Reactor Licensing 
Office of  Nuclear Reactor Regulation 
Docket Nos.  50-338 and 50-339 
Enclosure 
cc w/encls:  Distribution via Listserv VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY (VEPCO) 
NORTH ANNA POWER STATION,  UNIT NOS.  1 AND 2 (NAPS) 
DOCKET NOS.  50-338 AND  50-339 
The following  requests for information are related to the earthquake of  August 23,  2011, that 
occurred in the vicinity of  the NAPS,  as discussed in the public meeting held on September 8, 
2011.  The licensee's presentation materials from that meeting are available in  Reference 1. 
The following questions are grouped according to the format of  the NAPS Final Safety Analysis 
Report (FSAR). 
4.0 	 Fuel 
1. 	 FANP Topical Report,  BAW-10239(P)(A), Revision 0 (Reference 2),  provides an 
evaluation of  the Advanced Mark-BW fuel  assembly in  a sample reactor against the 
criteria defined in the Section 4.2 of  the Standard Review Plan  (SRP).  Section 5.3.4 of  
the topical report discusses fuel assembly structural damage from external forces, such as 
the operating basis earthquake (OBE), the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE),  as well as 
SSE + loss-of-coolant-accident (LOCA) loads.  The evaluation of faulted conditions also 
addresses both  horizontal (LOCA and  seismic) and vertical LOCA effects.  Based on the 
availability of  information to date from VEPCO's presentation and the Advanced Mark-BW 
fuel mechanical design report, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is unable 
to verify the operability condition for the core internals, specifically for the fuel  assemblies 
(grids, fuel  rods,  guide tubes) and control  rods. 
a) Please provide a comprehensive strategy and qualifying criteria for determining the 
   operability of  these components. 
b) Provide a comparison of  the predicted design basis loads (e.g., local acceleration) on 
   the core internals and fuel  assemblies against the predicted loads derived from the 
   measured ground motion data during the seismic event.  In  addition,  compare these 
   predicted loads against the measured yielding load and deflection from the fuel 
   assembly grid crush testing. 
c) Describe all sources of  technical information considered in determining the operability 
   and integrity of  the fuel,  including involvement of  the fuel vendors. 
2. Describe the extent of  fuel  assembly inspections which will be performed to confirm the 
   structural integrity of  the fuel.  Provide specific information on how the inspections will 
   determine that there is no distortion of  the fuel lattice array or  rod  cluster control assembly 
   (RCCA) guide tubes that occurred as a result of  the seismic event.  Also provide 
   information on guide tube drag and  rod  drop testing. - 2 ­
3. Describe the extent of fuel assembly inspections and supporting analyses which will be 
   performed to confirm the thermal-hydraulic performance of the fuel.  Provide specific 
   information on how the inspections will determine that there is no deflection of any fuel grid 
   mixing vanes or any other component that will  alter the thermal-hydraulic performance of 
   the fuel bundle as a result of the seismic event.  If any deficiencies are detected, provide 
   information on the impact on the fuel departure from  nucleate boiling  ratio  (DNBR). 
4. Describe the extent of inspections and testing which will  be performed to demonstrate the 
   operability of  the control element drive mechanisms. 
5. Provide any nuclear fuel  related information that has been gathered considering the 
   Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) guidance and  recommendations found in EPRI 
   report NP-6695 (reference 3).  Specific information of  interest is  control  rod drive 
   mechanism operability as related to changes in core instrumentation readouts; changes in 
   primary coolant radiation monitor values;  changes in  other parameters such as  primary 
   coolant flow, temperature,  and  pressure;  loose parts monitoring equipment noise 
   signatures;  and primary coolant chemistry sample  results. 
6. Explain the rationale and extent of  the operability determinations for the core components 
   (fuel and control rods) and their support systems. 
7. Provide the final  root cause analysis  report on the cause of  the reactor trips. 
8. Describe the extent of  inspections on the core shroud to investigate possible changes in 
   local flow conditions (e.g.,  baffle jetting,  change in  core bypass flow). 
9. Third-burned fuel assemblies are generally located along the core periphery in locations 
   where seismic loading may be limiting. These assemblies are at end-of-life and would be 
   discharged to the spent fuel  pool  (SFP)  (no  reinsertion).  Are there any plans to do 
   detailed investigations and measurements (including  rod  pulls,  dismantling, hot cell 
   examinations) on  any of  the third-burned fuel assemblies located at the core periphery of  
Unit 2? 
5.0 	 Reactor systems 
1. Describe the evaluations, inspections and analyses of  the steam generators (SG) to 
   ensure SG tube integrity? 
2. Discuss provisions to ensure that system  pressure relief capabilities are maintained. 
3. Discuss measures to verify overall  reactor coolant system  (RCS) pressure boundary 
   integrity. 
4. Describe the inspections, examinations and evaluations of  the emergency core cooling 
   systems (ECCS) that have been or will be performed to show that the ECCS will continue 
   to perform as designed, especially under simultaneous design basis earthquake loading 
   and  ECCS design basis seismic requirements. 
5. Were there any complications in  residual heat removal  (RHR) following the -3­
   earthquake?  Did all RHR equipment perform as intended? 
References: 
1. VEPCO presentation materials for public meeting of September 8,  2011,  (Agencywide 
   Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession number 
   ML11252A006. 
2. Letter, J.F. Mallay, Framatome ANP,  Inc., Publication of  BAW-10239(P)(A), Revision 0, 
   "Advanced Mark BW Fuel Assembly Mechanical Design Topical Report," October 5,  2004, 
   ADAMS Accession number ML042820190 
3. EPRI NP-6695, "Guidelines for Nuclear Plant Response to an  Earthquake," December 
1989. September 14,  2011 
Mr.  David A.  Heacock 
President and Chief Nuclear Officer 
Virginia Electric and Power Company 
Innsbrook Technical Center 
5000 Dominion Boulevard 
Glen Allen, VA  23060-6711 
SUBJECT: 	 NORTH ANNA POWER STATION, UNIT NOS.  1 AND 2,  REQUEST FOR 
INFORMATION REGARDING THE EARTHQUAKE OF AUGUST 23,2011  (TAC 
NOS. ME7050 AND ME7051) 
Dear Mr.  Heacock: 
On September 8,  2011, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff held a public meeting in 
Rockville, Maryland with the Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCO) to discuss the 
earthquake of  August 23, 2011, and its effect on the North Anna Power Station (NAPS). 
We have reviewed the information provided in the slides provided by VEPCO for the meeting and 
find that we need additional information as identified in the enclosure. 
Sincerely, 
IRA! 
Robert E.  Martin, Senior Project Manager 
Plant Licensing Branch  11-1 
Division of  Operating Reactor Licensing 
Office of  Nuclear Reactor Regulation 
Docket Nos.  50-338 and 50-339 
Enclosure 
cc w/encls:  Distribution via Listserv. 
DISTRIBUTION: 
Public  RidsNrrLAMO'Brien Resource  LPL2-1  R/F 
RidsOgcRp Resouce  RidsNrrLpl2-1  Resource  RidsNrrDssSrxb Resource 
RidsRgn2MailCenter Resource  RidsAcrsAcnw_MailCTR Resource  RidsNrrDorlDpr Resource 
PC lifford, NRR  RidsNrrPMNorthAnna Resource  AUlses, NRR 
AMendiola, NRR  MKhanna,  NRR  PHiland,  NRR 
GMcCoy, Rgn2 
ADAMS Accession No  ML11258A021 
OFFICE  NRR/LPL2-1/PM  NRR/DSS/SRXB  NRR/DSS/SNPB  NRR/LPL2-1/BC 
NAME  RMartin  AUlses 
(SMiranda for )  
AMendiola  GKulesa 
DATE  09/14/11  09/14/11  09/14/11  09/14/11 
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

This article would not be possible without the extensive efforts of the SimplyInfo research team
Join the conversation at chat.simplyinfo.org

© 2011-2016 SimplyInfo.org, Fukuleaks.org All Rights Reserved Content cited, quoted etc. from other sources is under the respective rights of that content owner. If you are viewing this page on any website other than www.simplyinfo.org (or www.fukuleaks.org) it may be plagiarized, please let us know. If you wish to reproduce any of our content in full or in more than a phrase or quote, please contact us first to obtain permission.

Nancy Foust

Editor, SimplyInfo.org

Leave a Reply