ML030300619

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Summary of Teleconference with Carolina Power & Light in Support of Staffs Review of H.B. Robinson, Unit 2 License Renewal Application
ML030300619
Person / Time
Site: Robinson Duke Energy icon.png
Issue date: 01/24/2003
From: Emch R
Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs
To:
Emch R, NRR/DRIP/RLEP, 415-1590
References
TAC MB5226
Download: ML030300619 (3)


Text

January 24, 2003 NOTE TO:

FILE FROM:

Richard L. Emch, Jr., Senior Project Manager /RA/

Environmental Section License Renewal & Environmental Impacts Program Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

OF TELECONFERENCE WITH CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT IN SUPPORT OF THE STAFFS REVIEW OF THE H. B. ROBINSON, UNIT 2 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION (TAC NO. MB5226)

On Wednesday, January 22, 2003, the NRC conducted a teleconference with representatives of the Carolina Power and Light (CP&L) to obtain clarification of certain information related CP&Ls severe accident management alternatives evaluation. The following people participated in the teleconference:

Richard Emch, NRC Robert Palla, NRC Tomy Nazario. NRC Kim Green, Information Systems Laboratories, Inc.(ISL)

Jan Kozyra, CP&L Talmage Clements, CP&L Brad Dolan, CP&L Steve Laur, CP&L Bruce Morgen, CP&L Jon Cudworth,Tetra Tech NUS Jeff Gabor, Erin Engineering Don MacLeod, Erin Engineering Based on a review of CP&Ls severe accident management alternatives (SAMA) evaluation presented in the Environmental Report submitted on June 14, 2002, the NRC issued a request for additional information (RAI) to CP&L by letter dated October 23, 2002. By letters dated January 2 and 20, 2003, CP&L submitted responses to this RAI. After review of these responses, the NRC staff and its contractor, ISL, needed clarification of some of the information.

The first issue requiring clarification related to CP&Ls calculation of the maximum attainable benefit (MAB). CP&L indicated that the value of $13,584 for the non-discounted offsite economic cost risk had not been provided in the RAI responses. The staff indicated that this information provided the necessary clarification on this issue to allow the staff to duplicate CP&Ls calculation of the MAB.

The second issue requiring clarification related to the values of the TE2 release fraction for release categories RC-3 and RC-3B as specified in Table 4-55 of the Individual Plant Examination (IPE) for Robinson. It appeared to the staff that CP&L had reduced the values for

Accession no.: ML030300619 this release fraction in the SAMA evaluation. CP&L indicated that the value of 10.66% shown in Table 4-55 of the IPE was a typographical error. The correct value is 0.06% as shown in Table 4-52 of the IPE and in the SAMA evaluation. The staff indicated that this information provided the necessary clarification on this issue.

The third issue requiring clarification related to CP&Ls reactor coolant pump (RCP) seal leakage model. The staff asked what plans CP&L had for resolving the probabilistic risk assessment peer review comment concerning the RCP seal leakage model. CP&L indicated that the issue had been entered into the Corrective Action Program for the Robinson plant. In the process of deciding how to resolve the corrective action, CP&L is examining a number of RCP seal leakage models including the WOG 2000 model, the Rhodes model, and the Brookhaven model. The staff indicated that this information provided the necessary clarification on this issue.

The fourth issue requiring clarification related to the total number of SAMAs evaluated. CP&L indicated that the correct number is of SAMAs evaluated was 266.