ML081160340

Summary of Telephone Conference Call Between the NRC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Concerning Draft Request for Additional Information Pertaining to the Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Analysis for Indian Point

ML081160340
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	05/14/2008
From:	Bo Pham NRC/NRR/ADRO/DLR
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Pham B, NRR/DLR/REBB, 415-8450
References
Download: ML081160340 (8)

Text

May 14, 2008 LICENSEE: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

FACILITY: Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3

SUMMARY

OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL HELD ON MARCH 31, 2008, BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC., CONCERNING DRAFT REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THE SEVERE ACCIDENT MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS FOR INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the staff) and representatives of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., held a telephone conference call on March 31, 2008, to discuss and clarify the staffs draft request for additional information (D-RAIs) concerning the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 severe accident mitigation alternative (SAMA) analysis from its license renewal application. The telephone conference call was useful in clarifying the intent of the staffs SAMA D-RAIs. provides a listing of the participants; and Enclosure 2 contains a listing of the D-RAIs discussed with the applicant.

\RA\

Bo M. Pham, Senior Project Manager Projects Branch 2 Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286

Enclosures:

As stated cc w/encls: See next page

ML081160340 OFFICE LA:DLR PM:RLR:DLR BC:RLR:DLR NAME YEdmonds BPham RFranovich (BPham for) w\edits DATE 5/12/08 5/14/08 5/14/08 Letter to Entergy from B. Pham, dated May 14, 2008 DISTRIBUTION:

SUMMARY

OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL HELD ON MARCH 31, 2008, BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC., CONCERNING DRAFT REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THE SEVERE ACCIDENT MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS FOR INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION HARD COPY:

DLR RF E-MAIL:

PUBLIC RidsNrrDlr RidsNrrDlrRpb1 RidsNrrDlrRpb2 RidsNrrDlrRer1 RidsNrrDlrRer2 RidsNrrDlrRerb RidsNrrDlrRpob RidsNrrDciCvib RidsNrrDciCpnb RidsNrrDraAfpb RidsNrrDraAplb RidsNrrDeEmcb RidsNrrDeEeeb RidsNrrDssSrxb RidsNrrDssSbpb RidsNrrDssScvb RidsOgcMailCenter RFranovich EDacus, OCA BPham GMeyer, RI KGreen MMcLaughlin, RI JCaverly NMcNamara, RI RAuluck DScrenci, RI OPA KChang NSheehan, RI OPA MKowal PCataldo, RI JBoska CHott, RI STurk, OGC DJackson, RI LSubin, OGC BWelling, RI BMizuno, OGC RConte, RI SBurnell, OPA ECobey, RI DMcIntyre, OPA MCox, RI TMensah, OEDO

Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 cc:

Senior Vice President Mr. John P. Spath Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. New York State Energy, Research and P.O. Box 31995 Development Authority Jackson, MS 39286-1995 17 Columbia Circle Albany, NY 12203-6399 Vice President Oversight Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Mr. Paul Eddy P.O. Box 31995 New York State Department Jackson, MS 39286-1995 of Public Service 3 Empire State Plaza Senior Manager, Nuclear Safety & Albany, NY 12223-1350 Licensing Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Regional Administrator, Region I P.O. Box 31995 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Jackson, MS 39286-1995 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Senior Vice President and COO Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Senior Resident Inspectors Office 440 Hamilton Avenue Indian Point 2 White Plains, NY 10601 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 59 Assistant General Counsel Buchanan, NY 10511 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

440 Hamilton Avenue Senior Resident Inspectors Office White Plains, NY 10601 Indian Point 3 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Manager, Licensing P.O. Box 59 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Buchanan, NY 10511 Indian Point Energy Center 450 Broadway, GSB Mr. Charles Donaldson, Esquire P.O. Box 249 Assistant Attorney General Buchanan, NY 10511-0249 New York Department of Law 120 Broadway Mr. Paul D. Tonko New York, NY 10271 President and CEO New York State Energy Research and Mr. Raymond L. Albanese Development Authority Four County Coordinator 17 Columbia Circle 200 Bradhurst Avenue Albany, NY 12203-6399 Unit 4 Westchester County Hawthorne, NY 10532 Mayor, Village of Buchanan 236 Tate Avenue Buchanan, NY 10511 Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 cc: Ms. Susan Shapiro, Esq.

21 Perlman Drive Mr. William DiProfio Spring Valley, NY 10977 PWR SRC Consultant 48 Bear Hill Road John Sipos Newton, NH 03858 Assistant Attorney General New York State Department of Law Mr. Garry Randolph Environmental Protection Bureau PWR SRC Consultant The Capitol 1750 Ben Franklin Drive, 7E Albany, NY 12224 Sarasota, FL 34236 Robert Snook Mr. William T. Russell Assistant Attorney General PWR SRC Consultant Office of the Attorney General 400 Plantation Lane State of Connecticut Stevensville, MD 21666-3232 55 Elm Street P.O. Box 120 Mr. Jim Riccio Hartford, CT 06141-0120 Greenpeace 702 H Street, NW Ms. Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.

Suite 300 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP Washington, DC 20001 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 Mr. Phillip Musegaas Riverkeeper, Inc. Mr. Paul M. Bessette, Esq.

828 South Broadway Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP Tarrytown, NY 10591 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 Mr. Mark Jacobs IPSEC Mr. Martin J. ONeill, Esq.

46 Highland Drive Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP Garrison, NY 10524 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 Mr. R. M. Waters Technical Specialist Licensing The Honorable Nita Lowey 450 Broadway 222 Mamaroneck Avenue, Suite 310 P.O. Box 0249 White Plains, NY 10605 Buchanan, NY 10511-0249 Joan Leary Matthews Mr. Sherwood Martinelli Senior Counsel for Special Projects 351 Dyckman Office of General Counsel Peekskill, NY 10566 NYS Department of Environmental Conservation 625 Broadway Albany, NY 12233-5500

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NOS 2 AND 3 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION LIST OF PARTICIPANTS MARCH 31, 2008 PARTICIPANTS AFFILIATIONS Bo Pham U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

Robert Palla NRC Bruce Mrowca Information Systems Laboratory (ISL)

Ali Azarm ISL Mike Stroud Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy)

Lori Potts Entergy John Curry Entergy Charles Caputo Entergy Clem Yeh Entergy Doug Gaynor Entergy Kou John Hong Entergy John Favara Entergy Andy Mihalik Entergy John Bretti Entergy Robert Licata Entergy ENCLOSURE 1

Draft Request for Additional Information Regarding the Analysis of Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3

1. The response to RAI 1d addresses why the total loss of service water (SW) is low for both units but does not discuss the reason for Unit 2 having a loss of SW contribution that is nearly an order of magnitude lower than Unit 3. Explain the plant or model features that cause this difference.

2. Explain why the IP3 analysis cases for DC Power/AFW System Changes, AC Power Cross-Tie with IP2, and Backup DC Power Supply result in no reduction in population dose or offsite economic cost risk (OECR) for the SAMAs considered therein.

3. In ER Tables E.2-3 and E.4-3, the benefit value for Sensitivity Case 3 (Loss of Tourism and Business) is same as for the Baseline Case for a large number of analysis cases.

Confirm whether Sensitivity Case 3 values were actually calculated when the reduction in population dose and OECR were below some threshold value. If not, several revised benefit values provided in response to RAI 4e (i.e., columns 2 and 3 of the tables) may understate the benefits for the affected SAMAs. The affected SAMAs include:

IP2 SAMAs 4-6, 18, 25-27, 29-32, 34-39, 40, 41-43, 48-50, 56, 59, 63, 64, 67, 68, and IP3 SAMAs 2, 24-26, 28, 29, 32, 33, 35-37, 40, 42, 47, 48, 51, 56, 58, and revised SAMA 30. Update the tables provided in response to RAI 4e, if necessary, to assure that the benefit estimates for the aforementioned SAMAs fully account for the impacts of loss of tourism and business.

4. The response to RAI 2b indicates that steam generator tube ruptures (SGTRs) induced by high primary side pressures following core damage are addressed in the IP2 PRA model using the information from the NUREG-1150 In-Vessel Expert Panel, but does not provide the explicit modeling approach. The response associated with IP3 also does not appear to address this issue. Describe the current IP2 and IP3 modeling approach for thermally-induced SGTR events including the conditional probabilities and the associated conditions used to assess the likelihood of a thermally-induced SGTR (TI-SGTR), and the conditional probabilities for a stuck open main steam safety valve during a TI-SGTR event. Provide the bases for these values.

5. Provide an assessment of the impact on the identification and screening of SGTR-related SAMAs if the conditional probabilities of TI-SGTR (discussed in item 4 above) are increased to values comparable to those reported in NUREG-1570. Provide a further evaluation and discussion of any additional SGTR-related SAMAs that could become potentially cost-beneficial under these assumptions (including the SAMAs addressed by the analysis cases identified in item 2 above) and Entergys planned follow-up actions regarding these SAMAs.

6. The SAMA analysis for Beaver Valley Power Station identified as potentially cost-beneficial the purchase or manufacture of a gagging device that could be used to close a stuck-open steam generator safety value on the ruptured steam generator prior to core damage in SGTR events. Provide an evaluation of the viability of this SAMA for the Indian Point units, including the estimated costs and benefits under the assumptions of items 5 and 8.

ENCLOSURE 2

7. The response to RAI 4e states that Sensitivity Case 3 with uncertainty results in two additional SAMAs (009 and 053) for IP2 and one additional SAMA (053) for IP3.

Discuss Entergys planned follow-up actions regarding these additional SAMAs.

8. The response to RAI 5l shows a $236,000 contingency cost as part of the cost breakdown. However, Section 4.21.5.4, Final Screening and Cost/Benefit Evaluation (Phase II) of the environmental report states that the cost estimates for implementing the SAMAs did not include the cost of replacement power during extended outages required to implement the modifications, nor did they include contingency cost associated with unforeseen implementation obstacles. Explain this apparent discrepancy. Identify any other cost estimates in the SAMA analyses that include contingency costs. Provide the impact on the SAMA evaluation if all contingent costs are included.