ML081160340
| 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
SUBJECT:
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:
SUBJECT:
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 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
P.O. Box 31995 Jackson, MS 39286-1995 Vice President Oversight Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
P.O. Box 31995 Jackson, MS 39286-1995 Senior Manager, Nuclear Safety &
Licensing Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
P.O. Box 31995 Jackson, MS 39286-1995 Senior Vice President and COO Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 Assistant General Counsel Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 Manager, Licensing Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
Indian Point Energy Center 450 Broadway, GSB P.O. Box 249 Buchanan, NY 10511-0249 Mr. Paul D. Tonko President and CEO New York State Energy Research and Development Authority 17 Columbia Circle Albany, NY 12203-6399 Mr. John P. Spath New York State Energy, Research and Development Authority 17 Columbia Circle Albany, NY 12203-6399 Mr. Paul Eddy New York State Department of Public Service 3 Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12223-1350 Regional Administrator, Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Senior Resident Inspectors Office Indian Point 2 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 59 Buchanan, NY 10511 Senior Resident Inspectors Office Indian Point 3 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 59 Buchanan, NY 10511 Mr. Charles Donaldson, Esquire Assistant Attorney General New York Department of Law 120 Broadway New York, NY 10271 Mr. Raymond L. Albanese Four County Coordinator 200 Bradhurst Avenue 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:
Mr. William DiProfio PWR SRC Consultant 48 Bear Hill Road Newton, NH 03858 Mr. Garry Randolph PWR SRC Consultant 1750 Ben Franklin Drive, 7E Sarasota, FL 34236 Mr. William T. Russell PWR SRC Consultant 400 Plantation Lane Stevensville, MD 21666-3232 Mr. Jim Riccio Greenpeace 702 H Street, NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20001 Mr. Phillip Musegaas Riverkeeper, Inc.
828 South Broadway Tarrytown, NY 10591 Mr. Mark Jacobs IPSEC 46 Highland Drive Garrison, NY 10524 Mr. R. M. Waters Technical Specialist Licensing 450 Broadway P.O. Box 0249 Buchanan, NY 10511-0249 Mr. Sherwood Martinelli 351 Dyckman Peekskill, NY 10566 Ms. Susan Shapiro, Esq.
21 Perlman Drive Spring Valley, NY 10977 John Sipos Assistant Attorney General New York State Department of Law Environmental Protection Bureau The Capitol Albany, NY 12224 Robert Snook Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General State of Connecticut 55 Elm Street P.O. Box 120 Hartford, CT 06141-0120 Ms. Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 Mr. Paul M. Bessette, Esq.
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 Mr. Martin J. ONeill, Esq.
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 The Honorable Nita Lowey 222 Mamaroneck Avenue, Suite 310 White Plains, NY 10605 Joan Leary Matthews Senior Counsel for Special Projects Office of General Counsel NYS Department of Environmental Conservation 625 Broadway Albany, NY 12233-5500
ENCLOSURE 1 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 2 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.
- 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.