ML092930323
| ML092930323 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 11/09/2009 |
| From: | Egan D Plant Licensing Branch 1 |
| To: | |
| Egan, Dennis; NRR/DORL 301-415-2443 | |
| References | |
| GL-04-002, TAC MD4716 | |
| Download: ML092930323 (5) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 November 9, 2009 LICENSEE:
NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC FACILITY:
Seabrook Station Unit 1
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2009, MEETING WITH NEXTERA, TO DISCUSS GENERIC LETTER 2004-02 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (TAC NO. MC4716)
On September 22, 2009, a Category 1 public meeting was held by teleconference between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and representatives of NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC (NextEra), the licensee. A list of attendees is provided as Enclosure 1. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss issues identified during NRC staff review of the Seabrook Unit 1(Seabrook) Generic Letter (GL) 2004-02 supplemental response. The request for additional information (RAI) questions were sent to Mr. Michael O'Keefe of NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC on August 14, 2009 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML091210519). The meeting was held to give NextEra the opportunity to explain their proposed approach for responding to the NRC staffs RAI questions. The meeting was also intended to identify those issues that would need further discussion in a follow-up public meeting.
The licensee provided their proposed responses to the previously-transmitted RAls. The staff queried the licensee about their proposed responses and identified issues of concern that will form the basis for the agenda of the follow-up meeting. Additional details are provided in.
In the August 14, 2009, letter (ML091210519) the NRC requested a response to the RAls within 90 days (except for RAI 40). Subsequent to this meeting, the licensee agreed to issue their final responses (except RAI 40) before November 30, 2009, consistent with the results of the follow up meeting discussed above.
No proprietary information was discussed at the meeting. No members of the public were in attendance. No Public Meeting Feedback forms were received.
Please direct any inquiries to me at 30~:~.!?~.4430rdenni!):.e~nrc.gov.
C"--\\1'~'"
, '~-----'
D:nnis E9~~'--'--~
Plant Licensing Branch 1-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-443
Enclosures:
- 1. List of Attendees
- 2. Meeting details cc w/encls: Distribution via Listserv
LIST OF ArrENDEES SEPTEMBER 22,2009, MEETING WITH NEXTERA ENERGY SEABROOK, LLC GENERIC LETTER 2004-02 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE NEXTERNFPL Brian Dunn (FPL)
Mike O'Keefe Rick Noble Bob White Rich Faix Tom Schulz Dana Skiffington Paul Willoughby Ervin Geiger Stephen Smith Paul Klein Michael Scott Dan Hoang Stewart Bailey John Lehning Christopher Hott Robert Torres Dennis Egan
MEETING DETAILS SEPTEMBER 22, 2009, MEETING WITH NEXTERA ENERGY SEABROOK, LLC GENERIC LETTER 2004-02 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE The meeting was held to allow the NRC staff to inform the licensee which proposed request for additional information (RAI) responses appeared adequate, and which responses were either insufficient (i.e., require further explanation or additional detail) or failed to fully address the staffs concern. The licensee and NRC staff discussed the proposed RAI responses. The results of the discussion are provided below.
(1)
The NRC staff determined that the licensee's proposed responses to the following RAls were adequate, in that the staff did not foresee any significant concerns:
Questions 12; 16 d, e, f, g ; 17 - 21; 24 - 25; 28 - 40 and 42 (2)
The NRC staff informed the licensee that it still had concerns with the following RAI responses, and that these items would be discussed at a follow up public meeting:
Questions 1-10:
These questions relate to the zone of influence. The licensee is relying on a generic evaluation, but the staff has questions on that evaluation. The staff asked the licensee to discuss its contingency plans in the event that the NRC does not accept the generic evaluation.
Question 11:
The staff would like to discuss the potential for erosion of small pieces that settled in front of the debris interceptors.
Question 13:
The staff questioned the potential for the debris to wash down - downstream of the debris interceptors, and would like to discuss this further in the context of the overall evaluation.
Question 14:
The staff would like to discuss this in the context of the overall evaluation.
Question 15:
The staff would like to discuss this in the context of the overall evaluation.
Question 16:
The staff would like additional detail on these items.
(a, b, c, h, and i)
Question 22:
Question 23:
Question 26:
Question 27:
Question 41:
The staff would like additional detail on this item. The licensee stated that they would provide photographic records that provide evidence of the fibrous debris characteristics used during testing.
The staff would like additional detail on this item. The effects of the high concentration of debris added to the test should be shown to not result in agglomeration that would have caused a majority of the debris being transported to the test strainer as fines.
The staff would like to review additional information on the use of a fixed 5% extrapolation in order to conclude whether the "bump up" factor would reasonably bound the head loss increase that may occur over the strainer mission time.
The staff would like to review information that shows that the test termination criteria were met.
The staff asked the licensee to provide its data, since the licensee did not meet the WCAP criteria.
- via email OFFICE DORULPL1-2/PM DORULPL1-2/LA NRRISSIB/BC DORULPL1-2/BC NAME DEgan ABaxter
- SBailey HChernoff (REnnis for)
DATE 10/20109 10/21/09 10/26/09 11/9109