ML093350036
| ML093350036 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 12/18/2009 |
| From: | Egan D Plant Licensing Branch 1 |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Egan, Dennis; NRR/DORL 301-415-2443 | |
| References | |
| TAC MC4716 | |
| Download: ML093350036 (4) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 December 18, 2009 LICENSEE:
NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC FACILITY:
Seabrook Station Unit 1
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF NOVEMBER 17, 2009, MEETING WITH NEXTERA, TO DISCUSS GENERIC LETTER 2004-02 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (TAC NO. MC4716)
On November 17,2009, 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. The purpose of the meeting was to further discuss the licensee's proposed responses to the staff's request for additional information (RAI) associated with Seabrook Unit 1 (Seabrook) Generic Letter 2004-02, "Potential Impact of Debris Blockage on Emergency Recirculation During Design Basis Accidents at Pressurized-Water Reactors." This meeting was a follow-up to a meeting held on September 22, 2009.
A list of attendees is provided in the Enclosure.
In the meeting on September 22, 2009, the NRC staff determined that many of the licensee's proposed RAI responses appeared to demonstrate an acceptable approach, specifically responses to questions 12; 16 d, e, f, and g; 17-21; 24-25; 28-40 and 42. (For more detail see Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML092930323.) The intent of the November 17, 2009, meeting was to discuss, in greater detail, those responses for which the proposed approach was not previously found acceptable. The licensee provided draft proposed RAI responses prior to the meeting. In the November 17, 2009, meeting, the staff determined that the licensee's proposed approach to RAls 15; 16 a, c, h, and i; 23; 27; and 41 also appeared acceptable.
However, the NRC staff still has concerns regarding the amount and characterization of debris that is assumed to reach the Seabrook strainer, and on the conduct of the licensee's tests of the debris interceptors. The staff's primary concern is the amount of fine fibrous debris that reaches the suction strainer. The staff expects fine fibrous debris to behave differently than small pieces, but information provided by the licensee indicates that small pieces were used in the testing, which the staff does not consider to be prototypical or conservative. The fine fibrous debris would be more likely to reach the suction strainer since it is more likely to pass through or flow over the top of the debris interceptors. Additionally, each of the series installed debris interceptors would realize different percentages of fine fibrous debris and small pieces since a higher percentage of the small pieces would be removed by the upstream interceptors. The testing did not reflect the series installation impact on the percentages of the fine fibrous debris and small pieces. These issues are addressed in RAI questions on debris erosion (RAI 11),
capture on the annulus debris interceptors and bioshield interceptors (RAls 13 and 14), and interceptor testing (RAls 16b and 22).
- 2 The licensee also uses a reduced zone of influence (ZOI) for determining the total amount of debris (RAls 1-10), which is still under staff review. Finally, the staff is concerned with the head loss test extrapolation methodology used by the licensee (RAI 26). However, the staff stated that the licensee should be able to demonstrate that any increase in head loss over time would be offset by increases in net positive suction head margin due to subcooling.
In an August 14, 2009, letter (ML091210519) the NRC initially requested a response to the RAls within 90 days (except for RAI 40). In a subsequent conversation between the NRC staff and the licensee, a date of November 30, 2009, was agreed to for the submittal of the RAI responses. At this meeting, the staff suggested that the submittal of the licensee's formal RAI responses should be held until the staff position regarding the ZOI is clarified (note: forecast to be before the end of December 2009).
The staff and licensee agreed to hold a conference call on December 4,2009, to discuss the licensee's proposed path forward in resolving the staff's remaining concerns.
No regulatory decisions were made during the meeting. 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 301-415-2443 or dennis.egan@nrc.gov.
~---.
~
~~~ --~
Dennis Egan/
Plant Licensing Branch 1-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-443
Enclosure:
List of Attendees cc w/encls: Distribution via Listserv
LIST OF ATTENDEES NOVEMBER 17, 2009, MEETING WITH NEXTERA ENERGY SEABROOK. LLC GENERIC LEITER 2004-02 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE NEXTERAlFPL Brian Dunn (FPL)
Bob White Rich Faix Tom Schulz Dana Skiffington Paul Willoughby Stephen Smith Michael Scott Stewart Bailey John Lehning Christopher Hott Dennis Egan Enclosure
ML093350036 OFFICE DORLlLPL1-2/PM DORLlLPL1-2/LA NRR/SSIB/BC DORLlLPL 1-2/BC NAME DEgan ABaxter SBailey HChernoff DATE 12/2/09; 12/16/09 12/02/09; 12/16/09 12/3/09 12/18/09