ML110800677

Lr - Draft Phone Call Summary

ML110800677
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	03/21/2011
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
References
Download: ML110800677 (8)

Text

1 SeabrookNPEm Resource From:

Wentzel, Michael Sent:

Monday, March 21, 2011 3:58 PM To:

Cliche, Richard

Subject:

Draft Phone Call Summary Attachments:

032111, Telecon Summary Between NRC and NextEra Seabrook, Clarifying the Seabrook Environmental RAI Responses (TAC No. ME3959).docx

Rick, Attached is a draft summary of todays phone call. Please review and let me know if you have any comments.

Thanks, Mike MichaelWentzel ProjectManager NRR/DLR/RPB1 (301)4156459 michael.wentzel@nrc.gov

Hearing Identifier:

Seabrook_License_Renewal_NonPublic Email Number:

1030 Mail Envelope Properties (C0A338EE37A11447B136119705BF9A3FC37D75459F)

Subject:

Draft Phone Call Summary Sent Date:

3/21/2011 3:58:05 PM Received Date:

3/21/2011 3:58:05 PM From:

Wentzel, Michael Created By:

Michael.Wentzel@nrc.gov Recipients:

"Cliche, Richard" <Richard.Cliche@fpl.com>

Tracking Status: None Post Office:

HQCLSTR02.nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 298 3/21/2011 3:58:05 PM 032111, Telecon Summary Between NRC and NextEra Seabrook, Clarifying the Seabrook Environmental RAI Responses (TAC No. ME3959).docx 40628 Options Priority:

Standard Return Notification:

No Reply Requested:

No Sensitivity:

Normal Expiration Date:

Recipients Received:

LICENSEE: NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC FACILITY: Seabrook Station

SUMMARY

OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL HELD ON MARCH 21, 2011, BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND NEXTERA ENERGY SEABROOK, LLC, TO CLARIFY THE RESPONSES TO THE REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF THE SEABROOK STATION LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION (TAC NO. ME3959)

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the staff) and representatives of NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC (NextEra or the applicant), held a telephone conference call on March 21, 2011, to clarify information in the applicants responses to the staffs requests for additional information (RAIs) concerning the environmental review of the Seabrook Station license renewal application (LRA). The telephone conference call was useful in clarifying the information provided in NextEras RAI responses.

provides a listing of the participants and Enclosure 2 contains a list of issues sent to the applicant prior to the phone call to facilitate preparation for the phone call, including a brief description on the status of each item.

The applicant had an opportunity to comment on this summary.

Michael Wentzel, Project Manager Projects Branch 1 Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-443

Enclosures:

As stated cc w/encls: Distribution via Listserv

OFFICE LA:DLR PM:RPB1:DLR BC: RPB1:DLR NAME MWentzel BPham DATE 3/ /11 3/ /11 3/ /11

Memorandum to NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC from M.Wentzel dated March XX, 2011

SUMMARY

OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL HELD ON MARCH 21, 2011, BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND NEXTERA ENERGY SEABROOK, LLC, TO CLARIFY THE RESPONSES TO THE REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF THE SEABROOK STATION LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION (TAC NO. ME3959)

DISTRIBUTION:

HARD COPY:

DLR RF E-MAIL:

PUBLIC RidsNrrDlr Resource RidsNrrDlrRpb1 Resource RidsNrrDlrRpb2 Resource RidsNrrDlrRarb Resource RidsNrrDlrRapb Resource RidsNrrDlrRasb Resource RidsNrrDlrRerb Resource RidsNrrDlrRpob Resource MWentzel BPham MMoser DLogan EMiller ICouret, OPA EDacus, OCA MSpencer, OGC WRaymond, RI DTifft, RI NMcNamara, RI NSheehan, RI DScrenci, RI JJohnson, RI ABurritt, RI

ENCLOSURE 1 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL SEABROOK STATION LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION LIST OF PARTICIPANTS March 21, 2011 PARTICIPANTS AFFILIATIONS Michael Wentzel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

Michelle Moser NRC Dennis Logan NRC Richard Cliche NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC. (NextEra)

Edward Carley NextEra Al Legendre NextEra Paul Geoghegan Normandeau Associates

ENCLOSURE 2 Aquatic Ecology Clarifications for Seabrook Station

1. Clarify whether blank cells within Table 4-6 of NAI (2010) should be treated as 0 (e.g.

Seabrook collected samples, but did not identify any fish of the particular species), as suggested by EPA (2002).

Discussion: The applicant clarified that blank cells within Table 4-6 of NAI (2010) should be treated as 0..

2. Clarify why NAI (2010) (Table 4-6) and NextEras response to RAI #2 (for aquatic ecology) report different entrainment estimates for Atlantic cod, cunner, fourbeard rockling, goosefish, lumpfish, and winter flounder than U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2002)

(Table G3-6) from 1990-1998. Entrainment estimates for other species were similar among NAI (2010) and EPA (2002), as long as blank cells in Table 4-6 (NAI 2010) are treated as

0.

Discussion: The applicant explained that in the response to the staffs RAIs, egg entrainment estimates for Atlantic cod included portions of the following categories: Atlantic cod, Atlantic cod/haddock, and Gadidae/witch flounder.

NextEra assured the NRC that the data provided to EPA was the same entrainment data from 1990-1998, which is described in NextEras environmental monitoring report from 2009 (NAI 2010). NextEra felt it was inappropriate to speculate how EPA used the data provided in Seabrook monitoring reports to determine entrainment rates in EPA (2002). After EPA published its case study (EPA 2002), the applicant sent comments to EPA stating that EPA seemed to combine numerous species under a single species category (North Atlantic 2002).

Additional Information: In EPAs response to the applicants comment, EPA stated that its methodology, used species aggregation to reduce the total number of distinct species requiring individual parameter sets because of the lack of life history data for many species, particularly survival rates of early life stages. EPA believes that the aggregations are reasonable and do not introduce significant biases. (EPA 2004a).

3. Clarify why NAI (2010) (Appendix Table 4-3) report different impingement estimates for Atlantic cod, Atlantic herring, fourbeard rocking, lumpfish, red hake, sculpin spp., killifish, threespine stickleback, windowpane, and winter flounder than EPA (2002) (Table G3-2) from 1994-1998. Impingement estimates for other species were the same among NAI (2010) and EPA (2002).

Discussion: The applicant assured the NRC that the data provided to EPA was the same impingement data from 1994-1998, which is described in NextEras environmental monitoring report from 2009 (NAI 2010). NextEra felt it was inappropriate to speculate how EPA used the data provided in Seabrook monitoring reports to determine impingement rates in EPA (2002). After EPA published its case study (EPA 2002), the applicant sent comments to EPA stating that EPA seemed to combine numerous species under a single species category (North Atlantic 2002). In addition, the applicant noted in its comments to EPA that EPA (2002) reported numerical errors for impingement estimates of Atlantic cod, fourbeard rockling, and threespine stickleback (North Atlantic 2002).

ENCLOSURE 2 Additional Information: See additional information in Question #2 for EPAs response to species aggregations.

References cited:

Normandeau Associates Inc (NAI). 2010. Seabrook Station 2009 Environmental Monitoring in the Hampton - Seabrook Area: A Characterization of Environmental Conditions. Prepared for NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC.

North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation (North Atlantic). 2002. Letter from John B. Hart, North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation to EPA, Cooling Water Intake Structure (Existing Facilities

- Phase II) Proposed Rule Comment Clerk-W-00-32. Seabrook Station Comments on Proposed Rule on Cooling Water Intake Structures for Phase II Existing Facilities. April 7, 2002.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. Case Study Analysis for the Proposed Section 316(b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule. EPA-821-R-02-002. Office of Water. Washington, DC.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2004a. CWA Section 316(b) Phase II Existing Facility RuleFinal; Large existing electric generating plants, Response to Public Comment. March 29, 2004. Office of Water. Washington, DC.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2004b. EPAs Phase IILarge existing electric generating plants, Final Rule - Regional Analysis Document for the Final Section 316(b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule, Part C: North Atlantic. EPA-821-R-02-003; February 12, 2004. Office of Water. Washington, DC.